作者：钟马田 译者： 小草
译序：卡尔巴特（Karl Barth 1886年5月10日－1968年12月10日）是新正统的鼻祖，新正统不是正统，虽起初是反自由派神学，但最终新正统本身也不是正统，本质上还是自由派神学。范泰尔（Cornelius Van Til，1895-1987 1929年在美国西敏神学院任护教学教授，直到46年后退休）在1962 - 1964 年出版了一本书《Christianity and Barthianism》（基督教和巴特主义）。在这本四百多页的书里，范泰尔教授不仅自己严厉地批判巴特所教导的，同时也引了非常多的别的作家对巴特的批判。钟马田（David Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1899-1981）对范泰尔的这本书写了篇书评。巴特，范泰尔，钟马田都是出生于19世纪末，巴特思想的出现，都在当时就引起了范泰尔和钟马田的注意。在范泰尔的这本书出版后不久，巴特就离世了。所以并不存在范泰尔对巴特的批判不符合巴特晚期的思想变化这一说。本文译自钟马田对范泰尔的《基督教和巴特主义》一书所写的书评。
这是范泰尔（Van Til）博士的第二本有关卡尔·巴特（Karl Barth）和新正统的书籍。他的第一本是《新现代主义》，于1947年问世，但却没有受到应有的关注。这主要是因为那本书是很严厉的批判论著，同时又难以阅读和明白。造成这种困难的原因是，那本书主要是哲学的批判，而批判的对象本身又是出名的难以捉摸。
从某种意义上说，这本新书是前书的续。但是，它在许多方面却截然不同。它更加全面和透彻，神学方面也更加突出。此外，它更具可读性。在我看来，这确实是一部权威书籍，所有对当前教会和神学立场感兴趣的人都应该读。
本书先是初步介绍巴特的学说与历史神学的关系，以及此书打算做什么，之后分为四个主要部分，
第一部分论述了巴特的主要学说，并依次考虑了他的基督观，基督恩典观，他与罗马主义，改教者，正教徒的关系，以及他有关永恒和时间的学说。
第二部分概述了改革宗神学家和哲学家对巴特学说的反应；在这里，我们会看到他们的一般性批判，以及他们对一些特定学说的特别批判。
第三部分讨论巴特与辩证法的关系：中世纪，现代，和近代。
第四部分讨论新意识神学（New Consciousness-Theology）并详细查考巴特与两位著名的现代罗马天主教神学家的关系，以及和“新抗罗宗主义”（The New Protestantism）的关系。
最后一章是对整体立场的总结。
在一般书评的范围内，对这本书作出公正的评论几乎是不可能的。因此，我只能陈述一些我的印象。正如我上面指出的，这是一本大师级的著作。范泰尔（Van Til）不仅对巴特的学说进行了严厉的批判，而且引用了其他作者的许许多多的言论作为支持，最终的效果是非常确定的。光是这点，它就彻底清除了那些指责范泰尔的批判是奇特的说法。
范泰尔在整体方法上是十分公正的。例如，他说：“我们再次与Berkouwer一起，很高兴地注意到圣经对巴特的神学理论产生了巨大影响”。他继续说，“我们首先关心的不是巴特著作的影响。其中一些效果是好的。巴特呼吁人们注意历史上新教思想中的一些缺陷，就是那些不是真正符合基督论和圣经的思想。在新教神学历史上，罗马人的自然神学原理在很大程度上影响了新教的神学思想。对于改革宗神学以及路德神学确实如此。现在的改革宗神学家正在寻求比他们的一些先驱更加符合基督论和圣经。这可能至少有部分原因是由于受巴特的刺激。自由主义或现代主义的神学家也转向了对圣经的重新研究。通过巴特，圣经对至少其中一些人的影响比以前大。此外，除了神学家，许多教会人士也学会了对圣经的一种新的尊重，他们认为从某种意义上来说，圣经是神的道。对于这一切，怎能不感谢巴特和上帝呢？”（第208页）。
范泰尔的《基督教和巴特主义》这本书，充分意识到巴特在后来有些改变，在这本书在出版时已有效地处理了这些问题。从中我们能得到什么样的结论呢？
1. 巴特的整个立场比他一些特定的陈述重要得多。 正是在这一点上，他的著作带来了真正的危险。从整体来思考巴特那些特定的部份是十分重要的，因为巴特的某些特定的陈述本身似乎看起来是从正统的改革宗观点来写的，以致许多人被误导。
2. 巴特的一些改变并没有在根本上改变他的立场，他的学说和方法一直没有改变。 巴特一再地被证明他只是个思辨哲学家而不是神学家。 他将自己的体系强加于圣经之上，并歪曲圣经以适应他的目的。 从表面上看，他似乎是符合圣经的，他甚至被一些人视为是圣经学者。但实际上，圣经的意思已被巴特所修改，以致巴特所说的圣经已不再是上帝的道，而是巴特自己的话。
3. 巴特的立场源于他拒绝接受直接启示的概念，以及他对历史的奇怪看法。 除了其他事项之外，这涉及到他说，没有从神的震怒到恩典的过渡。 关于历史和历史意义的整个问题，范泰尔博士本人以及他从所引用的其他作家的看法已对此给以了彻底的处理，并且清楚地揭示了这个问题是如何把巴特的整个阐述搞得又杂又乱。
4. 巴特对新教正统以及对路德和加尔文的批判更甚于他对现代表和天主教的批判，在圣经观，启示观，以及实际的救赎方式这些方面，巴特猛批新教正统和路德、加尔文的观点。 面对巴特一再的重述，许多人仍然认为巴特是在回归新教改革，甚至把他当成是改革者的继承者，这实在是太让人讶异！
5. 范泰尔毫无疑问地证明了巴特是属于后康德改教主义。 尽管他企图抵抗后康德改教主义并想摆脱“费尔巴哈脸上的微笑”，但他却没有成功地从此地位中解脱出来。 之所以如此，因为巴特拒绝符合圣经的和改教的启示观，同时在本质上，他采用的是哲学的方法。
6. 最为有趣的是范泰尔在此卷书里证明了巴特与罗马天主教学说的相似性。 可以确定，在本质上巴特的思想与天主教的差别微乎其微。 他与罗马天主教间真正的争吵只是在教会和圣礼方面。
目前很难会过高评价这本书。 这本书清楚地表明了为什么巴特主义者的教导在教会生活中是如此的无效。 因为它是理性主义者的运动，它把人带向宣讲有关神的道，而不是宣讲神的道。这场理性主义者的运动已经进行了四十五年了，但是它并没有带向，也不能带向教会生活的任何复兴。
范泰尔的这本书还清楚地展示了巴特如何为“宗教大合一”开辟了道路。 这是因为他对正统观念的严厉批评以及他与现代派的相似性。 只有那些人认为，并且仍然认为，巴特是在回归被他所冒犯的新教改革者的位置上。 一点也不奇怪，巴特是影响世界基督教会联合会秘书长W. A. Visser't Hooft 的主要人物之一。
