兩國論與基督徒政治學：五把鑰匙The Two Kingdoms and ChristianPolitics: 5 Keys

作者：Caleb Smith  譯者: 駱鴻銘

https://thenicenenerd.com/2018/12/the-two-kingdoms-and-christian-politics-5-keys/?fbclid=IwAR1JZhn6cP0FbZb64At8i46rK6Ri3oSRAY-Hw2lhwpqukYGjkxYUIjEenMY

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157326567259653

很少話題像政治那樣具有爭議性。特別是對於基督徒來說，我們有時甚至會爭論我們應當怎麼作，甚至是否應該參與政治，正如我們在許多具體觀點上會爭論那樣。一些基督徒認為我們必須打一些政治上的戰役才能維護聖經。對於其他人來說，政治是一個邪惡帝國，上帝的所有兒女都不應該參與其中。有些人認為它會分散我們對大使命的注意力，而另一些人則認為它是大使命的一部分。美國在2016年大選期間，有許多分歧特別生動活潑。兩年後，許多基督徒仍然感到困惑。有什麼辦法可以往前進呢？

Few topics are as controversial as politics. For Christians in particular, we sometimes argue almost as much about how, or even whether, we should be involved in politics as we do any specific views. Some Christians think that we need to fight political battles to stand up for the Bible. To others, politics is a demonic system that no child of God should have any part in. Some think it’s a distraction from the Great Commission, while others think that it’s part of the Great Commission. Many of these disagreements were especially vivid during the 2016 election. Two years later, a lot of Christians are still confused. Is there any way forward?

我認為沒有人可以直接回答所有的問題。但是，我確實相信一些基本原則。這些原則不會告訴我們究竟如何處理每一種情況，但它們會教導我們如何起步。我們在基督「兩個國度」（two kingdoms）的經典新教教義中找到了這些原則。我懷疑，如果我們只想忠於我們的政治見證，這些鑰匙將為我們打開一個智慧的世界。

I don’t think anyone can directly answer everything. That said, I do believe in some basic principles. These won’t tell us exactly how to handle every situation, but they give us somewhere to start. We find these principles in the classical Protestant doctrine of Christ’s two kingdoms. These keys, I suspect, will unlock for us a world of wisdom, if we seek only to be faithful in our political witness.

鑰匙1：基督以兩種方式統治

Key 1: Christ rules in two ways

兩國論的教義有時候被稱為「兩政府論」（two governments；或譯：兩種治理方式），這是有充分理由的。它並不是關於基督統治的不同地方或領域，而是關於祂統治的方式。眾所周知，耶穌是主。父在天上和地上都賜給祂一切的權柄。但是這種權柄以兩種根本不同的方式顯明在我們身上。這些方式就是我們稱之為兩個政府或兩個國度的方式。

The doctrine of the two kingdoms sometimes goes by the “two governments,” and this is for good reason. It’s not really about different places or spheres in which Christ rules, but about the ways He rules. For Jesus, as we all know, is Lord. The Father has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth. But this authority comes on us in two fundamentally different ways. These ways are what we call the two governments, or two kingdoms.

一方面，藉著聖靈，耶穌永遠與我們同在。祂在我們裏面，我們在祂面前。所以我們所做的一切都會立刻出現在祂面前，在那裏祂可以判斷、指揮我們的良心，並且把一些義務放在我們的良心上。最終，祂是我們唯一必須對其負責的主。祂的權威足以推翻地上區區的法官、法庭、主教、牧師、執事或教會所宣告的任何判決。這是一種內向和無形的統治。它沒有中間人，而是直截了當地存在於基督徒和基督之間。我們在這裏的地位完全憑信心，與任何外在的東西無關，因為祂看透這一切，並審斷人心。這些都是對屬靈國度（spiritual kingdom）的描述。

On one hand, by the Holy Spirit, Jesus is always present with us. He is within is, and we are before Him. So everything we do is immediately in His presence, where He can judge, command, and put obligations on our conscience. At the end of it all, He is the only Lord to whom we are truly accountable. His authority can overturn any judgment proclaimed by mere earthly judges, courts, bishops, pastors, deacons, or churches. This is an inward and invisible kind of rule. It has no mediator, but instead is directly between a Christian and Christ. Our standing here is strictly by faith, apart from anything external, since He sees through it all and judges the heart. All of this describes the spiritual kingdom.

另一方面，耶穌也不在這裏。祂在天上作王，與可見的時空隔開。因此，在這個可見的領域內，耶穌也通過可見的人物來統治。祂允許父母、教師、牧師、君王和立法者，在我們的日常生活中代表祂的權威。路德把這些人物形容為基督所穿戴的「面具」（masks）。他們對生活中外在、可見的問題揮舞權柄。只有耶穌自己的目光可以刺穿你的心，看到它的信賴或背叛，但是地上的權柄可以確保，無論我們的心態如何，我們都不會惹出太大的麻煩。他們可能（應該？）想要並企圖把你的心推向正確的方向，但他們的權威本身只是外在的。他們的命令或教導都沒有來自耶穌的命令或教導的全部力量，所以祂仍然是最後的裁判官。這些權柄就構成了世俗國度（temporal kingdom）。

On the other hand, Jesus also is away. He reigns in heaven, separated from our visible time and space. So, within this visible realm, Jesus also rules through visible figures. He allows parents, teachers, pastors, kings, and legislators to represent His authority in our daily lives. Luther described these figures as “masks” which Christ wears. They wield authority over the outward and visible matters of life. Only Jesus’ own gaze can pierce your heart and see its trust or rebellion, but earthly authorities can make sure that, whatever the state of our hearts, we don’t cause much trouble. They might (should?) want and try to push your heart in the right direction, but their authority itself is only external. None of their commands or teachings have the full force of those from Jesus, so He remains a final appeal. These authorities, then, make up the temporal kingdom.

鑰匙2：世俗國度是有限的

Key 2: The temporal kingdom is limited

當我們談到永恆時，最重要的是我們在上帝面前的地位。你會記得，這是屬靈國度的問題。除了耶穌之外，沒有人有最後的發言權，祂的判決會貫穿外在有形的一切事物，直達內心深處。任何世俗的權柄對以下這個最終極的問題都無能為力：你是否與上帝和好了？它們既不能決定上帝如何看待你，也不能決定你如何看待上帝。

When it comes down to eternity, what matters is our standing before God. This, as you will remember, is a matter of the spiritual kingdom. No one but Jesus has the final say, and His verdict cuts through everything visible to the depths of the heart. No earthly authorities have any power over the ultimate question: are you in the right with God? They can decide neither how God regards you nor how you regard God.

正因為如此，世俗國度的掌權者，其直接的影響力僅限於地上的事物，即今生之事。政府不能（即：不可能）利用其權力阻止你恨你的兄弟，但警察可以限制你結束他在世上的生命。牧師無法用教會懲戒把自私、淫蕩的心轉變成純淨的心，但他可以阻止一個好色之徒來到聖餐桌前，不讓他領聖餐。當然，牧師可能會想要幫助這樣的人成為清心的人，但他的權柄無法使這件事發生。他只能把聖經的真理帶給他，然後就是這人和耶穌之間的事了。

Because of this, the direct effects of authorities in the temporal kingdom are limited to earthly matters, the stuff of this life. The government cannot (i.e. it’s not possible) use its power to stop you from hating your brother, but a cop can restrain you from ending his earthly life. A pastor can’t use church discipline to bend a selfish, lustful heart into a pure one, but he can keep a womanizer from the Communion table. Now, the pastor may want to help such a man become pure in heart, but his authority can’t make it happen. He can only serve the truth of the Word, and then it is between the man and Jesus.

除了能力有限外，世俗國度裏的掌權者，其權柄是有限的。既然他們無法知道、也無法做任何重要的事，他們就不能直接站在耶穌面前。他們只能代表祂到一定的程度。除了重覆基督的命令之外，他們不能提出絕對的要求。他們的判斷並非是無可質疑的，因為耶穌可以推翻他們的判斷。除了神自己所啟示的話之外，他們不能說某些信念和行動會使你上天堂或下地獄。簡而言之，他們無法捆綁你的良心。只有上帝能做到這一點。

In addition to limited ability, the authorities in the temporal kingdom have limited authority. Since they cannot know and cannot do everything that matters, they cannot stand directly for Jesus. They only represent Him up to a point. They can’t make absolute demands except to repeat those of Christ. Their judgments are not unquestionable, since Jesus can overturn them. They cannot say, beyond what God Himself has revealed, that certain beliefs and actions will send you to heaven or hell. In short, they cannot bind your conscience. Only God can do that.

鑰匙3：政治在人類（和基督徒）生活中具有合法的地位

Key 3: Politics has a legitimate place in human (and Christian) life

在上述的基礎上，我們可以討論政治在基督徒生活中的地位。首先，很重要的是要定義什麼是「政治」。許多基督徒（和其他人）對政治一開始就有錯誤的看法，因為他們並不明白政治真正的內涵。政治來自希臘文「politika」，它又來自城邦（polis）或「城市」（city）。Politika單純是指城市的商業，而城市可以廣泛地指代任何社區或群體。

Building on what we have already seen, we can work on the place of politics in the Christian life. First, it’s important to define “politics.” A lot of Christians (and other people) start off wrong about politics because they don’t get what it really is at heart. Politics comes from the Greek word politika, which in turn comes from polis, or “city.” Politika simply means the business of the polis, and polis can be broad enough to refer to any community or group of people.

所以，基本上，引用維基百科，「政治是制定適用於團體成員的決策過程。」

So, basically, to quote Wikipedia, “Politics is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group.”

