一竅不通
有一富翁，兒子愚笨，花大錢請了一位名師教兒子念書。
一年過去了，富翁詢問兒子的學習情況，名師說道：“七竅通了六竅。”
富翁很是高興，付了學費讓名師回家過年。
家裏來了客人，富翁總用名師的話來誇兒子，終于有位來客驚嘆道：“一竅未通啊！”
(請按圖片left click放大)
In Ephesians 1:5-6, for example, Scripture tells us when this choice took place before creation, in eternity. And the Bible tells us what this predestination is unto adoption through Jesus, to be holy and blameless before God. And it tells us here why God chose us so that his glory could be praised.
以弗所書第一章4.就如神從創立世界以前，在基督裡揀選了我們，使我們在他面前成為聖潔，無有瑕疵；5.又因愛我們，就按著自己意旨所喜悅的，預定我們藉著耶穌基督得兒子的名分，6.使他榮耀的恩典得著稱讚；這恩典是他在愛子裡所賜給我們的。
Three Views on Predestination預定論三個觀點
問題不在基督徒信不信預定論,真正的問題在: 神揀選誰?(或更重要的是)為什麼祂揀選此人? The real question is this: whom did God predestine to eternal life, and (even more importantly) why did God choose those He predestined?
1. The optimistic view: 樂觀派認為
神揀選每個人,但人有veto-power. 此觀點和聖經不符. The Bible doesn’t say that everyone is predestined, but only those who will eventually believe and enjoy eternal life.
Christians are frequently called the elect and are said to be the chosen ones (see Rom 8:33; 11:7; 1 Cor 1:27-29; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1 Pe 2:8-9). God hasn’t chosen everyone. He’s chosen some for eternal life and not others. But on what basis has God chosen some?
基督徒稱自己為被揀選的.見:
Rom 8:33誰能控告神所揀選的人呢﹖有神稱他們為義了（或作：是稱他們為義的神嗎）
林前1:27.神卻揀選了世上愚拙的，叫有智慧的羞愧；又揀選了世上軟弱的，叫那強壯的羞愧。28.神也揀選了世上卑賤的，被人厭惡的，以及那無有的，為要廢掉那有的。29.使一切有血氣的，在神面前一個也不能自誇。
Tit 1:1神的僕人，耶穌基督的使徒保羅，憑著神選民的信心與敬虔真理的知識，
2. The Arminian view: 愛米念派的觀念
神揀選了一些人,因祂預知這些人會和聖靈合作.神給每個人同樣的恩典,那些和聖靈合作就被得救,神揀選我們因祂知道我們會選祂. God has predestined some to eternal life because He saw in advance that such persons would cooperate with the Holy Spirit and believe by their own free will. God gives everyone an equal amount of grace, and those willing to cooperate with the Holy Spirit are saved. God chose us because we were going to choose Him.
3. The Reformed (Calvinist) view: 歸正的觀念
神揀選了一些人, 不是因祂預知這些人會信祂,是神祂自己的奧秘. 神揀選我們既使我們會拒絕祂, 不是我們會合作. 神揀選我們, 祂改變我們的心, 祂一直保守到祂揀選的都不失落.God predestined some to eternal life, not because He saw that they would have believed on their own (They wouldn’t have!), but because of His own secret purpose. God chose us despite our rejection of Him, not because we would be cooperative. God chose to change our hearts, and he has done so and will continue to do so until all of his elect are gathered to him.
神話理論的"墮落"，顧名思義，認為創世記是不存在的。亞當和夏娃是虛構人物,并非只歷史人物。 "墮落"只是一種比喻,是寓言.
根據此理論,創世記的前幾章是神話故事.結構本身己表明是寓言或神話，因內容包括了會說話的蛇,象徵性的”分別善惡”的樹。
罪是一個普遍的問題。每個人都會犯下罪惡，沒有人是完美的。
每個人都是自己的亞當。每個人都有他自己的不為人知的墮落.
此理論的好處
第一,這一觀點的好處是不用把罪歸咎別人. 不用責怪父母或造物主.一人做事一人當.不需defend.
第二, 它逃過需要捍衛歷史,也無需和科學對立。特別是和進化論辯論.
其缺點:
這觀點最失敗的就是很難解釋"普遍性的罪"(universal)。假設我們每個人出生都沒有罪的性質(natural of sin)，”普遍性的罪”要如何成立？
以統計學來說假設有40.0億人出生，全部都沒有罪. 也沒有腐敗的性質，那我們有理由期待，至少有一些人是不會墮落。 如果我們的自然道德狀態是無辜是中立的，統計該預測，有一半以上的人類將繼續完善,不至墮落。
但是，如果人人都墮落，沒有一個例外，那麼，我們有理由去思考去wonder 為什麼會如此?
