A Critical Evaluation of Karl Barth's Suggestion That ...beginningwithmoses.org/filestore/downloads/inerrancy.pdf · Biblical Inerrancy is Theologically Indefensible ... Whilst there

A Critical Evaluation of Karl Barth's Suggestion That

Biblical Inerrancy is Theologically Indefensible

T

i

e

h

f

a

w

a

G

s

c

r

Jonathan Gibson is a student at Moore Theological College, Sydney, and

one of the Editors for Beginning With Moses. He is the author of The Story of a

Kingdom – Bible study resources for people with English as a second

language, available from www.sok.org.uk.

Abstract

his paper critically evaluates the suggestion that biblical inerrancy is theologically

ndefensible in conversation with Karl Barth. For Barth, belief that the Scriptures are

rrant is a necessity to ensure at least four things: God's sovereign free grace, the true

umanity of the prophetic-apostolic witnesses, the supremacy of Christ and the role of

aith. Barth's position is established on a number of dogmatic propositions, which are

nalysed in this paper. After presenting laudable elements in Barth's position, the

eaknesses are exposed in four positive affirmations about Scripture. Demonstrating the

dequacy of human language, the direct identity between Scripture and the 'Word of

od', the inspiration of Scripture, and Scripture's covenantal function in God's

alvation, a greater miracle of sovereign free grace is proposed: the sovereign Lord of all

reation has bound himself to his people in an inerrant, covenantal word, which is to be

eceived by faith.

1

In his Church Dogmatics Karl Barth wrote:

As truly as Jesus died on the cross, as Lazarus died in Jn. 11, as the lame

were lame, as the blind were blind, […] so, too, the prophets and apostles

as such, even in their office, even in their function as witnesses, even in

the act of writing down their witness, were real, historical men as we are,

and therefore sinful in their action, and capable and actually guilty of error

in their spoken and written word (Barth, 1963 [1938], CD I/2, 529).1

For Barth, belief in the fallibility2 of Scripture is a necessity: to insist on its fallibility is to

maintain the sovereignty of God's free grace:

For that reason every time we turn the Word of God into an infallible biblical

word of man or the biblical word of man into an infallible Word of God we

resist […] the miracle that here fallible men speak the Word of God in fallible

human words – and we therefore resist the sovereignty of grace… (CD I/2,

529).

Moreover, an inerrant Bible is worthy of the charge of docetism. We must affirm, says

Barth, that the human authors were 'vulnerable' and 'capable of error even in respect of

religion and theology […] if we are not to take away their humanity, if we are not to be

1 Hereafter CD I/2, and Barth (1994 [1936], CD I/1) hereafter CD I/1. 2 Barth uses 'infallibility' and 'inerrancy' interchangeably, and thus also the concepts of fallibility and errancy. Whilst there is a distinction between the two, for the purposes of critiquing Barth we will also use them interchangeably. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy cited in Packer (1979, 146) makes the following distinction: 'Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading not being mislead and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrancy signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.'

2

guilty of Docetism' (CD I/2, 510). Besides, it is '…mere self-will and disobedience to try

to find some infallible elements in the Bible' (CD I/2, 531). Barth's posit is at heart

theological (Frame, 1973, 164; Ward, 2003, 155).3

Before critically evaluating Barth's suggestion that biblical inerrancy is theologically

indefensible, it is important to further understand Barth's dogmatic structure and what

influences his position. Five important points may be observed. First, God's revelation is a

personal event, the Word of God himself. That to which the prophets and apostles witness is

the event4 of God's self-revelation in His incarnate Son (CD I/1, 127): 'God's revelation is

Jesus Christ, the Son of God' (CD I/1, 137). Whilst admitting that God's revelation

takes a verbal form, Barth is at pains to insist that it is personal; a person in fact, Jesus

Christ (CD I/1, 138). This event of revelation in Jesus is God's event: 'God is known

through God and through God alone' (CD I/1, 321).

