反律主义：成因与处治   Legalism : Causes andCures

作者: Sinclair B. Ferguson译者: Duncan Liang

《全备的基督：律法主义、反律主义和福音确据——“神学精华”争议为何今天仍然重要》The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters , 第八章 

https://www.monergism.com/causes-and-cures

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eO6QkfCehRmsp1MEZFOatQ

反律主义形式各异，反律主义者并不总能被整齐归类，他们也并不必然持守由他们预设前提而来的一切逻辑推论。[1]本文是从神学意义使用“反律主义”一词：否认十诫对在基督里的人具有当尽义务（“约束良心”）的性质。

Antinomianism takes various forms. People do not always fit neatly into our categorizations, nor do they necessarily hold all the logical implications of their presuppositions.1 Here we are using "antinomianism" in the theological sense: rejecting the obligatory ("binding on the conscience") nature of the Decalogue for those who are in Christ.

18世纪的人广泛认定，反律主义本质上是未能明白和欣赏上帝律法在基督徒人生中的地位。但正如律法主义比一眼看上去有更多内涵，反律主义也是如此。

Antinomianism, it was widely assumed in the eighteenth century, is essentially a failure to understand and appreciate the place of the law of God in the Christian life. But just as there is more to legalism than first meets the eye, the same is true of antinomianism.

异极相吸？

Opposites Attract?

也许人思想反律主义时最大的失策，就是认为它绝对是律法主义的反面。

Perhaps the greatest misstep in thinking about antinomianism is to think of it simpliciter as the opposite of legalism.

如果一位崭露头角的心理学博士生对基督徒做一次词语联想试验，这会很有意思。这试验可以包括以下内容：

It would be an interesting experiment for a budding doctoral student in psychology to create a word-association test for Christians. It might include:

旧约 - 预料的回答 - 新约

罪 -预料的回答 - 恩典

大卫 -预料的回答 – 歌利亚

耶路撒冷 -预料的回答 -巴比伦

反律主义 - 预料的回答 - ?
 Old Testament - Anticipated answer  - New Testament

Sin - Anticipated answer - Grace

David Anticipated answer - Goliath

Jerusalem - Anticipated answer - Babylon

Antinomianism - Anticipated answer  -  ?

认定对最后一个问题本能的回答就是“律法主义”，这岂不是有道理吗？

Would it be fair to assume that the instinctive response there at the end would be "Legalism"?

“正确答案”果真是“律法主义”吗？在一般字词用法层面上，这可能是正确答案，但从神学角度来看，这回答不能令人满意，因为反律主义和律法主义其实并不是如此完全相反，因它们两样都是与恩典对立。因此圣经从来没有把一样当作解决另一样的药方。而是解决这两样问题的药方，都是恩典，上帝在基督里，在我们与基督联合当中的恩典。

Is the "correct answer" really "Legalism"? It might be the right answer at the level of common usage, but it would be unsatisfactory from the standpoint of theology, for antinomianism and legalism are not so much antithetical to each other as they are both antithetical to grace. This is why Scripture never prescribes one as the antidote for the other. Rather grace, God's grace in Christ in our union with Christ, is the antidote to both.

这观察意义重大，因为教会历史上其中一些最有影响的反律主义者承认，他们发现自己的律法主义之后，是在逃离这一点。

This is an observation of major significance, for some of the most influential antinomians in church history acknowledged they were on a flight from the discovery of their own legalism.

第一位为英国反律主义始祖级人物陶比斯·克里斯比（Tobias Crisp）[2]写传记的约翰·吉尔（John Gill）说：“他一开始采用律法主义的讲道方法，对此大发热心。”[3]

According to John Gill, the first biographer of Tobias Crisp, one of the father figures of English antinomianism:2 "He set out first in the legal way of preaching in which he was exceeding jealous."3

本杰明·布鲁克（Benjamin Brook）表明了更大的背景：

Benjamin Brook sets this in a larger context:

接受了后来他们认识到是错误观点的人，常常认为他们如何远离这些观点都不为过，他们离从前意见越远，他们就越接近真理。不幸的是，克里斯比博士的情形正是如此。他从前甚为轻视基督的恩典，吸取了一些意见，这在他里面生出一种律法主义和自以为义的精神。他想起自己从前的观点和行为举止就深感震惊，看来认为他如何远离它们也不为过。[4]

Persons who have embraced sentiments which afterwards appear to them erroneous, often think they can never remove too far from them; and the more remote they go from their former opinions the nearer they come to the truth. This was unhappily the case with Dr. Crisp. His ideas of the grace of Christ had been exceedingly low, and he had imbibed sentiments which produced in him a legal and self-righteous spirit. Shocked at the recollection of his former views and conduct, he seems to have imagined that he could never go far enough from them.4

但克里斯比和其他人一样，服用了错误的解药。

But Crisp, in keeping with others, took the wrong medicine.

反律主义者按本性，是一个有律法主义内心的人。他/她是出于反应而成为反律主义者，但这只是意味着他/她有了一种对律法的不同观点，而不是一种更符合圣经的观点。

The antinomian is by nature a person with a legalistic heart. He or she becomes an antinomian in reaction. But this implies only a different view of law, not a more biblical one.

理查德·巴克斯特（Richard Baxter）的评论因此极富洞察力：

Richard Baxter's comments are therefore insightful:

反律主义在我们当中兴起，源于一种对福音恩典的模糊传讲，以及太过强调流泪和威慑。[5]

Antinomianism rose among us from an obscure Preaching of Evangelical Grace, and insisting too much on tears and terrors.5

全盘除去律法，这似乎提供了一种避难所。但问题并不在于律法，而是在于人心——而这依旧没有改变。反律主义者以为他的视角现在是在律法主义的对立面，就开了一种不恰当的灵命药方。他的病没有得到完全医治。确实，他的病根已被隐蔽，而不是揭露和得以治愈。

The wholescale removal of the law seems to provide a refuge. But the problem is not with the law, but with the heart—and this remains unchanged. Thinking that his perspective is now the antithesis of legalism, the antinomian has written an inappropriate spiritual prescription. His sickness is not fully cured. Indeed the root cause of his disease has been masked rather than exposed and cured.

律法主义只有一种真正的解决之道，就是与福音为反律主义开的同样药方：认识与耶稣基督祂自己的联合，尝到这联合的滋味。这带来一种对上帝律法新的爱与顺服，这律法是祂现在在福音中传递给我们的。唯有这一点才能既击破律法主义的捆绑（不再把律法和基督分开），也击破反律主义的捆绑（我们不再与把自己与律法分开，现在律法是从基督手里临到我们，我们靠着圣灵加力遵行，圣灵在我们心上写下这律法）。

There is only one genuine cure for legalism. It is the same medicine the gospel prescribes for antinomianism: understanding and tasting union with Jesus Christ himself. This leads to a new love for and obedience to the law of God, which he now mediates to us in the gospel. This alone breaks the bonds of both legalism (the law is no longer divorced from the person of Christ) and antinomianism (we are not divorced from the law, which now comes to us from the hand of Christ and in the empowerment of the Spirit, who writes it in our hearts).

没有这一点，律法主义者和反律主义者就依然错误看待上帝的律法，未能充分建立起与上帝恩典的联系，依然未能正确庆贺尽本分和以基督为乐的联姻。

Without this both legalist and antinomian remain wrongly related to God's law and inadequately related to God's grace. The marriage of duty with delight in Christ is not yet rightly celebrated.

拉福·厄斯金（Ralph Erskine）[6]是一位“现代神学精华”争议中的弟兄，他曾经说过，最大的反律主义者实际上是律法主义者。他的这说法反过来也是对的：最大的律法主义者也是反律主义者。

Ralph Erskine,6 one of the leading Marrow Brethren, once said that the greatest antinomian was actually the legalist. His claim may also be true the other way around: the greatest legalist is the antinomian.

