林前七14：盟約的聖潔COVENANTALHOLINESS

作者：JJ Lim（林集章牧師）譯者：駱鴻銘

http://www.pilgrim-covenant.com/the-problem-of-low-self-esteem/covenantal-holiness

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/19480131220181151630449/

因為不信的丈夫就因著妻子成了聖潔，並且不信的妻子就因著丈夫（原文作弟兄）成了聖潔；不然，你們的兒女就不潔淨，但如今他們是聖潔的了。（林前七4）

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).

使徒保羅是在討論婚姻和離婚的主題，他談到一個重點就是非同負一軛的婚姻應當要如何處理。很清楚，保羅禁止信徒與不信的人結婚（林前七39c），但是有一種情況是丈夫或妻子是在婚後才悔改信主的。在這種情況下，信主的一方很自然會關心他們的婚姻是不是合法的，又他們是否應該離開不信的一方。保羅的建議是：「倘若某弟兄有不信的妻子，妻子也情願和他同住，他就不要離棄妻子。妻子有不信的丈夫，丈夫也情願和他同住，他就不要離棄丈夫。」（林前七12～13）

The Apostle Paul was discussing the subject of marriage and divorce, and he had come to the point of discussing how unequally yoked marriages should be handled. It is clear that Paul forbade the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever (1 Cor 7:39c), but there were cases when a husband or a wife was converted after their marriage. In such cases, the believing spouses would be naturally concerned whether their marriages were lawful and whether they should leave their unbelieving spouses. Paul advised: “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him” (1 Cor 7:12–13).

和往常一樣，使徒在給人任何教義聲明時，都不會不提供充分的理由。基督教不是無理性的！他給了他們一個論證：「因為不信的丈夫就因著妻子成了聖潔，並且不信的妻子就因著丈夫成了聖潔。」（林前七14a）然後，為了強化他的陳述，他補充了進一步的論證：「不然，你們的兒女就不潔淨，但如今他們是聖潔的了」。（林前七14b）

As is often the case, the Apostle does not leave a dogmatic statement without any rationale. Christianity is not irrational! He gives them an argument: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband” (1 Cor 7:14a). Then, to prove or strengthen this statement, he adds a further argument: “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Cor 7:14b).

正是這後半句，使這個看似晦澀不明的經文在神學書籍中彈升到辯論的競技場裏，也就是有關聖約神學和嬰兒洗禮的討論。

It is this last clause that catapults this otherwise seemingly obscure verse into the arena of debates in theological textbooks, in the discussion of covenant theology and infant baptism.

浸信會的觀點The Baptist View

浸信會神學家一般主張，保羅只是在論證，因為他們是合法的（legitimate）兒女，所以是聖潔的；或因為他們已經藉著信主的配偶受到福音職事的影響（come under the ministry of Gospel），而成為聖潔。

Baptist theologians generally contend that Paul is simply arguing that the children are holy in that they are legitimate, or that they are holy in that they come under the ministry of the Gospel through the believing spouse.

朱保羅（Paul K. Jewett）充分代表第一種立場：

Paul K. Jewett is representative of the first position:

「保羅命令信主的人不可離棄不信的人。為什麼呢？因為不信的人，在對方成為信徒之後，就已經藉著婚約被聖化了。否則，你們的兒女就會是『不潔淨的』，意思就是『不合法的』。但是你知道實際情況並非如此；相反，他們如今是『聖潔』的，也就是說，是合法的。」（Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace[Eerdmans, 1978], 136）

Let not the believer, he enjoins, forsake the unbeliever. Why? Because the unbeliever has been and continue to be sanctified through the covenant of marriage by him/her who has since become a believer. Otherwise, your children would be “unclean,” that is, illegitimate. But you know this is not so; rather they are “holy,” that is, legitimate (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace[Eerdmans, 1978], 136).

