多特的因由The Reason for Dort

作者: W. Robert Godfrey   譯者: Maria Marta  

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/01/the-reason-for-dort/

猶大在他的書信中教導，使徒已將信仰交給教會，歷代以來，教會都必須一次又一次地捍衛這一信仰(猶3)。保羅反對律法主義者，亞他那修（Athanasius）反對亞流（Arius），奧古斯丁（Augustine）反對伯拉糾（Pelagius），馬丁·路德（Martin Luther）反對伊拉斯謨（Erasmus）等等，這些都是歷史上基督徒如何竭力維護使徒信仰的典範。宗教改革之後，使徒信仰面臨的最大挑戰之一來自荷蘭改革宗教會的一位牧師兼教授雅各布·阿米念（Jacobus Arminius）及其追隨者。

阿米念 (1559-1609) 童年時在荷蘭反抗西班牙的戰爭中失去父親。在改革宗教會的慷慨解囊下，他在萊頓(Leiden)的新建大學接受教育，之後在日內瓦和巴塞爾繼續深造。當時，約翰·加爾文的繼任者西奧多·貝紮是日內瓦著名的神學家，也是加爾文教義的偉大擁護者。阿米念是一個聰明好學, 才華橫溢的學生。畢業後，阿米念帶著貝紮的推薦信回到荷蘭，在阿姆斯特丹被按立為牧師。從1588年到1603年，他一直在那裏擔任牧師。1603年，他與另外兩位教授被任命為他母校萊頓大學的神學教授。他在那裏工作直到1609年去世。

雖然阿米念在日內瓦和阿姆斯特丹遇到一些爭議，但沒有給他帶來持續的麻煩。但在萊頓早年，他的教義令人深感擔憂。這些擔憂很難評估，因為阿米念生前從沒發表過任何著作。他死後才發現他留下大量作品——足夠填滿三卷巨著——但非同尋常的是，這些作品沒有發表。阿米念在世時，對他的神學評判是根據學生的報告，他的同事教授和牧師對他越來越擔憂。最後於1608年，他被要求寫出他的觀點——他的情感宣言（Declaration of Sentiments）——供監督這所大學的政府官員評估。這份宣言表明他反對加爾文主義的揀選教義。對阿米念作品的最新研究得出結論，認為他的動機與其說是聲稱在救恩上人有自由或可與恩典合作，不如說是捍衛上帝的良善，反對任何認為上帝是暴君或罪惡制造者的說法。

在他去世後的幾年，那些聲稱追隨他的人在神學上變得更加激進。他們日益采納我們所認為的「阿米念派」或「半伯拉糾派」的觀點，此觀點教導罪對人的能力的影響是有限的，人有一定尺度的自由，以致人能夠與救恩合作，或抗拒救恩。1610年，他們在一份稱為抗辯書的文件中對自己的觀點作出總結。總結有五個要點: 有條件的揀選，普世的代贖，全面的敗壞，可抗拒的恩典，和聖徒蒙保守的不確定性。

  

從阿米念去世到多特總會召開期間的一大特點, 就是教會內部的神學爭議和分歧日益加劇。荷蘭社會承受巨大的壓力，內戰一觸即發。只有更疊政府，和在港口城市多德萊希特召開荷蘭改革宗教會全國性會議，才阻止了這場戰爭。

荷蘭加爾文主義者認為總會不應僅僅是一個全國性的會議。因此他們邀請歐洲大多數改革宗教會的代表出席，並且成為總會的正式投票成員。結果是﹐改革宗教會舉行有史以來規模最大、範圍最廣的集會。(為免我的長老會朋友們覺得我在輕視威斯敏斯特總會，請讓我提醒他們，嚴格地說，此次議會不是教會集會，而是一群神學家為英國國會出謀獻策的集會。

