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》(唐兴摘译评注)  

2012-02-21 13:52:41|  分类: 改革宗神学 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

霍顿回应傅瑞姆的The Escondido Theology

A Response to John Frame’s The Escondido Theology
Feb.10, 2012 by Michael Horton in Book ReviewGeneralModern Reformation
唐兴编译自:http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/02/10/a-response-to-john-frames-the-escondido-theology/

约翰. 傅瑞姆(John Frame)的新作《艾斯康迪多神学》(The Escondido Theology (注1对位于美国南加州艾斯康迪多郡(Escondido)之加州西敏斯特神学院(Westminster Seminary California 简称:WSC)的神学立场有诸多的批判和指控。WSC在日前刊出一份声明,有兴趣的读者可以参考这个链接:http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/westminster-seminary-california-faculty-response-to-john-frame)。曾受教于傅瑞姆并且曾为其同僚的麦克.霍顿(Michael Horton),以该神学院的教授和受到批判的多著作的作者身份,在《当代宗教改革》志(Modern Reformation)的博客上提出了回。以下是中摘要和注解:

首先,霍顿在回应中指出,傅瑞姆多年之前从WSC离职的旧恩怨(old grudges(注2 似乎模糊了他的判断力,导致书中的指控要不是刻意的误导,就是松散的论证,例如,他曾经为(宣扬成功福音的)约珥.欧斯丁(Joel Osteen)辩护,反对我对欧斯丁所作的批判(译按:指在Christless Christianity书中所言)。他过去一直为福音派的重新和好evangelical reunion)辩护(注3,却贬低一些传统改革宗神学的看法(例如:崇拜的限定原则),往往责备那些认真持守信经和信条的人士,并且为文着墨批判改革宗阵营所推崇的学者威尔斯(David Wells)和慕勒(Richard Muller)。(可参考 Richard Muller’s response in Westminster Theological Journal 59 [1997]: 301-310.)

至于神学立场的差异,霍顿认为,傅瑞姆对圈内人的批判议题多是围绕在控诉对方的神学立场是属路德宗Lutheran)的。这种对路德宗恐惧的历史渊源,根据霍顿的分析,从大觉醒运动The Great Awakening)以来,敬虔主义pietism)和复兴主义revivalism)就形成了紧密的联结,把美国更正教徒(American Protestants)绑在一起,而认信的(confessional)路德宗和改革宗的移民,往往乐于与这个联盟保持相对隔离的状态。而自70年代费城西敏斯特神学院的薛派争端Shepherd controversy(注4之后,改革宗阵营内某些人士(例如傅瑞姆)就开始努力与路德宗保持距离,甚至不惜拥抱非改革宗的传统。这种以偏概全的神学立场,不但对路德宗不公平,也对那些认识到双方有许多重要共同点的改革宗人士不公平。

其次,霍顿针对傅瑞姆的批判提出了总结性的四项回应:

1)两个国度(Two Kingdoms

首先,霍顿澄清,两个国度并不是WSC 对“正统”改革宗的试金石。葛菲(Robert Godfrey)院长属于凯柏的一派(Kuperian),而WSC里有许多同事认为,凯柏的看法,在一些方面比许多新凯柏主义的人所认为的,更接近两个国度的观点。例如,凯柏的主权领域sphere sovereignty(注5清楚地划分教会作为一个机构,神所授权的领域,和基督徒在各种天职的呼召上,神所授权的领域。霍顿认为,改革宗神学认识到两个国度的区别而没有将二者分开,而傅瑞姆似乎在强作错误的选项,怀疑任何作区分的论述,都是要把二者分开(他对律法和福音的论述也如此)。1997WSC为反对提倡一个国度神治政体Theonomy(注6出版了一本文集,其中也包括了傅瑞姆的一篇文章;虽然他在文中意图把双方联合在一起,却没有称他当时的同僚为路德宗。


接着,霍顿进一步地说明了他的两个国度神学立场是秉承加尔文和路德 两个国度的教义,并叙述了其实际应用的细节:

认识到新约教导我们,在这个世代要生活得像客旅和寄居者,藉着我们的呼召服事和爱我们的邻舍,向他们见证神的话,并且为城市共同的益处(重要,但非终极)作出贡献...

