感謝讚美上帝護理的大能与豐盛的供應。 本網誌內的所有資源純屬學習交流之用。

2017-07-17

作者: Kevin DeYoung    翻译: 骆鸿铭

 诚之按:许多基督徒基于许多理由,有着根深蒂固的想法,不赞成用(系统)神学来影响我们的解经,例如这句话:“神学已经被人们发展得太复杂了,还不如回归圣经”。但是什么叫“回归圣经”呢?基督徒都愿意回归圣经,但是确切的说,我们只能说,“根据我对圣经的理解”,而不能说“根据圣经”,因为我们对神、对圣经的认识,永远无法达到像神对自己的认识,和对圣经(神的话本身)的认识一样的高度。这就是归正神学家非常强调我们要区分原型神学和复本神学(archetype theology vs ectypal theology)的区分的原因。但是,归正神学家也强调,我们对神、对圣经,不是一无所知的,在基督再来、我们得荣耀(包括我们的知识得荣耀)之前,我们固然是“对着镜子观看,模糊不清”(林前1312),是有限的,模糊的,但是神的启示是清楚明白的,通过历代敬虔圣徒的努力,以及圣灵在历代教会的带领,我们对神神、对圣经还是有一定的把握的(例如历代的信条和神学总结,都给我们指出一定的方向和准则)。这就牵涉到对历代圣徒所累积的神学知识有一定的认识,换句话说,就是神学的功夫。

Kevin DeYoung 在这篇博文中,引用了 Moises SilvaOPC牧师,曾在WTS担任圣经科教授多年) 的说法,说明解经必须受到系统神学的指导:

1. 系统神学的目的是力图在当代的背景下,以一种有意义,可以让当代人理解的方式重塑圣经的教导。系统神学的类别(categories )不是静态的,而是会随着时代而变化的。但是系统神学基本上是处理历世历代基督徒最感兴趣的题目。如果把系统神学排除在解经的过程之外,实际上会让解释出来的经文,变成与我们的时代不相干。
“In the first place, we should remind ourselves that systematic theology is, to a large extent, the attempt to reformulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that are meaningful and understandable to us in our present context” (208). There are many learned commentaries that fail the preacher, let alone the parishoner, because they refuse to ask any of the questions real people are asking. They dive into history, philology, and redaction criticism, but won’t talk about what this or that passage means for our view of marriage or our understanding of the devil or our belief in providence. The categories of systematic theology are not static. Some loci wax and wane with the times. But in general, systematic theology deals with the questions Christians have been most interested in discussing over the years or centuries. To set aside theology in the task of exegesis is an invitation to make exegesis irrelevant.

2. 福音派的信念认为圣经是统一的,这就要求我们把整部圣经当作每一部分的前后文。在解经的过程中必须持守“the analogy of faith”(信仰的类比)的原则(译按:请参考这篇文章),否则就是“忽略了我们所拥有的最重要的释经资源,即神的启示的统一性和完整性。”
2. “In the second place, our evangelical view of the unity of Scripture demands that we see the whole Bible as the context of any one part” (208). The current debate about Adam, to cite just one example, demonstrates how critical the unity of Scripture is in shaping our exegetical method. If we believe–in the midst of genuine biblical diversity–there is behind each unique human author one Divine author, then we will be concerned to see how the different voices in Scripture make one harmonious sound. So if Romans teaches the doctrine of original sin rooted in a historical Adam we will not be embarrassed to bring this consideration to bear on our understanding of Genesis, not in a way that ignores everything else going in ancient Mesopotamia but in a way that informs our understanding of God’s inspired, unified Word. Of course, eisegesis is a danger which is why some scholars want to set aside “the analogy of faith” in the exegetical process. But to do so, Silva reminds us, “is to neglect the most important hermeneutical resource we have, namely, the unity and wholeness of God’s own revelation” (209).

3. 每个人都有自己的“系统神学”。后现代主义在这点上是对的:没有人是一种完全没有偏见的方式、在真空中解经的。所有的人都是以一种世界观,一种思想架构来看经文的,这是头脑运作的方式,也是神给我们的礼物,让学习成为可能。缺乏系统神学,很多经文就无法得到理解。作为基督徒,我希望我的神学是开放的,可以随时修正。但是作为一个牧者,我必须以一种系统神学为起点。每个人都是这样作的。对我而言,这意味着我是以归正神学和我的认信传统(即归正的信条)为起点的,并且尽力去持守,除非我找到更好的系统,有足够的理由去更新这个传统。
3. “Third, and finally, my proposal will sound a lot less shocking once we remember that, as a matter of fact, everyone does it anyway” (209). If postmodernism has taught us anything it is that none of us comes to a text with a completely unbiased, blank slate. We come to the exegetical task for a framework, with a way of looking at the world, with a system. This is how the mind works and one of God’s gifts which make learning possible. It also makes the preacher’s herculean task more feasible. Without a systematic theology how can you begin to know what to do with the eschatology of Ezekiel or the sacramental language in John 6 or the psalmist’s insistence that he is righteous and blameless? As a Christian I hope that my theology is open to correction, but as a minister I have to start somewhere. We all do. For me that means starting with Reformed theology and my confessional tradition and sticking with that unless I have really good reason not to.

所以,与其假装我们在神学上是中立的、没有偏见的,倒不如承认我们自己的预设,并将之应用在解经的过程。如果我们够诚实,承认我们的神学系统,我们才有办法在这个系统出了问题时,重新建构这个系统,也才能开放地处理圣经经文中的难点。系统神学未必会扭曲经文,如果善加利用,系统神学会在诠释的过程中提供围栏,维护圣经的统一性,并且在一些(从神的话而来的)最重要和最困难的议题上投下亮光。
So rather than pretend to be theologically unprejudiced, why not acknowledge our own preconceptions and use them in the exegetical process? If we are honest about our theological systems we will be better equipped to reformulate our grid when it doesn’t work and better equipped to deal openly with the hard spots in the text. Without a system we will approach a passage like James 2:24 and get it wrong; or just as likely, we will ignore the difficult questions exploding in everyone’s brains. Theology does not have to distort exegesis. Done well, it can help provide guardrails for the interpretive process, honor the unity of Scripture, and throw a spotlight on the most important and most difficult issues arising from the Word of God.



