[情報] 時代論接受的人就是少數？鬼扯！

[df31 (DF-31)]

時代論接受的人就是少數？鬼扯！
===============================


→ theologe: 鬼扯，時代論接受的人就是少數。                        08/29 22:45


呵呵，不學無術敢污言穢語的罵人家【鬼扯】？哎，不讀書，已經很可憐！讀錯書，更可
憐！

====================================

THE CALVINISTIC HERITAGE OF DISPENSATIONALISM
時代論的加爾文主義背景

THOMAS ICE

Today, systematic Dispensationalism is approaching two hundred years of
expression and development. We live at a time in which Dispensationalism and
some of its ideas have been disseminated and adopted by various theological
traditions. This is not surprising since our day is characterized by
anti-systemization and eclecticism in the area of thought. It may be
surprising, to some, to learn that Dispensationalism was developed and spread
during its first 100 years by those within a Reformed, Calvinistic tradition.
It had only been in the last 75 to 50 years that Dispensationalism and some
of its beliefs were disseminated in any significant way outside of the orbit
of Calvinism.
今日，系統化的時代論已經發展了近200年。我們生活在一個時代論和一些它的觀念被廣
傳並接受於不同的神學傳統的時代。這並不奇怪。因為我們的時代沖斥著反系統和折衷主
義的思想。但是，某些人肯能會很驚訝，實際上時代論的頭100年乃是在加爾文傳統改革
宗的圈子裏面被傳播併發展的。而在過去的50到75年間，時代論和它的一些信仰才在加爾
文主義的圈子外被廣泛的傳播。

DEFINITIONS / 定義

Before proceeding further I need to provide working definitions of what I
mean by Calvinism and Dispensationalism. First, by Calvinism, I am speaking
mainly of the theological system that relates to the doctrine of grace or
soteriological Calvinism. This would include strict and modified Calvinism
(i.e. four and five point Calvinism). I am referring to that aspect of
Calvinism that speaks of the fallen nature of man and the elective grace of
God.
在進一步討論前，我需要對我所謂的加爾文主義和時代論下一個可操作的定義。第一，我
所謂的加爾文主義主要是指與加爾文主義的恩典或救贖論相關的神學系統。這包括保守或
改良的加爾文主義（如：4點或5點的加爾文主義）。我指的是加爾文主義中講到人的墮落
天性和神恩典的揀選的教義。

Second, by Dispensationalism, I have in mind that system of theology that was
developed by J. N. Darby that gave rise to its modern emphasis of consistent
literal interpretation, a distinction between God's plan for Israel and the
church, usually a pretribulational rapture of the church before the
seventieth week of Daniel, premillennialism, and a multifaceted emphasis upon
God's glory as the goal of history. This includes some who have held to such
a system by may stop short of embracing pretribulationism. The focus of this
article will be upon Dispensational premillennialism.
第二，我所謂的時代論是指由達秘（JN Darby）所發展的神學系統，他強調字義解經，神
對以色列人和教會有不同的計畫，通常是教會在但以裏書的第70個7的大災難前被提，前
千禧年論，和多方面強調神的榮耀是人類歷史的終極目標。這也包括某些堅信並擁抱災前
被提論。這份論文的著重點在於時代論的前千禧年論。

THEOLOGICAL LOGIC / 神學邏輯

In concert with the Calvinist impulse to view history theocentricly, I
believe that dispensational premillennialism provides the most logical
eschatological ending to God's sovereign decrees for salvation and history.
Since Dispensational premillennialists view both the promises of God's
election of Israel and the church as unconditional and something that God
will surely bring to pass, such a belief is consistent with the Bible and
logic. A covenant theologian would say that Israel's election was conditional
and temporary. Many Calvinists are covenant theologians who think that
individual election within the church is unconditional and permanent. They
see God's plan with Israel conditioned upon human choice, while God's plan
for salvation within the church is ultimately a sovereign act of God. There
is no symmetry in such logic. Meanwhile, Dispensational premillennialists see
both acts as a sovereign expression of God's plan in history which is a
logically consistent application of the sovereign will of God in human
affairs.
為了表現出加爾文主義者以神學為中心來對待歷史的脈動，我相信時代論的前千禧年論能
夠為神的救贖和其歷史提供一個最邏輯並合乎神主權的行動的末世結局。因為時代論的前
千禧年論將神揀選以色列和教會的應許視為無條件，且是神必定會完成的一件事，這樣的
信仰不但符合聖經，也符合邏輯。一個聖約神學者會說以色列的揀選是有條件的，並且是
暫時的。許多的加爾文主義者都是聖約神學專家，並認為個人在教會裏的被揀選是無條件
的，也是永遠的。他們認為神對以色列的計畫乃是根據人的選擇，而神對教會的救贖機會
至終是神主權的行動。這樣的邏輯是互相矛盾的。同時，時代論的前千禧年論認為兩者都
是神在歷史裏面的計畫中主權的表現，這也能夠從邏輯上符合神將他的主權應用在人類的
事物上。

Samuel H. Kellogg, a Presbyterian minister, missionary, and educator wrote of
the logic between Calvinism and "modern, futurist premillennialism," which
was in that day (1888) essentially dispensational. "But in general," notes
Kellogg, "we think, it may be rightly said that the logical relations of
premillennialism connect it more closely with the Augustinian than with any
other theological system."His use of "Augustinian" is the older term for
Calvinism. Kellogg points out the different areas in which Calvinism and
premillennialism are theologically one. "Premillennialism logically
presupposes an anthropology essentially Augustinian. The ordinary Calvinism
affirms the absolute helplessness of the individual for self-regeneration and
self-redemption."2 He continues, it is "evident that the anthropological
presuppositions on which premillennialism seems to rest, must carry with them
a corresponding soteriology."3 Kellogg reasons that "the Augustinian affinity
of the premillennialist eschatology becomes still more manifest. For nothing
is more marked than the emphasis with which premillennialists constantly
insist that, . . . the present dispensation is strictly elective."4 "In a
word," concludes Kellogg, "we may say that premillennialists simply affirm of
the macrocosm what the common Augustinianism affirms only of the microcosm."5
Samuel H. Kellogg, 一位長老會的牧師，宣教士，和教育家，他曾撰寫關於加爾文主義
和“現代和未來派的前千禧年論”間的邏輯，在當時（1888）就是時代論的。‘但是，一
般而言’，Kellogg說，‘我認為，從邏輯關係而言，前千禧年論比任何其他神學系統都
更接近奧古斯丁。’他使用的‘奧古斯丁’一詞，乃是對加爾文主義的舊稱。Kellogg在
許多不同的方面指出了加爾文主義和前千禧年論叢神學而言乃是一致的。“前千禧年論邏
輯上假設一個從本質而言是奧古斯丁的人論。正統的加爾文主義確信各人在自我重生和自
我救贖上的完全無助。”他繼續，證據就是“前千禧年論的人論的假設中也必然包括了相
應（加爾文主義）的救贖論。”Kellogg解釋說，“奧古斯丁派堅信的是前千禧年的末世
論也是顯而易見的。沒有什麼比前千禧年論不斷強調的。。。今日的分賜（dispensation
，在次指神在各時代對救贖的不同分賜）是完全根據神的揀選。”“換句話說”，
Kellogg總結，“我們能夠說前千禧年論者堅信的宏觀宇宙就是奧古斯丁主義所相信的微
觀宇宙。”

This is not to say that Dispensationalism and Calvinism are synonymous. I
merely contend that it is consistent with certain elements of Calvinism which
provide a partial answer as to why Dispensationalism sprang from the Reformed
womb. C. Norman Kraus contend,
這並不是說時代論和加爾文主義是一樣的。我只是強調加爾文主義裏面的某些元素提供了
為什麼時代論是從改革宗中所孕育出來的部分答案。C. Norman Kraus說道：

There are, to be sure, important elements of seventeenth-century Calvinism in
contemporary dispensationalism, but these elements have been blended with
doctrinal emphasis from other sources to form a distinct system which in many
respects is quite foreign to classical Calvinism.6
在17世紀的加爾文主義中就有了時代論的重要成分，但是這些成分混入了其他不同（神學
）系統所強調的教義，這些教義在許多方面對古典加爾文主義是陌生的。

