32 无能——堕落的人是自由又是被捆绑的Inability - Fallen humanbeings are both free and enslaved

《简明神学》Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs，巴刻（J. I. Packer）著/張麟至译，更新传道会，2007年。

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_98.html

http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/inability.htm

32 无能——堕落的人是自由又是被捆绑的

Inability - Fallen human beings are both free and enslaved

人心比万物都诡诈，坏到极处，谁能识投呢？（耶17:9）

想要弄清楚人类堕落的光景，我们得首先区分过去两个世纪所说的自由代理（free agency），和自有基督教以来所说的自由意志(free will)之说的不同。奥古斯丁、路德、加尔文和其他的人论及自由意志时，将两种意思都包括在内；但是他们认为，第一种意思是不重要的，第二种才是重要的。可是这种说法很是叫人困惑，我们最好把这两种意思分开，而只用自由代理来表示第一种意思。（注1）

自由代理是人类之所以为人类的标记。人照着他所要做的，做他自己的决定，在他所理解之对错的时光中及感情的倾向下，选择他所喜好的，此乃所有人都是自由代理人之意。因此之故，他们是道德的代理人，必须为自己的抉择，向神、向人负责。亚当在他所犯罪之前、之后，就是如此；我们如今也是如此；就连将来在恩典中被肯定、得荣的圣徒，即使他们不再会犯罪了，仍是如此。虽然人不能犯罪将是天上的快慰与荣耀之一，但这并没有使任何人失去他的人性；得荣的圣徒仍然按着他们的天性做抉择，而且他们的选择一点都不会因为总是对的、好的，而被视为比不上自由代理人所做的选择。

而自由意志从第二世纪起，就被基督教的教师们定义为：在环境所能提供的情况下，人有作道德抉择的能力；根据此意思，奥古斯丁很肯定地反对伯拉纠（pelagius）和大多数的希腊教父们说法，而认为原罪剥夺了我们的自由意志。我们没有天然的呢里去分辨并选择神的道路，因为我们没有天然向神的倾向；我们的心已被罪恶所捆绑，只有重生的恩典能将我们从做罪的奴役捆绑下释放出来。这正是保罗在罗马书6:16-23所教导的实际；只有得释放的意志（保罗称之为主所释放的人）才会自由地、打心底地选择公义。永远地爱好公义——亦即心倾向于讨神喜悦的生活方式——是基督所赐自由的一面（约8:34-36；加5:1,13）。

我们要注意：意志是一个抽象物。我的意志并不像我的手或脚，是听我指挥动或不动的一部分。它是整个的我选择要行动，然后就开始行动。如果我们不管意志这个字，每个人这么说：我是道德责任的自由代理人；我是基督必须释放的罪的奴隶；直到神更新我的心之前，我是堕落的人，在我里头我只会选择顶撞神。这样说，就能够把有关自由代理人，和有关基督从罪恶的权势夏释放罪奴的真理表达得更清楚。

译者注：Free Agency 这个词在此译作[自由代理]。Agency 一字常指有行动能力的代理人；其实在此的代理者，恰好就是自己！所有若译成[自由行动者]亦可。作者所强调的是：我们这整个人是自由、可行动的、而非只有意志这一个部分是自由的。

INABILITY

FALLEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE BOTH FREE AND ENSLAVED

Gary: In service of my risen Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Maranatha!

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? JEREMIAH 17:9

Clear thought about the fallen human condition requires a distinction between what for the past two centuries has been called free agency and what since the start of Christianity has been called free will. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others spoke of free will in two senses, the first trivial, the second important; but this was confusing, and it is better always to use free agency for their first sense.

Free agency is a mark of human beings as such. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions as to what they will do, choosing as they please in the light of their sense of right and wrong and the inclinations they feel. Thus they are moral agents, answerable to God and each other for their voluntary choices. So was Adam, both before and after he sinned; so are we now, and so are the glorified saints who are confirmed in grace in such a sense that they no longer have it in them to sin. Inability to sin will be one of the delights and glories of heaven, but it will not terminate anyone’s humanness; glorified saints will still make choices in accordance with their nature, and those choices will not be any the less the product of human free agency just because they will always be good and right.

