Tuesday, August 28, 2018

神有將選擇的自由給人嗎


神有將選擇的自由給人嗎?
    人有自由意志嗎?我們常問。如果有,我們也常關注的是,這自由意志有沒有限制?我在此試根據聖經解答這些問題,回歸到聖經最明顯,最自然的解釋。因為最重要的是聖
經說甚麼,而不是人或神學家怎麼說。
甚麼是「自由意志」?
    聖經沒有「自由意志」這個詞。談到人的自由意志時,我們都意會到是有關人的選擇,就是人的自由選擇權。因此,所謂自由意志,就是人有自由可以運用自己的意志去作選擇。
既然人在日常生活諸事上可以有選擇的自由,在信仰上當然也有選擇的自由。本文特別注重的,是有關選擇神和神救恩的自由。

神有將選擇的自由給人嗎?
    有,神在創造人類時就將這選擇權給了人。神創造了亞當、夏娃,把他們安置在伊甸園,就對他們說:「園中各樣樹上的果子,你可以『隨意』吃;只是分別善惡樹上的果子,
你不可吃,因為你吃的日子必定死」(創二16-17)。這是神對亞當的吩咐。從這些話,我們明顯看見神給了人自由,可以隨自己的意思作選擇。
    神給人的自由不是有限制的嗎?因為神不准亞當和夏娃吃園中分別善惡樹的果子。
    不錯,神給人的自由好像是有限制的,但他們仍然有選擇的自由。因為神不許亞當和夏娃吃園中分別善惡樹的果子,只是限制他們選擇的對象,沒有限制他們選擇的自由。結果
他們選擇了違背神的命令,充分說明他們有十足自由的選擇權。
    神給亞當和夏娃的那吩咐,有命令有警戒,其實就是神給人定下的規律,是人得福得禍的律。以後神給以色列人律法也是同理,守神律法得福,否則便召禍。到新約時,神為
人預備的救恩,救法仍是同理,信靠耶穌便不至滅亡,不然,人必因自己的罪而永遠滅亡。在這禍、福的律之間,人自己可以自由選擇。人自己的決定,自己負責,與別人無尤。人犯罪後,人是否已經完全喪失自由?人是否已經無法再選擇善,無法選擇神,只能聽從魔鬼,選擇惡,完全受制於魔鬼?
    亞當、夏娃犯罪後,他們的靈的確死了,完全與神隔絕了。人的確成了罪和撒但的奴僕,被撒但所轄制,常常作惡,身不由己。但是人犯罪後,人仍然可以隨意自由選擇。人在
身體死去之前,他們與生俱來的知、情、意並沒有消失。從聖經我們看見,人在日常生活的事上,甚至屬靈的事上,仍然可以自由選擇。
    你看,聖經創世記第四章記載,塞特生了一個兒子,起名叫以挪士,然後說:「那時候人才求告耶和華的名」(v.26)。接著第五和六章記載以諾和挪亞與神同行(五22,六9)。這些
經文給我們看見,人選擇要神。
    你再看,摩西在快要離開世界時,他招聚以色列人作最後的訓話說:「我今日呼天喚地向你作見證,我將生死、禍福,陳明在你面前,所以你要『揀選』生命,使你和你的後
裔都得存活。且愛耶和華你的神,聽從祂的話,專靠祂,因為祂是你的生命。」(申卅19-20)
    又例如約書亞在臨終前也招聚以色列人訓話,他說:「若是你們以事奉耶和華為不好,今日就可以『選擇』所要事奉的...至於我,和我家,我們必定事奉耶和華」(書廿四15)。
