BRIEF SUMMARY

In the journal article, “Barth on Revelation” T. H. L. Parker examines Barth’s complete repudiation of natural theology and concludes that an absence of biblical evidence necessary to prove the existence of God is supportive. The author begins by noting Barth’s distinction as a theologian who dares to abjure natural theology, and then continues with an exploration of Barth’s revelatory perspective that God reveals Himself solely in Jesus Christ. Three aspects of this objective possibility of revelation are then further discussed. First, God’s revelation of Himself occurs in Jesus Christ, the locus of the Word Incarnate, to the exclusion of other loci. Second, God’s genuine self is revealed in Jesus Christ in totality as our Creator and Redeemer. Finally, in Jesus Christ God is revealed, thus, apart from Christ God is unknown. An analysis of how each of these aspects of revelation specifically denies natural theology ensues, followed by a clarifying statement that sharpens the purpose of the author’s efforts – a proposed investigation of the existence of God. More specifically, Barth’s perspective is juxtaposed against the historical perspective of Calvin and Aquinas who required a rationale for the existence of God as a requirement for the procurement of knowledge. Alternatively, Barth suggests that to attempt to prove God’s existence prior to His revelation in Christ is a reverse dialectic. Finally, the author supports Barth’s polemic by stating that the Bible speaks of God simply as “One who needs no proof.”[1]

CRITICAL INTERACTION

Although Parker gives some credence to evangelical perspectives, a clear rejection of liberal theology’s emphasis of God’s immanence clearly exists. The author’s conclusions appear to support a neo-orthodox perspective with a definitive goal of validating certain Barthian constructs. The primary strength of the work lies in the author’s ability to clearly and concisely communicate a complete rebuttal of natural theology utilizing Barth’s view that God’s revelation exists solely in the Word Incarnate. Unfortunately, the weaknesses appear to outweigh this particularly powerful quality.

The weaknesses include deficiencies in thesis development, biblical evidence, and logic. First, structurally the anecdotal introduction masks any resemblance of a thesis that is ultimately connected to the author’s final arguments. Furthermore, the abrupt transition from the exploration of revelation to the existence of God highlights the absence of a clear thesis direction. Second and more importantly, the author argues that the Bible is void of any necessity to prove the existence of God, which supports the Barthian view that revelation is solely in Christ. Although the biblical analysis may be true, the biblical evidence that also suggests a limited form of natural theology is cast within general revelation is completely ignored.[2] Finally, a gap in logic particularly regarding the author’s conclusion exists. Specifically, the author concludes that natural theology is predicated on the necessity that God’s existence can be proven. Thus, if no proof is required then natural theology fails, but the author does not show how natural theology relies specifically on the proof of God’s existence. In other words, the author does not address how an assumed existence of God without proof negates the possibility of God revealing Himself in ways other than the Word Incarnate.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the weaknesses enumerated, T. H. L. Parker’s article is worth the read for the straightforward exploration of Barth’s rebuttal of natural theology alone. Regrettably, the author seems to face significant challenges when attempting to transition into the argument pertaining to the requirement, or lack of a requirement, of proof for the existence of God. Finally, other relevant questions pertaining to significant aspects of Barthian theology including the relationship that both revelation as a miracle and revelation as a Trinitarian event have to natural theology were left unanswered in this particular journal article.