政治基本上是一個家庭坐下來談論財務、家務和日常行程時所做的事的放大版。政治是許多家庭處理他們共同的業務，而不是單獨一個家庭處理其業務。有些路需要修補，有些罪行需要懲罰，或者是有令人餓死的饑荒需要處理。生活中的事不止影響一個家庭。政治只是用來描述處理這些事的名詞。

Politics is basically a bigger version of what a family does when they sit down to talk finances, chores, and schedules. Instead of one household handling its business, many households are working on their shared business. There can be roads that need repairs, crime that needs to be punished, or a famine that’s causing starvation. Some things in life affect more than one household. Politics is just a word for handling them.

基於這個定義，基督徒顯然需要參與政治。這並不意味著我們必須跳到各式各樣的政治活動裏，但每個基督徒家庭都應該為了每個人的利益而共同努力。如果我們在任何影響鄰舍的問題上置身事外，我們就無法愛他們。即使我們決定不參加全國大選（舉例來說），我們也應該竭盡所能去幫助我們每天看到的人，他們的生活會受到社區裏發生的事的影響。

Given this definition, Christians obviously need to do politics. This doesn’t mean we must jump in to every kind of politics, but every Christian household should work together their neighbors for everyone’s benefit. We can’t love our neighbors if we stay out of any issue that affect lots of them at once. Even if we decided to sit out, say, a national election, we should do what we can to help the people we see every day whose lives are affected by community happenings.

鑰匙4：政治只能用於有限的目標

Key 4: Politics can only serve limited goals

瞭解世俗國度的本質應該有助於我們認識到，政治的合法角色也是非常有限的。政治完全是屬於世俗國度的問題。它是為了今生，為了地上的正義、秩序和維持而存在的。政府的權力純粹是外在的，是刀劍的權柄，因此它只能用於外在的目的。

Understanding the nature of the temporal kingdom should help us realize that politics’ legitimate role is also a highly limited one. Politics is entirely a matter of the temporal kingdom. It exists for the sake of this life, for earthly justice, order, and sustenance. The power of government is purely external, the power of the sword, and it as such it can only serve external purposes.

這應該會澄清一些問題。當人們主張教會與國家應當分離的時候，或者指出他們不會也不應該藉由政治來推進上帝的國度時，他們是有道理的。政治無法改變人心。你不能通過法律和懲罰把信仰強加給人。因此，我們甚至不應該認為把政治用在傳福音上是合理的，或者認為政治活動可以直接用來為福音服務。上帝國度的權柄是聖道和聖靈的權柄，而不是刀劍的權柄。

This should give us some clarity. When people argue for a separation of church and state, or point out that they don’t/shouldn’t advance the kingdom of God through politics, they have a point. Politics can’t change hearts. You cannot coerce faith by law and punishment. So we should not even think it makes sense to use politics for evangelism, or think that political activity can directly serve the Gospel. The power of the kingdom of God is the power of Word and Spirit, not the sword.

但是這並不是說政治是沒有用的，或者與福音工作是對立的。絕對不是這樣！政治可以通過堅持它的實際作用，間接地為福音服務：保持人類社會的良好狀態。混亂、無政府狀態、犯罪，貧困、飢餓等等都是問題。它們會阻撓上帝賦予我們的任務，諸如文化使命和大使命。它們是造成苦難的原因，而基督徒的愛和憐憫會要求我們減輕苦難。這些問題往往涉及由某個人對別人犯罪而造成的苦難，在這種情況下，公義也會要求使用政府的刀劍來懲罰罪犯。

But this doesn’t mean politics is useless or opposed to Gospel work. By no means! Politics can serve the Gospel in an indirect way by sticking to its actual use: keeping human society in decent shape. Chaos, anarchy, crime, poverty, starvation, and the like are problems. They are obstacles to the tasks God has given us, like the cultural mandate and the Great Commission. And they are causes of suffering, which Christian love and mercy demand that we alleviate. Often they involve suffering caused by some person sinning against another, in which case justice also demands that the sword of government be used against the offender.

鑰匙5：基督教解釋了實現世俗利益的最佳方法

Key 5: Christianity explains the best ways to achieve earthly good

所以，考慮到這一點，為了地上的好處而使用政治是好的。你可能會懷疑這種說法是在支持要嚴格地把宗教與政治分開，但那會是一個錯誤。因為，即使只是在地上的層面，關於甚麼才是對人類繁榮有益的東西，不同的人會有不同的看法。其中有許多看法都是錯誤的。

So, with this in mind, politics is good to use for the sake of earthly goods. You might suspect that this supports a strict separation of religion from politics, but that would be a mistake. See, even just on the earthly level, different people have different ideas about what is good for human flourishing. Many of these are simply wrong.

設想，任何人都可以勤奮地研究人性和我們在受造界中的地位，來瞭解對於人類在地上的生活來說，甚麼是最有利的事。這之所以可能，就是因為幾乎所有的文化對大多數基礎知識都有一致的看法。但是，因著罪惡和我們有限的思想，每個人和每一種文化對甚麼才是最好的，都會有一些錯誤的看法。有些人的看法則是大錯特錯的。而在政治上對這件事有錯誤的看法，就好像一個外科醫生，對一個健康的人體看起來是甚麼樣子，有非常混亂的認知一樣。它只能帶來災難。

Hypothetically, anyone can know most of what is best for a human person with respect to our earthly lives by diligently studying human nature and our place in creation. This being possible at all is why almost all cultures agree on most of the basics. But, because of sin and our finite minds, every person and every culture gets some of it wrong. Some get a lot wrong. And getting this wrong in politics is like a surgeon with a confused picture of what a healthy human body looks like. It can only lead to disaster.

身為基督徒，我們有一些「特長」可以貢獻。我們有特殊啟示：聖經。關於人性和甚麼才是對我們有益的事物，聖經裏有無謬無誤的教導（聖經也教導了其他的事）。這包括我們在地上的好處，和在天上的好處。雖然我們理論上可以通過理性，認識到幾乎所有關於地上好處的事物，但是聖經製作了一個無可挑剔的「備忘錄」（cheat sheet）。例如，對於習慣於現代思維方式的人來說，僅僅憑著理性要發現我們為甚麼必須把性愛限制在永久的、異性戀的婚姻當中，可能會很困難，但聖經保證了這一點。我們可以通過合理地研究人性來學習同樣的事情，但是聖經事先就告訴我們了。因此，我們有來自人性的建築師所作的值得信賴的陳述。

This is where, as Christians, we have something “special” to contribute. We have special revelation, the Scriptures. Scripture contains, among other things, infallible teachings about human nature and what is good for us. This includes our earthly good as much as it does heaven. And while we could theoretically learn nearly everything about our earthly good by reason, Scripture makes an impeccable “cheat sheet.” It may be hard, for example, for people accustomed to modern ways of thinking to discover by reason alone why we should limit sex to permanent, heterosexual marriage, but Scripture assures us that this is the case. We could learn the same thing by rationally studying human nature, but Scripture tells us in advance. Thus we have a trustworthy statement from the Architect of human nature.

如此，結論就是，基督徒可以毫不羞愧地訴諸於我們從聖經中學到的關於人性的客觀真理。（更不用說基於聖經和理性的基督教傳統中，大量先進的社會和政治思想。）我們可以利用這個真理，來幫助我們以實際有益於鄰舍的方式去參與政治。如果我們只把這個任務留給教會以外的人，或者把神聖啟示留在教會的大門以內，那麼政府就只能成為盲目的嚮導。儘管他們對身體的運作方式或健康狀況有嚴重誤解，卻仍然企圖要對社會這個身體進行手術。

The conclusion of this, then, is that Christians can unashamedly appeal to objective truth about human nature which we have learned from Scripture. (Not to mention the large body of developed social and political thought in the Christian tradition based on Scripture and reason.) We can use this truth for helping us do politics in way that will actually benefit our neighbors. If we leave this task only to people outside the Church, or check what we know from divine revelation at the door, then governments can only be blind guides. They try to operate on the body that is society despite serious misunderstandings of how that body works or what it looks like in good health.

結論

Conclusion

我們從這裏實際上學到的，其實非常簡單。政治是必要的工作，甚至可以是好的工作。它的能力和用途也是有限的。政治可以、而且應該服務於和正義、秩序、鄰舍整體福祉有關的世俗需要上。既然我們的鄰居需要這些東西，我們身為基督徒就應該愛他們。我們不該認為這樣做是一種傳福音的工作。我們也不該把它和藉著聖靈的能力傳揚聖道的福音工作混為一談。但僅僅因為時間上的考量, 我們可以利用我們關於人性的特許知識, 更好地使今生的事務保持在健康的狀態下, 僅僅是因為我們的鄰居需要我們這樣做。

The practical takeaway from this is actually pretty simple. Politics is a necessary work, and even can be a good one. It is also limited in power and purpose. Politics can and should serve earthly needs related to justice, order, and the overall well-being of our neighbors. Since our neighbors need these things, we as Christians should serve them in love. We can’t think that doing this is a kind of evangelism. Nor can we confuse it with the Gospel work of proclaiming the Word in the power of the Spirit. But for merely temporal concerns, we can use our privileged knowledge about human nature to do a better job keeping the affairs of this life in shape, simply because our neighbors need us to.

