“信徒皆祭司”是宗教个人主义吗？RadicalIndividualism: The Divisive Spirit of Our Age

文/菲尔·牛顿（Phil Newton）    译/江文宇     校/光盐

http://founders.org/2016/07/07/radical-individualism-the-divisive-spirit-of-our-age

https://www.churchchina.org/archives/170905.html

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/BVfeiRVVtPz

“粗鲁而质朴的个人主义”（rugged individualism）[2]于一个争取立足之地的新兴民族国家而言，是行之有效的。当历史学家们描述美利坚建国者的品性时，“粗鲁而质朴的个人主义”常作为一项主要特征而被提及。事实也确实如此。试问若无此等精神，谁人愿意挺进未知的疆域，面对极端的艰难困苦，在荒无人烟之境开拓一生？然而此等精神却并不适用于在基督里彼此联络，联合于同一个身体并竭力持守合一的各个地方教会中。Rugged individualism works well for a new nation trying to get its feet on the ground. Often, when historians describe the characteristics of our nation’s founders, “rugged individualism” gets mentioned as a primary trait, and rightly so. Who else would forge into unknown territory, face extreme hardships, and carve out a life in the middle of nowhere without that kind of spirit? But that same spirit doesn’t work well in local congregations bound together in Christ, united in one body, and endeavoring toward unity.

作为对基督教影响与权威的反击，并伴随着源于科学发现的兴奋，自启蒙运动中诞生出一种个人主义的精神。正如罗德尼·斯达克（Rodney Stark）所指出的，相对于早期那些大有发现并且承认上帝的科学家们而言，那些毫无发现并且否认上帝的哲学家们所拥戴的，是启蒙运动的后裔们所持有的自由且反权威的思想。罗素（Bertrand Russell）称之为“对独立个体智力活动价值的重估，毫不夸张地说，是在迄今黑暗盛行之处散播光明。”他的观点是：黑暗存在于宗教之中，因此启蒙思想家们散播了没有基督信仰的光明。[3] A spirit of individualism rose out of the Enlightenment as a reaction to the influence and authority of Christianity, coupled with the excitement of scientific discovery. Philosophers—who discovered nothing and denied God, as Rodney Stark points out, in contrast to the early scientists who made discoveries and acknowledged God—championed the freethinking, anti-authoritarian mind in the children of the Enlightenment. Bertrand Russell called it “a revaluation of independent intellectual activity, aimed quite literally at spreading light where hitherto darkness had prevailed” His point: darkness existed in religion so enlightened thinkers spread the light without the Christian faith. [1]

对于罗马教廷对信众的控制并使其无法发挥作用，改教运动先于启蒙运动做出了反应。路德支持“信徒皆祭司”，并以之作为反驳罗马天主教铁腕统治的圣经依据。提摩太·乔治（Timothy George）指出了对这一教义的种种误解，他用这样一句话解释了路德的立场：“每个基督徒都是别人的祭司，因此我们每个人都是彼此的祭司。（这）是一种职责和义务，同时也是一种荣幸的特权；是一种服事，也是一种地位。”路德解释道：“我们都是祭司与君王，这一事实意味着我们每个基督徒都可以到上帝面前为他人代求。若我注意到你没有信心，或信心软弱，我就能祈求上帝赐给你坚强的信心。”[4] receding the Enlightenment, the Reformation reacted to the Roman Church’s control over and neutralizing of the congregation. Luther championed “the priesthood of all believers,” as the biblical counter to Romanism’s iron hand. Timothy George points out the misunderstandings of this doctrine, explaining Luther’s position in one sentence: “Every Christian is someone else’s priest, and we are all priests to one another.” It “is a responsibility as well as a privilege, a service as well as a status.” Luther explained, “The fact that we are all priests and kings means that each of us Christians may go before God and intercede for the other. If I notice that you have no faith or a weak faith, I can ask God to give you a strong faith.” [2]

