两种护教方式：前提护教和证据护教TWO WAYS TO APOLOGIZE：Presuppositional apologetics and Evidentialapologetics
文/托尼·佩恩（Tony Payne） 译/芥子 校/老漫
原文由托尼•佩恩（Tony Payne）从科林•马歇尔（Colin Marshall）和菲利普•詹森（Phillip Jensen）的材料改编而成。
定义术语Defining terms
传福音:告诉人们上帝在基督里所行的事这一好消息，并呼召他们悔改、信靠基督。传福音包括提供信息和发出邀请。
Evangelism:
telling people the good news of what God has done in Christ and calling on them
to repent and put their trust in him. Evangelism involves both giving
information and making invitation.
护教:为这个消息辩护；回答人们的问题并提出论据来说服他们认识真理。
Apology:
making a defence of this news; answering people’s questions and presenting
arguments to persuade them of the truth.
护教学: 关于如何做好护教工作的研究，解决为什么做（Why）和怎么做（How）的问题。
Apologetics:
the study of how to make a good apology; the how and why.
护教者:从事护教工作的人。
Apologist:
one who makes an apology.
前提护教:护教学的形式之一，侧重于人们对世界的假设或预设。
Presuppositional
apologetics: a form of apologetics focusing on people’s assumptions or
presuppositions about the world.
证据护教: 护教学的另一种形式，集中在提供证据 （如历史记录），以确认基督教的真理。
Evidential
apologetics: a form of apologetics which concentrates on presenting evidence
(like historical records) to confirm the truth of Christianity.
是薛华还是麦道卫？
Do
you fancy yourself as a Francis Schaeffer? Or perhaps more of a Josh McDowell?
看了看我的咖啡杯的顶部，我尝试着抛出了另一个问题。“复活呢？你相信耶稣从死里复活吗？”
There
is more than one way to “give an answer for the hope that we have”. I looked
over the top of my coffee mug and tried another tack. “What about the
resurrection? Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?”
“哦，是的”，我的朋友回答到。“我毫不怀疑这点。” “Oh yes,” my friend replied, “I have no doubt that he did.”
真是太好了！我充分抓住时机。“如果他从死里复活, 那么他在宇宙中是独一无二的
——他是主、是统治者、是我们必须顺服的那一位……”
This
was too good to be true. I pressed my advantage home.
“And
if he rose from the dead, then he is unique in the universe—the Lord, the
Ruler, the one to whom we must all submit ... ”
我话还没说完，我的朋友古普塔先生[2]悠悠地打断了我：“哦, 不,
那根本不能说明什么。从死里复活有什么不寻常的呢？我觉得这很正常——你不觉得吗？”
I was
winding up for a big finish when my friend, Mr Gupta, quietly interrupted.
“Oh
no, that does not follow at all. What is so unusual about being raised from the
dead? I certainly expect to be—don’t you?”
我张着嘴巴，意识到：这个问题也像其他所有的问题一样，失效了。古普塔先生，一位虔诚的印度教教徒，对耶稣的复活丝毫不感到惊奇。他和我生活在不同的世界（有着完全不一样的世界观），对他而言，复活 (或转世) 是生活中正常的一部分；对我来说，这是一个非同寻常的事件，显出非同寻常的一位那非同寻常的能力。
Open-mouthed,
I realized that this tack, too, was flat like all the others. Mr Gupta, a
devout Hindu, saw nothing unusual in resurrection. He and I lived in different
worlds—in his, resurrection (or reincarnation) was a normal part of life; in
mine, it was an extraordinary event indicating the power of an extraordinary
person.
这次交流凸显了我们在护教中所遇到的问题。我们回答朋友们的问题并试图说服他们信靠基督，是很难轻易成功或进展顺利的。很多时候，我们会陷入困境，不是因为说了什么假教训或误导人的话，而是因为这话是我们在错误的时间里或对错误的人说的。
This
exchange highlights the problems we have in apologetics. Answering our friends’
questions and trying to persuade them to put their trust in Christ is rarely
easy or straightforward. Very often, we find ourselves in deep water not
because we have said something false or misleading, but because we have said it
at the wrong time, or to the wrong person.
我与古普塔的交流也凸显了福音派用来捍卫和确认信仰的两种方法：前提法和证据法。在本文中，我们将查看这两种护教方法，它们主宰了福音派人士与非基督教世界的互动方式。它们的长处和短处是什么？以及，过度护教是件坏事吗？
The
little exchange with Mr Gupta also highlights the two approaches that
Evangelicals have used for defending and confirming the faith: the Presuppositional
and Evidential methods. In this, the first of a series of articles on
apologetics, we will look at these two approaches to apologetics that have
dominated the way Evangelicals have interacted with the non-Christian world.
