Abstract
For Paul Molnar, “A Catholic Appraisal” unfairly holds Barth to be inconsistent in claiming that God has his being in his act of revelation, and he shows that Barth often says the opposite of this. This does not resolve the inconsistency, but simply makes it more apparent. For Paul Hinlicky, the essay unfairly assumes that Barth needs to be consistent in the first place. Reflection on the law of identity shows how unfruitful it is for theologians to think they can dispense with basic logical truths. The essay concludes with arguments on the saving significance of baptism, the human refusal of God, and what theology can accomplish, in response to Katherine Sonderegger.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.