《哥尼流范泰尔：他的思想的分析》

第二部份　范泰尔的知识的形而上学（本体论）

VAN TIL’S METAPHYSICS OF KNOWLEDGE

（傅兰姆，《哥尼流范泰尔：他的思想的分析》，页51-184。编者加添资料。）

(From John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, Part Two, pp. 51-184.  With additional material from editor.)

第四章　上帝：自含丰满与绝对位格

GOD: SELF-CONTAINED FULLNESS AND ABSOLUTE PERSONALITY

经文：《以赛亚书》40章。《使徒行传》17：22-31。《罗马书》11：33-36。

Scripture: Isaiah chapter 40.  Acts 17:22-31.  Romans 11:33-36.

1. 本于《圣经》的世界观BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW

(From John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, chapter 4, pp. 51-53.)

我们应该现在开始有系统地研究范泰尔的思想。根据我的分析，他最重要的洞见可分作四个范畴：知识形而上学、知识伦理学、基督教的论证和对「不信」的批判（包括「非信徒的思想」和「不信的思想对基督教神学的影响」）。…

We shall now begin to look at Van Til’s thought systematically. On my analysis, his most significant insights can be divided into four general categories: the metaphysics of knowledge, the ethics of knowledge, the argument for Christianity, and the critique of unbelief (including both the thought of unbelievers and the influence of unbelieving thought upon Christian theology). …

1. 形而上学、知识论、伦理学 Metaphysics, Knowledge, Ethics

在第二部份「知识的形而上学」，我会讨论范泰尔对人类知识的基要本质的看法，这看法来自基督教的世界观。第三部份「知识的伦理学」会处理堕落对人类知识的影响。…

In Part Two, “The Metaphysics of Knowledge,” I will discuss Van Til’s view of the basic nature of human knowledge within a Christian worldview. Part Three, “The Ethics of Knowledge,” will deal with the effects of the Fall upon our knowledge. …

范泰尔常常讨论形而上学、知识论和伦理学这三个传统哲学的主要学科。形而上学（是本体论的同义词）广泛地描述实存的本质，处理宇宙整体的结构问题：一与众之间的关系、位格与非位格的关系、上帝与人的关系、无限与有限的关系、时间与永恒的关系、能看见的与不能看见的的关系。伦理学则处理个人行为的准则；如何确知这些准则，如何把这些准则应用在行为上。知识论（epistemology, theory of knowledge）则讨论我们如何能认识真理，包括在形而上学和伦理学范围内的真理。…

Van Til often discussed relationships among metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, three traditional philosophical disciplines. Metaphysics, roughly synonymous with ontology, describes in broad terms the nature of reality and deals with questions about the general structure of the world: the relations of unity and diversity, personality and impersonality, God and man, infinitude and finitude, time and eternity, the visible and the invisible. Ethics deals with norms for personal behavior, ways of determining those norms, and ways of applying them to behavior. Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, discusses how we can know truth, including truth in metaphysics and ethics. …

2. 形而上学 = 《圣经》的世界观

Metaphysics = Biblical Worldview

范泰尔最早的教学讲义，原是以《护教学的形而上学》为题目（近年来被改为《基督教知识论综览》）。「形而上学」在这里是指《圣经》的世界观，也就是创造者与被造者之间的关系。因此，从最早期的教学生涯开始，他就关心「人类的知识」和「基督教护教学」两者与《圣经》的世界观之间的关系。…（范泰尔的）知识形而上学特别配得最高的赞扬，因为它彻底地本于《圣经》，又富有理性上的深度；并且大体上澄清了人类思想的基要本质。…

Van Til’s first class syllabus was originally entitled “The Metaphysics of Apologetics.” (More recently it was retitled A Survey of Christian Epistemology.) “Metaphysics” in this context refers to the biblical worldview, namely, the relation between Creator and creature. Thus, he was concerned from the earliest days of his career to discuss human knowledge and Christian apologetics in relation to the biblical worldview. … (Van Til’s) account of the metaphysics of knowledge merits superlative commendation. It is profoundly biblical and intellectually penetrating, and it provides substantial clarification of the fundamental nature of human thought. …

3. 简单的思想架构：两个圈子──创造主与被造者的区别

Simple Structure: Two Circles,The Creator-Creature Distinction

范泰尔写道：「我思想的架构非常简单。」（DF1, 23）事实上也是如此。范泰尔的

起点是基督教创造论：上帝是创造者，世界是祂的创作。他常常在教室黑板上画两个

圆圈，一个大的圈，代表上帝；下面一个较小的圈，代表被造物（宇宙）。两个圈由几条直线连起来，代表上帝的护理（掌管宇宙）和启示。不过范泰尔所强调的，是两个圈之间的区别。

Van Til wrote, “Now the basic structure of my thought is very simple” (DF1, 23), and in essence it is. Van Til’s starting point is the historic doctrine of creation: God is the Creator, the world is his creation. Over and over again in class he would draw two circles on the blackboard: a large circle representing God and a smaller circle below it representing the creation. The two are connected by lines representing providence and revelation, but Van Til emphasized the distinctness of the two circles from one another.