但从律法主义转到反律主义，这绝不是逃离我们一开始嫁给的那位丈夫的出路。因为我们与律法离婚，并不通过相信诫命不再有约束力，而是通过与耶稣基督结婚，因着与耶稣基督联合，我们就喜爱遵行律法。波士顿（Boston）他自己认同这普遍分析：

But turning from legalism to antinomianism is never the way to escape the husband whom we first married. For we are not divorced from the law by believing that the commandments do not have binding force, but only by being married to Jesus Christ in union with whom it is our pleasure to fulfill them. Boston himself is in agreement with this general analysis:

这种反律主义的原则，即一个人因信完全成义，就无需努力遵行律法和行善，这是一个明显的证据，表明律法主义如此污染了人败坏的本性，以至于除非一个人真正凭信心到基督这里来，这律法主义的性情就仍然在他里面作王；不管他把自己变成何种形态，或在信仰中持守何种原则，虽然他投奔反律主义，但仍随身带着他的律法主义的精神，而这总是一种奴性、不圣洁的精神。[7]

This Antinomian principle, that it is needless for a man, perfectly justified by faith, to endeavour to keep the law, and do good works, is a glaring evidence that legality is so engrained in man's corrupt nature, that until a man truly come to Christ, by faith, the legal disposition will still be reigning in him; let him turn himself into what shape, or be of what principles he will in religion; though he run into Antinomianism he will carry along with him his legal spirit, which will always be a slavish and unholy spirit.7

一个世纪之后，美国南方长老会牧师和神学家汤惠尔（James Henley Thornwell，1812–1862）留意到这同样原则：

A century later, the Southern Presbyterian pastor and theologian James Henley Thornwell (1812–1862) noted the same principle:

不管反律主义会采取何种形态，它总是源自律法主义。一头扎入一个极端的人，不是别人，正是那些曾经身处另一极端的人。[8]

Whatever form, however, Antinomianism may assume, it springs from legalism. None rush into the one extreme but those who have been in the other.8

还有，柯宽恩（John Colquhoun）讲到这一点在真信徒生命中的表现：

Here, again, is John Colquhoun, speaking of the manifestation of this in the life of the true believer:

某种程度的律法主义精神，或内心守行为之约的倾向，依然存留在信徒里面，常常胜过他们。他们有时觉得极难抵挡这种倾向，就是靠他们自己的成就和表现，部分有权得着上帝的眷顾，能以上帝为乐。[9]

Some degree of a legal spirit or of an inclination of heart to the way of the covenant of works still remains in believers and often prevails against them. They sometimes find it exceedingly difficult for them to resist that inclination, to rely on their own attainments and performances, for some part of their title to the favor and enjoyment of God.9

如果我们以为反律主义是得救脱离我们原本律法主义精神的方法，我们就需更新对罗马书第七章的认识了。与保罗对立，律法主义者和反律主义者都把律法看作是问题。但保罗极力指出，根本的问题是罪，而不是律法。相反，律法是“良善”，“公义”，“属乎灵的”，“圣洁的”。[10]真正的敌人是内住的罪。罪的解决之道，既不是律法，也不是推翻律法，而是恩典，保罗在罗马书5:12–21有力证明了这一点，而这恩典是他在罗马书6:1-14解释与基督联合的上下文中表明的。那么废除律法，这就是滥杀无辜了。

If antinomianism appears to us to be a way of deliverance from our natural legalistic spirit, we need to refresh our understanding of Romans 7. In contrast to Paul, both legalists and antinomians see the law as the problem. But Paul is at pains to point out that sin, not the law is the root issue. On the contrary, the law is "good" and "righteous" and "spiritual" and "holy."10 The real enemy is indwelling sin. And the remedy for sin is neither the law nor its overthrow. It is grace, as Paul had so wonderfully exhibited in Romans 5:12–21, and that grace set in the context of his exposition of union with Christ in Romans 6:1–14. To abolish the law, then, would be to execute the innocent.

出于这原因，要紧的就是要留意到保罗在罗马书7:1–6论证的动态关系。我们已经与律法结婚。一位妇人的丈夫死了，就可自由再婚。但保罗非常清楚地说，不是律法死了，让我们可以与基督结婚。而是那曾与律法结婚的信徒在基督里已经死了。但她与基督一道复活，现在就能（按律法是合法！）自由与基督结婚，以基督作她丈夫，可以结果子给上帝。用保罗的话说，这第二次婚姻的目的，就是“使律法的义成就在我们这不随从肉体，只随从圣灵的人身上”。[11]

For this reason it is important to notice the dynamic of Paul's argument in Romans 7:1–6. We have been married to the law. A woman is free to marry again when her husband dies. But Paul is careful to say not that the law has died so that we can marry Christ. Rather, it is the believer who was married to the law who has died in Christ. But being raised with Christ, she is now (legally!) free to marry Christ as the husband with whom fruit for God will be brought to the birth. The entail of this second marriage is, in Paul's language, that "the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."11

在这种意义上，基督徒与律法的关系就是“在基督的律法里”！[12]我们不像从前那样直接与律法建立关系，或与孤立、仅仅是诫命的法律建立关系。这关系是依靠我们与基督优先的关系，是这种优先关系新的果子。用简单的话说，正如亚当从天父领受律法，从祂手中领受，这律法本绝不应当与祂分离（那蛇、然后是夏娃使之与上帝分离），同样新约的信徒绝不可看律法，却不认识到他与律法的关系是他与基督联合的结果。

This is the sense in which the Christian's relationship to the law is that of being an "in-law"!12 We are not related to the law directly as it were, or the law in isolation as bare commandments. The relationship is dependent on and the new fruit of our prior relationship to Christ. In simple terms, just as Adam received the law from the Father, from whose hand it should never have been abstracted (as it was by the Serpent and then by Eve), so the new-covenant believer never looks at the law without understanding that his relationship to it is the fruit of his union with Christ.

班扬（Bunyan）明白罗马书第七章的意义。[13]我们所有人身上仍有一种“首先的亚当的倾向”。相信的人已经向律法死了，但律法并没有死。律法依然对相信的人存在。但相信的人与基督联合，现在能成就婚姻的律法，结出果子！

Bunyan saw the meaning of Romans 7.13 An "inclination to Adam the First" remains in all of us. The believer has died to the law, but the law does not die. The law still exists to the believer. But united to Christ the believer is now able to fulfill the law of marriage and bear fruit!

因此结出律法要求果子的，是恩典，而不是律法；然而，与此同时，恩典结出的果子，是律法所要求的。拉福·厄斯金用诗的形式说明了这一点：

Thus grace, not law, produces what the law requires; yet at the same time it is what the law requires that grace produces. Ralph Erskine sought to put this in verse form:

因此福音-恩典和律法-命令

捆绑或释放对方的手脚；

按任何条件均无法讲和，

然而却彼此相拥。

将它们分开的人，不可能是

事实与真理的朋友；

然而人胆敢将两者混淆

就是毁了这两样，自招灾祸。

若非用福音的红母牛耕地，

这吊诡就无人能识透。[14]

Thus gospel-grace and law-commands

Both bind and loose each other's hands;

They can't agree on any terms,

Yet hug each other in their arms.

Those that divide them cannot be

The friends of truth and verity;

Yet those that dare confound the two

Destroy them both, and gender woe.

This paradox none can decipher,

That plow not with the gospel heifer.14

因此，他继续写道：

律法命令我奔跑做工，

福音加给我手和脚。

一样要求我顺服，

另一样加给我力量。[15]

So, he adds,

 To run, to work, the law commands,

The gospel gives me feet and hands.

