该文主要是讲极端加尔文主义者「带屎」改革宗神学， 极端加尔文主义的一些问题，变成大家对於改革宗神学的批评。 （看完发现跟我在本板与大家的争论议题根本是几乎相同的嘛XD） 这些批评包括： 1.上帝创造罪？--还记得之前与sCH争论的「上帝预定罪」这个议题吗？ sCH後来有没有改变观点，我不确定。 2.「上帝爱世人」是只爱选民吗？--这个板上...也吵过。不过sCH好像 没有接受这「上帝只爱选民」的观点，原提出者後来应该也算是修正了吧。 3.「普遍恩典」（不信者中发现的真，善，和美）不存在？ --这个跟板上「反文化派」也有一点点鸡同鸭讲的争论过。 4.预定论等观点是否证成「反律法主义」（其实就是「廉价福音」啦）？ --这个部分，前一两个月板上在吵。 5.「教义公理化系统」僭越了「生命原则」与「唯独圣经」。 a. 延续上一点： "the Reformed doctrine “leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “libertinism” and “renders men carnally secure,..." 谈到强调「教义」（H.Cox:「信念」）及其廉价恩典，使人远离敬虔； 这与我批评某些人的神学导致「反生命」对信仰的反噬是一致的。 b. 相关的教义的「理性化」或「公理化」批判 "“rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture." 这点也相关，我对於某些人强调他们眼中的「正统教义」而违反「唯独圣经」， 已经批评很多了。 当然，该文作者Michael Horton的意思是说， 一个平衡的、真正回归经典的改革宗神学，不应背负以上骂名。 所以我才在推文中问sCH，他到底跟极端加尔文主义差在哪边？ ※ 引述《df31 (DF-31)》之铭言： : Reformed Theology Vs. Hyper-Calvinism : 改革宗神学Vs极端加尔文主义 : by Michael Horton : Before the average believer today learns what Reformed theology (i.e., : Calvinism) actually is, he first usually has to learn what it’s not. Often, : detractors define Reformed theology not according to what it actually : teaches, but according to where they think its logic naturally leads. Even : more tragically, some hyper-Calvinists have followed the same course. Either : way, “Calvinism” ends up being defined by extreme positions that it does : not in fact hold as scriptural. The charges leveled against Reformed : theology, of which hyper-Calvinism is actually guilty, received a definitive : response at the international Synod of Dort (1618–1619), along with the : Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. : 在今日的平信徒知道改革宗神学（例如，加尔文主义）的真相後，他往往会先学习到它不 : 是真名。毁谤者往往不根据改革宗神学来定义他们所教导的，而是根据他们认为改革宗的 : 逻辑将会引发什麽结果来定义。更为令人悲哀的是，某些极端加尔文主义者也采用了同样 : 的做法。不管怎麽做，“加尔文主义”往往会被以一种它从未采取的极端立场的定义为它 : 事实上是是违反圣经的。被用来瞄准改革宗神学的批判，往往都是极端加尔文主义犯下的 : 罪行，往往被以国际性的天特会议（Synod of Dort, 1618-1619）和伟敏斯特信仰宣言与 "多特"才对 : 教理问答坚决的反应之。 : Is God the Author of Sin?—难道神是罪的作者吗？ : The God of Israel “is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of : faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deut. 32:4–5). : In fact, James seems to have real people in mind when he cautions, “Let no : one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be : tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Sin and evil : have their origin not in God or creation, but in the personal will and action : of creatures. : 以色列的神“是完美的，祂的所行尽是公义。神乃是信实无罪的，是公义并正直的。”（ : 申命记32:4-5）事实上，雅各在提醒我们“当人被试诱的时候，他不要说‘我是被神试诱 : 的’，因为神不能被恶者所试诱，祂也不试诱任何人”（雅各书1:13）的时候，他明显的 : 在脑海中想着一个真实的人。罪与恶都在神与造物外有另一个起源，而是存在於人的意志 : 并造物的行为中。 : Scripture sets forth two guardrails here: On one hand, God “works all things : after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:15); on the other, God does not — : in fact, cannot — do evil. We catch a glimpse of these two guardrails at : once in several passages, most notably in Genesis 45 and Acts 2. In the : former, Joseph recognizes that while the intention of his brothers in selling : him into slavery was evil, God meant it for good, so that many people could : be saved during this famine (vv. 4–8). We read in the same breath in Acts : 2:23 that “lawless men” are blamed for the crucifixion, and yet Jesus was “ : delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God….” The : challenge is to affirm what Scripture teaches without venturing any further. : We know from Scripture that both are true, but not how. Perhaps the most : succinct statement of this point is found in the Westminster Confession of : Faith (chap. 3.1): “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy : counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to : pass;” — there’s one guardrail — “yet so, as thereby neither is God the : author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is : the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather : established,” and with that, the second guardrail. “God, from all eternity, : did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and : unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” — there’s one guardrail — : “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence : offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of : second causes taken away, but rather established,” and with that, the second : guardrail. The same point is made in the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article : 13), adding that whatever God has left to His own secret judgment is not for : us to probe any further. : 圣经在此立下了两个准则：在一方面，神“根据祂的旨意在万有中行事”（以弗所1:15） : ；在另一方面，神没有—事实上，也不能—行恶。我们可以从许多经文中看见这两个准则 : ，最明显的是创世纪45和行传2。在前一处经文中，约瑟发现他的兄弟们想要卖掉他的邪 : 恶动机，神却转恶为善，以至於他的家人能够在这个饥荒中被拯救（4-8节）。我们在行 : 传2:23中也读到同样的味道，就是那些‘不法的人’当负起十字架的责任，但是耶稣却‘ : 根据神定下的计划并预知，拯救了他们。。。’其挑战乃是要坚守圣经的教导，而不要越 : 雷池一步。我们从圣经得知这两个事件都是真是的，但却不知道神如何成就的。或许，最 : 为简洁的说法可以在卫敏斯特信仰宣言（chap。 3.1）中找到：“神在已过的永远中，透 : 过祂意志中最为智慧并神圣的会议，白白的，并以不改变的方式命定将要发生的一切；” : ——这里有一个准则——“然而，神既不是罪的作者，也不能以暴力的方式改变被造之物 : 的意志；第二个起因不能也不可以偶发的方式改变已经发生的事物，”这是第二个准则。 : 比利时信条（第13条）也强调了同一个重点，并加上神奥秘的审判不是我们所能够进一步 : 探索的。 : Is the Gospel for Everyone?——福音是不是给世人的？ : Isn’t it a bit of false advertising to say on one hand that God has already : determined who will be saved and on the other hand to insist that the good : news of the Gospel be sincerely and indiscriminately proclaimed to everyone? : 一方面说审意见预定神将会得救，而在另一方面又坚持福音这个好信息必须被严肃并一视 : 同仁的传扬给所有的世人，难道这不是一种虚假的广告吗？ : But didn’t Christ die for the elect alone? The Canons of Dort pick up on a : phrase that was often found in the medieval textbooks (“sufficient for the : world, efficient for the elect only”) when it affirms that Christ’s death “ : is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of : the whole world” (Second Head, Article 3). Therefore, we hold out to the : world “the promise of the gospel … to all persons … without distinction …. : ” Although many do not embrace it, this “is not owing to any defect or : insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is : wholly to be imputed to themselves” (Second Head, Articles 5–6). : 难道基督不是仅仅为了选民而死？