再思行為之約 ReconsideringThe Covenant Of Works
作者：R. SCOTT CLARK 譯者：駱鴻銘
如果你是在2005年之前的英語世界裏學習到改革宗神學的，你學到的版本很可能並不包括上帝和亞當之間在墮落之前立的行為之約，或是聖父和聖子之間立的永恆盟約（救贖之約）。換句話說，從大概是1561年起直到廿世紀早期的改革宗神學的角度來看，我們所學到的是一個被截頭去尾的改革宗神學版本，一個殘缺不全的版本。將近一個世紀，從二十世紀早期開始，除非人願意稍稍深入研究比較古老的一些改革宗神學家和原始資料，或者假若人單純地接受在那個時期當中傳給我們的改革宗神學版本，否則我們聽到、學到的或自行發展出來的，都是與古典改革宗聖約神學版本迥異的一套神學，卻沒有意識到當中的許多差異。直到最近，我們才有了當代的、通俗的和半通俗的，對改革宗聖約神學的介紹，對行為之約和救贖之約的教導。倘若這是事實，這就意味著現代的改革宗人士，有好幾代人對於在古典時期的改革宗神學的教義和思路大致上是陌生的，然而這些在當時卻被認為是最基本的。那些靠這種被修正過的改革宗神學版本的奶水養大的人，在碰到古典版本時，都會感到困惑而無所適從。為了減輕這種混亂感，在這篇短文裏，我會把焦點放在行為之約上。If one learned
Reformed theology, in the English-speaking world, before 2005 the probabilities
are that the version learned did not include either the covenant of works
between God and Adam before the fall or the eternal covenant between the Father
and the Son (the covenant of redemption). In other words, from the perspective
of Reformed theology from about 1561 until the early 20th century, one learned
a truncated version of Reformed theology, a version missing two of its three
limbs. For most of a century, beginning in the early 20th century, unless one
was willing to dig a bit into older Reformed writers and sources or if one
simply accepted the version of Reformed theology being mediated to us consumers
in the period, one might hear, learn, or develop a theology that was markedly
different from the classical version of Reformed covenant theology without much
consciousness of the differences. It has only been recently that one has been
able to find modern, popular, and semi-popular presentations of Reformed
covenant theology that teach the covenant of works and the covenant of
redemption. To the degree this is true, it means that generations of modern
Reformed folk were largely unaware of doctrines and ways of thinking that, in
the classical period of Reformed theology, were taken as basic. When those that
have been nurtured on the revised version of Reformed theology encounter the
classical variety it can be quite confusing. To ease part of this confusion, in
this essay I want to focus on the covenant of works.
事情的經過What Happened
行為之約的教義之所以遭遇挫折，有幾個重大的理由。其中之一其實很古老的。在十六世紀，這個原本只是暗示性的教義被人明確地表述出來。行為之約是由幾個獨立的要素組成的。首先是亞當和全人類之間的盟約關係，即，在伊甸園裏，亞當不只是代表自己行動，而是代表所有的人類行動。雖然這個概念與現代的個人主義是扞格不入的，卻廣受教父時期、中世紀、宗教改革傳統的支持。它成為奧古斯丁派回應伯拉糾派的堡壘之一。另一個概念是亞當與上帝之間有一個考驗性的、律法性的安排，在這個安排中，他有義務要順服上帝，以便進入一個蒙福的狀態。再次，我們在第二世紀的一些神學家中可以發現這個暗示，他們訴諸聖約神學來為聖經和救恩的基本統一性辯護，以對抗諾斯底主義和馬吉安主義，即對抗那些要把聖經肢解得四分五裂，並且把上帝和祂子民的救恩拆成兩半的二元主義思想的極端威脅。在第五世紀，奧古斯丁從這些主流觀念裏（當時已經成為主流思想）獲益，並且把亞當描述為是在行為之約裏。There are a few
major reasons why the doctrine of the covenant of fell upon hard times. One
reason is actually antique. In the 16th century, what had been long understood
to be implicit was made explicit. The covenant of works is composed of some
discrete elements. First was the notion of a federal relation between Adam and
all humanity, that, in the garden, Adam was not acting only for himself but on
behalf of all of humanity. Though this notion is at odds with the individualism
of the modern age, it was widely held in the Patristic, medieval, and
Reformation traditions. It became one of the bulwarks of the Augustinian
response to the Pelagians. Another was the idea that Adam was in a
probationary, legal arrangement with God in which he obligated to obey God in
order to enter into a state of blessedness. Again, one finds this implicitly in
some of those second-century writers, who appealed to covenant theology to
defend the essential unity of Scripture and salvation against the Gnostic and
the Marcionites, i.e., against those radical dualistic impulses that threatened
to atomize Scripture and to tear God and his salvation of his people in two. In
the 5th century, Augustine would capitalize on these (by now) mainstream
conceptions and describe Adam as being in a covenant of works.
