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.

宗教改革的地理分佈TheGeography of the Reformation

作者: Ryan Reeves  譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/10/the-geography-of-the-reformation/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/MP43mez3Fjn

宗教改革作為一場神學、聖經戰爭而被紀念。唯獨信心與唯獨恩典的教義是改教家的信息核心。 但我們也記念新教歷史的偉大人物，如馬丁路德、約翰加爾文、托馬斯克蘭默（Thomas Cranmer）等等。

可是我們常常未注意到宗教改革故事裡的一個特徵------土地。 事實上，最好不要抽像想像宗教改革，而是從歷史的塵土中領悟。要明白宗教改革的出現，就要了解當天的地域情況，和各個國家或城市是如何接受或拒絕宗教改革的。

宗教改革地理分佈的第一站是位於德國地區的著名的神聖羅馬帝國。 現今我們所知道的德國政治國家當時並不存在，直到十九世紀它才出現。 1500年，此地區是各諸侯國的拼湊集合，就其日爾曼根源而言，各諸侯國全都是激进的民族主義者，然而卻要在聖羅馬皇帝的統治下服務。盡管如此，帝國和地方統治者處於緊張的關係之中，最終緊張的關係導致地方當局抵制帝國對路德的判決。

學生們所記得的神聖羅馬帝國，既非羅馬，亦非特別聖潔。 但這名字可追溯到中世紀公元800年前後查理大帝（Charlemagne）統治下形成的帝國，當時他被視為古羅馬及其皇帝的繼承人。 在1500年之前，神聖羅馬皇帝已經是一個選舉產生的官員，由分散在德國的七名選侯選舉出來。 假如選侯認真發揮他們的職責，他們似乎也不過是越來越被迫依從一個家族的要求：哈布斯堡王朝（Habsburg）。在路德當天，這個王朝已經影響或持有帝皇稱號數個世紀了-------他們將繼續持有此稱號，直到拿破崙時代。

我們可以將重點集中在查理五世（ Charles V）王朝，查爾斯五世是坐在沃木斯議會上聽取對路德的審判的帝皇。 而事實上，神羅馬帝國往往更多地受到地方和區域當局的驅使。 例如，在薩克森州（Saxony），有一個叫腓特烈（Frederick）的選侯，他一想到膝蓋於帝國的旨意就面色蒼白。故此，腓特烈終日在擴展自己的勢力。 他甚至邁出獨特的一步，在維滕貝格（Wittenberg）建立一所新大學，並為德國教授包括路德轉來教學支付費用。腓特烈也許是帝國的一員，但他不認為自己是一個拍馬屁的人。

這種緊張的局勢有助於解釋路德得以順利開始宗教改革的獨特和政治方式。路德在沃木斯帝國議會(Imperial Diet)（巡回理事會）期間被判決。 但最後，腓特烈和其他德國親王認為對路德的判決不公正 -------要麼出於他們自己的新教信仰轉變，要麼出於對帝國強硬手段的抵制。 在任何一種情況下，路德都受到保護，被容許作路德宗教會的領袖，再活二十五年，而不是要面對處決。

位於帝國領域最南端的，是縱橫交錯排列的城市和州，我們今天稱之為瑞士。 像德國一樣，現在的瑞士當時還不是一個國家。儘管一些地區如日內瓦般臣服於其他統治者，但瑞士的城市或地區在許多情況下都臣服於帝國。 最後，瑞士地區由諸如伯恩（Bern）和蘇黎世（Zürich）等城市掌控。 這種政治分隔是明白為何像加爾文這樣的改教家與一個城市如日內瓦，而非整個國家聯繫在一起的關鍵。

宗教改革在荷蘭得到最異乎尋常的認可接授。 十六世紀的荷蘭並不是我們現在所知道的國家，而是與現在低地國相對應的十七個省份的單一實體。在宗教改革時期，這片土地像瑞士各州那樣，受查爾斯五世統治。

荷蘭各省實質上是帝國的附庸國。 也像瑞士同行一樣，荷蘭各省忠於自己的民族身份，強烈抵制外國統治者的權勢。

宗教改革在荷蘭迅速展開幾乎完全歸因於該地區的政治結構。沒有國王或國會可以單方面支持或鎮壓新教。 因此，在宗教改革時期，幾乎在開始瞬間，荷蘭便好像是每一場神學運動的棱鏡。

