A Critical Evaluation of Karl Barth's Suggestion That

Biblical Inerrancy is Theologically Indefensible

Jonathan Gibson is a student at Moore Theological College, Sydney, and

one of the Editors for Beginning With Moses. He is the author of The Story of a
Kingdom Bible study resources for people with English as a second
language, available from www.sok.org.uk.

Abstract
This paper critically evaluates the suggestion that biblical inerrancy is theologically
indefensible in conversation with Karl Barth. For Barth, belief that the Scriptures are
errant is a necessity to ensure at least four things: God's sovereign free grace, the true
humanity of the prophetic-apostolic witnesses, the supremacy of Christ and the role of
faith. Barth's position is established on a number of dogmatic propositions, which are
analysed in this paper. After presenting laudable elements in Barth's position, the
weaknesses are exposed in four positive affirmations about Scripture. Demonstrating the
adequacy of human language, the direct identity between Scripture and the 'Word of
God', the inspiration of Scripture, and Scripture's covenantal function in God's
salvation, a greater miracle of sovereign free grace is proposed: the sovereign Lord of all
creation has bound himself to his people in an inerrant, covenantal word, which is to be
received by faith.

In his Church Dogmatics Karl Barth wrote:

As truly as Jesus died on the cross, as Lazarus died in Jn. 11, as the lame
were lame, as the blind were blind, [] so, too, the prophets and apostles
as such, even in their office, even in their function as witnesses, even in
the act of writing down their witness, were real, historical men as we are,
and therefore sinful in their action, and capable and actually guilty of error
in their spoken and written word (Barth, 1963 [1938], CD I/2, 529).1

For Barth, belief in the fallibility2 of Scripture is a necessity: to insist on its fallibility is to
maintain the sovereignty of God's free grace:

For that reason every time we turn the Word of God into an infallible biblical
word of man or the biblical word of man into an infallible Word of God we
resist [] the miracle that here fallible men speak the Word of God in fallible
human words and we therefore resist the sovereignty of grace (CD I/2,
529).

Moreover, an inerrant Bible is worthy of the charge of docetism. We must affirm, says
Barth, that the human authors were 'vulnerable' and 'capable of error even in respect of
religion and theology [] if we are not to take away their humanity, if we are not to be

Hereafter CD I/2, and Barth (1994 [1936], CD I/1) hereafter CD I/1.

Barth uses 'infallibility' and 'inerrancy' interchangeably, and thus also the concepts of fallibility and errancy.
Whilst there is a distinction between the two, for the purposes of critiquing Barth we will also use them
interchangeably. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy cited in Packer (1979, 146) makes the following
distinction: 'Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading not being mislead and so safeguards in
categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.
Similarly, inerrancy signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth
that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.'

1
2

guilty of Docetism' (CD I/2, 510). Besides, it is 'mere self-will and disobedience to try
to find some infallible elements in the Bible' (CD I/2, 531). Barth's posit is at heart
theological (Frame, 1973, 164; Ward, 2003, 155).3

Before critically evaluating Barth's suggestion that biblical inerrancy is theologically

indefensible, it is important to further understand Barth's dogmatic structure and what
influences his position. Five important points may be observed. First, God's revelation is a
personal event, the Word of God himself. That to which the prophets and apostles witness is
the event4 of God's self-revelation in His incarnate Son (CD I/1, 127): 'God's revelation is
Jesus Christ, the Son of God' (CD I/1, 137). Whilst admitting that God's revelation
takes a verbal form, Barth is at pains to insist that it is personal; a person in fact, Jesus
Christ (CD I/1, 138). This event of revelation in Jesus is God's event: 'God is known
through God and through God alone' (CD I/1, 321).

Second, Scripture's relation to this event is a unity-in-distinction, an 'indirect identity'. Scripture is

united to God's revelation in Jesus because it witnesses to it, but it is distinct from it
precisely because 'A witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses'
(CD I/2, 463). The prophets (expectation) and apostles (recollection) are a necessary
witness because 'We cannot have revelation "in itself"' (CD I/2, 492). But they are not
the revelation itself; there is an 'indirect identity':

A plethora of books and articles exist on the issue of biblical inerrancy, too many to produce a fair interaction
with in this short paper. Therefore, we will respond to the criticism that inerrancy is theologically indefensible
in conversation with Karl Barth, because he is one of the more theological proponents. Regarding other
responses to biblical inerrancy: against 'limited inerrancy' see Lindsell (1976) and France (1982) contra
Coleman (1974), against 'accommodation' see Grudem (1983, 53-57) contra Fuller (1968); Rogers and McKim
(1979); Berkouwer (1975, 185-187).
4 'Ereignis' Barth's key word in regard to revelation.
3

If we want to think of the Bible as a real witness of divine revelation, then clearly
we have to keep two things constantly before us and give them their due weight:
the limitation and the positive element, its distinctiveness from revelation, in so
far as it is only a human word about it, and its unity with it, in so far as revelation
is the basis, object and content of this word' (Barth, 1956 [1938], CD I/2, 463).