Second, Scripture's relation to this event is a unity-in-distinction, an 'indirect identity'. Scripture is

united to God's revelation in Jesus because it witnesses to it, but it is distinct from it

precisely because 'A witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses'

(CD I/2, 463). The prophets (expectation) and apostles (recollection) are a necessary

witness because 'We cannot have revelation "in itself"' (CD I/2, 492). But they are not

the revelation itself; there is an 'indirect identity':

3 A plethora of books and articles exist on the issue of biblical inerrancy, too many to produce a fair interaction with in this short paper. Therefore, we will respond to the criticism that inerrancy is theologically indefensible in conversation with Karl Barth, because he is one of the more theological proponents. Regarding other responses to biblical inerrancy: against 'limited inerrancy' see Lindsell (1976) and France (1982) contra Coleman (1974), against 'accommodation' see Grudem (1983, 53-57) contra Fuller (1968); Rogers and McKim (1979); Berkouwer (1975, 185-187). 4 'Ereignis' – Barth's key word in regard to revelation.

3

If we want to think of the Bible as a real witness of divine revelation, then clearly

we have to keep two things constantly before us and give them their due weight:

the limitation and the positive element, its distinctiveness from revelation, in so

far as it is only a human word about it, and its unity with it, in so far as revelation

is the basis, object and content of this word' (Barth, 1956 [1938], CD I/2, 463).

In sum, the biblical witness is both necessary and limited.

Barth later re-enforces this 'indirect identity' by drawing on an analogy with the

incarnation (CD I/2, 499-501).5 Obviously the analogy does not lie in a hypostatic union

between God and the biblical writers – since that is unique to the incarnation alone –

but rather in the fact that, like the incarnation, Scripture is not divine only or human only,

nor a mixture of the two. It is both 'very God' and 'very man' at the moment of

revelation, brought about solely by 'a decision and act of God to man' (CD I/2, 499,

500). For Barth, a 'direct identity' between the two natures in Scripture would mean a

transmutation of the divine and human, implying the same in the incarnation, which is

'impossible' (CD I/2, 499). Thus, Scripture is 'a witness of revelation which itself belongs

to revelation, and historically a very human literary document' (CD I/2, 501). This

ensures Christ's supremacy, for that which is human and finite (Scripture) must never be

given equal status with that which is divine and infinite (the Word of God himself).

This leads, third, to an assertion by Barth that, the human witness necessarily entails fallibility.

The prophets and apostles 'were real, historical men as we are, and therefore sinful in

their action, and capable and actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word'

(CD I/2, 529). For Barth, this fallibility does not just include cultural and historical

5 See Bromiley (1979, 37) for a succinct summary.

4

details, but 'extends to its religious or theological content' (CD I/2, 509). To refuse this

reality of human fallibility in the Bible is to be guilty of docetism (CD I/2, 510).

Fourth, this fallible witness is an 'unsuitable' medium for God's revelation. God's Word comes to

us 'in the mystery of its secularity', a 'twofold indirectness': its creaturely and fallen reality

(CD I/1, 165). But this form is wholly 'unsuitable' to reveal God: 'It does not

correspond to the matter but contradicts it. It does not unveil it but veils it' (CD I/1,

166). This form is other than God himself, and is in fact 'the cosmos in which sin

reigns'; such that, 'If God's Word is revealed in it, it is revealed "through it," of course,

but in such a way that this "through it" means "in spite of it."' (CD I/1, 166).

However, herein, fifth, is the great miracle: in his sovereign free grace God chooses to use fallible

witnesses to reveal himself in the present. This 'secularity' is not a 'fatal accident'; rather it is 'an

authentic and inalienable attribute of the Word of God itself.' For, 'Revelation means the

incarnation of the Word of God', and 'If God did not speak to us in secular form, He

would not speak to us at all'. In fact, this is 'His real way to us, and consequently a

necessary and a good way' (CD I/1, 167). For 'God veils Himself and that in so doing

[…] He unveils Himself', because if he unveiled himself without this veil it would be 'the

end of us and all things'. And so 'In its secularity it is thus in every respect a Word of

grace' (CD I/1, 168). In short, the fallible witness accentuates God's grace.

