婴儿洗礼Paedobaptism

作者：Guy M. Richard   译者/校对：Maria Marta/诚之

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/04/paedobaptism/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10158941017564653

身为长老会牧师，我经常被问到我为何相信婴儿洗。我收到大量此类问题，因此知道大家对这项教义有很多误解。造成这些误解的部分原因是，那些施行婴儿洗的教会有许多成员不能为他们所相信之事作出充分的、合乎圣经的解释。原因可能是这些教会未能充分装备其成员来作出回应，也可能只是因为洗礼对婴儿洗支持者来说，不是一项定义性的教义，而对其他许多人来说却恰恰是如此。比如，我们浸信会的兄弟姐妹根据他们的洗礼立场，将自己和大多数其他基督教传统区别开来，这意味着他们普通的教会成员在洗礼这一教义上受到的教导，往往比我们的成员更加彻底。

大家误解婴儿洗的另一部分原因是，他们误解了婴儿洗背后的圣约神学。最近，我在神学院讲授一门有关洗礼的课程，其间我让学生们阅读一篇浸信会兄弟写的文章，内容是他为什么认为婴儿洗不符合圣经。这位弟兄的文章最让我惊讶的地方是他频频误解圣约神学以及圣约神学对洗礼所作的推论。在我们能够在这教义上携手共进之前，我们必须尽可能以清晰的思维与优雅的态度来纠正这些误解。正是本着这种精神，我将提供本文的其余部分。

在承认这点之后，我要说的第一件事是，婴儿洗立场实际上几乎接受了信而受洗者（credobaptist）关于受洗者所说的一切立场。我们全心全意确认，当成人（从未受洗的）宣称相信基督时，应当正确给他施洗。因此，婴儿洗者（paedobaptist）一词是用词不当。我们不只给婴孩施洗；我们既给公开承认相信基督的信徒施洗，也给他们年幼的孩童施洗，从这个意义上说，我们既是婴儿洗的支持者，又是信而受洗的支持者。我们与信而受洗兄弟姐妹的不同之处仅仅在于「只」这个词。信而受洗支持者「只」给表明信仰的信徒施洗，而我们既给信徒施洗，也给他们的孩童施洗。

我指出这一点是要表明，仅仅用新约列举的为公开承认相信基督的信徒施洗的例子，来证明信而受洗的立场是不够的。婴儿洗支持者也承认要给表明信仰的信徒施洗。我们信而受洗立场的兄弟姐妹必须证明：圣经教导，公开表明信仰的信徒应当要受洗，其他人都不应当。

我要说的第二点是创世记第十七章明确指出，上帝吩咐百姓必须给他们出生第8天的孩子施行祂立约的外在记号（割礼）。鉴于这一事实, 我们只需要证明，亚伯拉罕之约本质上与新约相同，而且割礼神学反映了洗礼神学，以证明信徒儿女在新约下接受立约的记号，就如他们在亚伯拉罕之约下显然接受了立约记号那样。

罗马书二章28-29节、罗马书四章11节、申命记卅章6节、耶利米书九章25-26节（还有其他章节） 等经文都表明：上帝从未计划将割礼设计为种族身份的标记，而是设计为一种指向属灵实体（内心割礼） 的外在记号。割礼回头指出内心已经发生的事，就像亚伯拉罕的例子，他先信了，然后受了割礼；又或者是指向预期会在未来发生的事，如大多数犹太人的例子，他们在出生第八天受割礼，然后期盼在他们长大后能跟随亚伯拉罕信心的脚踪（罗四12）。借着基督徒所受的（内心的）属灵割礼和（圣灵施行的）属灵洗礼，歌罗西书二章11-12节明确了割礼和洗礼之间的神学联系。如果内心的割礼和内心的洗礼是相关联的，那么它们外在的记号，也就是身体的割礼和水的洗礼，肯定也是如此。

加拉太书三章16节和罗马书四章11-12节进一步教导我们，亚伯拉罕之约和新约在本质上是同一个约。加拉太书三章16节说，基督是亚伯拉罕的后裔，也就是说无论旧约还是新约，只有那些「在基督里」的人才是亚伯拉罕的后裔（参看加三7、14、29）。 罗马书4章11–12节对此作出肯定，因为它说亚伯拉罕是所有信主的（未受割礼的）外邦人的父，也是所有受了割礼，「并且按我们的祖宗亚伯拉罕未受割礼而信之踪迹去行」的犹太人的父。约翰福音八章56节告诉我们，这种信心是看见基督的信心。这是一种仰望上天、仰望属灵现实和祝福的信心，而不是仰望属地的应许之地和属世的现实和祝福的信心（来十一10、16）。

因此，亚伯拉罕之约不是与亚伯拉罕肉身后裔订立的物质或暂时的盟约。它是与亚伯拉罕属灵后裔订立的属灵盟约。亚伯拉罕之约与新约在本质上是相同的。基督——亚伯拉罕的后裔——确保情况确实如此。此外，割礼并非种族身份的象征，而是蒙呼召的记号，即亚伯拉罕肉生的后裔蒙召要按照亚伯拉罕信之踪迹去行，从而成为亚伯拉罕属灵后裔的记号。

