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。

2017-11-15

愛與邏輯   Love and Logic

作者: Joseph Torres 譯者: 駱鴻銘

 愛和邏輯之間有什麼關連呢?我們所熟悉的畫面是它們是對立的。愛是溫暖的、擁抱人的、有人情味的。邏輯則剛好相反,是冷酷的、與人保持距離的,也是不講人情的。大致說來,基督徒思想家,尤其是護教學家,必須準備好要反駁這類的嘲諷。對一個想要訓練自己成為一個擁有強健思想的基督門徒的人來說,這種看法是虛假的,也是危險的。What is the relationship between love and logic? The picture many of us are used to is one of opposition. Love is warm, embracing, and personal. Logic, on the other hand, is cold, distancing, and impersonal. Christian thinkers in general, and apologists in specific, must be ready to counter this caricature. It is both biblical false and dangerous to a robust Christian discipleship of the mind.

 聖經的例證Biblical Examples

福音書裏的例子。已經有不少著作具體說明了耶穌自己如何使用敏銳的批判性思考。儘管我們要有基督的樣式,其意義也許或多過這點,但至少不會少於這點。以下是一些例子:The Example of the Gospels. Several pieces have been written clarifying specific ways in which Jesus himself employed sharp critical thinking. While our Christlikeness may mean more than this, it certainly does not mean less. Here are some examples:

 魏德樂(Dallas Willard):《耶穌與邏輯學家》(Jesus The Logician
莫蘭德(J. P. Moreland:《耶穌如何與人辯論?耶穌與邏輯》(How Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic
米勒(Dave Miller):《耶穌使用邏輯》(Jesus Used Logic
格魯休斯(Douglas Groothius):《論耶穌》(On Jesus
Jesus The Logician – Dallas Willard
How Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic – J. P. Moreland
Jesus Used Logic – Dave Miller
On Jesus, by Douglas Groothius

 福音書在描繪耶穌時,經常使用邏輯的論證。我們該如何處理馬太福音經常出現的「這是要應驗……」這句話呢?這些經節的邏輯如下:「耶穌是猶太人的彌賽亞,這就是你們為什麼必須相信的原因。」The Gospels often present logical reasons for their portraits of Jesus. How best should we handle passages in Matthew which say, this was done in fulfillment of…”? The logic of these passage is as follows: “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and this is why you should believe it.”

 保羅的榜樣。如果用推理來說明我們的信仰——目的是說服不信的人——是錯誤的想法,那麼,我們應該如何處理使徒行傳裏所說的保羅與其他人辯論,要說服他們相信他所傳的信息的經文呢(徒十八4,廿六28,廿八24;另比較林後五11)?保羅書信是詳細的論證,以支持某些結論。因此,在加拉太書裏,保羅論證說你不能在基督救贖的工作上加上你的善行,並且花了好幾章的篇幅提出仔細的論證來支持他的聲明。The Example of Paul. If a reasoned articulation of our faith, one with the goal of persuading unbelievers, is wrong-headed how best should we handle the biblical passages in Acts that say that Paul “reasoned” with others to convince them of his message (such as Acts 18:4, 26:28, 28:24, compare also 2 Cor. 5:11)? Paul’s epistles are extended arguments in favor of certain conclusions. So, in Galatians, Paul’s argue you cannot add your good works to the atonement of Christ, and spends several chapters presenting carefully reasoned arguments to support his claim.

 實際的考量Practical Considerations.

 上帝所配合的,基督徒絕對不可分開:思想真理,心向真神(A heart for God and a mind for truth)(這是RTS的校訓)。我們在傳福音時,可以、也必須和「爭辯」結合在一起,用福音的真理來說服人。我不用「調和」這個字,因為我不相信理性、邏輯、論證必須和我們內心感受到的信仰加以調和,好像它們是彼此矛盾的一樣!(註1Christians should never separate what God has united: A heart for God and a mind for truth (The RTS motto). Our proclaiming the gospel can and should be combined with “arguing for,” and persuading people of its truth. I don’t use the word reconcile, because I don’t believe that reason, logic, and argument need to be reconciled with heart-felt faith …they aren’t at odds![i]

 當不信的人用「邏輯」來反對其根基,當然是誤用了邏輯(註2),但是這並不代表基督徒就失去了使用上帝所賜的這個極佳禮物的資格。再次說,事實上,這種論證的思路,說要放棄不信的人所誤用的,實在是過頭了。這是意味著我們不再能使用音樂來傳福音的真理,因為不信的人也同樣用音樂來傳播錯誤的世界觀。這也意味著基督徒不再能用戲劇、詩歌,或小說,因為它們都是這個世界用來傳遞他們(和其他宗教)虛假的信仰系統的技巧。這就是這種思路的結果。Unbelievers certainly misuse logic when they turn it against its very foundation[ii], that doesn’t mean that Christians are disqualified from utilizing this good gift of God. In fact, again, the line of reasoning that abandons things unbelievers misuse proves much too much. This would mean no longer using music as a means of conveying gospel truth because unbelievers likewise employ music to communicate false worldviews. It would also mean that Christians may no longer use theatre, poetry, or allegorical writings because they are all tactics the world (and other religions) use to convey their false belief systems. This where this line of thinking takes us.

 不要誤以為我是在提倡一種冷漠的、乾巴巴的理智主義,這完全不是事實。當我試圖改善我的思想,讓它更加敏銳時,我就是在榮耀上帝。我乃是全心全意相信聖經是上帝的話,因此可以站立得住,抵擋那些反對上帝話語的人,所謂的「理性上」的攻擊。我相信最好的思想會說明、證明、符合聖經所有的內容,也與聖經的內容一致。我是不是已經解決了所有的難題,也能安全地告訴不信的人,已經不再有任何挑戰了,才相信這點的呢?不!我乃是信靠基督,以及聖經所教導的一切,因為他們都是上帝所啟示的。我相信這些,是因為上帝打開我的心,讓我悔罪,也賜給我新的眼睛看見祂的世界。聖靈已經剝去我眼睛上的鱗片,向我證明基督的美麗,祂就是「所積蓄的一切智慧知識,都在祂裡面藏著」的那位(西二3)。Dont get the impression that Im advocating a heartless, dry intellectualism. That is simply not the case. When I seek to sharpen and improve my thinking, I seek to honor God. I believe with all my heart that Scripture is God’s word, and can therefore stand up to all supposed “intellectual” attacks made by those who oppose it. I believe that the best thinking shows, demonstrates, coheres with, and is in accordance with everything that we find in the Bible.  Do I believe this because I’ve worked out all of the problems and can safely tell unbelievers that there are no challenges? No! I believe in Christ, and all that Scripture teaches because God has revealed them.  I believe these things because God has opened my heart, causing me to repent of my sin, and has given me new eyes to see His world. The Holy Spirit has taken the scales off my eyes, shown me the beauty of Christ as the One in whom “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).

 護教上的考量Apologetic Considerations.

 當我們把推理應用在護教學上面的時候,我們必須記得,儘管我們的論證很有說服力,但是若我們說的話沒有伴隨著愛心,它們就是:1) 對不信的人的不實陳述(彷彿基督信仰是冷酷無情的信仰);2) 不討上帝喜悅的。一個在生發仁愛的心上沒有功效的信仰(加五5)是死的,也是毫無益處的(雅二14)。在和信徒或非信徒在作個人談話時,我們絕不可提倡一種冷酷無情、缺乏愛心的方法,單單訴諸歷史或邏輯。When applying our reasoning to apologetics, we should remember that regardless of how persuasive we are, when our words are not accompanied by love they are both 1) a misrepresentation to the unbeliever (as if Christianity is a heartless faith), and 2) displeasing to God. A faith that does not work itself out in love (Gal. 5:6) is both dead and useless (James 2:14). We should never, in personal conversation with either believer or unbeliever, advocate a heartless, loveless appeal to history or logic.

