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.

诺曼·谢泼德的称义观
Justification by Faith in the Theology of Norman Shepherd
作者：大卫·范楚南（David VanDrunen）译者：王一
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2002/justification-by-faith-in-the-theology-of-norman-shepherd/
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/%e8%af%ba%e6%9b%bc%c2%b7%e8%b0%a2%e6%b3%bc%e5%be%b7%e7%9a%84%e7%a7%b0%e4%b9%89%e8%a7%82/
 
改革宗基督徒常年参与捍卫唯独因信称义的教义，反对其他神学传统中的诋毁者。然而，有时，即使在改革宗圈子里，对该教义的争论也很激烈。原威斯敏斯特神学院（费城）系统神学副教授、基督教改革宗教会牧师诺曼·谢泼德（Norman Shepherd）最近一直处于美国改革宗圈中这一辩论的中心。本文试图界定这些争论中的关键问题，并从改革宗的角度评估谢泼德的称义观。
Reformed Christians have been perennially engaged in defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against its detractors in other theological traditions. At times, however, debates over the doctrine have raged even within Reformed circles. Norman Shepherd, formerly Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, has been at the center of such debates recently in the American Reformed world. This article seeks to define the issues at stake in these debates and to evaluate Shepherd’s doctrine of justification from a Reformed standpoint.
 
谢泼德之争
 THE SHEPHERD CONTROVERSIES
 
诺曼·谢泼德1963年开始在威斯敏斯特神学院（费城）教授系统神学。20世纪70年代中期，关于薛佛教学的争议在威斯敏斯特社区和薛佛当时担任牧师的正统长老会（OPC）中爆发了。虽然谢泼德在一些相关神学问题上的教导受到质疑，但争论的关键点在于他是坚持《威斯敏斯特准则》中所表达的宗教改革的唯信称义的教义，还是以这样或那样的方式堕落到教导称义是由信心和行为共同决定的。谢泼德在他所服务的机构中既有捍卫者也有批判者，在经历了一系列旷日持久的事件后，他才最终在1981年被解除了教职。此时，他也离开了对他提出惩戒指控的长老会，并加入了北美基督教改革宗教会（CRCNA）。在1998年退休之前，他在明尼苏达州和伊利诺伊州的基督教改革会中担任牧师职务。
Norman Shepherd began teaching systematic theology at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) in 1963. In the mid-1970s, controversy over Shepherd’s teaching broke out in the Westminster community and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in which Shepherd was serving as a minister at the time. Though Shepherd’s teaching on a number of related theological issues was called into question, the key point of debate was whether he held to the Reformation’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, as expressed in the Westminster Standards, or had, in one way or another, lapsed into teaching that justification was by faith and works together. Shepherd had both defenders and detractors in the institutions in which he served, and only after a protracted series of events was he finally dismissed from his teaching post in 1981. At this time, he also left his presbytery, where disciplinary charges had been filed against him, and joined the Christian Reformed Church. He served pastorates in the CRC in Minnesota and Illinois before retiring in 1998.
 
鉴于这段历史的轮廓，谢泼德的争论似乎没有实际意义，目前也没有什么兴趣。然而，最近谢泼德的短书《恩典的呼唤》（The Call of Grace）的出现，使许多这些老问题重新浮出水面，并在美国改革宗人士中激起了相当大的辩论。评估谢泼德关于称义的教导之所以困难的原因之一是缺乏他本人写作的线索。虽然他在1979年未发表的论文《称义的恩典》（The Grace of Justification）被保存下来，但很少有确凿的证据表明谢泼德真正相信的是什么。那么，《恩典的呼唤》提供了长期以来缺少的东西：谢泼德本人对圣经中关于救赎的教导进行了详细讨论。
Given the contours of this history, the Shepherd controversy may seem to be moot and of little current interest. However, the recent appearance of Shepherd’s short book, The Call of Grace, has brought many of these old questions back to the surface and has stirred up considerable debate among American Reformed people. One of the difficulties in evaluating Shepherd’s teaching on the doctrine of justification has been the lack of a writing trail. Though his 1979 unpublished paper, "The Grace of Justification," has survived, there was little hard evidence of what Shepherd actually believed. The Call of Grace, then, has provided what was long missing: an extended discussion by Shepherd himself on the biblical teaching on salvation.
 
因此，本文的问题是关于谢泼德对称义的看法及其与历史上改革宗教导的一致性。尽管谢泼德使用了许多正统的术语，但我认为他所阐述的称义观始终是模糊的，并且以一种与传统的圣经教导相悖的方式重新定义了信心与行为的关系。
The question for the present paper, therefore, concerns Shepherd’s views on justification and their consistency with the historic Reformed teaching. Although Shepherd makes use of much orthodox terminology, I argue that he has articulated a doctrine of justification that is persistently ambiguous and that redefines the relationship of faith and works in a way at odds with the traditional, biblical doctrine.
 
信心与称义的教义
THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH & JUSTIFICATION
 
必须承认，谢泼德关于称义的著作确实使用了改革宗神学中常见的术语和对此教义的阐述方式。例如，他说“信心抓住了耶稣基督和他的义，耶稣基督的义被归给了相信的人。这是信心在称义中的独特功能，它与其他任何恩典或美德都不相同。”同样，在另一个地方，他提出了一个非常标准的改革宗对称义和成圣的区分。“称义是上帝对他的子民的白白的恩典的工作，他据此赦免他们的罪，并接受他们为义人，理由是耶稣基督的义归于他们，并只凭信心接受。成圣是上帝在他们身上的白白恩典的工作，据此他将他们逐步转变为他儿子的形象。”
It must be acknowledged from the outset that Shepherd’s writings on justification do make use of terms and particular articulations of doctrines that are common to Reformed theology. For example, he states: "Faith lays hold of Jesus Christ and his righteousness and the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the one who believes. This is the distinctive function of faith in justification which it shares with no other grace or virtue." Similarly, in another place he sets forth a very standard Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification: "Justification is an act of God’s free grace with respect to his people whereby he pardons their sin and accepts them as righteous on the ground Of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone. Sanctification is a work of God’s free grace in them whereby He transforms them progressively into the image of his Son."
 
然而，在谢泼德的著作中，有许多东西让人质疑他使用这种语言的真正含义。也许最突出的例子是他不断声称（在《称义的恩典》中，特别是在《恩典的呼唤》中），信心必须是“活的”，“顺服的”和“活跃的”（living, obedient, and active）。信心的定义对称义的教义至关重要，因为改革宗的 “唯独信心”称义的教义假定了对信心的独特理解，在这种理解中，信心与行为或顺服有着明显的区别。在改革宗的观点中，信心是向外的（extraspective），是一种着眼于自身之外的信任，依靠基督的善行为我们赢得救赎。相比之下，顺服包括一个人自己产生的善行，这些善行来自于信心，并且唯独出于上帝的恩典。我们藉着信心被称义，藉着顺服，则不被称义。从这个角度看，谢泼德使用“顺服的信心”（obedient faith）这样的短语，本质上是模糊不清的。这样的短语可以简单地指一种信心总是有顺服伴随着，这与改革宗的神学是完全一致的。然而，它也可以指本身就是一种顺服的信心，或者换种说法，指一种被设定得如此宽泛的信心，它不仅包括谦卑地依靠基督和他的救赎工作，还包括上帝要求与他立约的人做的顺服和善行。在这种情况下，我们不是单单藉着信心而称义，而是藉着信心和顺服一起而称义。与传统改革宗神学清晰精确区分信心和顺服的作用相比，谢泼德从来没有仔细界定过他使用的术语的含义。尽管对于这样一个重要的主题来说，模棱两可的存在是有问题的，但对谢泼德神学的公平评价必须试图探究模棱两可之下的内容，澄清谢泼德试图传达的内容。
Nevertheless, there are many things in Shepherd’s writings that call into question what he really means in his use of such language. Perhaps the most striking example is his continual claim (in "The Grace of Justification" and especially in The Call of Grace) that faith must be "living," "obedient," and "active." The definition of faith is critical for the doctrine of justification, for the Reformed doctrine of justification "by faith alone" presumes a particular understanding of faith, one in which faith is sharply distinguished from works or obedience. In the Reformed view, faith is extraspective, a trust that looks outside of oneself and rests upon the good works of Christ that earned our salvation. In contrast, obedience consists of the good works that a person himself produces, works that flow from faith and Only by God’s grace. By faith we are justified; by obedience we are not. Seen in this light, Shepherd’s use of phrases such as "obedient faith" is inherently ambiguous. Such a phrase could refer simply to a faith that is always accompanied by obedience, and this would be wholly consistent with Reformed theology. However, it could also refer to a faith that is itself obedience, or, to put it another way, to a faith that is conceived in such broad terms that it consists not only of a humble resting upon Christ and his work for salvation, but also of our obedience and good works that God demands of those who are in covenant with him. In such a case, it is not by believing alone that we are justified, but by believing and obeying together. In contrast to the clear precision of traditional Reformed theology in distinguishing the roles of faith and obedience, Shepherd never carefully defines what his terminology means. Though the very presence of ambiguity is problematic for such an important subject, a fair evaluation of Shepherd’s theology must try to probe beneath the ambiguity and clarify what Shepherd is attempting to communicate.
 
不幸的是，尽管有一些相反的迹象，但证据表明，谢泼德确实更倾向于把善行不仅仅当作是信心的果实，而是纳入信心本身种的一个要素。这个想法在《称义的恩典》的后半部分出现得相当突出。在这里，他写道，信仰“包括顺服”（entails obedience，13），并且“总是与悔改交织在一起”（invariably intertwined with repentance，19）。虽然这样的表达可能会理解为正统的含义，但这份文件中的其他一些陈述却远没有那么容易被接受。例如，他写道，得救的信心是一种“服从基督的命令”（16）和“抛弃罪恶和不敬”（17）的信心。按照同样的思路，他称放弃罪和叛逆是“信仰的行为”（an act of faith，20）。信心不再是对另一个人的顺服的信靠，而变成了信徒自己提供顺服的行为。当谢泼德解释说，“活泼的信心是圣灵重生和成圣工作的果实”时，这种将使人称义的信心与成圣的顺服相混淆的情况就非常明显了(15）。他把改革宗的教义次序颠倒了：信心不是成圣的果实，但成圣是信心的果实！（16）
Unfortunately, despite some indications to the contrary, the evidence points to the conclusion that Shepherd indeed prefers an understanding of faith that makes good works not merely the fruit of faith, but an element of faith itself This idea emerges quite prominently in the second half of "The Grace of justification." Here he writes that faith "entails obedience"
(13) and is "invariably intertwined with repentance" (19). While such expressions might possibly be given an orthodox spin, a number of other statements in this document are far less susceptible to it. For example, he writes that saving faith is a faith that "yields obedience to the commands of Christ" (16) and that "forsakes sin and ungodliness" (17). Along the same lines, he calls the forsaking of sin and rebellion "an act of faith" (20). Faith has been turned from the extraspective trust in the obedience of another into an act in which the believer himself offers obedience. This confusion of the faith that justifies with the obedience of sanctification is also manifest when Shepherd explains that "a living and active faith is the fruit of the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit." (15) This turns the Reformed doctrine on its head: faith is not the fruit of sanctification, but sanctification is the fruit of faith!
 
在他最近的作品中，谢泼德继续把顺服和善行说成是信心本身的一部分。例如，他写道：“信心是必需的，但信心从个人的功德转向看上帝的应许。悔改和顺服从信心中流出，是信心的完全（fullness of faith）。这就是忠心（faithfulness），忠心就是在信心中坚持不懈。活泼的、活跃的、持久的信心是信徒进入永生的路。” 跟随这里的思路并不容易，但其逻辑似乎是这样的。“悔改和顺服” 构成了“信心的完全”；“信心的完全”是“忠心”；“忠心是对信心的坚持”——所有这四个术语或短语显然是表达相同的意思。那么，谢泼德在下一句话中再次提到“活泼的、活跃的、持久的信心”对救恩的必要性，这是什么意思呢？明显的意思是，这种“活泼、活跃、持久的信心”就是“信心的完全”的意思，这又意味着忠心、坚忍、悔改和顺服本身就是这种“活泼、积极、持久的信心”的一部分。那么，悔改和顺服，这些改革宗神学如此小心翼翼地将其与信心区分开来的东西，最终又成为信心的一部分。
In his more recent work, Shepherd continues to speak of obedience and good works as part of faith itself For example, he writes: "Faith is required, but faith looks away from personal merit to the promises of God. Repentance and obedience flow from faith as the fullness of faith. This is faithfulness, and faithfulness is perseverance in faith. A living, active, and abiding faith is the way in which the believer enters into eternal life." Following the train of thought here is not easy, but the logic seems to be something like this: "repentance and obedience" constitute the "fullness of faith;" the "fullness of faith" is "faithfulness;" "faithfulness is perseverance in faith" – all four of these terms or phrases are evidently identical. What then is the significance that Shepherd, in the very next sentence and without a hitch, again refers somewhat climactically to the saving necessity of a "living, active, and abiding faith?" The obvious implication is that this "living, active, and abiding faith" is what is meant by the "fullness of faith," which in turn implies that faithfulness, perseverance, and repentance and obedience are themselves part of this "living, active and abiding faith." Repentance and obedience, then, the very things that Reformed theology has so carefully distinguished from faith, become aspects of faith in the end.
 
有更有力的、也许更有问题的证据表明，当谢泼德说我们是靠活泼和顺服的信心得救时，他指的是一种不同于改革宗传统的信心。谢泼德说，基督本身就有“活泼而活跃的信心”。那么，基督的信心就成了我们的典范。基督有顺服的信心，因此我们要有像他那样顺服的信心。这有什么可反对的呢？考虑一下《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》（XIV.2）中关于信心的标准改革宗定义。“使人得救的信心的主要动作是：接受、领受和依靠基督，以获得义、圣洁和永生。” 当然，说基督接受、领受和依靠自己来称义、成圣和获得永生是无稽之谈。基督不需要信靠中保，他自己就是中保。基督与我们不同，他不需要使人得救的信心，因为他与我们不同，他真的是顺服的！不可避免的结论是，当谢泼德提到基督本人展示了我们要效仿的活泼的、顺服的信心，并以此得救时，他显然想到了一种“信仰”，而他想到的这种“信心”与改革宗认信文件中的“信心” 是不同的。这意味着什么呢？如果我们是靠一种活泼的信心得救，就像基督的活泼的信心一样，那么我们是靠一种信心得救，而这种信心的主要动作不是接受、领受和依靠基督。传统上（和圣经上），我们肯定救赎是因着基督的行为（作为称义的基础），藉着我们的信心（作为称义的工具或管道）。在谢泼德的处理方式中，行为和信心捆绑在一起，首先在基督身上展示，然后由我们模仿。
There is stronger and perhaps even more problematic evidence that when Shepherd says that we are saved by a living and obedient faith he means a different kind of faith from that of the Reformed tradition. Shepherd says that Christ himself has "living and active faith." Christ’s faith, then, becomes the model: Christ had obedient faith and thus we are to have obedient faith like his. What could be objectionable about this? Consider a standard Reformed definition of faith found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (XIV.2): "the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life." Of course, it is nonsense to say that Christ accepted, received, and rested upon Christ for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. Christ did not need a mediator in whom to put his faith-he is the mediator. Christ, unlike us, did not need saving faith because he, unlike us, really was obedient! The unavoidable conclusion is that when Shepherd refers to Christ himself as exhibiting the living and obedient faith that we are to emulate and by which we are saved, he obviously has in mind a kind of "faith" that is different from the "faith" of the Reformed confessional statements. What are the implications? If we are saved by a living faith that is like Christ’s living faith, then we are saved by a faith whose principal acts are not accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ. Traditionally (and biblically), we affirm salvation to be by Christ’s works (as the ground of justification) and through our faith (as the instrument or means of justification). In Shepherd’s treatment, works and faith come bundled together, displayed first in Christ and then imitated by us.
 
