再思巴特的啟示論

麥劍鋒

(指導老師郭鴻標 博士)

回到 華人神學園地主頁

回到 倫理和職場倫理 專題分類

 回到 麥劍鋒神學網站

 

1.     引言

巴特在《教會教義學》中,以啟示論成為他的首卷書之中心思想,也是他的神學的立足點。因此筆者從十九世紀神學的背景入手,了解當時的神學取向,如何影響巴特的神學。再介紹巴特在《教會教義學》中啟示論的內容,以及《教會教義學》的藍圖和整體發展,從中探討巴特啟示論的特點,尤其針對他當時的處境。除了《教會教義學》卷之外,筆者還參考《教會教義學》其他書卷,以及巴特其他著作,來整合他的神學發展,尤其啟示論。

最後筆者嘗試從巴特的啟示論中,回看這位三一上帝的啟示是與人之間立約,帶出伙伴關係。因為上帝與人立約,上帝超越性的啟示才使人得知,這也是巴特啟示論的重點。

2.     巴特的啟示論的歷史背景及內容

在十九世紀自由神學(Liberalism)的興起,而自由神學由士來馬赫(Schleiermacher)所帶出,[1] 以人主觀的宗教經驗可以經驗上帝,[2] 所以稱為感覺神學。[3]  因此自由神學的教義是「神的潛在」,所以人可以用理性、科學、個人經驗或宗教經驗等感受方式,知道這位潛在世界的神。[4] 而巴特出身於十九世紀末至二十世紀初的歐洲,當時神學界已經深受自由神學所牽引,甚至巴特自己也是受教於德國自由神學的諸位名師之下。不過在1914年德國神學界和教會支持德國政府的戰爭政策,以及巴特發現自由神學不能解決信徒的困苦,巴特重新思想他的神學,並在1919年出版了《羅馬書註釋》第二版,正式與自由神學決裂。[5] 《羅馬書註釋》第二版重新強調神人之別,人不能以個人經驗、理性等方法可以認知上帝,惟有上帝從上而來的啟示。[6] 這成為巴特神學的啟示論之開始的歷史背景。

巴特的《教會教義學》中啟示論成為首卷書之中心,而啟示的中心是上帝的道。巴特主要將上帝的道分為的四大部份[7]

1. 上帝的道在教義上之標準(The Word of God as The Criterion of Dogmatics)

2. 上帝的啟示(The Revelation of God)

3. 聖言(Holy Scripture)

4. 教會的宣講(The Proclamation of The Church)

        根據上帝的道在教義上之標準,巴特已經將上帝的道之啟示,分為三個層面一、上帝的道之宣講 The Word of God Preached。二、上帝的道之文字 The Word of God Written。三、上帝的道之啟示 The Word of God Revealed[8]

巴特還引用三位一體的觀念,將上帝的道之宣講、上帝的道之文字和上帝的道之啟示三一化,以致上帝的道可以有宣講、文字和啟示的形式,互通、互滲、互融。[9] 再者巴特在《教會教義學》卷裡再仔細說明宣講、文字和啟示互相的關連,成為卷的內容。

        在《教會教義學》的啟示論有兩方面值得注意,首先是巴特所討論的上帝的道的啟示(即宣講、聖言、啟示)都只發生在教會當中,他表達的宣講是指向教會裡宣講基督自己。[10] 而在上帝是三一的真理的啟示,也由聖經作為主要的根基。[11] 討論聖言的時候,其重點是在教會裡(in church),也是與教會一起(with church)[12] 這樣的論述是三一化的啟示論之延伸,將上帝的道的啟示包括在教會當中,始終《教會教義學》發生的場景是教會。

        第二點值得注意的地方是上帝的道之啟示,就是道成肉身的耶穌基督。在整個啟示裡道成肉身的耶穌基督是啟示的中心,因為是啟示的實體,是真神的人也是真人的神。[13] 並且耶穌基督是上帝的愛與自由的彰顯,[14] 所以巴特建築的啟示論,甚至是他的神學都是以基督為中心。在下文《教會教義學》的藍圖中,筆者將會從宏觀的角度分析以基督為中心的啟示觀,與巴特神學的互動性。

3.     巴特建構《教會教義學》的藍圖

從《教會教義學》的藍圖巴特首先開闢以上帝的道之啟示為基礎,之後就是神論、創造論、復和論和未完作的聖靈論。當中看見巴特的神學建築從啟示論開始,有了一位自我啟示的上帝,人才可討論上帝。亦有了一位上帝,才可以討論上帝的創造,也因為人是被創造,人與上帝之間是有一個無限的鴻溝,即創造主與受造者在本質上的分別。所以因著這個分別,巴特認為上帝的愛與自由,主動地與人復,道成肉身就是打破這鴻溝的橋樑,也就是他的復和論。雖然根頓的看法,將復和論中的浸禮篇為巴特離前的最後遺作,[15] 不過巴特在《教會教義學》的殘卷和整體神學方向中,可以看見他想發展聖靈論,因為上帝與人復和之後,聖靈在基督徒身上扮演什麼角色是重點。況且在《教會教義學》卷裡討論聖父、聖子之後,就是聖靈的工作。因為人順服、信靠和認知上帝就是「在聖靈裡」。[16] 所以在次序上復和論之後,基督徒生活必須與聖靈有關,何況聖靈是三位一體上帝之。再者宏觀來看,巴特的神學之陳述按照「信經」的架構排序,即上帝、創造主、救贖主和聖靈。綜合以上據,筆者相信在巴特的《教會教義學》藍圖中,聖靈是他未完成的部分,只是他沒有寫完成就辭世了。儘管如此,在巴特《教會教義學》中,仍然可以給人看見他的神學思路,由啟示論開始到聖靈論都是一條線連接在一起,這就是上帝的道即基督論。

很多學者都會把《教會教義學》和巴特的前作《哥庭根教義學》作出比較,看看巴特的神學發展。在《哥庭根教義學》的前序部份,馬利歐(Migliore)有這樣的分析,他認為《哥庭根教義學》是《教會教義學》卷的初稿,在鋪排上十分相近。[17] 林子淳也認同這觀點,但他更提出兩者分別在於揀選之上。[18] 亦有學者認為巴特神學的發展是上帝的超越性,而這超越性不是不可知,相反是神性的行動在歷史中。[19] 因此巴特後期的神學思想轉變到上帝工作在人類的歷史中,成為神人的共同歷史。[20] 這與他之前在《羅馬書註釋》第二版中神人相對的神學,有明顯的轉向。

