斯普罗尔博士，在梅耶博士的演讲之后，你在房间里提到 Dr. Sproul, after Dr. Meyer's talk, back here in the room, you mentioned, boy, that's great
，那真是很棒的护教学。这里有一个问题，询问护教学方法的 apologetics. And there's a question here asking an apologetical method question. Can you explain
问题。你能解释一下预设护教学和古典护教学的区别吗 the difference between presuppositional and classical apologetics? And maybe elaborate
？或许可以详细说明一下你对梅耶博士演讲的看法，以及你 on what you meant by even Dr. Meyer's talk and how you thought that that was a well-presented
认为那是一个在不同护教学思想体系框架内呈现得很好的 apologetical argument within a framework of the different schools of thought of approaching
护教学论证。 apologetics.
SPROUL JR.：关于护教学，有不同的 SPROUL JR.: There are different schools of thought with respect to apologetics. I can
思想流派。我可以马上想到至少三种。有预设论 think of at least three right off the bat. There's presuppositionalism, and there are
，而且预设论也有不同的流派。有跟随戈登·克拉克 different schools of that. There's axiomatic presuppositionalism that follows Gordon Clark,
的公理预设论，然后还有跟随科尼利厄斯·范·蒂 and then there's the other presuppositional school that follows Cornelius Van Til. And
尔的另一种预设论流派。然后是第二种护教学方法， then there's the second approach to apologetics, which is called evidentialism. And then the
叫做证据主义。第三种是我所支持的，叫做古典护 third view that I espouse, which is called classical view of apologetics. There are lots
教学。克里斯，差异很多，短时间内定义它们是不公 of differences, Chris, and it would be unfair to try to define them absolutely in the short
平的，但预设护教学的基本区别在于，它认为 term, but the fundamental differences in presuppositional apologetics argues this
你要得出神存在的合理结论，必须从神存在的断言 way that the only way you can come to a sound conclusion of the existence of God is that
开始。你必须预设神的存在，才能有一个合理的神 you must begin with the assertion of God's existence. You must presuppose the existence
存在的论证。证据主义认为这是循环论证，当然他们 of God in order to have a sound argument for the existence of God. Evidentialism sees that
没有对预设论的这种循环推理过程的批评。因为例如 as circular, which of course they don't have that critique of presuppositions being circular
范·蒂尔对预设护教学的辩护，他不仅承认，事实 in its reasoning process. It's not something that one must prove or display, because for
上他不喜欢用“承认”这个词，但他同意这是循环 example Van Til's defense of presuppositional apologetics, he not only admits, in fact he
的，但他为此辩护说，所有论证的本质都是循环的 wouldn't like the word admit, but he agrees that it is circular, but he says in defense
，起点和结论是相互联系的。我认为这有两个问 of that that the nature of all arguments is circular, that the starting points and
题。一个是，如果你承认你的证明神存在的方法 the conclusions are all bound up one with another. And what he means by that, I see
是循环的，并且在逻辑上犯了Petit Pr two problems with that. One is if you admit that your method of proving the existence
incipia谬误，那么你已经放弃了你立场的合理性 of God is circular and commits the Petit Principia fallacy in logic, then you've already surrendered
，并且给了不信者一个拒绝你立场的借口，因为你在 the rationality of your position, and you've given the unbeliever an excuse to reject your
过程中犯了逻辑错误。范·蒂尔承认循环推理，但他 position because you have made a logical violation in the process. Well, Van Til acknowledges
辩护说，正如我提到的，这是特定类型的循环推理， circular reasoning, but he defends it by saying, as I mentioned, that it's a particular type
在这种情况下，他犯了第二个非正式谬误，即模 of circular reasoning, and in this case he commits a second informal fallacy, the one
棱两可的谬误，因为在论证中“循环”一词的意 of equivocation, because the meaning of the term circular changes in the argument. He
义发生了变化。他本可以同样轻松地说，所有论证本 could have just as easily said that all arguments are by nature linear, that if I start with
质上都是线性的，如果我从一个理性的起点开始，并 a rational starting point and come to a rational conclusion, that's not circularity. That's
得出一个理性的结论，那不是循环，而是线性。如果 linearity. It's the same thing if I begin with an empirical premise and come to an empirical
我从一个经验前提开始，并得出一个经验结 论，我只是保持了方法的一致性，这没有错。 conclusion. I've just remained consistent in my methodology, and there's no sin in that.
