顯示具有 C.H. Spurgeon 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 C.H. Spurgeon 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2017-11-26

属血气的人不会向你透露这类信息& 约翰福音三章16节Fleshand Blood Has Not Revealed this to You & John 3:16

作者: John_Hendryx   翻译:  Maria Marta 

上帝的诫命从不赐予我们能力而是拆除我们信靠自己的能力, 好叫我们自己能够走到终点。非常清楚,保罗教导这是上帝律法的目的(罗三20, 20,加三19,24)。带有可扩充的, 有前提条件的声明的诫命或邀请例如约翰福音三章16节中的「叫一切信他的」,并不含有实现之能力的意思。在约一13,罗九16,约六374463-65,罗三11; 太十六-廿六 ,林前二14这些经文的亮光下显得特别真实,   有更多的经文表明人在堕落的状态下无能力归信或相信福音。我们未重生的天然本性不需要上帝,而是爱黑暗「并不来就光」(约三1920)。

如果从未发现,人在天然本性上愿意在信心中顺服基督福音那使人降卑的条件那麽福音怎麽会是好消息?(罗三11; 约六64,65; 帖后三2 因为在耶稣基督裡,上帝把祂对我们的要求白白地赐给我们。在福音中,上帝对我们启示了义和信心,祂对我们的要求正是相同的义和信心。我们必须要拥有的,但不能创造或实现或完成的,上帝白白地赐给我们,也就是说,上帝白白地赐给我们祂自己的义(林后五21)和与基督联合的活信心。上帝启示:   与基督耶稣裡的恩赐一样义和信心是唯一一次的要求。信心不是罪人获得救恩代价的原因之一。耶稣已经为我们所有人付出代价。可以这麽说信心是我们新生命的第一道呼吸气息。上帝恩典工作的见证已经在我们裡面发生(弗二5,八2  ;提后二25; 约一5:1,约六63)。

注意罗马书三章1112节说:「没有寻求神的,连一个也没有。」和哥林多前书二章14节说:「然而,属血气的人不领会神圣灵的事,反倒以为愚拙,并且不能知道;因为这些事惟有属灵的人才能看透。」 即使彼得也需要父上帝的启示: 耶稣是基督(太十六17)。我们与阿民念者都确信「叫一切信他的」得永生... ... 但这问题可以可追溯至更久远... ...什麽原因导致人相信?

对此司布真在《证道集-人之无能》中非常清晰地解释:

「阿民念说,『哦!如果他们愿意人就可得拯救。』我们回答:『我亲爱的先生,我们都相信这点。』 但问题正是出在『如果他们愿意』这句话上。我们断言若人不是被吸引,没有人可以到基督这里来。 不,不是我们这样断言,是基督祂自己宣告的: 『你们不肯到我这里来得生命』。只要『你们不会来』这句话还保留在圣经裡,任何人有自由意志的教条就都是不能使人信服的。当谈论自由意志时,他们在谈论根本不明白的事情,这是多麽的奇怪阿。

有人说,『我相信如果人愿意,他们就可以得救。』我亲爱的先生,这根本不是问题。 问题在于,有人是按本性愿意顺服基督福音那使人降卑的条件吗?我们照着圣经的权威宣告,人的意志是如此拼命要行恶,如此败坏,倾向任何罪恶之事——对任何良善之事如此抗拒——若没有圣灵大能,超自然和不可抗拒的影响,没有人会被约束归向基督。你回答说人有时候没有圣灵的帮助也是愿意的。我回答说——你从来遇见过这样的人没有?⋯⋯

我认为这就是耶稣在约翰福音第三章整章强调重生的原因了。尼哥底母不明白耶稣的说话:「从肉身生的就是肉身;从灵生的就是灵。」 正如我们第一次从肉身生是被动的,我们从灵生也一样是被动的。我们不主动配合参与这两次生命的「出生」。在这段经文中, 圣灵被比拟为风, 我们不知道祂从哪裡来,往哪裡去;凡从圣灵生的,也是如此。 (约三8) 

换句话说,圣灵的工作是主权性的,超自然的。就如你在一个盲人眼前点亮一道光向他命令你所有的需要,盲人仍在黑暗中什麽也看不见。盲人不是需要光,而是一双全新的眼睛。新生命也是这样。重生之前撒旦俘虏我们使我们按照牠的意志行事。牠弄瞎我们的眼睛, 使我们看不见真理。我们必须脱离自己的基本慾望和被俘虏的意志的困绑这只能由上帝的手藉着基督所作成的工来完成。

在约翰福音三章1920节中------与三章16节同样的脉络耶稣修饰祂「叫一切信他的」的声明:「这是审判:光来到世间,世人因自己的行为是恶的,不爱光,倒爱黑暗,定他们的罪就是在此。」(这是我们所有人重生之前的光景)。

但我们都知道, 有些人来接近光阅读约翰福音三章2021节中关于这些人的描述「…但行真理的必来就光,要显明他所行的是靠神而行。」 因此,确实也有一些人来接近光这些人的行为是上帝作工的结果。 「靠神而行」是指在主裡由主而作。撇开上帝这种恩慈的重生工作,所有人都会憎恨上帝的光,不会来接近光。

与依靠单独地阅读适合我们特定的神学系统的单一经文相反,我们必须以经解经。现在我们看了约翰福音第三章整体,经文的真正含义就变得清晰了。当我们分享福音时,约翰一章10-12节也是特别受喜爱的配合经文:

「他在世界,世界也是藉着他造的,世界却不认识他。他到自己的地方来,自己的人却不接受他。凡接受他的,就是信他名的人,他就赐给他们权利,成为神的儿女。」(约1:10-12新译本)

多么伟大的经文,我也爱用这几节经文,但我们不能就此止步。我们应该认识到,我们必须加上作修饰用的13节:

「这等人不是从血气生的,不是从情慾生的,也不是从人意生的,乃是从神生的。」(约一13新译本)

