“使你们所蒙的恩召和拣选坚定不移”——宗教改革神学中的预定论与得救确据Make Your Calling and ElectionSure: Predestination and Assurance in Reformed Theology
文/麦克•霍顿（Michael S. Horton） 译/恩静 校/老漫
英格兰教会《三十九条信纲》（Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion）中最长的一条这样写道：
According
to the most lengthy of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles of
Religion:
对于属灵的人来说，用属天的眼光思想“预定论”和我们在基督里被“拣选”充满着甜蜜、愉快和无法言喻的安慰。比如，感受到基督的灵在他们里面的工作，治死他们在地上的肢体，并且他们的心思体贴上面的事和属天的事。因为这建立并确定了通过基督来享有永恒的救恩这一信心，也因为这点燃了他们对上帝热忱的爱。然而，研究这个主题对未重生的人有着最危险的后果。[2]
The
godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of
sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in
themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the
flesh in their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly
things, as well because it doth establish and confirm their faith of eternal
Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle
their love towards God. And yet, the study of the subject has most dangerous
effects on the "carnal professor."
谈到拣选的教义是“只有被正确对待的时候才是一则令人安慰的信条”，路德宗的《协同信条》（Formula of Concord）给出了类似的警告：
Speaking
of the doctrine of election as "a comforting article when it is correctly
treated," the Formula of Concord (Lutheran) offers a similar caution:
因此，我们相信并坚持，如果有任何人教导上帝恩典的拣选直到永生这一教义，使那些郁郁不乐的基督徒无法从这条教义中找到安慰，而是把他们带向怀疑和绝望；或者让那些不知悔改的人更加坚定他们的自我意志，那么，他不是在按照上帝的话语和旨意来教导此教义。[3]
Accordingly
we believe and maintain that if anybody teaches the doctrine of the gracious
election of God to eternal life in such a way that disconsolate Christians can
find no comfort in this doctrine but are driven to doubt and despair, or in
such a way that the impenitent are strengthened in their self-will, he is not
teaching the doctrine according to the Word and will of God...
在宗教改革的权威那里，拣选的教义被看作是称义必然推论的结果，是将“神人合作论”（通过人与神恩典的合作获得称义和重生）钉入棺材的钉子。在牧养中，拣选的教义被用来驱赶一个人对救赎的绝望和焦虑。英王爱德华时代因“血腥玛利”（Bloody Mary）而殉道的圣徒约翰•白莱德福（John Bradford）写道，这个教义是“最基本的”信条，因为它将我们的救赎完全放在上帝的手中。“关于这点，我要说，让我们去行动，不要过于多管闲事去寻找上帝的权能和荣耀，或者让人对救恩的怀疑有机可乘：因为对此我们所需知道的都已完备”。[4]正如我们将要看到的，这一切也都被加尔文仔细地阐明了。
During
the magisterial Reformation, the doctrine of election was regarded as a
corollary to justification, the nail in the coffin of synergism (justification
and regeneration by human cooperation with grace). Pastorally, election was used
to drive away despair and anxiety over one's salvation. John Bradford, an
Edwardian divine who was martyred under "bloody Mary," wrote that
this doctrine was a "most principal" tenet since it places our
salvation entirely in God's hands. "This, I say, let us do, and not be too
busybodies in searching the majesty and glory of God, or in nourishing doubting
of salvation: whereto we all are ready enough."3 As we will see, all of
this is carefully expounded by Calvin as well.
一、是加尔文发明了预定论吗？
Did Calvin Invent Predestination?
相比其他教义，加尔文和加尔文主义更加以这条教义闻名。从某个意义上说，这是十分令人惊讶的。首先，加尔文所持的教义——即，对救赎（拣选）和咒诅（弃绝）的预定——被很多教父所强调。奥古斯丁将其理所当然地视作大公的教导，特别是与伯拉纠派（Pelagius）相对立。阿奎那（Aquinas）写道：
More
than anything else, Calvin and Calvinism are known for this doctrine. In one
sense, that is quite surprising. First, the doctrine held by Calvin--namely,
predestination to both salvation (election) and damnation (reprobation)--was
insisted upon by many of the church fathers. Augustine took it for granted as the
catholic teaching, in opposition especially to Pelagius. Aquinas wrote,
在永恒中，有些人被预定并引领至天堂，他们被称为预定的人：“……就按着自己意旨所喜悦的，预定我们藉着耶稣基督得儿子的名分”（弗1:5）。同样在永恒中，也定下了其他人将不会得到恩典，这些人被称为被弃绝或被拒绝的人：“……我却爱雅各，恶以扫……”（玛1:2-3）。产生此差别的原因是神的选择。“……就如神从创立世界以前，在基督里拣选了我们……”（弗1:4）。上帝预定是因为他爱……这选择不在乎那些被选上的人有什么好行为，上帝的爱不是先被好行为激发的（参罗9:11-13）[5]
From
all eternity some are preordained and directed to heaven; they are called the
predestined ones: "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
according to the good pleasure of his will" [Eph. 1:5]. From all eternity,
too, it has been settled that others will not be given grace, and these are
called the reprobate or rejected ones: "I loved Jacob, and I hated
Esau" [Mal. 1:2-3]. Divine choice is the reason for the distinction:
"...according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world."...
