信心与得救确据 ——改教家加尔文与清教徒爱德华兹观点之比较The Reformation vs. thePuritans on Faith and Assurance, withSpecial Reference to John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards
文/拿单·萨瑟（Nathan Sasser） 译/和卫 校/王培洁
一、前言 Introduction.
写作本文在于表明，宗教改革时代的“信心与确据”的教义与后期清教徒主流思想中的相关教义有着很大不同。尽管有关此话题的一手和二手文献很丰富，但出于简介之便，我将主要分析约翰·加尔文和约拿单·爱德华兹的观点。加尔文把确据当作信心的本质，而爱德华兹似乎完全忽视了早期改教家们的这一观点。当爱德华兹谈论“确据是信心之本质”的观点时，他认为这是伪善的基督徒所持有的教义。由于本文不包括任何诠释部分，所以我不想辩护，哪种观点是合乎圣经的，因此是正确的。然而，显而易见的是，加尔文的确据教义贯穿了他对基督徒生活的全部思考。所以，如果拒绝此观点——就像很多清教徒和爱德华兹所做过的——便等于否认加尔文的大部分神学思想和实践。此外，如我在下文所展示的，很多反对加尔文的观点都似乎没有抓住要领。
The
purpose of this essay is to show that there are profound differences between
the doctrine of faith and assurance in the Reformation era and the doctrines of
faith and assurance which held sway in later Puritan thinking. While I will
make some reference to Luther, Lutheranism, and various Reformed confessions
and catechisms, I mainly compare John Calvin, John Owen, the Marrow Brethren,
and Jonathan Edwards. Calvin makes assurance of the essence of faith; the early
Owen does also, but the later Owen argues against the early Reformed view; the
Marrow Brethren recover and defend Calvin’s theology from the sorts of
arguments that the later Owen brings against it; Edwards seems completely
unaware of the early Reformed view. When Edwards discusses the view that
assurance is of the essence of faith, he not only argues against it in similar
fashion to the later Owen, but he also argues that it is the doctrine of
hypocritical pretenders to Christian faith. I do not pretend to give a defense
of which view is biblical and therefore correct; this essay will include no
exegesis. However, I will argue that Owen’s arguments against the early
Reformed doctrine fail. The counterarguments of the Marrow Brethren are
successful. Furthermore, my section on Calvin is meant to show that his
doctrine of assurance ramifies his entire view of the Christian life. To reject
it, as the Puritans did, entails a rejection of vast swaths of Calvin’s work.
加尔文和爱德华兹都认同，合乎圣经的福音呼召全地之人相信基督。这白白赐予的且呼召人的福音，是信心的保证或根基；它允许和驱使所有人，不管是已得救或是未得救的、蒙拣选的或是被弃绝的，都前来信靠基督。然而，宗教改革传统和清教徒主流传统的分歧在于，到底什么是福音给世人信靠基督提供的保证？有哪些命题构成了因信称义的实质内涵？对此，宗教改革传统的回答是一致的，即“称义的信心”（justifying faith）包括个人相信自己在耶稣基督里已经获得救恩。换句话说，合乎圣经的福音能保证所有人相信：“基督和从他而来的福分是属于我的”。
All
parties agree that the biblical gospel contains a command for all people everywhere
to believe in Christ. This command—the free offer of the gospel—is also the
warrant or grounds of faith; it permits and obliges all people, saved or
unsaved, elect or reprobate, to trust in Christ. The Reformation tradition
differs from the majority Puritan tradition however as to exactly what it is
that the gospel warrants all people to believe. What proposition constitutes
the object of justifying faith? What is the essence of justifying faith? The
Reformation consensus is that justifying faith involves a belief in one’s own
salvation through Jesus Christ. In other words, the biblical gospel warrants
all people to believe that “Christ and his benefits are mine.”
很多清教徒则不同意对信心的如此定义。他们首先提出，事实经验表明，一些真基督徒有时不认为自己已是基督徒，也不认为基督和从他而来的福分是真正属乎他们的。如果这些人仍然拥有“得救信心”（saving faith），却不相信自己已经获得了来自基督的救恩，那么对“得救信心”而言，“个人确据”就不是必须的。第二，清教徒认为，在人真正拥有救恩之前，是不可以被命令去相信他们己拥有基督和自他而来的福分。失丧的罪人还没有拥有基督，因此也不可能被命令去相信自己有了救恩。然而，“称义的信心”却是向着所有人的命令。因此他们认为，福音所普遍要求和保证的信心必然不包括“个人相信自己藉着基督而已获得救赎”。
Puritans
such as (the later) John Owen raised two objections to this definition of
faith. First, experience makes plain that some true Christians at times do not
believe that they are Christians; they do not believe that Christ and his
benefits are really theirs. If such people still possess saving faith, yet do
not believe in their own salvation through Christ, then personal assurance must
not be essential to saving faith. Secondly, the later Owen objects that people
cannot be commanded to believe in something (their own possession of Christ and
his benefits) before it is even true. Lost sinners do not yet possess Christ
and so they cannot be commanded to believe that they do. However, justifying
faith is something which all people are commanded to exercise. Therefore, the
faith which the gospel universally commands and warrants must not include a
belief in one’s own salvation through Christ.
在这两方面，清教徒对加尔文观点的反驳都有失偏颇。加尔文非常清楚，基督徒有时会怀疑自己的救恩。他认为，尽管基督徒的主观信心可能会降得很低（甚至低到连自己都无法察觉的程度），但他们信心的实质和对象却是恒常的：虽显得软弱无力，疑惑的基督徒仍然相信，“我确信我因着耶稣基督已经得救”。但有人说，疑惑的基督徒仅认为，“我也许或是可能因着基督而得救。”但这一观点混淆了“信心的主观强度”（the subjective
strength of faith）和“信心的内容”（the content of
faith），也混淆了“客观的确定性”和“一个人拥有基督的可能性”。“确据”（assurance）这个词常含糊的用来指代“信心的强度”和“信心的内容”。但当该词意思模棱两可时，则会带来无尽的困扰。
The Puritan counterarguments to Calvin’s
position miss the point on both counts. As to the Christian experience of
doubt, Calvin is well aware of it. He argues that while the Christian’s
subjective confidence may wax very low (so low as to be imperceptible even to
themselves), the content and object of their faith remains constant: the
doubting Christian still believes, though weakly, that “I am certainly saved
through Jesus Christ.” Owen thinks that the doubting Christian believes merely
that “I am possibly or probably saved through Christ.” Owen confuses the
subjective strength of faith with the content of faith and the objective
certainty and probability of one’s possession of Christ. Owen uses the term
“assurance” equivocally to refer both to faith’s strength and to its content.