我们在基督的身体中彼此服事、牧养，并不必需一位教皇或许多神父。在如此一种行使祭司职分的方式中，“信徒皆祭司”得以被强调。在这一教义中，并没有提到说基督徒要想出什么新奇的、个人主义的解经，也没提到要发展每个人各自版本的基督教，或是谁应该以刻薄酸腐的评论搅扰教会的聚会。“信徒皆祭司”的基础在于与基督的联合，对“唯独圣经”的信靠，以及对圣徒共同体的关注。众肢体联合为一体，彼此服事，并且共同在真理之上稳固站立。在“信徒皆祭司”这种祭司方式中，没有任何所谓粗鲁而质朴的甚或极端的个人主义得以抬头。The emphasis in such priesthood of all believers is found in the way that we serve and minister to one another in the body without the necessity of pope and priests. Nothing is said about coming up with novel, individualistic interpretations of Scripture or developing one’s own version of Christianity or disrupting a church meeting with caustic remarks. The priesthood of all believers finds its basis in union with Christ in reliance on sola scriptura and the focus on the community of the saints. Together the body serves one another and stands upon truth together. Nothing about rugged or radical individualism raises its head in the priesthood of all believers.

且让我们快进到19世纪。浸信会[5]领袖威兰德（Francis Wayland）向他父亲承认说：“我只是略懂一点系统神学。”然而他却通过自己的大量写作，塑造了未来历代浸信会的神学思想。受启蒙运动影响，威兰德推进了个人主义，而非在与基督联合的身体中的共同体生活。他认为基督徒没有必要委身于任何地方教会，因为“信仰唯独关乎个人与其造物主之间的关系。”但在约翰福音17章中，耶稣并不这么认为；在以弗所书2-4章中，保罗也不这么看！诺曼·马林（Norman Maring）观察到：“威兰德的倾向，是将个人判断（private judgment）的权利，从基督教社群的语境中剥离出来。”威兰德写道：“我们的基本信仰，就是相信圣经是上帝启示的……是对每个独立个人的启示。经文被赐予了每个独立个人，以使他可以独自理解领会……因此没有任何标准可以宣称其拥有凌驾于我们之上的权威。”所以，他拒绝任何信仰告白及教会规约。他的极端个人主义，对新约关于教会治理的教导及对共同体生活的强调，留下了能够予以否定的破口。[6] But fast forward to the 19th century. Baptist leader Francis Wayland admitted to his father, “I have but little idea of systematic theology.” Yet he shaped the theological thinking of future generations of Baptists through his prolific writing. Influenced by the Enlightenment, Wayland pressed individualism rather than corporate life in the gathered body. He saw no necessity in joining a local church since “religion is a matter which concerns exclusively the relations between an individual and his Maker.” Jesus did not see it this way in John 17 nor did Paul in Ephesians 2–4! Norman Maring observes, “Wayland’s tendency was to separate the right of private judgment from the context of the Christian community.” Wayland wrote, “It is our essential belief that the Scriptures are a revelation from God . . . to every individual man. They were given to every individual that he might understand them for himself. . . hence we have no standards which claim to be of any authority over us,” and so rejected confessional documents and church covenants. His radical individualism gave way to denying that the New Testament gave directions on church government and emphasized corporate life. [3]

