唯獨榮耀歸上帝Soli Deo Gloria: To God Alone Be the Glory
作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 譯者: 王一「唯獨榮耀歸上帝」（Soli Deo gloria）是從宗教改革運動生出的一句格言，巴赫（Johann Sebastian Bach）每一部作品中都用到這句話。他會在每一份手稿的最後印上這句話的首字母SDG，來傳達一個觀念，就是上帝也唯有上帝自己配得一切尊貴與榮耀，因祂創造和救贖大工是如此奇妙。而在十六世紀關於救恩的爭論的核心是恩典的問題。
人對恩典的需求是不爭的事實，這並不是問題所在。問題乃是這個需求的範圍到底多大。教會已經宣判伯拉糾（Pelagius）是異端，他教導恩典促進救恩（grace facilitates salvation），但本身不是絕對必需的。從此以後，半伯拉糾主義（Semi-Pelagianism）就一直教導若無恩典便無救恩。但是半伯拉糾主義和亞米念主義（Arminianism）的救恩論中所提及的恩典，不是一個有效的恩典（efficacious grace）。他們所說的恩典只不過是一個使救恩成為可能的恩典，卻不是使救恩確實發生的恩典。
在撒種的比喻裏，我們看到是上帝自己采取主動把救恩帶來。祂是撒種的人。所撒的種是祂的種子，就是祂的道，所得的收成是祂的收成。祂所得的收成是祂在一開始就定意要得的收成。上帝不會讓自己的收成取決於路旁多變的荊棘或石頭。是上帝，也唯獨是上帝能來確定祂的道是否落在好土裏。在解釋這個比喻時，容易犯一個關鍵性的錯誤，把好土假定為墮落的罪人的好的傾向，這些罪人做出了正確的選擇，積極地回應了上帝的先在恩典（prevenient grace）。傳統改革宗對好土的理解卻是這樣：如果一塊土對上帝所撒的種子接受的很快，乃是上帝預備這塊土，為叫祂的種子發芽。
在實際層面上，所有半伯拉糾主義者或亞米念主義者所不得不面對的最大的問題是這樣：為何我選擇相信福音、委身於基督時，我的鄰舍也聽到了同樣的福音，卻選擇拒絕呢？這個問題有很多種回答方式。我們可以推測一個人選擇積極回應福音和基督，而另一個人卻拒絕的原因，是因為積極回應的那個人比另一個人更智慧。如果是這樣，上帝仍舊是救恩的最終供應者，因為智慧乃是祂的恩賜，而上帝沒有把同樣的智慧賜給那個拒絕福音的鄰舍。但是這整個解釋顯然是很荒唐。
我們一定會考慮到另一種可能性：一個人積極回應福音是因為他比拒絕福音的人更是個好人。也就是說，做出正確的、好的決定的人如此做，是因為他比他的鄰舍更義（righteous）。如果是這樣的話，肉體就不是對某些事有益，而是對所有事都有益了。而這正是大部分福音派基督徒所持的觀點，即他們自己得救而其他人沒有是因為他們對上帝的恩典做了正確的回應，而其他人做了錯誤的回應。
這裏相對錯誤回應所談的正確回應，還可以稱為好的回應，而不是壞的回應。如果我之所以在上帝的國裏有份，是因為我做出過好的回應而不是壞的回應的話，我就是在自誇對上帝恩典的回應所產生的美德。我從未見過一個亞米念主義者像我剛才說的那樣「我信主是因為我比我的鄰舍更好」這樣來回答這個問題。他們不願這麽說。但是，雖然他們拒絕這種暗含的意思，半伯拉糾主義的邏輯卻需要得出這個結論。因為如果在最後審判時，我是基督徒而某些人不是的原因，確實在於對上帝救恩的邀請是否做出正確回應的話，因著不可抗拒的邏輯，我就確實做了一個好的回應，而我的鄰舍卻做了一個壞的回應。
而改革宗神學（Reformed Theology）的教導乃是這樣，信徒的確做出了正確的回應，而非信徒做了錯誤的回應。但是信徒之所以做出好的回應，是因為上帝在祂至高主權的揀選（sovereign election）裏改變了蒙揀選之人心中的傾向，以至於產生了好的回應。我不能從我對基督所做的回應中得到任何的讚揚。上帝不僅開始了我的救恩，祂不僅撒了種，而且祂也藉著聖靈的能力重生我，好確保那種子在我心中發芽成長。若要那種子紮根並且茂盛結實，重生（regeneration）是必需的條件。這就是為何改革宗神學的核心裏，有一公理被廣為傳頌：重生先於信心（regeneration precedes faith）。正是這一原則，正是這一救恩的次序，是所有半伯拉糾主義者所反對的。他們抱持一個觀念，在他們靈性死亡（spiritual death）的墮落光景中，他們也可以操練信心（exercise faith）而帶來重生。在他們的觀點中，他們是在聖靈改變他們靈魂傾向之前就對福音做出了回應，並帶給他們信心。當這發生時，上帝的榮耀就被他們搶占了。沒有一個半伯拉糾主義者曾經真心說過：「唯獨榮耀歸上帝」。對於半伯拉糾主義者來說，上帝的確是滿有恩典的，但除了上帝的恩典之外，我對其恩典的回應工作才是絕對最重要的。這樣的恩典不是有效的（effectual）。這樣的恩典，在最後審判時，並不是真救恩的恩典。事實上，救恩從始至終都是主所做成的。是的，我必須相信。是的，我必須回應。是的，我必須接受基督。但是對我來說，向這當中任何一個問題說「是的」之前，我的心必須先被聖靈上帝的至高而有效的主權權能所改變。
唯獨榮耀歸上帝（Soli Deo gloria）。
Soli Deo Gloria: To God Alone Be the Glory
FROM R.C. Sproul
Soli Deo
gloria is the motto that grew out of the Protestant Reformation and was used on
every composition by Johann Sebastian Bach. He affixed the initials SDG at the
bottom of each manuscript to communicate the idea that it is God and God alone
who is to receive the glory for the wonders of His work of creation and of
redemption. At the heart of the sixteenth-century controversy over salvation
was the issue of grace.