 

教会要向世界宣讲神的话,包括福音和律法正如加尔文提醒我们的:道德律法仅是写在所有人良心里面的自然律法(natural law)。在所有的人中,基督徒最不应该在面对奴役、堕胎、种族歧视、剥削、不公平时,保持缄默而无行动,没能管理神美好的创造。他们可以在这些呼召下与非基督徒一同行动,不应受到教会以神的话没有允许的某些特定的政策和议题,来约束他们的良心自然律法在内容上启示了神的公义、公平、大能和道德旨意——与神在基督里救赎的旨意(福音)有所区别。


霍顿认为傅瑞姆所有的批判,在许多地方都模糊了这个重要的区别,若是否认合成,就被指控为未能兼顾二者。

另外,他指出傅瑞姆在书中明白地说,他没有兴趣与WSC的教授范主能(David Van Drunen(注7或其他研究此议题的人士正面交手,仔细论述改革宗诠释此议题的历史。因为这样,才可以讽刺别人的观点,驳斥一个虚假的立场。

2)律法和福音(Law and Gospel

霍顿认为,对于律法和福音之区别,傅瑞姆似乎同意路德、加尔文和改革宗学者的看法,他反对的是:激进的律法-福音对立观radical law-gospel antithesis)。傅瑞姆定义二者的关系为:福音包含了诫命;律法包含了恩典的应许。霍顿的回应是:

他若是说,恩典之约包括了诸诫命(或是包括了要悔改和相信福音的诫命),谁还会有争议呢?但是这些要悔改和相信(顺服)福音的诫命不是福音,而是对福音的正确回应。他若是说,福音是藉着预表和影子赐给旧约圣徒的应许,谁会有争议呢?说福音的本身是律法,律法的本身是福音,是无法将二者连在一起的;反而会使二者成为同一件事。(注8


霍顿指出,傅瑞姆对律法-福音区分的混淆,导致他维护和赞同70年代模糊了律法-福音区分的薛派争端(注9,以及后来的盟约观运动(Federal Vision)和神治政体论;这些都被保守改革宗视为是远离传统信仰宣言的教导。霍顿进一步地指明了其论证的弱点:

约翰(傅瑞姆的名字)用释经和对历史轻描淡写的评语, 批驳了一个无人持守的立场(至少WSC是如此),然后就抛弃了改革宗和路德神学所认为是基础和重要的区别。他对与历史上的争论比划角力毫无兴趣,这是因为他拥抱了某种类似圣经主义(biblicism(的思维)。换言之,他对圣经的解释高过任何人对圣经的解释;他所相信的才是合乎圣经的,因此是改革宗的,即使他的解释与改革宗的共识相违背。


3)神的话在生活中应用(Application of God’s Word to All Life

在这一段回应中,霍顿针对批判提出了三点反驳:首先,他奇怪傅瑞姆竟然会批评传统改革宗神学把神的话应用在敬拜上的规范性原则regulative principle),不把传讲神的话视为公开敬拜的主要元素。(注10其次,对傅瑞姆指控他在信徒个人生活或教会团体生活上,贬谪了的神的话,霍顿提出了他许多有关这些主题的著作,证明其指控是空穴来风。最后,霍顿认为最超过之处,在于傅瑞姆误导了他对律法第三功用the third use of the law)(注11 的认知。

4)诠释(Translation

另外一个傅瑞姆曲解和误导了霍顿的论述,就是霍顿认为我们过于拼命取悦听众,不仅要把福音诠释translating)得能使人了解,更要让人能接受。这不是能听懂,而是令人爽口的问题。霍顿澄清他确认圣经需要被翻译成当地语言;我们必须清楚、有效地,从生活中引用比喻来传达信息。令霍顿费解的是,傅瑞姆却不知从何处指控他认为只要读圣经,而不必解说。