问题在于，证据主义认为我们可以提供具体的实证证 The problem against that, evidentialism says that we present concrete empirical evidence
据来证明神的存在，从自然和历史等方面进行论证，这 for the existence of God, arguing from nature and so on, and also from history and the like,
将给你一个概率结论，即使是像大卫·休谟这样 and that that will give you a probability quotient of conclusion that would satisfy
的人也会满意，因为你达到了天文数字的概率，但 even somebody like David Hume in terms of the astronomical probability quotient that
即使是基于实证调查和从中得出的推论的论据，也 you achieve, but that even those arguments based on empirical investigation and so on
不能让你达到形式上的确定性，只有通过不可辩驳 and inferences drawn from them will not get you to formal certainty, that that can only
的逻辑证明才能达到。但古典护教学认为，神的存 be arrived at through a logical proof that is irrefutable. But classical apologetics
在可以通过显著的、理性的、形式的和令人信服的 say that the case for the existence of God can be proven demonstrably, rationally, and
方式证明。所以它比更注重实证的证据主义者要强 formally, and compellingly. So it's a little stronger than evidentialists who are more
一些。但我后来所说的是，这才是护教学应该做的方 empirically oriented. But what I said afterwards was that that's the way apologetics ought
式。你不能只是对科学界说，你们的预设是错误的，或 to be done. You don't just say to the scientific community, well, you're working on the wrong
者你们的世界观是错误的。这是对的，但你必须开始向 presuppositions or you have the wrong worldview. That's true, but you have to begin to show
他们展示，他们从自己的证据中得出的结论在形式上 them that the conclusions that they've drawn from their own evidence are formally invalid,
是无效的，这正是我今天早上听到的，我觉得非常精彩。 which is what I heard this morning, and I thought it was magnificent.
一个后续问题是，我们如何解释为什么古典护教学不等同于理 One follow-up question is, how do we explain why classical apologetics is not equated with
性主义？ rationalism?
又是我吗？我该如何回应这个指控呢？你知道的，如果我 That's to me again? How do I answer the charge? Well, you know, if I espouse to be human,
主张自己是人类，这并不意味着我接受了人本主义。 that doesn't mean I've embraced humanism. If I argue that I exist, that doesn't mean
如果我辩称自己存在，这并不意味着我是存在主义的倡 that I am an advocate of existentialism, and just because a woman is feminine does not
导者，而一个女人有女性特质并不使她成为女权主义者 make her a feminist. We want to be rational. To be rational is to think in a sound way,
。我们要理性。理性是以合理的方式思考，而理性并不 and to be rational does not mean you embrace rationalism, and at the same time you have
意味着你接受了理性主义。同时，你必须明白，在哲学探 to understand that historically in the field of philosophical inquiry there have been three
究领域的历史上，有三种不同类型的理性主义。笛卡尔 distinct types of rationalism. Cartesian rationalism, where rationalism is distinguished
的理性主义，将理性主义与经验主义区分开来，最高的 from empiricism, where the highest proof is found in the a priori categories of the mind
证明在于心灵的先验范畴，而不是后验的经验论证。在十七 rather than a posteriori demonstrations empirically. In that debate between the seventeenth and
世纪和十八世纪的辩论中，第二种形式的理性主义是在启蒙 eighteenth centuries, the second form of rationalism is the form you found in the Enlightenment
运动中发现的，在那里理性主义不是与经验主义区分开 where the rationalism was distinguished not from empiricism, but from revelation, where
来，而是与启示区分开来，理性被提升到高于超自然启 reason was elevated above the trustworthiness of supernatural revelation. Then the third
示的可信度。然后，第三种理性主义是十九世纪黑格尔的 kind of rationalism is the Hegelian rationalism of the nineteenth century, where reason is
理性主义，理性被提升到大写的R，成为最高的现实， elevated to the capital R, where it is the highest reality, where reason itself becomes
理性本身成为神。所以当你称我为理性主义者时，我想 God. So when you call me a rationalist, I want to know what kind of rationalist you're
知道你称我是哪种理性主义者，我会否认这三种，并 calling me, and I would deny all three of those and would say I'm just trying to be
说我只是试图保持理性。我希望这能回答你的问题。除此之 rational. I hope that answers it. The alternative to that is everything outside of the category
外，理性之外的一切是什么？非理性。我们不想要那样。 of the rational is what? Irrational. We don't want that.
