加爾文論成聖
摘錄自邁克何頓（Michael Horton）著，《基督徒的信仰》（麥種，2016年九月），第20章
Chapter
20: The Way Forward in Grace: Sanctification and Perseverance
I.
HOLY TO THE LORD: DEFINITIVE AND PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION B. PROGRESSIVELY
SANCTIFIED
加爾文在評論約翰福音十七章耶穌的大祭司禱告時，就這點提供了有用的洞見。信徒「藉真理成聖」，真理就是神的道（17節），「因為這裏的道是指福音的教義」：加爾文在這裏挑戰那些「狂熱分子」（編按：指當時的重洗派），他們想像一種成聖是來自外在的聖道以外的「內在之言」。 [9] 耶穌在禱告中說：「我為他們的緣故，自己分別為聖」（19節）。Calvin offers helpful insights
on this point in his comments on Jesus’
High Priestly Prayer in John 17. Believers are “sanctified by the truth,” which
is God’s Word (v. 17), “for the word here denotes the doctrine of the
Gospel": here Calvin challenges the “fanatics,” who imagine a
sanctification that comes from an “inner word” apart from the external Word.9
“And for their sakes I sanctify myself,” Jesus prays (v. 19 NRSV).
藉著這些話，祂更清楚地解釋成聖來自甚麼源頭；藉著福音的教義，成聖在我們裏面得以完全。是因為祂自己分別為聖歸於父，以致祂的聖潔可以臨到我們；因為正如給初熟果子的福分擴展到整個收成，神的聖靈也同樣藉著基督的聖潔潔淨我們，使我們有分於這聖潔。這也不單藉著歸算造成，因為在這方面，聖經說祂成為我們的義，但聖經也同樣說祂成為我們的成聖（林前一30），因為——我們可以這樣說——祂以自己的位格將我們引到祂的父面前，使我們可以被祂的聖靈更新，達到真正的聖潔。此外，雖然這成聖屬於基督的整個生平，但它最高的彰顯是祂藉著死所獻上的祭；因為那時祂藉著祂聖靈的大能將聖殿、祭壇、所有器皿和百姓分別為聖，顯明自己是真正的大祭司。 [10] By these
words he explains more clearly from what source that sanctification flows,
which is completed in us by the doctrine of the Gospel. It is because he
consecrated himself to the Father that his holiness might come to us; for as
the blessing on the firstfruits is spread over the whole harvest, so the Spirit
of God cleanses us by the holiness of Christ, and makes us partakers of it. Nor
is this done by imputation only, for in that respect he is said to have been
made to us cleanses us by the holiness of Christ, and makes us partakers of it.
Nor is this done by imputation only, for in that respect he is said to have
been made to us righteousness; but he is likewise said to have been made to us
sanctification (1Co 1:30) because he has, so to speak, presented us to his
Father in his own person, that we may be renewed to true holiness by his
Spirit. Besides, though this sanctification belongs to the whole life of
Christ, yet the highest illustration of it was given in the sacrifice of his
death; for then he showed himself to be the true High Priest, by consecrating
the temple, the altar, all the vessels, and the people, by the power of his
Spirit.10
[9]
John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (trans. William
Pringle; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1840; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996),
179-80＝加爾文著，吳玲玲譯，《約翰福音註釋》（北京：華夏出版社，2015），543頁。
[10] 同上，180-81＝加爾文著，《約翰福音註釋》，544頁。
編按：加爾文《約翰福音註釋》的中譯本，在此有個比較嚴重的誤譯，就是將 “imputation" 譯為「將我們的罪歸在他身上」。根據上下文，這裏不是指「歸罪」，而是「歸義」，就是「將基督的義歸在我們身上」。全段英譯如下
19.
