勿再以「加爾文主義」這容易誤導人的名詞來形容改革宗正統

摘錄自：《神學的故事》（The Story of Christian Theology）書評，曾劭愷著。（標題另加）

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alex-shaokai-tseng/%E6%9B%B8%E8%A9%95%E5%A5%A7%E7%88%BE%E6%A3%AEroger-e-olson%E8%91%97%E7%A5%9E%E5%AD%B8%E7%9A%84%E6%95%85%E4%BA%8B/923744577683663

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/j7w9FfMWVaH

加爾文與後期改革宗正統經常被人們錯誤地視為雙重預定論的代名詞。這有一部份必須歸咎於亞米紐的學生在荷蘭改革宗教會當中所造成的爭議，以及為解決這爭議所召開的多特會議。多特會議針對亞米紐派所制定的五要點，經常被人們稱為「加爾文主義五要點」，並將十七世紀清教徒的改革宗正統與這種「加爾文主義」劃上等號。事實上，多特會議召開，並非為了制定改革宗信仰的整全規範，而單是針對亞米紐派的抗議文作出回應。多特信經所表述的立場，只不過是改革宗神學當中的一小部份，但許多人卻將多特的五要點與「加爾文主義」劃上等號，並將改革宗正統（Reformed orthodoxy）約化為所謂的「加爾文主義」。

用「加爾文主義」作為「改革宗正統」的同義詞，本身已是相當錯誤的。1980年代，改革宗研究學者肯道爾（R. T. Kendall）曾掀起一場「加爾文與加爾文主義相違」及「加爾文與加爾文主義相合」的論戰。肯道爾在牛津大學的博士論文以及後來出版的《加爾文與英國加爾文主義》（Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649）中，對「加爾文主義」一詞下了非常狹窄的定義，將之等同於所謂的「五要點」，甚至聚焦在「限定的救贖」這一點上。他聲稱，從改革宗經院哲學所發展出來的這套預定論，與加爾文自己的教導相違背。肯道爾的說法在改革宗研究的圈子裡引起了爭論，許多學者反駁肯道爾，堅持加爾文與加爾文主義者在神學上是完全一致的。

 到了2000年左右，學者們基本上已經認清，這場論戰所爭論的其實是個假議題。加爾文及改革宗研究大師慕勒（Richard Muller）在《不妥協的加爾文》（The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Formation of a Theological Tradition）一書中讓我們看見，加爾文並非改革宗傳統的唯一奠基者。布靈爾對於後期改革宗神學的發展亦具有深遠的影響。此外，後加爾文時期的改革宗神學家並未自稱為「加爾文主義者」──那是別人對改革宗的虐稱。在四部《後宗教改革改革宗教理學》（Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725）當中，慕勒讓我們看見十六、十七世紀改革宗正統其實是相當多樣化、多面向的傳統。改革宗正統當中的神學家並不將自己視為加爾文主義者，因為他們並不將加爾文視為此傳統的鼻祖，抑或他們必須效忠、效法的對象。

慕勒的重要貢獻之一，就是讓我們看見，改革宗經院哲學並不是指一種立場，而是一種方法論。

慕勒近幾十年來致力勸說各界學者的一件事，就是勿再以「加爾文主義」這容易誤導人的名詞來形容改革宗正統。

两个神学传统的故事：荷兰和苏格兰改革宗传统ATALE OF TWO THEOLOGIES: THE DUTCH AND SCOTTISH REFORMED TRADITIONS

作者：Justin Holcomb  译者：骆鸿铭

https://allsufficientgrace.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/a-tale-of-two-theologies-the-dutch-and-scottish-reformed-traditions/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/19480131220127291622232/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/105106813742373627205/posts/PtSBnTfTGq6

经常有人把改革宗神学定义为只是所谓的“加尔文五要点”：人的全然败坏，无条件的拣选，限定的救赎，不可抗拒的恩典，以及圣徒的坚忍。虽然强调神如何拯救罪人很有价值，但是它未能捕捉到改革宗思想传承的全部广度。

Too often, Reformed theology is defined merely by the so-called five points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. While this emphasis on how God saves sinners has value, it fails to capture the full breadth of the heritage of Reformed thought.

从加尔文的著作，产生了改革宗神学的两个主要流派：苏格兰加尔文主义（Scotish Calvinist），以及荷兰改革宗（Dutch Reformed）。苏格兰传统所特别强调的，是救恩的教义以及救恩的次序（ordo salutis, order of salvation）。而荷兰改革宗传统除了重视改革宗的救恩教义外，也强调世界观、文化参与和耶稣在生活所有领域的主权。让我们感到意外的是这两个支流在过去鲜少有互动。我们就来简单地看看这两个改革宗神学的传统。

There are two major streams of Reformed theology that developed out of the work of John Calvin: the Scottish Calvinist stream, and the Dutch Reformed stream. The Scottish tradition has a strong focus on doctrines of salvation and the ordo salutis (order of salvation). But another dimension is found in the Dutch Reformed tradition, which celebrates Reformed doctrines of salvation but also emphasizes worldviews, cultural engagement, and the lordship of Jesus over all aspects of life. Surprisingly, the two streams have interacted relatively rarely. Let’s take a short tour of the Scottish and Dutch Reformed theological traditions.

苏格兰改革宗传统

The Scottish Reformed Tradition

改革宗传统的苏格兰支流是从宗教改革直接诞生的。在宗教改革的早期，约翰·诺克斯（JOHN KNOX，1514-1572）参与了苏格兰教会的改革；不过，他也因此遭到监禁，最后被放逐。在放逐时，他旅行到加尔文在瑞士日内瓦的基地。他倾心于预定论的教义，有些人甚至说他比加尔文更“加尔文主义”。诺克斯最终还是回到了苏格兰，并且成为苏格兰教会——长老会的起源——的领袖人物。

The Scottish branch of the Reformed tradition was immediately born out of the Reformation. In the early days of the Reformation, pastor-theologian John Knox (1514–1572) was a part of a group trying to reform the Scottish church; however, his involvement led to his imprisonment and eventual exile. While in exile, he traveled to John Calvin’s base of operations in Geneva, Switzerland. There, Knox became enamored with the doctrine of predestination and, some argue, more “Calvinist” than Calvin himself. Knox eventually returned and became the leading figure in the founding of the Church of Scotland, which is the origin of Presbyterianism.

