傅兰姆﹕「范泰尔论上帝的启示」
JOHN FRAME: CORNELIUS VAN TIL’S VIEW OF REVELATION
(John Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought , Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995, pp. 115-129. 林慈信译。)
我们已经看见，范泰尔的「模拟知识观」可以总结成两点﹕（一）上帝的思维不同于人类的思维，其间的差异，是创造主与被造者之间的天渊之别，两者需要分辨清楚；（二）人要效法上帝的思维而思维。…… 现在我们来讨论第二点。
As we have seen, Van Til’s doctrine of analogical knowledge can be summarized by saying (1) that God’s thoughts are distinct from man’s, as Creator from creature, and (2) that man is to think God’s thoughts after him. … We must now explore the second.
效法上帝思维的意思﹕思维必须服从上帝的启示
Think God’s Thoughts After Him Means:
Thinking Must Submit to Revelation
对范泰尔来说， 「效法上帝的思维而思维」首先是指﹕按照上帝的启示来思维。在这一章里，我们要讨论上帝的普遍启示和特殊启示。下面几章，我们将探索启示在知识论中的涵义；我们将从预设、理性、逻辑的角色，以及神学系统等角度来讨论。
For Van Til, “thinking God’s thoughts after him” is first of all thinking according to divine revelation. In this chapter, we shall discuss general and special revelation. In the next chapters, we shall explore the implications of revelation for epistemology: the roles of presuppositions, reason and logic, and theological systems.
改革宗传统的普遍启示与特殊启示观
General Revelation, Special Revelation
In the Reformed Tradition
范泰尔的启示观本质上与加尔文和改革宗的传统大致相同，特别是凯柏 (Abraham Kuyper)、巴文克 (Herman Bavinck)和华尔腓特 (B.B. Warfield) 的神学。上帝所有的创造当中，都有祂的「自然启示」－或称「普遍启示」－在里面；人身为上帝的形象，当然也不例外。普遍启示显明上帝的本性和祂对人的道德要求 （罗1﹕18-20，32）。人类犯罪之后，上帝另外又添加了 「特殊启示」，从中赐给人有关恩典的信息。特殊启示的媒介有：上帝的亲自显现 (theophany)（包括上帝儿子的道成肉身）、先知预言、神迹和笔之于书的《圣经》。《圣经》是上帝的话，它的原稿是无谬 (infallible)、无误 (inerrant) 的。（范氏在IST, 62-158里详细地解释了他的启示观。 另参CA, 23-37; CTK, 25-71; PDS; NS; IW。）
Van Til’s view of revelation is essentially that of Calvin and the Reformed tradition, especially including Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield. There is “natural” or “general” revelation in all of creation, including man, who is God’s image. This revelation indicates God’s nature and his moral demands (Rom. 1:18-20, 32). After man sinned, the message of God’s grace was given in additional “special” revelation, communicated through theophany (including the incarnation of the Son of God), prophecy, and miracle, and eventually committed to writing in Scripture. Scripture is God’s Word, infallible and inerrant in its original manuscripts. (Van Til’s view of revelation is expounded in greatest detail in IST, 62-158. See also CA, 23-37; CTK, 25-71; PDS; NS; IW.)
当范泰尔把这些教义应用在知识论和护教学的时候，新的重点和洞见浮现了。接下来，我将把焦点集中在范氏的启示观；我认为，这是他的特殊贡献，能帮助教会思索有关「启示」的教义。
As Van Til relates these doctrines to his own epistemological and apologetic concerns, however, new emphases and insights emerge. In what follows, I will focus on what I take to be Van Til’s distinctive contributions to the church’s thinking about revelation.
普遍启示
GENERAL REVELATION
众所周知，范泰尔坚持一切的护教见证必须建立在合乎《圣经》的预设上，不可单以「对自然事实严谨、中立的论证」为根据。因此，有些人批判他不重视上帝的普遍启示。
Van Til is known for the view that all apologetic witness must be based on presuppositions drawn from Scripture, rather than on religiously neutral argument from the facts of nature alone. Consequently, critics sometimes fault him for failing to do justice to general revelation.
范泰尔论普遍启示﹕必须、权威、足够、清晰
Van Til on General Revelation: Necessary, Authoritative, Sufficient, Clear
因此我们必须了解，范泰尔有一套稳固扎实的普遍启示观。在他的著作中，这是最主要的重点。他强调，普遍启示与《圣经》一样，为了达成其特殊目标，它是 「必须的、有权威性的、足够的和清晰的」。(CA, 30-37; NS, 269-283.)我们将会看见，普遍启示在范泰尔的护教学中扮演了举足轻重的角色。因为有了上帝清楚、权威性的普遍启示，非基督徒才能「知道」 上帝（罗1﹕21）；但这方面的知识，又正是非基督徒试图去压制的。护教者所诉诸的就是：上帝对非基督徒清楚的自我启示；非基督徒知道它，但却压制它。
It is important, then, to realize that Van Til has a very strong doctrine of general revelation. This is a major emphasis in his writings. He stresses that general revelation, like Scripture, is “necessary, authoritative, sufficient and perspicuous” for its distinctive purposes. (CA, 30-37; NS, 269-283.) As we shall see, this revelation plays a central role in his apologetic. It is because of that clear, authoritative general revelation that the unbeliever “knows” God (Rom. 1:21); and it is that revealed knowledge which he seeks to suppress. It is to that clear self-revelation of God to the unbeliever, known but suppressed, that the apologist appeals.
普遍启示﹕启示上帝的永恒预旨
General Revelation Reveals Eternal Decree
如此坚强的普遍启示观，来自于改革宗对「上帝的主权」的信念。如果万事皆因上帝主权的预旨而发生，那么，所有的事多多少少都会显明上帝的预旨。因此，「一切被造的实存，都启示着上帝的本性与旨意。」 (CA, 33.) 范氏解释道﹕
Such a strong doctrine of general revelation follows from Van Til’s Reformed view of divine sovereignty. If all things come to pass by God’s sovereign decree, then all things to some extent reveal that decree. Therefore, “All created reality is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.” (CA, 33.) He explains:
这位上帝显然对被造的宇宙有一个整全、包含万有的计划。祂计划了所有被造存有之间的所有关系。祂从起初就计划了末了。因此，所有被造的实存实际上都在显示着这个计划；也因此，它们的本质是合乎理性的。 (CA, 34-35.)
This God naturally has an all-comprehensive plan for the created universe. He has planned all the relationships between all the aspects of created being. He has planned the end from the beginning. All created reality therefore actually displays this plan. It is, in consequence, inherently rational. (CA, 34-35.)
宇宙具启示性，因为它是为上帝的荣耀而造；
亚米念主义不承认人性具启示性
Universe Revelational, Because Created For God’s Glory;
Arminians Deny Human Nature Is Revelational
请注意﹕「如果整个宇宙是为显明上帝的荣耀而被造─正如《圣经》不断宣称的，那么，除非宇宙是上帝的启示，它不可能显明上帝的荣耀。」 （IST, 64. 见页 110等。范泰尔谴责亚米念神学，因为后者否认人性本身具有启示性。按照亚米念主义的看法，由于人的自由意志独立于上帝的计划之外，那么人性就不可能是上帝的启示、上帝的形象。既然如此，普遍启示就不足以让人对罪无可推诿。）
Note also, “If the whole universe was created to show forth the glory of God, as the Scriptures constantly say that it was, then it could not do this unless it was a revelation of God.” (IST, 64. On p. 110… he reproaches Arminian theology because it does not see human nature itself as revelational. Since human free will, on the Arminian understanding, is independent of God’s plan, it cannot be a divine revelation, the image of God. As such, general revelation is insufficient to leave man totally without excuse for sin.)