In sum, the biblical witness is both necessary and limited.

Barth later re-enforces this 'indirect identity' by drawing on an analogy with the
incarnation (CD I/2, 499-501).5 Obviously the analogy does not lie in a hypostatic union
between God and the biblical writers since that is unique to the incarnation alone
but rather in the fact that, like the incarnation, Scripture is not divine only or human only,
nor a mixture of the two. It is both 'very God' and 'very man' at the moment of
revelation, brought about solely by 'a decision and act of God to man' (CD I/2, 499,
500). For Barth, a 'direct identity' between the two natures in Scripture would mean a
transmutation of the divine and human, implying the same in the incarnation, which is
'impossible' (CD I/2, 499). Thus, Scripture is 'a witness of revelation which itself belongs
to revelation, and historically a very human literary document' (CD I/2, 501). This
ensures Christ's supremacy, for that which is human and finite (Scripture) must never be
given equal status with that which is divine and infinite (the Word of God himself).

This leads, third, to an assertion by Barth that, the human witness necessarily entails fallibility.
The prophets and apostles 'were real, historical men as we are, and therefore sinful in
their action, and capable and actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word'
(CD I/2, 529). For Barth, this fallibility does not just include cultural and historical

See Bromiley (1979, 37) for a succinct summary.

details, but 'extends to its religious or theological content' (CD I/2, 509). To refuse this
reality of human fallibility in the Bible is to be guilty of docetism (CD I/2, 510).

Fourth, this fallible witness is an 'unsuitable' medium for God's revelation. God's Word comes to
us 'in the mystery of its secularity', a 'twofold indirectness': its creaturely and fallen reality
(CD I/1, 165).

But this form is wholly 'unsuitable' to reveal God: 'It does not

correspond to the matter but contradicts it. It does not unveil it but veils it' (CD I/1,
166). This form is other than God himself, and is in fact 'the cosmos in which sin
reigns'; such that, 'If God's Word is revealed in it, it is revealed "through it," of course,
but in such a way that this "through it" means "in spite of it."' (CD I/1, 166).

However, herein, fifth, is the great miracle: in his sovereign free grace God chooses to use fallible
witnesses to reveal himself in the present. This 'secularity' is not a 'fatal accident'; rather it is 'an
authentic and inalienable attribute of the Word of God itself.' For, 'Revelation means the
incarnation of the Word of God', and 'If God did not speak to us in secular form, He
would not speak to us at all'. In fact, this is 'His real way to us, and consequently a
necessary and a good way' (CD I/1, 167). For 'God veils Himself and that in so doing
[] He unveils Himself', because if he unveiled himself without this veil it would be 'the
end of us and all things'. And so 'In its secularity it is thus in every respect a Word of
grace' (CD I/1, 168). In short, the fallible witness accentuates God's grace.

Furthermore, God's grace is free: God decides as and when he will reveal himself in
Scripture; we cannot 'possess' or 'control' his revelation. Enter Barth's doctrine of
inspiration. Barth centres the heart of his argument on a 'circle of revelation'. Revelation
originates with God who authorises the prophets and apostles to speak and write, and
closes with the hearer being enabled by the Spirit to receive their words. By exposition

of various passages (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Cor 3:4-18 and 1 Cor 2:6-16)
Barth arrives at the view that there are two 'royal acts' in the one event of inspiration: the
inception of scripture in the past and the reception of it in the present. 'This selfdisclosure in its totality is theopneustia, the inspiration of the word of the prophets and the
apostles' (CD I/2, 516). In sum, Scripture needs the continuing, revealing work of the
Spirit of God for it to be the Word of God; the being of Scripture is in its becoming.6
Only in this sense, may we predicate Scripture with 'the Word of God'. In all this,
Barth's motive is to safeguard God's sovereign freedom and grace: 'To say that [the Bible
has the attribute of being the Word of God] would be to violate the Word of God which
is God himself to violate the freedom and sovereignty of God' (CD I/2, 513).

