誰是教會的主？Who Is Lord of the Church?

作者: John MacArthur  譯者:  Maria Marta

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-lord-church/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/b3GACNQDa5y

基督是祂的教會的主這項真理，對我們這一代人中的一個臨時聽眾來說，聽起來也許有點溫和，但教會對基督權柄的爭戰，經過大屠殺的歲月臨到我們。值得感恩的是，在這個議題上不折不扣的屠殺已不再常見。但忠心的基督徒仍為基督對教會的主權進行一場激烈的道德和思想戰鬥。

在宗教改革時期，其中一個主要的事前催化劑，是早於馬丁路德整整一個世紀的波希米亞基督徒揚胡斯（Jan Hus）所撰寫的一本書。這本書是《論教會》（De ecclesia），該書第四章的標題清楚地表明胡斯最深刻的要點：「基督是教會唯一的元首。」

胡斯寫道，「教皇不是 [真正]聖潔、普世、大公教會的頭，紅衣主教也不是其整個身體。唯獨基督是教會的頭。」他指出，他那個時代的大多數教會領袖實際上都在藐視基督的主權，胡斯說道：「神職人員降低要求到如此低的地步，以致他們憎恨那些經常宣講並稱耶穌基督為主的人。」

胡斯的坦率使他付上了生命的代價。 在1415年他被宣布為異教徒，並被處以火刑。

一百多年後，馬丁路德與教皇當權者已經不和，那時他讀了《論教會》一書。讀完之後，路德寫信給一個朋友說：「沒想到，迄今為止我一直在教導和持守揚胡斯的所有觀點；約翰陶辟滋也是如此（譯按：約翰陶辟滋 Johann von Staupitz 1460 –1524，是一名神學家、大學傳教士、德國聖奧斯定會修士、代理主教；馬丁路德屬靈生命關鍵時期的導師。）總之，我們不知不覺都成了胡斯派。」

改教家閱讀胡斯的著作，從中深受鼓舞，決心將基督是榮譽的「教會的真正元首」的爭戰繼續進行下去。 路德寫道：「我深信，如果在這個時候，聖彼得親自宣講聖經的所有文章，他只會否認教皇的權威、權能、與最高權力，並說教皇不是所有的基督教國家的元首，之後他們會將祂絞死。 是的，如果基督本人再次回到地上，祂亦會如此宣講，毫無疑問，教皇會將祂重釘十字架。」

從很多方面說，「誰是教會的主？」這問題打一開始就是宗教改革的首要問題。 （這就是路德在說「我們都是胡斯派」的時候所默認的。）

當然，羅馬天主教的正典法律仍然堅持，教皇是她在地上最高的元首和以基督代理人的身分管治。

但是，歷史上的新教徒對基督對教會的主權這真理的委身也受到緩慢而細微的侵蝕，這種趨勢讓我深深擔憂。 這是我多年來一直在寫的問題。

例如，一些福音派領袖積極地教導，甚至不必承認耶穌為主，以致得救。這就是所謂的「主權爭議」。難以想象，基督對教會的主權會受到這樣明顯的攻擊，但「無主權的神學」已興盛多年，似乎正在不斷壯大。

福音派也誕生了很多「顧及未信者所需」(seeker-sensitive) 的運動，其中，教會服事量身定制，以討好對潮流敏感的非信徒。從馬戲表演到打鬧喜劇等新奇事物都被刻意注入集體的「敬拜」當中，目的是要保持世俗的娛樂思想。這實際上是對基督主權掌管祂的教會的否認，將祂的話語和律例降到次要地位，同時給予享樂主義時尚權利，來決定甚至崇拜的秩序。

女權主義者想重新定義領導者的職位，從概念中消除權柄的觀念。這也是一種對基督對教會的主權的正面攻擊。

聖經翻譯者和釋義者篡改真正意義上的上帝的話語；新興教會領袖懷疑基督所說的一切的清晰性；尤其是牧師，除了聖經之外，似乎無所不談，他們所有人都做了直接對抗「基督對教會的合法權柄」所要做的事。

為了回應對基督權柄的一切挑戰，有一件事要做的更多，那就是把清晰、有能力的釋經講道重新放回到正確的，所有教會活動的中心位置。倘若我們真的相信基督是教會的主，那麽教會需要聆聽祂的聲音。每當教會的聚會聚在一起時，祂的話語必須宣講，話語的內容要準確、有系統、不松懈地教導。

楊胡斯曾說過同樣一件事。 宣稱「基督對教會的主權」的意思是強調「基督徒應該遵守基督的誡命」，然後，胡斯引用使徒行傳十章42節（[基督] 吩咐我們向百姓傳講），並呼籲當日的教會領袖要利用一切機會來傳講上帝的話語-------盡管教皇詔書當時有效，但卻嚴格限制了聖經如何、何地被宣講。

今天的教會迫切需要宗教改革。基督對教會的主權依然是我們務要恢復的核心真理，這需要再次在祂的子民當中廣傳祂的話語。我們不能只是跟著最新的福音派趨勢隨波逐流，期望局面會好轉。像揚胡斯和馬丁路德那樣，我們需要為基督是祂的教會的主之榮譽和權柄爭戰。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

Who Is Lord of the Church?