霍顿进一步地说明其真正诠释的神学立场,是指出田立克(Paul Tillich)的相互关联法(注12method of correlation)的错误,并且是要维护凯柏和范泰尔(Van Til)的观点,也包括了原型-复制的区别(archetypal-ectypal distinction)和人类知识的类比观(the analogical view of human knowledge)。傅瑞姆的指控,明显地倾向范泰尔-克拉克辩论(注13Gordon Clark and Van Til debate)的克拉克一方(范泰尔曾是傅瑞姆的老师)。

他在结论中指出,我们需要对这些重要的议题作辩论和讨论,因为大家往往会强调一些被模糊或被过分强调的论述。但是,在保守改革宗圈内的对话必须加以改善;否则,那些自相残杀的争吵和混淆,是会阻碍这个传统的伟大应许所追求的目标:归正,永远向神的话归正Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God)。

 

注:

1. 傅瑞姆的部落格对这书的介绍This book is a critical analysis of a theological movement John Frame calls The Escondido Theology. The name is chosen because this movement developed mainly among faculty members of Westminster Seminary California which is located in the city of Escondido, California. Some members of this school of thought, such as Michael Horton, Meredith Kline, and Darryl Hart, are well-known to students of Reformed theology. But these figures have never before been discussed as composing a distinctive school of thought. More often they have been discussed as individual theologians, or simply as representatives of the orthodox Reformed theological tradition. But they are not simply Reformed; they hold views that are quite distinctive, unusual and controversial.
In Dr. Frame’s view, these positions are not standard Reformed theology. None of their distinctive positions is taught in any of the Reformed confessions. These positions are an idiosyncratic kind of teaching peculiar to the Escondido school. Those who teach them are a faction, even a sect.  Taken in the plain sense of the terms, their positions are all unbiblical.
This new book by Dr. John Frame The Escondido Theology is a needed corrective to the rapidly growing advocacy and acceptance of a two-kingdom approach to theology and culture. It is not only timely, considering the popularity of Two Kingdom Theology , but also because he is the right individual to address the issues, having previously served as a Professor at both Westminster in Philadelphia and then as a founding faculty member at Escondido. Dr. Frame personally witnessed the inception and development of this doctrinal view in Escondido. Dr. Frame’s insight and analysis clearly represents the Reformed Christian World and Life View because it is historically rooted in Calvinistic theology.”(转载自:framepoythress.owrdpress.com)

WSC 葛德腓(Robert Godfrey)在Amazon.com的书评上作了这样的说明:Perhaps the simplest way to do that is to refer to the thirty-two bullet points with which John has summarized our views at the beginning of the book (pp. xxxvii-xxxix). He introduces these bullet points by claiming: "Below are some assertions typical of, and widely accepted among, Escondido theologians. Not all of them make all of these assertions, but all of them regard them with some sympathy" (p,xxxvii). In response all of us on the WSC faculty wish to state clearly that we reject all of these thirty-two points as a fair or accurate presentation of our views. We have the most sympathy with the bullet point which says "There is no difference between being biblical and being Reformed" (p. xxxviii). Yet we would state it differently: we are Reformed because we believe that the Bible is most faithfully understood and taught in Reformed Christianity. In relation to most of John's bullet points we believe and teach the very opposite of what is attributed to us. We hope that those interested in our work will read some of the many works written by our faculty and see for themselves the inaccuracy of John's book.”(摘录自:amazon.com

2. 参考傅瑞姆早期以戏谑调侃的标题为WSC的晚改革宗人士所作的批判:《梅的童子军》Machen’s Warrior ChildrenFrom 1923 to the present, the movement begun by J. Gresham Machen and Westminster Theological Seminary has supplied the theological leadership for the conservative evangelical Reformed Christians in the United States. Under that leadership, conservative Calvinists made a strong stand against liberal theology. But having lost that theological battle in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., they turned inward to battle among themselves about issues less important—in some cases, far less important—than liberalism. This essay describes 21 of these issues, with some subdivisions, and offers some brief analysis and evaluations. It concludes by raising some questions for the Reformed community to consider: Was it right to devote so much of the church’s time and effort to these theological battles? Did the disputants follow biblical standards for resolution of these issues? Was the quality of thought in these polemics worthy of the Reformed tradition of scholarship? Should the Reformed community be willing to become more inclusive, to tolerate greater theological differences than many of the polemicists have wanted?(摘自:frame-poythress.org