This equivocation, I will argue, actually makes it hard for Owen can maintain
that full assurance is even possible.
对于清教徒反驳加尔文的第二点，可以如此答复：个人被命令去相信自己拥有基督，不是基于命令接受者已拥有他的设想之上。在宗教改革的观点看来，圣经并没有命令所有人去相信自己因着基督而已经得救，而是让他们相信，他们因着基督而现在就得救。在罪人相信的同时，此命题变成真实。所以，这其中并没有明显的矛盾。
As to
the second Puritan argument against Calvin’s view, the Marrow Brethren point
out that the command to believe in one’s own possession of Christ is not based
on the fact that the recipients of the command already do possess him. On the
Reformation view, Scripture does not command all men to believe that they are
already saved through Christ, but to believe that they are now saved through
Christ. The proposition becomes true at the same moment as the sinner believes
it. So there is no obvious contradiction involved.
倘若如清教徒所主张的，合乎圣经的福音并没有给个人普遍地保证有通过基督而得救的信心。那么确据又是如何获得的呢？清教徒给出的答案是，要藉着反省信心的举动，或所谓的实践三段论。因着救赎的果效，罪人首先会大致地相信基督：他喜悦和认定因信基督而得救，也相信自己可能因此而获救恩。在此刻，罪人已因信而称义，但他自己却不知晓。第二，信徒在自身看到更新的果子：信心、爱神，或任何其他只有基督徒才会彰显的恩典和情感。第三，由于有着唯独真信徒才有的恩典和情感，他可据此推测，自己必然是真正的信徒，也因此真实地因着信靠基督而得救。然而，麻烦的地方出现在自我鉴定基督恩典的第二步。鉴于堕落人心自欺的特质、内在情感的飘忽和善变，再加上基本无法区分真信徒和挂名信徒，很多人发现，很难通过此方式来获取和维持救恩的确据。
If,
as the Puritans maintain, the biblical gospel does not universally warrant the
exercise of a belief in one’s own salvation through Christ, how is assurance to
be obtained? The Puritan answer is, through a reflex act of faith, or the
so-called practical syllogism. The sinner first savingly believes in Christ in
a general way: he delights and believes in the way of salvation through Jesus
Christ, and believes it is possible for him to be saved in this way. At this
point the sinner is justified but does not yet know it. Second, the believer
observes in himself the fruits of regeneration: faith, love to God, or any other
distinctively Christian graces and affections. Third, he infers that since he
possesses graces and affections which are unique to true believers, he must be
a true believer, and therefore is actually saved through Christ. The tricky
part is the selfidentification of Christian graces in the second step. Given
the self-deceptive character of the fallen human heart, the elusive and
capricious character of internal affections, and the near impossibility of
distinguishing true believers from pretenders, many have found this a difficult
way in which to get and keep assurance.
改教家们认为，此方法无法使人获得确据。任何基督恩典的培养必然源自先前所获的确据，而这确据是建立在唯独合乎圣经的基础之上，而不是源于自我省察。察看圣灵在个体生命中的工作确实有益，也可加增得救确据，但却无法为此提供根基。
The
Reformation view was that it was no way to get assurance at all. The
cultivation of any Christian graces must flow from an assurance previously
obtained on the basis of the biblical warrant alone, not introspection.
Observation of the Spirit’s work in one’s life is indeed salutary and
strengthens assurance, but cannot provide the foundation for it.
这两种信心和确据观迥异，会在很大程度上影响基督徒生活。比如，基督徒在生活中追求圣洁是为了获得和维持确据，还是出于已获的救恩？确据是唯独来自经文的应许，还是最终取决于自我检视？在开展福音事工时，我们是给遭咒诅的罪人传讲永生的确据，还是获得永生确据的可能性？
These two views of faith and assurance are
very different, and the differences are of great importance for the Christian
life. It makes a great difference for the Christian life whether we are
pursuing sanctification in order to get and retain assurance, or because we
have it already. It makes a great deal of difference whether assurance is based
on Scripture promises alone, or ultimately on self-examination. It makes a
great deal of difference for evangelism whether we offer damned sinners the
assurance of eternal life, or the possibility of acquiring assurance of eternal
life.
不管出于何种原因，宗教改革得救确据思想的历史演变不被平信徒所知晓或理解。本文也坦承，在此陈述的观点或许已经多次出现在相关学术文献中，但据我目前所掌握的材料来看，至今尚没有写给普通信徒的文章将这些事情阐释清楚。相反，改教家们和清教徒观点的区别通常被模糊、忽视或淡化。为了保持改教传统的历史统一性的表相，它们已经被相互同化了。在某种程度上，这很好理解。因为，想到我们所敬重的一些改教英雄在关于基督教神学和实践的一个根本信条上犯了重大失误是令人伤痛的。然而，不管你认为哪种观点更为可信，但显明的事实是，另一种观点必然是在一些关键方面错误甚重。
For whatever reason, the historical evolution of
Reformed thinking on assurance is not well-known or understood among laypeople.
I seriously doubt that anything I will say has not appeared already in
scholarly literature, many times over. Nevertheless, I know of no popular
writings that make these matters clear. On the contrary, the differences
between the Reformation view and the Puritan view are very often blurred over,
ignored, or minimized. They are assimilated to one another in order to maintain
the appearance of historical uniformity in the Reformed tradition. This is
understandable in one sense. It is painful to think that any of our Reformed
heroes may have greatly erred in a fundamental article of practical Christian
theology. And yet, no matter which view you think is right, it is clear that
the other is wrong in some very important respects.
二、约翰·加尔文的信心与确据观
Calvin on Faith and Assurance. Introduction.