苏格兰改革宗神学传统（包括英格兰的清教徒，例如理查·巴克斯特和约翰·欧文）在接下来的世代中，赢得了一个名声，就是大力地宣讲地狱的悲惨，深入教会会员的私人生活且严厉地施行教会惩戒（有如“道德的暴君”），并且压制艺术。美国的神学家，例如伟大的约拿单·爱德华兹也深受苏格兰改革宗神学和哲学的影响，而獲得类似的批评。虽然这些共同的批评中都有一些事实的成分，但是这些实践是在一个独特的文化处境中出现的，我们不能单单以此为标准来论断苏格兰改革宗传统。

Subsequent generations within the Scottish Reformed theological tradition (including English Puritans such as Richard Baxter and John Owen) gained a reputation for being pervasively gloomy preachers of hell, for exercising harsh church discipline while delving into the private lives of church members (i.e., of “moral tyranny”), and for suppressing the arts. American theologians such as the great Jonathan Edwards were also influenced by Scottish Reformed theology and philosophy and inherited some of these same critiques. While there is likely a bit of truth in each of the common criticisms, such practices arose out of unique cultural situations and should not be the only measures by which Scottish Reformed theology is judged.

 苏格兰改革宗教义和实际生活从来不是割裂的

The Reformed doctrine of the Scots was never separated from practical living.

在17-18世纪时，预定、拣选、遗弃和救赎的范围，还有圣徒的坚忍，受到苏格兰农夫的极大的关注。虽然这些农夫对这些教义的关心起源于他们的领袖对这些教义的关注，但是加尔文救恩论的教义的确说到了教会会员所面对的实际和攸关生命的需要。

During the 17th and 18th centuries, the topics of predestination, election, reprobation, the extent of the atonement, and the perseverance of the saints gained the attention of the Scottish peasants. While the peasants’ concerns for these doctrines arose because of their leaders’ focus on them, the doctrines of Calvinist soteriology addressed practical and existential needs that church members faced.

虽然苏格兰改革宗神学在后来转趋比较严厉的加尔文主义形式，其原先的信条（1560年苏格兰信条）持守的是比较偏向宣教的教会本质和福音布道的神学焦点。苏格兰的改革宗教义和实际的生活从来不是割裂的。苏格兰改革宗教会把西敏信仰告白当作他们的教义标准（在圣经之下），并试着把这些伟大的神学真理应用在他们每天的生活当中。

While it is true that Scottish Reformed theology drifted into some heavier-handed forms of Calvinism, its original confession (the Scots Confession of 1560) upheld the missional nature of the church and the evangelistic focus of theology. The Reformed doctrine of the Scots was never separated from practical living. The Scots looked to the Westminster Confession of Faith as their doctrinal standard (underneath Scripture) and sought to implement those great theological truths into their everyday lives.

荷兰改革宗传统

The Dutch Reformed Tradition

加尔文主义在1560年代，宗教改革的第三波来到荷兰。荷兰的加尔文主义对早期改革宗信经和信条做出了一些重大的贡献：1561年代比利时信条为荷兰改革宗教会下了最初的定义；1563年的海德堡要理问答，成为荷兰和德国的改革宗之间的一道合一的桥梁；而1619年的多特大会成了改革宗教会的联合大会。

Calvinism arrived in the Netherlands in the third wave of the Reformation in the 1560s. Dutch Calvinism contributed some of the most important early Reformed creeds and confessions: the Belgic Confession of 1561 gave original definition to the Dutch Reformed Church, the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 served as a bridge fostering unity between the Dutch and German Reformed, and the Canons of Dort in 1619 served as a Reformed ecumenical council.

过了一段时间之后，荷兰的改革宗教会堕落成为神学自由主义。当时，在19世纪末，新加尔文主义者如凯柏（ABRAHAM KUYPER），巴文克（HERMAN BAVINCK）和伯克富（LOUIS BERKOH）的著作，把荷兰教会从沉睡中唤醒，并且塑造了我们今日所知的荷兰改革宗神学学派（请留意日后的帖子，会介绍这些人物）。

Over time the Dutch Reformed Church drifted into theological liberalism. Then, in the late 19th century, the work of neo-Calvinists such as Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof awoke the Dutch church from slumber and shaped what is now known as the Dutch Reformed school of theology (stay tuned for more posts on each of these figures).

虽然荷兰改革宗思想和更广的改革宗传统有许多共同之处，但是有几个特点使它显出不同。DOUGLAS WILSON说的几句话，捕捉到了荷兰改革宗的思想：“全面的基督，全面的生活”（ALL OF CHRIST FOR ALL OF LIFE），以及凯柏著名的话：“对人类生存领域的每一寸，基督这位万有的主宰，莫不说：‘我的！’”。

While Dutch Reformed thought has much in common with the broader Reformed tradition, several features set it apart. Some of the best summaries of Dutch Reformed thought are captured in Douglas Wilson’s phrase, “All of Christ for all of life,” and in the famous words of Abraham Kuyper: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’”

基督徒当在生活的所有层面经历神的恩典

Christians are to experience the grace of God in all aspects of life.

凯柏坚持基督在所有生活中的主权，并敦促基督徒不要抛弃文化和社会中的一些领域，把它们当作是“世俗的”。他相信神在创造的不同领域里已经设立权柄的结构，当我们认识这些领域之间的范围，就可以帮助我们维系并且平衡社会中的公义和秩序。

Kuyper argued for the lordship of Christ over all of life and urged Christians not to dismiss certain fields of culture and society as “worldly.” He believed that God had established structures of authority in different spheres of creation, and recognizing the boundaries between these spheres helped maintain and balance justice and order in society.

根据凯柏的看法，神在地上的统治是透过祂的教会，信实地参与到文化当中。这个信念使得荷兰的神学家强调基督徒的文化行动。凯柏希望基督徒明白，每个世界观都有其独特的哲学前提，而基督教信仰也有一些前提假设，塑造了基督徒如何在生活的所有领域里行动。基于神绝对的主权，基督徒要在生活所有的领域经历神的恩典，不只是在教会的活动或崇拜服事中。

According to Kuyper, God’s rule on earth is brought about through the faithful cultural presence of his church. This belief led the Dutch theologians to emphasize cultural action on the part of Christians. Kuyper wanted Christians to understand that each worldview has its own unique philosophical assumptions, and that the Christian faith has assumptions that shape the way believers should act in every area of life. As a result of God’s absolute sovereignty, Christians are to experience the grace of God in all aspects of life, not just in church activities and worship services.

荷兰改革宗神学的最高点大概非伯克富的系统神学莫属了（我个人就是在17岁时读了伯克富，才接受改革宗神学的）。

The high point of Dutch Reformed theology is arguably Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (full disclosure: I first came to Reformed theology through reading Berkhof when I was 17).

