Before the average believer today learns what Reformed theology (i.e., Calvinism) actually is, he first usually has to learn what it’s not. Often, detractors define Reformed theology not according to what it actually teaches, but according to where they think its logic naturally leads. Even more tragically, some hyper-Calvinists have followed the same course. Either way, “Calvinism” ends up being defined by extreme positions that it does not in fact hold as scriptural. The charges leveled against Reformed theology, of which hyper-Calvinism is actually guilty, received a definitive response at the international Synod of Dort (1618–1619), along with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
在今日的平信徒知道改革宗神学（例如，加尔文主义）的真相后，他往往会先学习到它不是真名。毁谤者往往不根据改革宗神学来定义他们所教导的，而是根据他们认为改革宗的逻辑将会引发什么结果来定义。更为令人悲哀的是，某些极端加尔文主义者也采用了同样的做法。不管怎么做，“加尔文主义”往往会被以一种它从未采取的极端立场的定义为它事实上是是违反圣经的。被用来瞄准改革宗神学的批判，往往都是极端加尔文主义犯下的罪行，往往被以国际性的天特会议（Synod of Dort, 1618-1619）和伟敏斯特信仰宣言与教理问答坚决的反应之。
 
Is God the Author of Sin?—难道神是罪的作者吗？
 
The God of Israel “is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deut. 32:4–5). In fact, James seems to have real people in mind when he cautions, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Sin and evil have their origin not in God or creation, but in the personal will and action of creatures.
以色列的神“是完美的，祂的所行尽是公义。神乃是信实无罪的，是公义并正直的。”（申命记32:4-5）事实上，雅各在提醒我们“当人被试诱的时候，他不要说‘我是被神试诱的’，因为神不能被恶者所试诱，祂也不试诱任何人”（雅各书1:13）的时候，他明显的在脑海中想着一个真实的人。罪与恶都在神与造物外有另一个起源，而是存在于人的意志并造物的行为中。
 
Scripture sets forth two guardrails here: On one hand, God “works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:15); on the other, God does not — in fact, cannot — do evil. We catch a glimpse of these two guardrails at once in several passages, most notably in Genesis 45 and Acts 2. In the former, Joseph recognizes that while the intention of his brothers in selling him into slavery was evil, God meant it for good, so that many people could be saved during this famine (vv. 4–8). We read in the same breath in Acts 2:23 that “lawless men” are blamed for the crucifixion, and yet Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God….” The challenge is to affirm what Scripture teaches without venturing any further. We know from Scripture that both are true, but not how. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this point is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 3.1): “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established,” and with that, the second guardrail. “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established,” and with that, the second guardrail. The same point is made in the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 13), adding that whatever God has left to His own secret judgment is not for us to probe any further.
圣经在此立下了两个准则：在一方面，神“根据祂的旨意在万有中行事”（以弗所1:15）；在另一方面，神没有—事实上，也不能—行恶。我们可以从许多经文中看见这两个准则，最明显的是创世纪45和行传2。在前一处经文中，约瑟发现他的兄弟们想要卖掉他的邪恶动机，神却转恶为善，以至于他的家人能够在这个饥荒中被拯救（4-8节）。我们在行传2:23中也读到同样的味道，就是那些‘不法的人’当负起十字架的责任，但是耶稣却‘根据神定下的计划并预知，拯救了他们。。。’其挑战乃是要坚守圣经的教导，而不要越雷池一步。我们从圣经得知这两个事件都是真是的，但却不知道神如何成就的。或许，最为简洁的说法可以在卫敏斯特信仰宣言（chap。 3.1）中找到：“神在已过的永远中，透过祂意志中最为智慧并神圣的会议，白白的，并以不改变的方式命定将要发生的一切；”——这里有一个准则——“然而，神既不是罪的作者，也不能以暴力的方式改变被造之物的意志；第二个起因不能也不可以偶发的方式改变已经发生的事物，”这是第二个准则。比利时信条（第13条）也强调了同一个重点，并加上神奥秘的审判不是我们所能够进一步探索的。
 
Is the Gospel for Everyone?——福音是不是给世人的？
 
Isn’t it a bit of false advertising to say on one hand that God has already determined who will be saved and on the other hand to insist that the good news of the Gospel be sincerely and indiscriminately proclaimed to everyone?
一方面说审意见预定神将会得救，而在另一方面又坚持福音这个好信息必须被严肃并一视同仁的传扬给所有的世人，难道这不是一种虚假的广告吗？
 
