傅兰姆﹕「范泰尔论上帝的启示」
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。
效法上帝思维的意思﹕思维必须服从上帝的启示
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。
改革宗传统的普遍启示与特殊启示观
General Revelation,
SpecialRevelation
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 essentiallythat of Calvin and the Reformed tradition,
especially including Kuyper,Bavinck, and Warfield. There is
“natural” or “general” revelation in all ofcreation, including man,
who is God’s image. This revelation
indicatesGod’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 originalmanuscripts. (Van Til’s
view of revelation is expounded in greatest detailin 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 ownepistemological and apologetic concerns,
however, new emphases and insightsemerge. In what
follows, I will focus on what I take to be Van Til’sdistinctive
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 allapologetic witness must be based on
presuppositions drawn from Scripture,rather than on religiously
neutral argument from the facts of naturealone.
Consequently, critics sometimes fault him for failing to dojustice
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。
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﹕
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.)
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
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。)
救赎(特殊)启示预设普遍启示;
分辨 = 历史的关键
「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﹕
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(theprocess
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。)
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.)
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
NeedsSpecial 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)。
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。
(一)普遍启示的必须性
1. 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)。
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。
(二)普遍启示的权威性
2. 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﹕
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 thisexceptional manner was to be but illustrative of the
fact that, in and throughthe 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
ofobedience 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 theirvery abnormality.” (NS,
275.)
(三)普遍启示的足够性
3. 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 itshistorical purpose, which is, of course, to
provide a proper background forsupernatural redemption and
revelation. It is not sufficient tocommunicate
God’s saving promises of grace, but that was not its
purpose. (NS,
275-276.)
(四)普遍启示的清晰性
4. 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
clearin itself, general revelation is not properly understood by
sinful man: “Forany fact to be a fact at all, it must be a
revelational fact. It isaccordingly no easier for
sinners to accept God’s revelation in nature than toaccept 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 revelationare equally necessary, authoritative,
sufficient, and perspicuous. Theuniqueness of
special revelation is not that it is more authoritative (or moreof
the other attributes) than natural revelation.
Rather, specialrevelation is unique because it is given for
distinct purposes: (1) to guideour interpretation of general
revelation, (2) after the Fall, to correct oursinful distortions of
general revelation, and (3) to bring us God’s promise ofsalvation
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 toSystematic Theology his ideas on the
integration of general and specialrevelation.
Interestingly, at this point he resorts to a threefold,rather than
a twofold, distinction: instead of the traditional
general-specialdistinction, he refers to revelation from God, from
nature, and fromself. (This is reminiscent of the
first page of Calvin’s Institutes, inwhich he declares the
inseparability of our knowledge of self from ourknowledge of
God. Calvin says that each is involved in the
other, and hedoes 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 revelationabout God, about nature, and about self, he ends
up with nine categories:revelation about nature from nature, self,
and God; revelation about self fromthe same three sources; and
revelation about God from the same three
sources. (Perhaps somewhat tongue in check (but
perhaps not), Van Til gives to eachrelationship a technical title,
in the manner of Kuyper’s Encyclopedia. For
example, revelation about nature from nature is physics, and
revelationabout 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 involvedin the knowledge of any object: but, more
important, he argues that eachrelationship 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 understandrevelation about nature
from nature, for example, it is important that werecognize that
nature is created and governed by God; therefore, all facts
aregoverned by laws, and all laws are related to
facts. (Cf. chapter 5 of thisvolume, “The
Trinity,” in which I describe the rationale for this propositionin
Van Til’s doctrine of the Trinity.) And both
facts and laws are whatthey 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 andtraditional apriorism: facts apart from laws and vice
versa are equallymeaningless. Without God to
relate the facts and laws intelligibly to oneanother, knowledge is
impossible. Thus we see that for Van Til,
theknowledge of God enters even into our consideration of
“revelation about naturefrom 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 alsoimportant, since we learn much about
nature by comparing it withourselves. But to do
this properly, we must have a biblical concept ofthe
self. (IST, 66-67.) “Revelation
about nature from God,”therefore, is crucial. It
is God who tells us, both in natural andspecial revelation, that
the world is created and cursed. We may
not,therefore, compartmentalize religion and
science. “Even in paradise,” Godexpected 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 SystematicTheology
(7-9), Van Til discusses the effects of the Fall upon God’s
revelationabout nature, man, and God. We shall
consider this material in PartThree, “The Ethics of
Knowledge.” In general, the revelation
remainsclear, although it reflects the curse on the earth, and
although man sinfullydistorts 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 Scripturain the traditional Protestant sense: that
only Scripture serves as the supremeauthority for human thought and
life. We shall see in the next chapterhow
Scripture was Van Til’s “presupposition.”
