作者: R.C. Sproul
譯者/校對者：Maria Marta/誠之
「什麼是罪？」 這是在「韋敏斯徳小要理問答」（第十四條）中提出的問題。教理問題提供的答案很簡單: 「凡不遵守或違背神的律法的，都是罪。」（Sin
is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.）
讓我們來檢查這條要理答案的一些基本元素。在第一例中，罪被定為某種缺乏或欠缺。中世紀的基督教神學家嘗試將「邪惡」（evil） 和「罪」（sin） 定義為「貧乏」（privatio） 和「否定」（negatio）。 「邪惡」和「罪」這些詞語被定義為「欠缺良善」（lack
of conformity to goodness）。聖經中和「罪」有關聯的負面專用語有:不順服、不敬虔、不道德等。這些詞强調負面意義。其它的例子還包括羞辱，敵基督，和其他的字眼。
然而，要獲得罪的完整視圖，我們必須看到「罪」所涉及的，不只是對良善的否定，或是單純的缺少美德。若我們完全從負面的詞語來定義「罪」，我們可能傾向於認為，罪只是一種錯覺。但罪對人類的蹂躪，極大地指向它的威力是一個事實，而這事實永遠不能靠訴諸錯覺就巧辯過去。改教家把「privatio」這個觀念（譯按：privatio的意思是缺失，privation, deprivation，有缺乏正面屬性的含義），加在事實或活動的概念之上，如此，在「privatio
actuosa」這個短語中，就可以看出有邪惡的意思在裡面。這是要強調「罪」活躍的特徵。在教理問答中，「罪」不僅定義為不遵守，而且更定義為一種違背上帝的律法的行為，涉及一種違犯的行動或違反了某種標準。
要理解「罪」的含義，對「罪」的定義就需要慮到「罪」和律法的關係。只有神的律法才能確定什麼是「罪」。在新約裡，使徒保羅，特別是在羅馬書裡面，詳盡地論述了「罪」和死亡之間、「罪」和律法之間密切不可分割的關係。簡單的公式是這樣的：沒有「罪」等於沒有死亡。沒有律法等於沒有「罪」。使徒論證到沒有律法，就有沒有「罪」；沒有「罪」，也就沒有死亡。上帝對「罪」審判的行動是基於死亡侵入到人類經驗裡面這個前提。犯罪必死。然而，沒有法律就沒有「罪」。死亡不能進入人類的經驗，直到上帝的律法首先被啟示出來。正是出於這原因，使徒認為，在上帝賜給以色列人摩西律法之前，道德律已經在起作用。在西奈山之前，死亡已經在世上，從亞當到摩西，死一直作王，這是論證的前提。這只能意味著，在將石版交付給以色列民族之前，上帝老早就已經把上帝的道德律賜給祂的受造之物了。
這就給康德的理論增加了一些可信度。康德斷言，有一種普遍的道德律令，他稱之為「Categorical
Imperative」（絕對命令），存在於每個有知覺的人的心裡。既然上帝的律法已經定義了「罪」的性質，我們就必須面對因不順服律法所引起的可怕後果。要脫離律法懲罰的層面，從這個層面的拯救，罪人所需要的，是Solomon
Stoddard 所稱的「律法的義」（righteousness of the Law）。正如「罪」被定義為不遵守或違背律法，解決「罪」的唯一的途徑就是服從律法。如果我們擁有服從上帝律法的能力，我們就不會面臨被上帝審判的危險。
Solomon
Stoddard是愛德華茲（Jonathan Edwards）的祖父，在他的《基督的義》（The Righteousness of
Christ）一書中，對「律法的義」的價值作了總結：「倘若我們有『律法的義』，就足夠了。如果我們有了這種義，就沒有失敗的危險。在天堂裡的天使是安全的，因為他們有「律法的義」的保障，如果我們有『律法的義』，我們也足夠安全。如果我們有『律法的義』，那麼我們就不必承受律法的咒詛。我們不會受到律法的威脅，公義不會挑釁我們，律法不能審判我們，律法不能阻止我們得救。有律法的義的人，就不在律法的威脅之下。人若完成律法的要求，律法就不會在他身上找到過犯。律法只咒詛那些沒有完全順服的人。此外，只要有律法的義，上帝就賜給他永生。根據律法的承諾，這樣的人就可以承受生命。律法宣佈他們是生命的繼承人，律法宣布他們是生命之子。加拉太書三章12節說：「律法原不本乎信，只說：『行這些事的，就必因此活著。 』 」（The
Righteousness of Christ, p. 25）。
唯一符合律法要求的義是基督的義。只有藉著把這種義歸算給罪人，罪人才能擁有律法的義。我們必須明白到，在這個時代裡，基督的義的歸算正遭受到廣泛的攻擊，這是很關鍵的。如果我們放棄了這概念，我們就沒有盼望，因為律法從來沒有可商量的餘地。只要律法還存在，除非我們的罪被律法的義所遮蓋，我們就要面對律法的審判。我們所能得到的唯一遮蓋，是從基督主動的順服而來的，祂親自成全了律法的一點一劃。祂親自成全了律法，這是一種替代性的行動，因著順服祂得到了獎賞。祂這樣做，不是為自己，而是為祂的百姓。這是「歸算的義」（imputed
righteousness）的背景，將人從法律的審判中拯救出來，從被罪惡的蹂躪中拯救出來，因為有了基督為我們的罪而死，這是基督徒成聖的背景。既然基督為我們的罪而死，我們就要治死仍然殘留在我們身上的罪。
Cosmic Treason
by R.C. Sproul
The question, “What is sin?” is raised in the
Westminster Shorter Catechism. The answer provided to this catechetical
question is simply this: “Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of
the law of God.”
