Berkouwer maintained that, when Romans 9-11 is understood as referring
to "God's revelation of mercy ... and not to a 'naked sovereignty'", the
illegitimacy of man's protest against God and the "mystical delight" of
Paul's doxology are seen quite differenty from their deterministic
interpretation (A Half Century of Theology, pp. 90, 93; Divine Election,
pp. 65, 147-149). Man's protest is recognized as entirely inappropriate
because "the doctrine of election is an 'inexpressible comfort' for
both the believer and the nonbeliever since it proclaims that there is
hope for the 'most miserable of men'" (A Half Century of Theology, p.
103). Paul's doxology is recognized as entirely appropriate because it
is faith's response to the divine mercy in which "there is nothing of
'the inexplicable arbitrariness of power that moves one to put his
fingers to his lips" (A Half Century of Theology, p. 93).
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