Free will, however, has been defined by Christian teachers from the second century on as the ability to choose all the moral options that a situation offers, and Augustine affirmed against Pelagius and most of the Greek Fathers that original sin has robbed us of free will in this sense. We have no natural ability to discern and choose God’s way because we have no natural inclination Godward; our hearts are in bondage to sin, and only the grace of regeneration can free us from that slavery. This, for substance, was what Paul taught in Romans 6:16-23; only the freed will (Paul says, the freed person) freely and heartily chooses righteousness. A permanent love of righteousness—that is, an inclination of heart to the way of living that pleases God—is one aspect of the freedom that Christ gives (John 8:34-36; Gal. 5:1, 13).

It is worth observing that will is an abstraction. My will is not a part of me which I choose to move or not to move, like my hand or my foot; it is precisely me choosing to act and then going into action. The truth about free agency, and about Christ freeing sin’s slave from sin’s dominion, can be expressed more clearly if the word will is dropped and each person says: I am the morally responsible free agency; I am the slave of sin whom Christ must liberate; I am the fallen being who only have it in me to choose against God till God renews my heart.

30 堕落——第一对人类犯了罪The Fall - The first humancouple sinned

《简明神学》Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs，巴刻（J. I. Packer）著/張麟至译，更新传道会，2007年。

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_98.html

http://www.geocities.ws/gary_bee_za/packer/fall.htm

30 堕落——第一对人类犯了罪

The Fall - The first human couple sinned

于是女人见那棵树的果子好作食物，也悦人眼目，且是可喜爱的，能使人有智慧，就摘下果子来吃了；又给他丈夫，他丈夫也吃了。（创3:6）

保罗在罗马书里坚称：所有的人类按其天然光景来说，都在罪的愧疚和权势之下，也在死亡的辖制之下，而且无由逃脱神的愤怒（罗3:9,19；5:17,21；1:18-19；另参1:18-3:20全段）。他将人的这种的光景回溯到[一人]所犯的罪上；而这个人，保罗对雅典人称之为人类的共祖（罗5:12-14；徒17:26；另参林前15:22）。这是使徒对记载在创世纪第三章之历史所做的权威性的解释，在那里我们看到人类堕落的记述，它说明最早的人何如从神面前滑跌出去，从敬虔落入罪恶和失落中。那段历史的重点，从保罗解释得观点来看如下：

（1）神创造了第一个人作为他所有后裔的代表，正如祂使耶稣基督成为所有神选民的代表一样（罗5:15-19；8:29-30；9:22-26）。在上述两种情况下，这位代表会将他所代表的，牵涉到他个人行为的结果里，不论是好是坏。举个例来说吧，正如一位国家领袖向外宣战时，就将他的国民牵涉到他这决定所带来的结果中。神所拣选的这个安排——让亚当能决定他后裔的命运——神学家称之为[工作之约]，虽然这不是一个圣经上的词条。

（2）神将第一个人放在幸福的光景中；并应许如果他以完全、积极顺服的生活，表现出他对神的忠诚，尤其是不吃那称为分别善恶之树的果子，他和他的后裔就能持续活在此幸福之中。这棵树之所以被如此定命，是因为它关乎亚当要让神来告诉他何为好歹，还是他自己寻求、决定，不理会神所说的。吃了这颗树的果子，就等于宣告说：他自己能知道，能决定何为好歹了，用不着神了。

（3）亚当被夏娃引诱，而夏娃又是被蛇引诱（蛇是撒旦的化身，参林后11:3；11:14；启12:9），以吃禁果公然顶撞神。其结局是：第一，表现在亚当之罪里那种反对神、自我抬举的心态，变成了他生命，他秉性的一部分，并传给了他后裔（创6:5；罗3:9-20）。其次，亚当和夏娃发现自己被一种败坏和罪疚的感觉抓住，而事实也是如此，使他们在神面前感动羞愧、恐惧。第三，他们也被咒诅要受到痛苦并死亡，同时也被逐出伊甸园。虽然如此，神也同时开始向他们显明救赎的恩典：神给他们做了皮衣，以遮盖他们的赤身露体；又应许他们，女人的后裔有一天要打破蛇的头，藉此预表了基督。

