The Inspiration Of Scripture In Reformation And In Barthian Theology

By William Young

Toronto, Ontario.

IN our time as in the days of the Reformation, the doctrine of holy Scripture presents crucial problems of fundamental significance for theology and the church. The problems differ, to be sure, as do the times. The relation of Scripture to ecclesiastical authority was the burning question of the sixteenth century. Our problems have come to center about the relation of Scripture to scientific inquiry, the term “scientific” being understood in the broadest possible sense, including the “spiritual” as well as the natural sciences, and philosophy as well as the special sciences. The problems concerning the authority of Scripture facing the Christian theologian of our generation consequently display a theoretical character which distinguishes them from the more directly practical nature of the problems confronted by the Reformers. This is not to say that our problems are not intensely practical in the strictest sense of the term. To the contrary, vital issues are involved in which the very foundation of the church’s existence is at stake. Yet these issues oblige us to make inquiry into theoretical questions relating to the connection between Scripture and human knowledge in general which are foreign to the problematics of the sixteenth century. It goes without saying that the views of Scripture adopted by Karl Barth and other twentieth century writers influenced by him have been formulated in terms of these questions, or at least with them as a background. Concretely, these issues involve matters of literary and historical criticism of Scripture most directly and, less directly but no less importantly, questions concerning the relations of Scripture revelation to the results of the special sciences in general. Underlying all these particular issues is the basic question of the relation of Scripture revelation to human knowledge as such, especially as human knowledge has come to be conceived in modern epistemology. The movements popularly called Barthianism and the New Orthodoxy cannot be understood apart from references to these questions. Neither may an intelligent formulation of Reformed orthodoxy in our times disregard these issues.

Underlying the particular issues raised by the development of modern science and philosophy, there remains the perennial problem of the seat of authority in religion. In this there is involved the basic theological and philosophical issues of the relationship between reason and revelation. In this respect, our problem is not a new one and in no essential manner does it differ from the problem of the Reformers. In any case, the doctrine of the Reformers on this point may well shed light upon our problem and may be fruitfully compared or contrasted with contemporary conceptions such as those of Barthianism or Neo-Orthodoxy. Our purpose in this article is to concentrate on one specific yet critical point, the inspiration of Scripture. Our intention is to compare the views of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, particularly Luther and Calvin, with those of Karl Barth and other contemporary authors of kindred views, with the aim of bringing to light the radically divergent conceptions held by the two groups of thinkers.

This aim is peculiarly pertinent in view of the fact that Barthian writers frequently tend to identify their view of Scripture with that of the sixteenth century Reformers, especially Luther, in contrast to the doctrine on inspiration developed by the theologians of the succeeding era of Protestant orthodoxy. Thus Barth himself writes: “The task set us of to-day, with all profound respect for the work achieved by orthodoxy, and with all understanding of the ultimate intentions of this service, must consist, in contrast thereto and by fresh adoption of Luther’s thought, in taking proclamation in particular with seriousness as the Church’s act, in and through which service should be rendered not to man but to God, in and through which God comes to express himself; and then, starting from that point, we must understand once more, that and in what sense first the Bible, and first of all revelation, is really God’s Word. It was at this point, before the inrush of the catastrophe of the 18th century, that forgetfulness set in”.[1] Likewise Barth writes of the doctrine of inspiration held by writers of the type of Johann Gerhard and Francis Turretine that it shows the absence “of the Reformers’ insight into the dynamics of the mutual relationships between the three forms” of the Word of God, proclaimed, written and revealed. For him the doctrine of inspiration further “signifies a freezing up of the connection between Scripture and revelation”.[2]

It is worth observing that Barth is far from introducing a novel element into the theological situation when he contrasts the attitude of the Reformers toward Scripture with the conception of orthodoxy. He is simply following in the train of a host of liberal writers. So Charles Augustus Briggs had written, “It is well known that Calvin and Luther and other reformers recognized errors in the Scriptures; that Baxter, Rutherford, and other Puritans of the second reformation were not disturbed by them. .. “[3] In an appendix, Briggs cites passages from these and other authors in support of his contention.[4] Likewise J. H. Thayer asserted, “It was not before the polemic spirit became rife in the controversies which followed the Reformation that the fundamental distinction between the ‘Word of God’ and the record of that word became obliterated, and the pestilent tenet gained currency that the Bible is absolutely free from every error of every sort”.[5] With reference to Luther, we read in A. Schleiff’s theological-exegetical introduction to the ninth volume of Luther’s Deutsche Bibel: “Wenn Luther also darauf drängt, dass nur der durch das geschriebene Wort an die Hand gegebene ‘Verstand’ Be-rechtigung haben kann, so hat das auf keinen Fall mit der Verbalinspiration etwas zu tun. Wenn er in seiner späteren Zeit von der hebräischen Sprache sagt, Gott habe ‘sie allein gesprochen und geschrieben, der sol sie auch allein deuten und auslegen, wo es not ist’ (W. 53,644), so ist dies nicht jenes Dogma der Verbalinspiration; jede Sprache trägt in ihrer besonderen Form die Inkarnation Gottes. Dass es Wort gibt, das “Wort Gottes’ ist, macht nicht den Buchstaben des Wortes zum Herren, gibt nicht ihm einen absoluten Wert. Es ist ‘die Sprache, rede und stym eine gabe Gottis wie andere gaben, als die Frucht von den bewmen’ (W. 24, 4). Das Wort ist eine Frucht, die des Fruchtgebers, Gottes, Gabe enthält und ist; es ist nicht selbst Frucht-Träger und Geber. Die Lehre von der Verbalinspiration bis in die einzelnen Punkte des hebräischen Textes hinein aber nahm erst die Orthodoxie wieder auf. Luther lehnt sie. .. ab.”[6]

Are these claims of liberal and Barthian writers just? May they be verified by a critical scrutiny of the writings of the Reformers themselves? It is to this interesting as well as important inquiry that we would now address ourselves. First, however, it should be made clear that we do not engage upon this study with the presupposition of an absolute authority in the doctrine of the Reformers. Excellent men as they were, Luther and Calvin were not inspired men. They could therefore have erred in their views of the authority and inspiration of Scripture, as they did err, e.g., in their view of the sabbath. Nevertheless, it must be granted that an anomalous situation would result, were it shown that the orthodox thinkers of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions had departed from the position of Luther and Calvin on the fundamental issue of the authority of Scripture. Liberal and Neo-Orthodox writers would also be deprived of a specious pretext for overlooking the heterodox character of their position, were it demonstrated that they have not the slightest ground for appealing to the Reformers as setting a precedent for their denial of the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

We will first examine the doctrine of the Reformers, especially of Luther and Calvin, with special reference to the question of verbal inspiration. Then we must attempt a formulation of the Neo-Orthodox position, with particular reference to the views of Karl Barth. Finally, we may observe some striking contrasts between the two conceptions.

I. Luther and Calvin on Inspiration

We need not be surprised to find Luther and Calvin holding a high view of the inspiration of Scripture. On this basis alone was it possible for them to carry out their task of reforming the church. The authority of the church could be challenged only by appeal to a superior authority. Hence the stress laid by Luther and Calvin on scriptura sola as the foundation of their reformatory work. The objective character of Scripture authority was also emphasized by them in opposition to the subjectivism of the spiritualistic movements of their times represented chiefly by the Anabaptists. In opposing the false objectivism of the Church of Rome and the false subjectivism of the Anabaptists alike, the great Reformers of the sixteenth century stood firmly on the impregnable rock of holy Scripture. Under these circumstances it was only natural that there should be developed by the Reformers a doctrine of Scripture and of its inspiration corresponding to that taught by Scripture itself, as Barth himself acknowledges.[7]

a. Barth’s Conception of the Reformers’ Views.

In seeming contrast to the passages cited above from the first half-volume of the Kirchliche Dogmatik, in which Barth appears to deny that the Reformers taught the doctrine of verbal inspiration, in the second half-volume he acknowledges that they made their own the proposition of the inspiration, even of the verbal inspiration, of the Bible without objection or reservation, with the use of the formula that God is the Author of the Bible and, on occasion, with the representation of dictation.[8] The seeming contrast in Barth’s conceptions of the view of the Reformers is more a matter of terminology than of content. Barth is careful to distinguish between Verbalinspiration and Verbalinspiriertheit the latter being “understood no longer as grace but as a piece of higher nature”.[9] It is only in opposition to this orthodox view of the Word of God as actually incorporated in the words of Scripture that Barth is willing to speak of verbal inspiration as taught by Scripture itself or by the Reformers.

Though Barth’s assertion of verbal inspiration may not be accepted “unbedenklich und vorbehaltlos”, in that it is radically qualified by his dialectical method, such is not the case with the assertions made by the Reformers, those cited by Barth included. The statements from Luther’s early lectures on Romans (1515–1516) are decisive for his position that every word of Scripture is of God and is to be received in faith.[10] So also toward the end of his life, in his Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament (1544), he wrote: “Therefore it is true, absolutely and without exception, that everything is believed or nothing is believed. The Holy Ghost does not suffer himself to be separated or divided so that he should teach and cause to be believed one doctrine rightly and another falsely. .. For all heretics are of this kind: at first they deny only one article but afterward all must be denied. It is as with a ring; if it has only one defect, it can no longer be used; and if a bell cracks in only one place it does not any longer sound and is useless”.[11] The second and fourth chapters of Dr. M. Reu’s book, Luther and the Scriptures contain abundant citations to the same effect from all periods of Luther’s writings.