然而，这种時局面并不是宗教自由的堡壘，反而是宗教改革早期混亂的混杂聲音。荷蘭革命期间（1568-1648）时机成熟了，北方各省在加爾文主義旗幟下統一起來，而南部地區大部分还属于羅馬天主教会，後來形成比利時和盧森堡的國家。

法國在宗教改革期間最強勁的對手也許就是德國。這時期法國的國王是法蘭西斯一世( Francis I )，一個極具聰明才智的人，儘管他在反帝運動中過於激進。 在宗教方面，法蘭西斯認為自己是一個人文主義者，贊成一般的改革，但不是宗教改革本身。 這個人文主義者早年曾培育過加爾文，但時間不長。 在1534年，一群具有改革思想的人將標語牌安放在巴黎的大街小巷-------甚至在國王床邊的門上------嘲笑彌撒和崇拜瑪利亞。法蘭西斯對此大發雷霆，發起一場反對改革運動，把加爾文和其他人掃出法國，趕入瑞士地區。

英格蘭在宗教改革時期是世襲君主制的國家，被一個由篡奪王位建起來的都鐸家族統治。盡管歷史偏愛都鐸王朝------因為围绕他們发生的事件不亞於莎士比亞笔下的世界-------博斯沃思原野戰役（Battle of Bosworth Field）之後，都鐸家族不能從理查德三世（Richard III）屍體手中合法地接過王位。 因此他們指望教皇保障其政權的權威。 他們還與教會主要的英國領袖結盟，最終使英格蘭成為新教的旱田。 事實上，如果我們選擇一個最不可能擁抱宗教改革的國家，那就是英國。要不是亨利八世（Henry VIII）需要一個繼承人，快活的老英格蘭也許永遠不會成為一個新教國家。

亨利八世（Henry VIII）是早期英國宗教改革的轉折點。他曾批準在諸如劍橋（Cambridge）這樣（插在別國領域中）的小領土上，清除新教徒，他甚至在1521年寫過一篇反對路德的文章（舉行沃木斯議會的同一年）。不過，都鐸王朝需要繼承人，考慮到他們王朝自身的薄弱，男性繼承人是保護後代的理想選擇。此刻，在凱瑟琳（Catherine of Aragon）多次流產之後，亨利確信自己從不應該和他哥哥的妻子結婚。 他試圖離婚，但受到羅馬天主教會的阻止。因此，他促使英國投入宗教改革，為克蘭默（Thomas Cranmer）和其他人領導宗教改革打開了大門。然而，鑑於英格蘭原先對羅馬天主教的熱誠，若不是兩代人的堅持，新教信仰的果子是不會從英國教會長出來的。

英格蘭的長期北方對手是蘇格蘭。宗教改革開始時，蘇格蘭最親密的盟友是法國。就教會生命力和國王支持這兩方面而言，蘇格蘭人是熱誠的羅馬天主教教徒。 事實上，約翰·諾克斯（John Knox），後來蘇格蘭宗教改革的先鋒，早期的大部分事奉生涯都是在流亡英國北部中度過。

一代以後，蘇格蘭開始感受到宗教改革在其土地上的影響。諾克斯被遠遠逐出瑪麗都鐸（Mary Tudor）所統治的英國，他體驗了大歐洲的改革信仰。日內瓦作為敬虔改革的典範在他心中特別突出。 蘇格蘭本身飽受「是否擁抱新教」造成的動亂之苦，蘇格蘭人需要忠心牧師的幫助。 在十五世紀六十年代，諾克斯決心重返故國蘇格蘭，宣揚支持新教。

像宗教改革的許多故事一樣，政治統治者在蘇格蘭掌握一切權力。 諾克斯的路障是蘇格蘭女王瑪麗一世（Mary Stuart）。 諾克斯和其他人一起反對她的羅馬天主教信仰，並宣傳反對這種信仰，改教家們呼籲改革，而瑪麗抵制他們的努力，雙方之間出現僵持不下的局面。

最後，由於一系列個人和政治上的失誤，瑪麗催毀了自己的政權。 由於尚不完全清楚的原因，她同意謀殺她的丈夫達納利之王（Lord Darnley）。她允許陰謀者炸毀城堡，並聲稱達恩利被勒死，然後自己逃跑，並嫁給涉嫌謀殺犯。瑪麗企圖叛國，逃往英國，伊麗莎白一世在英國將她被捕，後來判處她死刑。

