阿民念主义普救论的害处Problems with Arminian UniversalRedemption
作者： 周必克 （Joel Beeke）译者: Duncan Liang
在今天基督教会对赎罪的四种观点中，阿民念主义的观点是最流行的。然而我们一定要对阿民念主义的普世救赎观提出严正的反对，其中包括：
The
Arminian view is by far the most popular view of the atonement in the Christian
church today. However, serious objections must be lodged against Arminian
universal redemption, among which are these:
阿民念主义诋毁神的属性
IT
SLANDERS GOD’S ATTRIBUTES
阿民念主义诋毁神的属性，如神的慈爱。阿民念主义表明一种实际并不拯救人的爱，它是一种爱人，如果遭到拒绝，就变成憎恨和愤怒的爱，它不是从永远到永远恒久忍耐的不变之爱。它为所有人提供了赎罪，但然后扣下那些使拯救在所有人身上发生果效的蒙恩之道。我们应该相信基督为最深处的丛林和最污秽的城市中的每一个人死了，但祂不提供那要使祂的死发挥功效的宣教士、传道人或讲道吗？
It
slanders God’s attributes, such as his love. Arminianism presents a love that
actually doesn’t save. It is a love that loves and then, if refused, turns to
hatred and anger. It is not unchangeable love that endures from everlasting to
everlasting. It provides atonement for all, but then withholds the means of
grace that would make that salvation effectual in all lives. Are we to believe
that Christ died for everyone in the deepest jungle and the darkest city, but
his love doesn’t provide the missionaries, preachers, or sermons that would
make his death effectual?
IT
SLANDERS GOD’S WISDOM
阿民念主义诋毁神的智慧
神为什么要制订一个拯救每一个人的计划，然后不将它执行出来？如果神知道基督不能得到祂为之付出代价的，祂还会如此愚蠢，让祂的儿子为拯救所有人付出代价吗？一些人说祂没有料到这后果，祂看得足够远，以致提供了赎罪，但看不见一些人并不接受赎罪。这说法岂不是诋毁神的智慧吗？神会计划赎罪，提供赎罪，却不意识到祂的赎罪会不为人所接受吗？
Why
would God make a plan to save everyone, then not carry it out? Would he be so
foolish as to have his Son pay for the salvation of all if he knew that Christ
would not be able to obtain what he paid for? Some say he didn’t realise the
consequences; he saw far enough to provide atonement, but couldn’t see that
some wouldn’t take it. Does not that assertion slander the wisdom of God? Could
God plan and provide atonement, but not realise that his atonement would not be
accepted?
如果我走进一家商店买了一些东西，然后走出来却没有把它带上，我会觉得自己很愚蠢。然而阿民念主义要我们相信拯救就是这样 — 曾经有作成的买赎，一种救赎，然而主离开，没有带上那些祂已经救赎的人。这种观点是诋毁神的智慧。
I
would feel foolish if I went into a store and bought something, then walked out
without it. Yet Arminianism asks us to believe that this is true of
salvation—that a purchase was made, a redemption, and yet the Lord walked away
without those whom He had redeemed. That
view slanders the wisdom of God.
阿民念主义诋毁神的大能
IT
SLANDERS GOD’S POWER
阿民念主义的普救论要我们相信，神能作成拯救具备功德的方面，但应用的方面是取决于人和他的自由意志。它要我们相信，神已经作成了对每一个人的拯救，直到一点，但不为任何人再更进一步作成。结论就是神建好了在祂和我们之间拯救的桥梁，我们只需要通过意志的自由作为接受祂拯救的条件，以此走过这座桥。阿民念主义者说：“神做尽了祂的本分，现在我们一定要做尽我们的本分。”
Arminian
universalism obliges us to believe that God was able to accomplish the meriting
aspect of salvation, but that the applying aspect is dependent on man and his
free will. It asks us to believe that God has worked out everyone’s salvation
up to a point, but no further for anyone. The implication is that God has built
the bridge of salvation between him and us, and we have only to walk over it by
accepting his terms of salvation through a free act of the will. ‘God does his
part,’ Arminians say, ‘and now we must do our part.’