Barth also quotes decisive passages from Calvin’s writings. The seventh chapter of Book I of the Institutes asserts that the Scriptures have “come down from heaven as if the living words of God themselves were heard in them”,[12] that “God is the Author of it (i.e., the doctrine). The principal proof, therefore, of the Scriptures is everywhere derived from the character of the Divine Speaker”[13] and that “we esteem the certainty, that we have received it from God’s own mouth by the ministry of men, to be superior to that of any human judgment, and equal to that of an intuitive perception of God himself in it”.[14] In Calvin’s sermon on II Timothy 3.16f.[15] the designation of God as the Author of Scripture recurs repeatedly, and in his commentary on the same passage, Barth hears the echo of a voice out of the early church,[16] when Calvin writes: “This is the principle, which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God has spoken to us, and are firmly persuaded that the prophets spoke not from their own mind, but, as they were instruments of the Holy Spirit, they brought forth only those things which had been entrusted to them from heaven; whosoever, therefore, will profit in the Scriptures, let him first of all establish this in himself, that the law and the prophets are not a doctrine delivered by the will of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit”.[17]

Barth is evidently conscious that the prima facie witness of these citations from Calvin is in favor of the view of verbal inspiration which he rejects as mantic-mechanical or docetic, inasmuch as it denies the truly human character of the Bible. He feels obliged to remark that in the context of Calvin’s thought, statements such as those to which exception was taken in the writings of Augustine and Gregory the Great, are no longer dangerous.[18]

Barth’s further discussion of the Reformers’ doctrine of inspiration betrays the tendency to read into history the peculiar traits of his own systematic constructions. He proceeds to assert that the Reformers viewed the inspiration of the Bible as inspiration by the Holy Ghost, therefore not as some sort of a miracle, therefore not as comparable with any other supposed or real inspiration. Barth stresses the content of the biblical witness as inspiring the authors of Scripture, and appeals to Luther’s christological view of the Scriptures.[19] The doctrine of inspiration is thus restored as a divine mystery resting upon the incomprehensibility of God.[20] Barth finds Calvin less clear on this point than Luther, yet Calvin also stresses the organic relation between the inspiration of the biblical writers and their personal experience of faith.[21] Barth’s conclusion is that for the Reformers the question of the inspired Word was at the same time the question of the inspiring and reigning matter. For them the Bible was no revealed oracle book, but a witness of revelation inseparable from its object.[22]

That the Reformers did not view the process of inspiration as taking place in a vacuum without relation to the personal faith of the inspired writers, and above all to the Object of that faith, may and must be acknowledged. It is also true that the Reformers were far from regarding the product of inspiration as a set of isolated propositions, intelligible in isolation from one another or from their own content. If this be all Barth means to assert, it is unquestionably true and, equally unquestionably, superfluous. We would rather interpret Barth as intending to say something significant, in which case the trend of his argument appears to suggest that the Reformers share his own reluctance to admit an objective deposit of truth accurately expressed in the words of Scripture. Scripture witnesses to Christ to be sure. What Christian is there that will not unite with Luther in asking Tolle Christum e scripturis, quid amplius in illis invenies?[23] But what is the ground for supposing that Luther, not to speak of Calvin, considered it honoring to Christ that Scripture should speak inaccurately or inconsistently concerning him or that Scripture should speak anything which in the last analysis must not be regarded as concerning him? Barth has simply taken over the dubious apologetics of the line of liberal Lutheran writers who have appealed to Luther’s Christocentric attitude in support of their depreciation of the written Word. It remains unproved that Luther acknowledged any antithesis between the written and the incarnate Word such as liberal and Barthian writers claim.[24]

In passing, note should also be taken of an anti-supernaturalistic attitude underlying Barth’s criticism of the orthodox doctrine of inspiration. That appears in his objection to the miraculous character of inspiration, as distinct from his own irrationalistic conception of mystery. Together with his denial of this supernaturalistic conception to the Reformers must be coupled his severe criticism of it as it appeared in the high orthodoxy of the seventeenth century.[25] Notwithstanding the fact that Barth has been criticised by Tillich for the “Supranaturalism” of his theology,[26] on the crucial question of inspiration, Barth stands shoulder to shoulder with Tillich on anti-supernaturalistic ground.

Very characteristic of Barth’s method of historical exegesis is his attempt to find in the Reformers support for his distinctive view of the contribution made by the work of the Spirit in the reader and hearer of Scripture to the inspiration of Scripture itself.[27] Not only Luther, but also Calvin is especially lively at this point. God himself produces the correspondence between what the Word of Apostles and Prophets was for them and what it is for us.[28] Barth here confuses the inspiration of Scripture with the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit to the Scripture and proceeds to ascribe this same confusion to the Reformers. The confusion in Barth’s thought on this matter is symptomatic of the predominant subjectivistic component in his dialectic which excludes from the circle of his concepts the notion of an objectively given revelation. Barth’s own conception is intelligible in the light of the development of the dialectical method of thinking in post-Kantian German philosophy. It is not intelligible, however, that the Reformers thought in the categories of such a subjectivistic dialectic. Yet this is the Procrustean bed into which Barth would force the views of Luther and Calvin. It must not be denied that in the Reformers, especially in Calvin, there is a striking polarity and organic relationship between the Word and the Spirit.[29] Yet it may never be forgotten that one aspect of this relationship is the dependence of the inward testimony on the inspiration of Scripture. The Spirit testifies not to a Scripture that becomes Scripture only by that testimony. He testifies rather to a Scripture that is already Scripture, because inspired by the same Spirit. Faith is likewise directed toward the Word of God present in Scripture, not to a Word that comes into being only as faith is in exercise.[30] Barth early grappled with this difficulty in the first half-volume of the Kirchliche Dogmatik, where he wrote: “The Bible therefore becomes God’s Word in this event and it is to its being in this becoming that the tiny word ‘is’ relates, in the statement that the Bible is God’s Word. It does not become God’s Word because we accord it faith, but, of course, because it becomes revelation for us. But its becoming revelation for us beyond all our faith, its being the Word of God also against our unbelief, we can, of course, allow to be true and confess as true in us and for us only in faith, in faith against unbelief, in the faith in which we look away from our faith and unbelief to the act of God, but in faith and not in unbelief. And therefore precisely not in abstraction from the act of God, in virtue of which the Bible must from time to time become His Word to us.”[31] Notwithstanding the subtlety of Barth’s dialectic and the psychological acuteness of the analysis of faith’s relation to its object, Barth has not escaped the antinomy between the subjective act of faith requiring an object independent of itself, which latter Barth cannot really admit. The act of God in which he seeks transcendent objectivity is pure abstraction when lacking reference to a concrete objective revelation. Could Barth succeed in finding the objectivity lacking in the creation, namely in Scripture, in the Creator, i.e., in the Creator’s gracious act, his transcendence would at once become immanence in the most overt pantheistic sense. Inasmuch as objectivity is the correlative of subjectivity, the transfer of objectivity from the creature to the Creator involves the ascription of an essential component of the structure of the created world to the being of God, with the consequent obliteration of the boundary line between the finite and the infinite which Barth claims for a starting point. From this negative dialectic Barth cannot extricate himself.

b. The Orthodox Conception of the Reformers’ Views.

Nothing is more certain than that the historical vantage point of the historian determines his interpretation of history. As Barth has used the framework of his system to provide the categories of his exposition of the Reformers’ views, so orthodoxy likewise uses its systematic apparatus, an apparatus developed in post-reformation history, to expound the Reformers’ doctrine. Whether Barth or orthodoxy is justified in so doing is a question to be decided on systematic rather than historical grounds. If it be true that Barth has recaptured the vital message of the Reformers and that orthodoxy allowed it to be petrified in a rational system, then there is an ultimate justification of Barth’s construction of their views. On the other hand, if orthodoxy was the logical development of the Reformers’ insights, and the Barthian outlook a deflection of the line leading through Luther, Calvin, Gerhard, Voetius, Gaussen, Kuyper and Warfield, then the orthodox view of the Reformers’ position is correct and the Barthian construction without justification in fact. We write with the conviction that the orthodox conception of inspiration is true in its essential structure. That conviction cannot be justified here, except by the statement of the facts from the orthodox point of view, in the assurance that facts rightly interpreted will assert their own truth.

Representative scholars of both Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy have examined in detail the teaching of Luther and Calvin respectively on the locus of inspiration. With respect to Luther, there are among other materials Francis Pieper’s excellent article on “Luther’s Doctrine of Inspiration”,[32] the work by Dr. W. Walther of Rostock, Das Erbe der Reformation, I. Der Glaube an das Wort Gottes,[33] and the recent comprehensive book in English by Dr. M. Reu, Luther and the Scriptures, which we have already cited. Correspondingly exhaustive treatises on Calvin’s view of Scripture, and especially of inspiration, do not exist. There is an excellent discussion of the matter, however, in Warfield’s article on “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”.[34] There is an illuminating, but somewhat confused, treatment of Calvin’s position in the fourth volume, entitled La Pensée Religieuse de Calvin,[35] of Émile Doumergue’s magnum opus, Jean Calvin: Les Hommes et les Choses de Son Temps. A comprehensive study of Calvin’s position, referring to all relevant passages in the commentaries, homilies and other works as well as in the Institutes is a great desideratum of Reformed theology. We can at this time do no more than center attention on a few points of critical importance in connection with the Barthian theology.

The first question to be posed is whether the Reformers considered revelation to be objective in the sense in which orthodox theology has undoubtedly done so. Even liberal theology, in asserting a partial inspiration of Scripture, was inclined to regard the inspired parts of Scripture as possessing the objective character of revelation which orthodoxy claimed for the entire Scripture. Barth, however he may assert even a verbal inspiration for all parts of Scripture, does not allow a strictly objective inspiration for any part. Is there any reason for supposing the Reformers to hold or incline toward such a view?

Countless passages, as Barth might say, could be quoted from Luther to demonstrate the contrary. In the commentary on Deuteronomy, he wrote: “Thus all the prophets when they taught something else, this God revealed unto them, just as He did unto Moses, or, as St. Peter says, they were inspired by the Holy Ghost that they had to speak (Spiritu Sancto inspirati sunt, ut loquerentur)”.[36] In this passage, Luther evidently considers Scripture to be a deposit of revealed truth, to which additions were made in the course of time, the additions sharing the same divine origin with the previously existing Scriptures. Furthermore, Luther evidently regards inspiration as a form of revelation, a way of thinking alien to the sharp separation of inspiration from revelation made by Barth.

