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

 
 

霍顿回应傅瑞姆的《The Escondido Theology》(全文)  

2012-02-21 13:50:46|  分类: 改革宗神学 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

A Response to John Frame’s The Escondido Theology

Feb.10, 2012 by Michael Horton

诚之译自:http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/02/10/a-response-to-john-frames-the-escondido-theology/


约翰·傅瑞姆博士的新书,《The Escondido Theology译按:Escondido是加州西敏神学院的所在地,最近由Whitefield Media出版了。我一直不太愿意加以回应。由于这本书批判的焦点是加州西敏神学院(WSC),即我所任教的学校,我会鼓励读者拜访神学院的网址,去看我们院长W. Robert Godfrey的简短回应。探究约翰为何离开WSC的细节,对任何人都没有好处。我只想说,每个故事都有两面的说法,而如果你已经读了《The Escondido Theology》,你只听到了一面的说法,而其中有许多细节是我们不同意的。由于这些争论对教会整体和大使命并没有好处,所以我不会在这里提出来。

I’ve been reluctant to respond to Professor Frame’s The Escondido Theology, published recently by Whitefield Media. Since the book focuses its critique on Westminster Seminary California, where I teach, I’d encourage readers to visit the Seminary website for a brief response from our president, W. Robert Godfrey. It would be of no edifying value to anyone to go into the details of John Frame’s departure from WSC. Suffice it to say that there are two sides to every story and if you’ve read The Escondido Theology, you have only heard one side whose details many of us would dispute. None of this matters in any case for the general good of the church and the Great Commission, so I will not raise it here.

 

这本书有许多针对我的著作的批判,所以我要简短地说几句话。我最近才读完这本书。我不太愿意回应的主要理由是我不知从何回应起,如果要针对每一点回应,对事情并没有太大的帮助。

There are a lot of criticisms in the book directed at my writing, so I’ll say a brief word about it. Having read the book recently, my reluctance is due primarily to the fact that I don’t know quite where to begin and to respond point by point may not contribute much to the cause.

 

这是我的底线:无论是故意的误导还是只是松散的论证,这本书代表了改革宗内部争论的新低点。它充满了许多嘲讽、错误的理解,以及稻草人般的反对,使得对一些重要议题进行健康的讨论,从一开始就变得不可能。如果我持守约翰算在我头上的一些论点,我也会有所警觉。过去的一些恩怨似乎模糊了他的判断,例如,他甚至为Joel Osteen(译按:活出美好的作者,推销的是“成功神学”)辩护,反对我对Joel Osteen所作的批评译按:主要出自Christless Christianity。请看这篇文章。我盼望约翰的读者也阅读他所攻击的书,而不要不假思索地完全相信他所说的话。

The bottom line for me is this. Whether intentionally misleading or merely sloppy, this book represents a new low in intra-Reformed polemics. I’m encouraged to hear that various Reformed companies declined to publish the book. It is so replete with caricatures, misrepresentations, and straw opponents that a healthy debate on important issues is aborted at the outset. If I held some of the views John attributes to me, I would be alarmed as well. Old grudges appear to cloud his judgment, even to the point of defending Joel Osteen, for example, against my critique (which, again, he caricatures). I hope readers of John’s book will also consult the books that he attacks rather than take his word for it that they say what he claims.

 

傅瑞姆过去一直为福音派的团圆evangelical reunion)而辩护,但他也同时质疑普世教会对三一论的表述,和改革宗的崇拜“规范性原则”(regulative principle(译按:请看这篇文章,并贬低许多古典改革宗神学的历史分类。他经常斥责那些认真持守信经和信条的人,与此同时,却以深度的同情为像Joel Osteen这样的人辩护。(请参考这篇文章

John Frame has consistently defended “evangelical reunion,” even while questioning the ecumenical formulation of the Trinity, the Reformed regulative principle of worship, and downplaying many historic categories of classical Reformed theology. He often scolds those who take creedal and confessional subscription seriously, while even defending people like Joel Osteen with remarkable sympathy.

