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).
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