多特總會的工作既仔細又徹底。會議從1618年11月中旬持續到1619年5月下旬，先是聽取阿米念派的意見，在他們不合作的時候，再閱讀他們的著作。這次總會最大的成果是醞釀著名的多特信經。多特信經或裁決回應了亞米念主義的五要點。嚴格地說，加爾文主義並非只有五要點;  相反，它有許多要點，你可以在比利時或威斯敏斯特信仰告白中找到。針對阿米念主義的五個錯誤，加爾文主義有五個答案。多特信經逐點回應阿米念派1610年提出的總結。信經的第一個教義標題 (或分章)是無條件的揀選。第二個教義標題是有限的贖罪。信經第三和第四個教義標題合並，表明只有教導不可抗拒的恩典之必要性，才能堅稱人全面的敗壞。第五個教義標題教導因著上帝恩典的保守，聖徒才蒙保守到底。

每項教義標題都分為若幹條正面條文，和拒絕特定的阿民念主義錯誤的條文。關於「如何寫這些條文」最重要的決定，就是決定這些條文的適用對象是教會人員而非大學教授。總會計劃讓所有教會成員都能清楚明白這份信經。多年來糾纏著一個問題：信經的英文版保留了在拉丁文中表達清晰，在英文中卻表達含糊的長句。但即使讀者一條一條閱讀較早期的英譯本，也能清楚了解它們的意思。

總會也希望顯示改革宗信仰的大公性（/普遍 catholicity），並否定阿米念對「改革宗教會在傳授宗教新奇事」這項指責。因此，所有教義標題都以一段羅馬天主教、路德宗、改革宗都一致認同的大公聲明作開始。從首條大公條文到接下來更多的條文都表明，完備的改革宗教學乃遵循大公教會之根基。

在首個教義標題 (論無條件揀選的) 的第六條可以感受到信經某些特征：

「有些人蒙神思典得以相信，有些人則否，這都是出於神的永旨（eternal decree)。『這話是從創世以來顯明這事的主說的』（徒十五18），『這原是那位隨己意行做萬事的，照著他旨意所預定的』（弗一11）。神所揀選的人無論怎樣固執，神都按照這個永旨，以恩典軟化他們的心，使他們願意相信；至於神所沒有揀選的人，神就按照衪的公義，決定任憑他們存邪僻頑梗的心。我們從這件事可以特別看出神深奧、憐憫，同時又公義的本性，因為神對同樣陷入滅亡絕境的人，卻用不同的方式對待他們，這就是聖經啟示的『神揀選與遺棄（reptobation)的元旨』。悖論、不潔與不堅固的人雖然強解這元旨（decree) 就自取沈淪，但聖潔敬虔的人卻從這元旨得到無比的安慰。」

此條文以典型的方式清晰闡述首條教義，顯示它的聖經出處，並堅持認為上帝的主權和拯救的目的給上帝子民帶來安慰。

總會也做了其他重要的工作，為未來幾個世紀荷蘭改革宗教會的生活和健康作準備。總會還任命一個委員會，為新的聖經荷蘭語譯本進行準備工作。這本譯本在荷蘭語世界的地位和影響力，如同欽定版在英語世界的地位和影響力。這個版本聖經支撐著荷蘭基督徒的虔誠和生活，直到20世紀。

因為發現比利時信條較早的版本略有不同，所以總會也重申教會對比利時信條的認可，並確定它的正式文本。總會被要求寫一份新的，所有歐洲改革宗教會都會接受的信仰告白。會議的結論是，它沒有時間進行這項任務，但它批準比利時信條為所有改革宗一致認同的信仰告白。

會議也正式通過一項教會法規，為今後幾個世紀的荷蘭教會提供了議事/程序規則。教會法規描述了牧師、長老、執事的工作，和會眾的事奉和崇拜守則，也擬定了本地教會議會 (Consistory，即長老會的session ) 、區域性議會(Classis，即長老會的Presbytery )  、總議會( synod，即長老會的General Assembly )   的工作。

總會還被要求就安息日教義作出明確聲明。再一次，總會沒有時間進行決定性的研究，但它確實準備了一份簡短聲明，以幫助教會和基督徒。畢竟，安息日不僅僅是教會的教導，也是教會虔誠和生活重要的組成部分。總會呼籲在主日安息和敬拜。在聲明範圍外，當被問及如果傳統晚禱出席人數很少，該如何處理時，總會建議，即使只有牧師的家人出席，也應舉行晚禱。隨著時間的推移，荷蘭改革宗教會變得謹慎的遵守基督教的安息日，這兩項事奉對培育虔誠且受過良好教育的平信徒有極大幫助。