我們可以理解，「不潔淨」為什麼可以是指「不合法」。但是朱保羅如何能將「聖潔」和「合法」畫上等號，就是令人匪夷所思的了。我們只需要明白，「使成為聖潔」（?γι?ζω, hagiaz?）是形容詞「聖潔」（?γιο?, hagios）的動詞形式，然後在林前七14作一些代換，就可以明白他的解釋是如何地不可能：「因為不信的丈夫，就因著妻子成為『合法的』；並且不信的妻子就因著丈夫成為『合法的』；不然，你們的兒女就是『不合法的』，但如今他們是『合法』的了。」一個信主的配偶如何使一個不信主的配偶成為合法，實在超乎我的理解。

One could understand how ‘unclean’ could mean ‘illegitimate.’ But how Jewett could equate being ‘holy’ with being ‘legitimate’ is hard to conceive. One needs only to realise that ‘to sanctify’ (aJgiavzw, hagiazô) is the verb form of the adjective ‘holy’ (a{gio", hagios), and do some substitution into 1 Corinthians 7:14 to see how unlikely his interpretation is: “For the unbelieving husband islegitimised by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is legitimised by the husband: else were your children illegitimate; but now are they legitimate.” How a believing spouse could legitimise an unbelieving spouse is beyond me.

David Kingdon，另一位頗受敬重的浸信會辯論家，持守的是第二個立場：

David Kingdon, who is another greatly respected Baptist polemist, holds to the second position:

信主的配偶的奉獻會使這個婚姻裏全體的成員成為聖潔，意思不是使內在成為聖潔，而是藉著信主配偶的見證，將這個家庭分別出來，讓神在救恩中的恩典可以運作。（林前七16）保羅有把握，福音的大能在許多情況下、藉著一位基督徒父親或母親，必然能施展一種影響力，能真正使人回轉、使人成聖。因此，如果不信的一方願意繼續這個婚姻，信徒這一方就不應當破壞這個婚約（Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the Covenant, and Children [Carey Pub. Ltd. and Henry E. Walter Ltd., 1973], 90）。

…the offering up of the believing spouse sanctifies the whole, not in the sense of making inwardly holy but in setting the family apart for the operation of the grace of God in salvation through the witness of the believing partner (1 Cor 7:16). Paul is confident of the power of the Gospel to exert, in many cases, a truly converting and sanctifying influence through a Christian father or mother. Therefore, the believer should on his part not break the marriage bond if the unbelieving partner is willing to continue in it (Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the Covenant, and Children [Carey Pub. Ltd. and Henry E. Walter Ltd., 1973], 90).

這大概是最常見的觀點。我在明白上帝如何看待基督徒家庭之前，也是採取這種看法。但是這個看法有好幾個問題。首先，如果這是保羅的意思，那麼這個答案如何能解除信主配偶的擔憂，即他們的婚姻是不是合法的？如果一位配偶和一位非信徒繼續留在婚姻裏的主要原因，是他對她具有一種使之成聖的影響力，那麼一個在賽馬俱樂部工作的人，也有足夠的理由可以留在那裏工作，以行使一種使人成聖的影響力。其次，倘若保羅在第14節是談到基督徒使人成聖的影響力，那麼他在16節就是重複說同一件事。第三，按照這種說法，保羅如此論證就是很奇怪的：「你應該和你的配偶留在婚姻裏，因為你對他/她具有使之成聖的影響力，『因為』你對你的兒女有使之成聖的影響力。」為什麼信主的配偶在知道他們對他們的兒女有使之成聖的影響力下，還需要這個事實作為一個論證的理由，說他們對他們的配偶也具有使之成聖的影響力呢？第四，第14節的希臘文時態和用詞不容許這種看法。這節經文按照字面直譯是這樣的：「因為不信的丈夫已經被妻子聖化（分別為聖）了[完成被動式]，並且不信的妻子已經被丈夫聖化了[完成被動式]：不然你們的兒女就不潔淨；但如今他們是聖潔的了。」保羅說的不是持續性的影響，而是一種已經開始的狀態（state）或狀況（status）。第五，將「不潔淨」和「父母沒有使人成聖的影響力」視為等同，以及將「聖潔」和「父母具有使人成聖的影響力」視為等同，似乎是強解。

