唯獨聖經與唯獨信心Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

作者: Guy Prentiss Wat    譯者:  Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/10/sola-scriptura-sola-fide/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/fYTgAjaApaQ

今年，許多人在慶祝宗教改革500周年， 但並非所有人都會同慶。 有些人對改教家及其工作提出嚴厲的批評，指責改教家以自主個體權威取代教會權威。 此外，這些批評者還聲稱：唯獨因信稱義的教義切斷人的道德神經，實際上使人沈溺於淫蕩的放縱生活。馬丁·路德和約翰·加爾文打開了潘多拉魔盒（Pandora's box），釋放出激進的個人主義和反律法主義這兩種影響，不僅造成教會出租的現象，而且還給現代下了定義。明白這幾方面，我們就知道宗教改革是悲哀而非慶祝的緣由。

這些批評是由誤解而來，即對宗教改革的深刻誤解，特別是對唯獨聖經（sola scriptura）和唯獨信心（sola fide）這兩個宗教改革的主要教義的誤解。 當改教家宣稱聖經是信仰與實踐的唯一準則時，他們說的是什麼呢？他們宣告罪人唯獨藉著信心稱義，是在法律行為以外嗎？ 重要的是，當他們在教會中提出這些宣告時，他們沒有說什麼？

在前宗教改革教會中，聖經被廣泛公認為信仰和服從的權威。教會裡沒有令人擔憂的聲音挑戰聖經的權威，類似現代教會許多人質疑或否認聖經的默示與權威那樣的聲音。那麼，改教家們吶喊抗議，他們反對什麽？前宗教改革教會承認聖經權威的同時，也承認教會的其他權威等同於聖經的權威。當時，教會傳統和教會的官方聲明是教會信仰和實踐的標準。因此，諸如崇敬瑪利亞與聖徒、煉獄、變質説等教義都在羅馬天主教會的信仰與敬拜中占有一席之地。教會既沒有專們訴諸聖經，以證明這些教義的正確性，也沒有意識到這樣做的必要性。教會的權威足以使這些教義在教會的生活中被接受。

改教家斷言聖經是教會信仰和順服的權威。 但他們同樣堅持唯獨聖經是教會信仰和實踐的標準。樹立其他權威，與聖經權威並列，實際上是廢除聖經。 正如法利賽人「因為 [他們的] 傳統，就廢棄了神的話」（太十五6），教會在十六世紀末也正是這樣的景況。改教家論證說，只有當我們堅持聖經是我們信仰和順服唯一無謬的標準時，上帝的聖言恰恰完全發揮其標準的功能。

宗教改革並非一場試圖抹去教會最初一千五百年歷史的運動。宗教改革既沒有全部摒棄教會會議和信經，更沒有忽視那些曾幫助教會更好地明白聖經的偉大的神學家。 快速瀏覽一下加爾文所著的《基督教要義》便說明了這點。加爾文不僅大量引用教會會議、信經，和教父著作，而且他也經常讚成這麼做。 加爾文與其他改教家并沒有著手拋棄教會歷史，而是將這段歷史置於臣服聖經的位置上。 聖經是改教家們判斷教會的歷史信仰和實踐唯一毫無錯謬的標準，不管他們的做法受到讚賞還是備受指責。

這麼說來，改教家真心欣賞前幾代信徒理解和應用聖經的方式。他們建造在這筆遺產之上，並擴展了這筆遺產。 他們不相信基督徒讀聖經時的態度，好像他們是第一個，或唯一一個曾讀過聖經的人。試圖這樣做是不符合基督的肢體乃相互依賴這項真理------沒有個體信徒是自我足夠的（林前十二章）。試圖這樣做也表明我們是忘恩不領恩之人，忘記了聖靈在歷代賜予教會的恩賜------教牧人員------他們蒙呼召要用上帝的聖言牧養聖徒（弗四11-16）。「只有我和我的聖經」的口號對改教家和羅馬天主教來說同樣都是陌生的。而改教家更堅持的是教會的信仰、敬拜、生活唯獨臣服於聖經。