鉴于这些事实，新约讲述「全家」受洗也就不足为奇了。诸约之间以及圣约的各个记号之间的连续性表明，这正合乎我们的期待。从创世记第十七章开始，上帝的子民就一直在实践「全家」割礼，将上帝内在盟约的外在记号施行在公开表明信仰的成年信徒（他们以前从未受过割礼）和他们的孩童身上。事实上，经过几千年，儿童作为盟约记号的领受者，一直都被纳入到圣约团体当中，如果在新约时代事情照信而受洗者的看法，已经发生翻天覆地的改变，那么我们就会期望新约多少会提到这点。难道我们真的要相信孩子们现在已经被排除在圣约之外了吗？并因此认为，旧的盟约比新的盟约更伟大、更包容吗？这种说法的根据是什么？它违背了我们从旧约到新约随处可见的扩张原则。婴儿洗不仅符合我们所看到的圣约和圣约记号之间的连续性，而且也符合这种扩张原则，因为它将圣约记号同时施行在男女身上，也施行在他们所有的孩童身上，不分男女。

Dr. Guy M. Richard is executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He is author of several books, including Baptism: Answers to Common Questions.

Are we really to believe that children are now cut out of the covenant community?

Paedobaptism

by Guy M. Richard

As a Presbyterian minister, I often get asked about why I believe in baptizing infants. The sheer number of questions that I get tells me that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this doctrine. Part of the reason for this misunderstanding is that many members of paedobaptist churches have not been able to give good biblical justification for what they believe. This may be because paedobaptist churches are not adequately preparing their members to do so, or it may simply be because baptism is not a defining doctrine for paedobaptists in precisely the same way that it is for many others. Our Baptist brothers and sisters, for instance, distinguish themselves from most other Christian traditions by their position on baptism, which means that their average church member often receives more thoroughgoing teaching on this doctrine than ours will.

Another part of the reason why people misunderstand paedobaptism is that they misunderstand the covenant theology that lies behind it. I recently taught a seminary class on baptism in which I asked my students to read an article written by a Baptist brother on why he believed paedobaptism is unbiblical. What surprised me most about this brother’s article was how frequently he misunderstood covenant theology and its implications for baptism. Before we can ever move forward together on this doctrine, we need to correct these kinds of misunderstandings with as much clarity and grace as possible. And it is in that spirit that I offer the rest of this article.

Having acknowledged this, the first thing I would say is that the paedobaptist position embraces virtually everything that the credobaptist position does about the recipients of baptism. We wholeheartedly affirm that baptism is rightly administered to adults (never before baptized) when they profess faith in Christ. The term paedobaptist is thus something of a misnomer. We don’t merely baptize young children; we baptize both professing believers and their young children, and, in that sense, we are both credobaptist and paedobaptist. What distinguishes us from our credobaptist brothers and sisters is the word only. Credobaptists baptize professing believers only, whereas we baptize professing believers and their children.

I mention this to indicate that it takes more than simply pointing to the examples of professing believers being baptized in the New Testament to prove the credobaptist position. Paedobaptists acknowledge the baptism of professing believers too. Our credobaptist brothers and sisters have to demonstrate that the Bible teaches that professing believers, and no one else, are to be baptized.

The second thing I would say is that Genesis 17 explicitly states that God commanded the outward sign of His covenant (circumcision) to be applied to their infant sons at eight days old. Given that fact, we need only show that the Abrahamic covenant is substantially the same as the new covenant and that the theology of circumcision mirrors the theology of baptism in order to validate the children of believers’ receiving the covenant sign under the new covenant as they obviously did under the Abrahamic covenant.

Romans 2:28–29 and 4:11, together with Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 9:25–26 (among others), indicate that circumcision was never intended by God as a badge of ethnic identity but was intended as an outward sign pointing to an inward spiritual reality (a circumcision of the heart). It pointed backward to what had already happened on the inside—as in the case of Abraham, who believed and then was circumcised—or to what was expected to happen in the future—as in the case of most Jews who were circumcised at eight days old and then were expected to follow in the footsteps of Abraham’s faith when they were older (Rom. 4:12). Colossians 2:11–12 makes the theological connection between circumcision and baptism explicit by applying both spiritual circumcision (of the heart) and spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit) to the Christian. If inward circumcision and inward baptism are linked, then surely their outward signs—that is, physical circumcision and water baptism—are as well.

Galatians 3:16 and Romans 4:11–12, furthermore, teach us that the Abrahamic covenant is essentially the same as the new covenant. Galatians 3:16 states that Christ is the offspring of Abraham, which means that only those who are “in Christ” are children of Abraham—whether in the Old Testament or in the New (see Gal. 3:7, 14, 29). Romans 4:11–12 confirms this when it says that Abraham is the father of every (uncircumcised) gentile who believes and the father of every circumcised Jew who “walk[s] in the footsteps of the faith . . . that Abraham had before he was circumcised.” This faith, as John 8:56 tells us, is a faith that looks to Christ. It is a faith that looks to heaven and to spiritual realities and blessings rather than to an earthly promised land and temporal realities and blessings (Heb. 11:10, 16).

