Arminianisms    阿民念主义 

作者：巴刻（James I. Packer）

原文http://www.lgmarshall.org/Arminianism/packer_arminianisms.html

原文目前辑录在Puritan Papers, Volume 5(1968-1969), pp. 25-42。

转载自:  http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/19480131220095410150459/

在宗教改革运动产生的教会内部，传统上当人使用“加尔文主义”和“阿民念主义”这两个词的时候，他们表明的是一种对立关系，就像黑与白，工党和自由党，罗马天主教和抗罗宗一样。人用对立关系来定义这两个词，强调基督徒不是在这一边就是在那一边，无可回避。在福音派当中，尽管这个问题已经存了350年之久（如果不是确实存在了1900年的话），但仍存在，有时候还是很火爆的。一些人口说“加尔文主义”和“阿民念主义”，就像发出诅咒人的咒语（就像自由派的人说“基要派运动”一样），还有这么一些地方，如果你承认是其中一方，你就会失去基督徒之间的相通和尊重。还有一些长老会只按立加尔文主义者作牧师，一些循道会和拿撒勒派的教会只按立阿民念主义者，在大西洋两岸，“普及救恩”或“自由意志”（阿民念主义的说法，“特定救恩”或“改革宗”（加尔文主义的说法）这些词仍给浸信会带来分裂。在传福音的时候，福音派之间的合作有时会因为在这个问题上的纷争和不信任而受拦阻，就像十八世纪持守加尔文主义的福音派基督徒和约翰?卫斯理的阵营有时因这个问题很难合作一样。当每一方都把对方看成是曲解了神拯救之爱的时候，双方之间存在着紧张关系，这就不奇怪了。如此多自称非常关心神学问题的基督徒，把这场争论看作是与自己无关，没有必要牵涉其中，这倒是很奇怪的。WITHIN the churches of the Reformation, the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are traditionally used as a pair, expressing an antithesis, like black and white, or Whig and Tory, or Roman and Protestant. The words are defined in terms of the antithesis, and the point is pressed that no Christian can avoid being on one side or the other. Among evangelicals, this issue, though now 350 years old (if not, indeed 1900 years old), remains alive and sometimes explosive. "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are still spat out by some as anathematizing swear-words (like "fundamentalism" on the lips of a liberal), and there are still places where you forfeit both fellowship and respect by professing either. There remain Presbyterian churches which ordain only Calvinists, and Methodist and Nazarene bodies which ordain only Arminians, and the division between "general" or "free-will" (Arminian) and "particular" or "Reformed" (Calvinistic) still splits the Baptist community on both sides of the Atlantic. In evangelism, cooperation between evangelicals is sometimes hindered by disagreement and mistrust over this matter, just as in the eighteenth century the Calvinistic evangelicals and John Wesley's party found it hard on occasion to work together. Nor is it any wonder that tension should exist, when each position sees the other as misrepresenting the saving love of God. The wonder is, rather, that so many Christians who profess a serious concern for theology should treat this debate as one in which they have no stakes, and need not get involved.

本文要努力了解加尔文主义－阿民念主义之间的对立关系，对此作出评价。为此我们问自己三个问题。第一，什么是阿民念主义？第二，它和加尔文主义之间的分歧有多深？第三（假设此时我们已经明白了为什么要把阿民念主义看作是一种病态的发展），是什么引发了阿民念主义？应该怎样医治它？然而在解决这些问题之前，我们要事先声明一点：我们注重的是事情本身，而不是用词。我们这个题目迫使我们经常提到加尔文主义和阿民念主义这两种说法，但是振臂高呼口号，骂人的坏习惯，这可不是我们目的的一部分。[1]重要的是我们应当确实把握圣经是怎样说到神和他的恩典，而不是展示从历史神学中得出来的标签。本作者相信，也希望别人相信，那常被人贴上加尔文主义标签的教义，但是对为用词争辩不感兴趣。一个领受了圣经对神在施行恩典上的主权所作见证的人的确是有福的，但是他把自己标榜成是一位加尔文主义者，这不会使他变得更为有福，可能因此反倒会不妙；因为热衷结党和爱慕真理是两回事，沉迷在前者当中，就可能会扼杀后者。This article seeks to understand and evaluate the Calvinist-Arminian antithesis. To that end, we shall address ourselves to three questions. First, what is Arminianism? Second, how far-reaching is the cleavage between it and Calvinism? Third (assuming that by this stage we shall have seen reason to regard Arminianism as a pathological growth), what causes Arminianism? and what is the cure for it? Before we tackle these questions, however, one caveat must be entered. Our concern is with things, not words. Our subject matter will oblige us to speak of Calvinism and Arminianism frequently, but it is no part of our aim to revive bad habits of slogan-shouting and name-calling.11. John Wesley wrote: "It is the duty of every Arminian preacher . . . never in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach . . . and it is the duty of every Calvinist preacher . . . never . . . to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach" (Works, "from the latest London edition" [New York: Lane and Scott, 1850], V:134). To dispute this proposition would be hard. What matters is that we should grasp truly what the Bible says about God and His grace, not that we should parade brand labels derived from historical theology. The present writer believes, and wishes others to believe, the doctrines commonly labelled Calvinistic, but he is not concerned to argue for the word. One who has received the biblical witness to God's sovereignty in grace is blessed indeed, but he is no better off for labelling himself a Calvinist, and might indeed be the worse for it; for party passion and love of the truth are different things, and indulgence in the one tends to wither the other.

什么是阿民念主义？[2] WHAT IS ARMINIANISM?2

从历史来看，阿民念主义的出现是对伯撒（Beza）和多特会议（Synod of Dort）倡导的加尔文主义所作的回应，用贝诺尔（W. R. Bagnall）的话来说，就是“反对绝对预定，主张有条件预定，反对特定救赎，主张普遍救赎。”[3]这种用词上的对立并没有看起来那样简单清楚，因为改变了形容词，这就涉及到对名词的重新定义。贝诺尔本可以这样说，就是加尔文主义确立了一种预定的概念，是排除了条件性的，确立了一种救赎的概念，其特定性是至关重要的，而阿民念主义是否定这两样的。对加尔文主义来说，预定实质上就是对个人命运所作的无条件决定；对阿民念主义来说，预定实质上是神提供蒙恩之道的无条件决定，对个人命运的决定是次要的，有条件的，结果是按照对人怎样使用这些蒙恩之道的预见。对加尔文主义来说，对个人的预定就是对人的作为（包括他们对福音的回应），以及因此而来命运的预定；对阿民念主义来说，预定是对命运的一种预定，是建立在神预见人的作为，但并非预定人的作为之上的。阿民念主义确信神预定基督作人的救主，悔改相信是得救的方法，神赐下普世的，充分的内在恩典，使每一个地方的每一个人都有可能对神作出回应，以致得救；但是他否认神有预定任何具体的人相信。按加尔文主义者的观点，拣选是神一方预定的作为，就是有效选择具体的罪人，因信被耶稣基督所救；救赎是行出神拣选旨意的第一步，是确实保证确定的拯救得以成就，所有选民都蒙呼召，得赦罪，被收纳作神儿子，得保守，最终得荣耀。然而，按阿民念主义的观点，基督的死实在得到的是普遍来说罪人得救的一种可能性，这种可能性就神而言，可能永远不是实际达成任何一个人得救；拣选个人得救，就如上面所说，只是神预先看到谁要相信，有资格得荣耀，这是一个偶然，而非预定的事实。对加尔文主义来说，拣选是神决定要拯救，十字架是基督拯救的作为，而对阿民念主义来说，最终分析人是否得救，这不是取决神的拣选或基督的十字架，而是在于人自己对恩典的合作，这个合作是神没有亲自保证的。2. Cf. my introduction to John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth, 1959).Historically, Arminianism has appeared as a reaction against the Calvinism of Beza and the Synod of Dort, affirming, in the words of W. R. Bagnall, "conditional in opposition to absolute predestination, and general in opposition to particular redemption."33. The Writings of Arminius, tr. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), I:iii. This verbal antithesis is not in fact as simple or clear as it looks, for changing the adjective involves redefining the noun. What Bagnall should have said is that Calvinism affirms a concept of predestination from which conditionality is excluded, and a concept of redemption to which particularity is essential; and Arminianism denies both. The difference is this. To Calvinism predestination is essentially God's unconditional decision about the destiny of individuals; to Arminianism it is essentially God's unconditional decision to provide means of grace, decisions about individuals' destiny being secondary, conditional, and consequent upon foresight of how they will use those means of grace. To Calvinism, predestination of individuals means the foreordaining of both their doings (including their response to the gospel) and their consequent destinies; to Arminianism it means a foreordaining of destinies based on doings foreseen but not foreordained. Arminianism affirms that God predestined Christ to be man's Savior, and repentance and faith to be the way of salvation, and the gift of universal sufficient inward grace to make saving response to God possible for all men everywhere, but it denies that any individual is predestined to believe. On the Calvinist view, election, which is a predestinating act on God's part, means the efficacious choice of particular sinners to be saved by Jesus Christ through faith, and redemption, the first step in working out God's electing purpose, is an achievement which actually secures certain salvation--calling, pardon, adoption, preservation, final gloryfor all the elect. On the Arminian view, however, what the death of Christ secured was a possibility of salvation for sinners generally, a possibility which, so far as God is concerned, might never have been actualized in any single case; and the electing of individuals to salvation is, as we said, simply God noting in advance who will believe and so qualify for glory, as a matter of contingent (not foreordained) fact. Whereas to Calvinism election is God's resolve to save, and the cross Christ's act of saving, for Arminianism salvation rests in the last analysis neither on God's election nor on Christ's cross, but on a man's own cooperation with grace, which is something that God does not himself guarantee.

这两种对神的爱和堕落的人有何关系的看法，可以按着圣经如此具体说明：阿民念主义把我们主关于设立大筵席，邀请更多的客人代替那些根本就不来的人（路14：16-24;参见太22：1-10）的比喻看作是描绘了福音中神的爱的完全真理。按照这种观点，当你把神与堕落的人的关系比作是那位贵人，他邀请周围所有的穷人来享受他的丰盛，这就说明了一切。然而加尔文主义没有停在这里，而是把这大筵席的描写和那位牧人联系在一起（约10：11-18，24-29），这位牧人受托付看顾他的羊(14，16，27节；参照6：37-40；17：6，11)，他为他们舍命(10：15)，保证他们所有人到了时候都要听到他的声音（16，27节），并且来跟从他(27节)，得保守，免于永远的灭亡（28节）。换言之，加尔文主义坚持神的爱不会止步于恩召邀请，而是三位一体的神展开满有恩典的行动，确保选民会有回应。按照这种看法，拯救人的基督和接待他作为救主的信心都是神的恩赐，后者和前者一样都是预定的实在之事。阿民念主义者为着神提供了一位救主，所有的人都能到他这里来得生命而赞美神；加尔文主义者也是这样赞美神，然后继续为着神确实带领他们来到救主脚前而向神发出赞美。Biblically, the difference between these two conceptions of how God in love relates to fallen human beings may be pinpointed thus. Arminianism treats our Lord's parable of the Supper to which further guests were invited in place of those who never came (Luke 14:16-24; cf. Matt. 22:1-10) as picturing the whole truth about the love of God in the gospel. On this view, when you have compared God's relation to fallen men with that of a dignitary who invites all needy folk around to come and enjoy his bounty, you have said it all. Calvinism, however, does not stop here, but links with the picture of the Supper that of the Shepherd (John 10:11-18, 24-29) who has his sheep given him to care for (vv. 14, 16, 27; cf. 6:37-40; 17:6, 11f.), who lays down his life for them (10:15), who guarantees that all of them will in due course hear his voice (vv. 16, 27) and follow him (v. 27), and be kept from perishing forever (v. 28). In other words, Calvinism holds that divine love does not stop short at graciously inviting, but that the triune God takes gracious action to ensure that the elect respond. On this view, both the Christ who saves and the faith which receives him as Savior are God's gifts, and the latter is as much a foreordained reality as is the former. Arminians praise God for providing a Savior to whom all may come for life; Calvinists do that too, and then go on to praise God for actually bringing them to the Savior's feet.

所以这两种立场之间的差别并不是像人有时候以为的那样，就是阿民念主义听从圣经，而加尔文主义则是听从逻辑；不是阿民念主义认识神的爱，而加尔文主义只认识神的能力；不是阿民念主义确立相信和服从是方法，永生是目的，而加尔文主义不承认这点；也不是阿民念主义看到一种“善意”的，“无条件传给人”的福音中的基督，而加尔文主义看不出来；也不是阿民念主义承认人在神面前的责任，要求基督徒生活有圣洁的作为，而加尔文主义并不承认这点。不是的，分别在于加尔文主义看到神拯救之爱的一个层面，是阿民念主义看不到的，就是神在让人相信，保守真正得救的人在信心中的主权。阿民念主义给了基督徒很多很多感谢神的理由，而加尔文主义是给他们更多。So the basic difference between the two positions is not, as is sometimes thought, that Arminianism follows Scripture while Calvinism follows logic, nor that Arminianism knows the love of God while Calvinism knows only his power, nor that Arminianism affirms a connection between believing and obeying as a means and eternal life as an end which Calvinism denies, nor that Arminianism discerns a bona fide "free offer" of Christ in the gospel which Calvinism does not discern, nor that Arminianism acknowledges human responsibility before God and requires holy endeavor in the Christian life while Calvinism does not. No; the difference is that Calvinism recognizes a dimension of the saving love of God which Arminianism misses, namely God's sovereignty in bringing to faith and keeping in faith all who are actually saved. Arminianism gives Christians much to thank God for, and Calvinism gives them more.

阿民念主义产生于十七世纪初的荷兰，在1619年的多特会议上被整个改革宗世界用会议的形式定为异端。在英格兰，一派阿民念主义的教导传统持续下来，一直贯穿整个十八世纪。阿民念主义是卫斯理家族传统的一部分，约翰?卫斯理和查尔斯?卫斯理在他们整个福音事奉的过程中用散文和诗歌与加尔文主义者开战。循道会和其他的宗派坚持阿民念主义福音派的传统，直到今日。Arminianism was born in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century, and synodically condemned by the whole Reformed world at Dort in 1619. In England, an Arminian tradition of teaching lasted into, and right through, the eighteenth century. Arminianism was part of the Wesley family heritage, and John and Charles fought the Calvinists by prose and poetry throughout their evangelical ministry. The Arminian evangelical tradition has been maintained by Methodists and others up to the present day.

很要紧的一点就是，我们要明白，那被约翰?欧文称为是“荷兰半伯拉纠主义”[4]的抗辩派（抗辩派），以及他们的支持者所倡导的阿民念主义，无论在基调和实际的效果上，都和约翰?卫斯理的阿民念主义，他的《阿民念主义者杂志》(1778-)，[5]和他的同工约翰?弗莱契（John Fletcher）绝非等同。下面这段取自弗莱契所著的《针对反律主义的第一道制止》(1771)对卫斯理持守的阿民念主义的叙述，要提醒我们它们之间的不同：It is important to realize that both in its general tenor and in its practical effect the Arminianism of the "Belgic semi-Pelagians,"44. John Owen, Works, ed. W. Goold (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), X:6. as John Owen called the Remonstrants and their supporters, was not by any means identical with the Arminianism of John Wesley, his Arminian Magazine (1778-),55. Full title, The Arminian Magazine: Consisting of Ertracts and Original Treatises on Universal Redemption; changed in 1805 to The Methodist Magazine. and his colleague John Fletcher. The following account of Wesley's doctrine, taken from Fletcher's First Check to Antinomianism (1771), will alert us to the difference:

……他[卫斯理]也坚持某些人认为是可怕异端的普遍救赎，以及它必然带来的结果。他和圣徒保罗一道宣告，基督因着神的恩，为人人尝了死味：他称这恩是无条件的，白白加给所有人的……他常常和这同一位使徒一同看到，基督是万人的救主，更是信徒的救主；神愿意万人得救，这是和他们道德上的能动性，他福音的性质是一致的。他和圣徒约翰一道坚持，神就是爱，基督不是单为我们的罪，也是为普天下人的罪作了挽回祭……他和圣徒彼得一道说，主不愿有一人沈沦，乃愿人人都悔改；是的，神并非伪善，他吩咐各处的人都要悔改……. . . he [Wesley] holds also General Redemption, and its necessary consequences, which some account dreadful heresies. He asserts with St. Paul that Christ by the GRACE of God, tasted death for every man: and this grace he calls free, as extending itself freely to all. . . . He frequently observes with the same apostle, that Christ is the Saviour of ALL men, but specially of them that believe; and that God will have ALL men to be saved, consistently with their moral agency, and the tenor of his gospel. With St. John he maintains, that God is love, and that Christ is the propitiation not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD . . . and with St. Peter, that the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance; yea, that God, without hypocrisy, commandeth ALL men, EVERYWHERE, to repent. . . .

