作者: Tom Hicks 译者: Duncan Liang
是什么让一个“改革宗浸信会人士”有别于其他浸信会人士和改革宗人士？改革宗浸信会人士出自于英国宗教改革，在1640年代与主张婴孩洗礼的独立派教会脱离，这当中有一些非常具体的神学原因，他们持守一种特定的神学。以下是改革宗浸信会的一些神学标记。
1.敬拜的规范性原则。这种特色居首位，这是因为它是持守加尔文主义的浸信会人士与独立派婴孩洗礼人士分开的其中一个主要原因。特救（或改革宗）浸信会人士出于清教运动，清教运动努力要按照上帝的道改革英格兰教会，特别是它的敬拜。当因着劳德大主教的专权反对，改革变得不可能的时候，清教徒就从英格兰教会分离（或被开除）出去。在清教徒分离运动的独立派这一分支内部，一些人看到有需要把敬拜的规范性原则也应用在婴孩洗礼这问题上，认为这才是连贯一致践行出清教徒共有的思想观念，最早的浸信会人士相信公共敬拜的要素要局限于圣经所命令的。约翰福音4:23说：“那真正拜父的，要用心灵和诚实（真理）拜祂（也见太15:9）。圣经启示的“真理”把对上帝的敬拜限定在圣经吩咐的范围之内。《第二伦敦浸信会公认信条》22.1说：
敬拜真神惟一蒙悦纳的方法乃是由祂自己所设立的，并限于祂自己所启示的旨意，因此我们不可按照人的想象和设计，或撒但的建议，使用任何有形的代表物或圣经所未吩咐的其它任何方法去敬拜祂。
因为圣经并没有命令给婴孩施洗，早期的浸信会人士就相信在公众敬拜中应禁止给婴孩施洗，而是应当唯独给信徒施洗。这种敬拜的规范性原则把公共敬拜的元素限定为传讲和诵读上帝的道，洗礼和主餐的命礼，祷告，唱诗篇、赞美诗和灵歌，以及圣经命令的余下一切。
许多浸信会人士已经完全抛弃了敬拜的规范性原则，采用一种以娱乐为导向的敬拜，消费主义，个人偏好，情感主义和实用主义。这样的浸信会人士是已经抛弃了导致他们在一开始从婴孩洗礼这种观念脱离的那条原则。我们就会思考，如果一家教会离开了让浸信会当初从英格兰处境分离出来的教义，是否还可以正确自称是“浸信会”教会。
2.圣约神学。虽然主张婴孩洗礼的改革宗教会有时强调唯独他们是继承了正确的圣约神学，历史上的改革宗浸信会人士却宣称，他们抛弃婴孩洗礼这种做法，正是因为他们持守的圣经中的圣约神学。
改革宗浸信会人士与改革宗婴孩洗礼的人士意见一致，就是上帝与亚当立了一个行为之约，亚当违背了这约，因此给全人类带来定罪（罗5:18）。他们也说上帝满有怜悯，在基督里与祂的选民立了一个恩典之约（罗5:18），这恩典之约在旧约圣经中渐进启示出来，在基督死的时候，在新约中正式确立（来9:15-16）。在旧约之下，任何人要得救，唯一的方法就是靠着这在基督里的恩典之约，这样贯穿圣经当中，就只有一个福音，或只有一个拯救的应许。
但浸信会的圣约神学家认为，在基于圣约神学自己主张的新约圣经优先这一释经原则方面，他们要比他们持守婴孩洗礼的弟兄更前后连贯一致。按照新约圣经，旧约圣经对“你和你子孙”的应许最终是对基督的应许，祂是那位真正的后裔（加3:16）。亚伯拉罕肉身的子孙是对基督的一个预表，但基督祂自己是那实体。旧约包括了肉身的后裔，这并不是因为他们都是所应许的儿女，而是因为上帝在保守所应许的谱系，直到基督这位真正的后裔来到。现在基督已经来到，就不再有任何理由要维持一种肉身的谱系。而是唯有相信耶稣的人才是亚伯拉罕的子孙，真以色列人，新约的成员，主耶稣的教会（加3:7）。旧约和新约圣经都把“新约”启示为只是给相信的人的约，他们罪得赦免，有上帝的律法写在他们心上（来8:10-12）。
今天持守时代论的浸信会人士认为，亚伯拉罕肉身的后裔有权领受上帝对亚伯拉罕后裔的应许。但他们偏离了他们历史上的浸信会根源，偏离了他们前辈展现的圣经有机统一的释经理念。浸信会神学家格雷特（James Leo Garrett）正确指出，时代论是在大约一百五十年前才出现并“入侵”到浸信会神学当中的。见See James Leo
Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer,2009), 560-570.