The Abrahamic covenant was, therefore, not a physical or temporal covenant enacted with the biological descendants of Abraham. It was a spiritual covenant enacted with the spiritual descendants of Abraham. It was a covenant that was substantially the same as the new covenant. Christ—the seed of Abraham—ensures that this is the case. Circumcision, moreover, was not a sign of ethnic identity but a sign that called the biological descendants of Abraham to become his spiritual descendants by following him in the same faith that he had.

Given these realities, it should be no surprise that the New Testament speaks of “household” baptisms. The continuity between the covenants—and between the covenant signs—indicates that this is exactly what we would expect. Ever since Genesis 17, God’s people had been practicing “household” circumcision, applying the outward sign of God’s inward covenant to professing adult believers (who never received it before) and to their children. Indeed, we would expect to find some mention in the New Testament if, after thousands of years of including children in the covenant community as recipients of the covenant sign, things were supposed to be so radically different in the new covenant era. Are we really to believe that children are now cut out of the covenant community and that the old covenant is, for that reason, greater and more inclusive than the new? What is the basis for this? It runs counter to the principle of expansion that we see at work everywhere else when we move from Old to New Testament. Not only is paedobaptism consistent with the continuity that we see between the covenants and between the covenant signs, but it is also consistent with this principle of expansion because it applies the covenant sign to both men and women and to their male and female children.

嬰兒洗禮InfantBaptism

譯自Ligonier Ministries Devotionals

譯者/校對者: Maria Marta/誠之

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/infant-baptism/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10158921360174653

「這應許原是給你們和你們的兒女，以及所有在遠方的人，就是給凡是我們主　神召來歸祂的人。」（徒2:39，新譯本）

——徒二38-39

對於洗禮引發的爭議，在論到誰可以領受聖禮這個議題時，其分歧會變得最為明顯。大多數美國福音派只給那些口頭上認信的人施洗。然而，許多基督徒遵循教會歷史上大多數人的慣例，給成年人和他們的嬰孩施行這個儀式。

新約聖經中找不到任何一條命令, 吩咐我們要為嬰兒施洗，但也找不到任何禁令。認識到這一事實，我們會提供一個嬰兒洗禮的簡短證明，希望大家能明白為什麽許多基督徒會為嬰兒施洗。

首先，在舊約聖經中, 信心和割禮之間沒有一定的時間順序。亞伯拉罕受割禮是在宣認信仰之後（創十七22-27），但以撒受割禮是在認信之前（創廿一4）。在這兩個例子中，受割禮者都必需信靠上帝，才能領受割禮所應許的一切好處，但（恩約）記號和印記（割禮）的施行與他們歸信的時間並沒有任何關聯。割禮和洗禮是連在一起的（西二8–15），所以洗禮也和割禮一樣, 與認信的時刻沒有關聯。

其次，舊約的應許是給成年人和他們兒女的，割禮描述了這點。因此，很難想像新約更大的應許和記號不應該給成年信徒的嬰幼兒。在今天的經文中，彼得實際上告訴我們，新約的應許也是給信徒兒女的禮物（徒二38-39）。在新約中找到的洗禮，百分之二十五是全家受洗，這些家庭大有可能包括兒童。

最後，保羅說，基督徒父母的孩子是分別出來歸給上帝的（林前七12-14）。在舊約，割禮明顯地把信徒的兒女分別出來，因此，猶太歸信者很難相信，上帝不會把恩約記號施行在新約孩童身上， 將他們分別出來，成為聖約有形群體的一分子。和割禮一樣，沒有個人信心的洗禮就沒有任何價值。但洗禮標誌著孩童成為有形教會的一分子，如果接受洗禮者從來不信靠上帝, 將來必要承受更嚴厲的審判（路十二41-48）。

無論我們是否給嬰兒施洗，哥林多前書第七章12至14節都揭示了信徒兒女與上帝的關係, 這是不信主父母的後代所無法享有的。信徒的兒女在有形教會裏, 歡喜聆聽上帝話語的宣講。儘管教會確實參與教導孩童們認識基督的工作，但教會的工作不應該無所不包。我們作為父母、家人、朋友，必須把耶稣的教訓刻印在我們所認識的孩子們身上。

延伸閱讀：

詩八2 ；箴十四26；路十八15-17 ；徒十六11-15、25-34

Infant Baptism

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39).

- Acts 2:38-39

The divisions over baptism become most evident when discussing the proper recipients of the sacrament. Most American evangelicals only baptize those who have verbally professed faith. Yet many Christians follow the majority practice of church history and administer the ordinance to adults and their infant children.

The New Testament nowhere commands us to baptize infants, but neither does it anywhere forbid it. Recognizing this fact, we will offer a brief case for infant baptism in the hopes of understanding why it is practiced by many Christians.

