Berkouwer's concept of the depth-aspect of salvation may be viewed as a
serious attempt to understand the complex problem of the relation of
human language to divine revelation. It need not be dismissed as a
denial of what Scripture says. It may be regarded as an interpretation
of what Scripture says, an attempt to understand what a particular
passage teaches in relation to the "entire Biblical message" (Divine
Election, p. 18). The recogniton of a depth-aspect of salvation need not
involve a denial of Biblical authority. We may regard it as a way of
asking the question, "Is this what the Bible is really saying?", a way
of developing a penetrating analysis which recognizes that we must make a
clear distinction between Scripture itself and theological
interpretations of Scripture. This distinction emerges directly from the
nature of human language, the precise meaning of which is not
immediately evident in its reference to God.
Some people are impressed by Barth’s distinction between universal election and universal salvation. They defend his position. Some have been influenced by Barth and have become universalists. Berkouwer’s view was that our critique of Barth must begin with looking closely at his teaching concerning universal election. * By speaking of the idea of the depth-aspect of salvation, Berkouwer distances himself from double predestination. * In his critique of Barth, Berkouwer distances himself from universal salvation. * With such a strong emphasis on both grace and faith, Berkouwer guards against any suggestion that, by our faith, we contribute anything to our salvation. It is always God’s free gift, and all the glory belongs to Him. I think that the distinctive feature of Berkouwer’s teaching is that he emphasizes that everything we say about God’s salvation is said from within the experience of having been saved by grace through faith. We have heard the Good News - “Christ Jesus came...
Comments
Post a Comment