書評：《為降在陰間辯護——對當代評論家的回應》
In Defense of the Descent: A Response to Contemporary Critics
作者：Daniel R. Hyde 書評人：David VanDrunen
誠之譯自：https://opc.org/review.html?review_id=440
https://yimawusi.net/2023/03/21/in-defense-of-the-descent/
 
《為降在陰間辯護——對當代批評家的回應》，丹尼爾·海德著。Reformation Heritage Books出版，2010。平裝本，88頁。David VanDrunen（加州西敏神學院教授，OPC牧師）書評。
In Defense of the Descent: A Response to Contemporary Critics, by Daniel R. Hyde. Published by Reformation Heritage Books, 2010. Paperback, 88 pages, list price $10.00. Reviewed by professor and OP minister David VanDrunen.
 
作為基督徒，我們要用口承認我們心裏首先相信的信念（羅十9-10）。當我們在《使徒信經》中讀到基督「降在陰間」（譯按：英文[He descended into hell]直譯為降在地獄）的時候，這個想法可能會讓我們駐足思考一下。我們真的相信這點嗎，如果相信，我們如何理解呢？如果把這些話從信條中刪除，事情會不會變得更容易一些？
As Christians, we are to confess with our mouths what we have first believed in our hearts (Rom. 10:9–10). That idea may give us pause when we recite in the Apostles' Creed, "He descended into hell." Do we really believe this, and if so, how do we understand it? Would things be simpler just to eliminate these words from the Creed? Reformed Christians may be especially confused, since the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism interpret this clause in different ways. Daniel Hyde, a pastor in the United Reformed Churches, addresses such issues in this clear, concise, and helpful book. He argues that the debated clause not only belongs in the Creed, but also provides theologically rich, practical benefit to the church as she confesses it and teaches it.
 
改革宗基督徒可能會特別感到困惑，因為《威斯敏斯特大要理問答》和《海德堡要理問答》對這句話有不同的解釋。聯合改革宗教會（URC）的牧師丹尼爾·海德在這本清晰、簡明、有益的書中論述了這類問題。他認為，這條備受爭議的條款不僅屬於信條，而且在教會承認它、教導它的過程中，也為教會提供了神學上豐富、實際的益處。
Hyde begins by relating the objections of several contemporary Reformed authors to the use of this clause. He then provides some historical background on the development of the Apostles' Creed and the inclusion of the clause within it. In the lengthier third chapter,
 
海德首先介紹了當代幾位改革宗作者對使用這個條款的反對意見。然後，他提供了一些關於使徒信經的發展，以及將這個句子納入使徒信經的歷史背景。在篇幅較長的第三章中，海德描述了對降在陰間這個條款的六種主要解釋。前四種是非改革宗的看法。基督降在陰間：(1) 是為了繼續受苦；(2) 是為那些作為非信徒而死的人提供第二次機會；(3) 是為了向那些作為信徒而死的人宣佈祂的勝利；(4) 是為了向撒但宣佈祂的勝利。海德簡要地解釋了為什麼前兩種觀點明確地與聖經相悖。他更詳細地評論了第三和第四種觀點——通常分別由羅馬天主教徒和路德宗所主張（譯按：聖公會也持第三種看法）。在這裏，他納入了對以弗所書四章7-10節和彼得前書三章18-19節的有益討論，這兩段經文在這場辯論中經常被人引用。
Hyde describes six main interpretations of the descent clause. The first four are non-Reformed: that Christ went to hell (1) to continue suffering, (2) to offer a second chance to those who died as unbelievers, (3) to announce his victory to those who died as believers, and (4) to announce his victory to Satan. Hyde briefly explains why the first two views are explicitly contrary to Scripture. He critiques the third and fourth views—typically espoused by Roman Catholics and Lutherans, respectively—in more detail. Here he includes helpful discussion of Ephesians 4:7–10 and 1 Peter 3:18–19, two texts that are commonly cited in this debate.
 
在第三章的末尾，海德介紹了對這句話的最後兩種解釋，這兩種解釋在改革宗信徒中很常見。(5) 基督作為一個真正死了的人被埋葬了（見《威斯敏斯特大要理問答》，問答50），(6) 基督在一生中特別是在十字架上遭受了如同地獄般的苦楚（見《海德堡要理問答》，問答44）。第四章為這兩種觀點作了辯護。海德正確地認識到，它們是和諧的，事實上，它們抓住了改革宗關於基督降卑的教義更廣泛的兩個方面。本章包括對詩篇十六篇8-10節的注釋，這是這些辯論的另一個重要的歷史經文。（誠之按：改革宗信條解釋“降在陰間”是指基督在靈魂中背負有如地獄般極大的苦楚，詩116:3；撒上2:6。參Ursinus 烏爾西努 《海德堡要理問答注釋》，pp. 228-232。耶穌基督降在陰間，是指祂暫時服在死亡的權勢之下，代替義人承擔了死亡的苦楚，靈魂與肉身暫時分離。）
At the end of the third chapter, Hyde introduces the final two interpretations of the clause, which are common among Reformed believers: (5) that Christ was buried as one who was truly dead (see Westminster Larger Catechism, 50), and (6) that Christ suffered the agony of hell during his whole life and especially on the cross (see Heidelberg Catechism, 44). The fourth chapter defends both of these views. Hyde rightly recognizes that they are harmonious and, in fact, capture two aspects of the broader Reformed doctrine of Christ's humiliation. This chapter includes exegesis of Psalm 16:8–10, another historically important text for these debates.
 