谢泼德与改革宗传统
 SHEPHERD & THE REFORMED TRADITION
 
在谢泼德的称义观中，当然还有许多其他的问题，在这里也会有相关的考虑。然而，鉴于篇幅的限制，最后一个值得简要关注的问题是谢泼德的写作动机。他是否只是想重述标准的改革宗的信心观和称义观，无论他多么不成功？还是他真的试图修改这项教义？一方面，如果他只是想做一个忠实的改革宗神学家，那么他放弃改革宗传统的明确区分，而采用“顺服的信心”等这样模糊的术语，甚至在《恩典的呼唤》中保留使用这种语言，尽管人们对这种术语有几十年的抱怨，这无疑是令人费解的。另一方面，如果他真的试图重述传统教义，那么期望他在改革宗牧师和神学院教授的职位上直言不讳地说明自己的意图似乎也不为过。然而，谢泼德向他的读者发出了相互矛盾的信号。
There are certainly many other issues in Shepherd’s theology of justification that would be of relevant consideration here. Given the constraints of space, however, one final matter that deserves brief attention concerns Shepherd’s motivations in writing. Is he simply trying to restate the standard Reformed doctrine of faith and justification, however unsuccessfully? Or is he really attempting to revise the doctrine? On the one hand, if he is simply trying to be a faithful Reformed theologian, then it is certainly puzzling that he forsakes the clear distinctions of the Reformed tradition for the ambiguous lingo of "obedient faith" and the like, even retaining the use of such language in The Call of Grace despite the decades of complaints about such terminology. On the other hand, if he is actually attempting to restate the traditional doctrine, then it does not seem too little to expect him-in his office of Reformed minister and seminary professor-to be forthright about his intentions. Yet, Shepherd sends his readers conflicting signals.
 
谢泼德也不清楚他自己的改革宗传统与罗马天主教称义观的关系。鉴于过去五百年的历史争斗，他对罗马天主教救恩论的看法当然是令人迫切关注的。在《恩典的呼唤》的开篇，谢泼德提到了过去十年中由福音派和天主教徒共同展开的重要辩论。然而，在注意这一重要运动之后，他立即拒绝对其作进一步的评论（尽管他在书的后面非常简短地回到了这一点，但没有更明确的说法）。他很突兀地说，他拒绝讨论在双方达成共识的论点中的“细微差别”。然而，还有什么能比这些“细微差别”更重要呢？恩典、信心、基督、善行——所有各方，无论是罗马天主教还是新教，都肯定了这些。差异在于细节。诸如使人得救的信心的性质及其与善行的关系等问题可能确实是细微差别，但这些细微差别是人们把他们的永恒命运押在上面的。
Shepherd is also unclear about the relationship of his own Reformed tradition to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Given the historical battles of the last half-millennium, his perspective on the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation is certainly of pressing interest. In the opening pages of The Call of Grace, Shepherd makes reference to the important debates of the past decade engendered by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. However, immediately after calling attention to this important movement, he declines further comment on it (though he returns to it very briefly, and no more clearly, later in the book). He states abruptly that he declines to discuss the "nuances" of the arguments that have been made in its wake. What could be more important, however, than the nuances? Grace, faith, Christ, good works-all of the parties, Roman Catholic as well as Protestant, affirm them. The differences are in the details. Questions such as the precise nature of saving faith and its relationship with good works may indeed be nuances, but they are nuances upon which people have staked their eternal destinies.
 
结论
诺曼·谢泼德的称义观在过去引起了改革宗圈子里的兴趣，这是不争的事实，而它又是一个令人非常好奇的问题，这似乎越来越真实。无论改革宗基督徒之间热议的各种问题的重要性如何，目前的问题无疑是最紧迫的，因为福音的性质直接受到威胁。有鉴于此，我们的教会应该保持警惕，使改革宗的称义教义中的明确区别不至于陷入松弛的模糊状态，并坚持不懈地拒绝任何篡改赐人生命的信息的尝试，这信息就是：是我们的信心，而不是我们的顺服，才使我们称义。
CONCLUSION
That Norman Shepherd’s theology of justification has attracted interest within Reformed circles in the past is indisputable, and that it is again a matter of great curiosity seems increasingly true. Whatever the importance of the variety of matters hotly debated among Reformed Christians, the present issue is undoubtedly of the highest urgency, for the nature of the Gospel is directly at stake. In light of this, our churches ought to be vigilant in keeping the clear distinctions of the Reformed doctrine of justification from falling into flaccid ambiguity, and persistent in refusing to revise the life-giving message that our faith, and not our obedience, justifies. 

信心的本质The Nature of Justifying Faith

作者：David M. VanDrunen  翻译：王一

https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/the-nature-of-justifying-faith

http://www.reformedbeginner.net/the-nature-of-faith/?fbclid=IwAR3QLKZ99WtjudPgL6grBKECu7FXaj_WKTqqL1Qzrf55ziwPN4Vsd_buM2E

宗教改革辩论的核心是唯独因信称义。然而关于「唯独信心」讨论的重点则聚焦在第一个词上：唯独。我们都知道，改教家们教导称义是唯独因着信心，而罗马天主教则认为称义是因着信心加上善行。看起来两边似乎都肯定了信心的重要性，唯一不同的地方是要不要加上其他什么来确保称义。双方都肯定信心的必要性，这的确没错，但是这种说法也很容易误导人。因为改教家们与罗马天主教不仅在称义是否唯独信心的问题上无法达成一致，更重要的是他们对信心的本质和定义是完全不同的。换句话说，宗教改革与罗马发生分歧，不仅在于肯定只有信心才使人称义，更在于定义这种信心的到底是怎样的信心。

The claim that justification comes sola fide was central to the debates of the Reformation. When the matter of sola fide is raised, however, attention tends to focus on the first of these words: alone. We remember that the reformers taught that justification is by faith alone while Roman Catholics countered that justification is by faith and good works. Thus, it may seem, both sides affirmed the importance of faith, but disagreed simply on whether anything had to be added to faith in order to secure justification. This is true in a sense-both sides did speak of the necessity of faith-but it can also be misleading. It is potentially misleading because the reformers and Roman Catholics disagreed about more than whether justification was by faith alone. They also had different understandings of the nature and definition of faith. In other words, the Reformation diverged from Rome not only in affirming that faith alone justifies but also in defining the faith that justifies in the way that it did.

这种讨论不仅仅是出于对历史的好奇。今天的基督徒肯定唯独因信称义时，必须准确谨慎地清楚他们所说的信心到底是什么。如果我们要如此强调信心，就必须明白什么是信心。而且，使人称义的信心到底有什么特点，这个问题还依旧有许多不同看法。尽管罗马天主教内部对于信心的教导也发展到与宗教改革的理解相似的程度，然而双方仍然有根本性的区别。此外，最近在基督教圈子内有对称义的教义也出现许多争议，有些学者对称义的理解有别于传统的宗教改革立场。这篇文章里，我们要一起检验有关信心的不同观点。

This dispute is much more than an historical curiosity. Christians today who continue to affirm that faith alone justifies surely must take care to speak about this faith accurately. If we are to make such lofty claims for faith we ought to be sure to understand what it is. And disagreements about the character of justifying faith remain alive. Despite some development in Roman Catholic teaching on faith that may seem to bring it closer to the Reformation's understanding, fundamental differences still remain between them. In addition, in some contemporary controversies over the doctrine of justification in Protestant circles, certain writers have suggested an understanding of faith that also diverges from historic Reformation teaching. In this article, then, we will examine these different conceptions of faith and reflect upon the biblical teaching.

信心的不同定义

DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF FAITH

罗马天主教的传统更偏向于强调信心是一种智力上的活动，也就是一种认知方式（knowing）。天主教神学常常把信心和理性（reason）作以区分。理性被解释成为一种不靠超自然启示，而只靠头脑本身能力的认知方式。通过理性，人可以获得真正的知识，关于这个世界上许多事物，甚至关于上帝。然而，按照传统的天主教观点，有些事无法通过理性明白。因此，通过信心，人能够获得那些藉着上帝启示，而非自然之光才能得到的知识。这种知识建立在上帝的权柄上，上帝在圣经里说话，上帝特别在教会里说话。信心传达的知识有一些也可以通过理性明白，但是许多是超越理性能力的。一些近代的天主教神学在第二次天特会议的方针下，尝试扩展这种把信心当作认知方式的理解，但是对思维活动的强调仍旧不变。

The Roman Catholic tradition tends to emphasize faith as an intellectual act, that is, as a way of knowing. Often Roman Catholic theology distinguishes faith from reason. Reason is taken as a way of knowing that depends not upon supernatural revelation but upon what the human mind can know by its own intrinsic powers. Through reason, a person can gain true knowledge of many things about this world and even about God. Some things cannot be known by reason, however, according to traditional Roman teaching. By faith, then, a person comes to know things not by virtue of the natural light of reason but by divine revelation. Such knowledge rests upon the authority of God alone as he speaks in the Scriptures and especially in the church. Faith informs people of some things that can also be known by reason, but also of many things that are beyond the competence of reason. Some recent Roman Catholic theology, under the direction of the Second Vatican Council, has attempted to broaden this understanding of faith as a mode of knowledge, but this intellectual emphasis still remains.

因此，对于天主教来说，作为一种认知方式，信心对称义来说是必要但不充分的条件。信心还需要加上仁爱，或者叫爱德。赋予仁爱的信心才能使人称义，而缺乏仁爱的信心是死的信心则不能使人称义。这个死的信心之所以不能叫人称义，并不是因为信心本身有什么问题，而是因为缺少了另一个至关重要的伴随元素仁爱。我们稍后会在回来讨论这个问题。

For Rome, then, this faith as a mode of knowledge was deemed necessary, but insufficient, for justification. To faith must be added charity, or love. Faith that is "informed" by charity justifies while faith that lacks charity-a dead faith-cannot justify. This dead faith fails to justify not because there is something wrong with this faith in itself, but because the essential accompanying element of charity is absent. We will return momentarily to explore the significance of this fact.

在这样的神学背景下，改教家们认为不但有必要坚持唯独信心使人称义，还必须按照圣经的教导来重新定义这个使人称义的信心。他们并没有否认真信心里有智力的方面。信心的确含有知识。但是他们相信，信心的内容要更丰富。并且信心更偏向于内心的活动。他们常用三个拉丁词来形容这个更加丰富的信心：知识（notitia），赞同（assensus），信靠（fiducia）。知识（notitia）所指的是对基督和祂的福音理性上的认知与理解。赞同（assensus）所指的是理性上认同福音里宣告的真理。这些理智上的活动至关重要，但是超越这些理性活动的乃是信靠（fiducia）。信靠不是理性的活动，而是意志的活动，可以简单地描述为信任（trust）。远远不止是一种认知方式，信心还包括真心实意地信靠基督和祂救赎的福音。

In the light of this theological background, the reformers felt it was necessary not merely to insist that faith alone justifies but also to offer a different definition of justifying faith that better captures biblical teaching. They did not deny that there was an intellectual aspect of true faith. Faith certainly involves knowledge. But they were also convinced that faith is something more than this and, in fact, that this something more stands at the heart of what faith is. Three Latin terms often used to describe this enriched conception of justifying faith are notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia refers to an intellectual understanding about Christ and his gospel. Assensus refers to an intellectual assent to the truth of what is proclaimed in the gospel. But beyond these crucial intellectual acts is fiducia, an act not of the intellect but of the will, which may be described simply as trust. Much more than being a mode of knowledge, faith involves a sincere trust in Christ and his gospel for salvation.

威敏斯特小要理问答第86问简要地表述了宗教改革的观点。信服耶稣基督是什么（即对耶稣基督的信心是什么），回答：「信服耶稣基督是神所赐的救恩，使我们照着福音的信息与劝勉接纳基督，唯独靠他得救。」这里提到，我们不仅要在理性上理解基督和福音的事，还要在心里依靠他作为完美的救主，救我们脱离罪。针对这种信靠的特点，一些神学家称信心是「外省」（extraspective）。我们都很熟悉「内省」（introspective）这个词，内省就是指自我反省，看自己里面。那么外省的意思就是指看自己以外。这恰恰就是信心的工作：信心叫我们把目光转向自己以外（继而抛弃全部的自信），依靠另一位，主耶稣基督，是祂完成了一切，成就了我们的救恩。

Question and Answer 86 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism provides a concise and helpful statement of this insight. In response to the question of what faith in Jesus Christ is, the catechism answers: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." Not only must the mind grasp the things about Christ and his gospel, but also the heart must rest upon him as the perfect Savior from sins. This character of justifying faith as trust in Christ has prompted some theologians to speak of faith as "extraspective." The term introspective is familiar to most people: it refers to looking within oneself. Something that is extraspective, then, concerns looking outside oneself. That is precisely what faith as trust does: it looks outside of oneself (thereby forsaking all self-confidence) and rests upon another, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has done all things necessary for our salvation.

明白信心所包含的丰富内容，就容易理解天主教和宗教改革之间的区别了。罗马天主教认为信心是一种认知方式，自然就把信心和理性并列对照起来。因为天主教认为信心和理性是两种认知方式。与此相反，宗教改革更倾向于把信心与行为对照起来。因为信心的重点不在于知识，而是外向的信靠（extraspective trust）。最重要的是，要区别信心与赚得救恩而做的善行。从这一点来看，信心不是一种与理性不同的认知方式，而是与善行不同的获取永生的途径。善行试图用自我的努力在上帝面前赚得永生，而信心则是丢弃一切自我的功德，完全依靠那位为我们赚得永生的基督。这就是称义必须唯独因着信心的原因。因为如果称义要求信心加上任何其他我们自己的善行，那么信心就不再是那个完全抛弃自己、完全依靠基督的真信心。

In light of this enriched understanding of faith, some important differences between Rome and the Reformation become entirely understandable. Because Rome tended to understand faith as a mode of knowledge, it naturally juxtaposed faith with reason. For Rome, faith and reason are two ways of knowing. In contrast, Protestant theology has much more commonly juxtaposed faith with works. Because the heart of faith is not knowledge but extraspective trust, faith is most importantly to be distinguished from those good works that one might perform in order to merit salvation. From this perspective, faith is not a way of knowing to be distinguished from reason, but a means for attaining eternal life to be distinguished from good works. Whereas good works seek a self-achieved eternal life before God, faith forsakes all self-achievement and rests entirely upon Christ, who has achieved eternal life for us. This is why, for justification, faith must be alone. If justification required faith to be supplemented by any good works of our own then faith would no longer be what it is, a forsaking of confidence in one's good works and complete confidence in the work of Christ.

