“The Lord is the only God. He is the living God and eternal King”
(Jeremiah 10:10). The contrast between God and the gods is simple. God
made us. We made the gods. In the Lord our God, there is majesty and
mystery - the majesty of the “eternal King”, the mystery that He is
always beyond our understanding. Before this majesty and mystery, we bow
down in worship. We acknowledge his greatness. We give Him glory. He is
worthy of our worship. When God speaks His Word to us, “Obey Me, and do everything that I have told you to do. Then you will be My people, and I will be your God. I
will keep the oath I made to your ancestors and give them a land
flowing with milk and honey, the land you still have today.” We are to
give our answer, “Yes, Lord” (Jeremiah
11:4-5). There will be many times when our "devotion" to the Lord will
be put to the "test" (Jeremiah 12:3). These will be times of temptation -
times when our 'Yes, Lord' could so easily become 'No, Lord.' When this
happens, may God help us to return to Him and hear, again, His
wonderful Word of amazing grace: "I will have compassion on them again ..." (Jeremiah 12:15).
The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised directly by J D Bettis in his article, “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” (Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 423-436). This article requires to be carefully discussed not only for its significance as an interpretation of Barth’s thought but also because it presents a serious misrepresentation of Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. Bettis writes, “Modern protestant theology has defined three basic answers to the question of the particularity of election: double predestination, Arminianism and universalism” (p. 423). By attempting to fit Berkouwer into “this structure of alternatives” (p. 423), he misrepresents completely Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. According to Bettis, Brunner and Berkouwrer hold that “because Barth fails to accept either Brunner’s Arminianism or Berkouwer's double decree, he must be a universalist” (p. 426). There are two misrepresentations of Berkouwer here. (...
Comments
Post a Comment