多特會議的卓越工作，四百年後仍值得慶祝。會議保存了聖經關於救恩的真正教導，也以其他方式供應了教會福祉生活所需。多特會議打了一場猶大對基督徒所吩咐的美好的仗。這場戰鬥確實導致教會分裂。一小部分人離開，成立抗辯派兄弟會(Remonstrantse Broederschop)。但正如猶大書所明確指出的，這樣的分裂錯不在於正統派，而在於那些反對真理的人  (猶19)。多特會議的偉大成就在於它保存、教導、捍衛了我們的信仰，即「我們同得的救恩」(第3節)。

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow and president emeritus and professor emeritus of church history at Westminster Seminary California. He is also the featured teacher for the six-part Ligonier teaching series A Survey of Church History and author of several books, including Saving the Reformation.

The Reason for Dort

by W. Robert Godfrey

Jude in his epistle teaches that while the faith was given to the church by the Apostles, the church through the ages will have to defend that faith over and over again (Jude 3). Paul opposed the legalists, Athanasius opposed Arius, Augustine opposed Pelagius, and Martin Luther opposed Erasmus. These are a few examples of how Christians have contended for the Apostolic faith in history. After the Reformation, one of the greatest challenges to the Apostolic faith arose within the Dutch Reformed Church from a minister and professor named Jacobus Arminius and from his followers.

Arminius (1559–1609) as a boy lost his father in the Dutch revolt against Spain. He was educated through the generosity of the Reformed churches at the new university in Leiden and then continued his studies at Geneva and Basel. At Geneva, Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor, was the leading theologian and a great champion of Calvinist teaching. Arminius showed himself to be a bright and clever student. With letters of recommendation from Beza, Arminius returned to the Netherlands and was ordained to the ministry in Amsterdam. He served there as a pastor from 1588 until 1603, when he was appointed to teach theology with two other professors at his alma mater, Leiden. He served there until his death in 1609.

While Arminius experienced some controversy in Geneva and in Amsterdam, no lasting trouble followed him. But concerns about his doctrine grew during his early years in Leiden. These concerns were difficult to evaluate because Arminius published nothing in his lifetime. After his death, a number of writings were found—enough to fill three sizable volumes—but, very unusually for the time, he had not published them. During his life, his theology was judged on the reports of students, and his fellow professors and ministers became more and more concerned. Finally, in 1608, he was required to write out his views—his Declaration of Sentiments—for evaluation by the civil government, which supervised the university. This declaration showed his rejection of a Calvinist doctrine of election. Recent studies of his work have concluded that he was motivated not so much by a desire to assert some human freedom or cooperation in salvation as by a desire to defend the goodness of God against any suggestion that God is a tyrant or the author of sin.

In the years after his death, those who claimed to follow him became more radical in their theologies. They increasingly adopted the views that we think of as “Arminian” or “semi-Pelagian,” teaching a limited effect of sin on human abilities and a measure of human freedom so that man is able to cooperate with or to resist saving grace. They summarized their views in a document that became known as the Remonstrance of 1610. That summary had five points: conditional election, universal atonement, complete depravity, resistible grace, and uncertainty about the perseverance of the saints.

The years from the death of Arminius to the meeting of the Synod of Dort were characterized by growing theological controversy and divisions in the church. The stress on Dutch society became so great that civil war became a real possibility. Only the change of the civil government and the call of the national synod of the Dutch Reformed Church to meet in the port city of Dordrecht prevented that war.

The Dutch Calvinists decided that the synod should be more than simply a national synod. They invited representatives from most of the Reformed churches of Europe to attend and to be full voting members of the synod. The result was the greatest and most ecumenical gathering of Reformed churches ever held. (Lest my Presbyterian friends feel that I am slighting the Westminster Assembly, let me remind them that that assembly was not properly a church gathering but a gathering of theologians to advise the English Parliament.)