4. 「圣经」与「世俗」：「二圈思维」与「一圈思维」：

「相互依存」的错误

Bible Versus World: Two Circles Versus One Circle Thinking:

The Error of Correlativity

范氏坚持，基督教的世界观是「二圈」的世界观。这与世俗的世界观截然不同，后者只有「一圈」的思维。这一类不合乎《圣经》的思维，视宇宙一切的实存彼此同等，所以，上帝若存在，祂就与世界同等。可是对基督教来说，上帝是全权的创造者与主宰；世界绝对不能与祂同等。这就是范泰尔所谓的「简单的思想架构」。

He insisted that Christianity has a “two-circle” worldview, as opposed to secular thought, which has only “one-circle” thinking. Non-biblical thought makes all reality equal: if there is a God, he is equal to the world. But for Christianity, God is the sovereign Creator and Lord; the world is in no sense equal to him. That is, in essence, the “simple structure” of Van Til’s thought.

[ DF1 = The Defense of the Faith, 1^st edition ]

 

1. 上帝，自含的丰满

GOD, THE SELF-CONTAINED FULLNESS

(From John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, chapter 4, pp. 53-58.)

1. 「自存」：上帝是自足的，不是相互依存的

Aseity: God Is Self-Sufficient, Not Correlative

我们若要了解范泰尔的知识形而上学，首先要探索他的上帝观。他在《系统神学导论》的第一页说：「我们预设上帝的先存与自存，并预设祂无谬误地在《圣经》中向人启示自己；这是所有正统信仰的基础。」（IST, 1; IST 第二版, 215.）「自存」（self-existence 或 aseity）所指的是这个事实：「上帝在任何意义上，与任何在祂以外的存有都是不相互依存的（correlative），也不依靠祂以外的一切存有。上帝是祂自己存有的来源；或者应该说「来源」这词并不适用于上帝。上帝是绝对的，上帝对自己是自足的。」（DF2, 9）范泰尔常说「上帝是自含的」（self-contained），就是指这个事实。

Evidently, then, our first priority in trying to understand Van Til’s metaphysics of knowledge is to explore his doctrine of God. On the first page of his Introduction to Systematic Theology, he says, “Fundamental to everything orthodox is the presupposition of the antecedent self-existence of God and of his infallible revelation of himself to man in the Bible.” (IST, 1; ITS2, 215.) “Self-existence,” sometimes called aseity, refers to the fact “that God is in no sense correlative to or dependent upon anything besides his own being. God is the source of his own being, or rather the term source cannot be applied to God. God is absolute. He is sufficient unto himself” (DF2, 9). Often Van Til summarizes this concept by referring to the “self-contained God.”

2. 上帝是自足的，因此是不变的

God Is Self-Sufficient, Therefore Unchangeable

范泰尔很喜欢引用巴文克的一段话，意思是说，上帝所有其他的属性（美德）都包括在祂的自存（aseity）里（IST, 206）。因此，当范泰尔讨论上帝的不变性时，他将上帝不变性的教义建立在上帝的自存上：「显然的，上帝不会改变，祂不能改变；因为除了祂自己永恒的存有（eternal Being）之外，祂不靠任何其他的事物（玛3:6，雅1:17）。」（DF2, 9; DF4, 30.）

He quotes favorably a passage from Bavinck to the effect that all the other  virtues of God are included in his aseity (IST, 206). Thus, when Van Til goes on to discuss God’s immutability, he bases that doctrine upon the divine aseity: “Naturally God does not and cannot change since there is nothing besides his own eternal Being upon which he depends (Mal. 3:6, James 1:7).” (DF2, 9; DF4, 30.)

玛3:6

因我耶和华是不改变的，所以你们雅各布之子没有灭亡。

雅1:17

各样美善的恩赐和各样全备的赏赐都是从上头来的，从众光之父那里降下来的；在他并没有改变，也没有转动的影儿。

3. 「上帝的不变性」与「世俗的不变性」

God’s Immutability Versus Secular Immutability

上帝的不变性既是建立在祂的「自含丰满」（self-contained fullness）上，它与亚理斯多德「不动的动者」（unmoved mover）的不变性就是相反的；后者只是一个抽象的理念在思想它自己（IST, 210）。

Since God’s immutability is based upon his “self-contained fullness,” it is quite opposite to the immutability of Aristotle’s unmoved mover, an abstract thought thinking itself (IST, 210).

4. 世俗的「自含观」：它们都引致「一圈思维」──借着延伸或否定之法

Secular Ideas of “Self-Contained”:

All Lead to One-Circle Thinking – Through Extrapolation or Negation

请注意他如何从「自含」进到「自含的丰满」，这是重要的一步。所有尝试建构完整的本体论系统，都有一个「自含」的东西。可能是「第一因」（uncaused cause）、「终极的物理粒子」、「现实中抽象的一致性」（abstract unity）、「抽象的形式」（abstract form，也称为「相」）、「机率性」（pure chance）、或「随意性」（randomness）。这些主张的基础，若不是从有限的现存「延伸」（extrapolation），就是「否定」有限（negation），试图借着这些方法达到无限（infinity）。按一般哲学家的作法，「延伸法」会引致一个所谓「自含」的存有，可是它不过是有限宇宙的扩大而已。而「否定法」则会引致另一个「自含」的存有，它之所以是「自含」的，正因为它没有正面的属性。「延伸法」并不引致上帝，只将人带到一个更大的宇宙而已；「否定法」则引致虚无。两条路都无法通到《圣经》中上帝的「丰满」那里；它们都把人领入「一圈」思维，而非「二圈」思维。

