華腓德對嬰兒洗禮論證的總結
WARFIELD ON “THE ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL” FOR INFANT BAPTISM
作者：Andy Schreiber   誠之譯自：
https://schreiberscribbles.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/warfield-on-the-argument-in-a-nutshell-for-infant-baptism/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/15/warfield-on-the-argument-in-a-nutshell-for-infant-baptism/
 
華腓德（Benjamin B. Warfield）將支持嬰兒洗禮的論點總結如下：
Benjamin B. Warfield sums up the argument in favor of infant baptism as follows:
 
「嬰兒洗禮的論證，簡而言之就是：上帝在亞伯拉罕時代建立了祂的教會，並將孩子們納入了教會。除非上帝將他們排除在外，否則他們就必須留在教會裏。聖經沒有說祂將他們排除在外，因此孩童仍然是祂教會的成員，因此有資格享受教會的典禮。在這些典禮中，有一項是洗禮，它在新約時代中的地位與在舊約時代中的割禮相似，因此它要像割禮一樣，理當要賜與孩童。」（《華腓德作品集》第九卷，第408頁）
 “The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established his Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. IX, p.408)
 
華腓德指出的第一件事就是「上帝在亞伯拉罕時代建立了祂的教會，並把孩子們納入了教會」。所以理解他的論證的起點和關鍵是對教會和恩典之約有正確的認識。
The first thing that Warfield points out is that “God has established his church in the days of Abraham and put children into it.” And so the starting point and key to understanding his argument is a right understanding of the church and the covenant of grace.
 
在他的《基督與聖約神學》一書中，韋內瑪（Cornelius Venema）用了一整章的篇幅來論述聖約神學和嬰兒洗禮中的實踐。在這一章中，他與華腓德對這一主題的討論進行了互動（引用了上述引用的聲明），對聖約神學進行了簡要的概述，然後展示了這一觀點如何適用於嬰兒洗禮。他在那裏寫道：
In his book, Christ & Covenant Theology, Cornelius Venema includes an entire chapter dealing with Covenant Theology and the practice in infant baptism. In this chapter, he interacts with Warfield’s treatment of the subject (citing the statement quoted above), providing a brief overview of Covenant theology, and then showing how this view applies to infant baptism. There he writes,
 
「正如華腓德正確地認為，改革宗給信徒及其子女施洗的做法，主要是基於對聖經中恩典之約教義的理解。在十六世紀宗教改革家的主要著作中，以及在宗教改革傳統的偉大認信象徵中，反復突出的一個論點就是聖約的論點。兒童和成年信徒一樣，要接受洗禮，因為他們屬於在基督裏的盟約團體」。（p. 258）
“The Reformed practice of baptizing believers and their children, as Warfield rightly maintained, is largely based upon an understanding of the biblical doctrine of the covenant of grace. In the principal writings of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and in the great confessional symbols of the Reformed tradition, the one argument for paedobaptism that repeatedly stands out is the covenant argument. Children, like adult believers, are to be baptized because they belong to the covenant community in Christ.” (p.258).
 
然後，韋內瑪繼續用他自己所說的「一系列的步驟，從聖約神學的較一般的和基本的要素，到其關於基督教洗禮的適當領受者的具體含義」（同上），將聖約論點具體化。
Venema then goes on to flesh out the covenant argument in what he himself calls “a series of steps, moving from the more general and basic elements of covenant theology to its specific implications regarding the proper recipients of Christian baptism” (Ibid).
 
他指出，改革宗聖約神學最重要的內容之一是，「在整個救贖歷史中，只有一個恩典之約」（第270頁），此約在內容實質上是一樣的，但在施行方式上有所不同。《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》是這樣說的：
He points out that one of the most important elements of Reformed covenant theology is that there is “one covenant of grace throughout redemptive history” (p.270), the same in substance, but differing in how it is administered. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way:
 
「這約在律法時期與福音時期有不同的執行方式。在律法時期，恩典之約是藉著應許、預言、獻祭、割禮、逾越節的羔羊，以及傳給猶太人的其他預表禮儀執行，這些都是預表那要來的基督；在當時，這些預表藉著聖靈的運行，足夠有效教導選民，使選民對所應許的彌賽亞（耶穌）有信心，知道藉著祂，才能得著完全的赦罪與永遠的救恩。這約稱為舊約。」（7.5）
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.” (16.5)
 
另一種說法是，不管是在舊約聖經還是在新約聖經中，救贖的方式都一直只有一種。在《加拉太書》三章7-9，保羅寫道：
Another way of saying this would be to say that there has always been one way of salvation, whether in the Old Testament or in the New. In Galatians 3:7-9, Paul writes,
 