荷兰改革宗神学和美国的老普林斯顿神学学派（来自苏格兰的加尔文传统）共享了许多重要的基要真理，但是他们在一些领域有重大的差异。荷兰改革宗持守的信念是人们在宗教上不是中立的，不存在“客观”的理性能力。这意味着信徒和非信徒之间，没有共同的立场（COMMON GROUND）。这个世界也许包含了众多首尾一致（COHERENT）的世界观，而这就让护教学成为世界观之间的冲撞，而不只是在证据上的辩论。

Dutch Reformed theology shared important essentials with the Old Princeton school of theology (from the Scottish Calvinist tradition) in the United States, but they differed significantly in some areas. The Dutch held to the belief that people have no religiously neutral, “objective” rational faculty. This meant there was no common ground, necessarily, shared between believers and nonbelievers. The world could contain numerous coherent worldviews, and this made apologetics more a clash of worldviews than a debate over evidence.

（苏格兰支流的）普林斯顿强调圣经无误和命题真理的教义，而荷兰改革宗则强调圣灵在圣经里对圣经所作的见证的教义，来确认圣经的可信性。

While the (Scottish stream) Princetonians emphasized a doctrine of Scripture that focused on inerrancy and propositional truth, the Dutch Reformed stressed the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit’s witness to validate Scripture’s trustworthiness.

互补而不是矛盾

Complementary, Not Contradictory

表面看来，苏格兰和荷兰的改革宗教会在它们各自的强调上有如南辕北辙，但是很重要的是要看到他们各自的传统所处的文化环境实在有重大的不同。荷兰的神学家所面对的是教会屈服于19世纪的现代自由神学，并试图在美国殖民地找到一个文化的家。如此，他们强调基督在当时的许多意识形态中间有着最高的主权，还有他们对文化的审慎态度，是可以理解的。可以说，荷兰改革宗神学是宗教改革更广大原则的一个具体应用。

It may seem like the Scottish and Dutch streams of the Reformed church are miles apart in their emphases, but it is important to see that the cultural situations in which each of the traditions developed were significantly different. The Dutch theologians were facing a church giving in to modernist theological liberalism in the 19th century and trying to find a cultural home for themselves in their new settlements in the United States. As such, their emphases on the supreme reign of Christ over the ideologies of the day and their careful conception of culture are to be expected. In a way, Dutch Reformed theology was a specific application of the broad principles of the Reformation.

苏格兰和荷兰改革宗神学家关注的焦点都是塑造门徒

The Scottish and the Dutch Reformed theologians were focused on making disciples.

苏格兰改革宗关注的焦点更多是在宗教改革的主要教义，而不是他们在新的文化处境中的具体应用。此外，苏格兰改革宗的焦点也在于把宗教改革带到临近的区域，这解释了他们对宣教的强调。

The focus of the Scots was more on the primary doctrines of the Reformation than on their specific application to new cultural situations. Moreover, the Scottish Reformed focused on taking the initial Reformation to the surrounding regions, which explains their emphasis on missions.

苏格兰和荷兰改革宗教会并不像他们表面看来的有那么大的距离。他们共同享有改革宗的基本教义，虽然他们强调的是不同的层面。然而，即使在这些不同的焦点上，苏格兰和荷兰改革宗神学家都同样强调塑造门徒，并把福音带到他们周围的世界。两个传统都是今日改革宗运动的榜样。

The Scottish and Dutch Reformed churches are not as far apart as it may first appear. They shared the same basic Reformed doctrines, though they emphasized different aspects. Nevertheless, even in these different points of focus, both the Scottish and the Dutch Reformed theologians were focused on making disciples and bringing the gospel to bear on the world around them. Both traditions are examples for the Reformed movement today.

改革宗+灵恩派？Reformedand Charismatic?

作者：Michael Horton  译者：王一

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2011/08/reformed-and-charismatic/

http://www.reformedbeginner.net/reformed-and-charismatic/

https://plus.google.com/u/2/105106813742373627205/posts/Jdj1brxUG9c

我从未想牺牲在终止论这道防线上。终止论就是指相信神迹恩赐如说预言，医病和方言等已经终止了。我不想过多讨论。但是，我相信，非终止论既没有可靠的解经基础，也不符合历史上的改革宗神学。此外，如今令人惊讶的是，对这些特殊恩赐的极端观点变得非常普遍流行，再加之政治抱负，迫使我不得不挑战我的一些朋友，虽然我与他们在许多其他重要的议题上观点一致。

I’ve never been willing to die on the hill of cessationism: that is, the belief that the miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing, and tongues have ceased.  I’m still not.  Nevertheless, I am convinced that non-cessationism is neither exegetically sound nor historically compatible with Reformed theology. Furthermore, the surprisingly widespread popularity of more radical views of ongoing sign-gifts, coupled with political ambition, pushes me into the unpleasant position of challenging the views even of far sounder brothers with whom I agree on so many important points.

作为灵恩式的加尔文主义者（Charismatic Calvinist），古德恩（Wayne Grudem）被上帝使用，把恩典教义带给许多从未接触这些真理的人。他捍卫许多基督教重要的教义，我对他尊敬有加。但同时，加尔文主义加灵恩派的组合却可以两边摇摆，并且他的预言持续观点造成了一种古怪的混合理论，在我看来是无法维持长久的。改革宗神学是一个系统，这并不是说我们把一个系统生硬套在圣经上，而是从前后一致的上帝话语中呈现出来的。

As a Charismatic Calvinist, Wayne Grudem has been used by God to bring the doctrines of grace to many who would likely not have encountered these truths otherwise.  I have immense respect for his clear defense of many cardinal doctrines of Christianity.  At the same time, the Calvinism-Charismatic bridge goes in both directions and his view of continuing prophecy has contributed to a curious hybrid that in my view cannot survive in the long run.  Reformed theology is a system—not one imposed on Scripture, but one that arises from the self-consistent Word of God.

马克·德里斯科尔（Mark Driscoll），古德恩的学生，最近宣称他能看到他遇到人的有罪的行为，往往是与性有关。他说，“我能看到这些事。”虽然他描述的这种恩赐从来没有在使徒时期出现过。他也在他的马尔斯山教会（Mars Hill）网站上发帖批判终止论是“现代主义式的世俗”（modernistic worldliness），把这种神学观点与自然神论和无神论混为一谈。他说，“可操作的终止论只不过关于头脑，但可操作的灵恩神学则是关于内心。”他最后总结时呼吁说：“你们改革宗的人，特别是那些更趋向长老会的，你们容易忽略圣灵，而把该归给圣灵的东西归给了福音。”马汉宁（C. J. Mahaney）带领的至高恩典事工（Sovereign Grace Ministries）也跟随了古德恩的道路，强调加尔文主义和灵恩主义的合成。

Mark Driscoll, a student of Grudem’s, has recently claimed to have regular visions of the sinful—usually sexual—behavior of people he encounters. “I see things,” he says, although the gift he describes is nowhere exhibited even in the apostolic era.  Also posted on his Mars Hill website is a critique of cessationism as “modernistic worldliness,” lumping this view with deism and atheism.  “Functional cessationism is really about the mind, but functional charismatic theology is really about the heart.”  He concludes with a plea: “…you Reformed guys, especially you who are more Presbyterian, you tend to ignore the Holy Spirit and attribute everything the Spirit does to the gospel.” Sovereign Grace Ministries, led until recently by C. J. Mahaney, has also followed Grudem’s path toward a synthesis of Calvinistic and Charismatic emphases.

