A HOLE IN THE DIKE, Critical Aspects of Berkouwer’s Theology, by Carl Bogue. Mack Publishing Co., Cherry Hill, N.J., 27 pp., 1977, paper, $ .95.

A HALF CENTURY OF THEOLOGY, by G.C. Berkouwer, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 268 pp. 1977, paper, $9.95.

THE NEW SYNTHESIS THEOLOGY OF THE NETHERLANDS, by Cornelius Van Til, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, N.J., 100 pp., 1975, paper, $4.50.

Dean of Reformed Theologians

Within Reformed church cirtles no scholar has come to be more widely known and highly regarded than Professor Berkouwer. His fourteen large Studies in Dogmatics in English translations defy comparison with any other writings of Reformed scholars in our time. He is a historian, perhaps the historian of Christian doctrine. One has only to read a few of his chapters to observe that he seems to have read almost everything available by writers past or present dealing with his area of study. For many years he taught at the prestigious Free University of Amsterdam founded by Abraham Kuyper, and his word came to be widely regarded in Reformed churches and far beyond them as the standard treatment of Reformed doctrines. What Berkouwer said came to be accepted by many as the last word; an appeal to him was enough to silence question or opposition. Especially in recent years big changes have come in the thinking of that long-time scholarly standard of the Reformed faith which everyone concerned about that Biblical faith ought to know. These three books in an unusually clear way show what those changes are.

A Presbyterian’s Observations

A good introduction to the subject, especially helpful to the average reader, is the little 25-page pamphlet of Carl Bogue, now a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America at Akron, Ohio. It contains a talk which he gave to some friends after having done his graduate work in the Netherlands under Professor Berkouwer. Somewhat reluctantly because of his personally friendly relations with the Professor, he was persuaded to print it because of the importance of the subject. Dr. Bogue sees Professor Berkouwer standing “with one foot in a confessional heritage he refuses to abandon and another foot in the world of ecumenical ventures which frequently conflicts with his heritage” (p. 5). After paying tribute to the Professor’s “almost encyclopedic” knowledge of church history and doctrine, he deals “with a few areas wherein Berkouwer has moved away from classical Reformed Theology.”

1. While Berkouwer “seeks to be in subjection to the Word of God” he is adverse to drawing “good and necessary consequences” from its teachings and increasingly relativizes creeds as historically conditioned (pp. 6, 7)_ Berkouwer likes to distinguish the “intent” of the creeds from the changing “form” in which it is expressed. Stressing this distinction enables him in his “reinterpretation of the Canons of Dordt” to throw out “the ‘causal’ framework as an unfortunate historical form which tried to say too much and to restrict the context (the Synod’s real intent) to a doxological reference to the sovereignty of God’s grace.” Bogue sees this as really “sneaking in of a new content under the guise of a new form for the old content” (p. 8).

2. Berkouwer “radiates excitement and enthusiasm” over the way in which Roman Catholics are relativizing their doctrines in the same way so that “via the form–content distinction Berkouwer is, with qualification, becoming a part of a new ecumenical alliance within and without the Roman Church where neo-orthodox theology tends to be the common denominator” (pp. 9, 10). In other words he has joined with the Roman Catholics and the Barthians whom he once vigorously opposed.

3. Berkouwer has taken over the “anti-systematic attitude” and subjectivism of much modern theology, assuming that faith must be opposed to logic and system (pp. 10–14).

4. Berkouwer rejects the notion of “cause” as attributable to God and in this connection while he wants to talk of election denies reprobation. “One gets the impression,” says Bogue, “that Berkouwer tends to be a Calvinist in election and an Arminian in rejection. But if God’s election is not something ‘which cannot be changed’ (i.e., election can be changed?), even his doctrine of election as Calvinistic is suspect” (although he admits that “Berkouwer would reject such conclusions and say we are not looking in the way of faith”) (p. 19).

5. “One of the most significant developments of all” is Berkouwer’s changed view of Scripture. While in 1938 he opposed all forms of subjectivism and insisted that “the loss of Scripture inevitably brings with it a loss of the Christian faith,” in 1966 and 1967 he has reversed his emphasis, stressing the “human factor,” directing “attention away from a book to the Christ it proclaims,” appealing to the Holy Spirit and defending “subjectivism” as “a proper way to see scriptural authority.” Bogue cites a neo-orthodox study which traces Berkouwer’s movement from (1) “the absolute authority of Scripture” to (2) “the salvation content of Scripture,” to (3) “the existential direction of Scripture” (pp. 20–25).

Although Bogue observes that “Berkouwer is sometimes orthodox on a given point in spite of his method, not because of it” he suggests that the famous Professor “may well be the hole in the dike through which a flood is coming that will leave its mark in a way the frequent floods in the history of the Netherlands have never done. And it will be a flood whose damage will be far more difficult to repair” (pp. 25, 26).

A Fascinating Tour

Berkouwer‘s own book, A Half Century of Theology is like a tour guided by an incomparable expert through the movements in the area of Christian doctrine from the early 1920s to the present. It has received high praise for its variety of fascinating material. Beginning with a sketch of the doctrinal climate in his student days the guide leads us through the “era of apologetics” in which leaders were concerned about defending a system of Christian truth, through the revolution brought about by Karl Barth and his associates, through discussions about the doctrine of God’s election, through the debates about the authority of the Bible, discussions about faith and reason, and, finally, the consideration of the future. It is a journey full of interesting observations especially to those who are somewhat familiar with the men and movements that are encountered.