「所以，你們要知道：那以信為本的人，就是亞伯拉罕的子孫。並且聖經既然預先看明，神要叫外邦人因信稱義，就早已傳福音給亞伯拉罕，說：『萬國都必因你得福。』可見那以信為本的人和有信心的亞伯拉罕一同得福。」
“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.” (ESV)
 
那些「以信為本」的人（即那些單單信靠基督得救的人）「是亞伯拉罕的子孫」（第7節）。 所有舊約的聖徒都是因著對基督的信心，靠著恩典得救的（弗二8-9），就像我們今天一樣。他們的信心期盼尚未到來的基督；而我們的信心則回顧已經到來的基督。
Those who are “of faith” (i.e. those who trust in Christ alone for salvation) “are the sons of Abraham” (v.7).  All of the Old Testament saints were saved by grace through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), just as we are today. Their faith looked forward to the Christ who was yet to come; while our faith looks back to the Christ who has already come.
 
而神與亞伯拉罕所立的約，甚至包括他嬰孩的後代，他們也要接受那恩典之約之施行的記號和印記，即割禮這個聖禮。創世記十七章9-12節說到：
And God’s covenant with Abraham included even his infant offspring, who were also to receive the sign and seal of that administration of the covenant of grace, that is, the sacrament of circumcision. Genesis 17:9-12 says,
 
神又對亞伯拉罕說：「你和你的後裔必世世代代遵守我的約。你們所有的男子都要受割禮；這就是我與你並你的後裔所立的約，是你們所當遵守的。你們都要受割禮；這是我與你們立約的證據。你們世世代代的男子，無論是家裏生的，是在你後裔之外用銀子從外人買的，生下來第八日，都要受割禮。」
“And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. . . .” (ESV)
 
當你考慮到舊約中耶和華明令要將約的記號和印記（即割禮）施行在嬰兒（8天大的男嬰！）的事實，許多反對嬰兒洗禮的論點就開始在自身的重壓下崩潰了。正如加爾文所言：「因為他們[即批判嬰兒洗禮的人]用以指責嬰兒洗禮的理由，同樣也可適用於割禮。」 （《基督教要義》，4.16.9）。
When you consider the fact that the sign and seal of the covenant (i.e. circumcision) was explicitly commanded by the Lord to be applied to infants (8-day-old male children!) in the Old Testament, many of the arguments against infant baptism begin to crumble under their own weight. As Calvin puts it, “For what will they [i.e. critics of infant baptism] bring forward to impugn infant baptism that may not be turned back against circumcision?” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9).
 
這就是為什麼約翰·慕理寫下以下內容的原因：
That is why John Murray writes the following:
 
「再怎麼強調也不過分，即如果現在把嬰兒排除在外，這種改變意味著對神早先設立的做法的徹底顛覆。所以我們必須問：在舊約聖經或新約聖經中，我們是否找到任何暗示或提示這種倒轉？更尖銳的是，新約聖經是否撤銷或提供任何暗示，要撤銷如此明確授權的原則，即要將嬰兒納入聖約並與聖約的記號和印記有分？」（《基督徒洗禮》，第49頁）
“If infants are excluded now, it cannot be too strongly emphasised [sic] that this change implies a complete reversal of the earlier divinely instituted practice. So we must ask: do we find any hint or intimation of such reversal in either the Old or the New Testament? More pointedly, does the New Testament revoke or does it provide any intimation of revoking so expressly authorised [sic] a principle as that of the inclusion of infants in the covenant and their participation in the covenant sign and seal?” (Christian Baptism, p.49)
 
我們有沒有發現任何這種倒轉的跡象？沒有，我們沒有。所以慕理最後總結說到：
Do we find any hint of such a reversal? No, we do not. And so Murray concludes by saying,
 
「在沒有這類廢止的證據的情況下，我們得出結論，向信徒的幼兒施行聖約的記號和印記是仍然有效的，並有永恆的神聖保證。換句話說，向嬰兒施行此聖約記號的命令並沒有被廢除：因此它仍然有效。」（《基督徒洗禮》，第50頁）
“In the absence of such evidence of repeal we conclude that the administering of the sign and seal of the covenant to the infant seed of believers is still in operation and has perpetual divine warrant. In other words, the command to administer the sign to infants has not been revoked: therefore it is still in force.” (Christian Baptism, p.50)
 
換句話說，舉證的責任實際上在於那些拒絕嬰兒洗禮的人，而不是那些肯定嬰兒洗禮的人。實際上需要在聖經中明確禁止我們給嬰兒施洗，而不是明確命令我們這樣做。
In other words, the burden of proof actually rests upon those who reject infant baptism, not on those who affirm it. There would actually need to be an explicit prohibition in Scripture forbidding us from baptizing infants, rather than an explicit command telling us to do so.