多特信条引用了一段在中古世纪的教科书中常见的一段 : 话（“对世界是足够的，但仅仅对选民有效——sufficient for the world, efficient : for the elect only”），那段话肯定基督的死“具有无可比拟的价值，完全足以补赎全 : 世界的罪行”（第二个标题，第三条）。因此，我们坚信世界拥有“福音的应许。。。向 : 着所有的人。。。毫无分别。。。”虽然许多人不接受这样的看法，但这“并不会使得基 : 督在十字架上献的祭变得无效或不足够，全人类反而能够全然被归咎於这个祭。”（第二 : 标题，第5-6条） : Here once again we are faced with mystery — and the two guardrails that keep : us from careening off the cliff in speculation. God loves the world and calls : everyone in the world to Christ outwardly through the Gospel, and yet God : loves the elect with a saving purpose and calls them by His Spirit inwardly : through the same Gospel (John 6:63–64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts : 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9). Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists ignore : crucial passages of Scripture, resolving the mystery in favor of the : either-or: either election or the free offer of the Gospel. : 我们在此又再次面对神的奥秘——两个准则能够帮助我们不会在揣测的悬崖边翻下去。神 : 爱世人并以外在福音的方式，把在世界里面的人呼召到基督那里去，然而神带着一种拯救 : 的目的爱选民，并以内在的方式，用祂自己的灵，透过同一个福音呼召他们（John 6:63 : –64; 10:3–5, 11, 14–18, 25–30; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Tim. 1:9）。亚 : 米念主义和极端加尔主义都忽略了圣经中极其重要的经文，导致神的奥秘倾向於福音的拣 : 选或白白的赐予。 : Grace for Everybody?——恩典是为着众人的？ : Does God love everybody, or is His kindness simply a cloak for His wrath — : fattening the wicked for the slaughter, as some hyper-Calvinists have argued? : 神是否爱世人？或祂的恩赐仅仅是祂愤怒的伪装——难道就像某些极端加尔文主义者所辩 : 称的，要把恶人养肥了再杀？ : Scripture is full of examples of God’s providential goodness, particularly : in the Psalms: “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he : has made …. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing : ” (Ps. 145:9, 16). Jesus calls upon His followers to pray for their enemies : for just this reason: “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the : good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:44). Christians : are supposed to imitate this divine attitude. : 圣经充满了神看护的美善，特别是在诗篇中：“耶和华完全是良善的，祂的怜悯临及祂所 : 造的一切。。。你张开你的手；你满足每一个活物的渴望。”（诗篇145:9,16）耶稣呼吁 : 祂的跟随者为了如下的原因为他命的仇敌祷告：“因为祂让太阳照恶人，也照义人，降雨 : 给义人，也降雨给不义的人。”（马太福音5:44）基督徒应当效法这种神圣的态度。 : The doctrine we are talking about has come to be called “common grace,” in : distinction from “saving grace.” Some have objected to this term (some even : to the concept), insisting that there is nothing common about grace: there is : only one kind of grace, which is sovereign, electing grace. However, it must : be said that whatever kindness God shows to anyone for any reason after the : fall, can only be regarded as gracious. Once again, we face two guardrails : that we dare not transgress: God acts graciously to save the elect and also : to sustain the non-elect and cause them to flourish in this mortal life. : While it is among the sweetest consolations for believers, election is not : the whole story of God’s dealing with this world. : 我们在此论到的教义往往被称作是“普遍的恩典（Common Grace）”，与“救赎的恩典（ : Saving Grace）”不同。