《神学名词辞典》赵中辉编译   p. 5o1 改革宗出版社
   
為复原教教义之神学名词,指圣灵在救赎上作工。

    拉丁文為ordo salutis。此短句於一七三七年為一路德会之卡波夫(Jakob Karpov)介绍到神学之用语中。但此教义有更伟大的远古性。关於此点,在天主教与改革宗之间有广大的区分,虽然二者均同意离弃耶穌基督之工作即无救恩,但天主教教导说,神所指定的救恩分配者乃凭藉圣礼,也就是说惟独藉著这些恩典才能临到受惠者。

    天主教救恩的次序是藉著圣礼:(1)洗礼,藉此灵魂得到重生;(2)坚振礼,藉此受洗者领受圣灵的恩赐;(3)圣餐礼,藉此参与者在改变的饼中,亲自领受到基督的身体;(4)补赎礼,藉此基督受死之恩益可以应用在洗礼犯罪之人的身上;与(5)抹油礼,将死者可以得到罪之洁净。

    路德的救恩次序仅包括在悔改,相信与善行之中;但路德会的救恩次序為以后的神学家发扬光大,与改革宗的救恩次序很接近。不过他们认為基督在十字架上之死,是為救所有的人,而且恩典是可以抗拒的。

    改革宗的救恩次序,可以在加尔文所著(基督教要义)第三卷中找到;但此次序又经后来的改革宗神学家所增补。

    由改革宗的观点看来,基督在十字架上所成就的救赎,乃是圣灵的活动(工作),是一系列的作為与进程,直等到完全的祝福成就在人身上。

    改革宗得救的次序可分為:(1)有效的恩召,由此发出(2)重生,(3)相信,以致於(4)称义,与(5)成圣,至终结果(6 )得荣。其中的一些经验是同时发生的,然而这种事件的步骤必须认為是逻辑性的,而非时间性的顺序。


美國許多教會如今正陷入困境。從神學上來說,他們的神學是冷漠的,混亂的,甚至是錯誤到一個危險的境地。從崇拜儀式來說,他們被膚淺的時尚流行所俘虜。從道德上來說,他們多半有許多的會眾、財富和活動,但是他們是真正的教會,還是他們已經敗壞到只不過是特別的俱樂部而已呢?Many American churches are in a mess. Theologically they are indifferent, confused, or dangerously wrong. Liturgically they are the captives of superficial fads. Morally they live lives indistinguishable from the world. They often have a lot of people, money, and activities. But are they really churches, or have they degenerated into peculiar clubs?

到底是哪裡出了差錯?這個困境的核心是一個簡單的現象:這些教會似乎對上帝的聖道失去了熱情,也失去了信心。他們仍然會攜帶聖經,並宣稱聖經的權威。他們的講道也是根據聖經經文,也仍舊有許多研經課程。但是在他們的崇拜服事中,實際上並沒有閱讀很多的經文。他們的講道和查經,通常不是在查考聖經所認為的、對上帝的百姓來說是重要的內容。他們逐漸地把聖經經文當作是一些頗具啟發性的詩歌小品,或是大眾心理學,以及自我幫助的建議。那些忽略聖經或濫用聖經的會眾,他們正身處一個最嚴重的危機當中。離開上帝聖言的教會,很快就會發現上帝已經離他們遠去。What has gone wrong? At the heart of the mess is a simple phenomenon: the churches seem to have lost a love for and confidence in the Word of God. They still carry Bibles and declare the authority of the Scriptures. They still have sermons based on Bible verses and still have Bible study classes. But not much of the Bible is actually read in their services. Their sermons and studies usually do not examine the Bible to see what it thinks is important for the people of God. Increasingly they treat the Bible as tidbits of poetic inspiration, of pop psychology, and of self-help advice. Congregations where the Bible is ignored or abused are in the gravest peril. Churches that depart from the Word will soon find that God has departed from them.

對這個可悲的景況,聖經教導要如何解決呢?簡短卻深刻的答案是保羅在歌羅西書三章16節所說的:「當用各樣的智慧,把基督的道理豐豐富富的存在心裡,用詩章、頌詞、靈歌,彼此教導,互相勸戒,心被恩感,歌頌上帝。」我們需要把上帝的聖言存在我們心裡,好叫我們認識上帝所認為的、對我們來說最重要的真理,並且認識祂的計劃、祂的優先順序。我們應該少關心那些「感覺上的需要」,而是要多關心聖經所教導的,失喪的罪人真正的需要。What solution does the Bible teach for this sad situation? The short but profound answer is given by Paul in Colossians 3:16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” We need the Word to dwell in us richly so that we will know the truths that God thinks are most important and so that we will know His purposes and priorities. We need to be concerned less about “felt-needs” and more about the real needs of lost sinners as taught in the Bible.

保羅在此處不僅召喚我們要把上帝的聖道豐豐富富地存在心裡,也說明這種豐富的經驗是什麼樣子。他用三點來說明(畢竟,保羅是個佈道家):Paul not only calls us here to have the Word dwell in us richly, but shows us what that rich experience of the Word looks like. He shows us that in three points. (Paul was a preacher, after all.)

首先,他召喚我們要用上帝的話「彼此教導,互相勸誡 」,好叫我們越來越有智慧。保羅是在提醒我們,我們必須要教導上帝的聖道,並且當它豐豐富富地住在我們心裡時,就可以將它應用在我們的生活中。無論是在講道、查經、閱讀或對話中,要鼓勵並促進這樣的教導。我們必須在聖道上不斷長進。First, he calls us to be educated by the Word, which will lead us on to ever-richer wisdom by teaching and admonishing one another.” Paul is reminding us that the Word must be taught and applied to us as a part of it dwelling richly in us. The church must encourage and facilitate such teaching whether in preaching, Bible studies, reading, or conversations. We must be growing in the Word.

不過,我們從聖道中不只是為了蒐集資料而已,而是要在不斷認識上帝對我們的旨意上成長:「因此,我們自從聽見的日子,也就為你們不住的禱告祈求,願你們在一切屬靈的智慧悟性上,滿心知道上帝的旨意;」(西一9)認識上帝的旨意可以讓我們有智慧,而藉著這樣的智慧,我們可以在造物主的形象中得到更新,也就是原先被罪所破壞的形象:「穿上了新人,這新人在知識上漸漸更新,正如造他主的形象。」(三10It is not just information, however, that we are to be gathering from the Word. We must be growing in a knowledge of the will of God for us: “And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col. 1:9). Knowing the will of God will make us wise and in that wisdom we will be renewed in the image of our Creator, an image so damaged by sin: “Put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (3:10).

