敬拜仪式中的祈祷：丰富教会心声的话语
Liturgical Prayer: Words That Enrich the Heart of the Church
作者：Rev. John J. Bambaro   译者：王一
https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/articles/liturgical-prayer-words-that-enrich-the-heart-of-the-church/
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/%e6%95%ac%e6%8b%9c%e4%bb%aa%e5%bc%8f%e4%b8%ad%e7%9a%84%e7%a5%88%e7%a5%b7%ef%bc%9a%e4%b8%b0%e5%af%8c%e6%95%99%e4%bc%9a%e5%bf%83%e5%a3%b0%e7%9a%84%e8%af%9d%e8%af%ad/
 
在整个福音派中持续存在的一种现象，是将个人私下的祷告与敬拜仪式中的祷告（Liturgical prayers）对立起来，仿佛两者之间的关系就像油和水不相容。前者被认为是活泼的、认真的、由圣灵推动的，而后者则经常被描述为死板的、敷衍的、做作的。凡是如此思考的人往往会把“自由、发自内心的”（ex corde）祷告说成是圣经祷告的典范，而把“死记硬背的”祷告 说成是被“传统”俘虏的结果，通常缺乏与上帝丰富的个人关系。
Aphenomenon that continues throughout evangelicalism is the juxtaposing of unaided, private, individual prayer with liturgical prayer, as if the two related like oil and water. The former is seen as lively, earnest, and Holy Spirit-prompted, whereas the latter is frequently depicted as dead, perfunctory, and contrived. Wherever this contrasts exists, “free, from the heart” (ex corde) prayers are said to exemplify biblical prayer, whereas “rote” prayers, as they might be unfavorably denominated, are the product of hearts held captive to “tradition,” hearts usually devoid of a rich, personal relationship with God.
 
可以肯定的是，健康的、敬畏基督的祷告生活与圣经的教导是密不可分的，并且与教会从使徒时代起如何运用圣经教导的知识紧密相关。我们发现，圣经中不只提到一种祷告的方式（发自内心的自由祷告），圣经规定了各种各样的祷告方式，圣经包括许多在不同背景下对祷告的劝告，其中包括私下个人的祈祷和礼仪中的祈祷。事实上，人们甚至发现，这两种类型的祷告并不像油和水那样相互排斥。尽管它们在基督徒生活中的看起来、听起来、操作起来的方式不同，但二者常常紧密联合在一起。更重要的是，从圣经和神学的角度来看，所有真正的基督徒祷告的基础，无论是私下的还是团体的，实际上都来自于礼仪性的概念（liturgical concepts）——这些概念有意识产生三一性和以基督为中心的形式，这些形式会产生对父、子、圣灵丰富的理解、欣赏和爱。
To be sure, a healthy Christ-honoring prayer life is inseparable from what Holy Scripture teaches and how the church, from apostolic times, has appropriated such knowledge. What one finds is not one kind (that is, only ex corde prayer) but a wide variety of prayers set forth in the Bible, as well as many exhortations to pray in different contexts that include both private, individual prayer and liturgical form prayer. Indeed, one even discovers that these two types of prayers are not repellant like oil and water but often deeply connected, even though they look, sound, and operate differently in the Christian life. What is more, a biblical and theological approach to prayer evidences that the foundation of all true Christian prayer, be it private or corporate, actually derives from liturgical concepts—concepts set to forms consciously Trinitarian and christological and poised to yield a rich understanding, appreciation, and love for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
虽然这可能看起来令人惊讶，也许是反直觉的，但其实并非如此。在圣侍敬拜的仪式中（Divine Service，或称为神圣礼仪或弥撒等），我们使用上帝在圣经中所说的话语，以最确定和真实的内容来回应上帝。当主说我们是罪人时，我们承认“我们在思想、言语和行为上得罪了你。”[1]当主说我们在基督里被赦免时，我们说耶稣是“上帝的羔羊，除去世人的罪孽”[2]，我们说“阿门”进一步肯定了这神圣的真理。同样，在礼仪性的祈祷中，在精心设计的对上帝的讲话中，采用了恰当的经文、经文含量高的用词和短语，以便我们可以正确地、真实地、诚实地、深情地对他讲话。他在圣经中给我们的话语是最可靠的形式。
While that may seem surprising or perhaps counterintuitive, it shouldn’t be. In the liturgy of the Divine Service (or Divine Liturgy or Mass, and so on), we say back to God what is most certain and true by using his words from Holy Scripture. When the Lord says that we are sinners, we confess that “we have sinned against [him] in thought, word and deed.”1 When the Lord says that we are forgiven in Christ, we say Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,”2 and we further affirm such divine truths by saying, “Amen.” Likewise, in liturgical prayer, Scripture-appropriate, Scripture-saturated words, clauses, and phrases are employed in carefully crafted speech to God so that we may speak to him rightly, truly, honestly, and affectionately. The words he has given us in Holy Scripture are the surest form.
 
例如，《路德会礼仪手册》（Lutheran Service Book），在礼仪的每个元素旁边进行注释，帮助敬拜者理解祈祷文、圣经引用或（改编时）灵感的来源。把圣经加入到仪式中把礼仪的表现形式转化为通过“圣灵的宝剑”——即真理的道——与主相交。在公共敬拜之后，基督徒家庭和个人可以把这礼仪带回家，用真实的话语自信地、全心全意地祈祷。
The Lutheran Service Book, for example (used by approximately 90 percent of Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod parishes), aids worshipers by annotating beside each element of the liturgy, including all of its prayers, scriptural citation, or (when adapted) inspiration. Adding the biblical referent transforms this particular presentation of the liturgy into a purposeful engagement with the Lord through “the sword of the Spirit”—namely, the word of truth. Families and individual Christians can then take the liturgy home with them and pray confidently with truthful words, with all their heart.
 
《路德会礼仪手册》的制定者们传承了这样一个基本认知：祈祷是对上帝我们的君王说话，因此我们必须反思我们对君王所使用的语言，尤其是在集体场合下，但也包括在家庭餐桌上。这自然也会促使我们反思在个人的祷告中对神说的话。这样的反思突出了礼仪祈祷的巨大价值：它是一种有目的的教导工具，注入基督教的正统教义（orthodoxy，即圣经的教导），并通过那些严格审查和时间考验的正统实践（orthopraxy，即蒙神悦纳的敬拜）来体现它。
The framers of the Lutheran Service Book have simply traditioned the basic understanding that to pray is to speak to God our king, and therefore it behooves us to reflect on the actual words we use, especially in a corporate setting but also around the family table. This naturally prompts reflection on what we say to God in private, individual prayer. Such a reflection highlights the great value of liturgical prayer: it is purposefully didactic, inculcating Christian orthodoxy (the teaching of Holy Scripture) and manifesting it through orthopraxy (acceptable worship) that has been scrutinized and time tested.
 
因此，礼仪性祈祷可以帮助我们，指导我们，教导我们，使我们所有的祈祷——包括我们私下个人的祈祷——都是既定的习惯模式（这就是正统实践）的结果，使我们的情感、爱和欲望以一种真实的、正确的方式（这就是正统教义）向神靠拢，与新约的敬拜产生共鸣（参约4:23）。这是值得我们认真思考的问题，那就是礼仪性祈祷可以既有深刻的敬虔感受（devotional），深刻的个人性，但也同时是团体性的，符合圣经真理的，神学上精确的；此外，礼仪性祈祷不应被视为与上帝的丰富个人关系的反义词，而实际上它是我们个人对上帝的经验不断走向成熟的一个途径。
Liturgical prayer can therefore help us, guide us, and teach us, so that all of our prayer—including our private, individual prayer—is the result of established patterns of habit (orthopraxy) that conform our passions, loves, and desires toward God in a truthful, rightly ordered way (orthodoxy) that resonates with new covenant worship (John 4:23). This is a thought worth considering—namely, that liturgical prayer can be profoundly devotional, deeply personal, and yet corporate, biblically truthful, and theologically precise; further, that liturgical prayer may be seen not as repellant to a rich relationship with God but actually an avenue by which our personal experience of God may be said to mature.
 
祈祷是经过学习产生的敬拜行为（learned worship）
Prayer Is Learned Worship
 
改革家菲利普·莫兰顿在《奥格斯堡信条》（1530年）中提出了一句名言，指出敬拜的最高形式是信心，信心抓住了上帝的应许，承认他的神圣临在。最重要的是，信心相信上帝就像它相信上帝的话语，相信上帝的性情和本性一样。因此，没有什么比相信那位立约的上帝在基督耶稣里被证明也是守约的上帝，更荣耀上帝的事了。因为“上帝的一切应许在基督里都是确实的，所以我们也是借着基督说‘阿们’（祷告），将荣耀归于上帝。”（林后1:20，当代译本）
Reformer Philipp Melanchthon set forth a maxim in the Augsburg Confession (1530), stating that the highest form of worship is faith, which lays hold of God’s promises and acknowledges his holy presence. Above all, faith trusts that God is as his word and his word is as his character and nature. Nothing, therefore, could be more God-honoring than trusting that the promise-making God has proven to be the promise-keeping God in and through Christ Jesus. For “all of God’s promises find their Yes in [Christ Jesus]. That is why it is through him that we utter our [prayerful] Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor. 1:20).
 
使徒保罗在这里说的是敬拜——作为敬拜的祷告。上帝的真理塑造了受洗归主者的心、思想和行为：这就是我们之前所说的正统教义和正统实践。然而，这两者是相互影响的，所以古老的智慧说lex orandi, lex credendi（“祈祷的规则就是信心的规则”），反过来也是对的。关键是，祈祷是学来的，它塑造了我们对上帝、世界和人类的思考方式。反过来说，我们学到的关于上帝、人类和世界的思想也深刻地影响着我们祷告和敬拜的方式。就像敬拜活动的每一个方面都体现了神学一样（以及人论和救恩论），我们的祈祷也实际表明了我们对上帝的理解。这就是为什么祷告中把话说对了——即内容——其实是很重要的。礼仪性祈祷就是对圣经真理的成熟、合理的的运用，并优美的从信徒的口中阐述出来。
The apostle Paul here speaks of worship— prayer as worship. God’s truth gives shape to the heart, mind, and acts of the baptized: what we have already identified as orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The two, however, are in a reciprocal relationship so that the old dictum lex orandi, lex credendi (“the rule of prayer establishes the rule of belief”) also works the opposite way. The point being that prayer is learned and shapes the way we think about God, the world, and humanity. Conversely, what we are taught about God, humanity, and the world also profoundly influences the manner of our prayers and worship. Just as every aspect of the worship event bespeaks a theology (as well as an anthropology and soteriology), so too prayers actually say something about our understanding of God. This is why getting the words—the content—right actually matters. Liturgical prayer is all about a mature, scriptural employment of the truths of Holy Scripture and setting them artistically in the mouths of the faithful.
 
当然，敬拜可以在私下进行，也可以在公共场合进行，可以是个人行为也可以是集体活动。然而，所有的敬拜方式都是通过某种学习而得来的；甚至敬虔生活中的习惯，也是通过某种辅导或教导形成的，不管这种学习方式是通过模仿还是口头建议。即使祈祷——作为一种敬拜行为——有时可能像婴儿脱口而出的第一句话那样是本能的（instinctive），但它最终也是被教导和学习而产生，就像站着颂读福音书，做十字手势，以及诗班合唱一样。因此，即使我们可能认为私人的、个别的祈祷是一种独特的个人敬拜或与上帝接触的行为，它也是通过某种正式或非正式的教育过程形成的。那么，个人性祈祷与礼仪性祈祷在这一点上是一样的。它也是一种通过学习获得的敬拜行为，借此对上帝的信心通过个人性祷告得到必要的表达。
Worship, of course, can take place in both personal and public settings, individually and corporately. Yet all worship is learned one way or another; even habits of devotional life are imbibed by way of some sort of tutelage or pedagogy, whether through imitation or advice. And even though prayer—as an act of worship—may be as instinctive as a child’s first words, it too is taught and learned, just like standing for the reading of the gospel, making the sign of the cross, and choral singing. So even while we might think that private, individual prayer is a uniquely personalized act of worship or engagement with God, it is formed through some sort of formal or informal educational process. Individual prayer, then, shares this in common with liturgical prayer: It is a learned act of worship by which faith in God finds requisite expression.
 
然而，将私人、个人的祈祷保持在正统教义的范围内，可能挑战不小。有时，个人祷告会仓促、不周全，或者神学上缺乏深度，甚至有教义错误的可能（我们听到教义上有错误的祈祷时都会感到害怕！），这些错误特别是祷告的人处在精力疲乏，或情绪高涨，或有紧迫需求时会发声。另一方面，礼仪性祈祷已经被教会的伟大思想家、仪式家和神学家耐心的处理和审查，所以在祈祷中向上帝说的话语，准确反映了圣经的内容和教导。在个人私下的祈祷中利用公共礼仪上的祈祷，可以帮助我们在圣灵和真理中向上帝说出我们所希望的祈祷。
Keeping private, personal prayer within the boundaries of orthodoxy, however, can be a challenging matter. Sometimes it can be hasty, ill-conceived, and/or theologically gaunt or suspect (we’ve all cringed at the hearing of doctrinally incorrect prayers!), especially where fatigue, high emotions, or pressing needs may be a factor. On the other hand, liturgical prayer has been slowly processed and scrutinized by the church’s great minds, liturgists, and theologians, so that what is offered to God in prayer accurately reflects the content and teaching of Holy Scripture. Utilizing liturgical prayers in one’s private, individual prayers can help us say to God—in Spirit and in truth—what we hope to pray.
 
几乎所有其他宗教甚至没有宗教的人都会祈祷，因此，基督徒的祈祷需要在神学上保持纯正，因为 “上帝不听罪人”（约9:31）；也就是说，他不接受在新约之外的人的祈求，那些祈祷是没有基督作为中保的祷告（来8:6），是没有圣灵代求的祈祷（罗8:26-27）。这也是需要学习来获取的。保罗指导提摩太，因此也指导所有教会未来的神职人员，要坚持，作为敬拜和信心的行为，祈祷必须在从神学上和救恩论上扎根在基督耶稣身上。
Since nearly all other religions and even the irreligious world pray, Christian prayer needs to be theologically correct, for “God does not listen to sinners” (John 9:31); that is, he does not countenance the petitions of those outside the new covenant, prayers unmediated by Christ (Heb. 8:6), or prayers without intercession of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:26–27). This, too, is learned. Paul instructs Timothy, and therefore all the church’s future clergy, by insisting that prayer as an act of worship and faith must be theologically and soteriologically grounded in Christ Jesus.
 