在第五章中，海德最後討論了在使徒信經和我們的教理問答訓練中保留「祂降在陰間」的好處。這句話把我們與歷史上的大公基督教會聯繫起來，大公教會這麼多世紀以來一直承認這句話。它的真理也在我們心生懷疑的時候支持我們的確據，在我們的痛苦中提供希望，並在我們面對死亡時給予我們平安。
In Chapter 5, Hyde concludes by discussing the benefits of retaining "He descended into hell" in the Apostles' Creed and in our catechetical training. This clause links us with the historic, catholic Christian church that has confessed it for so many centuries. Its truth also bolsters our assurance in times of doubt, provides hope in our suffering, and grants us peace as we face death.
 
筆者強烈推薦本書，不僅推薦給那些可能反對降在陰間這個條款的人，也推薦給任何希望對它有更豐富的理解和認識的人。對於那些教導兒童要理問答的人來說，它也會很有用。本書篇幅短小，文字清晰，使廣大讀者都能讀懂。
This book is highly recommended, not only for those who may have objections to the descent clause, but also for any who wish to gain a richer understanding and appreciation for it. It will also be useful for those catechizing children. Its short length and clear writing make it accessible to a wide audience.

郁金香的根：多特信经与宗教改革的神学传承

2019宗教改革研讨会：多特信经| 洛杉矶华⼈改⾰宗恩约教会讲座

讲员：Daniel R. Hyde  译文：大迪

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/L4Yc4HrVNWVSzsDTDlZzQQ

在第二部分：多特信经与改革宗的神学传承中，我们从历史过渡到神学，从教义背景过渡到教义认信。

多特信经是以1610年的《抗辩书》五要点为架构的：预定、补赎、败坏、回转和保守。为了回应每个要点，多特大会不是只写了一个反对论点，而是每一要点都成为一项“标题”（头）或教义的主要论点。在这些要点上，他们以许多条文的形式草拟了一连串的信仰“准则”或判决。每一项要点都包含两部分：有关正统改革宗教会认信的正面条文，然后是对包含在抗辩派著作中具体错误的驳斥。在每项标题下，头几条条文都阐述了每个教义要点的背景共识（《多特信经》1.1–4；2.1–7；3 / 4.1–2、4–5；5.1–2），然后有一条过渡条文，定义了这项教义（《多特信经》1.7；2.8；3 / 4.3，6；5.3），最后是几条条文，内容涉及上帝的公义和罪的过错对教牧和信仰实践的含义，人在救恩中的责任，得救的确据，敬虔和蒙恩之道的重要性。

我会从不同于你的期望的角度，来看对多特的这些教义。我们会从《使徒信经》的有利位置来看：“我信……圣而公之教会。”这句话把这些教义定位在教会历史的故事中，认定这些教义是在“神的家”（弗2:19）里，而且是建立在“使徒和先知的根基”（弗2:20）上的教义。这是我的论点：我们经常把“加尔文主义五要点”称为“改革宗的特色”，好叫我们自己从拥挤的教会环境中凸显而出。这样做，我们会错失这样的认识，就是“我们改革宗的”教义其实是大公教会的发展和讨论里的另一篇章。

没有“加尔文主义五要点”

没有“加尔文主义五要点”。我是什么意思呢？

首先，提出五要点的是抗辩派。反抗辩派或正统派只是用几个相反要点来回应这五要点。然后多特大会阐述了这些要点。这对我们的回忆和重温非常重要。为什么呢？我们改革宗教会的信仰内容，并没有总结在多特信经中，当然也没有总结在现代美国式的、而且过于简化的缩写“郁金香” TULIP里。理查·穆勒（Richard Muller）总结了不同的观点，他说TULIP的缩写是20世纪初的产物，重新排列了抗辩派的实际观点和多特信经的回应（更像是ULTIP），而且在17世纪的荷兰不可能想到这个缩写。为什么呢？因为郁金香的荷兰语是tulp。

回到主题，在多特大会前夕，荷兰神学家费图司·霍米乌斯（Festus Hommius，1576–1642）在他写给多特大会代表的作品中总结了这场争端：《放眼荷兰的争议》。霍米乌斯的观点是：“整个争端只和这五个特定问题有关……这样的概念是不够充分的，这只是亚米念派对实际发生的事情的描述。” 因此，把改革宗信仰归纳为五要点是亚米念派提出的！