參看：

論巴文克思想中的自然法和兩個國度

作者：Nelson Kloosterman

駱鴻銘譯自：“Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms in the Thought of Herman Bavinck”, in Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective, edited by Ryan C. McIlhenny. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2012。

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2016/12/10/Natural_Law_and_the_Two_Kingdoms_in_the_Thought_of_Herman_Bavinck.aspx

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/9eo3usgXiUe

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2016/12/nelson-kloosterman-natural-law-and.html

一國論VS兩國論

文/小约翰

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6361aee90102y9u9.html

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10156935262134653?__tn__=K-R

感謝神！我這個短講，不是學術性的長篇大論，而是一點提示。各組沒討論完的可以講完之後繼續討論。我們可以小結一下這一單元，這是我們《聖經神學基礎》的第四單元。

這一單元特別精彩，因為它關係到一個關於國度的很重要的話題，而這個話題常常是被淹沒的，或是被忽視的。前面我們也引用過陳佐人牧師的話，他說華人教會只有救恩論，沒有教會論。其實更嚴格來說，我們只有救恩論，沒有國度論。而且國度論，像我們國內家庭教會很重要的一份雜誌，它實際上是兩國論。如果是真正的一國論的話，我們很難找到它發言的陣地。所以在這裏，這個單元，它還是比較強調一國論的背景。

我們可以簡單來說一下。這是一個很重要的關鍵，就是你怎麼區分一國論還是兩國論？其實，你看很多文章，都是一些細枝末節的東西，比如我們既屬於天國，又屬於世界，這個不需要爭，這個誰都是這麼認為的。然後，我們既在上帝之城，又在世俗之城，這個也不需要爭。大家怎麼可能不承認這一點呢？！

其實，一國論或者兩國論關係到一個很重要的地方，就是上帝的主權對教會和對社會有沒有什麼不同？這是一個根本性的提問。「上帝的主權」，這是很重要的一個詞。上帝的主權，對於教會的統治和對於社會的統治，有沒有不同？

兩國論者，以馬丁•路德為代表。他當然是很重要的思想大師、神學家，他認為肯定有不同，上帝對教會的統治權是救贖的王權，但是對於社會的統治權是創造的王權。祂是許可他們，任憑他們，只是說祂是他們創造之主，因為有罪在那邊協調參與，所以很多時候你們愛怎樣就怎樣，只是主保持有一個創造的權柄而已。藉著自然律，不讓罪氾濫而已。

但馬丁•路德認為基督對教會就不一樣了。馬丁•路德認為神對教會是積極的主持和管理，有上帝明確的引導，有聖靈的感動。所以這種觀念再一步往前走，就很容易會形成特殊倫理學。比如林慈信牧師儘管講了很多，但是他在講婚戀輔導的時候就講得很清楚。他說，《聖經》只有對基督徒婚戀的原則，對非基督徒沒有。這很清楚，你可以看他的那個婚戀講座。然後，非基督徒的婚姻不能說是神的旨意，只是許可而已，只有基督徒兩個才可以。因此，神的原則是給基督徒的。這一類的觀念，是很明確的，很多人是這種觀念的擁有者。

一國論認為，上帝給教會和社會的統治權柄是一樣的。但是這就有一個危機，一個陷阱，認為兩者都是一樣的救贖王權，它有一個陷阱，這個陷阱就是神治國家。意思就是神要在地上建立一個神治的國家。因此就會容易有那個觀念，但這不是我們要講的一國論的觀念。一國論的觀念，為了特別區分這個觀念，就提出來一個很重要的詞：Mediatorial Kingship，翻譯成「中保王權」。

在這一課中，我們區分了一個廣義上的神的國和一個狹義上的神的國。權柄也是這樣的，有一個廣義上的神的權柄，祂統治著所有的造物，祂有祂的統治護理。但是祂更有一個中保王權。

中保性的王權是什麼呢，就是耶穌基督在祂的死裏復活之後，是祂在《馬太福音》28章18到20節說的，天上地上所有的權柄都賜給我了。所以，你們要去使萬民作我的門徒。主耶穌說天上地下所有的權柄都賜給祂了，主耶穌本身就是神。如果你要說這是創造護理的權柄，那就解釋不通了。因為祂從死裏復活之後，祂重新被授權了，然後祂有了一個新的權柄。這個新的權柄是什麼呢？祂被授權的權柄是什麼？就是這個「中保性王權」，就是耶穌基督代表教會接受了這個中保王權。這個中保性王權就是在亞當裏失落的權柄，就是管理、修理全宇宙這樣的一個責任。這個責任在基督裏得回了，不僅是祂得回了，也為教會得回了。教會要跟祂一起來管理、治理、修理。那麼神的這樣一個恩典的國度就要拓展了。所以，這就是中保性的王權。

中保王權在新約中最重要的經文就是這裏。那麼在舊約中最重要的經文是《詩篇》第2篇。《詩篇》第2篇，主耶穌復活之後，天父說：你是我的兒子，我今日生你。你求我，我就將列國賜你為基業。然後，詩人說，你們世上的審判官該受管教。

改革宗長老會教會有一個非常出色的神學家William Symington，他專門寫了一本書就是Messiah the Prince: the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ。此書專門來探討這個問題，應該是這方面的權威。我在國外讀神學的時候，就曾跟幾位牧者一週學習一次這本書。

這是一本名著。在這本名著裏，他講《詩篇》第2篇中，說你們審判官該受管教，它不是呼籲審判官成為基督徒。當然，每個人認罪悔改都很好，但是它在這裏是說，你要以審判官的身分，降服在這一位中保君王下面，祂是治理全地的王。

所以末世已經開始了，每個人都要來交賬。因此，上帝對這個世界的管理也是積極的，也是猶如上帝吩咐亞當夏娃要管理、治理、修理。所以，教會就是一個恩典的國度，然後要去承擔「宣講」的責任。然後有負擔的肢體要起來，去進入各行業各領域，也包括政治。因為審判官也要受管教。因此，每個人都應該要帶著負擔進入到這個世界裏，讓這個世界靠近《聖經》。

因此，我們有這樣的三分，這個世界上有基督徒，也有接受基督教理念的這一批人，也有敵基督的國度。那麼接受基督教理念的這一批人，他會受《聖經》文化的管治。《聖經》文化管治的推廣是有意義的，因為體現了我們的管理、治理、修理的中保性王權的實施。我們讓這個國家成為一個《聖經》理念的國家是有意義的，而不一定每一個人都非得成為基督徒。

而這也是尼布甲尼撒王的故事的意義。尼布甲尼撒王沒有成為基督徒，沒有成為基督徒，為什麼《聖經》還濃墨重彩地寫下他的故事？而且他的發言被寫下來，被稱為神的話。為什麼呢？就是因為要告訴我們：「至高者在人的國度掌權」。尼布甲尼撒王明白這一點也是有示範意義的，因此，基督徒有責任要抵制世俗化，然後也有責任要推動這個世界靠近《聖經》的文化理念。

但你一定得注意，這不是教會整體參與的事情，而是基督徒作為公民個人，作為有負擔的個體，相同負擔的人聯合在一起，大家一起承當，去作。教會總是要以傳講福音為要務。

而這一個中保王權對社會的影響和權柄大到不得了。它的一個標本就是日內瓦。加爾文和馬丁•路德的不同在於，加爾文認為上帝不僅是教會的王，祂也必須是日內瓦的王，因此，他有責任要改造日內瓦的文化，因此，議會把那些酒館、夜總會、妓院全都關了。這方面惹起很大爭議，但不要忘了，加爾文始終是對教會會友佈道，並沒有直接參與議會行政。他牧養自己的會友，要他們公義、正直，努力回到《聖經》，是沒有問題的。而議會是單獨向上帝負責。

他也推動議會要召開會議，要保護教會，你們擁有武器的人也要來輔助教會的發展，你們也要行公義、好憐憫、存謙卑的心與上帝同行。因此，到最後，日內瓦成為一個聖潔之城。它以前曾經是最骯髒最污穢的，但是到最後它成了聖潔之城。

很有意思的是，他的那個議會強到一個什麼程度呢？假如說你在聽道的時候打瞌睡，議會是可以逮捕你把你放到監獄裏去的，因為它認為你不尊重神的道，所以，整個日內瓦就變成了一個非常有意思的地方，但是它不是神政國家。為什麼呢？因為政府官員他無權干涉教會內政，教會長老是自己選舉，根據神的旨意，讓基督作王的。而他們是必須自己向基督交賬，當時的日內瓦是達到這個程度的。當然它這個程度有很大爭議，但問題是它在歷史上實現了。

所以，這就是中保王權的實現。所以，在美國讀神學的時候，我問一個老人家，如果要你用最簡單的一句話來說明中保王權怎麼落實，他說就是要讓憲法寫上耶穌基督是王，有這個烙印。不過，我強調這是有負擔肢體的感動之所在。對於教會來說，並沒有這樣的使命去推動這樣的事情。不過，根據這種非常積極的理念，如果在今天，任何一個公務員在世俗憲法面前宣誓的話，那麼基督徒，至少根據中保王權的規定，似乎不可以在憲法面前那樣宣誓的。因為那個憲法在我們看來是一個有著強烈宗教信仰的憲法。除非有一個耶穌基督作王的憲法，那因此就是為什麼在我們神學傳承裏面，很多基督徒放棄選舉的原因，因為他們認為美國憲法過於世俗化。

所以，這樣一個邊界的劃定，中保王權到底是只涉及到教會呢，還是延伸到社會，就會帶來一系列很重要的問題。比如說我舉個例子，有個姊妹和一個不信主的人談戀愛，她也知道是不應該的，但是她也是對神的道稀裏糊塗，然後她為了買房子，兩個人就登記了，但是這個姊妹就認為她還沒有跟他結婚，也沒有舉行儀式，也沒有同居，所以就只是為了買房子，她內心深處不認為她已經是結婚了。因此他們就買了房子了，在這個期間，這個姊妹受洗了，受洗的時候她明白真道了，她明白跟不信主的人是不應該同負一軛的。