这些人和他们的工作有许多令人钦佩的地方。我不是要把他们当靶子，而是恳求他们，也恳求我们一切人，重新回到平常的蒙恩管道、平凡的事工、平凡的职分中来，并且追求一个真正的复兴，那就是上帝在我们今天带给他平凡的事工不平凡的祝福。头脑和内心、圣灵和圣道之间错误的二分法早已是基督教极端派的老把戏。德里斯科尔上面的一段话显示出把圣灵从圣道中分离出来是多么的危险。只有先假设这种圣灵与圣道的分裂，他才能辩称改革宗神学忽略了圣灵。

There is much to admire in these men and their labors.  I am not targeting these friends and brothers, but pleading with them—and with all of us—to rediscover the ordinary means of grace, ordinary ministry, ordinary offices, and to long for a genuine revival: that is, a surprising blessing of God on his ordinary ministry in our day. The false choice between head and heart, the Spirit and the Word, has been a perennial polemic of the radical wing of Protestantism.  Mark Driscoll’s plea above reveals that dangerous separation of the Spirit from his Word.  Only by assuming such a cleavage can one argue that Reformed theology ignores the Holy Spirit.

但是我们已经有足够的“使徒”，“先知”，和“摩西式领袖”，单靠着自己的恩赐来建立事工。我们需要恢复的是基督的美，唯独他坐在宝座上，唯独他是他教会的大祭司和君王，是他靠着他的圣灵，通过讲道、圣礼和惩戒来执行他的事工。改革宗神学不只是“五要点”或者“至高恩典”，而是一个丰富的、完整的、系统的认信体制。它是处理上帝全整的话语，有教义也有实践，有救恩论也有教会论。除非我们重新回到这个丰富的传统中，否则“改革宗”这个词的含义就会变成“我的领袖或我的圈子相信什么，什么就是改革宗。”

We have had enough “apostles,” “prophets,” and “Moses-model” leaders who build ministries around their own gifts.  We need to recover the beauty of Christ alone upon his throne as the Priest-King of his church, exercising his ministry by his Spirit through preaching, sacrament, and discipline in mutually accountable communion with the wider body of Christ.  Reformed theology is not just the “five points” and “sovereign grace,” but a rich, full, and systematic confession.  It’s a human and therefore fallible attempt to wrestle with the whole counsel of God—in both doctrine and practice, soteriology and ecclesiology.  Until we rediscover this richness, “Reformed” will mean “whatever my leader or circle believes.”

这篇文章的篇幅无法完整从圣经来讨论这个问题。但是，我在这里想专门集中从圣经来看是否先知和使徒的恩赐终止了。在《以弗所书》4:7-16，使徒保罗说，先知与使徒的职分，与牧师、教师和传福音的职分一样，都是基督升天之后所赐下的恩赐。

Of course, the biblical case that must be made cannot be made well in this brief space.  However, I’ll focus on the question of whether the gifts of prophet and apostle have ceased.  In Ephesians 4:7-16, the apostle says that offices prophets and apostles as well as pastors, teachers, and evangelists are gifts of his heavenly ascension.

与罗马天主教和极端的重洗派不同，改教家们相信，先知与使徒是特殊的职分（extraordinary），是专门在奠基时期赐下的。他们是在救赎历史的关键时期被差遣，而他们的写作也被加入到圣经的正典之中。就像一个国家的宪法和法院一样，圣经的正典从本质上不同于教会对其的解释。前者是权威性的、规范性的（magisterial/normative），而后者是服侍性的、诠释性的（ministerial/interpretive）。Against both Rome and the radical Anabaptists, the Reformers argued that prophet and apostle are extraordinary offices, for a foundation-laying era.  They are sent at key moments in redemptive history, and their writings are added to the canon of Scripture.  Like the distinction between a nation’s constitution and its courts, the biblical canon is qualitatively distinct from ecclesiastical interpretation.  The former is magisterial (normative), while the latter is ministerial (interpretive).

特别是在五旬节运动和灵恩运动之后，这个问题把基督徒们分为两个阵营：终止论阵营，他们相信特殊恩赐，如医病、预言和方言等，已经终止；非终止论阵营，他们解经的角度没有找到要区分这些恩赐或职分的理由。但是，终止论者坚持认为，新约圣经本身很明确的区分了使徒奠定根基的时期与根基已经奠定完成之后的教会建造时期（参林前3:10-11）。虽然新约圣经中设立了牧师、长老和执事的职分，但新约圣经并没有把先知和使徒的职分以及他们特定的恩赐设立为永久性的。有了这一区分，我们现在要来检验每个不同的恩赐。

Particularly in the wake of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, this question has divided Christians into two camps: cessationists (believing that the gifts of healing, prophecy, and tongues have ceased) and non-cessationists.  Non-cessationists find no exegetical reason to distinguish some of these gifts and offices from others in terms of their perpetuity.  However, cessationists hold that the New Testament itself makes a distinction between the foundation-laying era of the apostles and the era of building the church on their completed foundation (1 Cor 3:10-11).  Although the New Testament establishes the offices of pastors/teachers, elders, and deacons, it does not establish perpetual prophetic or apostolic offices with their attendant sign-gifts.  With this in mind, we must examine each gift in question.

保罗把说预言（prophēteia）视为讲道，讲道虽然也是圣灵光照，但本身不是默示，因此必须被检验（林前12:29；贴前5:19-21）。在五旬节当天，方言的恩赐被赐下，那是圣灵所赐的能力，使人用他们没有学过的语言来宣讲福音。当时来耶路撒冷过节的各地游客说：“我们怎么听见他们将我们从小所用的本乡话呢？”（徒2:8）。因此，我们应该把“方言”视为真实的语言，有些人被赋予恩赐去讲，有些人被赋予恩赐去翻译。这不仅标志了基督普世的国度已经降临，而且从实际角度将也是把福音从耶路撒冷传到地极的方法。这些恩赐被赐下从来不是让信徒自己得建造的，而是为了传播福音，并使其他信徒在圣道上更加成熟。

Paul treats prophecy (prophēteia) as preaching, which although illumined by the Spirit is (unlike the scriptures) un-inspired and therefore must be tested (1 Cor 12:29; 1 Thes 5:19-21).  At Pentecost, the gift of tongues was a Spirit-given ability to proclaim the gospel in languages that one had not been taught.  The diverse crowd of visitors to Jerusalem for the feast asked, “And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?” (Ac 2:8).  We should therefore understand “tongues” as synonymous with natural languages, which some were miraculously gifted to speak and others to interpret.  This served not only as a sign that Christ’s universal kingdom has dawned but as a practical way of disseminating the gospel from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.  None of these gifts was given for the personal edification of believers alone, but for the spread of the gospel and the maturity of the saints in that Word.

