I assert the communication problem is there. It may well be entirely on my side of the equation, but it is still there. In reading Berkhof, I found myself in agreement with what he said. In one part of his presentation, he paraphrases an author who paraphrased Augustine. I was pleasantly surprised to find this:
Another problem, which received a great deal of attention during the Middle Ages, was that of the relation between reason and revelation, and this also bore on the proper conception of the Word of God. The work of E. Gilson on Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages contains an instructive survey of the different representations of this relationship. He points out that Augustine opened up a new era in the history of western thought, when he said that the safest way to reach truth, is not the one that takes its starting point in reason, and then proceeds from rational certainty to faith, but the one that starts from faith, and then proceeds from revelation to reason. (emphasis added)
A more concise expression of my thoughts, I could not have given.
As far as Barth goes, I do agree for the most part, but there are points upon which I disagree:
1. "The whole Bible is never to any individual the Word of God, perhaps only a small part of it is, and now one and now another.”
I believe the Word of God is the Word of God whether God speaks to Himself or not. Whether someone hears or not. His Word is not incumbent upon someone hearing, but He does say that It will not return unto Him void, but accomplish the end whereunto He sent it.
2. "The primary form, the original revelation, is Jesus Christ, the revelation given once for all. Hence, both Barth and Brunner speak of the revelation as einmalig. Says Barth: “To know anything about revelation in the original, true and strict sense of the concept, we must know Jesus Christ.” Revelation, p. 45. However, this revelation given once for all is not to be found, where the liberals find it, in Jesus as a historical person, nor in the teachings of Jesus, but in the appearance of something absolutely new in Him, something formerly veiled and hidden. It is the manifestation of the eternal Word of God in Him, the actual coming of God to man as a God of grace, bringing sinful man into judgment, but at the same time offering a way of escape. This revelation shines forth especially in the incarnation, in the passion of our Lord, and in His resurrection. However, even this revelation is not completed and does not become a real revelation, until it is brought to recognition in, and meets with the response of, a God-given faith. Faith must pierce the incognito of Jesus and see in Him very God of God."
While I agree that historical consideration does not have the power to bring one to Christ (or the Word made flesh), His teachings are, nonetheless true, and His words inspired in the highest sense. Here, though, I also find the seed which sprouts a greater understanding of the difficulty of a rigid literalism in verbal inspiration. There are four gospels. There are slightly differing accounts of certain events between all four gospels. They don't all even quote Jesus identically. Now, to adhere to a literal, verbal inspiration, one would have to hold that ANY words that are not carried through EXACTLY as they were uttered, would not be the Word of God. But because we have ample evidence in the 4 gospels of different words for the same quotes of Jesus Christ, then we must either a) abandon the idea that the bible we have is literally inspired or b) Recognize that human expression is limited to such a degree that the Word of God encompasses many different expressions of it. If we accept b), then we must admit that the word itself, the letter, is not as critical as the spirit behind it. Thus, the Word of God is to be known by spirit more than letter.
3. "The Bible is not the revelation, but the witness to the revelation. The Word of God may come up out of the word of this witness, and is never heard apart from it. In view of all this the Bible can still be called the Word of God."
I agree insofar as whenever someone writes a book and many people read it, there will not likely be the same picture of what is written in any two readers' minds. The Word of God, just like the word of an author, MUST be deeper than the letter. There is still something I can't place my finger on that I don't quite agree with in going from the first statement to the conclusion.
4. "...Barth does not conceive of faith, even after it is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, as a constant possession of man, something which enables man to lay hold on God and His revelation. This would again put man in possession of a way from man to God, and would make God and His revelation an object."
With this I cannot agree at all. Faith IS in man's possession. While undoubtedly a gift of God, what kind of a gift would it be if we had no freedom of use? THus I disagree with this: "There is no revelation apart from faith, and this faith is not primarily an activity of man; it is rather something in which man is passive. It is a miracle wrought in man by the Holy Spirit." The gift may be given passively (i.e. without man's activity), but the activity of it most definitely IS man's activity.
5. "...the idea of a progressive revelation does not find favor with him, since it would again make revelation something historical."
Maybe a minor point, but I believe revelation IS progressive - even if there are times when epiphany strikes all at once, revelation must be progressive. This can even be shown from mathematics!
6. "It is regrettable that he regards the Bible as a merely human book with many imperfections, and therefore as a legitimate subject for literary and historical criticism."
Well, again, looking at the letter and with human reasoning, the cosmetic paradoxes are a problem - but that is one reason the Holy Spirit is more vital than the Bible itself. Personally, I wouldn't say the bible was (is) merely a human book. But criticism...that's a bit more difficult from the historical pov.
7."...the statement that God’s Word speaks to us in the Holy Scriptures has at once to be supplemented by adding that the word of the Bible is the Word of God to us only in so far as God’s Holy Spirit opens our ears so that we can hear His voice in the word of the Apostles — something which at no time can be taken for granted."
I find this more ironic than anything. Partly because the conference at which this paper was delivered was a Calvinist one. And it is God Himself who told the prophet Isaiah to make the hearts of this people fat etc.... LEST THEY BE CONVERTED. So while I would NEVER take such a fatalistic approach to 'hearing the Word' - we are always to examine ourselves and seek the Lord - it seems odd that a Calvinistic conference would find such difficulty with this statement.
8. "It cannot be said, however, that modern liberal theology does justice to Him as the Logos, since it denies His eternal pre-existence, refuses to honor Him as very God, and simply regards Him as the most perfect product of the historical process of evolution. Theirs is, to use Sanday’s term, only “a reduced Christianity.” Barth goes to another extreme. He not only repudiates the “historical Jesus” of modern liberal theology and the idea that Jesus is to be regarded as the product of history, but also denies that the revelation of God is to be found in the appearance of Jesus in history as such."
The last statement is only partially ridiculous. Jesus said that anybody who saw Him and said that they saw was blind and in their sins. So the historical view of Christ is, doctrinally speaking, not one that opens the eyes of the heart. Otherwise, this entire stance is just wrong, IMNTBHO.
There are other points on which I could comment, but that should be enough. I don't find a lot to disagree with in Berkhof. I will add, though, that the uses of 'scripture' even just in the NT are not identical in any way. In fact, the living nature of scripture (about which I agree with the spirit of Barth) is critical. Hebrews 4 describes the Word of God as alive. By that definition alone, one must realize that revelation (in scripture) is not the sum total of God's expression, and to know the same Spirit that inspired the scriptures is to know the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, the same Spirit that was CALLED scripture and spoke to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), and the same Spirit that opened the scriptures to the disciples (Luke 24) - in short, the Word of God.