The one requires that I obey,

The other does the power convey.15

头脑与内心

Head and Heart

这是一个基本的教牧功课。这不仅仅是头脑的问题，这是内心的问题。反律主义可能隐藏在教义和神学术语当中，但它既暴露，也掩盖了人内心对绝对当向上帝尽的义务或本分是一屑不顾。因此在教义方面进行解释，这只是这场争战的一部分。我们面对的，是某样更难以捉摸的事情，是一个人的精神，一种直觉，一种有罪的性情趋向，一种微妙的将本分和喜乐分开的做法。这要求努力、爱心的教牧关怀，特别忠心、强调与基督联合、完全地解开上帝的道，好让福音可以融化我们心里顽固的律法主义精神。

This is a fundamental pastoral lesson. It is not merely a matter of the head. It is a matter of the heart. Antinomianism may be couched in doctrinal and theological terms, but it both betrays and masks the heart's distaste for absolute divine obligation, or duty. That is why the doctrinal explanation is only part of the battle. We are grappling with something much more elusive, the spirit of an individual, an instinct, a sinful temperamental bent, a subtle divorce of duty and delight. This requires diligent and loving pastoral care and especially faithful, union-with-Christ, full unfolding of the Word of God so that the gospel dissolves the stubborn legality in our spirits.

约翰·牛顿（John Newton）和威廉·考柏（William Cowper）编写的《奥尔尼诗集》收录了考柏写的赞美诗《爱催促我顺服》，它很好说明了这光景：

Olney Hymns, the hymnbook composed by John Newton and William Cowper, contains the latter's hymn "Love Constraining to Obedience," which states the situation well:

本性力量不足

正确服侍主；

缺乏更清楚光照，

她有的，她就错用。

我受捆绑遭患难，

落在律法之下何等日久！

我苦苦遵行命令顺服，

劳苦做工却不得成功。

那时要脱离外面的罪

远超我能力，我无法对付；

现在，我若感受罪在心里的力量，

我也感受到，对罪我是深深恨恶。

那时，我做完一切为奴的工作

一种义就生出；

现在，在子里面蒙白白拣选，

我就甘心选择祂的道路。

那时我说：我当做什么，

让我更加配得？

我当把什么交给主，

成了我现在的求问。

看到律法由基督成全，

听见祂赦罪的声音，

就把奴仆变为儿子，[16]

 No strength of nature can suffice

To serve [the] Lord aright;

And what she has, she misapplies,

For want of clearer light.

How long beneath the law I lay

In bondage and distress!

I toil'd the precept to obey,

But toil'd without success.

Then to abstain from outward sin

Was more than I could do;

Now, if I feel its pow'r within,

I feel I hate it too.

Then all my servile works were done

A righteousness to raise;

Now, freely chosen in the Son,

I freely choose his ways.

What shall I do was then the word,

That I may worthier grow?

What shall I render to the Lord?

Is my enquiry now.

To see the Law by Christ fulfill'd,

And hear his pard'ning voice;

Changes a slave into a child,16

本分变为甘心的选择。

And duty into choice.

我们在这里面对的是一种性情，其根源可以一直追溯回伊甸园的土壤。那么反律主义就像律法主义一样，并不只是对律法有错误的看法。终极来说，它对启示在律法和福音当中的恩典有错误看法，在这背后，是对上帝祂自己错误的认识。

We are dealing here with a disposition whose roots go right down into the soil of the garden of Eden. Antinomianism then, like legalism, is not only a matter of having a wrong view of the law. It is a matter, ultimately, of a wrong view of grace, revealed in both law and gospel—and behind that, a wrong view of God himself.

但反律主义危及了什么教义问题？

But what doctrinal issues are at stake in antinomianism?

这样说来，律法是为什么有的呢？

Why Then the Law?

上帝的律法在新约中角色的问题，与登山宝训一样悠久，与教牧书信一样古老，与保罗这问题一样重要：“这样说来，律法是为什么有的呢？”[17]

The issue of the role of the law of God in the new covenant is a question as old as the Sermon on the Mount, as ancient as the Pastoral Epistles, and as fundamental as Paul's question: "Why then the law?"17

在宗教改革的时候，在“第二次宗教改革”期间，一直延续到清教徒的年代，人都在提出这问题。人重新发现圣约神学，这就产生了对律法性质和作用的讨论。因此，人在过去七十年研究圣经，（既是从普遍而言的古中近东文献，也是从具体方面的旧约圣经）重新发现圣约神学思想的重大意义，接着出现一种小作坊式的行业，出版论述律法地位的书籍文章，这就不让人感到惊奇了。

This was true at the time of the Reformation and during the "Second Reformation" that extended into the Puritan era. The rediscovery of covenant theology led to discussions on the nature and role of the law. It should therefore not come as a surprise that in the biblical scholarship of the past seventy years, the rediscovery of the significance of covenant thought, both in the ancient Near East in general and in the Old Testament in particular, has been followed by a cottage industry of books and articles on the position of the law.

新约圣经一些陈述带着某种严厉语气描写上帝的律法。保罗会讲到律法在与之相关的“属死的职事”和“定罪的职事”方面发挥作用。[18]另外，其他陈述似乎暗示信徒已经脱离了律法。[19]这是否肯定给了反律主义充分的证据，支持它的神学立场？

There are statements in the New Testament that describe the law of God with a certain harshness. Paul can speak about its role in the "ministry of death" and of the "ministry of condemnation" that was associated with it.18 Furthermore, other statements might seem to suggest that the believer is free from the law.19 This surely gives antinomianism sufficient grounds for its theological position?

但我们需要考虑几个反方论证。

There are, however, a number of important counter-considerations.

有限的词汇？

Limited Vocabulary?

克莱菲尔德（C. E. B. Cranfield）在发表他的巨著罗马书注释之前，在一篇写于1964年的重要文章中，努力阐明保罗对律法的观点，他指出一个明显事实：保罗并没有使用一种通行的词汇来说明律法主义和律法主义者。他从来没有使用这样的术语。他的词汇也没有反律主义者这说法。因此，保罗解释律法的作用，人对律法的误解时，并没有这种语言和范畴方面的装备。

In an important article written in 1964, prior to the publication of his major commentary on Romans, C. E. B. Cranfield sought to illumine the discussion of Paul's view of the law by pointing out the obvious: Paul employed no working vocabulary for legalism, legalist, or legalistic. He never used such terms. Nor did his vocabulary stretch to the term antinomian. He therefore expounded the role of, and misunderstandings of, the law without this verbal and categorical equipment.

但这对明显事实的陈述，对许多读新约圣经的人来说却不是如此明显。人有一种内置的倾向，认定如果我们读圣经时思想当中存在着一种概念，那么这种概念也必然存在于圣经作者的思想当中。确实，如果我们尊崇圣经，也许我们就很难接受这一点，就是我们一些概念性的术语，完全不是使徒装备的一部分。

This statement of the obvious is not, however, quite so obvious to many readers of the New Testament. There is an inbuilt tendency to assume that if a concept is present in our minds as we read Scripture, it must also have been present in the biblical author's mind. And indeed if we hold a high view of the Scriptures it may be hard for us to accept that some of our conceptual terms were simply not part of the apostolic equipment.

就是在这种处境当中，保罗有限词汇的结果，就是他并没有使用我们现成的神学术语来表明后来“神学精华争论”中涉及的关键观念。他在自己的处境当中，是在他使用术语的“局限”之内展开论述。[20]因此克莱菲尔德写道，与现代神学家相比，保罗在尝试澄清基督徒对律法的看法时，处在一种相当大的劣势之下。

In this context the upshot of Paul's restricted vocabulary is that he did not employ our ready-made theological terms to express the key ideas that were later involved in the Marrow Controversy. In his own context he works within the "limitations" of the vocabulary he employs.20 Thus, writes Cranfield, Paul writes under a very considerable disadvantage compared with the modern theologian when he is to attempt to clarify the Christian position with regard to the law.

