顯示具有 改革宗 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 改革宗 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2021-08-15

 
Worship: Evangelical orReformed?
1 崇拜:福音派還是改革宗?
2 敬拜:福音派?还是改革宗?
3“敬拜:‘福音派’与‘改革宗’之间的差异”

作者:W. Robert Godfrey (加州西敏神學院院長,URC牧師)
譯者:1誠之譯版   2维语译/和卫校版 3 Virginia Yip节录译版
原刊於20024月信正長老會(OPC)雜誌New Horizon
https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=193原文
http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2012/05/17/Worship_Evangelical_or_Reformed.aspx1駱鴻銘譯
https://www.churchchina.org/archives/170306.html2维语译 / 和卫校
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4097072803679255/3 Virginia Yip
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206聖經神學研究推廣小組
https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2017/03/worship-evangelical-orreformed-w.html 原中英转载版


摘要:
我們改革宗的人對敬拜的思考,有一個很大的難題,就是在許多地方,我們的敬拜已經不知不覺地遵從福音派的方法。與此同樣重要的,如果我們要欣賞領會我們改革宗在敬拜上的遺產,如果我們要向其他人傳遞它的重要性、特色和能力,我們必須明白我們敬拜獨特的性質。(1誠之譯版)
 
 
One of the challenges of being Reformed in America is to figure out the relationship between what is evangelical and what is Reformed. Protestantism in America is dominated by the mainline Protestants, the evangelicals, and the charismatics. After these dominant groups, other major players would include the confessional Lutherans. But where do the Reformed fit in, particularly in relation to the evangelicals, with whom historically we have been most closely linked?
 
正文:
在美國要作一個改革宗的信徒,其中的一個挑戰是要想清楚福音派和改革宗之間的關係是什麼。在美國,新教主義是由新教的主流,即福音派和靈恩派所主導的。在這些主要的團體之後,其他主要的參與者還包括認信的路德宗。但是要把改革宗放在什麼位置呢?特別是改革宗和福音派的關係,因為從歷史來看,改革宗和福音派的關係是最為緊密的。(1誠之譯版)
 
在美国改革宗信徒所面临的挑战之一是理清福音派改革宗二者之间的关系。美国的基督教新教Protestantism由主流更正教会[2]mainline Protestants、福音派evangelicals以及灵恩派charismatics所主导。在这些主导团体之外,另一个主要派系是认信的路德宗(the confessional Lutherans)。但改革宗应处于什么位置,尤其和历史上联系最为紧密的“福音派”之间的关系是怎样的?2维语译/和卫校版)
 
[的确,福音派与改革宗之间的崇拜聚会,其相似之处多于不同之处。]……改革宗与福音派的崇拜程序几乎完全一致。两者都有唱诗歌、诵读圣经、祷告、讲道、施行洗礼和圣餐礼。但这些相似之处,只不过反映出了双方在外表形式上的相似而已,他们各自对这些敬拜礼仪动作的意义和功能,却有着各自不同的认识、理解。
 
福音派和改革宗在崇拜聚会上所存在的本质上的差异,主要体现在两方面:第一是对“上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在”这个概念的理解;第二是对“领会者的圣职人员的职份”这个概念的理解。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
Some observers argue that the confessional Reformed are a subgroup in the broader evangelical movement. Certainly over the centuries in America, the Reformed have often allied themselves with the evangelicals, have shared much in common with the evangelicals, and have often tried to refrain from criticizing the evangelical movement. But are we Reformed really evangelical?
 
有些觀察者認為認信的路德宗是更廣的福音派運動裡的一個小團體。當然,在美洲過去的幾個世紀以來,改革宗經常和福音派結盟,和福音派也有很多共同之處,也經常試著在批評福音派運動上有所節制。但是,我們改革宗真的是福音派嗎?(1誠之譯版)
 
有人指出“认信的改革宗”(the confessional Reformed)是宽泛的福音运动的分支团体。的确,在美国过去的几个世纪里,改革宗常常与福音派联合,与其有许多的相似性,并时常竭力避免去批判福音派运动。但我们改革宗真是福音派吗?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
One area in which the differences between evangelical and Reformed can be examined is the matter of worship. At first glance, we may see more similarities than differences. The orders of worship in Reformed and evangelical churches can be almost identical. Certainly, both kinds of churches sing songs, read Scripture, pray, preach, and administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. But do these similarities reflect only formal agreement, or do they represent a common understanding of the meaning and function of these liturgical acts in worship?
 
有一個可以檢查出福音派和改革宗之間的差別的領域,就是在崇拜這件事上。粗略地看,我們也許會看到之間的相似性大過其差異性。改革宗和福音派教會在敬拜的次序上幾乎可以是完全相同的。確定的是,兩種教會都會唱詩歌,讀經,禱告,講道,並施行洗禮和聖餐。但是這些相似性反映的只是形式上的一致,還是它們代表著對崇拜中這些禮儀的行動,它們的意義和功用有著共同的理解?(1誠之譯版)
 
有一个领域可以表明福音派和改革宗之间的差异,那就是敬拜事宜。初看之下,我们可能会发现它们的相似多于不同。改革宗教会和福音派教会的敬拜程序几乎完全一致。的确,两种教会都唱诗、读经、祷告、讲道、执行洗礼和圣餐。但这些相似之处只是反映出表面的一致性,还是说它们对敬拜中仪式之意义和功能的理解也是一样?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
If we look closely, I believe that we will see the substantive differences between evangelicals and Reformed on worship. That difference is clear on two central issues: first, the understanding of the presence of God in the service; and second, the understanding of the ministerial office in worship.
 
如果我們仔細查看,我相信我們會明白福音派和改革宗在崇拜的事情上,有著本質上的差別。這種差別顯明在兩件很重要的事情上。首先,對神在崇拜服事上的同在的理解;其次是對崇拜者牧師職分的理解。(1誠之譯版)
 
如果仔细观察,我相信我们会看到福音派和改革宗在敬拜上有着相当本质的不同。这主要体现在两个方面:第一,对敬拜中神同在的理解;第二,对敬拜中牧师职分的理解。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
The Presence of God in Worship
 
在崇拜中神的同在(1誠之譯版)
敬拜中神的同在2维语译/和卫校版)
1. 上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The presence of God in worship may seem a strange issue to raise. Do we not both believe that God is present with his people in worship? Indeed we do! But how is God present, and how is he active in our worship?