1、得救信心与圣灵的印证
Saving faith: the witness of
the Spirit of adoption causes believers to call on God as their Father through
Jesus Christ.
《基督教要义》（Institutes of Christian
Religion，以下简称《要义》）第三卷第二章详细地辩护和阐述了得救信心——即相信个人救恩和被收养为神的儿子是藉着基督而来——就是个人得救确据的教义。加尔文将信心正式定义为，“它是神对我们施慈爱的明白和确定的知识 ，这知识建立在神在基督里白白赏赐我们之应许的真实性上 ，且这应许是圣灵向我们启示并印在我心中的。”（《要义》3.2.7[1]）。根据此定义，得救信心包括：相信神对我们的仁慈，我们不再处于他的震怒之下，而是他在耶稣基督里救赎恩典的对象。此信心的根基或保证是福音，且根源自圣灵。
Book
3, Chapter Two of the Institutes is a nothing but an extended defense and
development of the doctrine that saving
faith is nothing but personal assurance. His official definition of faith
comes at the end of a section in which he explains that no man can bring
himself to sincerely call upon God unless he believes that God is reconciled to
him for Christ’s sake (3.2.7). Calvin concludes: Now we shall possess a right
definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s
benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in
Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy
Spirit. Already it is clear from the passages just quoted that for Calvin,
justifying faith means calling upon God as our reconciled Father. The basis or
warrant of this faith is the gospel, and its cause is the Holy Spirit.
圣灵的见证“就如印记刻在我们心上，印证基督的洁净和献祭”（《要义》3.1.1）。如果没有圣灵的见证，“无人能尝到神父亲般的慈爱或基督的恩惠 ”（《要义》3.1.2）。信徒向神祷告，就如呼求自己的父亲，而只有儿子的灵才能为此作证，也因此是真实祷告的必要和充分条件：
The
testimony of the Spirit assures the believer of his personal interest in the
atoning sacrifice of Christ: “There is good reason for the repeated mention of
the ‘testimony of the Spirit,’ a testimony we feel engraved like a seal upon
our hearts, with the result that it seals the cleansing and sacrifice of
Christ” (3.1.1; 538). “Likewise, he asks ‘the grace of …Christ and the love of
God’ for believers, at the same time coupling it with ‘participation in
the…Spirit’ [II Cor. 13:14], without which no one can taste either the fatherly
favor of God or the beneficence of Christ; just as he also says in another
passage, ‘The love of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy
Spirit, who has been given to us’ [Rom. 5:5, cf. Vg.]” (3.1.2; 539, emphasis
mine).
首先，他被称为“儿子的灵”，因他向我们见证神白白的恩典，神藉此恩典在他的爱子里悦纳我们，为要做我们的父，使我们得以坦然无惧地来到他面前。他也赏赐我们祷告的言词，使我们毫无畏惧地呼叫：“阿爸，父！”（罗8:5；加4:6）（《要义》3.1.3）
“First,
he is called the ‘spirit of adoption’ because he is the witness to us of the
free benevolence of God with which God the Father has embraced us in his
beloved only-begotten Son to become a Father to us; and he encourages us to
have trust in prayer. In fact, he supplies the very words so that we may
fearlessly cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ [Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6]” (3.1.3; 540).
2、得救信心及与基督联合
Union with Christ.
在讨论与基督联合时，加尔文将得救信心描述为，相信基督和从他而来的福分是属乎我们的——不仅只在未来或有条件限制，而是事实上的。“若非我们的心体贴圣灵的事，基督就与我们无关 ，因我们只从远处冷漠地观望他 ——事实上就是远离他。”（《要义》3.1.3）在此，加尔文敦促我们，不要以基督在我们以外来“默想”他。这意味着，他希望我们通过相信我们已经拥有基督，来践行救恩信心。“知道唯有基督才能使我们与慈悲的父和好（林后 5:18-19），并知道神使基督成为我们的公义 、圣洁以及生命 ，我们是藉这知识而……才得以进天国 。”（《要义》3.2.2）我们通过相信神使基督成为我们的公义、圣洁以及生命而获得救恩。我们不应该：
Calvin’s
discussion of union with Christ seems to indicate that he conceives of the
saving faith as believing that Christ and his benefits are ours—not merely
potentially or conditionally, but actually. Calvin opens his discussion of “The
way in which we receive the grace of Christ: What benefits come to us from it,
and what effects follow” with the following:
“First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us,
and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the
salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore,
to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours
and to dwell within us…It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we
see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is
offered through the gospel, reason teaches us to climb higher and to examine
into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all
his benefits” (3.1.1; 537).
将基督视为站在远处而不是居住在我们心里！然而，我们在基督里盼望救恩并不是从远处望见他，而是因他使我们嫁接在他身体上，使我们不但在他一切的恩惠上有分，也使我们拥有基督自己。……我们的确不应当将基督与自己分开或将自己与基督分开。我们反而应当紧抓住基督所成就与我们的相交……（《要义》3.2.24）[2]
For
Calvin, it seems, Christ becomes ours by faith—that is, by our believing that
he dwells within us. This just is how we embrace communion with him. It is the
act which the secret energy of the Spirit causes, and which Scripture warrants.
This follows from what has been said already about the Spirit of adoption, but
consider Calvin’s language of union elsewhere:
“As has already been clearly explained, until our minds become intent
upon the Spirit, Christ, so to speak, lies idle because we coldly contemplate
him as outside ourselves—indeed, far from us” (3.1.3; 541).
3、若没有得救确据就没有敬虔、悔改、成圣及爱神的心
Piety, repentance, love for
God, and sanctification are impossible without assurance.
加尔文并不是简单在说，我们得救是因为相信基督已经被赐给我们，我们只要相信或许就能得到救赎。如果只是单纯地相信救恩有可能，这还不足以给予我很大勇气去将神当作父亲一样去呼求他，也不能说服我去思考我正在或将会与神和好。实际上，加尔文一直批判这种不能给人丝毫安慰的信心观，也绝不认为这是信心（《要义》3.2.15）。
For
he states: “Through Christ we have boldness and access with confidence which is
through faith in him” [Eph. 3:12 p., cf. Vg.]. By these words he obviously
shows that there is no right faith except when we dare with tranquil hearts to
stand in God’s sight. This boldness arises only out of a sure confidence in
divine benevolence and salvation. This is so true that the word “faith” is very
often used for confidence. (3.2.15; 561).
