[Script Info]
Title: Merged Subtitles
ScriptType: v4.00+
WrapStyle: 0
ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes
Collisions: Normal
PlayResX: 384
PlayResY: 288

[V4+ Styles]
Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding
Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.78,0:00:22.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：预设论与自然神学：对预设论对自然神学的挑战\N之批判分析——戴维·马克·海恩斯教授的草稿。引言：柯尼流·范泰尔，可以\N说是最杰出的改革宗护教学家之一，也被视为最具代表性的预设论捍卫者之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Presuppositionalism and Natural Theology: A Critical Analysis of the Presuppositional Challenge to Natural Theology A Draft by Professor David Mark Haynes Introduction Cornelius Van Til, arguably one of the greatest Reformed apologists, is also known as one of the most prominent defenders of presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:22.59,0:00:42.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当代许多改革宗在神学与护教学方面的思路，很大程度上依赖范泰尔\N对预设论的阐明与辩护，不仅将其视为唯一真正符合改革宗的护教学\N、神学与哲学方法，也认为这是唯一真正符合基督徒立场的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Much of contemporary Reformed thought in theological and apologetical matters depends upon Van Til's exposition and defense of presuppositionalism as not only the only truly Reformed way of approaching apologetics, theology, and philosophy, but also as the only truly Christian approach.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:43.12,0:00:59.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这篇简短的论述中，我将探讨范泰尔的预设论，并尝试指出，这一体系\N的哲学根基会将他引向对诠释体系的相对主义，并因此陷入自相矛盾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In this short treatise, I will be considering Van Til's presuppositionalism and will attempt to demonstrate that the philosophical foundations of this system force him into a relativism of interpretive schemes and, consequently, self-contradictions.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:00.23,0:01:11.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我将先审视他整体体系的内部运作，再阐述他如何试图将自然神学纳入其中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I will begin by considering the inner workings of his overall system, followed by an explanation of how he attempts to fit natural theology into his overall system.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:11.40,0:01:18.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最后，我将论证范泰尔的体系存在若干严重的缺陷。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I will conclude by demonstrating that Van Til's system is subject to a number of serious flaws.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:18.82,0:01:32.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看起来，如果预设论体系落入这些缺陷当中，那么它\N对自然神学传统理解所提出的最大反对就无法成立。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems that if the presuppositionalist system succumbs to these flaws, then its most difficult objections to the traditional understanding of natural theology do not hold.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:32.79,0:01:40.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若是如此，我们或许就有理由按照传统的理解来进行自然神学的探究。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If this is the case, then we may be warranted in engaging in natural theology as traditionally understood.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:59.87,0:03:13.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续采用此校订且正确的格式，并保持适当的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:03:13.80,0:04:24.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：根据这种观点，如果某个宗教是真实的，而那宗教的神确\N实赐下了神默示的书面启示，使人能够认识他，那么我们可以把对这部书面启示的研究比\N作乘电梯直达摩天大楼的顶层，而把研究那宗教的神所创造的（大自然）比作走楼梯。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: On this view, if some religion is true and the God of that religion has truth provided a divinely inspired written revelation that allows people to know Him, then we could compare the study of that written revelation to taking the elevator to the top floor of a skyscraper, and the study of that which was created by the God of that religion (nature) to taking the stairs.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.73,0:04:36.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这两种情况下，人所使用的都是神所设定的方法：其中\N一种需要付出大量努力，另一种则只需要进入电梯即可。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In both cases, the person is using a method that was created by God; one requires a lot of work on the behalf of the person, the other only requires getting in the elevator.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:37.94,0:05:24.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}定义我们的术语：范泰尔式的预设论体系宣称，要真正认识任何事物——要通过推\N理过程得出神存在的结论，要向神发问，要正确推理自然或人，要从事艺术创作，\N要让逻辑与现实对接，要让人能明智地用语言描绘现实，要理性地诠释宇宙，甚至\N要真切地思考先天与后天知识——就必须先预设神存在，作为万有的终极根基。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Defining Our Terms The Vantillian presuppositionalist system claims that in order to know anything truly—in order to be able to arrive at the conclusion that God exists through a reasoning process, in order to ask a question about God, in order to reason properly about nature or man, in order to create art, in order for logic to touch reality, in order for man to be able to intelligently use words to describe reality, in order to rationally interpret the universe, and in order to even be able to think truly about innate and acquired knowledge—we must first presuppose that God exists as the ultimate ground of all things.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:24.55,0:05:36.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若不先预设神存在，我们就无法真正认识任何事物，甚\N至连非基督徒科学家所可能发现的科学事实也不例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unless we presuppose that God exists, we will be unable to know anything truly, even the facts of science that may be discovered by a non-Christian scientist.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:52.69,0:07:30.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续采用此校订且正确的格式，并保持适当的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:07:30.97,0:08:06.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：范泰尔并不否认\N非基督徒科学家可能发现关于我们世界的真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Van Til does not deny that a non-Christian scientist may discover truths about our world.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:06.13,0:08:11.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，他断言他们确实能够发现我们世界的许多重要真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, he asserts that they may indeed discover many important truths about our world.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.21,0:08:19.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，由于他们的诠释体系有误，他们无法真正理解自己所发现的这些所谓事实的含义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, due to their false interpretive schema, they are unable to truly understand the meaning of these so-called facts that they discover.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:19.77,0:08:47.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}值得在此提及的是，范泰尔区分了他所谓的形而上与心理事实（MP\NFs）与认识论与伦理事实（EEFs）。根据范泰尔的说法，MP\NFs 对所有人皆适用，但未重生者并不了解也无法了解这些事实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It might be useful to note here that Van Til distinguishes between what he calls metaphysical and psychological facts (MPFs) and epistemological and ethical facts (EEFs). According to Van Til, the MPFs are common to all men but are not known or knowable by unregenerate men.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.52,0:08:56.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}已重生者与未重生者在 EEFs 上并无共同之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Regenerate and unregenerate men do not have EEFs in common.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:56.77,0:09:20.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据范泰尔的观点，未重生者之所以能为科学发现做出贡献，\N并不是因为他们以毫无依据地接纳神的存在为起点，而是因为\N MPFs 同样适用于他们，就如同适用于已重生者一般。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}According to Van Til, unregenerate people can contribute to scientific discoveries not because they presuppose that God exists in the sense that they accept without evidence as a starting point God's existence, but because the MPFs apply just as much to them as to regenerate persons.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:21.12,0:09:45.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但由于他们的错误 EEFs，他们并不能真正理解自己对科学的贡献。自然神学，按照常\N见的定义以及范泰尔的定义，是从大自然推导出神的存在、属性与神的同在的一门学科。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That said, they cannot really understand their contributions to science due to their false EEFs. Natural theology, as it is frequently defined and as Van Til also defines it, is the science that reasons from nature to the existence, attributes, and presence of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:47.19,0:09:58.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据预设论的核心主张，人们或许会认为，为了与他\N的立场自洽，预设论者必须否认自然神学的可能性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In light of the principal claims of presuppositionalism, one might think that in order to be coherent with his claim, the presuppositionalist must deny the possibility of natural theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.90,0:10:00.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，事实并非如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This, however, is not the case.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:01.10,0:10:13.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔以及其他一些改革宗神学家不仅认可自然神学的可能性\N，也认为在某些情况下，自然神学是一个可行的研究领域。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til and a number of other Reformed theologians not only allow for the possibility of natural theology but also claim that it is a viable domain of study under certain circumstances.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:30.91,0:11:32.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:11:32.48,0:12:22.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：关于那有时被称为世界观的概念——范泰尔的整个\N体系都基于这样一个观念：每个理性存在者都不断在诠释摆在他们面前的世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Is the Notion that is Sometimes Called a Worldview Van Til's entire system is based upon the notion that every rational being is constantly interpreting the world that presents itself to them.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:22.87,0:12:36.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种诠释基于一个复杂的解释结构，它影响他们如何理解所接\N触的众多现象，也决定他们赋予这些现象的意义或重要性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This interpretation is based upon a complex interpretive structure that influences how they understand the numerous phenomena that they come into contact with, as well as the meaning or significance that they give to these phenomena.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:36.87,0:12:47.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在基督徒的护教学当中，世界观这一概念至少已成为理解我们自身、\N我们所处的世界，以及其他世界观取向的重要且富有成效的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The notion of worldview has become, in Christian apologetics at least, an important and fruitful way of understanding ourselves, our world, and other ways of viewing the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.80,0:12:59.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对任何一个人来说，他们的世界观正是他们预设的那些根本信念的\N总和——无论是否经过批判性考量——以便运作并理解这个世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For any given person, their worldview is the sum of the foundational beliefs that they presuppose—critically or uncritically—as true in order to function and make sense of this world.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:59.61,0:13:10.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔体系中一个重要的主张是，根本不存在一个中立、通用或不带\N偏见的立场，让人可以借此去诠释我们在这个世界上所遭遇的现象。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}An important part of Van Til's system is the claim that there is no neutral, common, or unbiased position from which humans can interpret the phenomena that we meet in this world.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.55,0:13:20.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，在不同的诠释体系之间并没有一种共同的中立基础，可以用来评断各自的诠释体系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Consequently, there is no common neutral ground between the different interpretive schemes from which we may judge these schemes.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.18,0:14:05.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续采用这份校订且正确的格式，并保持适当的大写、标点与可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:14:05.60,0:14:56.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意：文本中包含许多脚注和参考文献，已在原始格式中保留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Note: The text contains extensive footnotes and references, which have been preserved in the original formatting.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:56.16,0:16:35.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所提供的摘录展示了主体文本，并已进行了正确的标点和大写修正。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The excerpt provided shows the main body of the text with corrected punctuation and capitalization.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:35.40,0:17:09.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：范泰尔自己声称，他并未受唯心主义、黑\N格尔、存在主义或现象论的影响，而仅仅受到简朴的加尔文主义影响。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Van Til himself claims that he is not influenced by Idealism, Hegel, Existentialism, or Phenomenalism, but only by simple Calvinism.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:09.84,0:17:37.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}针对这一说法，我想提出两点看法：首先，尽管范泰尔或许深受加尔文神学的影响，但\N对任何精通加尔文著作的译者而言，很明显范泰尔至少拒绝了加尔文神学方法中的一个\N重要要素：未重生之人能够在自然层面上认识那位在圣经中启示自己的独一真神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To this claim, there are two comments that I would like to make: First of all, though Van Til may have been influenced by the theology of Jean Calvin, it is quite evident to any competent translator of Calvin that Van Til rejected at least one important element of Calvin's approach to theology: that unregenerate man can have natural knowledge of the existence of the one true God who revealed Himself in Scriptures.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:39.08,0:18:03.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔似乎也未曾注意到加尔文在《基督教要义》第一卷第五章第六节中的\N明确陈述：我只想在此指出，对于教会中的信徒和外邦人而言，都有共同的\N途径去寻求神，也就是通过跟随天空与大地中如同祂形象之画像的踪迹。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til also seems not to have noticed Calvin's explicit statement in section 6 of the fifth chapter of the first volume of the Institutes that I only wanted to note here that there is a common way to both pagans and believers in the church to seek God, that is, that they follow the traces in the heavens and on the earth that are like portraits of His image.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:04.16,0:18:13.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔明确否认有这样所谓的共同途径，让已重生者与未重生者都能获得某种对神的认识。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til explicitly denies that there is a so-called common way by which both the regenerate and the unregenerate may come to some knowledge of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:13.73,0:18:24.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如此看来，在其最重要的主张上——即使该方法成为预设论方法\N的那个关键点——范泰尔的护教学方法明显不属于加尔文主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems then that in its most important contention—that which makes it a presuppositionalist approach—Van Til's apologetical method is distinctly not Calvinist.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:24.64,0:18:34.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其次，与范泰尔的否认相反，显而易见的是，范泰尔\N的确受到他那个时代流行哲学体系不同面向的影响。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Secondly, it is evident, contrary to Van Til's protests, that Van Til was indeed influenced by different aspects of the popular philosophical systems of his time.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:34.87,0:18:42.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}细心的读者会注意到海德格尔关于存有的诠释学与范泰尔预设论之间存在些许相似之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The attentive reader cannot help but notice the subtle similarities between Heidegger's hermeneutics of being and Van Til's presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:48.56,0:19:44.