The 'circle of revelation' is informative as it highlights Barth's criticisms of the Early

Church Fathers and High Orthodoxy of seventeenth century Protestantism. In his view,
by dealing only with the inception of the biblical writings, the Fathers reduced the grace
and mystery of God and ended up with 'verbal-inspiredness' rather than verbal
inspiration, turning the Bible into a 'bit of higher nature' (CD I/2, 517, 518). And High
Orthodoxy, guilty of the same thing, inadvertently undermined the great Reformation
principle of sola fidei: since knowledge of God now became 'a tangile certainty, not one
that is given and constantly has to be given again [] a certainty of work and not solely
of faith' (CD I/2, 524).

In sum, for Barth the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is theologically indefensible, on at

least four fronts. First, it resists God's sovereign free grace because revelation is God's
act in God's time. Second, it denies Scripture's humanity (which necessarily entails
fallibility). Third, it compromises the supremacy of Christ by attributing equal status to
Referred to earlier in CD I/1, 110. See McCormack (2004) for a helpful discussion, and Thompson (2006,
67n, 74n) for some cautions with McCormack's paper.

the Bible as the 'Word of God', implying some sort of second incarnation (Ward, 2003,
157). Fourth, the 'verbal inspiredness' of Scripture makes it a part of natural knowledge
of God, thus undermining sola fidei.

There are laudable elements to Barth's position. First of all, his controlling principle that
Scripture is autopistos is an admiral stance during a time when appeals were being made to
rationalism (liberalism), religious experience (Schleirmacher), and scientific or historical
investigation. Secondly, even although Barth affirms the fallibility of Scripture he never
really enters into criticism of it.7 Thirdly, a recovery of the Godness of God in his
sovereign free grace is a breath of theological fresh air. Fourthly, despite some
shortcomings of Barth's Christology,8 his strong commitment to Nicene Trinitarianism
and Chalcedonian Christology is to be affirmed (Packer, 1999, 13). Fifthly, Barth has
safeguarded any evangelical tendency toward docetism and bibliolatry, reminding us of
the genuine humanity of Scripture and of its personal centre Jesus Christ. Sixthly, the
close relationship between the revelation of God and the 'illumination' of the Spirit in
Barth corrects any trajectory towards a fossilised 'Word of God'. With all this said
however, significant weaknesses exist with Barth's opposition to biblical inerrancy, to
which our critical evaluation now turns. Our criticisms will take the form of four
positive affirmations.

First, human language is an adequate medium for God's revelation despite human fallibility. Barth
overplays the limitation of human language. Creaturely forms of communication can and
must speak truthfully because God made them. We are God's image bearers and so our
capacity to communicate is derivative of his (Gaffin, 2004, 183); 'Language is a divine
construction' (Horton, 2002, 186). Even our sinfulness does not create any functional
7
8

In the eleven volumes of Church Dogmatics 'we hardly find any instance of criticism' (Runia, 1962, 105n).
See Thompson (2006, 75-76).

deficit in language itself; rather the problem lies with our misuse or abuse of it (Gaffin,
2004, 191). Tied to this is Barth's failure to distinguish the fact that fallibility refers to the
capacity to err not the necessity to err (Sproul, 2005, 85; Knox, 2000, 315-317).9 Indeed,
although fallibility is possible for humans, actual fallibility is sub-human. We were created
to speak truthfully and even despite the Fall humans can still speak infallible words;
parrots too: 'Polly wants a cracker'.10 When the Holy Spirit's superintending work over
the prophetic-apostolic witness is taken into consideration, human language is an
adequate medium for God to speak inerrantly. God's transcendence should not be pitted
against this: 'If God chooses to speak to us personally, in his Son and through those he
has commissioned and enabled to write his words for us, then it is no transgression of
his majesty to take him at his word' (Thompson, 2006, 79). Barth's failure is to hold the
transcendence of God he is wholly other than we are alongside his immanence he
comes up close and personal in creaturely words. And precisely because God is
transcendent we ought to heed the words of the biblical writers as the very words of
God, rather than question them (Frame, 1973, 174).