同样，医病的恩赐也是基督的国度降临的一个标记，使人们先睹末日时当这国度完全降临时的样子。在圣经里，神迹频繁出现往往都是在救赎历史重要的转折点上。例如在摩西时代，当时那七十个长老暂时性的说预言。特殊的神迹恩赐被赐下是为了证实上帝的人类使者所作的是上帝的工。当这个工作被证实之后，就不再需要继续去证实了（关于这一点，可参考葛理齐的Perspectives on Pentecost ，特别是94-95页，并比较古德恩的观点认为《哥林多前书》12:28里“先知和使徒”与《以弗所书》4:11所指的是同一个群体）。因此，先知和使徒的恩赐已经赐过了（连同神迹、预言、方言的恩赐），这些恩赐已经完成了奠定教会根基的作用。就像保罗的门徒提摩太只是一个平凡的牧师，我们在圣经里也找不到他的事工里有任何特殊的神迹奇事。

Similarly, the gift of healing was a sign that Christ’s kingdom had arrived, bringing a preview of the consummation in all of its fullness at the end of the age.  Yet signs always cluster in the Bible around significant turning-points in redemptive history.  Like the temporary prophesying of the elders in Moses’ day, the extraordinary gifts of signs and wonders are given to validate the sacred ministry of human ambassadors.  Once that ministry is validated, it no longer requires further confirmation.  (For an excellent treatment of this topic, see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost  (P & R, 1979), especially 94-95, in relation to Wayne Grudem’s contention that “prophets and apostles” in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 refer to the same group.) It would seem, then, that the gift of prophets and apostles (along with the gifts of miracles, prophecy, and tongues) was given but fulfilled its foundation-laying function.  Just as Paul’s understudy Timothy is an ordinary minister, we find no evidence that his ministry was attended by extraordinary signs and wonders.

有些神学家，如古德恩，承认使徒的职分已经终止了，但是他们却声称无法从圣经里确定这些属灵恩赐是否也同样终止了。（古德恩的《系统神学》，906-912，1031页；参考古德恩，The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 226-252.）

Some theologians, such as Wayne Grudem, recognize that the office of apostle has ceased, but are “unsure if this question” of the cessation of spiritual gifts “can be decided from Scripture.” [This and following Gruden quotes from his Systematic Theology, 906-912, 1031; cf. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament Today (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 226-252.]

我同意古德恩对《哥林多前书》13:8-13的看法。这段圣经教导“当那完全的来到”时预言与方言将会停止。这段圣经无法得出终止论的结论。保罗在这里很可能指的是末日的终结，到那日我们就不再需要信和望了，只有爱会一直永远（13节）。

With Grudem I agree that 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, which speaks of prophecies and tongues passing away “when the perfect comes,” is inconclusive.  Paul is most likely referring to the consummation, when there will be no need for faith and hope and all that will endure into eternity is love (v 13).

但是，我也没有发现古德恩对预言继续存在的证明有什么说服力。他很明确的区分今天的预言和圣经里作为上帝神谕的预言。这是既是他观点的有力点也是他的薄弱点。古德恩相信，今天继续存在教会里的预言与讲道和教导不同，这种预言是“从上帝而来自发的‘启示’……”（a spontaneous ‘revelation’ from God, Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058）（Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058）

However, I do not find Grudem’s case for continuing prophecy persuasive.  He clearly distinguishes prophecy today from the prophecy that delivered the sacred oracles of Holy Scripture.  This is both the strength and the weakness of his position.  Grudem believes that the kind of prophecy that is ongoing in the church is distinguished from preaching and teaching by being “a spontaneous ‘revelation’ from God….” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058)

因此，区别很明显：如果一个信息是有意识的思考圣经经文产生的结果，其中包括对经文的解释和应用，那么这是（按新约圣经的用语）教导。但是如果一个信息是上帝突然带入到头脑里的，那么这是预言。

So the distinction is quite clear: if a message is the result of conscious reflection on the text of Scripture, containing interpretation of the text and application to life, then it is (in New Testament terms) a teaching.  But if a message is the report of something God brings suddenly to mind, then it is a prophecy. (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1058)

在我看来，这种解释里的预言与使徒时期教会的做法并不吻合。首先，在圣经里，预言从来不是按照自发性来被区分的。另外，尽管他很谨慎的没有把这种预言抬高到与圣经同等的地位，但这种解释依旧带来问题，圣灵是否还有圣经没有传达的新启示？如果预言只不过是圣灵所赐下的对圣经的洞见，那么这不正是和讲道是同一个意思吗？

In my view, this interpretation introduces a definition of prophecy that is not consistent with its practice in the apostolic church.  Nowhere is prophecy distinguished by its spontaneous quality.  Furthermore, in spite of his salutary caution against raising such prophecies to the level of Scripture, this interpretation still raises the question as to whether the Spirit issues new revelations that are not already communicated in Scripture.  If prophecy is defined simply as Spirit-given insight into Scripture, then is this not synonymous with preaching?

今天，圣灵证实平常的福音事工，那就是通过宣讲圣道和执行圣礼，圣礼就是基督设立用来证实他的道的神迹奇事。如果使徒们的确把自己的事工理解为特殊的、奠定根基的工作，并且他们的神迹是这个工作的证明，那么“除了那已经立好的根基以外，没有人能立别的根基。那根基就是耶稣基督。 ……如果有人在这根基上建造的工程存得住，他就要得到赏赐。”（林前3:11,14）

Today, the Spirit validates this ordinary ministry of the gospel through preaching and sacrament: the signs and wonders that Christ instituted to confirm his Word.  If it is true that the apostles understood their work to be an extraordinary ministry of foundation-laying and their miraculous signs as its validation, then “no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ….If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward” (1 Cor 3:11, 14, emphasis added).

虽然不断有许多灵石被加到这座圣殿上，但建筑本身却是“建造在使徒和先知的根基上，基督耶稣自己就是奠基石”（弗2:20）。就像头不同于其他肢体，使徒们奠基事工也不同于后来人在根基之上建造的事工。While living stones are continually being added to the temple, the edifice itself is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone” (Eph 2:20).  As the person and work of the head is distinct from that of its members, the foundation-laying ministry of the apostles is different from the “up-building” ministry of their successors.

