荷兰新加尔文主义及转变论的根源DutchNeo-Calvinism and the Roots for Transformation: An Introductory Essay

作者: William D. Dennison  译者/校对者: 述宁/和卫

https://reformedforum.org/ctc497/

https://www.churchchina.org/archives/180105.html

引言

卡尔·贝克尔（Carl Becker）1931年在耶鲁大学法学院所作的著名演讲中表示，启蒙运动的著名思想家（如伏尔泰、狄德罗和卢梭）企图拆除奥古斯丁的上帝之城，却是用现代的材料来重建它。根据我的判断，贝克尔的论点正确地对比了欧洲中世纪基督教与法国启蒙哲学家关于生活的末世论态度的不同。对中世纪欧洲的普通信徒来说，这个世界并不是自己的家园，信徒期待来世（the next world）在基督里的完全（perfectibility）。与此相反，启蒙运动的哲学家们则通过对道德和社会制度进行彻底改造，来推进他们自己关于进步和人性完全（perfectibility）的信念。对于启蒙哲学家们来说，追求现代性（modernity）就是将伊甸园和永恒的天上之城的圣经观念，彻底地转变成一个尘世中的平等社会和文化乌托邦。在他们看来，未来（future，指向“后世”，即posterity）会理性地、自然地带来这种转变（transformation）。因此，哲学家常常充满敬畏地讨论“后世”，好像它是神祗或者祈祷的对象一样。的确，他们对现代性的追求将会实现。中世纪基督教主导世界的地位将会被颠覆，并且被转变成为、自由、平等和博爱的世界。对于他们来说，现代性的进程已经开始了：太阳而非地球是宇宙的中心（哥白尼革命），自然受它自身内在的力量控制（牛顿继承了卢克莱修），科学探索让人类聚焦于这个世界而非来世，对“原罪”的驱逐使得对完美人性的期待从可能性成为现实。通过清除宗教或基督教新教的各个教派，以及营造出一种人类从未经历过的宽容气氛，战争也可以停止（这是赫伯特勋爵所提议的）。因此，这种新的理性人文主义已经创造了地球上最好的世界。

In his famous lectures delivered at the Yale University School of Law in 1931, Carl Becker maintained that the prominent thinkers in the Enlightenment (e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau) attempted to demolish the heavenly city of St. Augustine only to rebuilt it with modern materials. 2  In my judgment, Becker’s thesis correctly contrasted the eschatological approach to life found in medieval Christian Europe and the eschatological approach to life found in the French philosophes. For the common believer in medieval Europe, this world is not one’s home; rather, the believer looks forward to ˜nal perfectibility in Christ in the next world. In contrast, the philosophes of the Enlightenment advanced their own doctrine of progress and perfectibility of humanity through a radical regeneration of morality and social institutions.3  For the philosophes the quest for modernity was to transform the Biblical notion of the Garden of Eden and the eternal heavenly city into an earthly egalitarian society and cultural utopia. 4 In their estimation, the future  (posterity) would rationally and naturally bring this transformation. For this reason, “posterity” was often reverently addressed by the philosophes as a divinity as well as an object of prayer. 5  Indeed, the quest for modernity will be realized; the dominance of the medieval Christian world will be uprooted and transformed into the world of fraternity, liberty, and equality. For them, the process towards modernity had begun: the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe (Copernican revolution), nature is controlled by its own inherent power (Newton following Lucretius), exploration focused human attention on this world and not the next world, the expulsion of original sin made the perfectibility of humanity a realized possibility, war can possibly cease by getting rid of religious sects or Christian Protestant denominations—creating an air of tolerance never experienced by humanity (Lord Herbert of Cherbury’s proposal)—and hence, the new rational humanism has created the best of all possible worlds here on earth.

当启蒙运动的最初发起者们呼吁根据他们关于“后世”的愿景来重构所有的社会制度时，他们迫使基督教在欧洲的疆域进入了防御姿态。现在，基督教的突出地位正受到启蒙的现代性的攻击。为了维持其突出的地位，整个欧洲的基督徒尝试按照基督教的原则来重构欧洲的文化和社会，以此来回应挑战，从而维护自身。在这场争夺西方文化的斗争中，许多基督徒意识到，他们无法回到古代政权（ancient regime）的封建主义社会。相反，在重商主义向资本主义过渡、民主思想兴起、工业化爆发、全球市场经济的好处日益增加的背景下，许多基督徒适应了这个世界中的现代化进步潮流，同时最大限度地减少对来世奖赏的追求。在此，他们开始强调上帝的国度存在于当下的时代中。基督教末世论的未来构想越来越多地被移入到当下世界，而且不仅仅是基于释经和神学的原因，也是出于社会—政治—经济的原因。

As the Enlightenment fathers called for reconstruction of all social institutions on the basis of their vision of posterity, they left Christianity’s foothold upon the European landscape in a defensive posture. The prominence of Christianity was now being attacked by enlightened modernity. In order to maintain a place of prominence, Christians throughout Europe accepted the challenge to defend themselves by attempting to reconstruct European culture and society upon Christian principles. In this battle for western culture, many Christians realized that they could not return to the feudal society of the  ancien regime . Rather, in the context of the transition from mercantilism to capitalism, the rising tide of democratic ideals, the burst of industrialization, and the increasing bene˜ts of a global market economy, many Christians adapted to the progressive tide of modernization in this world while minimizing any quest for reward in the next world. 7  Herein, they began to stress the presence of the kingdom of God in the present age. Increasingly, the Christian conception of the eschatological future moved into the present world, not solely on the basis of exegetical and theological reasons, but for social-political-economic reasons.

具体而言，由于基督教受到启蒙了的世俗主义的挑战，许多基督徒尝试着将他们自己的末世社会文化理论应用在现代城市的蓝图上，从而重掌欧洲文化。这些基督徒呼吁，通过重新发现、执行和遵守创造秩序的规范，可以将现代城市转变成锡安。因此，贝克尔的观点向前推进了一步：如果说哲学家们是在用现代的材料重建圣奥古斯丁的天上之城，那么许多基督徒则是在试图用基督教的材料重建现代城市。但是在这种背景下，启蒙运动却已经设计好了末世城市的基础结构。即使基督教也会放弃其对来世的渴望，以便从异教徒那里夺取这个世界的后世。对许多基督徒来说，新天新地将出现在今世中；而启蒙运动后的基督教的天上之城则是当下世界的延续。逐渐地，在十九世纪和二十世纪期间，启蒙运动的遗产和基督教的传统都渴望掌控文化，即我们所看到的这个世界！荷兰新加尔文主义是这场文化战斗的参与者，但在我看来，启蒙运动的末世论愿景的基础已经逐渐笼罩了新加尔文主义的末世论愿景。

Speci˜cally, as Christianity accepted the challenge of enlightened secularism, many Christians tried to reclaim European culture by attempting to place their own eschatological socio-cultural theory upon the blueprint of the modern city. These Christians called for transforming the modern city into Zion by rediscovering, implementing and following the norms of the creation order. Hence, Becker’s thesis advances one step: if the philosophes rebuilt St. Augustine’s heavenly city with modern materials, then many Christians responded by attempting to rebuild the modern city with Christian materials. In this context, however, the Enlightenment had designed the foundational structures of the eschatological city. Even Christianity would relinquish her desire for the next world in order to claim the posterity of this world from the heathen. For many Christians, the new heaven and earth will take place in this world; the celestial city of Post-Enlightenment Christianity will exist in continuity with the present earth. Increasingly, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, both the legacy of the Enlightenment and the heritage of Christianity desired the thrill of possessing the culture—this world as we see it! Dutch neo-Calvinism has participated in this cultural battle, but it seems to me that the underpinnings of the eschatological vision of the Enlightenment have increasingly encompassed the eschatological vision of neo-Calvinism.

十九世纪的荷兰新加尔文主义

 II. NINETEENTH-CENTURY DUTCH NEO-CALVINISM

荷兰新加尔文主义运动试图抵制启蒙运动对欧洲的社会、文化和宗教的影响，并因此确立了其作为复兴历史性加尔文主义的身份。这场运动主要是与亚伯拉罕·凯波尔（Abraham Kuyper，1837-1920年）这个名字联系在一起的。新加尔文主义这个词最初是由凯波尔的反对者所创造的，但后来被他和他的追随者所接受，因为他们认为他们在自己身处的文化中发展了古典加尔文主义。十九世纪，新加尔文主义运动提出了针对罗马天主教思想和现代世俗思想的改革原则，它的特点主要可以表述为在圣经光照之下形成的涵盖一切的世界观。也许，这个运动最初阶段的关键人物是历史学家和政治家葛瑞恩（Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer，1801-1876年）。1847年他在“不信与革命”的讲座中指出，启蒙运动的知识革命颠覆了欧洲社会的属灵基础。在他看来，启蒙运动以一种新的自由观念攻击了欧洲文明的基督教根基，这种新的自由观在自治的和个体的理性主义的新根基上重建了一切，包括宗教、道德、国家和文化。也许更重要的是，启蒙运动不仅攻击了欧洲文化的基督教根基，而且也攻击了整个人类历史的根基，因为葛瑞恩认为：“基督教是所有宗教启蒙的源泉”。

