阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義的區別What'sthe Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?

作者：Tom Ascol 譯者:  Duncan Liang

https://founders.org/2016/05/10/whats-the-difference-between-arminianism-calvinism-and-hyper-calvinism/

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1592310987747973&id=1524929341152805

據說已故的鐘馬田曾說過，“無知的阿民念主義者不明白加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的區別。”按照人經常把這兩者混淆的頻率，我認為這種無知並不局限於我們相信阿民念主義的朋友。雖然可以論述更多，但以下的概括已經表明了阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的基本區別。

The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones was reported to have said that “the ignorant Arminian doesn’t know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” Based on the frequency with which the two are often confused I would suggest that the ignorance is not limited to our Arminian friends. While much more could be said, the following summary reveals the basic differences between Arminianism, Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism.

在一種意義上，極端加爾文主義和阿民念主義一樣，是對真加爾文主義的理性主義歪曲。阿民念主義削弱神的主權，而極端加爾文主義削弱人的責任。具有諷刺意味的是，阿民念主義和極端加爾文主義都始於同樣的、錯誤的理性主義預設前提，就是人的能力和責任具有相同的外延。這就是說，它們必須完全吻合，否則就不合理。如果一個人要為某件事負責，他就必然有做這件事的能力。另一方面，如果人沒有做這件事的能力，他就沒有義務要如此行。

The Similarity of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism

In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism undermines divine sovereignty, hyper-Calvinism undermines human responsibility. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition, namely that human ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

阿民念主義者看這前提說：“同意！我們知道聖經要所有人為悔改和相信負責（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，就是所有人在自己裡面都有悔改和相信的能力（按聖經這是錯的）。”就這樣，阿民念主義者教導說，未歸正的人在他們自己身上有悔改和相信的屬靈能力，雖然這種能力必須要有恩典幫助才行。

Arminian Rationalism

The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible holds all people responsible to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe, albeit such ability must be aided by grace.

極端加爾文主義者接受同樣的前提（就是人的能力和責任有同樣的外延），說道：“同意！我們知道聖經教導說，人在自己、靠自己並沒有悔改和相信的屬靈能力（這是對的），所以我們必然要得出結論，未歸正的人沒有悔改和相信福音的義務（按聖經這是錯的）。”

Hyper-Calvinist Rationalism

The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible teaches that in and of themselves all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible].”

與這兩種人形成對比的是，加爾文主義者看這前提說：“錯了！它看似合理，卻不符合聖經。聖經既教導人沒有屬靈的能力，也教導人有義務悔改和相信。只有靠著聖靈大能、使人重生的作為，人才得著能力盡他的本分悔改相信。”雖然在理性主義者眼中這可能看似不合理，當中卻沒有矛盾，並且這正是聖經教導的立場。加爾文主義的觀點可能看似不講理性，但實際上是超越理性——這種觀點是神的啟示。

Biblical Calvinism

In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches. The Calvinist view may appear irrational but in reality is supra-rational—it is revealed.

极端加尔文主义、理性主义和反预定论主义Hyper-Calvinism,Rationalism, and Anti-Predestinarians

作者：R. Scott Clark    翻译：王一

https://heidelblog.net/2013/12/hyper-calvinism-rationalism-and-anti-predestinarians/

http://www.reformedbeginner.net/hyper-calvinism-rationalism-antipredestinism/

顾名思义，「极端加尔文主义」是指一种「越出」加尔文主义之外的教义。但是这个词却常常被误用来批判预定论教义里面的遗弃教义（reprobation）。如果教导遗弃的教义就是极端加尔文主义的话，那么加尔文本人肯定也是极端加尔文主义者，这显然很荒谬。「极端加尔文主义」的核心问题在于否认「福音白白的邀请」（free offer of gospel）。我们需要明确一个问题，即「极端加尔文主义者」的错误并不在于相信预定和遗弃，而在于他们否定福音白白的邀请。慕理（John Murray）曾经写过一篇精彩的文章来维护福音邀请这条教义。没错，以严谨解经来捍卫福音邀请的，是出自这位坚决相信双重预定和有限代赎的神学家。

