认识现代神学第19讲 第九章 希望神学对希望神学的批判。
主讲：林慈信牧师_校对：刘加立弟兄_文字：XSS姐妹
每一位保守派基督徒都会看见莫特曼所犯的显著的错误，而且他的伦理观可能展示出一些恐怖的情景。
No.1 第一点批判，Though Moltmann is critical of many of the neo-orthodox concepts，虽然莫特曼对很多新正统神学的概念采用批判的态度，he works from the presupposition that “theology of the word” is the only “appropriate” designation for dialectic theology.他的前提是“上帝的话”的神学是唯一对辩证神学“适当的”称谓。In fact， as Braaten has argued， he carries Barthian principles even further.事实上，正如Braaten，那位年轻的路德宗的神学家要证实的，莫特曼把巴特的原则带到更远的一个结论。Barth had transcendentalized eschatology through his use of the Historie-Geschichte dialectic.巴特通过使用他的历史和超历史的辩证，来将末世论超然化。Moltmann has simply carried this polemic against an objective realm of history one step further，莫特曼再进一步的把这个争辩带到一个抵挡任何客观的历史范围、历史境界那个层次，now rejecting even the “already” of Historie for a view of history swallowed up by the “not yet.”现在，连Historie（一般历史）的“已然”都拒绝，取代、换来的是由那个“未然”（还没有到，not yet）所吞灭的历史观。If Barth’s presuppositions tore away the possibility of any real correlation between history and faith，我们若说巴特的预设把任何历史和信仰之间真正联结的可能性拆毁的话，Moltmann’s have torn away even the possibility of history itself.莫特曼就把历史本身的可能性都拆掉了。The Kantian dialectic which Moltmann rebels against in Barth has turned upon itself.莫特曼反对巴特的康德主义的辩证，但是这个辩证到头来又吞灭自己。
No.2 第二方面的批判，Though Moltmann drapes his theology in biblical idioms of “eschatology” and “resurrection” and “consummation，”虽然莫特曼用一些圣经的词汇（例如末世论和复活和最后等等），来包装他的神学，his system is far more indebted to Marxism than to Christ.他整个的系统被马克思主义影响，多过被基督所影响。And here again， the congeniality of the notion of dialectic， which forms the heart of Marxism， would find points of contact with the dialectic concept of truth forming Moltmann’s new twists on neo-orthodoxy.我们再一次看到，辩证这个概念与莫特曼是意气相投的，辩证是马克思思想的核心，当莫特曼在新正统神学上再加功夫的时候，马克思的辩证概念就和莫特曼的辩证的真理观就找接触点了。So， Moltmann’s first book is an exercise in dialogue with the German atheistic Marxist， Ernst Bloch.因此，莫特曼第一本书是与德国的无神论马克思主义者，Ernst Bloch的对话。And his second work makes it abundantly clear，他第二本著作就很清楚的证明，that the “dialogue” has obviously been a two-way one.这个所谓的“对话”是双向的。In the exchange， Moltman may have learned as much as Bloch.在这个概念的交换中，莫特曼学到的不会比Bloch学到的少。
No.3 第三方面的批判，Moltmann’s view of eschatology loses its biblical center.莫特曼的默示观没有一个以圣经为基础的中心。That center，默示论的中心，is the coming of God in Christ to save His people.乃是上帝在基督里来到，拯救他的子民。When Jesus died and rose again nineteen hundred years ago，1900年前，耶稣死和复活的时候，the “last days” began.“末日”开始了（徒2：17，来1：2，约一2：18）。One day， when Jesus returns on the clouds of glory，有一天，当耶稣驾云，荣耀的降临的时候，the consummation of the last days will take place.末日的终结就会呈现了。But one does not find Jesus Christ at the center of Moltmann’s eschatology.但是，莫特曼的末世论的中心并不是耶稣基督。It is a man-centered system，他的末世论是一个以人为中心的系统，man looking toward the future.人看未来。In that sense，从这个意义上来看，critics have wisely indicated that Moltmann’s ideas might better be called “futurology” rather than “eschatology.”批评他的人士很智慧的指出，莫特曼的概念可能应该被称为“未来学”，比“末世论”更加的恰当。The goal of Moltmann’s future is not the full manifestation of Chris’s glory，莫特曼的未来，其目标不是完全彰显基督的荣耀，but the building of Utopia on earth.乃是在地上建造乌托邦。