3. 傅瑞姆的福音派的重新和好Evangelical Reunion)原文登于:frame-poythress.org

4. “薛派争端的背景:Norman Shepherd (by all accounts a fine Christian man) taught at WTS east following on from John Murray from 1963-1981. Controversial in his articulation of reformed theology, in particular his view on covenant and justification, he was embroiled in controversy from 1975-81 until the board of WTS finally relieved him of his teaching position. Charges then were filed against Mr Shepherd with his OPC Presbytery, however, Mr Shepherd left the OPC and joined the Christian Reformed Church where he is now a Minister Emeritus without these charges been pursued. The implications of this controversy are still being felt to this day in various Reformed denominations while many of the faculty of WTS still remain sympathetic to Shepherd's teaching.

5. Irving Hexham 在《博的基督教政治》(Christian Politics according to Abraham Kuyper)中对凯博的领域主权观念作了这样的解释Here we find a brief, but dense outline of Kuyper's political theory distilled from his great work, Ons Programme (Our Program, 1878). He argues that the determinative principle for Calvinist political theory is "the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos" (p. 99). From this statement of principle he deduces three realms of sovereignty; the State, Society and the Church. He then refers to these realms or areas of relationship as integral wholes, which he calls "spheres". In this way he speaks about his political principle as the application of the principle of "sphere sovereignty" to politics (p. 116).(摘自:people.ucalgary.ca

Some controversial aspects of Mr Shepherd's theology are his rejection of a covenant of Works and the idea of merit, and as a consequence, the active obedience of Christ. His insistence that election and therefore salvation be viewed from the perspective of covenant as opposed to the eternal decrees of God and his role of baptism as marking ones entry into the covenant of grace and its benefits (which may be lost) have been well noted. However, it is his view of justification by faith and works (non meritorious) that have consistently caused concern and objection. Consequently, in 1981 many notable Christian theologians and leaders including Roger Nicole, RC Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, O Palmer Robertson, Robert Reymond, George Knight III, W Stanford Reid, Morton Smith, Albert Martin, Robert Godfrey, W Hendrickson and Meredith Kline among others sighed the infamous 'letter of forty five' expressing concern over Norman Shepherd's formulations (see below) that forced the board of WTS to act. Hence, the Norman Shepherd controversy.转载自:pressiechurch.org

6. 傅瑞姆对政体的定Theonomy can be defined simply as adherence to God's law, which would make all Christians, especially Reformed Christians, into theonomists. Here I define the term more narrowly as a school of thought within Reformed theology which prefers literal, specific, and detailed applications of Mosaic civil laws to modern civil government. The word "prefers" gives us some leeway. At points, the theonomists, like the rest of us, apply the law only in general and non-literal ways. But they tend more than the rest of us to prefer the specific and the literal. John Frame from Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy”(自:monergism.com)

另外,政体的定义(http://www.tenth.org/media/LOGLOM-2-Theonomy.pdf
“A.  Theonomy - (Gk., theos = God; nomos = law) a particular theory about the relation of the Law of Moses to
the New Covenant, emphasizing the abiding validity of the Torah’s judicial/civil regulations for all nations and legal systems, often requiring explicit biblical precedent for any law
B.  Christian Reconstructionism - a broader term emphasizing the positive project of transforming every aspect
of culture, including politics and law, in order to bring it into submission to biblical principles
C.  Dominion Theology - the emphasis here is on eschatology, esp. the idea that the spread of Christ’s kingdom,  in keeping with the Great Commission, is the fulfillment of the “dominion mandate” given to Adam and Eve, often coupled with post millennialism.” (摘自:tenth.org

