多特信經簡介The Synod of Dort
作者: W. Robert Godfrey 譯者: Maria Marta
加爾文主義有五要點嗎？ 這是愚蠢的問題嗎？ 不，問得好! 答案也許令人驚訝。答案既是肯定的，又是否定的。
是的，加爾文主義有五要點 ------毫無無疑。 我們有論述五要點的書。《桌上一席談》 (Table Talk) 雜志有論述五要點的文章。 我們甚至用郁金香(TULIP) 來記住這五要點：全面敗壞（total depravity）、無條件揀選（unconditional election）、限定的救贖（limited atonement）、不可抗拒的恩典（irresistible grace）、聖徒永蒙保守（perseverance of the saints）。
然而我們也可以說：「不，加爾文主義不是五要點」。這五點不是加爾文主義的總結。倘若你想要一份加爾文主義總結，你必須求助於它的偉大信仰告白等文獻，諸如比利時信條或西敏信仰告白。 這些信仰告白涵蓋多個主題，比五要點所涵蓋的要多得多。 加爾文主義遠不止五點。
那麽，「加爾文主義五要點」源自何處？ 現在提出這個問題尤其恰當，因為2018-19年是加爾文主義五要點四百周年紀念。 （如果你錯過了路德《九十五條論綱》五百周年的慶祝，這次紀念活動將為你提供繼續慶祝的內容。）這五要點實際上始於雅各布斯·阿民念 ( Jacobus
Arminius)死後，加爾文主義者對荷蘭阿民念主義者的回應，這一回應在多特會議（1618-19）上達到高峰。
荷蘭的改革宗教會在巨大的鬥爭中誕生。加爾文主義首批傳道人講法語，來自加爾文時代的日內瓦和法國。最初，那裏早期的改革宗教會經歷了嚴重的迫害。這些迫害加上其他的壓制行動引發了一場反抗西班牙國王菲利普的起義，菲利普國王當時也統治荷蘭。在巨大的沖突中，荷蘭與荷蘭改革宗教會幾乎同時誕生。低地諸國最終分裂成南北兩個部分，南部大致相當於現今的比利（仍然信奉羅馬天主教），和北部的荷蘭（主要是改革派）。北部的省份變成著名的「聯省共和國」。
改革宗教會吸引了大批普通民眾追隨，但不是大多數人口。追隨者中占主導地位的人主要來自支持聯省共和國的部分省份，他們支持改革宗教會，並宣布羅馬天主教會為非法。 改革宗教會緊緊遵循加爾文和新出現的加爾文主義者正統（Calvinist orthodoxy）的教導。 在希望教會自治與獨立於過多國家幹預的議案中，這些教會也遵循加爾文的指引。 然而，政府內許多人想嚴厲限制教會獨立，因為加爾文主義者有時變得過於嚴厲和過於要求嚴格。
盡管教會總體上相當正統和守規矩，但仍有些持異議者。 有些人在公場合是守規矩的，但另一些人似乎悄悄或私下提出異議。 在這些不外露的異議人士當中，阿民念是最著名的一個。
阿民念是一位聰明的學生，在泰奧多爾·貝紮(Theodore
Beza) 時代，在日內瓦學習過一段時間，加爾文的繼任者貝紮是日內瓦最著名的牧師。阿民念從日內瓦回來後，於1588年至1603年期間在阿姆斯特丹教會擔任改革宗牧師。1603年，他被任命為萊頓最著名的荷蘭大學的神學教授。 他在那裏執教六年，直到1609年去世。在作為牧師和教授的整個職業生涯中，他寫了幾本批判加爾文主義神學的著作，但他生前從未出版過這些著作。
盡管阿民念的著作從未出版，但他的教導的確影響了他的牧師同工和學生。在他1610年去世後，大約四十二位牧師簽署了一份請願書，要求政府對他們的觀點予以寬容和保護。 他們知道他們將因其觀點而受教會懲戒，因此他們呼籲國家保護他們免受教會懲戒。
這些阿民念主義者在他們的請願書或「抗辯文」（Remonstrance）中，以偏離加爾文主義神學的五個要點作總結，為此他們尋求寬容。 最初的五要點是阿民念主義者提出的五要點：有條件的揀選、無限定的救贖、嚴重的敗壞、可抗拒的恩典、對蒙保守不確定。
有關這份抗辯文的消息一傳出，加爾文主義者就作出敏銳與憤怒的回應。 他們開始堅持召開全國總會，目的是評估和判斷阿民念主義的五要點-----這是阿民念主義者或許多國家領導人最不希望看到的。 八年來，這些問題一直爭論不休，教會受到的壓力和困擾日益加深。