有些人拒绝这个称呼（有些人甚至拒绝这个观念），坚信恩典完 : 全没有普遍的特性：只有一种恩典，就是具有神主权，拣选的恩典。然而，我们必须说， : 不论神在人堕落後以任何理由赐给任何人的恩赐，只能被视为恩典性的。我们再从遇见无 : 法逾越的两个准则：神以恩典的方式做工好拯救选民，并维持那些未被拣选者，并使得他 : 们在这个必死的生命中繁衍。而对於信徒的那种最为甜美的安慰中，拣选并不是神处理这 : 个世界之故事的全部。 : When we, as Christians, affirm common grace, we take this world seriously in : all of its sinfulness as well as in all of its goodness as created and : sustained by God. We see Christ as the mediator of saving grace to the elect : but also of God’s general blessings to a world that is under the curse. : Thus, unbelievers can even enrich the lives of believers. John Calvin pleads : against the fanaticism that would forbid all secular influence on Christians, : concluding that when we disparage the truth, goodness, and beauty found among : unbelievers, we are heaping contempt on the Holy Spirit Himself who bestows : such gifts of His common grace (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.15). : 当我们作为基督徒，并肯定普遍恩典的时候，我们以非常严肃的态度面对这个世界的罪恶 : 本性，以及神所创造在其中，并维持的美善。我们看见，对於选民而言基督乃是救赎恩典 : 的中保，也是神对於在咒诅之下世界的普遍性祝福。因此，能够使得信徒的生活更为丰富 : 。约翰加尔文诉诸於能够禁止世俗对基督徒产生影响的狂热主义（Fanaticism），其结果 : 就是当我们藐视在不信者中发现的真理，良善，和美丽的时候，我们就是过於轻视圣灵亲 : 自倾倒的普遍恩典（基督教要义2.2.15）。 : Is Calvinism a License to Sin?——加尔文主义是否是犯罪许可证？ : The first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are : never accused of preaching antinomianism (that is, grace-as-license), we : probably have not preached the Gospel correctly. After all, Paul anticipates : the question, “Shall we then sin that grace may abound?” precisely because : his own argument from 3:9 to this point has pressed it: “Where sin abounds, : grace abounds all the more” (5:21). At the same time, some Reformed : Christians, especially those liberated from legalistic backgrounds, seem to : end Paul’s argument at Romans 5:21, concluding, in effect, “God likes to : forgive, I like to sin — the perfect relationship!” : 我们首先要说明，对於Martyn Lloyd-Johnes而言，如果我们从未批判传扬反律法主义（ : 就是，恩典作为犯罪的许可证），我们可能就没有正确的传扬福音。别忘了，保罗早就预 : 测了这个责难，“难道恩典能够使罪过加多吗？”这正是因为他自己对於 3:9的论点产生 : 了：“何处罪过加多，恩典就更加多。”（5：21）在同时，某些改革宗基督徒，特别是 : 那些从律法背景被释放的认识，看起来似乎终结了 : 保罗在罗马书5:31中的论点，他们结论到，‘神喜欢赦免，我喜欢犯罪——这是完美的关 : 系。’ : The difference between being accused of antinomianism (literally, : anti-law-ism) and being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow : Paul on into chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an : announcement of what God has done!At first, this would seem to favor : antinomians, since they place all of the emphasis on what God has done and : reject, or at least downplay, the importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, : what Paul announces is that God has accomplished not only our justification : in Christ, but our baptism into Christ. His argument is basically this: : being united to Christ necessarily brings justification and regeneration, : which issues in sanctification. He does not say that Christians should not, : or must not, live in sin as the principle of their existence, but that they : cannot — it is an impossibility. That they do continue to sin is evident : enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle against it. : 被定罪为反律法主义与真正犯下那样的罪行间的分别在於我们是否愿意跟保罗一同进入第 : 六章。