《现代神学论评》第一章Chapter I
1919 前：康德对当代（20 世纪）神学的重要性
BEFORE
1919：The Significance of
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) For
Contemporary Theology
（Harvie M. Conn, Contemporary World Theology: A
Layman’s Guidebook.
Nutley, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1974, 1-9. ）
（中译本：简河培，《现代神学论评》，臺北：基督教改革宗翻译社。第一章无中译，谨此提供。）（注﹕ 英文原着第第二章，即目前中译本的第一章。）（林慈信编译）
巴特展开神学新纪元：1919 出版《罗马人书注释》
THEOLOGY’S
NEW ERA: BARTH WRITES ROMANS COMMENTARY, 1919
当代神学，可以说是从瑞士（离德国边境约 16 英里）一间教会的牧师书房开始的。创始人是一位年青牧师，卡尔?巴特（1886-1968），他在 25 岁那年（1911）赴该市牧会。这份宣言是历史上新神学的转捩点，也是一个新神学时代的首次宣告，它以巴特的《罗马书释义》的形式出现。这本书的重要性，将在下一章（注：原着第二章，即中译本第一章）简述。
Contemporary
theology, in a real sense, was born in the study of a church in Switzerland,
about sixteen miles south of the German border. The inaugurator was a young
pastor, Karl Barth (1886-1968), who had gone there in 1911, at the age of 25.
And the manifesto of this new theological turning-point in history, the initial
announcement of a new theological era, came in the form of Barth’s commentary
on Romans in 1919. What the general significance of that book meant will be
sketched in the next chapter of our study.
十九与二十世纪神学： 差异不大；神学的哥白尼革命乃从康德（1724-1804）开始
19th
& 20th CENT. THEOLOGY: SIMILAR; REVOLUTION BEGAN WITH KANT
我们拟在本章（注：原着的第一章，中译本漏译）说明，1919 年后的神学变迁乃属一个较大的海洋；「现代」（19 世纪）与「当代」（20 世纪）神学的分歧，仅在于一些建立在共同预设的着重点而已。就算很多神学家所说的：巴特在神学家的游戏场中丢了一个炸弹，也应有更准确的修正：其实巴特在同一游戏场的一边，射了一个炮弹到另一边而已。从这意义上来看，巴特的所谓「哥白尼革命」不是在 1919 年开始，而是由启蒙运动的哲学家王子－康德（1724-1804）所创始。
In this opening chapter, we are seeking only
to show that even the shifts of theological currents since 1919 are part of a
larger ocean, and that the difference between “modern” theology and
“contemporary” theology is sometimes less a difference and more an emphasis
building upon common presuppositions. Even what has so often been referred to
as Barth’s dropping a bombshell in the playground of the theologians may be
more accurately described as a cannonade on one part of the playground from
another part of the same playground. In that sense, Barth’s
「人类已成熟」：文艺復兴、启蒙的主题；康德将现代人理性的自信系统化；理性处理物质，无能处理非物质；1784 启蒙=脱开外在权威；= 理性的自主、自由
WORLD
COMES OF AGE: RENAISSANCE, ENLIGHTENMENT’S THEME KANT SYSTEMATIZES MODERN MAN’S
CONFIDENCE IN REASON REASON DEALS WITH MATTER; CANNOT DEAL WITH NON-MATTER;
1784 ENLIGHTEHMENT = LIBERATION FROM EXTERNAL AUTHORITY, = AUTONOMY, FREEDOM TO
THINK so-called “Copernican revolution” began not in 1919 but 200 years ago, in
the study of the philosopher-prince of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804).