4.     巴特啟示論的特點

4.1 以啟示為中心的神學

        在傳統的神學討論上,人如何可以知道上帝的啟示,是方法論的問題。奧古斯丁曾經說「當我們稱義人的德性是完全時,這完全的本身在於他們對自己的不完全有真實的認識與謙卑的告白。」[21] 雖然這段奧古斯丁的論述是指向未完全人的無知,是從上而下的啟示論。不過卻反映奧古斯丁的思考方法是先從方法論的立場出發,以人為優先考慮的神學概念,正如《懺悔錄》一方面反駁摩尼教的錯,一方面討論人可能認識上帝形而上學的問題。[22] 在奧古斯丁之後的另一位神學家加爾文的上帝觀,同樣以人為中心作為討論方法論之基礎。在《基督教要義》中《論對創造者上帝的認識》時提出:「全篇論文有兩個主要題旨,即對上帝的認識,和對人的認識」。[23] 他問人如何可以認知上帝,這也以方法論優先出發。當然同時他都會問上帝如何啟示人?造成啟示論與方法論平衡。[24] 之不過在傳統神學上,始終方法論是主流方向,這表示在次序上方法論是優先的位置,啟示論才放在方法論之後的位置。

        巴特神學秉承改革宗路線,即由奧古斯丁開始,再到加爾文神學。這成為巴特神學的根基,所以應該承襲以方法論為優先的模式。不過巴特一反傳統,卻以上帝的道之啟示(啟示論)成為優先位置,並從啟示論中建築他的神學。我們從《教會教義學》的藍圖中,看見卷已開宗明義以上帝的道成為核心,而上帝的道就是啟示的本身,並且描繪上帝的道之啟示高峰當然就是道成肉身的耶穌基督。巴特不但是以上帝的道之啟示為優先於方法論,亦改變了傳統的神學框架,不再是以方法論為先,卻以上帝的道啟示優先,上帝的道成為主導者,是自我啟示人才可知曉。[25] 所以在次序上以上帝的道優先於人,是上帝的道使人得啟示。而且他的神學都建基於上帝的道之上,雖然在《教會教義學》沒有一卷以基督論作為主題,但是他建築的神學卻是上帝的道(即道成肉身的基督)為整套神學的中心,所以在《教會教義學》卷之後的神論、創造論、復和論,救贖論和未完成的聖靈論,都是為上帝的道的伸展。巴特這樣描繪的目的,主要是將基督教信仰和神學帶回上帝的道之中。

        巴特這樣以上帝為道的啟示論,直接影響後來的神學發展,如三一論,因為巴特將上帝的道之啟示、宣講和文字收納在三一論之中,[26] 成為日後基督教發展三一神學重要的轉捩點。正如麥高雲(Mcgowan)討論三一論時不得不認同地說「巴特的影響延伸到現在的改革宗,而且是深遠的衝擊。」[27] 當然巴特以上帝的道之啟示為優先的排位,會有其一定的優點和缺點。優點是將神學和信仰完全建基於上帝的道之中,人所得上帝的知識惟獨是從上帝自我啟示而來。人離開了上帝的道,即是離開教會,人根本無法得知上帝的知識。不過這樣的排位也有其缺點和限制,就是否定人或受造物的本身知識可以知曉上帝。

巴特的方法論必須跟隨著啟示論,這無疑除了上帝的道之超越性外,否定其他的方法論例如哲學,因為哲學嘗試從人和世界出發尋求啟示。[28] 雖然道基斯(Diogenses)認為巴特不是反對哲學,他只反對自然神學。[29] 某程度上筆者都認同巴特不是反對哲學,因為巴特的確引用很多哲學思想。之不過他在啟示論優先的編排之下,除了上帝的道之超越性外,人根本沒有方法認知上帝的困境,哲學家與神學家又如何可以有平台(即是世界裡)討論上帝的存在?正如布朗認為今日的宗教核心問題是「我們怎樣知道上帝?」但巴特在朝聖神學之後,他的答案是困難、艱難的,[30] 因為巴特運用這強橫的超越性啟示論作為他的神學基礎,斷絕其他啟示。宏觀地說巴特這樣的論述會引致基督徒與非基督徒沒有共同點(common ground),可以討論上帝之餘地和空間。當然他的做法有其歷史背景,筆者下文在巴特與布仁爾爭辯的課題上再作討論。只不過我們需要知道巴特這樣的鋪陳之優點和缺點,以至我們可以正確地了解他的神學思路。

4.2 否定自由神學

在前文筆者已經略略交代了自由神學的理論,他們的神觀是「潛在性的」,所以在巴特眼中,他們的問題是發展了一套以人為中心的神學。[31] 再者自由神學的潛在的上帝,不能解決巴特面對牧會的問題,所以他以超越的上帝之啟示觀成為先驗地存在,[32] 這樣一位超越的上帝才能解決他的問題。因此有人認為巴特的《教會教義學》針對自由神學的味道。[33] 不過值得注意的是巴特在1919年的《羅馬書詮釋》第二版中,已經否定了自由神學。他用上帝在天堂,人在地球上的類比手法,[34] 這表明上帝與人有一個絕對鴻溝的時候,已經否定了神潛在世界之可能。換言之巴特《羅馬書詮釋》第二版中已否定自由神學,人不可以靠理性、科學、個人經驗或宗教經驗等感受方式知道上帝的存在。

