聖靈恩賜都到哪裏去了？——為神蹟終止論辯護Where Have All the Spiritual Gifts Gone?A Defense of Cessationism
作者：葛富恩（Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.）譯者：駱鴻銘
原載：《當代宗教改革》雜誌2001年，9/10月號，總第十卷，第5期，20-24頁）獲授權翻譯
「神蹟終止論」（Cessationism）這個詞，背負了許多的包袱。它本身是負面的，說明一件不再存在的事，或者是在當前關於聖靈恩賜的辯論中，我們所反對的事 。因此，在一開始，必須討論對於「神蹟終止論者」之觀點的一些錯誤認識。
Cessationism
is a term that carries a lot of baggage. By itself it's negative, suggesting
what no longer exists or, in current debate about the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
what one is against. So at the outset, certain misconceptions about the
"cessationist" viewpoint need to be addressed.
神蹟終止論不是說神的靈，在今天不再以大能的、令人驚奇的方式作工。例如，聖靈使一個死在罪中的人活過來，帶來180度的轉變，行走在上帝的道路，熱心善工；有什麼比這事更偉大、更令人印象深刻，或更神奇呢？正如保羅所說，這涉及到復活的工作，一個（重新）創造的工作（弗二1～10）。這的確非常偉大，令人敬畏！
It's
not that today God's Spirit is no longer at work in dynamic and dramatic ways.
What, for instance, could be more powerful and impressive, even miraculous,
than the 180-degree reversal in walk that occurs when the Spirit transforms
those dead in their sins into those alive for good works? This, Paul says,
involves nothing less than a work of resurrection, of (re-) creation (Eph.
2:1-10). Awesome indeed!
神蹟終止論也不是說所有的聖靈恩賜在今日的教會中已經終止，不再存在了。在稍後會變得清楚的是，我們所討論的，只是聖靈恩賜其中的幾個；我們並不否認絕大部分的聖靈恩賜今天仍然繼續存在。
Nor
is the point that all spiritual gifts have ceased and are no longer present in
the Church today. As will become clear, at issue is the cessation of a limited
number of such gifts; the continuation of the large remainder is not in
dispute.
有時候有人對我說，「你是把聖靈鎖在一個箱子裏。」我想到的回答至少有兩點。首先，我會將人這樣的反應謹記在心。在我們從事神學的過程中，任何不當地限制對聖靈工作的期待，都是危險的事。我們絕不可忽略主耶穌在約翰福音三章8節所提到的那無法估算的因素（如同一陣無法預測的風）。任何健全的對聖靈工作的解釋都有一個記號，就是它認知到有些聖靈的工作是我們無法預料的，屬於聖靈奧秘的領域。 其次，聖靈自己「在聖經中說話」（如同威敏思特信仰告白在第一章第10條所說），意思是聖靈把祂自己的活動，放在「一個箱子」裏——或者說，就是按祂自己的主權所作成的一個箱子。聖經讓我們認識的不是一個全然奇怪善變的聖靈。聖靈的確充滿活力熱情，但是，祂也是有秩序的、安靜的靈（林前十四33、40。注意，特別是在屬靈的恩賜上）。一個對教會持續的挑戰是尋求並竭力持守這個滿有秩序的熱力，或者說，有聖靈熱力注入的秩序（ardor-infused order
of the Spirit）。
People
sometimes tell me, "You're putting the Holy Spirit in a box." In
response at least two things come to mind. First, I take this response to
heart. Unduly limiting our expectations of the Spirit's work by our
theologizing is by no means an imaginary danger. We may never lose sight of the
incalculability factor noted by Jesus in John 3:8 (like an unpredictable wind).
A mark of any sound doctrine of the Spirit's work is that it will be content
with an unaccounted for remainder, an area of mystery. Secondly, however, the
Spirit himself, "speaking in the Scripture" (Westminster Confession
of Faith, 1:10), as I will try to show, puts his activity "in a box,"
if you will, a box of his own sovereign making. The Bible knows nothing of a
pure whimsy of the Spirit. The Spirit is indeed the Spirit of ardor but also,
and no less, the Spirit of order (1 Cor. 14: 33, 40-note, particularly in the
matter of spiritual gifts). A perennial challenge to the Church is to seek and
see maintained this ordered ardor or, if you prefer, ardor-infused order of the
Spirit.
