himself being. Would he be doing so ex nihilo? How does one give oneself something that one does not have, even if one is God? Professor McCormack’s statement means that he has to explain who (or what) this beingless “God” is prior to election and the Trinity, something I think that he has never successfully done. The idea of a God who gives himself being—which in effect posits a “God beyond God” (i.e., an initial “God” prior to election and the Trinity)—seems to result from the inner logic of revisionism’s