诺曼·谢泼德的称义观
Justification by Faith in the Theology of Norman Shepherd
作者：大卫·范楚南（David VanDrunen）译者：王一
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2002/justification-by-faith-in-the-theology-of-norman-shepherd/
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/%e8%af%ba%e6%9b%bc%c2%b7%e8%b0%a2%e6%b3%bc%e5%be%b7%e7%9a%84%e7%a7%b0%e4%b9%89%e8%a7%82/
 
改革宗基督徒常年参与捍卫唯独因信称义的教义，反对其他神学传统中的诋毁者。然而，有时，即使在改革宗圈子里，对该教义的争论也很激烈。原威斯敏斯特神学院（费城）系统神学副教授、基督教改革宗教会牧师诺曼·谢泼德（Norman Shepherd）最近一直处于美国改革宗圈中这一辩论的中心。本文试图界定这些争论中的关键问题，并从改革宗的角度评估谢泼德的称义观。
Reformed Christians have been perennially engaged in defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against its detractors in other theological traditions. At times, however, debates over the doctrine have raged even within Reformed circles. Norman Shepherd, formerly Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and pastor in the Christian Reformed Church, has been at the center of such debates recently in the American Reformed world. This article seeks to define the issues at stake in these debates and to evaluate Shepherd’s doctrine of justification from a Reformed standpoint.
 
谢泼德之争
 THE SHEPHERD CONTROVERSIES
 
诺曼·谢泼德1963年开始在威斯敏斯特神学院（费城）教授系统神学。20世纪70年代中期，关于薛佛教学的争议在威斯敏斯特社区和薛佛当时担任牧师的正统长老会（OPC）中爆发了。虽然谢泼德在一些相关神学问题上的教导受到质疑，但争论的关键点在于他是坚持《威斯敏斯特准则》中所表达的宗教改革的唯信称义的教义，还是以这样或那样的方式堕落到教导称义是由信心和行为共同决定的。谢泼德在他所服务的机构中既有捍卫者也有批判者，在经历了一系列旷日持久的事件后，他才最终在1981年被解除了教职。此时，他也离开了对他提出惩戒指控的长老会，并加入了北美基督教改革宗教会（CRCNA）。在1998年退休之前，他在明尼苏达州和伊利诺伊州的基督教改革会中担任牧师职务。
Norman Shepherd began teaching systematic theology at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) in 1963. In the mid-1970s, controversy over Shepherd’s teaching broke out in the Westminster community and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, in which Shepherd was serving as a minister at the time. Though Shepherd’s teaching on a number of related theological issues was called into question, the key point of debate was whether he held to the Reformation’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, as expressed in the Westminster Standards, or had, in one way or another, lapsed into teaching that justification was by faith and works together. Shepherd had both defenders and detractors in the institutions in which he served, and only after a protracted series of events was he finally dismissed from his teaching post in 1981. At this time, he also left his presbytery, where disciplinary charges had been filed against him, and joined the Christian Reformed Church. He served pastorates in the CRC in Minnesota and Illinois before retiring in 1998.
 
鉴于这段历史的轮廓，谢泼德的争论似乎没有实际意义，目前也没有什么兴趣。然而，最近谢泼德的短书《恩典的呼唤》（The Call of Grace）的出现，使许多这些老问题重新浮出水面，并在美国改革宗人士中激起了相当大的辩论。评估谢泼德关于称义的教导之所以困难的原因之一是缺乏他本人写作的线索。虽然他在1979年未发表的论文《称义的恩典》（The Grace of Justification）被保存下来，但很少有确凿的证据表明谢泼德真正相信的是什么。那么，《恩典的呼唤》提供了长期以来缺少的东西：谢泼德本人对圣经中关于救赎的教导进行了详细讨论。
Given the contours of this history, the Shepherd controversy may seem to be moot and of little current interest. However, the recent appearance of Shepherd’s short book, The Call of Grace, has brought many of these old questions back to the surface and has stirred up considerable debate among American Reformed people. One of the difficulties in evaluating Shepherd’s teaching on the doctrine of justification has been the lack of a writing trail. Though his 1979 unpublished paper, "The Grace of Justification," has survived, there was little hard evidence of what Shepherd actually believed. The Call of Grace, then, has provided what was long missing: an extended discussion by Shepherd himself on the biblical teaching on salvation.
 
