定义两个国度：路德和加尔文重现的伟大教义
作者：Michael S.
Horton 译者：王一
https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/eKqBENrasTu
在19世纪后半叶，两种末世论或历史观碰撞起来。其中之一来自于胜利主义（triumphalism），这种思想代表了1588年击败西班牙无敌舰队之后的英美更正教，造就了新英格兰清教徒们英勇的自信心。另一则始于19世纪典型的福音派对社会改革希望的幻灭。人们常用后千禧年主义（Postmillennialism ）与前千禧年主义（premillennialism ）来定义这两种不同的思想。Two eschatologies, or views of history and
creation's destiny, clashed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. One was rooted in
the triumphalism that marked Anglo-American Protestantism since the Spanish
Armada's defeat in 1588 and produced the courageous confidence of the New
England Puritans. The other was rooted in the disillusionment with society's
gradual improvement that so characterized nineteenthcentury Evangelicalism.
Postmillennialism and premillennialism (see definitions on page 46) are the
terms most commonly used now to delineate those two distinct approaches.
千禧年主义，不论前缀如何，从313年康士坦丁大帝信主到第一次世界大战之间这段时间，关注的是“基督帝国”（Christendom）的胜利。在第五世纪，奥古斯丁强烈的区分“两座城”，它们各自的起源、目的、命运、信息和方法。但是，奥古斯丁不愿意把镇压多纳图派的世俗宝剑拱手相让。多纳图派是早期的分裂团体，与改教家面对的极端重洗派相似。与奥古斯丁一样，路德和加尔文在理论上维护两国论，虽然他们在实践上并非总是严格遵循这个原则。奥古斯丁、路德和加尔文在末世论上是“无千禧年派”，但他们却仍然处于基督帝国模式的统治之下。整个中世纪时期，神圣罗马帝国经常扮演着实现旧约时代神治政体（theocracy）的角色，自以为是上帝的真以色列。帝国皇帝是大卫王（即神圣罗马帝国里的“神圣”所指）和凯撒（即神圣罗马帝国里的“罗马”所指）的混合体。而整个帝国和一切基督教邦国，组成了基督教的整体（corpus Christianum），即基督的身体。上帝的这“一个国度”将会成长、扩张，传播统一的宗教与文化，传播敬拜与文明，直到地极。Millennialism,
whatever the prefix, concerns the triumph of "Christendom" from the
conversion of Constantine the Great in 313 to the Great War (World War I). In
the fifth century, St. Augustine sharply distinguished the "two
cities," with their own special origin, purpose, destiny, message, and
methods. And yet, Augustine reluctantly conceded to the use of the secular
sword in suppressing the Donatists, a schismatic group similar to the radical
Anabaptists known to the reformers. Like Augustine, both Luther and Calvin
defended in theory a two kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in
practice. While Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were "amillennial" in
their eschatology (i.e., non-millenarian), they were still under the sway of
the Christendom model. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire often
played out its identity as the fulfillment of the Old Testament theocracy, the
true Israel of God. The emperor was a blend of King David (hence, the Holy part
of the name) and Caesar (hence, the Roman part). The whole empire and, in fact,
all Christian states, composed the corpus Christianum , the body of Christ. And
this "one kingdom" of God would grow and spread its unified cult and
culture, its worship and its civilization, to the ends of the earth.
这就是藏匿在十字军、异端裁判所、美国奴隶制度以及给土著人屠杀提供辩护的美国天命论（manifest destiny）背后的神话。不必多言，以上帝和弥赛亚的名义犯下的暴行，罪魁祸首是对两个国度的混淆。在19世纪，大部分基督徒都很乐观。各禁酒社团的出现是美国基督化这一愿景缔造的诸多运动之一。可到了19世纪后期，同为福音派人士的约西亚·斯特朗（Josiah Strong）和慕迪（D. L. Moody）却标志了胜利主义后千禧年派与悲观主义前千禧年派之间日益明显的分裂。斯特朗说：“除非金钱已经被基督化，否则这世上的国将不会成为我主的国。”[1] 在保守派与自由派分道扬镳很久之前，美国的福音派运动已经倡导所谓的“社会福音”，这从霍拉斯·布什内尔（Horace Bushnell）以下的评论可以看得出来：This is the myth behind the crusades, the
Inquisition, and such American institutions as slavery and the doctrine of
manifest destiny, which gave narrative justification for the slaughter of
Native Americans. Needless to say, the confusion of the two kingdoms has yielded the
lion's share of blame for the atrocities committed in the name of God and his
Messiah. In the nineteenth century, most Protestants were optimistic.
