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.

关于全然败坏的冲突的关键章节

当然，整个辩论中最典型的事件是伯拉纠之争。这场冲突发生在五世纪初，当时伯拉纠和塞莱斯蒂乌斯反对奥古斯丁的教导，即罪人完全无法顺服神，除非神通过恩典介入，将他们从罪中解放出来。

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.

奥古斯丁只是肯定了罗马书8章7-8节中的直白的真理：“原来体贴肉体的，就是与神为仇。因为不服神的律法，也是不能服。而且属肉体的人，不能得神的喜欢。”但根据伯拉纠主义，任何选择顺服神的人都能够这样做。与罗马书 5:12-19 相矛盾的是，伯拉纠坚决否认人性因我们始祖的罪而受到任何形式的玷污或残疾。他坚持认为只有亚当吃了禁果才堕落，并且亚当的罪疚和腐败都没有因为他的悖逆而传给他的后代。相反，伯拉纠派说，每个人都拥有完美的意志自由，就像亚当本人一开始所做的那样。因此，当我们犯罪时，纯粹是出于选择，而不是因为我们的本性败坏了。他们还表示，罪人有能力通过纯粹的意志力改变自己的内心，使自己摆脱罪恶。

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.

实际上，伯拉纠派否认对神恩典的需要，并将救赎简化为自我改革的肤浅概念。当然，他们完全没有为这样的体系提供任何令人信服的理性或圣经依据，他们的观点在 431 年被以弗所会议正式谴责为异端。

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，最初的伯拉纠教义浪潮刚一被搁置，一场新的运动就兴起了，用更微妙的教义花招来曲解人类堕落的严重性。虽然正式承认亚当的罪在某种程度上感染了并致残了他所有的后代，但这种观点坚持认为，罪人仍然有足够的意志自由，可以在没有神恩典的帮助下对神做出最初的信仰行动。今天，我们通常将这种观点称为半伯拉纠主义，因为它介于奥古斯丁和伯拉纠的观点之间。这个名字是一个较新的造词，可以追溯到宗教改革初期，但这个想法在伯拉纠争议开始后不久就首次出现。

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.

半伯拉纠主义的要点是，人类的堕落虽然是真实的，但并不是完全的。罪人仍然足够好，能够靠自己获得拯救的恩典。因此，拯救恩典是对人类主动性的回应，而不是我们得救的有效原因。

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.

从529年的第二次奥兰治公会议开始，半伯拉纠主义的核心原则已经被几个教会理事会谴责。但整个教会历史上许多有影响力的教师提出了变化和修改，试图避免被贴上伯拉纠主义或半伯拉纠主义的标签，但仍然寻找一种方法来支持这样一种观念，即人类自由意志在某种程度上是罪人得救的关键。

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.

阿米念主义正是采用了这种方法。当然，这种观点是针对加尔文主义而产生的。直到约翰·加尔文去世大约五十年后，这才成为一个重要因素。但是，为了理解人们试图避免全然败坏的影响的各种方式，在我们更详细地研究加尔文全然败坏的教义之前，总结一下阿米念主义可能会有所帮助。

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.

阿米念派的立场是基于对半伯拉纠原则的轻微修改。 （事实上，今天许多自称为阿米念主义者的人实际上是伯拉纠派或半伯拉纠派。）没有一个真正的阿民念主义者会故意否认亚当的罪导致他的后代堕落并陷入罪的束缚。但根据阿米念派的方案，罪人普遍获得了一定程度的“先行恩典”，消除或减轻了堕落的影响。这还不足以拯救罪人，但足以恢复罪人一点点的意志自由。因此，阿米念主义者相信，听到福音的罪人现在可以自由意志选择是否接受福音。

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]

换句话说，普遍先行的恩典使罪的束缚变得毫无意义，并恢复了罪人的自由意志。因此，阿民念主义的方案（就像半伯拉纠主义一样）口头上承认原罪和人类普遍堕落的教义，但实际上它把堕落罪人的实际状况描述为并非完全败坏。

^[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.