顯示具有 霍頓論敬拜 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 霍頓論敬拜 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
 


2017-01-12


霍顿论敬拜4:改革敬拜仪式Reforming the Church ServicePart 4 of a 6-part series onWorship

作者:Michael S. Horton  译者/校对者: 岑跃环/王一

仪式”(liturgy)听起来很像是“过敏”(allergy)(在英文中两个单词的读音相近),这真是完美,因为许多现代基督徒对“仪式”过敏。但事实上仪式的意思就是,有些事情应该一直在崇拜中出现,而另一些事则不应该。所以,你需要有某些标准——某些基本原则:什么应该做、什么不应该。

每个教会都有仪式。我小时候参加的那些圣经教会和浸信会,每个主日的仪式都很相似,甚至各教会之间都很像。你知道在崇拜中会做什么,并且非常清楚什么时候要坐下,起来,伸手去拿诗歌本或钱包(指奉献)。

但是,在十几岁的时候,我在灵恩派的圈子里呆了一段时间。在那里,我们曾经嘲讽浸信会信徒为“传统主义者”,认为他们是用教会报告单扼杀了圣灵的人。如果连浸信会都这样,可以想象一下我们对长老会、圣公会、路德会的看法。天呐!他们真是“该死的传统主义者”。我们所讲的“死”并不指教义,因为这不在乎教会是自由派,还是保守派。可能某间教会是方圆百里内最正统的,但如果它的风格不年轻活泼,那它就是“死的”,平淡无奇。教义神学并没有决定着教会的生死,礼拜仪式才是决定性的。这难道不是很讽刺吗?在我们灵恩派的圈子里,我们批判别人按仪式来区分教会,可我们自己也这么做。但我们其实也有自己的仪式,我们要求一定要以年轻人为导向、一定要弹奏吉他、一定要举起手、一定要非正式的风格。最终,我们都以自己所认定的某些特定仪式来判定教会的生死。

一旦我们意识到我们都有一套仪式——我们都有一套敬拜的哲学理念和我们进行批判的标准。这样,我们就该问问自己和其他人,符合圣经的仪式是什么?如果上帝是在我们的敬拜中得荣耀的那位,那么应该是由他来决定,这不是由教会里的年轻人决定,也不是老年人决定,不是由去教会的人决定,也不是由那些不去教会的人来决定。我们的责任是去寻求上帝想要我们怎么敬拜祂。毕竟,祂是观众。祂是在我们的敬拜中得榮耀的。因为,神才是真正的“顾客”(Seeker),我们必须对神敏感(约4)。

我记得,当我开始参加长老会和改革宗教会时,那种感觉既熟悉又陌生。我刚刚接触的改革宗神学观告诉我,神才是关注的焦点,所以在主日崇拜中,从呼召到赞美,到圣道的宣讲,圣礼的执行,祝福祷告,都看见祂被高举,我才开始明白这一切的意义。你知道,我以前参加阿民念派的教会,那些以人为中心的神学很自然就塑造了以人为中心的仪式。无数被称为“见证”的个人自传,寒酸的宗教式助兴表演,没完没了的决志呼召祈求人给上帝让路,穿着五彩长袍的诗班站在舞台中央,一篇想尽办法取悦我的献殷勤式讲道,希望让我下周再过来重复同样的事。当然,不是所有的教会,也不是所有的崇拜都想我描述的这么轻浮,但你应该能明白我的意思。

所以,不是要不要仪式的问题,而是用哪一种仪式的问题。只是说“仪式是过时的”是不够的,用是否能够吸引年轻人作为判断标准也是不对的。衡量我们敬拜的圣经标准是什么呢?这应该是唯一的问题。

在这里,我提供了七条指导原则帮助你分析崇拜。你也可以推荐这些指导原则给你的教会或牧师。

1、崇拜仪式本身必须宣讲律法与福音,仪式本身有宣讲的功能,与圣道和圣礼同样。讲道不仅是崇拜当天唯一的宣讲。整场崇拜都是敬拜,传递着教会对上帝、基督、救赎的看法。仪式里是否有认罪悔改的祈祷和赦罪的宣告呢?这不仅是古代基督教会的要求,也是使徒崇拜的一部分。正如你在使徒行传第二章和保罗书信中看到那样。

