文／邱慕天
▍一、普救主義：「信與不信都必得救」
在基督教神學，普救論（普救主義）是指所有人類的靈魂，都將因著神的慈愛最終與祂和好、相歸於一。
歷史上以 Origen 為首的許多著名神學思想家不斷嘗試過興起或復興這套信念，然而由於聖經從頭到尾以來明明陳述「不義者、背逆者將接受死後的審判、不屬神的國」，普救論歷世歷代以來都被正統教會界判為異端，而且被認為毀壞信仰的根基、勉人行善的道德驅力。
也因出於太多的反對經文，普救主義的支持者幾乎從來未曾試圖調和聖經衝突經節、也從而容易放棄對聖經教導權威性的堅守，成為空洞無力的和諧主義者。
▍二、包容主義：「條條大路通羅馬，但你必須在路上」
包容主義不是普救主義，並不認為世上所有靈魂都會獲得應許的永生。例如聖經中提及那些「不法和不服的，不虔誠和犯罪的，不聖潔和戀世俗的，弒父母和殺人的…做各樣敵正道的事」的…，神的愛並不會使祂喪失以公義在終末審判賞善罰惡。只是出於文化經驗和道德直覺的考慮，包容主義認為世上所有偉大的傳統無論 ABCDEFGHIJ…到Z，…都有得救人口。
- A: 無神論（Atheism）
- B: 佛教（Buddhism）
- C: 基督教（Christianity ）
- D: 道教（Taoism）
- E: 秘教（Esoterism）
- F: 法輪功（Falungong）
- G: 地球女神教（Gaia-ism）
- H: 印度教（Ｈinduism）
- I: 伊斯蘭教（Islam）
- Ｊ: 猶太教（Judaism）
- …
- Ｚ: 祆教（Zoroastrianism）
值得注意的是，包容主義不僅於強調「其他信仰的人口中有好人」，更是認定「其他宗教也有真神啟示的亮光足以領人得救」。支持著多半從宗教和平對話的動機，挑戰一神論的「排他主義」，而他們更動傳統及調適的模式有「多元宗教包容主義」、「基督教包容主義」與混合模式…等三大分支：
- – 多元宗教包容主義：即認定其他宗教導師是聖道（基督）其他化身的。認定「基督教」本身只是一種被歷史歐陸文明載體體現並侷限的聖道、是宗教多元中的其一、與「真理」在其他時空、文明被人類具象化的各大宗教，僅有形式之分、而無真理性的高下之分（如宋泉盛 *1、John Hick 後期）
- – 基督教包容主義：有認定其他宗教的啟示是「包含在基督教」的宗教神學。強調基督教啟示是大寫、其他是小寫（如 Clark Pinnock、John Hick 前期）
- – 混合模式：介於兩者之間。用基督教概念理解世界宗教，但認為世界宗教文明都處在不完整啟示的暗昧進程中；如今大家都是對著鏡子觀看模糊不清，到將來才會與完全的真理面對面（如 Hans Kung *）
▍三、排他主義：「（律法／教會／認信）之外無救恩」
傳統一神信仰或一神信仰中支派，如伊斯蘭教、猶太教、早期聚會所、耶和華見證人、保守新教改革宗等等對救恩之理解，是排除自身教派／認信群體之外的靈魂有任何得救可能（嬰兒或許除外）。
排他主義在哲學觀念上的運作特色在於「有能力」為自身畫出一道救恩排除的疆界，大部分是透過一套或緊或鬆的認信（confession），並有對這套認信進行個別「確認」的具體儀式（洗禮、割禮、教理問答）。
排他主義本身面對聖經的麻煩是，從舊約人物到耶穌本身，對「義人」、「在神的國／樂園裡」、「與神同行」的用法十分寬鬆，從來沒有貫徹任何一套明確的認信。
然而同時，較為辯證性的新約書卷（如約翰福音、加拉太書、羅馬書等）又有許多經文將「明信（耶穌基督）者」作為得救的要件。排他主義多半選擇用這些二元辯證性強烈的章節架構系統化的救恩論神學。
而對於敘事神學或耶穌比喻中，那些沒有明確認信、但生命蒙主恩而翻轉的、或秉性行公義好憐憫而蒙讚揚為義的段落，已經持定排他主義的解釋者則認為不提供規範性，或說行善被上帝紀念的那些人走的是「『過渡時期』救恩渠道」，而這渠道在十字架工作／五旬節聖靈工作展開後，已經被封閉」。
▍四、特殊主義：「只有基督有救恩，惟此救恩無邊界」
最後，「不是普救主義」、「不是包容主義」、「不是排他主
最後，基督信仰真正有一貫性的救恩論更接近「特殊主義」。Christ is the Way. But we don’t have the Way. The Way found us.
它不同於普救主義，在於相信「與神隔絕」是一種靈魂真實的選擇。
它不同於包容主義，在於並不妥協認同其他宗教修煉法門或靈知本身的「基督性／救贖性」。
它不同於排他主義，在於看見聖經的啟示從未排除教外人藉著基督特殊恩典進入永恆與祂連結的可能。
它也反對用一套認信或人意標準明確框限救恩，因為人的複雜和有限、因為祂旨意的純全和無限。
表明了特殊主義的神學和事工信念的歷代教牧領袖巨人有： John Wesley、Karl Barth、C.S. Lewis *3、Billy Graham（晚期）*4、John Stott * 5、Karl Rahner *6、N.T. Wright *7 等。其中 Lewis 有些論述與包容主義區分並不顯著；而 Stott 反對「認信」為上帝救恩之手的界限，對界外救恩「樂觀不可知、而非明確肯定」，是最接近我們在聖經啟示領受的「特殊主義」。
完整有次序的特殊主義，必須從上帝與以色列立約的方式看起，舊約上帝與以色列立約，是「猶太人」這個文化群體與「外邦文化」形成一套救恩的辯證關係，使特殊主義成為比前面三者更忠信地理解基督教新舊約聖經救恩論的方式。（待續）
- Nestor C. Rilloma, « Toward a Theology of Religion in an Asian Adventist Perspective« , Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 103
According to C. S. Song, if we claim that Christianity is the only valid religion, then we have to assume that “God left Asia in the hands of pagan powers and did not come to it until missionaries from the West reached it. That would have left Asia without the God of Jesus for millions of years.” To him, nothing is farther from the truth. “God could not have been such an irresponsible God.”To reject the validity of other religions is plain “dogmatism,” a “product of western religious absolutism. He firmly believes that (here he is quoting Tillich) “[t]here are revealing and saving powers in all religions. God has not left himself unwitnessed.