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续采用此经订正的格式，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:19:44.32,0:20:42.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意：文本中包含大量的讨论与脚注，已在原有格式中予以保留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Note: The text contains extensive discussions and footnotes, which have been preserved in the original formatting.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:42.13,0:21:27.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所提供的摘录展示了主体文本，并已进行了正确的标点和大写修正。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The excerpt provided shows the main body of the text with corrected punctuation and capitalization.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:27.14,0:22:24.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：我在此所指的，并非奥利凡特在他的某条脚注（关\N于范泰尔的《捍卫信仰》）中所说的“某一前设不等于范式”，而是范泰尔所谓的\N“生活与世界观”——一个诠释性系统、意识等等。范泰尔通过这些和许多其他用\N语所表达的总体理念，都可用我在上文所用的“诠释系统或结构”一词来概括。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: I am not here referring to any one presupposition which Oliphant in one of his footnote commentaries on Van Til's Defense of the Faith claims is not equal to a paradigm, but to what Van Til refers to as a life and world view—an interpretational system, a consciousness, etc. The general idea that Van Til expresses through these and many other terms is resumed by the term I use above: interpretational system or schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:24.47,0:22:38.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如同范泰尔本人所言，可以这样说明诠释系统的概念：每个罪人\N都戴着有色眼镜，而且这些有色眼镜还牢牢地镶在他的脸上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The idea of an interpretational system can be illustrated, as Van Til himself says, as follows: Every sinner looks through colored glasses, and these colored glasses are cemented on his face.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:39.27,0:22:47.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据奥利凡特的说法，前设是一条为真之命题，且会使另一命题成为假的条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A presupposition is, according to Oliphant, that which is true and provides for the truth a falsity of another proposition.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:48.51,0:22:57.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在范泰尔所用的意义上，前设不必局限于命题，也包括客观的所谓事实状态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A presupposition, in the way Van Til uses it, need not be confined to propositions but includes the objective so-called state of affairs as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:20.53,0:23:35.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要从堕落的体系转变为重生的体系，据改革宗神学所言，首先要被\N神重生，然后当理智与意志获得更新，就能接受基督信仰的真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To change from the fallen scheme to the regenerated scheme, one must, according to Reformed theology, first be regenerated by God and then, with the intellect and will renewed, accept the truth of Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:35.18,0:24:05.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}由此可见，对于改革宗的预设论者而言，转换诠释体系是不可能的：第一，没有神的帮助\N，人无法从堕落的状态转变到重生的状态；第二，一旦进入了重生的体系（若也相信救恩\N不可失落，即某种圣徒坚忍的教义），即使想要分析堕落的体系，也不可能再回到其中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}From this, it is evident that for a Reformed presuppositionalist, it is impossible to change interpretive schemes: 1. One could not move from fallen to regenerate without divine assistance, and 2. Once one is in the regenerate scheme (if one also holds to the doctrine that salvation cannot be lost, a form of perseverance of the saints), it is impossible to move back to the fallen scheme even if one wishes to attempt to analyze it.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.99,0:24:59.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:24:59.83,0:25:49.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}注意：文本中包含大量的讨论与脚注，已在原本格式中保留。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Note: The text contains extensive discussions and footnotes, which have been preserved in the original formatting.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:49.40,0:26:07.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所提供的摘录展示了主体文本，并已进行了正确的标点和大写修正。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The excerpt provided shows the main body of the text with corrected punctuation and capitalization.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:07.67,0:26:33.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：奥利凡特在他关于范泰尔《捍卫信仰\N》脚注的一则评注中指出，然而，需要注意的是，范泰尔在某些情况\N下对“类比”一词的使用方式，并不与托马斯学派学者所用的相同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Oliphant says that in a commentary on a footnote to Van Til's Defense of the Faith, it should be noted, however, that Van Til does not use the term analogy on occasion in the same way that Thomistic scholars use it.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:33.17,0:26:39.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对范泰尔而言，“类比性知识”意味着人的知识依赖于神的知识。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Van Til, analogical knowledge signifies that man's knowledge is dependent on God's knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:39.93,0:26:50.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔说明，类比式思考或推理乃是基督徒所使用的一\N种推理方式，他们承认神是所有述谓的终极参考点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til explains that analogical thinking or reasoning is the form of reasoning employed by the Christian who recognizes that God is the ultimate reference point of predication.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:51.21,0:27:01.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}奥利凡特指出，范泰尔所说的“类比”概念，旨在\N说明神与人之间在本体论和认识论方面的差异。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oliphant notes that for Van Til, the notion of analogy was meant to communicate the ontological and epistemological difference between God and man.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:01.46,0:27:09.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这一差异在历史上常用“原型关系”一词来表达。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This difference has been expressed historically in terms of an archetypal relationship.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:10.12,0:27:47.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一位著名的托马斯学派学者对“类比述谓”所作的一般定义如下：某一概念或\N语言术语（而非真实本体）的特性，使得该概念或术语能够以部分相同、部分\N不同的含义，归属于若干不同主体（例如“肌肉的力量”和“意志的力量”）\N。而第二种结构，即所有堕落之人的诠释体系，本质上则是“同义”的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A general definition of analogical predication from a well-known Thomistic scholar would be as follows: the property of a concept or linguistic term (not a real being) by which a concept or term is predicated of several different subjects according to a meaning partly the same, partly different in each case (strength of muscles, strength of will, for example). The second structure, the interpretive schema of all fallen humans, is univocal in nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:48.20,0:27:59.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所谓“同义”推理或诠释，指的是所有这样的一种推理形\N式，即人在其中被视为所有述谓的最终或根本参考点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Univocal reasoning or interpretation is described as all forms of reasoning in which man is assumed to be the final or ultimate reference point of predication.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:59.49,0:28:39.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据范泰尔的观点，此类思维方式预设了一系列重要的前提：第一，人与宇宙是可以作为推\N理出神之终极起点的存在；第二，时间与永恒彼此互为面向；第三，神与人处于同一层次的\N存在；第四，人与宇宙自给自足且具备自主性。据范泰尔所言，基于这些预设，人只能推断\N出要么不存在神，要么存在某种神明，但并非基督信仰的神，因此也就不是真正的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Such thinking, according to Van Til, presupposes a number of important premises: 1. That man and the universe are entities from which, as ultimate starting point, we can reason to God 2. That time and eternity are aspects of one another 3. That God and man are on the same level of being 4. That man and the universe are self-sufficient and autonomous Based upon these presuppositions, one can only conclude, according to Van Til, either that no God exists or that a god exists but not the God of Christianity, and therefore not the true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:40.33,0:29:18.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式出现，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:29:18.64,0:29:50.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：奥利凡特在范泰尔《捍卫信仰》\N的脚注中解释说，范泰尔将“同义”式思考理解为在两人或多人\N之间所进行的思考，并由某些认识论上的共同点相互关联。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Oliphant, in a footnote to Van Til's The Defense of Faith, explains that Van Til understands univocal thinking as thinking between two or more persons that is connected by some point of epistemological identity.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:11.03,0:30:15.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在预设论思想中，“自主性”是一个重要的关键词。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The notion of autonomy is an important byword in presuppositional thinking.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:16.01,0:30:25.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}“自主性”的核心理念在于，人和宇宙一旦被造，就不再\N需要神来维系其根据自身本质而继续存在并运作的状态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The basic idea in autonomy is that man and the universe, once created, are not in need of God in order to continue existing and functioning according to what they are.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:26.03,0:30:31.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，人能够凭自己来认识世界，甚至认识神，而不需要神的帮助。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So man is able to know the world himself and even God without any help from God.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:31.15,0:30:33.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个非常缺乏细微辨析的断言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is a very unnuanced claim.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:33.73,0:30:43.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}例如，在阿奎那神学中，从本质上说，唯有神才是一切；\N其他一切不仅在存在上依赖神，也在其本质上依赖神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For example, in Thomistic theology, God alone by nature is everything; else depends on God not only for its existence but also for its nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:43.49,0:31:04.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据阿奎那的哲学推论，任何人若非神：一、赐予他存在；二、使\N他成为其所是；三、保证他能按其本性行事，就无法知晓任何事物\N。由此可见，对于阿奎那而言，讨论所谓的人类自主性毫无意义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It follows from Thomistic philosophy that no human being is able to know anything unless God: 1. Gives him existence 2. Makes him what he is 3. Ensures that he acts according to his nature It follows then that for Aquinas, it makes no sense to talk about so-called human autonomy.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:04.28,0:31:28.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也就是说，阿奎那认为，人能够借着自然理性——也就是在前述三项条\N件的前提下，不依赖特别的神启示，仅凭人类的理性能力——不仅认识\N自己并认识向他呈现的世界，也能获得对那位真神的某种有限认识。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That being said, Aquinas thinks that man is able by unaided reason—which simply means within the context of the three points just mentioned, by the human capacity of reason without the aid of special divine revelation—to come to knowledge not only of himself and the world that presents itself to him but also to some limited knowledge of the true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:29.17,0:31:38.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔似乎认为，作出这样的主张，就是在为人类理\N性宣称自主性，而不顾上述那三点条件所处的语境。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til seems to think that to make such a claim is to claim autonomy for human reasons, in spite of the context of the three points mentioned above.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:51.46,0:31:56.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这项主张在此所言的是，哲学家所发现的神只是一位有限的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The claim here is that the God discovered by philosophers is only a finite God.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:57.78,0:32:10.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔承认，从理论上说，人应当能根据上述基本前设推\N断神的存在，但他否认由此推断出的神是那位真实的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til recognizes that in theory, man should be able to deduce the existence of God from the basic presuppositions mentioned above, but he denies that the God thus deduced is the true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:11.07,0:32:13.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，那只会是一个有限的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather, it would be a finite God.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:16.65,0:33:12.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式出现，并保持正确的大写、标点与可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:33:12.65,0:33:24.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：亚里士多德认为\N，不可能存在在空间上具有无限广延的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Aristotle is saying that there can be no spatially infinitely extended being.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:25.08,0:33:29.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这一论断的关键之处在于“广延”这个概念。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The key element of this claim is the term extension.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:29.58,0:33:36.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}值得注意的是，确实不可能存在无限广延的存在者，但神并不具有广延性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It should be noted that it is true that there can be no infinitely extended being, but that God is not extended.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:36.15,0:33:39.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在空间上是无限的，却不具备广延。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He is spatially infinite without extension.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:39.83,0:33:42.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这显然似乎驳斥了范泰尔的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This certainly seems to refute Van Til's claim.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:47.09,0:34:02.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}诠释结构的相互关系：要了解这些结构如何组成一个整体，首先需要提到的是，在\N范泰尔看来，作为全宇宙的创造者与护持者，神对世界拥有最完整透彻的观照。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Interrelation of the Interpretational Structures In order to understand how these structures fit together, we should first of all mention that for Van Til, God as the creator and sustainer of the entire universe has the perfect view of the world.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:02.47,0:34:05.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神看见他所造的世界，如其本然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God sees the world, His creation, as it is.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:05.59,0:34:14.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，唯有神能完全明白这个世界，也唯有神能彻底洞察世上一切现象的意义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Therefore, God alone has a perfect understanding of this world and God alone knows perfectly the significance of every phenomena that comes to be in this world.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:15.03,0:34:19.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}用范泰尔自己的话来说，神是终极的诠释者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In Van Til's own words, God is the ultimate interpreter.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:20.15,0:34:37.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，受限于人类的有限，神的诠释结构并不能为人完全拥有，唯有在有限范围\N内并借由顺服圣经中的神启示才能得以参与，这实质上就是第三种诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God's interpretive structure, however, cannot be possessed by a limited human being except in a limited way and through submission to divine revelation in Scripture, which is essentially the third interpretational structure.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:38.01,0:34:44.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一种诠释结构，也就是未堕落之人所拥有的结构，已不复存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first interpretational structure, which is that of unfallen humanity, no longer exists.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:44.63,0:34:48.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人已无法以未堕落时的眼光去看待这个世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is not possible to see the world as an unfallen human being.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:49.05,0:35:06.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，从前拥有这诠释结构的人，由于他们与神之间未受阻碍且直接相通，得以看见未\N被罪玷染的世界本来面目——并非具备了完整的认知，而是有着不受罪所阻碍的心思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That being said, those humans who possessed this interpretational structure, due to their unimpaired and direct communication with God, were able to see the world as it was, untainted by sin—not with a perfect comprehension, but with a mind that was unhindered by sin.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:06.65,0:35:10.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，他们能够从自然推理到那位真神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They would therefore be able to reason from nature to the true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:11.38,0:35:46.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，人拒绝了神和一切真实的知识，于是人陷入罪中，他的诠释结构也因此改变了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Man, however, rejected God and all true knowledge, and from him, as a result, man fell into sin and his interpretational structure changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:12.94,0:36:22.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二种诠释结构，也就是堕落或未重生之人的结构，是最普遍且广泛的诠释方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second interpretive structure, which is that of fallen or unregenerate humanity, is the most common and widespread interpretive structure.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:22.73,0:36:30.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种结构呈现各种形态——也就是说，无神论、自然\N神论、泛神论、多神论、伊斯兰信仰等等——并且\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It takes many forms—that is to say, atheism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, Islam, etc.—and