This is probably the most common view. I had myself taken this view earlier, before I came to understand how God views the Christian family. But there are several problems to this view. In the first place, if this is what Paul meant, then how would his answer have allayed the concerns of the believing spouses as to whether their marriages were legal? If the primary reason for a spouse to remain married to an unbeliever is that he has a sanctifying influence on her, then one who is working in a turf club might well justify his remaining in that work in order to exercise a sanctifying influence. In the second place, if Paul were talking about the sanctifying influence of a Christian in verse 14, then he would be repeating himself in verse 16. In the third place, it would be rather odd for Paul to argue as suggested that: “You should remain married to your spouse because you have a sanctifying influence on him/her for you have a sanctifying influence on your children.” Why should the believing spouses, knowing that they have a sanctifying influence on their children, need the fact as an argument that they have a sanctifying influence on their spouses too? In the fourth place, the tenses and words used in the Greek, of the 1 Corinthians 7:14, simply do not allow for this view. Literally translated, the verse read: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified [perfect passive] by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified [perfect passive] by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” Paul is not talking about continual influence, but about astate or status that has begun. In the fifth place, it seems forced to equate “unclean” with “not having the sanctifying influence of the parent” and “holy” with “having the sanctifying influence of the parent.”

支持嬰兒洗禮者的看法

Pedobaptist View

另一方面，支持嬰兒洗禮者（Pedobaptists，即那些相信嬰兒洗禮的人）相信保羅是在說到「盟約的」聖潔，而這是嬰兒洗禮的神學基礎（請注意《斯敏斯特標準》都使用了林前七14：WSC 95; WLC 62, 166; WCF 25.2, 28.4）

Pedobaptists (those who believe in infant baptism), on the other hand, believe that Paul is speaking about covenantal holiness, which is the theological basis for infant baptism (note the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 in WSC 95; WLC 62, 166;WCF 25.2, 28.4).

在分析這節經文時，我們看見保羅是用一件已經確定的事，來論證一件較不為人所知、還不十分確定的事。已經確認的事情是：教會成員的兒女是「聖潔的」，而不是像教會之外的人，他們的兒女是「不潔淨的」。

Analysing the verse, we see that Paul is arguing for something less well-known and established with something already established. What is already established is that children of the members are holy and not ‘unclean’ like the children of those outside the church.

我們為什麼說保羅是在指「教會成員的兒女」，而不是一般人以為的「有一個信主的家庭的兒女」？理由很簡單：保羅一直在用第三人稱來指沒有負同一軛的夫婦（只有一方信主的夫婦）。因此前後一致的文理會要求他說：「不然，『他們的』兒女就不潔淨」。但是他卻是說：「不然，你們的兒女就不潔淨」，這會使得這句話是在指教會裏所有的孩童。保羅突然轉到第二人稱代名詞（你們），有可能是要人格化他的陳述。保羅使用第二人稱代名詞，也有可能主要是因為這樣才不會讓12～15節的論證讓人感到非常困惑。

Why do we say that Paul is referring to “children of the members of the church,” rather than, as commonly supposed: “children of the families with one believing spouse”? The reason is simple: Paul has been referring to the unequally yoked couple in the third person; so consistent grammar would require him to say, “else were their children unclean,” if he was referring to their children. Instead he says: “else were your children unclean,” which would make it a reference to all the children in the church. It is possible that Paul switched to the second person pronoun suddenly in order to personalise his statement. It is also possible that Paul is unable to use the second person pronoun for the most part without making his arguments in verses 12–15 very confused.

但是，非同負一軛的夫婦的兒女是聖潔的，而信主夫婦的兒女卻是不聖潔的，是非常奇怪的。無論如何，如果保羅的論證是不信的夫婦是聖潔的，因為『他們的』兒女是聖潔的（「聖潔」的動詞形式，即「使聖潔」之於「聖潔」，正如「使潔淨」之於「潔淨」）。因為，首先，他們如何知道他們的兒女是聖潔的？有人會說，他們是聖潔的，是因為不信的配偶被信主的配偶聖化（分別為聖）了。但是如果情況是如此，保羅實際上就是在作循環論證：他們的兒女是聖潔的，因為不信的配偶被聖化了，而不信的配偶被聖化了，是因為如果對方沒有被聖化，他們的兒女就不會被聖化。

But, it would be strange that the children of unequally yoked couples are holy whereas the children of believing couples are not. In any case, it would be a less than convincing argument if Paul had argued that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because their children are sanctified (verbal form of ‘holy,’ i.e., ‘sanctify’ is to ‘holy,’ what ‘purify’ is to ‘pure’). For, how would they know their children are holy in the first place? Someone may say, they are holy because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. But if that is so, then Paul would in effect be arguing circularly: the children are sanctified because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, and the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because if he/she is not, then the children would not be sanctified.

