查理穆勒對加爾文和改革宗正統派的神學研究的貢獻和影響

Richard Muller’s Contribution to Calvin and Reformed Studies

蔡少琪

Kiven Choy

回到 華人神學園地主頁

 

談起最近二十年加爾文和改革宗正統派的神學研究的突破,我們不能不提查理穆勒的貢獻和影響。查理.穆勒(Richard A. Muller)教授是當今研究加爾文神學和改革宗正統派神學的首要帶領者。特別他對研究加爾文神學的方法論上,和加爾文之後十六和十七世紀的改革宗正統派神學研究上,他大大修正了前人一些誤差的看法,為更能清楚和準確地認識加爾文思想和改革宗正統派思想,奠定了重要而有指導性的研究和立論,是當今每一個認真研究加爾文神學和改革宗正統派神學的學者們不能跳躍過的大師。本文章藉著引介穆勒一些主要貢獻,並進而為讀者提供一些研究加爾文思想要注意的核心觀念和方法。本文分三大部分﹕一、查理穆勒和改革宗神學研究的近代幾個主要發展;二、研讀加爾文思想的幾個核心觀念;三、如何閱讀《基督教要義》。

 

 

A. 穆勒和改革宗神學研究的近代幾個主要發展

 

改革宗神學研究大師﹕查理穆勒教授

有名加爾文神學學者麥肯(Donald K. McKim)指出穆勒的著作和提出的方法論已經主導了當今對「加爾文後」的改革宗神學的研究。[1]京頓(Robert M. Kingdon)指出穆勒的《不妥協的加爾文》(The Unaccommodated Calvin)「對加爾文思想的研究有這麼巨大的貢獻,是關乎宗教改革思想整個研究中,任何研究員都不能忽視的著作。」[2]穆勒一系列的著作幾乎可以說將整段十六和十七世紀改革宗神學的發展的脈絡重寫,是每一個關係十六和十七世紀加爾文主義和改革宗神學的讀者不能忽略的佳品。他也大大扭轉了學者們對應該如何研讀加爾文神學,在方法論上有極大影響。

 

查理.穆勒(Richard Alfred Muller)1992年至今就任加爾文神學院(Calvin Theological Seminary)的商達芬歷史神學教授(P. J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology)[3]穆勒生於19481012日。在1971年結婚,有一女一子。穆勒在1976年在杜克大學(Duke University)拿到他的哲學博士學位,主修歷史神學,論文指導老師是有名的歷史神學家思達馬斯教授(David C. Steinmetz)。他博士論文的題目是《在十六世紀改革宗神學中預定論和基督論》。[4]1980-1992年期間穆勒在富勒神學院擔任歷史神學教授。在1999-2001年穆勒更擔任有名的「加爾文研究學會」(Calvin Studies Society)的會長一職。按照加爾文神學院的網站資料,至今穆勒出版的書目、專文、書評各種類的學術論文約有250種。[5]在加爾文神學研究學者心目中,特別是穆勒的學生心目中,穆勒的腦袋好像一個廣大神學的百科全書。他早年出版的《拉丁文和希臘文神學用詞字典》(Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms)至今仍是每一個要認識中世紀到改革宗正統派神學的研究員必用的參考書。因為他精通拉丁文、德文、法文,熟悉聖經語言,也略懂荷蘭文,也因為他努力研讀一手資料,無論是早期教父文獻,中世紀巨著、改革家的各種文獻,及改革宗正統派眾多神學巨著,他的論述和評論都有扎實的一手資料和文本支持。因此,要對他所下的結論提出異議,要不同意他的立場,也是一個不容易的工作。他另外一個特色就是浩瀚無遺地列出相關的近代學者的研究書目。幾乎他每篇文章的頭幾個注腳都羅列了他要研究的題目所有重要相關的學術文獻,單單參考他提供的書目就已經對研究員有極大的裨益。哈瓦孫(J. Derek. Halvorson)評論對穆勒的著作時,曾這樣說﹕「穆勒的研究是最高的水平的。他的辯證是非常有力,並且有豐富的資料來支持他的論證。他處理拉丁文和法文的一手資料,以及歐洲和北美加爾文學者研究等兩方面的材料,都是熟練的和有豐富的覆蓋度。」[6]更難得是穆勒性格風趣,也常帶有幽默感,遇見他就常常聽到他的笑聲。他也是非常支持後輩,他不單影響不少加爾文神學院和美國其他學院的學生和同工,更熱心接待不少遠自歐洲大陸的學生和學者,而且沒有帶著名家的架子,慷慨地義務指導他們。因此,以他為中心,配合加爾文神學院有全球最好的加爾文研究的圖書室(H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies)[7],加爾文神學院成為加爾文研究的一個重要搖籃。

 

其中他很核心的方法論就是再一次深入按照歷史處境認真處理當代的一手資料。他非常仔細地以閱讀這些資料,敏銳他們本身有的神學用詞和架構。他的研究已經扭轉了對研究加爾文神學和改革宗正統派神學的方法論,正如他在《不妥協的加爾文》的序言中指出﹕「過去一個十年,我們清楚看見這樣一種移動,或者一系列的移動,一種針對如何解釋加爾文和加爾文主義的移動。」[8]其中最值得提及是他四方面的貢獻。一、對加爾文與加爾文主義之間的關係作出重要的釐清。二、對《基督教要義》的文體和其與加爾文其他著作的關係作出重新定位。三、將加爾文自己神學的特色放在加爾文自己時空上,用歷史的角度去了解加爾文思想。四、對改革宗正統派的神學作出重大和整全的研究,讓讀者們更敏銳自中世紀末、到宗教改革、再發展到改革宗正統派的神學發展脈絡。

 

無論你同意穆勒與否,要好好研究加爾文的思想和改革宗正統派的神學,就不能不仔細閱讀穆勒的大作。同時,因為穆勒是我博士論文指導老師,我有幸於1994-1998年期間於加爾文神學院在他跟前學習,能向華人神學界引介他的思想是我的一份責任和榮耀。因此,願意這篇文章能幫助一些關心加爾文神學和改革宗神學的同路人對穆勒的貢獻有一個起步的介紹,也表達自己對這位傑出而又謙卑的恩師的一份謝意。

 

穆勒承接近代宗教改革神學的研究突破

穆勒出身的時代正是近代學者們重新鑒定自中世紀末,到宗教改革神學,再到改革宗正統派,三大神學時段之間關係重新定位的研究風潮中。穆勒很快就成為這股為這三大時段的關係重新定位的其中一個核心人物。在這個重新定位的大浪潮中,我們首先要提海戈.歐伯曼(Heiko A. Oberman)的貢獻。歐伯曼首先修正了人們如何看中世紀末神學與宗教改革家神學之間,這兩大神學時段的關係。歐伯曼自1957年他的博士論文《大主教布拉得瓦丁》Archbishop Thomas Bradwardine開始,就深深影響近代關於中世紀末神學與宗教改革家神學的關係的研究。歐伯曼的成名作《中世紀的豐收》Harvest of Medieval Theology可以說扭轉整個路德神學與中世紀神學之間關係的研究。[9]歐伯曼的幾本巨著大大修正了以前不少學者輕易地將宗教改革神學與中世紀經院神學簡易二分的說法。[10]這些研究提醒我們,若我們未能了解路德和加爾文背後的中世紀背景,我們不能完全明白他們的辯論。歐伯曼帶動了這個方向後,不少學者就繼續發展,也就大大修正了如何看宗教改革神學與中世紀神學之間的關係。[11]與此同時,其他歷史學家,譬如卡他拉 (Paul Oskar Kristeller)的著作也改變了人們對文藝復興的人文主義與經院哲學的關係的看法。[12]這些研究讓學者們對中世紀後期的神學如何影響宗教改革的神學有更深的了解。學者開始對宗教改革的先行者(forerunners)有更多研究和更詳細的分類。其中關於十四和十五世紀的研究有突破性的發現。學者開始不單研究一些與羅馬教廷對抗的神學家如威克里夫(John Wyclif)、胡司(Jan Hus)和撒沃那柔拉(Girolamo Savonarola)等,他們發現一些沒有與教廷對抗的神學家也有類似宗教改革家般的神學立場,這些中世紀後期被注意的神學家包括布拉得瓦丁(Bradwardine) 利米尼(Gregory of Rimini)和甘思福(Wessel Gansfort)等。[13]學者開始將那時代的神學家所用的方法與他們的神學立場分家。中世紀後期的神學界雖然都用經院哲學的方法寫作,但不等於他們都同意伯拉糾主義或者半伯拉糾主義,學者們特別留意到在他們中間有一股重要的中世紀後期奧古斯丁神學復興的熱潮,這個熱潮可以說準備了路德的宗教改革。

 

若果歐伯曼是為頭兩個神學時段之間的關係重新定位的大師,那麼穆勒就是為後兩個時段之間的關係重新定位的大師。穆勒基本承傳了自歐伯曼以後整個研究宗教改革的方法論。自歐伯曼的研究開始被接納後,學者不再看路德的改革為一個單獨的片斷,是單靠一個人而產生的巨大神學運動,而是發現自中世紀末期開始,就有一股重要的奧古斯丁神學復興浪潮。而路德只是承接這股重要的神學浪潮其中一個核心的帶領人。所以,近代宗教改革學者不單留意宗教改革家與中世紀的非延續性,也留意其與不同的中世紀思潮的延續性。穆勒在研究加爾文神學,特別是研究加爾文思想與改革宗正統派神學的關係上,也採取了類似的方法論。所以,穆勒也將加爾文放在整個中世紀末奧古斯丁學派復興運動中,來審視加爾文思想的獨特性。穆勒也特別留意在加爾文同代的其他改革宗改革家。他重覆地強調,加爾文不是改革宗思想唯一的奠基者,加爾文只是眾多奠基者之一。這個概念深深影響穆勒的方法論,也為我們提供一個研究宗教改革神學與改革宗正統派神學之間的關係的一個重要原則。

 

穆勒論「加爾文與加爾文主義者的關係」

1975以來,關於加爾文與加爾文派的關係的研究就有很多的改變。其中就方法論而言,影響最深的是穆勒的作品。在這以前,大多數作者是以加爾文與加爾文派的不同(Calvin against the Calvinists)作為研究的主要方向。其中一個主流的說法就是加爾文在日內瓦的繼承者伯撒(Theodore Beza)移動了加爾文「聖經式的人文主義」(biblical humanism)和「以基督中心的敬虔」(Christological piety)風格,而走入了高舉亞里士多德式的經院學派(Aristotelian scholasticism)和思辯式的預定論神學(speculative predestinarian theology)等風格。[14]不少以前的學者看正統派神學為「剛硬」或「死」(‘rigid’ or ‘dead’)神學,[15]容易將改革宗正統派神學家特瑞金(Francis Turretin)的《辯駁神學要義》Institutes of Elenctic Theology [16]與加爾文的《基督教要義》對比,也容易用以上兩個名著作為標準來衡量其他改革宗神學的立場。並且,因著《基督教要義》論述式的文體風格(discursive style),再加上翻譯者忽略了不少加爾文有採用的經院哲學的用詞,讀者容易將加爾文的風格與正統派的風格過分二分。

 

從穆勒的博士論文及在1986年經修訂出版的《基督與命令》(Christ and The Decree)開始,穆勒就非常留意加爾文思想與加爾文派神學的互動關係,也極力批判不少自19世紀以來錯誤的研究方法。穆勒提出我們要修正我們對1617世紀正統神學的看法(the “scholastic” or “orthodox” theology of the late sixteenth and seventeenth century)。他強烈反對一些19世紀的學者們史懷哲(Alexander Schweizer)和包爾(Ferdinand Christian Baur)等看法。他們基本認為,改革宗神學的系統的內在核心原則是神的預定論,並且改革宗神學整個體系是可以由預定論推演而成。[17]穆勒也批評赫比(Heinrich Heppe)有名的《改革宗教義合參》一書。[18]他指出赫比將改革宗正統神學家的不同論述按照一個不符合當代次序的方式排列,容易誤導讀者。例如,赫比將加爾文關於預定論的講述放在「神和三一論」的教義中,但實際上加爾文是將這放在救贖論的討論中,放在談論「信心」和「稱義」的範疇中。[19]

 

穆勒兩篇關於「加爾文與加爾文主義者」的文章扭轉了自19世紀以來對改革宗正統派論斷式的描寫。[20]十九世紀歷史神學名家如史懷哲、赫比、阿爾托依茲、韋伯和比薩(Schweizer, Heppe, Althaus, Weber, and Bizer)等看改革宗神學歷史以預定論作為中心教義的演變,作為分析核心。穆勒提出十一個修訂原則。[21]整體來說,有四方面值得留意。首先,穆勒強調我們必須將「方法」與「神學立場」分開。穆勒強調,若果我們細心閱讀中世紀末期、宗教改革時期神學文獻和不同的改革宗正統派神學,我們便非常容易地發現,看重「經院」方式的各種神學文獻是有不同神學結論和立場。因此,我們不能單因為某些神學家採用了較為「經院」式的寫作方法,就輕易地論斷了他們實際的神學立場。第二,不能以一個領袖的著作來衡量整個神學時段的思想。這堙A穆勒特別指出加爾文對改革宗正統派的神學雖然有大的影響力,但實際上在歷史堶惆癡S有完全壓倒性的影響力。因此,一些當代學者單單以加爾文的立場作為標準來衡量改革宗正統派的立場是不恰當的,也不符合歷史,我們太忽略了其他加爾文同代的改革家的影響。第三,我們需要非常謹慎地閱讀一些十九世紀和二十世紀的評論,因為不少這些著作帶著濃厚的神學前設,沒有很客觀地和忠於歷史實況地去閱讀加爾文和改革宗正統派的思想。第四、我們要非常留意釋經傳統的承接性,並且我們必須注意改革宗正統派在釋經上的豐富性和差異性,這樣我們才能更明白自中世紀以來到正統派之間的發展。[22]