Temperance societies emerged as one of many movements organized around the
vision of a Christianized America. In the last quarter of that century, fellow
evangelicals Josiah Strong and D. L. Moody would represent the growing cleavage
between the triumphalistic postmillennialists and the pessimistic
premillennialists. "The kingdoms of this world will not have become the
kingdoms of our Lord," Strong opined, "until the money power has been
Christianized." (1) Long before the conservative-liberal polarizations,
American Evangelicalism had championed the so-called social gospel, as one
notices in the following comment from liberal preacher Horace Bushnell:
“人的才能已经大规模基督化了。国家和王国的政治力量，长久以来被认为是维持个人安全和自由的，现在终于成真了。建筑、艺术、机构、学校和学术已经在很大程度上基督化了。但金钱的力量，这一切力量当中最活跃最宏大的其中一种，只是刚刚才开始变得基督化，但种种迹象带给人极大盼望，就是它最终要完全降服于基督，被他的国度使用……我们可以说，那一天降临的时候，就是那新创造的早晨。难道现在不应该是让那日的拂晓来临的时刻吗？”[2] Talent has been Christianized already
on a large scale. The political power of states and kingdoms has been long
assumed to be, and now at last really is, as far as it becomes their accepted
office to maintain personal security and liberty. Architecture, arts,
constitutions, schools, and learning have been largely Christianized. But the
money power, which is one of the most operative and grandest of all, is only
beginning to be; though with promising tokens of a finally complete reduction
to Christ and the uses of His Kingdom.... That day, when it comes, is the
morning, so to speak, of the new creation. Is it not time for that day to dawn?
(2)
但福音布道家慕迪的看法却不同。虽然他一开始是查尔斯·芬尼的社会行动主义（social activism）的代表，但他对于地上的国可以在多大程度上成为神的国却变得日益悲观。他后来写道：“我把这世界看作是一条坏船，上帝已给了我一艘救生艇，对我说：‘慕迪，尽你所能拯救所有人吧。’”[3] 虽然许多人把复兴视为通过传福音和社会行动使社会基督化的工具，慕迪却视其为使人信主的手段。美国版的神圣罗马帝国把增加基督教医院、基督教大学、基督教妇女社团和男性社团等视为上帝认可的，推进上帝国度的标志。But evangelist D.
L. Moody marched to the beat of a different drum. Although initially quite
representative of Charles Finney's social activism, Moody became increasingly
pessimistic about the extent to which earthly empires could become the kingdom
of God. "I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel," he would later
write. "God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, 'Moody, save all you
can.'" (3) Whereas revival was usually regarded as an instrument of
Christianizing society through evangelism and social action, Moody saw it as a
means of converting individuals. The American version of the Holy Roman Empire
regarded the proliferation of Protestant hospitals, colleges, and men's and
women's societies, as signs of God's approval and, indeed, of the advancement
of the kingdom of God.
历史学家乔治·马斯登（George
Marsden）在许多地方提出，基督教右翼与基督教左翼同样来源于19世纪末的福音派。[4] 而引导当代福音派行动主义的是这种近期的思想（即行动主义），而不是奥古斯丁和改教家们的思想。讽刺的是，就连坚定的前千禧年派人士如杰瑞·法威尔（Jerry Falwell）所说的听上去就像曾经的后千禧年派人士。一个人相信两国论立场却在行动上没有与自己所相信的保持一致是一回事，但是一个人因为把某种文化与上帝的国混淆起来而把基督帝国模式付诸行动则是另一回事。As historian George
Marsden has documented in various places, both the Christian Right and the
Christian Left derive from this late nineteenth-century Evangelicalism. (4) It
is this quite recent train of thought (or, more precisely, activism), rather
than the profound reflection of Augustine and the reformers that guides
contemporary evangelical activism. Ironically, even staunch premillennialists
like Jerry Falwell sound similar to the postmillennialists of yesteryear. It's
one thing to inconsistently act out a two kingdoms position and quite another
to act out a Christendom model because one has confused a particular culture
with the kingdom of God.