倡導者神話理論的標準答复是: 因為人并沒有出生如伊甸園般那麼清純的環境。 Society is corrupt社會是腐敗的。我們都出生在一個腐敗的環境.
This explanation begs the question.這種解釋問題又來了。
是什麼第一時間讓社會或文明腐敗? (How did society or civilization get corrupt in the first place.)
如果每個人都出生無辜的，沒有一個人腐敗，那來腐敗的社會?
Another thorny question that arises concerns the relationship of sin and death.另一個棘手的問題是:
”罪”和死亡的關係。
The Bible makes it clear that death is not “natural” to man.聖經清楚地表明，死亡不是人的"自然"現象。Death is not “natural” to man.
也就是說，死是罪來到這個世界. 如果所有的人是生而無辜，沒有天生的腐敗，那上帝將是不公平的，祂允許未墮落(unfallen)的嬰兒死亡。
神話觀的墮落也必須面對另一個事實，它違反了聖經。不僅僅認為聖經是虛構,保羅教導”罪”因一人(亞當)到了這世界,除非耶穌對保羅來說也是虛構人物.否則要如何說服人.
創世記2章提到伊甸園四個riverheads ，含Pishon ， Gihon ， Hiddekel （或底格里斯河） ，和幼發拉底河。
當然我們同意，寓言可提到真正的歷史背景及地理。 好比好撒馬利亞人的寓言也提到往Jericho的路上。但我們相信創世記如此大費周章來敘述,很難讓我們當寓言或神話視之。
另一個事實是家譜. 創世記敘述了亞當和夏娃的家譜.新約也把亞當放在耶穌的家譜。
THE REALIST VIEW OF THE FALL 實際論的墮落
我們會知道歷史是靠文獻,記錄,上課,考試或他人的記憶.
我們都沒老到可記得亞當的墮落。依實際論,我們應該能夠記得，因為我們真的存在。
Realism is not an exercise in a Bridey-Murphy kind of reincarnation.實際論不是談轉世輪迴。 Rather, realism is a serious attempt to answer the problem of the Fall.相反的，實際論是嘗試回答墮落所面對的問題。
The key concept is this: We cannot morally be held accountable for a sin committed by someone else.此理論的重點是：我們不能在道義上承擔別人所犯的罪過.We cannot morally be held accountable for a Sin committed by someone else. 如果我們要承擔負責，我們必須某種程度上有參與此罪惡。
實際論認為人類靈魂存在於出世前。也就是說，在我們出生之前，我們的靈魂必須已經存在。
They were present with Adam at the Fall.They fell along with Adam.他們一起和亞當墮落。
Adam’s sin was not merely an act for us; it was an act with us.亞當的墮落不僅是一個行為，是一個同我們一起的行為。 We were there.我們就在案發現場。
This theory seems speculative, perhaps even bizarre.這個理論很詭異。
Its advocates, however, appeal to two pivotal biblical texts as warrant for this view.它的倡導者，用了兩個關鍵經來支持此觀點。
The first is found in Ezekiel 18:2-4:以西結18:2-4 ：
你們在以色列地怎麼用這俗語說父親吃了酸葡萄，兒子的牙酸倒了呢﹖
主耶和華說：我指著我的永生起誓，你們在以色列中，必不再有用這俗語的因由。
看哪，世人都是屬我的；為父的怎樣屬我，為子的也照樣屬我；犯罪的，他必死亡。
Later in this chapter, Ezekiel writes:19,20節，以西結寫道：
你們還說：兒子為何不擔當父親的罪孽呢﹖兒子行正直與合理的事，謹守遵行我的一切律例，他必定存活。
惟有犯罪的，他必死亡。兒子必不擔當父親的罪孽，父親也不擔當兒子的罪孽。義人的善果必歸自己，惡人的惡報也必歸自己。
實際論認為上述經文, God clearly declares that the son is not held guilty for the sins of his father.上帝已明確宣布，兒子不擔當父親的罪孽。
另一經文是在希伯來書：
並且可說那受十分之一的利未，也是藉著亞伯拉罕納了十分之一。
因為麥基洗德迎接亞伯拉罕的時候，利未已經在他先祖的身（原文是腰）中。
這意味著利末必須在某種意義上還沒出生就已經存在。
經
The text does not explicitly teach that Levi really existed or preexisted in the loins of his father.經文并沒明確告訴我們，利末確實存在或preexisted在他先祖的腰，
經文是一種“說話的方式。”經文並沒要求我們下結論說利末“真的” preexisted 。
以西結的情形也差不多是如此,以西結是解決”人”常喜歡”推委塘塞”的醜習，人都喜歡試圖指責別人來洗脫自己的不對行為。
That human activity has gone on since the Fall, but that is about all this passage has to do with the Fall.人類墮落以來已姓”赖”。
In the Fall Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed both God and Eve for his own sin.在墮落後夏娃"赖"蛇，亞當更利害"赖"夏娃又"赖"上帝. 他說：The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate “（創3:12） 。