這種智慧也會重新安排我們人生的優先順序和目的,從關心世上的事轉到關心天上的事:「這都是由於那給你們存在天上的盼望,這盼望是你們從前在福音真理的道上聽過的。」(一5;新譯本)當上帝的聖道豐豐富富地存在我們心裡,我們就有把握,滿心知道上帝的旨意:「我照上帝為你們所賜我的職分作了教會的執事,要把上帝的道理傳得全備」(一25)。我們可以從聖經認識到關於我們的救恩和敬虔的一切知識。This wisdom will also reorder our priorities and purposes, from that which is worldly to that which is heavenly: “The hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of truth, the gospel” (1:5). When that Word dwells in us richly we can be confident that we know the full will of God: “I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known” (1:25). From the Bible we know all that we need for salvation and godliness.

其次,保羅召喚我們要在我們的「歌唱」中,不斷更新我們的心。有趣的是,保羅把歌唱,和讓聖道豐豐富富地住在我們心裡聯繫在一起。他提醒我們,歌唱是把上帝的道理深深放在我們心思意念中具有無上價值的途徑。我認識的一些年長的基督徒,有很嚴重的老人癡呆症(Alzheimers disease),但是仍然會唱許多讚美上帝的詩歌。唱詩幫助我們把真理和我們的感情聯繫在一起。它幫助我們得到激勵,並給我們信心的確據:「要叫他們的心得安慰,因愛心互相聯絡,以致豐豐足足在悟性中有充足的信心,使他們真知上帝的奧秘,就是基督;所積蓄的一切智慧知識,都在祂裡面藏著。」(二2-3Second, Paul calls us to expressing the Word from ever-renewed hearts in our singing. Interestingly, Paul connects the Word dwelling in us richly with singing. He reminds us that singing is an invaluable means of placing the truth of God deep in our minds and hearts. I have known of elderly Christians far gone with Alzheimer’s disease who can still sing songs of praise to God. Singing also helps connect truth to our emotions. It helps us experience the encouragement and assurance of our faith: “That their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (2:2–3).

當然,唱詩的重要性會顯出我們所唱的內容有多麼重要。如果我們唱的是膚淺的、不斷重覆的詩歌,我們所存放的上帝的聖道就不會太多。但是倘若我們唱的是上帝的完整而豐富的話語本身,我們的確會讓自己變得很富有。我們必須牢記,上帝已經給我們一本詩歌集,也就是詩篇,幫助我們唱歌。The importance of singing, of course, makes the content of our songs vital. If we sing shallow, repetitive songs, we will not be hiding much of the Word in our hearts. But if we sing the Word itself in its fullness and richness, we will be making ourselves rich indeed. We need to remember that God has given us a book of songs, the Psalter, to help us in our singing.

第三,保羅召喚我們要記得上帝聖道的作用是使我們成為隨時「感恩」的人。在歌羅西書三章15-17節裡,保羅三次召喚我們要感謝。當「基督的道理」豐豐富富住在我們心裡時,我們就會受到引導,過一個感恩的生活。當我們學習並默想上帝在創造、護理和救贖中為我們所作的一切時,我們心中就會充滿感恩。當我們回想到祂赦罪、更新、保守、得榮耀的應許時,我們也會成為活出真正感恩生活的人。Third, Paul calls us to remember the effect of the Word to make us a people with ever-ready “thanksgiving.” Three times in Colossians 3:15–17Paul calls us to thankfulness. When the “word of Christ” dwells in us richly, we will be led on to lives of gratitude. As we learn and contemplate all that God has done for us in creation, providence, and redemption, we will be filled with thanksgiving. As we recall His promises of forgiveness, renewal, preservation, and glory, we will live as a truly thankful people.

比起以前任何時刻,我們今天更需要讓基督的聖言豐豐富富住在我們心裡。如此,教會才能脫離困境,成為上帝所要的基督榮耀的身體。We need the word of Christ to dwell in us richly today more than ever. Then churches may escape being a mess and become the radiant body of Christ as God intended.為甚麼研究神学? Why Study Theology?



 作者: Robert Godfrey    翻译: 骆鸿铭

圣经是以一个全面性的宣告开始的:「起初,上帝创造天地」。这个声明将圣经宗教和其他许多虚假的道理对立起来。这些道理说,世界上有很多的神,而物质是永恒的,或者说这个世界是从进化而来的,不是一个设计者所设计的。基督教对于创造的教义,即总结在创世记第一章第一节的教导,对我们认识上帝、认识人、认识人在这个世界的呼召,以及上帝与人之间的团契相通是非常重要的。
The Bible begins with the sweeping declaration, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This statement sets biblical religion against many false teachings, among them: that there are many gods, that matter is eternal or that the world evolved without design or a designer. The Christian doctrine of creation, summarized in Genesis 1: 1, is critical to our understanding of God, of man, of man's calling in this world, and of the fellowship between God and man.

由于这个创造的教义非常重要,加上现代科学对这个教义的攻击,基督徒在过去两百年来非常关注创造论真正的教导,就是合情合理的。有很多人投注许多精力去研究圣经、研究科学,好了解它们各自教导了什么,以及它们各自的教导和另一方有什么关联。作为改革宗的基督徒,我们过去一直正确地坚持说圣经才是我们最终的权威,而人类的科学结论不是。但是我们也一直说,所有的真理都是上帝的真理,最终,对圣经正确的解读,和科学真正的发现,必定是可以兼容并蓄的,是不会彼此矛盾的。
In light of the importance of the biblical doctrine of creation and because of the attacks on that doctrine often parading as modern science, it is very understandable that Christians have been very concerned about the true doctrine of creation in the last two hundred years. Much energy has gone into the study of the Bible and of science to understand what each teaches and how each teaching should be related to the other. As Reformed Christians we have always rightly insisted that the Bible is our ultimate authority against which the conclusions of human science must not be set. But we have also always said that all truth is God's truth and that ultimately a true reading of the Bible and genuine conclusions of science will be compatible.