我们知道奥古斯丁教导两国论。这个思想使基督徒能够真正深入参与并影响世俗社会，同时又不会天真的误以为任何人类文化或国家是或可能真正成为义的。因为只有等到基督再来，等到世界的末了，稗子才会从麦子中被分出去，在那日子之前，我们有两种不同的纲领：一个是为基督的国度（救恩），另一个是为人类的国度（社会改善），这两者都是为了上帝的荣耀。We know that
Augustine taught the two kingdoms approach. This view made it possible for
profound Christian involvement and influence in secular society, while at the
same time never giving in to the naïve assumption that any human culture or
nation is-or can become-truly righteous or good. For only at the end of the
age, when Christ returns, is the wheat separated from the chaff, and until that
time, we work on two different agendas: One for the kingdom of Christ
(salvation), and another for the kingdom of man (social improvement), and both
for the glory of God.
属地的众王国与属天的一座城Earthly
Kingdoms and the Heavenly City
属地的各个王国建立不同的法律和风俗习惯来保持属地的和平——在对于堕落后的人类来说是不小的成就。但是那个属天的城却有不同的志向，追求属天的和平，呼召人们从地上各国来进入上帝的国。这并不意味着他们不再是属地国度的公民，而是说他们不再从那个身份里找寻他们终极的安慰、满足与希望。不论堕落前后，世俗社会一直是上帝给我们的恩赐，因此基督徒必须像非信徒一样在社会上耕耘。其实，“上帝没有把人类的国、他们的统治与劳动置于他护理的定律之下。”[5] 但是，属地之城永远是巴比伦——她和她其中的居民永远不会变成上帝的居所。上帝的国是通过福音的宣讲来扩张，而不是通过武力：“因此，这座城正在建造之中；通过宣讲真理之人的手，石块从山丘上被凿下来，他们要进入一个永恒的建筑里。”[6] Accordingly, the earthly kingdoms establish
diverse laws and customs that will engender earthly peace-no small
accomplishment for humanity after the fall. But the heavenly city is always
different in its ambitions, seeking heavenly peace and calling people out of
the nations into the kingdom of God. This does not mean that they then are no
longer citizens of the earthly city, but that they do not derive their ultimate
comfort, satisfaction, or hope from it. Secular society is a gift of God before
and after the fall and it must be cultivated by Christians as well as their nonbelieving
neighbors. In fact, "God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms
of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of His
providence." (5) But the earthly city is always Babylon-it is never
converted, as are its inhabitants, into the dwelling place of God. The kingdom
of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through force:
"This city is therefore now in building; stones are cut down from the
hills by the hands of those who preach truth, they are squared that they may
enter into an everlasting structure." (6)
路德很欣赏奥古斯丁对新约圣经的洞见，但是因为他当时是在反抗教会控制世俗界，所以他把教会置于国家之下。（为了公平起见，我必须说，慈运理、布赛尔、布灵格甚至某种程度上加尔文也都采取这种方法。）路德曾说，“世俗政府的法律范围不超过生命、财产、外部事物和属地关系。因为至于灵魂，除了上帝自己，他不能也不会让任何人去统治。”两国论的方法代表了路德宗在此问题上的一致看法。Luther appropriated
Augustine's New Testament insights, although he reacted against church
domination over the secular sphere by making the church subject to the state.
(In fairness, the same approach was taken by Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, and
even to some extent Calvin.) "Secular government has laws which extend no
further than to life and property and to external things and relations on
earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself
alone," Luther said. The two kingdoms approach represents the Lutheran consensus.
那么加尔文和加尔文主义如何看待这个问题呢？神学家理查德德·尼布尔（H. Richard Niebuhr）在《基督与文化》（Christ and Culture）一书中铿锵有力的宣称加尔文主义是“基督改变文化”模型。我想，的确有理由去证明这论点。例如，在神学家、政治家亚伯拉罕·凯波尔（Abraham Kuyper）的荷兰加尔文主义思想里，他着重强调要承认上帝和基督在生命各个领域的主权，而不仅仅是在宗教领域。虽然在历史上美国北部的长老会倾向于混淆这两个国度，后千禧年派的乐观主义统治北部，但是在南部的长老会则严格区分这两个国度——也许是因为想要维护奴隶制度带来的利益，把信仰与实践分割了。But what about
Calvin and Calvinism? Theologian H. Richard Niebuhr's heavy typecasting in
Christ and Culture distinguishes Calvinism as a "Christ Transforming
Culture" model. There have been reasons to argue that case, I suppose. In
the Dutch Calvinism of theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, for instance,
there is a heavy emphasis on recognizing the authority of God and of his Christ
over all spheres of life and not just religion. While Presbyterianism in the
northern United States tended to confuse the two cities, dominated as it came
to be by postmillennial optimism, southern Presbyterianism sharply
distinguished the two kingdoms-often perhaps in the interest of protecting the
institution of slavery by separating faith from practice.
