宗教改革的核心問題The Very Heart of theReformation
作者: R.C. Sproul 譯者/校對者:杖恩 校/煦
16世紀爭論的核心問題是上帝宣稱一個人在祂眼中為義人是根據什麼。詩篇作者說：「主耶和華啊，你若究察罪孽，誰能站得住呢？」（詩一三零 3） 換句話說，當我們不得不站在上帝面前並面對祂完全的公義和對我們的行為完全的審判時，我們沒有一個人能經得起祂的究察。我們都必站立不住，因為正如保羅反覆講到的，我們都虧缺了上帝的榮耀（羅三23）。所以，關於稱義最迫切的問題是：一個不義的人如何能在一位公義而聖潔的上帝面前被稱為義？
如我前面提到的，羅馬天主教的觀點是一種分析性的稱義觀。意思是說上帝只有在祂自己那完全的分析下，發現一個人就是義的，有義內在他裏面時，才會宣稱他是義人。若沒有信心、沒有恩典、沒有基督的幫助這人也肯定不能有義。然而，在最終的分析之下，真正的義必須實存於一個人的靈魂之中，上帝才會稱他為義。
羅馬天主教是分析性的觀點，而宗教改革的稱義觀則是綜合性的。在綜合性的表述中，謂語中加入了主語中沒有的內容。如果我告訴你，「這個單身漢是一個窮人」，那麼我就在句子的第二部分中告訴了你沒有包含在「單身漢」一詞中的新信息。根據定義，所有的單身漢都是男子，但並非所有單身漢都是窮人。有很多富有的單身漢。貧窮與富足的概念並非是在單身漢這個觀念中所固有的。所以，當我們說「這個單身漢是一個窮人」時，這是一個綜合性表述。
當我們說宗教改革的稱義觀是綜合性的，我們的意思是上帝宣稱一個人在祂眼中是義人時，並不是因為在祂的分析之下在那人裏面發現了什麼，而是依據加給這個人的某種東西。當然，這所加給的就是基督的義。這就是為什麼路德說我們稱義所倚仗之義是extra nos，意思是「脫離於我」或者「外在於我」的。他同樣稱之為「外在的義」，並非真正屬於我們的義，而是對於我們是外來的、異質的。它來自於我們自己的行為以外的地方。路德用這些術語所講論的是基督的義。
如果說有一個詞處在宗教改革時期激烈爭論的中心，甚至直到今天也還是辯論的中心，那麼這個詞就是「歸算」。更正教和羅馬天主教也召開過數不清的會議，試圖彌合16世紀雙方發生的裂痕。羅馬天主教的神學家們和改教權威們見面開會，努力解決各種困難並維護教會的合一。雙方都渴望這樣的合一。但有一個概念從始至終都是癥結，這個觀念對更正教如此寶貴，而對羅馬天主教卻是如此一塊絆腳石，那就是「歸算」的概念。不理解這個概念的中心地位，我們就不能真正理解宗教改革是什麼。
當保羅解釋稱義教義時，他舉了先祖亞伯拉罕的例子。他寫道：「經上說什麼呢？說：『亞伯拉罕信上帝，這就算為他的義。』」（羅四3，引用創十五6）換句話說，亞伯拉罕有信心，因此上帝就稱他為義。亞伯拉罕仍是一個罪人。亞伯拉罕余生的經歷顯明他並不總是順從上帝。然而，上帝算他為義，因為他相信上帝對他的應許。這就是一個歸算的例子，把一樣東西合法地轉移到一個人的頭上，並當成是他所有的東西。所以，保羅說上帝算亞伯拉罕為義或者說把他當成是義的，即使亞伯拉罕就其自身尚未成為義，並沒有義存於他的裏面。
如我上面所述，羅馬天主教的觀點是，恩典在洗禮時被注入一個人的靈魂裏面，使這個人裏面有義，這樣上帝因此會判定他為義。但改教家堅持說，我們被稱義是上帝把另一個人的義歸算在我們頭上，那就是基督的義。
如果要用一句話來總結並抓住宗教改革觀點的本質，那麼就是路德的拉丁語名言：simul justus et
peccator。Simul是英語詞simultaneous的詞源：意思是「同時」。Justus是「公義」或「正義」的拉丁詞。Et的意思很簡單：「和」。Peccator的意思是「罪人」。所以，路德用這句話——「義人，同時又是罪人」——想說的是在我們的稱義中，我們同時是義人又是罪人。不過，如果他說我們同一時間且在同一個關系中既是義人又是罪人的話，這就是自相矛盾的說法。但這不是他所要說的。他所說的是，從一個意義上說，我們是義人；在另一個意義上說，我們又是罪人。在上帝的鑒察之下，就我們自身而言仍然是有罪的。但上帝把耶穌基督的義歸算在了我們的頭上，我們就被當成是義的。
這正是福音的核心。關於進天堂，我是按照我自己的義被審判還是照著基督的義呢？如果我必須靠自己的義進天堂，那我就必然會完全而徹底地絕望，因為任何得救的可能性都沒有。但當我們發現我們因信而得的義是基督完全之義時，我們就會看見這福音是何等的榮耀。福音簡簡單單地就是：我能夠與上帝和好，我能夠被稱義，不是根據我所做的，而是根據基督已經為我成就的。
當然，更正教實際上教導的是一種雙重的歸算。我們的罪被歸給耶穌，而祂的義被歸給我們。在這個雙重的交換中，我們看見上帝並沒有在為祂的百姓提供救恩時妥協了祂的正直和完全。相反，祂把罪歸在耶穌身上之後，徹底地刑罰了罪。這就是為什麼祂能夠同時「自己為義，又稱信耶穌的人為義」，如保羅在羅馬書三章26節所寫。所以，我的罪到了耶穌那裏，而祂的義到了我這裏。為這個真理，分裂教會也是值得的。這是決定著教會或站立或跌倒的一條教義，因為它決定著我們所有人或站立或跌倒。
我很奇怪為何天主教對歸算的觀念的反應竟然如此負面，在其自己的贖罪教義中也主張我們的罪被歸給了十字架上的耶穌，這也是他的贖罪之死對我們有價值的原因。歸算的原則在那裏是有的。不但如此，羅馬天主教還教導說一個罪人還可以通過功德庫中的功德轉移到他身上而領受赦免，但這樣的轉移不借著歸算是不可能完成的。
羅馬天主教宣稱，宗教改革的稱義觀使上帝陷入了「律法上的虛妄」，破壞了祂的正直。羅馬天主教問說，完全公義而聖潔的上帝，如何能夠當一個罪人事實上並非是義的時候卻宣稱他為義。那使得上帝似乎是做出了虛妄的宣告。更正教的回應是，上帝宣告百姓為義是因為祂把基督真實的義歸算給了他們。基督的義是沒有虛妄的，而上帝歸算義的恩典也絕非虛妄。
本文摘錄自《我們是合一的嗎？》Are We Together? 第二章，史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul) 著。