这也解释了对死的信心不同的定义。我们之前提过，罗马天主教认为，死的信心是指没有仁爱的信心，但是并非信心本身有问题。而宗教改革的观点则是，信心仅停留在知识的层面上，没有进一步的信靠时，是死的。这一点非常重要。改教家们认为死的信心意味着信心本身有缺陷。死的信心不是简单指缺乏爱或者其他美德的信心。死的信心本身根本不是真信心。如果没有外向的信靠，如果不单单依靠基督的话，「信心」只不过是知道一些事实罢了，这种信心根本无法使人称义。

This also helps to explain the different understandings of what a dead faith is. For Rome, as previously noted, faith is dead when it is not formed by charity, but this does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong with the faith itself. For the Reformation understanding of faith, on the other hand, faith is dead when it merely knows but does not trust. This is an important difference. The reformers recognized that dead faith entails a defect in faith itself. Dead faith is not simply faith that lacks love or some other accompanying virtue, but a "faith" that is itself not at all true faith. Without that extraspective trust that rests upon Christ alone, "faith" that merely knows facts is unable to justify.

我们要来看看另一种有别于宗教改革的观点。这个观点开始在一些被称作保罗新观（New Perspective on Paul）和盟约异象（Federal Vision）的圈子里流行起来，他们尝试把信心理解为包括更广义的忠心（faithfulness）。在这个观点里，信心不仅是信靠基督，还包括保持忠心所必需有的顺服善行。当然，宗教改革并没有否认善行的重要性，改教家们坚持认为作为信心的果子，善行必然会从信心中产生，但是必须清楚地区分两者。但是今天这种新的观点试图把信靠基督和约中的顺服都放到信心（或忠心）的概念里，称这种更广的信心才是叫人称义的信心。

Before we turn to reflect upon biblical teaching about the nature of faith, it may be helpful to note another view of faith that has become popular among some people recently and also differs from historic Protestant teaching. This view, which has circulated among some associated with the so-called New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision circles, seeks to understand faith as encompassing the broader idea of faithfulness. Faith, in this view, involves not merely trust in Christ but also the range of obedient good works that faithfulness entails. Whereas the Reformation insisted that good works must flow from faith as its fruit, while distinguishing them clearly, this other view sees both trust in Christ and covenant obedience as parts of a broader faith (or faithfulness) that justifies.

圣经对信心本质的教导

BIBLICAL TEACHING ON THE NATURE OF FAITH

在圣经各个地方都能看到信心的概念是外向信靠基督。我们必须注意，圣经提到信心时，并不一直指同一个意思。有时圣经提到信心时，是指普遍意义上相信上帝话语（有时被称作普遍信心）。例如，使徒行传二十四章14节里，保罗说：「一切律法和先知所记的，我都相信」（新译本）。这里希腊原文pistis，被翻译成「信心」（faith），也可以被翻译成「忠心」（faithfulness）。所以我们能够找到圣经里这样使用「信心」pistis的例子（例如太二十三23）。但是我们必须明白，当教导救恩，特别是称义的时候，圣经都一致地使用信心来表达外向的信靠基督。这正是神学上所说的使人称义得救的信心。

The idea that faith entails extraspective trust in Christ can be seen in any number of biblical passages. It is important to remember that when Scripture refers to faith it does not always have exactly the same meaning of faith in mind. For instance, occasionally Scripture speaks of faith in terms of a general belief in the truth of God's Word (sometimes called fides generalis). Paul, for example, says in Acts 24:14: "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the prophets." Also, the same New Testament Greek word that is translated "faith," pistis, can also mean "faithfulness." And thus we can find examples of Scripture using pistis in this way (e.g., Matt. 23:23). But what is critical to note is that in contexts in which Scripture teaches about salvation in general and justification in particular it consistently uses the term faith to describe the extraspective trust in Christ described above. This is what theology refers to as a saving, justifying faith.

第一点我要强调的，也许你会感到意外，因为这一点实在是太明显了。圣经不断强调真信心就是对基督的信心。虽然这一点对每一个读圣经的基督徒来说都非常的明显，但是我们不应该一带而过。我们常常听到不信的人在焦虑或身陷危机时会说「要有信心」。可是，对谁有信心？合乎圣经的，使人称义的信心并不是某种一般的美德，使人在未知环境中能保持一种积极的态度。圣经里所说的信心是非常具体的信靠，或者更准确的说是信靠某个人。称义的信心的确相信律法和先知所记的一切话，就像保罗自己所说的，但是更重要的是称义的信心使人完全依靠基督，在基督里安息，信靠福音里的应许。一切信祂的，不至灭亡，反得永生（约三16）；凡信祂的人，必因祂的名，得蒙赦罪（徒十43）；上帝的义，因着信耶稣基督加给一切相信的人（罗三22）。

A first point that may strike readers as patently obvious is that Scripture emphasizes again and again that true faith is faith in Christ. But however obvious this may seem to Bible-reading Christians, it is not a truth that should be quickly passed over. It is not uncommon to hear unbelievers in times of anxiety or crisis saying things such as "you gotta have faith." Yes, but faith in what? Biblical, justifying faith is not some general virtue by which someone retains a positive attitude in the face of uncertain circumstances but a very specific trust in something. Or, much better, trust in someone. Justifying faith does indeed believe all things written in the Law and the Prophets, as Paul states of himself in Acts 24, but even more importantly it rests in Christ himself and the promises offered in his gospel. Whosoever "believes in him" will not perish but receive eternal life (John 3:16); everyone "who believes in him" receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43); the righteousness of God comes "through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22).

在圣经里，这个以基督为中心、以福音为中心的信心是完全信靠的信心，是面对各样属世理性的质疑，依旧信靠的信心。使徒保罗的罗马书和加拉太书是两卷专门讲称义的书信。在这两卷书信里，他都引用了哈巴谷书二章4节来陈述信心的教义：「义人必因信得生」。哈巴谷书这一节里的希伯来原文并不一定要翻译成「信靠」，其实这个词常常指其他意思。但是结合上下文，先知在这里所表达的非常清楚，也解释了为什么保罗认为这节经文非常清楚的体现了他所传讲的福音。迦勒底人高傲（哈一8），粗鲁（10），自高自大（二4），以自己为神（一11）。而上帝则呼召祂的百姓因信得生。上帝没有叫他们自给自足，自顾自己，而是要他们在自己以外找寻信心，甚至当无花果树、葡萄树、橄榄树、田野都不出产的时候，甚至在圈中没有牛羊的时候，也坚定不移（三17）。从属世的角度上讲，以色列民没有任何理由有信心，但是耶和华是他们的力量（三19）。这就是信心，面对现实生活所有的困难，依旧全然信靠。

This Christ-centered, gospel-centered faith is, in Scripture, a faith of trust, of confidence in the face of every earthly reason to doubt. Readers familiar with Paul know that Romans and Galatians are his two letters that deal most extensively with justification, and in both of these letters he looks back to Habakkuk 2:4 as a central statement of the doctrine of faith that he teaches: "the righteous will live by faith." The Hebrew word translated "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 does not necessarily mean trust and, in fact, often means something different from this. But the context in which the prophet makes this statement indicates why Paul saw this verse as expressing his gospel so clearly. In contrast to their Chaldean enemies threatening to engulf them, who are proud (1:8), rude (1:10), puffed up (2:4), and who make their own might their god (1:11), God's people are called to live by faith. Not self-sufficient and self-absorbed, they are to find their confidence outside of themselves-even when the figs, vines, olive trees, and fields fail to yield their produce, even when the flocks and herds are missing from the fold (3:17). Israel had no earthly reason to be confident, yet the Lord was their strength (3:19). Here is faith, an extraspective trust in the face of overwhelming earthly odds against them.

因此，保罗借用哈巴谷对信心简要的表述，在罗马书和加拉太书里做了精彩的总结。我们可以看到，在罗马书第四章结尾处，保罗描述了称义的信心。这段描述在整个因信称义的大讨论中，美妙地对应了数世纪之前哈巴谷曾颂赞的信心。罗马书四章18-21节，保罗论到亚伯拉罕：

And so Paul finds Habakkuk's brief statement about faith a marvelous summary of his gospel in Romans and Galatians. We may note how Paul describes this faith that justifies toward the end of Romans 4, in the midst of his larger discussion of justification by faith, and see how beautifully it corresponds to the sort of faith that Habakkuk commended many centuries before. In Romans 4:18-21, Paul writes concerning Abraham:

「他在无可指望的时候，因信仍有指望，就得以作多国的父，正如先前所说：『你的后裔将要如此。』他将近百岁的时候，虽然想到自己的身体如同已死，撒拉的生育已经断绝，他的信心还是不软弱；并且仰望上帝的应许，总没有因不信，心里起疑惑，反倒因信，心里得坚固，将荣耀归给上帝。且满心相信上帝所应许的必能作成。」

In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be." He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.

像哈巴谷时代的以色列民一样，亚伯拉罕并没有任何现实的理由对未来抱有信心。他已经差不多快一百岁，他的妻子已经绝育，医学上怀孕的几率是零。但是亚伯拉罕并没有依靠自己的努力，也没有没仰赖现实的几率，而是信靠上帝和祂的应许。这就是信心，外向的信靠。亚伯拉罕没有被不信打倒（信心的敌人），反倒全然相信上帝所应许的必能做到。他无法靠自己做到的，上帝必为他做到。这就是称义的信心，保罗就在下一节说：「所以这就算为他的义」。

Like the Israelites in Habakkuk's time, Abraham had no earthly reason to be confident about his future. He was almost 100 years old and his wife was barren-their medical odds of conceiving were zero. But Abraham was not looking to his own efforts or to earthly odds, but to God and his promises. This is indeed faith constituted by extraspective trust. Abraham was not deterred by "distrust" (the opposite of faith), but was "fully convinced" that God would do what he promised. What he could not do himself, God would do for him. This is the faith that justifies, as Paul explains in the very next verse: "That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness."

我们需要注意，作为外向的信靠，信心不同于所有其他的义行。信心不同于爱、喜乐、忍耐、良善以及其他所有合乎圣经的美德。信心是外向的，是依靠、接受自己之外的人所做的工作。只有信心能做到这一点。这也是圣经特别持续地强调信心和行为之间强烈的对比。行为是满足上帝的律法，并通过自己功德来赚得永生。信心是信靠另一位来满足上帝的律法，并替我们赚得永生。这是两种完全不同的称义方式。在罗马书第四章前面，保罗简明扼要地指出这种差异。他在第4节说，「作工的得工价，不算恩典，乃是该得的」。然而，第5节他继续说道，「惟有不作工的，只信称罪人为义的上帝，他的信就算为义」。正是这节提到上帝不按行为把义归算给罪人，接下来罗马书五章16-19节解释到藉着信心得到的义是白白的恩典，其中包括了基督的义和顺服。因此，这里又是信心的定义：不是靠行为或顺服律法来赚得一份奖赏，而是信靠另一位，并从他领受那份罪人永远无法靠自己达到的顺服。

One matter that is important to note here is that faith, as extraspective trust, is different from every other righteous action that we perform. Unlike love, joy, patience, goodness, and all the other biblical virtues, faith looks outside of itself in order to rest upon and receive the work of another. Nothing else does this. That is why Scripture, and Paul especially, so emphatically and persistently draw such a sharp contrast between faith and works. Working-that is, fulfilling God's law and earning everlasting life by one's own accomplishments-and believing-that is, trusting in another to fulfill God's law and earn everlasting life on our behalf-are two distinctive ways that one might be justified by God. Earlier in Romans 4 Paul crisply spells out this contrast. "Now to the one who works," he writes in verse 4, "his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." But, he continues in verse 5, "to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." The very next verse speaks of God imputing righteousness apart from works, and Romans 5:16-19 explains that the righteousness that one receives by faith is a free gift consisting of Christ's righteousness and obedience. Thus, here again is faith: not working or obeying the law so as to earn a reward, but believing in another and receiving from him that obedience that could never be self-attained.

很惊人的是，保罗明确地对比信心与行为，或者信心与律法，至少不下十几次。在加拉太书三章11-12节里，保罗用哈巴谷二章4节的经文来对比二者，他写道：「没有一个人靠着律法在上帝面前称义，这是明显的，因为经上记着：『义人必因信得生。』」保罗把称义的信心区别于律法的要求，区别于一个人靠自己赚得称义所必需做的一切事。这一点是极其明显的：律法与信心无关！罪人得以称义的途径是唯独信心，唯独哈巴谷先知所讲的外向信靠，绝不是顺服律法。另一个众所周知的例子，就是保罗所说的：「你们得救是本乎恩，也因着信；这并不是出于自己，乃是上帝所赐的；也不是出于行为，免得有人自夸」（弗二8-9）。

It may be striking to realize just how often Paul makes this explicit contrast between faith and works, or faith and the law-at least a dozen times even by a conservative estimate. In one of these passages, Galatians 3:11-12, Paul uses the very Habakkuk 2:4 passage considered above to make this contrast. He writes: "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.' But the law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them.'" That Paul distinguishes justifying faith from the demands of the law, from all of those things that a person would have to obey perfectly in order to earn justification oneself, is eminently clear here: the law is not of faith! Faith alone, Habakkuk's extraspective trust in the face of earthly adversity alone, not obedience to the law, is the means by which justification comes to sinners. Let one more familiar example from Paul suffice: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

信心就是信靠。信心不是善行。信心与所有善行形成鲜明的对比。信心是依靠、接受另一位的善行。因此，与当代的一些学者宣称的相反，信心不是忠心。忠心与其他的善行一样，当我们被圣灵圣化时，这些善行会从信心里生出。但是，对于称义，即上帝宣告我们在祂面前是义的，我们只能在信心和行为中二选一。因此，只有单单靠信心，罪人才能得以称义。

Faith is trust. Faith is not one good work among others, but that which stands in sharp distinction from all good works in that it rests upon and receives the good works of another. Therefore, contrary to the claims of some contemporary writers, faith is not faithfulness. Faithfulness, and all other good works, will flow from faith as we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. But for justification, God's declaration that we are righteous before him, one must make a choice: faith or works. Therefore only by faith alone will a sinner be justified.

靠信心，因此是靠恩典

BY FAITH, THEREFORE BY GRACE

最后一点会帮助我们正确看待信心的本质。我们已经考虑过信心的本质是外向的信靠基督，也许会让你惊讶，作为我们称义的唯一途径，我们需要怎样正当的信心。信心并不是上帝随意强加在称义上的条件，好像上帝可以随便把称义的条件换成良善或者忍耐等其他的美德。不，上帝宣告称义只能通过信心达到，因为信心是唯一的选择。因为信心是脱离自我，依靠另外一位。信心与恩典的救赎相符，这救赎不是靠我们自己达到的。

One final point may help to put this discussion of the nature of faith in perspective. As we have considered the nature of faith as extraspective trust in Christ, perhaps it has struck you how amazingly appropriate faith is as the only means by which we are justified. Faith was not some arbitrary condition for justification that God decided to impose. It is not as though kindness or patience could have substituted just as well for faith had God decided to make one of these the only instrument of justification. No, God declared that justification of sinners would come by faith because faith is exactly the right choice for the job. Because it looks outside of itself and rests upon the work of another, faith is supremely compatible with a salvation that is gracious, that is, not self-achieved.