God predestines because he loves... The choice is not dictated by any goodness
to be discovered in those who are chosen; there is no antecedent prompting of
God's love [Rom. 9:11-13]
阿奎那说，伯拉纠主义的源头是把拣选的原因归于上帝“预知”人的选择和行为。[6] 十四世纪坎特伯雷大主教托马斯•布拉德华（Thomas Bradwardine）是这样回忆他对这一伟大真理的发现：
Lodging
the cause of election in the foreknowledge of human decision and action, says
Aquinas, is the fountainhead of Pelagianism. Thomas Bradwardine, the fourteenth-century
Archbishop of Canterbury, recalled his discovery of this great truth:
当我还在研究哲学问题的时候，作为一个对上帝的智慧置若罔闻和蒙昧无知的人，我被一个异端的错误误导了。有时我去旁听神学家们讨论（恩典和自由意志）这件事，对我而言，伯拉纠学派似乎最接近真理……在这个哲学系统中，我极少听到谈论恩典，除了一些模棱两可的评论。每天我所听到的不外乎，我们是自己自由行为的主人，做得好或坏，心怀美德或罪恶，以及更多类似的事情，都是我们的选择……但每次我听到教会中读使徒书信，听到保罗如何强调恩典而看低自由意志——正如罗马书第九章的情形，“这不在乎那定意的，也不在乎那奔跑的，只在乎发怜悯的神”（罗9:16)以及诸多类似的平行经文时——恩典令我不悦，我也并不领情……但是，在我转到神学系以前，上面提到的经文就已经像一道恩典之光临到了我，我被真理的异象抓住了，好像是我从远方看到上帝的恩典是如何先行于一切好行为……这就是为什么我要表达我对他的感谢，是他把这恩典白白赐给了我。[7]
Idle
and a fool in God's wisdom, I was misled by an unorthodox error at a time when
I was still pursuing philosophical studies. Sometimes I went to listen to the
theologians discussing this matter [of grace and free will], and the school of
Pelagius seemed to me nearest the truth... In this philosophical faculty I
seldom heard a reference to grace, except for some ambiguous remarks. What I
heard day in and day out was that we are masters of our own free acts, that
ours is the choice to act well or badly, to have virtues or sins, and much more
along this line... But every time I listened to the Epistle reading in church
and heard how Paul magnified grace and belittled free will--as in the case in
Romans 9, "It is obviously not a question of human will and effort, but of
divine mercy," and its many parallels--grace displeased me, ungrateful as
I was... However, even before I transferred to the faculty of theology, the
text mentioned came to me as a beam of grace and, captured by a vision of the
truth, it seemed I saw from afar how the grace of God precedes all good
works... That is why I express my gratitude to Him who has given me this grace
as a gift.
这个个人性的颠覆是如此深入实际，以至于布拉德华把他的精力转向对恩典教义的复兴以及随之而来的对上帝无条件拣选的强烈强调。《上帝反对伯拉纠派之案》是他向新伯拉纠派的宣战，“那些反对我们对预定和弃绝的全部讲论的新伯拉纠派，他们或者是要全盘否认这教义，或者至少是要证明拣选是基于我们的美德。”[8]
This
personal revolution was so deeply practical that Bradwardine turned his
energies toward the recovery of the doctrine of grace and, with it, a strong
emphasis on God's unconditional election. The Case of God Against the Pelagians
was his declaration of war on "The new Pelagians who oppose our whole
presentation of predestination and reprobation, attempting either to eliminate
them completely or, at least, to show that they are dependent on our
merits."
路德是这样谈论他的导师施道比茨（Johann von Staupitz）的：“我接受的这些都是来自施道比茨”，他是奥古斯丁修道院院长，最著名的著作是《永恒的预定及其最终的实现》。[9]“人是他自己从头到尾一切好行为的主人这一声明被摧毁，”施道比茨写道，“因此，基督徒生命中的好行为的源头是预定，方法是称义，目的是荣耀神或者感谢他——所有这一切不是人性使然，而是恩典所成就的。”[10]路德在《论意志的捆绑》中对预定论严密的辩护是众所周知的，同时也在他早期及晚期版本的罗马书注释中对其有所辩护。
"I
received it all from Staupitz," Luther said of his mentor, Johann von
Staupitz, the Augustinian abbot whose most famous work was titled Eternal
Predestination and Its Execution In Time.8 "And thus the claim for man,
namely, that he is master over his works from beginning to end, is
destroyed," Staupitz wrote. "So, therefore, the origin of the works
of Christian life is predestination, its means is justification, and its aim is
glorification or thanksgiving--all these are the achievements not of nature but
of grace."9 Luther's defense of a rigorous version of predestination in
The Bondage of the Will is well-known and it is also defended in both earlier
and later editions of his Romans commentary.
还可以举出无数教会历史中的其他例证。当然，也不全是如此，特别是在中世纪。那时候对人类能力的自信是一个在实际生活中公认的定理——即便不总是官方宣告的。“Facienti quod in se
est Deus non denigat gratium”是中世纪的口号：“上帝不会拒绝施恩给那些照自己内心而行的人。”
Countless
other examples from church history could be offered. It is not all of one
piece, of course: especially in the Middle Ages, where confidence in human
ability was a practically--if not always officially--held dogma. Facienti quod
in se est Deus non denigat gratium was the medieval slogan: "God will not
deny his grace to those who do what lies within them."