Let us examine some of the elements of this
catechetical response. In the first instance, sin is identified as some kind of
want or lack. In the middle ages, Christian theologians tried to define evil or
sin in terms of privation (privatio) or negation (negatio). In these terms,
evil or sin was defined by its lack of conformity to goodness. The negative
terminology associated with sin may be seen in biblical words such as
disobedience, godlessness, or immorality. In all of these terms, we see the
negative being stressed. Further illustrations would include words such as
dishonor, antichrist, and others.
However, to gain a complete view of sin, we have to
see that it involves more than a negation of the good, or more than a simple
lack of virtue. We may be inclined to think that sin, if defined exclusively in
negative terms, is merely an illusion. But the ravages of sin point
dramatically to the reality of its power, which reality can never be explained
away by appeals to illusion. The reformers added to the idea of privatio the
notion of actuality or activity, so that evil is therefore seen in the phrase,
“privatio actuosa.” This stresses the active character of sin. In the
catechism, sin is defined not only as a want of conformity but an act of
transgression, an action that involves an overstepping or violation of a
standard.
In order to grasp the meaning of sin, we cannot define
it apart from its relationship to law. It is God’s law that determines what sin
is. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul, particularly in Romans, labors the
point that there is an inseparable relationship between sin and death and
between sin and law. The simple formula is this: No sin equals no death. No law
equals no sin. The apostle argues that where there is no law, there is no sin,
and where there is no sin, there is no death. This rests upon the premise that
death invades the human experience as an act of divine judgment for sin. It is
the soul who sins that dies. However, without law there can be no sin. Death
cannot enter into the human experience until first God’s law is revealed. It is
for this reason that the apostle argues that the moral law was in effect before
God gave Israel the Mosaic code. The argument rests upon the premise that death
was in the world before Sinai, that death reigned from Adam to Moses. This can
only mean that God’s moral law was given to His creatures long before the
tablets of stone were delivered to the nation of Israel.
This gives some credence to Immanuel Kant’s assertion
of a universal moral imperative that he called the categorical imperative,
which is found in the conscience of every sentient person. Since it is God’s
law that defines the nature of sin, we are left to face the dreadful
consequences of our disobedience to that law. What the sinner requires in order
to be rescued from the punitive aspects of this law is what Solomon Stoddard
called a righteousness of the Law. Just as sin is defined by a lack of
conformity to the Law, or transgression of the Law, the only antidote for that
transgression is obedience to the Law. If we possess such obedience to the Law
of God, we are in no danger of the judgment of God.
Solomon Stoddard, the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards,
wrote in his book, The Righteousness of Christ, the following summation of the
value of the righteousness of the Law: “It is sufficient for us if we have the
righteousness of the law. There is no danger of our miscarrying if we have that
righteousness. The security of the angels in Heaven is that they have the
righteousness of the law, and it is a sufficient security for us if we have the
righteousness of the law. If we have the righteousness of the law, then we are
not liable to the curse of the law. We are not threatened by the law; justice
is not provoked with us; the condemnation of the law can take no hold upon us;
the law has nothing to object against our salvation. The soul that has the
righteousness of the law is out of the reach of the threatenings of the law.
Where the demand of the law is answered, the law finds no fault. The law curses
only for lack of perfect obedience. Yea, moreover, where there is the
righteousness of the law, God has bound himself to give eternal life. Such
persons are heirs of life, according to the promise of the law. The law
declared them heirs of life, Galatians 3:12, ‘The man that doth them, shall
live in them’” (The Righteousness of Christ, p. 25).
The only righteousness that meets the requirements of
the Law is the righteousness of Christ. It is only by imputation of that
righteousness that the sinner can ever possess the righteousness of the Law.
This is critical for our understanding in this day where the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ is so widely under attack. If we abandon the notion of
the righteousness of Christ, we have no hope, because the Law is never
negotiated by God. As long as the Law exists, we are exposed to its judgment
unless our sin is covered by the righteousness of the Law. The only covering
that we can possess of that righteousness is that which comes to us from the
active obedience of Christ, who Himself fulfilled every jot and tittle of the
Law. His fulfilling of the Law in Himself is a vicarious activity by which He
achieves the reward that comes with such obedience. He does this not for
Himself but for His people. It is the background of this imputed righteousness,
this rescue from the condemnation of the Law, this salvation from the ravages
of sin that is the backdrop for the Christian’s sanctification, in which we are
to mortify that sin that remains in us, since Christ has died for our sin.