在我们讨论经典观点之前，让我提到另一种护教学的方 Before we get to the classical view, let me mention another approach to apologetics, which
法，这种方法在改革宗神学中占据了压倒性的多数， has become the overwhelming majority report within Reformed theology, and that is the
这就是所谓的预设护教学。预设护教学有不止一种形式 view of apologetics known as presuppositional apologetics. There's more than one variety
，有一种是由戈登·克拉克倡导的公理预设论，但更为 of it. There's axiomatic presuppositionalism that was championed by Gordon Clark, but the
流行的预设论是由康奈利厄斯·范泰尔在费城的威斯敏 more popular view of presuppositionalism is that that was developed by Cornelius Van Til
斯特神学院发展起来的，他在那里辛勤工作了几十年 late of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he labored for several
，并在这一领域发表了许多著作，他确实是基督信仰 decades and who has published much in this field, and who was indeed a genuine giant
中的一位真正的巨人。我与约翰·格斯特纳和林赛合 and titan of the Christian faith. The book that I co-authored with John Gerstner and
著的《经典护教学》一书，其中三分之一的内容是对预设 Lindsay, entitled Classical Apologetics, includes in one-third of that book a comprehensive
论的全面批判。因此，由于我、阿特·林斯利和约翰·格 critique of presuppositionalism. So because of that book that Art Lindsley and John Gerstner
斯特纳合著的那本书，我们在改革宗阵营内就首选 and I authored, we have become engaged in ongoing dialogue within the Reformed camp
的护教学方法展开了持续的对话。范泰尔博士用英语写作 with respect to what is the preferred approach to doing apologetics. And Dr. Mantill, having
，尽管这不是他的母语，他是荷兰人，有时他的写作 written in the English language, which was not his native tongue, he was a native of
风格有些难以理解。因此，不仅他的批评者在他实际 Holland, sometimes writes in a style that is somewhat difficult to follow. And because
所说的内容上存在分歧，他的一些最著名的学生在如何解 of that, not only do his critics differ among themselves as to what he was actually saying,
释他的问题上也存在分歧。他的一些学生将范泰尔解释 but also some of his most noteworthy students differ in how they interpret him. Some of
为信仰主义者，而我认为他最有能力的解释者，已故的 his students interpret Mantill as a fitteist, whereas I think his most able interpreter,
格雷戈里·邦森，并不认为范泰尔是信仰主义者，而是 the late Gregory Bonson, did not see Mantill as a fitteist, but saw him arguing a rational
认为他在为神的存在提出理性的论据。 case for the existence of God.
我现在不打算详细讨论预设论，只是作为介绍 And I'm not going to get into a lot of discussion right now about presuppositionalism, only
说，预设论的方法是这样的：为了得出神存在的结 to say by way of introduction that the presuppositional approach says this, that in order to arrive
论，为了证明神的存在，你必须从你的主要前 at the conclusion that God exists, in order to prove the existence of God, you must start
提开始，你的第一个前提是神存在的预设。 with your primary premise, your first premise, being the presupposition of the existence
换句话说，除非你从预设神的存在开始，否 of God. In other words, that unless you start by presupposing the existence of God, you
则你永远不会得出神存在的结论。 will never get to the conclusion of the existence of God.
