作者: John M. Frame 譯者: 誠之
譯按：傅瑞姆（John Frame）對「律法與福音」的定義，和威敏思特神學院的老師們（偏向路德宗的看法）的定義不同。這篇文章是2002年刊出的，已經看到他們當中的矛盾。所以，John Frame最近出的一本批判加州威敏思特神學院神學立場的書（The Escondido theology），可以說是其來有自，冰凍三尺非一日之寒。
在改革宗圈子裏，這已經變得越來越普遍（在路德宗圈子裏長久以來就是如此），即認為區分律法和福音是良好神學的關鍵，甚至有人說到，如果不同意對此區分的一些傳統表述，就是否認了福音本身。It has become increasingly common in Reformed circles, as it has long been in Lutheran circles, to say that the distinction between law and gospel is the key to sound theology, even to say that to differ with certain traditional formulations of this distinction is to deny the gospel itself.
有時候這個論述會使用像羅馬書三21-31這樣的經文，强調我們得救是靠神的恩典，唯獨透過信心，與律法的行為完全無關。不過，我的看法是，爭論這個問題的各方都未曾質疑稱義是唯獨靠恩典、唯獨藉著信心、唯獨靠基督歸算的義。但區分信心和行為（工作）是一回事，區分律法和福音又是另一回事。Sometimes this argument employs Scripture passages like Rom. 3:21-31, emphasizing that we are saved by God’s grace, through faith alone, apart from the works of the law. In my judgment, however, none of the parties to the debate questions that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But it is one thing to distinguish between faith and works, a different thing to distinguish law and gospel.
1. 傳統的區分1. The Traditional Distinction
律法和福音的差別，不等於虛假和真實的得救道路的差別。它其實是兩種信息的差別，一個完全是由命令、威脅以及恐嚇所組成，而另一個則是完全由應許和安慰所組成。雖然我相信我們得救完全是靠神的恩典，而不是我們的工作，我卻不相信它們是聖經裏神所給的完全不同的信息，一個完全是命令（「律法」），另一個完全是應許（「福音」）。在聖經本身，命令和應許通常是同時出現的。神的應許通常伴隨著悔罪和相信神的應許的命令；而命令通常不只是審判的宣告，而是神給我們的恩典的機會，讓我們可以悔罪並信靠祂。如同詩人所說，「求你……開恩將你的律法賜給我」（詩11九29）。The distinction between law and gospel is not a distinction between a false and a true way of salvation. Rather, it is a distinction between two messages, one that supposedly consists exclusively of commands, threats, and therefore terrors, the other that consists exclusively of promises and comforts. Although I believe that we are saved entirely by God’s grace and not by works, I do not believe that there are two entirely different messages of God in Scripture, one exclusively of command (“law”) and the other exclusively of promise (“gospel”). In Scripture itself, commands and promises are typically found together. With God’s promises come commands to repent of sin and believe the promise. The commands, typically, are not merely announcements of judgment, but God’s gracious opportunities to repent of sin and believe in him. As the Psalmist says, “be gracious to me through your law,” Psm. 119:29.
我所反對的觀點，即鮮明地區隔這兩個信息，主要是來自路德宗的神學，雖然在加爾文和其他歸正神學家那兒也能找到類似的聲明。（注1）路德宗的「協和信條概略」（Epitome of Formula of Concord），第五章第5條承認，「福音」（gospel）這個字在聖經裏有不同的用法，它引用馬可福音一章15節和使徒行傳二十章21節來說明「正確的」福音的宣講包括悔罪的吩咐。但是第6條作了一件非常奇怪的事。它說到：The view that I oppose, which sharply separates the two messages, comes mainly out of Lutheran theology, though similar statements can be found in Calvin and in other Reformed writers.1 The Epitome of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, at V, 5, recognizes that gospel is used in different senses in Scripture, and it cites Mark 1:15 and Acts 20:21 as passages in which gospel preaching “correctly” includes a command to repent of sin. But in section 6, it does something really strange. It says,
但是如果把律法和福音放在一起比較，也把摩西（律法的教師）自己和基督（福音的教師）加以比較，我們相信、教導也承認，福音不是宣講悔改、扎心知罪；適當來說（it is properly），它不外乎最令人喜悅的信息和宣講，充滿了安慰，而不是定罪或恐嚇，它安慰我們的良心，對抗律法的恐嚇，並吩咐（bid）人唯獨仰望基督的功德……But when the Law and the Gospel are compared together, as well as Moses himself, the teacher of the Law, and Christ the teacher of the Gospel, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance, convicting of sins, but that it is properly nothing else than a certain most joyful message and preaching full of consolation, not convicting or terrifying, inasmuch as it comforts the conscience against the terrors of the Law, and bids it look at the merit of Christ alone…
我說這是很奇怪的，因為信條對此區分並沒有給予任何的聖經支持，而這裏所說的「福音」，與先前在第5條中所承認的是完全抵觸的。第5條說是「正確的」，和第6條所說「適當的」是彼此矛盾的。第6條實際上是暗示，它所承認的聖經對福音的內容的描述，如馬可福音一章15節和使徒行傳十四章15節，是「不恰當」的。（注2）馬可福音一章15節是正確的，但不是適當的。I say this is strange, because the Formula gives no biblical support at all for this distinction, and what it says here about the “gospel” flatly contradicts what it conceded earlier in section 5. What it describes as “correct” in section five contradicts what it calls “proper” in section 6. What section 6 does is to suggest something “improper” about what it admits to be the biblical description of the content of gospel, as in Mark 1:15 and Acts 14:15.2 Mark 1:15 is correct, but not proper.