Second, the prophetic-apostolic witness and the 'Word of God' are directly identified in the Bible. The
Bible presents a direct identity between human words and God's words. This is
evidenced in the OT with the prophets' oft-repeated phrase: 'Thus says the LORD' (cf.
Deut 18:15-20; Jer 1:9b-10; Horton, 2002, 133-134). The prophets' words are spoken of
in the same qualitative manner as God speaking through his Son in the last days (Heb
1:1-2).11 The difference between these two periods of God speaking is eschatological:
At first glance it may appear that Barth concedes this distinction when he refers to 'capacity for errors' (CD
I/2, 508). However, later on he says the apostles were ' actually guilty of error' (CD I/2, 529), though again he
gives no actual examples.
10 The ability of infallible human words is best demonstrated in the fact that the fruit of the unio hypostatica in
the incarnation produced just that the words of our Lord (Cameron, 1988, 42-44). The legitimacy of an
incarnational model of Scripture certainly requires care, but Cameron's point is to be acknowledged.10
11 The same verb lalh/saj is used in each case.
9

the Son's revelation is consummative, but there is no hint of any qualitative difference.
Jesus' own view of the OT is that it is the 'word of God' (Mark 7:6-13).12 He equated his
own human words with the word of God (John 8:28b; 17:8), and his Apostles' words
were to be his words (Luke 10:16; Matt 10:40). Indeed, they had no hesitancy in claiming
their words were the Holy Spirit's words (Acts 5:32; 15:28).13

Barth is not unaware of some of these texts; according to him these texts reveal only one
aspect of the witness: the aspect of unity (CD I/2, 487). However, it is remarkable that
no scriptural proof is adduced for the distinction between Scripture and the Word of
God, only an appeal to his definition of witness; which is not without its difficulties
either. For example, there is more happening than 'witnessing' in the biblical text
(Gibson, 2004, 30). John the Baptist's 'prodigious index finger' (CD I/1, 112) is a
hermeneutical pointer: this one is 'the lamb of God' (John 1:29). Furthermore, this
dichotomy in Scripture between words (witness) and person (revelation) is too sharp. As
Wolterstorff (1995, 75-94) shows, a person is identified in his words, and to respond to
his words is to respond to him. And equating Scripture with the 'Word of God' does
not, as Barth infers, compromise the supremacy of Christ, since Scripture itself makes
such an equation (Ward, 2003, 174). By establishing the 'indirect identity' between
Scripture and the 'Word of God' Barth creates room for affirming the fallibility of the
human witnesses. However, having seen the direct identity affirmed in Scripture
between the words of men and God's Word, Barth's distinction does not hold up, and
this in turn calls into question his doctrine of the Bible's fallibility. In addition, affirming
the direct identity does not in any way undermine faith, or turn it into a work for that
matter; rather it secures the central role of faith since to believe Christ is to believe the
witness about him.
12
13

See Wenham (1984, 11-38) for a substantial list of biblical references.

For a plethora of texts regarding Scripture's self-attestation see Grudem (1983, 19-64).

Third, Scripture is by its very nature the Word of God because God inspired it. For Barth,
inspiration is focused on the writers and recipients. However, qeo,pneustoj is a predicate
of pa/sa grafh. (Wallace, 1996, 313-314); '[I]ts reference is a divine action performed on
the text' (Gibson, 2004, 32). Moreover, B.B. Warfield, in his seminal work on
inspiration,14 suggests that qeo,pneustoj refers more to a 'spiring' than an 'in-spiring'; in
other words Scripture is breathed out by God, not breathed into by God (Warfield, 1948,
132-133). This means a direct identification of the human text with the 'word of God',
so that in a 'concursive operation' the Bible is always a human and divine word;
eliminating the need for any supplementary action to render it divine.

In addition, Barth's historical anchor is far from secure. Accusing the Early Church and
High Orthodoxy of a deficient view of verbal inspiration is unwarranted when in the
light of 2 Tim 3:16 a legitimate characteristic of Scripture is its 'verbal inspiredness',
irrespective of whether it is received or not.15 Barth's references to Luther are primarily
in relation to the illumination of the Spirit (CD I/2, 521), but he ignores other quotes of
Luther regarding the inspired nature of Scripture itself.16 Barth's employment of Calvin's
work in the Institutes (Calvin, 1960 [1559], I.vii.4, 78-79) and his commentary on 2 Tim
3:16 is puzzling since the former is referring to the internal testimony of the Spirit, and
the latter states: 'we owe to the Scripture the same reverence we owe to God, since it has
its only source in him' (Calvin, 1964, 330). Both Luther and Calvin were unhesitant in
predicating Scripture with 'the Word of God'.17 Barth risks collapsing illumination into
inspiration and allows this to drive his definition of verbal inspiration, and in turn his
historical assessment. Again, Barth's desire to honour God's sovereign freedom in

See Ward's discussion of Warfield (2002, 263-298).