FROM John MacArthur

The truth that Christ is Lord of His church may sound somewhat benign to a casual listener in our generation, but the struggle for Christ’s authority in the church has come to us through the ages on a sea of blood. Thankfully, literal bloodshed over the issue is no longer very common. But faithful Christians are still waging a fierce moral and intellectual battle for Christ’s lordship over the church.

One of the major early catalysts in the Protestant Reformation was a book by Jan Hus, a Bohemian Christian who preceded Martin Luther by a full century. The book was De Ecclesia (The Church), and one of Hus’ most profound points was proclaimed in the title of his fourth chapter: “Christ the Only Head of the Church.”

Hus wrote, “Neither is the pope the head nor are the cardinals the whole body of the [true] holy, universal, catholic church. For Christ alone is the head of that church.” Pointing out that most church leaders in his era actually despised the lordship of Christ, Hus said, “To such a low pitch is the clergy come that they hate those who preach often and call Jesus Christ Lord.”

Hus’ candor cost him his life. He was declared a heretic and burnt at the stake in 1415.

More than a hundred years later, already at odds with the papal establishment, Martin Luther read De Ecclesia. After finishing the book, he wrote to a friend, “I have hitherto taught and held all the opinions of Jan Hus unawares; so did John Staupitz. In short, we are all Hussites without knowing it.”

Emboldened by his reading of Hus, the reformer took up the fight for Christ’s honor as true head of His church. Luther wrote, “I am persuaded that if at this time, St. Peter, in person, should preach all the articles of Holy Scripture, and only deny the pope’s authority, power, and primacy, and say, that the pope is not the head of all Christendom, they would cause him to be hanged. Yea, if Christ himself were again on earth, and should preach, without all doubt the pope would crucify him again.”

In many ways, the question, who is Lord of the church? was the over-arching issue of the Protestant Reformation from the start. (That’s what Luther was tacitly acknowledging when he said “we are all Hussites.”)

Of course, Roman Catholic canon law still insists that the pope is her supreme earthly head and the ruling vicar of Christ in that capacity.

But the historic Protestant commitment to Christ’s lordship over the church has also subtly eroded, and that is a trend that deeply concerns me. It’s an issue I have written much about over the years.

For example, some evangelical leaders aggressively teach that it is not even necessary to confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. That’s what the so-called “lordship controversy” is about. It would be hard to imagine a more obvious attack against the lordship of Christ over His church, but “no-lordship theology” has thrived for years and seems to be gaining strength.

Evangelicals also gave birth to the “seeker-sensitive” movement wherein church services are tailored to please trend-savvy unbelievers. Novelties ranging from circus acts to slapstick are deliberately injected into corporate “worship” in order to keep worldly minds entertained. That is a practical denial of Christ’s lordship over His church, relegating His Word and ordinances to secondary status while granting hedonistic fashions the right to determine even the order of worship.

Feminists want to redefine the idea of headship, eliminating the idea of authority from the concept altogether. That, too, is a frontal attack on Christ’s lordship over His church.

Bible translators and paraphrasers who tamper with the true sense of God’s Word; emergent church leaders who question the clarity of everything Christ has said; and above all, preachers who seem to talk about everything but Scripture — all of them do what they do in direct defiance of Christ’s rightful authority over His church.

One thing would do more than anything else to answer every challenge to Christ’s authority: the restoration of clear, powerful, expository preaching to its rightful place at the center of all the church’s activities. If we truly believe Christ is Lord of the church, then the church needs to hear His voice. His Word must be proclaimed and its content taught accurately, systematically, and unrelentingly whenever the church comes together.

Jan Hus said the same thing. Declaring that the lordship of Christ over His church means emphatically “that the Christian ought to follow the commandments of Christ,” Hus then cited Acts 10:42 (“[Christ] commanded us to preach to the people”) and called on church leaders of his day to preach the Word of God at every opportunity — even though a papal bull was then in force, strictly limiting how and where the Scriptures could be proclaimed.

The church today is badly in need of reformation again. And Christ’s lordship over His church is still the central truth we must recover, which requires the unleashing of His Word among His people again. We cannot merely float along with the latest evangelical trends and expect things to get better. Like Jan Hus and Martin Luther, we need to fight for the honor and authority of Christ as Lord of His church.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

成為改革宗的勇氣The Courage to Be Reformed

作者:  Burk Parsons  譯者: Maria Marta

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/courage-be-reformed/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/ZwWQaeZ7ufC

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/courage-be-reformed/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/fDT67adKnZ2

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2017/05/courage-to-be-reformed-burk-parsons.html

