The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Berkhof on the Trinity

While digging up material to supplement a fairly low-level Intro to Theology class newly offered by a nearby RCA church (which has graciously hosted some from our church in the past to teach evangelism, worldview, church history and Heidelberg), I stumbled across this Berkhof quote (Summary of Christian Doctrine, ch. 7) which I find quite troubling:



I do not know if this quote is accurate or not, but if so, my mind reels at his use of "order of existence", which implies, for the Son and the Holy Spirit, a "cessation of non-existence", which seems downright heretical. Was he ever challenged on the orthodoxy of this statement, or is he using--without clarification--some non-temporal combination of the terms "order, existence, first, second, third"? By way of apparent contrast, here are the appropriate lines from the Athanasian Creed:


Was Berkhof saying that the Athanasian Creed was wrong on these points? Did he claim to be in agreement by implying that the Son's substance was coeternal with the Father, but that the Son's person came into being later, upon having been begotten--and similary for the Spirit, upon proceeding? (I'm afraid his earlier remarks about the relation of the Persons to the Substance make me feel this is what he was saying.) Or was he just being very careless?

Paul,

I've attached what I believe is the relevant section of Berkhof's Systematic Theology as an attachment. I am thinking that after you read what he wrote in more detail there it will clear the matter up for you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Thank you, Pilgrim. The link you provided conforms, as I expected, very carefully to the language and thought of the Athanasian creed. But rather than clearing up the matter, I am left wondering how the same man could have penned the sentences I quoted. The Systematic rightly calls necessity and immutability to bear on the Father's generation of the Son (just to deal with that relation) while the Summary statement leaves me with a time when the Father was alone, followed--when?????--by the Son (second in "order of existence") , which destroys both the necessity of the Son's generation and the immutability of the Godhead.

I repeat, what's going on here? Even the language in the 2 articles--technically precise vs. carelessly vernacular--seems vastly different.

Perhaps a lesson is to be learned here.

It might be something like this: Even the best fall into error when trying to "dumb down" complex biblical truths. IMHO, nearly all of man's recent attempts to make the Bible "more readable", present a 10 second sound-byte Gospel, offer a more "friendly" worship environment, etc., have resulted in something foreign to truth and thus they are sinful and dishonoring to the God to whom these things are allegedly meant to glorify.

You can remove just so many pixels from a photo before it becomes unsuitable for use or even unrecognizable. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What was LB trying to answer or comment on? Was it a section on the eternal generation of the Son? THis statement is careless and only proves the fallibility of men.

I would have to disagree with that statement where you have pitted "revelation" against "education". The truth is that it is BOTH not either/or! The revelation of understanding comes through the means of education, whether one is self-taught or taught by others no less than salvation comes through the means of the Gospel.

In His grace,

I am speaking of formal education Pilgrim. Without the revelation empowered by the Holy Spirit. the amount of ones educaton is fruitless. Man puts too much emphasis on their degrees. But I know many with many degrees but no heat. I also know many who would be considered dumb to our standards, yet have a grasp of the Gospel unmatched by few.

How many trudge through seminary programs, extra letters after their name, and yet are not under the teaching of the Holy Spirit.