The Dutch neo-Calvinist movement established its identity as a revival of historic Calvinism in an attempt to counter the social, cultural and religious eˆects of enlightened Europe. The movement was chie˘y associated with the name of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920). The term, neo-Calvinism, was originally coined, however, by Kuyper’s opponents but was accepted by him and his followers, who viewed themselves as developing classical Calvinism in the culture surrounding them.8 In the nineteenth century the neoCalvinist movement posited its reformational principles over against Roman Catholic thought and modern secular thought, and it was characterized chie˘y by its all-embracing worldview, shaped by the light of Scripture.9 Perhaps the key player at the initial stage of this movement was the historian and statesman, Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer (1801–1876), who in his lectures Unbelief and Revolution (1847) maintained that the intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment had subverted the spiritual foundation of European society 10 In his estimation, the Enlightenment had attacked the Christian foundations of European civilization with a new view of liberty which would reconstruct everything upon a new foundation of autonomous and individual rationality, including religion, morality, state and culture. Perhaps more importantly, the Enlightenment not only attacked the Christian foundations of European culture, but it also attacked the foundation of the entire scope of human history since Groen held that “Christianity is the source of all religious enlightenment.”11

对于葛瑞恩来说，欧洲文化和人类历史的犹太—基督教根基危在旦夕。范戴克（Van Dyke）正确分析了葛瑞恩的忧虑：

For Groen, the Judaeo-Christian foundation of European culture and human history was at stake. Van Dyke correctly analyzes Groen’s concern:

革命在这里没有消失，在范围和强度上会变得更加严重，除非可以说服人们回到基督教信仰，执行诫命并服从福音，从而对人类生活和文明社会产生全面的影响。除非出现这样的复兴，不然未来将属于社会主义和共产主义；而在这方面，两者都是新的世俗宗教中最为系统的派别。

Revolutions are here to stay and will grow much worse in scope and intensity unless men can be persuaded to return to Christianity, to practice its precepts and to obey the Gospel in its full implications for human life and civilized society. Barring such a revival, the future would belong to socialism and communism, which on this view were but the most consistent sects of the new secular religion.

因此，范戴克指出，葛瑞恩在“不信和革命”讲座的结尾发出了一个强烈的邀请：整个欧洲的基督教信徒都应当来抵制世俗革命，并按着反革命（anti-revolutionary）的和基督教历史的路线，在政治上组织一个激进的可选方案。简而言之，葛瑞恩想要转变、恢复和重建欧洲，使它成为一个涵盖一切的（holistic）基督教文化。具体来说，就是要形成一种有效的基督教的反向革命运动（counter-revolution），为要在地上建立上帝的国度（基督教的乌托邦）。

Hence, Van Dyke points out that Groen’s  Unbelief and Revolution ends with a compelling invitation; Christians throughout Europe are to resist the secular revolution and to work for a radical alternative in politics along anti-revolutionary and Christian-historical lines. 13 Simply, Groen wanted to transform, restore and reconstruct Europe into a holistic Christian culture. Speci˜cally, an eˆective Christian counter-revolution called for the construction of the kingdom of God on earth (a Christian utopia).14

葛瑞恩改造荷兰和欧洲的观点是建立在他的历史哲学观基础之上。特别是，经验（自然）和上帝圣言的历史启示提供了解释历史知识的事实。在我看来，这里出现了葛瑞恩的史学的一个困境。他抨击启蒙运动思想家自主地运用理性、自然和经验来鼓吹无神论，但他同时却赞扬古典思想家（如苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德和西塞罗）以及现代思想家（如笛卡儿、培根、莱布尼茨）使用理性、自然和经验来支持有神论。通过这种方法论途径，葛瑞恩依靠古典的和启蒙前的有神论者的经验来讲述文化和社会制度的真理，却没有指出其观点也是以理性、自然和经验为前提假设的。因为葛瑞恩没有彻底地批判被他称为盟友的思想前提，作为文化重建者，他的欧洲文化的观念实际上和那些他试图谴责的启蒙运动无神论者的视野结构有着同样的逻辑。事实上，柏拉图在葛瑞恩的思想中举足轻重。所以，如果没有柏拉图的神权政治理论，他就不能分析处理荷兰的现状。对葛瑞恩来说：

Groen’s view to reclaim Holland and Europe was based upon his philosophy of history. 15  Particularly, experience (nature) and the historical revelation of the Word of God present the facts by which one accounts for historical knowledge. In my judgment, herein lies a di¯cult dilemma in Groen’s historiography. He attacked the autonomous use of reason, nature and experience in the Enlightenment ˜gures that propagated atheism, whereas he applauded classical ˜gures (e.g. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero) as well as modern ˜gures (e.g. Descartes, Bacon and Leibniz) who submitted reason, nature and experience to theism. 16  By means of this methodological procedure, Groen depended upon the experience of classical and preEnlightenment theists to unfold the truth of cultural and societal institutions without uncovering their presuppositions of reason, nature and experience. Since Groen did not apply a consistent presuppositional critique to his declared allies, his restorationist’s view of European culture followed the horizontal structure of the Enlightenment atheists he wished to condemn. In fact, Plato played such an in˘uential role in Groen’s thought that he could not address his present situation in Holland without Plato’s theocracy. For Groen:

柏拉图式的神权政治是教会与国家的结合;希腊的城邦或国家就是荷兰改革宗教会;永恒的理念对应上帝无误的圣言；以及哲学的亮光对应圣灵的见证；法律是信仰的认信；柏拉图的法规对应教会的纪律；柏拉图的长老们训练年轻人合宜地跳舞和唱歌，与此相对应的则是荷兰的神职人员用《海德堡教理问答》教导年轻人。

The Platonic theocracy was the union of Church and State; the Greek city or state was the Dutch Reformed Church; the eternal ideas, the infallible Word of God, and the light of Philosophy, the  Testimonium Spiritus Sancti ; the Laws was the Confession of Faith; the Platonic regulations, ecclesiastical discipline; while Plato’s elders, training the young in measured dance and song, were the Dutch clergy instructing them in the Heidelberg Catechism. 17

在这种理解的基础上，葛瑞恩似乎试图以一个柏拉图式的、公民宗教的横向结构来对抗启蒙运动对末世论的建构，而前者是建立在浪漫主义历史观的宗教哲学的基础上的。即使如此，在“不信和革命”讲座的结论中，葛瑞恩并没有描绘出这个终末国度的特点；相反，他呼吁基督徒立即在荷兰和欧洲其他国家执行基督教宪法。换句话说，若基督教宪法没有首先介入到社会政治生活的方方面面，那么一个基督教末世乌托邦就没有任何意义。

On this basis, it seems that Groen attempted to counter the Enlightenment construction of eschatology with a Platonic, horizontal structure of civil religion which was grounded upon a romantic-historical philosophy of religion. 18 Even so, as one reads the concluding lecture of his  Unbelief and Revolution , Groen does not map out the particular characteristics of the ˜nal kingdom; rather, he called Christians immediately to implement Christian constitutional law in Holland and the rest of Europe. 19 In other words, a Christian eschatological utopia is meaningless without ˜rst implementing Christian constitutional laws into the socio-political fabric of life.20

亚伯拉罕·凯波尔实施了这场反革命的运动。在十九和二十世纪之交，是凯波尔把反革命的运动转变成为了荷兰组织最完善的政治党派。像葛瑞恩一样，凯波尔认为法国的启蒙运动及革命对西方文明的基督教基础是破坏性的。实际上，凯波尔把法国的启蒙运动及革命和以色列被掳巴比伦联系起来。正如上帝用巴比伦这个异教国家将败坏的以色列带回上帝的典章一样，上帝也利用法国启蒙运动及其对“个人”权利的追求来审判欧洲国家败坏了的权威和权力（即“治国之道”），因为这些国家曾经粗暴地对待人性和社会。虽然凯波尔认为上帝曾使用个人权利的自治摧毁了古代政权，但这种自治也是基督教的敌人，因为它用其个体性来对抗基督教的教义和真理。尽管如此，凯波尔并没有把革命性的法国启蒙运动中的所有部分都当作是基督教的敌人。相反，他赞扬法国哲学家，因为他们催生了倡导“平等和博爱”的“社会民主运动”。

Abraham Kuyper carried on the anti-revolutionary movement;it was Kuyper who turned the anti-revolutionary movement into the most well organized political party in Holland by the turn of the century. 22Like Groen, Kuyper viewed the French Enlightenment and its Revolution as destructive to the Christian foundation of western civilization. In fact, Kuyper likened the French Enlightenment and its Revolution to Israel’s Babylonian captivity. Just as God used the pagan nation of Babylon to bring corrupt Israel back to God’s ordinances, likewise, God used the French Enlightenment and its quest for “individual” rights as judgment upon the corrupt authority and power (“Statecraft”) of the European nations who had treated human nature and society violently. 23 Although Kuyper believed that God used the autonomy of individual rights as a means to collapse the  ancien regime , nevertheless, such autonomy was also an enemy of Christianity since it asserted its individuality against Christian dogma and truth. Even so, Kuyper did not ˜nd everything in the revolutionary French Enlightenment as an enemy of Christianity. Rather, he applauded the French philosophes for giving birth to a “social-democratic movement” of “equality and fraternity.” 24

然而，在凯波尔看来，十九世纪的欧洲出现的问题，其原因是“平等和博爱”的原则是建立在非宗教和自治的（自由主义的）各种预设的基础上，而不是建立在上帝的权威和主权之上的。例如，在工业革命和政治紧张关系日益加剧的背景下，贵族的力量和权威只追求他们自己个人的和自私的目的，而丝毫不关注他人的需求。为了应对这种阶级斗争，凯波尔在1891年呼吁建立一种“基督教社会主义”，这符合反革命理念的历史。比如，凯波尔高度重视扩大参政权和工人权利，在他看来，这便是“平等和博爱”在荷兰和欧洲文化背景中的体现。即使如此，与启蒙运动相反，凯波尔宣称，只有基督教信仰是“在一个有机组成的社会关系中寻求个人的人性尊严”。只有建立在上帝启示的哲理基础（林前12:12-27；弗4:16）上的基督教的社会民主才能“拯救”欧洲文化。

