DOGMATISCHE STUDIEN. De Kerk. I. Eenheid. en Katholiciteit,
by Dr. G. C. Berkouwer. Publisher: J. H. Kok N.V., Kampen, The Netherlands. 1970. pp. 260. Reviewed by Dr. Johan D. Tangelder, pastor of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church of Wellandport, Ontario.
This is another excellent study in the series of studies in Dogmatics by the renowned Dr. G. C. Berkouwer of Amsterdam. This work, like his previous ones, shows his great erudition and thorough knowledge of the latest trends in modern thinking.
There are four attributes of the church: unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. In this first volume on the church, Dr. Berkouwer deals with the first two of these attributes. The whole study on the attributes of the church is a strong and eloquent plea for church unity. The body of Christ ought to be one. This unity of the church ought to be visible (pp. 83 ff.). There has always been a desire for unity in the church. Some have accepted the fact of this brokenness of Christ’s body and have placed the realization of unity in the eschaton (pp. 39ff.). We cannot work with the distinction visible and invisible church in order to overcome the tension within the broken body of Christ (p. 42). The concept of pluriformity does not satisfy either (pp. 86, 93). The disunity of the church is sinful (pp. 37ff.). The unbelief of the world is caused by the chaotic situation within the church (pp. 54ff).
Berkouwer’s work on the church ought to be studied carefully. He has made a significant contribution. He has written compassionately and with pastoral concern. And who doesn’t share his longing for the unity of the church?
However, I have problems with some of Dr. Berkouwer’s theses. He gives an exposition of John 17. We must be one “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (vs. 21). But in his enthusiasm for ecumenicity, Dr. Berkouwer seems to overlook that the Lord prays for unity in truth. In verses 17–19 of John 17, the Lord prays for the sanctification of his disciples in order that they may be kept in the truth and in unity. Shouldn’t we make any distinctions between the true and the false church? (cf. Art. 29, Belgic Confession). Can we no longer speak about church discipline, error, or excommunication?
The problem of proselytism is touched upon. r am under the impression that Dr. Berkouwer says, “No! We cannot proselytize.” There are elements of truth in other churches (p. 88). We are no strangers to one another. But isn’t the following evangelical position more Biblical:
“We therefore declare that, we shall not use unbiblical, unethical methods of persuading people to change their religious allegiance. However, when we seek the conversion of unregenerate men, even though they may be attached to some church or other religion, we are fulfilling our biblical mandate” (Christianity Today, May 7, 1971, p.25).
Berkouwer’s chapter on “De Grenzen cler Kerk” (Boundaries of the Church) presents numerous questions. Does the church still have boundaries? This is the most important question in ecclesiology (p. 161). Can we still say “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” or should we say “extra Christum nulla salus”? (pp. 174, 184). Are we still allowed to say that there are any outside of the church and lost? Berkouwer says that we are not allowed to sit in judgment over others (pp. 170, 172, 189). His contentions are rather vague. I have that uneasy feeling that Dr. Berkouwer leans towards universalism.
Why doesn’t Berkouwer deal with election and the church? Why does he refer so little to God’s gracious covenant? Does he believe in the anonymous Christian—that a man is a Christian but doesn’t know it as yet? These are serious questions which should be kept in mind while reading this book on the church. I am looking forward to the next volume which will deal with the apostolicity and holiness of the church. And I hope that then some of my questions will find clarification.
This is another excellent study in the series of studies in Dogmatics by the renowned Dr. G. C. Berkouwer of Amsterdam. This work, like his previous ones, shows his great erudition and thorough knowledge of the latest trends in modern thinking.
There are four attributes of the church: unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. In this first volume on the church, Dr. Berkouwer deals with the first two of these attributes. The whole study on the attributes of the church is a strong and eloquent plea for church unity. The body of Christ ought to be one. This unity of the church ought to be visible (pp. 83 ff.). There has always been a desire for unity in the church. Some have accepted the fact of this brokenness of Christ’s body and have placed the realization of unity in the eschaton (pp. 39ff.). We cannot work with the distinction visible and invisible church in order to overcome the tension within the broken body of Christ (p. 42). The concept of pluriformity does not satisfy either (pp. 86, 93). The disunity of the church is sinful (pp. 37ff.). The unbelief of the world is caused by the chaotic situation within the church (pp. 54ff).
Berkouwer’s work on the church ought to be studied carefully. He has made a significant contribution. He has written compassionately and with pastoral concern. And who doesn’t share his longing for the unity of the church?
However, I have problems with some of Dr. Berkouwer’s theses. He gives an exposition of John 17. We must be one “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (vs. 21). But in his enthusiasm for ecumenicity, Dr. Berkouwer seems to overlook that the Lord prays for unity in truth. In verses 17–19 of John 17, the Lord prays for the sanctification of his disciples in order that they may be kept in the truth and in unity. Shouldn’t we make any distinctions between the true and the false church? (cf. Art. 29, Belgic Confession). Can we no longer speak about church discipline, error, or excommunication?
The problem of proselytism is touched upon. r am under the impression that Dr. Berkouwer says, “No! We cannot proselytize.” There are elements of truth in other churches (p. 88). We are no strangers to one another. But isn’t the following evangelical position more Biblical:
“We therefore declare that, we shall not use unbiblical, unethical methods of persuading people to change their religious allegiance. However, when we seek the conversion of unregenerate men, even though they may be attached to some church or other religion, we are fulfilling our biblical mandate” (Christianity Today, May 7, 1971, p.25).
Berkouwer’s chapter on “De Grenzen cler Kerk” (Boundaries of the Church) presents numerous questions. Does the church still have boundaries? This is the most important question in ecclesiology (p. 161). Can we still say “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” or should we say “extra Christum nulla salus”? (pp. 174, 184). Are we still allowed to say that there are any outside of the church and lost? Berkouwer says that we are not allowed to sit in judgment over others (pp. 170, 172, 189). His contentions are rather vague. I have that uneasy feeling that Dr. Berkouwer leans towards universalism.
Why doesn’t Berkouwer deal with election and the church? Why does he refer so little to God’s gracious covenant? Does he believe in the anonymous Christian—that a man is a Christian but doesn’t know it as yet? These are serious questions which should be kept in mind while reading this book on the church. I am looking forward to the next volume which will deal with the apostolicity and holiness of the church. And I hope that then some of my questions will find clarification.