此時如果你要輔導她，你會怎麼輔導？明白我的意思了吧？就是她先不明白真道，跟一個不信主的人談戀愛，後來又因為買房子登記，但是也沒有辦儀式，她內心深處不認為這是結婚了，她也沒跟他同居，這個時候她突然明白真道，受洗了，那因此她良心不安，你會怎麼輔導呢？

甲：先暫停關係，然後向男生傳福音，讓他信主，拼命地傳福音。

小約翰：這是一個很好的方案，但是那個人還是拒絕信呢？

甲：那就傳得更猛烈，很迫切地禱告。

小約翰：那他還是不信呢？

乙：反正沒正式結婚，就把民事政府的登記證給廢了。

小約翰：按照兩國論的觀點，就會往這個方向輔導，他會說，根據教會的規定，就是哪怕登記，你也不能住在一起，我們也不承認你是結婚了的，因為我們是以立約為根據的，那因此，你又是功利的，又不是這個合乎《聖經》的觀念——信與不信不可同負一軛，又沒有舉行婚禮，所以他輔導的時候會傾向說讓兩個人分開，哪怕離婚，他也認為這是神的旨意。這是一種輔導方法，但背後的前提其實是兩國論。

但是一國論的前提是，她已經結婚了，因此你的輔導就是消除這個姊妹良心的污穢，就是她認定她還沒結婚。為什麼呢？因為一國論的根據是民事政府有上帝賦予的權柄，它給你發了證就表明上帝認可你結婚了，因此你的輔導就是讓這個姊妹良心深處的她還沒結婚的那點想法要消除。然後讓她能夠接受正式的輔導，讓她接受民事政府仍然有權柄，它的認可仍然是有效的婚姻。

你看，就是因為觀念不一樣，你的輔導就完全是不同的方向。所以，這是一個複雜的案例。我們在美國的時候，諮詢過老師，背後就會牽扯到很深刻的觀念。所以，今天，你是怎麼樣的觀念，就會帶來怎麼樣的行為。

因此，基督徒在今天有責任抵制世俗化的觀念，抵制反《聖經》的觀念，然後拼命要去讓這個世界靠近《聖經》的觀念，哪怕只是基督教的理念實行。比如說，我們就推動禮拜天商店關門這個運動，從基督徒個人擔當來說它是有意義的，但若上升到教會，則另當別論。我們當然認定說，連不信主的人也有遵守十誡的任務，他干犯了安息日，仍然要受審判。但從教會來說，只能是靠著講道間接去推動。公民個人可以有倡議。這個國家如果接受了這個理念，那麼對這個國家是好的，因為公義使邦國高舉。這樣我們所做的每一點、每一滴都是有意義的，但是不是教會去推動，而是教會推動有負擔的肢體，他們可以有一批人去做這個事情，那麼這就會帶來我們在這個世界上的管理、治理、修理的責任。這是一個我們要梳理的觀念。

我們的講義在講這個神國推動的時候，它分了三個階段，分得是非常精彩的。所謂的太古時期，就是《創世記》1到11章；所謂的以色列時期，就是《創世記》12章到整個的《瑪拉基書》；然後是所謂的新約時期，就是主耶穌開啟的新約時代。三個時期都從三個方面，就是地理位置、國民、發展，又分了廣義和狹義，特別讓我們看見這位永不失敗的上帝在推進祂的國時，是透過使用可能會失敗的人，因此《聖經》的主題，其實是神國的拓展。

如果我們有這個觀念，就很容易明白，神是怎麼樣一再推展祂的國，而且一再讓人從祂的中心點開始，然後怎麼樣拓展。拓展的過程可能失敗，但神仍然使用失敗的人，祂沒有使用天使主要做這件事，祂就是使用會犯罪、會失敗的人，然後讓人能悔改更新，然後繼續去拓展；在拓展的時候，發現自己的生命也被更新，所以這是一個很重要的工程。

上帝使用人去拓展神國，然後在拓展的過程中，人自己被更新，然後讓神的旨意行在地上如同行在天上。所以，它把「願你的國降臨」分為三個層面，「人都尊你的名為聖，你的國降臨，你的旨意行在地上如同行在天上」。它是一個國度事件。那麼這個國度事件怎麼樣去拓展？它有藍圖，有失敗，但神依然勢如破竹地去拓展，而且使用我們這些軟弱的人，因此我們的一舉一動都會影響到神國的拓展。這會給我們一種舍我其誰的積極擔當，我們每個人都是神派到人間的特使，教會是天國的窗口，所以福音被稱為天國的福音。因此，這裏第五題問了一個問題：福音與神的國的連接是什麼？明白這個連接會幫助你對福音的理解。

根據我對講義的理解，我認為這個連接不是耶穌基督，而是這個福音被稱為神國的福音，神國被稱為福音的國。也就是這個福音是國度性的，並不只是個人得救，而是關乎到中保王權的拓展，也關乎到我們每個人都是神國拓展的特使。因此，主耶穌醫病趕鬼的時候，並不是一個個體性的事件、個體關懷的事件，而是宣告神國來了。神國來了意味著什麼？就好比是特派員來了，幾大戰役已經勝利了，你是敵對的一員，那就意味著你要趕緊找門路來投誠，你跟我們接觸，你跟特派員接觸，特派員就給你一條紅頭繩，那就表明這是對我們國度有利的。

因此，主耶穌空降來到人間，祂勝利了，祂得勝了，勢如破竹，那因此每個人都是傳令官，每個人都是特使，每個人都是空降到每個城市對大家說：「你已經被包圍了，日子不遠了，趕緊投降吧！趁著還能、跟我建立友誼吧。」如果攻堅了，你還想跟我建立友誼就太晚了。是吧，現在趕緊接我到家裏去，跟我建立朋友關係，然後藉著我這個梯子，你才能進入到我們的國度。

當你有這理解，事情就不一樣了，你在這個世界上生活不是顯得多麼悲慘，你是多麼榮耀，你是派到這裏來做特使的，你是天國的簽證官；你給人家發簽證的，你給他發一個說你可以到我們國家，又發一個說你也可以到。誰來發？教會來發。那你趕緊領人來啊，都敞著嘛，比到美國容易多啦！那為什麼大家都不趕緊領人來呢？趁現在都敞著呢，說不定到晚上八點就關掉了，那趕緊、趕緊搶人來啊！而且多簡單的事啊，來就發，來就發，還不趕緊，又沒有什麼條件。是不是？所以，這就給我們一個凱旋得勝的姿態，在這個世界上做王，跟耶穌基督一同做王。這就是基督的意思：你們要去，使萬民做我的門徒，凡我所教導的都教訓他們遵行，給他們施洗，然後做門徒，我就與你們同在，直到世界的末了。祂的意思是你簽一個我就給你蓋章，你敢簽我就敢蓋，那你幹嘛不簽啊？意思就是你幹嘛不說啊？你簽一個我就給你蓋章，舍我其誰的擔當就是從這裏來的。

所以，你看完這個，若不從座位上跳起來，你需要再看一遍。因為它有一種榮耀感，讓你看見從舊約到新約，神國怎麼拓展，而且勢如破竹，人失敗，祂得勝！神使用會失敗的人做成祂不會失敗的工作，還有比這更偉大的嗎？

我看楊腓力的《恩典不虛傳》，裏面講到一個觀點，我非常地贊成。他說很多人認為上帝是工程師，他說其實不準確，上帝其實是藝術家，把我們的塗鴉變成一流的繪畫傑作。是不是這樣啊！我們的塗鴉是亂塗的，祂添了幾筆就變成了世界一流的傑作。是不是這樣啊？所以你就要勇敢畫！然後祂簽名，只要簽上凡高，就值錢。祂是最偉大的藝術大師，大家越看越覺得是藝術傑作。所以祂是了不起的，因為祂欣賞祂的繪畫傑作，也使用我們去拓展祂的國度。

所以我的每一次吃飯，每一次談話，都是建立友誼，都是在建立神國，彙報說我們已經得勝了，趕緊歡呼吧，所以這種榮耀感非常強。

如果說講義有一個錯處，那就是它提到說大衛的國度是一個帝國主義國度，是一個帝國，是大衛的帝國——不客氣地說，這是錯的。這個你可以看《消失的帝國》這本書，一個韓國學者寫的，這本書真好，寫了五大帝國的興衰。那麼這五大帝國，你可以好好看看，因為跟我們關係密切。日本人特別會寫五大帝國，韓國人也很會寫，比如說日本人寫了一個《羅馬人的故事》，十五本，真精彩啊。你肯定要瞭解羅馬史，你不瞭解羅馬史，怎麼會知道福音傳遞的歷史？你也需要瞭解希臘文化，它是在一個羅馬希臘文化圈，在一個帝國的文化圈。但是，《消失的帝國》裏區分了，大衛是最有能力最有資格做帝國主義者的，但是他拒絕了。他沒有擴張他的國土，所以他是一個真的讓神做王的僕人，是靠福音去影響、而不是靠武力去征服的一個真正的王，所以裏面區分是非常精彩的。

感謝神，我們在亞當裏是祭司，是王，是君尊的王者，這兩個寶貴的身分，這樣我們的管理、修理、治理的責任沒有失落，在基督裏得回了。因此，我們仍然要承擔，要使用。而裏面還提到一點，我們跟一、二世紀基督徒最大的區別就是：一、二世紀的基督徒為了神的旨意在地上的拓展，不顧一切變賣家產，拼命地捨身忘死地去做，要讓福音傳遍地極。但是今天我們這樣的熱情消失了，我們想的是如何讓我們在地上活得更好一點，不知不覺我們的「範式」已經改變了。所以這個世界努力把神變成神龕，最好把神龕放在教會裏待著不動，但神努力把這個世界變成舞台，讓你我在其中表演角色。所以到底誰得勝，世界想把神給吞了，神想把世界給吞了，然後讓世界變得越來越小，越來越小，然後讓你我在世界中表演。

