Second, as a reaction against the sterile liberalism of the first quarter of the twentieth century, neoorthodoxy sparked by Karl Barth has revived interest in the doctrine of the Spirit in theological studies in our age.

From an evangelical point of view, both the Pentecostal movement and neoorthodoxy are to some extent deviations from what was previously considered as biblical theology. Both Pentecostalism and neoorthodoxy are based upon experience. In the case of Pentecostalism, there have been claims to revival of apostolic gifts—of miracles, healing and speaking in tongues. In neoorthodoxy there has been an attempt at a new approach to the doctrine of revelation which was restored by Karl Barth to a supernatural work of a transcendent God in communication to finite man. Both Pentecostalism and neoorthodoxy have been scripturally oriented in more specific terms than contemporary liberalism. Both appeal to experience, and to this extent have departed somewhat from purely theological formulations based upon scriptural exegesis. They have, however, avoided the sterility of pure intellectualism, ritualism, and the emasculated theological concepts of liberalism. Regardless of how these movements are evaluated, they have served to focus attention on the theology of the Holy Spirit, elevating it to one of the major issues of the twentieth century.

As indicated in connection with oral revelation in 2 Peter 1:20-21, the revelation of divine truth was possible because “Holy men of God spake as they were moved [borne along] by the Holy Spirit.” All who are willing to accept the Bible as the Word of God recognize that inspiration is a work of the Holy Spirit and that the Scriptures would have been impossible apart from this supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit.

The proofs for the inspiration of the Bible are both internal and external. There is abundant testimony by writers of the Old Testament to their belief that they were writing by inspiration (2 Sam 23:2-3; Isa 59:21; Jer 1:9, etc.). The terminology of the prophets and the expressions such as, “Thus saith the Lord,” found in hundreds of instances, testify to the hand of God in the production of the Scriptures. The very titles of the Bible, such as “The Word of the Lord,” “Thy Word,” and similar expressions, are found over a hundred times in the Old Testament and in many cases refer to direct quotations of what God has actually said and in other cases to what the prophets said as God’s representatives (Ps 107:11; 119:11 ; Prov 30:5). Hundreds of prophecies were made in the Bible and when these were fulfilled, often with minute accuracy as for instance in the birth of Christ in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), it serves to prove that the Bible unlike any other book in the world is accurate in its prophecies of future things. As about one-fourth of the Bible was prediction of future events when it was written, fulfillment of prophecy becomes an important proof of the inspiration of the Bible.

One of the most decisive evidences for inspiration is the testimony of Christ to the Scriptures. Often in quoting the Old Testament, Christ affirmed that it was inspired of the Spirit, as in Matthew 22:42-43 and Mark 12:36 quoting Psalm 110:1. In the New Testament as a whole the apostles frequently quote from the Old Testament indicating their belief that it was inspired of God, as in Peter’s quotation of Psalm 41:9 in Acts 1:16, and in the quotation of Psalm 2 in Acts 4:24-25. Paul quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 in Acts 28:25-27. Similar references may be seen in Hebrews 3:7; 10:15-16 . These sample indications of common recognition by Christ and the apostles of the inspiration of the Old Testament, as well as the claim of inspiration of the New Testament as in 1 Timothy 5:18 quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and 2 Peter 3:16 referring to Paul’s epistles as Scripture, tend to support the claim of inspiration of both Testaments.

Inspiration extends to all forms of Scripture and relates to the unknown past, to history, to moral and religious law, to devotional literature, to the contemporary prophetic message, as well as the eschatological portions dealing with prophecy of the future. Inspiration extends equally to all kinds of Scripture, whether direct quotation from God or whether the statements of men, and is the basis for the conclusion that the Bible is factually true.

The abundant evidence in support of the inspiration of the Bible, which is discussed here only briefly, is so extensive that some of the finest scholars of all time have found this evidence quite sufficient to affirm the infallibility and inspiration of the entire sixty-six books of the Bible. Within orthodoxy, inspiration of the Bible can be claimed with equal cogency today as in former years with the added evidences of archaeology and advanced scholarship. Although ever since the Garden of Eden the Word of God has been questioned, there is really no adequate explanation of such an unusual book as the Bible apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The evidence supports the conclusion that this book is indeed the very Word of God.

Beginning with Moses, while special revelation continued, the Scriptures began to be formulated and stated in permanent and written form the divine revelation that God wanted man to possess. It is clear, however, that Scripture recorded only a portion of such revelation, and then only when it was normative and intended for the permanent knowledge of man.

