> > > One of the fundamental tenets of Barthian theology is the concept of God being wholly other. Beyond the concept of God being different from man, this also includes the idea that God is *distant* from man. A prominent feature of liberal theology is that man can reach God and can come to know and understand God. Barth rejects this out of hand, saying that there is no path from man to God, and that the only way man can come to know God is for God to reveal Himself to man. Furthermore, God's revelation is by his own choosing, and man cannot ignore His message.
>
> Ok, here's where I find Barth's assertions hard to swallow. If revelation comes only from God, why should I believe anything Barth has to say? Barth's theology (as well as all theology for that matter) is a work of man. In fact, any human to human communication becomes flawed and misleading. Under such an interpretation, I can't even trust the Bible, becuase that's what someone else said God has revealed, not what God has revealed to me.
> The main problem is that there's no way for me to tell "God revealed such and such to Barth" apart from "Barth got hit on the head with a rock and now says God revealed such and such to him."

Because what Barth is saying isn't revelation. Revelation is completely distinct from any other form of communication; Barth is not saying that man is incapable of communicating *anything.*

The Bible, by the way, is not to be interpreted as divine revelation itself according to Barth, but as a *record* of divine revelation.