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).
In this post, I will draw comparisons between Arminius and Berkouwer. * Bangs points out that the historical situation in Holland was not a simple one - Calvinism coming in, Arminius nearly ruining it and the Synod of Dort restoring it: “The earliest Dutch Reformed leaders don’t seem to be Calvinists at all. They rise out of the soil, here and there, nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights, but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to Scripture” (p. 21). This emphasis is similar to Berkouwer’s insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. Rather, it is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God ( Divine Election (DE), p. 216). * Bangs observes that Arminius’ theological method is “practical and through faith”: “For the Theology which belongs to this world, is practical and through faith: Theoretical Theology belongs to the o...
Comments
Post a Comment