 

从历史来看,他对待改革宗圈子外的人,远比对待改革宗圈子里的人要来得好。前一阵子,约翰评论了David Wells所作的有关福音派运动与美国文化的学术研究(这受到改革宗圈子外面和里面许多人的推崇),与此并行的是他针对Richard Muller改革宗经院主义的专家所作的怪异论证(见Richard Muller’s 的回应, Westminster Theological Journal 59 [1997]: 301-310)。我希望我有David Wells的回应所表达出来的那种幽默,On Being Framed我被诬陷”[Framed]了,见同期杂志。傅瑞姆对下面两种人似乎最不宽厚:那些深信改革宗传统有独特贡献的人,以及那些担忧福音派运动已经被现代精神(modernity)所俘虏的人——虽然他们对福音派运动曾作出长远而重大的贡献。

There’s a history here of being nicer to those outside Reformed circles than within. A while back, John’s critique of David Wells’ scholarly study of evangelicalism and American culture (acclaimed by many outside as well as inside Reformed circles) went in tandem with his odd arguments against Richard Muller, the dean of Reformed scholasticism specialists. (See Richard Muller’s response in Westminster Theological Journal 59 [1997]: 301-310.) I wish I had the good sense of humor expressed by David Wells’ response, “On Being Framed” (in that same issue). John seems to be the least charitable to those who are most convinced of the distinctive contributions of the Reformed tradition and who, despite their long and serious contributions to the evangelical movement, are worried that it has become too captive to modernity.

 

约翰的批评集中在我是路德宗的批评。但是他并没有公平地呈现路德主义(以偏概全,缺少严谨的文献);他也没有准确地呈现我的观点。所以这只是含糊的怀疑,带着一种惊悚的期望,即虽然他们之间有着显著的争论,路德和加尔文——以及他们的继承人——仍然是同一个正统的宗教改革(magisterial Reformation)的领导者译按:这段话请参考原文。Horton可能需要加以编辑,原文说得不是太清楚。显然,我和浸信会的关联没有引起注意,但路德主义并不在本文的讨论之内。

A number of John’s claims cluster around the charge of being “Lutheran.” Yet he does not represent Lutheranism fairly (lacking serious documentation for sweeping generalizations); nor does he represent my views accurately. So there is only a vague suspicion, with the terrifying prospect that in spite of all of their notable feuds, Luther and Calvin—and their heirs—might nevertheless have been leaders of the same magisterial Reformation. Apparently, my association with Baptists does not raise eyebrows, but Lutheranism is beyond the pale.

 

即使对一个世纪前的美国长老会和改革宗人士来说,这也是非常奇怪的。贺治与华腓德,霍志恒与巴文克,也应该无法理解这个发展。当然,他们也为改革宗与路德宗、浸信会和其他立场的不同而辩护。然而,这是他们视之为理所当然的,即认信的路德宗和改革宗基督徒是天生的盟友,在主要议题的立场是立场一致的。

This would have been odd even to American Presbyterian and Reformed folks a century ago. Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos and Herman Bavinck, would not have understood this development. Of course, they also defended Reformed distinctives over against Lutheran, Baptist, and other positions. Nevertheless, they took it for granted that confessional Lutheran and Reformed Christians were natural allies, joined at the hip on major issues.

 

澄清一点。我不属路德宗或浸信会,这是我路德宗或浸信会的朋友们可以作证的。不像加尔文、布瑟和其他改革宗领袖签署了奥斯堡信条(Augsburg Confession),我从来没有这样作过。我的认信,毫无保留的是三合一信条(Three Forms of Unity)以及威敏思特信仰标准(Westminster Standards)。对任何曾经读过我的书(包括我的系统神学著作,《基督教信仰》)的人来说,这应该是显而易见的。

Just for the record, I am not a Lutheran or a Baptist, as my Lutheran and Baptist friends will attest. Unlike Calvin, Bucer and other Reformed leaders, I have never signed the Augsburg Confession. My confession, without reservation, remains the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. That should be clear enough to anybody who has read my books, including my systematic theology, The Christian Faith.

 

无疑地,在我们的圈子里,有许多理由会让人害怕路德主义。自从“大觉醒”the Great Awakening以来,敬虔主义pietism和复兴主义revivalism已经形成了一个联盟,把美国的更正教徒联合起来。认信的路德宗和改革宗移民觉得格格不入,因此很乐于与这个联盟保持相对隔离的状态。而自从薛氏争议Shepherd controversy,见下以来,有些人(例如傅瑞姆教授)一直试图尽量让改革宗神学与路德和路德主义保持距离,即使他们仍然拥抱其他的非改革宗传统(有些属于宽泛的福音派,另一些属于罗马天主教和东正教)。因此,路德主义成了妖魔鬼怪的代名词,这是对路德宗不公平的,也对那些承认改革宗和路德宗有许多重要共通性的人不公平。

Doubtless, there are many reasons for the fear of “Lutheranism” among some in our circles. Since the Great Awakening, pietism and revivalism have formed the ties that bind American Protestants. Confessional Lutheran and Reformed immigrants didn’t quite fit and they were often only too happy to remain in relative isolation. Ever since the “Shepherd controversy” (see below), some (like Professor Frame) have sought to distance Reformed theology as much as possible from Luther and Lutheranism, even as they embrace other non-Reformed traditions (from broad evangelicalism in some cases to Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives in others). So “Lutheranism” becomes the bogeyman for a lot of sweeping charges that are not fair to Lutherans, much less to Reformed people who recognize important areas of common agreement.