Dialogue: 0,0:36:30.93,0:36:37.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}完全对立且彻底否定了人堕落之前与重生之后的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is the antithesis and absolute rejection of the pre-fall and regenerate view.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:38.13,0:36:46.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}某种意义上，我们可以说，那些接受同义式诠释的人，拒绝类比式的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In a sense, we might say that those who accept the univocal interpretation reject the analogical method.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:46.51,0:37:03.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据范泰尔的说法，人的堕落在如此程度上影响了人的心智与其本性，以至于如今\N，除了圣灵的重生之外，堕落的人无从真正认识自己、大自然，或自然界的真神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The fall, according to Van Til, so affected man's intellect and nature itself that fallen man is now, aside from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, unable to know anything about himself, nature, or nature's true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:06.36,0:37:17.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：很明显，堕落后的人一旦拒绝神\N的存在，便注定无法真正认识或理解这个世界上的任何事物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: It becomes obvious that in rejecting the existence of God, fallen humanity has condemned itself to being incapable of truly knowing or understanding anything about this world.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:17.28,0:37:24.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔并不否认堕落的人在这个世界上或许能发现许多对自己有价值的真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til does not deny that it may be possible for fallen humans to discover many valuable truths about themselves in this world.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:25.11,0:37:33.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，堕落之人根本无法真正理解、诠释或领会这些真理的真正含义与重要性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, it is impossible for fallen humans to truly understand, interpret, or comprehend the true meaning and significance of these truths.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:33.79,0:37:47.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，虽然他们感觉到某种超越自身的东西，并且确实持续寻找绝对与\N超越，但只要他们仍停留在堕落的诠释结构中，就无法认识那位真神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Furthermore, though they have a sense of something that transcends them and indeed continue to seek for the absolute and transcendent, they cannot know the true God so long as they stay within the fallen schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:47.76,0:37:58.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，未重生的人不可能仅凭自己的理性就从堕落的结构转变到重生的结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is therefore impossible for an unregenerate human to move from the fallen schema to the regenerate schema by the use of his unaided reason.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:01.86,0:38:41.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔主要指的是加尔文所谓的「sensus divini\Ntatus」，而范泰尔似乎将其视为对神的先天性知识形态。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til is primarily referring to what Calvin calls the sensus divinitatus, which Van Til seems to equate with the form of innate knowledge of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:41.47,0:39:19.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔有时甚至主张，堕落的人是能够触及到某些关于神的事\N，但由于他原先的假设，他会立刻加以排拒并坚持与神隔绝。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til sometimes goes so far as to say that fallen men can grasp something of God, but because of his prior assumptions, he immediately rejects it and persists in his separation from God.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:19.18,0:39:28.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从终极的角度而言，属血气的人并不真正认识任何事\N物；但从相对的角度来看，他对万物仍有某些了解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}From an ultimate point of view, the natural man knows nothing truly, but from a relative point of view, he knows something about all things.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:28.58,0:39:36.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在某种程度上对万物都有所认识，而在处理诸如电力等尘世事务时，他的理解最为称手。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He knows all things after a fashion, and his fashion is best when he deals with earthly things such as electricity.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:37.53,0:39:50.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在阅读这句话时，必须时刻留意一个论断：就自然\N与属灵事物而言，属血气的人犹如鼹鼠般无知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This quote must always be read with an eye to the claim that the natural man is as blind as a mole with respect to both natural and spiritual things.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:50.03,0:39:54.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所谓自然之物，即是今世的事物、尘世之事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Natural things are the things of this world, earthly things.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:59.17,0:41:16.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:41:16.98,0:41:30.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：因此，若我们要真正理解这个世界，并真正探究\N我们所观察到的现象之意义与重要性，就必须采纳一种截然不同的诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Therefore, if we are to truly understand the world and truly discover the meaning and significance of the phenomena that we observe, then we must accept a totally different interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:31.18,0:41:38.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种第三种结构就是可被称为“重生人类”所拥有的诠释体系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This third schema is the interpretive system that can be referred to as regenerate humanity.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:38.81,0:41:45.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们必须预设神的存在，并认定神是一切知识的终极根基。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We must presuppose the existence of God and assume that God is the ultimate foundation for all knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:45.66,0:41:53.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}唯有预设神的存在，我们才能真正地从自然推理到我们所预设的那位真神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only by presupposing the existence of God can we truly reason from nature to the true God whom we have presupposed.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:54.26,0:42:03.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，如上所定义的自然神学，只有在我们预设了\N基督信仰对大自然的诠释为真时，才可能实现。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As such, natural theology, as defined above, is only possible if we presuppose the truth of the Christian interpretation of nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:03.56,0:42:18.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，即便是已重生之人，在预设了基督信仰诠释体系为真这一前提下\N，也只能在借助圣经的启示与圣灵引导的情况下，恰当地诠释自然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Furthermore, even the regenerated human, presupposing the truth of the Christian interpretive system, can only properly interpret nature insofar as they interpret it in light of revealed Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:18.89,0:42:50.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}确实，范泰尔主张人所有的知识都依赖神向人所作的启示。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Indeed, Van Til claims all of man's knowledge depends upon God's revelation to man.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:03.53,0:43:07.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们眼前所呈现的图景是一个破裂的宇宙。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The picture that we have before us is that of a fractured universe.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:08.15,0:43:13.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每一个理性存在者都会以不同的方式去理解并诠释自己所遇到的种种现象。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Every rational being understands and interprets the phenomena that it meets in a different way.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:14.11,0:43:44.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所有这些不同的诠释方式，今天大体可以分为两大类：一、堕落人类的多样诠\N释，其特点是同义式思考；二、重生人类的诠释，其特点是类比式思考，并完\N全依赖圣经中神的启示与圣灵引导。我们无法从第一种结构推理到第二种。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All of these different interpretations can be categorized today under two broad categories: 1. The many interpretations of fallen humanity, characterized by univocal thinking 2. The interpretation of regenerated humanity, characterized by analogical thinking and entire dependence upon divine communication in Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit We cannot reason from the first schema into the second.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:44.91,0:43:51.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要么接受第一种的前设，要么就接受第二种。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Either you accept the assumptions of the first or you accept the assumptions of the second.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:51.33,0:43:58.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第一种并不提供真正的知识，而我们所遇到的一切现象的真实意义皆无法得知。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The first gives no true knowledge, and the true significance of all the phenomena that we meet is unknowable.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:58.29,0:44:07.100,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第二种则能在神的启示与圣灵的帮助下，有可能真正理解自然与自然之神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The second allows for the possibility, with the aid of divine revelation and the help of the Holy Spirit, of truly understanding nature and nature's God.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:08.28,0:44:11.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，自然神学该当如何呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What then of natural theology?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:38.06,0:44:53.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果如范泰尔所言，堕落之人无法从自然推理到神，那么未重生之人就永远\N无法从自然推理到那位真神，因此对未重生者来说，自然神学是不可能的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If it is true that fallen man cannot reason from nature to God, as Van Til believes, then the unregenerate person will never be able to reason from nature to the true God, and therefore natural theology is impossible for the unregenerate person.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:53.95,0:44:58.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然他们或许能得出某种神明，但那并非真正的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Though they may arrive at some god, it will not be the true God.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:58.17,0:45:18.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：事实上，范泰尔声称，对未重生之人而\N言，所有传统的神存在论证所能证明的，只是一个有限的神的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: In fact, Van Til claims that all the classical arguments for the existence of God can prove to an unregenerate human is the existence of a finite god.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:19.70,0:45:54.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此说法似乎与那些提出经典论证的人所得出的结论——即一位无限的神——相矛\N盾（尤其可参见亚里士多德的《形而上学》第12卷第7章，第1072a-1\N7、1073a-13行；托马斯·阿奎那的《神学大全》1a2，第3问及以\N下部分）。然而，按照范泰尔的观点，自然神学的探索并非注定毫无价值。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This claim seems to contradict the claims of those who advanced the classical arguments who concluded to an infinite God (see especially Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book 12, Chapter 7, lines 1072a-17, 1073a-13; Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, 1a2, Question 3 and following). However, according to Van Til, the enterprise of natural theology is not condemned to futility.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:55.33,0:46:07.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，只要人预设了基督教有神论的诠释体系为真，就能够以有意义的方式从事自然神学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}On the contrary, insofar as one presupposes the truth of the Christian theistic interpretational system, one will be able to engage in a significant way in natural theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:08.28,0:46:17.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对基督教有神论者而言，自然神学就是在自然向我\N们彰显神的时候，以恰当的方式去认识神的活动。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Natural theology for the Christian theist, then, is the practice of properly understanding God based upon what nature tells us of Him.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:17.89,0:46:31.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据范泰尔与部分改革宗思想家的观点，要开始自然神学\N的研究，必须先预设基督教有神论诠释结构的真实性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}According to Van Til and a number of Reformed thinkers, in order to embark on the endeavor of natural theology, one must presuppose the truth of the Christian theistic interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:31.86,0:46:37.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，这似乎并非一般人对于自然神学本质的通常理解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This, however, does not seem to be what has been commonly understood to be the nature of natural theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:38.52,0:46:57.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}虽然大多数自然神学的支持者都同意范泰尔对自然神学的基本描述，即从自然推理至自然之\N神，但许多人对于“必须预设基督信仰的真理才能从事自然神学”这一说法却感到不安。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Though most of the proponents of natural theology would agree with Van Til's basic description of natural theology as reasoning from nature to nature's God, many would be uncomfortable with the notion that we must presuppose the truths of Christianity in order to do natural theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:58.41,0:47:01.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种不安仅仅是出于义愤的结果吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is this malaise simply the result of indignation?
