霍顿论敬拜5：洗礼Re-thinking BaptismPart 5 of a 6-part series onWorship
作者：Michael S. Horton 译者/校对者: 蔡璐/王一
你在基督里成长最重要的五件事情是什么？对于这样的问题，你可以直接自己回答出来。当然，我们是不会听到你的答案，不过这不要紧。如何列出五样对基督徒成长最重要的工具？祷告？传福音？查经班？团契？基督徒服事？我在福音派的圈子里一遍又一遍地问这个问题，我会听到各种各样的答案，其中有非常好的答案，但是人们经常忽略提到圣礼。我们现在几乎完全听不到有关圣礼的事情了，所以更加不会使之成为我们在基督里成长的必要部分。
然而在圣经中，洗礼和圣餐是与我们的救恩本身紧紧相连的。通过这两个圣礼，上帝给予我们在他圣道里应许的恩典。洗礼和圣餐是恩典的媒介这一点是十分正确的。他们不仅仅是象征，也是恩典的管道。
在你开始想——“嗟，这听起来像是罗马天主教的洗礼观和圣餐观”——之前，让我先承诺，我所要讲的洗礼观是传统的基督新教的教导。尽管这一重要的、符合圣经的圣礼观在逐步退到教会生活和思考的边缘，它在圣经中仍占据同样重要的位置，要求我们在这个时代重新使圣礼回到原有显耀的位置。
现在，我们先来关注基督徒的洗礼。洗礼这个词来自希腊词 “baptidzo”，意思是“去蘸，去洗，或去撒。” 实际上，这个词在古时用来指将一个人或物浸在水里，但同样的词也指代浇灌自己的草坪或植物。这便是为什么根据这个词本身来争辩洗礼的形式是完全行不通的。重要的是，上帝通过这个圣礼要成就他的应许，就是洗掉我们的罪。
经过几个世纪的反思和讨论，洗礼中一个重要的区分是“标记”（the sign）和“被标记的事物”（thing signified）。在洗礼中，标记是水。你可以把你的手指放进水里，你可以喝水，你也可以在水里玩水球。洗礼的水和自来水管里的水并无差别，但是水这一标志，不是洗礼中唯一参与的元素。上帝的道、圣灵和标记，汇流相聚，结果是洗礼。通过福音的道，圣灵把水洗联结到真正的、内在的洁净和重生。所以在洗礼中，普通的水成为神圣的水，就像红海的水，即使是普通的水，却成为上帝拯救在埃及做奴隶的子民的工具。
法老的军队被水淹没，老卢卡斯·克拉纳赫 (Lucas Cranach the
Elder), 1530年
仅从圣经的证据来看这种洗礼观，标志（水）和所标记的事物（圣灵带来的洁净）之间的关联在圣经中显得十分紧密。《马太福音》第十六章16节说到：“信而受洗的必然得救。” 在耶稣差遣他的使徒之后，亚拿尼亚治好了保罗，亚拿尼亚说：“现在你为什么耽延呢？起来，求告他的名受洗，洗去你的罪。”（徒 22:16）保罗自己说：“岂不知我们这受洗归入基督耶稣的人是受洗归入他的死吗？所以，我们藉着洗礼归入死，和他一同埋葬，原是叫我们一举一动有新生的样式，像基督藉着父的荣耀从死里复活一样。”(罗 6:3-4）对提多，保罗写到：“他救了我们，并不是因我们自己所行的义，乃是照他的怜悯，藉着重生的洗和圣灵的更新。圣灵就是神藉着耶稣基督——我们救主厚厚浇灌在我们身上的，好叫我们因他的恩得称为义，可以凭着永生的盼望成为后嗣。”(提 3:5-7) 我刚刚提到，拯救以色列脱离法老的水和洗礼的水的那段描述，并不是来源于我自己。保罗在《哥林多前书》第十章1-4节使用这样的对比：“弟兄们，我不愿意你们不晓得，我们的祖宗从前都在云下，都从海中经过，都在云里、海里受洗归了摩西；并且都吃了一样的灵食，也都喝了一样的灵水。所喝的，是出于随着他们的灵磐石；那磐石就是基督。”
那么又回到给小孩子施洗这个棘手的问题上了。怎么处理婴儿洗的问题呢？难道这不是一个从罗马天主教遗留到基督新教的没被处理的残留吗？首先声明，我是成长在福音派、相信圣经的教会。当我碰到那些给婴孩施洗的人时，我会很自然地假设他们根本不读他们的圣经，或许他们根本都不是基督徒。当我认识到这个世纪许多最伟大的、为圣经正统信仰辩护的人都相信婴儿洗是符合圣经的教义时，我惊呆了，于是我开始倾听他们的辩论。经过许多的讨论和对经文的挣扎，我最终向我曾经很肯定不会承认的观念屈服。
那么，这是什么意思呢？并没有什么特别的意思。许多人反而持有完全相反的经验。成长在路德宗或改革宗教会的一些人，他们后来相信圣经没有教导婴儿洗，所以我们的经验并不能决定什么。但是这至少能使你停下来思考片刻，并问这个问题：“是什么让这么多相信圣经的基督徒接纳婴儿洗是符合圣经的呢？”
为什么给婴孩施洗？
我们应当给我们的孩子施洗是因为：
上帝领我们进入恩典之约，即使这约中并不是所有成员都会坚守到底（就是说他们不是被拣选的），他们仍享有属于上帝约的子民的特殊权利。这对于真正的以色列是如此（即旧约中的教会），新约则直接把这个观念应用在新约教会上（来 4:1-11, 6:4-12；申 4:20, 28:9，彼前 2:9,10；加 6:16；何 2:23，赛 10:22, 罗 9:24-28）
即使进入上帝圣约保守之下，也不能保证每一个人都持有真正、蒙保守的信心（来 4:1-11），但是这也不意味着一个人在不在基督和他的恩典之约里是不重要的。