首先，这看起来似乎对於犯律法主义者有利，因为他们把所有的注意力放在神所做 : 并所拒绝的，或最起码贬低履行律法义务的重要性。然而，事实上，保罗所宣告的乃是神 : 不仅仅只在基督里完成了我们的称义，也把我们浸入基督里面。他的论点基本上是：与基 : 督联合必然产生称义与重生，这进一步产生成圣。他并不是说基督徒应当不怎麽样，或不 : 能怎麽样的活在罪里面，并把最当做他们存在的原则，而是他们不能这样做 ——这是不 : 可能的。他们继续犯罪就是一个明确的证明，特别是在第七章中，然而如今要与罪斗争。 : The fathers at Dort recognized the charge that the Reformed doctrine “leads : off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate : administered by the flesh and the devil,” and leads inevitably to “ : libertinism” and “renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by : it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they : please” (Conclusion). Yet they would neither surrender the comfort of : justification by Christ’s righteousness imputed nor of sanctification by : Christ’s resurrection life imparted. Perfection of sanctification in this : life is impossible, but just as impossible is a condition known today as the : “carnal Christian.” One is either dead in Adam or alive in Christ. Again, : some wish to resolve this mystery: either we can be free from all known sin, : as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state of spiritual death, as : antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason, such an easy : resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of Scripture and : robs us of the joy of such a full salvation. : 多特会议的先祖们发现了对於改革宗教义的批判，说“导致人的心思离开敬虔与信仰；就 : 是肉体和魔鬼的鸦片”，并不可避免的导致‘自由主义’并‘使得人根植与肉体中，因为 : 他们被说服，就是没有什麽能够阻止选民的救恩，所以他们可以随心所欲的生活’（结论 : ）。然而他们因着透过基督的公义归给我们的称义，或透过基督放在我们里面复活的生命 : 而有的圣洁而过上安逸的日子。完全的成圣在此生是不可能的，但是，今日所谓‘肉体的 : 基督徒（Carnal Christian）’同样也是不可能的。人若不是在亚当中死，就是在基督里 : 活。有些人还想要解决这个奥秘：亦或是我们能够脱离一切知道的罪，就像约翰卫斯理所 : 教导的一样，就是我们能够处於一种属灵的死亡中，如同反律法主义所教导的。然而，为 : 了满足我们的理性，不论是采取任何方向，那种简单化的答案都忽略了圣经明确的教训并 : 剥夺了我们因那完整救赎而有的喜乐。 : So the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and : antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but : they are also not to be separated. : 因此，这个点的两个准则乃是从律法主义并反律法主义的迷雾中浮现出来的：称义与成圣 : 不能被混为一谈，但是，它们也不能被切割。 : In addition to these other charges, Reformed theology is often regarded as “ : rationalistic” — that is, a system built on logic rather than on Scripture. : However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the : extremists on either side of these debates. The wisdom of the Reformed : confessions is that they refuse to speculate beyond Scripture and insist on : proclaiming the whole counsel of God, not simply the passages that seem to : reinforce one-sided emphases. It is not a question of where the logic should : lead us but where the Scriptures do lead us. It might be easier to resolve : the mystery in simple, either-or solutions, but such a course would certainly : not be safer. So let us too strive to read all of the Scriptures together, : keeping a sharp lookout for those guardrails! : 在其他的批判之外，改革宗神学往往被认为是“理性化（rationalistic）”——就是建 : 立在逻辑，而不是建立在圣经上的系统。