由此可見,人還是有選擇的自由的,並且人可以選擇信靠神,不然,摩西和約書亞講的這些話就毫無意義。
    所羅門登基作王後,他「定意」(原意是:心裡說) 要為耶和華的名建造殿宇(王上五3),可見這是他的意願。所羅門立志要為神建造聖殿,他的意志傾向神。
    到了新約,我們到處都看見有人信耶穌: 有人是見了耶穌所行的神蹟,或聽了祂的道而信祂;(參考約二22-23,四39、53,六69,十二11)
    有人是聽見了使徒或門徒的話和見證而信了祂;(參考徒八12,九42,十三12、48,十六34,十七34,十八8,林前十五11,弗一13,帖後一10)
    上述經文告訴我們,在新約時代有人選擇了神,選擇了善。因此,我們從舊約到新約都看見,亞當夏娃犯罪以後,還是有人選擇善,選擇神。這些人中,更包括了你和我呢!是的,自亞當夏娃以來,一直都有人信靠歸向神,但這些人的信心豈不也是出於神?是神的憐憫,不是他們自己懂得去揀選的,因為連信心也是神所賜的 (羅十二3,林前十二9,弗二8,來十二2),是聖靈將悔改和相信的心賜給人,人才會接受救恩。
    不錯,亞當夏娃犯罪後,人被蒙蔽,不懂得去揀選神,去愛神,人能信神實在是出於神的憐憫和恩典。但這並不是說,連人能歸向神和信靠神的「信心」也是神所賜的。雖然
好像有經文支持這種說法,但究其實,上面引用的經文並沒說明得救的信心是神所賜。
    羅馬書十二章及哥林多前書十二章題到的「信心」都和恩賜有關,那裡是說,在 神所賜的恩賜裡有一樣是「信心」,和其它恩賜一樣,是神為了建立教會賜給信徒的,不是叫人
得救的信心;
    以弗所書二8的「乃是神所賜的」一語,參看前面第五節就清楚:「當我們死在過犯中的時候,便叫我們與基督一同活過來;(你們得救是本乎恩)」。後面重申「乃是神所賜的」一語,與前文對照,就看出它不是指信心,而是指救恩而言。保羅的意思是:你們得救是本乎神的恩典和因著人的信心,這救恩不是出於人自己,也不是出於人的行為。
    只有希伯來書十二2所說:「為我們信心創始成終的耶穌」是有關人對神的信心,不過這裡也不是指信心是主所賜的,乃是指是主所創始和完成的。主神為人開創信心和完成
信心,不是將信心「賜」給人,乃是為人的「信心」,作了開創和完成了最早最完全的榜樣,我們參考該節經文的下半段便明白了。因此,我們從聖經找不到信心是神所賜的支持。
    從聖經裡,我們倒常看見主耶穌欣賞人的信心(可二5,路七9等等),也看見主指門徒的信心不夠(太七20,廿一21,可四40等等)。這些經文給我們的印像是,信心是從人自己裡 面來的。因為信心若是神所賜,不是出於人,耶穌就不必稱讚也不必責備,因為那不是人的問題而是神的問題,是神賜得夠不夠的問題了。如果信心是從人自己發出,那麼,耶穌
的欣賞和責備才有意義和合理。
    然則人犯罪後,人被蒙蔽,怎會對神有信心呢?
    這是神光照的結果。聖經常論到神光照人:
      「你必點著我的燈;耶和華我的神必『照明』我的黑暗。」 詩十八28
      「住在死蔭之地的人,有『光照耀』他們。」賽九2
      「『光照』在黑暗裡,黑暗郤不接受光。」約一5
      「『照明』你們心中的眼睛,使你們知道祂的恩召有何等指望;」弗一18
      「當醒過來,從死裡復活,基督就要『光照』你了。」弗五14
      「論到那些已經蒙了『光照』,嘗過天恩的滋味,又於聖靈有分...」來六4
    神光照人的工作其實是聖靈在做的。聖靈光照人,照明人心中的眼睛(弗一18);聖靈使人為罪,為義,為審判,自己責備自己(約十六8); 聖靈又引導人明白和進入真理(約十六13)。
    當人被光照後,他自己就作決定,要不要歸向神。耶穌講的浪子比喻就是一個例證 (路加十五11-32):浪子「醒悟過來」(v.17),這是光照;就說:「我要起來」(v.18),這是意志決定;於是起來回到父親的懷抱中(v.20),這是行動。使徒們在五旬節講道使三千人悔改 (使徒行傳二章),也見到這道理:「眾人聽見這話,覺得扎心」(v.37),這是光照;眾人就對使徒說「弟兄們,我們當怎樣行?」(v.37),這是立意歸正;彼得勸這些人:「當救自己脫離這彎曲的世代。於是領受他話的人,就受了洗,那一天,門徒約添了三千人。」(v.40-41),這是行動。
    神有時自己向人說話,有時藉先知或使徒向人說話,聖靈就把這些話,這些真理光照人,感動人,使人明白。當人明白後,還須要他自己作決定,要不要選擇神。聖經有兩處記載人「定意」靠向神 :一是約沙法王「定意尋求耶和華」(代下廿3),另一是但以理「定意向主神祈禱懇求」(但九3)。這「定意」最自然的解釋是,自己覺得需要而決意。呂振中牧師把「定意」譯作「咬緊牙根」,或作「堅定臉面」,這譯法更顯明了是自己作決定的意
思。
    話神光照人,人不一定會接受,正如約翰所說:「光照在黑暗裡,黑暗郤不接受光」(約一5)。有時人蒙了光照,知道一切,還是不接受,結果還是沉淪(來六4)。這是人自己抉擇的結果。如果人得救是人自己意志的決定,那豈不是人自己的功勞,而不是 神的恩典?
    人的意志只在「決定」要不要信,要不要接受救恩,人不能靠意志救自己。救恩是主耶穌已經完成的,不是可以憑任何功勞去換取的。人只須「要信」,「要接受」這救恩,就可以得救,是耶穌基督的救恩救了他。這救恩是神賜給人的禮物,是白白送給人的,願意「要」的人就得著,反之就得不著。因此,這要與不要只是行動,並不是善行,更不是功勞,只是伸手接受神的憐憫和恩典罷了。如果人有自由意志選擇救恩,豈不是貶低神的主權和主宰的
地位﹖因為是人在作決定,而不是神作決定。 
    人的自由選擇一點也不會影響到神的主權和地位,因為最終的審判權是在神手裡。人若違背神所定的律,他就要受到神的制裁。神是最高和最終的審判者,執行者,祂容許人有自由選擇權以任意選擇,但仍受祂的律(法)所約束,這才是真正的主宰,真正的主權。這才不是暴君,獨裁者,乃是依法行事的公義又慈愛的主宰。
 