Furthermore, God's grace is free: God decides as and when he will reveal himself in

Scripture; we cannot 'possess' or 'control' his revelation. Enter Barth's doctrine of

inspiration. Barth centres the heart of his argument on a 'circle of revelation'. Revelation

originates with God who authorises the prophets and apostles to speak and write, and

closes with the hearer being enabled by the Spirit to receive their words. By exposition

5

of various passages (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Cor 3:4-18 and 1 Cor 2:6-16)

Barth arrives at the view that there are two 'royal acts' in the one event of inspiration: the

inception of scripture in the past and the reception of it in the present. 'This self-

disclosure in its totality is theopneustia, the inspiration of the word of the prophets and the

apostles' (CD I/2, 516). In sum, Scripture needs the continuing, revealing work of the

Spirit of God for it to be the Word of God; the being of Scripture is in its becoming.6

Only in this sense, may we predicate Scripture with 'the Word of God'. In all this,

Barth's motive is to safeguard God's sovereign freedom and grace: 'To say that [the Bible

has the attribute of being the Word of God] would be to violate the Word of God which

is God himself – to violate the freedom and sovereignty of God' (CD I/2, 513).

The 'circle of revelation' is informative as it highlights Barth's criticisms of the Early

Church Fathers and High Orthodoxy of seventeenth century Protestantism. In his view,

by dealing only with the inception of the biblical writings, the Fathers reduced the grace

and mystery of God and ended up with 'verbal-inspiredness' rather than verbal

inspiration, turning the Bible into a 'bit of higher nature' (CD I/2, 517, 518). And High

Orthodoxy, guilty of the same thing, inadvertently undermined the great Reformation

principle of sola fidei: since knowledge of God now became 'a tangile certainty, not one

that is given and constantly has to be given again […] a certainty of work and not solely

of faith' (CD I/2, 524).

In sum, for Barth the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is theologically indefensible, on at

least four fronts. First, it resists God's sovereign free grace because revelation is God's

act in God's time. Second, it denies Scripture's humanity (which necessarily entails

fallibility). Third, it compromises the supremacy of Christ by attributing equal status to 6 Referred to earlier in CD I/1, 110. See McCormack (2004) for a helpful discussion, and Thompson (2006, 67n, 74n) for some cautions with McCormack's paper.

6

the Bible as the 'Word of God', implying some sort of second incarnation (Ward, 2003,

157). Fourth, the 'verbal inspiredness' of Scripture makes it a part of natural knowledge

of God, thus undermining sola fidei.

There are laudable elements to Barth's position. First of all, his controlling principle that

Scripture is autopistos is an admiral stance during a time when appeals were being made to

rationalism (liberalism), religious experience (Schleirmacher), and scientific or historical

investigation. Secondly, even although Barth affirms the fallibility of Scripture he never

really enters into criticism of it.7 Thirdly, a recovery of the Godness of God in his

sovereign free grace is a breath of theological fresh air. Fourthly, despite some

shortcomings of Barth's Christology,8 his strong commitment to Nicene Trinitarianism

and Chalcedonian Christology is to be affirmed (Packer, 1999, 13). Fifthly, Barth has

safeguarded any evangelical tendency toward docetism and bibliolatry, reminding us of

the genuine humanity of Scripture and of its personal centre – Jesus Christ. Sixthly, the

close relationship between the revelation of God and the 'illumination' of the Spirit in

Barth corrects any trajectory towards a fossilised 'Word of God'. With all this said

however, significant weaknesses exist with Barth's opposition to biblical inerrancy, to

which our critical evaluation now turns. Our criticisms will take the form of four

positive affirmations.

First, human language is an adequate medium for God's revelation despite human fallibility. Barth

overplays the limitation of human language. Creaturely forms of communication can and

must speak truthfully because God made them. We are God's image bearers and so our

capacity to communicate is derivative of his (Gaffin, 2004, 183); 'Language is a divine

construction' (Horton, 2002, 186). Even our sinfulness does not create any functional 7 In the eleven volumes of Church Dogmatics 'we hardly find any instance of criticism' (Runia, 1962, 105n). 8 See Thompson (2006, 75-76).

