这是我们的立场Here We Stand

作者：Albert Mohler   译者:  Duncan Liang

https://albertmohler.com/2017/10/30/here-we-stand/

http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4ODA2MTQzMw==&mid=2649440190&idx=1&sn=5ab6abb37b8d791f633c7d44cdc0e07d&chksm=88307b28bf47f23e31ff8b2156c5a9f91cbe1d4512bad2d0c803e77d6b3a24bb278106801c3e&mpshare=1&scene=5&srcid=0121trxQhNTKyUBRpJ0jSZAC#rd

马丁路德神学思想得到澄清的重大时刻，出现在一次奉命出席的会议高潮之处。路德面对殉道和遭遇处决的威胁，现身沃木斯会议，在神圣罗马帝国皇帝面前受审。当路德被人问到，他有何等权威，竟然胆敢抵挡教皇和罗马天主教会的训导当局，他著名的回答就是：

Martin Luther’s great moment of theological clarification came at the climax of a command performance. Facing the threat of martyrdom and execution, Luther appeared on trial at the Diet of Worms before the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Asked on what authority he dared to defy the Pope and the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther famously replied:

  “除非圣经的见证或明显的理由说服我（因为我不单单相信教皇或教会会议，因为很明显他们时常错误，也自相矛盾），否则我认为自己接受圣经见证的裁决，这圣经是我的基础；我的良心降服于神话语之下。因此我不能，也不愿收回我的意见，因为违背良心既不安全，也不正当。愿神帮助我。阿们。”

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves–I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.”

然后他加上这句话：“这是我的立场，我别无他选。求神帮助我。”

To those words were added: “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.”

沃木斯会议于1521年召开，路德辩护完毕时只说了这句话：“我讲完了。”当时的人很有理由相信，他确实已经完了。他将被逐出教会，余生活在殉道的危险当中。但现在，在路德把他著名的95条论纲钉在威登堡城堡教会大门上500年后，宗教改革的信仰依然生机勃勃。

The Diet of Worms was held in 1521. At the conclusion of his defense, Luther simply said, “I am finished.” There was good reason to believe that he was quite finished. He would be excommunicated from the church and he would live with the threat of martyrdom for the rest of his life. But now, 500 years after Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, the faith of the Reformation is still very much alive.

当路德别无退路，只能坚守唯独圣经的权威时，这完全澄清立场的时刻就到了。坚守圣经权威，这不会引发争议，但加上“唯独”这小小一词却改变了一切。圣经权威和唯独圣经权威之间有一道无限的鸿沟。

That moment of exquisite clarification came when Luther had nowhere to stand but on the authority of Scripture alone. Standing on biblical authority would not have been controversial, but the addition of that little sola changed everything. There is an infinite chasm between the authority of Scripture and the authority of Scripture alone.

同样的情形，也发生在现在正式与宗教改革联系在一起的每一个唯独身上，这些唯独就是：唯独信心、唯独恩典、唯独基督、唯独圣经、唯独神的荣耀。

The same is true of each of the Solas now formally associated with the Reformation. Faith alone, Grace alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, and to the Glory of God alone.

今天，在宗教改革开始500年后，福音派基督徒庆祝我们的宗教改革信仰，这是理所当然。但庆祝还不够。

Now, 500 years after the Reformation was begun, Evangelical Christians rightly celebrate this anniversary of our Reformation faith. But commemoration isn’t enough.

今天的福音派基督徒并没有站在神圣罗马帝国皇帝面前受审，但我们确实站在一个日益世俗化，仇视合乎圣经的基督教信仰的世界面前受审。当代的标志，就是世俗精英分子与历史性基督教信仰疏离。在许多情形里，这种疏离以完全反对的形式出现，而且这种疏离不再局限于文化精英人士。

Today’s evangelicals do not stand on trial before the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but we do stand on trial before a world that is increasingly secular, and hostile to biblical Christianity. The Modern Age is marked by an alienation of secular elites from historic Christianity. In many cases, that alienation takes the form of outright opposition. And the alienation is no longer limited to the cultural elites.

这种转变最明显的证据，就是在道德方面，特别是在性道德方面发生的巨大革命，这革命甚至对所有人类关系和伦理期望当中的最基本要点也作了重新定义。我们也看到空荡荡的教堂和后基督教文化兴起这可悲的见证，在欧洲大部分地区，这种情况尤为明显。

The most visible evidence of this transformation is the vast revolution in morality – especially sexual morality – that has redefined even the most basic of all human relationships and ethical expectations. There is also the tragic witness of empty churches and the emergence of a post-Christian culture, particularly in much of Europe.

