Sin

Studies in Dogmatics

by G.C. Berkouwer

In this series rooted in the normative significance of Scripture, noted Dutch theologian G. C. Berkouwer examines great doctrines of the Reformed faith, developing and defending Reformed theology through interaction with a wide range of theologies and the

Genres: Theology, Anthropology

600 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1971

About the author

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer was for years the leading theologian of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (GKN). He occupied the Chair in systematic theology of the Faculty of Theology, Free University (VU) in Amsterdam.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE ELEVENTH VOLUME IN BERKOUWER’S 14-VOLUME “STUDIES IN DOGMATICS”

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,The Person of Christ,General Revelation,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,The Return of Christ,Holy Scriptures,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1958/1960 book, “Whoever reflects on the doctrine of sin in the light of God’s Word is struck very early with the question of sin’s origin. That question is very common in the history of the Church and her theology. It would seem to find a parallel in the more general concern of man to know the origin of ‘evil’ in his world. No real genius is needed to see life’s battered and mangled pieces before us, and no particular wisdom is required to appreciate how profoundly abnormal life can be. Therefore the question would seem to be completely reasonable: What is the origin of sin? The answers given in the course of the centuries are many.” (Pg. 11)

He suggests, “We are of the opinion that an explanation for sin is truly impossible. Furthermore, when we say this we are not implying a hiatus in our knowledge which may soon be overcome. For the riddle of sin is of an entirely different kind… The mere fact that many have not seen it as such is understandable in the light of their own fears that when we speak of the inexplicability of sin we must end up in a kind of dualism. What choice do we have but to see sin as the independent or original ‘antipode’ of good?... We try to find some sense in the senseless, some reason in the irrational, and some legitimacy in the illegitimacy of sin. The driving impulse in these efforts is so strong that we can hardly afford to ignore them. Yet when we examine these ‘explanations’ we are far removed from an effort to find faint flickerings of light on the problems of sin’s ‘origin.’ We wish only to be better warned.” (Pg. 26)

He acknowledges, “there are … passages in the Bible which appear, at least, to see God as actively or efficiently engaged in man’s evil. God is the one who incites, or aggravates, or even causes man to sin. God, we are told, does not only pass judgment but is actually the [cause of sin]… Certainly we must recognize… that this accept on God as the ‘contriver’ of man’s sin does not eliminate man’s own responsibility…” (Pg. 44-45)

He asserts, “man was not the victim of a fantastic power. Man hid himself ‘from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden’ [Gen 3:8]… We have seen that explanation and self-excuse are indissolubly wrapped up in a single package. It need not surprise us, therefore, that every demonological ‘connection’ in Scripture excludes radically this element of making alibis. This does not mean that there is little reason to give full attention to the demonic acts of temptation. It does mean, however, that in this way we shall never EXPLAIN our sin… [It] must always remain the riddle and inexplicability of sin.” (Pg. 101)

He explains, “There is un unbounded power and work of the evil one; no seduction that is unrelated to the guilt of man. There is no relentless force, except that which is actualized in the modus of man’s own culpability. Only in our guilt and capitulation to the evil one is the power of evil irrepressible. Only in that way does an evil man become the ‘slave’ to sin… yet we find it not as a FATE but as GUILT… The utter horror of that power is apparent in the limits of a man’s depersonalization. In this way we see the powerlessness, captivity, and ‘objectification’ of man. This is what is meant by being ‘possessed.’” (Pg. 112-113)

He says, “Therefore the riddle of sin can never be dissolved in the fellowship of the Church. It is precisely in the Church that it is wholly known and confessed as very real. Faith and the communion of love are the context in which the senselessness and the irrationality of sin are more and more both seen and renounced. A love to God and our fellowmen is not a solution to this riddle. In fact it leads us to a confession of guilt and the elimination of any explanation at all. Every effort to view man’s sin in a rational system is repudiated in this confession of guilt and communion of love. In love we understand rightly and fully how senseless our sin is.” (Pg. 146)

He observes, “Therefore man’s justification is not a mere ‘appearance’ but is certainly REAL. There are not two separable sources for knowing our sin but a single revelation of sin’s reality in the cross. In the cross our sin in taken away and the justice of God’s law is fulfilled… We must see the law as God’s holy law which was given in communion and love and was violated by man’s own transgression and sin. Against THIS transgression God directs his holy wrath. He is revolted by this contempt for his love and his glory… Therefore the man who preaches the Gospel must point to both guilt AND forgiveness, both death and life, both judgment and grace, both being lost and being found again.” (Pg. 201)

He notes, “Within the purview of this ‘new’ and unitary command [Jn 13:34], the entire law is now set forth under the heading of a love for our neighbors. If anywhere, certainly here it is evident that the relationship of sin to God… by no means obscures but only intensifies the seriousness of sinning against our neighbors… Sin, by nature, is a violation of this commandment of God to love.” (Pg. 249)

