concept 'Wortmachtigkeit' (capacity for speech) invariably as the concept 'Offenbarungsmachtigkeit' (capacity for revelation) is debatable. Brunner conceived of believers as having a basic capacity to be addressed, but not to experience revelation independently of the Word itself. In short, he chose not to speak of an 'Offenbarungsmachtigkeit'. Accordingly, in his opening words he assesses the BarthBrunner debate as having shifted, in that neither asked about the Deus in nobis, with both theologians seeking the revelation in Jesus Christ (Brunner 2002:17). A source that acknowledges the validity of both faith and reason is as much unacceptable to Brunner as it is to Barth. In addition to both the theologians offering their own vision, and discrediting that of their opponents, throughout the debate, the pieces de resistance comprise two moments: their respective standpoints, as well as their interpretations of Calvin in particular. Brunner sets the agenda by placing six points on the table, which he thought encapsulated the essence of a natural theology. Each of them handles the points of debate by presenting his own insights on the topic, as well as criticising the standpoint of the other theologian on it.The imago DeiBrunner (2002:2224) distinguishes between the formal and the material aspects of the imago Dei. He regards the former as being what makes humankind unique in Creation, as well as what retains it, irrespective of the amount of sin that it commits. A subject of humankind, accordingly, is responsible for participating in Creation. The material aspect of the imago Dei, in contrast, became totally lost at the time of the Fall, making human beings 'anti-personal persons', who are without justification. To Barth (2002:7980), the result of distinguishing between the formal and the material aspects of human beings as the image of God results in an artificial classification. Such an imposed scheme renders human existence as subjects illicit (Barth 2002:75). Only Jesus Christ can exist as subject and the Scriptures are the only quod that can exist. As far as Barth (2002:77) is concerned, Brunner is guilty of devising a system of thought, resulting in the latter making theology a foreign task.General revelationBrunner (2002:25) deems the Creator's fingerprints to have remained as they were at Creation, so that they can be regarded as the self-revelation of God. He regards human consciousness, likewise, to have remained the same since then, which posits the conscience as a special consciousness of God. In the light of such thinking, the responsibility of the sinner and the awareness of the will of God are one and the same concept. Therefore, general revelation does, indeed, exist. Such a 'double' revelation in nature and in Christ has the same origin, however, relating the two forms of revelation directly to each other. Brunner (2002: 2627) claims that, in order to understand the relationship of the two forms of revelation to each other, we must distinguish between the human and sinful subject and the Divine objective revelation in Christ. Only one who has met Christ 'has the true natural knowledge of God' (Brunner 2002:27). For Barth (2002:8082), the only possibility is that God