Aug 4, 2010 “Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Karl Barth”

‎”Although Barth also speaks of the written and preached Word of God, they are its secondary forms. Both Scripture and proclamation become the Word of God through God’s gracious action and presence in His Spirit, but they are secondary forms because they are essentially pointers to the concrete acts of God in the covenant history culminating in Jesus Christ.”

“In its attempt to secure the authority of the Holy Scripture against all detractors, Orthodoxy moved in the direction of equating Scripture-without any qualification-with the Word of God. By presuming that the Scriptures must provide a “divine and infallible history,” Orthodoxy transformed the Scriptures from a witness to revelation into a doctrinal sourcebook. In so doing, the rigid and rationalistic orthodox doctrine of inspiration denied, in effect, the lordship of God over the biblical witnesses. The orthodox attempt to secure the authority of the Scripture by a high view of inspiration failed because it misconstrued the nature of the Bible and did not account for its humanity and therewith its fallibility. As such, it marked a retrogression from the adequate doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture held by Luther and Calvin. ”For them,” Barth writes, ”the literally inspired Bible was not at all a revealed book of oracles, but a witness to revelation, to be interpreted from the standpoint of and with a view to its theme, and in conformity with that theme.” Protestant Orthodoxy’s view of inspiration, however, moved in the direction of venerating a ”paper pope.” Barth concluded: It ”asserted things which cannot be maintained in face of a serious reading and exposition of what the Bible itself says about itself, and in face of an honest appreciation of the facts of its origin and tradition.” “

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Franke, John R.:

“Likewise, the use God makes of the words of the prophets and apostles entails no impartation or communication of divine attributes and perfections to those words. They remain subject to their inherent limitations as a creaturely medium. The consequence of this notion of indirect revelation is that it remains hidden to outward, normal, or ”natural” human perception and requires that human beings be given ”the eyse and ears of faith” in order to perceive the unveiling of God that remains hidden in the creaturely veil.”

“In this framework of indirect identity, we are able to affirm God”s use of human language in the act of revelation without denying our theological and existential awareness of its inherent limitations and contingencies as a contextually situated creaturely medium. (This is the main point of Peter Enns” book, ”Incarnation and Inspiration” though I don’t recall him referencing Barth.)