使徒根基的安放
Apostolic
Foundation Laying
根據尼西亞信經，「聖而公」的教會，也是一個「使徒性」的教會。這是什麼意思呢？什麼是教會的「使徒性」（apostolicity）？在聖靈恩賜的終止上，按聖經回答這個問題，是第一個重要的步驟。在這裏，我們的焦點會放在今天最有爭議的，一些恩賜的終止的問題，即說預言（譯按：或譯為先知講道。按Gaffin 在《聖靈降臨剖析》一書[66頁]中所定義的，先知講道[說預言]基本上不是解釋一些已存的默示的原文或口述的傳統，它本身就是神直接默示的話語。）和方言。
According
to the Nicene Creed, the "one holy catholic" Church is also
"apostolic." What does that mean? What constitutes the apostolicity
of the Church? Answering that question biblically is the important first step
in the case for the cessation of certain gifts of the Spirit. Here the focus
will be on those gifts whose cessation is perhaps most contested today, namely
prophecy and tongues.
在以弗所書第二章的下半（11～22節），保羅如同他在聖經中其他的著作一樣，在這個議題上，盡可能全面地給新約教會提供了一個展望。他使用了一個最受喜愛的教會的比喻（參照彼前二4～8），即單一的教會，如今由外邦人和猶太人所組成的教會，是最偉大的建造計劃；它是神這位建築大師，在基督高升和祂再來的這段期間內所建造的。保羅說，教會是「神家裏的人，被建造在使徒和先知的根基上，有基督耶穌自己為房角石」（19～20節）。
In
the latter half of Ephesians 2 (vv. 11-22), Paul provides as comprehensive an
outlook on the New Testament Church as anywhere in his writings or, for that
matter, the rest of Scripture. Using a favorite biblical metaphor for the
Church (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-8), the one Church, composed now of Gentiles as well as
Jews, is the great house-building project that God, the master
architect-builder, is at work on in the period between Christ's exaltation and
return. The Church is, Paul says, "God's household, built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief
cornerstone" (vv. 19-20).
在這段敍述中，有兩個緊密相關的意見值得我們注意。首先，這個根基已經完成了；這是在歷史中已經完成的實體。當一位建築師知道他所作的是什麼（在這件事上，我們當然假設神的確是如此！），當然會在工程的一開始就安放這棟建築的基石，而不需要重複地安放。在安放基石之後，上層建築（superstructure）就可以在這個基礎上繼續進行，直到完成這個建築。從我們今天這個有利的地位來看，我們是在這個上層建築的期間；基石已經安放好了，那是過去已完成的事。
Two
considerations, closely related, are noteworthy in this description. First, the
foundation in view is finished; it is a historically completed entity. When a
builder knows what he's doing (as we may assume God does in this instance!) the
foundation is poured once at the beginning of the project; it doesn't need to
be repeatedly relaid. The foundation's completion is followed by the ongoing
work of building the superstructure on that foundation, until the building's
completion. From our vantage point today, we are in the period of the superstructure;
laying the foundation is done, a thing of the past.