3.加尔文主义。因为改革宗浸信会人士持守一种十七世纪的圣约神学，他们就都是加尔文主义者，从前这种圣约神学在神学方面定义的各个约，为早期浸信会人士的加尔文主义救恩论表述提供了雄厚基础。当亚当违背行为之约，上帝咒诅全人类，让他们有了全然败坏的本性（赛24:5-6），这就让他们不能、也不愿到基督这里来求得拯救。
但上帝并没有任凭人类死在罪中，而是在亘古的过去，无条件选择了一群人数确定的人得救，与基督立了一个救赎之约，为要拯救他们（赛53; 54:10; 路22:29）。在所定的时候，基督进入世界，遵守了救赎之约，满足了亚当破坏的行为之约的条件。在救赎之约中，耶稣完全遵守了上帝的律法，死在十字架上，为祂选民的罪赎罪，从死里复活，为他们有效稳妥得到了拯救（来9:12）。
上帝与他的选民立下恩典之约（创3:15.来8:15-16），祂在这约中，把由基督在救赎之约中用功劳得到的一切生命祝福赐给人。圣灵满有怜悯，在恩典之约当中将上帝的选民与基督联系在一起，赐给他们由基督的生死买赎回来的生命祝福。上帝有效呼召他们，不可抗拒地把他们吸引到祂自己这里来（约6:37），给他们一颗活的心（结36:26），活的信心和悔改（弗2:8-9；徒11:18），称义这使人活的判决（罗3:28），以及一种活的和持久的圣洁（林前1:30），让他们坚忍到底（林前1:8）。所有这一切生命祝福都是耶稣基督的功德，在救赎之约中买赎得到，施行在恩典之约当中。
早期浸信会人士的加尔文主义，就是在约的教义这种神学土壤中生长起来的。今天持守加尔文主义的浸信会人士需要重拾他们先辈丰富的圣约神学，好使他们已经重新发现的恩典教义可以得到保守，留给将来的世代。
4.上帝的律法。改革宗浸信会人士相信十诫概括了上帝的道德律（出20；太5；罗2:14-22）。他们相信，除非我们正确理解律法，否则就不能理解福音。福音是好消息，耶稣基督活出完全顺服的生命，赢得律法生命的祝福，为人代死，偿还了律法的刑罚，以此守住了律法，使我们得称为义。但福音不仅是称义的应许，也是一个好消息，基督应许施恩把圣灵赐给祂的百姓，杀灭他们不法的罪恶，使他们变得越来越遵守律法。提多书2:14说基督“为我们舍了自己，要赎我们脱离一切罪恶（不法），又洁净我们，特作自己的子民，热心为善”。
《第二伦敦浸信会公认信条》19.5说：
道德律永远是所有的人都应尽的责任，不管是已经称义的人，还是其他的人，都当顺服1；这不仅仅是因其所含的内容，也是因其颁布者造物主上帝的权威2。这种责任，基督在福音中，不仅丝毫没有废掉，反而更加强了3。
1罗13:8-10；雅2:8,10-12
2雅2:10-11
3太5:17-19；罗3:31
因此，虽然得称义的信徒脱离了作为行为之约的律法，不靠守律法赚取称义和永生（罗7:1-6），上帝却把祂的律法赐给他们，作他们成圣中的行事标准或生活准则（罗8:4, 7)。由十诫概括的上帝的道德律（罗2:14-24; 13:8-10;雅2:8-11），包括安息日的诫命（可 2:27; 来4:9-10），是在信徒生活当中成圣的工具。相信的人安息在基督里，以基督作他们全然的拯救。基督取了他们罪责和羞辱的重担，祂的百姓让他们负上祂律法的轭，从一位谦卑温柔的夫子那里学会顺服。约翰一书5:3说：“我们遵守上帝的诫命，这就是爱祂了，并且祂的诫命不是难守的。”
持守新圣约神学或渐进圣约神学的浸信会人士，他们对律法的看法，和他们浸信会先辈的主流观点是不一样的。
5.认信公认信条。在英格兰和美国的大多数早期浸信会人士持守1677年/1689年的《第二伦敦浸信会公认信条》。虽然肯定的是，并非所有持守加尔文主义的浸信会人士都认信这份公认信条，但它发表之后，在英格兰和美国浸信会人士当中发挥了主要的影响力。这份公认信条是建基于《威斯敏斯德公认信条》（长老会）和《萨伏伊宣言》（独立派教会），首先在1677年编辑发表，在1689年英国宗教逼迫结束之后由浸信会教会正式采纳。
历史上的改革宗浸信会人士是彻底认信公认信条的人。他们并不是赤裸裸的“拘泥圣经字句主义者”。拘泥圣经字句主义者不承认圣经没有明确表述的说法和教义具有合法性，他们不承认教会历史上的教导在圣经解释方面具有任何第二位的权威。但初期的浸信会人士认为，个体的教会成员或个体的牧师解释圣经时不应脱离教会历史上的教导（来13:17）。他们相信唯独圣经在教义和实践方面是全备的，但他们也相信人必须在教会解释传统的光照下解释和读圣经（提前3:15），这种传统使用了圣经以外的用词（使徒行传2:31是一个例子，驳斥了拘泥圣经字句主义，因它解释诗篇16篇时用了这篇诗篇没有使用的说法）。改革宗浸信会人士相信他们的神学是如锚稳稳扎根在教会丰富的神学传承之上，是在宗教改革中心性的洞见（唯独圣经：不给婴孩施洗；唯独信心：只有归正的人才是上帝的百姓）光照之下，对教会教义的自然发展。
今天许多基督徒以持守唯独圣经为借口，尝试独立读圣经，得出他们关于圣经意思的私人结论，却不参考教会授权的教师，或正统的公认信条。但这并不是“唯独圣经”在历史上的意思。圣经教导说，教会是“真理的柱石和根基”（提前3:15）。教会作为整体，得到上帝的嘱咐要解释圣经，上帝已经贯穿历史授权教会中的教师。因此，虽然每一个个体基督徒都有责任为自己理解圣经，却没有一位基督徒应当查考圣经，却丝毫不考虑过去伟大教师对圣经的教导。
历史上大多数改革宗浸信会人士持守《第二伦敦浸信会公认信条》，因他们相信它是一份神学概论，在小范围内最好概括了圣经的教导。
