Thanks David. I read Langdon’s dissertation some time back now, and have purchased his book but haven’t read it yet. Though it seems to be closely aligned with his diss. I am looking forward to reading it again, however, as it was one of the best dissertations I read on the subject.

Thanks, Kevin, for your comment. I believe you have nicely expounded Barth here. I have two follow-up questions, if I may.

1. According to Barth, is it possible to speak about God – let’s say his attributes, for example – in himself apart from Jesus Christ, but also not on the basis of natural theology? If that’s not clear, let me put the question another way. Does the Bible teach us about God in himself quite apart from and prior to his self-disclosure in Jesus Christ?

2. Would you be willing to share what your thoughts are with regard to how you believe WTS goes wrong in its commentating on Barth? Where are we weak, and how can our commentating be improved, in your opinion?

Thanks!

DG

Barth refuses to define God’s essence (being) apart from his self-revelation in Jesus Christ. This “actualist ontology” means that God’s being is determined in his act, such that incarnation is not a second step or an addition in God’s being but is, rather, constitutive of his eternal being (and vice versa). Thus, being-in-act in eternity corresponds to being-in-act in time. I like the way McCormack puts it: “being is actualized in the decision for activity in time” (Orthodox and Modern, p. 190). Or, as Thomas Torrance repeatedly put it, there is no God behind the back of Jesus Christ. Thus, the God we have in Jesus Christ is really and fully the true God, the eternal God; and the eternal God is really and fully the incarnate God, Jesus Christ. This is a very high Christology.

These are just ways of saying that our talk about God must be mediated through He alone who knows the Father. Other divine predicates — whether “self-evident” or the work of natural theology — must be ruled-out. There may be overlap — “omipotence” for example — but these must be demonstrated by God’s covenant activity (thus, omnipotence as evidenced in the Exodus and supremely by the Resurrection), not by axioms of divinity or natural theology.

This would be a great topic for discussion on the radio program, but — please — get some guys from Princeton to talk about Barth. Frankly, you Westminster folks are not exactly the ablest commentators on Barth.