所以巴特在三十年代年開始寫的《教會教義學》主要是針對什麼問題?無可至在《教會教義學》中巴特仍舊有對自由神學作出批評,例如提及上帝的超越性,無疑對自由神學的潛在的上帝作出反駁。只是核心問題是巴特在《教會教義學》想帶出什麼神學信息?雖然有學者認為《教會教義學》針對「實存主義」、「個人主義」、「客觀主義」、「人格主義」、「現實主義」和「理性主義」。[35] 甚至艾文(Almond)提及,巴特主要是攻擊以人為中心的神學,[36] 同時這樣建立他的神學思想。[37] 不過筆者認同根頓的看法,巴特面對二十世紀科學主義的衝擊,神學被科學驗證,巴特認為神學不應受科學驗證。[38] 所以他需要重新定位神學是教會的智慧訓導,所以《教會教義學》之稱為《教會教義學》就是在信仰群體裡(教會)討論神學。[39] 故此神學不應被科學和人文科學所評價,被無神論者談論上帝。相反神學是教會的自我反應,也是惟有教會可以討論,教會必須知道這特徵。[40] 此外在《教會教義學》的藍圖中,筆者看見巴特的神學展示以上帝的道的啟示為主要,即以基督論為中心。基督不但啟示給世人看見,更重要是的工作。正如雲豪斯(Vanhoozer)的看法,他提出巴特的神學是上帝在基督裡工作,從而人可知啟示和與上帝復[41]

綜合以上分析,巴特的《教會教義學》並不是為反對自由神學而寫,縱使在書中以上帝以三一的超越性的啟示為他的神學基礎,這無疑是對自由神學的「潛在的神」構成批判,事實上在《教會教義學》裡屢見不鮮。另一方面,布特曼(Bultmann)指出巴特也運用士來馬赫的思考模式。[42] 筆者也認同這點,始終巴特曾經受自由神學所薰陶,[43] 只是從《教會教義學》的藍圖中,巴特強調一位工作的上帝,人們可知上帝全因自己超越性的行動,[44] 並非士來馬赫的感覺神學。再者從巴特的時代中,科學主義的興起挑戰基督教神學,將神學變成科學,這才是《教會教義學》回應時代的任務。儘管巴特運用科學的手法討論神學,以客觀的實體為研究目標,探討其可能性。不過巴特仍舊反對神學變成科學,因為上帝的啟示才使神學成為有批判力的神學。試問神學若喪失自我反省的能力和批評力(如自由神學),神學還有任何意義?然而巴特對二十世紀的神學反省和使命,亦對二十一世紀基督徒有所影響,因為今天我們也要回應「後現代主義」、「世俗主義」、「物質主義」、「經濟至上主義」等的挑戰、甚至最近的金融海嘯。在學習巴特神學中,巴特給我們借鏡和出路,重新思索神學在今天的意義和使命。

4.3啟示惟有在聖經中。

正如上文提及巴特面對二十世紀科學的發達,人類對病理、物理、化學、自然等知識增加,以致攻擊聖經的真實性,被喻不合科學的物品。因為聖經記載太多超自然的神,科學的角度根本不能解釋這些神,如不信基督教的核心信仰「基督從死裡復活」。在這情況之下,巴特重申聖經是上帝的啟示,因為在《教會教義學》中他將上帝的啟示是文字(The Word of God Written),他認為聖經是見證人,是上帝的啟示向人表示。[45] 布朗提出兩點值得思考一、科學是惟一合法獲得知識的途徑,也只是上帝啟示自己為開始。[46] 二、巴特反對的是自然神學(natural theology),但不反對文化和創造。[47] 因此布朗認為巴特對自然科學的肯定只在文化裡,離開了上帝的啟示科學沒有功效。不過筆者認為對巴特來說聖經是上帝的啟示是沒有反對的,甚至啟示惟有在聖經中。之不過除了科學的文化是合法之外,巴特自己也運用科學的方法論研究神學,所以巴特是否一心一意否定自然神學和科學?筆者認同《教會教義學》單單否定自然神學,以及反對整個科學的啟示和價值。[48] 因為巴特認為科學與神學是不同的觀點(standpoint),他提出聖經才是上帝的啟示。[49] 故此筆者認為巴特面對科學變成神學的問題,他須要將神學建於聖經,而排除其他的假設之上。所以要了解巴特反對自然神學,就需要先了解他的處境,下文再作討論。巴特的啟示論之重點是上帝的道成為道成肉身的基督,而基督的事件惟有在聖經之中發現。科學不能取代神學,是因為神學是建基於聖經,聖經是上帝的啟示,所以神學是上帝的啟示。因此用科學來審判聖經也不合宜的做法,因為聖經是上帝的啟示和記號。[50]

此外,巴特在啟示論的佈局中,道成肉身的基督是其啟示論之中心,之不過承載上帝的道的器皿卻是聖經。鄧紹光提出巴特的啟示就是聖經,因為是上帝的道之宣講的內容,上帝啟示的途徑都是聖經。[51] 所以惟有在聖經才能合法地知道三一上帝的啟示,並且是最高的權威,[52] 因為當人回憶上帝以往的啟示的時候,聖經能抓緊人的心。[53] 之不過在釋經的權柄,巴特仍舊放在教會之內。他明白到聖經作為上帝的啟示,同時會發生人強暴地濫用聖經之可能性,甚至離開聖經本身的原意。所以巴特一方面要強調聖經的自由性,另一方面釋經也是教會的天職。這保持聖靈的啟迪和傳統,這兩方面平衡上帝的啟示。[54] 再者聖經作為上帝的啟示,不但是記載上帝以往的啟示歷史,更重藉著聖經和聖靈的工作,上帝的道在我們裡面(in us)[55]

4.4 巴特與布仁爾Emil Brunner於啟示論之爭辯

布仁爾在他的著作《基督教教義之卷一︰上帝教義》提出自然科學與超自然的信仰是沒有衝突,而自然科學也可以提供非宗教性的知識。[56] 這表示他認同自然科學的啟示,因為他認為自然知識是一條橋連接信心的知識。[57] 因此他與巴特對自然界中可以認知上帝的啟示這一點上有不同的意見,在十九世紀三十年代,布仁爾與巴特因著自然神學之可能性發生激烈的爭論。[58] 巴特是排斥自然神學,因為創造者與受造物在本質上是有絕對的差異,所以人不能透過受造物(人或自然界)認知上帝的啟示,惟有上帝的道主動地在聖經自我啟示才能知曉。[59] 布仁爾卻認為人雖然犯罪,但仍殘留上帝一點的形象,所以仍然有獲得上帝的知識的可能性。[60]