因此，在宗教改革以前，预定论就已经有很好的根基，之后又被第一代宗教改革家再次辩护。那么，一个年轻的法国人在他的注释、短文以及他著名的《基督教要义》中为这则教义辩护就不足为奇了。加尔文所教导的预定论是大公的和符合福音的，因为它忠实于圣经经文，而弃绝一切人的智慧、臆想和骄傲。
Nonetheless,
predestination was well established before the Reformation, and then defended
again by the first generation reformers. As such, there was little peculiar
about a young Frenchman defending this doctrine in his commentaries, tracts,
and in his famous Institutes. The predestination which Calvin taught was
catholic and evangelical, as it was faithful to the biblical text despite the
scandal to human wisdom, speculation, and pride.
二、预定论在加尔文思想中处于核心的位置吗？
How Central to Calvin's Thought?
很多加尔文的批评者承认，他不是第一个提倡预定论这个教义的人。但是，让加尔文体系变得如此不同的，是因为它第一次将预定论放在如此核心的位置。至少，人们是常常这样以为的。但是，这个流行的说法中有很多严重的缺陷。
Many
of Calvin's critics would concede that he was not the first to promote such a
doctrine. What made Calvin's system distinct, however, was that it was the
first to make predestination central. Or, at least, that is how the story is
often told. But there are some serious flaws in this popular assumption.
首先，正如历史神学家理查德•穆勒（Richard Muller）不断指出的，“核心教义”的提出本身就是从黑格尔传统的历史神学家那里引进的。穆勒说：“按照施威策尔（Alexander Schweizer）对早期教义学的解读，正统的宗教改革神学家试图在神绝对预旨这一主要主张基础上建立一个综合的、推论性的，因而难以辩驳的神学系统。”[11]之后，改革宗作家海因里希•赫比（Heinrich Heppe）便假定了这个“核心教义”的观点，它成为一种解读（或误读）文献的方式。甚至在穆勒透彻批判以前，弗朗西斯•温德尔(Francois Wendel)就对此颇有微词，“自从亚历山大•施威策尔在1844年以及费迪南德•克里斯汀•鲍尔（Ferdinand Christian Bauer）在1847年声称预定论是加尔文神学的核心教义，并且他所有的教导都是源自于此以后，历史学家和教义学家在之后的七、八十年都像在重复信仰条款一样重复这种主张，甚至都不需要核实！”[12]
First,
as historical theologian Richard Muller has pointed out indefatigably, the
notion of a "central dogma" is itself imported from the Hegelian
tradition of historical theologians. "According to Schweizer's reading of
the older dogmatics," says Muller, "the orthodox Reformed theologians
attempted to build a synthetic, deductive, and therefore irrefutable system of
theology upon the primary proposition of an absolute divine decree of
predestination."10 Later, the Reformed writer Heinrich Heppe just assumed
this central dogma idea and it became a way of reading (or misreading) the
literature. Even before Muller's thorough critique, Francois Wendel complained,
"After Alexander Schweizer in 1844 and Ferdinand Christian Bauer in 1847
had claimed that predestination was the central doctrine of Calvin's theology
and that all the originality of his teaching proceeded from it, historians and
dogmaticians went on for three- quarters of a century repeating that
affirmation like an article of faith which did not even need to be
verified."
这个观点的问题在于，加尔文自己并非如此。就是一个人不能只阅读加尔文最有代表性的著作，然后就简单地得出他痴迷于预定论的结论。当这个主题出现的时候，比如他在阐释圣经与此相关的重要段落时，或者在和教义的反对者进行某项争论时，是很直接并严肃地面对这个主题，但他并没有在预定论这个核心周围织一张大网。加尔文对这条教义的强调是随着面对牧养中严峻的问题和质疑而不断增加的。人们甚至无法在他早期的要理问答作品和信仰告白式作品中找到对此教义的阐述。而在最终版本的《基督教要义》（1559年）中，关于称义的教义，加尔文宣称，我们必须“这样来看待它：好好记住，这是基督教的首要教义” [13] 。如果有人想寻找一个“核心教义”，那么这些文字（比如，称义教义是“真信仰围绕展开的枢纽”等）似乎将最可能的备选项指向称义，而非预定。
The
problem with this approach is, well, Calvin. One simply cannot read the most
representative of his works and conclude that he is obsessed with predestination.
When the subject comes up, as in his exposition of key biblical passages, or
when he is engaged in specific polemical battles with opponents of the
doctrine, he faces it squarely and rigorously. He does not, however, spin a
systematic web around a predestinarian core. Calvin's emphasis on this doctrine
grows over time in the crucible of pastoral questions and debates. One does not
even find the doctrine spelled out in his early catechetical and confessional
work. Even in the final edition of the Institutes (1559), Calvin declares
concerning the doctrine of justification that we must "consider it in such
a way as to keep well in mind that this is the principal article of the
Christian religion" (3.11.1).12 If one is searching for a central dogma,
then such references (viz., justification is "the main hinge upon which
true religion turns," etc.) would seem to support justification, rather
than predestination, as the most likely candidate.
尽管这点会被过分陈述，但很有意思的是，即使是在他最后版本的《基督教要义》中，加尔文也把对拣选的讨论放在了祷告的处理之后。拣选显然没有占据《基督教要义》的系统性核心位置。但是，也没有其他什么占据核心位置。加尔文的这部经典是对宗教改革信仰的辩护，是在现实生活的考验（也就是逼迫）中，基于使徒信经和罗马书组织的。对拣选的讨论开始于关于确据（assurance）的牧养关注[14]：“我们永远不会按照我们应该相信的程度清楚地相信，我们的救赎来自上帝白白的恩典的源泉，直到我们知晓他永恒的拣选……”但是对这个主题的臆测是致命的，他写道：
While
this point can be overstated, it is interesting that even in his final edition
of the Institutes, Calvin placed the discussion of election after the treatment
of prayer. Surely it does not occupy systematic centrality in the Institutes.
