I wouldn't use that book, however, to reach a conclusion about his view of
Scripture. He has been thinking about this for 30 years or more, and his
viewpoint is most clearly laid out in his magnum opus on the subject, released
last year.
A few points of clarification about his views:
<<If Bloesch's view of reason is that your faith determines what objective
reality is, then I have great trouble with that. >>
He does not believe this at all. Not at all. He is in line with the Reformers.
They did not teach this either. I think the problem, again, is a tendency to
be too Enlightenment in one's thinking. This shrinks the categories in ways
the Biblical writers, Reformers and Bloesch do not.
<<This quotation seems to imply that Bloesch believes Revelation should leave
footprints in history as well as in the changed lives of the individuals.>>
Of course he does! His book on Holy Scripture, as well as his Essentials of
Evangelical Theology (touching on the subject), leave no doubt. Pinnock, Ramm
and everyone else who is evangelical believes this. This was never an issue.
<< "Faith has a twofold objectivity--history and eternity. Its position is
certain because it points beyond itself to the living God and His infallible
Word." p. 72.
Here Bloesch admits that history is objective. This would imply
verifiability.>>
Only where verifiability is a valid criterion. Again, his most recent book is
the clearest on this, especially in regards to Genesis 1-11.
<<If reason says that the revelation is unreasonable (like the turtle in the
cosmic sea) then how is one to come to a belief that the revelation is from
God?>>
Reason only says that revelation is unreasonable only when it is reason that
holds faulty premises. The error is in us, not God's Word.
Jim