极端加尔文主义、理性主义和反预定论主义Hyper-Calvinism,Rationalism, and Anti-Predestinarians
作者：R. Scott Clark 翻译：王一
顾名思义，「极端加尔文主义」是指一种「越出」加尔文主义之外的教义。但是这个词却常常被误用来批判预定论教义里面的遗弃教义（reprobation）。如果教导遗弃的教义就是极端加尔文主义的话，那么加尔文本人肯定也是极端加尔文主义者，这显然很荒谬。「极端加尔文主义」的核心问题在于否认「福音白白的邀请」（free offer of
gospel）。我们需要明确一个问题，即「极端加尔文主义者」的错误并不在于相信预定和遗弃，而在于他们否定福音白白的邀请。慕理（John Murray）曾经写过一篇精彩的文章来维护福音邀请这条教义。没错，以严谨解经来捍卫福音邀请的，是出自这位坚决相信双重预定和有限代赎的神学家。
By etymology,
“hyper-Calvinism” is that doctrine which goes “beyond” (hyper) Calvin. Often,
however, it is used incorrectly by critics of predestination to describe anyone
who believes in reprobation. If teaching reprobation makes one
“hyper-Calvinist” then Calvin would be “hyper-Calvinist” and that’s just
silly. Justin alerts us Phil Johnson’s
response to the allegations about “hyper-Calvinism” emanating from the recent
John 3:16 conference. Phil is right. The free offer of the gospel is at the
center of the question. Let’s be clear here. Believing in predestination and
reprobation does not make one a “hyper-Calvinist.” Denying the free-offer of
the gospel does. John Murray wrote one of the best defenses of the free offer
in recent times. I first posted Murray’s essay on the free offer about 8 years
ago, so there is no reason why anyone at the John 3:16 conference could not
know about that stout, exegetically rigorous defense of the free offer made by
an equally stout confessor of absolute, double predestination and limited
atonement.
我想说明的是，认信改革宗神学相信福音是白白的邀请，而极端加尔文主义者则无法接受这条教义。
Donald
John MacLean has been writing about the free offer for some time and I’ve
published an essay, in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, attempting to explain why
real, honest-to-goodness hyper-Calvinists don’t accept the doctrine of the free
offer of the gospel and what the theological basis, within confessional
Reformed theology, is for the free offer.
有些预定论者否认白白邀请往往是因为某种形式的理性主义阻碍了他们的思想。他们假设自己必须能提供全整的解释，否则就不是事实。这样，他们无法调和两件事：第一、上帝一面既预定拣选又遗弃，第二、上帝又把救恩白白提供给所有人。他们得出结论：这两件事同时成立是不可能的。他们拒绝接受这个奥秘。与此相反，正统的加尔文主义，包括加尔文本人，一直都接受这个奥秘，也一直都同时接受白白邀请与双重预定这两条矛盾的教义。多特总会（所谓的加尔文主义五要点）也完全接纳这个奥秘：
Those
predestinarians who deny the free offer usually do so because of some form of
rationalism, i.e. they’ve set up things so that, unless they can provide a
comprehensive explanation of how something works, it can’t be. Thus, because
they can’t see how God can both predestine the elect and the reprobate and
freely offer salvation to all, they conclude that it cannot be. They reject
mystery. In contrast, the mainstream of orthodox Calvinism, including Calvin,
has always embraced the mystery and paradox of the free offer. The Synod of
Dort (whence the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism”) embraced this mystery:
此外，福音的应许乃是：凡相信钉十字架基督的人，不至灭亡，反得永生。此应许以及吩咐人悔改相信的命令，应当毫无区分地向万国万民宣扬公布；因神是出于他的美意，向他们传扬福音。Moreover, the
promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not
perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent
and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all
persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good
pleasure sends the gospel (Canons of Dort, 2.5)
Indeed,
in my essay, I show that there is a connection between the rationalism of the
hyper-Calvinists and the rationalism of Arminius and the Remonstrants (with
whom apparently at least some of the speakers at the John 3:16 conference
identified).