到目前为止，卫斯理的立场和抗辩派的立场是完全一致的；但是弗莱契接着指出：Thus far, Wesley's position coincided completely with that of the Remonstrants; but Fletcher's next point is this:

所以到目前为止，卫斯理先生认同阿民念，因为他认为那位杰出的神学家到目前为止都是与圣经，以及所有教会初期教父一致的。但如果阿民念(正如Pietas Oxoniensis一书的作者在写给亚当斯博士的信中证实的那样)，“否认人的本性是完全败坏，宣言他仍有一种归回神的意志的自由，但这不是不靠恩典的帮助，”那么卫斯理先生就不是阿民念主义者，因为他强烈断定人完全的堕落，始终坚持按着本性人的意志只有向恶的自由，神的恩典首先一定要拦阻，然后要不断推动他，让他愿意，能够归回神……[6] Thus far, Mr. W. agrees with Arminius, because he thinks that illustrious Divine agreed thus far with the Scriptures, and all the early Fathers of the Church. But if Arminius (as the Author of Pietas Oxoniensis affirms in his letter to Dr. Adams) "denied that man's nature is totally corrupt, and asserted that he hath still a freedom of will to turn to God, but not without the assistance of grace," Mr. W. is no Arminian, for he strongly asserts the total fall of man, and constantly maintains that by nature man's will is only free to evil, and that divine grace must first prevent, and then continually further him, to make him willing and able to turn to God. . . .6

这段话给我们指出了抗辩派和卫斯理宗阿民念主义之间的不同。认为就神而言，应视条件而定判断人的行为，认为道德上的能动性表明必先存在着“自由意志”，既普遍和特定的意义上，人在神之下作为的不确定性，在这些方面，两者是意见一致的。宣告所有的人实际上都有能力回应从神那里临到他们的启示，这种足以拯救人的启示确实是临到所有人身上，不管人是否听福音，在这些方面它们也是一致的。(历史性的加尔文主义都会质疑这些看法。)但是这两种阿民念主义在人堕落时这种回应神的能力是否已经完全丧失这个问题上看法不一。卫斯理说这种能力已经失去了，但是认为现在作为一种恩赐，已经重新复原，被加给了每一个人。抗辩派则说(看来阿民念本人并非如此)，这能力从来没有完全失去，“全然无能力”，这从来就不是对人在亚当里的困境的真实诊断。抗辩派实际上说，罪让人在道德和灵性方面变得软弱，但没有使人成为坏人：在人里面有一种能力，不管是多么微弱，是去追求那为正的，神实际上是帮助他，如果不是决定性，也是强有力地去作每一个具体正确的选择。卫斯理认同神帮助成就人作每一个正确决定时存在的能力，但是坚持这种能力现在可以存在，完全是因为十字架的结果，神已经超自然地把这种能力重新赋予了所有的人，卫斯理看人在作出正确举动时的合作是和神的作为不同，是独立于神的作为之外，在这种意义上他是接纳抗辩派的神人合作论，但卫斯理坚持合作的能力本身就是神加给罪人的爱的礼物，加尔文主义关于原罪使得这种能力完全丧失的教义说得是太绝对了。6. John Fletcher, Works (London, 1814), II:232-34. Proof of Fletcher's statement on Wesley's view of man's fallenness, and of the importance Wesley attached to it, is abundantly supplied in The Doctrine of Original Sin according to Scripture, Reason and Experience (1757), his 100,000-word reply to Dr. John Taylor (Works, V:492-669).These sentences point us to the basic difference between the Remonstrant and the Wesleyan Arminianisms. In seeing man's acts as contingent so far as God is concerned, and in thinking that moral agency presupposes "free-will" in the special and particular sense of indeterminacy of action under God, the two were agreed. In claiming that all men actually have power to respond to such revelation from God as reaches them, and that revelation sufficient to save actually reaches every man, whether he hears the gospel or not, they were agreed also. (Historic Calvinism would query all these positions.) But the two Arminianisms divided over the question whether capacity for response to God had been wholly lost at the fall. Wesley said it had, but held that it was now restored to every man as a gift of grace. The Remonstrants (not, it seems, Arminius himself) said it had never been wholly lost, and "total inability" had never been a true diagnosis of man's plight in Adam. Sin, said the Remonstrants in effect, has made man weak in the moral and spiritual realm, but not bad: he still has it in him to reach out, however sluggishly, after what is right, and God in fact helps him, powerfully if not decisively, in each particular right choice. Wesley agreed that God helps to actualize an existing capacity in every right choice, but maintained that this capacity only existed now because it had been supernaturally restored to all the race in consequence of the cross. While accepting Remonstrant synergism, in the sense of seeing man's cooperation in right action as something distinct from, and independent of, God's energizing, Wesley insisted that the capacity to cooperate was itself a love-gift from God to sinners, and that the Calvinistic doctrine that original sin involves loss of this capacity entirely had not been a whit too strong.

这种分别的效果就使这两种阿民念主义有了对立的追求。抗辩派的追求就是升级堕落的人性，把罪变得最小化，把基督教变成一种恩典的道德主义(就是好像罗马天主教一样的一种体系，在其中恩典使能以致得救的道德努力成为一种可能，按照新约圣经的说法，就是一种犹太教化的基督教，实际上就是“别的福音”)。正如多特会议召开一个世纪之后的情况表明的那样，这条道路的终点就是自然神论——靠道德的功劳得救，根本无需内在恩典。然而卫斯理宗的追求却是明确反对自然神论的，即使在效果上不完全，在动机上也是反道德主义的。卫斯理为了彰显恩典和大大强调罪，他对当时的标准安立甘会道德主义发出挑战，他本人曾是这种道德主义的牺牲品，他确立通过唯独相信基督，人现在就得以称义，补充说，真正的基督徒道德是使人称义的信心的果子，放弃信靠自我，正是这种信心的实质。抗辩派的阿民念主义在动机上是人本主义，唯理主义的，限制神设定旨意的主权，为的是确立人的自治和自我决定，以此表明人，而不是神，是他自己的罪的源头，人因此要为罪负责，这是应当的；而卫斯理的阿民念主义在动机上是直接敬虔性的－其敬虔性超过神学性，只是在为了彰显神在拯救上的爱，信心在日常生活和实践中的能力，才会去寻求事实。抗辩派的阿民念主义就像后期的巴克斯特主义一样，把信心看成更加是自愿性的，实际就是对一种新顺服的委身，这种观点把信心归在悔改之中，使信心看起来，感觉起来就像是一种决定得救的人的行为。然而卫斯理的阿民念主义就像早期的宗教改革神学，路德宗和加尔文主义神学一样，看待信心是和悔改不一样的，定义它是对基督确定的信靠，和圣灵的见证有关，出自由神的律法引发出来，人对无望，无助的认识。卫斯理就是这样，把一切的自我依赖从信心的心理方面排除出去，但他似乎从来没有意识到，他坚守的神学，迫使他把信心看作是人自己对神回应的行为，这是多么古怪。确实，在他思想清晰和讲求实际的表面之下，他在神学的层面却存在着极大的混乱。然而肯定的是，他对信心实质的看法，使得他所承认的阿民念主义成为完全福音性的，他的律法主义就着一个神人合作论的体系来说，程度是在最低的极限。[7]我们分别把这两种称作福音性和唯理主义的阿民念主义，以此区分卫斯理和抗辩派的立场。The effect of this difference was to give the two Arminianisms contrasting thrusts. The Remonstrant thrust was to upgrade fallen nature, minimize sin, and recast Christianity as a moralism of grace (that is, a system, like Roman Catholicism, in which grace makes possible saving moral endeavor: in New Testament terms, a Judaizing Christianity which is really "another gospel"). The end of this road, as the century following Dort showed, was Deism - salvation by merit of morality without internal grace at all. The Wesleyan thrust, however, was explicitly anti-deistic and in intention, if not entirely in effect, anti-moralistic too. Wesley maximized sin in order to magnify grace. He challenged the then standard Anglican moralism, of which he had himself once been a victim, by affirming present justification through faith in Christ alone, and by adding that true Christian morality was the fruit of justifying faith, and that self-abandoning trust was of this faith's very essence. Where Remonstrant Arminianism had been humanistic and rationalistic in motivation, delimiting God's sovereignty of set purpose in order to assert man's autonomy and self-determination, and so show that he, not God, was the author of his sins, and could properly be called to account for them, Wesleyan Arminianism was directly religious in motivation-more religious than theological, in fact-seeking only to exhibit the love of God in salvation and the power of faith in everyday life and practice. Remonstrant Arminianism, like later Baxterianism, took a voluntaristic view of faith as essentially commitment to new obedience, a view which assimilates faith to repentance and makes it both look and feel like a human work determining salvation. Wesleyan Arminianism, however, like earlier Reformation theology, both Lutheran and Calvinist, distinguished faith from repentance, defining it as assured trust in Christ, correlative to the witness of the Holy Spirit, and springing from the sense of hopelessness and helplessness which God's law induces. Having thus excluded all self-reliance from the psychology of faith, Wesley seems never to have seen the oddity of continuing to profess a theology which obliged him to view faith as man's own work of response to God. There was, in truth, beneath the surface clearness and practicality of his mind a great deal of muddle at the theoretical level. Certainly, however, his view of the nature of faith made his professed Arminianism as fully evangelical, and as little legalistc, as it is possible for a synergistic system to be.77. When the Nazarene theologian H. Orton Wiley calls synergism, defined as "the co-operation of divine grace and the human will," a "basic truth of the Arminian system," adding, however, that the ability to cooperate is a gift of grace, not an endowment of nature, he reproduces Wesley's view exactly (Christian Theology [Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press], II:355). Carl Bangs, in his admirable Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 342, notes that the English Wesleyan theologian W. B. Pope rejected the word synergism since the Lutheran use of it implied that man could cooperate with God by virtue of natural goodness not wholly corrupted by the fall (Christian Theology [New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1880], II:77f., 389f., III:24f., 74). In this Pope was identifying with Wesley's view and guarding it against misunderstanding. We shall mark the difference between it and the Remonstrant position by calling them evangelical and rationalistic Arminianisms respectively.

我们现在要稍微看一看它们的历史，首先从后者看起。We shall now glance at their history, taking the latter first.

唯理主义的阿民念主义RATIONALISTIC ARMINIANISM

唯理主义的阿民念主义如果不是刻意，实际上也是一场对约翰?卡西恩（John Cassian）和里尔斯的法斯图斯（Faustus of Ries）在五世纪发展起来，针对奥古斯丁主义而生的半伯拉纠主义的复兴。它是一场脱离那由马丁路德，加尔文和与他们同一个时代宗教改革家教导，[8]由继承加尔文担任日内瓦学院院长的伯撒可能过分精密加以系统化的关于预定的高等教义的运动。阿民念主义出现在荷兰，但不是一种孤立的现象；类似反应性的神学在差不多同一时候也在英格兰，以及我们能看到的德国路德宗中出现。它是欧洲范围内文艺复兴运动的唯理主义对宗教改革神学侵蚀的一部分。Rationalistic Arminianism was in effect, if not in intention, a revival of the semi-Pelagian reaction to Augustinianism which was developed in the fifth century by John Cassian and Faustus of Ries. It was a movement of recoil from the high doctrine of predestination taught by Luther, Calvin, and their reforming contemporaries88. and systematized-perhaps too neatly-by Beza, Calvin's successor as head of the Geneva Academy. Arminianism emerged in Holland, but not as an isolated phenomenon; similar reactionary theologies appeared at about the same time in England, as we shall see, and in German Lutheranism. It was part of a Europe-wide encroachment on the theology of the Reformation by the rationalism of the Renaissance.

事情是这样的。在1589年，一位和跟从伯撒学习一年时间，名叫雅各布?哈曼松（Jakob Harmenszoon）(阿民念)[9]的年轻有为的阿姆斯特丹牧师，受到请求，要他回应一位住在德尔福特，名为昆哈特（Koornhert）的人文主义平信徒对预定论堕落前预定说发起的攻击，以及在昆哈特辩论的压力下改变立场，转而相信那后来被称之为堕落后预定说的两位神职人员写的一本小册子。(由伯撒和许多认同他的人在十六世纪最后三十年阐述的堕落前预定说，认为神在创造世界之前拣选一些人得救，遗弃其他的人，其中的人不是堕落的人，只是神计划要创造，有理智的人，所以在逻辑上，这是发生在神思想决定容许人堕落之前的。多特会议和大多数讲英语的加尔文主义者认同的堕落后预定说，是把蒙拣选的人看作是在神看为是堕落，被毁的人类中拣选出来蒙怜悯的器皿。)人都以为伯撒的这位学生会狠狠攻击这些叛节人士，但是阿民念在预备写作详细考察，这让他从此放弃了堕落前预定说。[10]人所期望的回应从来没有出现过，相反，在接下来的20年间，直到他在1609年死于肺结核，终年49岁为止，阿民念秘密，但却是坚定地相信关于拣选和人堕落光景的“阿民念的”的观点。[11] The story is this. In 1589 a brilliant young Amsterdam clergyman, who had studied for a year with Beza, Jakob Harmenszoon (Arminius99. Arminius, to which Harmenszoon Latinized his name, was originally the name of a first-century Germanic chief who resisted the Romans.) by name, was asked to respond to an attack by a humanist layman named Koornhert, of Delft, on the supralapsarian view of predestination, and also to a pamphlet by two clergy who, under pressure from Koornhert's arguments, had moved to the position later called infralapsarianism or sublapsarianism. (Supralapsarianism, as spelled out by Beza and the many who went with him in the last third of the sixteenth century, was the view that God's pre-mundane election of some to salvation and his passing by of others had respect to men, not as fallen, but simply as rational creatures whom God planned to create, and so was logically prior in God's thinking to his decision to permit the fall. Infralapsarianism, as expressed by the Synod of Dort and most English-speaking Calvinists since, viewed the subjects of election as vessels of mercy chosen from a race envisaged as fallen and ruined.) It was assumed that Beza's pupil would hammer the defectors hard, but Arminius' detailed studies in preparation for writing led him to give up supralapsarianism for good.1010. Arminius' lifelong friend Petrus Bertius said in his funeral oration for the theologian that Arminius' studies led him first to move from supralapsarianism to infralapsarianism and then settle for a position like that of Melanchthon and Nicholas Hem(m)ingius, Lutheran professor of theology at Copenhagen and once Melanchthon's student namely, conditional predestination of individuals based on a synergistic view of how through grace men have faith. Bangs, who cites this (op. cit., pp. 138f.), doubts whether Bezan supralapsarianism was ever Arminius' view, but it would be strange if Bertius, who knew Arminius well and speaks positively on the point, was wrong. The expected reply never appeared. Instead, for the next 20 years till his death of tuberculosis in 1609, at the age of 49, Arminius maintained, discreetly but decidedly, the "Arminian" view of election and the state of fallen man.1111.

1610年一群跟从他的人发表了一篇抗辩文，陈述了五个他们宣称要受宽容和保护的神学立场。第一个立场，预定不是救人的信或定人为有罪的不信的因；第二个立场，基督死了，为的是救赎所有的人，不仅仅是为了救赎选民；第五个立场就是信徒因着疏忽（因着不再相信），可能会从蒙恩的状态失落；而第三和第四个立场则是与纯粹的伯拉纠主义脱离干系，确立无论是信心还是好行为，离开内在的恩典都不能存在。在经历激烈的辩论之后，多国参与的多特会议(1618-19)最终宣布反对这些我们一定要把它称为半伯拉纠主义的观点，确立了与之对立的，属于多特会议自己的五个相反论点。确立了因着英文缩写T-U-L-I-P（郁金香，译者注）而出名的“加尔文主义五点论”，就是在罪中的人全然败坏和无能；神拣选罪人得拯救的无条件和决定性的特点；基督在十字架上救赎担罪的有限范围（但本质是确定有效的）；恩典不可抗拒，有效力的性质，更新罪人的心，通过真正有效的呼召，引领他们相信悔改；通过神的保守，所有重生的人肯定会坚忍得到最后的荣耀。[12]多特会议整个宗旨就是再次确认，拯救我们的是成就他拣选计划的神，这意味着，是基督用他在加略山上有效的买赎拯救了我们；是圣灵给我们注入信心，把我们拯救；我们绝没有可能自己救自己：救恩是完全出于耶和华的，自始自终是无条件的主权怜悯的恩赐。哈里森（A. W. Harrison）正确评价了多特会议的教规，说它“更多是对加尔文主义经典陈述的一种，多于是对阿民念主义错误的揭露”；[13]其意义在于它们正面的确立，这确立控制了改革宗信仰在欧洲的表述超过一个世纪。In 1610 a group of his followers issued a Remonstrance, stating five theological positions for which they claimed toleration and protection. The first was that predestination is not the cause of the faith which saves or the unbelief which damns; the second was that Christ died to redeem all men, not just the elect; the fifth was that believers through negligence can fall out of the state of grace (through ceasing to believe); while the third and fourth disclaimed pure Pelagianism by affirming that neither faith nor good works exist apart from internal grace. Eventually, after much debate, the international Synod of Dort (1618-19) pronounced against these semi-Pelagian formulations, as we must call them, and affirmed in opposition five counter-theses of its own. These "five points of Calvinism," made memorable in English by the mnemonic T-U-L-I-P, are the Total depravity and inability of man in sin; the Unconditional and decisive character of God's election of sinners to salvation; the Limited scope (but definite and effective nature) of Christ's redemptive sin-bearing on the cross; the irresistible, efficacious quality of the grace which, by renewing sinners' hearts, leads them to faith and repentance through a calling that is truly effectual; and the certain Perseverance, through divine preservation, of all regenerate persons to final glory.1212.     The overall thrust of the Dort deliverances is to make the double point that it is God who saves us by fulfilling his plan of election, which means that it is Christ who saves by his effective purchase of us on Calvary and the Holy Spirit who saves by instilling faith, and that in no sense do we save ourselves: salvation is wholly of the Lord, first to last a gift of free sovereign mercy. A. W. Harrison rightly calls the canons of Dort "rather one of the classic statements of Calvinism than an exposition of Arminian error";1313. A. W. Harrison, Arminianism (London: Duckworth, 1937), p. 93. their significance lies in their positive affirmations, which controlled the presentation of the Reformed faith in Europe for more than a century.