Luther’s use of Scripture in his controversies with the Anabaptists and with Zwingli is unintelligible apart from the assumption of the objective revelation content of Scripture. The Anabaptists subordinated the Word to the Spirit, disparaging the outward letter in the name of the Spirit. For Luther the Word is rather the criterion of the Spirit. “If I am to examine the spirit I must have the Word of God; this must be the rule, the touchstone, the lapis lydius, the light by means of which I can see what is black and what white”.[37] Whatever may be our judgment of Luther’s appeal to the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, one thing is clear: he considered those words not to be some nebulous, hazy medium, or occasion of revelation, uncertain in themselves, and requiring an additional element of revelation to give them their certainty. He clearly treated them as certain and clear in themselves, and as capable of being grasped by the believer’s mind. Mysterious, incomprehensible, even irrational as they might be to the natural reason, their meaning for Luther was self-evident. Thus he writes against Carlstadt: “Therefore this is our basis: where Holy Scripture establishes something that must be believed, there we must not evade the natural meaning of the words nor wrest them from the connection in which they stand unless an express and clear article of faith compels us to arrange or interpret the statement otherwise. If we acted differently, what would become of the Bible?”[38] As over against Barth’s frequent assertion that Scripture is a human witness to divine revelation, we may set Luther’s assertion that “the Scriptures of God are His own witness concerning Himself”.[39] Marburg is the answer to Barth’s appeal to Luther.

Luther’s antagonism to the ultra-spiritual emphasis of the Anabaptists was shared by Calvin.[40] While Calvin stressed the necessity of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit in the heart for the believer’s conviction that Scripture is the Word of God, he stoutly resisted every effort to disparage the external and objective authority of Scripture upon the pretext of doing honor to the Spirit. Calvin detects the fundamental weakness of all subjective spirituality which asserts its autonomy with respect to objective norms, namely, the absence of a criterion against error. “For as Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority will the Spirit have with us unless we can distinguish him by the most certain criterion?”[41]

The Anabaptist argument with which Calvin reckons, to the effect that it is unworthy of the Spirit, to whom all things ought to be subject, to be made subject to the Scripture, is suggestive of the Barthian argument that the freedom of God’s grace is incompatible with a Verbalinspiriertheit, which makes revelation a higher nature. Barth, like the Anabaptists, feels a keen tension between norms of natural law on the one hand and the freedom of grace and the Spirit on the other. The neo-Kantian background of Barth’s thought may be detected at this point, giving a theoretical accent in Barth to what was already present in the living experience of the Anabaptists. Calvin rejects the antinomy between nature and spirit, authority and freedom, law and grace, while Barth follows the Anabaptists in subordinating nature to spirit, authority to freedom, law to grace. For Calvin, the Holy Spirit is everywhere consistent with himself. For the false oppositions which he rejects, Calvin substitutes the opposition of Creator and creature. The Spirit may not be subject to any creature, but he may be compared with himself and thus brought to the test of examination. The difficulty arising here brings us face to face with the sovereignty of the Spirit. He has been pleased to communicate himself to us thus, i.e., in an orderly and rational manner, Scripture being the principle of order and reason. It is in this connection that Calvin goes on to speak of the image of the Spirit impressed on the Scriptures, thus underlining the inherence of revelation in the Word of Scripture itself. Here, too, Calvin calls the Spirit scripturarum Author, in this capacity denying to him mutability or inconsistency.[42]

In passing we may observe how completely Calvin has extricated himself both from the nominalism of the late middle ages and from the realism of the early and high mediaeval centuries. In his profound conception of the relationships between the Word and Spirit, Calvin has pointed the way toward a Christian philosophy which would overcome the antinomy between the objectivism of realism and the subjectivism of nominalism.[43]

The second question to be posed is whether the Reformers maintained the infallibility of holy Scripture in all its teaching. If an affirmative answer can be given here, the Reformers unquestionably stand on the side of orthodoxy against Liberalism and Barthianism. This is preeminently a question of fact, as the first question was one of principle. Yet we shall find the principles, discussed above, the guiding threads in our inquiry into the matters of fact before us. Objectivity and infallibility are inseparably conjoined in this matter, and if the Reformers are consistent with themselves, holding the one they must adhere to the other as well.

Every theologian facing the problem of the infallibility of Scripture does so with a presupposition as to the nature of error. If to err is human in the sense of belonging to man’s nature as created, then one is confronted with the alternative of a fallible Scripture that is truly human or an infallible Scripture lacking the human aspect. Liberal and Neo-Orthodox theology make this assumption, explicitly (as does Paul Tillich) or implicitly. The Reformers, however, by virtue of their doctrines of original righteousness in the state of man’s first creation and total depravity in man’s fallen condition, were obliged to regard error as the result of the fall and in itself sinful. On this presupposition, the inerrant character of redemptive revelation, and consequently of Scripture is certain a priori. Infallibility of revelation is as necessary, if error partakes of the nature of sin, as it is impossible, if error belongs to the essence of man.

Both the presupposition as to the connection of error with sin and the consequence as to the infallibility of Scripture come to expression in Luther’s assertion: “The saints could err in their writing and sin in their life; Holy Scripture cannot err”.[44] In 1522, he writes, “How often have I said that, also according to St. Augustine’s opinion, it is to the canonical books alone that there is due the honor that we must firmly believe that there is no error in them”.[45] The same conception is plainly implied, though otherwise expressed, in Calvin’s powerful comment on II Timothy 3:16 that “we owe it (i.e., Scripture) the same reverence which we owe to God himself, since it has proceeded from him alone and there is nothing human mixed with it”.[46] With this may be compared the express assertion in Inst., I, 18, 4: “For our wisdom ought to consist in embracing with gentle docility, and without any exception, all that is delivered in the sacred Scriptures”.[47]

The acid test of any doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture is the actual exhibition of the truth and inner consistency of all parts of Scripture in dealing with alleged errors and contradictions. It is at this point that plausible claims have been made to the effect that the Reformers rejected the conception of an absolute infallibility of Scripture based on its verbal inspiration. So Köstlin, after expounding Luther’s positive assertion of inspiration, adds: “But we dare not interpret such expressions of Luther as indicating that it was at all his idea, that the Holy Scriptures are the result of a uniform divine inspiration, without the intervention of the human individuality and intellectual activity of their authors, or without any distinction between the various and diverse portions of the Bible”.[48] “The most striking passages in this respect are the two already quoted in regard to the prophets which are, indeed, only disconnected expressions, but which are publicly made without the least hesitancy; namely, that concerning hay and stubble even in such excellent teachers, and that concerning secular prophecies, in which even they have been mistaken.”[49] Köstlin goes on to concede that in Scripture presentations of saving truth, Luther regarded the Scriptures as infallible, but not as to narratives of outward historical events. “Nor did he hesitate, finally to acknowledge even patent errors, finding such even upon the lips of a man who has just been declared full of the Holy Ghost as he spake, namely, Stephen. .. Luther has nowhere more expressly defined the limitations within which such errors are possible in the case of even the most exalted instruments of the Holy Spirit and in the canonical Scriptures.”[50]

In like manner, Doumergue asserts of Calvin that he did not teach the theory of dictation, in the sense of verbal and literal inspiration.[51] “Du reste, a quoi bon démontrer que Calvin n’a pas enseigné une inspiration méchanique, littérale, verbale? II suffit de le montrer, en choississant quelques faits parmi un beaucoup plus grand nombre”,[52] whereupon he cites passages in which Calvin appears to admit errors either on the part of the original authors of scripture or copyists.[53] He concludes that for Calvin the words are unimportant compared with the doctrine, the substance.[54]

If the claims of Köstlin and Doumergue be correct, then the Reformers were inconsistent in the working out of their conception of the inerrancy of Scripture. This, however, would not justify us in ignoring the clear assertions of the infallibility of Scripture made by the Reformers and referred to above. But were the Reformers really inconsistent at this point? The studies of Pieper, Reu and Warfield present abundant evidence to the contrary. Strangely enough, Doumergue refers approvingly to Pieper’s article on Luther as “un article trs documenté”, which “fait justice de la plupart de ces ‘clichés’, et remet les choses au point”.[55] Doumergue seems naively unconscious of the fact that Pieper’s method, when applied to Calvin, would be apt to dissolve the difficulties appearing so impressive to him. Strange it would be if Luther held the high view of verbal inspiration as Pieper claims, while Calvin held a lower conception, though proverbial for his insistence on biblical authority as the formal principle of his system.[56]

We may note just a few of the data bearing on the decision of the question. Luther goes to great lengths harmonizing passages of Scripture seeming to be contradictory. This is true in matters of chronological, historical and scientific detail, as well as in matters of doctrine.[57] He prefers to suppose an error of a copyist rather than admit a chronological error in the original text of Scripture. Changes made in New Testament quotation of Old Testament passages do not alter the import and meaning.[58] Remarkable are the passages in which Luther ascribes seeming incoherency of speech and disorder of thought directly to the Holy Spirit.[59]

Especially interesting are Luther’s comments on some of the histories of Genesis. On Genesis 38, he remarks: “True this is rather a coarse chapter. Still it is a chapter of Holy Scripture, and the Holy Ghost hath written it, who surely has as clean a mouth and pen as we have”.[60] On Genesis 44, he observes: “I have often admonished, and it is ever to be inculcated, that the Holy Ghost writes such jocular and trifling things concerning the great patriarchs, though he could choose the most grave and sacred things”.[61]

Passages frequently adduced to support the claim that Luther admitted errors in Scripture are examined by Pieper[62] and Reu.[63] Both writers also deal with Luther’s attitude toward the epistle of James,[64] concluding that the “epistle of straw” not being regarded by Luther as canonical, his assertions concerning it may not legitimately be adduced to support the contention that he held a low view of inspiration. It was rather a high view of inspiration conjoined with his difficulties with James, that explains his rejection of it from the number of canonical books. We cannot deny that in his approach to the problem of the canon, Luther made a false step that gives some plausibility to the claims of modern writers. Yet in fairness to the great Reformer, it must be made clear that he stopped short at the point of the canon and adhered to a strictly orthodox view of the nature of inspiration.[65]

With reference to Calvin, we would quote from B. B. Warfield: “It is true that men have sought to discover in Calvin, particularly in his ‘Harmony of the Gospels,’ acknowledgements of the presence of human errors in the fabric of Scripture. But these attempts rest on very crass misapprehensions of Calvin’s efforts precisely to show that there are no such errors in the fabric of Scripture. When he explains, for example, that the purpose ‘of the Evangelists’ — or ‘of the Holy Spirit,’ for he significantly uses these designations as synonyms — was not to write a chronologically exact record, but to present the general essence of things, this is not to allow that the Scriptures err humanly in their record of the sequences of time, but to assert that they intend to give no sequences of time and therefore cannot err in this regard. When again he suggests that an ‘error’ has found its way into the text of Mat. xxvii.9 or possibly into Mat. xxiii.35, he is not speaking of the original, but of the transmitted text. .. In point of fact, Calvin not only asserts the freedom of Scripture as given by God from all error, but never in his detailed dealing with Scripture allows that such errors exist in it.”[66]

