作者: Michael S. Horton 译者: Duncan Liang
西塞罗这样评论他当时的文明，就是人们为他们所得物质的丰富感谢诸神，但从来不会为他们的德行感谢他们的神，因为这是他们自己的作为。普林斯顿神学院神学家华菲德（B. B. Warfield） 认为伯拉纠主义是“对异教徒世界观的平反”，他用他特有的清晰得出结论说，“基本上只有两种关于拯救的教导：拯救出于神，还有就是拯救出于我们自己。前者是一般基督教的教义；后者是全世界异教的教义。”1 Cicero observed
of his own civilization that people thank the gods for their material
prosperity, but never for their virtue, for this is their own doing. Princeton
theologian B. B. Warfield considered Pelagianism "the rehabilitation of
that heathen view of the world," and concluded with characteristic
clarity, "There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that
salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the
doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal
heathenism."[1]
但是华菲德强烈的批评是和自从伯拉纠（Pelagius） 和他的门徒大力提倡这种异端以来教会的见证相一致的。公元四世纪拉丁教父耶柔米（St. Jerome）把它称之为“毕达哥拉斯和芝诺的异端”，是和根基建立在人类本身有能力自救这个基本信念之上的普遍的异教主义一样的。那么到底什么是伯拉纠主义，它是怎样兴起的？But Warfield's
sharp criticisms are consistent with the witness of the church ever since
Pelagius and his disciples championed the heresy. St. Jerome, the fourth
century Latin father, called it "the heresy of Pythagoras and Zeno,"
as in general paganism rested on the fundamental conviction that human beings have
it within their power to save themselves. What, then, was Pelagianism and how
did it get started?
首先，这种异端起源自人类的第一对夫妇，我们很快就要说明这一点。它实际上是在第五世纪，一位英国的僧侣去到罗马时被人定义，被贴上这个名称标签的。 当时伯拉纠立刻就深深注意到罗马这个基督教中心道德是多么沦丧，于是他著手去改变平信徒和教职人员的道德。这场道德运动需要极大的精力，伯拉纠发现有很多支持，认可他这场运动的人。唯一看起来在拦住他的是那位极富影响力的北非主教奥古斯丁特别强调的教训。奥古斯丁教导说人类因为是生于原罪当中，是不能自救的。离开神的恩典，一个人是不可能去听从神的命令，甚至是不能去寻求神的。亚当代表全人类犯罪得罪神，这导致在他之后每一个人的全然败坏，所以连我们的意志都是受我们有罪的光景捆绑。人得拯救，只能归功于神按他喜悦无条件加在他选民身上的恩典。First, this heresy
originated with the first human couple, as we shall see soon. It was actually
defined and labeled in the fifth century, when a British monk came to Rome.
Immediately, Pelagius was deeply impressed with the immorality of this center
of Christendom, and he set out to reform the morals of clergy and laity alike.
This moral campaign required a great deal of energy and Pelagius found many
supporters and admirers for his cause. The only thing that seemed to stand in
his way was the emphasis that emanated particularly from the influential
African bishop, Augustine. Augustine taught that human beings, because they are
born in original sin, are incapable of saving themselves. Apart from God's
grace, it is impossible for a person to obey or even to seek God. Representing
the entire race, Adam sinned against God. This resulted in the total corruption
of every human being since, so that our very wills are in bondage to our sinful
condition. Only God's grace, which he bestows freely as he pleases upon his
elect, is credited with the salvation of human beings.
与之形成强烈对比的是，伯拉纠是被对道德的关切所驱动，他的神学目的是为道德和社会改良提供最大的动力支持。奥古斯丁对人无能为力以及神恩典的强调，必然会令改良道德的追求瘫痪下来，因为人就会犯罪而不怕惩罚，宿命地得出结论，“我是被迫的，我是一个罪人。”所以伯拉纠拒绝原罪的说法，以此加以反击。按照伯拉纠的主张，亚当仅仅是一个坏榜样，不是我们有罪光景的源头 – 因为我们犯罪，所以我们是罪人 – 而不是反过来。当然相应地，耶稣基督这末后的亚当，就是一位好榜样。得救主要就是跟从基督，不跟从亚当；而不是从亚当族类的定罪和败坏中被迁移出来，被放在“基督里”，披戴他的义，被他的恩赐改变活过来。男男女女需要的是道德的方向，而非新生；所以伯拉纠用纯自然主义的角度看待得救，就是通过学习基督的榜样，人性进步，离开罪的表现，进入圣洁的表现。In sharp contrast,
Pelagius was driven by moral concerns and his theology was calculated to
provide the most fuel for moral and social improvement. Augustine's emphasis on
human helplessness and divine grace would surely paralyze the pursuit of moral
improvement, since people could sin with impunity, fatalistically concluding,
"I couldn't help it; I'm a sinner." So Pelagius countered by
rejecting original sin. According to Pelagius, Adam was merely a bad example,
not the father of our sinful condition-we are sinners because we sin-rather
than vice versa. Consequently, of course, the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, was a
good example. Salvation is a matter chiefly of following Christ instead of
Adam, rather than being transferred from the condemnation and corruption of
Adam's race and placed "in Christ," clothed in his righteousness and
made alive by his gracious gift. What men and women need is moral direction,
not a new birth; therefore, Pelagius saw salvation in purely naturalistic
terms-the progress of human nature from sinful behavior to holy behavior, by
following the example of Christ.
