80.  洗禮Baptism

作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul)     譯者: 姚錦榮

摘自《神學入門》《Essential Truths of the Christian Faith》213頁, 更新傳道會出版https://plus.google.com/u/3/105106813742373627205/posts/4UFfnvqNHX1

洗禮洗禮是用來表達新的聖約的聖禮標記。它是一個記號，印證了神對恩約中選民的承諾 。

洗禮表明了幾件事。首先，洗禮表明我們的罪被洗淨和得赦免。洗禮也 表明我們被聖靈重生，與基督同埋葬和同復活，有聖靈的內住，被接納於神家中，以及靠聖靈成聖。

洗禮是基督設立的，奉父、子、聖靈的名執行。 洗禮外在的標記並不能自動或神奇地將所表示的實質傳遞與人。例如，洗禮雖然表明重生，但卻不能自動傳遞重生的生命。洗禮的能力不在於水，而在於神的能力。

洗禮是表示用水洗淨之意，它可以用浸入、點水，或灑水的儀式來執行。希臘文洗禮一詞可包括這三種模式。

洗禮的效力不在於施洗者或受洗者本身的品格， 它乃是神救贖的應許臨到所有相信基督者的一個標記。因為這是神的應許，所以應許的效力在乎神本性的可靠。

 洗禮既是神應許的標記，所以在一個人的身上只可有一次。超過一次的受洗則表示自己對神應許的真實與誠摯有所懷疑。當然，那些受第二次或多次洗的人，並非對神的信實起懷疑，但若用正確的角度去理解，這行動本身卻代表了懷疑的態度。

嬰兒洗禮在傳統教會中十分普遍，但這個禮儀也受到不少宗派中敬虔基督徒的嚴肅挑戰。問題的核心有幾方面：新約聖經並沒有命令嬰兒受 洗，但也沒有明文禁止嬰兒受洗，於是爭論點便環繞在洗禮的意義，以及新舊聖約是否具有延續性的問題上。 嬰兒洗禮最遭人反對的理由是，洗禮是為教會會眾設立的，而教會又是由信主的人組成的團體。由於嬰兒還不能夠運用信心，因此不應該接受洗禮。又有人強調說，在新約聖經有關洗禮的記載中，並沒有提到嬰兒洗禮的事。此外還有一 個反對論點，就是舊的聖約雖然不是藉著血緣傳遞救恩，卻十分強調以色列這個民族，這聖約是藉著家族和國家關係傳遞的。而新約聖經的聖約概念則 更具包容性，容許外邦人加入這個信心的團契，這個不同點使得割禮與洗禮不能相提並論。

但是另一方面，主張嬰兒洗禮者，卻強調洗禮與割禮具有平行的意義；二者雖有不同，但卻有很重要的共通點，因都是與神約的記諕，且都是信心的標 記。以亞 伯拉罕為例，他在成時才信神，且在受割禮之前已公開認信，因此亞伯拉罕是在接受信心標記之前就已有了信心。但亞伯拉罕的兒子以撒，卻是在接受信心標記之後才有信心的，雖然這標記是信心的記號（對此約中的子孫來說也一樣）。但關鍵在於舊約聖經中，神是在人有信心之前已經定下信心的標記，這是很清晰的，如果還要爭辯在有信心前施行信心標記的原則是錯的，顯然沒有甚麼意義。

另一 個需留意的要點是，新約聖經所記錄的洗禮都是以前未信的成年人，他們是第一代的基督徒，而一貫的原則是，成年歸主者（他們在嬰兒時期不是信徒的子女）在接受洗禮（信心的標記）之前，必須先公開承認信仰。

在新約聖經中所有有關洗禮的記載中，約有四分之一提到是全家受洗的。我們雖然無法證實，但這是很有力的根據，顯示嬰兒應該也包括在那些受洗者當中。既然新約聖經並未明文禁止嬰兒接受立約的標記 ( 在以割禮作為立約標記的時代， 嬰兒接受割禮標記已有數千年的歷史），初代教會容許嬰兒接受此洗禮標記是個很合理的推斷。

第一個有關嬰兒受洗的記載，約出自第二世紀中葉。值得注意的是，這記載顯示了嬰兒洗禮是在普世教會中施行。按照現存的文件看，在當時代並沒有引起爭議。 每個基督徒都有責任受洗，因為洗禮不是一個空洞的儀式，而是主所吩咐當遵守的聖禮。

總結

1. 洗禮是用來表明新的聖約的聖禮標記。

2 .洗禮有多重的意義 。

3 . 洗禮是基督設立的，須用水並奉父、子、聖靈的名施行。

4 .洗禮不能自動地傳遞重生的生命。

5 . 洗禮可用浸入、點水或 灑水三種方式執行。

6 . 洗禮的效力在乎神應許的實在，一個人一生只需受洗一次。

7 .新約聖經沒有明文命令或禁止嬰兒受洗。

8. 反對嬰兒受洗者，強調新約聖經與舊約聖經的信心標記不同，並且強調洗禮是信心標記的事實。

9 . 支持嬰兒受洗者的根據是，割禮與洗禮間是有延續性的，兩者都是信心的標記。

10. 教會歷史見證，在第二世紀時，嬰兒洗禮已是十分普遍的事，並沒有 引起甚麼爭議。

思考經文：

 羅4 ：11- 12 ；羅6 ：3-4 ；林前12:12-14 ；西2 ：11-15 ；多3 : 3-7 ；創 17 ：1- 14； 徒2 ：38-39； 徒 16 : 25-34

80. BAPTISM

Baptism is the sacramental sign of the New Covenant. It is a sign by which God seals His pledge to the elect that they are included in the covenant of grace.