把神在崇拜中的同在當作一個問題,似乎是很奇怪的。我們不是都相信神在崇拜中會和祂的百姓同在嗎?當然,我們是這樣相信的!但是,神是如何同在的,以及祂在我們的崇拜中如何是主動的,才是問題的關鍵。(1誠之譯版)
 
提起敬拜中神的同在,可能会被认为这是一个奇怪的论题。难道我们不都相信在敬拜中神与他的子民同在吗?当然相信!但是神“如何”同在?他“如何”在我们的敬拜中行动?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
若问上帝在敬拜中有没有与我们同在,这似乎是一个让人纳闷的问题。福音派也好,改革宗也好,都是相信上帝在敬拜中与祂的子民同在的。但区别在于,上帝是“怎么”与人同在的,以及祂是“怎么主动地”介入人的敬拜活动的。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
It seems to me that for evangelicalism, God is present in worship basically to listen. He is not far away; rather, he is intimately and lovingly present to observe and hear the worship of his people. He listens to their praise and their prayers. He sees their obedient observance of the sacraments. He hears their testimonies and sharing. He attends to the teaching of his Word, listening to be sure that the teaching is faithful and accurate.
 
我認為,對福音派來說,神在崇拜中的同在基本上只是安靜地聆聽。祂離我們不遠,而是很親密地、滿懷愛心地同在,來觀察並聆聽祂百姓的敬拜。祂傾聽他們的讚美和他們的禱告。祂看到他們順服地遵行聖禮。祂聽見他們的見證和分享。祂留心聽他們教導祂的話,好確定這個教導是忠心的、也是正確的。(1誠之譯版)
 
在我看来,对于福音派来说,神在敬拜中的同在等同于“神在倾听”。他就在不远处;更确切说,他是亲密和满有爱意地与他的子民在一起,察看并倾听他们的敬拜;他聆听他们的赞美和祷告;他观看他们忠实地履行圣餐仪式;他倾听他们的见证和分享;当他的话语被教导时,他也参与其中,并聆听这些教导,确保其忠实和准确。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
对福音派而言,他们对上帝在敬拜中的临在这个概念的理解,基本上就是“上帝在聆听”我们人对祂的敬拜赞美。祂不是站在距离我们很远地方看我们怎么敬拜祂,而是亲密、充满爱意地临在在祂的子民当中,察看、聆听他们的敬拜。祂倾听他们的赞美、他们的祷告、祂观看他们如何忠实地施行圣礼、祂留心听他们的见证和分享、当祂的话语传讲出来时,祂会专注留意细听,看看讲道者有没有忠实、准确地把祂的话语讲解清楚。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this sense of evangelical worship is that the stress is on the horizontal dimension of worship. The sense of warm, personal fellowship, and participation among believers at worship is crucial. Anything that increases a sense of involvement, especially on the level of emotions, is likely to be approved. The service must be inspiring and reviving, and then God will observe and be pleased.
 
福音派崇拜的這種見解,其結果是強調敬拜的水平層面,信徒參與在崇拜中,享受一種溫暖的、個人性的團契是最關鍵的。任何可以增進參與感的事——特別在感情的層面,會很容易得到贊同。敬拜服事必須能鼓舞人、振奮人心,然後神才會關注並得著喜悅。(1誠之譯版)
 
福音派这种敬拜方式强调了“水平”层面的敬拜。温暖的氛围、团契相交,以及信徒的参与是敬拜中最重要的。任何能够提高这种参与感的,尤其是情感层面的,都很可能被准许。这种敬拜服事必须能够鼓舞人,使人兴奋,这样神才会察看并悦纳。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
福音派对崇拜的这种认识,其结果就是,人们在崇拜聚会中把注重点放在一个“横向”的关系上。因此,对他们来说,温馨的感觉、与主个人的相交、如何让会众每个人都能参与到崇拜过程中等,这些都被视为是崇拜聚会的关键要素。任何有助提高这种参与感的建议,尤其是情感层面的参与感,都是很可能被教会批准接纳的。崇拜聚会一定要能够感动人、奋兴人,这样的聚会上帝才乐意观看并且悦纳(3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Reformed faith has a fundamentally different understanding of the presence of God. God is indeed present to hear. He listens to the praise and prayers of his people. But he is also present to speak. God is not only present as an observer; he is an active participant. He speaks in the Word and in the sacraments. As Reformed Christians, we do not believe that he speaks directly and immediately to us in the church. God uses means to speak. But he speaks truly and really to us through the means that he has appointed for his church. In the ministry of the Word—as it is properly preached and ministered in salutation and benediction—it is truly God who speaks. As the Second Helvetic Confession rightly says, "The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God."
 
改革宗信仰對神在崇拜中的同在有著本質上不同的理解。上帝的確在場聆聽。祂傾聽百姓的讚美和禱告。但是祂也在場說話。上帝不只是作為一個觀眾在場;祂更是積極的參與者。祂在聖道中說話,也在聖禮中說話。作為改革宗的基督徒,我們不只是相信祂在教會中直接、立即地對我們說話。神也使用一些管道(或途徑)說話,但是祂是透過祂為教會所指定的管道來說話。在聖道的職事中——也就是神的話得到正當的宣講,在致敬和祝福中得到適當的執行——是神真的在說話。正如瑞士第二信條(譯按:布靈格在1560年代所寫)所說的:“宣講神的話就是神的話本身。”(The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗信仰对于神同在的理解有着本质上的不同。的确,神同在是为倾听,他聆听他子民的赞美和祷告,但他同在也为了表达。神不仅是作为观察者同在,他更是一个积极的参与者。他透过经文和圣礼向我们说话。作为改革宗基督徒,我们不相信神在教会中会直接和即时地向我们说话;神是透过一些途径说话,用他向教会所指定的方式,真切地向我们说话。在传道事工里——当神的话被正确地传讲,并被妥善地使用在问安和祈祷祝福中时——这便是神在真正地说话。正如《第二瑞士信条》(the Second Helvetic Confession)所强调的:“被传讲出来的道才是神的话。” 2维语译/和卫校版)
 
对改革宗而言,他们对“上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在”的理解则有着本质上的不同。上帝临在,聆听人对祂的敬拜――聆听祂子民的赞美和祷告――这个没错。然而,祂并非仅仅以一个观众的形式临在,祂临在在祂的子民当中,更是为要向他们说话。换言之,在崇拜聚会中,上帝乃是一个积极的参与者,祂藉着圣道对我们说话、也藉着圣礼向我们说话。当然,改革宗的信徒并不相信上帝会在聚会中直接地、即时地向人我们说话(译注:不同于灵恩派的教会),改革宗的信徒相信的是上帝是透过渠道来向人说话的,即祂是透过祂自己为教会所指定的恩具(译注:即圣言的宣读、圣道的宣讲、圣礼的施行、祷告等)实实在在地、真真确确地向我们人说话。 例如:论到圣言这一恩具——无论是在证道时,还是在问安、宣召或最后祝福时,只要这些环节都是按照合乎圣经的方式被施行出来的——那就是上帝自己实实在在在向会众说话了,正如《第二瑞士信条》(The Second Helvetic Confession)所贴切总结的那样:“被传讲出来的话语就是上帝的话语。”此外,上帝也在圣礼中积极地临在,向我们说话。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
God is also actively present and speaking in the sacraments, according to the Reformed understanding. The sacraments are much more about him than about us. He speaks through them the reality of the presence of Jesus to bless his people as he confirms his gospel truth and promises through them.
 