But then, nothing does. Calvin's classic was a defense of the Reformed faith in
the teeth of practical life (namely, persecution) organized around the articles
of the Apostles' Creed and Paul's letter to the Romans. The discussion of
election begins (3.21.1) with the pastoral concern for assurance: "We
shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows
from the fountain of God's free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal
election..." But speculation on this topic is deadly. He writes:
对预定论的讨论——一个本身就相当复杂的主题——被人类的好奇心搞得非常令人迷茫，因此也十分危险。没有什么能阻挡这好奇心进入禁止的迷宫，飞跃它的界限，决心不留下哪怕一个未详查或未探索的神圣的秘密……（这种好奇）不会让一个人的好奇心得到满足，反而会进入一个迷宫，在其中，他无法找到离开的路。因为人随意详查那些主已经决定隐藏起来的事是不合理的。
The
discussion of predestination--a subject of itself rather intricate--is made
very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no barriers
can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and soaring beyond its
sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or
unexplored... [The curious] will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity, but
will enter a labyrinth from which he will find no way to depart. For it is
unreasonable that man should scrutinize with impunity those things which the
Lord has determined to be hidden in himself (3.21.1).
然后紧跟着，加尔文说，如果我们想要知道任何关于一般预定的事，或者特别是关于我们是否被拣选的事，我们应该只关注基督和福音。如果有些人是想要大胆地越过上帝的话语，那么另一些人甚至是想要抹掉这个由经文清楚并反复提到的伟大真理。因此，对基督徒来说，对待这个题目的唯一的方式，就是按着上帝所说的，确保“在主闭了他神圣的口之时，他也要禁止继续发问”[15]。我们不能通过试图“参透上帝永恒的旨意”来得到拣选的确据，否则“我们会淹没在无底的深渊”。我们必须不要试图“翱翔于云上”，而是“满足于上帝永恒话语的见证”。
It
follows, then, says Calvin, that if we want to know anything about
predestination in general, or our own election in particular, we are to look no
further than Christ and the Gospel. If some want to boldly transgress the Word,
others want to extinguish even the knowledge of this great truth which the
Scriptures plainly and repeatedly afford. The only approach to the subject,
then, is for the Christian to be addressed by God, making sure that "as
soon as the Lord closes his sacred mouth, he shall also desist from further
inquiry" (3.21.5). We cannot obtain certainty of our election by
attempting "to penetrate to the eternal decree of God," for "we
shall be engulfed in the profound abyss." We must not seek to "soar
above the clouds," but must be "satisfied with the testimony of God
in his external word."
那些为了获得拣选确据而在上帝话语之外来探究上帝永恒旨意的人，他们使自己陷入了致命的深渊；而那些用常规有序的方法，即按照上帝话语启示来察验的人，他们却从这些探究中获得了特别的安慰而受益[16]。
For
as those who, in order to gain assurance of their election, examine into the
eternal counsel of God without the word, plunge themselves into a fatal abyss,
so they who investigate it in a regular and orderly manner, as it is contained
in the word, derive from such inquiry the benefit of peculiar consolation
(3.24.3-4).
当胆怯的灵魂试图超越外在的话语（external word）（“所有的罪人啊，到基督这里来”）去探究他们的拣选，他们必定会质疑他们的得救，不断发问，“除了上帝的拣选，你能从哪里获得救赎？你从拣选中得到什么启示？”加尔文说这些问题只能折磨良心。相比这些臆测，“没有什么错误能更加致命地影响人心，就是搅动良心和摧毁一个人在上帝面前的平静和安宁。”对预定论的讨论是一片危险的汪洋，除非信徒安全地站立在基督这磐石之上[17]。
When
timid souls seek to discover their election beyond this external word ("Come
unto Christ all ye sinners"), they will doubtless question their
salvation, occupied with the question, "Whence can you obtain salvation
but from the election of God? And what revelation have you received of
election?" These questions can only torment the conscience, Calvin says.
"No error can affect the mind, more pestilent than such as disturbs the
conscience, and destroys its peace and tranquillity towards God," than
such speculations. The discussion of predestination is a dangerous ocean unless
the believer is safely standing on Christ the rock (3.24.4).
那么，一个人如何从外在的话语中获得拣选的确据？首先，如果我们寻找上帝父亲般的恩慈和美善的心意，我们的眼目必须看向基督，唯独在他里面，天父心满意足……尽你所能地思考并察验这一点，你会发现最终的范围不会超越基督……如果我们在基督里被拣选，我们在我们自己里面就找不到拣选的确据，甚至也不会凭空脱离圣子而单单在天父上帝里面找到。因此，基督是一面镜子，我们理应在其中深思我们的拣选，而且我们在这里可以安全地这样做[18]。
So
how does one obtain assurance of election from the external word? In the first
place, if we seek the fatherly liberality and propitious heart of God, our eyes
must be directed to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased...
Consider and investigate it as much as you please, you will not find its
ultimate scope extend beyond this... If we are chosen in Christ, we shall find
no assurance of election in ourselves; nor even in God the Father, considered
alone, abstractly from the Son. Christ, therefore, is the mirror, in which it
behooves us to contemplate our election; and here we may do it with safety
(3.24.5).