伯拉纠在他所写的罗马书注释中认为，恩典就是神在旧约和新约里的启示，给我们在圣洁方面提供明确的教训，以及许多加以效法的极好榜样，以此光照我们，目的是促进我们的圣洁。所以人性不是在罪中形成的，意志根本不受有罪光景及其喜好的捆绑；选择决定了一个人是否服从神，因而是否得救。In his Commentary
on Romans, Pelagius thought of grace as God's revelation in the Old and New
Testaments, which enlightens us and serves to promote our holiness by providing
explicit instruction in godliness and many worthy examples to imitate. So human
nature is not conceived in sin. After all, the will is not bound by the sinful
condition and its affections; choices determine whether one will obey God, and
thus be saved.
公元411年，米兰的保利努列举了伯拉纠信息当中的六个异端要点： (1) 亚当受造是要死的，不管犯罪与否他都会死； (2) 亚当的罪只伤害到他自己，而没有伤害到全人类；(3) 新生婴孩和亚当堕落之前的光景是一样的； (4) 人类不因为亚当的死和罪而死，也不因为基督的复活而复活；(5) 律法和福音一样提供了进入天国的入口；(6)甚至在基督来之前，已经有人是完全无罪的。2 另外，伯拉纠和他的跟从者还否认无条件的预定。In 411, Paulinus of Milan came
up with a list of six heretical points in the Pelagian message. (1) Adam was
created mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or not; (2) the sin of
Adam injured himself alone, not the whole human race; (3) newborn children are
in the same state in which Adam was before his fall; (4) neither by the death
and sin of Adam does the whole human race die, nor will it rise because of the
resurrection of Christ; (5) the law as well as the gospel offers entrance to
the Kingdom of Heaven; and (6) even before the coming of Christ, there were men
wholly without sin. [2] Further, Pelagius and his followers denied
unconditional predestination.
值得注意的是，在历史上伯拉纠主义比任何其他异端受到更多教会会议的谴责。在 412年，伯拉纠的学生在迦太基会议上被逐出教会；迦太基和米利域大公会议谴责了伯拉纠所著的《论意志的自由》；教皇英诺森一世把伯拉纠和色勒斯丢都逐出了教会，教皇佐息末也是如此。东罗马帝国皇帝狄奥多西二世 在公元430年也把伯拉纠主义者从东帝国驱赶出去，这种异端被431年召开的以弗所会议和529年召开的第二次奥兰治会议反复定罪。事实上，奥兰治会议甚至也谴责了半伯拉纠主义，半伯拉纠主义认为恩典是必要的，但是人的意志原本上是自由的，可以选择是否与神所赐下的恩典配合。奥兰治会议甚至谴责了那些认为人可以通过作一种祷告而得救的人，相反（用极多的圣经参考经文）确立了神一定要唤醒罪人，赐下信心的恩赐，然后人才能寻求神。It is worth noting
that Pelagianism was condemned by more church councils than any other heresy in
history. In 412, Pelagius's disciple Coelestius was excommunicated at the Synod
of Carthage; the Councils of Carthage and Milevis condemned Pelagius' De libero
arbitrio--On the Freedom of the Will; Pope Innocent I excommunicated both
Pelagius and Coelestius, as did Pope Zosimus. Eastern emperor Theodosius II
banished the Pelagians from the East as well in AD 430. The heresy was
repeatedly condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Second Council of
Orange in 529. In fact, the Council of Orange condemned even Semi-Pelagianism,
which maintains that grace is necessary, but that the will is free by nature to
choose whether to cooperate with the grace offered. The Council of Orange even
condemned those who thought that salvation could be conferred by the saying of
a prayer, affirming instead (with abundant biblical references) that God must
awaken the sinner and grant the gift of faith before a person can even seek
God.
任何不承认原罪，意志的捆绑，连接受永生的恩赐也需要恩典，更不用说追求义了的思想，都被全教会视为异端。这里所描述的异端就是“伯拉纠主义”。Anything that falls
short of acknowledging original sin, the bondage of the will, and the need for
grace to even accept the gift of eternal life, much less to pursue
righteousness, is considered by the whole church to be heresy. The heresy
described here is called "Pelagianism."
圣经中的伯拉纠主义Pelagianism in the Bible
该隐杀了亚伯，因为该隐想用他自己的祭物献给神。希伯来书的作者告诉我们，亚伯献祭是在盼望那最终的祭物，就是神的羔羊，他这样做是凭著信心，而不是靠行为（来11）。然而该隐追求靠他自己的行为称义。当神只是接受亚伯的祭物，该隐就变得生气。他对亚伯的仇恨部分可能是因为他自己对神的仇恨，恨神不接受他的义。这种规律已经在亚当夏娃为遮盖赤身露体而用无花果树叶子织的裙子上表现出来了。他们逃避神的审判，遮掩因罪而来的羞耻，这些就是自从堕落以来人性的特征。“没有义人，连一个也没有；没有明白的，没有寻求神的；都是偏离正路，一同变为无用；没有行善的，连一个也没有”（罗3:10-12）。神越靠近我们，我们越感觉到我们自己的不配，所以我们躲避他，试图用我们自己聪明的面具遮掩我们的羞耻。Cain murdered Abel
because Cain sought to offer God his own sacrifice. The writer to the Hebrews
tells us that Abel offered his sacrifice in anticipation of the final
sacrifice, the Lamb of God, and did so by faith rather than by works (Heb. 11).