使徒们所讲的道成了圣经，我们的宣讲、信心和实践与使徒们保持连续一致。说圣经是正典，在古近东条约的背景下，就是指承认，如同这书所见证的救赎工作一样，这书本身不可以增添或删减（申4:2；启22:18-19）。虽然对宪法的解释一直都会改变，但宪法一次立定就不再更改。Where apostolic preaching became Scripture, our proclamation, faith, and practice stand in continuity with the apostles to the extent that they conform to that rule. To understand Scripture as canon, within its Ancient Near Eastern treaty background, is to recognize that, like the redemptive work to which it testifies, it cannot be revised by addition or subtraction (Dt 4:2; Rev 22:18-19).  While interpretations are always subject to change, the constitution has been given once and for all.

同样，见证耶稣的圣经正典是他亲自牺牲所立的约。当教会诉诸这正典时，当教会实践其规定时，教会就是在以圣约仆人而不是圣约之主的身份参与到这个属天的现实里。就像耶稣的历史与我们自身有本质的区别，同样，使徒的正典也与随后的传统有本质区别。一个是权威性的，一个是服侍性的。正如教会不是去延伸或完成救赎的工作，而是去领受、解释、宣讲它，同样，教会也不是去眼神或完成启示。基督再来之前的这段时期不是救赎历史谱写新篇章的时候。这段时期是圣灵装备我们在使徒行传和启示录之间宣讲福音，我们处在一段平凡的事工和新约正典时期。正如教会不会去延伸道成肉身或去完成基督的赎罪工作，教会也无法重复五旬节或延长使徒们的特殊事工，教会必须领受道和圣灵，好在这段时期忠心履行平凡的工作。

Similarly, the canon that witnesses to Jesus is the covenant that he ratified in his self-sacrifice.  In its appeal to this canon and its practice of its stipulated rites, the church participates in the heavenly reality as servant rather than Lord of the covenant.  Just as Jesus-history is qualitatively distinct from our own, the apostolic canon is qualitatively distinct from the subsequent tradition (or preaching) that interprets it.  One is magisterial, the other ministerial.  Just as the church does not extend or complete the work of redemption but receives, interprets, and proclaims it, the church does not extent or complete revelation.  The interim between Christ’s advents is not an era of writing new chapters in the history of redemption.  Rather, it is a period in which the Spirit equips us for the mission between Acts and the Apocalypse—right in the middle of the era of the ordinary ministry with its new covenant canon.  Just as the church cannot extend the incarnation or complete Christ’s atoning work, it cannot repeat Pentecost or prolong the extraordinary ministry of the apostles, but must instead receive this same word and Spirit for its ordinary ministry in this time between the times.

改革宗与福音派    Reformed and Evangelical

作者: Lee Irons  翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/evangelical-reformed.html

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/19480131220086253500155/

节译如下：

It’s good to see that there are still some Reformed people these days who embrace the label “evangelical” (see the posts by Stephen Nichols and Sean Lucas on the Ref21 site). I don’t sympathize with the Reformed trend that utterly scorns and detests the label. I have no desire to set myself apart as a “Reformed Confessionalist” who has nothing in common with evangelicalism. This separatist attitude is wrong for several reasons:最近很高兴看到一些改革宗人士仍然拥抱“福音派”这个标签（见上面两位作者的链接）。我并不赞同改革宗人士的一个走向，即彻底谴责并厌恶这个标签。我无意把自己分别成一个“改革宗信条主义者”，认为自己与福音派没有半点交集。 基于下面几点原因，我认为这个分离主义的态度是错的：

(1) It smacks of spiritual pride and elitism. I consider myself to be a Christian first, then a Protestant, then an evangelical, and only then Reformed. To exalt ”Reformed” über alles is to downplay our central identity as Christians. To exalt the Reformed confessions is to downplay the primary New Testament confession that “Jesus is Lord.” I’m not a Reformed person who happens to be a Christian. I’m a blood-bought Christian who happens to believe in the Reformed understanding of the gospel. And I do not view myself as a superior Christian for having this belief. It is only by the grace of God that I understand what I do of the grace of God, and even then I betray it all too often in my practice.(1) 它有点属灵骄傲与菁英的味道。我首先认为自己是个基督徒，然后是一个新教徒，然后是福音派，最后才是改革宗。高举“改革宗”在其它之上，是贬低了我们作为基督徒最基本的身份。高举改革宗信条也贬低了最基本的新约认信：“耶稣是主”。我不是恰巧是基督徒的改革宗人士。我是基督宝血所买赎的基督徒，刚巧相信改革宗对福音的理解。我不认为自己因有这个信仰，就比其他基督徒更优越。唯独靠着神的恩典，我才会明白我是怎么对待神的恩典的，即便如此，我也在我的实践中经常背叛这个恩典。

(2) The current disdain for “evangelicalism” in Reformed circles is also wrong because it places the accent on the distinctives of Reformed theology and practice instead of on what we have in common with evangelicalism. But what we have in common with evangelicals (being Christ-centered, cross-centered, and gospel-centered) is far, far more important than our distinctives (our Calvinistic soteriology, our covenant theology, our view of the church and the means of grace, etc.). The distinctives of Reformed theology and practice are useful only to the degree that they undergird and clarify the gospel, the evangel.

(2) 目前在改革宗圈子内对“福音派”的轻蔑态度也是错误的，因为它刻意强调改革宗神学与实践的独特之处，而不是强调我们与福音派的共同点。而我们与福音派的共同点（都是以基督为中心，以十字架为中心，以福音为中心），要远远比我们的特点（我们的加尔文式的救恩论，我们的圣约神学，我们对教会与恩典的管道的看法，等等）重要得多。 改革宗神学与实践的特点是很有用的，但也只在一个程度上，即加强并澄清福音与福音的要点上。

(3) Being “Reformed” but not “evangelical” undercuts the importance of seeking fellowship, unity, and love with all Christians who confess the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicea and Chalcedon) and the basics of the gospel (justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement), regardless of our differences over secondary matters. The apostle John is fairly clear in his epistles that if you claim to know God but do not love the brethren, then your claim is proven to be empty. Confession of Christ as the Son of God and love for the brethren go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.(3)只承认自己是“改革宗”，而不承认自己是“福音派”，破坏了寻求与所有承认历史上大公信经（尼西亚与迦克顿）的基督徒一起团契、合一与相爱的重要性，以及福音的基本要点（唯独因信称义，代替性的赎罪），即便我们在一些次要的事上有着差异。使徒约翰在他的书信中说得相当清楚，如果你宣称自己认识神，但却不爱弟兄，那么，你的宣称便是空洞的。认信基督是神的儿子与爱弟兄，是密不可分的，你不能只有一项，却没有另外一项。

