在基督裏的自由Freedom in Christ
作者: G.I. Williamson 譯者: Maria Marta
「唯獨上帝是良心的主 ，在信仰或敬拜的事上，人不受一切與聖經相離或相悖之人的道理與吩咐約束，所以如果有人違逆良心去相信人的道理，聽從人的吩咐，就是出賣良心的真自由；若有人勉強別人接受不明確的信仰，要人絕對盲從，就是毀滅良心的自由，也是毀滅理性 。」
「凡以基督徒自由為藉口、去犯任何罪或放縱邪情私慾的人， 正是破壞基督徒自由的宗旨。基督徒自由的宗旨，就是我們既從仇敵手中被救出来，就可以終身在祂面前，坦然無懼地用聖潔、 公義事奉祂。」(《威敏斯特信仰告白》二十章2，3段)
這兩段信仰告白教導我們
(1)唯獨上帝是良心的主。(2)上帝的話是唯一的準則。(3)在敬拜的事上，違背或添加在上帝說話之上的人的道理與吩咐,沒有權柄約束人的良心。(4)容許良心如此受約束就是: a.罪；b.出賣良心的真自由；c.否認唯獨上帝是獨一的主。(5) 基督徒的自由必須與反律法主義 (意思是「犯罪的自由」) 區分開來。
宗教改革有一項榮耀的福祉，我們的先輩們曾為之付出所有。正是這一真理, 在聖經中的教導是如此的清晰, 卻在背道的羅馬天主教中完全隱蔽。惟有眾多烈士流出鮮血，才将它恢復。蘇格蘭聖約長老會「絕不向任何人交出耶穌基督的王權」的堅定決心值得後人銘記於心。他們重拾使徒教會的精神, 因為在面對那些試圖強迫他們相信或做與基督說話相悖之事的人時, 他們的回答是：「順從神不順從人，是應當的。」(徒五29)
我們切勿忘記，宗教改革遠不止只是脫離教皇權力、羅馬天主教的錯謬而已。畢竟，它不是一場對抗某事的爭戰，而是一場見證基督榮耀的爭戰, 而且是在生命的所有領域作出這種見證。例如，世上有些國王並非完全不高興看到羅馬天主教的權力結構被興起的改革宗基督教削弱。但有時同樣是這些國王決計親自掌管教會。當他們恍然大悟, 原來改革宗基督徒決意只承認基督是「教會的元首」時，他們就實施恐怖迫害。我們的信仰告白的作者所遭受的許多逼迫都是這些國王施行的。感謝上帝，他們堅持聖經的偉大真理，堅持至關重要的原則，最終這些暴君自己也難逃厄運。唯獨上帝是教會和良心的主。我們是用「重價買來的」，決不能作「人的奴仆」(林前七23)。
今天，對積累自這一原則的寶貴遺產，我們幾乎認為它們的存在是理所當然的。政教分離就是一個例子，我們的意思是指不受人的強迫，相信和實踐自己的信仰的自由，人常說此原則在諸如我們這樣的國家中總受到尊重。但相反，我們相信國家對教育的控制日益威脅到此原則。一種虛假的、反基督教的生活哲學，如果不是在理論上的，至少也在實踐說話的方式上，強加給那些在這個國家公立學校系統中的執教者。也許這一天可能會到來：那些執教者必須受苦, 才能說話，表現得好像上帝在萬事上擁有主權似的。
但是，讓我們更詳細思考與我們仍在討論的原則相悖的常見規條，這些規條出現在許多更正教教會, 甚至那些認信威敏斯特信仰告白的教會! 這樣的教會習慣制定一些具體規條，當為義務強加給教會成員，從而約束良心。
這些規條有兩類: (1) 有些規條違背上帝的話。違背上帝說話的規條的例子是禁戒，要求戒絕使用某種物質。摩門教禁喝咖啡。其他某些教派禁食肉類。坦白說，類似的禁忌多不勝數，時間所限就不一一列舉。然而，任何例子都不能證明這樣的禁戒是上帝所要求的。原因是「凡物本來沒有不潔淨」 (羅十四14)。「一切都是潔凈的」 (十四20新譯本)。如果凡物沒有不潔凈，那麼禁戒某些東西的規條就不合法。如果一切都是潔凈的，那麼人就能無所懼怕地使用一切。
誠然，人一旦容許他的良心受這樣 (錯誤的)規條約束，他就不可能遵守禁戒規條而不犯罪。我們已經說明如何以及為何如此 (第十六章)。「人認為是不潔的，對他來說那東西就成為不潔了.... 對他來說，這就是惡事了....因為他不是出於信心; 凡不是出於信心的，都是罪。」 (羅十四14，20, 23) 做我們認為是錯的事，從來都是不對的，即使我們沒有充分的理由相信某事必定是錯的。但是，即使一個人忠心順從他的良心，嚴格遵守禁戒物質的規條，他仍然是有罪的。他的罪就是容許上帝以外的人將規條強加於他的良心。
對此，有人反對說，如果沒有這些規條 (禁止或至少限制物質的自由使用)，惟一可能的後果將是「徹底放縱」。要麼是完全禁戒，要麼是必然、不可避免的惡意濫用。我們已經證明這是一個錯誤的期望。我們已經證明真自由和邪惡放縱之間的分別(第二十章1)。這裏我們只會說，對這樣的異議固執己見是對上帝聖靈的極大侮辱。因為這種異議無異於說，人為的規條比住在他裏面的聖靈更能使基督徒遠離罪。說聖靈不能引導基督徒自由使用祂未曾禁止的物質，就是要愚蠢地改變上帝。
(2) 第二類就是那些如果不違背，至少也是添加在上帝說話之上的規條。例如，我們提到許多強加於羅馬天主教教會成員的規條。毫無疑問，許多這些規條違背上帝的話，即使不違背上帝的話，也常常是聖經之外的添加。我們在羅馬天主教教理中讀到，「教會的主要誡命或規條」有如下六條: a. 主日及當守的法定慶節應參與彌撒;
b. 在法定日子禁食和禁欲。c. 應至少每年一次告明你的罪 ; d. 在逾越慶節時領受聖餐; e.應支援教會的需要 f. 遵守教會關於婚姻的規條。
