82。约翰麦克亚瑟：必须抛弃巴特的整个体系
作者：约翰.麦克阿瑟 （ John MacArthur） 译者：小草
译序：卡尔巴特（1886年5月 - 1968年12月）被很多人认为是伟大的神学家、神学巨人，他的代表作是《教会教义学》（Church Dogmatics ）。华人基督教界里也有些牧者颇为欣赏和推崇巴特。但巴特的神学思想真的能造就基督徒吗？翻译约翰麦克亚瑟（John MacArthur) 牧师谈到巴特的一段话，作为提醒和参考。美国费城威斯敏特神学院著名的护教学教授哥尼流·范泰尔（Cornelius Van Til 1895 - 1987）说，”Karl Barth is possibly the worst heretic of all time。（见下图：卡尔巴特可能是有史以来最坏的异端。这句话是巴特在自己的信里说，范泰尔是这么评价他的。）
观众提问：
我在长老会里的一些朋友，他们对创世记1- 11 章持巴特的观点，你能否对巴特把创 1- 11 视为传奇故事的观点进行批判，并指出为什么与罗马书5不相容。
麦克亚瑟牧师回答：
这是一个很大的议题，让我们花5分钟谈下。有一位非常非常杰出的神学家，福音派神学家，起初他在达拉斯神学院，后来与巴刻（J I Packer）一起到加拿大的维真神学院（Regent College ）。 最近几年，他去了佛罗里达州的改革宗神学院，他的名字叫Bruce Waltke。 任何在神学院的人都知道 Bruce Waltke是谁。
长期以来，Bruce 一直走在错误的方向上。 他现在79岁，基本上他是被改革宗神学院要求离开的，因为对创世纪，他形成了一种修改版的巴特观，他否定六日创造。这可不是一件好事。在这个改革宗神学院里，主要的神学家是 Douglas Kelly，他写了一本最具权威性的书，叫着《创造与改变》（Creation and Change）
我鼓励你，去把《创造与变化》找来读下，大约175页，很快可以读完，确实是非常非常出色的一本书。
现在来说卡尔巴特的观点。卡尔巴特是个德国人，人们不断地让他复出，如果他保持死静，我们就不必处理这些事了。但是，自由派的神学家喜欢把这些死去的德国人搬出来制造问题。卡尔巴特是从根本上否认圣经真理。他否认圣经的历史性，不只是否认创世纪1至11章，而是否认整体。他说救赎历史曾经发生过，但它并没有发生在历史中，而是发生在高层的，超级的历史中。
他有一种类别，在其中发生了救赎历史的神秘类别。所以，如果你对卡尔说：“你相信创世记吗？” “是的。” “它是否发生在历史中？” “不。” “你相信复活吗？” “是的。” “它是否发生在历史中？” “ 不。” “你相信耶稣的神迹吗？它们是否发生在历史中？” “ 嗯，它们发生在神圣历史中。” 他就是活在这样分裂的世界里。他对创世记和对所有事情都是这样。这有个名字，就是被称之为新正统（neo-orthodoxy）。
他们称卡尔巴特为新正统派的原因是当时整个德国神学界都是自由派，回到19世纪，当时他们都是自由派。卡尔巴特说：“这不好，你们把所有的神迹抛弃，把所有超自然的东西都从圣经里抛弃掉。你们把圣经里的这些都清空了。那样不好，我们必须把它放回去，让我们把它都放回去。“
只是他没有将它放回到历史中，只是把它放回到了神圣历史中。因此，他被称为新正统派，因为它是一种新的正统，它允许所有这一切，但不是在历史中，而是在神圣历史中。
因此，卡尔巴特对待创世记的方式与他对待复活的方式是一样的。对他来说总是一样的。它不是正统的，而是被称为新正统的，它是自由派的另一种表现。当然，他将创世记1至11章称为灵性传说，灵性叙事，灵性诗歌。
如果你像卡尔巴特那样，认为圣经所记载的并没有发生在真实的历史中，而只是发生在神圣历史中，也就是说，这只是人的灵性态度，而不是历史的真实性，那么本质上你就是在悄悄地裁减圣经。那些对创世记的真实性有问题的人，他们对圣经的每一处也都会有问题。所以，你必须抛弃卡尔巴特的整个体系，否则他会影响和传染到圣经的每一部分。
根本的问题是，你信还是不信创世记。 在创世纪中找不到任何有关进化的东西，完全没有。创世记没有任何进化过程。这点在罗马书中非常重要，因为在亚当里所有的人都死了，在基督里所有的人将活过来。 亚当是第一个人，基督是新人。 罗马书证实了亚当的历史性，因为保罗肯定了亚当的历史性，耶稣也肯定了亚当和创世记中其他一些部份的历史性。
当耶稣说：“约拿三日三夜在大鱼肚腹中。” 时，耶稣也肯定了约拿书的历史性，而约拿书是自由主义者试图销毁的另一本书。自由主义者认为大鱼的故事只是传说。 因此，耶稣对旧约的看法非常重要。
译自：《Bible Questions and Answers, Part 57》
英文原文：
QUESTION: My name is Norm, and I appreciate your ministry here. I have some friends in the Presbyterian denomination that hold to a Barthian view of Genesis, the creation, 1 to 11, and I would like to understand in terms of talking with them about how - what the view - could you give a critique of Barth’s view of Genesis 1 to 11 as saga, how it’s not compatible with Romans 5, for instance.