 

以預定論為例,穆勒1986年出版的《基督與命令》就突出了他這路線的特色。他不單研究加爾文的預定論,也研究與加爾文同代改革家佈靈爾 (Bullinger)、穆克路思 (Musculus)和威爾米革立的(Vermigli)等思想。他清楚點出這三位改革宗改革家就預定論的探討無論在教義架構上或者小節上都與加爾文有異同的地方,並且他們三人的思想也在不同程度上影響改革宗正統派。[23]也藉著此,他再一次強調「改革宗教會的神學並不是來自獨一的源頭,加爾文的影響是大的,但不是唯一的。」[24]我們必須看這四位改革家的著作作為「改革宗神學的第一批的編纂」。[25]但這只是改革宗神學編纂的開始,他們的思想並不是改革宗神學的終止點,而只是基礎。並且我們不應該看改革宗神學為「加爾文」思想的延續。因此,我們要將加爾文放在在三大神學時段的歷史大潮流中的一部分來研究,只有這樣我們才能清楚他與前人、後人及同代人的異同,也只有這樣我們才能了解他的獨特性和非獨特性。

 

穆勒如何看十六和十七世紀改革宗神學發展的主要框架

穆勒非常強調必須將加爾文和改革宗神學放在他們的歷史處境去明白他們。在他與詹姆斯•伯尼(James E. Bradley)合著關於教會歷史研究方法論的書中,就提出要用一個「整體、同步或有機的模式」(The Integral, Synchronic, or Organic Model)去研究歷史神學。他認為這是最好的方法﹕「教義歷史的研究的最好模式一定是整體性或者有機性的模式,就是用同步的方式去認識基督教核心思想的發展。」[26]穆勒指出,很多時候教義的發展並不如有些學者所認為的,是單單因為教義內部邏輯的推展,或是因為任何人物的性格而造成。事實上,教義的發展深受當代社會關懷、政治和有關團體之間的互動影響。唯有進入複雜的歷史脈搏中,我們才能真正了解為什麼這些思想是如何形成的。[27]

 

因此,針對如何為改革宗正統派定位的問題,穆勒批判不少學者忽略了不同神學時段的歷史處境和他們有不同的歷史責任。他特別批判那種過分以改革家是有動力的講道的樣板,用以批判更正教正統派固守成規的講法。穆勒指出建立系統信仰是很自然和必然的發展。[28]穆勒強調建立全備的系統信仰是關乎當代更正教能否繼續生存的一個關鍵,因為,「改革家沒有為後代提供一個全備的神學系統。」[29]這也是承接一個自中世紀以來發展中的奧古斯丁神學。所以從中世紀末期,到宗教改革,再發展到改革宗正統派,這埵釩雃h的延續性和不少的發展。要清楚這三大神學段落的關係,我們必須注意其中的延續性和非延續性。[30]

 

要了解穆勒對這三大神學段落的關係的看法,和更深了解不同議題中加爾文與改革宗正統派神學之間的關係,我們必須閱讀穆勒於2003年完成的《宗教改革後的改革宗教義》Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725的四部巨著。[31] 史懷哲(Schweizer)曾在1844年和1847年出版了兩冊,共1255頁,一個關乎改革宗神學家的巨著。[32]但這巨著因史懷哲過分高舉士來馬赫思想的影響,扭曲了不少地方,評論並不持平。而相對之下,穆勒這巨著有四冊共2163頁,無論詳細度,在研究的分量上,都遠超越史懷哲。再加上穆勒有名的巨細無遺的注腳和書目和詳細分析,《宗教改革後的改革宗教義》將會是每一個研究「改革宗神學」,特別是改革宗正統派神學必讀之書,也必然是以後任何關注改革宗神學的研究員一套詳細的導讀本和參考書。[33]穆勒以前博士論文導師思達馬斯這樣評論﹕「所有將來研究更正教神學歷史(從1550年到1800年)的著作將必須要留意穆勒的研究。」維真學院的海姆(Paul Helm)強調﹕「學術界將永遠欠了他的債。」[34]這本書自1987年出版第一冊,到2003年再整套出版其修訂本,可說是穆勒接近二十年學術的心血成就,也將在歷史上奠定了他作為「改革宗正統派神學大師」的歷史位份。

 

在這巨著中,穆勒將改革宗神學自宗教改革到約1800年分為四個大時段﹕宗教改革時期的改革宗神學(1523-1564)、早期正統派(Early Orthodoxy)(1565-1640)、正統派高峰期(High Orthodoxy)(1640-1725)、正統派晚期(Late Orthodoxy)(1725之後)[35]首先,穆勒將「宗教改革時期的改革宗神學(1523-1564)」分成兩代。他看慈運理、布塞珥和厄科籃巴丟(Oecolampadius)為第一代的改革宗改革家(a first generation of Reformers),而加爾文、佈靈爾、穆克路思和威爾米革立等為第二代的編纂家(a second generation of codifiers)[36]對這兩代的改革家來說,我們也不能忽略了路德和墨蘭頓對他們的影響。因此,籠統來說,穆勒強調,第二代的編纂家是在「路德、布塞珥和慈運理」等著作的基礎上建立和發展他們的思想﹕「他們作為編纂家,是建立改革宗神學的系統性框架的第一批重要的塑造者」。[37]在第二代的編纂家中他們對中世紀神學的承繼有不同的側重,穆勒指出若果我們說加爾文和佈靈爾有力地將教父思想帶入改革宗神學的體系,那麼穆克路思和威爾米革立分別將蘇格徒式(Scotist)和多瑪式(Thomist)的中世紀神學系統帶入改革宗神學系統。[38]因此,當改革宗正統派對中世紀神學採取比某些改革家更開放的態度,他們有穆克路思和威爾米革立這些重要的前輩為開路先鋒。

 

關於早期正統派,穆勒分兩個時段﹕第一,是從15651618年;第二、是從16191640年。第一時段的開始時,大部分第二代的編纂家都已過身。第一時段的結束是多特會議(Synod of Dort)為記號。第二時段的結束接近三十年戰爭(Thirty Years War [1618-1648])的末期。穆勒提醒我們從宗教改革演進到早期正統派,我們必須留意時代的大不同,正規和有系統的教導神學變成這個時代一個主要關注﹕「更正教神學不再像以前的任務,不再是要改革一個教會而是要建立和保護教會。神學本身越來越是學校的產品。」[39]因此,教導的文獻漸漸與講道的文獻和教導敬虔的文獻分家。因此,我們會發現這時代學院式的神學文獻越來越「學院派」。為了更正教信仰的延續,改革宗正統派必須建立全備和有系統的教導,他們不單要斥責錯誤思想,也需要建立正面的教導。值得留意的是不少教義如三一論、神論和基督論等都不是改革家與羅馬教廷爭辯所在,但作為教導的學校和正面建立教牧領袖的需要,後代的正統派必須重建這些方面的教導。也因為如此,他們自然地參考中世紀那些正統思想和討論。

 

正統派高峰期也分為兩個時段。頭一段時間從1640-1680年,後一階段是1685-1725年。首先,我們必須留意笛卡兒(Descartes, 15961650)思想的影響和沖擊。為了回應理性主義對信仰的沖擊,正統派高峰期的著作就越來越仔細。此外,若果我們說,早期正統派主要的對手是羅馬教廷,在神學領域上特別是針對貝拉明樞機主教(Bellarmine, 1541-1621),那段時期受沖擊的神學教義也較少。但到正統派高峰期,隨著索西奴派(Socinianism)的持續發展,還有受到抗辯派(Remonstrant)的沖擊,正統派高峰期要回應的神學議題是全方位的。因此,當我們發現正統派高峰期的文獻在辯論中非常詳細,我們必須了解他們時代的需要。[40]穆勒也指出,雖然特瑞金(Francis Turretin, 1623-87)極負盛名,但他沒有主導整個十七世紀改革宗神學,正如加爾文沒有完全主導早期改革宗神學。[41]

 

正統派晚期則較難定位。他們開始受到時代的影響和挑戰,開始離開傳統的釋經結果。正統派晚期之開始可以說深受「過渡神學」(Transitional Theology)影響。十八世紀展開的歷史批判學開始沖擊這段時期的神學家。[42]當然,我們不能說他們對傳統基督教沒有興趣。理性主義哲學慢慢看自己為眾科學之皇后,神學作為一個系統,作為眾科學之皇后的位置就慢慢式微,隨之而來的是更正教正統派的結束。[43]

 

針對整體正統派的分析,穆勒在這四冊巨著的總結中提出幾個重點。[44]首先,穆勒強調「加爾文思想必須在他的同代人的處境中去閱讀他。」而「改革宗思想的歷史,必須是往前看,而不是往後看,同時我們要敏銳很多不同的作者有很不同的歷史場景。」我們敏銳改革宗思想的發展性,不能以某改革家思想為整個發展的終極,而忽略了整個發展的需要和合理性。[45]第二,就宗教改革家和正統派與中世紀神學的關係,穆勒要我們注意到改革家非常強調自己的「大公教會性」(catholicity)。所以,我們不能被某些神學家的風格,或者他如何看應該採用中世紀正統神學主導了我們對正統派採用中世紀神學的評價。第三,我們要留意改革宗正統派的寬度和多元性。所以,穆勒重覆地否定以「加爾文一人」作為改革宗改革時代的「標準」,或者用伯撒或者特瑞金為正統派某一大時段的標準這些做法。穆勒強調改革宗神學的立場應該是被主要的改革宗認信來規劃,而不是有個別神學家,個別神學家的神學文獻規劃。所以,我們也要分開在認信之內的分歧,和在認信之外的不同。[46]最後,穆勒強調改革宗正統派並不是「枯乾」或者「剛硬」(dry or rigid)的系統,而剛剛相反,正統派是一個植根於他們時代和文化「一個活潑和有多元性的運動」(a living and variegated movement)[47]

 

改革宗正統派與經院哲學

穆勒非常肯定正統派的貢獻。他指出,若沒有正統派的努力,改革家的努力將不能帶給後世持續的影響。[48]穆勒的研究中一個核心觀念就是要提醒讀者不要將「方法」與「立場」混在一起。他多次提醒讀者改革宗正統派有一個重要的歷史責任,就是要教導全備的神學,並且要回應他們當代的需要,因此,他們必須在改革家的基礎下繼續發展各種神學研究。也因為他們如同改革家持守教會的大公性,因此,他們也漸漸採用中世紀一些合乎真理的神學探討。因此,不要以為他們在教學的風格下強調經院式的寫作方式,就是等於他們放棄了宗教改革家那種敬虔生命和看重聖經立場的原則。

 

穆勒多次強調在改革宗早期正統派時,改革宗信徒看自己是基督信仰的正統信仰的持守者。他們不單持守那些與羅馬教廷不同的立場,也持守歷代公認的立場,而不少這些立場是與羅馬教廷沒有什麼沖突。其中,包括三一論,基督論等立場。作為基督教大學要培育他們的領袖的需要,他們需要建立全備的教導和一個有系統的教學方法。他們採納了由墨蘭頓修訂的雅其科拉(Agricolan)式的方法來為他們的神學系統提供架構。這艾戈倫式的方法就顯露在不同神學用《普通要點》的著作方式來述說改革宗的神學立場。

 

穆勒提出一個一些學者們常犯的錯誤二分法。他們常常看宗教改革家的神學為「聖經和釋經式的神學」(biblical and exegetical theology),而正統派的神學為「高度教義性和理性的神學」(a highly dogmatic and rational theology)。他們認為正統派忽略了釋經的問題。穆勒鄭重地指出我們必須完全脫離這假像。他們也一樣高舉聖經,也看唯獨聖經為他們教義的基礎。

 

關於「經院學派」(scholasticism or scholastic)一詞,穆勒提出五個相關的定義。一、是關乎在學院中辯論的次序和排列;二、將文體以論點或問題的方式列明;三、定明辯論的論點或問題;四、提出一些針對性的問題;五、提出解釋,並辯駁那些批判意見。[49]因此,經院學派只是關乎辯論的方式,並不是維護某種哲學或者神學立場。穆勒有力地指出,改革宗正統派,正如中世紀有不少神學家一樣,他們有不同的立場,但他們有類同的寫作文體方式。因此,穆勒重覆地提醒我們文體方式並不主導最後得出的神學立場。[50]

 

 

B. 研讀加爾文思想的幾個核心觀念

 

在加爾文的歷史處境下研究加爾文

穆勒的核心方法論就是提醒讀者要在加爾文歷史處境下去研究加爾文,這樣我們才能認識真正的加爾文。自穆勒1976年博士論文開始,穆勒就非常注重將加爾文神學和改革宗神學放在他們的歷史處境來研究。在這之前,加爾文神學被不同方法路線所主導,不少研究忽略了從加爾文的歷史處境去研究加爾文思想。在1976年,歐伯曼在 “Calvin’s Critique of Calvinism” (加爾文對加爾文主義的批判)的一文中,曾提出研究加爾文神學有六大路線: “The Classical Interpretation” 典範的角度、“The Confessional Interpretation” 認信的角度、“The Neo-orthodox School” 新正統學派的角度、“The Dutch School” 荷蘭改革宗學派的角度、“The Anti-Orthodox Interpretation” 反正統的角度和“The Historical School”歷史學派的角度。[51]但這些路線大多忽略了從歷史處境去研究加爾文。

 

在《不妥協的加爾文》一書中,穆勒清楚列明他的目標﹕「這是我的希望,在這書中強調按照它們十六世紀的歷史場景去研究加爾文思想的重要性,並作為離開以教義式讀入加爾文的運動之一,去肯定理解加爾文本身的方法和次序是認識他的思想一個重要的起步點。」[52]穆勒是一個很注重一手資料的歷史研究家。他深深明白要重構歷史是複雜性和困難,其中包括不同的解釋系統和翻譯所延伸的誤解等,但他強調﹕「加爾文自己的文本本身和那些清楚聲明,就是加爾文關於他的著作的性質、內容、方法和安排的聲明仍然存在給我們研究。同時那埵酗憟說A那奡N有希望。」[53]因此,認真按照歷史處境去閱讀加爾文著作是研究加爾文思想第一個核心方法論。