  我发觉很奇怪许多人在陈述福音时, 省略这节经文:这些经文都是连在一起的。圣经重複着不变的主题:我们需要悔改,相信福音,但除此之外,没有圣灵重生人的工作, 我们在道德上无能力如此做(悔改与相信)。约翰福音三章16节「叫一切信他的」的邀请对像是所有的人真正地邀请所有的人,但是没有一个人在自然本性上渴望上帝。所有人都拒绝上帝的邀请,但上帝为我们作成了我们自己所不能做的事。

这些来到上帝面前的人归荣耀给上帝,因为上帝已经准备他们的心,使他们对基督的渴慕大于停留在罪中的慾望。这就是在使徒行传中,上帝透过保罗的宣讲对吕底亚作成:「主就开导她的心,叫她留心听保罗所讲的话。」(徒十六14)    在吕底亚身上发生的事情也同样发生在每个相信基督的人身上。如果上帝打开我们的心窍,我们愿意相信(申廿九4 6 ,而且不会抗拒,因为我们的心已被更新,我们不想对抗。我们由圣灵復活的新本性拥有新的渴望和新的性情,这些都是我们自己不能作成的。

如果主打开吕底亚的心窍,让她留心注意,而她抗拒了,那将是一个矛盾的声称。请注意,上帝打开她的心窍使她「留心注意」。如果上帝解除吕底亚的敌意,因此她相信,   那麽就上帝是否在其他有信心的人身上作工这议题,应该不会有进一步的争论。儘管实际上是我们自己要相信,然而,在神人合作的观点中,人仍旧在堕落、未重生、顽固石心的本性下,   能把感情和信心归向上帝。对肯定「先在恩典」教义的阿民念来说,这甚至是真实,因为这些被赐予「先在恩典」的人是未重生者或已经是基督徒了。人(包括男女)必须首先拥有一个新的本性来相信---- 即圣经教导我们的,没有圣灵的工作,   人不会渴望,不能明白,也不能够顺服或者归向上帝(林前二14,罗八7 ,罗三11 )。如果我们要相信,上帝必须首先把我们的石心转变成肉心:

「我也要赐给你们一个新心,将新灵放在你们裡面。又从你们的肉体中除掉石心,赐给你们肉心。我必将我的灵,放在你们裡面,使你们顺从我的律例,谨守遵行我的典章。」 (结卅六26-27)

阿民念者和其他神人合作者认为「信心」的渴望——即我们藉以相信耶稣,上帝会称罪人为义的,天生就属于我们的信心不是上帝的恩赐,也就是说,不是靠圣灵的感动更正我们的意志,使我们从不信到信,从不敬虔到敬虔。但是使徒保罗说,「我深信那在你们心裡动了善工的,必成全这工,直到耶稣基督的日子。」(腓一6

保罗再次说,「你们得救是本乎恩,也因着信,这并不是出于自己,乃是神所赐的;」(弗二8 此外,有些错误教导说,当上帝怜悯我们时,在重生的恩典以外,我们也能相信,愿意和渴望耶稣,但我们不承认甚至我们拥有的信心,意志,或者相信福音的能力是透过圣灵的感动,在我们裡面的作工的结果如果他们依靠谦卑或顺服的行为来协助恩典而不同意上帝的恩赐本身能使我们谦卑或顺服那麽他们违背了圣经的教导「使你与人不同的是谁呢?你有什麽不是领受的呢?若是领受的,为何自夸,彷彿不是领受的呢?」(林前四7 , 和「然而我今日成了何等人,是蒙神的恩才成的,并且他所赐我的恩不是徒然的。我比众使徒格外劳苦;这原不是我,乃是神的恩与我同在。」(林前十五10


Flesh and Blood Has Not Revealed this to You & John 3:16
by John Hendryx

The commandments of God were never meant to empower us but to strip us of trusting in our own ability so that we would come to an end of ourselves. With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation (Rom 3:20, 5:20, Gal 3:19,24).  A command or invitation with an open ended hypothetical statement such as John 3:16 ('whosover believes') does not imply the ability to fulfill it. This is especially true in light of texts such as John 1:13, Rom 9:16, John 6:37, 44, 63-65; Rom 3:11; Matt 16-26' 1 Cor 2:14 and many more which show man's moral inability to come to faith or believe the Gospel in their fallen state. In our unregenerate nature we do not want God but rather love darkness and "will not come into the light" * (John 3:19, 20).

 If men are never found naturally willing to submit in faith to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ, then how can it be good news? (Rom 3:11; John 6:64,65; 2 Thessalonians 3:2) Because in Christ Jesus, God gives to us freely, what he demands from us. In the gospel God reveals the same righteousness and faith for us that God demands from us. What we had to have, but could not create or achieve or fulfill, God grants us freely, namely, the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21) and living faith that unites to Christ. He reveals, as a gift in Christ Jesus, the faith and righteousness that was once only a demand. Faith is not something that the sinner contributes towards the price of His salvation. Jesus has already paid that price in full for us.  Faith is our first gasp of breath in our new birth, so to speak.  It is a witness of God's work of grace already haven taken place within us (Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 2:25; 1 John 5:1; John 6:63, 65).

 Notice that Romans 3:11, 12 says "there is none who seek God, no not one" and 1 Cor 2:14 says that "the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness to him and he does not accept them because they are spiritually discerned."  Even Peter had to have the Father reveal that Jesus was the Christ (Matthew 16:17). We affirm with Arminians that “whosoever believes” has eternal life ... but the question goes back further than that - what causes one to believe?

 C.H. Spurgeon, in his sermon Human Inability, explained this with great clarity:

 "Oh!" saith the Arminian, "men may be saved if they will." We reply, "My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the "if they will" that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it--"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;' and as long as that "ye will not come' stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will." It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. "Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer--Did you ever meet with any person who was?... "

 I would argue that is why Jesus stresses the new birth in the entire passage of John 3.  Nicodemus could not understand Jesus’ language: “Flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit.” Just as in our first physical birth we were passive so also in our spiritual birth we are the same.  We do not actively participate in either birth with our efforts. The Spirit is likened to the wind in the passage where we do not know if it is coming or going - so it is everyone who is born of the spirit. (John 3:8) IN other words, the work of the Spirit is sovereign and supernatural. Just as a blind man will not see if you shine a light in his eyes, command him all you want.  It isn't light he needs but an entirely new set of eyes. That is what the new birth is like.  Prior to regeneration Satan has taken us captive to do his will.  He has blinded us to the truth.  We must be freed from our own base desires and captive will which can only be accomplished by the finger of God through the finished work of Christ.

