KEY CHAPTERS IN THE CONFLICT OVER TOTAL DEPRAVITY

The quintessential episode in the whole debate, of course, was the Pelagian controversy. This conflict arose early in the fifth century when Pelagius and Celestius objected to Augustine’s teaching that sinners are totally unable to obey God unless He intervenes by grace to free them from sin.

關於全然敗壞的衝突的關鍵章節

當然，整個辯論中最典型的事件是伯拉糾之爭。這場衝突發生在五世紀初，當時伯拉糾和塞萊斯蒂烏斯反對奧古斯丁的教導，即罪人完全無法順服神，除非神通過恩典介入，將他們從罪中解放出來。

Augustine was merely affirming the plain truth of Romans 8:7–8: “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” But according to Pelagianism, anyone who simply chooses to obey God can do so. In contradiction to Romans 5:12–19, Pelagius steadfastly denied that human nature was in any way defiled or disabled by our first parents’ sin. He insisted Adam alone fell when he ate the forbidden fruit, and neither guilt nor corruption was passed from Adam to his progeny because of his disobedience. Instead, the Pelagians said, every person possesses perfect freedom of the will just as Adam himself did at the beginning. So when we sin, it’s purely by choice, not because our nature is depraved. They furthermore said sinners have the ability to change their hearts and free themselves from sin by the exercise of sheer willpower.

奧古斯丁只是肯定了羅馬書8章7-8節中的直白的真理：“原來體貼肉體的，就是與神為仇。因為不服神的律法，也是不能服。而且屬肉體的人，不能得神的喜歡。”但根據伯拉糾主義，任何選擇順服神的人都能夠這樣做。與羅馬書 5:12-19 相矛盾的是，伯拉糾堅決否認人性因我們始祖的罪而受到任何形式的玷污或殘疾。他堅持認為只有亞當吃了禁果才墮落，並且亞當的罪疚和腐敗都沒有因為他的悖逆而傳給他的後代。相反，伯拉糾派說，每個人都擁有完美的意志自由，就像亞當本人一開始所做的那樣。因此，當我們犯罪時，純粹是出於選擇，而不是因為我們的本性敗壞了。他們還表示，罪人有能力通過純粹的意志力改變自己的內心，使自己擺脫罪惡。

In effect, the Pelagians denied the need for divine grace and reduced salvation to a shallow notion of self-reformation. Of course, they utterly failed to make any compelling rational or biblical case for such a system, and their view was formally denounced as heresy by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

實際上，伯拉糾派否認對神恩典的需要，並將救贖簡化為自我改革的膚淺概念。當然，他們完全沒有為這樣的體系提供任何令人信服的理性或聖經依據，他們的觀點在 431 年被以弗所會議正式譴責為異端。

Yet no sooner was the original wave of Pelagian teaching turned aside than a new movement arose to explain away the seriousness of human depravity—with a more subtle doctrinal sleight of hand. While formally acknowledging that Adam’s sin in some measure infected and disabled all his offspring, this view insisted that sinners nevertheless have just enough freedom of will left to make the first motion of faith toward God without the aid of divine grace. Today, we commonly refer to this view as Semi-Pelagianism, because it is something of a middle position between the views of Augustine and Pelagius. The name is a more recent coinage, dating back to the early Reformation, but the idea first arose not long after the Pelagian controversy began.

然而，最初的伯拉糾教義浪潮剛一被擱置，一場新的運動就興起了，用更微妙的教義花招來曲解人類墮落的嚴重性。雖然正式承認亞當的罪在某種程度上感染了並致殘了他所有的後代，但這種觀點堅持認為，罪人仍然有足夠的意志自由，可以在沒有神恩典的幫助下對神做出最初的信仰行動。今天，我們通常將這種觀點稱為半伯拉糾主義，因為它介於奧古斯丁和伯拉糾的觀點之間。這個名字是一個較新的造詞，可以追溯到宗教改革初期，但這個想法在伯拉糾爭議開始後不久就首次出現。

The gist of Semi-Pelagianism is that human depravity, while real, is not really total. Sinners are still good enough to be able to lay hold of saving grace on their own. Saving grace, therefore, is a response to human initiative rather than the efficient cause of our salvation.

半伯拉糾主義的要點是，人類的墮落雖然是真實的，但並不是完全的。罪人仍然足夠好，能夠靠自己獲得拯救的恩典。因此，拯救恩典是對人類主動性的回應，而不是我們得救的有效原因。

The central principle underlying Semi-Pelagianism has been denounced by several church councils, starting with the Second Council of Orange in 529. But numerous influential teachers throughout church history have proposed variations and modifications, trying to avoid being labeled Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian but still seeking a way to prop up the notion that human free will is in some way the hinge on which the salvation of sinners turns.

從529年的第二次奧蘭治公會議開始，半伯拉糾主義的核心原則已經被幾個教會理事會譴責。但整個教會歷史上許多有影響力的教師提出了變化和修改，試圖避免被貼上伯拉糾主義或半伯拉糾主義的標籤，但仍然尋找一種方法來支持這樣一種觀念，即人類自由意志在某種程度上是罪人得救的關鍵。

Arminianism takes precisely that approach. This view, of course, arose in reaction to Calvinism; it wasn’t a significant factor until some fifty years after John Calvin’s death. But in order to understand the various ways people have tried to avoid the implications of total depravity, it might be helpful to summarize Arminianism before we examine Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity in closer detail.

阿米念主義正是採用了這種方法。當然，這種觀點是針對加爾文主義而產生的。直到約翰·加爾文去世大約五十年後，這才成為一個重要因素。但是，為了理解人們試圖避免全然敗壞的影響的各種方式，在我們更詳細地研究加爾文全然敗壞的教義之前，總結一下阿米念主義可能會有所幫助。

The Arminian position is based on a slight modification of the Semi-Pelagian principle. (In fact, many who call themselves Arminians today are actually Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians.) No true Arminian would deliberately deny that Adam’s sin left his progeny depraved and in bondage to sin. But according to the Arminian scheme, a measure of “prevenient grace” has been universally granted to sinners, nullifying or mitigating the effects of the fall. It’s not enough grace for salvation, but just enough to restore a small measure of volitional liberty to the sinner. Therefore, Arminians believe it is now possible for sinners who hear the gospel to make their own free-will choice about whether to receive it.

阿米念派的立場是基於對半伯拉糾原則的輕微修改。 （事實上，今天許多自稱為阿米念主義者的人實際上是伯拉糾派或半伯拉糾派。）沒有一個真正的阿民念主義者會故意否認亞當的罪導致他的後代墮落並陷入罪的束縛。但根據阿米念派的方案，罪人普遍獲得了一定程度的“先行恩典”，消除或減輕了墮落的影響。這還不足以拯救罪人，但足以恢復罪人一點點的意志自由。因此，阿米念主義者相信，聽到福音的罪人現在可以自由意志選擇是否接受福音。

In other words, universal prevenient grace renders sin’s bondage moot and restores free will to the sinner. So the Arminian scheme (just like Semi-Pelagianism) gives lip service to the doctrines of original sin and humanity’s universal fallenness, but in practice it portrays the actual condition of fallen sinners as something less than total depravity.^[1]

換句話說，普遍先行的恩典使罪的束縛變得毫無意義，並恢復了罪人的自由意志。因此，阿民念主義的方案（就像半伯拉糾主義一樣）口頭上承認原罪和人類普遍墮落的教義，但實際上它把墮落罪人的實際狀況描述為並非完全敗壞。

^[1] John Macarthur, “Chapter 11: Man’s Radical Corruption,” in John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, and Doxology, ed. Burk Parsons (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2008), 130–132.