In Kuyper’s estimation, however, a problem arose in nineteenth century Europe when the principles of “equality and fraternity” were based upon irreligious and autonomous (liberal) presuppositions, instead of the authority and sovereignty of God. For example, in the context of the Industrial Revolution and rising political tensions, the power and authority of the aristocracy were perceived as being insensitive towards others in pursuit of their own personal and sel˜sh ends. In response to this class struggle, Kuyper, in 1891, called for a “Christian socialism” which he thought to be consistent with the history of anti-revolutionary ideals. 25 Extended suˆrage and worker’s rights were examples of his heightened concerns about “equality and fraternity” within Dutch and European culture. 26 Even so, in contrast to the Enlightenment, Kuyper declared that the Christian religion alone seeks “personal human dignity in the social relationships of an organically integrated society.” 27 Only a Christian social democracy upon the metaphysical foundation of God’s revelation (I Cor 12:12–27; Eph 4:16) could “redeem” European culture.28

为基督而救赎和恢复荷兰和欧洲文化是凯波尔及其党派的首要关切。他们急切地要看见那更像是“天堂”中的生活，而不是“地狱”中的生活。凯波尔确信，通过上帝的力量和他在基督教群体中的临在，基督教将保持其强大生命力，继续存在下去。1898年10月在普林斯顿神学院的斯通讲座（Stone Lecture）和他的重要作品《神圣神学原理》中，都以对欧洲形势和未来的肯定性的描述为结尾。在凯波尔看来，后世正在走向它的末世论的、有着正当终点的基督教市民宗教。因此，就像之前的葛瑞恩一样，凯波尔企图摧毁启蒙运动用现代材料建造起来的新的天上之城，同时试图结合后启蒙时代的欧洲的某些世俗原则来恢复一个基督教的天上之城。突然之间，在十九世纪，加尔文主义的末世论开始强调当下的天地与新天新地之间的连续性（continuity）。换句话说，通过基督徒的社会活动，上帝将恢复（restoration）并拯救当下的被造界。这里，现在的被造界将成为被救赎了的崭新的被造界，其中的被造物和自然都不再被罪恶所影响。

The redemption and restoration of Dutch and European culture for Christ was a primary concern for Kuyper and his party; they were intent upon seeing that life would be more like “heaven” than life in “hell.”29 Kuyper was con˜dent that through the power of God and his presence in the Christian community Christianity would survive as a vital force. Both the Stone Lec tures delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary in October of 1898 and his great work, Principles of Sacred Theology , close with positive pictures of the situation in Europe and its future. Posterity is moving towards its eschatological, and just, end—a Christian civil religion. 30Thus, like Groen before him, Kuyper attempted to destroy the new heavenly city of the Enlightenment built with modern materials (Becker), while trying to restore a Christian heavenly city in union with certain secular principles of post-Enlightenment Europe. Suddenly, during the nineteenth century, the Calvinistic view of eschatology emphasized the continuity between the present heaven and earth and the new heaven and earth. In other words, through the social activity of Christians God will bring restoration and redemption to the present creation. Herein, the present creation will be the redeemed new creation without the eˆects of sin in its creatures as well as in nature. 31

也许，接替了凯波尔在阿姆斯特丹自由大学席位的赫尔曼·巴文克（Herman Bavinck，1854-1921年）更准确地说明了荷兰新加尔文主义的立场。他写道：

Perhaps Herman Bavinck (1854–1921), who succeeded Kuyper at the Free University, stated the Dutch neo-Calvinist position more precisely when he wrote:

因此，基督也对家庭和社会、艺术和科学有话说。自由主义宣告其国度不属于这个世界，从而选择把它的力量和信息限制在内心和内在。但是，就算这个国度不属于这个世界，它肯定是在这个世界上，而且是为了世界。藉着基督来到我们这里的上帝的话，就是释放并恢复全人的道，包括人的意志、身体和心灵。……它（福音）不杀害，而是使人存活。它不伤害，而是医治。这是纯粹的恩典，而这种恩典并不取消自然，而是建立和恢复它。

Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and the inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not  of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God, which comes to us in Christ, is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding of his will, for his body and his soul. . . . It [the Gospel] does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.

巴文克最重要的主题——“恩典恢复自然（grace restores nature）”——的涵义是“拯救本质上就是恢复被造界的所有丰盛”。这是否意味着，当重新创造（re-creation）到来时，我们当下所认识的自然会逐渐被转化成为完美的状态？这个问题的答案似乎是“是的”。毕竟，巴文克说：“重新创造不是第二个或新的创造。它不会添加任何新的被造物到现有的秩序，或引入新的内容，但它实质上是重新塑造（reformation）。”具体来说，“启示（救恩论的）是一种重塑的行动：在再创造中，被造界，其所有形式和规范，得以被恢复；在福音中，律法被恢复；在恩典中，公义被恢复；在基督里，宇宙得以恢复”。然而，正当我们似乎看懂了巴文克的立场的时候，他却解释说当下的天地会被火焰所吞没。他说道：

Bavinck’s dominant theme—“grace restores nature”—meant “salvation was essentially a restoration of creation in all its fullness.” 33 Does this mean that nature, as we presently perceive it, gradually transforms into a perfect state when the re-creation arrives? It would seem that the answer to this question would be, “yes.” After all, Bavinck stated, “Re-creation is not a second, new creation. It does not add any new creatures to the existing order or introduce a new substance, but it is essentially reformation .”34 Speci˜cally, “revelation [soteriological] is an act of reformation; in re-creation the creation, with all its forms and norms, is restored; in the gospel, the law; in grace, justice; in Christ, the cosmos is restored.” 35 However, just when Bavinck’s position seemed clear to us, he remarked that the present heaven and earth would succumb to the ˘ames of ˜re. He stated:

确实，现在的天地将会按它现在的形式消失（林前7:31），就像那被洪水毁灭的古代大地，现在的天地将会被大火焚烧和洁净（彼前3:6-7和10）。但正如人自己事实上是被基督重新创造的，没有被毁灭，而是在此之上再次被造（林后5:17），所以世界的本质也将被保存，尽管它的形式会经历极大的改变，以至于它可以被称为是新天新地。这个世界也将完整地前进到伟大更新的日子（太19:28）。

It is true that the present heaven and earth will in their form pass away (1 Cor 7:31) and that these, like the ancient earth which was destroyed by the ˘ood, will be burned and purged by ˜re (2 Peter 3:6,7 and 10). But just as man himself is recreated by Christ indeed, but is not annihilated and thereupon created again (2 Cor 5:17), so too the world in its essence will be preserved, even though in its form it undergoes so great a change that it can be called a new heaven and earth. The world in its entirety, too, moves on to the day of its great regeneration (Matt 19:28).

因此，火焰是对现在的天地的洁净，而不是消灭。巴文克试图清晰地呈现当下被造界和新天新地之间的连续性：

Hence, the ˜re is a cleansing of the present heaven and earth, not the annihilation of it. Bavinck attempted to present the continuity of the present creation and the new heaven and earth with clarity:

 ……通过基督的再创造力量，新天和新地将会在某一天从这个世界的被火炼净的元素中脱颖而出，闪耀着永恒的荣光，永远地摆脱衰败的束缚，比这个美丽的世界还要光荣，比地上的耶路撒冷还要光荣，甚至比伊甸园还要光荣，这就是新耶路撒冷的荣耀，他的建筑师和建造者就是上帝。荣耀的状态不仅仅是对自然状态的恢复，而是重新塑造：依靠基督的能力，将一切质料转变为形式，将一切潜力变为现实，并将整个创造呈现在上帝面前。它绽放着辉煌灿烂的光辉，在永恒青春的春天里繁荣茂盛。实质上，没有失落任何东西。

. . . by the re-creating power of Christ, the new heaven and the new earth will one day emerge from the ˜re-purged elements of this world, radiant in enduring glory and forever set free from the bondage of decay. More glorious than this beautiful earth, more glorious than the earthly Jerusalem, more glorious even than Paradise will be the glory of the new Jerusalem whose architect and builder is God himself. The state of glory will be no mere restoration of the state of nature, but a reformation which, thanks to the power of Christ, transforms all matter into form, all potency into actuality, and presents the entire creation before the face of God, brilliant in unfading splendor and blossoming in a springtime of eternal youth. Substantially nothing is lost. 3

当他把这样一个亚里士多德—柏拉图的目的论的历史概念应用于圣经末世论的结构时，巴文克落实了关于被造界与新天新地之间连续性的革新式图景，为未来二十世纪新加尔文主义的同伴们做了准备。具体来说，在后启蒙时代的欧洲背景之下，巴文克和他的十九世纪新加尔文主义伙伴们呼吁基督徒来恢复、改造和拯救被造界的自然的、精神的、文化的和社会的领域。按照上帝护理的意愿，加尔文主义公民宗教的重振或许能够促成一种关于上帝国度如何临在欧洲甚至全球文化的启发性理解。在1892年，巴文克在加拿大多伦多发表了以这一内容为核心的信息。在一次题为“更正教宗教改革对社群和国家的道德及宗教状况的影响”的讲座中，他强调了加尔文主义作为一种改变世界的运动的优点。在一个被欧洲全球性帝国主义所主宰的时代，巴文克对这个处境提出了改革宗式的回应。认为只有更正教宗教改革的信仰，及其对以恩典来恢复自然的独特理解，才能改变各个国家的道德和宗教状况。不信的基于民族主义的全球帝国主义则无法做到这一点。

As he applied such an Aristotelian-Platonic teleological conception of history to the structure of Biblical eschatology, Bavinck solidi˜ed the reformational picture of continuity between the creation and the new heaven and earth for his future neo-Calvinist companions in the twentieth century. Speci˜cally, Bavinck and his fellow nineteenth-century neo-Calvinists called Christians, in the context of post-Enlightenment Europe, to restore, transform and redeem the natural, spiritual, cultural and social realm of creation.38 Hopefully, in III.