我劝你第一要为万人恳求，祷告，代求，祝谢， …… 这是好的，在神我们救主面前可蒙悦纳； 他愿意万人得救，明白真道。 因为只有一位神，在神和人中间只有一位中保，乃是降世为人的基督耶稣， 他舍自己做万人的赎价。（提前2:1-6）
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men. . . . This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. (1 Tim. 2:1–6).
 
向上帝的祈祷必须在基督里进行，他是唯一的中保，只有通过他，我们才能接触到活着的上帝。耶稣将教会和每个受洗的基督徒与自己结合在一起，因此在基督的祈祷和教会的祈祷之间存在着一种亲密的联系。因此，只有在基督里，基督徒通过祷告的敬拜才可以说是有信心的，有价值的，并达到其指定的目的。但这不能是异想天开。它并不是自发的。相反地，基督徒被教导祈祷的界限，祈祷的内容，以及与教会一起祈祷和在教会中祈祷的意义。
Prayers directed to God must be ensconced within Christ, the one Mediator, through whom we alone have access to the living God. Jesus unites to himself the church and therefore each baptized Christian in such a way that there is an intimate bond between the prayer of Christ and the prayer of the church. And so it is in Christ alone that Christian worship through prayer may be said to be of faith, have value, and attain its appointed end. But this cannot be whimsical. It does not happen of its own accord. Rather, the Christian is taught the boundaries of prayer, the content of prayer, and the point of praying with and in the church.
 
因此，虽然个人私下的祈祷可以正确地以“奉耶稣的名”结束，但是比起私人祈祷相对非正式性和神学上的极简化，礼仪性祈祷更加深入。这样一来，礼仪性祷告大大丰富了我们的私人祷告，这些祷告根据圣经的教导，加入了更大的上帝之国的元素，以及与世界更广泛的需求相呼应的元素。
So while private, individual prayers may rightly conclude “in Jesus’ name,” liturgical prayers go several steps beyond the comparative informality and theological minimalism of private, individual prayers. In this way they enrich our private prayers a great deal, adding to them elements that resonate with the larger kingdom-of-God agenda of Christ and the wider needs of the world, according to the Scriptures.
 
个人私下的祈祷和礼仪性的祈祷
Private, Personal Prayer and Liturgical Prayer
 
在确定了圣经中的祈祷是“在基督里”的，与圣灵一起进行的，经过学习而掌握的，用信心敬拜的行为之后，我们现在注意到，个人私下的祈祷和礼仪性的祈祷属于彼此的共生关系，是一枚硬币的两面。
Having established that biblical prayer is a learned worshipful act of faith that takes place “in Christ” with the Spirit, we now note that both private, individual prayer and liturgical prayer properly belong in a symbiotic relationship to each other as complementary sides of a single coin.
 
个人私下的祷告被公认为是一种更主观的祷告，日常生活中的迫切需要通常决定了祷告的议程。这种祷告可以高度适应个人的需要和愿望。几乎所有的祷告事项都是这种类型的。受苦的人祈求解脱；悲伤的人要求得到安慰；有身体、物质或就业需要的人要求供应；破裂的关系寻求恢复；破碎的心渴望得到修补。我们的主在客西马尼园的祷告就是这样的，他祷告说：”父啊，你若愿意，就把这杯从我这里撤去”（路22:42；重点在此）。新约和旧约圣经都鼓励这种祷告。“在患难的日子求告我，我必搭救你，你也必荣耀我”（诗50:15）；“凡事藉着祷告，祈求，感谢，将你们所要的告诉神”（腓4:6）。
Private, personal prayer is fairly recognized as a more subjective kind of prayer where the pressing needs of daily life usually set the agenda. Such prayers are highly adaptable to individual needs and wants. Virtually all prayer requests are of this sort. Persons suffering pray for relief. Those who are grieving ask for comfort. Those with physical, material, or employment needs ask for provision. Broken relationships seek restoration. Broken hearts desire mending. Our Lord’s prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane were of this sort as he prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me” (Luke 22:42; emphasis added). Both testaments encourage this kind of prayer: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver, you, and you shall glorify me” (Ps. 50:15); “In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6).
 
这些祷告提供了一个非正式的机会，让我们与我们的好牧人，我们的蒙福的灵魂的医生相遇，他是提供我们所需、保护我们和预备万事的主。因此，个人性的祷告透过耶稣基督在圣灵的帮助下加强了个人与上帝之间的关系。虔诚的祈祷是为了在我们作为今世的“客旅、寄居的”（彼得前书2:11；罗马书8:18）时，帮助维系我们，特别是在我们“不住祷告”时，正如圣保罗所敦促的（帖前5:17）。此外，这也是我们在任何时候自己可以做的事，这使我们可以单独与上帝相交，并向我们的创造主和救赎主传达我们个人的爱、需求和感谢，这些都是出于以上帝为乐的心而不是被迫而为之。我们可以用例如《祷告之门》（Portals of Prayer），《我心所愿》（My Utmost for His Highest），《每日天粮》（Our Daily Bread）等一些灵修祷告的手册，来加深我们私人的祈祷，使之更加习惯化，甚至拓宽我们的视野。
These prayers offer an informal opportunity to encounter our Good Shepherd, our Blessed Physician, the Sovereign Lord who provides, protects, and prepares. As such, personal prayer strengthens the bond between individuals and God through Jesus Christ with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Devotional prayer is meant to help sustain each believer as we sojourn as “strangers and aliens in this present age” (1 Pet. 2:11; Rom. 8:18), especially in our quest to “pray continually,” as urged by Saint Paul (1 Thess. 5:17). Moreover, it is also something we can do on our own, at any time, which allows us to individually engage God and convey our personal love, needs, and thanks to our Creator and Redeemer, which flow out of enjoyment of God rather than compunction. Devotional practices that utilize Portals of Prayer, My Utmost for His Highest, Our Daily Bread, Give Us This Day, and the like can deepen our private, individual prayer and render it more habitual, even broadening our horizons.
 
礼仪性祈祷，则是教会作为基督的身体对上帝有序的公开敬拜。它比较正式，有规定的、通常有可预测的结构，会用一些启应、固定的模式，甚至手势，有时还有服装、符号和材料，如面包和酒、蜡烛、灰、手和油，通常由上帝的圣道和圣礼的仆人来带领。
Liturgical prayer, on the other hand, is the orderly public worship of God by the church as the body of Christ. It is more formal with prescribed, usually predictable structure, employing rubrics, ritual formulas, even gestures, sometimes garments, symbols, and materials such as bread and wine, candles, ashes, palms, and oils, and is usually led by an ordained minister of God’s word and sacraments.
 
An example of liturgical prayer is the Litany, a series of entreaties and responses cantillated or spoken. It possesses the feel of the petitions of the importunate friend in Luke 11:5–10. The Litany includes both the
 
礼仪性祈祷的一个例子是“连祷”（Litany），它是一系列的祈求和回应，以颂词或口述方式进行。它具有《路加福音》11:5-10中那位恳求朋友之人的祈求的感觉。连祷包括“谴责”（Deprecation）和“奉献”（Obsecrations），前者恳求上帝在领餐成员心中驱除邪恶，后者则恳求上帝，回顾信仰的奥秘和耶稣的道成身、出生、受洗、禁食、受试探、在十字架上的痛苦和汗水、死亡和埋葬、复活和升天以及圣灵的降临等历史事实。这些都是“藉着”耶稣所成就的事进行的祷告。只有藉着基督，基督徒才能接近天父（约翰福音16:23）。还有“祈求”（Supplications），这是为生活中的各种情况作一般性的祈祷。最后，“代求”（Intercessions）是为他人或代表他人的祈祷。它们可以被完整地背诵，也可以在整个过程中得到补充。这表现出灵活性，同时在神学和基督论的内容方面保持了灵活性，使其成为私人、个人祈祷的重要辅助工具，也是团体背景下最合适的教导性祷告。
“Deprecations,” which entreat God to ward off evil from among his communicants, and the “Obsecrations” that implore God on theological grounds, recalling the mystery of faith and the historical facts of Jesus’ incarnation, nativity, baptism, fasting, temptation, agony and sweat on the cross, death and burial, resurrection and ascension, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. These are prayers “by” Jesus’ accomplishments. Only through Christ can the Christian approach the Father (John 16:23). There are also the “Supplications,” which are prayers for a variety of situations in life in general terms. And finally, the “Intercessions” are prayers for others and on behalf of others. They can be recited intact or augmented throughout. This exhibits flexibility while retaining inflexibility with regard to its theological and christological content, making it a great aid to private, individual prayer and also a most appropriate didactic prayer in a corporate context.
 
然而，在现代，有一种趋势是将个人私下的祈祷和礼仪性祈祷视为不重叠的两个领域，强调前者而不是后者，特别是在福音派教会中对个人的强调，这种强调被当代文化和意识形态里的个人主义强化。然而，这是一个明显的现代主义现象，与古代闪米特文化和早期基督教整个一千年的文化都格格不入。
In the modern era, however, there is a tendency to view private, individual prayer and liturgical prayer as nonoverlapping spheres, emphasizing the former rather than the latter, especially given evangelical emphasis on the individual, reinforced by cultural and ideological individualism. This, however, would be a distinctly modern phenomenon, alien to ancient Semitic cultures and early Christianity throughout the first millennium and beyond.
 
对这两个团体来说，公共和私人祈祷之间没有割裂，或者说，公共读经和私人读经之间也没有割裂。无论是在会堂还是在街角（太6:5），在圣殿里（路18:1），还是在家里，犹太人都大声的祈祷。思想的内化（构成了我们所经历的大部分个人默祷）在五世纪的圣奥古斯丁之后才成为规范，尽管它在旧约和新约时代并非完全没有，如尼希米的祷告（尼2:4）或卑微的税吏的祷告（路18:6）。私人生活只是以某些方式模仿公共生活。
For both communities, there was no clear division between public and private prayer or, for that matter, public and private reading. Whether in the synagogue or on street corners (Matt. 6:5), the temple itself (Luke 18:1), or their homes, Jews tended to offer their prayers aloud. Internalization of thoughts (what constitutes much of what we experience as personal silent prayer) became normative only well after Saint Augustine in the fifth century, although it was not entirely absent in Old or New Testament times, as we find with Nehemiah’s instant prayer (Neh. 2:4) or the breathy prayer of the humble tax collector (Luke 18:6). Private life simply imitated public life in substantive ways.
 
这有两个重要原因。首先，犹太人认为自己不是个体，而是在一个二元体框架内（dyadic framework），其中他们最不可减少的身份是家庭，而家庭本身是民族宗教认同的衍生品，这个身份是以色列，上帝的子民。因此，没有任何祈祷被认为是完全私人的，因为它总是有一种作为以色列人的意识在里面。其次，犹太人的时间概念注入了神圣的永恒概念，这有利于抵抗个人主义和自述式的祷告生活。
There are two significant reasons for this. First, the way Jews considered themselves not as individuals, but within a dyadic framework in which their most irreducible identity was the family and which itself was derivative of ethnic-religious identification as Israel, the people of God. Consequently, no prayer was considered totally private, since it always had within it a consciousness of being Israel. Second, there was the Jewish concept of time that was infused with the divine notion of the eternal, which militated against individualism and a self-referential prayer life.
 
在基督教内部，这两个因素——以社群身份（即教会）为基础的自我认同，以及时间的圣化——极大地影响了早期基督教的祈祷方式，使其更具有礼仪性而不是个人性，但同时也为个人虔诚的祈祷打开了新的途径。
Within Christianity, these two factors—self-identity grounded in community identity (i.e., the church) and the consecration of time—profoundly influenced early Christian approaches to prayer, rendering them far more liturgical than individual, yet at the same time opening fresh avenues for personal devotional prayer.
 
例如，最早的基督徒将生命视为 “活祭”，其中每个方面都有上帝活跃的临在，即使是在日常生活中的平凡琐事。事实上，犹太教的情况就是如此，以至于基督教对时间的概念本身被带入了生活的节奏中，将季节性的日历与基督的生活事件结合起来，后来又将圣徒的生活与之结合，活着的信徒继续与他们进行圣礼性的沟通。在这个意义上，整个生活都致力于祈祷，并通过遵守祈祷时间（canonical hours），即每天准时的祈祷礼拜，也被称为时辰礼仪（Liturgy of the Hours）。由于承认圣餐是教会生活的中心，并强调洗礼是门徒的典范，与早课（Matins）、晚课（Vespers）、晚祷（Compline）等礼拜相关的祈祷越来越被视为这些塑造社群的圣礼的延伸，这些祷告贯穿了一天、一周，乃至整个基督徒生活。
For instance, carried over from the Jewish tradition and seen acutely in the life of Christ, the earliest Christians viewed life as “a living sacrifice,” in which every aspect is informed by the active presence of God, even amid the mundane routines of daily life. Indeed, this was so much the case in Judaism that the Christian concept of time itself was brought into the rhythm of life by melding the seasonal calendar with the events of Christ’s life and, later, the lives of the saints with whom sacramental union and communion continue. In this sense, the whole of life was committed to prayer, and it was exemplified through the observance of the canonical hours, services of praying Scripture that punctuated the day, also known as the Liturgy of the Hours. With an acknowledgment of the Eucharist as the center of the church’s life, and a highlighting of baptism as a model for discipleship, prayers associated with the services of Matins, Vespers, Compline, and the like were increasingly seen as extensions of these monumental community-forming sacraments that stretched throughout the day, week, and indeed the entire Christian life.
 
把神圣的救赎和新创造工作的永恒时刻（kairotic）注入到历史性的时间里的做法又得到强化，这种强化就是教会本身所体现的天与地的重叠。耶稣的道成肉身、一生、死亡、复活和升天，弥合了一个现实的两个维度之间的差距，因此基督徒“个人”总是以从在天上的、历史中的和在家里的那个巨大的如云彩般的见证者们的角度来理解自己的身份。与今天人们对个人性祷告的理解不同，早期基督徒的祷告总是在基督的身体里，正如前面解释的那样，这使得基督徒不可能完全私下的祷告，因为他们的基本世界观是他们参与了基督的拯救事件和基督的有机体，和他的身体，就是他神圣的教会。这种思想在希伯来书15:15中体现出来：“我们应当靠着耶稣，常常不断以颂赞为祭献给神”“不断”的意思是，大公教会包括天上和地上的圣徒，共同形成一个连续的存在。上帝的国度超越了时间和空间，并彻底地使个人身份黯然失色。
This view of chronological time infused by kairotic (eternal) moments of divine redemptive and re-creative activity was reinforced by the overlap of heaven and earth manifest in the church itself. Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension bridged the gap between the two dimensions of our one reality, so that “individual” Christians always understood themselves in terms of the great cloud of witnesses in heaven, throughout history, and at home. Different from the way private, individual prayer is conceived today, early Christian prayer was always in the body of Christ, as explained earlier, making it impossible for a Christian to pray entirely privately, for their basic worldview understood that they ever participated in the saving events and organism of Christ and his body, the holy church. This idea finds early expression in Hebrews 15:15: “Through [Christ Jesus] let’s offer to God an unceasing sacrifice of praise”—unceasing in the sense that the catholic church with saints in heaven and on earth form a contiguous existence. The kingdom of God transcends time and space and thoroughly eclipses individuality.
 
