管制性原則是誰發現的？
Who Discovered the Regulative Principle?
作者：Glen Clary 誠之譯自：
https://reformedforum.org/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/
https://yimawusi.net/2022/12/13/who-discovered-the-regulative-principle/
 
大多數研究宗教改革的學生都承認，馬丁·路德發現了（更準確地說，是重新發現了）因信稱義的教義，而烏里希·慈運理（Ulrich Zwingli）則發現了主的晚餐的象徵性解釋。至少可以說，這些改教家普及了這些教義。
Most students of the Reformation recognize that Martin Luther discovered (more accurately re-discovered) the doctrine of justification by faith alone and that Ulrich Zwingli discovered the symbolic interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. At least, these Reformers popularized those doctrines.
 
然而，是誰發現了崇拜的管制性原則（regulative principle；或譯為“規範性原則”）呢？不，不是約翰·加爾文或約翰·諾克斯。它實際上是一位重洗派發現的。令人吃驚吧!
But who discovered the regulative principle of worship? No, it wasn’t John Calvin or John Knox. It was actually an Anabaptist. Surprise!
 
在宗教改革時期，我發現最早關於敬拜管制原則的聲明是在康拉德·格雷貝爾（Conrad Grebel；蘇黎世重洗派的領袖）於1524年9月5日寫給多馬·閔采爾（Thomas Müntzer）的一封信中[注1] 。
The earliest statement of the regulative principle of worship that I have found in the Reformation era is in a letter written by Conrad Grebel (the ringleader of the Zurich Anabaptists) to Thomas Müntzer on September 5, 1524.[1]
 
格雷貝爾代表蘇黎世重洗派，對閔采爾說道：“沒有明確教導的”，我們就認為是禁止的，就好像上面寫著 “你不該這樣做”。
Speaking on behalf of the Zurich Anabaptists, Grebel said to Müntzer, “That which is not taught by clear instruction” we regard as forbidden, just as if it stood written, “Thou shalt not do this.”
 
這一原則在他的信中被應用在包括嬰兒洗禮在內的各種崇拜事項上。“我們沒有在任何地方讀到使徒們用水給兒童施洗。因此，在沒有具體的神的話和例子的情況下，兒童不應該接受洗禮”。
This principle is applied in the letter to various matters of worship including infant baptism. “Nowhere do we read that the apostles baptized children with water. Consequently, in the absence of a specific Word and example, they should not be baptized.”
 
同樣，在與慈運理關於嬰兒洗禮的爭論中，重洗派認為，“聖經中沒有任何地方命令兒童應該接受洗禮，也沒有任何地方說基督或使徒應當為兒童施洗；”因此，這是一項人為傳統，“應該作為一種濫用而被廢除，就像教皇其他的濫用被廢除了一樣。”
Likewise, in a dispute over infant baptism with Zwingli, the Anabaptists argued, “Children are nowhere in Scripture commanded to be baptized, nor is it anywhere said that Christ or the apostles baptized children;” hence, it is a man-made tradition that “ought to be done away with as an abuse, as other papistical abuses have been done away with.”
 
格雷貝爾顯然是在特土良的著作中發現了管制性原則。
Grebel apparently discovered the regulative principle in the writings of Tertullian.
 
當特土良的作品在1521年出版時，格雷貝爾是最早研究這些作品的人之一。在特土良大約在211年寫的《冠冕》（De Corona）一書中，我們發現了一個關於某個基督教士兵的故事，他拒絕在塞維魯（Severus）皇帝登基時戴上桂冠。這使得該士兵遭到監禁。
When the works of Tertullian were published in 1521, Grebel was one of the first to study them. In De Corona, which Tertullian wrote around the year 211, we find the story of a certain Christian soldier, who refused to wear the laurel crown on the accession of the emperor Severus. This led to the soldier’s imprisonment.
 