不過要明白巴特對於自然神學的反感,要從歷史背景和時代來看。[61] 在十九世紀三十年代的德國,由希特勒開始統治,德國進入極右的獨裁政府當中。巴特面對當時的希特勒政權,需要重新定位他的神學,所以在1936年出版的《教會教義學》中,以上帝的道為啟示的主權,是針對當時的政局和德國教會,以免以人成為上帝的啟示和主導,提供極權統治之名,正如根頓認為巴特要堵塞從自然神學而來的希特勒政權。[62] 所以巴特才會堅持反對自然神學,使他與布仁爾發生爭辯,以及持守以上帝的道為啟示中心的神學,在上帝的道之外再沒有啟示。故此,巴特在希特勒政權倒下之後,在其較後幾卷的《教會教義學》中,才開始討論神人和好的合作關係這是後話。

4.5小結

綜合巴特啟示論四方面的特點,筆者認為巴特的啟示論有其時代背景,假如漠視這背景,只會造成偏見,以為巴特只是一味反對自由神學,以及否定自然的啟示。路錫圖(Rosato)認為巴特的啟示論重點是聖經啟示,他說「巴特啟示以主觀性與客觀性的鋪陳,會令所有人都有能力發展宗教。不過具體的聖經啟示觀,就可以神性地廢除所有人間的宗教。」[63] 故此,巴特啟示論中聖經作為上帝的道(耶穌基督)之見證人,成為一個重要的角色。因為聖經是這位三一上帝的超越性啟示的作為之見證者,離開了聖經人根本無法知道這位超越的上帝,這也是巴特帶出的思想。

5.     巴特如何說明啟示與人的關係上帝與人立約covenant

上文提及巴特在《羅馬書詮釋》第二版中說明上帝與人絕對在本質上之分別,理應人無法知曉上帝任何的事情。不過在《教會教義學》中巴特發展了另一方面的神學進路,縱使上帝與人有本質上的鴻溝,但因著上帝的自由、慈愛和行動,而自我啟示給人知曉的存在。[64] 然而巴特提出上帝自我啟示就是與人「立約」(covenant),在這約之內上帝不但向人啟示,更重要是上帝成為「人」,滿足立約的約定,因為以色列人不能滿足上帝的律法。[65] 並且因著基督之約上帝與人建立合作伙伴的關係,[66] 即是《教會教義學》卷四復和論中的主題。[67]

在傳統神學上,對於立約的理解都會集中在救贖的恩典之上,正如愛德華茲將立約看為恩典、稱義和救贖。[68] 不過巴特扭轉了這觀念,上帝與人立約不只在於救贖之內,[69] 儘管他在《教會教義學》中提及舊約為恩典之約。[70] 巴特還豐富了立約的關係,他從道成肉身的啟示之下,上帝成為人身呈現在人類的世界,以及在人中間揭示自己,與人復和成為基督教的主要內容。[71] 因此基督作為上帝的行動與門徒所立的新約,這表示創造主與受造物()再次建立關係,[72] 同時上帝與人再度相遇(encounter)過人之可以作為門徒與基督相遇,守約是關鍵。因為人遵守上帝的命令才成為聖潔,也是擁有永恆生命。[73] 正如亨斯•(Hans Kung)所言,永恆之約是上帝的恩典所揀選,使罪人可以稱義,這也是上帝永恆和原本的立約目的。[74]

所以巴特運用立約的進路打破上帝與人的絕對的阻隔,上帝透過立約來啟示自己,正如在舊約中上帝親自顯現給亞伯拉罕,還與他立約。到摩西的時代,上帝再與以色列人立約,要他們成為上帝的子民。到了耶穌基督的時代,也是上帝的道基督與門徒立約。因此立約成為上帝(耶和華)的自我啟示和行動,亦透過立約連上帝與人的關係,[75] 透過上帝恩典之約,上帝與人擁抱建立自由伙伴,這是原初定立和創造的目的。[76] 再者,巴特提出三一上帝是基督教信心和教義,其實質是立約,[77] 正如郭偉聯所說「在新約中,那位被稱為主為上帝的,是拿撒勒人耶穌。透過新約與舊約,上帝啟示了自己是三一上帝。」[78]

巴特認為基督徒要有三方面的態度,就是信心、服從和祈禱。[79] 當然服從是指上帝的命令,遵守上帝的約。因為基督徒要確知上帝的啟示,惟有先遵守上帝的約。故此巴特特別看重服從,人於服從上帝戒命中,感受到恐懼、謙卑和喜樂。[80]

6.     總結

巴特以上帝的道為啟示論的基礎,不但是他的神學重心和起步點,同時建立了三一論由上以下的啟示方法,後來成為三一式的詮釋[81] 這直接影響二十世紀六十年代以後神學的發展。因為以住的改革宗都沒有足夠開發三一論,[82] 所以巴特重申提出以三一論的超越性啟示論,啟發他之後的神學家如莫特曼、根頓、潘能博等,都以三一論成為主要討論課題。[83] 故此巴特成為復興二十世紀三一神學的主要人物。[84] 再者巴特和雲格爾(Jungel)等的啟示論,都以上帝是啟示的(沒有條件性)主體,是超越地讓人知道,假如上帝不啟示自己,人從認知論中是無法得知。[85] 之不過這超越的上帝之啟示,在上帝與人立約中彰顯出來。因此本文作為巴特的啟示論之反思,看見巴特破除舊有的啟示觀,重申三一論與超越的上帝成為他的啟示論特徵,透過立約自我啟示。這啟示觀對他之後的神學發展有其重要的影響和指引。

很多人認為神學可否「落地」,等同可否應用在信徒生活上。不過巴特卻展示另一種神學「落地」的方法,就是回應他當代的問題。所以今天的神學也應該需要回應和批評這世代的問題,否則神學就失掉了它的任務和使命了。


Selected Bibliography 參考書目

Primary Source

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Index. 2d ed, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume III: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 4. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume III: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume IV The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 1. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Barth Karl. God Here and Now. London ; New York : Routledge, 2003.

Barth Karl. Gottingen Dogmatics Volume.I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 1991.

Barth Karl. The Epistle to the Roman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 4. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Brunner Emil. Church Doctrine of God Volume .1. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950-79.


Secondary Source

Braaten, Carl E. Christian Dogmatics Vol.1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Brown Colin. Karl Barth and The Christian Message. London: Tyndale Press, 1967.

Gibson David and Strange Daniel ed. Engaging with Barth. Nottingham: Apollos, 2008.

Gunton Colin E. The Barth Lectures. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

Gunton Colin. Karl Barth Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB. Eerdmans, 2001.

