三一神論在神學和護教學上的首要性：巴文克論三位一體教義ThePrimacy of the Trinity in Theology and Apologetics: Herman Bavinck onTrinitarian Dogma

作者：James J. Cassidy   譯者：駱鴻銘

http://reformedforum.org/primacy-trinity-theology-apologetics-herman-bavinck-trinitarian-dogma/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2016/01/04/The_Primacy_of_the_Trinity.aspx

三一神在神學上的首要性

The Primacy of the Trinity in Theology

巴文克在他書中論到三一神的章節、在結束的段落中，這位荷蘭神學家提出一些非常重要和敏銳的觀察，說明三一神論的重要性。在巴文克之後，「三位一體教義」的重要性，會在范泰爾（Cornelius Van Til）的思想裡重新浮現。范泰爾追隨巴文克的思想，認為三一神論是正確理解創造主-被造物之間的區分，以及上帝與被造界之間關係的關鍵。對他們二人來說，威脅著正統三一神論的，一方面是自然神論，另一方面是泛神論，都同樣是異端的立場。否認聖經的三一神論，無可避免會造成這兩種錯誤裡面的一種（在一些例子裡，會同時犯這兩種錯誤）。泛神論和自然神論不應該被視為同一個光譜的兩極，而正統的三一論佔據著中間的位置，在這兩極之間發揮一種平衡的作用。相反，泛神論和自然神論同一隻鳥的兩雙翼，會飛越三位一體教義，直接抵觸這個教理。

In the closing section of Herman Bavinck’s chapter on the Trinity, the Dutch theologian makes some very important and keen observations on the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. After Bavinck the importance of the “Trinitarian Dogma” will resurface in a new form in the thought of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til, following Bavinck, held the doctrine of the Trinity as key to a proper understanding of the creator-creature distinction and how God relates to the created order. For both men threatening the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are the equally heretical positions of Deism on the one hand and pantheism on the other. A denial of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity inevitable results in one error or the other (and in some instances both at the same time). Pantheism and Deism should not be seen as two extremes on the same spectrum with orthodox Trinitarianism in the middle performing a balancing act between them. Rather, pantheism and Deism are two wings of the same bird which fly over against and in the face of the Trinitarian dogma.

因此，對巴文克來說，三一神論「就足以對抗——一方面是自然神論，即上帝和世界的關聯，另一方面是泛神論——上帝和世界之間的區分。 」（《改革宗教義學》，2.332 [#231]）三一神論如何維持一個正確的創造主-被造物之間的區分，其基本要件是三一神在祂們各自的位格裡，有祂們位格的特質（personal properties）。對巴文克來說，絕對不可少的是聖子永恆生出（eternal generation the Son）的教義，以及聖靈發出（procession of the Spirit）的教義。用位格的特質這個角度來理解，三一神的統一性和差異性，會避免泛神論，因為這個教義教導我們，上帝自己不是沒有「行動和產出」（action and production）的 ，而是「生命、有福，榮耀」（同上）。上帝不是一個靜止的存有，祂也不需要靠任何在祂以外的事物來避免這個指控。祂不需要執行任何「向外」（ad extra）的行動，以便「成為」活生生的上帝。正統三一神論的上帝現在不是、過去也從來不是一個死寂的上帝，不是希臘神話的抽象概念想出來的上帝。

So, for Bavinck the doctrine of the Trinity “alone makes possible – against Deism on the one hand – the connection between God and the world, and – against pantheism on the other – the difference between God and the world.” (RD 2.332) Part and parcel of how the doctrine of the Trinity maintains a proper creator-creature distinction is due to the personal properties of the respective persons of the Triune God. Indispensable – and absolutely so – for Bavinck is the doctrine of the eternal generation the Son and the procession of the Spirit. The unity and diversity of the Trinity, understood in terms of the personal properties, ward of pantheism because its teaches us that God is not without “action and production” in himself. Rather, in himself he is “life, blessedness, glory.” (ibid). God is not a static being, and he does not need anything outside of himself to ward off that charge. He has no need to perform any acts ad extra in order to “become” and to be the living God. The God of orthodox Trinitarianism is not, and never was, a dead God conceived in terms of Greek abstractions.

