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).
In this post, I will draw comparisons between Arminius and Berkouwer. * Bangs points out that the historical situation in Holland was not a simple one - Calvinism coming in, Arminius nearly ruining it and the Synod of Dort restoring it: “The earliest Dutch Reformed leaders don’t seem to be Calvinists at all. They rise out of the soil, here and there, nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights, but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to Scripture” (p. 21). This emphasis is similar to Berkouwer’s insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. Rather, it is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God ( Divine Election (DE), p. 216). * Bangs observes that Arminius’ theological method is “practical and through faith”: “For the Theology which belongs to this world, is practical and through faith: Theoretical Theology belongs to the o...
Comments
Post a Comment