2、崇拜仪式必须把个人与更大的教会身体联系起来,不仅仅是此时此地的教会,更是那各地各方、各世各代的基督身体。我们的崇拜是否是美国独有的,当代思想决定的?这不仅是风格的问题,而是教义的问题。我们是与如同云彩般的见证人(来12)一同在敬拜的。诗篇中也充满了历史上神在祂子民身上工作的描述。我们不是寻求与适合自己“崇拜体验”的个人主义者,而是在“圣徒相通”与“圣而公之教会”(使徒信经)的约中受了洗的基督徒。

3、崇拜礼仪必须是以上帝为中心,而不是以我们为中心的。上帝是观众,我们是诗班。那些 在舞台上的“专业人士”是否成了崇拜的焦点?他们是在娱乐我们,还是带领我们在娱乐上帝呢?谁才是焦点?

4、崇拜仪式必须正确地敬拜真正的上帝。十诫的前三诫关乎我们对独一真神的正确敬拜。上帝在乎正确的敬拜胜于其他任何事。甚至我们的救赎也为了将赞美和荣耀归给上帝的名。只凭自己的想象敬拜上帝是不够的。上帝必须按祂自己吩咐的方式受敬拜。亚伦的儿子们为此付了极大的代价。当他们想在圣殿(会幕)中献凡火的时候,即使是出于最好的动机,但上帝仍使他们在亚伦面前把他们烧灭。上帝说,“在众民面前,我要得圣洁”。在敬拜的世上,我们绝不能轻视上帝。

5、崇拜仪式必须强调并巩固圣道与圣礼在崇拜的中心焦点地位。在我们的教会中,是不是“团契时间”变得比讲道和圣餐更重要?

6、崇拜仪式必须是方便使用的。换句话说,我们必须教导大家他们不熟悉的内容。很多人说“仪式只是死记硬背古代礼仪”的原因就是因为牧师在解释仪式上的懒惰、漠不关心和缺乏意识。我们不能假设每一个新世代都了解这些是怎么一回事。

7、崇拜仪式必须能与当代人沟通。宗教改革恢复了会众的颂赞与参与。不再有“专业人士”(诗班等),而是全会众同声读经、同声祷告、同声唱诗。但是,这意味着他们必须用自己的语言。所以,宗教改革既不逃避对过去的义务、也不回避当代和未来的责任。


Reforming the Church Service
Part 4 of a 6-part series on Worship
Michael S. Horton
©1995 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

"Liturgy." It sounds like "allergy," and that's perfect, because many Christians today have an allergy for liturgy. Actually, the idea's very basic: certain things should always be done in a worship service, other things shouldn't. And you need some set of criteria--a rationale, for what's in and what's not.

Every church has a liturgy. In the Bible churches and Baptist fellowships of my youth, the liturgy was pretty much the same Sunday to Sunday, and even fairly standard from church to church. You knew what to expect and had a pretty good idea of when to sit, stand, and reach for your hymnal or wallet.

During my teen years, though, I spent some time in charismatic circles. Here, we used to ridicule the Baptists as "traditionalists" who stifled the Spirit by the church bulletin. Imagine what we thought of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans! Goodness, they were really "dead traditionalists." And "dead" didn't refer to the doctrine, because it didn't matter whether a church was liberal or conservative. It could have been the most orthodox church in town, but if its style was not youthful and lively, it was "dead," plain and simple. Doctrine didn't decide death or life, the liturgy decided it. Isn't that ironic, that in our charismatic circles we were willing to divide churches over liturgy just as surely as we thought others had done! We were just as caught up in liturgy, by demanding a particular youth-oriented, guitar-strumming, hand-waving, informal style, that we ended up defining life and death in churches by our particular liturgical definitions.

Once we realize that we all have a liturgy--a philosophy of worship and a general set of criteria by which we judge it, we can begin to ask ourselves and each other, what then is a biblical liturgy? If God is the one who must be pleased with our worship, then he should decide--not the youth, nor the older folks, nor the unchurched or the churched. It's our job to find out how God wants to be worshipped. After all, he is the audience; it is he who must be pleased with our worship, for ultimately he is the Seeker to whom we must be sensitive (Jn. 4).