The extent of such divine revelation is especially recorded in Genesis, where some men were raised up as prophets and others, even though not prophets, were made the recipients of divine revelation. Enoch and Noah stand out in the period before the flood as those to whom God spoke in detail. Abraham is an outstanding illustration of the period before Scripture of one to whom God gave broad revelation concerning his posterity, his title to the Holy Land, and the broad purpose of God to produce through Abraham blessing to the entire world, fulfilled in Christ and in the Scriptures. Moses was given detailed revelation, recorded in the Pentateuch, for the guidance and direction of the nation Israel. Throughout the Old Testament times, God raised up many prophets who delivered divine messages to their generation, only portions of which have been preserved in the Bible. The outstanding personalities of Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the minor prophets, and many of the psalmists (some of them unnamed), were used of God to declare His message.

The basic method of special revelation, alongside written Scripture, is continued in the New Testament, much on the same pattern as found in the Old Testament but with more explicit testimony to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Divine revelation was given in various ways. Sometimes God appears to have spoken to man as if He were a man Himself, and communication was in words. This was true in the case of God’s relationship to Adam as well as many who followed.

A secondary means of revelation was through dreams of which there are many instances in the Bible (Gen 20:3-7; 31:10-13, 24 ; 37:5-20 ; 40:5-16 ; 41:11-13, 15-32 ; 42:9 , etc.). Even after Scripture began to be written, dreams continued to be used in some cases as a means of divine revelation (Num 12:6; Dan 2:1-35; 4:1-18 ; 7:1-14 ). Along with dreams were visions as a means of revealing divine truth, in which case the word “seer” or one who sees visions became characteristic of prophetic revelation. Illustrations are Isaiah’s experience (Isa 1:1; 6:1), Ezekiel’s experience (Ezek 1:3), Daniel’s visions (Dan 8:1-27; 9:20-27 ; 10:1—12:13), and Micaiah’s vision of heaven in 1 Kings 22:19. Still a similar method was that of trances as in Ezekiel 8:3; 11:24 . Whatever the means of divine revelation, the important point is that God sought by supernatural means to communicate Himself.

In considering the present ministry of the Holy Spirit in revelation, it is generally understood that the Holy Spirit does have a contemporary relationship to an understanding of the written Word. The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit predicted by Christ (John 16:12-15) has had its fulfillment in the contemporary experience of the church. The Holy Spirit illuminates the Scripture and makes the revelation of God understandable. An extended statement of this is given in 1 Corinthians 2:9—3:2 . What the natural man cannot understand can be understood by a believer in Christ who is taught by the Holy Spirit. The epistemology (theory of knowledge) underlying the Scriptures is that man can know spiritual things only by the Holy Spirit. The illumination of the Scriptures, however, does not presume to teach anything which is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Although applications and illustrations may be given, the work of the Holy Spirit is designed to bring out that which is actually in the text.

It is understood in contemporary theology that God can give guidance today. Guidance does not constitute an additional normative revelation, but is rather the application of the Scriptures in their principles in general to the particular need of the individual who needs direction from God. Guidance is not in itself infallible, although God never misguides a person. Christians, however, can misinterpret guidance and can misunderstand God’s directions. Further, guidance is never normative, that is, what God guides one to do may not be what He will guide another to do. It is part of the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit to show the individual what the will of God is for him (Rom 12:1-2), and it is one of the marks of being a Christian (Rom 8:14). The guidance of the Spirit is personal and adapted to God’s individual purpose for the individual life, and as such is in contrast to general law (Gal 5:18). The general ministries of the illumination of the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit may be considered normative today as they were throughout the history of the church.

The particular problem that arises in contemporary study of the doctrine of revelation by the Holy Spirit is the question as to whether the Holy Spirit can give normative truth suitable for theological construction to an individual today apart from the explicit teaching of this truth in the Bible. In other words, does God directly communicate normative truth and provide additional information upon which to construct a theology for today? Here in a word is the issue between orthodoxy and neoorthodoxy, between the historic doctrine of revelation in the church and the contemporary teaching of Barth, Brunner, and Reinhold Niebuhr and many others. In order to understand the issues, a brief review must be undertaken of the background of this movement, its premises, and its conclusions.

Liberal theology in the early twentieth century had reduced the Bible to a natural record of religious experience and to various degrees had eliminated its supernatural element as well as its authority. The transcendent God who had created the universe was replaced by an immanent God indistinguishable from the process of evolution and for all practical purposes pantheistic in His relation to creation. Such a view left little room for a divine doctrine of supernatural revelation, a real communication between an infinite God and finite man, or any of the concepts that are taught in the Bible. Revelation was simply human discovery on a natural plane.

