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
Moral Certitude and the Iran War
The current military engagement with Iran calls renewed attention to just war theory in the Catholic tradition.…
The Slow Death of England: New and Notable Books
The fate of England is much in the news as popular resistance to mass immigration grows, limits…
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