7. 范主能(David Van Drunen)是WSC 现任的系统神学教授,是研究“two kingdoms” 的主要人士,发表过许多文章和著作。在课堂上与学生对此课题往往有激烈的讨论(译者就该校读期间,曾有国内同学不赞成他的某些观点,争论之处多在应用上,如牧师教会以及个别的会众,二者在政治国度中的介入的范围和内容)。很可惜,傅瑞姆未能针对这些确切的文章和著作提出批判。范主能在其所著的《自然法的圣经案例》“A Biblical Case for Natural Law”这样解释他的中心思想:“At the heart of the two kingdoms doctrine is the conviction that though this world has fallen into sin, God continues to rule over all things.  Nevertheless, God rules that world in two different ways. He is the one and only king, but he has established two kingdoms (or, two realms) in which he exercises his rule in distinct ways.  God governs one kingdom, which Luther often called the kingdom of God’s “left hand” and Calvin the “civil” kingdom, as tis creator and sustainer, but not as its redeemer.  This civil kingdom retain to temporal, earthly, provisional matters, not matters of ultimate and spiritual importance.  For Calvin (Luther put it slightly differently), the civil kingdom included matters of politics, law, and cultural life more  generally.  The ends of the civil kingdom were not salvation and eternal life but a relatively just, peaceful, and orderly existence in the present world in which Christians live as pilgrims away from their heavenly homeland.  The other kingdom, which Luther named the kingdom of God’s “right hand” and Calvin the “spiritual” kingdom, is also ruled by God, but he rules it not only as creator and sustainer but also as its redeemer in Christ.  This Kingdom pertains to things that are of ultimate and spiritual importance, the things of Christ’s heavenly, eschatological kingdom.  Insofar as this spiritual kingdom has earthly existence, Calvin believed it must be found in the church and not in the state or other temporal institutions.  In this kingdom, the gospel of salvation is preached, and the souls of believers are nourished unto eternal life.  Although necessarily existing together and having some mutual interaction in this world, these tow kingdoms enjoy a great measure of independence so that each can pursue the unique work entrusted to it.” (p.24)

8. 请参阅,傅瑞姆的福音与律法(登录于守诚阁。傅瑞姆对其神学立场作了这样的说明:我所反对的观点,即鲜明地区隔这两个信息,主要是来自路德宗的神学,虽然在加尔文和其他归正神学家那儿也能找到类似的声明。(注1)路德宗的协和信条概略Epitome of Formula of Concord),第五章第5条承认,福音gospel)这个字在圣经里有不同的用法,它引用马可福音115和使徒行传2021来说明正确的福音的宣讲包括悔罪的吩咐。但是第6条作了一件非常奇怪的事。它说到:

但是如果把律法和福音放在一起比较,也把摩西(律法的教师)自己和基督(福音的教师)加以比较,我们相信、教导也承认,福音不是宣讲悔改、扎心知罪;适当来说(it is properly),它不外乎最令人喜悦的信息和宣讲,充满了安慰,而不是定罪或恐吓,它安慰我们的良心,对抗律法的恐吓,并吩咐(bid)人唯独仰望基督的功德…… 我说这是很奇怪的,因为信条对此区分并没有给予任何的圣经支持,而这里所说的福音,与先前在第5条中所承认的是完全抵触的。第5条说是正确的,和第6条所说适当的是彼此矛盾的。第6条实际上是暗示,它所承认的圣经对福音的内容的描述,如马可福音115和使徒行传1415,是不恰当的。(注2)马可福音115是正确的,但不是适当的。以及,神国度的权柄是祂的诫命的重述。当国度以权能出现,就是人悔改的时候。他们必须听从(hupakouo)福音(帖后一8;比较彼前四17信从”[apeitheo])。福音本身要求某种的行为(徒十四15;加二14;腓一27;参罗二15)。


译者(唐兴):
根据傅瑞姆的这篇文章,他似乎并没有完全反对传统路德宗和加尔文对律法和福音所作的区分,他的重点在于讲道生活上的应用,目的是要避免传讲廉价的恩典没有律法的福音;而霍顿的重点在于神学真理的清晰。至于讲道和生活上的应用,WSC的确非常重视律法-福音-律法law-gospel-law)的讲道原则,以及律法的三重功用。(译者曾就读于WSC

