改革宗神学VS极端加尔文主义Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism
作者: Michael Horton 译者: 王一
今天当基督徒学习什么是改革宗神学（即加尔文主义）时，不得不先学习什么不是改革宗神学。因为贬低改革宗神学的人，常常不按照改革宗神学真实的教导来定义什么是改革宗神学，而是按照他们想当然的逻辑推理来定义。更可悲的是，一些极端加尔文主义者也如此来定义加尔文主义。结果，「加尔文主义」被定义成一种非常极端并且不合乎圣经的意思。改革宗神学所受到的指控，其罪魁祸首是极端加尔文主义思想。因此，在国际性的多特大会（Synod of Dort，1618-1619）上对这一指控给出权威的回应，随后也在威敏斯特信条（Westminster Confession of Faith）以及两份要理问答中再次确认。
上帝是恶的作者吗？
以色列的上帝「作为完全，他所行的无不公平，（他）是诚实无伪的上帝；又公义，又正直」（申三二4）。使徒雅各警告我们说，「人被试探，不可说：『我是被上帝试探』；因为上帝不能被恶试探，他也不试探人」（雅一13）。罪与恶的根源不在上帝和他的创造之工里，而在个人意志和被造物的行为中。
圣经阐述的像道路两侧的两道护栏一样：一方面，上帝「随己意行作万事」（弗一11）；另一方面，上帝没有，也绝对不能行恶。我们一起简单从几处经文来看看这两道护栏。最著名的应该数创世纪四十五章和使徒行传二章。在创世纪四十五章里，约瑟意识到，虽然他兄弟们要把他当奴隶卖掉的想法是恶的，但是上帝的意思则是好的，为了在那场大饥荒中保全许多人的性命（4-8节；参创五十20）。在使徒行传二章23节，我们也看到类似的说法，那些「不法之人」当然要为他们钉死耶稣而受到谴责，但是耶稣乃是「按着上帝的定旨先见被交与人」。我们要做的就是肯定圣经的教导，不越过这界限去幻想、推理。我们从圣经得到的是这两样同时都是对的，但是圣经没有解释为什么。也许威敏斯特信条三章1节对此的陈述最精炼：「上帝从万古以先，以他自己的旨意按着祂最智慧、最圣洁的计划，决定一切将要成的事，没有拦阻，不会改变」——这是第一道护栏——「但上帝这样的决定，绝非罪恶之创始者，也不至于使他因此侵犯受造者的意志，且不至于使『第二因』因而丧失其『自由』与『偶发』(contingence)的性质，反倒得坚立」，这是另一道护栏。比利时信条十三条中也阐述了同样的观点，并且补充道：「他作什么乃超越我们人的理解，在我们所能明白的限度之外，我们不可以好奇心的态度去追问；乃当用最谦虚与最恭敬的心去赞扬上帝公义的判断，这些事都是对我们隐藏的，并以为基督的门徒为满足，只学习那些上帝在他话语中向我们启示的事情，不越过其界限。」
福音是为每个人？
一面说上帝已经决定了谁会得救，一面又坚持把福音的好消息真诚、没有分别的向每一个人宣讲，这样做岂不是很虚假吗？
但是基督岂不是只为选民而死吗？多特信经（Canons of Dort）使用了一段中世纪教会的教科书常见的陈述（即「足够全世界，但只在选民身上有效」），信经宣告基督的死「有无限的价值，足以补偿全世界的罪」（第二项，第3条）。因此，我们「应当毫无区分地向万国万民宣扬公布（福音的应许）……向他们传扬福音」。尽管许多人不回应福音的呼召，不相信基督，但是「这并不在于基督在十字架上所献的祭有任何缺失或不足，乃要完全归罪于他们自己」（《多特信经》第二项，第5-6条）。
是的，这一切对我们来说又是一个奥秘。但是那两道护栏会保护我们滑入玄想（speculation）的深渊。上帝爱世人，藉着福音呼召全世界所有人来就基督，这是外在呼召（outward）；然而上帝对选民的爱乃是带有救赎目的，同样藉着福音，并且藉着圣灵在他们心里发出呼召，这是内在呼召（约六63-64、十3-5、十一、十四-十八、二五-三十；徒十三48；罗八28-30；提后一9）。亚米念主义者和极端加尔文主义者们都忽视了这些重要的经文，他们通过自己的理性「非此即彼」的来解决这个奥秘：要么福音只是给选民，要么福音是白白的邀请。
给每个人的恩典？
上帝是否爱每一个人？还是他的慈爱只不过为了掩饰他的愤怒——好像极端加尔文主义者们所讲的，把那些恶人养肥等待宰杀？
上帝护理的慈爱在圣经中随处可见，特别在诗篇里：「耶和华善待万民，他的慈悲覆庇他一切所造的……你张手，使有生气的都随愿饱足」（诗百四五9、16）。耶稣教导跟从他的人为他们的仇敌祈求正是因为这个原因：「因为他叫日头照好人，也照歹人；降雨给义人，也给不义的人」（太五44）。基督徒应该如此效法上帝的性情。
我们所讨论的这条教义被称为「普遍恩典」（common grace），它有别于「救赎恩典」（saving grace）。有人反对这种用词（有些人甚至反对这个概念），他们坚称恩典没有什么普遍不普遍的：只有一种恩典，即上帝至高主权的、拣选的恩典（sovereign electing grace）。但是，不得不承认，在人类堕落之后，上帝向人类不论什么原因所显出的任何一种良善都理当被视为恩典。再一次，我们又面对两道不应该跨越的护栏：上帝满有恩典的救赎选民，也满有恩典的托住非选民，甚至使他们在这今生兴旺富足。拣选并不是上帝对待这个世界的全部方式，这也是信徒最温馨的安慰之一。