《多特信经》，第二项，第5条
我曾经提到过理性主义与极端加尔文主义之间的联系，以及理性主义与亚米念主义之间的联系。其实普救论者和极端加尔文主义者（即极端预定论者）才是天生一对。普救论者无法明白，如果基督没有为所有人死，如果基督的死到最后没有拯救所有尽自己本分的人，怎么能说上帝是白白的、真诚的把福音提供给所有人呢？从方法论上讲，极端加尔文主义和普救论都假设，如果他们想不明白，那就不是真的。他们认为自己思维的范围就是上帝能力的范围。
Ironically,
the “evangelical” universalists and the “hyper-Calvinists” (we should speak of
“hyper-predestinarians”) deserve each other! The universalists can’t see how it
is that God can freely and genuinely offer the gospel to all unless it is the
case that Christ actually died for everyone who ever lived and unless it is
that Christ’s death has made it possible for all to be saved if they will only
do their part. Methodologically, in both cases, what their nets can’t catch
aren’t butterflies. The limits of their intellects are the limits of what God
can or cannot do.
然而，正统认信的加尔文主义并不用人的理性限定上帝的工作。我们知道上帝超越我们所理解的范围。真加尔文主义确实相信，当正视上帝的话语时，我们必须承认两件事实共存：第一、上帝已经在永恒中知道自己的选民，祂也在永恒之中就已经遗弃了一些人，并且基督的死只为那些父在永恒里赐给祂的人（救赎之约）；第二、上帝也指定唯独藉着信心，唯独因着恩典，唯独在基督里使人白白得救的福音应该白白的、诚意的向所有人宣讲。
Orthodox,
confessional Calvinism doesn’t limit God by the limits of our comprehension. We
understand that God transcends our ability to comprehend Him. We may be wrong,
but we really do believe that we’re following God’s Word when we confess both
that God has known his elect from all eternity and that He reprobates some by
passing them by and that Christ died for those whom the Father gave to him from
all eternity (pactum salutis) and that God has ordained that the gospel of free
salvation through faith alone (sola fide), by grace alone (sola gratia), in
Christ alone (solo Christo) should be preached and offered freely to all as a
“well-meant” offer of the gospel.
此外，认信加尔文主义这种教导并非基于某些先验的理性预设或经验共识来推论出这个必然结果。相反，其根基在于我们相信这是上帝的话所教导的。我不是来自一个认信加尔文主义者的家庭。最开始接受的宗教训练是一神普救论。我很了解普救论的本质。普救论者说白了就是理性主义者。他们把通不过理性的事情都排除掉，设定了一个先验的预设，然后从这个预设开始推理（deduction），并且他们已经成功地把这种思维方式推广到世界各地。但是这绝不是认信加尔文主义者的思维方式。我们的信仰里充满了各种矛盾而智慧的奥秘，三位一体，基督神人二性一位格，上帝的主权与人的责任（除了反预定论者之外还有谁把这条丢掉了？），福音白白的邀请，圣餐中基督真实的临在，蒙恩的管道（即圣灵藉着人以为愚拙的福音宣讲来工作）等等。这只不过是略举一二。
Further,
confessional Calvinism teaches what it does, not because of some rationalist a
priori about the way things “must be” or on the basis that “we all know that….”
Rather, we teach and hold what we do because we believe it is taught in God’s
Word. I wasn’t raised a confessional Calvinist. My first religious training was
as an Unitarian Universalist. I know this movement from the inside. Those folks
are the rationalists. They are those who begin with the a priori about what can
and can’t be about the way things work, and it is they who make deductions from
their premise, and it is they who impute their way of thinking to us. This is
nothing other than projection. We don’t operate like that. Our faith is full of
mystery of paradoxes to wit, the holy Trinity, the two natures and one person of
Christ, divine sovereignty and human responsibility (who has flattened out that
one but the anti-predestinarians?), the free offer, the true presence of Christ
in the Supper, and means of grace (the Spirit operates through the foolishness
of Gospel preaching) and that’s the short list.
真加尔文主义为什么坚持这些奥秘？原因很简单，上帝的意念高过我们的意念。这种创造主与被造物之间绝对的区别是改革宗神学的根本信念。今天许多所谓的改革宗人士似乎把这种区别忘得一干二净，所以也不奇怪许多批判改革宗的人根本不知道改革宗神学里有这种区分。可是，改革宗神学从一开始就是坚持这一基本信念的。从加尔文本人，到正统的改革宗主流传统都非常清楚。
How
can we do it? We do so because we distinguish between the way God knows things
and the way we know things. As I’ve argued at length in Recovering the Reformed
Confession, this “categorical distinction” is fundamental to Reformed theology.