蘇格蘭改革的道路被鋪平了。 瑪麗的兒子隨後成為英格蘭詹姆士一世、蘇格蘭詹姆士六世，他以他的名義支持英文聖經翻譯的偉大工作。 然而，在他父親去世的時候，他只是一個孩子。 因此，諾克斯和其他改教家著手以新教信仰來撫養這孩子，蘇格蘭國會也開始立法，擁抱宗教改革。諾克斯在1572年去世時，蘇格蘭已建立起長老制的框架。

宗教改革的地理分佈狀況體現了早期新教故事的神韻。其中的國王、市議會，和其他政治方面的故事非但沒有遮敝宗教改革的图畫，反而顯示出宗教改革的實際空間。每一個這些背景都以它們自己的方式塑造將會在這些土地上生活的新教教會的故事。

Dr. Ryan Reeves is assistant professor of historical theology and assistant dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, Fla.

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十月號  。

The Geography of the Reformation

By  Ryan Reeves 

The Reformation is remembered as a struggle over theology and the Bible. The doctrines of sola fide and sola gratia form the core of the message of the Reformers. We also remember the great figures of Protestant history, individuals such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Thomas Cranmer.

A feature often missing in the story, however, is the land. The Reformation, in fact, can best be conceived not in abstraction, but down in the dust of history. To understand the land is to understand the emergence of Protestantism and how individual nations or cities embraced or rejected the Reformation.

The first stop in a survey of Reformation geography is in the regions of Germany, known then as the Holy Roman Empire. The German political nation as we know it today did not exist, and it would not exist until the nineteenth century. In 1500, it was a patchwork of various principalities and regions, all fiercely nationalistic to their German roots, yet also serving under the rule of the Holy Roman emperor. Still, there were tensions in the relationship between imperial and local rulers—tensions that would eventually create resistance to the condemnation of Luther.

The Holy Roman Empire is remembered by students as neither Roman nor as particularly holy. The name, however, stretches back to the formation of the empire in the 800s under Charlemagne, who was seen then as heir to ancient Rome and its emperors. By 1500, the Holy Roman emperor had become an elected office, chosen by seven electors scattered throughout Germany. If the electors took their role seriously, they nevertheless seemed to be increasingly forced to submit to the claim of one family: the Habsburg dynasty. This dynasty had influenced or held the imperial title for centuries by Luther’s day—and they would continue to hold it until the time of Napoleon.

We could focus a lot of attention on the imperial court of Charles V, the man who would sit at the Diet of Worms to hear Luther’s trial. But the reality is that the Holy Roman Empire was often driven more by local or regional authorities. In Saxony, for example, there was Frederick—an elector who nevertheless blanched at the thought of bending the knee to imperial will. Frederick instead spent his days expanding his own influence. He even took a unique step to found a new university in Wittenberg and to pay for the transfer of German professors such as Luther to come there and teach. Frederick may have been part of the empire, but he viewed himself as no man’s toady.

These tensions help explain the unique and political way Luther’s reformation got off the ground. Luther was condemned at Worms during the imperial diet (a roving council). However, Frederick and, eventually, other German princes believed that the condemnation of Luther was unjust—either due to their own Protestant conversion or due to resistance to imperial heavy-handedness. In either case, Luther was protected, allowed to live another twenty-five years as leader of the Lutheran church rather than facing execution.

To the far south of the empire’s domain lay a checkerboard of cities and cantons we today know as Switzerland. Like Germany, the modern nation of Switzerland was not yet a reality in those days. The Swiss cities or regions were in many cases subject to the empire, though some, such as Geneva, were subject to other rulers. Ultimately, the Swiss regions were dominated by cities such as Bern and Zürich. This political separation is the key to understanding why a Reformer such as John Calvin came to be associated with one city, Geneva, rather than an entire nation.

The quirkiest adoption of the Reformation was in the Netherlands. The Netherlands during the sixteenth century were not the nation that we know today but rather were a group of seventeen provinces that correspond to the modern-day Low Countries. These lands had by the time of the Reformation come under the rule of Charles V. Like the Swiss cantons, this made the Netherlands essentially vassals to the empire. Also like their Swiss counterparts, the provinces of the Netherlands were loyal to their own national identity and strongly resisted the influence of foreign rulers.

The reason the Reformation in the Netherlands was quirky is due almost entirely to the political makeup of the region. There was no king or national assembly that could unilaterally support or suppress Protestantism. Almost immediately, therefore, the Netherlands began to look like a prism of every theological movement during the Reformation period.