我們開始領悟改革宗神學時，我們不僅改變對救恩的理解，而且也改變對萬物的理解。正因如此，在與改革宗神學之基本教義角力之後，在開始來領悟這些基本教義時，人往往感覺好像經歷了第二次歸正。事實上，正如許多人向我承認的那樣，現實是一些人已經歷了第一次歸正。正是透過對改革宗神學的考查，人才開始面對這些嚴峻的事實：他們徹底敗壞和死在罪中；上帝無條件揀選屬於祂自己的人，定罪其余的人；耶穌基督為祂的子民成就真正的救贖；聖靈施行有效的恩典；選民得蒙上帝恩典保守，以及上帝為祂自己的榮耀，在整個歷史上以盟約的方式作工。最終當人意識到不是他們揀選上帝，而是上帝揀選了他們，他們自然立刻切入正題，謙卑承認上帝對他們的奇異恩典。當我們認識到我們是多麼的可憐，只有這個時候，我們才能衷心唱出「奇異的恩典」。這些正是改革宗神學所做的：它徹底改變我們；它帶領我們歌唱-------它引領我們一生敬拜我們至高無上、三位一體、慈愛的上帝，不單在星期天，而且也在人生的每一天。在改革宗受青睞、吸引人時，改革宗神學不僅是我們佩帶的徽章，甚至在改革宗受攻擊時，改革宗神學也是我們生活、呼吸、認信、與護衛的神學。

第十六世紀的新教改教家，連同他們第十五世紀的先驅和第十七世紀的後代教導和護衛他們的教義，並不是因為這些教義吸引人或受歡迎，而是因它們合乎聖經。他們冒著生命危險來護衛這些教義。他們不僅甘願為聖經的神學而死，更甘願為它而活，為它受苦，為它被視作愚笨之人。請勿誤解：改教家們大膽、勇敢，並非因為他們的自信心和自我倚靠，而是因為福音使他們謙卑的事實。他們勇敢無畏，因為聖靈內住在他們身上，裝備他們在充滿謊言的黑暗世代傳播真理之光。他們宣講的真理並非新的，乃是古舊的。這是烈士、教父、使徒、先祖們的教義------這是上帝在聖經闡述的教義。

不是改教家們編造他們的神學，相反，是他們的神學造就了他們。聖經的神學使他們成為改革者。他們本身不是立志要成為改教家，而是立志要忠於上帝，忠於聖經。宗教改革的五個唯獨和恩典的教義（加爾文主義五要點）既不是改教家們發明的，更不是宗教改革教義的總和。相反，它們成為基本的教義前提，幫助後世教會認信和護衛她們的信仰。即使在今天，也有許多人認為他們擁抱改革宗神學，但他們的改革宗神學只達到宗教改革的五個唯獨和恩典教義的深度。此外，有許多人說他們堅持改革宗神學，但卻沒有人知道他們是改革宗。這種「隱蔽的加爾文主義者」既不承認任何第十六或第十七世紀的歷史性的改革宗信仰告白，也不使用任何明顯的改革宗神學語言。

但是，倘若我們真的根據歷史性的改革宗信仰告白來堅持改革宗神學，我們非被識別為改革宗不可。事實上，仍然是「隱蔽的加爾文主義者」是不可能的，仍然是改革宗但卻沒有人知道也是不可能的-------這身份將不可避免地顯露出來。成為歷史性的改革宗，必須堅持改革宗信仰告白，不僅要堅持，更要承認、宣揚、護衛這些信仰告白。改革宗神學從根本上說是一種認信的神學。

改革宗神學也是全面的神學。它不僅改變我們所知道的，而且還改變我們我們知道的方式；它不僅改變我們對上帝的理解，也改變我們對自己的理解；事實上，它不僅改變我們的救贖觀，而且還改變我們如何敬拜，如何傳福音，如何養育我們的孩子，如何看待教會，如何禱告，如何研讀聖經-------它改變我們如何生存、活動、與存在。改革宗神學不是我們能隱藏的神學，也不是我們只能掛在嘴邊的神學。因為這是歷史上的異端和進步派神學（theological progressives）的習慣。他們聲稱堅持改革宗信仰告白，但卻從未真正認信它們。只有在他們處於防守，即他們的進步神學（盡管是流行的）被質疑之時；假若他們是牧師，只有他們的工作受到威脅之時，他們才聲稱是改革宗。雖然自由派神學人士可能在教會和宗派裡被認為是「改革宗」，但他們對這樣的身份感到羞愧，並相信：被稱為「改革宗」對一些人來說是絆腳石，對另一些人來說是冒犯。此外，根據教會歷史性的普通標記-------宣講上帝純正的話語；根據上帝的話語禱告；正確執行聖禮，包括洗禮和聖餐；以及一貫實施教會紀律-------甚至連這樣的「改革宗」教會往往也不是真教會。今天，有許多傳統改革宗教會、新教教會、其他宗派的人，連同他們的教會和宗派一道離開他們的宗教改革的碇泊處，並拒絕他們數年前認信的信仰告白。