一些基督徒爭辯說，這名士兵無事生非，這不過是穿著的問題。“畢竟，”他們提出的理由是，“聖經中並沒有禁止我們戴冠冕。” 另一方面，特土良寫了De Corona，為士兵的行為辯護。特土良寫道：
Some Christians argued that the soldier was making a big deal out of nothing, a mere matter of dress. “After all,” they reasoned, “we are not forbidden in Scripture from wearing a crown.” Tertullian, on the other hand, wrote De Corona in defense of the soldier’s actions.
 
可以肯定的是，人們很容易會問說：“聖經中哪裏禁止我們戴冠冕了？” 但是，你能給我看一段說我們應該戴冠冕的經文嗎？如果人們試圖說我們可以戴王冠，因為聖經沒有禁止，那麼他們就可以反駁說我們不能戴冠冕，因為聖經沒有規定。然而，“凡不禁止的，毫無疑問都是允許的”。相反，我說的是“凡沒有明確允許的，就是禁止的。”［注2］
Tertullian writes,To be sure, it is very easy to ask: “Where in Scripture are we forbidden to wear a crown?” But, can you show me a text that says we should be crowned? If people try to say that we may be crowned because the Scriptures do not forbid it, then they leave themselves open to the retort that we may not be crowned because Scripture does not prescribe it. But “Whatever is not forbidden is, without question, allowed.” Rather do I say: “Whatever is not specifically permitted is forbidden.”[2]
 
這兩種對立的原則——凡不禁止的就是允許的（一方面），凡沒有命令的就是禁止的（另一方面）——重新出現在十六世紀關於崇拜的辯論中。
These two opposing principles—whatever is not forbidden is allowed (on the one hand) and whatever is not commanded is forbidden (on the other)—reappear in the sixteenth century debates on worship.
 
加爾文派和重洗派都採用了後一種原則，但這兩個團體對於什麼是聖經上的保證，以證明禮儀實踐的合理性，卻有不同的標準。
Both the Calvinists and the Anabaptists employed the latter principle, but the two groups had different criteria for what constituted biblical warrant to justify liturgical practice.
 
具體來說，重洗派對聖經根據的理解更為狹隘，因此，對管制性原則的限制也比加爾文派更嚴格。
Specifically, the Anabaptists had a narrower understanding of biblical warrant and, therefore, a more restrictive version of the regulative principle than the Calvinists had.
 
重洗派聲稱，“要核准上帝公共崇拜中的任何一項內容，都必須要有聖經的直接保證，以命令或先例的形式”[注3]因此，他們拒絕嬰兒洗禮，例如，因為聖經中沒有任何明確的命令或例子來證明它的合理性。
“Direct biblical warrant, in the form of precept or precedent, is required to sanction every item included in the public worship of God,” claimed the Anabaptists.[3] Therefore, they rejected infant baptism, for instance, because of the absence in scripture of any clear command or example to justify it.
 
另一方面，加爾文主義者則認識到，聖經的保證不僅可以通過命令或先例來確立，還可以通過合乎聖經的推論，或者如《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》所說，藉著良好和必要的推論[good and necessary consequence.]來推斷。
On the other hand, Calvinists recognized that biblical warrant could be established, not only by precept or precedent, but also by biblical inferences or, as the Westminster Confession says, deductions by good and necessary consequence.
 
正如詹姆斯·班納曼（James Bannerman）所解釋的：
 
《威斯敏斯特信仰標準》[WCF 1:6]和我們教會的教義是，凡聖言中沒有明確規定的，或通過上帝聖言的必然推論規定的，教會行使自己的權力強制執行就是不合法的；對這種權力的限制是，在上帝的公共崇拜中，除了上帝自己明確規定的或暗示的，不得宣佈和強制執行。[注4]
As James Bannerman explains,The doctrine of the Westminster Standards [WCF 1:6] and of our church is, that whatsoever is not expressly appointed in the Word, or appointed by necessary inference from the Word, it is not lawful for the Church to exercise of its own authority to enjoin; the restriction upon that authority being, that it shall announce and enforce nothing in the public worship of God, except what God himself has in explicit terms or by implication instituted.[4]
 
