靈蝕？──聖靈論在巴特神學中的地位

巴特 (Karl Barth) 的聖靈論始終備受爭議，對其主要的指責在於: 第一，巴特將聖靈諭置於從屬基督論的地位; 第二，巴特將聖靈的功用嚴格限制於認識論。其他的次要指責則包括終未論被吸收進救贖論;聖靈工作的時間性被吸收進歷史等等。本文試圖一一回應這些指責，通過了解聖靈在認識論和本體論兩方面的重要功用，以及聖靈在教會和信徒中持續的事工，確立聖靈論在巴特神學系統中的獨立地位。

The first task to undertake when studying Karl Barth's Pneumatology should only be apologetics. Two interwoven critiques of Barth need to be considered: first, that Barth's Pneumatology subsides into Christology; second, that Barth confines the function of the Holy Spirit strictly to the noetic. In response to the first charge, the author argues that although there is an imbalance between Christology and Pneumatology in Barth, a close study of Barth's teaching on the relation between the Son and the Spirit shows that he denies any kind of subordinationism. Concerning the second charge, the author emphasizes that Barth employs both agential and non-agential language to describe the role of the Holy Spirit. Further, by participation of the divine communion through the Holy Spirit, the ontic situation of human being has been eventually changed. Therefore, we cannot neglect ontic consequences caused by the Holy Spirit. In relation to these two major critiques, there are also two further charges on Barth's Pneumatology: Eschatology is subsumed under Soteriology; temporality is subsumed under history. In the third part of the article the author examimes the arguments for and against these two charges briefly and draw the conclusion that they cannot be held as viable.