克莱菲尔德并不是说，保罗不像教会那样明白律法。但他是在说，保罗并没有使用与教会一样的语言装备陈述他的观点。他继续说道：

Cranfield is not saying that Paul did not understand the law the way the church has done. But he is saying that Paul did not use the same linguistic equipment to state his view. He continues:

有鉴于此，我认为我们应乐意承认存在着这种可能，就是有时当他似乎是在贬损律法，但实际上他想到的可能并不是律法本身，而是人对律法的误解和误用，对此我们有常规的术语说明，但他却没有。[21]

In view of this we should I think, be ready to reckon with the possibility that sometimes when he appeared to be disparaging the law, what he really had in mind may not be the law itself, but the misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we have a conventional term, but for which he had none.21

虽然克莱菲尔德强调在圣经注释方面的这种空白，他可能是对的，但四百年前加尔文已经表明了这同一个神学要点：

While Cranfield may have been right to underscore this lacuna in the commentaries, the theological point itself had been made four hundred years earlier by Calvin:

他（保罗）为了驳斥他们的错误（即律法主义），有时就不得不按狭义讲到那纯粹的律法，即使律法其实是调和着上帝白白赐人儿子名分的那圣约的恩惠。[22]

To refute their error [i.e., legalism] he [Paul] was sometimes compelled to take the bare law in a narrow sense, even though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption.22

反律主义的作家通常并没有认识到这一点在释经和神学方面的牵涉影响。但除非我们敏感认识到这一点，否则就不能解开保罗对律法态度的正确含义。

Antinomian writers do not normally take cognizance of the exegetical and theological implications of this. But unless we are sensitive to it we will fail to unravel the proper meaning of Paul's attitude to the law.

我们在保罗身上看到的，是一把简单的钥匙，明白他为什么可以对律法作出褒贬皆有的陈述：那让人死的职事是律法的一种职事，按其本身，律法是“圣洁、公义、良善的”。[23]律法定罪的特征，并不是律法任何固有内容的结果，而是我们固有的恶的结果。

What we discover in Paul is a simple key to understanding why he can make both pejorative and complimentary statements about the law: the ministry that produces death is a ministry of the law that in itself is "holy and righteous and good."23 Its condemning character is not the result of anything inherent in the law, but of the evil that is inherent in us.

保罗在罗马书7:7–12极力捍卫了这一点；确实，这整一章都是为了澄清律法的性质和作用。他已因着律法知道何为罪。这是否意味着律法本身多少是有罪？

Paul vigorously insists on this in Romans 7:7–12; indeed the whole chapter serves to clarify the nature and role of the law. He has come to know sin because of the law. Does this mean that the law itself is somehow sinful?

这段经文前后看来是一种首尾呼应，强调律法的良善：

The passage is bookended by what appears to be an inclusio, which stresses the goodness of the law:

问题：律法是罪（有罪）吗？

否定，他在第7节否认律法是罪。

肯定，他在12节确认律法是圣洁、公义、良善。

在这首尾呼应之内，他清楚表明元凶是罪，而不是律法：

律法显明我们的罪（7节b）。

律法也禁止我们的罪（7节c）。

就律法而言，罪实际上是机会主义者（8节）。

在律法的光照下，罪又活了（第9节：就像掀开一块石头，下面的虫子蠢蠢欲动）。

律法应许给人生命（“这样行就可以活”）。

罪把律法变成一种叫人死的工具（10节）。

结论：杀死我们的是罪，不是律法（11节）！

Question: Is the law sin(ful)?

Negatively, in verse 7, he denies that the law is sin.

Positively, in verse 12, he affirms that the law is holy, righteous, and good.

Within the inclusio he makes clear that it is sin, and not the law, that is the culprit:

Our sin is revealed by the law (v. 7b).

Our sin is also forbidden by the law (v. 7c).

Sin is in fact opportunistic with respect to the law (v. 8).

Sin comes to life in the light of the law (v. 9: like insects when a stone is lifted).

The law promised life ("Do this and live").

 Sin turned the law into an instrument of death (v. 10).

Conclusion: It is sin, not the law, that kills us (v. 11)!

在这里，保罗似乎对律法有一种如此严厉和消极的看法（律法是他对罪产生意识的原因），但就在这同一上下文当中，他是在澄清律法圣洁的性质。律法带有上帝祂自己的品格。这就是他——以及我们——能凭信心说“按着我里面的人，我是喜欢上帝的律”的原因。[24]肯定的是，如果律法是圣洁、良善和属乎灵，我们就必须如此说。

Thus it is in the very context in which Paul seems to take such a harsh and negative view of the law—it is the reason for his sin consciousness—that he clarifies its holy nature. It bears the very character of God himself. This is why he—and we—by faith can say, "I delight in the law of God, in my inner being."24 We must, surely, if it is holy, good, and spiritual.

反律主义的立场，倾向按绝对意义看待对对律法消极或贬损的陈述，这样就看不到澄清这位使徒教导的圣经框架。

The antinomian position then, which tends to take negative or pejorative statements about the law in an absolute sense, misses the biblical framework that clarifies the apostolic teaching.

上帝颁布律法，在这当中祂的恩典

The Grace of God in the Giving of the Law

如此强调旧约新约，以及它们各自圣约的统一性，以至于未能看到它们有重大的多样性，这当然是一种释经错误。

It is, of course, a hermeneutical mistake so to emphasize the unity of Old and New Testaments and their respective covenants that we fail to recognize their significant diversity.

两约之间划时代的差异如此巨大，以至于约翰讲到圣灵的工作时，可以用一种极端的说法描述这差异：“那时还没有赐下圣灵来，因为耶稣尚未得着荣耀。”[25]但这里用绝对说法讲的意思，应在一种相对的意义上加以理解。

The epochal difference between the two covenants is such that John can describe it in radical terms when he writes of the Spirit's ministry: "As yet the Spirit was not since Jesus was not yet glorified."25 What is stated here in an absolute sense is, however, meant to be understood in a comparative sense.

按类比的方法，约翰福音对圣灵的说法同样适用于律法。圣经要人在一种比较的上下文中看待的，不可从绝对的角度解读。律法本是藉着摩西传的，恩典和真理都是由耶稣基督来的。[26]这种对比不是绝对的。如果没有其他考量，基督徒似乎就绝不应羡慕诗人在诗篇1:2（“惟喜爱耶和华的律法”），或诗篇119:97（“我何等爱慕祢的律法”）中的敬虔。但事实就是，基督徒出于本能渴慕上升到这种高度[27]，因为他们（至少潜意识）认识到，律法是一位爱的天父满有恩惠的礼物，虽然律法本身并没有给人遵守它的能力。

What is true of the Spirit in John's Gospel is, by way of analogy, also true of the law. What is intended to be seen within a comparative context should not be read in absolutist terms. The law came by Moses; grace and truth came through Christ.26 This contrast is not absolute. Apart from other considerations, if it were, Christians would never admire the piety of the psalmist in Psalm 1:2 ("His delight is in the law of the Lord") or of Psalm 119:97 ("Oh how I love your law"). But the truth is that Christians instinctively desire to rise to this,27 because they recognize—at least at a subliminal level—that the law was the gracious gift of a loving Father, even if, in itself, it does not provide the power to keep it.