'For whatever the written thing is, it remains that even if people ignore it, even if people turn blind eyes to it and fail to
see it for what it is, and receive none of Gods self-presencing by this means ' (Carson, 2006, no pages; emphasis original).
16 See Thompson (1998) for these.
17 See Thompson (1998) and Murray (1979, 11-34).
14
15

10

revelation is applaudable, but in this case the Bible presents no tension, for, 'it is not at
all clear why a recognition that this text finds its source in God [] should threaten the
sovereign freedom of God' (Thompson, 2006, 76). And furthermore, if the text finds its
source in God, is it right to associate fallibility with it? This leads to our final affirmation
about Scripture.

Fourth, Scripture's function in the economy of salvation is covenantal. The way the Bible hangs
together old and new covenant betrays 'a fundamental theological characteristic of
Scripture' (Gibson, 2004, 28): it is a covenant document.18 Paul provides the warrant for
this in the titles he accords to Old and New Testaments (cf. 2 Cor 3:14, 6 respectively).19
A number of important factors emerge from viewing Scripture in this way. Firstly, again
there is a direct identity between God's words and the words of the covenant. The first
written Word of God was the Ten Commandments, written by the very finger of God
in human language no less (Exod 24:12; 31:18; 32:15f; 34:1). Those words were not a
human witness about God; they were God's witness against men, and as such they were to be
obeyed not questioned. Secondly, a covenantal view of Scripture provides us with, in our
mind, a better perspective on God's sovereign freedom. God 'limits' his freedom by
binding himself to his people. Yet God remains completely free since it was always his
gracious initiative to enter it, uncoerced by man. Barth's doctrine of God's freedom lacks
the nuance of the biblical perspective. Thirdly, the God who binds himself in covenant
proclaims to be 'A Faithful God who can do no wrong' (Deut 32:4).20 This view of the
trustworthiness of God 'is not so easily side-stepped by Barth's re-positioning of the
miracle that occurs in the renewing of the fallible biblical witness' (Gibson, 2004, 35).
See further Kline (1963; 1968; 1997), Vanhoozer (2002, 127-158), Horton (2002), Jensen (2002, 74-83),
Frame (2006, no pages).
19 Reading parts of the OT as the 'Book of the Covenant' is seen in 2 Chr 34:14-31 (cf. Exod 24:7; Jensen,
2002, 81-82).
20 Jensen (2002, 69) argues that God's covenant name 'I will be what I will be' (Exod 3:14) even implies
truthfulness.
18

11

For Barth, the miracle of Scripture becoming the Word of God means, 'God Himself
now says what the text says' (CD I/2, 532). But if what the text says in its humanity is
errant (CD I/2, 531), then for Barth to be consistent, at the moment of 'inspiration' God
speaks errant words, for God's revelation can come to us only through the fallible human
witness (CD I/2, 529).21 If Barth would not wish us to arrive at such a conclusion and
we are sure that he would not! it is difficult to discern exactly what conclusion he would
have us arrive at, since he provides no alternative.

This logical conundrum raises the issue of God's truthfulness and trustworthiness, to
which Heb 6:13-20 sheds some light. In these verses the assertion that God cannot lie
refers specifically to his promise. Helm observes that 'the character of God is imputed or
transferred to his word' (2002, 244), such that if God is trustworthy, then by necessity so
is his word. By application, 'This principle of transference applies par excellence to the
Incarnate Word, but counts with equal validity to anything else that is identified as the
word of God, to the works of prophets and apostles, for example' (Helm, 2002, 244).
Thus if Scripture is God's covenantal word and God cannot lie then by the
connection observed between the immutability of God and his covenant promise in
Scripture, Scripture cannot lie; it must be inerrant.22 Calvin shows only too well how
God's integrity for speaking the truth entails the truthfulness of the Scriptures: 'And it is
not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy [cf. Rom. 3:3], who can neither
deceive nor lie [cf. Titus 1:2], unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever
precedes from him is sacred and inviolable truth' (Calvin, 1960 [1559], III.ii.6, 549).
Viewing Scripture as covenantal in the economy of God's salvation is theologically
foundational to biblical inerrancy.23
Also, 'We cannot have revelation "in itself"' (CD I/2, 492).
We are of course referring here to the original autographs. See Bahnsen (1980, 151-196).
23 From this covenantal standpoint biblical inerrancy is buttressed all the more when one then looks at
Scripture's self-attestation (Grudem, 1983, 19-64).
21
22