保罗在罗马书四章16节说的很清楚：「所以，成为后嗣是因着信，为的是要按着上帝的恩典，使给所有后裔的应许坚定不移，不但临到那属于律法的人，也临到那效法亚伯拉罕而信的人。亚伯拉罕在上帝面前作我们众人的父」（新译本）。保罗解释道，正因为这称义是因着信，所以才是按着恩典而定的应许。如果人可以通过顺服律法而称义，那这种救赎里怎么可能还有恩典的成分呢？保罗警戒说：「你们这要靠律法称义的，是与基督隔绝，从恩典中坠落了」（加五4）。

Paul makes precisely this point in Romans 4:16: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring-not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Because this is a justification by faith, explains Paul, it is a promise that comes by grace. Is it conceivable that one could be justified by obedience to the law and still, somehow, preserve the gracious character of salvation? Paul denies this very thing: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

总结

CONCLUSION

从宗教改革到今天，有关称义的争论一直围绕着如何理解唯独信心。称义是唯独因信，但是这里的信心不是随便定义的。使人称义的信心，不同于任何其他的美德，并且不顾世上任何挫折，脱离自我，把信心投靠在耶稣基督得胜的工作上，接受算给我们的恩赐，即基督完美的义。罪人得以在上帝面前被称为义唯独藉着这样的信心，不靠仁爱，不靠忠心，也不靠任何其他高尚的行为。这就是福音：丢弃你一切对自我的信心，完全投靠基督。

From the Reformation to the present day, the battle for a biblical doctrine of justification has turned upon an understanding of sola fide. Justification comes by faith alone, but this is not just any faith. Justifying faith, unlike any other virtue, and in defiance of every earthly discouragement, turns away from itself, places its confidence in the victorious work of Jesus Christ, and receives his perfect righteousness as an imputed gift. By this faith, and no other-by this faith, and not love, faithfulness, or any other noble deed-the sinner stands justified before God. The gospel message continues to be: forsake all confidence in yourself and trust wholly in Christ.

基督教、文化与两个国度Christianity,Culture, and the Two Kingdoms

作者: David VanDrunen   译者/校对者:  甘林/米利暗

译自《Living in God’s Two Kingdoms-a biblical vision for Christianity and culture》Introduction: Christianity, Culture, and the Two Kingdoms

https://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781433514043.pdf

 https://www.churchchina.org/archives/180101.html

尼布尔（H. Richard Niebuhr）的《基督与文化》也许是论及基督教与文化[2]这一主题最著名的一本书，在书中他写道：“基督教与文明的问题绝非是一个新问题，基督徒在这方面的困惑早已旷日弥久，这难题历经基督教所有年代依然存在，记住这点会对我们有所帮助。”[3]你现在正开始阅读论述有关这令人困惑和长盛不衰之话题的一系列著作中的又一部，而我写这样一本书是出于两个主要原因：

In perhaps the most famous bookever written on the topic of Christianity and culture, H. Richard Niebuhr stated:“It is helpful to remember that the question of Christianity and civilization is by no means a new one; that Christianperplexity in this area has been perennial, and that the problem has been an enduring one through all theChristian centuries.”1 You have begun reading another in a long line of books that deal with this perplexing andperennial topic. I have written such a volume for two primary reasons.

首先，基督教与文化这个问题非常重要，具有很强的现实意义。如果你是一个认真的基督徒，很有可能经常会想到基督教与文化这问题。无论你有意识与否，每当你反思你的信仰与你的工作、学业、政治观点、读的书或看的电影有何关系时，你就是在面对基督教与文化这一难题。或者当你思想你所在的教会在当代政治争论或经济发展方面负有什么责任时，你也是在面对基督教与文化这个问题。基督教会历史上之所以有如此多伟大的思想家在这问题上苦苦挣扎，论述这问题的书籍汗牛充栋，其实绝非偶然。想想看，在基督教群体内，人对于像信仰与现代科学，信心与政治这样的话题付出了多少时间、精力和热情。即便如此，这主题所讲的远远不止于只是明显的“文化”问题。培养一种连贯一致的对基督教与文化的观点，需要苦苦探索基督教信仰一些最根本的真理。一种论述基督教与文化的神学是否忠于圣经，这取决于人是否正确看待神的创造和护理、神的形像、罪、基督的工作、救恩、教会和末世论。因此我写这本书并不是要论述一个狭隘的问题，而是让人面对基督教信仰与人生的基要问题。这本书因此对我而言有一个非常个人化的层面——这是一种操练，我在其中表述和捍卫对我这相信基督的人来说许多至为宝贵的事。

First, the issue of Christianity and culture is one of immense importance and relevance. If you are a seriousChristian, you probably think about the Christianity and culture question on a regular basis, whether you realize itor not. Every time you reflect upon what your faith has to do with your job, your schoolwork, your political views,the books you read, or the movies you see, you confront the problem of Christianity and culture. When youconsider what responsibilities your church might have with respect to contemporary political controversies oreconomic development, you again come face-to-face with the Christianity and culture issue. It is no accident thatso many of the greatest minds in the history of the Christian church have wrestled with this problem and that somany books have been written about it. Just think how much time, energy, and passion topics like religion andmodern science or faith and politics generate in the Christian community. Even so, this subject is about muchmore than simply these overtly “cultural” topics. Developing a coherent view of Christianity and culture demandswrestling with some of the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith. A faithful biblical theology of Christianityand culture depends upon a proper view of creation, providence, the image of God, sin, the work of Christ,salvation, the church, and eschatology. Therefore I write this book to address not a narrow issue but one thatconfronts us with the fundamentals of Christian faith and life. This project thus has a very personal dimension forme—it has been an exercise in expressing and defending many things that are most precious to me as a believerin Christ.

第二，我写这本书，是发自一种越来越强烈的确信，就是当代关于基督教与文化的对话方向是错误的。本书所呈现的观点，今天很大程度上遭人忽视，但它的确做出一种合乎圣经的纠正，可以帮助此类的讨论重回正轨。虽然有许多人发声，都对这场当代对话做出了贡献，但这些声音却有极多共同之处。当代对话中经常强调的一些主题是直击问题要害的，对于正确看待基督教与文化的关系而言非常重要。但我恐怕其他一些主题却呈现出一种，关于基督教对文化的参与及其与教会并新天新地盼望的关系的扭曲观点。

Second, I write this book out of a growing conviction that contemporary conversations about Christianity andculture are on the wrong track and that the perspective presented in these pages, largely overlooked today, offersa biblical corrective that can help to get discussion back on the right track. Though a multitude of voices arecontributing to the contemporary conversations, many of them have a great deal in common. Some of the themesfrequently emphasized in contemporary conversations are right on target and very important for a sound view ofChristianity and culture. Other themes, I fear, present a distorted view of Christian cultural engagement and itsrelationship to the church and to the hope of the new heaven and new earth.

让我先提一提当代一些言论讲得正确的一些事。首先，许多当代言论强调神是万有的创造主，包括物质的和自然的。神在生活的所有领域作王，人类要在他们所做的一切事上向他交账。许多当代言论对我们也很有帮助，提醒我们基督徒参与各种文化事业是好的。基督徒不应抽身脱离更广阔的文化，而应欢喜担负在文化方面的责任，以此表明他们的基督教信仰。每一种合法的职业都是尊贵的。同时这些声音也提醒我们，罪的后果早已渗透到了生活的方方面面，基督徒因此必须在文化事业中保持警惕，认清和弃绝文化生活中有罪的模式，努力追求凡事顺服神的旨意。最后，许多当代言论强调，基督徒真正的盼望并不是追求一种脱离身体的生命，作为灵魂存在于天上，而在于复活和新天新地。所有这些断言都是正确并对人有帮助的。

Let me mention a few things that the contemporary voices get right. First, many contemporary voices emphasizethat God is the Creator of all things, including material and physical things. God is king of all areas of life, andhuman beings are accountable to him in everything they do. Many contemporary voices also helpfully remind usthat it is good for Christians to be involved in a variety of cultural pursuits. Christians should not withdraw from thebroader culture but should take up cultural tasks with joy and express their Christian faith through them. Everylawful occupation is honorable. These voices also remind us that the effects of sin penetrate all aspects of life.Christians must therefore be vigilant in their cultural pursuits, perceiving and rejecting the sinful patterns in culturallife and striving after obedience to God’s will in everything. Finally, many contemporary voices stress that the trueChristian hope is not for a disembodied life as a soul in heaven but for the resurrection and new heaven and newearth. All of these affirmations are true and helpful.

然而不幸的是，当代对话当中其他流行的主题却是有问题的。例如，许多当代的言论断言，神正在救赎所有正当的文化活动和制度，基督徒因此相应地蒙神呼召要转变这一切，通过这一工作建造神的国度。[4]一些倡导这种观点的人宣称，救赎是神恢复的工作，赋予人类能力，重拾最初的人类亚当和夏娃的任务，照他们原本所蒙召的那样发展人类文化。这一起始于对当前人类文化的救赎性转变的工作，要在新的创造——新天新地中达到完满。按照这种基督教对文化的参与的观点，我们的文化产品是要装饰那永恒之城。

Unfortunately, other themes popular in the contemporary conversations are problematic. For example, manycontemporary voices assert that God is redeeming all legitimate cultural activities and institutions and that

Christians are therefore called to transform them accordingly and to build the kingdom of God through this work. 2Some advocates of this position claim that redemption is God’s work of restoration, empowering all livingcreatures through empowering human beings to pick up again the task of the first human beings, Adam and Eve,and to develop human culture as they were originally called to do. This redemptive transformation of presenthuman culture begins a process that will culminate in the new creation—the new heaven and new earth.According to this vision of Christian cultural engagement, our cultural products will adorn the eternal city.

许多才华横溢的作者把这样的观点描绘成令人激动和鼓舞人心的异象，但这些观念合乎圣经吗？我认为它们并不忠于圣经，因此我在本书提出另外一种合乎圣经的观念。我把这种观念称为关于“两个国度”的教义。虽然许多作者在近年已忽视、误传或毁谤“两个国度”的观念，但它在基督教神学历史上却仍然占有一席之地，受人尊崇。它延续基督教思想的发展线索，由奥古斯丁在《上帝之城》一书中作了著名阐述，在路德和加尔文的宗教改革中得到发展，又继续在后宗教改革的改革宗传统中更深入成熟。[5]今天许多作者似乎把“两国论”与毫无根据的二元论、世俗主义、在社会生活中的道德中立、甚至否认基督的普世王权联系在一起。也许一些版本的“两国论”吻合这种陈词滥调，但我写本书的目的并不是要捍卫一切带着“两个国度”这个名称的理论，而是阐述一种彻底扎根在圣经叙事和圣经教义之上的“两国论”进路。这种进路接受奥古斯丁和宗教改革的传承，并努力进一步发展和增强这一传承。我要努力用一种通俗易懂和有用的形式，向二十一世纪之初的教会呈现这一进路。

Many talented authors present such ideas as an exciting and inspiring vision, but are they biblically sound? Ibelieve that they are not true to Scripture, and therefore I offer a biblical alternative in this book. I refer to thisalternative as a “two-kingdoms” doctrine. Though many writers in recent years have ignored, mischaracterized, orslandered the idea of “two kingdoms,” it has a venerable place in the annals of Christian theology. It stands in theline of Christian thinking famously articulated by Augustine in The City of God, developed in the Lutheran andCalvinist Reformations, and brought to greater maturity in the post-Reformation Reformed tradition. 3 Manywriters today seem to associate a two-kingdoms doctrine with unwarranted dualisms, secularism, moral neutralityin social life, or even the denial of Christ’s universal kingship. Perhaps some versions of the two-kingdomsdoctrine have fit such stereotypes. My task in this book is not to defend everything that has ever gone by thename “two kingdoms,” but to expound a two-kingdoms approach that is thoroughly grounded in the story ofScripture and biblical doctrine. It embraces the heritage of Augustine and the Reformation and seeks to developand strengthen it further. I will strive to present it in an accessible and useful form to the church in the earlytwenty-first century.

这种“两国论”坚信神创造了万物，罪败坏了生活的方方面面，基督徒应在人类文化中积极作工，一切合法的文化职业都有尊荣，所有人都要在所做的每一件事上向神交账，基督徒应努力在自己的职业中应用出他们的信仰。但一位基督徒并不需要采纳一种救赎性的文化观才能确信这些重要真理。一种合乎圣经的“两国论”，提供了如此确信的另一种强有力的方法。按此教义，神并不是在救赎这世界的文化活动和制度，而是通过他在创世记8:20-9:17藉着挪亚与一切有生命的受造物所立的约保守这一切。神亲自掌管这个“一般性国度”(common kingdom)，因此它并不像一些作者描述的那样是“人的国度”(kingdom of man)。这国度绝非一个道德中立或自主的领域。神让它的制度和活动有尊荣，虽然这只是为了短暂和临时的目的。与此同时，神因着他与亚伯拉罕所立、并在主耶稣基督的工作中得到荣耀成就的约，正救赎一群人归给他自己，主耶稣基督已经一次永远完成了亚当原来的使命。这些得救赎的人是这样一个“救赎性国度”(redemptive kingdom)的国民，神现在正把他们召聚进教会，要在基督荣耀再来时欢迎他们进入新天新地。但在这日到来之前，基督徒要作为两个国度的国民生活，在每一个国度履行他们理当尽的本分。他们欢喜以教会成员的身份作天上的国民，但也要认识到目前他们是住在巴比伦，在一个并非他们永久的家的土地上作客旅寄居，出于爱基督和爱人如己，在他们的文化工作中努力追求公义和卓越。[6]

This two-kingdoms doctrine strongly affirms that God has made all things, that sin corrupts all aspects of life, thatChristians should be active in human culture, that all lawful cultural vocations are honorable, that all people areaccountable to God in every activity, and that Christians should seek to live out the implications of their faith intheir daily vocations. A Christian, however, does not have to adopt a redemptive vision of culture in order to affirmthese important truths. A biblical two-kingdoms doctrine provides another compelling way to do so. According tothis doctrine, God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving themthrough the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Genesis 8:20–9:17. God himself rules this“common kingdom,” and thus it is not, as some writers describe it, the “kingdom of man.” This kingdom is in nosense a realm of moral neutrality or autonomy. God makes its institutions and activities honorable, though only fortemporary and provisional purposes. Simultaneously, God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of thecovenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who hascompleted Adam’s original task once and for all. These redeemed people are citizens of the “redemptive kingdom,”whom God is gathering now in the church and will welcome into the new heaven and new earth at Christ’sglorious return. Until that day, Christians live as members of both kingdoms, discharging their proper duties ineach. They rejoice to be citizens of heaven through membership in the church, but also recognize that for the timebeing they are living in Babylon, striving for justice and excellence in their cultural labors, out of love for Christ andtheir neighbor, as sojourners and exiles in a land that is not their lasting home. 4

为了更清楚地介绍和解释这种“两个国度”的异象，我现在要简单描述当代基督教在与文化的对话中而有的一些突出的言论。所有这些言论都以不同方式捍卫某种基督教对文化的参与的救赎模式。在我描述他们的观点之后，我要请读者重新留意“两个国度”这个观念，并概括在接下来几章要阐述的这“两国论”的圣经根据。

In order to introduce and explain this two-kingdoms vision more clearly, I now briefly describe some of theprominent voices in contemporary conversations about Christianity and culture. All of these voices, in variousways, defend a redemptive model of Christian cultural engagement. After I describe their views, I will turn readers’attention back to the two-kingdoms alternative and summarize the biblical defense of the two-kingdoms doctrinethat will unfold in the chapters to come.