What
is a Reformed Baptist?
http://founders.org/2017/03/30/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/
What
is it that makes a “Reformed Baptist” distinct from other kinds of Baptists and
Reformed folks? Reformed Baptists grew out of the English Reformation, emerging
from Independent paedobaptist churches in the 1640’s for some very specific
theological reasons, and they held to a particular kind of theology. Here are
some of the theological identity markers of Reformed Baptist churches.
1.
The Regulative Principle of Worship. This distinctive is put first because it
is one of the main reasons Calvinistic Baptists separated from the Independent
paedobaptists. The Particular (or Reformed) Baptists come from Puritanism,
which sought to reform the English church according to God’s Word, especially
its worship. When that became impossible due to Laud’s authoritative
opposition, the Puritans separated (or were removed) from the English church.
Within the Independent wing of Puritan separation, some of them saw a need to
apply the regulative principle of worship to infant baptism as well,
considering this to be the consistent outworking of the common Puritan mindset.
The earliest Baptists believed that the elements of public worship are limited
to what Scripture commands. John 4:23 says, “True worshippers will worship the
Father in spirit and truth” (see also Matt 15:9). The revealed “truth” of
Scripture limits the worship of God to what is prescribed in Scripture. The
Second London Baptist Confession 22.1 says:
The
acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so
limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to
the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any
visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy
Scriptures.
Because
the Bible does not command infant baptism, early Baptists believed that infant
baptism is forbidden in public worship, and the baptism of believers alone is
to be practiced in worship. This regulative principle of worship limits the
elements of public worship to the Word preached and read, the ordinances of
baptism and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, the singing of Psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs, and whatever else the Scripture commands.
