¹ Barr, James, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, xii + 244pp., £30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ISBN 0–19–826205–1. The Gifford Lectures for 1991, delivered in the University of Edinburgh.

² Brunner, E. and Barth, K., Natural Theology, Eng. London: Bles, 1946.Google Scholar

³ Paton, H. J., The Modern Predicament, London: Allen & Unwin, 1955, pp. 47–58.Google Scholar

⁴ Barth, Karl, Anselm: fides quaerens intellectum. Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of his Theological Scheme, Eng. London: S.C.M. 1960, p. 11.Google Scholar

⁵ Wigley, Stephen D., ‘Karl Barth on St Anselm: the Influence of St Anselm's “Theological Scheme” in T. F. Torrance and Eberhard Jüngel’ in S.J.T. 46, 1993, 79–97Google Scholar, with which I find myself largely in agreement: cf. Watson, Gordon, ‘A Study in St Anselm's Soteriology and Karl Barth's Theological Method’ S.J.T. 42, 1989, for a contrary view.Google Scholar

⁶ Torrance, T. F., Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian, Edinburgh: Clark, 1990 pp. 136–159 esp. pp. 150–52Google Scholar, and Jüngel, Eberhard, Karl Barth – A Theological Legacy, Eng. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986, pp. 41–43Google Scholar: Busch, Eberhard, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, Eng. London: S.C.M. 1976, pp. 205–209.Google Scholar

⁷ Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom and Evil, New York: Harper & Row, 1974, rp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, pp. 85–112Google Scholar, cf. also his The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: O.U.P. 1974, chapter 10Google Scholar; and Plantinga, A. (ed.) The Ontological Argument, New York: Doubleday, 1965.Google Scholar

⁸ Plantinga, Alvin and Wolterstorff, Nicholas (eds), Faith and Rationality, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983, pp. 78–91.Google Scholar

⁹ Hartshorne, Charles, The Logic of Perfection, La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1962Google Scholar; and Malcolm, Norman, ‘Anselm's Ontological Arguments’ in Philosophical Review, 69, 1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar (also rp. in A. Plantinga's (ed.) The Ontological Argument. For a contrary (antitheistic) critique cf. Mackie, J. L., The Miracle of Theism. Arguments for and against the Existence, of God, Oxford: O.U.P. 1982, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar The literature is vast, and includes notably contributions from John Hick and from Richard Swinburne.

¹⁰ Karl Barth, Anselm, p. 20.

¹¹ Eberhard Busch, op. cit. p. 248.

¹² Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics I: 1, Eng. Edinburgh: Clark 2nd edn 1975, chapter 1 (section 3), p. 55 (my italics).Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. section 4:4, p. 120 (my italics).

¹⁴ Barth, Karl, The Resurrection of the Dead, Eng. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1933, p. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid. p. 115.

¹⁶ Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics II: 1, Eng. Edinburgh: Clark, 1957, chapter 5 (section 26) p. 135.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid (sect. 27), p. 179. That this theme is the proper context for a negative evaluation of ‘natural theology’ is further confirmed in Church Dogmatics II:1 (sect. 26), pp. 86–88, and 129–34.

¹⁸ Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics II:2 (section 34), pp. 306 and 317.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Torrance, T. F., Karl Barth. An Introduction to his Early Theology 1910–1931, London: S.C.M. 1962, pp. 98–105.Google Scholar

²⁰ Pannenberg, W., ‘Man – the Image of God?’ in Faith and Reality, Eng. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977, pp. 39–49, esp. 46–8Google Scholar: and Anthropology in Theological Perspective, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.Google Scholar

²¹ Betti, E., Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methodik der Gesiteswissenschaften, Tübingen: Mohr, 2nd edn 1972, p. 7.Google Scholar