2. 聖經中的律法和福音2. Law and Gospel in Scripture
有人告訴我，協和信條在這裏所說的「適當」的意思，不是「不正確」或「錯誤」，而只是「更普通，或更平常」的意思。然而，我遍查了新約聖經中有關「福音」（euaggel）的字眼，卻找不到一個例子，其上下文是把悔改的要求（即神的命令，律法）排除在福音的內容之外的。也就是說，我找不到一個例子是協和信條所說的福音的「適當」意義，純粹是安慰的信息，而不帶有任何的義務。之所以沒有出現這樣的用法，是有很重要的神學理由的。I have been told that proper at this point in the Formula means, not “incorrect” or “wrong,” but simply “more common or usual.” I have, however, looked through the uses of the euaggel- terms in the NT, and I cannot find one instance in which the context excludes a demand for repentance (that is, a command of God, a law) as part of the gospel content. That is to say, I cannot find one instance of what the Formula calls the “proper” meaning of gospel, a message of pure comfort, without any suggestion of obligation. And there are important theological reasons why that use does not occur.
基本上，新約中的「福音」是神的國度已經在耶穌身上臨到的好消息（太四23，九35；可一14；路四43；徒廿24）。（注3）「國度」是：(1) 神的權能；(2) 祂主權的權柄，以及(3) 祂進入歷史打敗撒但，並帶來救恩及其全部的後果（注4）。神的國度包括祂在歷史中所有的大能作為，特別包括了基督的復活。Essentially, the “gospel” in the NT is the good news that the kingdom of God has come in Jesus (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14, Luke 4:43, Acts 20:24f).3 “Kingdom” is (1) God’s sovereign power, (2) his sovereign authority, and (3) his coming into history to defeat Satan and bring about salvation with all its consequences.4 God’s kingdom power includes all his mighty acts in history, especially including the Resurrection of Christ.
神國度的權柄是祂的誡命的重述。當國度以權能出現，就是人悔改的時候。他們必須聽從（hupakouo）福音（帖後一8；比較彼前四17的「信從」[apeitheo]）。福音本身要求某種的行為（徒十四15；加二14；腓一27；參羅二15）。God’s kingdom authority is the reiteration of his commandments. When the kingdom appears in power, it is time for people to repent. They must obey (hupakouo) the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8, compare apeitheo in 1 Pet. 4:17). The gospel itself requires a certain kind of conduct (Acts 14:15, Gal. 2:14, Phil. 1:27; cf. Rom 2:16).
當神進入歷史，被造物就承受了祂的權能和權柄。祂以天國的權能設立和平。因此新約作者經常提到「和平的福音」（弗六15；參照徒十36；羅十15），有時候提到神使外邦人和猶太人成為一個身體的這個「奧秘」（羅十六25；弗六19）。When God comes into history, he brings his power and authority to bear on his creatures. In kingdom power, he establishes peace. So NT writers frequently refer to the “gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15; cf. Acts 10:36, Rom. 10:15), sometimes referring to the “mystery” of God bringing Gentiles and Jews together in one body (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 6:19).
福音是這整個綜合體：神拯救的能力，神的命令的一再復述，以及祂要進入歷史執行祂的計劃，這就是福音。知道神要讓祂良善的計劃開花結果，的確是好消息。It is this whole complex: God’s power to save, the reiteration of God’s commands, and his coming into history to execute his plan, that is the gospel. It is good news to know that God is bringing his good plans to fruition.
思考以賽亞書五十二7，這是新約有關福音最重要的背景經文：Consider Isa. 52:7, one of the most important background passages for the New Testament concept of gospel:
那報佳音，傳平安，報好信，傳救恩的，對錫安說：
你的神作王了！
這人的腳登山何等佳美！
How beautiful upon the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
Who publishes salvation,
Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” (ESV)
神的統治就是那好消息，這個會確保和平和救恩的消息。It is the reign of God that is good news, news that ensures peace and salvation.
即使要求人悔改也是好消息，因為在上下文中，它暗示神雖然在權能中降臨來伸張祂的主權，也願意為著基督的緣故而赦免人。Even the demand for repentance is good news, because in context it implies that God, though coming in power to claim his rights, is willing to forgive for Christ’s sake.
因此，福音就一個很重要的意義來說，包含了律法：神國度的權柄，祂對悔改的要求。即使對那些非常執著於律法/福音之區別的人來說，福音也包括了「相信」的命令，畢竟，「相信」也是命令；就類別而言，它是律法。而和十誡一樣，這個律法對那些只想信賴自己的資源，而不信賴其他人的憐憫的人來說，也是非常駭人的。而且信心的命令也包括其他的要求：我先前提到的成就福音的行為。信心本身要靠愛來成全（加五6），沒有行為，它就是死的（雅二17）。So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command tobelieve. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).