这最后一点值得进一步解释。礼仪性的祈祷有利于与天上的圣徒一起祈祷和赞美上帝。这里的意思是，祈祷是新娘对新郎说话的声音，新娘是一体的，无论是在地上还是在天上。当教会在礼仪环境中向上帝祈祷和赞美时，它就与约翰在《启示录》中描述的天国大厅中历代传唱的赞美诗结合起来。通过参与这样的礼仪，基督徒预先品尝了这种祈祷之歌。当我们这些“从各族、各口、各民、各国中被基督的血所救赎的”（启示录5:9），聚集在一个教会中，恳求、接受并荣耀三一上帝时，我们与天上的教会紧密结合才得到了最有效的表达。在这里，敬拜仪式将祷告的基督徒从他们的私人世界中带出来，并将他们连接到更宏大、宽广的世界里，上帝的国度和祂国度里的子民。
This last point warrants further explanation. Liturgical prayer facilitates praying and praising God with the saints in heaven. The idea here is that prayer is the voice of the bride addressing her bridegroom, where the bride is one, whether on earth or in heaven. When the church offers prayer and praise to God in a liturgical setting, it unites itself with that hymn of praise sung throughout all ages in the halls of heaven, as described by John in the book of Revelation. By participating in such liturgies, Christians receive a foretaste of this prayerful song. Our close union with the portion of the church in heaven is given effective voice when we all, “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation redeemed by Christ’s blood” (Rev. 5:9), gather together into the one church to entreat, receive, and glorify the Triune God. Here, the liturgy moves praying Christians out of their private world and connects them to the grand, wider world of God’s kingdom and kingdom people.
 
独一、圣洁、大公、使徒所立之教会的礼仪也起源于第一世纪犹太人的礼仪实践。路加在使徒行传2:42中告诉我们，耶路撒冷最早的基督犹太信徒“专心听从使徒的教训、擘饼、彼此相交和祷告”，这种“擘饼相交”不仅是对逾越节的圣餐改编，而且他们还从会堂的祷告仪式中提取格式——因此，路加承认他们做的是那些祷告（译注：这里原文有定冠词，意思指有固定格式的祷告）；也就是会堂和圣殿敬拜中既定的礼仪性祷告。一般来说，公元100年至313年的礼仪祈祷文只有一个来源——诗篇——这些诗篇被耶稣的教导彻底基督化了，基督自己是诗篇的主体（路24:44），他们并在每首诗篇的结尾加入了颂歌。这种从犹太教借用来的敬拜方式很快就进入了基督徒家庭，成为虔诚的祈祷文集。基督徒在教会和家里都用诗篇来祷告，在教会的祷告以模范坐拥或问答学习的方式产生在家里的祷告。
The liturgy of that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church also has its origins in the liturgical practices of the Jews in the first century. When Luke tells us in Acts 2:42 that the earliest Jewish followers of Christ in Jerusalem “devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching, to the communion in the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers” (emphasis added), not only is this “communion in the breaking of the bread” the Eucharistic adaptation of the Passover Haggadah, but they also drew their formulas from the synagogue services for prayer—hence, Luke’s recognition of the prayers; that is, the established, liturgical prayers of synagogue and temple worship. Generally speaking, the liturgical prayers of the years AD 100 to 313 knew only one source—the psalter—and even these were thoroughly Christianized by Jesus’ teaching that he was their subject (Luke 24:44) and by adding the doxology at the conclusion of each psalm. This Jewish carry-over into Christian worship quickly found its way into Christian homes as devotional prayer books. Christians prayed the psalms in church and at home, the former yielding the latter by way of example and established catechesis.
 
同样，尽管最早的礼仪祷告版本借鉴了犹太教的格式Berakah（我们发现这种格式贯穿了以弗所书1-3章），但它们很快就与基于耶稣的一生、死亡、复活和升天等基督教主题融为一体，并作为祷告的模式渗入基督徒家庭。因此，在家庭中礼仪祈祷是规范性的，是彻底以基督为中心式的，其中包含了来自集体敬拜的祷告形式，以及由教会认可的正典文本。它是与上帝进行口头交流的安全而神圣的场所，信徒以此更加期望上帝会听教会的祷告并为它行事。
Likewise, although the earliest versions of liturgical prayers drew upon the Jewish berakah formulas (which we find stretched throughout Ephesians 1–3), they quickly became enmeshed with Christian themes based on the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and leached into Christian homes as models of prayer. Thus domestic liturgical prayer was normative and thoroughly christocentric, incorporating Christianized Jewish prayer forms from the corporate gathering of believers, with canonical texts sanctioned by the church. It was safe and hallowed ground by which to verbally commune with God, heightening the expectation of God hearing the church and acting on its behalf.
 
信徒的聚集最重要的特征是以神的国度的核心特征为中心：（1）承认圣餐是教会生活、合一和祷告的中心；（2）圣洗礼是基督徒门徒的典范，其主题是死和复活；（3）圣经的教义学习；（4）背负十字架的服侍；（5）为拯救世界和维护基督的国度而进行的宣教工作。恰恰是这些特点，这些教会在其礼仪中所教导和实践的显著标志，被带入了家庭、虔诚的祈祷中[3]。以至于建立信仰和实践一致性的身体姿态——划十字架、屈膝跪下、鞠躬、亲吻——也成为个人私下祷告的习惯，从而与基督的身体建立起一种具象的、有意识的联系，促使人们代表教会进行祈祷，与上帝的意志产生共鸣，例如在主祷文中那样。
The most important features of the corporate gatherings—the assembly of believers—centered on the core features of the kingdom of God: (1) an acknowledgement of the Eucharist as the center of the church’s life, unity, and prayer; (2) holy baptism as the model for Christian discipleship with its themes of death and resurrection; (3) scriptural catechesis; (4) cross-bearing servitude; and (5) prayerful missional engagement for the salvation of the world and the preservation of Christ’s kingdom. It was precisely these features, these distinguishing marks of the church it taught and practiced in its liturgy, that were brought into domestic, devotional prayer.3 Liturgical prayer was at home in the believer’s home. So much so that the physical gestures that established conformity of belief and practice—signing the cross, kneeling, bowing, kissing—also became habituated in private, individual prayer, thereby establishing a graphic, conscious connection with the body of Christ and so prompting prayers on its behalf, resonating with the will of God found, for example, in the Lord’s Prayer.
 
反对礼仪性的祈祷
Objecting to Liturgical Prayer
 
有些人不愿意采用礼仪性的祈祷文：例如，背诵主祷文（更不用说其他礼仪祈祷，如三圣颂、荣耀颂 等）和既定圣餐礼仪的部分，因为人们认为马太福音6:7中有这样的禁令。“你们祷告，不可像外邦人用许多重复话，他们以为话多了必蒙垂听”。这条禁令涉及到“徒劳的重复”，因此，那些习惯性地，甚至每天都在用主祷文祷告的人，是在做徒劳无益的事，而这是被基督亲自谴责的。因此，礼仪性的祈祷是不符合圣经的，等同于外邦异教。
Some demur at employing liturgical prayers: for example, reciting the Lord’s Prayer (much less other liturgical prayers such as “The Jesus Prayer,” “Angelic Trisagion,” “Gloria,” and so on) and other parts of the established Eucharist Liturgy, because of what has been perceived as an injunction in Matthew 6:7: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (KJV). The prohibition concerns “vain repetition,” such that those who customarily, even daily, pray the Our Father are engaged in the empty practice of heathens, which was condemned by Christ himself. Consequently, liturgical prayer is unbiblical, tantamount to paganism—or so it is thought.
 
“重复话”的希腊语单词battalogein（在KJV中是 “徒劳的重复”），只在新约圣经中出现，在所有其他同时代的手稿证据中都不找不到，表明要么是“无意义的”话语，要么是大量的话语，或者两者都是。在其历史背景下，异教徒使用咒语祈祷来安抚神灵，在交易神学中要求准确的背诵，类似于在霍格沃茨图书馆中说出《咒语书》中的咒语。在接下来的经文中，耶稣说：“不要像他们那样，”因为（1）你不需要徒劳地重复，因为你向活着的上帝祈祷，他听得见，而不是向一个听不见的东西重复祈祷；（2）基督自己在上帝和人类之间进行代求，所以这种重复的安抚是徒劳的（也就是说，没有用）；（3）耶稣给我们提供了无误的话语，实际上符合上帝的意志和方式。
The ESV gives a better rendering of the verse, offering the following: “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do for they think that they will be heard for their many words.” The Greek word in question, battalogein (“vain repetition” in the KJV), found only here in the New Testament and nonextant in all other contemporary manuscript evidence, suggests either “nonsensical” words or a large quantity of words, or both. In its historical context, pagans used incantational prayer to appease the gods within a transactional theology that required exactitude in recitation, similar to uttering a conjuration from The Book of Spells within the Hogwarts Library. In the very next verse, Jesus says, “Do not be like them,” because (1) you need not repeat in vain since you pray to the living God who hears, as opposed to having to repeat prayers to a non-hearing nothing; (2) Christ himself mediates between God and humanity, and so such repetitious appeasement is in vain (that is, to no avail); and (3) Jesus gives us infallible words that actually comport with the will and ways of God.
 
此外，由于耶稣在这个问题上的做法与他自己并不矛盾。例如，耶稣在客西马尼重复了三次祷告（可14:32-39；参考太26:44）。他还采用了成套的祈祷，一次又一次地祈祷，引用诗篇（例如，可15:34中引用诗22:1；路23:46中引用诗31:5）。除了他的榜样，他当然也赐给了教会主祷文，用“你们祷告的时候要这样说”来指导他们（路11:2；太6:9）。在路加福音18:1-14，他提供了一个比喻，鼓励用相同的祈祷文不停恳切地祷告，期望我们的天父回应这样的与他的国度和他的国度人民的旨意一致的祷告。
Further, since Jesus does not contradict himself on this subject by his own practice, the interpretation derived from the KJV is incorrect. Jesus, for example, repeats a prayer three times in Gethsemane (Mark 14:32–39; cf. Matt. 26:44). He also employs set prayers, time and again, by prayerfully invoking psalms (e.g., Ps. 22:1 in Mark 15:34; Ps. 31:5 in Luke 23:46). In addition to his example, he of course gave the church the gift of the Lord’s Prayer, directing them with “When you pray say [this]” (Luke 11:2; Matt.6:9). In Luke 18:1–14, he furnishes a parable extolling the importunate representing of the same prayer with earnest expectation of our heavenly Father to answer such prayers consistent with his good will for the kingdom of God and his kingdom people.
 
更重要的是，圣经提供了许多被认可的祈祷形式的例子，这些祈祷都是重复性的。请看启示录4:8中天使的祷告：
What is more, Scripture provides numerous examples of sanctioned prayer forms that are repeated. Consider the prayers of the angels in Revelation 4:8:
 
四活物各有六个翅膀，遍体内外都满了眼睛。他们昼夜不住地说：“圣哉，圣哉，圣哉，主神是昔在、今在、以后永在的全能者！”
And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
 
这 “四活物”指的是以赛亚书6:1-3中的撒拉弗，他们一遍又一遍地重复同样的祈祷之歌。同样，诗篇136篇是一个高度重复性的回应性祷告的典型例子，在26节经文中重复了“因他的慈爱永远长存！”
These “four living creatures” refer back to the Seraphim of Isaiah 6:1–3 who repeated the same song of prayer over and over. Likewise, Psalm 136 is a classic example of a highly repetitious responsive prayer, repeating the words “for his steadfast love endures forever” twenty-six times over twenty-six verses.
 
因此，说礼仪性祷告不符合圣经的观点无法成立。相反，基督徒可以通过圣经本身提供的祷告，“坦然无惧地来到施恩的宝座前，为要得怜恤，蒙恩惠，做随时的帮助”（来4:16）。
The idea, then, that liturgical prayers are unbiblical cannot be established. Instead, Christians can “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16) through prayers that Scripture itself offers.
 
耶稣教导礼仪性的祈祷
Jesus Teaches Liturgical Prayer
 
前面我们指出，所有的祷告，不论是个人性的和礼仪性的，都是被教导和通过学习而产生的。当然，最符合圣经、神学上最正确的、最讨神喜悦的祷告老师是耶稣基督本人。在登山宝训中，耶稣不仅鼓励门徒祷告（太6:1-18；7:7-11），而且还教他们如何祷告（路11:1-3），给他们一个示范祷告：主祷文，也称为“我们的父”或拉丁文Pater Noster（太6:9-13）。事实上，它可以被看作是犹太教传统的礼仪性祈祷中的一种形式祷告或祷告格式。路加记录的主祷文是要人直接重复背诵的话。
Earlier we noted that all prayer, individual and liturgical prayer, is taught and learned. The teacher par excellence for biblically sound, theologically correct, God-pleasing prayer is, of course, Christ himself. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus not only encouraged his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:1–18; 7:7–11), but he also taught them how to pray (Luke 11:1–3) by giving them a model prayer: the Lord’s prayer, also known as the Our Father or Pater Noster (Matt. 6:9–13). In fact, it may be seen as both a form prayer or prayer formula set in the Jewish tradition of liturgical prayers. Luke records the Our Father as something to be straightforwardly repeated:
 
耶稣在一个地方祷告，祷告完了，有个门徒对他说：“求主教导我们祷告，像约翰教导他的门徒。” 耶稣说：“你们祷告的时候，要说：”
He was praying in a certain place, and when he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say…”
 
然而，在马太福音中，主祷文更加像个样板，既允许抄袭，也允许创新：你们要像这样祷告（6:9）。“你们要像这样祷告”而不是“你们要说”。在这两方面，都是来自基督的礼物：一个是来自完美者的完美话语，我们可以用这话对上帝说话，另一个是符合主的最高优先事项和我们最大需求的完美祈祷模式。
In Matthew, however, the Pater Noster is more formulaic, allowing for both plagiarism and innovation, saying: “This is how you are to pray” (6:9; emphasis added), rather than “this is what you are to pray.” In both ways, we have received a gift from Christ: perfect words from the perfect One to speak to God, and a perfect model for prayers that comport with the Lord’s highest priorities and our greatest needs.
 