一、当代的声音：救赎性的文化转变

 Contemporary Voices: The Redemptive Transformation of Culture

在当代关于基督教与文化的对话当中，也许没有一个声音是比那有时被称为“新加尔文主义”（neo-Calvinism）的主张更能言善辩的了。这种思潮最直接地可以追溯到荷兰哲学家和法学家杜伊维尔（Herman Dooyeweerd，1894–1977年）。这思潮也宣称自己是荷兰神学家和政治家亚伯拉罕•凯波尔（Abraham Kuyper，1837–1920年）和改教家约翰•加尔文的继承者。[7]“新加尔文主义”不仅在许多改革宗和福音派教会富有影响力，也鼓舞了近代许多基督教学校和大学。我自己在教会和学校接受的早期教育，都受这种思想极大的塑造。我所尊重的一些朋友、牧师和神学家很多都接受它的观点。它在许多事情上观点正确，在许多方面呈现出一种极具吸引力的基督教参与文化的异象。它帮助人对抗各种形式的对世俗文化活动无动于衷或只把信仰看作与星期日有关的基督教信仰。但说到底，它误读了一些重要的圣经主题，带给人一种扭曲的基督教文化参与的神学。

In the contemporary conversations about Christianity and culture, there is perhaps no voice more eloquent thanwhat is sometimes referred to as “neo-Calvinism.” This school of thought traces back most immediately to thework of Dutch philosopher and jurist Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977), and it also claims to be heir of the Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) and of the Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564). 5 “Neo-Calvinism” has been influential not only in many Reformed and evangelical churches but has provided inspirationfor many Christian schools and colleges in recent generations. My own early education, in both church and school,was significantly shaped by this line of thought. A number of friends, pastors, and theologians that I respectembrace its views. It gets many things correct and presents an attractive vision for Christianity and culture inmany respects. It helpfully combats forms of Christianity that are indifferent to mundane cultural activity or see thefaith as only relevant on Sundays. In the end, however, it misreads some important biblical themes and offers adistorted theology of Christian cultural engagement.

当前局面中有一件奇妙的事，就是有许多其他卓越的基督徒的言论，听起来与新加尔文主义如此相似。当新加尔文主义者讲到当代教会中柏拉图哲学和二元论的倾向、救赎性的文化转变，以及文化工作与神的国度和新创造的联系时，他们的应者云集。我可以举出许多例子，但我要集中来看近年来在基督教世界获得相当多关注的两种言论：保罗新观——以赖特（N. T. Wright）为代表和新兴教会运动——以麦拉伦（Brian McLaren）为代表。保罗新观与新兴教会运动虽然倡导新加尔文主义，但肯定并非在所有问题上持同样观点，它们尊重彼此的工作[8]，最重要的是，它们有一种共同的异象，就是救赎性的文化转变在基督徒人生中处于中心地位。

One fascinating thing about the current scene is that many other prominent Christian voices sound so similar toneo-Calvinism. When neo-Calvinists speak about Platonic and dualistic tendencies in the contemporary church,the redemptive transformation of culture, and the connection of cultural work to the kingdom of God and the newcreation, they have a lot of company. I could cite many examples, but I focus on two that have gainedconsiderable attention in the Christian world in recent years: the New Perspective on Paul (as exemplified by N. T.Wright) and the emerging (or emergent) church (as exemplified by Brian McLaren). Though advocates of neo-Calvinism, the New Perspective on Paul, and the emerging church certainly do not hold identical views on allissues, they show mutual respect for each other’s work6 and, most significantly, they share a common vision thatthe redemptive transformation of culture is central to the Christian life.

1、当代新加尔文主义

Contemporary Neo-Calvinism

在某些方面，新加尔文主义是一场多样化的运动，但其倡导者却都团结在许多共同主题周围。两位当代倡导新加尔文主义异象的人士用三点总结了“新加尔文主义”：第一，恩典通过在基督里的救赎恢复自然（grace restores nature）；第二，神是主权(sovereign）的神，为一切现实立定秩序；第三，创世记第一章原初的文化使命（culture mandate）有持续的现实意义。[9]这是一种简明和准确的概括，但稍微更详细地阐述新加尔文主义的教义，可能会对读者有所帮助。当我作这样的阐述时，是特别援引了两本表明新加尔文主义观点的著作：沃尔特斯（Albert Wolters）的《再得着创造》（Creation Regained），以及普兰丁格（Cornelius Plantinga）的《参与神的世界》（Engaging God’s World）。[10]这两位作者并不必然在每一个具体问题上都意见一致，但他们对于基督教与文化的整体异象是一样的。他们的著作通俗易懂，写作风格很吸引人，给许多基督教学校和大学带来了很大影响。

Neo-Calvinism is a diverse movement in certain respects, but its proponents are united by many common themes.Two contemporary advocates of the neo-Calvinist vision have summarized “neo- Calvinism” in three points: first,grace restores nature through redemption in Christ; second, God is sovereign and orders all of reality; and third,the original cultural mandate of Genesis 1 has ongoing relevance. 7 This is a concise and accurate summary, butit may be helpful to unpack the tenets of neo-Calvinism at a little more length. To do so, I refer especially to twobooks that present a neo-Calvinist perspective: Albert Wolters’s Creation Regained and Cornelius Plantinga’sEngaging God’s World. 8 These writers do not necessarily agree with each other on every specific issue, but theirgeneral vision of Christianity and culture is the same. Their books are accessible and winsomely written, and theyhave been influential in many Christian schools and colleges.

也许在一开始认识新加尔文主义时最需要了解的，就是它把圣经的叙事呈现为创造、堕落和救赎的模式。按照新加尔文主义的说法，对这种模式的认识构成了一种基督教世界观的核心，就是“神造的一切，包括当人按神的设计行事时而涌现的全人类所有领域的文化都是好的。但这一切都被罪恶败坏了，不仅包括文化，也包括自然界。因此一切——全宇宙——都必须被主耶稣基督救赎。”[11]沃尔特斯和普兰丁格同样坚信神创造了这个世界，整个世界都是他的国度，因此是好的，是蒙神祝福的。神向人类颁布了文化使命（创1:2-28），这意味着人类应当使用他们的能力看管这世界，发展人类文化，以此释放创造界中浩大的潜能。人类这工作的目标是永恒和末世性的，就是“新地”（new earth）。正如普兰丁格所言：“我们可以把圣城看作是伊甸园加上漫长世纪积累起来的完满。”[12]

Perhaps the most important thing to know initially about neo- Calvinism is that it presents the story of Scripture asthe story of creation, fall, and redemption. Recognizing this pattern forms the heart of a Christian worldview,according to neo-Calvinism. What this means is that “all has been created good, including the full range of humancultures that emerge when humans act according to God’s design. But all has been corrupted by evil, includingnot only culture but also the natural world. So all—the whole cosmos— must be redeemed by Jesus Christ theLord."9 Wolters and Plantinga share a general conviction that God created this world and that the whole worldwas his kingdom and thus was good and blessed. God gave the cultural mandate (Gen. 1:26–28) to the humanrace, which meant that human beings were to use their abilities to care for the world and to develop human culture,thereby releasing the vast potential latent in creation. Their goal in this labor was eternal and eschatological: thenew earth. As Plantinga puts it, “we may think of the holy city as the garden of Eden plus the fullness of thecenturies.”10

人堕落犯罪使这整个计划陷入被摧毁的危险。堕落导致人的每一种官能、人的一切行动以及受造界秩序本身都败坏了。但神不仅保守世界，不让它马上崩溃，而且还对其实施一个拯救计划，确保他原来为这世界所定的旨意得到成就。对于新加尔文主义而言，基督带来的拯救或救赎在本质上就是恢复或再创造。神不是重新开始，而是实现他原初的计划。按沃尔特斯的观点，我们第一对祖先“搞砸”了他们原来的使命，但神现在已经给了我们“第二次机会”，“重新任命”我们作他在地上的管理者。[13]这并不意味着神通过基督只是把我们重新放回伊甸园，在亚当堕落前停下来的地方重新开始。神在起初赋予亚当一项长期的任务，通过人类的文化开启受造界的潜能，但是由于犯罪，人类在后来却是以败坏的方式参与到这一任务中的；在基督里的救赎恢复和更新了人类，让他们在去完成这项仍在进行中的任务时，将他们因罪对文化的扭曲洁除干净，并重新指引他们走顺服神、彼此造就和造福整个受造界的道路。[14]

The fall into sin threatened to destroy this entire project. The fall produced the corruption of every human faculty,all human action, and the created order itself. God, however, not only preserved the world from immediatecollapse but also undertook a plan of salvation to ensure that his original purposes for this world are fulfilled. Forneo-Calvinism the salvation or redemption brought by Christ is essentially restoration or re-creation. God does notstart over new, but accomplishes his original plan. According to Wolters, our first parents “botched” their originalmandate, but God has now given us a “second chance” and has “reinstated” us as his managers on earth. 11 Thisdoes not mean that God, through Christ, simply puts us back into the garden of Eden to pick up where Adam left off before he fell. God originally gave Adam the long-term task of unlocking the potentialities of creation throughhuman culture, and despite his sin the human race subsequently has been engaging in that task, though incorrupted form. Redemption in Christ restores and renews human beings in this ongoing task, purging them oftheir sinful perversion of culture and redirecting them in ways that are obedient to God and beneficial to oneanother and the whole of creation. 12

创造界和人类文化的全部在堕落前是神的国度，因此现在在基督里更新和救赎整个受造界，就构成了对这个国度的更新与救赎。所有文化工作都是国度的工作。[15]所有文化工作的目标都是推进这国度在新的创造中完全实现。我们在这世界上的日常活动是“国度的服事”，生出“供那新地使用的建造材料”。[16]正如普兰丁格所言：“我们现在奉基督的名所做的——努力追求医治、公义和在黑暗中的理性之光，或是仅仅只是努力制造一些有助于维系其他人类生活的产品——这些都要得到保守，跨越进入来生。”[17]

As all of creation and human culture was God’s kingdom before the fall, so now the renewal and redemption of allcreation in Christ constitute the renewal and redemption of that kingdom. All cultural labor is kingdom work. 13 Allcultural labor aims to advance the full realization of that kingdom in the new creation. Our ordinary activity in thisworld is “kingdom service,” which produces “the building materials for that new earth.”14 As Plantinga writes,“What we do now in the name of Christ—striving for healing, for justice, for intellectual light in darkness, strivingsimply to produce something helpful for sustaining the lives of other human beings—shall be preserved acrossinto the next life.”15

在这宏伟异象光照下，新加尔文主义常常警告和反对各种“二元论”观点，认为它们破坏了神在这世上国度的整全性质。例如，沃尔特斯严厉批判所谓的“两个领域”理论，把它看作是一种缠绕基督教信仰挥之不去的危险。[18]沃尔特斯拒绝任何把生活分成一方面是“圣”的领域，人在这领域做国度的工作，另一方面是“俗”的领域的观点。他担心持守这种观点的基督徒会贬低后一种领域，或看它是内在次等。他宣称，这种观点会成为一种“根深蒂固的诺斯替主义倾向”的牺牲品。它“限制了基督主权的范围”。沃尔特斯和其他新加尔文主义的作者使用“俗”或“世俗”这样的词语指代内在的邪恶，或至少对基督徒来说是妥协的事情。[19]而且，新加尔文主义的作者拒绝二元论的观点，努力要让基督徒摆脱对拯救的“垂直方向”的看法，就是“逃离”这世界上“天堂”，认为这是柏拉图，而非圣经的观点。[20]

In light of this grand vision, neo-Calvinism often warns against various “dualistic” views that compromise theholistic character of God’s kingdom in this world. Wolters, for example, is very critical of so-called “two-realms”theories that he sees as a perennial danger for Christianity. 16 Wolters rejects any division of life into a “sacred”realm on the one hand, in which people do “kingdom” work, and a “secular” or “profane” realm on the other hand.He fears that Christians holding such a view will depreciate the latter realm or look upon it as inherently inferior.He claims that this view falls prey to a “deep-seated Gnostic tendency.” It “restricts the scope of Christ’s lordship.”Wolters and other neo-Calvinist writers use terms such as “secular” and “profane” to denote things that areinherently evil or at least compromised for the Christian. 17 By rejecting dualistic views, furthermore, neo-Calvinistwriters aim to steer Christians away from “vertical” views of salvation that involve “escape” from this world into“heaven,” which is the view of Plato rather than Scripture. 18

 2、赖特与保罗新观

N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul

虽然新加尔文主义在近代对许多改革宗和福音派圈子产生了很大影响，却绝非是近期基督教与文化的讨论中唯一的声音。正如之前指出的，今天在更广阔的基督教世界中有许多突出的声音，会强调与新加尔文主义相似的教导，例如：救赎性的文化转变的重要意义，教会中柏拉图主义和二元论倾向带来的问题。虽然我可以提到许多神学家和运动，但我却主要集中来看许多读者熟悉的两种运动：保罗新观（以赖特为代表）和新兴教会运动（以麦拉伦为代表）。当我在描述这两种运动时，读者应当可以认出我在前一部分所指出的许多新加尔文主义的主题。

Though neo-Calvinism has been influential in many Reformed and evangelical circles in recent generations, it isfar from being the only voice in current discussions about Christianity and culture. As noted, however, many oftoday’s significant voices in the broader Christian world emphasize themes that resemble neo-Calvinist teaching,such as the importance of redemptive cultural transformation and the problem of Platonic and dualistic tendenciesin the church. Though there are many theologians and movements that I could mention, I will focus briefly upontwo that may be familiar to many readers: the New Perspective on Paul (as represented by N. T. Wright) and theemerging church (as represented by Brian McLaren). As I describe these two, readers should recognize many ofthe neo-Calvinist themes identified in the previous section.

