2016-12-19

 我們有被要求一定要在禮拜天上教會嗎?AreWe Required to Attend Church on Sunday?

作者: Michael Horton 譯者:駱鴻銘

光憑我們必須在福音派圈子裡討論這個問題,就足以證明教會世俗化的問題有多麼嚴重。主日不是附加在一般日子裡的迷信,而是為了敬重主對我們的慷慨服事,賜給我們七天中的一天,可以被「捲入」(be swept into)祂的救贖戲劇當中。當此聖日被吸收到一個星期當中其他的日子裡、和其他日子沒有什麼分別時,教會就注定會被吸收到世俗的血液當中。The very fact that we have to address this question, even in evangelical circles, demonstrates the true measure of the church’s worldliness. It is not a superstitious attachment to days, but respect for the Lord’s generous service to us, that gives us one day in seven to be swept into the drama of redemption. When the holy day is reabsorbed into the common week, the church is bound to be reabsorbed into the world’s bloodstream.

在舊約聖經中,每一週的安息日是以創造(出廿8-11)和上帝救贖以色列脫離埃及(申五12-15)為根基的。使徒的教會在週日聚會,「七日的第一日」也被稱為「主日」(約廿1926;徒廿7;林前十六2;啟一10)。In the Old Testament, the weekly Sabbath is anchored in creation (Ex 20:8-11) and Gods redemption of Israel from Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). The apostolic church met on Sunday, “the first day of the week,” also identified as “the Lord’s Day” (Jn 20:19, 26; Ac 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10).

使徒之後,有兩種有如雙胞胎的危害,一是反律法主義者(他們忽視每個禮拜的聚會),另一個是「猶太化」(judaizing)的律法主義,都已經冒出頭來了。為了對付後面這個問題,伊格納丟(Ignatius)提醒馬內夏(Magnesians),「如此,若那些活在過去習俗裡的人能明白新的盼望,不再守安息日,而是按照主日來活——在這一天,我們的生命也藉著祂和祂的死而復活(雖然有些人會否認),並且藉著這個奧秘,我們領受了相信的能力……」(Mag. 9:1)與此同時,主日仍舊在每週的行程表中佔據其尊貴的地位。康士坦丁在321年宣告主日是正式的休息日,開創了第四誡的公民應用,這個應用甚至持續到二十世紀的歐洲和美國。After the apostles, the twin dangers of antinomian neglect of the weekly assembly and Judaizing legalism already reared their head. Addressing the latter problem, Ignatius reminds the Magnesians, If then, those who lived in antiquated customs came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord’s day—on which also our life arose through him and his death (though some will deny it), and by this mystery we received the power to believe…(Mag. 9:1). At the same time, the Lord’s Day continued to occupy its princely status in the weekly schedule. Constantine declared it an official day of rest in 321, launching a civil application of the fourth commandment that lasted even into twentieth-century Europe and the United States.

在中世紀教會裡,有各種規定——公民的和教會的——被附加在主日上,連同許多慶典、節日、儀式,都是聖經所沒有授權的。改教家拒絕這種回到律法影子裡的做法。事實上,路德傾向於將安息日和主日作嚴格的區分。然而他卻將每個主日稱為「小復活節」。使人成聖的不是這個日子本身,而是話語的職事。不過,基於這個理由,路德的大教理問答堅持說,固定參與每週的聚會是必要的。In the medieval church, myriad regulationscivil and ecclesiasticalhad been attached to the Lord’s Day, along with a host of celebration, holidays, and rituals that Scripture does not authorize. The Reformers rejected this return to the shadows of the law. In fact, Luther tended to distinguish sharply between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. Yet he called each Lord’s Day “a little Easter.” It is not the day itself that sanctifies, but the ministry of the Word. For that very reason, though, his Larger Catechism insists upon the regular participation in the weekly assembly.

加爾文看見安息日的制度有三重目的:1) 是一個會伴隨基督而來的最後安息的記號;2) 維持教會秩序;3) 為工人提供休息。加爾文的看法(《基督教要義》,2.8.31-32)基本上和路德的大教理問答有相同看法。Calvin saw a threefold purpose for the Sabbath institution: 1) as a sign of the final rest that would come with Christ; 2) to maintain church order, and 3) to offer relief for workers. Calvin’s view (Institutes 2.8.31-32) is essentially the same that can be found in Luther’s Large Catechism.

兩位改教家都主張,雖然十誡的道德義務依舊持續,但是十誡的禮儀層面,包括附加的嚴格限制,在新約裡已經被廢除了。和路德一樣,加爾文也強調信徒每天都要領受基督,這是上帝在祂的話語裡所賜給人的,而且我們如果不那麼懶惰,就應當參加每天的聚會。上帝知道我們的軟弱,因此將一天分別出來,專門給話語的職事和聖禮。海德堡要理問答也有同樣的看法:Both reformers argue that while the moral obligation continues, the ceremonial aspect of the commandment, including the rigorous restricts attached to it, are abolished in the new covenant. Like Luther, Calvin emphasized that every day believers receive Christ as he is given in his Word and that we would attend daily services if we were not so sluggish. Knowing our weakness, God sets aside one day for the ministry of Word and sacrament. The same view is found in the Heidelberg Catechism:

第一,要在福音上和教導上盡責;要殷勤上教會(特別是在安息日),學習神的話語,領聖禮,在會眾前求告神,並賙濟窮人。第二,我一生的日子要離開惡行,讓主以祂的靈在我裡面運行,這樣一來,永恆的安息就從今世開始了。(問答103First, that the gospel ministry and education for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I regularly attend the assembly of God’s people to learn what God’s Word teaches, to participate in the sacraments, to pray to God publicly, and to bring Christian offerings for the poor. Second, that every day of my life I rest from my evil ways, let the Lord work in me through his Spirit, and so begin already in this life the eternal Sabbath (Q. 103).