根據改革宗的理解,上帝在聖禮中也是主動同在、主動說話的。聖禮更多是關乎祂,更甚於關乎我們。祂透過聖禮說話,把耶穌同在要賜福給祂的百姓的真相傳達出來。透過聖禮,神確認基督的福音真理和應許。(1誠之譯版)
 
按照改革宗的理解,神在圣礼中也积极同在,并向我们说话。圣礼更多是关于神自己,而不是我们。透过圣礼,神向我们传达耶稣同在的事实,赐福他的子民,同时也藉着圣礼证实他福音的真理和应许。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
根据改革宗的信仰,圣礼乃是一件关乎上帝自己的事过于关乎我们的事。上帝透过圣礼向我们传达耶稣与我们同在这一事实,以此来祝福他们,正如祂藉着圣礼向人印证祂的福音真理和福音应许是多么地真实一样。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this understanding of Reformed worship is that the stress is on the vertical dimension of worship. The horizontal dimension is not absent, but the focus is not on warm feelings and sharing. Rather, it is on the community as a unit meeting their God. Our primary fellowship with one another is in the unified activities of speaking to God in song and prayer and of listening together as God speaks to us. The vertical orientation of our worship service insures that God is the focus of our worship. The first importance of any act of worship is not its value for the inspiration of the people, but its faithfulness to God's revelation of his will for worship. We must meet with God only in ways that please him. The awe and joy that is ours in coming into the presence of the living God to hear him speak is what shapes and energizes our worship service.
 
改革宗對敬拜的這種理解,其果效是強調敬拜的垂直層面。水平的層面不是沒有,但是焦點不是溫暖的感覺和分享,而是聖約群體作為一個統一體,面見他們的上帝。我們與肢體彼此的相交是在這種合一的活動中,即共同在詩歌和禱告中,向神說話;在神向我們說話時,一起聆聽。我們敬拜服事的這種垂直層面,會保證上帝是我們崇拜的焦點。任何崇拜的行動,其首要的重點不是激勵鼓舞百姓,而是是否忠於神對崇拜所啟示的旨意。我們必須按照討上帝喜悅的方式來面見上帝。我們進到上帝的同在中,聆聽祂說話而產生敬畏和喜悅,才是塑造我們崇拜服事的外型,以及賦予我們崇拜活力的動力。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对敬拜的此种理解强调的是敬拜的“垂直”层面。这并不是意味着水平层面的缺乏,而是敬拜的焦点没有放在温暖的感觉和分享上。更确切地说,敬拜应该是会众作为整体来朝见神。我们与他人最主要的团契是同作一个肢体,向神唱诗、祷告,并彼此倾听,而与此同时,神也一直对我们说话。我们敬拜服事的垂直层面确保了神才是我们敬拜的焦点。对于任何一种敬拜行为,首要的都不是关注人的灵感,而是要忠实于神对于敬拜所启示的他的旨意。我们必须以神喜悦的方式与他相遇。当我们来到永生神的面前,聆听他的话语并发出由衷的敬畏和喜乐时,这才会塑造并激励我们的敬拜服事。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对崇拜的这种认识,其结果就是,人们在崇拜聚会中把注重点放在一个“纵向”的关系上。不是说横向的关系不见了、被取消了,而是说他们的焦点不是放在会众个人的温馨感受和分享上,而是放在会众作为一个整体来朝见上帝这件事上。会众彼此间的相交活动,主要体现在他们共同参与在一环一环合一的崇拜动作中,即集体性的唱诗、祷告、一同领受、聆听上帝对我们说话等这些事上。这种对纵向层面的敬拜关注,确保了上帝才是我们敬拜的焦点。任何一种敬拜,其最重要的都不是这个敬拜活动能对人带来什么启发、感动,而是它有没有忠实于上帝所启示给人、教人理当如何敬拜祂的旨意。我们人只能单单按照上帝所喜悦的方式来朝见祂。我们的崇拜聚会怎么才能充满活力和激情呢?唯有当我们人是带着对上帝由衷的敬畏和喜乐来到永生神的面前、切切想听到祂要对我们说什么时,方有可能。这才是塑造教会崇拜聚会的因和动力。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Ministerial Office in Worship
 
崇拜中的牧者職分(1誠之譯版)
敬拜中的牧师职能2维语译/和卫校版)
. 领会者的圣职人员的职份 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The difference between the Reformed faith and evangelicalism on the presence of God in worship is closely tied to their differences on the ministerial office in worship. For evangelicalism, the ministers seem to be seen as talented and educated members of the congregation, called by God to leadership in planning and teaching. The ministers use their talents to facilitate the worship of the congregation and instruct the people. The ministers are not seen as speaking distinctively for God or having a special authority from God. Rather, their authority resides only in the reliability of their teaching, which would be true for any member of the congregation.
 
改革宗信仰和福音派信仰對神在崇拜中的服事的差別,與他們對牧者在崇拜中職分的看法差別有緊密的關聯。對福音派來說,牧者(或敬拜的帶領者)似乎被視為是會眾中最具天分和最有知識的會友,神呼召他做領袖來計劃和教導。牧者們用他們的天賦來促進會眾的敬拜,並教導百姓。他們不認為牧者是特別代表神來說話,或具備來自神的特殊權柄。反而,他們的權柄只在於他們教導的可靠性,對所有的會眾來說,都同樣適用。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗和福音派对敬拜中“神同在”的不同理解也体现在他们对敬拜中牧师职能理解的不同。对于福音派来说,牧师们是会众里有才能且受过教育的成员,被神呼召来管理教会的治理和教导。牧师们用他们的才能来促进会众的敬拜,并教导神的子民。牧师们未被看作是特别代表会众向神说话的人,也没有从神而来的特殊权柄。更确切地说,他们的权柄只源自他们教导的可靠性,而会众中只要有人能忠实地教导神的话,他也可成为牧师。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗与福音派对崇拜聚会中上帝的临在的不同理解,也体现在他们对领会者圣职职份的理解上的不同。对于福音派来说,教会的圣职人员似乎就只是一些教会中较有才干、受过教育的会友,他们蒙上帝呼召出来在治理和教导等事工上带领教会。在崇拜中,这些带领人只是运用他们的才干来协助、促进会众敬拜上帝,并讲道教导他们。一般会众或领会者本身并不觉得他们是特别代表上帝向会众说话的,也不拥有什么从上帝而来的特殊权柄。反之,他们的权柄只彰显在他们教导的可靠性上,而这种权柄,会众中任何一个有能力忠实教导上帝话语的人都能有。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this evangelical view of office is to create a very democratic character to worship, in which the participation of many members of the congregation in leading the service is a good thing. The more who can share, the better. The many gifts that God has given to members of the congregation should be used for mutual edification. Again, the horizontal dimension of worship has prevailed.
 