7

deficit in language itself; rather the problem lies with our misuse or abuse of it (Gaffin,

2004, 191). Tied to this is Barth's failure to distinguish the fact that fallibility refers to the

capacity to err – not the necessity to err (Sproul, 2005, 85; Knox, 2000, 315-317).9 Indeed,

although fallibility is possible for humans, actual fallibility is sub-human. We were created

to speak truthfully and even despite the Fall humans can still speak infallible words;

parrots too: 'Polly wants a cracker'.10 When the Holy Spirit's superintending work over

the prophetic-apostolic witness is taken into consideration, human language is an

adequate medium for God to speak inerrantly. God's transcendence should not be pitted

against this: 'If God chooses to speak to us personally, in his Son and through those he

has commissioned and enabled to write his words for us, then it is no transgression of

his majesty to take him at his word' (Thompson, 2006, 79). Barth's failure is to hold the

transcendence of God – he is wholly other than we are – alongside his immanence – he

comes up close and personal in creaturely words. And precisely because God is

transcendent we ought to heed the words of the biblical writers as the very words of

God, rather than question them (Frame, 1973, 174).

Second, the prophetic-apostolic witness and the 'Word of God' are directly identified in the Bible. The

Bible presents a direct identity between human words and God's words. This is

evidenced in the OT with the prophets' oft-repeated phrase: 'Thus says the LORD' (cf.

Deut 18:15-20; Jer 1:9b-10; Horton, 2002, 133-134). The prophets' words are spoken of

in the same qualitative manner as God speaking through his Son in the last days (Heb

1:1-2).11 The difference between these two periods of God speaking is eschatological:

9 At first glance it may appear that Barth concedes this distinction when he refers to 'capacity for errors' (CD I/2, 508). However, later on he says the apostles were ' actually guilty of error' (CD I/2, 529), though again he gives no actual examples. 10 The ability of infallible human words is best demonstrated in the fact that the fruit of the unio hypostatica in the incarnation produced just that – the words of our Lord (Cameron, 1988, 42-44). The legitimacy of an incarnational model of Scripture certainly requires care, but Cameron's point is to be acknowledged.10

11 The same verb lalh/saj is used in each case.

8

the Son's revelation is consummative, but there is no hint of any qualitative difference.

Jesus' own view of the OT is that it is the 'word of God' (Mark 7:6-13).12 He equated his

own human words with the word of God (John 8:28b; 17:8), and his Apostles' words

were to be his words (Luke 10:16; Matt 10:40). Indeed, they had no hesitancy in claiming

their words were the Holy Spirit's words (Acts 5:32; 15:28).13

Barth is not unaware of some of these texts; according to him these texts reveal only one

aspect of the witness: the aspect of unity (CD I/2, 487). However, it is remarkable that

no scriptural proof is adduced for the distinction between Scripture and the Word of

God, only an appeal to his definition of witness; which is not without its difficulties

either. For example, there is more happening than 'witnessing' in the biblical text

(Gibson, 2004, 30). John the Baptist's 'prodigious index finger' (CD I/1, 112) is a

hermeneutical pointer: this one is 'the lamb of God' (John 1:29). Furthermore, this

dichotomy in Scripture between words (witness) and person (revelation) is too sharp. As

Wolterstorff (1995, 75-94) shows, a person is identified in his words, and to respond to

his words is to respond to him. And equating Scripture with the 'Word of God' does

not, as Barth infers, compromise the supremacy of Christ, since Scripture itself makes

such an equation (Ward, 2003, 174). By establishing the 'indirect identity' between

Scripture and the 'Word of God' Barth creates room for affirming the fallibility of the

human witnesses. However, having seen the direct identity affirmed in Scripture

between the words of men and God's Word, Barth's distinction does not hold up, and

this in turn calls into question his doctrine of the Bible's fallibility. In addition, affirming

the direct identity does not in any way undermine faith, or turn it into a work for that

matter; rather it secures the central role of faith since to believe Christ is to believe the

witness about him. 12 See Wenham (1984, 11-38) for a substantial list of biblical references. 13 For a plethora of texts regarding Scripture's self-attestation see Grudem (1983, 19-64).

9

Third, Scripture is by its very nature the Word of God because God inspired it. For Barth,

inspiration is focused on the writers and recipients. However, qeo,pneustoj is a predicate

of pa/sa grafh. (Wallace, 1996, 313-314); '[I]ts reference is a divine action performed on

the text' (Gibson, 2004, 32). Moreover, B.B. Warfield, in his seminal work on

inspiration,14 suggests that qeo,pneustoj refers more to a 'spiring' than an 'in-spiring'; in

other words Scripture is breathed out by God, not breathed into by God (Warfield, 1948,

132-133). This means a direct identification of the human text with the 'word of God',

so that in a 'concursive operation' the Bible is always a human and divine word;

eliminating the need for any supplementary action to render it divine.