信心本身，和其他任何人類行為一樣，並不足夠讓任何人配得救恩。因此我們說到信心，並不是得救的基礎（ground），而是得救的工具（instrument）。信心使人得救，不是因為它配得上救恩，而是因為它伸出雙手，領受神在基督裏的恩典。然而，信心是義務（責任），而就這個角度來說，吩咐人相信就和神其他的吩咐一樣。因此我們不可能說這個吩咐，或律法，是排除在福音的信息之外的。Having faith does not merit salvation for anyone, any more than any other human act merits salvation. Thus we speak of faith, not as the ground of salvation, but as the instrument. Faith saves, not because it merits salvation, but because it reaches out to receive God’s grace in Christ. Nevertheless, faith is an obligation, and in that respect the command to believe is like other divine commands. So it is impossible to say that command, or law, is excluded from the message of the gospel.
律法包含了福音，這也是真實的。神賜下律法作為聖約的一部分，而此聖約是神的恩典的禮物。十誡是這樣開始的：「我是耶和華你的神，曾將你從埃及地為奴之家領出來。」神是在宣告祂拯救的恩典之後，才向以色列發佈祂的命令的。因此，十誡作為一個整體，具有提供以色列一種新的生活方式的功能，是藉著恩典來賦予的（參照申命記七7-8，九4-6）。十誡是「律法」還是「福音」？當然它二者兼具。以色列聽到十誡時感到害怕，這是必然的（出廿18-21）。但事實上它提供了祝福（6節）和應許（12節）。摩西和先知就足以讓罪人免於在地獄中滅亡（太十六31）。It is also true that law includes gospel. God gives his law as part of a covenant, and that covenant is a gift of God’s grace. The decalogue begins, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land ofEgypt, out of the house of slavery.” Only after proclaiming his saving grace does God then issue his commands to Israel. So the decalogue as a whole has the function of offering Israel a new way of life, conferred by grace (cf. Deut. 7:7-8, 9:4-6). Is the decalogue “law” or “gospel?” Surely it is both. Israel was terrified upon hearing it, to be sure (Ex. 20:18-21). But in fact it offers blessing (note verse 6) and promise (verse 12). Moses and the Prophets are sufficient to keep sinners from perishing in Hell (Matt. 16:31).
因此，顯明地區隔律法和福音，在仔細的分析下是站不住腳的。如此，在律法和福音內，神都宣告了祂拯救的作為，祂也要求祂的百姓以順服祂的吩咐來回應。「律法」和「福音」有各自的偏重，但它們是彼此重疊和交叉的。它們是從不同的視角呈現神整體的話語。的確，我們可以說聖經作為一個整體，同時是律法（因為整體來說，它以神的權柄說話，並要求人相信）和福音（因為整體來說，它對墮落的人類是好消息）。缺少了另一個視角，每個概念都是無意義的。每個概念都包含了彼此。So the definitions that sharply separate law and gospel break down on careful analysis. In both law and gospel, then, God proclaims his saving work, and he demands that his people respond by obeying his commands. The terms “law” and “gospel” differ in emphasis, but they overlap and intersect. They present the whole Word of God from different perspectives. Indeed, we can say that our Bible as a whole is both law (because as a whole it speaks with divine authority and requires belief) and gospel (because as a whole it is good news to fallen creatures). Each concept is meaningless apart from the other. Each implies the other.
律法通常會帶來恐懼，這是必然的。當神對罪的震怒展現在西乃山，以色列人感到驚嚇（出廿18-21）。但它也為已經得贖的心帶來喜悅（詩一2；比較一一九34-36，47，92，97，130，131；羅七22）。同樣，福音帶來安慰和喜樂；但（在神學文獻中較少提及的）它也帶來定罪。保羅說他宣講福音，對那些滅亡的人來說，「就作了死的香氣叫他死」，而對那些相信的人來說，「就作了活的香氣叫他活」（林後二15-16；比較林前一18，23，27-29；林後四3-4；羅九32）。福音對那些相信的人來說，是好消息。但是對那些想要靠自己的義拯救自己的人來說，是壞消息。它是神對他們的定罪，是冒犯人的石頭。The law often brings terror, to be sure. Israel was frightened by the Sinai display of God’s wrath against sin (Ex. 20:18-21). But it also brings delight to the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22). Similarly, the gospel brings comfort and joy; but (as less often noted in the theological literature) it also brings condemnation. Paul says that his gospel preaching is, to those who perish, “a fragrance from death to death” and, to those who believe, “a fragrance from life to life” (2 Cor. 2:15-16; compare 1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 27-29, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Rom. 9:32). The gospel is good news to those who believe. But to those who are intent on saving themselves by their own righteousness, it is bad news. It is God’s condemnation upon them, a rock of offense.
3. 何者優先？3. Which Comes First?