我們相信我們不能證明在羅馬天主教會的法定日禁食是違背聖經的。當然，基督徒應該承認自己的罪(唯獨藉著基督向上帝承認)。在羅馬天主教會假定為「逾越節」(Easter)的主日領受聖餐 (若正確施行) 是非常恰當的。盡管以適當的方式，自願做這些事情並非有錯，但容許良心受束縛，按羅馬天主教會的法定方式和時間來做這些事情是錯誤的。
讓我們引用另一個例子：浸信會堅持浸禮（全身浸入水中）的受洗方式。浸禮式與上帝的話並無抵觸。但受洗只限於浸禮式的要求，就是在上帝的說話上添加規條。允許良心受這樣的規條約束是錯誤的，盡管浸禮式本身並非錯誤。
據說，「教皇在每個人的心中」。我們都會受試探認為，如果我們管好基督徒的良心，我們就能改善我們的同伴。同樣，我們都傾向於想象，在行使我們所珍視的自由方面，我們比別人做得更好得多。我們會約束別人，而放松對自己的約束。但聖經的要求相反：善待他人，謹慎行使我們的自由。我們應該給予兄弟善意的信任。我們應該尊重別人勝過尊重自己。即使我們的兄弟似乎濫用他的自由，我們也當存溫柔的心，謹慎自守，勸戒他。同時，我們也應警惕濫用我們自己的自由，注意切莫把它當作放縱肉體的機會，而是要謹慎行事，莫讓軟弱的兄弟因我們行使自由而絆倒。
有人聲稱，如上所述這種自由教義將導致犯罪。我們在討論放縱時已駁斥這種觀點。在此，我們希望強調一個事實：與一般看法相反，這一教義 (正確理解) 確實顯示上帝的律法全面涵蓋人生的領域。不是因為改革宗信仰有興趣消除聖潔與責任，才拒絕一切違背或附加於上帝說話之上的規條。反而，它這樣做恰恰因為它認識基督徒的責任：無論吃喝什麼，做什麼------所做一切都是為了上帝的榮耀。當人的責任從上帝的原則削減到人的規條時，它就是偽造的，因為它被削減了。古時法利賽人倍增規條，試圖使其範圍覆蓋整個人生，但他們甚至還沒接近基督的聖潔，基督棄絕他們的規條，讚同上帝的律法(可七1-13)。有些人無法想象十誡涵蓋一切，而且沒有謬誤與瑕疵，但是這樣的事情(人無法想象)確實常常發生的。
保羅說，當心意更新而變化時(藉著聖靈內在施行律法的工作)，信徒個人就能察驗何為上帝的旨意 (羅十二2)。保羅說他將知道何為上帝的「善良、純全、可喜悅的旨意」(不含人設立的規條)。我們相信，這段文字的詳細解釋顯明下述意思:
(1) 透過對十誡的了解，信徒將知道何事是好的。例如，他知道彈鋼琴是好的，原因很簡單，任何一條十誡都沒禁止彈鋼琴。「我們知道律法原是好的」 ( 提前一8); 因此，凡是符合或不違反十誡的事都是好的。因此，彈鋼琴的行為，就其本身而言，是好的。
(2) 基督徒也必須考量做特定事所在的情況。好事並非總是合宜的（無論何種情況下都是如此）。呼求耶和華的名是好的。但必須在合宜的時間內作 (林後六3)。人呼求上帝，只有呼求得太遲，才不蒙應允。再以彈鋼琴為例，可以還是不可以彈鋼琴，要根據時間、地點等情況來決定。父親不許孩子彈鋼琴，孩子彈鋼琴是不對的。任何時候在有「脫衣舞」表演的商場裏彈鋼琴都是不妥的。
(3)最後，作事/行動務必具有正確的意圖或動機。這就是使徒所指的上帝純全的旨意的意思。我們再次以彈鋼琴為例。可以想象，一個人在適當的情況下做這件好事，但卻違反了十誡中的一條或多條。假設其目的是為了獲取個人聲譽和財富，而非為了事奉上帝。假設人彈鋼琴只是為了賺錢，而非為了事奉上帝。這就不對了，不是因為彈鋼琴是罪，而是因為將彈鋼琴視為人生的主要目的，或者僅僅把它作為賺錢的手段，而不是為了榮耀上帝。
事實上，若信徒正確遵守上帝的律法，就必證明上帝的律法比人的規條要求要高得多，也嚴格得多。但最重要的是，這樣的信徒將從古老法利賽人的毀滅中保存下來，法利賽人認為他們是律法的遵守者，實際上他們只遵守了幾條相對容易的規條而已。人制定的規條欺騙心靈，因為它削減基督徒對上帝的責任的廣度和深度。因此，如果沒有其他理由，我們應該堅決拒絕它們。
本文摘自《The Westminster Confession of
Faith for Study Classes》pp.194-200，by G. I. Williamson
Freedom in Christ
By G.
I. Williamson
Westminster
Confession of Faith
Chapter
XX sections 2, 3
2. God
alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it,
in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey
such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:
and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is
to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
3. They who, upon pretence of Christian
liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end
of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our
enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness
before him, all the days of our life.
These
sections of the Confession teach us (1) that God alone has legitimate authority
over the conscience, (2) that his Word alone is the rule thereof, (3) that the
doctrines and commandments of men which are either contrary to or additional to
God’s Word have no authority to bind the conscience, (4) that to permit the
conscience to be bound by such is sin, betrayal of true liberty of conscience,
and a denial that God alone is one’s Lord, and (5) that Christian liberty must
be distinguished from antinomianism (which means, “freedom to sin”).
Here
stands one of the glorious benefits of the Reformation for which our fathers
gave their all. It was this truth, so clearly taught in Scripture, that was
wholly eclipsed in the apostasy of the Roman Church. It was recovered only by
the blood of many martyrs. The strong determination of covenanting
Presbyterians in Scotland who would surrender to no man the crown rights of
Jesus Christ is to be remembered reverently. They recaptured the spirit of the
Apostolic Church as they answered those who tried to coerce them to believe or
to do what was contrary to the Word of Christ: “We ought to obey God rather
than men” (Acts 5:29). We must not forget that the Reformation was much more
than mere separation from the authority of the Pope and the errors of Rome. It
was not, after all, a struggle against something so much as a glorious witness
for Christ. It was a witness made in every sphere of life. For example, there
were kings on earth who were not wholly unhappy to see the structure of Roman
Catholic power weakened by the rise of Reformed Christianity. Yet sometimes
these same kings determined to “take charge” of the Church themselves. When it
dawned on them that Reformed Christians meant to acknowledge none but Christ as
“king and head of the Church,” they were capable of terrible persecution. Much
of the suffering endured by the authors of our Confession came at the hand of
such kings. But thanks be to God, they stood by the grand truth of Scripture,
and by that mighty principle such tyrants were themselves doomed. God alone is
Lord in the Church and in the conscience. We are “bought with a price” and must
not be “the servants of men” (I Cor. 7:23).
