I think Cornelius Van Til offers a good sketch of Barth’s understanding of grace as personified personally in Jesus Christ (instead of grace as a principle or quality). You will 
notice in Van Til’s sketch how he accentuates Barth’s disdain for the natural theology and analogy of being of both Roman Catholic theology and later post-Reformed orthodoxy (or Westminster Calvinism, simpliciter). I totally appreciate this emphasis, from Barth, as you know; and I think Van Til presents Barth accurately in this way; note Van Til,
[B]arth’s answer to both charges is that speaking Christologically of grace is not to speak speculatively in any direction. One may freely use the language of any school of philosophy. But one must, as a theologian, be free from the control of all philosophy.
Thinking Christologically of grace enables us, says Barth, to speak along the lines of Reformational theology. Thinking Christologically of grace enables us to escape the Romanist approach to grace and the free will of man. Romanism thinks along the lines of the analogy of being (italics mine), and in doing so, is largely controlled by philosophical speculation. It is this philosophical speculation that accounts for its use of natural theology. In Romanist theology Christ comes into the picture too late; he comes in afterwards, and a Christ coming in afterwards is, in effect, Christ not coming in at all.
Against this the Reformers, thinking Christologically, gave God the true priority over man, and grace the true priority over man’s participation in it.
But the Reformers did not consistently work out the relation of grace to sin along Christological lines. They were unable to fathom the full implication of their own idea of the sovereignty of grace. They did not realize that the full freedom and glory of God’s grace to man in Christ is expressed in the very idea of his being the one who suffers the wrath of God for man.
Again, the Reformers, and notably Calvin, had no full appreciation for the biblical universalism involved in the true idea of grace. We must therefore go beyond the Reformers in stressing both the full sovereignty and the full universality of the nature of grace. Instead of thus going beyond the Reformers, later orthodox theologians all too often fell back on natural theology and on the idea of direct revelation in history. Thus they tended once more to make the consciousness of man think of itself as autonomous. And thus they became, all too often, the forerunners of the consciousness theology of Schleiermacher and his followers.
This in turn prepared the way for a theology which was, in effect, as Feuerbauch maintained, nothing more than an undercover anthropology.
If then we are to work out the true Reformation principle of theology, and therewith escape the synergistic views of Romanism, we must think of grace Christologically. And if we are to escape the narrowness of an evil orthodoxy and the subjectivism of the consciousness theologians, we must think of grace Christologically. And finally if we are really to enjoy the full certainty of the gift of the grace of God in Christ for all men, and in doing so laugh in Feuerbach’s face, then we must think of grace Christologically. [Cornelius Van Til, Christianity and Barthianism, 31-32]
Why Does This Matter Again?
There are a lot of threads in Van Til’s sketch of Barth; let me focus on one thread, the primary thread running throughout this account. That is that Grace is Personal in Christ, and any other account—as evinced in those noted (the Romanists, post-Reformed orthodox, Schleiermacher, et. al.)—collapses grace into creation such that creation dominates our thinking about God. If we follow this method—natural theology—we take God captive by our creations and constructs, and God is no longer capable to speak Lordly words over and against us (so he ceases to be Lord in this scenario). The Apostle Paul warns of such madness when he writes:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Romans 1:18-23
This is why this discussion matters; the gravity of this weights on whether we can say that we are worshipping God as revealed in Jesus Christ, or are we worshipping God created in our image? This oversimplifies things quite a bit, but this is the nub of it for me.
Natural revelation (via the Logos) is the matrix – the stage – for the revelation of the incarnate Logos. But the immediacy and constancy of this natural revelation becomes either an opportunity to embrace the “Lordly Word” – or to reject and suppress it. I am not defending this as the basis for the development of a Thomistic natural theology based on reason alone. But the immanence of God in the Logos is ipso facto real revelation – with real information – although primal. And- I do question if every theological intuition (coming from within and around us) is a sinful and distorted intuition. Earlier today I read the ancient Egyptian “Hymn to the Sun”(following C.S. Lewis’ lead from Reflections on the Psalms) Should our reaction be a Barthian “Nein!” – or Paul’s, ” what you worship in ignorance…. I have come to declare to you…”.
Wayne,
I never did do that post on natural theology for you. Maybe sometime in the near future. As soon as you can conceive of an analogy for the Incarnation, it will be at that point that I’ll agree with you.
Thanks for replying, Bobby. As you stated recently, you write to learn – and I have learned much already from you in the process. And, I guess you could say, I “comment” to learn as well 🙂 .