 In John 3:19, 20 in the same context of 3:16 (three verses later) Jesus qualifies His "whosoever believes" statement: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” (emphasis mine). (That's all of us prior to regeneration).

 But we all know that some do come to the light. Read what John 3:20-21 says about them. "…But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." So indeed there are those who come to the light; those whose deeds are the work of God. "Wrought in God" means worked in and by God. Apart from this gracious regenerating work of God all men hate the light of God and will not come into it.

 Instead of hanging our hats on a single verse read in isolation that fits our particular system of theology we must interpret scripture with scripture.. Now that we view the entirety of John 3 the true meaning of the text becomes clear.   John 1:10-12 is also a favorite of synergists when sharing the gospel:

 “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--."

 Great passage, I also love to use this verse but we can’t stop there. We should recognize that we must add the qualifier in verse 13:

 "…children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of  God."  John 1:13

 I find it peculiar many leave this verse out in their gospel presentations: These verses all go together. This repeats a constant theme in the Scriptures: that we are required to repent and believe the gospel, but additionally, that we are morally unable to do so without the quickening work of the Holy Spirit.   The offer of “whosoever believes” John 3:16 is to all men and truly offered to all men, but no natural man desires God. ALL reject his offer, but what we cannot do for ourselves God does for us. Those who do come to God give Him the glory because He has prepared their heart, giving them a desire for Christ that is greater than their desire to remain in sin. This is what He did for Lydia through the preaching of Paul in the book of Acts: “the Lord opened her heart [Lydia] to give heed to what was said by Paul" (Acts 16:14). What happened to Lydia is what happens to everyone who comes to faith in Christ. If the Lord opens our heart we willingly believe (Deut 29:4, 30:6), and no resistance is given because, our hearts having been renewed, we wouldn't want to resist. Our new natures which are made alive by the Holy Spirit have new desires and dispositions that we could not produce on our own. If the Lord opened Lydia's heart to give heed and she resisted, it would be a contradictory statement. Note that God opened her heart "to give heed". If God disarmed Lydia's hostility so she would believe then there should be no further debate as to whether He does this in everyone else that has faith. Although we do the actual believing ourselves, however, in the synergistic scheme, man turns his affection and faith toward God while still in his fallen, unregenerate stony-hearted nature. This is even true for Arminians who affirm "prevenient grace" because those who are granted prevenient grace are not regenerate or they would already be Christians. men and women must first have a new nature to believe - i.e. the Scripture teaches that the man without the Spirit does not desire, understand, nor is able to obey or turn to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, Rom 3:11). If we are to believe, God must first make our heart of stone into a heart of flesh:

 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” - Ezekiel 36:26-27

 Arminians and other synergists believe that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies sinners, belongs to us by nature and is not a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness. But the Apostle Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). Furthermore some wrongly teach that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his regenerative grace, we believe, will and desire, but fail to confess that it is by the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we even have the faith, the will, or the strength to believe the gospel; If they make the assistance of grace depend on our humility or obedience but don't agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, they contradict the Scripture which says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).



2017-11-17

神的意志和人的意志

作者:司布真(Charles H. Spurgeon)編/譯者:趙昕怡 林怡吟等
摘錄自《上帝主權的恩典》P. 13-36 Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons改革宗出版有限公司 201213-36

據此看來,這不在乎那定意的,也不在乎那奔跑的,只在乎發憐憫的神。(羅九16

愿意的,都可以白白取生命的水喝。(啟二十二17

「意志」是長期以來造成教會爭論、分裂的難題,這些沖突對基督教會所造成的危害是無庸置疑的,也就無須贅述了。但我倒是說,它也帶來了不可勝數的益處。若不是因著這些爭論,寶貴真理仍可能隱晦不明,無法深植基督徒的內心。我相信基督教得以重視「人的責任」和「神的主權」這兩大教義,要歸功于有一群頑固、堅持高舉神的主權,貶低人的責任的人,以及另一群能干、狂熱,為了維護人的責任而貶損神的主權的人。教會了無生氣時,需要這類健康的刺激來喚醒她,使其有所作為。對于人有限的智慧而言,這是需要的。置身在真理活水中的鵝卵石,會因磨擦沖刷而變得光滑圓潤。誰會想要中止一條整體而言有良好影響的自然律呢?

今日雖有諸多反對「宗派主義」(sectarianism)的呼聲,因為我們的仇敵正是用「宗派主義」這個虛偽的術語來對付所有堅定的宗教信仰。但我卻以此為榮,我發現任何類型的基督徒,只要他有滿腔熱忱,無論所持的觀點是什么,馬上就會被扣上宗派主義者的帽子。愿「宗派主義」成功、蓬勃興旺!一旦它結束了,敬虔的能力也就不復存在了。當我們不再持守我們的真理,不再盡心竭力、堅守這些觀點時,真理也就會如飛而逝,獨留錯謬盛行于世了。而這正是我們仇敵的目的:以攻擊各種宗派作為幌子,實際卻是在攻擊真正的信仰。如果可行的話,他們甚至想讓它完全消失于地球之上。因此,我要再次重申:這場激烈的爭辯、不僅健康,也帶給我們很多的益處。

造成爭論、錯謬的原因,主要是因為有些弟兄對于真理顧此而失彼,一方面有過之,卻在另一方面也有不及之處。我們每個人都瞎了一只眼,常常就像戰場上的獨眼將。軍納爾遜(Nelson)1一般,用瞎眼來看望遠鏡,然后再聲稱我們沒辦法看見。有個人告訴我說,他已經跪著讀完圣經三十四遍了,卻從未看到有任何一個談到關于「揀選」的字。但我認為他看不到也是極有可能的,因為跪著閱讀并不是個很舒服的姿勢。而叫這個可憐人如此苦修的迷信思想,很可能也使他無法善用自己的理智。況且,要讀過圣經三十四遍,他八成是囫圇吞棗似匆匆讀過,就算手上拿的是《魯賓遜漂流記》(Robinson Crusoe)說不定還以為自己看的是《圣經》呢,正是用瞎眼來看望遠鏡。許多人也是如出一轍,因為我們不想看見真理,所以就說我們看不見真理。