By etymology, “hyper-Calvinism” is that doctrine which goes “beyond” (hyper) Calvin. Often, however, it is used incorrectly by critics of predestination to describe anyone who believes in reprobation. If teaching reprobation makes one “hyper-Calvinist” then Calvin would be “hyper-Calvinist” and that’s just silly.  Justin alerts us Phil Johnson’s response to the allegations about “hyper-Calvinism” emanating from the recent John 3:16 conference. Phil is right. The free offer of the gospel is at the center of the question. Let’s be clear here. Believing in predestination and reprobation does not make one a “hyper-Calvinist.” Denying the free-offer of the gospel does. John Murray wrote one of the best defenses of the free offer in recent times. I first posted Murray’s essay on the free offer about 8 years ago, so there is no reason why anyone at the John 3:16 conference could not know about that stout, exegetically rigorous defense of the free offer made by an equally stout confessor of absolute, double predestination and limited atonement.

我想说明的是，认信改革宗神学相信福音是白白的邀请，而极端加尔文主义者则无法接受这条教义。

Donald John MacLean has been writing about the free offer for some time and I’ve published an essay, in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine, attempting to explain why real, honest-to-goodness hyper-Calvinists don’t accept the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel and what the theological basis, within confessional Reformed theology, is for the free offer.

有些预定论者否认白白邀请往往是因为某种形式的理性主义阻碍了他们的思想。他们假设自己必须能提供全整的解释，否则就不是事实。这样，他们无法调和两件事：第一、上帝一面既预定拣选又遗弃，第二、上帝又把救恩白白提供给所有人。他们得出结论：这两件事同时成立是不可能的。他们拒绝接受这个奥秘。与此相反，正统的加尔文主义，包括加尔文本人，一直都接受这个奥秘，也一直都同时接受白白邀请与双重预定这两条矛盾的教义。多特总会（所谓的加尔文主义五要点）也完全接纳这个奥秘：

Those predestinarians who deny the free offer usually do so because of some form of rationalism, i.e. they’ve set up things so that, unless they can provide a comprehensive explanation of how something works, it can’t be. Thus, because they can’t see how God can both predestine the elect and the reprobate and freely offer salvation to all, they conclude that it cannot be. They reject mystery. In contrast, the mainstream of orthodox Calvinism, including Calvin, has always embraced the mystery and paradox of the free offer. The Synod of Dort (whence the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism”) embraced this mystery:

此外，福音的应许乃是：凡相信钉十字架基督的人，不至灭亡，反得永生。此应许以及吩咐人悔改相信的命令，应当毫无区分地向万国万民宣扬公布；因神是出于他的美意，向他们传扬福音。Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel (Canons of Dort, 2.5) 

Indeed, in my essay, I show that there is a connection between the rationalism of the hyper-Calvinists and the rationalism of Arminius and the Remonstrants (with whom apparently at least some of the speakers at the John 3:16 conference identified).

《多特信经》，第二项，第5条

我曾经提到过理性主义与极端加尔文主义之间的联系，以及理性主义与亚米念主义之间的联系。其实普救论者和极端加尔文主义者（即极端预定论者）才是天生一对。普救论者无法明白，如果基督没有为所有人死，如果基督的死到最后没有拯救所有尽自己本分的人，怎么能说上帝是白白的、真诚的把福音提供给所有人呢？从方法论上讲，极端加尔文主义和普救论都假设，如果他们想不明白，那就不是真的。他们认为自己思维的范围就是上帝能力的范围。

Ironically, the “evangelical” universalists and the “hyper-Calvinists” (we should speak of “hyper-predestinarians”) deserve each other! The universalists can’t see how it is that God can freely and genuinely offer the gospel to all unless it is the case that Christ actually died for everyone who ever lived and unless it is that Christ’s death has made it possible for all to be saved if they will only do their part. Methodologically, in both cases, what their nets can’t catch aren’t butterflies. The limits of their intellects are the limits of what God can or cannot do.

然而，正统认信的加尔文主义并不用人的理性限定上帝的工作。我们知道上帝超越我们所理解的范围。真加尔文主义确实相信，当正视上帝的话语时，我们必须承认两件事实共存：第一、上帝已经在永恒中知道自己的选民，祂也在永恒之中就已经遗弃了一些人，并且基督的死只为那些父在永恒里赐给祂的人（救赎之约）；第二、上帝也指定唯独藉着信心，唯独因着恩典，唯独在基督里使人白白得救的福音应该白白的、诚意的向所有人宣讲。

Orthodox, confessional Calvinism doesn’t limit God by the limits of our comprehension. We understand that God transcends our ability to comprehend Him. We may be wrong, but we really do believe that we’re following God’s Word when we confess both that God has known his elect from all eternity and that He reprobates some by passing them by and that Christ died for those whom the Father gave to him from all eternity (pactum salutis) and that God has ordained that the gospel of free salvation through faith alone (sola fide), by grace alone (sola gratia), in Christ alone (solo Christo) should be preached and offered freely to all as a “well-meant” offer of the gospel.