Notice how he moves from “self-contained” to “self-contained fullness.” That is important. All would-be comprehensive metaphysical systems include something that is “self-contained.” It may be an uncaused cause, an ultimate physical particle, an abstract unity in reality, an abstract form, or perhaps pure chance or randomness. The basis for such assertions lies either in an extrapolation from finite reality (the “way of eminence”) or in a negation of the finite in an attempt thereby to reach infinity (the “way of negation”). Extrapolation or eminence, carried out in the usual philosophical way, leads to a “self-contained” being that is merely an enlargement of the finite universe; negation leads to a being that is self-contained simply because it has no positive qualities. Extrapolation leads to no God at all, but only a larger universe; negation leads to emptiness. Neither leads to the “fullness” of the biblical God. Both leads to “one-circle” thinking, rather than “two-circle” thinking.

5. 「正确的否定法」与「不正确的否定法」

「不正确的否定法」 = 抽象

Correct Negation Versus Incorrect Negation

Incorrect = Abstract

范泰尔并没有说「延伸」和「否定」是不合理的作法，他反对的是哲学和神学历史上「延伸」和「否定」的典型作法。论到（上帝的）无限，他说：「我们必须用否定法来形容这个属性。」（IST, 211）他继续说：「可是，正确地使用否定法，是至为重要的。」（IST, 211; IST2, 335. 编者按：参 ITS2, 264, 296-297, 323-326; 特别：页 323。）

Van Til does not deny the legitimacy of extrapolations and negations as such.  But he objects to the way in which these have typically been carried out in the history of philosophy and theology. With regard to infinity, he says, “We are again compelled to describe this attribute chiefly by way of negation.” (IST, 211.) He adds, however, “But it is again of utmost significance that we use the way of negation correctly.” (IST, 211; IST2, 335.)

不正确的否定法是「抽象」的，因为它：

The incorrect way is “abstract,” which is to

只不过将时间、空间等理念，减去排序、延续（succession, continuity）等特征，以致达到永恒、无所不在等理念。可是当我们接受这种劝告的时候，我们达到的终点，是与上帝存有的丰满完全相反的一端。我们会来到纯粹的虚无。

Simply take the notions of time and space, and subtract such characteristics as succession or continuity from them in order to reach the notions of eternity and omnipresence. But when we follow this advice we land at the opposite pole from that of the fullness of the being of God. We then come to pure emptiness.

因此，我们需要上帝那言语不能尽述的「存有的丰满」，作为我们对于时间、空间等理念的预设前提（presupposition）；然后减除这些理念里基于它们是上帝所造的缘故而有的限制。若这样作，我们的「否定」就是神本的（theistic）。这样的「否定」同时也就是「肯定」。上帝是那么的圆满、丰富，以致当我们论及祂而必须使用「否定」时，都不能不先预设祂存有的丰满。（IST, 211-212; IST2, 335-336.）

Accordingly, we need the indescribable fullness of the being of God as the presupposition of our notions of time and space. Then we subtract from these notions the limitations that pertain to them by virtue of the fact that they are created by God. If we do this, we walk theistically on the way of negation. The way of negation is then, at the same time, the way of affirmation. God then appears so full and rich in his being that we cannot even make negations with respect to him without the presupposition of the fullness of his being. (IST, 211-212; IST2, 335-336.)

即使在讨论上帝的属性时，范泰尔也运用「预设前提」！…

Even in his basic discussion of God’s nature, the matter of presuppositions comes into play!…

6. 上帝是合一的，因此是自足的

God’s Unity Is Basis of His Aseity

范泰尔也将上帝的合一性（unity）与祂的自含丰满连接起来。在神学传统上，一般都将「上帝的独一性」（singularity，宇宙中只有一位上帝）和「上帝的单一性」（simplicity，上帝不是由可以分别被理解的不同部份或层次所组成；上帝的存有是神性的存有，是完整的一体）区分开来。对范泰尔来说，「上帝的独一性」和「上帝的单一性」是彼此预设的：「上帝有绝对的独一性，因此，上帝的自足是内在质素的自足（internal qualitative sufficiency）。」（IST, 215; IST2, 341. 编者按： 参：DF4, 31。）

Van Til also relates God’s attribute of unity to his self-contained fullness.  Theologians traditionally distinguish God’s unity of singularity (that there is only one God) from his unity of simplicity (that he is not made up of parts or aspects that are intelligible in themselves, apart from the divine being as a whole). To Van Til, the one implies the other: “We have in the case of God absolute numerical identity and, therefore, internal qualitative sufficiency.” (IST, 215; IST2, 341.  Ed.: cf. DF4, 31.)