此外，既然上帝是自我溝通的上帝，祂可以向被造物傳達自己的心意，而不會像自然神論的神那樣冷漠。因此，「倘若這個神明不會產出，也無法向內（ad intra）與自己溝通，那麼，也就不會有向外（ad extra）的上帝的啟示。」（同上）換句話說，否認三位一體和祂們位格的特質，會留給我們一個抽象的神明，而我們會對它一無所知。這個假神是愚蠢的、啞巴的神：

Furthermore, since God is self-communicative he can communicate himself to the creation and not be aloof, as in Deism. So “if the divine being were not productive and could not communicate himself inwardly (ad intra), then neither could there be any revelation of God ad extra.” (ibid) In other words, a denial of the Trinity and the personal properties leave us with an abstract God about whom we can know nothing. This false god is dumb and mute:

這個「神的無法傳通性（incommunicability）」的教義，連同其間接否認聖子在永恆裡由聖父所生，以及聖靈的發出，會導致一個必然的結論，就是會有一個與上帝隔絕、在上帝之外、反對上帝的世界（同上）。

The doctrine of God’s incommunicability, with its implicit denial of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession, carries within itself the corollary of the existence of a world separate from, outside of, and opposed to God. (Ibid).

而真正的三一神論所得出的榮耀結論是，它「告訴我們，上帝在一種絕對的意義上可以向聖子和聖靈啟示自己，因此，在一個相對的意義上，也可以啟示給世界。」（《改革宗教義學》，2.333）。換句話說，真正的基督徒認識論是建立在一個正統的本體論之上的。更精確地說，基督徒的認識論必須建基在正統的「自我內含的本體三一」（the self-contained ontological Trinity）的教義上（用范泰爾的話說）。換句話說，追求一個忠實的系統神學，其起點和終點都是三一神論。把這點搞砸了，所有的東西也都會亂套。我們全部的神學系統都取決於這點。

The glorious conclusion to the real doctrine of the Trinity is that it “tells us that God can reveal himself in an absolute sense to the Son and the Spirit, and hence, in a relative sense also to the world.” (RD 2.333). In other words, a true Christian epistemology is grounded in an orthodox ontology. To be more precise, a Christian epistemology must be grounded upon the orthodox doctrine of “the self-contained ontological Trinity” (to use a Van Tillism). The pursuit of a faithful systematic theology, in other words, begins and ends with the doctrine of the Trinity. Mess with this, and everything else gets messed with. The entirety of our system of theology rests on this point.

在護教上的含義

The Apologetic Import

三一神論對護教工作具有實際的意涵。例如對所有現代思想的起點。在康德之後，所有現代思想的起點，就是巴文克所謂的「神的無法傳通性」（譯按：即神是不說話的）。這是從拒絕三一神論而來的本體二元論（註1）。一旦我們打消聖子向內（ad intra）的生出，以及聖靈的發出，上帝就變成一個靜態的單一體（monad），更糟糕的是三個神聖存有（三個神）。康德的神是個靜默的神。它無法向我們溝通，因為它是反對我們的，我們也反對它。這當中有一個無法跨越的鴻溝，一方面是在永恆的上帝這邊，一方面是在暫時性的被造物這邊，有一個本質上的差異。

This doctrine of the Trinity has practical implications for doing apologetics. Take for example the starting point of all modern thought. The starting point of all modern thought, after Kant, is what Bavinck called above “the doctrine of the God’s incommunicability.” This is the ontological dualism that flows from a rejection of the Trinitarian dogma.1 Once we are rid of the ad intra generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit God becomes a static monad, or worse three divine beings. The god of Kant is the God of silence. He is incapable of communicating himself to us because he is opposed to us and we to him. There is an unbridgeable gap, a qualitative difference between the eternal God on the one hand and the temporal creature on the other.

這是所有現代思想和神學的基本假設。不過，對這種二元論的問題及其導致的知識論上的難題（即，我們如何認識一個敵對我們的神，一個不說話的神？），有幾種不同的可能解決方案。康德的方案是絕對律令（categorical imperative）。人具有一種道德感，這種道德感必定是從某處而來的。因此，在真理界（noumenal realm），必然存在一個頒布律法者，是我們道德感的來源。對施萊爾馬赫而言，這就是絕對依賴感。而對黑格爾來說，這是上帝在世界裡自我實現的過程。康德和施萊爾馬赫的神，其終點是自然神論的神，而黑格爾的神，是以泛神論的神為終點的。

This is the basic assumption of all modern thought and theology. There are different proposed solutions, however, to the problem of this dualism and its consequent epistemological conundrum (i.e., how can we know a god who is opposed to us and is incommunicative?). Kant’s solution was the categorical imperative. Man has a sense of morality, that sense must come from somewhere. Therefore, in the noumenal realm there must be a law-giver, a source of our sense of morality. For Schleiermacher it was the sense the absolute dependence. For Hegel it was a process of God’s own self actualization in the world. Kant and Schleiermacher ended with the god of Deism, Hegel with the god of pantheism.

