就宗教多元問題的討論而言，宗教哲學和基督教神學是兩種迥然不同又相互關聯的進路。由於某些歷史因素，神學的進路在漢語世界的發展相對來說比較滯後和薄弱。爲就漢語基督教研究的
長遠前景考慮，釐清這兩條進路之間的差別與聯繫，肯定幷堅持神學進路的完整性和獨特性，具有至關重大的意義。本文意在通過回應張洪勝先生〈對一種三一論與宗教對話話語的批判〉一文，澄清宗教哲學與基督教神學這兩條進路的差別與聯繫。簡要勾勒出在宗教多元問題上哲學進路和神學進路各自的特徵之後，本文將集中探討基督教神學的「問題意識」和理論建構範式，嘗試在此基礎上進一步說明，儘管哲學進路對神學討論的深入可能有一定的助益，但基督教神學有其屬乎自身的完整性、「語法」和自主權，因而不能被哲學進路化約或取代。本文更進一步指出，張洪勝先生那種總體性的評論方式主要是屬於哲學，尤其是分析哲學的進路，並未正視諸宗教神學的基本問題、本質及任務。張洪勝先生對田立克相關神學立場所做的個別評論，更說明他未能恰
當的掌握田立克的總體神學取向、拯救觀、處理宗教對話的進路
以及其他的相關神學理念。

Philosophy of Religion and Christian Theology of Religions are two different but related approaches to the issues concerning religious
plurality. In the Chinese-speaking world, due to some historical factors,
the theological approach has been relatively less developed. Clarifying
the differences and relationship between these two approaches and
affirming the integrity and distinctiveness of the theological approach
are vital for the long-term development of Sino-Christian Studies,
especially Sino-theology. Based on an outline of the characteristics of
the philosophical and theological approaches to the issues of religious
plurality and a more focused presentation of the “Problematik” and
paradigms of a Christian theology of religions, this paper attempts to
argue that Christian theology of religions has its own integrity, grammar
as well as autonomy and thus cannot be reduced to or replaced by the
philosophical approach, which, however, may help theological discussion
to a certain extent. This paper further argues that Cheung Hung
Shing Leonard’s “A Critique of a Discourse on Trinity and Religious
Dialogue,” which mainly takes a philosophical rather than theological
approach, betrays the inadequacy of his understanding of the basic
issues, nature and task of a Christian theology of religions