在过去的十到十五年(译按:本文写于2001年),有越来越多保守的基督徒——包括改革宗内部和外部——相信,如果要捍卫圣经,要捍卫基督教创造论的教义,就必定会要求我们要如此来解释创世记第一章,即上帝是在六天中创造了世界,而这六天每天都是二十四小时的一天。这当然是教会历史中占绝大多数的一种解读,因此我们大可以正确地称之为传统的解读。但是坚持说我们唯独可以容忍这种看法,则是相当新的观念。这种缺乏宽容的观念,会把最近一些最著名的,也是正统神学家的看法,从改革宗教会中排除出去,包括:赫治(Charles Hodge),华腓德(B. B. Warfield),梅晨(J. Gresham Machen),慕理(John Murray),杨以德(EJ. Young),凯柏(Abraham Kuyper)和巴文克(Herman Bavinck),这还只是其中的少数。他们都不同意今天许多人所坚持的六个二十四小时天的看法。
For the last 10 to 15 years a growing number of conservative Christians – both within and outside of the Reformed community - have become convinced that the defense of the Bible and the defense of the Christian doctrine of creation requires interpreting Genesis one as teaching creation in six twenty-four hour days. Such an interpretation is certainly the majority interpretation in the history of the church and so we can rightly call it the traditional view. But the insistence that it is the only view that should be tolerated is rather new. Such an intolerant view would exclude from the Reformed churches some of the most notable and orthodox theologians of recent times. Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, EJ. Young, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, to name only some; each dissented in one way or another from the six twenty-four hour view insisted on today.

这个新的缺乏宽容的立场,很有趣地,似乎与1930年代基要主义的纠纷,有许多平行的元素。在面对自由主义非常真实的威胁中,许多基要主义者相信,只有一个教义可以作为信仰是否正统的试金石,以及作为对抗现代主义坚不可摧的堡垒,那就是前千禧年的教义。许多持无千禧年派观念的正统的基督徒,被指控为是自由派,因为他们放弃了圣经的「字面」解经。因此,今天有些人似乎认为,六个廿四小时天的观念,可以保护圣经的权威,也保护字面方式诠释圣经的这个思路。然而当我们面对这个时代对圣经信仰真正的攻击时,我们万万不可防卫过当。我们必须努力保持平衡,同时拒绝人类理性的狂妄宣称,也要拒绝这个退回到反智主义的诱惑。
The new intolerance seems interestingly parallel to elements of the fundamentalist controversy in the 1930s. In the face of the very real threat of liberalism, many fundamentalists came to believe that the one biblical doctrine that could be a litmus test of orthodoxy and an impenetrable bulwark against modernism was the doctrine of pre-millennialism. Many orthodox Christians who were a-millennial were accused of liberalism because they had abandoned a "literal" interpretation of the Bible. So today some seem to believe that the idea of creation in six twenty-four hour days will protect the authority of the Bible and a literal approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures. But we must not become too defensive in the face of the very real attacks on biblical religion that we face in our time. We must seek to remain balanced rejecting both the pretentious claims of human reason and the temptation to retreat into anti-intellectualism.

我们要清楚说明到底什么是圣经的字面解释。圣经的字面解释是指作者透过文本的文字所想要表达的意思。它和灵意化(spiritualizing)的解读是对立的。灵意化的解读是指要在作者完全不知道的、隐藏起来的意义中,找到文本的意思。举例来说,以赛亚在以赛亚书五十九章提到耶和华的膀臂。这节经文是不是像摩门教对这节经文字面的理解,认为上帝真的有一个物质的身体,有一个物质的膀臂呢?不是!这节经文的字面意义,也就是以赛亚所要表达的意思是,膀臂是上帝能力的象征。
We need to be very clear what a literal interpretation of the Bible actually is. The literal interpretation is the meaning intended by the author and carried by the words of the text. It stands in contrast to a spiritualizing interpretation, which finds the meaning of the text in a hidden significance entirely unknown to the author. As an example think of Isaiah's reference to the arm of the Lord in Isaiah 59. Is the literal understanding of that text the Mormon understanding, that God actually has a physical body and also a physical arm? No! The literal meaning of the text, which Isaiah intended, is that the arm is a metaphor for the power of God.

因此,当我们来到创世记第一章时,什么是六天创造的字面意义呢?一个值得赞赏的解读是:这里的天是廿四小时天。但是诚实的解经必须承认到,这个观点是有问题的。首先,我们怎么和创世记二章4节来调和,「创造天地的来历,在耶和华造天地的『日子』(in the day)乃是这样。」如果「日」的意思永远只能是指「日」,而这个意思是很明显的,那么圣经就是矛盾的。究竟是创世记二章4节的日子,还是创世记第一章中的「天」,是字面意义的「天」?究竟上帝是在一天内创造的,还是在六天内创造的?
So when we come to Genesis one, what is the literal meaning of the six days of creation? One interpretation that has much to commend it is that the days are twenty-four hour days. But honest exegesis must recognize that there are problems with this view. First, how do we harmonize such a view with Genesis 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven" (NASB). If day always means day, and the meaning is obvious, then there is a contradiction in the Bible. Is the day of Gen. 2:4 or the day of Gen. 1 the literal day? Did God create in one day or six days?

其次,我们应该思考创世记第一章中关于光的问题。在整本圣经其他的地方,都假设光体(日、月、星辰)的光是光的来源。启示录廿二章5节暗示,在世界的末日,有一件新事会发生,到那时,光只会从主自己那里来,再也没有其他的光源:「不再有黑夜;他们也不用灯光、日光,因为主神要光照他们。」在创世记里,第一天的光是上帝透过祂话语的能力所造的。这个光不可能是某种从神的本体而来的、不是被造出来的光照,因为那是个被造的光。但是第一天没有告诉我们,这个光实际的来源是什么。第四天的确告诉我们,这光的实际来源是这些光体。这是不是有可能,或甚至是很有可能,单单从圣经内在的证据看来,第一天和第四天是用不同的角度在描写创造光的同一个行动呢?
Second, we should consider the matter of light in Genesis one. Throughout the rest of the Bible the assumption is that the lights (sun, moon, and stars) are the source of light. Rev. 22:5 implies that something very new occurs at the end of time when light no longer has any source except the Lord himself: "There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light." Now the light of day one in Genesis is created by God through the word of his power. That light cannot be some uncreated illumination from the being of God because it is a created light. But day one does not tell us what the physical source of that light is. Day four does tell us that the physical source of light is the lights. Is it not possible, or even likely, then from the internal evidence of the Bible alone that days one and four are describing the same act of creating light from different perspectives?

