系統神學（二）
基督論、救贖論、教會論
Week 5
基督論：近代至當代的發展
士萊馬赫：《聖誕夜》
Christology from Below
士萊馬赫：其人其事
普魯士人，生於1768，卒於1834
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher
背景：莫拉維弟兄會、宗教改革正統、康德
康德：純粹理性批判
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
本體（noumena）與現象（phenomena）
時間與空間：人類意識用來感知事物的先決條件，
先驗而非後驗
物自體（das Ding an sich: thing-in-itself）的不可知性
康德：純粹理性批判
康德：先驗綜合判斷（synthetic a priori judgment）
先驗判斷：2+2=4
後驗判斷：雪是白的
分析判斷：王老五都是男人（謂詞已包含主詞）
綜合判斷：阿明當爸爸了（謂詞提供主詞所不包含的新信
息）
後驗判斷：Erfahrungsgegenstand
分析判斷：Denknotwendigkeit
理性主義的困境：分析判斷+先驗判斷=循環論證
經驗主義的困境：綜合判斷+後驗判斷=缺乏必然性
康德：純粹理性批判
先驗分析具必然性與普遍性，但不能提供新知識；
後驗分析不具必然性或普遍性，亦不能提供新知識；
後驗綜合能能提供新知識，但不具普遍性或必然性
綜合先驗判斷（synthetic a priori）：具普遍性與必然
性，且提供新知識
康德：純粹理性批判
形上學的不可能性
純粹理性二律悖反
《宗教演講錄》
On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers
“Cultured” (gebildet)：康德後的德語文化界－－自然
神論、理性論、浪漫主義
《宗教演講錄》
教理神學（系統神學）：找不到真宗教 “[religion] is not
there.”  問：“But why have you not descended any more
to the particular?”
“Particular” (殊相): “individual intimations and moods that
you will find in all expressions and noble deeds of Godinspired persons.”
兩種相互較量的力量：個體vs.整體；內在vs. 外在；殊
相vs.普遍達到共同和諧的傾向
立論：“[Religion] springs necessarily and by itself from the
interior of every better soul” (at the end of the Speech)
《宗教演講錄》
宗教的本質：“Religion’s essence is neither thinking nor acting,
but intuition and feeling.”  “Praxis is an art, speculation is a
science, religion is the sensibility and taste of the infinite.”
定義「宗教」： “…to accept everything individual as part of the
whole and everything limited as a representation of the infinite is
religion.”  形而上學的探究「沉沒回空洞的神話」（“sink
back into empty mythology”）
宗教=直觀：“Intuition is and always remains something
individual, set apart, the immediate perception, nothing more.”
宗教的無限性與「宗教容忍」: “Each person must be conscious
that his religion is only a part of the whole”
「新羅馬」與「舊羅馬」：“godless but consistent” vs. “truly
pious and religions… hospitable to every god”
《宗教演講錄》
「直觀」與「感受」: “every intuition is… connected with a feeling.”
對殊相的直觀: “not as a shadow, but as the holy essence itself.” （萬有在神
論？）
敬虔的人看世界：“formed and permeated by divinity” （萬有在神論？）
內在與外在： “The universe is portrayed in the inner life, and only through
the internal is the external comprehensible.”
宗教情感：「宇宙」與「自我」= “poles between which consciousness
hovers.”
神蹟、啟示、靈感、恩典: “Everything is a miracle”; “all religious feelings
are supernatural.” （參『恩典』與『自然』的探討）
定義「神性」: “For me divinity can be nothing other than a particular type
of religious intuition”; “the belief that ‘No God, no religion’ cannot occur” 
“To have religion means to intuit the universe,” 因此 “one religion without
God can be better than another with God.”
《宗教演講錄》
「相通」：個人&宇宙 = “two poles of religion” 
與生俱來的“religious capacity”
內在&外在： “observe yourself… detach all that is not
yourself… find the universe.”  “Look outside
yourself… comprehend its whole essence, but also
collect everything that it is, not only in itself but in
you.”
《聖誕夜》
Christmas Eve: Dialogue on the Incarnation (1806)
聖誕夜，中產階級人士家中，一群朋友討論聖誕
夜的意義（仿柏拉圖的對話）
探討內容：傳統神人二性基督論的邏輯困難、基
督的獨一性、基督教與其它宗教的關係、新約聖
經在歷史報導上的可靠程度（四福音相互矛盾的
『事實』）
《聖誕夜》
「蒙救贖的經歷」、「基督徒群體當中所經歷的
新生命」：對基督的信心的起源與根基
以此「經歷」為後驗出發點，推論 who Christ
must be （類似康德的transcendental argument）－
－擁有獨特（unique）與強烈「上帝意識」的人
（基督徒參與在此上帝意識中）
Christology from below
《聖誕夜》：結論
（一）基督不只是眾多宗教領袖當中的一位（基
督的獨一性）
（二）福音書的記載不需無誤
（三）不需要「神人二性」的基督論
《基督教信仰》（1821）
出發點：基督徒（在教會群體中）的信仰經驗
“Schleiermacher’s method, then, is to consider who Jesus
must have been in order to communicate this new and
higher life to believers through the medium of the church.