当马林斯（E. Y. Mullins）在20世纪初继承了浸信会领袖地位后，他并没有远离威兰德的个人主义——反倒是对此更有所加强。马林斯是个神学家，而威兰德并不是。汤姆·内特斯（Tom Nettles）指出：“对于人类意识和经验的强调”主导了马林斯的神学。[7]直到19世纪，浸信会信徒们都维持着对基督徒共同体的关注，也曾对“信徒皆祭司”有着坚定的强调，“信徒皆祭司”（the priesthood of all believers）指向的是所有信徒，约翰·汉莫特（John Hammett）称之为“教会的能力”；与之相对的是“信徒是祭司”（priesthood of the believer），指向单个信徒的“灵魂的能力”。马林斯从复数转向了单数——从共同体生活转向了个人主义。他的强大影响力改变了浸信会的立场，使其对于教会作为同一身体的关注转向了个人。这也影响了后来浸信会信徒们对会籍、惩戒、权威及福音传道等议题的看法。他曾写道：“地方会众在教会事务上所做的决定，是‘有能力者的共识’。……教会是自治个体的社群，直接臣服于基督主权之下，因着共同利益的社会盟约而联合一起。”这种“灵魂的能力”意味着“在圣经经文含义上有作出私人判断的权利”，与“共同体的理解”相对立。虽然马林斯所谓“灵魂的能力”之后成为了浸信会信徒的标志之一（甚至被写进了《2000年浸信会信仰及信息》序文中），但汉莫特指出：“即使在浸信会信徒的生命中，灵魂的能力也是一件新鲜事。”他更进一步解释到：“就教会论而言，马林斯标志着一个决定性的转折点，那就是在浸信会信徒的教会生活中，起决定作用的不再是教会能力这一概念，而是转向了灵魂能力的个人主义原则。”[8]这就不可避免地逐渐损害了浸信会对于教会的理解，并为无惩戒的会籍、以人为中心的福音传道，以及不健康的教会生活铺平了道路。When E. Y. Mullins followed as the Baptist champion of the early 20th century, he did not depart from Wayland’s individualism—he elevated it. Mullins was a theologian while Wayland was not. Tom Nettles notes, “Emphasis on human consciousness and experience” dominated Mullins’s theology. [4] Until the 19th century, Baptists maintained the corporate focus of Christians, with strong emphasis on “the priesthood of all believers,” and what John Hammett calls “church competence,” in contrast with the singular “priesthood of the believer” and “soul competence.” Mullins moved from the plural to the singular—from corporate life to individualism. His powerful influence changed the Baptist position on the body to focus on the individual. This affected the way that future Baptists viewed membership, discipline, authority, and evangelism. He wrote, “Decisions of the local congregation on ecclesiastical matters are the ‘consensus of the competent.’ . . . The church is a community of autonomous individuals under the immediate lordship of Christ held together by a social bond of common interest.” This soul competence meant the “right of private judgment as to the meaning of the Bible,” contra corporate understanding. While Mullins’ “soul competence” subsequently became one of the identifiers of Baptists (even expressed in The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 preamble [p. 5]), Hammett notes, that “soul competence is something of a novelty in Baptist life.” He further explains, “In terms of ecclesiology, Mullins marks a decisive turning point from the concept of church competence to the individualistic principle of soul competence as determinative in Baptist church life.” [5] Inevitably, it undermined the Baptist understanding of the church and paved the way to undisciplined membership, man-centered evangelism, and unhealthy church life.

当我们将启蒙运动的思想，威兰德和马林斯风格的、与共同体生活相对立的个人主义，以及对于个人主义的后现代的强调，全部浇灌进入地方教会里面，会发生什么？我们得到的结果就是极端个人主义：它轻看教会会籍，它拒绝会众中的问责与惩戒，它怠慢彼此服事，它忽视教会合一，它使基督徒无法在福音的使命和职事中无私地走到一起来，而且它更拒绝了基督为地方会众建立的教会权威。What happens when we pour Enlightenment thinking, Wayland and Mullins’ styled individualism in contrast with corporate life, and the post-modern emphasis on individualism into the local church? We get the result of radical individualism that holds church membership lightly, that rejects accountability and discipline in the congregation, that neglects serving one another, that ignores unity in the church, that fails to come together selflessly in mission and ministry, and that rejects ecclesiastical authority established by Christ for local congregations.

这就远非“同被建造，成为上帝藉着圣灵居住的所在”的教会，远非那藉着其生命与教义合一而使“天上执政的、掌权的”得知“上帝百般的智慧”的教会，也远非行事为人“与蒙召的恩相称，凡事谦虚、温柔、忍耐，用爱心互相宽容，用和平彼此联络，竭力保守圣灵所赐合而为一的心”的教会。（弗2:22，3:10，4:1-3）这也与那由上帝所立的领袖们共同装备起的教会，那等候各人得蒙上帝建造，“直等到我们众人在真道上同归于一，认识上帝的儿子，得以长大成人，满有基督成长的身量”的教会（弗4:11-13）有天壤之别。这也不是新约中描述的教会，不是那秉持“惟用爱心说诚实话”的教义如牢靠的锚，那全身心都向着基督成长，百体各按其职，以便叫“身体渐渐增长，在爱中建立自己”的教会。（弗4:14-16）极端个人主义永远无法描绘出耶稣用他宝血赎买来的教会（徒20:28）；它分裂基督的教会，变乱福音，篡夺教会共同体的见证。It’s far different than the church “being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit,” the church by its unity in life and doctrine making known “the manifold wisdom of God . . . to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places,” the church walking “in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 2:22; 3:10; 4:1–3). It’s a far cry from the church equipped by God-appointed leaders to be built up together “until we all attain the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:11–13). It’s not the same church described in the New Testament as doctrinally anchored, “speaking the truth in love,” growing up in all respects to Christ, with each individual properly working to cause “the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (Eph 4:14–16). Radical individualism can never portray the church that Jesus purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28). It divides Christ’s church, confuses the gospel, and usurps the church’s corporate testimony.