The precise character of Calvin’s conception of Biblical infallibility appears in his Harmony of the Evangelists. Anything savoring of what might properly be called a “mechanical” view of infallibility is conspicuously absent. The conception worked out by Calvin in this work may be called that of “organic” infallibility as contrasted with the “mechanical” conception implied by Osiander’s method of harmony.[67] Something of his principles is hinted at in the Epistle Dedicatory and Argument of Calvin’s work. “The evangelical history, related by four witnesses divinely appointed, is justly compared by me to a chariot drawn by four horses: for by this appropriate and just harmony God appears to have expressly prepared for his Son a triumphal chariot, from which he might make a magnificent display to the whole body of believers, and in which, with rapid progress he may review the world.”[68] Infallibility is ascribed to Mark in that, while his relation to Peter is a secondary concern, we must believe “that he is a properly qualified and divinely appointed witness, who committed nothing to writing, but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his pen”.[69] The independence of the Evangelists Calvin ascribes to the direction of divine providence, “so under this diversity in the manner of writing, the Holy Spirit suggested to them an astonishing harmony”.[70] So also Calvin intends to arrange the three histories in one unbroken chain “in which the reader may perceive at a glance the resemblance or diversity that exists”.[71] Resemblance, diversity, harmony — these are the key words to the organism of the gospel narrative as Calvin conceives it. Mechanical unity to the suppression of diversity and diversity as a unity-destroying contradictoriness spring from the same misconception of the character of the gospels, and Calvin has rejected this misconception at the root. Reformed orthodoxy to be true to its own basic conception must make Calvin’s procedure here the starting point of its theory of the infallibility of Scripture.

Before taking our leave of the Reformers, we must cast a glance on their deliverances with respect to the mode of inspiration and the relation of the divine and the human aspects of Scripture. Did the Reformers teach a doctrine of dictation according to which the human nature of the secondary authors of Scripture was suppressed by the overpowering influence of the primary author? With respect to Luther, Pieper and Reu express themselves somewhat diversely. Pieper, while conceding that Luther was not entirely unaware of the “human side” of Scripture,[72] yet asserts: “If any teacher in the Christian Church clearly taught that the holy writers were simple instruments — living instruments of course — of the Holy Spirit, so did Luther most clearly and forcibly. To him the Scriptures are not the joint product of ‘a divine factor’ and ‘a human factor,’ viz., of the Holy Ghost and the human penmen, so that the result would be in part divine and in part human, but with him ‘the divine factor’ is the only factor productive of Holy Scripture, the Holy Ghost using the human penmen as simple instruments.”[73] He adds the interesting remark: “Recent writers are eulogizing Luther for not ‘confounding inspiration with dictation,’ as the scholastic theologians did. Even this prerogative, however, is to be denied to him, for he represents the prophets as bringing forward ‘what they heard from God himself (quae ex ipso deo audierunt). In Joelem Commentarius, 1545, Opera exeg. lat. cur., Linke, xxv,143.”[74]

While Pieper tends to identify Luther’s position with that of the seventeenth century dogmaticians, Reu makes a rather sharp distinction at this point. In his table of contents, chapter eight is entitled, “Luther Knows of No Mechanical or Dictated Inspiration, He Rather Emphasizes Human Cooperation”, and chapter nine, “Not Luther, But Other Lutheran Theologians of His Time Were on the Road to the Mechanical Theory of Inspiration”.[75] Part of the difference between Pieper and Reu may be a matter of terminology. On the other hand, there is a difference which may have a ground in the teaching of Luther himself. While Reu does well to quote Karl Holl to the effect that the proverb “Luther was not a systematic thinker” is “for the most part only a cloak to cover the laziness that does not try seriously to understand Luther’s apparently contradictory statements”,[76] we must admit a certain truth in the proverb. Unless the vehemence of Luther’s personality be recognised as a factor in many of his striking and even extreme utterances, he will be inevitably and grossly misunderstood. Luther’s literary output lacks the form of the system, notwithstanding the inner systematic coherence of his conceptions. We would refrain, then, from judging the exact relation of Luther to the “dictation” doctrine of the dogmaticians of the following generations.

In the case of Calvin, however, we have less, if any, excuse for laziness. Calvin’s work possesses the form as well as the content of the system, and Calvin has given rather precise formulation to his conception of Scripture and even of its inspiration. Calvin boldly uses expressions such as dictante Spiritu Sancto, amanuenses, organa who speak non ex suo sensu, not humano impulsu, not sponte sua, not arbitrio suo, but set out only quae coelitus mandata fuerant.[77] Doumergue denies such expressions to be scientific formulas of a theological nature in the sense in which the seventeenth century theology took them.[78] Warfield also pleads for a figurative use of the terms, particularly “dictation” (the verb dictare being frequently used by Calvin).[79] “What Calvin has in mind is not to insist that the mode of inspiration was dictation, but that the result of inspiration is as if it were by dictation, viz., the production of a pure word of God free from all human admixtures”.[80] Attractive as Warfield’s argument is, it savors somewhat of the more obvious effort of Doumergue to soften the harshness of Calvin’s daring doctrine, which on first appearance is essentially the same as the later orthodox conception.[81] Can a product that bears the marks of dictation come into being except by a method that may in some proper sense be called dictation? Luther and Calvin both have emphasized that the origin of Scripture is to be found in God alone, and an honest orthodoxy need not disguise or attempt to soften this assertion.

What needs to be stressed, however, is that “dictation” in Calvin’s sense of the term is not mechanical, inasmuch as it does not exclude conscious, rational and voluntary human agency. Such diversity as bears the stamp of the diverse secondary authors in the product of scripture reflects diversity in the very mode of inspiration, though not a diversity that is opposed to unity or even a kind of uniformity. To Calvin’s organic conception of infallibility in the product of Scripture, corresponds an organic conception of the method by which Scripture was produced. This organic conception is marked by a correlativity of unity and diversity as opposed to a correlativity of God and man. Liberal and Barthian thought also consider God and man as correlative in the matter of inspiration,[82] and consequently deny the correlativity of unity and diversity, Liberalism stranding on shoals of diversity, and Barth, while leaving the shoals untouched, sailing the high seas of an abstractly transcendent unity. Orthodoxy, following the Reformers, rejects any correlativity of Creator and creature, and thus has a basis for true correlativity of the one and the many, both in the human aspect of Scripture and in its divine substance. Scripture, like the person of Christ, presents a human aspect, truly and flawlessly human, inhering in a divine substance, the human remaining distinct from, and absolutely dependent upon, the divine at every point. The denial of anything human in Scripture by Calvin, in the argument to the Harmony of the Gospels and in the comment on II Timothy 3:16, provides the solid foundation upon which he can do as full justice as has ever been done to the human aspect of Scripture, in the Gospel harmony as in his commentaries in general. Calvin’s conception of the relation of God and man with reference to Scripture corresponds exactly to his conception of that relation in reference to other critical theological issues, such as predestination and Christology. An unequivocal denial of the autonomy of the human in the interest of an equally unequivocal affirmation of the sovereign majesty of God proves to be the basis on which the true worth of the human is asserted and consistently maintained. If there is anything in the Calvinistic method of thought that can be called dialectical it is just this negation of man as creature involved in the affirmation of God as Creator with the consequent affirmation of man as creature. Such a Calvinistic “dialectic” may be opposed to the rationalistic dialectic of idealism in which the infinite is affirmed as finite and the finite as infinite,[83] as well as to the irrationalistic dialectic of existentialism in which essential discrepancy and not simply distinction (in the last analysis, discrepancy rather than distinction) between the infinite and the finite is maintained.[84]

II. Barth, the Neo-Orthodox Thinker, on Inspiration

Having examined the doctrine of the great Reformers, we turn to a survey of Barth’s views on this subject, especially in their fullest and most recent expression, with a view to formulating the difference between the two positions. It is in the untranslated second half-volume of the first volume of the Kirchliche Dogmatik that Barth develops, in seventy-five pages much of which is in small print, the conception of Scripture as God’s Word.[85] In the closing pages of this section, following the review of the history of the doctrine of inspiration (pp. 571-585), he addresses himself to a thetic presentation of his own view of inspiration, or, as he terms it, the “Gottgeistlichkeit” of the Bible.[86] We will give a resumé of Barth’s argument, referring to corresponding sections of the writings of Barth and others of his school. The whole Neo-Orthodox movement has followed along the lines laid out by Barth in this matter, and inasmuch as Barth has given the fullest and clearest pronouncement on the question of inspiration, we may, at least for our present purposes, center attention on him as the Neo-Orthodox thinker, par excellence.

1. The Word of God is God’s Word. Its being and becoming are not human. Barth immediately draws a conclusion, against orthodoxy, viz., the fact that we have the Bible as God’s Word does not justify us in interpreting the proposition, “The Bible is God’s Word”, as a proposition about the Bible itself instead of as a proposition about God’s being and working mightily in and through the Bible. Knowledge of the inspiration of the Bible must begin with acknowledgment of the sovereignty of him, whose Word the Bible is.[87]

2. Another anti-orthodox thesis follows. He who says “God’s Word”, says God’s Work. He regards not a state of existence or fact, but a happening concerning himself, which is a free happening wrought freely by God. The eternity of the Word involves its being the event of the present for temporal man.[88] Barth here follows out the line he began to travel in the discussion of the written Word of God in the first half-volume. That in this event the Bible becomes the Word of God is what is meant when we call the Bible God’s Word. Barth stresses that this event is God’s work of grace, not something in our power. “The Bible is God’s Word so far as God lets it be His Word, so far as God speaks through it.”[89] It is in this connection that Barth struggles desperately with the threat of subjectivism. Here he also opposes the doctrine of Lutheran orthodoxy as to the inherent efficacy of the Word.[90]

3. The Word of God is the miracle of God. It is not miracle in the sense of direct intervention of God into the order of nature, but in the sense of something new, not to be secretly construed as old, i.e., as bound to the presuppositions, laws, customs and traditions of the rest of life and the world. The event of God’s Word is not the continuation, but the end of all else, the beginning of a new series of events. Against the orthodox conception of supernatural miracle, Barth here argues that it brings the Bible as God’s Word into the reach of our own power, and thus denies its real value and authority.[91] The drastically radical character of Barth’s polemic against orthodoxy must be observed.

