Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 181:723 (Jul 2024)
Article: Periodical Reviews
Author: Joseph W. Lee

BSac 181:723 (July-September 2024) p. 366

Periodical Reviews

By The Faculty And Staff Of Dallas Theological Seminary

Joseph W. Lee

Editor

“The Shape of God’s Providence: Some Reflections in Dialogue with Barth and Thomas,” Christopher R. J. Holmes, ProEccl 31.2 (2022): 196–207.

Holmes, professor of systematic theology at the University of Otago, reflects on “two key themes within providential thinking, namely the relationship between divine and creaturely causality as well as God’s presence not only above but also within creatures” (196–97). He sets his reflection in dialogue with Karl Barth and Thomas Aquinas. Holmes selects these two thinkers because of their theocentric approach to the doctrine of providence. He briefly interacts with John Webster’s treatment of providence as well, where Webster acts as a bridge between Barth and Thomas.

Holmes begins by surveying Barth’s treatment of providence: “Providence’s doctrinal content is a matter of God’s preservating, accompanying, and overruling of creatures” (197). Barth’s account stresses that God’s knowing, willing, and acting in relation to his creatures does not constitute God’s being in any sense. God is perfectly free and needs nothing from creatures. Barth’s treatment of providence has a dual focus: “God’s overruling work in relationship to creatures and . . . its source in God’s own free decision intrinsic to God’s being” (197, emphasis original). Because God’s relationship to creatures is free and not necessary for him to be who he is in himself, God’s work in relation to creatures is gratuitous.

Barth develops the idea that creatures participate in the existence of the Creator. While never conflating the Creator and the creature, Barth views the doctrine of providence as being about the “coexistence of the Creator with the creature, even to the extent of involving the participation of the creature in the Creator’s life” (198). Barth claims God’s “own action takes place in and with and over the activity of the creature. It is He Himself who does what Moses and David do” (132). God’s overruling activity cooperates with creaturely activity so that God acts and reveals himself through creatures.

Holmes turns to John Webster at the end of his treatment of Barth’s doctrine of providence. He claims that Webster bears a family resemblance to Barth in many ways. Holmes notes that Barth unpacks God’s causation “primarily along agential lines” (198); Webster also heavily utilizes agency language but not exclusively (201). Webster is subtly influenced by Thomas here. Holmes claims, “Webster, however, is partial to deploying causal language in a subtly dif...