It was not
a question of man’s need for grace. It was a question as to the extent of that
need. The church had already condemned Pelagius, who had taught that grace
facilitates salvation but is not absolutely necessary for it. Semi-Pelagianism
since that time has always taught that without grace there is no salvation. But
the grace that is considered in all semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories of
salvation is not an efficacious grace. It is a grace that makes salvation
possible, but not a grace that makes salvation certain.
In the
parable of the sower we see that regarding salvation, God is the one who takes
the initiative to bring salvation to pass. He is the sower. The seed that is
sown is His seed, corresponding to His Word, and the harvest that results is
His harvest. He harvests what He purposed to harvest when He initiated the
whole process. God doesn’t leave the harvest up to the vagaries of thorns and
stones in the pathway. It is God and God alone who makes certain that a portion
of His Word falls upon good ground. A critical error in interpreting this
parable would be to assume that the good ground is the good disposition of
fallen sinners, those sinners who make the right choice, responding positively
to God’s prevenient grace. The classical Reformed understanding of the good
ground is that if the ground is receptive to the seed that is sown by God, it
is God alone who prepares the ground for the germination of the seed.
The biggest
question any semi-Pelagian or Arminian has to face at the practical level is
this: Why did I choose to believe the gospel and commit my life to Christ when my
neighbor, who heard the same gospel, chose to reject it? That question has been
answered in many ways. We might speculate that the reason why one person
chooses to respond positively to the gospel and to Christ, while another one
doesn’t, is because the person who responded positively was more intelligent
than the other one. If that were the case, then God would still be the ultimate
provider of salvation because the intelligence is His gift, and it could be
explained that God did not give the same intelligence to the neighbor who
rejected the gospel. But that explanation is obviously absurd.
The other
possibility that one must consider is this: that the reason one person responds
positively to the gospel and his neighbor does not is because the one who responded
was a better person. That is, that person who made the right choice and the
good choice did it because he was more righteous than his neighbor. In this
case, the flesh not only availed something, it availed everything. This is the
view that is held by the majority of evangelical Christians, namely, the reason
why they are saved and others are not is that they made the right response to
God’s grace while the others made the wrong response.
We can talk
here about not only the correct response as opposed to an erroneous response,
but we can speak in terms of a good response rather than a bad response. If I
am in the kingdom of God because I made the good response rather than the bad
response, I have something of which to boast, namely the goodness by which I
responded to the grace of God. I have never met an Arminian who would answer
the question that I’ve just posed by saying, “Oh, the reason I’m a believer is
because I’m better than my neighbor.” They would be loath to say that. However,
though they reject this implication, the logic of semi-Pelagianism requires
this conclusion. If indeed in the final analysis the reason I’m a Christian and
someone else is not is that I made the proper response to God’s offer of
salvation while somebody else rejected it, then by resistless logic I have
indeed made the good response, and my neighbor has made the bad response.
What
Reformed theology teaches is that it is true the believer makes the right
response and the non-believer makes the wrong response. But the reason the
believer makes the good response is because God in His sovereign election
changes the disposition of the heart of the elect to effect a good response. I
can take no credit for the response that I made for Christ. God not only
initiated my salvation, He not only sowed the seed, but He made sure that that
seed germinated in my heart by regenerating me by the power of the Holy Ghost.
That regeneration is a necessary condition for the seed to take root and to
flourish. That’s why at the heart of Reformed theology the axiom resounds,
namely, that regeneration precedes faith. It’s that formula, that order of
salvation that all semi-Pelagians reject. They hold to the idea that in their
fallen condition of spiritual death, they exercise faith, and then are born
again. In their view, they respond to the gospel before the Spirit has changed
the disposition of their soul to bring them to faith. When that happens, the
glory of God is shared. No semi-Pelagian can ever say with authenticity: “To
God alone be the glory.” For the semi-Pelagian, God may be gracious, but in
addition to God’s grace, my work of response is absolutely essential. Here
grace is not effectual, and such grace, in the final analysis, is not really
saving grace. In fact, salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. Yes, I
must believe. Yes, I must respond. Yes, I must receive Christ. But for me to
say “yes” to any of those things, my heart must first be changed by the
sovereign, effectual power of God the Holy Spirit. Soli Deo gloria.
This post
was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.