 

请容我简要地以下面四点评论来总结我余下的回应:

Let me briefly summarize the rest of my response under the four following points of criticism:

 

1. 两个国度
1. Two Kingdoms

 

首先,WSC两个国度的问题上,没有所谓官方的试金石。我们的校长,罗勃·葛菲Robert Godfrey,是一位忠实的凯柏主义者,而凯柏的遗产,被我们这里的许多人视为在一些层面上,比起许多新凯柏主义者所认定的,更接近两个国度的看法。例如,凯柏的主权领域sphere sovereignty)的观点:教会作为一个机构被授权去作的,和基督徒在各样呼召上被授权去作的,有清楚的划分。我们都没有把这个观念当作是改革宗圈子里正统的试验;相反地,有些我们的朋友把否认它作为一种测验。

First, WSC has no official litmus test on “two kingdoms.” Our president, Robert Godfrey, is a committed Kuyperian and Kuyper’s legacy is seen by many of us here as closer in some respects to a “two kingdoms” view than many neo-Kuyperians assume today. (For example, Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty” distinguishes clearly between what the church is authorized to do as an institution and what Christians are authorized to do in various callings.) None of us has presented the idea as a test of orthodoxy in Reformed circles; on the contrary, some of our friends have turned its denial into a test.

 

改革宗神学认识到其间的区别,却没有将它们分开,而傅瑞姆似乎常常要强迫人作出错误的选择。如果你区分天上的国民和暂时的国民,那么,他就怀疑你是在分割它们,在否定后者。(在下面律法/福音的区别上,也明显有同样的倾向:要是你不承认律法和福音确实是相同的,你就是在否认律法。)

Where Reformed theology sees distinctions without separation, John often seems to press a false choice. If you distinguish our heavenly and temporal citizenship, then he suspects that you separate them, denying the latter. (The same tendency is evident in the law-gospel distinction below: either law and gospel are really the same or you deny the former.)

 

从我当约翰的学生开始,我就听到他为神权管治(或基督徒重建主义Christian Reconstruction)辩护。虽然他反对一些论点,他似乎欣赏这个运动更宽广的强调。几年前,费城和加州威敏思特的教员出版了一本书,《神权治理:改革宗的批判》Theonomy: A Reformed Critique Zondervan, 1990,由William Barker and W. Robert Godfrey编辑)。Richard Gaffin, Jr. 为无千禧年辩护,Will Barker 为政治上的多元主义树立了一个合乎圣经-归正的案例。把这些文章放在一起,就是两个国度的观念。其他精彩的论文包括Tim Keller, John Meuther,以及Robert Godfrey精彩的历史篇章(讨论加尔文),以及Sinclair Ferguson(讨论威敏思特信条)。傅瑞姆也贡献了一章,试图联合神权管治者和批判他们的人。我的意思是批判一个国度的思维,在1990年代是两个神学院教员的主流看法。我确定约翰并不同意那本书里面所说的一切,但就我所知,他并未称呼他的同事是路德宗,虽然它表达的是我们今天在WSC仍然持守的观点。

From the days when I was John’s student, I have heard his defenses of theonomy (or Christian Reconstruction). Although he dissented on some points, he seemed to appreciate the movement’s broader emphases. Years ago, the faculties of Westminster Philadelphia and California produced Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Zondervan, 1990), edited by William Barker and W. Robert Godfrey. Richard Gaffin, Jr., defended amillennialism and Will Barker articulated a biblical-Reformed case for political “pluralism.” Put those together and you basically have “two kingdoms.” Other great essays were included by Tim Keller, John Meuther, and terrific historical chapters by Robert Godfrey (on Calvin) and Sinclair Ferguson (on the Westminster Confession). John Frame contributed a chapter trying to unite theonomists and their critics. My point is that a critique of “one kingdom” thinking by the joint faculties of both Westminsters was mainstream in 1990. I’m sure that John didn’t agree with everything in that volume, but to my knowledge he didn’t call his colleagues “Lutheran,” even though it expresses the views that we at WSC still hold today.