福音派這種對教會職份的觀點,其果效是創造了一種非常民主的敬拜風格,會眾中有許多人參與帶領敬拜的當中,是一件好事。越多人可以分享就越好。上帝賜給會眾的眾多恩賜,應該用在彼此的建造上。再次。這種敬拜強調的重點是水平的層面。(1誠之譯版)
 
福音派对牧师职能的这种看法给敬拜带来了一种民主的特征,会众中许多成员参与带领敬拜是一件好事。参与的人越多越好。神赐予会众的恩赐应该被用来彼此造就。这里同样的,水平层面的敬拜是主导。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
福音派对圣职的这种看法所导致的结果,就是为崇拜聚会创造出了一种民主特征,而在这个民主氛围下,越多会众能够参与在崇拜活动中越好,越多人有分享越好。上帝赐给众人的恩赐总得用出使大家彼此的造就嘛。我再说,这是一种以“横向”关系为主导的敬拜观。(3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Reformed view of ministerial office is quite different. The minister is called by God through the congregation to lead worship by the authority of his office. He is examined and set apart to represent the congregation before God and to represent God before the congregation. In the great dialogue of worship, he speaks the Word of God to the people and he speaks the words of the people to God, except in those instances when the congregation as a whole raises its voice in unison to God.
 
改革宗對牧者職位的看法是相當不同的。神透過會眾來呼召牧者,讓他們透過這個職分的權柄來帶領敬拜。他要受檢驗並被分別為聖,在神面前代表會眾。在崇拜的偉大對話中,他向百姓說出神的話,也向神說出百姓的話——除了在一些例子上,會眾要作為一個整體,一起揚聲頌讚上帝之時。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对于牧师职能的观点则大不相同。神从会众中呼召牧师,赐给他职分的权柄来带领敬拜。他受过审查、也被区别开来,在神面前代表会众,也在会众面前代表神。在敬拜的伟大对话中,他向会众传递神的话,也将会众的话带到神面前,除了作为一个整体会众一齐向神告白的时候。我们改革宗信徒不遵从水平的敬拜安排不是因为我们反对民主,或我们相信牧师是会众里唯一有恩赐的成员。我们遵循这种模式,因为我们相信这是符合圣经的,并且是神所设定的敬拜模式。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对领会者的圣职职份的看法则大不相同。圣职人员乃是被上帝从整个教会中呼召出来的,他们是带着他们圣职职份中的权柄来带领敬拜的。他在出任这个职份前,是需要接受过审核、特别分别出来的,祂在崇拜聚会中担当的角色乃是:在上帝面前代表会众、在会众面前代表上帝。崇拜聚会活动乃是一个伟大的神、人对话,在这个对话活动中,他向会众传讲上帝的话语,又把会众的要对上帝说的话带到祂面前(除了崇拜环境中的那些整体会众一齐向上帝发声的环节外)。改革宗崇拜聚会有这样的安排,不是因为因为他们反对民主,或者他们之相信全教会只有牧师一人才是有恩赐的。他们遵循这个模式因为他们相信这是符合圣经的,且正正就是上帝所设定的敬拜模式。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
We who are Reformed do not embrace this arrangement because we are antidemocratic or because we believe that the minister is the only gifted member of the congregation. We follow this pattern because we believe that it is biblical and the divinely appointed pattern of worship.

我們這些改革宗的人,不是因為我們反對民主制度,或是因為我們相信牧者是會眾中唯一具有天賦的會員才喜歡這種安排。我們之所以遵循這種模式,是因為我們相信這是合乎聖經的,也是神所指定的敬拜模式。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对于牧师职能的观点则大不相同。神从会众中呼召牧师,赐给他职分的权柄来带领敬拜。他受过审查、也被区别开来,在神面前代表会众,也在会众面前代表神。在敬拜的伟大对话中,他向会众传递神的话,也将会众的话带到神面前,除了作为一个整体会众一齐向神告白的时候。我们改革宗信徒不遵从水平的敬拜安排不是因为我们反对民主,或我们相信牧师是会众里唯一有恩赐的成员。我们遵循这种模式,因为我们相信这是符合圣经的,并且是神所设定的敬拜模式。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对领会者的圣职职份的看法则大不相同。圣职人员乃是被上帝从整个教会中呼召出来的,他们是带着他们圣职职份中的权柄来带领敬拜的。他在出任这个职份前,是需要接受过审核、特别分别出来的,祂在崇拜聚会中担当的角色乃是:在上帝面前代表会众、在会众面前代表上帝。崇拜聚会活动乃是一个伟大的神、人对话,在这个对话活动中,他向会众传讲上帝的话语,又把会众的要对上帝说的话带到祂面前(除了崇拜环境中的那些整体会众一齐向上帝发声的环节外)。改革宗崇拜聚会有这样的安排,不是因为因为他们反对民主,或者他们之相信全教会只有牧师一人才是有恩赐的。他们遵循这个模式因为他们相信这是符合圣经的,且正正就是上帝所设定的敬拜模式。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this view of office is to reinforce the sense of meeting with God in a reverent and official way. It also insures that those who lead public worship have been called and authorized for that work by God. The Reformed are rightly suspicious of untrained and unauthorized members of the congregation giving longer or shorter messages to the congregation. In worship we gather to hear God, not the opinions of members. The vertical dimension of worship remains central.
 
這種對職分的觀點,會增強以敬畏和正式的方式來面見上帝的觀念。它也保證那些帶領公眾崇拜的人是神所呼召的,神賦予他們權柄來執行這項工作。讓會眾中未經訓練和未獲授權的會員,對會眾給予稍長或稍短的信息,改革宗很正確地懷疑這種做法。在崇拜中,我們是聚集在一起聆聽神說話,而不是聆聽會友的意見。崇拜的垂直層面仍然是最重要的。  1誠之譯版)
 
对牧师职分的这种观点加强了与神交通的敬畏感和正式感。它也确保了那些在公开场合带领敬拜的人是由神呼召并赐予权柄从事此项事工的。改革宗正当地怀疑那些未经门训或授权的成员在会众面前给出或长或短的讲道信息。在敬拜中,我们聚集是来聆听神的话语,而不是会员们的观点。垂直层面的敬拜依然处于核心地位。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对圣职的这种看法所导致的结果,就是透过一种庄严肃穆、正式规矩的方式加强了人与上帝相会的感觉。它也确保了那些带领公共崇拜聚会的人,确实是蒙上帝呼召且被上帝赋予权柄从事这项工作的。改革宗一般对未有经过训练、未经授权的会友随便站讲台的是都会持怀疑、谨慎的态度,这不是没有道理的。我们聚集敬拜,乃是来聆听上帝话语的,不是来听会众的各人领受或见解的。所以,大家可以看到,此乃一个以“纵向”为主导的敬拜观。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
Conclusion
總結
 
The contrast that I have drawn between evangelical and Reformed worship no doubt ought to be nuanced in many ways. I have certainly tried to make my points by painting with a very broad brush. Yet the basic analysis, I believe, is correct.
 