另一方面,有些人過度強調一項真理。他們說:「這真理真好,哦!這真是寶貴啊!」于是,他們就認為這個真理在各個方面都是好的,當它是世界上唯一的真理。我們都知道過度的贊譽常會誤事。一劑能治愈某種疾病的良藥,會因某個庸醫把它吹捧成包治百病的萬靈丹,因此被正規醫師徹底地鄙視。同樣地,過度夸大某個教義,只會令其蒙羞,真理也因此在各個方面都受了虧損。他們一方面看不到全部的真理,另一方面卻又夸大了他們所看見的部分真理。我們都照過掛在花園里的哈哈鏡,走近時,看見鏡里的自己頭比身體大了十倍,但換了另一個位置,腳卻成了巨足,身體反倒變小了。哈哈鏡是一種精巧的玩具,但我很遺憾地說,許多人就是用這種看哈哈鏡的方式來看待神的真理,過分推崇某個重要的真理,使它變成了龐然怪物;但另一面又削弱其他真理的重要性,鮮少提及,以致被人完全遺忘。

在今早我要指出的錯謬中,你們或許會發現人類共有的通病,甚至也會質疑,我是否也會推崇某個真理而犧牲其他的真理。因此,在繼續我的講道前,我要先說明的是,我會盡力地避免這種錯誤,并按著我所領受的,據實并竭盡全力地來闡明真理。若你認為我的教導違背了神的話語,請拒絕我的教導;但請留意,若我是按著神的話語教導,你的拒絕會使你陷入險境,因為一旦我向你闡明了這些真理,你若不接受,責任就在你自己了。

今早我要談兩件事情:
一、救贖之工仰賴神的旨意,而不在乎人的意志。
二、同樣明確的教義是,不可忽視人的意志在救贖之工中的適當地位。

一、救贖之工仰賴神的旨意,而不在乎人的意志

圣經明確地告訴我們:「這不在乎那定意的,也不在乎那奔跑的,只在乎發憐憫的神。」(羅九16)這清楚地指明,任何人的得救不是因為他自己想要得救,乃是神要救他。而另一段經文說到:「不是你們揀選了我,是我揀選了你們。」(約十五16)由此可以斷定,救恩的整全計劃自始至終的關鍵與轉折,全都在乎神絕對的旨意,而不仰賴受造者的意愿。我們可從幾方面來說明這點。

 ()類比的論據

首先,可以從一個相當有力的類比(analogy)2來推論。神所有的工作都有著某種固定的相似性。如同一位畫家畫了三幅畫,三幅畫的畫風必定有著某種相似性,能讓你認出是出自同一人的手筆。又如一個作家寫了三篇不同主題的文章,其寫作風格也同樣會貫穿于三篇文章之間,以致人能認出:「雖出自于三本不同的書,卻是同一人所寫的。」那么,自然界里的法則,也同樣存在于神的護理之工;而適用于自然界與神護理之工的原則,通常也適用于偉大的恩典之工。

現在,讓我們來思想創造之工。在萬物尚未被造成的那一段時間,太陽尚未生出,新月還沒有月牙,也沒有點點繁星,甚至連那無邊無際混沌的宇宙也不存在。神獨自居住,沒有任何受造物。我問你,祂與誰商議?又有誰教導祂呢?誰能揚聲建議神、引導祂的智慧呢?創造豈不按著祂自己的意旨嗎?當創造完全在祂的意念與保守中孕育而成,豈不都是按祂的喜悅而造嗎?神樂意創造時,無論是創造什么、如何創造,神豈不是按著祂自己的意旨和意愿嗎?如果神把星星造成球體,那么除了出于祂自己的意愿外,還會有其他的原因嗎?如果神要星體按圓形軌道運轉,而不按其他方式運轉,這豈不也是祂自己的命令使它們如此運轉嗎?當我們居住的這個綠色地球從神創造的手中一躍而出,再進入陽光四射的軌道時,豈不也是按照祂神圣的旨意嗎?除了萬有的主宰以外,誰能命令喜馬拉雅山昂然矗立、高聳入云,使海中的深淵探入地心之處呢?除了祂之外,誰還能叫撒哈拉成為黃褐色貧瘠的荒漠,叫那些翠綠小島在碧海的環抱中歡喜踴躍呢?我要說,除了神以外,還有誰能頒布這樣的命令呢?你可以遍察所有的受造物,從至小的微生物,到侍立在神寶座前的高大天使長,都是神按著自己的旨意所成就的杰作。彌爾頓(Milton)3如此高貴、正確地描繪了永恒的那一位:

我的良善全然自由,行作萬事;
必然和偶然無關于我,
我的旨意就是天命。

神按自己所喜悅的來創造,按自己的選擇來作成萬事;窯匠有權按他自己的意思來模塑手中的器皿,按他所喜悅的用途來陶造它們。你認為神從祂施恩的寶座上退位了嗎?難道祂只有創造的主權,而不在恩典中掌權嗎?難道祂只是掌管萬有的主宰,卻無法掌管更偉大的新造之工嗎?難道祂僅是起初創造萬物的主宰,而不是使萬物都更新、行再造之工的君王嗎?