最後，在國家發生政變後，全國總會於1618年11月在多德雷赫特（Dordrecht）市召開。阿民念主義者抱怨，他們在這樣的總會上會受到不公平的審判，因此荷蘭政府邀請歐洲各地的改革宗教會選派代表前來出席。偉大的多特總會變成真正的國際性會議。代表們來自大不列顛、德國各地、講德語的瑞士、日內瓦。這次總會是歐洲許多擁有最睿智的改革宗頭腦的信徒的薈萃。這次總會大約有九十名教會代表出席，會議時間持續將近六個月。
總會工作的偉大成果被稱為多特信經。信經/正典（Canon）源自希臘字規則或準則（rule）。（譯註：早期基督教作家使用Canon一詞，作为使徒傳下來的核心教義的簡潔表述，有如後世的信經。）多特信經是多德雷赫特總會的準則，是改革宗對阿民念主義五要點的回應。
多特信經分為「五項教義」，對阿民念主義要點作出一一回應。 每項教義再分成數條，積極開展對該要點的改革宗立場的教導。 每項教義的結尾部分稱為「拒絕錯誤」，對阿民念主義的特定錯誤作出相應的回應。
按照阿民念主義五要點的順序，總會的第一項教義是論揀選。多特信經回應阿民念主義關於有條件揀選的教導。 有條件的揀選是指，假如某一類人符合上帝揀選的條件，上帝就會揀選這類人得生命。阿民念主義者強調信心是可預見的條件，目的是使人歸入選民之列。 在這種神學中，信心變成人必要的善行。
相反，多特信經教導揀選僅僅取決於上帝的喜悅。 信心是上帝賜給選民的禮物，而非揀選的基礎。 根據祂永恒的旨意，在救恩的每一個環節上，上帝都擁有至高的主權。
第二項教義是論基督在十架的拯救工作的範圍。阿民念主義者堅持認為基督為所有人的一切罪而死。 他們希望能夠對每一個人說：「基督為你們的一切罪而死」。我們必須要問的問題是，倘若基督為所有人的一切罪而死，所有人都得救嗎？ 不，阿民念說，因為你必須相信基督，才能分享祂死亡的益處。但正如約翰歐文在《基督之死吞滅死亡》的精彩論述：倘若不信是罪，那麽基督就為不信而死，倘若不信不是罪，那麽你就不能因不信而被定罪。 但阿民念主義的錯誤不僅僅在於教導一種毫無意義的神學。 其最大的錯誤在於它使基督成為可能性的救主，而不是一位完美的救主。
多特信經關於基督之死的立場通常被稱為有限的代贖的教導。多特信經主要不是論基督之死的有限性質，而是基督之死的果效。基督之死不是使救恩成為可能，而是使救恩成為現實。如比利時信條指出，基督不是半個救主。 雖然基督之死本質上有無限的價值，足以拯救全世界，但他的死的意圖是單單為選民的一切罪付上代價。 基督之死必定救贖選民。
總會將第三和第四個項教義合在一起，因為阿民念主義第三點似乎教導全面的敗壞，也就是說，人類在罪中完全失落與無助。 只有結合他們的第四點，才突顯他們對可抗拒恩典的教導實際上削弱了他們對全面敗壞的教導。
多特信經在回應中強調罪人完全失落與無助，因此選民死於罪惡的心靈要重生和重活過來，絕對需要不可抗拒的恩典。第三與第四項教義合起來，詳細檢查人類墮落的光景，以及恩典在上帝子民心中和生命中作工的方式。
第五項教義回應阿民念主義不確定那些因著恩典復蘇或重生的人，是否會蒙恩典保守，抑或從恩典和蒙得贖的生命中失落。多特信經堅定教導，上帝保守祂的選民處於恩典當中，所以他們必在恩典和信心中
蒙保守，直至最後。信經的所有這些教導旨在安慰和確保基督徒：「那在你們中間開始了美好工作的，到了基督耶穌的日子，必成全這工作。」（腓一6；《聖經新譯本》）。
對今天許多基督徒而言，多特信經的教導似乎是狹隘和無關緊要的。 在這個許多人完全拒絕基督，和基督徒在宣教和文化領域努力合作似乎是如此重要的世界，有些基督徒認為我們可以忽略或至少將這種神學關注邊緣化。 這種立場吸引了很多人。 但是，它是正確的嗎？多特信經宣揚以上帝為中心，以基督為中心的宗教，今天比十七世紀更需要這種宗教。上帝的主權和基督完美的救贖是我們唯一的盼望和信心。誠然，多特信經保存了宗教改革的精髓。 路德曾說，他寧願從上帝手中，而非自己的手中得到祂的救恩。 多特會議重申並澄清這一真理。確實，唯獨基督與唯獨恩典。 這些都是真正值得我們去慶祝的內容。
Dr.