As for offering you and analogy for the Incarnation, I have none. And one reason is because I am not arguing for a Thomistic Natural Theology – deductively obtained. I am arguing for what I think is a scriptural reality of natural revelation – far more immediate and existential that the “analogy of being”. It derives from a theology of the Logos. And in the incarnation the Logos does not cease to be the Logos – but the diffused “light” is brought into the sharpest, most exquisite focus in the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Wayne,
I comment to learn too 😉 .
I don’t think I’m exactly following what your theory of revelation is, Wayne. It seems as if you might be following a Gordon Clark or Cornelius Van Til presuppositionalism; would that be more accurate for describing your approach? If so, I think this still follows an analogy of being and/or a foundationalism, and an ontology of Scripture that ordered by way of a philosophical frame (epistemological) instead of a Christological one.
‘That is that Grace is Personal in Christ, and any other account—as evinced in those noted (the Romanists, post-Reformed orthodox, Schleiermacher, et. al.)—collapses grace into creation such that creation dominates our thinking about God. If we follow this method—natural theology—we take God captive by our creations and constructs, and God is no longer capable to speak Lordly words over and against us (so he ceases to be Lord in this scenario).’
For whatever reason, I’m not quite connecting the dots here. Help me out – is this against something like pantheism? Because I don’t think that natural theology necessarily leads to your conclusion here.
WF,
In what way do you think that natural theology does not lead to my conclusion? Your reasons would help me know how to answer.
‘That is that Grace is Personal in Christ, and any other account—as evinced in those noted (the Romanists, post-Reformed orthodox, Schleiermacher, et. al.)—collapses grace into creation such that creation dominates our thinking about God. If we follow this method—natural theology—we take God captive by our creations and constructs, and God is no longer capable to speak Lordly words over and against us (so he ceases to be Lord in this scenario).’
I’m wondering how we take God captive by our creations and constructs – I’m also not clear on what you mean by ‘collapsing grace into creation,’. As far as I’m aware, natural theology simply means what we can gather about God apart from revelation – from nature. We look at nature and conclude that (for example) the Creator is big, powerful, intricate, things like that. Unless you’re defining natural theology differently, I’m not sure how that turns into taking God captive.
If we gather categories for “who” God is from creation and then superimpose that back upon God—which is exactly what classical Theism and Thomism do—then God has become the predicate of creation (for us), and not the other way around. I see this as taking God captive by constructing a concept of godness from reflection on creation (like what Aristotle and Plato did for example), and then trying to synthesize this prefabbed concept with the Triune God disclosed in Scripture. This is what Arius did for example, and is what all dualist approaches to conceiving of God engage in (like Kant etc). This entangles God with his creation in a way that makes him undiscernable from our conceptions of godness.
If God is the author of creation (if it exists then He is the author) and if God is saying something that He holds us responsible for knowing by way of creation (from Romans 1, we are without excuse if we do not know various things about God and what He expects from us, due to the created order without ever having seen a Bible); then how is natural theology somehow a superimposition on God?
When he spoke of universalism, did he mean it as it is today understood, that all will be saved through the effectual-for-all grace in Christ? Or is he using it in another sense?
Hermonta,
I don’t think the context of Romans 1 is referring to a saving knowledge of God through creation, but one, that in the context is one of judgement. And as a Reformed Christian I hold to the devastating effects of the Fall and Sin—which creation is under—such that the noetic effects our so deep that any knowledge conceived of God apart from God’s Self-revelation in Christ will only lead to worshipping creation rather than the Creator (just like my most recent post “High Places” articulates).
Joshua,
Barth never finished off his thinking, but his logic does lead toward a Christian universalism.
As far as I know, Barth pretty much kept universalism as a *possibility* – but I’d agree that his thought seems to end up there.
‘I don’t think the context of Romans 1 is referring to a saving knowledge of God through creation, but one, that in the context is one of judgement. And as a Reformed Christian I hold to the devastating effects of the Fall and Sin—which creation is under—such that the noetic effects our so deep that any knowledge conceived of God apart from God’s Self-revelation in Christ will only lead to worshipping creation rather than the Creator (just like my most recent post “High Places” articulates).’
I’d agree with your points about sin – but I disagree with the part about the creation-instead-of-creator worship. I think it can lead there but doesn’t necessarily lead there. I’m more in line with Tolkien/C.S. Lewis on this sort of matter though.
Bobby,
I agree that it does not speak of saving knowledge, and anyone who said otherwise, should just stop calling themselves Reformed. The Gospel is still necessary for a saving knowledge of God.
I however do not see how the second half of your statement follows. If one pushes as hard as you seem to be pushing, with their understanding of the noetic effects of the fall, then one basically ends up giving an excuse for not knowing God properly. One definitely cannot claim to know God properly if one is confusing Him with His creation.
We must remember that Romans 1 was written post fall to people living post fall. I do not see how Paul leaves open the option that without access to Scripture, one is only left with worshiping the creature rather than the creator. If that is the case, then idolatry is excusable.
