改革宗教會為何要為嬰兒施洗？Why Do Reformed ChurchesBaptize Infants?
摘编者：Shane Lems/Maria
Marta
改革宗教會為何要為嬰兒和成人施洗，有好幾個不同的聖經理由。伯克富（Louis
Berkhof ）、弗蘭西斯·圖倫丁（Francis Turretin）、查理斯•賀智（Charles Hodge）、約翰·加爾文（John Calvin）以及其他人都指出改革教會要為嬰兒和成人施洗的各種聖經理由。顯然還有更多圍繞此議題所展開的討論，但我很欣賞何頓（Michael Horton）的解釋：
「從聖約的角度看，不可能將信徒的孩子是聖潔的（林前七14）這個主張，與約的記號和印記分開。根據傳統重洗派/浸信會的觀點，兒童不能被視為聖潔，直到他們悔改和相信。不過新約保存潔靜/不潔的區分，只是現正它不是關乎猶太人和外邦人、受割禮和未受割禮，而是關乎信的家庭和不信的家庭，而洗禮是約的正式生效。事實上，保羅特別努力指出，所有的人——猶太人和外邦人、受割禮和未受割禮的——都是亞伯拉罕的子孫，都是唯獨籍著信心而成為亞伯拉罕之後嗣，正如亞伯拉罕一樣（羅四3和創十五6；參：加三～4章）。教會在基督裏使猶太人和外邦人合一時，被理解為以色列存在之應驗（太二十一43；羅九25～26；林後六16；多二14；彼前二9；加六16；啓五9）。一切都取決於我們在詮釋舊的聖經和新約聖經之間的關係時，最基本的假設是連貫性和不連貫性。由於新約聖經本身詮釋舊約聖經的方式，我們應該以連貫性為優先。」
「如果是這樣，證明的責任便由主張嬰兒施冼者轉到浸信會會友的身上。由於最初的基督徒的猶太背景，命令他們向兒女施行約的記號和印記，並不會讓他們感到驚訝，命令他們停止施行才會使他們感到驚訝。不過，我們不是只有訴諸默證。這個給信徒和他們孩子的應許，已經展示在呂底亞的歸信和冼禮之中。在她相信福音之後，『她和她一家領了洗』（徒十六15）。後來在同一章，我們讀到腓立比的禁卒歸信。保羅告訴他：『當信主耶穌，你和你一家都必得救。……他和屬乎他的人立時都受了冼』（31、33節）。保羅記得他替司提反一家施過洗（林前一16）。如果在舊約聖經的施行裏，兒童被包括在恩典之約以下，他們在新約的施行中，肯定也不會被排除在外，因為希伯來書的作者說，新約比舊的『更美』（來七22）。」
我重申，還有更多關於此議題的討論，但我很讚同何頓關於新舊約之間的連貫性的言論。 這些言論有助於我們認識，大約在二十個世紀之前使徒在世的時期，嬰兒已被納入聖約當中。 假如在新約時代嬰兒不再是聖約團體的一部分，人們就會期望一個非常明確的命令：現在要將信徒的孩子排除在外。相反，在新約聖經告訴我們，信徒的孩子是「聖潔」（分別為聖）的，並且這個應許屬於他們和他們的父母（林前七14; 徒二39）。 保羅告訴孩子要在主裡聽從父母（弗六1）。主耶穌親自接待孩子們，祝福他們，為他們祈禱，並說，「神的國正屬於這樣的人」（路十八16；《聖經新譯本》）。 因此，「為什麽教會拒絕張開雙臂歡迎那些基督已納入祂自己裏面的孩子呢？」 （弗蘭西斯·圖倫丁）
註：
第二、三段落摘錄自《基督徒的信仰：天路客的系統神學》The
Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way，801-802頁，邁克‧何頓（Michael Horton）著/麥種翻譯小組譯，美國麥種傳道會出版，2016 。
Why Do Reformed Churches
Baptize Infants? (Horton)
by
Reformed Reader
There
are several different biblical reasons why Reformed churches baptize both
infants and adults. Louis Berkhof,
Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, John Calvin, and others have pointed out the
various biblical reasons why Reformed churches baptize infants as well as
adults. There’s obviously more to the
discussion, but I appreciate how Michael Horton put it:
From
a covenantal perspective, it is impossible to separate the claim that the
children of believers are holy (1 Cor 7:14) from the sign and seal of the
covenant. According to the traditional
Anabaptist/Baptist view, the children are not regarded as holy until they
personally repent and believe. However,
the New Testament preserves the clean/unclean distinction, only now it pertains
not to Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, but to believing and
unbelieving families, with baptism as the covenant’s ratification. In fact, Paul especially labors the point
that all, Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, are Abraham’s children
and heirs of the Abrahamic covenant through faith alone, just like Abraham (Rom
4:3 with Gen. 15:6, Gal. 3-4). The
church, in its unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ, is understood as the
fulfillment of Israel’s existence (Mt 21:43; Rom 9:25-26, 2 Cor 6:16, Titus
2:14; 1 Pet 2:9, Gal 6:16; Rev. 5:9).
Everything turns on whether we assume continuity or discontinuity as
most fundamental to interpreting the relationship between the Old and New
Testaments. Given the way that the New Testament itself interprets the Old, we
should privilege continuity.
If
this is the case, then the burden of proof shifts from the paedobaptists (i.e.,
infant baptizers) to Baptists. Given the
Jewish background of the first Christians, it would not be the command to
administer the sign and seal of the covenant to their children that would have
been surprising, but the command to cease administering it to them. However, we are not left to an argument from
silence. This promise for believers and
their children is exhibited in the conversion and baptism of Lydia. After she believed the gospel, ‘she was
baptized, and her household as well’ (Acts 16:15). Later in the same chapter, we read of the
conversion of the Philippian jailer. He
too is told, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your
household…and he was baptized at once, he and all his family’ (vv 31, 33). Paul recalls having baptized the household of
Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). If children are
included in the covenant of grace under its Old Testament administration,
surely they are not excluded in the new covenant administration, which the
writer to the Hebrews calls ‘better’ than the old (Heb. 7:22).
Again,
there’s more to the discussion, but I appreciate Horton’s words on the
continuity between the Old and New Covenants.
It’s also helpful to realize that infants had been included in the
covenant for around twenty centuries before the apostles’ lived. If infants are no longer part of the covenant
community in the New Testament era, one would expect a very clear command to
now exclude children of believers.
Instead, in the New Testament we’re told that children of believers are
“holy” (set apart) and that the promise belongs to them as well as their
parents (1 Cor 7:14; Acts 2:39). Paul
tells children to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph. 6:1). Jesus himself welcomed little children,
blessed them, prayed over them, and said, the kingdom of God belongs to such as
these (Lk. 18:16 NASB). Therefore, “why
should the church refuse to welcome into her arms those whom Christ received
into his?” (Francis Turretin).
The
above quotes are found in Michael Horton, Christian Theology, p. 795-6. Emphasis his.
Shane
Lems
Covenant
Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond,
WI, 54015