「世界已经成熟」的观念，不是潘霍华始创的。它是文艺復兴和西方启蒙运动的主题曲；后者影响了现代文化的每个层面。康德把「现代人对理性掌握物质和所有超物质事物的能力的自信」系统化；因此他的影子伸展到十九与二十世纪。1784 年，康德归纳了启蒙运动的要求：启蒙乃是人从自己加在身上的不成熟释放出来。这种不成熟表现在人依赖外在的权威。因此，「启蒙」与「自主」成了同义词。现代人的主题成为：「敢用你自己的理解」，「没有约束、没有外在指引而思想的自由」，「从武断（教条）的睡眠中唤醒」。
The idea of the world coming of age did not
originate with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.It was the theme song of the Renaissance and
of the Western Enlightenment era, an era that has left its permanent stamp on
everything modern. Kant systematizedn“modern man’s confidence in the power of
reason to grapple with material things and its incompetence to deal with
anything beyond.” (Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Chicago:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1969), p. 91.) And in doing so, he cast a shadow not
merely over the nineteenth century but over the twentieth century as well. In
1784, Kant summed up the demands of new Enlightenment when he defined it as
man’s emergence from his self-inflicted immaturity. This immaturity is found in
man’s reliance upon any authority external to himself. Enlightenment and
autonomy become identical, and modern man’s motto becomes “Dare to use your own
understanding,” “Freedom to think without sanctions, without direction external
to man himself,” “Awakening from dogmatic slumber.” (Immanuel Kant,
“Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklarung?” Berlinische Monatsschrift,
December, 1784, (Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, VIII, p. 35.)
康德 = 老撒旦对上帝话语的怀疑；人自己开拓道路
KANT
= OLD SATAN’S DOUBT OF GOD’S WORD; MAN PURSUES OWN PATH
基督徒对这种所谓新调子并不陌生。魔鬼在伊甸园已质疑任何在人以外的权威。牠问夏娃：「上帝真的说吗？」（创 3:1）。牠邀请人追寻「启蒙」运动的自我释放之路。牠「提醒」夏娃：上帝知道，你吃的那日，眼睛会明亮，你会像上帝，认识善恶（创 3:5）。不过康德和「现代」的启蒙精神注入一些新的因素。
The Christian senses a familiar ring of
antiquity to this supposedly new sound. Satan had also questioned any authority
external to man himself in the garden of Eden. “Indeed, has God said?” he had
asked (Gen. 3:1). He also invited man to pursue his own free path of
Enlightenment. “God knows,” he reminded Eve, “that in the day you eat from it
your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen.
3:5). But, with Kant and the Enlightenment spirit of the modern age, there had
come some new twists to an old angle.
1．新的宗教预设（上帝观，世界观）：人的「心」是一切思想的出发点
NEW
RELIGIOUS CATEGORIES TO VIEW GOD & WORLD MAN’S “HEART” = SPRING OF ALL HIS
THOUGHTS
一套新的宗教预设，在塑造现代人的思想。人是上帝的形象，因此必定不断建立一些范畴（观念），依此看待自己、上帝、与世界。从《圣经》所称的「心」，从人性本身，从这个使人与一切事物与上帝连上关係的「心」，一生的事发出（《箴言》4:23）。人的思想如何，自己的生命也如何（《箴言》23:7）。
There
was, and is, a new set of religious presuppositions that mold modern man’s
thought. Man, as the image of God, is always building categories by which he
can view himself, God, and the world. From what the Bible calls man’s “heart,”
from everything that makes him man, from the center that relates him everywhere
and always to God, “from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23). “For as he
thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7).
古希腊哲学的背约的（偶像化的）规则：「理念」与「物质」对立；中古时期神学吸收希腊哲学，建立新的妥协信仰的世界观：「自然」与「恩典」
GREEK
PHILOSOPHY’S IDOLATROUS RULES: “FORM” VS. “MATTER” MEDIEVALS ACCOMMODATE GREEK
MODEL, BUILDS NEW COMPROMISE: “NATURE” AND “GRACE”
古希腊世界的「心」有自己的宗教游戏原则，建立在「形式」与「物质」的矛盾上。中古时期，西方基督教採用了这些非基督教，背约的观念；基督教信仰作出了新的让步。结果是另一套游戏规则，环绕着「自然」与「恩典」的观念。
The
“heart” of the ancient Greek world had built its religious ground rules around
the contradictions of form and matter. (For a simple explanation of these
religious antimonies, consult Cornelius Van Til, The Great Debate Today
(Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 179-188.)
In the Middle Ages, the West had accommodated those basically non-Christian,
covenant-breaking ideas to a new compromise with Christian principles and come
up with another set framed around the ideas of nature and grace.