虽然创世纪多少以象征性的文学风格来讲述这段故事，但它也要我们把它当做历史事实来讲。在创世纪里，亚当与以色列的列祖相连，又透过列祖与全人类以家谱相连（创5,10,11章）。这样，亚当和亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各一样，都是时历史里的一部分。所有创世纪里在亚当以后来的主要人物——除约瑟之外——都在某方面显出自己是罪人：而约瑟的死，和创世纪故事里几乎所有其他每一个人死的一样，都被仔细记录了下来（创50:22-26）。保罗所说[在亚当里众人都死了]（林前15:22）的宣告，不过是将创世纪已经确实暗指的事，说得更明白而已。

我们可以很公平的说，人类堕落的叙述是世上谨见叫人信服的说法，它解释了人性败坏的原因。巴斯喀曾说：原罪的教义似乎是对理性的一种触犯，但是一旦接受了，反而最能解释整个人类的光景。他说得很对，这个说法可以、也应当把整个人类堕落的叙述包括在里面。

THE FALL

THE FIRST HUMAN COUPLE SINNED

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. GENESIS 3:6

Paul, in Romans, affirms that all mankind is naturally under the guilt and power of sin, the reign of death, and the inescapable wrath of God (Rom. 3:9, 19; 5:17, 21; 1:18-19; cf. the whole section, 1:18-3:20). He traces this back to the sin of the one man whom, when speaking at Athens, he described as our common ancestor (Rom. 5:12-14; Acts 17:26; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22). This is authoritative apostolic interpretation of the history recorded in Genesis 3, where we find the account of the Fall, the original human lapse from God and godliness into sin and lostness. The main points in that history, as seen through the lens of Paul’s interpretation, are as follows:

(a) God made the first man the representative for all his posterity, just as he was to make Jesus Christ the representative for all God’s elect (Rom. 5:15-19 with 8:29-30; 9:22-26). In each case the representative was to involve those whom he represented in the fruits of his personal action, whether for good or ill, just as a national leader involves his people in the consequences of his action when, for instance, he declares war. This divinely chosen arrangement, whereby Adam would determine the destiny of his descendants, has been called the covenant of works, though this is not a biblical phrase.

(b) God set the first man in a state of happiness and promised to continue this to him and his posterity after him if he showed fidelity by a course of perfect positive obedience and specifically by not eating from a tree described as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It would seem that the tree bore this name because the issue was whether Adam would let God tell him what was good and bad for him or would seek to decide that for himself, in disregard of what God had said. By eating from this tree Adam would, in effect, be claiming that he could know and decide what was good and evil for him without any reference to God.

(c) Adam, led by Eve, who was herself led by the serpent (Satan in disguise: 2 Cor. 11:3 with v. 14; Rev. 12:9), defied God by eating the forbidden fruit. The results were that, first, the anti-God, self-aggrandizing mindset expressed in Adam’s sin became part of him and of the moral nature that he passed on to his descendants (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:9-20). Second, Adam and Eve found themselves gripped by a sense of pollution and guilt that made them ashamed and fearful before God—with good reason. Third, they were cursed with expectations of pain and death, and they were expelled from Eden. At the same time, however, God began to show them saving mercy; he made them skin garments to cover their nakedness, and he promised that the woman’s seed would one day break the serpent’s head. This foreshadowed Christ.

Though telling the story in a somewhat figurative style, Genesis asks us to read it as history; in Genesis, Adam is linked to the patriarchs and with them to the rest of mankind by genealogy (chs. 5, 10, 11), which makes him as much a part of space-time history as were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All the book’s main characters after Adam, except Joseph, are shown as sinners in one way or another, and the death of Joseph, like the death of almost everyone else in the story, is carefully recorded (Gen. 50:22-26); Paul’s statement “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22) only makes explicit what Genesis already clearly implies.

It may fairly be claimed that the Fall narrative gives the only convincing explanation of the perversity of human nature that the world has ever seen. Pascal said that the doctrine of original sin seems an offense to reason, but once accepted it makes total sense of the entire human condition. He was right, and the same thing may and should be said of the Fall narrative itself.

上帝為何容許墮落發生？WhyDid God Allow the Fall?