Today
we almost take for granted the precious legacy which has accrued from this
principle. The separation of Church and State, by which we mean the liberty to
believe and to practice one’s faith without coercion by men, is an example. We
are not saying that this principle is always respected in a nation such as our
own. Indeed, we believe that the state control of education increasingly
threatens this very principle. A false and anti-Christian philosophy of life,
in practical utterance if not in theory, is being forced upon those who teach
in the public school system of this nation. And the day may come when those who
teach will have to suffer in order to speak and to act as if God were sovereign
in all things.
But
let us give more detailed consideration to a very common violation of the
principle under consideration found in many Protestant churches and even in
those that claim this Confession! In such churches it is customary to make
certain specific rules which are imposed upon members of the church as a matter
of duty, thus binding the conscience. These rules are of two kinds: (1) some
are contrary to the Word of God. Examples of rules which are contrary to the
Word of God are prohibitions requiring total abstinence from the use of certain
material things. The Mormon religion forbids the use of coffee. Other sects
forbid the use of meat. And truly, time would fail to mention all such
forbidden things for the number is legion. However, in not one case is it possible
to show that such abstinence is required by God. This is impossible because
“there is nothing unclean of itself” (Rom. 14:14). “All things indeed are pure”
(14:20). If nothing is unclean, then no such rule forbidding the use of
something can be legitimate. If all things indeed are pure, then all things may
indeed be used by men without fear of conscience. It is true, of course, that
once a person has allowed his conscience to be bound by such a (false) rule, he
cannot partake of the forbidden thing without sinning. We have already shown
how and why this is so (Ch. XVI). “To him that esteemeth any thing to be
unclean, to him it is unclean . . . it is evil for that man . . . because [it
is] not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:14, 20, 23).
It is never right to do what we believe to be wrong, even when we believe a
thing to be wrong without good reason. But even if a person faithfully obeys
his conscience and scrupulously observes a rule forbidding the use of a
material thing, he is still guilty of sin. He is guilty of the sin of allowing
someone other than God to impose a rule upon his conscience. To this it is
objected that without such rules (forbidding, or at least restricting, the free
use of material things) the only possible result will be “all-out
intemperance.” It is either total abstinence or there is unavoidable certainty
of wicked abuse. We have already shown the difference between true liberty and
sinful license (XX, 1). We have shown that this is a false expectation. We shall
only say here that it is extremely dishonoring to the Spirit of God to maintain
such an objection. For this objection is tantamount to saying that a man-made
rule will keep a Christian from sin better than the Holy Spirit who dwells in
him. To say that the Holy Spirit cannot guide the Christian in the free use of
material things which he has not forbidden is to charge God foolishly.
(2)
The second class of rules, are those that are, if not contrary, then at least
additional to the Word of God. As an example we might mention many of the rules
imposed upon members of the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt many of these rules
are contrary to the Word of God, but even those that are not are often
additions to the Bible. “The chief commandments or laws of the Church,” we read
in the Roman Catechism, “are these six: (1) to assist at Mass on all Sundays
and holydays of obligation, (2) to fast and to abstain on the days appointed,
(3) to confess our sins at least once a year, (4) to receive Holy Communion
during the Easter time, (5) to contribute to the support of the Church, and (6)
to observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage.” We do not think that it
could be proved contrary to the Bible to fast on those days which happen to be
appointed by the Roman Church. Certainly the Christian ought to confess his
sins (to God through Christ alone). And it would be perfectly proper to receive
Holy Communion (if it were rightly administered) on that Lord’s Day which Rome
presumes to call “Easter.” But though it is not wrong to do these things
voluntarily, in a proper manner, it is wrong to permit the conscience to be
bound to do them in the manner and at the time designated by Rome. Let us cite
another example: the Baptist churches insist upon immersion as the form of
baptism. It is not contrary to the Word of God to baptize by immersion. But it
is an addition to the Word of God to require that baptism be by immersion only.
