神的主權與我們的責任God’s Sovereignty and OurResponsibility
作者：Derek Thomas 譯者/校對者: 楊忠道/誠之
神在創造、護理、救贖和審判中是握有主權的，這是基督教信仰，尤其是改革宗神學的核心主張。神是眾人的王、眾人的主。換一種說法：若沒有神的旨意，任何事情都不會發生；事情發生以前，神就定意其發生，而事情就照著神所定意的方式發生。這種說法，似乎在教義上是專屬於改革宗的說法，但是其核心所說的，與尼西亞信經沒有分別：「我信神、全能的父。」說神有至高主權，就是說祂在一切領域中都是全能的。
神在創造中有至高主權：「起初，神創造天地」（創一1）。離開了神，就是空無一物。然後開始有了一些東西：物質、空間、時間、能量，這些都是無到有的——從無中生出有。創造的旨意完全屬於神，施行創造也完全來自於祂。從形而上學來說，並沒有創造的「必要性」；創造是神自由的行動。
神在護理之中握有主權。傳統的有神論強調神是全能、全知、無所不在的。這裏的每個斷言都是神聖主權的不同表達。祂的能力、知識、同在，都確保祂的目標會完成，祂的計劃會完成，祂對萬事萬物的監督（至少對神而言）本質上是「零風險的」。
神的能力是絕對的（potestas absoluta），這意思並不是說神可以做任何事，而是說神的能力確保祂可以做到凡在邏輯上可能的事，只要祂願意去做。例如，「祂不能否定自己」（提後二13；新譯本；和合本作：祂不能背乎自己）。
有些人反對這個觀念：神在事情發生以前就知道所有的事。一些人強調，這樣的觀點剝奪了人類基本的自由。例如，「開放神論」者（Open theists），或主張自由意志的有神論者強調：未來（至少在特定細節上）在某種方式上是「敞開」的，即使神也不知道所有將要發生的事。祂好像是某個宇宙的撲克牌玩家，可以作出預測，但祂無法絕對地知道。開放神論者主張，這就解釋了為什麼神似乎會改變祂的心意（參見創六6~7；撒上十五11）：神正根據未知事件的新資訊調整祂的計畫。另一方面，改革宗神學強調沒有任何事的發生對神來說會是個意外，對我們來說是運氣或偶然，但對神來說卻是祂永恆諭旨的一部份。「籤拋在人的懷中，一切決斷卻在於耶和華」（箴十六33）。在聖經中，神改變祂心意的語言，都是對我們和我們說話方式的一種俯就，並不是對神的心意真實改變的描述。
神在救贖中有至高主權，這個事實解釋了為什麼我們要為我們的救恩感謝神，以及為我們靈魂失喪友人的救恩向祂禱告。如果拯救的能力取決於人的自由意志，真的是靠他們獨力自主的能力來拯救他們自己，為何我們要懇求神「賜生命」、「拯救」或「重生」他們呢？我們不斷感謝神拯救每個人的事實（無論我們承認與否），就意味著相信絕對的自由意志是立場前後不一致的。
神在審判中至高有主權，聖經中很少有經文會比羅馬書九章21節更加有份量地反映出神揀選與棄絕的主權：「陶匠難道沒有權用同一團的泥，又做貴重的、又做卑賤的器皿嗎？」從表面上看，這可能顯得不公平且霸道——好像神在用一朵花的花瓣玩某種復仇性的兒戲一樣：「他愛我、他不愛我；他愛我、他不愛我。」作為回應，有些人強調神有權作任何祂喜悅作的事，而挑祂的毛病不是我們的事——保羅早就提過這點（羅九20）。其他人所持的觀點是：如果神給我們的是我們應得的，我們都要被咒詛，所以揀選是仁慈的（不僅是主權的）行動。兩者都是正確的，但無論如何，我們的救恩彰顯了神的榮耀：「因為萬有都是本於祂，倚靠祂，歸於祂。願榮耀歸給祂，直到永遠。阿們」（羅十一36）。
人的責任
神主權的主張並非沒有進一步應當處理的問題。
第一，有傳福音的問題。如果神在一切護理的事上有至高主權，那麼人費勁傳福音與宣教有何意義？無論我們有沒有傳福音，神的旨意都必定會實現。但我們不敢這樣推想。除了神吩咐我們去傳福音的事實——「你們要去使萬民作我的門徒」（太廿八19）——之外，這種推想忽略了神透過人的管道和媒介來實現祂主權計畫的事實，聖經並不鼓勵我們被動和懶惰，保羅吩咐他的腓立比讀者「應當恐懼戰兢地作成自己的救恩。神為了成全自己的美意，就在你們裡面動工，使你們可以立志和行事」（腓二12~13）。
第二，有倫理學的問題。我們對我們的行為和表現要負責，我們在罪中應當責罰，在順服中應當得賞賜。
第三，有關公民力量和權柄，在統治者和政府的決定中間有神的主權問題。神興起人民政府，成為公平、良善、和平的制度，為了刑罰作惡的人，並嘉獎行善的人（羅十三3；彼前二14）。但違反政府本身原則的邪惡權勢和腐敗政權也是真實的，這些也在全能神的主權管轄之下。
第四，在邪惡的起源和持續存在的問題中，神的主權會遇到最尖銳的問題。神沒有阻止邪惡的存在，似乎在祂的全能或祂的仁慈上產生疑問。某些非基督教的宗教試著藉由假定邪惡是想像出來的（基督教科學會）或一種幻覺（印度教）來解決問題。奧古斯丁和許多中世紀思想家相信部分的奧秘可以藉由認定邪惡是良善的缺乏來解答，暗示邪惡是某種本身非實在的東西。邪惡是存有論的問題，改革宗在這個議題上是藉由西敏信條來總結的：