任何有学识的改革宗人士都知道，我们相信的内容已在《比利时信条》的37条和《海德堡要理问答》的129个问答中得到了承认。你看过YouTube频道上的“改革宗暴徒的生活”（Reformed Thug Life?）吗？上面有很多“五要点人士”令人难忘的引句。重点来了：我们认为， “五要点人士”，确实是在展示他们的神学实力！但是在多特大会之前，有基于《海德堡要理问答》和《比利时信条》的“166点加尔文主义”，在多特之后则添加了93条条文和驳斥，出现了“259点加尔文主义”。这就是真正改革宗的 “暴徒生活！”

因此，穆勒说，加尔文主义不只有五要点，而且，就信仰告白和从加尔文到凯波尔的改革宗教理神学家来说，不可能有“五点加尔文主义者”或“五点改革宗基督徒”这种事。这些人只拥有从多特信经抽出来五条条文，却拒绝接受真正改革神学提出的其他“要点”。

多特信经的大公性

这引出了我们的第二点：多特信经的大公性。多特大会的辩论是大公教会的辩论。用塞恩·休斯（Seán Hughes）的话说：“在此期间，几乎所有基督教传统，包括罗马天主教和东正教，都对恩典教义进行了深刻的辩论。” “多特教义背后的神学议题并不纯粹属于‘加尔文主义者’，在其他基督教传统中，也可以找到类似的思想”。关于预定、补赎、败坏、回转、保守的教义，以及它们的正面条文和对错误的驳斥，都源于西方大公教会的历史。

多特信经是“主流”的历史教义。普法尔茨的代表们建议多特大会像古代大公会议那样，用简短有力的条文来写作其回应。詹姆士国王指示他的代表要以一种反映古代大公会议反对伯拉纠和半伯拉纠的方式来撰写，而不使用与改革宗信仰告白相符的新用语，并且尽可能不要冒犯路德派。这是英国修道士伯拉纠（Pelagius，360–418）和奥古斯丁（Augustine，354–430），以及之后奥古斯丁和卡西安（John Cassian，360–435）之间旷日持久的辩论。在迦太基议会（Councils of Carthage，418）和奥兰治会议上确定了其主要特征（Councils of Orange，529）。

奥古斯丁简洁地陈述了他的神学：“上帝拣选信徒，但是祂拣选的目的是要叫他们成为信徒，而不是因为他们已经是信徒。” 这种预订论的观点可以从奥古斯汀一直追溯到宗教改革。因此，范·阿瑟特（van Asselt）结论说：“多特大会的神学争斗涉及到整个西方教会中奥古斯丁传统的核心。”

让我们特别来看多特信经第一项教义的第15条：

圣经特别强调我们的拣选这一永恒、不配得的恩典，并且更加清楚向我们表明它，因为圣经进一步证实，并不是每个人都被拣选，而是有一些人没有被拣选，或者说有一些人在上帝永恒的拣选中被越过——对于这些人，上帝基于祂完全自由、完全公义、无可指摘、不可改变的美意，做出了以下决定：把他们留在普遍的悲惨中，这原是他们因自己的过犯自陷其中；不把得救的信心与回转的恩典赐给他们；而是按着祂公正的判断，让他们偏行己路，最终彰显祂的公义，定罪并永远刑罚他们，不仅因为他们的不信，也因为他们所犯的其他各样罪。这就是遗弃的旨意，它绝不使上帝成为罪的始作俑者（这种念头本是亵渎），相反这表明上帝是大而可畏、无可指摘、绝对公义的审判官，按着公义报应各人。

我们的三一上帝以祂惊人的恩典拣选了一些堕落的人，使他们得救。这里会出现一个合理的问题：其余未蒙拣选的人，他们的命运如何呢？当我们以谦卑的心来探讨这个题目时，保持正确的视角是很重要的。辛尼玛（Sinnema）说：“对于遗弃，加尔文主义者没有一致的观点。‘正统’加尔文主义神学家在一些要点上的差异虽然很重要，但这些差异还没有深到会造成分裂的程度。”

例如，人们普遍认为，改革宗神学承认所谓的“双重预定论”（double predesination）。约翰派博（John Piper）称自己为“七点加尔文主义者”，因为他承认五要点和额外的两点真理，即双重预定和最好的世界。然而，双重预定并不是改革宗独有的，甚至它究竟有什么涵义，改革宗神学家也没有一致的看法。从奥古斯汀开始就有对双重预定的讨论。上帝的预定有两个方面，拣选和遗弃，并不代表这两个方面完全对等，而是相似的。

在多特大会后不久，安东尼奥·瓦劳斯（Antonius Walaeus）会说：“预定论被正确地用来指代遗弃和拣选，但这不是表示在各方面都有相同含义的两个类别，而只是表示两者相似。”上帝“积极地”预定了一些人得生命，与他们的善行无关，而那些没有蒙拣选的人，则“被动地”、“消极地”遗留在他们的罪过中，因为他们配得死亡；祂随后主动地因着他们的罪而定旨他们最终的定罪。

