成聖與善行五問：善行配得到永生嗎FIVEQUESTIONS ABOUT SANCTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS: DO GOOD WORKS MERIT ETERNALLIFE?
作者：Kevin DeYoung 譯者：駱鴻銘
（一）——成聖與稱義有何不同？
（二）——我們在今生能完全成全律法嗎？
（三）——善行是救恩所必須的嗎？
（四）——被稱義的人能行出真正的善嗎？
（五）——善行配得到永生嗎？
———
（一）——成聖與稱義有何不同？
1. How does sanctification
differ from justification?
過去的幾個禮拜，改革宗博客圈裏出現了好幾篇與成聖和善行有關的帖子。我不會全面概述所有相關的帖子，只是針對幾個主要的帖子來談，其中包括：
Over
the last few weeks, there have been a number of posts in the Reformed
blogosphere related to sanctification and good works. I won’t attempt to survey all the relevant posts, but
the main ones include:
派博（John Piper）為史瑞納（Tom Schreiner）的新書（Faith Alone---The Doctrine of
Justification: What the Reformers Taught...and Why It Still Matters）所寫的序。派博在那篇序言中順便提到，雖然我們唯獨是藉著信心稱義，但是我們最終得榮耀是有條件的，以至於我們不是唯獨藉著信心「達致」（attain）天堂。
ohn
Piper’s Foreword to Tom
Schreiner’s new book where
Piper notes in passing that though we are justified by faith alone, there are
conditions for our final glorification such that we do not “attain” heaven by
faith alone.
瓊斯（Mark Jons）審視了改革宗教理學的歷史，支持派博的見解。
Mark
Jones scanning the history of Reformed dogmatics and writing in support of
Piper.
菲利普（Rick Phillips）提醒我們，「你知道的，雅各書還在聖經裏」
（James Is, You Know, in the Bible）。Rick Phillips reminding us
that “James, Is, You
Know, In the Bible.”
克拉克（R. Scott Clark）發出反對聲，他張貼了一打以上相關的帖子，包括：唯獨藉著信心到達天堂，恩典之約裏的條件，以及希伯來書十二4是否教導靠行為成聖，等等。
And
R. Scott Clark sounding a contrary note with more than a dozen related posts,
including ones on attaining heaven through faith alone, conditions in the
covenant of grace, and whetherHebrews 12:4 teaches sanctification by works.
我不打算詳細檢查這些帖子裏所有的論證。熟悉我的作品的讀者可以（正確地）猜到我同情派博、瓊斯、菲利普所提出的論點（儘管我也欣賞克拉克想要護衛的，也感謝他留意到較老的改革宗資源裏相當審慎的措辭）。我並沒有針對每個論點做出回應，只是認為退後一步，並且查看五個關於成聖和善行的問題，也許會有幫助。這五個問題（和答案）是從杜仁田（Francis Turretin）的《反辯神學要義》（Institute of Elenctic Theology）提煉出來的。令人驚奇的不僅只是杜仁田是如何仔細地作出區分，更在於他的討論和我們今天的討論何等地相關。
I’m not going to attempt to sift through all the
arguments in these posts. Readers familiar with my writings can (rightly) guess
that I am sympathetic to the points John, Mark, and Rick are making (though I
also appreciate what Scott wants to guard against and am grateful for his
attention to the careful language of older Reformed sources). But instead of
engaging in a point-counterpoint I thought it might be helpful to take a step
back and look at five questions about sanctification and good works. The five
questions (and answers) are distilled from Francis Turretin’s Institute of
Elenctic Theology. It’s amazing not only how careful Turretin was with his
distinctions, but also how relevant his discussions are for our own day.
在這整個禮拜裏，我會走過杜仁田在他書中其中一章「成聖與善工」（第十七論題）中所處理的這五個問題。以下是這五個問題（稍加修正，便於理解）：Throughout this
week I will be walking through the five questions Turretin tackles in his
chapter on “Sanctification and
Good Works” (Seventeenth
Topic). Here are the five questions, slightly modified for ease of
understanding:
1. 成聖與稱義有何不同？
How
does sanctification differ from justification?
