躁動不安與歸正：預定論/神的主權

送交者: ardmore 2013年06月28日10:29:55 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話

躁動不安與歸正：預定論/神的主權 Restless and Reformed: Predestination/God's Sovereignty  既然“中心教條”的理論打亂了傳統，我就開始我自己的傳統吧。理查·穆勒（Richard Muller）和其他學者已經有系統地駁斥了一個觀念，就是預定論是改革宗神學的中心教條。事實上，這些歷史神學家證明了在改革宗系統中，沒有一條教義具有此種的功能。 Since the "central dogma" thesis cuts across traditions, I might as well start with my own. Richard Muller and other scholars have systematically dismantled the idea that predestination operates as a central dogma in Reformed theology. In fact, these historical theologians demonstrate that no doctrine functions like that in the Reformed system. 19世紀的歷史神學特別受到“大概念”（Great Idea）之思維的吸引：要找出一個中心的教條，這個系統中其他的東西都要從這個教條推導而出，來加以解釋，並與敵對的系統加以對比。當然，在釋經與爭論的場合中，加爾文是為奧古斯丁的神的主權和預定的教義辯護的。不過，這個強調，很難被視為是一個中心教義，然後推導出整個系統，特別是在他對基督信仰的摘要（日內瓦要理問答）中，加爾文甚至沒有提及這個教義。雖然如此，神的主權和預定仍然變成一種解釋或批評加爾文和改革宗神學的方式（無論來自友人和敵人都一樣）。對照之下，整個路德宗的系統據稱都是從神稱罪人為義這個教義而作出推論的。 Nineteenth-century historical theology was especially drawn to the "Great Idea" approach: locating a central dogma from which everything else in the system could be deduced, explained, and contrasted with rival systems. Of course, Calvin defended an Augustinian doctrine of God's sovereignty and predestination when exegetical and polemical occasion required. This emphasis, however, can hardly be considered a central dogma from which the whole system is deduced, especially when it is not even mentioned in his summary of the Christian faith (the Geneva Catechism). Nevertheless, God's sovereignty and predestination became a way of explaining or criticizing Calvin and Reformed theology, by friend and foe alike. By contrast, the entire Lutheran system was allegedly deduced from the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly. 上帝主權的恩典吞沒了我們整個的地平線。它改變了一切。我們能理解，這真是一個全新的發現。我們開始明白我們以往所忽略的經文。這是一個範式的轉移（paradigm shift）。但這恰恰是我們需要小心的地方：一個範式可以從一個對經文的新鮮解讀自然地得出，也可以是從外面強加在聖經之上。例如，如果我們從小就相信救恩是靠個人的自由意志來決定，預定則重述了神的自由。神有自由揀選人，有自由定人的罪。但是這僅僅是因為神掌主權嗎？當然不是。這是對神的主權的教導，一種近乎武斷的描繪。不！在聖經中，我們學到，上帝有自由揀選祂要揀選的人，也有自由定其餘的人有罪——因為所有的人都配受定罪。換句話說，上帝的主權不能與祂的公平和公義——或者與任何其他的屬性，包括祂的愛——分開。正如我們不能用一節經文或一段表列的經節來抵消其餘的經文，我們也不能把上帝的一個屬性奉為至高，超過其他屬性。崇拜上帝的一個屬性，而不崇拜上帝自己，是真正的危險。 Especially in cases of fresh discovery, it's understandable that God's sovereign grace swallows our whole horizon. It changes everything. We begin to see passages we had overlooked before. It's a paradigm shift. But that's exactly why we have to be careful at just that point: a paradigm can arise naturally from a fresh reading of Scripture or it can be imposed upon Scripture from without. For example, if one has been raised to believe that salvation depends on the individual's free will, predestination reasserts God's freedom. God is free to elect and to condemn. But is this merely because God is sovereign? Of course not. There is a kind of teaching of the sovereignty of God that is close to an arbitrary portrait. No, in Scripture we learn that God is free to elect whom he will and to condemn the rest because everyone deserves condemnation. In other words, God's sovereignty cannot be separated from his justice and righteousness--or from any other attribute, including his love. Just as we can't use one passage or list of verses to cancel out others in Scripture, we cannot enshrine one attribute of God above others. There is a real danger in worshipping an attribute rather than God himself. 讓預定變成一個“中心教條”，基督教就無法與伊斯蘭教無異。