因此，这个“外在的话语”不是别的，就是给予全世界的福音。唯独拥抱基督，才能确信“他在基督里曾赐给我们天上各样属灵的福气”，（弗1:3）包括拣选。拣选不会在上帝永恒的隐藏性里被找到，也不会在我们自己里，而是唯独在基督里，因为基督在外在呼召（external call）中被赐给我们。如果我们要在我们自己里面寻找拣选的确据，谁能有足够的信心和把握说，“我是在基督里被拣选的”？
This
"external word," therefore, is nothing other than the universal offer
of the Gospel. Embracing Christ alone, one is assured of "every spiritual
blessing in heavenly places in Christ," including election (Eph. 1:4). It
is to be sought neither in God's eternal hiddenness, nor in ourselves, but in
Christ alone as he is offered to us in the external call. If we were to find
assurance of our election in ourselves, who would be confident enough to say
with certainty, "I am chosen in Christ"?
而且，加尔文说，“在基督里”是一项教会性（ecclesiological）的事情：要在教会里，即基督的身体里。因此，外部的话语联结于洗礼、要理问答、圣餐以及救主耶稣基督共同体（教会）的惩戒和团契。尽管在这个共同体里蒙拣选的人中掺杂着被弃绝的人，没有办法把山羊和绵羊分开，直到最后审判的日子。因此，拣选的确据与适当地使用蒙恩之道有关，也与加入有形教会有关[19]。因此，对拣选的确信不是在某人里面获得，也不是通过某人获得，而是在基督里，和他所拣选的人一同获得。
Further,
says Calvin, to be "in Christ" is an ecclesiological matter: it is to
be in the Church, which is Christ's body. Thus, the external word is joined to
baptism, catechesis, the Eucharist, and the discipline and fellowship of the
Savior's commonwealth. Although the reprobate are scattered among the elect in
this community, there is no way of separating the sheep from the goats until
the last judgment. Assurance of election therefore is linked to the proper use
of the means of grace and incorporation into the visible Church (3.24.5-6).
Thus, certainty of election is obtained neither within oneself nor by oneself,
but in Christ and with his chosen people.
三、对加尔文主义者而言，预定论是核心吗？
Is Predestination Central For Calvinists?
有一种流行的观点，主要由新正统的学者提出，就是在加尔文和加尔文主义者中间设立区分，在约珥•基姆（Joel Kim）关于此话题的文中有更加充分地研究。换句话说，我们至此所说的一切，都被这些思想家认可：加尔文其实是基督中心论，像逃避瘟疫一样逃避臆测。但是，在“加尔文与加尔文主义者不同”的争论中，支持者说，加尔文的追随者渴望回归以经院方法建构神学，由加尔文在日内瓦的继承者西奥多•贝扎（Theodore Beza）牵头，那些亚里士多德派神学家把预定论的讨论放在上帝论而不是在救恩论的教义之下。
There
is a popular thesis (explored more fully in Joel Kim's article in this issue),
promoted largely by neo-orthodox scholars, driving a wedge between Calvin and
the Calvinists. In other words, everything we have said, thus far, is granted
by these thinkers: Calvin was utterly Christocentric and avoided speculation
like the plague. But, say the proponents of the "Calvin versus the
Calvinists" debate, Calvin was followed by those who were eager to return
to the scholastic method of doing theology. Led by Theodore Beza, Calvin's
successor in Geneva, these Aristotelian theologians placed the discussion of
predestination under the doctrine of God instead of under the discussion of
salvation.
但是，实际上，在贝扎自己的作品中，预定论的位置也是多种多样的。虽然预定论有时候被放在上帝论的教义之下，但也被放在墨兰顿（Melanchthon）所著的《教义学》之中，而墨兰顿根本不是加尔文主义者。而且，威斯敏斯特神学家（通常被认为是加尔文主义学者的缩影）把讨论放在“恩典之约及其中保”（The Covenant of
Grace and Its Mediator）之下。
In
reality, however, Beza's own writings reflect diversity in the placement of
predestination. Sometimes it is under the doctrine of God, but it is also
positioned there in Melanchthon's Loci communes, and Melanchthon was hardly a
Calvinist. Furthermore, the Westminster divines--often targeted as the epitome
of scholastic Calvinism--placed the discussion under "The Covenant of
Grace and Its Mediator."
基本的底线是：无论对加尔文、他的同仁，还是他的继承者而言，预定论都不是核心教义。然而在牧养策略中却存在一些不同。例如，尽管清教徒将良心引向基督，但是他们也强调彼得的劝戒，“使你们所蒙的恩召和拣选坚定不移”（彼后1:10b）。不过他们说，这不是通过寻找到上帝隐藏的旨意而实现的，而是通过依靠基督。但问题是我怎么知道我真的依靠基督而不是我自己的美德？我怎么知道我的信心足够刚强，我的悔改足够真诚？清教徒（至少是大多数清教徒）坚持的这点，会使信心和悔改有成为新的善工来赚得称义的可能。因此，他们把信心和确据区分开来，认为一个人单单通过定睛基督而称义——即便这个人没有确据。
The
bottom line is this: In neither Calvin, his colleagues, nor his successors, is
predestination the central dogma. There are differences in pastoral strategy.