作者：James Anderson  譯者：駱鴻銘

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-did-god-allow-the-fall

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2017/07/08/Why_Did_God_Allow_the_Fall.aspx

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/VvUAC9gtFBA

這是個經常會讓剛信主的人感到困惑，也讓主日學老師感到害怕的問題。的確，這是我們大多數人都曾經搜索枯腸的謎題，而且是有很充分的理由的。亞當的墮落不單單是人類所犯的第一宗罪，更是給全世界和全人類帶來巨大災難的行動。因著墮落，「全人類......喪失了與神的交通，落在祂的震怒與咒詛之下，所以，應受今生的一切愁苦、死亡、地獄永遠的痛苦。」（威斯敏斯特小要理問答19）It’s a question that puzzles new converts and terrifies Sunday school teachers. Indeed, it’s a conundrum most of us have wrestled with, and for good reason. The fall of Adam wasn’t merely the first human sin. It was an act that was calamitous for the world and the human race. Because of the fall, “All mankind . . . lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q19).

上帝為什麼在完全知曉其可怕的後果下，卻仍然允許如此可悲的事件，如此明目張膽的背叛行動發生呢？Why would God permit such a tragic event, such an act of flagrant rebellion, in full knowledge of its horrific consequences?

我的一個朋友語帶嘲諷地說道：「我可以用四個字回答這個問題：我-不-知-道-！」除了開玩笑外，他的回答的確會引發一個重要的議題。對這個問題，如果我們沒有一個好答案，會是個大問題嗎？我們無法回答這個問題，是否能給我們任何理由來質疑基督信仰嗎？A friend of mine quipped, “I can answer that one in three words: I don’t know!” Joking aside, his response does raise an important issue. Would it be a big problem if we didn’t have a good answer to that question? Would our inability to answer it give us any reason to doubt Christianity?

幾乎不會。實際上，每一種世界觀都會引發一些其提倡者無法回答的問題，因此，單單存在一個無法尚未回答（或甚至是無法回答的）的問題，不必然會對一種世界觀不利。這也許只是暗示缺乏足夠的資料，而在基督徒世界觀的語境下，意思是在這個特定的問題上，缺乏上帝的啟示而已。我們也許可以合理地這樣論證說：Hardly. In reality, every worldview raises some questions its advocates can’t answer, so the mere existence of an unanswered (even unanswerable) question doesn’t necessarily count against a worldview. It may simply imply a lack of information, which, in the context of a Christian worldview, would mean a lack of divine revelation on that particular point. We might justifiably reason like this:

a. 上帝容許墮落。

God allowed the fall.

b.  上帝所作的任何事情都有充分的理由，包括祂所容許的事。

God has good reasons for everything he does, including what he allows.

c.  因此，上帝有很好的理由容許墮落的發生，無論我們是否可以明白。

Therefore, God had good reasons for allowing the fall, whether or not we can discern them.

聖經沒有直接告訴我們上帝為什麼容許罪惡進入這個世界。但是聖經的確提供我們一些素材，我們可以從這些素材建構出一個前後一致和合理的解釋。Scripture doesn’t tell us directly why God permitted sin to enter the world. But it does provide us with materials from which we can construct a consistent and reasonable explanation.

一個差勁的答案One Bad Answer

基督徒之間流行一個膚淺而且問題多多的答案。這個答案是說，上帝容許墮落發生，是因為祂要給人類的自由意志留下空間。自由意志對美德和有意義的人際關係來說是必要的，這個論證說道。但是這打開了一種可能性，就是我們會選擇惡，而不是善。

One popular answer among Christians is superficial and deeply flawed. It says God allowed the fall because he wanted to make room for human free will. Free will is necessary for moral virtue and meaningful relationships, the argument goes, but it opened up the possibility we would choose evil rather than good.

這個問題在許多方面都是不足的。我會提出三點。

This answer falls short for many reasons. I’ll mention three.

1. 有自由意志不必然會導致行惡的可能。上帝也有自由意志，祂有高度的美德，也可以與人建立有意義的關係，但是對祂來說，祂是不可能行惡的。上帝難道不能給我們同樣的不會行惡的自由嗎？Having free will does not necessarily entail the possibility of doing evil. God has free will, is morally virtuous, and can enter into meaningful relationships, yet it’s impossible for him to do evil. Couldn’t God have granted the same kind of non-evildoing freedom to us?