然而，我希望我们能够开始看见，真正的理性主 : 义这乃是在这个争论的两个极端上的极端分子。改革宗信仰宣言的智慧乃是在於它们拒绝 : 越过圣经去揣测真理，并诉诸於神的整个大会的宣告，而不仅仅依赖於那些只偏重於单方 : 面的经文段落。逻辑所产生的结果并不是问题，而是圣经将我们引向何处才是重点。我们 : 可能可以用简单，是非分明的答案来解决奥秘所产生的问题，但是那种做法并不是安全的 : 。因此，让我们努力一同阅读整本圣经，敏锐的寻找那些指导我们的准则。 -- それはそれ！！これはこれ！！！ 忘记旁边，努力面前！ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 106.104.83.224 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1472171289.A.05D.html ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:30:38 不好意思，我列出的5点，是老鱼该篇引文讲的。 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:42:59 ======================== #1N4c6Ndh (Christianity) sCH 而亚当的堕落或人的罪恶，人必须负上全责， 我们可以用神的「容许」或「任凭」来强调人要对自己的罪恶绝对的完全负责， 但不该妥协神掌控万有的主权，而神预定罪恶是个奥秘。 因此，亚当的堕落就是神在永恒中的预定， 若说神没有预定亚当堕落，岂不是说在受造界中有一个地方是独立於神的主权？ 此「地方」不就是变成连神都不可侵犯的秘境？ ======================== sCH是的确失忆了，当然他当时讲得有点暧昧模糊--所以才引起争议阿！ 不过我的重点是他讲过这件事，我们也吵过，不是想要重新吵一次。 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:44:13 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:52:47 ========== 该文主要是讲极端加尔文主义者「带屎」改革宗神学， 极端加尔文主义的一些问题，变成大家对於改革宗神学的批评。 ========== 你才没在看我的文章！我第一段就讲了 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:53:47 我本文的重点，除了表示我跟大家争论的议题， 不是只有我的看见， 的确是一般对於被极端加尔文主义者带屎的改革宗神学的批评或误解， 而对於平衡的改革宗神学来说这些批评是误解， 但对於极端加尔文主义者而言当然是正确的批评。 所以我结论说： =================== 当然，该文作者Michael Horton的意思是说， 一个平衡的、真正回归经典的改革宗神学，不应背负以上骂名。 所以我才在推文中问sCH，他到底跟极端加尔文主义差在哪边？ =================== 拜托，看清楚我在写什麽，再回应好吗.... ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 08:58:30 再贴一次： 作者列出的这5点， 对於平衡的改革宗神学来说这些批评是误解， 但对於极端加尔文主义者而言当然是正确的批评。 所以问题就在於，sCH等人是更接近哪一边？何以见得？ 这才是我要表达的重点，请不要读错文章、搞错重点、模糊焦点... ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 09:06:40 可笑，我讲的就是那篇的立场，你还看不懂？ 这位作者先说大家对改革宗的误解，是对极端加尔文主义的正确批评， 并描述这5点批评， 每一点都附上平衡的改革宗神学的立场来正视听， 说明平衡的改革宗跟极端加尔文主义不同。 这就是这位作者该文的文章重点。 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 09:25:59 我则是知道这人国文有问题。 =================== : 因此，我们坚信世界拥有“福音的应许。。。向 : 着所有的人。。。毫无分别。。。”虽然许多人不接受这样的看法，但这“并不会使得基 : 督在十字架上献的祭变得无效或不足够，全人类反而能够全然被归咎於这个祭。”（第二 : 标题，第5-6条） : 我们在此又再次面对神的奥秘——两个准则能够帮助我们不会在揣测的悬崖边翻下去。神 : 爱世人并以外在福音的方式，把在世界里面的人呼召到基督那里去，然而神带着一种拯救 : 的目的爱选民，并以内在的方式，用祂自己的灵，透过同一个福音呼召他们 : 神是否爱世人？或祂的恩赐仅仅是祂愤怒的伪装——难道就像某些极端加尔文主义者所辩 : 称的，要把恶人养肥了再杀？ : 。约翰加尔文诉诸於能够禁止世俗对基督徒产生影响的狂热主义（Fanaticism），其结果 : 就是当我们藐视在不信者中发现的真理，良善，和美丽的时候，我们就是过於轻视圣灵亲 : 自倾倒的普遍恩典（基督教要义2.2.15）。 =================== 请问作者这里讲的「上帝不只爱选民」，是违反了加尔文预定论吗？ 但sCH却说： → sCHb68: 你会不知道我是相信加尔文预定论的人？别耍宝了好吗？ 08/26 09:17 → sCHb68: 竟然还说「我没有接受上帝只爱选民的观点」。 08/26 09:17 所以麻烦sCH先去跟本文作者打一架，再回来好吗？ ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 09:43:48 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 09:47:58 指：「上帝只爱选民」 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 09:59:04 ============== 该文主要是讲极端加尔文主义者「带屎」改革宗神学， 极端加尔文主义的一些问题，变成大家对於改革宗神学的批评。 （看完发现跟我在本板与大家的争论议题根本是几乎相同的嘛XD） ============== 我第一段就写了本文的重点了... ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 10:23:55 打错：不同意 ※ 编辑: theologe (106.104.83.224), 08/26/2016 10:32:34