从基督的例子中也可以知道，他也祈祷诗篇，并且是背诵下来的（例如，太27:46[诗22]；路23:46[诗31]；太21:16[诗8:2]；约10[诗23，95]），延续了古老的犹太教习俗，可以追溯到大卫。注意以斯拉的例子，他通过9:6（诗106:6）和9:8（诗13:3）中的诗篇进行祈祷。耶稣和他的门徒在逾越节结束时祷告唱的“赞美诗”（太26:30）是诗篇115-118篇中的大哈勒尔（Hallel，赞美的意思）。随即，早期教会遵循了这种祈祷诗篇的模式，如使徒行传4:23-31所见，教会祈祷的是第二篇诗篇。同样，保罗描述早期教会的敬拜生活涉及“唱诗篇”（西3:16），因为在诗篇中，我们的祷告也有神圣的内容，可以说、可以诵、可以唱。而且，这也是礼仪性的祈祷可以补充个人祈祷的地方：用祈祷文向上帝歌唱的美感和情感，特别是用诗篇。这样的祈祷之歌扩展并表达了祈祷作为敬拜的信仰行为，并延续了犹太教-基督教最早的韵律祷告和读经的传统。
It is also important to know from the example of Christ that he also prayed the psalms and knew them from memory (e.g., Matt. 27:46 [Ps. 22]; Luke 23:46 [Ps. 31]; Matt 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; John 10 [Pss. 23, 95]), continuing an ancient Jewish practice that reaches back to David. Note the example of Ezra, who prays by means of the psalms in 9:6 (Ps. 106:6) and 9:8 (Ps. 13:3). The “hymn” Jesus and his disciples prayerfully sang at the conclusion of the Passover (Matt. 26:30) was the Great Hallel from Psalms 115–118. Immediately, the early church followed this pattern of praying the psalms as seen in Acts 4:23–31, where the church prays the second psalm. Paul, likewise, describes the worship life of the early church as involving “singing psalms” (Col. 3:16), for in the psalter we also have divine content for our prayers that can be spoken, chanted, or sung. And that, too, is something liturgical prayer can add to private, individual prayer: the beauty and affectation of prayerfully singing to God, especially with the psalms. Such prayer songs expand and emote prayer as a faith act of worship and continue the earliest of Jewish-Christian traditions of tunefully praying and reading.
 
对基督徒来说，祷告诗篇是奉耶稣的名祷告，因为诗篇中的声音是基督自己的声音；他是诗篇的中心（路24:44）。这一点也可以从礼仪中得知，每首诗的结尾都会有三一颂：基督在马太福音28:19中赐给我们配得称颂的三一上帝的名字。
 
For the Christian, to pray the psalms is to pray them in Jesus’ name, because the voice in the psalter is Christ’s own voice; he is their referential center (Luke 24:44). This is also learned from the liturgical practice of punctuating the end of each psalm with the doxology: the name of the blessed Trinity given to us by Christ in Matthew 28:19.
 
更大的视角
A Bigger Picture
 
重要的是，礼仪性的祈祷的目的是为了世界的救赎。为人类的救赎祈祷，在过去和现在都被认为是教会的主要职责之一。根据神学家蒂莫西·马斯克（Timothy Maschke）的说法，这标志着 “个人祈祷和礼仪祈祷之间的巨大差异，尽管经常不被承认。”[4] 马斯克引用罗马天神父、礼仪运动的领军人物皮乌斯·帕施（Pius Parsch, 1884-1954）的话来解释：
Significantly, liturgical prayer was purposed for the salvation of the world. Praying for the salvation of humanity was and is considered to be among the primary duties of the church. According to theologian Timothy Maschke, this marks “a vast, albeit frequently unrecognized, difference between personal prayer and liturgical prayer.”4 Maschke cites Pius Parsch (1884–1954), a Roman Catholic priest and leading figure in the Liturgical Movement, to explain:
 
“在私下祷告中，我主要是为自己和自己的事祈祷。站在行动中心的是孤立的人，祈祷或多或少是个人化的。但在礼仪性的祈祷中……主要不是我在祈祷，而是教会，基督的新妇在祈祷。她祈祷的对象也更广泛：上帝的国度在全地上的所有需要。在礼仪性的祈祷中，我觉得自己更像一个伟大团体的成员，像教会这棵伟大的活树上的一片小叶子。”[5]
“In private prayer I pray, mostly for myself and my own affairs. It is the isolated person who stands in the center of the action, and the prayer is more or less individualized. But in liturgical prayer . . . it is not primarily I who am praying, but the Church, the Bride of Christ. The object of her prayer is broader, too: all the needs of God’s kingdom here on earth. In liturgical prayer, I feel more like a member of a great community, like a little leaf on the great living tree of the Church.”5
 
礼仪祈祷的内容是由教会发现的神的旨意决定的，而不是由牧师甚至个别敬拜者认为重要的内容。它从圣经中获取其使命，并以整个教会为着眼点。这样的祷告与我们私下对上帝说的个人祷告一样重要，因为这样我们的心向整个上帝的子民和他们的需要敞开，这是上帝自己放在我们祷告中的。
The content of liturgical prayer is determined by what the church has found to be God’s will, rather than what the minister or even individual worshippers consider to be important. It takes its missional agenda from Scripture and has the entire church in view. Such praying is every bit as important as the personal prayers we speak privately to God, for in this way our hearts are open to the whole of God’s people and their needs and to the concerns God himself places into our prayers.
 
这就是为什么圣餐前的“教会祈祷”有意识地模仿耶稣的大祭司祈祷（约17:1-26），因此也是上帝在祈祷中的意愿。犹太大祭司的一个职能是为所有以色列人献上年度祭物（利未记15）。为了履行这一职责，在最后的晚餐上，耶稣在门徒面前向父神为他自己替众人所献的祭祷告（见1-2，19节）。在“教会祈祷”中，在主礼人或主持牧师的带领下，每个基督徒都作为祭司而聚集在一起，履行他们的祭司职责，其中一个人，即牧师，用所有人的声音说话，而所有人也用一个人的声音回应，向上帝的天国宝座发出祈求（太18:19）。他们是为万人代求（提前2:1-4），遵循基督和圣保罗的教导，但也有历代志下6:12-42中的所罗门，在那里他以一种庄严、重复的方式为国家和不信的人祈祷。保罗继续这一传统，提出了上帝的旨意。“我劝你首先要为万人代求，为君王和一切身居高位的，祈求、祷告、代祷、感谢”（提摩太前书2:30）。
This is why the “Prayer of the Church” before Holy Communion in the Divine Liturgy consciously resembles Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer (John 17:1–26) and therefore the will of God in prayer. One function of the Jewish high priest was to offer the annual sacrifice for all the people of Israel (Lev. 15). In fulfillment, at the Last Supper Jesus prayed to God the Father in the presence of his disciples about his own sacrifice of himself for all people (see esp. vv. 1–2, 19). In the “Prayer of the Church,” led by the celebrant or presiding minister, individual Christians are assembled as a priesthood of believers and engage in their priestly duty where one, the pastor, speaks with the voice of all, and responsively all speak with the voice of one, bringing requests and petitions to God’s heavenly throne (Matt. 18:19). Their concern is for all people (1 Tim. 2:1–4), following the teaching of Christ and Saint Paul, but also Solomon in 2 Chronicles 6:12-42, where in a stately, repetitive manner he prays for the nation and unbelievers. Paul continues that tradition and sets forth God’s will: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions” of authority (1 Tim. 2:30).
 
礼仪祈祷贯穿整个公共敬拜，为基督徒的生活设定了一个大画面，其中礼仪的每个元素都可以适当地带入到个人的祈祷中。然后，它可以按比例扩展，并且提供给个人化的请求、祈求、忏悔、代祷和赞美提供正统的途径，特别是当我们无法找到我们恰当的话语时。更多的时候，礼仪祈祷词已经提供这些话语了。
Liturgical prayers are found throughout the Divine Service and set a big picture view of the Christian life, in which each element of the liturgy can be suitably brought into one’s private, individual prayer. It can then be expanded proportionally and offered as a doctrinally correct pathway to personalized requests, petitions, contrition, intercessions, and praise—especially when we fail as individuals to find the words we want or need. More often than not, the liturgical prayers have already provided them. [See the sidebar on page 43, “Using Liturgy for Private Prayer”—Ed.]
 
礼仪性的祈祷和灵修性的祈祷本来就是一起工作的，把我们的思想和心灵提升到上帝面前。私人的祈祷使我们能够按照最适合我们每个人的方式来发展我们与主的个人关系。这就是为什么一个人选择的虔诚祷告的类型是主观的；甚至同一形式的祷告方式也可能因人而异。但是，一旦我们在灵修祈祷生活中建立了与主的个人关系，我们就把它带到礼仪祈祷中，特别是当我们找不到恰当的语言时，它会与教会中的其他人结合起来，被纳入到圣餐中、对洗礼的回忆中，和世界的需求中。
Liturgical prayer and devotional prayer are meant to work together to lift our minds and hearts to God. Private, individual prayer allows us to develop our personal relationship with the Lord according to the way that best suits each of us. That is why the type of devotional prayer one chooses is subjective; even the manner of praying the same form may vary from one person to the next. But once we have established that personal relationship with the Lord in our devotional prayer life, we bring it to liturgical prayer, especially when words fail us, where it is then united with the others in the church and incorporated into the celebration of Holy Communion, the remembrance of baptism, and the needs of the world.
 
将个人的祈祷与礼仪性的祈祷如此搭配在一起，将体现出信徒的互补性，通过承担上帝对教会和世界的关怀来提升他们的属灵生活。
Commingling private, individual prayer with liturgical prayer will manifest believers’ complementarity, elevating their spiritual life by bearing the cares of God for the church and the world.
 
总结
Conclusion
 
我们需要上帝不停的看顾和供应，这意味着我们的祈祷永远不会停止，因此我们总是需要加强和扩大我们的祈祷，并在祈祷中成熟起来——这包括增加我们对礼仪祈祷的欣赏和使用。
Our endless need of God’s care and provision means that our prayers never cease, and so we always need to enhance and expand our prayers and to mature in prayer—which includes increasing our appreciation and use of liturgical or form prayers.
 
这就是为什么我们仰望基督，他是我们信仰的创造和成终者。敬拜是一种通过祈祷表达的信心行为，实际上是我们的主耶稣所教导、鼓励和颂扬的，是基督徒生活的核心方面——事实上，是基督徒个人和整个教会的主要职责之一。在这样做的时候，耶稣推进了已经建立起来的犹太教祈祷教导的传统，并提供了祈祷的固定形式和可改变的样板。他的教导有意将我们的心思集中在上帝的事情上——关于上帝国度的成长、供应和保护的神圣旨意（约17）——因此它激发了受洗信徒的信心。我们信奉的是在基督里信守承诺的上帝，他唤起了曾经由水和圣道所赐下的信心。
This is why we look to Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith. Worship as an act of faith expressed through prayer is in fact something our Lord Jesus taught, encouraged, and extolled as a central aspect of Christian life—indeed, as one of the primary duties of the individual Christian and the church as a whole. In doing so, Jesus advanced an already well-established Jewish tradition of teaching prayer and providing set forms and alterable formulas of prayer. His teaching intentionally focuses our hearts and minds on the things of God—the divine will and ways concerning the growth, provision, and protection of his kingdom (John 17)—and so it elicits faith from the baptized. It is the God who keeps his promises in Christ whom we trust, who evokes faith once bestowed by the water and the word.
 
因此，个人虔诚的祈祷和礼仪祈祷远不是对立的，而是相辅相成的——前者在礼仪内容和形式中得到扩展和丰富，有目的地参与到与上帝的明确旨意、教会的使命和世界的需要相呼应的祈求中，而不仅仅是个人的。采用或模仿精心制作的礼仪祈祷，有助于保障我们个人祈祷是圣经性和神学准确性，使其成为符合正统的三一论，基督论和救赎论的颂赞。
Therefore, far from being antithetical, personal devotional prayer and liturgical prayer are complementary—with the former being particularly expanded and enriched by the generally Scripture-determined content and form of the liturgy, purposely engaging in petitions that resonate with the expressed will of God, the mission of the church, and the needs of the world, as opposed to the private individual. Employing or mimicking carefully crafted liturgical prayer helps safeguard the biblical soundness and theological accuracy of our personal prayers, keeping them within the God-honoring boundaries of Trinitarianism and orthodox Christology and soteriology.
 
我们在礼仪中的祈祷可能是客观的、物理的，反映了我们与周围世界接触的复杂性，包括我们的感知、直觉和记忆。当这种情况下，礼仪的精彩内容被带入我们个人的祈祷生活中时，我们开始发现，礼仪祈祷将我们纳入上帝子民的联合声音中，从而改变了我们，因为它不属于任何个人，而是属于普世教会。
Our prayer in the liturgy may be objective and physical in nature, reflecting the complexity of our engagement with the world around us, including our sense of perception, intuition, and memory. When this is the case, and the liturgy’s wonderful content is brought into our private, personal prayer lives, we begin to find that liturgical prayer incorporates us into the united voice of God’s people and thus transforms us, since it belongs not to any individual but to the church universal.
 
 
[1] Lutheran Service Book (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2006), 151.
 
[2] 羔羊颂（Angus Dei）的歌词，取自约翰福音1:29。
 
[3] 值得注意的是，这一时期的家庭生活与我们的生活有很大的不同。很少有人独居或有个人时间。家庭通常是扩大的概念，并作为一个宗族在一生中居住在一起，而监护人的行业则集中在一起。
 
[4] Timothy Maschke, Gathered Guests: A Guide to Worship in the Lutheran Church (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2003), 365.
 
[5] Pius Parsch, The Hours of the Divine Office in English and Latin (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1963–64), 1, cited in Maschke, Gathered Guests, 365.
 
作者：约翰·邦巴罗牧师（Rev. John J. Bambaro），博士（伦敦大学国王学院）是圣地亚哥恩典路德教会的主任牧师，也是在海军陆战队服务的美国海军牧师。

 
危险的神论：考察约翰·傅瑞姆对《上帝的本体》（All That Is in God）一书的回应
Unlatched Theism: An Examination of John Frame’s Response to All That Is in God
作者： Keith A. Mathison    译者/校对: 杨玉洁/Yashar
https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/unlatched-theism-an-examination-of-john-frames-response-to-all-that-is-in-god
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/unlatched-theism-an-examination-of-john-frames-response-to-all-that-is-in-god-2/
 
在基督教神学里，没有比三一神论更基本更重要的教义了。“神学”这个词本身就是由希腊文theos(直译为上帝）和logos(直译为话或论述）组成。神学是有关上帝的论述，关于上帝的话，这就意味着它涉及对上帝的认识。神学是关于上帝的教义，我们在神学中所关切的是有关上帝的真知识。
There is no doctrine in Christian theology more fundamental or more important than the doctrine of the triune God. The very word theology is a combination of the Greek word theos, which is translated “God,” and the word logos, which can be translated “word” or “discourse.” Theology is a discourse about God, a word about God, and that means it involves the knowledge of God. Theology is the doctrine of God, and our concern in theology is the true knowledge of God.
 
