认识现代神学33、第十九章：新福音主义
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 33.认识现代神学第33讲。我们继续讲第19章，Chapter XIX Neo-Evangelicalism-Its Message. 新福音主义，它的信息。上一讲我们开始的第19章，看到新基要主义是强烈的排斥新福音派的。我们继续。
Like fundamentalism，neo-evangelicalism had its origin as a protest. 新福音派与基要派一样，源自于一种的抗议。However，in this case，the protest was as strongly directed against evangelical theology as against liberal theology. 可是，在新福音派人士来说，他们的抗议一方面是针对自由派神学，但是也是针对福音派神学的。
Carl F. H. Henry，former editor of Christianity Today and a founding father of the movement，had felt there had been a subtle shift from classic fundamentalism as a theology to fundamentalism as a negative reactionary spirit (what we have called neo-fundamentalism). 基督教…..卡尔·亨利，《今日基督教》杂志前任的主编和新福音派运动的创始人之一感觉到，作为一个神学经典的基要派很微妙地转移成为一种负面的、反动的精神（就是我们在本书所称的新基要派）。This later stage，this neo-fundamentalism，was said to have discredited fundamentalism as a legitimate theological option. 这个后来的阶段，这个新基要教派，使基要派在社会上失去可信性，已经不能够再成为一个合理的一种的神学上的选择了。
Henry and others knew that fundamentalism，as a faithful expression of classic Christianity，could not be abandoned. 亨利还有其他人士知道，基要主义作为经典的基督教的表述不可以放弃的。What they sought to abandon were those features which were not properly reflective of the true spirit of fundamentalism，他们努力要放弃的乃是那些不正确、不反映出基要派真正精神的那些的特点，例如： “the lack of theological and historical perspective，譬如说，缺乏神学上跟历史上的观点角度; vagueness of doctrinal formulations，对教义不精准; neglect of scholarship，忽略学术的研究; lack of relevant contemporary literature movement，没有一种的当代的、直接的、文献的产生; antidenominationalism，反宗派主义; identification with dispensationalism，与时代论的认同; neglect of Christianity’s relationship to culture and society，忽略基督教与社会和文化的关系，reactionary negativism and strife，反动性的负面态度和争辩性; narrowing of the gospel to personal religious experience，把福音收窄只限于个人的宗教上的经验。”
At the same time，many within the new emphasis were also aware that neo-orthodoxy could not provide any better answer. 与此同时，某一些新福音派人士也意识到，新正统神学也不能提供更好的答案。As Ockenga，now president of Gordon-Conwel Divinity School，Massachusetts，put it in 1958，正如Ockenga奥肯加，现在他是麻省的戈登神学院的院长，他在1958年说：“Neo-evangelicalism breaks with neo-orthodoxy because it declares that it accepts the authority of the Bible，新福音派与新正统神学决裂，因为新福音派宣告，他接受圣经的权威. . .
neo-evangelicalism breaks with the liberal in [its] embrace of the full orthodox system of doctrine against that which the modernist has accepted，新福音派与自由派决裂，因为新福音派接受整套的教义系统，反对那些自由派所接受的信念. . . .”(Against this background，我们从这个背景来看的话) Against this background，new centers of discussion began to emerge within Western evangelical circles in the 1940’s and 1950’s. 从这个背景来看，1940年代和50年代，西方的福音派圈子里面就浮现出一些新的讨论点。Men like Carl Henry called for a fresh conservative recognition of social responsibility. 卡尔·亨利等人士呼吁，福音派、保守派必须承认自己的社会责任。Men like Gordon H. Clark pleaded for a “contemporary Christian literature that studies all phases of intellectual interest . . .” Clark呼吁当代的基督徒，要创作涵盖所有思想领域的文学，philosophy，sociology science and politics. 就是哲学、社会学、科学与政治学，等等。
There was a growing shift away from dispensationalism，他们越来越远离时代论，a more tolerant attitude toward varying views of eschatology. 他们越来越对各种不同的末世论的观点采取容忍的态度。And particulary in three areas，there was rather obvious evidence of theological ferment and even inner disagreement within the neo-evangelical orbit. 就算在这个新的，新福音派的圈子里面，有三方面很明显的有一种的新的神学在孕育着，甚至乎在他们的内部也有意见的分歧的。
Men like Bernard Ramm，譬如说兰姆，now professor of systematic theology at California Baptist Seminary，在当时是加州浸信会神学院的系统神学教授，began to call for a new examination of the relation between science and the Bible. 就开始呼吁福音派要重新的检讨科学与圣经之间的关系。Ramm himself offered such a reexamination in 1955，兰姆自己在1955年发表出这种的探讨，when his explosive book on that subject appeared. 他的书是具有爆炸性的。Critical of what he terms “pedantic hyperorthodoxy” and “fiatcreationism，” 他对一种的“守旧的极端正统信仰”和“神谕性的创造论”是非常的批判的，he points to God as “world ground.” 他指上帝为“世界的根源”。
“God as world ground means a spiritual universe，上帝作为世界的根源，就意味着一种属灵的宇宙，creation to consummation，heaven to earth，matter to spirit，animal to man，time to eternity. 就是创造到历史的终结，天到地，物质到灵，动物到人，时间到永恒。The how of Nature is supplied by science，but this how of Nature is but the manifestation of the that of God who is in all things.” 自然的“如何”由科学来提供，但是这个自然的“如何”只不过是表现出那位在万物里的上帝的实在“that”。
Critical also of what he terms “theistic evolution，” 兰姆也不接受“神导进化论”，Ramm’s answer to both extremes is what he calls “progressive creationism.” 兰姆所提供的取代两种极端看法的是“进展性的创造论”。Over the millions of years of geologic history，God has been，by sovereign command，creating higher and higher forms of life. 上帝经过一万年的地质的历史，用他的主权的命令创造了高层和更高层的生命的。This process begins with “the concept in the mind of God，the idea，the form，the plan，the purpose，这个过程源自于上帝的思考，上帝的概念、形式、计划、目的. . .