此外，认信加尔文主义这种教导并非基于某些先验的理性预设或经验共识来推论出这个必然结果。相反，其根基在于我们相信这是上帝的话所教导的。我不是来自一个认信加尔文主义者的家庭。最开始接受的宗教训练是一神普救论。我很了解普救论的本质。普救论者说白了就是理性主义者。他们把通不过理性的事情都排除掉，设定了一个先验的预设，然后从这个预设开始推理（deduction），并且他们已经成功地把这种思维方式推广到世界各地。但是这绝不是认信加尔文主义者的思维方式。我们的信仰里充满了各种矛盾而智慧的奥秘，三位一体，基督神人二性一位格，上帝的主权与人的责任（除了反预定论者之外还有谁把这条丢掉了？），福音白白的邀请，圣餐中基督真实的临在，蒙恩的管道（即圣灵藉着人以为愚拙的福音宣讲来工作）等等。这只不过是略举一二。

Further, confessional Calvinism teaches what it does, not because of some rationalist a priori about the way things “must be” or on the basis that “we all know that….” Rather, we teach and hold what we do because we believe it is taught in God’s Word. I wasn’t raised a confessional Calvinist. My first religious training was as an Unitarian Universalist. I know this movement from the inside. Those folks are the rationalists. They are those who begin with the a priori about what can and can’t be about the way things work, and it is they who make deductions from their premise, and it is they who impute their way of thinking to us. This is nothing other than projection. We don’t operate like that. Our faith is full of mystery of paradoxes to wit, the holy Trinity, the two natures and one person of Christ, divine sovereignty and human responsibility (who has flattened out that one but the anti-predestinarians?), the free offer, the true presence of Christ in the Supper, and means of grace (the Spirit operates through the foolishness of Gospel preaching) and that’s the short list.

真加尔文主义为什么坚持这些奥秘？原因很简单，上帝的意念高过我们的意念。这种创造主与被造物之间绝对的区别是改革宗神学的根本信念。今天许多所谓的改革宗人士似乎把这种区别忘得一干二净，所以也不奇怪许多批判改革宗的人根本不知道改革宗神学里有这种区分。可是，改革宗神学从一开始就是坚持这一基本信念的。从加尔文本人，到正统的改革宗主流传统都非常清楚。

How can we do it? We do so because we distinguish between the way God knows things and the way we know things. As I’ve argued at length in Recovering the Reformed Confession, this “categorical distinction” is fundamental to Reformed theology. In fairness to the critics of Reformed theology at the John 3:16 conference, many contemporary Reformed folk seem to have forgotten this distinction (hence the book) so we understand a little why critics might not know about this distinction. Nevertheless, it has been basic to Reformed theology from the beginning. Calvin articulated it very clearly as did the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.

反过来看那些反对预定论的讨论，大部分都令人失望。许多批判缺乏最基本的学术素养。没有真实呈现改革宗神学最基本的信念。导致这种状况的原因很可能是在大学或神学院的课程本身缺乏学术精度。课程没有客观的给出正反两面的观点，所以今天苏西尼主义和亚米念主义又死灰复燃，而这种扭曲的观点已然成为主流。

I have not listened to the lectures from the John 3:16 conference, but I have seen some of the fallout on the web and I have had lots of discussions with anti-predestinarians. I must say that, in most cases, I am more than a little disappointed with the poor scholarship on the part of many of the critics. They do not seem to know even the basics of Reformed theology. Here’s what I think happens—I have good reason for thinking thus: a college or seminary student hears an uninformed lecture about Calvin and Calvinism. The lecturer has not done due diligence, and the old Socinian and Remonstrant caricatures of Calvin or Calvinism are repeated as fact, and that distorted picture becomes the basis for a lifetime of thinking about Calvin and Calvinism. I’ve heard such lectures, and I’ve read them.