上帝论是根基，因为系统神学中研究的其他每个课题都与上帝论相连，并且只有在与之相关的情况下才能被理解。圣经是上帝的话；人是按神的形象所；罪就是违背神的律法；救赎是上帝的拯救工作；教会是上帝的子民；末世论是上帝的终极目的，等等。如果我们的上帝论偏差了，那么其他的一切都会偏差。这就是为什么当前福音派和改革宗神学家之间关于上帝论的争辩(译注1)是极为重要的。这些争辩并非是关乎非基要的事情，也不是关于第二或第三教义(译注2)的争辩。这些争辩关乎全能上帝的本质，就是创造宇宙以及其中一切万物的那一位，祂向我们显明祂自己，救赎了我们，召我们在圣灵和真理中来敬拜祂。一个错误的上帝论会导致偶像崇拜。因此这些争辩中的利害关系，再大不过了。
The doctrine of God is fundamental because every other subject studied in systematic theology is connected to the doctrine of God and understandable only in relation to it. Scripture is the Word of God. Man is created in the image of God. Sin is a transgression of the law of God. Redemption is the salvific work of God. The church is the people of God. Eschatology is the final goal of God. And so on. If our doctrine of God is off, everything else will be off. This is why the current debates among evangelical and Reformed theologians regarding the doctrine of God are profoundly important. These are not debates over nonessentials. These are not debates over secondary or tertiary doctrines. These debates involve the nature of God Almighty, the One who created the universe and everything in it, who reveals Himself to us, who redeemed us, and who calls us to worship Him in spirit and in truth. A false doctrine of God results in idolatry. The stakes in these debates, therefore, could not be any higher.
 
走进詹姆士·多尔扎（James Dolezal）
 
多尔扎博士是凯恩大学的一位神学教授。他从威斯敏斯特神学院获得博士学位，撰写的博士论文是关于上帝的纯一性的教义。该论文以《上帝无部分：上帝的纯一性以及上帝的绝对性的形而上学》（God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness）为标题发表（Pickwick, 2011）。这是一部杰出的作品，因为其起源于神学论文，也是一部技术性和学术性相当强的作品。2017年7月，多尔扎博士的第一部畅销书，《上帝的本体：福音派神学和古典基督教神论的挑战》（All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism），由宗教改革遗产出版社（RHB）出版。我有幸拜读了出版前的手稿，出版后我也为此书写了简单的总结评论。我第一次读这个手稿的时候，仅仅几页就能清楚知道这本书将要掀起一些波澜。为什么？因为在这本书里，多尔扎认为：当代许多福音派和改革宗的神学家们，不管是有意识或无意识的，已经拒绝和（或）错误地重新定义古典基督教神论（classical Christian theism）的元素。换句话说，他们已经拒绝了或者错误地定义了基督教上帝论里面的元素。这是一项严重的指控，并且若是准确的，这是一个不容忽视或置之不理的毁灭性的指控。多尔扎不仅认为许多的福音派和改革宗神学家们已经摈弃了古典基督教神论，他也举出了一些名字。因为这些名字中有一些是当今福音派世界中非常受欢迎并且非常有影响力的人物，所以这本书无可避免地会激怒一些人。
Enter James Dolezal. Dr. Dolezal is a professor of theology at Cairn University. He received his Ph.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary, writing his dissertation on the doctrine of divine simplicity. The dissertation has since been published under the title God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (Pickwick, 2011). It is an outstanding work, but also a very technical and academic work because of its origin as a dissertation. In July 2017, Dolezal’s first popular-level book, All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism, was published by Reformation Heritage Books. I had the privilege of reading the manuscript prior to publication, and I also wrote a brief summary review of the book after it was published. The first time I read the manuscript, it became abundantly clear within only a few pages that the book was going to create some waves. Why? Because in this book Dolezal argues that a number of contemporary evangelical and Reformed theologians, whether wittingly or unwittingly, have rejected and/or wrongly redefined elements of classical Christian theism. In other words, they have rejected and/or wrongly redefined elements of the Christian doctrine of God. That is a serious charge, and if accurate, a devastating one that cannot be ignored or brushed aside. Not only does Dolezal argue that many evangelical and Reformed theologians have abandoned classical Christian theism, he also names names. Because some of these names are the names of very popular and influential figures in the contemporary evangelical world, it was inevitable that this book would ruffle some feathers.
 
走进约翰·傅瑞姆
 
傅瑞姆博士在几个神学院教授神学大约50年，如今退休了。傅瑞姆在很多作品中对上帝论作了大量的论述，包括他的《系统神学》（P&R，2013）和《上帝论》（P&R, 2002），这是他的“主权神学”系列的四卷之一。傅瑞姆也是《没有别神：对开放神论的回应》（No Other God: A Response to Open Theism）一书的作者(P&R, 2001)。傅瑞姆博士深受他学生的爱戴，并且被他之前的同事以及评论家所尊敬。事实上，许多他之前的学生、同事，甚至评论家，都为《用爱心说诚实话》（Speaking the Truth in Love）这本书撰稿。该书是为纪念他所作的长达1200，于2009年出版。傅瑞姆是当今最受欢迎并且最有影响力的改革宗神学家之一。然而，他也是被多尔扎所指名的，对古典基督教神论持有明显错误的人之一。那不是一件小事。如果多尔扎错了，那他就是曲解了一个重要神学家的著作。如果多尔扎是对的，那么傅瑞姆在过去几十年里的广泛影响和受欢迎会对教会的上帝论产生一个极大的负面的神学影响。毫不意外的，傅瑞姆就多尔扎的书写了一篇很长的回应，题目是：《福音派的经院哲学：关于詹姆斯·多尔扎的〈上帝的本体〉一书的思考》（Scholasticism for Evangelicals: Thoughts on All That Is In God by James Dolezal）。在读了多尔扎和傅瑞姆之后，我确信傅瑞姆的回应中有一些严重的问题需要提及。然而，在更仔细研究傅瑞姆的回应之前，我们需要理解有关多尔扎所关切的问题以及他所提出的指控。
Enter John Frame. Dr. Frame is now retired after teaching theology at several seminaries over the course of an almost fifty-year career. Frame has written extensively on the doctrine of God in a number of works, including his Systematic Theology (P&R, 2013) and The Doctrine of God (P&R, 2002), one of four volumes in his Theology of Lordship series. Frame is also the author of No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (P&R, 2001). Dr. Frame is loved by his students and respected by his former colleagues and critics. In fact, many of his former students, colleagues, and even critics contributed to Speaking the Truth in Love, the 1,200-page Festschrift published in his honor in 2009. Frame is one of the most popular and influential Reformed theologians writing today, and yet he is one of the men named by Dolezal as holding to significant errors regarding classical Christian theism. That is no small matter. If Dolezal is wrong, he has misrepresented the work of an important theologian. If Dolezal is right, then Frame’s widespread influence and popularity over the course of many decades may have had a profoundly negative theological influence on the church’s doctrine of God. Frame has, not surprisingly, written a lengthy response to Dolezal’s book in an online article titled “Scholasticism for Evangelicals: Thoughts on All That Is In God by James Dolezal.” Having read both Dolezal and Frame, I am convinced that there are some serious problems in Frame’s response that must be addressed. However, before examining Frame’s response more closely, we need to understand the issues that concern Dolezal as well as the charges that he has made.
 
《上帝的本体》（All That Is in God）
ALL THAT IS IN GOD
 
就某种意义说，多尔扎的书没有什么特别之处。大部分只是重述了教会最初几个世纪以来正统基督徒所相信、认同并且教导的上帝论——他们相信上帝论是由上帝自己在圣经中启示的。这是在教会的伟大信条中所能找到的合乎圣经的上帝论的重述。此外，同样与我们的目的相关的是，它是被十六和十七世纪改革宗神学家所捍卫的合乎圣经的上帝论，也是在那些世纪改革宗信仰宣言中所发现的教义。比如，《威斯敏斯特信条》在以下的语句中简明扼要地阐明了古典基督教上帝论：
In one sense, there is nothing remarkable about Dolezal’s book. Much of it is merely a restatement of the doctrine of God believed, confessed, and taught by orthodox Christians from the earliest centuries of the church onward—the doctrine of God they believed to be revealed by God Himself in Scripture. It is a restatement of the biblical doctrine of God found in the great creeds of the church. Furthermore, and equally relevant for our purposes, it is the biblical doctrine of God defended by the Reformed theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it is the doctrine found in the Reformed confessions of those centuries. The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, clearly and concisely states the classical Christian doctrine of God in the following words:
 
第二章：论上帝与三位一体
Chapter II: Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
 
上帝是独一的，又真又活的；在其存有和完全上都是无限的 ，祂是至纯之灵，无形、无体、不动情 、不变、无量、永恒、不可测度、全能、全智、至圣、最自由、最绝对，祂按照自己不改变和至公义的旨意行作万事，为的是荣耀祂自己；祂极其慈爱，有恩典，有怜悯，恒久忍耐，有丰盛的慈爱和信实，赦免罪孽、过犯和罪恶；祂赏赐那殷勤寻求祂的；同时，祂的审判最为公义，极其可畏；祂憎恶诸恶，断不以有罪的为无罪。
I. There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
 
上帝拥有一切生命、荣耀、良善和福分，是本乎祂自身，出于祂自身；惟独祂本乎自己，并对自己而言是完全自足的，不需要祂所造的任何受造之物，也不从他们得任何荣耀，却只在他们里面，藉着他们，向着他们，并在他们身上彰显祂自己的荣耀；祂是万有惟一的根源，万有都是本于祂，依靠祂，归于祂；祂对他们有至高的统治权，藉着他们，为着他们，并在他们身上行祂自己所喜悦的事。万有在祂眼前都是赤露敞开的；祂的知识是无限的，无谬的，不依赖任何受造物；所以，对于祂而言，没有什么事物是偶然的，或不确定的。祂的一切预旨、作为和命令都是至圣的。天使、世人和其它所有受造之物，都当照祂按其美意所吩咐的敬拜祂，侍奉祂，顺服祂。
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
 
在上帝的统一性中有三个位格，即圣父上帝，圣子上帝，圣灵上帝，同实质、同权能、同永恒 。圣父既非受生，亦非被发出；圣子在永恒中为父所生，圣灵在永恒中由父和子发出。
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
 
若要去定义和辩护这份信仰宣言中古典上帝论的所有内容，这显然远远超出了本文的范畴。这样的尝试会将这一篇文章变成一部多卷本 。对于那些对古典基督教上帝论的圣经和神学案例感兴趣的人来说，十六和十七世纪改革宗的伟大的神学著作现在还很容易读到，更不用说二十和二十一世纪的著作了。主要是多尔扎的书中并没有提到任何最近几个世纪以来不为正统基督徒所相信和捍卫的东西。然而，他的书在二十一世纪初却是有争议的。为什么呢？什么变了呢？
It is obviously well beyond the scope of this article to define and defend all of the elements of the classical doctrine of God found in this confessional statement. Such an attempt would turn this post into a multivolume book. For those who are interested in the full biblical and theological case for the classical Christian doctrine of God, the great Reformed theological works of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, not to mention those of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, remain readily available. The point is that Dolezal’s book is saying nothing that was not believed and defended by every orthodox Christian up until recent centuries. And yet, his book is a controversial one at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Why? What has changed?
 
正如多尔扎所解释的，我们的神学已经变了。更具体来说，我们的上帝论已经变了，并且多尔扎认为这种变化不是变得更好。因此，他的书首先定义了古典基督教神论和他所称为“共生主义神论(theistic mutualism)”之间的基本区别。他认为“共生主义神论”已经渗入到福音派和改革宗神学中，渐渐取代了古典基督教神论。但是，什么是古典基督教神论和共生主义神论？这两种上帝论之间有什么区别？这里，我们只能总结一下多尔扎著作中更充分阐述的主要观点。像他所解释的，古典基督教神论的特点是“坚定地致力于维护神性的自存性，不变性，不动情性，纯一性，永恒性以及神圣位格之间本质的统一性”。根本的以及不可违背的信仰是：上帝存有的任何方面都不是从祂自身之外获得的，也绝不是以任何方式导致的（《上帝的本体》，页1）。例如，我们在以上所引用的的《威斯敏斯特信条》的第二章中看到了这种教义的阐述。
As Dolezal explains, our theology has changed. More specifically, our doctrine of God has changed, and Dolezal argues that this change has not been for the better. His book, therefore, begins by defining the basic differences between classical Christian theism and what he calls “theistic mutualism.” He argues that theistic mutualism has infiltrated evangelical and Reformed theology, gradually displacing classical Christian theism. But what are classical Christian theism and theistic mutualism, and what are the differences between these two doctrines of God? Here, we can only summarize the main ideas explained more fully in Dolezal’s work. As he explains, classical Christian theism “is marked by a strong commitment to the doctrines of divine aseity, immutability, impassibility, simplicity, eternity, and the substantial unity of the divine persons. The underlying and inviolable conviction is that God does not derive any aspect of His being from outside Himself and is not in any way caused to be” (All That Is in God, p. 1). We see this doctrine expressed, for example, in chapter 2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith quoted above.
 
