作者：Daniel R. Hyde 诚之译自：
几年前，我为Ligonier的博客写了关于圣经中预定论的短系列文章。我当时用了多特信经的第一项要点作为大纲。这些神学通则或「准则」（canons）是在1618年至1619年间在荷兰多德雷赫特市（Dordrecht）的国际会议或「总会」（synod）上撰写的，与会的人士包括改革宗神学教授、牧师、长老和政治家。多特法典是为了回应一场争斗而写的。这场争斗不仅仅限于荷兰归正教会內，而是整个欧洲；针对的是由牧师转为教授的Jakob Hermanszoon（1560-1609）影响深远的教导。或许你比较知道他拉丁化的姓名：Jacobus（James）Arminius。中文译名为亚米念（或阿民念）。在他过世后，他的追随者写了一封抗辩文（remonstrance），就是一项抗议，其中涉及五项神学要点，因此他们后来被称为Remonstrants（抗辩者）。反过来，多特大会在其准则中逐点回应。
Several
years ago, I wrote a short series for Ligonier’s blog on the biblical doctrine
of predestination. As an outline, I used the first point of doctrine in the
Canons of Dort. These theological rules or “canons” were written at an
international gathering or “synod” of Reformed professors, pastors, elders, and
statesmen at the Dutch city of Dordrecht from 1618 to 1619. They were written
in response to the struggle not only within the Dutch Reformed Church but
throughout Europe over the influential teachings of pastor-turned-professor
Jakob Hermanszoon (1560–1609), whom you might know better from his Latinized
name: Jacobus (James) Arminius. After his death, his followers wrote a
remonstrance, a protest, concerning five theological points and so came to be
known as the Remonstrants. In turn, the Synod of Dort responded point-by-point
in its canons.
在这个系列中，我想用多特的第二项要点为大纲，引导你深入查考所谓「有限」（limited）或「确定」（definite）赎罪的圣经教义。让我们首先探讨为什么这是多特最困难的教义（註1）。
In
this series, I would like to lead you into the biblical doctrine called
“limited” or “definite” atonement using the second point of the Synod of Dort
as an outline. Let’s begin by exploring why this is the most difficult doctrine
of Dort.1
语言上的难点
THE
DIFFICULTY OF LANGUAGE
这项教义之所以困难，是因为语言很难。 想想这些标签。给对手贴标签、逼得他们走投无路、放逐他们最快的方法是什么？就是称他们为某人的追随者：「亚米念派」。一报还一报，像我这样的人就被称为另一个人的追随者：「加尔文主义者」。
This
doctrine is difficult because language can be difficult. Think about labels.
What is a quick way to label an opponent, corner them, and ostracize them? Call
them followers of a man: “Arminians.” In tit-for-tat, those like me are called
followers of another man: “Calvinists.”
现代的用语过度简化了历史的复杂性（註2）。如果我可以在会议之前回到荷兰城市赫斯登（Heusden），并要求其新牧师、未来的代表沃修斯（Gijsbertus Voetius）去参加会议：「Domine Voetius，请问『改革宗』（reformed）是什么意思？」他可能会说：「当然，就是要相信《比利时信条》的三十七条条文和《海德堡要理问答》的129个问答。」（当时纯正的「加尔文主义」是加尔文主义的166点，而不只是五要点！）在总会之后，牧师、神学教授、学校教师、教会长老和执事接纳了「签署书」（Form of Subscription），在上帝面前宣誓，他们相信比利时信条、海德堡教理问答和多特信经的教义是符合圣经的。我服事的教堂仍然要求这点。有趣的是，这个签署书是如何把多特信条描述为「多德雷赫特全国总会对以上提到的教义的『某些』要点所作的解释」。
Modern
terminology oversimplifies historical complexities.2 If I could travel back
just before the synod to the Dutch city of Heusden and ask its new pastor and
future delegate to the synod, Gijsbertus Voetius, “Domine Voetius, what does it
mean to be Reformed?” he might say, “To believe the thirty-seven articles of
the Belgic Confession and the 129 questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism,
of course.” (Authentic “Calvinism,” back then, was 166-point Calvinism!) After
the synod, a “Form of Subscription” was adopted for ministers, professors,
schoolteachers, elders, and deacons to swear before God that they believed the
doctrine of the confession, catechism, and canons is biblical. The churches I
serve still require this. What’s interesting is how this form describes the
canons as “the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the
National Synod of Dordrecht.”
