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).
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