更有可能的是，哥林多人知道，或已經把它當成是理所當然的，即教會中的兒女是聖潔的。因此保羅基本上是在說：「你知道也相信，教會裏所有的孩童，包括那些只有一個信主的父母的孩童，都是聖潔的。如果情況是如此，那麼你一定會同意，你們不信的配偶也是聖潔的（會被分別為聖）。」我們必須留意，保羅不是在論證說，如果不信的配偶沒有被聖化，那麼他們所生的兒女就是不潔淨的。反而，他是在論證，透過類比或平行對比，即：如果不信的配偶因為他/她與信主配偶的聯合沒有被聖化，那麼，就不可能是這種情況，即孩童可以被聖化是因為他們是信徒的兒女。當然，如果教會裏的孩童是聖潔的，是一個已知且毫無疑義的事實，保羅的論證才會言之成理。

What is more likely is that the Corinthians knew or took it for granted already that the children in the church are holy. So Paul would essentially be saying: “You know and believe that all the children in the church, including those who have only one believing parent, are holy. If that is so, then surely you will agree that your unbelieving spouse is holy (sanctified) too.” We must note that Paul is not arguing that if the unbelieving spouse were not sanctified, then the children produced would be unclean. He is rather, arguing by analogy or parallel, namely: if the unbelieving spouse be not sanctified on account of his/her union with the believing spouse, then it cannot be that the children can be sanctified on account of the fact that they are the children of believers. Of course, Paul’s argument can only make sense if the holiness of the children in the church is a known and unquestioned fact. 

不過，我們必須回答一些隨之而來的問題。首先，哥林多人如何知道他們的兒女是「聖潔的」？其次，他們為何是聖潔的，以及在什麼意義上他們是聖潔的？我們提到他們「在盟約上是聖潔的」，這是什麼意思？第三，若教會的孩童「在盟約上是聖潔的」，因此就應該接受洗禮——根據支持嬰兒洗禮者的看法——那麼不信主的配偶呢？因為根據我們對保羅所說的話的解釋，他/她在盟約上也必定是聖潔的。

A few questions arise that must be answered however. First, how would the Corinthians know that their children are ‘holy’? Secondly, why are they holy and in what sense? We mentioned that they are “covenantally holy,” but what does that mean? Thirdly, if the children are “covenantally holy” and so should be baptised,—according to the pedobaptist view,  then what about the unbelieving spouse, since he/she must be covenantally holy too, according to our interpretation of what Paul was saying?

你們的兒女是聖潔的

Your Children Are Holy

為什麼教會會相信或接受這個斷言，即他們的兒女是聖潔的？我會主張，這是因為哥林多教會定期地為他們的兒女和新生嬰孩施洗。保羅告訴哥林多人，「但如今你們……已經洗淨、成聖稱義了」（林前六11）。洗淨是指洗禮。成聖的意思是被奉獻或分別出來。哥林多人讓他們的兒女接受洗禮，他們知道他們的兒女是被奉獻給上帝的。他們無疑也被教導，這個奉獻的基礎是亞伯拉罕之約：「因為這應許是給你們，和你們的兒女的。」（徒二39）因此，我們會期待，在將兒女奉獻給上帝的事情上，一般是不會有疑問的。

Why would the church believe or accept the assertion that their children are holy? I would suggest that it is because the Corinthian church regularly baptised their children and newborn infants. Paul told the Corinthians: “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified” (1 Cor 6:11). Washing refers to baptism. To be sanctified is to be consecrated or set apart. When the Corinthians brought their children to be baptised, they knew that the children were being consecrated to God. They would also, no doubt, have been taught that the basis for their consecration is the Abrahamic covenant: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:39). So, we can expect that there would generally be no question when it came to the issue of the consecration of the children to God.

沒有錯，新約中的確找不到一處陳述可以直接證明嬰兒洗禮是使徒的做法。但是，嬰兒洗禮的教義實際上就是全家受洗的教義，這是可以從聖經得到證明的（例如：徒十六14～15、30～34）。早期教會給嬰兒施行的做法，其意義和割禮一樣，也是十分確鑿的結論。教會教父居普良（Cyprian）在主後大約250年，即最後的使徒過世約一百年時說明，由六十六位主教（他是其中之一）所組成的北非會議，一致認為嬰兒洗禮是使徒的一種做法（Epistle 58 To Fidus, On the Baptism of Infants, in Early Church Fathers: Ante Nicene, vol. 5）。教會早期的著作從來沒有對嬰兒洗禮做過神學上的討論，純粹是因為它從來不是爭論的議題。即使在居普良的信中，裏面的爭論也只是嬰孩是否在八天大之前就可以受洗！浸信會友也許可以指向特土良（約主後145～220）來支持他們的說法，但是特土良並沒有否認嬰兒洗禮的有效性，即使他個人偏好小小孩可以晚一點受洗（見特土良的On Baptism, in Early Church Fathers: Ante Nicene, vol. 3）。