因此看来,傅瑞姆和霍顿神学争论的关键在于:福音中是否包含了律法,律法中是否包含了福音。傅瑞姆说:虽然我相信我们得救完全是靠神的恩典,而不是我们的工作,我却不相信他们是圣经里神所给的完全不同的信息,一个完全是命令(律法),另一个完全是应许(福音)。在圣经本身,命令通常不只是审判和宣告,而是神给我们的恩典的机会,让我们可以悔罪并信靠祂。如同诗人所说,求你开恩将你的律法赐给我(诗一一九29)。霍顿则认为,伴随着福音的诫命是对福音的回应(其意思是说:律法/诫命是伴随福音应许的;它们是人的责任,但更是神所应许的救赎作为,福音的本身就是要满足律法的要求,是藉着信心而非靠着行为)。

但是,当傅瑞姆说:命令通常不只是审判和宣告,而是神给我们的恩典的机会,让我们可以悔罪信靠祂。The commands, typically, are not merely announcements of judgment, but God’s gracious opportunities to repent of sin and believe in him.)即使我们可以理解这种说法,可能是从人的角度和普遍外在呼召的角度来看的;但是从律法与福音之关系的神学观点来看,用机会这个令人刺眼目的字眼,似乎有偏失的倾向和嫌疑,可能显露了其神学立场的瑕疵和分歧点,或者至少是神学用词的松散和失准。

在福音,就是恩典之约中,对蒙拣选的子民而言,神的律法和诫命不只是生活行为上的规范,而是要我们认识罪,把我们推向基督;能够完全遵行律法和诫命则是福音所应许的终极属天生命(我们现在虽不完全,但却是终极应许的预尝[foretaste])。
保罗在加拉太书第三章中清楚地说明了得生命的两种不同的途径:靠行律法,或靠信福音。这是讲到律法和福音在救恩上的区分。律法和福音的相关处在于:完全满足律法而得生命的要求和标准,从来未改变过(工作之约、摩西之约和恩典之约),只因为亚当堕落后,全人类都失去完全满足律法要求的能力,而神差遣祂的儿子耶稣基督,末后的亚当和真以色列人,完全满足了律法的要求,才使得祂的子民能够藉着信心在神面前称义(满足律法的要求)得生命。在靠恩典和信心称义的基础上,律法被刻写在新的生命中,使得信徒愿意和有能力爱神的律法,过圣洁的生活,虽然有时会失败和不完全,但总是在福音中盼望终极的完全,因为福音应许了耶稣基督救赎之工在圣徒的身上必定成就。


傅瑞姆的观点:福音包含了律法;律法包含了福音,对律法-福音的区分确实有模糊不清的嫌疑。

一位WSC的校友,曾接受傅瑞姆教导的改革宗牧指出:傅瑞姆认为福音-律法的比(antithesis)是路德宗的看法,而非信的(confessionally)或史改革宗神的教念是错误的。 傅瑞姆不可能不知道这个改革宗基本和主要的教,他的否乃源自于角主”(perspectivalism)的执着角主义认为对事物的看法有三种角:范性的(normative),处境性的(situational),和存在性的(existential),并且三种角都是最根本的,在终极上是相同的(equally ultimate and ultimately one)。言之,它是对同一事物的不同看法。所以,律法和福音就成是看神的的不同角和强调点,而不可能解读为神的话的不同范category)。因此,傅瑞姆宣WSC福音-律法的区别是非-传统改革宗的法是不正确的。

 

9. 参看注解4

10. 傅瑞姆对改革宗公众敬拜的规范性原则的立场是:Let it be clear from the outset that my "questions" about the Reformed regulative principle for public worship do not spring from doubts about what I take to be its main thrust. As for many years, I continue now to be convinced that worship must be scriptural (i.e., consistent with Scripture) and, indeed, limited by Scripture. For who of us can say confidently how God wishes to be worshiped except insofar as he has told us in Scripture? If there are principles of worship to be found in nature, these cannot be understood rightly except through the "spectacles" of Scripture; for when we try to reason without Scripture, sin distorts our vision. And Scripture is quick to condemn those who walk according to the "vain imaginations of their own hearts" (Jer 3:17; 7:24; etc.)(转载自:reformed.org
Still, it is one thing to affirm the sufficiency of Scripture for worship, another thing to work out a cogent theological account of it. And in trying to develop such an account, I have run into some questions which either I am unable to answer correctly or which call for changes in some traditional ways of understanding the principle. So I place them on the table for discussion; I hope to learn from my readers.”

