认识现代神学31第十七章（续）：基要主义
Contemporary World Theology，session 31.认识现代神学，第31讲。第17章（续），基要主义（Fundamentalism），原著116页。
主讲：林慈信牧师_校对：刘加立弟兄_英文：XSS姐妹_中文：姣姐妹
It should not be hard to see now why fundamentalism remains a subject of criticism by liberal and neo-liberal scholars.讲到这里，我们不难发现，自由派的和新自由派的神学家为什么会那么的极力的批判基要主义。What is surprising is the large amount of criticism heaped on the movement by those who wish to be identified with its basic thrust as a champion of biblical truths.令人惊讶的是，有一些人自称为相信这些的教义是倡导圣经真理的人，也批判基要派。
Particularly strong is the criticism of men like Carl F. H. Henry and other representatives of the so-called neo-evangelical movement.特别是Carl Henry（卡尔·亨利）和其他这些所谓新福音派运动的代表人物，他们的批评是特别的强烈的。It has prompted an equally vehement defense of fundamentalism and a correlative attack on neo-evangelicalism by men like Carl McIntire.这个就引发出基要派人士为自己的辩护，同时，好像Carl McIntire这些的基要派人士，他们会攻击、批评新福音派主义。What attitude should Calvinism show in this raging debate?在这个强烈的辩论中，加尔文主义的态度应该是如何呢？
No. 1. 第一方面的回应。Though we may be justifiably critical of many features of fundamentalism as a historical movement，虽然我们有大条道理批评历史上的基要派的运动，他们很多的特点，these criticism should not cloud our basic agreement with fundamentalism’s firm stand on the side of scriptural theology and the historic Christian faith.这些的批评不应该冲淡我们基本上与基要派是站在同一边的，他们坚决地维护圣经的神学和历史上纯正的基督教信仰。
Machen himself had theological difficulties in being identified with many fundamentalist-oriented programs，梅钦他自己也不情愿被认同为基要派，他不能认同很多基要派的项目或者事工的，but，while “not precisely described as a fundamentalist at all，” was wiling nevertheless to be recognized as a champion of fundamentalism，虽然梅钦认为别人不是直接的称他为基要派主义者，不过他仍然是愿意被别人看为是倡导或者支持基要派的，in terms of its devotion to the Christianity of the Bible.因为基要派是热烈的支持圣经的基督教信仰。
The fear of McIntire and others，expressed in their strong criticism of neo-evangelicalism，would seem to come in part from their fear that much contemporary criticism by conservatives is pressing too unfairly the negations and novelties of fundamentalism，while stressing too little their common bond in the central and indispensable core of Christian faith.那为什么McIntire还有其他人士会担心，为什么他们这么强烈的批评新福音派运动呢？其中一些的原因，是因为他们恐怕这些保守的新福音派人士批评基要派的时候，可能是对基要派一些的比较新的或者负面的因素批评的过分了，而这些新福音派人士可能不够强调他们与基要派共同的连接（就是说，在基督教信仰的核心和不可或缺的信仰上的认同）。There are many virtues to the argument.这种基要派人士的担心是很有理由的。
- 2.第二个回应。At the same time，与此同时，there may be some virtue also in speaking of the later stages of fundamentalism (particularly after the 1930’s) as distinct enough in temperament and program，可能我们有足够的理由看基要派后来的发展（特别是1930年代之后的发展），在整个的气质上和事工上是与前面不同，to merit a name distinct enough to separate its emphasis from the early fundamentalism.以至于我们可以给它一个新的名称，与前面的比较早的基要派运动分别出来。Perhaps neo-fundamentalism could describe this later stage as effectively as any other phrase.可能我们可以称这个后来的基要派为新基要派。
In line with this suggestion，根据这个建议，the criticism of neo-evangelicalism may be more a criticism of neo-fundamentalism than of fundamentalism.根据这个建议，新福音派人士对基要派的批判可能主要是对新基要派的批判而多过是对基要派的批判。And the vigorous defense of fundamentalism by men like Carl Mclntire，那么，好像Carl Mclntire这些人士，对基要派的强烈的维护，maybe misunderstood，可能被人误解的，because he does not seem as willing to recognize any differences significant enough to differentiate the movement called fundamentalism from a movement which might be called neo-fundamentalism.因为他可能不愿意承认基要派和新基要派之间是有区别的.