在旧约中，婴孩是通过割礼这一圣礼而被接纳进入恩典之约的，在新约中（这又被称为“更好的约”），在上帝美好的旨意下，他没有改变对婴孩的态度（徒 2:38, 35），而且割礼被洗礼所取代（西 2:11）。所以，我们的孩子也必须被纳入恩典之约中，通过洗礼与基督联合，正如在古时，上帝的子民通过割礼进入恩典之约。
不信主的人的孩子是不圣洁的，但是信主的人的孩子是被分别为圣给上帝的。这一区别不仅在旧约（读逾越节，出12:1；还有“邪恶人的会”和“正直人的会”的区别，诗篇体现的尤为明显），也延续到新约中（林前 10:2）。他们是如何与不信主的人区别开来的呢？就是通过圣约的标记和印证。
家庭式的洗礼在新约中很常见（查考 徒 16:15, 33；林前 1:16）。当狱卒问如何才能得救时，保罗回答：“当信主耶稣，你和你一家都必得救。” 我们从经文知道，就在当夜，“他和属乎他的人立时都受了洗。”（徒 16:31-33）
教会历史上没有中断施行婴儿洗的记录。即使传统是次要的，但是这仍然很重要：我们知道事实是，使徒死后，最早的基督徒在使徒的教导之下仍施行婴儿洗。我们没有任何记载表明使徒的继承人们终止了这种做法。
洗礼是上帝的工作，而不是人的工作。洗礼不是信徒对上帝委身的标记（如果是这样的话，那么则要求先在的信心和悔改），而是上帝拯救应许的标记和印证，他承诺要拯救所有不拒绝自己的洗礼、不拒绝信靠基督的人。我们可以从一些经文看到洗礼的属性：可 16:16，徒 22:16；罗 6:3；提 3:5。这些经文之所以是对于那些先相信后受洗的人，是因为初归信的很显然是成年的时候相信的，但是他们也很显然给他们的孩子受洗。这在亚伯拉罕身上同样适用。他在受割礼之前相信，但是之后他的孩子都在婴孩时期受了割礼。
Re-thinking Baptism
Part 5 of a 6-part series on
Worship
Michael
S. Horton
©1995
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
Here's
a question for you: What are the top 5 things that are necessary for your
Christian growth? Go ahead, say it out loud. Of course, the rest of us won't be
able to hear, but that's OK. What would make the list of the 5 most important
aids to Christian growth? Prayer? Evangelism? Bible study? Fellowship?
Christian service? Time and time again, I've asked that question in evangelical
circles and heard all of these answers--wonderful and good answers, but the
glaring omission was the mention of the sacraments. We hardly hear about the
sacraments these days at all, much less do we see them as essential to our growth
in Christ.
And
yet, baptism and the Lord's Supper are, in Scripture, linked to our salvation
itself. Through these two sacraments God gives us the grace that he promises in
his Word. That's right. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. Not
mere symbols, but means of grace.
Now,
before you start thinking, "Gee, this sounds like a Catholic view of
baptism and the Lord's Supper," let me assure you that the view of baptism
that I'm presenting is the traditional Protestant doctrine. In spite of the
gradual movement of this great biblical sacrament to the periphery of the
church's life and thought, it still occupies that same important place in the
Bible itself and requires us to recover its grand place in our own day.