Form/Spirit Grace Freedom
_____________ _______________ ____________
Matter Nature Nature
Ancient
Greece Medieval (Aquinas) Modern (Kant)
「自然」不是上帝造的世界；还是自主的，是希腊「理念–物质」的新版本：「恩典」不是上帝的大能；阿奎那使「自然」「人」从「超自然」、「恩典」释放
NATURE
= NOT CREATED WORLD UNDER GOD, BUT AUTONOMOUS STRUCTURE, “FORM-MATTER” IN NEW
DRESS GRACE = NOT SOVEREIGN TRANSFORMATION; = PERFECTING FORM AQUINAS
EMANCIPATED NATURAL MAN FROM SUPERNATURAL GRACE
这两个掌管人自我认识的宗教主题：「自然」和「恩典」，都不是根据《圣经》的观念。「自然」的预设，不是《圣经》所宣告的，顺从创造主的被造世界。「自然」乃是一个自主的架构，再次的化装了古希腊的「形式－物质」观念，以新的要求修饰。在这次的让步中，「恩典」也失去了基督教的特质，而成为一个上层建筑的限制观念，而不再指掌主权的上帝彻底改变人生命的作为。中古时期阿奎
拿的综合模式，把「自然」的「人」，从「超自然」的「恩典」解放了。
Neither
religious theme of nature or grace represented purely biblical ground rules for
self-understanding. The presupposition of nature was not the biblical concept
of a created world in subjection to its Creator. It was an autonomous
sub-structure that put the old Greek ideas of form – matter in a new dress,
modified by new demands. In this compromise, grace also lost its distinctively
Christian character, and became more a perfecting form of superstructure rather
than a radical act of transformation by the sovereign God. The Middle Ages’
synthesis of Thomas Aquinas had emancipated natural man from supernatural
grace.
康德：不仅妥协，彻底释放；「自然」与「恩典」彻底的、自觉的分割；人不受任何事控制；自然界 = 数学性，无限的；人在其中实施自主。康德后的世界观：偶像化，扭曲《圣经》；因此自我矛盾
KANT:
EMANCIPATION = NOT JUST ACCOMMODATION; NATURE/GRACE CONSISTENTLY SEPARATED;
NOTHING CONTROLS MAN; NATURE = MATHEMATICAL, INFINITE, MAN = AUTONOMOUS IN IT;
WORLDVIEW TWISTS BIBLE, IDOLATROUS, THUS SELF-CONTRADICTORY
康德与启蒙运动的精神现在让人的解放不仅仅是基督教与人本思想的妥协。自然与恩典完全的分开，这分割是一致的，系统的，自觉的，在西方文明是首创。人必将「重生」，成为一个完全自由，自主的位格，从一切控制他思想的因素解放。根据这样的精神，自然界虽仍从中古时代的综合模式存留，可是也完全改造了。自然成为一个「宏观的范围，在其中人可以行使他的自主。现在自然被解释为一个无限的范围，由自主的数学思想来控制。」（参考书籍：参英文。）
Kant and the Enlightenment spirit now made
that emancipation more than merely accommodation. For the first time in Western
civilization, nature and grace were severed in a consistent, developed,
self-conscious form. Man was to be reborn as a completely free and autonomous
personality and released from all controls over his thinking. And, in this
spirit, even the category of nature, still retained from the medieval
synthesis, was transformed. Nature became a “macrocosmic sphere within which
human personality could exercise its autonomy. Nature was interpreted as an
infinite field to be controlled by autonomous mathematical thought.” (Vincent
Brummer, Transcendental Criticism and Christian Philosophy (Franeker: T. Wever,
1961), p. 98. A fuller explanation of these themes will be found in Herman
Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1960).)