第三,当创世记第二章2节告诉我们,上帝在第七天歇了祂一切创造的工,安息了,字面的意思是指上帝累倒了,必须休息以恢复体力吗?而倘若上帝不觉得累,只是说自己在休息,好教导我们要休息,是不是有可能,祂是在说祂工作了六天,好教导我们也要工作六天呢?我们不能把圣经里的上帝变成希腊神话里的天神宙斯,只是一个按照我们形象所造的,在天空里的巨大人物。我们毋宁必须一起仔细地研读圣经,好完全地解答这些问题。
Third, when Gen. 2:2 tells us that God rested on the seventh day, does the literal interpretation mean that God was tired out and had to recuperate? And if God was not tired and only presented himself as resting to teach us to rest, is it possible that he presented himself as working over six days to teach us to work six days? We must not turn the God of the Bible into Zeus, a big man in the sky made in our image. Rather we must together study the Bible carefully and answer such questions as these fully.

既然传统的看法不像护卫这个看法的人所宣称的那么明显,那么无懈可击,难道我们不应该有某种程度的宽容,容许对创世记的不同解读呢?如果我们都同意圣经是无误的,即创世记是真实的历史,上帝的确从无有中造出了万有,人不是演化的产物,而是上帝从地上的尘土直接创造出来的,难道这不就足以安全地守护教会正统了吗?倘若我们同意,我们必须通过用经文来比较经文的方法,以寻求经文的字面(真实)意义,以及作者想要表达的意思,难道我们不就是在保护解读圣经的健全原则吗?如果我们在这么多的方面有共识,我们就应该也会同意巴文克这个饶有智慧的说法:
Since the traditional view is not so obvious and unproblematic as its defenders like to claim, should we not allow a measure of toleration for different interpretations of Genesis one? If we all agree that the Bible is inerrant, that Genesis is real history, that God created all things out of nothing, that man is not a product of evolution, but an immediate creation of God from the dust of the earth, is that not enough to safeguard the orthodoxy of the church? If we agree that we must seek the literal sense of the test and the meaning the author intended by comparing Scripture with Scripture, have we not protected sound principles of biblical interpretation? If we are agreed about so much, we should also agree with Bavinck's wise statement:

「大地是在这些日子里成形、成为人类的居所,对这些日子的看法也类似。无论何时,人们对这个问题都有不同的看法,托马斯正确地确认这点,就是对于信心来说不是绝对必要的事情,可以容许有各种看法。奥古斯丁相信上帝在一瞬间同时创造出万物,因此创世记第一章所说的,启示给我们知道的日子,不是时间方面的,而只是一种松散的次序,让我们知道创造之工的各个部分与其他部分之间的关联。他警告信徒,不要偏执于圣经没有明确说明的事情,以至于当有更明确的亮光照亮某段经文时,我们宁可为捍卫自己的看法而发光,而不为经文的意义来争辩。」

 "Something similar is true of the days in which the earth was formed and made into an abode for humans. At all times people have entertained different opinions on that matter, and Thomas rightly affirms that in the things which do not belong to the necessity of faith various opinions are permitted. Augustine believed that God created all things simultaneously in a single instant, so that the days of which Genesis 1 speaks make known to us not the temporal but only the causal order in which the parts of the work of creation stand to each other. And in obscure matters, he warned believers against taking such a firm stand in favor of a certain interpretation of Scripture that, when a clearer light should dawn over a passage, we would rather shine in defending our own opinion than fight for the meaning of Holy Scripture."

我们也许该问问巴文克,哪些事情是属于信心所必须的?在教会必要的教义,以及可以有某种程度的差异的教义之间,我们要如何划下界限呢?信仰告白陈述的是我们都同意的教义。基于这个理由,我们称信仰告白是我们合一的形式(forms of unity)。它们在基要真理上把我们联合在一起。在它们沉默不语的地方,教会就应当容忍各种不同的看法。
We might ask of Bavinck, what things do belong to the necessity of faith? How can we draw the line between the doctrines the church must require and doctrines where we can have a measure of difference? The answer to that question is the confessions of the church present that dividing line. The confessions state those doctrines that we all agree on together. For that reason we call our confessions our forms of unity. They unite us in the essentials of the truth. Where they are silent, the church should tolerate a variety of views.

在改革宗教会的历史上,由于一些区会曾经想要把宗派之外的看法强加在教会身上,因而造成了严重的伤害。无论是Klaas Schilder,还是Herman Hoeksema,我的看法是他们的教导都不应该被改革宗区会定罪(这些人的看法也不应该被强加在教会身上!)。我们应当极力维护我们信仰告白的教导,而对一些我们的信仰告白没有说得很清楚的地方,可以容许有不同看法的空间。这种认信主义(confessionalism)特别应该是联合改革宗教会(United Reformed Churches)的特征。这些教会所以联合在一起,是出于一个信念,就是他们之前所属的区会,曾经把一些不合圣经,以及非信仰告白的看法和做法,强加在教会身上。联合改革宗教会的《教会秩序手册》(Church Order)写作的目的就是为了防止任何形式的区会暴力,以确保一个非中央集权的教会生活。请留意,URC所承担的教会合一任务,是努力使那些「证明它们自己是忠于三项联合信条所总结的圣经教导的教会」(《教会秩序手册》,第34条)加入这个宗派。这不是要求在所有圣经的教导上都要达成共识,而是对那些总结在信仰告白里的圣经教导要达成共识。使我们联合在一起的,不是教会的政治力量,而是信仰告白。当我们看到那些曾经批评区会滥权的人,如今却主张要利用区会来将新的教义强加在教会身上,是很奇怪也很可悲的。
In the history of the Reformed churches serious harm has been done to our unity by synodical efforts to impose extra-confessional views on the churches. In my opinion neither the distinctive teachings of Klaas Schilder nor those of Herman Hoeksema should have been condemned by Reformed synods. (Nor should the views of those men be imposed on the churches!) Rather we ought to uphold vigorously the teachings of our confessions and allow latitude for disagreements on issues not clearly spoken to by our confessions. Such confessionalism should be the hallmark of the United Reformed Churches in particular. That federation of churches was born out of a conviction that the synod of their former connection had imposed unbiblical and unconfessional views and practices on the churches. The Church Order of the United Reformed Churches was written to prevent any form of synodical tyranny and to insure a quite decentralized church life. Notice that the ecumenical task of the URC is to pursue churches that "demonstrate faithful allegiance to Scripture as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity" (Church Order article 34). It is not agreement in all that the Bible teaches which is required, but agreement on those teachings of the Bible summarized in the confessions. The confessions, not ecclesiastical power politics, are to unite us. It is strange and sad to see some of those who most criticized the abuse of synodical power, now suggesting that synods be used to impose new doctrines upon the church.