救赎（特殊）启示预设普遍启示；
分辨 = 历史的关键
Redemptive (Special Revelation) Presupposes General Revelation;
Differentiation Key to History
「建立一个稳固的普遍启示教义至关重要」的另一个原因是﹕救赎启示（特殊启示、《圣经》）预设了普遍启示﹕
A strong doctrine of general revelation is also important because the doctrine of redemptive revelation (special revelation, Scripture) presupposes it:
上帝对人类的自然启示从起初开始就是盟约性 (covenantal) 的，祂有意要以自然启示作为一个平台，在历史进程中进行区分的过程 (the process of differentiation)。上帝与亚当所立的约是条件性的，在人类对分辨善恶树采取行动之后，上帝在自然里面为启示添加了新的内容。 （NS, 267-268. 「分辨」一词 (differentiation)是指上帝的子民在历史中逐渐被显明是从堕落的世界中分别出来的，与不被拣选的人不同。在 《普遍恩典与福音》一书中有详细的解释。）
Being from the outset covenantal in character, the natural revelation of God to man was meant to serve as the playground for the process of differentiation that was to take place in the course of time. The covenant made with Adam was conditional. There would be additional revelation of God in nature after the action of man with respect to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NS, 267-268. “Differentiation,” a concept explained at length in CGG, refers to the gradual manifestation in history of the people of God in distinction from the reprobate world.)
堕落后普遍启示的新内容﹕上帝的忿怒
After Fall, New Content in General Revelation: God’s Wrath
这个新添的启示，乃是有关「上帝的忿怒」的启示 （罗1﹕18）；但是， 「上帝的恩典也与祂的忿怒一起被显明。」 上帝借着彩虹向挪亚显明祂的普遍恩典，除此之外，上帝更在基督里宣告了救赎的恩典。救赎启示借着先知预言与上帝迹临到我们。范泰尔解释﹕「自然界的力量，永远都在听从、服事宇宙中 『区分的权柄』的召唤，去完成后者救赎与定罪的工作。这个超自然同时又是自然的启示，就是旧约《圣经》－尤其是诗篇－所要精心表达的内容。」 (NS, 268-269.)
That additional revelation was a revelation of wrath (Rom. 1:18), but “together with God’s wrath, his grace is also manifest.” God’s common grace is manifested to Noah through the sign of the rainbow. But beyond this, God proclaims saving grace in Christ. That revelation comes through prophecy and miracle. Van Til explains: “The forces of nature are always at the beck and call of the power of differentiation that works toward redemption and reprobation. It is the idea of a supernatural-natural revelation that comes to such eloquent expression in the Old Testament, and particularly in the Psalms.” (NS, 268-269.)
堕落前、堕落后，人都必须通过
特殊启示（上帝心意的传递）
来理解普遍启示
Before And After Fall, Man Needs
Special Revelation (Thought-Communicatoin)
To Understand General Revelation
因此，范泰尔坚持普遍启示和特殊启示是一个整体，不应被硬性分割。用范泰尔式的话来说，「就算在乐园里」， 人 「也必须与超自然启示的亮光接连，才能正确地去解读自然。」 (DF2, 106; cf. CTK, 29-3. IST, 68, 162, 189. …) 人类堕落之后，超自然心意的传递－现在的「特殊启示」－越发成为必须的，因为堕落的人会本能地去歪曲普遍启示的真理 （罗1﹕18-32）。
Van Til, therefore, insists that general and special revelation are integrated, rather than sharply distinguished. “Even in paradise,” to use a common Van Tillian phrase, man “could read nature aright only in connection with and in the light of supernatural positive revelation.” (DF2, 106; cf. CTK, 29-3. IST, 68, 162, 189. …) After the Fall, that supernatural thought-communication, now a “special revelation,” became all the more necessary, since fallen man naturally distorted the truth of general revelation (Rom. 1:18-32).
特殊启示预设普遍启示
Special Revelation Presupposes General Revelation
与此同时，「超自然心意的传递」也预设了普遍启示；所以，没有普遍启示，我们就不能理解超自然启示。因此，自然启示也具有传统上被归于《圣经》的四个属性；和《圣经》一样，自然启示是必须的、权威性的、足够的和清晰的。
At the same time, supernatural thought-communication also presupposes general revelation and therefore cannot be understood without it. Natural revelation, therefore, bears the four attributes traditionally ascribed to Scripture. Like Scripture, natural revelation is necessary, authoritative, sufficient, and perspicuous.
（一）普遍启示的必须性
- Necessity of General Revelation
普遍启示是必须的，因为 「超自然若要显明为超自然，自然就必须显明为自然……宇宙中若要有真正的「例外」，则必须先有常规。」 (NS, 269-270.) 上帝所赐有关人类生活的诫命，若要作为范例让人遵守，这条诫命就必须是一个例外 （范氏在这里指的是创世记2﹕17，关于分辨善恶树的诫命）。
General revelation is necessary, because “for the supernatural to appear as supernatural the natural had to appear as really natural. … There had to be regularity if there was to be a genuine exception.” (NS, 269-270.) And God’s commandments concerning particulars of human life (Van Til speaks here of the commandment concerning the tree of knowledge in Gen. 2:17) must, if they are to serve as “examples” for our obedience in other areas, be exceptional.
自然与超自然之间的关系不只是堕落前，也是堕落后的实况。可是堕落之后，两者之间的关系加入了一个新的特性﹕「自然必须被显明是需要救赎的。 … 《圣经》当中有关医治的神迹，全都指向万事万物的更新。」 (NS, 270-271.) 因此，必须有一个被罪咒诅的世界，才能显明上帝救赎的特殊计划。上帝借着祂救赎性的作为和话语来彰显这个计划。
The relation between the natural and the supernatural applies both before and after the Fall. But after the Fall, another distinction enters: “The natural must appear as in need of redemption. … The Biblical miracles of healing point to the regeneration of all things.” (NS, 270-271.) So, it is necessary to have a world cursed by sin in order to show by contrast the special plan of God’s redemption. That plan is shown both by God’s saving deeds and by his saving words.
（二）普遍启示的权威性
- Authority of General Revelation
普遍启示是具有权威性的。福音派人士有时天真地以为《圣经》比自然启示更具权威性，但这不是《圣经》的教导。虽然《圣经》是上帝所书写的惟一启示，在启示的体系里扮演了独特的角色，但是它的权威性并不比上帝借着自然所赐下的启示更高或更低。因为，两种启示都来自上帝－虽然一个是例外的，一个是常规性的。因此范泰尔说﹕
General revelation is also authoritative. Evangelicals sometimes think naively that Scripture has more authority than natural revelation. But that is not the teaching of Scripture. Although Scripture has a unique role to play in the organism of revelation, as the only divinely authored written revelation, it is no more or less authoritative than God’s word through nature, for both revelations, exceptional and ordinary, come from God. So, Van Til says,
上帝向人所发出的「例外性」声音，它的权威性只不过说明了上帝也透过自然界发出权威的声音。… 因此人的科学研究方法必须是顺服上帝的。 (NS, 272-273.)