首先我要看所谓的“保罗新观”。在过去几十年，这种新观点引发了很多讨论，让人思想在保罗的时代犹太教信仰的特点，保罗对初期教会中犹太人与外邦人关系的看法，他对称义的理解，以及他对旧约圣经律法的态度。倡导保罗新观的人已经挑战了传统更正教对保罗的解读，传统的解读聚焦在人类普遍的罪性，以及神通过基督的赎罪、称义和成圣，对人的罪的拯救性解决之道。有许多近期的著作在讨论这些主题。[21]这里我感兴趣的，就是保罗新观对基督教与文化会有何阐述。并不存在单独的一套信念，代表保罗新观在这些问题上的正式观点。对我们有用的，就是聚焦来看与保罗新观联系在一起的最出名的神学家——安立甘宗主教N.T.赖特。他近期的一本著作《惊人的盼望》（Surprised by Hope），在基督教信仰与文化这个问题上多有论述。值得留意的是，他的关注与例如沃尔特斯和普兰丁格这些新加尔文主义作者的关注是多么类似。

First I consider the so-called New Perspective on Paul. In the past few decades, this new perspective has sparkeddiscussions about the character of Judaism in Paul’s day, Paul’s view of Jew-Gentile relations in the early church,his understanding of justification, and his attitude toward the Old Testament law. Proponents of the NewPerspective have challenged traditional Protestant readings of Paul that focus upon the universal sinfulness ofhumanity and God’s saving answer to human sin through Christ’s atonement, justification, and sanctification.Many recent books address these subjects. 19 Of interest here is what the New Perspective might have to sayabout Christianity and culture. There is no single set of beliefs that constitute the official New Perspective view onsuch things. What may be useful is to focus upon the most well-known theologian associated with the NewPerspective, Anglican bishop N. T. Wright. One of his recent books, Surprised by Hope, has much to say aboutChristianity and culture issues. It is remarkable to see how similar his concerns are to those of neo-Calvinistwriters such as Wolters and Plantinga.

赖特认为宗教改革对称义的传统观点认识有所不足，并且他也接受对人类文化救赎性的转变，这绝非偶然。在我们来看《惊人的盼望》这本书之前，让我简单作出一个大胆宣告，我会在接下来几章论证支持我的看法。这宣告就是，连贯一致持守传统更正教称义观的人，不应觉得救赎性转变这一观点具有吸引力。正如一些改教家理解的那样，两个国度的教义，理应与更正教的称义观相伴。[22]

It is no coincidence that Wright both finds the traditional Reformation view of justification inadequate and alsoembraces the redemptive transformation of human culture. Before we consider Surprised by Hope, let me briefly

state a bold claim that I will defend in subsequent chapters. Those who hold a traditional Protestant view ofjustification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive. As some of theReformers grasped, a two-kingdoms doctrine is a proper companion to a Protestant doctrine of justification. 20

赖特清楚阐述了《惊人的盼望》一书的主要主题。他要捍卫身体复活，以及一个物质的新天新地，把这看作是基督徒重大的末世盼望，努力证明这盼望为基督徒提供了展望将来发生之事和转变当今世界的动力，以此反对一种流行的错误观念，即基督徒的盼望就是死后“上天堂”。[23]为了确立和进一步阐述这宣告，赖特花了相当多时间批评他认为是最近几个世纪西方教会的主流观点。这种观点强调个人得救，认为得救在于我们不灭的灵魂得救脱离当前这邪恶世界，进入天堂，天堂是一个非物质领域，当今世界在历史终结时完全被毁，而天堂则要保存下来。[24]按照赖特的看法，这种观点听起来更像柏拉图主义或诺斯替主义，而不像合乎圣经的基督教信仰。[25]与这种观点形成对照的是，赖特强调死人复活，这确立了当今世界和永恒状态之间有一种极深的延续性（虽然他承认也存在着非延续性）。[26]一件意义重大的事，就是基督徒相信复活，这就给了他们一种强有力的理由，在当今世界寻求公义和平。与之形成对比的是，相信得救是“上天堂”逃离这世界，这会导致对社会和文化事务不感兴趣或无动于衷。[27]

Wright is clear about the major theme of Surprised by Hope. He sets out to defend the physical resurrection andthe physical new heaven and new earth as the great Christian eschatological hope, over against popularmisconceptions of Christian hope as “going to heaven” after death, and aims to prove that this hope providesmotivation for Christians to transform the present world in anticipation of what is to come. 21 In order to establishand develop this claim, Wright spends considerable time critiquing what he believes is the predominantperspective of the Western church in recent centuries. This perspective emphasizes individual salvation, whichconsists of our immortal souls being rescued from the present evil world and entering into heaven, a nonmaterialrealm that will survive when the present world is completely destroyed at the end of history. 22 According toWright, such a perspective sounds much more like Plato or Gnosticism than like biblical Christianity. 23 In contrastto this perspective, Wright highlights the resurrection of the dead, which establishes a deep continuity betweenthis present world and the eternal state (though he acknowledges that there is discontinuity too). 24

赖特为了捍卫这些宣告，指出圣经中三个宏伟主题：神创造的美好，因人的悖逆，这世界上存在的罪恶，以及神对世界的救赎，这救赎在于神“解放”和“再造”受造界，为要成就他为受造界制订的原初计划。[28]赖特对神国度的观点反映出这种救赎观。对赖特而言，国度与一种将来非物质的天堂无关，而与目前的地球有关，因这地球要在新的创造中完全更新。[29]虽然国度的降临最终是神的作为，但神却使用人类的努力把这国度带进最后的成全。目前的社会转变预示着在那末后日子的复活和宇宙的更新。[30]人类是神使用的“部分手段”，以此带来最终的拯救，人是“在受造界之上拯救性的管家”。这是神国度的“内在动态”。[31]赖特有几次让读者留意哥林多前书15:58以及它的应许，就是我们在主里的劳苦不是徒然的。他根据这一节经文宣告，我们现在所做的，就是“建造神的国度”，这工作“要持续进入神所定的将来”。[32]虽然赖特承认，他不知道这将来实际上是什么样子，他却向基督徒保证：“你们在成就一些事情，这些事情时候到了，就要成为神的新世界的一部分。”[33]有鉴于此，赖特其中一个首要关注就是重塑读者对教会使命的认识。他说，教会的使命不应只在于传福音，也应在于为当今世界的公义、和平与美好努力工作。[34]

In order to defend these claims, Wright identifies three grand themes in Scripture: the goodness of God’s creation,the evil in this world due to human rebellion, and God’s redemption of the world, which consists in God’s“liberating” and “remaking” of creation in order to accomplish his original plans for it.26 Wright’s view of thekingdom of God reflects this view of redemption. For Wright, the kingdom has to do not with a future immaterialheaven, but with the present earth as it will be fully renewed in the new creation. 27 Though the coming of thekingdom is ultimately God’s work, God enlists the efforts of human beings in bringing the kingdom to finalfulfillment. Social transformation in the present is an anticipation of the resurrection and cosmic renewal on thelast day. 28 Human beings are “part of the means” by which God brings ultimate salvation, and they are “rescuingstewards over creation.” This is the “inner dynamic” of the kingdom of God. 29 At several points Wright refersreaders to 1 Corinthians 15:58, with its promise that our work in the Lord is not in vain. From this verse he claimsthat what we do now is “building for God’s kingdom” and “will last into God’s future.”30 Though Wright confessesthat he has no idea what this will actually look like, he assures Christians: “You are . . . accomplishing somethingthat will become in due course part of God’s new world.”31 In light of all this, one of Wright’s chief concerns is toreshape his readers’ conception of the mission of the church. The church’s mission, he says, should consist notonly in evangelism but also in working for justice, peace, and beauty in this present world. 32

所以赖特首要关注的，与当代新加尔文主义的关注非常相似。赖特和新加尔文主义者都反对那些他们认为存在于当代基督教当中藐视物质、贬低文化活动的柏拉图主义倾向，呈现出一种“创造—堕落—救赎”的观点，强调基督教文化工作的中心地位，认为这是一种建立神的国度、展望新创造的途径。

Wright’s chiefconcerns, therefore, closely resemble those of contemporary neo-Calvinism. Over against perceived Platonictendencies in modern Christianity that despise physical things and devalue cultural activity, both Wright and neo-Calvinists present a creation-fall-redemption perspective that emphasizes the centrality of Christian cultural workas a means of building the kingdom of God and anticipating the new creation.

3、新兴教会运动

The Emerging Church

近年来另一个越来越受欢迎的当代言论，就是“新兴”教会运动的声音。[35]参与在新兴教会运动中的人喜欢强调，他们是在参与一场关于一种新类型基督教的“对话”。他们说这对话仍在进行，因此很难预测这种新类型的基督教最终会是什么样子。它的倡导者批判传统形式的基督教信仰（特别是改革宗和福音派的不同派别，而他们当中许多人是出于这些信仰背景的），尤其不喜欢严谨的教义。他们也批判近期超大型教会类型的基督教信仰，要追求某些更新鲜和真实的事情，虽然人常常不清楚新兴基督教运动的正面立场，但有一件事肯定是很突出的：它强调救赎性的文化转变是基督教信仰的核心。新兴教会运动一位主要发言人麦拉伦的一本近作《一切都必须改变》（Everything Must Change）提供了一个很好的例子。虽然一些新加尔文主义者会发现麦拉伦的神学太极端，可能不认同他的左翼政治观点，但麦拉伦的观点却与他们核心和典型的主题产生了共鸣。

Another contemporary voice that has gained popularity in recent years is that of the “emergent” or “emerging”church. 33 Those involved in the emerging church movement like to emphasize that they are involved in a“conversation” about a new kind of Christianity. They say that this conversation is still ongoing, and so it is hard topredict what exactly this new kind of Christianity will turn out to be. Proponents are critical of traditional forms ofChristianity (particularly Reformed and evangelical varieties, from which many of them have come), and havespecial dislike for rigid doctrine. They are also critical of recent megachurch types of Christianity, in search ofsomething more fresh and authentic. Though it is often unclear what emergent Christianity stands for positively,one thing certainly stands out: its emphasis upon the redemptive transformation of culture as being at the heart of Christian faith. A recent book by leading emergent spokesman Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, providesa good case in point. … He calls for Christians to develop an effective “framing story” (something like a worldview),and the framing story that he defines has nothing to do with Christ’s atonement or the forgiveness of sins buteverything to do with social “transformation.”36

首先，这可以体现在麦拉伦与之抗争的基督教形式。麦拉伦要抛弃一种类型的基督教信仰，即宣称这罪恶的世界要被摧毁，拯救在于挽救“灵魂”“逃离”这世界，逃离永远的刑罚，被带进“天堂”。[36]同样，他反对在“属灵”和“属世”之间作对比，因此极少关注文化参与或当前全球危机的“二元论”基督教信仰。[37]他要用一种关注这世界的基督教取而代之。他呼吁基督徒培养一种有效的“框架故事”（类似世界观），他定义的这框架故事与基督的赎罪或赦罪毫无关系，却与社会“转变”息息相关。[38]他的框架故事断言基督来，为要“重新训练和恢复人类回到原初的呼召和潜能。这更新的人类可以回归看管受造界和看顾彼此的角色，因此这个星球和其中的一切都可以恢复到神所期待的健康和多结果子的和谐”。[39]因此耶稣不是从逃离这世界的角度，而是“从神对这地球的梦想成真，神的公义和平取代这地球的不公与不和谐的角度”宣告神的国度。[40]毫不意外，麦拉伦认为启示录21章新耶路撒冷的异象提供了“历史当中的盼望”，这意味着这异象“努力鼓舞我们的想象力，盼望我们的世界可以实际变成怎样”。它表明“一种在这宇宙中有可能的新的生活方式；正如神的公义和信实是确实的，一种新的社会制度要确实临到”。[41]因此神国度的福音是关乎我们以工作转化世界，使之达至和平与公义，新耶路撒冷是这过程的结果。

His framing story affirms that Jesus came to “retrain and restorehumanity to its original vocation and potential. This renewed humanity can return to its role as caretakers ofcreation and one another so the planet and all it contains can be restored to the healthy and fruitful harmony thatGod desires.37 Thus Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God not in terms of escaping from this world but “in termsof God’s dream coming true for this earth, of God’s justice and peace replacing earth’s injustice anddisharmony.”38 Not unexpectedly, McLaren sees the vision of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 as providing“hope within history,” which means that this vision “seeks to inspire our imaginations with hope about what ourworld can actually become.” It shows “a new way of living that is possible within this universe, a new societalsystem that is coming as surely as God is just and faithful.39 The gospel of the kingdom of God, therefore, isabout our work of transforming the world toward peace and justice, and the New Jerusalem is the result of thisprocess.

二、两个国度的观念

 The Two-Kingdoms Alternative

当人阅读新加尔文主义、保罗新观和新兴教会运动作者的著作时，可以学到一些关于基督教信仰、基督徒文化责任非常重要的内容。这物质受造界是神美好的创造，罪是可怕和扭曲的事情，神并没有放弃他起初为受造界设立的目标，文化方面的呼召是有尊荣和有益的，基督徒应批判性的思想罪对文化生活的影响，复活和新天新地是基督徒的伟大盼望。但我认为，问题在于这些作者相当自信，给人留下一种印象，就是他们对文化转变、神的国度以及新受造界的异象，是确认这些事情的唯一方法。他们提示说，唯一反对他们这异象的人，就是那些对更广阔的文化无动于衷，拒绝复活，只是盼望逃往天堂，在那里他们要在空中飘来飘去，成为幸福的灵的人。这是大大扭曲和误导的说法。伟大的基督教领袖，如奥古斯丁、路德和加尔文（我只列举少数几位），都尊重地上的职业，断言死人复活。但他们也非常清楚地表明，基督徒的文化活动应仔细与将来的国度和对新创造的盼望区分开来。他们相信这样的区分对于基督教信仰和生活来说至关重要。[42]

A person can learn some very important things about Christianity and the Christian’s cultural responsibilities byreading neo-Calvinist, New Perspective, and emerging authors. The physical created world is God’s good creation,sin is a horrible and distorting thing, God has not given up on his original goal for creation, cultural vocations arehonorable and beneficial, Christians should think critically about sin’s effects upon cultural life, and theresurrection and the new heaven and new earth are the great Christian hope. The problem is, I believe, that theseauthors quite confidently give the impression that their visions of cultural transformation, the kingdom of God, andthe new creation are the only way to affirm these things. They suggest that the only people who would opposetheir vision are those who are indifferent to the broader culture, reject the resurrection, and hope only to escape toheaven where they will float around as happy spirits. This is a terribly distorted and misleading suggestion. GreatChristian leaders such as Augustine, Luther, and Calvin—to name but a few—respected earthly vocations andaffirmed the resurrection of the dead. But they also made very clear that the Christian’s cultural activities have tobe carefully distinguished from the coming of the kingdom and the hope of the new creation. Such distinctions,they believed, were crucial to Christian faith and life. 40

本书在发展一种当代的、基于圣经的两国论时，遵循奥古斯丁和宗教改革的发展路径。虽然我所呈现的看待基督教与文化的进路，有别于由新加尔文主义、赖特和麦拉伦为代表的转化主义异象，读者却应料到，我在本书的字里行间一定是要捍卫诸如创造、堕落和复活等这些经典的基督教教义。同样，读者不应期望发现我对更广阔的人类文化世界心怀敌意或冷漠。我承认我爱许多文化活动，我是一位娴熟的钢琴和管风琴演奏家，我读小说，几乎每天都读《华尔街日报》，爱大学美式足球比赛，也是一位律师（但目前处于歇业状态，因此不要打电话找我咨询法律问题），我也打高尔夫球（尽管我的差点不高，但你如果是一家很不错的高尔夫俱乐部会员，希望邀请我打上一场，我肯定欢迎你给我打电话）。读者能期望在本书中找到的，就是一种对文化活动积极的观点——虽然积极，但也有所保留。之所以有所保留，因为它努力遵循圣经的教导，就是人类文化事务是暂时的、有条件和注定要成为过去的事。主耶稣基督宣告的神的国度，并不是通过政治、商业、音乐或体育建造的。救赎并不是恢复人去实现亚当原初的任务，而是主耶稣基督亲自一次永远代表我们完成了亚当原初的任务。因此救赎并不是“再得着创造”，而是“得着再创造”。因此读者最能料到在本书中找到的，是一种尊崇主耶稣基督、他完全的救赎工作以及他存到永远国度的观点，这国度现在虽通过教会的事奉和生活推进，有一天要在完全的荣耀中显现，但却并不是靠我们自己人类文化的任何工作。这由基督宣告的国度在当今配得辩护，本书尽管卑微，但却正是在努力作出这种辩护。

This book, in developing a contemporary and biblically-based two-kingdoms doctrine, follows this Augustinian andReformation trajectory. Though I present an approach to Christianity and culture that is different from thetransformationist visions exemplified by neo-Calvinism, Wright, and McLaren, readers should expect to find adefense of classic Christian doctrines such as creation, the fall, and the resurrection within these pages. Likewise,readers should not expect to find any hostility or indifference toward the broader world of human culture. I confessto loving many cultural activities. I am a proficient pianist and organist, read novels and The Wall Street Journalnearly every day, love college football, am an attorney (though currently on inactive status, so please don’t call forlegal advice), and play golf to a low handicap (you certainly may call if you are a member of a nice club and wishto invite me for a round). What readers can expect to find in this book is a positive view of cultural activity—thougha positive view that is also reserved. It is reserved because it seeks to follow Scripture’s teaching that the affairs ofhuman culture are temporary, provisional, and bound to pass away. The kingdom of God proclaimed by the LordJesus Christ is not built through politics, commerce, music, or sports. Redemption does not consist in restoringpeople to fulfill Adam’s original task, but consists in the Lord Jesus Christ himself fulfilling Adam’s original taskonce and for all, on our behalf. Thus redemption is not “creation regained” but “re-creation gained.” What readerscan expect to find in this book most of all, therefore, is a high view of the Lord Jesus Christ, his perfect redeemingwork, and his eternal kingdom—a kingdom advancing now through the ministry and life of the church and one dayto be revealed in consummate glory apart from any work of our own human culture.