4. By speaking of “miracle”, Barth has no intention of denying the human form of the Bible or the “offense” that may be taken at it. By “offense” Barth means not the offense of the cross, but the offense taken by men at the defects they find in Scripture. Barth will not deny the defects, but compares Scripture with the lame, blind, hungry and dead. As surely as those healed by Jesus were in need, as surely as the sea on which Jesus walked was real sea, “so surely were the prophets and Apostles also as such, also in their office, also in their function as witnesses, real, historical and thus in spoken and written Word capable of error and as a matter of fact erring men just as we all are”.[92] In this anti-orthodox thesis κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν, Barth asserts that the existence (Existenz) of the biblical witnesses was not suppressed by the existence of God, and denies any magical restraint that would deny them the full use of their freedom. Then follows the irrational paradox, that as the lame walk and the dead rise, so sinful and erring men as such speak the Word of God.[93] As if Barth naively supposed that the lame, as such, could walk, or that the dead rose, while yet remaining dead! Barth here becomes entangled in a labyrinth of sophistics (dialectics is too noble a word to use here), as he attempts vainly to show that his denial of the infallibility of Scripture has religious advantages over and above the orthodox doctrine. When he says there is no miracle, if the biblical witnesses were rendered infallible,[94] one wonders whether all traces of rationality have been obliterated from the method of argument.

One often hears talk of Barth’s adopting a more conservative position. In an early writing, he asserted: “The Bible is the literary monument of an ancient racial religion and of a Hellenistic cultus religion of the Near East. A human document like any other, it can lay no a priori dogmatic claim to special attention and consideration. This judgment, being announced by every tongue and believed in every territory, we may take for granted today. We need not continue trying to break through an open door.”[95] Since 1920 Barth has no doubt developed, but there has been no radical break with the position he then adopted. Nowhere has he penned more drastic declamations against the orthodox view of Scripture than in his most recent discussion. “The Bible is no oracle book. It is not an organ of direct communication. It is really witness. .. The men, whom we hear speaking here as witnesses, speak as fallible, as erring men like ourselves. .. Their word can be read also as mere word of man and an attempt made to evaluate it as such. It can be subjected to every kind of immanent criticism, and that not only as to its content of world view, history and morality, but also religion and theology.”[96] Nothing can be plainer than this, that even in religious matters Scripture is not infallible. Barth is willing to dispute with Paul as well as with James. Looked at from its human side, the Bible can and must annoy us. Theopneusty, as Barth here terms inspiration, is not something that lies before us when the Bible lies before us and we read it. Theopneusty is the act of revelation, in which the Prophets and Apostles, as men, were what they were, and as such can become to us what they are.[97]

On the ground of his abstract transcendence idea, Barth separates the divine and human in Scripture, opposing the divine perfection to the human imperfection of the Bible. He then seeks to carry through this distinction of the inspiration, thus divine infallibility, of the Bible and its human fallibility. He stresses the limitation of the biblical writers to the world-view of their times which is unacceptable to the modern mind. Yet he prefers to speak not of “errors” of the biblical authors in this field but of capacity for error, in that we lack an infallible Solomonic wisdom ourselves. Finally he admits legend and saga as well as true history as able to convey God’s word to us.[98]

5. The presence of the Word of God in the Bible is not to be viewed as a property, inhering in the Book as such. We remember the Word has been heard in this Book, in all its parts, and expect to hear it ourselves, even where we have not yet heard it for our own person. The presence of God’s Word is such as cannot be grasped, says Barth.[99] It is also difficult to grasp the full meaning of this rather obscure paragraph, filled with tension between subject and object. But though Barth’s own position is somewhat obscure, one feature of it is incontrovertible; it is squarely directed against orthodoxy.

6. God’s Word itself decides when, where and how the Bible becomes God’s Word. Barth here insists that we are dispensed from the task of separating the divine substance (Gehalt) from the human form (Gestalt) of the Bible. Barth abandons all efforts to discover an errorless kernel of the Scripture that we might esteem while disparaging the rest.[100] One is reminded of Luther’s boldness in declaring that the Holy Ghost has spoken a coarse chapter and trivial things, when Barth asserts that, as God was not ashamed to use the fallibility of human words, so neither need we be ashamed to hear the witness. Luther, of course, held firmly to the infallibility of Scripture, yet a certain kinship of spirit may be discerned between him and Barth as distinct from the reverential reserve with which Calvin ever approached the sacred text.

7. After Barth’s exposition of his view of the infallibility of Scripture, we may well be astonished when he goes on to assert the verbal inspiration of Scripture. It is unfortunate that Barth here follows the dishonest liberal procedure of using old theological terms in a sense diametrically opposed to their former usage. It is true, Barth says “God now speaks what this text speaks. God’s work occurs through this text.”[101] We must hear the Word of God in the concrete form of the Biblical word, not in some space beyond the text which we must discover. Barth makes clear his anti-orthodox conception of verbal inspiration: “Verbal inspiration does not mean: infallibility of the biblical word in its linguistic, historical, theological character as human word. Verbal inspiration does mean: the fallible and failing human word is now as such taken by God into his service, and to be accepted as such and heard notwithstanding its human fallibility.”[102] Barth’s use of the term, however, is by no means a simple matter of conscious dishonesty. It betrays a profound sense of the predicament in which he is involved. He sees well that preaching is possible only on the basis of the Word of Scripture as it stands. This is the orthodox element in Barth, in tension with the anti-orthodox element, viz., the adherence to the modern critical approach to Scripture. Barth simply combines these elements, trying to dispense with the factual consequences of verbal inspiration in the matter of infallibility on the one side, and, on the other, with the simple immanentism of the theological presuppositions of modern criticism. Notwithstanding all the dialectical ingenuity Barth brings to bear on this effort, the outcome is a foregone failure. It would have been simpler to say with Brunner: “Only through a serious misunderstanding will genuine faith find satisfaction in the theory of verbal inspiration of the Bible”.[103]

8. Barth concludes the thetic exposition (we would be more inclined to call it an exposition antithetic to orthodoxy) by facing the question of the objectivity of the truth that the Bible is God’s Word. He knows well that the objection will be raised that he represents our faith as making the Bible God’s Word. He does not wish to shut his eyes to the danger. How then guarantee the objectivity of the inspiration of the Bible? Barth’s answer is — that is done by God’s activity in founding and maintaining the Church, which is objective enough to conquer every outbreak of human subjectivity.[104] Barth would desire to appeal to God at this last antinomy of his argument. But having discarded the infallible Scripture, has Barth any other than an unknown God to which to appeal?

III. Conclusion: Reformers and Orthodoxy vs. Barth

The contrast between the Reformers’ conception of the inspiration of Scripture and Barth’s views is striking indeed. The results of the preceding study may be summarized in a series of propositions.

1. The Reformers, especially Calvin, conceived of the authority of Scripture as a law to which they must be subject, Barth, behind the disguise of a heteronomous subjection of man to God, asserts man’s autonomy with respect to Scripture.
2. For the Reformers, the authority of Scripture was derived solely from the fact that God was its author. For Barth, the authority of Scripture is derived from the witness of the Spirit in us as well as in the secondary authors of Scripture.
3. For the Reformers, but not for Barth, therefore, inspiration and illumination were distinct concepts.
4. For the Reformers, verbal inspiration meant that the Scriptures bear in their very nature the imprint of their divine Author. For Barth, this is rejected as Verbalinspiriertheit.
5. For the Reformers, inspiration is a permanent product of the divine act and not the simple act itself as Barth insists.
6. For the Reformers, inspiration guarantees the infallibility of Scripture in all its parts. For Barth, inspiration implies a Scripture everywhere fallible.
7. For the Reformers, inspiration was a supernatural miracle; for Barth, it is an irrational mystery.
8. For the Reformers, God wonderfully controlled the secondary authors, so that they became the penmen of his unmixed Word, while retaining their individual characters. For Barth, individuality and freedom of expression is impossible without admixture of error.
9. For the Reformers, God has, in wonderful grace, provided truth intelligible to man, which he uses for the salvation of the elect. For Barth, God mysteriously employs error for his elect’s salvation.
10. For the Reformers, the proposition, “The Bible is God’s Word”, is true without direct reference to man’s assent to its truth. For Barth, the truth of God’s Word is not independent of man’s faith. In this sense, the Reformers’ position is objectivistic, and therefore orthodox, while Barth’s is subjectivistic.

Our consideration concludes with some cautions: First, it is possible we have misunderstood Barth at some points. It is also possible that we are far from having done justice to the Reformers. Yet some facts have been brought to light, and they must be reckoned with.

Second, our attitude toward Barth is negative, to the extent that we must judge his position not only in error, and that means in serious error, but heretical. On his own witness, he has abandoned the orthodox position of the church fathers and Reformed divines, the position also incorporated in the Reformed creeds.[105] Nevertheless, orthodoxy may not maintain too simple an attitude of negation toward Barth. Heretical as his position is, just for that reason orthodoxy must grapple with it and strengthen her own fortress where weaknesses have been detected. Orthodoxy is threatened by the danger of an abstract objectivism, the issue of which is sterility of thought and lifelessness in practice. Mechanism in the conception either of the mode or product of inspiration must be radically broken with, while the full trustworthiness and infallible truth of Scripture is asserted without compromise. The need for a systematically worked out philosophy of revelation, hinted at in Bavinck’s suggestive Stone Lectures, is also evident. If orthodoxy will lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes in the face of the Barthian assault, she will profit from Barth as Augustine did from Pelagius, Athanasius from Arius, and Dort from Arminius.