此外,我們的教會法規(來自多特大會)說,雖然教會的堂會在特殊場合子可以召集其他的聚會,「崇拜服事在守聖誕節、好星期五、復活節、耶穌升天節、五旬節時仍然必須舉行……」。(強調是另加的)In addition, our Church Order (originating at the Synod of Dort) states that although the consistory may call for other gatherings on special occasions, Worship services shall be held in observance of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost…” (emphasis added).

威斯敏斯特信仰告白明確接受這個「七日中的一日」的原則,把基督徒安息日建立在創造的基礎上,「歷世歷代每個人都要向祂守這日為聖。從世界之始到基督復活之前,這聖日為一週的末一日,自從基督復活之後,這聖日改為一週的頭一日,在聖經中稱為主日,而且要繼續下去。這是基督教的安息日,直到世界的末了。」信條沒有列出被禁止的活動,但是一般的要求是要用「公開或私下的敬拜,並履行賙濟憐憫貧苦人的義務」來取代「在平日屬正當的屬世職務和消遣」。(21章)信條容許在「特殊場合」舉行公開崇拜,但是清教徒大體上是反對慶祝聖誕節和其他聖日的。當我們查驗這些日子是如何被濫用的(今天也不例外),這種做法是很可以被理解的。The Westminster Confession embraced explictly the one-in-seven principle, anchoring the Christian Sabbath in creation, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.” There is no list of forbidden activities, but the general requirement to exchange ordinary “worldly employments and recreations [that] are lawful on other days” for “public and private exercises of his worship and in the duties of necessity and mercy” (Ch. 21). The Confession allows for public services “on special occasions,” but Puritans generally opposed the celebration of Christmas and other holy days. When one examines the ways in which these days were abused (not unlike today), this approach is quite understandable.

改革宗教會也論證說,基督的復活堪被稱為開創了另一個世紀,因此把每週的安息日遷移到了禮拜天。然而,荷蘭改革宗神學家竇馬(J. Douma)警告說,Reformed churches came to argue that Christs resurrection was sufficiently epoch-changing that it moved the weekly Sabbath to Sunday. Dutch Reformed theologian J. Douma warns, however.

法利賽人的詭辯對安息日所作的曲解,在有關我們在禮拜天可以做什麼、不可以做什麼的各種詭辯上,找到其翻版。每一條福音——無論是關於出埃及,或關於基督的救贖——都可以被扭曲為律法。這發生在教會裡,特別是在中世紀,「因為教會不再能體會到第四誡裡的福音。而這點在基督親自教導安息日的真理後,更該受到責備。」(121-2頁)The distortion of the Sabbath given in the casuistry of the Pharisees finds its mirror image in various casuistries related to what we may and may not do on Sunday. Every gospel—whether concerning the exodus from Egypt or concerning Christ’s redemption—can be made into a law.” This happened in the church, especially during the Middle Ages, “because the church no longer grasped the gospel of the fourth commandment. And this, after Christ’s own instruction about the Sabbath, is even more blameworthy” (121-2).

保羅警告我們,不可將迷信附加在聖日之上(羅十四5),尤其是當人不明白舊約的安息日和節期是指向基督這個實體時(西二16-17;另參:加四10)。這也是希伯來書第四章所說的要點:舊約裡的諸多安息日是象徵在基督裡的永恆安息。新約沒有明確說明安息日就是主日,但事實是前者已經被使徒擱置了,他們將禮拜日分別出來,作為上帝所定旨的慶祝基督復活的節日。如同竇馬指出的,這段經文清楚地表明,「猶太安息日已經止息了。」(136頁)他補充了和割禮的比較:Paul warns against the superstitious attachment to holy days (Rom 14:5), particularly when people fail to realize that the old covenant Sabbaths and festivals were pointing to Christ as the reality (Col 2:16-17; see also Gal 4:10). This is the point, too, of Hebrews 4: an everlasting rest in Christ, that is signified by the various sabbaths under the old covenant. The Lord’s day is never said explicitly to be the Sabbath in the New Testament, but the fact that the former is set aside by the apostles singles Sunday out as the divinely ordained festival of Christ’s resurrection. As J. Douma points out, these passages clearly indicate that “the Jewish Sabbath has ceased” (136). He adds a comparison with circumcision:

基督是割禮的應驗。這影子已經消失了;但正是基於這個理由,其他的東西可以取代舊約聖經的聖禮;那就是和割禮一樣,是聖約的記號和印記的:洗禮。基督是安息日的應驗。這個影子也消失了。但有其他東西可以起來取而代之,正如安息日,是紀念得釋放一樣。任何人想要維持第四誡卻不遵守救贖歷史時鐘時間的人,就必然會堅持猶太人的安息日。但是這樣的人就看不到第四誡真正的、釋放人的意圖……割禮、逾越節、安息日的影子是為洗禮、主的晚餐、禮拜日作預備的。(137頁)Christ is the fulfillment of circumcision. The shadow has disappeared; but precisely for this reason, something else could replace the Old Testament sacrament, something which, just like circumcision, signifies and seals the covenant: baptism. Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. That shadow too has disappeared, but in its place something else could arise which, just like the Sabbath, commemorates liberation. Anybody wanting to maintain the fourth commandment without keeping time with the clock of redemptive history must stick with the Jewish Sabbath. But then such a person will catch no glimpse of the true, liberating intention off the fourth commandment…The shadows of circumcision, Passover, and Sabbath made room for the signs of baptism, Lord’s Supper, and Sunday (137).