第十五条说圣经的明确见证是：不是所有的人，而是只有一些人是蒙拣选的。教导上帝拣选一个特定的人得救的一些圣经经文，也是在教导上帝没有拣选其他人。我们当中没有一个人配得到恩典。当你真正理解这点时，就可以明白什么是遗弃。它特别会向我们说明并劝诫我们，拣选是永恒的、人不配得的恩典。我们知道拣选是恩慈的，但上帝对那些在永恒旨意中未蒙拣选的人，为什么还是公义的呢？

第十五条给出的答案是，“上帝基于祂完全自由、完全公义、无可指摘、不可改变的美意，做出了以下决定：把他们留在普遍的悲惨中，这原是他们因自己的过犯自陷其中。” 这是因为他们自己的过犯才堕落在这种悲惨中。这正是奥古斯汀所说的。没有一个人配得救恩。因着亚当的罪我们都堕落了。所以，多特信经讲上帝越过那些未被拣选的人，上帝也没有把信心和回转的恩典赐给他们。这是为什么在上帝的遗弃中，上帝依旧是公正的。被上帝忽略而越过的人，上帝就以公正的审判任凭他们按照自己的方式行事，最后是为了宣告祂的公正，以永远定罪和刑罚他们，不仅因为他们不信，而且还因为他们其他的一切罪过。

上帝积极地以恩典拣选了某些人，并为他们准备荣耀。我们谈到拣选是积极的和直接的。另一方面，我们谈到上帝越过其他人，则是被动地或间接地保留、不赐予恩典。只有到那时，我们才能说到祂积极地把那些在罪中的人配得的定罪赐予他们。上帝造人，不是为了定人的罪，但亚米念派常以这种论调扭曲改革宗教义。多特大会希望保护上帝是良善和公义的这项教义。

第15条以遗弃的谕旨结束：“这样的教义绝不使上帝成为罪的始作俑者（这种念头本是亵渎），相反这表明上帝是大而可畏、无可指摘、绝对公义的审判官，按着公义报应各人。” 这与奥兰治第二次大公会议（The Canons of the Second Council of Orange，529）的决议一致，后者在它对信心的最终定义中说到：“但是，任何一个人是因为神的能力而注定成为邪恶，这种说法我们不仅不相信，而且如果有人相信如此邪恶的教义，我们要彻底憎恶他们，并要咒诅他们。”

在这点上，我们开始看到多特大会是独一、神圣、大公、使徒教会历史上的另一篇章。多特信经为我们彰显的是历史上的大公信仰。

当时的战斗，现在的战斗

讲述以上斗争的目的，不是为了让你现在像看博物馆展览品那样去看这些信条。保罗与律法主义和反律法主义的斗争、奥古斯丁与伯拉纠主义的斗争、路德与罗马天主教的斗争，以及多特信经与亚米念派的斗争，至今还在继续，从未中断。菲利普•沙夫（Philip Schaff）说：“亚米念争议是发生在改革宗教会内部最重要的争议。”至少对四百年后的我们来说，应该还是很重要的。

  1）在我们的战斗中，我们需要多特信经，以此来保存并传讲一个古旧的教义，就是上帝的恩典如何拯救像你我这样的罪人。我们已经堕入败坏的深渊，却复活得以定睛在上帝那永恆的爱上。我们被带到十架之前，俯伏在这为我们所作成的补赎面前。之后我们要站立，因为这补赎是如此充足，所以我们必须毫无分别地，在每一片大陆上，向各族各民、万国万邦广传这福音。我们经历圣灵那使人重生的大能（约3），它有效地把上帝之子的无限功德施作在我们这些罪人的心中。我们感受到作为基督徒的痛苦和挣扎，被天父所爱，却为爱而挣扎；与基督一同埋葬，却不断地挖掘我们自身的罪；被圣灵充满，却也被我们自己的情欲引入歧途。然而三位一体的上帝有大能保守我们安歇在祂慈爱的膀臂中，领我们进入天上的圣城。

 2）在我们的战斗中，我们需要这信条，因为它们与圣灵的声音相呼应，用一条又一条充满圣经真意的语言，向我们宣讲什么是靠着恩典而得救的意义。

3）在我们在战斗中，我们需要这信条，因为与其他历史上的信条或信仰告白不同，多特信经是以教牧心肠来应用圣经，解决基督徒生活中最紧迫的事情：得救的确据（1. 12-13，16；5.9-13）；人既被称义，又是有罪的（5.1，4-6）；信徒婴孩的死（1.17）；每周领受蒙恩之道（1.14；2.5；3/4.8-9、17；5.10、14），以及基督徒持守圣洁的必要性（1.18；5.12）。

