In his discussion of the 'pre' element in predestination, Berkouwer
insists that "he who speaks of God's counsel in terms of human
categories will have to be aware of the inadequacy of his words" (Divine
Election, p. 152). In this respect, Berkouwer closely follows Bavinck
who, in his discussion of predestination, insists that "one cannot speak
of before or after with respect to God" (Divine Election, p. 152).
Recognizing the inadequacy of human language, Berkouwer seeks to
understand the language of predestination in connection in terms of 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 ... " (Divine Election, pp. 113-114).
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