不過，在東方和西方神學裏，都有一些相反的思潮。在東方，俄利根的人論基本上忽略了墮落的後果，以及亞當在盟約裏的元首身份，這成為東方神學的主導思想。在西方，在奧古斯丁死後不久，盟約的觀念雖然仍舊持續，但是神學家卻把墮落的後果加以輕描淡寫。此外，西方教會為了對抗極端的二元論思想，極力強調上帝、聖經、救恩的合一，以至於幾乎丟失了啟示的漸進性。聖經被視為律法：舊律法和新律法。舊約預表性的祭司制度被重建為「新律法的祭司制度」（the priesthood of the new law）。新的獻祭體系被重新設立，而在神聖羅馬帝國的公民生活則變成一種新的大衛王。此外，儘管教會一直把自然與恩典加以區分，但是主流思想卻認為自然本身是有缺陷的，必須要靠著恩典、靠著神化（deification）來使其完全。其中的涵義是，亞當原本被認為在墮落之前是在一個律法性的、考驗期的安排之下，如今卻被認為基本上是在一個恩典的安排之下。恩典被認為之所以有必要，不是因為犯罪，而是因為人的有限性和強烈的慾望（concupiscence），甚至在墮落之前就是如此。There were contrary
impulses, however, in both Eastern and Western theology. In the East, Origen’s
anthropology, which virtually ignored the effects of the fall and Adam’s
federal headship, would come to dominate. In the West, not long after
Augustine’s death, the federal idea continued but theologians downplayed the
effects of the fall. Further, against the radical dualists, the Western church
so emphasized the unity of God, Scripture, and salvation as to all but lose the
progress of redemption. Scripture was reckoned to be law: old law and new law.
The typological priesthood was reconstituted as “the priesthood of the new
law.” A sacrificial system was re-instituted. In civil life the Holy Roman
Emperor became a sort of new King David. Further, though the church had always
distinguished between nature and grace. the mainstream conception came to be
that nature is inherently defective and needs to be perfected by grace, by
deification. Implicitly, whereas Adam had been reckoned to have been, before
the fall, in a legal, probationary arrangement, now he was considered to be in
an essentially gracious arrangement. Grace was said be necessary not because of
sin but because of finitude and concupiscence, even before the fall.