作为基督徒，当我们认识到普遍恩典的存在时，便能够更严肃认真的面对这个世界，我们不单盯着其中的罪恶，也会开始欣赏因上帝的创造和护理而存在的美善。我们再看基督就不单单是赐给选民的救赎恩典的中保，也是赐给受咒诅的世界里的普遍恩典的中保。加尔文反驳那些企图消灭一切不信者的狂热分子，他总结道，当我们贬低不信者身上所显出的真理、良善、优美时，实际上是藐视那位赐下普遍恩典的圣灵（《要义》2.2.15）。
加尔文主义是犯罪许可证？
首先，就像钟马田（Martyn Lloyd-Jones）说的，如果我们从未被指控传讲反律法主（antinomianism，恩典是犯罪许可证），很可能我们从未正确的传讲过福音。保罗早就精准地预料到这个问题，「我们可以仍在罪中，叫恩典显多吗？」。因为他从罗马书三章9节开始论证，最后得出的论点是：「罪在哪里显多，恩典就更显多了」（罗五21）。同时，一些改革宗基督徒，特别是从律法主义背景下解脱出来的信徒，好像把保罗的论证卡在五章21节为止，便总结起来，「上帝喜爱赦免，我喜爱犯罪——完美组合！」
但是被指控反律法主义与真正的反律法主义的区别就在于是否愿意继续跟随保罗的论证到第六章。因为在第六章，保罗通过宣告上帝所成就的工作来正面回应了这个指控。保罗一开始的论证似乎很讨反律主义者的欢心，因为他们极力强调上帝的工作，然后拒绝，至少压制了上帝的命令。可是，保罗所宣告的上帝成就的工作，不仅仅是我们在基督里称义，还有我们受洗归入基督。他的论证基本是这样的：与基督的联合必然促成称义和重生，这也必然导致成圣。保罗在这里说的不是某种要遵守的原则，他不是说基督徒不应该，或者不可以活在罪里。保罗说的是他们不可能活在罪里，这是一个不可能事件。但是很明显，基督徒的确还会犯罪，保罗特别在第七章里提到这一点，但是基督徒是与罪抗争，并不愿意活在罪里。
多特大会的先辈们非常清楚所面对的指控，改革宗教义被指控为「领导人偏离敬虔与信仰；是由肉体与魔鬼所主使的麻醉剂」，并且必然导致「宗教自由派」（libertinism﹝译注：放荡主义﹞），并且「使人得到肉体上的安全，因为他们被劝导说，没有任何事可以阻挡选民的救恩，让他们任意而行」（结论）。但是，这些先辈们既没有放弃称义带来的安慰，也没有妥协基督复活的生命带来的成圣。虽然完全的成圣在今生是不可能的，但今天所谓的「属肉体的基督徒」状态也是不可能的。一个人只能要么在亚当里死，要么在基督里活。同样，有人想靠自己的办法解决这个奥秘：或者我们可以完全摆脱所有已知的罪，好像约翰卫斯理（John Wesley）教导的；或者我们可自安于一种灵性死亡的状态里，好像反律法主义者教导的。尽管这些说法似乎能满足我们的理性，但是这两条路都忽视了圣经清晰的教导，并剥夺了我们享有这丰富救恩的喜乐。
如此，在这一问题上，同样有两道护栏从律法主义和反律法主义的迷雾中浮现出来：称义与成圣既不可混淆，也不能分隔。
此外，好有许多其他的指控，例如改革宗神学常常被视为「理性主义」（rationalistic）的神学，意思是说，这是一个建立在逻辑上的系统，而非基于圣经。但是，我希望各位看到的是，上述各个讨论中极端的双方才真的是理性主义者。改革宗信条的智慧就在于拒绝越过圣经去幻想，坚持传讲上帝全备均衡的旨意，不妄加过分强调某一侧面的内容。改革宗神学所求问的不是逻辑会引导我们去哪里，而是圣经要引导我们去哪里。或许简单的二选一看起来更容易解决圣经里的奥秘，但是这条路十分危险。故此，努力把圣经作为整体来读，沿着护栏保护我们的路继续前行。
Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism
by
Michael Horton
Before
the average believer today learns what Reformed theology (i.e., Calvinism)
actually is, he first usually has to learn what it’s not. Often, detractors
define Reformed theology not according to what it actually teaches, but
according to where they think its logic naturally leads. Even more tragically,
some hyper-Calvinists have followed the same course. Either way, “Calvinism”
ends up being defined by extreme positions that it does not in fact hold as
