What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Dogmatics
The Church
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 theologians
- GenresTheology
440 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
38 people want to read
About the author
G.C. Berkouwer
35 books20 followersGerrit 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 29, 2024
THE FINAL 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,Sin,The Return of Christ, and Holy Scripture. 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 1970/1972 book, “Whoever feels urged to reflect on the Church, on her reality for faith, finds himself face to face with a long series of varied questions, all closely linked to the fact that there are so many churches as well as so many differing views of the essence of the Church. In our day, especially, still another question looms behind these questions: in view of the Church’s place in the world today, is such reflection really relevant? Every traditional ecclesiology speaks of the great, unique significance of the Church---her mystery, her divine origin, her relationship to Christ, her continuity, and her future. In light of such exalted language, the question of the Church’s relevance becomes even more challenging.” (Pg. 7)
He observes, “In the history of the Church, various attempts have been made to clarify the reality of the one Church and the many churches. There is an overwhelming consensus, first of all, that the division of the Church has its origin in human sin… there is a great danger here of forgetting the destructive character of sin and becoming resigned to it… Moreover, one can forget that Christ’s concern for His Church was precisely to bring together in love and reconciliation all the children of God who are scattered abroad. Thus, whoever wants to speak of division as an ‘absolute’ of the real Church… actually obliterates the reality of the one Lord, the one Shepherd of the sheep… Every ‘realistic’ explanation threatens to blur the riddle of the disunity.” (Pg. 33-34)
He explains, “We want to take a separate look at a remarkable and suggestive ecclesiological theory, the doctrine of the pluriformity, or multiformity, of the Church… At first glance this formulation is clear. It points to an undeniable state of affairs, the multiplicity of churches. ‘Pluriformity’ forces us to open our eyes to the many and the multiform. Moreover, the concept of ‘pluriformity’ implies that, at its deepest level, there is only one Church!... the theory rejects al churchism, which, resting in the exclusive truth of one’s own church, draws simple, radically critical conclusions regarding the other churches. Further, we sense a certain richness in the doctrine of pluriformity… [which] makes room for variegation and distinction, both of which are so valuable for all human life: because reality if not captive to uniformity, it is richer, not poorer.” (Pg. 51-52)
He suggests, “Because of the nature of the Church, there must be appreciation for the free, inner choice of others; and there can be no pressure, as is true in the activity of missions. One’s testimony must be clearly separated from seeking for one’s own honor and also clearly separated from OUR cause, from OUR group, or from a transformation according to OUR mode. Otherwise, the essence of being the Church is violated. That dander looms up frequently in history when the impression is given that one’s distinctive structure shows originality, particular qualities that distinguish it from and set it above other churches. When that happens the Church and the confession have been secularized in a particular form of distinctive ‘identity,’ and the gospel is misunderstood.” (Pg. 73)
He argues, “Heresy must not be simply identified with schism, which is a serious thing in itself; rather, it is, as it were, an intensification of schism… Frequently, heresy is not in a radically antithetical position in opposition to the truth, but rather intends to make a stand for the truth along the way of subjective emphases and selection. Then it is not a denial of or an attack on the truth, but a process of living and thinking that pulls the truth out of shape. Truth is no longer confessed in its wholeness and organic connections, because particular aspect are neglected in favor of others. The process is not always immediately visible but, in the end, it destroys the outlook on catholicity.” (Pg. 116-117)
He acknowledges, “we meet many people who do not belong to the Church and do not want to. Their number exceeds those who have a place in the Church. Since… no one is excluded in the proclamation of the Church in the world, what kind of ‘reality’ are we dealing with here?... For it is a limitation of that fellowship which is interested in the world, which seeks to relate all to the proclaimed salvation… So it is not surprising that in the history of theology and the Church there has often been intense reflection on the boundaries of the Church.” (Pg. 131) Later, he adds, “Obviously, the Church, in proclaiming the gospel to all, must ask herself whether and to what extent she herself has been a hindrance for those who remained outside. Does standing outside always signify a stumbling over the [scandal] of the gospel? Or is it possible that the Church, as well as theology, is also responsible for the fact that other [scandals] have played a significant role?” (Pg. 150-151)