 

加尔文明确地拥抱两个国度的教义——在当时的语言下。当然,那是基督王国Christendom的世纪,路德和加尔文都期待公民政府能为真正的信仰而辩护。然而,至少在理论上,他所作了和路德一样的论证。我很好奇,那些同情神权管治的人,或是想把美国变成一个基督教国家的人,是否确实是认真的。你真的要白宫,或者立法或司法单位强制执行摩西律法的第一块石版吗?是否只容许正统的更正教徒来治理?还是可以容许少数的罗马天主教徒,犹太人,或者一两个保守的社会精英通过参议员的听证会?这不是说上帝的道德律法不再有效,不再能表达神永恒的公义标准。相反地,这是承认新约教导我们,在目前这个世代,要以外人和客旅来生活,透过我们的呼召,爱我们的邻舍,事奉我们的邻舍,向他们见证神的话,为城市的共同利益作出贡献。这共同利益很重要,但却不是终极的。

Calvin embraced the “two kingdoms” doctrine explicitly—in those terms. Of course, it was the era of “Christendom,” where Luther no less than Calvin expected the civil magistrate to defend the true faith. Nevertheless, at least in theory, he made precisely the same arguments as Luther. I wonder if those sympathetic to theonomy or making America a “Christian nation” are really serious. Do they really want the White House or the legislative or judicial branches to enforce the first table of the law? Will orthodox Protestants be the only ones allowed to rule, or will a few Roman Catholics, Jews, and perhaps a conservative mainliner or two pass the Senate confirmation hearings? This is not to say that God’s moral law is no longer in force, that it no longer expresses God’s eternal measure of righteousness. Rather, it is to recognize that the New Testament teaches us to live as “strangers and aliens” in this present age, loving and serving our neighbors through our callings, witnessing God’s Word to them, and contributing toward the common good of a city that is important but never ultimate.

 

虽然傅瑞姆的书宣称这个两个国度的观念是极端的看法,他明确地表明说他没有兴趣和David Van Drunen或和其他曾仔细探究改革宗的诠释历史的人争论。所以他转而寻求一种释经上的批判,可是结果是在解经上非常薄弱。只有把这个观点贬低成一种嘲讽,他才能驳倒稻草人的立场。

Although John’s book claims that this idea of “two kingdoms” is an extreme view, he explicitly states that he isn’t interested in engaging with David Van Drunen or others who have explored the history of Reformed interpretation in detail. So he turns to an exegetical critique that turns out to be thin on exegesis. Only by reducing the view to a caricature is he able to refute a straw position.

 

加尔文和路德一样,包括凯柏,都认为一个恰当的、基督与文化的改革宗观点,会肯定神在所有生活领域的主权,也同时分辨基督以祂的话统治祂的教会的方式,和以摄理与普遍恩典来统治的方式,它们之间的不同。路德为什么称它们是左手的国度右手的国度?因为他们都是上帝的手!它确认特殊启示会澄清普遍启示,后者是我们天生会在不义中加以压抑的(虽然,如同范泰尔指出的,罪人无法在同一个时间里压抑所有的事)。教会向世界宣讲神的道,包括律法和福音。它在哪里说话,我们就在哪里说话。无论是我或我的同僚们,都丝毫没有教导这样的观念,说圣经在公众领域里,对基督徒的认信和行动没有任何作用。

With Luther, Calvin, and, yes, Kuyper, a proper Reformed view of Christ and culture affirms God’s lordship over all spheres of life, while nevertheless distinguishing between the way Christ rules his church by his Word and Spirit from the way he rules in providence and common grace. Why did Luther call them “the kingdom of the left hand” and “the kingdom of the right hand”? Because they were both God’s hands! It affirms that special revelation clarifies general revelation, the latter of which we by nature suppress in unrighteousness (although, as Van Til pointed out, sinners can’t suppress everything at the same time). The church proclaims God’s Word, both the law and the gospel, to the world. Where it speaks, we speak. Neither I nor my colleagues teach anything remotely suggestive of the idea that the Bible has no bearing on the convictions and actions of Christians in the public square.

