“Troubling in this regard are the following: language akin to neo-orthodoxy’s view of Scripture is not clearly distinguished in I&I from that view. In using such language, it is crucial and necessary to articulate precisely where a Reformed and Neo-orthodox view of Scripture differ.” (p. 17, n. 36)
“The failure in I&I to distinguish its doctrine of Scripture from a neo-orthodox (Barthian) view of Scripture is confusing, at best, particularly when I&I offers a theological method that is incompatible with WCF 1/4.5. And since I&I’s focus is on reformulating or reassessing the doctrine of Scripture as traditionally understood by evangelicals, it is necessary to show in sufficient detail how the formulations do not concede the neo-orthodox view of Scripture…” (p. 18)
My response to Observation 2:
Karl Barth is of the Reformed tradition and expounds the Christian faith through the Reformed tradition throughout his life. Hence, on one end it is not fair to pit Barth as contrast to the Reformed tradition. On the other end, the HTFC is not fair to distinguish solely Warfield, Kuyper, Young, and others as representing the Reformed tradition.
At best, the HTFC can pit the Barthians against the Warfieldians, or Kuyperians for all are under the big umbrella of the Reformed tradition. But to put Barth and the neo-orthodox as against the Reformed tradition is just a categorical mistake.