注：
 
[1] 休斯·奧利芬特（Dr. Hughes Oliphant）博士提醒我格雷貝爾與特土良的關聯。
 
[2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120。
 
[3] J. I. Packer對清教徒做了這個評論，但在我們看來，這更能說明激進改革者的情況；見Packer, Among God’s Giants: 清教徒對基督教生活的看法（Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991）326。
 
[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.
As James Bannerman explains,
 
Endnotes
[1] Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old tipped me off to the Grebel-Tertullian connection.
[2] Robert Dick Sider, ed., Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001) 120.
[3] J. I. Packer makes this comment about the Puritans, but in our opinion, it is more descriptive of the Radical Reformers; see Packer, Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastborne: Kingsway, 1991) 326.
[4] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 1:340.
 
格倫·J·克拉里博士（Glen J. Clary）是正統長老教會（OPC）的按立牧師。他曾在俄克拉荷馬州、新澤西州和德克薩斯州牧養教會。目前，他在德克薩斯州奧斯汀附近的護理長老會（Providence Presbyterian Church）擔任牧師。克拉里博士為正統長老教會牧師培訓學院（Ministerial Training Institute of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church）教授改革宗崇拜，他經常在會議上就各種禮儀主題發言。
Dr. Glen J. Clary is an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He has pastored churches in Oklahoma, New Jersey and Texas. He is currently serving as pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church near Austin, TX. Dr. Clary teaches Reformed worship for the Ministerial Training Institute of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and he frequently speaks at conferences on various liturgical topics.
 

 

崇拜的限定原則：十項論證10 Arguments for theRegulative Principle of Worship

作者：T. David Gordon  誠之編譯

http://underdogtheology.blogspot.tw/2010/05/10-arguments-for-regulative-principle.html

https://www.facebook.com/notes/%E9%A7%B1%E9%B4%BB%E9%8A%98/10-arguments-for-the-regulative-principle-of-worship/3169916649712821/

“敬拜真神的正確途徑，是由祂親手制定的，因此就受祂所指定的旨意所限制。敬拜神不可用人的想像和設計，或撒但所建議的有形象徵，或任何其他聖經所沒有指定的方法。”（西敏信仰告白，21.1）

一、因為神是忌邪的神

A. 簡短說明

聖經啟示神是一位忌邪的神，而此忌邪的屬性是顯明在敬拜神時禁止一些事情（製作偶像）的經文中。因此，禁止雕刻偶像或天上地下的百物，是根據神忌邪的屬性。作為一位忌邪的神，祂不會調整自己去適應人慣常的崇拜形式，反而堅持要人按照祂的旨意來敬拜祂。

B. 相關經文：出廿4-5，三十四14。

另參出廿五9、40，廿六30。

二、敬虔就是完全遵照上帝的旨意行

A. 簡短說明

有許多經文描述惡人所行的，並不是完全抵觸神的旨意，而是行在祂的旨意之外。同樣，經文描述敬畏神的人在神的同在中是發顫的，他們完全按照神的旨意來行。如果真的是這樣，「有創意的」敬拜；沒有按照神的啟示的敬拜，也就是神所沒有啟示說是祂所喜悅的任何其他的敬拜，都是不敬虔的。

B. 相關經文：賽六十六1-4；申十二20-32；利十1-2；撒上十三8-15；十五3-22。

三、有些經文談到有些人用神所沒有規定的來敬拜祂，結果招致嚴重懲罰的經文（傳統論證的「核心」）

A. 簡短說明

有些地方說到人獻上敬拜，明顯是出於想要討神喜悅的美好信心（心靈誠實地）來作的，然而他們是以神所沒有規定的方式來作的，而神對他們的懲罰卻非常嚴厲。這種嚴厲的懲罰說明神極為痛恨這種敬拜。

B. 相關經文 利十1-2（凡火，即耶和華沒有吩咐的）；撒上十三8-15。

四、人心有敬拜偶像的犯罪傾向

保羅在羅馬書一章19節以下指出，人類因著悖逆神，「去敬拜事奉受造之物，不敬奉那造物的主」。此外，這不是因為無知，而是道德的敗壞：「他們雖然知道上帝，卻不當作上帝榮耀祂，也不感謝祂……」