 試著說服人基督信仰是真信仰是壞事嗎?如果我們從聖經得到線索,其答案是否定的。猶大書告訴我們要「為從前一次交付聖徒的真道竭力的爭辯」(猶3),保羅教導提摩太要「勸戒那抵擋的人」(提後二25),聖經對「督責、使人歸正」(提後三16),以及「用百般的忍耐,各樣的教訓,責備人、警戒人、勸勉人」(提後四2)是有益的。保羅也教導提多,長老必須能「堅守所教真實的道理,就能將純正的教訓勸化人,又能把爭辯的人駁倒了」(多一9),並且要能「堵住」那些假教師的口(多一11)。聖經中所有這些經文都吩咐我們,在適當的時候,要爭辯、讚揚、提倡,並「辯論」說聖經對上帝、世界、人、基督等等的理解是正確的。我們必須嚴肅認真地看待這些聖經經文。Is trying to persuade people that Christianity is true a bad thing? Not if we take our queue from the Bible. Jude tells us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), Paul instructs Timothy to “correct opponents” (2 Tim. 2:25), that Scripture is profitable for “correction and reproof” (2 Tim. 3:16), as well as to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). Like to Titus Paul teaches that Elders must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9),” and that false teaches “must be silenced” (Titus 1:11).  All of these verses in the pages of God’s word command us to, at appropriate times, contend, commend, advocate, and “argue” that the biblical understanding of God, the world, man, sin, Christ, etc. is correct. These are biblical passages that must be taken seriously.

 在我們信仰的事情上拒絕使用理性和論證,是所謂的「唯信主義」(fedeism;或譯為信心主義)。唯信主義將我們的信仰變成一種非理性的、或與理性無關的信仰。基督徒不應該在盲目的信心上接受基督教。那種把基督信仰的真理建立在人的主觀看法的唯信主義式的信念(因為他們強烈地感受到這種信念),是走過頭了。末世聖徒教會的信徒也許宣稱他們真的、真心相信約瑟·斯密(Joseph Smith)是上帝的先知,但是單單相信這點並不會讓摩門教就變成一個真宗教。穆斯林也許全心全意宣稱他們相信穆罕默德是阿拉的先知,但是這並不會讓伊斯蘭變成一個真宗教。To reject the use of rationality and reason in matters of our faith is known as fideism.  Fideism presents our faith as either an irrational or non-rational. No Christian should accept Christianity based on blind faith. The kind of fideistic conviction that grounds the truth of Christianity in one’s subjectivity (i.e. because they feel strongly about it) proves too much. A Latter-day Saint may claim that they truly, truly believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, but simply believing it doesn’t make Mormonism true. A Muslim may claim with all their heart that they believe Mohamed was the prophet of Allah, but this doesn’t make Islam true.

 糟糕的哲學帶來的危害The Danger of Bad Philosophy

 再次說,邏輯本身不是有罪的。開發一個人的分析能力純粹只是在訓練清晰的思考,並避免在推理時犯錯誤而已。它能夠、也必須按照榮耀上帝的方式來使用。常常被引用來反對「哲學」重要性的聖經經文,例如林前一、二章,當然是正確的。我們必須避免空洞和世俗的哲學。但是我們也要看這些經節的上下文。保羅在這些經文中所強調的可以被簡化成幾個要點:1) 福音真理不能被簡化或解釋為只是「漂亮話(fancy-talking)」(即保羅所謂的「委婉的話語」,「世上的智慧,等等」;2) 不信者通過把上帝賜給他們的恩賜(思考的能力),用來反對上帝,證明了他們是敵對上帝的。Once again: logic is not inherently sinful. Developing ones analytical abilities is simply the discipline of thinking clearly and avoiding mistakes in reasoning. It can, and must, be used in a God-honoring fashion. Biblical passage frequently cited to dismiss the importance of “philosophy,” like 1 Cor. 1-2, are of course, all true. Let’s avoid hollow and worldview philosophy. But let’s also look at the context of such passages. The point Paul is making in all of those verses can be reduced to a few simple points: 1) the truth of the gospel cannot be reduced or explained merely be “fancy-talking” (what Paul calls “persuasive words,” “worldly wisdom,” etc), and 2) unbelievers show their hostility to God by taking a gift that He has given them (the capacity to think) and trying to use it against Him.

 同樣地,保羅在歌羅西書中說到,「你們要謹慎,恐怕有人用他的理學和虛空的妄言,不照著基督,乃照人間的遺傳和世上的小學就把你們擄去」。 這節經文雖然經常被認為是要人完全排除學習哲學、邏輯,等等,實際上並非如此。這節經文要教導的是如果「不照著基督」的方式,就不要去學習這些。因此,信徒應該試著增進他們的推理能力,恰恰是因為他們要尊崇賜給他們這個能力的上帝,我們應當反射祂公義的思想。Likewise, in Colossians, Paul says, See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). This verse, though commonly thought to rule out learning philosophy, logic, etc. altogether, actually does no such thing.  What this verse does do, however, is rule out doing these things when done “not according to Christ.” So, believers should seek to sharpen their reasoning abilities precisely because they seek to honor the Lord who gave them this capacity and whose righteous thinking we are to reflect.

 保羅告訴基督徒不要效法這個世界,而要心意更新而變化(羅十二2)。保羅在這裏是說到在羅馬書前十一章所談到的罪、恩典、稱義,和上帝揀選的奧秘的偉大真理。法利賽人和他們的同黨並不是真的在和基督辯論,他們只是想要合理化他們的律法主義。這是很大的不同。這是惡質的、錯誤百出的、不敬虔的思想和屬靈的背叛,使他們反對上帝無罪的兒子。倘若我們把它怪罪到「邏輯」的頭上,讓我們也可以同意說,這是「不照著基督」的邏輯。邏輯不是人自己發明的,而是反映出上帝的心思,而祂的思慮是清晰的、統一的,毫無差錯或混亂。Paul tells Christians not be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Rom. 12:2). Here Paul is speaking of the great truths of sin, grace, justification, and the mystery of God’s election covered in the first 11 chapters of Romans. The Pharisees and their ilk didn’t truly reason with Christ, they tried to rationalize their legalism. Big difference. It was bad, flawed, and ungodly thinking and spiritual rebellion that caused them to oppose the sinless Son of God. If we blame it on “logic,” then let’s agree that it was logic “not according to Christ.” Logic is not something man made, but rather reflects the mind of God whose thinking is clear, unified, and without error or confusion.

 總結Conclusion

 最後,我不是在提倡一種理性主義者的宗教。我認為思想真理和心向上帝都是必要的。批判性思考和活潑的信仰不是對立的。愛和仔細的推理同樣都可以為基督作見證。它們的作用就像是剪刀的兩個刀刃。吩咐我們「用愛心說誠實話」的同一位保羅也說到,要「將各樣的計謀,各樣攔阻人認識神的那些自高之事,一概攻破了,又將人所有的心意奪回,使他都順服基督。」(林後十5In conclusion, Im not advocating an intellectualist religion. I think both are needed, a heart for God and a mind for truth.  Thinking critically is not opposed to a vibrant faith. Love and careful reasoning are both useful in testifying to Christ. They work like the two blades on a pair of scissors. The same Paul that commanded that we “speak the truth in love” also said, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…” (2 Cor. 10:5).

註:
[i]我不會把一個「辯論」定義為熱切的討論,而是為我們所珍惜的信念提供清楚的理據。
[ii]如同我先前說過的,我不認為這是邏輯的正確用法。
[i] I don’t define an “argument” as a heated discussion, but rather providing clear reasons for the convictions we hold dear.
[ii] Though, as I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s the proper use of logic.



「律法與福音」究竟是指什麼?  What Is This "Law & Gospel"Thing?

 作者: Rick Ritchie 譯者:駱鴻銘譯

特別愛爭辯的早期教會領袖特土良(Tertullian)對假道是絲毫不假辭色的,以至於會拒絕那些假教師引用聖經的權利。他認為古典的知識遠遠比不上基督信仰的教導,以至於他用這個問題來加以拒絕:「雅典(代表哲學)和耶路撒冷(代表神學)究竟有何相干?」對這樣的人,我們會期望他對異端表達感謝嗎?如此火爆的人會感謝基督的敵人,闡釋被人忽略的基督信仰教義嗎?當然不會!然而,這正是特土良所作的,他論到異端馬吉安時,說道:「馬吉安最特別、最主要的工作就是把律法和福音切割開來。」(註1The feisty early church leader Tertullian was so impatient with error that he rejected their right of false teachers to quote the Scriptures. He esteemed classical learning so inferior to Christian teaching that he dismissed it with the question, "What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Are we to expect a man like this to express any gratitude toward a heretic? Will such a firebrand ever thank an enemy of Christ for expounding a neglected Christian doctrine? Never! Yet this is exactly what Tertullian did, saying of the heretic Marcion that "Marcion's special and principal work was the separation of the law and the gospel." (1)

確實,馬吉安在這方面的教導也無法贏得特土良的贊同,但是馬吉安確實在律法和福音之間直接建立了一堵厚厚的障礙,而特土良認為很適合把這堵牆留在原地,即使他展望未來,知道馬吉安其他的教導會荒廢成為一片廢墟。Surely Marcion's teaching even in this area would not have earned Tertullian's approval, but Marcion constructed a thick barricade between Law and Gospel which Tertullian saw fit to leave in place, even as he looked forward to the day when Marcion's other teachings would lay in ruins.