未重生之人或许拥有虚假的信心，甚至品尝过一些主恩的滋味（《要义》3.2.11）。未更新之人的信心是“暂时的”（《要义》3.2.11）。他们“领受的只是对恩典的含混意识，所以，他们所抓住的是幻影而不是信心确实的本体”；他们相信的福音是“含混和不清晰的”；他们被光照，“使他们暂时意识到他的恩典，之后又使这意识消失”（《要义》3.2.11）。重生之人的信心与未重生之人的虚假信心有着很大不同，这是因为前者源自收养他的圣灵的见证。而只有圣徒才能真诚地、满有信心地和不断地把神当作自己的父亲去呼求。“因为圣灵唯独在选民身上印证赦罪之恩，使他们以这特殊的信心确信自己的罪已得赦免。”（《要义》3.2.11）因为唯独那些有圣灵内住的人才能真正地相信神对他们的父爱，也只有那些圣灵与其同在的人才会真正以儿女的心去加以回报（《要义》3.2.12）。[3]
当然，加尔文也看到一个明显的事实，即真正的基督徒也会怀疑自己的救恩。事实上，他在第二章花了好几节来详尽地思考信徒与怀疑的争战（《要义》3.2.17-21）。和大卫一样，信徒时常会真实地对神的恩典感到失望，但却不至于绝望，“……信心永不会从敬虔之人的心中被根除 ，反而会深深地在其中扎根 。不论信心看起来有多摇摆不定，其光却永不至于熄灭。”（《要义》3.2.21）
In
the sections which follow Calvin fully acknowledges that unbelief and doubt
beset the true believer their whole lives long. Like David, believers are often
virtually despairing of the grace of God—but never entirely: “….the root of
faith can never be torn from the godly breast, but clings so fast to the inmost
parts that, however faith seems to be shaken or to bend this way or that, its
light is never so extinguished or snuffed out that it does not at least lurk as
it were beneath the ashes” (3.2.21; 567).
对加尔文而言，正如个人在基督里的确据是生发对神儿女般的爱和向神祷告的必要前提，这也是真敬虔和悔改的必要条件。这一点也表现在加尔文驳斥罗马天主教将信心区分为形成和未形成的做法（《要义》3.2.8-13）。依据罗马天主教的教义，人们可以在不敬虔和不敬畏神的同时拥有信心，可以在内心未得真正改变的条件下获取救赎。加尔文对此回复是：“仿佛圣灵藉光照我们赐我们信心 ，却不是我们得儿子名分的见证！”（《要义》3.2.8）加尔文意在指明，真实信心是圣灵的工作，是圣灵使我们变得敬虔。但只有信心成为个人确据时，信心才使人追求圣洁，因为敬虔的前提是，知道神是爱我们的父。（《要义》1.2.2）
Calvin
teaches that faith causes us to love him. Love for God does not precede an
assured faith and hope in salvation.
But how can the mind be aroused to taste the divine goodness without at
the same time being wholly kindled to love God in return? For truly, that
abundant sweetness which God has stored up for those who fear him cannot be
known without at the same time powerfully moving us. And once anyone has been
moved by it, it utterly ravishes him and draws him to itself. Therefore, it is
no wonder if a perverse and wicked heart never experiences that emotion by
which, borne up to heaven itself, we are admitted to the most hidden treasures
of God and to the most hallowed precincts of his Kingdom, which should not be defiled
by the entrance of an impure heart.
For the teaching of the Schoolmen, that love is prior to faith and hope,
is mere madness; for it is faith alone that first engenders love in us”
(3.2.41, 589).
很自然地，加尔文的“悔改观”（他也称之为“重生”，包括了整个生命的翻转，即我们所说的“成圣”）也源自他的“信心观”。对他而言，悔改必须建立在信心，即个人确据的基础之上。“除非人知道自己是属神的 ，否则他不可能认真地向神悔改 。……除非人相信神先前对他的愤怒已平息 ，否则他不会敬畏神。没有人会甘心乐意地约束自己顺服律法，除非他深信神喜悦他的顺服。”（《要义》3.3.2）
Calvin’s
treatment of repentance (which he calls “regeneration” and which includes the
entire change of life which we might refer to as sanctification) follows his
treatment of faith, and for good reasons. For Calvin, repentance must have its
foundation in faith— that is, in personal assurance. Yet, when we refer the origin of repentance
to faith we do not imagine some space of time during which it brings it to
birth; but we mean to show that a man cannot apply himself seriously to
repentance without knowing himself to belong to God. But no one is truly
persuaded that he belongs to God unless he has first recognized God’s
grace…Secondly, I say that, according to the statement of the psalm: ‘There is
propitiation with thee…that thou mayest be feared’ [Ps. 130:4, Comm.], no one
will ever reverence God but him who trusts that God is propitious to him. No
one will gird himself willingly to observe the law but him who will be
persuaded that God is pleased by his obedience (3.3.2, 594).
4、《海德堡要理问答》的佐证
The Heidelberg Catechism
(1563).
《海德堡要理问答》（The Heidelberg Catechism，1563）也体现了加尔文的信心与确据观。在回答第二十一问“什么是真信心？”时，此教义得到了最为明确的确认。
The
Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 suffused with a Calvinistic doctrine of faith and
assurance. This doctrine is most explicitly affirmed in the answer to Question
21, “What is true faith?”
真信心不仅是确切地知道，我认定神在圣经中向我们启示的一切皆为真理，还要全身心地相信圣灵藉着福音在我里面所造的，这不仅之于他人，更在于神向我赐下赦罪、永恒公义和救赎，乃唯独出自基督救赎工作的恩典。[4]
A. It
is not only a certain knowledge by which I accept as true all that God has
revealed to us in his Word, but also a wholehearted trust which the Holy Spirit
creates in me through the gospel, that, not only to others, but to me also God
has given the forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation, out
of sheer grace solely for the sake of Christ’s saving work (p. 308).
