士師記對教會有何教導？What Judges Teaches the Church

作者:  W. Robert Godfrey   譯者: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-judges-teaches-church/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/7fZhw9sSHRP

「那一代的人都歸到他們的列祖那裡以後，有另一代的人興起來了；他們不認識耶和華，也不知道耶和華為以色列人所行的事。」（士師記 2: 10）

出現這個局面似乎難以置信。約書亞之後僅過了一代人，以色列人就不再認識上帝了。怎麽可能發展到這個局面？

這個問題不僅對古代以色列人十分重要，對我們也同樣重要。教會也一代接一代地見證「突然衰落」。我們如何能理解和預防這種災難？

針對我們的問題，士師記提供了非常清晰的答案。它的答案沒有回答一般答案可能提及到的一切，但卻回答了具體、關鍵的事情，我們必須仔細思考這些事情，以明白以色列的景況和我們的弱點。

首先，士師記告诉我们，當以色列人從在上帝話語中因信得生，轉离到在世界的智慧和價值觀中憑眼見而活的時候，他們便陷入災難当中。如我們在士師記第二至第三章看到的，以色列人快速落入大罪和叛逆中：事奉雕像和巴力祭壇，與不敬拜上帝的人通婚。偶像崇拜和与異族通婚是約書亞一而再三警告以色列人的兩項大罪（書廿三6–13）。有充分的理由证明，這兩種罪相互關聯。一種罪引起，並加深另一種罪。

落入偶像崇拜和與異族通婚並非偶然發生，然而，這些大罪卻是以色列人較早時作出種種妥協的最終結果。在士師記開頭，以色列人忠心事奉上帝，但從第一章19節開始轉變，我們讀到：「耶和華與猶大同在，猶大就佔領了山地；但不能趕走平原的居民，因為他們有鐵車。」看來以色列人不是真的在攻打鐵車時被擊敗；相反，他們似乎一看見鐵車就決定不進攻。這決定似乎十分合理和恰當-------對憑眼見而活的人來說。鐵車是那個時代最強大的軍事武器。

然而，以色列被吩咐要在上帝的話語中因信得生。上帝的說話通過約書亞，臨到以色列人：「迦南人雖然擁有鐵車，勢力強大，你們也能把他們趕出去」（書十七18）。 在士師記後面的篇章，我們看到上帝是如何信守祂的應許，因為盡管迦南國王耶賓擁有九百輛鐵車，但底波拉和巴拉克卻能將他擊敗（士四3）。上帝的說話提醒祂的百姓，上帝「喜歡的不是馬的力大，他喜悅的不是人的腿快。耶和華喜悅敬畏他的人，喜悅仰望他慈愛的人。」（詩一四七10–11）

我們可以看到問題出在何處-------憑眼見而活，而非因信得生-------但這裏沒有告訴我們為何出了問題。為此，我們必須再次求助於約書亞記的說話：

約書亞對眾民說：「你們不能事奉耶和華，因為他是聖潔的　神；他是嫉妒的神，他必不赦免你們的過犯和罪惡。如果你們離棄耶和華，去事奉外族人的神，那麼在耶和華賜福給你們之後，他必轉而降禍與你們，把你們消滅。」(書廿四19–20)

現在你可能會說，且慢。假如以色列人不能事奉上帝，為何要向他們問責？在何種意義上他們不能事奉？約書亞說那些話是什麼意思？他的意思既不是指百姓個人未重生，所以他們不能事奉；也不是指他們未能完美地遵守律法，所以他們不能事奉。他似乎說以色列將沒有領袖-------沒有摩西，沒有約書亞，更沒認識他們的長老------因此他們不會在忠於上帝的聖言的環境中被帶領，被保守。

約書亞意識到上帝不會賜給他們另一個摩西或約書亞。祂將賜給他們士師，士師將是他們的拯救者（士二16）。但士師只是地方性和暫時性的領袖。上帝在士師記中以各種方式對以色列和我們所作的教訓是：人民需要一個好的，忠心的王。以色列的問題清楚明確：「在那些日子，以色列中沒有王，各人都行自己看為對的事。」（士十七6）。

以色列必須認識到他們需要一位王，進而渴望一位君王--------不是像列國那樣的國王，如治理他們的掃羅王，而是一個合上帝心意的人，也就是大衛。但即使大衛最終也不能保護和帶領上帝的百姓。他犯罪，他的家分裂，而且他死了。那麼誰是那位領袖-----完美、忠心、不朽的領袖？顯然，唯獨耶穌是這樣一位君王。

那麼，對教會存在的問題以及其問題有什麼解藥呢？怎樣一代接一代地保存上帝救恩的知識呢？按照上帝的聖言跟隨耶穌。教會未能這樣做，教會就會發現她們自己像以色列那樣，不能因信得生，而是憑眼見而活。但教會回轉歸向耶穌，跟隨忠心宣講上帝聖言的牧者，教會就會活在上帝的面前。士師記是一面鏡子，促使我們自問：「耶穌是我們的君王嗎？我們在上帝的話語中因信得生嗎？」如果答案是肯定的，那麼教會將會一代接一代的認識上帝。

本文原刊于Tabletalk雜誌。 

What Judges Teaches the Church

FROM Nathan W. Bingham

And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel. (Judg. 2:10)

It seems incredible that it could happen. Only a generation after Joshua, Israel no longer knew the Lord. How is such a development possible?

This is a very important question, not just for the ancient Israelites, but for us. Churches, too, have seen sudden decline from one generation to another. How can we understand and prevent this kind of calamity?

The book of Judges provides a very clear answer to our questions. Its answer does not say everything that might be said in general, but it does say specific, crucial things that we must ponder to understand both Israel’s situation and our vulnerability.

To begin with, Judges shows us that Israel descended into calamity when it moved away from living by faith in the Word of God to living by sight in the wisdom and values of the world. As we see in Judges 2–3, Israel rapidly descended into gross sin and disobedience, serving the statues and altars of the Baals and intermarrying with those who did not worship the Lord. Idolatry and intermarriage are the great sins against which Joshua warned Israel again and again (Josh. 23:6–13). And with good reason, for these two great sins are interconnected. The one leads to and reinforces the other.

This descent into idolatry and intermarriage did not just happen, however. These gross sins were the end results of various compromises that Israel had made earlier. Israel had served the Lord faithfully in the opening of the book of Judges, but that begins to change at Judges 1:19, where we read, “And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.” It does not appear that the Israelites actually fought against the chariots of iron and were defeated; rather, it seems that they saw the chariots of iron and decided not to fight. That decision seems very reasonable and proper—to a people living by sight. Chariots of iron were the most powerful military weapon of that time.

Israel, however, was called to live by faith in the Word of God. The Word of God had come to her through Joshua, who said, “For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong” (Josh. 17:18). Later in the book of Judges, we are shown how God kept His promise because Deborah and Barak were able to defeat Jabin, a king of the Canaanites, even though he had nine hundred chariots of iron (Judg. 4:3). The Word of God reminds God’s people that God’s “delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man, but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love” (Ps. 147:10–11).

We can see what went wrong—living by sight and not by faith—but that does not show us why things went wrong. For that, we must turn again to the words of Joshua:

But Joshua said to the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good.” (Josh. 24:19–20)

Now wait a moment, you may be saying. If Israel was not able, how were they accountable? In what sense were they not able? What did Joshua mean when he said those words? He did not mean that the people were individually unregenerate and so were unable. He did not mean that they would not be perfect in keeping the law and so would be unable. He seems to have said that they would be leaderless—having neither Moses, nor Joshua, nor the elders who knew them—and so would not be led and guarded in faithfulness to the Word of God.

Joshua was recognizing that God would not give them another Moses or Joshua. He would give them judges who would be for them saviors (Judg. 2:16). But these judges would be only regional and temporary leaders. The lesson that God was teaching Israel—and us—in a variety of ways in the book of Judges is that the people needed a good and faithful king. Israel’s problem was clear: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (17:6).

Israel had to learn its need for a king and in turn to yearn for a king—not a king like the nations as they would have in Saul, but a man after God’s own heart, namely, David. Yet even David could not protect and lead God’s people ultimately. He sinned, his house was divided, and he died. Who, then, is the leader—perfect, faithful, and undying—for God’s people? Obviously, only Jesus is such a king.

What is the antidote, then, for the church and its problems? What will preserve a saving knowledge of God from generation to generation? It is following King Jesus according to His Word. Where the church fails to do so, it will find itself, like Israel, unable to live by faith rather than sight. But where the church turns to Jesus and follows ministers who faithfully preach His Word, it will live before Him. The book of Judges is a mirror held up to the church that forces us to ask ourselves, “Is Jesus our king and do we live by faith in His Word?” If the answer is yes, the church from generation to generation will know the Lord.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

什麼是福音？What is the Gospel?

作者: R.C. Sproul  譯者/校對者:Maria Marta/誠之  

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-the-gospel/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/6zLZmgQGr58

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/iXEryRawxKo

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/KdwMJkemnhd

在我們應當聽到的信息中, 再沒有比我們稱之為「福音」更偉大的信息了。雖然這點很重要，但是福音信息往往被嚴重歪曲或被過度簡化。一般人以為當他們告訴你，「你可以找到你的人生目標」，或者「你可以找到你的人生意義」, 又或者「你可以和上帝建立個人/親密的關係」時, 他們就是在向你傳福音。他們提到的所有這些方面都是正確的，而且也都很重要，但是他們沒有抓到福音的核心。

福音被稱為「好消息」，因為它解決了人類如你和我最嚴重的問題，這個問題簡單說就是：上帝是聖潔和公義的，而我不是。在我生命結束以後，我將要站在公義和聖潔的上帝面前，我將會受到審判。我受審判要麼是根據自己的義——或缺少義——要麼根據另一個人的義。福音的好消息是：基督活出了完全公義、完美順服上帝的生命，不是為了祂自己的福祉，而是為了祂的子民。祂為我完成了我不可能為自己做的事情。祂不但活出完美順服的生命, 而且獻上自己成為完美的祭物，滿足了上帝的公義和正義。

我們這個時代一個極大的誤解是：上帝並不關心保護祂自己的純正、完整。祂是一種空泛的神，只會向每一個人揮舞著寬恕的魔杖。不，絕非如此。要讓上帝赦免你，是要付出非常昂貴代價的。這個代價就是祂要獻自己的愛子為祭。這個獻祭是如此昂貴,  以致上帝藉著使祂愛子從死裏復活——好叫基督為我們而死，為我們的稱義而復活——來宣告這個獻祭是寶貴的。所以，福音是客觀的。福音的信息是關於耶穌是誰和祂做了什麼。

但是福音也有一個主觀的層面。耶穌的恩惠如何在主觀上成就在我們身上呢？我如何能得到這些恩惠？聖經清楚表明，我們得以稱義既不是藉著我們的善行，也不是靠我們的努力，更不是憑著我們的所作所為，而是藉著信心——而且唯獨藉著信心。你能領受基督生命和死亡的益處的唯一途徑是：信靠祂，而且唯獨信靠祂。你若如此行，上帝便會宣告你為義，接納你進入祂的家中，赦免你所有的罪，你就會開始你永恒的天路歷程。

What Is the Gospel?

FROM R.C. Sproul

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the gospel.

The gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness–or lack of it–or the righteousness of another. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead–so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith–and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him–and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

上帝是不可透知的God Is Incomprehensible

作者:  R.C. Sproul  譯者: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/god-incomprehensible/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/bokgmE5zRj2

關於上帝我們可以知道些什麽？這是最基本的神學問題，因為關於上帝我們所知道的事，和我們是否知道有關上帝的任何事，取決於我們研究的範圍和內容。在此我們必須考量歷史上最偉大的神學家的教導，他們都確信「上帝的不可透知性」（incomprehensibility）。他們使用「不可透知」一詞，並非指某些我們根本無從理解或知道的事。從神學上講，說上帝是不可透知的，並非說上帝是全然不可知的。也就是說，我們當中沒有一個人能透徹理解上帝。

不可透知與宗教改革的關鍵原則有關-----有限的不能掌握(或包容)無限的。人類是有限的受造物，所以我們的思想總是從有限的角度思考。我們在一個有限的平面上生存、活動、存在，而上帝在無限中生存、活動、存在。我們有限的理解不可能包含無限的主題，因此上帝是不可透知的。這種觀念代表一種約束和平衡，目的是提醒我們，免得我們認為我們已經完全獲得和精通與上帝有關的事的所有細節。我們的有限總是限制我們對上帝的理解。

誤解上帝不可透知的教義，我們很容易陷入兩個嚴重的錯誤。第一個錯誤：既然上帝是不可透知的，祂必定是全然不可知的，而我們說有關祂的任何事都是胡言亂語。但基督教肯定上帝的理性的同時也肯定上帝的不可透知性。在明白上帝方面我們的頭腦思維太有限，因此我們需要上帝的啟示。但祂的啟示是可理解的，而不是非理性的。祂的啟示既不是胡言亂語，也不是廢話。不可透知的上帝精確地啟示祂自己。

這裏我們間接提到上帝既隱藏又啟示的宗教改革原則。上帝有一個神秘的維度是我們不知道的。然而，我們並沒有被留在黑暗當中，摸索著尋找一個隱藏的上帝。上帝也啟示祂自己，這是基督教信仰的基礎。基督教是啟示性的宗教。造物主上帝在自然界威嚴壯麗的戲劇中顯明祂自己。這就是我們所謂的「自然啟示」。上帝也用言語啟示祂自己。上帝已說話，在聖經裏我們有祂成文的道。我們這裏談論的是特殊的啟示-----上帝賜給我們的信息，光憑我們自己的力量，我們永遠無法明白。

上帝依然是不可透知的，祂在啟示祂自己的時候，沒有將需要了解的，關於祂的一切都啟示出來。「隱祕的事是屬耶和華我們神的，唯有明顯的事是永遠屬我們和我們子孫的，好叫我們遵行這律法上的一切話。」（申廿九29）  這顯然不是指我們對上帝一無所知，又或者我們對上帝有圓滿的認識；相反，我們有一種關於上帝的應用知識------對我們的人生極有幫助和至關重要。

這就帶出一個問題，即我們如何能有意義地談論不可透知的上帝。 神學家們都有一種在兩端擺動的不良傾向。 懷疑論一端，我們上面思考到的，他們假設我們關於上帝的語言是毫無意義的，沒有與祂相關的參照點。 另一端是泛神論的一種形式，它錯誤地假定我們已經掌握或囊括上帝。當我們明白我們關於上帝的語言是建立在類比的基礎上時，我們就會避開這些錯誤。我們可以說上帝是什麽樣的，但我們一將對上帝的描述等同於祂的本質，我們就會犯錯誤，認為有限的能包容無限的。

我們從歷史上看到上述兩個錯誤在新教自由主義（Protestant liberalism）和新正統（Neoorthodoxy）內搖擺。十九世紀的自由主義神學將上帝等同於歷史長流和自然界。 它提倡泛神論（Pantheism），即上帝存在於自然界一切事物之中，上帝就是一切。 在這樣的背景下，新正統反對將上帝與創造聯系起來，並尋求恢復上帝的超然性。帶著滿腔熱忱，新正統神學家稱上帝為「全然他者」 (wholly other)。這個觀念是有問題的。 假如上帝是「全然他者」，你如何知道祂的一切？假如上帝與我們截然不同，祂如何啟示祂自己呢？祂會使用什麽渠道呢？祂會透過日落啟示祂自己嗎？祂會借著拿撒勒人耶穌啟示祂自己嗎？ 假如祂是有別於人類的全然他者，那麽上帝和人類之間的溝通以什麽作共同的基礎？ 假如上帝與我們有天淵之別，祂就無法與我們說話。

通過類比我們與上帝有關聯，明白這一點有助我們解決問題。 人與上帝之間有一接觸點。 聖經告訴我們，我們照著上帝的形象被造（創一26-28）。人類在某種意義上像上帝。 這使交流成為可能。 上帝在創造中設立了這種溝通能力。 我們不是上帝，但我們像祂，因為我們承載祂的形像，並且按照祂的樣式受造。 因此，上帝可以向我們啟示祂自己，不是用祂的語言，而用我們的語言。祂可以跟我們說話。祂可以用我們能夠理解----不是透徹的，而是真實與有意義的方式與我們交流。假如果你排除類比，你將以懷疑告終。

本文原刊於雜誌。

God Is Incomprehensible

FROM R.C. Sproul

What can we know about God? That’s the most basic question of theology, for what we can know about God and whether we can know anything about Him at all determine the scope and content of our study. Here we must consider the teaching of the greatest theologians in history, all of whom have affirmed the “incomprehensibility of God.” By using the term incomprehensible, they are not referring to something we are unable to comprehend or know at all. Theologically speaking, to say God is incomprehensible is not to say that God is utterly unknowable. It is to say that none of us can comprehend God exhaustively.

Incomprehensibility is related to a key tenet of the Protestant Reformation—the finite cannot contain (or grasp) the infinite. Human beings are finite creatures, so our minds always work from a finite perspective. We live, move, and have our being on a finite plane, but God lives, moves, and has His being in infinity. Our finite understanding cannot contain an infinite subject; thus, God is incomprehensible. This concept represents a check and balance to warn us lest we think we have captured altogether and mastered in every detail the things of God. Our finitude always limits our understanding of God.

If we misunderstand the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility, we can easily slide into two serious errors. The first error says that since God is incomprehensible, He must be utterly unknowable, and anything we say about God is gibberish. But Christianity affirms the rationality of God alongside the incomprehensibility of God. Our minds can go only so far in understanding God, and to know God we need His revelation. But that revelation is intelligible, not irrational. It is not gibberish. It is not nonsense. The incomprehensible God has revealed Himself truly.

Here we allude to the Reformational principle that God is both hidden and revealed. There is a mysterious dimension of God that we do not know. However, we aren’t left in darkness, groping around for a hidden God. God has also revealed Himself, and that is basic to the Christian faith. Christianity is a revealed religion. God the Creator has revealed Himself manifestly in the glorious theater of nature. This is what we call “natural revelation.” God has also revealed Himself verbally. He has spoken, and we have His Word inscripturated in the Bible. Here we’re talking about special revelation—information God gives us that we could never figure out on our own.

God remains incomprehensible because He reveals Himself without revealing everything there is to know about Him. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29). It’s not as if we have no knowledge of God or as if we have consummate knowledge of God; rather, we have a working knowledge of God that is useful and crucial for our lives.

This raises the question as to how we can meaningfully speak about the incomprehensible God. Theologians have an unfortunate tendency to swing between two poles. The pole of skepticism, which we considered above, assumes that our language about God is utterly meaningless and has no reference point with regard to Him. The other pole is a form of pantheism that falsely assumes we have captured or contained God. We steer clear of these errors when we understand that our language about God is built upon analogy. We can say what God is like, but as soon as we equate whatever it is that we use to describe God with His essence, we have committed the error of thinking that the finite has contained the infinite.

Historically, we see the vacillating between the two aforementioned errors in Protestant liberalism and Neoorthodoxy. Nineteenth-century liberal theology identified God with the flow of history and with nature. It promoted a pantheism in which everything was God and God was everything. Against that backdrop, Neoorthodoxy objected to identifying God with creation, and it sought to restore God’s transcendence. In their zeal, Neoorthodox theologians spoke of God as “wholly other.” That idea is problematic. If God is wholly other, how do you know anything about Him? If God is utterly dissimilar from us, how could He reveal Himself? What means could He use? Could He reveal Himself through a sunset? Could He reveal Himself through Jesus of Nazareth? If He were wholly other from human beings, what common basis for communication between God and mankind could there ever be? If God is utterly dissimilar from us, there is no way for Him to speak to us.

Understanding that we relate to the Lord by way of analogy solves the problem. There is a point of contact between man and God. The Bible tells us that we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). In some sense, human beings are like God. That makes it possible for communication to occur. God has built this capacity for communication into creation. We are not God, but we are like Him because we bear His image and are made in His likeness. Therefore, God can reveal Himself to us, not in His language, but in our language. He can talk to us. He can communicate to us in a manner that we can understand—not exhaustively, but truly and meaningfully. If you get rid of analogy, you end in skepticism.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

關於聖經的成形，我們需要知道六件事6 THINGS WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUTTHE FORMATION OF THE BIBLE

作者:  Timothy W. Massaro  譯者: Maria Marta

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/6-things-we-need-to-know-about-the-formation-of-the-bible

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/Sz6VPeg84LY

1. 新約正典不是由任何教會議會確定的。

教會議會沒有確定哪些是正典書卷。地區教會議會曾對正典作出聲明，承認那些他們認為可用作基督信仰基礎文件的書卷。議會只是宣布自使徒時代以來的一貫情況。因此，這些議會沒有創作、批準，或確立正典。他們所做的只不過是識別已經存在的正典的過程的一部分工作而已。

2.早期基督徒相信正典書卷是自明自證的。

另一個鑒定因素是每卷書卷的內在品質。憑著內在品質和對基督及其拯救工作的獨特性描述，這些卷書在教會內自我確立。我們所擁有的新約正典不是由教會領袖或君士坦丁的政治當權者共謀裁定的，而是由這些書卷所具有的獨特聲音和語調來確定的。

3. 新約聖經是我們現有最早的基督信仰著作。

新約聖經(27本書卷) 是我們擁有的，關於耶穌的最早的著作。新約聖經在第一世紀成書。這意味著這些著作包含來自目擊者的見證，而這些見證是目擊事件發生後的五十年內寫成的，但不能說這些見證是新聞經常討論到的任何一種啟示文學( Apocalyptic Literature)。這一點在四福音書中尤為明顯。馬太福音、馬可福音、路加福音、約翰福音是唯一來自第一世紀的福音記載。

4. 新約聖經與使徒的見證有直接聯系。

有別於那個時期或下一個世紀的所有書籍，新約聖經與使徒及其復活的基督的見證有直接關系。 正典書卷與他們的活動和影響密切相關。 使徒擁有基督自己的權柄（太廿八18-20）。使徒教訓連同舊約聖經都是教會的根基。 教會「被建造在使徒和先知的根基上」（弗二20）。

5. 一些新約作者將新約書卷當作聖經來引用。

相信新的啟示集或聖經文集不是後期的發展。從使徒自己的時代開始，這些書卷在他們的權威和見證中被視為獨一無二。這種相信似乎存在於基督教的早期階段。在彼得後書三章15至16節，彼得指保羅書信為「聖經」，將它們等同於舊約聖經。這是一個經常被忽視的重要事實。

6.早期基督徒在沒有類比權威的情況下使用非正典著作。

基督徒經常引用非正典文獻，并積極肯定它們的教導。但基督徒只是把這些書籍當作有用、具啟發性、起教化作用的文本。它們是否同等於聖經，很少人會混淆。根據是否被普遍接受；是否具使徒性；是否自自證自明等等這些的標準，這些非正典著作最終被忽視了。

6 THINGS WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE FORMATION OF THE BIBLE

Timothy W. Massaro

1. The New Testament Canon was not decided by any church council.

The church councils did not decide what was canonical. While regional church councils made declarations about the canon, these councils affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. The councils merely declared the way things had been since the time of the apostles. Thus, these councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. They simply were part of the process of recognizing a canon that already existed.

2. Early Christians believed that canonical books were self-authenticating.

Another authenticating factor was the internal qualities of each book. These books established themselves within the church through their internal qualities and uniqueness as depicting Christ and his saving work. The New Testament canon we possess is not due to the collusions of church leaders or the political authority of Constantine, but to the unique voice and tone possessed by these writings.

3. The New Testament books are the principal Christian writings we have.

The New Testament books are the earliest writings we possess regarding Jesus. The New Testament was completed in the first century. This means the writings include testimonies from eyewitnesses and were written within fifty years of the events, which cannot be said of any of the apocryphal literature often discussed in the news. This is particularly evident when it comes to the four gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only gospel accounts that originate in the first century.

4. The New Testament books directly relate to the apostolic testimony.

Unlike any book from that period or the following century, the New Testament books were directly connected to the apostles and their testimony of the resurrected Christ. The canon is intimately connected to their activities and influence. The apostles had the very authority of Christ himself (Matt. 28:18–20). Along with the Old Testament, their teachings were the very foundation of the church.  The church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets” (Eph. 2:20).

5. Some New Testament writers quote other New Testament writers as Scripture.

The belief in new revelation or a testament of books was not a late development. From the days of the apostles themselves, these writings were seen as unique in their authority and witness. This belief seems to be present in the earliest stages of Christianity. In 2 Peter 3:15–16, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture,” which would have put them on a par with the books of the Old Testament. This is a significant fact that is often overlooked.

6. Early Christians used noncanonical writings without analogous authority.

Christians often cited noncanonical literature with positive affirmation for edification. Yet, Christians were simply using these books as helpful, illuminating, or edifying texts. Rarely was there confusion as to whether they were on a par with Scripture. These books were eventually disregarded according to the criteria of whether they had general acceptance, apostolicity, and self-authentication.

找教會時需要問四個問題4 QUESTIONS TO ASK WHENLOOKING FOR A CHURCH

作者: Nicholas Davis   譯者:  Maria Marta

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/4-questions-to-ask-when-looking-for-a-church

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/LeWkVaCPMx8

1. 關於聖經教會相信什麽？

聖經是無謬的，抑或否定？聖經在大家的敬拜和生活中佔據著核心位置嗎？

2.教會的信仰告白是什麽？

教會是否有宣講和教導聖經的標準？ 事實是，每間教會都有一份信仰告白 -------區別只是有些人對他們所相信的要比另一些人更加誠實而已。 假如教會有公開的信仰告白，你至少可以知道你能夠期望接受哪一種教導，並且有辦法讓你的牧師對聖經所教導的內容負責。

3.教會的敬拜是以人為中心還是以上帝為中心？

換句話說，教會崇拜是關乎上帝與祂的子民相會，還是基於娛樂？ 你能為當地音樂會這種「體驗」買單嗎？要是這樣的話，教會的敬拜很可能是以人為中心。

4.基督是否每周被忠心傳講？

這可能是你在找教會時問到的最重要的問題。 假如耶穌被釘死在十字架沒有在講台上公開宣講，那麽離開那裏吧。

假如教會不能做到唯有教會能夠做到的事，那麽上教會的意義何在？難道有其他組織或企業能做到這一點嗎？耶穌被宣講為道德英雄，抑或祂是你的救贖主和救主？

找一間宣講「耶穌基督並他釘十字架」的教會（林後二2）。

4 QUESTIONS TO ASK WHEN LOOKING FOR A CHURCH

Nicholas Davis

1. What does the church believe about Scripture?

Is the Bible infallible or not? Do the Scriptures have a central place in the worship and lives of the people?

2. What is the church’s confession of faith?

Does the church have criteria for the preaching and teaching of Scripture? The truth is that every church has a confession of faith—it’s just that some are more honest about what they believe than others. If a church has a public confession, you can at least know what kind of teaching you can expect to receive and have a way to hold your pastor accountable to what the Scriptures teach.

3. Is the church’s worship man-centered or God-centered?

In other words, is the church’s worship about God meeting with his people, or is it based on entertainment? Can you pay for this “experience” at a local concert? If so, it’s probably man-centered.

4. Is Christ faithfully preached each week?

This is probably the most important question that you could ever ask when looking for a church. If Jesus as crucified is not publicly proclaimed from the pulpit, then get out of there.

What’s the point of going to a church if it doesn’t do the one and only thing a church can do, which no other organization or business can? Is Jesus proclaimed as a moral hero, or is he your Redeemer and Savior?

Look for a church that preaches “Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). 

另參:

關於你的牧師你應該知道的五件事

5 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT YOUR PASTOR

作者: Nicholas Davis 譯者: Maria Marta

https://corechristianity.com/…/5-things-you-should-know-abo…

https://www.facebook.com/maria.marta.142/posts/1613116055452983

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

https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/why-do-reformed-churches-baptize-infants-horton/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/Gq5sveU6sVM

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