當改教家以臣服於聖經這種態度來研讀聖經時，他們重獲其中一項主要的教導，此教導在前宗教改革教會的見證中被嚴重遮蔽。 它就是罪人在律法行為之外唯獨因信稱義。

人們有時說，前宗教改革教會（和今天的天主教會）相信因行為稱義，而改教家則堅持因信稱義。 但這種說法既誤解這場爭論，又歪曲雙方。 事實上，許多前宗教改革教會都教導因信稱義的教義（今天的羅馬天主教會也教導這項教義）。但他們教導稱義是一個終身的過程，開始於洗禮時基督的恩典的注入。 隨著受洗人透過教會聖禮領受越來越多的恩典，他就有能力行出越來越多的好行為。

如此，他便作成越來越多的內在的義（稱義）。 重要的是他繼續領受這種聖禮的恩典，因為稱義是一種可失去的恩典，而通過聖禮，就算失去了，也能重新獲得，並且變得堅固。 但對上帝的信心需要借著這些程序獲得。 由於大多數基督徒在死亡的時候還不是一個完全的義人，為了成為更義的人，他們必須在煉獄經歷一段時間。 只有當基督徒是一個真正和完全的義人時，他才會得到所謂的最終的稱義。稱義就這樣被教導，一個人是「因信成義」。

改教家論證說，這種教導在許多方面與聖經對稱義的見證相矛盾。 他們論證並堅持聖經的教導：罪人唯獨因信稱義。稱義是上帝在祂的法庭作出的明確宣告（參閱羅五18; 八1，33-34）。 上帝宣告罪人為義。祂赦免罪人所有的罪，接納他們，在祂眼中算他們為義。稱義不是人裡面逐漸改變或轉變的過程。 這個裁決不是在審判之日 ，而是在基督徒生活的開始作出的 。 這怎麼可能？ 因為稱義的基楚絕非我們已做、正在做、或將要做的任何事。我們稱義完全是根據基督的義 -------祂完全的順服和完全滿足了上帝律法對罪人的要求（羅三21-26; 五12-21）。基督的義不是注入罪人裡面，而是歸算給罪人。 正如我們的罪在十字架上被算為基督的罪，基督的義在我們稱義的一刻也歸算為是我們的義（林前五21）。 此外，信不是罪人稱義的原因或基礎。罪人稱義乃藉著或透過信（的運作方式或方法）稱義。信心完全是稱義的工具。信心擁抱基督歸算的義的白白恩典。信心並沒有為稱義加添什麼，而是接受稱義的一切。這樣，基督便在我們的稱義中得到所有榮耀。 我們自己裡面沒有什麼-------甚至信心也不能-----作為我們稱義的誇口。 這就是改教家說我們唯獨因信稱義時，根據對聖經的理解而作出的教導。

這一教導意味著稱義的人可隨自己的喜好自由地生活嗎？ 他領取神聖的執照，準許沈溺罪中嗎？ 要高度敏感這些問題，改教家異口同聲回答：「不！」我們唯獨在法律行為以外因信稱義， 但這種信會和必定生產出生善行的收成。這種信是藉著愛表達出來的（加五6）。 我們絕非因這些好行為稱義，而是因信稱義，並藉著好行為來證明這種信的真實和真誠。 如雅各書二章14-26節的教導，我們的好行為表明基督徒是那些真正宣告為義的人。 好行為向我們自己和別人表明真正稱義的信心和空洞的信心之間的區別。 好行為不能使我們稱義，但卻必定存在於所有稱義之人的生活之中。 我們唯獨因信稱義，但此信不是無所相伴的信心（參閱威敏斯特信仰告白11.2）。

總之，改教家不僅拒絕信仰和實踐的最終權威在於教會的觀點，而且也拒絕信仰和實踐的最終權威於在於個人的觀點。唯獨聖經是信仰和實踐的最終權威。改教家拒絕好行為是稱義的基楚，或部分基楚，改教家也堅持唯獨因信稱義的人必定會追求善行，作為他們稱義信心的果子和證據。改教家明白激進的個人主義和放蕩的生活實際上是罪的奴役。改教家不希望看到人從靈性束縛的一種形式轉變為另一種形式。 他們渴望看到藉著耶穌基督恩典的福音，人（包括男女）擺脫罪的奴役，獲得自由。僅僅因為這個理由，宗教改革就值得我們去慶祝。

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss., and a teaching elder in the PCA. He is author of How Jesus Runs the Church.