I remember, when I began attending Presbyterian and Reformed churches, how it was both foreign and familiar. My new theology told me that God was the center of attention, so seeing him held up in the service, from the call to worship to Word and Sacrament, to the Benediction, clicked for me. You see, before, I was attending Arminian churches whose human-centered theology shaped a human-centered liturgy. Endless autobiographies called "testimonies," tacky religious floor-shows, an interminable altar call begging folks to let God have his way, and a centrally-located choir with colorful robes framed a sermon of schmooze calculated to please me and make me want to go through this thing again next week. Now, of course, not all of the churches nor all of the services I can recall were as goofy as I'm describing here, but you get the picture.

So, it's not whether liturgy, but which liturgy. It's not enough to say, "It should be old"; nor is it acceptable to judge it by how it appeals to the youth. What are the biblical criteria for judging our worship? That's the only question.

So here I offer seven guidelines that you might find somewhat helpful in analyzing your worship. It may be something that you could take to your worship committee or pastor.

1. It must conform to Scripture by preaching Law and Gospel, along with sermon and sacraments. The sermon isn't the only "preaching" of the morning. The entire service is worship and says a great deal about the church's view of God, Christ, salvation, etc. Is there a regular confession of sin and announcement of pardon? This is not only an ancient requirement of the Christian churches; it is part of the apostolic worship, as you find it in Acts chapter 2, for instance, and in Paul's letters.

2. It must link the individual to the larger church body and not only to the church here and now, but to Christ's body throughout the world and throughout all ages. Is our worship uniquely American or determined by the "contemporary"? This isn't just a question of style, but of doctrine. We worship with the "cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12) and the Psalms are full of the recounting of God's works with his people throughout history. We aren't individualists who are seeking a "worship experience" that's relevant to us, but baptized Christians who are in covenant with the "communion of saints" and "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" (Apostle's Creed).

3. It must be God-centered, not us-centered. God is the audience and we are the choir. Are the "professionals" up front the focus of attention? Are they entertaining us or are they leading us in corporately entertaining God? Where is the focus?

4. It must worship the correct God correctly. The first three of the 10 Commandments concern our correct worship of the only true God. God is more concerned with true worship than with anything else. Even our salvation is a means to that end of bringing praise and glory to God's name. It isn't enough to worship the true God according to our own fancy; he must be worshipped in his own way, as Aaron's sons learned the hard way. When they wanted to offer an unauthorized fire in the temple, it was out of the best of motives, but God turned them to ash before Aaron himself. "Before man, I will show myself as holy," God declared. We must not trifle with God in the matter of worship.

5. It must emphasize and undergird Word and Sacrament as the central foci of worship. Is "fellowship" more important than the sermon and Holy Communion in our church?

6. It must be useable. In other words, we have to instruct people in anything that is unfamiliar. One reason people will say, "It's just rote repetition" of ancient liturgies is due to the laziness, apathy, or lack of awareness on the part of the minister in terms of explaining it all. We can't assume that each new generation understands what's going on.

7. It must communicate to contemporary men and women. The Reformation recovered congregational singing and participation. No longer left to the "professionals" (the choir, etc.), the entire congregation read the Scriptures in unison, prayed in unison, and sang in unison. But that meant that they had to have it in their own language, so the Reformation neither shirked its obligation to the past, nor to the present and the future.

 另参:

论崇拜礼仪
Reforming the Church Service
1改革敬拜仪式
2论崇拜礼仪
作者:Michael S. Horton   1岑跃环译/王一校   2 Virginia Yip
Reforming the Church Service Part 4 of a 6-part series onWorship
http://web.archive.org/web/19991009155116/www.alliancenet.org/radio/whi/commentaries/whi.com.msh.wor4.html原文
http://www.reformedbeginner.net/on-worship-4-liturgy/ 原译文1岑跃环译/王一校版
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4097072803679255/ 2 Virginia Yip译版
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206聖經神學研究推廣小組
https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2017/01/blog-post_1.html原转载
https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2021/08/reforming-church-service-1-2-michael-s_15.html




霍顿论敬拜5:洗礼Re-thinking BaptismPart 5 of a 6-part series onWorship

作者:Michael S. Horton   译者/校对者: 蔡璐/王一

你在基督里成长最重要的五件事情是什么?对于这样的问题,你可以直接自己回答出来。当然,我们是不会听到你的答案,不过这不要紧。如何列出五样对基督徒成长最重要的工具?祷告?传福音?查经班?团契?基督徒服事?我在福音派的圈子里一遍又一遍地问这个问题,我会听到各种各样的答案,其中有非常好的答案,但是人们经常忽略提到圣礼。我们现在几乎完全听不到有关圣礼的事情了,所以更加不会使之成为我们在基督里成长的必要部分。

