032B 傅兰姆论范泰尔，「上帝，绝对的位格」
GOD, THE ABSOLUTE PERSONALITY
(摘自﹕John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought,
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, 58-61. 林慈信译。)
上帝﹕绝对，和位格
GOD: ABSOLUTE AND PERSONALITY
范泰尔以「自含丰满」 (self-contained fullness) 来归纳他的神论。他也以「上帝是绝对位格」 (absolute personality) 来总结这教义。「绝对」 和「位格」 两个词都同样地重要。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）都设置了某一种有位格的神明，可是这些「神」不是绝对者，因为它们都不是自含的神。其他一些非基督教的系统则接受某一种绝对实存，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.) 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.
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 (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p. 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.) [ SCE = Survey of Christian Epistemology. ]
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.)
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－祢」神学，（如：Buber 和 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。) 同样地，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。 按照亚米念的观点：「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的。 (DF2, 62; CTETH, 35; JA 16. 范泰尔强调加尔文主义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; CTETH, 35; JA, 16. Van Til is emphatic that Calvinism is not a form of philosophical determinism.)
[ SCE = Survey of Christian Epistemology; CTETHE = Christian Theistic Evidences; JA = Jerusalem and Athens. ]
加尔文和圣约神学﹕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「给完全非位格主义指出一条出路。」 (DF2, 98; 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》 开宗明义的指出，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, 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. Emphasis is Van Til’s.) 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.)
[ IW = The Inerrant Word; ICG = The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel; TG = The Triumph of Grace. ]
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？若否认上帝的简一性，就等于把上帝服在一些抽象的质素以下。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.
位格主义是为基督教辩护的基础；
圣经的上帝？抑或无情的命运？
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，尤其是当他在比较改革宗信仰和其他前面曾提及的「不真实的人格主义」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.
范泰尔的学生，必需更位格主义
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。有些范泰尔所用的名词，会让人觉得范泰尔的护教关心的只是一些抽象观念而已，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；因为（我们在下一章会说明），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 many 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.
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.
圣经中位格性的世界观对护教者四方面的帮助
4 WAYS BIBLICAL PERSONALISM HELPS APOLOGIST
基督徒护教者必需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它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，我们必需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。」 (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。 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.
网络圣约ccnci.org
中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）