He concludes that Jesus must be the possessor of a unique
and unblemished consciousness of God. Schleiermacher
cannot arrive at an understanding of Christ as the
incarnation of the second person of the Trinity as
traditionally understood, nor at the Chalcedonian
formula… Such claims are beyond what persons can
legitimately know. But as the ultimate source of the reality of
salvation in believers’ lives, Jesus must be perfect in his Godconsciousness. He is the perfection of humanity (in terms of
relation to God) and the culmination of God’s intention for
humanity” (J. Brandt, All Things New, 37f).
祁克果：「非此即彼」與「弔詭」
祁克果：其人其事
Søren Kierkegaard, 1813年生於丹麥哥本哈根
畢業於哥本哈根大學，主修神學
相貌滑稽
對哲學感到不滿，特別是思辨哲學：要過人的生活，而非抽
象思想的生活
對哲學倫理學不滿：「我現在當做什麼？」vs.「我當作什
麼？」
不想成為哲學家（特別是當時如日中天的黑格爾主義哲學）；
不想傳講一個虛幻的基督教
對組織化教會（丹麥國家教會──路德宗）不滿：兩個國度
成為哲學家是為了當「上帝的特工」
1840年與Regine Olson訂婚，隔年解除婚約
《非此即彼》（1843）
書名：與黑格爾主義爭辯？浪漫主義？
託名（pseudonyms）：A（生活美學家）、Judge
William、年輕牧師
託名寫作
真實地存在 = 作自由的人
自由 = 自我選擇
Either/Or：書名暗示人生抉擇（也暗示其它事）
思辨哲學尋找抽象真理是無意義且不誠實的，不去面對人主
觀的存在，以為自己可以像神一樣看世界（黑格爾？）
真理的主觀性（subjectivity）：非相對主義（祁克果相信神
的存在、創造、救贖等都是客觀真理與事實，但這些屬於
『客觀真理』的範疇），而是強調真理的存在性（existential
nature）──我們每人都從自己的處境去看真理（參康德與黑
格爾）
託名寫作
只有神直接認識客觀真理，這是神的自我認識；
人不是神
人必須從多重角度、主觀經歷來描述真理
拒絕系統化的哲學
託名：多重角色、多重生活經歷、多重主觀角度
A並非只是簡單的稻草人；William亦非絕對正確
託名寫作
浪漫生活觀、道德生活觀、宗教生活觀：並非黑格爾
的復和邏輯；前二者乃「非此即彼」，而宗教生活觀
超越二者
託名所代表的並非客觀真理或非真理，而是生命選擇
選擇作真實的自己
首先，並非在善惡間作選擇，而是在「選擇」與「非
選擇」之間作選擇
託名：讓讀者自己作選擇
《非此即彼》：託名 A
A並非完全愚笨，仍有相當說服力
“Crop Rotation”：可笑，但仍有幾分智慧，如「無聊乃萬惡之
根」可能與部份讀者經歷相符
“Diapsalmata”：極具才華的詩，有些意見是祁克果自己應該會
完全贊同的
“What the philosophers say about reality is often as deceptive as
when you see a sign in a second-hand store that reads: Pressings
Done Here. If you went in with your clothes to have them pressed
you would be fooled: the sign is for sale.”