scriptural. The charges leveled against Reformed theology, of which
hyper-Calvinism is actually guilty, received a definitive response at the
international Synod of Dort (1618–1619), along with the Westminster Confession
of Faith and Catechisms.
Is
God the Author of Sin?
The
God of Israel “is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness
and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deut. 32:4–5). In fact, James seems
to have real people in mind when he cautions, “Let no one say when he is
tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and
he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Sin and evil have their origin not in
God or creation, but in the personal will and action of creatures.
Scripture
sets forth two guardrails here: On one hand, God “works all things after the
counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:15); on the other, God does not — in fact,
cannot — do evil. We catch a glimpse of these two guardrails at once in several
passages, most notably in Genesis 45 and Acts 2. In the former, Joseph
recognizes that while the intention of his brothers in selling him into slavery
was evil, God meant it for good, so that many people could be saved during this
famine (vv. 4–8). We read in the same breath in Acts 2:23 that “lawless men”
are blamed for the crucifixion, and yet Jesus was “delivered up according to
the definite plan and foreknowledge of God….” The challenge is to affirm what
Scripture teaches without venturing any further. We know from Scripture that
both are true, but not how. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this point
is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 3.1): “God, from all
eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet
so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the
will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather established,” and with that, the second guardrail. The same
point is made in the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 13), adding that
whatever God has left to His own secret judgment is not for us to probe any
further.