However, Cain sought to be justified by his own works. When God accepted Abel
instead, Cain became jealous. His hatred for Abel was probably due in part to
his own hatred of God for refusing to accept his righteousness. This pattern
had already emerged with the contrast between the fig leaves that Adam and Eve
sewed to cover their nakedness. Running from God's judgment, covering up the
shame that resulted from sin-these are the characteristics of human nature ever
since the fall. "There is no one who is righteous, not even one; there is
no one who understands, no one who seeks after God. All have turned away, they
have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even
one" (Rom. 3:10-12). The nearer God comes to us, the greater sense we have
of our own unworthiness, so we hide from him and try to cover up our shame with
our own clever masks.
巴别塔所表现出来的态度，很清楚是属于伯拉纠主义的：“来吧!我们要建造一座城和一座塔，塔顶通天，为要传扬我们的名。”实际上，他们肯定是想，这样统一的人类工程可以保证他们是无所不能的（创11:4，6）。但他们正在建塔通往天上的时候，神下来。“于是，耶和华使他们从那里分散在全地上；他们就停工不造那城了”（第8节）。这就是那规律：神提供祭物，审判那些献上自己的祭物以平息神怒气的人。神下来住在我们当中，不是我们爬上去到他那里；神寻找我们，不是我们寻找他。At the Tower of
Babel, the attitude expressed is clearly Pelagian: "Come, let us build
ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make
a name for ourselves. " In fact, they were certain that such a united
human project could ensure that nothing would be impossible for them (Gen
11:46). But God came down, just as they were building upward toward the
heavens. "So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and
they stopped building the city" (v.8). This is the pattern: God provides
the sacrifice, and judges those who offer their own sacrifices to appease God.
God comes down to dwell with us, we do not climb up to him; God finds us, we do
not find him.
以色列人常常发现自己是转回到了异教徒的思维方式之中。神已经提醒他们，“倚靠人血肉的膀臂，心中离弃耶和华的，那人有祸了! 倚靠耶和华，以耶和华为可靠的，那人有福了!”耶利米回应说，“人心比万物都诡诈，坏到极处，谁能识透呢？......耶和华啊!求你医治我，我便痊愈；拯救我，我便得救，因你是我所赞美的”（耶17:5, 7, 9, 14）。 约拿付出代价，明白神要拯救任何他要拯救的人。他一宣告，“救恩出于耶和华”，我们就看到：“耶和华吩咐鱼，鱼就把约拿吐在旱地上”（拿2:9，10）。巴比伦王尼布甲尼撒面临著类似的挑战，神把他的自信变成羞辱，他最终举目望天承认，“世上所有的居民，都算为虚无。在天上的万军和世上的居民中，他都凭自己的意旨行事。无人能拦住他手，或问他说：你作什么呢？”（但4:35）。信息很清楚：神凭他自己的选择和作为无条件拯救人，为的是他自己得称赞，得荣耀。. The people of
Israel regularly found themselves reverting to the pagan way of thinking. God
had to remind them, "'Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on
flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD But blessed is
the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him.'" Jeremiah
responds, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who
can understand it?... Heal me, O LORD, and I will be healed; save me and I will
be saved, for you are the one I praise" (Jer 17:5, 7, 9, 15). Jonah
learned the hard way that God saves whomever he wants to save. Just as soon as
he declared, "Salvation comes from the LORD," we read: "And the
Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land" (Jon 2:910).
The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar faced a similar confrontation, when his
self-confidence was turned to humiliation by God. He finally raised his eyes
toward heaven and confessed, "All the peoples of the earth are regarded as
nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the
earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: 'What have you done'"
(Dn 4:35). The clear message: God saves freely, by his own choice and action,
to his own praise and glory.
我们在新约法利赛人身上看到伯拉纠主义的表现。请记住，伯拉纠主义的根基就是它相信我们并没有继承亚当有罪的光景，我们生来在道德上是中立的，能够选择转向哪个方向。罪是从外面影响我们的，所以如果一个好人犯罪，那一定是因为某些外在影响的缘故。所以按照这种思维，避免坏人和邪恶影响是如此重要，因为这要败坏一个原本是好的人。这种伯拉纠主义思维贯穿了法利赛人的思想，当他们问耶稣，他为何不依从犹太人的礼仪，“耶稣就叫了众人来，对他们说：‘你们要听，也要明白。入口的不能污秽人，出口的乃能污秽人。’”这种神学导向对门徒来说是如此陌生，以致耶稣要再说一次：“因为从心里发出来的，有恶念、凶杀、奸淫、苟合、偷盗、妄证、谤讟；这都是污秽人的” (太15:10，19，20)。后来，耶稣用这严厉的话斥责法利赛人：“你们这假冒为善的文士和法利赛人有祸了!因为你们洗净杯盘的外面，里面却盛满了勒索和放荡。你这瞎眼的法利赛人，先洗净杯盘的里面，好叫外面也干净了。 你们这假冒为善的文士和法利赛人有祸了!因为你们好象粉饰的坟墓，外面好看，里面却装满了死人的骨头和一切的污秽。你们也是如此，在人前外面显出公义来，里面却装满了假善和不法的事”(太23:25－28)。We find Pelagianism among the Pharisees in the
New Testament. Remember, the foundation of Pelagianism is the belief that we do
not inherit Adam's sinful condition. We are born morally neutral, capable of
choosing which way we will turn. Sin is something that affects us from the
outside, so that if a good person sins, it must be due to some external
influence. This is why it is so important, according to this way of thinking,
to avoid bad company and evil influences: It will corrupt an otherwise good
person. This Pelagian mentality pervaded the thinking of the Pharisees, as when
they asked Jesus why they he did not follow the Jewish rituals. "Jesus
called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a
man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is
what makes him 'unclean.'" This theological orientation was so unfamiliar
to the disciples that Jesus had to restate the point: "For out of the
heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false
testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'" (Mt 15:1020).