7. 错误思想：若「抽象的属性」（例如良善）高过上帝而成为宇宙的真神，

这也不过是非位格的上帝

Error: Abstract Attribute – e.g. Goodness, Will Be Higher Than God,

And Be The True God, Albeit an Impersonal God

上帝若只有一位，那么上帝「里面」没有任何事物是离祂而独立的。就以「上帝的良善」为例，「良善」并不是上帝思想里的一样东西，祂要将自己带到这「良善」面前，去遵守它。若是这样的话，「良善」这一个抽象的质素就成为「第二位上帝」，与上帝相辅相成了。因此，若否认上帝的单一性，则违反了上帝的独一性（宇宙只有一位上帝）。

If there is only one God, then there is nothing “in” him that is independent of him. God’s goodness, for example, is not something in his mind to which he brings himself to conformity. If it were, that goodness, an abstract quality, would be a second deity coordinate with God himself. Thus, denial of God’s unity of simplicity violates God’s unity of singularity.

从另一个意义上看，根据这样的假设，宇宙中还是会有一位「上帝」，只不过那不是《圣经》中的上帝。若抽象的良善比上帝更终极（ultimate），那就只有这「良善」才是真正的神。而真神若只是一条抽象的原则，那么真神就是非位格的（impersonal），而不是有位格的（personal）。

In another sense, however, on this supposition, there would still be one god, though not the God of Scripture. For abstract goodness would be more ultimate than God is; it alone would be authentic deity. And if the true deity were an abstract principle, then the true deity would be impersonal rather than personal.

8. 上帝的良善就是祂自己；一切的属性指向祂本身

God’s Goodness Is Himself; All Attributes Refer to His Self

相反地，范泰尔说，上帝的良善就是祂所是的一切。同样地，祂的一切属性都指向祂自含的丰满（当然，每一个属性是从不同的角度指向祂的自含丰满）。

On the contrary, says Van Til, God’s goodness is everything that he is. All his attributes, similarly, refer (from different perspectives!) to his self-contained fullness.

（编者按：上帝所有的属性，都是与祂『同极』的。IST2, 323。）

(Ed.: All the attributes of God are coterminous with God.  IST2, 323.)

中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org；中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）

9. 延伸与否定都必须预设上帝的启示

Extrapolation and Negation Must Presuppose God’s Revelation

总的来说，上帝的本性是那么的丰富、完满，我们永远不可能只靠延伸或否定去认识的。可是，上帝若自我启示的话，我们就可以在我们的延伸和否定中预设这启示了。因为上帝在祂的启示中告诉我们，祂是创造者，我们是被造者；祂也赐给我们很多关于「创造者与被造者如何不同」的启示。我们必须要作的第一件事情，就是谦卑地从祂手中领受这知识。我们有关「上帝属性的教义」，简单地说，就是复述、解释和应用上帝所告诉我们的事情。

In summary, the nature of God is so rich and full that we could never come to know it on the basis of either eminence or negation taken by themselves. However, if God reveals himself, then we can presuppose that revelation in our extrapolations and negations. For he tells us in that revelation that he is the Creator and we are creatures, and he tells us much about how Creator and creature differ from one another. What we must do first is humbly accept that knowledge from his hands. Our doctrines of the divine attributes will simply be repetition, explanation, and application of what God has told us.

10. 应用《圣经》牵涉普遍启示；对普遍启示的响应必须预设《圣经》

Applying Scripture Involves General Revelation;

Response to General Revelation Must Presuppose Scripture

说到《圣经》的应用，当然牵涉到「使《圣经》的教训与我们经历的现实相连」。关于上帝的不变性和无限性方面，我们需要问：这些与空间和时间有甚么关系？这是很重要的问题。《圣经》在这方面讲得不多，也不仔细；我们在这方面所学到的东西，多数来自「自然启示」──即上帝在自然和历史中的自我启示。可是当我们对空间和时间的分析先预设了《圣经》的真理时，我们就可以作出有用的结论，知道上帝如何超越时间空间（transcendence），可是又同时在时间空间里临在（immanence）。

But application, of course, involves relating the teachings of Scripture to the realities of our experience. In the case of divine immutability and infinity, it is important to ask how these are related to space and time. Scripture says little specifically or in general about space and time; much of what we learn about these things comes from “natural revelation,” God’s revelation of himself in nature and history. But when our analysis of space and time presupposes the truth of Scripture, we can draw useful conclusions about how God transcends them, yet is also immanent in them.

11. 启示使「延伸法」和「否定法」变得可能而有效

Revelation Makes Extrapolation, Negation Possible and Fruitful

因此，上帝的启示让我们能有效地使用延伸法和否定法。无论如何，我们只有借着启示，才能避免相信一个「虚空」的神明；这样的神明若「是」甚么的话，它只不过是我们自己的投射。

Thus, divine revelation enables us to use extrapolation and negation in a fruitful way. In any case, it is only by revelation that we can avoid believing in an “empty” god, one that is only a projection of ourselves, if indeed he is anything at all.

范泰尔这样讨论了上帝所有不可传递的属性：祂的自足性、不变性、无限性和合一性。我们对这些属性的理解，都必须与上帝的自含丰满相连，并建基于上帝的启示。

In this manner Van Til discusses all the incommunicable attributes of God (Incommunicable attributes, traditionally, are those that are unique to God; communicable attributes are divine attributes that can also be predicated of finite people or things. The distinction breaks down, because all of God’s attributes are unique to him, and because the creation images all his attributes in some faint way. Van Til understood the limitations of this classification, as have most Reformed theologians; like them, however, he continued to use it.): aseity, immutability, infinity, and unity. All of these must be understood to pertain to God’s self-contained fullness, on the basis of his revelation. (You can see how Van Til’s apologetic concerns press us far beyond the usual theological formulations of the divine attributes. This and other examples of his theological thinking led me to argue in VTT that Van Til is not only an apologist, but also a theologian of first importance. Additional examples of Van Til’s theological creativity are noted elsewhere in this volume.)