如果反律主义者回应说：“但这更多讲的是妥拉律法，而不是十诫，”我们必须强调，虽然确实如此，但这律法也不少于十诫。确实我们有权问，在新约，妥拉律法中有什么是写在我们的思想里，写在我们的心上？难道是我们现在得到能力，去爱和遵守的十诫以外的事情吗？不可能是十诫的礼仪和民事应用。我们爱律法，因为它是“属乎灵”的[28]，这就是说，它与圣灵和谐一致。我们在圣灵中里，按我们“里面的人”[29]，我们是喜悦上帝的律法。毕竟，主耶稣基督这位最卓越的属灵人，爱和成全了律法。祂这样做，不是作为一种虚己、当前姑且容忍的手段，要达到某种目的，而是因为祂在我们的人性里面，真实爱着上帝的道告诉祂上帝自己所爱的。圣灵在我们心里写下律法，以及遵守律法的主耶稣基督内住在我们生命当中，这解释了为什么我们也是如此。

If the antinomian responds, "But there is more to Torah-Law than Decalogue," we must insist that while this is true, there is never less. Indeed we are entitled to ask: What is it in Torah that has been written on our minds and in our hearts in the new covenant? Can it be other than the Decalogue we are now empowered to love and keep? It cannot be the ceremonial and civil applications of it. We love the law because it is "spiritual,"28 that is, it is in harmony with the Spirit. And in the Spirit we delight in the law of God after our "inner being."29 After all, the Lord Jesus, the man of the Spirit par excellence, loved and fulfilled the law. Nor did he do this as a kenotic, to-be-tolerated-for-the-present means to an end, but because in our humanity he genuinely loved what God's Word told him God himself loved. The writing of the law in our hearts by the Spirit and the indwelling of the law-keeping Lord Jesus in our lives are the explanation of why the same becomes true for us also.

救赎历史脉络中的律法

Law in the Context of Redemptive History

改革宗神学的一个基本前提，就是上帝通过恢复人身上上帝的形象，在救赎历史当中彰显出祂的荣耀。[30]上帝的拯救工作总是涉及更新我们被造时的为人。

It is a basic presupposition in Reformed theology that the glory of God is manifested in redemptive history through the restoration of man as the image of God.30 God's salvation economy always involves the renewal of what was true of us in creation.

确实，拯救超越了创造时的生命，因它是朝着一种得荣耀的现实运动。但这运动是双向的：回归受造的伊甸园，向前去到重新创造和得荣耀的伊甸园；上帝的启示对应了这一点——它继续重塑之前启示和救赎的模式，并且推动它们向前。

It is true that salvation transcends life at creation in its movement toward glorified reality. But the movement is bi-directional: back to created Eden, forward to re-created and glorified Eden; God's revelation parallels this—it keeps reworking the patterns of earlier revelation and redemption and progresses them.

在这一点上，最基本的莫过于上帝的陈述如何带出上帝的命令。这是圣经基本的文法。在这种意义上，恩典总是生出义务、本分和律法。这就是主耶稣祂自己非常刻意强调，爱祂就要遵守诫命的原因。[31]

Nothing is more fundamental to this than the way in which divine indicatives give rise to divine imperatives. This is the Bible's underlying grammar. Grace, in this sense, always gives rise to obligation, duty, and law. This is why the Lord Jesus himself was at pains to stress that love for him is expressed by commandment keeping.31

确实，新约圣经教导我们关于爱的律法的事。爱是完全了律法。[32]确实，“全律法都包在‘爱人如己’这一句话之内了。”[33]但圣经从来没有说过爱取代了律法，这是有几个重要原因的。

It is true that the New Testament teaches us about the law of love. Love is the fulfilling of the law.32 Indeed, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"33 But love is never said to be a replacement for law in Scripture, for several important reasons.

第一个原因，就是爱是律法所命令的，律法所命令的，是爱所成全的。爱的律法不是新造出来的新约观念；它是庄严位居旧约信仰和生活的核心位置。它是以色列不断的认信：耶和华是独一的上帝，人当尽心爱祂。[34]

The first is that love is what law commands, and the commands are what love fulfills. The law of love is not a freshly minted, newcovenant idea; it is enshrined at the heart of old-covenant faith and life. It was to be Israel's constant confession: the Lord is one, and he is to be loved in a whole-souled manner.34

第二是那经常遭人忽视的原则：爱要求方向和行动原则。爱是动机，但爱并不是自我解释的方向。

The second is the often overlooked principle: love requires direction and principles of operation. Love is motivation, but it is not self-interpreting direction.

保罗在罗马书13:8–10对基督徒生活的解释讲到这重大原则，就是爱是完全了律法。但他对我们说明，他在这上下文中讲的“律法”是诫命，就是十诫。他引用了“爱人如己”的其中四条诫命（按他使用的希腊文旧约圣经译本申命记5:17–21讲的顺序），但是他并没有把这些具体的诫命（不可奸淫，不可杀人，不可偷盗，不可贪婪）孤立开来，而是继续加上“或有别的诫命”。[35]

Paul's exposition of the Christian life in Romans 13:8–10 involves the significant principle that love is the fulfilling of the law. But he spells out for us that the "law" he is talking about in this context is "the commandments"—that is, the Ten Commandments. He cites four of the "neighbor love" commandments (in the order in which they appeared in his Greek Old Testament at Deut. 5:17–21). But he does not isolate these particular commandments (adultery, murder, stealing, coveting); rather he goes on to include "any other commandment."35

诫命就像火车铁轨，圣灵浇灌把上帝的爱浇灌在人心里，这给人的生命加力，让这生命在铁轨上运行。爱给火车头加力，律法指引方向。爱和律法互相依存。爱能脱离律法运行，这种观念是是虚构的想象。它不仅是一种糟糕的神学，也是一种糟糕的心理学。它需要从律法借用眼睛才能让爱看得见。

Commandments are the railroad tracks on which the life empowered by the love of God poured into the heart by the Holy Spirit runs. Love empowers the engine; law guides the direction. They are mutually interdependent. The notion that love can operate apart from law is a figment of the imagination. It is not only bad theology; it is poor psychology. It has to borrow from law to give eyes to love.

大画面和更大的画面

The Big and the Bigger Picture

我们已经看了圣经大画面的不同方面。上帝在西乃山赐下律法，规范祂百姓与祂的关系（“信仰”或“礼仪”律），也规范他们彼此的社会关系（“民事”律）。后者是针对他们这些（1）得救赎脱离埃及的人，（2）在他们还生活在这片土地上的时候，（3）展望弥赛亚到来而颁布赐下的。

We have already considered various aspects of the Bible's big picture. At Sinai God's law was given to govern his people's relationship to him ("religious" or "ceremonial" law) and also their relationship to each other in society ("civil" law). The latter was intended for them as (1) a people redeemed from Egypt, (2) while they lived in the land, (3) with a view to the coming of the Messiah.

但有一幅更大的圣经画面，从西乃山既往后也向前扩展。

But there is a bigger Bible picture, which extends from Sinai both backward and forward.

出埃及本身是一种恢复，为的是让人把它看作是一种再创造。上帝把百姓安置在一种伊甸园中——“流奶与蜜之地”。在那里，就像在伊甸园，上帝向他们颁布命令，规范他们的生活，让他们荣耀上帝。[36]恩典与本分，特权与责任，陈述与命令，这些是当时的安排，让他们生活在上帝的面前，彼此相处。

The exodus was itself a restoration, intended to be seen as a kind of re-creation. The people were placed in a kind of Eden—a land "flowing with milk and honey." There, as in Eden, they were given commands to regulate their lives to the glory of God.36 Grace and duty, privilege and responsibility, indicative and imperative were the order of the day as they lived before God and with one another.

除此以外，或更精确地说，作为这些应用的根基，上帝向他们颁布十条诫命。它很简单，主要以否定的形式，在这土地新的处境当中，描述了那构成亚当原初生命的生活原则。

In addition to or, more accurately, as the foundation of these applications, God gave them the Decalogue. It was simply a transcript in largely negative form, set within a new context in the land, of the principles of life that had constituted Adam's original existence.