与此同时，在建制基督教信仰之内，神学改革看起来比以往越发必要。福音派基督徒在跨度更大的神学景象之内，看到的是神学自由主义的荒漠，以及教义妥协带来的残局。所谓的“主流”更正教教会，宗教改革最直接的继承机构，已经抛弃了信仰，然后它们的成员抛弃了教会。

Meanwhile, within institutional Christianity, theological reform looks ever more necessary. Across the larger theological landscape, evangelicals see the desert of theological liberalism and the debris of doctrinal compromise. The so-called “mainline” Protestant churches – the most direct institutional heirs of the Reformation – abandoned the faith. Then their members abandoned the churches.

纵览美国大众宗教的场景，这同样令人沮丧。成功神学和一种没有基督和祂十字架的虚假福音如瘟疫一般蔓延。那声势浩大的美国异端邪说，就是实用主义，总是伴随着人的左右。

A look across the landscape of American popular religion is equally disheartening. Prosperity theology and a false gospel devoid of Christ and his cross spread like an infection. The great American heresy – pragmatism – is always close at hand.

首先，我们的立场是坚守那从前一次交付圣徒的真道。这意味着我们的信仰并非始于1517年，而是追溯到基督和众使徒的年代。我们的立场，就是基督过去教导祂的教会，并且继续通过圣经教导教会的信仰真道。这是真教会从新约圣经时期开始，直到今日，已经相信、承认、并且教导的信仰。

First, we stand for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This means that we do not date our faith to 1517, but to Christ and the Apostles. We stand in that faith that Christ taught his Church, and continues to teach through the Holy Scriptures. This is the faith that the true church has believed, confessed, and taught from the time of the New Testament until today.

第二，我们的立场，就是宗教改革重新确立的真道信仰。五个唯独处于这重新确立的中心地位。这五个唯独的每一个在16世纪都引发争议，到了将基督教世界分裂的地步，而这每一个唯独在今天甚至更具争议性。

Second, we stand for the faith reaffirmed in the Reformation. The Solas are central to this reaffirmation. Each was controversial in the sixteenth century – controversial enough to divide Christendom – and each is even more controversial today.

唯独信心揭露了各样谎言，就是罪人在基督成就实现的救恩上有所贡献。

Faith alone puts the lie to every pretense of the sinner’s contribution to the salvation achieved and accomplished by Christ.

唯独恩典提醒教会，神的怜悯是每一个罪人得救的唯一原因。

Grace alone reminds the church that the mercy of God is the solitary explanation for the salvation of even a single sinner.

唯独基督指向基督通过祂无罪生活这独特和充分的顺服，在十字架上替代的死，第三日靠着父从死里复活，以此成就赎罪。我们得救，是靠基督的功德，唯独祂的功德。

Christ alone points to the atonement accomplished through the singular and sufficient obedience of Christ in his sinless life, his substitutionary death on the cross, and his resurrection by the Father on the third day. We are saved by the merits of Christ, alone.

唯独圣经确立了笔之于书的神的话语具有唯独、最终的权威。正如华腓德在一个世纪之前解释的，这意味着接受“教会对圣经的教义”，包括圣经一切的完全。我们的立场，就是坚持圣经是逐字由神默示，它无缪无误，全备和具有最终权威。圣经对我们神学院的全部课程来说都处于中心地位。

Scripture alone affirms the sole, final authority of the written Word of God. As B. B. Warfield would explain a century ago, this means embracing the “Church Doctrine of Scripture,” including all of its perfections. We take our stand on the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible, it’s infallibility, inerrancy, sufficiency, and final authority. The Bible is central to our entire curriculum.

唯独神的荣耀，这意味着教会不求自己的荣耀，而是唯独以神无限的荣耀大大喜乐。今天数以亿计的人在任何企图彰显自己荣耀的教会中看到的，正是马丁路德警告的那种“荣耀神学”。

To the glory of God alone means that the church seeks no glory for itself, but exults in the infinite glory of God alone. The very “theology of glory” that Luther warned against is what millions of people see in any church that seeks to display its own glory.

第三，我们的立场，就是讲道是教会的首要标志。在这一点上改教家们意见完全一致。真教会的第一个标志，就是传讲神的道。神的道没有得到正确传讲，就没有教会。事情就是如此简单。

Third, we stand on preaching as the first mark of the church. On this the Reformers were completely agreed. The first mark of the true church is the preaching of the Word of God. Where the Word of God is not rightly preached, there is no church. It’s just that simple.

这意味着我们的首要责任，就是教导那些要对地方教会传讲神话语的人。这起到不可思议的澄清作用。我们无需每天早上起来，绞尽脑汁想我们应做什么，或美南浸信会神学院存在的目的是什么。虽然有如此多别的神学院在重新定义它们存在的目的，不再坚持教牧事工，我们却坚守这优先要务，即让讲道人在圣经和神学研究上扎根，使他们能成神群羊的忠心讲道人和牧师。

This means that our first responsibility is to teach those who will preach the Word of God to local churches. That is incredibly clarifying. We don’t have to wake up every morning trying to remember what we are supposed to do, or why Southern Seminary exists. While so many other seminaries are redefining their purpose away from the pastorate, we maintain that first priority of grounding preachers in the Bible and in theological studies in order that they will be faithful preachers and pastors of the flock of God.