Later, Jesus scolded the Pharisees with these harsh words: "Woe to you,
teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the
cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind
Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also
will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the
inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on
the outside you appear to people as righteous, but on the inside you are full
of hypocrisy and wickedness" (Mt 23:2528).
所以耶稣对他们说，他们一定要“重生”(约3:7)。法利赛人相信神赐给他们律法，这就是把恩典赐给他们了，他们只要跟从律法和古人的传统，他们就能蒙神眷顾。但是耶稣说他们是不信的人，需要重生，而不是需要得到指引的好人。“若不是差我来的父吸引人，就没有能到我这里来的”（约6:44），因为我们一定要重生，这“不是从血气生的，不是从情欲生的，也不是从人意生的，乃是从神生的”（约1:13）。“离了我，你们就不能作什么。不是你们拣选了我，是我拣选了你们，并且分派你们去结果子，叫你们的果子常存”（约15:5, 16）。Therefore, Jesus told them
that they must be "born from above" (Jn 3:5). The Pharisees believed
that God had given them his grace by giving them the law, and if they merely
followed the law and the traditions of the elders, they would remain in God's
favor. But Jesus said that they were unbelievers who needed to be regenerated,
not good people who needed to be guided. "No man can even come to me
unless my Father who sent me draws him" (Jn 6:44), for we must be born
again, "not of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of
God" (Jn 1:13). "Apart from me you can do nothing. You did not choose
me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will
last" (Jn 15:5, 16).
保罗捍卫神的恩典，反对那试图把耶稣变成仅仅是另外一位摩西的让人相信犹太教的异端时，这段信息就是他信息的中心。保罗和其他使徒把注意力集中在基督这个人和他的工作上，否认在神面前自信有任何立足之地。相反，他们明白我们既没有能力，自由意志，力量，也没有义来修补我们自己，逃避神的忿怒。这一定要完全是神的工作，基督的工作，否则就根本没有拯救可言。肯定的是，那搅扰众使徒的让人相信犹太教的异端远不止是伯拉纠主义这个问题，但是其根本就是自义和自我拯救。就这样，记载在使徒行传15章的耶路撒冷会议，就是在新约时代实际谴责这种异端的第一次教会会议。This message was at
the center of the apostolic message, as Paul defended the grace of God against
the Judaizing heresy that sought to turn Jesus into merely another Moses.
Centering on the person and work of Christ, Paul and the other apostles denied
any place for self-confidence before God. Instead, they knew that we possess
neither the ability, free will, power, nor the righteousness to repair
ourselves and escape the wrath of God. It must all be God's work, Christ's
work, or there is no salvation at all. Surely the Judaizing heresy that
troubled the apostles was larger than the issue of Pelagianism, but
self-righteousness and self-salvation lay at the bottom of it. As such, the
Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, was the first church council to
actually condemn this heresy in the New Testament era.
教会历史上的伯拉纠主义Pelagianism in Church History
教会历史的每一个黑暗时期都是因为依靠自我，以人为中心的福音渗透进入教会所致。什么时候神被看作是唯一创始成终作成拯救的神，什么时候教会就有健康和活力。人按什么程度看自己是拯救的作成者，教会就按什么程度相应失去它的能力，因为福音是“本是神的大能，要救一切相信的”(罗1:16)。Every
dark age in church history was due to the creeping influence of the
human-centered gospel of "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps." Whenever
God is seen as the sole author and finisher of salvation, there is health and
vitality;. To the degree that human beings are seen as agents of their own
salvation, the church loses its power, since the Gospel is "the power of
God unto salvation for everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16).
在常人称之为“黑暗中世纪”的整个时期之内，教会从来没有正式认可伯拉纠主义，但在普罗大众中间，它肯定是普遍，也许是最受人欢迎，传播最广泛的。这没有什么好大惊小怪的，因为自认我们本性为善，有可能得到改良，这是我们有罪光景的倾向。我们生来都是伯拉纠主义者。例如人在八世纪对此曾有过辩论，但是那些捍卫严格的奥古斯丁主义观点的人占不了上风。由于伯拉纠主义已经被教会会议定为异端，所以没有人敢作为“伯拉纠主义者”来捍卫这种观点，但是半伯拉纠主义 是能够被人接受的，因为那谴责半伯拉纠主义的奥兰治会议的文件已经丢失了，直到十六世纪天特会议结束时才重新被发现。Throughout the
period that is popularly known as the "dark ages," Pelagianism was
never officially endorsed, but it was certainly common and perhaps even the
most popular and widespread tendency among the masses. That should come as no
surprise, since thinking good of our nature and of possibilities for its
improvement is the tendency of our sinful condition. We are all Pelagians by
nature. There were debates, for instance, in the eighth century, but these did
not end well for those who defended a strict Augustinian point of view. Since
Pelagianism had been condemned by councils, no one dared defend a view as
"Pelagian," but Semi-Pelagianism was acceptable, since the canons of
the Council of Orange, which condemned Semi-Pelagianism, had been lost and were
not recovered until after the closing of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth
century.