宗教改革運動重新發現了救贖歷史的進展，更加認識其意義。我們重新發現聖經和教父時期的觀念，即祭司制度、預表和影子都在基督裏得著了應驗，其作用已經廢止。我們重新發現到聖經對律法和福音所作的區分，即：它們是兩個獨特的、互補的原則，它們對罪人所說的是兩件不同的事。律法要求完美的、個人的順服。福音宣告基督已經代表祂的子民完成了順服。改革宗的新教徒在用原文閱讀聖經後，很快就嘗試解釋救贖歷史，以及聖經有關聖約的教義。到了1520年代早期，瑞士的改革宗神學家歐科拉伯（Oecolampadius）正發展出一套聖約神學。在同一時期，慈運里和丁道爾也在作同樣的事，只是基於不同的理由。改革宗人士在瑞士和其他地方所面對的立即的挑戰之一是重洗派，他們用一種全新的、極端的二元論方式來閱讀救贖歷史。這種讀經方法斬斷了基督徒和亞伯拉罕、摩西之間的關聯。因此，早期的改革宗神學家所闡述的聖約神學把焦點放在恩典之約裏救恩的統一性上。不過，改革宗神學家大部分都衷心地接受律法和福音之間的區別，認為律法是一種以順服為條件的原則，而福音是以信靠耶穌是那位遵行律法者為條件的原則。到了1561年，改革宗神學家已經開始用行為之約來清楚說明這當中的區別。行為之約又稱為自然之約，是代表律法的第一重用法，而恩典之約是福音的同義詞。這個關聯成為十六世紀晚期到整個十七世紀的標準。直到二十世紀初，這個區分一直被視為改革宗神學的標準。The Reformation
recovered a greater sense of the progress of redemptive history. We recovered
the biblical and patristic notion that the priesthood and the types and shadows
were fulfilled in Christ and expired. We recovered the biblical distinction
between law and gospel, i.e., there are two, distinct, complementary principles
and that they say different things to sinners. The law demands perfect and
personal obedience. The gospel announces that Christ has accomplished obedience
for his people. It would not be long before Reformed Protestants, who were
reading Scripture in the original languages, began to try to give an account of
the history of redemption and the biblical doctrine of the covenants. By the
early 1520s the Swiss Reformed theologian Oecolampadius was developing a
covenant theology. In the same period Zwingli and Tyndale were doing the same,
albeit for somewhat different reasons. One of the immediate challenges faced
particularly by the Reformed in Switzerland and elsewhere was the renewed, radical
dualism in the Anabaptist reading of redemptive history, in which Christians
were cut off from Abraham and Moses. Thus, the early Reformed articulation of
covenant theology focused upon the unity of salvation in the covenant of grace.
The Reformed, however, had largely and heartily embraced the distinction
between law as one principle, conditioned upon obedience, and the gospel as a
distinct principle and conditioned upon faith in Jesus the law-keeper. By 1561
the Reformed began to articulate the distinction using the covenant of works or
a covenant of nature to stand for the first use of the law and the covenant of
grace as a synonym for the gospel. This correlation became standard through the
late 16th century and in the 17th century. This was regarded as standard
Reformed theology until the early 20th century.
反駁與回應Objections And Answers
過去的神學家暗示（有時候明確表達出來），亞當在墮落前（prelapsarian）的行為之約裏，是作為全人類代表性的元首。他被造時是好的，是聖潔公義的，並且有能力滿足行為之約的條件。在墮落之前，按照他的本性，他有能力「遵行律法並永遠活著」。他們認識到，在伊甸園的敘事裏，行為之約只是暗示。當威斯敏斯特聖徒在威斯敏斯特信條的第七章和第十九章承認一個墮落前的行為之約，在威斯敏斯特大要理問答（問答30、97）也承認這點時，在當時是沒有爭議的。然而時至今日，據報導說，申請成為長老會教會的牧師候選人不承認第七章（隱含了十九章，以及大要理問答的30和97問）卻變成一個常態。他們之所以持這個立場，部分是因為大多數人如今認為，十六、七世紀所理解的、聖經裏所隱含的墮落前的行為之約，被視為是一個神學臆測，因為聖經並沒有明確使用「約」這個詞。It was recognized
implicitly and sometimes explicitly that the pre-fall (prelapsarian) covenant
of works, in which, Adam, acting as the representative head of all humanity,
was created good, holy, and righteous and able to meet the terms of the
covenant of works. By nature, before the fall, he was able to “do this and
live.” It was recognized that the covenant of works was implicit in the garden
narrative. When the Westminster Divines confessed a prelapsarian covenant of
works in Confession chapters 7 and 19 and again in the Larger Catechism (30,
97) it was not controversial. Today, however, reports are that it is
commonplace for candidates for the ministry in Presbyterian Churches to take
exception from chapter 7 (and implicitly chapter 19 and WLC 30 and 97). They do
so, in part, because it become widely held that, what had been understood in
the 16th and 17th centuries to be implicit in Scripture, the prelapsarian
covenant of works is regarded as speculative principally because the word
covenant is not used explicitly.