到最終，我們要學會從神的國度去看歷史，看你的整個人生，就完全不一樣了。求神帶領我們，要從神的國度看自己，還有呼召有王權，我們是一個國，我們要來建造這一個偉大的國度。

我說中國歷史，幾千年來恩恩怨怨，我們從來沒有真正建造成一個共同體。有一本很好的書，叫《想像的共同體》。你知道為什麼巴別塔對人的影響這麼大？因為想像的共同體的力量非常大。但是人類幾千年來一直想像，沒有辦法真正地組建一個共同體，但是這個共同體在基督裏一定得勝，因為聖靈來了，所以，我們在從事一個最偉大的事業，就是要建造一個真正的聖靈共同體，超越恩怨，生死相連。

如果，這在我們手中建成了，見證就有了，因為不再是恩恩怨怨，乃是充滿恩典，就得到真正的更新。所以，這個榮耀的異象常常使我夜不能眠，我盼望傳遞給大家，大家一同起來建造。你覺得在這裏只是聽一場道，彷彿在參加一個小教會？不是，而是建造一個那麼榮耀的國，是一個不能震動的國。

所以，那段話始終映在我心裏，希伯來書12章的最後，我們原不是來到那能摸的山，乃是來到錫安山，永生神的城邑。你看那個作者說，你來參加聚會，不是來到舊約的律法的山，乃是來到錫安山，永生神的城邑，天上的耶路撒冷。他一樣地一下子跳到天上，這不是來到地上的耶路撒冷，乃是天上的耶路撒冷。那裏有千萬的天使，有名錄在天上諸長子之會所共聚的總會，有審判眾人的神和被成全之人的靈魂，並新約中的中保耶穌，以及所灑的血。這血所說的比亞伯的血所說的更美。你是來到天上的耶路撒冷，有天使，有眾聖徒，有基督，因此，你是得，再一次的話，是指明被震動，就是受造之物都要被挪去，神讓不被震動的要長存，所以我們既然得了不能被震動的國，就應當感恩，照神所喜悅的虔誠敬畏的心來事奉神。你看，它一下子跳到你得到的是不能震動的國。

你看過那種末日片，像《2012》的那種，整個宇宙都在怒沉了，全都變成了洪水、變成了火海，但是停著一艘宇宙飛船，它不被震動。而教會，你來到教會是一個不能被震動的國，你走在世界的每一步都在陷落，它隨時都會垮下去，都是過眼雲煙，但是只有這裏在宇宙中閃閃發光，世界漆黑如墨，但是這一塊地方在宇宙永恆漆黑中閃閃發光，因為神使祂的教會發光如星，因為神在這裏。所以我們要有榮耀感！

我沒有一次講道，沒有一次在準備信息是糊弄的，我沒有一次寫神學作業是糊弄的，我都是用最大的激情去投入，因為這是在那不能震動的國。我為什麼要應付？難道我的神不配我去事奉祂嗎？不配我用最高激情去學嗎？所以我們應該知道我們得到的是什麼。我們要知道我們學的神學是什麼，這是何等寶貴的課題。但願我們都能心被恩感來敬拜我們的神。

我們一起來禱告：「天父上帝，我們深深感恩，我們謝謝祢，因為祢讓我們得那不被震動的國，也謝謝祢，儘管世界看我們如渣滓如敗類，我們似乎也不能掙大錢，不能光宗耀祖，但是我們也知道這個世界轟轟烈烈的那些會議都是過眼雲煙，祢根本不看，但是我們在這裏小小的討論，祢會記得，因為我們談論的是永生神，我們來到的是永生神的城邑，我們來到的是不能震動的神的國。主啊，我們求祢恩待參加神學班的每一位，都要能心被恩感，有這種榮耀感，也知道自己得的是什麼，也能夠珍惜，能夠用最大的激情和熱情去完成作業，因為這不是作業，這是有機會跟神打交道，研究神的話是何等美好！主啊，就求祢繼續引導我們，能夠珍惜，就像保羅那樣，可以說到天亮，讓我們不做猶推古，求祢將感動保羅的靈加倍感動我們，也求祢恩待我們，彌補不能來到我們當中的每一位，都要能積極完成作業，能夠珍惜這福分，一起更深地認識神，更深地來愛神，更深地順服神，願祢繼續引導保守。以上禱告奉耶穌基督的聖名。阿們。

基督徒的“兩國論”什麽是“兩個國度”？

David VanDrunen訪談   駱鴻銘摘譯：

http://www.credomag.com/2012/03/20/interview-with-david-vandrunen-on-two-kingdoms-theology/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2012/04/01/%E5%9F%BA%E7%9D%A3%E5%BE%92%E7%9A%84%E5%85%A9%E5%9C%8B%E8%AB%96.aspx

 （譯按：“兩個國度”的神學觀，最近在改革宗圈子裡引起許多爭議。以下是其中的一種看法。）

加州西敏神學院的系統神學教授David VanDrunen最近接受Credo Magazine的訪問，談到他對“兩個國度”的教義（Two Kingdoms Theology）的看法。其中兩點特別能解釋什麽是兩個國度：

其一。

我喜歡這樣來簡短描述“兩個國度”的教義：上帝用兩種截然不同的方式，透過祂的兒子統管全世界。作爲造物主和這個世界的維繫者，上帝統管自然界的秩序、世上一般的機構和人類社會的組織。這是透過普遍恩典所完成的，爲的是保存這個世界的生命，使之能繼續存活。作爲救贖主，上帝也透過拯救的恩典統管著末世性的國度。祂藉著宣講聖經，呼召一群特殊的百姓歸向自己。作爲基督徒，我們同時參與在這兩個國度之中，但是不應當把二者的目的相互混淆。作爲投身於非常豐富的聖約神學的改革宗神學家，我認爲根據聖經中的聖約來看這兩個國度是有幫助的。洪水之後，在上帝與挪亞所立的約當中，上帝應許要保存自然界和人類社會的秩序（不是要救贖他們！），這包括所有的人類和所有的生物。但是上帝也設立了一個特別的、救贖的聖約。這是透過亞伯拉罕、透過摩西和以色列，如今是和教會所設立的新約來完成的。我們基督徒同時參與在挪亞之約和新約當中（要記得上帝與挪亞所立的聖約會一直持續到地球被毀滅爲止），也透過它們，參與在上帝對世界的雙重統治——或上帝的兩個國度之中。

關於基督與文化的關係，有一種被稱為“改造文化派”（transformationist）的看法。有許多人擁護這種看法，對此也有許多不同的定義。基於這些分歧的看法和定義，我常常懷疑這種分類法到底有什麽用處。如果“改造文化”（transformation）的意思只是說我們作爲基督徒，要在生活所有的領域努力做到最好，並且盡力對我們的職場，鄰舍等等，造成好的影響，我就屬於“改造文化派”。但是人們通常對“改造文化派”的定義是基督要在此時此地救贖人類社會的組織和結構，換句話說，就是要根據基督救贖國度的模式來改造它們（譯按：這種看法認為福音包括要透過救贖社會文化來建立神的國，故教會應當積極參與社會改造）。我相信兩個國度的教義所提供的方法，明顯和這種方法不同。例如，如果基督徒遵循的是兩個國度的教義，他不會爲救贖這個國家（不管其涵義是什麼）而努力，而是認識到上帝保存這個國家有其良善的目的，並努力幫助這個國家在神暫時的、攝理的目的裏，在最佳的情况下運轉。

其二，我不認爲教會在選舉年的責任，和其他任何時候有什麽不同。教會應當宣講聖經中神全部的計劃（其中當然包括教導有關國家，人類生活的價值，婚姻，對待窮人，等等）。但是聖經沒有設定政治政策的議題，或擁護一個特定的政黨，因此，在這點上，教會應當保持沉默，因爲它沒有基督的授權，代表基督說話。而在支持某一個政黨或候選人，或公共平臺或策略上，個別的基督徒有自由可以運用上帝給他們的智慧，做出他們所相信的、一般來說會爲社會帶來最大好處的决定。政治總是需要妥協，要選擇最少的惡，並拒絕讓少數人的利益影響到大多數人的利益。基督徒對這些事情會有不同的判斷，而教會基於審慎的理由，不應當試圖介入，捆綁信徒的良心。這樣想也許會有幫助：在基督徒飽受政治廣告、標語和看板的轟炸下，在主日可以跨越這種對政治的狂熱，而和上帝救贖的百姓聚集在一起，來慶祝他們在天上的國籍，該是多麽令人振奮的事啊。他們與基督的聯結，應當超越所有的國家、種族和政治上的分歧。

譯按。Tim Keller 的看法總結在下面的博客文章中：

Coming Together on Culture: Theological Issues

（http://redeemercitytocity.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=400）

Coming Together on Culture, Part 2: Practical Issues

（http://redeemercitytocity.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=410）

附原文如下：

The first:

I like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer, God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society (not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants (remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.

The “transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians, should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those temporary and provisional purposes.

The second:

I don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.