多特会议作出了宣告，要求宽容的请求被驳回，阿民念主义者暂时被驱逐出去；但是在1626年他们得以再回来，在阿姆斯特丹开办了一所神学院，三位杰出的人士，依皮斯科皮乌（Simon Episcopius），克赛拉斯（Stephanus Curcellaeus）和林宝（Philipvon Limborch）在其中轮流执教。然而沙夫（PhilipSchaff）对阿民念主义的描述，即它是“一种‘有弹性，渐进式，不断改变的自由主义’[14]，却是适用在这所神学院身上。欧洲大陆阿民念主义学派游荡变成了不强调信条的道德主义和虔信主义，不时沾染着亚流派，索西奴派，自然神论和内在论哲学的特色。Dort having spoken, the plea for toleration went to the wall and the Arminians were temporarily exiled; but in 1626 they were able to return and open a theological seminary at Amsterdam, where Simon Episcopius, Stephanus Curcellaeus (Etienne de Courcelles), and Philip von Limborch, three outstanding men, taught in succession. Philip Schaff's description of Arminianism as standing for "an elastic, progressive, changing liberalism"1414. Schaff, op cit., I:509. The Remonstrant Brotherhood (Remonstrantse Broederschop; the Remonstrant-Reformed Church) still exists. Lambertus Jacobus van Holk, one of its theologians, described it in 1960 as "the only basically nonconfessional denomination in the Netherlands" (Man's Faith and Freedom, ed. Gerald O. McCulloh [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 19631, p. 42).  was, however, true of the seminary. The continental Arminian school drifted into undogmatic moralism and pietism, with Arian, Socinian, deist, and immanentist flavoring from time to time.

在英格兰，从十六世纪七十年代开始，伯撒的加尔文主义成为被人接受的正统信仰的一部分，这有一代人之久。贝娄（Peter Baro）(贝隆)，一位成为剑桥大学玛格丽特夫人神学教授的法国难民，在1579年引发了一场争论，他以约拿书中的尼尼微城为例，为墨兰顿教导，十年后阿民念实质上坚持的立场作辩护，宣称“神预定所有人得永生，条件是他们要相信和顺服。”[15]贝娄的学生巴列特（William Barrett）在1595年传讲同样的教训，由此而来的争执导致了兰白特九条款的制订。它是英格兰最接近多特教规的相应陈述，是对当时安立甘会和基督教在预定和恩典问题上的正统教义的一个半官方性质的声明。[16]在1604年召开的汉普顿御前会议上，牛津大学的雷诺斯（John Rainolds）甚至要求把兰白特九条款加入到三十九条当中，但是班克罗夫特主教和欧罗副主教对此极力反对，英王詹姆士，无论如何也是决定了不给清教徒任何实质性的让步，对此说不。In England, where Bezan Calvinism was part of accepted orthodoxy for a generation from the 1570s, Peter Baro (Baron), a French refugee who had become Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, caused a stir in 1579 by arguing from the case of Nineveh in the book of Jonah the position which Melanchthon had taught and which in substance Arminius was to maintain ten years later-that "God predestined all men to eternal life on condition of their faith and obedience."1515. Schaff, op. cit., I:659. William Barrett, Baro's student, preached the same doctrine in 1595, and the resulting furor led to the composing of the nine Lambeth Articles. These, the nearest English counterpart to the Dort canons, were a semi-official statement of what was then taken as Anglican and Christian orthodoxy on predestination and grace.1616. For the Lambeth Articles, see C. Hardwick, History of the Articles (London, 1859), chapter 7 and App. V; Schaff, I:658ff., III:523. At the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, John Rainolds of Oxford went so far as to ask for the Lambeth Articles to be added to the Thirty-nine, but Bishop Bancroft and Dean Overall vigorously opposed the idea, and King James, who in any case resolved to give the Puritans nothing of substance, said no.

然而英格兰在十七世纪是普遍按着贝娄和巴列特分清的界限，退缩离开了堕落前预定说和堕落后预定说的加尔文主义。尽管在伊丽莎白女王统治后期，由剑桥大学的惠泰克（William Whitaker）(死于1595年)和波金斯（William Perkins）(死于1602)这两位英格兰在国际上唯一知名的神学家持守的伯撒式的加尔文主义，似乎是在推动着一切，但好像兰斯洛特?安德鲁斯（Lancelot Andrewes）和欧罗这样的人，正如他们之前的胡克（Hooker）一样，却已经是静悄悄地与之划清了界限，认为这是一种狭隘，非大公的产物，他们的观点渐渐被人接受。英王詹姆士一世本人尽管在救赎论上是一位加尔文主义者，却和一位坚定的加尔文主义者，坎特伯雷大主教艾伯特（George Abbot）一样，对那些接受他那君权神授主张的“高派教会人士”心怀好感，而这些人是倾向同情阿民念主义的。在查尔斯一世时期成为坎特伯雷大主教的劳德（Laud），就是他们其中的一员。查尔斯对清教徒极不喜悦，他受劳德的引导，提拔了许多阿民念主义者，[17]最终的结果就是使安立甘会的神学离开了伯撒经院哲学的世界。当时大大盛行的对希腊教父的兴趣确立了这种倾向。在十七世纪中期，剑桥大学的柏拉图主义者（很有意思的是，他们和荷兰的阿民念主义者有着个人的联系）[18]，开始传播他们那种吸引人的，把道德主义和自然神学结合在一起的学说，这成了以后自由主义的源头。人们开始把绝对的，针对个人的预定看作是清教徒特有的观点，在1660年之后，王位复辟使得一切都朝着清教运动坚持的反方向发展，加尔文主义的地位就变成了只是不从国教者坚持的古怪观念。安立甘会的神学家除了个别例外，都是模范的阿民念主义者，确实，直到今天他们依然如此。The seventeenth century saw, however, a widespread English recoil from Calvinism, both supra- and infralapsarian, along the lines that Baro and Barrett marked out. Though in Elizabeth's last years it looked as if the Bezan Calvinism of Cambridge's William Whitaker (died 1595) and William Perkins (died 1602), the only two British theologians of international reputation, was carrying all before it, men such as Lancelot Andrewes and John Overall, like Hooker before them, were already standing quietly apart, thinking it a provincial and uncatholic development, and their viewpoint made steady headway. James I, though himself a Calvinist in soteriology, with a robustly Calvinist archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, favored "High Churchmen" who accepted his doctrine of the divine right of kings, and these tended to be Arminian in sympathy. Laud, who became archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I, was one of them. Led by Laud, and greatly disliking Puritans, Charles promoted many Arminians,1717. Hence the oft-repeated bon mot: "What do the Arminians hold?" "The best bishoprics and deaneries in all England." and the net result was to set Anglican theology moving away from the world of Bezan scholasticism. Interest in the Greek fathers which blossomed at that time confirmed the trend. In the middle of the century the Cambridge Platonists, who interestingly had personal links with the Dutch Arminians,1818.    began spreading their attractive combination of moralism and natural theology, and this became a fountainhead of later latitudinarianism. Absolute personal predestination had come to be thought of as a distinctly Puritan assertion, and when after 1660 the Restoration set the pendulum swinging against all that Puritanism had stood for, Calvinism had the status only of an oddity maintained by nonconformists. Anglican theologians with few exceptions were Arminian in type, as indeed they are still.

称义与上帝JUSTIFICATION AND GOD

现在很清楚了，唯理主义的阿民念主义根本不是针对伯撒制定，关于神主权教义而生发的创造性进步，而是与之反对的一种反应，就像一般的反应一样，是越来越狭窄，越来越贫乏的；它所关心的不是确立加尔文主义者否认的，而是否认他们确立的。但是我们还没有完全描绘出那把阿民念主义神学和主流改革宗神学分隔开来鸿沟。还有两个分歧地方值得我们注意，第一就是关于称义的教义。It is now clear that rationalistic Arminianism, so far from being a creative advance upon the Bezan formulation of God's sovereignty, was rather a reaction against it, narrowing and impoverishing as reactions usually are, and that its concern was less to assert what Calvinists were denying than to deny what they were asserting. But we have not yet fully mapped the gulf that divides Arminian from mainstream Reformed theology. Two more areas of divergence call for notice. The first is the doctrine of justification.

改教家关于称义的教导可以归纳成下面七点：[19](1)每个人都要面对神审判的宝座，一定要在那里亲自向神交代，没有什么遮挡他脱离审判。(2)按本性和行为，每一个人都是罪人，就神的律法而言是不从神的命令，所以他从神那里可以得到的一切，就是神的忿怒和拒绝。到目前为止都是坏消息，现在是好消息。(3)称义是神的审判作为，赦免一个有罪的罪人，接受他为义，接纳他作儿子和后嗣。(4)称义唯一的源头是神的恩典，不是人的努力或主动作为。(5)称义唯一的根基就是基督替代的义和流血，而不是我们自己的功德；人以为是有功德的行为，购买赎罪券，多作弥撒也不能对称义有任何贡献；中世纪的人想象的炼狱中的痛苦也没有任何作用，确实就其而言，是没有一丝真实的。称义不是努力得到的赏赐，而是藉着基督领受的恩赐。(6)称义的方法，此时此刻就是相信基督，这相信就是一种使人与神和好，加力量给人的信靠，相信基督献自己为祭的死已经赎了一个人所有的罪。(7)信心的果子，证明信心的实在，因此证明一个人如他所言是基督徒的，就是一种显明出来的悔改，以及有好行为的生活。The Reformers' doctrine of justification can be summed up in the following seven points:1919. Cf. Calvin, Institutes, III, especially xi; Hughes, op. cit., chap. II, pp. 54-75. (1) Every man faces the judgment-seat of God, and must answer to God there for himself; nothing can shield him from this. (2) Every man is a sinner by nature and practice, a nonconformist so far as God's law is concerned, and therefore all he can expect is God's wrath and rejection. Thus far the bad news; now the good news. (3) Justification is God's judicial act of pardoning a guilty sinner, accepting him as righteous, and receiving him as a son and heir. (4) The sole source of justification is God's grace, not man's effort or initiative. (5) The sole ground of justification is Christ's vicarious righteousness and blood-shedding, not our own merit; nor do supposed works of supererogation, purchase of indulgences, or multiplication of masses make any contribution to it; nor do the purgatorial pains of medieval imagination have any significance, or indeed reality, in relation to it. Justification is not the prize to work for, but a gift to be received through Christ. (6) The means of justification, here and now, is faith in Christ, understood as a pacifying and energizing trust that Christ's sacrificial death atoned for all one's sins. (7) The fruit of faith, the evidence of its reality and therefore the proof that a man is a Christian as he claims to be, is a manifested repentance and life of good works.

天特大会对应改教家的教训，把称义定义为是内在的更新，加上赦免和接纳，确立了称义“唯一的形式因”，就其各方面而言，是通过其手段的因，就是洗礼，而加给人的神的义。[20]用学者的话来说，“形式因”，说的是赋予一件事物特质的因（因此热力就是一件热的，或者拥有热这个特质的事物的形式因）。天特大会的论点就是，我们得赦免的根据就是加进我们里面的实在的神的义的质：神宣告我们为义，不因我们的罪受惩罚，因为神已经使我们本身真正为义了。按照抗罗宗更贴近圣经的术语来说，这就是把重生，或者成圣的起头，作为称义的基础。作为对此的回应，一群欧洲大陆和英格兰的改革宗神学家，[21]最终阐明了那在加尔文教导里早已表明得清清楚楚的立场，[22]就是称义的“唯一的形式因”不是加入到人里面的基督的义，而是算为是人的基督的义；为了使他们要讲的意思更清楚，他们习惯把把基督的义区分成基督遵守神律法的命令，对神律法主动的顺服，以及基督承受神律法的刑罚，对神律法被动的顺服；他们坚持说，我们被神接受为义，这是取决神把基督这两方面的顺服都算作是我们的缘故。[23]The Council of Trent met the Reformers' doctrine by defining justification as inner renewal plus pardon and acceptance and affirming that the "sole formal cause" (unica formalis causa) of justification, in both its aspects, was God's righteousness (iustitia) imparted through baptism as its instrumental cause.2020.   "Formal cause," in the language of the schools, denoted that which gave a thing its quality (thus, heat was the formal cause of a thing being hot, or having the quality of hotness). The Tridentine thesis thus was that the ground of our being pardoned was the quality of actual divine righteousness infused into us: God declares us righteous, not liable to punishment for our sins, because we have been made genuinely righteous in ourselves. In the more biblical terminology of Protestantism, this was to make regeneration, or the start of sanctification, the ground of justification. In reply, a host of Reformed divines, continental and British,2121. Englishmen who upheld the Reformation doctrine in print included Richard Hooker; Bishops George Downame, Lancelot Andrewes, John Davenant, James Ussher, Joseph Hall, Thomas Barlow, John Bramhall, Robert Sanderson, William Nicholson, William Beveridge; John Donne, Thomas Gataker, Anthony Burgess, John Owen, Isaac Barrow, Robert Traill. drew out at length the position already explicit in Calvin,2222.  that the "sole formal cause" of justification is not God's righteousness imparted, but Christ's righteousness imputed; and to make their meaning more clear, they developed the habit of distinguishing between Christ's active obedience to God's law, in keeping its precepts, and his passive obedience to it, in undergoing its penalty, and insisted that our acceptance as righteous depends on the imputing to us of Christ's obedience in both its aspects.2323. When Johannes Piscator of Herborn urged that only the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to believers, Reformed theologians generally rejected his view. This was at the end of the sixteenth century.

同样的指责也指向阿民念主义者，他们经常被指责成是隐藏起来的罗马天主教分子，因为他们认为我们的信心本身是实在的，我们个人的义，是对那被看作是神的新律法的福音的顺服，这不仅是我们被称义的条件，还是我们被称义的根基。按照这种观点，信心被“算为义”，因为信心就是义。改革宗人士反对罗马天主教人士和阿民念主义者，因为他们认为称义的根基在于信徒他自己，他们一方面服务于人的骄傲，另外一方面抢夺那本那归于神儿子的荣耀。改革宗人士强调说，只是说没有基督，我们就不可能称义（罗马天主教徒和阿民念主义者确实都是这么说的），这还不够；我们还要进一步说，我们被算为义，罪被取消，根基在于（唯一在于）基督作为我们的代表，代替我们背负罪的顺服。《韦斯敏斯德信条》对称义的分析反映了这种思想的精确和平衡，也表明了些论战凸显的辩论思路。The same polemic was directed at the Arminians, who were regularly accused of being crypto-Romans because they held that our faith is itself actual, personal righteousness, being obedience to the gospel viewed as God's new law, and as such is not only the condition but also the ground of our justification. Faith is "counted for righteousness," on this view, because it is righteousness. The Reformed men argued against both Romans and Arminians that by finding the ground of justification in the believer himself they ministered to human pride on the one hand and on the other hand robbed the Son of God of the glory which is his due. It is not enough, they urged, to say (as both Romans and Arminians did say) that without Christ our justification would be impossible; one must go on to say that it is on the ground of his obedience, as our representative and substitutionary sin-bearer, and that alone, that righteousness is reckoned to us and sin cancelled. The analysis of justification in the Westminster Confession reflects the precision and balance of thought, as well as the polemical thrusts, that came to focus in these exchanges.

凡神以有效恩召所召来的人，也白白称他们为义。神称他们为义并不是借着将义注入在他们里面，乃是凭着赦免他们的罪，算他们为义，并接纳他们为义人。并不是因为他们里面有何成就，或因他们所行的，惟独因基督自己的缘故；并非由于将信的本身，相信的行动，或任何其他在听福音上的顺服归属给他们，就算为他们的义；乃是借着将基督的顺服与满足（神公义的要求）归给他们，以致他们才能凭信心接纳他，并安息在他的义上；这信心并不是出于他们自己，乃是神所赐的。(十一章第一条) Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God (XI. i).