因此，本文的问题是关于谢泼德对称义的看法及其与历史上改革宗教导的一致性。尽管谢泼德使用了许多正统的术语，但我认为他所阐述的称义观始终是模糊的，并且以一种与传统的圣经教导相悖的方式重新定义了信心与行为的关系。
The question for the present paper, therefore, concerns Shepherd’s views on justification and their consistency with the historic Reformed teaching. Although Shepherd makes use of much orthodox terminology, I argue that he has articulated a doctrine of justification that is persistently ambiguous and that redefines the relationship of faith and works in a way at odds with the traditional, biblical doctrine.
 
信心与称义的教义
THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH & JUSTIFICATION
 
必须承认，谢泼德关于称义的著作确实使用了改革宗神学中常见的术语和对此教义的阐述方式。例如，他说“信心抓住了耶稣基督和他的义，耶稣基督的义被归给了相信的人。这是信心在称义中的独特功能，它与其他任何恩典或美德都不相同。”同样，在另一个地方，他提出了一个非常标准的改革宗对称义和成圣的区分。“称义是上帝对他的子民的白白的恩典的工作，他据此赦免他们的罪，并接受他们为义人，理由是耶稣基督的义归于他们，并只凭信心接受。成圣是上帝在他们身上的白白恩典的工作，据此他将他们逐步转变为他儿子的形象。”
It must be acknowledged from the outset that Shepherd’s writings on justification do make use of terms and particular articulations of doctrines that are common to Reformed theology. For example, he states: "Faith lays hold of Jesus Christ and his righteousness and the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to the one who believes. This is the distinctive function of faith in justification which it shares with no other grace or virtue." Similarly, in another place he sets forth a very standard Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification: "Justification is an act of God’s free grace with respect to his people whereby he pardons their sin and accepts them as righteous on the ground Of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone. Sanctification is a work of God’s free grace in them whereby He transforms them progressively into the image of his Son."
 
然而，在谢泼德的著作中，有许多东西让人质疑他使用这种语言的真正含义。也许最突出的例子是他不断声称（在《称义的恩典》中，特别是在《恩典的呼唤》中），信心必须是“活的”，“顺服的”和“活跃的”（living, obedient, and active）。信心的定义对称义的教义至关重要，因为改革宗的 “唯独信心”称义的教义假定了对信心的独特理解，在这种理解中，信心与行为或顺服有着明显的区别。在改革宗的观点中，信心是向外的（extraspective），是一种着眼于自身之外的信任，依靠基督的善行为我们赢得救赎。相比之下，顺服包括一个人自己产生的善行，这些善行来自于信心，并且唯独出于上帝的恩典。我们藉着信心被称义，藉着顺服，则不被称义。从这个角度看，谢泼德使用“顺服的信心”（obedient faith）这样的短语，本质上是模糊不清的。这样的短语可以简单地指一种信心总是有顺服伴随着，这与改革宗的神学是完全一致的。然而，它也可以指本身就是一种顺服的信心，或者换种说法，指一种被设定得如此宽泛的信心，它不仅包括谦卑地依靠基督和他的救赎工作，还包括上帝要求与他立约的人做的顺服和善行。在这种情况下，我们不是单单藉着信心而称义，而是藉着信心和顺服一起而称义。与传统改革宗神学清晰精确区分信心和顺服的作用相比，谢泼德从来没有仔细界定过他使用的术语的含义。尽管对于这样一个重要的主题来说，模棱两可的存在是有问题的，但对谢泼德神学的公平评价必须试图探究模棱两可之下的内容，澄清谢泼德试图传达的内容。
Nevertheless, there are many things in Shepherd’s writings that call into question what he really means in his use of such language. Perhaps the most striking example is his continual claim (in "The Grace of Justification" and especially in The Call of Grace) that faith must be "living," "obedient," and "active." The definition of faith is critical for the doctrine of justification, for the Reformed doctrine of justification "by faith alone" presumes a particular understanding of faith, one in which faith is sharply distinguished from works or obedience. In the Reformed view, faith is extraspective, a trust that looks outside of oneself and rests upon the good works of Christ that earned our salvation. In contrast, obedience consists of the good works that a person himself produces, works that flow from faith and Only by God’s grace. By faith we are justified; by obedience we are not. Seen in this light, Shepherd’s use of phrases such as "obedient faith" is inherently ambiguous. Such a phrase could refer simply to a faith that is always accompanied by obedience, and this would be wholly consistent with Reformed theology. However, it could also refer to a faith that is itself obedience, or, to put it another way, to a faith that is conceived in such broad terms that it consists not only of a humble resting upon Christ and his work for salvation, but also of our obedience and good works that God demands of those who are in covenant with him. In such a case, it is not by believing alone that we are justified, but by believing and obeying together. In contrast to the clear precision of traditional Reformed theology in distinguishing the roles of faith and obedience, Shepherd never carefully defines what his terminology means. Though the very presence of ambiguity is problematic for such an important subject, a fair evaluation of Shepherd’s theology must try to probe beneath the ambiguity and clarify what Shepherd is attempting to communicate.
 