傳統的答案是儘管這個詞並不存在，但是行為之約的實質卻是存在的。然而，倘若我們要基於這個理由（這個詞不存在）來排除行為之約，我們在創世記第六章之前也必須放棄恩典之約的說法，因為約這個詞到那裡才第一次出現。然而，絕大多數反對墮落前的行為之約的人，都在創世記三章15節認出一個墮落後的恩典之約。正如其他人主張的，根據他們提出的標準，我們也必須放棄三位一體或基督的二性的教義。簡而言之，這是個具有破壞性的測驗，雖然不是故意的。這是聖經字面主義的一種形式，是改革宗正統非常陌生的，會導致一些與威斯敏斯特標準和改革宗正統相抵觸的結論。The traditional
answer is that though the word is not present the substance of the covenant of
works is present. If, however, we must rule out the covenant of works on the
grounds given (the word is absent) we must also give up the covenant of grace until
Genesis 6, when the noun for covenant first occurs. Most, however, who reject a
prelapsarian covenant of works recognize a postlapsarian covenant of grace in
Genesis 3:15. As others have observed, on the proposed test, we would have to
give up the doctrine of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ. In short, it
is an unintentionally destructive test. It is a form of biblicism largely
unknown to Reformed orthodoxy which leads to conclusions that contradict the
Westminster Standards and the great swath of Reformed orthodoxy.
或許，對墮落前行為之約最深刻的反對意見是這抵觸了恩典。有些反對者甚至稱這個傳統改革宗教義是「伯拉糾派」的教義，因為它提議說亞當有遵行律法的能力，可以滿足行為之約的要求，藉此進入一個永遠與上帝相交、永遠蒙福的狀態。然而，把這個教義稱為伯拉糾的教義是非常奇怪的，這不僅是對伯拉糾主義的誤解，更是對改革宗神學的誤解。伯拉糾否定亞當是全人類的盟約元首。他教導說即使沒有亞當墮落的事件，我們還是會死亡；在墮落的事件裏，亞當只傷害了自己，並且給我們作了一個壞榜樣。根據伯拉糾的說法，即使在墮落之後，我們仍然有能力去作亞當沒有完成的事：完美地順服。說行為之約是伯拉糾教義的反對意見，本身就是伯拉糾派的看法，因為它犯了和伯拉糾同樣的錯誤：把墮落前和墮落後的狀態混為一談。此外，奧古斯丁教導一個墮落前的行為之約來對抗伯拉糾（在《上帝之城》裏），那麼按照他們的說法，奧古斯丁就成了一個伯拉糾主義者。這不只是混淆視聽，更是前後矛盾、與事實不符的。Perhaps the most
profound objection to a prelapsarian covenant of works is that it is contrary
to grace. Some critics have even called the traditional Reformed doctrine
“Pelagian” because it proposes that Adam had within him to ability to obey the
law, to satisfy the covenant of works, and thereby enter into an eternal state
of blessed communion with God. To call this doctrine Pelagian is exceeding
strange, however, and it reveals a misunderstanding both of Pelagianism and of
Reformed theology. Pelagius denied Adam’s federal headship of all humanity. He
taught that we would have died even without the fall, that in the fall, Adam
injured only himself and set a bad example for us. Even after the fall,
according to Pelagius, we have the power to do what Adam did not: obey
perfectly. The objection that the covenant of works is Pelagian is itself
Pelagian insofar as it makes the same error as Pelagian: it conflates the
prelapsarian and postlapsarian states. Further, Augustine taught a prelapsarian
covenant of works against the Pelagians (in the City of God), which then makes
Augustine a Pelagian. That is not only confusing but incoherent and contrary to
fact.
根據奧古斯丁派和改革宗神學的架構，行為之約之所以可能，完全是因為亞當在墮落之前仍然處於他原始正直、公義、聖潔的狀態。按照奧古斯丁派和改革宗的看法，在墮落後，亞當和在他裏面的我們，就靈性而言就死在罪中，並且完全無法、也不願「遵行律法並因此活著」。如同美洲清教徒的要理問答裏所說的，「我們都在亞當的墮落裏犯了罪」。按照奧古斯丁和改革宗的看法，在墮落之後，我們都是罪人。把我們在墮落前公義的狀態和墮落後敗壞的狀態分開，並不是伯拉糾主義。按照正統的改革宗聖約神學，亞當在墮落前有可能滿足行為之約的要求，進入蒙福的狀態。The covenant of
works was possible, on the Augustinian and Reformed scheme, precisely and only
because Adam was still in his original state of integrity, righteousness, and
holiness. In the Augustinian and Reformed view, after the fall, Adam and we in
him became spiritually dead in sin and entirely unable and unwilling to “do
this and live.” As the colonial Puritan catechism had it, “In Adam’s fall
sinned we all.” In the Augustinian and Reformed view, we sin because we are sinners.