- 3. 第三方面的回应。This neo-fundamentalist stage has amplified some of the danger spots in early fundamentalism，what Carl Henry calls “the fundamentalist reduction.”这种的新基要派的阶段，是扩大了一些早期基要派的盲点，卡尔·亨利称这个作基要派人士的“约化主义”。Machen (and his colleagues at Westminster Seminary) also feared pietistic novelties and perfectionist vagaries and distinguished within fundamentalism between biblical Christianity and certain excrescences.梅钦和他在威敏斯特的神学院的同工们也担心在基要派里面出现一些敬虔主义的新的做法，和一些含糊的完全主义，因此，他们在基要派里面区分出合乎圣经的基督教和其他累积的杂物。
Fundamentalism，as a word，was not big enough in its scope to define his faith.作为一个名词，基要主义不够广大用来为梅钦的信仰做定义。As he wrote once to the fledgling Bryan University，有一次他写信给年轻的Bryan大学说，“Thoroughly consistent Christianity，to my mind，is found only in the Reformed or Calvinistic Faith，根据我的思想，彻底的与圣经一致的基督教唯有在改革宗或者在加尔文主义信仰里面才找得到；and consistent Christianity，I think，is the Christianity easiest to defend.而最一致的基督教是最容易维护的基督教信仰。”
- 4. 第四方面的回应。Because fundamentalism was a theological amalgamation of some widely diversified views，因为基要派运动是由各种不同的观点所组成的一个神学上的混合品，it tended to promote lack of concern for precise formulation of Christian doctrine，一般来说，它倡导一种对精准的基督教教义的阐述的忽略，“an intentional moratorium on discussing doctrinal differences.故意的在讨论不同教义观点的分歧的暂时的、故意的停战。The result was little mutual devotion to the dedicated enterprise of theological study and research.结果就是大家都不太重视，不太委身于神学的研究和学习。”
- 5. 第五方面的回应。Through the influences of pietism and dispensationalism，基要派因为受到敬虔主义和时代论的影响，the fundamentalist movement tended to narrow “the whole counsel of God”，基要派运动一般来说，把“上帝全盘的计划（徒20：27）”的范围缩小，and not to relate the Christian revelation to cultural and social life.他们不会把基督教的启示与文化和社会的议题连上关系。We do not mean to say that fundamentalism had no concern to exhibit Christianity as a world-and-life view.我们的意思并不是说基要派完全不关注于展示基督教的宇宙人生观。But the danger of reducing the Christian faith to one of personal piety exclusively was a real one，但是，基要派的确有一个很真的一个的危机，就是把基督教的信仰约化为个人的敬虔而已，felt especially keenly by those early leaders who moved in Calvinistic circles.这种的担心是特别在早期的基要派圈子里面的，加尔文主义人士所感受到的。
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）
- 6. 最后，第六方面的回应。Fundamentalism’s biblical demand for discipline against unbelief in the church，and its biblical call for the purity of the church，基要派要求教会若有不信的时候，需要执行合乎圣经的纪律，基要派也非常符合圣经的，呼吁教会的信仰跟生活要纯洁，carried with it the danger of perversion into an unbiblical negativism and independency.这里就带着一种的危机，一种的扭曲的危机，就是可能会有一种不符合圣经的负面的态度和独立教会精神。Unfortunately that danger，though not implicit in a call for separation，became reality in certain areas of fundamentalism in the years following the 1930’s.很不幸的是在1930年代之后，在某一些的基要派的圈子里面，这个危机就成为事实了，虽然这个并不是分别出来的这种的呼吁必然要有的因素。
第17章结束。
Chapter XVII第18章，Neo-Fundamentalism新基要主义
The movement called fundamentalism in the early twentieth century in America was a group united around the proclamation and defense of biblical Christianity.在二十世纪早期的美国，被称为基要主义的运动是联合要宣讲维护合乎圣经的基督教的。But it was a union composed of very diversified elements.可是这个的联合运动由各种非常不同的份子所组成。It had made allies of pietism and dispensationalism，敬虔主义和时代论结盟，Calvinism and Arminianism，加尔文主义和阿米念主义结盟，episcopacy and independency.甚至乎圣工会人士和独立教会人士结盟。
Especially in the decades immediately preceding World War II，特别在第二次世界大战之前的几十年，those explosive elements，kept settled through struggle against a common foe，now began to bubble and grate against one another.这些的爆炸性的辩论因为有着共同的敌人的缘故是保存着不爆炸，现在就开始显明了。There were withdrawals and shifts.有些人就退缩，很多的，彼此的关系开始的转变。From it all came what might be called a new mixture，or at least，enough of a change in the combination of the old elements to produce another emphasis within “conservative” theology.这就导致一个新的混合品，至少我们可以说旧的一些的因素有新的结合，结果在保守派的神学中就有了一个新的一个的潮流。That shift we choose to call neo-fundamentalism.我们选择称这个新的潮流为新基要主义。
