阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義的區別What'sthe Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?
作者：Tom Ascol 譯者: Duncan Liang
據說已故的鐘馬田曾說過，“無知的阿民念主義者不明白加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的區別。”按照人經常把這兩者混淆的頻率，我認為這種無知並不局限於我們相信阿民念主義的朋友。雖然可以論述更多，但以下的概括已經表明了阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的基本區別。
The
late Martyn Lloyd-Jones was reported to have said that “the ignorant Arminian
doesn’t know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” Based on
the frequency with which the two are often confused I would suggest that the
ignorance is not limited to our Arminian friends. While much more could be
said, the following summary reveals the basic differences between Arminianism,
Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism.
在一種意義上，極端加爾文主義和阿民念主義一樣，是對真加爾文主義的理性主義歪曲。阿民念主義削弱神的主權，而極端加爾文主義削弱人的責任。具有諷刺意味的是，阿民念主義和極端加爾文主義都始於同樣的、錯誤的理性主義預設前提，就是人的能力和責任具有相同的外延。這就是說，它們必須完全吻合，否則就不合理。如果一個人要為某件事負責，他就必然有做這件事的能力。另一方面，如果人沒有做這件事的能力，他就沒有義務要如此行。
The
Similarity of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism
In
one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of
true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism undermines divine sovereignty,
hyper-Calvinism undermines human responsibility. The irony is that both
Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic
presupposition, namely that human ability and responsibility are coextensive.
That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be
held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the
other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be
obligated to do it.
阿民念主義者看這前提說：“同意！我們知道聖經要所有人為悔改和相信負責（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，就是所有人在自己裡面都有悔改和相信的能力（按聖經這是錯的）。”就這樣，阿民念主義者教導說，未歸正的人在他們自己身上有悔改和相信的屬靈能力，雖然這種能力必須要有恩典幫助才行。
Arminian
Rationalism
The
Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible holds
all people responsible to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must
conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe
[which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that
unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and
believe, albeit such ability must be aided by grace.
極端加爾文主義者接受同樣的前提（就是人的能力和責任有同樣的外延），說道：“同意！我們知道聖經教導說，人在自己、靠自己並沒有悔改和相信的屬靈能力（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，未歸正的人沒有悔改和相信福音的義務（按聖經這是錯的）。”
Hyper-Calvinist
Rationalism
The
hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility
are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible teaches that in and
of themselves all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe
[which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not
under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to
the Bible].”
與這兩種人形成對比的是，加爾文主義者看這前提說：“錯了！它看似合理，卻不符合聖經。聖經既教導人沒有屬靈的能力，也教導人有義務悔改和相信。只有靠著聖靈大能、使人重生的作為，人才得著能力盡他的本分悔改相信。”雖然在理性主義者眼中這可能看似不合理，當中卻沒有矛盾，並且這正是聖經教導的立場。加爾文主義的觀點可能看似不講理性，但實際上是超越理性——這種觀點是神的啟示。
Biblical
Calvinism
In
contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong!
While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that
fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and
believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given
the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may
seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is
precisely the position the Bible teaches. The Calvinist view may appear
irrational but in reality is supra-rational—it is revealed.