This was not a bastion for religious freedom, however, but rather a chaotic jumble of voices in the early Reformation. Things came to a head in the Dutch Revolt (1568–1648), in which the northern provinces became unified under the banner of Calvinism, while the southern regions would remain largely Roman Catholic and would later form the nations of Belgium and Luxembourg.

Perhaps Germany’s greatest rival during the Reformation was France. The king of France during this time was Francis I, a man of intellectual talent, though he was far too aggressive in his campaigns against the empire. In terms of religion, Francis considered himself a humanist and in favor of general reform, though not of the Reformation itself. This humanist world nurtured Calvin in his early years, though it did not last long. In 1534, a band of reform-minded men placed placards throughout Paris—one even on the king’s bedchamber door—mocking the Mass and the veneration of Mary. Francis was livid, and he launched a campaign against reform, sweeping Calvin and others out of France and down into the Swiss regions.

England during the Reformation was a hereditary monarchy ruled by a usurping family, the Tudors. Much as history has loved the Tudors—for their style no less than the world that gave us Shakespeare—the Tudors had little legal claim to the throne when Henry VII took the crown from the corpse of Richard III after the Battle of Bosworth Field. As such, they looked to the pope to secure the authority of the regime. They also allied themselves with leading English leaders in the church, ultimately making England dry soil for Protestantism. Indeed, if we were to select one kingdom as the least likely to embrace the Reformation, it would be England. Were it not for Henry VIII’s need for an heir, jolly old England might never have become a Protestant nation.

Henry VIII is the hinge on which the early English Reformation turned. He sanctioned moves to root out Protestants in small enclaves such as Cambridge, and he even wrote a tract against Luther in 1521 (the same year as the Diet of Worms). Still, the Tudors needed heirs, and given the weakness of their dynasty, male heirs were ideal to secure later generations. In time, after numerous miscarriages with Catherine of Aragon, Henry convinced himself he never should have married his brother’s wife. He sought to divorce her, but the Roman Catholic Church blocked him. So, he plunged England into the Reformation, opening the door for Thomas Cranmer and others to provide leadership. Still, given England’s original Roman Catholic fervor, it was not for two generations that lasting Protestant fruit would grow from the Church of England.

England’s longtime rival to the north was Scotland. At the start of the Reformation, Scotland’s closest ally was France. Scotland was also fiercely Roman Catholic, both in terms of church vitality and support from the crown. Indeed, John Knox, the man who would later spearhead the Scottish Reformation, spent most of his early ministry in exile in northern England.

A generation later, Scotland began to feel the effects of the Reformation in its lands. Knox had been further exiled from England under Mary Tudor, and he had experienced the Reformed faith of greater Europe. Geneva especially stood out in his mind as a model for godly reform. Scotland herself was wracked by turmoil over whether to embrace Protestantism, and the Scots needed loyal pastors to aid them. By some point in the 1560s, Knox had resolved to return to his native Scotland to preach in favor of Protestantism.

Like so many stories in the Reformation, the political rulers held all the power in Scotland. The roadblock in Knox’s way was Mary, Queen of Scots. Knox and others opposed her Roman Catholic faith and preached against it, leading to a stalemate, with Knox and others calling for reform as Mary resisted their efforts.

In the end, Mary sabotaged her own regime through a series of personal and political blunders. For reasons not entirely clear, she complied in the murder of her husband, Lord Darnley. She then allowed the conspirators to blow up the castle and claim Darnley had been strangled, before running off herself and marrying the man suspected of murder. Now sought for treason, Mary fled to England, where Elizabeth I had her arrested and later sentenced to death. 

The path was now paved for reform in Scotland. Mary’s son would later become King James VI and I, ruler of Scotland and England, who supported the great English Bible translation that bears his name. At the time of his father’s death, however, he was only a child. Knox and other Reformers therefore set about to raise the child in the Protestant faith, and Scotland’s parliament began to pass legislation that embraced the Reformation. By Knox’s death in 1572, the framework of Presbyterianism had been established in Scotland.

The geography of the Reformation reveals the verve of the story of early Protestantism. Far from clouding the picture with stories of kings, city councils, and other political side stories, the geography reveals the physical space of the Reformation. Each of these contexts in their own way shaped the story of the Protestant churches that would come to live in these lands.

Dr. Ryan Reeves is assistant professor of historical theology and assistant dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, Fla.