The voice of authority as it came to man in this exceptional manner was to be but illustrative of the fact that, in and through the things of nature, there spoke the self-same voice of God’s command. … Man’s scientific procedure was accordingly to be marked by the attitude of obedience to God. (NS, 272-273.)
就算是我们的罪也具启示性，因为罪是「反常」的。 (NS, 275.)
Even our sins are “revelational, that is, in their very abnormality.” (NS, 275.)
（三）普遍启示的足够性
- Sufficiency of General Revelation
普遍启示本身足以达成它的历史目的，也就是提供「超自然的救赎与启示」一个适当的背景（平台）。虽然它本身并不足以传递上帝救赎应许的恩典，可是，这并不是它的目的。 (NS, 275-276.)
General revelation is sufficient for its historical purpose, which is, of course, to provide a proper background for supernatural redemption and revelation. It is not sufficient to communicate God’s saving promises of grace, but that was not its purpose. (NS, 275-276.)
（四）普遍启示的清晰性
- Perspicuity (Clarity) of General Revelation
普遍启示是清晰的 (perspicuous)。虽然上帝不能被透知，而且世界已经受了咒诅，但是世界却依然清楚地显示了上帝 （罗1﹕18-21）。普遍启示本身虽然是清晰的，却没有被罪人正确地理解﹕ 「因为一个事实若是事实，它必须具启示性。因此，罪人接受上帝的自然启示，并不比接受上帝在《圣经》中的启示更为容易。 」 (NS, 280.)
Finally, general revelation is perspicuous, or clear. Although God is incomprehensible, and the world is cursed, nevertheless the world reveals God clearly (Rom. 1:18-21). Although clear in itself, general revelation is not properly understood by sinful man: “For any fact to be a fact at all, it must be a revelational fact. It is accordingly no easier for sinners to accept God’s revelation in nature than to accept God’s revelation in Scripture.” (NS, 280.)
总结
Summary
总结来说，普遍启示和特殊启示的必须性、权威性、足够性和清晰性都是同等的。特殊启示的独特性，不是在于它更具权威性（或更必须、更足够、更清晰），而是在于，它是为了一些独特的目的而被赐下﹕（一）引导人正确地解释普遍启示；（二）在人类堕落后，纠正人对普遍启示的歪曲；（三）将上帝在基督里的救赎应许带给我们，而这个信息无法藉由普遍启示得知。
To summarize, general and special revelation are equally necessary, authoritative, sufficient, and perspicuous. The uniqueness of special revelation is not that it is more authoritative (or more of the other attributes) than natural revelation. Rather, special revelation is unique because it is given for distinct purposes: (1) to guide our interpretation of general revelation, (2) after the Fall, to correct our sinful distortions of general revelation, and (3) to bring us God’s promise of salvation through Christ, a
message not available through general revelation.
视角主义
PERSPECTIVALISM
三面区分；九个范畴
Three-fold Distinction; Nine Categories
范泰尔在 《系统神学入门》 中，发展了他对普遍启示和特殊启示的整合理念。有趣的是，他在这里放弃传统普遍启示与特殊启示的二分法，而使用三分法来论述「启示」：从上帝而来的启示、从自然界而来的启示和从人自身而来的启示。（这让我们想起加尔文在 《基督教要义》 的卷首说道，我们对自己的认识和对上帝的认识是不能分开的，这两种知识彼此互相需要；不过，加尔文并不知道哪一种知识较为「优先」。）
Van Til develops in An Introduction to Systematic Theology his ideas on the integration of general and special revelation. Interestingly, at this point he resorts to a threefold, rather than a twofold, distinction: instead of the traditional general-special distinction, he refers to revelation from God, from nature, and from self. (This is reminiscent of the first page of Calvin’s Institutes, in which he declares the inseparability of our knowledge of self from our knowledge of God. Calvin says that each is involved in the other, and he does not know which “comes first.”)
他将这三方面的启示来源与另外一组的三种启示－关于上帝的启示、关于自然界的启示和关于人自己的启示－结合，共得出九个范畴﹕从自然界、人自身和上帝所得知的有关自然界的启示；从三种同样来源所得知的有关人自己的启示；和从三种同样来源所得知的有关上帝的启示。（也许是开玩笑，也许是非常认真的，范泰尔赋予每一种关系一个专用头衔，就像凯伯的人类知识大全。例如：来自自然界有关于自然界的启示，就是物理；来自人自身有关于自然界的启示，就是心理物理。（ 《系统神学入门》，页64-65图表。）
Relating these to another triad, that of revelation about God, about nature, and about self, he ends up with nine categories: revelation about nature from nature, self, and God; revelation about self from the same three sources; and revelation about God from the same three sources. (Perhaps somewhat tongue in check (but perhaps not), Van Til gives to each relationship a technical title, in the manner of Kuyper’s Encyclopedia. For example, revelation about nature from nature is physics, and revelation about nature from self is psycho-physics. The whole chart is in IST, 64.65.)
启示与知识相互依赖
Interdependence of Revelation and Knowledge
范泰尔论证道﹕上述三种来源，全都涉及有关任何事物的知识；更重要的是，范氏坚持，九种关系里每一方面的关系，都必须从「基督教有神论」的角度去理解。（我曾在 《认识神的知识论》一书中阐述「视角主义」，范泰尔这方面的洞见，是「视角主义」的一个重要来源 – 傅兰姆。 ）比方说，当我们从自然界去理解有关自然界的启示时，我们必须认清自然界是上帝创造、掌管的，因此所有的事实都由定律管理，所有的定律都与事实有关。（参本书第五章 「三位一体论」，我在当中解释了范泰尔的三一神论对这个预设所提供的理论基础。）事实之所以是事实，定律之所以是定律，都是因为上帝的缘故。离开上帝的永恒计划，事实与定律之间不可能存在甚么有用的关系。
He argues that all three sources are involved in the knowledge of any object: but, more important, he argues that each relationship must be understood from a Christian-theistic perspective. (These insights of Van Til’s are one major source (together with others) of the “perspectivalism” expounded in my DKG – John Frame.) As we understand revelation about nature from nature, for example, it is important that we recognize that nature is created and governed by God; therefore, all facts are governed by laws, and all laws are related to facts. (Cf. chapter 5 of this volume, “The Trinity,” in which I describe the rationale for this proposition in Van Til’s doctrine of the Trinity.) And both facts and laws are what they are because of God. Apart from his plan, they could not exist in “fruitful relation” to one another.
Need for Knowledge of God (Prior Need)
认识上帝是必须的（优先的必须）
范泰尔避开了传统的经验主义和先验主义﹕「与定律分离的事实」和「与事实分离的定律」同样没有意义。若上帝没有将事实和定律有意义地互相连接，知识不可能存在。因此我们看见，对范泰尔来说，就算在思想 「来自自然界关于自然界的启示」 时，关于上帝的知识（认识上帝）也是我们必须同时思想的。 (IST, 65-66.)
