Since my first post on Contemporary European views of God, i have been engaged in a fun dialogue with Travis. He seems to have a thorough knowledge of Barth’s thought, and i have enjoyed dialoguing with him.
During our dialogue, a question came to me. It seems to me that maybe Barth never really got as far away from Schleiermacher’s immanentism as he hoped. If for Barth the only true knowledge of God comes through the “acting on” of Christ in a person, and not grounded in an objective sense in the Scriptures, how has he escaped the overly experience focused theology of Schleiermacher? If true knowledge can only be brought by the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit, than although for Barth God is the “wholly other,” we can only interact with Him relationally in a way analogous to Schleiermacher’s view.
Don’t get me wrong, i think that there is a difference between receiving revelation from Christ than from a feeling of utter dependence. Nevertheless, i can’t help but wonder if Barth’s complete epistemic disconnect of regarding the knowledge of God from the bible has rendered us to only use more lofty “man-talk” about God, despite his best intentions.
I guess my question to Barthians is this: If our knowledge of God is completely dependent on our experience of Christ acting on us to receive that knowledge, then how can we avoid the subjective “man-talk” in regards to Christ that Barth found so distasteful in Schleiermacher’s theology?