这些教会的信仰告白不是藏在博物馆里的文物,只能为我们祖先的信仰作见证。它们是这些教会活生生的见证。如果弟兄姐妹确信一个教义必须加在教会的信仰立场上,就让他们以正当的方式来修正我们的信仰告白。让教会仔细地研究这个问题,好确信我们的确比我们的先贤要来得聪明。
The confessions of our churches are not museum pieces testifying only to what our forefathers believed. They are the living testimony of the churches. If brothers are convinced that a doctrine needs to be added to the confessional position of the church, let them act in a proper way to amend our confessions. Let the church study the matter with care and be sure that we are in fact wiser than those who came before us.

与此同时,让我们以兄弟之谊一同研究圣经,热切地寻求上帝的心意。让我们不要傲慢自大,甚至连彼此倾听都不愿意。让我们效法伯克富树立的好榜样。在他的系统神学里,他极力地排斥Noortzij教授所提出的对创世记第一章的某种画景论解释(framework interpretation)。他的做法是,首先对这个他所不同意的立场作一个彻底的回顾;其次,为他自己的传统解读提出经过缜密思考的论证;然后第三,他从来没有暗示Noortzij教授不是弟兄,他的看法不能被容忍。在我们的讨论中,有关创世记第一章里的「日」,我们也必须记得,创世记第一章的主要目的不是要教导我们地球的年龄,或上帝花了多长时间来创造。创世记第一章的主要目的是要教导我们,上帝的尊荣、权能、智慧,以及祂所赐给人的特性和责任。上帝教导我们,人作为唯一按照祂的形象所造的被造物,必须在每周中工作六天,并且用一天休息,以便与上帝有特别的团契相通。
In the meantime let us study the Scriptures together as brothers, earnestly seeking the mind of God. Let us not be arrogant, unwilling even to listen to one another. Let us follow the good example of Louis Berkhof. In hi s Systematic Theology he vigorously rejected the particular framework interpretation of Genesis one proposed by Professor Noortzij. But in doing so, he first of all presented a thorough knowledge of the position with which he was disagreeing, second, presented a carefully considered argument for his own traditional interpretation, and third, never suggested that Prof. Noortzij was not a brother whose views should be tolerated. We need also to remember in the midst of our discussions about days, that the main purpose of Genesis one is not to teach us the age of the earth or the length of time that God took to create. The main purpose is to teach us the splendor, power and wisdom of our God and the character and responsibilities which he has given to man. God teaches us that we, as the only creatures made in his image, must work for God for six· days each week and must rest in order to have special fellowship with him one day a week.

这的确很讽刺,有些人坚持廿四小时天,却拒绝基督徒安息日的圣经教导。我们必须追求所有创世记第一章所要教导给我们的,但是在这个过程中,我们必须在神的话面前保持一个谦卑、受教的态度。正如加尔文在他对创世记的研究中所说的:「任何人以哲学家的身分来论证世界这个工艺品,都是徒劳无功的。除非他们首先因着福音的宣讲而谦卑下来,并且学会把他们所有的理性智慧降服在十字架的愚拙(林前一21)面前。我的看法是,无论是在天上或在地上,除非基督在祂自己的学校中教导我们,我们找不到任何东西可以提升我们,让我们来到上帝的面前。」
It is ironic indeed that some insist on twenty-four hour days, but reject the biblical teaching of a Christian Sabbath. We must pursue all that Genesis one has to teach us, but in the process we must remain humble and teachable before the Word of God. As John Calvin wrote in his study of Genesis: "It is in vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world, except those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the Gospel, have learned to submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom (as Paul expresses it) to the foolishness of the cross" (I Cor. 1:21). Nothing shall we find, I say, above or below, which can raise us up to God, until Christ shall have instructed us in his own school.”

本文最早刊载在2001年一月号的Christian Renewal杂志(http://www.crmag.com/)。
Previously published in Christian Renewal, January 29, 2001


 作者: R.C. Sproul     翻译: 骆鸿铭

 我的朋友迈克·霍顿(Machael Horton)经常会评论「囚笼阶段加尔文主义」(cage-stage Calvinism)的现象,他说这种怪病似乎影响了许许多多刚刚认识改革宗恩典教义的人。我们都认识一两个这种「囚笼阶段的加尔文主义者」。当我们首先被上帝在救恩中的主权说服时,我们有许多人也和他们一样。
My friend Michael Horton often comments on the phenomenon of “cage-stage Calvinism,” that strange malady that seems to afflict so many people who have just seen the truth of the Reformed doctrines of grace. We’ve all known one of these “cage-stage Calvinists.” Many of us were even one of them when we were first convinced of God’s sovereignty in salvation.

囚笼阶段的加尔文主义者可以从他们坚持不懈地要把每个讨论转变成「限定的救赎」(limited atonement)而被人认出来,他们也把这件事当作他们个人的使命,要确保他们所认识的所有的人都听到——往往是很大声地——上帝拣选的真理。好,对真理有一颗火热的心总是值得赞许的。但是这样的心用一种令人讨厌的方式表达出来,幷不会说服人接受改革宗神学的圣经真理。我们都可以从个人经验作证,这么做实际上只会让人对这些真理敬而远之。
Cage-stage Calvinists are identifiable by their insistence on turning every discussion into an argument for limited atonement or for making it their personal mission to ensure everyone they know hears—often quite loudly—the truths of divine election. Now, having a zeal for the truth is always commendable. But a zeal for the truth that manifests itself in obnoxiousness won’t convince anyone of the biblical truth of Reformed theology. As many of us can attest from personal experience, it will actually push them away.