在关于称义根基的问题上，阿民念主义者为什么会有他们这样的立场？回答就是，因为他们在基本上否认一个人得救，这完全是神的作为，是通过有效呼召和主权保守作成的，神籍此执行他他永恒，无条件的预旨，因为他们否认这点，按着无可逃避的逻辑，他们不得不得出这样的立场。同样的逻辑也是体现在罗马天主教的思维中，显为是其特色。构成阿民念主义称义教义的具体否认，是从它这个基本否认得出的必然结果；把这些具体否认摆出来，事情就变得很清楚了。这样的否认有五个。Why did the Arminians take the line they did concerning the ground of justification? The answer is that they were driven to it by the inescapable logic of their basic denial that the individual's salvation is wholly God's work, through the effectual calling and sovereign preservation whereby he executes his eternal unconditional decree. The same logic characteristically operates in Roman Catholic thinking too. That the particular denials out of which the Arminian doctrine of justification was built are corollaries of that basic denial becomes clear as soon as they are set out. There were five of them.

第一个否认就是不承认人的信心完全是神的恩赐。The first denial was that man's act of faith is wholly God's gift.

第二个否认就是不承认在神的计划当中，基督顺服以至于死，为人得到救赎，和圣灵把这救赎应用在人身上，使人得救之间存在着直接的相互关系——直接的意思就是前者确保，保证后者。阿民念主义的观点就是赎罪使得人人都有可能得救，但不一定确实成就了任何一个人得救。这意味着抛弃了基督的死是代替的死的精确观念，因为代替按其本质来说，就是一种有效的关系，保证了被代替的人实际上是被免除了债务：The second denial was that there is a direct correlation in God's plan between the obtaining of redemption by Christ's obedience to death and the saving application of redemption by the Holy Spirit-direct, that is, in the sense that the former secures and guarantees the latter. The Arminian view was that the atonement made salvation possible for all but not necessarily actual for any. This meant abandoning any precise concept of Christ's death as substitutionary, for substitution is, by its very nature, an effective relationship, securing actual immunity from obligation for the person in whose place the substitute has acted:

神不会要求两次偿还，

第一次出于为我流血担保那一位的手

然后再一次处于我自己的手。

Payment God will not twice demand,

First from my bleeding Surety's hand

And then again from mine.

格劳秀斯（Grotius）那著名，或者说是臭名昭著的理论，认为赎罪是一种榜样，表明如果罪人不思想回转、悔改，他们将会受到怎样的惩罚，就是阿民念主义观念几种表现形式中的一种。Grotius' famous, or infamous, theory of the atonement as an example of the punishment sinners would receive if they did not come to their senses and repent was one of several ways in which the Arminian conception was spelled out.

第三个否认就是不承认恩典之约是神通过有效呼召，对他的选民说：“我要……你就要……”，而单方面，无条件加给人的一种关系。阿民念主义认为恩典之约是一种新的律法，赐给人当前的赦罪，条件就是人要有当前的信心，最终的得救是以继续有信心为条件的。The third denial was that the covenant of grace is a relationship which God imposes unilaterally and unconditionally, by effectual calling, saying to his elect, "I will . . . and you shall. . . ." The Arminian idea was that the covenant of grace is a new law, offering present pardon on condition of present faith and final salvation on condition of sustained faith.

第四个否认就是否认信心实质上是信靠性的，是信靠的认识，确信另外一位已经成就的事，是确定的，是活的。阿民念主义而是认为信心实质上是意志力的，是委身去做某一样事情，比如按照基督取得回来的新律法而活。十七到二十世纪的敬虔主义者（Pietists）是如此经常坚守这种阿民念主义观念，以致这看起来仿佛是福音派天经地义的想法，但事实仍是事实，就是这标志着人偏离了宗教改革原本的教训，[24]这会很快生出反智主义，以及认为信心是一种有功劳的行为的观念。The fourth denial was that faith is essentially fiducial (a matter of trustful knowledge, assured and animating, of what another has done). The Arminian alternative was that faith is essentially volitional (a matter of committing oneself to do something, i.e., live by the new law which Christ procured). Pietists from the seventeenth to the twentieth century have so regularly fastened onto the Arminian conception as to make it appear an evangelical axiom, but the fact remains that it marks a shift from the original Reformation teaching,2424. The fullest and most exact demonstration of this is R. T. Kendall's monograph, The Concept of Faith from William Perkins to the Westminster Assembly (Oxford University Press, 1979). and one which can quickly breed both anti-intellectualism and the idea of faith as a meritorious work.

第五个否认就是否认称义的根基就是神把基督的义算为是人的义。正如我们已经看到的那样，阿民念主义的观念就是信心本身是称义的根基，它本身就是义(顺服新的律法)，神把这当作义加以接纳。阿民念的说法就是基督的义，不是作为义，而是作为一种基础，被算为是我们的，按此基础，信就算为是我们的，算为我们的义。[25]这是以罗马书4：3，5，9(参见11，13；这一切都是对创15：6的回应)所说的信算为义的用词为根据的；但是保罗坚持说基督徒的义是神的恩赐(5：15-17)，他强调罪人尽管不义(4：5；5：6-8)，却藉着基督的血因信得称为义，与他们自己的行为无关，这就使得这样的解经实际不能成立。The fifth denial was that the ground of justification is Christ's righteousness imputed. The Arminian notion, as we saw, was that faith itself is the ground of justification, being itself righteousness (obedience to the new law) and accepted by God as such. Arminius' formula was that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us not for righteousness, but as a basis on which faith may be imputed to us for righteousness.2525. "To a man who believes, faith is imputed for righteousness through grace, because God has sent forth his Son, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation, a throne of grace, through faith in his blood" (The Writings of Arminius, I:264). Appeal was made to the phraseology of faith being reckoned for righteousness in Romans 4:3, 5, 9 (cf. 11, 13; all echoing Gen. 15:6); but Paul's insistence that the Christian's righteousness is God's gift (5:15-17), and his emphatic declarations that sinners, though ungodly (4:5; 5:6-8), are justified by faith through Christ's blood irrespective of their own works, make this exegesis really impossible.

阿民念主义对称义的教导，如果不是故意，结果也是律法主义的，把信心从领受的途径变成了在神面前有功劳可言的一种行为。就这样，它的原则上是回应天特大会的教训的；在这一点上阿民念主义的批评者是正确的。但是阿民念主义，或者我们应该这样说，阿民念主义代表的思维方式，有广泛的影响，在英格兰的影响不小。反对清教徒，反对加尔文主义的圣公会人士，如哈蒙德（Henry Hammond），桑代（Herbert Thorndike）和泰勒（Jeremy Taylor），教导称义的基础是神为耶稣的缘故所接纳的一种个人的义，尽管这义是有缺点的。他们用悔改，努力成为圣洁这样的言语来描述这种义的实质，他们的这种观念在英王复辟之后，由那位大有影响力（这实乃不幸）的布尔主教（Bishop George Bull）制订成为信条，这位主教用雅各解释保罗，把两者都理解为是教导因行为称义。(通过用道德感化说定义信心，把它看作“实际就是福音顺服的全部”，“福音要求的全部顺服”[26]，这个花招就作成了。)这种教导无可避免就导致一种新的律法主义，其关键的教训就是人现在作不懈的道德努力，这就是通往将来得救的途径。到了卫斯理的时候，因信称义的真实含义在英格兰教会当中已经是几乎处处被人遗忘了。The Arminian teaching on justification is in effect, if not in intention, legalistic, turning faith from a means of receiving from God into a work that merits before God. As such, it corresponds in principle with the doctrine of the Council of Trent; at this point its critics were right. But it, or perhaps we should say, the way of thinking which it represented, had a wide influence, not least in England. Anti-Puritan, anti-Calvinist Anglicans such as Henry Hammond, Herbert Thorndike, and Jeremy Taylor taught justification on the basis of a personal righteousness which God accepts, despite its shortcomings, for Jesus' sake. They spell out the nature of this righteousness in terms of repentance and effort for holiness, and their concept was canonized after the Restoration by the (unhappily) influential Bishop George Bull, who interpreted Paul by James and understood both as teaching justification by works. (The trick was done by defining faith moralistically, as "virtually the whole of evangelical obedience," "all the obedience required by the gospel."2626. Bull, Harmonia Apostolica (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology), I:58, 57. See Allison, chap. 6, "The Theology of George Bull," pp. 118-37.) Teaching of this kind led inevitably to a new legalism of which the key thought was that the exerting of steady moral effort now is the way to salvation hereafter. By Wesley's day the true meaning of justification by faith had been forgotten almost everywhere in the Church of England.

在清教运动内部，阿民念主义对称义的教训也取得了立足之地。唯一有能力，相信阿民念主义的清教徒就是约翰?古德文（John Goodwin），《算为义》（论罗马书第4章），《称义旌旗之彰显，罗马书第9章注释》，以及《对救赎的救赎》的作者。[27]古德文是一个一出现就惹事的人，尽管极受人关注，但他似乎并没有让许多人改弦更辙，接受他的观点。但是理查德?巴克斯特（Richard Baxter），这个也许是所有清教徒灵修作品作家中最伟大的人，提倡阿民念主义的称义教训（他所倡导的确实是这样），以此作为他对福音亚目拉督主义(Amyraldism)观点认识的一部分（我们马上就要简单看看何为亚目拉督主义），经过他一生对此的倡导，到了17世纪末，他的立场在英格兰和苏格兰那些清教徒后裔的身上变得很有影响力。在17世纪90年代，人称它为“巴克斯特主义”，以及“新律法主义”（因为它强调“新律法”的观念）。[28]   Within Puritanism, too, the Arminian doctrine of justification made inroads. The only Arminian Puritan of ability was John Goodwin, author of Imputatio Fidei (on Romans 4), The Banner of Justification Displayed, An Exposition of Romans 9 and Redemption Redeemed.2727.  Goodwin was a stormy petrel, and though much noticed, he does not seem to have converted many to his opinions. But Richard Baxter, perhaps the greatest of all Puritan devotional writers, urged the Arminian doctrine of justification (for that is what it was) as part of his Amyraldean understanding of the gospel (we shall glance at Amyraldism shortly), and as a result of a generation's campaigning by him in its interest his position had become influential among the heirs of the Puritans in both England and Scotland by the end of the seventeenth century. In the 1690s it was referred to as "Baxterianism" and (because of the prominence it gave to the "new law" idea) "Neonomianism."2828.

 巴克斯特的观点是基于一种相当奇特的自然神学观；他和格劳秀斯一样，认为圣经对神管治和国度的教导应当和当前的政治理论结合起来，或者正如他所言，神学应当跟从一种“政治方法”。人应当看神是管治者，福音是他律法规章的一部分。我们得救涉及一种双重的称义，现在的称义和将来的第二次称义，这两种称义要求双重的义，基督的义，那定立神的新律法的有功劳的因，以及我们自己的义，用真信心和悔改顺服这新律法的义。耶稣基督通过满足旧律法的命令性和惩罚性要求，为人取得了新的律法，应当被看作神治理的头，得到高举，坐在宝座之上，施行这新的律法，这新律法是用他的死得来的，以此赦免真信徒的罪。现在，在这地上，信心被算为义，是因为它对福音的真顺服，而这福音是神的新律法和新约。然而信心包括承诺遵守道德律，即神原本的命令规章，每一位信徒，尽管按照新律法已经为义，却每时每刻需要神赦免他在旧律法面前的亏欠。Baxter's view was rooted in a rather quaint natural theology; with Grotius, he thought Bible teaching about God's rule and kingdom should be assimilated to current political theory, or, as he put it, theology should follow a "political method. " God should be viewed as governor, and the gospel as part of his legal code. Our salvation involves a double justification, one here and a second hereafter, and both justifications require a twofold righteousness, Christ's, the meritorious cause of the enacting of God's new law, and our own, in obeying that new law by genuine faith and repentance. Jesus Christ, who procured the new law for mankind by satisfying the prescriptive and penal demands of the old one, should be thought of as head of God's government, exalted and enthroned to administer the law which his death secured and under it to pardon true believers. Faith is imputed for righteousness here and now because it is real obedience to the gospel, which is God's new law and the new covenant. Faith, however, involves a commitment to keep the moral law which was God's original preceptive code, and every believer, though righteous in terms of the new law, needs pardon every moment for his shortcomings in relation to the old one.

巴克斯特确实不断反对那些坚持主流改革宗观点的人，主流改革宗的观点认为，我们称义的基础和根本原因在于神把基督他自己的义算为是我们的义(例如，他代表我们成就了道德律的命令，承担了它的刑罚)。巴克斯特很肯定，这种观点按逻辑必然会导致反律主义（如我们不再需要遵守神的律法），其根据就是“神不会要求两次偿还”这个原则：基督已经为我们成就的，神不会要求我们自己再做一次。在这一点上，巴克斯特的想法就像与他同时代罗马天主教，索西奴派，高派英格兰圣公会人士的想法一样，认为除了为了得到拯救以外，遵守律法对神对人都没有意义。他犯了一个古怪的错误，但他从来没有把这律法主义的特色从他的神学体系里清除出去。[29]他的这种观点是在他于17世纪40年代担任随军牧师，反击军队当中那些真正的反律主义的时候明确下来的，从那时起，他就对反律主义深恶痛绝，直到他离世前几个月，他还攻击说，再版的克里斯比（Tobias Crisp）的布道是反律主义的，这样，几乎就在长老会和独立派达成“欢乐联盟”之前，他实际上就把这联盟毁掉了。[30]    Baxter did battle constantly against those who held the mainstream Reformed view that the ground and formal cause of our justification is the imputing to us of Christ's own righteousness (i.e., his fulfilment of the precept and penalty of the moral law on our behalf). He was certain that this view logically entails antinomianism (i.e., the needlessness of our keeping God's law), on the "payment-God-will-not-twice-demand" principle: what Christ has done for us we cannot be required to do again for ourselves. At this point in his thinking Baxter assumed, as his Roman Catholic, Socinian, and High Anglican contemporaries also did, that law-keeping has no relevance for God or man save as work done to secure salvation. It is an odd mistake for him to have made, but he never got this streak of legalism out of his theological system.2929.   our need to be cured of the inner disorder sin has brought. His views had crystallized during his traumatic time as a chaplain in the 1640s countering real antinomianism in the army, and from then on antinomianism was his bête noire, right up to his last months on earth, when by assaulting as antinomian the reprinted sermons of Tobias Crisp he effectively wrecked the "Happy Union" between Presbyterians and Independents almost before it had been contracted.3030.

17世纪90年代关于克里斯比布道的争论让人写出措辞甚为激烈的文章，但是最佳的贡献是写作得最冷静的文章，就是退尔（Robert Traill）的《作者至一位乡间牧师的信，为更正教称义教义，以及传讲它的传道人，承认它的人所作的辩护，反对控告他们为反律主义的不公正指控》。退尔首先指出，巴克斯特的方案和罗马书5：12表明基督为代表的头，末后的亚当不相符，而这种独特的关系是把基督的义算为是他百姓的义的基础；第二，这个方案在属灵方面是不真实的，因为一个在良心上背负不洁和有罪重担的罪人，并不是因为自我提醒按这新律法，他的信心是福音的义，而找到安慰；而是通过仰望基督和他的十字架。在此关头谈论人的信心和人的义，充其量不过是轻佻，最糟糕的就是网罗了。看来对此人无法作出回应，甚至连巴克斯特的阿民念主义称义教义的“政治化”版本也无法对此作出回应。The Crispian controversy of the 1690s produced much heated writing, but the best contribution was the coolest-Robert Traill's Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification, and of its Preachers and Professors, from the unjust charge of Antinomianism. In a Letter from the Author to a Minister in the Country. Traill notes, first, that Baxter's scheme does not come to terms with the representative headship of Christ, the last Adam, as set forth in Romans 5:12ff.-the unique relationship on which the imputing of Christ's righteousness to his people is based-and, second, that the scheme is spiritually unreal, for a sinner pressed in conscience by the burden of uncleanness and guilt finds relief, not by reminding himself that his faith is evangelical righteousness according to the new law, but by looking to Christ and his cross. Talk of one's faith and one's righteousness at such a time would be at best a frivolity and at worst a snare. There seems to be no possible answer to that. Not even Baxter's "politicized" version of the Arminian doctrine of justification will do.