加尔文主义者回应说，这就使得拯救取决于人的意志，这样就减弱了神和祂的大能。与其是我们到神这里来，伸出枯萎的手说，“祢若肯，必能叫我们痊愈了，”阿民念主义说神到我们这里来，伸出枯萎的手，没有足够力量拯救任何人的手，说，“你若肯，你必能完成这个拯救，你必能使我完全。”实际上现代的传福音布道常常采纳这种方法：“神已经做了这么多，但祂需要你完成这工作。”这种思维岂不是在诋毁神全然充足的大能吗？它使神依靠人的意志。
Calvinists
respond by saying that this makes salvation dependent on the will of humanity,
thereby reducing God and his power. Instead of our coming to God with our
withered hands and saying, ‘If Thou wilt, Thou canst make us whole,’ this view
has God coming to us with a withered hand, a hand that is not strong enough to
save anyone, and saying, ‘If thou wilt, thou canst complete this salvation;
thou canst make me whole.’ In essence, modern evangelistic sermons often take
such an approach: ‘God has done much, but he needs you to complete the job.’
Does that way of thinking not slander the all-sufficient power of God? It makes God dependent on the will of man.
阿民念主义诋毁神的公义
IT SLANDERS GOD’S JUSTICE
基督为每一个人满足了神的公义吗？基督受了每一个人当受的刑罚吗？如果是，神怎能刑罚任何人呢？为另外一人的罪刑罚一人，后来再刑罚起初犯罪的人，这公义吗？正如托普雷迪（Augustus Toplady）说的，
It
slanders God’s justice. Did Christ satisfy God’s justice for everyone? Did
Christ take the punishment due to everybody? If He did, how can God punish
anyone? Is it justice to punish one person for the sins of another and later to
punish the initial offender again? Double
punishment is injustice.
神不能要求还债两次；
首先从我流血中保的手中，
然后再次从我手中要求。
神不能、也不会要求两次还债。双重刑罚是不公义的。
Payment
God cannot twice demand;
First
at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And
then again at mine.
God
can’t and won’t demand payment twice. Double
punishment is injustice.
阿民念主义废除基督的神性
IT DISABLES THE DEITY OF CHRIST
一位失败的救主不是神。这错误教导基督尝试拯救每一个人但不成功。它否认基督的血的能力和功效，因为不是祂为他们死了的所有人都得救。因此基督的血在犹大和以扫身上白流了。祂努力工作、流泪、流血的大部分都是白白倾倒而出。换言之，祂在很多祂为他们而死的人身上看不见自己劳苦的功效，不得满足（赛53:11）。会有很多半途而废的事 — 祂为他们劳苦的人不会最终得救。这样的失败岂不是使基督比神更小吗？难怪司布真把这称为“最可恶的”教义。（注1）
It
disables the deity of Christ. A defeated Saviour is not God. This error teaches
that Christ tried to save everyone but didn’t succeed. It denies the power and
efficacy of Christ’s blood, since not all for whom he died are saved. Hence,
Christ’s blood was wasted on Judas and Esau. Much of his labour, tears, and
blood was poured out in vain. In other words, he will not see of the travail of
his soul and be satisfied (Isa. 53:11) on behalf of many for whom he died.
There will be many miscarriages – those with whom he travailed in soul yet who
will not ultimately be saved. Does such defeat not make Christ less than God?