再來看護理之工。我認為在關于神按著自己的旨意來命令萬事的護理之工方面,我們之間并沒有任何的爭論。但如果我們對此事尚有疑慮的話,或許該聽聽尼布甲尼撒王的驚人之語。他被神管教,為他的驕傲悔改說:「世上所有的居民,都算為虛無。在天上的萬軍和世上的居民中,祂都憑自己的旨意行事。無人能攔住祂手,或問祂說,你作什么呢?(但四35)從人類有歷史之初,甚至到最后一刻,神的旨意都必定成就。盡管禍患與罪惡可能肇始于「第二因」以及人類的邪惡行徑,但偉大的「第一因」始終掌管一切。想像如果某個人類的行徑可以逃脫神的預知或預定,那么所有人類的行徑也都可以在神的預知或預定之外了。那么萬事都將隨波逐流、無錨無舵,被每個浪潮玩弄,淪為暴風雨的犧牲品了。「護理之船」上的任何一個裂縫都會讓船沉沒,全能神放松掌舵片刻,船都將粉身碎骨。

然而,「萬事都互相效力,叫愛神的人得益處。」(羅八28)這話對于神所有的子民來說,是多么令人欣慰的信心啊!神統管且有絕對支配的權力,并在人類一切的行動和發生的事上作王;從看似邪惡的事上仍能生出良善,甚至是更好的事物,并在持續的進展中產生更好的,繼續按著祂的旨意安排萬事。難道你認為神只在護理之工上掌權作王,而不在恩典之工上掌權嗎?難道祂已經放棄以寶血買贖的子民,任由人來管理,僅僅留下普遍的護理做為祂自己唯一的產業嗎?祂并沒有讓護理這輛偉大的戰車脫韁失控。當基督駕著祂恩典的戰車向前行時,戰馬豈會是毫無方向地行進,或只是被偶然所驅使,或是受人類反復無常的意志所支配?哦,不是的!弟兄們,神的旨意確確實實是宇宙的主軸,同樣也是護理的偉大中心,能掌控、觸及到人類行動的最遠之處。所以讓我們在恩典中得享安息,確信祂是王,祂會按自己所喜悅的行做萬事,憐憫祂愿意施憐憫的人,呼召祂要選召的人,蘇醒祂要蘇醒的人,不論人心如何的剛硬,意志如何頑梗、忤逆地拒絕基督,祂一定能成就祂自己的目的和旨意,絕不會徒勞無功。因此,這個類比有助于強化我們這一項宣稱,即救恩并不依靠人的意愿。

 ()「救恩在乎人的意志」的窘境

我們認為反對的觀點會面臨極大的困境。事實上,我們根本無法去承擔、面對它。倘若我們所持的論點是有爭議的,那么反對觀點所遭遇的難題將比我們的大十倍。「救恩取決于神的旨意」,這個信念的難題是源于我們的無知、對神認識的不足,以致不能評判。但反對論點的難題并不在于這個原因,而是有某些明確偉大的真理清楚地反對他們所擁護的虛構之事。根據他們的理論,救恩取決于人自己的意志。他們首先要面對的難題就是,在每件事上加上了「如果」,把神偉大的救贖計劃和目的變成完全不可預料。按著這個理論,基督也許死了,但祂不一定會救贖許多人,甚至無法確定祂救贖了任何一個人。因為按著這個計劃,救贖的功效不在于祂自身的權能,而是取決于接受救贖之人的意志。因此,倘若我們堅稱,人永遠是自己意志的奴隸,并沒有降服于神恩典的邀請,那么,在這樣的情況下,基督的代贖就變得毫無價值、全然無用并徒勞無功了,因為沒有一個靈魂會因此而得蒙拯救。尚且,即使靈魂因此得救,按著這個理論,我也只能說,得救的功效不在于基督寶血本身,乃在于使其生發功效的人的意志。所以,救贖成了人的自由選擇,十架救恩搖搖欲墜,寶血大能流失殆盡,得救只是個可能。雖有天堂為我們預備,但進去與否是出于我們自己的選擇,這樣,可能沒有一個靈魂得以進入天堂了。除非是神的目的與權能迫使人來就近祂,否則,雖有一寶血活泉滿溢,卻無一人能在此得潔凈。你可以看見,任何一項恩典的應許若有「如果」和「但是」,「可能」與「偶然」的不確定性在其中,我們就不能說:「就是應許大衛的那可靠的恩典」4。事實上,一旦掌控權脫離了神的手,創造之輪上的釘子松脫了,有效的恩典和憐憫成了按著人自我意志所驅動的偶發原子,其最終的結局也就無人知曉了。在這樣的理論下,我們無法得知是神會得到榮耀,還是罪惡得勝。哦!我們得以重回這古舊的教義,將錨穩妥地拋在神永恒的目的與護理之上,這是何等令人歡欣呀!

反對觀點隨之而來的另一個難題是:不僅每件事情都成了偶然,而且人仿佛成了宇宙至高的活物。依照這自由意志的主張,神雖想要為善,但祂卻像個阿諛的仆人,要贏得自己的受造物來了解祂的意圖。神雖美善,也要成就美善,但祂卻無能為力,因為人不愿意接受神良善的作為。永恒的神已從祂的寶座上被拉下來,由人這墮落的受造物堂皇地取而代之。您覺得這會是怎樣的景況呢?按著這個理論,人決定一切,他的首肯決定了命運。命運若不是按著神的旨意,就是取決于人的意志。若是按著神的旨意,耶和華坐在祂榮耀寶座上為王,所有受造物都臣服于祂,這世界是安全無虞的。但若不是神掌權,就是把人放在寶座上,按他說「我愿意」或「我不愿意」來決定;「若我愿意,就可以進天堂:若我愿意,也能征服圣靈,因我比神、比全能者更強大。若我愿意,便使基督寶血完全失效,因我比寶血更有能力,比神兒子的寶血更有大能。神雖立定祂的目的,但我卻嗤笑祂,因其成敗全在乎我。」怎么會如此呢?這若不是無神論(atheism),就是偶像崇拜(idolatry)。這種把人高舉到神的地位之上,使得神救贖的大工完全仰仗于祂所造之物的意愿,這教義令我膽顫心驚。而我惟一矜夸、也必須夸耀的是「這不在乎那定意的,也不在乎那奔跑的,只在乎發憐憫的神。」(羅九16)