No.4 第四方面的批判，To Moltmann， the kingdom of God is ushered in by politics and revolution.上帝的国，根据莫特曼的说法，是透过政治和革命所迎来的、所引进的。To the apostle Paul，根据使徒保罗，the kingdom of God is， and will be， ushered in by the proclamation of he saving power of Jesus Christ.上帝的国不论现在或者将来，都是借着宣讲耶稣基督拯救的大能而引进的（徒28：30-31）。To Moltmann， that kingdom is tangible earthly reality.对莫特曼来说，那个国度是一个能够接触的，属于地的一个现实。To Christ， it can be entered into only by faith in Him.对基督来说，要进入到国度，唯有借着相信他（约3：3、5）。And it brings peace， not revolution.而天国带来的是和平，不是革命（罗14：17）。
No.5 最后，第五方面的批判，Because Moltmann builds on the philosophical axion that time is the substance of reality，因为莫特曼的哲学前提是时间乃是现实的本质，he must rebuild God himself to fit that narrow concept of reality.他必须重新建造上帝自己，来迎合他的狭窄的现实观。The future becomes not merely an unknown quantity to man.未来现在不仅仅对人来说是未知数。It becomes also an unknown quantity to God.未来对上帝来说也是未知数。God， according to Moltmann， no longer exists from eternity to eternity.根据莫特曼，现在上帝不再从永远到永远存在的。He exists only in the future， propelled along by the movement of time.他现在只在未来存在，由时间的前进来推动祂。At Mount Sinai， God said to Moses， “I am that I am.” 上帝在西奈山上对摩西说，“我就是我所是的（或者我是自有永有的）”。Moltmann will not let God say that to him.莫特曼不会容许上帝对他这样说。
End of CHAPTER IX第九章结束。
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）
CHAPTER X 第十章
THEOLOGY OF HISTORY 历史神学的神学学派
In the late 1950’s，在1950年末，what many have felt to be a new theological emphasis began to be heard in the theological journals of Germany.在德国的神学期刊里，人们可能看到一个新的神学的侧重点。The emphasis could be seen in the doctoral theses of such new young scholars，这个重点可以从一些年轻的、新的学者们的博士论文所看出，as Ulrich Wilckens (now professor of New Testament in Berlin)， Wilckens，目前是柏林大学的新约的教授，Rolf Rendtorff (now professor of Old Testament at the University of Heidelberg)， Rendtorff，目前是海德堡大学的旧约教授，and Klaus Koch ( now teaching Old Testament at the University of Hamburg). Klaus Koch，现在在汉堡大学讲授旧约。But the center of the new circle， and the man who gives it its most systematic form， is the young professor of systematic theology at the University of Mainz， Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-).但是，整个圈子的中心人物，把这些的概念系统化的乃是在Mainz大学的系统神学教授——Pannenberg，潘能伯（1928年生）。Referred to in its initial stages as “the Pannenberg circle，”起初，这些人物被称为“潘能伯的小圈子”，it has increasingly been called “the theology of history” or the “theology of resurrection.”逐渐地被称为“历史的神学”，或者是“复活的神学”学派。
There are still those who associate this circle closely with the work of Moltmann and the emerging “theology of hope” emphasis.目前还有人把这个小圈子与莫特曼和“希望神学”连接起来。下面是简河培，我们的作者的看法。Certainly， Pannenberg and Moltmann share many concerns in common，肯定的是，潘能伯和莫特曼有一些共同关注的事——例如，a renewed interest in the relation of history and faith，重新的关注历史与信仰之间的关系；a desire to orient theology to the future，愿意看到神学以未来作导向，and ， in particular， to the resurrection of Christ，特别神学以基督的复活为导向；a strong attempt to break away from the existentialist emphases of Bultmann.强烈地试图脱离布特曼的存在主义的特色。But， although these men have written little about one another’s arguments， it may be premature to place them in the same school of thought.但是，虽然这两位学者没有彼此的论道另外一方的要点，若说他们是属同一个学派言之过早。For， while there are areas of agreement，因为，虽然有一些事情上他们是同意的，there are also some sharp differences.他们之间也有很重要、鲜明的差异。Moltmann is， by no means， as interested as Pannenberg in grounding faith in history.莫特曼完全不像潘能伯那样，对把信心植根于历史那么有兴趣。