Thus, in Adam, after the fall, we are all sinners. It is not anti-Pelagian to
distinguish between our righteous state before the fall and our corrupt state
after the fall. In orthodox Reformed covenant theology, it was possible for
Adam to meet the terms of the covenant of works unto blessedness only before
the fall.
因此，在律法頒布之後，無論行為之約的作用是什麼，它實際上都無法使人得救。不過，就它本身是律法而言，當我們宣講律法的第一重功用時，我們就是在重述行為之約。我們稱這種用法為律法的教導用法（pedagogical use）。律法或行為之約都是教導我們這些罪人，我們的罪孽有多深重，我們何等悲慘，何等需要一個救主。它命令我們「遵行律法並因此活著」，然而因為我們死在罪孽當中，我們就無法遵行。在宣講律法、重述行為之約之中，就驅使我們尋找一位公義的救主，祂滿足了行為之約的條件，而我們在祂裏面可以找到恩典之約，即唯獨藉著信心得到上帝白白的接納。Thus, the covenant
of works, whatever function it may have after the law, is unable actually to
give salvation. Insofar as it is the law, however, when the law is preached in
its first use, the covenant of works is re-stated. We call this the pedagogical
use of the law. The law, the covenant of works, teaches us sinners the
greatness of our sin and misery and our need for a Savior. It says “do this and
live” but, since we are dead in sin, we cannot. The re-statement of the
covenant of works, in the preaching of the law, drives us to look for a Savior
who is righteous, who did meet the terms of the covenant of works, and in whom
there is found a covenant of grace, i.e., free acceptance with God through
faith alone.
基於這些理由，行為之約和恩典並不是相反的，因為按照嚴格的定義來說，恩典是給罪人的。我們或許可以說上帝滿有恩典地，在墮落之前應許要賜給亞當生命，其根基是完美和個人性地遵行行為之約，即律法之約或自然之約。不過，威斯敏斯特聖徒很有智慧地避免將恩典這個元素注入到行為之約裏，他們只說到上帝「自願（屈尊降卑」與亞當（也和在他裏面的我們）立定行為之約。這個表述法的作用是專注在上帝的自由上，不必引入祂對罪人的恩惠，這是很適當的，因為當上帝與亞當立定行為之約時，亞當還不是個罪人。For these reasons
the covenant of works is not contrary to grace, which, strictly defined, is for
sinners. We might say that God graciously promised life to Adam, before the
fall, on the basis of perfect and personal obedience to the covenant of works,
the covenant of law, or the covenant of nature. The Westminster Divines,
however, quite wisely avoided injecting grace into the covenant of works by
speaking of God’s “voluntary condescension” in making a covenant of works with
Adam (and with us in him). The effect of this expression is to focus attention
on God’s freedom but without introducing his favor to sinners which, properly,
was not yet in view inasmuch as Adam was not a sinner when God made the
covenant of works.
恩典和律法對罪人來說是兩個相反的原則，但是在上帝裏面，它們不是對立的。說行為之約是律法主義是誤解了一個基礎的基督教真理。向一個無罪和有可能得榮耀的盟約元首說「遵行律法就必因此活著」，並不是律法主義。向一個罪人暗示說他可以「遵行律法就必因此活著」，才是律法主義。然而，改革宗神學不是律法主義。它從來不曾對罪人說，他實際上可以遵行律法而因此活著。它提醒罪人律法公義和聖潔的要求，並向罪人宣告在基督裏，罪人可以得到這個滿有恩典的救恩的好消息。古典的改革宗神學清楚地區分出行為之約（律法）和恩典之約（福音）。這種區分是律法主義的解藥，而不是其原因。Grace and law are
opposite principles for sinners but they are not opposite principles in God.
