Skip to main content

Berkouwer on Divine Providence

The distinction between observation and faith is important for theological reflection concerning divine providence if theology is to avoid reaching misguided conclusions.
Warning against "the danger of going outside the sphere of faith into the area of observation", Berkouwer disputes "the legitimacy of interpreting the ways of Providence on the basis of facts" (The Providence of God (PG), pp. 164-165).
He aims to guard against the possibility that "everyone according to his own prejudice and subjective whim (can) canonize a certain event or national rise as a special act of God in which He reveals and demonstrates His favour" (PG, p. 164).
Acutely aware that "the interpretation of an historical event as a special revelation of Providence too easily becomes a piously disguised form of self-justification" (PG, p. 166), Berkouwer insists that "no event speaks so clearly that we may conclude from it a certain disposition of God - as long as God Himself does not reveal that His disposition comes to expression in the given event" (PG, p. 170).
Concerning events in the history of Israel which are recorded in Scripture, Berkouwer writes, "The Divine disposition is, indeed, revealed in these events. But it is the word of revelation which explains them" (PG, p. 171, emphasis mine).
Concerning the interpretation of contemporary events, he warns, "we have not been given a norm for explaining the facts of history ... in the absence of a norm only an untrustworthy plausibility remains" (PG, p. 171).
Using insightful exegesis of Scripture, Berkouwer warns against a misguided interpretation of contemporary events. Commenting on the words, "Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?" (Amos 9:7), he writes, "the fact of the exodus may not be used as basis, isolated from revelation and seen by itself from which to draw selfish conclusions about God's disposition ... AS a mere historical fact, the exodus puts Israel on the same level with other nations. But accompanied by a proper faith in God, it constitutes a challenge and, given the proper response, further blessing" (PG, p. 176, emphasis original).
Neither Christendom nor Communism has a right to point to the failures of the other while remaining oblivious to its own inadequacies. Both are challenged to self-examination by their own professed ideals.
Commenting on the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38-39), Berkouwer cites A. Kuyper: "It is not true that God the Lord destroys forthwith that which is not from Him and crowns with success every endeavor of His believers" (PG, p.173 - from Revisie der revisie-legende, 1879).
A comparison of societies may not be used to vindicate a particular world-view since worldly success does not necessarily imply truth.
Berkouwer develops a Christocentric approach to divine providence: "It is possible to speak correctly about God's Providence only on the basis of the blood of the cross. Otherwise we will certainly fall into one of many possible arbitrary interpretations of history ... All events are embraced in the one work of God, which is explained for all time by His Word. Thus, there can be no proceeding from facts or events isolated from that revelation" (PG, p. 178).
This Christocentric doctrine of providence may not be identified with the Marxist conception of religion as "the opium of the people" (Karl Marx: Selected Writings on Sociology and Social Philosophy, edited by Bottomore and Rubel, p. 41)since it is grounded in the Christ who "tells us to seek first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33); which is to say that the peace of mind that the Gospel gives does not allow us to decline into the superficialities of comfortable bourgeois living" (PG, p. 181).
When Berkouwer writes, "He who sees things this way will never succumb to the temptation to identify prosperity with blessing and adversity with curse. In faith, however, one can accept prosperity as the gift of God, and adversity as God's hand graciously leading him to greater faith" (PG,p. 179), he is far removed from a hypocritical attitude which is devoid of social concern.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Berkouwer’s “Holy Scripture” and E J Young’s “Thy Word is Truth”

E J Young argues that one’s doctrine of Scripture is derived from either experience or Scripture, either natural man or supernatural God. Young does speak of the human character of Scripture. It does, however, seem that the supernatural-natural dichotomy underlies his doctrine of Scripture. He turns to the Bible “to discover what it has to say of itself” (p. 40). It is questionable, however, whether his view is not grounded in a notion which tends to set divine and human activity over against each other. Young rejects a mechanical theory (p. 65). It does, however, appear that his own view is really no more than a modification of this view. His interpretation of the working of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture is not directly identifiable with mechanical dictation (pp. 79-80). It does seem, however, that there is a tendency to move in that direction.  * Here are some statements from Young.  - “Without Him (God) there could have been no Bible. Without man th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Grace found Noah!

Genesis 6:1-22 As we read the story of Noah, we learn of the place of Noah within the divine revelation of the Gospel of grace. "Noah found grace" (8) might be turned around to read, "Grace found Noah." "Amazing grace ... I once was lost but now am found." The significance of Noah, highlighted in 5:29, is expressed in the words, "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil Thy law's demands ... All for sin could not atone, Thou must save, and Thou alone. Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy Cross I cling." To think of the flood exclusively in terms of judgment is to see only one side of what God was doing. As well as judging, He was also saving - "In this ship a few people - eight in all - were saved by water" ( 1 Peter 3:20 ). The ark points forward to Christ, "who came back from death to life", Christ who "saves" us ( 1 Peter 3:21 ).
Post a Comment
Read more

A Critique of J D Bettis, "Is Karl Barth a Universalist?"

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. (...
Post a Comment
Read more