G. C. Berkouwer

[Philip]

In my studies, I keep coming across the Dutch theologian G.C. Berkouwer. He's appeared in discussions of Roman Catholicism, Barth's theology (as an irenic critic). In a previous thread, this came up:

I could be wrong, but I think the "early Berkouwer" is better, theologically, than the "late Berkouwer," in that, later in his career, he became very sympathetic to the Neo-orthodox movement (Karl Barth, et al). Earlier, he had opposed them. Among his published works, though, I don't know where the "split" would be - which books are "early" and which "late." So, proceed with caution.

As I'm reading his book on providence, I do see favorable references to Barth, but so far, they seem to be exactly in the places where I would reference him positively. We'll see what happens when I get to revelation and views of Scripture.

So far, I'm fairly impressed, but a little bemused as to why I'd never come across his work before. Thoughts?

 

[RamistThomist]

In my studies, I keep coming across the Dutch theologian G.C. Berkouwer. He's appeared in discussions of Roman Catholicism, Barth's theology (as an irenic critic). In a previous thread, this came up:

I could be wrong, but I think the "early Berkouwer" is better, theologically, than the "late Berkouwer," in that, later in his career, he became very sympathetic to the Neo-orthodox movement (Karl Barth, et al). Earlier, he had opposed them. Among his published works, though, I don't know where the "split" would be - which books are "early" and which "late." So, proceed with caution.

As I'm reading his book on providence, I do see favorable references to Barth, but so far, they seem to be exactly in the places where I would reference him positively. We'll see what happens when I get to revelation and views of Scripture.

So far, I'm fairly impressed, but a little bemused as to why I'd never come across his work before. Thoughts?

John Gerstner considered him the greatest living Reformed theologian. He is kinder to Barth but by no means endorses the whole project. And it is important to keep in mind that Barth's own theology took a turn around CD IV/1 (neither necessarily for the better or worse).

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Philip:

So far, I'm fairly impressed, but a little bemused as to why I'd never come across his work before. Thoughts?

Why haven't you come across GCB before? Perhaps because you've been engaged more in philosophical than theological study. I say that because if one is studying Reformed theology, such as we do at our Reformed seminaries, you'll come across him frequently in the theological studies division, even as you will Ridderbos in the NT studies department. GCB is an important figure whether we agree with him or not. I've long found him helpful, whatever differences I may have with him.

Peace,
Alan

 

[arapahoepark]

I came across an article in a SBTS magazine that listed his book on Justification as a must read for justification along with a handful of other reformed authors. I haven't read it but, perhaps it is sound?

 

[jambo]

I had most Berkouwer's volumes in his "Studies in Dogmatics" series. He is worth reading and am quite surprised you
have not come across him before.

 

[bookslover]

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996).

His Wikipedia page gives a very helpful comparison of the original Dutch and English versions of his multi-volume Studies in Dogmatics: 18 volumes in the original Dutch (1949-1972), and 14 volumes in English (1952-1976). There are fewer volumes in English because, in four cases, two-volume works in Dutch are combined into a single English volume.

The page links to an obituary (he lived to be 92) which contains these statements: Initially regarded as a leading conservative, Berkouwer gained increasing prominence in ecumenical circles and became an advocate and defender of more progressive positions...Almost everyone agrees that Berkouwer's thinking underwent a shift. Observers committed to Reformed orthodoxy indicate that, especially during the 1950s, Berkouwer departed from the classic Reformed viewpoint on several issues. For example, a comparison between his earlier and later writings show a shift of viewpoint regarding matters like the authority of Scripture and original sin.

I believe a comparison of his earlier and later writings show a softening of his attitude toward Barth, as well.