FEDERAL OR REPRESENTATIVE VIEW OF THE FALL 聯邦或代表論的”墮落”
聯邦論是比較受歡迎的主張。此論認為亞當代表的整個人類。
With the test that God set before Adam and Eve, he was testing the whole of mankind.亞當和夏娃受試驗，也是整個人類受試驗。
Adam’s name means “man” or “mankind.” Adam was the first human being created.亞當的名字是“人”或“人類”的意思.亞當是第一個人類。
He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all of his future descendents.他被安放在花園裡，不僅為自己，也為他一切未來的後代。 Just as a federal government has a chief spokesman who is the head of the nation, so Adam was the federal head of mankind.正如聯邦政府的首席發言人是代表國家，所以亞當是是代表人類。
The chief idea of federalism is that, when Adam sinned, he sinned for all of us.聯邦論的想法是，當亞當犯罪，他的罪也是我們的罪。
His fall was our fall.他的墮落也我們的墮落。 When God punished Adam by taking away his original righteousness, we were all likewise punished.當上帝的懲罰臨到亞當時，我們同樣的受到懲罰。
The curse of the Fall affects us all.亞當犯罪所带來的詛咒影響到我們所有人。
Not only was Adam destined to make his living by the sweat of his brow, but that is true for us as well.不僅是亞當注定使要流汗收成, 全人類要如此.Not only was Eve consigned to have pain in childbirth, but that has been true for women of all human generations.夏娃分娩時要疼痛，全世界女人要如此. The offending serpent in the garden was not the only member of his species who was cursed to crawl on his belly.花園裡的蛇也不是唯一受詛咒用腹部走路的成員.
When they were created, Adam and Eve were given dominion over the entire creation.當亞當和夏娃受委治理整個大地及神的創造物。 As a result of their sin the whole world suffered.
保羅告訴我們由於他們的犯罪整個世界受到影響。
（羅馬書8:20-22 ） 。
因為受造之物服在虛空之下，不是自己願意，乃是因那叫他如此的。
但受造之物仍然指望脫離敗壞的轄制，得享（享：原文是入）神兒女自由的榮耀。
我們知道一切受造之物一同歎息、勞苦，直到如今。
由於亞當的犯罪，獅子，大象，蝴蝶，狗和小狗也深受其害。 They did not ask for such suffering.他們沒有要求這樣的苦難。 They were hurt by the fall of their master.他們是受主人墮落鼘所連累。
That we suffer as a result of Adam’s sin is explicitly taught in the New Testament.在新約明確地講到我們因亞當的罪而遭受到”罪”的結果。
In Romans 5,在羅馬5 ， for example, Paul makes the following observations:例如，保羅提到：
12.這就如罪是從一人入了世界，死又是從罪來的；於是死就臨到眾人，因為眾人都犯了罪。
15.只是過犯不如恩賜，若因一人的過犯，眾人都死了，何況神的恩典，與那因耶穌基督一人恩典中的賞賜，豈不更加倍的臨到眾人嗎﹖
如此說來，因一次的過犯，眾人都被定罪；照樣，因一次的義行，眾人也就被稱義得生命了。
19.因一人的悖逆，眾人成為罪人；照樣，因一人的順從，眾人也成為義了。
There is no way to avoid the obvious teaching of Scripture that Adam’s sin had dreadful consequences for his descendents.聖經明白的說了亞當的罪對他的後裔所带了的可怕後果。
我們仍然留下一個大問題。 If God did in fact judge the entire human race in Adam, how is that fair?如果上帝確實因亞當而審判了整個人類，這公平嗎?
這上帝公平的問題,也是在問亞當作為Federalism 所assumes 的代表,其公正和正當性(fair and accurate)。 聯邦論認為，亞當完全代表了我們。(perfectly)
在我們的法律制度，我們知道，如果我僱用一名男子殺害某人，並和僱傭槍手有合同，我可判一級謀殺罪，儘管我實際上並沒有扣扳機, 我還是犯了罪。 I am judged to be guilty for a crime someone else committed because the other person acted in my place.