Dialogue: 0,0:47:03.09,0:47:07.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或者，范泰尔的方法本身确实存在问题？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Or is there in fact a problem with Van Til's approach?
Dialogue: 0,0:47:07.54,0:47:11.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他的体系没有问题，我们就应该遵从。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If there is no problem with his system, then we should fall in line.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:11.70,0:47:29.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果存在致命缺陷，那么我们就有理由坚持那种不预设基督真理的传统自然神学观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if there is a fatal flaw, then we may be entitled to maintain the traditional view of natural theology which does not presuppose the truth of Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:47:53.84,0:48:09.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔体系的问题：正如我们在引言中所指出的，如果范泰尔的预设论存在\N致命的难题，那么我们可能是有正当理由继续进行传统形式的自然神学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Problems with Van Til's System As we noted in the introduction, if there is a fatal difficulty with Van Til's presuppositionalism, then we may be warranted in continuing to engage in the traditional form of natural theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:10.13,0:48:20.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想提出一个与范泰尔体系相关的问题，此问题与他\N所坚持的任何特定改革宗教义并不一定有直接关联。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would like to propose a problem with Van Til's system which is not necessarily related to any of the specifically Reformed doctrines to which he adheres.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:21.24,0:48:29.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，它存在于他所宣称的“作为改革宗体系根基”的哲学前设之中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather, it is found in the philosophical presuppositions that he claims are foundational to the Reformed system.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:29.72,0:48:48.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔的阿喀琉斯之踵在于他坚持这样一个观念：所有理性存在者都必须透过某\N种诠释结构来观察世界上的各种现象，他们以此来解释一切，却无法超脱其外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til's Achilles' heel is his commitment to the notion that all rational beings necessarily observe the phenomena of this world through an interpretive schema by which they interpret everything and from which they cannot escape.
Dialogue: 0,0:48:49.14,0:49:07.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的基本论点是：如果这是预设论的根基，那么我们似乎就没有任何方法能确\N定范泰尔的改革宗基督信仰解读是对的，而其他对世界的所有诠释则是错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}My basic argument is that if this is the foundation of presuppositionalism, then it would appear that there is no way to know for sure that Van Til's version of Reformed Christianity is true and that all other interpretations of the world are wrong.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:08.11,0:49:14.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们采纳范泰尔的改革宗神学，那就好比在黑暗中盲目一试。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we accept Van Til's Reformed theology, then we are taking a shot in the dark.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:14.92,0:49:21.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有任何理由可用来捍卫或反驳他的体系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There are no reasons that can be mustered in defense of his system or against his system.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:21.37,0:49:25.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：而对于任何版本的堕落诠释结构，这一点同样适用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: And this is also true of all versions of the fallen interpretive system.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:26.07,0:49:43.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在此对预设论所提出的难题可整理如下：以下前提的参考依据，\N要么可在前面总结预设论的部分找到，要么必然衍生自其他前提。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The difficulty that we are raising against presuppositionalism could be presented as follows: The references for the following premises can either be found in the previous section that summarizes presuppositionalism or they follow necessarily from other premises.
Dialogue: 0,0:49:48.35,0:50:06.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}脚注评注：若有人对改革宗的全然败坏教义持最极端的理解，那么\N人在重生之前就完全不可能对神有所认识，这或许是唯一的例外。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Footnote Commentary: One exception would be if he held to an extreme understanding of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity by which it would be impossible for man to know something of God prior to regeneration.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:06.45,0:50:18.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这种情况下，“重生”意味着神对诠释结构的神圣转变，\N使得原本深陷堕落诠释结构当中的人，可以来到神面前。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Regeneration would at this point be the divine changing of interpretive structures by which God allows a human being who was formerly entrenched in the fallen interpretive structure to come to God.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:19.14,0:50:29.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从历史上看，在现代哲学尚未完全发展之前，多数加\N尔文主义者对范泰尔的预设论都持强烈的反对态度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is a fact of history that the majority of Calvinists prior to the full development of modern philosophy would have disagreed emphatically with Van Til's presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:50:29.28,0:51:21.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}根据弗朗西斯·特顿的说法，与那些否认未重生之人能凭自身理性从自然获取对神之部分\N知识的司各图主义者和苏西努派的异端相对立，正统派一致教导有一种自然神学：— 一\N部分是先天的，通过良心之书并借常识观念而得；— 另一部分是后天的，通过对受造之\N物的探究而得。由此看来，范泰尔的某些主张，尤其与预设论相关的，似乎相当异端。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}According to Francis Turton, understood as such and in opposition to the heresies of the Scotians and Socinians who denied that unregenerate people could acquire some knowledge of God from nature with their unaided reason: The orthodox uniformly teach that there is a natural theology: - Partly innate, derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions - Partially acquired, drawn from the book of creatures discursively It seems then that some of Van Til's claims, specifically those related to presuppositionalism, are quite simply heretical.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:21.60,0:51:39.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从关于全然败坏的观点出发，似乎可以推断出：一个人可以是改革宗而不接\N受范泰尔的预设论，但若要成为范泰尔式的预设论者，就必定是改革宗。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems in light of the observation about total depravity that though one can be Reformed without being a Vantillian presuppositionalist, one cannot be a Vantillian presuppositionalist without being Reformed.
Dialogue: 0,0:51:47.64,0:52:44.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此修正格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点及可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:52:44.95,0:53:20.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：当我只能借助某个体系来证明自\N己的信念时，我就需要跳出该体系本身，才能对它作出评判。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: When the only way I can do so is to justify my belief by appealing to a system, I need to step outside the system in order to judge them.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:20.17,0:53:21.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可我要跳到哪里去呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But step into what?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:21.67,0:53:22.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}另一个体系吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Another system?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:22.87,0:53:25.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我又如何知道它是正确的呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How do I know it is right?
Dialogue: 0,0:53:25.11,0:53:29.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样一来，我们似乎又陷入了一种无限退路之中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Again, we have a bit of an infinite egress here.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:29.72,0:53:39.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我最近也在R·斯科特·史密斯关于道德知识的杰出著作《寻\N求道德知识：克服事实-价值二分法》中碰到了类似的论点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I also recently stumbled across a similar argument in R. Scott Smith's excellent work on moral knowledge, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:39.62,0:53:45.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}史密斯运用这一方法来回应斯坦利·海尔·沃森与阿拉斯泰尔·麦金泰尔的体系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Smith uses this approach as a manner of responding to the systems of Stanley Hire Watson and Alastair MacIntyre.
Dialogue: 0,0:53:45.71,0:54:00.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}史密斯指出，若所有经验都带有诠释性，那么即便是我们对自身的经验，以及那第二种生\N活方式所使用的语言、文化与理性资源，也都会被诠释，即便从它自身的立场来看亦然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Smith notes that if all experience is interpreted, then even our experience of ourselves, as well as of the language, culture, and rational resources of that second way of life, even from its own standpoint, would be interpreted.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:01.16,0:54:11.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如此看来，我们就会根据自身最根本的生活方式来诠释那种\N外来的生活方式，这其中很可能出现翻译或误译的情况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems that then we would interpret this alien way of life according to our primary way of life, which could well involve translation and mistranslation.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:11.70,0:54:26.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他接着提到，当我们学习第二文化的语言时，即使我们成了当地的“本地人”\N，也不能摆脱原本群体的视角，否则我们就突然失去了一个可供体验的面向。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He notes a little later that accordingly, when we are learning a second culture's language, even as a native among them, we cannot shed a first community's way of seeing, lest we suddenly not have an aspect from which we have experiences.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:26.49,0:54:33.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，如上所述，第二文化的特质始终会超越我们的认知能力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hence, as we saw above, the second culture's feature always remains beyond our abilities to know.
Dialogue: 0,0:54:43.30,0:56:11.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}反对预设论的论点：一、每个人的诠释结构包含了那个人所认\N定为真实的一切主张，并用来理解和诠释自己所处的世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The Argument Against Presuppositionalism: 1. The interpretive schema of each person includes all the claims that are accepted as true by that person and which are used to understand and interpret the world in which this person finds themselves.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:15.77,0:56:33.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}2. 要知道他的诠释结构是真实的，一个人必须能以某种方式不经任何媒介、\N也不带任何诠释地接触实在，从而将他的结构主张与事物的本来面目加以比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}2. In order to know that his interpretive schema is true, a person must be able to have unmediated and uninterpreted access in one way or another to reality in order to compare the statements of his schema with the way things really are.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:36.36,0:56:54.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}3. 若一个人总是通过自己的诠释结构来解读所有的实在，那么他就无法不经任何媒\N介或诠释地接触实在，也就无法将他的结构所主张的真理与事物的本然情形进行比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}3. If a person interprets all of reality always through his interpretive schema, then he cannot have an unmediated and uninterpreted access to reality in order to compare the proposed truth claims of his schema with the way in which things really are.