Van Til eschews both traditional empiricism and traditional apriorism: facts apart from laws and vice versa are equally meaningless. Without God to relate the facts and laws intelligibly to one another, knowledge is impossible. Thus we see that for Van Til, the knowledge of God enters even into our consideration of “revelation about nature from nature.” (IST, 65-66.)
宗教与科学不可分开
Religion and Science Inseparable
「从人自身而来关于自然界的启示」 也很重要；因为，透过比较自然界和自己，我们可以学习到许多有关自然的知识。可是，要正确地进行这样的比较和学习，就必须具备合乎《圣经》的自我观念（人论）。 (IST, 66-67.) 因此，「从上帝而来关于自然界的启示」 至为关键。是上帝透过自然启示和特殊启示告诉我们，世界乃是被创造、被咒诅的。因此，我们不可以分割(compartmentalize)宗教和科学。 「就算在乐园里」 ，上帝也要求人在祂所说的话语的亮光中去研究自然。 (IST, 67-68.)
“Revelation about nature from self” is also important, since we learn much about nature by comparing it with ourselves. But to do this properly, we must have a biblical concept of the self. (IST, 66-67.) “Revelation about nature from God,” therefore, is crucial. It is God who tells us, both in natural and special revelation, that the world is created and cursed. We may not, therefore, compartmentalize religion and science. “Even in paradise,” God expected man to study nature in the light of his spoken word. (IST, 67-68.)
普遍启示，堕落后还是清晰的
Perspicuity of General Revelation After Fall
在 《系统神学入门》 接下来的三章中（第7-9章），范泰尔讨论到人类的堕落对「上帝有关自然界、人和祂自己的启示」有何影响。我们会在本书的第三部分－知识的伦理－讨论这方面的问题。大体说来，上帝的启示仍然保持清晰。虽然它反映出神对大地的咒诅，虽然人的不义会歪曲真理，可是，人依然可以从自然启示中有所学习。 In the next three chapters of An Introduction to Systematic Theology (7-9), Van Til discusses the effects of the Fall upon God’s revelation about nature, man, and God. We shall consider this material in Part Three, “The Ethics of Knowledge.” In general, the revelation remains clear, although it reflects the curse on the earth, and although man sinfully distorts the truth, he learns from it.
「惟独《圣经》」与《圣经》以外的知识
Sola Scriptura and Extrabiblical Knowledge
无疑地，范泰尔坚信传统基督新教的 「惟独圣经」 原则，即﹕只有《圣经》才是人类思想与生活的无上权威。在下一章里面，我们将会看到《圣经》乃是范氏的 「预设」 。尽管如此，范泰尔的 「惟独圣经」 观不是机械式的，彷佛我们可以单用《圣经》来发展知识，完全不必使用我们的理性或感知。他了解到，在人类所认识的每一点知识中，都同时存在着有关上帝的知识、有关世界的知识和有关人自己的知识。我们不可能认识一样事物，除非我们将它与其它的事物或我们自己连系起来；我们不能正确地认识上帝，除非我们知道祂是这个世界的创造主，也是我们的创造主与救赎主；我们不可能认识《圣经》，除非我们将《圣经》与我们自己和我们的经验世界连系起来。普遍启示和特殊启示一定是合作共事的，虽然后者无疑是我们理解前者的终极准则。
Certainly, Van Til believed in sola Scriptura in the traditional Protestant sense: that only Scripture serves as the supreme authority for human thought and life. We shall see in the next chapter how Scripture was Van Til’s “presupposition.” Nevertheless, Van Til did not hold a mechanical view of sola Scriptura, as if we could develop our knowledge from Scripture alone, without any use of our own reason or senses. He understood that in any instance of knowledge, there is simultaneous knowledge of God, the world, and the self. We cannot know one thing without relating it to other things and to ourselves. We cannot know God rightly unless we know him as Creator of the world and as our own Creator-Redeemer. We cannot know Scripture without relating it to ourselves and to the world of our experience. General and special revelation always work together, though certainly the latter must provide the ultimate criteria for understanding the former.
普遍启示与特殊启示﹕
成为整体；互为界线观念
General Revelation and Special Revelation:
Forms One Whole, Mutual “Limiting Concepts”
我们应该特别注意，在这个思维架构里面，从自然界而来的启示和从人而来的启示，并没有与来自上帝的启示隔离。就算是从自然界而来关于自然界的启示，也必须以合乎《圣经》的角度去理解。诚然，自然界、人和上帝都必须在它们彼此的参照下(in light of one another)被理解。「就算在神学本身－来自上帝关于上帝的启示－的范畴内」范泰尔说，「从『自我反省』和『思想被造世界』所得关于上帝的知识，不能人为的与得自『上帝直接传递（启示）的』关于上帝的知识随便分开。」 (IST, 67-68.) 另外，请注意﹕
We should note especially that in this scheme, revelation from nature and revelation from man are not isolated from revelation from God. Even revelation about nature from nature must be understood in a scriptural way. Indeed, nature, man, and God must all be understood in the light of one another. Even in “theology proper,” the “revelation about God from God,” said Van Til, “we cannot artificially separate the knowledge of God that man received or could receive by his reflection on man and the created universe in general, and the knowledge of God that man received from God by direct communication.” (IST, 67-68.) Note also:
「上帝亲自直接启示的知识」和「上帝以自然的方式向人启示的知识」，两者共同形成了一个真理系统。上帝对宇宙有一个整体的计划，包括祂的自然启示和超自然启示。因此，我们必须认识到：每一种启示都隐含着另一种启示，它们是彼此的界线观念 (limiting concepts)。 (IST, 74.)
What God did actually reveal directly, and what God revealed naturally to man, together form one system of truth. God had one comprehensive plan with respect to the universe inclusive of his natural and his supernatural revelation. It is of great importance that the various aspects of revelation be regarded as implying one another. They are limiting concepts of one another. (IST, 74.)
傅兰姆：相互依赖=视角主义
Interdependence = Perspectivalism (Frame)
当范泰尔在上面所引用的话中说，「自然启示和超自然启示是彼此的界线观念(limiting concepts) 」 时，我相信他的意思是﹕没有不与特殊启示掺杂的「纯」自然启示；也没有不与自然启示掺杂的「纯」特殊启示。（「界线观念」 Limiting concept 是康德和他之后的哲学家所使用的术语。数学中的「无限」( infinity ) 是一个「界线观念」limiting concept，因为，虽然我们能在计算中有意义地使用这个概念，世上却没有真正在数量上是「无限」的事物。界线观念(Limiting concepts) 用在分析事物时非常有用，可是它们并非代表了甚么真正存在的事物。关于范泰尔如何使用这观念，请参看第13章「模拟系统」 。﹞自然（启示）必须在超自然（启示）的光照中来理解；而超自然（特殊启示）也必须以自然为背景去理解它。若少了彼此作为彼此的背景（处境， context），两者都不可能起到「启示」的作用。
When Van Til says in the above quotation that natural and supernatural revelation are “limiting concepts of one another,” I believe that he means that there is no purely natural revelation or purely supernatural revelation without admixture of the other. (“Limiting concept” is a term used by Immanuel Kant and later philosophers. Mathematical infinity is a limiting concept, because although we can use the concept meaningfully in calculations, there are no actually infinite quantities of objects in the world. Limiting concepts are useful for analytic purposes, but they do not literally represent something that exists. See chap. 13, “The Analogical System,” for more on Van Til’s use of this concept.) The natural must be understood in the light of the supernatural, and the supernatural must be understood against the “backdrop” of the natural. Apart from these contexts, they do not actually function as revelation.