2．人的自主更加贯彻：自我评估：人的理性 = 真理的至终准则; 现代思想：唯独理性能判断现象界，真理界（薛华没有看到，没有挑战）
MAN’S
AUTONOMY = MORE CONSISTENT; REASON = TRUTH’S NORM; MODERN THOUGHT: REASON ALONE
JUDGES PHENOMENAL, NOUMENAL WORLD (F. SCHAEFFER FAILS TO SEE, CHALLENGE THIS)
以人为中心的自主，在康德的思想更加一致。启蒙运动的「心」呼吁人的理性完全解放，就是自主的自然界，在其中「事实」的意义完全与与上帝脱离关係，因此，事实就成为残酷的。这种的宗教态度，对人的能力的评估是乐观的，特别人的理性是最高的权威，是衡量真理的至终准则。理性，唯独理性，足够判断现象世界与真理世界。（很不幸地，薛华虽然是一位加尔文主义的评论者，虽然在很多方面都作出重要的贡献，可是并没有看到人用自己理性时的宗教前设，有多麽贯彻的影响力；他也没有看见人用理性作为至高的审判官是多麽的不足够。正如有人正确地看出，薛华的护教「假设人必须自己决定，上帝启示的《圣经》是否真实。」）
There was, and is, a more consistently
developed sense of man-centered autonomy. The Enlightenment “heart” had called
for an emancipated human freedom, an autonomous nature where fact was severed
from its meaning in God, and therefore brutalized. This religious attitude
produced a quite high assessment of all of man’s capacities, and especially of
human reason as the final authority, the ultimate criterion for truth. Reason
and reason alone becomes adequate for judging the world of the phenomenon and
the world of the noumenon. (It is a most unfortunate feature of the work of the
Calvinistic critic, Francis Schaeffer, that, though helpful in so many areas,
he cannot fully see the radical influence of man’s religious presuppositions on
his use of the reason nor the inadequacy of the reason as an ultimate judge.
Compare The God Who Is There (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), pp. 108 ff.
As others have well seen, Schaeffer’s whole presentation is oriented “around
the assumption that man must decide for himself whether God’s written
revelation is true” (John J. Mitchell, “A Critique of F.A. Schaeffer’s The God
Who Is There,” unpublished paper read before the Student Association of
Westminster Theological Seminary, February 1969, p. 5).)
上帝的「自主」、「自我证实」的启示 = 被屏弃，人的自的理性掌管一切
GOD’S
“AUTONOMOUS”, SELF-AUTHENTICATING REVELATION = OUT, MAN’s “AUTONOMOUS” REASON
COMMANDS ALL
对康德来说，这种「自主」的意思就是，用人的自主理性，来取代基督教的「自主」（主权）的启示：那位自我证实的上帝，透过《圣经》的自我启示。康德至终的控制原则，就是「宇宙性的人的理性」。（康德，《理性限制下的宗教》。）
For
Kant this autonomy meant the replacing of the Christian concept of “autonomous”
revelation, of the self-authenticating God revealing himself through the Bible,
by man’s autonomous reason. In the ultimate sense, it is “universal human
reason” which Kant labels as “the supremely commanding principle.” (Immanuel
Kant, Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (Chicago: Open Court
Publishing Co., c. 1934), p. 152.)
真正的宗教，不用《圣经》：人要作什麽赚得救恩
TRUE
RELIGION, W/O BIBLE = WHAT WE DO TO DESERVE SALVATION
「真正的宗教并不在于认识上帝，或考虑上帝为我们的救赎所成就的作为，而是我们可以作什麽以致配得救…。每人都可以确实知道，完全不须要学习《圣经》。」
“True religion is to consist not in the
knowing or considering of what God does or has done for our salvation but in
what we must do to become worthy of it … and of its necessity every man can
become wholly certain without any Scriptural learning
whatever.”
(Ibid., p. 123.)
自主 ? 去神话化：人製造新神话，以获新的自我认识
AUTONOMY
? DEMYTHOLOGIZATION: NEW MYTHS FOR SELF-KNOWLEGE
这个「理性的自主」观念，离布特曼的「去神话化」就不远了：根据布氏，现代人必须製造新的神话，来实现《圣经》对人的自我认识的要求。
It is not far from this concept of rational
autonomy to Bultmann’s concept of demythologization, where modern man must
create new myths to authenticate the Bible’s demands for self-understanding.
自主-> 引致拒绝相信创造，復活是历史；都是神话
AUTONOMY
-> CREATION, RESURRECTION = LEGENDS, NOT HISTORY
人自主的理性作启示的审判官，引致潘能博的理性分析：復活的叙述是传说；和库尔曼拒绝接受《创世记》的创造叙述是真实、合理、可信的历史。
Nor is it very far from autonomous reason as
judge over revelation to annenberg’s rational analysis of the resurrection
narratives as permeated with legends, or Cullmann’s refusal to credit the
Genesis records of creation as authentic, rationally credible history.
