Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof

Source Evidence

Edit history

Editorial notes about changes to this quote's text or presentation.

1. Undated

   This quotation comes from **Louis BerkhofΓÇÖs *Systematic Theology***, in the section where he evaluates **Karl BarthΓÇÖs doctrine of revelation**. The relevant material appears in the chapter on ΓÇ£The Doctrine of the Word of GodΓÇ¥ (original Dutch work 1932; English editions circulated from 1938 onward, with the widely used Eerdmans edition appearing in 1941). The line you provided is a paraphrased explanation of BarthΓÇÖs view followed by BerkhofΓÇÖs rejection of it. Berkhof is explaining what Barth taught about revelation and then positioning the Reformed tradition against it. Barth argued that revelation cannot be reduced to an object we can possess or analyze. For Barth, revelation is always GodΓÇÖs free act, always personal, always event-like, and always tied to Jesus Christ encountered in the present moment. Scripture, in BarthΓÇÖs account, does not *become* revelation simply by existing; it becomes revelation when God chooses to use it as His instrument of self-disclosure in a given moment. This makes revelation dynamic and existential rather than fixed and objective. Berkhof acknowledges that Barth is reacting against a rationalistic or mechanical view of revelation and that there is truth in warning against treating Scripture as if it worked automatically. But Berkhof insists that Barth went too far. For Berkhof and for classical Reformed theology, revelation can indeed become objective without ceasing to be divine. The written Word is part of GodΓÇÖs revelation precisely because God intentionally inscripturated His self-disclosure. Scripture is not merely a witness to revelation or a potential carrier of revelation; it is revelation given once for all. Because God speaks in the written Word, the church is not left to rely on fluctuating existential moments to determine what God has said. The purpose of BerkhofΓÇÖs critique is to defend a stable, normative doctrine of Scripture against the increasing influence of dialectical theology in the early twentieth century. Barth, Brunner, and others were attempting to move theology away from nineteenth century liberalism, and Berkhof appreciated that corrective. Yet he believed their method left the church without a solid, publicly accessible Word of God that can be studied, preached, and trusted as revelation in itself. The historical background is the broad theological struggle of the early twentieth century, when Reformed theologians were trying to preserve confessional commitments while responding to new continental approaches to revelation and the nature of theology. In essence, Berkhof is saying that while Barth recovered valuable truths about the living God who encounters His people personally, his overall view makes revelation too subjective and too unstable. BerkhofΓÇÖs intent is to draw the Reformed line clearly: revelation is rooted in history, grounded in Scripture, and given once for all, not recreated in each existential moment. Citations: Louis Berkhof, *Systematic Theology*, Eerdmans, 1941, section ΓÇ£The Doctrine of the Word of God,ΓÇ¥ discussion of BarthΓÇÖs view of revelation.