十年前，有一位博学的浸信会历史学家艾斯特普（William Estep）曾发表了一篇误导性很强的论文。我感到惊讶的原因并非因为他反对加尔文主义。反对的声音已经司空见惯了。要知道，在十六世纪，坚持加尔文主义的基督徒每个星期被杀的数目过万。如果你还没准备好面对各种攻击，千万别当加尔文主义者！让我惊讶的是许多学术界已经确认的历史事实竟然公然被忽略掉。如果他们愿意出版这类书籍，很难想象在课堂上会对学生说出什么东西来。成千上万的学生已经被这种偏颇的课程误导了，他们得到的信息就是这些，这实在令人惋惜。

About a decade ago, the learned Baptist historian William Estep published a remarkably ignorant, misleading, and even bigoted essay in the Baptist Standard of Texas.  In this essay Estep repeats some of the most tired anti-Calvin bromides. I was shocked not that Estep rejected Calvin and Calvinism. I’m used to that. We’re part of a tradition in which tens of thousands were killed in one week in 1572. If you’re not ready for rejection, don’t become a Calvinist! I was not prepared, however, to see such a public display of gross ignorance about historical matters that could be corrected by doing the most basic research. If a senior scholar such as Estep was willing to publish this stuff, what must he say to his students? The thought of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of students who had been seriously misled about the nature of Calvinism by ill-informed lectures, for whom that might be their only exposure to Calvinism, was truly disheartening. I was and remain thankful for Roger Nicole’s gracious response.

我从来不期待反预定论者喜欢我们的神学。也从来不期待他们能同意我们的观点。我期待的，也是合理的要求，是他们能正确描述我们的神学，明白我们的解经方法，知道改革宗神学的历史到底是怎样，并且知道我们所承认的信仰到底是什么内容。想找出我们所信的内容很简单。其实，找出认信的改革宗基督徒的信仰内容，从来都不是难事。海德堡要理问答很难吗？

I don’t expect anti-predestinarians to like my theology. I don’t expect them to agree with me, but I do reasonably expect them to be able to represent my theology accurately and to understand how I read the Scriptures and what the history of Reformed theology actually is, and what I actually confess. The amazing thing is that it is now so easy to find out what we actually believe. Indeed, it’s never been very hard. How difficult is it to read the Heidelberg Catechism? How hard is it to find out what actually happened in the Servetus case? (check out the bizarre discussion in the comments to Tom Ascol’s post!)

然而讽刺的是，美国反预定论者的数量是压倒性的多数。美南浸信会就有六百万人，其中大部分都不是预定论者。而北美长老会与改革宗联合会（NAPARC）里所有宗派加起来总共还不到六十万人。在全美国六千万的福音派基督徒里，预定论者是九牛一毛。我们才是真正的少数派。可怪就怪在为什么有许多人竟然认为数量如此之少的预定论者会对他们有如此大的威胁？到底是谁想置谁于死地？

The great irony in all this is that, in American religion and religious studies, the anti-predestinarians are the overwhelming majority. The SBC may “only” be 6 million souls but I guess the overwhelming majority of them are not predestinarian. At most, the NAPARC churches count only 600,000 souls and probably fewer. Of the 60 million evangelicals in the USA only a handful are predestinarian. We’re a tiny minority. Why on earth do the critics in the SBC such as Estep and others find a handful of predestinarians so threatening? Who is attempting to drown whom here? Who, metaphorically, is turning whom over to the authorities for punishment?  Is it the mean old predestinarians or the peace-loving universalists? On what basis? The reaction of the anti-predestinarians appears to be driven by fear and ignorance and that’s a shame because it is so easily remedied.

对于极端加尔文主义者，我想说「祂愿意万人得救，明白真道」（提前二4）。这里的「愿意」（θελειν）就是指意志上的愿意。极端加尔文主义者反对白白的、真诚的福音邀请，他们认为不可以用两种方式来描述上帝的旨意，必须只用单一的方式。然而，单一性背后的假设就是上帝的智慧与人类的智慧相交，而这正是理性主义的说法。这不是改革宗神学，改革宗神学从来都强调创造主与被造物之间的绝对差别。

Update 10 Dec 08

To my hyper-Calvinist friends and correspondents (see the combox below), I was reminded by a post on Reformation Theology by John Samson, of this verse: “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The English verb “to desire” translates the Greek verb which is usually translated “to will” (θελειν). Against the free or well-meant offer, it has been argued that we cannot speak of God’s will in two aspects or in two ways, that we must speak univocally. Univocity, however, assumes an intersection between the divine and human intellects, and that is, of course, a form of rationalism. It’s not Reformed theology, which is premised on the Creator/creature distinction.