   

Self-Acknowledged Changes

But to the readers whose interest goes deeper than an Athenian (Acts 17:21) concern for academic novelties, who are apprehensive about what is happening to the Reformed faith, Berkouwer’s guided tour becomes increasingly disturbing. At point after point the criticisms we have seen in Bogue’s little talk are corroborated by the Professor himself as he shows how his thinking has indeed changed over the years. His increasing sympathy with Karl Barth, his shifting, subjectivist views of scripture and concessions to higher criticism, his support of modern criticisms of authority (p. 158f.), his denial of reprobation, and for that matter of a real election are detailed by the Professor. On the last point, for example, he states, “the Bible does not present us with two classes of people, but only one, the sinners who are called to salvation” (p. 95), a patently false claim when made with respect to the Bible’s doctrine of election as many a text demonstrates (Matt. 20:16; 22:14; Mark 4:11; Romans 9:11ff.). Whereas the great scholar once took the lead in seeking to set off the Reformed faith against opposing views, notably those of the Roman Catholic Church and of Karl Barth, he now shows in page after page that he has become so sympathetic with and enamored with their views that he quotes them at every turn as his authorities as he joins them on an ecumenical course that is heading to an unknown future.

Van Til’s Critique

Dr. Cornelius Van Til’s little 100–page book on The New Synthesis Theology of the Netherlands calls attention more extensively to these same changes in the views of Dr.Berkouwer and his followers and colleagues. In an October, 1975 OUTLOOK review of Dr. Van Til’s earlier book, The New Hermeneutic I observed that while he explained in detail what the new liberal views of the Bible were, his treatment of the Dutch leaders who were promoting it was very brief.

This newer volume traces much more extensively the way in which these Dutch Reformed men, preeminently Dr. Berkouwer, have been turning away from the traditional Reformed faith and toward “reinterpretation” of it along the neo-orthodox lines of Karl Barth. In this book Van Til outlines the way in which Berkouwer in 1938 maintained and defended the orthodox view of the Bible against its critics (pp. 44–62) and even warned against the constant temptation to compromise it to make room for man’s desire to be his own boss. Then he shows how in Berkouwer’s 1966 and 1967 writings on the subject “there is no longer, for Berkouwer, such a thing as a distinetively Reformed view” of the Bible (p. 62), but he has accepted “what he calls a ‘personalist’, rather than ‘determinist’  view of God’s revelation to man.” This change is destructive of both the old idea of God’s election and the old idea of the Bible. This rejection of the old idea of the Bible’s authority for the sake of the modern idea of man’s freedom or “autonomy” is also traced in the thinking of many of Berkouwer‘s younger followers.

Much more could be cited from these as well as other books to show how Berkouwer, the long-time “dean” of Reformed theologians has reversed his views at a number of critical points regarding the Christian faith and life.

Devastating Results

The consequences of this change, amounting essentially to a betrayal of the Reformed faith at fundamental points by its most respected leader, have been devastating, especially within the various Reformed churches. Many of the multiplying problems within our own Christian Reformed churches are to a significant degree traceable to Berkouwer and his colleagues at the Free University where many of our ministers and professors have done graduate work. Multiplying attacks on the Bible’s authority and inerrancy, the attacks on the binding character of the churches’ creeds, the surrender to evolutionary views, the rejection of the doctrine of reprobation—really of the Biblical doctrine of election and even God’s sovereignty (Eph. 1:11)—can find support in the later work of Berkouwer.

Biblical Precedents

A dozen years ago in the February, 1967 Torch and Trumpet, I noted the radical changes which were taking place in the constitution of the Free University of Amsterdam, observing that they reminded one of the changes that came over the wise King Solomon. Over the years “his wisdom, wealth, power and prestige brought temptations which overcame him.” “With the adulation that came to him from every quarter as his reputation grew . . . alliances with people of many cultures placed him under increasing pressure to show his wisdom by exercising the virtue of ‘understanding’ or ‘tolerance’, to rise above the petty discriminations of nationality, color and creed and show the magnanimity of his mind by indulging the opinions . . . of his friends.” And so it came about that he who had begun his career by building a temple to Israel’s God, the only God of the whole earth was, in an increasingly “ecumenical” policy building and worshiping also at idol temples before that career was finished. If that comparison was applicable to the Free University, it seems increasingly to apply also to the changing views of its leading and most famous theologian.

One of the participants in the recent Council on Inerrancy meeting in Chicago observed that the devil in seeking to do the maximum amount of damage to the Lord’s gospel and cause, may be expected to devote special effort to subverting the churches’ leadership and the schools in which they are trained. The Bible already shows that principle at work in his partially successful efforts to mislead Simon Peter (Matthew 16:21–24; Luke 22:31–34; Galatians 2:11–18). The Lord preserved His gospel and people, but He did it not only by inspiring and using the teachings and labors of such leaders, but also by sternly warning us against following their stumbling and errors. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:12).

It is disturbing and saddening to see the havoc that is being wrought both within and among the various Reformed churches by these compromises and changes in some of their formerly most respected leaders. Those churches, including our own, are increasingly confused and of two minds about every question of doctrine or life which they confront, an attitude which the Lord warns us He will never bless (James 1:7, 8).

In a time when there is around us a new appreciation of and receptivity to the Bible-believing effort of the Reformed tradition to bring “the whole council of God,” churches like our own which are supposed to be promoting it find their policies in confusion and their efforts regarded with mixed appreciation and justified suspicion. See this happening among the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches cooperating in NAPARC, for example.

The student or preacher may profit greatly by study of the massive volumes of Berkouwer on the various areas of Christian doctrine, but he is compelled to be just as cautious against accepting many of Berkouwer’s conclusions as he has to be against accepting the errors of other liberal leaders whose views Berkouwer now accommodates. The Lord has preserved and will preserve His gospel and church, but He reminds us that He does it by warning against and delivering from not only the errors of those outside of the church but also from the sometimes more subtle temptations that come through its own erring leaders (Matt. 16:23; Acts 20:30–32).