Papers by Shao Kai Tseng
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
卡爾.巴特(Karl Barth)的稱義論,在他仍在世時就一直是各方學者熱烈討論的議題,特別是它與天主教之間的異同。 近年來,愈來愈多學者開始關注巴特的稱義論與路德、加爾文之間的關係。 本文... more 卡爾.巴特(Karl Barth)的稱義論,在他仍在世時就一直是各方學者熱烈討論的議題,特別是它與天主教之間的異同。 近年來,愈來愈多學者開始關注巴特的稱義論與路德、加爾文之間的關係。 本文將探討巴特如何借用路德fides Christo formata(「信心在基督裡被做成」)的概念及加爾文在聖靈論範疇內對「因信稱義」的論述,以探討巴特如何處理「信心」在「稱義事件」中所扮演的角色。
有一種普遍的觀念,認為在巴特的稱義論中,「稱義」既是基督在永恆中已然成就的實體事實(reality),那麼「信心」就不可能是稱義的「因」(不論是宗教改革提出的「形式因」,或天主教所謂的「功勞因」),所以巴特神學當中並沒有所謂的「因信稱義」。本文將探討這種認知在何程度上屬實,並提出以下立論:巴特在1953年出版的《教會教理學》 第四部第一卷(以下簡稱CD IV/1;第二部第二卷縮寫為II/2,以此類推)當中借用並修改路德及加爾文對「因信稱義」的論述,以基督的「事件史」(Geschichte) 來詮釋「稱義」的事件,正是為了揉合「神恩獨作論」(monergism)及「人的行動」(特別是「信」的行動作為「稱義」的因)兩大因素,以避免並反駁他較早期(1936-1942)發展的「基督中心論」(Christocentrism)所帶來的「基督一元論」(Christomonism)之質疑。如是,至少就其用意而言,巴特試圖肯定「稱義」真的是「因著信」,儘管許多學者認為他並未全然達到初衷。
本文旨在探討巴特對路德與加爾文的理解與應用,而非對這兩位改教家進行詮釋。讀者須注意,巴特對這二者的理解,並不完全符合當代路德研究及加爾文研究的主流觀點。
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This article examines Karl Barth's treatment of the theodicy problem in Church Dogmatics III/3, §... more This article examines Karl Barth's treatment of the theodicy problem in Church Dogmatics III/3, §50 ('God and nothingness'). This part-volume sets forth Barth's doctrine of providence, and in §50 he takes the theodicy problem head-on. By demonstrating how Barth develops his understanding of sin, evil, and death as " nothingness " (German: das Nichtige, a term to which he gives the definition and delimitation of 'that which is not') on the basis of his Christocentric doctrine of election, this article contends that this term, often misunderstood as a meontological notion, is in fact a Christological-predestinarian notion that engages deeply and yet critically with Reformation and post-Reformation Reformed theology. For Barth, the term " nothingness " is not meant to connote ontological privation, even though there is a limited sense in which nothingness can be described as privatio. Rather, central to the notion of " nothingness " — " that which is not " —is Barth's insistence on God's gracious election in Christ, part and parcel of which is God's absolute non-willing and rejection of the negative element that assails God's covenant-creature. This Christocentric ontology that Barth developed in 1936-1942 lies at the core of his discussion of nothingness, and, in line with the epistemological implications of this ontology, he makes a concerted effort to avoid metaphysical rationalisation or explanation of nothingness. For this reason, he not only defies the theodicy problem with a Christus Victor, " Mozartean " attitude, but also he rejects theodicy projects as altogether unable to avoid natural-theological speculation about God's sovereignty and graciousness in abstract terms. Barth insists that true knowledge of nothingness is possible only in light of Christ's eternal and a priori ('zum Vornherein') triumph over it, as manifested in the event of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. It is the history (Geschichte) of God's covenantal faithfulness to the creature in Jesus Christ that God manifests Godself to be gracious and sovereign. In other words, humans are not in the place to vindicate God—hence Barth's rejection of theodicy; only God can and does answer the theodicy problem. It remains open to question, of course, whether Barth is always true to his fundamental conviction that nothingness has absolutely nothing to do with God, and to his avowed rejection of rational explanations of nothingness. Whatever the case, Barth's intention in treating sin, evil, and death as " nothingness " is to utter a metaphysical " I don't know " about the dark mystery, and, more importantly, a Christological " I know " about God's sovereign graciousness to the covenant-partner in Jesus Christ, thereby replacing theodicy with the category of witness.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