First, in the Old Testament, there is no standard chronology for faith and circumcision. Abraham was circumcised after professing faith (Gen. 17:22–27), but Isaac was circumcised before his confession (21:4). Faith in the Lord was necessary in both cases to appropriate all the benefits that circumcision promises, but the administration of the sign and seal was not tied to the timing of their faith. Circumcision and baptism are linked (Col. 2:8–15), and so baptism, like circumcision, need not be tied to the moment of profession.

Second, the old covenant promises were given to adults and their children, and this was depicted in circumcision. Thus, it is hard to imagine that the greater new covenant promises and signs should not also be given to the infant children of believing adults. In today’s passage, Peter actually tells us the new covenant promises are gifts for the children of believers (Acts 2:38–39). Twenty-five percent of the baptisms found in the New Testament are of entire households, and these homes likely included children.

Finally, Paul says the children of a Christian parent are set apart to God (1 Cor. 7:12–14). Circumcision visibly set a child of believers apart under the old covenant, and so it would be hard for Jewish converts to believe the Lord would not include new covenant children in the seal that sets people apart as part of the visible community. Like circumcision, baptism without personal faith avails nothing. But baptism does mark the child as part of the visible church and liable to stricter judgment if the recipient never trusts God (Luke 12:41–48).

Coram Deo

Whether or not we baptize infants, 1 Corinthians 7:12–14 reveals that children of believers have a relationship to the Lord that the offspring of non-believers do not share. They are in the visible church where they enjoy hearing the preached Word of God. But while the church does play a part in teaching children about Christ, the church is not to do all the work. We as parents, family, and friends must impress the teachings of Jesus upon the children we know.

Passages for Further Study

Ps. 8:2

Prov. 14:26

Luke 18:15–17

Acts 16:11–15, 25–34

上帝在受難日死了?DIDGOD DIE ON GOOD FRIDAY?

作者: Adriel Sanchez   譯者:  Maria Marta

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/did-god-die-on-good-friday

耶穌基督的十字架是受難日的中心。復活節前的星期五，耶穌被釘死在十字架上。這事件導致一些人思維混亂,  落入兩難境地。倘若耶穌是上帝，祂怎麽可能死?  畢竟，上帝是不改變的 (瑪三6)，所以我們如何理解耶穌的死?  耶穌（上帝）死了是真的嗎?

無論你是否相信，教會歷史上有些人說耶穌不能死!   教會歷史早期，有一個稱為諾斯底派（Gnostics）的異端組織給基督教教會帶來不少困擾。這群人廣為人知的信念是人可以靠一種神秘知識得救 [1]  。 諾斯底派也不太喜歡物質，所以他們完全不能接受耶穌有身體，和耶穌受苦難的觀念 [2] 。

另外有些人堅定捍衛上帝的超越性，以至於他們無法理解上帝受難的觀念。異教徒聶斯脫裏(Nestorius) 就是這種立場的堅持者之一。聶斯脫裏斷言，上帝的位格 (約一1中的道) 不分擔人類的苦難。這種想法使他明確區分耶穌基督的兩種本性(人性和神性)。有時，聶斯脫裏甚至似乎要把耶穌分成兩個位格，神性位格有時會在某些場合活動，而所取的人性則在另一些場合活動 [3] 。  這可能有點混亂，但它強調一個事實， 那就是此問題對早期教會來說是個棘手的問題。然而，早期的基督教領袖，如安提阿的伊格那丟(Ignatius of Antioch)，在談論上帝受難時似乎沒有問題 [4]  。 在如使徒行傳廿章28節這樣的經文中，保羅會說上帝「用自己血」買來教會。那麽，我們應該怎樣理解上帝的受難和死亡呢?”

教會教父們以符合聖經的回應反駁早期異教徒：永恒的道不能受難和死亡(因為祂是永恒的!)，但永恒的道取了人性，由童貞女所生，祂所取的肉身受難和死亡。因為祂取了人性，因此的確可以說上帝受難和死了 (也正是因為這個原因，我們可以這樣說：「上帝由童貞女所生」)。因此，永恒的道在道成肉身時，取了肉身，能經受苦難，以致于能為罪人死 [5]  。

神格（Godhead）不經受苦難。耶穌始終是永恒和無痛感的 (impassible) [6]  。基督十字架的奧秘和奇妙之處在於: 免疫於痛苦的上帝取了肉身，以便把我們的痛苦變成祂自己的痛苦 [7] 。 就這種情況來說，我們可以說上帝，即道在受難日死了。在這個受難日，讓我們以謙卑的心屈膝敬拜，敬拜這位上帝——無痛感，卻帶走我們的苦難；永恒，卻被殺害了。成就救贖的，既非純粹的人，也非虛幻的靈，而是被釘在十字架上的榮耀之主(林前二8)。在這個受難日，我們不僅要默想十字架，更要默想為人類懸掛在十字架上的那一位。

Notes

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 82.

[2]  This was also the view of the Docetic heresy. “Docetism narrowly defined is the view that the founder of Christianity had only an apparent, not a real human body and was subject to the human experience of birth, fatigue, thirst, hunger, suffering, death, and the like in appearance only, in reality being immune from them.” Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 79.

[3]  Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the Early Church, 54.

