认识现代神学36、第二十章：新福音派
主讲：林慈信牧师_校对：刘加立弟兄_英文：XSS姐妹_中文：姣姐妹
Contemporary World Theology，session 36.认识现代神学第36讲。我们在讲新福音派，他们的失败。现在来到第四方面的弱点。
No. 4第四方面的弱点。Neo-evangelicals call for a firm response to social needs and a biblical social ethics. 新福音派人士呼吁教会要坚决的面对社会的需要，也建立一个合乎圣经的社会伦理学。To many neo-fundamentalists，this sounds like a return to the social gospel，对很多新基要派人士来看，这个好像是回去老旧的社会福音，and it is strongly denounced as such. 他们就以此来做他们对新福音派的批评。Such criticism，however，seems overextended to say the least. 我们至少要说，这种的批判是牵强的。
Carl F. H. Henry，卡尔·亨利，who has written very fully on this very theme，他在这个主题上著作甚丰，gives no indication of neglecting the individual application of the gospel，他完全没有任何的迹象忽略了个人对福音必须要有回应，or of replacing saints with philanthropists.也没有认为慈善事工可以取代圣徒的生命和生活。
At the same time，与此同时，neo-evangelicalism still runs the risk of measuring its social responsibilities in terms of its individual responsibilities. 新福音派人士仍旧有一种的危机，就是从个人的责任的角度来衡量他们的社会的责任。Many，particularly in Calvinistic circles，很多人士，特别是加尔文主义圈子里的人士，attack the neo-evangelical proposals for social action as a “mod form” of pietism，特别是加尔文主义人士批评新福音派的这种的进路，说这种的社会行动的方法是一种“时髦的”敬虔主义，which ignores the nature of the church as a communal body of Christ，他们忽略了教会作为一个群体——基督的身体的本质，demanding the communal answer of the people of God to problems of labor，education，government，and business. 加尔文主义认为，上帝是要求教会群体的（作为神的子民群体的）来回应劳工、教育、政府和工商业等等的问题的。就是不仅仅是个人的回应，需要是教会整体的回应才对。顺便一提，简和培这种的看法直接影响到后来的提摩太凯勒对教会的使命的看法。
No. 5第五方面的弱点。Neo-evangelicalism does not offer an apologetic completely consistent with the self-authenticating Christ. 新福音派的护教学不完全与那位自我见证的基督一致的。Ronald Nash sees well enough that the major figures in the movement—Carl F. H. Henry，Edward Carnell，Bernard Ramm—have a common thrust to much of what they say. Ronald Nash，N-a-s-h，看得很清楚，新福音派运动里一些主要人物——卡尔·亨利，Carnell，兰姆等等，他们的著作中间有很多的共同点。
But whether this can best be designated “presuppositionalism，” whether you can associate the name of Cornelius Van Til with these men，但是这些是否应该被称为“前提派护教”呢？你可以把这些的思路与范泰尔的护教学连起来吗？and whether they finally represent a defense of Christianity “made on different grounds than that typified by the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century approaches made by Butler，Paley and others”，究竟这种的护教是不是与十八、十九世纪的巴特勒（Joseph Butler） 和 佩利（William Paley）等等，真的是不同吗？are assumptions difficult to defend. 那么我们就很难说了。
On the one hand，再一方面，all these men assert the importance of starting with God，这些的作者都强调护教必须以上帝为开始，want to reject the “natural theology” assumptions of neo-Thomism，他们也愿意拒绝多玛·阿奎纳或者新阿奎纳主义的“自然神学”的假设，want to emphasize the role faith plays，他们愿意强调信心有很重要的角色，even in modern scientific naturalism. 就算在现代的科学的自然主义里面，他们也是如此。所以是上帝开始拒绝自然神学，强调信心的重要性。
Nevertheless，但是，as Van Til has stated repeatedly in distancing himself from these men，范泰尔多次的指出，范泰尔是愿意与这些人保持距离的，they accept，with these principles，an emphasis on “the law of non-contradiction” (Carnell) or “logic as an exercise of the reason to test for truth” (Gordon Clark) or what Van Til designates as “Greek theism” (Carl Henry) as one of their operating categories or presuppositions. 范泰尔多次说，他们接受了一些的概念或者是前提，作为他们的游戏规则的。这些的前提可能是Carnell的“矛盾的定律（ law of non-contradiction，Carnell）”；或者是克拉克，愿意“用理性、用逻辑来审核真理”；或者是卡尔·亨利，用“希腊哲学”的有神论，这些都是一些范泰尔所拒绝的前提。
And precisely here lies the basic weakness of this sort of apologetics. 这种的护教学的弱点恰恰就在这里。“It is the attempt to join higher forms of non-Christian thought in their opposition to lower forms of non-Christian thought，这种的护教就试图与非基督教思想的高层思想结盟，一起来批判非基督教思想的低层思想，in order that，to go on to something still higher and [different] than even the highest forms of non-Christian thought offer. 好叫可以再进一步，更上一层楼，进入到最高的非基督教思想也不能提供的，也就是基督教思想。