No wonder Charles H. Spurgeon called this a ‘monstrous’ doctrine.1
阿民念主义破坏了三位一体的统一
IT
UNDERMINES THE UNITY OF THE TRINITY
正如要有效治家，父母就必须一同做工一样，同样三位一体的神在祂每一个位格中带着同样的目的和目标一同工作。一位不可能打算拯救另外一位没有决定要拯救的某些人，但是阿民念主义的普救论正是含蓄教导此事。它否认父主权的拣选，因为它教导基督为比神定旨要拯救的更多的人死了，就这样使基督看起来具有一个与父不同的计划。这种看法对耶稣来说是当受咒诅的，耶稣断言祂的整个救赎工作是专门为了实行出一个神制定的计划（约6:38-39）。克罗福德（T. J. Crawford）写道，
Just
as parents must work together to run a family effectively, so the triune God
co-labours in each of his persons with identical purposes and goals. One person
cannot possibly have in mind to save some that another person has not
determined to save, but Arminian universalism implicitly teaches just that. It
denies the Father’s sovereign election, since Christ would have died for more
than God decreed to save, thereby making Christ seem to have a different agenda
from that of the Father. That would have been anathema to Jesus, who asserted
that his entire redemptive ministry was consciously designed to carry out a
divinely arranged plan (John 6:38-39). T. J. Crawford writes,
赎罪源自于神的爱，它是神愿意拯救罪人的结果，而不是原因。救主祂自己刻意要表明这一点。祂不是把所有的严厉和苛刻归在祂父身上，把所有的温柔怜悯宣告为是祂自己的，而是苦心要我们清楚确实知道，祂使命的目的是宣告爱的信息，行出在天上祂的父爱的旨意。（注2）
The
atonement originated in the love of God. It is the consequence and not the
cause of God’s willingness to save sinners. In this light the Savior Himself is
careful to present it. Instead of ascribing to His Father all the sternness and
severity, and claiming as His own all the tenderness and compassion, He takes
special pains to impress us with the assurance that the purpose of His mission
was to proclaim the loving message and to execute the loving will of His Father
who is in heaven.2
在赎罪这件事上，我们不是从好像是一位要定我们罪的严厉法官的父那里逃跑，跑到比父更满有恩惠的子那里去。而是在赎罪中，因着基督的缘故，我们有了一条奔到父那里，在祂里面安息的道路，那是一条孩子跑到他的父亲那里，在他膝上安息的道路。
In
the atonement, we are not running from the Father, who as a stern Judge is
ready to condemn us, to the Son, who is more gracious than the Father. Rather,
in the atonement we have a way to run to the Father and rest in him, for
Christ’s sake, the way a child runs to and rests in the lap of his or her
father.
那么阿民念主义的救赎观也是仿佛使基督和基督分离。加尔文主义坚持说基督整个作为祭司的工作一定要被看作是一个和谐整体。祂通过赎罪的死赎了人的罪愆，这和祂作为祭司的代求是范围一致的。说基督为每一个人死了，但只为一些人代求（约17:2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 20, 24），这是多么矛盾。
Then,
too, Arminian redemption divides Christ from Christ, as it were. Calvinism
insists that Christ’s entire priestly work must be viewed as a harmonious
whole. His expiation by atoning death and his priestly intercession are
co-extensive. What an oxymoron it is to maintain that Christ died for everyone
but intercedes only for some (John 17:2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 20, 24).
最后，阿民念主义的救赎观否认圣经拯救的工作，因为它宣称基督的血有比圣灵的拯救工作有更广阔的应用。任何使父或圣灵在拯救方面的工作落后于基督工作的救赎观，都是与三位一体内在的合一相矛盾。父与子原为一，圣灵与子原为一。基督不可能为那些父没有定旨拯救，圣灵没有在其身上动工使之得救的人死了。神不可能与祂自己矛盾。阿民念主义是前后矛盾的普救论。
Finally,
Arminian redemption disavows the saving ministry of the Holy Spirit, since it
claims that Christ’s blood has a wider application than does the Spirit’s
saving work. Any presentation of salvation that makes the Father’s or the
Spirit’s work in salvation lag behind Christ’s work contradicts the inherent
unity of the Trinity. The Father and the Son are one. The Spirit and the Son
are one. Christ cannot possibly have died for those whom the Father did not
decree to save and in whom the Spirit does not savingly work. God cannot be at
odds with himself. Arminianism is inconsistent universalism.
