Relating
his understanding of divine sovereignty and divine freedom to the
interpretation of Romans 9-11, Berkouwer wrote, "Words like
'sovereignty' ought not to be approached abstractly via a formal
concept: this can only create the impression that we are capturing our
own understanding or words in transparent definitions and then applying
them directly to God without deeper consideration, as though he
naturally fits the definition garnerd from human experience. Not
surprisingly, this abstract notion of sovereignty has a profound effect
when theologians apply it to ... Romans 9" (A Half Century of Theology,
p. 91). He asked this question: "If divine freedom explains everything
... how is it posssible that Paul ... in ... Romans 9-11 ... does not
end with a reasoned conclusion that the destiny of eveything and
everyone is sealed from eternity. Why does he, rather, end with a
breathtaking doxology" (A Half Century of Theology, p. 92 - followed by
the words of Romans 11:33).
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