Hebblethwaite,B. L. The Problem of Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Hodgson Peter C. and King Robert H. Reading in Christian Theology. Fortress Press, 1985

Hunsinger George. How to Read Karl Barth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Kaiser Christopher B. The Doctrine of God. Westchester Illinois: Crossway Books, 1985.

Kung Hans. Justification The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection. New York: Thomas Nelson & Son, 1964.

Lovin Robin W. Christian Faith and Public Choices The Social Ethic of Barth, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Mackintosh Hugh Ross. Types of Modern Theology Schleiermacher to Barth. London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd, 1937.

Mcgowan A. T. B. ed. Always Reforming Explorations in Systematic Theology. Leicester: IVP, 2006.

Placher William C. The Domestication of Transcendence. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Rosato Philip. The Spirit as Load: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981.

Runia Klaas. Karl Barth Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 1962.

Vanhoozer Kevin J. First Theology. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002.

Webster John ed. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Webster John. Karl Barth. London: Continuum, 2004.

加爾文著。徐慶譽譯。《基督教要義》卷(香港基督教文藝,1991

林子淳。《多元性漢語神學詮釋》。香港︰道風2006

林鴻信。《誰啟蒙誰》。香港︰道風2008

林鴻信〈巴特──認識「有人性的上帝」的神學家〉;下載自http://galilee.campus.org.tw/Barth9202.html(載日期2008/11/20)

莊祖鯤。〈後現代思潮影響下的基督教神學〉。《真光協會文莘選集》。下載自http://www.tktruelight.org/articles/article12.htm(下載日期2008/10/20)

郭鴻標。《莫特曼三一神學》。香港建道,2007

麥奎利著。何菠莎譯。《二十世紀宗教思潮》。上海︰基督教協會,1999

奧古斯丁著。湯清等譯。《奧古斯丁選集》。香港基督教文藝,1989

葛倫斯、奧爾森著。劉良淑、任孝琦譯。《二十世紀神學評論》。台北校園,1998

趙中輝編。《英漢神學名詞辭典》。台北基督教改革宗翻譯社,1983

鄧紹光、賴品超編。《巴特與漢語神》。香港漢語基督教文化研究所,2000

 

Journal

Almond Philip C. “Karl Barth and anthropocentric Theology”: Scot. Fourn. of Theology Vol. 31 (1978): 435-447.

Clendenin Daniel B. “A Conscious Perplexity: Barth Interpretation of Schleiermacher.” Westminster Theological Journal 52 no 2 (Fall 1990):281-301.

Conrad Cherry. “Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace,” Church History 46 no 2 (1977): 251-2.

Holleman Warren Lee. “Schleiermacher’s ‘Liberalism’”: Journal of Theology for Southern African No.62 (Mar. 1988): 29-42.

Mccormack,Bruce L. “Revelation and History in Transfoundationalist Perspective: Karl Barth’s Theological Epistemology in Coversation with a Scheiermacherian Tradition.” Journal of Religion 78 no 1 (Ja 1998):18-37.

郭偉聯。〈巴特的三一啟示論與信仰的類比─雲格爾的詮釋之神學意含〉。《建道學刊》第三十期(20087),頁39-72



[1] 林鴻信〈巴特──認識「有人性的上帝」的神學家〉;下載自︰〈http://galilee.campus.org.tw/Barth9202.html(載日期2008/11/20)

[2] Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King. Reading in Christian Theology (Fortress Press. 1985) 156-7.

[3] Colin, Gunton, Karl Barth Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB. Eerdmans, 2001), 443. We have called it a theology of feeling, of awareness.

[4] 趙中輝編《英漢神學名詞辭典》(台北基督教改革宗翻譯社,1983),頁394-5

[5] 林子淳《多元性漢語神學詮釋》(香港︰道風2006),頁277.

[6] 莊祖鯤。〈後現代思潮影響下的基督教神學〉。《真光協會文莘選集》。下載自http://www.tktruelight.org/articles/article12.htm(下載日期2008/10/20)

[7] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Index. 2d ed., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 1-4.

[8] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 88-120.

[9] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 121. The revealed Word of God we know only from the Scripture adopted by Church proclamation or the proclamation of the Church based on Scripture.The written Word of God we know only through the revelation which fulfils proclamation or through the proclamation fulfilled by revelation.The preached Word of God we know only through the revelation attested in Scripture or the Scripture which attests revelation.

[10] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 743. The Word of God is God Himself in the Proclamation of the Church of Jesus Christ.

[11] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 332. We have been asking about the root of the doctrine of the Trinity….but in the concept of revelation taken from the Bible.

[12] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 473. If we say that Scripture is this witness, or if we say that this witness is Scripture, we say this in the Church and with the Church.

[13] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 24. In the variety of their language about the reality of revelation, when they call the true God man and the true man God.

[14] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 25. Or vice versa God’s freedom for man is the existence of Jesus Christ; Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 374. If we ask how it is possible for man to love, according to Holy Scripture, we have first to go back faith, and then from faith to its object, Jesus Christ.

[15] Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 68. IV/4 The Christian Life: Baptism as the Foundation of the Christian Life – only a fragment exists.

[16] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 453. The Spirit guarantees man what he cannot guarantee himself, his personal participation in revelation. The act of the Holy Ghost in revelation is the Yes to God’s Word which is spoken by God Himself for us, yet not just to us, but also in us. This Yes spoken by God is the basis of the confidence with which a man may regard the revelation as applying to him. This Yes is the mystery of faith, the mystery of the knowledge of the Word of God, but also the mystery of the willing obedience that is well-pleasing to God. All these things, faith, knowledge and obedience, exist for man “in the Holy Spirit.”

[17] Karl, Barth, Gottingen Dogmatics Vol.1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 1991), XLIII. As far as the content of the prolegomena is concerned, in both the Gottingen lectures (Chap. 1-3) and the Church Dogmatics (I/1-I/2) the centerpiece is the doctrine of the threefold form of the Word of God as revelation, holy scripture, and Christian proclamation.

[18] 林子淳《多元性漢語神學詮釋》,頁279.

[19] Carl, E. Braaten, Christian Dogmatics Vol.1 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 200. The categorical transcendence of God is to be found and so know not apart from but precisely in the divine action in history.