简而言之，圣经要求我们重视受造界和文化活动，但也要求在基督天国的神圣事情与目前世界的普通事情之间作出一种区分。它要求在神行使护理之工、为全人类维系文化，与神荣耀地救赎一群选民、现在召聚他们进入一家教会、有一天要召聚他们进入新的受造界直到永永远远这二者之间作出分别。一些人确实落入一种没有根据的“二元论”，但对二元论的恐惧绝不可胜过我们作出清楚和必要的区分的能力。一些人确实有罪，倡导一种无神和不讲道德的“俗”的领域，但对一种无神的世俗主义的惧怕，不应让我们失去能力而拒绝讲一个由神命定的“一般性国度”，这国度是正当，却不是圣的。[43]两个国度的教义让我们既能断言受造界和文化是好的，又不至于使我们看不到至关重要的分别点。“两国论”其实是在帮助我们阐述整个圣经叙事。

In short, Scripture requires a high view of creation and of cultural activity, but it also requires a distinction between the holy things of Christ’s heavenly kingdom and the common things of the present world. It requires a distinction between God’s providential sustaining of human culture for the whole of the human race and his glorious redemption of a chosen people that he has gathered into a church now and will gather into the new creation for eternity. Some people indeed fall into unwarranted “dualisms,” but dualism-phobia must not override our ability to make clear and necessary distinctions. Some people indeed are guilty of promoting a godless and amoral “secular” realm, but the fear of a godless secularism should not eliminate our ability to speak of a divinely-ordained common kingdom that is legitimate but not holy.41 The two-kingdoms doctrine enables us to affirm the goodness of creation and culture without losing sight of crucial distinctions. The two-kingdoms doctrine helps us to account for the whole biblical story.

我在呈现这“两个国度”的异象时，盼望能鼓励普通基督徒——就是进行工作、学习、投票、养育儿女、帮助穷人、做生意、进行音乐创作、看电影、骑自行车、参与各种其他文化活动的普通基督徒，希望他们这样做的时候活出一种深思熟虑、讨神喜悦的生活。我盼望这本书能鼓励许多读者用更新的力量开展多样的文化活动，并深信这样的活动是好的，讨神喜悦的。对许多读者而言，我也盼望本书能解放他们脱离来自其他基督徒的好意却并不符合圣经的压力，这压力要求人“转化”他们的工作场所，或找到独一无二的“基督教方法”来完成日常的工作。对所有的读者而言，我盼望本书能帮助你们把心思聚焦在那比工作升职，或最近最高法院的判决远远重要得多的事情上，就是基督工作的全备性，教会宣教的任务，以及新天新地的盼望。

In presenting this two-kingdoms vision, I hope to provide encouragement to ordinary Christians—to ordinary Christians who work, study, vote, raise families, help the poor, run businesses, make music, watch movies, ride bikes, and engage in all sorts of other cultural activities, and who wish to live thoughtful and God-pleasing lives in doing so. I hope that this book will be an encouragement for many readers to take up their many cultural activities with renewed vigor, being convinced that such activities are good and pleasing to God. For many readers I also hope that this book will be liberating, freeing you from well-meaning but nonbiblical pressure from other Christians to “transform” your workplace or to find uniquely “Christian” ways of doing ordinary tasks. For all readers I hope that this book will serve to focus your hearts on things that are far more important than a promotion at work or the most recent Supreme Court decision: the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the missionary task of the church, and the hope of the new heaven and new earth.

三、本书梗概

 The Plan of This Book

为了让读者初尝这“两国论”的滋味，了解它如何融入波澜壮阔的圣经历史，以及为什么它对基督徒的日常生活如此实际，我现在要简单描述本书的论证，以及它是如何在接下来几章里展现的。每次我们开始察验一种陌生观念，认识大画面会对我们有所帮助。因此在第一部分，我会把镜头调到最广角，通过保罗对横跨整个历史的那两位亚当的描述来看人类的文化这一问题。首先的亚当，当然就是创世记前几章描写的起初那人，我要在第二章关注他。神按他的形像造了亚当和夏娃，让他们完成一项任务：生养众多，管理全地。因此在历史开始的时候，神向人类颁布了一项文化任务，而且神把目标和奖赏摆在首先的亚当面前。如果亚当忠心顺服神的命令，完成这任务，神就要把他带进一个新的创造（新约圣经称为“那将来的世界”，或“新天新地”），远超亚当原初受造所进入的那愉悦和无罪世界。通过一个神圣盟约，亚当公义的文化工作要让他在这末世性的将来世界中有份。但亚当堕落犯罪，让当今的世界一头落入罪和悲惨的光景。

In order to give readers an initial taste of what this two-kingdoms doctrine is, how it fits into the grand sweep of biblical history, and why it is so eminently practical for daily Christian life, I now briefly describe the argument of this book and how it unfolds in the following chapters. Whenever we begin to examine an unfamiliar idea, it is helpful to get a sense of the big picture. Hence, in part 1, I set the camera lens at its widest possible angle, looking at the question of human culture by means of Paul’s description of the two Adams that stride across all of history. The first Adam is of course the original human person described in the early chapters of Genesis, and I focus upon him in chapter 2. God created Adam and Eve in his image and gave them a task to accomplish: to be fruitful and multiply and to exercise dominion over the earth. At the dawn of history, therefore, God gave a cultural task to the human race. What is more, God set a goal and reward before the first Adam. If he completed his cultural Introduction task through faithful obedience to God’s commands, God would have brought Adam into a new creation (what the New Testament calls the “world to come” or “the new heaven and new earth”) far surpassing the delightful and sinless world into which Adam was originally created. By a divine covenant, Adam’s righteous cultural labors would have earned him a share in the eschatological worldto-come. Instead, Adam fell into sin and plunged the present world into a state of sin and misery. The first Adam failed terribly, but God sent a second and last Adam into the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter 3 tells the main points of this wonderful biblical story. Christ the last Adam not only took upon himself the penalty of the first Adam’s sin, but also took upon himself the responsibility of fulfilling Adam’s original task. Christ offered perfect obedience in this world to his Father, and was exalted to his right hand as a result. The Lord Jesus, as a human being—as the last Adam—has attained the original goal held out for Adam: a glorified life ruling the world-to-come. Because Jesus has fulfilled the first Adam’s commission, those who belong to Christ by faith are no longer given that commission. Christians already possess eternal life and claim an everlasting inheritance. God does not call them to engage in cultural labors so as to earn their place in the world-to-come. We are not little Adams. Instead, God gives us a share in the world-to-come as a gift of free grace in Christ and then calls us to live obediently in this world as a grateful response. Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once and for all by Christ, the last Adam. Cultural activity remains important for Christians, but it will come to an abrupt end, along with this present world as a whole, when Christ returns and cataclysmically ushers in the new heaven and new earth.

第一位亚当大大失败，但神派遣第二位、那末后的亚当进入世界，就是主耶稣基督。第三章讲的就是这奇妙圣经故事的要点。基督这末后的亚当不仅把对首先的亚当罪的刑罚取过来放在自己身上，而且也亲身承担并完成了亚当原初任务的责任。基督在这世界上向他的父献上完美的顺服，结果得以高升坐在父的右边。主耶稣作为一个人，作为末后的亚当，已经实现了为亚当设立的原初目标，就是得荣耀的生命，治理那将来的世界。因耶稣已完成第一位亚当的使命，神就不再向因着信属于基督的人颁布这使命。基督徒已经得着永生，有份于那直到永远的基业。神并没有呼召他们投入文化工作，以此赚取在那将来世界的地位。我们并不是一个个小亚当。神让我们在那将来的世界有份，这是在基督里白白的恩典，然后呼吁我们在这世界上过顺服的生活，以此感恩回应。我们的文化活动在任何意义上都不引入新的创造，这新的创造已经由基督这末后的亚当一次永远赚取获得。文化活动对基督徒来说仍很重要，但在基督再来，引入新天新地时，文化活动会连同整个当今世界一同戛然而止。

The first Adam failed terribly, but God sent a second and last Adam into the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter 3 tells the main points of this wonderful biblical story. Christ the last Adam not only took upon himself the penalty of the first Adam’s sin, but also took upon himself the responsibility of fulfilling Adam’s original task. Christ offered perfect obedience in this world to his Father, and was exalted to his right hand as a result. The Lord Jesus, as a human being—as the last Adam—has attained the original goal held out for Adam: a glorified life ruling the world-to-come. Because Jesus has fulfilled the first Adam’s commission, those who belong to Christ by faith are no longer given that commission. Christians already possess eternal life and claim an everlasting inheritance. God does not call them to engage in cultural labors so as to earn their place in the world-to-come. We are not little Adams. Instead, God gives us a share in the world-to-come as a gift of free grace in Christ and then calls us to live obediently in this world as a grateful response. Our cultural activities do not in any sense usher in the new creation. The new creation has been earned and attained once and for all by Christ, the last Adam. Cultural activity remains important for Christians, but it will come to an abrupt end, along with this present world as a whole, when Christ returns and cataclysmically ushers in the new heaven and new earth.

在第一部分让人看到圣经故事中人类文化的这一大画面之后，第二部份继续查考同一个主题，但会更详细查考神百姓在亚当堕落和基督再来之间的经历。我在第四章要贯穿旧约圣经追溯这故事的发展。在人堕落犯罪之后，神立即让女人的后裔和蛇的后裔彼此为仇。不仅神应许一位救主克服堕落的影响，而且也命定，在因信属他的人和继续受撒但奴役的人之间将有一场根深蒂固的冲突。相信的人和不信的人，在对神、道德和永恒的基本看法和态度方面存在着一种根本的对立，这种对立在该隐和亚伯的故事中清楚显明。连同这对立，神也在这世界上命定一种共性的元素。在肉眼看来，信与不信的对立常常并不明显。相信的人和不信的人共同分享许多事情，在文化生活的许多领域一同工作（虽然他们在最重要的事情上有根本分歧）。在许多文化工作方面，不信的人甚至超越相信的人。对立和共性这双重现实，就是两个国度的起源。神在创世记开始的地方立了两个约，这两个国度就是通过这两个约建立起来的。神与挪亚立约，由此与全人类（也与整个受造界）建立约的关系，应许要保守例如繁衍和寻求公义这样的受造界文化活动，“一般性国度”就这样正式建立起来。与之形成对比的是，神与亚伯拉罕立约，由此与一群选民建立约的关系，赐予他们因信而来的永远的救恩，因此把他们与其余的人类分别出来，“救赎性国度”就这样正式建立。神的百姓因此蒙召在两个约中，就是在两个国度中生活。一方面他们尊重挪亚之约的条件，与不信的人一道从事不同的文化活动。另一方面，他们接受亚伯拉罕恩典之约的条件，紧紧抓住得救和在新创造中永远活着的应许，聚集成为有别于不信之世人的敬拜群体。亚伯拉罕和以色列人被掳巴比伦（而不是以色列在应许之地）的经历，特别体现出旧约圣经中这种两个国度的生活之道。

After part 1 provides this big-picture view of human culture in the biblical story, part 2 examines the same topic but with a more detailed examination of the experience of God’s people between the fall of Adam and the second coming of Christ. In chapter 4 I trace this story through the Old Testament. Immediately after the fall into sin, God placed enmity between the seed of the woman and Introduction the seed of Satan. Not only did God promise a Savior who would overturn the effects of the fall, but he also decreed that there would be a deep-seated conflict between those who belong to him by faith and those who remain enslaved to Satan. A fundamental antithesis exists between believer and unbeliever in their basic perspective and attitude toward God, morality, and eternity, and this antithesis manifested itself clearly in the story of Cain and Abel. But alongside this antithesis God also ordained an element of commonality in the world. The antithesis between belief and unbelief would often not be evident to the naked eye. Believers and unbelievers would share many things in common and work together in many areas of cultural life (despite their fundamental disagreements about the most important things). Unbelievers would even surpass believers in many cultural pursuits. In this dual reality of antithesis and commonality lies the origin of the two kingdoms. Early in Genesis God established two covenants, by which the two kingdoms were formally established. In his covenant with Noah God entered covenantal relationship with the entire human race (and with the entire creation), promising to preserve its cultural activities such as procreating and securing justice. This was the formal establishment of the “common kingdom.” In his covenant with Abraham, in contrast, God entered covenantal relationship with a chosen people, upon whom he bestows eternal salvation by faith, thereby distinguishing them from the rest of the human race. This was the formal establishment of the “redemptive kingdom.” God’s people are thus called to live under both covenants—that is, in two kingdoms. On the one hand, they respect the terms of the Noahic covenant as they pursue a variety of cultural activities in common with unbelievers. On the other hand, they embrace the terms of the Abrahamic covenant of grace as they cling to the promises of salvation and eternal life in a new creation and as they gather in worshiping communities distinguished from the unbelieving world. The experiences of Abraham and of the Israelite exiles in Babylon (though not of Israel in the Promised Land) especially exemplify the two-kingdoms way of life in the Old Testament.