共生主义神论，与古典基督教神论相比，趋向于拒绝许多历史上所定义的教导。正如多尔扎所解释的，“为了把上帝描绘得更具有关联性，持共生主义神论的人坚持，上帝与祂的受造物之间包含在一种真正的互让（give-and-take）关系里。”（页1-2）。有一种趋势是拒绝或者从根本上重新定义上帝的属性，比如上帝的纯一性，永恒性，不变性，和不动情性。举例来说，约翰·傅瑞姆显然不满意传统的“不变性”教义。他写道：
Theistic mutualism, in contrast with classical Christian theism, tends to reject many of these teachings as defined historically. As Dolezal explains, “In an effort to portray God as more relatable, theistic mutualists insist that God is involved in a genuine give-and-take relationship with His creatures” (pp. 1–2). There is a tendency to reject or radically redefine divine attributes such as simplicity, eternity, immutability, and impassibility. John Frame, for example, is clearly not satisfied with the classical doctrine of immutability. He writes:
 
神学家有时将上帝的后悔(relenting，译注3)描述为“拟人化”。那样的描述中有一定的真实性，因为上帝的后悔是历史中上帝与祂子民之间的相交的一部分，在这样的互动中上帝的作为与人的行为非常相似。（系统神学，376-77）
Theologians have sometimes described God’s relenting as “anthropomorphic.” There is some truth in that description, for divine relenting is part of the historical interaction between God and his people, an interaction in which God’s activity is closely analogous to human behavior. (Systematic Theology, 376–77)
 
傅瑞姆接着拒绝了古典神论中对神圣永恒性，不变性和纯一性的理解：
Frame then goes on to reject the classical theistic understanding of divine eternality, immutability, and simplicity:
 
“但是历史的进程会改变，并且作为在历史中的代理人，上帝自己在改变。在星期一，祂想要一些事情发生，在星期二，想要别的事情发生。祂今天忧伤，明天又喜悦。在我看来，拟人化对这些叙述的描写来说太弱了。在这些叙述中，上帝不仅仅是时间中的代理人。祂也真的在时间里，随着别的改变而改变。并且我们不应该说祂的非时间性的、不变的存在比祂在时间里改变的存在更真实，正如拟人化这个词所暗示的。两者都是真实的。（《系统神学》，页377）。另译：https://eddyemma.com/blog/2022/05/11/tt34-nuance/但历史进程的确在改变，（因此）作为历史中的主体，神自己也会改变。在星期一，祂想要一些事情发生，在星期二，想要别的事情发生。祂今天忧伤，明天又喜悦。在我看来，用“拟人化”来描述这样的叙事段落，太过于软弱了。在这些叙事段落中，上帝不仅仅像是时间中的行为主体。他乃是真实地存在于时间之中，随着事物的改变而改变。我们不应当接受”拟人化“一词的暗示，认为上帝超越时间的不变存在，比他在时间之中变化的存在更真实——二者都是实在。（系统神学，377）
But the historical process does change, and as an agent in history, God himself changes. On Monday, he wants something to happen, and on Tuesday, something else. He is grieved one day, pleased the next. In my view, anthropomorphic is too weak a description of these narratives. In these accounts, God is not merely like an agent in time. He really is in time, changing as others change. And we should not say that his atemporal, changeless existence is more real than his changing existence in time, as the term anthropomorphic suggests. Both are real. (Systematic Theology, 377)
 
这在本质上不同于古典基督教神论。例如，在威斯敏斯特信条里所阐述的古典神论。
This is radically different from the classical theistic doctrine as expressed, for example, in the Westminster Confession.
 
多尔扎继续他的解释：共生主义神论致力于对上帝和世界单义的（univocal） 思考和解说。因此认为上帝以某种人的行为方式与这个世界互动，即使是在一个更广泛的层面上。（页2）多尔扎观察到这些观点已经被过程神学家们以最强的形式所表达出了，被形形色色的开放神论者们以一种稍微弱的形式表达出来了。多尔扎认识到，保守福音派和改革宗的神学家所教导的共生主义神论正好驳斥了过程神学(process theology)和开放神论(open theism)。然而他认为，尽管他们与过程神学和开放神论有所不同，他们仍共享一个相似的神性本体论（页3-4）。他们都允许在上帝的存有上有某种程度的改变和（或）二元性。傅瑞姆在以上引用的语句中表达这种改变以及存有的二元性，并且似乎意识到多尔扎所说的要点。他说：“我的方法表面上与过程神学相似，过程神学也承认上帝存有的两种方式，即超越的（transcendent ）和临在的（immanent），有时称为上帝的“原始的（primordial）”和“必然的（consequent）”属性。（傅瑞姆，上帝论，页572，強调是我加上的）。值得强调的是，傅瑞姆说的相似只是“表面的”。他清楚地指出过程神学是不合乎圣经的，并注意到它与他自己观点之间的差异（页572-73）。我们不能低估这种差别。它们是真实的。然而，多尔扎观察到既然两者都声称“上帝存有的两种形态”，他们也有令人担忧的相似性。多尔扎的著作的剩余篇章致力于捍卫古典基督教神论的各种元素，以对抗共生主义神论的批判 。
Dolezal continues his explanation: “Theistic mutualism is committed to univocal thinking and speaking with regard to God and the world and thus conceives God as interacting with the world in some way like humans do, even if on a much grander scale” (p. 2). Dolezal observes that such ideas have been expressed in their strongest form by process theologians and in a slightly weaker form by open theists of various stripes. Dolezal recognizes that conservative evangelical and Reformed theologians who teach theistic mutualism rightly reject process theology and open theism. He argues, however, that despite their differences with process theology and open theism, they still share a similar divine ontology (pp. 3–4). All allow for some measure of change and/or duality in the very being of God. Frame expresses such change and duality of existence in the sentences quoted above and seems to recognize the point Dolezal has made when he says, “My approach bears a superficial resemblance to process theology, which also recognizes two modes of existence in God, transcendent and immanent, sometimes called the ‘primordial’ and ‘consequent’ natures of God” (Frame, Doctrine of God, p. 572, emphasis mine). It is important to emphasize that Frame says that the resemblance is only “superficial.” He clearly states that process theology is unbiblical and notes the differences between it and his own view (pp. 572–73). We cannot downplay these differences. They are real. Dolezal, however, observes that since both claim that there are “two modes of existence in God,” there are also troubling similarities. The remaining chapters of Dolezal’s book are devoted to defending the various elements of the classical Christian doctrine of God against the criticisms of the theistic mutualists.
 
我赞同多尔扎对古典基督教神论的委身。古典神论是合乎圣经的上帝论，这就是为什么在我们的信条和信仰宣言中能够找到上帝论。也是为什么从早期教会一直到二十世纪正统基督教神学家所捍卫的教义。我也相信，多尔扎令人信服地论证了当代许多福音派和改革宗神学家所教导的上帝论已经偏离了古典神论。我认为这一点甚至在傅瑞姆对多尔扎的回应中也很清楚。
I share Dolezal’s commitment to classical Christian theism. Classical theism is the biblical doctrine of God, and that is why it is the doctrine of God that one finds in our creeds and confessions. That is why it is the doctrine defended by orthodox Christian theologians from the early church to the twentieth century. I also believe that Dolezal has demonstrated conclusively that the doctrine of God taught by many contemporary evangelical and Reformed theologians is a departure from classical Christian theism. I think that is made clear even in Frame’s response to Dolezal.
 
福音派的经院哲学：傅瑞姆对多尔扎的回应。
SCHOLASTICISM FOR EVANGELICALS: FRAME’S RESPONSE TO DOLEZAL
 
傅瑞姆对多尔扎著作的回应值得详细研究，因为它揭示了许多严重的误解。我不计划对他的每一行话作出回应，但是有几个重大问题不容忽略。
Frame’s response to Dolezal’s book is worth examining in some detail because it reveals a number of serious misunderstandings. I do not intend to respond to every line of his response, but there are several significant problems that simply cannot be ignored.
 
传说中的经院哲学妖怪
The Scholastic Bogeyman
 
傅瑞姆回复中有一个问题与它标题中的第一个词有关，就在他回复的第一个词本身：“经院哲学”。
One problem in Frame’s response has to do with the first word in his title and in the first word of the response itself: “scholasticism.”
 
首先，傅瑞姆对“经院哲学”的定义是让人混乱的。他起初说这是“一种神学”。然后他谈到“经院哲学的方法和结论”、“经院哲学的教义特点” 和“经院哲学传统中所强调的上帝论的各个方面” 。在后来的篇幅中，傅瑞姆谈到“古典基督教神论”（即经院哲学的方法）。简而言之，经院哲学通常和一种特定的教义内容等同，尤其是古典基督教神论的内容。其次，纵观这篇回复，读者观察到一个不太隐晦的尝试，将“经院哲学”等同于一些坏的或危险的东西（比如，只会以罗马天主教为终点的滑坡）。简而言之，他似乎想要将经院哲学与古典基督教神论等同，同时也暗示着经院哲学是通往罗马的一条危险的滑坡。
First, Frame’s definition of “scholasticism” is confused and confusing. He speaks of it initially as “a type of theology.” He then speaks of “the methods and conclusions of scholasticism,” “the doctrines characteristic of scholasticism,” and “aspects of the doctrine of God that were stressed in the scholastic tradition.” In a later section, Frame speaks of “‘classical Christian theism’ (i.e. the scholastic approach).” In short, more often than not, scholasticism is equated with a particular doctrinal content, specifically classical Christian theism. Second, throughout the response the reader observes a not-so-subtle attempt to equate “scholasticism” with something bad or dangerous (e.g., “a slippery slope that could end only in Roman Catholicism”). In short, he seems to equate classical Christian theism with scholasticism while also implying that scholasticism is a dangerous slippery slope to Rome.
 
（至少）有两点需要说明。首先，经院哲学与方法有关，而不是关于特定的神学内容。它是一种需要仔细和精确定义、区分以及论证的方法，并且它不总是采取相同的形式。路德宗的神学家约翰·格哈德（Johann Gerhard）所采用的学术方法与改革宗神学家阿曼杜斯·波莱诺斯（Amandus Polanus）所采用的方法在某些方面有所不同。并且他们两个对各自方法的应用又在某些方面与弗朗西斯·图伦丁（Francis Turrentin）的使用不同。无论如何，学术方法并不决定，也不暗含任何特定的神学内容。它可以也已经被用来教导罗马天主教的神学内容、改革宗的神学内容、路德宗的神学内容、甚至是非神学性的内容。这一点已经在过去几十年被反复论证过（要得到一个有帮助而简明的解释，请参考理查德·穆勒Richard Muller，《后宗教改革时期改革宗教义》Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics，第一册，34-37页）。
Two points (at least) need to be made. First, scholasticism has to do with method, not any particular theological content. It is a method that involves careful and precise definition, distinctions, and argumentation, and it doesn’t always take an identical form. The scholastic methodology as applied by the Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard differs in some ways from the scholastic method as applied by the Reformed theologian Amandus Polanus. Both of their applications of the method differ in some ways from Francis Turretin’s use of it. In any case, the scholastic method does not determine or imply any particular theological content. It can be and has been used to teach Roman Catholic theological content, Reformed theological content, Lutheran theological content, and even nontheological content. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last few decades (for a helpful and concise explanation, see Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, pp. 34–37).
 
第二，将经院哲学等同于罗马天主教的观点（或者是通往罗马天主教的滑坡）的想法是不真实的和误导人的。首先，罗马天主教使用了其他的方法来构建他们的神学（比如，教理问答）。其次，改革宗和路德宗的神学家作为十六和十七世纪罗马天主教的劲敌，也是唯独圣经的最坚定的倡导者，他们使用了经院哲学式方法。这些稻草人版本的“经院哲学”根本没有理由继续延续下去。尽管有堆积如山的证据表明经院哲学的真实本质，但继续推动这些扭曲，似乎是一种恐吓策略，旨在吓跑更正徒。
Second, the idea that scholasticism equals Roman Catholicism (or a slippery slope to Roman Catholicism) is untrue and misleading. In the first place, Roman Catholics have used other methods (e.g., catechetical) in constructing their theology. In the second place, the Reformed and Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who were the strongest opponents of Roman Catholicism and the strongest advocates of sola Scriptura used the scholastic method. There is simply no excuse for the continued perpetuation of these straw-man versions of “scholasticism.” Continuing to push these distortions in spite of the mountains of evidence demonstrating scholasticism’s true nature comes across as a scare tactic intended to frighten Protestants away.
 
在这种对经院哲学的误解中明显的混淆，为系统神学工作中历史神学的必要性提供了一个明确的论点。如果一个人的系统神学将要涉及到对经院哲学或者其他历史悠久的观点的讨论，那么他需要良好的历史神学（基础）来保证这些观念有准确的定义。对历史神学的轻视可以导致一个人持续的错误并且攻击“稻草人”（假想敌）。
The confusion evident in this misunderstanding of scholasticism provides as clear an argument as any for the necessity of historical theology in the work of systematic theology. If one’s systematic theology is going to involve discussions of scholasticism or any other concept with a long history, one needs good historical theology to ensure that those concepts are defined accurately. A disdain for historical theology can lead one to perpetuate errors and attack straw men.
 
共生主义神论的共识?
A Consensus on Theistic Mutualism?
 
傅瑞姆的回复中最令人困惑的论述之一（同时也是最讽刺的），是位于他文章的开头。他写道：
One of the most perplexing (and simultaneously ironic) statements found in Frame’s response is located close to the beginning of his article. He writes:
 
多尔扎认为“共生主义神论”在今天以及近代福音派作家中非常普遍。他援引了例子，比如，唐纳德·麦克劳德（Donald MacLeod，页21）、詹姆斯·奥利弗·博斯韦尔（James Olivver Buswell ，页23）、罗纳德·纳什（Ronald Nash，页23）、唐纳德·卡森（Donald Carson，页24）、布鲁斯·韦尔（Bruce Ware，页24）、巴刻（James I. Packer，页31）、阿尔文·普兰廷格（Alvin Plantinga，页68）、约翰·范伯格（John Feinberg）、J·P·莫兰德（JP Moreland）、威廉·莱恩·克雷格（William Lane Craig ，页69）、凯文·范浩沙（Kevin Vanhoozer ，页72）、莱恩·李斯特（Ryan Lister，页92）、斯科特·奥利芬特（Scott Oliphint，页93），对，还有约翰·傅瑞姆（页71-73，92-95）。古德恩因着他在三位一体中，坚持维护“永恒的功能性从属论（eternal functional subordination）”后来加入这一群体内（132-33）。这一群体将今天福音派中许多重要的思想家汇集到一起，我有荣幸成为其中一个，尽管我并不在凡事上赞同他们所有人。我想，多尔扎应该比他现在更尊重这一群体的人。反对这样的共识难道一点也不令人畏惧吗？
Dolezal thinks that “theistic mutualism” (TM) is very common among evangelical writers today and in the recent past. He cites as examples Donald MacLeod (21), James Oliver Buswell (23), Ronald Nash (23), Donald Carson (24), Bruce Ware (24), James I. Packer (31), Alvin Plantinga (68), John Feinberg, J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig (69), Kevin Vanhoozer (72), Ryan Lister (92), Scott Oliphint (93), and, yes, John Frame (71-73, 92-95). Wayne Grudem joins the group later for his adherence to “eternal functional subordination” in the Trinity (132-33). This group brings together many of the most important thinkers in evangelicalism today, and I am honored to be included in it, though I do not agree with all of them on everything. Dolezal, I think, should be more respectful of this group than he is. Is it not even a little bit daunting to stand against such a consensus?
 