 

不能帶著近代神學框架來閱讀加爾文

穆勒在《不妥協的加爾文》的書名「不妥協」(Unaccommodated)一詞突顯他的一個核心原則﹕就是不能以讀者的神學前設去閱讀歷史文獻。他在不同地方大大批判十九世紀以來帶著厚厚的讀者的神學眼鏡來讀加爾文的做法。穆勒指出這一代的研究必須脫離了上一代「巴特式的加爾文」(Barthian studies of Calvin )研究進路,或者「新正統派」進路。這一代批判了上一代那種容易用研究員自己的神學框架讀入資料堛犒端。穆勒也批判一些「士來馬赫」式、智慧式或者心理學派式的研究方法,這些研究更關心自己二十世紀的議題,而容易缺乏客觀的神學分析。

 

在具體針對加爾文研究的方法論中,穆勒在《不妥協的加爾文》的第一章<一個研究加爾文的進路﹕勝過現代的妥協>(An Approach to Calvin: On Overcoming Modern Accommodations)的標題中開門見山地檢閱和批判不少現代加爾文研究方法論的問題。首先,穆勒指出現代學者對加爾文《基督教要義》的定位有很不同的立場。有些看《基督教要義》不是一個神學系統,而是敬虔神學、修辭神學、敬虔的修辭、教牧神學等,但有些則仍然看它為神學系統。也有些看加爾文作為一個人文主義者的修辭家批判中世紀末的經院神學各種形態,但也有看加爾文延續某些經院神學的脈搏。有些看加爾文的神學建基在神的永恆旨意的這個中心原則上,或建基在神的主權,或建基在三位一體的教義上,或他的思想是基督中心式。也有些看加爾文是吊詭式的,包含不是敵對的立場,沒有中心原則。也有學者指出我們不應該稱呼加爾文為「盟約神學家」,因為他單向的盟約觀是與布靈慈的雙向盟約觀不同,但也有學者認為加爾文高舉盟約神學,也教導雙向盟約觀。[54]在這些議論紛紛的立場堶情A穆勒認為這些不同更多是反應現代學者們自己的關懷,多於加爾文自己十六世紀的思想。有不少的學者是希望在加爾文中找到他們十九和二十世紀神學的歷史盟友。因此,穆勒再一次聲明他的原則﹕「歷史中的加爾文是不應該,也最後不能因為現代神學計劃而被妥協被容納,而不會對其本身的原意和意思產生扭曲。」[55]穆勒勉勵我們,若果要好好使用和珍惜加爾文的論述,我們首先要正確地認識他。

 

加爾文是第二代的宗教改革家

要認識加爾文的歷史處境,我們首先要知道他是「第二代的宗教改革家」,並且是第二代中其中一個領袖。在介紹加爾文等著作時,穆勒首先強調﹕「我們來的改革宗系統發展中第二階段。」[56]穆勒這個提醒是值得我們深思的,也與不少重要的加爾文研究家的意見相符。加爾文被公認為第二代的改革家中最重要的人物。[57]歷史神學名家瑟伯爾(Reinhold Seeberg)在討論加爾文思想是首先強調﹕「要能真正欣賞加爾文,我們必須首先了解到,加爾文是第二代的宗教改革家。」[58]高蘇(E. H. Klotsche)在研究「加爾文神學和他在教義歷史的地位」的文章中的第一句是「加爾文屬於第二代的改革家」。[59]加爾文這個位份是非常重要的,所以穆勒常常以「編纂者」(codifier)這身份去形容他和其他第二代的改革家。所以,當我們研讀加爾文思想時,我們必須留意在宗教改革早期雷同的思想有沒有出現,若有的話,加爾文就不是創新,就只是承傳。

 

加爾文不是改革宗神學唯一的奠基者

穆勒的研究其中一個核心思想,就是要指出加爾文並不是改革宗認信的唯一奠基者。[60]除了加爾文的《基督教要義》外,宗教改革第二代的主要的神學典籍包括墨蘭頓的《普通要點》(Philip Melanchthon’s Loci communes),佈靈爾的《十論》(Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades),穆克路思的《普通要點》(Wolfgang Musculus’s Loci communes)和威爾米革立的《普通要點》(Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Loci communes)。其中特別是墨蘭頓的《普通要點》有好幾個版本,其中1521年版本和1535/36版本對加爾文的方法論有極大影響。

 

事實上,改革宗其中一個聯合認信《蒂古里諾協議》(Consensus Tigurinus)是日內瓦和蘇黎世協議而成的。其他改革宗主要認識也不是由加爾文主導的,因此不應該以加爾文思想為改革宗思想的唯一核心,也不應該以加爾文思想為評論改革宗正統派思想的量度標準。[61]穆勒指出改革宗在宗教改革第二代有影響力的奠基者不單止有加爾文,也包括佈靈爾、穆克路思、威爾米革立和哈泊理士(Hyperius)。因此,改革宗某些多元性是自加爾文那一代開始已經有的。

 

早期的加爾文是路德一派的晚輩

近代研究加爾文思想的人,容易將加爾文思想和路德思想看成兩個系統。這種看法是受到信義宗思想和改革宗思想兩者隨著十六世紀末和十七世紀的分歧而慢慢分家的歷史現實影響。但若果按照歷史的發展,和加爾文思想的發展,我們必須留意到加爾文與路德之間微妙的關係。穆勒提醒我們加爾文等第二代的改革家在發展他們的系統時,是建基在第一代的改革家路德、墨蘭頓、布塞珥(Martin Bucer)慈運理等的著作上。[62]研究加爾文與第一代改革家的關係是解開加爾文思想的一個主要關鍵。這一點特別對不深究加爾文時代背景的研究員更需要注意的關鍵,因為在不少加爾文的文獻堙A包括《基督教要義》,加爾文沒有明確地將宗教改革的歷史背景對他思想的影響點明出來。傑日殊(B. A. Gerrish) 用很淺白的用語點出其中的關鍵﹕

一個對《基督教要義》粗讀的讀者,若不能很精明地看到加爾文不點名的參考對象或者不點名的對手,很容易以為加爾文從來沒有聽過路德。因為在加爾文這系統著作中充斥著很多聖經、早期教父、經院哲學和古典作者的引述,但從未直接引用偉大的德國改革家。[63]

加爾文在《基督教要義》不引用路德,並不是說他不知道路德,或者沒有受到路德影響,而只是因為路德不是當代接納的權威。因此,加爾文只引用相關的權威

聖經和教父等。就這點溫杜(François Wendel)說得好﹕「我們千萬不能忘記,當加爾文閱讀聖經時,他不是一個沒前設的科學家;相反,他是一個閱讀聖奧古斯丁和路德的神學家。他努力地在聖經中找尋認同他立場的支持。」[64]就加爾文與路德的關係,傑日殊提醒我們「最重要的資料」去明白「加爾文對馬丁路德最重要的評語」是「加爾文的書信和其他較為短小神學文獻」。[65]在加爾文1543年回駁皮基烏斯(Pighius)的文獻中,加爾文甚至聲稱自己是「路德一派」的,而且他與墨蘭頓等是維護「共同立場」(the common cause)的。[66]加爾文看路德在1517年開始的改革努力是他現今承接的和維護的﹕「我們在過去二十五年所追求的,就是整個抗爭最後的結束不是落在人手中,而是讓基督和使徒宣講的道理得勝。」[67]因此,我們必須留意特別在加爾文事奉的早期,他在不少改革的立場上看自己是路德一派的,支持路德等第一代改革家是他其中一個關注。因此,若我們能詳細比較加爾文和路德的異同,我們更能了解加爾文獨特的貢獻性。

 

加爾文的神學受奧古斯丁和中世紀奧古斯丁神學的影響

加爾文深受奧古斯丁影響是任何詳細閱讀加爾文著作的讀者共有的體會。沙普(Larry D. Sharp)指出﹕「在聖經以外,奧古斯丁是加爾文最主要的資料來源。」[68]但穆勒如何不少了解加爾文歷史處境的神學家一樣看加爾文和改革宗神學為一種「奧古斯丁神學」的演進。[69]因此,他也將加爾文的思想放在奧古斯丁神學研究這歷史洪流中去分析。當談論加爾文的預定論時,穆勒首先指出﹕「加爾文是那長線的思想家的一部分,就是那些將他們預定論的教義建基在奧古斯丁式對聖保羅思想的分析上。」[70]穆勒也高度批判那些將預定論的教導等同於「加爾文的預定論」,好像是加爾文創立了一個新的預定論神學。事實上,在加爾文之前,我們可以在第一代的改革家包括布塞珥(Martin Bucer)和慈運理(Zwingli)等著作中發現。加爾文其中一個分歧點是他將人的墮落納入神的永恆旨意堶情C[71]穆勒也提醒我們加爾文是將預定論放在救恩論的框架下討論的,並且與人的無能力和人必須依賴神的白白的恩典有密切關係。此外,很多讀者忽略加爾文有採用中世紀神學流行的亞里士多德式的四重因果式的講法和中世紀兩種必然性的澄清。這顯示出加爾文不單採納奧古斯丁的概念,也深受中世紀的奧古斯丁主義影響。[72]所以,我們不能忘記加爾文既受到奧古斯丁文獻直接影響,也受到一些中世紀經院哲學以來發展的奧古斯丁神學影響。[73]

 

以研究預定論為例,穆勒首先將加爾文放在按照奧古斯丁路線分析保羅思想的歷史洪流中﹕「約翰加爾文是那長長系列的思想家中的一部分,那些將他們預定論的教義建基於以奧古斯丁學派角度來解釋聖保羅思想。」[74]因此,我們不能忽略加爾文在談論預定論時非常注重其與救贖有關的課題。預定論是與我們無力自救和神的恩典的必須性有密切的關係。所以「人的無能和人必須依賴神藉著基督帶著主權的恩典來得到救恩是加爾文預定論觀念的兩個基礎。」[75]若我們不詳細了解奧古斯丁神學的發展,而隨意以為某些立場是加爾文創建的,我們只顯露我們的無知,而忽略了加爾文可能只是維護一些大公教會的立場吧了。

 

加爾文可能藉著中世紀後期的釋經學家影響

穆勒其中一個核心觀念是相信加爾文是大量參考中世紀末的釋經大師。他更相信加爾文從這些釋經大師中學習到不少中世紀的神學框架和思想。穆勒叫我們特別留意中世紀末的釋經學家里拉的尼哥拉(Nicholas of Lyra)和嘉都西修士丹尼斯(Denis the Carthusian) ,並且他發現加爾文部分釋經的洞見是直接或者間接從那堥茠滿C因此,當我們在《基督教要義》中看到加爾文對某些經院神學的批評時,我們不能假設加爾文否定整個中世紀神學。穆勒提醒我們,我們不能以為中世紀神學是鐵板一塊的。當我們忽略了中世紀神學有不同的立場,和微妙的異同時,我們容易簡單以為加爾文的神學是獨創的,是一種人文主義式,宗教改革式的加爾文神學,一種與黑暗、暗昧、迷信和經院式的中世紀神學敵對的神學。因此,當他們發現加爾文的講論中帶著一些「亞里士多德式」的哲學觀念時,他們容易看這就是加爾文矛盾之處。[76]

 

加爾文對中世紀神學的認識和接納度有發展性

就加爾文與經院哲學的關係,穆勒也有詳細的論述。首先穆勒指出「經院主義式」(scholastic)一詞在十六世紀改革家的文獻中有兩個含義。一、是針對一些學院派的神學。在這種應用時,常是帶著非常負面的評語,認為他們這些乾燥乏味的表達和內容是不適合基督徒採用的。二、較為中性的說法。看此為學校受訓模式。

穆勒也發現加爾文就經院哲學的了解有發展性,對其批判也有分類的必要。穆勒認同甘魯斯(Ganoczy)的看法,在1536年前加爾文顯露其對經院神學的了解非常薄弱。穆勒認為加爾文在1536年後一定有閱讀經院神學,並且推測他對經院神學的了解大多不是直接從他們的神學著作中得來的,而是從里拉的尼哥拉和丹尼斯等中世紀末的釋經書中有關的談論中學習的。但整體上,穆勒認為加爾文對經院哲學家的神學了解並不全面,也不深厚。[77]因此,他提醒讀者不要過分依賴加爾文對經院哲學家的評論。穆勒認為加爾文對「經院哲學家」(scholastics)的批判主要是針對索邦的神學家(the doctors of the Sorbonne),就是在巴黎大學捍衛羅馬教廷的一批神學家。[78]在他後期的《基督教要義》修訂和其他著作,加爾文較能將較合大公傳統的中世紀神學家與索邦神學家分開。他稱倫巴都(Lombard)和其他為「較為清醒的經院哲學家」(the more sound scholastics)。他也甚少直接批判Bonaventure, Aquinas, or Duns Scotus等,而是集中批判巴黎的索邦的神學家。[79]所以我們不要輕易地說加爾文否定一切經院哲學。[80]正如他在討論信心時,也採用中世紀流行的 「認同」assensum,” 「知識」notitia,” 「信靠」fiducia等經院哲學用詞。[81]

 

C. 如何閱讀《基督教要義》

 