[4]   Ignatius, Rom. 6.3; Cf. Eph 1.1.

[5]  In the words of Pelikan, “He was incapable of suffering but took on a flesh that could suffer, so that the suffering of his flesh could be said to be his own.” Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 231.

[6]  To be impassible means the Godhead is immune from suffering. This is why in order to suffer for us, the Word had to take on flesh. He was, “… passible in his flesh, impassible in his Godhead; circumscript in the body, uncirumscript in the Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same Person, who was perfect man and also God, the entire humanity fallen through sin might be created anew.” Gregory of Nazianzus Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy, Ep. 101.

[7]     “And we confess that he who was begotten from God the Father as Son and God only-begotten, though being by his own nature impassible, suffered in the flesh for us, according to the Scriptures, and he was in the crucified flesh impassibly making his own the suffering of his own flesh. So by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone…” The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius.

DID GOD DIE ON GOOD FRIDAY?

Adriel Sanchez

The centerpiece of Good Friday is the cross of Jesus Christ. On the Friday before Easter, Jesus was crucified and died. This creates a dilemma in the mind of some. If Jesus is God, how could he die? After all, God cannot change (Mal. 3:6), so how are we to make sense of Jesus’ death? Was it real?

Believe it or not, some people in church history said it was not! Early on, there was a heretical group that plagued the Christian church called the Gnostics. This group was known for believing that the redemption of our spirits could be gained through the acquisition of secret knowledge.[1]The Gnostics also did not like matter very much, so the idea that Jesus had a body, and that he suffered ,was out of the question.[2]

Some were so determined to safeguard the transcendence of God that they could not fathom the idea of God suffering. One such person who maintained this position was the heretic Nestorius. Nestorius contended that the Divine Person (the Word in John 1:1) could not share in human suffering. This caused him to distinguish sharply between the two natures of Jesus Christ (human and divine). Sometimes it even seemed like Nestorius was splitting Jesus into two persons, where the Divine person would act on some occasions and the assumed human would act on others.[3] This may be a little confusing, but it highlights the fact that this issue was a sticky one for the early church. Nevertheless, early Christian leaders like Ignatius of Antioch seemed to have had no problem talking about God suffering.[4] And in places like Acts 20:28, Paul could say that God obtained the church “with his own blood.” How then are we to make sense God suffering and dying?

The biblical answer the Church Fathers defended against the early heretics was this: the Eternal Word who cannot suffer and die (he’s eternal!) assumed humanity, was born of a virgin, and suffered and died in the flesh which he assumed. Because he assumed humanity, the suffering and death are truly said to be God’s (it’s also for this reason that we can say things like, “God was born of a Virgin”). Thus, in the incarnation, the Eternal Word took to himself flesh that was capable of suffering so that he might die for sinful humanity.[5]

The Godhead does not suffer. Jesus never ceased to be eternal or impassible.[6] This is the mystery and the wonder of Christ’s cross: the impassible God took on flesh so that he might make our suffering his own.[7] Insofar as that is the case, we can say that God the Word died on Good Friday. Let us bow in humble adoration of this God—impassible yet taking our plight, eternal yet murdered. Neither a mere man nor a phantom spirit accomplished our salvation; the crucified Lord of glory did (1 Corinthians 2:8). On this Good Friday, let us not simply meditate upon the cross, but who it was that hung there for the race of mankind.

Notes

^ Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 82.

^ This was also the view of the Docetic heresy. “Docetism narrowly defined is the view that the founder of Christianity had only an apparent, not a real human body and was subject to the human experience of birth, fatigue, thirst, hunger, suffering, death, and the like in appearance only, in reality being immune from them.” Paul L. Gavrilyuk, The Suffering of the Impassible God, 79.

^ Donald Fairbairn, Grace and Christology in the Early Church, 54.

^ Ignatius, Rom. 6.3; Cf. Eph 1.1.

^ In the words of Pelikan, “He was incapable of suffering but took on a flesh that could suffer, so that the suffering of his flesh could be said to be his own.” Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 231.

^ To be impassible means the Godhead is immune from suffering. This is why in order to suffer for us, the Word had to take on flesh. He was, “… passible in his flesh, impassible in his Godhead; circumscript in the body, uncirumscript in the Spirit; at once earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same Person, who was perfect man and also God, the entire humanity fallen through sin might be created anew.” Gregory of Nazianzus Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy, Ep. 101.

^ “And we confess that he who was begotten from God the Father as Son and God only-begotten, though being by his own nature impassible, suffered in the flesh for us, according to the Scriptures, and he was in the crucified flesh impassibly making his own the suffering of his own flesh. So by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone…” The Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius.

Adriel Sanchez

Adriel Sanchez is pastor of North Park Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In addition to his pastoral responsibilities, he also serves the broader church as a host on the Core Christianity radio program. He and his wife Ysabel live in San Diego with their three children.