或许，范泰尔这本书最重要的是说明了巴特可能成为罗马天主教和新教之间的桥梁，所以即使在世界基督教会联合会之外，也有可能出现一个“全球大教会”。 罗马天主教神学家对巴特所表现出来的兴趣是个不良的征兆。 无论巴特对天主教做出何种批评，天主教的神学家都意识到巴特的根本起点在本质上是属于天主教的。
所有不把新教改革视为“教会历史上最大的悲剧之一”的人都应该阅读和研究范泰尔这本深刻且具有前瞻性的书籍，并做好准备，为即将到来的信仰和我们新教美好的属灵遗产而争战。
译自：《Lloyd-Jones on Van Til on Barth》
原文：
Lloyd-Jones on Van Til on Barth
Book Reviews
Christianity and Barthianism
Cornelius Van Til
Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1962
464 pp, clothbound
ISBN: 978 0 87552 481 8
This is Dr. Van Til’s second book on Karl Barth and Neo-orthodox teaching. His first, The New Modernism, appeared in 1947. That publication did not receive the attention that it merited. This was mainly due to the fact that it was such a drastic criticism, and at the same time difficult to read and to follow. The reason for the difficulty was that it was in the main a philosophical critique of a writer who is himself notoriously difficult.
This new volume is in a sense a sequel to the former. It is, however, strikingly different in many respects. It is much more comprehensive and thorough, and the theological element is very much more prominent. In addition it is very much more readable. It is indeed a magisterial volume which, it seems to me, should be compulsory reading for all who are interested in the present church and theological position.
The book is divided into four main sections, after a preliminary brief introduction indicating in general terms the relationship of Barth’s teaching to historic theology and what it sets out to do.
The first section deals with Barth’s main doctrines and considers in turn his view of Jesus Christ, of Grace in Christ, his relationship to Romanism, the Reformers, Orthodoxy, and his teaching concerning eternity and time.
The second section outlines the reaction of Reformed thinkers to this teaching, both theologians and philosophers; and here we are given their general criticism and their special criticism of certain particular doctrines.
Section three deals with the relation of Barth to Dialecticism – Medieval, Modern, and Recent.
Section four deals with New Consciousness-Theology and is a detailed consideration of Barth’s relationship to two well-known modern Roman Catholic theologians, and ‘The New Protestantism’.
The last chapter is a summary of the whole position.
It is well-nigh impossible to do justice to this book within the confines of a general review. I can therefore but state some of my impressions. It is, as I have indicated above, a masterly work. Van Til not only gives his own drastic criticism of Barth’s teaching but substantiates it and supports it and presses it home with endless quotations from other writers. The total cumulative effect is quite conclusive. Apart from anything else it entirely disposes of the criticism that Van Til is an oddity or unique in his criticism.