基督徒守主日的關鍵,不是列出一張清單,說什麼可以或不可以做,而是讓這一整天都沐浴在上帝話語的陽光下,用基督的寶藏充滿我們自己。許多教會正在把這件事變得越來越困難,因為他們把公眾崇拜削減到一場一個小時左右的崇拜服事。這樣的教會在「超級盃星期天」(Superbowl Sunday;譯按:每年這一天,美國會舉行美式足球的年度冠軍賽);其他人則把這個新的聖日併入到崇拜服事裡。然而在「有秩序」的教會,應該問這些問題,尤其是牧師和長老:我們每個星期是在預備一場盛宴,還是我們也在使主日變得越來越無關緊要,然後責怪人不夠認真?The key to a Christian use of the Lords Day is not drawing up a list of what can and cannot be done, but to give the whole day to basking in Gods Word, loading ourselves up with the treasures of Christ. Churches themselves are making this more difficult, as they trim down the public worship to a single service of an hour or so. Some churches suspend worship on “Superbowl Sunday”; others incorporate the new holy day into the service. Yet even in “rightly ordered” churches, the question has to be asked, especially by pastors and elders: Are we preparing a feast each week or are we contributing to the trivializing of the Lord’s Day and then blaming the people for not taking it seriously enough?

清教徒稱禮拜天是「靈魂上市場的日子」。在這一天,我們不花一毛錢就可以買酒買肉。我們放下日常俗務和消遣;在這一天,我們主要不是工人,而是領受者,雖然還有一些必要的憐憫事工要做。當我們在這一天把自己投身在運動、購物、娛樂上,是要說明我們把最終的財寶放在哪裡呢?難道基督從死裡復活,沒有發生任何變化嗎?難道不存在一個我們所屬的新造世界和新家庭,而基督是其初熟的果子和元首嗎?難道不存在施恩的管道,這是來世闖入到即將過去的今世的媒介嗎?難道今天在地上在我們每週固定的作息中,找不到聖靈正在使罪人與基督聯合,藉著祂的話稱他們為義也更新他們的場所和時間嗎?把「在教會」和「去教會」拿來作比較,已經變成了一種時尚,但是除了上帝在曠野藉著祂的話和聖靈所建立的大會之外,沒有可以讓我們「在」的教會。我們去教會是為了領受施恩的管道,正因為如此,我們可以成為那個在世上的教會。The Puritans called Sunday the market-day of the soul. On this day, we come and buy wine and meat without cost. We set aside our ordinary activities and past-times; we are not primarily doers but receivers on this day, although there may still be works of necessity and mercy. What are we indicating about where our ultimate treasure lies when we give ourselves to sports, shopping and entertainment on this day? Has nothing changed with Christ’s resurrection from the dead? Is there no new creation and new family to which we belong, with Christ as its first-fruits and head? Are there no means of grace through which the age to come is breaking into this passing age? Is there no place on earth today, no time in our weekly routine, in which the Spirit is at work uniting sinners to Christ, justifying and renewing them by his Word? It has become fashionable to pit “being the church” against “going to church,” but there is no church for us to “be” apart from the assembly that God is erecting in the wilderness by his Word and Spirit. We go to church to receive the means of grace, precisely so that we can be the church in the world.

十誡有十條誡命,而不是九條。附加在道德律之上的禮儀律和民事律已經不再具有約束力了,但是道德律本身仍然永遠保持其效力。我們不能因為律法主義者的扭曲就拒絕或輕視第四誡,就和我們不能不管其他反對謀殺、姦淫、偷盜等等的誡命一樣。大賀治(Charles Hodge)觀察到,「每當誦讀十誡時,所有的教會都會誦讀第四誡,教會也教導百姓,要他們說,『主啊,憐憫我們,收服我們的心好遵行這個律法。」(系統神學[Eerdmans, 1946]324頁)若上帝已經吩咐,我們就當遵守;濫用命令不會廢止這個命令。慕理(John Murray)問了一個很好的問題:「為什麼堅持守安息日是法利賽人和律法主義者的行為?問題在於:這是上帝所定的律例嗎?若是,堅守這律例就不是律法主義的行為,正如堅守其他誡命一樣。」(“The Sabbath Institution, Collected Writings, Vol. 1 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976], 214)。即使在改革宗和長老會圈子裡,關於主日的解讀也有許多不同的意見。如同我在上面指出的,這也不是什麼新鮮事。和路德在十六世紀德國贊同寬鬆地守主日一樣,加爾文也不會贊同展示在清教徒的新英格蘭裡的那種安息日會式的詭辯。我已經改變自己的立場(在The Law of Perfect Freedom這本書中),相信主日是同時是建基在創造上,也建基在救贖上的。There are Ten Commandments, not Nine. The ceremonial and civil laws attached to the moral law are no longer binding, but the moral law itself remains in effect forever. We can no more reject or treat lightly the fourth commandment because of legalistic distortions than we can dismiss the other commandments against murder, adultery, theft, and so forth. Charles Hodge observes, “The fourth commandment is read in all Christian churches, whenever the decalogue is read, and the people are taught to say, ‘Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law'” (Systematic Theology [Eerdmans, 1946], 324). If God has commanded something, it is to be obeyed; abuse of the command doesn’t abrogate it. John Murray puts the question well: “Why should insistence upon Sabbath observance be pharisaical or legalistic? The question is: is it a divine ordinance? If it is, then adherence to it is not legalistic any more than adherence to the other commandments of God” (“The Sabbath Institution,” Collected Writings, Vol. 1 [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976], 214).There is a wide spectrum of interpretation even in Reformed and Presbyterian circles today with respect to the Lord’s Day. As I’ve indicated above, that is nothing new. Calvin would not have countenanced the sort of sabbatarian casuistry exhibited in Puritan New England any more than Luther approved the lax observance of the Lord’s Day in sixteenth-century Germany. I have changed my own position in (The Law of Perfect Freedom), convinced now that the Lord’s Day is grounded in creation as well as redemption.

