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).
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