信仰的辩护
The Defense of the Faith
科尼利厄斯·范泰尔 / Cornelius Van Til
简介 Summary
范泰尔前设护教学方法的系统阐述。与传统护教学从"中性"立场论证上帝存在不同，范泰尔主张基督徒应当从圣经启示的角度出发，揭示所有思想都建立在宗教性的基础预设之上。真正的争论不在于事实的解释，而在于解释事实的基本框架。这种革命性的护教方法对二十世纪护教学产生了深远影响，至今仍是护教学研究的重要流派。
Van Til's systematic exposition of presuppositional apologetic methodology. Unlike traditional apologetics arguing for God's existence from a "neutral" stance, Van Til advocates that Christians should start from biblical revelation, revealing that all thought rests on religious foundational presuppositions. True debate concerns not interpretation of facts but the basic framework for interpreting facts. This revolutionary apologetic method profoundly influenced twentieth-century apologetics and remains an important school in apologetic studies today.
📑 章节 Chapters
Ch.1: The Nature and Task of Apologetics
范泰尔重新定义护教学的本质。护教学不是为基督教信仰提供"证据"，而是揭示所有人都在某种信仰框架内思考。护教学的任务是展示基督教世界观的内在一致性，同时揭露非基督教世界观的内在矛盾。
Van Til redefines apologetics' nature. Apologetics is not providing 'evidence' for Christian faith but revealing that all people think within some faith framework. Apologetics' task is demonstrating Christian worldview's internal consistency while exposing non-Christian worldviews' internal contradictions.
“The Christian apologist must not pretend to be neutral, for neutrality is itself a myth. 基督教护教学者不能假装中立，因为中立本身就是一个神话。”
“There are no brute facts; all facts are interpreted facts, and the question is which interpretive framework is correct. 没有纯粹的事实；所有事实都是被解释的事实，问题是哪个解释框架是正确的。”
Ch.2: The Errors of Traditional Apologetics
批判传统护教学（古典护教学和证据主义护教学）的根本错误。这些方法试图在"中性"基础上与不信者对话，实际上是向不信者的认识论立场妥协，从而削弱了基督教启示的独特性和权威性。
Critiques fundamental errors of traditional apologetics (classical and evidentialist apologetics). These methods attempt dialogue with unbelievers on 'neutral' grounds, actually compromising to unbelievers' epistemological positions, thereby weakening Christianity's uniqueness and authority of revelation.
“To grant the unbeliever his assumption of autonomy in order then to prove to him that God exists is like using the devil's pitchfork to attack the devil. 为了证明神存在而承认不信者的自主假设，就像用魔鬼的钢叉攻击魔鬼。”
“Traditional apologetics seeks to build a house for God on a foundation laid by sinful man. 传统护教学试图在罪人奠定的根基上为神建造房屋。”
Ch.3: The Presuppositional Method
系统阐述前设护教学的方法论。这种方法从圣经启示出发，将三位一体神和圣经权威作为不可协商的起点。护教学的争论发生在世界观层面，需要揭示不信者预设的任意性和自我毁灭性。
Systematically expounds presuppositional apologetic methodology. This method starts from biblical revelation, taking the Triune God and biblical authority as non-negotiable starting points. Apologetic argument occurs at worldview level, needing to reveal unbelievers' presuppositions' arbitrariness and self-destructiveness.
“The presuppositional method takes its stand upon the Christian worldview as the only foundation for coherent thought. 前设护教学方法以基督教世界观为立足点，将其作为一致思考的唯一根基。”
“We must presuppose God in order to prove God, just as we must presuppose logic in order to prove anything at all. 我们必须预设神来证明神，正如我们必须预设逻辑来证明任何事物一样。”
Ch.4: The Use of the Transcendental Argument
详述前设护教学的核心工具——反证法（transcendental argument）。这种论证方式不是直接"证明"神的存在，而是证明神的存在是所有知识、逻辑、道德和经验的必要前提。没有神，人无法解释任何东西。
Details presuppositional apologetics' core tool—the transcendental argument. This argument doesn't directly 'prove' God's existence but proves God's existence is a necessary precondition for all knowledge, logic, morality, and experience. Without God, humans cannot explain anything.