这让我们来看阿民念主义和加尔文主义思维最后一个分歧，就是它们对神的品格不同的看法。这是一个很明显的问题，事关他在人对他有回应，或没有回应的这件事上是否掌管主权，他是否无条件拣选人得救。当我们来思考巴克斯特关于称义教导背后对赎罪的看法时，这个分歧就很明显了。巴克斯特从格劳秀斯的书中抽取一页，吸收它的观点，认为当神定意要挽回堕落的人时，他实施出他的计划，并不是通过满足律法的要求，而是通过改变律法。因为基督死了，一条新的律法就被引入了，撤消了旧律法刑罚的要求。肯定的是，巴克斯特看基督的死是为我们的罪向父作出满足（补偿），这是类似安瑟伦（Anselm）的看法，而不是像格劳秀斯那样，把基督的死看作是一种受刑罚的榜样，为的是教训人；然而他和格劳秀斯一样，认为原本律法刑罚的要求不是建立在神的本性上，而只是建立在管治的要求上。在这里，问题的关键是神的圣洁。主流的改革宗神学把神律法的命令和惩罚都看作是持久表现了神不变的圣洁和公义，认为神并不为了拯救罪人而牺牲律法；相反，他代表罪人满足他律法的要求，把他的忿怒加在作为人的替代的他儿子的身上，平息了他自己的忿怒，以此拯救他们，所以他按一切的罪当得的来审判，即使他称那相信耶稣的人为义，他也显为公义。格劳秀斯和巴克斯特的方案把神对罪的忿怒看作是一种在众人面前的姿态，而不是对神永远品格的启示；这样就为那种认为智慧的良善是神道德本性的真正实质的主张开了大门。随着时间发展，一神论者和自由派抓住了这种主张，他们中的一些人是带着感激，回首去看阿民念主义者和巴克斯特，因为他们为他们的立场指出了方向。[31]      This brings us to the last divergence between Arminian and Calvinist thinking that we shall notice, namely, their different views of God's character. This is a distinct issue from whether he is sovereign in men's response or lack of response to him, and whether he unconditionally elects to salvation or not. The difference emerges as we reflect on the view of the atonement which lay behind Baxter's teaching on justification. Taking a leaf out of Grotius' book, Baxter held that when God purposed to restore fallen man, he carried out his plan not by satisfying the law, but by changing it. In consideration of Christ's death a new law was brought in, waiving the penal requirement of the old law. To be sure, Baxter sees Christ's death as satisfaction (compensation) to the Father for our sins, in a manner reminiscent of Anselm, rather than as a penal example for man's instruction in the fashion of Grotius; yet he is with Grotius in assuming that the demand for retribution in the original law was grounded not in the nature of God, but only in the exigencies of government. What is at issue here is the divine holiness. Mainstream Reformed theology sees both the precept and the penalty of the law of God as permanently expressing his unchangeable holiness and justice, and holds that God does not save sinners at the law's expense; instead, he saves them by satisfying his law on their behalf, propitiating his own wrath by diverting it upon the Son as man's substitute, so that he remains just in judging all sin as it deserves even when he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. The schemes of Grotius and Baxter make the wrath of God against sin a public gesture which is something less than a revelation of God's abiding character; thus it opens the door to the idea that a wise benevolence is the real essence of God's moral nature. In due course Unitarians and Liberals latched onto this idea, some of them with grateful backward glances to the Arminians and to Baxter for having pointed the way to their position.3131.

唯理主义的阿民念主义最后一个果子是值得我们留意的，这就是修正的加尔文主义(哈里森把它称为“加尔文主义和阿民念主义之间的一座中途宿舍”[32])，这是由苏格兰人金马伦（John Cameron）在扫模学院发展出来的，历史上把它称为亚目拉督主义，这是以它著书最多的倡导人亚目拉督[Moise Amyraut (Amyraldus)]的名字命名的。亚目拉督主义相信，正如阿民念主义认为无条件的预定不在神拯救信徒的旨意中，因而是犯了错误一样，同样堕落前预定说和堕落后预定说认为父差遣子，只是为了救赎选民，这也是错误的。而是神一开始派子不加分别地救赎我们这堕落的人类，然后拣选他要有效呼召，保守得荣耀的人。就这样，亚目拉督主义把阿民念主义无限（普世）救赎的观点，恩约观点（它把这看作是等同于谁愿意来都可以来的福音应许），和加尔文主义关于特定拣选，有效呼召和最终保守的观点融合起来。巴克斯特发觉亚目拉督主义和他的“政治方法”，他对一种统一的神学的毕生追求是一致的，但是改革宗神学家普遍认定亚目拉督主义是一种前后矛盾，跛足的学说，它对基督使命和人得救之间关系的叙述明显是违背圣经的。要不是人觉得需要把加尔文主义和阿民念主义协调起来，使它们和好，让人觉得大家都赢了，人人都一定要有奖励，这样的观点肯定是很难冒头的。One last fruit of rationalistic Arminianism calls for notice: the modified Calvinism (a "half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism," A. W. Harrison calls it3232. Arminianism, p. 111. Amyraldism is evaluated, under the name "Post-redemptionism," in B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 90-96.) which the Scot John Cameron developed at the Saumur Seminary, and which history knows as Amyraldism, from Moise Amyraut (Amyraldus), its most copious exponent. Amyraldism affirmed that as Arminianism erred in thinking that unconditional predestination has no place in God's decree to save believers, so supra- and infralapsarians erred in thinking that the Father sent the Son to redeem only the elect. Instead, God first appointed the Son to redeem our fallen race without distinction and then chose whom he would effectually call and preserve to glory. Amyraldism thus fused the Arminian view of indefinite (universal) redemption and of the covenant of grace as identical with the whosoever-will promise of the gospel with the Calvinistic belief in particular election, effectual calling, and final preservation. Baxter found Amyraldism congenial to his "political method" and lifelong quest for a unitive theology, but Reformed theologians generally have judged it incoherent and lame, and positively anti-biblical in its way of relating the mission of Christ to men's salvation. Certainly, such a view could hardly ever have emerged had there been no felt need for a pacifying synthesis of Calvinism and Arminianism which would give a sense that all had won, and all must have prizes.

现在我们要来看福音性的阿民念主义，其部分的宗旨就是恢复宗教改革关于称义的真理，而这正是被唯理主义的阿民念主义如此彻底地赶出门外的。Now we move to evangelical Arminianism, which had as part of its purpose the reinstating of the Reformation truth of justification which rationalistic Arminianism had so effectively turned out of doors.

福音性的阿民念主义    EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM

约翰?卫斯理从父母那里学习到了唯理主义的阿民念主义，这是他们家训的一部分。他的父母撒母耳和苏珊娜脱离信守加尔文主义的不从国教运动，加入相信阿民念主义的圣公会，对他们撇在身后的教训敌意甚大。(这种态度的心理根源是很清楚的。)在苏珊娜于1725年，当约翰22岁时写给他的一封信中，她清楚表明了她对预定论，以及三十九条信条中第17条含义的观点，这观点是他后来毕生持守的：John Wesley learned moralistic Arminianism from his parents as part of the family doctrine. Both Samuel and Susanna had moved out from Calvinistic nonconformity into Arminian Anglicanism, and were sharply hostile to the teaching they had left behind. (The psychology of such attitudes is well known.) A letter from Susanna to John in 1725, when he was 22, states exactly the view of predestination, and of the meaning of Article XVII of the Thirty-nine, which he always upheld in later life:

“坚定的加尔文主义者持守的预定论教义是非常令人震惊的……因为它指控至圣的神是罪的源头……我坚信神从亘古以来拣选了一些人得永生，但是我谦卑认为，按照罗马书8：29，30，他的拣选是建立在他的预知之上的……神在他永远的预知中，看到这些人会正确使用他们所有的，接受传给他们的怜悯，他确实就预定了……认为神的预知是许多人最终灭亡的原因，这和我们知道太阳明天要升起，这就是它升起的原因一样，是毫无道理的。”[33]   The doctrine of predestination as maintained by rigid Calvinists, is very shocking . . . because it charges the most holy God with being the author of sin. . . . I do firmly believe that God from all eternity hath elected some to everlasting life, but then I humbly conceive that his election is founded in His foreknowledge, according to Romans viii, 29, 30 . . . Whom in his eternal prescience God saw would make a right use of their purses, and accept of offered mercy, He did predestinate . . . nor can it with more reason be supposed that the prescience of God is the cause that many finally perish than that our knowing the sun will rise tomorrow is the cause of its rising.33

然而，约翰结识了摩拉维亚弟兄会的人，这导致他在1738年有了发生在亚德门街(Aldersgate Street)的经历，他与这些人结交，就把所有的道德主义和自我努力从他的阿民念主义里驱逐出去了，取而代之的是，他清楚强调，因信立刻称义[34]是瞬间发生的新生的一部分，没有这一点，就不可能有真正的信仰。正如我们前面暗示的那样，卫斯理表明归正是真正基督徒生活的开始（这和一些今天自认是卫斯理的继承人的观点是不一样的），他强调的是，人是彻底，无助地依靠神赐下信心和带来新生。这是因为卫斯理不是把信心看作是决定（这是当代流行的说法），而是信靠和确据的组合，是圣灵内在见证的主观结果。圣灵赐下信心时，见证的是赦罪和收纳人为嗣子的应许，这是应用在人自己身上的。在这一点上，加尔文代表所有的改教家，是这样定义信心的：“信心是对神的仁爱的一种不变而确实的认识，这认识是以基督那白白应许的真实为根据，并藉着圣灵向我们的思想所启示，在我们心里所证实的。”[35]卫斯理对信心的教导代表了对此的回归，是脱离神人合作论和自我决定的世界，回归到上帝独作论和主权恩典的世界。However, John's association with the Moravians, which led to his Aldersgate Street experience of 1738, knocked all the moralism and self-effort out of his Arminianism, and brought in its place a clear emphasis on instantaneous justification through faith3434. Wesley "rejects the commonly held view that justification is a double act in which the first part takes place in the present and presupposes faith, whilst the second is at the last day and requires works. But for John Wesley there was only one justification . . . received by faith alone, and faith was begotten only through grace" (Schmidt, op. cit., II:i, p. 43). as part of an instantaneous new birth, without which there was no true religion. As we hinted earlier, Wesley's stress when presenting conversion as the entrance to authentic Christian life (unlike that of some today who would see themselves as Wesley's successors) was on man's utter and helpless dependence on God to give faith and bring about new birth. This was because Wesley thought of faith, not as decision (to use the modern catchword), but as a compound of trust and assurance, the subjective consequence of the Spirit's inner witness. What the Spirit witnessed to in giving faith was the promise of pardon and adoption as applying to oneself. Calvin, speaking here for all the Reformers, had defined faith as "a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favour toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit."3535. Institutes, III:ii.7; cf. note 24 above. Wesley's teaching on faith represents a return to this, a return from the world of synergism and self-determination to that of monergism and sovereign grace.

是卫斯理在亚德门街的经历，决定了他对信心的看法。在那里，通过读马丁路德的罗马书注释，他的心“奇怪地温暖起来”，他进入了他那些摩拉维亚弟兄会朋友已经对他讲过的真信心之中：就是确知通过十字架得赦免和被接纳。“我感觉到我确实信靠了基督，唯独信靠基督得拯救；我得到一个确信，就是他已经除去我的罪，正是我的罪……卫斯理习惯教导说（尽管口头上不是完全前后一致），这种确信是神所赐下信心一个不可分开的要素，这信心是那拯救人的信心。[36]对他来说，悔改是信心的前提条件，是为罪忧伤，改正行为。确实有时候，正如在他1744年大会记录中所说的那样，他会把悔改描写成是“信心的一种低等状态”，或者是与儿子的信心相对照的仆人的信心（比较加4：1-7；罗8：15)；然而他的基本想法是，悔改是一种寻求神的光景，而信心则是寻见神，或者倒不如说是被神寻见的光景。一个寻求神的人除了等候神，用他迫切的祷告，良心的敏感表明他寻求的诚意以外，什么也做不了，直到确信之光临到他的心里。这样的教训类似清教徒关于“预备之工”的教训，导致在辅导灵魂忧伤之人方面类似的做法：这和出于荷兰的阿民念主义有天壤之别。It was Wesley's Aldersgate Street experience that determined his view of faith. There, as his heart was "strangely warmed" through the reading of Luther on Romans, he entered into what his Moravian friends had told him that real faith was: namely, assurance of pardon and acceptance through the cross. "I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine. . . Habitually (though not in perfect verbal consistency) Wesley taught that this assurance is an integral element in the faith that God gives-the faith, that is, that saves.3636.  Repentance was to him faith's precondition, sorrow for sin and reform of manners. Sometimes, indeed, as in his 1744 Conference Minutes, he would describe repentance as "a low state of faith," or as the faith of a servant in contrast with that of a son (compare Gal. 4:1-7; Rom. 8:15f.); his basic thought, however, was that, whereas repentance is a state of seeking God, faith is the state of finding him, or rather of being found by him. A person seeking God can do no more than wait on God, showing the sincerity of his quest by the earnestness of his prayers and the tenderness of his conscience, till the light of assurance dawns in his heart. Such teaching is similar to the Puritan doctrine of "preparatory works," and led to similar practice in counseling troubled souls: it is a far cry from Dutch Arminianism.

至于卫斯理对称义本身的看法，按卫斯理所能知道的，这是回归到了改教家的观点。他讲论基督按照刑罚和代替的条件赎罪的死，坚持以这死为根基，唯独以它为根基，我们得到赦免，为神所接纳。他带着完全的真诚，在1765年宣告自己已经相信称义有27个年头，“完全就像加尔文先生相信的那样。”[37]  As for Wesley's view of justification itself, it was as far as Wesley knew a return to the Reformers. He spoke of Christ's atoning death in penal and substitutionary terms, and insisted that it was on the grounds of that death, and that alone, that we are forgiven and accepted by God. With perfect sincerity he declared himself in 1765 to have believed about justification for 27 years "just as Mr. Calvin does."3737.

然而卫斯理绝不会让世人忘记，他要人按阿民念主义的意义来接受他的教训，因为一切形式的加尔文主义，对他来说都是当受诅咒的；这给他带来极大的麻烦，是极为不必要，这麻烦是他自找的。他每次总是用三种套路丑化加尔文主义，就是它是反律主义，让圣洁变得没有必要，限制了向世人传讲神的爱(出于某种原因，他总是肯定，按照加尔文主义的说法，“20人当中只有1个”是选民)；它是宿命论的，摧毁了道德责任，否认在属灵方面手段和目的之间的联系。他在生命结束前写道：Yet Wesley would never let the world forget that he wanted his teaching taken in an Arminian sense, because Calvinism in all its forms was anathema to him; and this caused him much trouble, mostly unnecessary and of his own making. He always caricatured Calvinism in the same three ways-as antinomian, making holiness needless; as restricting the preaching of God's love to the world (for some reason he was always sure that according to Calvinism only "one in twenty" is elect); and as fatalistic, destroying moral responsibility and denying the connection between means and ends in the spiritual realm. At the end of his life he wrote:

74问.是什么直接反对循道运动，内心圣洁的教义？

Q. 74. What is the direct antidote to Methodism, the doctrine of heart-holiness?

答.加尔文主义：因为在这50年间，在拦阻神的这工作方面，撒但一切的诡计，成就的远不及这一条教义。它击打在得荣耀前得救脱离罪这件事的根源，把事情放在另外一个很不同的方面。[这就是说，卫斯理强加于加尔文主义之口，说人因他们得拣选，无需圣洁都可以得救。]  A. Calvinism: All the devices of Satan, for these fifty years, have done far less toward stopping this work of God, than that single doctrine. It strikes at the root of salvation from sin, previous to glory, putting the matter on quite another issue. [That is, Wesley takes Calvinism to say that men may be saved without holiness by virtue of their election.]

问.但这教义的迷惑在何处？是什么让人如此贪婪把它咽下？Q. But wherein lie the charms of this doctrine? What makes men swallow it so greedily?

答.它看似尊荣基督，但实际上它把他看作是徒然死了。因为绝对的选民没有他，也必然要得救；非选民，不能靠他得救。[38]  A. It seems to magnify Christ, although in reality it supposes Him to have died in vain. For the absolutely elect must have been saved without Him; and the non-elect cannot be saved by Him.

像这样的曲解，出于一个在超过50年的时间里，有许多相信加尔文主义的朋友，有极多的机会阅读加尔文主义的书籍的敬虔之人的口，表明了一种程度上的偏见和思想固执，这几乎是病态的。也许约翰?卫斯理这种无法克服的，对加尔文主义实际是什么的无知（查尔斯?卫斯理也是一样），应该被看作是苏珊娜的阴影对他一生的缠绕。无论如何，这让他受苦，也让许多人受苦。3838. Works, ed. T. Jackson (London, 1829), VIII:336.Misrepresentations like this, from a godly man who over fifty years had had many Calvinistic friends and abundant opportunity to read Calvinistic books, argue a degree of prejudice and closed-mindedness which is almost pathological. Perhaps John's invincible ignorance (shared by Charles) as to what Calvinism really was should be seen as a lifelong haunting by the ghost of Susanna. At all events, it became a rod for his back, and for the backs of many others too.