如果不是因為馬吉安的緣故,聖經本身也會迫使教會對律法和福音進行區分,因此我們今天所擁有的不只是律法的教義和福音的教義,而是「律法與福音」的教義。我們都清楚律法和福音是不同的,但是就如同來自同一對父母的兒女一樣,當我們同時觀察他們時,最能把他們區分開來。If it hadn't been for Marcion, the Scriptures themselves would still have forced the church to distinguish between law and gospel, but now we have not only a doctrine of law and a doctrine of gospel, but a doctrine of law and gospel. We are all aware that the law and the gospel differ, but as in the case of two children who sprang from the same parent, we are best able to tell them apart when we examine them together.

了解這些詞彙Getting our Terms Straight

所有的基督徒都熟悉「律法」和「福音」這些詞彙。有哪個基督徒不知道得救的道路被稱為福音呢?「律法」(或譯為法律)這個詞在日常生活裏也很常見,即使最不常去教會的異教徒,從「上帝的律法」這樣的詞句也大致能猜到這些詞大概是什麼意思。儘管基督徒都熟悉「律法」和「福音」這些詞彙,但是這兩個詞之間究竟什麼關聯,基督徒卻常常搞不清楚。The words "Law" and "Gospel" are surely familiar to all Christians. What Christian doesn't know that the way of salvation is called the Gospel? The word "Law" is common enough in daily life that even the most unchurched pagan would, from the very words "God's Law," have some inkling of what those words meant. While the terms "Law" and "Gospel" are familiar to all Christians, how the two terms relate to each other is often rather murky.

大多數人都不知道,我們可以藉由這些詞彙明白聖經的內容分類。身為基督徒,我們也許會以為,我們所相信的一切都可以稱為福音,律法則是給那些生在其他時代、其他地方的人的。又或者以為律法和福音都和我們有關,但只限於我們要信耶穌基督時。我們現在已經將它們拋諸腦後了,準備迎接更偉大、更好的事了。如果福音已經完成了它的工作,我們為什麼還要去研究它呢?讓我們專注在福音之後的新生活吧。已經得救的基督徒所關注的是成聖、靈命、、或神蹟奇事。為什麼還要回到「靈奶」或「道理的開端」呢?For some of us, we were never taught that these were categories through which to understand Scripture. Perhaps we always assumed that as Christians, everything that we believed was Gospel. The Law was for those born in another time and another place. Or maybe Law and Gospel were both pertinent to us, but only in the past, at conversion. We were ready to move on to bigger and better things. Why study the Gospel when it has already done its work? Let us immerse ourselves in the study of the new life that follows the Gospel. Sanctification or spirituality or signs and wonders are the business of the already-saved Christian. Why return to the "milk" or the "elementary principles"?

問得好!若改教家是正確的,我們就必須研究律法和福音之間的差異,因為就實際意義來說,聖經所說的,不外乎這兩個內容。即使我們談到成聖,我們要麼是在法律的意義(律法)上來談成聖,要麼是在宣講福音(福音)的意義上來談成聖。我們所說的,要麼是上帝要求我們的(律法),要麼是上帝賜給我們的(福音)。我們無法超越過這個範圍。Why indeed! If the Reformers were correct, we must study the distinction between Law and Gospel because in a real sense, Scripture never presents us with anything else. Even when we speak of sanctification, we will either be talking about it in a legal sense (Law), or an evangelical sense (Gospel). We will be talking of something that God requires of us (Law), or something that God gives to us (Gospel). We never move beyond this.

改教家對這個教義非常有把握,以至於他們宣告說,若缺少這個教義,我們就無法理解聖經。路德甚至宣稱,如果一個人不知道這個不同,「你就完全無法確定,他是個基督徒,還是個猶太人,或是一個異教徒,因為他們的區別完全取決於這個分別。」(註2)在他那個時代以「美國的路德」著稱的華達(C. F. W. Walther)同意路德的看法,華達說到:The Reformers were so certain of the importance of this doctrine that they declared that without it no one would be able to make sense out of Scripture. Luther even declared of the person ignorant of this distinction that "you cannot be altogether sure whether he is a Christian or a Jew or a pagan, for it depends on this distinction." (2) In agreement with Luther is C. F. W. Walther, known in his own day as the American Luther. Walther says:

真正認識律法和福音之間的區分有,不只是一道榮耀之光,讓我們可以正確明白整本聖經,而且若缺乏這種認識,聖經就是一本封閉的書,永遠無法開啟。(註3The true knowledge of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book. (3)

只要我們搞不清楚聖經的內容,聖經就會是一個無法參透的奧秘。The Bible will be an impenetrable mystery as long as we are confused about its intent.

倘若改教家的看法是正確的,聖經就包含了兩種不同的信息,交織在舊約和新約聖經當中。其中一個信息,即律法,「是一個神聖的教義,它教導我們什麼是對的,什麼是討神喜悅的,並且定一切犯罪的、違背上帝旨意的事有罪」(註4)。另一個信息,即福音,「教導我們一個未遵行律法而被律法定罪的人應該相信什麼,即基督已經滿足並償付所有的罪咎,並且在不需要人的功績的條件下,已經為他贏得了赦罪,即『在上帝面前的義』,和永生」(註5)。這兩個教義的共同之處是它們都是上帝的話,都和我們息息相關,也都需要被人傳講。它們的不同之處是律法定人的罪,而福音卻會拯救人。難怪混淆這兩個教義會引發一些問題。如果我們讓人誤以為律法就是福音,當他們在早晨的講道之後回到家中,一定會感到被定罪了——因為他們的確被定罪了!學習分辨這兩個教義之間的差別是非常重要的。讓我們一同透過研究人們是如何混淆這兩個教義,來學習分辨這兩個教義。If the reformers were correct, Scripture contains two different messages which thread their way through both the Old and New Testaments. One message, the Law, "is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and God-pleasing and which condemns everything that is sinful and contrary to God's will." (4) The other message, the Gospel, "teaches what a man who has not kept the law and is condemned by it should believe, namely, that Christ has satisfied and paid for all guilt and without man's merit has obtained and won for him forgiveness of sins, the 'righteousness that avails before God,' and eternal life." (5) These two doctrines are similar in that both are the word of God, they both pertain to us, and both should be preached. They differ from each other in that the Law condemns while the Gospel saves. Small wonder then that confusing these two doctrines will cause problems. If we present Law to people thinking that it is Gospel, they will return home from the morning's sermon feeling condemned - because they have been! It is vitally important that we learn to recognize the difference between these two doctrines. We will do this by studying various ways in which people confuse these doctrines.

混淆一:福音是新律法Confusion #1: The Gospel is a New Law

你是否曾聽過這樣的講道,說你如果想靠遵行摩西律法就絕對不能上天堂,但是卻暗示你,只要履行了基督的律法就可以上天堂呢?這類的講道是最糟糕的示範,破壞了律法和福音之間的界限。如同華達所說的:Have you ever heard preaching which left you certain that you could not get to heaven by keeping the commandments of Moses, but suggested that you would get to heaven by fulfilling the commandments of Christ? This type of preaching is the worst violation of the distinction between Law and Gospel. As Walther says:

把律法和福音混為一談的第一種方式是最容易辨認出來的,也是最令人噁心的。羅馬天主教、蘇西尼主義者(譯按:中世紀的理性主義者)、理性主義者都採用這種方式。這種說法認為,基督是新摩西,或賜下律法者,而福音則被轉變成一種功績性的工作;與此同時,那些教導說福音是上帝在基督裏白白的恩典的人會被定罪、被咒詛,如同羅馬天主教所作的。(註6The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized--and the grossest. It is adopted, for instance, by Papists, Socinians, and Rationalists and consists in this, that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver, and the Gospel turned into a doctrine of meritorious works, while at the same time those who teach that the Gospel is the message of the free grace of God in Christ are condemned and anathematized, as is done by the papists. (6)

福音派教會在他們的教導中很少會加重這種混淆的深度。然而,這給了我們一個絕佳的起點,幫助我們明白律法和福音之間的區分究竟是什麼。首先要注意到的是當你在兩件事情中做出區分時,這兩件事就不是一件事。律法/福音的區分,首要的問題就是:福音並不是律法。Few evangelical churches are likely to promote this depth of confusion in their teaching. Nevertheless, this gives us a good starting point in understanding what the distinction between Law and Gospel is really about. The first thing to note when you make a distinction is that the two things being distinguished are two things and not one. The first point at issue in the Law/Gospel distinction is that the Gospel is not a Law.