 2. 基督徒一般都同意，上帝預知亞當會犯罪。但是上帝這是否是上帝預定（forordain）的呢？如果我們的回答是不是，因為我們認為人類的自由選擇並不在上帝的掌控之內，那麼，我們問上帝為何容許亞當犯罪，就沒有什麼道理了。上帝所預知的任何未來的事件必須是已經塵埃落定了，連上帝也無法改變的。上帝無論是想要預防或容許，都已經「太遲」了！Christians generally agree that God foreknew Adam would sin. But did God foreordain it? If we answer no, because we think human free choices are beyond God’s control, it makes little sense to ask why God permitted Adam’s sin. Any future event God foreknows must be already settled, such that not even God can change it. It’s “too late” for God to either prevent or permit it.

 3. 聖經清楚說到人的自由選擇無法超越上帝主權的掌管（創五十20；拉一1；箴廿一1；徒四2728；弗一11）。上帝有能力確保亞當會自由地順服，而不是悖逆。因此，上帝有能力給亞當自由意志來確保亞當不會犯罪墮落，因此，這意味著上帝必然有其他理由容許墮落發生，而不僅僅是希望把自由意志賜給受造物。The Bible makes clear that human free choices are not beyond God’s sovereign control (Gen. 50:20; Ezra 1:1; Prov. 21:1; Acts 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11). It was within God’s power to ensure that Adam freely obeyed rather than disobeyed. Hence, it was within God’s power to give Adam free will and to ensure that Adam did not fall, which means God must have had some other reason for allowing the fall than merely a desire to bestow free will on his creatures.

上帝為何要作任何事？Why Does God Do Anything?

我們有必要思考一個更廣的問題：上帝為什麼要作事？在祂所作的一切事上，祂全盤的目的是什麼？如果我們能回答這點，就會更明白我們的具體問題：上帝為何容許墮落發生？It’s vital to consider a broader question: Why does God do anything at all? What is his overarching purpose in all he does? If we can answer that, it will shed some light on our more specific concern: God’s reasons for allowing the fall.

關於上帝創造世界的目的，沒有比愛德華茲有力的論文所給的答案更好的了：《上帝創造世界的目的》（The End for Which God Created the World）。愛德華茲論證說，舊約和新約給了我們一個前後一致的圖象：上帝創造世界的主要目的不是為了促進人類的幸福，而是要彰顯祂的榮耀。確實，上帝創造世界的目的必須是祂自己的榮耀，因為上帝在本質上就是萬事萬物最大的善和最終極的目的。祂當然關心人類的幸福——這不是個零和遊戲——但是我們的幸福是要服務於一個更高的目的，要在上帝終極的良善和美妙中找到其真正的滿足。Regarding God’s purpose in creating the world, no better answer has been given than the one developed in Jonathan Edwards’s powerful essay, The End for Which God Created the World. Edwards argues that the Old and New Testaments present one consistent picture: God created the world not primarily to promote human happiness, but to manifest his own glory. Indeed, God’s purpose in creating the world had to be his own glory, because God is by nature the greatest good and the ultimate end of all things. He is surely concerned about human happiness—it’s not a zero-sum game—but our happiness serves a higher purpose by finding its true fulfilment in God’s supreme goodness and beauty.

聖經也讓我們直接看到上帝在救贖裏的目的，最清楚的地方是保羅在以弗所書第一章裏所寫的。使徒用了三個目的子句來描述上帝慷慨地施予在我們身上的救贖福分：「使祂榮耀的恩典得著稱讚」（第6節），以及「使祂的榮耀得著稱讚」（兩次，見12、14節）。如同在創造裏，上帝在救贖裏終極的目的是祂榮耀的屬性可以顯明出來，得著頌讚。Scripture also gives direct insight into God’s purpose in redemption, most clearly through Paul in Ephesians 1. The apostle uses three purpose clauses to describe the salvific blessings God has lavished on us: “to the praise of his glorious grace” (v. 6) and (twice) “to the praise of his glory” (vv. 12 and 14). As in creation, God’s ultimate purpose in redemption is that his glorious attributes be showcased and celebrated.