與這一趨勢相反，我們最需要的講台上的人，是那些有勇氣成為改革宗的人---------他們不以從前一次就全交給了聖徒的信仰為恥，反而作好準備，竭力護衛，不是口頭上，而是用他們畢生的精力，竭盡所能地護衛。我們需要講台上的人能夠大膽、堅定地宣講真理，同時又和藹可親、富有同情心。我們需要講台上的人無論何時都要宣講原樣的改革宗神學真理，不是指手畫腳指責別人，而是手挽手，肩並肩邁步向前。我們需要那些熱愛改革宗信仰告白的人，正是因為他們是熱愛耶和華我們的上帝，和祂那不變、默示、權威的話語的人。只有當我們講台上的人擁有成為改革宗的勇氣，我們座位上的人才會領悟改革神學，和它對人畢生的影響，以致我們能盡心、盡性、盡力、盡意愛上帝，並愛鄰舍如同自己。這是第十六世紀改革教會的神學，也是二十一世紀唯一能夠帶來宗教改革和復興的神學。因為在今天這個被激進進步派自由主義神學（progressive theological liberalism）充斥的時代，為教會和為所有失落的人；為榮耀上帝，唯獨為了上帝的榮耀，我們能夠做到的最切底的事，就是根據我們的改革宗信仰告白回歸正統，但不是以傲慢的態度，而是具備勇氣和同情心。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

（修正1版2018.5，原譯版2017.5.  Reformed and Always Reforming.）



The Courage to Be Reformed

by Burk Parsons

When we come to grasp Reformed theology, it’s not only our understanding of salvation that changes, but our understanding of everything. It’s for this reason that when people wrestle through the rudimentary doctrines of Reformed theology and come to comprehend them, they often feel like they have been converted a second time. In fact, as many have admitted to me, the reality is that some have been converted for the very first time. It was through their examination of Reformed theology that they came face-to-face with the stark reality of their radical corruption and deadness in sin, God’s unconditional election of His own and condemnation of others, Christ’s actual accomplishment of redemption for His people, the Holy Spirit’s effectual grace, the reason they persevere by God’s preserving grace, and God’s covenantal way of working in all of history for His glory. When people realize that ultimately, they didn’t choose God, but He chose them, they naturally come to a point of humble admission of the amazing grace of God toward them. It’s only then, when we recognize what wretches we really are, that we can truly sing “Amazing Grace.” And that is precisely what Reformed theology does: it transforms us from the inside out and leads us to sing—it leads us to worship our sovereign and triune, gracious, and loving God in all of life, not just on Sundays but every day and in all of life. Reformed theology isn’t just a badge we wear when being Reformed is popular and cool, it’s a theology that we live and breathe, confess, and defend even when it’s under attack.

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, along with their fifteenth-century forerunners and their seventeenth-century descendants, did not teach and defend their doctrine because it was cool or popular, but because it was biblical, and they put their lives on the line for it. They were not only willing to die for the theology of Scripture, they were willing to live for it, to suffer for it, and to be considered fools for it. Make no mistake: the Reformers were bold and courageous not on account of their self-confidence and self-reliance but on account of the fact that they had been humbled by the gospel. They were courageous because they had been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and equipped to proclaim the light of truth in a dark age of lies. The truth they preached was not new; it was ancient. It was the doctrine of the martyrs, the fathers, the Apostles, and the patriarchs—it was the doctrine of God set forth in sacred Scripture.

The Reformers didn’t make up their theology; rather, their theology made them who they were. The theology of Scripture made them Reformers. For they did not set out to be Reformers, per se—they set out to be faithful to God and faithful to Scripture. Neither the solas of the Reformation nor the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism) were invented by the Reformers, nor were they by any means the sum total of Reformation doctrine. Rather, they became underlying doctrinal premises that served to help the church of subsequent eras confess and defend what she believes. Even today there are many who think they embrace Reformed theology, but their Reformed theology only runs as deep as the solas of the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. What’s more, there are many who say they adhere to Reformed theology but do so without anyone knowing they are Reformed. Such “closet Calvinists” neither confess any of the historic Reformed confessions of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries nor employ any distinctly Reformed theological language.

However, if we truly adhere to Reformed theology according to the historic Reformed confessions, we cannot help but be identified as Reformed. In truth, it’s impossible to remain a “closet Calvinist,” and it’s impossible to remain Reformed without anyone knowing it—it will inevitably come out. To be historically Reformed, one must adhere to a Reformed confession, and not only adhere to it but confess it, proclaim it, and defend it. Reformed theology is fundamentally a confessional theology.

