Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:
- UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
- BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
- LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
- PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)
UBC, pg 599:
It was actually the assumption that all scripture hung together that forced Ussher at certain points to nullify the extremely probable sense of the text.
It was actually the assumption that all scripture hung together that forced Ussher at certain points to nullify the extremely probable sense of the text.
*** The "sense" of the text for Professor Barr
must only be "sensible" for him and his reason. Ah, but all Scripture does "hang
together", for "scripture cannot be broken". John 10:35. Sorry,
Professor Barr. Archbishop Ussher showed he had some claim to Protestantism
where he did hold to the infallible Scriptures. ***
LBC, pg 55:
Luther's solution to this question
[of Abraham's birth date] is undoubtedly right; it shows common sense and critical
ability, while the alternative position as adopted by Calvin and Ussher
makes literary nonsense of the Genesis passages.
*** Luther is praised here, not because he gives priority
to the O.T. chronology, but because he acknowleges that the Book of Acts had an
"error". It wasn't common sense or critical ability... it was his
faith, faith in the Holy Scriptures. Barr will not allow this, but he will
allow that the Book of Acts had an "error". ***
LBC, pg 56:
Common sense, so wholesomely present in Luther's
handling of Abraham's birth, is
as conspicuously absent from this proposal. ... Luther... was taking a most unreasonable stand.
*** The doctrine of universal grace is unreasonable also to
Prof. Barr, the Calvinist. ***
LBC, pg 56:
[Luther] was introducing a
principle of omission because of evil-doing that must undermine all certainty in biblical chronology,
*** James Barr,
the great protector of "biblical chronology"! No, not Luther, but James Barr protects the
certainty of "biblical chronology", especially from the likes of
Martin Luther. Rubbish! Barr's certainty is based on his own
definition of "reasonable, sensible" scholarship, not what the Bible
says. ***
LBC, pg 58:
Luther's sensible solution to the question of
Abraham's birth shortened by sixty years...
*** As opposed to Luther's
insensible solution of interregna and other hypotheses... ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Franz Pieper also speaks much about what is "reasonable" and "sensible" for a Christian reader of his Bible. Drawing on Walther's work, he said (Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, page 310):
... as a natural, rational observation of the creation reveals God as its Creator (Rom. 1:18 ff.), so, too, a natural, rational study of Holy Scripture points to God as its author.By this we see that Prof. James Barr, and all modern theologians and scholars, are actually unnatural in their observations and study... they are unnatural and irrational in their criticism of Holy Scriptures.
In the next Part 6i, I will cover Barr's comments against Luther's use of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.