3．彻底的相对主义：休谟的怀疑主义：不能证明任何事物存在。我们仅有五官观察资料；不可能知道因果关係，上帝等
CONSISTENT
RELATIVISM; HUME = SKEPTIC, CANNOT PROVE EXISTENCE. WE HAVE SENSE DATA, NO
CAUSE/EFFECT, GOD = ELUSIVE
康德的相对主义，也更加一致。苏格兰哲学家休谟（1711-1776）制定了启蒙时期的知识论问题。休谟的怀疑主义质疑人能否证明任何事，不论是身外物，甚至是自己。因果关係，宇宙的起源（上帝），人有起源等：都不可能知道。我们手上有的，仅是五官得来的资料而已。
There was, and is, a more consistently
developed relativism. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher (1711-1776), had
formulated for the Enlightenment world the problem of knowledge. His skepticism
had questioned whether anyone could prove the existence of anything, either
outside oneself or even oneself. Cause and effect, God as Origin, man as
originated – all are equally elusive. We have the data of our senses, but
nothing beyond that.
康德：休谟的问题就是答案：制定两个世界：现象界：理性，五官察觉，认识事物；真理界：假装上帝，自由，不朽真的存在
KANT:
HUME’S QUESTION = ANSWER; CREATES TWO WORLD: PHENOMENAL WORLD: REASON/SENSES
PERCEIVE, KNOW; NOUNEMNAL WORLD: ACT AS IF GOD, FREEDOM, IMMORTALITY EXIST
康德把休谟的知识论问题再推一步，「把问题还给休谟，好像问题就是答案。」康德造了两个世界：现象世界和真理界，即五官观察和理性认识的世界，和上帝、自由、不朽的世界。后者是管理人类的观念，是理性察觉不到的，可是它们若是理性能知道的真实事物，必须在我们生命占一地位。
Kant took from Hume the problem of knowledge
and “gave it back as if it were the solution.” (C. Brown, op. cit., p. 96.) He
created two worlds – the world of the phenomena and the world of the noumena,
the world perceived by reason through the raw material of the senses, and the
world of God, freedom and immortality, regulative ideas which cannot be
perceived by reason but must have their place in our lives as if they were real
objects knowable by reason.
上帝 = 有限观念；人需要伦理，因此需要有上帝上帝完全关闭，孤立
GOD =
LIMITED IDEA; MAN NEEDS ETHICS, THUS NEEDS GOD DOOR TO GOD = SQUEEZED ALMOST
SHUT, GOD/MAN ISOLATED
这种世界观的结果的破坏性是非常大的。康的将上帝隔离在一个封闭的角落，与现象界的关係仅是：人在伦理上需要一个上帝的观念。上帝不是完全被封闭，可是通到祂的道路是那麽的窄，没有空间给那位「袍子充满了圣殿」，掌主权的上帝（赛 6：1）。同样地，人既然不可能认识事物的本身 (things in
themselves)，不论是现象界或真理界的事物，他就不可能挤进窄门，认识上帝。上帝从人割离，人从上帝割离。
The effect of all of this was, and is,
devastating. God is strait-jacketed by Kant into a sound-proof bulkhead, tied
to the phenomenal world only by Kant’s umbilical cord of man’s need for the
idea of God in the world of ethics. The door is not closed altogether on God,
but it is so small that there is no room for the sovereign God “whose train
fills the temple” (Isa. 6:1) to squeeze through. Similarly, since man cannot actually
perceive things as they are in themselves (whether in the phenomenal or the
noumenal world), he cannot squeeze through that door to know God. God has been
effectively isolated from man and man has been effectively isolated from God.