Dialogue: 0,0:56:54.87,0:57:00.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之，并不存在所谓的共同立场或客观位置。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words, there is no common ground or objective position.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:00.22,0:57:00.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点与可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,0:57:00.22,0:57:13.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：也就是说，人若要依据第二条前提来\N判断其结构的真伪，就必须能够进行不经任何媒介与诠释的比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: From which a person could accomplish the unmediated and uninterpreted comparison that he must accomplish according to the second premise in order to know the truth or falsity of his schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:16.55,0:57:27.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}4. 所有理性存在者都不断地通过某种诠释结构去解释周围的世界，从未停歇。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}4. All rational beings interpret always and without ceasing the world around them through an interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:28.56,0:57:47.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}值得注意的是——这也是我们的主要论点——第二到第四条前提迫使我们\N要么接受对诠释结构的绝对相对主义，要么只能提出自相矛盾的主张。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is interesting to note that—and it is our main contention—that premises two through four force us either to accept an absolute relativism of interpretive schemas or to make self-contradictory claims.
Dialogue: 0,0:57:47.91,0:58:26.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}请注意这些被主张为真实的前提之间发生了什么（正如范泰尔已经指出\N的）：5. 范泰尔知道他的诠释结构（范泰尔式的加尔文主义预设论\N）是真实的（且我们暂且给他此信任）。6. 根据第四与第五条前提\N可得出，范泰尔不断地透过某种诠释结构来诠释他周围的世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Note what happens when these premises, which are proposed as true (as already noted by Van Til), are put into relationship with one another: 5. Van Til knows that his interpretive scheme (Vantilian Calvinist presuppositionalism) is true (and we'll give him the benefit of the doubt). 6. Based on premises 4 and 5, it follows that Van Til interprets always and without ceasing the world around him through an interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:28.90,0:58:44.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}7. 根据第三条和第六条前提可推知，范泰尔无法以不经任何媒介或诠释的方\N式接触实在，从而将他的诠释结构中宣称的真理与事物的本来面目加以比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}7. Based on premises 3 and 6, it follows that Van Til cannot have unmediated or uninterpreted access to reality in order to compare the proposed truth claims of his schema with the way things really are.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:46.81,0:58:56.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}8. 根据第七条与第二条前提得出，范泰尔无法知道他的诠释结构到底是不是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}8. Based on premises 7 and 2, it follows that Van Til cannot know that his interpretive schema is in fact true.
Dialogue: 0,0:58:59.63,0:59:08.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}9. 但第八条前提与第五条所宣称的“他知道\N自己的诠释结构是真实的”这一说法相互矛盾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}9. But premise 8 creates a contradiction with the claim in premise 5 that he knows his interpretive schema is true.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:11.32,0:59:49.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样看来，如果预设论的根本主张——也就是将预设论与古典基督教神学护教\N学区分开的唯一前提——确实为真，即并不存在任何共同立场，也不可能以不\N带媒介或诠释的方式接触实在，从而将个人诠释结构所提出的真理主张与事物\N的本然情形相比，那么无论此人是谁：范泰尔、卡尔·巴特、马丁·海德格尔\N，甚至托马斯·阿奎那，都无法宣称自己知道所持的诠释结构为真。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems then that if the fundamental claim of presuppositionalism—the only premise that really distinguishes the approach of presuppositionalism from the approach of classical Christian theology apologetics—is true, that there is no common ground, that it is not possible to have access without mediation or interpretation to reality in order to compare the truth claims that are proposed by one's interpretive schema to the way things really are, then one cannot say one knows that his interpretive schema is true, no matter who they are: Van Til, Karl Barth, Martin Heidegger, or even Thomas Aquinas.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:49.70,0:59:54.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事情本质上就是如此简单。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is quite simply the way things really are.
Dialogue: 0,0:59:56.32,1:00:32.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此校订的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点和可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,1:00:32.36,1:01:53.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：关于这一前提，我们必须做出两个重要的说明：首先，对范\N泰尔而言，这一前提不仅在哲学层面上是真实的（如上所示），也同样在神学层面上为真。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: There are two important comments that must be made about this premise: First of all, for Van Til, this premise is not only philosophically true (as shown above) but also theologically true.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:53.61,1:01:59.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如先前已提及的，摆脱堕落结构的唯一方法，就是神的作为。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As has already been noted, the only way to get out of the fallen scheme is by a divine act.
Dialogue: 0,1:01:59.98,1:02:12.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一旦进入了重生的诠释结构，就没有回头的可能（永恒得保）\N。因此，人无法跳出自身所处的诠释结构，以判断其真伪。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Once in the regenerate scheme, there is no return (eternal security). Therefore, there is no way to step outside of one's own interpretive schema so as to know if it is true or false.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:12.81,1:02:19.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}还需注意的是，这一前提本质上就是“不存在中立观点”这一主张。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It should also be noted that this premise is essentially the claim of no neutral viewpoint.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:19.41,1:02:25.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其次，这一前提对于任何形式的对应论真理观都具有颠覆性的影响。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Secondly, this premise is devastating for any type of correspondence theory of truth.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:25.64,1:02:38.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}奥利凡特在他对范泰尔《捍卫信仰》的评注中，似乎就遵从对应论真理观，他\N说：「只要我们的知识能映照世界实然之状态，我们的知识就是真实的。」\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oliphant, in his commentary to Van Til's Defense of the Faith, seems to adhere to a correspondence theory when he says, To the extent that our knowledge reflects the way the world is, our knowledge is true.
Dialogue: 0,1:02:40.19,1:03:00.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，若一个陈述之所以真实，是因其所述（肯定或否定 X）\N准确描述了 X 的实际情况，那么要认识真理，就必须能够接\N触到 X 本身，用以比对陈述与 X 本身的相符程度。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Of course, if a statement is true insomuch as what it predicates (affirmation and negation of X) is an accurate description of the way X actually is, then in order to know truth, one must have access to X in order to compare the statement of X and X itself.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:00.82,1:03:15.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果无法跳出诠释结构，以所谓的中立或不偏不倚的视角来观察 X 本身，那\N么：1）对应论真理观本身就是错的，或 2）就没有任何方式能知晓真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If there is no way to step outside of an interpretive scheme so as to observe X itself from a so-called neutral or so-called unbiased perspective, then either: 1. The correspondence theory of truth is itself false, or 2. There is no way to know truth.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:15.48,1:03:20.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或许对预设论者来说，还有一条逃脱的道路。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Perhaps there is a way to escape for a presuppositionalist.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:20.98,1:03:28.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔似乎把真理与融贯等同起来，也就是说，如果\N且唯如果一个体系完全自洽，那么它就是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til seems to equate truth and coherence such that a system would be true if and only if it is fully coherent.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:28.59,1:03:32.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，对范泰尔而言，一个完全自洽但又非改革宗的体系是不可能的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Of course, for Van Til, a fully coherent non-Reformed system is impossible.
Dialogue: 0,1:03:32.67,1:03:53.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不过，若确有可能存在多套完全自洽的诠释体系（范泰尔之所以否定此\N可能性，只是因为他像往常那样预设了自己体系的真实性），那么：1\N）我们将无从得知哪一个体系才是真实的，或 2）两者都是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, if it was possible for there to be more than one fully coherent system of interpretation—a possibility that Van Til is only able to deny if he presupposes as he does the truth of his own system—then either: 1. There would be no way to know which of the two systems was true, or 2. Both would be true.
Dialogue: 0,1:04:13.96,1:04:45.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续以此修订后的格式呈现，并保持正确的大写、标点与可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,1:04:45.97,1:05:57.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：回到正文——是否存在避免此类尴尬局面的途径呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Returning to the Body of the Text Is there any way to avoid this embarrassing situation?
Dialogue: 0,1:05:57.56,1:06:06.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为免于自相矛盾的痛苦，我们必须否定以下三个前提中的其一：第二、第三或第四。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In order to avoid the pains of self-contradiction, we must reject one of the three following premises: two, three, or four.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:07.31,1:06:15.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}第三条前提似乎是预设论这一后现代理论中最具分析性质的断言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The third premise seems to be the most analytical affirmation that is to be found in the postmodern theory that is presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:15.81,1:06:30.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若一个人始终借由其诠释结构来理解现实，那么就不可能在没有媒介或诠释的情况下接触\N现实本身，以便将该诠释结构的真理主张与事物实况加以对比——这一点实在不容置疑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is quite simply a fact that if a person always interprets reality through their interpretive schema, then one cannot have access without mediation or interpretation to reality in order to compare the truth claims of said schema and the way things really are.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:30.72,1:06:46.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之，若一个人原本就透过其诠释结构来看待现实，那么即使他想要或尝试将其\N诠释结构的陈述与所谓的现实相比较，依旧是借眼下要检验的诠释结构进行比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is to say, if a person already interprets reality through their interpretive schema, then even if they wanted or attempted to compare the statements of their schema with so-called reality, they would be doing this comparison through the interpretive schema that they are attempting to examine.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:46.96,1:06:54.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就好比在你的脸上永久地粘上一副有色眼镜——就说是粉红色的——无法拿下来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's like having a pair of colored spectacles—let us say they're pink—permanently cemented on your face.
Dialogue: 0,1:06:55.02,1:07:02.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们不能否定第三条前提，那么或许可以否定第二条或第四条前提。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we cannot deny the third premise, then perhaps we could reject the second premise or the fourth premise.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:18.56,1:07:24.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果预设论要被称为“真实”的话，第四条前提是绝对必要的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The fourth premise is absolutely necessary if presuppositionalism is to be so-called true.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:24.48,1:07:36.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也就是说，如果第四条前提不成立，那么第三条前提充其\N量只是琐碎地真实，亦即充其量只能说是分析性地真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is, if the fourth premise is not true, then the third premise is at best trivially true, which means that it is at best analytically true.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:36.94,1:07:43.82,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果第四条前提是错误的，那么第三条前提就无从言说事物的真实状况。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if the fourth premise is false, then the third premise has nothing to say about the way things actually are.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:44.09,1:07:52.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若第四条前提为真，那么范泰尔只能说无法验证一个诠释结构的真实性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If the fourth premise is true, then Van Til can only say that there is no way to verify the truth of an interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:07:53.05,1:08:01.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其实，我们可以说，在它的基本主张上，预设论正是第三条和第四条前提的结合体。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Indeed, we could say that presuppositionalism, in relation to its fundamental claims, just is the combination of premises three and four.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:02.18,1:08:11.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，如果我们否定第三条或第四条前提（或者两者都否定），就同时否定了预设论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It follows that if we reject either the third or the fourth premise (or both), then we reject at the same time presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:11.64,1:08:21.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，我们所接受的，将是约翰·加尔文和弗朗西斯·\N特顿等大神学家所代表的正统改革宗神学的传统立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What we accept, however, would be the classical position of orthodox Reformed theology as seen in such great theologians as John Calvin and Francis Turton.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:21.88,1:08:26.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，范泰尔并不会轻易否定第四条前提。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So Van Til would not readily reject the fourth premise.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:42.54,1:08:51.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若要使范泰尔免于自相矛盾之苦，我们只剩下一个前提可否定：那就是第二条前提。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're left with only one premise that we can reject if we want to save Van Til from the pains of self-contradiction: that is, the second premise.