And to permit the conscience to be bound by such a rule is wrong even though
immersion itself is not.
It
has been said that there is “a pope in every man’s heart.” We are all tempted
to think that we could improve our fellow Christians if we had charge of their
conscience. We are likewise all liable to imagine that we are doing much better
than others in the use of our cherished liberty. We would restrict others and
relax strictures against ourselves. But the Scripture requires the reverse:
charity towards others, and carefulness in the use of our own liberty. We ought
to give our brother the benefit of any doubt. We should esteem others better
than ourselves. And even where it appears that our brother has abused his
liberty, we should correct in meekness taking heed to ourselves. Meanwhile, we
should guard against the abuse of our own liberty, taking heed that we do not
make it an occasion of the flesh, and exercising care that we do not cause a
weaker brother to stumble by the exercise of our liberty.
It is
alleged that such a doctrine of liberty as that set forth above will lead to
sin. We have already refuted this in our discussion of license. However, we
wish here to emphasize the fact that contrary to common impression, it is this
doctrine (rightly understood) which really shows the full scope of God’s laws
in man’s life. It is not because the Reformed Faith is interested in
eliminating holiness and duty that it rejects all rules contrary or additional
to the Word of God. It is rather precisely because it recognizes that it is the
Christian’s duty—whether he eats, or drinks, or whatsoever he may do—to do all
to the glory of God. When man’s duty is reduced from divine principles to human
rules, it is falsified because it is reduced. The Pharisees of old multiplied
rules in an effort to cover the whole of life, but they did not even come close
to the holiness of Christ, who rejected their rules in favor of the law of God
(Mark 7:1-13). Some people cannot imagine that the Ten Commandments cover
everything and that they do so without error or defect, but this is the case
nonetheless.
Paul
says that when the mind is transformed and renewed (by the inward operation of
the law applied by the Holy Spirit), the individual believer will be able to
prove what the will of God is (Rom. 12:2). He says that he will know (without
man-made rules) what is “good, and acceptable, and perfect.” We believe that a
careful exegesis of this text will show that the meaning is as follows: (1) By
the knowledge of the Ten Commandments, a believer will know that which is good.
For example, he will know that playing the piano is good, for the simple reason
that it is not forbidden by any one of the Ten Commandments. “We know that the
law is good” (I Tim. 1:8) ; therefore, that which is in accordance with or not
contrary to one of the Ten Commandments is good. The act of playing the piano,
considered in itself, is therefore good. (2) The Christian must also consider
the circumstances under which a particular thing is done. A good thing is not
always acceptable under the circumstances. It is good to call upon the name of
the Lord. But it must be done in an acceptable time (II Cor. 6:2). Men who call
upon the Lord only when it is too late will not be heard. So again, as an
example, playing the piano may, or may not, be acceptable according to such
circumstances as time and place. It would be wrong to play the piano when one’s
father has forbidden it. It would be wrong to play the piano at a “striptease”
emporium. (3) Finally, it is necessary that an act be done with the right
intent or motive. This is what the apostle means by the perfect will of God.
Again we will take as an example the act of playing the piano. It is
conceivable that a person would do this good thing under proper circumstances
and yet violate one or more of the Ten Commandments. Suppose that the purpose
was to gain personal fame and fortune rather than to serve God. Suppose that
one played the piano only to make money and not to serve God. Then it would be
wrong, not because it is a sin to play the piano, but because it is a sin to
make it the chief end of one’s life, or even to do it only as a means of making
money without seeking to glorify him.
The
truth is that when the law of God is rightly observed by a believer, it will
prove much more demanding and will be much more stringent than the rules of
men. But above all, such a man will be preserved from the age-old ruin of the
Pharisees who thought that they were keepers of the law when they were really
only keeping a few relatively easy rules. The making of rules by men deceives
the heart because it reduces the breadth and depth of the Christian’s duty to
God. For this reason, if for no other, we should steadfastly reject them.
Author
Born
at Des Moines, Iowa in 1925, G. I. Williamson graduated from Drake University,
Des Moines, in 1949, and received the B.D. degree from Pittsburgh-Xenia
theological Seminary in 1952. For eight years he served as a home missionary
oof the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Fall river, Massachusetts and pastored
the Auckland congregation of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand.