20 世纪神学主题：上帝被孤立在真理界；上帝 = 完全他者，「历史」与「历史」对立；历史的耶稣与宣讲的基督；《圣经》的人性；启示 = 神人相遇；上帝 / 真理并不与世界接触；末世有（真理界的）盼望，可是历史并不会结束
20th
CENT. THEOLOGY’S THEME: GOD = ISOLATED TO NOUMENA GOD = WHOLLY OTHER; HISTORIE
VS. GESCHICHTE; HISTORICAL JESUS VS. KERYGMA’S CHRIST; BIBLE = HUMAN;
REVELATION
= ENCOUNTER; GOD/NOUMENA ISN’T IN WORLD; HOPE W/O END TO HISTORY
上帝被隔离到真理界，乃是当代（20 世纪）神学的普遍主题。存在主义的「自由」比以前更加重要；巴特早期着作称上帝为「完全的他者」（the Wholly Other），「不能好像事物（客体 object）一样被解释的」；这些都使上帝更加被隔离。而新正统神学分辨「历史」（Historie） 和「历史」（Geschichte），布特曼分辨「历史的耶稣」与「宣讲（信息）的基督」，或用康德的词彙，「现象界的耶稣」和「真理界的基督」，都是隔离上帝的重现。
This isolation of God into the noumenal world
is a favorite theme of contemporary theology. It is reinforced by
existentialism’s increased emphasis on freedom, and appears, in modified form,
in Barth’s early writing on God as “the wholly Other,” as the one who “cannot
be explained, as an object can.” It reproduces itself in the neo-orthodox
division between Historie and Geschichte, in Bultmann’s distinctions between
the “historical Jesus” and “the kerygmatic Christ,” or, to use Kant’s language,
the phenomenal Jesus and the noumenal Christ.
这种对上帝启示的相对主义，带来从「人性」看《圣经》；巴特对启示的新的定义：启示是「神与人的相遇」，真理界仅仅接触现象界，而没有进入。莫特曼的「希望神学」完全怀疑现象界历史是否将在末世结束；但又说到真理界的未来。
Its relativism regarding the divine origin of
revelation leads to a new stress on the “humanity” of the Bible, and a new
Barthian definition of revelation itself as “the divine-human encounter,” the
noumenal touching the phenomenal but not entering. It produces in Moltmann a
“theology of hope,” completely skeptical about any eschatological end to
phenomenal history, yet still able to speak of a noumenal future.
4．历史批判方法论：人的自主必须保存
HISTORICAL-CRITICAL
METHOD: MUST KEEP MAN’S AUTONOMY
所谓「历史 – 批判方法论」，现在被建立起来。启蒙运动已经呼吁人从任何一套基督教传统信仰释放出来，完全自主，也呼吁一种批判性的方法论，就是与这种自觉的自主完全一致的方法。检视过去的时候，历史家必须同时是自主的。就算是研究《圣经》的文献，也必须严谨保存人的自主。
There was, and is, the establishment of the
so-called historical-critical method. The Enlightenment had called for autonomy
from any traditional sets of Christian belief. It also called for a critical
methodology that would also be fully consistent with this self-conscious
autonomy. In the investigation of the past, the historian must also be
autonomous. Even with regard to the biblical documents, this autonomy must be
strictly preserved.
方法论自主，凌驾在《圣经》文本之上；等于屏弃《圣经》的默示自然神论的宇宙；上帝不可能介入，行神迹，向人启示
METHOD
= AUTONOMOUS OVER BIBLE’S TEXT; INSPIRATION =OUT DEISTIC WORLD: GOD CAN’T
ENTER, DO MIRACLE, REVEAL HIMSELF
这种自主、凌驾《圣经》之上的方法论，有它自己一套的假设；今天，历史– 批判方法还费尽九牛二虎之力来维护它们。（我很感激威敏斯特神学院的葛理齐博士 Dr. Richard B.
Gaffin, Jr.，在 1971 年秋天的课程上教导学生注意下文的分析。）这种方法论，等于放弃相信上帝逐字默示《圣经》。一种自然神论的自然观和神观（译注：即上帝创造宇宙之后就不再介入，任凭宇宙安按照自然定律运作）是启蒙运动不可或缺的部分，不可能接受上帝超自然地介入创造，作自我启示。
This autonomy of method over against biblical
text makes certain assumptions still ruthlessly guarded by the
historical-critical method. (I am most indebted to Dr. Richard B. Gaffin of
Westminster Theological Seminary for drawing the attention of his students to
the following material during class sessions in the fall of 1971.) It means an
abandonment of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. The deistic concept of
nature and God which was part of the spawning process of the Enlightenment
found no place for a divinely intervention of God into creation through any
supernatural, revelatory manner.
