Berkouwer, Bartian, Pelagian, Remonstrants and Evangelical View — John Murray

God, Thou art holy, Thou art just, Thou art good, and to Thy great name be everlasting praise. For Thou doest wondrously for the children of men, that Thou hast redeemed them from the degradation of sin.

Thou hast set their feet upon a rock, Thou hast established their goings, so that anthems of praise will eternally resound to Thy great name on the scenes from where Thou hast redeemed. And may we join now in a song of praise to Thee, so that we shall also everlastingly abound in that thanksgiving to Thy great and holy name.

To Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. We have said at the close of the hour that J .C. Berkhowell for example takes the position that if we predicate the divine image of God, the divine image of man in his fallen state, that there is the danger of thereby prejudicing the doctrine of total depravity, thereby prejudicing the doctrine of total depravity.

The Divine Image and Total Depravity

Now of course it is quite true that there can be grave misunderstanding of what is involved in this predication upon which I have been insisting that man in his fallen state is in the image of God. Because it is liable to be interpreted as meaning that there is in man after all a spark of divinity and that he is not totally depraved.

The doctrine of man in the divine image in his fallen state entails such misunderstanding or does not give any real support to that erroneous aspect of man's sinfulness. The fact of the matter is, as I have been insisting all along, that a doctrine of total depravity really involves this doctrine of man in the divine image.

Of the gravity of our depravity and the intensity of our depravity proceeds from the recognition that it is man in the image of God who has rebelled against it. The more we appreciate what is involved in man's distinctive identity in the image of God, I repeat, the more we accentuate what is involved in man's identity as made in the image of God, the more serious it becomes our estimate of his original sin, that is, of his first sin, and of his depravity.

But so far from impinging upon the doctrine of total depravity, the divine image is indispensable. The reason why I think the defective view of man in the image of God which appears in the Lutheran position, this defective view is really logically bound up with their defective view of man's depravity.

That is all I'm going to say. The position of Karl Marx in reference to this subject of man in the image of God. I'm dealing with it here just because formally, formally his position is that of evangelical Lutherans.

His position is that of evangelical Lutherans. Formally, that is that man in his fallen state cannot be regarded as being in the image of God.

Yes? Did you say evangelical Lutherans? Do you mean the denomination of that name?

No, no, no, no, no, no. Evangelical Lutherans. That's what I'm using to term the evangelical Lutheran church. I'm talking about the classic, orthodox, evangelical Lutheran position going way back to the 16th century.

Represented by men like Gerhard Brandstad, coming on to more recent times, Francis Pieper, represented by the Missouri Synod-led Lutheran church in this country, at least until very recently, by evangelical Lutherans, branch of the Lutheran church that may call itself today the evangelical Lutheran church.

Using it in the historic sense. I said formally, Barth's position of evangelical Lutheranism, but that's all. There's practically no affinity whatsoever between Barth and historic evangelical Lutherans.

Barthian Revelation and the Point of Contact

It's only a formal concurrence that God does not have contact with the natural man. Contact is established only in the act of revelation. So there are two things that we have to take account of. Barth's theology came so far as it dares upon our present times.

And the first is his view of divine revelation, and the second is concerned with what I shall call the point of contact. But it goes in that order. First of all, Barth's view of revelation. The Barthian position, and this doesn't apply only to Karl Barth, but the Barthian dialectic position is that revelation, or the word of God, does not exist as a permanent or abiding deposit.

That it exists only as God, here and now, to this man and to no other, in a concrete crisis and confrontation, through the medium of scripture or church proclamation, brings his word home with ruling authority and conviction.

Well, I thought you would be also familiar with that, but it would bring me close to Newcastle. You want me to repeat it? Well, that the word of God does not exist as a permanent and abiding fact. It exists only as God, here and now, to this man and to no other, in a concrete crisis or confrontation, through the medium of scripture or church proclamation, brings his word home with ruling authority and conviction.