“The Musical Erotic”：駁斥浪漫主義？祁克果自己前後不一致？
祁克果用黑格爾的「內部辯論法」來駁斥A，但A仍是一個真
實的生命選項
《非此即彼》：託名 William
William：更符合祁克果自己的生命觀，但讀者仍
有自由不選擇他。William：「So it’s freedom I am
fighting for.」
William：權威性的語氣、什麼都知道，卻只是一
個地方上的小斷事官
William比A更有說服力，但兩者皆為真實的選項
《非此即彼》：「編者」的排序
Victor Eremita（拉丁文：『勝利的隱士』）是「編者」
雖三位託名皆為可選擇的選項，但不都同樣可行，如A
的生活觀是充滿矛盾的
順序：AWilliam牧師
編者論排序：
“…it could yield a new aspect if regarded as the work of one
man… It would have been someone who had lived through
both kinds of experience, or had deliberated both”
《非此即彼》：「編者」的排序
若先讀 William，可能覺得他權威性的語氣令人生
厭；先讀A（語氣輕浮）再讀William，大概會更
容易被 William 說服，尊敬他嚴肅對待生命的態度
牧師講章：僅為附件，非常簡短，在最結尾有
真信心的人不需要太多話；上帝不需要我們用太
多話語替祂辯護
《非此即彼》：敬虔生活觀
年輕牧師的講章
神的客觀真理、人的主觀信心
知道「神永遠是對的」不等於信心
“…When you recognize that God is always in the right,
you are standing outside God, and similarly when in
consequence you recognize that you are always in the
wrong”
《非此即彼》：敬虔生活觀
在理性上被迫相信有神，也不等於信心，因為這
並非「選擇」
真理、愛、自由
“So it was not through the trials of thought that
you came to this recognition, you were not
compelled, for when you are in love you are in
freedom”
在愛中的人：“always wants to be in the wrong”
面對世間苦難與邪惡：“God’s love is always greater
than our love”
道成肉身：Paradox
託名 Anti-Climacus（最敬虔的基督徒）與 Johannes
Climacus（非基督徒）
Anti-Climacus：“the decisive thing” for “true hope
and true despair”: “that for God all things are possible.”
(Sickness Unto Death, 1849)
“The decisive affirmation comes only when a man is
brought to the utmost extremity, so that humanly
speaking no possibility exists. Then the question is
whether he will believe that for God all things are
possible—that is to say, whether he will believe.”
信心：impossibility & possibility
Anti-Climacus： “Sometimes the inventiveness of a
human imagination suffices to procure possibility, but
in the last resort, that is, when the point is to believe,
the only help is this, that for God all things are possible.”
Anti-Climacus: “Salvation is humanly speaking the
most impossible thing of all; but for God all things are
possible! This is the fight of faith, which fights madly
for possibility.”
Impossible & Possibility
Johannes Climacus：看似與 Anti-Climacus 背道而馳，
但其實相輔相成
J. Climacus 論 paradox of the incarnation: “the
historical is that the god, the eternal, has come about
at a definite moment in time as a particular human
being. The special feature of the historical in this case,
that it is not something plainly historical but
something that can have become historical only against
its own nature, has ushered speculation into a
delightful illusion.”
(Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 1846)
道成肉身：Paradox
Climacus: “[the paradox of the incarnation is] not
something plainly historical but something that can
have become historical only against its own nature.”
Climacus: 基督教的paradox是 “absurd” 的  Joel
Rasmussen: “while the more colloquial meaning of
‘absurd’ as ‘foolish’ and ‘ridiculous’ is explicit as
regards the perspective of the understanding..., the
language of the larger interchange suggests that
Climacus has orchestrated the entire exchange in such
a way as to pun on ‘the absurd’ as the understanding’s
unheeding deafness to the paradox.” (Between Irony and
Witness)
Paradox, Possibility, Impossibility
Climacus 論 possibility：人類能力所及的範圍
“...possibility as understanding is precisely the
understanding by which the step backwards is taken in
which faith comes to an end.”
Paradox, Possibility, Impossibility
宗教是人類最高的可能性；基督教超乎人類的可
能性；在宗教當中，神明變成人或與人融合是不
難用理性去明白的，但超越的上帝（『本質無限
差異』！）成為人，是「絕對的弔詭」，因而摧
毀了「可能性」
“Christianity is the absolute paradox… precisely
because it destroys a possibility (the analogy of
paganism, an eternal god-becoming) as an illusion and
turns it into actuality, and just this is the paradox…”
信心&道成肉身的 Paradox
祁克果藉由 Climacus 提出：「信心」（信基督）
不在 human possibility 的範圍內－－道成肉身的純
理性不可能性（noetic impossibility）
祁克果藉由 Anti-Climacus 強調：「在人不能，在
神凡事都能」－－道成肉身的在體性可能性
（ontic possibility）
潘霍華：Christ Incognito
潘霍華的基督論
1933年講授於柏林的基督論課程
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lectures on Christology. Trans.
Edwin Robertson. London: Collins, 1966.
勒新的鴻溝
Gotthold Lessing: Big, ugly ditch
人對歷史事實（偶然真理）無法擁有十足的確據
偶然的歷史事實 vs. 必然的理性真理
潘霍華：Christ as Word
“Christ as Word in the sense of address is thus not
timeless truth. It is truth spoken into the concrete
moment; it is address which places a man in the truth
before God. It is not universally available idea, but
Word, which is heard only when he allows it to be
heard. ... Christ as Word in the sense of address is then
also first really Christ pro me. Thus this definition of
Christ as the addressing Word adequately expresses at
one and the same time the contingency of revelation
and its connection with men.”
