施賴爾馬赫的上帝學說引發的一大爭議在於：《基督教信仰論》的第一部分與第二部分中分別論述的上帝學說之間是否相容。巴特認為第一部分的上帝觀具有優先性，並決定著第二部分，而麥克馬考則認為這兩部分之間具有不可調和的矛盾。本文認為至少就其意圖而言，施賴爾馬赫試圖確立以因果法為基礎的肯定神學的優先地位，他用否定法的目的只在於避免不恰當的擬人神要素。雖然施賴爾馬赫所使用的「原因」概念並不完全源於哲學思辨，然而不可否認的是他的上帝觀就其內容而言仍然在相當程度上繼承了古典形而上學的上帝觀，並正因此而給思考上帝的超越性和自由造成了困難。就此而言，巴特等人對施賴爾馬赫的批評至少在內容或實質方面是合理的。

The major controversy about Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God lies in whether the doctrine as presented in Part One of his Glaubenslehre is ultimately compatible with that presented in Part Two. Barth argues that the first part has the precedence over the second, while McCormack maintains that the treatments of the being and attributes of God in Parts I and II are not finally compatible. As the paper demonstrates, taken as a whole, in the Glaubenslehre, Schleiermacher shows a clear preference for the kataphatic theology, using apophasis as a way of avoiding inappropriate anthropomorphism. However, although the concept of causality used by Schleiermacher is not completely derived from speculation, the content of his doctrine of God is still affected by the classical metaphysically theory of God, and accordingly has the unsatisfactory treatment of the freedom and transcendence of God. As a result, Barth’s criticism is reasonable in substance.