Many
Baptists today have completely abandoned the regulative principle of worship in
favor of entertainment-oriented worship, consumerism, individual preferences,
emotionalism, and pragmatism. Such Baptists have abandoned the very principle
that led to their initial emergence from paedobaptism. One wonders whether a
church can depart from a doctrine necessary to the emergence of Baptists in
their English context and still rightly identify as a “Baptist” church.
2.
Covenant Theology. While Reformed paedobaptist churches sometimes insist that
they alone are the heirs of true covenant theology, historic Reformed Baptists
claimed to abandon the practice of infant baptism precisely because of the
Bible’s covenant theology.
Reformed
Baptists agree with Reformed paedobaptists that God made a covenant of works
with Adam, which he broke and so brought condemnation on the whole human race
(Rom 5:18). They also say that God mercifully made a covenant of grace with His
elect people in Christ (Rom 5:18), which is progressively revealed in the Old
Testament and formally established in the new covenant at the death of Christ
(Heb 9:15-16). The only way anyone was saved under the old covenant was by
virtue of this covenant of grace in Christ, such that there is only one gospel,
or one saving promise, running through the Scriptures.
Baptist
covenant theologians, however, believe they are more consistent than their
paedobaptist brothers with respect to covenant theology’s own hermeneutic of
New Testament priority. According to the New Testament, the Old Testament
promise to “you and your seed” was ultimately made to Christ, the true seed
(Gal 3:16). Abraham’s physical children were a type of Christ, but Christ
Himself is the reality. The physical descendants were included in the old
covenant, not because they are all children of the promise, but because God was
preserving the line of promise, until Christ, the true seed, came. Now that
Christ has come, there is no longer any reason to preserve a physical line.
Rather, only those who believe in Jesus are sons of Abraham, true Israelites,
members of the new covenant, and the church of the Lord Jesus (Gal 3:7). In
both the Old and New Testaments, the “new covenant” is revealed to be a
covenant of believers only, who are forgiven of their sins, and have God’s law
written on their hearts (Heb 8:10-12).
Baptists
today who adhere to dispensationalism believe that the physical offspring of
Abraham are the rightful recipients of the promises of God to Abraham’s seed.
But they have departed from their historic Baptist roots and from the
hermeneutical vision of the organic unity of the Bible cast by their
forefathers. Baptist theologian James Leo Garrett correctly notes that
dispensationalism is an “incursion” into Baptist theology, which only emerged
in the last one hundred fifty years or so. See James Leo Garrett, Baptist
Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer, 2009), 560-570.
3.
Calvinism. Because Reformed Baptists held to the covenant theology (federalism)
of the 17th century, they were all Calvinists. The theological covenants of the
old federal theology undergirded the early Baptist expressions of their
Calvinistic soteriology. When Adam broke the covenant of works, God cursed all
human beings with totally depraved natures (Isa 24:5-6), making them unable and
unwilling to come to Christ for salvation.
But
God didn’t leave the human race to die in sin; rather, in eternity past, God
unconditionally chose a definite number of people for salvation and formed a
covenant of redemption with Christ about their salvation (Isa 53; 54:10; Lk
22:29). At the appointed time, Christ came into the world and obeyed the
covenant of redemption, fulfilling the terms of the covenant of works that Adam
broke. In the covenant of redemption, Jesus kept God’s law perfectly, died on
the cross, atoned for the sins of His chosen people, and rose from the dead,
having effectually secured salvation for them (Heb 9:12).
God
made the covenant of grace with His elect people (Gen 3:15; Heb 8:15-16) in
which He applies all the blessings of life merited by Christ in the covenant of
redemption. The Holy Spirit mercifully unites God’s chosen people to Christ in
the covenant of grace, giving them blessings of life purchased by Christ’s life
and death. God irresistibly draws them to Himself in their effectual calling
(Jn 6:37), gives them a living heart (Ezek 36:26), a living faith and
repentance (Eph 2:8-9; Acts 11:18), a living verdict of justification (Rom
3:28), and a living and abiding holiness (1 Cor 1:30), causing them to
persevere to the end (1 Cor 1:8). All of these life-blessings are the merits of
Jesus Christ, purchased in the covenant of redemption, applied in the covenant
of grace.