The argument that the covenant of works is legalistic misses a basic Christian
truth. It is not legalistic to say to a sinless and potentially glorified
federal head: “do this and live.” It is legalistic to imply to a sinner that he
can “do this and live.” Reformed
theology, however, is not legalistic. It never says to the sinner that he can
actually do and live. It reminds him of the righteous and holy demands of the
law and it announces the good news of the gracious salvation of sinners in
Christ. Classic Reformed theology distinguishes clearly between the covenants
of works (law) and grace (gospel). That distinction is the principal remedy for
legalism not the cause of it.
最後，還要考慮到另一個反對意見：上帝和人之間的距離照本性來說是如此之大，以至於上帝絕對不會和人立行為之約。再次，代表著古典時期改革宗神學主流的威斯敏斯特聖徒討論到這個反對意見。是的，上帝和人之間的距離如此之大，因此人無法按照其本性去作一些可以要求上帝給他獎賞的事。不過，上帝是自由的，祂可以與亞當（和在亞當裏的我們）立約，使祂受聖約的約束，在這個約裏自由地獎勵我們的順服。這就是行為之約（或自然之約）所提議的：上帝乃是自由地立了這個約。Finally, there is
one other objection to consider: that the distance between God and man is, by
nature, so great, that God could never enter into a real covenant of works.
Again, the Westminster Divines, representing the mainstream of Reformed
theology in the classic period, addressed this objection. Yes, the distance
between God and humanity is so great that man is incapable of doing something
that would, by nature, obligate God to reward him. Nevertheless, God is so free
that he is able to enter into a covenant with Adam (and us in Adam) and to
obligate himself, in covenant, freely to reward our obedience in that covenant.
That is what the covenant of works (or nature or law) proposes: that God did so
freely enter into such a covenant.
當我們說到上帝可以或不可以對祂的被造物做什麼時要非常謹慎。祂是窯匠，我們是泥土。有些事情是上帝無法作的。祂必須存在。祂無法做違背祂本性的事，但上帝自由地與身為全人類盟約元首的亞當立一個律法之約，是完全符合祂本性的。這和上帝的兒子道成肉身，使上帝可以把基督的義和應得的功績（condign merit）歸算給罪人，作為稱義的基礎，並規定信心是稱義和救恩唯一的器具，同樣是完全符合其本性的。當保羅對比羅馬書第十一章6節裏的恩典和行為時，說到：「既是出於恩典，就不在乎行為；不然，恩典就不是恩典了」，他想到的不是基督成全了行為之約，而是我們罪人；而猶太教式的錯誤是我們要麼靠自己（伯拉糾），要麼靠恩典的幫助（半伯拉糾），就可以部分地在我們順服的基礎上，把自己獻給上帝。We ought to be very
careful about saying what God can and cannot do with his creatures. He is the
Potter and we are the clay. There are things that God cannot do. He must exist.
He cannot be other than he is but it is perfectly consistent with his
attributes for God freely to enter into a legal covenant with Adam as the
federal head of all humanity just as it is perfectly consistent with his
attributes for God the Son to become incarnate and for God to impute to sinners
the condign merit and righteousness of Christ as the ground of justification
and to make faith the sole instrument of justification and salvation. When Paul
contrasts grace and works in Romans 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no
longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (ESV),
he is not thinking of Christ fulfillment of the covenant of works but of us
sinners and the Judaizing error that we can either by ourselves (Pelagius) or
with the help of grace (semi-Pelagianism) present ourselves to God partly on
the basis of our obedience.
在拋棄行為之約這件事上，有許多好理由讓我們提高警戒。少了行為之約，就會傾向於把恩典之約變成行為之約。盟約異象主義者（Federal
Visionists）和所謂的保羅新觀（New
Perspective on Paul）的提倡者，當我們按照他們自己的方式教導「靠恩典進入，靠行為留下來（in by grace, stay in by works）」（或與恩典合作）時，就是在這麼作。這種對恩典之約的看法，即把我們的順服當做前提條件，或者實質上把恩典之約變成另一個考驗期的試驗，就是在把恩典之約變成行為之約。There are good
reasons to be very careful about discarding the covenant of works. Without it
the tendency has been to turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works.