2. 我們在今生能完全成全律法嗎？
Can
we fulfill the law absolutely in this life?
3. 善行是得救所必須的嗎？
Are
good works necessary to salvation?
4. 被稱義的人能行出真正的善嗎？
Can justified
believers do that which is truly good?
5. 善行配得到永生嗎？
Do
good works merit eternal life?
首先，成聖與稱義有何不同？
First
up, How does sanctification differ from justification?
杜仁田清楚地說明，他不是把成聖當作一個籠統的詞來談，只是泛泛地指基督徒為了上帝被分別出來的地位。相反，他所說的成聖是神學家通常假定的一種狹義的意思：亦即，上帝在那些在基督裏、被稱義的信徒身上所作的更新，並且轉化他，使他越來越有神的形象（17.1.2-3）。重要的是，杜仁田主張，成聖可以被理解為是「被動的」，因為這個轉化的工作是「上帝在我們裏面造成的」，也可以被理解為是「主動的」，因為成聖「理當由我們來完成，上帝通過我們完成這項工作。」（17.1.3）這是一個關鍵要點。倘若我們不明白上帝正在我們裏面動工，但與此同時我們也在工作，我們就不會正確地理解什麼是成聖。任何神學家，如果忽略了成聖主動或被動的層面，就沒有搞懂什麼是成聖。
Turretin
makes clear that he is not talking about sanctification as a broad term
describing the Christian’s position as set
apart for God. Rather, he is talking about sanctification in the narrow sense
usually assumed by theologians: namely, the renovation of man by which God
takes the in-Christ, justified believer and transforms him more and more into
the divine image (XVII.i.2-3). Importantly, Turretin argues that sanctification
can be understood “passively,” inasmuch as the transforming work “is wrought by
God in us,” and also “actively,” inasmuch as sanctification “ought to be done
by us, God performing this work in us and by us” (XVII.i.3). This is a crucial
point. Sanctification is not understood correctly if we do not understand that
God is doing the work in us, but at the same time we are also working. Any
theology that ignores either the active or passive dimension of sanctification
is getting it wrong.
稱義和成聖不可混淆。當這兩者沒有仔細加以區分，最嚴重、最可能致命的錯誤就會浮現。因此，稱義和成聖究竟有何不同呢？
Justification
and sanctification must not be confused. The most serious, and potentially
damning errors, surface when the two are not carefully distinguished. So how do
justification and sanctification differ?
它們的對象（object）不同。稱義和罪咎有關；成聖和罪污有關。
They
differ with regard to their object. Justification is concerned with guilt;
sanctification with pollution.
它們的形式（form）不同。稱義是一個司法和法庭的行動，我們的罪藉此得到赦免，基督的義也歸算給我們。成聖是一個道德的行動，義藉此被注入到信徒裏面，影響到我們內在的更新。
They
differ as to their form. Justification is a judicial and forensic act whereby
our sins are forgiven and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.
Sanctification is a moral act whereby righteousness is infused to the believer
and our internal renovation is affected.
領受它們的主體（recipient subject）也不同。在稱義當中，根據上帝宣告罪人無罪，人被賦予一個新的、客觀的身份。在成聖當中。我們在主觀上被上帝更新。
They
differ as to the recipient subject. In justification, man is given a new
objective status based on God’s acquittal. In
sanctification, we are subjectively renewed by God.
它們的程度（degrees）不同。稱義在今生已經完全賜下了，沒有可能再加增。成聖是在今生開始的，但是在來生才會得到完美。稱義的宣告是一次永遠的。成聖的內在工作是逐步發生的。
They
differ as to degrees. Justification is given in this life fully, without any
possible increase. Sanctification is begun in this life but only made perfect
in the next. The declaration of justification is once for all. The inward work
of sanctification takes place by degrees.