Several factors contributed to this change in the face of fundamentalism.基要主义的面孔的改变有几个原因的。Fundamentalism began to be more rigidly identified with dispensationalism.基要派逐渐的完全与时代论认同。Dispensationalists themselves were willing to make this identification.时代论人士是愿意这样子等同的。In fact，some elements even were prone to label non-dispensationalists as incipient liberals.甚至乎有些的时代论人士称非时代论人士为骨子里的自由派神学人士。This identification made the Calvinistic wing of the fundamentalist movement even more reluctant to associate themselves with the increasing shifts.这种的等同，让加尔文人士更加的不愿意与基要派运动这些的新的潮流认同了。
The fissure between dispensationalism and covenant theology was also helped considerably by an acrimonious debate among those conservative Presbyterians who had withdrawn from the northern Presbyterian Church to form a new denomination.这种圣约神学与时代论之间的分裂，特别是因为那些从美北长老会分出来的，创始一个新的宗派的长老会人士，保守的长老会人士里面的辩论是非常的激烈的。
Within the newly formed Presbyterian Church of America (one section later called the Bible Presbyterian Church)，在这个新的长老会Presbyterian Church of America，后来称为OPC，这个正统长老会里面，有一帮人，后来就是笃信圣经长老会的，在他们中间，violent debate arose over such issues as Christian liberty，premillennialism，and dispensationalism.他们就产生很激烈的辩论：关于基督徒的自由，前千禧年派神学和时代论。
Machen’s colleagues at Westminster Seminary demanded strongly that dispensationalism be purged from the movement.梅钦在威敏斯特神学院的同工们很强烈的要求基要派主义必须铲除时代论神学。Others，including Carl McIntire，insisted，其他人士，包括McIntire就坚持说，that the faculty members’ “attack on dispensationalism” was ultimately an attack on premillennialism.这些其他人士是坚持说威敏斯特神学院的教授们对“时代论的打击”就等于是对前千禧年派的打击。The outcome of the sad debate was another division，这个争论的结果，很不幸的又是另外一次的分裂，and the erection of what came to be called the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.结果就是笃信圣经长老会和正统长老会分道扬镳了。
It also meant that one strong，balanced segment of the earlier fundamentalism，the Calvinism of the Old Princeton Seminary (and now Westminster Seminary)，was aligning itself more and more against dispensational emphases.这个就意味着基要派本来有着一个强而有力的平衡的一些的分子，就是老旧的普林斯顿神学院（也现在威敏斯特神学院）的加尔文主义，现在越来越与时代论分离。Two of the major forces in fundamentalism now were dividing increasingly.在基要派运动里面两个主要的势力，现在越来越分的远了。
With this increasing hesitancy of some Calvinistic elements to be classified as fundamentalists，很多的加尔文主义者既然越来越不愿意把自己看为是基要派人士，one deterrent to fundamentalist novelties was removed and the danger within earlier fundamentalism began to become more visible.那么现在基要派要发展出新颖的说法，那个约束力就越来越少了，所以早期基要派的一些的危机现在就浮现出来。What had earlier been merely possible danger now was becoming real weakness.较早时期是一种的潜在的危机，现在成为事实上的的弱点了。
In addition，不但如此，church divisions within the Presbyterian and Baptist churches soured many conservatives who remained within the larger churches.因为在长老会和美北浸信会曾经有过分裂，所以对那些留在主流大宗派里面的保守人士，在他们心中就有某一种的苦毒。These groups in turn now began to attack what they felt to be the “fundamentalist spirit of lovelessness and strife.”这些人是现在开始攻击基要派的那种的“没有爱心和分门结党”的精神。Fundamentalists responded to the charges，基要派人士回应这些的控告，and soon the theological conflict with liberalism was deteriorating into an attack of fundamentalist upon fundamentalist.那么，本来是与自由派神学的神学的冲突，现在就堕落成为基要派和基要派之间的彼此攻击。
The debate was moving from a biblical call for separation from unbelief to an unbiblical reactionary spirit.争辩不再是合乎圣经的分别出来，从不信信仰分别出来的呼吁，现在成为一个不符合圣经的，一个反动的精神。This spirit of criticism often deteriorated again into an unscholarly attack upon organizations and personalities not willing to align themselves with stipulated separatist movements.这种的批判性的精神，往往就成为攻击那些不愿意与分别出来的运动认同的机构和人士。
The call for separation becomes a call for separation not simply from unbelief，现在分别出来的呼吁，不单单是从不信的分别出来，but from those fundamentalists who could not share the neo-fundamentalist’s vision.现在是呼吁从那些不能够认同新基要派人士的意向分别出来。This demand has often been called “second-degree” or “third-degree separation，” or just simply “separation.”这个要求往往被称为“第二程度的分别出来”，甚至说“第三程度的分别出来”，简称“分别出来”。
我们下一次继续这个新基要派主义。
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）