參： Thomas E.   Peck, 《雜文》，第一集，  pp. 96-97：「那麼，人就沒有能力去發明崇拜的模式，因為他不知道什麼模式最能表達真理或真理所產生出來的情感。」

五、崇拜是聖約的更新

我們已經證明，公眾崇拜是神的子民聚集在神面前和祂重新立約，如果此聖約是神的主權（完全由神自由選擇來設立的），且如果聖約的責任是我們在生活所有的領域都必須完全順服，那麼，在這個我們重新立志要委身聖約的崇拜服事中，就特別應當完全反映神對我們的主權。

六、 教會的權力是有限的

A. 簡短說明

教會是一個機構；是由復活的基督所設立的，由祂所授權；祂要求人順服祂的命令，並參與到祂的律例當中。基督沒有給教會權柄去順服教會自己的命令，也沒有給教會權柄要求人參與教會自己制定的律例。教會治理的限定原則（Regulative Principle；或譯為管制原則、規範原則）是崇拜的限定原則的基礎。

B. 相關經文：太二十八18-20；林後一24；羅十四7-9。

七、良心的自由

A. 簡短說明

聖經教導唯獨基督是個人良心的主；基督徒唯獨當完全順服基督（這種順服不需要正當的理由或證明）。唯獨神可以要求我們照祂的話做，單單因為祂這樣說過。引誘人不按照他們所相信是正確的去行動，是犯罪的行為。此外，神要求我們唯獨按照祂所啟示的來敬拜祂。因此，要求人在公眾崇拜中，去作上帝沒有要求的，或要他們作他們所不相信的神已經呼召他們作的，或參加違反了公眾敬拜原則的崇拜，是在強迫人去違反他/她的良心。這是一種犯罪。

B. 相關經文：羅十四章；林前八4-13。

八、信心

A. 簡短說明

信心的本質是信靠順服神所已經啟示的。換句話說，信心是不看自己而是看神；不依靠自己，而是倚靠神；相信祂，順服祂的審判和道路。按照定義，如果神沒有啟示自己，我們就無從順服。而沒有信心就無法取悅神。因此，不信實守約的敬拜，就不是一種對祂的啟示之順服的回應，這種敬拜是無法取悅神的。（約翰歐文強有力地論證了這點）

B. 相關經文： 羅十四23；來十一6及整章。

九、造物主和受造物之間的距離

A. 簡短說明

上帝的道路和意念高過我們的道路和意念，正如天高過地。祂的身上披著奧秘，而奧秘是祂的榮耀。隱秘的事屬於神，只有顯明的事屬於我們。我們怎能以為我們有可能揣摩出一些可以討神喜悅的事呢？

B. 相關經文：賽四十12-14；申廿九29；賽五十五9；箴廿五2。

十、教會歷史

A. 簡短說明

教會歷史給了我們足夠的證明，容讓墮落的被造物自己去發明，無可避免地會製造出不敬虔的崇拜。特別是宗教改革，作為一個歷史的運動，見證了當崇拜不再受神啟示的旨意所規限時，這種敗壞會漸漸且無可避免地潛入敬拜當中。

Source: Regulative Principle Handout

10 Arguments for the Regulative Principle of Worship 

by T. David Gordon

WCF XXI.1: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture."

I. Argument from the character of God as jealous

A. Brief description of the argument.

God is revealed to be a jealous God in scripture, and his character as a jealous God is introduced into texts which prohibit certain things (creating images) in the worship of God. Thus, the prohibition of creating graven images or any other likeness of anything in heaven or earth is grounded in God’s character as a jealous God. As a jealous God, He does not accommodate himself to the forms of worship to which humans are accustomed, but rather insists that He be worshiped as He wills.

B. Sample of relevant texts—Ex.20:4-5; 34:14

II. Argument from those passages where piety is described as doing exclusively what God wishes.

A. Brief description of the argument.

In many passages, the wicked are described not as doing what is contradictory to God’s will, but what is beside His will. Similarly, the pious are described by their trembling in God’s presence, their doing exclusively what God wishes. This being the case, "creative" worship; worship which is beside what God has revealed, which is anything other than what God has revealed to be a delight to him, is impious.

