注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

陈鸽的博客

让别人在宗教舞台上争权夺位,我只愿在福音最前线鞠躬尽瘁。

 
 
 

日志

 
 

范泰尔(改革宗神学家)对潘霍华的一点反思(陈鸽翻译)  

2012-06-14 10:07:07|  分类: 时代信息 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

潘霍华(朋霍费尔)是否与《加尔文》一样,完全思想与生活在神的面光中、权柄下、荣耀里呢?他生命的座右铭是否与与《亚伯拉罕、凯帕尔Abraham Kuyper》(改革宗神学家,前荷兰首相1901-1905)一样,全然“为万王之王而活”呢?再者,他是否与凯帕尔一样,不论自然界、世俗界、属灵界,凡事都以基督为本,来诠释人生的每个层面呢?

对于以上的问题,我们坚决确凿的回答是:潘霍华的“基督”不是圣经里的基督,也不是改革宗所信的基督,尤其不是加尔文所信的基督。坦诚的良知告诉我们,潘霍华的“基督”,根本不同于加尔文的基督,乃是根据「后康德」的哲学与神学理论所构想出来的“基督”。这是千真万确、不容否认的事实。因此,这也导致了他对圣经的每个词汇与正统信条和教义“重新的解释”。

不论福音派(尤其改革宗)多么想要把潘霍华列入他们的信心英雄榜中,与加尔文、凯帕尔、Bavinck, Hodge、Warfield 和 Vos 相提并论,他们都无权这样作。潘霍华必须被列在Kant 康德、Schleiermacher 施萊爾馬赫、Ritschl 和 Barth 巴特(新正统派鼻祖)的传承队伍里;潘霍华与这个“神学系统”才是一脉相承的。

现代《新正统派》神学家知道:这两个“基督”(马丁路德与加尔文的基督和潘霍华的基督)必须彼此对立,不共戴天。不但(我们刚刚所提的)加尔文与他的跟随者,想要为他们的基督征服全世界(科学界、哲学界、神学界)的每个领域,无一例外;而且康德与他的随从者也想要为他们的“基督”占领全世界(科学界、哲学界、和神学界)的每个领域,无孔不入。

最后,今天《加尔文的跟随者》与《康德的跟随者》双方都明白,这两个对立的“基督”之争是水火不容的,不是你死就是我活。如今,这场“哈米吉多頓”的决一死战正在进行当中,无人可以中立,人人必须参战。(范泰尔)

 

原文如下:Dietrich Bonhoeffer—A Review Article
Did Bonhoeffer not, like Calvin, think and live coram deo? Was not his motto like that of Abraham Kuyper, pro Rege, for the king? Did he not, again with Kuyper, seek to interpret every domain of life, even the realm of the natural or secular, in terms of Christ?
Our answer to all such questions must, of necessity, be that the Christ of Bonhoeffer is not the Christ of the Scriptures, is not the Christ of the Reformers, and, in particular is not the Christ of Calvin. Simple honesty compels us to say this. The Christ of Bonhoeffer, in contrast to the Christ of Calvin, is constructed in terms of post-Kantian philosophy and theology. This is factually incontrovertible. The consequence of this fact implies a re-interpretation, an Umdeutung, of every word of the vocabulary of biblical and confessional teaching.
However much evangelical—and notably, Reformed—Christians may wish to incorporate Bonhoeffer in the list of their heroes of the faith, together with Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge,Warfield, and Vos, they have no right to do so. Bonhoeffer must be placed in the line of Kant, of Schleiermacher, of Ritschl, and of Barth. It is the theological descendant of such men as these who rightfully claim Bonhoeffer as their own.
Modern, neo-orthodox theologians know that the two Christs, the Christ of Luther and Calvin and the Christ of Bonhoeffer stand mutually opposed to one another.Moreover, such followers of Calvin as have just been mentioned claimthe whole wide world, the world of science and philosophy as well as the world of theology, for their Christ. Similarly, such followers of Kant as have just been mentioned also claim the whole wide world, the world of science, the world of philosophy, as well as the world of theology, for their Christ.
Finally, both the present-day followers of Calvin and the present day followers of Kant know that the struggle between the two Christs is a struggle to the death. It is the battle of Armageddon that is now being waged between them, and every man is involved in it.
Cornelius Van Til

 

谢谢SnowBall弟兄提供资料。https://guodu.ccim.org/viewthread.php?tid=9748&extra=page%3D1

参考:潘霍华((朋霍费尔)是基督徒吗?http://larryltpan.blog.163.com/blog/static/80191256201032921247515/

  评论这张
 
阅读(2415)| 评论(9)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017