卫斯理第一次爆发，反对加尔文主义，这是缘于1740－41年间在费达巷(FetterLane)和经士活社团(Kingswood Societies)遇到的麻烦事。在当中人针锋相对，约翰在查尔斯的协助下，出版了一本题为《论神永远之爱的诗歌》的诗歌集，在其中，除了一些卫斯理写的经典赞美诗之外，还出现有这种小调：Wesley's first anti-Calvinist eruptions were occasioned by troubles in the Fetter Lane and Kingswood Societies in 1740-41. There were some sharp exchanges, and John, with Charles' help, produced a volume entitled Hymns on God's Everlasting Love, in which, along with some vintage Wesley paeans, ditties of this sort were reeled off:

上帝永远怜悯与公义

用新生婴孩把地狱填满；

扔进无尽折磨中，

只为显明他主权的旨意。

这就是那可怕定旨！

这就是来自下面的智慧！上帝(噢这亵渎如此令人厌恶！)

喜悦罪人死亡。[39]

God, ever merciful and just

With new-born babes did Tophet fill;

Down into endless torments thrust,

Merely to show his sovereign will.

This is that Horrible Decree!

This is that wisdom from beneath! God (O detest the blasphemy!)

Hath pleasure in the sinner's death.39

要评论这样的诗句的语气和内容，以及它们给一场新兴福音运动内部争论带来的贡献，在此事上表现出来的牧者智慧到底有多少，这肯定是多此一举。39. The phrase "horrible decree" is Wesley's tendentious rendering of Calvin's description (Institutes, III:xxiii.7) of God's decree of election and reprobation as "horrible"-meaning something awesome, making one tremble, but not necessarily something repellent.Comment on the tone and content of such lines, and on the degree of pastoral wisdom which they show as a contribution to domestic debate within a young evangelical movement, is surely superfluous.

双方都表现出煽动性的姿态，但1741年的争论沉寂了下去；但在1770年，更大的麻烦来了。卫斯理的大会记录谴责那些实实在在存在，或者他认为是存在的信守加尔文主义的反律主义者，特意表明因信得救也必然是在圣洁中得救；他的陈述如此特别，以致似乎是在教导罗马天主教式的教训，就是人自己的行为是他蒙神接纳的根据。这份记录重申，“我们太过倾向于加尔文主义”，以致对人要得救，就必须要终身相信，努力工作，生出悔改的表现这个事实轻描淡写，这份记录继续写道：For all the inflammatory gestures made on both sides, the 1741 debate died down; but in 1770 came bigger trouble. Wesley's Conference Minutes, wishing to make the point, against real or supposed Calvinistic antinomians, that salvation through faith is also, and necessarily, salvation in holiness, were so drafted as to appear to teach, Roman-style, that a man's own works are the ground of his acceptance with God. Having reaffirmed that "we have leaned too much toward Calvinism" in playing down the fact that a man must be faithful and labor for life and bring forth works of repentance if he is to be saved, the Minutes proceed thus:

再次重新审视整件事：(1)我们哪些人是现在被神接纳的？就是那现在用充满爱，顺服之心相信基督的人。Once more review the whole affair: (1) Who of us is now accepted with God? He that now believes in Christ with a loving, obedient heart.

(2)但在那些从来没有听过基督的人当中，哪些人是被神接纳的？就是那按着他所得到的光照，“敬畏神，并行义的人。” (2) But who among those that never heard of Christ? He that, according to the light he has, "feareth God and worketh righteousness."

(3)这和“那真诚的人”是同一些人吗？如果不是，也是很接近了。[阿民念主义“普世性的充分恩典”的教训在这里就浮出水面了。] (3) Is this the same with "he that is sincere?" Nearly, if not quite. [The Arminian doctrine of "universal sufficient grace" here comes to the surface.]

(4)这岂不是靠行为得救吗？不是靠行为的功德，但是靠行为，作为一种条件。

(4) Is not this salvation by works? Not by merit of works, but by works as a condition.

(5)在这三十年间我们一直在争论什么？我是害怕言语的人……(5) What have we been disputing about for these thirty years'? I am afraid about words. . . .

(6)至于我们对此如此惧怕得要死的功德本身。我们是按照我们的行为得赏赐，是的，这是因为我们的行为。这和“为我们行为的缘故”有什么分别？这和secundum merita operum有什么分别？这不过就是“按我们行为当得的”罢了。你能看出这细微的分别吗？我怀疑[我倒是认为]我不能……(6) As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid. We are rewarded according to our works, yea because of our works. How does this differ from, "for the sake of our works?" And how does this differ from secundum merita operum? which is no more than, "as our works deserve. " Can you split this hair? I doubt [i.e., I rather think] I cannot. . . .

(8)谈论……一种称义或成圣的状态，岂不会倾向于误导人，几乎很自然就带他们去信靠那一瞬间作成的事情吗？而我们是每时每刻，按照我们的行为，讨神喜悦，或令他不欢喜……[40] (8) Does not talking . . . of a justified or sanctified state, tend to mislead men; almost naturally leading them to trust what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works. . . .40

这些记录在接下来的五年间引发了激烈而可悲的争议，卫斯理的助手弗莱契和奥利弗斯（Thomas Olivers）和托普雷迪（Toplady），希尔兄弟，以及贝奇（Betridge）互相在文字上大打出手，而复兴运动中相信加尔文主义和相信阿民念主义的那部分人距离越来越远。然而只有一条评论是和我们相关的，这就是：认为这些记录是在神学上不当，对此不屑一顾（尽管1771年的大会承认它们表达得不谨慎），这就好像如哈里森所言，把它们叫作“明显无害”一样，是不正确的。[41]实际上，它们是一个实例教训，证明一个阿民念主义者，坚持把人对福音的回应看作是人自己的贡献，把继续在恩典之中看作取决于他持续的回应，只要一开始去尝试陈述宗教改革关于因信称义，不靠行为的教义，就必然会出现对立和不一致的情况。他所陈述的这交换改变，不管他怎样称呼，看上去都会是在讲实际上是靠行为称义。不管多么自信，却没有一个人能真正自圆其说。卫斯理作了不同的尝试要作成这点（他尝试了好几次），这让人想起一首苏格兰歌曲唱的滑稽故事：40. Cited from Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (London: Epworth Press, 1960), pp. 61 f. Harrison, op. cit., pp. 2041T., traces the course of the debates which the Minutes provoked. These Minutes sparked off the heated and tragic controversy of the next five years, in which Wesley's lieutenants John Fletcher and Thomas Olivers exchanged fierce literary punches with Toplady, the Hill brothers, and Betridge, while the Calvinist and Arminian segments of the revival movement drifted further and further apart. One comment only, however, is relevant for us: and that is, that it is no more right to dismiss these Minutes as theologically inept (even though the 1771 Conference admitted that they had been unguarded), than it is right, with A. W. Harrison, to call them "apparently innocuous."4141.  They are in truth an object lesson on the tensions and incoherences that necessarily arise as soon as an Arminian, committed as he is to treating man's response to the gospel as man's own contribution, and continuance in grace as contingent on his continued response , tries to state the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace through faith without works. The doctrine he states, whatever he calls it, will appear as justification by works in fact. No man, however confident in manner, can really square this circle. Wesley's various attempts to do so (and he made quite a number) put one in mind of the parody of the Scout song:

他们说这做不成；

他说，“小菜一碟！”

他微笑着来做这事，

他还是做不成。

They said it couldn't be done:

He said, "There's nothing to it!"

He tackled the job with a smile

And couldn't do it.

这把我们带到下一部分。Which brings us to our next section.

加尔文主义和阿民念主义之间的隔阂有多深？

HOW FAR-REACHING IS THE CLEAVAGE BETWEEN CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM?

在这一点上人有不同的看法。一些人把这种隔阂最大化，看成是神学上的黑白两面。例如在17世纪，普林(Prynne)提到“阿民念主义者是贼和强盗”，罗斯（Francis Rous）对国会说，“阿民念主义者是教皇党人的小鬼”；在18世纪，正如我们已经看到的，卫斯理兄弟告诉世人，加尔文主义是亵渎神、属魔鬼的，在灵性上是败坏人的。自从那时候起，很多人已经附和双方的看法，保持终审裁决。然而有一种由威廉?埃梅斯（William Ames），多特会议其中一位专家为代表的更有见识的看法，他这样写道：“极多支持抗辩派的人，他们所持有的观点，严格来说并不是一种异端主张[就是极大偏离福音]，而是一种倾向于异端思想的危险错误。然而他们当中一些人坚持的，是伯拉纠主义异端，因为他们否认内在恩典有效动工，对于归正来说是必不可少的。”[42]埃梅斯的这番话提醒我们这个事实，就是阿民念主义各有不同，所以不加区分加以判断是不合理的：对于宗教改革之后每一个版本的半伯拉纠主义，我们都一定要按照它自己的特点加以判断。埃梅斯是对的。这篇文章提到的事实清楚表明，我们需要加以分辨。所以，对卫斯理主义不应当像对待任何形式的荷兰阿民念主义那样严厉，这绝对是正确的，这完全是因为卫斯理的教导包含了如此多宗教改革关于信心的本质、圣灵的见证、以及有效呼召的真理的缘故（卫斯理主义不明确，前后不一致，却推动了福音）。我们可以说，卫斯理的阿民念主义包含了很多对付它自己问题的成分！它的福音性和敬虔的动因，也使得它和抗辩派的立场不属于同一个类型。Views differ here. Some maximize the cleavage in terms of theological black and white. In the seventeenth century, for example, Prynne spoke of "Arminian thieves and robbers," and Francis Rous told Parliament that "an Arminian is the spawn of a Papist"; and in the eighteenth century the Wesleys, as we saw, told the world that Calvinism was blasphemous, devilish, and spiritually ruinous. Many since have echoed both estimates, and left the matter there. A more discerning approach, however, is that exemplified by William Ames, one of the periti of Dort, who wrote: "The view of the Remonstrants, as it is taken by the mass of their supporters, is not strictly a heresy [that is, a major lapse from the gospel], but a dangerous error tending toward heresy. As maintained by some of them, however, it is the Pelagian heresy: because they deny that the effective operation of inward grace is necessary for conversion."4242. Ames, De Conscientia, IV:iv, q. 4; cited in Latin by William Cunningham, Historical Theology (London: Banner ofTruth, 1960), II:378. Ames' words alert us to the fact that Arminianisms vary, so that blanket judgments are not in order: each version of post-Reformation semi-Pelagianism must be judged on its own merits. Ames is right. The facts surveyed in this article show clearly the need for discrimination. Thus, it is surely proper to be less hard on Wesleyanism than on any form of Dutch Arminianism, just because (to the loss of clarity and consistency, yet to the furtherance of the gospel) Wesley's teaching included so much Reformation truth about the nature of faith, the witness of the Spirit, and effectual calling. Wesley's Arminianism, we might say, contained a good deal of its own antidote! Its evangelical and religious motivation, also, puts it in a different class from the Remonstrant position.

但是为什么阿民念主义有这样的不同？最终的答案就是：这并非因为阿民念主义者在为人方面飘忽不定，而是因为所有阿民念主义的立场在内在方面，在原则上都是不稳定的。阿民念主义就像一面很滑脚的斜坡，人走下坡路的时候能在哪里站住，这总是说不准的。所有的阿民念主义都是以理性主义的释经为起点，在每一点上都把一种哲学原则读进圣经，这种哲学原则就是，人要在神面前负责任，他的行为就一定要取决于他自己。所有的阿民念主义都涉及一种理性主义对神的主权和十字架功效的限制，对于这种限制，圣经看起来是直接予以反对的。所有的阿民念主义都涉及某种程度的神人合作论，如果不是强烈的(神帮助我救我自己)，就是微弱的(我帮助神救我)。所有的阿民念主义都隐含有人不一定非要听到福音才可以得救的意思，因为它们断言，每一个人都可以通过回应他此时此刻对神的认识而得救。正确分析各种阿民念主义之间差异的方法，就是问这个问题，它们在行出这些原则的时候走得有多深入，它们容许福音的限制和平衡在多大程度上约束自己。But why should Arminianisms vary in this way? The final answer is: not because Arminians are personally erratic, but because all Arminian positions are intrinsically and in principle unstable. Arminianism is a slippery slope, and it is always arbitrary where one stops on the slide down. All Arminianisms start from a rationalistic hermeneutic which reads into the Bible at every point the philosophic axiom that to be responsible before God man's acts must be contingent in relation to him. All Arminianisms involve a rationalistic restriction of the sovereignty of God and the efficacy of the cross, a restriction which Scripture seems directly to contradict. All Arminianisms involve a measure of synergism, if not strong (God helps me to save myself) then weak (I help God to save me). All Arminianisms imply the non-necessity of hearing the gospel, inasmuch as they affirm that every man can be saved by responding to what he knows of God here and now. The right way to analyze the difference between Arminianisms is to ask how far they go in working out these principles, and how far they allow evangelical checks and balances to restrain them.

关于这一切，我们只要说三点。  On all this, we have just three comments to make.

第一：圣经禁止我们沿着阿民念主义的道路走上一步。它很清楚宣告了多特会议强调的立场：神绝对的主权；人的责任没有任何程度的偶然性或不确定性(请看徒2：23)；在基督作成救赎和把救赎运用在人身上之间存在着直接的联系。耶稣的名字本身就在宣告，“他要将自己的百姓从罪恶里救出来”(太1：21)。这名字没有告诉我们他要使所有人都可以得救，但它告诉我们，他要实实在在拯救那些属于他自己的人。整本圣经都是在按照这些说法对人说话。[43]  First: the Bible forbids us to take a single step along the Arminian road. It clearly affirms the positions which Dort highlighted: God's absolute sovereignty; human responsibility without any measure of contingency or indeterminacy (look at Acts 2:23!); and a direct connection between the work of Christ in obtaining and applying redemption. The very name of Jesus is itself an announcement that "he shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). It does not tell us that He will make all men savable, but that He will actually save those who are His. And it is in these terms that the Bible speaks throughout.4343

第二：如果我们走在阿民念主义的道路上，我们必然会丢失三样宝贵的事情。它们是：对于神在拯救我们这件事上主权的清楚认识，对基督作为他百姓的救主而具有的荣耀的清楚看见，对基督徒在恩典之约中永远安全稳妥的清楚认识。还有，我们的敬虔，除非和我们的原则不一致，超越我们的原则(例如约翰?卫斯理似乎就是这样的人)，否则就必然是以这种思想为中心的，这思想就是，在每一个当前的时刻，一切事情——将来的得救，目前的祝福，当前我是否被神使用——都取决于我如何使用已经赐给我的机会和资源，因为神已经使我有能力去做我应该做的事，可以这样说，他现在是退到后面，等着看我此时此地是否去做。依靠自我，而不是依靠神；限制，而不是自发；一种以人为中心，对委身的强调，打消了以神为中心、对神发出颂赞的直觉；这些要成为我们基督徒生活的特征，像保罗、乔治?怀特菲尔德和司布真这些杰出的神的工人所见证的内心安详和欢乐（这些人明白他们自己每一刻都是被神的能力推动和保守），对我们来说可能相对就显得陌生了。这些是伤心、使人伤心的损失，就像罗马天主教使神的儿女变得枯竭一样，让神的儿女枯竭无力。圣经表明的，给神儿女的安慰和喜乐，要比罗马天主教和阿民念主义神学容许他们得到的安慰和喜乐更多。在这一点上，至少罗斯的判断是成立的：罗马天主教思想和阿民念主义表明它们是太过相似了。Second: if we travel the Arminian road, there are three precious things that we necessarily lose. These are: the clear knowledge of God's sovereignty in our salvation, the clear sight of Christ's glory as the Savior of His people, and the clear sense of the Christian's eternal security in the covenant of grace. Also, our piety, unless inconsistent with and superior to our principles (as John Wesley's, for instance, seems to have been), must center on the thought that at each present moment everything-future salvation, present blessing, current usefulness to God-depends on the use I make of opportunities and resources already given, for God, having made me able to do what I should do, is standing back, so to speak, waiting to see if here and now I shall do it. Self-reliance rather than dependence, strain rather than spontaneity, and an anthropocentric fixity on dedication which inhibits the theocentric instinct for doxology will thus become characteristic of our Christian lives, and the inner relaxation and gaiety witnessed to by such far-out workers for God as Paul, George Whitefield, and C. H. Spurgeon, who knew themselves to be carried along and kept every moment by the power of God, is something to which we are likely to be comparative strangers. These are sad, and saddening, losses, which impoverish the children of God in the same way that Roman Catholicism impoverishes them. There is more comfort and joy for God's children set forth in the Scriptures than the Roman and Arminian theologies allow them to possess. At this point, at least, Rous' verdict stands: Romanism and Arminianism show themselves to be all too much akin.

第三：我们一定要承认，承认自己是加尔文主义者的人，要对其他人走阿民念主义的道路负上一部分的责任，这在十七、十八世纪和从那时至今都是如此。我们已经看到了，阿民念主义是一种反应，看来不容否认的就是，生出它来的一个因素就是加尔文主义神学的狭隘性，这狭隘性就像温库珀（Mildred Bangs Wynkoop）所定义的那样-"任何部分的真理，被提升到完全真理的地位，或者任何对神学一部分过分的强调，忽略其它的强调之处。”[44] Third: we must acknowledge that professed Calvinists bear some blame for the pilgrimage of others along the Arminian road, both in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and since. Arminianism, we have seen, is a reaction, and it seems undeniable that one factor producing it has been Calvinistic theological provincialism, in the sense defined by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop-"any partial truth raised to the status of a whole truth, or any over-emphasis of one segment of theology to the neglect of other emphases."4444.

