You'll have to forgive
me for not keeping up the pace. The fourth view is quite difficult to convey, unlike the first three which were simple and easy. To answer my sister, who wants to see a both/and solution, she is getting abit ahead. The deal is that the first three won't allow this. Each one is what it is because they all exclude any other options. By definition, the third approach to revelation rejects the objective nature of the first two. The first two, by definition, have no place for the pure subjectivity of the third.

All I can do at this time is introduce the fourth view. This view is a reaction to the third. The third view is the hallmark of classic liberalism that flourished in the mid 19th century - especially in Europe. Friedrich Schleiermacher is the poster boy for the movement.

Early in the 20th century, Karl Barth, in an attempt to restore the church to orthodoxy and bearing an extreme dislike for liberal Christianity, formulated his views. He rejected both the objectivism of the first two views and rejected the subjectivism of the third view. (Seemingly dashing Barbara's hopes of a felicitous blending of the two). Barth courageously stood up to the liberalism rampant in Europe, defying the trends and was eventually exiled by Hitler. He is most famous for his response to a reporter's query about, after all was said and done in his illustrious and difficult career as a theologian, what he knew for sure. His response was: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so".

As soon as I figure out what his view of revelation was, I will report it here.