在律法和福音的討論中，我們常常會聽到，很重要的不只是要宣講律法和福音，也要先宣講律法，然後再宣講福音。我們被告知，人們必須先被律法所震懾，然後才會被驅使去尋求在基督裏的救恩。當然，宣講神的標準，人的順服以及神對罪的震怒有很大的需要，特別是在我們這個時代，人們以為神會容許我們隨心所欲，愛怎麼樣就怎麼樣。而當聖靈使他們扎心知罪，認識到他們違背了律法時，會驅使他們在悔改中下跪。In discussions of law and gospel, one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second. We are told that people must be frightened by the law before they can be driven to seek salvation in Christ. Certainly there is a great need to preach God’s standards, man’s disobedience, and God’s wrath against sin, especially in an age such as ours where people think God will let them behave as they like. And very often people have been driven to their knees in repentance when the Spirit has convicted them of their transgressions of law.
但是如我們所見，要呈現律法而不呈現福音，或福音而沒有律法，真的是不可能的──雖然各種相對的強調還是可能的。而在這些相對的強調當中，聖經的模式傾向於把福音放在前頭。正如我們所見，這是十誡的模式：神首先宣告祂已經拯救祂的百姓（福音），然後要求他們以祂的聖約子民的身分來行事為人（律法）。既然律法和福音都是神的聖約的面向，這個模式就遍布在聖經當中。But as we have seen, it is really impossible truly to present law without gospel or gospel without law, though various relative emphases are possible. And among those relative emphases, the biblical pattern tends to put the gospel first. That is the pattern of the decalogue, as we have seen: God proclaims that he has redeemed his people (gospel), then asks them to behave as his covenant people (law). Since both gospel and law are aspects of God’s covenants, that pattern pervades Scripture.
耶穌在祂的傳道中反映了這個模式。在約翰福音第4章，耶穌告訴撒瑪利亞婦人，祂會賜給她生命的活水，使她永遠不渴。在祂提出這個禮物之後，才向她宣告律法，曝露她的奸淫。有些人會引用路加福音十八18-30作為相反的次序的例子：耶穌先闡述誡命，然後才告訴那富有的官跟隨祂。但在這段經文中，耶穌並沒有單單使用律法來恐嚇此人，或讓他陷入絕望當中。在耶穌呼召他作門體之後，那人的確失望地走了。這個呼召，本身雖然是命令，卻是這段經文中的福音。Jesus reflects that pattern in his own evangelism. In John 4, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that he can give her living water that will take away all thirst. Only after offering that gift does he proclaim the law to her, exposing her adultery. Some have cited Luke 18:18—30 as an example of the contrary order: Jesus expounds the commandments, and only afterward tells the rich ruler to follow him. But in this passage Jesus does not use the law alone to terrorize the man or to plunge him into despair. The man does go sadly away only after Jesus has called him to discipleship, which, though itself a command, is the gospel of this passage.
4. 「保羅新觀」和保羅的福音4. The “New Perspective” and Paul’s Gospel
在討論福音的意義時，鑒於使徒保羅總是被帶到最前線，這裏應該要提到最近學術界提到的「保羅新觀」（new perspective on Paul），這是根據Krister Stendahl，桑德斯（E. P. Sanders），James D. G. Dunn等人的著作。那個觀點認為，根據保羅，猶太教的問題不是行為的義，而是它未能接受在基督裏的新約，沒有同時擁抱外邦人和猶太人。在這個觀點下，保羅的福音不是為了回答某人受困擾的良心，無法滿足神的要求，而是應驗了神對亞伯拉罕要祝福萬國的應許。保羅所反對的「律法的行為」，不是人滿足神的道德律的嘗試（譯按：想靠行為稱義），而是猶太人和外邦人的區別，例如割禮，飲食律和潔淨律（譯按：即在聖約之內的行為）。Since the apostle Paul is most often in the forefront in discussions of the meaning of gospel, something should perhaps be said here about the “new perspective on Paul” in recent scholarship, based on writings of Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and others. In that perspective, the problem with Judaism, according to Paul, was not works righteousness, but its failure to accept God’s new covenant in Christ, which embraced Gentiles as well as Jews. On this perspective, Paul’s gospel is not an answer to the troubled conscience of someone who can’t meet God’s demands. Rather, it is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations. The “works of the law” against which Paul contends are not man’s attempts to satisfy God’s moral law, but the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles such as circumcision, food laws, and cleansings.