JOHN: Right. This is a big issue here, so let’s take five minutes. I got a call this last week when I was somewhere, I was in - I think I was in Memphis this last week when they called. ABC called me, ABC nightly news, Diane Sawyer, you know who she is. And they want to know if I would do an interview with ABC Nightly News on the issue of evolution and creation. I said, “Yes, absolutely, where do I go? Let me on.”
And the reason it came up was there’s a very, very prominent theologian, evangelical theologian, who began his career at Dallas Theological Seminary and then more - later years went to Regent College with J. I. Packer with the University of Vancouver, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. And then more recently he went to Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, his name is Bruce Waltke. Anybody who is in seminary knows who Bruce Waltke is.
Well, Bruce has been on a trajectory going in the wrong direction for a long time. He’s 79 years old and he just was basically asked to leave Reformed Theological Seminary because he came to a sort of a modified Barthian view of Genesis in which he denied six-day creation. Now, that’s not a good thing to do and that’s not a good place to do it because the main theologian there is Douglas Kelly who has written the most definitive book that I’ve read on that by a theologian called Creation and Change.
And I would encourage you, Norm, to find the book Creation and Change. It’s a quick read, it’s about 175 pages, just really, really brilliant.
Karl Barth is a German and they keep resurrecting Him. If he would just stay dead, we wouldn’t have to deal with this stuff, but liberal theologians love to raise these dead Germans and make them issues. Karl Barth basically denied Scripture truth. He denied the historicity of Scripture, not just Genesis 1 to 11 but the whole thing. He said redemptive history happened but it didn’t happen in Historie - the German - it happened in elevated, super-duper history.
He had a kind of category, a mystical category in which redemptive history occurred. So if you say to Karl, “Do you believe in Genesis?” “Yes.” “Did it happen in history?” “No.” “Do you believe in the resurrection?” “Yes.” “Did it happen in history?” “No.” “Do you believe in the miracles of Jesus? Did they happen in history?” “Well, they happened in holy history.” And it’s a split world in which he lives. But he did the same thing to Genesis that he does with everything. And this is - it has a name, it’s called neo-orthodoxy.
And the reason they called Karl Barth a neo-orthodox was the whole world of German theology was liberal. They were all liberal, back in the nineteenth century, they were all liberal and Karl Barth said, “This is not good, you’ve thrown all the miracles out, you’ve thrown everything supernatural out of the Bible. You’ve emptied the Bible of all of this. That’s not good, we’ve got to put it back. Well, let’s put it all back.”
Only he couldn’t get it all the way into history, he just put it back in holy history. So he was called a neo-orthodox because it was a new kind of orthodoxy, which allowed for all of this but not in Historie but in holy history, whatever that is, holy history.
So Karl Barth’s approach to Genesis was the same as his approach to the resurrection. It’s always the same with him. It is not orthodoxy - it is not orthodoxy. It is called neo-orthodoxy, it is liberalism in another dress. And, of course, he would call Genesis 1 to 11 nothing more than a sort of spiritual saga, spiritual narrative, spiritual poetry.
And if you say that what the Bible records didn’t happen, like Karl Barth said, it just happened in holy history, which is the spiritual attitudes of people rather than historical reality, you basically undercut the Scripture. So their problem - people who have that problem in Genesis have it everywhere in the Scripture. So you’ve got to get them to dump Karl Barth en masse or he’s going to affect and infect every portion of Scripture.
The bottom line is you believe Genesis or you don’t. You can’t find anything in Genesis about evolution, nothing at all. There is no evolutionary process in Genesis whatsoever. Now, this plays out very importantly in Romans because as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive. Adam is the first man, and Christ, of course, is the new man. Romans, then, confirms the historicity of Adam because Paul affirms the historicity of Adam, Jesus affirms the historicity of Adam and other elements in Genesis. Okay?
And even Jesus affirms the historicity of another book the liberals tried to destroy and that’s the book of Jonah when Jesus says, “As Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days.” They don’t - liberals don’t like that because they think that’s a fish story that’s simply legendary but Jesus saw it as literal. So Jesus’ view of the Old Testament is very important. That’s where I go with things like that, okay?