我對福音派和改革宗的敬拜所作的比較,無疑地在許多方面需要加以微調。我是用非常粗略的筆觸試圖說明我的論點。不過我相信基本的分析是正確的。(1誠之譯版)
 
毫无疑问,我所列出的福音派和改革宗看待敬拜的区别还可以在许多细微层面加以展开。我在此描绘的只是宏观一笔。然而,我相信这些基本的分析是准确的。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
One great difficulty that we Reformed folk have in thinking about worship is that our worship in many places has unwittingly been accommodated to evangelical ways. If we are to appreciate our Reformed heritage in worship and, equally importantly, if we are to communicate its importance, character, and power to others, we must understand the distinctive character of our worship.
 
我們改革宗的人對敬拜的思考,有一個很大的難題,就是在許多地方,我們的敬拜已經不知不覺地遵從福音派的方法。與此同樣重要的,如果我們要欣賞領會我們改革宗在敬拜上的遺產,如果我們要向其他人傳遞它的重要性、特色和能力,我們必須明白我們敬拜獨特的性質。(1誠之譯版)
 
我们改革宗信徒面对的最大难题是,我们的敬拜方式在很多方面已经毫无察觉地被福音派同化了。如果我们要珍视我们改革宗在敬拜方面的遗产,如果我们要向他人传达它的重要、特点及大能(这一点也同样重要),我们必须了解我们敬拜的独特之处。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
Our purpose in making this contrast so pointed is not to demean evangelicals. They are indeed our brethren and our friends. But we do have real differences with them. If Reformed worship is not to become as extinct as the dinosaurs, we as Reformed people must come to a clear understanding of it and an eager commitment to it. In order to do that, we must see not just formal similarities, but more importantly the profound theological differences that distinguish evangelical worship from Reformed worship.
 
做出這種區分的目的不是為了要貶低福音派。他們的確是我們的弟兄和朋友。但是我們的確與他們有一些真實的差別。如果要讓改革宗的敬拜不會像恐龍一樣滅絕,我們作為改革宗的人必須對它有一個清楚的了解,以及熱切的委身。為了達成這點,我們必須不只是看到表面的相似性,而是更重要地要看到深層的神學差異,這是福音派的崇拜和改革宗的崇拜不同之處。(1誠之譯版)
 
我们做此明确区分的目的并不是要贬低福音派。他们实际上是我们的弟兄和朋友。但是我们与他们之间确实有许多不同。如果改革宗敬拜不至于像恐龙一样灭绝,我们改革宗信徒必须清楚了解改革宗敬拜,并迫切地忠实于它。为此,我们必须不仅要看到改革宗和福音派在敬拜上的表面相似,更重要的是两者的区别背后的重大神学差异。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
Dr. Robert Godfrey is president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and a minister in the United Reformed Churches. This article is reprinted, with permission, from New Horizons, April 2002

Virginia Yip译版 叶老师为她的敬拜课程特别预备,仅为原文之全部内容的节录(省去了原文的“引言”和“总结”部分),是在《教会杂志》维语为的中文译文之上做出的修改或重译,为方便教学,中文题目也稍作了改动。
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4097072803679255/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206聖經神學研究推廣小組
 


2019-02-06


长老会与改革宗的区别


改革宗 (Reformed) 这个词的含义比较广泛。这个词可以广义上指一切支持预定论的神学体系,也可以指从十六世纪以来的加尔文主义神学传统,但是本篇里使用这个词是较狭义的欧洲大陆的加尔文主义,用以区别在大不列颠发展的加尔文主义,一般被称为长老会 (Presbyterian)

长老会 (Presbyterian,以下简称P) 一般是指在大不列颠发展出来的加尔文主义。改革宗 (改革宗=Reformed ,以下简称R) 一般是指在欧洲大陆,如德国、法国、瑞士、荷兰、比利时、匈牙利等地区发展的加尔文主义。这两个传统的神学教义与教会治理等各方面都是十分相似,如同孪生姐妹一般。我在这里不是做出什么优劣之分的结论,只是简略介绍两个传统的不同之处,没有优劣之分。

另外,需要注意的是,今天在欧洲和北美主流的 (main stream) 长老会与改革宗教会已经不再是传统的认信的 (confessional) 教会,而早已就走上了自由派或泛福音派的道路。所以今天,这两个传统的继承者大部分分散为10多个不同的小型宗派,而在北美,这些小型宗派形成了一个联盟,叫做“北美长老会与改革宗联合议会” (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council,简称NAPARC)

长老会教会 (P) 与改革宗教会 (R) 在教会论上的主要区别有以下几点:教会认信的信条、教会职分的划分、教会结构的组成。

1. 教会认信的信条

长老会 (P) 一般认信的是 “威斯敏斯德准则 Westminster Standards”,即《威斯敏斯德信条 Westminster Confession of Faith》、《威斯敏斯德大要理问答 Westminster Larger Catechism》、《威斯敏斯德小要理问答 Westminster Shorter Catechism》。这套信条准则是17世纪中期开始实施的,在此之前,他们一般使用的是《三十九条信纲》。在北美认信威斯敏斯德准则的宗派常见的包括美国长老会 (PCA) ,美国正统长老会 (OPC) ,北美改革宗长老会 (RPCNA) 等。

改革宗 (R) 一般认信的是三项联合信条 Three Forms of Unity,即《海德堡要理问答 Heidelberg Catechism1563,《比利时信条 Belgic Confession of Faith1561,《多特信经 Canons of Dort 1619。认信三联合信条的宗派常见的包括本人所属的北美联合改革宗教会 (URCNA) ,美国改革宗教会 (RCUS) ,加拿大改革宗教会 (CanRC) 等。

从信条角度来看,R系的信条是源于欧陆宗教改革的核心时期,其中所处理的教义更多是针对天主教和重洗派的教导;而P系的信条则是后宗教改革时期的作品,其中处理的教义问题较繁多。