其次，如果我們考慮到在這段描述中，使徒和先知如何與基督一起，同為教會的根基，這個結論就會得到加強。因基督在祂的救恩工作中，已經使得在祂裏面的人，和祂一樣，被釘十字架，且已經復活，「因為那已經立好的根基就是耶穌基督，此外沒有人能立別的根基。」（林前三11；比較十五3～4）。但是使徒也是那根基的一部分。這不是因為基督的救恩工作不夠完全，而是因為他們的見證，是升天的基督親自授權的，具有完全的啟示性（例如，徒一22；加一1；帖前二13）。使徒在救贖歷史上的這個獨特角色，在以弗所書二20中被顯明出來。神啟示的話語的焦點是在救贖的作為上——此關聯性，是救贖歷史在整個展開過程中的標記，而此救贖歷史要在基督裏圓滿完成（來一1～2節上）——其情勢是這樣的：基督根基性的工作，即祂一勞永逸且已經完成的工作上，又加上了使徒對此工作的根基性的見證之工；而此見證的工作也同樣是一勞永逸，而且已經完成了。新約正典就是在這種環境中孕育出來的。
This
conclusion is reinforced, secondly, by considering exactly how, in this
description, the apostles and prophets, along with Christ, are the Church's
foundation. For Christ that plainly consists in his saving work, in whom he is
as crucified and resurrected; "no one can lay any foundation other than
the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11; cf. 15:3-4).
But the apostles also belong to the foundation. That is so not because the
saving work of Christ is somehow incomplete but because of their witness, a
witness, authorized by the exalted Christ himself, which is fully revelatory
(e.g., Acts 1:22; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:13). This unique redemptive-historical
role of the apostles comes to light in Ephesians 2:20. As revelatory word
focuses on redemptive deed-a correlation that marks the history of salvation
throughout its unfolding to its consummation in Christ (Heb. 1:1-2a) -the
situation is this: to the foundational work of Christ, that is, his
once-for-all and finished work, is joined the foundational apostolic witness to
that work, likewise once-for-all and finished. Indicated here is the matrix for
the eventual emergence of the New Testament canon.
如此，以弗所書二章20節乃是指向使徒在教會生命中所扮演的一個暫時的、非延續的角色。他們的地位只在教會歷史的奠基階段。他們的作用是為基督所完成的工作，在救恩歷史的最後成全上，提供一個啟示性的、無謬誤的、滿有權威的、正典性的見證。這個功能並不屬於隨後的上層建築階段，而是提供此上層建築一個完成的基礎，使它能繼續被建造，安然站立。
Ephesians
2:20, then, points to the temporary, noncontinuing role of the apostles in the
life of the Church. Their place was in the foundational era of the Church's
history. Their function was to provide revelatory, infallibly authoritative,
canonical witness to the consummation of salvation history in Christ's finished
work. That function does not belong to the superstructure period to follow but
provides the completed basis on which that superstructure, as it continues to be
built, rests.
新約教導中有幾條線索證實了使徒這種暫時性的角色：使徒們必備的一項工作是在基督升天前為祂做親眼、親耳的見證（徒一21～26）。在林前十五章7～9節，保羅認為他特殊地滿足了這個要求（見九1），伴隨著這點，這段話最好的解釋就是：保羅的意思是說，他是最後的一個使徒。教牧書信所關心的，主要在於使徒在為未來教會在後使徒階段作預備。有兩封信是寫給提摩太的，他是保羅在新約中最看重的人，甚於其他人，保羅將提摩太視為他個人的接班人。然而，保羅從來沒有稱他為使徒。「使徒統緒」（Apostolic
succession），從個人的角度來看，因救贖歷史的理由所已經提到的，是個互相矛盾的語詞。教會的使徒性不是由使徒職分之未曾間斷的統緒（此統緒可以一直追溯到使徒）來鞏固的，而是靠著不斷把持、並維護他們記在聖經中的見證或傳統（帖後二15）來保證的。
Several
lines of New Testament teaching confirm the temporary role of the apostolate:
One job prerequisite was to have been an eye and ear witness of Christ prior to
his ascension (Acts 1:21-26). In 1 Corinthians 15:7-9 Paul sees this
requirement being met in his case by an exception (see 9:1), and along with
that, he is best understood here as saying that he is the last of the apostles.
The Pastoral Epistles are largely concerned with making apostolic preparation
for the post-apostolic future of the Church beyond. Two of these letters are
addressed to Timothy, viewed by Paul, more than anyone else in the New
Testament, as his personal successor. Yet Paul never calls him an apostle.
