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學（例如，加爾文主義）的真相後，他往往會先學習到它不是真名。毀謗者往往不根據改革宗神學來定義他們所教導的，而是根據他們認為改革宗的邏輯將會引發什麼結果來定義。更為令人悲哀的是，某些極端加爾文主義者也採用了同樣的做法。不管怎麼做，“加爾文主義”往往會被以一種它從未採取的極端立場的定義為它事實上是是違反聖經的。被用來瞄準改革宗神學的批判，往往都是極端加爾文主義犯下的罪行，往往被以國際性的天特會議（Synod of Dort, 1618-1619）和偉敏斯特信仰宣言與教理問答堅決的反應之。
 
Is God the Author of Sin?—難道神是罪的作者嗎？
 
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，祂的所行儘是公義。神乃是信實無罪的，是公義並正直的。”（申命記32:4-5）事實上，雅各在提醒我們“當人被試誘的時候，他不要說‘我是被神試誘的’，因為神不能被惡者所試誘，祂也不試誘任何人”（雅各書1:13）的時候，他明顯的在腦海中想着一個真實的人。罪與惡都在神與造物外有另一個起源，而是存在於人的意志並造物的行為中。
 
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.
聖經在此立下了兩個準則：在一方面，神“根據祂的旨意在萬有中行事”（以弗所1:15）；在另一方面，神沒有—事實上，也不能—行惡。我們可以從許多經文中看見這兩個準則，最明顯的是創世紀45和行傳2。在前一處經文中，約瑟發現他的兄弟們想要賣掉他的邪惡動機，神卻轉惡為善，以至於他的家人能夠在這個饑荒中被拯救（4-8節）。我們在行傳2:23中也讀到同樣的味道，就是那些‘不法的人’當負起十字架的責任，但是耶穌卻‘根據神定下的計劃並預知，拯救了他們。。。’其挑戰乃是要堅守聖經的教導，而不要越雷池一步。我們從聖經得知這兩個事件都是真是的，但卻不知道神如何成就的。或許，最為簡潔的說法可以在衛敏斯特信仰宣言（chap。 3.1）中找到：“神在已過的永遠中，透過祂意志中最為智慧並神聖的會議，白白的，並以不改變的方式命定將要發生的一切；”——這裡有一個準則——“然而，神既不是罪的作者，也不能以暴力的方式改變被造之物的意志；第二個起因不能也不可以偶發的方式改變已經發生的事物，”這是第二個準則。比利時信條（第13條）也強調了同一個重點，並加上神奧秘的審判不是我們所能夠進一步探索的。
 
Is the Gospel for Everyone?——福音是不是給世人的？
 
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?
一方面說審意見預定神將會得救，而在另一方面又堅持福音這個好信息必須被嚴肅並一視同仁的傳揚給所有的世人，難道這不是一種虛假的廣告嗎？
 
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).
難道基督不是僅僅為了選民而死？多特信條引用了一段在中古世紀的教科書中常見的一段話（“對世界是足夠的，但僅僅對選民有效——sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only”），那段話肯定基督的死“具有無可比擬的價值，完全足以補贖全世界的罪行”（第二個標題，第三條）。因此，我們堅信世界擁有“福音的應許。。。向着所有的人。。。毫無分別。。。”雖然許多人不接受這樣的看法，但這“並不會使得基督在十字架上獻的祭變得無效或不足夠，全人類反而能夠全然被歸咎於這個祭。”（第二標題，第5-6條）
 
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.
我們在此又再次面對神的奧秘——兩個準則能夠幫助我們不會在揣測的懸崖邊翻下去。神愛世人並以外在福音的方式，把在世界裡面的人呼召到基督那裡去，然而神帶着一種拯救的目的愛選民，並以內在的方式，用祂自己的靈，透過同一個福音呼召他們（John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9）。亞米念主義和極端加爾主義都忽略了聖經中極其重要的經文，導致神的奧秘傾向於福音的揀選或白白的賜予。
 
Grace for Everybody?——恩典是為着眾人的？
 
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?
神是否愛世人？或祂的恩賜僅僅是祂憤怒的偽裝——難道就像某些極端加爾文主義者所辯稱的，要把惡人養肥了再殺？
 
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.
聖經充滿了神看護的美善，特別是在詩篇中：“耶和華完全是良善的，祂的憐憫臨及祂所造的一切。。。你張開你的手；你滿足每一個活物的渴望。”（詩篇145:9,16）耶穌呼籲祂的跟隨者為了如下的原因為他命的仇敵禱告：“因為祂讓太陽照惡人，也照義人，降雨給義人，也降雨給不義的人。”（馬太福音5:44）基督徒應當效法這種神聖的態度。
 