定义两个国度：路德和加尔文重现的伟大教义

Defining the Two Kingdoms：One of Luther and Calvin's Great Recoveries

作者：Michael S. Horton   译者：王一

https://bensonian.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/defining-the-two-kingdoms.pdf

http://www.reformedbeginner.net/defining-two-kingdoms/

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/eKqBENrasTu

在19世纪后半叶，两种末世论或历史观碰撞起来。其中之一来自于胜利主义（triumphalism），这种思想代表了1588年击败西班牙无敌舰队之后的英美更正教，造就了新英格兰清教徒们英勇的自信心。另一则始于19世纪典型的福音派对社会改革希望的幻灭。人们常用后千禧年主义（Postmillennialism ）与前千禧年主义（premillennialism ）来定义这两种不同的思想。Two eschatologies, or views of history and creation's destiny, clashed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. One was rooted in the triumphalism that marked Anglo-American Protestantism since the Spanish Armada's defeat in 1588 and produced the courageous confidence of the New England Puritans. The other was rooted in the disillusionment with society's gradual improvement that so characterized nineteenthcentury Evangelicalism. Postmillennialism and premillennialism (see definitions on page 46) are the terms most commonly used now to delineate those two distinct approaches.

千禧年主义，不论前缀如何，从313年康士坦丁大帝信主到第一次世界大战之间这段时间，关注的是“基督帝国”（Christendom）的胜利。在第五世纪，奥古斯丁强烈的区分“两座城”，它们各自的起源、目的、命运、信息和方法。但是，奥古斯丁不愿意把镇压多纳图派的世俗宝剑拱手相让。多纳图派是早期的分裂团体，与改教家面对的极端重洗派相似。与奥古斯丁一样，路德和加尔文在理论上维护两国论，虽然他们在实践上并非总是严格遵循这个原则。奥古斯丁、路德和加尔文在末世论上是“无千禧年派”，但他们却仍然处于基督帝国模式的统治之下。整个中世纪时期，神圣罗马帝国经常扮演着实现旧约时代神治政体（theocracy）的角色，自以为是上帝的真以色列。帝国皇帝是大卫王（即神圣罗马帝国里的“神圣”所指）和凯撒（即神圣罗马帝国里的“罗马”所指）的混合体。而整个帝国和一切基督教邦国，组成了基督教的整体（corpus Christianum），即基督的身体。上帝的这“一个国度”将会成长、扩张，传播统一的宗教与文化，传播敬拜与文明，直到地极。Millennialism, whatever the prefix, concerns the triumph of "Christendom" from the conversion of Constantine the Great in 313 to the Great War (World War I). In the fifth century, St. Augustine sharply distinguished the "two cities," with their own special origin, purpose, destiny, message, and methods. And yet, Augustine reluctantly conceded to the use of the secular sword in suppressing the Donatists, a schismatic group similar to the radical Anabaptists known to the reformers. Like Augustine, both Luther and Calvin defended in theory a two kingdoms approach that they did not always follow in practice. While Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were "amillennial" in their eschatology (i.e., non-millenarian), they were still under the sway of the Christendom model. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire often played out its identity as the fulfillment of the Old Testament theocracy, the true Israel of God. The emperor was a blend of King David (hence, the Holy part of the name) and Caesar (hence, the Roman part). The whole empire and, in fact, all Christian states, composed the corpus Christianum , the body of Christ. And this "one kingdom" of God would grow and spread its unified cult and culture, its worship and its civilization, to the ends of the earth.

这就是藏匿在十字军、异端裁判所、美国奴隶制度以及给土著人屠杀提供辩护的美国天命论（manifest destiny）背后的神话。不必多言，以上帝和弥赛亚的名义犯下的暴行，罪魁祸首是对两个国度的混淆。在19世纪，大部分基督徒都很乐观。各禁酒社团的出现是美国基督化这一愿景缔造的诸多运动之一。可到了19世纪后期，同为福音派人士的约西亚·斯特朗（Josiah Strong）和慕迪（D. L. Moody）却标志了胜利主义后千禧年派与悲观主义前千禧年派之间日益明显的分裂。斯特朗说：“除非金钱已经被基督化，否则这世上的国将不会成为我主的国。”[1] 在保守派与自由派分道扬镳很久之前，美国的福音派运动已经倡导所谓的“社会福音”，这从霍拉斯·布什内尔（Horace Bushnell）以下的评论可以看得出来：This is the myth behind the crusades, the Inquisition, and such American institutions as slavery and the doctrine of manifest destiny, which gave narrative justification for the slaughter of Native Americans. Needless to say, the confusion of the two kingdoms has yielded the lion's share of blame for the atrocities committed in the name of God and his Messiah. In the nineteenth century, most Protestants were optimistic. Temperance societies emerged as one of many movements organized around the vision of a Christianized America. In the last quarter of that century, fellow evangelicals Josiah Strong and D. L. Moody would represent the growing cleavage between the triumphalistic postmillennialists and the pessimistic premillennialists. "The kingdoms of this world will not have become the kingdoms of our Lord," Strong opined, "until the money power has been Christianized." (1) Long before the conservative-liberal polarizations, American Evangelicalism had championed the so-called social gospel, as one notices in the following comment from liberal preacher Horace Bushnell:

“人的才能已经大规模基督化了。国家和王国的政治力量，长久以来被认为是维持个人安全和自由的，现在终于成真了。建筑、艺术、机构、学校和学术已经在很大程度上基督化了。但金钱的力量，这一切力量当中最活跃最宏大的其中一种，只是刚刚才开始变得基督化，但种种迹象带给人极大盼望，就是它最终要完全降服于基督，被他的国度使用……我们可以说，那一天降临的时候，就是那新创造的早晨。难道现在不应该是让那日的拂晓来临的时刻吗？”[2] Talent has been Christianized already on a large scale. The political power of states and kingdoms has been long assumed to be, and now at last really is, as far as it becomes their accepted office to maintain personal security and liberty. Architecture, arts, constitutions, schools, and learning have been largely Christianized. But the money power, which is one of the most operative and grandest of all, is only beginning to be; though with promising tokens of a finally complete reduction to Christ and the uses of His Kingdom.... That day, when it comes, is the morning, so to speak, of the new creation. Is it not time for that day to dawn? (2)

但福音布道家慕迪的看法却不同。虽然他一开始是查尔斯·芬尼的社会行动主义（social activism）的代表，但他对于地上的国可以在多大程度上成为神的国却变得日益悲观。他后来写道：“我把这世界看作是一条坏船，上帝已给了我一艘救生艇，对我说：‘慕迪，尽你所能拯救所有人吧。’”[3] 虽然许多人把复兴视为通过传福音和社会行动使社会基督化的工具，慕迪却视其为使人信主的手段。美国版的神圣罗马帝国把增加基督教医院、基督教大学、基督教妇女社团和男性社团等视为上帝认可的，推进上帝国度的标志。But evangelist D. L. Moody marched to the beat of a different drum. Although initially quite representative of Charles Finney's social activism, Moody became increasingly pessimistic about the extent to which earthly empires could become the kingdom of God. "I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel," he would later write. "God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, 'Moody, save all you can.'" (3) Whereas revival was usually regarded as an instrument of Christianizing society through evangelism and social action, Moody saw it as a means of converting individuals. The American version of the Holy Roman Empire regarded the proliferation of Protestant hospitals, colleges, and men's and women's societies, as signs of God's approval and, indeed, of the advancement of the kingdom of God.

历史学家乔治·马斯登（George Marsden）在许多地方提出，基督教右翼与基督教左翼同样来源于19世纪末的福音派。[4] 而引导当代福音派行动主义的是这种近期的思想（即行动主义），而不是奥古斯丁和改教家们的思想。讽刺的是，就连坚定的前千禧年派人士如杰瑞·法威尔（Jerry Falwell）所说的听上去就像曾经的后千禧年派人士。一个人相信两国论立场却在行动上没有与自己所相信的保持一致是一回事，但是一个人因为把某种文化与上帝的国混淆起来而把基督帝国模式付诸行动则是另一回事。As historian George Marsden has documented in various places, both the Christian Right and the Christian Left derive from this late nineteenth-century Evangelicalism. (4) It is this quite recent train of thought (or, more precisely, activism), rather than the profound reflection of Augustine and the reformers that guides contemporary evangelical activism. Ironically, even staunch premillennialists like Jerry Falwell sound similar to the postmillennialists of yesteryear. It's one thing to inconsistently act out a two kingdoms position and quite another to act out a Christendom model because one has confused a particular culture with the kingdom of God.

我们知道奥古斯丁教导两国论。这个思想使基督徒能够真正深入参与并影响世俗社会，同时又不会天真的误以为任何人类文化或国家是或可能真正成为义的。因为只有等到基督再来，等到世界的末了，稗子才会从麦子中被分出去，在那日子之前，我们有两种不同的纲领：一个是为基督的国度（救恩），另一个是为人类的国度（社会改善），这两者都是为了上帝的荣耀。We know that Augustine taught the two kingdoms approach. This view made it possible for profound Christian involvement and influence in secular society, while at the same time never giving in to the naïve assumption that any human culture or nation is-or can become-truly righteous or good. For only at the end of the age, when Christ returns, is the wheat separated from the chaff, and until that time, we work on two different agendas: One for the kingdom of Christ (salvation), and another for the kingdom of man (social improvement), and both for the glory of God.