W. Robert Godfrey is chairman of Ligonier Ministries and a Ligonier Ministries
teaching fellow. He is president emeritus and professor emeritus of church
history at Westminster Seminary California. He is author of several books,
including Reformation Sketches and Learning to Love the Psalms, and the
featured teacher for the Ligonier six-part teaching series A Survey of Church
History.
本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2018年六月號 。
The
Synod of Dort
by W.
Robert Godfrey
Does
Calvinism have five points? Is that a silly question? No. It is a good
question. And the answer may surprise. The answer is yes and no!
Yes,
Calvinism has five points—obviously. We have books on the five points.
Tabletalk has had articles on the five points. We even talk about TULIP as a
way of remembering the five points: total depravity, unconditional election,
limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.
And
yet we can say, “No, Calvinism does not have five points.” The five points are
not a summary of Calvinism. If you want a summary of Calvinism, you must turn
to one of its great confessional documents such as the Belgic Confession or the
Westminster Confession of Faith. Those confessions cover many more subjects
than those covered in the five points. Calvinism has many more points than
five.
So,
where did the “five points of Calvinism” come from? It is particularly
appropriate to ask that question now, because 2018–19 marks the four-hundredth
anniversary of the five points of Calvinism. (If you are missing the
celebrations of the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses,
this will give you something to go on celebrating.) The five points actually
originate as a Calvinist response to the Arminians in the Netherlands after the
death of Jacobus Arminius, a response that culminated in the Synod of Dort
(1618–19).
The
Reformed Church in the Netherlands had emerged in the midst of great struggles.
The first preachers of Calvinism there were French speaking, coming from Geneva
in Calvin’s time and from France. Initially, the early Reformed churches there
experienced significant persecution. Because of this persecution as well as
other tyrannical actions, a revolt began against King Philip of Spain, who also
ruled over the Netherlands. Both the Dutch state and the Dutch Reformed church
were born at about the same time in the midst of great conflict. The state of
the Low Countries was ultimately split in two, roughly corresponding to modern
Belgium in the south (remaining Roman Catholic) and the Netherlands in the
north (predominately Reformed). That northern country became a republic known
as the United Provinces.
The
Reformed church attracted a strong popular following, but not a majority of the
population. Its dominant position came in part from state support in the United
Provinces, which favored the Reformed church and outlawed the Roman Catholic
Church. The Reformed church very much followed the teachings of Calvin and the
emerging Calvinist orthodoxy. It also followed Calvin in wanting a measure of
self-government for the church, independent of too much state interference.
Many within the state government, however, wanted to keep strong limits on
church independence, because Calvinists sometimes became too strict and too
demanding.
While
the church as a whole was quite orthodox and disciplined, there were those who
dissented. Some were publicly disciplined, but others seem to have dissented
quietly or privately. The most famous of these quiet dissenters was Jacobus
Arminius.
Arminius
was a brilliant student, studying for a time in Geneva in the days of Theodore
Beza, Calvin’s successor as the most prominent minister there. Arminius
returned from Geneva to serve as a Reformed minister in the church of Amsterdam
from 1588 to 1603. In 1603, he was appointed to be a professor of theology at
the most distinguished Dutch university at Leiden. He served there just six
years until his death in 1609. Throughout his career as a pastor and professor,
he wrote several works critical of aspects of Calvinist theology, but he did
not publish any of them in his lifetime.
Although
he did not publish, Arminius did influence fellow ministers and students by his
teaching. After his death, in 1610, some forty-two ministers signed a petition
to the state asking for toleration and protection for their views. They knew
that their views would be disciplined in the churches and so appealed for the
state to protect them from ecclesiastical discipline.
These
Arminians in their petition, or “Remonstrance,” summarized their theological
deviations from Calvinism, for which they sought toleration, in five points.
The original five points were the five points of Arminianism: conditional
election, unlimited atonement, serious depravity, resistible grace, and
uncertainty about perseverance.