让我们尽力强调教会的能力，而非灵魂的能力吧！让我们回归“信徒皆祭司”，而非“信徒是祭司”吧！极端个人主义依然存在，是我们这个时代分裂的灵。唯有藉着回归耶稣在约翰福音17章中所描绘的教会生活，也就是保罗在以弗所书2-4章所阐明的教会生活，才能得到医治。Rather than soul competence, let’s stress church competence. Instead of the priesthood of the believer, let’s return to the priesthood of all believers. Radical individualism remains as the divisive spirit of our age. It’s cured by a return to the kind of church life that Jesus pictures in John 17 and Paul sets forth in Ephesians 2–4.

作者简介：

菲尔·牛顿（Phil Newton），1987年创立了田纳西州孟斐斯南森林浸信会教会并担任主任牧师。此前他在密西西比和阿拉巴马牧会。他是新奥尔良浸信会神学院神学硕士，富勒神学院教牧学博士以及东南浸信会神学院博士。

[1] 本文取自Founders Ministries网站，http://founders.org/2016/07/07/radical-individualism-the-divisive-spirit-of-our-age（2017年8月31日存取），承蒙授权翻译转载，特此致谢。——编者注

[2] 粗鲁而质朴的个人主义，语出美国第三十一届总统胡佛在1928年发表的以此为题的演讲。——编者注

[3] Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion ，New York: Harper One, 2012, p.238, p.252.

[4] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers rev. ed, Nashville: B&H, 2013, pp.96–97.

[5] 作者本身是一间浸信会教会的主任牧师，因而此处并非是对浸信会整体的定性和批判，而是作者对自己所在传统的有益反思。——编者注

[6] Winthrop Hudson, ed., Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues which Have Produced Changes in Church Order ,Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959, p.138, p.150, p.152.

[7] Tom Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life ,Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986, p.247.

[8] John Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence: The Devolution of Baptist Ecclesiology,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, 3:1, pp.145–163; citations from Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, p. 56, pp.128–129.

忠于福音，尽我们祭司的职责ThePriesthood of All Believers Ministry to Match the Message of the Gospel

文／蔡斯•库恩（Chase R. Kuhn）  译／和茜    校／和卫

http://www.credomag.com/the-priesthood-of-all-believers

https://www.churchchina.org/archives/170906.html

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/a6CEVNHTrSs

提到十六世纪，大多数人会想到的是当时所发现的伟大神学真理。事实的确如此。但是，我们却很容易就忽视了宗教改革之所以会发生的重要背景——败坏的事奉。因此我们不仅应该看到，重拾正确的教义可以归正事奉，同时更应该看到，败坏的事奉也正是当时驱动宗教改革的背后的力量。马丁•路德最伟大的作品之一便是《教会被掳于巴比伦》（The Babylonian Captivity of the Church），他深信教会的会众已经被糟糕的教义所俘虏，致使事奉日渐败坏，也最终毁坏了真正的福音。

When thinking of the sixteenth-century, most will think of the great theological truths that emerged. Rightly so! But we can easily overlook the circumstances that demanded reform: corrupt ministry. Corrections to the ministry were not just implications of the retrieval of good doctrine, but corrupt ministry was the driving force behind the Reformation. Martin Luther was deeply concerned that the people of the Church were being held captive—one of his great written works was entitled The Babylonian Captivity of the Church—by bad doctrine that amounted to abominable ministry practices and ultimately deprivation of the gospel.

