躁动不安与归正：预定论/神的主权

送交者: ardmore 2013年06月28日10:29:55 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话

躁动不安与归正：预定论/神的主权 Restless and Reformed: Predestination/God's Sovereignty  既然“中心教条”的理论打乱了传统，我就开始我自己的传统吧。理查·穆勒（Richard Muller）和其他学者已经有系统地驳斥了一个观念，就是预定论是改革宗神学的中心教条。事实上，这些历史神学家证明了在改革宗系统中，没有一条教义具有此种的功能。 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世纪的历史神学特别受到“大概念”（Great Idea）之思维的吸引：要找出一个中心的教条，这个系统中其他的东西都要从这个教条推导而出，来加以解释，并与敌对的系统加以对比。当然，在释经与争论的场合中，加尔文是为奥古斯丁的神的主权和预定的教义辩护的。不过，这个强调，很难被视为是一个中心教义，然后推导出整个系统，特别是在他对基督信仰的摘要（日内瓦要理问答）中，加尔文甚至没有提及这个教义。虽然如此，神的主权和预定仍然变成一种解释或批评加尔文和改革宗神学的方式（无论来自友人和敌人都一样）。对照之下，整个路德宗的系统据称都是从神称罪人为义这个教义而作出推论的。 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. 上帝主权的恩典吞没了我们整个的地平线。它改变了一切。我们能理解，这真是一个全新的发现。我们开始明白我们以往所忽略的经文。这是一个范式的转移（paradigm shift）。但这恰恰是我们需要小心的地方：一个范式可以从一个对经文的新鲜解读自然地得出，也可以是从外面强加在圣经之上。例如，如果我们从小就相信救恩是靠个人的自由意志来决定，预定则重述了神的自由。神有自由拣选人，有自由定人的罪。但是这仅仅是因为神掌主权吗？当然不是。这是对神的主权的教导，一种近乎武断的描绘。不！在圣经中，我们学到，上帝有自由拣选祂要拣选的人，也有自由定其余的人有罪——因為所有的人都配受定罪。换句话说，上帝的主权不能与祂的公平和公义——或者与任何其他的属性，包括祂的爱——分开。正如我们不能用一节经文或一段表列的经节来抵消其余的经文，我们也不能把上帝的一个属性奉为至高，超过其他属性。崇拜上帝的一个属性，而不崇拜上帝自己，是真正的危险。 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. 让预定变成一个“中心教条”，基督教就无法与伊斯兰教无异。我曾经见过并听过一些极端加尔文主义者的演讲，高举神的主权而不曾提到耶稣基督。然而加尔文说，只有在基督里我们才能找到我们的拣选。我也听过一些演说，把神定罪的行动说成是与祂拯救的行动相等。然而，这是忽略了圣经清楚的教导，即祂从整个被定罪的人类当中，拣选一些人使他们得救。许多经文赞美上帝的慈爱，祂拣选的恩典。但是上帝唯独在选民的救恩上受到赞美，而没有在非选民的定罪上受到赞美。这就是为什么多特信经（1618-19）——“加尔文五要点”的出处——确认“改革宗教会全心憎恶”（"Reformed churches detest with their whole heart）这个观点，说上帝在定罪人的事上，所涉入的程度与祂在救恩的事上涉入的一样深。当我们以预定或神的主权成为基础，在其上建造出一栋神学系统的摩天大楼，其结果就是我们把一些经文挑选出来，让它们的地位高过其他的经文。这就成了“正典中的正典”。这是改革宗正统所绝不允许的事。 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，批判者不这样以为是情有可原的。首先，目前的趋势是把改革宗神学贬低为只是加尔文主义五要点。有时候，这会给人一种印象，就是只要相信预定论，就是改革宗。当然，这就会使得汤玛斯·阿奎拿（Thomas Aquinas）归正的程度变得和史普罗（R. C. Sproul）一样了！不过，这“五要点”本身是多特信条的总结，而多特信条比起这个总结要丰富并完整得多。尚且，多特信条是欧陆的改革宗基督徒（包括来自英国教会的代表）所撰写的，是作为对阿民念主义的反驳。此信条和比利时信仰告白、海德堡要理问答一起，是作为改革宗信仰与实践之仅次于圣经的标准。威敏思特标准（译按：即威敏思特信仰告白，大、小要理问答等三份文件）也认信同样的信仰。无论何时，当神全部的计划被简化成几个“基要真理”时，我们就失去这些教义的丰富性与深度。再者，当这些教义从更大的信仰系统与实践被孤立出来的时候，它们就很容易落入片面强调的陷阱中。 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，批评者经常把加尔文主义描绘成极端加尔文主义。而且，很不幸地，他们实际上会接触到体现出这种讽刺的人。对初信的人来说，走极端一直是一种诱惑。有很多流行的版本，的确把神的主权或预定变成经文的中心。当然，我们必须在圣经的亮光下来解释圣经。对一些人来说，把这类经文和同样清楚的关于神无条件的拣选的经文一起并排来看，真的会令人困惑。不过，问题出在我们。默示“全部圣经”的圣灵，使用各种不同的声音或不同的圣经作者——每个人有他自己的性格，风格，或甚至信念——但仍然教导一个统一的信息。上帝的确知道如何“多次多方”，且没有矛盾地和我们沟通。因此，我们必须小心，不要把圣经的教导变得很单调，好像它只是在教导一个真理，或甚至只集中在一个真理上。与此同时，我们必须很小心，不要让多样性变成互相矛盾。 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. 最近我们也经常看到，加尔文主义的新手们已经开始领悟到这点，就是古典改革宗对“与基督联合”的强调是非常丰富的。也许这才是改革宗的中心教条，而不是预定论。在所有的人中，戈马克斯·贝尔（Max Goebel）和马蒂斯·施奈肯伯格（Matthias Schneckenburger，1804-48）在这方面是特别成功的。他们定义改革宗的基督教信仰特别拥护与基督联合，而路德宗则强调法理上的称义（forensic justification）（注3）。有时候，这会成为当代的改革宗学者批判或重新评估“救赎次序”（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. 当然，如果圣经中有任何的“中心教条”，非基督莫属。不过，即使是基督的位格和工作，其功用也不是用来作为“中心教条”的。圣经的确是以基督的位格和工作为中心的，但若说是以此为中心教条，还是大不相同的。中心教条是指一个论点，所有其他的论点都要从这里作出推论。这个教条甚至可能是合乎圣经的。但是当它的作用是作为中心教条，它就会扭曲，而不是照亮其他的经文。 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. 改革宗的释经法并不是以预定、神的主权、称义或与基督联合为起点的。其系统是从圣经而来的，而不是强加在圣经身上的。不过，它也不是假装只是解释个别的经文，而不去考虑圣经自己对其更广的许多主题的说明。我们相信，有三个释经学（诠释）主题，是从经文本身很自然地产生出来的：律法与福音的区别，以基督为中心的救赎历史释经，以及圣约的结构。 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)

	标 题 (必选项): 内 容 (选填项):

	实用资讯