「從亙古到永遠，上帝以祂自己的旨意按著祂最智慧、最聖潔的計劃，自由地且永不改變地，預定一切將要發生的事。雖然上帝如此預定，但是祂絕非罪惡的創始者，也沒有迫使受造者逆反其意志；並且並未剝奪『第二因』的『自由運行』與『或然發生』，反倒得以確立。」（3.1）
神是一切事物的「第一因」，而邪惡是「第二因」的產物。用加爾文的話來說，「首先，必須指出，神的旨意是所有在這個世界中發生的事物的原因：然而神卻不是邪惡的作者」；又補充說，「近因是一回事，而遠因又是另一件事」。換句話說，神自己不能行惡，也不能因為邪惡而被指責，儘管邪惡是祂主權旨意的部份。
神是握有主權的，並且在祂的主權中，祂彰顯出祂顯赫的榮光。沒有神的主權，我們就無法存活，沒有拯救，也沒有盼望。唯獨歸榮耀給神（Soli Deo gloria）！
God’s Sovereignty and Our
Responsibility
FROM
Derek Thomas
God
is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. That is a
central assertion of Christian belief and especially in Reformed theology. God
is King and Lord of all. To put this another way: nothing happens without God’s
willing it to happen, willing it to happen before it happens, and willing it to
happen in the way that it happens. Put this way, it seems to say something that
is expressly Reformed in doctrine. But at its heart, it is saying nothing
different from the assertion of the Nicene Creed: “I believe in God, the Father
Almighty.” To say that God is sovereign is to express His almightiness in every
area.
God
is sovereign in creation. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth” (Gen. 1:1). Apart from God, there was nothing. And then there was
something: matter, space, time, energy. And these came into being ex nihilo—out
of nothing. The will to create was entirely God’s. The execution was entirely
His. There was no metaphysical “necessity” to create; it was a free action of
God.
God
is sovereign in providence. Traditional theism insists that God is omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnipresent—all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present.
Each assertion is a variant of divine sovereignty. His power, knowledge, and
presence ensure that His goals are met, that His designs are fulfilled, and
that His superintendence of all events is (to God, at least) essentially “risk
free.”
God’s
power is not absolute in the sense that God can do anything (potestas
absoluta); rather, God’s power ensures that He can do all that is logically
possible for Him to will to do. “He cannot deny himself,” for example (2 Tim.
2:13).