TWENTIETH-CENTURY DUTCH NEO-CALVINISM

二十世纪的荷兰新加尔文主义

在葛瑞恩、凯波尔和巴文克的带领下，荷兰新加尔文主义在二十世纪至少发展出两个方向。首先，创造秩序论的新加尔文主义强调，神在创造秩序中的律法或规范是社会和文化制度及其在堕落世界中实现向末世转化的条件。其次，沙龙论（shalom，意为和平）的新加尔文主义强调，在当下的社会和文化条件下竭力恢复末世才有的和平与公义，即为人类和创造迈向“应该的样子”而付出的努力。

accordance with the providence of God, the revitalization of a Calvinistic civil religion can bring to bear a holistic understanding of the presence of God’s kingdom upon European culture, and even the entire globe. Essentially this message was delivered by Bavinck in Toronto, Canada in 1892. In a lecture entitled “The In˘uence of the Protestant Reformation on the Moral and Religious Condition of Communities and Nations,” he stressed the virtues of Calvinism as a world-transformative movement.39 In an era dominated by European global imperialism, Bavinck gave a Reformed response to the situation. Only the religion of the Protestant Reformation, with its unique understanding of grace restoring nature, could transform the moral and religious conditions of the nations. Irreligious nationalistic global imperialism cannot.

 关于创造秩序的视角，赫尔曼·杜伊维尔（Herman Dooyeweerd，1889-1977年）和佛伦胡佛（D. H. Th. Vollenhoven，1892-1978年）支持并表述了一种独特的基督教途径，来实现创造论的规范和社会结构。两位学者延续凯波尔的领域主权（sphere-sovereignty）概念，进一步分析和阐述上帝律法的内在本质。对他们来说，圣经中关于上帝创造主权的概念是宇宙性的，意思是指被造的一切都要遵守上帝的律法。具体地说，律法界定了创造，创造的秩序是一种律法秩序，包括了社会制度。上帝的律法支持创造的每一个方面，它是一种动态的现实，一种积极的力量，是宇宙秩序在历史中发展的不可或缺的条件。因此，新加尔文主义的创造秩序的一个显着特征是，“它把历史看作是创造的展开，是执行创造律法中所包含的一项任务”。这一任务是建立在巴文克的“恩典恢复自然”这一观点之上的，表现为文化使命（culture mandate），或者某些人更愿意表达为的“创造的使命”。因此，文化就是“通过人的负责任的行动，带来上帝美好创造中的丰富”。在这里，上帝的律法是一个动态的、积极的力量，以人类为中介、通过历史将创造推向未来的末世的终点。沃尔特斯（Wolters）很好地总结了这个观点：Concerning the creation order perspective, Herman Dooyeweerd (1889– 1977) and D. H. Th. Vollenhoven (1892–1978) supported and articulated a distinctive Christian approach towards creation norms and societal structures. 40  Both scholars continued to analyze and formulate the inner nature of God’s law in relationship to Kuyper’s conception of sphere-sovereignty. 41 For them, the Biblical conception of God’s creative sovereignty is cosmonomic, meaning that everything created is subject to God’s law.42 Speci˜cally, law de˜nes the creation; the order of the creation is a law-order, including the institutions of society.43 God’s law, which upholds every aspect of the creation, is a dynamic reality, an active force; it is an indispensable condition of the historical development of the cosmic order. Hence, a distinctive feature of creation order neo-Calvinism is “that it conceives of history as the unfolding of creation, the carrying out of a task contained in the ordinances of creation.”44 Such a task, building upon Bavinck’s insight that grace restores nature, is expressed in the cultural mandate, or as some prefer, the “creational mandate.” Culture is, therefore, “the bringing forth, through human responsible action, of the riches latent in God’s good creation.”45 Herein, God’s law is a dynamic, active force, mediated by humanity, moving the creation through history towards its future eschatological end. Wolters provides an excellent summary of this viewpoint:

从人类生命在地球上存在开始，人类就被赋予使命，为一个伟大的未来目标而努力：按照上帝的设计发展创造。虽然这种发展已经被人的犯罪堕落打乱，但并没有因此被取消，而是在救赎中得以重新确立。因此，历史发展的目标不是回到伊甸园，而是一个被描绘为新耶路撒冷的创造图景的末世论的实现，万国的荣耀和尊贵都要被带到那里（启21:26）。从史前的伊甸园到末世圣城的这个运动涵盖了历史，它从头至尾就是为了展现创造的丰富和美善而展开的斗争。

From the beginning of human life on earth, the human race is mandated to work toward a great future goal: the development of creation in accordance with God’s design. That development has been disrupted, but not annulled, by the fall into sin, and is rea¯rmed in salvation. The goal toward which history moves is therefore not a return to the garden of Eden, but an eschatological ful˜llment of creation pictured as the New Jerusalem, into which the glory and honour of the nations will be brought (Rev 21:26). The movement from the primordial garden to the eschatological city embraces history, and is from ˜rst to last a struggle for the manifestation of the riches and goodness of creation.46

显然，这一观点的指导思想是从横向或线性来看待创造和历史。沃尔特斯不断指出，新加尔文主义与创造和历史上的一切形式的二元主义和虚无主义不同。例如，他指出：

Clearly, a linear or horizontal view of creation and history is the rule here. Wolters constantly points out that neo-Calvinism is at odds with all forms of dualism and annihilationism in respect to creation and history. For example, he notes:

……神学家（在新加尔文主义的传统中）有时候把救赎说成是“再次创造”，但这并不意味着上帝废弃了他早先的创造，又在耶稣基督里创造了一个新的，而是暗示他不放弃已经堕落的原始创造，却要挽救它……原初的美好创造要被恢复。

. . . theologians [in the neo-Calvinist tradition] have sometimes spoken of salvation as “re-creation”—not to imply that God scraps his earlier creation and in Jesus Christ makes a new one, but rather to suggest that he hangs on to his fallen original creation and salvages it. . . . The original good creation is to be restored.47

但上帝如何挽救最初的美好创造呢？

But how is God going to salvage the original good creation?

我们已经注意到，上帝通过人类为中介的调解活动，将社会机构带到它们的末世终结。在1936年的一次对反革命党的演讲中，杜伊维尔表示，如果要让上帝的国度在这个创造中更多地展示，就必须复兴和落实基督教的国家观念，激励人类活动。鉴于法西斯主义和国家社会主义在1936年的崛起，杜伊维尔敲响了警钟：

We have already noted that God, through the mediating activity of human agents, will bring societal institutions to their eschatological end. In a lecture delivered in 1936 before the Anti-Revolutionary Party, Dooyeweerd stated that a revival and implementation of the Christian idea of the State must stimulate human activity if the kingdom of God is going to have an increasing presence in this creation. In light of the rising tide of Fascism and National Socialism in 1936, Dooyeweerd sounded the alarm:

一旦基督教在学习、文化和政治生活方面开始与异教及人文主义的哲学妥协，与它们的国家观念和文化观念妥协，基督教的内在力量就被击溃了。那个时候，“变成世界”的过程就开始了。然而，因着上帝的恩典，这一切不断地被属灵的号角所阻止，这就是“宗教改革”。

As soon as Christianity began to compromise learning, culture, and political life with pagan and humanistic philosophy, with its view of state and culture, Christianity’s inner strength was broken. At that moment the process of ‘becoming like unto the world’ began, repeatedly arrested through the grace of God by spiritual reveil, a Reformation.

这样的改革一次又一次地以不妥协的对立（anitthesis）来反对软弱的综合(synthesis)，而后者是和世界妥协的精神。

Time and time again such a reformation had to a¯rm the uncompromising antithesis against the weakening synthesis, the spirit of compromise with the world.48

在这里，杜伊维尔提到党派的伙伴们在十九世纪的战斗，他宣称他们的传统并没有死。相反，“它（基督教国家）仍然是一个属灵的宝藏，永不过时，充满生命力，激发人，触动每个基督徒生命的核心——这是我们必须不惜一切代价保存的宝藏”。因此，每一个基督徒都应当来追求基督教的国家观念，因为这样的观念深深“植根于一种彻底的圣经观念，这是关于基督耶稣里的上帝国度与暂时的社会结构之间的关系的，在其中，上帝广泛而普遍的恩典（common grace）阻止了由罪引起的干枯”。只有基督教国家能克服国家社会主义和法西斯主义，或其他任何后启蒙时代的人文主义运动造成的灵性和文化的混乱。

Here, Dooyeweerd referred to the battles of fellow party members during the nineteenth century, and he declared that their tradition is not dead. Rather, “it [Christian State] is still a spiritual treasure, ever new, ever living and inspiring, touching the very heart of one’s Christian life—a treasure which we must keep at all costs.”49 For this reason, a Christian idea of the state must be pursued by every Christian because such an idea “is rooted in the radical, Scriptural view regarding the relationship between the kingdom of God in Christ Jesus and the temporal societal structures, in which God’s general and common grace arrests the dry-rot caused by sin.”50 Only the Christian State can overcome the spiritual and cultural chaos of National Socialism and Fascism, or any other movement of post-Enlightenment cultural humanism.

就像创造秩序论的新加尔文主义一样，和平论的新加尔文主义者认为，历史和自然正在水平地走向恢复。但是，这里有一个值得注意的区别。和平论的新加尔文主义者不强调与创造规范相结合的个人的行动责任，而是强调人类要在当下社会秩序中为和平和公义而行动。可以说，尼古拉斯·沃尔特斯多夫（Nicholas Wolterstorff）是将和平论的新加尔文主义思想阐述的最为明确的学者。对他而言，这两个学派的总体对比很简单：新康德模式（创造秩序）之于圣经模式（和平秩序）。然而，具体而言，沃尔特斯托夫提出了四个领域，在这些方面，他对创造秩序的传统感到“棘手”。

Like the creation order neo-Calvinists, shalom neo-Calvinists have held that history and nature are moving horizontally towards restoration. There is, however, a notable diˆerence. Shalom neo-Calvinists do not stress a person’s responsibility to act in union with the creation norms; rather they stress humans acting for shalom and justice in the present social order. For Nicholas Wolterstorˆ, possibly the most articulate scholar for shalom neo-Calvinism, the overarching contrast of the two schools is simple: a neo-Kantian model (creation order) versus a Biblical model (shalom order).51 Speci˜cally, however, Wolterstorˆ has presented four areas in which he is “uncomfortable” with the creation order tradition.