B. Sample of relevant texts—Isa.66:1-4; Dt.12:29-32; Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.13:8-15; 15:3-22

III. Argument from the severity of the temporal punishments inflicted upon those who offer to God worship other than what He has prescribed (this is the "heart" of the traditional argument).

A. Brief description of the argument.

There are places where people offer worship to God, in an apparently good-faith desire to please Him, yet they do so in some manner not prescribed by God, and His punishment of them is severe. The severity of the punishment reveals that God is intensely displeased by such.

B. Sample of relevant texts—Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.13:8-15

IV. Argument from the sinful tendency towards idolatry (Rom. 1).

Paul’s point in Romans 1:19ff is that the human race, in its revolt against God, has "worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." Further, this is not due to ignorance, but to moral defilement: "Although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give him thanks…"

Cf. Thomas E. Peck, Miscellanies, vol. I, pp. 96-97: "Man, then, is incompetent to devise modes of worship, because he knows not what modes are best adapted to express the truth or the emotions which the truth is suited to produce."

V. Argument from the nature of worship as covenant renewal.

If, as we have attempted to demonstrate, corporate worship is a gathering of God’s people to renew covenant with him, and if the nature of that covenant is sovereign (instituted entirely by God’s free choice), and if the duty of that covenant is our complete obedience in all areas of life, then the service in which we renew our commitment to such a covenant ought especially and explicitly to reflect the utter lordship of God over us.

VI. Argument from the Limits of Church-Power

A. Brief description of the argument.

The Church is an institution; instituted by the positive command of the risen Christ, and authorized by Him to require obedience to His commands and participation in His ordinances. The Church is given no authority to require obedience to its own commands, and is given no authority to require participation in ordinances of its own making. The Regulative Principle of Church-Government lies behind the Regulative Principle of Worship.

B. Sample of relevant texts—Mat. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 14:7-9

VII. Argument from Liberty of Conscience (or argument from charity, cf. the following outline for a further elaboration)

A. Brief description of the argument.

The Bible teaches that Christ is the sole Lord of an individual’s conscience; that believers owe implicit obedience (obedience that needs no justification in reason or arguments) to Christ alone. God alone may require us to do something simply because He has said so. To induce someone to act contrary to what they believe is right is sinful. Further, God requires us to worship Him only as He has revealed. Therefore, to require a person, in corporate worship, to do something which God has not required, forces the person either to sin against his/her conscience, by making them do what they do not believe God has called them to do, or to not participate in portions of public worship, which offends the principle of corporate worship (John Murray and Edmund Clowney have articulated this view very clearly).

B. Sample of relevant texts—Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13

VIII. Argument from Faith

A. Brief description of the argument. By its very essence, faith is a trusting, obedient response to what God has revealed. Faith, that is, looks outside of the self to God, depending not on self but on God, relying on Him, believing Him, acquiescing in His judgments and ways. Where God has not revealed himself, no faithful response is possible, by definition. And, without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, God cannot be pleased by worship which is unfaithful, that is, worship which is not an obedient response to his revelation (John Owen makes this argument compellingly).

B. Sample of relevant texts—Rom.14:23; Heb. 11:6, and entire chapter.

IX. Argument from the distance between the Creator and the creature.

A. Brief description of the argument.

God’s ways and thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. He is clothed in mystery, and it is his glory to conceal a thing. The hidden things belong to him, but the revealed things belong to us. What makes us think we can possibly fathom what would please God?

B. Sample of relevant texts—Isa. 40:12-14; Deut. 29:29; Isa. 55:9; Prov.25:2

X. Argument from Church History

A. Brief description of the argument.

Church history amply demonstrates that fallen creatures, left to their own devices, inevitably produce worship which is impious. Especially the Reformation, as an historical movement, bore testimony to the corruption which creeps slowly yet inevitably into worship when worship is not regulated by the revealed will of God.

Source: Regulative Principle Handout