It is true that there is no one statement in the New Testament, which may directly prove that infant baptism was apostolic. However, the doctrine of infant baptism is really the doctrine of household baptism, which can be shown from Scripture (e.g., Acts 16:14–15; 30–34). It has also been quite conclusively established that the Early Church practised infant baptism with the same significance as circumcision. The Church Father Cyprian, writing circa A.D. 250, about 100 years after the last Apostle died, indicated that a North African council of 66 bishops, of which he was one, was unanimous in holding that infant baptism was a practice of the Apostles (Epistle 58 To Fidus, On the Baptism of Infants, in Early Church Fathers: Ante Nicene, vol. 5). The fact that infant baptism was not treated theologically in earlier writings is simply because it was never an issue of contention. Even in Cyprian’s letter the contention was about whether the child may be baptised before he is eight days old! Baptists may point to Tertullian (circa A.D. 145–220) to support their case, but Tertullian did not deny the validity of infant baptism, even though he personally preferred that baptism of little children be delayed (see Tertullian’s On Baptism, in Early Church Fathers: Ante Nicene, vol. 3).

盟約的聖潔

Covenantally Holy

我們為什麼論證說，當保羅說，教會裏的孩童是聖潔的，他是指盟約的聖潔呢？

Why do we contend that Paul is referring to covenantal holiness when he says that the children are holy?

首先必須提到，在聖經裏，一個被冠上「聖徒」——也就是「聖潔的人」——這個名稱的人，不必然是一個真正被稱義的人。換句話說，一個被說是「聖潔」或「分別出來」的人，並非暗示這個人是一個已經被稱義的人，或真正的信徒。例如：哥林多後書是寫給「在哥林多神的教會，並亞該亞遍處的眾聖徒」（林後一1）。然而，在這封信中，保羅敦促他的讀者要省察自己是否真的有信心（林後十三5）。這個自我省察的呼籲只是給在哥林多的教會，而不是給在亞該亞的聖徒是不太可能的。更可能的是「聖徒」這個稱謂也包含了沒有重生的、沒有被稱義的人。

First of all, it must be noted that a person who is included under the appellation ‘saints,’ i.e., ‘holy ones’ in the Scriptures, is not necessarily a justified person. In other words, a person may be said to be ‘holy’ or ‘set apart’ without implying that he is a justified or true believer. For example, 2 Corinthians was addressed to “the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints [i.e., ‘holy ones’] which are in all Archaia“ (2 Cor 1:1). Yet, in the letter, Paul urges his readers to examine themselves whether they be in the faith (2 Cor 13:5). It is highly unlikely that this call to self-examination is restricted to the church at Corinth and not for the saints in Archaia. What is more likely is that comprehended under the appellation ‘saints’ would be unregenerate, unjustified persons as well.

其次，使徒保羅確認，根據一個人與另一個毋庸置疑是聖潔的人有密切的關係，因而被視為聖潔，這是有可能的。保羅指著以色列，即神在舊約裏的百姓，說到：「所獻的新麵若是聖潔，全團也就聖潔了；樹根若是聖潔，樹枝也就聖潔了。」（羅十一16）這個陳述裏含有兩個比喻。首先，保羅是暗指奉獻的麵團的比喻，在這個奉獻的麵團裏，有一部分——「新麵」（直譯是初熟的果子，first fruit）——是作為整團麵團的代表而被獻上的。因為新麵是聖潔的，因此整團麵也被視為是聖潔的，是被分別出來的。其次，一棵樹的樹枝由於樹根是聖潔，因此樹枝也被視為是聖潔的。第二個比喻尤其說到由於孩童父母的身分，因此孩童也被視為是聖潔的。很自然地，保羅不可能是指將內在的聖潔和信心注入給或傳遞給這些孩童。保羅所指的必然是一種盟約的或聖約的奉獻，在這種奉獻中，上帝將這整團和全部的樹枝，在一定的意義上視為是特殊的，是與其餘的世界分開的。而這不只是關乎這些孩童，或那些在聖約裏獲接納的人，可以享受到的外在特權，而是說上帝特別關注他們，因為「他們為列祖的緣故是蒙愛的」（羅十一28）。換句話說，上帝總是把家庭當作一個有機的整體，以至於當父母親裏有一人是基督徒，那麼全家都可以「被當作」是基督徒。