好，巴特是獨樹一幟的。他的起點是永恆和時間之間，有本質上的差異（而不是聖經的三一上帝）。他的假設是二元論。他以康德作他的起點。畢竟，巴特是個現代人。不過，對巴特來說，上帝必須能夠對外溝通。畢竟，巴特肯定上帝的絕對自由。但是上帝如何在不逾越上帝和受造物之間的本質差異而對外溝通呢？耶穌基督是他的答案。上帝在耶穌基督裡向人傳通自己。他的三一神論是根據他的基督論來重新塑造的。耶穌基督構成了上帝的三一存有（Jesus Christ constitutes God’s being as triune）。在耶穌基督裡，本體論和知識論合而為一了。巴特可以說，不只耶穌基督是神，神也是耶穌基督。耶穌基督自己是受造物，是按照上帝的形象受造的。祂和上帝並沒有兩樣，祂不是三一上帝的第二位格在某個時刻取了人的本質。而是，耶穌基督就是永恆的上帝自己。上帝在耶穌基督裡，以一個永恆恩典的行動，穿我們的人性。然後，耶穌基督不是被理解為上帝在時間裡，作為一個救贖歷史的彰顯，而是上帝從亙古的永恆成為時間。上帝過去是、現在是、也將永遠是耶穌基督。

Now, Barth is unique in all this. He begins with the qualitative difference between eternity and time (rather than the triune God of Scripture). He assumes the dualism. He takes his starting point in Kant. Barth is, after all, a modern man. For Barth, however, God must be able to communicate himself. After all, Barth affirms the absolute freedom of God. But how can God communicate himself without transgressing the qualitative difference between God and the creature? Jesus Christ is his answer. God communicates himself to man in Jesus Christ. His doctrine of the Trinity is recast in light of his Christology. Jesus Christ constitutes God’s being as triune. Ontology and epistemology are one in Jesus Christ. Barth can say not only that Jesus Christ is God, but also that God is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is himself the creature, the man made in the image of God. He is not something different from God, he is not a human nature assumed by the second person of the Trinity at some point in time. Rather, Jesus Christ is the eternal God himself. God takes up our humanity in Christ in an eternal act of grace. Jesus Christ then is not understood as a redemptive-historical manifestation of God in time. Rather, God becomes time from all eternity. God always has been, is, and always will be Jesus Christ.

巴特在神學歷史裡努力完成了一件非凡的事。他同時維持時間和永恆之間在本質上的絕對差異，這是一方面，另一方面，他也維持了上帝和受造物在耶穌基督裡的認同。在巴特身上，存在一種自然神論和泛神論直接的辯證關係，讓它們之間維持一種張力，而不需要去加以調和。對巴特來說，上帝在此時此地對我們是無法溝通的，祂只在耶穌基督裡、在祂自己裡面向受造物傳通自己。換句話說，對巴特來說，說到底，上帝需要受造物，才能向外溝通。有鑑於他那種實行論式的基督論（actualistic Christology），沒有任何辦法可以繞過這點。

Barth manages to do a remarkable thing in the history of theology. He simultaneously maintains the absolute qualitative difference between time and eternity on the one hand and the identification of God and creature in Jesus Christ on the other. In him there is a dialectical relationship between Deism and pantheism, holding both in tension without a need to reconcile them. God for Barth is incommunicable to us in the here and now, and only communicates himself to the creature in himself in Jesus Christ. In other words, for Barth, at the end of the day God needs the creature to be communicative. There is no way of getting around that given his actualistic Christology.

這遺留給我們一個基本上是不會說話的神，因為它不是那位會藉著在永恆裡生出無肉身的道（ logos asarkos），也不是通過聖靈（祂是從聖父和聖靈向內[ad intra]發出的）在永恆裡發出，來傳通自己的神。這意思是，從知識論來看，上帝在此時此地沒有直接的自我啟示，也沒有在聖經裡或在受造界的直接啟示。上帝對我們是沉默的。可以確定的是，祂已經在基督裡說話。但是我們如何認識基督呢，也就是我們如何認識上帝呢？我們只能憑信心領受聖經和教會有誤的見證，而在這個信仰（信心）的時刻，宣稱我們認識關於上帝的事。信仰就變成我們所運用的主觀經歷，而不是在聖經裡直接啟示的清晰話語。巴特和康德與施萊爾馬赫一樣，都落入到一種主觀主義者的認識論裡，即便他所有的宣稱都是論及上帝在基督裡的客觀啟示。這是十足的二元論！他們給了巴特基本上是現代主義，以及他推翻正統本體論和三位一體教義的起點。

This leaves us with a God who is essentially incommunicative because he is not the one God who communicates himself through an eternal generation of the logos asarkos, nor through the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit who is himself spirated from the Father and the Son ad intra. This means, epistemologically, that there is no direct self-revelation of God to us here and now. There is no direct revelation of God to us in Scripture nor in the created order. God is silent toward us. To be sure, he has spoken in Christ. But how do we know Christ, and therefore know God? We can only receive the fallible witness of the Scriptures and the church by faith and in the faith-moment claim we know something about God. Faith becomes the subjective experience we exercise rather than a clear Word of direct revelation in the Scriptures. Barth, like Kant and Schleiermacher, falls back into a subjectivist epistemology, despite all his claims for the objective revelation of God in Christ. Dualisms abound! And they must given his essentially modern starting point and his overturning of orthodox ontology and Trinitarian dogma.