当然，针对这种思维方式的直接反对意见是，从 Now, of course, the immediate objection that is raised against that form of thinking is
神存在的论点开始，然后推理得出神存在的结论， that that procedure of starting with the thesis that God exists and then reasoning to the
这涉及一种经典的逻辑谬误，称为「预设前提谬误 conclusion that God exists involves a classic fallacy of logic called the Petitio Principii
」或「循环论证谬误」。循环论证谬误发生在结论 fallacy or the fallacy of circular reasoning. And the fallacy of circular reasoning occurs
已经出现在你的前提之一中。看，这结论已经在 when the conclusion appears already in one of your premises. See, that the conclusion
这里被假定了。所以，这是一种无效的推理方式 is already assumed up here. And so, this is a faulty form of reasoning which invalidates
，使论证无效，这也是对预设护教学提出的主要反对意见。 an argument, and that's been the chief objection raised against presuppositional apologetics.
然而，范泰尔博士对此的辩护是，因为他当然知道 However, the defense that Dr. Van Til gave to that, because he was certainly aware that
这种方法会受到这样的指责，他辩护说所有的推理都 that charge would be made against this approach, he defended it by saying that all reasoning
是循环进行的。因为它的起点、中间地带和结论都 moves in a circular fashion. Insofar as its starting point, its middle ground, and its
是相互关联的，也就是说，如果你从一个理性的前提 conclusions are all involved with each other, which is to say, if you start with a rational
开始，并以一致的理性方式推理，你的结论也会是理 premise and you reason consistently in a rational way, your conclusion will be of a rational
性的。 sort.
因此，范泰尔博士用这种定义为他的循环推理辩护 And so, with that kind of definition, Dr. Van Til justifies his use of circular reasoning
，说这与其他人的推理没有什么不同，因为所有 saying that it's no different from anybody else because all reasoning is circular in
的推理在这个意义上都是循环的。我们这些不采用这种护 that sense. Well, those of us who don't adopt this approach to apologetics find in the justification
教学方法的人认为，为循环推理辩护实际上犯 for circular reasoning the commission of a second fallacy that is as deadly as the
了第二个谬误，这个谬误和第一个一样致命。第一个 first one. The first fallacy is the fallacy of circular reasoning, which in classic categories
谬误是循环推理的谬误，在经典逻辑范畴中，这使论 of logic invalidates an argument. The justification for using circular reasoning involves the
证无效。为使用循环推理辩护涉及第二个谬误，即词义混 second fallacy, which is the fallacy of equivocation, where a term changes its meaning in the middle
淆的谬误，在论证过程中词义发生变化。当他通 of the argument. When he justifies circular reasoning by saying that all reasoning is
过说所有推理在某种意义上都是循环的，即起点和 circular in the sense that its starting point and its conclusion are of the similar sort,
结论是相似的来为循环推理辩护时，这并不是循环推 that's not what is meant by circular reasoning. We've all understood that a rational argument,
理的意思。我们都明白，如果一个理性论证要合理，它 if it's going to be rational, must be consistently rational throughout. And why call that a circle
必须始终如一地理性。为什么称之为循环，而实 when in fact it's linear? You begin with a rational premise, you use another rational
际上它是线性的？你从一个理性前提开始，使用另一 premise, and you move and advance to a conclusion that is of a rational sort without running
个理性前提，然后推进到一个理性的结论，而不 around in a circle. Now, granted, there is a presupposition in rational argument, the
是在圈子里打转。诚然，理性论证中有一个预设，即理 presupposition of reason, the presupposition of the law of non-contradiction, the presupposition
性的预设，非矛盾律的预设，因果律的预设，以 of causality, and the other presuppositions that I've been setting before you in this
及我在这堂课上向你们展示的其他预设，包括感 class, including the basic reliability of sense perception and the analogical use of
官知觉的基本可靠性和语言的类比使用。现在， language. Now, those who defend Dr. Van Til here, like Greg Bonson, are saying really
那些为范泰尔博士辩护的人，如格雷格·邦森，说 what Van Til is getting at here is something a little deeper than a superficial exercise