属地的众王国与属天的一座城Earthly Kingdoms and the Heavenly City

属地的各个王国建立不同的法律和风俗习惯来保持属地的和平——在对于堕落后的人类来说是不小的成就。但是那个属天的城却有不同的志向，追求属天的和平，呼召人们从地上各国来进入上帝的国。这并不意味着他们不再是属地国度的公民，而是说他们不再从那个身份里找寻他们终极的安慰、满足与希望。不论堕落前后，世俗社会一直是上帝给我们的恩赐，因此基督徒必须像非信徒一样在社会上耕耘。其实，“上帝没有把人类的国、他们的统治与劳动置于他护理的定律之下。”[5] 但是，属地之城永远是巴比伦——她和她其中的居民永远不会变成上帝的居所。上帝的国是通过福音的宣讲来扩张，而不是通过武力：“因此，这座城正在建造之中；通过宣讲真理之人的手，石块从山丘上被凿下来，他们要进入一个永恒的建筑里。”[6] Accordingly, the earthly kingdoms establish diverse laws and customs that will engender earthly peace-no small accomplishment for humanity after the fall. But the heavenly city is always different in its ambitions, seeking heavenly peace and calling people out of the nations into the kingdom of God. This does not mean that they then are no longer citizens of the earthly city, but that they do not derive their ultimate comfort, satisfaction, or hope from it. Secular society is a gift of God before and after the fall and it must be cultivated by Christians as well as their nonbelieving neighbors. In fact, "God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of His providence." (5) But the earthly city is always Babylon-it is never converted, as are its inhabitants, into the dwelling place of God. The kingdom of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through force: "This city is therefore now in building; stones are cut down from the hills by the hands of those who preach truth, they are squared that they may enter into an everlasting structure." (6)

路德很欣赏奥古斯丁对新约圣经的洞见，但是因为他当时是在反抗教会控制世俗界，所以他把教会置于国家之下。（为了公平起见，我必须说，慈运理、布赛尔、布灵格甚至某种程度上加尔文也都采取这种方法。）路德曾说，“世俗政府的法律范围不超过生命、财产、外部事物和属地关系。因为至于灵魂，除了上帝自己，他不能也不会让任何人去统治。”两国论的方法代表了路德宗在此问题上的一致看法。Luther appropriated Augustine's New Testament insights, although he reacted against church domination over the secular sphere by making the church subject to the state. (In fairness, the same approach was taken by Zwingli, Bucer, Bullinger, and even to some extent Calvin.) "Secular government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and to external things and relations on earth. For over the soul God can and will let no one rule but himself alone," Luther said. The two kingdoms approach represents the Lutheran consensus.

那么加尔文和加尔文主义如何看待这个问题呢？神学家理查德德·尼布尔（H. Richard Niebuhr）在《基督与文化》（Christ and Culture）一书中铿锵有力的宣称加尔文主义是“基督改变文化”模型。我想，的确有理由去证明这论点。例如，在神学家、政治家亚伯拉罕·凯波尔（Abraham Kuyper）的荷兰加尔文主义思想里，他着重强调要承认上帝和基督在生命各个领域的主权，而不仅仅是在宗教领域。虽然在历史上美国北部的长老会倾向于混淆这两个国度，后千禧年派的乐观主义统治北部，但是在南部的长老会则严格区分这两个国度——也许是因为想要维护奴隶制度带来的利益，把信仰与实践分割了。But what about Calvin and Calvinism? Theologian H. Richard Niebuhr's heavy typecasting in Christ and Culture distinguishes Calvinism as a "Christ Transforming Culture" model. There have been reasons to argue that case, I suppose. In the Dutch Calvinism of theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper, for instance, there is a heavy emphasis on recognizing the authority of God and of his Christ over all spheres of life and not just religion. While Presbyterianism in the northern United States tended to confuse the two cities, dominated as it came to be by postmillennial optimism, southern Presbyterianism sharply distinguished the two kingdoms-often perhaps in the interest of protecting the institution of slavery by separating faith from practice.

但是，当我们来看改革宗和长老会的信仰准则和最具代表性的教理与系统神学时，我们很容易会看出这个奥古斯丁的两国论教义。为了证明这个结论，让我们简单来看加尔文。But when it comes to the confessional standards of Reformed and Presbyterian bodies, as well as their most representative dogmatics or systematic theologies, one easily discerns a consensus around the biblical and Augustinian two kingdoms doctrine. To demonstrate this conclusion, let's turn briefly to Calvin.

加尔文欣赏上帝的堕落世界Calvin Appreciates God's Fallen World

加尔文是在当时法国人文主义最著名的圈子里接受的教育，他对文学和其他领域博学娴熟。虽然他很清楚在世俗思想中的弱点，但他没有全盘否定，而是继续欣赏其优点。“每当我们看到真理之光在异教作家的著作中表现出来，就要知道，人心虽已堕落，不如最初之完全无缺，但仍然禀赋着上帝所赐优异的恩赐。”他继续写道：Trained in some of the most distinguished circles of French humanism, Calvin was familiar with a wide range of literature and other subjects. Far from repudiating this heritage, he continued to appreciate its strengths even as he came to recognize more clearly the weaknesses in secular thought. "Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers," he pleaded, "let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts." He continues:

“我们岂该拒绝古代那些建立伟大平等的社会制度的法律家们所得真理吗？我们岂该说那些观察描述自然的哲学家都是盲目的吗？……我们岂该说那些致力于医药研究使我们受益的人是疯狂吗？我们对一切数学的研究怎么说呢？我们能把它们当作疯人的狂言吗？……圣经上所称为“属血气的人”既在研究属世事物上敏锐洞察，我们就应该知道，在人性真正的良善被被剥夺以后，主还给人性留下许多美善的恩赐。”[7] What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone on the ancient jurists who established civic order and  discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature?... Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen?... Those men whom Scripture calls "natural men" were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of earthly things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (7)

在十六世纪，不论是罗马天主教还是更正教，反对基督帝国的概念并不是流行的做法，而加尔文称之为“人造帝国”（contrived empire）。加尔文并没有像我们期望的那样真正搞清楚在实践中这一切该如何运作。然而，他坚持认为，我们必须意识到我们处在“双重的治理之下，……好叫我们不重蹈覆辙，把这两件完全不同的事不智慧地混合起来。”就像身体与灵魂虽不彼此为敌但必须加以区分，同样“基督属灵之国和属世政府，乃是两件完全不同的事。”他继续写道：v Opposing what Calvin called the contrived empire known as Christendom was not popular in the sixteenth century, with Roman Catholics or Protestants. And Calvin was still not as clear about how this worked out in practice as we might have hoped. Nevertheless, he insists, we must recognize that we are "under a twofold government,... so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature." Just as the body and soul are distinct without being necessarily opposed, "Christ's spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct." But he continues:

“然而这种区别并不使我们视政府为败坏的事，与基督徒无关。有些狂热分子，除自由之外，不如说除放荡之外，什么都不喜欢。……但是虽然我们已指出，这种治理是与基督在内心属灵的治理有别，然而我们仍应当知道，它们二者并不互相抵触。”[8] Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men. That is what, indeed, certain fanatics who delight in unbridled license shout and boast.... But as we have just now pointed out that this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and inward Kingdom of Christ, so we must know that they are not at variance. (8)

因此，日内瓦的改教家站在两种极端之间，一边是基督混淆文化（罗马天主教），另一边是基督反对文化（重洗派）。因着上帝在创造和护理中的良善，世俗国度不能被丢弃而不引起上帝的不满，但因为罪和对上帝的叛逆，这世界永远不会与上帝和好，直等到末日最终的审判。So here the Genevan reformer stood, between the Christ of culture (Rome) and the Christ against culture (Anabaptists). Because of God's goodness in creation and providence, the secular kingdom could not be renounced without incurring divine displeasure, but because of sin and rebellion against God the cities of this world would never be reconciled to God apart from his final judgment at the end of history.

加尔文的频频指责重洗派逃避世界的热诚。 重洗派的《施莱坦信条》（Schleitheim Confession (1527)）里体现出的二元论也深刻的体现出美国基要派的思想：Anabaptist zeal to escape the world meets with Calvin's rebuke at every turn. The Schleitheim Confession (1527) of the Anabaptists argued the following dualism that would also heavily mark American fundamentalism:

“我们认同分离：我们必须与魔鬼栽种在这世界上的邪恶与罪恶分离；如此，我们不可与恶人有交集，不可在他们多样可憎之事上与他们同行。这是我们所要做的：一切不行在信心的顺服之中的人，没有与上帝联合来遵行他的旨意，他们在上帝眼中是可憎的，因此除了可憎之事，他们里面生发不出任何东西。”[9]  We are agreed on separation: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them [the wicked] and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do his will, are a great abomination to God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. (9)

因此，大部分重洗派从公共社会中完全退出去建立自己的社区。讽刺的是，这些分离两个国度的重洗派建立的社区却成为新的两个国度混合物：世俗与属灵的政府成为同一个，就像基督帝国模式里的一样。当一些重洗派退出公共领域时，另一些重洗派则试图推翻现存的政府，以武力建立上帝的国，比如托马斯·闵采尔（Thomas Müntzer）带领的德国农民革命起义。加尔文说，重洗派的问题在于他们不懂得区分创造与堕落，不懂得区分上帝设立的两个国度。所以，他们把上帝面前被称义和道德、社会、政治的义混淆，结果既破坏了基督徒与非基督徒之间的以礼相处，又损害了福音。因此，加尔文写道：“这种法律的不同性，本来是为求最能遵守上帝的律法，凡讨厌它的，乃是怎样暴露他嫉视公益呢？因为有些人提出反对说，以别的法律取代上帝给摩西的律法是对摩西律法的侮辱，但他们所提出的反对毫无根据。”[10] 加尔文说，“上帝的律法中的道德律（moral law），无非是自然律（natural law）和上帝在人心中所铭刻的良心的见证。”[11]就像保罗表明的，甚至在他所处的异教社会里，非信徒也可以公正严明的治理（罗13:1-7）。Hence, most Anabaptists withdrew entirely from civil society to form their own communities. Ironically, these communities became a new confusion of kingdoms: the secular and spiritual government were regarded as one and the same, just as they had been in Christendom. While some Anabaptists withdrew, others sought to overthrow existing governments and institute the kingdom of God by force, as in Thomas Muntzer's ill-fated peasant revolution. The problem with the Anabaptists on this point, Calvin argued, was that they would not distinguish between creation and fall or between the two kingdoms instituted by God. In this way, justification before God was confused with moral, social, and political righteousness, undermining both civility between Christian and non-Christian as well as the Gospel. So, Calvin writes, "How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law! For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain." (10) After all, Calvin says, "It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved on the minds of men." (11) Unbelievers can rule justly and prudently, as Paul indicates, even under the more pagan circumstances of his day (Rom. 13:1-7).

