I’ve sometimes told students who say they want to do a Ph.D. in systematic theology, that one doctorate won’t do—they’ll need at least five: one or two in New Testament, at least one in Old Testament, a couple in church history, one in philosophy, and then they can do one in systematics……
D.A.Carson接受M. Horton的采访记录。福音联盟文档：https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2010_Horton_interview.pdf
译文：我有时会告诉那些打算读系统神学博士的学生，一个博士学位是不够的——他们需要至少五个：一两个新约博士，至少一个旧约博士，几个教会史的博士，一个哲学博士，然后，可以考虑研究系统神学，弄个博士来玩了……
——唐纳德·卡森博士接受迈克尔·何顿博士的采访记录。
见：https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2010_Horton_interview.pdf
无特定的指向。听说有些小将声称，在世的神学家中只有不超过3人是正统改革宗（言下之意，其余都是异端）。在他们的笔下，那种势成水火的斗异端，在神学学术共同体中是否真实存在？
这种问题很容易回答。因为他们常常引用的正统神学家Michael Horton博士正当壮年，要了解何顿博士对于比如D.A.Carson的观点（记得有一次我在某个微信公号文章上这样留言了，大体是：要知道何顿是否真是这样的观点，问问本人不就清楚了。何苦如此委婉曲折地推测……），随意查询一下，或者提几个尖锐的问题，找他的学生采访一下即可。何顿博士大概是不会为小将们背锅的。
福音联盟整理过一篇采访记录，是迈克尔·何顿博士采访D.A.Carson博士，讨论圣经神学家们是否应当注重系统神学和历史神学的问题。大家可以看到两点：
- 何顿与卡森的关系很好，彼此尊重。
- 卡森对于系统神学和历史神学的态度如何，是否与最近橡树公众号上的系列文章表述的有所不同。
- 我正在听一个panel，是Carson和Horton为主要讲员的会议，可以听听他们在台上对话的气氛：https://www.desertspringschurch.org/messages/Date/MAY_03_2008_c.php#
论到卡森对约翰福音 14:28的注释，橡树的文章《系统神学和历史神学，无足轻重之学科？（下）》认为卡森教导“次子论”的异端。按照文章的意思看，大概是指卡森博士长期不重视系统神学和历史神学，对古代大公教会的信经一无所知，所以与改革宗浸信会的格鲁登博士一起，可耻地站在了异端立场上。
我觉得橡树发表这样的文章，任凭一位自称改革宗长老会出生的业余平信徒神学家这样说，并不妥当。即使加上“若笔者带有偏见，求主赦免！”作为挡箭牌，也不妥当。指控别人异端，不能靠着莫须有的证据，先说了再来道歉，或者预先道歉，就可以随意说了。
这种事情，我是建议这位作者所属教会的长老们好好考虑一下，是否可以略加劝勉。这种问题要是上到区会去审议，我觉得也不妨（前提条件当然是这间改革宗长老会有所属的区会）。
近来翻译何顿博士在加州威敏的同事范司寇博士的《威敏神学》一书，对基督论略有涉猎。（见《威敏神学》第6章试读）。
其中谈到改革宗神学对基督在位格上受生于父，在本质上与父等同的看法，也谈到宗教改革早期，改教家们对使用传统信经术语的疑虑，以及加尔文对尼西亚圣经的保留。比如：
腓特利担心人们误解他对尼西亚信经的反对，不知道他所质疑的是时间顺序上的倒置，即，现在的事物从本质上先于过去。13无论如何，他对“出自真神的真神”一句有所保留。虽然他相信，“既然子由父所生，父子都是神，所以必须加上‘出自真神的真神’一句”，但他补充说，“但我们决不能说，子的神性出自父的神性。”14在此，腓特沿引了加尔文来捍卫自己的观点：“但是加尔文说，基督是自在自存的神（autotheos），自己就是神……按着本质而言，基督自己就是神，按着位格而言，出自真神的真神。”15换句话说，**加尔文认为，我们只能在位格意义上说子是永恒受生的，但不能在本质意义上如此说。**腓特利认为，仅仅因为子的位格出自于父，并不意味着他的本质也从父受生。16腓特利的立场不仅迎合加尔文早前的论点，而且与爱尔兰信经（1615）相符：“父的本质并没有生出子的本质；然而，父将自己的全部本质传递给在永恒里受生的位格，由自己的位格生出了子的位格。”（§ 9）。17
历史文献的理解是很复杂的，最好依靠第一手资料来分析，在结论的时候，最好也谨慎一点，特别是在定一位著名的神学家为异端时，多少还是要更严谨举证为好。
卡森的约翰福音注释，一向被认为是福音派最佳的约翰福音注释之一。麦种曾将其译为中文，引为所出版的代表作之一。我没有中文版，姑且用卡森的原本加以分析，看看是否有异端之嫌。字数太长，我就不翻译了，只是略微评注一下其中有关部分：
14:28. Jesus is still dealing with what is troubling his disciples and firing their fear, viz. his repeatedly announced departure (You heard me say; cf. vv 2–4, 12, 18–19, 21, 23). But now he goes over to the offensive, however mildly: their failure to understand, their failure to trust him, is also a failure of love. If they truly loved him (and the clear implication is that they do not), they would be glad that he is going to the Father. After all, his departure ensures that he will take them to be with him forever (vv. 1–3): that alone should have been a cause for joy. Genuine love for Jesus would have found another cause for joy: the Father is greater than I. （这里是圣经注释的常规，分析经文的背景。）
