Berkouwer
emphasizes that his reinterpretation of election "has nothing to do
with a devaluation of divine sovereignty. It is not motivated by respect
for the autonomy of the free man" (A Half Century of Theology, p. 95).
He sought to affirm divine election while avoiding the dangers of
determinism. Describing the process by which he reached this position,
he wrote, "in the Bible's radical and open character, I found a way of
speaking that is not defined by some darksome eternal background, but by
the way of history" (A Half Century of Theology, p. 100; Divine
Election, p. 71) - "I did not have to posit indeterminism over against
determinism" (A Half Century of Theology, p. 101).
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