我在其它的拙作中 ( 《认识神的知识论》，中华展望翻译，原著﹕Doctrine of the Knowledge of God) 把这个观念称为「视角主义」 (perspectivalism)。意思是说﹕人类所有的知识，都同时是关于自己的知识、关于世界的知识和关于上帝的知识。若少了其它两个范畴，一个范畴的知识不可能是足够的。若不认识上帝，我们不可能正确地认识自己，其它方面的关系也是如此。因此，「对自我的认识」实在是三方面的知识﹕自我认识、认识世界和认识上帝，只不过焦点集中在自己而已。在这重意义上，自我认识成了透视「自己、世界和上帝」这个三元体系 (triad) 的一个视角 (perspective)。
I have elsewhere described this sort of view as “perspectivalism.” (In DKG, throughout.) That is, all human knowledge is simultaneous knowledge of self, world, and God. Knowledge of one area cannot be adequate without knowledge of the other two. One cannot know the self rightly without knowing God, and similarly with the other relationships. Therefore, “self-knowledge” is really a knowledge of all three areas – self, world, and God, with a focus or emphasis on the self. Self-knowledge in this case becomes a perspective on the entire triad.
两者必须分辨﹕我们需要神学吗？
Do Distinguish the Two: Do We Need Theology?
在之前那段引文的脉络下，范泰尔的确说过，自然神学和超自然神学依然必须 「分辨清楚﹕这个分辨是不同『内容』的分辨。若能在这里分辨清楚，就能帮助我们认清：罪进入世界之后，人透过自然神学与理性神学的方法，能怎样认识上帝？甚么是必须留给 『神学』 去处理的？ 」 (IST, 74.)
Van Til does say in the context of the last quotation that natural and supernatural theology must nevertheless be “kept distinct.: The distinctness is a distinctness of content: “If we keep them distinct at this place, it will help us when we come to the question of what can, now that sin has entered the world, still be known of God by the process of natural and rational theology, and what must be reserved for theology proper.” (IST, 74.)
我相信范泰尔在这里只是简单的作了一个传统上的区分是﹕自然神学是传递上帝的本性与忿怒，启示神学则在传递福音。因此，自然启示与特殊启示在内容上有所不同。可是，若要正确地去了解、应用任何一种启示，则必须透过另外一方。我们不应该误解范泰尔的视角主义，以为上帝在两种启示中的信息完全一样；范泰尔要我们认清每一种启示的独特本质，和上帝所有的启示之间的相互依赖性。其实，启示与被造的宇宙一样，都是三一真神的表彰。
Here I believe Van Til is simply making the traditional distinction between natural theology as communicating God’s nature and wrath, and revealed theology, as communicating the gospel. Natural and special revelation, therefore, differ in content. But to understand and to apply each one properly, we need the other. Van Til’s perspectivalism must not be taken in a leveling way so that all God’s messages become identical. Rather, it calls us to recognize both the integrity of each revelation and the interdependence of all God’s revelations. For revelation is, after all, like creation, a manifestation of the divine Trinity.
特殊启示
SPECIAL REVELATION
特殊启示掌管所有的知识
Special Revelation Rules Over All Knowledge
范泰尔的三重视角架构，出现在他讨论普遍启示的一系列篇章里。可是，正如我们所见，这个架构本身包含了特殊启示。 「来自上帝有关自然界、人和上帝的启示」 除了普遍启示之外，当然也包括了特殊启示﹕的确，所有范畴都需要来自《圣经》亮光的解释。所以我们已经看到范泰尔特殊启示观里最重要的一点﹕特殊启示必须管治人类知识的所有其它层面。
Van Til’s threefold perspectival scheme appears in a series of chapters devoted to the topic of general revelation. As we have seen, however, this scheme includes special revelation within its purview. “Revelation by God about nature, man, and God” is a category that certainly includes special, as well as general, revelation: indeed, all the categories require interpretation in the light of Scripture. So we have already seen some of what is most important in Van Til’s view of special revelation: that it must rule all other aspects of human knowledge.
虽然如此，范泰尔也进一步将注意力的焦点更多放在特殊启示－特别是《圣经》－上。现在让我们来注意这方面的讨论。
Nevertheless, Van Til does go on to give more focused attention to special revelation, and particularly to Scripture. We must now give attention to that discussion.
特殊启示的必须性﹕人的罪性
The Need for Special Revelation: Man’s Sin
特殊启示的必须性「不在于上帝创造人类时所给他的普遍启示有任何缺欠。」 (IST, 110.) 按照它的目的来看，普遍启示是全然足够的；当时如此，现在也如此。更准确的来说，特殊启示的必须性来自人的罪性（而不是人的有限性。范泰尔如此强调）。有关上帝恩典的信息不能在自然界里被发现。此外，特殊启示是必需的，它要纠正身为罪人的我们，对普遍启示的扭曲。 (IST, 111-112.)
The necessity of special revelation “does not lie in any defect in the general revelation that God gave to man when he created him.” (IST, 110.) General revelation was, and still is, fully adequate for its purpose. Rather, the need for special revelation is found in man’s sin (not, Van Til emphasizes, in his finitude.) The message of grace is not found in nature. In addition, special revelation is necessary to correct our sinful distortion of general revelation. (IST, 111-112.)
特殊启示﹕上帝的话语、作为、临在
Special Revelation: God’s Words, Deeds, Presence
特殊启示不仅包括圣灵默示的文字，还包括上帝启示性的作为。范泰尔视《圣经》里上帝的显现、先知预言和神迹为一个整体﹕上帝救赎性的临在、救赎性的话语和救赎性的作为。（傅兰姆﹕参见拙著《认识神的知识论》讲述的三个范畴﹕准则性﹑处境性及存在性。）每一种启示的方式 (mode) 都预设了另外两种方式。上帝的话语解释祂的作为；而上帝的话语和作为，则赋予祂的显现（上帝住在人间）以重要意义。 (IST, 119.) 这种对救赎性作为的强调，使我们不至堕进 「假理性主义」之中。 (IST, 130) 我们的需要不仅仅是数据的缺乏；我们所需要的，是人性的改变。
Special revelation consists not only of inspired words, but also of revelatory deeds. Van Til sees an organic relation in Scripture between theophany, prophecy, and miracle: God’s saving presence, saving words, and saving deeds. (Cf. the categories “normative,” “situational,” and “existential in my DKG – John Fame.) Each mode of revelation presupposes the other two. God’s words interpret his deeds, and both “give significance to God’s dwelling with man (theophany).” (IST, 119.) The emphasis on saving deeds keep us from “false intellectualism;” (IST, 130) our need is not a mere lack of information, but a need for personal change.
「上帝的话语与祂的作为同工；上帝的作为与祂的话语同工。」 (IST, 131.) 透过这两种形式，上帝亲自来到我们中间，拯救我们脱离罪恶。在不了解所有三种启示方式的情况下﹐我们不可能认识其中任何一种方式－这又是另一种视角性 (perspectival) 的关系。
“The words corroborate the deeds and the deeds corroborate the words.” (IST, 131.) And in the two, God himself comes to us to save us from our sin. We cannot know one form of revelation without knowing all of them – another “perspectival” relationship.