When
word leaked out about this Remonstrance, the Calvinists reacted sharply and
angrily. They began to insist on the calling of a national synod to evaluate
and judge the five points of the Arminians—the last thing the Arminians or many
leaders of the state wanted. For eight years, these issues were debated, and
the churches were increasingly stressed and troubled.
Finally,
after a coup d’etat in the state, the national synod was called to meet in the
city of Dordrecht in November 1618. The Arminians complained that they could
not receive a fair trial at such a synod, so the Dutch invited representatives
from Reformed churches throughout Europe to come as delegates. The great Synod
of Dort became a truly international synod. Delegates came from Great Britain,
various parts of Germany, German-speaking Switzerland, and Geneva. The synod
was a very distinguished gathering of many of the best Reformed minds in
Europe. The synod had about ninety ecclesiastical delegates and met for nearly
six months.
The
great result of the work of the synod is known as the Canons of Dort. Canon is
from a Greek word for a rule. The Canons of Dort are the rules of the Synod of
Dordrecht, giving the Reformed answer to the five points of Arminianism.
The
Canons of Dort are divided into “Heads of Doctrine,” answering the Arminian
points. Each of the heads is divided into several articles, positively
developing the Reformed teaching on that point. And at the end of each head is
a section called the “Rejection of Errors,” answering specific Arminian errors.
Following
the order of the Arminian five points, the Synod’s first head of doctrine was
on election. The canons answered the Arminian teaching of conditional election.
Conditional election means that God elects a category of people to life if they
meet His chosen qualification. The Arminians stressed that faith is the
foreseen qualification in order to be numbered among the elect. In this
theology, faith is turned into the one good work required of man.
In
contrast, the canons teach that election depends only on the good pleasure of
God. Faith is the gift of God given to those who are elect, not the foundation
of election. God is sovereign in every part of salvation according to His
eternal purpose.
The
second head of doctrine was on the extent of Christ’s saving work on the cross.
The Arminians insisted that Christ had died for all of the sins of all people.
They wanted to be able to say to everyone, “Christ died for all your sins.” The
question that must be asked is, If Christ died for all the sins of all persons,
are all saved? No, the Arminians say, because you have to believe in Christ to
share in the benefits of His death. But, as John Owen showed so brilliantly in
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, if unbelief is a sin, then Christ
died for it, and if unbelief is not a sin, then you cannot be condemned for it.
But the Arminian error is more than teaching a theology that does not make
sense. The greatest error is that it makes Christ a potential Savior rather
than a complete one.
The
position of the canons on the death of Christ has often been characterized as
teaching a limited atonement. The canons were not primarily on the limited
nature of Christ’s death but on the effectiveness of it. Christ did not die to
make salvation possible but to make it actual. As the Belgic Confession put it,
Christ is not half a Savior. While the value of the death of Christ is
inherently infinite and so sufficient to save the whole world, His intention in
dying was to pay for all the sins of the elect alone. The death of Christ will
certainly save the elect.
The
synod combined the third and fourth heads of doctrine because the Arminians’
third point seemed to teach total depravity, which is to say, the complete
helplessness of mankind lost in sin. Only in combination with their fourth
point does it become clear that their teaching of the resistibility of grace
actually undermines their contention of total depravity.
The
canons in response stress the complete lostness and helplessness of sinners and
so the absolute necessity of irresistible grace to renew and enliven the hearts
of the elect dead in sin. Taken together, the third and fourth heads of
doctrine examine carefully the fallen human condition and the ways in which
grace works in the hearts and lives of God’s people.
The
fifth head of doctrine responds to Arminian uncertainty as to whether those
enlivened or regenerated by grace will certainly persevere in grace or may fall
away from grace and life. The canons strongly teach that God preserves His
elect in grace so that they will persevere in grace and faith to the end. All
of these teachings of the canons are intended to comfort and reassure
Christians “that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at
the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).
For
many Christians today, the teachings of the Canons of Dort seem narrow and
irrelevant. In a world where many reject Christ altogether and where Christian
cooperation in missions and cultural endeavors seems so important, some
Christians think that we can ignore or at least marginalize such theological
concerns. Such a position appeals to many. But is it right? The Canons of Dort
proclaim a God-centered, Christ-centered religion that is more needed today
than in the seventeenth century. God’s sovereignty and Christ’s perfect
atonement are our only hope and confidence. Truly, the Synod of Dort preserved
the Reformation. Luther had said that he would rather have his salvation in
God’s hands than in his own. Dort reiterated and clarified that truth. Christ
alone and grace alone indeed. Here is something truly to celebrate.