第五章延续讲述这故事在新约圣经中的展现。通过基督的降临和他的生平、死亡、复活及升天，神的应许成就了。这位末后的亚当除去了他百姓的罪，代替他们遵行神的律法（就如第一位亚当本应做的那样），进入那将来的世界，达至人原初的命定。他在地上事奉期间宣告他的国度降临，现在召聚他的百姓进入一个世界范围的教会，在当今的世代享受那国度的团契。因此新约圣经表明神的百姓是站在永恒的边缘，在新创造的前端。但新约圣经也把目前的时候说成是受苦的时候，使用了像“被掳的人”、“客旅”、“寄居”这样的说法描写基督徒，让人想起在亚伯拉罕和被掳巴比伦的日子。基督徒生活在两个国度之下，这两个国度各自受挪亚之约和亚伯拉罕之约规范。民事政府、家庭、经济方面的交往，以及许多其他文化制度在挪亚之约下继续存在，基督徒和非基督徒同样参与其中，在许多方面相互合作。基督再来时，这些制度和活动要突然和从根本上被终止。但基督徒特别属于教会——在亚伯拉罕那里创造的特别的约的群体，其在新约的彰显就是教会——通过教会，他们现在就是天上的国民。教会——当今世代神救赎的国度，有一种与众分别的成员身份、信仰、敬拜和道德伦理。当它的生活之道面对这世界的各种文化时，就彰显出一种“反文化”。教会等候基督再来，那是一个荣耀完满的日子，那时新娘要面对面见到她的新郎，被迎接进入羔羊的婚筵。

Chapter 5 continues to chart this story as it unfolds in the New Testament. Through the coming of Christ and his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, the promises of God came to fulfillment. The last Adam took away the sins of his people, fulfilled God’s law in their place (as the first Adam should have done), and entered into the world-to-come, attaining the original human destiny. He announced the coming of his kingdom during his earthly ministry and is now gathering his people into a worldwide church to enjoy the fellowship of that kingdom in the present age. The New Testament thus presents God’s people as standing on the very brink of eternity, at the cusp of the new creation. But it also speaks of the present time as one of suffering and uses terms such as “exile,” “alien,” and “sojourner” to describe Christians, thus recollecting the days of Abraham and the Babylonian captivity. Christians live under two kingdoms, governed respectively by the Noahic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant. Civil governments, families, economic associations, and many other cultural institutions continue to exist under the covenant with Noah, and Christians and non-Christians alike participate in them and, in many respects, cooperate in their activities. At Christ’s return these institutions and activities will come to a sudden and radical end. Yet Christians belong especially to the church, the New Testament manifestation of the special covenant community created in Abraham. Through the church they are citizens of heaven even now. This church—God’s redemptive kingdom in the present age—has a distinct membership, faith, worship, and ethic. Its way of life displays a counterculture to the cultures of this world. The church awaits the coming of Christ as a day of glorious consummation, when the bride will see her bridegroom face-to-face as she is ushered into the wedding banquet of the Lamb.

最后，我在第三部分转来看一些具体实际的问题，探索在两个国度活出基督徒人生的具体应用。首先，第六章表明教会是“救赎性国度”在当前的显明。我在此捍卫这一断言，就是教会的生活和事工，而不是“一般性国度”的文化生活和活动，才是基督徒生活的核心。教会特别通过它的敬拜和欢庆守主日，在当今世界上预先尝到新创造的滋味。在各方面，教会的文化都有别于“一般性国度”的文化。与“一般性国度”的各种制度不同，教会是依据一种饶恕的伦理生活，这伦理超越对公义的诉求；教会是依据一种慷慨的伦理生活，不受稀缺的经济资源约束；教会依据一种使命性的传福音，不胁迫人加入。教会办理“救赎性国度”的事务，并不践踏“一般性国度”制度的权威。与其他这些制度不同，教会的权柄唯独出于圣经。

Finally, in part 3 I turn to some concrete, practical issues that explore the implications of living the Christian life in two kingdoms. First, chapter 6 addresses the church as the present manifestation of the redemptive kingdom. Here I defend the claim that the life and ministry of the church—rather than the cultural life and activities of the common kingdom—stand at the heart of the Christian life. Especially through its worship and celebration of the Lord’s Introduction Day, the church experiences a foretaste of the new creation in the present world. In all sorts of ways the church has a culture distinct from the cultures of the common kingdom. Unlike the institutions of the common kingdom, the church lives by an ethic of forgiveness that transcends the claims of justice, by an ethic of generosity that defies the scarcity of economic resources, and by a missionary evangelism that shuns coercion. The church attends to the business of the redemptive kingdom and does not trample on the authority of common kingdom institutions. Unlike these other institutions, its authority derives from the Scriptures alone.

第七章作为最后一章继续讨论“两国论”对基督徒生活的实际应用。我反思三个重要和富有争议性的文化领域：教育、工作和政治。对于所有这些活动圣经都有教导，因此为基督徒提供了一种看待这些领域的正确视角，并为在当中的参与设立了清楚界限。但圣经只是从广泛方面论述这些问题。基督徒总是有义务遵守圣经对这些活动的教训，但在圣经沉默的地方，基督徒必须行使自己的智慧，在具体处境中作出敬虔的决定。另外，虽然教育、工作和政治是不同的活动，要求对它们作各自不同的分析，但却都涉及到在挪亚之约下的“一般性国度”的生活，要求基督徒在某种程度上与不信的人一同从事这些方面的工作。学习、工作和投票并不是独特的基督徒使命，而是共同的任务。在主观方面，基督徒应有别于不信的人：基督徒凡事凭对基督的信心，为要荣耀基督。但作为一种客观事物，“一般性国度”中的道德和卓越标准一般而言对相信的人和不信的人都是一样的：他们共同遵循这些标准，在挪亚之约中顺服神的权柄。

The final chapter, chapter 7, continues this discussion of the practical implications of the two-kingdoms doctrine for the Christian life. I reflect upon three important and controversial areas of culture: education, work, and politics. Scripture speaks about all of these activities and thus provides Christians with a proper perspective on them and clear boundaries for participating in them. But Scripture addresses these issues only in a broad and general way. Christians are always obligated to follow Scripture’s instructions about these activities, but where Scripture is silent Christians must exercise their own wisdom to make godly decisions in concrete circumstances. Furthermore, though education, work, and politics are distinct activities that require their own separate analysis, they all involve the life of the common kingdom under the Noahic covenant and require Christians, to some degree or another, to work alongside unbelievers in pursuing them. Learning, working, and voting are not uniquely Christian tasks, but common tasks. Christians should always be distinguished from unbelievers subjectively: they do all things by faith in Christ and for his glory. But as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers: they share these standards in common under God’s authority in the covenant with Noah.

概括而言，这就是本书的梗概。本书叙述了神如何对待这世界，愿他藉此得荣耀。愿神的百姓在以智慧和卓越从事文化事业时得鼓励，更多地信靠基督全备的工作，在这邪恶的世代，在教会中预先尝到天国的滋味，因此而有极大的喜乐，并且内心迫切盼望一个新世代的破晓，那时基督再来，新天新地要完全荣耀地彰显。

That, in summary, is the plan of this book. May God be honored in this account of his ways of dealing with this world. May his people be encouraged, as they pursue their cultural tasks with wisdom and excellence, ever more to trust in Christ’s all-sufficient work, Introduction to revel in the church as a foretaste of the kingdom of heaven in an evil age, and to look forward with eager hearts to the dawn of a new age, when Christ returns and the new heaven and new earth are revealed in all their glory.

[1] 本文是David VanDrunen的专著Living in God’s Two Kingdoms-a biblical vision for Christianity and culture一书的导言部分。——编者注

[2] 关于“文化”一词的说明：术语有时不易处理。我会在脚注中讨论了例如“转变”和“俗”这些内涵丰富的术语，它们有各种不同的含义，有不同的用法。我尽可能让这本书讲的是实质的观念，而非术语，因此很重要的就是，我要澄清我对某些可能引人误解的术语的用法。贯穿本书我使用的两个这种术语，就是“文化”和“文化的”。在广义上，“文化”指的是所有不同的人类活动和它们的产品，以及我们解释它们的方法和描述它们的语言。解释和语言，和产品本身一样，是文化至关重要的组成部分，因为同样的产品在不同的处境中可能发挥非常不一样的功能。按文化的这种广义含义，我们所做的一切，无论是高尚文化或通俗文化活动，还是像刷牙这样的平淡任务，实际上都是“文化的”。不仅民族、国家，并且社区、大学、运动协会、家庭、教会和各种各样其他事情都有各自的文化，而这些文化又常常是重叠的。我在一本像这样的书中，并不是以过分精准或专业的方式使用“文化”这术语。我用这说法首要来指人类参与的范围广阔的活动，如科学、艺术、经济活动等等。在本书副标题出现的“基督教与文化”这流行说法，只是用来指我们思想基督徒和教会应如何与人类文化这些广阔活动打交道，基督教信仰如何影响我们对这些活动的解释时出现的各种问题。

[3] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, New York: Harper, 1951, p.2.

[4] “转变”一词有不同含义，我认为基督徒应转变文化，意思就是他们要卓越地开展文化活动，正确诠释这些活动，以此对这世界产生一种有益的影响。但我在本书批判一种转变文化的观念，这种观念暗示基督徒应“救赎”文化，他们敬虔的文化产品要融入那新的创造。

[5] 关于支持这种历史主张的详细论证，请参考David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, chaps. 2-6. 我要向感兴趣的读者澄清一件事，就是我认为奥古斯丁的“两座城”与我在本书讨论的“两个国度”指的不是同样的事情。两者都是合乎圣经的概念，都应坚持，但它们描述的并不是相同的现实。简单来说，奥古斯丁在《上帝之城》中描写了两座城，一座由真信徒组成，终将得到永远的祝福，而另一座城由不信的人组成，注定要被永远定罪。每一个人都是一座城的国民，虽然这两座城在这当今世界必然有所交集。我写作的立场是改革宗思想，它理解这两个国度是神的国度。神治理万有，但用两种根本不同的方法治理这世界的事务。因此基督徒是两个“国度”、但只是一座“城”的国民。圣经所作的另一个重要区别，就是在“两个世代”之间的区别——这世代和那将来的世代，这在保罗书信中是一个重要主题。我认为保罗在两个世代之间所作的区分也有别于两个国度之间的区分，但它们是可比较的，因这两种区分都是正确的。两国论首要解释的是神治理这当今世界的双重方法，而两个世代的教义首要讲的，是在这世界和那将来世界之间末世论方面的区分与张力。两个国度都是正当和神所命定的（虽然在这世界被罪败坏），但保罗对“这世代”的阐述聚焦的是它邪恶和属魔鬼的特征，以及它悖逆神（例如见林后4:4；加1:4；弗2:2）。因此在罗马书 12:2，保罗劝勉基督徒不要效法这世代，他是从两个世代的角度思想问题；而在罗马书13:1-7，保罗劝勉基督徒顺服民事当局，看他们是神设立的神的官员，他是从两个国度的角度思考。

[6] 我在本书第二部分进一步阐述“巴比伦”这主题，其他近期部分通过圣经“巴比伦”这主题反思基督教与文化的作者，请见Richard John Neuhaus, American Babylon: Notes of a Christian Exile, New York: Basic, 2009 and Jason J. Stellman, Dual Citizens: Worship and Life between the Already and the Not Yet, Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2009. 奥古斯丁很久之前也用过巴比伦这主题，例如见《上帝之城》，19.26。

[7] 见VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 第七和第九章。我在这些章节中比这里更学术性详细讨论了新加尔文主义。

[8] 例如，请留意麦拉伦在Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope，Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, 第十五章表达了对赖特的感激。新加尔主义者最近几本著作也表达了对赖特的感激，例如Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 2d ed. ,Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, p.127; Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story ,Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004, pp.13, 21,197, 199. 以及Michael W. Goheen and Craig G. Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, pp.4,107, 144。

[9] Bartholomew and Goheen, Living at the Crossroads, p.16.

[10] 以下对沃尔特斯著作的引文出自这本书的初版：Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002。

[11] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, xv. 普兰丁格围绕创造、堕落和救赎这些主题安排他著作的章节。也见Wolters, Creation Regained, pp.10-11, 以及他的章节划分。

[12] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, p.33. 在这一点上也请参考Wolters, Creation Regained, pp.37-41。

[13] Wolters, Creation Regained, 11, pp.57-60.

[14] Ibid.,pp.63-64.

[15] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, pp.109-13.

[16] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future ,Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, p.287.

[17] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, pp.137-38.

[18] 虽然“两个领域”可以很简单成为“两个国度”的同义词，沃尔特斯可能有类似看法，但读者应留意，沃尔特斯从未具体论述本书捍卫的那种两个国度的观点。

[19] 例如见Wolters, Creation Regained, pp.10-11, pp.53-58, pp.65, 74; Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, pp.96,123; 以及 Bartholomew and Goheen, Living at the Crossroads, pp.64-65, 135。

[20] 例如见Bartholomew and Goheen, Living at the Crossroads, p.52。

[21] 同情保罗新观的重要著述包括，N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle，Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998; 以及N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective,Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 批判保罗新观的重要著作有，Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response ,Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004;以及Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics ,Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004，中译本：魏斯特鸿，《保罗神学：新旧观》，麦种传道会。

[22] 例如见加尔文，《基督教要义》，3.19。也见David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and the Ordo Salutis: Life beyond Judgment and the Question of a Dual Ethic,” Westminster Theological Journal 70, Fall 2008: pp.207-24中的讨论。

[23] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church, New York: HarperOne, 2008, p.5.

[24] Ibid., pp.15,17, 19, 80,91, 104–5, 148, 194.

[25] Ibid., pp.18, 80, 88–91, 104.

[26] Ibid., p.26.

[27] Ibid., pp.26-27,  90, 192.

[28] Ibid., pp.93-97.

[29] Ibid., p.18.

[30] Ibid., p.46.

[31] Ibid., p.200, 202.

[32] Ibid., p.193.

[33] Ibid., pp.208-209.

[34] Ibid., pp.193, 212-230.

[35] 两本对新兴基督教运动进行批判性描述和剖析的著作，就是David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 魏尔斯，《勇守真道——后现代社会中热爱真理的教会、营销型教会及新兴教会》，改革宗翻译社；以及Kevin De Young and Ted Kluck, Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, Chicago: Moody, 2008.

[36] McLaren, Everything Must Change, pp. 3-4, 18–19, 77-80，以及其他地方。

[37] Ibid., pp.81-83。

[38] 例如见上述著作整体第九章（具体72-73页）。这本书反复提到“转变”这说法。

[39] Ibid., p.129.

[40] Ibid., p.21.

[41] Ibid., p.296.

[42] 请见VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 第二至三章的讨论。对于当中讨论的很重要的第一手资料来源，请见奥古斯丁《上帝之城》卷19，路德著名的专著，《世俗的权柄：人对其顺服要到什么程度》（Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed），以及加尔文《基督教要义》3.19.15-16以及4.20.1。

[43] 使用“俗”（secular）这词形容一般性国度，这会是恰当的做法。“俗”不一定非要是一个不好的词不可。拉丁文saeculum这词意思很简单，就是“一个世代”，许多作者 （包括基督教作者）使用“俗”这说法指当今这世界的事务（与基督再来之后那将来世界的事务作比较）。虽然为了免遭误解，我在本书避免使用“俗”这词，但我认为，按此意义有限制地使用这词，可以对人有所帮助。