  4）在我们在斗争中，我们需要这信条，因为它们是第一次和最后一次普世基督教改革宗会议的产物。菲利普•沙夫（Philip Schaff）称，多特大会是“改革宗教会历史上唯一具有普世特征的会议。在这方面，它甚至比西敏大会更重要，尽管西敏大会产生了更优秀的教义标准，但它的范围只局限于英格兰和苏格兰。” 作为一个国际会议，“多特大会发挥了普世改革宗教会议会的作用，是一个空前绝后的改革宗大集会。因此，多特信经不只是荷兰的产物，更是代表着当时整个改革宗群体内最优秀的头脑产生的普世教会共识。

在多特会议之后，当法国的改革宗教会面对自己内部关于恩典问题的争论时，在第23届在法国阿莱（Alais）召开的法国全国总会上（1620年）和第24届在查伦顿（Charenton）召开的总会上（1623年），都使用了多特信经来规范约束所有的牧师。后来，苏黎世的约翰•雅各布•布莱廷格（John Jacob Breitinger）博士说，如果圣灵曾在教会会议中出现，那祂就一定是出现在多特大会上。后来，每当巴塞尔的沃尔夫冈•迈耶（Wolfgang Meyer）谈起多特大会时，他都会脱帽高呼：“Sacrosancta Synodus（神圣的宗教会议）!”关于这次会议，英国清教徒约翰•欧文（John Owen，1616-1683）说到：“那次会议的神学家们……被认为是荷兰所有改革宗教会（法国除外）所可能提供的最优秀神学家”。会议结束后，荷兰国家最高议会希望继续加强整个欧洲接受宗教改革的各公国之间的联络网，因此就把《多特法案》（Acts of Synod）的印刷本呈交各个君主。

5）我们需要多特信经，因为恩典值得我们为之奋斗。正如来自日内瓦的代表们所解释的那样：“亚米念派的教导岂不是亵渎上帝在祂无条件拣选中所当得的荣耀，亵渎基督在祂的救赎中所当得的赞美，亵渎圣灵在使人回转上的权能吗？它也削弱了基督徒在或生、或死中的安慰，撕裂了我们得救的确据。最后，这是削弱信徒内心对天父上帝的敬畏和信靠，反倒会点燃人内心的骄傲自大来反对上帝、荣耀自己，而不是荣耀上帝、荣耀基督。”

预定：它如何彰显上帝的荣耀？Predestination: How Does ItReveal the Glory of God?

作者：Daniel Hyde  译者/校对者：Maria Marta/诚之

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-how-does-it-reveal-glory-god/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157877252524653

基督徒必须谈论上帝的预定，圣经为我们提供了一些谈论的基本规则。此外，我们还要考虑上帝的预定和下面这件事的关联：为什么有些人会信耶稣基督，而有些人却不信？

你们多常从敬虔和善意的弟兄姐妹那里听说过，预定就像一盆浇在基督徒热忱上的冷水？你们当中又有多少人听说过：预定像干海绵，吸尽属灵的热情？他们说，预定是太理性、太死气沉沉、太哲理、太枯燥而不结果子的「教义」。

预定是圣经赐给我们的真理，因此，我们当为了它而怀着崇敬之心敬拜上帝，受它的安慰，也受它的启发，好为失丧的人祷告，渴望他们得着救恩。然而，让「拣选」这个真理（译按：预定和拣选这两个字是同一个意思 ）如此荣耀的是什么呢？让我们来思考保罗在以弗所书第一章说的话。这段话启示出三一真神在预定上的荣耀的五大特征。

1. 预定是永不改变的

是什么使拣选（预定）的教义如此荣耀呢？是它的永不改变。我们无法从以弗所书第一章或任何其他圣经章节得出这个观念，就是我们能改变上帝所决定的事情。拣选是「上帝不变的心意」（多特信经 1.7）。上帝永恒的计划总是被描述为确定的、固定的、坚定不移的：「祂的旨意是不更改的」（来六17-18）。

但是，有谁曾经说过上帝改变了祂所计划的事呢？在十七世纪，亚民念（James Arminius）的追随者教导，有各种类型的拣选。看看神学家在多特大会（1618-1619）如何描述和拒绝这样的教导：

上帝有许多种不同的拣选：有些是一般的拣选（general election）、没有特定对象（indefinite），有些是特别的拣选（particular election）、有特定对象（definite）；而即使是后者（有特定对象），又还可以分成「不完全的拣选」（incomplete election）和「完全的拣选」（complete election）。所谓「不完全的拣选」，是指「上帝对这个特定对象，也还没有完全决定要不要一直拣选他到底」，这种拣选有条件、可反悔。所谓「完全的拣选」，则指「上帝对这个特定对象，已经决定要一直拣选他到底了」，这种拣选不讲条件、不会反悔。换句话说，有一种「使人相信的拣选」（election unto faith），有一种「使人得救的拣选」（election unto salvation）。上帝可以只拣选一个人使他有信心、被称义，但还没有完全决定要拣选他得救。（多特信经第一项教义，错误教导之二）

我们必须意识到，我们很容易根据个人经验来论断上帝。父亲会作出承诺然后又打破诺言。上帝是天父，所以也会像父亲那样出尔反尔。我们可能看到有人参加教会聚会，之后就不见影踪，因此我们会认为，在某种程度上他们真正得救了，但随后又失去了他们的救恩。