在宗教改革前夕，人对自由意志和恩典又进行了新的辩论。改教家们是得益于奥古斯丁主义的复兴。在十四世纪，有两位牛津大学讲师，侯卡特（Robert Holcot）和坎特伯雷大主教布拉得瓦丁（Thomas Bradwardine），成为这场论战双方的代表。在宗教改革前两个世纪，布拉得瓦丁写了《反对新伯拉纠主义者的神之论据》，“但是侯卡特和一群后来的解释者发现布拉得瓦丁为‘神之论据’所作的辩护牺牲了人的尊严。”3 如果这句话听起来很熟悉，这不奇怪，因为真理和伴随而来的反对意见总是不变的。大主教自己的记述让我们稍微可以知道这场辩论所处的位置：On the eve of the
Reformation, there were fresh debates over free will and grace. Reformers
benefited from something of a renaissance of Augustinianism. In the fourteenth
century, two Oxford lecturers, Robert Holcot and Archbishop of Canterbury
Thomas Bradwardine, became leading antagonists in this battle. Two centuries
before the Reformation, Bradwardine wrote The Case of God Against the New
Pelagians, but, "Holcot and a host of later interpreters found
Bradwardine's defense of the 'case of God' was at the expense of the dignity of
man." [3] If that sounds familiar, it should, since the truth and its corresponding
objections never change. The archbishop's own story gives us some insight to
the place of this debate:
“我在进行哲学研究时，在神的智慧上是闲懒愚昧，被一种非正统的错误误导。有时我去听神学家讨论这个（关于恩典和自由意志的）问题，伯拉纠学派在我看来是最接近真理的。在哲学领域，除了一些模棱两可的论述以外，我很少听到人提及恩典。 一天又一天我所听到的都是，我们是我们自己自由作为的主人，选择行善或者行恶，有德行或者犯罪，这是我们的选择，还有很多沿著这种思路的事情。”所以，“每次我听教会里人宣读使徒书信，听见保罗是怎样高举恩典，贬低自由意志，比如在罗马书第9章，‘据此看来，这不在乎那定意的，也不在乎那奔跑的，只在乎发怜悯的神’，还有很多相应讲到恩典的地方，这些让我很不高兴，我是毫不感恩。”但后来情形发生了改变：Idle and a fool in
God's wisdom, I was misled by an unorthodox error at the time when I was pursuing
philosophical studies. Sometimes I went to listen to the theologians discussing
this matter [of grace and free will], and the school of Pelagius seemed to me
nearest the truth. In the philosophical faculty I seldom heard a reference to
grace, except for some ambiguous remarks. What I heard day in and day out was
that we are masters of our own free acts, that ours is the choice to act well
or badly, to have virtues or sins and much more along this line."
Therefore, "Every time I listened to the Epistle reading in church and
heard how Paul magnified grace and belittled free will-as is the case in Romans
9, 'It is obviously not a question of human will and effort, but of divine
mercy,' and its many parallels-grace displeased me, ungrateful as I was."
But later, things changed:
“然而，即使在我转向神学领域之前，所提到的经文已经像一束恩典之光临到我身上，我被对真理的看见俘获，仿佛从远处看见神的恩典是怎样在时间内先于一切好行为，神作为救主，通过预定，在自然上居先。这就是我向那白白赐给我这种恩典的他表达我感激的理由。” "However,
even before I transferred to the faculty of theology, the text mentioned came
to me as a beam of grace and, captured by a vision of the truth, it seemed I
saw from afar how the grace of God precedes all good works with a temporal
priority, God as Savior through predestination, and natural precedence. That is
why I express my gratitude to Him who has given me this grace as a free
gift."
布拉得瓦丁以此开始他的论述，“现在伯拉纠主义者反对我们对预定和弃绝的全盘论述，试图把它们完全取消，或者至少向人表明，它们是取决于个人的功德。”4 Bradwardine
begins his treatise, "The Pelagians now oppose our whole presentation of
predestination and reprobation, attempting either to eliminate them completely
or, at least, to show that they are dependent on personal merits."[4]
这是很重要的参考，因为很多人认为马丁路德在他所著的《意志的捆绑》，以及加尔文在他许多关于这个题目方面的论述，他们所强调的是很极端的；而事实上，他们是奥古斯丁主义复兴的主流。实际上，马丁路德的导师，施道比次（Johann von Staupitz）本人就是捍卫奥古斯丁正统的观点，反对伯拉纠主义的新思潮的，他著有他自己的论文，《论人永恒的预定》。“神立约拯救选民。不仅基督受差遣作信徒的罪的替代，他还确定这种救赎要加在信徒身上。罪人眼睛靠神恩典再次被打开的那一刻，这就作成了，这样他能凭信心认识真正的神。这时他的心被点燃，所以神对他来说成为令他喜悦的。这两样不是别的，只是恩典，是出于基督的功德。我们的行为不会，也不能把我们带到这种光景，因为人的本性不能明白善，不想要善，不能行善。这荒芜的人来说，神对他是极大的恐惧。” These are
important references, since many think of the emphasis of Luther in The Bondage
of the Will and of Calvin in his many writings on the subject as extreme, when
in actual fact, they were in the mainstream of Augustinian revival. In fact,
Luther's mentor, Johann von Staupitz, was himself a defender of Augustinian
orthodoxy against the new tide of Pelagianism, and contributed his own
treatise, On Man's Eternal Predestination. "God has covenanted to save the
elect. Not only is Christ sent as a substitute for the believer's sins, he also
makes certain that this redemption is applied. This happens at the moment when
the sinner's eyes are opened again by the grace of God, so that he is able to
know the true God by faith. Then his heart is set afire so that God becomes
pleasing to him. Both of these are nothing but grace, and flow from the merits
of Christ Our works do not, nor can they, bring us to this state, since man's
nature is not capable of knowing or wanting or doing good. For this barren man
God is sheer fear."