《基督教要義》是十六世紀的神學系統

穆勒對加爾文神學的研究的一大貢獻是提醒我們必須留意《基督教要義》是十六世紀的文獻,而不是某些十九世紀或二十世紀學者所希冀的現代系統神學文體。因此,我們必須按照加爾文的設計和十六世紀的方法論去認識《基督教要義》。穆勒重覆地強調,不能以一些核心教義來推展整個加爾文的教導。他語重心長地引用帕爾克(T. H. L. Parker)六十多年前的文章來指出,加爾文是要提供一個全面而有次序的教導,一個完全建基在聖經解釋上的教導,但這是「完全不同於從一個基礎概念發展出整個神學系統」的方式。[82] 這種方法傾向在加爾文不同的著作中找尋與研究者目標相符的文本和字眼。他們容易得出一些結論和神學結構是加爾文本身沒有清楚論述的。也容易忽略加爾文在《基督教要義》和其他著作中的微妙差異性。這種教義式的讀入,穆勒稱之為「巴特式的閱讀」(the Barthian reading of the Reformer)。他們很少以《基督教要義》作為十六世紀的文體來閱讀加爾文的思想,他們忽略了十六世紀的神學系統的形態是與二十世紀等某些巴特式的神學系統形態有極大的差異。

 

要從十六世紀的處境去閱讀加爾文,穆勒提出我們首先要明白十六世紀的神學家如何看神學系統,而他們大多是從一種聖經解釋的角度來建設他們的神學系統。因此,穆勒提醒我們不要看加爾文如同我們看一些現代的神學家一般。加爾文與不少現代神學家異同的地方就是他首先看自己是一個解釋聖經者﹕「加爾文,最終,沒有看自己作為一個教義神學家,如同一些現代的看法,反之,正如大多數他同代的神學家,加爾文看自己是傳道者和釋經者,並且他看自己生命首要的工作就是解釋聖經。」[83]穆勒提醒我們,加爾文的經卷講章的長度,有些如約伯記和申命記,是與《基督教要義》一樣長,甚至更長。

 

加爾文建立的神學系統是一種十六世紀的神學系統,是一種將不少神學議題和爭論拼合而成的系統(a fairly cohesive set of theological topics and disputations)[84]這是作為他的神學學生閱讀聖經的指引。穆勒其中一個主要論點是加爾文深受墨蘭頓創建的《普通要點》的方法影響。而這種方法在當代非常流行,我們可以在墨蘭頓、穆克路思和哈泊理士中找到,也可以在經過馬桑尼沃(Massonius)修訂的威爾米革立神學中找到。

 

我們要留意的是加爾文並沒有克意要建立自己神學系統的打算。當代的神學家大多沒有這種動機。他們主要的關懷是他們的立場是否屬於聖經,是否屬於一個非常傳統、合伙聖經的主流認信中。所以加爾文大多會反對用「加爾文的教義」來描述他的立場。事實上,當當代神學家批判加爾文時,他們大多支持加爾文那些特色之處,因為就是在這些不同之處,他們認為加爾文可能離開聖經原意,或者他們接納的認信傳統。用一個現代的用語,我們要留意的是加爾文是一個教會中的神學家,一個聖經神學家,而不是一個獨立思考的神學家。穆勒強調﹕「加爾文的目的是要教導教會的教義,而不是他自己的教義。」[85]所以當我們研究加爾文時,不要首先以為很多他的立場都是他獨創的,我們更應該留意多少,或者大部分是他與歷代主要神學家,與他前輩改革家相同的地方。他的創見和貢獻可能不再新的立場,而在如何表達這立場上。他將聖經的教導溶合教父和中世紀的立場一起整理,也使用有些文藝復興的修辭表達方式,為這些固有的立場提供有力的解說、辯護和微細的修訂。此外,我們必須知道大部分十六世紀的神學家不以個人關懷成為他們神學論述的一個主要關懷。在這方面,穆勒指出我們必須看路德是一個例外的例子。[86]因此,當我們不能在加爾文的著作中尋找到關於他個人的論述,我們不應該驚訝。因為他大部分的著作是為教會而寫的,是為了建立教會改革教會而寫,因此他自然地不多談自己。

 

穆勒這方面的注重,與他提到的思達馬斯、舒拿、湯臣、蘭恩和米勒等(Steinmetz, Schreiner, Thompson, Lane, and Millet)學者的立場相近。[87]穆勒提醒我們,我們不能以為在《基督教要義》中,加爾文已教導了一切他的立場。相反,我們必須一拼閱讀《基督教要義》與他的《釋經書》才能得到加爾文全面的思想,並且我們要留意《基督教要義》多少有點導讀的作用,並不是全備的神學手冊。[88]穆勒也要求我們留意加爾文的講章,因為他發現在加爾文講章中,加爾文顯露不少立場和特色是他在其他文體沒有顯露的。

 

將加爾文與同代另外一位改革家穆克路思作比較,就更能顯出加爾文的特色和貢獻。穆克路思的《神學普通要點》Loci communes theologici (1560)是晚年時候將他以前在不同的釋經地方詳細談論的「要點」討論加以整合。穆克路思持久地在他的釋經書中有「要點」討論,直到他事奉末年前但從沒有有一個一整套的神學要點討論。因為,穆克路思沒有事先整套的計劃,因此他最後的《神學普通要點》並不全備,有些題目有詳細的討論,有些則非常簡略。穆勒強調加爾文在1540年《羅馬書釋經》中強調的「簡約」(brevitas)和「流暢」(facilitas)的原則[89],可說就是針對穆克路思這類的方法。與穆克路思不同之處是加爾文從起初就有一個整套的藍圖,因此他一生的釋經努力能不斷豐富他這套神學系統的講論。穆勒這點的觀測非常獨到,也能清楚點出加爾文真是一個有系統、有計劃的神學家。從他年幼時,已經能有一個很好的方法論和藍圖。這個早期已有的方法論和藍圖大大幫助了加爾文能集中和精用他的努力,幫助他成為一代神學巨師。

 

加爾文如何看《基督教要義》的功用和與他的釋經努力的關係

加爾文看重一種簡易和清晰的表達,也注重將討論的議題按照正確的次序來討論。從1539年拉丁文《基督教要義》版本的序言、1541-1557年的法文版本的講論序言和1540年《羅馬書注釋》的序言中我們可以得知加爾文一個終身持守的釋經和神學計劃。[90]其中,加爾文自他1532《論仁慈》的著作中的序言就提出他兩個重要關懷。他看重「合宜的表達和正確的次序」(proper dispositio and right ordo or via)[91] Strasbourg時,加爾文打算編輯約翰.金口(John Chrysostom)的講章,並為此寫了一個序言。其中他帶出一個他一生的目標,就是「為能向不熟練和未受教育的人士提供路徑去閱讀聖經」。[92]

 

加爾文在他1539年《基督教要義》和1540年《羅馬書釋經》的序言中列明了他選擇的方法論,也列明了他一生寫作計劃的藍圖。他清楚將《基督教要義》的功用和《釋經》書的功用分開。他批判了布塞珥(Bucer)和佈靈爾(Bullinger)釋經的風格,認為他們將神學要點(loci)的論述與經文解釋放在一起,使到不同的釋經書中的要點論述有不少重覆性,也不簡潔。他也批判墨蘭頓只注重神學要點論述,而忽略了經文解釋。因此,他提出他將所有神學要點論述放在《基督教要義》,而在《釋經》書中,他只作經文解釋。這樣,他相信就不會有重覆的論述,文體也較為簡潔。我們必須留意當代的釋經書,包括中世紀末的釋經書,常常包括兩個部分﹕針對相關的神學議題的神學要點論述(dogmatic disputations),和就經文本身簡單的釋經解釋(running exposition)。因此,我們必須留意到加爾文這個分工。加爾文修訂了前人的釋經的文體風格,而將他們的努力一分為二。關於神學議題、神學要點的論述,他通通放在《基督教要義》裡面,因此,他便能省卻了要為每一聖經書卷都重新做一次相關的神學論述。而在書卷的釋經上,他只集中在解釋經文內容,關於與經文有關的神學詳細論述,他常引導他的讀者參閱他的《基督教要義》。[93]

 

穆勒補充了帕爾克等立場,認為加爾文在《基督教要義》的序言不單提醒我們要留意他的釋經書,穆勒更強調這可以解釋為什麼不少重要的神學課題,加爾文沒有在《基督教要義》談論,而卻在他的釋經書和講章中詳細談及。[94]所以,他特別留意在加爾文這兩類的文獻中有很重要的互動﹕「釋經書常常為《要義》的一些段落提供亮光,有時候更提出為什麼某些題目在《要義》中為什麼要用某種方式來辯論;有時候,當某些議題在《要義》中已經有較為詳細的解釋,而釋經書關於這些相關的段落是以後才寫,釋經書就明白地叫讀者從《要義》參考這些已經詳細的論述。」[95]

 

我們要注意《基督教要義》的十六世紀的辯論和修辭文體

穆勒提醒我們,我們不能用二十世紀的翻譯版本來深入研究加爾文思想的原意,因為他們在翻譯時,忽略了一些十六世紀重要的辯論和修辭用法,也忽略了那時代的文體框架。以英文的《基督教要義》為例,穆勒多次提出麥克尼爾(John T. McNeill)編輯、柏濤斯(Ford Lewis Battles)1960年出版的經典英文版本中,在注腳的地方提供不少的資料容易有誤導性。此外,他們分段和翻譯也忽略了不少加爾文使用的專業名詞,容易讓讀者忽略了加爾文十六世紀的本身的風格、哲學用詞和針對的對象。在《基督教要義》中,加爾文也有一些經院學派的形式。例如,加爾文的講論也可分成「立場」、「反對意見」和「解釋」。[96]這種方式與中世紀的方式有所類似。就此,穆勒特別批判現代《基督教要義》編者,包括德語的Otto Weber和英語的John T. McNeillFord Lewis Battles。穆勒指出他們過分強調《基督教要義》說話式的文體,而忽略了文本中不少修辭上的格式,包括「立場」、「反對意見」和「解釋」等。他們忽略了加爾文一種以說話式的辯論風格,強化了讀者以為加爾文與經院學派風格的距離。

 

只有從十六世紀的風格中,我們才能明白《基督教要義》是如何一種有系統的神學。波斯馬(Bouwsma)曾引用底倫巴格(Dillenberger)的看法,認為加爾文是「最不系統的系統神學家」,反而是一個「聖經學家」,並認為《基督教要義》完全沒有我們現代所謂的「系統」在裡面。[97]穆勒提醒我們「系統」或者「系統神學」這詞並不是十二世紀到十六世紀的用詞。所以當不同學者理解這詞時,當他們有不同的定義,他們可能就有不同的立場。相對波斯馬,一些較舊而有分量的加爾文研究者,包括溫德爾(Wendel)、杜馬格(Doumergue)和瑟伯爾(Seeberg)等,則認為加爾文是一個系統神學家或者教義神學家,而《基督教要義》是有系統的。[98]穆勒指出1536版本和1539版本的《基督教要義》的名稱有改變,這改變顯示出加爾文看此書真正成為一本十六世紀的有系統的神學,1536較為像教義要理的手冊,而1539年開始更像一本神學教科書。[99]針對《基督教要義》的名稱中拉丁Institutio這詞,穆勒指出這詞在當代的使用中有兩層含義﹕「可指向基本教導,也可以是指一個較有深度和發展的著作。」[100]穆勒特別引導我們留意加爾文在1539年的序言,他特別點出一些拉丁文的用詞。[101]穆勒特別讓我們注意loci communesdisputationes這兩個觀念。[102]「普通題目」或者「普通要點」loci communes這詞提醒我們,加爾文正如墨蘭頓等一樣關注教義的編排次序。[103]1559年的序言中,加爾文提出一個很重要的觀念﹕「我不僅對第二版有此努力,即對以後所刊行各版,也同樣加以豐富和補充。我對過去的努力雖無後悔,但亦不會滿意,一直到了本修訂版按照現今次序排列(arranged in the order now set forth),心始滿足。」[104]穆勒認為《基督教要義》基本上一系列的「普通要點」和「辯論點」。穆勒留意到disputatio這詞在《基督教要義》中不斷出現。穆勒也強調「宗教摘要」summa religionis一詞。他認為這詞顯露出《基督教要義》並不是期望教導一切真理。穆勒更進一步強調﹕「《基督教要義》常常顯露它依賴釋經書的思想,而不是釋經書依賴《基督教要義》。」[105]

 

《基督教要義》的架構及羅馬書的「要點」次序

我們必須知道加爾文的論述次序深受羅馬書的論述次序影響。遠早於1535年當加爾文為奧理維坦(Olivetan)的法語新約聖經寫序言時,在這篇<寫給所有愛耶穌基督的信>的短文中[106],加爾文清楚引用的經文都是出於羅馬書,並且這文章「可以說是按照羅馬書的論述次序,從普通啟示和罪的問題,到歷史上關乎救恩的應許和選民的得救。[107]因此,當我們談論加爾文的神學系統,他的系統不是一個用邏輯發展的次序系統,而是按照使徒信經、按照羅馬書的要點等次序,而發展出的有次序的神學論述。正因如此,穆勒相信加爾文1539年的《基督教要義》是深受墨蘭頓1536年的《普通神學要點》(Loci communes theologici)一書的架構影響。墨蘭頓的次序也深受羅馬書的次序影響。

 

因此,《基督教要義》的內容被它幾方面的關注所影響﹕使徒信經、十誡、主禱文、因著釋經要點和神學爭論而增加的篇幅,再加上羅馬書的次序等。因此,我們不能說《基督教要義》包括了加爾文所有曾討論的神學要題,也不是一套完整的神學要題。因此,當我們在《基督教要義》中沒有看見加爾文詳細地講論神的屬性,我們不能很快就下結論說他沒有持守傳統神的屬性的觀念。事實上,在他的釋經和講章中,他常常顯露出他詳細持守傳統關於神的屬性的意見。因此,我們必須注意到加爾文不同版本的《基督教要義》是伴隨他的釋經努力和神學辯論而發展的。以加爾文討論「神的預知」和「以色列的揀選」為例,穆勒指出加爾文在1559年增加的談論中幾乎只引用舊約,特別是申命記和詩篇的經文,穆勒認為這與加爾文在1550年版本後針對這兩卷聖經釋經的努力有關﹕始於1555加爾文就申命記作出長篇的講道,始於1557年加爾文努力詩篇的釋經。[108]以約伯記為例,穆勒指出加爾文始於1554年就約伯記詳細的講道中,談論許多關乎神的護理的議題。這些結果也反應在1559版本中,那堣ㄓ离鰫颽蠽B記的談論被大大豐富了。[109]並且,穆勒強調加爾文有參考教父們、中世紀釋經家和同代改革家的著作。因此,「我們不能隨意說某些立場是加爾文獨創的,除非我們也詳細比較了這些相關人物的釋經努力。」[110]