Nevertheless, Van Til didnot hold a mechanical view of sola
Scriptura, as if we could develop ourknowledge from Scripture
alone, without any use of our own reason
orsenses. He understood that in any instance of
knowledge, there issimultaneous knowledge of God, the world, and
the self. We cannot knowone thing without
relating it to other things and to ourselves. We
cannotknow God rightly unless we know him as Creator of the world
and as our ownCreator-Redeemer. We cannot know
Scripture without relating it toourselves and to the world of our
experience. General and specialrevelation always
work together, though certainly the latter must provide theultimate
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 thisscheme, revelation from nature and
revelation from man are not isolated fromrevelation from
God. Even revelation about nature from nature
must beunderstood in a scriptural way. Indeed,
nature, man, and God must all beunderstood in the light of one
another. Even in “theology proper,”
the“revelation about God from God,” said Van Til, “we cannot
artificially separatethe knowledge of God that man received or
could receive by his reflection onman and the created universe in
general, and the knowledge of God that manreceived from God by
direct communication.” (IST,
67-68.) Notealso:
「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 Godrevealed naturally to man, together form. one
system of truth. God hadone comprehensive plan
with respect to the universe inclusive of his naturaland his
supernatural revelation. It is of great
importance that thevarious aspects of revelation be regarded as
implying one another. Theyare 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(limitingconcepts) 」
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 thatnatural and supernatural revelation are “limiting
concepts of one another,” Ibelieve that he means that there is no
purely natural revelation or purelysupernatural revelation without
admixture of the other. (“Limitingconcept” is a
term used by Immanuel Kant and later
philosophers. Mathematical infinity is a limiting
concept, because although we can use theconcept meaningfully in
calculations, there are no actually infinite quantitiesof objects
in the world. Limiting concepts are useful for
analyticpurposes, but they do not literally represent something
that exists. Seechap. 13, “The Analogical
System,” for more on Van Til’s use of
thisconcept.) The natural must be understood in
the light of thesupernatural, and the supernatural must be
understood against the “backdrop” ofthe natural.
Apart from these contexts, they do not actually function
asrevelation.
我在其它的拙作中 ( 《认识神的知识论》,中华展望翻译,原著﹕Doctrineof
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 viewas “perspectivalism.”
(In DKG, throughout.) That is, all humanknowledge
is simultaneous knowledge of self, world, and
God. Knowledge ofone area cannot be adequate
without knowledge of the other two. One cannot knowthe self rightly
without knowing God, and similarly with the
otherrelationships. Therefore, “self-knowledge”
is really a knowledge of allthree 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 lastquotation that natural and supernatural
theology must nevertheless be “keptdistinct.: The
distinctness is a distinctness of content: “If we keepthem distinct
at this place, it will help us when we come to the question ofwhat
can, now that sin has entered the world, still be known of God by
theprocess of natural and rational theology, and what must be
reserved fortheology 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 thetraditional distinction between natural
theology as communicating God’s natureand wrath, and revealed
theology, as communicating the gospel. Naturaland
special revelation, therefore, differ in content.
But to understandand to apply each one properly, we need the
other. Van Til’sperspectivalism must not be taken
in a leveling way so that all God’s messagesbecome
identical. Rather, it calls us to recognize both
the integrity ofeach revelation and the interdependence of all
God’s revelations. Forrevelation 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 RulesOver 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 schemeappears in a series of chapters
devoted to the topic of generalrevelation. As we
have seen, however, this scheme includes specialrevelation within
its purview. “Revelation by God about nature,
man, andGod” is a category that certainly includes special, as well
as general,revelation: indeed, all the categories require
interpretation in the light ofScripture. So we
have already seen some of what is most important in VanTil’s view
of special revelation: that it must rule all other aspects of
humanknowledge.