 

让我举个例子。作為一個基督徒,我的立場是反对妇女有堕胎的选择权(pro-life),这是根据圣经有关创造、堕落、救赎和终极完满的真理,以及把爱给邻舍的详尽命令。甚至在和非基督徒谈话时,我也会展示这个信念。不过,因为他们是按神的形象被造的,且无法压抑所有的事,而圣灵也在工作,以普遍恩典来限制罪恶,我就能诉诸我所知道的,就是说他们即使压抑逻辑的结论,而仍然知道的事。正如加尔文提醒我们的,道德律不外乎写在所有人的良心里的自然律。在所有的人当中,基督徒面对奴役,堕胎,种族主义,剥削,不公,和未能成为神美好的创造的管家时,不应该永远保持被动。然而,他们可以在这些呼召上和非基督徒一起并肩作战,而不必让教会在特定的政策或议题上,是神的道所未授权的,来捆绑他们的良心。

Let me offer an example. I hold a pro-life stance as a Christian, on the basis of the biblical truths of creation, fall, redemption, and the consummation—as well as explicit commands for extending love to neighbors. I make those convictions explicit even in talking to non-Christians. However, because they are made in God’s image and cannot suppress everything at the same time, and the Spirit is also at work restraining evil in common grace, I can appeal to what I know they know even as they suppress its logical conclusions. As Calvin reminds us, “The moral law is nothing other than the natural law that is written on the conscience of all.” Of all people, Christians should not remain passive in the face of slavery, abortion, racism, exploitation, injustice, and failures to be stewards of God’s good creation. However, they can work alongside non-Christians in these callings without having the church bind their consciences about specific policies or agendas that are not authorized by God’s Word.

 

就内容而言,自然律启示出神的公义、公正、能力和道德旨意——和在耶稣基督里所启示的拯救旨意(福音)不同。这里,在约翰的批评中,和其他例子一样,关键的区分经常变得模糊不清,而如果你否认这种结合,你就会被安上不持守这两者的罪名。

In content, this natural law is a revelation of God’s righteousness, justice, power, and moral will—distinct from the revelation of his saving will (the gospel) in Jesus Christ. Here, as in many cases throughout John’s critique, crucial distinctions are often blurred and then if you deny this synthesis you are accused of not holding to both.

 

2. 律法与福音

2. Law and Gospel

 

最初,约翰似乎确认这种区分。他甚至承认,加尔文和归正神学家肯定这点,路德和路德主义亦然。他所反对的是律法-福音的极端对立 。然而,他自己的选择是把这种区分完全抹杀。他论证到,福音包括命令,而律法包括恩典的应许。所以,我不清楚他到底是肯定这种区分还是否定这种区分,但是后者似乎最能说明他的立场。如果他要说恩典之约包括命令(或者说恩典之约里包括要悔改和相信福音的命令),谁会争论呢?但这些悔改和相信(或遵从)的命令不是福音本身;它们是对福音的正确回应。或者,如果他是说福音是藉著预表和影子应许给旧约圣徒的,谁会有异议呢?然而说福音本身是律法,而律法本身是福音,这不是把它们合在一起,而是把它们当成同一件事。

At first, John seems to affirm the distinction. He even concedes that Calvin and Reformed writers affirmed it as well as Luther and Lutheranism. What he’s against is a “radical law-gospel antithesis.” Yet once again, his own alternative is a blurring of the distinction altogether. The gospel includes commands and the law includes gracious promises, he argues. So it’s not clear to me whether he affirms the distinction or denies it, but the latter seems to be the last word. If he were to say that the covenant of grace includes commands (or that there are commands to repent and believe the gospel), who could argue? But these commands to repent and believe (and obey) are not the gospel; they are the proper response to it. Or, if he were to say that the gospel was promised to the old covenant saints through types and shadows, again, who could take issue? Yet to say that the gospel itself is law and the law itself is gospel is not to hold them together; it’s to make them one and the same thing.

 

1970年代,Norman Shepherd否定古典的宗教改革称义的教义,费城的威敏思特神学院深受这个争议所困扰。律法和福音被混淆了。加尔文的好友伯撒(Theodore Beza)说得好,混淆律法和福音一直是,也会继续成为教会败坏和滥权的最大来源。最后,Shepherd教授辞职了,并离开了正统长老教会(Orthodox Presbyterian Church)。二十年后,神权管治theonomy的争辩掀起了风浪。而最近,Federal Vision盟约观运动在我们的圈子里兴起,主要就是出自这两个支流。

In the 1970s, Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia was racked by a controversy surrounding Norman Shepherd’s denial of the classic Reformation doctrine of justification. The law and the gospel were confused. Well did Calvin’s sidekick Theodore Beza remark that “This confusion over law and gospel has been and remains the greatest source of corruption and abuses in the church.” Eventually, Professor Shepherd resigned and left the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Two decades later, the theonomy debate stirred the pot. And more recently, the “Federal Vision” movement arose in our circles, largely out of these two tributaries.