向前快进到加略山和圣灵降临。正如摩西登西乃山，把写在石板上的律法带下来，现在基督已经登上那座天上的山，但与摩西形成对比的是，祂已经把圣灵降下，圣灵不仅在石板上，也在我们的心板上重新写上律法。这是对伊甸园的重新校正，虽然是在人心里发生；这人从前是罪的奴仆，带着罪的印记，生活在一个仍在罪辖制之下的世界。现在通过依靠圣灵顺命遵守律法的基督内住，这能力是在人里面。现在这既为基督徒提供了动力，也供应了能力。这种加力在我们里面复制出主耶稣的情形，就是我们有能力说：“我何等爱慕祢的律法！”恩典和律法完美联系在一起。

Fast-forward to Calvary and the coming of the Spirit. As Moses ascended Mount Sinai and brought down the Law on tablets of stone, now Christ has ascended into the heavenly Mount, but in contrast to Moses, he has sent down the Spirit who rewrites the law not now merely on tablets of stone but in our hearts. There is a recalibration to Eden, albeit in the heart of a person formerly enslaved to sin, bearing its marks, and living in a world still under
 the dominion of sin. Now the empowerment is within, through the indwelling of Christ the obedient one, the law keeper, by the Spirit. This is what now provides both motivation and empowerment in the Christian. And this empowerment reduplicates in us what was true for the Lord Jesus—the ability to say, "Oh how I love your law!" Grace and law are perfectly correlated to one another.

就这样，在基督里，旧约律法中那临时的已经成为过去。在西乃山之前430年亚伯拉罕之约的应许，已经有一种国际应验。[37]现在西乃之约中凡为了（1）保守这群百姓，让他们在一片特定土地上成为一个民族，使他们与其他人有别，（2）通过礼仪和圣礼把他们指向基督的事情，都已不再对教会具有约束力。

Thus, in Christ, what was interim in Old Testament law becomes obsolete. There is an international fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, given 430 years before Sinai.37 Now whatever in the Sinaitic covenant was intended (1) to preserve and distinguish the people as a nation in a particular land, and (2) to point them to Christ by means of ceremonies and sacraments, has ceased to be binding on the church.

但同理，那表明上帝创造人目的的依然存在。人得恢复具有上帝的形象，这暗示了这一点。因为情况如此，基督徒就不可能是反律主义者，正如他不可能采纳这种观点，就是得救并不是在他的生命当中重新恢复上帝的形象。

But by the same token, what was the expression of God's created intention for man remains in place. Restoration to the image of God implies this. And since this is so, the Christian can no more be an antinomian than he can adopt the view that salvation is not the restoration of his life as the image of God.

因此对于《现代神学精华》和欣赏它的弟兄而言，写在人心上的律法，是作为创造恩典的一部分由上帝赐下。正如《现代神学精华》一书所说：

Thus for the Marrow and the Brethren who appreciated it, the law written in the heart was given as part of the grace of creation. As the Marrow expressed it:

亚当在园中，就像以色列在西乃山上听到同样的律法，只不过是用词较少，没有雷鸣而已。[38]

Adam heard as much (of the law) in the garden, as Israel did at Sinai; but only in fewer words, and without thunder.38

所有渐进启示都是之前启示的回响，并且推进了之前的启示。这遭人违反的律法，在西乃山上以一种具体的临时形式赐下。现在这同一律法写在我们心里，不是由创造恩典，也不是由西乃山的命令，而是由耶稣所流的血结出的果子。这所流的血成全了摩西律法的礼仪律，将它终结；这血标志这以色列作为上帝百姓当遵守的民事律的终曲，上帝的百姓现在进入一个新时代，成为一个全地的属灵国度，不再是保留在一片土地上的一个社会政治人群。

All progressive revelation echoes and advances prior revelation. This broken law was given in a specific interim formulation at Sinai. Now the same law is written in our hearts, the fruit not of creating grace, or of the commands of Sinai, but of the shed blood of Jesus. That shed blood brought Mosaic ceremonies to an end by fulfilling them; it marked the finale of the civil laws of Israel as God's people now entered a new epoch and became a spiritual nation in all lands, and no longer a socio-political people group preserved in one land.

因此，这就是主流改革宗圣经神学从不同角度对律法作用的看法。

This, then, seen from various angles, is how mainstream Reformed biblical theology saw the role of the law.

吊诡的是，今天人经常指责公认信条的陈述缺乏一种圣经神学视角，未能认识律法在救赎历史上的地位。但对此，威斯敏斯特大会的神学家肯定有资格回应说：“你读先知书，怎能说他们不明白这些区别？他们岂不是上帝的代言人，说：‘重要的不是献祭和燔祭，而是顺服吗？’这样他们岂不就是分辨出礼仪律和道德律的不同吗？”

Paradoxically, today it is often statements like those of the Confession of Faith that are accused of a lack of biblical-theological perspective, for failing to understand the place of the law in redemptive history. But to this the Westminster Divines would surely be entitled to respond, "But how can you read the prophets and say they did not understand these distinctions? Were they not the mouthpieces of God, saying: 'It is not sacrifice and burnt offering that come first, but obedience'? Did they not thereby distinguish ceremonial law from moral law?"

在此我们再次看到旧约圣经预言和旧约圣经律法之间的对应关系。先知预言基督要来拯救祂的百姓，但只有通过祂临在这棱镜看待祂降临的预言，整个真理才变得清晰起来。这些“统一”的预言，事实上总是展望祂国度分两阶段降临，第一阶段是道成肉身时，第二阶段是在完满时。律法也是如此，只有在基督的光照下，我们才能清楚看到它的各个层面。

Here again we see a parallel between Old Testament prophecy and Old Testament law. The prophets predicted the Christ who would come to save his people. But it was only when those prophecies of his coming passed through the prism of his presence that the whole truth became clear. These "unified" prophecies were in fact always looking forward to a two-stage coming of his kingdom, the first at the incarnation and the second at the consummation. So it is with the law: only in the light of Christ do we clearly see its dimensions.

耶稣基督完美体现了上帝的道德律，祂命令我们到祂这里来得安息（这说法充满了出埃及记的回响[39]）。祂也命令我们相信圣灵的大能，以此与祂联合，以至于当祂把祂（律法）的轭放在我们肩上时，我们可以听到祂说：“我的轭是容易的，我的担子是轻省的。”

As the perfect embodiment of the moral law of God, Jesus Christ bids us come to him and find rest (a term loaded with exodus echoes39). He also bids us be united to him through faith in the power of the Spirit, so that as he places his yoke (of law) on our shoulders we hear him say, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

因此我们是以弗所书2:15-16的基督徒：礼仪律已经成全了。

So we are Ephesians 2:15–16 Christians: the ceremonial law is fulfilled.

我们是歌罗西书2:14–17的基督徒：把犹太人和外邦人分别开来的民事律已经成全了。

We are Colossians 2:14–17 Christians: the civil law distinguishing Jew and Gentile is fulfilled.

我们是罗马书8:3–4的基督徒：道德律在基督里也成全了，但不是废去，我们靠着圣灵的大能生活时，这成全现在就在我们身上再现。[40]

And we are Romans 8:3–4 Christians: the moral law has also been fulfilled in Christ. But rather than being abrogated, that fulfillment is now repeated in us as we live in the power of the Spirit.40

那么在基督里，我们真的看到律法的总结。然而保罗也说：“这样，我们因信废了律法吗？断乎不是！更是坚固律法。”因为基督来，不是要废掉律法，乃是要成全，让律法也成全在我们身上。这就是使徒在罗马书13:8-10，以弗所书6:1和其他地方认定上帝的律法对信徒生活具有持久现实意义的原因。

In Christ then, we truly see the telos of the law. And yet as Paul also says, "Do we abrogate the law by teaching faith in Christ? No. We strengthen it. For Christ did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it, so that it might in turn be fulfilled in us." That is why in Romans 13:8–10, Ephesians 6:1, and in other places the apostle takes for granted the abiding relevance of the law of God for the life of the believer.

