Im an little rusty on dialectics. I have read a few pages of the Van Til article - its quite deep, and I don't quite understand it all. Bloesch says that Barth veered away from philosophical dialectics to a theological dialectic. I'd need to read what Barth said on that to see if I can understand him.
When I read Francis Scheffer I thought that dialectic was a way of thinking that started with Hegel, but there are different sorts dialectics, and classical dialectics have been around from the time of Socrates, so I don't quite know what Schaeffer meant. Certainly Hegel seems to have come up with a new sort of dialectic. Barth was critical of what he seen as the divinisation of thought in Hegel and Schliermacher, and of course Kierkegarrd was firmly opposed to Hegelianism.
I still think Barth may have raised valid points. What is wrong with him saying Scripture in itself is not revelation, but a witness to God's revelation in Jesus Christ. I don't know he may be wrong.
I don't know when Barth is said to be saying that the Incarnation didn't take place in ordinary time, quite what he is meaning. Is he meaning what Kierkkegarrd said - Eternity stepped into time. The Bible speaks of The fullness of Time in regard to the Birth of Jesus. Again I am not sure I understand that.
The fundamentalist view of revelation is that its something given and codified, its the codified aspect Barth disagreed with.
To quote a bit of Donald Bloesch (he has a whole chapter on the meaning of revelation in Christian Foundations - Holy Scripture)
"The Bible is both the revelation and the means and bearer of revelation. It is revelation cast in written form and the original witness to revelation. It is a component of revelation and a vechicle of revelation. It objectively contains revelation in the sense that its witness is based on revelation, but it becomes revelation for us only in the moment of decision, in the awakening to faith. Scripture is not simply a pointer to revelation (as Torrance sometimes describes it) but a carrier of revelation. Scripture is the mediate source of revelation, but only Jesus Christ is the original or eternal source."
"Against later orthodoxy and fundamentalism, I hold that the words of the Bible are revelatory but not revealed; they conform to the revelation and convey the revelation through the Spirit. The propositions in the Bible are the result of revelation, the concrete embodiment of revelation and the vechicle of revelation."
At times Bloesch seems to be saying he disagrees with something then in what he says following he seems to in fact be agreeing. I think he is dissociating himself from very narrow or incomplete understandings first then presenting a fuller understanding that includes the incomplete understanding.