然而,我們應該都會同意以下幾點:Nevertheless, we should all be able to agree on the following points:

-- 新約規定主日是主的百姓,為了施恩管道和公眾崇拜所舉行的每週的聚會;The New Testament prescribes the Lords Day as the weekly gathering of the Lords people for the means of grace and public worship;

--新約堅持定期參與這些公開的施恩管道。我們需要一整天在聖徒相通中,再次浸泡在來世的權能中;The New Testament insists upon the regular attendance upon these public means of grace. We need a whole day to be bathed again in the powers of the age to come in the communion of saints;

--第四誡的道德意圖仍然有效,但是禮儀和民事層面已經廢止了;The moral intent of the fourth commandment remains in effect, but the ceremonial and civil aspects are absolete;

--禮儀層面已經被廢止了,是因為預表和影子已經被實體——即耶穌基督——應驗了。慶祝基督徒的安息日或主日,卻沒有被在基督裡的喜慶的喜悅(這是福音為祂穿上的)所充滿,就只是另一種迷信的儀式罷了。The ceremonial aspects are obsolete because the types and shadows have been fulfilled in the reality, which is Jesus Christ. Any celebration of the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s Day that is not filled with this festive delight in Christ as he is clothed in the gospel is just another superstitious ritual.


--對主日漫不經心,就是對施恩管道和聖徒相通漫不經心,而這是我們這個時代的諾斯底主義和反律法主義者的主要成分。基督並沒有廢止形式、結構和有形的管道,正如祂沒有將祂的身體交給墳墓一樣。這正如華腓德(B.B. Warfield)所表達的,「基督將安息日隨著祂帶進到墳墓裡,然後在那個復活的清晨,把主日隨著祂帶出了墳墓。」The carelessness for the Lords Day is ultimately a carelessness for the means of grace and the communion of saints, which is part and parcel of the Gnostic and antinomian spirit of our age. Christ has not done away with forms, structures, and tangible means any more than he has surrendered his body to the grave. As B. B. Warfield expressed the point, “Christ took the Sabbath into the grave with him and brought the Lord’s Day out of the grave with him on the resurrection morn” (“The Sabbath in the Word of God,” ed. John Meeter, Selected Shorter Writings—I [Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970], 319).

主餐聖禮的傳統

/蘇遠泰博士
摘錄自《新譯本研讀版聖經》p. 2078環球聖經公會(2013

教會傳統中的聖禮

宗教改革期間出現「三唯獨」的口號,分別是唯獨恩典、唯獨信心和唯獨聖經。當羅馬教廷以教皇、傳統和聖經為信仰權威時,改教者高舉聖經的絕對權威,為信仰和生活的最高準繩,而對聖經的詮釋亦由教會的獨攬中釋放出來。當然,改教者並非否定教會歷史裏一切的傳統,他們均十分重要初期教會的信仰遺產,只是以為傳統和聖經必須符合,因他們相信兩者其實是同出一轍。

中世紀的羅馬教廷在佛羅倫斯的大公會議(Council of Florence)上,一共訂了七天聖禮(sacraments):洗禮、聖餐、告解、堅振、婚禮、授聖職禮盒臨終抹油禮。改教者從聖經的查考中,發現聖禮只有兩個,分別是聖禮和聖餐(早期的路德和《奧斯堡信條》〔Augsburg Confession1530〕還包括補贖禮,但後來路德只接受洗禮和聖餐)。本文主要探討改教者如何從聖經的研讀中發現聖禮的神學觀念。因篇幅所限,本文只集中介紹改教者如何看聖餐的內容和意義,又如何影響今天的華人教會。

天主教的彌撒

對於中世紀絕大部分的信徒來說,均不大懂什麽教義和神學的討論;與他們信仰息息相關的,是每個星期在教會參與的敬拜生活,因此「聖禮」就容易被理解為與上主最親密的接觸,同時又是獲得拯救的途徑。特別是當時教廷所施行的彌撒,是信徒獲得恩典之途:整個程序以拉丁文進行,由聖職人員進行,信徒不能參與,只能遠望(故此一般稱為「望彌撒」);神甫再次把基督獻上,信徒只能領受餅,杯卻留給聖職人員(起初只是信徒害怕把酒濫用,以致侮辱了聖禮,後來卻成了習俗以致傳統,1414年康士坦斯(constance)會議上正式禁止信徒領杯)。此外,教廷主張「變質說」(transubstantiation),即認為當神甫把餅和杯祝聖後,餅和酒的本質(substance)起了變化,雖然外顯得屬性(accident)仍是一樣,但其實餅和酒已本質地分別變成基督的肉和血了。