撒迦利亚·乌尔西努是该要理问答的起草人之一，他在此回答的批注上作出如下解释：
Zacharias
Ursinus, co-author of the catechism, explicates this answer in his commentary
on it:
所以，称义或得救信心和其他信心不同，因为唯独它才是信心的确据，让我们投向基督的美善。当我们坚定地相信基督的义是赐给和归于我们、使我们在神眼中看为义的时候，我们便有了此信心的确据。[5]
“Justifying
or saving faith differs, therefore, from the other kinds of faith, because it
alone is that assured confidence by which we apply unto ourselves the merit of
Christ, which is done when we firmly believe that the righteousness of Christ
is granted and imputed unto us, so that we are accounted just in the sight of
God” (p. 110-111).
所以，加尔文的观点不是出自个人。不管是过去，还是如今，它都体现在欧洲大陆改革宗教会的信仰告白准则上。
三、约拿单·爱德华兹的信心与确据观
Jonathan Edwards on Faith and
Assurance.
对约拿单·爱德华兹而言，圣经没有提供“有确据的信心”普遍保证。爱德华兹认为，人们无法在认清真实自我前知晓自己已被称义。获取确据的唯一途径是，观察自我是否有一种对神挚诚无私的爱。因此，爱神是获取任何得救确据的前提。如果爱神是基于确据之上，那么这样的爱是自私的，也属肉体情欲。事实上，如果信徒对神初始的爱源自他对自我救赎的确信，则他们不是真正的基督徒。所以，爱德华兹谴责加尔文的确据观，称之为一种虚假的宗教。
For Edwards as for Owen, Scripture contains no universal
warrant for an assured faith. Edwards
uses an argument seen previously in Owen, that people can have no warrant to
believe they are justified before they actually are. The only way to obtain
assurance is by observing in oneself a disinterested love for God. Love for God must therefore precede any
assurance of salvation. Love for God which is based fundamentally on assurance
is self-interested and carnal. In fact, those whose first love for God is based
on a belief in their own salvation are not genuine Christians. Thus, while Owen
respectfully parts ways with the Reformers’ doctrine of assurance, Edwards
condemns it as false religion.
1、得救确据不是信心的本质
在1746年出版的《宗教情感》一书中，爱德华兹反驳了“称义的信心”包括能认识自我罪得赦免的观点：
The
Religious Affections (1746). Edwards rejects the notion that justifying faith
includes a belief in one’s own pardon.
所以，如果有的人没有属灵体验，而且属灵状况十分糟糕，却声称靠着信心而活，他们的信心观实乃非常荒谬。对他们来说，信心意味着相信自己身处一种好的状态……他们从哪本圣经得来“信心就是相信自己已经得救”这样错误的观念？倘若这是信心，那法利赛人的信心就是最大的，可是基督却说有些法利赛人犯了亵渎圣灵、永不可赦免的大罪。根据圣经，信心是我们得救的途径，所以信心不等于人们相信自己已经得救。如果信心就是相信自己已经得救，那就等于说信心就是一个人相信他有信心，或相信自己相信！[6]
Those
that thus insist on persons living by faith, when they have no experience, and
are in very bad frames, are also very absurd in their notions of faith. What
they mean by faith is, believing that they are in a good estate….But what
Bible do they learn this notion of faith
out of, that it is a man’s confidently believing that he is in a good estate?*
If this be faith, the Pharisees had faith in an eminent degree, some of whom,
Christ teaches, committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost. The
Scripture represents faith as that by which men are brought into a good estate; and therefore it cannot be the same
thing as believing that they are already in a good estate. To suppose that
faith consists in believing that they are in a good estate, is in affect the
same thing as to suppose that faith consists in a person’s believing that he has faith, in believing that he believes.
爱德华兹认为，如果确据是信心的本质，那么罪人便会假设，在相信之前，他已经得救了。（然而，这却不是事实。根据加尔文的观点，拥有确定的“称义的信心”在于相信：“我的罪因着基督的缘故现在被赦免了”，而不是“我的罪已经在我相信之前被赦免。”）在注释中，爱德华兹援引的所罗门·斯托达德作品《信主得救的本质》中的一段内容也起着类似的效果：“人不是因着相信自己圣洁而成为圣洁的……神的话中没有如此启示，神的灵也从没有向某个人作过如此见证。”[7]
Edwards
thinks that if assurance is the essence of saving faith, the sinner is supposed
to believe that he is already saved prior to believing. We have already seen
Boston’s counterargument to this misrepresentation of the Reformation view. An
assured justifying faith believes “My sins are now forgiven for Christ’s sake,”
not “My sins have already been forgiven before I believed.” Edwards’ footnote
refers to a passage from Stoddard’s Nature of Saving Conversion to similar
effect: “Men do not know that they are godly by believing that they are
godly…It is not revealed in the Word, and the Spirit of God doth not testify it
to particular persons.
因此，只能从自身发现的救恩证据来获得个人的得救确据：“不能仅仅因为一个人将他们经历恩典的经验当成恩典的证据，就说他们离弃了基督，而只靠经历；因为他们没有也不应该有其他的证据”[8]
Personal
assurance, therefore, can only be obtained on the basis of the evidence of
salvation which we observe in ourselves: “Persons cannot be said to forsake
Christ, and live on their experiences of the exercises of grace, merely because
they take them and use them as evidences of grace; for there are not other
evidences that they can or ought to take.”
2、驳斥奥秘派的同时也拒绝了改教家
爱德华兹花了很多心力驳斥那些奥秘派人士（mystics），后者相信自己收到自神而来的直接信息或印象（impression），见证他们是神的儿女。[9]这样的直接印象可能有、也可能没有圣经经文的支持。不管情况是哪样，这些都是没有根据的。在此，不应该把改教家们混淆为爱德华兹的反对者。奥秘派将自身的确据建立在一种直接的印象经历上，而不是源自圣经的福音应许，即便有时他们的经历或许能得到经文的支持。然而，在反对奥秘派的同时，爱德华兹也一不小心地在很多方面反驳了改教家们的教义。很明显，爱德华兹认为，除了善工的明显果效外，圣经没有给出直接和及时的得救确据。任何不是基于反省和内视的证据都属乎奥秘主义，带有自欺性质。
Edwards
is at great pains to oppose mystics who think that they have received an
immediate message or impression from God that they themselves are his
children.54 Such immediate impressions may or may not be accompanied with
Scriptural texts; in either case, they are unfounded. Edwards’ opponents here
should not be confused with the Reformers.
