作者: R. Scott Clark 翻譯: 駱鴻銘
直到最近，許多人一直認為聖約神學是十七世紀中葉一些神學家的發明，比如說柯塞由（Johannes Cocceius，1609-1669）。事實上，聖約神學不過是聖經裡的神學，也是改革宗信仰告白的神學。在神學歷史上，我們所知的聖約神學的元素，在時間以先三位一體位格之間的救贖之約，與亞當的行為之約，以及在墮落後的恩典之約，從早期教會就是一直存在的。
Until
recently, it was widely held that covenant theology was created in the middle
of the seventeenth century by theologians such as Johannes Cocceius
(1609–1669). In fact, covenant theology is nothing more or less than the
theology of the Bible. It is also the theology of the Reformed confessions. In
the history of theology, the elements of what we know as covenant theology; the
covenant of redemption before time between the persons of the Trinity, the
covenant of works with Adam, and the covenant of grace after the fall; have
existed since the early church.
的確，改革宗讀者如果去讀早期教父的著作（主後100-500年）也許會感到驚訝，他們使用的語言和思想模式和我們所發現的非常類似。早期教父的聖約神學強調恩典之約的統一性，新約對比舊約（摩西之約）的優越性，以及因著耶穌是亞伯拉罕真正的後裔，所有的基督徒，無論是猶太人或外邦人，也都是亞伯拉罕的兒女。他們也強調恩典之約的成員在道德倫理上的義務。Indeed, Reformed
readers who turn to the early church fathers (c. 100–500 AD) might be surprised to see how frequently they
used language and thought patterns that we find very familiar. The covenant
theology of the fathers stressed the unity of the covenant of grace, the
superiority of the new covenant over the old (Mosaic) covenant, and that,
because Jesus is the true seed of Abraham, all Christians, whether Jewish or
Gentile, are Abraham’s children. They also stressed the moral obligations of
membership in the covenant of grace.
中世紀教會（500-1500年）之後的聖約神學與早期教父的聖約神學有關，但是在幾方面是不同的。為了回應基督教是淫亂來源的批判，早期教會傾向於把救贖歷史說成是兩種律法的故事：舊律法（摩西）和新律法（基督）。他們傾向於把恩典說成是遵行律法的能力，以便被上帝稱義。The covenant theology
of the medieval church (c. 500–1500 ad) was
related to that of the early fathers but distinct in certain ways. In response
to the criticism that Christianity gave rise to immorality, the early church
tended to speak about the history of redemption as the story of two laws, the
old (Moses) and the new (Christ). They tended to speak of grace as the power to
keep the law in order to be justified.
這種習慣在中世紀教會只增而不減。主流的神學家主張除非百姓是真正的、發自內心的公義，上帝不會稱人為義。他們認為，當罪人被灌注以恩典，並且與此恩典合作時，這事就會發生，他們也成為聖徒。在這個架構下，成聖就是稱義，信心就是順服，而懷疑就是信心的本質。This habit only
increased in the medieval church. The major theologians argued that God can
only call people righteous if they are actually, inherently, righteous. This,
they thought, will happen when sinners are infused with grace, and cooperate
with that grace, so that they become saints. In this scheme, sanctification is
justification, faith is obedience, and doubt is of the essence of faith.
在中世紀的聖約神學裡，「盟約」這個字成為「律法」的同義詞。他們不像我們論及行為之約和恩典之約，反而說盟約的恩典使人能遵行律法。In medieval
covenant theology the word “covenant” became synonymous with “law.”
They did not speak of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, as we do.
Rather the grace of the covenant enables one to keep the law.