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十月號  。

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide

By  Guy Prentiss Wat   

This year, many people are celebrating the five-hundredth anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. But not everyone is. Some have raised severe criticisms against the Reformers and their work. The Reformers, they allege, replaced the authority of the church with the authority of the autonomous individual. Moreover, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, these critics claim, cut the nerve of morality and, effectively, baptized licentious living. Martin Luther and John Calvin, they continue, opened Pandora’s box, releasing two forces that not only rent the church but also went on to define the modern age: radical individualism and antinomianism. Understood on these terms, the Reformation is cause for lamentation, not celebration.

These criticisms rest on a profound misunderstanding of the Reformation and, specifically, a misunderstanding of two of the leading doctrines of the Reformation: sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). What were the Reformers saying when they declared that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice? When they declared that a sinner is justified through faith alone, apart from the works of the law? As importantly, what were they not saying when they advanced these claims in the church?

In the pre-Reformation church, the Bible was widely recognized as authoritative for faith and obedience. No serious voices in the church challenged the authority of the Bible in the way that many in the modern church have questioned or denied Scripture’s inspiration and authority. Against what, then, did the Reformers raise their voices in protest? While the pre-Reformation church acknowledged the Bible’s authority, she also acknowledged other authorities in the church as equivalent to Scripture. Church tradition and the official pronouncements of the church were the standard for the belief and practices of the church at this time. For this reason, doctrines such as the veneration of Mary and the saints, purgatory, and transubstantiation came to have a settled place in the belief and worship of the Roman Catholic Church. The church did not justify these matters by an exclusive appeal to Scripture, nor did she sense the need to do so. The authority of the church was sufficient to establish them in the life of the church.

The Reformers affirmed that the Bible was authoritative for the church’s faith and obedience. But the Reformers equally insisted that Scripture alone is the church’s standard for faith and practice. To set other authorities alongside Scripture was in effect to dethrone Scripture. Just as the Pharisees had “for the sake of [their] tradition . . . made void the word of God,” so had the church done at the turn of the sixteenth century (Matt. 15:6). Only when we uphold Scripture as our sole infallible standard of belief and obedience, the Reformers argued, does the Word of God properly function as a standard at all.

But the Reformation was not a movement that sought to erase the first millennium and a half of the church’s history. It did not dismiss the creeds and councils of the church altogether. Neither did it disregard the great theologians who had helped the church better understand the Scriptures. A quick glance at Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion illustrates the point. Not only does Calvin quote liberally from the church’s creeds and councils and from the writings of the church fathers, but he often does so approvingly. Calvin, in company with the other Reformers, did not set out to jettison the church’s history but to place that history in submission to Scripture. The Bible was the sole infallible standard by which the Reformers evaluated the church’s historical beliefs and practices, whether for commendation or for criticism.

The Reformers, then, were genuinely appreciative of the ways in which previous generations of believers had understood and applied Scripture. They built upon and extended that heritage in their own day. They did not believe that Christians should read the Bible as though they were the first ones or the only ones who had ever read it. To try to do so would be untrue to the interdependence of the members of the body of Christ—no individual believer is sufficient unto himself (1 Cor. 12). It would also be ungrateful to the Spirit who has gifted the church through the ages with officers called to minister the Word to the saints (Eph. 4:11–16). The slogan “just me and my Bible” was as foreign to the Reformers as it was to Rome. What the Reformers insisted, rather, was that the church’s beliefs, worship, and life stand in submission to Scripture alone.