改教者對聖餐的改革

改教者均以神的道為至要,視聖禮為外顯的記號,表明聖道的真實。因此,他們把彌撒改為崇拜,而崇拜的中心就是宣講神的道,正如加爾文說:「教會只能由傳講主道得受教益」[1],因而亦主張以當地的方言來進行崇拜,使信徒因聽得明白而能以信心回應。

另外,路德從馬太福音廿六章26-27和馬可福音十四章22-23得知,當主耶穌設立聖餐時,所有當時的與會者(即包括後來的十一位使徒和加略人猶大)是既食餅又飲杯的,因此,路德的結論是,參與聖餐禮的人既要食餅,又要領杯。羅馬教廷若是按聖經行事的話,他們理應不許所有平信徒食餅飲杯,或是要求他們必須同時食餅飲杯,選擇哪一種,全看教廷是否認為平信徒可以參與聖餐禮,但斷不是只許飲杯!路德本人是主張所有參與聖餐禮的信徒,均必須同時食餅和飲杯的,更認定「這不是許可,乃是命令」。[2]

聖餐禮的分歧

至於祝聖後的餅和酒是否變成主的體和血呢?路德的立場顯明與當時的另一位改教者慈運理不同。路德反對羅馬教廷主張餅和酒本質地變成和血的解釋,因為這是借助了亞裏士多德的哲學於神學的建構中。但路德卻又接受聖經的字面意思,當主耶穌在祝聖後說:「這是我的身體」,這個「是」采真實的義,餅是真的成了基督的身體,只是它仍舊是餅。這種既是餅又是基督身體的理論,今天一般稱為「同質說」(consubstantiation),其重點是肯定在聖餐之中,基督是真實地臨在的(real presence)。我們無須接受路德的見解,但至少可以明白他如何堅持以聖經為原則的神學思考。

作為改革宗的發起人之一的慈運理不同意路德釋經,他認為當主耶穌說:「這是我的身體」時,這個「是」理應是象征義而已,不能按字面解釋,只能采「表明」的意思。正如當主說:「我是葡萄樹」時,並不代表主是真的變成一顆葡萄樹呢!因此,慈運理主張「紀念說」(memorialism),基督並沒有真實的臨在與餅和酒之中,而整個聖禮不過是叫信徒紀念主為我們的過犯受死。

另一位改革宗的健將加爾文同樣反對天主教和路德所說,把餅和杯說成是「變成」或「就是」基督的身體和血;但他亦不把聖餐視為僅僅是紀念主的儀式。他首先強調餅和杯只對那些有主話語的人發生功效,即必須有主的道,吃餅和飲杯的禮儀過程才變成聖禮。因餅和杯表明神的應許,成為基督拯救世人的記號,神的應許才是聖禮的中心,否則便是一般的吃喝。但以餅和杯為象征的記號同樣重要,因餅和杯與基督的肉體和血相應,屬於一種轉喻(metonymical),是聖經作者經常使用的方式(例:創17:13;出12:1;林前10:4;來9:22),含有深刻的屬靈意義,信徒應多加反思。如此,加爾文強調信徒要以信心來領受聖餐,雖然吃喝屬地之物,但基於神的應許,再加上人以信心來領受,便變成屬天/靈的福分。

除了神的應許是聖餐的根據以外,加爾文也重視在聖餐的臨在。路德認為神人二性的基督是無所不在的,因此基督在餅的周圍,也在餅裏,可是餅還是餅,沒有變成基督的身體(這就是上文所說的「同質」說)。因此路德認為基督在聖餐有物質方面的臨在。加爾文卻認為基督的神性無所不在,祂的人性是在天上,不在地上。因此,聖餐時基督與信徒們同在,是借著聖靈的同在。因此,基督借著祂的話,和祂的靈(聖靈)真正的與信徒們同在。基督的同在不是物質上的同在(physical presence),乃是靈的同在(spiritual presence),也是真正的同在。說得更直接一點,聖靈將我們提升到天上,到基督那裏,因此基督與我們同在。加爾文的聖餐觀,在路德和慈運理的看法中間開了一條路,可供今天信徒和教會參考。

從多元詮釋到豐富傳統

信義宗和改革宗其實絕大部分的神學爭論中均可以取得共識,但路德和慈運理在聖餐的問題上的不同意見,竟然各走極端,使兩宗未能在馬爾堡對談會(the Colloquy of Marburg1529)達成和解,最終導致分裂,實屬可惜。

今天華人教會因所應屬的宗派,對聖餐的詮釋亦各有分別。筆者曾在三間福音派教會聚會,發現福音派教會傾向慈運理的立場,牧者在掰餅聚會中提醒弟兄姊妹要紀念主,好好省察自己,絕少提及餅和酒有變成基督的肉和血的可能。

當然,筆者無意反對紀念說,只是想大家可以從教會歷史中知道存在著許多不同的傳統,而這些不同的傳統未必是我們的敵人,他們均有聖經的支持,只是大家的釋經方法和著重點不同而已。假若能欣賞別人的釋經方法和神學觀念上,可能是對自身傳統的一種豐富和補充。正如,當我知道餅和酒在祝聖後「是」基督的身體和寶血時,每次當我手拿餅和杯,紀念主為我死,我同時體驗基督真實臨在的震撼,更湧溢多一點敬畏和感謝的激情,為掰餅聚會添加多一點「聖」禮的味道。

按著聖經教導我們要合而為一,我們沒有必要像路德和慈運理般分裂呢!其實,像加爾文般站在較中間和開明的路線,再加上對聖道和信心的強調,才容易叫我們實踐聖禮另一個目的——就是在聖餐中實行彼此相愛的合一呢!