12. 上帝可传递的属性：上帝的灵性是自我个别化的；上帝的知识与祂自己『同极』

God’s Communicable Attributes: God’s Spirituality Is Self-Individuated;

God’s Knowledge Is Coterminous with Himself

关于上帝可传递的属性，也是一样。上帝是灵；祂的灵性「并不是一个含糊的属灵观念与类别；好像上帝是这个类别里的一个品种，人类是另一品种。不是的！上帝是唯一绝对的灵（the absolute Spirit），祂是自含的灵。上帝不需要与祂有别的其他物质性来自我个别化，上帝是自我个别化的灵（self-individuated Spirit）。」（IST, 233）

The same thing is true of the communicable attributes. God’s “spirituality” is not “some vague generic concept of spirituality of which God is one particular instance and man another. God is the absolute Spirit. He is the self-contained Spirit. He does not need materiality over against himself to individuate himself. He is the self-individuated Spirit.” (IST, 233.)

关于上帝的无所不知，祂的知识和祂的存有（祂自己）是同极的 （coterminous）（IST, 234; IST2, 323）。上帝完全透知祂自己和祂对世界的计划；因此，没有任何在祂里面或在祂外面的事物，是离祂而独立的。上帝的知识与祂所有的其他属性一样，都是自我依靠的（self-dependent）。用范泰尔的说法，祂的知识是「分析性」（analytical）的 [IST, 236；参页8; CA, 6; JA, 275-305; HDRA, 1:1-24；本书（CVT）第27章]。上帝的知识从来不依靠任何在祂以外的事物，不然，上帝就不是自含的丰满。

（摘录）当然，上帝知道，被造宇宙与自己不同。祂对宇宙的认识，是对自己以外的认识。但是，宇宙被造之前，上帝已经彻底地认识/诠释万物了。

With regard to God’s omniscience, his knowledge and his being are “coterminous.” (IST, 234; IST2, 323.) He knows himself and his plan for the world exhaustively; therefore, there is nothing within him or outside him that is independent of him. Like all his attributes, his knowledge is self-dependent, or, as Van Til sometimes describes it, “analytical.” [IST, 236; cf. p. 8; CA, 6. For a discussion of the controversy between Van Til and Knudsen concerning this term, see JA, 275-305, and HDRA, 1:1-24. In my view, Knudsen’s critique amounts to a fairly elementary misunderstanding of a term that Van Til defines quite adequately. I shall discuss the larger question of Van Til’s “rationalism” at later points, especially chap. 27 (CVT).] His knowledge is never dependent on anything outside of himself. Otherwise, he would not be self-contained fullness. (This is not to say that God’s knowledge of the world is knowledge of himself simpliciter. God’s knowledge is not mere introspection; he knows himself, and he also knows what takes place in the temporal world. This point is important; otherwise, we are pressed toward pantheism. The world is genuinely other than God, and God knows it as something different from himself. Nevertheless, even in knowing the world in its otherness, God knows something that he has exhaustively interpreted prior to its existence, because he has , exhaustively, made that world what it is. Van Til does not himself make this point, but he does not deny it either, and we should recognize it as a legitimate qualification of his emphasis.)

（编按：参：DF4, 31-32, 特别是页 32, 注脚5。『分析性的知识』：『上帝的知识并不包含一个『论述过程』(discursive process)。』Ed.: Cf.: DF4, 32; esp. p. 32, footnote 5. “Analytical knowledge”:  “God’s knowledge is not such that it partakes of any kind of discursive process.”)

13. 上帝的良善、圣洁、公义；「上帝永恒的预旨」定旨了祂自己和万物

God’s Goodness, Holiness, Righteousness;

God’s Eternal Decree Wills Himself and All Things

上帝的良善就是祂自己。假如不是这样，上帝就会看见在祂以外的目标（IST, 238）。上帝的圣洁，就是「上帝绝对和永恒的道德纯洁」（IST, 244）。上帝的公义，就是「祂神性存有的内在一致性」。（IST, 245）上帝的旨意「定旨祂自己为万物的归依／目标（end）」（IST, 246）；上帝的旨意是「被造宇宙里一切实体和能力的源头」（IST, 247）。上帝隐密的旨意──即祂的预旨（decretive will），包含要发生的所有事情，包括罪与邪恶（IST, 248）。

Goodness is God himself. If that were not so, he would be seeking goals outside himself. (IST, 238. We should make another qualifying point parallel to the one made in the preceding note: God seeks the goodness of his creatures. This does not detract from his self-containment; rather, it presupposes self-containment. Were he not self-contained, he would act to meet his own needs; self-containment frees him to meet the needs of others, to be a servant-king.) Holiness is “God’s absolute eternal moral purity.” (IST, 244.)  Righteousness is “the internal self-consistency of the divine being.” (IST, 245.)  His will “wills himself as his own end” (IST, 246) and is “the source of all substance and power in the created universe.” (IST, 247.) God’s secret or decretive will includes everything that comes to pass, including sin and evil. (IST, 248.)