在中世紀晚期，有些神學家開始強調一個觀念，就是上帝給所有的人一種恩典，並且與人立了一種約，「對那竭盡己力的人，天主不惜賜以恩寵」（Facientibus quod in
se est, Deus non denegat gratiam）。實際上就是天助自助者。宗教改革不只是改革了早期教父的聖約神學，更對中世紀教會的聖約神學發動了大規模的戰爭。Late in the
medieval period, some theologians began to stress the idea that God has given a
kind of grace to all humans and made a covenant so that “to those who do what
is in them, God does not deny grace.” In effect, God helps those who help
themselves. The Reformation would not only reform the covenant theology of the
early fathers, but wage full-scale war on the covenant theology of the medieval
church.
當馬丁路德（1483-1546）拒絕中世紀那種與恩典合作而得救的救恩論時，他也拒絕了中世紀這種對救贖歷史舊律法/新律法的理解。他認識到全本聖經是用兩種方式來論及律法和福音。律法要求完美的順服，而福音宣布基督完美遵行了律法，祂為祂的子民死、為他們復活。When he rejected
the medieval doctrine of salvation by cooperation with grace, Martin Luther
(1483–1546) rejected the
old law/new law understanding of redemptive history. He came to understand that
all of Scripture has two ways of speaking, law and gospel. The law demands
perfect obedience, and the gospel announces Christ’s perfect obedience to that
law, his death and his resurrection for his people.
路德認識到他的新教觀點後不久，其他人已經開始沿著新教的路線改革聖約神學。在1520年代早期，瑞士改革宗神學家厄克蘭帕迪烏斯（Johannes
Oecolampadius）教導了後來被稱為「救贖之約」的聖父和聖子在永恆裡的約定。他也辨識出行為之約是律法之約，恩典之約是一個滿有恩典的約。幾年之後，布靈格（Heinrich Bullinger，1504-75）出版了新教第一本專門解釋恩典之約的書籍（譯按：《關於上帝唯一和永恆的盟約》[Of the One and
Eternal Testament or Covenant of God]）。和早期教父一樣，這部作品強調恩典之約的恩典與統一性。Not long after Luther came to his Protestant
views, others were already reforming covenant theology along Protestant lines.
In the early 1520s, the Swiss Reformed theologian Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–1531) was teaching what would later become
known as “the covenant of redemption” between the Father and the Son from all
eternity. He also distinguished between the covenant of works as a legal
covenant and the covenant of grace as a gracious covenant. A few years later
Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) published the first Protestant book devoted to
explaining the covenant of grace. Like the early fathers, this work stressed
the graciousness and unity of the covenant of grace.
加爾文（1509–1564）擁有非常完整的聖約神學，並且教導更高度發展的盟約神學的內容，包括永恆裡的救贖之約，墮落前的行為之約，以及墮落後的恩典之約。John Calvin (1509–1564) had a robust covenant theology and taught
the substance of the more highly developed federal theology including the
covenant of redemption in eternity, the covenant of works before the fall, and
the covenant of grace after the fall.
加爾文之後的後宗教改革神學家面臨了嚴厲的挑戰，即羅馬教會、亞米念主義和亞米瑞都主義（Amyraldism）的復甦，迫使他們建構一個更詳細的聖約神學。他們不止必須解釋救恩歷史，也必須解釋這個歷史和我們對罪人如何稱義、成聖的理解有何關係。The
post-Reformation theologians after Calvin faced severe challenges, namely a
resurgent Roman church, Arminianism, and Amyraldism, that forced them to
articulate a more detailed covenant theology. They had to explain not only the
history of salvation, but how that history relates to our understanding how
sinners are justified and sanctified.
通過把早些新教徒遺留下來的線索編織起來，在海德堡的改革宗神學家對聖約神學作出了貢獻。十六世紀晚期兩位最重要的神學家是海德堡要理問答（1563）的作者烏爾西努（Zacharias Ursinus，1534-1583）和奧利維亞努（Caspar Olevianus，1536–1587）。烏爾西努以行為之約作為他聖約神學的起點。在行為之約裡，亞當原本有可能藉著遵行律法進入到一個永遠蒙福的狀態。違背這個律法之約就意味著永遠的刑罰。The Reformed
theologians in Heidelberg did this by weaving together the threads left by the
earlier Protestants. Two of the most important Reformed covenant theologians of
the late sixteenth century were the chief authors of the Heidelberg Catechism
(1563), Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583) and Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587). Ursinus
began his covenant theology with the covenant of works in which Adam could have
entered a state of eternal blessedness by obeying the law. Transgression of
that law-covenant meant eternal punishment.