Now
the focus of this address is on Christian baptism. The word baptism comes from
the Greek word "baptidzo," which means "to dip, to wash, or to
sprinkle." In fact, the word was used in ancient times to refer to
immersing someone or something. But the same word was also used to refer to
watering one's lawn or plants. That's why it's impossible to argue for one mode
of baptism on the basis of the word itself. What's important in this matter is
what God does through this sacrament, in fulfillment of his promise to wash us
from our sins.
One
of the important distinctions over the centuries of reflection on baptism is
between "the sign" and the "thing signified." In baptism,
the sign is water. You can put your finger in it, you can drink it, you can
play water polo in it. The water in baptism is no different from the water in
from the tap. But water--the sign--is not the only thing involved in baptism.
There is a convergence, a meeting, of Word, Spirit, and Sign, and the result is
baptism. Through the Word of the Gospel, the Spirit connects this washing with
water somehow to a real inward cleansing and regeneration. So, in baptism,
normal water becomes sacred water, as the waters of the Red Sea, though normal
water, became a means through which God redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt.
Just
look at the biblical evidence for this view of baptism. The connection between
the sign--water, and the thing signified--that is, the actual cleansing by the
Holy Spirit, is very close in Scripture. Mark 16:16 reads, "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." When Ananias healed Paul, after
Jesus had given the apostle his commission, Ananias said, "And now what
are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on
his name" (Acts. 22:16). Paul himself declared, "Don't you know that
all of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We
were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just
as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may
live a new life" (Ro. 6:3). To Titus, he writes, "He saved us, not
because of righteous things we have done, but because of his mercy. He saved us
through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured
out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been
justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal
life" (Tit.3:5-7). The illustration I just gave a moment ago, comparing
the waters that saved Israel from Pharaoh to the waters of baptism, is actually
not original with me. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 1-4: "For I do not want you
to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the
cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into
Moses in the cloud and the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank
the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that
accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."
Then
there's that thorny question about baptizing those little rug rats. What do we
do about infant baptism? Isn't it just a hold-over from Roman Catholicism that
Protestants just can't seem to shake off? First, let me say that I was raised
in evangelical Bible churches and when I ran into people who baptized infants,
I just assumed that they probably didn't even read their Bibles. Maybe the
weren't even really Christians. It was a shock to me to learn that many of the
greatest defenders of biblical orthodoxy in this century all believed that this
was a biblical doctrine, so I began to listen to their arguments. After a lot
of arguing and wrestling with the Scriptures, I finally gave in to a point of
view I was sure I would never hold.
Now,
what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. There have been people who have had
just the opposite experience. Growing up in Lutheran or Reformed churches, they
came to believe that the Scriptures did not teach infant baptism, so our
experience doesn't determine anything. But it should cause you to at least
pause for a moment and ask, "What makes so many Bible-believing Christians
embrace infant baptism as scriptural?"
Why Baptize Infants?
We
should baptize our children because...
1.
God has brought us into a covenant of grace and although not all members of
this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect), they enjoy special
privileges of belonging to the covenant people of God. This was true of Israel
(the church in the Old Testament), and the New Testament simply applies this to
the New Testament church (Hebrews, esp. 4:1-11 and 6:4-12; Dt. 4:20 and 28:9
with 1 Pet. 2:9,10; Gal. 6:16; Hos. 2:23 and Is. 10:22 with Rom. 9:24-28).
2.
Even though bringing someone under the protection of God's covenantal
faithfulness does not guarantee that every member possesses true, persevering
faith (Heb. 4:1-11), but that does not mean that it is unimportant as to
whether a person is in Christ and his covenant of grace.
3.
Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, through
the sacrament of circumcision, and in the New Covenant (called the "better
covenant"), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children
(Ac. 2:38, 35) and circumcision has been replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11).
Therefore, our children must be brought into the covenant of grace and united
to Christ through baptism as the people of God in former times were brought
into the covenant through circumcision.
4.
The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set
apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the
Passover, Ex.12:1; also the distinction between the "house of the
wicked" and the "house of the righteous," especially in the Psalms),
but is continued in the New Testament as well (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they
marked or distinguished from unbelievers? By the sign and seal of the covenant.
5.
Household baptisms in the New Testament are common (see esp. Acts 16:15, 33; 1
Cor. 1:16), and when the jailer asked how to be saved, Paul replied,
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your
household." We are told that this same night "he and his family were
baptized" (Ac.16:31-33).
6.
There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant
baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important
here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the
death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those
who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming
these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic
practice?
7.
Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's
commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance),
but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their
baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of baptism, see Mark
16:16, Acts. 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Tit. 3:5. The reason these references are to
those who have first believed is that the first converts, obviously, were
adults when the believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same
was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his
children circumcised as infants.