范泰尔真正要表达的是比表面上的循环推理更深 in circular reasoning. What he's saying is that if you want to assume rationality, to
层次的东西。他说，如果你想假设理性，甚至假 even assume rationality involves you out of necessity of presupposing the existence of
设理性本身就需要预设神的存在，因为没有神就没 God, because without God there is no foundation for rationality. There's no foundation for
有理性的基础。没有基础去信任因果律，没有基础 trusting the law of causality. There's no foundation for trusting the basic reliability
去信任感官知觉的基本可靠性。因此，即使你不 of sense perception. And so, even though you don't admit it, when you advocate reason,
承认，当你倡导理性时，你已经在假设理性的基础 you are already assuming the ground of that reason, which is God Himself. So, let's just
，即神自己。所以，让我们坦诚地说，任何预设理性 be open and above board and say anybody who presupposes rationality is therefore presupposing
的人因此也预设了神的存在，他们只是在掩饰这一点。我 the existence of God, and they're simply disguising that. And so, I feel the weight of that because
感受到这一点的分量，因为我们作为经典主义者确 we certainly agree as classicists that it is true that if rationality is to be meaningful,
实同意，如果理性要有意义，如果我所谈论的这些 and if these presuppositions of epistemology that I'm talking about are sound, then they
认识论的预设是正确的，那么它们就呼唤神的存在 scream for the existence of God. But that's exactly what classical apologetics is trying
。但这正是经典护教学试图证明的，如果你想要 to prove, that if you want to be rational, you've got to affirm the existence of God,
理性，你必须肯定神的存在，因为你所预设的理性 because the very reason that you're presupposing demands the existence of God. But we have
本身就要求神的存在。但我们必须向人们展示这一 to show people that, and we don't think it's a good strategy just to muddle the argument
点，我们不认为仅仅通过说你必须在论证的前提 by saying, well, you have to start with the existence of God in your premise, in your
中以神的存在为起点来证明它是一个好的策略，因 argument in order to approve it, because then the other guy says, well, I'm going to start
为那样的话，另一个人会说，我将不以神的前提 without the premise of God, and I'm going to end up in meaninglessness. Okay? And now
为起点，我将以无意义为结论。这样你就得到了一个平 what you have is a tie. And as they say, that's like kissing your sister, and we're not interested
局。正如他们所说，这就像亲吻你的妹妹，我们对这种体验不感兴趣。 in that kind of experience.
所以，坦白说，除了这些逻辑错误之外，我对预设论最大的反 So, the biggest objection that I have, frankly, besides these logical errors to presuppositionalism
对意见是，除了神自己，没有人能从神开始。除非你 is that nobody starts with God except God. You can't start in your mind with God, the
是神，否则你不能在你的心中从神开始，拥有对神的 knowledge of God, unless you're God. Where we say you start is with self-consciousness,
知识。我们说你开始的地方是自我意识，从自我意识 and from self-consciousness you move to the existence of God. You don't start with God
你可以转向神的存在。你不能从神的意识开始然后转向 consciousness and move to the existence of the self. By necessity, human beings thinking
自我的存在。必然地，人类用人类的头脑思考，必须 with human minds must start with where they are, with their brain. Now, the objection
从他们所在的地方开始，从他们的大脑开始。对此的反对 that comes to that is that we are capitulating to secular, pagan ideas of thought. I remember
意见是我们屈服于世俗、异教的思想。我记得大约三十 debating this point with one of the advocates of presuppositionalism in a public meeting
年前在一次公开会议上与一位预设论的倡导者辩论这个问 almost thirty years ago, where this particular professor was very exercised when I said that
题，当时这位教授非常激动，因为我说你必须从自我 you have to start with self-consciousness, and he said that that's unbiblical because
意识开始，他说这是不符合圣经的，因为我假设了自 that what I'm doing is assuming the autonomy of the self rather than the sovereignty of
我的自主性而不是神的主权，这正是亚当和夏娃在伊甸园 God, and that this is exactly what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden when they rebelled
里反叛神时所做的，是一种罪恶、堕落、腐败的推理方 against God, and that it is a sinful, fallen, corrupt way to start reasoning by beginning