 

《基督教要義》的演進與其架構

穆勒首先處理《基督教要義》1559年版本的序言中提及的一段說話﹕「雖然我對過去的努力並無後悔,但亦不滿意,一直到了本修訂版安排的次序後,才滿意。」[111]穆勒很遺憾地說,若果研究加爾文的人利用這句話,而看1559年版本是加爾文最終的立場,甚至忽略了加爾文在釋經書和其他神學論述的立場,是犯很大的錯誤。就《基督教要義》的演進上,他也檢閱了前人的努力,他與前人的方法論最大的不同是,前人大多側重1536版本與1559年版本(有些包括1560法文版本)的對比,而穆勒則同時也非常留意從1539年到1557年的演進。[112]

 

1536年版本到1539年版本的演進,穆勒強調1536年版本是一本只有六章的基本要理式的手冊。而且,在形式和安排上非常接近路德的大小問答要理。所以從1536年到1539年是一個巨大的跳躍。穆勒提醒我們在15371538年加爾文出版了兩個要理手冊。[113]這兩個要理手冊包括了八個1536年沒有的題目﹕宗教的普遍性、分別真假宗教、自由意志、揀選和預定論、教會的組織、人的傳統、趕出教會的紀律及政權。其中最後六個題目內容幾乎都納入1539年的《基督教要義》中,首兩個題目則容入討論「神的知識」的一章內容中。因此,1539年版本就擴大到成為17章的有分量的神學手冊。在此,穆勒提醒我們,加爾文沒有調動最初的題目次序。因此,1536年要理式的題目次序仍然保留在1539年的版本中。這些改變一方面顯示出加爾文神學的努力和他對《基督教要義》有不同的期望,但與此同時也顯露出加爾文更敏銳前人的模式。[114]其中,增加「預定論」的題目應該與他在這段期間努力研究羅馬書有關。

 

針對加爾文是較受慈運理還是墨蘭頓的影響這問題上,穆勒明確地認為加爾文沒有受到慈運理什麼主要的影響,相反他極力引證加爾文在方法論上深受墨蘭頓的《普通要點》的影響。首先,加爾文跟從墨蘭頓以羅馬書釋經的成果為他神學論述的核心成果,並以羅馬書中「要點」的次序為他神學議題排列的綱領。墨蘭頓的1521年版本和1535/6版本的「要點」排列次序基本上是羅馬書式的、是保羅式的。穆勒相信加爾文在修訂1539年版本時有參考墨蘭頓這兩個版本。就以「預定論」為例,墨蘭頓也在1536年版本將「預定論」安排作為一個獨立的議題。[115]所以,穆勒第一個重要的觀測是加爾文的1539年議題的排列次序是深受兩個因素影響﹕要理的框架及羅馬書的次序。[116]穆勒更進一步強調,墨蘭頓這種羅馬書式的「要點」次序成為了當代更正教神學其中一個重要標準。[117]因此就一些學者提出聲稱加爾文在1559年將「預定論」從「神論」的框架中,搬到第三卷的地方是為了避免過分猜測式的神學推論的說法,穆勒是完全反對的。穆勒指出加爾文沒有我們一些學者那些十九世紀和二十世紀的爭論,他的1559年版本的安排只是將「預定論」放在一個羅馬書式的次序位置吧了![118]穆勒認為當加爾文將要理問答常有的次序,加上羅馬書的次序的方式,一方面能按照使徒保羅救恩論式的神學次序,並且能提供一個必墨蘭頓和慈運理更全備更有組織的神學系統。[119]

 

穆勒進一步以1543年的版本為例,從1539年的17章發展到1543年的21章時,實際上只增加了一個「要點」﹕「論誓言」。加爾文將這個議題放在律法後的安排,又再一次似乎是仿效墨蘭頓的1535/6年的做法。而且,在1543年中的第六至八章中,加爾文是仿效使徒信經的次序。而加爾文在1545年的《要理》中更清楚顯露使徒信經的四重架構。

 

穆勒也指向我們去留意1550年版本中題目開頭幾個字中的改變。153915431545年的版本中頭幾個詞是Institutio christianae religionis,但1550版本卻是Institutio totius christianae religionis。加上了totius這詞,這個有「全部」意思的詞時,加爾文心目中是要發展一個更全備的神學大著。1559年版本一個重要的改變是將使徒信經中四個題目(父、子、聖靈、教會),本來在1543年版本只是連續幾章的安排,變成四卷書的框架。這些變化,就是穆勒強調加爾文將「信經」和「要理問答」的框架,加上保羅式的框架所帶來一個整合過程。這種合拼式的框架在一些題目上就帶來一些不知如何安排的難題,在加爾文那堿O經過一些整合才達到1559年的大框架。[120]1559年,「要理問答」的題目和保羅的次序就正式溶合在「使徒信經」的四個大框架中。[121]

 

穆勒特別地用「死人復活」這神學議題的安排地方為例再一次引證保羅次序對加爾文安排次序的重要性。在「使徒信經」中復活的題目在「子」那部分提到,也在「教會」部分接近最後的部分提到。但加爾文沒有按照這兩個次序,卻將「死人復活」的講論放在「預定論」之後,這種看重保羅式的安排次序,似乎也承繼了墨蘭頓1543年《要點》的次序安排。

 

因此,當穆勒再談論1559年「預定論」的安排時,他非常肯定地認為這是加爾文重視羅馬書式的次序的後果。因此,當加爾文在1559年序言中強調至今才滿意自己安排的「次序」(order)時,穆勒認為加爾文是講他成功地將「要理問答」的架構與「保羅式的次序」合理地溶合在一起。因此,穆勒重覆地強調我們不能簡易地說加爾文是「聖經神學家」而不是「系統」神學家。加爾文是有發展一種更正教十六世紀式豐富而帶著羅馬書邏輯次序的系統神學。我們也不能說加爾文完全沒有中世紀末的「經院」系統。加爾文的系統有與中世紀末承傳的部分,也有變更的部分。但我們不能忽略他就locusdisputatio的方法的關注,因此我們不能輕忽地說他完全否定了所有經院系統。[122]穆勒在《不妥協的加爾文》一書的最後部分列出了14點結論。[123]其中有幾個重點記得我們在這媮`結。整體上,穆勒指出加爾文的神學是一個一路發展的神學,與他的釋經和神學辯論的努力息息相關。他的系統是一個十六世紀的系統,是深受墨蘭頓的方法論影響。在十六世紀的框架下,是一個非常有十六世紀注重「使徒信經」、「問答要理」和「羅馬書次序」,這三個主要關注下,建立的系統。按照十六世紀的關注,這是一個非常成功和帶有保羅式救贖論邏輯的系統。但我們不能單從《基督教要義》去看加爾文全備的教導,《基督教要義》只是他部分,也是頗核心的努力,但絕對不反應他全備的立場。因此,我們不能帶著二十世紀或者二十一世紀的神學系統的眼光去閱讀加爾文,而要從一個十六世紀的神學系統來研讀他,我們才能明白他的貢獻,他與前人和同輩改革家的共同性,他有否受到其他釋經學家的影響。只有我們考慮完這些關注後,我們才能正確地判斷加爾文某些思想是否有獨特性和創新性。最後,穆勒總結《不妥協的加爾文》一書時說﹕「一個聰明的神學家可以將加爾文妥協到任何議堙F一個忠實的神學家一個好的歷史家會爭取去聆聽加爾文,不是要利用他。」[124]

 

穆勒這個有力的解釋將對以後的加爾文學者產生極大的影響,我們若用「要理問答」的架構加上「羅馬書的次序」則我們就能更明白加爾文在《基督教要義》的邏輯思路了!穆勒仔細的努力,詳細的分析,帶領我們深入明白加爾文就他的巨著《基督教要義》的構思框架,幫助我們更能正確分解加爾文的思想。

 



[1] “His powerful presentations make his voice now the dominant one in assessing the period ‘after Calvin.’” Donald K. McKim, review of After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Theological Studies 66/1 (March 2005): 225.

[2] “Still this book remains an enormously important contribution to the studies of Calvin's thought and, beyond that, to the entire field of Reformation thought that no one in these fields will be able to ignore it.” Robert M. Kingdon, review of The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Church History 70/3 (Sept. 2001): 574. “The Unaccommodated Calvin is a major contribution to the actual process of redefining Calvin's theology' and the theology, of the sixteenth century in general. Muller's painstakingly close reading of Calvin in the Latin and French originals, combined with a broad knowledge of the writings of Calvin's contemporaries, may be exemplary for further research.” Herman J. Selderhuis, review of The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Journal of Religion 81/3 (July 2001): 478.

[3] < http://www.calvinseminary.edu/aboutUs/facultyStaff/mullri.php>

[4] Richard A. Muller, “Predestination and Christology in Sixteenth-Century Reformed Theology” (Ph. D. diss., Duke University, 1976). 經過修訂後出版了Muller, Christ and the Decree

[5] 穆勒著作繁多,這堨u列出其中較為重要和相關的著作。Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985); Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in the Developing Soteriological Structure of Sixteenth Century Reformed Theology, Studies in Historical Theology, vol. 2 (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1986); Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy—Part One,” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 345-75; Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy—Part Two,” Calvin Theological Journal 31 (1995): 125-60; Muller, “In the Light of Orthodoxy: The ‘Method and Disposition’ of Calvin’s Institutio from the Perspective of Calvin’s Late-Sixteenth Century Editors,” Sixteenth Century Journal 28, no. 4 (1997): 1203-29; Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2003) [以後簡稱PRRD]; Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University, 2003). 也列出一些他與其他人合寫的著作﹕Richard A. Muller and James E. Bradley, Church, Word and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987); Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, ed. Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); James E. Bradley and Richard A. Muller, Church History: An Introduction to Research, Reference Works, and Methods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 

[6] “Muller’s scholarship is of the highest standard. His arguments are made forcefully and supported with rich documentation. His handling of both primary sources—Latin and French—and European and North American Calvin scholarship is adept and broad ranging.” J. Derek. Halvorson, review of The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Anglican Theological Review 84/2 (Spring 2002): 431.

[7] < http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/>。穆勒在1994-1999年期間也成為這個重要研究中心的管理委員會的會長。

[8] “In the last decade, we have clearly come to such a shift—or a series of shifts—in the interpretation of Calvin and Calvinism.” Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), vii.

[9] Heiko A. Oberman, Archbishop Thomas Bradwardine, A Fourteenth Century Augustinian; A Study of His Theology in Its Historical Context (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1957). 

[10] Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston, 1966); The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967); Heiko A. Oberman, ed., Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974); Oberman, Masters of the Reformation: The Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe, trans. Dennis Martin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Heiko A. Oberman, ed., Gregor von Rimini: Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation (Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1981); Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Kenneth Hagen, ed., Augustine, The Harvest, and Theology (1300-1650): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1990); Oberman, Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation (Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 1991); Heiko A. Oberman and Frank A. James, III, ed., Via Augustini: Augustine in the Later Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Damasus Trapp, O.S.A., in cooperation with Eric Leland Saak (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1991); Oberman, The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications, trans. Andrew Colin Gow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation: Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Oberman, The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). On his brief biography, cf. <http://dlmrs.web.arizona.edu/Oberman,article2.html>, <http://dlmrs.web.arizona.edu/Oberman,article4.html>.

[11] Muller says, “We now recognize that it is impossible to understand Luther and, indeed, Calvin, apart from an understanding of their medieval background—and, what is more important, we now recognize that this background was not entirely negative.” Muller, After Calvin, 38. 以下列出部分相關書目William J. Courtenay, “Nominalism in Late Medieval Religion,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval Religion, ed. Charles Trinkhaus and H. Oberman (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 26-59; Alister E. McGrath, “John Calvin and Late Medieval Thought: A Study in Late Medieval Influences upon Calvin’s Theological Development,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 77 (1986): 58-78; Gordon Leff, Gregory of Rimini: Tradition and Innovation in Fourteenth Century Thought (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1961).

[12] Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper & Row, 1961); E. P. Mahoney, ed., Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1974).

[13]Muller, After Calvin, 3-4. Cf. Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper & Row, 1961); Lewis Spitz, “Humanism and the Protestant Reformation,” in Renaissance Humanism, ed. Albert Rabil, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), vol. 3, 393; J. D’Amico, “Humanism and Pre-Reformation Theology,” in Renaissance Humanism, vol. 3, 367-68; James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 18-38; Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 1-65; idem, “The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birthpangs of the Modern Era,” in The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 18-38.

[14] Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 3. Cf. Basil Hall, “Calvin Humanism,” in Huguenot Society Proceedings (1959-1964), 195-209; idem, “Calvin Against Calvinists,” in John Calvin: A Collection of Distinguished Essays, ed. Gervase Duffield (Grand Rapdis: Eerdmans, 1966), 19-37; Charles S. McCoy, “Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 16 (1963): 352-70; Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969).

[15] Hall, “Calvin Against Calvinists,” 23-27; Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 31-40; Ernst Bizer, Frühorthodoxie und Rationalismus (Zurich: EVZ Verlag, 1963), 7-9; Otto Gründler, Die Gotteslehre Girolami Zanchis und ihre Bedeutung für seine Lehre von der Prädestination (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1965); Johannes Dantine, “Das christologische Problem in Rahmen der Prädestinationslehre von Theodor Beza,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 77 (1966):81-96; idem, “Les Tabelles sur la doctrine de prédestination par Théodore de Bèze,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 16 (1966): 365-77; Walter Kickel, Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Theodor Beza (Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1967), 136-46.

[16] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994).