"基督的人性是受造?抑或永恒自存?这是近年华人教会及学术界开
始关注的问题。本文采取历史神学进路,说明历代大公教会所持之迦克墩正统。虽然《迦克墩信经》未以“受造”一词形容基督人性,但这无疑是迦... more "基督的人性是受造?抑或永恒自存?这是近年华人教会及学术界开
始关注的问题。本文采取历史神学进路,说明历代大公教会所持之迦克墩正统。虽然《迦克墩信经》未以“受造”一词形容基督人性,但这无疑是迦克墩正统的立场。《信经》谓基督人性“凡事与我们一样”,并称他就人性而言有物质身体及“理性的灵魂”,结合历史背景,也同样表明基督人性并非永恒自存。此外,迦克墩对“道成肉身”的理解是:“肉身”乃指“人性”,而基督人性本不存在,是道成肉身时所“取”。迦克墩正统区分“取了肉身的道”及“尚无肉身的道”,说明基督人性乃受造而非永恒自存。此外,本文亦处理迦克墩“基督人性受造”之立场对救恩论的重要性。
"
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In his essay ‘The Immediate Erotic Stages or the Musical-Erotic’ in Either/Or, Volume 1, Søren Ki... more In his essay ‘The Immediate Erotic Stages or the Musical-Erotic’ in Either/Or, Volume 1, Søren Kierkegaard pseudonymously presents an aesthetic theory of music and a curious misinterpretation of Mozart’s Don Giovanni. My article comprises literary and musicological analyses of this essay to argue that Kierkegaard is intentionally setting forth through his pseudonym a clichéd Romantic distortion of the opera. Thereby I will suggest that Kierkegaard’s aesthetic treatise may be understood negatively as satire against a certain brand of Romanticism that secularises and even vulgarises religious materials, and that through a variety of ironies he might be positively conveying the possibility for music to be a proper medium for expressing what he calls the higher immediacy of religious passion.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Books by Shao Kai Tseng
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Theologians have long assumed that Karl Barth's doctrine of election is supralapsarian.
Challeng... more Theologians have long assumed that Karl Barth's doctrine of election is supralapsarian.
Challenging decades of scholarship, Shao Kai Tseng argues that despite Barth's stated favor of supralapsarianism, his mature lapsarian theology is complex and dialectical, critically reappropriating both supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking. Barth can be described as basically infralapsarian because he sees the object of election as fallen humankind and understands the incarnation as God's act of taking on human nature in its condition of fallenness.
Tseng shows that most of Barth's Reformed critics have not understood his doctrine of election accurately enough to recognize his affinity to infralapsarianism and, conversely, that most Barthians have not understood Reformed-orthodox formulations of election with sufficient accuracy in their disagreement with the tradition. Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology offers a clear understanding of both the historic Lapsarian Controversy and Barth's distinct form of lapsarianism, providing a charitable dialogue partner to aid mutual understanding between Barth and evangelicals.
Read more: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=5132#ixzz3zqGJHOGP
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Shao Kai Tseng
神學人的學思經歷與信仰路程
發表於臺灣神學院.神學人團契(2015)
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
