對主權救恩觀爭論的認識Understanding the Lordship
Controversy
作者：J.
I. Packer 翻譯：Duncan Liang
www.old-gospel.net › 恩典教义
https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157080991774653
如果十年前你對我講，我要看見有知識的福音派基督徒，其中一些是有博士學位，在神學院教書的，會爭辯說神所保證，直到永遠實在的拯救，其中可以沒有悔改，沒有跟從做門徒，沒有行為上的改變，沒有在實際上承認基督是人生命中的主，沒有在信心上的堅忍，我會對你說你是瘋了。也許我會用英國話裏說的，說這樣的人是赤裸，大眼瞪小眼的瘋子。但現在這樣的事已經發生了。其中一位哈濟（Zane Hodges），在其所著的《被圍困的福音》（The Gospel Under Siege） (1981)和《絕對無條件》（Absolutely Free！）（1989）中，宣稱所有這些立場對基督教信息來說都是至關重要的，沒有這些，福音就會迷失在律法主義當中。哇！
If,
ten years ago, you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals,
some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of
an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance,
no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as
Lord of one's life, and no perseverance in faith, I would have told you that
you were out of your mind. Stark, staring bonkers, is the British phrase I
would probably have used. But now the thing has happened. In The Gospel Under
Siege (1981) and Absolutely Free! (1989), Zane Hodges, for one, maintains all
these positions as essential to the Christian message arguing that without them
the Gospel gets lost in legalism. Wow.
事情還不止於此。哈濟抨擊改革宗歷史性對福音的論述，他給這貼上一個標籤，叫作「主權救恩」（Lordship Salvation），說它是一種靠行為稱義，因為它堅持悔改，就是從罪中回轉來事奉耶穌，以他為主，和信心，就是從相信自己回轉來信靠耶穌作人的救主，一樣，對於得救來說都是必須的。哈濟說這樣的悔改是一種行為，而稱義是因著信心，不靠行為的。傳講、教導改革宗所講的條件就是破壞福音的恩典。哈濟說，在任何階段，得救的信心和好行為都不是一定要聯繫在一起的，認識這點非常重要。
Nor
is this all. Hodges lashes the historic reformational account of the Gospel,
which he labels "Lordship salvation," as a form of
works-righteousness, because it affirms that repentance turning from sin to
serve Jesus as one's Lord is as necessary for salvation as faith turning from
self-reliance to trust Jesus as one's Savior. Such repentance, says Hodges, is
a work, and justification is through faith apart from works. To preach and
teach in reformational terms is to compromise the grace of the Gospel. It is
vital, says Hodges, to see that there is no necessary connection between saving
faith and good works at any stage.
哈濟來自時代論陣營的一枝，其中的人一直在對每一個人說，按照聖經標準，改革宗神學在整體上是偏離中心，是災難。哈濟的論據實質上已經在司可福聖經和崔福（Lewis Sperry Chafer）以及來利（Charles Ryrie）的著作中有所體現。如果不是他的一位引人注目，相信改革宗救贖論的時代主義者同袍，約翰麥克阿瑟（John MacArthur）在其所著的《按照耶穌的福音》（The Gospel According to Jesus）(1988)中對他的觀點進行抨擊，他可能就不會如此受人注意。《按照耶穌的福音》是一本措辭嚴厲的書，前言為布易士（Boice）和巴刻所寫。《絕對無條件》一書就是哈濟對麥克阿瑟的回應。
Hodges
comes out of that branch of the dispensationalist stable which has consistently
assured everyone that by biblical standards Reformed theology is systematically
off center and misshapen. Hodges' argumentation had already in essence appeared
in the Scofield Bible and the writings of Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles
Ryrie. He might not have attracted much notice had not a distinguished
fellow-dispensationalist with a Reformed soteriology, John MacArthur, Jr.,
attacked his view in The Gospel According to Jesus (1988), a strongly worded
book with forewords by Boice and Packer. Absolutely Free! was Hodges' reply to
MacArthur.
這情形很古怪。雙方都宣告神的恩典是絕對無條件的，稱義是絕對居中心位置的，信心對得救來說絕對是必須的——對方對什麼是基督徒的含義的論述是絕對錯誤的。哈濟稱麥克阿瑟的立場是「根本重寫福音」，「核心是屬撒但的」，「把信心的含義完全顛倒」，摧毀了確據的根基，所得出的教訓是新約作者所不認識的。麥克阿瑟稱哈濟的立場是一種「悲劇性的錯誤」，是「毀滅福音」的，「應許一種虛假的平安」，「產生出一種虛假的傳福音」，「給人虛假的盼望」。我們要問，這兩人看上去在如此多點上認同對方，那使他們分開的紛爭點到底是什麼? 這問題不難回答，這事關乎信心本質的問題。
It is
an odd situation. Both sides proclaim that God's grace is absolutely free, that
justification is absolutely central, that faith is absolutely necessary for
salvation and that the other side's account of what it means to be a Christian
is absolutely wrong. Hodges calls MacArthur's position "a radical
rewriting of the Gospel," "Satanic at its core," which has
"turned the meaning of faith upside down," destroying the ground of
assurance and producing doctrine that the New Testament writers would find
unrecognizable. MacArthur calls Hodges' position a "tragic error"
that "destroys the Gospel," "promises a false peace,"
"produces a false evangelism," and "offers a false hope."