但是对信徒来说，“基督徒因基督的义为义”，施道比次甚至说，基督的这种受苦，“尽管不是为所有人的，但对所有人都是足够的，而是为了多人，他的血倾倒而出。” 5 这不像人今天认为的那样，是一句极端的声明，而是当时讨论赎罪果效最常用的说法：对每一个人都足够，只对选民有效。But for the
believer, "the Christian is just through the righteousness of
Christ," and Staupitz even goes so far as to say, that this suffering of
Christ "is sufficient for all, though it was not for all, but for many
that his blood was poured out."[5] This was not an extreme statement, as
it is often considered today, but was the most common way of talking about the
atonement's effect: sufficient for everyone, efficient for the elect alone.
当然，这些宗教改革的先行者还没有制定出基督的义算为人的义，因此人得以称义的清晰教导，但即使在宗教改革之前，罗马天主教的官方立场也是人的意志要相信，要过基督徒的生活，这也需要神的恩典。这对福音派基督徒来说还不够，但是连这确认也达不到，就是连至少更正教和罗马天主教在文字上同有的“大公”见证都沾不上边了。To be sure, these
precursors of the Reformation were not yet articulating a clear doctrine of
justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but the official
position of the Roman Catholic Church even before the Reformation was that
grace is necessary for even the will to believe and live the Christian life.
This is not far enough for evangelicals, but to fall short of this affirmation
is to lose touch with even the "catholic" witness shared at least on
paper by Protestants and Roman Catholics.
今天的情况又如何？What About Today?
自从启蒙运动以来，更正教会已经受到一波接一波的理性主义和道德主义的影响，这样伯拉纠主义的异端就变得很是吸引人了。当代自由主义的伟大建筑师夸胜宣告他们的计划，看他们所写的，如果不令人心烦，也令人诧异。他们说人的本性基本上是好的，历史是进步的，社会和道德改良要创造出幸福，和平和公义，这话听起来仿佛是一种新的神学尝试。实际上，这只不过是那历史悠久的出于人本性的宗教还魂而已。自由主义的理性主义部分看信仰不是一个救赎的计划，而是一种道德的方法。当代神学家把把人的罪性，对神恩典的依赖的古时观点看作是对建立新世界，建立一座通天高塔的启蒙计划的拦阻，正如伯拉纠把奥古斯丁的教训看作是对他的道德改良计划的拦阻一样。Ever since the
Enlightenment, the Protestant churches have been influenced by successive waves
of rationalism and moralism that have made the Pelagian heresy attractive. It
is fascinating, if frustrating, to read the great architects of modern
liberalism as they triumphantly announce their project. They sound as if it
were a new theological enterprise to say that human nature is basically good,
history is marked by progress, that social and moral improvement will create
happiness, peace, and justice. Really, it is merely a revival of that age-old
religion of human nature. The rationalistic phase of liberalism saw religion
not as a plan of salvation, but as a method of morality. The older views
concerning human sinfulness and dependence on divine mercy were thought by modern
theologians to stand in the way of the Enlightenment project of building a new
world, a tower reaching to heaven, just as Pelagius viewed Augustinian teaching
as impeding his project of moral reform.
施莱尔马赫（Schleiermacher）和自由派神学家不是用神在耶稣基督里的拯救工作这宣告来定义基督教，而是重新把它定义为一种“感觉”。具有嘲讽意义的是，阿民念主义的复兴和启蒙运动一样，都对人的能力抱有信心。这种伯拉纠主义精神既充斥著新英格兰的神学院，也充斥著美国开国时边疆的复兴。尽管象威廉亨利（William Henley）这样的诗人可以用更优雅的文字来表达伯拉纠主义（“我是我命运的主人，我灵魂的统帅”），但边疆复兴运动的福音派基督徒是开始把这种伯拉纠主义的胜利融入更大众的文化当中。Instead of defining
Christianity in terms of an announcement of God's saving work in Jesus Christ,
Schleiermacher and the liberal theologians redefined it as a
"feeling." Ironically, the Arminian revivals shared with the
Enlightenment a confidence in human ability. This Pelagian spirit pervaded the
frontier revivals as much as the New England academy. Although poets such as
William Henley might put it in more sophisticated language ("I am the
master of my fate, the captain of my soul"), evangelicals out on the
frontier began adapting this triumph of Pelagianism to the wider culture.
芬尼（Charles Finney）深受新海芬神学（the New Haven theology）和第二次大觉醒运动的影响，几乎可以说得上是十九世纪伯拉纠本人的再生。芬尼不承认原罪。“道德败坏就是罪本身，而不是罪的原因，”6 他在对威斯敏斯德信仰宣言的批判中明确拒绝原罪的说法，7 把带著罪性的人性这种观念说成是“违反圣经的和荒谬的教条。”8按照芬尼的说法，我们生来都是在道德上中立的，有能力选择好坏。芬尼自始至终采取和德国的理性主义者一样的论据，然而因为他是如此一位成功的奋兴家和“赢取灵魂的人”，福音派基督徒把他看作是自己人。芬尼认为是我们的选择使我们变得是好或是是有罪，在这点上芬尼立场更接近法利赛人，而不是那宣告什么样的树结什么样的果，而非掉转过来的基督。芬尼否认原罪，接著就是否认代替的赎罪。毕竟，按照伯拉纠的观点，如果只是因为我们跟从亚当的坏榜样，他才能说得上是我们被定罪的作始者, 那么基督被称为是我们救赎的作始者，这就是因为我们跟从他美好榜样的缘故罢了。这正是芬尼所论证的：“榜样是所能施加最高的道德影响，如果在赎罪祭中彰显出来的善意不能治服罪人的自私，那么他们就毫无指望了。”9 但是如果赎罪祭不赎罪，那么怎么会有“在赎罪祭中彰显出来的善意”呢？对于我们这些需要一种不仅仅是制服我们的自私，还要担当对我们自私的刑罚的人来说，芬尼的“福音”和伯拉纠的“福音”一样都不能说得上是好消息。Heavily influenced
by the New Haven theology and the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney was
nearly the nineteenth-century reincarnation of Pelagius. Finney denied original
sin. "Moral depravity is sin itself, and not the cause of sin,"[6]
and he explicitly rejects original sin in his criticism of the Westminster
Confession,[7] referring to the notion of a sinful nature as "anti-scriptural
and nonsensical dogma."[8] According to Finney, we are all born morally
neutral, capable either of choosing good or evil. Finney argues throughout by
employing the same arguments as the German rationalists, and yet because he was
such a successful revivalist and "soul-winner," evangelicals call him
their own. Finney held that our choices make us either good or sinful. Here
Finney stands closer to the Pharisees than to Christ, who declared that the
tree produced the fruit rather than vice versa. Finney's denial of the
substitutionary atonement follows this denial of original sin. After all,
according to Pelagius, if Adam can be said to be our agent of condemnation for
no other reason than that we follow his poor example, then Christ is said to be
our agent of redemption because we follow his good example. This is precisely
what Finney argues: "Example is the highest moral influence that can be
exerted. If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the
selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless."[9] But how can there be a
"benevolence manifested in the atonement" if the atonement does not
atone? For those of us who need an atonement that not only subdues our
selfishness, but covers the penalty for our selfishness, Finney's "gospel,"
like Pelagius's, is hardly good news.