第四，我们的立场，就是坚持以认信方面的忠心作我们的标志。改教家们明白教会经过数世纪之久的讲道和教导，祷告和歌唱学到这一点，就是一次交付圣徒的真道，必须以公认信条的形式加以表达、定义和捍卫。历世历代的基督徒常常在付出沉痛代价之后，重新认识到信条和公认信条的必要性。我们必须明确我们所信和我们教导的，明确我们期望任何在美南浸信会神学院和鲍爱思学院（Boyce College）的教授要教导什么。每一位教授都必须欢喜同意，教导时必须“符合及不违背”《信仰原则摘要》（Abstract of Principles）与《浸信会信仰宣言》（the Baptist Faithand Message）。过往30年我们已经认识到这种坚持何等重要。这是我们绝不可忘记的教训。

Fourth, we stand on confessional fidelity as our hallmark. The Reformers understood what the church has learned through centuries of preaching and teaching, praying and singing: The faith once delivered to the saints must be expressed and defined and defended in confessional form. The necessity of creeds and confessions is learned anew, often painfully, by every generation of Christians. We must define what we believe and what we teach, and what we expect any professor at Southern Seminary and Boyce College to teach. Every professor must gladly agree to teach “in accordance with and not contrary to” the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message. We have learned over the last three decades just how important this commitment truly is. That is a lesson that must never be lost.

第五，我们的立场就是坚守整全的基督教世界观。我们在鲍爱思学院和美南浸信会神学院确认改教家们也曾确认的，就是圣经呈现了一种整全的世界观。改教家们可能不认识“世界观”这一个词，不过这却是他们教导的。宗教改革要催生出政治、科学、文化方面的革命，影响人类知识和文明每一个领域的发展，而这绝非偶然。本校努力装备兴起的一代新人，掌握至关重要的世界观分析和思维技巧，这也绝非偶然。

Fifth, we stand for the totality of the Christian worldview. At Boyce College and Southern Seminary, we affirm what the Reformers also affirmed – that the Bible presents a comprehensive view of the world. The Reformers would not have known the word worldview, but they taught it nonetheless. The Reformation would give birth to revolutions in politics, science, and culture and would influence the development of every arena of human knowledge and civilization. This is no accident. Nor is it accidental that this school seeks to equip a rising generation with the most crucial skills in worldview analysis and thinking.

第六，我们的立场就是坚持大使命。大使命是让万民认识基督的命令。认识基督，就是顺服祂的命令，这意味着把福音带到地极。唯独基督提醒我们这事实，就是基督的福音是唯一拯救人的信息，我们的责任就是向万民传讲福音。现在有更多学生通过美南浸信会神学院和鲍爱思学院为完成宣教使命做预备，人数超过之前任何一代。

Sixth, we stand on the Great Commission. This is the mandate to make Christ known among the nations. To know Christ is to obey his commandments, and this means taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Christ alone reminds us of the truth that the gospel of Christ is the only saving message, and it is our responsibility to preach the gospel to the nations. There are now more students preparing for missions through Southern Seminary and Boyce College than in any previous generation.

第七，我们的立场是坚持地方教会在神的旨意当中处于中心地位。我们极大的特权，就是服务教会，这指的是地方教会。我们达到美国高等教育中最高的神学认证标准，但我们终极的认证来自于主耶稣基督的教会，这些教会对我们和我们毕业生的信心证实了这一点。

Seventh, we stand on the centrality of the local church in the purposes of God. Our great privilege is to serve the church – and that means local churches. We hold the highest academic accreditations known to higher education in America, but our ultimate accreditation comes from the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, as is affirmed in the confidence that those congregations place in us and in our graduates.

第八，我们的立场，就是坚持不断改革。在基督再来之前，基督的教会仍需不断改革。但在这方面我们必须分外小心。更自由派的教会宣称接受宗教改革“不断改革”的呼声，这可能会以改革的名义，为教义修正主义和自由派神学敞开大门。但宗教改革的真教会明白，这正确的呼吁是要求教会总要按照神的话语进行改革。

Eighth, we stand for a continuing reformation. Christ’s church will remain in need of a continuing reformation until He comes. But here we must be very careful. More liberal churches claim to embrace the Reformation call of Semper Reformanda – as the church always being reformed. This can open the door to doctrinal revisionism and liberalism in the name of reformation. The true churches of the Reformation, however, understood that the right call was for a church always reformed by the Word of God.

这就是我们庆祝的宗教改革，这就是我们努力和为之服务的不断改革。这是我们的立场，我们别无他选。求神帮助我们。

That is the Reformation we celebrate, and that is the continuing reformation we seek and serve. Here, we take our stand. We cannot do otherwise. God help us.