三项联合信条中的《海德堡要理问答》和《比利时信条》已经在欧洲各自传遍,但是正式修订绑定在一起是在多特大会。另外《多特信经》本身不是完整的信仰告白,而是专门针对亚米念抗辩派的抗辩文做出的回应,因此所谓的加尔文主义五要点本身不是信仰告白的全部内容,要想知道改革宗的信仰告白,应该去阅读《比利时信条》。

从信条的用词上也非常不同,例如《海德堡要理问答》第一问:“你在生在死唯一的盼望是什么” 。这是第二人称,非常个人性的用词。而《威斯敏斯德小要理问答》第一问:“人的首要目的是什么” ,这是第三人称的客观冷静的口吻完全不同。

另外,R系信条更多是强调说:我们的信仰是真正的大公教会信仰。例如在《海德堡要理问答》中,集中讨论了《使徒信经》,这就使得这份信条与初代教会产生了密不可分的连接。而P系信条更加注重对教义和专用名词上的定义,非常精准明确。

2. 教会职分的划分

简单讲,在R系教会里,一般认为教会里有三种职分,牧师 (或按圣经的用词称为“话语的执事”) ,长老,以及执事。而在P系教会里,一般认为教会里有两种职分,长老与执事。而长老继续细分为教导型长老和治理型长老。

至于这个划分有什么本质区别,不同的宗派有着不同的操作层面的区别。在R系教会,牧师的职分不同于长老。牧师职分是永久性的,属于圣职人员 (clergy) ;而长老一般有任期 (3-5年不等) ,由平信徒受按立来担任。

3. 教会结构的组成

这个就更加麻烦,每个不同的宗派有自己的具体结构。在整个NAPARC联盟里,有13个改革宗、长老会宗派。每个宗派都有自己的结构。

但是大体来说,P系和R系教会的结构都分为三个层面:本地教会的长老议会,区域性议会,总议会。一般在P教会里,这三个层面的议会分别叫做 SessionPresbyteryGeneral Assembly。而在R教会里,这三个层面的议会分别叫做 ConsistoryClassisSynod

P系和R系的区别在哪里呢?这个区别主要在于对议会体的定义上。P系教会一般把区域性议会和总议会都定义为永久性议会体,也就是说这些议会体是实体,里面有工作人员,一直持续存在。而R系教会一般把区域性议会和总议会定义为暂时性的会议,也就是说只有在召开时,这些会议体才存在,等到会议结束之后,这个会议体就停止存在了。

所以,关于大型会议体,P系教会是议会体,而R系教会是暂时会议。

因为P系教会把大型议会作为持续存在的实体,这里面就要有成员。所以,在P系教会里,每个教会的教导型长老的成员身份不是在本地教会Session里,而是在区会Presbytery里。所以区会是有成员制度的教会。所以,在有些P系教会的区会里是领圣餐的。

而因为R系教会不认为大型会议是持续存在的,而只是暂时聚集起来开的会议,里面没有成员。在R系教会里,每个教会的牧师的成员身份是在本教会里。区会只是每个教会选派代表参加的会议。区会或总会不是教会实体。

换句话说,在P系教会结构里,区会本身是有成员的教会实体,区会Presbytery 甚至可以说是整个P教会体系的核心。区会里的成员们 (即教导长老) 分散驻扎在各个不同本地教会Session (Session这个词从拉丁文sessio而来,原意是“坐下”) ,而总会的代表团也是以区会为单位来委派。而在R系教会结构里,教会是平铺型的。本地的牧长会ConsistoryR教会体系的核心。区会和总会只是每个牧长会委派的代表去开的会议。当然这并不是绝对的。有的R系教会里也有常任委员会。

这种结构影响最直接的是教会惩戒。在P系结构里,因为教导型长老的会员不在本地教会里,而在区会里,因此教会无法对其执行惩戒,必须由区会执行。

而在R结构里,牧师的会员属于本地教会,区会无权对任何人执行惩戒,因为区会不是 “教会体”,区会只能建议本地教会对牧师或长老执行惩戒。但反过来,本地教会想要对牧师或长老执行惩戒,必须获得区会的 “建议”,不可擅自进行。

你说这两者孰优孰劣呢?没有优劣,两种体制都有利有弊。

P系体制下,从上到下的控制更加紧凑,但也容易发生权力集中化。尤其是在高层的人员。但是在R系体制下,虽然不容易产生权力集中化,但是区会或总会对某个地方教会的教导控制力就会相对较弱。很容易出现某个牧师教导上走偏,但是本地长老却也对其教导同意,因此无法对其惩戒。… 单纯从圣经的角度来看,R系的教会结构更符合圣经。因为圣经里的 “教会” 是指一个一个的本地教会。在圣经里提到 “耶路撒冷会议” 是暂时的会议,而不是长期存在的议会。使徒们不是高层人员,而是属于一个地方教会的成员。

备注:NAPARC=North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council,长老会=P,改革宗=R;一般常见的认信的P系宗派有:PCA, OPC, RPCNA等。一般常见的认信的R系宗派有:URC, CanRCRCUSFRCNA等。

2019-01-31


為改革宗是什麽意思?What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?

作者: Keith A. Mathison   譯者:  Maria Marta

記得在我成為基督徒,並從神學院畢業若幹年之後,有一次回家探親。期間,我遇到一個老鄰居,讀高中時他曾和我一起工作過。他告訴我,他聽說我去了感化學校(或矯正,reform school),並問我現在過得怎麽樣。對不知道何為改革宗學校(reform school)的人而言,它就是一間青少年罪犯矯正工作的機構。他的假設並沒有冒犯我。事實上,當我想起他的看法時,仍覺得很有趣,我幾乎可以肯定,還有一個關於「囚籠階段加爾文主義者」(cage-stage Calvinists)的笑話。我只花了幾分鐘便向我的鄰居解釋了感化學校和改革宗神學院(Reformed seminary)的區別,但我認為他的混淆暗示一個更大、更重要的問題,那就是改革宗(Reformed)一詞在許多基督徒心中的模糊性。

近年來「改革宗」一詞在美國引起廣泛的關注。2006年,在一篇刊於《今日基督教》雜志上被廣泛閱讀的文章中,科林漢森(Collin Hansen)描述福音派運動內部「年輕、躁動的改革宗」領袖的崛起。這些人都反對歷史上多個美國福音派運動中出現的復興的伯拉糾主義、半伯拉糾主義,他們開始向改革宗傳統中的老神學家,諸如約翰·加爾文(John Calvin)、圖倫丁( Francis Turretin )、賀治(Charles Hodge)等人學習。「改革宗」一詞的含義也一直是美國更正教最大的宗派------美南浸信會(Southern Baptist Convention)持續爭論的焦點。許多美南浸信會人士拒絕接受改革神學,認為它不利於傳福音和宣教。而另一些人現在確定為改革宗浸信會人士。改革宗浸信會運動的發展驚人,此運動由畢業於美南浸信會神學院的牧師們,和該神學院的教學領袖們推動。