[20] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume IV The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 1. 2d ed. (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 2004), 7. To put it in the simplest way, what unites God and us men is that He does not will to be God without us, that He creates us rather to share with us and therefore with our being and life and act His own incomparable being and life and act, that He does not allow His history to be His and ours ours, but causes them to take place as a common history. That is the special truth which the Christian message has to proclaim at its very heart.

[21] 轉引自林鴻信《誰啟蒙誰》(香港︰道風2008),頁28

[22] 奧古斯丁著,湯清等譯《奧古斯丁選集》(香港基督教文藝,1989),頁30

[23] 加爾文著,徐慶譽譯︰《基督教要義》卷 (香港基督教文藝,1991),頁1

[24] 加爾文《基督教要義》卷一,頁3

[25] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 316. Immanuel, God with us! so that without any fiction or self-deception they can say Thou to Him and pray to Him. This is what self-revelation is. This is what man cannot provide for himself, what only God can give him, what He does give him in His revelation.

[26] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 121. There is only one analogy to this doctrine of the Word of God. Or, more accurately, the doctrine of the Word of God is itself the only analogy to the doctrine which will be our fundamental concern as we develop the concept of revelation. This is the doctrine of the triunity of God. In the fact that we can substitute for revelation, Scripture and proclamation the names of the divine persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit and vice versa, that in the one case as in the other we shall encounter the same basic determinations and mutual relationships, and that the decisive difficulty and also the decisive clarity is the same in both—in all this one may see specific support for the inner necessity and correctness of our present exposition of the Word of God.

[27] A. T. B. Mcgowan ed., Always Reforming Explorations in Systematic Theology (Leicester: IVP, 2006), 22. Barth’s influence extended far beyond his own Reformed circle, but it was there, as much as anywhere, that his deepest impact was made.

[28] B. L. Hebblethwaite, The Problem of Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 85. Philosophers, by contrast, have tried to make sense of the world and human life in ways accessible, at least in principle, to any reflective mind. The apparent irrationality of revelation-claim is that they allegedly rest on an unchallengeable and testable basis.

[29] Allen Diogenses, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), xxi. Nearly all Protestant students and clergy have heard that Karl Barth rejected natural theology. They then mistakenly think that have his support for their own rejection of all philosophy as having no theology significance. But in fact Barth did not reject philosophy wholesale with his rejection of natural theology.

[30] Colin Brown, Karl Barth and The Christian Message (London: Tyndale Press, 1967), 30. The central question of religion today is: How do we know God? Barth came to his answer only after a difficult, uphill, theological pilgrimage.

[31] 林子淳《多元性漢語神學詮釋》,頁273.

[32] Warren Lee Holleman, “Schleiermacher’s ‘Liberalism’”: Journal of Theology for Southern African No.62 (Mar. 1988): 42. Just as Schleiermacher has been labled a pantheist or immanentist, so Barth has been labled a transcendentalist…… Barth is accussed of eliminating the category of experience altogether, presenting instead a sort of revelation idealism.

[33] 葛倫斯、奧爾森著,劉良淑、任孝琦譯《二十世紀神學評論》(台北校園,1998),頁74

[34] Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Roman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 10. “God in Heaven, and thou art on earth”. The relation between such a God, and such as man, and the relation between such a man and such a God.

[35] George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 4. Several recurrent “motifs” or modes of thought, it is argued, can be seen to run throughout the Church Dogmatics and to shape the doctrinal content of Barth’s mature theology as a whole. “Actualism,” “Particularism,” “Objectivism,” “Personalism,” “Realism,” “Rationalism,” are the name that will be used to designate these motfits.

[36] Philip C. Almond, “Karl Barth and anthropocentric Theology”: Scot. Fourn. of Theology Vol. 31 (1978): 438. Barth’s attack was directed against what he saw as its basic error – it had anthropocentric theology;

[37] Almond, “Karl Barth and anthropocentric Theology” 446. Barth’s effort to overcome anthropocentric theology was simultaneously a development and establishment of his own theological thought.

[38] Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures, 69. He is against founding theology on a secular or non-theological basis. And more important, of course, is that it is non-scientific to base your theology on non-scientific bases. To be scientific you base your science on the object of that knowledge; this might seem rather simple, but you don’t expect a chemist to prove that chemicals exist through non-chemical means.

[39] Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures, 70. Theology therefore is the intellectual discipline that is rooted in a particular community of believers and that is why Barth calls his books Church Dogmatics……And Church Dogmatics is in a way downgrading theology’s self-image; theology is not there to solve all the problems of the world, as Tillich tended to think.

[40] Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures, 71. So, what is Barth saying? Initially we must see his use of ‘scientific’ as in the German word Wissenschaft-that is the natural sciences and what can be considered some of the humanities. This basis for theology is a discipline that is intellectually responsible, and it is concerned with the Christian Church’s self-examination of its distinctive talk about God. Christian talk about God differently to the way atheists talk about God. Theology must be conscious of this distinctiveness.

[41] Kevin J.Vanhoozer, First Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002), 78. Indeed all that can be known of God is known only on the basis of his revelation through Jesus Christ. Hence one can discuss God’s being only on the basis of his “act” in Jesus Christ, an all-encompassing act that embraces both revelation and reconciliation. In rigorously refusing to think God except on the basis of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, Barth comes to the conclusion that God essentially is the One who goes out of himself for the sake of another. God is “the one who loves in freedom,” and these two qualities, “love” and “freedom,” define for Barth the whole range of divine attributes.

[42] Bruce L. Mccormack, “Revelation and History in Transfoundationalist Perspective: Karl Barth’s Theological Epistemology in Coversation with a Schleiermacherian Tradition,” Journal of Religion 78 no 1 (Ja 1998):19. Barth’s attempt to establish the independence of revelation did belong to tradition of thought whose source lay in Fridrich Schleiermacher’s effort to make religion independent of metaphysics and ethics.

[43] 近年都有學者討論巴特與士來馬赫的思想,他們認為巴特不但清楚士來馬赫的問題,同時也引用他的神學思想,可參考Daniel B. Clendenin, “A Conscious Perplexity: Barth Interpretation of Schleiermacher,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 no 2 (Fall 1990):281-301. Let me suggest that Barth had four major problem with Schleiermacher, my own judgment agreeing with Davison and Willems, that Barth criticisms of Schleiermacher are accurate and well taken (P292).