另一个困难是，辩论的核心是什么？通常，我们谈到「有限的赎罪」（limited atonement）。问题在于，除了普救主义者（他们相信所有的人都会上天堂）之外，每个人都限制了基督受死的拯救功效，连抗辩者也是。 1610年，当抗辩者提出抗辩书时，他们写道：「世人的救主耶稣基督为所有人和每个人而死，所以祂借着十字架的死为所有人赚得了和解和赦罪。」听起来像是无限赎罪，对吧？ 但是他们继续说：「然而除了信徒之外，没有人真正享受到这种赦罪。」（註3）当总会写下它的信经时，第二项教义的标题是：「论基督的死和人借此所得的救赎」。换句话说，耶稣借着祂的死所成就的事与买赎那些被罪恶奴役的人，其中的关系是什么？ 因此，「有限赎罪」这个用语的用处是受到局限的。
Another difficulty is, what’s really being debated?
Popularly, we speak of “limited atonement.” The problem is that except for
universalists, who believe everyone enters heaven, everyone limits the saving
efficacy of Christ’s death, even the Remonstrants. In 1610, when the
Remonstrants made their remonstrance, they wrote, “Jesus Christ the Savior of
the world died for all men and for every man, so that he merited reconciliation
and forgiveness of sins for all through the death of the cross.” Sounds
unlimited, right? But they went on to say, “Yet so that no one actually enjoys
this forgiveness of sins except the believer.”3 When
the synod wrote its canons, the title for the second point was “Concerning the
Death of Christ and the Redemption of Humanity through It.” In other words,
what is the relation of what Jesus did in His death to the purchase of those in
slavery to sin? Thus, the language of limited atonement has
limited usefulness.
教义上的难点
THE
DIFFICULTY OF DOCTRINE
根据上面的引文，1610年抗辩者思想的大致轮廓是耶稣「为所有人赚得了和解和赦罪」，但「除了信徒之外，没有人真正享受到这种赦罪。」1611年之后，在海牙举行的一次会议上，抗辩者更明确地指出耶稣「为所有人求得[impetrated]和解和赦罪。」（註4）他们用了一个在「求得」（impetration）和「施行」（application）之间常见的区别，或者正如我们现在所说的，救赎的完成（redemption accomplished）和救赎的施行（redemption applied）。但是，既然恳求（成就）的意思可以是指「取得」，「赚得」，「获得」，「达成」，甚至「授予」（註5），这种在救赎的完成和救赎的施行之间所作的教义区别就变模糊了。
According
to the quote above, the general contour of Remonstrant thinking in 1610 was
that Jesus “merited reconciliation and forgiveness of sins for all,” yet “no
one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.” After 1611,
at a conference in the Hague, the Remonstrants were clearer in stating that
Jesus “impetrated reconciliation and forgiveness of sin for all human beings.”4
They used a common distinction between “impetration” and “application,” or as
we now say, redemption accomplished and redemption applied. But since
impetration (accomplishment) could mean “acquire,” “merit,” “obtain,”
“procure,” or even “confer,”5 this doctrinal distinction between redemption
accomplished and redemption applied was blurred.
在多特大会的前几年，抗辩派神学家进一步发展了他们的教义体系。多特信经在没一项正面陈述的教义要点之后都附加了「拒绝错误教导」，引用了抗辩派的著作。我们可以从这些引用稍微看到抗辩派的教义体系。这些错误摘要如下：
In
the years leading up to the synod, Remonstrant theologians developed their
system of doctrine further. We get a glimpse in the “rejection of errors” after
each positive doctrinal point in the canons where the Remonstrant writings are
quoted. Here is a summary of those errors:
耶稣没有为特定的个人而死；因此，基督完成的救赎有可能不会施行在任何人身上。（抗辩派错误教导之1）（註6）
Jesus
died for no particular individual; therefore, it is possible that redemption
accomplished is not applied to anyone. (Rem. 1)6
耶稣的死并没有建立新的恩典之约，而只是建立了天父与人立约的权利。（抗辩派错误教导之2）
Jesus’
death did not establish a new covenant of grace but only the mere right for the
Father to enter into a covenant with humanity. (Rem. 2)
耶稣没有为任何人赚得信心（借着这信心，祂所作的补赎可以被有效地应用在救恩上），而只是为天父取得这个权柄——把一些必须依赖人自由选择的条件强加在人身上。（抗辩派错误教导之3）
Jesus
did not merit for anyone the faith by which His satisfaction is effectively
applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority to impose
conditions that depend on the free choice of humanity. (Rem. 3)
新的恩典之约并非我们借着信心接受基督的功德而称义，而是上帝不再要求我们完美顺服律法，而是把我们的信心和不完全顺服算为完全的顺服。（抗辩派错误教导之4）
The
new covenant of grace is not that we are justified through faith that accepts
Christ’s merit, but that God no longer demands perfect obedience to the law and
instead counts faith and imperfect obedience as if it were perfect obedience.