And for their sakes I sanctify myself. By these words he explains more clearly
from what source that sanctification flows, which is completed in us by the
doctrine of the Gospel. It is, because he consecrated himself to the Father,
that his holiness might come to us; for as the blessing on the first-fruits is
spread over the whole harvest, so the Spirit of God cleanses us by the holiness
of Christ and makes us partakers of it. Nor is this done by imputation only,
for in that respect he is said to have been made to us righteousness; but he is
likewise said to have been made to us sanctification, (1 Corinthians 1:30,)
because he has, so to speak, presented us to his Father in his own person, that
we may be renewed to true holiness by his Spirit. Besides, though this
sanctification belongs to the whole life of Christ, yet the highest
illustration of it was given in the sacrifice of his death; for then he showed
himself to be the true High Priest, by consecrating the temple, the altar, all
the vessels, and the people, by the power of his Spirit.
聖靈、聖道、與重生
6.
REGENERATION AS EFFECTUAL CALLING
摘錄自邁克?何頓（Michael Horton）著，《基督徒的信仰》（麥種，2016年夏／秋季）
Chapter
17: Called to be Saints: Christ’s Presence in the Spirit
https://akowcm.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/%E8%81%96%E9%9D%88%E3%80%81%E8%81%96%E9%81%93%E3%80%81%E8%88%87%E9%87%8D%E7%94%9F/
重生也不是在遠方完成的事情，而已經是基督的臨在，在聖靈的大能中傳達父的聲音，聖靈不單在我們身上工作，也在我們裏面工作。加爾文說：「我們也必須留意表達的形式，因他們的話信……，就表示信心乃是源自聆聽，因為人的外在傳講是神用來吸引我們、使我們有信心的工具。因此，嚴格來說，神是信心的創始者，人是我們藉以相信的執事，正如保羅所教導的那樣（林前三5）」（強調字體為引者標示）。[1] 評論羅馬書十章17節（「可見信道是從聽道來的，聽道是從基督的話來的」）時，加爾文寫道：Nor is regeneration
something done at a distance, but is already the presence of Christ mediating
the voice of the Father in the power of the Spirit who not only works upon us
but within us. Calvin comments, “We must also observe that form of expression,
to believe through the word, which means that faith springs from hearing,
because the outward preaching of men is the instrument by which God draws us to
faith. It follows that God is, strictly speaking, the Author of faith, and men
are the ministers by whom we believe, as Paul teaches (1Co 3:5)” (emphasis
added). 44 Commenting on Romans 10:17 (“So faith comes from hearing, and
hearing through the word of Christ”), Calvin writes,
這是關於講道效力的一段了不起的經文；因為他宣稱信心是藉著講道產生的。他以前確實宣告過，單單講道本身是無效的；但講道若討主喜悅，以致祂作工，它就成了祂大能的工具。而事實上，人的聲音絕對不可能透入人的心靈；說某人有能力使我們重生，是過分抬舉了必死之人了；信心之光也極其超凡，絕不可能藉著人傳遞；但這一切都不是障礙，因為神並非不能透過人的聲音有效地工作，祂能透過他的事奉而在我們裏面創造信心。[2]
And
this is a remarkable passage with regard to the efficacy of preaching; for he
testifies that by it faith is produced. He had indeed before declared that of
itself it is of no avail; but that when it pleases the Lord to work, it becomes
the instrument of his power. And indeed the voice of man can by no means
penetrate
into the soul; and mortal man would be too much exalted were he said to have
the power to regen erate us; the light also of faith is something sublimer than
what can be conveyed by man: but all these things are no hindrances, that God
should not work effectually through the voice of man, so as to create faith in
us through his ministry. 45
中世紀的稱義教義是根據注入習性，重洗派強調聖靈在我們裏面直接和無媒介的運行；與之相對，改教者強調聖道──具體來說，是福音──的中介。寇爾夫豪斯（Wilhelm Kolfhaus）論及加爾文的觀點時指出：「因為信心和聖道彼此相屬，兩種表述的基礎始終都是：由聖靈藉著福音產生的信心。」[3] 譚布雷洛（Dennis Tamburello）很好地總結了加爾文對救恩次序的觀點：「聖靈藉著聆聽福音，使選民有信心；在這樣作時，聖靈將他們嫁接到基督裏。」[4]
Against
both the medieval doctrine of justification according to infused habits and the
Anabaptist emphasis on a direct and immediate work of the Spirit within us, the
Reformers insisted upon the mediation of the Word — specifically, the gospel.