關於這個新觀點的討論是非常複雜的，會牽涉到有關保羅那個時代巴勒斯坦猶太教的本質，保羅自己的歷史，以及對一些關鍵經文的解釋。我無法用一篇短論文來討論這個爭議。我的確同意那些人的看法，認為桑德斯在他使用的巴勒斯坦猶太教的參考資料時，是太過於挑剔的；我也相信新觀未能有效地處理一些保羅的經文，例如羅四4-5，十一6；弗二8-10；腓三9，這些經文都很清楚說明保羅反對的，不只是猶太人和外邦人之間的律法的阻隔，更是人們想靠自己的工作拯救自己的嘗試。路德關於唯獨恩典和唯獨信心的教義，是完全符合聖經，完全符合保羅的。（注5）Discussions of this new perspective are very complex, entering into details about the nature of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Paul, Paul’s own history, and the exegesis of crucial texts. I cannot enter this controversy in a short paper. I do agree with those who believe that Sanders and others have been too selective in their references to Palestinian Judaism, and I believe that the new perspective fails to deal adequately with a number of Pauline passages, such as Rom. 4:4-5, 11:6, Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 3:9, which make plain that Paul rejects, not only legal barriers between Jew and Gentile, but also all attempts of people to save themselves by their works. Luther’s doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide are fully scriptural and fully Pauline.5
但是新觀很合理地警告我們，不要把保羅的福音簡化為只是靠信心稱義。保羅對猶太人的挑戰是多方面的，他的福音也處理了許多不同的議題，如同我先前的討論所暗指的。But the new perspective legitimately warns us against reducing Paul’s gospel to soteric justification by faith. Paul’s confrontation with the Jews was on several fronts. And his gospel deals with a number of different issues, as my earlier discussion also implies.
5. 使用傳統區分的合理性5. Legitimate Use of the Traditional Distinction
如果有人為了特定的神學目的，要把福音作狹義的定義，我也不會強烈反對。聖經並沒有給我們英文用法的詞彙表。有一些技術性的神學用詞，和聖經裏類似的詞的意義，並不完全等同。「重生」和「揀選」是其中的例子，「聖約」也是。（注6）只要這些定義不會在我們的讀者當中製造混亂，我們可以隨自己的意思來定義英文的語詞。Now if people want to define gospel more narrowly for a specific theological purpose, I won’t object too strongly. Scripture does not give us a glossary of English usage. A number of technical theological terms don’t mean exactly what similar terms sometimes mean in the Bible. Regeneration and election are examples, as is covenant.6 We can define our English terms pretty much as we like, as long as those definitions don’t create confusion in our readers.
一直以來，我們已經習慣把福音當作是和信心有關，而律法是和行為有關。在這種用法中，律法是定罪的，而福音是拯救人的。雖然這個用法和聖經對這些詞的用法有所不同，在一些背景下，它的確是有用的。例如，我們都知道有一種講道是只闡述道德的義務（即我們通常的看法：不可殺人，不可偷盜），而沒有把他們要得救所需要的基督的知識傳遞給聽眾。我們通常把這種講道（尤其是沒有以其他的講道強調來加以平衡時）描述為只是宣講律法，是律法主義或道德主義的講道。這是沒有福音的講道。因此，我們傾向於說，這不是在宣講福音。所以，籠統來說，我們會區分律法式的講道和福音式的講道。我認為，這是協和信條最關心的：它提醒我們，講道時兩者都不可偏廢。Over the years, we have come to think of gospel as correlative with faith and law as correlative with works. In this usage, law is what condemns and gospel is what saves. Although this distinction differs from the biblical uses of the terms, it does become useful in some contexts. For example, we all know a type of preaching that merely expounds moral obligations (as we usually think of them: don’t kill, don’t steal) and does not give its hearers the knowledge of Christ they need to have in order to be saved. That kind of preaching (especially when it is not balanced by other preaching emphases) we often describe as a preaching of merelaw, legalism, or moralism. There is no good news in it. So, we are inclined to say, it is not preaching of the gospel. So in this general way we come to distinguish the preaching of law from the preaching of gospel. That is, I think, the main concern of the Formula: to remind us that we need to do both things.
當然，我們必須提醒自己，這會有另一個極端：宣講「福音」到一個地步，暗示基督對我們的人生沒有任何要求。我們稱這種福音是「廉價恩典」（cheap grace）或「輕信主義」（easy believism）。我們也可以稱此為宣講「沒有律法的福音」。它的極端是反律法主義，拒絕神的律法。傳統的律法/福音的區別，本身不是反律法的，但是持守這種區分的人，對律法主義的危險的敏感，更甚於反律法主義的危險。We should be reminded of course that there is also an opposite extreme: preaching “gospel” in such a way as to suggest that Christ makes no demands on one’s life. We call that “cheap grace” or “easy believism.” We might also call it preaching “gospel without law.” Taken to an extreme, it is antinomianism, the rejection of God’s law. The traditional law/gospel distinction is not itself antinomian, but those who hold it tend to be more sensitive to the dangers of legalism than to the dangers of antinomianism.
這種考量會引導我們以一種含糊的方式來區分宣講律法和宣講福音。當然，即使進行這種區分，我們的目的應該是要把它們合並在一起。所有的這些考慮都不要求我們作鮮明的區分。而當然，這個大致的區別不應該被用來讓我們懷疑命令和應許的整合，這是遍布在聖經之內的。Such considerations may lead us to distinguish in a rough-and-ready way between preaching of the law and preaching of the gospel. Of course, even in making that distinction, our intention ought to be to bring these together. None of these considerations requires us to posit a sharp distinction. And certainly, this rough-and-ready distinction should never be used to cast doubt on the integration of command and promise that pervades the Scriptures themselves.
