In reply to:
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.

May I suggest, again if I am understanding you correctly, that you have performed presuppositional surgery upon Augustine's words and not taken them as Augustine actually intended? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] What Augustine was positing is that man cannot "reason God" (from the natural creation or his own intuition). That is, man cannot begin by examining the natural order and then "conclude" God in such a way that he then believes . . . unto salvation. Paul tells us that God IS revealed in the natural creation and order of things (Rom 1:18-21; cf. Psa 19:1-6) as well as within the very being of man. However, Paul previously made it clear that "faith" only comes via the Gospel.. i.e., the declaration of propositional truth as it is found in Christ and His vicarious substitutionary work. Again, faith is the fruit of regeneration, which in the case of adults ALWAYS comes by the Spirit's working in and through the written Word. God "speaks" in His Word and made efficacious by the Spirit. There is no incongruity between the written Word and what the Spirit "says", for He is the author of that written Word. In fact, the Lord Christ told His disciples that when the Spirit comes, He (the Spirit) will teach them all things. Some would take this to mean that the Spirit impresses knowledge upon the mind of an individual apart from the written Word, when in fact the Spirit teaches via the written Word. See Dr. Fowler White's article on this subject here: Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible?
In reply to:
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.

The problem I see with your illustration is that it does not take into account that the writers of Holy Writ were guided by the Holy Spirit; i.e., inspired.

2 Peter 1:19-21 (ASV) "And we have the word of prophecy [made] more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
On this subject, see Dr. Edward J. Young's article here: The Human Writers of Scripture
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]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.

Methinks you have accredited the above quote to Berkhof, when in fact they belong to Emil Brunner. He is what Berkhof actually wrote preceding the section you quoted:

Of course, he [Barth] would fully agree with Brunner in saying that . . .
Fatalistic approach to 'hearing the Word'? Again, if I have misunderstood your meaning here, I apologize. But, there is nothing "fatalistic" whatsoever in what God told Isaiah; not in the intent nor manner in which Isaiah was to bring the truth of God to the people. In fact, following suit, the Lord Christ quotes this passage in Isa 6:9, 10 when explaining to His disciples why it was that none seemed to understand His parables. (cf. Mk 4:10-12; Jh 12:37-41). This is certainly what Heb 4:12 is teaching as well "two-edged sword, i.e., the Word of God in it's objective propositional truth either conforms a believer into the image of Christ or it hardens the unbeliever against the Lord Christ. There is a conviction of the Spirit which brings forth repentance unto life. And there is a conviction of man's conscience which brings forth wrath against God. (2Cor 7:10; see Jh 10:30-33; Acts 6:8-7:60).
In reply to:
[color:#000099]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.[/color]

Once again, I admit to having to "strain" a bit to understand what it is exactly you are trying to say. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/gramps.gif" alt="gramps" title="gramps[/img] [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/stupidme.gif" alt="stupidme" title="stupidme[/img] But, are you saying that theoretically, at least, it doesn't make much difference if there was a historical Jesus? or perhaps that His historicity is unimportant in relation to true faith?



In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]