In fairness to the critics of Reformed theology at the John 3:16 conference,
many contemporary Reformed folk seem to have forgotten this distinction (hence
the book) so we understand a little why critics might not know about this
distinction. Nevertheless, it has been basic to Reformed theology from the
beginning. Calvin articulated it very clearly as did the mainstream of Reformed
orthodoxy.
反过来看那些反对预定论的讨论，大部分都令人失望。许多批判缺乏最基本的学术素养。没有真实呈现改革宗神学最基本的信念。导致这种状况的原因很可能是在大学或神学院的课程本身缺乏学术精度。课程没有客观的给出正反两面的观点，所以今天苏西尼主义和亚米念主义又死灰复燃，而这种扭曲的观点已然成为主流。
I
have not listened to the lectures from the John 3:16 conference, but I have
seen some of the fallout on the web and I have had lots of discussions with
anti-predestinarians. I must say that, in most cases, I am more than a little
disappointed with the poor scholarship on the part of many of the critics. They
do not seem to know even the basics of Reformed theology. Here’s what I think
happens—I have good reason for thinking thus: a college or seminary student
hears an uninformed lecture about Calvin and Calvinism. The lecturer has not
done due diligence, and the old Socinian and Remonstrant caricatures of Calvin
or Calvinism are repeated as fact, and that distorted picture becomes the basis
for a lifetime of thinking about Calvin and Calvinism. I’ve heard such
lectures, and I’ve read them.
十年前，有一位博学的浸信会历史学家艾斯特普（William Estep）曾发表了一篇误导性很强的论文。我感到惊讶的原因并非因为他反对加尔文主义。反对的声音已经司空见惯了。要知道，在十六世纪，坚持加尔文主义的基督徒每个星期被杀的数目过万。如果你还没准备好面对各种攻击，千万别当加尔文主义者！让我惊讶的是许多学术界已经确认的历史事实竟然公然被忽略掉。如果他们愿意出版这类书籍，很难想象在课堂上会对学生说出什么东西来。成千上万的学生已经被这种偏颇的课程误导了，他们得到的信息就是这些，这实在令人惋惜。
About
a decade ago, the learned Baptist historian William Estep published a
remarkably ignorant, misleading, and even bigoted essay in the Baptist Standard
of Texas. In this essay Estep repeats
some of the most tired anti-Calvin bromides. I was shocked not that Estep
rejected Calvin and Calvinism. I’m used to that. We’re part of a tradition in
which tens of thousands were killed in one week in 1572. If you’re not ready
for rejection, don’t become a Calvinist! I was not prepared, however, to see
such a public display of gross ignorance about historical matters that could be
corrected by doing the most basic research. If a senior scholar such as Estep
was willing to publish this stuff, what must he say to his students? The
thought of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of students who had been
seriously misled about the nature of Calvinism by ill-informed lectures, for
whom that might be their only exposure to Calvinism, was truly disheartening. I
was and remain thankful for Roger Nicole’s gracious response.
我从来不期待反预定论者喜欢我们的神学。也从来不期待他们能同意我们的观点。我期待的，也是合理的要求，是他们能正确描述我们的神学，明白我们的解经方法，知道改革宗神学的历史到底是怎样，并且知道我们所承认的信仰到底是什么内容。想找出我们所信的内容很简单。其实，找出认信的改革宗基督徒的信仰内容，从来都不是难事。海德堡要理问答很难吗？
I
don’t expect anti-predestinarians to like my theology. I don’t expect them to
agree with me, but I do reasonably expect them to be able to represent my
theology accurately and to understand how I read the Scriptures and what the
history of Reformed theology actually is, and what I actually confess. The
amazing thing is that it is now so easy to find out what we actually believe.
Indeed, it’s never been very hard. How difficult is it to read the Heidelberg
Catechism? How hard is it to find out what actually happened in the Servetus
case? (check out the bizarre discussion in the comments to Tom Ascol’s post!)