Baptism signifies several things. In the first instance, it is a sign of cleansing and the remission of our sins. It also signifies being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, being buried and raised together with Christ, being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, being adopted into the family of God, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Baptism was instituted by Christ and is to be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The outward sign does not automatically or magically convey the realities that are signified. For example, though baptism signifies regeneration, or rebirth, it does not automatically convey rebirth. The power of baptism is not in the water but in the power of God.

The reality to which sacrament points may be present before or after the sign of baptism is given. In the Old Testament the sign of the covenant

was circumcision. Circumcision was, among other things, a sign of faith. In the case of adults, such as Abraham, faith came prior to the sign of circumcision. With the children of believers, however, the sign of circumcision was given prior to their possession of faith, as was the case with Isaac. Likewise, in the New Covenant, Reformed theology requires adult converts to be baptized after making a profession of faith, while their children receive baptism before they profess faith.

Baptism signifies a washing with water. The command to baptize may be fulfilled by immersion, dipping, or sprinkling. The Greek word to baptize includes all three possibilities.

The validity of baptism does not rest upon the character of the minister who performs it or the character of the person who receives it. Baptism is a sign of the promise of God of salvation to all who believe in Christ. Since it is God’s promise, the validity of the promise rests on the trustworthiness of the character of God.

Because baptism is the sign of God’s promise, it is not to be administered to a person more than once. To be baptized more than once is to cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity and sincerity of God’s promise. Surely those who have been baptized two or more times do not intend to cast doubt on God’s integrity, but the action, if properly understood, would communicate such doubt.

Though infant baptism has been the majority practice of historic Christianity, its propriety has been solemnly challenged by godly Christians of various denominations. The question surrounding infant baptism rests upon several concerns. The New Testament neither explicitly commands infants to be baptized nor explicitly prohibits them from being baptized. The debate centers on questions surrounding the meaning of baptism and the degree of continuity between the Old Covenant and New Covenant.

The most crucial objection from those who oppose infant baptism is that the sacrament of baptism belongs to members of the church and the church is a company of believers. Since infants are incapable of exercising faith, they ought not to be baptized. It is also stressed that of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament there are no specific references to infants. A further objection is that the Old Covenant, though not conveying salvation via biological blood lines, nevertheless did involve an ethnic emphasis on the nation of Israel. The covenant was passed through family and national ties. In the New Testament the covenant is more inclusive, allowing Gentiles into the community of faith. This point of discontinuity makes a difference between circumcision and baptism.

On the other hand, those who favor infant baptism stress its parallels with circumcision. Though baptism and circumcision are not identical, they have crucial points in common. Both are signs of the covenant, and both are signs of faith. In the case of Abraham, he came to faith as an adult. He made a profession of faith before he was circumcised. He had faith before he received the sign of that faith. Abraham’s son Isaac, on the other hand, received the sign of his faith before he had the faith that the sign signified (as was the case with all future children of the covenant).

The crucial point is that in the Old Testament, God ordered that a sign of faith be given before faith was present. Since that was clearly the case, it is erroneous to argue in principle that it is wrong to administer a sign of faith before faith is present.

It is also important to notice that the narrative record of baptisms in the New Testament are of adults who were previously unbelievers. They were first generation Christians. Again, it has always been the rule that adult converts (who were not children of believers at the time of their infancy) must first make a profession of faith before receiving baptism, which is the sign of their faith.

About one fourth of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament indicate that entire households were baptized. This strongly suggests, though it does not prove, that infants were included among those baptized. Since the New Testament does not explicitly exclude infants from the covenant sign (and they had been included for thousands of years while the covenant sign was circumcision), it would naturally be assumed in the early church that infants were to be given the sign of the covenant.

History bears witness to this assumption. The first direct mention of infant baptism is around the middle of the second century A.D. What is noteworthy about this reference is that it assumes infant baptism to be the universal practice of the church. If infant baptism were not the practice of the first-century church, how and why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue.

In general, the New Covenant is more inclusive than the Old Covenant. Yet those who dispute the validity of infant baptism make it less inclusive with respect to children, despite the absence of any biblical prohibition against infant baptism.

It is every Christian’s duty, however, to be baptized. It is not an empty ritual, but a sacrament commanded by our Lord.

Summary

1. Baptism is the sacramental sign of the New Covenant.

2. Baptism has multiple significance.

3. Baptism was instituted by Christ and is to be administered with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 4. Baptism does not automatically convey rebirth.

5. Baptism may be administered by immersion, sprinkling, or dipping in water.

6. The validity of baptism rests upon the integrity of God’s promise and should only be administered to a person once.

7. The New Testament neither explicitly commands nor forbids infant baptism.

8. To make their case, opponents of infant baptism point to the differences between the Old and New Testaments and to the fact that baptism is a sign of faith.

9. Advocates of infant baptism point out the continuity between circumcision and baptism as signs of faith.

10. Church history bears witness to the universal, noncontroversial practice of infant baptism in the second century A.D.

Biblical passages for reflection:

Romans 4:11-1；2 Romans 6:3-4 ； 1 Corinthians 12:12-14； Colossians 2:11-15； Titus 3:3-7； Genesis 17:1-14 ；Acts 2:38-39 ；Acts 16:25-34