以上最明顯的抗議是-- “但是我們并沒有僱亞當來代表我們。 ”這例子只是說明，有一些案件中，罰一個人因另一人的罪行。
The federal view of the Fall still exudes a faint odor of tyranny.聯邦論散發了淡淡的暴政意味。 Our cry is, “No damnation without representation!” Just as people in a nation clamor for representatives to insure freedom from despotic tyranny, so we demand representation before God that is fair and just.我們會哭訢， “我們不要給這會帶來詛咒的做代表！ ”正如人們在為誰做這國家的代表而鼓譟，以確保免於專制暴政，所以我們要求我們的代表是公平和正當的。
我們希望有權選擇自己的代表。 We want to be able to cast our own vote, not have somebody else cast that vote for us.我們希望能夠投下自己的選票， The word vote comes from the Latin votum which meant “wish” or “choice.” When we cast our vote, we are expressing our wishes, setting forth our wills. 表決一詞來自拉丁美洲votum這意味著“希望”或“的選擇。 ”當我們把我們的票，我們表達我們的願望，提出我們的意志。
誰選擇了我們的代表，It was almighty God.是全能的上帝。
When God chooses our representative, he does so perfectly.當上帝選擇我們的代表，His choice is an infallible choice.他的選擇是不會錯的。
When I choose my own representatives, I do so fallibly.我們來選擇,我們是容易犯錯的 。
But was the whole process just?但整個過程公正嗎？
I can only answer this question ultimately by asking another question — one the Apostle Paul asked.我只能用使徒保羅的方式回答，問道: “Is there unrighteousness in God?” The apostolic answer to this rhetorical question is as plain as it is emphatic. “有沒有unrighteousness上帝？ ”使徒回答 :"God forbid.”
If we know anything at all about the character of God, then we know that he is not a tyrant and that he is never unjust.我們知道，上帝不是一個暴君，上帝從來不會是不公正的。
Yet we still quarrel.然而，我們還是會爭吵。
We still contend with the Almighty.We still assume that somehow God did us wrong and that we suffer as innocent victims of God’s judgment.我們仍然認為上帝把我們推向錯誤，讓我們無辜的受判決。
Such sentiments only confirm the radical degree of our fallenness.這種情緒證實了某個程度上我們還是有fallenness 。
When we think like this, we are thinking like Adam’s children. 此思維方式說明了我們真的是”亞當的孩子”
Calvinism sees Adam sinning by his own free will, not by divine coercion.加爾文主義認為，亞當的犯罪是他自己的自由意志，不是神的脅迫。
One final illustration may be helpful here.最後下面的例證或可幫助。
The illustration is as follows.例證如下:
Suppose God said to a man, “I want you to trim these bushes by three o’clock this afternoon.假設上帝對一個男人說， “我想請你今天下午三點鐘修剪這些灌木。 But be careful.但要小心。There is a large open pit at the edge of the garden.在花園的邊緣有個大坑。
If you fall into that pit, you will ‘not be able to get yourself out.如果你掉下去,會爬不出來。 So whatever you do, stay away from that pit.”因此，不管什麼，遠離這坑。 “
Suppose that as soon as God leaves the garden the man runs over and jumps into the pit.上帝一走開,該名男子，跳入坑內。
At three o’clock God returns and finds the bushes untrimmed.下午三點鐘上帝回來，灌木還是沒修剪 。 He calls for the gardener and hears a faint cry from the edge of the garden. 但花園的邊緣飄來微弱的哭泣聲。
He walks to the edge of the pit and sees the gardener helplessly flailing around on the bottom.園丁在坑內扭動。 上帝問: “Why haven’t you trimmed the bushes I told you to trim?” The gardener responds in anger, “How do you expect me to trim these bushes when I am trapped in this pit? “為什麼你不修剪灌木？ ”園丁憤怒回應， “我被困在這個坑,你怎麼能指望我修剪這些灌木？
If you hadn’t left this empty pit here, I would not be in this predicament.”如果你沒有留這個空坑在這裡，我就不會有這種困境。 “
Adam jumped into the pit.亞當跳進坑內。 In Adam we all jumped into the pit.在亞當我們都跳進坑內。 God did not throw us into the pit.上帝并沒有扔我們入坑內。
Adam was clearly warned about the pit.亞當已被警告。
God told him to stay away.上帝告訴他，要遠離。