然而讽刺的是，美国反预定论者的数量是压倒性的多数。美南浸信会就有六百万人，其中大部分都不是预定论者。而北美长老会与改革宗联合会（NAPARC）里所有宗派加起来总共还不到六十万人。在全美国六千万的福音派基督徒里，预定论者是九牛一毛。我们才是真正的少数派。可怪就怪在为什么有许多人竟然认为数量如此之少的预定论者会对他们有如此大的威胁？到底是谁想置谁于死地？
The
great irony in all this is that, in American religion and religious studies,
the anti-predestinarians are the overwhelming majority. The SBC may “only” be 6
million souls but I guess the overwhelming majority of them are not
predestinarian. At most, the NAPARC churches count only 600,000 souls and
probably fewer. Of the 60 million evangelicals in the USA only a handful are
predestinarian. We’re a tiny minority. Why on earth do the critics in the SBC
such as Estep and others find a handful of predestinarians so threatening? Who
is attempting to drown whom here? Who, metaphorically, is turning whom over to
the authorities for punishment? Is it
the mean old predestinarians or the peace-loving universalists? On what basis?
The reaction of the anti-predestinarians appears to be driven by fear and
ignorance and that’s a shame because it is so easily remedied.
对于极端加尔文主义者，我想说「祂愿意万人得救，明白真道」（提前二4）。这里的「愿意」（θελειν）就是指意志上的愿意。极端加尔文主义者反对白白的、真诚的福音邀请，他们认为不可以用两种方式来描述上帝的旨意，必须只用单一的方式。然而，单一性背后的假设就是上帝的智慧与人类的智慧相交，而这正是理性主义的说法。这不是改革宗神学，改革宗神学从来都强调创造主与被造物之间的绝对差别。
Update
10 Dec 08
To my
hyper-Calvinist friends and correspondents (see the combox below), I was
reminded by a post on Reformation Theology by John Samson, of this verse: “who
desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The
English verb “to desire” translates the Greek verb which is usually translated
“to will” (θελειν). Against the free or well-meant offer, it has been argued
that we cannot speak of God’s will in two aspects or in two ways, that we must
speak univocally. Univocity, however, assumes an intersection between the
divine and human intellects, and that is, of course, a form of rationalism.
It’s not Reformed theology, which is premised on the Creator/creature
distinction.
如果上帝的旨意只能用单一形式来描述，那我们就和普救论者没有两样！我们必须诚实地面对上帝的话，考虑到上帝隐藏的意旨，我们必须认识到上帝的确有一种真实的、真诚的意愿，乐意所有人得救。历史上，改革宗神学认真的对待圣经里这些内容，教导我们所说的「福音白白的、真诚的邀请」。
Further,
if God’s will can only be spoken of in one sense then we would become
universalists! Nevertheless, we must deal honestly with God’s Word and
recognize that, given the hiddenness of the divine decree, there is a genuine
and true sense in which God must be said to will the salvation of all. It is in
light of this sort of biblical language that the Reformed faith has
historically taught the substance of what has come to be called the “free” or
“well-meant” offer of the gospel.
真正的问题不是圣经是否真的这么说。真正的问题是为什么极端加尔文主义者拒绝支持福音白白邀请的解经？原因是他们拒绝这些解经背后的预设，即上帝的启示是俯就人类的局限，而人类对上帝的知识是类比性的（analogical）。因此，我们无法越过上帝的启示。上帝在圣经里明确启示祂不愿意罪人灭亡。上帝已经如此说了，因此我们也必须如此对罪人宣讲，告诉他们上帝不愿他们灭亡；同时圣经也说同一位上帝以至高主权藉着福音的宣讲呼召选民信靠基督。赞美上帝的怜悯，赞美祂设立的蒙恩管道！
The
real issue here, as I argued in the essay in the Strimple Festschrift, (do the
opponents of the Free Offer ever read anything but their own in-house stuff?)
is not really what God’s Word says. The real question is why opponents of the
Free Offer reject out of hand exegetical arguments for the free or well-meant
offer? The answer is because they reject the premise on which that exegetical
work is done, and the framework within which historic Reformed orthodoxy has
read Scripture, namely, that all divine revelation is accommodated to human
finitude, and that we humans have only analogical knowledge of God. Because of
that fact, we cannot go behind the revelation of God in Scripture to some other
a priori truth by which to leverage Scripture, and that Scripture reveals God
as not willing the death of sinners. So God has spoken and so we too must speak
to sinners, knowing that Scripture also says that the same God works
sovereignly and freely through the preaching of the gospel to call his elect to
faith in Christ. Praise God for his mercy and for his means of grace!
