1. It is not difficult to see why many characterized Barth as a proponent of ‘neo-orthodoxy’, as Barth kept writing about (and therefore distinguishing hiemself from) what he called as the older form of orthodoxy or older Protestantism (e.g., CD 1.1, p. 137).
2. The ultimate question is this: How do we know Jesus Christ? Is it (primarily? decisively? ultimately?) through the Church, as the Roman Catholic Church believe it is, or is it (primarily? decisively? ultimately?) through the Scriptures, as the older Protestantism believe it is? Is there another way to construe the problem?
3. For Barth, the Word of God exists in its threefold form: the Word of God preached, the Word of God written, and the Word of God revealed. We do speak of preaching as the Word of God (e.g., weekly introduction to sermon: let us now listen to the Word of God… I guess everybody understand it to refer to the sermon and not simply to the reading of Scripture), the Scriptures as the Word of God, and Jesus Christ as the Word of God. The question, then, is not about whether preaching or Scripture or Jesus Christ is Word of God, but how they are, respectively.