註:
[1] 加爾文,章文新編,謝秉德譯:《基督教要義(下冊)》(香港:基督教文藝,1959初版,1995六版),頁10.

[2] 馬丁路德著:《教會被虜巴比倫》,章文新編,徐慶譽、湯清譯:《路德選集(上冊)(香港:基督教文藝,1957初版,1991四版),頁252

神的愛:神愛每一個人嗎?

摘錄自《新譯本研讀版聖經》p. 2013環球聖經公會(2013

神的愛一直都在改革宗神學中扮演著主要角色,但是我們必須對神的這個屬性有正確認識。「神是愛」這句話,經常以頗為複雜的神學術語解釋,當中結合了兩個主要概念。第一,三位一體的神有長久無盡的生命,三個位格彼此相愛,彼此尊重(太317175;約33514311613-14171-522-26)。第二,神造了天使與人去讚美造他們的神,按著他們本身受造的種類,分享這個神聖生命中施與受的喜樂。但是,約翰宣稱「神是愛」(約壹48)的時候,主要是指神對人類的愛,特別是神竟然透過基督拯救了我們這些從前是迷失的罪人,但現在卻相信神的人。「神差遣他的獨生子到世上來,要使我們藉著他而活; 神的愛就在我們中間顯明了。不是我們愛神」------以前我们不爱神-----「而是 神愛我們,差遣他的兒子為我們的罪作了贖罪祭,這就是愛了。」(約壹49-10)。

新約聖經𥚃總是看到,我們是救贖大愛的對象與受惠者,這個「我們」是指「相信神的我們」(參羅839;約壹413)。無論此處或別的地方,「我們」都不是指屬於人類的每一個個體。新約聖經在救贖方面的教導,是一貫地有特殊的排他性的;當聖經提到「世人」蒙愛、蒙救贖(約316-17;林後519;約壹22),一般都是指屬於神的大批選民,他們分散在世界各地、遍布不敬虔的人類社群中(參約10161151-52)。這不是說神對全人類沒有表達出某種憐憫、寬容的愛(太544-45),而是這種愛不足以激發神去預備耶穌成為他們的中保和贖罪祭。聖經從來沒有說,神救贖之愛是為了人類過去存在、現今存在和將來會存在的每一個人(參羅17)。

聖經稱神是美善的(詩1005;可1018),衪至高無上的救贖之愛,是祂美善的特性的一面;即是說,祂榮耀的恩慈、慷慨、寬容,觸及衪所創造的一切(詩145915-16),並應該會引導所有罪人悔改(羅24)。神這種美善的另一些表達,是慈悲、憐憫、憐恤,以良善對待困苦中的人,把他們從苦難中解救出來(詩107136篇);還有長久忍耐、寬容、不輕易發怒,向持續犯罪的人施予恩慈(出346;詩7838;拿319-411;羅922;彼後39)。然而,神的美善的極致表現,仍舊是祂奇妙的恩典和無可言喻的愛,透過拯救原來只配受定罪的罪人的恩慈而呈現出來;祂拯救罪人甚至不惜付出耶穌死在髑髏地的沈重代價(羅322-2455-8832-39;弗21-10314-19525-27)。


神對自己的旨意、應許和子民都忠信誠實,這是祂表示出美善與配得讚頌的愛的另一面。人說謊食言,神卻永不會如此。即使在最惡劣的時候,人仍然可以說:「他的憐憫永不止息.......你的信實多麽廣大」(哀322-23;見詩365;參詩89篇,尤參1-214243349節)。雖然神表現信實的方式,有時是難以預測和令人迷惘的---------很多時神看來只是冷眼旁觀,若不把眼光放遠,祂更像是不信實的---------但是,與神一同經歷過人生起落的人,他們最終的見證都會是響亮的宣告:「........應許賜給你們的話........完全應驗在你們身上,沒有一句落空(書2314)。神的忠誠,還有祂恩慈美善的其他方面表現一如祂話語中所闡明,永遠是我們信心與盼望的堅實基督。」

教義很重要  Does doctrine really matter?

作者: admin   誠之翻譯

 如果你膽敢在教會裡說出「教義」這個字,你立刻會引來側目。再多說一次,你就會被孤立起來。對今日許多基督徒來說,教義與教會的實際生活似乎沾不上邊。教義是給那些把他們的時間都花在他們自己象牙塔裡,不斷進行猜想的學術精英的。教義是屬乎頭腦的,但基督徒要關心的是「心」的事情。

這對有些人來說是也許出乎意料,但是聖經實在是教義的頭號粉絲。事實上,對耶穌和使徒來說,教義就是生命的全部,關係重大。要進入上帝的國,要對福音有正確的認識,要與永生上帝有一個真實的關係,都取決於一個人對一些教義的信念,包括上帝是怎樣的一位上帝,罪的可惡,基督的神性,以及十字架的本質等等。

對聖經作者來說,教義如此重要,以至於保羅告訴提摩太,「你所講的總要合乎那純正的教義(sound doctrine)」(和合本作「純正的道理」)。而當保羅列出教會長老的資格時,有能力教導聖經的教義被列為首選:「堅守所教真實的道理,就能將純正的教訓(sound doctrine)勸化人,又能把爭辯的人駁倒了」(多一9)。

在這一期的「我信」雜誌裡,有幾位牧師和神學家幫助我們明白對基督徒生活和對教會來說,教義有多麼重要。我們會發現教義隨時都在滲透到我們所唱的詩歌裡,我們所講的道裡,以及我們身為基督的門徒該如何彼此輔導。我們會學到,想要與上帝和其他人有正確的關係,沒有什麼比教義更重要的了。無論我們是否認識到,教義就是一種生活方式。基督徒生活完全取決於純正的教義。簡而言之,教義非常重要。

Does doctrine really matter?