馬丁路德的生平及其重要意義

Lutherand His Significance

作者：Stephen J. Nichols  譯者: Maria Marta  

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2017/10/luther-and-his-significance/

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

1544年10月5日，馬丁路德在德國托爾高（Torgau）的城堡教會（the Castle Church）的獻堂典禮上證道。這座教堂稱得上是第一間新教教會的建築，因為所有其他教堂建築都用作羅馬天主教教堂。路德的畫家和雕刻家克拉納赫 (Luther Cranach) 負責教堂內部,  包括講壇的設計。教堂的主體建築為長方形大廳，兩側各有一個回廊。在典禮上獻唱了由約翰瓦爾特（Johann Walter）為這個特別場合創作的經文歌（motet）。 沃爾特與路德共同創作讚美詩，他們是新教讚美詩的先驅。

路德在獻堂儀式上聲言：「建造這座教堂的目的乃是，除了我們親愛的主透過聖言與我們說話，而我們透過祈禱和讚美來回應之外，裡面將不作任何用途。」 他直言不諱地指出：「除了聖道之外，我們可以割舍一切。」

路德一生的許多經歷均可視為代表性的事件。他於1517年10月31日在德國維滕堡 (Wittenberg) 城堡教堂門上張貼九十五條論綱，和於1521年4月在沃木斯議會(the Diet of Worms)上重申其立場，都展現出他無人匹敵的勇氣和膽量。他於在1518年在海德堡 (Heidelberg ) 召開的奧古斯丁修會會議（the Augustinian Chapter House）上提出其爭議論綱，和於1519年在萊比錫與羅馬天主教學者約翰·埃克（Johann Eck）進行辯論，都顯示出他敏銳的智慧。在瓦爾特堡城堡 (Wartburg Castle) 躲藏期間，他將希臘聖經翻譯成德語，顯露出他對聖經學術研究的深度。在維滕堡宣講登山寶訓時，路德的靈巧性在講壇上更是發揮得淋漓盡致。

但托爾高教會的獻堂事奉在路德人生中所具有的代表性地位，很少事件能與之相比。我們從中看到一個顯著的獨特目的。此目的揭示了路德對當天，和我們五百年後的今天的重要意義。它可以簡單表達為：上帝的真子民對真神的純粹敬拜。 只有上帝的聖言居於教會生活的中心時，這種純粹的敬拜才會出現。路德的整個人生都是朝著此目標邁進。 事實上，整個宗教改革可以歸納為瞄準這個目的的改革。

路德生在一個假教會（我們只能這樣描述）操控假敬拜的時代。假如路德在托爾高說：除了聖道之外，真教會可以割舍一切，那麽稍後的中世紀羅馬天主教會則相反：除了上帝聖道之外，一切都涉及。上帝的聖道被擠出教會生活的中心，因此教會裡的一切都偏差了。 教義、實踐、教會事奉------教會構成的因素都失去了平衡。 路德從一開始就感到這種不平衡。因为敬畏聖潔和公義的上帝是他早期生活的特征。德語字 Anfechtungen恰到好处地描述了他早年的經歷。該字的意思是「焦慮」，即人克服困難時的深度掙紮。在路德的案例中，這種掙紮发生在罪人和聖潔上帝之間。 罪人絕不可能贏得勝利。

路德致力於追求學術知識，他曾獲得愛爾福特大學（University of Erfurt）的學士學位和碩士學位。1505年6月，在路德即將進入法律界時，他遇到一場猛烈的雷暴。此事讓他焦慮不安到了一個頂點。 他認為上帝故意和他過不去。 在滂沱大雨和一團混亂之中，路德起誓假如上帝救他一命，他願意進入修院作報答。

但路德卻不敢直接呼求上帝。 相反，他透過中保聖安妮（St. Anne）------礦工的主保聖人(Patron Saint) 祈求，礦工是他父親的職業。在遭遇雷雨之前，路德拜訪過父母。他們的家是聖安妮的守保地，因此路德乎喊道：「聖安妮，幫助我，我願意成為一個修士。」

路德倖存下來。 七月，他進入修道院。然而，他的掙紮不但未平息，反而更加劇烈。在尋找平安與安寧的過程中，他發覺自己陷入沖突與混亂。 路德竭力刻苦己身，謹守院規，終日膽戰心驚，試圖借修行的途徑上天堂。他後來說，如果曾經有修士因為修行的緣故而得以進入天堂，我敢說那就是我了。在1510年，他被派往羅馬朝聖。 他目睹了天主教教庭的腐敗奢侈。所有讓他更接近上帝的努力只會驅使他更遠離上帝。那陣子，路德宣稱他有時厭惡上帝。