傳統改革宗宗派,如美國長老會、正統長老會,和北美聯合改革宗教會(URCNA)內部的人,有時想知道如何回應這些發展。對這些教會的許多人而言,成為改革宗就是接受特定的改革宗信仰告白,堅持某種敬虔和崇拜。這些教會的一些人認為,「改革宗」一詞若不與改革宗信仰告白聯系在一起,就失去全部意義。

那麽,我們如何在這些水域航行?  成為改革宗是什麽意思?  這裏我們必須退一步看,回顧16世紀宗教改革歷史的某些方面。為人所知的宗教改革的目的就是改革現存的教會。今天我們知道導致教會分裂的幾個因素,但本文的著重點與「改革宗」一詞的使用方式有關。在一些情況下,「改革宗」是更正教Protestant)的同義詞。在這種情況下,談論「改革宗教會」就是談論所有與羅馬天主教教皇制度對抗的教會。在另一些情況下,「改革宗」狹義上是指那些有別於路德宗教會的更正教教會,特別在主的晚餐的教義和實踐方面。在這種情況下,「改革宗」是指與慈運理 (Ulrich Zwingli) 、布靈格(Heinrich Bullinger)、布塞珥(Martin Bucer)、沃密格利(Peter Martyr Vermigli)、約翰·加爾文(John Calvin)等人的教導有關聯的教會。

當更正教教會之間的界限開始變成一道墻時,不同的教會就以信仰告白的形式寫下他們的信仰。路德宗和改革宗的標簽現在有更明確的內容。成為路德宗,首先要同意路德宗的認信告白,最初是《奧斯堡信條》(Augsburg Confession1530),最後是《協同書》(the Book of Concord 1580)。成為改革宗就要同意改革宗的認信告白。這些成文的認信告白不勝枚舉,但最持久和最被廣泛使用的是三項聯合信條(Three Forms of Unity)和威斯敏斯特標準(the Westminster Standards)。三項聯合信條包括比利時信條(1561)、海德堡要理問答(1563) 、多特信經(1619)。威敏斯特準則包括威敏斯特信仰告白(1647)、威敏斯特大要理問答(1648)、威敏斯特小要理問答(1647)

值得注意的是,在英國,有兩份重要的認信告白是根據威斯敏斯特信仰告白修改而寫成的,其目的是要讓教會擁有一份對教會治理和洗禮不同看法的表述。薩伏伊宣言(Savoy Declaration 1658) 是公理會根據威敏思特信仰告白所作的修改,而1689年的倫敦浸信會信仰告白 (the 1689 London Baptist Confession)對威敏思特信仰告白的修改則反映出特別浸禮派(Particular Baptists)對教會治理和洗禮的觀點。區別特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派(General Baptists)對本文的著重點很重要,因為這種區別的主要依據是對救恩主權和救恩教義的不同理解。普通浸禮派是阿米念派。17世紀的特別浸禮派堅持多特會議所維護的教義,這些教義後來被稱為加爾文主義的五要點,其概括縮寫為郁金香(TULIP)。特別浸禮派拒絕接受阿米念的救恩論。當代改革宗浸信會是特別浸信會的繼承者。

鑒於這段歷史,成為改革宗是什麽意思?  我認為需要一定程度的寬容與耐心,因為這個問題沒有明確的答案。改革宗有兩種定義,一種更具包容性,另一種更乏包容性,這兩種定義都有著悠久的使用歷史。當我說第一種更具包容性的定義時,我所指的定義包括眾多自認是改革宗的信徒——例如,認信的長老會和改革宗浸信會。當我說第二種更乏包容性的定義時,  我所指的定義包括少數信徒,這些信徒對改革宗一詞的理解基本上只限於具體的信仰告白(三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準),和特定形式的敬虔和崇拜。

第一種更具包容性的定義集中在更狹窄的教義範圍內,作為成為改革宗之含義的界定。這種定義常被用作大多數人所理解的加爾文主義者的同義詞。第一種定義的重點在於加爾文主義的五點,和揀選、預定的教義。所以,如果一個浸信會信徒相信聖經所教導的全然敗壞(total depravity)、無條件揀選(unconditional election)、限定的救贖. limited atonement)、不可抗拒的恩典(irresistible grace),聖徒永蒙保守(perseverance of the saints),那麽他很可能使用改革宗浸信會一詞作為自我描述的標簽。

改革宗一詞的第二種更乏包容性的定義集中在三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準所包含的全部教義和實踐。在這個意義上,使用該詞的人理解改革宗的含義遠遠超過救恩論標題所包括的教義。它也包括教會和聖禮等特定教義。例如,它包括嬰兒洗禮。從這個意義上理解和使用改革宗一詞的人相信,談論改革浸信會和談論路德浸信會同樣有意義。

那些其教會追溯其歷史到制定認信界線時期的人,他們有合理的歷史理由,以一種更乏包容性的方式來定義改革宗。例如,我們在多特信經的結論中看到這種定義的證據。在結語部分,多特會議敦促那些想明白成為改革宗是什麽意思的人,去看改革宗教會的認信告白以及會議對認信告白的解釋。這裏,多特會議別提到比利時信條。你想知道成為改革宗是什麽意思嗎?  讀比利時信條,然後讀多特信經。這就是多特會議給出的答案。

另一方面,特別浸禮派和普通浸禮派之間的長期爭論,解釋了為何許多當代浸信會使用改革宗浸信會這一標簽。他們選擇修改已經存在的威斯敏斯特信條,而不是創造一個全新的認信告白,這表明他們明白他們的教義與英國和蘇格蘭長老會有更多的相似之處,而非不同之處。當然,當時也有些長老會,如現在一樣,不同意這種評估,但似乎沒有任何令人信服的理由堅持改革浸信會停止並終止使用改革宗一詞,因為更狹窄定義和更寬廣的定義兩者都已存在幾個世紀了。事實上, 那些認為改革宗一詞應該有更嚴格的定義的人,可能將許多在美國和其他地方的年輕、躁動的基督徒对改革宗救恩論的發現視作一個極好的機會,藉此進一步討論改革神學和實踐的歷史和本質。

與此同時,那些改革宗浸信會信徒可將目前的辯論當作一個機會,藉此來努力明白那些以三項聯合信條和威斯敏斯特標準定義改革宗的人為何這樣做。他們會觀察到,這些信徒看到所有這些教義和實踐之間的相互聯系和統一,它們不允許救恩論與其他教義分隔,避免出現必然的扭曲。

簡而言之,關於改革宗一詞之含義的辯論是一個極好的機會:能讓雙方更深入地挖掘聖經和我們豐富的神學遺產,並實踐這些遺產本身所激發的愛和忍耐。

Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. He is author of several books, including From Age to Age.

