认识现代神学第20讲

主讲：林慈信牧师_校对：刘加立弟兄_文字：XSS姐妹

我们继续讲历史神学学派，就是潘能伯的神学特点。

来到No.2 第二方面的特点，Pannenberg insists that，潘能伯坚持说，God’s revelation does not come to man immediately，上帝的启示不是直接临到人的，but always mediately through the events of history.肯定是间接的，透过历史事件临到人。And this history in which revelation take place is not a special redemptive revelation known only through faith (which is the argument of the Heilsgeschichte school).而启示所在的历史，并不是一个唯独透过信心才能够认识的什么特别的救赎性的启示，而后者是Heilsgeschichte（救恩历史学派）所坚持的。Pannenberg refuses to make any cleavage between salvation history and world history (a common feature of both Heilsgeschichte and existentialist views of revelation).潘能伯拒绝在救恩历史和世界历史之间划分界限，后者乃是救恩历史学派和存在主义的启示观的共同特点。There is no direct， special revelation of God， after the fashion of a theophany.没有上帝直接的、特殊的启示的（换言之，没有好像神现这样子的启示的）。According to Pannenberg，根据潘能伯，there is only indirect revelation through historical acts.唯有透过历史作为的间接的启示。

No.3 第三点，Universal history， then， is the exclusive medium for revelation， according to Pannenberg.因此，根据潘能伯，世界历史是启示的唯一媒介。Not any particular part of history or any strand of history， but history as a whole is God’s teacher.上帝所用的教师不是历史的什么特殊部分，或者历史中怎么样的一条线，乃是历史的整体。Unlike special manifestations of God， historical revelation is available for anyone who has eyes to see.历史性的启示不像一些上帝特殊的彰显，历史性的启示对每一个有眼能看到人都是看得到的。It is universal in character.它的性质是普世性的，就是遍及全人类的。Historical knowledge provides the sole basis for faith.对历史的知识就为信心提供唯一的基础。Faith， then， becomes the knowledge of what is true about history.因此，信心就是知道在历史中什么是真实的，这种的知识。

No.4 第四，The meaning of history can be found only at its end， not its center (as Cullmann taught).历史的意义只能够在他的终结才找得到，不是在它中间去找的，后者是库尔曼所教导的。That end has taken place proleptically in the resurrection of Christ.而这个历史的终结，就提早的在基督的复活的事情上已经发生了。Because， according to Pannenberg， the resurrection of Christ was the antecedent revelation to the events of the end of the world，因为，根据潘能伯的说法，基督的复活乃是一个先存的启示，启示世界终结的时间，因为根据潘能伯，基督的复活乃是对于世界末日的事件的一个先前的启示（antecedent revelation），the resurrection enables us to grasp the whole of history.复活让我们能够掌握到历史的全部。It is the key to understanding everything in history.复活是一把钥匙，使人能够明白历史里面的一切的事。This emphasis has led many to call Pannenberg’s thinking a “theology of the resurrection.”这方面的强调，就导致有些人称潘能伯的思想为“复活的神学”。

No.5 第五个要点，Unlike Moltmann， Pannenberg says he seeks to avoid， for the most part， demytoloizing the resurrection.潘能伯与莫特曼不一样，他说，他试图大体上要避免把复活去神话化。He does not hesitate to call it a historical event.他不迟疑的称复活为一个历史事件。He calls himself convinced not only that the church’s s belief in the resurrection is not prefabricated myth (as Bultmann taught)，他自称是一个相信复活的人，他不单单相信教会相信基督复活并不一个捏造的神话（正如布特曼所教导的），but also that the resurrection is historically demonstrable (in opposition to the Heilsgeschichte school).不但如此，他也相信复活是历史可以证明的（这个是有别于救恩历史学派）。He refuses to explain the gospel stories of the resurrection wholly as the work of the apostles’ imagination.他拒绝把福音书里面复活的记载完全认为是使徒们的想象所捏造出来的。The apostles， he says， were too discouraged after the death of Jesus to have talked themselves into believing that Jesus was risen from the dead.他说，在耶稣基督死了之后使徒们是非常的失意的，那么的失意，他们不可能自言自语的就相信耶稣基督从死里已经复活了。The only satisfactory explanation for their sudden faith，他们突然之间有信心，而唯一令人满足的解释就是，was that Jesus appeared to them.耶稣向他们显现了。Furthermore，不但如此，the early Christian community could not have survived if the tomb of Jesus had not been empty.假如耶稣的坟墓不是空的话，早期的基督教信仰群体是不可能存留下去的。An occupied tomb would have destroyed their faith，有尸体的坟墓就会将他们的信心毁掉的，and given the Jews a strong argument against the church.可是这样就给犹太人对教会一个话柄了。