然而在圣经中,洗礼和圣餐是与我们的救恩本身紧紧相连的。通过这两个圣礼,上帝给予我们在他圣道里应许的恩典。洗礼和圣餐是恩典的媒介这一点是十分正确的。他们不仅仅是象征,也是恩典的管道。

在你开始想——“嗟,这听起来像是罗马天主教的洗礼观和圣餐观”——之前,让我先承诺,我所要讲的洗礼观是传统的基督新教的教导。尽管这一重要的、符合圣经的圣礼观在逐步退到教会生活和思考的边缘,它在圣经中仍占据同样重要的位置,要求我们在这个时代重新使圣礼回到原有显耀的位置。

现在,我们先来关注基督徒的洗礼。洗礼这个词来自希腊词 baptidzo”,意思是“去蘸,去洗,或去撒。” 实际上,这个词在古时用来指将一个人或物浸在水里,但同样的词也指代浇灌自己的草坪或植物。这便是为什么根据这个词本身来争辩洗礼的形式是完全行不通的。重要的是,上帝通过这个圣礼要成就他的应许,就是洗掉我们的罪。

经过几个世纪的反思和讨论,洗礼中一个重要的区分是“标记”(the sign)和“被标记的事物”(thing signified)。在洗礼中,标记是水。你可以把你的手指放进水里,你可以喝水,你也可以在水里玩水球。洗礼的水和自来水管里的水并无差别,但是水这一标志,不是洗礼中唯一参与的元素。上帝的道、圣灵和标记,汇流相聚,结果是洗礼。通过福音的道,圣灵把水洗联结到真正的、内在的洁净和重生。所以在洗礼中,普通的水成为神圣的水,就像红海的水,即使是普通的水,却成为上帝拯救在埃及做奴隶的子民的工具。

法老的军队被水淹没,老卢卡斯·克拉纳赫 (Lucas Cranach the Elder), 1530
仅从圣经的证据来看这种洗礼观,标志(水)和所标记的事物(圣灵带来的洁净)之间的关联在圣经中显得十分紧密。《马太福音》第十六章16节说到:“信而受洗的必然得救。” 在耶稣差遣他的使徒之后,亚拿尼亚治好了保罗,亚拿尼亚说:“现在你为什么耽延呢?起来,求告他的名受洗,洗去你的罪。”(徒 22:16)保罗自己说:“岂不知我们这受洗归入基督耶稣的人是受洗归入他的死吗?所以,我们藉着洗礼归入死,和他一同埋葬,原是叫我们一举一动有新生的样式,像基督藉着父的荣耀从死里复活一样。”( 6:3-4)对提多,保罗写到:“他救了我们,并不是因我们自己所行的义,乃是照他的怜悯,藉着重生的洗和圣灵的更新。圣灵就是神藉着耶稣基督——我们救主厚厚浇灌在我们身上的,好叫我们因他的恩得称为义,可以凭着永生的盼望成为后嗣。”( 3:5-7) 我刚刚提到,拯救以色列脱离法老的水和洗礼的水的那段描述,并不是来源于我自己。保罗在《哥林多前书》第十章1-4节使用这样的对比:“弟兄们,我不愿意你们不晓得,我们的祖宗从前都在云下,都从海中经过,都在云里、海里受洗归了摩西;并且都吃了一样的灵食,也都喝了一样的灵水。所喝的,是出于随着他们的灵磐石;那磐石就是基督。”

那么又回到给小孩子施洗这个棘手的问题上了。怎么处理婴儿洗的问题呢?难道这不是一个从罗马天主教遗留到基督新教的没被处理的残留吗?首先声明,我是成长在福音派、相信圣经的教会。当我碰到那些给婴孩施洗的人时,我会很自然地假设他们根本不读他们的圣经,或许他们根本都不是基督徒。当我认识到这个世纪许多最伟大的、为圣经正统信仰辩护的人都相信婴儿洗是符合圣经的教义时,我惊呆了,于是我开始倾听他们的辩论。经过许多的讨论和对经文的挣扎,我最终向我曾经很肯定不会承认的观念屈服。

那么,这是什么意思呢?并没有什么特别的意思。许多人反而持有完全相反的经验。成长在路德宗或改革宗教会的一些人,他们后来相信圣经没有教导婴儿洗,所以我们的经验并不能决定什么。但是这至少能使你停下来思考片刻,并问这个问题:“是什么让这么多相信圣经的基督徒接纳婴儿洗是符合圣经的呢?”