不幸的是，尽管有一些相反的迹象，但证据表明，谢泼德确实更倾向于把善行不仅仅当作是信心的果实，而是纳入信心本身种的一个要素。这个想法在《称义的恩典》的后半部分出现得相当突出。在这里，他写道，信仰“包括顺服”（entails obedience，13），并且“总是与悔改交织在一起”（invariably intertwined with repentance，19）。虽然这样的表达可能会理解为正统的含义，但这份文件中的其他一些陈述却远没有那么容易被接受。例如，他写道，得救的信心是一种“服从基督的命令”（16）和“抛弃罪恶和不敬”（17）的信心。按照同样的思路，他称放弃罪和叛逆是“信仰的行为”（an act of faith，20）。信心不再是对另一个人的顺服的信靠，而变成了信徒自己提供顺服的行为。当谢泼德解释说，“活泼的信心是圣灵重生和成圣工作的果实”时，这种将使人称义的信心与成圣的顺服相混淆的情况就非常明显了(15）。他把改革宗的教义次序颠倒了：信心不是成圣的果实，但成圣是信心的果实！（16）
Unfortunately, despite some indications to the contrary, the evidence points to the conclusion that Shepherd indeed prefers an understanding of faith that makes good works not merely the fruit of faith, but an element of faith itself This idea emerges quite prominently in the second half of "The Grace of justification." Here he writes that faith "entails obedience"
(13) and is "invariably intertwined with repentance" (19). While such expressions might possibly be given an orthodox spin, a number of other statements in this document are far less susceptible to it. For example, he writes that saving faith is a faith that "yields obedience to the commands of Christ" (16) and that "forsakes sin and ungodliness" (17). Along the same lines, he calls the forsaking of sin and rebellion "an act of faith" (20). Faith has been turned from the extraspective trust in the obedience of another into an act in which the believer himself offers obedience. This confusion of the faith that justifies with the obedience of sanctification is also manifest when Shepherd explains that "a living and active faith is the fruit of the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit." (15) This turns the Reformed doctrine on its head: faith is not the fruit of sanctification, but sanctification is the fruit of faith!
 