如果上帝的旨意只能用单一形式来描述，那我们就和普救论者没有两样！我们必须诚实地面对上帝的话，考虑到上帝隐藏的意旨，我们必须认识到上帝的确有一种真实的、真诚的意愿，乐意所有人得救。历史上，改革宗神学认真的对待圣经里这些内容，教导我们所说的「福音白白的、真诚的邀请」。

Further, if God’s will can only be spoken of in one sense then we would become universalists! Nevertheless, we must deal honestly with God’s Word and recognize that, given the hiddenness of the divine decree, there is a genuine and true sense in which God must be said to will the salvation of all. It is in light of this sort of biblical language that the Reformed faith has historically taught the substance of what has come to be called the “free” or “well-meant” offer of the gospel.

真正的问题不是圣经是否真的这么说。真正的问题是为什么极端加尔文主义者拒绝支持福音白白邀请的解经？原因是他们拒绝这些解经背后的预设，即上帝的启示是俯就人类的局限，而人类对上帝的知识是类比性的（analogical）。因此，我们无法越过上帝的启示。上帝在圣经里明确启示祂不愿意罪人灭亡。上帝已经如此说了，因此我们也必须如此对罪人宣讲，告诉他们上帝不愿他们灭亡；同时圣经也说同一位上帝以至高主权藉着福音的宣讲呼召选民信靠基督。赞美上帝的怜悯，赞美祂设立的蒙恩管道！

The real issue here, as I argued in the essay in the Strimple Festschrift, (do the opponents of the Free Offer ever read anything but their own in-house stuff?) is not really what God’s Word says. The real question is why opponents of the Free Offer reject out of hand exegetical arguments for the free or well-meant offer? The answer is because they reject the premise on which that exegetical work is done, and the framework within which historic Reformed orthodoxy has read Scripture, namely, that all divine revelation is accommodated to human finitude, and that we humans have only analogical knowledge of God. Because of that fact, we cannot go behind the revelation of God in Scripture to some other a priori truth by which to leverage Scripture, and that Scripture reveals God as not willing the death of sinners. So God has spoken and so we too must speak to sinners, knowing that Scripture also says that the same God works sovereignly and freely through the preaching of the gospel to call his elect to faith in Christ. Praise God for his mercy and for his means of grace!

改革宗神学VS极端加尔文主义Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism

作者: Michael Horton    译者:  王一

 http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/reformed-theology-vs-hyper-calvinism/

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_656f76480101q2ba.html

今天当基督徒学习什么是改革宗神学（即加尔文主义）时，不得不先学习什么不是改革宗神学。因为贬低改革宗神学的人，常常不按照改革宗神学真实的教导来定义什么是改革宗神学，而是按照他们想当然的逻辑推理来定义。更可悲的是，一些极端加尔文主义者也如此来定义加尔文主义。结果，「加尔文主义」被定义成一种非常极端并且不合乎圣经的意思。改革宗神学所受到的指控，其罪魁祸首是极端加尔文主义思想。因此，在国际性的多特大会（Synod of Dort，1618-1619）上对这一指控给出权威的回应，随后也在威敏斯特信条（Westminster Confession of Faith）以及两份要理问答中再次确认。

上帝是恶的作者吗？

以色列的上帝「作为完全，他所行的无不公平，（他）是诚实无伪的上帝；又公义，又正直」（申三二4）。使徒雅各警告我们说，「人被试探，不可说：『我是被上帝试探』；因为上帝不能被恶试探，他也不试探人」（雅一13）。罪与恶的根源不在上帝和他的创造之工里，而在个人意志和被造物的行为中。