Nevertheless, Dispensationalism did develop within the Reformed community and
most of its adherents during the first 100 years were from within the
Calvinist milieu. Kraus concludes: "Taking all this into account, it must
still be pointed out that the basic theological affinities of
dispensationalism are Calvinistic. The large majority of men involved in the
Bible and prophetic conference movements subscribed to Calvinistic creeds." 7
I will now turn to an examination of some of the founders and proponents of
Dispensationalism?
不論如何，時代論確實是在改革宗的群體中發展並；在它的頭100年中在加爾文主義中得
到廣泛的支持。Kraus繼續說道：“把這些背景了結清楚後，我們還要指出時代論所吸引
的人都是加爾文派的。他們大部分的成員都參與了根據加爾文派信經的聖經與預言（研究
）大會。”我現在要開始檢視時代論的某些創立者和支持者（的背景）。

DARBY AND THE BRETHREN / 達秘和弟兄會

Modern systematic dispensationalism was developed in the 1830s by J. N. Darby
and those within the Brethren movement. Virtually all of these men came from
churches with a Calvinistic soteriology. "At the level of theology," says
Brethren historian H. H. Rowdon, "the earliest Brethren were Calvinists to a
man."8 This is echoed by one of the earliest Brethren, J. G. Bellett, who was
beginning his association with the Brethren when his brother George wrote,
"for his views had become more decidedly Calvinistic, and the friends with
whom he associated in Dublin were all, I believe without exception, of this
school."9
近代系統化的時代論乃是1830年代由達秘（JN Darby）以及弟兄會運動內的成員所發展的
。這些人都有加爾文派教會的救贖論背景。“在神學的層次”，弟兄會歷史學家H. H.
Rowdon說，“早期的弟兄們都是加爾文主義者。”這和最早的弟兄會成員，J. G.
Bellett所說的一致，當他的兄弟喬治寫道他如何開始與弟兄會聯繫時說道，“他的觀點
已經是絕對的加爾文派，我相信那些在都柏林跟他在一起的人也一樣都是這一派的，絕無
例外。”

What were Darby's views on this matter? John Howard Goddard observes that
Darby "held to the predestination of individuals and that he rejected the
Arminian scheme that God predestinated those whom he foreknew would be
conformed to the image of Christ."10 In his "Letter on Free-Will," it is
clear that Darby rejects this notion.
在這點上，達秘自己的觀點又是什麼呢？John Howard Goddard觀察到達秘“堅信預定論
，他拒絕了亞米念方面的神先預知那些將會被模成基督的形象的人，在預定他們。”在他
的“致自由意志者的信”中，達秘明確的拒絕了這個觀點。

"If Christ has come to save that which is lost, free-will has no longer any
place."11 "I believe we ought to hold to the word;" continues Darby, "but,
philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory.
Free-will is a state of sin."12 Because Darby held to the bondage of the
will, he logically follows through with belief in sovereign grace as
necessary for salvation.
“如果基督來為了拯救那些失喪的人，自由意志就沒有任何的地位。”“我相信，我們必
須相信聖經的話；”達秘繼續，“然而，從哲學和道德而言，自由意志是虛謊和令人難以
置信的理論。自由意志是罪的狀態。”因為達秘堅信意志被（罪）捆綁，他的邏輯相信恩
典的主權是救贖必須的先決條件。

Such is the unfolding of this principle of sovereign grace, without which not
one should would be saved, for none understand, none seek after God, not one
of himself will come that he might have life. Judgment is according to works;
salvation and glory are the fruit of grace.13
這就是揭示了救恩的主權的原則，否則無人能夠被拯救，因為沒有人理解（神），也沒有
人尋求神，也沒有人自己願意前來得著（神的）生命。審判時根據行為；救贖和榮耀是恩
典的果子。

Further evidence of Darby's Calvinism is that on at least two occasions he
was invited by non-dispensational Calvinists to defend Calvinism for
Calvinists. One of Darby's biographers, W. G. Turner spoke of his defense at
Oxford University:
進一步證明達秘的加爾文主義的證據是最起碼有兩個事件，當他被非時代論的加爾文主義
者邀請去幫助加爾文者辯護加爾文主義。達秘傳記的作者，W. G. Turner提到他在牛津大
學的辯護說道：

It was at a much earlier date (1831, I think) that F. W. Newman invited Mr.
Darby to Oxford: a season memorable in a public way for his refutation of Dr.
E. Burton's denial of the doctrines of grace, beyond doubt held by the
Reformers, and asserted not only by Bucer, P. Martyr, and Bishop Jewell, but
in Articles IX—XVIII of the Church of England.14
當F.W. Newman在相當早期的時候（我記得是1831）邀請達秘先生去牛津：這是他公開駁
斥E. Burton博士否認恩典教
義令人難忘的季節，遠遠超出了改革宗者的懷疑，並得到包括Bucer, P. Martyr, 和
Jewell主教，並英國教會教綱9-18條
的支持。

On an other occasion Darby was invited to the city of Calvin—Geneva,
Switzerland—to defend Calvinism. Turner declares that "He refuted the
'perfectionism' of John Wesley, to the delight of the Swiss Free Church."15
Darby was awarded a medal of honor by the leadership of Geneva.16
另外一次達秘被邀請到加爾文的城市—瑞士的日內瓦—去為加爾文主義辯護。Turner宣稱
，“他駁斥了那些約翰衛斯理的‘完美主義者’,使得瑞士自由教會萬分喜悅。”達秘甚
至被日內瓦的領導階層贈與獎章。

Still yet, when certain Reformed doctrines came under attack from within the
Church in which he once served, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine
of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine
Articles"17 on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said,
然而，當某些改革宗的教義在他（達秘）曾經服侍過的教會內部被攻擊的時候，在揀選和
預定的題目上，“達秘表示他認同英國國教教會39條中的第17條的內容”。達秘說，

For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might
say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains
that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and
grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal
purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He
firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and
destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to
bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.18
在我的這部分，我嚴肅的認為第17條是智慧的，可能我能夠說它是最智慧和最精煉的人類
的宣告，他包含了我所教導的（內容）。我完全認可他的字面和文風的含義。我相信在世
界的根基被立定之前預定是神永遠的心意。他的肯定的警告我們，他將奧秘教導我們，為
要將那些在基督裏從人類中揀選出來的從咒詛和毀滅中拯救出來，把他們借由基督，提升
他們，讓他們成為榮耀的器皿，直至永遠的救恩。

DISPENSATIONALISM IN AMERICA / 在美國的時代論

Darby and other Brethren brought dispensationalism to America through their
many trips and writings that came across the Atlantic. "In fact the
millenarian (or dispensational premillennial) movement," declares George
Marsden, "had strong Calvinistic ties in its American origins."19 Reformed
historian Marsden continues his explanation of how dispensationalism came to
America:
達秘和其他的弟兄們借由許多的旅行和著作，將時代論主意介紹到大西洋彼岸的美國。“
事實上，千年論（或時代論的前千禧論）運動”，George Marsden宣稱，“在他的美國起
源中與加爾文有著堅固的關係。”改革宗歷史學者Marsden繼續解釋時代論如何來到美國
：

This enthusiasm came largely from clergymen with strong Calvinistic views,
principally Presbyterians and Baptists in the northern United States. The
evident basis for this affinity was that in most respects Darby was himself
an unrelenting Calvinist. His interpretation of the Bible and of history
rested firmly on the massive pillar of divine sovereignty, placing as little
value as possible on human ability.20
這些熱情的人大部分來自強烈加爾文觀點的神職人員，主要是美國北部的長老會和浸信會
。這也是確認達秘本身就是無可置疑的加爾文主義者的線索。他對於聖經及其歷史的解釋
，非常以神聖的主權作為支柱，盡可能的淡化人的能力的因素。

The post-Civil War spread of dispensationalism in North America occurred
through the influence of key pastors and the Summer Bible Conferences like
Niagara, Northfield, and Winona. Marsden notes:
內戰後，時代論在北美的傳播主要是借由如同尼加拉瓜（Niagara），Northfield和
Winona這類的夏季聖經大會。Marsden記載：