《圣经》
SCRIPTURE
《圣经》的观念，《圣经》的信息﹕不可分开
Idea of Scripture, Message of Scripture: Inseparable
范泰尔这样评价凯伯与巴文克的圣经观﹕「他们的观点何等基要！何等宽广！他们说，《圣经》的观念 (idea of Scripture) 永远不可与《圣经》的信息分开！」 （JA, 8; 参CTK, 31, 33, 范泰尔在该处说到，「《圣经》事实」和「《圣经》内容」两个观念的相辅相成性 (interdependence)。）「分开」(separation)在神学里面是一个微妙的观念，有人曾用这个 「观念与信息」的关系来批评正统的圣经观。例如：有人会说，因为《圣经》的信息关乎救赎，因此《圣经》的无误性应该局限于狭义性的救赎范围；这样，我们就可以容许《圣经》在论及其它事物时出现错误。可是范泰尔讨论在这些问题时，却对「《圣经》的观念」 (idea of Scripture) 和「《圣经》的信息」持有不同的看法。对范氏来说，《圣经》的信息是上帝所赐予人恩典的话语；这位上帝是一位完全掌权、并以绝对权威说话的上帝。如果《圣经》就是这「话语」，那么它必定传递了上帝至高的权威，因此在任何事物的记载上都应无谬无误。范泰尔支持华尔非德的圣经观﹕
Speaking of Kuyper’s and Bavinck’s views of Scripture, Van Til remarks, “How basic and how broad was their view! The idea of Scripture, they said, must never be separated from its message.” (JA, 8; cf. CTK, 31, 33, where Van Til speaks of the “interdependence of the idea of the fact and the content of Scripture.”) “Separation” is a tricky word in theology, and some have used this idea-message relationship to criticize orthodox views of Scripture. For example, the claim is sometimes made that because the message of Scripture deals with salvation, the idea of Scripture must limit inerrancy to matters of salvation narrowly defined, thus allowing for errors when Scripture speaks of other things. Van Til, however, comes to these questions with a different concept of both the idea and the message of Scripture. The message of Scripture, for Van Til, is a message of grace from a God who is absolutely sovereign and speaks with absolute authority. If Scripture is this Word, then it must convey his ultimate authority and therefore be inerrant in all matters. Van Til describes Warfield with approval as holding that
古典基督教「《圣经》无误默示」的教义与「上帝主权」的教义有着密切的关系。上帝若不能在对人启示自己时掌主权，祂就不可能在指挥人类－有理性灵魂的人－的时候掌主权。上帝若在「存有」的领域中掌主权，那么祂当然也在知识的范围里掌主权。 (IW, 3.)
The classical doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God could not be sovereign in his disposition of rational human beings if he were not also sovereign in his revelation of himself to them. If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge. (IW, 3.)
我们是从《圣经》来认识这位掌主权的上帝－这是《圣经》信息的一部份。可是，当我们认识这样一位上帝的时候，我们会意识到， 「这样的一位上帝必须自我表明；这样的一位上帝也会指明宇宙中所有事实的真相。借着指明宇宙中的所有事实，祂就为这些事实建立彼此间的相互关系。」 (CK, 28. 参﹕IW, 1.)
We learn of this sovereign God from Scripture; this is part of its message. But when we learn of such a God, we realize that “such a God must identify himself. Such a God … identifies all the facts of the universe. In identifying all the facts of the universe he sets these facts in relation to one another.” (CK, 28. Cf. IW, 1.)
因此，上帝的话－将祂自己权威性的救赎应许赐给了人－必须是自证的。《圣经》就是这话，并不需要除它之外的引证来证实它；这样的证实是不可能的，除非这个外来的证实愿意服在《圣经》的解释与评估之下。（参范泰尔在 RP, 页37的论据。）
Thus, a word of God, giving his own authoritative promise of redemption, must be self-attesting. Scripture, as that Word, needs no corroboration from any source outside itself; and no such corroboration is possible, unless the other source is already subject to the interpretation and evaluation of Scripture. (Cf. Van Til’s argument in RP, 37.)
《圣经》若是自我见证的，那么它必具有传统的属性﹕必需性、权威性、清晰性和足够性。范泰尔对这些属性的解释如下﹕
If Scripture is self-attesting, then it bears the traditional attributes – necessity, authority, perspicuity, and sufficiency – which Van Til expounds as follows:
上帝默示了《圣经》，是祂笔之于书的话语；因为若任凭罪人自由发展下去，他们「必定会曲解上帝救赎的作为」(IST, 133)。因此《圣经》是必需的，以致于上帝救赎的信息能够﹕「（一）历代保存，（二）传到地极，（三）客观地向人传讲，（四）在《圣经》里面见证它的真实性。」 (IST,134.)
God inspired Scripture as his written Word, because sinful man, if left on his own, “would be sure to misinterpret” (IST, 133) the saving deeds of God. Thus, there was the necessity for Scripture, so that God’s saving message “(1) might remain through the ages, (2) might reach all mankind, (3) might be offered to men objectively, and (4) might have the testimony of its truthfulness within itself.” (IST, 134.)
《圣经》也带有权威，因为它在本质上就是上帝的话语，必然要向人类所宣称的自主性发出挑战。上帝的话必然传达上帝的绝对权威－这是上帝的宣称，宣告上帝在人身上的主权。
Scripture also has authority, because, of its very nature, it must challenge man’s claim to autonomy. It must convey God’s claim to absolute authority – his lordship over man.
《圣经》的清晰性是指﹕不需要 「人间的解释者介入《圣经》和它的受众之间」。 (IST, 135.) 教会的教师或许能在理解 《圣经》方面给予我们有用的辅助；可是罗马天主教却错误的宣称：「任何教会的信众都不可以直接为自己解释《圣经》。」 (IST, 135.) 否认《圣经》的清晰性，就等于否认《圣经》的权威；因为，如果人间的教导权威对「正确的使用《圣经》」来说是必须的，那么，这位人间权威就成了教会的最高权威。
The perspicuity of Scripture means that there is no “necessity for human interpreters to intervene between Scripture and those to whom Scripture comes.” (IST, 135.) Teachers of the church may give us useful assistance in understanding Scripture, but Roman Catholic theology is wrong to claim that “no ordinary member of the Church may interpret Scripture for himself directly.” (IST, 135.) To deny the clarity of Scripture is to deny its authority, for if a human teaching authority is necessary for the proper use of Scripture, then that human authority becomes the ultimate authority in the church.
Thus, no human opinion may be added to Scripture as an authority coordinate with Scripture. In other words, Scripture has sufficiency. The Reformers, says Van Til, thought of sufficiency “particularly in opposition to all manner of sectarianism, as they thought of perspicuity chiefly in opposition to clericalism, as they thought of necessity in opposition to rationalism, and as they thought of authority in opposition to autonomy.” (IST, 136.) Characteristically, he adds:
这些要点全都相互重迭、彼此包含，这是适当的。《圣经》四项属性的重要性彼此相等，因为若缺少一样，我们就会失去全部。问题的症结在于：一个绝对真确的解释，进入了一个充满着错误解释的世界里。(IST, 136.)