但是，当我们来看改革宗和长老会的信仰准则和最具代表性的教理与系统神学时，我们很容易会看出这个奥古斯丁的两国论教义。为了证明这个结论，让我们简单来看加尔文。But when it comes
to the confessional standards of Reformed and Presbyterian bodies, as well as
their most representative dogmatics or systematic theologies, one easily
discerns a consensus around the biblical and Augustinian two kingdoms doctrine.
To demonstrate this conclusion, let's turn briefly to Calvin.
加尔文欣赏上帝的堕落世界Calvin Appreciates God's Fallen World
加尔文是在当时法国人文主义最著名的圈子里接受的教育，他对文学和其他领域博学娴熟。虽然他很清楚在世俗思想中的弱点，但他没有全盘否定，而是继续欣赏其优点。“每当我们看到真理之光在异教作家的著作中表现出来，就要知道，人心虽已堕落，不如最初之完全无缺，但仍然禀赋着上帝所赐优异的恩赐。”他继续写道：Trained in some of the most distinguished
circles of French humanism, Calvin was familiar with a wide range of literature
and other subjects. Far from repudiating this heritage, he continued to appreciate its
strengths even as he came to recognize more clearly the weaknesses in secular
thought. "Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers," he
pleaded, "let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that
the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is
nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts." He continues:
“我们岂该拒绝古代那些建立伟大平等的社会制度的法律家们所得真理吗？我们岂该说那些观察描述自然的哲学家都是盲目的吗？……我们岂该说那些致力于医药研究使我们受益的人是疯狂吗？我们对一切数学的研究怎么说呢？我们能把它们当作疯人的狂言吗？……圣经上所称为“属血气的人”既在研究属世事物上敏锐洞察，我们就应该知道，在人性真正的良善被被剥夺以后，主还给人性留下许多美善的恩赐。”[7] What then? Shall we deny that the truth
shone on the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we
say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful
description of nature?... Shall we say that they are insane who developed
medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the
mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen?... Those
men whom Scripture calls "natural men" were, indeed, sharp and
penetrating in their investigation of earthly things. Let us, accordingly,
learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it
was despoiled of its true good. (7)
在十六世纪，不论是罗马天主教还是更正教，反对基督帝国的概念并不是流行的做法，而加尔文称之为“人造帝国”（contrived empire）。加尔文并没有像我们期望的那样真正搞清楚在实践中这一切该如何运作。然而，他坚持认为，我们必须意识到我们处在“双重的治理之下，……好叫我们不重蹈覆辙，把这两件完全不同的事不智慧地混合起来。”就像身体与灵魂虽不彼此为敌但必须加以区分，同样“基督属灵之国和属世政府，乃是两件完全不同的事。”他继续写道：v Opposing what Calvin called the contrived
empire known as Christendom was not popular in the sixteenth century, with
Roman Catholics or Protestants. And Calvin was still not as clear about how this
worked out in practice as we might have hoped. Nevertheless, he insists, we
must recognize that we are "under a twofold government,... so that we do
not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely
different nature." Just as the body and soul are distinct without being necessarily
opposed, "Christ's spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things
completely distinct." But
he continues:
“然而这种区别并不使我们视政府为败坏的事，与基督徒无关。有些狂热分子，除自由之外，不如说除放荡之外，什么都不喜欢。……但是虽然我们已指出，这种治理是与基督在内心属灵的治理有别，然而我们仍应当知道，它们二者并不互相抵触。”[8] Yet this distinction does not lead us to
consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to
do with Christian men. That is what, indeed, certain fanatics who delight in
unbridled license shout and boast.... But as we have just now pointed out that
this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and inward Kingdom of
Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance. (8)
因此，日内瓦的改教家站在两种极端之间，一边是基督混淆文化（罗马天主教），另一边是基督反对文化（重洗派）。因着上帝在创造和护理中的良善，世俗国度不能被丢弃而不引起上帝的不满，但因为罪和对上帝的叛逆，这世界永远不会与上帝和好，直等到末日最终的审判。So here the Genevan
reformer stood, between the Christ of culture (Rome) and the Christ against
culture (Anabaptists). Because of God's goodness in creation and providence,
the secular kingdom could not be renounced without incurring divine
displeasure, but because of sin and rebellion against God the cities of this
world would never be reconciled to God apart from his final judgment at the end
of history.