What are their strengths and weaknesses? And is too much apologizing a bad
thing?
前提护教法：你的前提是什么？
What
are your Presuppositions?
著名的基督徒作家，如《上帝在那里》的作者弗朗西斯·薛华（Francis Schaeffer），《隔壁的宇宙》的作者詹姆斯•锡尔（James Sire）和《所有的心意夺回》的作者理查德•普拉特（Richard Pratt）都是热衷前提护教的代表，他们着眼于人们的前设，来捍卫基督信仰，为真理辩论。
Well-known
writers like Francis Schaeffer (The God who is There), James Sire (The Universe
Next Door) and Richard Pratt (Every Thought Captive) are examples of Christians
who focus on people’s presuppositions in defending Christianity and arguing for
its truth.
前提护教者认为，许多人不接受福音，是因为他们的前设阻碍了他们，像古普塔一样，因为他的世界观即是如此。把关于基督的事实呈现出来，对他们而言是没有意义的。就好比你和一个印度教或佛教徒交谈，几乎没有必要求助于历史资料或事件来支持福音，因为印度教和佛教徒都不相信历史（他们看待历史与我们不同）。他们有着（与我们）完全不同的“世界观”。
Presuppositional
apologists perceive that the reason many people do not accept the Christian
gospel is that their assumptions prevent them from doing so. Like Mr Gupta,
their view of the world is such that presenting the facts of Christ to them
makes little sense. If you are talking with a Hindu or Buddhist, for example,
there is little use appealing to historical facts or events to support the Christian
gospel, since neither Hindus nor Buddhists believe in history (in the way we
would use the term). Their ‘world view’ is entirely different.
应对这一点，前提护教者从上帝在基督耶稣和圣经中的启示开始。在这个基础上，他们倾向于采取三种策略：
To
counter this, the Presuppositionalists start with the revelation of God in
Christ Jesus and the Scriptures. Working from this base, they tend to adopt
three strategies:
1、表明圣经的内在一致性
1) To
show that the Bible is internally consistent.
内在一致性是上帝在圣经中所启示之真理的一个证据。例如，詹姆斯·锡尔认为“内在的知性连贯”是可接受的世界观的一个主要特征。一个有效的、可接受的世界观必须包含有哲学一致性的推理。简单地说：它是有道理的。
Internal
consistency is one piece of evidence for the truth of what God has said in
Scripture. James Sire, for example, argues that ‘inner intellectual coherence’
is a leading characteristic of an acceptable world view. A valid and acceptable
world view must contain reasoning that is philosophically coherent. Put simply:
it’s got to make sense.
2、表明圣经的世界观是解释世界、人、社会、历史等最恰当的世界观
2) To
show that the Bible’s world view is the ‘best fit’ for explaining the world,
man, society, history and so on.
詹姆斯·锡尔提出了一个关于合宜世界观的四重测试[3]。
James
Sire puts forward a four-fold test for an adequate world view (Universe Next
Door, p. 209f).
第一个是如上所述的圣经的内在一致性。
The
first of these is internal consistency, as above.
第二个测试是，世界观必须能够解释现实的数据。任何解释世界的思想体系，都必须能够容纳我们所认知和体验的世界。它必须与我们日常生活的经验、理性和科学调查的发现、以及我们传承的经验（包括“超验的内容”）相印证。
The
second test is that the world view must be able to explain the data of reality.
Any system of thought that offers an explanation for the way the world is, must
be able to accommodate the world as we know and experience it. It must find
room for the experiences of our daily lives, the discoveries of rational and
scientific investigation, and the experiences of others as reported to us
(including the ‘miraculous’).
第三个测试是，世界观应该能够解释诸如人的理性、道德感、对真理的追求以及对个人成就和关系的渴望等内容。
The
third test is that a world view should be able to explain things like man’s
rationality, his moral sense, his searching for truth, and his desire for
personal fulfilment and relationship.
第四个测试是，世界观必须是“活”的——有生活价值的，能使人在日复一日的生活中感到满足。
Fourthly,
a world view must be ‘liveable’. It must be personally satisfying in day to day
life.
锡尔总结到，基督信仰里的价值观是最合宜的：“它提供了一个参考的框架，人从中可以找到（一切的）意图和意义。它经受得起合宜世界观的四重测试。”[4]
Sire
concludes that Christianity provides the best fit: “It provides a frame of
reference in which man can find meaning and significance. It stands the
four-fold test for an adequate world view” (p. 213).