Secondly, the Apostle Paul affirms that it is possible for a person to be regarded as holy based on his relationship to someone whose holiness is not questioned. Paul, referring to Israel, the covenant people of God, of old, says: “For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches” (Rom 11:16). There are two metaphors in this statement. In the first place, Paul is alluding to the metaphor of a meal offering in which a part,—the firstfruit,—is offered as representative of the whole lump. The whole lump is regarded as holy and set apart on account of the firstfruit. In the second place, the branches on the tree are regarded as holy on account of the root. The second metaphor, especially, speaks of children being considered holy on account of their parents’ standing. Naturally, Paul could not be referring to the infusion or transmission of inward holiness and faith to the children. What Paul must be referring to is a federal or covenantal consecration in which God regards the whole lump and the branches as, in a sense, special or distinct from the rest of the world. And this is not just a matter of outward privileges which the children, or those embraced in the covenant, enjoy but that God has special regard for them, for “they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” (Rom 11:28). In other words, God often deals with the family as an organic whole, so that when a parent is Christian, then the whole family is to be regarded as Christian.

這一直是上帝看待祂所設立的家庭的方式。舊約如此，新約亦然。這就是上帝為什麼吩咐亞伯拉罕要為他全家的男丁行割禮的原因。儘管嬰兒無法運用他們的信心，「割禮的記號，……因信稱義的印證」（羅四11）仍然應該要施作在他們身上，以便使他們與眾不同，成為信仰家庭的一部分（參：創十七13～14）。在新約中，使徒彼得提到亞伯拉罕之約的應許時宣告說：「因為這應許是給你們，和你們的兒女……」（徒二39a），因此教導上帝並沒有斷絕祂對信徒兒女的盟約關注（covenantal regard）。

This has always been the way that God views His families. It is so in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. This is why God commanded Abraham to circumcise his children. Though infants could not exercise faith, they were to be applied the “sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith” (Rom 4:11), in order to mark them out as being part of the household of faith (cf. Gen 17:13–14). In the New Testament, the Apostle Peter referring to the Abrahamic promise declares: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children…” (Acts 2:39a), thus teaching that God has not ceased to have covenantal regard for the children of believers.

這當然不是在保證基督徒家中的每一分子，都可以被假設是真正的基督徒。不是的，只是說我們必須從一個有機的角度來看待這個家庭：像一盆植物或一棵樹的枝子。最終，如果其中的成員不結果子，或沒有回轉的記號，就會被剪除（約十五6；羅十一19）。但是我們必須堅持說，這種終極的不信，在一個忠心順服地使用上帝為祂的盟約百姓所指定的蒙恩之道的家庭裏，必然是例外，而不是常態。尤其在耶穌基督的新約裏更是如此，和舊約相比，在新約中，聖靈遠比舊約有更大的澆灌。正是因為我們對上帝的這個應許有把握，我們才會為我們的兒女施洗。

This, of course, does not guarantee that every member in a Christian family would by default be a true Christian. No, the family is regarded organically: like a plant or branch of a tree. Ultimately if the member bears no fruit or marks of conversion, it is cut off (see John 15:6; Romans 11:19). But we must insist that such ultimate unbelief would be the exception rather than the rule in a family which obediently uses the means of grace appointed by God for His covenant members. This is especially so under the New Covenant where there is a far greater effusion of the Holy Spirit when compared to the Old Covenant. It is with this confidence of God’s promise that we baptise our children.

不信的配偶的狀態

Status of Unbelieving Spouse

若基督徒家中的兒女在盟約上是聖潔的，那麼出於同樣的理由，根據林前七14，不信的配偶在盟約上也應當是聖潔的。而如果兒女在盟約上的聖潔使我們有必要為我們的兒女施洗，那麼，我們是否也應該為不信的配偶施洗呢？

If children of Christian families are covenantally holy, then by the same token, based on 1 Corinthians 7:14, the unbelieving spouse would also be covenantally holy. And if the covenantal holiness of children behoves us to baptise our children, then should not we also baptise the unbelieving spouses? 