All these matters overlap and are involved in one another, and it is well to see that they do. The four attributes of Scripture are equally important because, if we did not have them all, we would have none. The whole matter centers about an absolutely true interpretation that came into a world full of false interpretation. (IST, 136.)
所以这四项属性也是「视角」！
The four attributes, too, are “perspectives.”
这个论证总体的重点是：如果《圣经》自证是上帝的话，信徒与上帝的启示之间就「不能混入人的解释 」。 (IST, 136.) 有人可能会在这一点上提出异议﹕人的解释不是总会混杂在《圣经》的研究中吗？正如范泰尔也意识到的，在研究《圣经》的过程中，我们必须使用自己的感知与理性。范泰尔在这里肯定会提出他对普遍启示和特殊启示「视角式」的分析﹕在解释《圣经》的工作上，我们的理性、感知和方法都必须遵从《圣经》。（若有人提出循环论证的问题，请参看本书第10章，第22章。） 范泰尔所反对的「混杂」，按我（傅兰姆）的判断，不是指服在《圣经》管理下的理性，而是指自我标榜为终极权威，并且叛逆地曲解真理的理性。
The overall argument here is that if Scripture is the self-attesting Word of God, there must be “no admixture of human interpretation” standing between the believer and the revelation. (IST, 136.) It might be objected at this point that an “admixture of human interpretation” always does intervene in our study of Scripture, since, as Van Til recognizes, we must use our own senses and reason in that process. Here, Van Til would doubtless refer to his perspectival analysis of general and special revelation: in the work of Bible interpretation, our reason, senses, and methods must themselves be brought into conformity to Scripture. (For the issue of circularity which arises here, see chaps. 10 and 22.) The “admixture” to which Van Til objects, in my judgment, is not an admixture in which human reason is governed by Scripture, but one in which that reason asserts its own ultimacy and rebelliously distorts the truth.
那么，就算是信徒在研读《圣经》，不也同样会有一些罪性的歪曲吗？是的。不过，信徒研读《圣经》的目标，是想要了解《圣经》本身的教导。即使我们是使用自己的能力来解释《圣经》，《圣经》却永远站在我们之上，不断向我们罪性的歪曲提出挑战。《圣经》必须是上帝纯粹、自证的话，本身毫无罪性的歪曲，才能对我们发出这样的挑战。
Is there not some sinful distortion even in the believer’s study of Scripture? Yes. But the goal of the believer’s study is to understand the teaching of the Word itself. Although we use our own faculties to interpret Scripture, it always stands over against us, challenging our sinful distortions. And to do that, Scripture itself must be God’s pure, self-attesting Word, itself free from sinful distortion.
范泰尔在回应 A.E. Taylor的时候讨论了这问题，后者对正统基督教圣经观的基本异议是﹕「领受权威性信息的人，若在领受的过程中有建设性作为，那么就不可能有绝对权威的存在。」 (IST, 139.) 可是，这项异议对人类心智中「诠释的功能」所作的假设是﹕
Van Til discusses this issue in dealing with A.E. Taylor, whose objections to the orthodox view of Scripture amounts to this: “There can be no authority which is absolute, if the one who receives the message of authority is, in any way, constructive in the reception of it.” (IST, 139. I am not clear as to why the last three words are emphasized – John Frame.) This objection assumes, however, that the interpretive activity of the human mind is
独立于上帝心意之外的解释行为。人若以这样的错误假设为起点，当然不可能想象上帝在人之上的绝对权威；除非，人的心智活动完全停止。 (IST, 139.)
something independent of the interpretive activity of the divine mind. And if one starts with such a false assumption it is but to be expected that one cannot think of the absolute authority of God over man unless man’s mental activity is brought to a complete standstill. (IST, 139.)
可是，根据基督教的信仰立场，上帝创造人类心智时，并没有要它独立于上帝之外。我会这么解释﹕当人的心智否定了自己的自主性，转而效法上帝的思维去思维 （模拟性思维）时，它就能尽职的把解释工作做到最好。罪若进入信徒的思想里，他和圣灵要胜过的是这「罪」，而非其它。
On a Christian basis, however, the human mind was not made to be independent of the divine. I would paraphrase: the human mind does its best job of interpreting when it denies its own autonomy and “thinks analogically.” If sin enters into the believer’s thought, it is sin that he and the Holy Spirit are overcoming.
《圣经》的原本
THE AUTOGRAPHA
我将不会处理范泰尔对「罗马天主教的圣经观」和「假神秘主义」的响应，他的立场颇为传统(IST, 140-145)。我也不会讨论范氏有关「《圣经》是完全（逐字）默示而成」的论证（也很传统）。 (IST, 148-158)
I will not deal with Van Til’s rather traditional responses to the views of Scripture of Roman Catholicism and “false mysticism,” (IST, 140-145) or with his scriptural argument, also traditional, for plenary inspiration. (IST, 148-158)
可是范泰尔对《圣经》原本 (autographa) 的看法，会与我们的讨论有关系。传统的改革宗神学立场认为，「《圣经》无谬误」(infallibility) 是指上帝直接默示的原本，而不是泛指每一本抄本。有许多人抗议说，假如真是这样，那么今天我们手上的《圣经》就不是无谬误的了 (infallible)。 《圣经》原本既然已经失传，实际上我们就没有无谬误的文本；那么，我们的立场与自由派神学又有甚么两样？我们手上的《圣经》也只不过是「基本上可靠」(reasonably reliable)，而不是「无谬无误」的，不是吗？
His discussion of the “autographa” is, however, of some interest to us. Traditional Reformed theology has argued that the infallibility of Scripture pertains strictly, not to every copy of Scripture, but to the autographs, the original manuscripts, which God directly inspired. Many have objected that if that is true, our present copies of Scripture are not infallible. And since the original manuscripts are lost, we have in fact no infallible text, and our position is no different from that of liberalism. Are we not, then, left with a Bible that is not infallible but only “reasonably reliable”?
范泰尔用一条稍微被水淹没的桥来说明他的响应﹕
To answer this objection, Van Til employs the illustration of a bridge covered somewhat by a flooding river:
只要水底下的根基稳固，把车开在几寸深的水上，相对来说还算容易。但是，若相信「《圣经》『大致可靠』(general trustworthiness)，而不是『无谬误地默示』(infallible inspiration) 」就等于是在说﹕「我们车底下有没有稳固的根基并不重要，因为无论如何我们都必须把车从水里开过去。」但是我们已经看见，人需要绝对权威性的解释。因此，《圣经》的原本若不是无谬误地默示，那么人的解释在某方面将会站在上帝的解释之上。也就是说， 《圣经》中所宣称的事实和对这些事实的解释是否为真？人终归没有把握。 (IST, 153.)
We can drive with comparative ease in water that is a few inches deep as long as we have a solid bottom under the water. What the idea of general trustworthiness without infallible inspiration does in effect is to say that it really makes no difference whether there is a solid bottom under us, inasmuch as we have to drive through water in any case. But we have seen that man needs absolutely authoritative interpretation. Hence, if the autograph were not infallibly inspired, it would mean that at some point human interpretation would stand above divine interpretation. It would mean that men were, after all, not certain that the facts and the interpretations given to the facts in Scripture are true. (IST, 153.) 「」
在《基督教知识论》 (A Christian Theory of Knowledge) 一书中，范泰尔诉诸上帝的主权来响应这个问题﹕
In A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Van Til responds to the same issue by appealing to divine sovereignty:
除非人类的历史是由上帝掌管，否则人类历史中就没有「合理的可靠」(reasonably reliable)方法可以辨认出上帝的话。…独立于《圣经》之外的思索，不可能得出这样一个有关上帝的理念。…这位上帝必须介绍祂自己的身分 (identify himself)。……相信这样的一位上帝、持守这样的历史观，必须先预设无谬误的《圣经》；相信无谬误的《圣经》，也必须预设上帝是掌主权的上帝，历史是由上帝掌管。 (CTK, 28; cf. IW, 44.)