@WF,
See my comment to Wayne in my post “High Places.”
Hermonta,
We must also remember that Paul is writing his epistle to Roman Christians; just like his epistle to I Corinthians (1:17-25, which I wrote my masters thesis on), Paul often speaks, rhetorically to Christians, as if they are thinking as the world. I think, as Paul reiterates in Rom 8.7 that the mind set on the flesh cannot think on spiritual things. So yes, I agree, Paul is saying that an unspiritual mind can only lead to idolatry. I hardly see how this leads to the conclusion that idolatry is excusable; that would only be the case if Christ was not risen etc. Also, Col 1.15ff develops a Christ conditioned recreated understanding of creation that I think we ought to adopt when we think of such things. This is the context that reality and humanity thinks from; i.e. not one that is somehow abstracted from God in Christ—which really is how I see you reading this Hermonta. This is foundationalism, natural theology, analogy of being, all of the theological cuss words I can think of. I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning though (as you do mine).
Bobby,
I think there is one thing to keep in mind in this discussion.
1)When we say that one cannot see a physical object, there can be (at least) two was of understanding the situation. a)One is simply physically blind with the various membranes in the eyes and brain malfunctioning and b)One has continued to look away and refuses to turn and look at the object.
If you keep this distinction in mind, the passages that you site are not a problem for my position. Natural Theology makes no sense in situation a) but works quite well in situation b)
Next, I do not see how you can maintain responsibility in the first case.
Also there is more necessary to remove excusability, than simply Jesus being raised. For example, the second derivative of some function could be X, but I think it is Y. I would be wrong, but it does not follow that I am without excuse. One would need some other things to be true before that conclusion could hold.
The noetic effect of sin is our rebellion against that which is clear about God.
Hermonta,
Yes, I understand your points; but I just don’t think they are persuasive. I think you minimize the resurrection too much.
But you have to know by now that my position is radically different than yours. I believe in a participationist humanity and anthropology; so I don’t believe in human freedom and responsibility in the same terms as you do, apparently. I think the vicarious humanity of Christ is the ground our humanity, and thus his kind of human freedom is the only kind which is for God etc.
As I recall you favor Arminianism, right?
Actually I am a vanilla Westminsterian Calvinist. Let me ask you this: How does the Resurrection change what an unbeliever, who has never seen or heard about a Bible, is responsible for and guilty of before God; in contrast to unbelievers before the Resurrection?
Hermonta,
Let me push an answer on this off till a later date, like through a post on the resurrection (Easter is coming up). In short though, I take what Jesus did in the Incarnation and Atonement to be the act of God for humanity in the humanity of Christ that has taken the responsibility for sin and guilt in our stead (this is grace and good news).
Bobby,
Are you leaning universalistic here? If not, then I am not sure what you are trying to say. I’m looking forward to your Resurrection post.
@Hermonta,
I’ve written reams here at the blog on what I mean; just peruse my Evangelical Calvinism and/or Thomas F. Torrance categories, and you will come across multiple posts on what I mean … as an Evangelical Calvinist I hold to Universal Atonement, but not Universal Salvation. I don’t think through the logico-causal mode and schemata that Westminster Calvinists do. But I just don’t have the time to re-write everything that I’ve already written on; if I have the chance I’ll try to dig up some of those links for you.
Okay, if you don’t hold to Universal salvation, then I am not sure what you are trying to say. God’s wrath continues to rest on the people who are sent to Hell for some reason. I don’t see this concern about responsibility, fairness, justice, etc. being something that only Westminsterians worries about.
Hermonta,
Here is what I believe:
I don’t know how you come to your conclusion about me not being concerned about responsibility, fairness, etc. I take your reading, to be blunt, as a rationalist account of anthropology that starts with a humanity that is not ontologically represented by the archetypical humanity of Jesus Christ. So I will always think of personal responsibility fairness (whatever that means) etc. from the humanity of Christ’s humanity for us (there is no other kind of humanity but his resurrected recreated humanity). Which other humanity do you know of in light of the resurrection. I also don’t follow the classic divine simplicity that divides God up into a cluster of attributes—this is what is significant about Athanasius’ quote. So to reiterate, once you can explain to me another notion of humanity, one that hasn’t been taken up in the assumed humanity of Christ for us (pace exegesis of Col. 1:15), then I will be persuaded of your dualistic notion of humanity juxtaposed with the humanity of Christ; but until then I will continue to press the unitary reality and purpose of creation in Jesus Christ; a reality that is full of grace and truth. So from my perspective even hell is held within the gracious-love of God in Christ; it has to be, there is no other reality but God’s life of gracious love for his creation.
pax.