Liberal theology in the first quarter of the twentieth century was challenged by the writings of Karl Barth who is the father of neoorthodoxy. Karl Barth came to his arresting conclusions during World War I when he found the naturalistic doctrines of liberalism totally unsuited to meet the real needs of people during the crises created by war. He reasoned that the problem was in the area of revelation, that man being finite needed to have communication from the infinite God. He concluded this was naturally impossible, and therefore required a supernatural form of communication. Out of this came the teaching that God does communicate to man, although by natural means it is impossible, and that such communication constitutes a posit of divine truth. In effect, it was a reassertion of a form of special divine revelation devoid of its earlier characteristics of dreams, visons and trances, but constituting nobody an infallible or authoritative prophet. Barth’s new view was introduced in his Epistle to the Romans published in 1918.

In order to round out his teaching Barth had to reassert the transcendence of God as well as the sinfulness and finiteness of man. His view included the concept that revelation by its nature is supernatural inasmuch as it had to transcend the infinite gap between God and His creature. In the process of exalting revelation, he made the incarnation of Jesus Christ the supreme fact of divine revelation and emphasized the experience of revelation as the norm for truth rather than the factual and historic revelation given in the Bible. In other words, revelation is not something that can be put on paper, but something that can be experienced in the life of the believer. He thus made revelation a contemporary, supernatural, personal experience.

His doctrine of revelation bypassed many of the problems which would be stumbling blocks to the liberal. Barth did not accept the infallible inspiration of the original writings of Scripture, and included in his view the findings of the higher criticism of the Bible. He did not accept the historicity of Adam and Eve and was cool to any particularized prophetic scheme, following probably what could be classified as an amillennial interpretation of the Bible. To him it was not too important whether the Bible was factually true or not, but rather how God would use the Bible as a vehicle of communication to us. In other words, God would speak to us through the Bible rather than in the pages of Scripture itself.

In the process of reasserting the supernaturalness of God and divine revelation, Barth parted with liberals on many points. He had no difficulty accepting, for instance, the virgin birth of Christ, and seems to have accepted the deity of Christ and His death on the cross and resurrection without too much difficulty. Many who followed him in neoorthodoxy rejected these doctrines, and neoorthodoxy as a whole, generally speaking, does not embrace the fundamentals of the faith as known in orthodoxy. Others who followed him, such as Emil Brunner, Reinhold Neibuhr, and Paul Tillich to various degrees departed from Barth’s system of theology while reaffirming the contemporary nature of divine revelation.

The difficulties confronting the neoorthodox interpretation of revelation are all too evident in contemporary theology. First of all, neoorthodoxy lacks any norm for divine truth. As divine revelation is traceable to the individual personal experience of an individual, and as such experiences vary widely, there has been no system of doctrine which has resulted as a byproduct of neoorthodox revelation. Almost any teaching from that which approaches orthodoxy to that which is extremely liberal can be found in the neoorthodox camp. The whole concept of such revelation as being authoritative is therefore brought into question because it is by its nature self-contradictory.

A second factor becomes evident in the subsequent experience of neoorthodox theologians, and that is that the Christ of neoorthodoxy tends to be a Christ created by the individual out of his experience instead of the Christ of history. This has resulted in neglect of the details of the life and ministry of Christ, the subordination of the important fact of His death on the cross, and open questioning of the doctrine of resurrection. All of these things are considered by many neoorthodox theologians quite secondary to the central fact that they have had an experience of Christ. Judging by the standards of Scripture, their experience can be questioned as to whether it is real, and in many cases a deceptive security results from a supposed experience with Jesus Christ which may be only psychological and emotional.

Orthodoxy is within its proper limits in raising serious questions concerning the neoorthodox doctrine of the Spirit. There still remains the questions as to whether they have proved that they have real divine revelation, whether such revelation is normative, and whether such revelation can be trusted. The facts are against this, as neoorthodoxy to date has not been able to produce one normative truth not already taught in the Bible. Accordingly, while neoorthodoxy may have the appearance of being more honoring to God than liberal theology in recognizing Him as a supernatural and transcendent being, and in declaring the possibility that such a God can communicate to man, it is faulty both in its doctrine and its experience in that it has not demonstrated anything superior to what orthodoxy has had for centuries. It still remains true that theological concepts must be tested by the written Word rather than by individual experiences. While collective experience in some cases may provide norms of testing the reality of truth, such norms are open to question unless they are also found in the Word of God.

It must be concluded that in the contemporary doctrine of the Spirit as related to divine revelation, neoorthodoxy constitutes a serious and deceptive error, probably the most deceptive error which has ever overtaken the church; and its findings and its influence must be resisted by those who desire to be true to the orthodox theology which is taught explicitly in the Holy Scriptures.