同样，至少需要提出两点。首先，多尔扎的书我读了不止一次，我没有发现有任何不敬之处。显然，他相信在这些作家的著作中所教导的上帝论是错误的，但是，将分歧和批评等同于不尊重是错误的。加尔文在圣餐的教义上不同意路德的观点，但是我却没发现有任何证据表明加尔文不尊重路德。如果共生主义神论是不符合圣经的（我相信它是不符合的），那保持沉默就会是对基督和祂的教会的不尊重。第二，考虑两千年来古典神论的支持者的名字，这有些讽刺。我们不仅仅是说奥古斯丁和阿奎那。我们是在讨论所有正统改革宗神学家的共识和信仰告白。这些人中许多是教会历史上最重要的神学家。我们能不问傅瑞姆他自己的问题吗？反对这样的共识难道一点都不令人畏惧吗？
Again, at least two points need to be made. First, I have read Dolezal’s book more than once, and I do not detect any disrespect. Obviously, he believes that the doctrine of God being taught in the works of these writers is wrong, but to equate disagreement and critique with disrespect is mistaken. Calvin disagreed with Luther on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, but there is no evidence of which I am aware indicating that Calvin disrespected Luther. If theistic mutualism is unbiblical (and I believe it is), it would be disrespectful to Christ and His church to remain quiet. Second, there is some irony here considering the names of the proponents of classical theism from the last two thousand years. We are not speaking only of Augustine and Aquinas. We are talking about the consensus of all the orthodox Reformed theologians and confessions as well. These were many of the most important theologians in the history of the church. Could we not ask Frame his own question? Is it not even a little bit daunting to stand against such a consensus?
 
事实上，它（上述内容）指出了一个关于傅瑞姆的观点与威斯敏斯特信仰告白在这个课题上的教学关系的问题。威斯敏斯特信仰告白清楚地表述了古典基督教神论，包括神性不可变的教义。根据推测，作为一个在美洲长老会（PCA）被按立的牧师，傅瑞姆赞成威斯敏斯特信仰告白。但是一个支持傅瑞姆所表述的看法的人怎能赞成威斯敏斯特信仰告白的第二章内容？这是两种不同的关于上帝的教义。
In fact, it raises a question concerning Frame’s view and its relation to the teaching of the Westminster Confession on this subject. The WCF clearly expresses the classical Christian doctrine of God, including the doctrine of divine immutability. Presumably, as one ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America, Frame subscribes to the WCF. But how can one who holds to the views Frame expresses subscribe to chapter 2 of the WCF? These are two different doctrines of God.
 
对幻影说(Docetism)的指控
Charges of Docetism
 
傅瑞姆的回应中有一个严重的问题，那就是他暗示多尔扎（以及所有的古典基督教神论者）提倡一种关于基督道成肉身、受死和复活的幻影说的观点。在他的回复中解释了为什么他反对古典神论对神性不变性的理解。傅瑞姆写道：
A seriously problematic part of Frame’s response is found in his suggestion that Dolezal (and by extension all classical Christian theists) advocates a docetic view of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. In the section of his response explaining why he rejects the classical theistic understanding of immutability, Frame writes:
 
“基督在时间和空间中与我们同在，担当我们的罪，并且在祂里面给我们新的生命。祂来成为了我们盟约的主。这就是福音，并且我决定不要接受任何形而上的假定，那会对这种上帝与人之间的盟约关系有所妥协。”
Christ came to be with us in space and time, to take to himself our sins, and to bring us new life in him. He came to be our covenant Lord. This is the Gospel, and I determined not to accept any metaphysical premise that compromised this covenantal relation between God and man.
 
这是一个奇怪的声明，因为古典基督教神论者已经讨论了几个世纪，（关于）道成肉身与不变性的教义如何和为何不矛盾。他们中没有人相信神性的不变性损害了道成肉身的现实或上帝与人的盟约。值得提醒我们的是：那些发展出圣约神学的神学家正是相信并捍卫神性之不变性的古典神论者。
This is an odd statement given that classical Christian theists have been discussing for centuries how and why the incarnation does not contradict the doctrine of immutability. None of them believed divine immutability compromised the reality of the incarnation or God’s covenants with man. It’s worth reminding ourselves that the very theologians who developed covenant theology were classical theists who believed and defended the doctrine of divine immutability.
 
傅瑞姆继续解释说，在他看来，上帝与他百姓的关系涉及到上帝里面的“一种改变”。然后他说，“但如果我们说上帝只是似乎在这些语境中改变，那么，我们必须也要说，上帝只是似乎进入了时间中，上帝的儿子只是似乎成为人（这就是教科书上对幻影说的定义），祂只是似乎死在十字架上并且复活。难道我们要这样说吗？”同样的，这假定了道成肉身需要某种神性的可变性，以及确定神性的不变需要幻影说式的道成肉身。然而，道成肉身并不意味着圣子的神性转变为人性，好像一只毛毛虫蜕变成一只蝴蝶。也不意味着神性倒空祂所有的属性，好像基督虚己论（kenotic Christology）所教导的那样。我不相信那是傅瑞姆所相信的或者有意要传达的。但是当‘道成肉身’在傅瑞姆的方法中成了反对神性之不变性时，那么人就会开始疑惑他到底是什么意思。当然，古典基督教神论从来没有否定其中任何一个而是为两者辩护，迦克墩信经的定义守卫着神性的不变性和道成肉身的现实。正统基督徒一直会为两者辩护，因为两者都是圣经所教导的。
Frame continues by explaining that in his view, God’s relationship with His people involves “a kind of ‘change’” in God. He then states, “But if we say that God only appears to change in these contexts, must we also say that God only appears to enter time, that the Son of God only appeared to become man (that is the textbook definition of Docetism), that he only appeared to die on the cross and rise again?” Again, the assumption is that the incarnation requires some kind of divine mutability and that to affirm divine immutability entails incarnational Docetism. However, the incarnation does not mean that the divine nature of the Son transformed into the human nature as a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly. Nor does it mean that the divine nature empties itself of attributes, as kenotic Christology teaches. I do not believe that is what Frame believes or intends to communicate, but when “the Word became flesh” is opposed to divine immutability in the way Frame opposes them, one is left wondering what he does mean. Certainly, classical Christian theism has never denied either and has defended both. The Definition of Chalcedon guards both the immutability of the divine nature and the reality of the incarnation. Orthodox Christians have always defended both because both are taught in Scripture.
 
傅瑞姆继续说了一些令人困惑的东西。关于多尔扎的看法，他说：
Frame continues by saying something that is baffling. Concerning Dolezal’s view, he states:
 
这暗含着耶稣并没有“字面意思的”成为人、受苦，并且为我们而死。祂并不是“字面意思的”从一个童贞女而生，他没有行出“字面意义的”神迹。当然，多尔扎承认：这些信心的教义中有“一些是真实的东西”，但是基督教历史上的每一个异端都愿意这么说。
It implies that Jesus did not “literally” become man, suffer, and die for us. He was not literally born of a virgin. He did not work literal miracles. Of course Dolezal confesses that there is “something true” about these doctrines of the faith, but every heretic in the history of Christianity has been willing to say that much.
 
这些语句暗示了多尔扎他自己说，关于基督的道成肉身、生于童贞女、受苦以及受死的教义，只是有“一些真实的东西”，它们并非是字面意义上发生的事情。然而，多尔扎并没有这样说。在第20页，傅瑞姆指出的“一些是真实的东西” 这个短句的来源，多尔扎正 在谈论拟人化的语言。为避免误解，有必要引用多尔扎所写的全部内容。
These sentences suggest that Dolezal himself says that there is merely “something true” about the doctrine of the incarnation, virgin birth, suffering, and death of Christ and that these are not things that “literally” happened. However, Dolezal says nothing like this. On page 20, which Frame notes is the source of the phrase “something true,” Dolezal is discussing anthropomorphic language. It is necessary to quote what Dolezal wrote in full to avoid any misunderstanding.
 
那些赞同共生主义神论温和版本的人通常愿意否认圣经对上帝的字面或恰当的说法：当圣经说到上帝拥有身体时（比如，诗篇18：7-9；89：13；以赛亚书65：5），在空间中移动性的行走时（比如，创世记11：5；出埃及记3：8），或甚至改变祂的想法时（比如，出埃及记32：14）。但当圣经说到上帝经历着关系、情感或代理的改变时，我们被告知，这些改变恰恰是在上帝里面，并且如果不是这样，那么这段经文就毫无意义，甚至不真实。但事实并非如此，古典神论者只是把这些看作是圣经的拟人化（或拟人）语言的又一例证，启示了关于上帝一些真实的东西——比如祂真正与罪的敌对，祂满有怜悯的恩慈或者祂对历史事件护理性的引导——随着时间的推移而处于某种形式（即改变），而这些与祂的丰富存有是不相称的。这种不恰当的或者非字面形式的属性形式并不会掩盖关于上帝的真理，就像说到上帝的右手或者鼻孔不会隐晦祂的真理一样。（20-21页）。
Those who subscribe to the softer version of theistic mutualism are usually willing to deny that the Bible speaks literally or properly of God when it speaks of Him possessing body parts (e.g., Ps. 18:7–9; 89:13; Isa. 65:5), moving about locomotively in space (e.g., Gen. 11:5; Ex. 3:8), or even changing His mind (e.g., Ex. 32:14). But when the Bible speaks of God as experiencing changes of relation, affection, or agency, we are told that these changes are properly in God and that the text would be meaningless or even untrue if this were not so. But it is not at all obvious that this is the case. The classical theist simply regards these as yet further instances of the Bible’s anthropomorphic (or anthropopathic) language, revealing something true about God—such as His true opposition to sin, His gracious compassion, or His providential guidance of historical affairs—progressively in time and under a modality (viz., change) that is improper to His plenitude of being. Such improper or nonliteral forms of attribution do not obscure the truth about God any more than talk about God’s right arm or nostrils obscures the truth about Him. (pp. 20–21, emphasis mine)
 
注意多尔扎是如何以及在哪里使用了这个词汇“一些真实的东西”，并且将之与傅瑞姆所说他使用的方式进行比较。傅瑞姆写道：“当然多尔扎承认关于信心的教义有“一些真实的东西”。傅瑞姆将这个词汇“一些真实的东西”从它的语境中拿出来，并且用它来暗示多尔扎否定了字面所说的基督的道成肉身，从童贞女所生、受难、以及受死。然而，当多尔扎使用这个词汇“一些真实的东西”时，他并不是在讨论“这些教义”（基督的道成肉身、从童贞女所生、受难，并且受死）。因此，傅瑞姆的评论就极其误导人了。在接下来的段落中，同样关于多尔扎所说的误导性的观点继续着，当傅瑞姆问：“为什么我们应该从字面意义上相信上帝是不改变的，但是不相信字面意义上在耶稣里道成了肉身？”错误的困境重复出现在傅瑞姆的回应中，并且清楚的暗示着，多尔扎和其他的古典神论者选择不变性而否定道成肉身的事实。然而，无论是多尔扎或者任何其他的古典神论者都没有否认道成肉身的事实或者祂的生、死以及复活的历史事实。
Notice how and where Dolezal uses the phrase “something true” and compare that to the way Frame says that he uses it. Frame writes: “Of course Dolezal confesses that there is ‘something true’ about these doctrines of the faith.” Frame takes the phrase “something true” out of its context and uses it to suggest that Dolezal denies the literal incarnation, virgin birth, suffering, and death of Christ. Dolezal, however, is not discussing “these doctrines” (the incarnation, virgin birth, suffering, and death of Christ) when he uses the phrase “something true.” Frame’s comment is, therefore, extremely misleading. In the following paragraph, the same misleading idea about what Dolezal is saying continues when Frame asks, “Why should we believe literally that God is changeless, but not that God literally became flesh in Jesus?” The false dilemma appears repeatedly throughout Frame’s response, and the clear suggestion that is being made is that Dolezal and other classical Christian theists choose immutability and deny the reality of the incarnation. However, neither Dolezal nor any other classical theist denies the reality of the incarnation or the historical reality of His life, death, and resurrection.
 
圣经主义和历史神学
Biblicism and Historical Theology
 
这里还有一些其他的问题可以解决，包括但不限于对于三位一体的本质属性和位格属性的古典基督教教义的明显误解，以及隐含的向社会性三位一体（social trinitarianism）的移动。但是我想要以傅瑞姆回应中显示的神学方法的问题作为结束。我相信那关于神学方法的问题是我们在当今福音派和改革宗神学中所见证的许多神学偏差的基础。
There are a number of other problems that could be addressed here, including but not limited to the apparent misunderstanding of the classical Christian doctrine regarding essential properties and personal properties in the Trinity as well as the implicit move toward a social Trinitarianism. But I want to conclude by focusing on the issue of theological method revealed in Frame’s response. I believe that issues related to this theological method underlie many of the theological aberrations that we are witnessing in contemporary evangelical and Reformed theology.
 
傅瑞姆在他的作品中的许多地方已经明确表明（比如，《用爱心说诚实话》，第17页），他跟随的是约翰·慕理（John Murray，1898-1975）的神学方法，约翰·慕理是在威斯敏斯特神学院任教36年之久的系统神学教授 。傅瑞姆说慕理的方法基本上是释经法。傅瑞姆在这个问题的看法清晰地阐明在他的论文《为一些近乎圣经主义的事情争辩：对神学方法中的唯独圣经和历史的反思》（In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method）。他在那一篇论文中的主要目的是呼吁神学家在他们的著作中归回到唯独圣经。这本身是一个值得赞赏的目的，并且反映在改革宗经院主义神学家的著作中，他们教导说圣经是属乎外在的知识论原理（principium cognoscendi externum），是神学中认识的外在准则。圣经注释实在是需要的，为的是用它来作为神学中认识的外在准则。并且这样的注释是这些神学家所作的。所有的更正教徒都热忱地拥护唯独圣经的教义，但是在理解它的方式上有显著的不同。
Frame has made it clear in a number of places in his writings (e.g., Speaking the Truth in Love, p. 17) that he follows the theological method of John Murray (1898–1975), professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary for thirty-six years. Frame says that Murray’s method was basically the exegesis of Scripture. Frame’s views on the matter are most clearly expressed in his essay “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method.” His main goal in that essay is to call theologians back to sola Scriptura in their work. This in itself is a laudable goal and one reflected in the work of Reformed scholastic theologians who taught that Scripture is the principium cognoscendi externum, the external principle of knowing in theology. The exegesis of Scripture is certainly required in order for it to serve as the external principle of knowing in theology, and such exegesis was done by these theologians. All Protestants heartily embrace the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but there are significant differences in the way it is understood.
 
方法论问题的重要性在于傅瑞姆回应的背景中，但它不止在一处凸显出来。傅瑞姆在对多尔扎的回应将近结尾的时候，写道：
The significance of the issue of methodology is in the background of Frame’s response, but it comes to the fore on at least one occasion. Near the conclusion of his response to Dolezal, Frame writes:
 
像（理查德）穆勒，他（多尔扎）试图使系统神学完全从属于历史神学。但是这是本末倒置的。我们可以从历史中先于我们的神学家那里学到很多，但是唯独圣经要求我们通过直接研读圣经来检验他们所说的一切。
Like [Richard] Muller, then, he [Dolezal] tries to make systematic theology totally subordinate to historical theology. But this is to put the cart before the horse. We can learn much from the theologians who have preceded us in history, but sola Scriptura requires us to test everything they say by the direct study of Scripture.
 
