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)
BCLS, pg , pdf page 6:
We have to distinguish between literal intention and
historical, factual truth. The figures are not, to us, historically, scientifically or
factually true, but they were literally intended. A year to them was the same period as it
still is to us. The figures do not correspond with actual fact, that is, they
or some of them are legendary or mythical in character, but the biblical
writers in overwhelming probability did think that they corresponded to actual
fact. When, in modern times, people began to say that these passages were ‘not
to be taken literally’, this was really a cowardly expedient which enabled them
to avoid saying that, though they were literally intended, they were not
literally true. They were
literally intended: they were chronological statements of numbers of
years and made no sense otherwise.
BCLS, pg 17, pdf page 20:
... it is time that we recall
ourselves to a sympathetic attempt to understand it [the Bible] as a literary form and a mode of
theological expression.
*** Barr makes a grand attempt to appear as a friend of the
Bible, to be in sympathy with the Bible against the "liberal" trend
in modern times to dismiss it as only legendary. But Barr is sadly mistaken for it goes directly against what
Christ himself said and as Franz Pieper stresses:
John 17:20 ... pray I for ... them ... which shall believe
on me through their word
Whose word? The
words of the Apostles and Prophets. Ephesians 2:20
PSC, pg 8:
...the Bible’s figures should be
taken literally,
because it is when they are taken literally that it becomes clear that they are not historically or scientifically true.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prof. James Barr takes a rather devilish approach here – he wants to appear to be a friend of Scripture. He implies we are to believe something that is not true, at least not entirely true. That may work for the American Philosophical Society but what comfort is there for a Christian who needs assurance from God that his sins are forgiven? None.
Not so with the old (German) Missouri Synod... and Martin
Luther. Because they
upheld the Doctrine of Inspiration, Christians can take comfort in knowing
that when they read their Bible, it is the voice of our God where he speaks to
us. And because Martin Luther's great
scholarship was tied to his towering faith, we can give great credence to his
biblical chronology, more so than the Calvinist James Ussher.
There is a clear difference between the positions of Prof.
James Barr and that of Martin Luther and the old (German) Missouri Synod. Either you believe the Bible because it is
ancient and "literal" or you believe the Bible because it is divinely
inspired, inerrant, infallible – truth.
Who are you going to believe? God or modern theologian-scholars?
In the next post Part 7a, I will review certain essays that have come from the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) regarding biblical chronology; the first of these is on Prof. John Brug.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.