(Rem. 4)
所有人都被接纳进入与上帝和好的状态，因此没有人会因原罪而被定罪。（抗辩派错误教导之5）（註7）
All
people have been received into a status of reconciliation and therefore no one
is condemned on account of original sin. (Rem. 5)7
虽然上帝想要平等地赋予所有人救赎的益处，但其施行并不取决于祂对信心的恩赐，而是取决于他们自己的自由选择，把恩典应用在自己身上。（抗辩派错误教导之6）
While
God wanted to bestow equally on all people the benefits of redemption
accomplished, its application does not depend on His gift of faith but on their
own free choice to apply grace to themselves. (Rem. 6)
耶稣没有为上帝所爱和拣选的人而死，因为这些人不需要祂的死，因为已经是选民了。（抗辩派错误教导之7）
Jesus
did not die for those God loved and elected since such people do not need His
death, being already elect. (Rem. 7)
从这些总结要点可以看出，改革宗与抗辩派之间的辩论并不像「有限」与「无限」赎罪那么简单。这场辩论涉及许多复杂和困难的大要点和小要点。说完这些，我要欢迎你来看看多特最困难的教义，我们将在以下文章中探讨。
As
you can see from these summary points, the debate between Reformed and
Remonstrant was not as simple as “limited” versus “unlimited” atonement. This
debate involves many complex and difficult points and sub-points. Saying all
this, I want to welcome you to the most difficult doctrine of Dort that we’ll
explore in the following posts.
註：
1. I
would like to thank my friend Michael Lynch, whose PhD studies on John Davenant
and issues related to this paper have greatly enriched my understanding. ↩︎
2.
The so-called TULIP acronym has been traced to a 1905 address by a Dr. McAfee
of Brooklyn, N.Y., before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, N.J. The Outlook
(June 21, 1913), 394–395. See also Richard A. Muller, “Was Calvin a Calvinist?
Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the ‘TULIP’”? As
found at https://www.calvin.edu/…/Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist-12-26…
(Accessed August 13, 2017). ↩︎
3.
“Appendix C: The Remonstrance of 1610,” cited in Crisis in the Reformed
Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, ed.
Peter Y. De Jong (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 208. ↩︎
4.
Petrus Bertius, Scripta Adversaria Collationis Hagiensis (Lugduni Batavorum,
1615), 123. ↩︎
5.
David Pareus said impetrare (“impetrate”) could be substituted for seven
different words. Acta Synodi Nationalis . . . Dordrechti(Lugduni Batavorum,
1620), 215. ↩︎
6.
Nicholaas Grevinchovius said, “I acknowledge in God indeed a constant and
perpetual desire of applying to all men individually the good obtained; but I
deny that the application itself was destined by the certain counsel and will
of God for any man but him that believeth.” Therefore he could go on to say,
“That there was not any absolute promise or will of God concerning the
effectual redemption of any individual persons, but that God willed or did not
will the application of the death of Christ to all men individually not absolutely
but conditionally; He will it to all if they had faith; he did not will it if
they disbelieved and therefore, although Christ laid down his life, it was
possible nevertheless that his death might not be applied to any that is, it
was possible that he might be defrauded of his promised seed, on account of the
unbelief of all men intervening.” Quoted in John Davenant, A Dissertation on
the Death of Christ, as to its Extent and Special Benefits, in An Exposition of
the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, 2 vols., trans. Josiah Allport
(London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1832), 2:516, 524–525. ↩︎
7. We
find this in Arminius himself, who said Christ obtained for every man
reconciliation and redemption. Examen Libelli Perkinsiani de Praedestionationis
Ordine et Modo, in Opera Theologicia (Leiden, Netherlands: Godefridus Basson,
1629), 745. He also said no one is condemned by original sin, “because God has
assumed the whole human race into the grace of reconciliation, and has entered
into a covenant of grace with Adam and his whole posterity in him.” Apologia .
. . Arminii adversus Articulos, in Opera Theologica, 153, 154.