In that action, that the image of God is created in man. No revelatory contact between God and man until that event takes place. That is not the biblical position respecting revelation. The emphasis in the scripture which falls upon the written word, means that revelation has become inscripturated.

Inscripturation has received abiding form. Let me ask you, what other input could be drawn from the basic emphasis in scripture? It is written, written. According to scripture, revelation is always scripture.

It is made known. Scripture is the abiding voice of man. In scripture, we are speaking even to the unregenerate who are confronted by the witness of scripture. That this word of God makes some impact upon the hearts and minds of the unregenerate.

Makes some impact upon the minds of the unregenerate. Impact, of course, differs in extent, depth, and effect in different cases. In some instances, the impact that is made is what we would call negligible.

But in other cases, it is very arresting. Vertically affected, even when they are not savingly affected. A few examples of that, I suppose. What about Simon the Sorcerer? Acts 8, 13 -23. What about Felix trembling before Paul's Acts 24 -25?

The rocky soil, the thorny ground. He must wait and care by. Trust, he said, except the Lord said, thou shalt not covet. When the commandment came, sin revived and I died. He is not talking then about his confession.

He is talking about something that occurred before him. When the commandment came, sin revived and I died. What about those who become apostates? Return from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 2 Peter 2, 20 -22.

These are obvious instances. Impact, which the word of God can make upon an unregenerate man. And in some cases, such an impact that we men wouldn't be able to distinguish between the regenerate and the apostate.

The Word of God and Saving Faith

If that is the case, there is something in man that makes the unregenerate man addressable. Words. Content possible. Makes it to that extent efficacious. Two things that cannot be provided for on God's premise.

Saving speaking word of God that makes the word of God meaningful. We come to this matter of the point of contact. Remember I'm distinguishing between point of contact and point of agreement. There's a great deal of confusion in that matter.

Difference between point of contact and point of agreement. This impact which the word of God makes upon the natural man, the precondition of saving faith, this point of contact, this impact rather, which the word of God makes upon the natural man, is the precondition of saving faith.

The precondition of saving impact. Ages of hearing. And hearing is the word of Christ. And therefore it can never be dissociated. The effect which the word of God makes upon the person concerned before he becomes a believer.

If faith is all hearing is antecedent. Presuppose a means that faith emerges. Antecedent condition in the subject. Antecedent state of mind in the subject which has been created by the word of God. This antecedent state of mind.

This antecedent state of mind is the point of contact for the saving address of the word of God. And the believing response of the person. Believing response. And this is just saying that there must be some conviction.

Conviction produced by the word of God. And some cognition of the import of the gospel. These are the two terms I'm using to describe this necessary antecedent state of mind. Without conviction and cognition, faith itself, that is the first act of faith, is meaningless.

Unintelligible. By the word of God addressed to the person, at the basic mind you make all the vestibule of faith. You can call it the vestibule of faith. The vestibule of faith. Well, I thought you were saying vestibule, chamber or something like that.

The vestibule of faith. But in any case, it is the transitional stage. Indifference and ignorance. Transitional experience. A transitional stage from indifference and ignorance to saving faith. A person with such conviction and cognition that faith can arise.

All at the point of contacting address of the word of God and feeling response on the part of the person. Now, this point of contact, but on his premises, cannot allow. Cannot allow. And consequently, I say that his concept of faith, concept of faith, must be as physiologically abstract and unrelated.

This is concept of revelation, as abstract realm of subjectivity. And this is concept of revelation in the realm of God's address to man. Now, we come to our conclusion. It is in relation to these considerations that I have been mentioning, that the doctrine of the divine image becomes all important.

In reality, if we fail to predicate of man this divine image, we have removed the basis on which we can maintain the relevance of the word of God to the natural world. And we also place ourselves in a position in which it is impossible to entertain a proper view of the genesis of faith.

The genesis. That's all I'm going to say. The next view that I'm going to deal with, should be the Pelasian view, that's dealt with very satisfactorily in the textbook. Very satisfactorily indeed. And, of course, the most distinctive feature of the Pelasian view is the divine image, in the sense of knowledge, righteousness and holiness.