按照上帝的話來敬拜WorshipAccording to the Word

作者: Albert Mohler  譯者:   駱鴻銘

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/worship-according-word/

www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2014/04/.../按照上帝的話來敬拜.asp...

在《卡拉馬佐夫兄弟們》這部小說中，杜思妥耶夫斯基的「宗教大法官」提出了這個洞見，讓我們看到墮落人性的真實面貌：「只要人還保持自由，他就會沒完沒了地追求虛無，也十分痛苦地想要找到崇拜的對象。」雖然這個宗教大法官遠遠不能作為神學可靠的指引，但是在這點上，他顯然是十分正確的。人類具有非常深刻的宗教性——即使我們不知道自己是這樣的人——而人們會沒完沒了地追求一個崇拜的對象。

In The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor offers this insight into fallen human nature: “So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship.” Though the Grand Inquisitor falls far short as a reliable guide to theology, at this point he is surely correct. Human beings are profoundly religious — even when we do not know ourselves to be — and humans incessantly seek an object of worship.

不過，人類也都是罪人，因此我們的崇拜在大多數情況下也是根據我們的異教思想，隨從個人的喜好。如同加爾文所深刻解釋的，墮落的人心是個「偶像製造工場」，總是在製造新的偶像，供人敬拜和尊崇。這個已經敗壞的工場，如果任由它自生自滅，絕對不會產生出真正的敬拜，反而會敬拜它自己的發明。

Yet, human beings are also sinners, and thus our worship is, more often than not, grounded in our own paganism of personal preference. As John Calvin profoundly explained, the fallen human heart is an “idol-making factory,” always producing new idols for worship and veneration. That corrupted factory, left to its own devices, will never produce true worship, but will instead worship its own invention.

教會不是由那些靠著在敬拜中作實驗而找到真正永生上帝的人所組成的，而是由那些被羔羊的血所救贖，被納入基督身體的人所組成的；然後他們蒙召來從事真正的敬拜；這種敬拜要受聖經所管制，也以聖經為權威。我們被造的目的就是為了要敬拜，也只有得贖的人可以在聖靈中、在真理中來敬拜父神。

The church is not comprised of those who found the true and living God by experimentation in worship, but of those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, incorporated into the Body of Christ, and are then called to true worship as regulated and authorized by Scripture. Worship is the purpose for which we were made — and only the redeemed can worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

但是，我們是這樣敬拜的嗎？英國一位保守的哲學家史克魯頓（Roger Scruton）曾經這樣忠告他的哲學友人說，要想知道關於上帝、人們究竟相信什麼，最好的方法就是在他們敬拜時去觀察他們。神學書籍和教義聲明也許可以透露一個教會說它相信的是什麼，但是敬拜才會真正透露出它真正相信的是什麼。若果如此，我們的麻煩可大了。

But, do we? The British philosopher Roger Scruton once advised his fellow philosophers that the best way to understand what people really believe about God is to observe them at worship. Theology books and doctrinal statements may reveal what a congregation says it believes, but worship will reveal what it really believes. If so, we are in big trouble.

只要看看這麼多福音派人士，他們所謂的敬拜所表現出來的混亂，就可以一見端倪。許多教會並沒有致力於指向上帝榮耀的敬拜，反而致力於像是一場混亂的嘉年華會的敬拜，以此為特色。他們的敬拜已經看不出這是一個正在敬拜上帝的基督教會。多年以前，陶恕哀嘆到，許多教會把敬拜當作是「最大程度的娛樂和最小程度的教導」。他主張，許多基督徒甚至不承認敬拜是這樣的一種集會：「唯一吸引人的是上帝」。這些話在五十年前是對的，如今也適合用來直接起訴當代的敬拜。

Just look at the confusion that marks what is called worship among so many evangelicals. Instead of engaging in worship that points to the glory of God, many churches feature services that look more like a carnival of chaos than a Christian congregation at worship. Years ago, A.W. Tozer lamented that many churches conceive of worship as “a maximum of entertainment and a minimum of serious instruction.” Many Christians, he argued, would not even recognize worship as “a meeting where the only attraction is God.” True fifty years ago, those words now serve as a direct indictment of contemporary worship.

我們問題的病根必須必須追本溯源到我們的世界觀是很膚淺的，只停留在個人品味的層次上。在世界觀的層面，我們必須面對這個事實，就是現代主義瓦解了許多人心中對上帝的超越性（transcendence）的認識。敬拜的焦點是「橫向的」，縮減到用人來作為尺度。神學自由主義很單純地欣然接受這個新的世界觀，也作出現代主義所要求的神學上的妥協。敬拜就被轉換成一種實驗，要靠敬拜者來判斷是否「有意義」，而不是一種對上帝的奇妙與偉大，喜樂順服的行動。

The pathology of our problem must be traced to realities as fundamental as our worldview and as superficial as personal taste. At the worldview level, we must face the fact that modernism collapsed transcendence in many minds. The focus of worship was “horizontalized” and reduced to human scale. Theological liberalism simply embraced this new worldview, and it made the theological compromises that modernity demanded. Worship was transformed into an experiment in “meaningfulness” as judged by the worshiper, not an act of joyful submission to the wonder and grandeur of God.