In addition, Barth's historical anchor is far from secure. Accusing the Early Church and

High Orthodoxy of a deficient view of verbal inspiration is unwarranted when in the

light of 2 Tim 3:16 a legitimate characteristic of Scripture is its 'verbal inspiredness',

irrespective of whether it is received or not.15 Barth's references to Luther are primarily

in relation to the illumination of the Spirit (CD I/2, 521), but he ignores other quotes of

Luther regarding the inspired nature of Scripture itself.16 Barth's employment of Calvin's

work in the Institutes (Calvin, 1960 [1559], I.vii.4, 78-79) and his commentary on 2 Tim

3:16 is puzzling since the former is referring to the internal testimony of the Spirit, and

the latter states: 'we owe to the Scripture the same reverence we owe to God, since it has

its only source in him' (Calvin, 1964, 330). Both Luther and Calvin were unhesitant in

predicating Scripture with 'the Word of God'.17 Barth risks collapsing illumination into

inspiration and allows this to drive his definition of verbal inspiration, and in turn his

historical assessment. Again, Barth's desire to honour God's sovereign freedom in

14 See Ward's discussion of Warfield (2002, 263-298). 15 'For whatever the written thing is, it remains that even if people ignore it, even if people turn blind eyes to it and fail to see it for what it is, and receive none of God’s self-presencing by this means ' (Carson, 2006, no pages; emphasis original). 16 See Thompson (1998) for these. 17 See Thompson (1998) and Murray (1979, 11-34).

10

revelation is applaudable, but in this case the Bible presents no tension, for, 'it is not at

all clear why a recognition that this text finds its source in God […] should threaten the

sovereign freedom of God' (Thompson, 2006, 76). And furthermore, if the text finds its

source in God, is it right to associate fallibility with it? This leads to our final affirmation

about Scripture.

Fourth, Scripture's function in the economy of salvation is covenantal. The way the Bible hangs

together – old and new covenant – betrays 'a fundamental theological characteristic of

Scripture' (Gibson, 2004, 28): it is a covenant document.18 Paul provides the warrant for

this in the titles he accords to Old and New Testaments (cf. 2 Cor 3:14, 6 respectively).19

A number of important factors emerge from viewing Scripture in this way. Firstly, again

there is a direct identity between God's words and the words of the covenant. The first

written Word of God was the Ten Commandments, written by the very finger of God –

in human language no less (Exod 24:12; 31:18; 32:15f; 34:1). Those words were not a

human witness about God; they were God's witness against men, and as such they were to be

obeyed not questioned. Secondly, a covenantal view of Scripture provides us with, in our

mind, a better perspective on God's sovereign freedom. God 'limits' his freedom by

binding himself to his people. Yet God remains completely free since it was always his

gracious initiative to enter it, uncoerced by man. Barth's doctrine of God's freedom lacks

the nuance of the biblical perspective. Thirdly, the God who binds himself in covenant

proclaims to be 'A Faithful God who can do no wrong' (Deut 32:4).20 This view of the

trustworthiness of God 'is not so easily side-stepped by Barth's re-positioning of the

miracle that occurs in the renewing of the fallible biblical witness' (Gibson, 2004, 35). 18 See further Kline (1963; 1968; 1997), Vanhoozer (2002, 127-158), Horton (2002), Jensen (2002, 74-83), Frame (2006, no pages). 19 Reading parts of the OT as the 'Book of the Covenant' is seen in 2 Chr 34:14-31 (cf. Exod 24:7; Jensen, 2002, 81-82). 20 Jensen (2002, 69) argues that God's covenant name 'I will be what I will be' (Exod 3:14) even implies truthfulness.

11

For Barth, the miracle of Scripture becoming the Word of God means, 'God Himself

now says what the text says' (CD I/2, 532). But if what the text says in its humanity is

errant (CD I/2, 531), then for Barth to be consistent, at the moment of 'inspiration' God

speaks errant words, for God's revelation can come to us only through the fallible human

witness (CD I/2, 529).21 If Barth would not wish us to arrive at such a conclusion – and

we are sure that he would not! – it is difficult to discern exactly what conclusion he would

have us arrive at, since he provides no alternative.