“The transcendental argument for the existence of God is that without him there could be no knowledge, no logic, no science—in short, no rationality at all. 神存在的超越论证是：没有他就不能有知识、逻辑、科学——简而言之，完全没有理性。”
“The proof for the existence of God is that without him you cannot prove anything. 神存在的证明是：没有他你什么都不能证明。”
Ch.5: Common Grace and General Revelation
解释前设护教学如何理解普通恩典与普通启示。虽然所有人都在罪中，但神的普通恩典使不信者仍能在某种程度上认识真理和行善。这解释了为什么不信者能够在科学和道德领域有所成就。
Explains how presuppositional apologetics understands common grace and general revelation. Though all are in sin, God's common grace enables unbelievers to still recognize truth and do good to some extent. This explains why unbelievers can achieve in scientific and moral realms.
“By common grace, the unbeliever knows more than his system allows him to account for. 因为普通恩典，不信者知道的比他的体系允许他解释的更多。”
“The unbeliever lives better than his philosophy, but his philosophy cannot account for why he lives as well as he does. 不信者活得比他的哲学更好，但他的哲学无法解释他为什么能活得这么好。”
Ch.6: Strategy for Dialogue with Unbelievers
提供与不信者进行护教对话的具体策略。这包括：揭露其世界观的内在矛盾、指出其对基督教概念的依赖、展示基督教世界观的解释力。关键是要将讨论从事实层面转向解释框架层面。
Provides specific strategies for apologetic dialogue with unbelievers. This includes: exposing their worldview's internal contradictions, pointing out their dependence on Christian concepts, demonstrating Christian worldview's explanatory power. The key is shifting discussion from fact level to interpretive framework level.
“The Christian must attack the unbeliever's entire worldview, not just argue about isolated facts. 基督徒必须攻击不信者的整个世界观，而不只是争论孤立的事实。”
“We must show the unbeliever that he cannot live consistently with his own principles. 我们必须向不信者证明，他无法与自己的原则一致地生活。”
Ch.7: The Relationship Between Apologetics and Evangelism
澄清护教学与传福音的关系。护教学不能产生信仰（那是圣灵的工作），但它可以清除理智障碍，展示基督教的合理性。护教学的目标是荣耀神和服务教会，而非征服不信者的理智。
Clarifies the relationship between apologetics and evangelism. Apologetics cannot produce faith (that's the Spirit's work), but it can remove intellectual obstacles and demonstrate Christianity's reasonableness. Apologetics' goal is glorifying God and serving the church, not conquering unbelievers' intellects.
“Apologetics prepares the way for the gospel but cannot substitute for the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. 护教学为福音预备道路，但不能替代圣灵在重生中的能力。”
“The best apologetics in the world cannot convert a soul; only God can do that. 世界上最好的护教学也不能使灵魂归主；只有神能做到。”
Ch.8: Challenges to and Responses for Presuppositional Apologetics
回应对前设护教学的常见批评：循环论证的指控、与不信者对话的可能性、与科学研究的兼容性等。范泰尔论证这些批评基于对前设护教学的误解，真正的循环是"好的循环"，因为所有思考都从某些预设开始。
Responds to common criticisms of presuppositional apologetics: charges of circular reasoning, possibility of dialogue with unbelievers, compatibility with scientific research, etc. Van Til argues these criticisms stem from misunderstanding presuppositional apologetics; true circularity is 'good circularity' since all thinking starts from some presuppositions.
“Every system of thought involves circularity; the question is whether it is a vicious circle or a circle that is required by the nature of knowledge itself. 每一个思想体系都涉及循环性；问题是它是恶性循环还是知识本质所要求的循环。”
“We do not reason in a circle but in a spiral, always returning to our starting point but with deeper understanding. 我们不是在圆圈中推理，而是在螺旋中推理，总是回到起点，但理解更深。”