Re: Apologetics & Scripture

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Mon, 30 Oct 1995 16:12:03 GMT

Terry Gray wrote:
> I *have* read Pinnock and Bloesch and while I resonate with much of what
> they say, in the end I find their perspective to be fundamentally in error.
> I am sympathetic with their emphasis on the purpose of scripture as a
> hermeneutical principle so that many of the problems go away because
> scripture is not addressing the questions that we are asking (what Jim
> seems to mean by the scripture principle, I think). However, I believe
> that Pinnock and Bloesch and many of who are sometimes called
> "neo-evangelicals" have given
> away the store. They have so stressed the human aspects of Biblical
> revelation that the Bible as first and foremost *God's* word has
> disappeared.

Thanks for grasping this nettle. It is a real problem knowing how to
handle able scholars who do seem to be going down a road of their own
making. I have always had a problem with Barthianism - it wants the
evangelical experience without the historical foundation.

I want to come back on the Two Books approach (a responce to Gordie's
posts will have to wait) - and suggest that the Barthian position is
one outworking of it. Just as nature is separated from grace in
"natural philosophy", so grace is separated from nature in "Barthian
theology". Neither of these approaches do justice to the unity of
truth, the harmony between God's revelation in nature and God's
revelation in Christ, nor the scriptural pattern of God's Word coming
to man in a historical context.

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***