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.
我們在此論到的教義往往被稱作是“普遍的恩典（Common Grace）”，與“救贖的恩典（Saving Grace）”不同。有些人拒絕這個稱呼（有些人甚至拒絕這個觀念），堅信恩典完全沒有普遍的特性：只有一種恩典，就是具有神主權，揀選的恩典。然而，我們必須說，不論神在人墮落後以任何理由賜給任何人的恩賜，只能被視為恩典性的。我們再從遇見無法逾越的兩個準則：神以恩典的方式做工好拯救選民，並維持那些未被揀選者，並使得他們在這個必死的生命中繁衍。而對於信徒的那種最為甜美的安慰中，揀選並不是神處理這個世界之故事的全部。
 
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).
當我們作為基督徒，並肯定普遍恩典的時候，我們以非常嚴肅的態度面對這個世界的罪惡本性，以及神所創造在其中，並維持的美善。我們看見，對於選民而言基督乃是救贖恩典的中保，也是神對於在咒詛之下世界的普遍性祝福。因此，能夠使得信徒的生活更為豐富。約翰加爾文訴諸於能夠禁止世俗對基督徒產生影響的狂熱主義（Fanaticism），其結果就是當我們藐視在不信者中發現的真理，良善，和美麗的時候，我們就是過於輕視聖靈親自傾倒的普遍恩典（基督教要義2.2.15）。
 
Is Calvinism a License to Sin?——加爾文主義是否是犯罪許可證？
 
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!”
我們首先要說明，對於Martyn Lloyd-Johnes而言，如果我們從未批判傳揚反律法主義（就是，恩典作為犯罪的許可證），我們可能就沒有正確的傳揚福音。別忘了，保羅早就預測了這個責難，“難道恩典能夠使罪過加多嗎？”這正是因為他自己對於 3:9的論點產生了：“何處罪過加多，恩典就更加多。”（5：21）在同時，某些改革宗基督徒，特別是那些從律法背景被釋放的認識，看起來似乎終結了
保羅在羅馬書5:31中的論點，他們結論到，‘神喜歡赦免，我喜歡犯罪——這是完美的關係。’
 
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.
被定罪為反律法主義與真正犯下那樣的罪行間的分別在於我們是否願意跟保羅一同進入第六章。首先，這看起來似乎對於犯律法主義者有利，因為他們把所有的注意力放在神所做並所拒絕的，或最起碼貶低履行律法義務的重要性。然而，事實上，保羅所宣告的乃是神不僅僅只在基督里完成了我們的稱義，也把我們浸入基督裡面。他的論點基本上是：與基督聯合必然產生稱義與重生，這進一步產生成聖。他並不是說基督徒應當不怎麼樣，或不能怎麼樣的活在罪裡面，並把最當做他們存在的原則，而是他們不能這樣做 ——這是不可能的。他們繼續犯罪就是一個明確的證明，特別是在第七章中，然而如今要與罪鬥爭。
 
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.
多特會議的先祖們發現了對於改革宗教義的批判，說“導致人的心思離開敬虔與信仰；就是肉體和魔鬼的鴉片”，並不可避免的導致‘自由主義’並‘使得人根植與肉體中，因為他們被說服，就是沒有什麼能夠阻止選民的救恩，所以他們可以隨心所欲的生活’（結論）。然而他們因着透過基督的公義歸給我們的稱義，或透過基督放在我們裡面復活的生命而有的聖潔而過上安逸的日子。完全的成聖在此生是不可能的，但是，今日所謂‘肉體的基督徒（Carnal Christian）’同樣也是不可能的。人若不是在亞當中死，就是在基督里活。有些人還想要解決這個奧秘：亦或是我們能夠脫離一切知道的罪，就像約翰衛斯理所教導的一樣，就是我們能夠處於一種屬靈的死亡中，如同反律法主義所教導的。然而，為了滿足我們的理性，不論是採取任何方向，那種簡單化的答案都忽略了聖經明確的教訓並剝奪了我們因那完整救贖而有的喜樂。
 
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，這個點的兩個準則乃是從律法主義並反律法主義的迷霧中浮現出來的：稱義與成聖不能被混為一談，但是，它們也不能被切割。
 
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，改革宗神學往往被認為是“理性化（rationalistic）”——就是建立在邏輯，而不是建立在聖經上的系統。然而，我希望我們能夠開始看見，真正的理性主義這乃是在這個爭論的兩個極端上的極端分子。改革宗信仰宣言的智慧乃是在於它們拒絕越過聖經去揣測真理，並訴諸於神的整個大會的宣告，而不僅僅依賴於那些只偏重於單方面的經文段落。邏輯所產生的結果並不是問題，而是聖經將我們引向何處才是重點。我們可能可以用簡單，是非分明的答案來解決奧秘所產生的問題，但是那種做法並不是安全的。因此，讓我們努力一同閱讀整本聖經，敏銳的尋找那些指導我們的準則。