theologian
to
set
forth
the
content
of
the
Christian
faith
from
the
standpoint
of
Hegelian
philosophy
without
accepting
(or
even
recognizing
as
Hegelian)
the
impersonal,
pantheistic
idea
of
the
Absolute,
and
indeed
without
going
deeply
into
i6.
Modem
the
train
of
thought
leading
up
to
that
Tendencies,
idea.
Other
theologians
who
more
or
less
followed
Schleiermacher,
while
they
agreed
with
his
statements
about
the
devout
consciousness,
feeling,
inner
experience,
and
the
like,
yet
avoided
his
philosophical
definition
of
God.
Others,
again,
holding
to
the
same
point
of
depar-
ture,
have
striven
with
zealous
confidence
to
use
the
main
elements
of
the
idea
of
God
thus
attained
in
connection
with
conceptual
speculation
and
con-
struction
in
the
interests
of
an
objective
knowledge
of
God.
Among
these
may
be
classed
Rothe,
Mar-
tensen,
Domer,
and
especially
Frank.
The
point
particularly
aimed
at
by
these
men
is
the
vindica-
tion
of
the
personality
of
God,
in
opposition
to
the
pantheistic
philosophy
noticed
above.
A
tendency
has
also
appeared
to
recognize
the
very
being
of
this
God
in
the
world
of
being
created
by
him,
thus
giv-
ing
a
theistic
conception
of
God
in
opposition
not
only
to
the
pantheistic
but
also
to
the
deistic.
This
tendency
has,
on
the
one
hand,
done
justice
to
so
much
truth
as
Hes
in
the
pantheistic
concep-
tion,
and,
on
the
other,
by
its
adherence
to
Scrip-
tural
forms
of
expression,
it
has
led
to
a
more
vivid
realization
of
the
divine
nature
in
its
relation
to
the
world
than
prevailed
among
the
old
rationalbts
and
supranaturalists.
The
question
has
also
arisen
among
theologians
of
the
strict
positive
school,
Ln
consequence
of
the
doctrine
of
Christ
as
the
God-Man,
whether,
and
if
so
how
far,
it
is
consistent
with
the
divine
nature,
as
foimd
in
the
Logos
or
the
second
Person
of
the
Trinity,
to
speak
of
a
Kenosis
(q.v.)
or
self-emptying,
such
as
was
supposed
to
have
taken
place
in
the
incarnation
of
the
Logos,
bringing
T^ith
it
a
sus-
pension
of
his
eternal
consciousness.
This
is
in
direct
opposition
to
the
old
orthodox
teaching,
according
to
which
Christ
laid
aside
in
his
humilia-
tion
not
what
a£fected
his
Godhead,
but
what
affected
his
humanity,
endowed
with
divine
quali-
ties
by
the
Communicaiio
idiomaium
(q.v.).
Biederqiann,
a
dogmatic
theologian
influenced
by
Hegehan
speculation,
treats
the
notion
of
the
personality
of
God
as
one
to
be
rejected
from
the
standpoint
of
scientific
philosophy.
It
is
true
that
he
designates
personaUty
as
"
the
adequate
form
of
presentation
for
the
theistic
conception
of
God
";
but
he
goes
on
to
say
that
a
theism
of
this
kind
can
never
attain
to
pure
thought,
and
is
only
an
unscientific
conception
of
the
content
of
the
relig-
ious
idea,
adopted
in
a
polemical
spirit
against
those
who
think
t^s
out
logically.
As
against
pantheistic
notions
of
God,
however,
he
is
willing
to
admit
the
"
substantial
"
vaUdity
of
the
theistic
position.
He
himself
describes
God
as
absolute
spirit,
absolute
being
in
and
by
himself,
and
the
fundamental
essence
of
all
being
outside
himself.
Quite
a
different
tendency
of
philosophic
thought
on
the
matter
is
met
with
in
Lipsius.