None of this means that we cannot be critical of the excesses and problems that we see in evangelicalism. Yes, there are many who claim the name “evangelical” who are false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing (I’m thinking particularly of the prosperity gospel and some of the more radical emergent types). But the same is true of many who claim the name “Reformed.” A search on the keyword “Reformed” on the PC(USA) website turns up 3860 results (compared with 552 results on the OPC site). Consider also the very existence of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. If you think the term “evangelical” has been distorted beyond recognition so that you no longer want to use that label, then to be consistent, you shouldn’t call yourself “Reformed” either. Instead of being too proud to call ourselves “evangelical,” we should join with those who strive to uphold the historic meaning of the term. 这些并不表示我们就不能对福音派运动中过头的现象与问题，持一个批判的立场。是的，的确有些人自我宣称是“福音派”，却是假教师，是披着羊皮的狼（特别是一些宣扬成功福音的，以及一些极端的新兴教会的类型）。但是，同样的标准也适用于那些自称是“改革宗”的人。如果你用“改革宗”（reformed）作为钥字，搜索美国长老会（PCUSA。译注1）的网站，会得到3860个索引（相较之下，OPC，美国正统长老会，只有552个会员）。也可以考虑世界改革宗教会联盟（World Alliance of Reformed Churches, http://warc.jalb.de/）之存在的事实。如果我们认为“福音派”这个词已经被扭曲了，我们不再能以这个名词来认识什么是福音派，以至于你不再想用这个标签（译注2），那么，为了有一致的立场，你也不应该称自己是“改革宗”。我们不是因为过于自豪而称自己是“福音派”，而是我们应该与那些努力维护这些名称之历史意义的人，联合在一起。

成為改革宗的勇氣The Courage to Be Reformed

作者:  Burk Parsons  譯者: Maria Marta

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/courage-be-reformed/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/ZwWQaeZ7ufC

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/courage-be-reformed/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/fDT67adKnZ2

https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2017/05/courage-to-be-reformed-burk-parsons.html

我們開始領悟改革宗神學時，我們不僅改變對救恩的理解，而且也改變對萬物的理解。正因如此，在與改革宗神學之基本教義角力之後，在開始來領悟這些基本教義時，人往往感覺好像經歷了第二次歸正。事實上，正如許多人向我承認的那樣，現實是一些人已經歷了第一次歸正。正是透過對改革宗神學的考查，人才開始面對這些嚴峻的事實：他們徹底敗壞和死在罪中；上帝無條件揀選屬於祂自己的人，定罪其余的人；耶穌基督為祂的子民成就真正的救贖；聖靈施行有效的恩典；選民得蒙上帝恩典保守，以及上帝為祂自己的榮耀，在整個歷史上以盟約的方式作工。最終當人意識到不是他們揀選上帝，而是上帝揀選了他們，他們自然立刻切入正題，謙卑承認上帝對他們的奇異恩典。當我們認識到我們是多麼的可憐，只有這個時候，我們才能衷心唱出「奇異的恩典」。這些正是改革宗神學所做的：它徹底改變我們；它帶領我們歌唱-------它引領我們一生敬拜我們至高無上、三位一體、慈愛的上帝，不單在星期天，而且也在人生的每一天。在改革宗受青睞、吸引人時，改革宗神學不僅是我們佩帶的徽章，甚至在改革宗受攻擊時，改革宗神學也是我們生活、呼吸、認信、與護衛的神學。

第十六世紀的新教改教家，連同他們第十五世紀的先驅和第十七世紀的後代教導和護衛他們的教義，並不是因為這些教義吸引人或受歡迎，而是因它們合乎聖經。他們冒著生命危險來護衛這些教義。他們不僅甘願為聖經的神學而死，更甘願為它而活，為它受苦，為它被視作愚笨之人。請勿誤解：改教家們大膽、勇敢，並非因為他們的自信心和自我倚靠，而是因為福音使他們謙卑的事實。他們勇敢無畏，因為聖靈內住在他們身上，裝備他們在充滿謊言的黑暗世代傳播真理之光。他們宣講的真理並非新的，乃是古舊的。這是烈士、教父、使徒、先祖們的教義------這是上帝在聖經闡述的教義。

不是改教家們編造他們的神學，相反，是他們的神學造就了他們。聖經的神學使他們成為改革者。他們本身不是立志要成為改教家，而是立志要忠於上帝，忠於聖經。宗教改革的五個唯獨和恩典的教義（加爾文主義五要點）既不是改教家們發明的，更不是宗教改革教義的總和。相反，它們成為基本的教義前提，幫助後世教會認信和護衛她們的信仰。即使在今天，也有許多人認為他們擁抱改革宗神學，但他們的改革宗神學只達到宗教改革的五個唯獨和恩典教義的深度。此外，有許多人說他們堅持改革宗神學，但卻沒有人知道他們是改革宗。這種「隱蔽的加爾文主義者」既不承認任何第十六或第十七世紀的歷史性的改革宗信仰告白，也不使用任何明顯的改革宗神學語言。

但是，倘若我們真的根據歷史性的改革宗信仰告白來堅持改革宗神學，我們非被識別為改革宗不可。事實上，仍然是「隱蔽的加爾文主義者」是不可能的，仍然是改革宗但卻沒有人知道也是不可能的-------這身份將不可避免地顯露出來。成為歷史性的改革宗，必須堅持改革宗信仰告白，不僅要堅持，更要承認、宣揚、護衛這些信仰告白。改革宗神學從根本上說是一種認信的神學。

改革宗神學也是全面的神學。它不僅改變我們所知道的，而且還改變我們我們知道的方式；它不僅改變我們對上帝的理解，也改變我們對自己的理解；事實上，它不僅改變我們的救贖觀，而且還改變我們如何敬拜，如何傳福音，如何養育我們的孩子，如何看待教會，如何禱告，如何研讀聖經-------它改變我們如何生存、活動、與存在。改革宗神學不是我們能隱藏的神學，也不是我們只能掛在嘴邊的神學。因為這是歷史上的異端和進步派神學（theological progressives）的習慣。他們聲稱堅持改革宗信仰告白，但卻從未真正認信它們。只有在他們處於防守，即他們的進步神學（盡管是流行的）被質疑之時；假若他們是牧師，只有他們的工作受到威脅之時，他們才聲稱是改革宗。雖然自由派神學人士可能在教會和宗派裡被認為是「改革宗」，但他們對這樣的身份感到羞愧，並相信：被稱為「改革宗」對一些人來說是絆腳石，對另一些人來說是冒犯。此外，根據教會歷史性的普通標記-------宣講上帝純正的話語；根據上帝的話語禱告；正確執行聖禮，包括洗禮和聖餐；以及一貫實施教會紀律-------甚至連這樣的「改革宗」教會往往也不是真教會。今天，有許多傳統改革宗教會、新教教會、其他宗派的人，連同他們的教會和宗派一道離開他們的宗教改革的碇泊處，並拒絕他們數年前認信的信仰告白。