"Apostolic succession" in a personal sense, for the
redemptive-historical rationale already noted is a contradiction in terms. The
apostolicity of the Church is not secured by an unbroken succession of
officeholders that can be traced back to the apostles but by the uninterrupted
possession and maintenance of their witness or tradition (2 Thess. 2:15),
inscripturated in the New Testament.
注意在當前關於聖靈恩賜的爭辯中，許多在靈恩運動中的人（但也許不是絕大多數的五旬節派人士）同意，「使徒」——即按此觀點來看的，基督賜給教會的「第一個」恩賜（林前十二28；弗四11），如十二使徒和保羅——在今日的教會中已經不存在了。從這個觀點來看，至少，無論他們是否在意這樣去思考，今天靈恩派中絕大多數的人，也實際上就是「神蹟終止論者」。如此，任何人，只要他承認使徒之暫時性的本質，在新約其他教導的亮光下需要想通的，是這個神蹟終止論者的基本立場所帶來的進一步的涵義。
Notice
that in the current debate about spiritual gifts many in the charismatic
movement (but probably not most Pentecostals) agree that apostles-in the sense
of those who are "first" among the gifts given to the Church (1 Cor.
12:28; Eph. 4:11), like the 12 and Paul-are not present in the Church today. In
that respect, at least, whether or not they care to think of themselves as
such, the large majority of today's charismatics are in fact
"cessationists." Anyone, then, who recognizes the temporary nature of
the apostolate, needs to think through, in the light of other New Testament
teaching, what further implications this basic cessationist position may carry.
以弗所書二章20節本身包含了這樣的一個意涵，而且是一個重要的意涵。與使徒一樣，「先知」也扮演了根基性的角色。那麼，誰是這些先知呢？當然不是像一些人所認為的是指舊約的先知。反對的理由是這節經文中字詞的順序：「使徒與先知」（不是「先知與使徒」）；保羅的意思不是說這個根基是由來自舊約與新約的見證所組成的。更重要的，就在幾句經文之後，而且幾乎是按照同樣的順序，這裏所說的先知是屬於新的聖約的「如今」。相對於過去聖約歷史中的「以前的世代」（三5）。
Ephesians
2:20 itself includes one such implication-and an important one at that. Along
with the apostles the prophets have a foundational role. Who are these
prophets? Surely not the Old Testament prophets, as some hold. What works
against that view is the word order, "apostles and prophets" (not
"prophets and apostles"); Paul's point is not that the foundation is
composed of witnesses from the old as well as the new covenant. More
importantly, just a few verses later and in almost identical wording, the
prophets in view are said to belong to the "now" of the new covenant,
in contrast to the "other generations" of past covenant history (3:5).
這裏的這些先知，也不是如同有些人在最近所主張的，就是指使徒（「同時是先知的使徒」）。因為第20節中希臘文的句法，以及考慮到在這段經文上下之外，保羅再一次提到使徒和先知（四11，「有使徒，有先知」），這個看法是很難成立的。以弗所書二章20節使我們下此結論，即說預言是個暫時的恩賜，是為教會根基性的時期所賜下的，因此，新約的先知和使徒一樣，在教會今日的生活中，已經不再存在了。
Nor
are the prophets here identical to the apostles ("the apostles who are
also prophets"), as some have argued more recently. Because of the syntax
of the Greek text of verse 20 and in view of Paul's next reference to apostles
and prophets beyond this context (4:11: "some to be apostles, some to be
prophets"), this view is hardly plausible. Ephesians 2:20 points us to
conclude that prophecy was a temporary gift, for the foundational period of the
Church, and so that New Testament prophets, along with the apostles, are no
longer a present part of its life.
說預言比說方言更重要
Prophecy's
Superiority to Tongues
哥林多前書十四章比任何新約的其他經文更仔細地處理了說預言（和合本譯為：先知講道）和說方言的問題。快速瀏覽就會發現，說預言和方言的對比，像是骨幹，從2～3節起，貫穿全章，直到在39節達到高潮。這裏的論點所關注的，主要是說明說預言比說方言要來得重要，或更好。說預言比說方言為「強」（greater），是因為（正如語言是人可以明白的）說預言可以造就教會，而說方言（其他人無法明白）卻不能造就教會。不過，其附加的條件是，方言只要有翻譯，就與預言是相當的，可以造就他人（4～5節）。方言如果沒有翻譯，在預言面前就黯然失色了，而如果有翻譯，說方言在功能上就與說預言等同。說預言和說方言之間，有一個很緊密的關聯。我們甚至可以很公平地說，方言如果能翻譯，也被人翻譯出來（13、27節），就是說預言的一種方式（mode）。
First
Corinthians 14 deals with prophecy and tongues in far more detail than any
other New Testament passage. As a quick perusal will show, a contrast between
prophecy and tongues, like a backbone, structures the entire chapter, beginning
in verses 2-3, continuing throughout and culminating in verse 39. The broad
concern of this argumentation is to show the relative superiority or
preferability of prophecy to tongues. Prophecy is "greater," because
(as speech intelligible to others) it edifies the Church, while tongues
(unintelligible to others) do not. The immediate proviso, however, is that
tongues, when interpreted, are on a par with prophecy for edifying others (vv.
4-5). Tongues, when uninterpreted, are eclipsed by prophecy, while interpreted
tongues are functionally equivalent to prophecy. A close tie exists between
prophecy and tongues. We may even say fairly that tongues, as interpretable and
to be interpreted (vv. 13, 27), are a mode of prophecy.
這兩個恩賜所共同具有的，以及使它們有所區別的，是它們都是「話語」的恩賜（word gifts）。具體來說，兩者都是「啟示」（both are revelation）。兩者都在根本的、原始的、非派生性（nonderivative）的意義上，把神的話帶給教會。39節明確地說，說預言是啟示；這點在其他考量下，從新約中僅存的一些說預言的例子，即如亞迦布的例子（見徒十一27～28，和廿一10～11），以及啟示錄中的例子（見一1～3），也是很清楚的。
What
these two gifts have in common and what makes them contrastable in this way is
that both are word gifts. Specifically, both are revelation. Both bring to the
Church God's Word, in the primary, original, nonderivative sense. That prophecy
is revelation is explicit in verse 30 and also clear, among other
considerations, from the only instances of prophecy existing in the New
Testament, those of Agabus (see Acts 11:27-28 and 21:10-11) and the book of
Revelation (see 1:1-3).
從14～18節來看，方言是啟示，是很清楚的；它們是受默示的語言，是最直接、近乎於沒有媒介的一種語言。在它實際的運用上，這個恩賜完全避開「心智」（mind），即說話者的智力在所說出來的話上，完全沒有作用。言語的能力及官能，完全被聖靈所取代，使得所說出來的話就任何意義來說，完全不是來自說話者。另外，「奧秘」（第2節），作為其內容的表明，證實了這個理解：方言具有完全的啟示性（以及其與說預言的關聯，見十三2）。在新約其他地方，至少沒有任何清楚的例外，方言這個詞總是指啟示，更具體來說，是救贖歷史內容的啟示（例如，太十三11；羅十六25～26；提前三16）。
That
tongues are revelation is plain from verses 14-19; they are inspired speech of
the most immediate, indeed virtually unmediated kind. In its exercise the gift
completely bypasses the "mind," in the sense that the intellect of
the speaker does not function in the production of what is said. Speech
capacity and organs are so taken over by the Holy Spirit that the words spoken
are not the speaker's in any sense. Also, "mysteries" (v. 2), as an
indication of their content, confirms this fully revelatory understanding of
tongues (as well as the link with prophecy, see 13:2). Elsewhere in the New
Testament, at least without any clear exceptions, this word always refers to
revelation, more specifically, the redemptive-historical content of revelation
(e.g., Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16).
如此，從這些最相關且最關鍵的經文，所得出之關於預言與方言終止的論證，其基本的思路如下：按照神所設計的，使徒和先知在教會歷史中有一個暫時的作用，但不會超過其奠基的時期。這個教會-神的家之救贖歷史的「設計」（specs），是這樣的：它們不是永久的設施（弗二20），因此，說方言和說預言也不是永遠綁定在一起的（林前十四章）。他們也在使徒與先知（以及其他帶來神的話的方式）消逝之後，淡出教會的生命之外。
From
those passages that are most pertinent and decisive, then, the basic thread of
the argument for the cessation of prophecy and tongues is this: By divine
design, apostles and prophets have a temporary role in the Church's history and
do not continue beyond its foundational era. The redemptive-historical
"specs" of the church-house are such that they are not permanent
fixtures (Eph. 2:20), and so neither are tongues, tied, as we have seen they
were, to prophecy (1 Cor. 14). They, too, pass out of the life of the Church,
along with the passing of the apostles and prophets (and other means of
bringing God's Word).
林前十三章怎麼說呢？
What
About 1 Corinthians 13?
林前十三8～13，讓支持預言與方言並未終止的人感到十分確定，他們的觀點乃是合乎聖經的。對他們而言，這是 「逮到你了」（gotcha）的一段經文，只要靠這段經文，就可以擺平這個議題。但是這段經文並不如他們所認為的那麼清楚。
Noncessationists
on prophecy and tongues feel most secure in their view biblically at 1
Corinthians 13:8-13. For them this is a "gotcha" text that by itself
settles the issue. But this passage is not as unambiguous as they believe.
基本上，這段經文是把現在的知識和未來的知識加以對比。當基督再來，那「完全的」知識臨到時（10節），現在的知識與未來那完全的、「面對面」的、屬於我們的知識（12節）相比，就是有限的，而且是模糊不清的（8、9節）。基於對這點的強調，即我們現在的知識只有不完全的性質，這個知識的特定媒介（譯按：即使徒和先知）也是附帶的（incidental）。說預言和方言在更大的背景中（十二～十四章），有關於它們的使用，無疑地是被保羅挑選出來，賦予教牧的關懷；至於它們何時終止，就不是保羅在這裏所關心的。要從第10節堅持相反的意見（譯按：即認為現在就可以擁有「完全的」知識）是毫無根據的。他強調的毋寧是我們當前的、模糊的知識，在基督再來之前仍舊會持續——無論這個知識是來自何種啟示的媒介（其含義甚至包括道成文字）以及無論他們何時會停止。
Primary
is a comparison between the believer's present and future knowledge. Present
knowledge is partial and obscured (vv. 8-9) in contrast to full,
"face-to-face" knowledge that will be ours (v. 12) with the arrival
of "the perfect" knowledge (v. 10), at Christ's return. With this
accent on the partial quality of our present knowledge, the particular media of
that knowledge are incidental. Prophecy and tongues are no doubt singled out
given Paul's pastoral concern, within the wider context (chapters 12-14), with
their proper exercise. But the time of their cessation is not a concern he has
here. To insist on the contrary from verse 10 is gratuitous. His stress,
rather, is on the duration, until Christ returns, of our present, opaque
knowledge-by whatever revelatory means that knowledge may come (including, by
implication, even inscripturation) and whenever they may cease.
以弗所書四11～13也加強了這個解讀，那裏說到升天的基督「所賜的，有使徒，有先知……直等到我們眾人在真道上同歸於一……得以長大成人，滿有基督長成的身量。」我們幾乎可以確定，13節中所說的「同歸於一」（unity）或「完滿」（fullness），與林前十三10（也許也在呼應四13所使用的「完全」）所說的「那完全的」（the perfect）是在同一個狀態下，即基督再來所帶來的局面。基於這個假設，正如非神蹟終止論者對以弗所書第四章的解讀，也堅持林前十三章必要如此解讀，給我們一個無可避免的結論就是仍然會有使徒，也同樣有先知（和方言），直到基督再來，或基督第二次的降臨。這是許多非神蹟終止論者（雖然不是全部）所拒絕的結論。
This
reading is reinforced in Ephesians 4:11-13, which says that the exalted Christ
"gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, ... until we all reach
unity in the faith ... and become mature [or, perfect] attaining to the whole
measure of the fullness of Christ." Almost certainly the "unity"
or "fullness" of verse 13 is the same state of affairs as "the
perfect" in 1 Corinthians 13:10 (echoed perhaps as well in the use of
"perfect" in Eph. 4:13), namely the situation brought by Christ's
return. On that assumption, Ephesians 4, read as noncessationists insist 1
Corinthians 13 must be read, leaves us with the unavoidable conclusion that
there will be apostles, as well as prophets (and tongues), until the Parousia,
or Second Coming of Christ, a conclusion that many (though not all)
noncessationists reject.
但是他們如何才能前後一致呢？就聖靈恩賜與終極目標的關聯而言，這段經文如何與林前十三8以下的經文有所不同？那些正確地承認到今天已經沒有使徒的非神蹟終止論者，就以弗所書二20和四11的角度來說，是無法兩者得兼的。如果這些經文是在教導，說預言/先知和說方言會一直持續直到基督再來，那麼，使徒也應該是這樣。對這兩段經文比較健全的解讀是承認，無論是說預言或說方言（或任何其他的恩賜）在基督再來之前都會終止，這兩段經文都沒有提到，反而是個開放性的問題，要由其他經文來解決。
But
how can they coherently? In terms of gifts related to the ultimate goal in
view, how is this passage any different than 1 Corinthians 13:8ff? Those
noncessationists who recognize, correctly, that there are no apostles today, in
the sense of Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, can't have it both ways. If these
passages teach that prophecy/prophets and tongues continue until the Parousia,
then so also do apostles. A sounder reading of both passages is to recognize
that whether prophecy or tongues (or any other gift) will cease before the
Parousia is not addressed by them but left an open question, to be settled from
other passages.
非神蹟終止論者需要面對一個難題。如果說預言和說方言，如果它們在新約時代的作用一樣，仍然持續到今天，那麼，非神蹟終止論者就要面對一個相當實際卻令人困擾的意涵，就是聖經不是充足的、來自上帝的話語啟示；正典最多只是相對封閉的。另一方面，如果如大多數非神蹟終止論者所堅持的，今天「說預言」和「說方言」都是非啟示性的，或不是完全的啟示，那麼，這些當代的現象就是用錯了名字，不是新約聖經所說的那些恩賜。非神蹟終止論者是陷在救贖歷史的時代錯亂中，想要在教會歷史的上層建築裏，尋找屬於根基時代的東西。他們被捲入一個矛盾的努力中，想要在封閉的新約正典中，與那些啟示性的恩賜的同在維持同步。殊不知，這些啟示性的恩賜，是為了正典還在開放的時期，也就是新約文件還在被寫下來的過程所預備的。
A
dilemma confronts noncessationists. If prophecy and tongues, as they function
in the New Testament, continue today, then the noncessationist is faced with
the quite practical and troublesome implication that Scripture alone is not a
sufficient verbal revelation from God; the canon is at best relatively closed.
Alternatively, if, as most noncessationists insist, "prophecy" and
"tongues" today are nonrevelatory or less than fully revelatory, then
these contemporary phenomena are misnamed and are something other than the New
Testament gifts. Noncessationists are caught in a redemptive-historical
anachronism, seeking within the superstructure of the Church's history what
belonged to its foundational era. They are involved in the contradictory effort
of trying to maintain along with a closed New Testament canon the presence of
those revelatory gifts that were for the open canon period when the New
Testament documents were in the process of being written.
說預言與說方言已經停止了。在基督再來前所留存的，至高並全然足夠而權威的，乃是「在聖經中說話的聖靈」（威敏思特信仰告白，第一章第10條）。
Prophecy
and tongues have ceased. What remains, supremely and solely sufficient and
authoritative until Jesus comes, is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scriptures" (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:10).
Issue:
"Prophecy and the Meaning of History: Why Word and Spirit Matter"
Sept./Oct. Vol. 10 No. 5 2001 Pages 20-24.
You
are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any
format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge
a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500
physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the
Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any
exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org).
Please
include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally
appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and
is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation,
visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.