圣经阐述的像道路两侧的两道护栏一样：一方面，上帝「随己意行作万事」（弗一11）；另一方面，上帝没有，也绝对不能行恶。我们一起简单从几处经文来看看这两道护栏。最著名的应该数创世纪四十五章和使徒行传二章。在创世纪四十五章里，约瑟意识到，虽然他兄弟们要把他当奴隶卖掉的想法是恶的，但是上帝的意思则是好的，为了在那场大饥荒中保全许多人的性命（4-8节；参创五十20）。在使徒行传二章23节，我们也看到类似的说法，那些「不法之人」当然要为他们钉死耶稣而受到谴责，但是耶稣乃是「按着上帝的定旨先见被交与人」。我们要做的就是肯定圣经的教导，不越过这界限去幻想、推理。我们从圣经得到的是这两样同时都是对的，但是圣经没有解释为什么。也许威敏斯特信条三章1节对此的陈述最精炼：「上帝从万古以先，以他自己的旨意按着祂最智慧、最圣洁的计划，决定一切将要成的事，没有拦阻，不会改变」——这是第一道护栏——「但上帝这样的决定，绝非罪恶之创始者，也不至于使他因此侵犯受造者的意志，且不至于使『第二因』因而丧失其『自由』与『偶发』(contingence)的性质，反倒得坚立」，这是另一道护栏。比利时信条十三条中也阐述了同样的观点，并且补充道：「他作什么乃超越我们人的理解，在我们所能明白的限度之外，我们不可以好奇心的态度去追问；乃当用最谦虚与最恭敬的心去赞扬上帝公义的判断，这些事都是对我们隐藏的，并以为基督的门徒为满足，只学习那些上帝在他话语中向我们启示的事情，不越过其界限。」

福音是为每个人？

一面说上帝已经决定了谁会得救，一面又坚持把福音的好消息真诚、没有分别的向每一个人宣讲，这样做岂不是很虚假吗？

但是基督岂不是只为选民而死吗？多特信经（Canons of Dort）使用了一段中世纪教会的教科书常见的陈述（即「足够全世界，但只在选民身上有效」），信经宣告基督的死「有无限的价值，足以补偿全世界的罪」（第二项，第3条）。因此，我们「应当毫无区分地向万国万民宣扬公布（福音的应许）……向他们传扬福音」。尽管许多人不回应福音的呼召，不相信基督，但是「这并不在于基督在十字架上所献的祭有任何缺失或不足，乃要完全归罪于他们自己」（《多特信经》第二项，第5-6条）。

是的，这一切对我们来说又是一个奥秘。但是那两道护栏会保护我们滑入玄想（speculation）的深渊。上帝爱世人，藉着福音呼召全世界所有人来就基督，这是外在呼召（outward）；然而上帝对选民的爱乃是带有救赎目的，同样藉着福音，并且藉着圣灵在他们心里发出呼召，这是内在呼召（约六63-64、十3-5、十一、十四-十八、二五-三十；徒十三48；罗八28-30；提后一9）。亚米念主义者和极端加尔文主义者们都忽视了这些重要的经文，他们通过自己的理性「非此即彼」的来解决这个奥秘：要么福音只是给选民，要么福音是白白的邀请。

给每个人的恩典？

上帝是否爱每一个人？还是他的慈爱只不过为了掩饰他的愤怒——好像极端加尔文主义者们所讲的，把那些恶人养肥等待宰杀？

上帝护理的慈爱在圣经中随处可见，特别在诗篇里：「耶和华善待万民，他的慈悲覆庇他一切所造的……你张手，使有生气的都随愿饱足」（诗百四五9、16）。耶稣教导跟从他的人为他们的仇敌祈求正是因为这个原因：「因为他叫日头照好人，也照歹人；降雨给义人，也给不义的人」（太五44）。基督徒应该如此效法上帝的性情。

我们所讨论的这条教义被称为「普遍恩典」（common grace），它有别于「救赎恩典」（saving grace）。有人反对这种用词（有些人甚至反对这个概念），他们坚称恩典没有什么普遍不普遍的：只有一种恩典，即上帝至高主权的、拣选的恩典（sovereign electing grace）。但是，不得不承认，在人类堕落之后，上帝向人类不论什么原因所显出的任何一种良善都理当被视为恩典。再一次，我们又面对两道不应该跨越的护栏：上帝满有恩典的救赎选民，也满有恩典的托住非选民，甚至使他们在这今生兴旺富足。拣选并不是上帝对待这个世界的全部方式，这也是信徒最温馨的安慰之一。