This logical conundrum raises the issue of God's truthfulness and trustworthiness, to

which Heb 6:13-20 sheds some light. In these verses the assertion that God cannot lie

refers specifically to his promise. Helm observes that 'the character of God is imputed or

transferred to his word' (2002, 244), such that if God is trustworthy, then by necessity so

is his word. By application, 'This principle of transference applies par excellence to the

Incarnate Word, but counts with equal validity to anything else that is identified as the

word of God, to the works of prophets and apostles, for example' (Helm, 2002, 244).

Thus if Scripture is God's covenantal word – and God cannot lie – then by the

connection observed between the immutability of God and his covenant promise in

Scripture, Scripture cannot lie; it must be inerrant.22 Calvin shows only too well how

God's integrity for speaking the truth entails the truthfulness of the Scriptures: 'And it is

not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy [cf. Rom. 3:3], who can neither

deceive nor lie [cf. Titus 1:2], unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever

precedes from him is sacred and inviolable truth' (Calvin, 1960 [1559], III.ii.6, 549).

Viewing Scripture as covenantal in the economy of God's salvation is theologically

foundational to biblical inerrancy.23

21 Also, 'We cannot have revelation "in itself"' (CD I/2, 492). 22 We are of course referring here to the original autographs. See Bahnsen (1980, 151-196). 23 From this covenantal standpoint biblical inerrancy is buttressed all the more when one then looks at Scripture's self-attestation (Grudem, 1983, 19-64).

12

It can been seen from our four positive affirmations – the adequacy of human language,

the direct identity between Scripture and the Word of God, the inspiration of Scripture,

and Scripture's covenantal function – that Barth's suggestion that biblical inerrancy is

theologically indefensible does not hold up under close scrutiny. We think that Barth's

concerns regarding the miracle of God's sovereign free grace, Scripture's humanity,

Christ's supremacy, and the role of faith, are both met and challenged in different ways

in our theological presentation of biblical inerrancy. For Barth, the errancy of Scripture

is a necessity to ensure the miracle of God's sovereign free grace. However, we would

propose that a greater miracle exists: the sovereign Lord of all creation has graciously

chosen to bind himself to his people in an inerrant, covenantal word that witnesses to

his own perfect Son, so that we, weak as we are, may have 'a sure and steadfast anchor

of the soul' (Heb 6:19). An 'idle miracle' (CD I/2, 530)? No, rather an 'even bolder

assertion' (CD I/2, 529), to be received by faith.

13

Bibliography of works cited Bahnsen, Greg L. 'The Inerrancy of the Autographa'. Pages 151-196 in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol I/1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. T. Thomson. Latest ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994 [1936]. ————— Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol I/2. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Latest ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963 [1938]. Berkouwer, G. C. Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Bromiley, Geoffrey, W. An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Cameron, Nigel M. de S. ‘Incarnation and Inscripturation: The Christological Analogy in the Light of Recent Discussion’. The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (1985): 35-46. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics 20-21. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960 [1559]. ————— The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Vol 10. Translated by T.A. Smail. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964 [15??]. Carson, D.A. Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review. No Pages. Cited 12 September 2006.http://www.reformation21.com/Past_Issues/May_2006/Shelf_Life/Shelf_Life/181/vobId__2926/pm__434/ . Coleman, R. J. 'Reconsidering Limited Inerrancy'. The Journal of Evangelical Theology. 17 (1974): 207-214. Frame, John M. 'God and Biblical Language'. Pages 159-177 in God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium On The Trustworthiness Of Scripture. Edited by John Warwick Montogomery. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973). ————— Is the Bible Inerrant? No pages. Cited 16 September 2006.http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1999IsThe.htm. France, R.T. 'Evangelical Disagreements About the Bible'. Churchman 96 (1982): 226-240. Fuller, Daniel P. 'Benjamin B. Warfield's view of faith and history'. Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 75-83.