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 morefocused 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 notlie in any defect in the general
revelation that God gave to man when hecreated
him.” (IST, 110.) General
revelation was, and still is,fully adequate for its
purpose. Rather, the need for special
revelationis found in man’s sin (not, Van Til emphasizes, in his
finitude.) Themessage of grace is not found in
nature. In addition, special revelationis
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 ofinspired words, but also of revelatory
deeds. Van Til sees anorganic
relation in Scripture between theophany, prophecy, and miracle:
God’ssaving presence, saving words, and saving
deeds. (Cf. the categories“normative,”
“situational,” and “existential in my DKG – John
Fame.) Eachmode of revelation presupposes the
other two. God’s words interpret hisdeeds, 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 thedeeds corroborate the
words.” (IST,
131.) And in the two,
Godhimself comes to us to save us from our sin.
We cannot know one form. ofrevelation 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 ofScripture, Van Til remarks, “How
basic and how broad was their view! Theidea 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 theidea of the fact and the
content of Scripture.”)
“Separation” is a trickyword in theology, and some have used this
idea-message relationship tocriticize orthodox views of
Scripture. For example, the claim issometimes
made that because the message of Scripture deals with salvation,
theidea of Scripture must limit inerrancy to matters of salvation
narrowlydefined, thus allowing for errors when Scripture speaks of
other things. Van Til, however, comes to these
questions with a different concept of both theidea 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 withabsolute authority. If Scripture
is this Word, then it must convey hisultimate authority and
therefore be inerrant in all matters. Van
Tildescribes 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
infallibleinspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of
divinesovereignty. God could not be sovereign in
his disposition of rationalhuman beings if he were not also
sovereign in his revelation of himself tothem. If
God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely alsosovereign
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; thisis 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 factsof
the universe. In identifying all the facts of the
universe he setsthese 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 ownauthoritative promise of redemption, must be
self-attesting. Scripture,as that Word, needs no
corroboration from any source outside itself; and no
suchcorroboration is possible, unless the other source is already
subject to theinterpretation and evaluation of
Scripture. (Cf. Van Til’s argument inRP,
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 bearsthe 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 forScripture,
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) mighthave 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 itsvery nature, it must challenge man’s
claim to autonomy. It must conveyGod’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 thereis no “necessity for human interpreters
to intervene between Scripture andthose to whom Scripture
comes.” (IST,
135.)
Teachers ofthe church may give us useful assistance in
understanding Scripture, but RomanCatholic theology is wrong to
claim that “no ordinary member of the Church mayinterpret Scripture
for himself directly.” (IST,
135.) To deny theclarity of Scripture is to deny
its authority, for if a human teachingauthority is necessary for
the proper use of Scripture, then that humanauthority becomes the
ultimate authority in the church.
因此,人的意见不可加在《圣经》之上,成为与《圣经》地位同等的权威。换言之,《圣经》是足够的。范泰尔说,宗教改革的领袖们相信《圣经》的足够性,「因而特别反对所有的宗派主义 (sectarianism) ;相信《圣经》的清晰性,因而反对教权主义(clericalism);相信《圣经》的必需性,因而反对理性主义;相信《圣经》的权威性,因而反对人的自主性。」(IST,
136.) 范泰尔以他特有的角度继续说道:
Thus, no human
opinion may be added toScripture as an authority coordinate with
Scripture. In other words,Scripture has
sufficiency. The Reformers, says Van Til, thought
ofsufficiency “particularly in opposition to all manner of
sectarianism, as theythought of perspicuity chiefly in opposition
to clericalism, as they thought ofnecessity in opposition to
rationalism, and as they thought of authority inopposition to
autonomy.” (IST,
136.) Characteristically,
headds:
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 inone another, and it is well to see
that they do.
The fourattributes of Scripture are equally important because, if
we did not havethem all, we would have
none. The whole matter centers about
anabsolutely true interpretation that came into a
world full of falseinterpretation.
(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 ifScripture is the self-attesting Word of
God, there must be “no admixture ofhuman interpretation” standing
between the believer and the revelation. (IST,
136.) It might be objected at this point that an
“admixture ofhuman interpretation” always does intervene in our
study of Scripture, since,as Van Til recognizes, we must use our
own senses and reason in thatprocess. Here, Van
Til would doubtless refer to his perspectival analysisof general
and special revelation: in the work of Bible interpretation,
ourreason, senses, and methods must themselves be brought into
conformity toScripture. (For the issue of
circularity which arises here, see chaps. 10and
22.) The “admixture” to which Van Til objects, in
my judgment, is notan admixture in which human reason is governed
by Scripture, but one in whichthat 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 inthe believer’s study of
Scripture? Yes. But the goal of
thebeliever’s study is to understand the teaching of the Word
itself. Although we use our own faculties to
interpret Scripture, it always stands overagainst us, challenging
our sinful distortions. And to do that,
Scriptureitself must be God’s pure, self-attesting Word, itself
free from sinfuldistortion.