中文鏈接：
The Very Heart of the
Reformation
FROM
R.C. Sproul
At
the very heart of the controversy in the sixteenth century was the question of
the ground by which God declares anyone righteous in His sight. The psalmist
asked, “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?” (Ps.
130:3). In other words, if we have to stand before God and face His perfect
justice and perfect judgment of our performance, none of us would be able to
pass review. We all would fall, because as Paul reiterates, all of us have
fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). So, the pressing question of
justification is how can an unjust person ever be justified in the presence of
a righteous and holy God?
The
Roman Catholic view is known as analytical justification. This means that God
will declare a person just only when, under His perfect analysis, He finds that
he is just, that righteousness is inherent in him. The person cannot have that
righteousness without faith, without grace, and without the assistance of
Christ. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, true righteousness must be present
in the soul of a person before God will ever declare him just.
Whereas
the Roman view is analytical, the Reformation view is that justification is
synthetic. A synthetic statement is one in which something new is added in the
predicate that is not contained in the subject. If I said to you, “The bachelor
was a poor man,” I have told you something new in the second part of the
sentence that was not already contained in the word bachelor. All bachelors are
men by definition, but not all bachelors are poor men. There are many wealthy bachelors.
Poverty and wealth are concepts that are not inherent in the idea of
bachelorhood. So, when we say, “The bachelor was a poor man,” there is a
synthesis, as it were.
When
we say that the Reformation view of justification is synthetic, we mean that
when God declares a person to be just in His sight, it is not because of what
He finds in that person under His analysis. Rather, it is on the basis of
something that is added to the person. That something that is added, of course,
is the righteousness of Christ. This is why Luther said that the righteousness
by which we are justified is extra nos, meaning “apart from us” or “outside of
us.” He also called it an “alien righteousness,” not a righteousness that
properly belongs to us, but a righteousness that is foreign to us, alien to us.