總結這段巴文克和范泰爾的洞見在護教學上的含義，聖經的上帝在每個角落幾乎都正在受到攻擊。我們的上帝被指責為一個靜態的、冷漠的、毫無生氣的存有。或者，祂被人性化，然後遭受批評。只有「三位一體教義」才能對越來越敵對的世界作出回應。我們所敬拜的是這樣的上帝，祂已經在祂自己裡面，在的話裡，把我們所必須回答不信的人的所有的事啟示出來。整個護教學的努力，正如所有神學的努力，都必須以本體三一的自我內含為起點，也以此為終點。

Rounding off this section on the apologetic import of Bavinck’s and Van Til’s insights, the God of the Bible is under attack from almost every quarter. Our God gets accused of being a static, cold, and lifeless being. Or, he gets humanized and then criticized. Only the “Trinitarian Dogma” gives answers to an increasingly hostile world. It is this God we worship, and he has in himself and revealed to us in his Word everything we need to answer the unbeliever. This is why the entire apologetic endeavor must, as with every theological endeavor, begin and end with the self-contained ontological Trinity.

結論

Conclusion

總之，我可能會留給我們一個具有歷史意義的問題。假如我對巴文克和范泰爾的解讀是正確的，很有可能有兩個競爭者，在爭奪誰是二十世紀最重要的三一神論的神學家。這個殊榮通常被假設是歸屬於巴特的。確實，和他自由派的前輩比起來，巴特的確以許多重要的方式應用了三一神論的教義。但是倘若正統思想在神學上有任何的緊要性，以及假若使三位一體教義在神學和護教學的努力上具有絕對的優先性，有任何的緊要性，也許巴文克和/或范泰爾應該被視為候選人，而重新評估誰是二十世紀最重要的三一神論神學家，就是有必要的了。

In summary, I might leave us with a question of some historical significance. If my read of Bavinck and Van Til is correct, then it may just be that there are two new contenders for the most significant trinitarian theologian of the twentieth century. Often this honor is assumed to belong to Barth. To be sure, compared to his liberal forefathers, Barth does appropriate the doctrine of the Trinity in significant ways. But if orthodoxy at all matters in theology, and if the absolute prioritization of the Trinitarian dogma in the theological and apologetical endeavor at all matter, perhaps Bavinck and/or Van Til should be considered in the running and a reappraisal of who the most significant Trinitarian of the twentieth century may be in order.

儘管如此，這不是說神學就像是一場競賽，而神學界對巴文克和范泰爾的想法真的很重要。對那些有耳可聽的人來說，無論這個答案如何被邊緣化、被人忽略，答案是清楚的。然而，有鑑於巴文克論三一教理深具啟發性的段落，這是個發人深思的問題，值得我們好好默想。在我們太輕易忽略位格的特質，把它們當作是臆測之前，應該讓我們停下來好好思考。對巴文克來說，正統的三一神論是一個完整的包裹，它必須被全盤接受，否則對我們就是完全無用的。它也為我們，而把神學本論（神論）和系統神學的其他論題連在一起，包括啟示論和創造論。誠然，基於這些理由，就值得我們考慮要把巴文克（和范泰爾）的三一神論當作一個資源，來塑造、組織二十一世紀的改革宗神學，以調整其優先順序。

Still, its not as if theology is a contest and it really matters what the theological world thinks about Bavinck and Van Til. For those with ears to hear, however marginalized and dismissed, the answer is clear. Nevertheless, it is a provocative question worthy of contemplation given Bavinck’s stimulating section on the Trinitarian dogma. It also should give us pause before we too easily dismiss the doctrine of the personal properties as speculative. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is a package deal for Bavinck, it must come as a whole or not be useful to us at all. It also connects for us dots from theology proper to the other loci of systematic theology, including the doctrines of revelation and creation. For these reasons, indeed, it is worth our considering Bavinck’s (and Van Til’s) doctrine of the Trinity as a resource for prioritizing, shaping, and structuring Reformed theology in the twenty-first century.

註：

1. 這也是今天所謂福音派神學的問題。由於其聖經字面主義（biblicism），福音派思想已經把位格特質的教義視為是消耗品，是可以丟棄的。最近對這個問題的綜述，請看Kevin Giles精彩的研究：The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012). 1This is also a problem today in so-called evangelical theology. With its biblicism evangelicalism has deemed the doctrine of the personal properties to be expendable. For a recent overview of this problem see the fine study by Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012).