“For faith and the Word belong together,” Wilhelm Kolfhaus notes concerning
Calvin’s view. “The foundation of both expressions is always the faith produced
by the Spirit through the Gospel.” 46 Dennis Tamburello nicely summarizes
Calvin’s view of the ordo: “The Holy Spirit brings the elect, through the
hearing of the gospel, to faith; in so doing, the Spirit engrafts them into
Christ.” 47
[1]
John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (trans. William
Pringle; Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1996)＝加爾文著，吳玲玲譯，《約翰福音註釋》（北京：華夏出版社，2015），545頁，評論約翰福音十七章20節。
[2] 加爾文評論羅馬書十章17節，於John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Romans (ed. and trans. John Owen: vol. 19 of Calvin’s Commentaries; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation
Society, 1843-1855, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 401＝加爾文著，趙中輝、宋華忠譯，《羅馬人書註釋》（台北：基督教改革宗翻譯社，1971），209-10頁。
[3] 寇爾夫豪斯，引自Dennis Tamburello, Union with
Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1994), 86。
[4]
Tamburello, Union with Christ, 86。
人與自然界
摘錄自何頓（Michael Horton）著，《基督徒的信仰》（麥種，2016年5月），第12章
Chapter
12: Being Human
C.
IMAGE AND EMBASSY: THE IMAGO AS GIFT AND TASK 1. SONSHIP/ROYAL DOMINION
https://akowcm.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/%E4%BA%BA%E8%88%87%E8%87%AA%E7%84%B6%E7%95%8C/#more-577
在這裏，我們應該補充說，導致人壓迫人類和人類以外的受造之物的，不是聖經的創造教義，而是罪的事實，就是聖經的墮落教義所描述的。「耶和華神將那人安置在伊甸園，使他修理、看守」（創二15）。修理、看守這個詞組，也常用來指利未人在聖殿的召命（vocation）。因此，創世記第一和二章的形像，其核心是征服和統治受造萬物，並不是自主地剝削或暴力地統治，而是命令人們「修理、看守」（二15）聖所的聖潔，將蛇從園子中趕出去，並擴展神公義、正義及和平的統治。At this point we
should add that it is not the biblical doctrine of creation that has led to the
oppression of nonhuman as well as human creation but the reality of sin that
the biblical doctrine of the fall describes. “The LORD God took the man and put
him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it” (Ge 2:15). The phrasework it
and keep it was commonly used also of the vocation of the Levites in relation
to the temple. Thus, the subduing and ruling of creation that is nuclear to the
Imago in Genesis 1 and 2 is not an autonomous exploitation or violent
domination but a mandate “to work … and keep” (2:15) the sanctuary in its
holiness, driving the serpent from the garden and extending God’s reign of
righteousness, justice, and peace.
由於受造萬物既非神又非鬼魔，既不是要讓人敬拜，也不是要讓人鄙視或破壞，人類這副攝政王以暴力對待受造之物，只能夠理解為與撒但結盟。 說「地和其中所充滿的，世界和住在其間的，都屬耶和華」（詩二十四1），就是說兩件事：大地不是神，它也不屬於我們。正因為「地和其中所充滿的都屬耶和華」，人類 (1) 和其餘自然界一樣是受造之物，並 (2) 承認他們受委派作神的世界的管家，不是消費和剝削世界，以為那是屬於他們的財產。Because the
creation is neither divine nor demonic, neither something to be worshiped nor
something to be despised or destroyed, violence of the human viceregent against
creation can be understood only as an alliance with Satan.75 To say that “the
earth is the LORD’S and the fullness thereof” (Ps 24:1) is to say two things:
that the earth is not God and that it is not ours. It is precisely because “the
earth is the LORD’S and the fullness thereof” that human beings (1) take their
place with the rest of nature as creatures and (2) recognize their commission
to be stewards of God’s world, not consumers and exploiters of what they take
to be their own possession.