Notes

1. Barth, Karl: The Doctrine of the Word of God (New York, Scribners, 1936), p. 140.
2. Ibid., p. 139. Cf. Emil Brunner: The Theology of Crisis (New York, Scribners, 1930), pp. 18-22.
3. Briggs, Charles A.: The Bible, the Church and the Reason (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1892), p. 112.
4. Ibid., pp. 215ff.
5. Thayer, Joseph H.: The Change of Attitude Towards the Bible, pp. 62f., quoted by Briggs, op. cit., p. 231.
6. Schleiff, A., in Luther’s Deutsche Bibel IX1 (Weimar, 1939), p. xxxi, quoted by Reu, M.: Luther and the Scriptures (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg Press, 1944), pp. 167f.
7. In the exhaustive discussion of the history of the doctrine of inspiration in the second half-volume of the first volume of his Kirchliche Dogmatik, Barth writes thus: “Was im 16. Jahrhundert geschehen ist, hat sich als Reformation der Kirche auch dadurch ausgewiesen, dass es jetzt mit der Wiederherstellung der Geltung und Herrschaft entsprechenden neuen Lesen, Verstehen und Erklären der Schrift gekommen ist. Im gleichen Zug nun aber auch zu einer der Schrift selbst entsprechenden Lehre von der Schrift und ihrer Inspiration im Besonderen”. Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes, Zweiter Halbband (Zollikon, Verlag der Evangelischen Buchhandlung, 1938), p. 577.
8. Idem, “Die Reformatoren haben sich den Satz von der Inspiration, und zwar von der Verbalinspiration der Bibel, wie er ja auch in den von uns zu grunde gelegten Paulusstellen explizit und implizit enthalten ist, unbedenklich und vorbehaltlos, auch mit der Formel, dass Gott der Autor der Bibel sei, gelegentlich auch mit Verwendung der Vorstellung von einem den biblischen Schriftstellern widerfahrenen Diktat zu eigen gemacht”.
9. Ibid., p. 575: “Ist die inspiration nur eingeordnet in jenen Kreislauf von Gottes Offenbarwerden durch den Geist bis zu unserem eigenen Erleuchtetwerden durch denselben Geist, dann mag und dann muss die zwischen dort und hier, zwischen Gott und uns vermittelnde Inspiration der biblischen Zeugen sehr bestimmt als Realinspiration nicht nur, sondern wirklich als Verbalinspiration verstanden werden. Aber eben das fragt sich: ob man sie nicht schon früh aus diesem Kreislauf gelöst und als eine zwar der Gnade Gottes zu verdankende, aber nun doch gar nicht mehr als Gnade, sondern als ein Stück höherer Natur verstandene Verbalinspiriertheit aufgefasst hat?”
10. Luther: Werke, Weimar ed., 56, 253: Vt omne verbum vocale, per quemcumque dicatur, Velut Domino ipso dicente, suscipiamus, credamus, cedamus et humiliter subiiciamus nostrum sensum. Sic enim Iustificabimur et non aliter. Cf. 56, 249, 20ff.: fides enim consistit in indiuisibili, aut ergo tota est et omnia credenda credit aut nulla, si vnum non credit.
11. Luther, Werke, 54, 158, 21ff., cited in Reu, M., Luther and the Scriptures, pp. 55, 148.
12. E caelo fluxisse acsi vivae ipsae Dei voces illic exaudirentur. (Inst. I, 7, 1).
13. Autorem eius esse Deum. Itaque summa scripturae probatio passim a Dei loquentis persona sumitur (ib., 7, 4).
14. Constituimus (non secus acsi ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur) hominum ministerio ab ipsissimo Dei ore ad nos fluxisse.
15. Corpus Reformatorum, 54, 283f.
16. Barth, op. cit., pp. 577f.
17. C. R., 52, 383: Hoc principium est, quod religionem nostram ab aliis omnibus discernit, quod scimus Deum nobis loquutum esse, certoque persuasi sumus, non ex suo sensu loquutos esse prophetas, sed, ut erant Spiritus sancti organa tantum protulisse, quae coelitus mandata fuerunt; quisquis ergo vult in scripturis proficere, hoc secum inprimis constituat, legem et prophetas non esse doctrinam hominum arbitrio proditam, sed a Spiritu sancto dictatam.
18. Barth, op. cit., p. 578: “Es ist klar dass die Fragen, die wir angesichts der entsprechenden Sätze Augustins and Gregor des Grossen aufgeworfen haben, an sich auch hier aufgeworfen werden könnten. Wir werden aber gleich sehen, dass sie hier in einem Zusammenhang stehen, der sie faktisch ungefährlich macht. Eine mantisch-mechanische ebenso wie eine doketische Auffassung der Bibelinspiration liegen tatsächlich trotz der Verwendung jener Begriffe nicht im Bereich des calvinischen Denkens”.
19. Idem: “Die Reformatoren haben wieder eingesehen und ausgesprochen, dass die Inspiration der Bibel als Inspiration durch den Heiligen Geist Gottes darum nicht irgendein Mirakel, darum nicht mit irgendwelcher anderen angeblichen oder wirklichen Inspiration vergleichbar ist, weil sie auf dem Verhältnis der biblischen Zeugen zu dem höchst bestimmten Inhalt ihres Zeugnisses beruht, weil es recht eigentlich dieser Inhalt ist, der sie inspiririert, d. h. in ihrem Reden und Schreiben des Heiligen Geistes teilhaftig und also ihre Schrift zur Heiligen Schrift gemacht hat. Nicht aus sich selbst, sondern — so hat besonders Luther immer wieder hervor-gehoben — von Christus als ihrem Herrn und König her hat die Schrift ihre Klarheit als göttliches Wort und muss sie es auch für uns immer wieder bekommen”.
20. Idem: “Eben damit wird aber die Lehre von der Bibelinspiration wiederhergestellt als die Lehre von einem unserem Zugriff entzogenen und gerade so wahrhaften und heilsamen göttlichen Geheimnis. Denn: Deus incomprehensibilis.”
21. Idem: “Es ist festzustellen, dass Calvin von dieser rückwärtigen Seite der Sache etwas weniger deutlich und eindringlich geredet hat als Luther. .. Es geht auch nach Calvin der Inspiration der biblischen Schriftsteller als Ausrüstung zum Reden bzw. Schreiben des Wortes Gottes voran eine ihrem Herzen eingetragene firma certitudo hinsichtlich der Göttlichkeit der Erfahrungen, auf die hin sie dann redeten und schrieben. Semper enim Deus induhiam fecit verbo suo fidem. Es ist klar, dass auch unsere Erkenntnis ihrer Inspiration sich ursprünglich und eigentlich auf diesen Grund, auf dem sie selber standen, begründen muss. (Instit. I 6, 2)”.
22. Op. cit., pp. 578f.: “Es war also die Frage nach dem inspirierten Wort bei den Reformatoren als solche immer zugleich die Frage nach der das Wort inspirierenden und regierenden Sache. Es war ihnen gerade die wörtlich inspirierte Bibel durchaus kein offenbartes Orakelbuch, sondern ein von seinen Gegenstand her und auf seinen Gegenstand hin und in Gemässheit dieses Gegenstandes zu interpretierendes Zeugnis der Offen-barung”.
23. Luther, De Servo Arbitrio, 1525, W. A., 18, 606, 24, cited by Barth, op. cit., p. 578.
24. E.g., Kahnis, Lutherische Dogmatik, III (Leipzig, 1868), pp. 142ff., cited by Reu, op. cit., pp. 201ff., especially at the end.
25. Barth, op. cit., pp. 580ff. E.g., “Der streng supranaturalistische Character der Sätze. .. ist geeignet, eine optische Täuschung hervorzurufen”. “Der Fehler dieser Orthodoxie — der um so gefährlicher ist, weil er vermöge seiner supranaturalistische Gestalt wie ein Vorzug aussehen kann”.
26. Tillich, Paul: “What is Wrong with the ‘Dialectic’ Theology”, in Journal of Religion, XV (1935), 127–145.
27. Barth, op. cit., p. 579: “Die Reformatoren haben auch nach der anderen Seite den Zusammenhang wieder hergestellt, in welchem die Bibelinspiration verstanden werden muss. Es kann, wie Luther an unzähligen Stellen eingeschärft hat, das durch den Geist eingegebene Schriftwort nur dadurch als Wort Gottes erkannt werden, dass das in ihm geschenene Werk des Geistes wieder gescheht und weitergeht, d. h. auch an seinen Hörern oder Lesern Ereignis wird. Wie wollte Gott anders denn als durch Gott selbst erkannt werden?”
28. Idem: “Und hier ist nun der Punkt, an welchem auch Calvin besonders lebhaft wurde. Seine (Instit., I, 7, 4 und im Kommentar zu 2. Tim. 3:16, C. R. 52, 383 entwickelte) Anschauung war diese: Es besteht eine genaue Entsprechung zwischen der Gewissheit, in der das Wort der Apostel und Propheten in sich bzw. für sie selbst Gottes Wort war, und der Gewissheit, in der es als solches auch uns einleuchtet. Hier wie dort kann nur Gott für Gott zeugen”.
29. The passage from Inst., I, 9, 3, cited by Barth clearly shows this. Yet Calvin is here arguing chiefly against the Anabaptists, the subjectivists of his own time.
30. Against the Anabaptists Calvin insists that the Spirit of God is to be recognised in sua imagine quam Scripturis impressit (I, 9, 2). The inward testimony presupposes this outward impression.
31. Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 124.
32. In the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, IV (1893), 249ff.
33. Leipzig, 1903; new edition (Leipzig, 1917) under the title: Die normale Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift.
34. Vid. Warfield, B. B., Calvin and Calvinism, (New York, Oxford, 1931), pp. 60-70.
35. Lausanne, Bridel & Co., 1910, pp. 70-79.
36. In Deuteronomium, 1525; Opera Exegetica Latina, Erlangen ed., XIII, 130f.; quoted in Pieper, op. cit., p. 250.
37. Luther, Weimar ed., 33, 276, 3ff., cited in Reu, op. cit., p. 149.
38. Ibid., 18, 147, 23ff. (Wider die himmlischen Propheten, 1524–25), in Reu, op. cit., pp. 51f.
39. Ibid., 50, 282, 1ff., in Reu, op. cit., p. 61.
40. Calvin, Institutes, I, 9. Consider also the concept of the indicia in Inst., I, 8.
41. Inst., I, 9, 2: “Contra vero, si quis Spiritus, praeterita verbi Dei sapientia, aliam doctrinam nobis ingerit, eum merito vanitatis ac mendacii suspectum esse debere. Quid enim? Quum se Satan in angelum lucis transfiguret, quam authoritatem habebit apud nos Spiritus, nisi certissima nota discernatur? Et sane perspicue nobis designatus est voce Domini; nisi quia sponte in suum exitium errare affectant miseri isti, dum Spiritum a seipsis potius quam ab ipso quaerunt”.