三一神論在神學和護教學上的首要性：巴文克論三位一體教義ThePrimacy of the Trinity in Theology and Apologetics: Herman Bavinck onTrinitarian Dogma

 作者：James J. Cassidy   譯者：駱鴻銘

http://reformedforum.org/primacy-trinity-theology-apologetics-herman-bavinck-trinitarian-dogma/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2016/01/04/The_Primacy_of_the_Trinity.aspx

三一神在神學上的首要性

The Primacy of the Trinity in Theology

巴文克在他書中論到三一神的章節、在結束的段落中，這位荷蘭神學家提出一些非常重要和敏銳的觀察，說明三一神論的重要性。在巴文克之後，「三位一體教義」的重要性，會在范泰爾（Cornelius Van Til）的思想裡重新浮現。范泰爾追隨巴文克的思想，認為三一神論是正確理解創造主-被造物之間的區分，以及上帝與被造界之間關係的關鍵。對他們二人來說，威脅著正統三一神論的，一方面是自然神論，另一方面是泛神論，都同樣是異端的立場。否認聖經的三一神論，無可避免會造成這兩種錯誤裡面的一種（在一些例子裡，會同時犯這兩種錯誤）。泛神論和自然神論不應該被視為同一個光譜的兩極，而正統的三一論佔據著中間的位置，在這兩極之間發揮一種平衡的作用。相反，泛神論和自然神論同一隻鳥的兩雙翼，會飛越三位一體教義，直接抵觸這個教理。

In the closing section of Herman Bavinck’s chapter on the Trinity, the Dutch theologian makes some very important and keen observations on the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. After Bavinck the importance of the “Trinitarian Dogma” will resurface in a new form in the thought of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til, following Bavinck, held the doctrine of the Trinity as key to a proper understanding of the creator-creature distinction and how God relates to the created order. For both men threatening the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are the equally heretical positions of Deism on the one hand and pantheism on the other. A denial of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity inevitable results in one error or the other (and in some instances both at the same time). Pantheism and Deism should not be seen as two extremes on the same spectrum with orthodox Trinitarianism in the middle performing a balancing act between them. Rather, pantheism and Deism are two wings of the same bird which fly over against and in the face of the Trinitarian dogma.

因此，對巴文克來說，三一神論「就足以對抗——一方面是自然神論，即上帝和世界的關聯，另一方面是泛神論——上帝和世界之間的區分。 」（《改革宗教義學》，2.332 [#231]）三一神論如何維持一個正確的創造主-被造物之間的區分，其基本要件是三一神在祂們各自的位格裡，有祂們位格的特質（personal properties）。對巴文克來說，絕對不可少的是聖子永恆生出（eternal generation the Son）的教義，以及聖靈發出（procession of the Spirit）的教義。用位格的特質這個角度來理解，三一神的統一性和差異性，會避免泛神論，因為這個教義教導我們，上帝自己不是沒有「行動和產出」（action and production）的 ，而是「生命、有福，榮耀」（同上）。上帝不是一個靜止的存有，祂也不需要靠任何在祂以外的事物來避免這個指控。祂不需要執行任何「向外」（ad extra）的行動，以便「成為」活生生的上帝。正統三一神論的上帝現在不是、過去也從來不是一個死寂的上帝，不是希臘神話的抽象概念想出來的上帝。

So, for Bavinck the doctrine of the Trinity “alone makes possible – against Deism on the one hand – the connection between God and the world, and – against pantheism on the other – the difference between God and the world.” (RD 2.332) Part and parcel of how the doctrine of the Trinity maintains a proper creator-creature distinction is due to the personal properties of the respective persons of the Triune God. Indispensable – and absolutely so – for Bavinck is the doctrine of the eternal generation the Son and the procession of the Spirit. The unity and diversity of the Trinity, understood in terms of the personal properties, ward of pantheism because its teaches us that God is not without “action and production” in himself. Rather, in himself he is “life, blessedness, glory.” (ibid). God is not a static being, and he does not need anything outside of himself to ward off that charge. He has no need to perform any acts ad extra in order to “become” and to be the living God. The God of orthodox Trinitarianism is not, and never was, a dead God conceived in terms of Greek abstractions.