The organizers of the prophetic movement in America were predominantly
Calvinists. In 1876 a group led by Nathaniel West, James H. Brookes, William
J. Eerdman, and Henry M. Parsons, all Presbyterians, together with Baptist A.
J. Gordon, . . . These early gatherings, which became the focal points for
the prophetic side of their leaders' activities, were clearly Calvinistic.
Presbyterians and Calvinist Baptists predominated, while the number of
Methodists was extremely small. . . . Such facts can hardly be accidental.21
在美國的預言（研究）運動的組織者是由加爾文主義者所主宰的。在1876年，一群由
Nathaniel West, James H.
Brookes, William J. Eerdman, 和 Henry M. Parsons的長老會成員，加上A. J.
Gordon,等等的浸信會成員。。一同領導。這些早期的聚會成為這些領袖們活動的重點，
都清楚地是

Proof of Marsden's point above is supplied by Samuel H. Kellogg—himself a
Presbyterian and Princeton graduate—with his breakdown of the predominately
dispensational Prophecy Conference in New York City in 1878. Kellogg
classified the list of those that signed the call for the Conference as
follows:
Marsden上述的觀點得到了Samuel H. Kellogg—他本身就是普林斯頓畢業的長老會成員—
將1878年參加紐約時代論預
言研究大會的分類的支持。Kellogg將參加該次大會簽名者分類為：

Presbyterians / 長老會. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .31
United Presbyterians / 聯合長老會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 10
Reformed (Dutch) 荷蘭改革宗 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .3
Episcopalians 英國國教（美國）. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 10
Baptist 浸信會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22
Reformed Episcopalians 改革宗英國國教（美國）. . . . . . . . . . . 10
Congregationalists 會眾主義派 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 10
Methodists 衛理會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 6
Adventists 安息日會 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .5
Lutheran 路德 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .1 22

Kellogg concluded that "the proportion of Augustinians in the whole to be
eighty-eight per cent."23 "The significance of
this is emphasized," continues Kellogg, "by the contrasted fact that the
Methodists, although one of the largest
denominations of Christians in the country, were represented by only six
names."24 Kellogg estimates that "analyses of similar gatherings since held
on both sides of the Atlantic, would yield a similar result."25
Kellogg總結說道“奧古斯丁派的占到了88%。”“這意味著”，Kellogg繼續說道，“相
對於衛理會是美國最大的基督教公會，他們只有6個名字”。Kellogg估計“分析大洋兩岸
類似的大會，我們會得出類似的結果。”

George Marsden divides Reformed Calvinism in America into three types:
"doctrinalist, culturalist, and pietist."26 He then explains that
"Dispensationalism was essentially Reformed in its nineteenth-century origins
and had in later nineteenth century America spread most among
revival-oriented Calvinists."27 This is not to say that only revival-oriented
Calvinists were becoming dispensational in their view of the Bible and
eschatology. Ernest Sandeen lists at least one Old School Presbyterian—L. C.
Baker of Camden, New Jersey—as an active dispensationalist during the later
half of the nineteenth century.28 Timothy Weber traces the rise of
Dispensationalism as follows:
George Marsden 將美國的改革宗加爾文主義者分為三類：“教義派，文化派和聖潔派。
”他然後解釋“時代論在19世紀的起源中是改革宗的，在19世紀下半期在美國大覺醒運動
影響的加爾文主義者中廣為流行。”這不是只有被大醒運動影響的加爾文主義者才會在他
們對聖經的看法和末世論成為時代論。Ernest Sandeen最起碼列舉一個長老會的老牌學校
—紐澤西的L. C. Baker of Camden—作為在19世紀下半葉活躍的時代論主義者。
Timothy Webe將時代論的興起追朔於：

The first converts to dispensational premillennialism after the Civil War
were pietistic evangelicals who were attracted to
its biblicism, its concern for evangelism and missions, and its view of
history, which seemed more realistic than that of the prevailing
postmillennialism. Most of the new premillennialists came from baptist, New
School Presbyterian, and Congregationalist ranks, which gave the movement a
definite Reformed flavor. Wesleyan evangelicals who opposed premillennialism
used this apparent connection to Calvinism to discredit it among Methodists
and holiness people.29
內戰後第一批接受時代論的前千禧年主義的都是最敬虔的福音派人士，他們被它的聖經主
義（唯獨聖經），它對於福音主義和宣教的關注，和它對於歷史的看法所吸引。這些看起
來都比後千禧年主義要現實。大部分新接受前千禧論的都是浸信會，長老會的新派學院，
和會眾主義的代表，這讓這個運動染上了無法否認的改革宗色彩。衛理會反對前千禧年派
的認識利用這個與加爾文主義接觸的機會，期望在衛理會和聖潔運動的人士間，拆毀它（
時代論）的可信度。

It is safe to say that without the aid of Reformed Calvinists in America
dispensational premillennialism would have had an entirely different history.
Men like the St. Louis Presbyterian James H. Brookes (1830-1897), who was
trained at Princeton Seminary, opened his pulpit to Darby and other speakers.
Brookes, considered the American father of the pretribulational rapture in
America, also discipled a new convert to Christ in the legendary C. I.
Scofield.30 Others such as Presbyterians Samuel H. Kellogg (Princeton
trained), E. R. Craven, who was a Princeton College and Seminary graduate and
Old School Presbyterian,31 and Nathaniel West provided great leadership in
spreading dispensationalism in the late 1800s.
所以我們可以很有把握的說，若沒有美國改革宗加爾文主義的幫助，時代論千禧年主義將
會走入另一個完全不同的歷史軌跡裏。那些像聖路易斯市的長老會成員，James H.
Brookes (1830-1897)，普林斯頓神學院畢業，甚至講他的講臺相達秘和其他的講員開放
。Brooks，被公認為美國的災前被提論的先驅，也是由神話般的司可福（C. I. Scofield
）帶領接受基督的。其他如長老會的Samuel H. Kellogg（普林斯頓訓練），E. R.
Craven普林斯頓大學和神學院畢業，老派的長老會成員，和Nathaniel West在18世紀前千
禧年論傳播時發揮了極大的領導能力。


SCOFIELD, CHAFER AND DALLAS SEMINARY / 司可福，Chafer和達拉斯神學院

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), and Dallas
Theological Seminary (est. 1924) were great vehicles for the spread of
dispensationalism in America and throughout the world. Both Scofield and
Chafer were ordained Presbyterian ministers. The "Scofield Reference Bible,
is called by many the most effective tool for the dissemination of
dispensationalism in America."32 Scofield was converted in mid-life and first
discipled by James H. Brookes in St. Louis. He was ordained to the ministry
at the First Congregational Church of Dallas in 1882 and transferred his
ministerial credentials to the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. in 1908.33
Thus, his ministry took place within a Calvinist context.
司可福（1843-1921），Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), 和達拉斯神學院 (1924設立
)都是向美國和全世界傳播時代論的主要管道。司可福和Chafer都是長老會按立的牧師。
“司可福注解聖經，被許多人稱為，是美國傳播時代論最有效的工具”。司可福是在中年
之後信主，現在聖路易斯的James H. Brookes手下受教。他在1822年被達拉斯的第一會眾
教會（First Congregational Church of Dallas）按立為牧師，然後在1908年轉入美國
的長老會牧會。歌詞，他的職事乃是在加爾文主義的背景下進行的。

Scofield was the major influence upon the development of Chafer's theology.
John Hannah notes that "it is impossible to understand Chafer without
perceiving the deep influence of Scofield."34 In fact, "Chafer often likened
this relationship to that of father and a son."35 This relationship grew out
of Chafer's study under Scofield at the Northfield Conference and from a
life-changing experience in Scofield's study of the First Congregational
Church of Dallas in the early 1900s. Scofield told Chafer that his gifts were
more in the field of teaching and not in the area of evangelism in which he
had labored. "The two prayed together, and Chafer dedicated his life to a
lifetime of biblical study."36
Chafer神學發展中最重要的影響者乃是司可福。John Hannah這樣記載“若沒有先被司可
福一個深入的影響，就不可能瞭解Chafer”。事實上，“Chafer常常將這種關係比喻為父
子關係。”這種關係乃是從Chafer在Northfield大會中，在司可福下研究聖經，和在1990
年代初期在達拉斯的第一會眾教會中，與司可福一同研讀聖經的經歷上面發展出來的。司
可福告訴Chafer，他的恩賜在於教導而不是他當時著重的宣教。“當他們兩人一同禱告，
Chafer將他的一生奉獻給聖經的研究”。