 

这些对改革宗信条的挑战,约翰都非常同情。虽然他反对其中的一些论点,但是他为这些运动辩护,并为他们背书——即使西敏圣徒们译按:大概是指西敏神学院的教授们和所有的保守的改革宗和长老宗的宗派,已经把它们排除在信条的范围之外。为The Escondido Theology 作序的两位神学家是著名的神权管治者(theonomists)。另一位为The Escondido Theology 背书的人,来自theonomist Federal Visionist,他否认在称义里,基督的义的归算。正是此种新律法的范式(neonomian paradigm),抵触了改革宗信条。然而,改革宗对他们的评论,却被斥为路德宗梅钦的战士儿女Machen’s warrior children

In each of these challenges to the Reformed confession, John’s sympathies have been explicit. While demurring on some points, he has defended and endorsed these movements’ writings even as both “Westminsters” and all of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations have ruled them beyond the bounds of the confession. The two forewords to The Escondido Theology are written by noted theonomists. One vigorous endorsement of The Escondido Theology comes from a theonomist and Federal Visionist who denies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification. It is this neonomian paradigm that conflicts with the Reformed confession. Reformed critics, however, are dismissed as “Lutherans” or “Machen’s warrior children.”

 

这是很讽刺的。很不幸,我对他欣赏这种模糊了律法和福音的区别,或模糊了称义和成圣的区别,并不感到意外。让我感到惊讶的是,一位如此坚定反对任何与路德宗沾边的人,会如此同情这样的運動,即拥抱洗礼的重生baptismal regeneration),以及人可能失去称义/重生的教义。

This is ironic. Sadly, I’m not surprised that he appreciates their blurring of the distinction of law and gospel or of justification and sanctification. What does surprise me is that someone who is so adamant against anything that smacks of similarity to a “Lutheran” scheme is so sympathetic to a movement that embraces baptismal regeneration and the possibility of losing one’s justification/regeneration.

 

在他的解经和过去的谈论中,傅瑞姆所反驳的,是一种没有人持守的立场(至少在WSC没有),也抛弃了改革宗和路德神学视为基本和关键的区分。他对参与历史的辩论显得毫无兴致,因为他拥抱的是某种的圣经主义(biblicism。换句话说,他对圣经的解读高过其他所有的人;他所相信的,就是合乎圣经的,因此就是改革宗的——即使它与改革宗的共识是相违背的。

In both his exegesis and passing historical remarks, John refutes a position that nobody (at least nobody at WSC) holds and then jettisons a distinction that Reformed as well as Lutheran theology regards as fundamental and crucial. He shows little interest in wrestling with the historical debates, because he embraces “something close to biblicism.” In other words, his exegesis of Scripture trumps everyone else’s; what he believes is “biblical” is therefore “Reformed,” even if it goes against the consensus of Reformed interpretation.

 

3. 把神的话应用在全部的生活中

3. Application of God’s Word to All of Life

与前一个论点有关的,约翰扭曲了我(和我的同事)的意思,说我们不应该把神的话应用在生活全部的领域里。

Related to the previous points, John misrepresents me (and my colleagues) as teaching that we should not apply God’s Word to all areas of life.

 

首先,基于此一事实,即约翰一向批判传统的改革宗观点——把神的话应用在崇拜的规范性原则”(regulative principle上,这就是个很奇怪的罪名。约翰在本书中(还有其他地方)论证到,连常规的宣讲神的话,都不是公众崇拜的一个基本元素。如果有人认为圣经对政治是足够的,但是对崇拜和教会行政是不足的,这当然是个很奇怪的看法。

First, given the fact that John has been critical of the traditional Reformed application of God’s Word to worship in the “regulative principle,” this is an odd charge. Not even the regular preaching of the Word is an essential element in the public service, John argues in this book (and elsewhere). It would surely be odd if one thought the Bible sufficient for politics, but not for the worship and government of the church.

 

其次,根据约翰的看法,我把神的话(的权柄)移交给个人的私人生活或教会的群体生活,认为神的话和信徒的管家职分与在世界上的呼召无关。我不知道从我任何的作品中,如何能得出这个结论。事实上,我曾经写过一些书,讨论神的律法在基督徒生活中的角色(例如:The Law of Perfect Freedom),基督徒在所有领域的呼召,要拥抱世界的异象的重要性(例如:Where in the World is the Church?),以及要以敬虔的洞察力参与到文化当中(Beyond Culture Wars)等等。约翰甚至说我们对大使命讨论得不够,而事实上那构成了我们课程的骨干。顺道一提,我曾写过一本关于大使命的书,也清楚提倡基督徒要参与到世界,并把神的话应用到全部生活的领域。

Second, according to John, I relegate God’s Word to the private life of individuals or the corporate life of the church, having nothing to do with the believer’s stewardship and vocations in the world. I don’t know how anyone could conclude this from anything I have written. In fact, I’ve written books on the role of the law in the Christian life (The Law of Perfect Freedom), the importance of a world-embracing vision of Christian vocation in all spheres (Where in the World is the Church?), and the importance of engaging in culture with godly discernment (Beyond Culture Wars). John even alleges that we don’t talk enough about the Great Commission, when it forms the backbone of much of our curriculum. By the way, I wrote a book on the Great Commission, which also clearly advocates Christian involvement in the world and application of God’s Word to all areas of life.