本文探討約拿單.愛德華茲(Jonathan Edwards)在《宗教情操真偽辨》(A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections)當中提出的屬靈認識論。愛德... more 本文探討約拿單.愛德華茲(Jonathan Edwards)在《宗教情操真偽辨》(A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections)當中提出的屬靈認識論。愛德華茲以「想像」(imagination)為出發點,討論自然與超自然的感知(natural and supernatural senses),並建構「新感知」(the new sense)一說。本文將指出,愛德華茲雖借重經驗論及英倫啟蒙運動的哲學術語,但其認識論的核心屬乎宗教改革世界觀:正如加爾文一反中世紀羅馬公教教割裂「自然」與「恩典」的普遍傾向,並強調透過特殊啟示的「眼鏡」(spectacles) 來詮釋自然啟示,且呼籲基督徒透過「第二因」(自然媒介、人的責任)來體現對「第一因」(神的主權、超自然的恩典)的信仰,愛德華茲的屬靈認識論也在於建構「恩典」與「自然」間的橋樑。
此用意可見於《宗教情操》的寫作背景。當時美國奮興運動高舉神祕的靈異經歷,忘卻了自然日常生活當中的靈性,與中世紀羅馬公教高舉「恩典」而輕忽「自然」的神祕主義相似。當時哈佛大學的理性主義者(Rationalists,非嚴格意義上的德國理性主義,而是指英美啟蒙運動的跟隨者)則從自然主義(naturalistic)或自然神論(deistic)世界觀出發,視奮興運動所高舉的靈異經歷為無稽之談。此二者的共通之處在於割裂「恩典」與「自然」。愛德華茲的《宗教情操》同時駁斥了神祕主義及自然主義/自然神論的割裂世界觀,重申宗教改革的屬靈認識論。
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
論及宗教改革經濟倫理,韋伯(Max Weber, 1864-1920)1905年出版的《新教倫理與資本主義精神》(Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist ... more 論及宗教改革經濟倫理,韋伯(Max Weber, 1864-1920)1905年出版的《新教倫理與資本主義精神》(Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus)於近一百餘年宗教社會學、政治經濟學等領域影響甚巨。 西方右派受其影響,以傳統基督教之名義支持放任資本主義(lessaiz-faire capitalism);西方自由派人士則指出歐美資本主義所帶來的種種社會不公義,因而連帶拒斥基督教,認為回歸聖經的宗教改革乃資本主義之母。本文將試圖恢復宗教改革工作倫理的原貌,並指出韋伯對宗教改革思想的種種誤解,諸如「選民論」等。宗教改革一反中世紀「自然」與「恩典」的割裂,賦予日常工作屬天的神聖性,建立了「職業不分貴賤」的平等觀念。不同於文藝復興時期富商及十九世紀中產階級之唯利是圖,宗教改革強調不可將「利益」當作人生目標,並教導勤奮工作所帶來的多餘財產應當用於社會慈善。本文將剖析這套工作倫理背後的信仰基礎,指出其與放任資本主義之截然不同,以及與當代中國特色社會主義相容之可能,並提出宗教改革工作倫理對當代中國社會可能作出的貢獻。
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Shao Kai Tseng
有一種普遍的觀念,認為在巴特的稱義論中,「稱義」既是基督在永恆中已然成就的實體事實(reality),那麼「信心」就不可能是稱義的「因」(不論是宗教改革提出的「形式因」,或天主教所謂的「功勞因」),所以巴特神學當中並沒有所謂的「因信稱義」。本文將探討這種認知在何程度上屬實,並提出以下立論:巴特在1953年出版的《教會教理學》 第四部第一卷(以下簡稱CD IV/1;第二部第二卷縮寫為II/2,以此類推)當中借用並修改路德及加爾文對「因信稱義」的論述,以基督的「事件史」(Geschichte) 來詮釋「稱義」的事件,正是為了揉合「神恩獨作論」(monergism)及「人的行動」(特別是「信」的行動作為「稱義」的因)兩大因素,以避免並反駁他較早期(1936-1942)發展的「基督中心論」(Christocentrism)所帶來的「基督一元論」(Christomonism)之質疑。如是,至少就其用意而言,巴特試圖肯定「稱義」真的是「因著信」,儘管許多學者認為他並未全然達到初衷。
本文旨在探討巴特對路德與加爾文的理解與應用,而非對這兩位改教家進行詮釋。讀者須注意,巴特對這二者的理解,並不完全符合當代路德研究及加爾文研究的主流觀點。
始关注的问题。本文采取历史神学进路,说明历代大公教会所持之迦克墩正统。虽然《迦克墩信经》未以“受造”一词形容基督人性,但这无疑是迦克墩正统的立场。《信经》谓基督人性“凡事与我们一样”,并称他就人性而言有物质身体及“理性的灵魂”,结合历史背景,也同样表明基督人性并非永恒自存。此外,迦克墩对“道成肉身”的理解是:“肉身”乃指“人性”,而基督人性本不存在,是道成肉身时所“取”。迦克墩正统区分“取了肉身的道”及“尚无肉身的道”,说明基督人性乃受造而非永恒自存。此外,本文亦处理迦克墩“基督人性受造”之立场对救恩论的重要性。
"
Books by Shao Kai Tseng
Challenging decades of scholarship, Shao Kai Tseng argues that despite Barth's stated favor of supralapsarianism, his mature lapsarian theology is complex and dialectical, critically reappropriating both supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking. Barth can be described as basically infralapsarian because he sees the object of election as fallen humankind and understands the incarnation as God's act of taking on human nature in its condition of fallenness.
Tseng shows that most of Barth's Reformed critics have not understood his doctrine of election accurately enough to recognize his affinity to infralapsarianism and, conversely, that most Barthians have not understood Reformed-orthodox formulations of election with sufficient accuracy in their disagreement with the tradition. Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology offers a clear understanding of both the historic Lapsarian Controversy and Barth's distinct form of lapsarianism, providing a charitable dialogue partner to aid mutual understanding between Barth and evangelicals.