Reformed theology is also an all-encompassing theology. It changes not only what we know, it changes how we know what we know. It not only changes our understanding of God, it changes our understanding of ourselves. Indeed, it not only changes our view of salvation, it changes how we worship, how we evangelize, how we raise our children, how we treat the church, how we pray, how we study Scripture—it changes how we live, move, and have our being. Reformed theology is not a theology that we can hide, and it is not a theology to which we can merely pay lip service. For that has been the habit of heretics and theological progressives throughout history. They claim to adhere to their Reformed confessions, but they never actually confess them. They claim to be Reformed only when they are on the defensive—when their progressive (albeit popular) theology is called into question, and, if they are pastors, only when their jobs are on the line. While theological liberals might be in churches and denominations that identify as “Reformed,” they are ashamed of such an identity and have come to believe that being known as “Reformed” is a stumbling block to some and an offense to others. Moreover, according to the historic, ordinary marks of the church—the pure preaching of the Word of God, prayer according to the Word of God, the right use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the consistent practice of church discipline—such “Reformed” churches are often not even true churches. Today, there are many laypeople and pastors who are in traditionally Reformed and Protestant churches and denominations who, along with their churches and denominations, left their Reformed moorings and rejected their confessions years ago.

Contrary to this trend, what we most need are men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed—men who aren’t ashamed of the faith once delivered to the saints but who are ready to contend for it, not with lip service but with all their life and all their might. We need men in the pulpit who are bold and unwavering in their proclamation of the truth and who are at the same time gracious and compassionate. We need men who will preach the unvarnished truth of Reformed theology in season and out of season, not with a finger pointing in the face but with an arm around the shoulder. We need men who love the Reformed confessions precisely because they love the Lord our God and His unchanging, inspired, and authoritative Word. It’s only when we have men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed that we will have people in the pew who grasp Reformed theology and its effects in all of life, so that we might love God more with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the theology that reformed the church in the sixteenth century, and that is the only theology that will bring reformation and revival in the twenty-first century. For in our day of radical progressive theological liberalism, the most radical thing we can be is orthodox according to our Reformed confessions, yet not with arrogance but with courage and compassion for the church and for the lost, all for the glory of God, and His glory alone.

把上帝的真理傳下去Passing Down the Truth of God

作者: John MacArthur  譯者:  Maria Marta

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/passing-down-truth-god/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/8Fke7jzTF55

大學期間，我在參加一次田徑比賽的過程中，學到一個重要的屬靈功課。在橙縣邀請賽中，我參加4X400米接力賽。作為一個兼職田徑賽的棒球球員，我不是我們隊中跑得最快的一個。所以我負責跑第二棒。

我們的戰略很簡單。第一個賽跑者是一個快速短跑運動員，在離開起跑區之後，他要盡最大可能取得領先優勢。我的職責只是幹凈利落而不掉棒地跑一圈。第三個賽跑者力度強，速度快，第四個賽跑者（與第三個賽跑者）區別不明顯。他們都可以彌補我可能拉開的距離。

那天有好幾支聲望高的球隊參賽，我們隊成功進入決賽。我們確信我們會大獲全勝。

我們的第一個隊友跑得非常出色，完美地遞交了接力棒。在這場爭取第一名的緊張競爭中，我竭力完成了我的一圈賽跑。第三個隊友繞過轉彎處，來到非終點直道半途，停下，走出跑圈，坐在草地上。比賽繼續進行著。

我們以為他拉傷腿筋或扭傷腳踝。我們穿過內場，預料他會倒在草地上，或至少會在痛苦中畏縮。但他卻不是這樣。他消極地坐著。我們焦急地問：「發生了什麽事？你受傷了嗎？」他回答：「不，我很好。我只是不想再跑了。」

我承認那一刻我所有的想法都是屬肉體的。我和隊友們都以一種無意識的失望的情緒回應，我們三個人基本上都在說相同的話：「你不能這樣做！在這裡你不是獨立的！你意識到為了目標我們在訓練中所付出的努力嗎？在你身上投入（時間、精力）得太多了！」

關於我們作為信徒的職責，我常常想到那一刻。我們應當接過我們的祖先在基督教信仰中傳遞給我們的真理，然後帶著它奔跑------不是沒有目標（林前九26），而是向著目標竭力追求（腓三14）---------好叫我們能將信仰完整無瑕疵地傳遞給下一代。

使徒保羅在他最後一封書信中將這責任交托給提摩太：「把你在許多見證人面前從我這裡聽見的，交託給那些又忠心又能夠教導別人的人。」（提後二2；《聖經新譯本》）在面對逼近眼前的殉難（四6），保羅當然關注在自己離開後，誰會繼續他的宣教工作和誰將帶領教會等這些問題。因此，他向提摩太概述這種繼承和穩定的簡單模式。

這項命令本身不僅針對提摩太，還針對他將培訓的更年輕的人。它為提升一代又一代的教會領袖制定戰略。保羅傳給提摩太的接力棒最終會傳給忠心的人，這些人再相應地把它傳給第四代人-------如此類推。

雖然這裡保羅主要關注的問題是領袖培訓，但他給提摩太的原則明顯地影響著每一個時代的每一個基督徒。我們都是生命鏈的一部分。我們每個人都受教於一些從別人身上學到真理的人。如果你沿著這條鏈反向追蹤，一環扣一環，可以追溯到原來的使徒，一直到基督自己。