For instance, while the Puritans directed consciences to Christ, they also
emphasized Peter's admonition to "make your calling and election
sure." This could be done, they said, not by searching out God's hidden
decree, but by leaning on Christ. But how do I know that I'm truly leaning on
Christ and not on my own merits? How do I know that my faith is strong enough,
that my repentance is sincere enough? This, the Puritans (at least most of
them) insisted, was to make faith and repentance new works which could earn
justification. So they separated faith from assurance, arguing that one was
justified simply by looking to Christ alone--even if one did not have
assurance.
加尔文和英国清教徒都因为牧养的原因在称义教义中保留了上帝白白的恩典的明确性。然而清教徒对于确据（不是得救信心的必要因素）的看法与加尔文和宗教改革的权威非常不同。毕竟，宗教改革的权威坚持“信心就是确据”。通过比较反映欧陆改革宗观点（the continental
Reformed view）的《比利时信条》及《海德堡要理问答》和反映清教徒观点的《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》（特别见第18条）及《要理问答》，这个不同很容易看出。欧陆改革宗观点认为确据是属于信心本身的。而《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》认为，确据是上帝在一个人生命中所做哪怕是最微小的工作的反射（reflexive effect）。尽管信心不会因着一个人的顺服与否临到或失去，确据却会。正如改教家们教导的那样，清教徒的观点本意要安慰不安的良心，但通过内省却不能确认自己是被拣选而产生恐惧时，良心反而被搅动得不安了。实际上，英国清教徒在实践中和论辩的文字里通常反映出他们心里被如何获得确据这事全然占据。正如我们已经看到的，这恰恰是加尔文在他处理拣选教义的时候所警告的做法。很多晚期清教徒对这种趋势颇有微词并且试图纠正这些不平衡。
While
both Calvin and the English Puritans were driven by pastoral concerns to
preserve the clarity of God's free grace in justification, the Puritan view of
assurance (as not necessarily an element of saving faith) marks an important
difference with Calvin and the magisterial Reformation. After all, the
magisterial Reformation insisted that faith simply was assurance. This
difference is easily discerned by comparing the continental Reformed view
(Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism) with the Westminster Confession
(see especially Article 18) and Catechisms. The continental Reformed view
regards assurance as belonging to faith itself. The Westminster Confession,
however, sees assurance as a reflexive effect of discerning even the slightest
traces of God's work in one's life. Although faith did not come and go
depending on one's obedience, assurance could. Like the reformers' teaching,
the Puritan view was calculated to console disquieted consciences, but it could
also be used to disturb consciences with the fear of not discerning one's
election through introspective measures. In fact, the practical and casuistic
literature of the English Puritans often reflects a preoccupation with
attaining assurance. As we have seen, this was the very course that Calvin
warned against in his treatment of election. Many later Puritans complained of
this tendency and sought to redress imbalances.
1619年，多特会议(Synod of Dort)颁布了著名的《多特信条》，从此出现了一种流行的表述，“加尔文主义五要点”（或译为“加尔文五要义”），英文缩写作“T.U.L.I.P（郁金香）”（即完全堕落、无条件拣选、有限的救赎、无法抗拒的恩典、圣徒得蒙保守）。这次国际性的会议包括了来自英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰的教会，以及瑞士、法国、德国、匈牙利、波西米亚和荷兰等欧洲大陆教会的代表。至少公开地，英王詹姆士一世国王（King James I）同他派到多特的代表都热切地想要从他的国家消除阿米念主义。（有意思的是，君士坦丁堡的大主教为东正教起草了自己版本的“多特信条”，但在他死后被废止和否定。）在这个明确的认信中，改革宗教会谴责了阿米念主义并声明了加尔文主义的独特之处。在改革宗的历史上，没有其他文件能这样有效、谨慎并精确地区分加尔文主义和阿米念主义的区别。但是应该在历史背景下看待《多特信条》。它是对荷兰教会危机的回应，其他改革宗姊妹教会也在争战，甚至像他们直到今天还在持续做的一样。不同于宗教改革时期的信仰告白和问答，《多特信条》是针对某个特定错误的辩论式声明，它的本意决不是作为一个独立的改革宗信仰声明。那些像我一样赞成改革宗告白的人，不仅信奉《多特信条》，也信奉《比利时信条》和《海德堡要理问答》。预定论不仅不是它们的核心，而且只是一带而过。它们一同被称为“认信框架（Form of
Subscription）”。三十年之后，按照英国议会的命令起草的《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》和《要理问答》也考虑到阿米念主义，但是意在提供“五要点”分歧之外的对加尔文主义的全面阐释。
In
1619, the Synod of Dort issued its famous canons, from which the popular expression,
"Five Points of Calvinism" or "T.U.L.I.P" (Total depravity,
Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of
the saints) emerged. An international synod, the meeting included delegates
from the established churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as the
continental churches of Switzerland, France, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and The
Netherlands. At least publicly, King James I was as eager to extinguish
Arminianism from his kingdom as the delegates he sent to Dort. (Interestingly,
the Patriarch of Constantinople drew up his own version of the Canons of Dort
for the Orthodox Churches, but this was rescinded and repudiated after his
death.) In this definitive confession, the Reformed churches condemned
Arminianism and asserted the Calvinistic distinctives. No other document in
Reformed history has been so useful in offering a careful but concise treatment
of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. But Dort has to be seen
in its context. It was a response to a crisis in the Dutch church, which sister
Reformed churches were battling as well, even as they continue to do to this
day. Unlike the confessions and catechism of the Reformation period, Dort was a
polemical statement targeting a particular error. It was never intended as a
stand-alone statement of the Reformed faith. Those, like myself, who subscribe
to the Reformed confession, embrace not only Dort but also the Belgic
Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, where predestination is not only not
central, but is mentioned only in passing. Together, they are the "Form of
Subscription." The Westminster Confession and Catechisms, drafted three
decades later by order of the English parliament, also had Arminianism in view,
but sought to offer a full explanation of Calvinism beyond the dispute over the
"Five Points."
