I mentioned in the last post on Barth some different traditional “natural” theologies, one of which included a view of salvation history and also the Bible as objectively true. For a flavor of what I meant, just searching around some different blogs, here is a representative quotation:
Thanks, Phil, for sharing Paul Tripp’s description of the Bible as a story with God’s annotated notes. I think that is a good way of putting it. But I have started to use ’story” less and have been using the term “history” instead. I know that “story” is effective in highlighting the integrated narrative of the Bible. But I worry that post-moderns may be comfortable with story without being comfortable with the Bible as history. It is a great story, but it also has really happened in such a way as to authoritatively define human experience. Now, of course, this is something covered in God’s annotated notes: the strength of Paul’s expression is that it adds in the didactic and dogmatic element. But I just worry that the current vogue of always highlighting the Bible “story” we may be playing into postmodern hands.
AND
History is (of course) an essential category to use in describing the Bible. The Bible has a narrative structure. What kind of narrative is it? A theologically-annotated one (see previous post). Also, an historical one. It is not enough to say that the Bible is a true story, because stories can be true in different ways. We must also assert and defend the claim that the Bible is true history. That having been said, it should also be said that even calling the Bible “history” may not be sufficient in these post-modern times, because history itself is increasingly viewed as a perspectival enterprise. We do not have facts, only differing perspectives on what happened. In this context, it may be important to say that the Bible is divinely authored history that gives a God’s-eye perspective of what happened. God doesn’t have a point of view; he has a complete view.
I also still want to say that narrative or story is a useful (if by itself incomplete) category for understanding the Bible. It reminds us that the Bible is unified, not simply because its propositions are logically consistent, but also because it tells one grand story of the one true God and his one people in history. Also, we ourselves are part of the story that the Bible tells. The term “history” is usually understood to refer to things that have happened in the past. But the Bible also tells us our story — the story of what God is doing in the universe today, until the end of time.
Both quotations from Reformation21 website. 1st one here, 2nd here.
Compared to that strain of theology, I appreciate more Barth’s dialectical/encounter theology.
I do like that last sentence of the 2nd quotation however: that the sense of history is one that is on-going, including us today, and into the future. But I think story sufficiently covers that aspect (which those authors clearly do not) of Divine efficacy.