首先，沃尔特斯多夫声称，创造秩序的传统有一个“律法主义的基调”，因此会最终无法适当地强调被造物的“权利”。从他的角度来看，创造秩序论认为上帝的创造性活动“几乎被缩减为这样一种情形：即上帝制定律法，同时，人类被求遵守律法。上帝作为立法者的身份几乎完全占据了上帝作为造物主身份的空间”。因此，沃尔特斯多夫认为，依据他们的观点，被造物只是因着要遵守道德义务而存在。

First, Wolterstorˆ claims that the creation order tradition has a “legalistic tone” which eventually fails to put the proper emphasis upon the “rights” of the creature.52 From his perspective, they hold that God’s creative activity is “close to being reduced to God’s making things for which God lays down laws, including, in the case of human beings, laws requiring obedience. God the lawgiver almost completely occupies the space of God the Creator.”53 Hence, in their construction, Wolterstorˆ believes the creature to be merely one who is to observe moral obligations.

相反，沃尔特斯多夫提出了他对加尔文的理解。在他看来，加尔文认为创造和文化使命都是上帝爱的行动，作为祝福赐给被造物。因此，被造物有权要求获得权利和尊严。对于沃尔特斯多夫来说，权利和责任相辅相成，对被造物来说都是规范性条件。总的来说，沃尔特斯多夫的结论不太明晰：“我发现，比起创造秩序的角度，从和平的角度切入来思考更加富有成效……对于世界上的被造物来说，和平带来的是愉悦、完满和繁荣。”

沃尔特斯多夫的第二个批评认为，就被造界的堕落而言，其内容不仅局限于人类未能遵从上帝创造的律法秩序的指示，以及面临相应的后果。对他而言，人类经历的绝大多数痛苦都是与“不应当如此”（should not be）的事情相关。例如，沃尔特斯多夫指出，对于离婚的人，人们并不总是告诉他要“撤销离婚”，以便恢复忠于婚姻这一上帝创造的律法。相反，在许多情况下，人在他的“破碎”境况中需要引导和同情，而正是这种“破碎”导致了婚姻“不应当如此”的样式。此外，沃尔特斯多夫写道：

In contrast, Wolterstorˆ counters with his understanding of Calvin, who viewed the creation and the cultural mandate as an act of God’s love which the creature receives as a gift of God’s blessing.54 Herein, the creature bears legitimate claim to rights and dignity. For Wolterstorˆ, rights and responsibility interlock as normative conditions of the creature. In summary, Wolterstorˆ concluded vaguely: “I have found it more fruitful to think in terms of shalom than in terms of creation orders; . . . For shalom pertains to delight, ful˜llment, ˘ourishing of the creatures of the world.”55

我们人类的很多痛苦都是与这种“不应当如此”有关的。长期疾病缠身、天才儿童过早夭折……具有男性身体却是女性化的人，具有女性身体的男性化的人。

Wolterstorˆ’s second criticism suggests that there is more to the fallenness of the creation than the failure of human beings to follow the directive of God’s created law order and facing its consequences.56 For him, much of human pain is experienced in connection to things that “should not be.” For example, Wolterstorˆ points out that one does not always tell a divorced person to immediately “undo your divorce” in order to restore God’s creational law of marriage faithfulness.57 Rather, in many situations a person needs guidance and compassion in the “brokenness” that underlies the way a marriage “should not be.” Furthermore, Wolterstorˆ writes,

因此，对沃尔特斯多夫来说，我们不仅要关注创造秩序，而且要注意事物脱离其当有的状态而产生的破碎。

A great deal of our human pain is concerned with such should-not-be’s. Disabling long-term diseases, early deaths of promising children . . . feminine persons who ˜nd themselves in male bodies and male persons who ˜nd themselves in female bodies.58

第三，沃尔特斯多夫认为，耶稣基督在创造秩序的图景中离奇地失踪了。他甚至表示，创造秩序论的表述有一种自然神论的（deistic）样式。尽管如此，他也承认他们将基督视作是神的道的观点已经缓和了这种自然神论的画面。然而，他个人仍然感觉不安，因为他们对基督作为三位一体上帝之第二位格的启示的强调过于他在创造行动中的参与。

Hence, for Wolterstorˆ we must not only give attention to creation order but also to the brokenness from the way things ought to be.59 Third, Wolterstorˆ holds that Jesus Christ is mysteriously missing in the picture of creation orders. He even states that their formulation has a deistic cast. Even so, he acknowledges that their conception of Christ as the Word of God has eased this deistic picture, and yet, he personally still feels uncomfortable since they accent the revelation of Christ as the second person of the Trinity more than His participation in the creation act.

沃尔特斯多夫的最后一个批评是针对创造秩序传统的核心。他认为，当多杜伊维尔和他的追随者谈及“国家的本质、国家的规范以及国家是社会所建构”时，他们是在误导人。在此，沃尔特斯多夫抓住机会，指出了创造秩序论传统的弱点，以增加自己立场的说服力：

Wolterstorˆ’s ˜nal criticism is directed at the core of the creation order tradition. Wolterstorˆ thinks it is misleading of Dooyeweerd and his followers to speak of “the nature of states, and about the norms for states, etc. States are social artifacts.”60 Here, Wolterstorˆ seizes the opportunity to declare a weakness in the creation order tradition in order to exalt strength in his own position:

我看不到有什么理由可以让我们认为，今天我们所了解的各种国家在历史舞台上的存在持续展现了上帝在创造时所预备好的各种国家本质；我也不认为，谈论上帝设定的界限以及国家的职责会有什么助益。我们现有的国家概念有其核心本质，但它并不符合国家的实际，也没有按照我们的设想，即我们有义务去尽力安排社会现实，好使我们的概念得到落实。

I see no reason to think that the existence of states as we know them today represents the manifestation on the historical scene at long last of natures which God prepared at creation, nor do I think it at all helpful to talk about God-ordained limits and duties of the state. Our present day concept of a state has an essence, but it doesn’t follow that states do, nor does it follow that we have an obligation to struggle to arrange social reality so that our concept has application.61

实际上，沃尔特斯多夫认为，在接下来的二百年里，我们关于国家本质的概念会消失。因此，他给出了一个不同的发展规划：

In fact, Wolterstorˆ argues that in the next two hundred years our concept underlining the nature of the state may disappear. Hence, Wolterstorˆ prescribes a diˆerent agenda:

在实际存在着各种国家的情况下，我们要考虑什么能够带来和平；这是决定我们的政治义务的根本性思路，而不是考虑我们当如何实现国家的本质以及实施那些被认为是附属于那种本质的规范。

Our political obligations are to be determined fundamentally by considering what, given the states that we actually have, conduces to shalom, rather than by considering that we will serve to instantiate the nature of the state and the norms supposedly attached to that nature.62

对于沃尔特斯多夫而言，“沙龙”（和平）是衡量文化和社会走向“末世恢复”（eschatological restoration）的关键性概念。在《直至正义与和平的来临》一书中，沃尔特斯多夫更清楚地描述了他不同于创造秩序论的新加尔文主义以及解放神学（liberation theology）的思路。

For Wolterstorˆ, shalom (peace) is the key underlying concept to measure the movement of culture and society towards its eschatological restoration. In his work Until Justice and Peace Embrace, Wolterstorˆ describes more clearly his alternative to creation order neo-Calvinism as well as his alternative to liberation theology.63

根据沃尔特斯多夫的理解，在新约和旧约中，沙龙与公义交织在一起。在沙龙里，“每个人都享有公义，享有他或她自己的权利。没有公义就没有沙龙，但是沙龙超越公义”。这如何达成呢？通过人类“在所有的关系中和平地相处：与上帝，与自己，与同胞，与自然”（赛11:6-8）。事实上，沃尔特斯多夫认为“沙龙的最高境界就是享受这些关系”。在这里，耶稣是沙龙的导师、释放者和激励者。毕竟，沙龙是和平论新加尔文主义世界观的根本性原则，“沙龙既是上帝对这个世界的旨意，也是我们人类的呼召……我们应该努力工作并奋力争取的就是沙龙。”尽管沃尔特斯多夫认为，让沙龙完全进入我们的历史是上帝的神圣恩赐，但他清楚地知道：“我们不应游手好闲，等待沙龙的到来。我们是上帝旨意的仆人，是他和平之工的仆人。上帝的使命就是我们的使命。”

According to Wolterstorˆ, in the Old and New Testaments, shalom is intertwined with justice. In shalom, “each person enjoys justice, enjoys his or her rights. There is no shalom without justice. But shalom goes beyond justice.”64 How? By the human being “dwelling at peace in all his relationships: with God, with self, with fellows, with nature (Isa 11:6–8).”65 In fact, Wolterstorˆ believes that “shalom at its highest is enjoyment in one’s relationships.”66 Herein, Jesus is the director, discharger, motivator of shalom. After all, shalom is the fundamental principle of the shalom neo-Calvinist’s worldview; “shalom is both God’s cause in the world and our human calling . . . it is shalom that we are to work and struggle for.”67 Although Wolterstorˆ maintains that the full invasion of shalom into our history is a divine gift, nevertheless, he is clear that “we are not to stand around, hands folded, waiting for shalom to arrive. We are workers in God’s cause, his peace-workers. The missio Dei is our mission.”68