14. 面对奥秘是可以理解的

Mysteries = Understandable

这里面有很多的奥秘。一个良善的上帝怎能定旨邪恶的存在？上帝在世界里的作为，怎能既表达祂永恒的本性，而又同时是自由的作为呢？范泰尔并不宣称他解决了这些难题 [IST, 249；另参本书（CVT）第11-13章]，但透过强调上帝本性中自含丰满这最核心的真理，范泰尔让我们看见，虽面对这些奥秘，却仍是可以理解的。

There are mysteries in all of this. How can a good God will the existence of evil? How can God’s acts in the world express his eternal nature, yet be free? Van Til does not claim to have solved the difficulties. [IST, 249; see chaps. 11-13 of this book (CVT).] But, having emphasized the self-contained fullness that is essential to God, he has made it quite understandable why we should expect to encounter such mysteries.

[ IST = An Introduction to Systematic Theology ]

[ DF2 = The Defense of the Faith, 2^nd edition ]

[ VTT = John Frame, Van Til: The Theologian ]

[ CA = Christian Apologetics ]

[ JA = Jerusalem and Athens ]

[ HDRA = Herman Dooyeweerd and Reformed Apologetics ]

[ CVT = John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought ]

III. 上帝，绝对的位格

GOD, THE ABSOLUTE PERSONALITY

(From John M. Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, chapter 4, pp. 58-61.)

1. 上帝：绝对而位格 God: Absolute and Personality

范泰尔以「自含丰满」（self-contained fullness）来归纳他的上帝论。他也以「上帝是绝对位格」（absolute personality）（DF2, 12, 42; DF4, 33.）来总结这教义。「绝对」和「位格」两个词都同样重要。有些非基督教的系统（例如：多神宗教和各种现代的「人格主义」哲学）都设定了某一种有位格的神明，可是这些「神」都不是绝对者，因为它们都不是自含的上帝。而另一些非基督教的系统则接受某一种的绝对实存，可是这些绝对者是非位格的。唯有在《圣经》的教导里，绝对性和位格性结合在最高的存有（上帝）里面。

Van Til summarizes his doctrine of God in terms of “self-contained fullness.” Another Van Tillian summary of this doctrine is that God is “absolute personality.” (DF2, 12, 42; DF4, 33.) Both words in the phrase are important. Some non-Christian systems (as the polytheistic religions and modern philosophical “personalisms”) posit personal gods of one kind or another, but those gods are not absolute in the sense of being self-contained. Other non-Christian systems accept absolute realities of various kinds, but those absolutes are not personal. Only in biblical teaching are absoluteness and personality combined in the Supreme Being.

2. 范泰尔：位格主义者

Van Til: Personalistic

论范泰尔的作者们多数没有注意到他的「位格主义」，可是这是他思想中的重要主题之一；甚至从他写作生涯的早期开始，「位格主义」就是一个非常重要的主题。在下面一段文字中，范泰尔借用了位格主义的观念（范畴），来护卫「亚当是人类的头与代表」此一教义：

Van Til’s “personalism” is not widely noted in the literature about him, but it is nonetheless an important theme in his thought, and it has been important since his earliest writing. In the following passage, he employs personalistic categories to defend the doctrine of Adam’s representative headship of the human race:

毫无疑问地，三位一体里有完全的「位格际」的关系（personal relationship）。因此，我们可以断言，所有「人的动作」都是有位格的（personal actions）。人的环境充满着位格性（personality），因为万物都与这位无限、有位格的上帝有关。可是，当我们说人类的环境完全充满着位格时，我们也同时建立了「代表原则」此一事实（representational principle）。人类一切的行为，必然代表了上帝的作为。三位一体中每一位的作为，都代表其他两位。祂们是彼此代表的，祂们是彻底地彼此代表的（exhaustively representational）。而人因为是受造者，因此，他的思想、感觉、意志的决定，都必须代表上帝。（SCE, 78-79；参页97）

In the Trinity there is completely personal relationship without residue. And for that reason it may be said that all man’s actions are personal too. Man’s surroundings are shot through with personality because all things are related to the infinitely personal God. But when we have said that the surroundings of man are really completely personalized, we have also established the fact of the representational principle. All of man’s acts must be representational of the acts of God. Even the persons of the Trinity are mutually representational. They are exhaustively representational of one another. Because he is a creature, man must, in his thinking, his feeling and his willing, be representative of God. (SCE, 78-79; cf. p. 97.)

因此，「上帝的创造除了用代表性的计划（representational plan），没有其他可能。」（SCE, 79）「由于上帝设定了一个整体的计划，每一个有限的人的每一个动作，都影响后来每一个人的每一个动作。」（SCE, 79）

Therefore, “It was impossible for God to create except upon the representational plan.” (SCE, 79.) “Every act of every finite person affects every act of every other finite person that comes after him by virtue of the one general plan of God.” (SCE, 79.)

3. 「非圣经的位格主义」事实上是「非位格主义」；

因为上帝被服在非位格的原则之下

Non-Biblical Personalisms Are In Fact Impersonalistic;

Because God Is Made Subject to Impersonal Laws

范泰尔有时会讨论所谓「位格主义」的理想主义（如：鲍恩Bowne、柏瑞门Brightman等）和所谓的「我－你」神学（如：马丁·布伯(Martin Bube)和布伦纳Brunner等）。这些哲学和神学都用位格主义的措辞，可是它们都拒绝历史上正统基督教（即《圣经》）中那位绝对的上帝（absolute God）。范泰尔认为这些观点其实都是非位格主义的（impersonalistic），因为它们让上帝服在偶然、孤存事实、抽象逻辑等非位格的原则之下（SCE, 176-182「论鲍恩」；IST, 165-166「论现代自由派神学家们」）。同样，亚米念和路德宗的神学，由于他们限制「上帝的主权」，好为「人的行为」留下空间，而「人的行为」都源自于偶然或受造物的自主性，因此，他们的神学也是非位格主义的。论及亚米念的观点，他指出「道德的行为或不道德的行为，都必须发生在一个完全非位格的处境里」（SCE, 87。「论路德宗神学」，参页 65-80）。范泰尔也批判了哲学上的决定论，因为它也是非位格主义（DF2, 62 = DF4, 85; CTETH, 35; JA, 16。范泰尔强调加尔文主义并不是哲学上的决定论）。

Van Til has often had occasion to address personalistic idealisms like those of Bowne and Brightman and “I-Thou” theologies such as those of Buber and Brunner. Such views use much personalistic rhetoric, but they reject the absolute God of historic Christian orthodoxy. Van Til argues that these views are in fact impersonalistic, since they make God subordinate to the impersonal principles of chance, brute fact, and abstract logic. (SCE, 176-182 on Bowne; IST, 165-166, on modern liberal theologians.) Similarly, Arminian and Lutheran theology, since they limit God’s sovereignty to make room for human acts that spring from chance or creaturely autonomy, is impersonalist to that extent. On the Arminian view, “An act to be moral or immoral, must take place in a completely impersonal atmosphere.” (SCE, 87. On Lutheranism, see pp. 65-80.) Van Til also criticizes philosophical determinism for its impersonalism. (DF2, 62 = DF4, 85; CTETH, 35; JA, 16. Van Til is emphatic that Calvinism is not a form of philosophical determinism.)

4. 加尔文和圣约神学是唯一真正的位格主义

Calvin and Covenant Theology: Only True Personalism

从正面来说，范泰尔指出，加尔文是一位真正的位格主义者。他认为加尔文关于「人的意志」的教义，是「不致走向完全非位格主义的唯一出路」（DF2, 98 = DF4, 113-114；参CTETH, 207; CFC, 23）。他知道「唯有圣约神学对实存的解释是全然位格主义的」（DF2, 98）。加尔文在《基督教要义》开宗明义，指出人对自己的认识是依靠他对上帝的认识；反之亦然。他的预定论教义绝对不是非位格主义的决定论（determinism）；他认为在大自然和历史中所发生的每一个事件里，人与上帝的关系都是位格与位格之间的关系（关于范泰尔的位格主义，参CTETH, 19, 250-251; IW, 28; JA, 16; ICG, 5, 25-29; TG, 9）。

Positively, Van Til cites Calvin as a true personalist. He sets forth his doctrine of man’s will “boldly as the only alternative to complete impersonalism.” (DF2, 98; cf. CTETH, 207; CFC, 23.) He knew that “covenant theology furnishes the only completely personalistic interpretation of reality.” [DF2, 98 = DF4, 113-114. (emphasis by Van Til).] Calvin began his Institutes by saying that the knowledge of oneself is dependent on the knowledge of God and vice versa. His doctrine of predestination, far from being an impersonal determinism, placed man in a person-to-person relationship with God in every event of nature and history. (For more references to Van Til’s personalism, see CTETH, 19, 250-251; IW, 28; JA, 16; ICG, 5, 25-29; TG, 9.)

5. 否认上帝的自含丰满和单一性，等于将祂服在抽象观念之下；

只有有位格者才可能是全权者

Denial of God’s Self-Contained Fulness and Simplicity

Makes God Subject to Abstract Qualities;

Only a Personal Being Can Be Sovereign

我们在前面注意到，否认上帝的自含丰满，就等于主张非位格主义。记得范泰尔的论证吗？若否认上帝的单一性，就等于把上帝服在一些抽象的质素之下。范泰尔认为上帝的主权和祂的位格之间关系非常密切，这层关系对我们的启发很大。因为只有一个有位格的上帝，才可能是全权的；也只有一位全权的上帝，才可能是绝对的「那一位」（an absolute person）。换言之，只有一位有位格的存有，才可能作出选择并付诸执行；也只有一位全权的上帝，才可以至终避免被服在非位格的原则以下。

We noted in the previous section that to deny God’s self-contained fullness is to assert impersonalism. Recall particularly Van Til’s argument that the denial of divine simplicity makes God subordinate to abstract qualities. Van Til finds a close relationship between divine sovereignty and the divine personality. This relationship is very illuminating. It is edifying to observe that only a personal God can be sovereign and only a sovereign God can be an absolute person. That is to say, only a personal being can make choices and carry them out, and only a sovereign God can avoid being subject, ultimately, to impersonal principles.