14

Gaffin Jr., Richard B. 'Speech and the Image of God: Biblical Reflection on Languages and Its Uses'. Pages 181-193 The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminaries. Essays in Honour of Robert B. Strimple. Edited by David VanDrunen. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004. Gibson, David. ‘The God of Promise: Christian Scripture as Covenantal Revelation’. Themelios 29 (2004): 27-36. Grudem, Wayne A. 'Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 19-64 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Helm, Paul. 'The Perfect Trustworthiness of God'. Pages 237-252 in The Trustworthiness of God. Perspectives on the nature of Scripture. Edited by Paul Helm and Carl Trueman. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. Horton, Michael. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Jensen, Peter F. The Revelation of God. Contours of Christian Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. 2002. Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. ————— By Oath Consigned. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1968. ————— The Structure of Biblical Authority. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997. Knox, D. Broughton. ‘God’s Word’. Pages 293-305 in Selected Works: Volume 1: The Doctrine of God. Edited by Tony Payne. 2 vols. Kingsford N.S.W.: Matthias Media, 2000. Lindsell, H. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. McCormack, Bruce. 'The Being of Holy Scripture Is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism'. Pages 55-75 in Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm. eds. Evangelicals and Scripture: tradition, authority and hermeneutics. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004. Murray, John. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1979. Packer, J.I. Honouring the Word of God. Vol 3. Collected Shorter Writings. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Rogers, Jack and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979. Runia, Klaas. Karl Barth's Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

15

Sproul, R.C. Scripture Alone: the Evangelical Doctrine. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2005. Thompson, Mark. A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture. NSBT. Leicester: Apollos, 2006. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ————— ‘The Incarnation and Scripture’. Pages 152-184 in The Word Became Flesh: Evangelicals and the Incarnation: Papers from the Sixth Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003. Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948. Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984. Wolterstorff, Nicolas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical reflections on the claim that God speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

16

Other Works Consulted Bacote, Vincent, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm. eds. Evangelicals and Scripture: tradition, authority and hermeneutics. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004. Barr, James. Escaping from Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1983. ————— Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977. Barth, Karl. The Word of God and the Word of Man. Gloucester: Peter Smith Publisher, 1978. Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena. vol. 1. Translated by J. Vriend. Edited by J. Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Berkhof Louis. ‘What is the Word of God’. No Pages. Cited 13 June 2005. Online: http://www.the-highway.com/word1_Berkhof.html Berkouwer, G.C. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. London: The Paternoster Press, 1956. Berkouwer, G.C. ‘General and Special Divine Revelation’ Pages 13-24 in Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Edited by Carl F. H. Henry. 1st ed. London: Tyndale, 1959. Brown, Colin. Karl Barth and the Christian Message. London: Tyndale Press, 1967. Brown, Harold O.J. 'The Arian Connection: Presuppositions of Errancy'. Pages 383-401 in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984. Carson, D.A. 'Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 1-49 in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986. ————— The Gagging of God. Leicester: Apollos, 1996. Clark, Gordon H. Karl Barth's Theological Method. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1963. Conn, Harvie M. ed. Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988. Davis, Stephen T. 'What Do We Mean When We Say, "The Bible Is True?"'. Pages 86-103 in But Is It All True? The Bible and the Question of Truth. Edited by A.G. Padgett & P.R. Keifert. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006. Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis. Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.

17

Dunn, James D.G. 'The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture'. Churchman 96 (1982): 104-122. ————— 'The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture (continued)'. Churchman 96 (1982): 201-225. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Fairweather, A. M. The Word as Truth: A Critical Examination of the Christian Doctrine of Revelation in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth. London: Lutterworth, 1944. Feinberg, Paul. 'Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of'. Pages 156-159 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic: 2001. Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. A Theology of Lordship. Pennsylvania: P&R Publishing, 1987. ————— The Doctrine of the Word of God. Lecture Outlines. No pages. Cited 16 September 2006. http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/TH.Frame.Doctrine.Word.pdf#search=%22john%20frame%2C%20doctrine%20of%20the%20word%22 Geisler, Norman L. 'Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Inerrancy'. Pages 307-336 in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980. ————— Biblical Inerrancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Gerstner, John. 'The Contributions of Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen to the Doctrine of Inspiration'. Pages 374-382 in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984. Godfrey, W. Robert. 'Biblical Authority in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: A Question of Transition'. Pages 225-250 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Goldingay, John. 'James Barr on Fundamentalism'. Churchman 91:4 (1977): 295-308. Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Gunton, C.E. A Brief Theology of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. Hart, Trevor. ‘Revelation’. Pages 37-56 in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Edited by John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