Read more: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=5132#ixzz3zqGJHOGP
Conference Presentations by Shao Kai Tseng
此用意可見於《宗教情操》的寫作背景。當時美國奮興運動高舉神祕的靈異經歷,忘卻了自然日常生活當中的靈性,與中世紀羅馬公教高舉「恩典」而輕忽「自然」的神祕主義相似。當時哈佛大學的理性主義者(Rationalists,非嚴格意義上的德國理性主義,而是指英美啟蒙運動的跟隨者)則從自然主義(naturalistic)或自然神論(deistic)世界觀出發,視奮興運動所高舉的靈異經歷為無稽之談。此二者的共通之處在於割裂「恩典」與「自然」。愛德華茲的《宗教情操》同時駁斥了神祕主義及自然主義/自然神論的割裂世界觀,重申宗教改革的屬靈認識論。
有一種普遍的觀念,認為在巴特的稱義論中,「稱義」既是基督在永恆中已然成就的實體事實(reality),那麼「信心」就不可能是稱義的「因」(不論是宗教改革提出的「形式因」,或天主教所謂的「功勞因」),所以巴特神學當中並沒有所謂的「因信稱義」。本文將探討這種認知在何程度上屬實,並提出以下立論:巴特在1953年出版的《教會教理學》 第四部第一卷(以下簡稱CD IV/1;第二部第二卷縮寫為II/2,以此類推)當中借用並修改路德及加爾文對「因信稱義」的論述,以基督的「事件史」(Geschichte) 來詮釋「稱義」的事件,正是為了揉合「神恩獨作論」(monergism)及「人的行動」(特別是「信」的行動作為「稱義」的因)兩大因素,以避免並反駁他較早期(1936-1942)發展的「基督中心論」(Christocentrism)所帶來的「基督一元論」(Christomonism)之質疑。如是,至少就其用意而言,巴特試圖肯定「稱義」真的是「因著信」,儘管許多學者認為他並未全然達到初衷。
本文旨在探討巴特對路德與加爾文的理解與應用,而非對這兩位改教家進行詮釋。讀者須注意,巴特對這二者的理解,並不完全符合當代路德研究及加爾文研究的主流觀點。
始关注的问题。本文采取历史神学进路,说明历代大公教会所持之迦克墩正统。虽然《迦克墩信经》未以“受造”一词形容基督人性,但这无疑是迦克墩正统的立场。《信经》谓基督人性“凡事与我们一样”,并称他就人性而言有物质身体及“理性的灵魂”,结合历史背景,也同样表明基督人性并非永恒自存。此外,迦克墩对“道成肉身”的理解是:“肉身”乃指“人性”,而基督人性本不存在,是道成肉身时所“取”。迦克墩正统区分“取了肉身的道”及“尚无肉身的道”,说明基督人性乃受造而非永恒自存。此外,本文亦处理迦克墩“基督人性受造”之立场对救恩论的重要性。
"
Challenging decades of scholarship, Shao Kai Tseng argues that despite Barth's stated favor of supralapsarianism, his mature lapsarian theology is complex and dialectical, critically reappropriating both supra- and infralapsarian patterns of thinking. Barth can be described as basically infralapsarian because he sees the object of election as fallen humankind and understands the incarnation as God's act of taking on human nature in its condition of fallenness.
Tseng shows that most of Barth's Reformed critics have not understood his doctrine of election accurately enough to recognize his affinity to infralapsarianism and, conversely, that most Barthians have not understood Reformed-orthodox formulations of election with sufficient accuracy in their disagreement with the tradition. Karl Barth's Infralapsarian Theology offers a clear understanding of both the historic Lapsarian Controversy and Barth's distinct form of lapsarianism, providing a charitable dialogue partner to aid mutual understanding between Barth and evangelicals.
Read more: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=5132#ixzz3zqGJHOGP
此用意可見於《宗教情操》的寫作背景。當時美國奮興運動高舉神祕的靈異經歷,忘卻了自然日常生活當中的靈性,與中世紀羅馬公教高舉「恩典」而輕忽「自然」的神祕主義相似。當時哈佛大學的理性主義者(Rationalists,非嚴格意義上的德國理性主義,而是指英美啟蒙運動的跟隨者)則從自然主義(naturalistic)或自然神論(deistic)世界觀出發,視奮興運動所高舉的靈異經歷為無稽之談。此二者的共通之處在於割裂「恩典」與「自然」。愛德華茲的《宗教情操》同時駁斥了神祕主義及自然主義/自然神論的割裂世界觀,重申宗教改革的屬靈認識論。