Maintaining
that Berkouwer has continually failed to expound the full teaching of
Scripture concerning the ‘before’ element of divine election, Baker
insists that “Berkouwer cannot communicate what the Bible means by
‘election’ if he neglects such a determinative concept” (pp. 102-103).
Referring to the phrase “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians
1:4; John 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20), Baker states that “Berkouwer has never
commented at any length in any of his Dogmatics on the significance of
these words” (p. 102).
It may also be argued that Baker’s failure to discuss at any length
Berkouwer’s concept of the “depth-aspect” of salvation weakens his
criticism of Berkouwer’s interpretation of the ‘before’ element of
election.
Here, we may note what Berkouwer says about the depth-aspect of
salvation.
Recognizing the inadequacy of human language, Berkouwer seeks to
understand the language of predestination in connection with the
“depth-aspect” of salvation (Divine Election, pp. 113, 150, 168). He
emphasizes that “the depth-aspect of salvation … is not a matter of
hiddenness which goes beyond the knowledge of faith … not something far
distant, not a vague, threatening reality, but the foundation of
salvation … ” (pp. 113-114 - in a discussoion of Biblical passages which
speak about “the Book of Life”).
With this idea of the depth-aspect of salvation, Berkouwer seeks to
understand the idea of ‘before the foundation of the world.’ He
emphasizes that “These words do not occur in Scripture as a threat, but
in the decisive depth-aspect of salvation. They are not placed in a
context in which they make us dizzy in the face of an unapproachable
‘eternity’, … but they are intended to show us the source of our eternal
salvation … ‘Before’ indicates that this divine act of salvation,
preached to us by the gospel, is free from what we know in the world to
be arbitrary and precarious … in this depth-aspect of God’s salvation it
becomes … evident that this salvation did not originate in our flesh
and blood, and that it is by no means of human merit or creation. But
precisely this fact does not obscure the way; on the contrary, it
illumines it. ‘Before the foundation of the world’ means to direct our
attention to what can be called the opposite of chance and contingence.”
(pp. 150-151).
Berkouwer’s basic understanding of the depth-aspect is defined thus:
“When we speak of the depth-aspect, we mean that eternity does not stand
in contrast to what in time becomes historical reality, but rather that
the salvation accomplished by Christ’s death of reconciliation cannot
be merely historical, but that it has its eternal foundation in the love
of God” (p. 168)
The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised directly by J D Bettis in his article, “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” (Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 423-436). This article requires to be carefully discussed not only for its significance as an interpretation of Barth’s thought but also because it presents a serious misrepresentation of Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. Bettis writes, “Modern protestant theology has defined three basic answers to the question of the particularity of election: double predestination, Arminianism and universalism” (p. 423). By attempting to fit Berkouwer into “this structure of alternatives” (p. 423), he misrepresents completely Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. According to Bettis, Brunner and Berkouwrer hold that “because Barth fails to accept either Brunner’s Arminianism or Berkouwer's double decree, he must be a universalist” (p. 426). There are two misrepresentations of Berkouwer here. (...
Comments
Post a Comment