既然後現代主義統治著文化菁英的世界觀，以及文化中最有勢力的影響力核心，這種極端的主觀主義，道德相對主義，以及對絕對真理的敵意，標記出塑造了許多教會敬拜形式的後現代世界觀。後現代主義大肆慶祝圖像對抗話語所獲得的勝利，但是基督信仰是一個以聖道（話語）為中心的信仰，其根源在於上帝話語的啟示，以及耶穌基督作為成了肉身的道的身份。

Now that postmodernism rules the worldview of the cultural elite and the culture’s most powerful centers of influence, the radical subjectivity, moral relativism, and hostility to absolute truth that marks the postmodern worldview shapes worship in some churches as well. Postmodernism celebrates the victory of the image over the word, but Christianity is a Word-centered faith, rooted in the verbal revelation of God and the identity of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word.

後現代主義者斷言，所有的真理都是人建構的，不是絕對的。正如哲學家羅逖（Richard Rorty）所堅持的，真理是人造的，不是人找到的。接受這種極端實用主義的人會把敬拜視為一種「製造」意義的實驗，而不是一種宣講、聆聽、信靠，並承認上帝以命題的形式所啟示的永恆真理的一種訓練。

Postmodernists assert that all truth is constructed, not absolute. As philosopher Richard Rorty insists, truth is made, not found. Those who accept this radical pragmatism will see worship as an experiment in “making” meaning rather than a discipline of preaching, hearing, believing, and confessing eternal truths revealed by God in propositional form.

儘管所有的基督徒都認可信仰有經驗的層面，經歷是實在的，也是必要的，但是這種經歷必須以上帝的話語為根基，也必須受上帝話語的約束，要向上帝負責。關於敬拜，這是最最核心的問題。因為，若敬拜要任由我們自己來發明，我們的傾向就是尋找一種滿足我們私慾的敬拜，要去尋找一種「有意義」的經歷，或者是能滿足我們個人喜好的敬拜，以取代由聖經所規範的真實的敬拜。敬拜應當遵循這個原則：以上帝為中心，而不是以祂的百姓為中心。

While all Christians affirm the necessity and reality of the experiential dimension of faith, the experience must be grounded in and accountable to the Word of God. This is of central importance to the question of worship, for, left to our own devices, we will be inclined to seek worship that meets our desire for a “meaningful” experience or matches our personal taste as a substitute for authentic worship regulated by Scripture and centered on God, rather than His people.

宗教改革的核心問題，是關注如何以恰當的方法來敬拜上帝。這也是我們今天最重要的神學辯論的核心。再也沒有什麼比我們對敬拜的理解更重要的事了，因為我們對敬拜的觀念與我們對上帝的認識是脫不了關係的，也和我們對這點的理解脫不了關係，即祂是如何以至高主權的權柄啟示祂所渴望的、所配得的、所要求的敬拜。

Concern for the proper worship of God was central to the Reformation, even as it is central to our most important theological debates today. Nothing is more important than our understanding of worship, for our concept of worship is inescapably tied to our understanding of God and His sovereign authority to reveal the worship He desires, deserves, and demands.

歐德（Hughes Oliphant Old）曾經這樣來總結改教家對敬拜的理解：「它對上帝的莊嚴與主權的認識，對敬畏的認識，對上帝純一尊貴的認識，以及它對敬拜首先必須是用來讚美上帝的信念」。如同歐德認識到的，這個轉換更新的道路「也許不完全是所有的人所追求的」。

Hughes Oliphant Old once summarized the Reformers’ understanding of worship in terms of “its sense of the majesty and sovereignty of God, its sense of reverence, of simple dignity, its conviction that worship must above all serve the praise of God.” As Old recognized, this path of renewal “may not be just exactly what everyone is looking for.”

這的確是真實的，但這是回歸上帝所尋找的敬拜，恢復我們對三一上帝無限的榮耀、完美、價值的見證，唯一的一條路。我們要麼恢復聖經對真正基督信仰的敬拜的異象，要麼就陷入某種形式的異教崇拜。沒有第三種選擇。

This is surely true, but it is the only path back to the worship God seeks, and to the recovery of our witness to the infinite glory, perfection, and worthiness of the triune God. We will either recover the biblical vision of true Christian worship, or we will slide into some form of pagan worship. There is no third option.

