神学入门：堕落前拣选与堕落后拣选TheologicalPrimer: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism
作者：Kevin DeYoung 译者：诚之
我不时会尝试发布像这样的短文，作为系统神学中某些主题的简要入门。目标是清晰易懂；方法是简洁；不超过500字——从现在开始起算。
From
time to time I try to post brief articles like this one as a short primer on
some topic in systematic theology. The aim is clarity. The approach is brevity.
No more than 500 words—starting now.
我不知道神学词典中是否还有其他两个词会像「堕落前拣选」（supralapsarianism）和「堕落后拣选」（infralapsarianism）这样。它们听起来非常深奥而且是无可救药的精英主义者，就像他们可能会关心有多少天使可以在别针的头上跳舞，如果那个别针放在一块岩石上，上帝制造了如此沉重的东西，甚至他都无法抬起它。第一年的神学院学生喜欢把这些条款当作一个不那么微妙的提醒他们在神学院。当他们想要证明神学是多么不切实际的时候，某些类型的牧师会围绕这些词语进行折腾。 Parishoners听到这些话，只是畏缩。
I’m
not aware of any two words in the theological lexicon quite like
supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. They sound dreadfully esoteric and
hopelessly elitist, like they might be concerned with how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin if that pin were resting upon a rock which God made so
heavy not even he could lift it. First year seminary students love to throw out
the terms as a not so subtle reminder they are in seminary. Pastors of a
certain ilk toss around the words when they want to demonstrate how impractical
theology can be. Parishoners hear the words and just cringe.
那么这一切又是什么呢？
So
what is this all about?
改革宗神学家经常争论上帝谕旨某些事情发生的顺序。这个争论不是关于这些谕旨的时间顺序。毕竟，我们谈的是上帝在永恒的过去所作的决定。时间不是问题的关键。相反，这个辩论是关于谕旨的逻辑顺序。在上帝的心中，上帝作第一、第二、第三个决定是什么，以此类推？
Reformed
theologians have often argued about the order in which God decreed certain
things to happen. The debate is not over the temporal order of the decrees.
After all, we are talking about what God has determined in eternity past. Time
is not the issue. Instead, the debate is about the logical order of the
decrees. In the mind of God, which decisions did God make first, second, third,
and so on?
具体来说，在逻辑上哪个在先：是拣选/遗弃的谕旨在先，还是创造世界并允许堕落的谕旨在先？堕落前拣选论（Supralapsarianism）的supra，意思是：“在......之上”或“之前”，而lapsum的意思是“堕落”、这个立场认为。上帝拯救的谕旨，在逻辑上先于祂创造世界并允许堕落的谕旨（即：拣选创造堕落）。另一方面，堕落后拣选论（Infralapsarianism）坚持认为，上帝拯救的谕旨，在逻辑上是在祂创造与堕落的谕旨之后（infra的意思是“在下面”或 “在后面”）。（即：创造堕落拣选）。在改革宗神学中，这两个立场都得到了很好的证明，尽管堕落后拣选论会更为常见。
Specifically,
which is logically prior: the decree of election and reprobation, or the decree
to create the world and permit the fall? Supralapsarianism—supra meaning
“above” or “before” and lapsum meaning “fall”—is the position which holds that
God’s decree to save is logically prior to his decree to create the world and
permit the fall. Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, insists that God’s
decree to save is logically after his decrees related to creation and fall (infra
meaning “below” or “after”). Both positions are well attested in Reformed
theology, though infralapsarianism would be more common.
整个辩论似乎与我们完全无关，但在将这些术语视为愚蠢的神学院把戏之前，我们应该理解我们对谕旨秩序的理解可能会影响（或者反映）我们对上帝的理解。
The
whole debate may seem utterly irrelevant, but before dismissing the terms as a
silly seminary schtick, we should appreciate how our understanding of the order
of the decrees may influence (or perhaps reflect) our understanding of God.
堕落前拣选的立场强调上帝的高度主权。在双子（雅各、以扫）做好事或坏事之前，主就爱雅各并恨以扫（罗九11）。所以，堕落前拣选论者认为，上帝必然首先定意要预定某些人得永生、某些人得永死。然后祂定意要创造这个世界并且预定人堕落，以便使祂在拣选和遗弃上的荣耀可以得到实现。
The
supra position underscores the high sovereignty of God. Before the twins had
done anything good or bad, the Lord loved Jacob and hated Esau (Romans 9:11).
So, argues the supralapsarian, God must have first purposed to ordain some for
life and some for death. Then he purposed to create the word and ordain a fall
so that the glory in election and reprobation might be realized.
对比之下，堕落后拣选的立场突出了上帝的怜悯。堕落后拣选论认为，罗马书九章11节提到的只是关于功德的一个陈述 ——任何儿子都不比另一个儿子更值得救赎——而且与上帝的谕旨无关。此外，罗马书九章14节把拣选描述为上帝怜悯谁就怜悯谁。上帝拯救的谕旨必须遵循祂允许堕落的谕旨，否则怜悯怎能算是怜悯呢？
By
contrast, the infra position highlights the mercy of God. The reference in
Romans 9:11, infralapsarians argue, is simply a statement about merit—neither
son was more deserving of salvation than the other—and has nothing to do with
the decrees. Besides, Romans 9:14 describes election as God having mercy on
whom he will have mercy. God’s decree to save must follow his decree to permit
the fall, or how else would mercy be mercy?
最终，我肯定多特信经（第一项教义，第6、7条）中所教导的堕落后拣选论的立场。但我也同意那些提醒人不要在一个涉及到猜测的问题上过于教条化的人。这场辩论并非微不足道，但也不必为它赴汤蹈火。
In
the end, I affirm the infralapsarian position taught in the Canons of Dort
(First Head of Doctrine, Articles 6, 7). But I also agree with those who
caution against being overly dogmatic on a matter that involves some
speculation. The debate is not insignificant, but neither is it a hill to die
on.