加尔文的频频指责重洗派逃避世界的热诚。
重洗派的《施莱坦信条》（Schleitheim
Confession (1527)）里体现出的二元论也深刻的体现出美国基要派的思想：Anabaptist zeal to escape the world meets
with Calvin's rebuke at every turn. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) of the
Anabaptists argued the following dualism that would also heavily mark American
fundamentalism:
“我们认同分离：我们必须与魔鬼栽种在这世界上的邪恶与罪恶分离；如此，我们不可与恶人有交集，不可在他们多样可憎之事上与他们同行。这是我们所要做的：一切不行在信心的顺服之中的人，没有与上帝联合来遵行他的旨意，他们在上帝眼中是可憎的，因此除了可憎之事，他们里面生发不出任何东西。”[9] We
are agreed on separation: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the
wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we
shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the
multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not
walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that
they wish to do his will, are a great abomination to God, it is not possible
for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. (9)
因此，大部分重洗派从公共社会中完全退出去建立自己的社区。讽刺的是，这些分离两个国度的重洗派建立的社区却成为新的两个国度混合物：世俗与属灵的政府成为同一个，就像基督帝国模式里的一样。当一些重洗派退出公共领域时，另一些重洗派则试图推翻现存的政府，以武力建立上帝的国，比如托马斯·闵采尔（Thomas Müntzer）带领的德国农民革命起义。加尔文说，重洗派的问题在于他们不懂得区分创造与堕落，不懂得区分上帝设立的两个国度。所以，他们把上帝面前被称义和道德、社会、政治的义混淆，结果既破坏了基督徒与非基督徒之间的以礼相处，又损害了福音。因此，加尔文写道：“这种法律的不同性，本来是为求最能遵守上帝的律法，凡讨厌它的，乃是怎样暴露他嫉视公益呢？因为有些人提出反对说，以别的法律取代上帝给摩西的律法是对摩西律法的侮辱，但他们所提出的反对毫无根据。”[10] 加尔文说，“上帝的律法中的道德律（moral law），无非是自然律（natural law）和上帝在人心中所铭刻的良心的见证。”[11]就像保罗表明的，甚至在他所处的异教社会里，非信徒也可以公正严明的治理（罗13:1-7）。Hence, most
Anabaptists withdrew entirely from civil society to form their own communities.
Ironically, these communities became a new confusion of kingdoms: the secular
and spiritual government were regarded as one and the same, just as they had
been in Christendom. While some Anabaptists withdrew, others sought to
overthrow existing governments and institute the kingdom of God by force, as in
Thomas Muntzer's ill-fated peasant revolution. The problem with the Anabaptists
on this point, Calvin argued, was that they would not distinguish between
creation and fall or between the two kingdoms instituted by God. In this way,
justification before God was confused with moral, social, and political
righteousness, undermining both civility between Christian and non-Christian as
well as the Gospel. So, Calvin writes, "How malicious and hateful toward
public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly
adapted to maintain the observance of God's law! For the statement of some,
that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and
new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain." (10) After all, Calvin says,
"It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing
else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has
engraved on the minds of men." (11) Unbelievers can rule justly and
prudently, as Paul indicates, even under the more pagan circumstances of his
day (Rom. 13:1-7).