11. 关于律法的第三功用,《基督教要义》第二卷,第七章,12节写到:即使基督徒也需要律法。律法的第三大功用,也是律法的主要功用,这一功用与律法的正当目的有着紧密的联系。作为基督徒,上帝的灵已经在他们的心中掌权,但律法的第三大功用,与他们仍然大有关系。虽然他们心中有上帝的律法,上帝以其手指把他的律法刻在他们的心里,这就是说他们已经处在圣灵的引导和激励之下,有了顺服上帝的愿望。然而,上帝的律法仍然在两个方面对他们大有益处。律法是最好的工具,他们可以天天学习,由此认识上帝的旨意,而这正是他们所渴慕的。同时,上帝的律法也向他们证实他们是否明了上帝的旨意。这正如作仆人的一样,早已作好准备,一心想给主人留下好的印象,他所需要的就是细细查考主人的性情,以及行事为人的方式,目的是在于调整自己,予以适应。我们每个人都需要这样,因为到现在为止,还没有人臻达如此之高的智慧,以致于毋需天天接受律法的教训,在认识上帝的旨意方面,天天都有新的进步。而且,我们不仅需要教导,还需要告诫,而上帝的仆人从律法的这一益处就可大得帮助:通过经常默想上帝的律法,就激发起顺服之心,并在上帝的律法中得以坚固,从过犯罪恶的滑路上回转。在这条道路上,圣徒必需下定决心,继续前进;因为不管他们是如何火热地顺从圣灵的引导,努力趋向上帝的义,肉体的怠惰总是挤压他们,使他们无法以当有的敏捷前行。律法对肉体来说,就像鞭子对懒惰不动、畏缩不前的驴子,驱使它起来作工一样。即使一个属灵的人,他也没有完全摆脱肉体的重负,因此上帝的律法对他仍然是一个刺激,使他无法裹足不前…”(转载自:中国改革宗神学网站http://www.chinareformation.com/7-2-6.htm

12. 田立克的相互关联法method of correlation)也是一种存在的类比为基础的。人通过对生存的分析提出存在的问题,问题的答案其实已经在问题中隐含了。理性对自身中的无限进行抽象的思考便能得出问题的答案。

13. 傅瑞姆对其老师范泰尔与克拉克的辩论作了这样的解释:
John Frame in his book, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, says that Van Til and Gordon Clark had disagreements with each other concerning the concept of God's incomprehensibility. Frame says on pages 21 and 22 of the above book, "Neither man was at his best in this discussion; each seriously misunderstood each other, as we will see. Both, however had valid concerns. Van Til wished to preserve the Creator-creature distinction in the realm of knowledge, and Clark wished to prevent any skeptical deductions from the doctrine of incomprehensibility, to insist that we really do know God on the basis of revelation. Van Til, therefore, insisted that even when God and man were thinking of the same thing (a particular rose, for example), their thoughts about it were never identical- God's were the thoughts of the Creator, man's of the creature. Such language made Clark fear skepticism. It seemed to him that if there was some discrepancy between man's "This is a rose" and God's (concerning the same rose), then the human assertion must somehow fall short of the truth, since the very nature of truth is identical with God's mind. Thus if there is a necessary discrepancy between God's mind and man's at every point, it would seem that man could know nothing truly; skepticism would result. Thus the discussion of incomprehensibility- essentially a doctrine about the relation of man's thoughts to God's being- turned in this debate more narrowly into a discussion of the relation between man's thoughts and God's thoughts. To say that God is incomprehensible came to mean that there is some discontinuity (much deeper in Van Til's view than in Clark's) between our thoughts of God (and hence creation) and God's own thoughts of himself (and of creation)."

Van Til believed that our knowledge is qualitatively different from God. 
Clark believed that our knowledge is quantitatively different from God.

Frame goes on to point out that there are some continuities and discontinuities between God's thoughts and ours. (摘录自:puritanboard.com

  评论这张
 
阅读(1148)| 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