浸信會神學家經常用這點來拆穿支持嬰兒洗禮者對這節經文的解釋。對這個異議的簡單回應是：盟約的聖潔提供了為全家施洗的基礎，但是並不要求全家都要受洗。為嬰兒施洗的要求來自亞伯拉罕之約下要為嬰兒行割禮的命令；而為成人施洗的命令則來自使徒行傳二章38節：「你們各人要悔改，奉耶穌基督的名受洗，叫你們的罪得赦。」對嬰兒來說，他們父母的信心是洗禮足夠的保證，因為嬰兒還無法作出信仰的認信。對成人來說，個人的信仰告白，或至少在意識上不反對，是必要的。

Baptist theologians frequently use this point to debunk the pedobaptist interpretation of the verse. A simple response to this objection would be that covenantal holiness provides the basis for baptising whole households, but does not demand the baptising of the whole household. The demand to baptise infants comes from the command to circumcise infants under the Abrahamic covenant; whereas the demand to baptise adults come from Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” For infants, their parents’ faith is sufficient warrant to baptise, since they are unable to make profession of faith. For adults, personal profession of faith, or at least the absence of conscious objection, is required.

換句話說，根據「家庭是一個整體」（family solidarity）的原則，一個信徒的配偶，當他/她還無法表明可靠的信仰告白——無法清楚說明他/她對基督的愛——時，卻仍然願意遵守教義和教會的要求，就可以被接納為或被視為是教會的成員，單單因為他/她已經與教會的成員結了婚。我們這樣說只是理論上的，而不是絕對的，因為處在這種情況的人可能已經重生了，雖然只有軟弱的信心。

In other words, based on the principle of family solidarity, the spouse of a believer, who cannot show credible profession of faith,—such as being able to articulate his/her love for Christ,—but is nevertheless willing to conform to the doctrines and demands of the church can be received or regarded as a member of the church, simply because he is married to a member of the church. We say this more theoretically than absolutely because a person who is in such a situation could possibly be already regenerate, albeit with weak faith.

不過，不信的配偶往往會有意識地反對基督信仰。在這種情況下，儘管他/她因為與信徒的婚姻而成為聖潔，並不會成為使信徒污穢的理由，然而他/她已經藉著不信，將自己剪除在聖約團體之外，因此就不能被接納為是教會的成員。然而，這種不信的配偶，可以因為離棄他/她信主的配偶而徹底將自己剪除（林前七15）。這也同樣適用在小時候受了洗禮，卻在長大後否認信仰的孩童。在這種情況下，教會必須開除他們的會籍。不過，他們仍然是盟約的兒女，因為他們的父母不能把他們從家庭裏剪除。然而，如果他們結婚時還是不信，他們基本上就是放棄了自己的盟約身分。

Very often, however, the unbelieving spouse consciously objects to Christianity. In such a case, though he may be sanctified on account of his marriage with the believer, and be no cause for defiling the believer, yet he has cut himself off from the covenant community by his unbelief, and so cannot be admitted as a member. Such an unbelieving spouse, however, could cut himself off completely (and be no more covenantally holy) by deserting his believing spouse (1 Cor 7:15). The same goes for a child who may be baptised when young, but denies the faith when he comes of age. In such a case, the church must excommunicate him. Yet, he remains a covenant child, since his parents cannot excommunicate him from the family. However, if he marries while in unbelief, he would essentially cut himself off from his covenantal status.

總結

Conclusion

這篇文章的目的不是為嬰兒洗禮辯護，而是嘗試明白一節困難經文的意思，並試著明白其諸多的涵義。上帝看家庭是一體的，這不是只有林前七14這樣教導，聖經在其他地方也有暗示。然而，這裏有最生動的陳述，而我們相信嬰兒洗禮的解釋可以得到支持。

This article is not intended to be a defence of pedobaptism. It is an attempt to see the meaning of a difficult verse and to see its implications. The solidarity of the family in God’s sight in not only taught in 1 Corinthians 7:14; it is hinted elsewhere in Scripture too. However, it is most vividly stated here and we believe that the pedobaptist interpretation can be sustained.