改教时期罗马天主教在事奉上的败坏

Circumstances

当时罗马天主教在事奉上的败坏主要表现在几个突出的问题上，特别是售卖赎罪券（认为“救恩可以出售”）。导致这些问题的原因在于，他们用世俗的眼光来看待祭司的职任。具体而言，罗马教会声称在教会里有两种不同的基业：神职人员的“属灵基业”和平信徒的“世俗基业”。这种思想其实已经存在了好几个世纪，最早可追溯到三世纪，在居普良（Cyprian）的影响下悄悄渗透入教会。但路德坚信，根据圣经的教导，所有受洗并相信耶稣基督的人都共享同一个属灵基业。因此，事实上所有信徒都担当着同样的祭司之责（彼前2:9）。为反对恩麦色（Emser）——路德称他为莱比锡城的“山羊”——所持的败坏观点，路德曾写下言辞犀利的书信。他直言不讳地说：“恩麦色梦想的祭司之职和天主教徒所设想的教会如出一辙，若圣经认同此观点，就好比生命认同死亡。”这样的表达不仅断然表明恩麦色的观点与圣经截然对立，同时也传达出一个令人不安的事实——罗马的祭司制度意味着死亡，因为他们事奉的方式极大地损害了福音的信息。What was it exactly that was so bad about the Roman Catholic Church? There were several presenting issues, especially the selling of indulgences (think “salvation for sale”), that had their root in a profane view of the priesthood. To be more specific, the Roman Church claimed that there were two estates within the Church—a “spiritual estate” for the clergy (priests) and a “temporal estate” for the laity. This sort of thinking had been around for centuries, creeping into the church as far back as the third-century with Cyprian, but had come to be exploited by the sixteenth-century. Luther was adamant that the Bible taught that there was only one spiritual estate shared by all who were baptized and had faith in Christ. Indeed, there was a singular priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:9). Luther wrote one of his more trenchant addresses against Emser, whom he affectionately called the “goat” of Leipzig (!), in order to address such a corrupt view. He explained frankly, “[T]he priesthood of which Emser has dreamed and the church which the papists have devised agree with the Scriptures just as life and death agree with each other.” The point was not simply to point out a sharp contrast, but also to use an image that conveyed a disturbing truth—the Roman priesthood meant death because the manner of their ministry undermined the message of the gospel.

路德提出“所有信徒皆为祭司”

 Corrections

对路德来说，所有基督徒都是上帝属灵的子民，均在受洗时成为祭司。“因此，”他写道，“我们有多少基督徒，就有多少祭司。只是那些我们称之为‘祭司’的人，是从我们中间挑选出来的牧者。他们的所做所为都是以我们的名义。”唯一的区分在于其职分，而并非是因为他们所得的基业有何不同。换句话说，基督徒的事奉方式可能会有不同，但他们之间的属灵地位却并没有任何差别。基督徒的基业从来都只有一个——在基督里，也藉着圣灵。For Luther, the entirety of the Christian people is a spiritual people, all having being been made priests at their baptism. “Therefore,” he wrote, “we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen from among us, who do all  that they do in our name.” There is a distinction in office, but not estate. In other words, Christians have different ministries, but not different spiritual statuses. The estate of the Christian was only ever one—in Christ, by the Spirit.

关于所有信徒同担祭司之责，会有以下几个要点：

There are a few important points to consider regarding the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

首先，虽然路德已经认定，所有基督徒都共享同一个的基业，但他也明确强调了角色和职分之间的区分。他写道：“不管是平信徒还是牧师，王子还是主教，他们之间都没有任何本质的区别，并没有所谓的‘属灵’和‘属世’之分，有的只是职分和角色的差别，而非取决于所得‘基业’的不同；因为所有信徒都从上帝那里承受了同样的基业，只是他们各自从事着不同的职分……”他相信，正如保罗在哥林多前书12:14-31所教导的，每一位信徒都要使用自己的职分和恩赐来彼此服事。神职人员要传讲上帝的道，平信徒则要从事“诸般的工作……为着教会的身体和属灵福祉。”

First, although Luther identified a single estate for Christians, he maintained a distinction of roles and offices. He wrote, “There is really no difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, ‘spirituals’ and ‘temporals,’ as they call them, except that of office and work, but not of ‘estate’; for they are all of the same estate—true priests, bishops, and popes—though they are not all engaged in the same work …” He believed, as Paul taught (1 Cor. 12:14-31), that each person was to use their office and gifts for mutual service. The clergy should proclaim the Word. The laity were to use “many kinds of work … for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community.”