它們的次序（order）不同。上帝只讓那些已經藉著信心與上帝和好、被稱義的人成為聖潔（17.1.10）。
They
differ as to the order. God only sanctifies those who are already reconciled
and justified by faith. (XVII.i.10)
過去一直在討論的是成聖是否唯獨藉著信心。我之前曾論證過，「唯獨藉著信心成聖」不是最好的說法，最重要的是因為它會導致對絕對必要的斷言的混淆，即：「唯獨藉著信心稱義」。在某種意義上，「唯獨藉著信心成聖」是一個正確的陳述。成聖是否是一個禮物，只能臨到那些信靠基督的人身上？是的！阿們！但是「唯獨藉著信心稱義」裏的「藉著（by）」和「唯獨藉著信心成聖」裏的「藉著（by）」並不相同。稱義和成聖都是藉著信心，但是我們是藉著信心這個工具（instrument）來領受基督的義，而信心卻是根源（root）和原則（principle），成聖乃是由此長成的（17.1.19）。我們說稱義唯獨藉著信心，因為我們想要保護稱義，使它脫離任何努力或行為的觀念。但是成聖明確地包括這些合作（co-operations；或譯為協作）（15.5.1-2），這會讓「唯獨」這個描寫變得充其量是誤導，更糟糕的是不正確。
There
has been a lot of discussion about whether sanctification is by faith alone. I’ve argued before that “sanctification by faith alone” is not the best phrase
to use, not least of all because it can lead to confusion about the absolutely
essential affirmation that “justification is by faith alone.” There is a sense
in which “sanctification by faith alone” can be a true statement. Is
sanctification is a gift that only comes to those who put their faith in
Christ? Yes and Amen. But the “by” in “justification by faith alone” is not the
same as the “by” in “sanctification by faith alone.” Both justification and
sanctification are by faith, but whereas faith is the instrument through which
we receive the righteousness of Christ, faith is the rootand principle out of
which and sanctification grows (XVII.i.19). We say that justification is by
faith alone, because we want to safeguard justification from any notion of
striving or working. But sanctification explicitly includes these co-operations
(XV.v.1-2), making the description of “alone” misleading at best and inaccurate
at worst.
（二）——我們在今生能完全成全律法嗎？
2. Can we fulfill the law
absolutely in this life?
今天的問題是第二個問題：我們在今生是否能夠完全地成全律法
Today’s question is the second one: Can we fulfill
the law absolutely in this life?
在這五個問題當中，這個問題在最近的改革宗人士的討論中是最少有爭議的。就我所知，各方的主要提倡者都同意，「完美成聖」對位於天堂此岸的墮落的人來說是不可能的。
Of
the five questions, this one has been the least controversial in recent
Reformed discussions. As far as I can tell, the leading voices on all sides are
agreed that the “perfection of
sanctification” is not possible for fallen human beings on this side of heaven.
（三）——善行是救恩所必須的嗎？
3. Are good works necessary to
salvation?
倘若你從來沒讀過杜仁田，你的損失可大了。他的作品不是很好讀，他寫的也不是最高級的散文。但是他是最謹慎的。他會為一些語詞下定義，分析各種的意見，也總是清楚說明他想要回答的真正問題。
If
you’ve never read
Turretin, you are really missing out. He’s not the easiest writer, and he doesn’t write the loftiest prose. But he is
exceedingly careful. He defines his terms, dissects various opinions, and
always makes clear what’s the real question he’s trying to answer.
因此，當杜仁田提到，在我們談到善行的必要性時，主要有三種觀點，就不會令人感到驚奇了。有些人，例如現代的自由派，他們把善行變成是主觀武斷的，也是無關緊要的。其他人，例如古代的法利賽人，他們主張說行為對稱義來說是必要的。杜仁田企圖持守在這兩個極端之間，他主張（為了「與正統的意見保持一致」），善行是必要的，但不是為了功績上的必要（17.3.2）。換句話說，橫在我們面前的問題不是「善行是否是使救恩生效所必須的，或者是行善是否有權利得到救恩」（我們到第五個問題時會回答這點），而是善行是否是「得到救恩所必要的途徑或方式」？在最後的那個句子上，杜仁田才肯定善行是必要的（17.3.3）。
So it’s not surprising that Turretin begins his
discussion by noting that there are three main views when it comes to the
necessity of good works. Some are like modern Libertines, who make good works
arbitrary and indifferent. Others are like ancient Pharisees, who contend that
works are necessary to justification. In trying to hold the middle ground
between these two extremes, Turretin maintains, in keeping with “the opinion of
the orthodox,” that good works are necessary but not according to the necessity
of merit (XVII.iii.2). In other words, the question before us is not “whether
good works are necessary to effect salvation or to acquire it of right” (we’ll
get to that in the fifth question), but whether good works are “required as the
means and way for possessing salvation.” It is in this last sense that Turretin
affirms the necessity of good works (XVII.iii.3).