我曾經見過並聽過一些極端加爾文主義者的演講，高舉神的主權而不曾提到耶穌基督。然而加爾文說，只有在基督里我們才能找到我們的揀選。我也聽過一些演說，把神定罪的行動說成是與祂拯救的行動相等。然而，這是忽略了聖經清楚的教導，即祂從整個被定罪的人類當中，揀選一些人使他們得救。許多經文讚美上帝的慈愛，祂揀選的恩典。但是上帝唯獨在選民的救恩上受到讚美，而沒有在非選民的定罪上受到讚美。這就是為什麼多特信經（1618-19）——“加爾文五要點”的出處——確認“改革宗教會全心憎惡”（"Reformed churches detest with their whole heart）這個觀點，說上帝在定罪人的事上，所涉入的程度與祂在救恩的事上涉入的一樣深。當我們以預定或神的主權成為基礎，在其上建造出一棟神學系統的摩天大樓，其結果就是我們把一些經文挑選出來，讓它們的地位高過其他的經文。這就成了“正典中的正典”。這是改革宗正統所絕不允許的事。 When predestination is made the central dogma, Christianity becomes indistinguishable from Islam. I've seen and heard a few hyper-Calvinist presentations that extolled the sovereignty of God without ever mentioning Jesus Christ. And yet Calvin said that it is only in Christ that we find our election. I have also heard presentations in which God's activity in condemnation was treated as equivalent to his activity in salvation. This, however, ignores the clear biblical teaching that has chosen some to be saved from the mass of condemned humanity. There are lots of passages that celebrate God's mercy in electing grace. But God is praised as directly and solely responsible for the salvation of the elect, not as directly and solely responsible for the condemnation of the nonelect. That is why the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19)--from which we get the so-called "five points of Calvinism"--affirm that "Reformed churches detest with their whole heart" the view that God is as involved in damnation as he is in salvation. When predestination or the sovereignty of God is made the foundation on which we build a skyscraper of a theological system, we end up picking out some passages of Scripture to stand over others in judgment. It becomes a canon within a canon. This is something Reformed orthodoxy never allowed. 然而，批判者不這樣以為是情有可原的。首先，目前的趨勢是把改革宗神學貶低為只是加爾文主義五要點。有時候，這會給人一種印象，就是只要相信預定論，就是改革宗。當然，這就會使得湯瑪斯·阿奎拿（Thomas Aquinas）歸正的程度變得和史普羅（R. C. Sproul）一樣了！不過，這“五要點”本身是多特信條的總結，而多特信條比起這個總結要豐富並完整得多。尚且，多特信條是歐陸的改革宗基督徒（包括來自英國教會的代表）所撰寫的，是作為對阿民念主義的反駁。此信條和比利時信仰告白、海德堡要理問答一起，是作為改革宗信仰與實踐之僅次於聖經的標準。威敏思特標準（譯按：即威敏思特信仰告白，大、小要理問答等三份文件）也認信同樣的信仰。無論何時，當神全部的計劃被簡化成幾個“基要真理”時，我們就失去這些教義的豐富性與深度。再者，當這些教義從更大的信仰系統與實踐被孤立出來的時候，它們就很容易落入片面強調的陷阱中。 Critics, however, may be forgiven for thinking otherwise. First, there is a growing tendency right now to reduce Reformed theology to the five points of Calvinism. Sometimes the impression is given that anyone who believes in predestination is Reformed. Of course, that would make Thomas Aquinas as Reformed as R. C. Sproul! However, these "five points" are themselves a summary of the Canons of Dort, which are much richer and fuller than that summary. Furthermore, the Canons were drawn up by Reformed Christians on the Continent (with representatives from the Church of England) as a refutation of Arminianism. They serve along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as a standard for Reformed faith and practice, subordinate to Scripture. The Westminster Standards confess the same faith. Whenever the whole council of God is reduced to a few "fundamentals," we lose the richness and depth of those very doctrines. Furthermore, when these doctrines are isolated from the broader system of faith and practice, they yield easily to one-sided emphases. 第二，批評者經常把加爾文主義描繪成極端加爾文主義。而且，很不幸地，他們實際上會接觸到體現出這種諷刺的人。對初信的人來說，走極端一直是一種誘惑。有很多流行的版本，的確把神的主權或預定變成經文的中心。當然，我們必須在聖經的亮光下來解釋聖經。對一些人來說，把這類經文和同樣清楚的關於神無條件的揀選的經文一起並排來看，真的會令人困惑。不過，問題出在我們。默示“全部聖經”的聖靈，使用各種不同的聲音或不同的聖經作者——每個人有他自己的性格，風格，或甚至信念——但仍然教導一個統一的信息。