阿民念主义拒绝了加尔文主义其它各点
IT
REJECTS ALL OF THE OTHER POINTS OF CALVINISM
阿民念主义的赎罪观拒绝了人全然败坏的教义，教导说人在他自己里面有能力接受基督。它拒绝无条件的拣选，教导神按预见的信心拣选。它拒绝不可抗拒的恩典，教导人的意志比神的旨意更强大。它拒绝圣徒的坚忍，教导人可以背道脱离真道。巴刻说，
The
Arminian view of the atonement rejects the doctrine of man’s total depravity,
teaching that man has the ability within himself to receive and accept Christ.
It rejects unconditional election, teaching that God elects on the basis of
foreseen faith. It rejects irresistible grace, teaching that man’s will is
stronger than God’s. It rejects perseverance of the saints, teaching that man
can apostatize from the faith. J. I. Packer says,
我们说，除非我们看到十字架是福音的中心，一边是全然无能力和无条件的拣选，另外一边是不可抗拒的恩典和最终的坚忍，由这两边围绕，否则我们就还没有看到十字架完全的意义，这说法并不为过。（注3）
It
cannot be over-emphasized that we have not seen the full meaning of the cross
till we have seen it as the centre of the gospel, flanked on the one hand by
total inability and unconditional election and on the other by irresistible
grace and final preservation.3
阿民念主义减损神的荣耀
IT
DETRACTS FROM THE GLORY OF GOD
如果神在拯救中成就一切，祂就得到一切的荣耀。但如果神只能做很多，但不是做每一件事，那么完成跨越这座桥的那个人是至少得到一些荣耀。这就是在大规模的传福音中人如此强调人自由意志的原因。神的荣耀没有被高举，也没有高举基督提供一个完全和完整拯救的荣耀。我们被告知，没有人的自由意志，拯救就不能生效。我们被告知要行使我们的自由意志，却没有被告知因着我们败坏的本性，这意志是被捆绑的。我们不能靠自己自由选择神和拯救。我们不能跨越这座桥。神完成这座桥，正如我们在林前1:18-31被告知的那样，这是为了“使一切有血气的，在神面前一个也不能自夸。”普世的赎罪高举人的意志，贬损神的荣耀。
If
God does everything in salvation, he gets all the glory. But if God can only do
so much and not everything, then the person who completes the bridge gets at
least some glory. That is why there is so much emphasis in mass evangelism on
the free will of man. The glory of God is not exalted, and neither is the glory
of Christ lifted up for providing a perfect and complete salvation. We are told
of the free will of man, without which salvation cannot be put into effect. We
are told to exercise our free will without being told that this will is in
bondage due to our depraved nature. We cannot freely choose God and salvation
on our own. We cannot complete the bridge. God completes the bridge, as we are
told in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, so that ‘no flesh should glory in his presence.’
Universal atonement exalts the will of man and debases the glory of God.
阿民念主义削弱人的感恩和确信
IT
UNDERMINES THANKFULNESS AND ASSURANCE
我为什么要为我成就的一些事感谢神？如果主耶稣为我所做的不比祂为犹大和所多玛的居民做的更多，我为什么要感谢祂，而不是感谢我自己？如果有一些人是基督为他们死了，现在是在地狱里，我怎能确信赎罪祭要为我赎罪？
Why
should I thank God for something that I achieved? If the Lord Jesus did no more
for me than he did for Judas and the inhabitants of Sodom, why should I thank
him rather than myself? And if there are some for whom Christ died who are in
hell today, how can I be sure the atonement will atone for me?
阿民念主义扭曲传福音
IT
PERVERTS EVANGELISM
我们今天在传福音的信息中反复听到人说：“基督为你死了，你要为祂做什么？”但我们在圣经中何曾发现一个人他自己被告知“基督为你死了”？我们而是发现传福音是解释基督的作为，接着是对每一个人的呼吁：“悔改相信福音。”信息不是“相信基督为你死了”，或者“相信你是选民”，而是“相信主耶稣基督，你就要得救。”
We
repeatedly hear today in evangelistic messages: ‘Christ died for you. What will
you do for him?’ But do we ever find in the Bible that someone is told
personally, ‘Christ died for you’? Rather, we find the work of Christ
explained, followed by a call to everyone: ‘Repent and believe the gospel.’ The
message is not ‘Believe that Christ died for you’ or ‘Believe that you are one
of the elect.’ It is ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.’
