Karl Barth on Nothingness: A Christological-Predestinarian Defiance of Theodicy

本文探討卡爾．巴特在《教會教理學》第三部卷三50章（「上帝與虛無」）中對神義論難題的處理。本文顯示巴特如何在其基督中心揀選論的基礎上建構他對罪、惡、死亡──他稱之為「虛無」（德文：das Nichtige）──的理解。筆者主張「虛無」一詞屬乎基督中心揀選論的範疇，而非許多學者所誤以為的「非存有論」(meontological theory)。巴特使用「虛無」一詞，與宗教改革及後期改革宗神學有深刻的關係，同時對其提出批評。這一詞主旨在於強調上帝在基督裡恩慈的揀選，以至上帝對攻擊祂恩約盟友的黑暗者的絕對棄絕。基於基督中心本體論所帶來的知識論原則，巴特一以貫之地嘗試避免任何關於「虛無」的理性化解釋或形而上論證。如此，他不但以「基督勝者」(Christus Victor)、「莫札特式」的態度笑看神義論難題，更拒絕了神義論本身，認為神義論無法避免抽象的自然神學臆測。巴特堅持，惟有藉著基督降生、受死、復活的事件明白祂如何在永恆中已然擊敗「虛無」，人才可能看清其真面目。當然，他是否完全貫徹此初衷，尚有討論空間。不論如何，他以「虛無」一詞描述罪、惡、死亡，用意在於對這黑暗奧祕以及上帝在基督裡的主權恩典，宣告形而上學的「不知」與基督論的「知之」，以「見證」的範疇取代神義論的「論證」。

關鍵字

巴特；神義論；虛無；惡的難題；揀選論

並列摘要

This article examines Karl Barth’s treatment of the theodicy problem in Church Dogmatics III/3, §50 (‘God and nothingness’). By demonstrating how Barth develops his understanding of sin, evil, and death as ＂nothingness＂ 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 his 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. With this term, 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 triumph over it, as manifested in the event of the birth, death, and resurrection of the Son of God. 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.