宗教改革結束了嗎 Is the Reformation Over
作者：史鮑爾（R.C. Sproul） 王一（Yi Wang）譯/誠之修訂：
宗教改革結束了嗎？一些被我稱為「前福音派人士（erstwhile
evangelicals）」的人，在這個問題上提出了一些觀點。其中之一是這樣的：「路德在十六世紀時是對的，但是稱義（justification）的問題如今已經不成問題了。」第二個觀點是我在一次記者招待會上聽到的，一位自稱是福音派的人如此評論說：「十六世紀宗教改革運動所辯論的唯獨因信稱義的問題，是茶壺裡的風暴，沒什麼大不了的。」還有一位著名的歐洲神學家寫到：唯獨因信稱義的教義，已經不再是教會裡重要的問題了。我們面對的是一幫自稱是抗羅宗（Protestant）、卻很明顯的忘了他們在對抗什麼的人。There have been
several observations rendered on this subject by those I would call “erstwhile
evangelicals.” One of them wrote, “Luther was right in the sixteenth century,
but the question of justification is not an issue now.” A second self-confessed
evangelical made a comment in a press conference I attended that “the
sixteenth-century Reformation debate over justification by faith alone was a
tempest in a teapot.” Still another noted European theologian has argued in
print that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is no longer a
significant issue in the church. We are faced with a host of people who are
defined as Protestants but who have evidently forgotten altogether what it is
they are protesting.
和當代有關唯獨因信稱義教義的重要性的一些評述相反的，我們回想起十六世紀重要改教家們的不同觀點。路德本人對唯獨因信稱義的教義最有名的評述就是：對教會來說，這是攸關生死的教義（the article upon
which the church stands or falls）。約翰加爾文加上了一個不同的比喻：「稱義是一切教義的樞紐」（justification is
the hinge upon which everything turns）。在廿世紀，巴刻打了這麼一個比方：唯獨因信稱義的教義就是「以肩頂天的巨神阿特拉斯的肩膀，是所有其他的教義的立足點」（Atlas upon whose
shoulder every other doctrine stands）。後來巴刻沒有用這麼強烈的比喻，而用另外一個較弱的比喻說：唯獨因信稱義的教義是「福音的小字說明」（the fine print of
the gospel）。Contrary to some of
these contemporary assessments of the importance of the doctrine of
justification by faith alone, we recall a different perspective by the
sixteenth-century magisterial Reformers. Luther made his famous comment that
the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article upon which the
church stands or falls. John Calvin added a different metaphor, saying that
justification is the hinge upon which everything turns. In the twentieth
century, J.I. Packer used a metaphor indicating that justification by faith
alone is the “Atlas upon whose shoulder every other doctrine stands.” Later
Packer moved away from that strong metaphor and retreated to a much weaker one,
saying that justification by faith alone is “the fine print of the gospel.”
根據這些討論，我們必須面對的問題是：十六世紀以來，到底發生了什麼變化？當然，有好消息也有壞消息。好消息是人們變得更文明，對神學爭論也變得更寬容。我們不會再看到有人因不同的教義被燒死，或者被掛在刑架上受難。我們也看到在過去這些年中，羅馬教廷在其他一些基督教正統教義的關鍵問題上，維持穩固的立場，例如基督的神性，基督的代贖，聖經的默示，而這些重要教義在福音派的自由派人士（liberals）中已經如批發貨一樣被丟棄了。我們也看到羅馬教會在一些重要的倫理議題上，也維持堅定的態度，例如墮胎和道德相對論等問題。在十九世紀的梵蒂岡第一次會議（Vatican Council I）上，羅馬稱抗羅宗（Protestant）為「異端和分裂分子（heretics and schismatics）」。而在廿世紀的梵蒂岡第二次會議（Vatican II）上，抗羅宗卻被稱為「分離的弟兄（separated brethren）」。在不同會議上，我們看到天主教強烈對比的口吻。The question we
have to face in light of these discussions is, what has changed since the
sixteenth century? Well, there is good news and there is bad news. The good
news is that people have become much more civil and tolerant in theological
disputes. We don’t see people being burned at the stake or tortured on the rack
over doctrinal differences. We’ve also seen in the past years that the Roman
communion has remained solidly steadfast on other key issues of Christian
orthodoxy, such as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement, and the
inspiration of the Bible, while many Protestant liberals have abandoned these
particular doctrines wholesale. We also see that Rome has remained steadfast on
critical moral issues such as abortion and ethical relativism. In the
nineteenth century at Vatican Council I, Rome referred to Protestants as
“heretics and schismatics.” In the twentieth century at Vatican II, Protestants
were referred to as “separated brethren.” We see a marked contrast in the tone
of the different councils.
然而，壞消息是，從十六世紀以來，使正統抗羅宗和羅馬天主教分裂的許多重要教義，竟然被羅馬教會宣佈成為其合法的教理（dogma）。基本上，所有重要的聖母論的法令都是在過去150年之間宣佈的。教宗無誤的教義，雖然在事實上（de facto）早在其正式定義很久以前已經在使用了，卻在1870年的梵蒂岡第一次會議中正式定義，並宣佈稱其為「確定當信之理」（de fide，必須相信才能得救的教理necessary to believe for
salvation）。我們也看到最近這些年羅馬教廷出版了新的天主教教理（new Catholic
catechism），在其中毫不含糊地重申了天特會議（Council of Trent）的教義，包括天特會議中稱義教義的定義（也因此申明了天特會議中對宗教改革[Reformation]對唯獨因信稱義的教義的咒詛[anathemas]）。伴隨著對天特的重新肯定，也明確重新肯定了煉獄、大赦和功德庫等羅馬教義。The bad news,
however, is that many doctrines that divided orthodox Protestants from Roman
Catholics centuries ago have been declared dogma since the sixteenth century.