對教義漠不關心Indifferenceto Doctrine

作者：Burk Parsons  譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/04/indifference-to-doctrine/

恰當學習教義，是一件非常不容易的事。學習教義需要時間，肯下苦功，還要恒切禱告。由於這些原因，許多人不學習教義。有些人不學習教義，因為他們認為這是專業人士的事，甚至有些牧師不學習教義，因為他們認為這只是學者的事。還有另一些人不學習教義，因為他們對教義漠不關心。他們滿足於靈奶的喂養，僅知道基本信仰，在很大程度上他們對追求信仰教義性的幹糧無動於衷。

我很難容忍自己和其他基督徒對待教義的冷漠態度。對關乎我們所信之事漠不關心，那是很可悲的，我們怎能對那些能夠拯救或譴責我們靈魂的重要真理無動於衷呢?   一位清教徒牧師說的好: 「冷漠是異端之母」。倘若我們對教義變得不感興趣，我們很快就會對聖經變得無所謂，最終也會對上帝冷漠疏離。

1929年，梅晨 (J. Gresham Machen) 離開一度持守純正教義的普林斯頓神學院，並在費城建立威斯敏斯特神學院。梅晨和和其他一些人之所以離開，原因不僅是普林斯頓存在自由主義神學的傾向，也不僅是教職人員否認某些歷史上公認的教義。從根本上說他們離開是因為普林斯頓神學院越來越忽視教義本身。梅晨曾寫道：「對教義無所謂，就不會有信仰英雄了」。

若教義無關緊要，就沒有什麽事是重要的了。我們生活在一種經常提倡冷漠的文化環境當中，許多教會支持這種冷漠，因為她們認為，教義難明，不吸引人，使人分裂。不錯，教義的確實區分真基督徒和假基督徒。但教義也使人合一，因為藉著上帝的聖靈，只有合乎聖經的正統的認信教義才能夠一群可憐的罪人合一，以致於我們有一位主，一個信仰，一種洗禮 (弗四5)。

在許多情況下，人們對教義漠不關心是因為他們沒有受到如何學習聖經的教導，或者他們受到那些誤解重要教義的人教導。但是許多教會人不明白符合聖經的教義，僅僅是因為他們從未真正去學習。倘若教會必須明白和認信純正的教義，拒絕不符合聖經的教義，消除不符合聖經的預設和教義上的誤解，首先我們務必要為我們漠視教義的態度悔改。沒有純正的教義，我們注定要失敗。

Indifference to Doctrine

by Burk Parsons

The proper study of doctrine is not easy. It takes time, a lot of hard work, and much prayer. For those reasons, many people don’t study doctrine. Others don’t study doctrine because they think it is just for professionals, and even some pastors don’t study doctrine because they think it is just for scholars. Still, there are others who don’t study doctrine because they are indifferent to it. They are content with being fed milk and knowing only the basics of the faith, but they are largely apathetic to pursuing the doctrinal meat of the faith.

I find it hard to tolerate this kind of indifference in myself and in other Christians. Indifference when it comes to what we believe is deplorable, for how can we be indifferent to those vital truths that can save or damn our souls? As one Puritan pastor said, “Indifference is the mother of heresy.” If we become indifferent about doctrine, we will soon become indifferent about Scripture and eventually indifferent about God.

In 1929, J. Gresham Machen left the once doctrinally sound Princeton Theological Seminary to help establish Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Machen and the men who left with him departed not simply because of Princeton’s liberal theological drift and not simply because its faculty denied certain historic confessional doctrines. They left Princeton, fundamentally, because of the growing lack of regard for doctrine itself. “Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith,” Machen wrote.

If knowing doctrine doesn’t matter, then nothing really matters. We live in a culture that often promotes indifference, and many churches have subscribed to this indifference because, they argue, doctrine is difficult, doctrine isn’t attractional, and doctrine divides. It’s true—doctrine does divide true Christians from false Christians. But doctrine also unites because by the Spirit of God, the orthodox confessional doctrines of Scripture alone can unite a bunch of wretched sinners so that we might have one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5).

In many cases, people are indifferent to doctrine because they have not been taught how to study the Bible or because they have been taught by those who have misunderstood important doctrines. But many in the church do not understand biblical doctrines simply because they have never really studied them. If the church is to understand and confess sound doctrine, reject unbiblical doctrines, and dispose of unbiblical presuppositions and doctrinal misunderstandings, we must begin by repenting of our indifference to doctrine. Without sound doctrine, we are doomed.

Dr. Burk Parsons is editor of Tabletalk magazine and serves as senior pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla. He is editor of Assured by God: Living in the Fullness of God’s Grace. He is on Twitter at @BurkParsons.