如果遵循沃尔特斯多夫的论证思路，社会的转化显然应该发生在“创造—历史”的水平线上。 在有关上帝的事业和我们的任务上，沃尔特斯多夫毫不含糊其辞：

If one is following Wolterstorˆ’s argument, it should be apparent that the transformation of society occurs upon the horizontal line of creationhistory. Wolterstorˆ does not hesitate concerning God’s cause and our task:

这意味着我们的工作永远具有两个维度，一是争取正义；二是追求掌控世界，从而丰富人的生命……发展与解放必须齐头并进。我们的使命既是文化使命，也是解放使命，是为了人类的利益而掌握世界的使命……

An implication of this is that our work will always have the two dimensions of a struggle for justice and the pursuit of increased mastery of the world so as to enrich human life. . . . Development and liberation must go hand in hand. Ours is both a cultural mandate and a liberation mandate—the mandate to master the world for the bene˜t of mankind . . . 69

他的目标是掌握、控制和拥有世界。因此，在当前社会结构的背景下，沃尔特斯多夫承认沙龙是由改革宗凯波尔主义和基督教马克思主义（解放神学）的某些积极特征的综合，而这些特征被放在圣经关于沙龙的观念基础之上，从而维护了基督教世界。

The goal is to master, control and possess the world. Hence, in the context of the present social structure, Wolterstorˆ admits that shalom is a synthesis of certain positive traits from Reformed Kuyperianism and Christian Marxism (liberation theology) as these are placed upon the foundation of a Biblically conceived view of shalom in order to secure a Christian world.70

我们现在身处何地？

IV. WHERE ARE WE NOW?

根据其构想，荷兰新加尔文主义试图转化并改造后启蒙时代文化所侵占的领域，把它归到耶稣基督的主权之下。然而，在实施的过程中，荷兰新加尔文主义的许多方案都是建立在启蒙思想的基础之上。因此，尽管他们抨击启蒙运动的非宗教性质及其个体自治的观点，但它的后世观念和建立一个为自由和博爱观念所主导的宽容和平等的社会却对他们产生了吸引力。在我看来，荷兰新加尔文主义更多的是启蒙运动和现代性的产物，而非一场维护历史正统的加尔文主义的运动。

From its conception Dutch neo-Calvinism has attempted to transform and reclaim the post-enlightenment culture for the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In doing so, however, much of the agenda of Dutch neo-Calvinism has been built upon the foundation of Enlightenment ideas. Hence, although they attacked the irreligious nature of the Enlightenment and its view of the autonomy of the individual, nevertheless its concept of posterity and its establishment of a somewhat tolerant and egalitarian society of liberty and fraternity have found appeal among them. In my judgment, Dutch neoCalvinism has become more a child of the Enlightenment and modernity than a movement preserving historic orthodox Calvinism.

对于许多新加尔文主义者来说，对上帝位格的定义和对其他宗教的定义的宽容越来越明显。沃尔特斯多夫已经远离了改革宗信条中对上帝位格的定义。他写道：

For many neo-Calvinists, tolerance concerning the de˜nition of the person of God and towards other religions is becoming increasingly apparent. Wolterstorˆ has distanced himself from the person of God de˜ned in the Reformed Confessions.71 He has written:

古典神学家所构建的上帝的样子是关于一位时间之外的上帝，他住在永恒中，无所不在，没有过去，也没有未来，既不动，也不变。圣经作者所描绘的却迥然不同：他既是过去的，也是未来的，也是现在的，因为他的作为是过去的，将来的，也是现在的：他的作为是在我们的历史中的。

The picture of God constructed by the classical theologians was that of a God outside of time, dwelling in eternity, ever-present, with no past and no future, impassive, immutable. The picture of the biblical writers is profoundly diˆerent: he is past and future as well as present because his actions are past and future as well as present: his actions are located in our history.72

从施莱尔马赫直到现在的过程神学家，上帝在历史中“正在形成的身份（imminent identity）”是现代批判和自由派学者们的一个典型主题。沃尔特斯多夫坦诚地表示他希望站在巴特和施莱尔马赫之间。他的这一立场颇受争议，但是在这一点上，沃尔特斯多夫愿意接受任何一神论宗教，只要它的上帝是由其在历史中的作为确认的。这样的宗教有三个：基督教，犹太教和伊斯兰教。每个宗教对上帝的看法都是合理可信的，这些宗教崇拜的是同一位上帝。沃尔特斯多夫就此阐明了他的立场：

The imminent identity of God in history is a theme that is typical of modern critical and liberal scholars from Schleiermacher to the present process theologians. Perhaps, it is revealing when Wolterstorˆ remarks that he wishes to stand between Barth and Schleiermacher.73 Such a position has many rami˜cations, however at this point Wolterstorˆ is comfortable to tolerate any monotheistic religion whose God is identi˜ed with his activity in history. There are three: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.74 Each religion’s conception of God is rationally credible; each religion worships the same God. Wolterstorˆ spells out his position:

此外，我们必须严肃地思考这种可能性：至少在涉及犹太人和穆斯林的情况下，非基督徒不是崇拜不同的上帝，不是崇拜偶像，而是以不同方式崇拜同一位上帝——那位独一的上帝。他们的崇拜有缺陷，这的确如此，我作为一个基督徒会这样认为，但他们仍是在敬拜上帝。

Furthermore, we must seriously consider the possibility that, at least in the case of Jews and Muslims, the non-Christian is not worshipping a diˆerent god, not worshipping an idol, but merely worshipping diˆerently the same god, the one and only God. Worshipping him de˜ciently, yes—so I as a Christian will say; but nonetheless worshipping God.75

从这个角度来看，任何试图说明基督教所相信的上帝才是独一无二的真神的人，都将被视为是不宽容的和不恰当的。因此，与沃尔特斯多夫的立场相一致，第五届改革宗普世教会会议就围绕“非基督教信仰中是否也有救恩”这个话题展开讨论。许多新加尔文主义者似乎不再那么坚定地捍卫基督教上帝的独特性或者正统基督教的救恩教义。

In this light, anyone who wishes to say that the God of Christian theism is the one and only true God will be viewed as being intolerant and out of line. Hence, consistent with Wolterstorˆ’s position, the ˜ftieth session of the Reformed Ecumenical Council entertained the issue whether salvation can be found in non-Christian religions. It seems that many neo-Calvinists no longer feel comfortable defending the uniqueness of the Christian God or the orthodox Christian doctrine of salvation.

沃尔特斯多夫的上帝在历史中“正在形成的身份”与巴文克的“恩典恢复自然”这一著名论述是一致的。巴文克的前提假设也为全面恢复历史上所有的创造结构提供了基础。此外，现在人们对历史的理解受到了卡拉普维克博士（J. Klapwijk）所说的“十九世纪浪漫的历史唯心主义”的影响。特别地，历史中的上帝（Geist）使自然（创造）的神圣领域从可能性变为现实。我们已经注意到，在这种框架之下，创造秩序论的新加尔文主义者强调恢复创造秩序论的图景，而沙龙的新加尔文主义者则强调了恢复和平的图景。然而，双方都为进一步发展各自的末世性历史提供了观点。

Wolterstorˆ’s imminent identity of God in history is consistent with the present applications of Bavinck’s famous statement: “Grace restores Nature.” Bavinck’s premise continues to provide the basis for the holistic restoration of all the creational structures in history. Moreover, the present understanding of history continues to show the in˘uence of what Dr. J. Klapwijk called “19th century romantic historical idealism.”76 Speci˜cally, God (Geist) in history develops the sacred domain of nature (creation) from potentiality to actuality. Working within this framework, we have already noted that the creation order neo-Calvinists emphasize a creation order picture of restoration, whereas shalom neo-Calvinists emphasize a shalom picture of restoration. Both sides provide, however, further insight to their respective outworking of eschatological history.

例如，沃尔特斯（创造秩序论支持者）认为，重塑文化的理念包含了成圣和渐进的更新。成圣是一种内在的振兴（revitalization），通过圣灵传给上帝的子民。特别是，上帝的子民在圣灵召唤和引导下，“在基督的赎罪和得胜的基础上将罪恶从创造中清除”。他们的任务不是推翻现有的现状，而是要参与渐进式更新的活动，从而看到所有的创造结构被逐渐地转化。在此，我们想起了这种乐观的更新图景的认识论基础。按照上帝的形像创造出来的人天生具有对社会制度的本质或结构的“直觉意识”。据沃尔特斯的理解，当下每种社会制度都是其原初创造结构的现实化（positivization）的结果。每个创造结构的现实化都是将某种创造的规范付诸于实践；这些规范是人类内在的直觉。在圣灵掌管下的基督徒是上帝逐步复兴文化——就是促成创造的和社会的结构的最终现实化——的关键。

For example, Al Wolters (creation order) maintains that the idea of reforming culture includes sancti˜cation and progressive renewal.77 Sancti˜cation is an internal revitalization, which comes upon the people of God through the Holy Spirit. Speci˜cally, the people of God are called and led by the Holy Spirit to purify the “creation from sin on the basis of Christ’s atonement and victory.”78 Their task is not to overthrow the existing status quo; rather, they are to be engaged in the activity of progressive renewal in order to see the gradual transformation of all creational structures. Herein, we are reminded of the epistemological foundation of this optimistic picture of renewal. Man, as created in the image of God, is born with an “intuitive awareness” of the nature or structure of societal institutions. According to Wolters, presently each societal institution is a positivization of its original creational structure; the positivization of each creational structure is a matter of putting into practice a creational norm that is an innate intuition within man. Christians, under the dominance of the Holy Spirit, are the keys in God’s progressive renewal of culture—bringing about the ˜nal positivization of creational and societal structures.