作为基督徒，当我们认识到普遍恩典的存在时，便能够更严肃认真的面对这个世界，我们不单盯着其中的罪恶，也会开始欣赏因上帝的创造和护理而存在的美善。我们再看基督就不单单是赐给选民的救赎恩典的中保，也是赐给受咒诅的世界里的普遍恩典的中保。加尔文反驳那些企图消灭一切不信者的狂热分子，他总结道，当我们贬低不信者身上所显出的真理、良善、优美时，实际上是藐视那位赐下普遍恩典的圣灵（《要义》2.2.15）。

加尔文主义是犯罪许可证？

首先，就像钟马田（Martyn Lloyd-Jones）说的，如果我们从未被指控传讲反律法主（antinomianism，恩典是犯罪许可证），很可能我们从未正确的传讲过福音。保罗早就精准地预料到这个问题，「我们可以仍在罪中，叫恩典显多吗？」。因为他从罗马书三章9节开始论证，最后得出的论点是：「罪在哪里显多，恩典就更显多了」（罗五21）。同时，一些改革宗基督徒，特别是从律法主义背景下解脱出来的信徒，好像把保罗的论证卡在五章21节为止，便总结起来，「上帝喜爱赦免，我喜爱犯罪——完美组合！」

但是被指控反律法主义与真正的反律法主义的区别就在于是否愿意继续跟随保罗的论证到第六章。因为在第六章，保罗通过宣告上帝所成就的工作来正面回应了这个指控。保罗一开始的论证似乎很讨反律主义者的欢心，因为他们极力强调上帝的工作，然后拒绝，至少压制了上帝的命令。可是，保罗所宣告的上帝成就的工作，不仅仅是我们在基督里称义，还有我们受洗归入基督。他的论证基本是这样的：与基督的联合必然促成称义和重生，这也必然导致成圣。保罗在这里说的不是某种要遵守的原则，他不是说基督徒不应该，或者不可以活在罪里。保罗说的是他们不可能活在罪里，这是一个不可能事件。但是很明显，基督徒的确还会犯罪，保罗特别在第七章里提到这一点，但是基督徒是与罪抗争，并不愿意活在罪里。

多特大会的先辈们非常清楚所面对的指控，改革宗教义被指控为「领导人偏离敬虔与信仰；是由肉体与魔鬼所主使的麻醉剂」，并且必然导致「宗教自由派」（libertinism﹝译注：放荡主义﹞），并且「使人得到肉体上的安全，因为他们被劝导说，没有任何事可以阻挡选民的救恩，让他们任意而行」（结论）。但是，这些先辈们既没有放弃称义带来的安慰，也没有妥协基督复活的生命带来的成圣。虽然完全的成圣在今生是不可能的，但今天所谓的「属肉体的基督徒」状态也是不可能的。一个人只能要么在亚当里死，要么在基督里活。同样，有人想靠自己的办法解决这个奥秘：或者我们可以完全摆脱所有已知的罪，好像约翰卫斯理（John Wesley）教导的；或者我们可自安于一种灵性死亡的状态里，好像反律法主义者教导的。尽管这些说法似乎能满足我们的理性，但是这两条路都忽视了圣经清晰的教导，并剥夺了我们享有这丰富救恩的喜乐。

如此，在这一问题上，同样有两道护栏从律法主义和反律法主义的迷雾中浮现出来：称义与成圣既不可混淆，也不能分隔。

此外，好有许多其他的指控，例如改革宗神学常常被视为「理性主义」（rationalistic）的神学，意思是说，这是一个建立在逻辑上的系统，而非基于圣经。但是，我希望各位看到的是，上述各个讨论中极端的双方才真的是理性主义者。改革宗信条的智慧就在于拒绝越过圣经去幻想，坚持传讲上帝全备均衡的旨意，不妄加过分强调某一侧面的内容。改革宗神学所求问的不是逻辑会引导我们去哪里，而是圣经要引导我们去哪里。或许简单的二选一看起来更容易解决圣经里的奥秘，但是这条路十分危险。故此，努力把圣经作为整体来读，沿着护栏保护我们的路继续前行。

Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism

by Michael Horton

Before the average believer today learns what Reformed theology (i.e., Calvinism) actually is, he first usually has to learn what it’s not. Often, detractors define Reformed theology not according to what it actually teaches, but according to where they think its logic naturally leads. Even more tragically, some hyper-Calvinists have followed the same course. Either way, “Calvinism” ends up being defined by extreme positions that it does not in fact hold as scriptural. The charges leveled against Reformed theology, of which hyper-Calvinism is actually guilty, received a definitive response at the international Synod of Dort (1618–1619), along with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Is God the Author of Sin?