同樣的主題在羅馬書九章22～24節裏再次浮現出來。保羅在那裏說到上帝揀選的目的：The same theme surfaces in Romans 9:22–24, where Paul speaks of God’s purpose in election:

倘若神要顯明祂的忿怒，彰顯祂的權能，就多多忍耐寬容那可怒預備遭毀滅的器皿，又要將祂豐盛的榮耀彰顯在那蒙憐憫早預備得榮耀的器皿上。這器皿就是我們被神所召的，不但是從猶太人中，也是從外邦人中。這有什麼不可呢？（羅九22～24）What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

這樣，上帝一切作為的全盤目的，就是在祂神性的光輝中彰顯祂的榮耀，以及對一切受造物的喜悅。God’s overarching purpose in all he does, then, is the manifestation of his glory and the delight of his creatures in his divine splendor.

啊！蒙福的墮落O Blessed Fall

倘若創造和救贖的主要目的是彰顯上帝的榮耀，關於祂為何容許墮落發生，告訴了我們什麼呢？無論從邏輯上還是時間順序上，我們都知道墮落發生在創造和救贖之間。若沒有創造，就不會有墮落的世界；沒有墮落的世界就不會有得贖的世界。救恩是以犯罪為前提的；復原預設了墮落。因此，合理的推論是上帝容許墮落發生的主要目的是既在原始的創造中彰顯祂的榮耀，也在祂大能憐憫的恢復行動中，也就是使被造界脫離背逆和敗壞的行動中彰顯祂的榮耀。If God’s primary purpose in creation and redemption is the display of his glory, what does that tell us about why he allowed the fall? Both logically and chronologically, the fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.

但是要讓上帝得著榮耀，救贖真的是必要的嗎？難道一個不會墮落的世界，無法和一個被恢復的世界同等地榮耀上帝嗎？But was redemption really necessary for God to be glorified? Couldn’t an unfallen creation glorify God as much as a restored creation?

思考這個問題促使一些基督徒思想家發展出所謂的「我的罪過真是有福」（O Felix Culpa）的神義論。（字面意義是「蒙福的罪過」，而「神義論」是解釋上帝為何能夠合理化祂為何容許邪惡。）這個基本概念是這樣的：儘管墮落是巨大的罪惡，這卻讓上帝有可能在其餘波蕩漾中帶來更大的美善：從它們而來的、足以榮耀上帝的道成肉身、贖罪、復活，以及一切的救贖福分。Reflecting on this question has prompted a number of Christian thinkers to develop what’s called the “O Felix Culpa” theodicy. (Literally “O blessed fault,” and “theodicy” is an explanation of how God can justly allow evil.) The basic idea is this: While the fall was a great evil, it made it possible for God to bring about even greater goods in its wake: the God-glorifying goods of the incarnation, atonement, resurrection, and all the salvific blessings that flow from them.

我們或許會認為一個未曾墮落的世界會比一個墮落的世界更好——若其他一切都沒有變，這就是真的。然而，不是其他一切都沒有變，因為我們的世界不僅僅是一個墮落的世界。上帝永恆的兒子耶穌基督已經進入到這個墮落的世界裏，祂穿上了人性，在我們當中完美地表達出上帝的樣式，活出了在道德上毫無瑕疵的人生；藉著祂贖罪的死，為我們的罪完成了救贖，並且從墳墓裏凱旋地復活了，如今升到天上，不斷地為我們代禱，以確保我們在上帝的同在中可以得到一個永恆喜樂的居所。One might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal, that’s true. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence.

總的來說，一個有悲慘墮落、卻也有一個美妙救恩的世界，比起一個沒有墮落、沒有救恩的世界，更能榮耀上帝。A world with no fall and no salvation is altogether less God-glorifying than a world with a tragic fall but also a wondrous salvation.

這重要嗎？Does It Matter?

這對我們的意義是：上帝已經預定了一個世界，在這個世界中，我們可以認識祂，毫無隔閡地與祂同住——祂不僅是一位創造主，更是一位救贖主。神學的類比往往會帶來危害，不過，也許這個說法是走在正確的方向上：儘管通姦是一個極為嚴重的罪，一個不忠卻得到完全的赦免，並且與妻子和好的丈夫，從他心底發出的感恩的愛，甚至會比他在婚禮當天所經歷到並表達出來的愛更加豐富。

What this means for us is that God has ordained a world in which we can know and intimately live with him—not only as Creator, but also as Redeemer. Theological analogies are always hazardous, but perhaps this gestures in the right direction: While adultery is a grievous sin, the grateful love of an unfaithful husband who has been completely forgiven and reconciled to his wife will be deeper and richer even than the love he experienced and expressed on their wedding day.