德国理想（唯心）主义：上帝不可介入世界！上帝的话 vs.《圣经》
GERMAN
IDEALISM: GOD CAN’T INTERVENE! “WORD OF GOD” VS.BIBLE
德国的理想主义（译注：即唯心主义，或浪漫主义）严谨地跟循这种「上帝不介入」的原则。结果，「上帝的话」和《圣经》变成两码事。
German idealism follows this non-intervention
policy most severely. It means also the introduction of distinction and
discontinuity between the Word of God on the one hand and the Bible on the
other.
《圣经》有错误；研究《圣经》如研究任何人写的书一样《圣经》批判 = 自然主义（不相信超自然）；巴特（所谓「保守」派）与布特曼，田立克（激进派）= 相同；G.C. Berkouwer （荷兰改革宗神学家）向历史批判方法论让步
BIBLE
CONTAINS ERRORS; STUDY BIBLE JUST LIKE ANY HUMAN BOOK; BIBLICAL CRITICISM =
NATURALISTIC; BARTH (CONSERVATIVE) & BULTMANN, TILLICH (RADICAL) = SAME;
BERKOUWER
(REFORMED) COMPROMISES TO HIST.-CRIT. METHOD
与此同时，当代神学假设《圣经》是含有错误的。《圣经》像任何历史文献一样，该受历史 － 批判方法的检视。就像任何历史文献一样，《圣经》必定有错误的介入。这种对《圣经》的态度，到今天还是自然主义（译注：即不相信超自然）的《圣经》批判的特点之一，不论是比较保守的版本（如：柯尔曼和潘能博），或比较激进的（如：田力克，罗宾逊，与「世俗神学」派等）。
And
coupled with this is the methodological presumption that there are errors in
the Bible. As the proper object of historical method, the Bible is to be
treated like any other set of documents from the past. And like any other
document, it is subject to the intrusion of error. This approach to the Bible
remains today one of the distinguishing features of naturalistic criticism,
whether in its more conservative form (as exemplified by men like Oscar
Cullmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg) or in its more radical expressions (among men
like Tillich, John Robinson, and the secular theologians).
巴特与布特曼之间虽然有争辩，可是他们都保存这种方法论。自然主义的神学家们可能激烈辩论（而这些激烈的辩论不容忽视），可是他们都继承了启蒙运动的遗产，他们都在同一个方法论架构裡辩论。（而这种历史 － 批判方法论，在荷兰的改革宗神学界也流行起来。如：G.C. Berkouwer 具说服力的批判，似乎承认了这种方法论的合法性。范泰尔作出了检讨。）
Barth and Bultmann, despite all the
internecine debate, remain at one in their retention of this methodology. The
sharp debates heard between contemporary naturalistic theologians today – and
one should not under-emphasize their sharpness – are still carried on within
basically the same methodological framework which the Enlightenment has left us
as their heritage. (The usefulness of the historical-critical method seems to
be becoming popular even in hitherto Reformed circles in the Netherlands. Note
the cogent criticism of what seems to be a recognition of the validity of its
presuppositions in G.C. Berkouwer’s new attitudes as cited by C. Van Til, The
Sovereignty of Grace (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing CO.,
1969).)
5．「历史」与「信仰」对立：Lessing 不能作信心跳跃；但：不需要跳跃！基督教的真理并不在于历史事实；只在于真理能藉爱改变生命Lessing 的比喻：三个宗教，起源已经找不到；将来一天 ? 世界大同宗教：爱
HISTORY
VS. FAITH: LESSING: CAN’T LEAP IN FAITH; BUT: NO NEED! CHRISTIANITY’S TRUTH
DOESN’T DEPEND ON HISTORICAL FACTS; DEPENDS ON TRUTH TRANSFORMING LIFE THRU
LOVE LESSING’S PARABLE: 3 RELIGIONS: ONE DAY? ONE RELIGION OF LOVE
这种方法论带来的后果乃是，历史与信仰彻底的分开。莱辛（1729-1781）在启蒙运动时期已经发表这看法，称它为「丑陋的，宽阔的鸿沟」，他说自己没有能力跳跃，越过。可是莱辛也说，这种（信心的）跳跃是不必的。宗教的真实性，基督教的合理性，并不靠历史偶发事件的真实性，而在于它的教义的真实性。任何宗教真正的价值，不靠历史，而靠它能否以爱改变生命。
The result of this methodology was, and is, a
radical separation between historyvand faith. G.E. Lessing (1729-1781) had
formulated that separation during the Enlightenment times as an “ugly, broad
ditch” which he himself said he was incapable of jumping. But such a leap,
Lessing also said, was unnecessary. The truth of religion and of rational
Christianity does not depend upon the accidents of history’s truths but upon
the truth of its teaching. (G.E. Lessing, Theological Writings (London: Adam
and Charles Black, 1956), pp. 51-56.) The true worth of any religion does not
depend on history, he said, but on its capacity to transform life through love.