He is scrupulously fair in his whole approach. He says for instance: ‘Again with Berkouwer we gladly note the great influence that Scripture has had on Barth’s formulation of his theology’. He goes on,Our first concern is not with the effects of Barth’s writings. Some of these effects have been good. Barth has called attention to some defects in historic Protestant thinking, which has not always been truly Christological and biblical. The Romanist principle of natural theology has, to a considerable extent, influenced Protestant theology throughout its history. This is true of Reformed as well as of Lutheran theology. Recent Reformed theologians are seeking to be more truly Christological and more truly biblical than some of their forefathers were. This may be due, at least in part, to the stimulation of Barth. Liberal or modernist theologians too have turned to a renewed study of Scripture. Through Barth the Bible has had more influence on at least some of them than it formerly had. Moreover, a number of church people, other than theologians, have learned to have a new respect for the Bible as in some sense the Word of God. For all this, who can help but be grateful to Barth and to God?’ (pp. 208 f.).
Furthermore, the book deals with Barth right up to the date of publication. It recognizes fully that certain modifications and changes have taken place in Barth’s position and deals with this effectively.
What are the conclusions to which we are led?
1. Barth’s whole position is much more important than his particular statements. It is just at this point that the real danger with his writings comes in. Never was it more important to consider the parts in the light of the whole. So many have been misled at this point because certain particular statements taken in and of themselves seem to suggest that Barth is writing from the orthodox Reformed standpoint.
2. The modifications in his teaching have made no fundamental difference to Barth’s position. His essential teaching and approach are still what they always have been. This is demonstrated time and time again in a very thorough manner, and Barth is shown to be still a speculative philosopher rather than a theologian. He imposes his system on the Scriptures and bends them to suit his purpose. On the surface he appears to be biblical, and has even been charged by some as being a biblicist, but actually the meaning of Scripture is so modified in the interest of the general position as to be no longer the Word of God but rather the word of Barth. The Protestant fathers were fond of referring to the ‘perspicuity of the Scriptures’. This can certainly not be said of Barth’s exposition of them.
3. Barth’s position arises from his refusal to accept the notion of direct revelation, and his strange view of history. This involves him in saying, among other things, that there is no transition from wrath to grace. The whole question of Geschichte and Historic is dealt with very thoroughly by Dr. Van Til himself and in the many quotations he gives from other writers; and it is clearly revealed how this in particular bedevils the whole of Barth’s exposition.
4. Barth is a more drastic critic of Protestant orthodoxy and of Luther and Calvin than either modern Protestantism or, even, Roman Catholicism. This applies to their view of the Scriptures and Revelation, and indeed of the actual way of salvation. Nothing is more astonishing in the light of Barth’s repeated statements than that many should still regard him as leading back to the Protestant Reformation, and as a successor of the Reformers.
5. Van Til demonstrates beyond any question that Barth belongs to post-Kantian Protestantism. Though he set out to protest against this and to get rid of ‘the smile on Feuerbach’s face’ he has not succeeded in extricating himself from this position. This is inevitable because of his rejection of the biblical and reformed notion of revelation and his essentially philosophical approach.
6. Nothing is more interesting in this volume than the way in which Barth’s affinity with the teaching of the Roman Church is demonstrated. Even the much emphasized contrast between the analogia entis and analogia fidei is not what it appears to be. It is established that in his essential thinking, as von Balthasar and Hans Kung agree, Barth differs from them very little indeed. His real quarrel with Romanism is only about the church and the sacraments.
It is difficult to over-estimate the value of this book at the present time. It shows clearly why the Barthian teaching has been so ineffective in the life of the church. It has been an intellectualist movement which has led men to preach about the Word rather than preach the Word. It has been going now for forty-five years but it has not led, and cannot lead, to any renewal in the life of the church.
This volume also shows clearly how Barth opens the way for ‘Ecumenism’. This is so because of his drastic criticism of orthodoxy and his essential affinity with modern Protestantism. It is only those who thought, and still think, that Barth is a return to the position of the Protestant Reformers who are offended by him. It is not surprising that he has been one of the main influences on the thinking of Dr. W. A. Visser ‘t Hooft, the general secretary of the World Council of Churches.
Nothing, perhaps, is more important than the way in which this volume by Van Til shows that Barth may well become the bridge between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, so that even beyond the World Council of Churches there looms the possibility of one ‘great world church’. The interest shown in him by Roman Catholic theologians is ominous. Whatever particular criticisms he makes of them they recognize in him one whose basic and essential starting-point is in its essence their own.
It is the business of all who do not regard the Protestant Reformation as ‘one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Church’ to read and to study this profound and prophetic volume, and prepare themselves thereby for the coming fight for the Faith and our glorious Protestant heritage.
------------------------------------
Westminster Theological Journal, November 1964, Vol. XXVII, Number 1, pp. 52-56
网址：https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/book-review-resources/2010/lloyd-jones-on-van-til-on-barth/