These mystics base their assurance on their experience of an immediate
impression, not on biblical gospel promises, even though gospel texts may
happen to accompany their experiences.
However, in the course of refuting his mystical opponents, he also
inadvertently opposes the doctrine of the Reformers on many points. Edwards
clearly thinks that Scripture does not give any basis for direct, immediate
assurance apart from the evidential role of works. The only kind of assurance
which is not based on introspection and self-examination is mystical and
self-deceived.
爱德华兹所说的奥秘派领受的是一些他们已经得救的特别印象：
Edwards’
mystics receive purported impressions that they are already saved:
许多此类人士的第一大慰藉，即他们所谓的归正，是通过如下方式而获得：在觉醒和惧怕之后，一些抚慰人心的甜蜜应许突然临到，奇妙地浮现在他们脑海中……自此之后，他们便有了信靠神和基督的第一次的激励，因为他们认为，藉着圣经而来的神如今已经向他们启示，他爱他们，已经将永生应许给他们。
The
first comfort of many persons, and what they call their conversion, is after
this manner: after awakening and terrors, some comfortable sweet promise
comes suddenly and wonderfully to their
minds…from hence they take their first encouragement to trust in God and
Christ, because they think that God, by some Scripture so brought, has now already revealed to them that He loves
them, and has already promised them
eternal life.
这当然不是宗教改革的教义。但爱德华兹认为，避免将信心建在个人先在称义（antecedent
justification）的基础上的唯一方式是，将“信心”与“个人确据”分离开来。
This
of course is not the Reformation doctrine. A brief review of Boston’s
clarification of the tenses involved in saving faith makes this clear. But
Edwards thinks that the only way to avoid grounding faith in a person’s
antecedent justification is to separate faith from personal assurance:
但这是非常荒谬的（见前面的引用），因为每个人只要稍微了解宗教的原则，便会知道，在人相信之后，而不是在此之前，神将他的爱启示给他们，使他们对他的应许产生兴趣。神的灵是真理的灵，不是说谎的灵：神不是将圣经带至人的大脑，在他们什么也没有或仍未相信之前，将他的恩惠和应许启示给他们。神也不会做出任何类似如下性质的举动：在他们未信之前，将圣经到人面前，向他们启示他们的罪已被赦免，或乐意将国度赐给他们，并将此作为他们初始信心的根基。[10]
But
this [see previous quote] is very absurd, for every one with common knowledge
of the principles of religion knows that it is God’s manner to reveal His love
to men, and their interest in the promises, after they have believed, and not
before, because they must first believe before they have any interest in the
promises to be revealed. The Spirit of God is a Spirit of truth and not of
lies: He does not bring Scriptures to men’s minds, to reveal to them that they
have an interest in God’s favour and promises when they have none, having not
yet believed: which would be the case, if God’s bringing texts of Scripture to
men’s minds, to reveal to them that their sins were forgiven, or that it was
God’s pleasure to give them the kingdom, or anything of that nature, went
before, and was the foundation of their first faith.
爱德华兹继续详尽地阐述类似观点，但却是建立在一个误解之上的。加尔文主义并不是认为，在罪人未真正相信之前，圣经就已经向他们启示他们已得救。相反，加尔文主义的观点认为，圣经告诉罪人，如果他们因相信基督而接受耶稣基督，将自他而来的福分归为己有，此信心在被激发的一刹那便是真实的。确据源自圣经，是救恩信心的本质，而不是基于个人在未信之先就已得救的直接启示之上。
Edwards
continues to make this same point at length. He the point is based on a
misunderstanding. The Marrow doctrine is not that Scripture reveals to sinners
that they are saved before they actually believe. The Marrow doctrine is that
Scripture tells sinners that if they embrace Jesus Christ by believing that
Christ and his benefits are their own possession, that belief will be true in
the instant that it is exercised. Assurance is warranted by Scripture and
essential to saving faith, but is not based on a direct revelation that one is
already, prior to faith, saved.
爱德华兹在注释中援引了所罗门·斯托达德和汤姆斯·薛伯特（Thomas Shepard）的观点来支持此论点，“神的方式不是在人拥有仰赖他的信心之前，将安慰的圣经经文带给他们，给予他爱和未来幸福的确据。”[11]爱德华兹阐释此论点的方式明确表明，他具体反对的是那些倡导信心确据源自直接的奥秘体验，而不是依据圣经显明经文的信徒。然而，在痛斥奥秘派同时，他也完全否认了确据是信心本质的观点，而他所援引的权威声音也这么认为：
Edwards
footnotes Solomon Stoddard and Thomas Shepard in defense of the thesis that
“God’s manner is not to bring comfortable texts of Scripture to give men
assurance of his love and of future happiness, before they have had a faith of
dependence.”56 Edwards’ way of phrasing this thesis makes plain that his
specific opponents are those who advocate a mystical direct assurance of faith
which is not based on the plain meaning
of Scripture. Nevertheless, he combats the mystics by denying that assurance is
of the essence of faith in any sense, and his quoted authorities do the same:
……神绝不会在给出仰赖的信心之前赐下信心的确据，因为他只有在人受到恩惠和为他所接纳之后才会彰显他的大爱，而这都是藉着仰赖的信心……神的方式是，首先使人心接受恩典的赐予，然后将他的福分赐给他……[12]
…God
never gives a faith of assurance before he gives a faith of dependence; for he
never manifests His love until men are in a state of favour and reconciliation, which is by faith of
dependence…God’s method is, first to make the soul accept of the offers of grace, and then to manifest his good estate
unto him…
汤姆斯·薛伯特针对性地否决了加尔文关乎圣灵的见证是称义信心之源的教义：
Thomas
Shepard pointedly denies Calvin’s doctrine of the witness of the Spirit as the
cause of justifying faith:
圣灵的见证不是使人更像基督徒，但会使之更加凸显；因为见证的本质不在于使某件事显得真实，而是明确和证实……圣灵的见证首先不是做出区分（在真信徒和假冒伪善者之间）：因为在圣灵亲自见证之前，一个人首先需要是信徒，在基督里面，被称义，被呼召和分别为圣；若非如此，圣灵见证的则不是真理，而是谎言。[13]
The
testimony of the Spirit does not make a man more a Christian, but only
evidenceth it; as it is the nature of a witness not to make a thing to be true,
but to clear and evidence it…the witness of the Spirit makes not the first
difference [between true believers and
hypocrites]: for first a man is a believer and in Christ, and justified, called
and sanctified, before the Spirit does witness to it; else the Spirit should witness
to an untruth and lie.