旧约圣徒知道，虽然他违反的律法定他为有罪，但律法礼仪律方面的预备把他指向赦罪之道。他既在预言，也在礼仪当中实在看到基督（却是模糊看到）。他也知道，看着日复一日、年复一年献上祭物，这重复意味着这些祭物不能完全和最终除罪，否则他就不再需要回到圣殿献祭了。他能爱慕律法，以律法作他生活的准则，这是因为他知道上帝为他违反律法作了预备，在它的礼仪律中指向救赎，通过诫命为他指明方向。

The Old Testament saint knew that while condemned by the law he had breached, its ceremonial provisions pointed him to the way of forgiveness. He saw Christ as really (if opaquely) in the ceremonies as he did in the prophecies. He also knew as he watched the sacrifices being offered day after day and year after year that this repetition meant these sacrifices could not fully and finally take away sin—otherwise he would not need to return to the temple precincts. He was able to love the law as his rule of life because he knew that God made provision for its breach, pointed to redemption in its ceremonies, and gave him direction through its commandments.

因此想到基督徒在律法当中看到基督，这不应让我们感到惊奇或难过。基督徒也看律法是生活的准则；确实，基督徒与加尔文一道看到，基督是律法的生命，因为没有基督，律法就没有生命。

It should not, therefore, surprise us or grieve us to think that the Christian sees Christ in the law. He or she also sees it as a rule of life; indeed, sees with Calvin that Christ is the life of the law because without Christ there is no life in the law.

只有完全定睛看基督的荣面，我们才能领会律法的清晰。但是当我们确实定睛看那里，我们看到的是那一位的荣面，祂曾说过：“我何等爱慕祢的律法，终日不住地思想。”[41]而我们心愿要像祂。

We appreciate the clarity of the law only when we gaze fully into Christ's face. But when we do gaze there, we see the face of one who said, "Oh how I love your law; it is my meditation all the day"41—and we want to be like him.

这并不像反律主义者惧怕的那样是捆绑。这是自由。因此基督徒以律法的深度为喜乐。在应用律法方面，他寻求圣灵指引，因他能与保罗一道说，在基督里，通过福音，他已成为一个“在律法以下”的人。[42]

This is not—as the antinomian feared—bondage. It is freedom. The Christian rejoices therefore in the law's depth. He seeks the Spirit's guidance for its application, because he can say with Paul that in Christ through the gospel he has become an "in-law."42

到头来，反律主义认为道德律不再具有约束力，这就不得不采取一种尴尬的立场。他必须认定，一位旧约信徒对律法的热心委身在本质上是一种形式的律法主义（奇怪的是，大多数基督徒因未能有这种委身而感觉亏欠）。但耶稣亲自解释律法的深意，用律法穿透人心，这就让人看到祂对律法的爱是更强烈。[43]

At the end of the day the antinomian who regards the moral law as no longer binding is forced into an uncomfortable position. He must hold that an Old Testament believer's passionate devotion to the law (of which devotion, curiously, the majority of Christians feel they fall short) was essentially a form of legalism. But it is Jesus himself who shows an even deeper intensity in the law by expounding its deep meaning and penetration into the heart.43

旧约信徒和救主都没有把上帝的律法与满有恩惠的祂自己割裂开来。凡父命令耶稣做的，祂都去做，这并不是律法主义。我们这样做，也不是律法主义。

Neither the Old Testament believer nor the Savior severed the law of God from his gracious person. It was not legalism for Jesus to do everything his Father commanded him. Nor is it for us.

两兄弟的故事

A Tale of Two Brothers

在某些方面，“现代神学精华”争论演化成了等候的父亲和他两个儿子这比喻的一个神学版本。

In some ways the Marrow Controversy resolved itself into a theological version of the parable of the waiting father and his two sons.

反律主义的浪子醒悟过来的时候，受到律法主义试探：“我要去作我父家里的奴仆，也许这可以在他眼前蒙恩。”但他沐浴在他父亲的恩典当中，得释放，可以自由作为一位顺命的儿子活着。

The antinomian prodigal when awakened was tempted to legalism: "I will go and be a slave in my father's house and thus perhaps gain grace in his eyes." But he was bathed in his father's grace and set free to live as an obedient son.

律法主义的哥哥从来没有尝到父亲恩典的滋味。因着他的律法主义，他从未能享受父亲家中各样的特权。

The legalistic older brother never tasted his father's grace. Because of his legalism he had never been able to enjoy the privileges of the father's house.

在他们中间站立着父亲，给这两位白白的恩典，对两人都不要求满足任何先决条件。大儿子若是接纳父亲，就会发现恩典让各样本分成为喜乐，融化他为奴的刚硬内心。情况若是这样，他那位曾经是反律主义的弟弟肯定会放下恐惧，像他父亲一样出来到他面前说：“向我们表明、赐给我们的恩典，难道不是全然奇妙吗？让我们活着，永远顺服我们恩慈父亲的各样心愿吧！”他们就会手挽着手去庆贺的聚会，翩翩起舞，儿子兄弟在一起，荣耀见证父亲的慈爱。

Between them stood the father offering free grace to both, without prior qualifications in either. Had the older brother embraced his father, he would have found grace that would make every duty a delight and dissolve the hardness of his servile heart. Had that been the case, his once antinomian brother would surely have felt free to come out to him as his father had done, and say: "Isn't the grace we have been shown and given simply amazing? Let us forevermore live in obedience to every wish of our gracious father!" And arm in arm they could have gone in to dance at the party, sons and brothers together, a glorious testimony to the father's love.

但当时不是这样。

哎呀，现在还不是这样。

然而这依然是真实的：

But it was not so.

It is still, alas, not so.

Yet this is still true:

如今那些在基督耶稣里的，就不定罪了。因为赐生命圣灵的律在基督耶稣里释放了我，使我脱离罪和死的律了。律法既因肉体软弱，有所不能行的，上帝就差遣自己的儿子成为罪身的形状，作了赎罪祭，在肉体中定了罪案，使律法的义成就在我们这不随从肉体，只随从圣灵的人身上。[44]

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.44

这邀请仍然有效：

你们一切干渴的

都当就近水来，

没有银钱的

也可以来。

你们都来，买了吃；

不用银钱，不用价值，

也来买酒和奶。

你们为何花钱买那不足为食物的，

用劳碌得来的买那不使人饱足的呢？

你们要留意听我的话，就能吃那美物，

得享肥甘，心中喜乐。[45]

And the invitation still stands:

Come, everyone who thirsts,

come to the waters;

and he who has no money,

come, buy and eat!

Come, buy wine and milk

without money and without price.

Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,

and your labor for that which does not satisfy?

Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,

and delight yourselves in rich food.45

完全和白白传讲基督，显为是律法主义和反律主义的内心捆绑得释放，圣灵把律法写在我们心里，我们与基督联合，就生出感恩顺服上帝——这仍是现代神学的精华所在。确实，对我们所有人来说，这就是福音的精华所在。事实如此，这是因为福音就是披戴福音义袍的基督祂自己。

This full and free offer of Christ, this dissolution of the heart bondage that evidences itself in both legalism and antinomianism, this gracious obedience to God to which our union with Christ gives rise as the Spirit writes the law into our hearts—this is still the marrow of modern divinity. Indeed it is the marrow of the gospel for us all. It is so because the gospel is Christ himself, clothed in its garments.

[1]虽然纯粹说明神学预设前提，这很重要，也是正当，但人并不总是全面和一贯活出他们预设前提的推论。很重要的，就是不要把一个人不相信的推论归在这人身上。这是论辩学作品常见的错误。但指出预设前提的逻辑推论，这仍然正当的做法。

[2]陶比斯·克里斯比（1600–1643）在伊顿公学和剑桥大学基督学院接受教育，成为牛津大学贝利奥尔学院研究员。他接受任命担任萨里郡纽因顿，后来维特特郡布林克沃斯的教区牧师。他在布林克沃斯似乎是一位向他会众委身的牧师。他于1643年因感染天花去世，很有可能是在殷勤探访病人时受传染。他的三卷讲道集很快就以《唯独基督得尊崇》为题发表。因着这些讲道的缘故，他的名字与约翰·绍马什（John Saltmarsh）和其他人联系在一起。克里斯比的编辑兰开斯特（Robert Lancaster）否认他是反律主义，但威斯敏斯特大会的神学家对此表示怀疑。司布真的一位前任约翰·吉尔是第一位为他写传记的人。

 [3]John Gill, "Memoirs of the Lifeof Tobias Crisp, D. D.," in Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, 3 vols.(London: John Bennett, 1832), 1:vi.