3、揭露其他世界观的错误
3) To
expose the faults of other world views.
弗朗西斯·薛华的许多作品都是针对这一目的的。通过揭示其他世界观的不一致和不充分，他将人们推向基督信仰这一确实提供了答案的信仰体系中。
Much
of Francis Schaeffer’s writings are directed to this end. By showing the
inconsistency and inadequacy of other world views, people are pushed towards
Christianity as a system that does provide answers.
又比如，锡尔抓住自然主义[5]的两个漏洞攻击它：
Sire,
for example, attacks Naturalism1 by exposing two flaws.
第一，价值的问题：一个人如果只是原始粘液完全随机的产物，怎么能有价值呢？如果我们只是一种复杂的原子粒子的排列，就没有任何固有的或者说个人的价值——（我们的价值）不比任何其他的颗粒排列(比如蟑螂或一块奶酪)更多或更少。
First,
the problem of value: how could a human being, thrown up entirely by chance from
the primordial slime, be worth anything? If we are but a complex arrangement of
atomic particles, we are of no intrinsic or personal worth—no more or less than
any other arrangement of particles (like a cockroach or a piece of cheese).
第二，如果我们的大脑仅仅是化学机器，我们怎么能相信自己的思维能力？我们的“思维机器”可以告诉我们，我们是有价值的、有位格的、有道德的存在，它可以推理和研究这个世界，但是我们怎么知道它是可靠的呢？它可能在捉弄我们。它可能是错误的，我们可以思考和了解，这本身可能只是个错觉，只是机器故障的一部分。
Second,
how can we trust our capacity to think and know things if our brains are simply
chemical machines? Our thinking machine may tell us that we are valuable,
personal, moral beings who can reason and investigate the world, but how can we
know that our machine is reliable? It may be playing tricks on us. It may be
faulty, and the illusion that we can think and know things may be part of its
malfunction.
前提护教有其长处和短处。
The
Presuppositional approach has its strengths and weaknesses.
前提护教是有吸引力的神学，因为它始于神的启示。基督教并不是一个抽象的神学体系，而是人与一位已经启示自己的上帝的关系。（注意薛华的一本书的书名：《他在那里，他不沉默》）
It is
appealing theologically because it starts with the revelation of Cod.
Christianity is not seen as an abstract theological system, but as a
relationship with a God who has spoken. (Note the title of one of Schaeffer’s
books: He Is There and He Is Not Silent).
然而，经过对圣经的内在一致性的论述，前提护教者倾向于减少这种上帝与人的关系。圣经被看作是一种世界观或思想体系的资料, 而不是它本来的所是——一本集合着叙述、历史、诗歌、信件和各种其他形式文字的书，讲述上帝与其子民交往的故事。
However,
by arguing for the internal consistency of the Bible, the Presuppositionalists
also tend to reduce this sense of personal relationship. The Bible is treated
as the source of a world view or system of thought, rather than as what it is—a
mosaic of narratives, history, poetry, letters and various other forms, which
tells the story of God’s dealings with his people.
并且，前提护教法的成功似乎取决于相关人员的具体背景。在大学校园里，在人们已经思考过 (或者正在思考) 关于世界观的问题的圈子里，前提护教法可以成为一个强有力的工具。但许多人并不爱考虑他们的“世界观”是什么，而且习惯于从许多系统中借用思想。像这样的情况，就使得前提护教法的展开困难了许多。
The
success of the Presuppositional approach seems dependent on the particular
background of those involved. On university campuses and in circles where
people have thought out (or are in the process of thinking out) their view of
the world, it can be a powerful tool. Many Australians don’t tend to think
about what their ‘world view’ is, and have a habit of borrowing ideas from a
number of systems. This makes the Presuppositional approach a little more
difficult.
证据护教法：拿出证据来看看
Just
Show me the Evidence
对我们而言，另一种护教方式也许更为熟悉。
The
other approach to apologetics is perhaps more familiar to us.
证据护教者从一个点入手，即，基督徒和非基督徒都共有“合理性”的观念。在此基础上, 证据护教者们提出了各种证据，以证明经文是真实的。与前提护教者不同，证据护教者不是“预设”上帝的启示是真理，而是证明它是。
The
Evidentialist starts with the idea that Christians and non-Christians share a
notion of ‘reasonableness’. On this basis, various pieces of evidence are put
forward to demonstrate that the Scriptures are true. Unlike the
Presuppositionalist, he does not assume the truth of God’s revelation—instead,
he argues towards it.