為了成為忠心的管家，管理我們所領受的一切，我們每一個人務必要將我們所領教的傳遞給其他人。 換句話說，每一個基督徒都應當成為一個教師。不管你是誰，你都可以找到一個比你知道得更少的人，教導他們。 這個責任是我們的主基督的大使命本身所固有的，那就是：「使人作門徒」（太廿八19）。

希伯來書作者訓斥忽視這項責任的信徒：「你們應該已經作老師了；可是你們還需要有人再把　神道理的初步教導你們。」（來五12；《聖經新譯本》））。因為他們未能成為教師，因此他們需要從頭開始學習。難怪，你教的你記住了，你沒有教的，你往往忘記了。傳授你所學到的知識，不僅有助於要作門徒的人；而且還堅固教師本身。

保羅對提摩太的警惕性指責是有明確目標的。他沒有告訴提摩太要創新。他沒有鼓勵提摩太改變自己的風格以迎合世俗文化的潮流與時尚。他沒有使用諸如肉體、原創、富有想象力等詞語，這些言語膠水將如此多的二十世紀教會之增長戰略黏合在一起。

事實上，保羅賜給提摩太幾乎是相反的命令。這是一項明確，狹義的指令。提摩太務必要保守他所領受的真理寶庫（提前六20；提後一14），並將它不修改，不攙雜的傳給下一代。作一個有效的門徒陪育者，並不是作一個時尚者或創意者。它是指要忠心地維護「從前一次就全交給了聖徒的信仰」（猶3），並準確地把它到另一代。

這聽起來自相矛盾，但每一個基督徒都有個人的責任去維護信仰，並傳遞給其他人。這是對那些將會獲得獎賞的人的要求（林前九24；提後四7）。

打破這古舊鏈條的人就像一個在完成比賽之前就放棄比賽的接力賽跑者。這場比賽的關鍵所在比任何世上的戰利品都要重要得多。未能跑得好，跑得持久，是對上帝的不可原諒的侮辱；是對那些曾經教過我們的人的冒犯；使那些與我們一起訓練的人大失所望；是對那些我們必須遞交接力棒的人犯下的嚴重的罪。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年五月號 。

Passing Down the Truth of God

by John MacArthur

I learned a vital spiritual lesson while participating in a track meet during my college years. I was running in the 4x400-meter relay at the Orange County Invitational. As a baseball player moonlighting in track and field, I wasn’t the fastest runner on our team. So, I ran the second leg.

Our strategy was simple. The first runner, a speedy sprinter, would get as big a lead as possible right out of the starting blocks. My job was merely to run a clean lap without dropping the baton. Our third man was strong and fast, and our fourth man was a blur. They could make up the whatever ground I might lose.

Several prestigious teams were competing that day, and our team managed to get into the finals. We were convinced we had a good shot at winning.

Our first man ran a great leg and made a perfect baton pass. I managed to finish my lap in a tight battle for first place. The third man went around the curve, came halfway down the back stretch, stopped, walked off, and sat down in the grass. The race kept going.

We thought he had pulled a hamstring or twisted an ankle. We all ran across the infield, expecting to find him writhing on the grass or at least wincing in pain. He wasn’t. He was sitting passively. We anxiously asked, “What happened? Are you hurt?” He said, “No, I’m OK. I just didn’t feel like running.”

I confess that all my thoughts in that moment were carnal. My teammates and I spontaneously responded with an outpouring of frustration, all three of us basically saying the same thing: “You can’t do that! You’re not in this by yourself! Do you realize the effort we have all put into training for this? Too much has been invested in you!”

I’ve thought often about that moment in relation to our duty as believers. We are supposed to take the truth that was handed to us by our ancestors in the Christian faith and run with it—not aimlessly (1 Cor. 9:26), but always pressing on toward the goal (Phil. 3:14)—so we can hand off the faith, intact and uncorrupted, to the next generation.

The Apostle Paul gave this charge to Timothy in his final epistle: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul was facing imminent martyrdom (4:6), and he was of course concerned with the question of who would continue his missionary work and who would lead the church after his departure. He therefore outlined for Timothy this simple pattern of succession and stability.

The command itself looks beyond Timothy to younger men whom he would train. It lays out a perpetual strategy for raising up generation after generation of church leaders. The baton that was passed from Paul to Timothy would ultimately be handed off to faithful men, who in turn would pass it to a fourth generation—and so on.

Although Paul’s primary concern here is leadership development, the principle he gives Timothy has clear implications for every Christian in the every era. We are all part of a living chain. Each of us has been taught by someone who learned the truth from someone else. If you follow that chain backward, link by link, it goes back to the original Apostles—and beyond them to Christ Himself.

In order to be faithful stewards of what we have received, each of us needs to pass on to others what we have been taught. In other words, every Christian ought to be a teacher. No matter who you are, you can find someone who knows less than you and teach them. That responsibility is inherent in our Lord’s Great Commission: “Make disciples” (Matt. 28:19).