He suggests, “In our own opinion we cannot and we should not steer clear of the multiplicity of the biblical usages. It would be very strange if we found in Scripture a clear ‘systematizing’ of all of its various data. Nevertheless, the centrality of the concept of sin in relation to God sheds a powerful light on every biblical description of man’s sin… Many names and forms are given to these biblical references to sin, and any escape to a general or vague conception of sin is therefore impossible. Biblically speaking, we may not demarcate these terms too sharply. We must not see such concepts as alienation, fall, hostility, unfaithfulness, lovelessness and thanklessness in contrast to each other.” (Pg. 282-283)

He acknowledges, “But though Scripture is serious in its portrayal of this blasphemy against God’s name there is no key here for what is meant, finally, by the sin against the Spirit… Therefore the concept of blasphemy, in itself, should not be equated with the sin against the Spirit.” (Pg. 338)

He states, “there is no contradiction between God’s love and wrath in the New Testament. These are not incongruent but are mutually related in historical and dynamical terms They are interrelated in the preaching of salvation and man’s lack of appreciation and response. Surely this wrath of God played the same role in the preaching of the apostles; for there too it cannot be seen as an inhibition of salvation but as an urgent invitation to accept the Good News of God.” (Pg. 365) Later, he adds, “Thus we cannot contemplate the wrath of God as exclusively the predication of the Old Testament or set his wrath in opposition to the New Testament accent on love.” (Pg. 371)

He summarizes, “We have taken notice of the relations of sin and wrath, and of wrath and forgiveness. We have said that we cannot reconstruct the biblical lines and accents in a completely lucid theological theory. It is not possible, in that way, to lead a man to believe in the reality of God’s pardon. The essence of the biblical message is that forgiveness can only be understood and embraced in the way of faith… We can only proceed from the reality of the cross. But when we do start at that point we see how antithetical this view is to any conception of mere ‘tolerance.’ The total intention here is our sanctification and the full communion with God.” (Pg. 422)

He admits, “The widespread disagreements in the Church’s dogmatics might tempt us to abandon, or at least to water down, the Reformation teaching on the clarity of Scripture. This is surely the case when we look at the original sin debates. If we resist that urge, however, and examine the debates in a scriptural focus, we shall soon discover a remarkable consensus on the common and universal character of sin. The disagreements are apparent with the issue turns on the seriousness and depth of sin. They are apparent, for example, in the concept of total corruption and its implications for the original sin dogma.” (Pg. 485)

He states, “We admit… that the term ‘original sin’ in itself (hereditary sin) is very far from clear. It is subject to a number of misunderstandings Yet the mere criticism of the term should not imply a lack of appreciation for the real depths of man’s own sin. Furthermore, the fact of man’s own guilt is very much at the center of discussion in a large number of original sin conceptions. Our guilt must not be relativized by an explanation of the ‘components’ of our guilt. At the same time, it is manifest that the Church’s confession has differed immensely from the notion of a fatal calamity or a natural and self-evident ‘inheritance’ of evil.” (Pg. 530)

For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very interesting reading project.

[Scott Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

G.C. Berkouwer was one of the leading 20th century Reformed theologians in Europe where he held the chair of Systematic Theology at the Free University at Amsterdam. Berkouwer’s fourteen volume Studies in Dogmatics are considered to be one of the major theological works of his Reformed generation, perhaps second only in influence to Swiss theologian Karl Barth’s opus magnum dogmatics. Berkouwer’s volume on the Biblical doctrine of sin is exhaustive, both in terms of his exegetical mastery, as well as in regards to the author’s in-depth analysis of contemporary and historical thought on the subject. Indeed, this volume represents a survey of thought on sin that spans the history of Christendom. Yet the author most frequently quotes Calvin-scholar Herman Bavinck, including a seminal quote that “sin has no origin, only a beginning.” This sets the tenor for Berkouwer’s claim “that sin can never be explained or causally interpreted, but can only be confessed.” Again he states, “man’s sin is unreasonable and unexplainable,” constituting what Bavinck calls an “incomprehensible riddle.” Yet all this does not mean that the sovereign God of the universe does not come into contact with sin, but rather that God’s activities are manifest “exactly in and through man’s sins.” Berkouwer proceeds to (graciously) debunk both monism (God alone being the author of both good and evil, light and dark) as well as dualism (God and Satan are autonomous, coeternal), while ever cautioning the reader to never overstep scriptural boundaries. Berkouwer also explores the relationship between law and sin, including an in-depth study on the three legitimate uses of law (reveal God’s righteousness, restrain sin, sanctify the believer), in contrast to Jewish misuse of Torah (self-justification). He provides a fascinating exegesis on the unpardonable sin, contrasting blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the gospels with blasphemy against the Son found in the epistles. However I found the section on original sin to be the most enlightening section of this work. In his final chapters, Berkouwer does an extraordinary job of explaining and critiquing Realism (humankind was somehow physically present in Adam’s transgression) and Federalism wherein an “alien guilt” is forensically imputed upon Adam’s prosperity. Berkouwer then posits a distinctive “corporate” viewpoint. And herein lies a weakness of this work. I would have appreciated a more in-depth analysis and exegetical defense of this latter corporate position. However I still rate the work five stars for its overall in-depth and nuanced study of a most critical subject. To Dostoyevsky’s famous quote, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” I would add, “If scripture does not exist, nothing is knowable.”

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great, helpful book!

Check out my review here: https://wordpress.com/post/humbleinqu....