The God of Israel “is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deut. 32:4–5). In fact, James seems to have real people in mind when he cautions, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Sin and evil have their origin not in God or creation, but in the personal will and action of creatures.

Scripture sets forth two guardrails here: On one hand, God “works all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:15); on the other, God does not — in fact, cannot — do evil. We catch a glimpse of these two guardrails at once in several passages, most notably in Genesis 45 and Acts 2. In the former, Joseph recognizes that while the intention of his brothers in selling him into slavery was evil, God meant it for good, so that many people could be saved during this famine (vv. 4–8). We read in the same breath in Acts 2:23 that “lawless men” are blamed for the crucifixion, and yet Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God….” The challenge is to affirm what Scripture teaches without venturing any further. We know from Scripture that both are true, but not how. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this point is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (chap. 3.1): “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established,” and with that, the second guardrail. The same point is made in the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 13), adding that whatever God has left to His own secret judgment is not for us to probe any further.

Is the Gospel for Everyone?

Isn’t it a bit of false advertising to say on one hand that God has already determined who will be saved and on the other hand to insist that the good news of the Gospel be sincerely and indiscriminately proclaimed to everyone?

But didn’t Christ die for the elect alone? The Canons of Dort pick up on a phrase that was often found in the medieval textbooks (“sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect only”) when it affirms that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). Therefore, we hold out to the world “the promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction ….” Although many do not embrace it, this “is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6).

Here once again we are faced with mystery — and the two guardrails that keep us from careening off the cliff in speculation. God loves the world and calls everyone in the world to Christ outwardly through the Gospel, and yet God loves the elect with a saving purpose and calls them by His Spirit inwardly through the same Gospel (John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9). Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists ignore crucial passages of Scripture, resolving the mystery in favor of the either-or: either election or the free offer of the Gospel.

Grace for Everybody?

Does God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — fattening the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued?

Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians are supposed to imitate this divine attitude.

The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not the whole story of God’s dealing with this world.

When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15).

Is Calvinism a License to Sin?

The first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are never accused of preaching antinomianism (that is, grace-as-license), we probably have not preached the Gospel correctly. After all, Paul anticipates the question, “Shall we then sin that grace may abound?” precisely because his own argument from 3:9 to this point has pressed it: “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more” (5:21). At the same time, some Reformed Christians, especially those liberated from legalistic backgrounds, seem to end Paul’s argument at Romans 5:21, concluding, in effect, “God likes to forgive, I like to sin — the perfect relationship!”

The difference between being accused of antinomianism (literally, anti-law-ism) and being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow Paul on into chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an announcement of what God has done! At first, this would seem to favor antinomians, since they place all of the emphasis on what God has done and reject, or at least downplay, the importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, what Paul announces is that God has accomplished not only our justification in Christ, but our baptism into Christ. His argument is basically this: being united to Christ necessarily brings justification and regeneration, which issues in sanctification. He does not say that Christians should not, or must not, live in sin as the principle of their existence, but that they cannot — it is an impossibility. That they do continue to sin is evident enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle against it.

The fathers at Dort recognized the charge that the Reformed doctrine “ leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “libertinism” and “renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please” (Conclusion). Yet they would neither surrender the comfort of justification by Christ’s righteousness imputed nor of sanctification by Christ’s resurrection life imparted. Perfection of sanctification in this life is impossible, but just as impossible is a condition known today as the “carnal Christian.” One is either dead in Adam or alive in Christ. Again, some wish to resolve this mystery: either we can be free from all known sin, as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state of spiritual death, as antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason, such an easy resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of Scripture and robs us of the joy of such a full salvation.

So the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but they are also not to be separated.

In addition to these other charges, Reformed theology is often regarded as “rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture. However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the extremists on either side of these debates. The wisdom of the Reformed confessions is that they refuse to speculate beyond Scripture and insist on proclaiming the whole counsel of God, not simply the passages that seem to reinforce one-sided emphases. It is not a question of where the logic should lead us but where the Scriptures do lead us. It might be easier to resolve the mystery in simple, either-or solutions, but such a course would certainly not be safer. So let us too strive to read all of the Scriptures together, keeping a sharp lookout for those guardrails!