路德的靈性螺旋式下降的因由與上帝的聖言被遮蔽，以及由此造成的福音被遮蔽有關。 整個羅馬天主教體制在於罪的量化（輕重和數量）和恩典/恩寵的量化。 問題在于罪或過失，而解決方法是恩典賜下能力（恩寵推動和助祐），使罪人能夠賺取功德。結果教會宣揚一種對付這些過失的假的行為福音。 教會也錯誤教導：當生命完結時，過失仍會留在靈魂裡，靈魂需要進入下一個階段，即煉獄。在煉獄中，最後的過失會被煉淨／淨化，之後靈魂準備上天堂。

路德通過（重新）發現兩個重要真理来明白上帝的義。 第一個是關於罪。 問題不在於罪，和罪的輕重/數量。 真正的問題乃是，我根本就是個罪人（根本的拉丁語是radix）。 我是一個罪人，而上帝是聖潔的。 這就解釋了為什麼路德有時宣稱他厭惡上帝。 上帝，公義的審判者，要求義。 然而，我永遠達不到義，因為我根本上就是個罪人。

第二個極為重要的真理可以用外來的義這種表達來概述。 上帝要求的義在我以外，完全在我所有的行為以外，甚至包括籍著恩典賦予能力（恩寵推動和助祐）的行為以外獲得。 這種義唯獨籍著基督而獲得。這種義在我以外，或者對我來說是外來的。

神學家使用歸算一詞來表達這項真理。 它的意思是指我的罪-------不是部份，而是全部------歸算給基督。在十架上，祂擔當了我的罪，代替我承擔了上帝的忿怒。 這樣基督的義便歸算給我。祂完美的順服算為我的順服，我被稱為義。 這就是福音。

現在的問題是，路德從哪裡獲悉這些真理？ 他從閱讀聖經，閱讀哈巴谷書「惟義人因信得生」的經文（哈二4），以及從閱讀羅馬書和加拉太書中獲悉。 從1515年到1520年，路德一直就這些特定書卷的內容作演講。 他沈浸於這些文本當中。

路德的聖經閱讀是他與當天的假教會辯論的核心。聖經閱讀亦促使他於1517年10月31日在維滕堡 (Wittenberg)張貼九十五條論綱。人文主義學者伊拉斯謨（Desiderius Erasmus）在1516年出版希臘文新約聖經。路德在撰寫他的論綱時正在閱讀這版本的聖經。

當路德在萊比錫與伊克進行辯論時，他明確了唯獨聖經的宗教改革綱領。 在1521年的沃木斯議會上，他堅持聖經真理。他大吼道：「我的良心已被上帝的聖言所俘虜。」他確信，唯獨聖經是教會的最終權威。

從1521年到1546年去世，路德一直努力不懈，爭取看到教會牢固地建立在上帝聖道之上这成果，他勇敢宣稱，唯獨依靠恩典，唯獨藉著信心獲得基督所成就的救恩。 路德於1544年在托爾高的講話是他整個事工的標誌：「除了聖道之外，我們可以割舍一切。」

《上主是我堅固保障》（A Mighty Fortress Is Our God）這首宗教改革進行曲其實是詩篇四十六篇的經文反思。甚至路德的婚姻與家庭也是他閱讀並遵守上帝話語的結果。 沒有一個具備聖經基礎的獨身神職人員。 因此，前修士和前修女凱薩琳（Katharina von Bora）喜結良緣。 馬丁和凱撒琳娜建起第一個新教徒牧師住所，樹立了真敬虔家庭應有的榜樣。

從1520至1540年代的任何一周，路德都會在維滕貝格的城堡教會或城市教會講道五至七次。 在大多數早晨，他都會教導自己的孩子要理問答，並邀請維滕貝格的孩子們參加。他在維滕貝格大學向來自德國和歐洲的學生講課，並派遣牧師、傳教士，有時甚至殉道者。