按照芬尼的理论，基督不可能成就我们亏欠于神的顺服，因为一个人可以为了除他自己以外的任何人赎罪，这是不合理性的。而且“如果他代替我们服从了律法，那么为什么还要坚持我们自己要回归自身的顺服，作为我们得救的必要条件？”10人禁不住想，芬尼到底是不是直接从伯拉纠的书里借回来这句话的。“（很多人）以为赎罪祭就是按字面对债务的偿还，我们已经看到，这是和赎罪祭的本质不符的。人会提出反对意见说，如果赎罪祭不是偿还罪人的债，而是如我们所说，是在本质上广泛的，那么它就没有使一个人得救。确实，赎罪祭就其本身而言，并没有使任何一个人得救。”11 According to
Finney, Christ could not have fulfilled the obedience we owed to God, since it
would not be rational that one man could atone for the sins of anyone besides
himself. Furthermore, "If he obeyed the law as our substitute, then why
should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as the sine qua
non of our salvation?"[10] One wonders if Finney was actually borrowing
directly from Pelagius' writings. Many assume "that the atonement was a literal
payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the
atonement. It is objected that, if the atonement was not the payment of the
debt of sinners, but general in its nature, as we have maintained, it secures
the salvation of no one. It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not
secure the salvation of any one."[11]
而且芬尼不承认重生是依靠神超自然的恩赐，他认为重生不是由外作成的改变。“如果是，神就不会要求罪人作成这点了。不需要这样的改变，因为罪人有完全顺服神所要求的一切机能和本身的属性。”12 所以，“......重生就是罪人改变他最终的选择，意图，喜好。”那些坚持说罪人要依靠神的怜悯的人，是在宣扬“所有谎言中最可憎，最败坏的东西，这是在嘲笑[罪人的]智力!”13 Furthermore,
Finney denies that regeneration depends on the supernatural gift of God. It is
not a change produced from the outside. "If it were, sinners could not be
required to effect it. No such change is needed, as the sinner has all the
faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to
God."[12] Therefore, "...regeneration consists in the sinner changing
his ultimate choice, intention, preference." Those who insist that sinners
depend on the mercy of God proclaim "the most abominable and ruinous of
all falsehoods. It is to mock [the sinner's] intelligence!"[13]
关于称义的教义，芬尼宣告它是“别的福音”，因为“要罪人在法庭上被宣告为义，这是不可能，是荒谬的。正如已经说到的那样，不可能有一种法律或法庭意义上的称义。称义是以普遍，完全，不中断地服从律法为基础的... ...算为义的教义，或者基督的顺从被算作是我们的顺从的教义，是建基于一种最虚假，最荒谬的假设之上的”，“把赎罪作为罪人称义的基础，这成了绊倒许多人的伤心之事。”14 Of the doctrine
of justification, Finney declared it to be "another gospel," since
"for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd.
As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic
sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience
to law...The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience
to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and
nonsensical assumption" and "representing the atonement as the ground
of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to
many."[14]
从芬尼到持阿民念主义的奋兴家，福音派运动是大大继承了伯拉纠主义，正如当代自由主义直接从启蒙运动这个版本领受良多一般。当福音派基督徒向不信的人发出呼吁，仿佛是他的选择决定了他的命运，他们就不仅是按照阿民念主义的想法行事，还是按照伯拉纠的想法而行，而这甚至是被罗马天主教官方立场所拒绝，认为是否认恩典的。不管何时，只要人坚持不信的人能够出于本性选择神，或者男男女女有能力不犯罪，达至一种道德上完全的状态，这就是伯拉纠主义了。芬尼甚至有一篇布道，题目就是《罪人定要改变自己的心》。当传道人攻击那些坚持说人的问题就是人心的罪和邪恶时，这就是伯拉纠主义。当一个人听到一种论证，无论是出于启蒙运动（康德的“理应即能够”），或者还是出于卫斯理，芬尼，或者还是当代的教师，说“神决不会命令人去做不可能的事”，15 他们就是在重复正是由伯拉纠所说的话。那些否认信心是神的恩赐的人，他们不仅仅是阿民念主义者或半伯拉纠主义者，他们还是伯拉纠主义者。甚至连天特会议(它定改教家为有罪)也咒诅伯拉纠主义所此所作的否认。From Finney and the Arminian
revivalists, evangelicalism inherited as great a debt to Pelagianism as modern
liberalism received from the Enlightenment version directly. When evangelists
appeal to the unbeliever as though it was his choice that determines his
destiny, they are not only operating on Arminian assumptions, but Pelagian
assumptions that are rejected even by the official position of the Roman
Catholic Church as a denial of grace. Whenever it is maintained that an
unbeliever is capable by nature of choosing God, or that men and women are
capable of not sinning or of reaching a state of moral perfection, that's
Pelagianism. Finney even preached a sermon titled, "Sinners Bound To Change
Their Own Hearts." When preachers attack those who insist that the human
problem is sinfulness and the wickedness of the human heart-that's Pelagianism.