第二，每一位基督徒都有责任履行对他人的祭司之责，特别是家里的人。按立牧职对保守福音依然非常重要，路德对此很明确。他写道：“因为我们一样是祭司，如果没有我们的许可和选举，任何人都不能推举自己，去做在我们所有人权柄之内的事情。因为大家都知道，如果没有教会的同意和命令，任何人都不敢擅自做什么事情……”对路德来说，上帝的道和圣礼的事奉之职必须为教会所按立的人保留。但这并不意味着，其他人就没有责任传讲上帝的道，而是说这个职分必须有专人来担当。就好像一座城里的所有人都想成为警长——如果所有人都拥有这权柄，那就意味着实际上谁都没有这权柄，所以最好是指认（选举/按立）一些官员来维护和执行法律。同样，在设置具体职分的情况下，福音也会得到最好的保护。

Second, every Christian had a duty to fulfill their priestly service to others, especially those within their home. He was clear that ordination for ministry continued to be significant for the guarding of the gospel. He wrote, “Because we are all in like manner priests, no one must put himself forward and undertake, without our consent and election, to do what is in the power of all of us. For what is common to all, no one dare take upon himself without the will and the command of the community…” For Luther, the ministry of the Word and sacrament was to be kept for those the church ordained to that ministry. That is not to say that others had no role to play in teaching the Word of God, but rather that the office ought to be upheld. It would be like everyone in town wanting to be sheriff—if all have the authority there is no authority. It is best to have designated (elected/ordained) officials to uphold the law. So too, the gospel is best kept when specific offices are upheld.

第三，然而，神职人员不能忽视他们的主要工作。路德坚称，按立是为了选出传道人。他认为，罗马教会的祭司陷入了偶像崇拜，他们不事奉上帝的道，反而去主持悖逆的献祭弥撒。在路德之后，菲利普•梅兰希顿（Philip Melanchthon）——路德的一个好朋友——严厉斥责了罗马天主教用弥撒赦免人的罪的观念。他明确表明，应该相信耶稣基督所成就的工。在《奥斯堡信条辩护论》（Apology of the Augsburg Confession）中，梅兰希顿坚称：“我们教导的是，耶稣在十架上献祭死亡，已足以赦免全世界的罪，无需额外的献祭，否则就好像基督的献祭还不足够拯救我们。”

But, thirdly, it is important that officers do not lose sight of their primary work. Luther was firm that ordination was for choosing preachers. He believed the Roman Church’s priests had idolatrously embraced the perverse sacrificial Mass in dismissal of Word ministry. Following Luther’s lead, Philip Melanchthon—a close friend of Luther—berated the Roman notion of Mass being offered for the forgiveness of the sins of the people, and instead articulated the appropriate confidence in the work of Christ. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon declared, “We teach that the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross was sufficient for the sins of the entire world and that there is no need for additional sacrifices, as though Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient for our sins.”

宗教改革关于所有信徒皆为祭司的信条认可了耶稣的祭司之职，这一点从使徒书信到希伯来书都有详细的记述。耶稣是伟大的大祭司，为百姓的罪献祭，因为他一次将自己献上，就把这事成全了（来7:27，10:12）。在旧约中，百姓需要重复献祭，一是赎罪，二是提醒人的罪一直存在。现在，因着耶稣的献祭，神说他不再记念我们的罪。“这些罪过既已赦免，就不用再为罪献祭了”（来10:18）。关于耶稣祭司的职分，《奥斯堡信条辩护论》宣称：

The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers recognizes the priestly office of Christ that is so wonderfully detailed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Christ, the great high priest, offered himself as a sacrifice for sin once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 10:12). Under the old covenant, sacrifices were necessarily repeated to make atonement and to serve as a perpetual reminder of sin to the people. Now, because of Christ’s sacrifice, God says he remembers sin no more. “Where there is forgiveness of these [lawless deeds], there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). In view of Christ’s priestly work, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession declared,

因此，人如果相信，自己是因为耶稣的献祭被拯救，就实在知道，只有耶稣的献祭可以让他们称义，而其他任何献祭都不可以。所以，祭司的职责并不是根据旧约律法，为百姓献祭，以藉此来饶恕人的罪。相反，祭司被呼召是向百姓传讲福音，施行圣礼。

Therefore, human beings are justified not on account of any other sacrifice except the one sacrifice of Christ when they believe that they have been redeemed by that sacrifice. Thus priests are not called to offer sacrifices for the people as in the Old Testament law so that through them they might merit the forgiveness of sins for the people; instead they are called to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments to the people.