即使遭遇痛苦和死亡，路德亦表現了他對上帝聖言的順服，和對福音的完全依靠。 1546年2月18日他去世時的情形正是這樣。當時路德在艾斯萊本（Eisleben），他出生的小鎮。在走過一趟艱辛的旅程後，路德身患重病。 在他最後的日子裡，路德敦促我們在靠近上帝的聖言時，要保持謙卑。 他宣稱：「沒有人能認為他已完全掌握聖經，除非他治理教會達一百年。」然後他補充說：「我們都是乞丐！這是真實的。」這就是福音的謙卑。 為什麼路德死後過了如此長的時間仍舊那麽重要呢？ 因為他意識到我們都是乞丐。

這是路德在他的時代和我們的時代的重要意義。 在上帝聖道以外，我們均處於黑暗當中。 但是，當上帝話語的光照，一切都被照亮。 身為罪人，我們站在聖潔的上帝面前的真正需要頓然變得清晰。 基督為我們在十字架上成就的拯救之工也變得榮美清澈。 只有在上帝的聖言中，我們才能了解基督和寶貴的福音。 路德於1544年10月5日在托爾高的聲明必須是我們的口號：「除了聖道之外，我們可以割舍一切。」

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十月號  。

Stephen J. Nichols博士（@DrSteveNichols）是Reformation Bible College院長、Ligonier Ministries教务主任、与Ligonier Ministries教员。 他是多部著作的作者，其中包括The Reformation: How a Monk and a Mallet Changed the World.。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2017年十月號  。

Luther and His Significance

By Stephen J. Nichols

On October 5, 1544, Martin Luther preached the dedication of the Castle Church at Torgau, Germany. This church lays claim to being the first Protestant church to be built, as all the other church buildings were converted Roman Catholic sanctuaries. Lucas Cranach, Luther’s painter and engraver, designed the interior of this church, including the pulpit. It is a rectangular hall flanked by two galleries. The dedication also had a motet composed especially for the occasion by Johann Walter. Walter collaborated with Luther on hymns. They were the pioneers of Protestant hymnody.

At the dedication, Luther declared, “It is the intention of this building that nothing else shall happen inside it except that our dear Lord shall speak to us through His Holy Word, and we in turn talk to Him through prayer and praise.” He put an even finer point on this when he proclaimed, “We can spare everything except the Word.”

Many events in Luther’s life may be called representative. His posting of the Ninety-Five Theses on the church door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, and his stance at the Diet of Worms in April 1521 reveal his unparalleled courage and boldness. Luther’s presentation of his theses for the disputation at the Augustinian Chapter House at Heidelberg in 1518 or his debate against Roman Catholic scholar Johann Eck at Leipzig in 1519 reveal the sharpness of his intellect. His translation of the Greek text into German while holed up in Wartburg Castle shows the depth of his biblical scholarship. And the mountain of sermons preached at Wittenberg show his dexterity in the pulpit.

But probably few events in Luther’s life rival the representative status of the dedication service at Torgau. There we see a notable singularity of purpose. That singular purpose reveals Luther’s significance in both his day and, five hundred years later, in our day. That purpose may be expressed simply as the pure worship of the true God by the true people of God. This pure worship comes only when God’s Word is at the center of church life. Luther’s entire life was bent toward this one target. In fact, the entire Reformation could be summed up as aiming at this target.

Luther was born in a time of false worship dominated by what can only be described as a false church. If Luther said at Torgau that the true church could spare everything except the Word of God, the later medieval Roman Catholic Church was the opposite. It was about everything except the Word. Because the Word of God was pushed out of the center of church life, everything in the church went askew. Doctrine, practice, the church service—all that constituted the church was off-kilter. Luther sensed this imbalance right from the outset. His early years are marked by fear of a holy and just God. The German word Anfechtungen describes these years. The word means “struggles,” the deep struggles of man against all odds. In Luther’s case, the struggle was between a sinner and a holy God. There was no way the sinner could ever win.

Luther applied himself to academics, eventually earning his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Erfurt. As he was about to enter the profession of law, he was caught in a violent thunderstorm in June 1505. This brought his anxieties to a head. He thought God Himself was out to get him. In the downpour and the chaos, Luther made a vow that he would enter the monastery if God would spare his life.

But Luther dared not appeal to God directly. Instead, he went through a mediator, St. Anne, the patron saint of miners, his father’s profession. Before the thunderstorm, Luther had been visiting his parents’ home. In that home was a shrine to St. Anne. “Help me, St. Anne, and I will become a monk,” Luther cried out.