This is followed by a sovereign and fiat act of creation by God at the level of vacancy or null and void，之后，上帝主权的做了一个神谕的行动，创造的行动，是在虚空混沌的层面上的创造. . . After this comes the process，or derivative creation. 之后有着一个过程或者次成的创造。God creating fiatly and sovereignly outside of Nature now turns the task of creation over to the Holy Spirit who is inside Nature. 上帝用他的御令在自然界以外主权的创造了，现在把创造的工作交给圣灵，而圣灵是在自然界里面的。
The Spirit，the Divine Entelechy of Nature，knows what is the divine blueprint，灵知道上帝的蓝图是什么，and through process working from the level of vacancy realizes the divine form of intention in Nature.从空虚混沌的这个层次，圣灵的工作就实现了上帝在自然界的用意，就是自然的形式。” For many of us，this does not seem too far removed from “theistic evolution.” 对我们很多人来说，这个离开“神导进化论”就不远了。
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）
In 1959 the science debate became more exciting when Edward J. Carnell，also associated with the neo-evangelical movement and then president of Fuller Theological Seminary，introduced the term，“threshold evolution” into the discussion. 这个讨论就越来越令人兴奋了，因为在1959年，当时任富勒神学院的院长的E. J. Carnell，C-a-r-n-e-l-l，他也是认同于新福音派运动的，他就创出一个新的名词，“门槛的进化论”。
Carnell conceded that “while orthodoxy does not think that the evidence for human evolution is compelling，虽然正统的基督教不承认人类的进化的证据是足够的，the evidence is sufficient to give pause. 但是科学的证据的确是让人深思考虑。The verdict of paleontology cannot be dismissed by pious ridicule.考古学的证据不能用敬虔的藐视来忽略的。” Carnell，with others，also was willing to postulate a pre-Adamic race structurally similar to modern man， Carnell和其他人士愿意承认，亚当之前有亚当前的一个族类，他们的结构与现代的人相似，but earlier in time and inferior in endowment. 但是他们比人类更早，在他们的天赋上是比较低等的。
Neo-evangelicalism also opened debate on the question of fellowship with non-conservative theologians. 新福音派运动也展开一场的辩论，讨论是否应该与非保守派的神学家交通团契。A growing willingness was expressed by many within the new emphasis to converse with liberal and dialectical theologians. 新福音派的圈子里面，越来越多人愿意与自由派和辩证或者是新正统的神学家对话。
Though many were sharply critical of the World Council of Churches’ inclusivism and intolerance，虽然很多人对WCC，世界基督教教协的包容性和不包容性非常的批判，they were also critical of what they felt to be the exclusivism and intolerance of the International Council of Christian Churches. 他们也认为ICCC这种的排他性和不容忍精神也是配受批判的。
What is a proper perspective? 那么正确的观点角度应该是什么呢？According to one sympathetic commentator，根据一个同情新福音派的评论者，the neo-evangelical consensus on this question called for theological dialogue with liberals (without compromise)，他们认为，新福音派在这方面有共识，呼吁与自由派人士从事神学的对话（当然，不包括妥协）; an evangelical attempt to define what might be called biblical ecumenicity，福音派应该尝试去做出一个定义，什么是合乎圣经的教会合一精神; an evangelical critique of the existing ecumenical movements，福音派应该批判目前的教会合一运动; a deeper program of evangelical cooperation. 还有福音派本身应该有更深层的合作。
The evangelistic campaigns of Billy Graham，葛培理的布道运动，the1966 Berlin Congress on Evangelism，还有1966年在柏林的福音大会，can be cited as concrete examples of the application of these principles.可以说是具体的用上这些原则的例子。
Particularly in this area，the arguments of Edward Carnell have been very acrid，especially in his sharp criticism of what he calls Machen’s “separatism.” 特别在这方面，E. J. Carnell的论点是特别严厉的指责梅钦的“分别出来的精神”。Carnell attacked the great leader of Calvinism for not properly honoring the doctrine of the church，Carnell批评梅钦这位加尔文主义的伟大的领袖，说后者不正确的，不够尊重圣经的教会论，and thus allegedly planting the seeds of anarchy by encouraging separation from the church without proper grounds. 所以，这无意的鼓吹，不够理由的与教会分别出来，种下无政府状态的种子。