我们大多数人都看过的经典的证据护教作品，诸如麦道卫（Josh McDowell）的《铁证待判》、布鲁斯（F.F. Bruce）的《新约文件：它们是否可靠？》[6]
Most
of us would have seen classic Evidentialist works like Josh McDowell’s Evidence
that Demands a Verdict and F.F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents: Are they
Reliable? (Frank Morrison, Paul E. Little, Michael Green and Paul Barnett are
other popular writers in this field.)
这最终都是关于可能性的。鉴于新约的历史可靠性、其外部来源的认证、以及内在的有力的一致性，加之复活的证据等等，关于耶稣最合理和最可能的解释就是，正如耶稣自己所宣告的那样——他是成为人的上帝本身。
It
comes down to probabilities. Given the historical reliability of the New
Testament, its attestation by outside sources, its internal consistency and
power, the evidence for the resurrection, and so on, the most reasonable and
probable explanation of the facts is that Jesus was who he claimed to be—God made
man.
但证据护教法只对认同其历史观、逻辑、推理和事实可靠性的人奏效。这既是它的优点，也是它的弱点。
The
evidential approach only really works with people who share its view of
history, logic, reason and truth. This is both its strength and its weakness.
堕落影响了人的理性
The
Effects of the Fall
在两种护教方式存在的差异中，比较有趣的一点是，关于堕落对人的理性的影响，前提护教者和证据护教者有着不同的看法。
An
interesting example of the differences between these two approaches is their
attitude to the Fall and its effect on human reason.
前提护教者认为，堕落以后，人的理性思考也受“全然堕落”的影响。他们引用的经文是：
The
Presuppositionalists see the mind having been affected by the ‘total depravity’
of mankind after the Fall. They cite verses such as:
此等不信之人被这世界的神弄瞎了心眼，不叫基督荣耀福音的光照着他们。（林后4:4）
The
god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ ... (2 Cor 4:4)
因为，他们虽然知道神，却不当作神荣耀他，也不感谢他。他们的思念变为虚妄，无知的心就昏暗了。（罗1:21）
For
although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to
him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Rom 1:21)
换句话说，因为堕落，人类的心智不再正常运作。它不再承认基本的理性，而是倾向于摆脱它。当人们不再区分“真实”和 “虚假”，并且能够快乐地生活在最公然的矛盾中 （正如今天的许多人所做的那样），前提护教者会说，这就是堕落后的结果。
In
other words, because of the Fall, man’s mind no longer functions properly. It
no longer recognizes basic rationality, but tends to move away from it. When
people no longer recognize the categories ‘true’ and ‘false’ and can happily
live with the most blatant of contradictions (as many do today), the
Presuppositionalist would say that it is a result of the Fall.
证据护教者则认为，基督徒与非基督徒有着一样的逻辑，只是他们的使用方式不同。他们认为，堕落并没有影响到人的推理的能力，但它确实影响到人所得出的结论。未重生的头脑可以用理性的普通法则来评估基督教真理的论据，但因为头脑（堕落后固有的）的敌意，人往往会得出错误的结论。(罗8:5)
The
Evidentialists say that Christians and non-Christians use the same kind of
logic, but in different ways. They argue that the Fall has not affected the powers
of reasoning, but that it does affect the conclusions we come to. The
unregenerate mind will assess the arguments for the truth of Christianity using
common laws of rationality, but having a hostile mind, he will tend to come to
the wrong conclusion (Rom 8:5).
证据护教者认为，提出证据仍然是值得的，原因是人的理性和逻辑并没有因堕落而完全扭曲，圣灵能够克服人头脑中的敌意，引导人得出正确的结论。
The
Evidentialist would argue that presenting the evidence is still worthwhile be
cause rationality and logic have not been totally distorted by the Fall, and
that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome the hostility to bring a right
conclusion.
综上所述，我们可以说，前提护教者过分强调了人心智的扭曲，而证据护教者则高估了人心智的健全性。
In
summary, we could perhaps say that the Presuppositionalist overstresses the
distortion of the mind and that the Evidentialist overestimates the soundness
of the mind.
关于这点，问题之一是，谈到堕落，圣经并非指 “思想”或 “理性”这样的抽象的东西，而是指（整个）人。我们与上帝的隔绝是位格性的、个人性的，而不是只是头脑中的、“理性”的。
Part
of the problem is that the Bible does not speak of something abstract like ‘the
mind’ or ‘reason’ having fallen, but man. Our estrangement from God is
primarily personal, not rational.
