Tabletalk Subscription
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining.You've accessed all your free articles.
Unlock the Archives for Free

Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.

Try Tabletalk Now

Already receive Tabletalk magazine every month?

Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.

{{ error }}Need help?

1 John 1:1–4

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes…and heard we proclaim also to you” (vv. 1–3).  

Yesterday we focused on the impact of the radical immanentism of G.W.F. Hegel in the nineteenth century. Hegel’s theories, however, were not universally embraced. Schools like Princeton Theological Seminary, for example, held fast to Christian orthodoxy in the 1800s. Others attempted to hold to the uniqueness of Christ and yet were unable to totally break away from an immanentistic bent in their theology. The most influential of these men was Friedrich Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher maintained that there was a divine element in all men, which illustrates his affinities with immanentism. Yet unlike Hegel, Schleiermacher maintained that Jesus was different from other men in that He represents the supreme perfection of the divine element in humanity. This is particularly evident in Christ’s “God-consciousness”: Jesus was acutely aware of His “absolute dependence” on His Father and thus He was rendered sinless. Of course, it is true that we are all absolutely dependent on God, for “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). But Schleiermacher did not emphasize this absolute dependence in any objective kind of way. Rather, he subjectivized the Christian faith, saying that the essence of religion is the feeling of “absolute dependence.” Jesus really “felt” His dependence upon the Father and that made Him the perfect man, the authentically religious man. Combined with his unbiblical view of immanence, Schleiermacher’s view of religion shaped the theological liberalism that came to the fore in the second half of the nineteenth century. Soon Jesus became the great teacher and model for what it means to be dependent upon God — whether or not He was God Himself. To be sure, Jesus is the supreme teacher and model, but this is not the whole story. He is also God incarnate who reconciles repentant sinners to the Almighty through bearing the Father’s wrath on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). Biblical Christianity is not pure subjectivism. There is an objective content — Christ’s life, death, and resurrection — that undergirds our faith. Without this content there is no way to know if we are depending upon the right God.

Coram Deo Living before the face of God

Hegel, himself no friend of biblical Christianity, criticized Schleiermacher, saying that if the essence of religion was the feeling of absolute dependence, then the dog, being absolutely dependent upon people, is the most divine creature of all. Many people feel dependent on their spouses, their jobs, or the teaching of other religions, but this does not make them truly pious. Only those dependent upon the biblical Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, will ever find salvation (John 14:6).

For Further Study
  • 2 Kings 20:20
  • Psalm 119:153–160
  • 1 Corinthians 15:1–11
  • 2 Peter 1:1–2

Denying God’s Transcendence


Keep Reading Paradise Lost and Regained

From the December 2008 Issue
Dec 2008 Issue