[44] Vanhoozer, First Theology, 78.Karl Barth’s theology reflects a similar tendency to begin with the concrete acts of God rather than abstract speculation on the nature of prefect being. For Barth, God is knowable only because he reveals himself through himself, that is, in Jesus Christ.

[45] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 473. If what we hear in Holy Scripture is witness, a human expression of God’s revelation, then from what we have already said, what we hear in the witness itself is more than witness, what we hear in the human expression is more than a human expression.

[46] Colin Brown, Karl Barth and The Christian Message, 93. The only scientifically legitimate path to the knowledge of God is to start with way God has revealed Himself.

[47] Colin Brown, Karl Barth and The Christian Message, 93. Barth’s rejection of natural theology is not a rejection of culture and the creation.

[48] 筆者註︰根據布朗對巴特的陳述,他認為巴特對科學的啟示是必須在上帝啟示之下,才可有認知上帝,所以他提出巴特反對自然神學,但並不反科學文化和創造。不過筆者認為要了解巴特的背景和時代才可正確知道他反對自然神學的理由。我們必須問巴特是否一開始就想否決自然神學和排除其他啟示的可能性,將啟示納入聖經中,也惟有聖經。

[49] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 283. Scientific dogmatics—and now we come to the decisive point—enquires into the agreement of Church proclamation with the revelation which is attested in Holy Scripture. This is what we called the meaning and point of dogma in the first sub-section. If the scientific nature of dogmatics consists in its specific objectivity, i.e., in its orientation to the question of dogma, then we have here the decisive test by which its scientific character has always to be proved. We have already seen that Church proclamation could and can be criticised and corrected from very different standpoints too. What might happen when this is done could even be science from these different standpoints. But it would certainly not be dogmatic science. The two aberrations mentioned above do not have to be fatal to dogmatics. Both a gnostic and also an uncritical dogmatics might incidentally at least do justice to the task of dogmatics. But this is ruled out in the case of the third error, namely, the confusion of the criterion of dogmatics with other criteria. Humanly speaking, and this is the only way we can speak, the result in this case can only be perversion. Dogmatic work stands or falls by whether the standard by which Church proclamation is measured is the revelation attested in Holy Scripture and not a philosophical, ethical, psychological or political theory. Now it is obvious that everyone who works at dogmatics works more or less with specific intellectual presuppositions.

[50] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 475. For the Bible is a sign which, it cannot be contested, does at least point to a superior authority confronting the proclamation of the Church. In contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestant modernism, we felt that we ought to take this sign seriously. For that reason, at every decisive point we took our answer to the question of revelation from the Bible. And the Bible has given us the answer. It has attested to us the lordship of the triune God in the incarnate Word by the Holy Spirit.

[51] 筆者參加2008年香港神學院舉行的論文發佈會中,鄧紹光回應王光正的論文時,提出聖經作為宣講的內容和途徑,聖靈才有功效。

[52] Klaas Runia, Karl Barth Doctrine of Holy Scriptur. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans, 1962), 6-7. Because Scripture is the Word of God, there is no higher authority from which it can obtain its authority……Therefore only Scripture itself can give the answer, and it does so for “the Bible in fact answers our question about revelation, bring us before the Triune God.

[53] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 109. We confess and knowledge therewith that the recollection of God’s past revelation……Only when and as the Bible grasps at us, when we are thus reminded, is this collection achieved.

[54] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 106. The exegesis of the Bible should rather be left open on all sides, not for the sake of free thought, as Liberalism would demand, but for the sake of a free Bible. Here as everywhere the defence against possible violence to the text must be left to the text itself, which in fact has always succeeded in doing something a purely spiritual and oral tradition cannot do, namely, maintaining its own life against the encroachments of individual or total periods and tendencies in the Church, victoriously asserting this life in ever new developments, and thus creating recognition for itself as a norm.

[55] Hugh Ross Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology Schleiermacher to Barth (London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd, 1937), 281. The event called revelation in the New Testament is both things – a happening to us and in us……The act of Holy Spirit in revelation is the Yea to God’s Word, spoken through God Himself on our behalf, yet not to us but in us.

[56] Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of God Vol .1 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1950-79), 66.

[57] Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of God Vol .1, 64. Its aim is to bridge the gulf between secular and natural knowledge and the knowledge of faith.

[58] 麥奎利著,何菠莎譯:《二十世紀宗教思潮》(上海︰基督教協會,1999),頁398

[59] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 297. The Bible certainly tells us who the God is whom it attests as self-revealing.

[60] Robin W. Lovin, Christian Faith and Public Choices The Social Ethic of Barth, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 72. Just such reservation led Brunner’s positivist contemporaries to conclude that anything we say in the realm of general human nature or universal norms of behavior must not claim to be knowledge, but we must have such knowledge if the possibilities and the limits that Brunner finds in Wortmachtigkeit are to mean anything at all.

[61] 鄧紹光、賴品超編︰《巴特與漢語神》(香港 : 漢語基督教文化研究所, 2000),頁180

[62] Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures, 38. He saw this as a chink though which Hitler might must come in because if there is a natural theology, if there is a theology of the natural person, if there is a ground for the gospel, then cannot Hilter’s religion of Blood and Soil serve?

[63] Philip Rosato, The Spirit as Load: The Pneumatology of Karl Barth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 77. Having established that revelation, in its objective and subjective forms, is always a divine possibility, Barth then juxtaposes revelation to any native ability of man to be religious. Concretely, this means that biblical revelation serves as the divine abolition of all human religion, even of Christianity itself…..

[64] John Webster ed., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20000, 45. Barth suggests, will in reality only be manipulating the this-worldly coordinates, forms or means of God’s free self-revealing activity……and revelation is precisely the event in which God acts and gives himself to be known.