很明顯，以上描述的那種「律法主義者」的講道，不是真正宣講律法的講道，也不是真正宣講福音的講道。因為正如我先前指出的，在聖經中，律法本身是包含在恩典之內臨到我們的。It should be evident that “legalist” preaching as described above is not true preaching of law, any more than it is true preaching of the gospel. For as I indicated earlier, law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.
6. 律法/福音和基督徒生活6. Law/Gospel and the Christian Life
協和信條對律法和福音所作的區分，會對基督徒生活帶來很不幸的後果。這份文件的確要求要對重生的人宣講律法（注7），但僅止於威脅和恐嚇，好驅使他們就近基督，見《概略》，第6章，第4條。這裏完全沒有律法是得贖者心中所喜悅的意思（詩一2；比較一一九34-36，47， 92，93，97，130，131；羅七22）。The Formula’s distinction between law and gospel has unfortunate consequences for the Christian life. The document does warrant preaching of the law to the regenerate,7 but only as threat and terror, to drive them to Christ Epitome, VI, 4. There is nothing here about the law as the delight of the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22).
信條接著說信徒的確要在聖靈的影響下遵行律法，但僅止於此：The Formula then goes on to say that believers do conform to the law under the influence of the Spirit, but only as follows:
然而，聖靈的果子，是住在信徒心中的神的聖靈，在重生的人身上所作的工作，由重生之人所完成（自動且自由的），有如他們不知道命令、危險或獎賞；因為神的兒女是以這種方式活在律法中，也根據神的律法行事為人。這種生活的模式是聖保羅在他的書信中所說的，基督的律法和心志的律法（Law of the mind），見羅七25；八7；八2；加六2。（《概略》，第6章，第5條）Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7, 25; 8, 7; Rom. 8, 2; Gal. 6, 2. (Epitome, VI, 5).
所以， 律法可以威脅我們，驅使我們就近基督。但真正的好行為不是任何的命令、威脅或獎賞所驅動的。So the law may threaten us to drive us to Christ. But truly good works are never motivated by any command, threat or reward.
依我看，這種教導是不合聖經的。它暗示說當你出於順服神的命令、威脅或獎賞的影響來行事，在某種程度上就是被不義所污染，比真正的善工低一個檔次。我同意說我們最好的工作也受到罪的污染，但當然不是這個理由。當聖經告訴我們一個命令，順服這個命令就是義的行動。實在說，我們的義是由我們順服神的命令來衡量的。當神以懲罰威脅我們，而當我們遠離邪惡，作祂所要求的，那不是罪，而是正當的回應。當神應許給我們獎賞，我們擁抱這個獎賞就是件好事。In my view, this teaching is simply unbiblical. It suggests that when you do something in obedience to a divine command, threat, or promise of reward, it is to that extent tainted, unrighteous, something less than a truly good work. I agree that our best works are tainted by sin, but certainly not for this reason. When Scripture presents us with a command, obedience to that command is a righteous action. Indeed, our righteousness is measured by our obedience to God’s commands. When God threatens punishment, and we turn from wickedness to do what he asks, that is not a sin, but a righteous response. When God promises reward, it is a good thing for us to embrace that reward.
我們應當完全離開神的話的警告而行事的這個觀念，是很可怕的觀念。忽略神對祂的公義的啟示，究其實，在根本上是有罪的。讀過聖經，卻拒絕讓其命令影響我們的行為，是罪的本質。The notion that we should conduct our lives completely apart from the admonitions of God’s word is a terrible notion. To ignore God’s revelation of his righteousness is, indeed, essentially sinful. To read Scripture, but refuse to allow its commands to influence one’s conduct, is the essence of sin.
那麼，如果不是命令、威脅和聖經中獎賞的應許，究竟是什麼驅使我們行善呢？信條沒有說。它所暗示的是聖靈直接使我們打從內心來順服。我相信聖靈的確是這樣作的。但是協和信條似乎是假設聖靈的工作並不包括讓人根據神的命令來決定采取行動。我認為這是錯的。「寧靜主義」（Quietism）的看法是基督徒要完全被動，等候神的聖靈在他們裏面行事。這種基督徒生活的觀點是不合聖經的。基督徒的生活是一場爭戰，一場賽跑。它需要抉擇與努力。我不是說協和信條是寧靜主義（路德宗人士在經過一些爭辯後，拒絕了寧靜主義），但是當我們閱讀信條的立場時，寧靜主義似乎就在它的轉角不遠。And what, then, does motivate good works, if not the commands, threats, and promises of reward in Scripture? The Formula doesn’t say. What it suggests is that the Spirit simply brings about obedience from within us. I believe the Spirit does exactly that. But the Formula seems to assume that the Spirit works that way without any decision on our part to act according to the commands of God. That I think is wrong. “Quietism” is the view that Christians should be entirely passive, waiting for the Spirit of God to act in them. This view of the Christian life is unbiblical. The Christian life is a battle, a race. It requires decision and effort. I am not saying that the Formula is quietist (Lutheranism rejected quietism after some controversy in its ranks), but as we read the position of the Formula, it does seem that quietism lies around the corner from it.