The difficulty with this method is，这种的方法的难处是，that the highest forms of non-Christian thought rest upon the same foundation as the lowest forms of non-Christian thought. 的难处是，非基督教思想的最高层次的思想，与最低层次的思想，他们的基础是一样的。This foundation is man as would be self-existent and self-explanatory. 他们共同的基础就是，认为人是自存的、自我解释的。
The highest forms，no less than the lower forms of non-Christian thought，assume that the world and man are not created by God but exist by Chance. 非基督教思想的最高层次与低等层次一样，假设做人类和世界不是由上帝所创造的，乃是偶然的存在的。If this were true，事实假如说如此的话，then the principles of logical reasoning by means of which man is supposed to construct the argument for the existence of his god，are themselves products of chance. 那么人所用的逻辑的方法来证明他的神的存在，都是偶然的。On this basis，根据这种的前提，the law of contradiction would itself be a product of chance. 矛盾定律本身就是偶然的产品。The entire idea of ‘systematic coherence’ would be meaningless. 所以，若要说基督教的信仰是系统、整体上是一致的话，是没有意义的。
第二十章结束。
未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。
中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）
CHAPTER XXI 第21章，最后的一章的，The Reformed Faith改革宗信仰立场
Our pilgrimage through the world of theology has taken us from demythologization to neo-evangelicalism. 我们走过了当代的神学，我们看过去神话化，一直看到新福音派运动。And now we come to the end of the road，我们来到我们旅程的终点，and what some call “the Reformed faith” and others call “Calvinism.” 有人称之为“改革宗信仰”，其他人士称之为“加尔文主义”。Where have we arrived? 我们达到怎么样一个的终点呢？
Originally the word “Reformed” characterized those churches in the sixteenth century which rose to protest the errors and abuses which were dominating the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. “改革宗”这个词原来的意思是指十六世纪某些的教会，他们兴起来抗议中世纪的罗马天主教一些的错误和恶习。In a broad sense，the term was applicable to all the churches of the Reformation，广义来说改革宗是指所有宗教改革的教会，for they all professed but one aim，因为他们都承认有一个的目标: to live by the Word of God，根据上帝的话而生活，both in the wide sphere of the life of the church and in the private sphere of the life of the individual believer. 不论是在教会整体的生活的范围，或者是在个别信徒私有生活的范围。
More recently，近年来，the term has a more restricted meaning. 改革宗这个名词带上一个狭义、狭窄的意义。It is usually identified in theology with five points of doctrine，加尔文主义往往与教义的五要点认同了: total depravity，人完全的堕落，unconditional election，上帝无条件的拣选，limited atonement，基督有限的救赎，irresistible grace，圣灵不可抗拒的恩典，perseverance of the saints. 上帝对圣徒的坚忍。In the fullest sense，this restriction of the term is truly no restriction at all. 我们若完整的、充分的理解这五要点的话，这样子把加文主义的范围缩窄呢，一点都没有缩窄。
For these points of doctrine were hammered out in a theological debate which sought to define the very heart of the gospel—the meaning of grace. 因为这些的教义都是源自一种的神学的争辩，当时他们要努力的去为福音的核心意义做出定义——换言之，他们要找到恩典的意义。They were formulated by the famous Synod of Dordt in the Netherlands，over 350 years ago. 350年前，这些的五要点是由荷兰的著名的多特会议所挑出来的。And the center of the discussion at Dordt was not some minor difference of emphasis. 而多特会议所讨论的不是一些次要的教义。The question was more basic，乃是一个更基本的问题: what is final in man’s salvation，人在得救的事情上至终的、最重要的是什么—God’s grace，是神的恩典吗，or man’s work of faith? 还是人信心的行动呢？The five points of Dordt were spokes on the wheel that all radiated from the hub—grace. 加尔文主义五要点，也就是多特会议的结论，好像从一个核心——恩典所发出的五条线一样。
In the world of theology today，在今天的神学世界里，this biblical call of sovereign grace is being challenged again from two diverse directions. 从两方面，人们再次的挑战主权恩典的教义。On the one hand，在一方面，in the country where the Synod of Dordt convened，就在多特会议召开的国家，就是荷兰，and at one of the academic citadels of Calvinism，the Free University of Amsterdam，特别是在一个加尔文主义的大本营，阿姆斯特丹的自由大学，there seems to be some evidence of growing dissatisfaction with this thought-pattern of Dordt. 有些人是否不满这种的多特会议的思路。