Scofield and Chafer were two of the greatest American dispensationalists and
both developed their theology from out of a Reformed background. Scofield is
known for his study bible and Chafer for his Seminary and systematic
theology. Jeffrey Richards describes Chafer's theological characteristics as
having "much in common with the entire Reformed tradition. Excluding
eschatology, Chafer is similar theologically to such Princeton divines as
Warfield, Hodge, and Machen. He claims such doctrines as the sovereignty of
God, . . . total depravity of humanity, election, irresistible grace, and the
perseverance of the saints."37 C. Fred Lincoln describes Chafer's 8 volume
Systematic Theology as "unabridged, Calvinistic, premillennial, and
dispensational."38
司可福和Chafer是美國歷史上最偉大的時代論主義者，他們兩人都從改革宗的背景下發展
他們的神學。司可福因他的聖經研究著名於世，Chafer是以他的神學院和系統神學著名於
世。Jeffrey Richards形容Chafer的神學特性如同擁有“許多與整個改革宗傳統的共同點
。除了末世論，Chafer與普林斯頓神學院的Warfield，Hogde，和Machen比較接近。他宣
稱，這些教義乃是神的主權，。。人的完全敗壞，（神的）揀選，不可抗拒的恩典，和（
神）對聖徒的保守”。C. Fred Lincoln將Chafer的八卷系統神學描述為“未經過刪減的
，加爾文主義的，前千禧年的，和時代論的。”

Since its founding in 1924 as The Evangelical Theological College (changed to
Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936), it has exerted a global impact on
behalf of dispensationalism. Dallas Seminary’s primary founder was Chafer,
but William Pettingill and W. H. Griffith-Thomas also played a leading role.
Pettingill, like Chafer was Presbyterian. Griffith-Thomas, an Anglican, wrote
one of the best commentaries on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican
Church,39 which is still widely used by conservative Anglicans and
Episcopalians today. The Thirty-nine Articles are staunchly Calvinistic.
自從福音派神學院（在1936年改名為達拉斯神學院）在1924年創立以來，它一向高舉對全
球產生深刻影響的時代論主義。達拉斯的主要創辦人是Chafer，但是William Pettingill
和W. H. Griffith-Thomas也在其中起了非常重要的帶頭作用。Pettingill，就如同
Chafer一樣，是長老會背景。Griffith-Thomas則是英國國教（美國）教會背景，他曾寫
了對英國國教39條最好的注解，今天仍被英國國教和Episcopalian廣泛使用。那個39條乃
是徹頭徹尾的加爾文主義的。

Both men were clearly Calvinists. The Seminary, especially before World War
II, considered itself Calvinistic. Chafer once characterized the school in a
publicity brochure as "in full agreement with the Reformed Faith and its
theology is strictly Calvinistic."40 In a letter to Allan MacRae of
Westminster Theological Seminary, Chafer said, "You probably know that we are
definitely Calvinistic in our theology."41 "Speaking of the faculty, Chafer
noted in 1925 that they were 'almost wholly drawn from the Southern and
Northern Presbyterian Churches.'"42 Further, Chafer wrote to a Presbyterian
minister the following: "I am pleased to state that there is no institution
to my knowledge which is more thoroughly Calvinistic nor more completely
adjusted to this system of doctrine, held by the Presbyterian Church."43
上述兩位明顯的是加爾文主義者。（達拉斯）神學院，特別是二戰後，更是自認為加爾文
主義的。Chafer曾經在一個公開的場合將學校歸納成“完全認可改革宗信仰，並且它的神
學是嚴謹的加爾文主義。”在一封致韋敏斯特神學院的AllanMacRae的信件中，Chafer說
，“你應該知道我們在神學上面肯定是加爾文主義的”。“談到我們的師資，Chafer在
1925年記載道，他們‘幾乎都是從南方和北方的長老會系統裏面招聘的’”。更進一步，
Chafer寫給一位長老會的牧師，說：“我很高興的告訴你，在我所知道的範圍內，沒有更
完全加爾文的神學機構，也沒有更比它被這個長老教會持守的教義系統歸正的（神學院）
。”

Since so many early Dallas graduates entered the Presbyterian ministry, there
began to be a reaction to their dispensational premillennialism in the 1930s.
This was not an issue as to whether they were Calvinistic in their
soteriology, but an issue over their eschatology. In the late 1930s, "Dallas
Theological Seminary, though strongly professing to be a Presbyterian
institution, was being severed from the conservative Presbyterian splinter
movement."44 In 1944, Southern Presbyterians issued a report from a committee
investigating the compatibility of dispensationalism with the Westminster
Confession of Faith. The committee ruled dispensationalism was not in harmony
with the Church's Confession. This "report of 1944 was a crippling blow to
any future that dispensational premillennialism might have within Southern
Presbyterianism."45 This ruling effectively moved Dallas graduates away from
ministry within Reformed denominations toward the independent Bible Church
movement.
因為有數目如此眾多的早期達拉斯的畢業生進入長老教會牧會，在1930年代就開始對他們
的時代論的千禧年論產生反應。這與他們在救贖論上是不是加爾文主義無關，而是跟他們
的末世論有關。在1930年代下半，“達拉斯神學院，雖然強烈的承認自己是一個長老會的
神學院，但是卻與保守派長老會的分離運動切割。”在1944，南方長老會的一個委員會發
表了一份關於時代論和韋敏斯特信條的相容性的報告。這個委員會裁定，時代論主義不符
合（南方長老會）教會的信仰。這個‘1944年的報告阻止了時代論的千禧年論在南方長老
會內部有任何的前途’。這個裁定，有效的將達拉斯的畢業生從改革宗的各教派趕致獨立
的聖經教會運動。

A BROADENING OF DISPENSATIONALISM ACCEPTANCE / 對時代論的更廣泛的接納

Even though dispensationalism had made a modest penetration of Baptists as
early as the 1880s through advocates such as J. R. Graves,46 a strong
Calvinist, they were rebuffed by non-Calvinists until the mid-1920s when
elements of dispensational theology began to be adopted by some Pentecostals
in an attempt to answer the increasing threat of liberalism. Kraus explains:
即使時代論在1880年代就借由J.R. Graves--一位堅定的加爾文主義者的宣導，開始進入
浸信會，直道1920年代中期，當部分的靈恩運動開始接受時代論的某些元素，以對抗日益
猖獗的自由主義，他們都被當作非加爾文主義者，被排斥與門外。Kraus解釋道：

Some teachers said explicitly that premillennialism was a bulwark against
rationalist theology. Thus it is not surprising to find that the theological
elements which became normative in dispensationalism ran directly counter to
the developing emphasis of the "New Theology."47
有些教師特別指出前千禧年論乃是對抗理性主義的堡壘。當人們發現時代論在直接對抗‘
新神學’所發展的（神學）側重點時，神學的成分成為時代論的標準時，並不讓人驚訝。

Up to this point in history, those from the Arminian and Wesleyan traditions
were more interested in present, personal sanctification issues, rather than
the Calvinist attention in explaining God's sovereign work in the progress of
history. However, the rise of the fundamentalist/liberal controversy in the
1920s stirred an interest, outside of the realm of Calvinism, in defending
the Bible against the anti-supernatural attacks of the liberal critics.
Dispensationalism was seen as a conservative and Bible-centered answer to
liberalism, not only within fundamentalism, but increasingly by Pentecostals
and others as well. Timothy Weber notes:
在歷史的這個時間點上，從亞米念和衛理會傳統來的人，更強調現今，個人成聖問題，而
不是加爾文主義者所著重的，解釋關於在歷史的進展中神主權的工作。不論如何，1920年
代興起的，在基要/自由主義間的衝突激發了在加爾文主義的圈子外，在捍衛聖經，對抗
從自由主義陣營發動的反超自然運動（對時代論）的興趣。時代論被視為針對自由主義的
一個保守，並以聖經為中心的答案。這不單單發生在基要派內部，也更頻繁的發生在靈恩
運動和其他運動的內部。Timothy Weber記載：