 [4]Benjamin Brook, Lives of thePuritans, 3 vols. (London, 1813), 2:473.

[5]Richard Baxter, Apology for ANonconformist Ministry (London, 1681), 226; emphasis added.

[6]拉福·厄斯金（1685–1782）是以便以谢·厄斯金（Ebenezer Erskine，1680–1754）的弟弟，在他们父亲的服侍之下，波士顿被带领来相信基督。1737年，他跟从哥哥加入由以便以谢和其他人在1733年成立的“协力长老会”（AssociatePresbytery）（但以便以谢直到1740年才被苏格兰教会正式免职）。两兄弟都属“代表人”（Representers），或神学精华争议运动的弟兄。他们新成立的宗派在1747年因“议员宣誓”（Burgess Oath）分裂，在这之后，一些成员离开前往美洲，成为协力改革宗长老会教会（Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church）一半的创始方（另一半是改革宗长老会人士（ReformedPresbyterians），或盟约派，他们也一样移民前往美洲）。拉福今天最出名的地方，是他写的福音十四行诗，这些十四行诗反映了他的习惯做法，就是在主日将尽，讲台讲道完毕，作为“缓缓结束”，把他的讲道主题变成诗句。

 [7]Edward Fisher, The Marrow of ModernDivinity (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2009), 221.

 [8]J. H. Thornwell, The CollectedWritings of James Henley Thornwell, 4 vols. (1871–1873; repr. Edinburgh: Bannerof Truth, 1974), 2:386.

 [9]John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Lawand Gospel, ed. D. Kistler (1859; repr. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1999),223.

 [10]罗7:12, 14。

 [11]罗8:4。

 [12]林前9:21（ennomos Christou）。

 [13]See above, pp. 125–28.

 [14]Ralph Erskine, Gospel Sonnets orSpiritual Songs (Edinburgh: John Pryde, 1870), 288–89.

 [15]Ibid., 296.

 [16]牛顿和考柏在这里加上脚注，让人去看罗马书3:31 。

 [17]太5:17–48; 加3:19; 提前1:8。

 [18] 林后3:7, 9。

 [19]  罗6:14;7:4。

 [20]这一点带出了一个更大问题，就是圣经文本及其词汇，与我们基督教信仰阐述之间关系的问题。一个说明的例子，就是三位一体这术语。只是到了特土良的时候（160-约225年），人才使用三位一体这说法。不仅保罗没有使用这术语，而且它在他的词汇中也是不存在的。但他有这概念吗？如果我们这样定义这概念：“三位一体指的是上帝是一个本体，有三个位格，”那么似乎保罗的思维并没有如此精准形成这概念。但这是否意味着保罗不相信三位一体？正相反，他的书信充满后来形成的这教义的实质。随意阅读他的书信，着眼观察他何等经常把三位一体各个位格的作为结合起来，就非常清楚说明了这一点。

 [21]C. E. B. Cranfield, "St. Pauland the Law," Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (March 1964): 55. 这篇文章大部分作为附录的一部分("Essay II") ，收录于C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1979), 2:845–62. 克莱菲尔德在他的罗马书注释中写到，保罗“在澄清基督徒对律法的立场方面，工作肯定受到极大拦阻”（p. 853）。这可能并不是对此情形最恰当的说明，但中心要点依然是有道理的：保罗不得不使用他可运用的更广义词汇，说明他缺乏词汇表达的一个精确概念。

 [22]John Calvin, Institutes of theChristian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles, ed. J. T. McNeill (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1960), 2.7.2. 克莱菲尔德在他的释经书中指出，他认为在他1964的文章发表之前，他的要点在文字方面并没有得到人的关注。从语言和释经方面看，情况很有可能确实如此。但显然在神学方面，这一点的牵涉影响是许多神学家认识到的，正如加尔文指出，正确细微解读圣经，这很重要。

 [23]罗7:12。请留意在这上下文中，保罗如何继续解释，如果我们把本应归给罪的责任（罗7:13）归给律法，我们就是看不到律法动工的动态关系。

[24]罗7:22。

 [25]约7:39。显然约翰认识到，在耶稣死复活升天之前，人就有圣灵的同在和大能：约1:32; 3:5–8, 34; 6:63。

 [26]约1:17。

 [27]他们这样做，是因为耶利米书 31:31–33已经实现。

[28]罗7:14。

[29]罗7:22。

 [30]罗8:29; 林后3:18; 弗4:22–24; 西3:9–10; 约一3:2。

 [31]约13:34; 14:23–24; 15:10, 12, 14, 17。

[32]罗13:10。

[33]加5:14。

 [34]申6:5–6。

 [35]罗13:9。

 [36]帐幕和圣殿也反映了伊甸园。

 [37]加3:17。

[38]Fisher, Marrow, 54. 请留意，西乃山和伊甸园不存在着绝对等同关系，但两者有一种真实的延续性，扎根在这观念之上，就是上帝总是呼召有祂形象的人反映出这形象；但神呼召人在其所处的“四种状态”：创造、堕落、重生或荣耀的任何一种当中，按不同的条件反映这形象。

[39]见：出33:14; 申12:9; 书1:13, 15; 赛 63:4。

 [40]这里应当指出，新约圣经把字句与圣灵作对比，但从来没有把道德律的实质与圣灵作对比。

 [41]诗119:97。

 [42]再一次，这原则就是他通过与基督结婚，是“在律法之下”。人在这里可以想到的例子，就是高尔夫球手从来就不把由美国高尔夫球协会以及圣安德鲁斯皇家古代高尔夫俱乐部权威发布的高尔夫球守则看作是“律法主义”。成为一位“反律”的高尔夫球手，忽略规则，就会让他失去比赛资格。很有意思的是，高尔夫球的管理机构发表了一份厚得惊人的指引，详细说明规则在球场每一种可以想象得到的处境当中如何运用——其中一些处境实际上是难以想象的！这些规则，连同详细的应用，目的是提升对这种运动的享受。我的这一份（2010-2011版）有578页，附录又占据了另外131页篇幅。高尔夫球爱好者浏览这些高尔夫球规则应用，会发现这极其有趣，让他高兴，甚至喜乐。因此旧约信徒默想上帝的律法，行在上帝律法的道路当中，他们的喜乐大得多，程度更高，这绝非是他们绞尽脑汁牵强想象出来的感受。在基督徒当中，居然有人如此经常心里懊恼，反对我们应常常以上帝的律法为乐这观念，这真是比古怪更古怪。从马丁路德开始，我们的先辈就把握住了这原则，结果就是经历一个个世代，使用标准化要理问答的人，学会了如何把上帝的道和律法应用在生活日常的细节当中。充满奥秘的吊诡，就是一些基督徒对于他们本职必然要有、必然要求的规则和原则如此着迷，在回应上帝十条基本原则时却精神暴躁。肯定的是，说“我何等爱慕祢的律法”，这是更好。上帝的律法在福音派运动中日渐衰微，大量神秘主义的方法兴起，教导人如何寻求上帝的指引，把认识上帝的旨意与认识和顺服上帝的话语分开，这两者之间存在着一种相互关系，这就不应让人感到惊奇了。

[43]太5:17–48。

 [44]罗8:1–4。

 [45]赛55:1–2。