根據杜仁田，善行是必要的，可以從以下幾點得到證明：(1) 上帝的命令；(2) 恩典之約；(3) 福音；(4) 恩典的狀態；(5) 上帝的賜福。在恩典之約裏，仍然有規定和責任（要說是條件也可以）。人欠上帝一些責任，也有一些與行使這些責任有關的福分，即使——這點很重要——上帝是那位留心這些責任務必會被完成的人。沒有善行就到不了天堂（來十二14；啟廿一27），所以這才會成為如此的好消息：那在我們心裏動了善工的，必成全這工（腓一6）。
According
to Turretin, the necessity of good works is proved from: (1) the command of
God, (2) the covenant of grace, (3) the gospel, (4) the state of grace, and (5)
the blessings of God. In the covenant of grace there are still stipulations and
obligations (conditions, if you will). There are duties man owes to God and
blessings that are connected to the exercise of these duties, even if–and this
is important–God is the one who sees to it that these duties are carried out.
Heaven cannot be reached without good works (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27), which it
is such good news that he who began a good work in us will be faithful to
complete it (Phil. 1:6).
堅持必須要有善行，不是要成為律法主義者或一個新律法主義者（neonomian）。「儘管我們承認善行是反對伊壁鳩魯派所必要的」，杜仁田指出，「我們並不因此混淆律法和福音，並妨礙唯靠信心白白的稱義。善工不是根據律法而活所必要的，而是因為我們是靠福音而活；生命不是因為善工而賜給我們的，而是其果效，證明生命已經賜給我們了。」（17.3.15）
To
insist on the necessity of good works is not to become a legalist or a
neonomian. “Although we
acknowledge the necessity of good works against the Epicureans,” Turretin
observes, “we do not on this account confound the law and the gospel and
interfere with gratuitous justification by faith alone. Good works are required
not for living according to the law, but because we live by the gospel; not as
the causes on account of which life is given to us, but as effects which
testify that life has been given to us” (XVII.iii.15).
有關善行是否是必須的這個問題，經常會讓基督徒感到困惑。一方面，如果我們說不是，善行不是必須的，我們就無法理解新約聖經裏的警告和道德命令。但是倘若我們說善行對救恩來說是必須的，這聽起來會像是我們突然之間把天堂變成我們努力和順服的成果。但是這並不是希伯來書十二章14節的意思，也不是杜仁田的意思。請仔細閱讀下面這一段：
This
question about the necessity of good works has often perplexed Christians. If,
on the one hand, we say no, good works are not necessary, we can hardly make
sense of the warnings and moral imperatives of the New Testament. But if we say
good works are necessary to salvation, it can sound like we’ve suddenly made
heaven the product of our effort and obedience. But that’s not what Hebrews
12:14means, nor what Turretin means. Read carefully this paragraph:
行為可以按三方面來考慮：要麼是關於稱義或成聖或得榮耀。行為和稱義的關係不是在稱義之前，使稱義有效，或有功於稱義，而是在稱義之後，是一種宣告的關係。善行與成聖的關係是本質上的關係（constitutively），因為善行構成了成聖，並促進成聖。它們與得榮耀的關係是，善行先於得榮耀，也是對等的關係，因為善行與得榮耀的關係是作為達到終點的途徑（17.3.14）。
Works
can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or
sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not
antecedently, efficiently and meritoriously, but consequently and
declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they
constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and
ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end.