加尔文在实践上与路德的区别Calvin's Distinctiveness from Luther on the Practice
of Two Kingdoms
加尔文不仅与路德不同，也与其他改革宗的同僚不同。他的独特之处主要在于对两国论的实践。首先，加尔文被日内瓦驱逐正是因为他和他的同事们坚持教会在处理属灵事务上的自由。要知道，就连当时的苏黎世也是市议会控制教会，同样，在斯特拉斯堡、伯尔尼和巴塞尔都是如此，但是慈运理、布灵格、布赛尔、厄科兰帕迪乌斯以及在这些城市里的其他改革宗牧师们对此完全赞同。可是为什么加尔文和法勒尔不赞同这种制度呢？日内瓦市议会直到切切恳求加尔文回到日内瓦之后，才最终把一些权力转交给教会的牧长会（consistory，由日内瓦教会的牧师与长老组成的议会）。甚至，当公开反对三位一体论的塞尔维特（Michael Servetus）在日内瓦被执行火刑时，加尔文的角色也仅仅是证人。其实，加尔文曾经恳求市议会选择一个不那么痛苦的刑罚方式，但就连“温和的菲利普” 墨兰顿（Melanchthon）也支持这种处决异端的传统刑罚。就像许多其他的论战一样（例如每周都施行圣餐礼），加尔文都输给了市议会的保守主义。Where Calvin
differed not only from Luther but also from his Reformed elders and colleagues,
was chiefly in the practice of two kingdoms theory. For one thing, Calvin had
been expelled from Geneva precisely because he and the other ministers had
insisted on the liberty of the church in the spiritual affairs of the people.
Zurich's city council had ruled the church, as had Strasbourg's, Bern's, and
Basel's-while Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and other reformer-pastors
of those cities fully concurred. Why were Calvin and Farel so disagreeable to
this order? Only after pleading earnestly and successfully for Calvin's return
did the city council of Geneva finally surrender at least some of its
jurisdiction to the consistory (the pastors of the several Genevan churches
with their elders). Even when Michael Servetus, the outspoken anti-trinitarian,
was burned at the stake in Geneva, Calvin's only role was that of witness. In
fact, Calvin had pleaded with the city council for a less painful form of
execution, but the support of even "gentle Phillip" Melanchthon was
on the side of the traditional execution for heretics. As in many other
controversies (such as weekly communion), Calvin lost to the conservatism of
the city council.
关于抵抗暴政的问题，加尔文同意其他改教家所持的保守主义，尤其在当时，许多贵族怀疑整个宗教改革派都像闵采尔和其他重洗派那样极端。然而，加尔文的接班人泰奥多尔·贝扎（Theodore Beza）与其他改革宗神学家，特别是德国和法国的改革宗神学家，开始发展出现代的对暴政“抵抗权”的概念（right of resistance）。对路德而言，人民必须顺从君王，至少在属地的事务上如此。加尔文的观点几乎与此相同，只是稍微裂了一个小缝隙（参《要义》4.20），允许在合法的情况下，由贵族来抵抗暴君，但绝不是人民抵抗。我们的确可以看出在改革宗里，两个国度之间的互动更多一些。在改革宗神学里，虽然清晰区分两个国度，但更强调创造与救赎之间的连续性。在有罪的人性中，上帝的形象虽被损伤，却没有完全丧失。虽然文化行为永远无法是救赎性的，但被救赎的人会以新的视角来看待创造与文化行为。改革宗传统对文化成就所产生的巨大兴趣不能完全与他们属天子民的身份分开，而是从这个身份的外在表现。On the right of
resistance to tyrannical rulers, Calvin shared the conservatism of the other
reformers, especially at a time when so many princes suspected all Protestants
of the radicalism of Thomas Muntzer and the radical Anabaptists. Nevertheless,
Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, along with a number of other Reformed
theologians especially in Germany and France, began developing what became the
modern "right of resistance" to tyrants. For Luther, the prince is
always to be obeyed, at least in the sphere of earthly things. Calvin's view
was almost identical to that but with the door sufficiently cracked (e.g.,
Institutes 4.20) to allow for the possibility that tyrants could be opposed on
legal grounds by lesser nobility-but never by the masses. One does begin to
discern in Reformed attitudes a greater interaction between the two kingdoms.
Although both are clearly distinguished, there is perhaps a stronger emphasis
in Reformed theology upon the continuity of creation and redemption. The image
of God is defaced, but not lost, in sinful humanity. While cultural activity can
never be redemptive, the redeemed will view creation and cultural activity with
new spectacles. The enormous interest in cultural pursuits that the Reformed
tradition produced was never seen as entirely separate from heavenly
citizenship, but a constructive outworking of it.
可以肯定，在改革宗立场中有一种张力，一方面我们看到生命的全部都服在上帝的统治之下，而另一方面意识到“只是如今我们还不见万物都服基督。” 胜利主义过分把末世现世化，强调“已然”；而悲观主义则过分低估已经实现的末世，强调“未然”。但如果说加尔文主义者们不能容忍暴政，他们也绝没有自由把公义攥在自己手中代替上帝执行审判，那是万王之王在末日要做的事。他们也不应通过强权把自己独特的基督教信念强加在社会上，就像罗马天主教和极端重洗派试图做的，而是按照不同国度中的不同政策去履行自己属天和属地的双重国籍身份。To be sure, there
is a tension in the Reformed position to see all of life under the reign of God
and yet to affirm "we do not yet see all things subjected to Christ."