But in time, dispensationalism had its devotees within the Wesleyan tradition
as well. More radical holiness groups resonated with its prediction of
declining orthodoxy and piety in the churches; and pentecostals found in it a
place for the outpouring of the Spirit in a "latter-day rain" before the
Second Coming.48
然而在當時，時代論在衛斯理傳統內部也有發展者。許多極端的聖潔運動團體回應它們對
於教會中的正統於敬虔的衰落；而靈恩運動在（時代論）其中找到在基督第二次再來前，
所謂“末日之雨”的聖靈澆灌的位置。


LATTER RAIN PENTECOSTALISM / 晚雨靈恩派

One of the first non-Calvinist groups to adopt a dispensational orientation
can be found among some Pentecostals in the mid-1920s. This development must
be understood against a backdrop of the Wesleyan and holiness heritage out of
which Pentecostalism arose at the turn of last century. The American holiness
movement of the 1800s was primarily postmillennial and if premillennial, then
historical premillennial.
第一個接受時代論影響的非加爾文主義團體是一個1920年代中期的靈恩運動。這必須從上
個世紀結束時，衛理會的衰退和靈恩運動興起時所繼承的聖潔運動來理解。從1800年代開
始的美國聖潔運動主要是後千禧年派，即使是前千禧年派，也是歷史意義上的前千禧年派
。

They were not in any way dispensational. Pentecostalism is at heart a
supposed restoration of apostolic Christianity that is meant to bring in the
latter rain harvest in preparation for Christ's return. The phrase “latter
rain” is taken from Joel 2:23 & 28 and sometimes James 5:7 as a label
describing an end-time revival and evangelistic harvest expected by many
charismatics and Pentecostals. Some time in the future, they believe the Holy
Spirit will be poured out like never before. The latter rain teaching is
developed from the agricultural model that a farmer needs rain at two crucial
points in the growing cycle in order to produce a bountiful harvest. First,
right after the seed is planted the “early rain” is needed to cause the
seed to germinate in order to produce a healthy crop. Second, the crop needs
rain right before the harvest, called the “latter rain,” so the grain will
produce a high yield at harvest time, which shortly follows. Latter rain
advocates teach that the Acts 2 outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the “early
rain” but the “latter rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit will occur at
the end-times. This scenario is in conflict with dispensationalism that sees
the current age ending, not in revival, but apostasy. It will be during the
tribulation, after the rapture of the church, that God will use the
miraculous in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel. Thus, latter rain
theology fits within a postmillennial or historical premillennial
eschatology, but it is not consistent with dispensationalism.
他們從任何意義上而言，都不是時代論的。靈恩運動衷心希望重建使徒的基督教會，帶來
晚雨的收成，準備基督的再來。“晚雨”是從約耳書2：23&28節，有時候是雅各書5：7中
取來的一個辭彙，作為一個形容末世復興和許多靈恩運動者所期盼的福音收成的名詞。他
們相信在未來的某個時間點，聖靈會以一種前所未有的方式澆灌下來。晚雨的教導是從農
業模式發展出來的。農夫需要在2個重要的時間點得到雨水以產生豐盛的收成。首先，在
播種後需要“早雨”讓種子發芽，以產生健康的作物。之後，作物需要在被收成前再得到
雨水，叫做“晚雨”，好叫種子在收成時能夠產生高收成率。晚雨的宣導者教導行傳2章
中，聖靈的澆灌是“早雨”，“晚雨”的聖靈澆灌將在發生在末世。這個情景與認為現今
時代正在結束，不是復興，而是末日的時代論並不衝突。神在大災難間，教會被提後，使
用神跡來廣傳福音。所以，晚雨神學可以被融合入後千禧年派或歷史意義上的前千禧年派
的末世論，但是與時代論不同。

Many Christians are aware that the Pentecostal movement began on January 1,
1901 in Topeka, Kansas when Agnes Ozman (1870-1937) spoke in tongues under
the tutelage of Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929). Yet, how many realize that in
the “early years Pentecostalism often took the name ‘Latter Rain Movement’
”?49 This is because Parham titled his report of the new movement as “The
Latter Rain: The Story of the Origin of the Original Apostolic or Pentecostal
Movements.”50 Many are also aware that William J. Seymour (1870-1922) came
under the influence of Parham in Houston, Texas in 1905 and then took the
Pentecostal message to Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906, from where it was
disseminated to the four-corners of the world. But, how many are also aware
that he too spoke of these things in terms of a latter rain framework?
許多基督徒都知道靈恩運動開始於1901年1月1日。Agnes Ozman (1870-1937) 在堪撒斯州
Topeka在Charles Fox Parham (1873-1929)的監督下開始說方言。然而，有多少人知道，
早期的靈恩運動自稱為晚雨運動？這是因為Parham用“晚雨：最初的使徒或五旬節運動的
起源故事”作為報導這個新運動的標題？ 許多人也知道，1905年時William J. Seymour
(1870-1922)在德州休士頓的時候，受了Parham的影響。然後在1906年將五旬節的資訊帶
到洛杉磯的Azusa街。從那裏被傳致世界的各處。但是有多少人知道，他也在晚雨的架構
下，教導這些（時代論的）東西？

There is no doubt that the latter rain teaching was one of the major
components—if not the major distinctive—in the theological formation of
Pentecostalism. “Modern Pentecostalism is the ‘latter rain,’ the special
outpouring of the Spirit that restores the gifts in the last days as part of
the preparation for the ‘harvest,’ the return of Christ in glory,” says
Donald Dayton.51 David Wesley Myland (1858-1943) was one of the early
Pentecostal leaders. He wrote the first distinctly Pentecostal hymn entitled,
“The Latter Rain” in 1906. The “first definitive Pentecostal theology that
was widely distributed, the Latter Rain Covenant” appeared in 1910.52 Myland
argued in his book that “now we are in the Gentile Pentecost, the first
Pentecost started the church, the body of Christ, and this, the second
Pentecost, unites and perfects the church into the coming of the Lord.”53
不可否認的，晚雨的教導是五旬節主義中一個主要—即使不是最與眾不同—的神學組成部
分。“現代五旬節主義是‘晚雨’，‘為了預備收成，基督在榮耀裏回來，聖靈特別以澆
灌的方式在末日重建（各種）恩賜’”，Donald Dayton如此說過。David Wesley
Myland (1858-1943)是一位早期的五旬節運動領袖。他在1906，用“晚雨”為標題寫了第
一首真正五旬節運動的詩歌。“第一位鼓吹晚雨之約，真正的五旬節神學家”出現在
1910.Myland在他的書裏爭辯說，‘我們如今乃是在一個溫和的五旬節，第一個五旬節開
始了教會，基督的身體，這個，第二個五旬節將要聯合並預備教會，進入主的再來。

Dayton concludes that the “broader Latter Rain doctrine provided a key . . .
premise in the logic of Pentecostalism.”54 In spite of having such a key
place in the thinking of early Pentecostalism, “the latter rain doctrine did
tend to drop out of Pentecostalism” in the 1920s “only to reappear,
however, in the radical Latter Rain revitalization movement of the 1940s.”55
One of reasons that latter rain teachings began to wane in the mid-1920s was
that as Pentecostalism became more institutionalized it needed an answer to
the inroads of liberalism. As noted above, dispensationalism was seen as a
help in these areas.
Dayton總結，說‘更廣義的晚雨教導提供了一把鑰匙。。。以五旬節主義的邏輯作為前提
’。關於這把鑰匙在早期五旬節主義者的思想中的地位，“晚雨的教義有放棄五旬節主義
的傾向”在1920年代“只有在1940年代極端晚雨的復興運動中才再次出現”。其中的一個
原因是，在1920年代中期，晚雨的教義開始衰弱，而五旬節運動在組織化的過程中，急需
一個反擊自由主義的攻擊的答案。如同前面所記載的，時代論在這方面提供了幫助。

The Latter Rain teaching developed out of the Wesleyan-Holiness desire for
both individual (sanctification) and corporate (eschatological) perfection.
Thus, early perfectionist teachers like John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Asa
Mahan were all postmillennial and social activists. Revivalism was gagged by
carrying the burden of both personal and public change or perfection. It
follows that one who believes in personal perfection should also believe that
public perfection is equally possible. Those who believe the latter are
postmillennialists. After all, if God has given the Holy Spirit in this age
to do either, then why not the other? If God can perfect individuals, then
why not society?
晚雨運動是在衛斯理的聖潔運動對於個人（成聖）和集體（教會）完全的嚮往中發展出來
的教導。所以，早期的完全主義者（perfectionist）都教導衛斯理，芬尼和Asa Mahan的
後千禧年論和社會活動。復興主義（Revivalism）往往被執行個人和社會責任，或完全所
鉗制。他們相信，只要相信個人的完全，那麼社會的完全也是一樣可行的。那些相信後者
的，就是後千禧年主義者。除此之外，若神已經在這個時代賜下聖靈這樣做（譯者：個人
的完全），為什麼不能那樣做（社會的完全）？若神能夠完全個人，為什麼不能完全社會
？