Luther survived. In July, he entered the monastery. Yet, his struggles did not subside. They intensified. Looking for peace and rest, he found strife and turmoil. Luther tried white-knuckling his way to heaven. Later, he would say that if ever a monk could get to heaven by monkery, he would be that monk. In 1510, he was sent on a pilgrimage to Rome. He found the debauchery revolting. All of his attempts to get closer to God served only to drive him further away. At one point, Luther declared that he sometimes hated God.

The reason for Luther’s downward spiral had everything to do with the obscuring of the Word of God and the consequent obscuring of the gospel. The whole Roman Catholic system depended on the quantification of sin and the quantification of grace. The problem is sins, or demerits. The solution is grace-enabled merits. The church consequently preached a false gospel of works to counter these demerits. The church also falsely taught that when this life is finished and demerits are still left over, the next stage is purgatory. In purgatory, the final demerits are purged and souls are readied for heaven.

Luther saw right through this by way of a (re)discovery of two all-important truths. The first concerns sin. The problem is not sins, as in the quantity. The true problem is that I am a sinner at the root (radix in Latin). I am a sinner and God is holy. This explains why Luther sometimes declared that he hated God. God, the righteous judge, demands righteousness. Yet, I can never achieve righteousness because I am a sinner at the root.

The second all-important truth may be summed up in the expression alien righteousness. The righteousness God demands was earned apart from me and entirely apart from any works I might do even when enabled by grace. This righteousness was earned by Christ alone. It is outside of me, or alien to me.

Theologians use the word imputation. That means that my sin—not the part but the whole—is imputed to Christ. He takes my sin upon Him at the cross and, as my substitute, endures the cup of God’s wrath. Then Christ’s righteousness is imputed to me. His perfect obedience is counted as mine, and I am declared righteous. This is the gospel.

The question is, where did Luther learn this? He learned it from reading the Bible, from reading in Habakkuk that the righteous shall live by faith (Hab. 2:4). He learned it from reading Romans and Galatians. From 1515 through 1520, Luther was lecturing on these particular books. He was immersed in the text.

Luther’s reading of the Bible is at the heart of his contest with the false church of his day. It led him to post the Ninety-Five Theses at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Desiderius Erasmus, the humanist scholar, published the Greek text of the New Testament in 1516. Luther was reading it when he was formulating his theses.

When Luther debated Eck at Leipzig, he clearly laid down the Reformation plank of sola Scriptura. At Worms in 1521, he stood upon Scripture. “My conscience is captive to the Word of God,” he thundered. He was convinced that Scripture alone is the church’s final authority.

From 1521 until his death in 1546, Luther labored to see the church firmly established upon the Word of God and boldly proclaiming salvation in the finished work of Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. Luther’s words at Torgau in 1544 marked his entire ministry: “We can spare everything except the Word.”

“A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” the Reformation anthem, is nothing more than a reflection on a biblical text, Psalm 46. Even Luther’s marriage and family were a result of his reading and obeying God’s Word. There was no biblical basis for a celibate clergy. So, the former monk married a former nun, Katharina von Bora. Martin and Katie Luther built the first Protestant parsonage, modeling what a truly godly family could look like.

In any given week from the 1520s through the 1540s, Luther would preach five to seven times in either the Castle Church or the City Church in Wittenberg. On most mornings, he catechized his own children and invited the children of Wittenberg to join in. He lectured at the University of Wittenberg to students from across Germany and Europe, sending out pastors, missionaries, and, at times, martyrs.

In experiences of suffering and death, Luther showed his obedience to God’s Word and demonstrated his utter reliance on the gospel. Such was the case with his own death on February 18, 1546. Luther was in Eisleben, the town of his birth. It had been a rough journey, and Luther fell seriously ill. Among his last words, Luther urges us to have humility as we approach the Word of God. He declares, “Let no one think he has sufficiently grasped the Holy Scriptures, unless he has governed the churches for 100 years.” Then he adds, “We are beggars! That is true.” This is gospel humility. Why does Luther matter so much so long after his death? Because he realized that we are all beggars.

This is Luther’s significance both in his time and in ours. Apart from the Word of God, we are in utter darkness. But when the light of God’s Word shines, all is brought to light. Our true need as sinners before a holy God becomes stunningly clear. The work of Christ on the cross for us also becomes beautifully lucid. We learn about Christ and the precious gospel only in the Word of God. Luther’s statement at Torgau on October 5, 1544, must be our watchword: “We can spare everything except the Word.”