As the Reformers studied Scripture in this fashion, they recovered one of its leading teachings, a teaching that had been gravely obscured in the witness of the pre-Reformation church. That teaching is that a sinner is justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.

It is sometimes said that the pre-Reformation church (and the Roman Catholic Church today) believed in justification by works, whereas the Reformers insisted upon justification by faith. But this way of putting matters misunderstands the debate and misrepresents both sides. In fact, a doctrine of justification by faith was taught within much of the pre-Reformation church (and is taught by Rome today). Justification was thought to be a lifelong process that began with an infusion of Christ’s grace at baptism. As the baptized person receives more and more grace through the church’s sacraments, he is equipped to produce more and more good works.

In this way, he is made more and more inwardly righteous (justified). It is important that he continue to receive this sacramental grace, for justification is a losable grace, and it is through the sacraments that justification can be recovered if lost and also strengthened. But faith in God is required throughout this process. Since most Christians are not perfectly righteous when they die, they will have to spend time in purgatory to become even more righteous. Only when the Christian is truly and perfectly righteous will he receive what is called final justification. In this way, it was taught, one is “justified by faith.”

The Reformers argued that this teaching contradicted at many points Scripture’s testimony to justification. The Bible, they argued, instead teaches that the sinner is justified by faith alone. Justification is God’s definitive declaration in His courtroom (see Rom. 5:18; 8:1, 33–34). God declares the sinner righteous. He forgives him all his sins and accepts and accounts him as righteous in His sight. Justification is not a gradual change or transformation within a human being. This verdict is not rendered at the day of judgment but at the very beginning of the Christian life. How can this be? Because justification is in no way based upon anything that we have done, are doing, or will do. It is based entirely upon the righteousness of Christ—His perfect obedience and full satisfaction for sin (Rom. 3:21–26; 5:12–21). This righteousness of Christ is not infused but imputed to the sinner. Just as our sins were reckoned to Christ on the cross, so Christ’s righteousness is reckoned to us at the moment of our justification (2 Cor. 5:21). The sinner, moreover, is not justified because of or on the basis of faith. The sinner is justified, rather, through or by faith. Faith is strictly instrumental in justification. It embraces the free gift of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Faith adds nothing but receives everything for justification. In this way, Christ receives all the glory in our justification. We have nothing in ourselves—not even faith—to boast in for our justification. This is what the Reformers understood Scripture to teach when they said that we are justified by faith alone.

Does this teaching mean that the justified person is free to live as he pleases? Has he received a divine license to indulge in sin? Deeply sensitive to such questions, the Reformers answered with one voice—“No!” We are justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law. But that faith will and must produce a harvest of good works. Faith works by love (Gal. 5:6). We are in no way justified by those good works, but we are justified by a faith that evidences its truth and sincerity by good works. Our good works, as James 2:14–26 teaches, show that Christians are truly those who they profess to be—justified people. Good works show to ourselves and to others the difference between true, justifying faith and an empty claim to faith. Good works do not justify us, but they necessarily inhabit the lives of every justified person. We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone (see Westminster Confession of Faith 11.2).

In summary, the Reformers rejected not only the view that authority in matters of faith and practice lies ultimately in the church but also the view that such authority lies ultimately in the individual. This authority, rather, is the Scripture alone. In rejecting the teaching that people are justified, even in part, on the basis of their good works, the Reformers also insisted that people who are justified by faith alone must pursue good works as the fruit and evidence of their justifying faith. The Reformers understood that radical individualism and licentious living were, in reality, bondage to sin. The Reformers did not want to see human beings transferred from one form of spiritual bondage to another. They longed to see men and women freed from sin and freed by and for Jesus Christ through the gospel of grace. If for this reason only, we have cause to celebrate the Protestant Reformation.

Dr. Guy Prentiss Waters is James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss., and a teaching elder in the PCA. He is author of How Jesus Runs the Church.