罗马教会一次又一次地将耶稣献上，这是在削弱耶稣的工作。而真正的事奉应该是传讲耶稣已成就的工作。因此，路德呼吁神职人员应当重新以传道为重中之重。

The Roman Church undermines the work of Christ when they seek to offer Christ again and again. True ministry proclaims the finished work of Christ. Thus, Luther and the Lutherans called the clergy back to the priority of preaching.”

后人对“信徒皆祭司”的继承和发扬

Continuing to Reform

在路德事奉时代的一百年之后，菲利普·雅各·施本尔（Philip Jacob Spener）——一位德国虔诚派教徒，以《敬虔愿望》(Pia Desideria)一书闻名——继续着路德所开始的改革事工。他将宗教改革与犹太人从巴比伦被掳归回相提并论（请注意路德对此的重要影响），并发出呼吁，为了避免教会再次被掳，还有许多工作要做。施本尔写道：“我们……不应该满足于已经走出巴比伦这一认识，而是应该努力纠正现存的种种问题。”他意识到，为了完成这一工作，所需要的帮助远远超过按立的神职人员所能提供的。这一观点不仅具有应用性，也是对基于普遍祭司制的事工神学的一种表达。

A little more than a century after Luther’s ministry, Philip Jacob Spener—a German Pietist, famous for his book Pia Desideria—sought to continue the work that Luther began at the Reformation. Likening the Reformation to the Jews returning from Babylonian exile (note the strong influence of Luther!), he believed there was work that remained lest they face the threat of exile again. Spener wrote, “[W]e…ought not to be satisfied with the knowledge that we have gone out of Babel but we ought to take pains to correct the defects which still remain.” In order for this work to be done, he knew that there would be more help required than the ordained clergy could offer. The matter was not merely practical, but anchored in a theology of the ministry that gave expression to the universal priesthood.

施本尔认为，每一位基督徒都有责任向他人尽祭司之责，特别是家里的人。他试图纠正当时所流行的一个错误观点，即只有被按立的神职人员才可以去事奉。他认为，平信徒之所以倦怠或自满于事奉，是因为对牧师职责的看法有误。他要求每一位基督徒都要尽其祭司之责！这一劝诫和保罗对腓立比人的鼓励一致，即教会的每一位成员都应该尽其所能，为着耶稣基督的身体得以完全（腓4:7-16）。因此，施本尔认为，为了继续合宜地改革教会，所有信徒都必须正确地理解和实践他们的祭司之责。只有这样，上帝的话才能藉着圣灵，带来教会的成熟。

Spener believed that every Christian had a duty to fulfill their priestly service to others, especially those within their home. He sought to correct a common misconception of his day that the ordained clergyman was the only one who did the work of ministry. He believed that any sloth or complacency in the work of ministry amongst the laity was due to this misconception about the pastoral office. He charged every Christian to fulfill their priestly duty! This exhortation agreed with Paul’s encouragement to the Ephesians for every member of the church to do their part, in order that the body of Christ might mature (Eph. 4:7-16). Thus, Spener believed that in order for the church to continue to be properly Reformed, the priesthood of all believers must be rightly understood and practiced. Only then will the Word do the work of bringing maturity by the Spirit.

我们应当如何忠于福音，尽祭司之责

Priesthood and Christian ministry today

对于今日教会而言，每一个基督徒都当尽祭司的职责到底意味着什么？下面仅尝试列举三个应用：

What does the priesthood of all believers mean practically for Christians today? Without offering a comprehensive list, here are three brief consequences for today:

 1、所有属基督的人在灵里皆为平等，且这平等并不因其职分不同而被打破。如果整个身体只是一只眼睛，那到哪去听呢？“但如今神随自己的意思把肢体俱各安排在身上了。若都是一个肢体，身子在哪里呢？”（林前12:18-19）基督徒必须记得，虽然大家在事奉的时候有不同的角色和职分，但在耶稣里共享一个基业。

All who belong to Christ are spiritual equals, but equality does not rise and fall on function. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? “But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be?” (1 Cor. 12:18-19). Christians must remember that they have one estate in Christ, even if they have distinct roles and offices in ministry.