7. 客觀與主觀7. The Objective and the Subjective
我相信，對基督徒生活持這種觀點，其中的一個動機是認為一個人的生命必須根據客觀的事實，而不是主觀的看法。針對這個觀點，我們的生活是建立在基督為我們所作的基礎上，是歷史上客觀的事，而不是來自我們自己主觀的看法或出於內心。因此，在這種觀點下，福音是重述神為我們所完成的，而不是一種命令，以激起我們主觀的回應。Part of the motivation for this view of the Christian life, I believe, is the thought that one’s life should be based on something objective, rather than something subjective. On this view, our life is built on what Christ has done for us, objectively in history, not on anything arising from our own subjectivity or inwardness. So in this view, gospel is a recitation of what God has done for us, not a command to provoke our subjective response.
這種理解是把焦點放在稱義之上：神是為了基督的緣故，在客觀上看我們是義的，而不是在我們裏面有什麼義。但是它傾向於忽略重生和成聖：神的確在被稱義的人身上做工，產生真正主觀的改變。This understanding focuses on justification: God regards us as objectively righteous for Christ’s sake, apart from anything in us. But it tends to neglect regeneration and sanctification: that God does work real subjective changes in the justified.
我對這種對稱義的理解沒有意見。但是在聖經中，雖然稱義的根據是外在於我們的基督的工作，但是它是透過主觀的信心來擁抱的；而信心是聖靈主觀的重生的工作（約三3）（注8）。因此，沒有人是在主觀上未被神的恩典改變，就在客觀上被稱義的。I have no quarrel with this understanding of justification. But in Scripture, though justification is based on the work of Christ external to us, it is embraced by faith, which is subjective. And faith, in turn, is the result of the Spirit’s subjective work of regeneration (John 3:3).8 So nobody is objectively justified who has not been subjectively changed by God’s grace.
因此，威敏思特信仰告白18.2，在說到得救的確據時，甚至不只提到神的應許這個真理（客觀的），也提到「這些恩典的內在證據」以及「使人成為後嗣的聖靈的見證」──這些在一定程度上是主觀的。事實上，我們無法分割客觀和主觀。客觀的真理是由主觀來領受的。我們不能擁有客觀的知識、自信或確據，除非我們在主觀上能領受神在客觀上所賜給我們的。So the Westminster Confession of Faith 18.2, even in speaking of assurance of salvation, refers not only to the truth of God’s promises (objective), but also to the “inward evidence of those graces” and “the testimony of the Spirit of adoption,” which are in some measure subjective. In fact, we cannot separate the objective and the subjective. Objective truths are subjectively apprehended. We cannot have objective knowledge, confidence, or assurance, unless we are subjectively enabled to perceive what God has objectively given us.
8. 兩個國度8. The Two Kingdoms
我們也應該要提到有關基督與文化的「兩個國度」的看法，這是汲取自律法和福音的鮮明區分（注9）。一般而言，這個觀點認為有兩個神的國度，其一，如同路德的說法，是神左手的國度，另一個是神右手的國度。前者是屬世的，後者是神聖的。神以律法來統治前一個國度，而以神的話和聖靈來統治後一個國度。We should also note the “two kingdoms” view of Christ and culture, that draws on the sharp distinction between law and gospel.9 In general, that view states that there are two kingdoms of God, one, as Luther put it, the kingdom of God’s left hand, the other the kingdom of his right hand. The former is secular, the latter sacred. In the former, God rules by law, in the latter, by his word and Spirit.
問題是這兩個國度的教義是宣稱一種二分法（duality），不只是在律法和福音上，也是在神的標準，祂的規範（norm）上。有世俗的價值和宗教的價值，世俗的規範和宗教的規範。世俗社會只對自然律（natural laws）──即在自然界中所能發現的道德──負責。因此，Gene Veith說，「道德不是宗教的事務。」（注10）教會只臣服於福音之下，但從一個次要的角度來看（如同我們在上面看到的），教會也應臣服在律法和福音，神的話全部的內容下。因此，雖然基督徒可以參與到一般的文化當中，他不應該試圖去使它基督化，讓它變成一個基督教的文化。沒有基督教文化這種事；只有世俗文化，和基督教會。當然，我們也不應該試圖把世俗的標準帶到教會裏，例如，世俗的音樂。（注11）The problem is that the two-kingdom doctrine claims a duality, not only between law and gospel as such, but also in God’s standards, his norms. There are secular values and religious values, secular norms and religious norms. Secular society is responsible only to natural laws, the morality found in nature. So, Gene Veith says, “morality is not a matter of religion.”10 The church is subject primarily to the gospel, but in a secondary sense (as we have seen above) subject to both law and gospel, the whole content of the word of God. Therefore, although the Christian can participate in the general culture, he should not seek to Christianize it, to turn it into a Christian culture. There is no such thing as a Christian culture; there is only secular culture, and a Christian church. Nor, of course, should he try to bring secular standards into the church: secular music, for instance.11
的確，我們不應該藉著世俗的權力強迫未重生的人變成基督徒。教會沒有佩劍的能力。然而，公民社會不存在兩種神的規範，只有一種，即聖經裏的規範。道德是宗教所最強調的。未重生的人透過自然啟示，對神的律法有一定的知識（羅一32），但信徒透過聖經的鏡片會看得更清楚。聖經對公民政府的看法，並未要求我們強迫不信的人在所有的方面都像基督徒有同樣的舉止，但是它的確呼召我們在某些領域節制他們（及我們！）的罪。我們應該在社會中積極推廣這些屬神的標準。（注12）It is true that we should not try to force unregenerate people to become Christians through civil power. The church does not have the power of the sword. Nevertheless, there are not two sets of divine norms for civil society, only one. And those norms are in the Bible. Morality is most emphatically a matter of religion. The unregenerate have some knowledge of God’s law through natural revelation (Rom. 1:32), but believers see that law more clearly through the spectacles of Scripture. The biblical view of civil government does not require us to force unbelievers to behave as Christians in every way, but it does call upon us to restrain their (and our!) sin in certain areas. We should be active in society to promote those godly standards.12
總結Concluding Observation
把律法和福音作鮮明的區分，在改革宗圈子和路德宗圈子裏，是越來越普遍了。這是加州威敏思特神學院，現代宗教改革雜誌，和白馬客棧廣播節目的看法。這些機構的領袖很堅持說他們的看法是聖經對這個問題的唯一看法。最近有人宣稱，如果有人有不同的看法，就是與宗教改革分道揚鑣，甚至否認福音本身。對這種看法，我們必須按《協和信條》所稱的「適當的」意義，來使用福音這個詞，而不是按聖經的觀點。我相信我們應該堅持聖經的看法，反對這種傳統。The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.