However, as the 1800s turned into the 1900s, social change was increasingly
linked with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The evolutionary rationale was
then used to attack the Bible itself. To most English-speaking Christians it
certainly appeared that society was not being perfected, instead it was in
decline. Critics of the Bible said that one needed a Ph.D. from Europe before
the Bible could be organized and understood. It was into this climate that
dispensationalism was introduced into America and probably accounts for its
speedy and widespread acceptance by many conservative Christians. To many
Bible believing Christians, Dispensationalism made a great deal more sense of
the world than did the anti-supernaturalism conclusions of liberalism.
無論如何，在18世紀轉入19世紀的交界，社會的改變已經越來越連於達爾文的進化論。進
化論的邏輯也被用來攻擊聖潔。對於大部分英語基督而言，很明顯的社會並不是那麼的完
美，反而是在衰落。攻擊聖經的人宣稱，需要一個從歐洲來的博士才能讓聖經被組織起來
，並被理解。在這個氣候下，時代論被引進美國，並被許多保守派基督徒迅速並廣泛的接
受。對於許多相信聖經的基督徒，時代論遠比那些反超自然主義的結論或自由主義都更有
意義的多。

Dispensationalism, in contrast to Holiness teaching, taught that the world
and the visible church were not being perfected, instead Christendom was in
apostasy and heading toward judgment. God is currently in the process of
calling out His elect through the preaching of the gospel. Christian social
change would not be permanent, nor would it lead to the establishment of
Christ’s kingdom before His return. Instead a cataclysmic intervention was
needed (Christ’s second coming), if society was to be transformed.
時代論與聖潔運動不同，它教導世界和可見的教會都不是完全的，基督教國反而是在一個
背教的狀態中，一直向審判前進。神現在正在用廣傳福音的方式，將他所揀選的人呼召出
來。基督徒社會的改變不是永遠的，也不會在基督的回來前將建立基督的國度。反而，如
果這個社會需要被轉變，它需要一個災難（基督的第二次再來）。

Early Pentecostalism was born out of a motivation and vision for restoring to
the church apostolic power lost over the years. Now she was to experience her
latter-day glory and victory by going out in a blaze of glory and success. On
the other hand, dispensationalism was born in England in the early 1800s
bemoaning the latter-day apostasy and ruin of the church. Nevertheless,
within Pentecostalism, these two divergent views were merged. Thus,
denominations like the Assemblies of God and Foursquare Pentecostals moved
away from doctrines like the latter rain teaching and generated official
positions against those teachings. It was in the mid-1920s that
dispensationalism began to be adopted by non-Calvinists and spread throughout
the broader world of Conservative Protestantism.
早期的五旬節主義但是帶著一個重建在歷史中喪失的使徒教會的能力的動機和異象誕生的
。如今，她（教會）乃是在一刹那間產生的榮耀和成功的光輝中，經歷她在末日的榮耀和
勝利。在另一方面，於1800年代誕生於英國的時代論正在為教會在末日的背道和沒落哀慟
。故此，像神召會和四角五旬節教會的公會就從晚雨的教導中出來，並產生了反對那些教
導的立場。時代論是在1920年代開始被非加爾文主義者的公會接受，並在保守派的抗議宗
內廣為傳播。

Dispensationalism appealed to the average person with its emphasis that any
average, interested person could understand the Bible without the enlightened
help of a liberal education. Once a student understood God’s overall plan
for mankind, as administered through the dispensations, he would be able to
see God's hand in history.  Thus, dispensational theology made a lot of sense
to both Pentecostal and evangelical believers at this point in history.
時代論提供了一種不需要自由派教育的啟迪，讓一般有興趣的凡人能夠認識聖經的途徑。
只要一位學生能夠瞭解神在不同時代的管理中對於人類的整個計畫，他就能夠在歷史中清
楚的看見神的手。故此，在這個歷史的時刻上，時代論神學對於五旬節派和福音派的信徒
更有實際的意義。

POST WAR DEVELOPMENT / 戰後的發展

Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism/Charismatic movements

spread rapidly in America after the second World War and since
dispensationalism was attached to them, it also grew rapidly. Many
baby-boomers within Pentecostal and Charismatic churches grew up with
dispensationalism and the pre-tribrapture as part of their doctrinal
framework. Thus, it would not occur to them that dispensationalism was not
organic to their particular brands of restoration theology. Further, as
non-Calvinist Fundamentalism grew after the War, especially within
independent Baptist circles, there was an even greater disconnect of
dispensational distinctives from their Calvinist roots.
因著時代論的相隨，著基要派/福音派和五旬節/靈恩運動在二戰後迅速的在美國迅速傳播
並成長。許多五旬節/靈恩教會內的嬰兒潮信徒都在時代論和災前被提的教導架構下成長
。所以，所以時代論對於他們特有的教派以及其神學的重建並不是非生機的。除此以外，
當非加爾文主義的基要派在戰後發展時，特別是在獨立派的浸信會中，時代論和加爾文主
義的分別被更積極的淡化。

We have seen that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has a tradition of
both Latter Rain/restoration teachings as well as the later rise of a
dispensational stream. However, these are contradictory teachings which
appear to be on a collision course. Either the church age is going to end
with perfection and revival or it will decline into apostasy, preparing the
way for the church to become the harlot of Revelation during the tribulation.
It is not surprising to see within the broader Pentecostal/Charismatic
movement, since the mid 1980s, a clear trend toward reviving Latter Rain
theology and a growing realization that it is in logical conflict with their
core doctrine. Many, who grew up on Dispensational ideas and the
pre-tribrapture, are dumping these views as the leaven of Latter Rain
theology returns to prominence within Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.
我們已經看見五旬節/靈恩運動的教導同時擁有晚雨/（教會）重建的雙重傳統，並成為時
代論陣營的後起之秀。無論如何，這些互相矛盾的教導卻走在了一條碰撞的軌道上。不論
教會時代會結束於完全和復興，或它會墮落至背道，預備教會在啟示錄記載的大逼迫中成
為大妓女。自1980年代中開始，我們並不驚訝看見在一個泛五旬節/靈恩運動展現了一個
清晰的，走向復興的晚雨的神學和對自己教義的矛盾的進一步認知。許多在時代論和災前
被提的觀念下成長的，在五旬節/靈恩運動的圈子內，晚雨神學的酵開始重新執掌主導地
位的同時，正在拋棄這些（時代論的）觀點。

Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders like Earl Paulk56 and Tommy Reid, to name
just a couple among many, are attempting to articulate the tension over the
struggles of two competing systems. They are opting for the dismissal of
dispensational elements from a consistent Pentecostal/Charismatic and Latter
Rain theology. Tommy Reid observes:
如同Earl Paulk和Tommy Reid這樣的五旬節/靈恩運動領袖正在將兩個互相競爭的系統間
的張力整合為一。他們反對將時代論的成分從五旬節/靈恩運動和晚雨神學中脫鉤。
Tommy Reid這樣觀察道：

This great Last Day revival was often likened in the preaching of Pentecostal
pioneer to the restoration promised to Israel in the Old Testament. . . .
Whereas Dispensationalists had relegated all of these prophetic passages of
restoration only to physical Israel, Pentecostal oratory constantly referred
to these prophecies as having a dual meaning, restoration for physical
Israel, AND restoration for the present day church. WE WERE THE PEOPLE OF
THAT RESTORATION, ACCORDING TO OUR THEOLOGY. (emphasis in original)57。
末日這個最大的復興乃是與五旬節運動的先驅所傳樣的，重建在舊約中對以色列人的應許
有關。。。。有鑒於時代論者已經否定了這些重建的預言並將它們當作是針對物質的以色
列，五旬節的教導仍然視這些預言有雙重的含義，重建物質的以色列，和重建今日的教會
。根據我們的神學，我們就是這個重建的子民。（根據原文加強語氣。）