18

_________ ‘The Word, the words and the witness: Proclamation as divine and human reality in the theology of Karl Barth’, Tyndale Bulletin 46.1 (1995), 81-102. Helm, Paul and Carl Trueman. eds. The Trustworthiness of God. Perspectives on the nature of Scripture. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. Helm, Paul. 'Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures'. Pages 303-324 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. Henry, Carl F.H. ed. Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. ————— God, Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows. Volume IV. 6 vols. Texas: Word Books, 1979. Horton, Michael. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. Louiseville: WJK Press, 2005. Kuyper, Abraham. Principles of Sacred Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. Lewis, Gordon R. 'The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture'. Pages 229-266 in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980. Lovelace, Richard. 'Inerrancy: Some Historical Perspectives'. Pages 15-47 in Inerrancy & Common Sense. Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. McGrath, Alister E. A Passion For Truth: the intellectual coherence of evangelicalism. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. McKim, Donald K. ed. How Karl Barth Changed My Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. McKim, Donald K. ed. The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 'Inerrancy or Verbal Inspiration? An Evangelical Dilemma'. Pages 71-95 in Inerrancy & Common Sense. Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. Montgomery, John Warwick. ed. God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on The Trustworthiness of Scripture. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973. Moo, Douglas J. 'The Problem of Sensus Plenoir'. Pages 175-212 in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986. Morris, Leon. 'Biblical Authority and the Concept of Inerrancy'. Churchman 81 (1967): 22-28.

19

Mueller, David L. ‘The Contributions and Weaknesses of Karl Barth’s View of the Bible’. Pages 423-447 in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987. Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatic: Holy Scripture. vol 2. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003. Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. Volume 4: Studies in Theology. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982. ————— 'The Attestation of Scripture'. Pages 1-54 in Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. 1946. Nash, Ronald. The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1982. Nicole, Roger. 'The Nature of Inerrancy'. Pages 49-70 in Inerrancy & Common Sense. Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. ————— 'The Biblical Concept of Truth'. Pages 287-302 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983. ————— ‘The Neo-Orthodox Reduction’. Pages 121-144 in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984. ————— 'Why I am "comfortable" with Inerrancy'. Reformation $ Revival Journal 11:3 (2002): 112-124. No Author. The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987. Noll, Mark A. The Princeton Theology 1812-1921. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983. Packer, J.I. God has Spoken. Hodder Christian Essentials. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979. ————— 'The Adequacy of Human Language'. Pages 197-228 in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980. ————— Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1996. Preus, R. ‘The Doctrine of Revelation in contemporary theology’. Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9.3 (1966), 111-123. Radmacher, Earl D. and Robert D. Preus. eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

20

Raschke, Carl A. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Reid, J.K.S. The Authority of Scripture. A Study of the Reformation and Post-Reformation Understanding of the Bible. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1957. Reymond, Robert A. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Nelson, 1998. Torrance, Thomas F. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. Turretin, Francis. The Doctrine of Scripture: Locus 2 of Institutio theologiae elencticae. Edited and translated by John W. Beardslee III. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981. Van Til, Cornelius. Christianity and Barthianism. Pennsylvania: P&R Publishing, 1962. ————— The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture. In Defense of Biblical Christianity. Vol 1. California: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1967. ————— 'Nature and Scripture'. Pages 263-301 in Members of the Faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. 1946. Wallace, Daniel B. 'My Take on Inerrancy'. No pages. Cited 10 August 2006. Online: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200 Watson, Francis. ‘The Bible’. Pages 57-71 in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Edited by John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Wenham, John W. 'Christ's View of Scripture'. Pages 3-38 in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980. Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. ————— 'Some Misconceptions of the Impact of the "Enlightenment" on the Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 237-270 in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986. Woodbridge, John D. and Randall H. Balmer. 'The Princetonians and Biblical Authority: An Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal'. Pages 251-286 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

21

Yarbrough, Robert W. ‘Revelation’. Pages 732-38 in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000. Zerbe, Alvin Sylvester. The Karl Barth Theology or The New Transcendentalism. Cleveland: Central Publishing House, 1930.

22