注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

守诚阁

基督徒世界观 译介圣经神学

 
 
 

日志

 
 

神学问答45:神的主权和人的自由能相容吗?  

2011-07-13 23:54:00|  分类: 改革宗神学 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
【神学问答】

45. 神的主权和人的自由能相容吗?


How can God be sovereign and man still be free?
诚之获授权翻译。
原文载于:http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/sovereignfree.html

责任和自发的选择,和自由意志不是同一回事。我们确认,人的确要为他作的选择负责,但是我们否认圣经教导人有自由意志,因為圣经没有一个地方提到这点。反而,圣经教导的是,神预旨所有会发生的事(弗1:11,神“随己意行做万事”),也教导人要为他所做的选择受责备(结18:20;太12:37;约9:41)。既然圣经是我们最终极的权威与最高的预设前提,在这个问题上,圣经许多清楚的宣告必须超约所有人类的逻辑。我们发现,几乎所有对上帝巨细靡遗地护理万事的异议,都是道德和哲学上的,而不是解经上的。这意味着我们必须努力有意识地确认圣经所宣告的,而不是凭我们有限的理解,以及罪恶的、想要独立的内在驱力。
Responsibility and voluntary choice are not the same thing as free will. We affirm that man is indeed responsible for the choices he makes, yet we deny that the Bible teaches that man has a free will since it is no where taught in the pages of Scripture. The Bible teaches, rather, that God ordains all things that come to pass (Eph 1:11) and it also teaches that man is culpable for his choices (Ezek 18:20, Matt 12:37, John 9:41). Since the Scripture is our ultimate authority and highest presuppsosition, the multitude of clear scriptural declarations on this matter outweigh all unaided human logic. We find that almost always the objections to God's meticulous providence over all things are moral and philosophical rather than exegetical. This means we must strive to consciously affirm what the Scripture declares over all our finite understanding and sinful inner drive for independence.

为了更好地理解这点,神学家使用了一个词,“兼容论”(compatibilism)来描述神的主权和人的责任之间的协同(concurrence)关系。兼容论是决定论(determinism)的一种形式,而我们应该注意,这个立场的命定成分并不比坚定的决定论(或宿命论)来得弱。它只是说神先前的决定和巨细靡遗的护理,与自发的选择是“兼容”的。我们的选择不是被迫的,换句话说,我们的选择并没有违背我们想要的,或我们的欲望,然而我们的选择从来不在神的主权的预旨之外。神所决定的,必定会实现(弗1:11)。
In order to understand this better theologians have come up with the term "compatibilism" to describe the concurrence of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11).

根据圣经,(根据兼容论),人的选择是出于他的自愿,但是他作出这些选择的欲望和处境,是透过神的决定。例如,圣经说神定旨祂的儿子被钉十字架,但是邪恶的人处心积虑而且是自发地要钉死祂(见徒2:23;4:27-28)。根据这些经文,这个邪恶的行为不在神的预旨之外,但是它是自愿的,因此这些人要为这些行动负责。或者,当约瑟的弟兄把他买到埃及为奴,约瑟之后回顾说,虽然他的兄弟是出于邪恶的心想要害他,但是上帝的意思却是好的(创50:20)。神决定并定旨这些事件会发生(即约瑟会被卖为奴),但是自发作出这个邪恶选择,并付诸行动的兄弟,仍然要负责。这意味着,罪要归到约瑟的兄弟身上,因为他们做了这些邪恶的举动,而上帝仍然不受责备。在这两个例子中,我们可以说上帝虽然预旨了罪,但是上帝却是无罪的。万事都不在祂全权可喜悦的旨意之外。
In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men willfully and voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This act of evil is not free from God's decree, but it is voluntary, and these men are thus responsible for the act, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that brings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph's brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure.

我们必须清楚说,无论是兼容论或坚定的宿命论都没有说人有自由意志。相信人有自由意志的人,不是兼容论者,应该说是“立场矛盾者”(inconsistent)。我们的选择之所以是我们的,是因为它们是自发的,不是被迫的。我们做选择并没有违背我们的欲望或本性,也不在神巨细靡遗的护理之外。此外,兼容论也和随意自由意志(libertarian free will)直接抵触(译按:随意自由意志是亚米念主义坚持的信念)。因此,自发的选择(voluntary choice)不是指有做其他选择的自由,即不受任何影响,没有任何先前的偏见、倾向或性情的选择。不过,“自发”的确是指我们有能力根据我们的性情和性格倾向,来选择我们所想要的,这样的能力。前述的观点(随意自由意志)被称为“相反的选择”(contrary choice),而后一种观点则是“自由代理”(free agency)。(所谓的自由代理是指堕落的意志从来没有脱离我们败坏本性的束缚,所以在任何意义上,都无法脱离神永恒的预旨。)(译按:请参考林慈信牧师《自由意志真伪辨》一文)。我强调这点是因为兼容论在这点上常常被坚定的宿命论者所误读。他们总是跟立场不一致的加尔文主义者混淆在一起。兼容论者使用“兼容性的自由”这个语词时,他们通常是指“自发的”选择,而不是指脱离神的预旨或绝对的主权之外的选择(这是不可能的假设)。
We should be clear that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any man has a free will. Those who believe man has a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor seperately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, a choice without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most according to our disposition and inclinations. The former view (libertarianism) is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (the fallen will is never free from the bondage of our corrupt nature, and not free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.) The reason I emphasize this is that compatibilists are often misrepresented by hard determinists at this point. They are somehow confused with inconsistent Calvinists. When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty (an impossible supposition).