When one hears the argument, whether from the Enlightenment (Kant's "ought
implies can"), or from Wesley, Finney, or modern teachers, that "God
would never have commanded the impossible,"[15] they are echoing the very
words of Pelagius. Those who deny that faith is the gift of God are not merely
Arminians or Semi-Pelagians, but Pelagians. Even the Council of Trent
(condemning the reformers) anathematized such a denial as Pelagianism.
当福音派和基要派认为婴孩在长到“负责任年龄”之前仍是纯洁，或者罪是外在的东西，是在世界上，在有罪的环境中，或者在有罪的一群人当中，是败坏一个人的，他们就是行为上的伯拉纠主义者。当代福音派运动中常被认为是“加尔文主义”的，实际上是“奥古斯丁主义”，也包括了正统的罗马天主教和信义宗人士。在我们今天的圈子中常被认为是“阿民念主义”，实际上是伯拉纠主义。When evangelicals
and fundamentalists assume that infants are pure until they reach an "age
of accountability," or that sin is something outside-in the world or in
the sinful environment or in sinful company that corrupts the individual-they
are practicing Pelagians. That which in contemporary evangelicalism is often
considered "Calvinism" is really "Augustinianism," which
embraces orthodox Roman Catholics and Lutherans as well. And that which in our
circles today is often considered "Arminianism" is really
Pelagianism.
最近的民意调查表明当今77％的福音派基督徒相信人本质上是好的，84% 的保守派新教徒相信在拯救当中“自助者天助“，这个事实无可辩驳地表明了当代基督教正处于一场严重的危机当中。保守的，“相信圣经”的福音派不能再满有理由地攻击主流的新教徒和罗马天主教徒，说他们是背叛教义。今天的福音派，正如和任何其他人一样，是已经接受了伯拉纠主义异端的思想。正是这种异端，它是潜伏在极多的大众心理学（人的本性是好的，不过是被它所处的环境扭曲罢了），政治运动（我们要通过这场运动带来拯救和复兴），传福音运动和教会增长运动（把归正看作是一种自然的过程，就像更换另外一个牌子的肥皂一般，把传福音的人和富有企业家精神的牧师看作是那实际上把得救之人加添给教会的人）的最深处。The fact that
recent polls indicate that 77% of the evangelicals today believe that human
beings are basically good and 84% of these conservative Protestants believe
that in salvation "God helps those who help themselves" demonstrates
incontrovertibly that contemporary Christianity is in a serious crisis. No
longer can conservative, "Bible-believing" evangelicals smugly hurl
insults at mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics for doctrinal treason. It
is evangelicals today, every bit as much as anyone else, who have embraced the
assumptions of the Pelagian heresy. It is this heresy that lies at the bottom
of much of popular psychology (human nature, basically good, is warped by its
environment), political crusades (we are going to bring about salvation and
revival through this campaign), and evangelism and church growth (seeing
conversion as a natural process, just like changing from one brand of soap to
another, and seeing the evangelist or entrepreneurial pastor as the one who
actually adds to the church those to be saved).
宗教改革归根到底就是对伯拉纠主义和它日益增长的影响所发起的进攻，因为伯拉纠主义在这个世界上排挤基督的生命。宗教改革宣告“救恩出于耶和华“（拿2:9），“据此看来，这不在乎那定意的，也不在乎那奔跑的，只在乎发怜悯的神” (罗9:16)。如果我们重拾这个信息，再一次用神的话语抗击伯拉纠主义，那么神的荣耀就要再次充满全地。At its root, the Reformation
was an attack on Pelagianism and its rising influence, as it choked out the
life of Christ in the world. It asserted that "salvation is of the
LORD" (Jon 2:9), and that "it therefore does not depend on the decision
or effort of man, but on the mercy of God" (Rom 9:16). If that message is
recovered, and Pelagianism is once more confronted with the Word of God, the
glory of God will again fill the earth.
备注
1. 华菲德，《拯救计划》(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980再版), p. 33.
2. 取自威斯敏斯德教会历史大辞典“伯拉纠主义”词条。
3.
Heiko Oberman, 《宗教改革的先行者》，(Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1966), p.134.
4. 同上, pp. 151-162.
5. 同上, pp. 175-200.
6. 芬尼,《芬尼系统神学》 (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976), p. 172.
7. 同上, p. 177.
8. 同上, p. 179.
9. 同上, p. 209.
10. 同上, p. 206.
11. 同上, p. 213.
12. 同上, p.221.
13. 同上, p.226.
14. 同上, pp. 319-323.
15.
B. R. Rees, 主编，《伯拉纠及其跟从者书信集》 (Woodbridge,
England: The Boydell Press, 1991), p.169.