Pelagianism and the Nature of Moral Character

Now, we can't create it. It needs an acquisition. An acquisition. A character cannot be created. It has to be designed. Now, that is a position very clearly set forth by Pelasius. You cannot predicate moral character of anything but relational acts under subjective consciousness.

Relational acts under subjective consciousness. How should one defend the voluntary transgression of law and order? And that Pelasian viewpoint has exercised tremendous influence on the Christian church.

Tremendous influence. And you have to be on guard to detect this infiltration of Pelasian thought constantly. You have to be constantly on your guard against the violence of Pelasian influence. Now, this is criticized very well in the textbook, and I'm not going to deal with it.

There is, historically, the monstrosity of the Church, the monstrosity, and on this particular question, the remonstrant Arminian was practically identical with that of Pelasius, that good habits and virtues, such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness, goodness, holiness, and righteousness, could not have had a place in the will of man when he was first created.

Confession taught that man was created with three wills, but his primitive state was not one of perfect holiness. To be created has to be something that is acquired. So in this respect, the affinity to Pelasianism is quite obvious.

Remonstrant and Wesleyan Arminian Views

We distinguish between remonstrant Arminianism and Evangelical or Wesleyan Arminianism. Remember that Evangelical Arminianism is the same thing as Wesleyan, that modification of the Arminian position, which came in the middle of the 18th century from the influence of John Wesley.

Now, on this particular question, on this particular question of the image of God, the earlier classic exponents of Evangelical Arminianism, such as Richard Watson, he was the reformed position. Richard Watson's Institute, Theological Institute, Volume 2, pages 281 through 288.

Volume 2, pages 281 through 288. You'll find that his exposition of this, he comes to this stage as a reformed position. But there has been the tendency in Evangelical Arminianism to compromise with the remonstrant Arminian position on this question.

And you find that in John Miley. John Miley, the more recent Evangelical Arminian Theology, John Miley's Systematic Theology, Volume 1, pages 409 through 416. 409 through 416. And consequently, there is a gradual relaxing of the more consistent position taken by the classic exponents of Wesleyan Arminianism.

Well, that is a very, very brief review of the history. One concluding word, man in the image of God. There are billions of divine images of man in the image of God which bears upon Christian doctrine in various ways.

The Image of God and the Incarnation

I have already reflected upon the way in which it bears upon the doctrine of sin. But there's one further observation I want to make. This doctrine of man in the image of God bears upon the great central doctrine of our Christian faith.

This doctrine of man in the image of God bears most definitely upon the great central doctrine of the Christian faith. Namely, the incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God. The incarnation and humiliation.

God made man in His image. The Son of God was made in the likeness of man. He made man in His likeness. Man. The Son of God came in the likeness of man. For the incarnation, though it was humiliation, the incarnation was congruous with the very nature of God.

The human nature is in the image of God. Not only is that true, but we must remember also Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In the likeness of sinful flesh. Literally, in the likeness of sinful flesh.

That is to say, He came across the human nature as it was possible for Him to come without becoming Himself sinful. And I submit to this consideration that He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. There is upon the question that we discussed at the very beginning whether man in His fallen state is in the likeness of God. Or in the image of God. That is the point.

Whether man in His fallen state is made in the image of God. How could Jesus have come in the likeness of sinful flesh? In the likeness of sinful flesh. In the sinful human nature. Not in the image of God.

He didn't come in sinful human nature. But He came in the likeness. He came in that very human nature. All other is sinful. And therefore He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. How could He have come in that likeness if that human nature had no affinity?

I stop today because I remind you of His passion. If you sit here with yourselves and you can come as soon as your coffee break is possible and then you'll have a full hour. Those of you who come from countries where the language, the native language is not English you can take longer if you wish to.

Take more than an hour if you wish to. That's the confession I always make. If you don't speak the native language, you can't speak English.