這令我們記起威爾米革立所說的，是墮落將人的統治（設想為執行管家職分）轉化為暴政。只因為有一位站在人類的科技以外的創造主和審判官，我們才能說剝削最終不會不受審判。潘霍華強調這點：We are reminded
ofVermigli’s comment that it
is the fall that transforms human dominion (conceived as stewardship) into
tyranny. Only because there is a Creator and Judge who stands outside of human
technology can we say that exploitation will not finally go unchecked. Dietrich
Bonhoeffer underscores this point:
這個統治的自由乃是直接地包括了我們與受統治的受造物之間的聯繫。我是泥土和動物的主，我就是生活在這樣的世界裏，缺少這個世界，我就甚麼也不是。……它孕育我，滋養我，和支持我。但我從這個世界得到的自由在於一個事實：這個世界（我對待它，必須像主人對待僕人，像農夫對待泥土）要受我管理，我要統治大地，它現在是、且一直都會是我的大地。這個委任的權柄乃是神的道所賦予的，此外沒有其他任何來源─因此，這權柄獨特地約束他，使他和其他受造之物不同。This freedom of
dominion directly includes our tie to the creatures who are ruled. The soil and
the animals whose lord I am are the world in which I live, without which I am
not…. It bears me, nourishes me, and upholds me. But my freedom from it
consists in the fact that this world, to which I am bound as a lord to his
servant, as the peasant to his soil, is subjected to me, that I am to rule over
the earth which is and remains my earth. It is by no other commissioned
authority except that given by the Word of God to man—which thus uniquely binds
and sets him over against the other creatures.76
潘霍華提醒我們，神從一開始委託給人的這個治理或統治，絕對不是要將人的剝削合法化，反而應該讓我們避免為自己而攫取它。「不事奉神就不會有治理。……從一開始，人對待大地的方式就只有照著神對待人的方式才有可能。……人之所以能自由地事奉神和其他人，並且在統治受造物時不被受造之物轄制，就是因為神在第一個人身上的形像。」Bonhoeffer reminds
us that, far from legitimizing human exploitation, this dominion or rule
entrusted to humanity by God from the beginning should keep us from seeking to
grasp it for ourselves. “There is no dominion without serving God … From the
very beginning the way of man to the earth has only been possible as God’s way
to man …Man’s being-free-for God and the other person and his being-free-from
the creature in his dominion over it is the image of God in the first man.”77
我們甚至可以進一步主張，柏拉圖思想對形像的詮釋，再怎麼非故意，卻如物質主義的觀點一樣，都很容易產生一種不負責任的生態倫理，特別是結合徹底的唯意志論（voluntarism；也就是強調意志）的時候，會變成同謀，可悲地扭曲人和其餘受造之物的關係。如果我們的目標是超越其餘的受造之物，包括我們自己的身體，我們的「統治」就會採取與物質世界對立的關係。如果我們的優越性是由我們的思想決定的，我們就會以算計的理性掌管物質世界；如果靠我們的意志，我們可能按自己的命令扭曲受造界，駕馭其能量，不理會在生態方面付出的代價；如果靠我們身體的力量，我們可能會僅僅出於一意孤行而以放肆濫用為榮。如果物質世界沒有超越的來源或目標，而只是受制於它內在的法則和隨意的機運，世界就只是我們可以用自己的權力意志操控和剝削的原材料。反諷的是，柏拉圖主義和物質主義都以自己的方式，帶來這種人類與環境的疏離，而人類就在這種疏中，實現本身的身分和目的。We may even go so
far as to suggest that the Platonic interpretation of the imago easily allows
for an irresponsible ecological ethic, however unintentionally, just as
materialist views, especially when combined with a radical voluntarism (i.e.,
emphasis on the will), become coconspirators in tragically distorting the
relationship of humans to the rest of creation. If our goal is to transcend the
rest of creation, including our own bodies, then our “dominion” will take the
form of an antithetical relationship to the material world. If our superiority
is determined by our mind, we master the material world by calculative reason;
if by our will, we may bend creation to our decrees and harness its energies,
regardless of the ecological cost; if by our physical strength, we may glory in
wanton abuse that results from mere self-assertion. If the material world has no
transcendent origin or goal but is simply subject to its own immanent laws and
random chance, the world becomes little more than the raw material that we can
manipulate and exploit in our will to power. Ironically, Platonism and
materialism have contributed in their own ways to this alienation of humanity
from the environment in which it realizes its own identity and purpose.