我好几十年的一位同事,已故的瑞士改革宗神学家罗杰·尼克(Roger Nicole)曾经提到,所有的人天生都是半伯拉纠主义者,相信他们生来并不是罪的奴隶。特别是在美国,我们已经被灌输了一套人文主义的思想,特别是认为人类是自由的,这种对人的看法。毕竟,这是块自由的土地。我们都不愿相信我们是如同圣经所教导的(罗三9-20),身上背负着不好的倾向,对上帝有公然的敌意。我们以为真正的自由,意思就是我们不需要拯救恩典的能力将我们击倒,就有能力可以相信上帝。当我们明白这是漫天大谎,圣经所描绘的是一幅非常荒凉的图景,当人离开恩典,要人作出正确的选择,简直就是不可能的。当我们认识到这点,我们也想让所有其他的人明白。有时候我们甚至会生气,为什么以前从来没有人告诉我们,我们真正败坏到什么程度,以及上帝主权恩典的荣耀。
Roger Nicole, the late Swiss Reformed theologian and colleague of mine for several decades, once remarked that all human beings are by nature semi-Pelagian, believing that they are not born as slaves to sin. In this country, particularly, we have been indoctrinated into a humanistic understanding of anthropology, especially with respect to our understanding of human freedom. This is the land of the free, after all. We don’t want to believe that we are burdened by negative inclinations and outright enmity toward God, as the Bible teaches us (Rom. 3:9–20). We think that true freedom means having the ability to come to faith without the vanquishing power of saving grace. When we realize that this is not true, that Scripture paints a bleak picture of the human condition apart from grace, that it says it is impossible for us to choose rightly, we want to make sure that everybody else knows it as well. Sometimes we are even angry that no one told us about the true extent of our depravity and the majesty of God’s sovereign grace before.

囚笼阶段的加尔文主义者就这么诞生了。他们是改革宗信仰的新生儿,他们非常具有侵略性,也缺乏耐心,因此理当要被关在笼子里,关好一阵子,这样,他们才会冷静下来,在信仰中更加成熟。有时候,当一个人相信了圣经里关于恩典的教义,他会发现自己和朋友、和家人之间会发生冲突,这都得怪罪他找到了改革宗神学。我不止一次被人问到,如果家人对改革宗神学有敌意,该如何处理。如果相信改革宗神学会带来麻烦,我们是否就该完全放弃这个主题呢?我们是否有责任要其他人相信恩典教义的真理呢?
This gives birth to cage-stage Calvinists, those newly minted Reformed believers who are so aggressive and impatient that they should be locked in a cage for a little while so that they can cool down and mature a little in the faith. At times, someone who becomes convinced of the biblical doctrines of grace finds himself in conflict with friends and family because of his discovery of Reformed theology. More than once I’ve been asked how one should handle hostility from loved ones regarding Reformed theology. If Reformed convictions are causing problems, should one just drop the subject altogether? Are we responsible for convincing others of the truth of the doctrines of grace?

答案同时是「是」与「不是」。首先我们看为什么「不是」。圣经说:「栽种的,算不得什么,浇灌的,也算不得什么;只在那叫他生长的神。」(林前三7)保罗在这节经文里主要是在说传福音,但是我认为甚至可以把它应用在归信之后,在基督里的成长。圣灵让我们明白真理,我们开始拥抱改革宗神学,就很清楚地说明这点。由于我们天生的半伯拉纠倾向,这需要大量地曝光在上帝的话的面前,才能克服这种天然的偏见,对恩典教义的抵挡。人们顽强地持守一种圣经所没有教导的,对自由意志的特殊看法。加尔文曾经提到,如果你认为自由意志是指完全不受罪的重量所施压的意志,你就是在把一个过分高抬自己的字眼用在我们身上。要克服这种高抬自己的看法(这是绝大多数罪人对自己的看法),需要很多的努力。最终只有圣灵能让人明白祂的真理。
The answer is both yes and no. First let’s consider the “no.” Scripture says that “neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor. 3:7). Paul is speaking primarily of evangelism in that verse, but I think we can apply it to growth in Christ even after conversion. The Holy Spirit convinces us of truth, and one’s coming to embrace Reformed theology shows this quite clearly. Given our semi-Pelagian inclinations, it takes a tremendous amount of exposure to the Word of God to overcome that natural bias against the doctrines of grace. People hold tenaciously to a particular view of free will that is not taught in Scripture. Calvin once remarked that if you mean by free will a will that is unencumbered by the weight of sin, you’ve used a term that’s far too exalted to apply to us. It takes a lot to overcome the exalted view that most sinners have of themselves. Only the Spirit can finally convince people of His truth.

然而,认识到圣灵的工作,幷不意味着我们就要沉默不言,或不再相信圣经的真理。我们不可为了和家人或我们的好友保持和睦,就放弃这个恩典的教义。约翰·派博(John Piper)说得好,他说,我们不只是必须相信这个真理,甚至连为这个真理辩护都是不够的,我们还必须极力主张这个真理。不过,这不代表我们要做个天生好争辩的人。因此,是的,我们应该要和周围的人分享我们所学到的,关于上帝主权恩典的真理。
Recognizing the Spirit’s work, however, does not mean we are silent or stop believing the truth of Scripture. We don’t give up the doctrines of grace to keep peace in the family or with friends. John Piper puts it well when he says that we not only have to believe the truth, that it’s not enough even to defend the truth, but we must also contend for the truth. That does not mean, however, that we are to be contentious people by nature. So yes, we are to share what we have learned about God’s sovereign grace with those around us.

