Jim, I might add this. If you really want to understand VT’s read of Barth, read Bruce McCormack. McCormack disagree’s with VT’s conclusions about Barth, but he reads Barth in essentially the same way as did VT.

Jim,

Yes, it is. In VT you will gain an understanding of Barth’s intellectual context, and connect conceptual dots. You will also see a deep structure read of Barth’s thought that is missed by most Anglo-American readers. You will need to be prepared for some vitriol. VT does not pull punches in his critique. That acidic approach has caused some to stumble at the entry point and prevented them from gaining the substance of the critique. Its unfortunate, really, because VT’s analysis is brilliant. So, eat the fruit and pitch the shell.

The scope of general revelation is extremely limited, that is what WCF I goes on to show. It is sufficient to render men without excuse, but it is not sufficient for giving man true knowledge (vera theologia). Special revelation is necessary, along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit (principium cognoscendi internum).

Why not?

Hermonta,

No.

If general revelation is able to render men unexcusable, then isnt it possible (if not also proper) to start there instead of with special revelation?