12

It can been seen from our four positive affirmations the adequacy of human language,
the direct identity between Scripture and the Word of God, the inspiration of Scripture,
and Scripture's covenantal function that Barth's suggestion that biblical inerrancy is
theologically indefensible does not hold up under close scrutiny. We think that Barth's
concerns regarding the miracle of God's sovereign free grace, Scripture's humanity,
Christ's supremacy, and the role of faith, are both met and challenged in different ways
in our theological presentation of biblical inerrancy. For Barth, the errancy of Scripture
is a necessity to ensure the miracle of God's sovereign free grace. However, we would
propose that a greater miracle exists: the sovereign Lord of all creation has graciously
chosen to bind himself to his people in an inerrant, covenantal word that witnesses to
his own perfect Son, so that we, weak as we are, may have 'a sure and steadfast anchor
of the soul' (Heb 6:19). An 'idle miracle' (CD I/2, 530)? No, rather an 'even bolder
assertion' (CD I/2, 529), to be received by faith.

13

Bibliography of works cited

Bahnsen, Greg L. 'The Inerrancy of the Autographa'. Pages 151-196 in Inerrancy. Edited
by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol I/1. Edited by G. W.
Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. T. Thomson. Latest ed. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1994 [1936].
Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol I/2. Edited by G. W.
Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Latest
ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963 [1938].
Berkouwer, G. C. Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Bromiley, Geoffrey, W. An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979.
Cameron, Nigel M. de S. Incarnation and Inscripturation: The Christological Analogy in
the Light of Recent Discussion. The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (1985): 35-46.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by
Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics 20-21. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1960 [1559].
The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and the Epistle to Timothy, Titus and
Philemon. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Vol 10. Translated by T.A. Smail.
Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964
[15??].
Carson, D.A. Three Books on the Bible: A Critical Review. No Pages. Cited 12 September
2006.http://www.reformation21.com/Past_Issues/May_2006/Shelf_Life/Shelf_Life/181/vobId_
_2926/pm__434/ .
Coleman, R. J. 'Reconsidering Limited Inerrancy'. The Journal of Evangelical Theology. 17
(1974): 207-214.
Frame, John M. 'God and Biblical Language'. Pages 159-177 in God's
Inerrant Word: An International Symposium On The Trustworthiness Of Scripture. Edited by John
Warwick Montogomery. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973).
Is the Bible Inerrant? No pages. Cited 16 September 2006.http://www.framepoythress.org/frame_articles/1999IsThe.htm.
France, R.T. 'Evangelical Disagreements About the Bible'. Churchman 96 (1982): 226-240.
Fuller, Daniel P. 'Benjamin B. Warfield's view of faith and history'. Bulletin of the
Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 75-83.

14

Gaffin Jr., Richard B. 'Speech and the Image of God: Biblical Reflection on Languages
and Its Uses'. Pages 181-193 The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at Westminster
Seminaries. Essays in Honour of Robert B. Strimple. Edited by David VanDrunen.
Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Gibson, David. The God of Promise: Christian Scripture as Covenantal Revelation.
Themelios 29 (2004): 27-36.
Grudem, Wayne A. 'Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a
Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 19-64 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and
John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.
Helm, Paul. 'The Perfect Trustworthiness of God'. Pages 237-252 in The Trustworthiness of
God. Perspectives on the nature of Scripture. Edited by Paul Helm and Carl Trueman.
Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
Horton, Michael. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2002.
Jensen, Peter F. The Revelation of God. Contours of Christian Theology. Leicester: InterVarsity Press. 2002.
Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
By Oath Consigned. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1968.
The Structure of Biblical Authority. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997.
Knox, D. Broughton. Gods Word. Pages 293-305 in Selected Works: Volume 1: The
Doctrine of God. Edited by Tony Payne. 2 vols. Kingsford N.S.W.: Matthias Media, 2000.
Lindsell, H. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
McCormack, Bruce. 'The Being of Holy Scripture Is in Becoming: Karl Barth in
Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism'. Pages 55-75 in Vincent Bacote,
Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm. eds. Evangelicals and Scripture: tradition, authority
and hermeneutics. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004.
Murray, John. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1979.
Packer, J.I. Honouring the Word of God. Vol 3. Collected Shorter Writings. Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 1999.
Rogers, Jack and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An
Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979.
Runia, Klaas. Karl Barth's Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