如此明白的聲明,其重點很明顯,以至於我們會懷疑,真的有必要作這種聲明嗎?然而,當我們深入考察,就會發現必須一再重申這個要點,即使對那些看似很熟悉聖經的人來說也是如此。When stated outright like this, the point is so obvious that we wonder that it needs to be made at all. If we take a deeper look at the issue, however, we might find that this point needs to be made over and over again even with people who otherwise seem to understand their Bibles well.

舉例來說,我們羅馬天主教的朋友們,當然不會這麼無知到會相信他們是靠遵守十誡而得救的。他們被絆倒之處是相信有一種他們可以靠著履行的某種律法,就可以上天堂。相信羅馬天主教(據說是唯一曾在公開辯論中打敗魯益士的人)的安康姆(Gertrude Anscombe)在一篇寫於1939年的文章裏,曾提到有關參與到她的政府(英國)與德國的戰事裏是否正義的問題。對她來說,正當地評估戰爭是否是道德的,是一件關乎得救或定罪的事,因為救恩是可以靠著遵行自然律而獲得的(註7)。在天特會議的法規和敕令中,天主教會說我們乃是「靠著遵行誡命這個條件」而得救的,並且「基督耶穌是作為一位我們應當順服的立法者而被賜下的」(註8)。在安康姆和天特會議的這兩個例子中,基督在十字架上的工作都有其地位,但不是最核心的。Our Roman Catholic friends, for instance, are certainly not so ignorant as to believe that they will be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments. Where they get tripped up is in believing that there is a Law, the fulfilling of which could get us into heaven. In an article written in 1939, Gertrude Anscombe, a believing Roman Catholic (and reportedly the only individual ever to beat C. S. Lewis in public debate), wrote concerning the justice of participating in her government's war with Germany. For her, properly appraising the morality of the war was an issue of salvation or damnation, for salvation would be attained by following natural law. (7) In the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, the church said that we are saved "on the condition of observing the commandments," and that "Christ Jesus was given...as a legislator whom to obey." (8) In the case of both Gertrude Anscombe and the Council of Trent, there was a place for Christ's work on the cross, but it was not central.

在我們決定當基督在登山寶訓的講道是在做什麼之前,我們最好先澄清祂所做的不是什麼。基督來不是要給我們一個比摩西律法更好的律法,使我們得救,「因為律法是惹動忿怒的;哪裏沒有律法,那裏就沒有過犯。」(羅四15)如果律法是惹動上帝怒氣的,我們知道基督來不是要帶來上帝的忿怒,「因為上帝差祂的兒子降世,不是要定世人的罪,乃是要叫世人因祂得救。」(約三17)如果基督受差不是要來定罪的,而律法是定人罪的,基督奉差遣就不是要為我們帶來更多的律法。Before we decide what Christ was doing when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount, we had better clarify what he was not doing. Christ did not come to give us a law superior to Moses' which could save, for "law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). If law brings wrath, we know that Christ did not come to bring it, "for God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17). If Christ was not sent to condemn, and law condemns, Christ was not sent to bring us more law.

然而基督的確談到了誡命和律法。在登山寶訓的講道中,祂嚴厲地警告說:「無論何人廢掉這誡命中最小的一條,又教訓人這樣做,他在天國要稱為最小的。」(太五19),保羅也勸勉我們要「成全基督的律法」(加六2;見《新譯本》)。基督的確是用最嚴厲的話來論及律法。Yet Christ does speak of commandments and laws. In the Sermon on the Mount, he sternly warned that "anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19), and Paul exhorts us to "fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). Christ did speak of law in the sternest of language.

基督談到了律法,但是祂並沒有賜下律法。這是我們無法逃避的兩件事實,而我們唯一能得出的結論是:基督所說的律法是已經被賜下的律法。在登山寶訓的講道中,先前已經賜下的律法是摩西律法。基督澄清了人們對摩西律法的誤解。Christ spoke of law, but he did not give law. These are two unavoidable facts. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Christ spoke concerning a law which had already been given. In the Sermon on the Mount, the law which had been given was the law of Moses. Christ cleared the Law of Moses.

基督為什麼要宣講摩西律法呢?因為為了要讓基督完成祂的救贖工作,祂所要拯救的人必須認識到他們需要基督。猶太人的宗教領袖已經「馴服」了律法,扭曲律法,讓律法更容易履行全。在耶穌的聽眾當中,有些人以為他們已經成功地脫離了律法。為了祂的救恩工作,耶穌必須嚴厲地宣講律法,好叫它可以「引我們到基督那裏,使我們因信稱義」(加三24)(註9)。Why would Christ preach about the Law of Moses? In order for Christ to do his saving work, the people he intended to save needed to know that they needed him. The Jewish religious leaders had "tamed" the Law, twisting it to make it easier to fulfill. Some of Jesus' hearers thought that they had pulled it off. For the sake of his saving work, Jesus had to preach the Law in its full rigor so that it would "lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). (9)

如果我們只需要與這個教導爭論,即福音是新律法,而基督是新的頒布律法者,事情就已經夠糟糕了,然而問題還不止於此。那些受到這些錯誤所害的人還執迷不悟,定罪那些不這樣教導的人,正如天特會議讓我們看到的一樣,它說到:It would be bad enough if we had only to contend with the teaching that the Gospel was a new law and Christ a new lawgiver, (10) but problems do not stop there. Those who are subject to these errors go further, condemning those who teach otherwise, as we find in the Council of Trent, where it is said that:

「如果有人持下述主張,那麼,此人應受絕罰,即:讓人能夠稱義的那一信仰不是別的,就是要對上帝的慈悲堅信不疑,即為了基督的緣故,上帝以其慈悲之心而赦免了我們的罪愆,或者說,任憑對上帝慈悲的這種堅信,就可以使我們得以稱義。」(註11"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema." (11)

在這點上,羅馬天主教定罪那些相信福音的人。我們盼望我們所認識的天主教徒不會持守這個教導,但是重要的是我們認識到那些將律法和福音混淆的人,往往會進一步定罪那些不加以混淆的人。At this point the Roman church condemned those who believe the Gospel. It is to be hoped that the Catholics that we know do not hold to this teaching, but it is important that we recognize that those who confuse Law and Gospel often go further and condemn those who do not.

混淆二:律法和福音被混雜起來Confusion #2: Law and Gospel are Mingled

如果混淆律法和福音的第一種方式是把福音變成一種新律法,這在福音派教會並不常見,那麼,第二種混淆律法和福音的方式就是比較常見的。華達如此描述這種混淆:If the first manner of confusing Law and Gospel, that of making the Gospel into a new law, is rarely found in the evangelical churches, the second manner of confusing Law and Gospel is more common. Walther describes this confusion as follows:

第二,當講道者沒有完全展示出律法的嚴厲以及福音的甘甜,反而把福音的要素摻雜到律法裏,或者是把律法的要素摻雜到福音裏,就是沒有按照正意分解上帝的道。(註12In the second place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Law is not preached in its full sternness and the Gospel not in its full sweetness, when, on the contrary, Gospel elements are mingled with the Law and Law elements with the Gospel. (12)

若我們正確地分辨律法和福音,就會看到律法的嚴厲和苛刻,和福音的自由和甘甜。當兩者被混合起來時,嚴厲的元素會被摻雜到福音裏,使的福音變得像是對人的要求,或者是把放縱的元素摻雜到律法裏,讓律法變得更容易達成。When Law and Gospel are properly distinguished, the Law is stern and rigorous, the Gospel free and sweet. When the two are confused, an element of sternness is introduced into the Gospel, making it demanding, or an element of laxity is introduced into the Law, making it more attainable.

