Concerning the interpretation of divine freedom, Berkouwer gave this
warning: "waving the banner of absolute divine autonomy does not dam up
anguishing questions, and is certainly not likely to lead to praise" (A
Half Century of Theology, p. 92). He did not wish to question the divine
freedom. He sought to clarify its meaning in a way that "phrases like
'incontestible freedom' and ... 'absolute possibility'" (A Half Century
of Theology, p. 91) fail to do. He insisted that the New Testament
"avoids a dialectic between divine freedom and human freedom" (A Half
Century of Theology, p. 101). He emphasized that divine freedom should
be understood in connection with divine goodness (A Half Century of
Theology, p. 91 - referring to Matthew 20:15). He maintained that divine
freedom reminds man that he must not presume on divine goodness. He
emphasized that divine freedom serves as " summons to conversion" (A
Half Century of Theology, p. 91 - referring to Matthew 22:14 and Matthew
20:16).
E J Young argues that one’s doctrine of Scripture is derived from either experience or Scripture, either natural man or supernatural God. Young does speak of the human character of Scripture. It does, however, seem that the supernatural-natural dichotomy underlies his doctrine of Scripture. He turns to the Bible “to discover what it has to say of itself” (p. 40). It is questionable, however, whether his view is not grounded in a notion which tends to set divine and human activity over against each other. Young rejects a mechanical theory (p. 65). It does, however, appear that his own view is really no more than a modification of this view. His interpretation of the working of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture is not directly identifiable with mechanical dictation (pp. 79-80). It does seem, however, that there is a tendency to move in that direction. * Here are some statements from Young. - “Without Him (God) there could have been no Bible. Without man th...
Comments
Post a Comment