The writer to the Hebrews scolded believers who were derelict in this duty: “Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God” (5:12). Because of their failure to become teachers, they needed to start learning from the beginning again. No wonder. What you teach you retain, and what you don’t teach you tend to forget. Passing on what you have learned not only helps the person who is being discipled; it also strengthens the teacher.

Paul’s charge to Timothy is carefully focused. He doesn’t tell Timothy to be innovative. He doesn’t encourage him to adapt his style to the fads and fashions of secular culture. He doesn’t employ words like fresh, original, or imaginative, the verbal glue that binds so many twenty-first-century church-growth strategies together.

In fact, Paul gives Timothy practically the opposite mandate. It is a clear, narrowly defined directive. Timothy is to guard the deposit of truth he has received (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14) and pass it on, unmodified and unadulterated, to the next generation. Being an effective disciple-maker is not about being chic or creative. It’s about faithfully guarding “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and accurately transmitting it to an other generation.

It sounds paradoxical, but each Christian has a personal responsibility to keep the faith and to pass it on to others. That’s what is required of those who would win the prize (1 Cor. 9:24; 2 Tim. 4:7).

Anyone who breaks that centuries-old chain is like a relay runner who abandons the race before finishing. And what’s at stake in this race is infinitely more important than any earthly trophy. Failure to run well and with endurance would be an inexcusable insult to our Lord, an offense against those who have taught us, a disappointment to those who have trained alongside us, and a grievous sin against those to whom we must hand the baton.

我的敵人的敵人是我的朋友嗎? Is the Enemy of MyEnemy My Friend?

作者: Albert Mohler 譯者: Maria Marta
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/enemy-my-enemy-my-friend/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/Ji3pzXzZUTm

我們並非生活在和平時期。有思想的基督徒必定意識到，一場巨大的道德和屬靈沖突正在我們身邊形成，戰爭的多條戰線和至關重要的問題正處於關鍵時刻。先知耶利米曾再三警告那些在沒有平安的時候卻還在虛報平安的人。聖經用屬靈爭戰一詞來定義基督徒的生命，這一代的信徒都要面對這一事實：真理的存在在我們當前的鬥爭中岌岌可危。

作戰條件將一系列獨特的道德挑戰帶到檯面上，我們這時代的巨大的道德和文化戰役並沒有什麽不同。甚至古代的思想家也清楚這一點，他們的許多戰爭格言仍被引用。其中最受歡迎的，也是許多古人所知曉的一句就是：「敵人的敵人是我的朋友」。

這句格言作為現代外交政策的原則而得以延續。它解釋了為什麽在戰爭中彼此敵對的國家，能夠在很短的時間內變成同盟，一起對抗共同的敵人。在第二次世界大戰中，蘇聯在開始時是納粹德國的同盟國。但在戰爭結束時它是美國和英國的主要盟國。怎麽會這樣呢？因為他加入了反對希特勒的行動，變成美國人和英國人的瞬間「朋友」。然而，隨著這場龐大戰爭的結束，蘇聯與其前同盟國便進入了稱為冷戰的公開敵對的新階段。

當我們思考我們當前的鬥爭，這項有用的外交政策準也則適合於基督徒嗎？這不是一個簡單的問題。一方面，某些意識，即團結一致對抗共的同敵人是無可避免，甚至是必不可少的。另一方面，某些想法，即共同的敵人導致真正的合一，甚至如歷史所顯示的，是一個錯誤的前設。

我們決不能低估我們所面臨的形勢。我們代表人類生命與人類尊嚴去面對一場與死亡文化，與流產、殺嬰、安樂死等極大罪惡對抗的巨形抗爭。我們為一男一女結合的婚姻的完整性而戰。我們面對一場決心要推動性革命的文化聯盟，而性革命將會爆發徹底混亂，給個人、家庭、整個社會帶來普遍的巨大傷害。我們為維護性別，這一上帝創造的美好部分而戰；我們為維護客觀道德秩序的存在而戰。

除了所有這些挑戰外，我們正參與一場捍衛真理自身的存在；捍衛上帝在聖經中啟示的事實和權威；捍衛聖經的所有教導的戰鬥。普遍存在的反超自然主義試圖否認上帝的存在，和我們有能力認識上帝的任何宣稱。自然主義世界主觀在學術界占了主導地位，新無神論的書籍銷量數以百萬計。神學自由主義者揭盡所能與教會的敵人和平共處，但忠心的基督徒無法逃避這一代信徒蒙呼召要參與的戰鬥。

那麽，我們的敵人的其他敵人是我們的朋友嗎？在這方面，摩門教徒、羅馬天主教徒、正統猶太教徒、和其他許多人都與我們有著共同的敵人。但是，我們之間的合一可達到什麽程度呢？

在這一點上，我們必須非常謹慎、誠實地思考。在某個層面上說，我們可以不管世界觀如何，與任何人一起去把困在燃燒著的房子裡的人救出來。我們很樂意幫助一位無神論者搭救鄰居免遭危險，或者甚至美化社區。這些行動並不需要共享的神學世界觀。