 

约翰特别扭曲我的观点的,是有关律法的第三重功用。首先,这很难说是从“路德宗”开始的,因为是莫兰顿(Melanchthon)首先用了“第三重用法”(third use)这个字眼,然后它被包括在《协同书》(Book of Concord)对抗反律法主义的段落里。其次,我在许多地方都论证到,加尔文和其他改革宗的作者,有更仔细、更细致的立场来强调第三重功用(包括纪律生活和教会管教的重要性)。路德和加尔文传统有很重大的不同。不过,这些差异和否认两个传统都同时肯定彼此有重大不同比起来,就显得微不足道了,而这是像傅瑞姆这样的作者所否认或混淆的。

One point where John is especially egregious in his misrepresentations of my view concerns the third use of the law. At the outset, this would hardly be a “Lutheran” move, since Melanchthon first coined the “third use” and it was included in the Book of Concord in the section against the antinomians. Furthermore, in many places I’ve argued that Calvin and other Reformed writers more carefully nuanced the position and emphasized the third use (including the importance of a disciplined life and church). There are important differences between Lutheran and Reformed traditions. However, those differences pale in comparison with the denial of the important distinctions that both traditions affirm together and writers like John Frame either deny or confuse.

 

4. 诠释(Translation

4. Translation

 

在许多地方,傅瑞姆对我的看法感到不快,说我们倒过来扭曲“诠释”(translating)福音,不只是要让人理解,更要人能接受。问题不在于能否传达出去(communicable),而在于让人是否能让人感受得到(palatable)。这是另一个他似乎没有能在我的论证中看出来的区别。当然,我认可要把圣经翻译成当地的语言(从我说过的任何的话里,如何能得出相反的假设呢?)。当然,我相信我们需要清楚而有效地传达,从我们时代每天的生活中汲取类似的例子。在我所看到的所有书评中,只有约翰对我的解读是:我们应该只单单阅读神的话,而不要试图向人解释。

In several places John is irritated by my suggestion that we have bent over backwards “translating” the gospel in terms not only that people can understand but that they can accept. It’s not a question of making it communicable, but palatable. Another distinction he doesn’t seem to recognize in my argument. Of course, I affirm translating the Bible into vernacular languages (where would the contrary assumption be gleaned from anything I’ve said)? Of course, I believe that we need to communicate clearly and effectively, drawing analogies from everyday life in our own day. Of all the reviews I’ve seen, only John’s interprets me as suggesting that we should just read the words of the Bible and not try to explain it to people.

 

我所针对的是类似田力克(Paul Tillich)的“关联法”method of correlation的问题,即你要世界来定义问题,然后到圣经里找答案。这里的错误假设是:在上帝告诉我们之前,你已经知道我们所需要的(我们的问题)是什么了。我反对这种倾向,即妥协神绝对的话语,去适应堕落的心智和情感;在这样作的同时,我只是在为凯柏和范泰尔所谓的敬虔的思维和不敬虔的思维之间的“对立”(antithesis)辩护。我很诧异,范泰尔出色的学生会对这个论证有异议。(他也对我提倡“原型-复本”的区别(archetypal-ectypal distinction)和人类知识的类比观(the analogical view of human knowledge)有意见。很明显地,在这个重要的辩论中,他是和Gordon Clark站在同一边的。

What I point to explicitly is something like Paul Tillich’s “method of correlation,” where you ask the world to define the questions and then go to the Bible for the answers. The wrong assumption here is that we already know what we need before God tells us. In opposing this tendency to accommodate God’s radical Word to the fallen mind and heart, I am simply defending what Kuyper and Van Til referred to as the “antithesis” between godly and ungodly thinking. It’s surprising that a distinguished disciple of Cornelius Van Til would take issue with that argument. (He also takes issue with my advocacy of the archetypal-ectypal distinction—and the analogical view of human knowledge—evidently siding more with Gordon Clark over Van Til in that important debate.)