式，从自我而不是从神开始。我对他说，我当然同 with the self rather than with God. And I said to him, I would certainly agree that
意，如果我推理的第一个假设，我的主要前提是自我的 if my first supposition, my primary premise in reasoning was the autonomy of myself, that
自主性，那么我确实会犯你所说的一切错误，我确实已 I would be guilty of everything you say, that I would be indeed already embracing paganism,
经接受了异教，并且如果我真的一致地这样做，最终会导致自 and I could only end up if I were indeed consistent with the deification of the self and the rejection
我神化和拒绝神。但我说我们不是从自我的自主性开始， of God. But I said we don't start with the autonomy of the self, but simply the consciousness
而只是从自我意识开始，我提醒我的朋友，奥古斯丁自己 of the self, and I reminded my friend that Augustine himself said that with self-consciousness
说过，自我意识总是立即伴随着有限性的意识，当你意识到 always comes immediately an awareness of finitude, that the moment that you're aware of yourself
自己是一个自我时，你就知道你不是神。这也是加尔 as a self, you know you're not God. That's what Calvin argued at the same time, and I'm
文同时所论证的，我说自主性的观念，即你是自己的法 saying that the idea of autonomy, where you're a law unto yourself, is not contained in the
律，并不包含在自我意识的观念中。如果是这样，从这一点开始确实是罪恶的。 idea of self-consciousness. If it were, it would indeed be sinful to start at that point.
我们所说的是，自我意识的开始是受造之物的本性。 What we're saying is that the beginning with self-consciousness is a given to creatureliness.
这是任何人开始思考的唯一地方。你不能从他的思想 It's the only place any self can start with their thinking. You cannot start in your mind
、我的思想或神的思想开始。你唯一能开始的是你自 with his thought, or with my thought, or with God's thought. The only thing you start with
己的自我意识，从那里出发，因为你是一个自我， is your own self-awareness, and from there you move because you are a self, and you will
你很快就会发现你根本不是自主的。这就是我们 soon discover that you are not autonomous at all. And that's what we're saying, that
所说的，如果你从自我意识开始，并且正确推理， if you begin with self-consciousness, and you reason correctly, so far from ending in
远非以自主结束，你实际上会必然地肯定神的存在。 autonomy, you will in fact end by necessarily affirming the existence of God.
预设论者的恐惧在于，若以理性和经验来辩论，我 The fear among presuppositionalists is that in arguing rationally and empirically that
们会向异教世界让步太多，而经典主义者对预设 we give too much away to the pagan world, and of course the fear of the classicists
论者的恐惧则是他们让步太多。他们给了异教徒不 for the presuppositionists is they give too much away. They give the pagan an excuse for
相信神存在的借口，因为异教徒可以看到他们的方法 not believing in the existence of God, because the pagan can see that their approach violates
违反了理性的原则。但我们都同意，构建神的存在 principles of rationality. But one thing we all agree on is that the construction of the
无疑是建立一个人生命和世界观的最重要前提，我们 existence of God is certainly the most important single premise in the building of a person's
知道，根据《罗马书》第一章，异教徒所做的第 life and worldview, and that we know that what the pagan does, according to Romans 1,
一件事就是否认神的永能和神性。然后他的心思 is that the first lie that he embraces is the denial of the eternal power and deity
变得昏暗，越是聪明，他就越远离从自然中获得 of God. And then his mind becomes darkened, and the more brilliant he is, the further
的对神的初步认识。因此，我们都同意在护教学 away he moves from that first awareness of God that he gets in nature. And so we all
中早早确立神的存在至关重要。这是必须首先确立 agree in the supreme importance of establishing early on in our apologetic the existence
的事情。我们同意神在存在的秩序中是第一位的 of God. That's the first thing that has to be established. We agree that God is first
，但在认识的过程中，争议在于什么是首先的。我 in the order of being, obviously, but the disagreement is what comes first in the process
们说神在存在的秩序中是第一位的，但在认识的秩序中不是第一位的。 of knowing. We say God is first in the order of being, but not first in the order of knowing.