要在一開始就明白為什麼這是一種混淆是不容易的。新約聖經所說的福音不是有對人提出要求嗎?的確,應許是甘甜的,但是耶穌拒絕那些心不甘、情不願的門徒(太八18-22)又該怎麼說呢?保羅克制他的身體,以免被棄絕(林前九27)又該怎麼說呢?或者是新約聖經裏給我們的成打的其他警告和勸勉呢?福音是甘甜的,但是它不是純糖,難道不是嗎?同樣,我們在律法裏不是也可以找到一些寬鬆之處嗎?改教家強調舊約律法那種做不到的嚴厲,不可能是正確的,律法容許我們有軟弱之處。整個獻祭系統不就是為此而設的嗎?(註13It is not at first as easy to see why this would be considered a confusion. Is not the New Testament Gospel demanding? Sure, the promises are sweet, but what about the way Jesus turned away his reluctant followers (Matthew 8:18-22)? What about Paul's example of chastening his body so that he would not become a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:24)? Or the dozens of other warnings and exhortations given in the New Testament? The Gospel is sweet, but surely it is not pure sweetness, is it? And in the same manner, can we not find some laxity in the Law? The Reformers could not be correct in stressing the unattainable harshness of the Law in the Old Testament. There was room for weakness. What else was the sacrificial system set up for? (13)

當我們問這類問題時,很明顯我們已經不清楚律法和福音之前的區別究竟是什麼了。我們已經落入到以下的信念裏,即律法和福音之間的分界是位於馬太福音和瑪拉基書之間,位於舊約聖經的結尾和新約聖經的開頭。我們不明白的是律法和福音是上帝對我們說話的兩種方式。倘若祂對我們說的是律法,祂的目的是讓我們要負責任,不是要藉著律法賜給我們什麼東西。正如保羅所說:「我們曉得律法上的話都是對律法以下之人說的,好塞住各人的口,叫普世的人都伏在神審判之下。所以凡有血氣的,沒有一個因行律法能在神面前稱義,因為律法本是叫人知罪。」(羅三19-20 我們必須認識到當牧師在講道時要我們對上帝負責任時,這個講道就是律法。When we ask questions like these, it is clear that we have missed what the distinction between Law and Gospel is about. We have fallen into the belief that the line between Law and Gospel is drawn between Matthew and Malachi, at the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New. What we have missed is that Law and Gospel are two different ways that God speaks to us. If he is speaking Law to us, his purpose is to hold us accountable, not to give us anything through that Law. As Paul says: "we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the Law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:19-20). We must recognize preaching to be Law whenever it is making us accountable to God.

這裏要記得兩件事。首先,我們必須將所有聖經裏面要我們向上帝負責的部分都標註為律法,尤其是聖經說到必須要愛上帝、愛鄰舍的部分。耶穌說,愛上帝和愛鄰舍是律法的核心(太廿二37-40)。作為福音派,如果我們看到一節與十誡有關的經文,我們很擅長於辨識出那是律法,但是如果是一節與愛有關的經文,我們經常會忽略掉。「愛」聽起來比較像是安慰。There are two things to keep in mind here. First, we must brand all Scripture which holds us accountable to God as Law. This will be true even when, or I should say, especially when the Bible speaks of the necessity of love for God or others. Jesus said that love for God and neighbor was at the heart of the law (Matthew 22:37-40). As evangelicals we are good at recognizing law if it has to do with the Ten Commandments, but we often miss it when it has to do with love. Love sounds so much more comforting.

我們是否經常聽到人們說(或經常告訴人),「基督教不是宗教,而是一個個人關係」呢?這句話的目的是要讓基督教變得更容易吸引人。誰喜歡在交朋友時被一大堆規則限制呢?這種對「愛」的強調必定是好消息!How often have we heard (or told people) that "Christianity is not a religion, it is a personal relationship"? This is always said to make Christianity more attractive. Who would prefer having a list of rules to having a friend? This emphasis on love must be good news!

不,這不是好消息!至少不永遠是。正是在愛的範圍內,我們沒有達到標準。這正是當我們為了專注在愛上帝、愛鄰舍時,會破壞所有的規則和規定的原因。如果萬事取決於此,當我缺乏愛心的時候,我該怎麼想呢?為什麼有時候好消息會看起來像是一個重擔呢?No, it isn't! At least not always. It is exactly in the area of love that we do not measure up. This is what so many of us find when we have torn up the list of rules and regulations in order to just focus on loving God and neighbor. If it all turns on this, what am I to think when I am unloving? How come the good news seems like such a burden sometimes?

倘若律法的核心真的是愛,而律法賜給我們的目的是要我們向上帝負責,那麼我們的結論就必然是上帝要我們負責,尤其是當祂設立了一個愛的標準之時,而我們卻沒有達到這個標準。我們已經被傳喚到上帝的法庭,不是因為違背了某個禮儀規定,而是因為我們和上帝與鄰舍的關係上,不夠忠心,不夠有愛心。If the Law really has love at its heart, and the Law was given to hold us accountable to God, then we must conclude that God holds us accountable especially when he sets forth a standard of love to which we do not measure up. We have been summoned to the divine court room not for some picky infraction of a ceremonial code, but for being unfaithful and unloving in our relationships with God and man.

光靠我們更忠心、更有愛心是無法修補這個裂縫的。許多偏差的佈道策略讓人以為上帝非常寂寞,需要人去愛祂。請記得:伊甸園有可能因為我們不好的行為而失去,但是如今的問題是我們已經被踢出來了,而不是我們逃離了伊甸園。我們無法告訴人「要回到上帝那裏」以便解決他們的問題。問題是他們已經被逐出了伊甸園,而不是他們離家出走。The breach cannot be healed by our trying to be more faithful and loving. So much bad evangelism makes it sound as if God were lonely and needed someone to love Him. Remember: Eden may have been lost by our bad conduct, but the problem now is that we have been kicked out, not that we ran away. We cannot tell people to "Come back to God" to solve their problem. The problem is that they got banished, not that they walked out.

即使是那些說到愛心的經文,如果被用來控告我們,也是一個相當恐怖的場景。但是保羅還說了什麼呢?他說,「因為上帝將眾人都圈在不順服之中,特意要憐恤眾人。」(羅十一32)律法是嚴厲的,使眾人都成為罪人,但是這個罪咎卻創造了一個機會,顯明出上帝的憐憫。我們是不忠心的,要對上帝交帳,上帝卻利用這個處境來顯明祂對我們的信實。我們因為缺乏愛心而遭到審判,而上帝的回應是,將祂的愛澆灌在我們身上。This is a pretty grim situation if even passages which speak of love are used against us. But what else does Paul say? He says that "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all" (Romans 12:32). The severity of the Law leaves us all guilty, but that very guilt creates an opportunity to show forth God's mercy. We are held accountable for being faithless, and God uses the situation to show how faithful he is. We are judged for being unloving, and in response, God pours forth his love on us.

問題出在假使我們把律法和福音混雜在一起,上帝在這兩方面的意圖就無法完成了。祂要用不順服來使人住嘴,使他們對此負責,然後憐憫他們。為了完成第一個目的,人們必須知道他們是不順服的。他們不只是不順服,也沒有能力順服。他們不只沒有能力順服,連順服的意願都沒有。(註14)我們必須用這樣的方式來宣講律法,即沒有一個人可以站立得住。我們都試著扭動身軀,想要脫離上帝的掌握,並且告訴自己,有一天我們可以掙脫。也許我們現在還沒有達到標準,但是有一天我們會做得更好。在一篇精彩的律法講道之後,我們會發覺自己甚至不想要做得更好。我們只想去吃午餐,忘了這個講道,好叫我們在牧師開始下一個新的講道系列時,可以覺得比較舒服。The problem is that if we mix Law and Gospel, neither of God's intentions is carried out. He desires to shut people up under disobedience, holding them accountable, and then has mercy on them. To accomplish the first goal, the people have to know that they are disobedient. Not only that they have been so, but that they cannot be otherwise. Not only that they cannot be otherwise, but that they have no desire to be otherwise. (14) We need to preach the Law is such a way that nobody is left standing. We all try to squirm out of God's hand by telling ourselves that some day we might pull it off. Maybe we fall short now, but some day we will do better. After good Law preaching, we realize that we don't even really want to do better. We just want to go to brunch and forget the sermon so that we can feel better when the pastor starts a new sermon series.