The Synod of Dort did its work carefully and thoroughly. It met from mid-November 1618 until late May 1619, first hearing the Arminians and then, when they were uncooperative, reading their writings. The greatest accomplishment of the synod was the preparation of what are known as the Canons of Dort. These canons or rulings of Dort respond to the five points of Arminianism. Strictly speaking, Calvinism does not have only five points; rather, it has the many points that one finds in the Belgic Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Calvinism has five answers to the five errors of Arminianism. The canons respond point by point to the Arminian summary presented in 1610. The synod’s first head (or chapter) is on unconditional election. The second head is on limited atonement. The synod combines the third and fourth heads to show that total depravity is maintained only when the necessity of irresistible grace is taught. The fifth head teaches the perseverance of the saints because of the preserving grace of God.

Each head of doctrine is divided into several positive articles and rejections of specific Arminian errors. The most important decision about how to write these articles was the decision to write them for the people in the churches rather than for professors in the universities. The synod intended its canons to be clear and understandable for all the members of the church. Over the years, one of the problems has been that translations of the canons into English have kept the long sentences that work in Latin but are not clear in English. Even in the older English translations, however, when the reader moves from clause to clause, the meaning is clear.

The synod also wanted to show the catholicity of Reformed Christianity, denying the Arminian charge that the Reformed churches were teaching sectarian novelties. Therefore, each head of doctrine begins with a catholic statement with which Roman Catholics and Lutherans as well as the Reformed would agree. From that initial catholic article, further articles show that the fullness of Reformed teaching follows properly from catholic foundations.

Something of the character of the canons can be experienced in the first head of doctrine (on unconditional election), article 6:

The reality that some people are given faith by God in time, while others are not given faith, proceeds from God’s eternal decree. “He knows all His works from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). According to this decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard, and inclines them to believe. He also leaves the nonelect according to His just judgment in their wickedness and hardness of heart. This decree most powerfully shows us God’s profound, merciful, yet also just distinction among people equally lost. This decree of election and reprobation is revealed in the Word of God. And although the perverse, impure, and unstable twist it to their own destruction, it gives inexpressible comfort to holy and pious souls. (author’s translation)

In an exemplary way, this article states the doctrine clearly, shows its origin in the Bible, and insists on the comfort that a confidence in the sovereign, saving purpose of God brings to the people of God.

The synod also did other important work that provided for the life and health of the Dutch Reformed Church for centuries to come. The synod appointed a committee to prepare a new Dutch translation of the Bible. This Bible would have the same status and influence in the Dutch-speaking world that the King James Version of the Bible would have in the English-speaking world. This Bible would support the piety and life of Dutch Christians well into the twentieth century.

The synod also reiterated the church’s commitment to the Belgic Confession and established the official text of the confession, since slight variations were found in earlier publications. The synod had been asked to write a new confession of faith that all the Reformed churches of Europe would accept. The synod concluded that it did not have time for such an undertaking, but it did approve the Belgic Confession as an agreeable confession to all the Reformed.

The synod also adopted a church order that provided the rules of procedure for the Dutch churches for centuries to come. The church order described the work of ministers, elders, and deacons as well as the ministry and worship of congregations. It also laid out the work of local consistories (similar to sessions) as well as the work of the broader assemblies of the classes (similar to presbyteries) and synods.

The synod was also asked to make a definitive statement on the doctrine of the Sabbath. The synod again did not have time for a definitive study, but it did prepare a brief statement to help the churches and Christians. The Sabbath, after all, is not just a teaching of the churches but is a crucial part of the piety and life of the churches. The synod called for rest and worship on the Lord’s Day. Beyond its statement, when asked what to do with the traditional evening service if it was poorly attended, the synod advised that the evening service should be held even if only the minster’s family were in attendance. In time, the Dutch Reformed churches became careful in observing the Christian Sabbath, and the two services helped greatly in producing a devout and well-educated laity.

The Synod of Dort did outstanding work that is well worth celebrating four hundred years later. It preserved the true teaching of the Bible on salvation and provided in other ways as well for the well-being of the life of the church. The synod fought the good fight to which Jude calls Christians. The fight did lead to a fracture in the church. A small minority left to form the Remonstrant Brotherhood. But as Jude makes clear, such a division is not the fault of the orthodox but the fault of those who oppose the truth (Jude 19). The great accomplishment of the synod was that it kept, taught, and defended our faith, “our common salvation” (v. 3).