 

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Faith or Regeneration – Which Comes First?


     I’ve been teaching through the Gospel of John at the federal prison near my house over the past few months. As with any expositional study, certain theological issues will naturally arise, and the issue of election has been popping up in our discussions. One of our conversations got a little heated one evening regarding the ordo salutis, or the order of salvation. The discussion focused primarily on whether regeneration precedes faith, or faith precedes regeneration. I was pleased to see them struggling with the issue and trying to work it out in their thinking. After nearly forty-five minutes I brought the discussion to a close, not because we’d resolved the matter, but because I needed get back to the expositional presentation of the Gospel of John, which is what the class is about. After I went home that evening, I spent a few hours writing this article, which I delivered to the inmates the following week. Though I take a position on this subject, I try to present both sides fairly.
     It’s important to keep in mind that there are good and loving theologians who stand on either side of the debate. Some believe regeneration precedes faith in Christ, and others that faith in Christ precedes regeneration. These are not dogmatic on the issue, stating the possibility that faith and regeneration may occur at the same time. Careful study through the Bible does not yield a step by step order concerning God’s salvation process in the life of His elect; rather, many of the arguments are predicated on logical reasonings. Below are a few quotes from top scholars who fall on either side of the debate. Though there are more teachers I could have chosen, I selected a few strong representatives from each side in order to keep the discussion focused and brief. A few opening remarks are important.
In view of the fact that the Bible does not specify the exact order that applies in the application of the work of redemption, there is naturally considerable room for a difference of opinion. And as a matter of fact the Churches are not all agreed as to the ordo salutis. The doctrine of the order of salvation is a fruit of the Reformation. Hardly any semblance of it is found in the works of the Scholastics. In pre-Reformation theology scant justice is done to soteriology in general.[1]
We should be flexible as to what goes into the ordo and what does not. The Bible itself doesn’t use the phrase ordo salutis any more than it speaks of an order of the decrees. And Scripture does not include anywhere a list of all the events theologians typically include under that label. Myself, I think that the ordo is mainly a pedagogical device.[2]
In the Reformed statement of the ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given new life in order to be able to believe. Although this is admittedly stated only as a logical order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has the new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? Of course, there can be no chronological order; both regeneration and faith have to occur at the same moment. To be sure, faith is also part of the total package of salvation that is the gift of God (Eph. 2:9); yet faith is commanded in order to be saved (Acts 16:31). Both are true.[3]
A definition of regeneration:
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration [παλιγγενεσία paliggenesia = regeneration, renewal] and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5)
And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration [παλιγγενεσία paliggenesia = regeneration, renewal] when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28)[4]
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [γεννάω gennao + ἄνωθεν anothen = born again, or born from above] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)
     The word “regeneration” occurs only twice in the Bible (Matt. 19:28 and Titus 3:5). In both places the Greek word used is παλιγγενεσία paliggenesia, which means the “the state of being renewed… [the] experience of a complete change of life, rebirth of a redeemed person.”[5] Dr. Charles Ryrie states, “The word, used only twice in the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Titus 3:5), means to be born again. To be born from above (anothen) occurs in John 3:3 and probably includes the idea of being born again also (see the use of anothen in Gal. 4:9). It is the work of God that gives new life to the one who believes.”[6] Dr. Paul Enns would agree, saying, “Succinctly stated, to regenerate means ‘to impart life.’ Regeneration is the act whereby God imparts life to the one who believes.”[7] The Greek word ἀναγεννάω anagennao can be added as well. The word appears twice in Peter’s first epistle (1 Pet. 1:3, 23). The basic meaning is, to begat again, and is translated born again in both instances and has the idea of imparting new life.
The argument that regeneration precedes faith in Christ:
     There are many Christians who believe that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. The reasoning is that an unregenerate person has no ability within himself to do anything, and even believing is made possible by means of the regenerating work of God the Holy Spirit. J.I. Packer states, “Jesus’ point throughout [John 3:3-8] is that there is no exercise of faith in himself as the supernatural Savior, no repentance, and no true discipleship apart from this new birth.”[8] In this formula, Packer places faith in Christ after regeneration. At another point he states, “Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause.”[9] Discussing John 3:3-8, Dr. Wayne Grudem takes the same view as Packer, stating:
Using the verses quoted above [John 3:3-8], we have defined regeneration to be the act of God awakening spiritual life within us, bringing us from spiritual deathto spiritual life. On this definition, it is natural to understand that regeneration comes before saving faith. It is in fact this work of God that gives us the spiritual ability to respond to God in faith. However, when we say that it comes “before” saving faith, it is important to remember that they usually come so close together that it will ordinarily seem to us that they are happening at the same time. As God addresses the effective call of the gospel to us, he regenerates us and we respond in faith and repentance to this call. So from our perspective it is hard to tell any difference in time, especially because regeneration is a spiritual work that we cannot perceive with our eyes or even understand with our minds.[10]
Dr. John Frame argues that regeneration is the first act in our salvation, saying:
When God calls us into fellowship with Christ, he gives us a new life, a new heart. Regeneration is the first effect of effectual calling. And regeneration is the first item on the list that occurs inside of us. The presupposition of Scripture is that apart from God’s grace we are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1–3), as we saw in chapter 8. That means that in and of ourselves, we can do nothing to please God. Just as conception and birth bring new physical life, so the work of regeneration brings new spiritual life. Through the new birth we gain new desire and new ability to serve God.[11]
Arguing that the new birth precedes faith in Christ, Frame further states:
So, the new birth comes before our faith, bringing it about. People sometimes say, “Believe in Jesus, and you will be born again.” This expression is biblically inaccurate. It is true that believing in Jesus is the path to blessing. But the new birth is the cause of faith rather than the other way around. Again, you cannot give birth to yourself, even by faith. Rather, God gives new birth to you and enables you to have faith. It is always God’s sovereignty, isn’t it?[12]
The argument that faith in Christ precedes regeneration:
     Regeneration is completely a work of God, for fallen persons have no ability to produce spiritual life. Dr. Lewis S. Chafer believes regeneration is a work of God alone, in which God the Holy Spirit produces new life in the believer, completely apart from any human merit or worth, and occurs at the moment of faith in Christ.
On the basis of this text [Tit. 3:5], the word “regeneration” has been chosen by theologians to express the concept of new life, new birth, spiritual resurrection, the new creation, and, in general, a reference to the new supernatural life that believers receive as sons of God. In the history of the church, the term has not always had accurate usage, but properly understood, it means the origination of the eternal life which comes into the believer in Christ at the moment of faith, the instantaneous change from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life.[13]
     Dr. John Walvoord argues that regeneration is completely a work of God, saying, “Regeneration by its nature is solely a work of God. While sometimes considered as a result, every instance presumes or states that the act of regeneration was an act of God.”[14] And he comments again, “As the word itself implies, the central thought in the doctrine of regeneration is that eternal life is imparted. Regeneration meets the need created by the presence of spiritual death.”[15] Further, Dr. Walvoord states clearly that eternal life is received by faith, saying:
The important fact, never to be forgotten in the doctrine of regeneration, is that the believer in Christ has received eternal life. This fact must be kept free from all confusion of thought arising from the concept of regeneration which makes it merely an antecedent of salvation, or a preliminary quickening to enable the soul to believe. It is rather the very heart of salvation. It reaches the essential problem of the lack of eternal life without which no soul can spend eternity in the presence of God. Regeneration supplies eternal life as justification and sanctification deal with the problem of sin specifically. It is a smashing blow to all philosophies which hold that man has inherent capacities of saving himself. Regeneration is wholly of God. No possible human effort however noble can supply eternal life. The proper doctrine of regeneration gives to God all glory and power due His name, and at the same time it displays His abundant provision for a race dead in sin.[16]
     Dr. Charles Ryrie writes concerning the means of regeneration, stating, “God regenerates (John 1:13) according to His will (James 1:18) through the Holy Spirit (John 3:5) when a person believes (1:12) the Gospel as revealed in the Word (1 Pet. 1:23).”[17] Ryrie then defines faith, saying, “Faith means confidence, trust, to hold something as true. Of course, faith must have content; there must be confidence or trust about something. To have faith in Christ unto salvation means to have confidence that He can remove the guilt of sin and grant eternal life.”[18] And finally, addressing the necessity of faith, he states, “Salvation is always through faith, not because of faith (Eph. 2:8). Faith is the channel through which we receive God’s gift of eternal life; it is not the cause. This is so man can never boast, even of his faith. But faith is the necessary and only channel (John 5:24; 17:3).”[19] Dr. Paul Enns would agree, saying:
John 1:13 indicates the new birth is not effected by the will of man. Regeneration is an act of God, not a cooperative effort between God and man. That is not to say, however, that faith is unnecessary in salvation. It may be suggested that although regeneration and faith are distinct, they occur simultaneously. The two are set side by side in John 1:12–13. In John 1:12, at the moment of receiving Christ (believing), the person becomes a child of God; in John 1:13 it indicates that at that very moment the persons have been born of God. Surely there is a mystery here that surpasses human comprehension.[20]
     I find myself more in agreement with Lewis Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Paul Enns, and many others who teach that regeneration occurs either just after faith in Christ, or at the same time. This discussion is not intended to resolve the issues surrounding the ordo salutis. Though I love and appreciate the writings of theologians such as R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, John Frame, and many others, yet I am unconvinced—at least at this time—by their arguments that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. My current position is based more on the evidence of Scripture rather than well-crafted theological arguments.
     Biblically, there are numerous passages that place faith as the necessary prerequisite to having new life, or regeneration. It is written, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), and “This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life” (John 6:40). In these and other instances, “eternal life” is given after we believe in Jesus as our Savior. Faith is never the cause of our salvation, but rather, the means by which we receive it. Scripture clearly states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
     I would also like to say in closing that I do not consider this theological issue as central to the Christian faith; therefore, disagreement on this issue is not a basis for breaking fellowship. I agree with the statement: in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love.
Steven R. Cook, D.Min.
Related Articles:
  1. The Gospel in Two Minutes  
  2. Not of Works  
  3. The Doctrine of Election  
  4. Soteriology – The Study of Salvation   