此外，既然上帝是自我溝通的上帝，祂可以向被造物傳達自己的心意，而不會像自然神論的神那樣冷漠。因此，「倘若這個神明不會產出，也無法向內（ad intra）與自己溝通，那麼，也就不會有向外（ad extra）的上帝的啟示。」（同上）換句話說，否認三位一體和祂們位格的特質，會留給我們一個抽象的神明，而我們會對它一無所知。這個假神是愚蠢的、啞巴的神：

Furthermore, since God is self-communicative he can communicate himself to the creation and not be aloof, as in Deism. So “if the divine being were not productive and could not communicate himself inwardly (ad intra), then neither could there be any revelation of God ad extra.” (ibid) In other words, a denial of the Trinity and the personal properties leave us with an abstract God about whom we can know nothing. This false god is dumb and mute:

這個「神的無法傳通性（incommunicability）」的教義，連同其間接否認聖子在永恆裡由聖父所生，以及聖靈的發出，會導致一個必然的結論，就是會有一個與上帝隔絕、在上帝之外、反對上帝的世界（同上）。

The doctrine of God’s incommunicability, with its implicit denial of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession, carries within itself the corollary of the existence of a world separate from, outside of, and opposed to God. (Ibid).

而真正的三一神論所得出的榮耀結論是，它「告訴我們，上帝在一種絕對的意義上可以向聖子和聖靈啟示自己，因此，在一個相對的意義上，也可以啟示給世界。」（《改革宗教義學》，2.333）。換句話說，真正的基督徒認識論是建立在一個正統的本體論之上的。更精確地說，基督徒的認識論必須建基在正統的「自我內含的本體三一」（the self-contained ontological Trinity）的教義上（用范泰爾的話說）。換句話說，追求一個忠實的系統神學，其起點和終點都是三一神論。把這點搞砸了，所有的東西也都會亂套。我們全部的神學系統都取決於這點。

The glorious conclusion to the real doctrine of the Trinity is that it “tells us that God can reveal himself in an absolute sense to the Son and the Spirit, and hence, in a relative sense also to the world.” (RD 2.333). In other words, a true Christian epistemology is grounded in an orthodox ontology. To be more precise, a Christian epistemology must be grounded upon the orthodox doctrine of “the self-contained ontological Trinity” (to use a Van Tillism). The pursuit of a faithful systematic theology, in other words, begins and ends with the doctrine of the Trinity. Mess with this, and everything else gets messed with. The entirety of our system of theology rests on this point.

在護教上的含義

The Apologetic Import

三一神論對護教工作具有實際的意涵。例如對所有現代思想的起點。在康德之後，所有現代思想的起點，就是巴文克所謂的「神的無法傳通性」（譯按：即神是不說話的）。這是從拒絕三一神論而來的本體二元論（註1）。一旦我們打消聖子向內（ad intra）的生出，以及聖靈的發出，上帝就變成一個靜態的單一體（monad），更糟糕的是三個神聖存有（三個神）。康德的神是個靜默的神。它無法向我們溝通，因為它是反對我們的，我們也反對它。這當中有一個無法跨越的鴻溝，一方面是在永恆的上帝這邊，一方面是在暫時性的被造物這邊，有一個本質上的差異。

This doctrine of the Trinity has practical implications for doing apologetics. Take for example the starting point of all modern thought. The starting point of all modern thought, after Kant, is what Bavinck called above “the doctrine of the God’s incommunicability.” This is the ontological dualism that flows from a rejection of the Trinitarian dogma.1 Once we are rid of the ad intra generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit God becomes a static monad, or worse three divine beings. The god of Kant is the God of silence. He is incapable of communicating himself to us because he is opposed to us and we to him. There is an unbridgeable gap, a qualitative difference between the eternal God on the one hand and the temporal creature on the other.

這是所有現代思想和神學的基本假設。不過，對這種二元論的問題及其導致的知識論上的難題（即，我們如何認識一個敵對我們的神，一個不說話的神？），有幾種不同的可能解決方案。康德的方案是絕對律令（categorical imperative）。人具有一種道德感，這種道德感必定是從某處而來的。因此，在真理界（noumenal realm），必然存在一個頒布律法者，是我們道德感的來源。對施萊爾馬赫而言，這就是絕對依賴感。而對黑格爾來說，這是上帝在世界裡自我實現的過程。康德和施萊爾馬赫的神，其終點是自然神論的神，而黑格爾的神，是以泛神論的神為終點的。

This is the basic assumption of all modern thought and theology. There are different proposed solutions, however, to the problem of this dualism and its consequent epistemological conundrum (i.e., how can we know a god who is opposed to us and is incommunicative?). Kant’s solution was the categorical imperative. Man has a sense of morality, that sense must come from somewhere. Therefore, in the noumenal realm there must be a law-giver, a source of our sense of morality. For Schleiermacher it was the sense the absolute dependence. For Hegel it was a process of God’s own self actualization in the world. Kant and Schleiermacher ended with the god of Deism, Hegel with the god of pantheism.