圣经的用语是,堕落的人被败坏的本质所束缚,这就是圣经作者为什么认为人不是自由的(见罗马书第6章)。耶稣自己确认说,所有犯罪的,就是罪的奴仆(约8:34),只有神的儿子可以使他们得自由。注意这里,即使连耶稣也说到某一种的自由。祂不是说脱离神的自由,而是说不受罪的束缚的自由,也就是那些在基督里的人所享有的自由。在这个意义上,上帝是最自由的,因为祂是圣洁的,与罪完全分开的,但是祂不能作出违背祂本质的选择,例如,祂不能成为不圣洁。所以,我们必须根据耶稣在约翰福音8:31-36所说的,下此结论:天然的人没有自由意志。他的意志是罪的奴隶。所有立场一致的神学家,当他们使用“自由”一词时,他们通常是指这样的事实,即虽然神主权地预旨了所有将会发生的事,但是人“自由的选择”(自发的)与神主权的预旨是兼容的。换句话说,这个意志不受外力的强迫,但是并没有脱离必然性。我认为使用“自由意志”这个语词是没有圣经根据的,因为圣经从来没有肯定或使用这个词,或这个概念。所以,当一些神学家使用“自由”这个字时,他们也许是在误用或把哲学语言加到圣经里,但是任何与经文一致的人,当他们说“自由”的时候,他们的意思是“自发(自愿)的”,从来没有说是离开神之外。因为说神主权地成全我们的选择,然后说人可以离开神(man is free FROM GOD),是自我矛盾的。我再次重复,许多人把自由这个词等同于“自发”。任何说“自由”是指“离开神”的人,是头脑不清的。我曾听到史鲍尔(R. C. Sproul)说,没有“未烙印的分子”(maverick molecules)。没有偶然发生的事,万事都在神巨细靡遗的护理之下,毫无例外。
In biblical terminology, fallen man is in bondage to a corruption of nature and that is why the biblical writers considered him not free (see Rom 6). Jesus Himself affirms that the one who sins is a "slave to sin" and only the Son can set him free. Note that even Jesus speaks of a kind of freedom here. He is not speaking of freedom from God but freedom from the bondage of sin, which is the kind of freedom those have who are in Christ. In this sense God is the most free Person since He is holy, set apart from sin... yet He cannot make choices contrary to His essence, i.e. He cannot be unholy. So, we must conclude, according to Jesus in John 8:31-36, that the natural man does not have a free will. The will is in bondage to sin. Any consistent theologian who uses the term "freedom" usually is referring to that fact that while God sovereignly ordains all that comes to pass, yet man's "free choice" (voluntary) is compatible with God's sovereign decree. In other words the will is free from external coercion but not free from necessity. In my reckoning, there is no biblical warrant to use the phrase "free will", since the Bible never affirms or uses this term or concept. So when some theologians use the word "free" they may be misusing or importing philosophical language from outside the Bible, but I think anyone who is consistent with the Text means "voluntary" when they say "free", but NEVER affirm they are free from God in any sense. For to affirm that God sovereignly brings our choices to pass and then also say man is free FROM GOD, is self-contradictory. So I repeat, many of those whom I read seem equate the word freedom with the meaning "voluntary". If any mean "free from God" they are confused. I heard R. C. Sproul say there are "no maverick molecules". Nothing happens by chance, but all falls within God's meticulous providence, no exceptions.

对兼容论最佳的声明,是我从加尔文那里读到的:
“我们承认人有选择,是自己决定的,所以如果他做了任何邪恶的事,都要算到他头上,算是他自己自愿的选择。我们把强迫和外力都排除在外,因为这抵触了意志的本质,和意志不可能并存。我们否认选择是自由的,因为透过人内在的邪恶,必然会受邪恶的驱使,只能去寻求邪恶的事。从这点我们可以推论必然性(necessity)和强迫(coercion)之间有极大的不同。因为我们不是说人心不甘情不愿地被拉去犯罪,而是说因为他的意志是败坏的,被罪恶所辖制,因此出于必然,会定意向恶。因为哪里有束缚,哪里就有必然性。但是此束缚是自愿的还是被迫的,有很大的不同。我们把必然犯罪的理由放在败坏的意志上,接着就是自己的决定。”----约翰加尔文,《意志的束缚与解放》,99-70页。
One of the best statements on compatibilism is one I found from John Calvin:
"...we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man's innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.
- John Calvin from Bondage and Liberation of the Will, pg. 69-70

堕落之前,亚当的意志并不是罪恶的奴仆,所以他的意志不受罪和败坏的束缚,但是它不能脱离上帝的谕旨。他选择悖逆是完全自愿的,虽然上帝预旨,这必然会发生。他还没有得到义的印记,虽然他的性格趋向于善。透过撒但的手段,亚当制服了他自己善良的天性,并选择邪恶,这使得原罪更为可憎。
Prior to the fall, Adam's will was not in bondage to sin, thus it was free from sin's bondage and corruption but it was not free from God's decree. His choice to rebel was completely voluntary even though God has ordained with certainty that it would come to pass. He was not yet sealed in righteousness even though his inclination was toward the good. Through Satans devices, that he overcame his own good inclination and chose evil makes original sin all the more heinous.

我们强烈推荐这个视频,是最近由约翰?麦克阿瑟(John MacArthur)所发布的,关于神的主权和人的责任的议题。
We highly recommend this very helpful video recently delivered by John MacArthur on the issue of sovereignty and responsibility.
  评论这张
 
阅读(392)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017