提及这些历史事实的原因在于指出，把加尔文主义或改革宗神学简化为“五要点”是很有问题的。真正的加尔文主义必然不仅是这些。它还有极富特色的盟约式释经，包括工作之约（在亚当里）和恩典之约（在基督里），这就牵扯到关于圣礼和教会的观点。即便独立来看“五要点”做出的辩护，它所呈现的上帝的拣选或主权也是与改革宗的理解有着显著不同的。讽刺的是，那些把改革宗神学简化为预定论的批评家们的错误一再不断地被加尔文主义者的朋友们重复。他们发现了恩典教义的丰富性，却没能看到它是综合了经文的核心教导的一整个教义系统。
The
reason for mentioning these historical facts is to point out that it is highly
problematic to reduce Calvinism or Reformed theology to the "Five
Points." Genuine Calvinism is certainly more than this. It involves a
distinct covenantal hermeneutic, including the covenant of works ("in
Adam") and the covenant of grace ("in Christ"), and this entails
certain views of the sacraments and the Church. Even the isolated defense of
"T.U.L.I.P." can present election or the sovereignty of God in a way
that is markedly different from the Reformed understanding. Ironically, the
mistake of critics who reduced Reformed theology to predestination is too often
repeated by friends of Calvinism. They have discovered the richness of the
doctrines of grace and yet fail to see that it is a doctrinal system which
comprehends the essential teaching of Scripture.
通过从整全系统中抽出“五要点”，很多当代的“加尔文主义者”没能看到在救赎历史上以约的形式展开的上帝的计划中，上帝在他的拣选和救赎恩典中的主权。因此，他们对预定论的处理有时显为大胆臆测上帝永恒里所隐藏的，脱离开了给每个人的外在呼召，这呼召是圣灵藉着外在的蒙恩之道印上的。而且，他们的思想中似乎有一个主旨，就是要么把更加核心的主题（拣选教义是依次在后的）降低到外缘，要么都全盘否定。毋庸置疑，那种扭曲版本的“加尔文主义”常常导致病态的内省，过分严厉的虔诚，以及缺乏确信，让良心无处安息。正如我们已经看到的，加尔文和改革宗信仰告白（包括《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》）将基督以及与基督的联合作为核心。即便是上帝的主权和荣耀也不能被孤立地考虑，因为在基督之外，我们对上帝的知识只能带来恐惧和审判。
By
abstracting the "Five Points" from that system, many contemporary
"Calvinists" have failed to see the sovereignty of God in his
electing and redeeming grace in the covenantal unfolding of God's plan in
redemptive history. Thus, their treatment of predestination sometimes appears
to be bold speculation into God's eternal hiddenness, apart from the external
call offered to everyone and sealed by the Holy Spirit through the external
means of grace. Furthermore, it seems to be a central motif in their thinking,
either relegating the more central themes under which election is properly
ordered to the outer edges or rejecting them altogether. No wonder, then, that
such distorted versions of "Calvinism" often result in morbid
introspection, severe piety, and a lack of assurance which gives no rest to the
conscience. As we have seen, Calvin and the Reformed confessions (including
Westminster) regard Christ and union with him as central. Even the sovereignty
and glory of God are not to be considered in themselves, for apart from Christ
our knowledge of God will only result in terror and judgment.
如果我们期待我们的批评者应当更负责任地对待宗教改革神学的实际发展过程，那么我们也鼓励我们的朋友们不要把“郁金香”从原本所在的上帝救赎计划的土壤中拔出来。
If
our critics should be expected to deal more responsibly with the actual
development of Reformed theology, our friends should also be encouraged not to
pull up the "tulips" from their native soil in God's redemptive
scheme.
四、拣选的安慰
The Consolation of Election
人们拒绝符合圣经的拣选教义有多重原因。正如路德猜测的，有些人是因为“肉体的智慧”，贪图个人的荣耀。另外一些更有哲学倾向的人，好奇地在经文以外探寻，要求上帝回答为什么只有一些人而不是全部的人被拣选。正是在这里，圣经见证禁止进一步的猜测“你这个人哪，你是谁，竟敢向神强嘴呢？”（罗9:20a），人的智慧却常常想要拒绝上帝启示的话语。接踵而至的还有罪恶的问题，我们要补充一句，这不仅仅是加尔文主义者的问题。实际上，这是每个人的问题，而在上帝不是问题。上帝知道我们会抛出这样的异议。“这样，我们可说什么呢？难道神有不公平吗？……”（罗9:14）
There
are various reasons why people reject the biblical doctrine of election. Some
do so, as Luther surmised, because of "the wisdom of the flesh,"
seeking glory for self. Others, of a more philosophical bent, curiously probe
beyond Scripture, demanding an accounting of God for why some, but not all, are
chosen. It is just at that point where the biblical witness forbids further
speculation ("Who are you, O mortal, to question God?"), and where
human wisdom often prefers to reject God's revealed utterance. Further
questions ensue about the problem of evil, which is, we should add, not just a
problem for Calvinists. In fact, it's a problem for everyone but God. And God
knew that we would throw up just such objections: "You will then say to
me, how can God still blame us?... Is God unjust?" (Rom. 9).