本文原刊於：Tabletalk Magazine

基督徒必須相信童女生子嗎？MustChristians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

作者: Albert Mohler    翻譯: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/must-christians-believe-virgin-birth/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/iFwYP3UqGoz

12月25日轉瞬而至，世俗媒體肯定再一次將興趣轉到童女生子這議題上。每年聖誕節，各地新聞周刊和各種主編都會異口同聲地哀嘆：太多美國人相信這種不科學、超自然的教義。對一些人而言，相信耶穌基督是童女所生，無異於證實自己的理智模糊不清。《紐約時報》的一位作家坦白地慨嘆：「童女生子的信仰反映了隨著時間的推移，美國基督教變得更智力低下和更加神秘的狀況。」

相信童女生子導致基督徒「智力低下」嗎？ 我們承擔著一項站不住腳的教義嗎？ 一個真基督徒可以否認童女生子，又或者這項教義是聖經啟示給我們的福音的一個重要構成部分嗎？

在歷史批判出現，和隨後不可避免的聖經權威被削弱之後,   童女生子是首批被質疑，後又遭拒絕的教義之一。批評者聲稱，既然這項教義「只」在四本福音書中的兩本裡教導，那麼它必定是選擇性的。他們論證,  使徒保羅在他的使徒行傳裡的講道中沒有提及童女生子，因此他一定不相信它。除此之外，批評家們還論證這項教義正是這樣的超自然。現代異教徒，如已退休的聖公會主教謝爾比朋（John Shelby Spong）論證這項教義只不過是早期教會聲稱基督的神性的證據。比朋告訴我們，童女生子是「神話的開頭」與復活的「神話的結局」相呼應而已。但願比朋之說是一個神話。

現在，甚至一些修正主義福音派學者（revisionist evangelicals）也聲稱，相信童女生子是不必要的。他們論證，神跡具有永恒的意義，但這一項教義的歷史真相是不重要的。

成為基督徒,  必須相信童女生子嗎？可以想像，有人可能來到基督的面前，相信基督是救主，但還沒有了解基督是童女所生的聖經教導。一個新信徒還未清楚認識基督信仰的整體架構而已。但真正的問題是：一個曾经知道聖經教導的基督徒，可以拒絕童女生子嗎？答案必然是否定的。 

馬太福音告訴我們，馬利亞和約瑟「還沒有成親」，馬利亞「就從聖靈懷了孕」（太一18）。馬太福音對此的解釋是，以賽亞的應許得著應驗：「必有童女懷孕生子，他的名要叫以馬內利」,   翻譯出來是「神與我們同在」的意思（太一23，賽九6-7）。

路加福音甚至提供更具體的細節，顯示一位到訪的天使向馬利亞解釋, 她雖然是童女，但將懷有神聖的兒子：「聖靈要臨到你，至高者的能力要覆庇你，因此那將要出生的聖者，必稱為　神的兒子。」（路一35）

那怕只有一段聖經段落教導童女生子，亦足以讓所有基督徒有相信的義務。我們沒有權利以聖經中童女生子的重覆次數來衡量聖經教導的真實性。我們不能聲稱相信聖經是上帝的聖言，一轉過身，就懷疑它的教導。

埃裏克（Millard Erickson）的說明非常精辟「盡管聖經斷言童女生子的事實,   但我們若不堅持這一事實,   我們便妥協了聖經的權威，原則上我們沒有理由為何要堅持其他的教導。因此，拒絕童女生子所產生的影響遠遠超出教義本身的範圍。」

的確影響深遠。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，誰是祂的父親？沒有答案會讓福音完整無缺。童女生子解釋基督如何成為即神又人，祂如何是無罪的，和整個救贖之工是上帝恩慈的行動。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，祂就有一個人類父親。倘若耶穌不是童女所生，聖經便在教導謊言。

福音派神學家兼院長卡爾（Carl F. H. Henry）论证,   童女生子是「絕對必要的，道成肉身的歷史迹象不僅類比道成肉身的神性和人性，而且也顯明上帝拯救工作的本質、目的, 和意義。」  說得好，信得穩固。

國家新聞雜志和報紙最世俗的編輯可能發現，美國基督徒當中的智力遲鈍的證據，就是相信童女生子。但童女生子是教會的信仰，建立在上帝完美的聖言之上，被古往今來的真教會珍愛。那些否認童女生子的人承認其他教義只是憑一時的興致，因為他們已經放棄聖經的權威。他們削弱了基督的本性,   廢棄了道成肉身的信仰。

基督徒務必面對一個事實，即否認童女生子就是否認耶穌是基督。為我們的罪受死的救主不是別人，正是聖靈感孕,  由童貞女所生的嬰孩。童女生子不是因為聖經教義而得以站立，它是聖經關於基督的位格和工作的啟示缺不能削減的一部分。福音站立或跌倒,  全憑這教義。

我們務必要知道：所有找到救恩的人都是藉著耶穌基督贖罪的工作得救。少於這真理就不是基督信仰，不管它自我宣稱什麼。一個基督徒不會否認童女生子。

本譯文所引用的經文均出自聖經新譯本。

本文原刊于Tabletalk雜誌。 

Must Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

FROM Albert Mohler With December 25 fast approaching, the secular media are sure to turn their interest once again to the virgin birth. Every Christmas, weekly news magazines and various editorialists engage in a collective gasp that so many Americans could believe such an unscientific, supernatural doctrine. For some, the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin is nothing less than evidence of intellectual dimness. One writer for the New York Times put the lament plainly: “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.”