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 withA.E. Taylor, whose objections to the
orthodox view of Scripture amounts tothis: “There can be no
authority which is absolute, if the one who receives themessage of
authority is, in any way, constructive in the reception
ofit.” (IST, 139. I am not
clear as to why the last three words areemphasized – John
Frame.) This objection assumes,
however, that theinterpretive 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 activityof the divine mind. And if
one starts with such a false assumption it isbut to be expected
that one cannot think of the absolute authority of God overman
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 wasnot made to be independent of the
divine. I would paraphrase: the humanmind does
its best job of interpreting when it denies its own autonomy
and“thinks analogically.” If sin enters into the
believer’s thought, it issin 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 rathertraditional responses to the views of
Scripture of Roman Catholicism and “falsemysticism,” (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 arguedthat
the infallibility of Scripture pertains strictly, not to every copy
ofScripture, but to the autographs, the original manuscripts, which
God directlyinspired. Many have objected that if that is true, our
present copies ofScripture are not infallible.
And since the original manuscripts arelost, we have in fact no
infallible text, and our position is no different fromthat of
liberalism. Are we not, then, left with a Bible
that is notinfallible 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 theillustration 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』(infallibleinspiration) 」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 isa few inches deep as long as we have a solid bottom
under the water. Whatthe idea of general
trustworthiness without infallible inspiration does ineffect is to
say that it really makes no difference whether there is a
soliom 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
atsome point human interpretation would stand above divine
interpretation. It would mean that men were, after
all, not certain that the facts and theinterpretations given to the
facts in Scripture are true.
(IST,153.) 「」
在《基督教知识论》 (A
Christian Theory ofKnowledge) 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 Tilresponds 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」(reasonablyreliable)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 ofidentifying the Word of God in human history
unless human history itself iscontrolled by God.
… It is impossible to attain the idea of such a
God byspeculation independently of Scripture. …
Such a God must identify himself.… Such a view of
God and human history is both presupposed by, and inturn
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 ofKnowledge is suggestive, but somewhat
obscure. The upshot of these twopassages,
however, is that unless the infallible revelation has been
givensomewhere in space and time, and thus is accessible in
principle to humanknowledge (e.g., by textual criticism), then we
have no access to the pure Wordof God. And
without that, there can be no certainty about salvation, or,for
that matter, about anything else. Indeed, without
such a Word, wewould know that the biblical God does not
exist. For the biblical God isone who does
address us authoritatively. That is the only way
in whichthe 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 isno God. And if
there is no God, there is no such thing as
“reasonablereliability.” 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 byhis infallible Word, then all meaning
and intelligibility in the universe isdue to him.
And his Word, Scripture, is relevant to all meaning in
theuniverse. This means, contrary to “limited
inerrantists” and others, thatthe scope of Scripture is
universal. It “speaks of
everything.” VanTil 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, ofatoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it
speaks of everything eitherdirectly or
indirectly. It tells us not only of the Christ
and his workbut it also tells us who God is and whence the universe
has come. Itgives us a philosophy of history as
well as history. Moreover, theinformation on
these subjects is woven into an inextricable
whole. It isonly if you reject the Bible as the
Word of God that you can separate its so-calledreligious and moral
instruction from what it says, e.g., about the
physicaluniverse. (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 termsof 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 thissection, many theologians tried to show, based
on the nature of Scripture’smessage, that the scope of Scripture is
limited to certain areas of narrowlyreligious
concern. Van Til has done the church a great
service here: hehas rethought the nature of Scripture’s message and
has concluded, rightly,that when that message is properly
understood, it will require us to find inGod’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 ofKuyper, 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’sfollowers have
unfortunately argued that Scripture has a narrow scope and thatour
desire to reform. society must therefore largely ignore the
teachings ofthe Bible, although Scripture may motivate us in a
useful direction. VanTil, on the contrary, opens
up the great power of Scripture, not only toregenerate 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 narrowBiblicist. We have seen
that for Van Til, revelation is an organism, thatspecial and
general revelation must be taken together. Van
Til, as wehave seen, does not believe that the presence of human
interpretationrelativizes the authority of the Word of
God. Rather, God calls us toapply our best gifts
toward applying his Word to all matters, and he promisesthat such
efforts, humbly subject to that very Word we seek to apply, will
befruitful.
加载中,请稍候......