拣选是荣耀的真理，因为它是不变的。

2. 预定是永恒的

是什么使拣选教义如此荣耀呢？是它的永恒性。预定发生在「创立世界以前」（弗一4）。我们习惯进入投票所或递送不在籍投票（Absentee Ballot）。我们习惯拥有发言权。然而，圣经启示我们：在万事之先，上帝已经存在。在上帝创造之前，已经有一个计划。因为上帝是永恒的，所以祂的计划是永恒的。祂对我们的永恒计划是恩慈的计划，即是按照祂「是万古之先，在基督耶稣里赐给我们的」旨意拯救我们（提后一9）。

上帝拣选的永恒性不仅是荣耀的，而且是鼓舞人心的。你可曾意识到永恒而荣耀的上帝对你有一个明确的、从永恒到永恒的计划？

3. 预定是满有恩慈的

是什么使拣选教义如此荣耀呢？是它的恩慈性。保罗说，我们赞美父上帝的核心，是祂对我们的爱。祂的爱是永恒的爱，「上帝从创立世界以前，在基督里拣选了我们」（弗一4）。祂对我们的爱是祂拣选我们的原因（弗一5）。祂对我们永恒的爱使我们在第一时间知道祂的爱，以及祂预定的爱让我们「借着耶稣基督得儿子的名分」（弗一5）。祂对我们的爱是根植于祂对「爱子」的爱（弗一6）。因此多特信经说，上帝拣选了我们「只是出于祂的慈爱，按着祂主权的美意」（多特信经1.7）。

这永恒的恩典乃是上帝亲自启动、亲自执行、亲自计划的，而不是我们。祂「拣选了我们」（弗一4），「预定我们」（弗一5），是「按着自己意旨」（弗一5）。「意旨」（purpose，eudokian）这词也可以翻译为「美意」（good pleasure ，NIV; NKJV）或「善意」（kind intention ，NASB)。爱是上帝拣选的缘故。这种爱不是随意或反复无常的，而是出于对我们深深的爱。正如摩西在申命记第七章中对以色列人的宣告：耶和华专爱你们，拣选你们，并非因你们的人数多于别民，只因耶和华爱你们（申七7-8a）。

那么，为什么上帝拣选某个人，而不是另一个人呢？就个人而言，为什么上帝拣选你而不是其他人呢？祂拣选你不是因为你有什么先决条件，例如，「预先看见人会有信心，并且因信顺服、圣洁，或是预先看见人里面有任何其他美好的品格与性情」（多特信经1.9）。正如以弗所书第一章4节说：上帝「从创立世界以前，在基督里拣选了我们」。然后，我们才读到为什么：「使我们在祂面前成为圣洁，无有瑕疵。」换句话说，上帝拣选我们不是因为我们圣洁，没有瑕疵。再一次我们读到，「又因爱我们，就按着自己意旨所喜悦的，预定我们借着耶稣基督得儿子的名分」（弗一5–6) 。上帝的预定使我们成为祂的儿女；不是因为祂预见我们会成为祂的儿女而预定我们。（译按：按亞米念派的观点，也就是今天大多数基督徒的观点，认为上帝是根据祂的预知作出选择。上帝只拣选那些祂知道会选择衪的人得享永生，这种观点称为预定论的预知说。）

你听说过牧师用游行作例子来解说吗? 上帝在直播控制室内观看整场游行，从（便于观察的）有利位置上，上帝可以看到所有在祂面前经过的人，不管你信不信，祂以祂的拣选对此作出反应。但是以弗所书第一章说的刚好相反，上帝是在创立世界以前，便按着祂丰盛的恩典拣选了你们，而不是因为你们在时间「里面」相信，才拣选了你们。所以，当我们意识到，上帝是在「我们」还是罪人时就拣选我们，祂满有恩典的拣选工作是特别荣耀的。而且因为在所有人中祂拣选了我们，我们发自内心大声高唱:「我受恩惠，何其深宏，日日增加无从报！」（译注：中文歌词引自《圣诗》，万福源头，271页）

4. 预定是确定不移的

是什么使拣选教义如此荣耀呢？是它的确定性。在以弗所书第一章的荣耀颂中，「我们」颂赞上帝的恩典，因为祂赐恩典给「我们」（弗一4）。这不是指不确定的一大群人，而是指你和我这样真实的人。有些人认为，预定只属于不确定的某种等级的人，「会相信、会持守信心、会凭信顺服的人」（多特信经第一项教义，错误教导之一）。但是需要注意拣选的确定性是个人的。讨论预定的确定性如此重要的原因是，如果预定是不确定的，不是个人的，我们会老是怀疑我们是否与它有分。相反，预定是确定的，而且是关乎个人的，所以约翰•加尔文说，保罗在以弗所书第一章的用意是「唤醒[我们]心中的感恩之情，点燃[我们]的热爱之情，甚至让这种思想充满我们。」