Dialogue: 0,1:08:52.74,1:09:00.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，第二条前提不过是将对应论的真理观应用到诠释结构的问题上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But the second premise is nothing other than the application of the correspondence theory of truth to the question of interpretive schemes.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:00.37,1:09:14.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们否定了第二条前提，就意味着我们永远无法确知自己所持的诠\N释结构是真实的，并且必须接受我们无法摆脱的绝对诠释相对主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we reject the second premise, then it follows that we could never know that our particular interpretive schema is true, and we are obliged to accept an absolute relativism of interpretive schemas from which we cannot escape.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:14.77,1:09:35.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样一来，范泰尔要么：1. 同意自己处于自相矛盾当中（无法确定某一\N诠释结构是真实的，却又宣称自己知道自己的结构为真），要么 2. 接\N受诠释结构的绝对相对主义，以致无人能知道究竟哪一个结构才是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It looks then that Van Til must either: 1. Agree to remain in self-contradictions (it is impossible to know that one of the interpretive schemes is true, but Van Til knows that his scheme is true), or 2. Accept an absolute relativism of interpretive schemes such that no one could ever know which interpretive scheme is true.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:35.94,1:09:37.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此问题，我们稍后还会进一步探讨。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}More on this later.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:37.98,1:09:46.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：或许我们可以这样回答：透过证实\N其他诠释结构是错的，也就可能证明他自己诠释结构的真实性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Perhaps we could reply that it is possible to demonstrate the truth of his own interpretive scheme by showing that others are wrong.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:46.89,1:09:50.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从哲学上看，这个答复似乎的确合理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Philosophically speaking, of course this reply seems right.
Dialogue: 0,1:09:50.62,1:10:04.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}逻辑学中有个众所周知的事实：在一个含有数个选言肢的两难推理中，\N若要得出其中某一选言肢必然真实，必须先证明其余所有选言肢为假。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is a well-known fact in logic that in an argument based upon a dilemma with several disjuncts, we are only able to conclude that a single disjunct must be true if we are able to prove the negation of all the other disjuncts.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:04.69,1:10:11.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们当然可以通过逐一证明其他选言肢彼此之间不能自洽的方式，来否定它们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We could certainly proceed to the negation of the other disjuncts by demonstrating that they are each in turn incoherent.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:12.06,1:10:24.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，这种方法面临的主要难题是，如果我们的列表并不完备，那么即使我们已经否定\N了自己所知的除一个以外的所有选言肢，也仍无法确知剩下的那个观点就必然为真。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A major difficulty with this method is that if our list is not exhaustive, then we may never know—even when we have denied all but one of those known to us—that the remaining opinion is true.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:24.74,1:10:40.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，就预设论而言，这种方法还存在另一个特定的难题：如\N果预设论为真（亦即第三与第四条前提为真），那么对此异议\N的回答必然是否定的——我们无法证明其他诠释结构是假的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is, moreover, another difficulty with this method that is specific to presuppositionalism: If presuppositionalism is true (that is to say, that premises three and four are true), then the answer to this objection must be no—we cannot demonstrate that the others are false.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:40.22,1:10:53.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔认为，对另一种诠释结构所作的预设式分析，绝不可能且无法在没\N有任何媒介或诠释的情况下完成，这也正是产生这种回应的必要原因。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This response is necessary because the presuppositional analysis of another interpreter's schema is never and cannot be done without mediation or interpretation, according to Van Til.
Dialogue: 0,1:10:53.55,1:11:03.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如我们先前所见，无法在不借力于自身信念体\N系的情况下，去考量任何思想体系的真理主张。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As we saw above, there is no way to consider the truth claims of any system of beliefs without interpreting them in light of one's own system of beliefs.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:03.83,1:11:07.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那副牢牢固定在我们脸上的粉红色眼镜就是一个恰当的比喻。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Remember the pink sunglasses that are always cemented to our face.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:07.67,1:11:21.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，对范泰尔而言，一个预设论者在分析任何其他诠释结构的核\N心主张时，都必须依据并通过自己诠释结构的核心主张来进行。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}According to Van Til, then, the presuppositionalist must necessarily analyze the fundamental affirmations of any other interpretive scheme in light of and through the fundamental affirmations of his own interpretive scheme.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:21.100,1:11:30.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果这是对的，那么显然预设论者总会认为其他立场是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If this is true, then it is obvious that the presuppositionalist will always find the other positions to be false.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:30.34,1:11:53.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要想在不受自身诠释结构偏颇的情况下，以批判且坦诚（或有人说真诚）\N的态度来审视另一种诠释结构，唯一的方法是能够客观地搁置自己的立场\N，直接考量对方诠释结构的真理主张，并与事物的真实情形进行比较。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The only way by which one can critically and honestly (some might say sincerely) consider another interpretive schema without being biased by one's own interpretive schema is to be able objectively to put aside one's own views and to consider the truth claims of the other interpretive schema as they are in themselves and in comparison to the way things really are.
Dialogue: 0,1:11:53.83,1:12:07.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是，如果我们要这样做——确切地说，若要把它做好——就必须承认这样的可能性\N：那个新的诠释结构也许恰好为真，而我们原先的诠释结构（预设论）也许是错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But if we do this—indeed, in order to do this properly—we must allow for the possibility that the new schema just might be true and our former schema (presuppositionalism) false.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:07.69,1:12:17.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，范泰尔式的预设论者并不可能这样做，也因此无法使用这种方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This, however, is not possible for a Vantillian presuppositionalist, and therefore this method cannot be used by the presuppositionalist.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:17.58,1:12:28.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如此看来，如果我们沿用预设论者的方法，就会陷入\N自相矛盾，或落入诠释结构的绝对相对主义之中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It would seem then that if we use the presuppositionalist method, we are left either in self-contradiction or in an absolute relativism of interpretive schemes.
Dialogue: 0,1:12:30.06,1:13:28.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}［余下的文本将继续保持此校订的格式，并遵守正确的大写、标点与可读性。］\N{\an2\fs10\i1}[The rest of the text continues in this corrected format, with proper capitalization, punctuation, and readability.]
Dialogue: 0,1:13:28.45,1:13:51.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：【接续上一节】这就使得该体系\N既自洽又真实，而另一种与其对立的预设论体系则是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: [Continuing from the previous section] Ensures that this system becomes both consistent and true and that presuppositionalism, a different and opposing system, is false.
Dialogue: 0,1:13:51.63,1:14:00.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其次，相当有可能存在另一个系统，目前人类尚且不知，但它却自洽且真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Second, it is quite possible that there is another system that is, for the moment, unknown to man but is consistent and a true system.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:00.01,1:14:31.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}再次，在一般的论证规则中，若只证明对方的前提或结论有错误，并不足以\N证明己方观点为真，除非我们所讨论的是互相矛盾的命题（例如「神此刻客\N观存在」与「神此刻并不客观存在」）。要证明己方立场的真实性，必须再\N使用其他论证；并且仅仅自洽并不能当作一个积极的真理检验标准。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Third, it is a general rule of argumentation that the proof of a mistake either in the premises or in the conclusion of the opponent does not prove the truth of one's own views, except in the situation where we were talking about contradictory propositions (such as God currently exists in extramental reality and God does not currently exist in extramental reality). Another argument must be used to demonstrate the truth of one's own positions, and the consistency of one's own views is not a positive truth test.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:32.26,1:14:39.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要证实自己的观点为真，必须能够证明此立场准确反映了实在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To demonstrate one's own point of view to be true, you must be able to demonstrate that his position accurately represents reality.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:39.97,1:14:46.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我已论证过，范泰尔的方法并不允许他去检验自己的体系是否真正与实在相符。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I have already argued that the method of Van Til does not allow him to test whether or not his system accurately represents reality.
Dialogue: 0,1:14:46.90,1:14:57.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，预设论者在理论上也许有能力证明其他体系\N是假的，却在实践中无法证明自己体系的真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Therefore, a presuppositionalist is capable in theory to demonstrate the falsity of any other system but will never be able in practice to demonstrate the truth of his own system.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:26.14,1:15:41.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关于这个问题的一些归结性推论：范泰尔曾断言，一切理性存在者都必定透过某种\N诠释结构来解读现实，他所提出的基督教改革宗诠释则是唯一真正的诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Some Concluding Corollaries of this Problem Van Til claimed that all rational beings necessarily interpret reality through an interpretive schema and that the Christian Reformed interpretation that he proposed was the only true interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:41.89,1:15:58.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一旦我们接受了他的体系，他如何能知道所有诠释系统（例如公教诠释、\N无神论诠释或阿民念主义诠释等等）都是错的，这个问题似乎就无解了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How he was able to know that all of the systems of interpretation (for example, the Catholic interpretation, atheistic interpretation, or Arminian interpretation, to name a few) were false is a problem that seems to be irresolvable once we accept his system.
Dialogue: 0,1:15:58.60,1:16:13.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔先行预设了自己对现实的诠释为真，然后宣称所有其他诠释都无\N法真正理解现实，尽管这些诠释似乎也能以不同方式解释许多现象。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Van Til presupposes the truth of his own interpretation of reality and then says that all other interpretations cannot really understand reality, despite the fact that they seem to be able to explain much if not all of the same phenomena, though in a different way.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:13.82,1:16:24.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，依据预设论自身的原则，即便它先尝试接纳其\N他诠释为真，终究还是无法知道这些诠释是错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, presuppositionalism cannot, according to its own principles, know that other interpretations are wrong, even if they first attempt to accept them as true.
Dialogue: 0,1:16:24.65,1:17:38.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们以本论证的结论作结束：首先，依照预设论的基础原则，若我们接受某个诠释\N，那么：一、我们不只会用它去诠释每个现象（这使得所有其他诠释结构对我们而\N言都成为假）；二、我们也无法仅凭理性来驳斥一个错误诠释并改而接受一个正确\N诠释。其次，如上所述，如果我们无法跳脱自身诠释结构，从某种共同立场或客观\N角度来检验，那么就无法运用对应论真理观去核实我们所持诠释结构的真实性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let us conclude with a summary of the consequences of this argument: First, according to the foundational principles of presuppositionalism, if we accept an interpretation, then: 1. We will not only interpret every phenomenon by it (which makes all the other interpretive schemas false for us) 2. We also cannot use reason to intellectually reject a false interpretation schema and accept a true interpretive schema Second, as indicated above, the correspondence theory of truth in which one might be able to check the veracity of an interpretive schema is unsustainable if it is impossible to get out of our interpretive schemas in order to take a look at our own schema from some common ground or objective standpoint.
Dialogue: 0,1:17:38.28,1:17:50.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，如果我们接受范泰尔的预设论，就无法知道究竟哪一种诠释系统能真正阐明现实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems, therefore, that if we accept Van Til's presuppositionalism, then we are simply unable to know which interpretive system gives the true interpretation of reality.
Dialogue: 0,1:17:50.53,1:17:55.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，我们又为何要接受这一种诠释，而不是另一种呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why then should we accept an interpretation rather than another?
Dialogue: 0,1:18:17.63,1:18:27.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：脚注——那我们为何要接受某一诠释而非别的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Footnote: Why Then Should We Accept an Interpretation Rather Than Another?