 2、只有当肢体的每一部分都运转合宜时，教会才能真正成熟。（弗4:7-16）牧者的首要职责是讲道，但这并不意味着传道的事奉就仅局限于他们。在教会中有各种参与事奉的方式，教会的每一位成员都可以努力发挥自己的作用，特别是“用爱心说诚实话”。

The Church will only mature when each part of the body is working properly (Eph. 4:7-16). Pastors have a priority to preach, but this does not mean that the ministry of the Word stops with them. Every member of the church has a part to play, especially in “speaking the truth in love” (v. 15), as well as many other ways of serving the church.

 3、每一位基督徒都要尽到自己作为中保的祭司职责。对这一点需要做特别谨慎地说明，因为基督徒之所以能扮演这样的角色，完全是因为我们的大祭司耶稣基督那完美和全备的中保之工。没有基督徒能够通过其他中保去赎罪，但每一位基督徒却都能为别人献上祷告，因为知道自己可以藉着耶稣基督的救赎之功来到父上帝的面前向他祈求。因此，对于基督徒来说，一方面要在其他基督徒面前努力活出基督，以“彼此相顾，激发爱心，勉励行善”（来10:24）；另一方面也要向这个世界，竭力“宣扬那召你们出黑暗、入奇妙光明者的美德”（彼前2:9）。

Every Christian serves a priestly role of mediation. This point should be noted with care, as this role is carried forward only ever because of the perfect and full mediation of Christ our great high priest. No Christian mediates to make atonement. But each Christian offers prayers for others because they know they have perfect access to God the Father through Christ’s atoning work. Furthermore, Christians represent Christ to other Christians considering “how to stir up one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24), and to the world they “proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

今天，我们感谢上帝给了我们像马丁•路德这样的的教会领袖，来帮助上帝的百姓逃离巴比伦——那个败坏的拜偶像之地。通过学习上帝的道，也因着上帝百姓的勇气，教会及其实践得以改革。随着重归正确的神学，正确的实践也将随之而来。我们务必要一直牢记这两者之间的关联。

Today we can be grateful for God’s provision of leaders like Martin Luther who helped God’s people escape from Babylon—that idolatrous land of corruption. Through the study of God’s Word and the courage of God’s people, the church and its practices were reformed. With the retrieval of right theology also came the retrieval of right practice. We must be sure to not lose sight of this connection!

若今天的教会要继续忠于福音，那么教会的事奉就必须和福音的信息相匹配。这并不意味着我们要在教会里摆脱教牧的领导。恰恰相反，我们要保护牧者的工作，要求被按立担当这一职分的牧者坚持做他们主要的工作——传讲上帝的道！与之同样迫切的是，所有基督徒都必须要被提醒，事奉的工作并不仅仅属于牧者。施本尔曾睿智地表示，神职人员无法承担所有的事！基督建立他的教会，需要每一位成员都切实担当起在肢体里所事奉岗位的职责。传道的事工必须要大大兴盛，而信徒们也必须认真遵守上帝的诫命。为了避免教会再次被掳，宗教改革的工作必须一直继续下去。

If the churches today are to remain faithful to gospel, then the ministry must match the message. This does not mean we should get rid of pastoral leadership in the church. Quite the opposite, we should protect the pastoral office demanding that those ordained to this work stay on task to do their primary work: preach the Word! Perhaps equally pressing today, all Christians must be reminded that the work of ministry does not belong to the pastor alone. As Spener wisely indicated, the clergy cannot do it all! Christ builds his church as every member takes their place of service in the body. The ministry of the Word must abound, and the people must abide. The work of the Reformation must continue, lest we return to captivity.

作者简介：

蔡斯·库恩（Chase R. Kuhn）博士毕业于西悉尼大学，目前在位于悉尼的摩尔神学院教授有关基督教思想和事奉的课程。他著有《唐纳德·罗宾逊和布劳顿·诺克斯的教会学（2017）》，也发表过一些神学论文。

[1] 本文取自Credo Magazine网站，http://www.credomag.com/the-priesthood-of-all-believers

（2017年8月31日存取），承蒙授权翻译转载，特此致谢。标题为编者另拟，正文略有编辑。——编者注