Abstract
Abstract The deferred question may now be taken up of Barth’s possible rejoinder to the charge of incoherence in his presentation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. What could Barth possibly say that might rescue his conceptuality from logical collapse? How can he avoid the consequences of disrelation, and therefore finally of dualism, that seem to be so obviously entailed by his conception of the divine otherness? Moreover, how can he avoid the consequences of determinism, and therefore finally of monism, that seem to be so obviously entailed by his conception of the divine omnipotence? Don’t the conceptions of otherness and omnipotence entailed by his notion of asymmetry render impossible the intimacy and integrity he posits in his account of fellowship as the goal of vocation? Conversely, don’t the notions of intimacy and integrity require him to abandon his notion of asymmetry, if the viability of fellowship as he conceives it is to be sustained? Three points above all are to be developed in reply to such questions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
