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 ofthe inadequacy of his words" (Divine
Election, p. 152). UIn 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).
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