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.
In this post, I will draw comparisons between Arminius and Berkouwer. * Bangs points out that the historical situation in Holland was not a simple one - Calvinism coming in, Arminius nearly ruining it and the Synod of Dort restoring it: “The earliest Dutch Reformed leaders don’t seem to be Calvinists at all. They rise out of the soil, here and there, nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights, but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to Scripture” (p. 21). This emphasis is similar to Berkouwer’s insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. Rather, it is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God ( Divine Election (DE), p. 216). * Bangs observes that Arminius’ theological method is “practical and through faith”: “For the Theology which belongs to this world, is practical and through faith: Theoretical Theology belongs to the o...
Comments
Post a Comment