5. 预定是以基督为中心的

是什么使拣选教义如此荣耀呢？因为它是以基督为中心的教义。这是改革宗信徒需要有更深理解的领域之一。我们如此频繁从抽象的角度讲到「预定」，以致忘记了这教义是以基督为中心的。在以弗所书第一章，保罗甚至在说有关预定的词之前；在第一至三章，保罗甚至在说到关于我们的教义的字眼之前；在第四至六章， 保罗甚至在说到关于我们应该如何生活的话之前，他把万事的根源都归于耶稣基督。为什么? 我们颂赞「我们主耶稣基督的父上帝」，祂「在基督里曾赐给我们天上各样属灵的福气」（第3节）。他继续说到，上帝「在祂里面拣选了我们」，那就是在「在耶稣基督里」（第4节）和「在爱子里」（第6节）。

多特信经总结上述所言时说，「上帝预定他们归给基督，被祂救赎；用祂的话、祂的灵呼召他们，并且这呼召必要产生果效，使他们回应这呼召，吸引他们与基督相交；赐他们真实的信心，使他们被称为义，得以成圣；以大能保守他们与基督相交，使他们至终得荣耀，以彰显祂的怜悯，使祂荣耀的恩典得着称赞。」（多特信经1.7）。

就实际情况而言，这意味着耶稣基督是我们蒙拣选的镜子。如果在创世之前上帝所喜悦的旨意和伟大的爱仍然让你有疑问的话，唯一的补救办法是注视基督，彷佛对着镜子观看。注视祂，你会看到反射出来的自己，有更新和蒙拣选的形象。

多么荣耀的教义啊，因它彰显了我们奇妙真神的荣耀。它引领我们以赞美和圣洁作回应。当我们默想祂的荣耀时禁不住赞美：「我们主耶稣基督的父上帝是应当称颂的」（弗一3）和「祂恩典的荣耀得着颂赞」！（弗一6）当我们默想祂的荣耀时，我们以追求圣洁来回应。由于罪人配得到上帝的惩罚，我们被呼召去「在祂面前成为圣洁，无有瑕疵」（弗一4）。

Predestination: How Does It Reveal the Glory of God?

FROM Daniel Hyde

Christians must talk about predestination, and the Bible provides us with certain ground rules to do so. In addition, we’ve also considered how predestination relates to why some believe in Jesus Christ and some don’t.

But how often have you heard from pious and well-meaning brothers and sisters that predestination is like a cold shower on Christian enthusiasm? How many of you have heard that it is like a dry sponge that soaks up all spiritual zeal? It’s too intellectual, too lifeless, too philosophical, and too sterile of a “doctrine,” they say.

Predestination is a truth given to us in Scripture, therefore we are to adore God for it, be comforted by it, and inspired by it to pray for and desire the salvation of the lost. But what makes election so glorious? Let’s consider five characteristics from Paul’s words in Ephesians 1 that reveal the glory of the triune God in predestination.

1. It Is Unchangeable

What makes the doctrine of election so glorious? It is unchangeable. Nowhere in Ephesians 1 or any other biblical passage do we ever get the idea that what God has determined can be changed by us. Election is “the unchangeable purpose of God” (Canons of Dort 1.7). God’s eternal plans are always described as certain, fixed, and immovable: “the unchangeable character of [God’s] purpose” (Heb. 6:17–18).

But who would ever say that God changes what He planned? In the seventeenth century, the followers of James Arminius taught that there were various kinds of election. Listen to how the divines at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) described and rejected this:

That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive and absolute. Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation. (Canons of Dort 1. Rejection of Errors 2)

We need to be aware that it is easy for us to judge God on the basis of our personal experience. Dad would make promises and dad would break promises. God is a Father, therefore He, too, changes. We may see people in church and then not, and think that somehow they were genuinely saved but then lost their salvation.

Election is glorious because it is unchangeable.

2. It Is Eternal

What makes the doctrine of election so glorious? It is eternal. Predestination happened “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). We are used to going into the polling station or sending in an absentee ballot. We are used to having a say in things. Yet Scripture reveals to us that before anything was, there was only God. And before He actually made anything, He had a plan. Since He is eternal, so are His plans. His eternal plan for us was a gracious plan, saving us according to “his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

This is not only glorious but it should be inspiring. Have you come to realize that the eternal and glorious God had a plan for you in particular from all of eternity and for all of eternity?

3. It Is Gracious

What makes the doctrine of election so glorious? It is gracious. Paul says that at the heart of our praise to God the Father is His love for us. His love is an eternal love “as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). His love for us is the cause of His predestining us (Eph. 1:5). His eternal love for us was that we would know His love in time, as His predestining love was “for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:5). And His love for us was rooted in His prior love for His Son, “the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6). This is why the Canons of Dort say God elected us “out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will” (Canons of Dort 1.7).