At the same time, the purge of Dispensationalism from Reformed Christianity,
begun in the late 1930s, has been pretty much completed. Typical of this
polarization is found in books like John Gerstner's Wrongly Dividing The Word
Of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism.58 While admitting on the one hand
that a "strange thing about Dispensationalism is that it seems to have had
its strongest advocates in Calvinistic churches."59 Gerstner so strongly
opposes dispensationalism, that it has blinded him to the true Calvinist
nature of such a God-centered theology. Gerstner claims that he and other
Reformed theologians have raised "strong questions about the accuracy of
dispensational claims to be Calvinistic."60 It appears that since
Dispensationalism arose within the Reformed tradition, as a rival to Covenant
Theology, some want to say that they cannot logically be Calvinistic. This is
what Gerstner contends. However, in spite of Gerstner's sophistry on this
issue,61 he cannot wipe out the historical fact that dispensationalism was
birthed within the biblical mindset of a clear theocentric theology and by
those who held strongly to soteriological Calvinism. The fact that
Dispensationalism arose within a Reformed context is probably the reason why
the Reformed community has led the way in criticism of Dispensational
theology.
在同時，改革宗基督教對時代論的清洗開始於1930年代，至今已經差不多完成了。典型的
兩極化可以在John Gerstner的錯誤分解真理的道：對時代論的批判這類書中找到。在一
方面承認“關於時代論一件奇怪的事情是，它看起來有很強的加爾文派教會的擁護”的同
時，Gerstner也積極的反對時代論，這使得他完全無視於這個以神為中心的神學以及其真
實的加爾文派本質。Gerstner宣稱他和其他許多改革宗的神學家已經“時代論宣稱自己是
加爾文（主義的本質）”的準確性提出了強烈的質疑。這讓人看起來時代論在改革宗傳統
中的誕生，對於聖約神學乃是一個威脅，所以有些人想說，從邏輯上而言，（時代論）不
是加爾文主義的。這是Gerstner想要主張的。無論如何，不管Gerstner如何詭辯，他無法
抹殺時代論是在一個以神為中心的神學，借由那些堅守加爾文派救贖論觀點的人，而誕生
的歷史事實。而事實是，時代論之誕生於改革宗的環境內，或許就是改革宗群體帶頭批判
時代論的真正原因。

 CONCLUSION / 結論

The purpose of this article is to remind modern Dispensationalists and
Calvinists of the historical roots of Dispensationalism. It is precisely
because Dispensationalism has penetrated almost every form of Protestantism
that many today may be surprised to learn of its heritage. In our day of
Postmodern irrationalism, where it is considered a virtue to NOT connect the
dots of one's theology, we need to be reminded that the theology of the Bible
is a seamless garment. It all hangs together. If one starts pulling at a
single thread, the whole cloth is in danger of unraveling.
這篇文章的目的乃是要提醒今天的時代論者和加爾文主義者，時代論的歷史淵源。這乃是
因為在時代論遍佈各類抗議宗公會的今天，很多人會非常驚訝時代論的（改革宗）背景。
在我們今日的後現代反理性主義的今天，不把某日的神學重點聯繫起來反而被認為是美德
。我們要提醒自己，聖經的神學如同一件無縫的外衣。若有人拉起其中的一條線，整件衣
服就會落入解體的危險裏。

I personally think that if systematic Dispensationalism is rightly understood
then it still logically makes sense only within a theocentric and
soteriologically Calvinists theology. After all, Dispensationalism teaches
that it is GOD who is ruling His household, as administered through the
various dispensations of history. However, the reality is that
Dispensationalism, or elements of Dispensationalism (i.e., pretribulationism,
futurism, etc.), have been disseminated throughout a wide diversity of
Protestant traditions.
我個人認為若系統化的時代論即使被正確的理解，也需要在以神為中心和加爾文的救贖論
神學喜愛才能夠產生邏輯上的意義。再者，時代論教導，只有“神”是主宰，並在歷史中
經由不同的分賜（譯者：時代的同義詞）管理他的家的那位。如論如何，時代論和時代論
的成分（如：前千禧年輪，未來主義，等等）都已經被廣泛的經由抗議宗的傳統被播種出
去。

Dispensationalism is best seen as a system of theology that sees views God as
the Sovereign ruler of heaven and earth; man as a rebellious vice-regent
(along with some angels); Jesus Christ is the hero of history as He is saves
some by His Grace; history as a lesson in the outworking of God's glory being
displayed to both heaven and earth. Dispensationalism is a theology that I
believe is properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God.
時代論最好被視為一個把神當作在天地間擁有管理主權的那一位的系統神學；人乃是一個
背叛的此等攝政者（加上部分的天使）；耶穌基督乃是歷史的英雄，他用恩典拯救了部分
的人類；歷史則是神的榮耀被彰顯、做工於天地的功課。我認為時代論是一個從聖經而來
，高舉神的神學。



--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.206.15.124
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472484052.A.02A.html
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/29/2016 23:21:45
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/29/2016 23:31:10
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/29/2016 23:32:36
→ theologe: 1.這篇證明時代論是19世紀，乃至20世紀初才發生的運動。
→ theologe: 2.「美國改革宗」就是我們今天講的「基要派」的代名詞。
→ theologe: 3.本篇只是時代論者攀親帶故，還有講述要怎麼去傳播自己
→ theologe: 時代論的文章罷了，df還好意思拿出來說嘴？
算了吧!地方召會的解經上被批判為[靈義解經](參考蔡麗貞的<誰說字句殺死人?>,華神出版),在批判時代論的時候,有說時代論過分[字義解經].

一個教派能夠同時'過分'靈義解經+字義解經?奇蹟磊!

你還要再扯嗎?

以下是[聖約神學]和[時代論]的對照:

http://theologychina.weebly.com/2610220195357701998222307324223107023398276043673922270.html

大家可以參考.

當然,TH在批判[時代論]的同時,希望他也對他自身的末世論表個態.這樣,我修理起來也比較方便.謝謝合作!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/29/2016 23:45:14
→ theologe: 我沒有要攻擊時代論，對於時代論很持平的評論，可參考
→ theologe: 校園出版的《神學求生指南》第13章，作者是曾為時代論大
前面批了一頓,現在裝呆+喊冤?!
無聊!

難道[無千]是無懈可擊的嗎?你敢接招嗎?
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/29/2016 23:48:15
推 unix2007: 無千年國論 絕對站不住腳
→ theologe: 本營的達拉斯神學院的神學博士。
→ unix2007: 不用老魚出場
→ unix2007: 神學家 你想跟我PK嗎
→ theologe: 呵呵 我是蔡麗貞的代言人嗎？
→ unix2007: 我可以駁倒任何無千年國的說法
→ theologe: 字義解經當然可以同時是靈意解經，只要誤以為自己在字面
→ theologe: 即可。
→ unix2007: 來吧
→ theologe: 愚蠢，我說我沒有要攻擊時代論，雖然我不支持這個立場
→ unix2007: 這個我是專家
→ unix2007: 沒有一個人
→ theologe: 你們中文都是一級棒...
→ unix2007: 曾經在這問題上擊敗我
→ unix2007: 如果你願意代表無千年國陣營
→ unix2007: 我很樂意讓您見識一下千年國的經文根據到什麼程度
→ theologe: 所有的神學派別都有自己的經文庫，so what?
→ theologe: 只能說我們尊重任何願意唯獨聖經的神學，但也不會因此
→ theologe: 讓我們自己隨風漂流。
推 unix2007: 是哦 那我只問一個問題
→ unix2007: 可以嗎
→ unix2007: 一個就好 但你要願意回答
→ unix2007: 你可以打開你的經文庫
→ unix2007: 讓我看看你有什麼經文可以拿出來
→ theologe: 廢話，差別在於解經學，不同的解經學都可以把整個聖經解
→ theologe: 一遍。
→ theologe: 首先就是啟示錄的文體是什麼？解讀的方法是什麼？
推 unix2007: 算了
→ unix2007: 你根本是這問題的外行
→ theologe: 解到後面，整本聖經當然都可以跟每個有傳統基礎的神學派
→ theologe: 別相融合。
→ unix2007: 這問題需要熟讀舊約先知書
→ unix2007: 看來舊約先知書不是你的強項
→ theologe: 華神之前回來的幾個都是做啟示錄的
→ unix2007: 算了
→ theologe: 當然啟示錄會連結到舊約的啟示文學
→ unix2007: 也不能怪你
→ theologe: 但以理書、以西結書等等
→ unix2007: 這問題我從沒碰到對手過
→ unix2007: 你逃走是對的
→ unix2007: 我可以實實在在的跟你說
→ theologe: 嗯嗯 我懂。精神勝利法長存心中，就不會有對手
→ unix2007: 每個跟我挑戰這問題的
→ unix2007: 都會被我引述的經文嚇到
→ theologe: 大家是被你這種洗版面的速度煩死了吧
→ theologe: 我已經領教過多次了，不奉陪。
→ unix2007: 因為這經文不會有任何爭議
→ unix2007: 是每個人都知道的經文
→ unix2007: 也沒有讓您瞎掰的空間ㄠ
→ unix2007: 所以你畏戰是對的
→ unix2007: 我的經文絕對讓您沒有任何迴避的空間
→ theologe: 這樣推銷讓我很好奇了，你舉出來看看
→ unix2007: 那你承諾你會回答
→ theologe: 你舉出來的經文我當然要回應
推 unix2007: 賽2:4
→ unix2007: 就這節 我說過只問你一個問題
→ unix2007: 請問 這預言是指什麼時候
→ theologe: 對我來說，就是新天新地的時候
推 unix2007: 哦 那你看後文
→ unix2007: 是新天新地嗎
→ theologe: 起碼我的解釋，這邊不是指現世的歷史
推 unix2007: 好的 晚安
→ theologe: 呵呵 在那日，七個女人必拉住一個男人(賽4:1)
我只能說,我為神學家這種先攻擊時代論為:

※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472425674.A.6EA.html
→ theologe: 你已經用時代論的思考模式在思考，這是循環論證。        08/29 23:07
→ theologe: 「以經解經」就是可能A段落解對，然後一直去解其他段落   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: ；但也可能A段落就解錯了，後面就通通解錯；但我們不能   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: 完全說時代論者對於啟示錄的解釋是一定錯的，但也不能說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 時代論一定解對了。故不能說這全都是聖經的內容，而是說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 這是時代論的角度去解讀，供大家參考。                  08/29 23:10
推 theologe: 時代論主要是19世紀達秘提出，要來補全前千禧派的漏洞。  08/29 23:16

不知道上面這段話是誰寫的?妖嗎?

*[1;31m→ *[33mtheologe*[m*[33m: 愚蠢，我說我沒有要攻擊時代論，雖然我不支持這
個

然後,

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:18:26
→ theologe: 這邊如果要談字面的話，應該要請angke出來了
把責任推到angke頭上的無恥作法,感到無語!

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:21:09
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:21:42
→ theologe: 喔 我攻擊時代論什麼地方了，可以麻煩df舉出來，證明你
繼續裝呆!攻擊人家的時候,很[爺們]!被人家叫真了,就開始[娘們]了!
反正,th永遠是正確的!才是真理!

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:24:38
→ theologe: 沒有誤解我嗎?
→ theologe: 還是你要直接承認自己理解力跟中文閱讀能力有問題？
又開始賴別人的[中文閱讀能力]了!這個藉口看的眼睛都長繭了!能換點別的招數嗎?
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:25:57
→ theologe: 呵呵 舉不出來就換人身攻擊了？很標準的df說話法
→ theologe: 麻煩舉出來我攻擊時代論什麼，不然就像個爺們跟我道歉
→ theologe: 如果你的閱讀能力沒有問題的話，怎麼舉不出來呢？
→ theologe: 還是表達能力也有問題？
還在賴阿!你到底又完沒完?連U都認為你在攻擊,要找你單挑,你[針對我]干嗎?!有病嗎?
都引述了你的話了!看不見?瞎子嗎?
你總不成接下來要賴成:有人盜用你的id,寫那些話的?還是,你在寫那些話的時候,不是你?

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:28:25
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:30:05
→ theologe: 喔 真的舉不出來喔？這麼慘？你也要學某人知錯但不道歉
→ theologe: 嗎？還是連知道自己錯誤的能力都沒有？
→ theologe: 我攻擊時代論什麼地方？講不出來？
還在賴!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:30:38
→ theologe: 我根本就沒有攻擊時代論，所以講的出來才有鬼

※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472425674.A.6EA.html
→ theologe: 你已經用時代論的思考模式在思考，這是循環論證。        08/29 23:07
→ theologe: 「以經解經」就是可能A段落解對，然後一直去解其他段落   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: ；但也可能A段落就解錯了，後面就通通解錯；但我們不能   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: 完全說時代論者對於啟示錄的解釋是一定錯的，但也不能說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 時代論一定解對了。故不能說這全都是聖經的內容，而是說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 這是時代論的角度去解讀，供大家參考。                  08/29 23:10
推 theologe: 時代論主要是19世紀達秘提出，要來補全前千禧派的漏洞。  08/29 23:16※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472425674.A.6EA.html
→ theologe: 你已經用時代論的思考模式在思考，這是循環論證。        08/29 23:07
→ theologe: 「以經解經」就是可能A段落解對，然後一直去解其他段落   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: ；但也可能A段落就解錯了，後面就通通解錯；但我們不能   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: 完全說時代論者對於啟示錄的解釋是一定錯的，但也不能說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 時代論一定解對了。故不能說這全都是聖經的內容，而是說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 這是時代論的角度去解讀，供大家參考。                  08/29 23:10
推 theologe: 時代論主要是19世紀達秘提出，要來補全前千禧派的漏洞。  08/29 23:16

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:32:03
→ theologe: 賴什麼？陪你耗，直到你像個爺們說出我攻擊時代論什麼地
→ theologe: 方為止。
上面那段話是誰寫的?難道是不是神學家的神學家?疑惑是[被不承認也不否認]的神學家?還是妖?

無恥到了極點!
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:33:33
→ theologe: 所以你對我的話的解讀是什麼，我攻擊時代論什麼東西呢？
→ theologe: 說出來看看，證明你沒有誤解我阿
大家再看一次:

※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472425674.A.6EA.html
→ theologe: 你已經用時代論的思考模式在思考，這是循環論證。        08/29 23:07
→ theologe: 「以經解經」就是可能A段落解對，然後一直去解其他段落   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: ；但也可能A段落就解錯了，後面就通通解錯；但我們不能   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: 完全說時代論者對於啟示錄的解釋是一定錯的，但也不能說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 時代論一定解對了。故不能說這全都是聖經的內容，而是說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 這是時代論的角度去解讀，供大家參考。                  08/29 23:10
推 theologe: 時代論主要是19世紀達秘提出，要來補全前千禧派的漏洞。  08/29 23:16

估計我們的神學家突然患上了[選擇性失明症]!

※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:34:53
→ theologe: 你照搬我的話有用嗎？我的話就沒有在攻擊時代論阿
→ theologe: 你不會用自己的話來說明我攻擊了什麼嗎？
→ theologe: 如果我真的攻擊了時代論，你不會搞這麼久都說不出來吧
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Christianity/M.1472425674.A.6EA.html
→ theologe: 你已經用時代論的思考模式在思考，這是循環論證。        08/29 23:07
→ theologe: 「以經解經」就是可能A段落解對，然後一直去解其他段落   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: ；但也可能A段落就解錯了，後面就通通解錯；但我們不能   08/29 23:08
→ theologe: 完全說時代論者對於啟示錄的解釋是一定錯的，但也不能說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 時代論一定解對了。故不能說這全都是聖經的內容，而是說  08/29 23:09
→ theologe: 這是時代論的角度去解讀，供大家參考。                  08/29 23:10
推 theologe: 時代論主要是19世紀達秘提出，要來補全前千禧派的漏洞。  08/29 23:16

這不叫攻擊,什麼叫作攻擊?
※ 編輯: df31 (180.206.15.124), 08/30/2016 00:35:46
→ theologe: 哈哈 你沒有用自己的話說明的能力嗎？
→ theologe: 還是怕一開金口就破功？
→ theologe: 攻擊了什麼阿？如果這麼明顯，你怎麼說不出來？
→ theologe: 老魚快，再不說明，你的理解力跟表達力的問題要被定案了