Cited Sources:
[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 417.
[2] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 183.
[3] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 376.
[4] Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995.
[5] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 752.
[6] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 376.
[7] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 338.
[8] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 157–158.
[9] Ibid., 158.
[10] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 702.
[11] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, 185.
[12] Ibid., 186.
[13] Lewis Sperry Chafer; Major Bible Themes (Grand Rapids, Mich. Zondervan Publishing, 2010), 97-98.
[14] John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapds, Mich. Zondervan Publishing, 1977), 130.
[15] Ibid., 131.
[16] Ibid., 132.
[17] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 376.
[18] Ibid., 377.
[19] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 377.
[20] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 340.


Saturday, August 18, 2018

圣经如何谈到 神的主权?


圣经如何谈到 神的主权?
一个合于圣经的主权观
一、从奥古斯丁的决定论到加尔文的主权观

要了解一个思想,我们一定要回到历史去调查一下这个思想的来源以及这个思想有关的一些人物的背景。在上一次的课程中我们提到奥古斯丁的决定论。让我先稍微介绍奥古斯丁的生平1再进入对他的主权观的探讨。奥古斯丁 354 生在非洲的 Hippo,这是所谓欧洲黑暗时期开始的时候。他年青的时候生活放荡,还有了一个私生子。但他有一个伟大的母亲,数十年如一日的为他儿子祷告。以后奥古斯丁去信了一个基督教的异端叫做摩尼教。但不久以后他又离开了摩尼教,转而研究伯拉图的哲学。后来在罗马、米兰各地教书,受主教 Ambrosius启发,开始对天主教有好感。
386年改信天主教,受洗为天主教徒,回非洲,升至 Hippo主教,430年逝世。他的著作甚多有
93 册,均以拉丁文写成。代表作有:忏悔录,上帝之城,论自由意志,论三位一体等。奥古斯丁是浪子回头的典范,被教会称为『伟大的教父』『上帝的使者』。他是一位哲学与神学的天才,他毕生致力的是奠定基督教教义,设法融合柏拉图等希腊哲学思想和基督教教义,以建立基督教神学的系统。在他晚年的时候,他致力将希腊哲学思想中的决定论引进基督教的思想。以后他又把决定论和基督教的选民思想结合起来成为所谓的『预定论』。因为黑暗时期历时将近一千年,经过北方蛮族的入侵,十字军东征,民不聊生,文化的发展缓慢。在这期间,教廷又兴起宗教审判,在神学上的发展也受到影响,伟大的神学家不多,到 16 世纪宗教改革的时候,改教家们跳过一千年黑暗时期,回到奥古斯丁的神学著作中去探索。这就为什么改教家们继承了很多从奥古斯丁来的东西。

到底奥古斯丁是如何从圣经建立他的决定论我们不知道,但他从希腊哲学中借用『决定论』是很明显的,加尔文及后来的学者也继承了决定论。上一堂,我们针对了改革宗的神学家给我们一个主权相关字的清单,进行了归纳法的字义研究,检验一下他们的观点和他们所根据的经文有没有一致。结果,透过这样的研究:我们再一次的肯定了神至高无上的主权。祂知道万事,没有一件事情的发生会让神觉得震惊,祂是一位全能的神,万事都在祂的掌控之下,祂是一位随己意行事的神,没有人曾经作过祂的谋士。但我们发现神并没有如奥古斯丁的决定论所说的:『神在永恒的过去就已经决定了万事的发生以及它们的结局。』奥古斯丁的决定论深深的影响了加尔文主义者对神的主权观的看法:神的主权是绝对的,祂完全而彻底的行使祂的主权(Sovereignty),叫万事 (all things)都依照祂在亘古预先定下的计划 (decrees)被执行,神引导万事直到它们所命定的结局,神的计划都是最好的。虽然神预定万事,引导万事,但人仍然要为他们的决定,行动及罪恶来负责任,神绝对不是罪恶的创造者。


二、评估加尔文主义的主权观

在我们还没有提议一个合于圣经的主权观之前,让我们先对加尔文主义的主权观作一个评估:

加尔文主义的主权观难免使神成为罪恶的创造者。

如果说神在永恒的过去就决定了万事,那神必然也决定了所有犯罪的事。你能想象三位一体的神在永恒的过去说:『让我们定下南京大屠杀的旨意』『让我们定下911 事件的旨意』吗?可是加尔文主义者承认人要为自己的罪来负责任,也承认神不是罪恶的源头。但他们却无法解释这个矛盾。就是,神又预定万事,又不是罪恶的创造者。怎么办呢?他们就提出下一个论点。