He
traces
the
beh'ef
in
God
back
to
a
practical
necessity
felt
by
the
personal
human
spirit,
and
reaches
the
concep-
tion
of
God
as
a
purpose-determining
intelligence
and
a
lawgiving
will,
and
thus
as
a
self-conscious
and
self-determining
personahty.
He
finds
our
knowl-
edge
of
God
always
inadequate
as
soon
as
we
attempt
to
go
on
to
transcendental
knowledge
of
his
inner
nature,
because
we
are
forced
to
speak
of
this
in
metaphors
borrowed
from
our
human
relations,
and
to
carry
over
our
notions
of
space
and
time
to
where
space
and
time
are
not.
He
declares
also
that
the
metaphysical
speculations
which
attempt
to
replace
these
inadequate
notions
by
a
real
knowl-
edge
of
God
are
themselves
imable
to
do
this,
since
they
can
not
get
beyond
the
boundary
of
an
eternal
and
ever-present
existence
underlying
all
existence
in
space
and
time,
and
are
unable
to
define
this
existence
in
distinction
from
spatial
and
temporal
existence
except
by
purely
formal
logical
definitions
which
really
add
nothing
to
our
knowledge.
It
is
really
Kantian
criticism
which
appears
here,
more
forcibly
than
in
previous
dogmatic
theology,
as
it
reappears
also
in
the
later
post<-Hegelian
philosophy.
Ritschl,
again,
is
reminiscent
of
Kant
in
his
oppo-
sition
to
all
"
metaphysical
"
statements
about
God,
and
in
the
way
in
which
he
places
God
for
our
knowl-
edge
in
relation
to
our
personal
ethical
spirit,
as
well
as
the
powers
which
he
attributes
to
this
latter
in
relation
to
nature
(cf.
Kant's
so-called
moral
proof
or
God
as
the
postulate
of
the
practical
reason).
Through
the
revelation
in
Christ,
God
becomes
to
him
to
a
certain
extent
air
objective
reaUty,
and,
rejecting
the
conception
of
God
as
the
Absolute,
he
prefers
to
define
him
simply
as
love.
Against
this
not
only
dogmatic
theologians
like
Frank
and
Nitzsch,
but
Kaftan
also
objects
that
love
is
foimd
also
in
the
finite
sphere,
and
thus
can
not
sufiUciently
express
the
essential
nature
of
God,
which
differ-
entiates
him
from
the
finite.
Ritschl
himself
says,
moreover,
that
the
love
which
God
is
has
the
attri-
bute
of
omnipotence,
and
that
God
is
the
creator
of
the
universe,
as
will
determining
both
himself
and
all
things,
while
these
definitions
can
in
no
way
be
deduced
from
the
simple
conception
of
love.
Kaf-
tan
begins
by
the
statement
that
God
is
the
Abso-
lute;
and
this
signifies
to
him
not
only
that
God
has
absolute
power
over
all
that
is,
but
also
and
even
more
that
he
is
the
absolute
goal
of
all
human
en-
deavor.
Nitzsch
employs
the
term
"
supramun-
dane
"
to
include
the
domination
of
the
universe
and
to
express
at
the
same
time
not
only
the
thought
that
he
who
conditions
all
things
is
himself
uncon-
ditioned,
but
also
the
moral
and
intellectual
exal-
tation
of
God.
The
whole
body,
therefore,
of
these
modem
theo-
logians
hold
fast
to
an
objective
doctrine
of
God
with
a
strict
scientific
comprehension
of
terms;
and
they
agree
in
displaying
a
characteristic
which
dif-
ferentiates
them
from
earlier
schools
of
thought,
though
varying
in
degree
and
in
logical
sequence
—
the
consciousness
that
the
Christian
doctrine
of
God
is
based
not
upon
the
operations
of
reason
but
upon
the
revelation
of
God
in
Christ,
of
which
the
witness
is
in
our
hearts
and
that
it
must
grasp
as
the
fundamentally
essential
in
God
and
his
relation
to
us
the
ethical
element
in
him
—
must
conceive
him,
in
a
word,
primarily
as
the
sacred
Love.
(J.
KGSTLINt.)