Does belief in the virgin birth make Christians “less intellectual?” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth, or is the doctrine an essential component of the Gospel revealed to us in Scripture?

The doctrine of the virgin birth was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be optional. The apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the virgin birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not important.

Must one believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian? It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the virgin birth? The answer must be no.

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18). This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’” (Matt. 1:23, Isaiah 9:6-7).

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

Even if the virgin birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The virgin birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the virgin birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

The secularist editors of the nation’s news magazines and newspapers may find belief in the virgin birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true church throughout the ages. Those who deny the virgin birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ, the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A Christian will not deny the virgin birth.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

我的敵人的敵人是我的朋友嗎? Is the Enemy of MyEnemy My Friend?

作者: Albert Mohler 譯者: Maria Marta
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/enemy-my-enemy-my-friend/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/Ji3pzXzZUTm

我們並非生活在和平時期。有思想的基督徒必定意識到，一場巨大的道德和屬靈沖突正在我們身邊形成，戰爭的多條戰線和至關重要的問題正處於關鍵時刻。先知耶利米曾再三警告那些在沒有平安的時候卻還在虛報平安的人。聖經用屬靈爭戰一詞來定義基督徒的生命，這一代的信徒都要面對這一事實：真理的存在在我們當前的鬥爭中岌岌可危。

作戰條件將一系列獨特的道德挑戰帶到檯面上，我們這時代的巨大的道德和文化戰役並沒有什麽不同。甚至古代的思想家也清楚這一點，他們的許多戰爭格言仍被引用。其中最受歡迎的，也是許多古人所知曉的一句就是：「敵人的敵人是我的朋友」。

這句格言作為現代外交政策的原則而得以延續。它解釋了為什麽在戰爭中彼此敵對的國家，能夠在很短的時間內變成同盟，一起對抗共同的敵人。在第二次世界大戰中，蘇聯在開始時是納粹德國的同盟國。但在戰爭結束時它是美國和英國的主要盟國。怎麽會這樣呢？因為他加入了反對希特勒的行動，變成美國人和英國人的瞬間「朋友」。然而，隨著這場龐大戰爭的結束，蘇聯與其前同盟國便進入了稱為冷戰的公開敵對的新階段。

當我們思考我們當前的鬥爭，這項有用的外交政策準也則適合於基督徒嗎？這不是一個簡單的問題。一方面，某些意識，即團結一致對抗共的同敵人是無可避免，甚至是必不可少的。另一方面，某些想法，即共同的敵人導致真正的合一，甚至如歷史所顯示的，是一個錯誤的前設。

我們決不能低估我們所面臨的形勢。我們代表人類生命與人類尊嚴去面對一場與死亡文化，與流產、殺嬰、安樂死等極大罪惡對抗的巨形抗爭。我們為一男一女結合的婚姻的完整性而戰。我們面對一場決心要推動性革命的文化聯盟，而性革命將會爆發徹底混亂，給個人、家庭、整個社會帶來普遍的巨大傷害。我們為維護性別，這一上帝創造的美好部分而戰；我們為維護客觀道德秩序的存在而戰。

除了所有這些挑戰外，我們正參與一場捍衛真理自身的存在；捍衛上帝在聖經中啟示的事實和權威；捍衛聖經的所有教導的戰鬥。普遍存在的反超自然主義試圖否認上帝的存在，和我們有能力認識上帝的任何宣稱。自然主義世界主觀在學術界占了主導地位，新無神論的書籍銷量數以百萬計。神學自由主義者揭盡所能與教會的敵人和平共處，但忠心的基督徒無法逃避這一代信徒蒙呼召要參與的戰鬥。

那麽，我們的敵人的其他敵人是我們的朋友嗎？在這方面，摩門教徒、羅馬天主教徒、正統猶太教徒、和其他許多人都與我們有著共同的敵人。但是，我們之間的合一可達到什麽程度呢？

在這一點上，我們必須非常謹慎、誠實地思考。在某個層面上說，我們可以不管世界觀如何，與任何人一起去把困在燃燒著的房子裡的人救出來。我們很樂意幫助一位無神論者搭救鄰居免遭危險，或者甚至美化社區。這些行動並不需要共享的神學世界觀。

在另一個層面上說，我們當然視所有捍衛人類生命和尊嚴、婚姻和性別、家庭完整性的人為當前文化戰爭中的關鍵盟友。我們彼此傾聽，相互借鑒，我們彼此感謝對方給予的關心與支持。我們甚至認識到，我們的世界觀有著共同的元素，這些元素解釋了我們在這些問題上的共同信念。然而，我們的世界觀的確是相當不同的。