Say the word “doctrine” in church and you will get some strange looks. Say it again and you will find yourself sitting all alone. For many Christians today doctrine seems miles removed from real life in the church. Doctrine is for academics that spend their time speculating in their ivory towers. It’s the stuff of the head, but Christians are to be concerned with matters of the heart. Plus, shouldn’t we just stick to reading the Bible anyway?

Perhaps this will come as a surprise to some, but the Bible is doctrine’s number one fan. In fact, for Jesus and the apostles doctrine was everything. It really mattered. Entering the kingdom of God, a proper understanding of the gospel, and a real relationship with the living God all hinge upon one’s doctrinal beliefs concerning the character of God, the heinousness of sin, the divine identity of Christ, and the nature of the cross.

Doctrine is so important to the biblical authors that Paul told Titus to teach only what “accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). And when Paul spelled out the qualifications to become an elder in the church, an ability to teach biblical doctrine was at the top of the list. “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).

In this issue of Credo Magazine, several pastors and theologians help us understand just how much doctrine matters for the Christian life and for the church. We will discover that doctrine infiltrates the songs we sing, the sermons we preach, and the way we counsel each other as disciples of Christ. We will learn that nothing could be more critical to a right relationship with God and others than sound doctrine. Whether we realize it or not, doctrine is a way of life. The Christian life depends entirely upon sound doctrine. In short, doctrine matters.



行為比教義重要?DeedsOver Creeds

作者: Gary L.W. Johnson  譯者: 誠之

英國的改教家修拉提摩(Hugh Latimer)曾說過,「我們絕不可把合一看得如此重要,以至於為了合一的緣故而放棄神的道。」這是發自一位被燒死在火刑柱上,而不是妥協福音的真理的人所說的智慧的話。
Pastor’s Perspective
The English Reformer Hugh Latimer once remarked, “We ought never to regard unity so much that we would or should forsake God’s Word for her sake.” Wise words from a man who went to the stake, rather than compromise the truth of the gospel.

對那些稱自己是基督徒,卻只關心表面有形的合一的人,拉提摩的決心顯得非常沒有吸引力的。持守這個信念的人一再告訴我們,教會最主要的錯誤就是缺乏有形的合一,這是很可悲的。他們一再訴諸主耶穌在約翰福音17章所說的話,而把那些沒有參與這種合一的努力的人,都描繪成是嚴重地違背了基督的教訓!他們宣稱,缺少有形的合一,是我們最大的罪。什麽是導致這種可惡狀況的原因呢?教義——或更明確地說——是教義的特點。現今,他們說宗教改革時期對唯獨信心的理解,對替死代贖(penal substitutionary atonement)的教義,以及特別是無盡刑罰這個可憎的概念,以及唯獨借著基督得救的排他性,對建立有形的基督徒合一,都是障礙(譯按,這似乎是在指Emergent church的主張,因為這些都是EC反對的教義)。然而,這個有形的合一的觀念究竟是不是主耶穌在約翰福音17章所作的大祭司的禱告的意圖呢?如同Robert Lewis Dabney 在上一個世紀所指出的,我們的主所關心的,是屬靈上的合一。要求有形的合一,本不是那段經文的意思,按照Dabney的話說,是一個巨大的錯誤。事實上,這是一個偶像,目的是要窒息任何合法的異議,並且,容我加上一句話,對教會的健康與福祉,是極為致命的(positively deadly)。我想到一個世紀前著名的英國哲學家和議員Francis Bacon的一段話:「為了權宜之計所形成的合一,實際上,是把根基建立在完全的無知上。如同每個人都知道的,所有的色彩在黑暗中看起來都是一個顏色。」時代在改變,許多人告訴我們,我們需要和時代一起改變。如果我們不做改變,我們就會被看作是落後,不合時宜的。
To those whose only concern is the appearance of visible unity among all who call themselves Christians, Latimer’s resolve appears most unattractive. We are repeatedly told by those of this persuasion that the church’s major fault is its deplorable lack of visible unity. Appeal is constantly made to the words of Jesus in John 17, and those who do not join this effort are portrayed as being in serious disagreement with Jesus! This abominable lack of visible unity, they claim, is our greatest sin. And what is chiefly to be blamed for this heinous state of affairs? Doctrine — or to be more precise — doctrinal distinctives. Nowadays we are told that things like the Reformation’s understanding of sola fide, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, and, particularly, the distasteful notion of endless punishment and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ alone are an encumbrance to establishing visible Christian unity. But is this notion of visible unity what Jesus intended in His high priestly prayer in John 17? Our Lord’s concern, as Robert Lewis Dabney pointed out last century, is for spiritual unity. The demand for visible unity is not only quite foreign to the text, it constitutes, in the words of Dabney, an enormous blunder. It is, in fact, an idol that is used to stifle any legitimate dissent, and, let me add, it is positively deadly to the health and welfare of the church. I am reminded of the remark of Francis Bacon, the noted English philosopher and statesman of a bygone era: “Unity that is formed on expedience is, in reality, grounded upon an implicit ignorance. As everyone knows, all colors will look the same in the dark.” Times have changed and we are frequently reminded that we need to change with them. If we don’t, we’re going to be perceived as backward and outdated.