这里没有空间来讨论出现在傅瑞姆和穆勒之间的争论。足以说明的是，这些争论很显然使傅瑞姆对于历史神学非常谨慎，这一点的证据已经在关于“经院哲学”一词含义的混乱中被注意到。为了坚持傅瑞姆所维护的关于经院主义的本质的主张，人们必须对过去几十年历史神学家所作的相关研究一无所知。然而，回顾过去，尝试决定经院哲学实际是什么，并非使系统神学置身于历史神学之下。它是要确保，当我们在系统神学中讨论经院哲学时，我们能准确地定义它 。教会历史中的任何其他的神学观念，也是如此。
There is not space to get into the debates that have occurred between Frame and Muller. Suffice it to say that these debates have apparently left Frame very wary of historical theology. Evidence of this has already been noted in the confusion about the meaning of the word “scholasticism.” In order to assert what Frame is asserting about the nature of scholasticism, one has to remain unaware of the relevant research that has been done by historical theologians over the last several decades. Looking to the past, however, in an attempt to determine what scholasticism actually was is not subordinating systematic theology to historical theology. It is making sure that when we discuss scholasticism in systematic theology we define it accurately. The same goes for any other theological concept in the history of the church.
 
没有什么比讨论唯独圣经本身更与之直接相关的了。如果一个人要诉诸于十六世纪唯独圣经的原则，那么这个人必须努力明白十六世纪唯独圣经的教义是什么。通过回顾和研究十六、十七世纪的改教家和神学家们——换句话说，通过研究历史神学，我们发现唯独圣经并非是当代圣经主义的倡导者自信断言的那样。此外，通过学习历史，人们发现所有形式的异端都通过诉诸于他们声称的宗教改革中唯独圣经的原则来为他们错误的教义辩护。因此，神学并不是仅仅援引某一章节的经文就可以攻击历史正统的圣经教义这样简单，这‘对当代思想家毫无意义’。苏西尼派那样做了。我们可以做得更好。
This is nowhere more directly relevant than in the discussion of sola Scriptura itself. If one is going to appeal to the sixteenth-century principle of sola Scriptura, one must make the effort to understand what the sixteenth-century doctrine of sola Scriptura was. By going back and actually studying the Reformers and the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—in other words, by doing historical theology—we discover that sola Scriptura was not what contemporary advocates of biblicism confidently assert that it was. In addition, by studying history, we discover that all manner of heretics have defended their false doctrines by appealing to what they claim is the Reformation sola Scriptura principle. Theology is not as simple, then, as merely quoting a chapter and verse of Scripture and attacking historic orthodox biblical doctrines that “make the least sense to modern thinkers.” The Socinians did that. We can do better.
 
在《祂从天上来寻她》（From Heaven He Came and Sought Her）的序言中（Crossway, 2013）, 大卫·吉布森（David Gibison）和乔纳森·吉布森（Jonathan Gibson）对“圣经主义者”和“合乎圣经”的人之间进行了一个有用的区分（38页）。唯独圣经这一原则的原倡导者们是非常合乎圣经的，但他们不是现代意义上的或者傅瑞姆在他论文中描述的圣经主义者。例如，唯独圣经原则的最原始的倡导者都是古典基督教神论者。他们都在正统教义的范畴内工作。他们毫不困难地教导从圣经中推断出来的必然结果的教义（比如，神性之纯一性 ）。他们还批判地鉴了过去神学家的著作（比如，托马斯·阿奎那Thomas Aquinas）。因为他们谨慎地使用经院式的方法，他们的神学丰富深刻地明了圣经真理，滋养了世代的教会。拒绝他们的方法论，并且将他们唯独圣经的观念替换成一种激进的个人圣经主义，对系统神学和教会来说通常都是灾难性的。
In their introduction to the book From Heaven He Came and Sought Her (Crossway, 2013), David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson make a helpful distinction between being “biblicist” and being “biblical” (p. 38). The original advocates of the sola Scriptura principle were profoundly biblical, but they were not biblicist in the modern sense or in the sense Frame describes in his essay. The original advocates of the sola Scriptura principle were all classical Christian theists, for example. They worked within the boundaries of orthodox doctrine. They had no difficulty teaching doctrines that were deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence (e.g., divine simplicity). They also critically appropriated the work of past theologians (even Thomas Aquinas). Because of their careful use of the scholastic method, their theologies were rich and profound expressions of biblical truth that nourished the church for generations. The rejection of their methodology and the replacement of their concept of sola Scriptura with a radically individualistic biblicism has been disastrous for systematic theology specifically and for the church generally.
 
结论
CONCLUSION
 
十多年前，有许多著作批判那些自称是福音派的人，其实他们在倡导开放神论：否定和重新定义——除了其他事情外——还有上帝的无所不知。当然，这些开放神论者，宣称他们的观点是更忠实于圣经的。今天，其他的福音派神学家（他们中许多著书反对开放神论者）正在否定并且重新定义上帝的其他属性，包括上帝的纯一性、不变性和不动情性。我不相信在多尔扎著作中提到的任何人当前公开地在教导开放神论 ，但是他们肯定在提倡一种危险的神论。从一个地方移动到另一个地方不需要太大的推力。
More than a decade ago, numerous books were written criticizing self-professed evangelicals who were promoting open theism, denying and redefining, among other things, the omniscience of God. These open theists, of course, claimed that their view was more faithful to Scripture. Today, other evangelical theologians (many of whom wrote against open theism) are denying and redefining other attributes of God, including simplicity, immutability, and impassibility. I am not convinced that any of the men named in Dolezal’s work are currently teaching open theism, but they are certainly promoting an unlatched theism. It will not take much of a push on the door to move from one place to the next.
 
詹姆斯·多尔扎的书是一本重要的书，值得称赞的是，他愿意承受他的论点必将造成的压力。他在这本书里说了一些需要说的话。在二十和二十一世纪的福音派和改革宗神学中出现了一个戏剧性的转变，这个转变使得来自保守和认信传统的神学家不受惩罚地采用和教导从前只被那些在信仰的边缘或在信仰的边界之外的人所提倡的教义。这是一个危险的情形。我推荐多尔扎出版的这本书。
James Dolezal’s book is an important one, and he should be commended for his willingness to endure the pressure that his arguments will surely generate. He is saying something in this book that needed to be said. There has been a dramatic shift in twentieth- and twenty-first-century evangelical and Reformed theology, a shift that has enabled theologians from conservative and confessional traditions to adopt and teach with impunity doctrines that had previously been promoted only by those either on the fringes of the faith or well outside of its boundaries. This is a dangerous situation, and I commend Dolezal for publishing this book.
 
我不知道约翰·傅瑞姆是否会读到我的回应。但是很有可能他的一些学生会读到。我想要他们知道我是怀着一种“铁磨铁”的动机来写下这些的。我对傅瑞姆没有任何个人的敌意。几年前我和他互通的小信件总是很亲切。我不希望他或者那些和他持一样观点的人读到对这些观点的批判时会感到激动 ，但是关乎上帝论的不是小事 ，而我们没有人，包括傅瑞姆，是完全无误的。傅瑞姆提出重要的问题并且挑战了古典上帝论。但是我们正统的信心先辈们早在几个世纪之前就意识到这些挑战了，他们对此提供了忠于圣经的 、有见识的答案，我们能否仔细思考并且使这些答案更加清晰，从而澄清古典 教义？当然可以。但是我们不能摈弃古典基督教神论，而用一直在变换的神学的新兴观念来代替它。
I do not know whether John Frame will read my response, but it is likely that some of his students will. I want them to know that I write all of this with an “iron sharpens iron” intent. I have no personal animosity toward Frame. The little correspondence I had with him years ago was always cordial. I don’t expect him or those who share his views to be excited to read a criticism of those views, but the doctrine of God is not a minor issue, and none of us, Frame included, is infallible. Frame has raised significant questions about and challenges to the classical doctrine of God. But our orthodox forefathers in the faith were aware of these challenges centuries ago, and they provided biblically faithful and thoughtful answers to all of them. Can we think through and sharpen those answers and thereby clarify the classical doctrine? Certainly. But we cannot discard classical Christian theism and replace it with ever-changing theological novelties.
 
当值得信任的神学家们拒绝了已经被教会历史中每一位正统的基督徒，包括改革宗唯独圣经原则的拥护者们所相信、所告白、所教导的合乎圣经的上帝论的教义时，那有些话就不得不说 。古典基督教神论不是先前世代的神学家们凭空发明的。这个教义是基于仔细考察圣经及其必然的含义。每一个能想到的反对意见都被考虑过了，并且现在仍有数千页的文献来解释和捍卫这一圣经的教义。基督徒最好重新去认识圣经中关于上帝论的丰富教义。唯独荣耀归于神！
When trusted theologians reject the biblical doctrine of God that has been believed, confessed, and taught by every orthodox Christian in the history of the church, including Reformed proponents of the sola Scriptura principle, something has to be said. Classical Christian theism was not something that previous generations of theologians created out of thin air. This doctrine was based on careful study of Scripture and its necessary implications. Every conceivable objection was considered, and thousands of pages still exist explaining and defending this biblical doctrine. Christians would do well to reacquaint themselves with the riches of the biblical doctrine of God. Soli Deo gloria.
 
译注1：犹3“要为从前一次交付圣徒的真道竭力地争辩”，既然上帝论是关乎信仰根基的，那么“争辩”——乃至“竭力地争辩”都是基督徒分所应当的；并且，我们确认这种“争辩”——态度上的温柔与立场上的坚定——并不会使教会不合一，因为教会本是真理的柱石和根基。
 
译注2：“第二或第三教义”的意思不是系统神学中序列第二或第三的教义，而是指重要性，即第二等级重要/次要、第三等级重要/再次要教义。
 
译注3：relenting译“后悔”，参ESV耶15:6和拿4:2；NASB耶20:16和珥2:13。
 
Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. He is author of several books, including The Lord’s Supper and From Age to Age.
作者简介：凯斯·马西森（Keith A. Mathison）博士是美国佛罗里达州，桑福德改革宗圣经学院的系统神学的教授。他是多本书的作者，包括《主餐》（The Lord’s Supper)。

神学翻译杂谈（34）｜Nuance的味道 节选
https://eddyemma.com/blog/2022/05/11/tt34-nuance/
 
下面这段文字引自改革宗初学者网站上最新（2022-05-04）的一篇文章。作为习惯，我在批评翻译的时候，一般只抽样第一篇，以示公平。这篇文章正好是”危险的神论：考察约翰·傅瑞姆对《上帝的本体》（All That Is in God）一书的回应“（一下简称”危险的神论“）。其版权信息如下：省略
 
在翻译中间，处理引文是最难的。一来缺乏上下文，二来引文可能体现了完全不同的英语水平和思想深度。下面是”危险的神论“对John Frame的”系统神学“一书第377页引文的翻译：
 
“但是历史的进程会改变，并且作为在历史中的代理人，上帝自己在改变。在星期一，祂想要一些事情发生，在星期二，想要别的事情发生。祂今天忧伤，明天又喜悦。在我看来，拟人化对这些叙述的描写来说太弱了。在这些叙述中，上帝不仅仅是时间中的代理人。祂也真的在时间里，随着别的改变而改变。并且我们不应该说祂的非时间性的、不变的存在比祂在时间里改变的存在更真实，正如拟人化这个词所暗示的。两者都是真实的。（《系统神学》，页377）。
 
John Frame的原文如下（引自Unlatched Theism）：
 
But the historical process does change, and as an agent in history, God himself changes. On Monday, he wants something to happen, and on Tuesday, something else. He is grieved one day, pleased the next. In my view, anthropomorphic is too weak a description of these narratives. In these accounts, God is not merely like an agent in time. He really is in time, changing as others change. And we should not say that his atemporal, changeless existence is more real than his changing existence in time, as the term anthropomorphic suggests. Both are real. (Systematic Theology, 377)
 
在讨论之前，先顺便说一下，这篇译文经过了翻译和校对流程，但这样的句子我是看不懂的：
 
十多年前，有许多著作批判那些自称是福音派的人，其实他们在倡导开放神论：否定和重新定义——除了其他事情外——还有上帝的无所不知。
 
我觉得这句话颠覆了我对汉语标点符号的认知。汉语里，一个（简单）句子只有一个主语。我看不出来，这里究竟是批评自称福音派的人在倡导开发神论，还是他们的著作在倡导开发神论。我也看不出来，”否定和重新定义——除了其他事情外——还有上帝的无所不知“，这句话到底说了什么。
 
原文似乎是这样的，”More than a decade ago, numerous books were written criticizing self-professed evangelicals who were promoting open theism, denying and redefining, among other things, the omniscience of God. “
 
好了，回到前面关于引文翻译的讨论。先说我的想法。我认为，如果要批评一个文本，比如John Frame，那么至少要弄清Frame说了什么，他的观点和逻辑是什么。在神学上，当我们谈论上帝的时候，一般不会把”Agent“译为”代理人“。上帝是本体意义上的创造主，即使在历史中，他也不是”代理“。
 
第二，God is not merely like an agent in time。原文中的关键字，like，漏译了。于是整句话的意思大为不同。”在这些叙述中，上帝不仅仅是时间中的代理人。祂也真的在时间里，随着别的改变而改变“，这整句话已经偏离了Frame的意思。因为”agent“的处理和”like“漏译，这句话似乎在说，上帝不仅是代理人，而且真的在时间里作为可变的客体，被任意改变。
 
我不讨论神学，对于Frame是否持有某种特定观点，并不感兴趣。我所关心的翻译问题是，在这样偏离Frame原意的翻译基础上展开汉语神学对Frame的批评，是否公平。
 
Agent应当是一个具有行动（和动机）自由的主体；”is like“应当翻译为”像是“，
 
但历史进程的确在改变，（因此）作为历史中的主体，神自己也会改变。在星期一，祂想要一些事情发生，在星期二，想要别的事情发生。祂今天忧伤，明天又喜悦。在我看来，用“拟人化”来描述这样的叙事段落，太过于软弱了。在这些叙事段落中，上帝不仅仅像是时间中的行为主体。他乃是真实地存在于时间之中，随着事物的改变而改变。我们不应当接受”拟人化“一词的暗示，认为上帝超越时间的不变存在，比他在时间之中变化的存在更真实——二者都是实在。（系统神学，377）