Berkouwer insists that a proper understanding of theological language is
only attainable within the context of the obedience of faith. The
language of predestination may be understood as a form of expression
which the believer, who has willingly submitted to the authority of
grace, uses to confess his Christian faith. Set in this context, the
language of predestination need not be viewed as a form of determinism
which threatens to strip human experience of decisive significance.
Emphasizing that "he who has seen Christ has seen the Father" (John
14:9), Berkouwer maintains that the believer, in his encounter with
Christ, comes to know the revelation of God as something which is not
threatened by the idea of a hidden God whose secret cannot be known
(Divine Election, p. 124).
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