42. Inst., I, 9, 2: “Aut vero indignum esse causantur, Spiritum Dei, cui subiicienda sunt omnia, Scripturae subiacere. Quasi vero sit hoc ignominiosum Spiritui Sancto, sibi esse ubique parem et conformem, sibi per omnia constare, nusquam variare. Equidem si ad humanam, vel angelicam vel alienam quamvis regulam exigeretur, censendus turn esset in ordinem, adde etiam si placet, in servitutem redigi; sed dum sibi ipso comparatur, dum in seipso consideratur, quis ideo dicet irrogari ei iniuriam? Atqui ita ad examen revocatur: fateor: sed quo suam apud nos maiestatem sanciri voluit. Nobis ab unde esse debet, simul atque se nobis insinuat. Verum ne sub titulo suo Satanae spiritus obrepat, in sua imagine quam Scripturis impressit, vult a nobis recognosci. Scripturarum Author est: varius dissimilisque esse non potest. Qualem igitur se illic semel prodidit, talis perpetuo maneat oportet. Hoc contumeliosum illi non est: nisi forte honorificium ducamus a seipso desciscere et degenerare.
43. Cf. the discussion of this problem in the writings of the Calvinistic philosophers, Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven. Dooyeweerd in De Wijsbegeerte der Welsidee, I, 478–490, contends that Calvin first conceived the Christian basic conception of the Reformation in a pure idea of law (in which Dooyeweerd includes an idea of the subject). In Vollenhoven’s work on the Necessity of a Christian Logic, Calvin’s standpoint is represented as beyond Nominalism and Realism.
44. Luther, Vom Misbrauch der Messe (1521), Erl. ed., XXVIII, 33; Weimar ed., VIII, 485.
45. Solis canonicis libris eum deberi honorem, ut firmissime credatur, nihil erroris in illis esse. Opera lat. varii argum. (Francfurt ad M.), VI, 408; St. Louis ed., XIX, 305.
46. “Hoc prius est membrum, eandem Scripturae reverentiam deberi, quam Deo deferimus, quia ab eo solo manavit, nee quicquam humani habet admixtum”. Cf. the comment on Romans 15:4: Nihil est in Scripturis, quod non ad vestram eruditionem vitaeque vestrae institutionem valeat. Insignis locus, quo, dum intelligamus nihil in oraculis Dei contineri inane et infructuosum, simul etiam docemur in Scripturae lectione proficere ad pietatem ac vitae sanctimoniam”.
47. “Nam sapere nostrum nihil aliud esse debet quam mansueta docilitate amplecti, et quidem sine exceptione, quicquid in sacris Scripturis traditum est. Qui vero protervius insultant, quum satis constet eos contra Deum blaterare, longiori refutatione digni non sunt”.
48. Köstlin, Julius: The Theology of Luther, Vol. II, (Philadelphia, Lutheran Publication Society, 1897), p. 252.
49. Ibid., p. 254f.
50. Ibid., pp. 256f. Cf. the passage from Kahnis, Lutherische Dogmatik quoted by Reu, op. cit., pp. 201ff.
51. Doumergue, E.: op. cit., p. 73. “Et Calvin n’a pas davantage enseigné la théorie de la dictée au sens où on l’entend, au sens d’inspiration verbale et littérale”. In a footnote, however, Doumergue appears to identify verbal inspiration with the assertion of the inspiration of the points of the Hebrew text. Of the statement in the Formula consensus ecclesiarum helveticarum of 1675, he writes: “C’est la fameuse théopneustie”.
52. Ibid., p. 76.
53. The number of confusions of distinct matters by so lucid a writer as Doumergue is most extraordinary. In this discussion, there are confounded: (1) the inspiration of the autographa of Scripture and the subsequent transmission of later copies, (2) verbal inspiration and mechanical dictation, (3) verbal inspiration and the inspiration of the Hebrew points, (4) inerrancy in Scripture as the product of inspiration and a mechanical process of attaining this end.
54. Ibid., p. 78. “Ainsi l’important, ce ne sont pas les mots; c’est la doctrine, la doctrine spirituelle, la substance”.
55. Ibid., p. 71.
56. Cf. the suggestive discussion of Calvin’s “Biblizismus” as a formal principle in Hermann Bauke, Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922). pp. 19f., 44–57. This book exhibits, by its very onesidedness, the striking impression made on the German Lutheran mind by the formal side of the authority of Scripture in Calvin.
57. Opera exegetica Latina, Erl. ed., III, 71, 72.
58. St. Louis ed., XI, 12.
59. Weimar ed., 47, 566.
60. Ibid., 24, 621, 18ff.
61. Ibid., 44, 563, 8ff.
62. Pieper, op. cit., pp. 261ff.
63. Reu, op. cit., pp. 65-90.
64. The third chapter of Reu’s book, pp. 38-48, provides abundant source material to be reckoned with in discussing this thorny question.
65. Reu, as an orthodox Lutheran, writes: “We may personally reject Luther’s opinion about the canonicity of James, we may even stand in horror because of a word such as this, ‘Ich werde einmal mit den Jekel den Ofen heizen’, but this gives us no right whatsoever to permit ourselves to be influenced in the least by his judgment concerning a non-canonical writing when we are about to answer the question as to his attitude toward the canonical writings” (op. cit., p. 44).
66. Warfield, op. cit., pp. 64f.
67. Cf. Reu, op. cit., pp. 118-122, 173–183. While Reu is no doubt right that Osiander did not work out a rigid mechanical or dictation theory of inspiration, yet the presupposition of his method of harmony falls in line with such a view. The decisive passage of Osiander is: “Quatuor evangelistas tantum non modo suae diligentiae industriam, verum etiam Spiritus Sancti ἐνέργειαν ad scribendum attulisse, ut verbum nullum ac ne literam quidem ullam, nisi certissima historiae veritatis invitante, ac Spiritu Sancto approbante, libris suis inseruerint” (in Reu, p. 177), together with the statement of the title page “Evangelica historia ex quatuor Evangelistis ita in unum est contexta, ut nullius verbum ullum omissum, nihil alienum immixtum, nullius ordo turbatus, nihil non suo loco positum. . .” (in Reu, p. 173). The presupposition of so presumptuous an enterprise can only be pure mechanism, which seeks to transcend the essential diversity of the inspired records.
68. Calvin, Ep. Ded. to Harm, of Evang., (Edinburgh, Calvin Trans. Soc., 1845), pp. xxxii f.
69. Ibid., the Argument, p. xxxviii.
70. Ibid., p. xxxix.
71. Ibid., p. xl.
72. He quotes from Luther on I Peter 2:11: “St. Peter here uses a mode of speaking which is a little different from that of St. Paul. .. For every Apostle has his peculiar way of speaking, as has every prophet also”. Erl. ed., LII, 90 (op. cit., p. 252).
73. Ibid., pp. 252f. He cites St. Louis ed., XIX, 619–621. “It is one thing when man speaks of himself, and another thing when God speaks through men. .. Although the Scriptures are written through men, they are not of men or from men, but from God”.
74. Pieper, op. cit., p. 253.
75. Reu, op. cit., p. 5.
76. Ibid., p. 114.
77. So Doumergue, op. cit., p. 73; Warfield, op. cit., p. 61.
78. Doumergue, idem.
79. Warfield, op. cit., pp. 62ff.
80. Ibid., pp. 63f.
81. Significantly, Doumergue appeals to Warfield’s view in connection with rather divergent statements (p. 457).
82. Cf. the perverse use made by Barth of Luther’s assertion in the De Servo Arb.: “Duae res sunt Deus et scriptura dei, non minus quam quae res sunt creator et creatura Dei”, in Kirchl. Dogm. I2, pp. 563ff., 568. The perversity of Barth’s dialectic is that on the supposed assumption of absolute transcendence, Barth justifies the modern immanentistic criticism of Scripture.
83. As in Hegel’s Logik (Berlin, 1833), e.g., pp. 165ff.
84. As in Kierkegaard’s “infinite qualitative distinction between God and man”, approved by Barth in his introduction to Römerbrief. Cf. Klaas Schilder, Zur Begriffsgeschichte des ‘Paradoxon’ for a profound discussion of the irrationalistic twist given by Kierkegaard to the idea of paradox.
85. Barth, op. cit., pp. 523-598.
86. Ibid., p. 585, “Wir versuchen es nun noch, belehrt durch den Blick auf die Wege, die dabei zu gehen und zu vermeiden sein werden, thetisch klarzustellen, was von der Inspiration, von der ‘Gottgeistlichkeit’ der Bibel und also von dem Satz dass die Bibel Gottes Wort ist, im Besonderen vom Begriff des Wortes her zu halten ist”.
87. Idem: “Wer ‘Wort Gottes’ sagt, der sagt Wort Gottes, der redet also von einem menschlicher Verfügung und menschlicher Voraussicht entzogenen Sein und Geschehen. .. Dass wir die Bibel als Gottes Wort haben, das berechtigt uns nicht, den Satz, dass die Bibel Gottes Wort ist, aus einem Satz über Gottes Sein und Walten in der Bibel und durch die Bibel in einen Satz über die Bibel als solche umzudeuten. .. Mit der Anerkennung und Anbetung der Souveränität dessen, dessen Wort die Bibel ist, wird also die Erkenntnis ihrer Inspiration, ihres Charakters als Gottes Wort immer wieder anfangen müssen”.
88. Idem: “Wer ‘Wort Gottes’ sagt, der sagt Werk Gottes, der betrachtet also nicht einen Zustand oder Sachverhalt, sondern der blickt hin auf ein Geschehen, und zwar auf ein ihn angehendes Geschehen, und zwar auf ein solches, das ein Handeln Gottes, und zwar ein auf freier Entscheidung beruhendes freies Handeln Gottes ist. Dass Gottes Wort von Ewigkeit und in Ewigkeit ist, das erlaubt uns nicht, mit ihm umzugehen, als wäre es für uns in der Zeit lebende Menschen nicht das Ereignis seiner Gegenwart, seiner Gemeinschaft mit uns, seiner Verheissung unseres eigenen ewigen Lebens”.
89. Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 123.
90. Ibid., p. 124. Barth’s polemic here is on a radically different basis from that of traditional Reformed orthodoxy. Barth’s objection to the notion of a vis hyperphysica analoga efjicaciae physicae, i.e., vera et realis has repercussions for all orthodox supernaturalism, Romish and Reformed as well as Lutheran.
91. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, I2, pp. 586f.: “Wer ‘Wort Gottes’ sagt, der sagt Wunder Gottes, der hält also das Neue, mit dem er es im Worte Gottes zu tun bekommt, nicht heimlich doch wieder für ein Altes, d. h. für gebunden an die Voraussetzungen und Gesetze, an die Gewohnheiten und Überlieferungen der sonstigen Geschehens in seinem Leben und in Leben seiner Welt. Er rechnet damit, dass das Ereignis des Wortes Gottes nicht eine Fortsetzung, sondern das Ende alles dessen sein wird, was er sonst als Ereignis kennt. Er rechnet mit dem Anfang einer neuen Reihe von Ereignissen. .. Es würde aber jedes noch so fromme, noch so hochgegriffene Wort, das dieses Wunder eliminieren, das das Wort Gottes in der Bibel zu einem Stück höherer Natur, zu einer wunderbaren Eigenschaft eines Stücks unseres alten Wesens machen, das die Bibel als Gottes Wort in den Bereich unserer eigenen Macht bringen würde, ihre wirkliche Würde und Autorität gerade zerstören, den Satz, dass sie Gottes Wort ist, gerade leugnen”.
92. Ibid., p. 587: “Reden wir aber von einem Wunder, wenn wir sagen, dass die Bibel Gottes Wort ist, dann dürfen wir die Menschlichkeit ihrer Gestalt und die Möglichkeit des Anstosses, den man an ihr nehmen kann, weder direkt noch indirekt in Abrede stellen. .. So gewiss Jesus am Kreuz, so gewiss Lazarus Joh. 11 wirklich gestorben ist, so gewiss jene Lahmen lahm, jene Blinden blind, jene Hungrigen bei der Speisung der Fünftausend wirklich hungrig waren, so gewiss das Meer, auf dem Jesus ging, wirkliches klaftertiefes Meer war — so gewiss waren die Propheten und Apostel auch als solche, auch in ihrem Amt, auch in ihrer Funktion als Zeugen, auch im Akt der Niederschrift ihres Zeugnisses wirkliche, geschichtliche und also in ihrem Tun sündige und in gesprochenen und geschriebenen Wort irrtums-fähige und tatsächlich irrende Menschen wie wir Alle”.
93. Idem: “Geschah an ihnen das Wunder. .. so geschah dieses Wunder an ihnen selbst und also an ihnen im vollen Gebrauch ihrer menschlichen Freiheit. .. Dass die Lahmen gehen, die Blinden sehen, die Toten auferstehen, dass sundige und irrende Menschen als solche das Wort Gottes sagen, das ist das Wunder, von dem wir reden, wenn wir sagen, dass die Bibel Gottes Wort ist”.
94. Ibid., p. 588: “Sind die Propheten und Apostel keine wirklichen und also fehlbaren, auch in ihrem Amt, auch wenn sie von Gottes Offenbarung reden und schreiben, fehlbaren Menschen, dann ist es kein Wunder, dass sie Gottes Wort reden”.
95. Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man, (Boston, The Pilgrim Press, 1928), p. 60. Barth here opposes his position to “stark orthodoxy” and “dead belief in the letter”. Cf. Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 20., “The modern man finds the orthodox churchman, on account of the audacity of his claim, to be obnoxious, and justly so. .. With his erroneous premises he tries to protect the revelation in the Bible against doubt”.
96. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, I2, pp. 562f.: “Die Bibel ist kein Orakelbuch; sie ist kein Organ direkter Mitteilung. Sie ist wirklich Zeugnis. .. Die Menschen, die wir hier als Zeugen reden hören, reden als fehlbare, als irrenden Menschen wie wir selber. .. Man kann ihr Wort auch als blosses Menschenwort lesen und zu würdigen versuchen. Man kann es allerlei immanenter Kritik unterziehen, und zwar nicht nur hinsichtlich seines weltanschaulichen, geschichtlichen und moralischen, sondern auch hinsichtlich seines religiösen und theologischen Gehaltes”.
97. Ibid., p. 563: “Man kann mit Jakobus, man kann aber auch mit Paulus diskutieren. .. Man kann sich an der Bibel ärgern und. .. an der Bibel sogar ärgern müssen. .. Die Theopneustie der Bibel aber,. .. liegt nicht vor uns, indem die Bibel vor uns liegt und indem wir die Bibel lesen. Die Theopneustie ist der Akt der Offenbarung in welchem die Propheten und Apostel in ihrer Menschlichkeit wurden, was sie waren, und in dem allein sie in ihrer Menschlichkeit auch uns werden können, was sie sind”.
98. Ibid., p. 564: “Man weiss doch wohl erst dann, was man sagt, wenn man die Bibel Gottes Wort nennt, wenn man dieser ihrer göttlichen Vollkommenheit gegenüber auch ihre menschliche Unvollkommenheit vorbehaltlos anerkannt. .. Eben dieser Unterscheidung zwischen der Inspiration und also der göttlichen Infallibilität der Bibel und ihrer menschlichen Fallibilität muss nun aber grundsätzlich durchgeführt werden. .. Wir stossen in der Bibel hinsichtlich alles dessen, was ihr Welt- und Menschenbild betrifft, beständig auf Voraussetzungen, die nicht die unsrigen sind, und auf Feststellungen und Urteile die wir uns nicht zu eigen machen können. Es kann sich nicht darum handeln die hier entstehende Anstösse gründsätzlich zu beseitigen. Mann kann wohl damit rechnen, dass dies praktisch im Einzelnen manchmal möglich wird und man wird sich dafür auch offen-halten müssen; man wird deshalb statt von ‘Irrtümern’ der biblischen Autoren schon auf diesem Gebiet, wenn man grundsätzlich reden will, besser nur von ihrer ‘Irrtumsfähigkeit’ reden, weil die Sicht und das Wissen gerade unserer Zeit schliesslich auch hinsichtlich des allgemeinen Welt- und Menschenbildes weder göttlich noch auch nur salomonisch sein dürfte. .. Wir haben dann. .. uns also deutlich zu machen, dass es in der Bibel durchaus darum gehen kann, das Wort Gottes zu glauben, obwohl es uns nicht in der Gestalt dessen, was wir Geschichte nennen, sondern in der Gestalt dessen, was wir Sage oder Legende nennen zu müssen meinen, begegnet”. Yet Barth draws the line at myths! (Doct. of Word of God, pp. 376f.).
99. Kirchliche Dogmatik, I2, pp. 588f.: “Ist est nun aber ernst mit dem Ereignischarakter dieses Wunders, dann können wir die Gegenwart des Wortes Gottes in der Bibel nicht als eine diesen Buch als solchem und in seinem uns vorliegenden Bestand von Büchern, Kapiteln und Versen nun einmal inhärierende Eigenschaft ansehen. .. Wir erinnern uns, in und mit der Kirche, dass das Wort Gottes auch schon in diesem ganzen Buch, in allen seinen Bestandteilen gehört worden ist; und daraufhin erwarten wir, das Wort Gottes in diesem Buch wiederzuhören, es selber auch da zu hören, wo wir es wohl bisher für unsere Person noch nicht gehört haben. .. Es ist ein unfassbares Gegenwärtigsein: keine dritte Zeit zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft. .. sondern die als Zeit unbegreifliche Mitte zwischen beiden. . .”
100. Ibid., pp. 589f.: “Daruber, wann, wo und wie die Bibel sich uns in solchem Ereignis als Gottes Wort bewährt, darüber entscheiden nicht wir, darüber entscheidet Gottes Wort selber. .. Wir sind aber gänzlich dispensiert davon, innerhalb der Bibel auszusondern das Göttliche von Menschlichen, den Gehalt von der Gestalt, den Geist vom Buchstaben, um dann das Erstere bedächtig zu wählen, das Letztere hochmütig zu verwerfen. .. Hat Gott sich der Fehlbarkeit all der menschliche Worte der Bibel, ihren geschichtlichen und naturwissenschaftlichen Irrtümer, ihrer theologischen Widersprüche, der Unsicherheit ihrer Überlieferung und vor allem ihres Judentums nicht geschämt, sondern hat er sich dieser Worte in ihren ganzen Fehlbarkeit angenommen und bedient, dann brauchen wir uns dessen auch nicht zu schämcn. . .”
101. Ibid., p. 591: “Gott redet jetzt, was dieser Text redet. Gottes Werk geschiet durch diesen Text”.
102. Ibid., p. 592: “Verbalinspiration bedeutet nicht: Unfehlbarkeit des biblischen Wortes in seinem sprachlichen, geschichtlichen, theologischen Charakter als menschliches Wort. Verbalinspiration bedeutet: das fehlbare und fehlende menschliche Wort ist jetzt als solches von Gott in seinen Dienst genommen und ungeachtet seiner menschlichen Fehlbarkeit als solches anzunehmen und zu hören”.
103. Brunner, op. cit., p. 19. Cf. Bryden, W. W., The Christian’s Knowledge of God (Toronto, The Thorn Press, 1940), pp. 23ff.
104. Barth, op. cit., pp. 593f.: “Das Bedenken liegt nahe, ob damit der Objektivität der Wahrheit, dass die Bibel Gottes Wort ist, Genüge getan sei, ob diese Beschreibung nicht mindestens in Gefahr stehe, nun vielleicht doch dahin gedeutet zu werden, als ob unser Glaube die Bibel zu Gottes Wort mache. .. Wir werden vor dieser Gefahr nicht die Augen verschliessen. Wir werden uns aber fragen müssen, wie ihr zu begegnen, wie denn jener objectivität der Inspiration der Bibel Genüge zu leisten ist. .. Ihr ist damit Genüge geleistet, dass wir daran glauben und darauf vertrauen, dass Gottes Handeln in der Begründung und Erhaltung seiner Kirche, mit dem wir es in der Inspiration der Bibel zu tun haben, objektiv genug ist, um sich den Einbrüchen und Ausbrüchen der menschlichen Subjektivität gegenüber wieder siegrich durchzusetzen”. Barth asserts unreservedly but not altogether convincingly: “Unser Glaube ist es gewiss nicht, der die Bibel zu Gottes Wort macht” (ibid.).
105. Especially sharply in the Westminster Confession of Faith, I, 1–5, 8–10; XIV, 2.