在我們這個後現代的時代中,「寬容」(tolerance)被看成比真理的價值高,而真理,如同美,是由持有者的眼光來決定的,這是每個人都應該有的看法,只有那些令人討厭,吹毛求疵在闡述真理的人除外,也就是那些堅持絕對真理,或者是那些用神學語言來表達真理,想要維持歷史正統性的人。很不幸的,許多稱自己是福音派的人,當談到為他們的信仰作定義時,往往興高采烈地擁抱一個獨特的不要教義的思維方法(non-doctrinal mentality)。這個可悲的景況,一部分原因可以追溯到這個騙人的、完全天真的假設上,就是我們周圍的文化是價值中立的,因此是無害的。這顯明在一個觀念上,就是說既然所有的事物主要都是屬於個人的偏好(例如不同的生活形態),那麽,我們應該要熱烈慶祝這種多樣性,擱置個人的判斷,“你好,我好,大家好”!相信這種說法的基督徒沒有想到的,是當我們這樣做的時候,就違反了保羅在羅馬書122的勸誡:「不要效法這個世界」。雖然這種中立主義強調的是多樣性,但是它只是一個幌子。思想的一致性(conformity)才是它實際的動力。中立主義所要尋求的思想一致性,其標準是人類的自主性,目標很單純,也很簡單。這並不會讓人感到意外,這種對思想一致性的要求,在基督教圈子內有一個顯著的平行說法——要求有形的合一。
In our postmodern times, “tolerance” is valued over truth, and truth, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and as such must be extended to everyone, except those disagreeable and critical exponents of truth who hold to absolutes, or, to put it into theological language, those who seek to maintain historical orthodoxy. Tragically, many professing evangelicals are embracing in celebratory fashion a distinctively non-doctrinal mentality when it comes to defining their faith. In part, this sad state of affairs is traceable to the gullible and blatantly naïve assumption that the surrounding culture is value-neutral and thus harmless. This manifests itself in the notion that since all things are primarily a matter of personal preferences (such as different lifestyles), then we should celebrate diversity by suspending judgment only to live and let live. Christians who end up buying into this idea fail to recognize that by doing so they are violating the apostle Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:2: “Do not be conformed to this world.” Despite the fact that this kind of neutralism accents diversity, it does so in name only. Conformity is actually what drives it. The standard around which neutralism seeks conformity is human autonomy, pure and simple. Not surprisingly, this desire for conformity has a noticeable parallel in Christian circles — the demand for visible unity.

最近,這個「行為比教義重要」(deeds over creeds)的座右銘再一次擄獲了福音派世界的想象。雖然這聽起來很有吸引力,但是這卻需要付出很高昂的代價。怎麽會這樣呢?根據這個說法,你的標簽是什麽(羅馬天主教,東正教,五旬節派,或浸信會)是無關緊要的。很顯然,重要的是我們對耶穌的愛——其他的都不重要。這不是我們第一次聽到這種訴求。一個世紀以前,「守約者」(Promise Keepers)也步向同樣的道路。在它1994年在波特蘭舉辦的「抓住這個時刻」("Seize the Moment)研討會中,創辦人Bill McCartney說,「守約者不在乎你是否是一位天主教徒。你愛耶穌嗎?你是否是神的靈所生的?」當時守約者的總裁Randy Phillips接著說,「無論你的標簽是什麽,都不應該使我們分裂……我們歡迎所有的人,無論他是浸信會,五旬節派,或羅馬天主教。如果你在基督的身體內,那麽,我們就歡迎你。」(Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, "Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?" p. 20)但問題是,這不只是個標簽的問題。如果事情是如此,那麽,摩門教(末日聖徒教會)的官方立場就不是我們需要關心的問題。如果個別的摩門教徒說他們愛耶穌,也是聖靈重生的,他們為什麽要被排除在外呢?
Recently, the motto “deeds over creeds” has once again captured the imagination of the evangelical world. As attractive as this may sound, there is a very steep price to be paid here. How so? According to this notion, it really doesn’t matter what your label is (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, or Baptist). All that matters, apparently, is one’s love for Jesus — everything else is of little concern. This is not the first time we’ve heard this appeal. Over a decade ago, the Promise Keepers marched down this same path. At its 1994 “Seize the Moment” conference in Portland, founder Bill McCartney said, “Promise Keepers doesn’t care if you’re Catholic. Do you love Jesus? Are you born of the Spirit of God?” One-time PK president Randy Phillips continues: “…whatever the labels are should not divide us. …all men are welcome, whether you’re Baptist, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic. If you are in the body of Christ, then you should certainly be welcome” (Albert James Dager, Media Spotlight, “Promise Keepers: Is What You See What You Get?” p. 20). But it was not simply a question of labels. If that is the case, then the official position of the Church of Latter-day Saints should not be a concern. If individual Mormons claim they love Jesus and are born of the Spirit, why should they be excluded?

許多福音派的人,如今都在打著相同的鼓聲:行為比教義重要。但是結果是,教義真的很重要。按照目前這種強加在我們身上的合一,也就是不管教義,不需要教義所構成的合一,注定要產生出一種被不純正教義所汙染的合一。恰恰是這種汙染,在經過全面的審查後,會造成對福音真理的妥協。這就是為了有形的合一所要付出的高昂代價。
Many evangelicals are now banging the same drum: deeds over creeds. But as it turns out, creeds really do matter. Any unity like the kind now being urged on us that is formed apart from creeds and the need for them, is doomed to produce the kind of unity that is polluted by doctrinal impurity. It is the kind of impurity that in the final analysis ends up compromising the truth of the gospel. This is too steep a price to be paid for the sake of visible unity.