We have come to the constructive turn in this series. We cannot merely critique other views, we must clearly articulate how a strong doctrine of Divine Absoluteness provides lasting comfort for us. Barth raised real concerns about the preservation of both divine freedom and genuine grace. His intent to protect such things was honorable. Classic Christian theism, however, already protected those things without having to redefine absoluteness. In fact, God’s eternal absoluteness does not compete with His relational nearness; it is the only thing that makes that nearness trustworthy when suffering endures.
It must be acknowledged that the classical doctrines of divine absoluteness that we are about to propose were not unknown to Barth. He rejected them deliberately, believing they threatened God’s freedom, grace, and self-revelation. The question, then, is not whether Barth saw these categories, but whether his revision actually preserved what he sought to protect—or whether it introduced a deeper instability by grounding God’s relational identity in historical act rather than eternal being. I contend that it did create instability. We’ve attempted to demonstrate that in previous posts. What follows, then, is a constructive account of why classical theism’s doctrine of divine absoluteness better sustains faith—especially in the midst of prolonged suffering.
How Can Grace Be Truly Free?
This was one of Karl Barth’s foundational concerns. He wanted to preserve divine autonomy. For God to be truly God, Barth insisted, God must be free—free even from any necessity to give grace. Grace must be a genuine act of divine freedom, not something compelled by external forces or by a metaphysical account of God’s nature abstracted from revelation.
To safeguard this freedom, Barth resisted theological accounts in which God’s eternal being appeared to determine His gracious action in advance. He feared that such accounts risked making grace feel automatic rather than chosen.As a result, Barth emphasized God’s self-determining activity: God is gracious because God freely decides to be gracious toward us in Jesus Christ.
Eternal absoluteness, however, offers a better way forward. Rather than undermining divine freedom, God’s self-existence, sufficiency, and immutability secure it—while also providing a more stable ground for trusting God’s grace in seasons of prolonged suffering. Classical theism says that God’s grace is free because God is Ase (from Himself). When God is gracious it is because He wills to be so, not because He has to be so.
How Can Grace Be Secure?
In Barth’s theology, God’s gracious being is known through God’s concrete self-determination for us in history. When that gracious action is difficult to discern—especially in prolonged suffering—believers may struggle to rest confidently in God’s grace. The doctrine of divine absoluteness offers a more stable ground for trust, because it anchors God’s graciousness in His eternal being rather than in the clarity of its historical manifestation. When suffering endures, I do not have to infer God’s grace from what I can presently see or feel. God is gracious because He exists from Himself. He does not need creation—or my experience—to be who He eternally is.
Let’s be concrete for a moment. In the midst of suffering a counselee may say:
“If God were gracious, He wouldn’t let this continue.”
A functional theology, one that grounds grace in primarily in how it is experienced, struggles here. It doesn’t have a way to testify to an inexperienced grace of God. But absoluteness allows the counselor to be genuinely strong in reaffirming grace. We may say:
“God’s grace is not suspended because your suffering continues. His grace does not depend on what is happening to you right now. It depends on who He eternally is.”
That is not dismissal, but a deep grounding of hope. Grace is a part of the character of God and as such is as stable as God himself is.
How is God Near in Silence?
Barth was deeply concerned about hiding God behind the person and work of Christ. God is known where God acts, and God’s decisive self-revelation is given in Jesus Christ. For Barth, God’s being is not an abstract essence behind revelation, but is known as being-in-act through this self-disclosure. Any metaphysical or ontological reflection on God detached from this revelation was therefore suspect in his eyes.
Yet tying divine knowability so closely to revelatory action raises a pastoral challenge in prolonged suffering. When the meaning of God’s revelation in Christ becomes difficult to discern amid silence or unresolved pain, believers may struggle to articulate how God is present and trustworthy. How can God’s decisive revelation in Christ sustain faith when it seems to make no immediate difference in lived experience?
In counseling there will often be a fair amount of silence. Suffering is not always resolvable and as counselors we often must help people face the reality of unanswered prayers, waiting on the Lord, and the experience of divine silence. The doctrine of the Absoluteness of God does more to help us interpret God’s presence in such scenarios than a Functional view of God. In particular, because God is always the same and unchanged by circumstances we can have a category for faithful waiting on the Lord.
Absoluteness allows you to say, “God’s silence does not mean God’s absence, change, or withdrawal.” Within this view God’s being does not fluctuate with manifestation, nor does God become more or less Himself through activity. God’s covenant faithfulness is grounded in who He is, not what is currently perceived. We do not need to continually reinterpret things based on the visible impact of God’s self-revelation. We have a sure footing in the Divine Character apart from the immediate perception of His activity.
How is God Near as Other?
One of Barth’s critiques of Classical Theism was that it had turned God into a distant metaphysical principle. He was less the personal God of Scripture, as he saw it, and more an unmoved essence, a static Absolute unrelated to human life. So, Barth emphasized relationality. Any talk of transcendence was reorganized around His self-giving action instead of His metaphysical distinction. But the doctrine of God’s Absoluteness makes nearness possible without collapse.
Some of what Barth wanted to preserve is only truly preserved in Absoluteness. God can be near and not erode His holiness. He can be compassionate and not reduce His sovereignty. He can be present and not be equal. For Barth, God’s nearness is secured primarily through divine action that unfolds in human history, which can make it harder to articulate how God remains present as God—unchanging, unconditioned, and sovereign—when that action is not perceptible. A Functional view of God’s being leaves us with an interpretation of God that makes Him seem too much like us and leaves little room for a secure interpretation of Him in the throes of sorrow.
In the counseling room a sufferer often wonders if God views their suffering like they do: “Is God still with me?” “Does He see this?” “Is He overwhelmed like I am?” Here’s where “near as Other” becomes healing. A Biblical counselor with a strong theology of Divine Absoluteness can say:
God is with you—but He is not trapped in your pain.
God understands—but He is not destabilized.
God is close—but He is not fragile.
Only an absolute God can be near without becoming another victim of suffering. This leads us naturally to one final conclusion about divine Absoluteness, which we will explore in our next post.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 