[17] “According to Schweizer’s reading of the order dogmatics, the orthodox Reformed theologians attempted to build a systematic, deductive, and therefore irrefutable system of theology upon the primary of an absolute divine decree of predestination.” “It was Baur who propounded the then revolutionary hypothesis that the development of doctrine in the early church was the result of an inner dynamic of the basic kerygma which led toward the creation of a doctrinal synthesis resolving the tensions implicit in the original message. Baur’s analysis of the movement of Protestant theology toward orthodoxy accepts this structure as typical of doctrinal development. Whereas the inner principle of early Christian thought was the interpretation of the person of Christ, the inner principle of Reformed theology was the concept of divine predestination.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 1, 2.

[18] Cf. Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche: dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt (Elberfeld : R. L. Friedrichs, 1861). 英文流行版本是Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics Set out and Illustrated from the Sources, Foreword by Karl Barth, revised and edited by Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: Allen, & Unwin, 1950).

[19] Muller, Christ and the Decree, 3-4.

[20] Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy—Part One,” 345-75; Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’: Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy—Part Two,” 125-60.

[21] Muller, After Calvin, 71-72.

[22] “Instead, the age ought to be viewed as the great age of Protestant linguistic ”

[23] “Not only was Vermigli a Thomist, he was also an infralapsarian who followed the pattern of traditional Augustinianism. Together with Bullinger he set the tone of the Zurich theology and exerted a strong influence on the Heidelberg theologians and the Reformed confessions. . . . Taken together, the systems of Bullinger, Vermigli, and Musculus exert an influence on later Reformed thought parallel and supplementary to Calvin’s emphases on the economy of salvation and the work of meditation, though with less attention to the problem of knowledge and a greater emphasis on historical, causal, and even ontological issues.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 73.

[24] “Unlike the theology of the Lutheran Church, the theology of the Reformed Churches does not derive from a single source. Calvin’s influence was great but not exclusive. The systematic writings of Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Pierre Viret, Andreas Gerardus Hyperius, Benedict Aretius, and Peter Martyr Vermigli present perspectives different from that of Calvin.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 39.

[25] “The first codification of Reformed theology.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 67.

[26] “The best model for the history of doctrine is certainly the integral or organic model that attempts a synchronous understanding of the development of the central ideas of Christianity.” Bradley and Muller, Church History, 31.

[27] “In many cases the guiding force in the development of a doctrine is not the inner logic of the doctrine itself, as might be gathered from the special history model, or the force of personality of one individual thinker. A broader dialogue took place with other theological topics and other issues, such as social concerns, politics, and the interaction of parties in the church in confrontation with one another. This approach provides a more complex view of history, but the complexity belongs to the materials themselves and ultimately yields a clearer sense of why ideas developed as they did.” Bradley and Muller, Church History, 32.

[28] “Preaching and teaching of piety have been separated from instruction in doctrine by the increasing need to deal with the language of technical school-theology.” “The passage of Reformed theology into the era of early orthodoxy can be charted in terms of the movement from basic, discursive instruction to a more sophisticated, dialectical model.” Muller, PRRD, 1:60, 61.

[29] “This task was necessary to ensure the survival of Protestantism.” “The Reformers, however, did not provide those generations with a fully developed theological system.” Muller, PRRD, 1:33.

[30] “Rather the question must be raised in terms of the influence of Calvin and his contemporaries upon a developing Augustinian theology the roots of which extend into the middle ages, indeed, back to Augustine; in terms also of methodological continuities and discontinuities both with the Reformers and with the medieval doctors; and finally in terms of the changes that occur in theological ideas as they develop systematically, recognizing that continuity is found in developing traditions rather than in a static reproduction of ideas from one generation to the next.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 13.

[31] Cf. 四冊修訂版本是2003年。但頭兩本的早期版本是Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1-2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987, 1993).

[32] Cf. Roger Nicole, “Post-Reformation Dogmatics: A Review Article,” Founders Journal (Winter 2004): 28-31; downloaded from < http://www.founders.org/FJ55/article3.html>.

[33] 單在第四冊最後的書目表,就有125頁。Cf. Muller, PRRD, 4: 421-545.

[34] Steinmetz says, “All future work on the history of Protestant theology from 1550 to 1800 will have to take Muller’s studies into account.” Helm says, “The scholarly community is permanently in his debt.” Cf. Backcover in PRRD.

[35] Muller divides the post-Reformation development of Protestantism into three periods: early, high, and late orthodoxy: “Early orthodoxy, in two fairly distinct phases (ca. 1565-1618-1640) extends roughly from the time of the deaths of a large number of major second generation codifiers of the Reformation and the promulgation of the great national confessions of the Reformed churches (1559-1566) to a transition in generations and approach that occurred following the Synod of Dort and the outbreak of the Thirty Years War (1618-19), to the closing phases of the war and the deaths of the major figures who formulated the confessional solutions of the beginning of the seventeenth century.” Muller, PRRD, 1:31. “High orthodoxy (ca. 1640-1685-1725) spans the greater part of the seventeenth and the first quarter of the eighteenth century. . . . possesses a broader and more explicit grasp of the tradition, particularly of the contribution of the Middle Ages.” Ibid. “Following 1685, . . . that would bring on the Enlightenment, some writers have further divided the chronology of orthodoxy by identifying a ‘transitional phase’ and even a ‘transition theology’ from ca. 1685 to ca. 1725. Certainly after 1685, the theology represented by the more traditional writers ceased to be as dominant an intellectual pattern in the church and in the theological faculties of the great Protestant universities as it had been in the mid-seventeenth century, although the theology and the ethos of orthodoxy was carried forward by a significant number of theologians.” Ibid, 1:32. Deconfessionalization: “Theology after 1725, in what can be called ‘late orthodoxy,’ is less secure in its philosophical foundations, indeed, searching for different philosophical models, less certain of its grasp of the biblical standard, and often (though hardly always) less willing to draw out its polemic against other ‘orthodox’ forms of Christianity, less bound by the confessional norms of the Reformation, and given to internecine polemics.” Ibid., 1:32.

[36] “The first era of the development Reformed theology runs roughly from Zwingli’s Articuli sive conclusions (1523) and the Theses Berneses in 1528 to the promulgation of the Heidelberg Catechism (1562-63) and the death of Calvin in 1564, with some acknowledge necessary between the earliest Reformers, like Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius, and a second group or ‘generation’ of codifiers, like Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, and Vermigli.” Muller, PRRD, 1:52-53. Cf. Reinhold Seeberg, Text-book of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles E. Hay, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), II, 394. The reformers of the second generation “take the formulations of the earlier generation of Reformers as a point of departure.” Muller, PRRD, 1:53.

[37] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 1:56: “they are codifiers, the first important shapers of the systematic structure.”

[38] “Two other of Calvin’s contemporaries may be singled out as having made significant contributions to the systematic development with the medieval tradition. If Calvin and Bullinger can be singled out as theologians guided powerfully by patristic thought, Musculus and Vermigli are crucial to the Reformed use, in the case of the former, of Scotist and nominalist categories and, in the case of the latter, of Thomist principles.” Muller, PRRD, 1:58.

[39] “Protestant theology is no longer, in the latter period, reforming a church—it is establishing and protecting the church. Theology itself is more and more a creature of the schools.” Muller, PRRD, 1:60.

[40] “On all of these points, the high orthodox developed detailed argumentation: elements of debate not found in the Reformation and early orthodox era theologies, but arguably presented in defense of the same basic body of doctrine.

      There were also bitter battles among the Reformed—over Cocceian theology, over the espousal of Cartesian principles, and over the various teachings of the Academy of Saumur, over the soteriology of Richard Baxter, and over various responses to the Socinian denial of an essential or ad intra divine attribute of punitive justice.” Muller, PRRD, 1:76.

[41] “To define orthodoxy in terms of the more traditionist line of Geneva, culminating in Turretin, or in terms of the Voetian theology at Utrecht prejudices the case from the start by creating subconfessional lines of demarcation for orthodoxy and by offering an anachronistic picture of a ‘rigid orthodox’ operating within the narrow limits of a single school. The historical materials do not support the picture. Just as Calvin did not speak for the entire early Reformed tradition, so was Geneva less than the arbitrator of the Reformed tradition in the seventeenth century.” Muller, PRRD, 1:79.

[42] For example, the younger Turretin (Jean Alphonse Turretin, 1671-1737) had “a view of the accommodation of divine truth closer to the historical-critical models of the eighteenth century than to the precritical doctrine of accommodation held by the Reformers and the high orthodox.” Muller, PRRD, 1:82.

[43] “Rationalist philosophy was ultimately incapable of becoming a suitable ancilla and, instead, demanded that it and not theology be considered queen of the sciences. Without a philosophical structure to complement its doctrines and to cohere with its scholastic method, Protestant orthodoxy came to an end. (A similar decline of scholastic theological system occurred in the Roman Catholic Church in the eighteenth century).” Muller, PRRD, 1:84.

[44] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 4:382-420.

[45] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 3:385.

[46] “[W]e misunderstand the phenomenon of Reformed orthodoxy if we make no distinction between extra-confessional and intra-confessional controversies.” Muller, PRRD, 3:391.

[47] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 3:420.

[48] Muller says, “In no small measure, we have the nearly two hundred years of scholastic orthodoxy to thank for the preservation of the barely fifty years of theological achievement that was the Reformation. Without the establishment and successful defense of this confessional orthodoxy in the Reformed churches, the reform efforts of Bucer, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, and their contemporaries would probably have registered in the pages of Western history as an evanescent movement long ago vanished from the face of the earth rather than as the foundation of an institutional form of Christianity.” Muller, After Calvin, 46.

[49]Muller, After Calvin, 27.

[50] Muller says, “‘Scholasticism’ has been mistakenly understood as a particular philosophy or as engendering a particular philosophical or theological result.” “What unites these thinkers is not a common doctrine, but a common method—albeit one that developed and altered over time.” Muller, After Calvin, 27, 28.

[51] Heiko A. Oberman, “Calvin's Critique of Calvinism,” in Christian Higher Education : The Contemporary Challenge, ed. Reformed Institutions for Christian Scholarship (Potchefstroom, S. Africa: Institute for Advancement of Calvinism, 1976), 372-81.

[52] “It is my hope in the present volume to underline the importance of an examination of Calvin’s ideas in their sixteenth-century context and, as a part of a movement away from various dogmatic readings of Calvin, to emphasize the importance of understanding Calvin’s method and procedures as a point of departure for understanding his thought.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, viii.

[53] “Calvin’s text itself and the express statements that Calvin made about the nature, content, method, and arrangement of his work are still available for us to examine. And where there is text, there is hope.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, viii.

[54] Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 3.

[55] “The historical Calvin ought not and, ultimately, cannot be accommodated to modern theological programs without considerable distortion of his intention and meaning.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 4.

[56] “In the writings of Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, and Vermigli, we come to a second stage in the development of the Reformed system.” Muller, PRRD, 1:56.

[57] It is a common knowledge that Calvin is “the most important figure in the second generation of the Protestant Reformation.” Encyclopædia Britannica, s.v. “Calvin, John;” available from <http://www.britannica.com>.

[58] “It is of the first importance, for a proper appreciation of Calvin, to remember that he is a man of the second generation of this great period.” Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, vol. 2 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1997), 394. Cf. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1988), 165. Talking about Calvin’s ecclesiology, Alexandre Ganoczy says, “A man of the second generation of the reform, Calvin was not content to call for and announce the great renewal; he felt the need to organize and to express the doctrines of ‘re-formed’ Christianity.” The Young Calvin, translated by David Foxgrover and Wade Provo (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 300.

[59] E. H. Klotsche’s first sentence on “Calvin’s Theology and His Place in the History of Doctrine” is “John Calvin belonged to the second generation of reformers.” E. H. Klotsche, The History of Christian Doctrine, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1945), 227.

[60] Muller says, “Calvin was not the sole arbiter of Reformed confessional identity in his own lifetime—and he ought not to be arbitrarily selected as the arbiter of what was Reformed in the generations following his death.” Muller, After Calvin, 8.

[61] Muller, After Calvin, 8.

[62] Cf. Muller, PRRD, 1:56.

[63]The causal reader of the Institutes, who is not skilled in identifying unacknowledged debts or anonymous opponents, could certainly be pardoned for concluding that Calvin had never heard of Luther. Although the pages of Calvin’s systematic work bristle with citations from biblical, patristic, scholastic, and classical authors, no explicit reference is made to the great German reformer.” B. A. Gerrish, “John Calvin on Luther,” in Interpretations of Luther: Essays in Honor of Wilhelm Pauck, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 67. One may find the same article with slight edition in B. A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 27-48. Cf. Barnikol, Die Lehre Calvins vom unfreien Willen, 38ff.; John T. McNeill, “Calvin as an Ecumenical Churchman,” Church History 57, Supplement (1988): 43-55.

[64]Again, we must never lose sight of the fact that he did not study Scripture or interpret it as a disinterested scientist but as a theologian who are a reader of St Augustine and of Luther, ever preoccupied to find confirmation of his own dogmatic positions.” François Wendel, Calvin: The Origin and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. by Philip Mariet (New York: 1963), 123.

[65] On Calvin’s relationship with Luther in particular, Gerrish reminds us that “the most important sources” for understanding “Calvin’s most important judgments on Martin Luther” are “Calvin’s correspondence and so-called ‘minor theological treatises.’” Cf. Gerrish, “John Calvin on Luther,” 67. Gerrish provides a good survey of Calvin’s comments about Luther in his letters and treatises. Yet one obvious draw back of Gerrish is his over emphasis on proving that the Reformation is open-ended. Cf. Ibid. 67-96.