Dialogue: 0,1:18:28.80,1:18:43.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若有任何理由能说服人们接受 X 而不接受 Y，并且此理由\N仍符合预设论，那么这些理由就只会依据个人的喜好或意愿。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Any presentation of the so-called reasons to accept position X instead of position Y, if it is compatible with presuppositionalism, will be based upon the personal taste or desire of each individual.
Dialogue: 0,1:18:43.68,1:19:10.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果有人借助所谓的“现实真理”来为自己选择 X 而非 Y 辩护，并且想\N证明这对所有人而言都是有效的理由（意味着这是关乎真理而非偏好），那么这\N就会：一、与预设论的主张相抵触；二、诉诸某种全人类皆能使用的共同立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If one calls upon certain so-called truths of reality in order to justify his choice of position X instead of position Y, and if one wishes to argue that this is a valid reason for everyone (which means that it is not a matter of taste but of truth), then it is: a) Inconsistent with the claims of presuppositionalism, and b) Making use of some common ground that is available to all humanity.
Dialogue: 0,1:19:13.67,1:19:24.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上，预设论还带来第三重后果：如果范泰尔是对的\N，那么此诠释体系只是庞大多元体系清单中的一种。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Indeed, a third consequence of presuppositionalism is that if Van Til is right, then the schema is only one of a huge list of different schemas.
Dialogue: 0,1:19:24.95,1:19:30.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，为何要选择预设论，而非非预设论呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Why then choose presuppositionalism instead of non-presuppositionalism?
Dialogue: 0,1:19:30.39,1:19:53.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}由前述内容可推知：1. 若预设论的基本断言（第三与第四条前提）为真，那么预设论\N就只不过是众多诠释结构中的一种，而这些诠释结构都可能为真（我们或许永远不知道是\N哪一个）；或 2. 若预设论的基本断言是错的，那么我们就可以停止围绕它的讨论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems to follow from what was already said that: 1. Either the fundamental affirmations of presuppositionalism are true (premises 3 and 4), and therefore presuppositionalism is just one interpretive schema in a multitude of schemas, all of which could be true (we might never know which one), or 2. The fundamental affirmations of presuppositionalism are wrong, and if that's the case, then we can stop talking about it.
Dialogue: 0,1:19:54.00,1:20:04.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们接受预设论的基本主张，那么就完全可能存在好几\N种诠释结构，它们都能一致地解释摆在我们面前的世界。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we accept the foundational claims of presuppositionalism, then it is quite possible that several interpretive schemas can explain consistently the world before us.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:04.36,1:20:19.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}甚至可以说，所有被范泰尔一致诠释的事实，同样也能被约翰·加尔文、雅各布斯·阿\N民念、阿奎那，乃至穆斯林思想家、佛教思想家或无神论思想家以连贯的方式来解释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One could even say that all facts that are coherently interpreted by Van Til can also be interpreted coherently by John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Thomas Aquinas, or even Muslim thinkers, Buddhist thinkers, or atheist thinkers.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:19.54,1:20:25.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若属实，我们又该如何连贯地断言其中任何一种究竟是对还是错？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If this is the case, then how can we say consistently that any of them is or is not right?
Dialogue: 0,1:20:25.52,1:20:34.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对范泰尔而言，根本不存在无偏且未受诠释或未经媒介的事实，能偏向任何某种诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Van Til, there are no unbiased, in fact not interpreted or unmediated facts which could lean in favor of any interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:34.72,1:20:42.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即便真的存在此类事实，我们也无法在不借助某种诠释结构的情况下接触或观察它们。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And even if there were, we could not access them or even observe them without interpreting them through some interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:42.77,1:20:50.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，若我们接受预设论，就仿佛陷入了诠释结构的绝对相对主义之中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It would seem then that if we accept presuppositionalism, we are caught in an absolute relativism of interpretive schemas.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:50.18,1:20:58.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其结果是，预设论必然会导致对是否能对现实作出真实诠释的绝对怀疑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The result then is that presuppositionalism leads necessarily to absolute skepticism regarding the possibility of giving a true interpretation of reality.
Dialogue: 0,1:20:59.10,1:21:12.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，若预设论确为真，我们就没有理由去接受基督信仰的主\N张（包括范泰尔的诠释）而放弃世界上其他任何诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is, therefore, if presuppositionalism is true, no reason to accept the claims of Christianity as true (including the version of Van Til) instead of any other interpretive schema that can be found in the world.
Dialogue: 0,1:21:43.43,1:22:27.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}假设预设论为真，而我们又想坚持基督信仰，那么我们就只能选择：1. 一种后现代式\N的基督信仰（我们无法知道它是真的，却可以让它变得为真），如当代后现代神学家米里\N暗·B·彭纳等人的著作所示；或 2. 一种信仰主义的教条化立场，这是当代神学家\N在逃离现代思想家过度自信的主张和后现代对这种自信的否定时所采取的另一种方式（如\N卡尔瓦特、科尼流和范泰尔等）：我们无法知道它是否为真，却只能坚信它真实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If presuppositionalism is true and we want to maintain our Christian beliefs, then we are forced either into: 1. A form of postmodern Christianity (we cannot know that it is true, but we can make it true), such as we see in the works of contemporary postmodern theologians like Miriam B. Penner, or 2. A form of fideistic dogmatism, which is just another way in which contemporary theologians have retreated from the overconfident claims of modern thinkers and the postmodern rejection of this confidence (such as we see in Calvart, Cornelius, and Van Til): we cannot know that it is true, but it has to be true, therefore we must simply believe that it is true.
Dialogue: 0,1:22:45.80,1:23:36.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：第四，若我们的论证有效，那么范泰尔的体系就\N会陷入内在的不自洽，因为它不仅宣称自己的诠释结构为真，也同时断言世上其\N他诠释结构——包括其他改革宗神学家、阿民念派、罗马公教会的信徒，以及像\N C.S. 路易斯、奥古斯丁、阿奎那等具体思想家的立场——都是错的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Fourth, if our argument works, then the system of Van Til suffers from internal incoherence because it affirms not only that his schema is true but also that other interpretive schemes found in the world—including the positions of other Reformed theologians, Arminians, Roman Catholics, and specific thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, Augustine, and Aquinas—are false.
Dialogue: 0,1:23:43.82,1:23:54.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，即使在加尔文主义阵营内部，不同作者也有不同\N观点，这就表明每位思想家都持有不同的诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Furthermore, it would seem by the fact that several different authors have different viewpoints, even within the Calvinist camp, that each thinker holds a different interpretation schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:23:54.61,1:23:56.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，究竟哪种才是正确的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which one is correct?
Dialogue: 0,1:23:56.21,1:24:00.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}若要知晓真理，我们就必须遵循范泰尔的诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In order to know the truth, we must adhere to the interpretive schema of Van Til.
Dialogue: 0,1:24:01.09,1:24:07.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我们在某一点上与范泰尔意见相左：——我们能否或是否能改变诠释结构呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If we differ from Van Til on one single point: - Do we or can we change interpretive schemas?
Dialogue: 0,1:24:08.08,1:24:12.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}——这对阿民念派的诠释结构或“四点加尔文主义”的诠释结构意味着什么？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}- What does this mean for the Arminian schema or the four-point Calvinist schema?
Dialogue: 0,1:24:12.73,1:24:22.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们知道，由于许多针对范泰尔在这些观点上的教条式批\N评，依照范泰尔的看法，这些观点全都以错误玷污真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We know, because of the many dogmatic critics of Van Til about these views, that according to Van Til, they are one and all prostitutions of truth with error.
Dialogue: 0,1:24:22.82,1:24:32.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}依范泰尔之见，加尔文主义——尤其以范泰尔的预设论加尔文主义\N为代表——就是那纯正的基督信仰，而其他所有立场都是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For Van Til, Calvinism—and specifically the presuppositionalist Calvinism of Van Til—is simply true Christianity, and all other positions are false.
Dialogue: 0,1:24:33.08,1:24:40.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，对于当代那些与范泰尔在各种观点上相异的预设论者而言，这又意味着什么呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What does that mean for contemporary presuppositionalists who differ with Van Til on various claims?
Dialogue: 0,1:24:42.68,1:24:53.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}此外，由此可见，我们没有理由接受预设论者对人类的三\N分法，即在堕落前、堕落后与重生后的三种诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In addition, it follows that we have no reason to accept the presuppositionalist division of humanity into three different interpretive schemas: pre-fall, fell, and regenerated.
Dialogue: 0,1:24:53.77,1:25:06.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果预设论确实为真，那么这种三分法也不过是范泰尔预设论诠释结构\N所声称的真理之一，而我们并无理由去接受这一预设论的诠释结构。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If presuppositionalism is true, then this division is nothing other than one of the truth claims of the interpretive schema of Van Til's presuppositionalism, and we have no reason to accept this presuppositionalist schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:25:06.58,1:25:11.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许还有其他体系，列出了不同多寡的诠释结构类别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Perhaps other schemes have other lists with more or less categories of schemas.
Dialogue: 0,1:25:11.96,1:25:13.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}万一他们是对的，又该如何？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What if they are right?
Dialogue: 0,1:25:13.30,1:25:14.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们又如何得知呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How would we know?
Dialogue: 0,1:25:15.26,1:25:38.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预设论的第六个难题，对于那些认为如下两点重要的人来说尤其值得关注\N：一、保持对约翰·加尔文神学的忠实；二、声称已重生者与未重生者之\N间毫无共同基础，这违背了范泰尔所自称所依循的加尔文主义神学精神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}A sixth difficulty with presuppositionalism should be important for those who think: 1. It is important to remain faithful to the theology of John Calvin, and 2. The claim that there is no common ground between regenerate and unregenerate men goes against the spirit of Calvinism in the theological systems to which Van Til claims to adhere.
Dialogue: 0,1:25:38.17,1:25:50.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对于约翰·加尔文而言，正如他的《基督教要义》所显示的，我们能够透\N过神的创造来认识神这一事实，是已重生者与未重生者之间的共同基础。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}For John Calvin, as evidenced by his Institutes, the fact that we can know God through His creation is common ground between the regenerate and the non-regenerate.
Dialogue: 0,1:25:50.09,1:26:05.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，加尔文明确说过：我只想在此指出，对于外邦人和教会中的信徒，皆有一条共用的\N途径去寻求神，也就是通过追随神的足迹；神的足迹在天与地之间，宛如祂形象的画作。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, Calvin explicitly states: I just wanted to note here that there is a way to seek God that is common to pagans and the believers of the church by following in His footsteps and they are outlined in the heavens and on earth as paintings of His image.
Dialogue: 0,1:26:07.86,1:26:31.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最后，若我们要谈论各种诠释结构的存在，甚至可能的存在，那么必然面临两种情况\N：a）只是在表达我们自己诠释结构中的一项主张（而这项主张正如我们所见无法被\N证实）；或 b）至少从理论上采用了一种把我们置于所有诠释结构之外的立场。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Finally, if we want to speak of the existence or even possible existence of interpretive schemes, then we are necessarily either: a) Only expressing a claim that is part of our own interpretive schema (a claim that cannot be proved, as we have already seen), or b) Taking up a position at least theoretically that puts us outside of all interpretive schemas.
