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).
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