我们在最根本的层面上拒绝了真理，崇拜受造物而不是造物主，与上帝隔绝，这隔绝给我们带来了极严重的后果。我们也许可以理解和接受各种不同的论点，但不会欣然接受它们最终的结论。这是道德上的缺陷，而不是思想上的。
Having
rejected the truth at the most fundamental level and worshipped created things
rather than the Creator, we are cut off from God in a profound way. We may be
able to follow the various arguments, but we will have no love for the
conclusion. It is a moral defect, not a mental one.
过度护教的危险The Dangers of Too Much
Apologizing
护教是一个得力的“仆人”，但当它成为主人时，就存在危机。过分关注护教就会带来很多危险。
Apologetics
is a good servant, but a dangerous master. There are dangers attached to
focusing too much on apologetics.
第一个危险是，混淆传福音和护教。我们会开始相信，通过论据和推理的正确组合，人们可以被说服以进入上帝的国。即使是强调人类理性已经堕落的前提护教者，也倾向于高估理性的论证，作为布道的手段。我们会发现，自己把更多的时间用在了为信仰辩护，而不是告诉人们什么是好消息！
The
first of these is to confuse Evangelism and Apologetics. We start to believe
that people can be argued into the kingdom of God by the right combination of
arguments and reasoning. Even the Presuppositionalists, who stress the
fallenness of human reason, tend to overvalue rational argument as a means of
evangelism. We can find ourselves spending more time giving reasons for belief
than actually telling people what the good news is!
护教最大的危险就是它可能对福音造成扭曲。当我们试图向人展开推理并提供信仰的论据时, 我们会开始把福音塑造成一个更让听者愉悦的东西。奥古斯丁趋向柏拉图式的福音；托马斯•阿奎那有一个亚里士多德版本的福音。导致这种结果的原因就在于，护教倾向于敲击人的思想而不是良心。
The
most serious danger of apologetics is its distorting effect on the gospel. As
we seek to reason with outsiders and provide grounds for belief, we can start
to mould the gospel into a shape that is more pleasing for the hearer. St
Augustine ended up with a Platonic gospel; Thomas Aquinas with an Aristotelian
version. This tendency is a result of the fact that apologetics tends to
address the mind rather than the conscience.
我们不能忘记，信心来源于聆听神的话语和圣灵对我们的开启。我们必须确保以可理解的、创造性的方式宣告这一真理，这才是我们的首要任务。这是传福音——宣告上帝在基督里所做的，并邀请人们回应。护教必须只能是布道的婢女，而不能取代它。
We
must not forget that faith comes by hearing the word of God and by the Holy
Spirit opening our eyes to perceive its truth. We must ensure that proclamation
of this truth (in understandable, creative ways) remains our first priority.
This is evangelism—to proclaim what God has done in Christ and to invite people
to respond. Apologetics must remain the handmaiden of Evangelism and not
supplant it.
当然，如果我们知道这些危险，并且确保我们不落入其中，护教仍然是一个有用的仆人。我们被召去为那“一次交付圣徒”的福音而战，包括捍卫福音，抵挡攻击，并劝告我们同时代的人信从真理。
However,
if we are aware of these dangers, and make sure that we do not fall into them,
apologetics is still a useful servant. We are called to contend for the gospel
that was “once for all given to the saints”, and this will involve both
defending the gospel against attack and persuading our contemporaries of its
truth.
In
this article, we have examined two prominent approaches to apologetics and some
of the dangers of too much apologetics. In our next article, we will suggest
how to build a strong ‘apologetic armoury’ by gleaning the best from both
Presuppositional and Evidential approaches. Then, in following issues, we will
look at some of the common questions raised by non-Christians and how to answer
them most effectively.
This
article was adapted by Tony Payne from material by Colin Marshall and Phillip
Jensen.
[1] 本文取自菲利普•詹森的网站，http://phillipjensen.com/articles/two-ways-to-apologize（2017年10月20日存取）。原文由托尼•佩恩（Tony Payne）从科林•马歇尔（Colin Marshall）和菲利普•詹森（Phillip Jensen）的材料改编而成。承蒙作者授权翻译转载，特此致谢。——编者注
[2] 北印度（包括德里、哈里亚纳邦、旁遮普邦等）的三大姓氏之一。三大姓氏为：夏尔马（Sharma）、维尔马（Verma）、古普塔（Gupta）——编者注
[3]
James Sire, The Universe Next Door (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p209.
[4]
James Sire, The Universe Next Door (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1988), p213.
[5] 自然主义说, 宇宙是一个封闭的系统。没有上帝或至高无上的存在，全部的存在都是物理或自然的物质。人类是自然进化过程中的产物, 只不过是一种特别复杂的原子粒子的排列。
[6]
Frank Morrison, Paul E. Little, Michael Green and Paul Barnett是这一领域中其他倍受欢迎的作家。