But didn’t Christ die for the elect alone? The Canons of Dort pick up on a phrase that was often found in the medieval textbooks (“sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only”) when it affirms that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). Therefore, we hold out to the world “the promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction ….” Although many do not embrace it, this “is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6).
难道基督不是仅仅为了选民而死？多特信条引用了一段在中古世纪的教科书中常见的一段话（“对世界是足够的，但仅仅对选民有效——sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only”），那段话肯定基督的死“具有无可比拟的价值，完全足以补赎全世界的罪行”（第二个标题，第三条）。因此，我们坚信世界拥有“福音的应许。。。向着所有的人。。。毫无分别。。。”虽然许多人不接受这样的看法，但这“并不会使得基督在十字架上献的祭变得无效或不足够，全人类反而能够全然被归咎于这个祭。”（第二标题，第5-6条）
 
Here once again we are faced with mystery — and the two guardrails that keep us from careening off the cliff in speculation. God loves the world and calls everyone in the world to Christ outwardly through the Gospel, and yet God loves the elect with a saving purpose and calls them by His Spirit inwardly through the same Gospel (John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9). Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists ignore crucial passages of Scripture, resolving the mystery in favor of the either-or: either election or the free offer of the Gospel.
我们在此又再次面对神的奥秘——两个准则能够帮助我们不会在揣测的悬崖边翻下去。神爱世人并以外在福音的方式，把在世界里面的人呼召到基督那里去，然而神带着一种拯救的目的爱选民，并以内在的方式，用祂自己的灵，透过同一个福音呼召他们（John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9）。亚米念主义和极端加尔主义都忽略了圣经中极其重要的经文，导致神的奥秘倾向于福音的拣选或白白的赐予。
 
Grace for Everybody?——恩典是为着众人的？
 
Does God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — fattening the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?
神是否爱世人？或祂的恩赐仅仅是祂愤怒的伪装——难道就像某些极端加尔文主义者所辩称的，要把恶人养肥了再杀？
 
Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.
圣经充满了神看护的美善，特别是在诗篇中：“耶和华完全是良善的，祂的怜悯临及祂所造的一切。。。你张开你的手；你满足每一个活物的渴望。”（诗篇145:9,16）耶稣呼吁祂的跟随者为了如下的原因为他命的仇敌祷告：“因为祂让太阳照恶人，也照义人，降雨给义人，也降雨给不义的人。”（马太福音5:44）基督徒应当效法这种神圣的态度。
 
The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s dealing with this world.
我们在此论到的教义往往被称作是“普遍的恩典（Common Grace）”，与“救赎的恩典（Saving Grace）”不同。有些人拒绝这个称呼（有些人甚至拒绝这个观念），坚信恩典完全没有普遍的特性：只有一种恩典，就是具有神主权，拣选的恩典。然而，我们必须说，不论神在人堕落后以任何理由赐给任何人的恩赐，只能被视为恩典性的。我们再从遇见无法逾越的两个准则：神以恩典的方式做工好拯救选民，并维持那些未被拣选者，并使得他们在这个必死的生命中繁衍。而对于信徒的那种最为甜美的安慰中，拣选并不是神处理这个世界之故事的全部。
 
When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15).
当我们作为基督徒，并肯定普遍恩典的时候，我们以非常严肃的态度面对这个世界的罪恶本性，以及神所创造在其中，并维持的美善。我们看见，对于选民而言基督乃是救赎恩典的中保，也是神对于在咒诅之下世界的普遍性祝福。因此，能够使得信徒的生活更为丰富。约翰加尔文诉诸于能够禁止世俗对基督徒产生影响的狂热主义（Fanaticism），其结果就是当我们藐视在不信者中发现的真理，良善，和美丽的时候，我们就是过于轻视圣灵亲自倾倒的普遍恩典（基督教要义2.2.15）。
 
Is Calvinism a License to Sin?——加尔文主义是否是犯罪许可证？
 
The first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are never accused of preaching antinomianism (that is, grace-as-license), we probably have not preached the Gospel correctly. After all, Paul anticipates the question, “Shall we then sin that grace may abound?” precisely because his own argument from 3:9 to this point has pressed it: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more” (5:21). At the same time, some Reformed Christians, especially those liberated from legalistic backgrounds, seem to end Paul’s argument at Romans 5:21, concluding, in effect, “God likes to forgive, I like to sin — the perfect relationship!”
我们首先要说明，对于Martyn Lloyd-Johnes而言，如果我们从未批判传扬反律法主义（就是，恩典作为犯罪的许可证），我们可能就没有正确的传扬福音。别忘了，保罗早就预测了这个责难，“难道恩典能够使罪过加多吗？”这正是因为他自己对于 3:9的论点产生了：“何处罪过加多，恩典就更加多。”（5：21）在同时，某些改革宗基督徒，特别是那些从律法背景被释放的认识，看起来似乎终结了
保罗在罗马书5:31中的论点，他们结论到，‘神喜欢赦免，我喜欢犯罪——这是完美的关系。’
 