Dialogue: 0,1:26:31.93,1:26:41.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}结束前让我们举个例子来说明：假设有一座仓库，里面堆了五百个金属隔音箱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Consider in conclusion an example that might illustrate this point: Let us say that there is a warehouse that is full of 500 metal soundproof boxes.
Dialogue: 0,1:26:42.10,1:26:57.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：假设有个人，他经由某种孵化方式在其中一个金属\N箱内出生，并且一生都住在这个箱子里，没有任何逃离或与箱子外界接触的途径。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: Suppose that there is also a person who was born through some form of incubation inside one of the metal boxes and who has been living inside that box his entire life with no way of escape or contact with something that is outside of his metal box.
Dialogue: 0,1:26:58.04,1:27:24.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样一个人会：——不知道在他的金属箱外还有事物存在；——不知道自己\N所处的竟是一个金属箱；——不知道除他自身和金属箱的内壁之外还存在其\N他事物。因此，很明显，他也无法告诉我们仓库里到底有多少个金属箱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Such a person would be: - Unaware that there is something outside of his metal box - Unable to know that what he was in was a metal box - Unable to know that there was anything else in existence aside from himself and the inside walls of his metal box As such, it is evident that he would also be incapable of telling us how many metal boxes there were in the warehouse.
Dialogue: 0,1:27:25.06,1:27:38.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要讨论仓库里有多少金属箱，以及它们是金属做的，且存放\N在仓库当中，就必须采取一个处在这些金属箱之外的位置。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In order to be able to talk about how many metal boxes there are in the warehouse, that they are metal, and that they are in the warehouse, one must necessarily take up a position that is outside the metal boxes.
Dialogue: 0,1:27:38.94,1:27:52.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，倘若无法超越所有诠释结构，就根本无法讨\N论任何诠释结构的存在、本质以及它们的内容。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It seems then that unless one takes a position that is outside of all interpretive schemes, one would be entirely unable to talk about the existence, nature, and content of any interpretive schemes.
Dialogue: 0,1:27:52.85,1:28:00.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或有人会说：神才是终极的诠释者，若神告诉我们有多少诠释结构，那就一定是那个数目。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One might argue: But God is the ultimate interpreter, and therefore if God tells us how many schemas there are, then that is how many there are.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:01.07,1:28:09.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此的难处在于，主张“神已经告知我们这类信息\N”的说法本身，必然是某个诠释结构的组成部分。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The difficulty with this objection is that the claim that God has communicated such information would have to be part of an interpretive schema.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:09.66,1:28:15.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，并无方式让我们确知有一位神，或者祂已向我们传达什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is therefore no way to know that there is a God, nor that He has communicated anything.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:15.51,1:28:20.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人可以盲目地接纳某一诠释结构，认为其中所言的此事是真实的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One can blindly accept an interpretive schema in which this is a true claim.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:20.47,1:28:24.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要么你接受这诠释结构，要么不接受。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can either accept that interpretive schema or you do not.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:24.27,1:28:27.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我们无法知道它究竟是真是假。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is no way of knowing, however, whether or not it is true.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:28.15,1:28:49.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，要么：1）我们能在某种程度上超越所有诠释结构，因而能够客\N观地谈论它们，并且也许还能检验它们之中有些的真伪；或 2）我们\N无法超越，这样一来，任何讨论诠释结构真实性的企图便自相矛盾。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Therefore, either: 1. It is possible for us to step outside all interpretive schemas to at least a limited degree, implying that we can then talk objectively about them, perhaps even demonstrating the truth or falsity of some of them, or 2. It is not possible, and talking about the truth of interpretive schemas is self-contradictory.
Dialogue: 0,1:28:50.72,1:29:00.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}归根结底，若预设论为真，那么范泰尔就像那个困在金属箱里、却想谈论外部真实的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Ultimately, if presuppositionalism is true, then Van Til is like that person who is caught in a metal box trying to talk about what actually exists.
Dialogue: 0,1:29:00.76,1:29:13.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不幸的是，他既被困在金属箱里，就不会意识到自己所处的小小世界只是整\N个现实的一部分，并且他对那些呈现在他面前的现实要素做了错误的诠释。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Unfortunately, as he is caught in a metal box, he does not realize that his little world is only a small part of reality and that he has wrongly interpreted the elements of reality that are presented to him.
Dialogue: 0,1:29:15.88,1:30:29.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}作者附录：在讨论预设论的问题之前，值得指出的是，预设论护教家们提出了一些重要的贡\N献：1. 提出了若干对捍卫基督信仰颇具裨益的护教学论点，例如：——关于神存在的超\N越论证；——驳斥其他诠释结构的论证；——对基督信仰攻击的各种有趣辩护；2. 强调\N了前设在研究与讨论中的地位；3. 正确指出，若我们明白宇宙（及我们自身）与神（乃\N我们与宇宙的创造者）之间的关系，就能更好地理解宇宙（包括我们自己）。以上这些要素\N对预设论来说都不新鲜，然而预设论在回应现代哲学时，确实合理地重新确认了这些要素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Appendix by the Author Before considering the problem with presuppositionalism, it would be appropriate to note some important contributions proposed by presuppositionalist apologists: 1. Emphasized several arguments of an apologetic nature useful for the defense of the Christian faith, such as: - The transcendental argument for God's existence - Arguments against other interpretive schemes - Interesting defenses against attacks on Christianity 2. Emphasized the place of presuppositions in research and discussion 3. Rightly noted that we will better understand the universe (including ourselves) if we understand it and ourselves in its and our relationship with God as its and our Creator None of these elements are new to presuppositionalism, though presuppositionalism has rightly reacted to modern philosophy by reaffirming these elements.
Dialogue: 0,1:30:29.24,1:30:46.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尽管对基督信仰的护教工作有所贡献，但我们认为此方法，尤\N其以柯尼流·范泰尔的阐释（虽然当代某些预设论者的著作中\N也有类似问题）为典型，比起提供答案，反倒带来更多难题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Despite its important contributions to Christian apologetics, we think that this method, especially as explained by Cornelius Van Til (though these problems may also be found in the writings of some contemporary proponents of presuppositionalism), creates more problems than solutions.
Dialogue: 0,1:30:48.01,1:31:06.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在一些非正式的交谈和不经意的言论中，似乎有人开始认为，要做加尔\N文主义者或“正统”，就必须是预设论者或至少与预设论十分接近。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In unofficial conversations and unguarded comments, there seems to be some people who are starting to think that to be Calvinist or Orthodox, one must be presuppositionalist or close to it.
Dialogue: 0,1:31:06.29,1:31:15.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}需要指出的是，驳斥预设论体系并不等同于驳斥加尔文主义或东方正统信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It would be noted that the refutation of the presuppositionalist system is not the refutation of Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Dialogue: 0,1:31:15.24,1:31:21.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以下是校订且格式正确的文本：捍卫预设论，并不等同于捍卫加尔文主义或东方正统信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Here's the corrected and properly formatted text: And the defense of presuppositionalism is not the defense of Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Dialogue: 0,1:31:21.27,1:31:30.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在预设论与加尔文主义或东方正统信仰之间，并不存在任何必然或充分的蕴涵关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is no relationship of entailment, neither necessary nor sufficient, between presuppositionalism and Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Dialogue: 0,1:31:30.59,1:31:47.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相反，正如我们将会看到的，预设论只是一种哲学学说，汲取了康德、黑格尔、海德\N格尔等德国大哲思想体系的灵感，并将其附会于加尔文主义或东方正统信仰之上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather, presuppositionalism, as we shall see, is simply a philosophical doctrine drawing its inspiration from the philosophical systems of the great German philosophers such as Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger that is imposed on Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Dialogue: 0,1:31:47.94,1:32:03.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，我们应当以这样的方式对待预设论：并非试图用圣经的证据、教父时代的证\N据或教会声明来支持或驳斥它，而是要问：它是否如实地描绘了事物的本来样貌？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the way in which we should approach presuppositionalism is not to attempt to support or refute it with biblical evidences, patristic evidences, or statements of the Church, but rather to ask if it describes things as they are.
Dialogue: 0,1:32:03.33,1:32:08.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换言之：预设论是否对现实作出了真实的描述？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In other words: Does presuppositionalism give a true description of reality?
Dialogue: 0,1:32:08.45,1:32:24.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预设论并不能比先前在基督教神学中占据主导地位的任何其他哲学学说，\N获取更多的圣经支持、教会支持或教父支持——在我看来，更谈不上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Presuppositionalism cannot garner more biblical support, ecclesiastical support, or patristic support than any other philosophical doctrine that has been predominant in Christian theology—and, as far as I am concerned, much less.
Dialogue: 0,1:32:24.43,1:32:53.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果有人研究那些伟大加尔文主义者的著作——例如：法兰西斯·图瑞\N廷、B.B. 华菲尔德、查尔斯·贺智、奥古斯都·H·斯壮、J·\N格肖姆·马琛（他们全是学者、神学家、护教学家），乃至约翰·加尔\N文本人的著作——就会发现，他们绝不会认同预设论的哲学根基。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Rather than finding a relationship between presuppositionalism and Calvinism or Eastern Orthodoxy, he who studies the writings of the great Calvinists such as: - Francis Turretin - B.B. Warfield - Charles Hodge - Augustus H. Strong - J. Gershom Machen (All of whom were scholars, theologians, and apologists) and even the writings of John Calvin himself will conclude that these great theologians would never have agreed with the philosophical foundations of presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,1:32:54.34,1:33:05.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我还认为，对于第一千年教会的诸教父，以及二十世纪\N以前大多数杰出的东方正统神学家，这一点同样适用。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would conclude also that the same is true for the Fathers of the Church of the first millennium and most great Orthodox theologians prior to the 20th century.
Dialogue: 0,1:33:06.32,1:33:24.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}纪尧姆·宾根在他对我先前版本的论述评论中指出：1. 预设论者使用的超越论证确\N实是对神存在的某种有效论证，但这绝不必然指向《圣经》中所启示的三位一体之神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Guillaume Bingen pointed out to me in his comments on a previous version of this argument that: 1. The transcendental argument used by presuppositionalists is a valid proof of the existence of God, but in no case is it necessarily the Triune God of the Bible.
Dialogue: 0,1:33:27.43,1:33:46.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}2. 若我们将宇宙与创造主神建立关联来理解，就能更好地理解\N世界（这是任何受基督教神学启发的自然神学的必要要素），这一\N点在基督教早期就已由奥古斯丁在其《论三位一体》中提出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}2. The point that we will understand the world better if we understand it in relation to God our Creator (which is a necessary element of any natural theology inspired by Christian theology) was already raised in the early days of Christianity by Augustine in his De Trinitate.
Dialogue: 0,1:33:46.43,1:33:56.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}马修·莱弗林在他最近出版的著作《奥古斯丁神学：对其最重要著作的入门指南\N》（密歇根州大急流城：贝克学术出版社，2013年）中记述了这一观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This point is noted by Matthew Levering in his recent book The Theology of Augustine: An Introductory Guide to His Most Important Works (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2013).