我們與羅馬天主教擁有許多共同信念，其中包括諸如婚姻、人類生命、家庭等道德信念。除此之外，我們一致肯定神聖三位一體、正統基督論這些真理，以及一些其他教義。但在生死攸關的------ 耶穌基督的福音這真理上，我們的觀點不一致。這種至關重要的差別導致其他極重要的分歧，其中包括聖經的性質和權威、事奉的性質、聖餐與洗禮的意義，和所有各種關乎基督信仰核心的議題。

改教家的信仰所界定的基督徒必須緊記，迫使改教家從羅馬天主教會中分裂出來，完全是出於對耶穌基督的福音的忠心。我們現在需要同樣的清晰和勇氣。

在文化沖突時期，我們的敵人的敵人很可能是我們的朋友。 但是，當永恒觀和福音岌岌可危之際，我們決不能將我們的敵人的敵人誤作耶穌基督的福音的朋友。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

Is the Enemy of My Enemy My Friend?

FROM Albert Mohler

We are not living in a season of peace. Thinking Christians must surely be aware that a great moral and spiritual conflict is taking shape all around us, with multiple fronts of battle and issues of great importance at stake. The prophet Jeremiah repeatedly warned of those who would falsely declare peace when there is no peace. The Bible defines the Christian life in terms of spiritual battle, and believers in this generation face the fact that the very existence of truth is at stake in our current struggle.

The condition of warfare brings a unique set of moral challenges to the table, and the great moral and cultural battles of our times are no different. Even ancient thinkers knew this, and many of their maxims of warfare are still commonly cited. Among the most popular of these is a maxim that was known by many of the ancients—“the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That maxim has survived as a modern principle of foreign policy. It explains why states that have been at war against one another can, in a very short period of time, become allies against a common enemy. In World War II, the Soviet Union began as an ally of Nazi Germany. Yet, it ended the war as a key ally of the United States and Britain. How? It joined the effort against Hitler and became the instant “friend” of the Americans and the British. And yet, as that great war came to an end, the Soviets and their former allies entered a new phase of open hostility known as the Cold War.

Does this useful maxim of foreign policy serve Christians well as we think about our current struggles? That is not an uncomplicated question. On the one hand, some sense of unity against a common opponent is inevitable, and even indispensible. On the other hand, the idea that a common enemy produces a true unity is, as even history reveals, a false premise.

We must not underestimate what we are up against. We face titanic struggles on behalf of human life and human dignity against the culture of death and the great evils of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. We are in a great fight for the integrity of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We face a cultural alliance determined to advance a sexual revolution that will unleash unmitigated chaos and bring great injury to individuals, families, and the society at large. We are fighting to defend gender as part of the goodness of God’s creation and to defend the very existence of an objective moral order.

Beyond all these challenges, we are engaged in a great battle to defend the existence of truth itself, to defend the reality and authority of God’s revelation in Scripture, and to defend all that the Bible teaches. A pervasive anti-supernaturalism seeks to deny any claim of God’s existence or our ability to know him. Naturalistic worldviews dominate in the academy, and the New Atheism sells books by the millions. Theological liberalism does its best to make peace with the enemies of the church, but faithful Christians have no way to escape the battles to which this generation of believers are called.

So, are the other enemies of our enemies our friends? Mormons, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and a host of others share many of our enemies in this respect. But, to what extent is there a unity among us?

At this point, very careful and honest thinking is required of us. At one level, we can join with anyone, regardless of worldview, to save people from a burning house. We would gladly help an atheist save a neighbor from danger, or even beautify the neighborhood. Those actions do not require a shared theological worldview.

At a second level, we certainly see all those who defend human life and human dignity, marriage and gender, and the integrity of the family as key allies in the current cultural struggle. We listen to each other, draw arguments from each other, and are thankful for each other’s support of our common concerns. We even recognize that there are elements common to our worldviews that explain our common convictions on these issues. And yet, our worldviews are really quite different.

With the Roman Catholic Church our common convictions are many, including moral convictions about marriage, human life, and the family. Beyond that, we together affirm the truths of the divine Trinity, orthodox Christology, and other doctrines as well. But we disagree over what is supremely important—the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that supreme difference leads to other vital disagreements as well—over the nature and authority of the Bible, the nature of the ministry, the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and an entire range of issues central to the Christian faith.

Christians defined by the faith of the Reformers must never forget that nothing less than faithfulness to the gospel of Christ forced the Reformers to break from the Roman Catholic Church. Equal clarity and courage are required of us now.

In a time of cultural conflict, the enemy of our enemy may well be our friend. But, with eternity in view and the gospel at stake, the enemy of our enemy must not be confused to be a friend to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.