It comes from outside the sphere of our own behavior. With both of these terms,
Luther was speaking about the righteousness of Christ.
If
any word was at the center of the firestorm of the Reformation controversy and
remains central to the debate even in our day, it is imputation. Numerous
meetings were held between Protestants and Roman Catholics to try to repair the
schism that was taking place in the sixteenth century. Theologians from Rome
met with the magisterial Reformers, trying to resolve the difficulties and
preserve the unity of the church. There was a longing for such unity on both
sides. But the one concept that was always a sticking point, the idea that was
so precious to the Protestants and such a stumbling block for the Roman
Catholics, was imputation. We cannot really understand what the Reformation was
about without understanding the central importance of this concept.
When
Paul explains the doctrine of justification, he cites the example of the
patriarch Abraham. He writes: “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’” (Rom. 4:3, citing
Gen. 15:6). In other words, Abraham had faith, and therefore God justified him.
Abraham was still a sinner. The rest of the history of the life of Abraham
reveals that he did not always obey God. Nevertheless, God counted him
righteous because he believed in the promise God had made to him. This is an
example of imputation, which involves transferring something legally to
someone’s account, to reckon something to be there. So, Paul speaks of God
counting Abraham as righteous or reckoning him as righteous, even though, in
and of himself, Abraham was not yet righteous. He did not have righteousness
inhering in him.
As I
noted above, the Roman Catholic idea is that grace is infused into the soul of
a person at baptism, making the person inherently righteous, so that God
therefore judges him to be righteous. But the Reformers insisted that we are
justified when God imputes someone else’s righteousness to our account, namely,
the righteousness of Christ.
If
any statement summarizes and captures the essence of the Reformation view, it
is Luther’s famous Latin formula simul justus et peccator. Simul is the word
from which we get the English simultaneous ; it means “at the same time.”
Justus is the Latin word for “just” or “righteous.” Et simply means “and.”
Peccator means “sinner.” So, with this formula— “at the same time just and
sinner”—Luther was saying that in our justification, we are at the same time
righteous and sinful. Now, if he had said we are just and sinful at the same
time and in the same relationship, that would have been a contradiction in
terms. But that is not what he was saying. He was saying that, in one sense, we
are just. In another sense, we are sinners. In and of ourselves, under God’s
scrutiny, we still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of
Jesus Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.
This
is the very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged
by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ? If I have to trust in my
righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and utterly despair of any
possibility of ever being redeemed. But when we see that the righteousness that
is ours by faith is the perfect righteousness of Christ, we see how glorious is
the good news of the gospel. The good news is simply this: I can be reconciled
to God. I can be justified, not on the basis of what I do, but on the basis of
what has been accomplished for me by Christ.
Of
course, Protestantism really teaches a double imputation. Our sin is imputed to
Jesus and His righteousness is imputed to us. In this twofold transaction, we
see that God does not compromise His integrity in providing salvation for His
people. Rather, He punishes sin fully after it has been imputed to Jesus. This
is why He is able to be both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith
in Jesus,” as Paul writes in Romans 3:26. So, my sin goes to Jesus and His
righteousness comes to me. This is a truth worth dividing the church. This is
the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on
which we all stand or fall.
It is
strange to me that Rome reacted so negatively to the idea of imputation,
because in its own doctrine of the atonement, it holds that our sins are
imputed to Jesus on the cross, which is why His atoning death has value for us.
The principle of imputation is there. Furthermore, Rome teaches that a sinner can
receive indulgences through the transfer of merit from the treasury of merit,
but this transfer cannot be accomplished except by imputation.
The
Roman Catholic Church declared that the Reformation view of justification
involves God in a “legal fiction” that undermines His integrity. Rome was
asking how God, in His perfect righteousness and holiness, can declare a sinner
to be just if he is not, in fact, just. That seems to involve God in a
fictional declaration. The Protestant response was that God declares people
just because He imputes the real righteousness of Christ to them. There is
nothing fictional about Christ’s righteousness, and there is nothing fictional
about God’s gracious imputation of that righteousness.
This
excerpt is taken from Are We Together? by R.C. Sproul.