以一個按照祂形象被造的被造物的身份來認識上帝、與祂相交，是極大的祝福；而以一個得贖罪人，按照祂兒子的形象得著恢復的身份，來認識上帝、與祂相交，是更大且無法估量的祝福。

To know fellowship with God as a creature made in his image is a great blessing; to know fellowship with God as a redeemed sinner restored in his Son’s image is immeasurably greater.

我們一旦明白，這種永恆的榮耀若非有墮落，就是不會發生的，我們就可以開始領悟並感謝我們最有智慧和最有恩典的創造主為什麼竟然容許墮落發生的最重要的理由了。Once we grasp that such eternal glories could not have been realized apart from the fall, we can begin to appreciate the foremost reason why our wise and gracious Creator allowed it.

James N. Anderson在夏洛特的改革宗神學院（RTS）擔任助理教授，著有Paradox in Christian Theology (Wipf & Stock, 2007) and Why Should I Believe Christianity? (Christian Focus, 2016)等書。

創造、墮落、救贖：為甚麼每件事都這樣差勁？

摘錄自《新譯本研讀版聖經》p. 16環球聖經公會（2013）

http://www.wwbible.org

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/2Da63HNJL6U

雖然有些解經家認為亞當與夏娃的故事是比喻性的記載，但聖經教導，有一個真實的人落入罪惡之中，使神的咒詛臨到所有被造物和人類。在創世記，亞當與列祖有關聯，又借著自然生育，與全人類有關聯（創5，10，11章）。這一點顯明，亞當正如亞伯拉罕、以撒和雅各一樣，是活在這個時空和歷史裏的人。

除此之外，保羅使徒追溯人類墮落的前提，至一個真實的人亞當的罪上面，又形容他是我們共同的祖先（徒17:26；羅5:12-14；參林前15:22）。這就是新約對創世記第三章所記載的事件具有權威的解釋；在創世記第三章，我們看到墮落、人原初離神和義而陷入罪和死亡的記載。

改革宗神學極度依賴墮落犯罪的史實。加爾文所建構的神學，大部分都是環繞著創造、墮落和救贖等主題，集中在亞當和基督的平行之處。亞當最初被造為義，卻陷入腐敗和審判的狀態裏；如今我們借著相信基督為我們代贖，就脫離了那墮落的咒詛。改革宗的信經和信仰問答不斷出現這些主題（《西敏斯特信仰宣言》6.7；《西敏斯特大教理問答》15-26；《西敏西特小教理問答》21-45；《比利時宣言》14-17；《海德堡教理問答》6-20）。

關於墮落，聖經教導了至少五項主要的真理：

1、 神指派第一個人代表他的所有後人，後來也差派耶穌基督代表神所有選民（羅5:15-19與8:29-30，9:22-26）。

2、 神將第一個人安置在全然快樂的處境中，並應許說，若他借著全然的順服而顯示出他的忠心（特別是不吃分別善惡樹上的果子），這種狀態就會繼續臨到他和他的後裔身上。

3、 亞當和夏娃犯罪，使自己和後人（所有人類）落入罪和罪疚的掌控中，也使他們和所有人在神面前羞愧和害怕（創3:7-11）。最初一對夫婦受咒詛，要經歷痛苦與死亡，並被逐出伊甸園（創3:14-24）。

4、 由於亞當與夏娃犯了罪，神就咒詛整個創造。目前這不和諧的大自然往往使世界變成一個與所有活物敵對的環境；這就是人類墮落所帶來的後果（羅8:20-23）。

5、 甚至早在亞當夏娃的日子，神已顯出憐憫，應許女人的後裔有一天會傷蛇的頭（創3:15）。基督成就了這應許，救贖子民，並把創造覆原到正當的秩序（羅8:20-21；啟21:1-5）。

墮落的故事提供了一個令人信服的解釋：它從歷史角度解釋人類變壞和大自然腐化的原因。除非我們相信創世記中的這個故事是真有其事，否則，我們難以認識這位聖經稱為「末後的亞當」（林前15:45）的基督，因為祂獻上自己，並從死裏復活，就扭轉了首先的亞當所帶來的悲劇性後果（羅5:12-19；林前15:22）。