Barth on inerrancy
"The fact that the statement 'God reveals Himself' is the confession of a miracle that has happened certainly does not imply a blind credence in all the miracle stories related in the Bible. [...] It is really not laid upon us to take everything in the Bible as true in globo, but it is laid upon us to listen to its testimony when we actually hear it. A man might even credit all miracles and for that reason not confess the miracle. What it means is to confess revelation as a miracle that has happened; in other words, it means that the statement 'God reveals Himself' must be a statement of utter thankfulness, a statement of pure amazement, in which is repeated the amazement of the disciples at meeting the risen One".
- Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2, 65.
Of course, Barth could be wrong about this...
Posts
5 comments:
Hi Byron,
I assume that means KB thinks there are some/many miracle stories the historicity of which does not add to the testimony of the Bible...
Does he go into specific examples? Jesus's miracles? The Exodus? Balaam's ass?!
No specific examples in this passage, though I think your assumption is correct.
If Balaam's ass didn't happen I will be seriously disillusioned: I've always believed that talking out of one's ass had scriptural warrant...
Barth is quite convinced that God can speak however he wants.
ahhh yes the dead dog... disillusionment alleviated.
Post a Comment