Virtually all of the significant Mariology decrees have been declared in the
last 150 years. The doctrine of papal infallibility, though it de facto
functioned long before its formal definition, was nevertheless formally defined
and declared de fide (necessary to believe for salvation) in 1870 at Vatican
Council I. We also see that in recent years the Roman communion has published a
new Catholic catechism, which unequivocally reaffirms the doctrines of the
Council of Trent, including Trent’s definition of the doctrine of justification
(and thus affirms that council’s anathemas against the Reformation doctrine of
justification by faith alone). Along with the reaffirmations of Trent have come
a clear reaffirmation of the Roman doctrine of purgatory, indulgences, and the
treasury of merits.
一次在神學界領袖們的討論中，有關唯獨因信稱義教義和今日的關聯的問題上，霍頓（Michael Horton）提出這樣一個問題：「在過去這幾十年裡，是什麼讓這個第一世紀的福音變得如此不重要？」在稱義問題上的爭論，不是爭論一些神學上的枝節問題，好像這些問題可以隨便存放在聖經真理倉庫的邊緣位置，也絕不能視之為茶壺裡的風暴，無關緊要。這個風暴所延伸出來的範圍，遠超過一個茶壺的小小容量。「我該做什麼才能得救」的問題，仍舊是所有暴露在上帝憤怒之下的人的關鍵性問題。At a discussion
among leading theologians over the issue of the continued relevance of the
doctrine of justification by faith alone, Michael Horton asked the question:
“What is it in the last decades that has made the first-century gospel
unimportant?” The dispute over justification was not over a technical point of
theology that could be consigned to the fringes of the depository of biblical
truth. Nor could it be seen simply as a tempest in a teapot. This tempest
extended far beyond the tiny volume of a single teacup. The question, “what
must I do to be saved?” is still a critical question for any person who is
exposed to the wrath of God.
比這個問題更關鍵的是問題的答案，因為這個答案觸及到福音真理的核心。歸根究柢，羅馬天主教會贊同天特會議的觀點，現在又繼而確認這樣的觀點，即上帝宣佈一個人義或不義的基礎是在此人的「固有之義」（inherent
righteousness，或譯為內在之義）之中。如果義不是一個人本質固有的，那他最壞的情況是下地獄，而最好的情況（如果在他生命中還有任何雜質的話）是去煉獄熬煉一段時間，而這段時間可能會是好幾百萬年。Even more critical
than the question is the answer, because the answer touches the very heart of
gospel truth. In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church affirmed at
Trent and continues to affirm now that the basis by which God will declare a
person just or unjust is found in one’s “inherent righteousness.” If
righteousness does not inhere in the person, that person at worst goes to hell
and at best (if any impurities remain in his life) goes to purgatory for a time
that may extend to millions of years.
與此醒目不同的是聖經和抗羅宗對稱義的觀點，這個觀點是說我們稱義的唯一根據和基礎乃是基督的義，這義是加（歸算）給一切相信的人。這樣，任何人在基督裡產生真實信心的時刻，他的救恩所需的一切的一切，都因著基督所成就的義加給他的緣故，而成為他的了。最最根本的問題在於：我被稱為義的基礎是我自己的嗎？In bold contrast to
that, the biblical and Protestant view of justification is that the sole
grounds of our justification is the righteousness of Christ, which
righteousness is imputed to the believer, so that the moment a person has
authentic faith in Christ, all that is necessary for salvation becomes theirs
by virtue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The fundamental issue is
this: is the basis by which I am justified a righteousness that is my own?
還是像路德所說的，這義是「一個外來的義（an alien
righteousness）」？是一個我們之外的義（extra nos）嗎？是在我們之外的——別人的義，也就是基督的義嗎？從十六世紀到今天，羅馬一直教導稱義是基於對基督和恩典的信心。但是區別在於，羅馬卻又同時不斷地否認稱義是唯獨基於基督，唯獨因著信心被接納，唯獨本乎恩典。這兩者之間的區別是救恩和非救恩的區別。對於一個與公義的上帝相隔離的罪人來說，沒有比這更大的問題了。Or is it a
righteousness that is, as Luther said, “an alien righteousness,” a
righteousness that is extra nos, apart from us—the righteousness of another,
namely, the righteousness of Christ? From the sixteenth century to the present,
Rome has always taught that justification is based upon faith, on Christ, and
on grace. The difference, however, is that Rome continues to deny that
justification is based on Christ alone, received by faith alone, and given by
grace alone. The difference between these two positions is the difference
between salvation and its opposite. There is no greater issue facing a person
who is alienated from a righteous God.
不論羅馬天主教會在其他正統教義上如何重申，當她宣判聖經裡唯獨因信稱義的教義有罪的時刻，她就是否認了福音，就不再是合法的教會。而當她否認聖經的救恩時，信奉擁護她為真教會，是極其致命的。我們生活在一個認為神學爭論是「政治上不正確」的時代，但是當沒有平安卻宣告「平安了，平安了」的人，是背叛福音的核心與靈魂的人。At the moment the
Roman Catholic Church condemned the biblical doctrine of justification by faith
alone, she denied the gospel and ceased to be a legitimate church, regardless
of all the rest of her affirmations of Christian orthodoxy. To embrace her as
an authentic church while she continues to repudiate the biblical doctrine of
salvation is a fatal attribution. We’re living in a time where theological
conflict is considered politically incorrect, but to declare peace when there
is no peace is to betray the
heart and soul of the gospel.