如果這很無情,且讓我們回想起那最終極的目的。我們想要用死刑來使人住嘴,好叫上帝可以憐恤他們。除非人們被「逮到」,他們不會覺得需要憐憫。If this is grim, let us remember the ultimate end. We want to shut people up under a death sentence so that God can have mercy on them. Until the people are "caught," they won't feel any need for mercy. Not real mercy.

再次說,上帝的總體意圖讓我們明白,為什麼不能把福音變成對人的要求。倘若我們對有可能信主的人作出要求,我們是否真的讓他們明白上帝的憐憫了呢?也許是某種的憐憫,但是我們實際上所作的,只是把債務人放到一個還款計劃裏面而已。(註15)這前提是債務人還有償還的能力,而從來沒有把這個人推到一個地步,認識到他如今真的需要上帝的憐憫。Again, the overall intention of God tells us why the Gospel cannot be made demanding. If we make demands of the potential convert, are we really presenting him or her with mercy? Mercy of a sort, perhaps, but what we have really done is to put the debtor into a debt repayment plan. (15) This always implies that the debtor can still repay, and never pushes the individual to the point of realizing that he or she is now really at the mercy of God.

我們從來都不真的想要以上帝使用律法和福音的方式來使用它們。上帝要定罪,也要赦免,而我們要的是怪罪上帝和討價還價。上帝的嚴厲和慷慨的程度都不是我們会感到自在的。我們現在就想要知道結果。我們忘了上帝懲罰性的公義是地獄,而祂的寬宏大量是天堂。我們想要把這兩部分以同等的分量結合在一起,讓這個世界更友善、更祥和。當我們把律法和福音混雜起來,我們只是證明了我們要的不是上帝,而是一個道德警察。We never really want to use Law and Gospel the way God intended them to be used. God wants to condemn and to pardon. We want to chide and to bargain. God is more stern and more generous than we are comfortable with. We want results now. We forget that God's punitive justice is hell and his generosity heaven. We want to combine equal portions of each to make a kinder, gentler earth. When we mix Law and Gospel, we only prove that we don't want a God, we want a moral policeman.

只有完完全全地宣講律法的嚴厲,才能讓人在上帝面前知罪。(註16)只有完完全全地宣講福音的甘甜,才能使人在上帝面前成為公義。倘若我們不好好面對上帝的威嚇或應許,就是隨從自己的主意,而不是上帝的旨意。Law must be preached in its full rigor to make people guilty before God. (16) The Gospel must be preached in its full sweetness to make people righteous before God. If we try to do anything else with God's threatenings or promises, we are following our own agenda, and not God's.

混淆三:把福音變成宣講在基督裏的新生活Confusion #3: The Gospel is Turned into a Preaching of the New Life in Christ

在沒有好好分清楚什麼是律法、什麼是福音的人當中,下一種混淆大概是最常見的。在許多教會裏,會對潛在的歸信者傳講真正的恩典。他們宣講基督的方式會讓人毫不懷疑基督的恩惠,這恩惠連最邪惡的罪人也可以得到。但是只有那些歸信很久的基督徒才會在這類講道中得益。The next confusion is probably the most common among those whose preaching is otherwise very clear in distinguishing Law from Gospel. In many churches, real grace is preached to the potential convert. Christ is preached in such a way as to leave no doubt that his benefits are even for the vilest of sinners. It is the long-since-converted workaday Christian who gets ground in the gears of this kind of preaching.

有時候我們必須假設,當牧者以熱切的語句來描繪在基督裏的新生活時,其目的是為了讓潛在的歸信者渴望成為上帝永恆救贖計劃的一部分。然而,在其他時候,這種講道是直接針對那些已經歸信的人,或者是針對那些以為他們已經歸信的人。Sometimes we must assume that when pastors paint the new life in Christ in glowing terms, the intent is to make the potential convert long to be part of God's eternal plan of salvation. At other times, however, this preaching is directed precisely to those who have already been converted, or think that they have been converted.

當這類的講道是針對那些僅僅相信他們已經是歸信的人的時候,牧師會選擇這類的講道是可以理解的。這類的講道是在宣講律法,其目的是為了使肉體的確據絕望,好叫他們可以飛快地跑到救主那裏。When this type of preaching is directed at those who merely believe that they are converted, it is understandable that the pastor would choose to preach like this. This type of preaching is law preaching. It is intended to drive the carnally secure to despair so that they might fly to the saviour.

 問題出在當一個粗心大意的牧師向會眾當中已經得救的人宣講這類信息之時。宣講律法就是宣講律法,無論它針對的是誰。真正的問題不是出在牧師宣講律法是針對已經重生的羊群,而是牧師沒有接著用福音來補強。牧師之所以沒有這麼作,恰恰是因為他們相信他們所宣講的就是福音!這種混淆有部分是來自我們被正確地教導,上帝是新生活及其美好結果的來源。喜樂的順服,對兄弟自發的愛心,耐心地忍受試煉——所有這些都是上帝滿有恩典的禮物。這怎麼會是律法呢?The problem comes when the careless pastor addresses preaching like this to the saved in the congregation. Law preaching will be Law preaching no matter to whom it is directed. The real problem will not be that the pastor has directed Law preaching at the regenerate flock, but that the pastor does not follow up with Gospel. Pastors often forget to do this precisely because they believe that what they have been preaching is the Gospel! Some of this confusion comes because we have rightly been taught that God is the source of the new life and all of its wonderful results. The cheerful obedience, the spontaneous love for the brethren, the patient endurance of trials--all of these things are said to be God's gracious gifts. How could this be Law?

再次說,我們必須回到聖經是怎樣定義福音的。按照定義,福音是好消息(希臘文的字面意義)。相對的,律法是上帝對我們的要求(太五17-20)。上帝要求我們要喜樂地順服祂(林後九7),我們要自動自發地愛弟兄(加五14;約壹四7-8),要耐心地忍受試煉(提後二12)。這是要求,而達到這些要求就有獎賞的應許,以及沒有達到標準的懲罰的威脅。Again we must return to the definitions which we derive from Scripture. The Gospel, by definition, is good news (the literal meaning of the Greek word). In contrast, the Law is God's demand upon us (Matthew 5:17-20). God demands that we cheerfully obey him (2 Cor 9:7), that we spontaneously love the brethren (Galatians 5:14; 1 John 4:7-8), that we patiently endure trials (2 Timothy 2:12). This is demand, and there is promise of reward for living up to them, and threat of punishment for falling short.

牧師向他的會眾提出這些要求是合乎聖經的。牧師應當發出這些要求,把它們當作嚴肅的呼召,要會眾活出新的生活方式。然而,我們必須承認,會眾會不斷地虧欠這些要求。當他們開始明白這點,而越好的講道越能顯明這點,他們就需要聽見福音。我們不能把會眾已經明白福音,已經超越對福音的需求,當成是理所當然的。如同路德所說,沒有人可以對自己傳講福音。基督徒需要有人不斷地向他們傳講福音。It is biblical for a pastor to issue these demands to his congregation. The pastor should issue them as serious calls to a new way of life. It must be recognized that the congregation will continually fall short of these demands, however. When they begin to realize this, and the better the preaching the more obvious this will be, they need to hear the Gospel. It cannot be taken for granted that they already know the Gospel and have moved beyond it. As Luther said, no man can preach the Gospel to himself. Christians need to hear it preached to them again and again.