爱德华兹是这样解释罗马书8:16里保罗提说的圣灵的见证：
Edwards
explains what Paul means by the witness of the Spirit in Rom. 8:16.
如果我们完整地来看，当使徒说到圣经赐下我们是神儿女的见证或证据时，他指的是圣灵住在我们里面，指引我们，是收养的灵，是儿女的灵，使我们尊崇神为我们的父亲。使徒本人所说的是指，我们有着为神儿女的见证或证据，我们有着儿女的灵，或收养的灵。并且除了爱的灵之外，还有什么能如此成全呢？[14]
Here,
what the apostle says, if we take it together, plainly shows that what he has
respect to, when he speaks of the Spirit’s giving us witness or evidence that
we are God’s children, is His dwelling
in us, and leading us, as a spirit of adoption, or spirit of a child, disposing
us to behave towards God as to a father. This is the witness or evidence which
the apostle speaks of that we are children, that we have the spirit of
children, or spirit of adoption. And what is that but the spirit of love?
圣灵使我们爱神，这种向神的爱显明我们是被神所收养的儿女的证据，从中我们也知晓我们确是他的儿女。所以，爱神可以且在事实上必须产生在确据之前，意识到我们对神的爱是我们确据的基础。爱“给了我们作为神的儿女与他联合的确切证据，也因此祛除了惧怕。”[15]
The
Spirit makes us love God, and this love to God provides evidence of our
adoption, from which we may infer that we are his children. So love to God can
and in fact must exist prior to assurance. Awareness of our own love to God is
the basis of our assurance. Love “gives us clear evidence of our union to God
as His children, and so casts out fear.”
3、得救确据源于爱神的自我意识
爱德华兹将确据建在我们爱神的自我意识（self-awareness）上，但这似乎不能为基督徒的确信提供稳定的根基。但在谈及人有能力感知自己爱神这点上，他作了强有力的陈述，让人觉得我们不可能无法感知对神的爱：
Edwards bases assurance on our self-awareness
of our love to God, which may seem an unstable foundation for Christian
assurance. But he makes very strong statements about our ability to perceive
our own love to God, seeming even to suggest that we cannot fail to perceive
it:
尽管洞见他（圣徒）与神的相对联合，在他的恩惠中，不是不需要中介；因为他是藉着中介——比如，他所生发的爱——来看见，但是感知他的心与神相联合却是即刻产生的。也就是，这种联结的爱本质上是自发的：圣徒看到，也感受到他的灵魂与神的相联，而这如此的生动和强烈，使他无法怀疑它。也正因此，他确信他是他的儿女。[16]
And
though the sight of his [the saint’s] relative union with God, and his being in
His favour, is not without a medium, because he sees it by that medium, viz.,
his love, yet his sight of the union of his
heart to God is immediate. Love, the bond of union, is seen intuitively:
the saint sees and feels plainly the union between his soul and God; it is so
strong and lively that he cannot doubt of it. And hence he is assured that he
is a child.
在下一部分，爱德华兹继续驳斥那些奥秘派人士，因为他们个人的得救确据不是基于“自我对神公正无偏的爱”之上，而是依据自我救赎的一种“突然印象”。爱德华兹现在反驳奥秘主义的一点是，他们因着即刻的确据而对神产生任何情感实乃属肉体的自爱。然而，爱德华兹的观点不仅只是针对奥秘派，还驳斥了改教家们的观点，即改革宗对神的爱的观点：相信神对我们的爱尤其是基督徒拥有基督徒恩典和爱神之心的根源。该部分的标题直接显明了爱德华兹的基本观点：“恩典情感的首要客观基础是‘神圣事物本身具有超凡脱俗的美好本质’，而不是‘人认为这些事物与自己有关或对自己有利’。”[17]爱德华兹认为，这才是“首要原因”，真圣徒也因此爱神和基督，并且认识到圣经是为着他们自身益处，“而不会生发于他已在一切福分之内，或者他已蒙受又或不久便将蒙受从中而来的任何益处的任何猜想。”[18]
In
the next section, Edwards continues to argue against the mystics whose personal
assurance is based not on an inference from their disinterested love to God,
but on a sudden impression of their own salvation. Edwards now argues against these mystics that any
affections towards God which arise from
immediate assurance are rooted in carnal self-love. Edwards’ point however does
not merely mitigate against the mystics, but also against the Reformation view
that a belief in God’s love to us in particular is the cause of all Christian
graces and love to God. The title of the section makes clear Edwards’ basic
point: “The primary ground of gracious affections is the transcendently
excellent and amiable nature of divine things as they are in themselves; and
not any conceived relation they bear to self, or self-interest.”62 Edwards
argues that “the primary reason” why the true saint loves God and Christ and
Scripture is for their own sake “and not any supposed interest that he has in
them, or any conceived benefit that he has received from them, or shall receive
from them.”
爱德华兹发出告诫说，一旦相信个人得救是对神的爱和情感的基石，爱便为虚假，确据便是欺骗。“此外，对神火热的情感可能、也往往出自那些认为享有神的恩惠和爱的人口中，也是他们爱他的首要根据”，但这仅仅是因为“自私狂傲的人会自然而然地称任何能加增其自我好处和满足的事物为可爱的。”[19]
Edwards
warns that only if a belief in one’s own salvation is the foundation of one’s
love and affections to God, that love is spurious and that assurance is
deceptive. “Again, a very high affection towards God may, and often does, arise
in men from an opinion of the favour and love of God to them, as the first
foundation of their love to him,” but this is only because “selfish proud man
naturally calls that lovely that greatly contributes to his interest, and
gratifies his ambition.”
