Barth says or implies that human language is “in itself” inadequate to the task of bearing God’s revelation. It has to be commandeered in order to become the vehicle of revelation. Language “can only be the language of the world” though we must have confidence that “contrary to the natural capabilities of this language, it can and should speak of God’s revelation in this language as theological language.”
So too his hesitations about the vestigia Trinitatis : Creation lacks the natural capabilities of manifesting the Trinity, but the creation might be commandeered to that purpose.
But what does this notion of “natural capabilities” of language mean? Is language a merely human invention? Does language have some reality that makes it inherently resistant to God’s purpose? Why?
As often, and as Van Til recognized in his much-maligned critique of Barth, there is an deeply embedded nature/supernature dualism going on in Barth. Gotta love Barth, but it’s there.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