Some
people object to the idea that God knows all events in advance of their
happening. Such a view, some insist, deprives mankind of its essential freedom.
Open theists or free-will theists, for example, insist that the future (at
least in its specific details) is in some fashion “open.” Even God does not
know all that is to come. He may make predictions like some cosmic poker
player, but He cannot know absolutely. This explains, open theists suggest, why
God appears to change His mind: God is adjusting His plan based on the new
information of unforeseeable events (see Gen. 6:6–7; 1 Sam. 15:11). Reformed
theology, on the other hand, insists that no event happens that is a surprise
to God. To us it is luck or chance, but to God it is part of His decree. “The
lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov.
16:33). Language of God changing His mind in Scripture is an accommodation to
us and our way of speaking, not a description of a true change in God’s mind.
God
is sovereign in redemption, a fact that explains why we thank God for our
salvation and pray to Him for the salvation of our spiritually lost friends. If
the power to save lies in man’s free will, if it truly lies in their unaided
ability to save themselves, why would we implore God to “quicken,” “save,” or
“regenerate” them? The fact that we consistently thank God for the salvation of
individuals means (whether we admit it or not) that belief in absolute free
will is inconsistent.
God
is sovereign in judgment. Few passages of Scripture reflect the sovereignty of
God in election and reprobation with greater force than Romans 9:21: “Has the
potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for
honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” On the face of it, this might
appear unfair and arbitrary—as though God were playing some vindictive child’s
game with the petals of a flower: “He loves me; He loves me not. He loves me;
He loves me not.” In response, some people have insisted that God has the right
to do whatever He pleases and it is none of our business to find fault with
Him—a point that Paul himself anticipates (Rom. 9:20). Others have taken the
view that if God were to grant us what we deserve, we would all be damned.
Election is therefore a gracious (and not just a sovereign) act. Both are true.
But in any case, our salvation displays God’s glory: “For from him and through
him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36)
HUMAN
RESPONSIBILITY
The
assertion of divine sovereignty is not without further questions that should be
addressed.
First,
there is the question of evangelism. If God is sovereign in all matters of
providence, what is the point of exerting human effort in evangelism and
missions? God’s will is sure to be fulfilled whether we evangelize or not. But
we dare not reason this way. Apart from the fact that God commands us to
evange-lize—“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19)—such
reasoning ignores the fact that God fulfills His sovereign plan through human means
and instrumentality. Nowhere in the Bible are we encouraged to be passive and
inert. Paul commands his Philippian readers to “work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to
work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13).
Second,
there is the question of ethics. We are held responsible for our actions and
behavior. We are culpable in transgression and praiseworthy in obedience.
Third,
in relation to civic power and authority, there is the question of God’s
sovereignty in the determination of rulers and government. God has raised up
civil governments to be systems of equity and good and peace, for the
punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them who do well (Rom. 13:3; 1
Peter 2:14). But this is also true of evil powers and corrupt regimes that
violate the very principles of government itself; these are also under the
sovereign government of Almighty God.
Fourth,
in the question of both the origin and continued existence of evil, the
sovereignty of God meets its most acute problem. That God does not prevent evil
from existing seems to call into question His omnipotence or His benevolence.
Some non-Christian religions try to solve this problem by positing that evil is
imaginary (Christian Science) or an illusion (Hinduism). Augustine and many
medieval thinkers believed part of the mystery could be solved by identifying
evil as a privation of the good, suggesting that evil is something without
existence in and of itself. Evil is a matter of ontology (being). Reformed
thought on this issue is summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith:
God,
from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely, and unchangeably ordain what-soever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby
neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the
crea-tures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but
rather established. (3:1)
God
is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.”
In the words of John Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God
is the cause of all things that happen in the world: and yet God is not the
author of evil,” adding, “for the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote
cause another.” In other words, God Himself cannot do evil and cannot be blamed
for evil even though it is part of His sovereign decree.
God
is sovereign, and in His sovereignty He displays His majestic glory. With out
it, we would have no being, no salvation, and no hope. Soli Deo gloria.
This
post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.