好，巴特是獨樹一幟的。他的起點是永恆和時間之間，有本質上的差異（而不是聖經的三一上帝）。他的假設是二元論。他以康德作他的起點。畢竟，巴特是個現代人。不過，對巴特來說，上帝必須能夠對外溝通。畢竟，巴特肯定上帝的絕對自由。但是上帝如何在不逾越上帝和受造物之間的本質差異而對外溝通呢？耶穌基督是他的答案。上帝在耶穌基督裡向人傳通自己。他的三一神論是根據他的基督論來重新塑造的。耶穌基督構成了上帝的三一存有（Jesus Christ constitutes God’s being as triune）。在耶穌基督裡，本體論和知識論合而為一了。巴特可以說，不只耶穌基督是神，神也是耶穌基督。耶穌基督自己是受造物，是按照上帝的形象受造的。祂和上帝並沒有兩樣，祂不是三一上帝的第二位格在某個時刻取了人的本質。而是，耶穌基督就是永恆的上帝自己。上帝在耶穌基督裡，以一個永恆恩典的行動，穿我們的人性。然後，耶穌基督不是被理解為上帝在時間裡，作為一個救贖歷史的彰顯，而是上帝從亙古的永恆成為時間。上帝過去是、現在是、也將永遠是耶穌基督。

Now, Barth is unique in all this. He begins with the qualitative difference between eternity and time (rather than the triune God of Scripture). He assumes the dualism. He takes his starting point in Kant. Barth is, after all, a modern man. For Barth, however, God must be able to communicate himself. After all, Barth affirms the absolute freedom of God. But how can God communicate himself without transgressing the qualitative difference between God and the creature? Jesus Christ is his answer. God communicates himself to man in Jesus Christ. His doctrine of the Trinity is recast in light of his Christology. Jesus Christ constitutes God’s being as triune. Ontology and epistemology are one in Jesus Christ. Barth can say not only that Jesus Christ is God, but also that God is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is himself the creature, the man made in the image of God. He is not something different from God, he is not a human nature assumed by the second person of the Trinity at some point in time. Rather, Jesus Christ is the eternal God himself. God takes up our humanity in Christ in an eternal act of grace. Jesus Christ then is not understood as a redemptive-historical manifestation of God in time. Rather, God becomes time from all eternity. God always has been, is, and always will be Jesus Christ.

巴特在神學歷史裡努力完成了一件非凡的事。他同時維持時間和永恆之間在本質上的絕對差異，這是一方面，另一方面，他也維持了上帝和受造物在耶穌基督裡的認同。在巴特身上，存在一種自然神論和泛神論直接的辯證關係，讓它們之間維持一種張力，而不需要去加以調和。對巴特來說，上帝在此時此地對我們是無法溝通的，祂只在耶穌基督裡、在祂自己裡面向受造物傳通自己。換句話說，對巴特來說，說到底，上帝需要受造物，才能向外溝通。有鑑於他那種實行論式的基督論（actualistic Christology），沒有任何辦法可以繞過這點。

Barth manages to do a remarkable thing in the history of theology. He simultaneously maintains the absolute qualitative difference between time and eternity on the one hand and the identification of God and creature in Jesus Christ on the other. In him there is a dialectical relationship between Deism and pantheism, holding both in tension without a need to reconcile them. God for Barth is incommunicable to us in the here and now, and only communicates himself to the creature in himself in Jesus Christ. In other words, for Barth, at the end of the day God needs the creature to be communicative. There is no way of getting around that given his actualistic Christology.

 這遺留給我們一個基本上是不會說話的神，因為它不是那位會藉著在永恆裡生出無肉身的道（ logos asarkos），也不是通過聖靈（祂是從聖父和聖靈向內[ad intra]發出的）在永恆裡發出，來傳通自己的神。這意思是，從知識論來看，上帝在此時此地沒有直接的自我啟示，也沒有在聖經裡或在受造界的直接啟示。上帝對我們是沉默的。可以確定的是，祂已經在基督裡說話。但是我們如何認識基督呢，也就是我們如何認識上帝呢？我們只能憑信心領受聖經和教會有誤的見證，而在這個信仰（信心）的時刻，宣稱我們認識關於上帝的事。信仰就變成我們所運用的主觀經歷，而不是在聖經裡直接啟示的清晰話語。巴特和康德與施萊爾馬赫一樣，都落入到一種主觀主義者的認識論裡，即便他所有的宣稱都是論及上帝在基督裡的客觀啟示。這是十足的二元論！他們給了巴特基本上是現代主義，以及他推翻正統本體論和三位一體教義的起點。

This leaves us with a God who is essentially incommunicative because he is not the one God who communicates himself through an eternal generation of the logos asarkos, nor through the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit who is himself spirated from the Father and the Son ad intra. This means, epistemologically, that there is no direct self-revelation of God to us here and now. There is no direct revelation of God to us in Scripture nor in the created order. God is silent toward us. To be sure, he has spoken in Christ. But how do we know Christ, and therefore know God? We can only receive the fallible witness of the Scriptures and the church by faith and in the faith-moment claim we know something about God. Faith becomes the subjective experience we exercise rather than a clear Word of direct revelation in the Scriptures. Barth, like Kant and Schleiermacher, falls back into a subjectivist epistemology, despite all his claims for the objective revelation of God in Christ. Dualisms abound! And they must given his essentially modern starting point and his overturning of orthodox ontology and Trinitarian dogma.