**（这段话指责现代阿民念主义者对这句话的滥用）**At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern Arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius (on which cf. Pollard; Wiles, pp. 122–125). The problem is how to put together that strand of Johannine (and New Testament) witness that places Jesus on a level with God (1:1, 18; 5:16–18; 10:30; 20:28), with that strand that emphatically insists upon Jesus’ obedience to his Father and on his dependence upon his Father (4:34; 5:19–30; 8:29; 12:48–49), not to mention John’s description of the origin and purpose of the Son’s mediation in creation, revelation and redemption as being in the Father’s will (1:3–4, 14, 18; 3:17; 5:21–27). **（卡森指出，这句话被滥用的主要问题在于，约翰的基督论认为基督具有完全的神性，但在4:34等处，又提到耶稣的顺服和依靠父神。从圣经神学上，这当然是需要解释的问题，也是容易引起误用的地方。圣经注释不可能只是引用一下信经就完事，必然要分析数据，给出合理的结论。）**It cannot be right to depreciate the truth of one strand by appeal to the other.（否认任何偏颇的解释，无论阿民念还是诺斯替主义都不对） Arians deploy the latter strand to deny the former: Jesus is less than fully God. Gnostics deploy the former to depreciate the latter: Jesus may in some sense be divine, but he is not fully human. In each passage the immediate context resolves most of the difficulties (cf. notes on the passages listed). In the clause before us, the Father is greater than I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God: the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant. （**这句话绝不表示基督次于神——这里可以看出，卡森并不教导次子论）**If the writer of this commentary were to say, ‘Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is greater than I’, no-one would take this to mean that she is more of a human being than I. The greater than category cannot legitimately be presumed to refer to ontology, apart from the controls imposed by context. The Queen is greater than I in wealth, authority, majesty, influence, renown and doubtless many more ways: only the surrounding discussion could clarify just what type of greatness may be in view. （卡森给出例证。看得出来，他曾在英国留学，拿了博士。）
What, then, does for the Father is greater than I mean in this context? （开始根据上下文数据以及希腊文法知识分析和解释。）Some have attached these words to those immediately preceding: ‘I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.’ This is syntactically reasonable, but the precise logic inherent in for (hoti, ‘because’) is obscure. Presumably it would mean that Jesus is going back to the one who commissioned him, under the assumption that Jesus has all but completed his task, for the one who sent him is greater than the one who is sent (cf. 13:16). The connection is not tight, and it bears little on the rest of the verse.
