Re: [asa] The Barr quote

I'm not terribly concerned about what one theolgian or another would label something but I think what Rich says is essentially correct. It's clearer if one uses "Word of God" terminology in which scripture, as primary witness to Christ as the Word of God, is the Word of God.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: David Opderbeck
  Cc: Murray Hogg ; ASA
  Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] The Barr quote

  On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:59 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

    Murray, thanks for this thorough review. You quoted Barr as follows: "This is so because, if we are to ask what the Bible 'properly' is, as distinct from 'transferred' terms like 'the Word of God', we would have to say, as I wrote long ago, not revelation coming from God to humanity but the Church's (properly: Israel's and, later, the Church's) response to and interpretation of that revelation."

    I respond: clearly, I need to know more about Barr than I do. Is Barr here taking essentially a post-Barthian neoorthodox view of revelation?

  It sure passes the duck test except I believe Barth would call the church's "response and interpretation of that revelation" to be revelation. In that sense, Barr appears to go beyond Barth. Any theologians care to comment here?

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 19 11:10:56 2008