Dr. G. C. Berkouwer，Berkouwer伯克豪尔博士，though claiming to seek to retain the heart of Dordt，确认他声称自己保留着多特会议的核心意义，the “unmerited grace of God in the way of salvation，election as the fountain of salvation，” 也就是说，“在救恩的方法上，上帝的恩典就是人所不配得的恩典，上帝的拣选乃是救恩的泉源”，他保留这些，wants to reject the entire causal framework employed by Dordt in which God is seen “as causing all things，” 他又要拒绝整个多特会议的因果关系架构，也就是说他不愿意再承认上帝是“万物的成因”，and to substitute for it “a framework that does justice to the doxological intent of the canons.” 他愿意提供一个新的架构，正是多特会议结论的那种赞美的用意。
In this same searching way，Berkouwer’s more recent attitude toward Rome and toward Barthianism is increasingly less critical and more activistic its thrust. Berkouwer伯克豪尔的最近的神学著作是越来越不批判罗马天主教，不批判巴特的新正统神学，越来越积极的采取行动——换言之，越来越与他们对话。The pattern of language has become so markedly different from his earlier writings that Cornelius Van Til can speak with force of “the earlier Berkouwer” and the “later Berkouwcr.” Berkouwer近年来的著作的用词语气是与他早期的著作那么的不同，范泰尔会论到“早期的Berkouwer伯克豪尔”和“后期的Berkouwer伯克豪尔”。
Of special concern to many has been Berkouwer’s alleged shifts regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture. 特别是Berkouwer在圣经的默示和权威这个教义上，有人认为他改变了，这个是令人关心的。“In his earlier work on Scripture Berkouwer said，in effect that no fact of experience or history can arise which should force the reconsideration of the basic presupposition that only in the light of Scripture can any fact be seen for what it is. 在Berkouwer早期的著作论到圣经的时候，他的意思是说任何人类的经验或者历史都不可能强迫我们重新考虑到我们的基本的前提，就是唯有透过圣经才能够看到任何事实的真相。Today such a position as he formerly held is，in effect，said to be abstract and formal.但是今天，他以前所坚持的立场，他现在认为是抽象的，是形式化了。”这段话来自范泰尔The Sovereignty Of Grace，《恩典的主权》，第82页。
But there is another threat to biblical Calvinism，representing，from another side of the pendulum，但是从钟摆的另外一个方向，有着另外一个对符合圣经的加尔文主义的威胁，a further narrowing down，one step further from the heart. This is the Calvinism in the life of the “younger churches，” the Calvinism not of Europe but of Africa and Asia. 这个就是第三世界的所谓“年轻教会”的加尔文主义，不是欧洲的加尔文主义，乃是非洲跟亚洲的加尔文主义。
Here，under the influence of Western secularism’s compartmentalization of religion from the ordinary matters of daily living，under the influence of Eastern asceticism and African messiahism where the religious life is restricted to one of hermit abstentions in some holy place hermetically sealed off from the so-called “evil，real” world，在非洲和欧洲，他们都受到西方世俗社会的影响，把宗教从每天日常生活隔绝成为人生一个部门而已。他们也受到东方的禁欲主义，还有非洲的弥赛亚主义的影响，宗教生活只不过是一种隐士一般的避世，在一个所谓圣洁的地方与世俗与“邪恶的、真正的”世界隔绝，we are finding another challenge to the Reformed faith. 从这个角度来看，第三世界的加尔文主义又受到另外一种的挑战。
In this new threat，the five points of Calvinism have moved from the status of road to the status of roadsign，根据这种的新的威胁，加尔文主义五要点不再是一条道路，乃是一个指标而已，from the place of action to the formula on which we act. 从我们应该采取的行动，到我们行动的工程式而已。The church becomes not the people of God，but a building，教会不再是神的子民，乃是一个建筑物而已，not a program of witness and service and worship，but an hour of singing and praying and preaching. 不再是一个见证、服事和敬拜的事工，只不过是一个小时的唱诗、祷告和讲道而已。
This new twist is not frequently called Calvinism or the Reformed faith. 这个新的发展一般不被称为加尔文主义或者改革宗神学的。It is more often called conservative theology. 一般人们称他作保守的神学。And perhaps that designation is more accurate. 可能那个称谓比较准确。
Conservative theology，as the “younger church” situation has defined it，is often institutionalized，bureaucratic theology. 保守派的神学在第三世界的教会的定义之下，往往是制度化的，是一种官僚的神学。It is also isolated theology. 他也是一个与世隔绝的神学。
我们下次继续来讲这种简和培认为第三世界的一种的扭曲的加尔文主义，或者一种制度化的保守派的神学。
提示：逐字稿文字只限于个人和教会私下学习交流，目的是造就教会和教会负责带领、讲道的同工们；未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿和图片的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。当文字和录音不符时，以录音为准。愿上帝赐福文字编辑和校对的肢体来雅正！若是有修改的地方、奉献支持或是其他任何问题请使用以下邮件方式联系我们。中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院 [email protected]（PayPal）