Some err on the side of triumphalism (an over-realized eschatology emphasizing
the "already"), while others err on the side of pessimism (an
under-realized eschatology emphasizing the "not yet"). But if
Calvinists are not expected to endure tyranny, they are also not given liberty
to take justice into their own hands or to exercise the judgment reserved for
the King of kings on the last day. Nor are they to seek to impose their
distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom of power, as
both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do, but are to pursue their dual
citizenship according to the distinct policies of each kingdom.
归根到底，区别两个国度最要紧的在于区分律法与福音。那些混淆社会公义和上帝面前称义的人，很容易混淆社会道德改革与上帝的国。虽然改革宗坚持在讨论称义时必须区分律法与福音，但我们不相信律法的功能只是给人定罪。律法还有第三重功用，这一点路德宗的朋友们也是接受的。按照这个功用，律法引导信徒生活，尽管他们已经不再处于律法的威胁与定罪之下。除了在上帝面前被接纳这件事之外，律法与福音并不彼此相对。二者必须被区分。律法能引导我们过圣洁生活，但律法永远无法赐给我们生命，甚至在我们称义之后。At the end of the day,
at stake in distinguishing the two kingdoms is the distinction between law and
Gospel. Those who confuse civil righteousness with righteousness before God
will be likely to confuse moral reform in society with the kingdom of God. And
yet, here again there is a subtle difference between the Lutheran and Reformed
approaches. While the Reformed firmly insist on the distinction and, in fact,
the opposition of law and Gospel with respect to the question of our acceptance
before God, they do not believe that the law only accuses everyone at all
times. There is a third use of the law, which Lutherans also accept in
principle. According to this use, the law guides believers who can never again
fall under its threats and condemnation. Law and Gospel are not in opposition
unless we seek to find satisfaction before God. But they are always
distinguished at every point. The law can guide us in godly living, but it can
never-even after we're justified-give us any life.
就像我们无法从律法中获得生命，我们也无法在文化胜利中找到任何自信。如同律法与福音，我们属地和属天的身份并不彼此为敌，除非我们尝试为属地国度寻找救赎。当我们意识到即便通过我们的政治和文化努力，我们也无法从暴力、压迫、不公、道德败坏中解脱得到永恒的安息的时候，我们才真的能为了上帝在耶稣基督里赐给我们的救赎恩典而感恩，并以此感恩之心自由的进行社会改善。此外，当我们履行文化使命时，我们要回头看上帝祝福的受造界，同时也要向前看，到那一日，受造界将要被恢复，这世界万国最终都要成为我们上帝和基督的国度，直到永永远远，阿门。
Just
as we cannot derive any life from the law, we cannot derive any confidence in
our cultural triumphs in so many fields. As with law and Gospel, our earthly
and heavenly citizenship are not opposed unless we are seeking a way of
salvation for a nation. But once we recognize that there is no everlasting rest
from violence, oppression, injustice, and immorality through our own political
or cultural works, we are free to pursue their amelioration with vigorous
gratitude to God for his saving grace in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we pursue
this cultural task looking back to the creation which God blessed and looking
forward to this same creation that will be restored when the kingdoms of this
world will finally be made the kingdom of our God and of his Christ forever,
world without end. Amen.
脚注：
[1]
Josiah Strong, “Our Country,” in William G. McLoughlin, ed., The American
Evangelicals, 1800-1900: An Anthology (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976), p.
196.
[2]
Quoted by Josiah Strong, op.cit.
[3]
Cited in Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1980), p. 38
[4]
George M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian
Experience: A Case Study of Thought and Theology in Nineteenth-Centry America
(New Haven: Yale, 1970); and George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism
and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), especially chapter 3.
[5]
Ibid., 222.
[6]
Ibid., 208.
[7] 《要义》,2.2.15。
[8] 《要义》，4.20.1-2。
[9]
Mark Noll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Vancouver, B.C.:
Regent College Publishing, 1997).
[10] 《要义》，4.20.16。
[11] 同上。