2. Hans Kung, « Is There One True Religion? » « Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions », Christianity and Other Religions: Selected Readings. Eds., John Hick, Brian Hebblethwaite, Simon and Schuster, 2014, 145
As far as the future goes, only one thing is certain: at the end both of human life and the course of the world Buddhism and Hinduism will no longer be there, nor will Islam nor Judaism. Indeed, in the end Christianity will not be there either.
In the end no religion will be left standing, but the one Inexpressible, to whom all religions are oriented, whom Christians will only then completely recognize – when the imperfect gives way before the perfect– even as they themselves are recognized: the truth face to face.
And in the end there will no longer be standing between the religions a figure that separates them, no more prophet or enlightened one, not Muhammad and not the Buddha. Indeed even Christ Jesus, whom Christians believe in, will no longer stand here as a figure of separation. But he, to whom, Paul says, all powers (including death) are subjected, ‘subjects himself, then, to God’ so that God himself (ho theos) – or however he may be called in the East – may truly be not just in all things but ‘everything to everyone’ (1 Cor 15:28)
3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Deckle Edge, 2009
« We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. » (65)
There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. (178)
4. Billy Graham, « I Can’t Play God Anymore » interview with James M. Beam, McCall’s Magazine, (January 1978), 154-158
“I used to play God but I can’t do that any more. I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost and were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that,” he said carefully. “I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ’yes’ to God.”
5. John Stott & David Edwards, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal Evangelical Dialogue, Intervarsity, 1989, 326-9
Sir Norman Anderson …suggested that some people who have never heard of Christ may be brought, by a sense of their sin, guilt and inability to save themselves, to cry for mercy to the God they but dimly perceive; that God does have mercy on them; and that he saves them on the basis of Christ’s atoning work, through faith, even though they have not heard of him.
This proposal has two particular merits. First, it preserves the three safeguards outlined above, especially that we cannot save ourselves and that Christ is the only Saviour. Secondly, it can claim some biblical warrant, since Old Testament believers were saved by God’s grace through faith, even though they knew little if anything about the coming Christ. …
Speaking now for myself, although I am attracted by Sir Norman Anderson’s concept, I believe the most Christian stance is to remain agnostic on this question… We have to leave them in the hands of the God of infinite mercy and justice, who manifested these qualities most fully in the cross. Abraham’s question, ‘will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ (Genesis 18:25) is our confidence too.
I have never been able to conjure up (as some great Evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand… I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish the hope that the majority of the human race will be saved. And I have a solid biblical basis for this belief.
True, Jesus said that those who find the narrow road that leads to life were ‘few’. But we need to remember that God is the Creator of all humankind, and remains infinitely loving, patient and compassionate towards all whom he has made.
We have to remember too that God does not want anybody to perish but wants everybody to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4); and that the final vision of the redeemed in the Book of Revelation is of ‘a great multitude that no-one could count’ (7:9), a huge international throng, in whom God’s promise to Abraham will at last be fulfilled that his seed (his spiritual posterity) would be as innumerable as the stars in the sky, the dust of the earth and the grains of sand on all the seashores of the world. That is the hope I cherish, and that is the vision that inspires me, even while I remain agnostic about how God will bring it to pass.
6 Karl Rahner, « Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions », Christianity and Other Religions: Selected Readings. Eds., John Hick, Brian Hebblethwaite, Simon and Schuster, 2014, 35-6
It would be wrong to regard the pagan as someone who has not yet been touched in any way by God’s grace and truth.If, however, he has experienced the grace of God …accepted this grace as the ultimate, unfathomable entelechy of his existence…, then he has already been given revelation in a true sense even before he has been affected by missionary preaching from without. It is not possible here to prove more exactly that this fides implicita is something which dogmatically speaking can occur in a so-called pagan…, someone who in certain circumstances finds it, without being reached by the proclamation of the Church’s message – and if it is at the same time true that this salvation which reaches him in this way is Christ’s salvation, since there is no other salvation – then it must be possible to be not only an anonymous theist but also an anonymous Christian.
7. N.T. Wright, “Toward a Biblical view of Universalism”, Themelios, Vol.4, No.2, Jan 1979https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/…/towards-a…/
There are some passages in the New Testament—I think particularly of Acts 10:2, 4, 27, 30–35 and (on some interpretations) Romans 2:12–16—which seem to allow for the fact that some people are saved without actually hearing and confessing the name of Jesus Christ, since in this life they had, as it were, possessed a Christ-shaped faith. They had been genuinely dissatisfied with their surrounding religion and humbly seeking to serve God in prayer and good works as best they knew how. As I have argued elsewhere, I believe that Scripture leaves this possibility open while giving us no encouragement to think that the category of people involved will be large.
林德貝克的贈言 Patrimoine de Lindbeck 