[66]He does indeed frankly declare that he is doing this with the specific intention of (as it were) driving his spear through my side into Luther and the rest of our party. . . . For myself I should not have dared to take up the defence of the common cause if he had attacked all of us together, for fear that I would appear to have wanted to put myself before others who are agreed to be far more competent, an so would seem to be motivated more by my rashness and foolish self-confidence than by right judgment.” John Calvin, The Bondage and the Liberation of the Will: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice Against Pighius, edited by A. N. S. Lane and translated by G. I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 8. Calvin clearly sees himself as a member of the Lutheran team. Calvin counts himself as “a member of the whole party of the Lutherans.” He argues that Pighius “wants to appear to be opening a battle against the whole party of the Lutherans, not against any individual member of it. But he cannot attack us all at the same time except as a united body.” Calvin, The Bondage and the Liberation of the Will, 30. Italics mine.

[67] “We have sought nothing else these twenty-five years but that the whole conflict should be ended in such a way that the victory should not fall to men, but should remain, as is fitting, with that teaching which was proclaimed by Christ and apostles.” Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 13. Gerrish reminds us that Calvin reads himself as an Evangelical, but not as a “Reformed,” nor a “Calvinist.” It cannot be too strongly emphasized at the outset that Calvin did not think of himself as “Reformed” in the sense of inner-Protestant polemics. Calvin was not a Calvinist, but an Evangelical, and what he thought about Luther can only be understood from this viewpoint. He identified himself wholly with the common Protestant cause and never faced the Wittenbergers as the sponsor of a rival movement.Gerrish, “John Calvin on Luther,” 69.

[68] “Outside the Bible Augustine was Calvin’s greatest source.” Larry D. Sharp, “The Doctrines of Grace in Calvin and Augustine,” Evagelical Quarterly 52 (April-June 1980): 84. Cf. Gordon R. Payne, “Augustinianism in Calvin and Bonaventure,” Westminster Theological Journal 44 (Spring 1982): 1-30; Vincent Brümmer, “Calvin, Bernard and the Freedom of the Will,” Religious Studies 20 (1994): 437-55.

[69] “Reformed theology appears not as a monolithic structure—not, in short, as ‘Calvinism’—but as a form of Augustinian theology and piety capable of considerable variation in its form of predestination, and capable also of clarification and augmentation on fine points of doctrine. Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, and Vermigli, far from being a terminal point in the movement of Protestant doctrine, provided the basis of later soteriological structures.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 176.

[70] “John Calvin was a part of a long line of thinkers who based their doctrine of predestination on the Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 22.

[71] Muller says, “Although he included the Fall and human sin in the divine decree (which has led to the identification of his teaching as ‘supralapsarian’), Calvin quite clearly taught both election and reprobation of human beings, considered eternally by God as created and fallen (what would come to be called the ‘infralapsarian’ view).” Muller, After Calvin, 11. On the difference between Bullinger and Calvin, Muller says, “Bullinger differed with Calvin specifically over the inclusion of the fall in the eternal divine decree and over the extent to which predestination ought to be preached—but he consistently assumed that only the elect would be saved and that election did not rest on divine foreknowledge of human choice.” Muller, After Calvin, 11-12.

[72] “Scholarship such as that of Paul De Vooght, Heiko Oberman, Karl Reuter, David Steinmetz, and Susan Schreiner has pointed toward continuities between the Reformation and the Middle Ages and made it impossible for stark contrasts to be drawn between the theological results of medieval scholasticism and the theology of the Reformation. Neither Calvin’s own theology nor the theology of various significant predecessors, such as Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer, or Reformed contemporaries, such as Vermigli and Musculus, can be understood apart from the positive impact of elements of the medieval scholastic background.” “At the same time, apart from the consideration of method, the doctrinal content of Reformation thought stands in clear continuity with the Augustinian tradition of the later Middle Ages, just as the doctrine of the more synergistic thinkers of the age has its clear medieval antecedents. Any comparison, therefore, between the teaching of Calvin and his contemporaries on the doctrine of predestination and the teaching of the later Reformed orthodox theologians must take into consideration the fact that Calvin and other Reformers did not invent the doctrine and that their definitions and those of the Protestant orthodox stand within and responsive to a long tradition of biblical interpretation and dogmatic formulation including later medieval theologians such as Thomas Bradwardine, Gregory of Rimini, and Johannes Staupitz.” Muller, After Calvin, 72. Cf. Paul de Vooght, Les Sources de la doctrine Chrétienne d’après les théologiens du XIVe siècle (Paris, 1954); Oberman, “The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birthpangs of the Modern Era,” in The Pursuit of Holiness, 3-25; Karl Reuter, Das Grundverständnis der Theologie Calvins (Neukrichen, 1963); David C. Steinmetz, Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting (Leiden: Brill, 1968); idem, Calvin in His Context??; Susan E. Schreiner, “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Church History 58 (1989): 322-38; The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1991). Cf. W. van’t Spijker, “Gereformeerde Scholastiek III: Zwingli en Bucer,” 139-40, 156-59; S. van der Linder, “Gereformeerde Scholastiek IV: Calvijn,” 247-53; John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden, 1975); idem, “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator 7 (1976): 441-55; idem, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 7/1 (1976): 81-101; Paul Helm, “Calvin (and Zwingli) on Divine Providence,” Calvin Theological Journal 29/2 (1994): 388-405; Muller, Christ and the Decree, 47-67.

[73] “Calvin’s use of the language of necessity and of fourfold causality in discussing these doctrines relates his thought not only to the formulation of Augustine but also to the tradition of medieval Augustinianism.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 24. “Scholarship such as that of Paul De Vooght, Heiko Oberman, Karl Reuter, David Steinmetz, and Susan Schreiner has pointed toward continuities between the Reformation and the Middle Ages and made it impossible for stark contrasts to be drawn between the theological results of medieval scholasticism and the theology of the Reformation. Neither Calvin’s own theology nor the theology of various significant predecessors, such as Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer, or Reformed contemporaries, such as Vermigli and Musculus, can be understood apart from the positive impact of elements of the medieval scholastic background.” Muller, After Calvin, 72. Cf. Paul de Vooght, Les Sources de la doctrine Chrétienne d’après les théologiens du XIVe siècle (Paris, 1954); Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966); idem, The Harvest of Medieval Thought: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967); idem, Masters of the Reformation: Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe, trans. Dennis Martin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); idem, “The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birthpangs of the Modern Era,” in The Pursuit of Holiness, eds. Trinkaus and Oberman, 3-25; Karl Reuter, Das Grundverständnis der Theologie Calvins (Neukrichen, 1963); David C. Steinmetz, Misericordia Dei: The Theology of Johannes von Staupitz in its Late Medieval Setting (Leiden: Brill, 1968); idem, Calvin in His Context??; Susan E. Schreiner, “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Church History 58 (1989): 322-38; The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1991). Cf. W. van’t Spijker, “Gereformeerde Scholastiek III: Zwingli en Bucer,” 139-40, 156-59; S. van der Linder, “Gereformeerde Scholastiek IV: Calvijn,” 247-53; John Patrick Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden, 1975); idem, “Calvinist Thomism,” Viator 7 (1976): 441-55; idem, “Italian Influences on the Development of Calvinist Scholasticism,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 7/1 (1976): 81-101; Paul Helm, “Calvin (and Zwingli) on Divine Providence,” Calvin Theological Journal 29/2 (1994): 388-405; Muller, Christ and the Decree, 47-67.

[74] “John Calvin was part of a long line of thinkers who based their doctrine of predestination on the Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 22.

[75] “The problems of human inability and man’s reliance for salvation upon the sovereign grace of God as mediated by Christ are the two grounds of Calvin’s predestinarian conceptuality.” Muller, Christ and the Decree, 22.

[76] 穆勒其中一個例子是加爾文就以西結書的解釋。Muller says, “A significant point of contact between Calvin’s teaching and both medieval cosmology and the medieval exegetical tradition occurs in his lectures on Ezekiel 1:4-24 and 10:8-16. Not only did Calvin respect the Aristotelian language of causality; he also could argue the mediated character of the divine impetus behind the events of the world.” “Quite significantly, in these last lectures, Calvin has more positive recourse to the concepts of divine agency in the order of the cosmos and of the mediation of divine willing through agency of secondary causes than he had evidenced in his earlier works.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 156. Therefore Muller emphasizes that “in any case, the fullness of Calvin’s thought on the subject of second causality cannot be inferred from the Institutes alone.” Ibid., 157.

[77] 以加爾文論述信心的題目為例,穆勒認為這媗蒛S加爾文沒有得到正式神學訓練的事實。“His discussion of the object of faith, perhaps more than any other part of the Institutes, evidences either an unwillingness to deal with the details of scholastic theology or a certain degree of ignorance of its content—or, as will be elaborated, a rather specific protest, masked by vague language, against a particular form of scholastic teaching. In other words, his lack of formal theological training may be most evident here.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 48.

[78] “Perhaps, too, the polemic was more pointed and specific than Calvin’s Latin ‘scholastici’ indicates: the 1560 French text offers ‘théologiens Sorboniques.’” “Of the twenty-six . . . references to ‘scholastici’ found in the Latin text of the 1559 Institutes, fifteen are rendered precisely as ‘scholastiques’ in the 1560 Institutes, while twelve are altered in their passage into the French of 1560.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 49, 50.

[79] Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 57.

[80] Cf. 穆勒指出,加爾文針對約翰一書2:2時的釋經,明確顯明他了解經院哲學的一個看法,也接受他們的分析:“They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.” Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 55.

[81] Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 49.

[82] Parker strongly argues that it “is a very different matter from building a system of theology starting from one foundation.” T. H. L. Parker, “The Approach to Calvin,” Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944), 169. Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 4. For other works of Parker, see T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971); idem, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986); idem, “Calvin the Exegete: Change and Development,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, ed. W. H. Neuser (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1980), 33-46; idem, “The Source of the Text of Calvin’s New Testament,” in Zeischrift für Kirchengeschichte 73 (1962): 272-98; idem, The Preaching of John Calvin (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992); Parker, “The Approach to Calvin,” 165-72.

[83] “Calvin, after all, did not think of himself as a dogmatician in the modern sense of the term: rather, like most of the other theologians of his time, he understood himself as a preacher and exegete, and he understood the primary work of his life as the exposition of Scripture.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 5.

[84] Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 5.

[85] “What Calvin intended to teach was the church’s doctrine, nor his own doctrine.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 7.

[86] “It is Luther who is the great exception to the rule of sixteenth-century documentation.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 22.

[87] Cf. David C. Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 95-109, 122-56; idem, “Calvin as Interpreter of Genesis,” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, ed. Wilhelm Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth-Century Journal Publishers, 1977), 53-66; Susan E. Schreiner, “Through a Mirror Dimly: Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Calvin Theological Journal  21 (1986): 175-93; idem, “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Church History 58 (1989): 322-38; idem, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); John Lee Thompson, John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah: Women in Regular and Exceptional Roles in the Exegesis of Calvin, His Predecessors and His Contemporaries (Geneva: Droz, 1992); idem, “The Immoralities of the Patriarchs in the History of Exegesis: A Reappraisal of Calvin’s Position,” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991): 9-46; idem, “Patriarchs, Polygamy and Private Resistance: John Calvin and Others on Breaking God’s Rules,” Sixteenth-Century Journal 25/1 (1994): 3-28; Anthony N. S. Lane, “Calvin’s Use of the Fathers and the Medievals,” Calvin Theological Journal 16 (1981): 159-65; idem, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999); idem, “Justification in Sixteenth-Century Patristic Anthologies,” in Auctoritas Patrum: Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th Century, ed. Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 69-95; Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole: Etude de rhétorique réformée (Paris: Librarie Honoré Champion, 1992).

[88] “The Institutes must not be read instead of the commentaries, but with them: the commentaries and the Institutes together provide, in what Calvin thought to be a better arrangement of materials, what one would find in the commentaries of other writers. Indeed, if one wishes to ascertain the biblical basis of Calvin’s topical discussions and disputations, one must read the commentaries. And, arguably, this is precisely what Calvin meant by his introductory characterization of the Institutes.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 108.

[89] 兩者之間,穆勒認為加爾文在「流暢」方面較為持守。“In the preface to Psalms, he elaborates on the phrase ‘simple manner of teaching’ with the comment that he has ‘for the most part, abstained from refutations’ and has avoided mention of ‘contrary opinions’ unless necessary to the clarity of his exposition. Facilitas remains unaltered. But the Psalms, like Calvin’s other commentaries on the Old Testament, evidence a tendency toward the fuller elaboration of theological concepts, so that brevitas is perhaps less in evidence.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 113.

[90] “Calvin’s prefatory letter to the reader, affixed to the Latin versions of the Institutes from 1539 on and the ‘argument’ prefaced to the French Institutes (1541-57), together with the preface to his Romans commentary of 1540 offer insight into the exegetical and theological agenda that Calvin understood at quite an early age and prosecuted with remarkable consistency until his death in 1564.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 22.

[91] Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 23.

[92] “Calvin’s own purpose in making available the sermons of Chrysostom is ‘to pave a path (viam sternere) to the reading of sacred Scripture for the unskilled and uneducated.’” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 27.

[93] “We have here, in a nutshell, Calvin’s theological method: the running exposition of the biblical text in commentary and sermon, coupled with the elicitation of theological loci form the text and the gathering of those loci together with the important dogmatic disputations of Calvin’s time into a form of a basic instruction or institution in theology.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 29.

[94] 穆勒舉例,加爾文在《基督教要義》中沒有詳細談論全面的創造論,此外他在摩西五經的釋經中也補充了他關於律法的討論﹕“Note the absence of a full doctrine of creation in Calvin, Institutio (1559), I.xiv-xvi—but see Calvin, In primum Mosis Comm., 1:1-2:25, CO 23, col. 13-52; and cf. the length of Calvin’s exposition of the law, Institutio (1559), II.viii with the exposition in Calvin, Mosis libri in formam harmoniae, in CO 24, col. 209-728.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 234, note 64. Cf. ibid., 140-58.