與這一趨勢相反，我們最需要的講台上的人，是那些有勇氣成為改革宗的人---------他們不以從前一次就全交給了聖徒的信仰為恥，反而作好準備，竭力護衛，不是口頭上，而是用他們畢生的精力，竭盡所能地護衛。我們需要講台上的人能夠大膽、堅定地宣講真理，同時又和藹可親、富有同情心。我們需要講台上的人無論何時都要宣講原樣的改革宗神學真理，不是指手畫腳指責別人，而是手挽手，肩並肩邁步向前。我們需要那些熱愛改革宗信仰告白的人，正是因為他們是熱愛耶和華我們的上帝，和祂那不變、默示、權威的話語的人。只有當我們講台上的人擁有成為改革宗的勇氣，我們座位上的人才會領悟改革神學，和它對人畢生的影響，以致我們能盡心、盡性、盡力、盡意愛上帝，並愛鄰舍如同自己。這是第十六世紀改革教會的神學，也是二十一世紀唯一能夠帶來宗教改革和復興的神學。因為在今天這個被激進進步派自由主義神學（progressive theological liberalism）充斥的時代，為教會和為所有失落的人；為榮耀上帝，唯獨為了上帝的榮耀，我們能夠做到的最切底的事，就是根據我們的改革宗信仰告白回歸正統，但不是以傲慢的態度，而是具備勇氣和同情心。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

（修正1版2018.5，原譯版2017.5.  Reformed and Always Reforming.）



The Courage to Be Reformed

by Burk Parsons

When we come to grasp Reformed theology, it’s not only our understanding of salvation that changes, but our understanding of everything. It’s for this reason that when people wrestle through the rudimentary doctrines of Reformed theology and come to comprehend them, they often feel like they have been converted a second time. In fact, as many have admitted to me, the reality is that some have been converted for the very first time. It was through their examination of Reformed theology that they came face-to-face with the stark reality of their radical corruption and deadness in sin, God’s unconditional election of His own and condemnation of others, Christ’s actual accomplishment of redemption for His people, the Holy Spirit’s effectual grace, the reason they persevere by God’s preserving grace, and God’s covenantal way of working in all of history for His glory. When people realize that ultimately, they didn’t choose God, but He chose them, they naturally come to a point of humble admission of the amazing grace of God toward them. It’s only then, when we recognize what wretches we really are, that we can truly sing “Amazing Grace.” And that is precisely what Reformed theology does: it transforms us from the inside out and leads us to sing—it leads us to worship our sovereign and triune, gracious, and loving God in all of life, not just on Sundays but every day and in all of life. Reformed theology isn’t just a badge we wear when being Reformed is popular and cool, it’s a theology that we live and breathe, confess, and defend even when it’s under attack.

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, along with their fifteenth-century forerunners and their seventeenth-century descendants, did not teach and defend their doctrine because it was cool or popular, but because it was biblical, and they put their lives on the line for it. They were not only willing to die for the theology of Scripture, they were willing to live for it, to suffer for it, and to be considered fools for it. Make no mistake: the Reformers were bold and courageous not on account of their self-confidence and self-reliance but on account of the fact that they had been humbled by the gospel. They were courageous because they had been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and equipped to proclaim the light of truth in a dark age of lies. The truth they preached was not new; it was ancient. It was the doctrine of the martyrs, the fathers, the Apostles, and the patriarchs—it was the doctrine of God set forth in sacred Scripture.

The Reformers didn’t make up their theology; rather, their theology made them who they were. The theology of Scripture made them Reformers. For they did not set out to be Reformers, per se—they set out to be faithful to God and faithful to Scripture. Neither the solas of the Reformation nor the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism) were invented by the Reformers, nor were they by any means the sum total of Reformation doctrine. Rather, they became underlying doctrinal premises that served to help the church of subsequent eras confess and defend what she believes. Even today there are many who think they embrace Reformed theology, but their Reformed theology only runs as deep as the solas of the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. What’s more, there are many who say they adhere to Reformed theology but do so without anyone knowing they are Reformed. Such “closet Calvinists” neither confess any of the historic Reformed confessions of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries nor employ any distinctly Reformed theological language.

However, if we truly adhere to Reformed theology according to the historic Reformed confessions, we cannot help but be identified as Reformed. In truth, it’s impossible to remain a “closet Calvinist,” and it’s impossible to remain Reformed without anyone knowing it—it will inevitably come out. To be historically Reformed, one must adhere to a Reformed confession, and not only adhere to it but confess it, proclaim it, and defend it. Reformed theology is fundamentally a confessional theology.

Reformed theology is also an all-encompassing theology. It changes not only what we know, it changes how we know what we know. It not only changes our understanding of God, it changes our understanding of ourselves. Indeed, it not only changes our view of salvation, it changes how we worship, how we evangelize, how we raise our children, how we treat the church, how we pray, how we study Scripture—it changes how we live, move, and have our being. Reformed theology is not a theology that we can hide, and it is not a theology to which we can merely pay lip service. For that has been the habit of heretics and theological progressives throughout history. They claim to adhere to their Reformed confessions, but they never actually confess them. They claim to be Reformed only when they are on the defensive—when their progressive (albeit popular) theology is called into question, and, if they are pastors, only when their jobs are on the line. While theological liberals might be in churches and denominations that identify as “Reformed,” they are ashamed of such an identity and have come to believe that being known as “Reformed” is a stumbling block to some and an offense to others. Moreover, according to the historic, ordinary marks of the church—the pure preaching of the Word of God, prayer according to the Word of God, the right use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the consistent practice of church discipline—such “Reformed” churches are often not even true churches. Today, there are many laypeople and pastors who are in traditionally Reformed and Protestant churches and denominations who, along with their churches and denominations, left their Reformed moorings and rejected their confessions years ago.

Contrary to this trend, what we most need are men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed—men who aren’t ashamed of the faith once delivered to the saints but who are ready to contend for it, not with lip service but with all their life and all their might. We need men in the pulpit who are bold and unwavering in their proclamation of the truth and who are at the same time gracious and compassionate. We need men who will preach the unvarnished truth of Reformed theology in season and out of season, not with a finger pointing in the face but with an arm around the shoulder. We need men who love the Reformed confessions precisely because they love the Lord our God and His unchanging, inspired, and authoritative Word. It’s only when we have men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed that we will have people in the pew who grasp Reformed theology and its effects in all of life, so that we might love God more with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the theology that reformed the church in the sixteenth century, and that is the only theology that will bring reformation and revival in the twenty-first century. For in our day of radical progressive theological liberalism, the most radical thing we can be is orthodox according to our Reformed confessions, yet not with arrogance but with courage and compassion for the church and for the lost, all for the glory of God, and His glory alone.