为什么给婴孩施洗?

我们应当给我们的孩子施洗是因为:

上帝领我们进入恩典之约,即使这约中并不是所有成员都会坚守到底(就是说他们不是被拣选的),他们仍享有属于上帝约的子民的特殊权利。这对于真正的以色列是如此(即旧约中的教会),新约则直接把这个观念应用在新约教会上(来 4:1-11, 6:4-12;申 4:20, 28:9,彼前 2:9,10;加 6:16;何 2:23,赛 10:22, 9:24-28
即使进入上帝圣约保守之下,也不能保证每一个人都持有真正、蒙保守的信心(来 4:1-11),但是这也不意味着一个人在不在基督和他的恩典之约里是不重要的。
在旧约中,婴孩是通过割礼这一圣礼而被接纳进入恩典之约的,在新约中(这又被称为“更好的约”),在上帝美好的旨意下,他没有改变对婴孩的态度(徒 2:38, 35),而且割礼被洗礼所取代(西 2:11)。所以,我们的孩子也必须被纳入恩典之约中,通过洗礼与基督联合,正如在古时,上帝的子民通过割礼进入恩典之约。
不信主的人的孩子是不圣洁的,但是信主的人的孩子是被分别为圣给上帝的。这一区别不仅在旧约(读逾越节,出12:1;还有“邪恶人的会”和“正直人的会”的区别,诗篇体现的尤为明显),也延续到新约中(林前 10:2)。他们是如何与不信主的人区别开来的呢?就是通过圣约的标记和印证。

家庭式的洗礼在新约中很常见(查考 16:15, 33;林前 1:16)。当狱卒问如何才能得救时,保罗回答:“当信主耶稣,你和你一家都必得救。” 我们从经文知道,就在当夜,“他和属乎他的人立时都受了洗。”(徒 16:31-33

教会历史上没有中断施行婴儿洗的记录。即使传统是次要的,但是这仍然很重要:我们知道事实是,使徒死后,最早的基督徒在使徒的教导之下仍施行婴儿洗。我们没有任何记载表明使徒的继承人们终止了这种做法。

洗礼是上帝的工作,而不是人的工作。洗礼不是信徒对上帝委身的标记(如果是这样的话,那么则要求先在的信心和悔改),而是上帝拯救应许的标记和印证,他承诺要拯救所有不拒绝自己的洗礼、不拒绝信靠基督的人。我们可以从一些经文看到洗礼的属性:可 16:16,徒 22:16;罗 6:3;提 3:5。这些经文之所以是对于那些先相信后受洗的人,是因为初归信的很显然是成年的时候相信的,但是他们也很显然给他们的孩子受洗。这在亚伯拉罕身上同样适用。他在受割礼之前相信,但是之后他的孩子都在婴孩时期受了割礼。

Re-thinking Baptism
Part 5 of a 6-part series on Worship
Michael S. Horton
©1995 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Here's a question for you: What are the top 5 things that are necessary for your Christian growth? Go ahead, say it out loud. Of course, the rest of us won't be able to hear, but that's OK. What would make the list of the 5 most important aids to Christian growth? Prayer? Evangelism? Bible study? Fellowship? Christian service? Time and time again, I've asked that question in evangelical circles and heard all of these answers--wonderful and good answers, but the glaring omission was the mention of the sacraments. We hardly hear about the sacraments these days at all, much less do we see them as essential to our growth in Christ.

And yet, baptism and the Lord's Supper are, in Scripture, linked to our salvation itself. Through these two sacraments God gives us the grace that he promises in his Word. That's right. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. Not mere symbols, but means of grace.

Now, before you start thinking, "Gee, this sounds like a Catholic view of baptism and the Lord's Supper," let me assure you that the view of baptism that I'm presenting is the traditional Protestant doctrine. In spite of the gradual movement of this great biblical sacrament to the periphery of the church's life and thought, it still occupies that same important place in the Bible itself and requires us to recover its grand place in our own day.