There would be no reasonably reliable method of identifying the Word of God in human history unless human history itself is controlled by God. … It is impossible to attain the idea of such a God by speculation independently of Scripture. … Such a God must identify himself. … Such a view of God and human history is both presupposed by, and in turn presupposes, the idea of the infallible Bible. (CTK, 28; cf. IW, 44.)
《基督教知识论》里的这段话很具启发性，但是却有几分诲涩难懂。不过这两段话的要旨乃是﹕除非上帝在时间、空间里曾经赐下无谬误的启示，而且这个启示原则上可以为人所认识（例如﹕透过文本批判）；否则，我们就不可能接近上帝纯粹的话语；更不可能对救恩、甚至对任何事物有把握。诚然，若没有上帝无谬误的话语，我们就会知道《圣经》中的上帝并不存在。因为，《圣经》中的上帝确确实实是一位用权威向我们说话的上帝；这是上帝晓谕祂仆人的唯一方式。
The passage in A Christian Theory of Knowledge is suggestive, but somewhat obscure. The upshot of these two passages, however, is that unless the infallible revelation has been given somewhere in space and time, and thus is accessible in principle to human knowledge (e.g., by textual criticism), then we have no access to the pure Word of God. And without that, there can be no certainty about salvation, or, for that matter, about anything else. Indeed, without such a Word, we would know that the biblical God does not exist. For the biblical God is one who does address us authoritatively. That is the only way in which the Lord can address his servants.
因此，若没有这样无谬误的话语，就没有上帝。若没有上帝，就没有所谓「合理的可靠」的事物。没了上帝，万物就是偶然与混沌。
Therefore, if there is no such Word, there is no God. And if there is no God, there is no such thing as “reasonable reliability.” Without God, all is chance, chaos.
《圣经》的范围
THE SCOPE OF SCRIPTURE
如果（一位掌权的）上帝确实存在，并且借着祂无谬误的话语启示了自己，那么，宇宙中所有的意义与可知性 (intelligibility) 都来自祂。祂的话─《圣经》－和宇宙中所有的意义都会有关连。这里的意思是﹕《圣经》的启示范围是宇宙性的，虽然 「有限无误论者」 和其它人士不愿承认。《圣经》「论及万事」 (speaks of everything) 。范泰尔解释道﹕
If that God does exist, revealing himself by his infallible Word, then all meaning and intelligibility in the universe is due to him. And his Word, Scripture, is relevant to all meaning in the universe. This means, contrary to “limited inerrantists” and others, that the scope of Scripture is universal. It “speaks of everything.” Van Til explains:
我们的意思不是说《圣经》直接论及了足球比赛、原子…等事物；不过我们坚持，《圣经》直接或间接地论及了万事。《圣经》不只向我们启示了基督和祂的救赎大工，也告诉我们上帝是怎样的一位上帝、宇宙从那里来。《圣经》不只写下历史，也给我们一套历史哲学。不但如此，《圣经》在这些问题上所提供的数据，也被编织成一个不可分割的整体。除非你拒绝《圣经》是上帝的话，否则你不可能把《圣经》中所谓「宗教」和「道德」的教导，与其它方面－例如：物质的宇宙－的教导分开。 (DF2, 8.)
We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work but it also tells us who God is and whence the universe has come. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the Word of God that you can separate its so-called religious and moral instruction from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe. (DF2, 8.)
《圣经》 「屹立在我们面前，有如一道光，使得被造宇宙中所有的事实，都必须根据它来解释。」 (DF2, 107; 参 CA, 23-29.)
The Bible “stands before us as the light in terms of which all the facts of the created universe must be interpreted.” (DF2, 107; cf. CA, 23-29.)
正如我前文指出的，很多神学家基于自己对《圣经》信息本质的看法，而试图证明《圣经》的范围只限于狭窄的所谓「宗教关怀」。范泰尔在这方面对教会作出了巨大的贡献。他重新思想《圣经》信息的本质，并且得出结论﹕当《圣经》的信息被正确理解时，我们就必定会在上帝的话语里，看到一个没有范围限制的信息；同时也会看见《圣经》是终极的权威。范泰尔的结论诚然是正确的。
As I indicated at the beginning of this section, many theologians tried to show, based on the nature of Scripture’s message, that the scope of Scripture is limited to certain areas of narrowly religious concern. Van Til has done the church a great service here: he has rethought the nature of Scripture’s message and has concluded, rightly, that when that message is properly understood, it will require us to find in God’s Word a message of unlimited scope, together with ultimate authority.
因此范泰尔释放了凯伯的伟大异象﹕将人生的一切范围服在基督的统管之下。 （参林前10﹕31；林后10﹕5。）毕竟，《圣经》确实论及了心理学、逻辑、数学、历史、科学、艺术、政治、经济……等，而不是只讲论狭义的神学课题。很不幸的是，许多凯伯的跟随者认为，《圣经》的范围相当狭窄，因此我们改革社会的希望，基本上必须忽略《圣经》的教导－虽然《圣经》能激励我们朝着正确的方向前进。相反地，范泰尔却揭开了《圣经》的伟大能力，不只使人们重生，还教导他们如何改变社会与文化。
Thus Van Til unleashes the great vision of Kuyper, to bring all areas of human life under the sway of Christ (see I Cor. 10:31; 2 Cor. 10:5). Scripture does, after all, talk about psychology, logic, mathematics, history, science, art, philosophy, politics, economics, etc., as well as the narrowly theological disciplines. Many of Kuyper’s followers have unfortunately argued that Scripture has a narrow scope and that our desire to reform society must therefore largely ignore the teachings of the Bible, although Scripture may motivate us in a useful direction. Van Til, on the contrary, opens up the great power of Scripture, not only to regenerate people, but also to instruct them for social and cultural change.
这并不意味着范泰尔是一位狭隘的圣经主义者。我们已经看见，对范泰尔来说，上帝的启示是一个有机体，特殊启示和普遍启示必须连在一起理解。我们也看到，范泰尔不相信人的解释可以相对化上帝话语的权柄。确切地说，上帝呼召我们使用我们最好的恩赐，去将祂的话语应用在一切事物上；祂也应许，若我们致力于谦卑的服在《圣经》－这《圣经》是我们试图去应用的－之下，这样的努力必定会结实累累。
This does not mean that Van Til is a narrow Biblicist. We have seen that for Van Til, revelation is an organism, that special and general revelation must be taken together. Van Til, as we have seen, does not believe that the presence of human interpretation relativizes the authority of the Word of God. Rather, God calls us to apply our best gifts toward applying his Word to all matters, and he promises that such efforts, humbly subject to that very Word we seek to apply, will be fruitful.
网络圣约ccnci.org
中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）