在他最近的作品中，谢泼德继续把顺服和善行说成是信心本身的一部分。例如，他写道：“信心是必需的，但信心从个人的功德转向看上帝的应许。悔改和顺服从信心中流出，是信心的完全（fullness of faith）。这就是忠心（faithfulness），忠心就是在信心中坚持不懈。活泼的、活跃的、持久的信心是信徒进入永生的路。” 跟随这里的思路并不容易，但其逻辑似乎是这样的。“悔改和顺服” 构成了“信心的完全”；“信心的完全”是“忠心”；“忠心是对信心的坚持”——所有这四个术语或短语显然是表达相同的意思。那么，谢泼德在下一句话中再次提到“活泼的、活跃的、持久的信心”对救恩的必要性，这是什么意思呢？明显的意思是，这种“活泼、活跃、持久的信心”就是“信心的完全”的意思，这又意味着忠心、坚忍、悔改和顺服本身就是这种“活泼、积极、持久的信心”的一部分。那么，悔改和顺服，这些改革宗神学如此小心翼翼地将其与信心区分开来的东西，最终又成为信心的一部分。
In his more recent work, Shepherd continues to speak of obedience and good works as part of faith itself For example, he writes: "Faith is required, but faith looks away from personal merit to the promises of God. Repentance and obedience flow from faith as the fullness of faith. This is faithfulness, and faithfulness is perseverance in faith. A living, active, and abiding faith is the way in which the believer enters into eternal life." Following the train of thought here is not easy, but the logic seems to be something like this: "repentance and obedience" constitute the "fullness of faith;" the "fullness of faith" is "faithfulness;" "faithfulness is perseverance in faith" – all four of these terms or phrases are evidently identical. What then is the significance that Shepherd, in the very next sentence and without a hitch, again refers somewhat climactically to the saving necessity of a "living, active, and abiding faith?" The obvious implication is that this "living, active, and abiding faith" is what is meant by the "fullness of faith," which in turn implies that faithfulness, perseverance, and repentance and obedience are themselves part of this "living, active and abiding faith." Repentance and obedience, then, the very things that Reformed theology has so carefully distinguished from faith, become aspects of faith in the end.
 
有更有力的、也许更有问题的证据表明，当谢泼德说我们是靠活泼和顺服的信心得救时，他指的是一种不同于改革宗传统的信心。谢泼德说，基督本身就有“活泼而活跃的信心”。那么，基督的信心就成了我们的典范。基督有顺服的信心，因此我们要有像他那样顺服的信心。这有什么可反对的呢？考虑一下《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》（XIV.2）中关于信心的标准改革宗定义。“使人得救的信心的主要动作是：接受、领受和依靠基督，以获得义、圣洁和永生。” 当然，说基督接受、领受和依靠自己来称义、成圣和获得永生是无稽之谈。基督不需要信靠中保，他自己就是中保。基督与我们不同，他不需要使人得救的信心，因为他与我们不同，他真的是顺服的！不可避免的结论是，当谢泼德提到基督本人展示了我们要效仿的活泼的、顺服的信心，并以此得救时，他显然想到了一种“信仰”，而他想到的这种“信心”与改革宗认信文件中的“信心” 是不同的。这意味着什么呢？如果我们是靠一种活泼的信心得救，就像基督的活泼的信心一样，那么我们是靠一种信心得救，而这种信心的主要动作不是接受、领受和依靠基督。传统上（和圣经上），我们肯定救赎是因着基督的行为（作为称义的基础），藉着我们的信心（作为称义的工具或管道）。在谢泼德的处理方式中，行为和信心捆绑在一起，首先在基督身上展示，然后由我们模仿。
There is stronger and perhaps even more problematic evidence that when Shepherd says that we are saved by a living and obedient faith he means a different kind of faith from that of the Reformed tradition. Shepherd says that Christ himself has "living and active faith." Christ’s faith, then, becomes the model: Christ had obedient faith and thus we are to have obedient faith like his. What could be objectionable about this? Consider a standard Reformed definition of faith found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (XIV.2): "the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life." Of course, it is nonsense to say that Christ accepted, received, and rested upon Christ for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. Christ did not need a mediator in whom to put his faith-he is the mediator. Christ, unlike us, did not need saving faith because he, unlike us, really was obedient! The unavoidable conclusion is that when Shepherd refers to Christ himself as exhibiting the living and obedient faith that we are to emulate and by which we are saved, he obviously has in mind a kind of "faith" that is different from the "faith" of the Reformed confessional statements. What are the implications? If we are saved by a living faith that is like Christ’s living faith, then we are saved by a faith whose principal acts are not accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ. Traditionally (and biblically), we affirm salvation to be by Christ’s works (as the ground of justification) and through our faith (as the instrument or means of justification). In Shepherd’s treatment, works and faith come bundled together, displayed first in Christ and then imitated by us.
 