The difference between being accused of antinomianism (literally, anti-law-ism) and being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow Paul on into chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an announcement of what God has done!At first, this would seem to favor antinomians, since they place all of the emphasis on what God has done and reject, or at least downplay, the importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, what Paul announces is that God has accomplished not only our justification in Christ, but our baptism into Christ.  His argument is basically this: being united to Christ necessarily brings justification and regeneration, which issues in sanctification. He does not say that Christians should not, or must not, live in sin as the principle of their existence, but that they cannot — it is an impossibility. That they do continue to sin is evident enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle against it.
被定罪为反律法主义与真正犯下那样的罪行间的分别在于我们是否愿意跟保罗一同进入第六章。首先，这看起来似乎对于犯律法主义者有利，因为他们把所有的注意力放在神所做并所拒绝的，或最起码贬低履行律法义务的重要性。然而，事实上，保罗所宣告的乃是神不仅仅只在基督里完成了我们的称义，也把我们浸入基督里面。他的论点基本上是：与基督联合必然产生称义与重生，这进一步产生成圣。他并不是说基督徒应当不怎么样，或不能怎么样的活在罪里面，并把最当做他们存在的原则，而是他们不能这样做 ——这是不可能的。他们继续犯罪就是一个明确的证明，特别是在第七章中，然而如今要与罪斗争。
 
The fathers at Dort recognized the charge that the Reformed doctrine “leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “libertinism” and “renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please” (Conclusion). Yet they would neither surrender the comfort of justification by Christ’s righteousness imputed nor of sanctification by Christ’s resurrection life imparted. Perfection of sanctification in this life is impossible, but just as impossible is a condition known today as the “carnal Christian.” One is either dead in Adam or alive in Christ. Again, some wish to resolve this mystery: either we can be free from all known sin, as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state of spiritual death, as antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason, such an easy resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of Scripture and robs us of the joy of such a full salvation.
多特会议的先祖们发现了对于改革宗教义的批判，说“导致人的心思离开敬虔与信仰；就是肉体和魔鬼的鸦片”，并不可避免的导致‘自由主义’并‘使得人根植与肉体中，因为他们被说服，就是没有什么能够阻止选民的救恩，所以他们可以随心所欲的生活’（结论）。然而他们因着透过基督的公义归给我们的称义，或透过基督放在我们里面复活的生命而有的圣洁而过上安逸的日子。完全的成圣在此生是不可能的，但是，今日所谓‘肉体的基督徒（Carnal Christian）’同样也是不可能的。人若不是在亚当中死，就是在基督里活。有些人还想要解决这个奥秘：亦或是我们能够脱离一切知道的罪，就像约翰卫斯理所教导的一样，就是我们能够处于一种属灵的死亡中，如同反律法主义所教导的。然而，为了满足我们的理性，不论是采取任何方向，那种简单化的答案都忽略了圣经明确的教训并剥夺了我们因那完整救赎而有的喜乐。
 
So the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but they are also not to be separated.
因此，这个点的两个准则乃是从律法主义并反律法主义的迷雾中浮现出来的：称义与成圣不能被混为一谈，但是，它们也不能被切割。
 
In addition to these other charges, Reformed theology is often regarded as “rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture. However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the extremists on either side of these debates. The wisdom of the Reformed confessions is that they refuse to speculate beyond Scripture and insist on proclaiming the whole counsel of God, not simply the passages that seem to reinforce one-sided emphases. It is not a question of where the logic should lead us but where the Scriptures do lead us. It might be easier to resolve the mystery in simple, either-or solutions, but such a course would certainly not be safer. So let us too strive to read all of the Scriptures together, keeping a sharp lookout for those guardrails!
在其他的批判之外，改革宗神学往往被认为是“理性化（rationalistic）”——就是建立在逻辑，而不是建立在圣经上的系统。然而，我希望我们能够开始看见，真正的理性主义这乃是在这个争论的两个极端上的极端分子。改革宗信仰宣言的智慧乃是在于它们拒绝越过圣经去揣测真理，并诉诸于神的整个大会的宣告，而不仅仅依赖于那些只偏重于单方面的经文段落。逻辑所产生的结果并不是问题，而是圣经将我们引向何处才是重点。我们可能可以用简单，是非分明的答案来解决奥秘所产生的问题，但是那种做法并不是安全的。因此，让我们努力一同阅读整本圣经，敏锐的寻找那些指导我们的准则。