 ()人本性的敗壞使人不肯接受救恩

我認為,從人既有的狀況就足以駁斥救贖仰賴人自己意志的假設,并且更肯定了救贖仰賴于神的旨意而不是人的決定——是神先采取第一步,而非受造物。弟兄姐妹,若說人來就近基督是自己的意志,你們要如何解釋經上提到人是死的呢?「你們死在過犯罪惡之中,祂叫你們活過來。」(弗二1)你也許會說這是象征性的說法。姑且讓你這么說吧,但這是什么意思呢?你說這是指靈性上的死亡。好吧!那我問你,若是如此,人又如何能立志行屬靈的善行呢?人活著只能行惡,而且只會不斷地行惡,卻不會去行出屬靈的美善。你難道不知道人甚至無法分辨何為屬靈嗎?圣經另一處經文說道,屬血氣的人不能領會神的事,因為神的事是屬靈的,惟有屬靈的人才能看透。為什么呢?因為他只有血氣,沒有「靈」得以看透,若沒有稱為神的道之「圣靈」的重生,他是一無所知的,因此,也就無法得知他是死的,并且,沒有生命的靈去行事。而我們的救贖主對那些已經聽過祂話的人說:「你們不肯到我這里來得生命」(約五40),你們又怎么看待這句話呢?在這樣的經文之后,何來自由意志呢?基督斷定他們不肯,誰敢說他們會肯呢?但你說:「呃!只要他們肯,他們就能。」親愛的弟兄姐妹,我談的不是能不能的問題,而是他們是否會肯,問題在于「他們會肯嗎?」我肯定他們「不會肯」,按人的本性他們絕對不會肯。人是如此地敗壞,如此喜愛作惡,人的驕傲與情欲是如此痛惡這樣的救贖之法,以致于他不會喜歡它,也不肯喜歡它,除非命定計劃的神改變人的本性,降伏他的意愿。請注意,人頑梗的意志是他的罪,是無可推諉的。人有罪、被定罪是因他不肯來就近:因他不肯相信基督,所以審判要落在他的頸項上。若由人自己來做決定,按人的本性,人是不肯來就近的,因此,事實仍然沒有改變。如果人不肯,如何能得救呢?除了神使他肯,除非創造人心的神以某種奧秘的方式觸動人心的發條,才能使人轉離人本性的方向。

 ()神子民的普遍經驗

救贖仰賴于神的旨意是神所有子民的普遍經驗,這是另一個我們所熟悉的論述。你或許會說:「你活得并不夠久。」我并沒有一大把歲數,但我熟識許多不同宗派的基督教會的人,因此,能慎重地對你如此說,我還未遇過哪個自稱是基督徒的人,會說他相信神完全是靠他自己那沒有受到幫助的本性,那真基督徒也就更不用說了。我相信普世神的子民無一例外,都會承認是圣靈使他們成為現在的樣子;若非神甘甜的恩典左右他們的意志,他們仍會和其他人一樣拒絕到神這里來。在衛斯理的詩歌集中,有一些詩歌的表達比我所說的更為強烈,因他求神使罪人開口禱告,祈求神迫使人靠著恩典得救。我當然不會反對這樣強烈的措辭,但它同時也證明了基督教的各宗派,不論阿民念(Arminian)5還是加爾文派(Calvinistic),不論所持的教義為何,所經歷的感受卻是雷同的。任何一位信徒都接受以下的詩詞:

!我愛耶穌,因為祂先愛我。
是那愛擺設了筵席,
何等甘甜,迫使我們進前來;
若不然,我們仍拒絕來品嘗,
且在自己的罪中滅亡。6
人們絕不會認為這首詩歌有什么錯誤。

我們拿著冠冕說:「誰是我們應當加冕的呢?是誰掌管這回轉的契機呢?是誰決定罪人得救呢?」就算撇開信條不談,全世界上屬神的教會都說:「給祂加冕!給祂加冕!戴冠冕在祂頭上,因祂配得!祂已改變我們,祂已做成這工。贊美歸于祂,直到永永遠遠。」然而令我感到吃驚的是,人們竟然相信與自己經驗相抵觸的教義,并且將其視為珍寶般地全心擁護它,他們必定是信服了自己內在的謊言了。

 ()圣經的論證

最后,圣經的論證是最具說服力的。畢竟,不論是用類比的推論,或是反對立場所遇到的窘境,或是從眾所周知的軟弱人性來看,甚或是從經驗來推演,都無法一次有效地澄清這個問題。

人當以訓誨和法度為標準,若他們不照著這些準則說話,是因在他們里面沒有光。現在就讓我們來看圣經對這個主要論點的說法。首先來看神救贖的預備和計劃。在使徒寫給以弗所教會的書信中,第一章3節這樣說到:「愿頌贊歸于我們主耶穌基督的父神!祂在基督里曾賜給我們天上各樣屬靈的福氣。就如神從創立世界以前,在基督里揀選了我們,使我們在祂面前成為圣潔,無有瑕疵;又因愛我們,就按著自己意旨所喜悅的,預定我們藉著耶穌基督得兒子的名分。」(弗一3-5)注意這里的雙重用詞——這是按照祂的旨意所喜悅的(the will of his will)。救贖絕對仰賴于神的旨意,這一點再也沒有比原文的表達更為強烈的了。而在被揀選成為祂的子民和得兒子名分的事上,也是完全根據祂自己的旨意。直到如今我們仍確信使徒的這個見證。第9節:「都是照祂自己所預定的美意,叫我們知道祂旨意的奧秘,要照所安排的,在日期滿足的時候,使天上地上一切所有的,都在基督里面同歸于一。」(弗一9-10)這樣看來,使一切得救、在基督里同歸于一的宏偉結局,正如神最初的目的一樣,都是按照祂旨意所預定的。救贖惟仰賴于神的旨意,除此之外,還有什么更有力的明證嗎?

