Lecture: Exploring Jürgen Moltmann and Martin Luther Through Heidelberg Disputation

1月3日晚上，马丁·路德与第三次启蒙论坛第3季第一讲顺利开始。第3季的主题是“路德与思想家”，由莫尔特曼教授的关门弟子、中国政法大学宗教与法律研究中心的兼职研究员洪亮教授以“莫尔特曼与路德的《海德堡论纲》”为题目给大家讲解。

讲座开始后，黄保罗教授首先讲到中国面对现代社会的一些本质性问题，可能需要回溯到马丁·路德时代来寻求答案。

洪亮教授把这场讲座分为四个部分。

一，十六世纪改教运动研究中的《海德堡论纲》

1517年9月路德在维滕堡市的诸圣堂教堂大门钉上了反对卖大赦券（赎罪券）的《九十五条论纲》，《九十五条论纲》拉开了改教运动的大幕。而改教运动神学史的第一个理论高峰形成的标志也并非路德发表于1517年的《九十五条论纲》，而是路德发表于1518年的《海德堡论纲》，因为1517年的时候其实路德依然停留在天主教的神学框架里面。

二，《海德堡论纲》的思想史内涵与意义

《海德堡论纲》现今流传的底本其实并不完整，它由40条论题以及部分注解性文字组成。40条论题当中，前面28条为神学论题，后面12条为哲学论题。其中哲学论题的主要批判目标是亚里士多德哲学；而28条神学论题则可如下分类：

律法（第1条），人之作为与上帝之作为（第2—12条），意志自由（13—15），恩典（16—18），“荣耀神学家”和“十字架神学家”（19—22），律法（23—24），人之作为/信仰/律法/恩典/基督之作为（25—27），上帝之爱与人之爱（28）

三，莫尔特曼对《海德堡论纲》的诠释

莫尔特曼对《海德堡论纲》的关注始于二战结束后哥廷根求学时期，尤其受到了伊万德1948年至1949年开设的关于青年路德的课程的启发。莫尔特曼重新诠释了《海德堡论纲》第21条注解中“隐蔽在受难中的上帝”，从基督的十字架推导出上帝的受难，由基督论进入上帝论

莫尔特曼的著作《被钉在十字架的上帝》认为：子在被弃之中经历了死亡过程（sterben），父则经历被他遗弃之子的死亡状态（Tod），父在子的死亡中经受了自身父性（Vatersein）的死亡；父参与进子的被弃之中，而非第一位格的死亡（Patripassionismus）；子与父在死亡中共同经历了关系与联结的彻底丧失，这体现为父子在死亡问题上的位格交互关系；死亡的社会性意涵：死亡作为关系与联结的彻底丧失（指呼吸、心跳、大脑等方面）；视角转换：从“三一论”视角下的“十字架神学”到“十字架神学”视角下的“三一论”，涉及“三一论”与世界历史。

四，与北森嘉藏的《海德堡论纲》诠释之比较

北森嘉藏所著的《上帝之痛的神学》一书中的基本思路是：“上帝包容了不应被包容的东西，因此祂自己经历了破碎、伤害和痛苦”；“上帝内心深处”充满痛苦，因为“在上帝内部，意志彼此较量”；上帝对人爱的意志对抗上帝对人怒的意志，前者对后者的克服导致了上帝之痛，也即“上帝最内在的本质”；意志冲突：上帝定意要爱其迁怒之对象，遗弃子的大义灭亲是“由上帝内部奠定的必然性”；父生子并非父子关系的最终内涵，生子的父更是让子死并经受痛苦的父（关于《海德堡论纲》）；圣灵论的缺席。

北森嘉藏的古典“三一论”批判提出了“三一论”如何与“现代的灾难经验”相称的问题，北森嘉藏认为：父让子死比父生子更重要，父生子为父让子死提供条件；父让子死是父子关系的决定性内涵；三一向内的活动：上帝生子，更让子死并经受痛苦。

莫尔特曼和北森嘉藏都认为“十字架神学”加“三一论”主张“十字架是关乎父子位格的关键性事件”，这一点上他们二人是相同的。但是，在北森嘉藏这里，父子位格交互是“父遗弃子的大义灭亲”，子是一个比较工具化的角色，而莫尔特曼则在北森嘉藏的基础之上，进一步的发现“父子的位格在同被弃（同受难）中的平等”。

On the evening of January 3, the first lecture of "Martin Luther and the Third Enlightenment Forum" (Season 3) was held under the theme of “Luther and Thinkers".