未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。

中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）

There is much in Pannenberg’s claims for which the orthodox Christian can be grateful.正统信仰的基督徒可以为很多潘能伯的言论而感恩。He has helped to remind the contemporary theological world，他提醒了当代的神学世界，that there is not much of a gap between Bultmann and Barth.布特曼和巴特之间，他们的嫌隙并不很大。Both refuse to bring Christian faith in relation to the realm of objective knowledge.两者都拒绝把基督教的信仰与客观知识的范围拉上关系。Both are advocates of a dialectical theology，两位都推动，都推崇一种的辩证神学，which undermines both historical revelation and the universal validity of Christian truth.这样子就拆毁了历史上的启示，和基督教真理的普世合理性。Pannenberg properly sees that，潘能伯很正确的看到，the neo-orthodox denial of the objectivity of revelation is a threat to the very reality of revelation.新正统神学否认了启示的客观性，这个是威胁到启示的真实性本身的。We may also be grateful that，我们也可以很感恩地看到，he is reminding the theological world that the Christian truth is the one truth for all men.他提醒了神学世界，基督教的真理是为全人类的唯一真理。In refuting the neo-orthodox notion that the truth of revelation becomes truth only for individuals by personal appropriation，当他推翻了新正统的概念，新正统的说法是，启示的真理唯独当个人领受的时候才对个人成为真理的，这个是潘能伯所推翻的，he is stressing the unity of all truth in a way badly needed today.潘能伯这样做，就强调所有的真理的合一性，这个是今天极其需要的。He has also made it excessively difficult for any modern critic to retain the Bultmannian skepticism toward the resurrection.他也让任何愿意保留着布特曼对复活的怀疑的人面对很多的难题。

Nevertheless，虽然是如此，it would be most unwise to label Pannenberg as a “conservative” or an “evangelical.”若称潘能伯为“保守派”或者“福音派”，是非常的不智慧的。His system of thought is， by no means， a return to the emphasis of historic， biblical Christianity.他的思想系统完全不是回到历史的，符合圣经的基督教。

下面是五方面的批判。

No.1 第一方面的批判，Though Pannenberg attacks Barth’s and Bultmann’s positions on the relation of faith and history，潘能伯虽然抨击巴特和布特曼的立场，特别是他们对信心和历史之间关系的立场，in many respects the Pannenberg group may seem more the heir of neo-orthodoxy than its opponent.在很多方面来说，潘能伯的圈子比较像是新正统的继承人，而不像它的反对者。Along with neo-orthodoxy， he accepts a view of reality “virtually the same as that which springs from Kant’s primacy of the practical reason.潘能伯接受一种的现实观（reality），差不多完全从康德的实践理性所发展出来的现实观一样。It is the view of Renaissance man.这就是文艺复兴人的观点。There is no transition from wrath to grace in history according to the theology of Pannenberg.根据潘能伯的神学，在历史上完全没有从愤怒转向恩典的转折点。”Though he condemns the Barthian dialectic in revelation，虽然潘能伯谴责巴特的那种在启示里的辩证，and insists that revelation is objective in the form of historical events，并且坚持，启示在历史的事件里是客观的，但是，he retains a dialectic bifurcation，他仍然保留这一种辩证式的二分法，by saying revelation is objective in the form of historical events， but not in concepts.因为他说，启示是客观的，在历史上的事件上是客观的，可是在概念上并不是。“While revelation does take the form of thought，是的，虽然启示是透过思想的形式，he holds it does not do so authoritatively in the special form of concepts supernaturally given once for all， as in old Protestant theology.虽然启示可能是带着思想的形式，但是它并不是带有权柄的，就好像老旧的基督教神学说就透过一次、多次下的、超自然所赐下的特别的概念，启示不是用这种形式的。The Christian tradition is always in development， he contends，他坚持说，基督教的传统是不断在发展中，because revelation is given ‘in deeds or acts that remain to be explained.’因为启示是透过作为（或者行动）所赐下，而‘这些都不断地需要解释的。’”