What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?
by Keith A. Mathison

I remember visiting home once, years after I had become a Christian and after I had graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary. During my visit, I ran into an old neighbor with whom I had worked while in high school. He told me that he had heard that I had gone to reform school and asked how I was doing now. For those who do not know what a “reform school” is, it is a correctional institution for juvenile delinquents. I wasn’t offended by his assumption. In fact, I still find it quite funny when I think about it, and I’m almost certain that there is a joke about “cage-stage Calvinists” somewhere in there. It took only a few minutes to explain to my neighbor the difference between a reform school and a Reformed seminary, but I think his confusion hints at a larger and more significant issue, namely, the ambiguity of the word Reformed in the minds of many Christians.

The word Reformed has gained a good deal of attention in the United States in recent years. In a widely read 2006 Christianity Today article, Collin Hansen described the rise of “Young, Restless, and Reformed” leaders within evangelicalism. These are men and women who have rejected the revivalistic Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism found in so much of historic American evangelicalism and have begun learning from older theologians in the Reformed tradition, men such as John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge. The meaning of the word Reformed has also been at the center of ongoing debates in the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination. Many Southern Baptists reject Reformed theology, believing it to be inimical to evangelism and missions. Others now identify as Reformed Baptists. The growth of the Reformed Baptist movement has been incredible, and it has been fueled by pastors graduating from Southern Baptist seminaries and by the teaching of leaders within the convention.

Those within traditionally Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the United Reformed Churches in North America are sometimes left wondering how to respond to all of these developments. For many in these churches, to be Reformed is to subscribe to specific Reformed confessions of faith and to adhere to a certain kind of piety and worship. Some in these churches argue that the word Reformed loses all meaning if it is not identified with these Reformed confessions.

So, how do we navigate these waters? What does it mean to be Reformed? Here we need to take a step back and look at some aspects of the history of the sixteenth-century Reformation. The purpose of what has become known as the Reformation was to reform the existing church. Several factors led to the ecclesiastical division we know today, but the key point for our purposes has to do with the way that the word Reformed was used. In some cases, it was used synonymously with the word Protestant. In such cases, to speak of “Reformed churches” was to speak of all of those churches in conflict with the Roman Catholic papacy. In other cases, the word Reformed was used in a narrower sense to refer to those Protestant churches that differed with the Lutheran churches, particularly over the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. The word Reformed in these instances referred to churches associated with the teachings of men such as Huldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Calvin.

As the lines in the sand between the Protestant churches began to become walls, the various churches wrote their beliefs in their confessions of faith. The labels Lutheran and Reformed now had a more definitive content. To be Lutheran was to subscribe to the Lutheran confessions, initially the Augsburg Confession (1530) and ultimately the Book of Concord (1580). To be Reformed was to subscribe to one of the Reformed confessions. Numerous such confessions were written, but those that gained the longest lasting and most widespread use are the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. The Three Forms of Unity include the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1619). The Westminster Standards include the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647).

Significantly, in England, two important confessions were written that modified the Westminster Confession in order to have a confession that expressed different views of church government and baptism. The Savoy Declaration (1658) was a Congregationalist modification of the Westminster Confession, and the 1689 London Baptist Confession was a modification that reflected the views of Particular Baptists on church government and baptism. The distinction between Particular Baptists and General Baptists is important for our purposes because this was a distinction primarily based on different understandings of soteriology or the doctrine of salvation. General Baptists were Arminian. The Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century adhered to the doctrines upheld by the Synod of Dort, doctrines that have since become known as the five points of Calvinism and that are summarized in the acronym TULIP. They rejected Arminian soteriology. Contemporary Reformed Baptists are the heirs of the Particular Baptists.

Given this history, what does it mean to be Reformed? I think a measure of charity and patience is required, because the question does not have a clear-cut answer. The word has a more inclusive definition as well as a less inclusive definition, and both definitions have a long history of use. When I speak of a more inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a larger number of believers who profess to be Reformed—confessional Presbyterians as well as Reformed Baptists, for example. When I speak of a less inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a smaller number of believers—those who understand the word Reformed to be restricted essentially to specific confessions of faith (the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards) and to specific forms of piety and worship.

The more inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on a narrower range of doctrines as defining what it means to be Reformed. This more inclusive definition of Reformed is usually synonymous with what most people understand by the word Calvinist. It is focused on the five points of Calvinism and the doctrines of election and predestination. So, if one is a Baptist who believes that the Bible teaches total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, election, and predestination, then he likely uses the term Reformed Baptist as a self-descriptive label.

The less inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on the whole range of doctrine and practice contained in the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Those who use the word in this sense understand the word Reformed to include far more than the doctrines considered under the heading of soteriology. It includes particular doctrines of the church and sacraments as well. It includes infant baptism, for example. Those who understand and use the word Reformed in this sense believe it makes as much sense to speak of a Reformed Baptist as it would to speak of a Lutheran Baptist.

Those whose churches trace their history back to the time during which confessional lines were being drawn have a legitimate historical reason to define the word Reformed in a less inclusive way. We see evidence for such a definition, for example, in the conclusion to the Canons of Dort. In this concluding section, the Synod of Dort urges those who want to understand what it means to be Reformed to go to the confessions of the Reformed churches and to the synod’s explanation of that confession’s teaching. The synod here is referring specifically to the Belgic Confession. Do you want to know what it means to be Reformed? Read the Belgic Confession and then read the Canons of Dort. That is the answer that the synod gives here.

On the other hand, the long history of the debate between Particular Baptists and General Baptists explains why many contemporary Baptists use the label Reformed Baptist. Their choice to modify the already existing Westminster Confession rather than to create an entirely new confession indicates that they understood their doctrine to have more similarities to than differences from that of the English and Scottish Presbyterians. Of course, there were Presbyterians then, just as there are now, who disagreed with this assessment, but there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to insist that Reformed Baptists cease and desist in their use of the word since both narrower and broader definitions have existed for centuries. In fact, those who believe that the word Reformed should have a more restrictive definition could view the discovery of Reformed soteriology by many young and restless Christians in the United States and elsewhere as a wonderful opportunity for further discussion on the history and nature of Reformed theology and practice.

At the same time, those who are Reformed Baptists could use the present debate as an opportunity to try to understand why those who define the word Reformed in terms of the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards do so. They could observe that these believers see an interconnectedness between and unity among all of these doctrines and practices that do not allow soteriology to be separated from the remaining doctrines without inevitable distortion.

In short, the debate over the meaning of the word Reformed is a wonderful opportunity for those on both sides to dig deeper into Scripture and into the riches of our theological heritage while exercising the charity and patience encouraged by that heritage itself.