[95] Muller says, “The commentaries frequently shed light on the meaning of a passage in the Institutes, sometimes offer indications of why topics are augmented in certain ways in the Institutes; sometimes, when topics has expanded in the Institutes prior to the examination of a related text, the commentaries explicitly refer the readers to extended discussions, in the Institutes.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 108. For more elaborate comments, cf. ibid., 111-17. For example, Muller says, “But it also means that the Institutes as a whole and the contents of its individual loci must be understood not only in the history of theological system but also in the history of exegesis. . . . When, moreover, the nature of the Institutes as a set of loci communes is taken seriously and the various loci are examined in the context both of Calvin’s own commentaries and of the exegetical tradition, only then does it become clear precisely why certain issues are addressed, why particular collateral texts are employed as fundamental to explanation, and even (on occasion) why the specific section of the Institutes under examination takes on one particular argumentative cast rather than another.” Ibid., 113.

[96] “The pattern of statement, objections, and answers is also evident in Institutes II.xiv, . . .” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 46.

[97] Muller summarizes Bouwsma’s point as this: “and he points his readers toward the earlier comments of Dillenberger that Calvin was ‘the least systematic of systematic theologians,’ but rather ‘a biblical theologian’ whose ‘Institutes are like a wheel without a rim, a hub full of spokes’ with ‘some spokes longer than others,’ certainly ‘no system in the sense in which we use it.’” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 101. Cf. William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 276, note 100; John Dillenberger, Contours of Faith: Changing Forms of Christian Thought (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969), 39.

[98] François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 146-47; Emil Doumergue, Jean Calvin, les homes et les choses de son temps, 7 vols. (Lausanne: G. Bridel, 1899-1927), IV, 2, 9; Reinhold Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, trans. Charles Hay, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), II, 394; 關於《基督教要義》的方法論和發展,可以參Julius Köstlin, “Calvin’s Institution ach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geschlichtlichen Entwicklung,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 41 (1868): 7-62, 410-86; Doumergue, Jean Calvin, IV, 1-17; Benjamin B. Warfield, “On the Literary History of Calvin’s Institutes,” in Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 373-428; Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Harold Knight (London: Lutterworth, 1956); repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 9-21, 246-54; Wendel, Calvin, 111-49; Jean-Daniel Benoit, “The History and Development of the Institutio: How Calvin Worked,” in John Calvin, ed. Gervase E. Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 102-17; Brian G. Armstrong, “Duplex cognition Dei, Or? The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Essays in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elsie Anne McKee and Brian G. Armstrong (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 135-53.

[99] Muller says, “The 1539 edition of Calvin’s Institutes marks a crucial solidification of purpose and yet a significant alteration of direction. It was at this point that the Institutes ceased to be a brief, catechetical work and took on a new appearance—arguably the appearance of what one might call a sixteenth-century ‘system’ of theology. . . . In 1536, the title had read, ‘Of the Christian Religion, an Institution [or Instruction], embracing nearly an entire summary of piety and what is necessary to know of the doctrine of salvation: a work most worthy to be read by all those zealous for piety.’ . . . The 1539 title, Institution of the Christian Religion, now for the first time truly corresponding to its title, represents a critique of the 1536 title, which Calvin himself felt did not properly represent his intentions or, as Doumergue argues, did not reflect his own natural reserve and modesty.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 102-3.

[100] “The term itself, therefore, can point either to a basic instruction or to a work of greater death and development.” “The term institution was well known to Calvin from the titles of Quintillian’s Institutio oratoria (ca. A.D. 90), Lactantius’s De divinis institutionibus (ca. 310), an Erasmus’s Institutio principis christiani (1516), and perhaps from the introduction of Luther’s Larger Catechism (1529). . . . There is also the tantalizing possibility that Calvin knew of Melanchthon’s early Theologica institution in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (1519).” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 104.

[101] “For I believe I have so embraced the sum of religion in all its parts (religionis summam omnibus partibus), and have arranged it in such an order, that if anyone rightly grasps it, it will not be difficult for him to determine what he ought especially to seek in Scripture, and to what end (scopum) he ought to relate its contents. If, after this road has, as it were, been paved. I shall publish any detailed expositions (enarrationes) of Scripture, I shall always condense them, because I shall have no need to undertake long doctrinal disputations (dogmatibus longas disputationes instituere), or to wander about in the basic topics (in locos communes evagari).” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 104. The text is probably translated by Muller from Calvin, Institutio (1539), “Epistola ad Lectorem,” fol. lv.

[102] 這些做法,有點像中世紀的scholia的作用。

[103] 穆勒支出墨蘭頓是參考了亞歸高拉(Rudolf Agricola [1443-85])的觀念,強調「題目」的重要性。亞歸高拉較為強調講論中的說法性(persuaion)。這樣的方式,容許了邏輯用一種較為講話的方式去表達。因此,穆勒看「墨蘭頓是為更正教神學傳統帶入『要點』或者『題目』的方法的中間人和詮釋者。」 “If Agricola, as recommended by Erasmus, was the mediator and interpreter of the dialectical locus or topos of the Renaissance and Reformation, Melanchthon was the mediator and interpreter of the locus or topos for the Protestant theological tradition.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 110. 關於穆勒對亞歸高拉的論述,參同上,頁108-11. Cf. Rudolf Agricola, De inventione dialectica libri omnes et integri et recogniti (Cologne: Ioannes Gymnicus, 1539); Lisa Jardine, “Inventing Rudolf Agricola: Cultural Transmission, Renaissance Dialectic, and the Emerging Humanities,” in The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe, ed. A. Grafton and A. Blair (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 39-86; Eleonore Stump, Dialectic and Its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989).

 

[104] “Not only did I attempt this in the second edition, but each time the work has been reprinted since then, it has been enriched with some additions. Although I did not regret the labor spent, I was never satisfied until the work had been arranged in the order now set forth.” John Calvin, “John Calvin to the Reader,” in Institutes. 現今《基督教要義》1559序言的中文的翻譯是「我不僅對第二版有此努力,即對以後所刊行各版,也同樣力求改善充實。我對過去的努力雖無後悔,但亦不會滿意,一直到了本修訂版刊行後,心始滿足。」這序言中也有類似1539年的論述﹕「本書是準備為神學生研究上帝聖道之用,好叫他們容易入門,進展無阻。因為我想我已對宗教各部門提供了這樣一個綜合的體系,使任何人只須相當留意,便不難決定他研究聖經的主要目標應當是什麼,並應當為著什麼目的而引用其中所包含的。有了這種準備以後,我將來若刊行任何解釋聖經的著作,就無須對教理作冗長的討論,或旁涉普通題目,而可以把材料緊縮於一個小範圍內。這種作法可減輕虔誠讀者的許多困難和厭倦,假如他事先知道本書所提供的必要材料的話。至於這計畫的理由我在許多聖經釋義的作品中已可清楚看出,我想讓事實的本身作證,強於由我宣佈。」下載自http://www.chinachristianbooks.org/

[105] Muller says, “It is also the case that Calvin’s disputative comments on Scripture and doctrine, as offered in the Institutes, frequently fail to indicate the entirely of his teaching—and, as any study of the historical development of the Institutes in the light of the ongoing work of Calvin as commentator and preacher will show, the Institutes typically manifests a dependence on the thought of the commentaries, rather than vice versa.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 108.

[106]Épitre a tous amateurs de Jésus-Christ” 的英文翻譯是 “Letter to All Those Who Love Jesus Christ.”

[107] “Calvin’s Épitre as a whole could be argued to follow out the order of topics in Romans from general revelation and the problem of sin to the historic promise of redemption and the salvation of the elect.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 24.

[108] Muller says, “Similarly, on the subject of God’s foreknowledge and the election of Israel, several paragraphs appear in the 1559 edition that rest entirely on Old Testament texts, most notably on Deuteronomy and the Psalter—both of which represent exegetical efforts undertaken by Calvin after his editorial work on the Institutes in 1550, the former in a series of sermons from 1555, the latter in a major commentary from 1557.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 151.

[109] For example, Muller says, “The extension of divine providence even to ills brought about by Satan is also referred in 1559 to the text of Job, and the problem of ‘contrary wills’ in God is resolved in the same manner. There is even one instance of a text from Job, cited virtually without comment in 1539, to which a significant explanatory comment was added in 1559: ‘he refers,’ Calvin now writes with reference to Job 10:15, ‘to that spotless righteousness of God, before which even angels are not clean . . . when brought before the bar of God, all that mortals can do is to stand dumb.’” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 152.

[110] “As scholars like Steinmetz, Schreiner, and Thompson have shown, Calvin’s exegetical theology frequently reflects the older tradition: Calvin not only studied the exegetical works of contemporaries like Bucer, Bullinger, and Oecolampadius; he also read carefully in the commentaries of fathers like Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom and quite possibly of medieval exegetes like Nicolas of Lyra and Denis the Carthusian. . . . In any case, no claim about Calvin’s originality can be sustained without comparative exegesis.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 116.

[111] “Although I did not regret the labor spent, I was never satisfied until the work had been arranged in the order now set forth.” Calvin, “John Calvin to the Reader,” in Institutes.

[112] 在檢閱前人的努力上,穆勒列出以下一些主要學者﹕“The text-history and theological development of Calvin’s Institutes has been the subject of considerable scholarly discussion—from the foundational essays prepared by the nineteenth-century editors of the Opera Calvini and the refined theological and textual analyses of Köstlin, Autin, and Marmlestein to the now-classic essay of Warfield and the highly focused studies of Pannier and Benoit.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 118. Cf. Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz, and Eduard Reuss, “Prolegomena,” in CO 1, xxi-lviii; Baum and others, “Introduction,” in CO 3, vii-xlvii; Julius Köstlin, “Calvin’s Institutes nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geshlichtlichen Entwicklung,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 41 (1868): 7-62, 410-86; Albert Autin, L’Institution chrétienne de Calvin (Paris: Société Française d’Éditions Littéraires et Techniques, 1929); J. W. Marmelstein, Étude comparative des texts latin et français de l’Institution (Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1923); Warfield, “On the Literary History of Calvin’s Institutes,” in Calvin and Calvinism, 373-428; Daniel Benoit, “The History and Development of the Institutio: How Calvin worked,” in John Calvin: A Collection of Distinguished Essays, ed. Gervase E. Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 102-17; Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong, “The Development of the Institutes 1536 to 1559,” in John Calvin’s Institutes: His Opus Magnum, ed. B. J. van der Walt (Potchefstrom: Institute for Reformation Studies, 1986), 33-54.

[113] John Calvin, Instruction & confession de Foy don’t on use en l’Eglise de Genève (1537); idem, Catechismus, sive christianae religionis institutio (1538).

[114] “A sense of the embryonic presence in 1536 of issues developed in subsequent editions does not, however, account for all of the additions made in 1539 or in the further recasting of the document in 1543 and 1550. . . . Other grounds or bases for elaboration and development now come into play: thus, in the second place, Calvin’s own theological development as chronicled in his sermons, commentaries, catechisms, and treatises; third, alterations and developments in Calvin’s reformatory work that contributed to an altered sense of his task, as documented in part by his efforts to organize the worship and instruction in the church both in Geneva and Strasbourg; and, fourth, Calvin’s evolving appreciation and appropriation of theological models from predecessors and contemporaries.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 122.

[115] Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 124-29.就羅馬書對兩位改革家的重要性,穆勒這樣說﹕“In the first place, Calvin shared with Melanchthon an overriding sense of the importance of Romans as a didactic center and therefore as a point of departure for exegesis and theology.” Ibid., 128.這個概念也是加爾文的承繼人的觀念﹕“As Beza would later comment in the explanation to his famous Tabula praedestinationis, ‘unless there is some significant reason to do otherwise,’ a teacher ought to follow ‘Paul in the Epistle to the Romans,’ inasmuch as ‘this is the proper path (methodus) through all of theology: he proceeds from the Law to the remission of sins and then, gradually, to the highest degree.’” Ibid., 129.

[116] “Calvin ahs echoed Melanchthon’s Pauline order of law, gospel, grace (justification and faith), and the distinction of the Old and the New Testaments by moving from law to faith and creed, repentance, justification, and the distinction of Old and the New Testaments, but he has also managed to retain, as a broader and fuller discussion of the gospel, an expanded version of his chapter on faith and creed. The catechetical model is retained but bracketed and explained by the Pauline loci.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 129.

[117] “The order of loci identified by Melanchthon in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans thus established a standard for the organization of Protestant theology.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 129.

[118] 穆勒強調反對麥格夫等的看法﹕ “We are thus also in a position now to object strenuously both to McGrath’s unsubstantiated assertion that the 1539 edition was ‘poorly organized,’ and to Bouwsma’s comment that Calvin’s ‘Institutes is not logically ordered.’” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 130. Cf. Basil Hall, “Calvin against the Calvinists,” in John Calvin: A Collection of Distinguished Essays, ed. Gervase E. Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 24, 27; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/2, 76-93, 111; Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 138; William J. Bouwsma, “Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica,” in Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, ed. Wilhelm Wuellner (Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1986), 11.

[119] “Calvin created a series of theological topics at once more neatly organized and more comprehensive than Melanchthon’s Loci communes theologici, not to mention Zwingli’s Commentarius. The work is certainly not ‘poorly ordered,’ and it is also clearly ‘logically ordered’ if one accepts the soteriological logic of the Apostle Paul.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 130.

[120] 穆勒指出布靈格也面對類似的困難﹕“we certainly see it in the outline of Bullinger’s Compendium christianae religionis of 1556 and, to a lesser extent, in Bullinger’s Decades as well.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 130.

[121] “The four credal topics of Father, Son, Spirit, and church, formerly gathered in one place, are now dispersed, as foci of the four books, among the remaining topics of the Pauline order (sin, law, grace, the people of God in the Old and the New Testaments, predestination, good works, civil authority, Christian liberty, and offenses). Indeed, all the elements of the catechetical and the Pauline model are now logically related to (albeit not lost within) the four article credal structure.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 133.

[122] Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 180-81.

[123] Cf. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 185-88.

[124] “A clever theologian can accommodate Calvin to nearly any agenda; a faithful theologian—and a good historian—will seek to listen to Calvin, not to use him.” Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 188.