(XVII.iii.14)
這話很拗口卻真的很關鍵，而且很精彩。善行與稱義、成聖、得榮耀的關聯是難分難捨的，但是它們的關聯是在許多不同的方面。善行是在稱義之後，是稱義的結果，也是一種宣告。善行與成聖可以劃上等號，是成聖的定義，也是成聖的啦啦隊。但善行也在得榮耀之前，是上帝指定的途徑，到達上帝所保障的終點。或者如同杜仁田所說的，「恩典是榮耀的開端，如同榮耀是恩典的終末成全。」（17.3.14）
That’s a mouthful, but really crucial and really
wonderful. Good works are inextricably linked to justification, sanctification,
and glorification, but they are related in different ways. Good works come
after justification as a result and a declaration. Good works are identified
with sanctification as its definition and cheerleader. And good works come
before glorification as God’s appointed means to a divinely secured end. Or as
Turretin puts it, “grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated”
(XVII.iii.14).
嗯，我猜這個人的確偶爾會寫出一些最高級的散文。
Huh,
I guess the guy does put out some lofty prose once in awhile.
（四）——被稱義的人能行出真正的善嗎？
4. Can justified believers do
that which is truly good?
在回答這個問題之前，我們必須明白什麼是真正的善行？杜仁田提到四件事：(1) 必須是由重生的心，出於信心所作的；(2) 必須是根據上帝在祂的話語裏所啟示出來的旨意；(3) 這行為不能只是外在的，而必須是從心裏作的；以及 (4) 必須是為了上帝的榮耀而作的（17.4.5）。這個相當標準的改革宗的定義暗示說，無論非基督徒所作的工作有多高尚、多麼有道德，它們在完全的意義上仍然不是真的善行（17.4.6）。Before we answer that
question, we need to understand what is required for a work to be truly good?
Turretin mentions four things: 1) that the work be done from the faith of a
renewed heart, 2) that the work be done according to the will of God revealed in
his word, 3) that the work be done not just externally but internally from the
heart, and 4) that the work be done to the glory of God (XVII.iv.5). This
fairly standard Reformed definition implies that however decent and ethical the
works of the non-Christian may be, they are still not truly good in the fullest
sense (XVII.iv.6).
改革宗基督徒有時候會犯這個錯誤，以為倘若他們真的是改革宗，他們必須詆毀他們身為基督徒時所作的一切。可以肯定的是，我們無法完全成全律法。即使我們最好的行為也是充滿軟弱，是不完美的。但是這是為什麼經院神學所作的謹慎區分會如此有用的緣故：善行可以是真的善行，即使它們不是完美的善行。對第四個問題的答案是：「是的，信徒可以行出真正的善。」杜仁田寫到，「我們之前已經證明過，後者不能算是聖徒的行為，因為他們的成聖是不完美的，仍有殘餘的罪；但是前者可以正確地用來描述它們，因為縱然它們尚未完美地被更新，它們仍然是真正的善行，是真正被更新了。」（17.4.9）換句話說，除了「贏得救恩」和「不過是污穢的衣服」這兩類善行外，還有另一種類別。
Reformed
Christians sometimes make the mistake of thinking that if they are to be really
Reformed they must utterly denigrate everything they do as Christians. To be
sure, as we have seen, we cannot fulfill the law absolutely. Even our best
works are full of weakness and imperfection. But here’s where the careful
distinctions of scholastic theology are so helpful: good works can be truly
good without beingperfectly good. The answer to this fourth question is, “Yes,
believers can do that which is truly good.” “We have proved before,” Turretin
writes, “that the latter cannot be ascribed to the works of the saints on
account of the imperfection of sanctification and the remains of sin. But the
former is rightly predicated of them because though they are not as yet
perfectly renewed, still they are truly good and unfeignedly renewed”
(XVII.iv.9). In other words, there is another category for our good works
besides “earning salvation” and “nothing but filthy rags.”
（五）——善行配得到永生嗎？
5. Do
good works merit eternal life?