但圣徒操练真实和圣洁的爱则是采取另一种方式。他们不是首先看到神爱他们，继而看到神是可爱的，而是首先看到神是可爱的，基督是超越和荣耀的，而他们的心为此所掳，爱慕也自此日渐练达；因着源自这些观点，他们也逐渐看到神的爱，和施与他们的伟大恩惠。圣徒对神的情感源自神，而自我生发的爱也因此是它的副产品，也是次要的。相反，虚假的情感则源于自我，认识到神的优越性，而由此而生的爱意则是结果和依附。真圣徒爱的不是神的好处，他们爱的乃是他本性的优越，这也是此后生发的所有情感的根基，而自爱则待之如侍女。相反，假冒伪善者故意将自己降为至卑，将自我立为根基，将神建造成上层架构，甚至认为神的荣耀取决于他对其私人利益的供给。[20]
But
the exercises of true and holy love in the saints arise in another way. They do
not first see that God loves them, and then see that He is lovely, but they
first see that God is lovely, and that Christ is excellent and glorious, and
their hearts are first captivated with this view, and the exercises of their
love are wont from time to time to begin here, and to arise primarily from
these views; and then, consequentially, they see God’s love, and great favour
to them. The saint’s affections begin with God; and self-love has a hand in
these affections consequentially and secondarily only. On the contrary, false
affections begin with self, and an acknowledgment of an excellency in God, and
an affectedness with it, is only consequential and dependent. In the love of
the true saint God is the lowest foundation; the love of the excellency of His nature is the foundation of all the
affections which come afterwards, wherein self-love is concerned as a handmaid:
but the hypocrite lays himself at the
bottom of all, as the first foundation,
and lays on God as the superstructure; and even his acknowledgement of
God’s glory itself depends on his regard
to his private interest.
四、结语
假如你仍未确定自己是否属于基督，加尔文和爱德华兹会给你什么建议呢？加尔文会说：“相信耶稣基督以及自他赎罪献祭而来的一切福分都是属于你的；相信他为你而死，你在罪中已死，而在耶稣基督里向神而活；相信神为着基督的缘故会像父爱子一样爱你，在与基督的联合中你已经是神所收养儿女。事实上，全地所有人都被命令来相信此真理，因为这是得救的信心。”如果你说：“但我仍没有属神儿女的证据，我言行举止不像他的儿女，我也不爱神。”加尔文会回答说：“也许你仍不是神的儿女，也许你事实上是恨他的，但即便你如今是地狱之子，你依旧应该相信，基督是你的。为着你的自由和释放，他已将自己献上，把自己赐给你，而领悟和接受他的方式是，相信他是属于你的，你也是属于他的。直到你相信你只有藉着耶稣基督才能与神和好，在此之前，你是永不会爱神，不会向他祷告，不会真实悔改自己的罪或敬畏神。”
约拿单·爱德华兹给你的建议会大不相同。“你没有权利相信你属于基督”，他会这样说，“直到你在自己身上发现对基督的爱和在他里面的救恩。如果你爱神仅是因为你认为他爱你，那么你的爱便为虚假。你应该集中崇敬神在他里面的本体和他藉着他的爱子在咒诅十架为拯救罪人所做的一切。当然，你仍没有任何权利相信基督唯独为你而死，因为你仍不知道自己是否已被拣选。但当你发现自己爱神是出于在他里面的本体，爱基督的工作是因为他内在的荣耀，而不是给你带来的任何好处，那么你就可以知道你的确是重生得救的信徒。你自此也可总结说，你真的属于基督，基督确实和单单地为你而死，你是神的儿女。”
当然了，在改教传统中的信心和得救观中，并不局限这两种选择，或许会有第三种、第四种、第五种或第六种方式。但无论是对于基督徒个人生活，还是对福音清晰的传讲及教会的健康来说，本文讲述的加尔文和爱德华兹的信心和得救观点的对比有着重要的意义。
作者简介：
拿单·萨瑟（Nathan Sasser）从宾夕法尼亚州费城威斯敏斯特神学院获得神学硕士，并从南卡罗来纳州大学获得哲学博士。他现在南卡罗来纳州的格林维尔市美国长老会教会教导主日学。
[1] 加尔文（作者）:《基督教要义》, 钱曜诚等译 ， 北京：生活 ·读书 ·新知三联书店 ， 2010年）。在援引时，用到的是“卷/章/节”的次序，比如，“3.2.7”表示“第3卷第3章第7节”，下同。——译者注
[2] 在其他地方，作者写道，“关于信心 ，最关键的是 ：我们不该将神怜悯的应许只运用在别人身上 ，而是从内心接受它们 ，使之成为自己的 ”（《要义》3.2.16）。
[3] “但因被弃绝之人不会确信神父亲般的爱 ，所以他们就不会如神的儿女回报他的爱 ，而是像雇工一样 。……显然 ，保罗的这话唯独指选民 ： “所赐给我们的圣灵将神的爱浇灌在我们心里 ” （罗 5:5 ），这爱产生以上所提到的信心 ，使圣徒求告神 （参阅加 4: 6）。”（《要义》3.2.12）类似的表述也可见于《要义》3.2.13和 3.2.41以及加尔文对罗马书5:5，8:15-16和加拉太书4:6的注释。
[4]
Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg
Catechism. Trans. G.W. Williard. Columbus, OH: 1851. Reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, n.d., p.308.
[5]
The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, pp.
110-111.
[6]
The Religious Affections，Carlisle, PA: Banner
of Truth Trust, 1961, p.106
[7]
Ibid.p.106.
[8]
Ibid.p.109.
[9]
Ibid.p.146ff.
[10]
Ibid.p.149-50.
[11]
Ibid.p.150.
[12]
Stoddard’s Guide to Christ, quoted in Religious Affections p.150.
[13]
The Parable of the Ten Virgins, 141, 224, quoted in Religious Affections p.150.
[14]
Religious Affections p.163.
[15] Ibid.p.164.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.p.165.
[18] Ibid.p.166.
[19]
Ibid.p.171.
[20]
Ibid.p.172.