基督位格與工作
There is then no access to the work, except through the
person; and access to the person is barred to us by the
mystery of God's predestination. The attempt to understand
the person from the work is doomed to failure because of
the ambiguity of the work.
The incognito of the Incarnation makes it doubly
impossible to recognize the Person by his Works:
1. Jesus is man and the argument back from works to
person is ambiguous.
2. Jesus is God and the argument back from history to
God is impossible.
聖經：基督的自我見證
認識基督的獨一途徑：祂的自我見證（否定『歷史的基督』）
“…the witness of Jesus Christ to himself is none other than that
which the Scriptures deliver to us... We are first concerned with a
book which we find in the secular sphere… It will be read with all
the help possible from historical and philosophical criticism...
Occasionally we have to deal with a problematic situation; perhaps
we have to preach about a text, which we know from scholarly
criticism was never spoken by Jesus... There may be some
difficulties about preaching from a text whose authenticity has
been destroyed by historical research. Verbal inspiration is a
poor substitute for the resurrection! It amounts to a denial of the
unique presence of the risen one. It gives history an eternal value
instead of seeing history and knowing it from the point of view of
God's eternity... the bible remains a book like other books… But it
is through the Bible, with all its flaws, that the risen one
encounters us.
質疑「道成肉身」與「童女生子」
Strictly speaking we should not talk of the incarnation,
but of the incarnate one. The former interest arises
out of the question, "How?" The question, "How?", for
example, underlies the hypothesis of the virgin birth.
Both historically and dogmatically it can be questioned.
The biblical witness is ambiguous… The doctrine of
the virgin birth is meant to express the incarnation of
God, not only the fact of the incarnate one. But does it
not fail at the decisive point of the incarnation, namely
that in it Jesus has not become man just like us? The
question remains open, as and because it is already
open in the Bible.
復活的基督：Incognito
It looks as though our faith in the resurrection is
bounded up withe the news of the empty tomb. Is our
faith then ultimately only faith in the empty tomb?
This is and remains a final stumbling block, which the
believer in Christ must learn to live with in one way or
another. Empty or not empty, it remains a stumbling
block. We cannot be sure of its historicity… Even as the
risen one he does not lift his incognito. He will lift it
only when he returns in glory.
莫特曼：彌賽亞聖靈基督論
全人的救贖：基督完整真實的人性
“The whole of humanity in all its natural forms is
assumed by God in order that it may be healed.”
莫特曼定義基督完整的人性：“If the Son of God
became wholly and entirely human, and if he assumed
full humanity, then this does not merely take in
human personhood; it includes human nature as well.”
彌賽亞聖靈基督論
Messianic Spirit Christology
並非與正統對立：“not leveled at the doctrine of the
two natures.” （問號）
童女生子：對新約聖經 “unimportant”
誠然，古代教父以「童女生子」的教義抗拒了諾
斯底主義，然而，“if we wished to bring out this
intention of the nativity story today, we should have to
stress the non-virginal character of Christ’s birth.”
彌賽亞聖靈基督論
若欲在當代意義上肯定基督完整的人性，就必須
肯定祂的出生乃是 “human-natural one”
“According to today’s understanding of things, talk
about Christ’s ‘virgin birth’ through Mary dangerously
narrows down his humanity.”
基督擁有人類的生父？“We should rather view the
whole process of the human begetting, conception and birth of
Jesus Christ as the work of the Holy Spirit.”
彌賽亞聖靈基督論
聖靈：“‘engenders’ and ‘brings forth’ [Christ]”
聖靈=聖子的聖母 ： “motherhood of the Holy Spirit”
（引用《多馬福音書》－－有諾斯底傾向的偽
經！）
彌賽亞聖靈基督論
基督人性“ex Maria virgine” 意味 “it is excluded from
original sin, and also from the consequence of original
sin, which is death; and it is therefore immortal.”
莫特曼混淆了「童女生子」與「馬利亞無原罪論」
“without sin” = “without mortality, like the nature of
Adam and Eve before the fall” （誤解正統基督論）
莫特曼認為，無罪的基督無法拯救有罪的人；不
會死的基督無法拯救活在死亡陰影下的人
彌賽亞聖靈基督論
“Theotokos”  anhypostasia = non-personal：“the
assumption of the de-humanized, de-personalized,
oppressed human being who has been degraded to
mere ‘brute matter.’”
聖靈才是「 divine mother」（theotokos）；馬利亞
是 “mother of Jesus Christ”（Christotokos）嗣子
論？
“antithesis between an adoptionist and a pre-existence
christology” = “nineteenth-century invention.”