11節更進一步說到:「我們也在祂里面得了基業,這原是那位隨己意行作萬事的,照著祂旨意所預定的。」這里有個比「照著祂旨意」(of his will)更為強烈的表達——「按祂自己的旨意」(of his own will),按祂不受限制且公平的旨意,單單是祂的旨意。無論從救贖或永恒的目的來看,都是按著神的旨意。你記得希伯來書十章9節說到:「后又說「我來了為要照禰的旨意行。」可見祂是除去在先的,為要立定在后的。我們憑這旨意,靠耶穌基督只一次獻上祂的身體,就得以成圣。」(來十9-10)所以,如同早在創世以先的揀選,十架獻上的救贖,都是按神的旨意做成的。

這里會有些許的爭議,主要是在我們重生(new birth)的這一點上,?我們不能容許有任何差異的觀點。按約翰福音一章13節:「這等人不是從血氣生的,不是從情欲生的,也不是從人意生的,乃是從神生的。」對人的意志過度矜夸的宣告,沒有任何人的言語能像這節經文那樣,如此堅定地予以否認。而另一段同樣清楚的經文,是在雅各書一章18節:「祂按自己的旨意,用真道生了我們,叫我們在祂所造的萬物中,好像初熟的果子。」這些的經文(不僅只是這些經文)是最強而有力的文字記載,重生絕對是出于神的目的與旨意,而成圣(sanctification)又是重生的結果和自然的產物,這也是按著神的神圣旨意。帖撒羅尼迦前書四章3節寫道:「神的旨意就是要你們成為圣潔。」另一節你們需參考的是約翰福音六章39節,這里我們看到神子民得蒙保守、堅忍、復活和有永恒的榮耀,都是按著祂的旨意:「差我來者的意思就是:祂所賜給我的,叫我一個也不失落,在末日卻叫他復活。因為我父的意思是叫一切見子而信的人得永生,并且在末日我要叫他復活。」(約六39-40)這確實是圣徒確定得以進天堂的原因,因基督在約翰福音十七章的禱告:「父啊,我在哪里,愿禰所賜給我的人也同我在那里」(約十七24)

總之,按著圣經,新約里的祝福沒有任何—項不是按著神的旨意賜予我們的。猶如船只仰賴鉚釘一般,我們領受的每個祝福全仰賴于神絕對的旨意和計劃;按祂的旨意,不僅賜給我們憐憫,甚至賜給我們各樣屬靈的恩賜。這點我們就說到此為止,接下來要花些時間來談第二個偉大的真理。



2017-11-16

司布真与“降格争议”Spurgeonand the Downgrade Controversy

 作者/譯者:Paul Mizzi/Duncan Liang

浸信会传道人司布真,以及他所参与的反对人称之为“降格”的自由主义的斗争The Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon and his involvement in the controversy against liberalism known as the Downgrade.

“降格争议”涉及的主要问题Major issues of the Downgrade Controversy

司布真勇敢地遵从了那“要为从前一次交付圣徒的真道竭力争辩”的命令,尽管他恨恶为争论而争论,然而他把抵制在福音派(特别是在浸信会联盟)中人所能见,从保守的基督教真理中后退的倾向视为己任。The appeal to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints was heroically obeyed by Spurgeon. Though he hated controversy for its own sake, yet he accounted it his duty to resist a palpable trend within evangelicalism (and particularly within the Baptist Union) that regressed from conservative Christian truth.

司布真审视在抗罗宗教会内部日渐升起的高等批判运动,他很不情愿,不得不开口捍卫真道。在这场争论中事情是怎样发展的,有哪些主要问题?十九世纪科学,哲学,语言和历史都录得许多的进步,可以说另外一次的文艺复兴正在形成,许多人开口表达对事物准确和进步的新的关切。As Spurgeon assessed the steady rise of Higher Criticism within the Protestant Churches, he reluctantly had to speak up in defence of the Faith. How did the state of things come about, and what were the major issues in the Controversy? During the nineteenth century many advances in science, philosophy, languages and history were registered. It could be said that another Renaissance was taking place; a new concern for accuracy and progress was voiced by many.

然而在这场前进的努力中,已经建立起来的基督教教条开始受到公开的质疑,甚至被人否认;古来的来源被批判性地加以审查,传统上为人接受的东西落在人的查验之下。在福音派内部存在着一种看法,就是如果其他领域可以取得进步,那么为什么教会内部不可以进步?我们的属灵认识为什么要保持静止不动?However, in this effort to advance, established Christian dogma began to be openly questioned and even denied; old sources were critically examined; what was traditionally accepted was brought under examination. Within evangelicalism, it was reasoned that if in other spheres advances were possible, then why not within the church? Why should our spiritual knowledge remain static?

那些举起所谓进步旗帜的人愿意对圣经内容采取一种不那么严格,更少批判性的态度,在司布真身为成员的浸信会联盟里,有几位领袖人物存在着一种越来越明显的倾向,他们改变强调坚持点,离开那古旧的福音。Those who raised the banner of so-called progress were willing to adopt a less rigid and less uncritical attitude to the contents of Scripture. There was in the Baptist Union, of which Spurgeon was a member, a growing shift of emphasis, by several of its leaders, away from the old gospel.

这并不令人感到惊奇,因为在这时候,在达尔文所著《物种起源》一书中所宣扬的进化论在各个方面都开始受人注意。另外,大不列颠正看到德国高等批判运动的入侵,它怀疑圣经的准确性和可靠性。许多传道人被带领走上歪路,进到无知的辩论和空谈的里面,而这一切都是在进步的名义下进行的。This is not surprising, since it was the time during which the influence of Darwins theory of evolution, as propounded in his book The Origin of Species, was being felt all around. Besides, Great Britain was witnessing an influx of Germany’s higher criticism, casting doubt on the integrity and reliability of Holy Scripture. Many preachers were being led astray into idle and vain speculation...in the name of progress.

尽管许多教义,比如永远的惩罚,基督的神性等受到了质疑,但超越其他一切的主要问题是圣经是否为神默示,是否可靠。圣经作为不死的神无误的话语,作为信心和行为唯一的准则正受到攻击。这场争论的名字来自这个事实,就是那真正的圣经神学,由圣经塑造,蕴藏在圣经中的抗罗宗信仰,正处在“降格”之中。Though many doctrines came to be questioned, such as eternal punishment and the deity of Christ, the major issue above all else was the inspiration and absolute reliability of Scripture. The Scripture, as the inert Word of the undying God, as the sole rule of faith and practice, was being undermined. The Controversy took its name from the fact that true scriptural theology, the Protestant Faith as shaped by and embedded in Scripture, was on the ‘downgrade.’