阿民念主义轻视赎罪祭本身内在的功效
IT
DISPARAGES THE INTRINSIC EFFICACY OF THE ATONEMENT ITSELF
阿民念主义者教导说基督的工作让父开恩接受耶稣所成就的，取代对祂公义完全的满足。这就仿佛耶稣劝说祂的父接受不及所要求的公义的事。这就是阿民念（Arminius）宣告当神拯救罪人时，祂是从祂公义的宝座转移到祂恩典的宝座。但上帝没有两个宝座，祂公义的宝座就是祂恩典的宝座（诗85:10）。阿民念主义忘记了赎罪祭不是赢得神的爱，而是神的爱所作的规定。在这规定中，基督付清了公义完全的代价。他不是为人所欠的债付出一笔定金，祂是为罪付出完全的代价，以致父作为审判官可以取消所欠的债却仍为义（来10:14-18）。
Arminians
teach that Christ’s work induces the Father to accept graciously what Jesus
accomplished in the place of a full satisfaction of his justice. It is as if
Jesus persuaded his Father to accept something less than justice demanded. That
is why Arminius claimed that when God saved sinners, he moved from his throne
of justice to his throne of grace. But God does not have two thrones; his
throne of justice is his throne of grace (Psa. 85:10). Arminianism forgets that
the atonement does not win God’s love but is the provision of his love. In that
provision, Christ paid the full price of justice. He did not make a down
payment on the debt owed; he paid the full price of sin so that the Father as
Judge could justly cancel the debt (Heb. 10:14-18).
那么正如约翰•欧文在他所著的《对阿民念主义的揭露》中有力表明的那样，最终来说阿民念主义是前后矛盾的普救论。欧文解释阿民念主义对神赎罪目的观点的谬误如下：
Arminianism,
then, is ultimately inconsistent universalism, as John Owen showed powerfully
in his A Display of Arminianism. Owen explains the fallacy of the Arminian view
of the divine design of the atonement as follows:
神加祂的忿怒，基督经受地狱的痛苦，这是为了所有人所有的罪，或一些人所有的罪，或所有人的一些罪。如果是最后一种，所有人的一些罪，那么所有人都有一些罪要交账，所以没有人可以得救。如果是第二种，就是我们肯定的，即基督代替他们，取代他们的位置，为世上所有的选民所有的罪受苦。如果是第一种，那么为什么不是所有的人都得释放脱离对他们所有罪的刑罚？你会说：“因为他们的不信；他们不愿相信。”但这不信，它是一件罪，抑或不是？如果不是，为什么他们要为此受刑罚？如果是，基督承受了对它的刑罚，还是没有？如果有，那么为何这比基督为其而死的他们其它的罪更拦阻他们在祂死的结果中有份？如果祂没有，那么祂就没有为他们所有的罪死。（注4）
God
imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, for, either
all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for,
and so shall no man be saved. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that
Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in
the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of
all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not
believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be
punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or
not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which
he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he
not die for all their sins.4
注
1.《司布真自传，卷一：早年时期》（爱丁堡，真理旌旗出版社，1962），172页。《早年时期》的这一章也以小册子的形式由真理旌旗出版社出版，题目为《加尔文主义辩》。
2. 《圣经关于赎罪的教义》（大激流市，贝克出版社，1954），192页。我要为这篇文章中包含的若干想法向大卫•穆雷（David
Murray）致以衷心的感谢。
3. 由John Blanchard在《完全收集的精髓》一书中引用）（Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2006），35页；参考Ronald Cammenga 和Ronald Hanko，《蒙恩得救：对加尔文主义五要点的研究》第二版（Grandville, Mich.: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 2002），122-123页。
4. 《约翰•欧文文集》，卷10（爱丁堡，真理旌旗出版社，1967），173-174页。