What, we ask, is the point of cleavage that so drastically divides men who
seemed to agree on so much? The question is not hard to answer. It has to do
with the nature of faith.
哈濟完全用理智來定義信心，認為信心就是在思想上認同神在福音中告訴我們的。這種理智主義讓人想起羅馬天主教對信心的看法，就是相信教會所教導的。這和十八世紀蘇格蘭的有偏差的羅伯特桑德曼（Robert Sandema）的看法完全吻合，此人確信「每一個相信按著使徒所見證的那事件（基督贖罪的死）確實發生了的人就是被稱為義的。」它也和卡爾‧巴特（Karl Barth）的看法相對應。對巴特來說，信心就是簡單地相信因為基督死和復活，一個人就已經稱義，是繼承永生了，每個人都是這樣。
Hodges
defines faith in exclusively intellectual terms, as mental assent to what God
tells us in the Gospel. This intellectualism recalls the Roman Catholic
conception of faith as believing what the church teaches. It corresponds
exactly to that of the eighteenth-century Scottish eccentric Robert Sandeman,
who affirmed that "everyone who is persuaded that the event (Christ's
atoning death) actually happened as testified by the apostles is
justified." It corresponds also to the view of Karl Barth, for whom faith
is simply believing that because of Christ's death and resurrection one is
already justified and an heir of eternal life, as is everybody else.
與之對立的是，按著改革宗的教導，信心是一種完整的實在之事，除了有理智的方面還有感情和意志的方面。按照十七世紀的分析所說的，它是 notitia (對事實的認識), assensus (高興接受)和 fiducia (個人信靠一位個人的救主，以及祂的應許)。正如韋斯敏斯德信條所說的那樣,這是新舉動的指導準則：
By
contrast, faith according to reformational teaching is a whole-souled reality
with an affectional and volitional aspect as well as an intellectual one. It
is, as the seventeenth-century analysts put it, notitia (factual knowledge),
assensus (glad acceptance), and fiducia
(personal trust in a personal Savior, as well as in His promises). It is a
principle of new activity, as the Westminster Confession brings out:
藉此信心，基督徒相信凡在聖經中所啟示的都為真實，……既順服其命令，畏懼其警戒，持守神在其中所賜為今生和來生的應許。但得救信心的主要活動乃是憑恩典之約，惟獨接受並依靠基督而得稱義、成聖，和永生。(14.2)
By
faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the
Word.yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and
embracing the promises of God But the principal acts of saving faith are
accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification,
sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace (XIV 2).
很明顯，如果哈濟、桑德曼、巴特的理智主義是對的話，韋斯敏斯德信條就是混亂，放錯了重點。同樣清楚的是，如果韋斯敏斯德信條是對的，那麼哈濟、桑德曼和巴特所定義的就還構不成信心，其本身並不能帶來拯救。
Clearly,
if the intellectualism of Hodges, Sandeman, and Barth is right, Westminster
confuses, misplacing the emphasis. Equally clear, if Westminster is right, what
Hodges, Sandeman, and Barth define is less than faith, and will not of itself
bring salvation.
很明顯，我認為哈濟是錯誤的，錯誤得很厲害。我發現他對信心的教導有四方面的主要錯誤。
As is
apparent, I think Hodges is wrong, and ruinously so. I find his doctrine of
faith involving four major errors.
第一是對基督的錯誤認識
The
first is an error about Christ.
基督是分開的，還是不可分的？神豈不是把先知（教導），祭司（贖罪）和王（做主和主人）這三個角色聯在一起置於他兒子中保的職分之中嗎?神在聖經中豈不要求人積極回應其中的每一種嗎？麥克阿瑟清楚說明，基督自己在福音中的教訓豈不表明他自己不接受把得救和做門徒分隔開，承認、接受他作救主，但拒絕他作為主嗎?我的回答和哈濟的回答不一樣，他的教導在我看來是不榮耀我的救主的。
Is
Christ divided, or divisible? Has not God joined the three roles of prophet
(teacher), priest (atoner), and king (Lord and Master) in the mediatorial
office of His Son? Does He not in Scripture require mankind to relate
positively to each? Does not Christ's own Gospel teaching, well set out by
MacArthur, show that He Himself does not accept the separating of salvation
from discipleship, whereby He is acknowledged and taken as Savior but rejected
as Lord? My answer is not Hodges' answer, and his teaching does not seem to me
to honor my Savior.
第二是對行為的錯誤認識
The
second is an error about works.
哈濟把作為是一種心理舉動的信心和作為是一種有功德作用行為的信心等同在一起，因此辯論說，如果要人把積極委身做門徒作為使人可以得救的對福音的回應的一部分，這就是教導靠行為稱義了。但這是很混亂的。信心的每一種作為，從心理方面來看，都是在做某些事情（知道和信靠，接受，決心順服一樣同是思想上的行為）；然而每一樣信心的作為都只是把自己看作是在某種形式上領受不配恩典的手段而已。哈濟不能把信心作為舉動和信心作為行為分開，這不僅不能使他驅散那種關於福音條件的混亂認識，反而是加增了這種混亂，儘管他正確認識到這種混亂在今天正給我們帶來禍害。
Hodges
equates faith as a psychological act ("closing with Christ," as the
Puritans put it) with faith as a meritorious work, and so argues that to call
for active commitment to discipleship as part of a saving response to the
Gospel is to teach works-righteousness. But this is a confusion. Every act of
faith, psychologically regarded, is a matter of doing something (knowing is as
much a mental act as are trusting, receiving, and resolving to obey); yet no
act of faith ever presents itself to its doer as anything but a means of
receiving undeserved mercy in some form. Hodges' inability to distinguish faith
as an act from faith as a work makes him increase, rather than dispel, the
confusion about the terms of the Gospel that he rightly sees as bedeviling us
today.
第三是對悔改的錯誤認識
The
third is an error about repentance.
在聖經中，悔改和相信是並行、不可分開的；悔改意味著從罪中回轉，相信意味著轉向耶穌。時代論者並不總是可以看到這種聯繫。一些人堅持希臘文「悔改」（metanoia）的語源，把它解釋為只是對耶穌是誰看法上的改變；哈濟看到悔改在聖經中意味著生活上的改變，把它和救恩之道分開（這就和韋斯敏斯德信條相矛盾了，韋斯敏斯德信條依據路加福音十三3、5，說「沒有悔改無人可以得到赦免」），把悔改描述為自願向神所作的調整，可以是在得救前，或在得救以後臨到，或根本不會臨到。說得最簡單一點，他不能使人信服。
In
Scripture, repentance and faith go inseparably together; repentance means
turning from sin, faith means turning to Jesus. Dispensationalists do not always
observe this connection. Some, fastening onto the etymology of repentance in
Greek (metanoia), explain it as merely a change of mind about who Jesus is;
Hodges, seeing that repentance means in Scripture a change of life, detaches it
from the way of salvation (thus contradicting the Westminster Confession, which
on the basis of Luke 13:3, 5, says that "none may expect pardon without
it") and depicts it as a voluntary adjustment to God that may come before
salvation or after salvation or never at all. To say the least, he fails to
convince.
第四是對重生的錯誤認識
The
fourth is an error about regeneration.
當聖經講到重生，是把它看為一種新生，一種死人復活，是把它看為一個人生命，或「心」的內在的改變，這樣，人要像他從前那樣繼續活在罪的控制之下，這就是不可能的。重生的果效就是人從內心深處要認識、愛、服事、信靠、順服和尊榮父與子，這樣，從前只是仇恨，與神為敵，現在順服的委身、作門徒則是自發地湧現出來。哈濟說基督徒作門徒是一種慎重、令人滿足，但不一定是必須的選擇，這表明他根本不明白這一點。特別的是，他看不到那使人稱義的信心只是一顆得到重生的心的表達而已。
When
Scripture speaks of regeneration, which it represents as a new birth, a
quickening of the dead, what is in view is an inner transformation of one's
being, or "heart," which makes it impossible for one to go on living
under sin's sway as one lived before. The effect of regeneration is that now
one wants, from the bottom of one's heart, to know, love, serve, trust, obey,
and honor the Father and the Son, so that obedient devotion and discipleship
spontaneously spring up where there was only resentful hostility to God before.
Hodges' account of Christian discipleship as a prudent and fulfilling, though
not a necessary option, shows that he does not understand this at all. In
particular, he does not see that the faith that justifies only appears as an
expression of a regenerate heart.
這種教導在牧養方面只能產生出清教徒稱之為的「福音偽君子」——就是那些被告知他們是基督徒，永遠安全，因為他們相信基督為他們死了，而他們的心沒有改變，根本沒有對基督的個人委身的人。我是知道這點的，因為在神滿有憐憫地使我認識到我沒有歸正的光景前，有兩年時間我就是這樣的福音偽君子。如果你認為我這樣批評哈濟對信心的重新定義是不結果子的理智上的形式主義，這太嚴厲了，你一定要記得，因為相信哈濟所教導的，我曾一度幾乎失喪了我的靈魂，一個被火燒過的孩子事後總是對火非常害怕的。
The
pastoral effect of this teaching can only be to produce what the Puritans
called "Gospel hypocrites" persons who have been told that they are
Christians, eternally secure, because they believe that Christ died for them,
when their hearts are unchanged and they have no personal commitment to Christ
at all. I know this, for I was just such a Gospel hypocrite for two years
before God mercifully made me aware of my unconverted state. If I seem harsh in
my critique of Hodges' redefinition of faith as barren intellectual formalism,
you must remember that once I almost lost my soul through assuming what Hodges
teaches, and a burned child always thereafter dreads the fire.
(From:
Tabletalk, May, 1991, published by Ligonier Ministries, Inc., P.O. Box
547500,Orlando, FL 32746)