Faith， according to Pannenberg， relates itself to the past.根据潘能伯，信仰是要和过去建立关系的。According to Moltmann，根据莫特曼，faith relates itself to the future，信心是与将来发生关系的，not to the God who said，不是与那位曾经晓谕的上帝发生关系，but to the God who will say.乃是与那位在将来会说话的上帝建立关系。In this sense， Moltmann is still more deeply tied to Bultmann than to Pannenberg.从这个意义上来说，莫特曼比起潘能伯来说，更加的、深深的与布特曼连接起来的。Both speak of the centrality of the resurrection for the Christian faith.莫特曼与潘能伯都论到复活对基督教信仰的中心性。But Moltmann disavows any interest in a bodily resurrection as “irrelevant，”可是，莫特曼完全对身体复活不感兴趣，认为是“无关重要的”，whereas Pannenberg recognizes the historical reality of the resurrection as crucial to New Testament Christianity.可是，潘能伯认为复活的历史真实性，对新约的基督教是有关键性的重要意义的。It would also appear that Pannenberg does not share Moltmann’s more recent emphasis on the relation between eschatology and Marxist patterns of social revolution.我们也注意到，潘能伯并没有莫特曼那样，在近年来强调默示论和马克思的社会革命之间的关系。
下面是历史神学学派的五方面的要点。
No.1 第一方面的要点，Like Moltmann， Pannenberg is insisting on a return to the basic question of history and faith.潘能伯与莫特曼一样，坚持要回到历史与信仰这个基本的问题上。Bultmann’s dissolving of history into individual existence is attacked by Pannenberg，潘能伯抨击布特曼，说布特曼将历史融化到个别的存在里面，as an attempt to flee into some suprahistorical harbor supposedly safe from the critical historical flood tide.这样做，潘能伯就表示，布特曼试图要逃奔一个历史以外的安全港口，逃避这些批判历史性的洪流。Not only this，不但如此，but even Barth is criticized，连巴特都被潘能伯所批判，for hiding his theology in the harbor of pre-history.因为根据潘能伯，巴特把他的历史藏在前历史（或者我们所说的超历史）的港口里。
One critic has said that “the theology of history is the first theological school to emerge in Germany within recent years that is not， in one form or another， a development of the dialectical theology of the 1920’s.” 有一位评论家这样说，“历史神学的神学学派是近年来在德国浮现的第一个学派，他不是在辩证神学（就是1920年代的辩证神学学派）上发展出来的。”This statement seems inaccurate，这样说似乎是不准确的，but it does indicate Pannenberg’s intent to separate himself from the dialectic pattern of Historie and Geschichte.但是他指出，潘能伯的用意是要离开辨证科学的历史与超历史的模式。
According to Pannenberg，根据潘能伯，the claims of Barth and Bultmann for a kerygma without history “is a meaningless noise.”巴特和布特曼宣称要有一个所宣讲的信息，却是没有历史的（kerygma without history），他说这个是“毫无意义的吵闹”。“The preaching of the ‘Word of God’ is an empty assertion if it is severed from what really happened.宣讲上帝的话语若与过去真的发生的事分割的话完全是空谈。Faith cannot live from a kerygma detached from its historical basis and content.信心所宣讲的信息，若是与他的历史的根据和历史的内容分割的话，信仰是不能靠着这种的信息而活的。”And this， according to Pannenberg， is precisely what Barth and Bultmann do.根据潘能伯的说法，巴特跟布特曼恰恰就是在做这件事。By severing history from the kerygma， they sever faith’s lifeline to truth.当他们把历史与所宣讲的信息分隔的时候，他们就把信心从它在真理里的生命线分隔了。
我们下一讲继续来讲对莫特曼的希望神学的批判。
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）