根據烏爾西努的說法，基督在為選民所做的順服中，成全了行為之約，擔當了他們的刑罰。在這個基礎上，上帝與罪人立了恩典之約。恩典之約的信息是罪人可以得到他們所不配的恩惠這個福音。According to
Ursinus, in his obedience for the elect, Christ fulfilled the covenant of works
and bore their punishment. On this basis God made a covenant of grace with sinners.
The message of the covenant of grace is the Gospel of undeserved favor for
sinners.
這是奧利維亞努影響深遠的書，《論上帝與選民之間的恩典之約的內容》（On the Substance of
the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect，1585）的焦點。他教導說恩典之約要用一個更廣義和更狹義的意義來理解。在狹義的意義上，此約可以說是只與選民立的。選民唯獨藉著恩典、唯獨藉著信心、唯獨在基督裡，與基督聯合。嚴格來說，領受此約好處的是選民。This was the focus
of Caspar Olevianus influential book, On the Substance of the Covenant of Grace
Between God and the Elect (1585). He taught that the covenant of grace can be
considered in a broader and narrower sense. In the narrower sense, the covenant
can be said to have been made only with the elect. It is the elect who are
united to Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, who
receive the benefits of the covenant, strictly speaking.
既然上帝知道誰是選民，在祂的施作中，恩典之約從廣義的意義來說，可以說是與所有受洗的人立的。因此，我們根據上帝的命令和應許來施洗，而我們將盟約的兒女（在他們承認信仰之前），並且將所有作出可靠信仰告白的人視為基督徒，除非他們後來被證明不是。在盟約中的人，只有在這個更廣的意義或外在上，領受了此約的好處（來六4-6），但是他們沒有領受奧利維亞努所謂的「盟約的實質」（substance of the
covenant）或盟約的「雙重好處」（double benefit）：稱義與成聖。只有選民唯獨靠著恩典，唯獨藉著信心，享用了恩典之約的雙重好處。Since only God knows
who is elect, in its administration, the covenant of grace, considered broadly,
can be said to be with all the baptized. Therefore we baptize on the basis of
the divine command and promise, and we regard covenant children (before
profession of faith) and all who make a credible profession of faith as
Christians until they prove otherwise. Those who are in the covenant only in
this broader sense or externally, do receive some of the benefits of the
covenant (Heb. 6:4–6), but they do not receive what Olevian called the
“substance of the covenant,” or the “double benefit” of the covenant:
justification and sanctification. Only those who are elect actually
appropriate, by grace alone, through faith alone, the “double benefit” of the
covenant of grace.
十七世紀最成熟的兩位聖約神學家是柯塞由（1609–1669）和魏特修（1636–1708；譯按：他的名著是The Economy of the Covenants
between God and. Man）。他們教導救贖之約、行為之約、恩典之約，他們也使用聖經的盟約作為組織救贖歷史的方法。其他大部分的改革宗神學家（包括歐陸和英國）用同樣的類別來教導神學。這也是威斯敏斯德信仰告白和要理問答的聖約神學。Two of the most
developed covenant theologies of the seventeenth century were those of Johannes
Cocceius (1609–1669) and Herman Witsius (1636–1708). They taught the covenants
of redemption, works, and grace, and they used the biblical covenants as ways
organizing redemptive history. Most other Reformed theologians, in Europe and
Britain taught theology using the same categories. This was also the covenant
theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms.
