Berkouwer
gave much serious thought to difficult theological concepts and
Biblical passages. Concerning the interpretation pf divine sovereignty,
he wrote, "one has to be on guard against isolating and abstracting
words, including the word 'sovereignty.' If we are not, we use words
that violate the heart of the church" (A Half Century of Theology,
p.90). He did not seek "to replace determinism with an indeterminism" (A
Half Century of Theology, p. 91). He sought to develop an
interpretation of election which points to the trustworthiness of God:
"the knowledge of divine sovereignty is possible only within knowledge
of the God in whom there is no arbitrariness" (A Half Century of
Theology, p. 91).
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