“There is a post-Kantian nuance in the Barthian notion that throws everything askew, as Hoff suggests.  Kant’s thought is itself one ultimate outcome of the late medieval separation between reason and faith: ‘pure reason’ can know only its own limits, only its own subjective capacity, only the way in which being ‘appears’ to it.  Hegel was able to reinscribe a (heterodox) version of Christian doctrine within this scheme, first by identifying God himself with the historical sequence of the way in which things appear to the human spirit and then by projecting onto God himself a model of spiritual subjectivity taken from the circumstances of a sheerly finite human subject, bereft of the lure of faith and of analogical participation in transcendence.  This, then, is the God who ‘reveals only God’ and whose immanent identity is collapsed into his revealed identity, in a forgetting of all genuine apophaticism.

For the pre-modern view by contrast, though God was at one with his glory, this glory was itself, as theophanic, the disclosure of unsoundable mystery.  It was not primarily the disclosure of knowledge – not even the knowledge that God is an infinite self-determining subjective structure.  Instead, it was a mediated revelation through creatures – inorganic, organic, human – an in consequence involved ‘always already’ a creaturely response of gratitude and praise to the wonder of divine revelation.  This meant that the most primordial event of revelation was liturgical – it already involved a new human habitus, something that humans must consistently do, something which they have already begun consistently to perform” (368-9).

~ John Milbank, “The Grandeur of Reason and the Perversity of Rationalism: Radical Orthodoxy’s First Decade” in The Radical Orthodoxy Reader