The Federal Visionists and the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on
Paul do this when they, in their own ways, teach “in by grace, stay in by
works” (or by cooperation with grace). Any such view of the covenant of grace,
which makes our obedience an antecdent condition or which effectively turns the
covenant of grace into another probationary test, has turned the covenant of
grace into a covenant of works.
結論Conclusion
行為之約在二十世紀被我們這些熱愛威斯敏斯特標準的人所忽視並廢棄，而在這些文件裏這是被明確承認和一再重複的。我們這些熱愛古典改革宗神學的人應該得到激勵，因為我們再次可以得到改革宗神學的一些原始資源，也有一些聖約神學的導論書籍並沒有把改革宗截頭去尾。行為之約是改革宗的基本教義。我們想試著把它去掉，但是證據顯明這個實驗是失敗的。缺少一個清晰的、牢靠的、前後一致的行為之約的教義，我們就少掉一個必要的範疇，來理解我們的代替者、中保、救主耶穌的一生和死亡。少了行為之約，耶穌就傾向於變成更多是一個榜樣（甚至是第一個信徒），而不是一個代替者。然而，我們認信，祂成為末後的亞當，為我們成全了行為之約。我們認信，我們罪人之所以能站在上帝面前，單單是基於祂公義的順服已經歸算給我們。The covenant of
works fell into neglect and disrepair in the 20th century but those of us who
love the Westminster Standards, where it is confessed explicitly and
repeatedly, and who love classical Reformed theology should be encouraged that
the original sources of Reformed theology are again becoming available and that
there are introductions to covenant theology that do not truncate Reformed
covenant theology. The covenant of works is a basic Reformed doctrine. We
experimented by trying to do without it but the evidence suggests that
experiment has been a failure. Without a clear, firm, coherent doctrine of the
covenant of works we lack a necessary category by which to understand the life
and death of our Substitute, our Mediator, and our Savior Jesus. Without the
covenant of works, Jesus tends to become more an example (even the first
believer) and less a Substitute. We confess, however, that he came as the Last
Adam to fulfill a covenant of works for us. We confess that we sinners stand
before God only on the basis of his righteous obedience imputed to us.
恩典之約（福音）只有在行為之約（律法）的對比下，才能真正顯出其恩典之處。歷史告訴我們，當我們丟棄這個思想範疇，我們也就失去了改革宗其他的基本教導，不久之前我們才經歷過一個因信稱義教義的危機，而教會的存亡絕續都是靠這個教義。當然，有一些當代的改革宗神學家，雖然我們在稱義和救恩的教義上是正統的思想，但是基於上列的理由，要麼是對行為之約感到不自在，要麼是公然拒絕行為之約。無論我們在哪裏找到正統的福音，我們都應該感恩，但是我們也應該認識到為什麼我們在十六、十七世紀時的先祖們會開始說到行為之約和恩典之約：這是他們用救贖歷史的語詞來闡釋他們基督新教唯獨恩典、唯獨信心的救恩教義的方式。當我們放棄這些思想類別，就會製造出不穩定，雖然可以暫時抗拒這個教義，但是後果一定不會太好。事實上，丟棄這個信仰告白的、傳統的、歷史性的行為之約的教義的理由，並不具有說服力，反而保留這個教義的理由才真正站得住腳。The covenant of
grace (the gospel) is only really seen as truly gracious in contrast to the
covenant of works (the law). History tells us that when we lost this category
we also lost other Reformed basics and it was not long before we had a crisis
in the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of the standing or falling of
the church. Certainly there have been modern Reformed writers who have been
orthodox on justification and salvation who, for the reasons listed above) have
also either been uncomfortable with or rejected outright the covenant of works.
We should be thankful for the orthodoxy on the gospel wherever we find it but
we should also recognize why our forefathers in the 16th and 17th centuries
began to speak this way, of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace: it was
their way of articulating, in redemptive-historical terms, their evangelical,
Protestant doctrine of salvation sola gratia, sola fide. When we forfeit those
categories we create instability that, though it may be resisted for a time,
tends to have unhappy consequences. In truth, the reasons for jettisoning the
confessional, traditional, and historic doctrine of the covenant of works are
not truly compelling and the reasons for retaining it are.
