Barth On Revelation
(Where "witness and instrument comes from)
Karl Barth writes to the effect that the Bible is not itself to be
considered God's past revelation. But the Bible speaking to us and heard
by us attests to past revelation. Barth constantly uses the phrase, "the
revelation attested in Scripture." To "attest," he says, is to point beyond
to something else. In this idea of attestation Barth seems to confuse
personal witnesses (such as Paul) — who of course do point away from themselves to Something else — with the witness of the Bible. Now, while
Paul may point to Something beyond himself, it is not necessary to
conclude that the Scriptural doctrine of justification or of sanctification
points "beyond." If God gave Paul certain doctrinal information and
if Paul wrote down this information accurately, then the words of God
and the words of Paul would be identical. (Then the words of Paul
would not "witness" to revelation, they would be revelation. — Ed.)
— Gordon H. Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment