成為改革宗是什麽意思？What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?

作者: Keith A. Mathison   譯者:  Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/11/what-does-it-mean-to-be-reformed/

記得在我成為基督徒，並從神學院畢業若幹年之後，有一次回家探親。期間，我遇到一個老鄰居，讀高中時他曾和我一起工作過。他告訴我，他聽說我去了感化學校（或矯正，reform school），並問我現在過得怎麽樣。對不知道何為改革宗學校（reform school）的人而言，它就是一間青少年罪犯矯正工作的機構。他的假設並沒有冒犯我。事實上，當我想起他的看法時，仍覺得很有趣，我幾乎可以肯定，還有一個關於「囚籠階段加爾文主義者」（cage-stage Calvinists）的笑話。我只花了幾分鐘便向我的鄰居解釋了感化學校和改革宗神學院（Reformed seminary）的區別，但我認為他的混淆暗示一個更大、更重要的問題，那就是改革宗（Reformed）一詞在許多基督徒心中的模糊性。

近年來「改革宗」一詞在美國引起廣泛的關注。2006年，在一篇刊於《今日基督教》雜志上被廣泛閱讀的文章中，科林漢森（Collin Hansen）描述福音派運動內部「年輕、躁動的改革宗」領袖的崛起。這些人都反對歷史上多個美國福音派運動中出現的復興的伯拉糾主義、半伯拉糾主義，他們開始向改革宗傳統中的老神學家，諸如約翰·加爾文（John Calvin）、圖倫丁（ Francis Turretin ）、賀治（Charles Hodge）等人學習。「改革宗」一詞的含義也一直是美國更正教最大的宗派------美南浸信會（Southern Baptist Convention）持續爭論的焦點。許多美南浸信會人士拒絕接受改革神學，認為它不利於傳福音和宣教。而另一些人現在確定為改革宗浸信會人士。改革宗浸信會運動的發展驚人，此運動由畢業於美南浸信會神學院的牧師們，和該神學院的教學領袖們推動。

傳統改革宗宗派，如美國長老會、正統長老會，和北美聯合改革宗教會（URCNA）內部的人，有時想知道如何回應這些發展。對這些教會的許多人而言，成為改革宗就是接受特定的改革宗信仰告白，堅持某種敬虔和崇拜。這些教會的一些人認為，「改革宗」一詞若不與改革宗信仰告白聯系在一起，就失去全部意義。

那麽，我們如何在這些水域航行?  成為改革宗是什麽意思?  這裏我們必須退一步看，回顧16世紀宗教改革歷史的某些方面。為人所知的宗教改革的目的就是改革現存的教會。今天我們知道導致教會分裂的幾個因素，但本文的著重點與「改革宗」一詞的使用方式有關。在一些情況下，「改革宗」是更正教Protestant)的同義詞。在這種情況下，談論「改革宗教會」就是談論所有與羅馬天主教教皇制度對抗的教會。在另一些情況下，「改革宗」狹義上是指那些有別於路德宗教會的更正教教會，特別在主的晚餐的教義和實踐方面。在這種情況下，「改革宗」是指與慈運理 (Ulrich Zwingli) 、布靈格（Heinrich Bullinger）、布塞珥（Martin Bucer）、沃密格利（Peter Martyr Vermigli）、約翰·加爾文（John Calvin）等人的教導有關聯的教會。

當更正教教會之間的界限開始變成一道墻時，不同的教會就以信仰告白的形式寫下他們的信仰。路德宗和改革宗的標簽現在有更明確的內容。成為路德宗，首先要同意路德宗的認信告白，最初是《奧斯堡信條》(Augsburg Confession，1530)，最後是《協同書》(the Book of Concord 1580年)。成為改革宗就要同意改革宗的認信告白。這些成文的認信告白不勝枚舉，但最持久和最被廣泛使用的是三項聯合信條（Three Forms of Unity）和威斯敏斯特標準(the Westminster Standards)。三項聯合信條包括比利時信條(1561年)、海德堡要理問答(1563) 、多特信經(1619)。威敏斯特準則包括威敏斯特信仰告白(1647)、威敏斯特大要理問答(1648)、威敏斯特小要理問答(1647)。

值得注意的是，在英國，有兩份重要的認信告白是根據威斯敏斯特信仰告白修改而寫成的，其目的是要讓教會擁有一份對教會治理和洗禮不同看法的表述。薩伏伊宣言（Savoy Declaration 1658年) 是公理會根據威敏思特信仰告白所作的修改，而1689年的倫敦浸信會信仰告白 (the 1689 London Baptist Confession)對威敏思特信仰告白的修改則反映出特別浸禮派（Particular Baptists）對教會治理和洗禮的觀點。區別特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派(General Baptists）對本文的著重點很重要，因為這種區別的主要依據是對救恩主權和救恩教義的不同理解。普通浸禮派是阿米念派。17世紀的特別浸禮派堅持多特會議所維護的教義，這些教義後來被稱為加爾文主義的五要點，其概括縮寫為郁金香(TULIP)。特別浸禮派拒絕接受阿米念的救恩論。當代改革宗浸信會是特別浸信會的繼承者。

鑒於這段歷史，成為改革宗是什麽意思?  我認為需要一定程度的寬容與耐心，因為這個問題沒有明確的答案。改革宗有兩種定義，一種更具包容性，另一種更乏包容性，這兩種定義都有著悠久的使用歷史。當我說第一種更具包容性的定義時，我所指的定義包括眾多自認是改革宗的信徒——例如，認信的長老會和改革宗浸信會。當我說第二種更乏包容性的定義時,  我所指的定義包括少數信徒，這些信徒對改革宗一詞的理解基本上只限於具體的信仰告白(三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準)，和特定形式的敬虔和崇拜。

第一種更具包容性的定義集中在更狹窄的教義範圍內，作為成為改革宗之含義的界定。這種定義常被用作大多數人所理解的加爾文主義者的同義詞。第一種定義的重點在於加爾文主義的五點，和揀選、預定的教義。所以，如果一個浸信會信徒相信聖經所教導的全然敗壞（total depravity）、無條件揀選（unconditional election）、限定的救贖. （limited atonement）、不可抗拒的恩典（irresistible grace），聖徒永蒙保守（perseverance of the saints），那麽他很可能使用改革宗浸信會一詞作為自我描述的標簽。

改革宗一詞的第二種更乏包容性的定義集中在三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準所包含的全部教義和實踐。在這個意義上，使用該詞的人理解改革宗的含義遠遠超過救恩論標題所包括的教義。它也包括教會和聖禮等特定教義。例如，它包括嬰兒洗禮。從這個意義上理解和使用改革宗一詞的人相信，談論改革浸信會和談論路德浸信會同樣有意義。

那些其教會追溯其歷史到制定認信界線時期的人，他們有合理的歷史理由，以一種更乏包容性的方式來定義改革宗。例如，我們在多特信經的結論中看到這種定義的證據。在結語部分，多特會議敦促那些想明白成為改革宗是什麽意思的人，去看改革宗教會的認信告白以及會議對認信告白的解釋。這裏，多特會議別提到比利時信條。你想知道成為改革宗是什麽意思嗎?  讀比利時信條，然後讀多特信經。這就是多特會議給出的答案。

另一方面，特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派之間的長期爭論，解釋了為何許多當代浸信會使用改革宗浸信會這一標簽。他們選擇修改已經存在的威斯敏斯特信條，而不是創造一個全新的認信告白，這表明他們明白他們的教義與英國和蘇格蘭長老會有更多的相似之處，而非不同之處。當然，當時也有些長老會，如現在一樣，不同意這種評估，但似乎沒有任何令人信服的理由堅持改革浸信會停止並終止使用改革宗一詞，因為更狹窄定義和更寬廣的定義兩者都已存在幾個世紀了。事實上, 那些認為改革宗一詞應該有更嚴格的定義的人，可能將許多在美國和其他地方的年輕、躁動的基督徒对改革宗救恩論的發現視作一個極好的機會，藉此進一步討論改革神學和實踐的歷史和本質。

與此同時，那些改革宗浸信會信徒可將目前的辯論當作一個機會，藉此來努力明白那些以三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準定義改革宗的人為何這樣做。他們會觀察到，這些信徒看到所有這些教義和實踐之間的相互聯系和統一，它們不允許救恩論與其他教義分隔，避免出現必然的扭曲。

簡而言之，關於改革宗一詞之含義的辯論是一個極好的機會：能讓雙方更深入地挖掘聖經和我們豐富的神學遺產，並實踐這些遺產本身所激發的愛和忍耐。

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. He is author of several books, including From Age to Age.

What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?

by Keith A. Mathison

I remember visiting home once, years after I had become a Christian and after I had graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary. During my visit, I ran into an old neighbor with whom I had worked while in high school. He told me that he had heard that I had gone to reform school and asked how I was doing now. For those who do not know what a “reform school” is, it is a correctional institution for juvenile delinquents. I wasn’t offended by his assumption. In fact, I still find it quite funny when I think about it, and I’m almost certain that there is a joke about “cage-stage Calvinists” somewhere in there. It took only a few minutes to explain to my neighbor the difference between a reform school and a Reformed seminary, but I think his confusion hints at a larger and more significant issue, namely, the ambiguity of the word Reformed in the minds of many Christians.

The word Reformed has gained a good deal of attention in the United States in recent years. In a widely read 2006 Christianity Today article, Collin Hansen described the rise of “Young, Restless, and Reformed” leaders within evangelicalism. These are men and women who have rejected the revivalistic Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism found in so much of historic American evangelicalism and have begun learning from older theologians in the Reformed tradition, men such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge. The meaning of the word Reformed has also been at the center of ongoing debates in the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination. Many Southern Baptists reject Reformed theology, believing it to be inimical to evangelism and missions. Others now identify as Reformed Baptists. The growth of the Reformed Baptist movement has been incredible, and it has been fueled by pastors graduating from Southern Baptist seminaries and by the teaching of leaders within the convention.

Those within traditionally Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the United Reformed Churches in North America are sometimes left wondering how to respond to all of these developments. For many in these churches, to be Reformed is to subscribe to specific Reformed confessions of faith and to adhere to a certain kind of piety and worship. Some in these churches argue that the word Reformed loses all meaning if it is not identified with these Reformed confessions.

So, how do we navigate these waters? What does it mean to be Reformed? Here we need to take a step back and look at some aspects of the history of the sixteenth-century Reformation. The purpose of what has become known as the Reformation was to reform the existing church. Several factors led to the ecclesiastical division we know today, but the key point for our purposes has to do with the way that the word Reformed was used. In some cases, it was used synonymously with the word Protestant. In such cases, to speak of “Reformed churches” was to speak of all of those churches in conflict with the Roman Catholic papacy. In other cases, the word Reformed was used in a narrower sense to refer to those Protestant churches that differed with the Lutheran churches, particularly over the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. The word Reformed in these instances referred to churches associated with the teachings of men such as Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Calvin.

As the lines in the sand between the Protestant churches began to become walls, the various churches wrote their beliefs in their confessions of faith. The labels Lutheran and Reformed now had a more definitive content. To be Lutheran was to subscribe to the Lutheran confessions, initially the Augsburg Confession (1530) and ultimately the Book of Concord (1580). To be Reformed was to subscribe to one of the Reformed confessions. Numerous such confessions were written, but those that gained the longest lasting and most widespread use are the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity include the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1619). The Westminster Standards include the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647).

Significantly, in England, two important confessions were written that modified the Westminster Confession in order to have a confession that expressed different views of church government and baptism. The Savoy Declaration (1658) was a Congregationalist modification of the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession was a modification that reflected the views of Particular Baptists on church government and baptism. The distinction between Particular Baptists and General Baptists is important for our purposes because this was a distinction primarily based on different understandings of soteriology or the doctrine of salvation. General Baptists were Arminian. The Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century adhered to the doctrines upheld by the Synod of Dort, doctrines that have since become known as the five points of Calvinism and that are summarized in the acronym TULIP. They rejected Arminian soteriology. Contemporary Reformed Baptists are the heirs of the Particular Baptists.

Given this history, what does it mean to be Reformed? I think a measure of charity and patience is required, because the question does not have a clear-cut answer. The word has a more inclusive definition as well as a less inclusive definition, and both definitions have a long history of use. When I speak of a more inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a larger number of believers who profess to be Reformed—confessional Presbyterians as well as Reformed Baptists, for example. When I speak of a less inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a smaller number of believers—those who understand the word Reformed to be restricted essentially to specific confessions of faith (the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards) and to specific forms of piety and worship.

The more inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on a narrower range of doctrines as defining what it means to be Reformed. This more inclusive definition of Reformed is usually synonymous with what most people understand by the word Calvinist. It is focused on the five points of Calvinism and the doctrines of election and predestination. So, if one is a Baptist who believes that the Bible teaches total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, election, and predestination, then he likely uses the term Reformed Baptist as a self-descriptive label.

The less inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on the whole range of doctrine and practice contained in the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Those who use the word in this sense understand the word Reformed to include far more than the doctrines considered under the heading of soteriology. It includes particular doctrines of the church and sacraments as well. It includes infant baptism, for example. Those who understand and use the word Reformed in this sense believe it makes as much sense to speak of a Reformed Baptist as it would to speak of a Lutheran Baptist.

Those whose churches trace their history back to the time during which confessional lines were being drawn have a legitimate historical reason to define the word Reformed in a less inclusive way. We see evidence for such a definition, for example, in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort. In this concluding section, the Synod of Dort urges those who want to understand what it means to be Reformed to go to the confessions of the Reformed churches and to the synod’s explanation of that confession’s teaching. The synod here is referring specifically to the Belgic Confession. Do you want to know what it means to be Reformed? Read the Belgic Confession and then read the Canons of Dort. That is the answer that the synod gives here.

On the other hand, the long history of the debate between Particular Baptists and General Baptists explains why many contemporary Baptists use the label Reformed Baptist. Their choice to modify the already existing Westminster Confession rather than to create an entirely new confession indicates that they understood their doctrine to have more similarities to than differences from that of the English and Scottish Presbyterians. Of course, there were Presbyterians then, just as there are now, who disagreed with this assessment, but there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to insist that Reformed Baptists cease and desist in their use of the word since both narrower and broader definitions have existed for centuries. In fact, those who believe that the word Reformed should have a more restrictive definition could view the discovery of Reformed soteriology by many young and restless Christians in the United States and elsewhere as a wonderful opportunity for further discussion on the history and nature of Reformed theology and practice.

At the same time, those who are Reformed Baptists could use the present debate as an opportunity to try to understand why those who define the word Reformed in terms of the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards do so. They could observe that these believers see an interconnectedness between and unity among all of these doctrines and practices that do not allow soteriology to be separated from the remaining doctrines without inevitable distortion.

In short, the debate over the meaning of the word Reformed is a wonderful opportunity for those on both sides to dig deeper into Scripture and into the riches of our theological heritage while exercising the charity and patience encouraged by that heritage itself.