在另一個層面上說，我們當然視所有捍衛人類生命和尊嚴、婚姻和性別、家庭完整性的人為當前文化戰爭中的關鍵盟友。我們彼此傾聽，相互借鑒，我們彼此感謝對方給予的關心與支持。我們甚至認識到，我們的世界觀有著共同的元素，這些元素解釋了我們在這些問題上的共同信念。然而，我們的世界觀的確是相當不同的。

我們與羅馬天主教擁有許多共同信念，其中包括諸如婚姻、人類生命、家庭等道德信念。除此之外，我們一致肯定神聖三位一體、正統基督論這些真理，以及一些其他教義。但在生死攸關的------ 耶穌基督的福音這真理上，我們的觀點不一致。這種至關重要的差別導致其他極重要的分歧，其中包括聖經的性質和權威、事奉的性質、聖餐與洗禮的意義，和所有各種關乎基督信仰核心的議題。

改教家的信仰所界定的基督徒必須緊記，迫使改教家從羅馬天主教會中分裂出來，完全是出於對耶穌基督的福音的忠心。我們現在需要同樣的清晰和勇氣。

在文化沖突時期，我們的敵人的敵人很可能是我們的朋友。 但是，當永恒觀和福音岌岌可危之際，我們決不能將我們的敵人的敵人誤作耶穌基督的福音的朋友。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

Is the Enemy of My Enemy My Friend?

FROM Albert Mohler

We are not living in a season of peace. Thinking Christians must surely be aware that a great moral and spiritual conflict is taking shape all around us, with multiple fronts of battle and issues of great importance at stake. The prophet Jeremiah repeatedly warned of those who would falsely declare peace when there is no peace. The Bible defines the Christian life in terms of spiritual battle, and believers in this generation face the fact that the very existence of truth is at stake in our current struggle.

The condition of warfare brings a unique set of moral challenges to the table, and the great moral and cultural battles of our times are no different. Even ancient thinkers knew this, and many of their maxims of warfare are still commonly cited. Among the most popular of these is a maxim that was known by many of the ancients—“the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That maxim has survived as a modern principle of foreign policy. It explains why states that have been at war against one another can, in a very short period of time, become allies against a common enemy. In World War II, the Soviet Union began as an ally of Nazi Germany. Yet, it ended the war as a key ally of the United States and Britain. How? It joined the effort against Hitler and became the instant “friend” of the Americans and the British. And yet, as that great war came to an end, the Soviets and their former allies entered a new phase of open hostility known as the Cold War.

Does this useful maxim of foreign policy serve Christians well as we think about our current struggles? That is not an uncomplicated question. On the one hand, some sense of unity against a common opponent is inevitable, and even indispensible. On the other hand, the idea that a common enemy produces a true unity is, as even history reveals, a false premise.

We must not underestimate what we are up against. We face titanic struggles on behalf of human life and human dignity against the culture of death and the great evils of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. We are in a great fight for the integrity of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We face a cultural alliance determined to advance a sexual revolution that will unleash unmitigated chaos and bring great injury to individuals, families, and the society at large. We are fighting to defend gender as part of the goodness of God’s creation and to defend the very existence of an objective moral order.

Beyond all these challenges, we are engaged in a great battle to defend the existence of truth itself, to defend the reality and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture, and to defend all that the Bible teaches. A pervasive anti-supernaturalism seeks to deny any claim of God’s existence or our ability to know him. Naturalistic worldviews dominate in the academy, and the New Atheism sells books by the millions. Theological liberalism does its best to make peace with the enemies of the church, but faithful Christians have no way to escape the battles to which this generation of believers are called.

So, are the other enemies of our enemies our friends? Mormons, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and a host of others share many of our enemies in this respect. But, to what extent is there a unity among us?

At this point, very careful and honest thinking is required of us. At one level, we can join with anyone, regardless of worldview, to save people from a burning house. We would gladly help an atheist save a neighbor from danger, or even beautify the neighborhood. Those actions do not require a shared theological worldview.

At a second level, we certainly see all those who defend human life and human dignity, marriage and gender, and the integrity of the family as key allies in the current cultural struggle. We listen to each other, draw arguments from each other, and are thankful for each other’s support of our common concerns. We even recognize that there are elements common to our worldviews that explain our common convictions on these issues. And yet, our worldviews are really quite different.

With the Roman Catholic Church our common convictions are many, including moral convictions about marriage, human life, and the family. Beyond that, we together affirm the truths of the divine Trinity, orthodox Christology, and other doctrines as well. But we disagree over what is supremely important—the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that supreme difference leads to other vital disagreements as well—over the nature and authority of the Bible, the nature of the ministry, the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and an entire range of issues central to the Christian faith.

Christians defined by the faith of the Reformers must never forget that nothing less than faithfulness to the gospel of Christ forced the Reformers to break from the Roman Catholic Church. Equal clarity and courage are required of us now.

In a time of cultural conflict, the enemy of our enemy may well be our friend. But, with eternity in view and the gospel at stake, the enemy of our enemy must not be confused to be a friend to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.