Re: [asa] The Barr quote - Barth and revelation

Hi David,

Yes, Barr took some strong objection to Barth's position on revelation
and natural theology (NT).

Indeed, he uses the infamous Brunner/Barth debate on the subject of NT
as one of the points of departure of his Gifford Lectures of 1991.

As I read it, Barr takes the view Barth's view of NT was inconsistent
with scripture - indeed, that Barth had allowed a theological
pre-commitment to determine possible interpretations of scripture and
what it had to say on NT. Barr does allow that this theological
pre-commitment was no whimsical fabrication on Barth's part (one must
not forget Barth's context - as a theologian of the confessing church in
opposition to Nazism), but he is quite certain that it leads Barth to
give less attention than he should have to those passages of scripture
which seem to give place to some sort of NT.

In short, my understanding of Barr's position is that he thinks that
Barth's theory of revelation should have lead - on the basis of the
scriptural witness - to a higher view of NT than Barth, in fact, evidenced.

Perhaps Barr's most succinct comment on Barth's view of NT is found in
the following footnote;

<quote>
Barth's assumption that the authority of scripture implies the denial of
natural theology is obvious in many places, e.g. Natural Theology, 82,
87, 107, etc. He repeatedly (and absurdly) attacks Brunner for denying
the supreme authority of scripture, as well as for upsetting the
principles of sola gratia and cola fides. In Natural Theology there is
no attempt on Barth's side to consider as a real question whether
scripture might sanction or imply natural theology. (Barr, James.
Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. p.20n31)
</quote>

Such, in very cursory terms, are Barr's views on Barth. And perhaps
needless to say his Gifford Lectures were an attempt to move forward the
project of NT after it had stalled due to an undue reverence for
Barthian views on the matter.

I will say, though, that to give a thorough coverage of Barr's
interaction with Barth would require a precis of Barr's entire book!

Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

David Opderbeck 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?

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 14:30:58 2008