He asserts, “The fear of accommodation to changed times and to changing human insight ha often led to petrification, and many attempts have been made to protect the unchangeable against the destruction of adaptation. But this ‘unchangeability’ can hardly be distinguished from that of the talent hidden in the ground and eventually taken away from the slothful, wicked servant because it was unchanged and unfruitful… There is a kind of unchangeability or continuity that lacks perspective---an archaeological phenomenon that lacks fruitfulness and is powerless to be a blessing in new, changed times… But the gospel has nothing to do with this unchanging petrification.” (Pg. 191)
He says of the promise given by Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16, “The statement ‘you are Peter’ … engraved in large letters in the Church of Peter at Rome, recalls this comprehensive promise to Peter as the “Prince of all the apostles’ and as the ‘visible head’ of the whole Church militant. The promise cannot be isolated on account of the continuance of the Church to the end of the ages. The Reformed tradition has repeatedly viewed the rock on which the Church would be built not so much as the person of Peter, but as his confession. But one saw this as an escape from the evidence of the story, which places Peter fully in the light… But this interest in the person of Peter must not lead us to neglect the context of the promise to Peter, especially when we consider that we confront a moving problematic about continuity in the gospels precisely in Peter’s life.” (Pg. 262-263)
He notes, “That the … complexity of holiness and unholiness, may never be understood as an inevitable, necessary ‘structure’ of the Church in this life and that it is never possible ‘structure’ of the Church in this life and that it is never possible to attribute meaning to sin in the Church appears most clearly from the way in which the Church is placed under the calling to walk in the truth Apostolicity and holiness concern each other directly in this admonition, and they cannot be isolated from each other, Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably connected.” (Pg. 355-356)
He states, “We tough here on the far-reaching problematic of tolerance and intolerance… Many hesitations about doctrinal discipline are connected to the fact that it, at least at first sight, has the appearance of far-reaching intolerance, haughtiness, and narrowness. This appearance is strengthened further if a certain arbitrariness penetrates into discipline with respect to the preaching of the gospel, arousing doubt about whether the Church is truly concerned in her disciple with the gospel… Moreover, concern with… verbal conformity can slacken concern for forms of heresy that penetrate under the seeming protection of orthodoxy; the life and thought of the Church can capitulate to particular ideologies, frequently even with an appeal to the gospel.” (Pg. 380)
He adds, “In recognition of truth, and thus also of heresy, the Church is tested on her faith, her confession. All heresy contains not only a threat, but also a challenge, since it always wants to understand the truth of God more highly and deeply… She will be able to defend against heresy meaningfully online if she actively undermines it. Therein, she does the greatest service possible to heresy. The Church, with respect to the problem of doctrinal discipline, has understandably never been able to escape into a ‘tolerance’ without nuance… Only if the Church understands the gospel---to be interpreted again and again as joyful news---and throws open all the gates in the proclamation, may she … stand in the breech as the witness to threatened salvation. And only where this salvation is obscured or limited may she be ‘intolerant’… as a reference to the ‘forbearance’ of God, which radiates in the gospel to the whole creation.” (Pg. 388-389)
In the last chapter, he states, “This inner compassion forms the core of the gospel. Everything is disclosed by the compassion of Christ as it is described for us in the gospel when He has compassion on the sheep without a shepherd… In contrast with the lack of interest of men for sinners, the light of the concentrated interest of the Lord for the blind, miserable, poor, lonely, and lost… shines forth. Such compassion has often been limited due to fears that doors would be opened too widely, since one shuddered at the idea of ‘cheap grace.’ And via a horrible misunderstanding, the abundance and depth of this divine compassion was often placed in the constricted lines of a wrong view of election, which obscured the outlook on the mystery of divine love… Then it became extremely difficult to see that divine compassion is not a pseudo-emotion, but an inner, impenetrable mystery that led the throng to glorify God.” (Pg. 400-401)
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.