 

总结

Conclusion

 

我谨代表自己说话:我一直努力探索我个人在大公、福音派和改革宗遗产当中的发现。我有许多最深的信念都来自我在加州西敏的教授,包括克罗尼(Edmund Clowney)——他帮助我明白“两个国度”的思维,虽然他没有这样称呼这个教义,葛菲(Robert Godfrey),史川普(Robert Strimple),克莱恩(M. G. Kline),丹尼斯·强森(Dennis Johnson)和其他人。

Speaking for myself, I have endeavored to explore the riches that I have discovered personally in the catholic, evangelical and Reformed heritage. I owe much of my deepest convictions to professors I had at Westminster California, including Edmund Clowney (who helped me understand, among many other things, “two kingdoms” thinking without calling it that), Robert Godfrey, Robert Strimple, M. G. Kline, Dennis Johnson, and others.

 

我把作为牧者的呼召看得很严肃。即便如此,我不怀疑我会犯错,也需要接受公评。书评是很好的方法,可以得到各方面重要的评论,以便进一步反思和纠正。不过,正如我在课堂上对学生说的,你想赢得批评人的权利,首先要公平地陈述其他人所持的立场,是他们至少承认你的陈述是公平的。说你相信某一种看法,会在逻辑上导致某种结论是一回事,而扭曲某人的看法,说他实际上是在提倡一种他或她事实上反对的立场,又是另一回事。

In spite of the seriousness with which I take my calling as a minister, I don’t doubt my capacity for error and the need to be open to critique. Reviews are great ways of taking on board important critiques that lead to further reflection and correction. However, as I tell students in class, you have to earn the right to critique first by stating the position held by others in terms that they would at least recognize as fair. It’s one thing to say that you believe a certain view should lead logically to such-and-such a conclusion; it’s quite another to misrepresent someone’s view as actually advocating a position that he or she in fact rejects.

 

我只要求那些不同意我的论证的人,实际上是不同意我的论证,而不是傅瑞姆对我的论证的描述。不要以为若你已经读过The Escondido Theology,你就已经掌握我或其他在加州西敏神学院教书的老师的看法。和我其他的同事一样,我一直努力参与到一个长久的对话中,同时欣赏并自我批判我们对传统的解读,以及对神的话的应用,好让教会在这一代里,可以更忠心。这是个未竟的工程,而我们同事之间的差异,是被当作有益的材料,以促进不断的对话和彼此的纠正。

All that I ask is that those who disagree with my arguments in fact disagree with my arguments, not with John Frame’s description of them. Do not assume that if you’ve read The Escondido Theology you actually have any grasp of what I or any of us teach at Westminster Seminary California. Like all of my colleagues, I’m trying to participate in a long conversation that is both appreciative and self-critical of our tradition’s interpretation and application of God’s Word so that the church can be more faithful in this generation. It is a work in progress, and our differences among ourselves as a faculty are treated as the grist for the mill of constant dialogue and mutual correction.

 

像我在当学生的时候,在教员或学生之间,并没有不同的派别;有着彼此互相信任的精神,充满圣灵的讨论——甚至是辩论,而最重要的是有一个共同的信念,就是这和我们或我们有可能形成的任何团体无关。我们共同合作,为的是建造牧师、宣教士和教师,按照我们的主在大使命里所吩咐的所有方式,把神的话完整地带到全世界。在我们的圈子里,对这些重要的议题,我们需要有健康的辩论和讨论。我们都倾向于强调我们认为被其他人所模糊或过度强调的一些论点。不过,在保守的改革宗圈子里,对话的层次仍有待改善。否则,我们互相残杀的口角和混淆,会阻挠此一传统的伟大应许,就是不断寻求,至少是尽力寻求,根据神的话,归正、不断地归正。

Unlike the days when I was a student, there are no factions on the faculty or among the student body. There is a wonderful spirit of mutual trust, spirited discussion—even debate, and, above all, a common conviction that it’s not about us or any party that we might form around ourselves. We’re collaborating in preparing pastors, missionaries, and teachers to bring all of God’s Word to all of the world in all of the ways that our Lord mandates in his Great Commission. We do need to have healthy debate and discussion in our circles of these important issues. We all tend to emphasize the points that we think are being obscured or over-emphasized by others. However, the level of the conversation in conservative Reformed circles has to improve. Otherwise, our internecine squabbles and confusion will thwart the great promise of a tradition that has always sought, at least at its best, to be “Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God.”

 

这两篇是站在John Frame 的立场:
The Old Grudgeologians
  评论这张
 
阅读(1604)| 评论(1)
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