在这种建构中，我认为，人的堕落犯罪更多地被看作是违反创造性规范，而不是破坏我们与上帝的个人性关系。因此，罪和救赎的教义的重点落在罗马书8:19-22（被造界被释放脱离败坏的辖制），而不是整个罗马书5章。尽管这些经文不应该相互抵触，但罗马书第5章目前似乎没有得到足够的重视。因此，按我的理解，宇宙律法论哲学（cosmonomic law philosophy）将它的系统强加于圣经启示之上，从而牺牲了罗马书5章的要义。我们被告知，创造规范是从圣经推论出来的。因此，这些规范是人类的解释活动。正如沃尔特斯多夫所言，甚至是创造秩序论学者亨德里克·哈特（Hendrik Hart）所坚持的那样，很难搞清楚这些规范究竟是什么，以及它们是如何被应用于上帝的最初意愿的。例如，什么是家庭的规范，或者再缩小一点范围，什么是婚姻的规范？

In this construction, I believe that the fall into sin is viewed more as an oˆense against the creational norms than an oˆense against our personal relationship with God. As a consequence, the focus on the doctrine of sin and redemption has become Romans 8:19–22 (the liberation of the creation from the bondage of decay) instead of the entire ˜fth chapter of Romans.79 Although these passages should not be set up against each other, nevertheless Romans ˜ve seems presently to receive less attention.80 In my judgment,  therefore, the cosmonomic law philosophy imposes its system upon Biblical revelation at the expense of Romans ˜ve. We are told that the creation norms are inferred from Scripture, and as such, those norms are the activity of human interpretation. As Wolterstorˆ and even the creation order scholar Hendrik Hart maintain, it is not always clear what those norms are and how they apply to God’s original intent. For example, what is the norm for a family, or more narrowly, for a marriage?

对创造秩序论学者詹姆斯·奥尔提斯（James Olthuis）而言，爱（troth）是包括婚姻在内的人际关系的创造规范。既然同性恋关系也经历了爱的关系，那么同性婚姻是可以被允许的，甚至值得推荐。奥尔提斯认为，圣经没有任何地方指出同性关系是违背创造秩序的（例如：创1-2章；罗1章）。相反，一个充满爱的同性间委身行为（commitment）“是上帝丰富恩典的标志，是在堕落的世界中上帝的未来临在的象征”。换句话说，既然爱和慈悲统治未来的末世，那么同性间委身在当下便满足了那种使命。对奥尔提斯来说，这样的委身是文化救赎的规范性途径。在这里，就像启蒙运动一样，奥尔修斯对“后世”的概念是由自由、平等和博爱所塑造的，因而必然被投射到社会和文化的现状中——这是一种富有同情心的平等主义和爱组成的精神（ethos），在当下的上帝国度范围内被经历。根据我的判断，奥尔提斯关于创造规范的运用改变了圣经中关于婚姻和同性恋的明确信息（创2:18-25；罗1:24-27；林前6:9-10）。

For the creation order scholar James Olthuis, troth (love) is the creation norm of human relationships, including marriage. Since a homosexual relationship experiences a troth relationship, than a same-sex marriage is permissible and even recommended. In Olthuis’s estimation, the Bible nowhere states that a same-sex relationship is against the creation order (e.g. Gen 1– 2; Rom 1). Rather, a trothful same-sex commitment is a “sign of God’s abundant grace, a token of God’s future in a fallen world.”81 In other words, since troth, love and compassion rule the future eschaton, then same-sex commitments ful˜ll that mandate presently. For Olthuis, such a commitment is a normative routing of cultural redemption into the present. Here, like the Enlightenment, Olthuis’s conception of “posterity” is shaped by freedom, equality and fraternity which must be projected into the present status of society and culture—an ethos of compassionate egalitarianism and love (troth) being experienced in the present con˜nes of God’s kingdom. In my judgment, Olthuis’s application of a creation norm changes the clear Biblical message about marriage and homosexuality (Gen 2:18–25; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10).

当我们把思想转向沙龙新加尔文主义者时，我们必须停下来提及并简要地考察一下，创造秩序论的视角和沙龙论的视角都延续了反革命党的基督教民主社会主义的传统。因为按照他们对圣经及从改教角度对基督的理解，基督是文化转化者，因此这两个运动都援引理查德·尼布尔（Richard Niebuhr）的观点，他将历史加尔文主义转变成基督教社会主义。有趣的是，双方都很少提及尼布尔所坦率承认的，即奥古斯丁和加尔文并不赞成他的“改革宗”转换论者（conversionist），也即转化论者（transformationist）的观点。虽然尼布尔承认，奥古斯丁和加尔文提供了一些方向性指引，但正是英国神学家和社会主义者莫里斯（F. D. Maurice）给出了关于基督的最好理解，即他是现代文化的转化者。荷兰新加尔文主义也沿着同样的方向发展。沃尔特斯多夫承认，自己的文化转化规划似乎要成为世俗社会主义的亲密盟友。事实上，正如沃尔特斯多夫试图与世俗社会主义保持距离，他所做的只是给他的社会主义纲领加上一个基督教的外表。即便如此，它也提供了进一步了解和平视角的洞见。具体来说，沃尔特斯多夫坚持认为，“基督徒在世界中的存在方式应该通过崇拜和礼仪来塑造”。在东正教的神学家亚历山大·施密曼（Alexander Schmemann）之后，沃尔特斯多夫认为，“敬拜是人们领悟‘这个’世界、而不是其他世界的终极意义和本质之后的回应。这是人们把这个世界当作上帝的显现来领悟而有的回应”。实际上，这个世界被赐予人类，是上帝临在的圣礼和与上帝的团契（communion）。

As we redirect our thoughts towards shalom neo-Calvinists, we must pause to mention and brie˘y investigate that both the creation order perspective and the shalom perspective stand in the tradition of Christian democratic socialism in the Anti-Revolutionary Party. Thus, both movements have appealed to H. Richard Niebuhr’s transformation of historic Calvinism into Christian socialism as their Biblical and Reformed understanding of Christ, the transformer of culture.82 Interestingly, one hears little from either side that Niebuhr freely admitted that Augustine and Calvin did not endorse his “Reformed” conversionist’s (transformationist’s) view. Although Niebuhr admitted that Augustine and Calvin provided some direction, it was F. D. Maurice, the English theologian and socialist, who provided the best conception of Christ, the transformer of culture in the modern era.83 Dutch neo-Calvinism has followed in the same direction.84 Wolterstorˆ concedes that his own agenda for cultural transformation appears to be a close ally to secular socialism.85 In fact, as Wolterstorˆ attempts to distance himself from secular socialism, all he does is to give a Christian cast to his socialist program. Even so, it provides further insight into the shalom perspective. Speci˜cally, Wolterstorˆ maintains that a “Christian’s way of being-in-the-world” should be shaped by worship and liturgy.”86 Following the theologian of the Orthodox Church, Alexander Schmemann, Wolterstorˆ holds that “worship is the response to one’s apprehension of the ultimate meaning and nature of this world, not some other world. It is the response to one’s apprehension of this world as the epiphany of God.”87 In fact, this world was given to man to be a “sacrament of divine presence” and communion with God.

对于沃尔特斯多夫来说，在这个世界中对上帝的圣礼性崇拜并不是完全足够的。他还认为，我们的崇拜包括负责任地发展世界的潜能和爱我们的邻舍。在此，我们与上帝创造的圣礼性关系要求采取负责任的行动，即“基督教礼仪是宣告性行动（阅读圣经和传道）和崇拜行动之间的交替”。实施这些行动是为了实现“塑造世界的基督教”的愿景，或者使“这个”世界成为“沙龙”的世界。因此，对沃尔特斯多夫来说，通过礼仪来实践将宇宙转化为基督国度的圣礼，与马克思《关于费尔巴哈的论纲》的最后论点相互呼应：“问题不在于描述世界，而在于改变世界。”因此，基督徒要为实现沙龙而竭力，使他们的生命过得有意义。作为上帝创造的学生，“我们被指派去为邻舍伸张公义，并且在我们能的时候，让他们脱离苦难的压迫”。十九世纪的社会主义和马克思主义把启蒙运动实践到自己的世界，他们的许多原则被浓缩在自由、平等、博爱和正义的意象中，进步的新加尔文主义的这种关于沙龙的愿景，似乎与这样的意象很接近。

For Wolterstorˆ the sacramental worship of God in this world is not totally su¯cient; he also maintains that our worship includes responsible development of the potentials of the world and our responsibility to love our neighbor.88 Herein, the liturgy of our sacramental relationship with God’s creation demands responsible action, i.e. “Christian liturgy is an interchange between actions of proclamation [reading of Scripture and preaching] and  actions of worship.”89 These actions are practiced in executing the vision of “world-formative Christianity,” or to make this world the world of “shalom.”90 Hence, for Wolterstorˆ, the liturgical praxis of transforming the sacrament of the cosmos into Christ’s kingdom echoes Marx’s ˜nal Theses of Feuerbach: “The issue is not to describe the world but to change it.”91 For this reason, Christians are to work hard for shalom, making something signi˜cant of their lives.92 As students of God’s creation, “we have been assigned to seek justice for our neighbors and, whenever we can, to relieve them from the tyranny of their suˆering.”93 This Progressive neo-Calvinist vision of shalom seems close to the imagery of liberty, equality, fraternity and justice that epitomized many of the principles of nineteenth-century socialism and Marxism as they had applied the Enlightenment to their own world.

