Page 7

Barth meets Austin and Searle

Page 7

First, Barth argues that, in a derivative sense, the Bible can be called

"revelation" because it partakes of that to which it bears witness. This
assertion, however, is in fundamental contradiction with Barth's definition
of revelation as "encounter." A book can contain information, but it cannot
contain personal "encounter." If revelation is "encounter," it is neither
cognitive nor written. Thus, the Bible cannot in any sense be revelation. It
is the human witness of its human authors to their "encounter" with God.
Through this "witness" God "encounters" people today. The cognitive
"truths" of the Bible are the means or occasion of this encounter, but in
themselves they are time-bound and conditioned, thus subject to revision.

Second, there is a contradiction between Barth's affirmation that the

incarnate Son is revelation and his denial of revelatory status to the Bible.
As we have seen, Barth refuses to identify the Bible with revelation because
he does not want to restrict God's freedom to reveal Himself, he will not
make revelation a "given," available to us "on our own terms." If, however,
the incarnate Son of God was revelation, was not that revelation a "given,"
available to those who associated with Him? Revelation as "encounter"
cannot be permanently present in a person any more than in a book. Were
people always "encountering" God through Jesus? What about when He
was asleep? To be consistent, Barth would have to affirm that the
incarnation was only a means through which revelation occurred whenever
God encountered someone through Jesus. There is no reason why there
cannot be a "giveneness" to revelation both in the Son of God and in Holy
Scripture. The fact that God has given us true cognitive knowledge about
Himself does not mean that human beings can control Him or His revelation.
God gives His revelation in such a way that we can only accept it by
submission!

Third, Barth's position is most vulnerable when he attempts to defend

it by Scripture. Barth argues that all dogmatic statements must be based on
Scripture, and yet his own dogmatic statements about Scripture do not
correctly reflect Biblical teaching. Barth calls Scripture a "human witness"
to encounter with God. Can we imagine any New Testament writer referring
to an Old Testament book as merely a "human witness" to encounter with
God? The New Testament's use of the Old Testament clearly testifies to its
character as the word and revelation of God. Nowhere is this contradiction
more evident than in Barth's exposition of

in 2

Tim. 3:16. He interprets 2 Timothy 3:16 as if

referred to the writers of Scripture rather than

"every scripture." It is the Scripture itself that

is "God breathed." The Word of God may not have assumed the humanity