6. 位格主义是为基督教辩护的基础：

若拒绝「《圣经》中的上帝」，就只能接受「无情的命运」

Personalism Basic to Argument for Christianity:

Biblical God or Impersonal Fate

范泰尔经常将这个绝对的位格主义带进他的护教学，尤其是当他比较改革宗信仰和其他前面曾提及的「不真实的位格主义」时。我们也应该看见，他为基督教所作的基本论证，乃是建立在《圣经》的位格主义上。人若拒绝《圣经》中有位格的上帝，就只能接受一个由非位格的命运所掌控的宇宙。

Van Til often brought this absolute personalism into his apologetic, especially when he compared the Reformed faith with various inauthentic personalisms, such as those mentioned above. We shall see also that his basic argument for Christianity depends on biblical personalism. To reject the personal, biblical God leaves no alternative except a world governed by impersonal fate.

7. 范泰尔的学生必须更「位格主义」

Van Til’s Students Must Be Even More Personalistic

我的看法是，未来「范泰尔式的护教」需要比范泰尔更强调位格主义的原则。范泰尔所用的某些名词，或会让人觉得范泰尔的护教所关心的只是一些抽象观念，例如「终极的一与众」、「具体的共相」等。虽然这些观念听起来很抽象，但它们实际上的意义是全然位格主义的；我们在下一章将会说明。在范泰尔的思想中，只有一位有位格的存有，才可能是一个真正「具体的共相」，才可能是「终极的一与众」。可是，既然我们的护教是建立在范泰尔的根基上，我们就应该是更明确的位格主义。

In my view, a Van Tillian apologetic of the future should emphasize this principle even more than Van Til did. Some of van Til’s formulations suggest that the Van Tillian apologist is, after all, concerned mainly with abstractions: an “ultimate oneness and manyness,” a “concrete universal.” Abstract as these notions sound, their actual meaning is entirely personalistic; for, as we shall see in the following chapter, in Van Til’s thought only a person can be a truly concrete universal, an ultimate one-and-many. But, as we build on Van Til’s foundation, we should be even more explicitly personalistic.

8. 非位格者不可能是终极的

The Impersonal Cannot Be Ultimate

非位格的事实和原则之所以不可能是终极的，正是因为它们是非位格的。它们无法解释宇宙中的合理性（rationality）、道德价值、因果关系和逻辑的可用性。

Impersonal facts and laws cannot be ultimate, precisely because they are not personal. They cannot account for rationality, for moral value, for the causal order of the universe, or for the universal applicability of logic.

9. 《圣经》中位格性的世界观对护教者四方面的帮助

Four Ways Biblical Personalism Helps Apologist

基督徒护教者必须比范泰尔更加强调这个「位格／非位格」的对照。位格性的世界观，将基督教的世界观与其他所有的世界观分别开来。强调基督教位格性的世界观，能给护教者们带来几方面的好处：（1）有些慕道朋友对我们说：「探索基督教是毫无意义的，因为若要进行这样的探索，我们必须同时研究思想史上所有其他的哲学、宗教与意识型态（ideologies），这当然是不可能的。」我们可以这样回答：「你们应该给予基督教特别的关注，因为在『宇宙是由有位格的存有在掌管，还是受无情的命运所控制？』此一重要问题上，基督教的看法是独特的。基督教是贯彻的位格主义，其他的思想体系则在完全相反的阵营。」（2）对位格的强调，正视了当代世俗社会中人的孤单问题。基督教为人提供终极的友谊、终极的爱，这在非基督教的世界观里是找不到的。（3）唯有基督教的位格性世界观才能给我们把握，知道宇宙是由终极合理（rational）的主宰掌管的；（4）同时也给我们确据，知道宇宙是由终极正直的主宰掌管的。正如我们所见，这些确据在任何其他世界观的大前提下，都是不可能的。

The Christian apologist should emphasize, more than Van Til did, the issue of impersonalism versus personalism. It is this issue, as we have seen, that distinguishes the Christian worldview from all others. To emphasize it gives the apologist several advantages: (1) Inquirers sometimes tell us that there is no point in investigating Christianity, for if they did that, they would also have to investigate all the other religions, philosophies, and ideologies in the history of thought – an impossible task, to be sure. We can reply that they should give special attention to Christianity, for on the crucial question of whether the universe is governed by a person or by impersonal principles, Christianity is unique. It is consistently personalistic, and all its rivals are in the opposite camp. (2) The emphasis on personalism also addresses the loneliness of modern secular people. It offers them an ultimate friendship, ultimate love, something they will never find in a non-Christian view of the world. (3) It assures them that an ultimate rationality – and (4) an ultimate justice – govern the world order. These assurances are not possible on any other basis, as we shall see.

[ DF2 = The Defense of the Faith, 2^nd edition ]

[ SCE = A Survey of Christian Epistemology ]

[ IST = An Introduction to Systematic Theology ]

[ CTETH = Christian Theistic Ethics ]

[ JA = Jerusalem and Athens ]

[ CFC = The Case for Calvinism ]

[ IW = The Inerrant Word ]

[ ICG = The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel ]

[ TG = The Triumph of Grace: The Heidelberg Catechism ]

中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org；中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）