上帝的確知道如何“多次多方”，且沒有矛盾地和我們溝通。因此，我們必須小心，不要把聖經的教導變得很單調，好像它只是在教導一個真理，或甚至只集中在一個真理上。與此同時，我們必須很小心，不要讓多樣性變成互相矛盾。 Second, critics often paint Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism. And, unfortunately, they may actually encounter people who embody this caricature. Falling into extremes is always a temptation for new converts. There are popular versions on the ground that do make God's sovereignty or predestination the center of Scripture. Of course, we have to interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture. It may be confusing for some people to read verses like this alongside other equally clear passages concerning God's unconditional election. The problem, however, lies with us. The Spirit who inspired "all Scripture" employs the richly diverse voices of different biblical writers--each with his own personality, style, and even beliefs--while nevertheless teaching a unified message. God indeed knows how to communicate "in many times and in many ways," yet without contradiction. So we must beware of flattening out biblical teaching, as if it taught only one truth or even concentrated on one truth. At the same time, we have to be careful not to turn diversity into contradiction. 最近我們也經常看到，加爾文主義的新手們已經開始領悟到這點，就是古典改革宗對“與基督聯合”的強調是非常豐富的。也許這才是改革宗的中心教條，而不是預定論。在所有的人中，戈馬克斯·貝爾（Max Goebel）和馬蒂斯·施奈肯伯格（Matthias Schneckenburger，1804-48）在這方面是特別成功的。他們定義改革宗的基督教信仰特別擁護與基督聯合，而路德宗則強調法理上的稱義（forensic justification）（注3）。有時候，這會成為當代的改革宗學者批判或重新評估“救贖次序”（ordo salutis ）的理由。 Just as often these days, neophyte Calvinists have begun to realize the wealth of classical Reformed emphasis on union with Christ. Perhaps this, rather than predestination, is the central dogma. Among others, such as Max Goebel, Matthias Schneckenburger (1804-48) was particularly successful in defining Reformed Christianity as the champion of union with Christ over and against the Lutheran emphasis on forensic justification. (3) This is sometimes used to critique or reevaluate the ordo salutis by contemporary Reformed thinkers. 當然，如果聖經中有任何的“中心教條”，非基督莫屬。不過，即使是基督的位格和工作，其功用也不是用來作為“中心教條”的。聖經的確是以基督的位格和工作為中心的，但若說是以此為中心教條，還是大不相同的。中心教條是指一個論點，所有其他的論點都要從這裡作出推論。這個教條甚至可能是合乎聖經的。但是當它的作用是作為中心教條，它就會扭曲，而不是照亮其他的經文。 Surely, if there is any central dogma in Scripture, it is Christ. However, not even Christ's person and work function as a central dogma. There is an important difference between the centrality of Christ's person and work in Scripture and a central dogma. A central dogma is a thesis from which everything else is deduced. Such a dogma may even be biblical. But when it functions as a central dogma, it distorts instead of illuminating everything around it. 改革宗的釋經法並不是以預定、神的主權、稱義或與基督聯合為起點的。其系統是從聖經而來的，而不是強加在聖經身上的。不過，它也不是假裝只是解釋個別的經文，而不去考慮聖經自己對其更廣的許多主題的說明。我們相信，有三個釋經學（詮釋）主題，是從經文本身很自然地產生出來的：律法與福音的區別，以基督為中心的救贖歷史釋經，以及聖約的結構。 Reformed exegesis does not start with predestination, the sovereignty of God, justification, or union with Christ. Its system arises from Scripture rather than being imposed upon Scripture. It does not, however, pretend merely to interpret individual passages apart from an account of the Bible's own broader motifs. There are three hermeneutical (interpretive) motifs that we believe arise naturally from the Scriptures themselves: a law-gospel distinction, redemptive-historical exegesis centering on Christ, and a covenantal scheme.

0%(0)

0%(0)

	標 題 (必選項): 內 容 (選填項):

	實用資訊