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,Sin,The Return of Christ, and Holy Scripture. 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 1970/1972 book, “Whoever feels urged to reflect on the Church, on her reality for faith, finds himself face to face with a long series of varied questions, all closely linked to the fact that there are so many churches as well as so many differing views of the essence of the Church. In our day, especially, still another question looms behind these questions: in view of the Church’s place in the world today, is such reflection really relevant? Every traditional ecclesiology speaks of the great, unique significance of the Church---her mystery, her divine origin, her relationship to Christ, her continuity, and her future. In light of such exalted language, the question of the Church’s relevance becomes even more challenging.” (Pg. 7)
He observes, “In the history of the Church, various attempts have been made to clarify the reality of the one Church and the many churches. There is an overwhelming consensus, first of all, that the division of the Church has its origin in human sin… there is a great danger here of forgetting the destructive character of sin and becoming resigned to it… Moreover, one can forget that Christ’s concern for His Church was precisely to bring together in love and reconciliation all the children of God who are scattered abroad. Thus, whoever wants to speak of division as an ‘absolute’ of the real Church… actually obliterates the reality of the one Lord, the one Shepherd of the sheep… Every ‘realistic’ explanation threatens to blur the riddle of the disunity.” (Pg. 33-34)
He explains, “We want to take a separate look at a remarkable and suggestive ecclesiological theory, the doctrine of the pluriformity, or multiformity, of the Church… At first glance this formulation is clear. It points to an undeniable state of affairs, the multiplicity of churches. ‘Pluriformity’ forces us to open our eyes to the many and the multiform. Moreover, the concept of ‘pluriformity’ implies that, at its deepest level, there is only one Church!... the theory rejects al churchism, which, resting in the exclusive truth of one’s own church, draws simple, radically critical conclusions regarding the other churches. Further, we sense a certain richness in the doctrine of pluriformity… [which] makes room for variegation and distinction, both of which are so valuable for all human life: because reality if not captive to uniformity, it is richer, not poorer.” (Pg. 51-52)
He suggests, “Because of the nature of the Church, there must be appreciation for the free, inner choice of others; and there can be no pressure, as is true in the activity of missions. One’s testimony must be clearly separated from seeking for one’s own honor and also clearly separated from OUR cause, from OUR group, or from a transformation according to OUR mode. Otherwise, the essence of being the Church is violated. That dander looms up frequently in history when the impression is given that one’s distinctive structure shows originality, particular qualities that distinguish it from and set it above other churches. When that happens the Church and the confession have been secularized in a particular form of distinctive ‘identity,’ and the gospel is misunderstood.” (Pg. 73)
He argues, “Heresy must not be simply identified with schism, which is a serious thing in itself; rather, it is, as it were, an intensification of schism… Frequently, heresy is not in a radically antithetical position in opposition to the truth, but rather intends to make a stand for the truth along the way of subjective emphases and selection. Then it is not a denial of or an attack on the truth, but a process of living and thinking that pulls the truth out of shape. Truth is no longer confessed in its wholeness and organic connections, because particular aspect are neglected in favor of others. The process is not always immediately visible but, in the end, it destroys the outlook on catholicity.” (Pg. 116-117)
He acknowledges, “we meet many people who do not belong to the Church and do not want to. Their number exceeds those who have a place in the Church. Since… no one is excluded in the proclamation of the Church in the world, what kind of ‘reality’ are we dealing with here?... For it is a limitation of that fellowship which is interested in the world, which seeks to relate all to the proclaimed salvation… So it is not surprising that in the history of theology and the Church there has often been intense reflection on the boundaries of the Church.” (Pg. 131) Later, he adds, “Obviously, the Church, in proclaiming the gospel to all, must ask herself whether and to what extent she herself has been a hindrance for those who remained outside. Does standing outside always signify a stumbling over the [scandal] of the gospel? Or is it possible that the Church, as well as theology, is also responsible for the fact that other [scandals] have played a significant role?” (Pg. 150-151)
He asserts, “The fear of accommodation to changed times and to changing human insight ha often led to petrification, and many attempts have been made to protect the unchangeable against the destruction of adaptation. But this ‘unchangeability’ can hardly be distinguished from that of the talent hidden in the ground and eventually taken away from the slothful, wicked servant because it was unchanged and unfruitful… There is a kind of unchangeability or continuity that lacks perspective---an archaeological phenomenon that lacks fruitfulness and is powerless to be a blessing in new, changed times… But the gospel has nothing to do with this unchanging petrification.” (Pg. 191)