總結Conclusion

對我們許多人來說,真正的律法和福音的講道是一個全新的經驗。我們的牧師從聖經的經文來講道,但他們從來沒有讓我們確信上帝站在我們這邊。有時候牧師是把福音呈現為一種新律法。其他時候,牧師會緩和律法的語氣,好讓人不會感到牧師講的不會那麼負面,也緩和福音的語氣,以免「給人錯誤印象」,也就是即使是真正惡劣的罪人也可以得救。對那些少數的幸運兒來說,當他們以潛在的歸信者的身份來到教會時,所聽到的是白白的恩典的信息,但是對在基督裏的新生活的描述,卻與我們所經歷到的大異其趣,以至於我們開始懷疑我們的信仰究竟是不是真的。For many of us, true Law and Gospel preaching would be a new discovery. Our pastors preached from biblical texts, but they never left us certain how God is disposed toward us. Sometimes the pastor presents the Gospel as a new Law. At other times, the pastor tones down the Law so he doesn't sound too negative, and tones down the Gospel so he won't "give people the wrong idea" that even really bad sinners can be saved. For the lucky few, the Gospel was preached as a message of free grace when we came to church as potential converts, but the descriptions of the new life in Christ have been so different from anything we have experienced that we begin to doubt the genuineness of our faith.

對我們所有的人來說,真正的律法,其效用不是為了激勵我們作出更大的委身,而是讓我們感到害怕。的確有一位上帝是我們必須對祂交帳的。無論是在祂創造的工作上,或是祂救贖的工作上,我們都沒有活出祂呼召我們活出的標準。To all of us, whatever our situation, the real Law does not serve to inspire us to greater devotion, but drives us to terror. There really is a God out there to whom we are accountable. We do not live up to what he has called us to, either in his creative work or his redemptive work.

對那些害怕的人來說,福音會以這樣的信息來到:基督已經為我們成全了一切。即使我們已經是基督徒了,基督也已經為我們成全了一切。即使對那些在教會裏長大的人來說,仍然有恩典給他們!筵席已經擺好了,來享用吧!贖價已經被償付了,你是自由的!死亡已經死了,去活出來吧!地獄的苦已經有人受了,天堂如今已經向你開啟了!To the terrorized, the Gospel then comes as a message that all has been done for us. All has been done for us even if we are already Christians. There is grace even for those who grew up in the church! The banquet is set. Come and eat. The ransom has been paid. You are free. The death has been died. Go and live. Hell has been suffered. Heaven is open to you.


摘自圣经神学辞典

在神的创造中,「天」是地以外的另一个实体。「天地」(创一1)包含了神的整个创造,我们又称之为宇宙。神不需要天作为祂存在的范畴,祂是自存和无限的。空间是神给予有限的受造物用作栖息的居所。神不单超越地,同时亦超越天。

「天」标示了两个相关的概念:地以外的物质现实,和有神住在其中的属灵现实。「天」这个字通常以复数的形式出现。旧约用作「天」的字词几乎只有一个──samayim──它是一个复数字词,可直译为「至高之处」。因此,耶和华便是「至高之神」(创十四18-20;诗十八13)。至于在新约,解作「天」的希腊字词ouranos(直译是「那被高举的」),总共出现过284次,其中三分一是属于复数。

物质的天

古人凭直觉的判断,把物质的天分成两个领域。眼前的天就是包围地球的大气层,「空中的鸟」(王上二十24)就是在这个领域中展翅翱翔。天气变化的现象亦在这个大气层的天空中出现,包括雨(申十一11;徒十四17)、雪(赛五十五10)、露(但四23)、霜(伯三十八29)、风(诗一三五7)、云(诗一四七8)、雷电(撒上二10)和冰雹(伯三十八22)。在这大气层的天以外,便是天上的天,亦称为「穹苍」(创一8)。在这领域之中有天上的众光──按照固定图形布置的繁星(耶三十三25;鸿三16),还有太阳和月亮(创一14-16)。天上的天那种永恒不变的特性,引发人们以种种比喻来形容它。例如,窗户(王下七2)、根基(撒下二十二8)、门(创二十八17)、遥远的天涯(尼一9)和幔子(赛四十22)。

这大气的天和天上的天亦成为神向人类启示祂自己的途径。首先,天见证了有一位荣耀的神存在。「诸天述说神的荣耀;穹苍传扬他的手段」(诗十九1;罗一19-20)。此外,循环不息的四季,为人类提供了源源不绝的饮食,在信徒眼中最能够见证神的存在。

其次,神在天上立了祂应许的记号。彩虹表明神应许永远不会再用洪水毁灭世界(创九12-16)。不可胜数的星星代表了神会丰丰厚厚地成就祂与亚伯拉罕所立的约(创二十二17;出三十二13;申一10;代上二十七23;尼九23)。

第三,神从天上显神迹。神从天上降火,可以是为了施行审判(创十九24;王上十八38-39),亦可以表示悦纳人的献祭(代上二十一26)。以色列人在旷野飘流期间,神将「天粮」赐给他们(出十六4)。神使日头止住(书十12-13),又使用一颗星来显示弥赛亚将诞生(路二9)。祂有时还会从天上直接向人说话(创二十一17,二十二1115;徒十一9)。信徒企盼基督驾着天上的云降临(可十四62;徒一11;帖前四16-17)。

第四,当信徒望见那浩瀚无际和不可冀及的天,便会想到神是超越一切,又不属乎这世界的──不过,这是指属灵方面而非空间方面的事实。所罗门在献殿的仪式上亦承认「天和天上的天尚且不足你居住」(王上八27)。

神的居所

天最常指称神的居所。天亦最能够清楚显出神的荣耀。因此,「荣耀」一词便经常被用作天的同义词(罗八18)。事实上,神的荣耀高过诸天(诗一一三4,一四八13),因为在祂出现的任何地方,都会完全彰显祂荣美的属性(出十三21-22;诗一○八5;林后三7-18)。天上不断称颂神的荣耀(诗二十九9)。圣经的作者引用众多不同的比喻说法,来形容神在天上的居所,例如:「天上的天」、「天上建造楼阁」(摩九6)。保罗表示自己曾被带往「三重天」(林后十二2)。虽然他没有指出头两重天是甚么,但很可能就是这大气的天和天上的天。

属天的人生观

神期望人采纳属天的人生观。各样美善的恩赐──不论是自然抑或超自然的恩赐──都是从神而来的(雅一17;参约三27),祂就是宇宙的创造者和护理者(罗十一36)。以色列人认为雨水是神从天上降下的恩赐,这种看法是正确的(申二十八12)。同一道理,旱灾就表示了神的不悦(申二十八23-24)。

不过,获得地上的福气与得着神在天上称许,却并非一定成正比。例如,约伯受苦便与他的信心和顺服无关。不过,在约伯受苦这事件中,神就运用了祂在天上的主权和公义的理由(伯四十一11)。耶稣教导人明白,对比于天上的福乐,人生在世的日子只是短暂的片刻。故此,即使属神的人在不义的人手中受苦,耶稣仍吩咐我们要为此欢喜快乐,因为知道他们「在天上的赏赐是大的」(太五12)。与此同时,「我们在天上的父」会把我们日用的饮食赐给我们(太六11),又会「把好东西给求他的人」(太七11)。

那些不采纳此属天人生观的人,又会如何?以「日光之下」(纯粹从属世的人生观为出发点)的虚空人生为主题的传道书,提醒读者要记着「神在天上,你在地下」(传五2)。耶稣严肃地警告人:「凡称呼我『主啊,主啊』的人不能都进天国」(太七21)。(只有马太福音采用「天国」一词,它是「神的国」的另一种说法〔参太十九23-24,那里交替地采用这两个名词〕;可能是因为犹太人对直呼神的圣名有所保留。)此外,保罗亦提醒信徒,即使在主仆的关系中,也不可对人厚此薄彼,因为「他们和你们同有一位主在天上;他并不偏待人」(弗六9)。

凡盼望承受天上产业的人,都必须分清属世和属天事情的轻重次序。耶稣清楚指出,人必须悔改(太四17)、谦卑(太五3,十八1-4)、有好见证(太五1016,十32,十六19)、遵行神的话(太五19)、行义(太五20)、怜悯人(太十八1014,二十三13)和作忠心的管家(太十九23),才能进入天国。耶稣已经把积蓄财宝之道告诉信徒(太六20),就是只要在最小的世事上忠心,天上就会为他存留丰富和永不衰残的产业(路十六1-13)。属世和属天的价值观完全不同,人只可以二择其一。因此,那些祷告「愿你的旨意行在地上,如同行在天上」的人(太六10),就表示心甘乐意地接受了属天的人生观。

