Here's an attempt
to bring things together. (1) man knows of grace through revelation.
(2) divine revelation comes to man in the form of human language. (3)
The inadequacy of human language as a vehicle of divine revelation
demands that due care be taken in the interpretation of Scripture. (4)
The inadequacy of human language as a vehicle of divine revelation
demands an avoidance of undue dogmatism regarding the precise meaning of
Scripture. (5) The idea of a depth dimension points beyond the
limitations of human language to the profound spiritual realities of the
eternal God and His eternal salvation.
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