 總結這段巴文克和范泰爾的洞見在護教學上的含義，聖經的上帝在每個角落幾乎都正在受到攻擊。我們的上帝被指責為一個靜態的、冷漠的、毫無生氣的存有。或者，祂被人性化，然後遭受批評。只有「三位一體教義」才能對越來越敵對的世界作出回應。我們所敬拜的是這樣的上帝，祂已經在祂自己裡面，在的話裡，把我們所必須回答不信的人的所有的事啟示出來。整個護教學的努力，正如所有神學的努力，都必須以本體三一的自我內含為起點，也以此為終點。

Rounding off this section on the apologetic import of Bavinck’s and Van Til’s insights, the God of the Bible is under attack from almost every quarter. Our God gets accused of being a static, cold, and lifeless being. Or, he gets humanized and then criticized. Only the “Trinitarian Dogma” gives answers to an increasingly hostile world. It is this God we worship, and he has in himself and revealed to us in his Word everything we need to answer the unbeliever. This is why the entire apologetic endeavor must, as with every theological endeavor, begin and end with the self-contained ontological Trinity.

結論Conclusion

總之，我可能會留給我們一個具有歷史意義的問題。假如我對巴文克和范泰爾的解讀是正確的，很有可能有兩個競爭者，在爭奪誰是二十世紀最重要的三一神論的神學家。這個殊榮通常被假設是歸屬於巴特的。確實，和他自由派的前輩比起來，巴特的確以許多重要的方式應用了三一神論的教義。但是倘若正統思想在神學上有任何的緊要性，以及假若使三位一體教義在神學和護教學的努力上具有絕對的優先性，有任何的緊要性，也許巴文克和/或范泰爾應該被視為候選人，而重新評估誰是二十世紀最重要的三一神論神學家，就是有必要的了。

In summary, I might leave us with a question of some historical significance. If my read of Bavinck and Van Til is correct, then it may just be that there are two new contenders for the most significant trinitarian theologian of the twentieth century. Often this honor is assumed to belong to Barth. To be sure, compared to his liberal forefathers, Barth does appropriate the doctrine of the Trinity in significant ways. But if orthodoxy at all matters in theology, and if the absolute prioritization of the Trinitarian dogma in the theological and apologetical endeavor at all matter, perhaps Bavinck and/or Van Til should be considered in the running and a reappraisal of who the most significant Trinitarian of the twentieth century may be in order.

儘管如此，這不是說神學就像是一場競賽，而神學界對巴文克和范泰爾的想法真的很重要。對那些有耳可聽的人來說，無論這個答案如何被邊緣化、被人忽略，答案是清楚的。然而，有鑑於巴文克論三一教理深具啟發性的段落，這是個發人深思的問題，值得我們好好默想。在我們太輕易忽略位格的特質，把它們當作是臆測之前，應該讓我們停下來好好思考。對巴文克來說，正統的三一神論是一個完整的包裹，它必須被全盤接受，否則對我們就是完全無用的。它也為我們，而把神學本論（神論）和系統神學的其他論題連在一起，包括啟示論和創造論。誠然，基於這些理由，就值得我們考慮要把巴文克（和范泰爾）的三一神論當作一個資源，來塑造、組織二十一世紀的改革宗神學，以調整其優先順序。

Still, its not as if theology is a contest and it really matters what the theological world thinks about Bavinck and Van Til. For those with ears to hear, however marginalized and dismissed, the answer is clear. Nevertheless, it is a provocative question worthy of contemplation given Bavinck’s stimulating section on the Trinitarian dogma. It also should give us pause before we too easily dismiss the doctrine of the personal properties as speculative. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is a package deal for Bavinck, it must come as a whole or not be useful to us at all. It also connects for us dots from theology proper to the other loci of systematic theology, including the doctrines of revelation and creation. For these reasons, indeed, it is worth our considering Bavinck’s (and Van Til’s) doctrine of the Trinity as a resource for prioritizing, shaping, and structuring Reformed theology in the twenty-first century.

註：

1. 這也是今天所謂福音派神學的問題。由於其聖經字面主義（biblicism），福音派思想已經把位格特質的教義視為是消耗品，是可以丟棄的。最近對這個問題的綜述，請看Kevin Giles精彩的研究：The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012). 1This is also a problem today in so-called evangelical theology. With its biblicism evangelicalism has deemed the doctrine of the personal properties to be expendable. For a recent overview of this problem see the fine study by Kevin Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012).