正如路德所说，拣选的教义在经文里被直白地启示出来，就像启示有至高的存在一样。因此，路德对伊拉斯谟（Erasmus）忽视此教义的不堪一击的老调是这样回复的，“圣灵不是怀疑论者！”上帝启示了拣选，不是为着我们的好奇，也不是要我们停留在怠惰中，而是让我们在感恩中抬头仰望他，知道只有他配得赞美。这个教义是为着敬拜，而不是臆测或争论。就是这些对上帝美善的思想让我们惊呼，“谁能控告神所拣选的人呢？”（罗8:33）因为我们已经被提醒，这个真理的知识对那些被律法压伤、被福音重生的人是甜蜜的安慰，对那些尚未如此的人却是致命的。
As
Luther said, the doctrine of election is as plainly revealed in Scripture as
the notion of a supreme being. Thus Luther answered Erasmus' weak refrain of
ignorance of this doctrine with the reply, "The Holy Spirit is not a
skeptic!" God revealed election, not for our curiosity, nor to confirm us
in our laziness, but to raise our eyes to him in gratitude, acknowledging that
he alone is worthy to receive praise. This doctrine is the occasion for worship
and not for speculation or debate. It is just such thoughts of God's goodness
which lead us to exclaim, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's
elect?" As we have been reminded, knowledge of this truth is of sweet
comfort to those who have been crushed by the Law and raised to life by the
Gospel, but it is deadly for those who have not.
既然上帝已经将他的圣言交托他的教会，在如此重要的议题上，我们企图使上帝的声音缄默，这是我们的骄傲和自以为是。很难再找到一个教义，在经文中如此清晰和明确地被宣讲，却在教会中这般被遮蔽和忽略。但是，教会历史上每次使徒所传讲的福音的伟大复兴都包含对这一伟大真理的重新认识。
Since
God has entrusted his Word to his Church, it is only a measure of our pride and
self-will that we should attempt to silence God's voice on a matter of such
importance. It is difficult to find a doctrine that is so clearly and
prominently proclaimed in Scripture and yet so obscured and ignored in the
Church. And yet, every great recovery of the apostolic Gospel throughout church
history has involved a rediscovery of this great truth.
请允许我以个人经历做个总结。我很清楚地记得我最终“得着”罗马书第九章的那天。我已经被罗马书前八章搞得很迷茫而不得不重新调整方向，且不论我贫瘠的理解，起初我对上帝绝对的自由感到愤慨。你已经知道我是什么意思，如果你不知道，请阅读鲍夫教授（Professor Baugh）的文章。我把圣经扔到屋子那头，决定再也不要捡起来，但是我的决心转瞬即逝。把这章读了很多遍以后，我发现我坚硬的心在上帝无条件恩惠的温暖光照下软化下来。我开始对自己说，恩典真的就是恩典。也因此，上帝更加伟大，我更加渺小，救赎也更加甜蜜。无论何时讨论恩典，我发现或早或晚（一般是更早），这个对话总要转到拣选上。这不奇怪。尽管它或许不是基督教的核心，但它的确是对核心之事到底处于何等核心地位的一个检验。
If I
may be permitted to conclude on an autobiographical note, I remember well the
day I finally "got" Romans chapter nine. Already disoriented and
reoriented by the first eight chapters of Romans, despite my meager
understanding, I was at first outraged by the sheer freedom of God. You already
know what I mean, and if you don't, read Professor Baugh's article. Throwing my
Bible across the room, I determined not to pick it up again, but my resolve was
short-lived. After reading the chapter several times, I found my hard heart
softening under the warm rays of God's unmerited favor. Grace really is grace,
I began to say to myself. God is greater, I am smaller, and salvation is
sweeter. Whenever I get into a discussion of grace, I find that sooner or later
(usually sooner), the conversation turns to election. And no wonder. While it
may not be the center of Christianity, it is certainly the test of just how
central the central things really are.
注
[2]
W. H. Griffith Thomas, ed.,The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the
Thirty-Nine Articles, with the text of the Articles,Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979,
p. 236.
[3]
Theodore G. Tappert, tr. and ed.,The Book of Concord, Philadelphia: Fortress,
1959, p.497.
[4]
John Bradford, The Writings of John Bradford, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1858, vol. 2, p.316.
[5]
Thomas Aquinas, III Contra Gentiles 164; Disputations, VI de Veritate, I, in
St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts, trans. Thomas Gilby,Durham, NC:
Labyrinth, 1982, from the Oxford University Press edition, 1955.
[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theo., Ia.
xxiii.5, op. cit.
[7]
Cited by Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late
Medieval Thought Illustrated by Key Documents ,Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981,
p.135.
[8]
Ibid., p.151.
[9]
Ibid., p.175.
[10]
Ibid., p.186.
[11]
Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree ,Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988, p.1.
[12]
Francois Wendel, “Justification and Predestination in Calvin,” Readings in
Calvin’s Theology, ed. Donald K. McKim,Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984, p.160.
[13] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷11章1节。
[14] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷21章1节。
[15] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷21章5节。
[16] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷24章3-4节。
[17] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷24章4节。
[18] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷24章5节。
[19] 参加尔文《基督教要义》第三卷24章5-6节。