今天我們會查看最後一道問題：善行配得到永生嗎？
有關這第五個問題首先要留意的是，這個問題和第三個問題是不同的。當我們把它們聽成是相同的問題，我們注定會作出錯誤的解答，至少其中之一是錯的。因為儘管善行是得救所必要的，它們卻不配得到永生。
The
first thing to notice about this fifth question is that it’s not the same as
the third question. When we hear the two questions as identical, we are bound
to answer at least one of them incorrectly. For while good works are necessary
to salvation, they do not merit eternal life.
我們不會進到羅馬天主教神學的雜草裏去討論施贈的功德（merit of congruity）和賺取的功德（merit of condignity）——杜仁田兩者都反對。讓我們堅持這個更大的、更有相關性的，有關善行是否配得到永生的這個問題。再次，我們必須謹慎地分析我們的詞彙。
We’re
not going to get into the weeds of Roman Catholic theology and talk about merit
of congruity and merit of condignity (Turretin rejects both). Let’s stick with
the bigger, more relevant question about good works meriting eternal life. Here
again, we need to parse our terms carefully.
「功德」這個詞有兩種用法：要麼是廣義而不恰當的；要麼是嚴格而正當的。嚴格來說，它是指由於它本身內在的價值，從公平的角度來說，行為所應得的獎賞。但是它經常被廣義地用在一連串的事情上。在這個意義上，「配得」這個動詞，經常被教會教父們用來指「獲得」（to gain），「得到」（to obtain），「獲致」（to attain）。（17.5.1）
The
word “merit” is used in two ways: either broadly and improperly; or strictly
and properly. Strictly, it denotes that work to which a reward is due from
justice on account of its intrinsic value and worth. But it is often used
broadly for the consecution of any thing. In this sense, the verb “to merit” is
often used by the fathers put for “to gain,” “to obtain,” “to attain.”
(XVII.v.1)
這是一個關鍵的區別，也和圍繞著派博的序言的對話有直接的關聯。以下是杜仁田實際上說的：「你看，我們必須明白，人們有不同的方法使用這個詞。從技術上來說，功德的意思是把某個人或某件事所配得到的、歸給這個人或這件事。在這個意義上，善行，即使是出於被稱義的信徒，並不配得到永生。另一方面，人們有時會更寬鬆地使用『功德』這個詞，作為另一種表示順序的方法。所以，若B跟著A，或者若A是B的條件，有些人會說A得到，達到，獲致或甚至配得B。這不是描述事物最好的方法，但是許多人，例如教會教父，他們要表明的，不過是永生和善行，是按照一連串必要的事件而聯繫在一起的。」
This
is a crucial distinction and one that relates directly to the conversation
surrounding Piper’s foreword. Here’s what Turretin is saying in effect: “Look,
we have to realize that people use these words in different ways. Technically,
merit means someone or something is given its due. In this sense, good works,
even of the justified believer, do not merit eternal life. On the other hand,
people sometimes use ‘merit’ more loosely, as another way of indicating
sequence. So if B follows A, or if A is a condition for B, some people say that
A gains, obtains, attains, or even merits B. This is not the best way to
describe things, but many people, like the church fathers, mean to communicate
nothing more than that eternal life is connected to good works in a necessary
chain of events.”
以下是派博在史瑞納的新書中的序言中所說的：
Here’s
what Piper said in his foreword to Schreiner’s new book:
本書所處理的寶藏，其重要性是無法估算的。無限是無法衡量的，而無限的事是利害攸關的。如同史瑞納說的，本書「要處理的是我們人類處境的基本問題之一：一個人如何與上帝和好？」
[T]his
book is dealing with treasures of immeasurable importance. Infinity cannot be
measured. And infinite things are at stake. As Tom Schreiner says, the book
“tackles one of the fundamental questions of our human condition: how can a
person be right with God?”