The
doctrine of the covenants is the theological soil in which Calvinism grew among
early Baptists. Calvinistic Baptists today need to recover the rich federal
theology of their forefathers so that the doctrines of grace they’ve
rediscovered will be preserved for future generations.
4.
The Law of God. Reformed Baptists believe the 10 commandments are the summary
of God’s moral law (Exod 20; Matt 5; Rom 2:14-22). They believe that unless we
rightly understand the law, we cannot understand the gospel. The gospel is the
good news that Jesus Christ kept the law for our justification by living in
perfect obedience to earn the law’s blessing of life and by dying a
substitutionary death to pay the law’s penalty. But the gospel isn’t only a
promise of justification. It’s also the good news that Christ promises
graciously to give the Holy Spirit to His people to kill their lawlessness and
to make them more and more lawful. Titus 2:14 says that Christ “gave himself
for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for
his own possession, who are zealous for good works.”
The
Second London Baptist Confession, 19.5 says:
The
moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the
obedience thereof,(10) and that not only in regard of the matter contained in
it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;(11)
neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this
obligation.(12)
10.
Rom 13:8-10; Jas 2:8,10-12
11.
Jas 2:10,11
12.
Matt 5:17-19; Rom 3:31
Therefore,
while justified believers are free from the law as a covenant of works to earn
justification and eternal life (Rom 7:1-6), God gives them His law as a
standard of conduct or rule of life in their sanctification (Rom 8:4, 7). God’s
moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments (Rom 2:14-24; 13:8-10; Jas
2:8-11), including the Sabbath commandment (Mk 2:27; Heb 4:9-10), is an
instrument of sanctification in the life of the believer. Believers rest in
Christ for their total salvation. Christ takes their burdens of guilt and
shame, and His people take upon themselves the yoke of His law, and they learn
obedience from a humble and gentle Teacher. 1 John 5:3 says, “For this is the
love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not
burdensome.”
Baptists
who hold to new covenant theology, or progressive covenantalism, do not have
the same view of the law as the dominant stream of their Baptist forebears.
5.
Confessional. Most of the early Baptists, both in England and in America, held
to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689. While certainly not all
Calvinistic Baptists subscribed to this confession, it was the main influence
among Baptists in England and America after its publication. This confession,
based on the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) and the Savoy Declaration
(Independent), was originally edited and published in 1677, but formally
adopted by Baptist churches in 1689 after English persecution lifted.
Historic
Reformed Baptists were thoroughgoing confessionalists. They were not bare
“biblicists.” Biblicists deny words and doctrines not explicitly stated in
Scripture, and they deny that the church’s historic teaching about the Bible
has any secondary authority in biblical interpretation. The early Baptists,
however, did not believe that individual church members or individual pastors
should interpret the Bible divorced from the historic teaching of the church
(Heb 13:7). They believed that the Bible alone is sufficient for doctrine and
practice, but they also believed the Bible must be explained and read in light
of the church’s interpretive tradition (1 Tim 3:15), which uses words other
than the Bible (Acts 2:31 is one refutation of biblicism, since it explains
Psalm 16 in words not used in that Psalm). Reformed Baptists believed that
their theology was anchored in the church’s rich theological heritage and that
it was a natural development of the doctrine of the church in light of the
central insights of the Reformation (sola Scriptura: no baptizing infants; sola
fide: only converts are God’s people).
Under
the guise of upholding Sola Scriptura, many Christians today seek to read the
Bible independently and come to their own private conclusions about what it
means without consulting the church’s authorized teachers or the orthodox
confessions of faith. But that’s not what Sola Scriptura historically meant.
Scripture teaches that the church is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1
Tim 3:15). The church as a whole is charged with interpreting the Bible, and
God has authorized teachers in the church throughout history. Therefore, while
every individual Christian is responsible to understand Scripture for himself,
no Christian should study the Bible without any consideration of what the great
teachers of the past have taught about the Bible.
The
majority of historic Reformed Baptists held to the Second London Baptist
Confession of 1689 because they believed it is a compendium of theology that
best summarizes the teaching of Scripture in small compass.