Is
the Gospel for Everyone?
Isn’t
it a bit of false advertising to say on one hand that God has already
determined who will be saved and on the other hand to insist that the good news
of the Gospel be sincerely and indiscriminately proclaimed to everyone?
But
didn’t Christ die for the elect alone? The Canons of Dort pick up on a phrase
that was often found in the medieval textbooks (“sufficient for the world,
efficient for the elect only”) when it affirms that Christ’s death “is of
infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the
whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). Therefore, we hold out to the world “the
promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction ….” Although many
do not embrace it, this “is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the
sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to
themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6).
Here
once again we are faced with mystery — and the two guardrails that keep us from
careening off the cliff in speculation. God loves the world and calls everyone
in the world to Christ outwardly through the Gospel, and yet God loves the
elect with a saving purpose and calls them by His Spirit inwardly through the
same Gospel (John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30;
2 Tim. 1:9). Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists ignore crucial passages of
Scripture, resolving the mystery in favor of the either-or: either election or
the free offer of the Gospel.
Grace
for Everybody?
Does
God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — fattening
the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?
Scripture
is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms:
“The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You
open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16).
Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason:
“For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the
just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this
divine attitude.
The
doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in
distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to
the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only
one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said
that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can
only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare
not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the
non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the
sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s
dealing with this world.
When
we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of
its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by
God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of
God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers
can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the
fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding
that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers,
we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of
His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15).
Is
Calvinism a License to Sin?
The
first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are never
accused of preaching antinomianism (that is, grace-as-license), we probably
have not preached the Gospel correctly. After all, Paul anticipates the
question, “Shall we then sin that grace may abound?” precisely because his own
argument from 3:9 to this point has pressed it: “Where sin abounds, grace
abounds all the more” (5:21). At the same time, some Reformed Christians,
especially those liberated from legalistic backgrounds, seem to end Paul’s
argument at Romans 5:21, concluding, in effect, “God likes to forgive, I like
to sin — the perfect relationship!”
The
difference between being accused of antinomianism (literally, anti-law-ism) and
being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow Paul on into
chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an announcement of what God
has done! At first, this would seem to favor antinomians, since they place all
of the emphasis on what God has done and reject, or at least downplay, the
importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, what Paul announces is that God has
accomplished not only our justification in Christ, but our baptism into Christ.
His argument is basically this: being united to Christ necessarily brings
justification and regeneration, which issues in sanctification. He does not say
that Christians should not, or must not, live in sin as the principle of their
existence, but that they cannot — it is an impossibility. That they do continue
to sin is evident enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle
against it.
The
fathers at Dort recognized the charge that the Reformed doctrine “ leads off
the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered
by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “libertinism” and “renders
men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the
salvation of the elect, let them live as they please” (Conclusion). Yet they
would neither surrender the comfort of justification by Christ’s righteousness
imputed nor of sanctification by Christ’s resurrection life imparted.
Perfection of sanctification in this life is impossible, but just as impossible
is a condition known today as the “carnal Christian.” One is either dead in
Adam or alive in Christ. Again, some wish to resolve this mystery: either we
can be free from all known sin, as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state
of spiritual death, as antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason,
such an easy resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of
Scripture and robs us of the joy of such a full salvation.
So
the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and
antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but
they are also not to be separated.
In
addition to these other charges, Reformed theology is often regarded as
“rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture.
However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the
extremists on either side of these debates. The wisdom of the Reformed
confessions is that they refuse to speculate beyond Scripture and insist on
proclaiming the whole counsel of God, not simply the passages that seem to
reinforce one-sided emphases. It is not a question of where the logic should
lead us but where the Scriptures do lead us. It might be easier to resolve the
mystery in simple, either-or solutions, but such a course would certainly not
be safer. So let us too strive to read all of the Scriptures together, keeping
a sharp lookout for those guardrails!