不过,倘若我们真的相信此恩典的教义,我们也要学习如何用恩典的态度来处理这个真理。当我们回想,我们花了多少功夫才跨越了我们曾经有过的难题,就是我们无法接受圣经所描绘的关于上帝主权,以及我们被罪所奴役的全景,我们就会用更同情的心态来看待我们非改革宗的朋友与家人,幷且用更有恩典的态度来和他们分享这个真理。
However, if we really believe the doctrines of grace, we learn how to be gracious about it. When we remember how long it took us to get past the difficulties we once had with the full biblical picture of divine sovereignty and our enslavement to sin, we can view our non-Reformed friends and family more sympathetically and share the truth with them more graciously.

一个很兴奋地发现了恩典教义的人,首先要学的其中一件事就是对朋友和亲人要有耐心。上帝耐心地花功夫让我们相信祂在救恩上的主权,我们也可以信靠祂,会在我们所爱的人身上作同样的工作。
One of the first things a person who is excited about his discovery of the doctrines of grace must learn quickly is to be patient with friends and family. God took time with us to convince us of His sovereignty in salvation. We can trust Him to do the same with those we love.





作者: Tony Reinke   翻译: 骆鸿铭

 Too often we don’t equate the gospel and justification with the theme of eschatology. These themes can get separated in our minds, and each individual doctrine suffers for the disconnect, and our souls suffer from malnourishment. The fact is that these themes are inseparable—the death and resurrection of Christ mark the inbreaking of the eschatological age and the inauguration of the new creation.
我们很少把福音和称义,以及末世的主题放在等号的两边。在我们的脑袋中,这些主题常常被分开,以至於个别的教义之间缺乏联繫,我们的灵魂也因此无法得到滋养。事实是,这些主题是分不开的——基督的死与復活标志出末世的横空而降,以及新的创造的开始。

Yesterday I read what may be the best summary of these interwoven themes in the back of Thomas Schreiner’s new commentary on Galatians (Zondervan, 2010), pages 394–395.
Thomas Schreiner在他的加拉太书注释(Zondervan, 2010, p. 394-5)中这样写到:称义是末世的判决,在末后的日子之前被提早宣告出来。这不等於说现在就被公布的这个判决,只是指向一个未来的事实。信徒今天就已经被称义了!不过,与此同时,他们仍然在等候那在审判之日的最后宣告,到那时,神所已经宣告的判决就会昭示天下。

Notice how he draws the themes together:

Justification is an eschatological verdict that has been declared in advance of the last day. This is not to say that the verdict announced now only refers to a future reality. Believers are already justified, and yet at the same time they await the final declaration on the day of judgment when the verdict that God has already announced becomes public (5:5).

In the same way, the cross of Jesus Christ has launched believers into the age to come, even though they live in the present evil age (1:4). In other words, the new exodus promised in the OT has become a reality through Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord (Isa 40:3?–11; 42:16; 43:2, 5–7, 16–19; 48:20-21; 49:8–11; 51:10–11).
同样地,耶穌基督的十架已经把信徒投送到未来的世代,虽然他们仍然活在这个邪恶的世代(14)。换句话说,旧约所应许的出埃及,因為耶穌的被钉十架、成為復活的主,已经成為事实(赛403-1142164325-716-194820-21488-115110-11)。

The resurrection in Jewish thought also signals the end of the old evil age and the coming of the new age of peace and plenty (cf. Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1–14; Dan 12:2–3).
在犹太思想中,復活也标志著这个邪恶世代的终结,以及新时代的平安与丰饶的到来(参赛2619;结371-4;但122-3)。

The resurrection is not a prominent theme in Galatians, and yet it appears in the first verse of the letter (1:1), signifying that the age to come has invaded the present age. The old evil cosmos has lost its hold over believers through the cross of Jesus Christ (6:14). Therefore, believers now belong to the new creation (6:15). The new creation has not been consummated (Isa 65:17; 66:22), but it has been inaugurated through the work of Jesus Christ. The gift of the Holy Spirit represents the arrival of the new creation (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 11:18–19; 36:26–27; Joel 2:28). The Spirit is a gift of the last days, and his presence and indwelling among the Galatians shows that the final days have begun.
復活不是加拉太书的明显主题,但是它出现在这封书信的第一节,说明将要到来的世代已经侵入这个世代。藉著耶穌基督的十字架,旧的、邪恶的世界已然失去其据点(614)。因此,信徒现在属於一个新的创造(615)。新的创造虽然还没有达到其完满(赛65176622),但是藉著耶穌基督的工作,它已经正式展开。圣灵的恩赐代表新的创造的到来(赛3215443;结1118-193626-27;珥228)。圣灵是末日的恩赐,祂的同在,住在加拉太人当中,说明末后的日子已经开始。

Eschatological contrasts dominate Galatians, so that we have a contrast between the old age of the flesh and the new age of the Spirit. The flesh in Paul represents the old age and who human beings are in Adam, whereas the Spirit signifies the inbreaking of the age to come.
加拉太书充满了末世的对比,我们看到属肉体的旧世代与属灵的新世代的对比。保罗所谓的肉体代表旧的世代,那些在亚当裡的人,而圣灵则标示出那将要到来的世代的闯入。

We see the same eschatological contrast between the law and the gospel. The Mosaic law belongs to the former era and believers are no longer under the law (see esp. 3:15–4:7). To be under the law is to be enslaved to the power of sin (3:10, 22, 23, 25; 4:3, 21–31; 5:18). Such slavery belongs to the former age. Now that the gospel of Christ (a fulfillment of the promise of the new exodus! Isa 40:9; 52:7) is proclaimed, the age of the law is obsolete. Believers live in the era of the cross, the resurrection, and the gift of the Spirit.
我们同样看到律法与福音的末世对比。摩西的律法属於前一个世代,信徒今天不再在律法之下(特别参见315-17)。在律法之下,就是罪的权势的奴僕(3102223254321-31518)。这种奴役属於前一个世代。当基督的福音(新的出埃及的应许得到了应验!赛409527)被宣告出来,律法的世代就被废止了。信徒如今生活在十字架、復活与圣灵恩赐的时代。

Second Corinthians 5:17 rightly summarizes Galatians: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has gone; the new has come!”
林后517很正确的这样总结加拉太书:若有人在基督裡,他就是新造的人。旧事已过,都变成新的了。

这个总结把加拉太书以及旧约和新约的许多主题编织在一起。它值得我们把它打印出来,仔细研读,并且在灵修时认真默想。(如果你有兴趣,他写的这本註释书当然也值回票价!)