谢泼德与改革宗传统
 SHEPHERD & THE REFORMED TRADITION
 
在谢泼德的称义观中，当然还有许多其他的问题，在这里也会有相关的考虑。然而，鉴于篇幅的限制，最后一个值得简要关注的问题是谢泼德的写作动机。他是否只是想重述标准的改革宗的信心观和称义观，无论他多么不成功？还是他真的试图修改这项教义？一方面，如果他只是想做一个忠实的改革宗神学家，那么他放弃改革宗传统的明确区分，而采用“顺服的信心”等这样模糊的术语，甚至在《恩典的呼唤》中保留使用这种语言，尽管人们对这种术语有几十年的抱怨，这无疑是令人费解的。另一方面，如果他真的试图重述传统教义，那么期望他在改革宗牧师和神学院教授的职位上直言不讳地说明自己的意图似乎也不为过。然而，谢泼德向他的读者发出了相互矛盾的信号。
There are certainly many other issues in Shepherd’s theology of justification that would be of relevant consideration here. Given the constraints of space, however, one final matter that deserves brief attention concerns Shepherd’s motivations in writing. Is he simply trying to restate the standard Reformed doctrine of faith and justification, however unsuccessfully? Or is he really attempting to revise the doctrine? On the one hand, if he is simply trying to be a faithful Reformed theologian, then it is certainly puzzling that he forsakes the clear distinctions of the Reformed tradition for the ambiguous lingo of "obedient faith" and the like, even retaining the use of such language in The Call of Grace despite the decades of complaints about such terminology. On the other hand, if he is actually attempting to restate the traditional doctrine, then it does not seem too little to expect him-in his office of Reformed minister and seminary professor-to be forthright about his intentions. Yet, Shepherd sends his readers conflicting signals.
 
谢泼德也不清楚他自己的改革宗传统与罗马天主教称义观的关系。鉴于过去五百年的历史争斗，他对罗马天主教救恩论的看法当然是令人迫切关注的。在《恩典的呼唤》的开篇，谢泼德提到了过去十年中由福音派和天主教徒共同展开的重要辩论。然而，在注意这一重要运动之后，他立即拒绝对其作进一步的评论（尽管他在书的后面非常简短地回到了这一点，但没有更明确的说法）。他很突兀地说，他拒绝讨论在双方达成共识的论点中的“细微差别”。然而，还有什么能比这些“细微差别”更重要呢？恩典、信心、基督、善行——所有各方，无论是罗马天主教还是新教，都肯定了这些。差异在于细节。诸如使人得救的信心的性质及其与善行的关系等问题可能确实是细微差别，但这些细微差别是人们把他们的永恒命运押在上面的。
Shepherd is also unclear about the relationship of his own Reformed tradition to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. Given the historical battles of the last half-millennium, his perspective on the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation is certainly of pressing interest. In the opening pages of The Call of Grace, Shepherd makes reference to the important debates of the past decade engendered by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. However, immediately after calling attention to this important movement, he declines further comment on it (though he returns to it very briefly, and no more clearly, later in the book). He states abruptly that he declines to discuss the "nuances" of the arguments that have been made in its wake. What could be more important, however, than the nuances? Grace, faith, Christ, good works-all of the parties, Roman Catholic as well as Protestant, affirm them. The differences are in the details. Questions such as the precise nature of saving faith and its relationship with good works may indeed be nuances, but they are nuances upon which people have staked their eternal destinies.
 
结论
诺曼·谢泼德的称义观在过去引起了改革宗圈子里的兴趣，这是不争的事实，而它又是一个令人非常好奇的问题，这似乎越来越真实。无论改革宗基督徒之间热议的各种问题的重要性如何，目前的问题无疑是最紧迫的，因为福音的性质直接受到威胁。有鉴于此，我们的教会应该保持警惕，使改革宗的称义教义中的明确区别不至于陷入松弛的模糊状态，并坚持不懈地拒绝任何篡改赐人生命的信息的尝试，这信息就是：是我们的信心，而不是我们的顺服，才使我们称义。
CONCLUSION
That Norman Shepherd’s theology of justification has attracted interest within Reformed circles in the past is indisputable, and that it is again a matter of great curiosity seems increasingly true. Whatever the importance of the variety of matters hotly debated among Reformed Christians, the present issue is undoubtedly of the highest urgency, for the nature of the Gospel is directly at stake. In light of this, our churches ought to be vigilant in keeping the clear distinctions of the Reformed doctrine of justification from falling into flaccid ambiguity, and persistent in refusing to revise the life-giving message that our faith, and not our obedience, justifies.