He says of the promise given by Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16, “The statement ‘you are Peter’ … engraved in large letters in the Church of Peter at Rome, recalls this comprehensive promise to Peter as the “Prince of all the apostles’ and as the ‘visible head’ of the whole Church militant. The promise cannot be isolated on account of the continuance of the Church to the end of the ages. The Reformed tradition has repeatedly viewed the rock on which the Church would be built not so much as the person of Peter, but as his confession. But one saw this as an escape from the evidence of the story, which places Peter fully in the light… But this interest in the person of Peter must not lead us to neglect the context of the promise to Peter, especially when we consider that we confront a moving problematic about continuity in the gospels precisely in Peter’s life.” (Pg. 262-263)
He notes, “That the … complexity of holiness and unholiness, may never be understood as an inevitable, necessary ‘structure’ of the Church in this life and that it is never possible ‘structure’ of the Church in this life and that it is never possible to attribute meaning to sin in the Church appears most clearly from the way in which the Church is placed under the calling to walk in the truth Apostolicity and holiness concern each other directly in this admonition, and they cannot be isolated from each other, Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably connected.” (Pg. 355-356)
He states, “We tough here on the far-reaching problematic of tolerance and intolerance… Many hesitations about doctrinal discipline are connected to the fact that it, at least at first sight, has the appearance of far-reaching intolerance, haughtiness, and narrowness. This appearance is strengthened further if a certain arbitrariness penetrates into discipline with respect to the preaching of the gospel, arousing doubt about whether the Church is truly concerned in her disciple with the gospel… Moreover, concern with… verbal conformity can slacken concern for forms of heresy that penetrate under the seeming protection of orthodoxy; the life and thought of the Church can capitulate to particular ideologies, frequently even with an appeal to the gospel.” (Pg. 380)
He adds, “In recognition of truth, and thus also of heresy, the Church is tested on her faith, her confession. All heresy contains not only a threat, but also a challenge, since it always wants to understand the truth of God more highly and deeply… She will be able to defend against heresy meaningfully online if she actively undermines it. Therein, she does the greatest service possible to heresy. The Church, with respect to the problem of doctrinal discipline, has understandably never been able to escape into a ‘tolerance’ without nuance… Only if the Church understands the gospel---to be interpreted again and again as joyful news---and throws open all the gates in the proclamation, may she … stand in the breech as the witness to threatened salvation. And only where this salvation is obscured or limited may she be ‘intolerant’… as a reference to the ‘forbearance’ of God, which radiates in the gospel to the whole creation.” (Pg. 388-389)
In the last chapter, he states, “This inner compassion forms the core of the gospel. Everything is disclosed by the compassion of Christ as it is described for us in the gospel when He has compassion on the sheep without a shepherd… In contrast with the lack of interest of men for sinners, the light of the concentrated interest of the Lord for the blind, miserable, poor, lonely, and lost… shines forth. Such compassion has often been limited due to fears that doors would be opened too widely, since one shuddered at the idea of ‘cheap grace.’ And via a horrible misunderstanding, the abundance and depth of this divine compassion was often placed in the constricted lines of a wrong view of election, which obscured the outlook on the mystery of divine love… Then it became extremely difficult to see that divine compassion is not a pseudo-emotion, but an inner, impenetrable mystery that led the throng to glorify God.” (Pg. 400-401)
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.
February 15, 2024
The Jane Austen of Dogmatic Studies of the Church, SDG
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 18, 2016
The early church father Cyprian stated, "You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the Church for your Mother." In this work, Berkouwer addresses some of the challenging questions regarding church unity and historic/current divisions. The following quote is especially challenging, "The unity is unquestionably clear: the Church is the household of God, the temple of God, the one flock of the one shepherd. All such characterizations make any thought of the plural simply ridiculous. Verbally, at least, this always seems to have been understood: we still hear the word 'churches,' but no one wants to transpose house, temple of God, bride, or flock into the plural!"
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews