progressive revelation

[KwokKwanTam]

最近在上一課? 終末論?的主日學。講者持時代論的前千禧年觀點。他提到 progressive revelation "漸進啟示" 的解經原則， 後來的啟示比之前的啟示清楚。

我對progressive revelation有些保留。因這帶來了重新約輕舊約的現況。不知有沒有人了解它的來歷和評價？

[Daniel_Cheung]

在 Bernard Ramm 的 Protestant Biblical Interpretation 裡，有一章（或半章）是談這個的。他的用意是解釋舊約一些不道德但奉宗教之名作的事（例如戰爭裡的過度暴力），相對於昔日的道德文化標準，已是一個富挑戰性的啓示，但在新約和今天的標準，卻仍是不足。若這是重新約輕舊約的原因，似乎放棄了倒會有很多神學困難。

[KwokKwanTam]

在 Bernard Ramm 的 Protestant Biblical Interpretation 裡，有一章（或半章）是談這個的。他的用意是解釋舊約一些不道德但奉宗教之名作的事（例如戰爭裡的過度暴力），相對於昔日的道德文化標準，已是一個富挑戰性的啓示，但在新約和今天的標準，卻仍是不足。若這是重新約輕舊約的原因，似乎放棄了倒會有很多神學困難。


Daniel, thanks for your reply. It seems the progressive revelation quoted from your source may be different from what 時代論 said, at least from my source. I'll try to find Ramm to have a look. Thanks anyway.

[clement]

最近在上一課? 終末論?的主日學。講者持時代論的前千禧年觀點。他提到 progressive revelation "漸進啟示" 的解經原則， 後來的啟示比之前的啟示清楚。

我對progressive revelation有些保留。因這帶來了重新約輕舊約的現況。不知有沒有人了解它的來歷和評價？

這種觀點，似乎古代教會都有。他們重新解讀舊約，也解讀異教聖賢的著作，說他們都是不完全的。例如柏拉圖，他居然是很接近基督教歧視的異教思想家（其實應該反過來說，基督教神學的建構很多都受到柏拉圖影響）。

另外，新興教派也很welcome這種看法，他們的新經勝過新約。伊斯蘭教不也是用漸進啟示來看待新約和希伯來聖經？

[pilgrim]

最近在上一課? 終末論?的主日學。講者持時代論的前千禧年觀點。他提到 progressive revelation "漸進啟示" 的解經原則， 後來的啟示比之前的啟示清楚。

我對progressive revelation有些保留。因這帶來了重新約輕舊約的現況。不知有沒有人了解它的來歷和評價？

I don't think it's entirely wrong to say the NT reveals more clearly the purpose of God in some areas than does the OT. For example, no matter how many theophanies the OT has, it is not as a clear a revelation of who God is as in the person of Jesus recorded in the NT.

This needs not lead to a low view of the OT. To borrow Tom Wright's terminology, the OT contains Acts 1 to 3 of a 5 Act-Play and the NT the 4th Act. It will be mis-informed to disregard Acts 1 to 3 just because they don't contain the climax or the conclusion of the Play. In order to understand Act 4 correctly (many Christians don't!), a thorough understanding and appreciation of Acts 1 to 3 is necessary. Without the direction of that script, we wouldn't be able to play out faithfully Act 5 in our days.

[筆是大遲]

I don't think it's entirely wrong to say the NT reveals more clearly the purpose of God in some areas than does the OT. For example, no matter how many theophanies the OT has, it is not as a clear a revelation of who God is as in the person of Jesus recorded in the NT.

This needs not lead to a low view of the OT. To borrow Tom Wright's terminology, the OT contains Acts 1 to 3 of a 5 Act-Play and the NT the 4th Act. It will be mis-informed to disregard Acts 1 to 3 just because they don't contain the climax or the conclusion of the Play. In order to understand Act 4 correctly (many Christians don't!), a thorough understanding and appreciation of Acts 1 to 3 is necessary. Without the direction of that script, we wouldn't be able to play out faithfully Act 5 in our days.

Wright的處理方法跟一般的漸進啟示的最大差異，是傳統的啟漸進啟示，注重的是片面與全面，清楚與不清楚的分別，而Wright採用的則是故事神學的進路，聖經基本上不是a system of rules，而是a narrative，所以問題就不是片面與全面的問題，也不是清楚與不清楚的問題，而是神的故事在發展之中。原來Pilgrim兄也有留意Wright呢。

[Daniel_Cheung]

單按你們二人的講法，其實兩者未必排斥。神的故事在發展，於是在不同階段展現了神的不同期望和屬性。而那些期望和屬性可能有一定穩定性，以致後人可以系統地整理出一些所謂原則或 rule 。或許 Wright 講的不只這麼少吧。