現代時期有認信信仰的改革宗神學家（例如：普林斯頓神學家）追隨宗教改革和後宗教改革時期聖約神學的大綱。然而，十九世紀以來，關於聖約神學有許多混亂的思想。有一部分是來自瑞士神學家巴特（Karl Barth，1886–1968）的影響。他拒絕大部分古典的改革宗聖約神學，認為它是律法主義的、「學究氣的」（scholastic），也是不合聖經的。從歷史的標準來看，廿世紀其他的聖約神學也必須被判定為是怪異的。到了廿世紀中葉，荷蘭和北美好幾位很有影響力的改革宗神學家拒絕了救贖之約和行為之約。其他人則主張恩典之約沒有狹義與廣義的區別。其他對正統聖約神學的修正或拒絕包括所謂的盟約異象運動（Federal Vision
movement；譯按：與Norman Shepherd有關），不只拒絕救贖之約；也拒絕律法和福音之間的區分，並拒絕行為之約和恩典之約之間的區分。根據他們的說法，每個受洗的人都是選民，且通過洗禮與基督聯合，但是這種揀選和聯合可以藉著不信實而喪失。The confessional
Reformed theologians in the modern period (for example, the Princeton
theologians) followed the outlines of the covenant theology of the Reformation
and post-Reformation periods. Nevertheless, there has been considerable
confusion about covenant theology since the nineteenth century. Some of this
has been due to the influence of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968).
He rejected much of classic Reformed covenant theology as legalistic,
“scholastic,” and unbiblical. Judged by historical standards, much of the rest
of covenant theology in the twentieth century must be judged to be
idiosyncratic as well. By the middle of the twentieth century, several
influential Reformed theologians in the Netherlands and in North America had
rejected the covenants of redemption and works. Others argued that there is no
narrow/broader distinction in the covenant of grace. Other revisions or
rejections of orthodox covenant theology include the so-called Federal Vision
movement that not only rejects the covenant of redemption; it rejects the
distinction between law and gospel and the distinction between the covenants of
works and grace. According to them, every baptized person is elect and united
to Christ through baptism, but this election and union can be forfeited through
faithlessness.
總結來說，在教會歷史中，聖約神學是一直存在的。宗教改革對福音的恢復，和恩典與行為之間的區別，讓改革宗神學有可能建構一種詳細且結實纍纍的聖約神學。In sum, throughout
the history of the church there has always been a theology of the covenants.
The Reformation recovery of the Gospel and the biblical distinction between
grace and works made it possible for Reformed theology to construct a detailed
and fruitful covenant theology.
現代時期所作的實驗，廢除了救贖之約和行為之約，傾向於把恩典之約轉變成一種律法之約。把行為之約和恩典之約合併起來，會把律法和福音混為一談，而這是宗教改革和福音最根本的區別。這種修正並沒有如他們所應許的，讓改革宗神學變得更有恩典、更以基督為中心，反而導致更自我中心的神學。The experiments of
the modern period, in doing away with the covenants of redemption and works,
have tended to turn the covenant of grace into a legal covenant. Conflating the
covenants of works and grace confuses law and gospel, which is the very
foundational distinction of the Reformation and the Gospel. Instead of making
Reformed theology more gracious and Christ-centered, as promised, the revisions
actually lead to more self-centered theology.
不過，有一些令人鼓舞的跡象。最近的聖經學術已經注意到古代近東條約的存在，啟迪了聖經中的行為之約和恩典之約。歷史神學已經更新了它對改革宗聖約神學原始資料的研究，在我們的時代裡，對恢復古典和十六和十七世紀認信的聖約神學大有助益。There are
encouraging signs, however. Some recent biblical scholarship has called
attention to the existence of ancient Near Eastern treaties that illumine the
biblical covenants of works and grace. Historical theology has renewed its
study of the original sources of Reformed covenant theology, which is helping
to recover the classical and confessional covenant theology of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries in our time.