15

Sproul, R.C. Scripture Alone: the Evangelical Doctrine. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2005.
Thompson, Mark. A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture. NSBT. Leicester:
Apollos, 2006.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. Leicester: Apollos,
2002.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of
Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
The Incarnation and Scripture. Pages 152-184 in The Word Became Flesh:
Evangelicals and the Incarnation: Papers from the Sixth Oak Hill College Annual School of Theology.
Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003.
Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Edited by Samuel G. Craig.
Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948.
Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Wolterstorff, Nicolas. Divine Discourse: Philosophical reflections on the claim that God speaks.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

16

Other Works Consulted

Bacote, Vincent, Laura C. Miguelez, and Dennis L. Okholm. eds. Evangelicals and
Scripture: tradition, authority and hermeneutics. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004.
Barr, James. Escaping from Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1983.
Fundamentalism. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977.
Barth, Karl. The Word of God and the Word of Man. Gloucester: Peter Smith Publisher,
1978.
Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena. vol. 1. Translated by J. Vriend. Edited by J.
Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Berkhof Louis. What is the Word of God. No Pages. Cited 13 June 2005. Online:
http://www.the-highway.com/word1_Berkhof.html
Berkouwer, G.C. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. London: The
Paternoster Press, 1956.
Berkouwer, G.C. General and Special Divine Revelation Pages 13-24 in Revelation and
the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Edited by Carl F. H. Henry. 1st ed. London:
Tyndale, 1959.
Brown, Colin. Karl Barth and the Christian Message. London: Tyndale Press, 1967.
Brown, Harold O.J. 'The Arian Connection: Presuppositions of Errancy'. Pages 383-401
in Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce
Demarest. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
Carson, D.A. 'Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 1-49 in
Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge.
Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986.
The Gagging of God. Leicester: Apollos, 1996.
Clark, Gordon H. Karl Barth's Theological Method. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1963.
Conn, Harvie M. ed. Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, A Challenge, A Debate. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.
Davis, Stephen T. 'What Do We Mean When We Say, "The Bible Is True?"'. Pages 86103 in But Is It All True? The Bible and the Question of Truth. Edited by A.G. Padgett & P.R.
Keifert. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2006.
Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis. Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological Response.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.

17

Dunn, James D.G. 'The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture'. Churchman 96

(1982): 104-122.
'The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture (continued)'. Churchman
96 (1982): 201-225.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Fairweather, A. M. The Word as Truth: A Critical Examination of the Christian Doctrine of
Revelation in the Writings of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth. London: Lutterworth, 1944.
Feinberg, Paul. 'Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of'. Pages 156-159 in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic:
2001.
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. A Theology of Lordship.
Pennsylvania: P&R Publishing, 1987.
The Doctrine of the Word of God. Lecture Outlines. No pages. Cited 16
September 2006.
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/TH.Frame.Doctrine.Word.pdf#search=
%22john%20frame%2C%20doctrine%20of%20the%20word%22
Geisler, Norman L. 'Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Inerrancy'. Pages 307-336
in Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980.
Biblical Inerrancy: An Analysis of Its Philosophical Roots. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981.
Gerstner, John. 'The Contributions of Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and J. Gresham
Machen to the Doctrine of Inspiration'. Pages 374-382 in Challenges to Inerrancy: A
Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984.
Godfrey, W. Robert. 'Biblical Authority in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: A
Question of Transition'. Pages 225-250 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by D.A. Carson and
John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.
Goldingay, John. 'James Barr on Fundamentalism'. Churchman 91:4 (1977): 295-308.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Gunton, C.E. A Brief Theology of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Hart, Trevor. Revelation. Pages 37-56 in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Edited
by John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