Titled “Moltmann and Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation”, the lecture was delivered by Professor Hong Liang, the very last student of Professor Jürgen Moltmann, and a part-time researcher of the Center for Religious and Legal Studies of China University of Political Science and Law.

At the beginning of the lecture, Professor Paul Huang from Shanghai University raised some essential issues that China is facing in modern society to which answers may need to refer back to Martin Luther’s time.

Professor Hong Liang divided the lecture into four parts.

I. The Heidelberg Disputation in the scrutiny of the Reformation in the 16th Century

In September 1517, Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses which was against selling indulgences at the gate of Schlosskirche Church in Wittenburg. The action set the opening scene of the Reformation movement. Yet, the symbolical theoretical peak of the Reformation in theological history was not the 95 Theses published by Luther in 1517. It was the Heidelberg Disputation which was published by Luther in 1518 because in 1517 he was still within the theological framework of Catholicism. 

II. The connotation and significance of the Heidelberg Disputation in the history of thoughts

The current version of the Heidelberg Disputation is actually incomplete, which consists of 40 topics and some annotations. Among the 40 topics, the first 28 are theological topics, while the last 12 are philosophical topics. The main goal of the philosophical topics was to criticize Aristotle’s philosophy, and the 28 theological topics could be classified as follows:

Law (Article 1), human behavior and God’s behavior (Articles 2-12), freedom of will (13-15), grace (16-18), “theologians of Glory ” and “theologians of the Cross” (19-22), Law (23-24), man’s behavior/faith/law/grace/Christ’s behavior (25-27), and God’s love and man’s love (28).

III. Moltmann’s interpretation of the Heidelberg Disputation

Jürgen Moltmann's attention to the Heidelberg's Disputation began when he was studying in Göttingen after World War II. He was especially inspired by a course called ‘The Young Luther’ offered by Evander from 1948 to 1949. Moltmann reinterpreted “the God hidden in suffering” in article 21 of the Disputation, deduced the suffering of God from the cross of Christ, and went from Christology to the doctrine of God.

Moltmann’s book The Crucified God holds that while the Son went through the process of death (sterben) in abandonment and the Father then came through the state of death (tod) of the Son abandoned by him, the latter suffered from the death of his own “the Vatersein” in the death of the Son; the Father was involved in the abandonment of the Son, not the death of the first persona (Patripassionismus); the Son and the Father experienced the complete loss of relationship and connection during the Son’s death, which was reflected in the personal interaction between them on the issue of death. The social meaning of death was the complete loss of relationship and connection (referring to breathing, heartbeat, brain, etc.). There came a perspective transformation from the theology of the Cross in the perspective of the theology of the Trinity to the theology of the Trinity in the perspective of the theology of the Cross.

IV. A comparison to the interpretation of the Heidelberg Disputation by Kazoh Kitamori

The basic idea of the book The Theology of the Pain of God written by Kazoh Kitamori was listed as follows: “God has tolerated things that should not be tolerated, so He Himself has experienced crushing, injury and pain”; “Deep in God’s heart” was full of pain because “in God’s heart, wills struggle against each other”; God’s will to love people was against his will to be angry with people, and the former overcame the latter, which led to his pain, that was, “God's innermost essence”; conflicts of will: God was determined to love the object of his anger - abandoning the Son’s loyalty was “the inevitability laid by God”; the Father giving birth to the Son was not the ultimate connotation of the relationship between them; The Father who gave birth to the Son was the Father who let the Son die and suffer (on Heidelberg); in the absence of the holy spirit.

Kazoh Kitamori’s criticism of the classical “Trinity Theory” has raised the question of how to match the “Trinity Theory” with the “modern disaster experience”. Kitamori believed that it was more important for the Father to let the Son die than for the Father to give birth to the Son. The Father gave birth to the Son to provide conditions for the former to let the latter die; the Father letting the Son die was the decisive connotation of the father-son relationship; trinity inward activity: God gave birth to the Son and made the Son die and suffer.

Both Moltmann and Kitamori stated that “theology of the cross” plus the “Trinity Theory” held that “the cross is a key event related to the Father and the Son”. However, to Kitamori, the Father-Son interaction was “the grand deed of the Father abandoning the Son” in which the Son has a comparatively instrumental role. Moltmann, on the other hand, further discovered “the equality of the Father and the Son persona in the same abandonment (the same suffering)” on the basis of Kitamori’s view.

- Translated by Charlie Li