加尔文在实践上与路德的区别Calvin's Distinctiveness from Luther on the Practice of Two Kingdoms

加尔文不仅与路德不同，也与其他改革宗的同僚不同。他的独特之处主要在于对两国论的实践。首先，加尔文被日内瓦驱逐正是因为他和他的同事们坚持教会在处理属灵事务上的自由。要知道，就连当时的苏黎世也是市议会控制教会，同样，在斯特拉斯堡、伯尔尼和巴塞尔都是如此，但是慈运理、布灵格、布赛尔、厄科兰帕迪乌斯以及在这些城市里的其他改革宗牧师们对此完全赞同。可是为什么加尔文和法勒尔不赞同这种制度呢？日内瓦市议会直到切切恳求加尔文回到日内瓦之后，才最终把一些权力转交给教会的牧长会（consistory，由日内瓦教会的牧师与长老组成的议会）。甚至，当公开反对三位一体论的塞尔维特（Michael Servetus）在日内瓦被执行火刑时，加尔文的角色也仅仅是证人。其实，加尔文曾经恳求市议会选择一个不那么痛苦的刑罚方式，但就连“温和的菲利普” 墨兰顿（Melanchthon）也支持这种处决异端的传统刑罚。就像许多其他的论战一样（例如每周都施行圣餐礼），加尔文都输给了市议会的保守主义。Where Calvin differed not only from Luther but also from his Reformed elders and colleagues, was chiefly in the practice of two kingdoms theory. For one thing, Calvin had been expelled from Geneva precisely because he and the other ministers had insisted on the liberty of the church in the spiritual affairs of the people. Zurich's city council had ruled the church, as had Strasbourg's, Bern's, and Basel's-while Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and other reformer-pastors of those cities fully concurred. Why were Calvin and Farel so disagreeable to this order? Only after pleading earnestly and successfully for Calvin's return did the city council of Geneva finally surrender at least some of its jurisdiction to the consistory (the pastors of the several Genevan churches with their elders). Even when Michael Servetus, the outspoken anti-trinitarian, was burned at the stake in Geneva, Calvin's only role was that of witness. In fact, Calvin had pleaded with the city council for a less painful form of execution, but the support of even "gentle Phillip" Melanchthon was on the side of the traditional execution for heretics. As in many other controversies (such as weekly communion), Calvin lost to the conservatism of the city council.

关于抵抗暴政的问题，加尔文同意其他改教家所持的保守主义，尤其在当时，许多贵族怀疑整个宗教改革派都像闵采尔和其他重洗派那样极端。然而，加尔文的接班人泰奥多尔·贝扎（Theodore Beza）与其他改革宗神学家，特别是德国和法国的改革宗神学家，开始发展出现代的对暴政“抵抗权”的概念（right of resistance）。对路德而言，人民必须顺从君王，至少在属地的事务上如此。加尔文的观点几乎与此相同，只是稍微裂了一个小缝隙（参《要义》4.20），允许在合法的情况下，由贵族来抵抗暴君，但绝不是人民抵抗。我们的确可以看出在改革宗里，两个国度之间的互动更多一些。在改革宗神学里，虽然清晰区分两个国度，但更强调创造与救赎之间的连续性。在有罪的人性中，上帝的形象虽被损伤，却没有完全丧失。虽然文化行为永远无法是救赎性的，但被救赎的人会以新的视角来看待创造与文化行为。改革宗传统对文化成就所产生的巨大兴趣不能完全与他们属天子民的身份分开，而是从这个身份的外在表现。On the right of resistance to tyrannical rulers, Calvin shared the conservatism of the other reformers, especially at a time when so many princes suspected all Protestants of the radicalism of Thomas Muntzer and the radical Anabaptists. Nevertheless, Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza, along with a number of other Reformed theologians especially in Germany and France, began developing what became the modern "right of resistance" to tyrants. For Luther, the prince is always to be obeyed, at least in the sphere of earthly things. Calvin's view was almost identical to that but with the door sufficiently cracked (e.g., Institutes 4.20) to allow for the possibility that tyrants could be opposed on legal grounds by lesser nobility-but never by the masses. One does begin to discern in Reformed attitudes a greater interaction between the two kingdoms. Although both are clearly distinguished, there is perhaps a stronger emphasis in Reformed theology upon the continuity of creation and redemption. The image of God is defaced, but not lost, in sinful humanity. While cultural activity can never be redemptive, the redeemed will view creation and cultural activity with new spectacles. The enormous interest in cultural pursuits that the Reformed tradition produced was never seen as entirely separate from heavenly citizenship, but a constructive outworking of it.

可以肯定，在改革宗立场中有一种张力，一方面我们看到生命的全部都服在上帝的统治之下，而另一方面意识到“只是如今我们还不见万物都服基督。” 胜利主义过分把末世现世化，强调“已然”；而悲观主义则过分低估已经实现的末世，强调“未然”。但如果说加尔文主义者们不能容忍暴政，他们也绝没有自由把公义攥在自己手中代替上帝执行审判，那是万王之王在末日要做的事。他们也不应通过强权把自己独特的基督教信念强加在社会上，就像罗马天主教和极端重洗派试图做的，而是按照不同国度中的不同政策去履行自己属天和属地的双重国籍身份。To be sure, there is a tension in the Reformed position to see all of life under the reign of God and yet to affirm "we do not yet see all things subjected to Christ." Some err on the side of triumphalism (an over-realized eschatology emphasizing the "already"), while others err on the side of pessimism (an under-realized eschatology emphasizing the "not yet"). But if Calvinists are not expected to endure tyranny, they are also not given liberty to take justice into their own hands or to exercise the judgment reserved for the King of kings on the last day. Nor are they to seek to impose their distinctively Christian convictions on society through the kingdom of power, as both Rome and the radical Anabaptists tried to do, but are to pursue their dual citizenship according to the distinct policies of each kingdom.

归根到底，区别两个国度最要紧的在于区分律法与福音。那些混淆社会公义和上帝面前称义的人，很容易混淆社会道德改革与上帝的国。虽然改革宗坚持在讨论称义时必须区分律法与福音，但我们不相信律法的功能只是给人定罪。律法还有第三重功用，这一点路德宗的朋友们也是接受的。按照这个功用，律法引导信徒生活，尽管他们已经不再处于律法的威胁与定罪之下。除了在上帝面前被接纳这件事之外，律法与福音并不彼此相对。二者必须被区分。律法能引导我们过圣洁生活，但律法永远无法赐给我们生命，甚至在我们称义之后。At the end of the day, at stake in distinguishing the two kingdoms is the distinction between law and Gospel. Those who confuse civil righteousness with righteousness before God will be likely to confuse moral reform in society with the kingdom of God. And yet, here again there is a subtle difference between the Lutheran and Reformed approaches. While the Reformed firmly insist on the distinction and, in fact, the opposition of law and Gospel with respect to the question of our acceptance before God, they do not believe that the law only accuses everyone at all times. There is a third use of the law, which Lutherans also accept in principle. According to this use, the law guides believers who can never again fall under its threats and condemnation. Law and Gospel are not in opposition unless we seek to find satisfaction before God. But they are always distinguished at every point. The law can guide us in godly living, but it can never-even after we're justified-give us any life.

就像我们无法从律法中获得生命，我们也无法在文化胜利中找到任何自信。如同律法与福音，我们属地和属天的身份并不彼此为敌，除非我们尝试为属地国度寻找救赎。当我们意识到即便通过我们的政治和文化努力，我们也无法从暴力、压迫、不公、道德败坏中解脱得到永恒的安息的时候，我们才真的能为了上帝在耶稣基督里赐给我们的救赎恩典而感恩，并以此感恩之心自由的进行社会改善。此外，当我们履行文化使命时，我们要回头看上帝祝福的受造界，同时也要向前看，到那一日，受造界将要被恢复，这世界万国最终都要成为我们上帝和基督的国度，直到永永远远，阿门。

Just as we cannot derive any life from the law, we cannot derive any confidence in our cultural triumphs in so many fields. As with law and Gospel, our earthly and heavenly citizenship are not opposed unless we are seeking a way of salvation for a nation. But once we recognize that there is no everlasting rest from violence, oppression, injustice, and immorality through our own political or cultural works, we are free to pursue their amelioration with vigorous gratitude to God for his saving grace in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we pursue this cultural task looking back to the creation which God blessed and looking forward to this same creation that will be restored when the kingdoms of this world will finally be made the kingdom of our God and of his Christ forever, world without end. Amen.

脚注：

[1] Josiah Strong, “Our Country,” in William G. McLoughlin, ed., The American Evangelicals, 1800-1900: An Anthology (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976), p. 196.

[2] Quoted by Josiah Strong, op.cit.

[3] Cited in Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 38

[4] George M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and Theology in Nineteenth-Centry America (New Haven: Yale, 1970); and George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), especially chapter 3.

[5] Ibid., 222.

[6] Ibid., 208.

[7] 《要义》,2.2.15。

[8] 《要义》，4.20.1-2。

[9] Mark Noll, ed., Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College Publishing, 1997).

[10] 《要义》，4.20.16。

[11] 同上。