与创造秩序的观点类似，我认为沙龙论观点所理解的堕落犯罪的概念并不是悖逆上帝，而更多的是违反了沙龙的观念。尽管普兰丁格（Plantinga）说，所有的罪都是对上帝的冒犯，但这不足以明确地阐明罪。他这样写道：

Similar to the creation order perspective, I believe that the shalom perspective views the fall into sin as an oˆense against the concept of shalom more than an oˆense against God. Although Plantinga states that all sin is an aˆront to God, nevertheless, this is not su¯cient for a speci˜c understanding of sin.94 Rather, he writes:

毕竟，上帝并不是被随意地冒犯了。上帝讨厌罪恶，不仅仅是因为它违反了他的律法，从本质上讲，是因为罪违反了沙龙，因为它破坏了和平，因为它干涉了事情本来应该成为的。（的确，这就是为什么上帝设定律法来阻止许多的罪。）上帝希望沙龙，因此反对罪。事实上，我们完全可以把任何破坏沙龙的事情都看作是邪恶，无论是身体上的（例如疾病）、道德上的、精神上的还是其他方面的。

God is, after all, not arbitrarily oˆended. God hates sin not just because it violates his law but, more substantively, because it violates shalom, because it breaks the peace, because it interferes with the way things are supposed to be. (Indeed, that is why God has laws against a good deal of sin.) God is for shalom and therefore against sin. In fact, we may safely describe evil as any spoiling of shalom, whether physically (e.g. by disease), morally, spiritually or otherwise.95

据我判断，普兰丁格是在说，罪是明确的对沙龙（作为一种先验的形而上学的理念）的侵犯，而不是侵犯上帝的身份和位格。而且，尽管普兰丁格认为，必须先理解罪，然后才能领悟上帝恩典的深度，但是他暗示，在上帝最终的国度里亚伯和该隐将彼此和好，并且与上帝和好。他写道：

In my judgment, Plantinga is saying that sin is a speci˜c transgression against an a priori metaphysical idea (shalom) rather than a transgression against the identity and person of God. Moreover, although Plantinga holds that it is imperative to have an understanding of sin in order to appreciate the depths of God’s grace, nevertheless, in the ˜nal kingdom of shalom he hints that Abel and Cain will be reconciled to each other and to God. He writes:

我们有理由认为斗争终将停止。其原因，就像奥利弗·奥多诺万（Oliver O’Donovan）所说的那样，是因为耶稣基督代表了无辜的亚伯和有罪的该隐，并使他们彼此和好、并与上帝和好。“本来无罪的耶稣基督，这位原本的亚伯”为了我们成了有罪的（林前5:21）。他代替了该隐和亚伯。

We have reason to think the struggles will one-day cease. The reason is, as Oliver O’Donovan puts it, that Jesus Christ ‘represented both innocent Abel and guilty Cain, and reconciled them to each other and to God.’ Jesus Christ, the naturally innocent one, the natural Abel, ‘became sin’ for us (2 Cor 5:21). He took Cain’s place as well as Abel’s.96

这种普救论（universalism）的构想与尼布尔的立场是一致的，即支持莫里斯，反对任何二元论构想，包括“将人类分为被救赎的和被责罚的”。上帝对待罪，最终是没有负面的行动。毕竟，沙龙是一个平等主义的社会，在这个社会中，所有受罪残害的人都将得到释放。

Such a conception of universalism is consistent with Niebuhr’s position that, in support of Maurice, attacked any conception of dualism including “the separation of mankind into redeemed and condemned.”97 There will be no ˜nal negative action by God towards sin. After all, shalom is an egalitarian society in which everyone who has been victimized by sin will be released.

目前，这种平等主义模式的实践翻本似乎处于危险之中。正如我所指出的，在过去的两个世纪里，荷兰新加尔文主义已经认同了基督教民主社会主义。社会主义是社会民主主义的资本主义之外的另一种意识形态。随着二十世纪八十年代中期社会主义在欧洲的崩溃，因为风起云涌的自由市场经济活动，即使是基督教民主社会主义者也面临着认同危机。面对渗透到教会精神生活中的意识形态危机，阿姆斯特丹自由大学（Free University）的女性主义神学讲师兼研究员英国人朱莉·霍普金斯（Julie M. Hopkins）认为，“对于（欧洲的）教会内的许多有思考的女性而言，女权主义神学是在基督教信仰缺乏愿景而消亡之前的最后一根稻草”。女性主义神学最初以“启蒙运动的解放思想”为基础批判欧洲文化和基督教神学。鉴于目前自由市场经济的“无灵魂”的影响，霍普金斯认为，权利平等只是女权主义愿景的第一个阶段。目前，女权主义神学的目标必须是“批判性地把女性和男性转变成为一种新的教会样式；在那样的教会里，救恩（salvation）在最广的层面上可被理解成是物质的、社会的和灵性充实的，被人享受和分享，是带给世界的希望的标志”。这个目标是通过重建一种新的女权主义的基督论来实现的，而其前提是女权主义对基督论的解构。换言之，它认定，那些不再适切的（解构）文化处境和哲学前提塑造了在新约、各种信条、西方和东方教会以及宗教改革中出现的所有基督论理论。因此，构建一种新的基督论的目标必须在一种全球性的多元化背景中产生。在这个背景中，文化和社会经济条件塑造了我们关于基督的教义（重构）。在这些国家中（第三世界国家是这方面经验最丰富的国家），基督的解放性影响植根于个人和文化的信仰的存在体验。只有这种类型的信仰才是与信徒相适切的。毕竟，任何赞成普遍的教条性（dogmatic）的或单一性的（monolithic）基督论的人，都犯了宗教帝国主义的错误。

Presently, the empirical replica of this egalitarian model seems to be in crisis. As I have been stating, over the past two centuries Dutch neo-Calvinism has identi˜ed itself with Christian democratic socialism. With the collapse of socialism in Europe as an alternative ideology to social-democratic capitalism in the mid-1980s, even a Christian democratic socialist is faced with an identity crisis in light of the rising tide of free market economic activity.98 Europe is facing an ideological crisis that penetrates the spiritual life of her churches. In light of this serious crisis, Julie M. Hopkins, a British native who is the lecturer and researcher of feminist theology at the Free University, maintains that “feminist theology is the last gasp of many thinking women in the churches [European] to renew the faith before Christianity perishes for lack of vision.”99 Originally, feminist theology criticized European culture and Christian theology on the basis of “the emancipatory ideas of the Enlightenment.”100 In light of the present “soulless” eˆects of free-market economies, Hopkins holds that equal rights are only the ˜rst stage of the feminist vision.101 Presently, the goal of feminist theology must be “the critical transformation of women and men into a new way of being church where salvation in its broadest sense as physical, social and spiritual fullness is enjoyed and shared as a sign of hope to the world.”102 This goal is attained by reconstructing a new feminist christology which already presupposes the feminist deconstruction of christology.103 In other words, it is assumed that cultural contexts and philosophical presuppositions that are no longer relevant (deconstruction) shape all the christologies presented in the New Testament, creeds, the western and eastern churches, and the Reformation.104 Hence, the goal of constructing a new christology must arise within a global pluralistic context in which the cultural and socio-economic conditions shape our doctrine of Christ (reconstruction).105 In these countries, best experienced in third world countries, the liberating eˆects of Christ are an existential experience of individual and cultural faith. Only this type of faith is relevant to the believer.106 After all, anyone who subscribes to a universal dogmatic or monolithic christology is guilty of imposing religious imperialism.107

结语EPILOGUE

鉴于欧洲最近发生的事件，霍普金斯已经认识到，启蒙运动的平等主义理想和新加尔文主义中民主社会主义传统的综合已经不再足以解放全世界范围内文化和社会经济所受到的压迫。现在，被压迫者的解放依赖于在后现代主义世界背景下维护民主社会主义的理想。也许，我原来的论点可得以继续发展。因为新加尔文主义已经进入二十一世纪，如果新加尔文主义者用启蒙基督教的（enlightened-Christian）材料重建了现代城市，那么二十一世纪的新加尔文主义者将根据后现代的材料重建启蒙基督教的城市。创造规范和沙龙的恢复将满足每一种文化与社会经济的压迫性处境中的多元化的和存在性的需求。最后，在末世恢复的后现代扩展中，启蒙、平等主义以及恩典恢复自然的前提将不需要先验理性范畴的基础就能取得真正的胜利。这样，在这个崭新而又陌生的加尔文主义宗教的背景下，信徒在位格者上帝（特别是三一上帝的第二位格）的末世荣耀中要最终继承什么，又有什么所谓呢？

In light of recent events in Europe, Hopkins has come to realize that a synthesis of the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of neo-Calvinist democratic socialism are no longer su¯cient for the liberation of the cultural and socio-economically oppressed throughout the world. The liberation of the oppressed is now dependent upon the maintenance of democratic socialistic ideals in the context of a post-modernist’s world. Perhaps my original thesis continues to evolve. As neo-Calvinism enters the twenty˜rst century, if the neo-Calvinist rebuilt the modern city with enlightenedChristian materials, then the neo-Calvinist of the twenty-˜rst century will rebuilt the enlightened-Christian city in accommodation to post-modern materials. The restoration of the creation norms and shalom will accommodate the pluralistic and existential needs of every oppressive cultural and socioeconomic context. Finally, in a post-modern extension of eschatological restoration, Enlightenment, egalitarianism and the premise, grace restores nature, truly triumph without the foundation of a priori rational categories.108 Hence, in the context of this new and foreign Calvinistic religion, whatever happened to the believer’s ˜nal inheritance in the eschatological glory of the person of God, especially the second person of the Trinity?

 [1]本文原载于福音神学联盟期刊，Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society。承蒙作者授权翻译转载，特此致谢。——编者注

作者简介：

威廉·D·丹尼森（William D. Dennison）于1973年获得日内瓦大学学士学位，1976年获得威斯敏斯特神学院道学硕士，1980年获得神学硕士，1992年获得密歇根大学博士学位。现任美国圣约学院的跨学科研究学教授。