加尔文主义者是一个怎样的人？巴希尔?豪尔（BasilHall）讲到，“把（加尔文的）神学教义和他面对民事权力而对日内瓦教会所作的组织工作小心平衡起来，这就构成了那应当被正确称为是‘加尔文主义’的教训。”[45]他还指出，伯撒和清教神学的构建人波金斯，是怎样“扭曲”(这个词有一种对价值观做判断的含义，所以最好简单说成是“改变”就好了)了“他试图维持的那教义的平衡”[46]。伯撒把加尔文主义看作是要受到保护的教会教义遗产，一种最好是通过亚里士多德哲学分类进行思想考究，用亚里士多德哲学的超然进行分析的正统教义；这样，他就成为了改革宗经院哲学的先锋。他用严密的精确作成了对堕落前预定论、原罪、特定救赎的表述，而这些是加尔文未曾阐述的，尽管加尔文可能确实是朝这些方向发展的。伯撒在安排神学教义，使之互相联系的过程中，把预定论从原本加尔文在他于1559年修订的《基督教要义》第三卷靠后，在福音和基督徒生活之后的位置挪开，使之看上去就像是对人已知得救的支持，就像在罗8：29-38一样——像中世纪的做法一样，再次把它包含在神论和神的护理之下：这就是在请人按照预定论的光照来研究福音的应许，而不是反其道行之(我们也可以这样认为，《韦斯敏斯德信条》也是这样令人遗憾地发出这样的请求)。波金斯不是像加尔文那样，把基督徒的确信建立在圣经、基督之上，建立在教会和领受圣礼上，而是建立在分辨自己有没有蒙拣选的记号上。就这样，不管人是否认为波金斯和伯撒是违背了加尔文的意思，事实就是他们离开加尔文，继续向前发展。再说一次，今天很多以加尔文主义者自称的人，他们这样做，其实是向人广而告之，他们是接受伯撒对加尔文对罪和恩典观点的经院式扩展（这扩展以信条的形式，由多特会议和制定《韦斯敏斯德信条》的神学家重新作出论述），并且他们看重由《海德堡教理问答》，英国清教运动，从怀特菲尔德、爱德华滋到司布真的复兴传统体现出来，在教牧、灵修和传福音方面对这种扩展的应用：这也是离开了加尔文，继续向前，不管这向前是沿着直线，还是有了偏离。若有人要否认没有任何神学上的狭隘性是可能进入了这种努力发展出来的传统，这人要很大胆才行。What is a Calvinist? Basil Hall speaks of "that careful balance of [Calvin's] theological doctrines and his organisation of the Geneva Church in relation to the civil power, which constitutes what should properly be called 'Calvinism,'"4545. Basil Hall, "Calvin against the Calvinists," in John Calvin, ed. Gervase E. Duffield (Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), p. 19. and notes how both Beza and Perkins, the architect of Puritan theology, "distorted" (there is a value-judgment in that word, so it would be better simply to say "changed") "that balance of doctrines which he had tried to maintain."4646. Op. cit., p. 25. Beza saw Calvinism as a heritage of church doctrine to be preserved, an orthodoxy best thought through in Aristotelian categories and analyzed with Aristotelian detachment; thus he became the pioneer Reformed scholastic. He articulated with exact precision the formulae of supralapsarianism, original guilt, and particular redemption, which Calvin had not done, however true it may be that his thought points in these directions. In his arranging and interrelating of theological doctrines Beza removed predestination back from where Calvin put it in his final (1559) revision of the Institutes-in book III, after the gospel and the Christian life, so that it appears as undergirding a known salvation, as in Romans 8:29-38-and subsumed it once more under the doctrine of God and providence, as the medievals had done: which was an invitation to study the gospel promises in the light of predestination, rather than vice versa (an invitation also given-regrettably, it may be thought-by the Westminster Confession). Perkins based Christian assurance not on Scripture, Christ, being in the church and receiving the sacraments, as Calvin had done, but on discerning in oneself signs of election. Thus Perkins and Beza moved on from Calvin, whether or not they are judged to have moved contrary to him. Again, many who style themselves Calvinists today mean hereby to advertise that they accept Beza's scholastic development of Calvin's view of sin and grace, as confessionally restated by the Synod of Dort and the Westminster divines, and that they value the pastoral, devotional, and evangelistic use of this development found in the Heidelberg Catechism, English Puritanism, and the revival tradition from Whitefield and Edwards to Spurgeon: which too is a moving on from Calvin, however direct or deviant. It would take a bold man to deny that any theological provincialism might have entered into this vigorously developed tradition.

具体来说：我们能够否认，任何对神主权预定的强调，如果这强调掩盖了基督在福音中所发邀请的善意普世性和真实性，人在神面前要因他对这邀请所作的回应负上真实的责任，或者使人对这些事情产生怀疑，这岂不就是神学狭隘性的一个例子吗？我们岂能怀疑，任何对信徒仍然有罪的强调，若削弱或打消了信徒现在就拥有能力对抗试探，在成圣上取得进步的盼望，这不就是这种狭隘性的另外一个例子吗？但肯定的是，人意识到受到这种看似不敬虔的狭隘性的威胁，这种意识支持了十七、十八世纪的阿民念主义，为它们赢得了支持者，十七、十八世纪的阿民念主义都把自己看作是提供了当时所需的合乎理性和敬畏神的矫正主张。我们一定要承认，部分是因为这种糟糕的加尔文主义的缘故，鼓励人生出这种不幸错误。Specifically: can it be denied that any stress on God's sovereign predestination which overshadows or makes doubtful the bona fide universality and truthfulness of Christ's invitation in the gospel, and man's genuine responsibility before God for his reaction to it, is an example of theological provincialism? Can it be doubted that any stress on the believer's continuing sinfulness which undermines or excludes expectations of present power against temptation and progress in holiness is another example of it? But it is certain that the sense of being confronted by just these irreligious-seeming provincialisms gave strength and won adherents to the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Arminianisms, which both saw themselves as called to supply the rational, reverent corrective that was then needed. We must acknowledge that it was in part bad Calvinism that encouraged this unhappy mistake.

所以我们依然得出这样的结论，就是阿民念主义应当被诊断为，不是对宗教改革教导的一种创造性的另类选择，而是偏离它的一种令人枯竭的反应，是部分否认了合乎圣经的对全然施恩上帝的相信。We still conclude, therefore, that Arminianism should be diagnosed, not as a creative alternative to Reformation teaching, but as an impoverishing reaction from it, involving a partial denial of the biblical faith in the God of all grace.

在某些情形当中，这过错不太严重，在其他情形中则是严重得多；但在每一种情形中，它都要求我们负责任地加以重视，富有同情心地加以纠正。阿民念主义的原则按照逻辑，得出的结论就会是纯粹的伯拉纠主义，但是没有一个阿民念主义者会把他的原则发展到如此的地步(否则人就会称他是一个伯拉纠主义者，事情就会这样了解了。)所以加尔文主义者应当看待那些承认自己是阿民念主义者的人为福音派的弟兄，是陷在削弱人力量的神学错误当中，并努力帮助他们思想得更清楚。这样，我们就要来看我们最后这个简短部分。The lapse is less serious in some cases, more so in others, but in every case it calls for responsible notice and compassionate correction. The logical conclusion of Arminian principles would be pure Pelagianism, but no Arminian takes his principles so far (otherwise one would call him a Pelagian, and be done with it). Calvinists should therefore approach professed Arminians as brother evangelicals trapped in weakening theological mistakes, and seek to help them to a better mind. So we move to our final brief section.

各种阿民念主义的成因？医治的方法？WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF ARMINIANISMS, AND WHAT IS THE CURE FOR THEM?

撒但的恶毒，人思想本性的昏暗，无疑有助各样形式的阿民念主义的形成，但正如我们已经开始指出的那样，在历史上直接生出阿民念主义的，是人根据对加尔文主义的看法（这种看法不一定正确）所发出的回应。阿民念主义者看起来是很关心要捍卫四个圣经事实，就是神的爱，基督的荣耀，人的道德责任，对基督徒过圣洁生活的呼吁。他们宣告普世救赎，普世充分的恩典，人有能力回应神，人可以独立作出回应，拣选有条件性，原因在于他们认为，这些主张是实现他们声言要达到目的的必要途径。加尔文主义者认为，阿民念主义者捍卫这四个事实的方法，实际上是危害了这些事实，加尔文主义者可以很有力证明这一点；但如果他们要对方聆听他们的证明，就一定要自己也表现出对四个事实有同样的关切。如果他们的加尔文主义看上去刚硬、冰冷、学术化、缺乏对神对人的爱、缺乏传福音的热情、缺乏温柔的良心和火热的内心，那么对于他们的论证不能使人信服，他们就绝不可感到惊奇。我是担心，这世界上大部分的阿民念主义之所以存在，无论如何，部分都是在于对一种不属灵的加尔文主义退却反应的结果。在本文，我们刻意不对今天的处境作概括性归纳；但是目前那些发觉自己是在反对阿民念主义（或者那种自称是反加尔文主义的主张）的人，应当自问，加尔文主义者自己和阿民念主义的出现有无关系，他们是否没有用圣洁和充满爱的态度和行动，推动加尔文主义的教训。Satanic malice and the natural darkness of the human mind are, no doubt, contributory causes of Arminianism in its various forms; but what has directly produced it in history, as we have already begun to indicate, is reaction against an image (not necessarily correct) of Calvinism. Arminians appear as men concerned to do justice to four biblical realities: the love of God, the glory of Christ, the moral responsibility of man, and the call to Christian holiness. The reason why they affirm universal redemption, universal sufficient grace, man's ability to respond to God, man's independence in responding, and the conditional character of election, is that they think these assertions necessary as means to their avowed end. Calvinists believe that the Arminian method of safeguarding these four realities actually imperils them, and can argue strongly to this effect; but they can only expect to be listened to if they are showing equal concern for these realities themselves. And if their Calvinism appears hard, cold, and academic, lacking love for God and man, lacking passion for evangelism, lacking both the tender conscience and the burning heart, they must not wonder if their arguments fail to carry conviction. It is to be feared that much of the Arminianism in this world has been due in part, at any rate, to recoil from an unspiritual Calvinism. We are deliberately, in this article, avoiding any attempt to generalize about our situation today; but those who find themselves up against Arminianism (or perhaps it calls itself anti-Calvinism) at the present time would do well to ask whether Calvinists themselves have not had something to do with bringing it into being, by not advancing their doctrine with holy and loving attitudes and actions.

怎样才能治愈阿民念主义？只有神才能最终使人心归正，正如只有祂才能使我们的心归正一样。但如果我们这些站在加尔文主义这一边的人，可以重新学习应当如何解释正确的神学必然是认信的神学，是对圣经忠实的反映，不增添也不删减；解释在这个神是主的世界上，人确实拥有道德能动性和责任，这是创造的其中一个奥秘，对此我们带着敬畏之心承认，但并不假装可以完全理解；解释人全无能力回应神，这确实是人的悲剧的一部分；解释神救赎的爱并不是一种可以被挫败的无能善意，而是一种主权的定意，连撒但都无法拦阻；解释在每一个重生之人的心中，都有一个见证，证实圣经一贯的宣告，就是拯救我们的，是三位一体的神，拯救我们的，唯独是祂；解释神在福音中向每一个听到福音的人传赦罪和生命，听到的人，除非是因着自己的不信，否则没有一人会得不到这福气；解释带着盼望传福音，这是每一个基督徒的责任；解释我们认识到，拯救的是神，祂发出的话语不会空空返回，正是这种认识在支持着我们的盼望；就我们而言，遭遗弃的人是面目不明，我们从未肯定自己是否曾经真的遇见过一个这样的人——那么我们就可以盼望，越来越多神的儿女会离开阿民念主义的干旱之地，回到“古道，那是善道，便行在其间”，他们在当中就要灵魂得安息，生活有能力。How can Arminianisms be cured? Only God can finally set men's heads right, just as only He can ever set our hearts right. But if we, who stand on the Calvinist side, can learn afresh to explain that true theology must be confessional, a faithful echo of the Bible, neither adding nor subtracting; and that the reality of human moral agency and responsibility in a world where God is Lord is one of the mysteries of creation, which we reverently acknowledge, but do not pretend fully to understand; and that total inability to respond to God is indeed part of the human tragedy; and that the redeeming love of God is not an impotent good-will that can be thwarted, but a sovereign resolve that not even Satan can stop; and that there is in every regenerate heart a testimony confirming the biblical insistence that it is the triune God, and He alone, who saves us; and that God in the gospel offers pardon and life to every man who hears it, and that none who hears it misses this blessing save by his own unbelief; and that expectant evangelism is every Christian's duty; and that it is the very knowledge that it is God who saves, and that He does not send His word forth for nothing, that upholds our expectancy; and that the reprobates are faceless men so far as we are concerned, so that we can never be sure we have met even one of them-then we may hope to see the children of God returning in increasing numbers from the dry places of Arminianism to the "old paths, wherein is the good way," where they will find rest for their souls and power for their lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]约翰?卫斯理写道：“每一位阿民念主义传道人的本份，就是……决不在公开或私下，把加尔文主义者这个词当作污蔑的话来使用……每一位加尔文主义传道人的本份，就是……决不……把阿民念主义者这个词当作污蔑的话来使用。”(《文集》，最新伦敦版，[纽约：Laneand Scott，1850]，V：134)。要反对此建议，这是难的。

[2]参见我写的“介绍约翰欧文所著《在基督之死里死亡之死》”(伦敦：真理旌旗出版社，1959)。

[3]《阿民念作品集》，尼克斯（James Nichols）与贝诺尔（W. R. Bagnall）翻译(Grand Rapids：Baker Book House，1956)，I:iii。

[4]约翰?欧文，《文集》，古尔德（W. Goold）编辑，(伦敦：真理旌旗出版社，1967)，X：6。

[5]全称，《阿民念主义者杂志：包含论普世救赎的文摘和原创论文》，1805年改名为《循道宗杂志》。

[6]约翰?弗莱契，《文集》(伦敦，1814)，II：232-34页。弗莱契关于卫斯理对人堕落的观点，以及卫斯理对此观点的重视的陈述，其论据在他回应约翰?泰勒博士的那篇十万字长文《根据圣经，推理和经验，论原罪的教义（1757）》（《文集》V:492-669页）中随处可见。

[7]拿撒勒派神学家韦利（H. Orton Wiley）称定义为“神的恩典与人的意志合作”的神人合作论是“阿民念主义者体系的基本真理”，然而他补充说，人合作的能力是一种恩赐，而不是人本性的能力，他的观点和卫斯理的观点完全一样(《基督教神学》[Kansas City：Beacon Hill Press]，II：355)。邦斯（Carl Bangs）在他所著的那本好书，《阿民念：对荷兰宗教改革的研究》(Nashville：Abingdon Press，1971)，第342页指出，英格兰循道宗神学家波普（W. B. Pope）拒绝使用神人合作论这个词，因为信义宗对这个词的用法暗示，人可以靠没有被堕落完全败坏的本性良善与神合作(《基督教神学》[纽约：Phillips and Hunt，1880]，II：77页，389页，III：24页，74页)。在这方面波普和卫斯理的观点一致，他力保这观点不会遭人误解。

[8]关于马丁?路德的观点，见他对伊拉斯谟的回应《论意志的捆绑》，巴刻（J. 1. Packer）和约翰斯顿（O. R. Johnston）翻译并作前言(伦敦：James Clark,1957)。关于加尔文的观点，见《基督教要义》，[卷三：21-24章，以及他对彼济乌（Pighius）的回应，《神永恒的预定》，J. K. S. Reid翻译(伦敦：James Clarke,1961)。关于英国圣公会改教家的观点，见休斯（Philip Edgcumbe Hughes），《英格兰改教家神学》(伦敦：Hodder & Stoughton,1965)，68-73页，以及《三十九条信纲》第17条。请注意，促使改教家们大力主张神主权预定的动机，是教牧性和颂赞性的；他们要让人谦卑认识到我们在罪中的无助；那全然弃绝依靠自我、相信自我，完全信靠基督的单纯信心；对神要紧紧抓住我们，完成祂在我们生命中已经开始的善工的强烈盼望；为着神爱我们，而发自内心的对神的爱。在《三十九条信纲》第17条中，接着关于预定的信条式定义，是两段教牧性文字，上述的意思表现得尤为明显：“……恭恭敬敬默想那在基督里的预定，和蒙拣选的道理，便满有甜蜜，美妙，和不可言喻的安慰，在他们自己里面体会到基督的灵动工，治死肉体的行为，以及他们属地的肢体，吸引他们思想在上属天之事；因为他们默想这道理，就大大坚固他们因基督得享永远拯救的信心，激发他们对神的爱心。……再者，圣经上传述神的应许是怎样，我们就应当怎样听信……”