Carnell’s views in particular have drawn heavy attack from not only neo-fundamentalist and fundamentalist， but even neo-evangelical and Calvinistic circles. Carnell的观点不仅仅有新基要派和基要派人士批评，甚至乎新福音派和加尔文主义的圈子里面也有批评他的人士。Naturally those who consider Carnell as a representative spokesman for neo-evangelicalism thereby condemn the whole movement in condemning him. 当然，那些认为Carnell是新福音派的代表跟代言人这些的人士，当然就责备任何批评他的人。This view of Carnell as a typical representative seems difficult to believe in view of even the neo-evangelical criticism of his views. Carnell的观点是非常的典型的，好像很难接受，很难相信，甚至乎在新福音派运动里面也有人批评他的观点。
The most critical center of debate opened up by neo-evangelicals has been the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. 新福音派运动所展开的最重要的辩论，就是圣经的权威和无误。And again，the views of Carnell have been a center of much agitation. 同样的，Carnell 的观点就引起很大的争辩。
Though Carnell himself insisted，in the subsequent furor over his position，that he always has believed the inerrancy of Scripture，虽然Carnell 本人在后期坚持他一直来都相信圣经的无误的，his criticisms of many of the viewpoints of B. B. Warfield and classic conservative theology，但是因为他批评很多B. B. Warfield（华尔菲特）的观点和经典的保守神学院的观点，his admission of “seeming disharmonies” in the Old Testament histories，他承认旧约里面有一些历史上的“表面上的不一致性”，made many dubious of Carnell’s final standpoint in this issue. 让很多人怀疑究竟Carnell至终的立场是什么呢，究竟他相信不相信圣经是无误的呢。
Again，those who regard Carnell as typical of neo-evangelical sentiment naturally condemn the whole movement with him. 再一次来说，那些认为Carnell是新福音派运动的典型代言人，当然就批评整个新福音派运动了。
Even assuming，however，that Carnell’s views in this area may be to the left of the neo-evangelical center，就算我们假设Carnell的观点在整个新福音派运动是左倾的，就是比较不保守的，one must still admit that neo-evangelicalism more and more seems to be widening a gap between inspiration and inerrancy. 我们的确要承认，新福音派人士越来越在圣经的启示和圣经的无误之间造成一个的嫌隙。This tendency has become especially pronounced in the last decade. 这个趋向在过去十年特别的明显。这本书是1973年写的，所以是指1960年代特别的明显。To many neo-evangelicals，inspiration and inerrancy are not equivalent concepts. 对很多新福音派人士来说，默示和无误这两个概念不是等同的。
This may not necessarily mean (as some have interpreted it) that the neo-evangelical is denying the inerrancy of Scripture. 这个不一定意味着新福音派人士否认圣经的无误（虽然有些人这样解释他们的立场）。There are many who feel it is necessary purely for clarification to keep inspiration separate from inerrancy. 有些人认为，就是为了思想的清晰，我们必须把默示和无误分开来理解。Ronald Nash seems typical of this standpoint. Nash，N-a-s-h，好像是这个观点的典型的倡导者。
On the other hand，反过来说，Harold Lindsell，presently editor of Christianity Today，到了这个时候，《今日基督教》杂志的主编Harold Lindsell，L-i-n-d-s-e-l-l，has commented that，in the more recent 1960’s，这样的说：在最近的1960年代，“there are those who have been num-bered among the new evangelicals，有些在新的福音派运动里面的人士，some of whom possess the keenest minds，有些是最聪明的人士，who have broken，or are in the process of breaking，with the doctrine of an inerrant scripture.他们开始与一个无误的圣经开始决裂了。” Dr. Lindsell，speaking as a neo-evangelical himself，Lindsell博士自己以新福音派人士自居的，predicts a dangerous future for those who hold such a weak view of Scripture. 他看这些持有弱的圣经观的人士的未来是很危险的，在圣经无误的辩论上。
我们暂时停在这里，我们下一次继续。
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）