It is better to take for the Father is greater than I to refer not to the immediately preceding clause, but to the main clause: ‘If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I’. Some then take the intrinsic logic like this: ‘you would be glad for everything is under control’. Doubtless the disciples would have lost some of their fear and anxiety if they had really believed that everything was under control, but it is very doubtful if the clause for the Father is greater than I can be reduced to nothing more than a generalized statement about the sovereignty of God. The comparison, after all, is between Jesus and his Father (‘greater than I’), yet in v. 1 the assumption is that the disciples believe in God better than they believe in Jesus, making this kind of exhortation rather strange. Isn’t God sovereign, and are not things under control, whether or not Jesus goes back to the Father? And how does this have any bearing on the conditional clause ‘If you loved me, you would be glad …’? （教牧方面的注解）
The only interpretation that makes adequate sense of the context connects for the Father is greater than I with the main verb (as does the preceding option), but understands the logic of the for or because rather differently: If Jesus’ disciples truly loved him, they would be glad that he is returning to his Father, for he is returning to the sphere where he belongs, to the glory he had with the Father before the world began (17:5), to the place where the Father is undminshed in glory, unquestionably greater than the Son in his incarnate state. To this point the disciples have responded emotionally entirely according to their perception of their own gain or loss. If they had loved Jesus, they would have perceived that his departure to his own ‘home’ was his gain and rejoiced with him at the prospect. As it is, their grief is an index of their self-centredness.（教牧方面的注解）
（神学方面的额外洞见）Theologically, two further points must be drawn. First, the failure of these first disciples, sad to say, has often been repeated in the history of the church, where Christians have been far more alert to their own griefs and sorrows than to the things that bring their Master joy. Second, although the interpretation of v. 28 advanced here turns on the distinction between the Father in his glory and the Son in his incarnation, nevertheless this verse also attests to the pattern of functional subordination of the Son to the Father, already alluded to, that extends backward into eternity past (cf. Barrett Essays, pp. 19–36: Carson, pp. 146–160). ‘The Father is fons divinitatis [“the divine fountainhead”] in which the being of the Son has its source; the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John’s thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his earthly life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end’ (Barrett, p. 468). （最后这段话是Barrett说的，在橡树的文章中，一并算作卡森头上。我可以呵呵吗？也许我们的猎巫行动应当追认Barrett为异端。）
当卡森谈到天父的荣耀与子在道成肉身，活在地上服事时的区别时，并不是教导次子论。当他谈到子在道成肉身时，在功能上从属于父（functional subordination of the Son to the Father …… that extends backward into eternity past）时，只是没有明确提到“加尔文认为，我们只能在位格意义上说子是永恒受生的，但不能在本质意义上如此说”的后半句话而已，因为这里是圣经注释，不是在撰写系统神学专注。但他给出了参考文献，包括他自己立场的参考和Barrett的专著，至少在定他教导“次子论”异端之前，有必要参考一下。
Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (pp. 506–508). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.
只要google一下，网上说谁是异端的都有。若按照单篇讲道或单句经文的解释来定案，几乎每个牧师都可能被指控异端。
另一方面，我曾经告诉一位传道人，若明天早晨我去他的教会把每个成员叫起来解释什么是“三位一体”或者基督的人神二性，说得有误的就打成异端，那么他的教会里可能一个正统也不会剩下了。
重要的问题在于，我们将来能否安然见主？或许，雅各书3章开头的几节，会让我们遭受更重的审判吧。
求主怜悯。
版权所有：Eddy Zhang
博客：https://eddyemma.com
出品人：跨文翻译（kuawentrans.com）跨文翻译以职场作为宣教平台。
若您或您的教会愿意支持跨文翻译的事工，请使用以下二维码。