免於恐懼Freedomfrom Fear

作者: Burk Parsons  譯者:  Maria Marta  

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2020/03/freedom-from-fear/

世界是个危险的地方，充满危机和凶险的人。危难、艰辛、陷阱潜伏在每个角落。身为基督徒，我们明白这一点，因为我们知道罪及其后果是如何进入世界的。

許多沒有宗教信仰的人或無神論者都不願意承認邪惡的存在，或人有罪。然而，當遭到恐怖分子襲擊或發生災難時，他們都會脫口而出：「邪惡的行為」或「邪惡的人」。他們沒有用自己的語言解釋這個世界的不幸和悲劇;  因此，他們必然借鑒聖經的世界觀。只有聖經對邪惡作出條理清楚的解釋，只有上帝的說話告訴我們，我們為何天生懼怕。

我們生來就有恐懼，一進入這世界就哭喊著尋求幫助。即使未出生的嬰兒，被墮胎者在安全、受保護的母親子宮裏撕裂時，他們也會經歷強烈的恐懼。小孩子怕黑，會想要一盞夜燈來安慰他們自己。我們不僅害怕最嚴重的災難降臨到我們和我們周圍的人，而且我們也害怕我們可能會經歷所有相對較小的悲劇和苦難。

恐懼是一種原始情緒，它的感染力是如此的強大，以致可以對我們的心靈造成巨大的創傷。問題是，我們該如何應對恐懼? 我們設法隱藏我們的恐懼，在恐懼的泥沼中打滾，表現得我們好像沒有恐懼，抑或竭力以頑強的意志來面對我們的恐懼?  又或者我們轉向上帝?  惟有轉向上帝，我們才聽見祂說: 「不要懼怕」。然而，上帝命令我們不要害怕，不是讓我們忽視我們的恐懼，也不是讓我們以頑強的意志戰勝恐懼，而是因為祂已經應許: 「我與你同在。」 因為耶和華與我們同在，祂教導我們唯獨敬畏祂。只有當我們敬畏上帝時，其他的恐懼才開始消失。

我們清楚知道我們唯獨藉著信心與基督聯合，和依靠聖靈住在基督裏面，這就是懼怕上帝與敬畏上帝的區別。這就是懼怕每一種可能的危險和信靠掌管主權的上帝之間的區別，上帝永遠不會離開我們或拋棄我們。聖靈是我們的安慰者，祂使我們從恐懼中得釋放，因為將我們握在掌心的那一位拯救了我們。因此我們能與約翰牛頓頌唱：「浩瀚大恩典教導我心敬畏,  解除我心恐懼」；與馬丁·路德高歌：「群魔雖然環繞我身，向我盡量施侵淩， 我不懼怕，因神有旨，真理必使我得勝。」

Freedom from Fear

by Burk Parsons

The world is a dangerous place, full of perilous things and unsafe people. Dangers, toils, and snares lurk around every corner because evil is real. As Christians, we understand this because we know how sin and its consequences entered the world.

Many nonreligious or atheistic people do not want to admit that evil exists or that men are sinful. Yet, when terrorists strike or calamity happens, they are quick to speak of “acts of evil” or “evil people.” They have no words of their own to account for the miseries and tragedies in this world; therefore, they must borrow from our biblical worldview. Only Scripture provides a coherent explanation for evil, and God’s Word alone tells us why we are naturally afraid.

We are born with fear, coming into this world crying out for help. Even unborn babies experience intense fear when abortionists tear them apart in the once safe, protected wombs of their mothers. Young children are afraid of the dark and want a nightlight to comfort them. We are afraid not only of the worst catastrophes befalling us and those around us, but we are also afraid of all the comparatively smaller tragedies and hardships that we might experience.

Fear is a primal emotion so powerful that it can wreak havoc on our hearts. The question is, What do we do with our fears? Do we wallow in the mire of fear, act as if we have no fear, attempt to hide our fear, or try to face our fears with sheer tenacity? Or do we turn to the Lord? Only when we turn to the Lord do we hear Him say, “Do not fear.” However, the Lord commands us not to fear not so that we might ignore our fears or overcome them by sheer willpower but because He has promised, “I am with you.” Because the Lord is with us, He has taught us to fear Him alone. All other fears begin to fade away only when we fear the Lord.

Knowing that we are united to Christ by faith alone and indwelt by the Spirit is the difference between being afraid of God and fearing God. It is the difference between being afraid of every possible danger and trusting our sovereign God who will never leave us or forsake us. The Holy Spirit, our Comforter, liberates us to walk in freedom from fear because we have been rescued by the One who holds us in the palm of His hand. That is why we can sing with John Newton, “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved,” and with Martin Luther, “And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us.”

新約The New Covenant

譯者/校對者:Maria Marta/誠之  

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/new-covenant-2/

「看哪！日子快到（這是耶和華的宣告），我要與以色列家和猶大家訂立新的約。這新約不像從前我拉他們祖先的手，領他們出埃及地的日子，與他們所立的約；」（耶三十一31-32a）

-----耶利米書三十一31-40

有鑒於古代以色列人的罪-----畢竟， 在舊約被設立時，百姓違背了這盟約（出三十二）——人們很自然地想知道耶利米書光榮恢復的應許是如何，和在什麽地方會得到應驗。在今天的經文中可以找到耶利米的答案。上帝會設立一個帶來恢復的「新約」----由我們的主耶稣來創立（路二十二20）。