[9]哈曼松给自己起了一个拉丁文的名字，叫阿民念，这原本是第一世纪时抵抗罗马人的一位日耳曼首领的名字。

[10]阿民念毕生的好友波提乌斯（Petrus Bertius）在这位神学家葬礼上的演说中说，阿民念的研究开始带领他摆脱堕落前预定说，接受脱堕落后预定说，然后接受一种和墨兰顿，以及在哥本哈根的信义宗神学教授，曾经是墨兰顿学生的海明吉乌斯（Nicholas Hem(m)ingius）一样的立场，就是建立在人如何藉着恩典得到信心的一种神人合作论观点之上的个人有条件预定。引用这说法的邦斯（在前引用他的著作，138页)，怀疑阿民念是否真的曾经接受伯撒的堕落前预定说，但如果很了解阿民念的波提乌斯在这一点上很肯定，但却又是错了，那这就真的很奇怪了。

[11]阿民念的观点是建立在他对罗马书第7和第9章的理解之上的，对于这两章圣经，他都写了专文论述。他证明说，罗7：24里“真是苦啊”的那人，那觉得自己是“属乎肉体的，是已经卖给罪了”的人，尽管喜欢神的律，对他不是出于自愿、不能守这律的失败感到恨恶，但他却不可能是重生的人，然后继续猛烈攻击另外一种观点，认为它是教导基督徒，以为恩典会让他们脱离罪，这样就鼓励基督徒采纳低的道德标准。他看不到这点，就是任何敬虔的基督徒，在表达他顺服有亏欠的感受时，都会很自然发觉自己在用保罗说的话；他也没有认真估量，那种认为一个尚未重生的人可以全心（“在我最深处”，22节，修订标准版）喜欢神的律的观点所带来的神学影响。他对罗马书第9章的看法，是建立在这个假设之上的，这假设就是，保罗用第6节作答的问题，并不是“如果大部分犹太人遭拒绝，那么神的话语就落了空吗？”(回答是：没有，因为神的拣选已经常常放弃了一些犹太人)，这问题而是，“如果神拒绝那些凭行为，不凭信心求义的犹太人，那么神的话语就落了空吗？”(回答是：没有，因为神已经一直这样做了)。我们一定要马上指出，如果这是保罗的意思，那么他的用词就是非同寻常般省略、误导。之前引用邦斯著作的第186页，对阿民念的论证作了更完全的归纳。

[12]关于抗辩派的观点，请见贝藤森（H. Bettenson），《基督教教会文献》(伦敦：牛津大学出版社，1943)，XI：iv；沙夫（Philip Schaff），《基督教界信条》(纽约：Harper and Bros，1877)，1：516。它的第五点，和前四点一样，是再现了阿民念的想法：见前面所引邦斯的著作，216-19，348页；多特会议决议可见前引沙夫的著作，III：550页；另外按荷兰文文本，由鲁格特博士（Dr. Gerrit J. Van der Lugt）翻译的文本，可见于《礼仪与诗篇》(纽约：Board of Education，Reformed Church of America，1968)；从拉丁文原版最精确的翻译，由贺其马（Anthony A. Hoekema）翻译，刊登于《加尔文神学学刊》，1968年11月号。贺其马博士的翻译也可单独向加尔文神学院索取。

[13]哈里森（A. W. Harrison），《阿民念主义》(伦敦：Duckworth，1937)，93页。

[14]沙夫，之前引用他的著作，I：509页。抗辩派兄弟会(Remonstrantse Broederschop；抗辩派改革教会)仍然存在。范侯克（Lambertus Jacobus van Holk）是它其中一位神学家，在1960年说它是“荷兰唯一基本上非认信性宗派”(《人的信心和自由》，麦考拉（Gerald O. McCulloh）编辑[Nashville：Abingdon Press，1963，42页)。

[15]前面引用的沙夫著作，I：659页。

[16]关于兰白特条款，见哈德维克（C. Hardwick），《信条史》，(伦敦，1859)，第7章，及附录5；沙夫，《基督教界信条》I：658页，III：523页。

[17]所以有常说的这句妙语：“阿民念主义者持守什么？”答：“全英格兰最好的主教职位和地方主教职位。”

[18]见克里克（Rosalie L. Colic），《光与光照：对剑桥柏拉图主义者和荷兰阿民念主义者的研究》(纽约:剑桥大学出版社，1957)。“阿民念主义开始的时候是对信仰、形而上学、物理学和人类社会讲求常理、人文主义态度的结果，对英格兰以及荷兰的善意之人很有吸引力：它给米德（Mede），维奇科特（Whichcote），摩尔（More），卡德沃斯（Cudworth），以及他们的同事树立了权威；反过来它从他们的哲学唯心主义吸收了很多内容……阿民念主义和柏拉图主义传统变得融合在一起，密不可分。”(144页)。

[19]参见加尔文《基督教要义》，卷三，特别是第11章；休斯，前面引用著作，第二章，54-75页。

[20]天特大会教令，VI：vii，参见V：v；均为埃里森（C. F. Allison）所著《道德主义的兴起：从胡克到巴克斯特的传福音》(伦敦，S.P.C.K.，1966年)中的译文，213页。埃里森的著作汇集了极多引发人思考的材料，表明十七世纪英格兰退步远离改教家关于因信称义的观点。

[21]出书坚持宗教改革教义的英国人包括有胡克；唐纳（George Downame）主教，兰斯洛特?安德鲁斯，戴文南（John Davenant），乌雪，约瑟?豪尔，汤姆斯?巴罗（Thomas Barlow），布兰豪尔（John Bramhall），桑德森（Robert Sanderson），尼克尔森（William Nicholson），贝弗里奇（William Beveridge），多恩（John Donne）盖特克（Thomas Gataker），伯吉斯（Anthony Burgess），约翰?欧文，以撒?巴罗（Isaac Barrow），退尔。

[22]“我们在神面前得称为义，完全是由于基督的义的干预。这等于说，人称义不在乎自己，而是基督的义藉着归算被传递给他，而他是完全配得惩罚。这样，那荒谬的教义，即人因信称义，是因为信心把他带到神的灵的影响下，神的灵使他成为义，就消失了……你看到，我们的义不在我们身上，而在基督里，我们得着这义，唯独是我们在基督里有份的缘故”(《基督教要义》卷三11.23)。也参见加尔文对天特大会第六部分的讨论，《单张与论文》(爱丁堡：加尔文翻译社，1844-51)，III:108页，特别见114-21页。

[23]当黑博恩的皮斯卡特（Johannes Piscator）论证说，只有基督受苦被动的顺服才被归算给信徒时，改革宗神学家普遍反对他的观点。这是在十六世纪末的时候。

[24]对此最完全、最准确的说明，就是康德尔（R. T. Kendall）的专著，《信心的概念：从威廉?波金斯到韦斯敏斯德大会》(牛津大学出版社，1979)。

[25]“对一个相信的人来说，因为神已经差派祂的儿子，耶稣基督，藉着人对祂的血的信心，作挽回祭、施恩座，信心就算为义”(《阿民念文集》，I：264)。

[26]布尔，《使徒教训合参》（Harmonia Apostolica）(安立甘高派神学文库)，I：58，57页。见埃里森，《乔治?布尔的神学》，第6章，118-37页。

[27]《对救赎的救赎》(1651)是古德文的巨著，600对开页的作品，献给剑桥大学副校长维奇科特，那位剑桥柏拉图主义者，以及大学所有学院院长和神学生。它的标题页，让人回想起书的护封和出版商的新书推荐广告尚未盛行之前的年代，令人难忘。全文如下：“Apolutrwsiv Apolutrwsewv或作对救赎的救赎。在本书中，耶稣基督救赎世人的至荣耀工作，按圣经的说明，清晰的论证，古时和现代最高权威的支持，根据神的旨意和至为充满恩典的计划，按恰当的广阔范围，加以辩护与宣告，对抗近来对此的侵犯，这侵犯已经、正在大大遮掩了神恩典那测不透的丰富和荣耀，在许多人的眼中将此隐藏起来。同时附有清醒、清晰和彻底的讨论，讨论与此相关的重大问题，就是关于拣选和遗弃，神赐人悔改和相信的方法的充分性和有效性；关于圣徒，以及那些确实相信的人的坚忍；关于神的本质，祂行事的方式，祂的计划、旨意、命定等等，所有人，或第二因，以及作为单纯的存在，生命等等，他们所作所为对神的依赖。所有这些问题的决断，皆建立在神良善的话语之上，按照通常为人接受，关于神的本质与属性的教义，与上述问题相关的具体经文中用词、说法、一致性明显的要求，大部分也是按照古代与当代最佳解经家的判断与意见加以解释。附三份图表方便读者参考。”当时担任牛津大学副校长的约翰?欧文，在1654年，用一本献给克伦威尔，论述坚忍这个主题，篇幅类似的对开页著作加以回应，这本书的标题页也几乎是同样令人刮目相看。全文为：“圣徒坚忍这教义的解释与证明，或他们（1）为神悦纳，（2）出于神得以成圣的永久确定，从（1）亘古的原则，（2）有效的原因，（3）外在的方法加以显明与证实。证实(1)神本性、命定、立约和应许的不变；(2)耶稣基督的献祭与代求；(3)福音的应许、劝勉和警告。对此教义确实使人顺服、得安慰的倾向所作的应用。对此的证实，对反对此教义的约翰?古德文先生在其题为《对救赎的救赎》的书中所作论述的全面回应。连同对（1）基督之死直接的果效，（2）圣灵在人身上的内住，（3）与基督的联合，（4）福音应许的本质等所作的一些题外论述。也附有一篇前言，说明古人对此争论的真理的判断；以及对伊格那丢书信的讨论，对当中主教制主张的说明；以及对“H. H”博士对此问题论述的一些严肃批评("H. H."即亨利?哈蒙德)。”

[28]见埃里森前面引述作品，第8章，154-77页。埃里森没有指出到巴克斯特、哈蒙德、桑代、泰勒和约翰?古德文共同认同的那主张，就是因为神为耶稣的缘故而设立的那接纳新原则，信心本身就成了我们的义，其来源是阿民念主义。但他这样说是没有错的：“如果我们只是因一种我们自己的义得称为义（因着基督献祭的缘故，成为神所接纳的），如果正如巴克斯特似乎提倡的那样，我们自己的义实际上是神直接赐给我们的，那么就很难分清巴克斯特的立场和天特大会的立场有何不同”(163页)。

[29]约翰?欧文把他论述圣灵的专著（《圣灵论》）的后半部，全部用来纠正那种认为改革宗所传的福音使得圣洁变得全无必要的看法。“索西奴派坚持，基督满足神公义要求的教义确实推翻了过圣洁生活的必要性；教皇党人说，在把基督的义归算给我们，使我们称义这方面，事情也是如此；其他人也发出同样的指责，反对神无条件拣选，在罪人归正中祂恩典大能有效，祂信实保守真信徒在蒙恩光景中直到尽头的教训”(《文集》，第三卷，566页)。但欧文说，圣洁是必需的，这是因为(1)神的本性，(2)神拣选的目的，(3)神的命令，(4)基督使命的目标，(5)我们需要医治罪带来的我们内在混乱的缘故。

[30]关于整件事的过程，见童彼得（Peter Toon）所著的《极端加尔文主义》(伦敦:The Olive Tree,1969)，第三章。关于克里斯比，请参考埃里森前面引述作品，171页。克里斯比宣告，藉着基督为我们代死，称义先于信，像路德宗一样，认为因着归算，基督成为一位大罪人。他对信心的看法，就是信心是对基督为我这位罪人死的认识，也是路德宗式的。克里斯比的讲道被编成书，以《唯独基督被高举》的书名发表，颂赞基督赎罪牺牲，接纳我们这些最坏之人，这对大罪人的极大恩典。克里斯比否认自己宣扬反律主义，敦促我们以圣洁作为感恩的回应。对他最大的批评，就是他的一些用词没有品味，显得过度。约翰?吉尔（John Gill）是一位极端加尔文主义者，但并非反律主义者，后来重新印行了这些讲道，加上注释，证明克里斯比在根本上是纯正的；这个版本到了1832年已经再版七次。

[31]相信神位一体论的历史学家亚历山大?戈登（Alexander Gordon）就是一个很好的例子。今天在基德明斯特的理查德?巴克斯特教堂就是一所相信神位一体论的聚会处。

[32]《阿民念主义》，111页。华腓德的《救赎计划》（Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1975,90-96页）在“后救赎主义”的名下对亚目拉督主义作了评论。

[33]这封信被收录在泰尔曼（Luke Tyerman）所著《约翰?卫斯理生平与年代》(纽约：Harper & Brothers，1872)，卷一：39页；哈里森，上述引述作品189页；施密特（Martin Schmidt），《约翰?卫斯理：神学性传记》(伦敦：Epworth Press，1962-)，1：87页。

[34]卫斯理“拒绝人常认同的看法，即称义是一个双重的作为，第一部分发生在现在，以信心为前提，而第二部分是在末日，要求有行为。但对于约翰?卫斯理来说，只有一种称义……唯独凭信心接受，信心只是藉着恩典生出”(施密特，上述引述作品，II：i，43页)。

[35]《基督教要义》卷三，ii：7；参见以上注解24。

[36]把这一点和1744年大会记录中对信心的定义加以比较：“第一，圣灵让罪人知道，‘基督爱我，为我舍己。’他接受这点的那一刻，这就是藉此他被称义、赦免的那信心。紧接着同一位圣灵作见证，‘你的罪赦了，你在祂血里得到救赎。’这就是得救的信心，藉此神的爱显明在他心里。”引自皮埃尔（Maximin Pierre）所著《更正教变革中的约翰?卫斯理》(伦敦:Sheedand Ward,1938)，423页。

[37]引自哈里森上述引述作品，191页。卫斯理也写道：“世上的人，包括约翰?加尔文他自己，对原罪，或因信称义的宣告，表达均比不上阿民念来得更强烈、更清晰、更直接。对于这一点，卫斯理先生和怀特菲尔德没有丝毫分歧”(《文集》，V：133)。在原罪这个问题上，卫斯理对阿民念的评价基本上是正确的(参见邦斯上述引述作品337页)，但在称义的问题上，卫斯理倘若不是不诚实，也可算是了解得不清楚。在《思想基督归算的义》一文中(1762年，《文集》，V：100页)，他拒绝说基督归算的义是称义的基础，原因很简单，就是因为圣经上没有这种说法，他没有注意到改革宗和阿民念主义对基督的顺服和人的信心在称义中的相互关系的看法之间的差异；然而他好几次重新发表巴克斯特的《称义的警句》，以及约翰?欧文的《论称义》，在这两部作品中，阿民念主义的观点和改革宗观点的对立是表现得相当强烈。

[38]《文集》，杰克逊编辑，(伦敦，1829)，VIII：336页。

[39]“可怕定旨”这个说法，是卫斯理对加尔文把神拣选和遗弃的预旨描写为“可畏”（《基督教要义》卷三，23.7-“可畏的预旨”，译者注），意思是指某样可畏，让人颤抖，但不一定是让人厌恶的事的这说法有偏见的演绎。

[40]引自威廉姆斯（Colin Williams），《约翰?卫斯理神学的今日光景》(伦敦：Epworth Press，1960)，61页，哈里森，上述引述作品204页，这追溯了这份大会记录引发的争论的来龙去脉。

[41]上述引述作品206页。1771大会宣告：“因为上述[1770年]大会记录表达的方式不够充分谨慎，我们在此庄严宣告，在神面前，我们别无信靠，只唯独信靠我们的主和救主耶稣基督的功德，以此得着无论生死，或审判那日的称义和拯救，尽管不行善行，无一人是真正的基督信徒（因此不能得救）……然而我们的行为至始至终，无论全部或部分，在配得、得着我们的得救上都无份。”

[42]埃梅斯，De Conscientia，IV：iv，q.4；拉丁文表述，由甘宁汉（William Cunningham）在《历史神学》(伦敦：真理旌旗出版社，1960)，II：378页中引用。

[43]关于圣经用“加尔文主义”的说法向人说话的最有说服力的主要证明，仍要归于约翰?欧文在几本大型论述中的论证；特别见他所著的《在基督之死亡中的死亡之死》(拉丁文标题，Sanguis Jesu Salus Electorum，《耶稣的血，选民的拯救》——简写版《基督为谁而死》见此，译者注)；《因信称义》；《圣徒坚忍的教义》；《圣灵论》（关于重生的部分)；《福音辩白》（Vindiciae Evangelicae）(《文集》卷十，五，十一，三，十二)。英文著作中对这些对立观点的经典分析仍属于欧文所著的《阿民念主义之展现》(《文集》第十卷)以及甘宁汉的《历史神学》，25章，II：371-513页。

[44]温库珀，《卫斯理-阿民念主义神学的根基》，(Kansas City：Beacon Hill Press，1967)，81页。

[45]巴希尔?豪尔，《加尔文对加尔文主义者》，刊登于杜菲尔德（Gervase E. Duffield）编辑的《约翰?加尔文》，(Abingdon：Sutton Courtenay Press，1966)，19页。

[46]上述引述作品25页。