加尔文主义的主权观只能诉诸于二律背反(Antinomy)来解释人的自由意志。

在奥古斯丁之前,教会对人的自由意志从没有什么疑问,直到奥古斯丁发展了他的决定论以后,才受到质疑。今天『自由意志』在加尔文主义者来可以说是一个很忌讳的字,因为他们所持的决定论造成了『神的主权』和『人的自由意志』这两件事的相对抗。一方面人需要有自由意志去作出决定,神才能要求他们负责任。但如果神在永恒的过去已经对万事作出决定,那祂怎能要求人负责任呢?只要有人向他们质疑这个矛盾 ,他们很快的就把这种矛盾诉诸于所谓的『二律背反』(Antinomy,Paradox)。其实,我们承认有『二律背反』这种现象,比如三位一体就是一个很典型的例子。无论是『三位』或『一体』我们都能从圣经找到数量相当多的经文来支持这两个并存的真理。但加尔文主义者的『神的主权』与『自由意志』之间却不是这样。我们在圣经里到处可以找到很多支持人自由意志的经文。但根据我们上一课的字义研究,我们却无法找到任何支持加尔文主义者的『神的主权』的经文。其实,要解决这个矛盾的方法很简单。只要他们放弃奥古斯丁的决定论,神的主权和人的自由就可以得到和谐了。当这个矛盾解决以后,他们就不必再使用『二律背反』来解释一个跟本不是『二律背反』的个案。


加尔文主义的主权观所描述的神不能以任何条件要求人。

如果奥古斯丁的决定论是对的话,那我们不可能与这一位神之间存在着什么有意义的互动的关系,因为什么事都已经决定了。圣经到处都记载神要求人在许多方面回应神,人与神之间存在着一个很丰富而且活泼的互动。这些包括神要赐福气给那些遵行祂神的律法,旨意,判断的人。神赐下救恩,人就要对救恩回应。在基督徒生活的方面,神要求人要向祂祷告祈求,然后神要答应我们的祈求。神赐恩给我们,而我们要向感恩,我们要赞美祂等等。如果什么事都早已决定了,神对我们的这些要求就没有什么意义,我们也不会感到自己的生命在神的眼中有什么重要性。


加尔文主义的主权观必须要包含定罪论(Reprobation)。

什么是定罪论 (Reprobation)呢?就是『神在永恒的过去已经拣选了某些人得救,同时对某些人置之不理,最后按照罪行定他们的罪,接受永远的刑罚。』加尔文自己称这一条教义是『可怕的』教义,但他坚持这是圣经的教导,是不可删减的一条教义。我不同意这个说法,这是奥古斯丁的决定论应用在人的救恩上的结果。


加尔文主义的主权观过度的限制了神的爱。

奥古斯丁的决定论深深的影响了加尔文主义者的拣选观。如果神只拣选某些人得救却定罪其它的人。那就是表示神不爱那些未被拣选上的人。这个说法很难与神爱的属性一致。我们会在以后的课程详细的谈到拣选和预定的问题。


加尔文主义的主权观所根据的决定论与其它宗教的宿命论很类似。

宿命论和决定论不太一样,宿命论跟方法没有什么关系,它只强调结局,所谓的『听天由命』(What’s going to be is goingto be anyway, and I cannot do anything)。宿命论在许多的宗教都有,比如伊斯兰教,中国及印度的一些宗教。但奥古斯丁的决定论则一样,因为决定论没有否认神的主权与人的责任之间有互动的关系,所以决定论和只强调结局的宿命论不同。但因为加尔文主义者没有解决他们在『神的主权』与『人的自由意志』之间的矛盾,以致于决定论和宿命论就显得很类似了。


加尔文主义的主权观把神的属性和主权的行使颠倒了。

加尔文主义者常常认为神是不可能知道祂所没有预先决定的。换句话说,神要先定下一个旨意以后,祂才能够知道那一个旨意。但这是本末倒置的观念,『全知』是神的属性,而旨意是祂的决定。神的全知不应该是从祂的旨意跑出来:旨意=>全知 (×)。神的旨意应该从祂的全知出来才对: 全知=>>旨意 (√ )。

1 基督教二千年史,希坡的奥古斯丁,p. 204-209.2 慕迪神学手册,『神的计划』,p. 197; 『加尔文神学』,p. 463-464.
3 Beyond Calvinismand Arminianism by Gordon Olson, p. 64-71.
4慕迪神學手冊,”給反對者的答辯”, p. 201.
5『二律背反』是说,从人的观点来说,有两件事是对立的,但从神来说可以共存。有称为『吊诡性』,唐崇荣牧师创造一个字叫『反合性』。
6
慕迪神学手册,加尔文神学,p. 464.
7 BasicTheology by Charles C. Ryrie, p. 363-364.
8 Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism by Gordon Olson, p.60-63.