Now the focus of this address is on Christian baptism. The word baptism comes from the Greek word "baptidzo," which means "to dip, to wash, or to sprinkle." In fact, the word was used in ancient times to refer to immersing someone or something. But the same word was also used to refer to watering one's lawn or plants. That's why it's impossible to argue for one mode of baptism on the basis of the word itself. What's important in this matter is what God does through this sacrament, in fulfillment of his promise to wash us from our sins.

One of the important distinctions over the centuries of reflection on baptism is between "the sign" and the "thing signified." In baptism, the sign is water. You can put your finger in it, you can drink it, you can play water polo in it. The water in baptism is no different from the water in from the tap. But water--the sign--is not the only thing involved in baptism. There is a convergence, a meeting, of Word, Spirit, and Sign, and the result is baptism. Through the Word of the Gospel, the Spirit connects this washing with water somehow to a real inward cleansing and regeneration. So, in baptism, normal water becomes sacred water, as the waters of the Red Sea, though normal water, became a means through which God redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt.

Just look at the biblical evidence for this view of baptism. The connection between the sign--water, and the thing signified--that is, the actual cleansing by the Holy Spirit, is very close in Scripture. Mark 16:16 reads, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." When Ananias healed Paul, after Jesus had given the apostle his commission, Ananias said, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts. 22:16). Paul himself declared, "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Ro. 6:3). To Titus, he writes, "He saved us, not because of righteous things we have done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life" (Tit.3:5-7). The illustration I just gave a moment ago, comparing the waters that saved Israel from Pharaoh to the waters of baptism, is actually not original with me. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 1-4: "For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

Then there's that thorny question about baptizing those little rug rats. What do we do about infant baptism? Isn't it just a hold-over from Roman Catholicism that Protestants just can't seem to shake off? First, let me say that I was raised in evangelical Bible churches and when I ran into people who baptized infants, I just assumed that they probably didn't even read their Bibles. Maybe the weren't even really Christians. It was a shock to me to learn that many of the greatest defenders of biblical orthodoxy in this century all believed that this was a biblical doctrine, so I began to listen to their arguments. After a lot of arguing and wrestling with the Scriptures, I finally gave in to a point of view I was sure I would never hold.

Now, what does that mean? Absolutely nothing. There have been people who have had just the opposite experience. Growing up in Lutheran or Reformed churches, they came to believe that the Scriptures did not teach infant baptism, so our experience doesn't determine anything. But it should cause you to at least pause for a moment and ask, "What makes so many Bible-believing Christians embrace infant baptism as scriptural?"

Why Baptize Infants?

We should baptize our children because...

1. God has brought us into a covenant of grace and although not all members of this covenant will persevere (i.e., they are not elect), they enjoy special privileges of belonging to the covenant people of God. This was true of Israel (the church in the Old Testament), and the New Testament simply applies this to the New Testament church (Hebrews, esp. 4:1-11 and 6:4-12; Dt. 4:20 and 28:9 with 1 Pet. 2:9,10; Gal. 6:16; Hos. 2:23 and Is. 10:22 with Rom. 9:24-28).

2. Even though bringing someone under the protection of God's covenantal faithfulness does not guarantee that every member possesses true, persevering faith (Heb. 4:1-11), but that does not mean that it is unimportant as to whether a person is in Christ and his covenant of grace.

3. Children were included in the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, through the sacrament of circumcision, and in the New Covenant (called the "better covenant"), God has not changed in his good intentions toward our children (Ac. 2:38, 35) and circumcision has been replaced with baptism (Col. 2:11). Therefore, our children must be brought into the covenant of grace and united to Christ through baptism as the people of God in former times were brought into the covenant through circumcision.

4. The children of unbelievers are unholy, but the children of believers are set apart unto God. This is a distinction not only of the Old Testament (see the Passover, Ex.12:1; also the distinction between the "house of the wicked" and the "house of the righteous," especially in the Psalms), but is continued in the New Testament as well (1 Cor. 10:2). How are they marked or distinguished from unbelievers? By the sign and seal of the covenant.

5. Household baptisms in the New Testament are common (see esp. Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16), and when the jailer asked how to be saved, Paul replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." We are told that this same night "he and his family were baptized" (Ac.16:31-33).

6. There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic practice?

7. Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance), but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of baptism, see Mark 16:16, Acts. 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Tit. 3:5. The reason these references are to those who have first believed is that the first converts, obviously, were adults when the believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his children circumcised as infants.