確定這盟約的新樣（newness）並不容易。然而，在透過摩西與以色列所立的舊約，與透過基督與以色列所立的新約之間，明顯地有一致的連續性。在耶利米書三十一31中，翻譯成「新」（new）的希伯來文可以指「全新」（brand new）或者「新版本」（new edition）的意思。當翻譯這詞的時候，被稱爲七十士譯本的舊約聖經的希臘文譯版中，使用kainos這希臘詞----是「新版本」的意思----而不是用neos----「全新」的意思。新約聖經同樣使用kainos，所以我們看到新約是舊約的新版本或者舊約的更新版本。因此，新約與舊約有很多共同之處。例如，舊約與新約都是由同一位上帝所設立（約五30–47），有相同的道德律（羅十三8–10），先是賜給猶太人，然後賜給外邦人（創十二1–3；羅一16）。

不過，新約與舊約也有差別。新約不像舊約那樣， 被絕大多數的古代以色列人違背了（耶三十一32）。新約群體作爲一個整體，將展現對新約的忠誠， 這是一個暗示，暗示這是舊約群體所缺乏的。上帝通過把律法寫在我們的心中，赦免我們的罪孽，不再記念我們的罪惡等作爲，使新約實現了（33–34節）。大衛知道赦免的祝福，並以律法爲樂，所以舊約信徒不是從來沒有享受過這樣的事（詩三十二1–2；四十8）。耶利米是說新約提供了這些祝福更大和更全面的經驗，上帝同在的大能，並保證上帝的赦免，在舊約底下這些赦免是不能賜給以色列的。希伯來書第九至十章發展了這個主題，說明舊約獻祭不能對付罪，只有基督的贖罪才能解決罪惡的問題，確保我們上帝的恩惠。在新約的治理下，父上帝向所有祈求祂的人提供了更加充分的聖靈能力（路十一13；約翰三34）。在舊約中看到的恩典是暫時的，今天我們看到的恩典更加清楚。

活在上帝的面光中（Coram Deo）

約翰加爾文寫道，「現在上帝公開地向我們說話，可以說是面對面，而不是在帕子底下，如保羅對我們的教導，當說到摩西，當他出去以上帝的名與百姓說話時，用帕子蒙上自己的臉……。在福音底下……帕子被揭去，上帝以耶稣基督的面顯現給我們看。」新舊約都教導我們同一件事情----唯獨上帝的恩典拯救我們。但是新約展示上帝的愛的方式，在舊約中是看不到的。

延伸閱讀：

申四31；羅馬十一25–36；林後三；來八。

The New Covenant

“Behold the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt” (vv. 31–32a).

- Jeremiah 31:31–40

Given the history of ancient Israel’s transgression—after all, the people violated the old covenant while it was being established (Ex. 32)—the people naturally wondered how the glorious restoration promised in Jeremiah 31:1–30 and elsewhere could be accomplished. Jeremiah’s answer is found in today’s passage. God would make a “new covenant” that would bring the restoration—a new covenant inaugurated by Jesus our Lord (Luke 22:20).

Identifying the newness of this covenant is not always easy. Clearly, however, there is an essential continuity between the old covenant made with Israel through Moses and the new covenant made with Israel through Christ. The Hebrew term translated “new” in Jeremiah 31:31 can mean “brand new” or “new edition.” When translating this term, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint used the Greek word kainos—“new edition”—and not neos—“brand new.” The New Testament uses kainos as well, so we see that the new covenant is a new edition or renewed version of the old covenant. Thus, the new covenant has much in common with the old. For instance, both covenants are instituted by the same God (John 5:30–47), have the same moral law (Rom. 13:8–10), and are for the Jew first, then the Gentile (Gen. 12:1–3; Rom. 1:16).

Still, the new covenant also has differences from the old. The new covenant is unlike the old covenant which was broken by the vast majority of ancient Israelites (Jer. 31:32). This is a hint that the new covenant community as a whole will exhibit a faithfulness to the new covenant that the old covenant community lacked. God makes this happen by writing His law on our hearts, forgiving our iniquity, and remembering our sin no more (vv. 33–34). David knew the blessing of forgiveness and delighted in the law, so it is not that old covenant believers never enjoyed such things (Ps. 32:1–2; 40:8). Jeremiah is rather saying that the new covenant provides a greater and fuller experience of these blessings, the presence of God’s power, and an assurance of divine pardon unavailable to old covenant Israel. Hebrews 9–10 develops this theme, explaining that the old covenant sacrifices could not deal with sin and that only Christ’s atonement solves the problem of evil and assures us of God’s favor. Under the new covenant administration, the Father also gives a fuller measure of the Spirit’s power to all who ask of Him (Luke 11:13; John 3:34). The Lord’s grace was seen provisionally under the old covenant. Today we see it far more clearly.

Coram Deo

John Calvin writes, “God speaks to us now openly, as it were face to face, and not under a veil, as Paul teaches us, when speaking of Moses, who put on a veil when he went forth to address the people in God’s name… . Under the Gospel … the veil is removed, and God in the face of Christ presents himself to be seen by us.” Both covenants teach the same thing—the Lord saves us by grace alone. But the new covenant shows God’s love in a way not seen under the old covenant.

Passages for Further Study

Deuteronomy 4:31

Romans 11:25–36

2 Corinthians 3

Hebrews 8