基督徒令人瞠目結舌的回答是：唯靠信心（sola fide）。但是請務必要仔細聽，並聽得準確：他說的是唯靠信心與神和好（right with God ），不是唯靠信心達致天堂（attain heaven）。達致天堂還有其他條件，但是與上帝進入一個正確的關係卻不需要其他條件。事實上，為了符合其他條件，一個人必須已經唯靠信心與上帝有一個正確的關係。
The
stunning Christian answer is: sola fide—faith alone. But be sure you hear this
carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain
heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no
others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be
in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other
conditions.
有鑑於我們所知道的派博的神學立場（包括他熱情地為宗教改革時期對稱義的理解所作的辯護），以及有鑑於這個事實，即他明確地在這些句子裏談到的是條件，而不是功德，我們可以很安全地假定，派博是用「達致」（attain）來指一種必要的順序，而不是要按時我們的善行本身有內在的價值，而使得天堂是我們應得的。老實說，我不會使用「達致天堂」這樣的措辭。它太容易被人誤解，而就最嚴格的意義來說，與「功德」實在太接近了。甚至「獲得」（obtain，暗示著得到或確保）也比「達致」（暗示著達到或完成）來得好。但是我知道派博是什麼意思，也同意他所想要提出的論點。
Given
everything we know about Piper’s theology (including his passionate defense of
a Reformation understanding of justification), and given the fact that he’s
explicitly talking in these sentences about conditions and not merit, it is
safe to assume that Piper is using “attain” with reference to a necessary
sequence and does not mean to imply that there is an intrinsic worth in our
good deeds that somehow makes heaven our due. Frankly, I would not use the
language of “attaining heaven.” It is too easily misunderstood, and in the
strictest sense comes too close to “merit.” Even “obtain” (which suggests
getting or securing) would be better than “attain” (which suggests achieving or
accomplishing). But I know what Piper means and agree with the point is he
trying to make.
在最嚴格的意義上，善行是有功績的，是什麼意思呢？杜仁田提到五個特色：
What
does it mean for a good work to be meritorious in the strict sense? Turretin
mentions five characteristics:
1. 這行為是「不應得的」（undue）。也就是說，我們不只是在作我們所虧欠的。
2. 這行為必須是我們作的，而不是由於其他人的行為。
3. 這行為必須是絕對完美的。
4. 這行為和報償是相稱的。
5. 因為行為本身的內在價值，這報償或獎賞是欠我們的。（17.5.6）
1.
The work be “undue.” That is, we are not merely doing what we owe.
2.
The work must be ours and not owing to the work of another.
3.
The work must be absolutely perfect.
4.
The work is equal to the payment made.
5.
The payment or reward is owed us because of the intrinsic worth of the work.
(XVII.v.6)
很明顯，我們的善行並無法達到以上的任何要求。用一種嚴格和正確的對「功德」的理解，我們萬萬不可下結論說，我們的善行配得到永生。因為連我們最好的行為都是：(1) 僅僅是我們所虧欠的；(2) 是上帝在我們身上的恩典；(3) 不完美的；(4) 比起永生的獎賞要少得多；(5) 本身是沒有價值的。善行是得救所必須的，但是不是為了讓救恩生效，或有權利取得救恩。這必要性不是出於因果關係或效率（17.3.3）。
Clearly,
our good works do not meet any of these requirements. Using a strict and proper
understanding of “merit,” we must never conclude that our good works merit
eternal life. For even our best works are (1) merely what we owe, (2) from
God’s grace in us, (3) imperfect, (4) much less than the reward of eternal
life, and (5) not worthy in and of themselves. Good works are necessary to
salvation, but not in order to effect salvation or acquire it by right. The
necessity is not of causality and efficiency (XVII.iii.3).
總之，儘管我們的善行在聖經裏經常得到稱讚——是討上帝喜悅的，而且是真正的善行——它們並不會為我們贏得天上的獎賞。善行和最後得榮耀之間有真實和必要的關聯，但是這個關聯不是功德的關聯。
In
short, while our good works are often praiseworthy in Scripture–pleasing to God
and truly good–they do not win for us our heavenly reward. There is a true and
necessary connection between good works and final glorification, but the
connection is not one of merit.