18

_________ The Word, the words and the witness: Proclamation as divine and human
reality in the theology of Karl Barth, Tyndale Bulletin 46.1 (1995), 81-102.
Helm, Paul and Carl Trueman. eds. The Trustworthiness of God. Perspectives on the nature of
Scripture. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
Helm, Paul. 'Faith, Evidence, and the Scriptures'. Pages 303-324 in Scripture and Truth.
Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.
Henry, Carl F.H. ed. Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.
God, Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows. Volume IV. 6 vols.
Texas: Word Books, 1979.
Horton, Michael. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. Louiseville: WJK Press, 2005.
Kuyper, Abraham. Principles of Sacred Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Lewis, Gordon R. 'The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture'. Pages 229-266 in
Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980.
Lovelace, Richard. 'Inerrancy: Some Historical Perspectives'. Pages 15-47 in Inerrancy &
Common Sense. Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1980.
McGrath, Alister E. A Passion For Truth: the intellectual coherence of evangelicalism. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.
McKim, Donald K. ed. How Karl Barth Changed My Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
McKim, Donald K. ed. The Authoritative Word: Essays on the Nature of Scripture. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. 'Inerrancy or Verbal Inspiration? An Evangelical Dilemma'. Pages
71-95 in Inerrancy & Common Sense. Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.
Montgomery, John Warwick. ed. God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on The
Trustworthiness of Scripture. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973.
Moo, Douglas J. 'The Problem of Sensus Plenoir'. Pages 175-212 in Hermeneutics, Authority
and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1986.
Morris, Leon. 'Biblical Authority and the Concept of Inerrancy'. Churchman 81 (1967):
22-28.

19

Mueller, David L. The Contributions and Weaknesses of Karl Barths View of the
Bible. Pages 423-447 in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1987.
Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatic: Holy Scripture. vol 2. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.
Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. Volume 4: Studies in Theology. Edinburgh:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982.
'The Attestation of Scripture'. Pages 1-54 in Members of the Faculty of
Westminster Theological Seminary. The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. 1946.
Nash, Ronald. The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in
Contemporary Theology. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1982.
Nicole, Roger. 'The Nature of Inerrancy'. Pages 49-70 in Inerrancy & Common Sense.
Edited by R.R. Nicole and J.R. Michaels. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.
'The Biblical Concept of Truth'. Pages 287-302 in Scripture and Truth.
Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.
The Neo-Orthodox Reduction. Pages 121-144 in Challenges to Inerrancy: A
Theological Response. Edited by Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984.
'Why I am "comfortable" with Inerrancy'. Reformation $ Revival Journal 11:3
(2002): 112-124.
No Author. The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987. Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1987.
Noll, Mark A. The Princeton Theology 1812-1921. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.
Packer, J.I. God has Spoken. Hodder Christian Essentials. London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1979.
'The Adequacy of Human Language'. Pages 197-228 in Inerrancy. Edited by
Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980.
Truth & Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life. Wheaton: Harold
Shaw Publishers, 1996.
Preus, R. The Doctrine of Revelation in contemporary theology. Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society 9.3 (1966), 111-123.
Radmacher, Earl D. and Robert D. Preus. eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

20

Raschke, Carl A. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.
Reid, J.K.S. The Authority of Scripture. A Study of the Reformation and Post-Reformation
Understanding of the Bible. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1957.
Reymond, Robert A. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Nelson,
1998.
Torrance, Thomas F. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1990.
Turretin, Francis. The Doctrine of Scripture: Locus 2 of Institutio theologiae elencticae. Edited and
translated by John W. Beardslee III. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christianity and Barthianism. Pennsylvania: P&R Publishing, 1962.
The Protestant Doctrine of Scripture. In Defense of Biblical Christianity. Vol 1.
California: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1967.
'Nature and Scripture'. Pages 263-301 in Members of the Faculty of
Westminster Theological Seminary. The Infallible Word: A Symposium. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. 1946.
Wallace, Daniel B. 'My Take on Inerrancy'. No pages. Cited 10 August 2006. Online:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=4200
Watson, Francis. The Bible. Pages 57-71 in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth.
Edited by John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Wenham, John W. 'Christ's View of Scripture'. Pages 3-38 in Inerrancy. Edited by
Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids, 1980.
Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
'Some Misconceptions of the Impact of the "Enlightenment" on the
Doctrine of Scripture'. Pages 237-270 in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Edited by D.A.
Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986.
Woodbridge, John D. and Randall H. Balmer. 'The Princetonians and Biblical Authority:
An Assessment of the Ernest Sandeen Proposal'. Pages 251-286 in Scripture and Truth.
Edited by D.A. Carson and John H. Woodbridge. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

21

Yarbrough, Robert W. Revelation. Pages 732-38 in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,
2000.
Zerbe, Alvin Sylvester. The Karl Barth Theology or The New Transcendentalism. Cleveland:
Central Publishing House, 1930.

22