莱辛着名的故事就说明了这个鸿沟。故事是这样说的：古时有一隻戒指，它能使拥有它的人被上帝所爱，又被人所爱。这只戒指一代一代的传下去，直到有一位父亲，有三个儿子，每一个都是他所亲爱的。为了解决这难题，他作了两隻複製品，然后每一个儿子都得到一隻戒指。他死后，每一个儿子都宣称自己的戒指是原本的。可是，正如宗教一样，原本已经追寻不到了。历史的研究是派不上用场的。可是一个智慧的法官劝导每一个儿子，行事为人就好像自己的戒指是真的，而用爱心的行为证明。因此，至终谁拥有原本，无关重要。这三个儿子代表犹太教，基督教和回教。有一天，这三大宗教将自我超越，成为一个世界性的，爱的宗教。
Lessing’s famous parable of the three rings
emphasizes this disjunction sharply. Brown has summarized it this way: “There
was once an ancient ring which had the power to bestow upon its owner the gift
of being loved by God and man. This was passed on down many generations until
it came into the possession of a father who had three sons equally dear to him.
To resolve the dilemma, he had two replicas made and gave a ring to each son.
After his death all three claimed to possess the true ring. But, as with
religion, the original cannot be traced. Historical investigation is of no
avail. But a wise judge counsels each son to behave as if he had the true ring
and prove it by deeds of love. Thus in the end it will not matter who had the
original. The three sons represent Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One day
they will transcend themselves and become united in a universal religion of
love.” (C. Brown, op. cit., p. 89.)
20 世纪神学家：历史与信仰分割
20th
CENT. THEOLOGIANS: HISTORY VS. FAITH DISJOINTED
下面数章裡，历史与信仰的分隔会不断出现；就像莱辛，现代的神学家会说，虽然基督教的历史基督多多少少不可被接纳，可是基督教的教义却多多少少能被接纳。
Repeatedly in the chapters that follow, this
disjunction between history and faith will be recognized and repeatedly, in the
same manner as Lessing, the modern theologian will say that though the recorded
history of Christianity may not be accepted to greater or lesser degree, the
teaching of Christianity may be accepted to greater or lesser degree.
巴特会这样维持这种历史与新仰的断层：伊甸园裡究竟有没有那条蛇并不重要，重要的是蛇说了什麽。布特曼会屏弃福音书的记录，它们的历史可靠性值得怀疑；可是，会接受它们帮助我们得到「存在性」的自我认识(existential
self-understanding)。莫特曼痛斥经典基督教的末世论（即：教会期待復活的基督在历史中临），可是同时说，教会是未来去向的。罗宾逊会拒绝相信天堂是一个「在上面那裡」的地方；可是又坚持生命有一个新的层面，就是「深层的存有」 (being in depth)；和上帝是「存有的根基」 (ground of Being).
Barth will retain it as he discards the
question of whether the snake in the garden of Eden spoke as of lesser
importance than what the snake said. Bultmann will retain it as he repudiates
the gospel records as historically dubious productions on the one hand, and
embraces them for their existential understanding of the self, on the other
hand. Moltmann will retain it as he scorns the classic Christian notion of
eschatology as the church waiting for the future of the risen Lord in history
and yet speaks of the church oriented to the future. John Robinson will retain
it as he rejects the idea of heaven as a “place up there” and yet insists on a
new dimension to life as ‘being in depth” and God as “the ground of being.”