[65] Karl, Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. 2d ed., 103. The New Testament, like the Old Testament, is the witness to a togetherness of God and man, based on and consisting in a free self-relating of God to man. What in the Old Testament, in the expectation, was God’s covenant with man, is here, in the fulfilment, God’s becoming man. To the protest of the Synagogue we can and must reply unreservedly that God’s becoming man is the goal of the Old Testament. Man’s sanctification by God as the Lord of the covenant through grace and law, his adoption by God in utter mercy yet utter strictness—such a programme only God Himself can carry through, namely, God Himself Who has become man. The New Testament does not only think that this event has taken place in the light of the existence of Jesus Christ to which it looks back. This is not merely an explanation or interpretation of His life. It is not proclaimed as the result of subsequent consideration and reflection. But it is as such the object of its recollection, it is already the subject of the sentence which proclaims it. Every statement in the New Testament originates in the fact that the Word was made flesh. God’s covenant with man, the covenant which God made with Abraham, with Moses and David, finds its reality solely, but completely and finally, in the fact that God was made man, in order that as man He might do what man as such never does, what even Israel never did, appropriate God’s grace and fulfil God’s law.

[66] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1 (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 2004), 95. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is at once the fulfilment and the proclamation of this positive sentence of God. Man is a suitable human partner for the divine partner. He is the one in whom God delights. He is a faithful servant and a friend and a dear child of God.

[67] John Webster, Karl Barth. (London: Continuum, 2004), 117. With the doctrine of reconciliation as the fulfillment of the covenant, Barth write, “We enter that sphere of Christian knowledge in which we have to do with the heart of the message received by and laid upon the Christian community and therefore with the heart of the Church’s dogmatics”(IV/1, P.3)

[68] Cherry, Conrad, “Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace,” Church History 46 no 2 (1977): 251. Part II differentiates between, and relates, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace in Edwards' thought and points in detail to the .manner in which the covenant of grace provided for the preservation of both divine sovereignty and human action in salvation. The final part of the study explicates the doctrines closely related to Edwards' covenant ideas: grace, justification, "seeking salvation."

[69] David Gibson and Daniel Strange ed., Engaging with Barth (Nottingham: Apollos, 2008), 115. Although Barth does not build his theology on the foundation of a three-covenants system as developed by earlier Reformed theologians……Not only does he relate covenant to the doctrine of election, although in a somewhat different way than others in the Reformed tradition.

[70] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1 (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 2004), 23. What is true at all events is that the Old Testament covenant is a covenant of grace. It is instituted by God Himself in the fulness of sovereignty and in the freest determination and decree.

[71] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2, 172. “Incarnation of the Word” asserts the presence of God in our World and as a member of this world, as a Man among men. It is thus God’s revelation to us, and our reconciliation with Him. That this revelation and reconciliation have already taken place is the content of the Christmas message.

[72] David Gibson and Daniel Strange ed., Engaging with Barth , 115. He (Barth) also relates it carefully to every aspect of God’s gracious action in Christ. Everything is drawn together such that God’s grace is the basic for the covenant, election is the outworking of the covenant, creation prepares the ground for the covenant and reconciliation is the fulfillment of the covenant; (p.122) Indeed, “Apart from and without Jesus Christ we can say nothing at all about God and man and their relationship one with another.” At one level Barth is saying that revelation is vital for us to have any knowledge or understanding of what God has done for us in Christ.

[73] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume III: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 4 (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 20040, 72. The relationship of Creator and creature is one of the great spheres where there is encounter between the God who commands and the man who acts, so that the problem of the sanctification of man by God and of man’s freedom for the will of God becomes acute and must be decided one way or the other in the ethical event. In this first part of special ethics we turn to this particular sphere. What must form the conclusion of the doctrine of creation is the question, in relation to this sphere, of what the command of God wills and demands at this point, what is here the meaning of man’s sanctification by His command, what is the meaning of freedom for the will of God and therefore for eternal life.

[74] Hans Kung, Justification The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (New York: Thomas Nelson & Son, 1964), 18.We have seen that eternal original foundation for justification is God’s gracious election in Jesus Christ. This gracious election is nothing else that God’s eternal covenant with men……The eternal covenant of God, brought into being in time, makes justification an unqualified act, eternally valid and universally binding. Justification is without question a reaction to sin of man, a nevertheless and in-spite of reaction to this incident. But the justification we find in reconciliation is “something quite different from the blind paradox of an arbitrary act of the divine omnipotence” (IV/1,12). It is on the contrary, God’s “affirmation and consummation of the institution of the covenant between Himself and man” (IV/1, 36) the divine implementation of His eternal and original covenant purpose.

[75] Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God (Westchester Illinois: Crossway Books, 1985), 6. He (Yahweh) acts in history; he reveals himself to human persons; and he enters into kinship or covenant relations with them (Israel). His role in these relations may be characterized in two ways: as kinsman-redeemer and as sovereign Lord.

[76] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 4, 6. The reality of the origin of his free partnership with God in God’s covenant of grace which embraces him too because it was instituted for him too.

[77] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume I The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. 2d ed., 302. With the confession of God’s triunity stands or falls the whole of Christianity, the whole of special revelation. This is the kernel of the Christian faith, the root of all dogmas, the substance of the new covenant.

[78] 郭偉聯〈巴特的三一啟示論與信仰的類比─雲格爾的詮釋之神學意含〉《建道學刊》第三十期(20087),頁41

[79] Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics, Volume III: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 3 (Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 20040, 245. Therefore we cannot possibly understand the three forms as three parts of the Christian attitude which limit and complete each other, so that the Christian first believes, then has to obey, and finally must pray; or first believes, then has to pray and finally must obey; or first obeys, and then has to pray and finally must believe.

[80] Karl Barth; God Here and Now (London ; New York : Routledge, 2003), 28. We must obey, and we can obey only in the form of such a decision, and therefore only in such an exposition and application of the commandment, carried through in fear, humility, and joy.

[81] 郭鴻標《莫特曼三一神學》(香港建道,2007),頁19

[82] William C. Placher, The Domestication of Transcendence (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 165. The reformation, for instance, made the issues of works and grace, the sacraments, and ecclesiology more central to theological discussions that the Trinity.

[83] 郭鴻標《莫特曼三一神學》,頁ix。鄧紹光的前序部份

[84]郭偉聯〈巴特的三一啟示論與信仰的類比─雲格爾的詮釋之神學意含〉,頁40

[85] William C. Placher, The Domestication of Transcendence, 186. When Jungel (or Karl Barth) says that in revelation God is the unconditional subject, they mean that there is nothing about God that we can know whether God wants us to or not. If God is really transcendent, then there is no epistemological path from us to God, and everything we know about God comes at God’s initiative.