註：NOTES:
[1] Lutheran theologians, however, frequently complain that Reformed theology “confuses” law and gospel, which is in the Lutheran view a grave error. The main difference is that for the Reformed law is not merely an accuser, but also a message of divine comfort, a delight of the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2). Also, the Reformed generally do not give the law/gospel distinction as much prominence within their systematic theological formulations. And, historically, they have been more open to the broader biblical language which the Lutheran Formula of Concord calls “correct” but not “proper” (see below).
[2] The passage cited by the formula, Acts 20:21, does not use the euaggello root, the usual term for “gospel” and “gospel preaching,” but the term diamarturomai. But Acts 20:21 is nevertheless significant, since it gives a general description of what Paul did in his preaching to “both Jews and Greeks.” That preaching was certainly gospel preaching. Paul resolved in his preaching to “know nothing but Christ and him crucified.” Luke 24:47 is also significant, for it includes both repentance and forgiveness of sins as the content Jesus gives his disciples to preach (kerusso) to all nations.
[3] N. T. Wright believes that this use of gospel has a double root: “On the one hand, the gospel Paul preached was the fulfilment of the message of Isaiah 40 and 52, the message of comfort for Israel and of hope for the whole world, because YHWH, the god of Israel, was returning to Zion to judge and redeem. On the other hand, in the context into which Paul was speaking, “gospel” would mean the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor. Though no doubt petty kingdoms might use the word for themselves, in Paul’s world the main ‘gospel’ was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar,” “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” available at http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm. Of course both of these uses focus on the rule of God as Lord, and both involve what is traditionally called law.
[4] This a triad of the sort expounded in my Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg: P&R Publications, 1987), Doctrine of God (forthcoming from the same publisher in 2002) and elsewhere.
[5] Although I am critical of the general stance of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and their publication Modern Reformation on this issue, I would strongly recommend Kim Riddlebarger’s essay, “Reformed Confessionalism and the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul,” available at the Alliance web site, www.alliancenet.org, as an excellent introduction to this discussion. I fully endorse the conclusions of that article.
[6] The phrases “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace” found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, 7.2-4 are not found anywhere in Scripture. Covenant in Scripture refers to particular historical relationships between God and his people, mediated by Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. “Covenant of grace” generalizes the common features of these historical covenants, seeing them as successive manifestations of God’s redemptive Lordship. “Covenant of works” finds in God’s relation to our first parents features identical to his later covenants with, of course, significant differences.
[7] Theological literature speaks of three “uses of the law” : (1) to restrain sin in society, (2) to terrorize people in order to drive them to Christ, and (3) as a guide to believers. In Lutheranism (not in Reformed circles) there has been controversy over the third use, though the Formula affirms it. But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.” So the third use is essentially the second use directed at believers, driving us to Christ again and again and away from our residual unbelief. Reformed writers do not deny our continual need for Christ and the importance of hearing again and again that we are saved only by his grace. But in Reformed theology, the law also plays a more direct role, giving us specific guidance in God’s delightful paths.
[8] So, again, saving faith works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without works (James 2:14-26).
[9] See, for example, Gene Veith, “Christianity and Culture: God’s Double Sovereignty,” from The Whirlpool (Jan.-Feb., 1997), available at www.alliancenet.org.
[10] Ibid.
[11] There are, of course, reasons to criticize the use of secular music in the church other than the two-kingdoms concept. But if that concept is rejected, then the distinction between sacred and secular is relativized somewhat, and one must evaluate “secular” music piece-by-piece, rather than as a general category.
[12] In terms of the categories of H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (NY: Harper, 1951), we should be “transformationalists,” not “dualists.”