基督和天

世上最能够见证属天荣耀的,就是耶稣基督本人(约一1418)。正如神以圣殿作为居所,住在以色列人中间;同样地,神更借着道成肉身,有形有体地住在人类中间。子在未有世界以先,便与神同享荣耀(约十七5);祂「从天上降下来」(约六38),是「从天上来的粮」(约六32;参六41505158),现在「已进入天堂」(彼前三22),「远升诸天之上」(弗四10)。把旧约指耶和华「充满天地」(耶二十三24),与新约指基督是「那充满万有者所充满的」(弗一23、四10;西一1620)这两个观念结合起来,便会得出基督和父神原为一。

希伯来书的作者从属天的角度细述基督的位格和工作。子虽然是天地的创造者(来一10),如今却坐在天上神的右边(来一4),为信徒代求(来四14-16)。基督配受人的敬拜,因为神已经将祂升为至高,「高过诸天」(来七26;参腓二9-11)。祂的救赎工作彻底而完全,因为祂不像旧约的祭司,只能在「真圣所的影像」中事奉,惟独祂有资格进到天上神的面前(来九23-24)。信徒如今便「因耶稣的血得以坦然进入至圣所」(来十19)。

直到基督再来的时候到了,祂才停止在天上为信徒代求的工作(徒三21)。信徒逼切等候基督「从天上」降临(帖前一10,四16),那时,不信的人便要面对祂的审判(帖后一7-8)。约翰在异象中看见那日的「天开了」(启十九11)。在神给予以西结的启示中(结一1)、当主耶稣接受洗礼的时候(可一10)、司提反在死前举目望天看见基督的那一刻(徒七56),以及约翰在末世的异象中(启四1),都曾经出现过天开了的异象。不过,在牵涉到基督的生平(约一51)和工作(启十一19,十五5)的事上,天才会完全开启。这些与上天有关的事情会导致天开启,是十分顺理成章的。以色列人最怕天闭塞,神收起祂在物质方面的供应(申十一17;代下七13;路四25)。有甚么事比被拒诸天国门外,不得喝里面的活水更可怕呢(太二十三13,二十五10)?

圣灵和天

赐下圣灵与耶稣升天有着直接的关系(徒二33)。圣灵是从天上差来的(彼前一12)。圣灵是天上的恩赐(徒二38),让人藉祂先尝天上的福气(约七37-39)。圣灵亦是信徒的凭据,保证他们将来可得产业(弗一13-14)。希伯来书的作者指出圣灵这「天恩」与来世权能的关系(来六3-4)。当彼得把圣灵降临与约珥书二章2832节的预言相提并论的时候(徒二17-21),他其实是要指出天国的末世盼望已经临近;那「末后的日子」已经开始。

信徒和天

信徒不论在现今抑或将来,都已经拥有在天上的身分。信徒现今已是天上的子民(腓三20-21),有着从天而来的呼召(来三1);他们的名字已在天上被记下来(路十20)。他们此刻叹息,深想得着复活的身体,就是「神所造,不是人手所造,在天上永存的房屋」(林后五1)。那将会是一个好像基督一样的身体。那时,人便会完全恢复神原初造他时所拥有的形象──由属地的形状变成属天的形状(林前十五45-49)。信徒将来必得着神所应许赐下的永恒产业,一方面是因为它已经为他们「存留在天上」(彼前一4),另一方面是因为信徒与那位已经得荣耀的基督是同为后嗣的(罗八17)。

对于将来在天上的生活,信徒如今所预见的,正是成就了神在创世时所定下的旨意。它包括启示录所启示的那种敬拜(启七10,十一16-18,十五2-4)。敬拜将包括不断传颂神的荣耀作为(启十九1-2)。除了将颂赞归给神之外,敬拜还包括服侍──遵从神的指示和为了服侍祂而作的事(启二十二6)。信徒如今就得以这种事奉为祭献给神(罗十二1)。纵然信徒现今仍需面对苦难,但神已应许他们,将来要在天上的荣耀中与基督一同作王(提后二12;参太十九28;启二十46)。那时,信徒便可以在一个完美的境况中与神和众信徒彼此相交(来十二22-23)。

在天上

保罗特别强调信徒已经与基督连合。信徒如今既然是「在基督里」,基督如今既然是「在天上」,那么,信徒便顺理成章是「在天上」。相应而言,神亦是「在基督里,赐给我们〔信徒〕天上各样属灵的福气」(弗一3)。这个「在天上」的片语(en tois epouraniois)在新约只出现过五次,而且全部都在以弗所书中(弗一3,一20,二6,三10,六12)。信徒之所以得着属天的福气,完全是因为基督已经在天上掌权(弗一20),以及信徒已经在灵里「与基督」连合(弗二6)。神不单让基督的工作在信徒身上成就;而且,在祂眼中,每位信徒都已经与基督联合──基督如今已经在天上。因此,保罗教导信徒,要以「在罪上死,在义上活」作为在世生活的态度(罗六4),又要思念天上的事,因为基督不久将要在天上显现(西三1-4)。换句话说,信徒的生活要完完全全地与基督联合起来。

不过,保罗同时亦指出,「天上」也正是灵界势力的范畴。保罗这里所称的「执政的、掌权的」,和「天空属灵气的恶魔」,显然是指撒但和他的仆役(弗三10,六12)。虽然他们最终必被击败(弗一19-23),但保罗却劝勉信徒要倚靠主,穿戴神所赐的全副军装,作刚强的人(弗六10)。要在人生的战场上取得胜利,不可倚靠世上的权势,只能倚赖神所赐的全副军装。

世界的终局

到了终局,神将要造出「新天新地」(赛六十五17,六十六22;启二十二1)。它不单是时间上的「新」,更是本质上的「新」(kainos)。有人可能会质疑,为何要造一个「新天」。其中一个可能的解释,就是诸天(在该二6;来十二6;另参来一10;彼后三71012都是采用这个字词的复数式)都被罪所污染,因为那里亦曾经是魔鬼及其势力的活动范围(太二十四29;弗六12)。在撒但被审判(启二十7-10)和白色大宝座的审判(启二十11-15)之后,便出现「新天新地」。此外,约翰还看见「圣城新耶路撒冷由神那里从天而降」(启二十一210),这是新天的一个特征,正好用来展示神的荣耀(启二十一11)。

随着神使万物更新,天和地之间的明显区别便告消失。新耶路撒冷的主要特色,在于神要亲自与祂的百姓同在(启二十一3,二十二4)。有趣的是,那里将不再有圣殿,「因主神──全能者──和羔羊为城的殿」(启二十一22)。它的富丽堂皇只能透过象征的措辞来描绘(启二十一11至二十二5)。凡是与这幅天上景象不协调的东西,都要挪开(启二十一4)。

天使、撒但和天

「天上的使者」可以指到众星(尼九6;赛二十四21,三十四4;太二十四29),但在圣经中更常见的用法是指到天使(王上二十二19;路二13)。神警告人不可敬拜日、月、行星等天体(王下二十三5;耶十九13;徒七42),也不可敬拜天使(西二18)。当圣经提到天使的时候,这字词往往带有一种军事上的意味(书五14-15;但四35)。神有时差遣天使执行祂的命令。在基督再来的时候,他们将在有关的事情上积极地担当各种任务(太二十四31;帖后一7-8;启八2至十11)。有谁知道在今天的世上,天使是如何忙于工作?也许,从雅各在异象中梦见有梯子由地上一直伸到天上,天使在梯子上去下来的景象,多少可以反映出一些事实(创二十八12)。不过,天使始终住在天上(可十二25,十三32;路二15),他们在天上敬拜神(太八10)。当人悔改的时候,天上的使者也会欢喜快乐(路十五10;参十五7)。

撒但是一个堕落的天使,他显然曾经来到天上进到神的面前(伯一6-7)。倘若启示录十二章712节是回顾基督的事奉,那么,撒但和他的使者被摔下去的时间,正是基督进入天上的荣耀时刻(参路十17-20)。如今,撒但的领域已较为局限。他是「空中掌权者的首领」(弗二2),现在正逐步败退,直至最终被丢进火湖里(启二十10)。

Bradford A. Mullen
另参:「永生」;「得荣耀」。

参考书目:

J. Gilmore, Probing Heaven: Key Questions in the Hereafter;K. Schilder, Heaven, What is It?; C. R. Schoonhoven, The Wrath of Heaven; U. E. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition; W. M. Smith, The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven; P.Toon, Heaven and Hell: A Biblical and Theology Overview; A. E. Travis, Where on Earth is Heaven??