No.2 第二方面的批判，From this dialectic comes Pannenberg’s refusal to identify the whole Bible with revelation.从这个辩证，潘能伯就发展出他拒绝把整本圣经与启示等同的立场。So， along with neo-orthodoxy， he accepts much of the results of negative historical criticism.因此潘能伯与新正统神学一样，接受了很多的负面的历史批判的研究成果。He insists over and over again，他多次的重复坚持，that the virgin birth is a myth.耶稣从童贞女所生是一个神话。He agrees with Bultmann in asserting that the titles expressing Jesus’ divinity were created by the early church and read back into the lips of Jesus.他与布特曼同意，他声称，表达耶稣的神性的头衔，都是由早期教会所制造出来的，然后这些头衔就读回去耶稣的口中。

No.3 第三方面的批判，His discussion of the resurrection is also not without several major flaws.他在讨论耶稣的复活的时候，也有一些重要的错误。He does not accept as completely reliable the resurrection narratives.他并不接受关于基督复活的记载是完全可靠的。Here too he claims to find inaccuracies and legendary materials in the Gospels.在这点上他也声称，在福音书里面有不准确的写法和一些传说的材料。He also asserts that，他也声称说，“in all probability the earthly Jesus’s expectation was not directed toward. . . a privately experienced resurrection from the dead，最可能的是，在地上的耶稣的期待，并不是期待一个他私人经验到的从死里复活，but toward the imminent universal resurrection of the dead，乃是期望很快就到来的、普世性的，死人的复活，which would， of course， include himself should his death precede it.那这个当然会包括他自己，假如他的死是在这个普世复活之前的话。”

In other words，换言之，Jesus mistakenly assumed that His bodily resurrection would coincide with the end of the world and the general resurrection of all believers.耶稣错误的假设他的身体复活是与世界末日同时发生的，也就是说，与所有信徒的一般性的复活同时发生。According to Pannenberg，根据潘能伯，as late as twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus， Paul was still expecting as well this imminent， ultimate arrival of the resurrected Jesus for judgment， accompanied by the universal resurrection of the dead.到了耶稣死二、三十年之后，保罗仍然有这方面的期待，期待很快就要到来的，最后的复活耶稣的临到，为了要审判和与全世界的死人复活同时发生的。He claims that one does not find this emphasis in such second-generation writings as the Gospels，潘能伯声称，到了第二代的著作（例如福音书）的时候，就没有这方面的强调了，because they now realized that，因为他们现在就意识到，the resurrection of Jesus was a special event that happened to Jesus only.耶稣的复活是一个特殊的事件，唯有在耶稣身上发生而已。

This position of Pannenberg destroys with the left hand what he has built with the right hand.潘能伯既然有这个立场，他用右手所建立的，就左手拆毁了。It assumes inherent contradiction between the biblical records concerning the resurrection of Jesus.他假设了在圣经里对耶稣复活的记录有着本质上的矛盾。Even worse，更差劲的是，it must assume that Jesus was mistaken about himself and His resurrection.耶稣对他自己，和对他复活有错误的概念。It also ignores the vast testimony in the Gospels and in Paul’s letters，他也忽略了福音书和保罗书信里面许多许多的见证，which assume a lengthy delay between the time of Christ’s resurrection and His second coming in judgment.这些的见证都假设着，基督复活和他再来审判之间，有着一段很长的延迟的一个阶段（参考太24：42、50，太25：1-14，可8：38，林前1：7，4：5）。

我们还有两方面的批判，第四和第五点，我们下次继续讲第四和第五方面的批判。之后我们结束了第十章，就来到第十一章，进化的神学学派。

提示：逐字稿文字只限于个人和教会私下学习交流，目的是造就教会和教会负责带领、讲道的同工们；未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿和图片的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。当文字和录音不符时，以录音为准。愿上帝赐福文字编辑和校对的肢体来雅正！若是有修改的地方、奉献支持或是其他任何问题请使用以下邮件方式联系我们。中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）