This eternal grace was initiated, executed, and purposed in God himself, and not in us. “He chose us” (Eph. 1:4), “he predestined” us (Eph. 1:5) and this was “according to the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:5). That word “purpose” (eudokian) can also be translated as “good pleasure” (NIV; NKJV) or “kind intention” (NASB). The cause of election is God’s love. It is not arbitrary or capricious, but rooted in a deep love for us. As Moses revealed to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7, it was not because they were more in number or greater than anyone else that He chose them, but it was merely because the Lord loved them.

So why did God choose one person and not another? More personally, why did God choose you and not another? He did not do so because there were prerequisites in you, such as “foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition” (Canons of Dort 1.9). As Ephesians 1:4 says, God “chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world.” And then we read why: “that we should be holy and blameless before him.” In other words, it was not because we were holy and blameless. Again, we read that “in love [the Father] predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace” (Eph. 1:5–6). His predestining us made us sons; we were not predestined because He saw us becoming sons.

Have you ever heard a preacher use the illustration of a parade, where God, as it were, was in the broadcast booth watching the entire parade. From that vantage point He could see all humanity pass before Him, believing or not, and then He reacts to this with His choice. Ephesians 1 says otherwise, that it was according to the riches of grace in God before time began that He chose you, not because of your faith in time. So the graciousness of God’s electing work is particularly glorious when we realize that He chose “us” as sinners. And because He chose us of all people, we sing at the top of our lungs and from the bottom of our hearts, “O to grace how great a debtor, daily I’m constrained to be!”

4. It Is Definite

What makes the doctrine of election so glorious? It is definite. The doxology of Ephesians 1 is that “we” bless God because He has blessed “us” (Eph. 1:4). This is not an indefinite mass, but real people like you and me. Some believe that predestination is of an indefinite class of people, “those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith” (Canons of Dort 1.Rejection of Errors 1). But note well that the definitiveness of predestination is personal. Why is this so important to debate over? If predestination were indefinite and impersonal we would ever be in doubt as to our participation in it. On the contrary, because it is definitely of particular persons, John Calvin said Paul’s intention in Ephesians 1 was “to rouse [our] hearts to gratitude, to set [us] all on flame, to fill [us] even to overflowing with this thought.”

5. It Is Christ-centered

Finally, what makes the doctrine of election so glorious? It is Christ-centered. This is one of the areas we as Reformed believers need to grow in appreciation for. We can so often speak abstractly of “predestination,” forgetting that this doctrine is Christ-centered. In Ephesians 1, before he even says a word about predestination, in chapters 1–3 before he even says a word about our doctrine, in chapters 4–6 before he even says a word about how we are live, Paul roots everything in Jesus Christ. How so? We bless “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” who has “blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing” (v. 3). He continues, God “chose us in him,” that is, Jesus Christ (v. 4) and “blessed us in the Beloved” (v. 6).

The Canons of Dort summarize the above when it says,

God hath decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son” (Canons of Dort 1.7).

In practical terms, this means that Jesus Christ is like the mirror of our election. If the knowledge of God’s good pleasure and powerful love before the foundation of the world still leaves you in doubt, then the only remedy is to gaze upon Christ, as in a mirror. Look at Him and you will see reflected back yourself, being renewed in His image and chosen to be so.

What a glorious doctrine, for it reveals the glory of our wonderful God. As it does, it leads us to respond in praise and in holiness. When we mediate on His glory we burst forth in praise: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3) and “to the praise of his glorious grace!” (Eph. 1:6) When we meditate on His glory we respond in seeking to be holy. Out of the mass of sinners deserving punishment we were called forth “that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4). What a God, and what a life He has called us to.

See also:

预定：我们甚至该讨论它吗？

Predestination: Should We Even Talk About It?

作者：Daniel Hyde   译者: 骆鸿铭

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-should-we-even-talk-about-it/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157834430599653

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2019/09/predestination-should-we-eventalk-about.html

预定：别谈论它，除非…

Predestination: Don’t Say a Word About It Until…

作者：Daniel Hyde  译者:骆鸿铭

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-dont-say-word-about-it-until/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157836939274653

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2019/09/predestination-dont-say-aword-about-it.html

预定：为什么有些人会信，有些人会不信？

Predestination: Why Do Some Believe and Some Don’t?

作者：Daniel Hyde  译者：诚之

 https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-why-do-some-believe-and-some-dont/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157850626199653

预定：它如何彰显上帝的荣耀？

Predestination: How Does It Reveal the Glory of God?

作者：Daniel Hyde  译者/校对者：Maria Marta/诚之

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-how-does-it-reveal-glory-god/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157877252524653

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2019/09/predestination-how-does-itreveal-glory.html

Predestination: Can I Be Sure I Am Chosen?

Predestination: What Does This Mean for the Non-Elect?

多特最困难的教义The Most Difficult Doctrine ofDort

作者：Daniel R. Hyde  诚之译自：

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/the-most-difficult-doctrine-of-dort/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157832292609653

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.