主要的争战方The main combatants

作为一个热爱神和他的真理的人,司布真不能继续保持沉默。当他察觉到这样的光景时,他被迫要采取公开的行动。他开始给浸信会联盟写信,要求联盟采纳一种福音派的信仰宣言。到那时为止,加入联盟的唯一条件就是人要相信成年人全身浸入受洗。司布真意识到,面对向福音发起的进攻,这个要求是何等不足。As a lover of God and His truth, Spurgeon could not remain silent. When he became aware of this situation he was forced to taken public action. He began by writing to the Baptist Union and requested that it should adopt an evangelical statement of faith. Till then, the only condition for membership in the Union was that one believes in adult baptism by immersion. Spurgeon realized how minimal this was in the face of the attacks that were being made upon the Gospel.

因着联盟对那些削弱圣经真理的人不采取纪律措施的缘故,他的请求就越显得重要。纳塔尔主教科连索于1862年在南非因着攻击摩西五经的真实性而被革职。然而当他回到英格兰的时候,人们却没有坚持说他被革职是正当的。司布真写道:“神的话语在这个世代是一件小事;一些人甚至不相信它是受到默示的;那些宣称敬畏它的人树立起其他的书籍,作为对它的一种对抗。嗨,现在有地位极高的教会显贵写文章反对圣经,然而却能找到主教为他们辩护。” His request was all the more important because no disciplinary action was being taken against those who undermined Bible truth. Colenso, Bishop of Natal, was deposed in South Africa in 1862 for impugning the authenticity of the Pentateuch. However on his return to England the validity of his deposition was not upheld. Spurgeon wrote: “God’s Word, in this age, is a small affair; some do not even believe it to be inspired; and those who profess to revere it set up other books in a sort of rivalry with it. Why, there are great Church dignitaries now-a-days who write against the Bible, and yet find bishops to defend them.”

新派神学有许多的支持者。它在公理会里头占了主要地位。戴尔(R.W. Dale)公开宣告反对罪人永远受惩罚的教义。他选择了永灭论。更加伤害的是他采纳了一种立场,就是在教义上接受基督的神性,这对得救的信心来说并不是必要条件。他宣称,如果我们摒弃圣经无误这古旧的信念,基督对于我们也没有迷失。戴尔是如此厚颜无耻,以致他对一群牧师宣告:“我们之间现在没有权威加以阻隔 - 在你和我服事的会众,和那正是神的真理的他之间没有权威置身其中。” The New School of Theology had many supporters. It was dominant in Congregationalism. R.W. Dale had declared openly against the eternal punishment of the wicked. He opted for the theory of annihilation. To add insult to injury, he took the stand that a doctrinal acceptance of the deity of Christ was not a sine qua non for saving faith. Christ is not lost to us, he claimed, if we discard the old belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Dale was so brazen-faced that he declared to a group of ministers: “There is now no authority to come between us - to come between the congregation to which you and I have to minister, and Him who is the very truth of God.”

侯顿(R.F. Horton)和 麦肯南(Alexander MacKennal 戴尔的支持者。他们很狡猾地把教条说成是一种终极的声明,教义则是某种不断进步的事情,就这样把两者分开。他们宣称我们应当保留教义(因为它是受人影响的),而拒绝教条。侯顿以“进步”的名义拒绝的其中一条教条就是圣经是神所默示的。R.F. Horton and Alexander MacKennal were Dales supporters. They cunningly distinguished between dogma as a final statement, and doctrine which was something always progressing. While we should retain doctrine (because it is pliable by men), we should reject dogma, they claimed. One of the dogmas Horton rejected, in the name of “progressive” views, was the inspiration of the Bible.

司布真不能接受这一切。如果圣经降服在那仅仅是人的随意思想之下,那么信仰就变得极为危险地充满主观性。他写道:“现在这变成了一个严重的问题,就是那些坚守从前一次交付圣徒的真道的人在和那些离开,接受了别的福音的人来往要到哪个地步。基督徒相爱是有根据的,分争是严重的罪,应当避免。但是我们和那些离开真理的人结盟有多大的正当理由呢?”对司布真来说情况到了危急的地步:真理受到攻击,照他的判断对方已经是偏向“别的福音”了。Spurgeon would have none of this. Should the Bible be surrendered to the whims of mere men, then the Faith becomes so dangerously subjective. He wrote: “It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel. Christian love has its claims, and divisions are to be shunned as grievous evils; but how far are we justified in being in confederacy with those who are departing from the truth?” For Spurgeon the situation was critical: the truth was under fire and in his assessment the opponents had turned to “another gospel.”

在尽最大努力警告和呼吁那些浸信会联盟内部在位的人,特别是它的秘书布斯(S.H. Booth)之后,司布真于18871028日退出了该联盟。他的理由是联盟宁愿要宗派的和睦而不尽对付谬误的责任,因着对罪的容忍,这使得基督徒的退出成为无可避免的事。After doing his utmost to warn and appeal those in authority within the Baptist Union, especially its secretary S.H. Booth, Spurgeon withdrew from it on October 28th, 1887. His reason was that the Union was preferring denominational peace to the duty of dealing with error and thus, by tolerating sin, they made the withdrawal of Christians unavoidable.

他的立场不可动摇。在《军刀与镘刀》杂志上他对此事讲得十分清楚:“相信基督赎罪祭的信徒现在与那些轻慢这点的人公开结盟;相信圣经的信徒与那些否认完全默示的人结盟;那些持守福音教义的人与那些称人的堕落是一个故事,否认圣灵的位格,称因信称义是不道德的,坚持死后还有另外一个机会的人公开结盟。... ...我们庄严地确信,我们不应该假装有相交。与显露出来,重大的错误相交就是在罪中有份。” His stand was unshakeable. In The Sword and the Trowel, he expressed it clearly: “Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death...It is our solemn conviction that there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin” (emphasis in the original).

后来他写道:“我希望全体基督教界明白,我向联盟全部的要求就是它要建立在圣经的基础上。” Later he wrote: I would like all Christendom to know that all I asked of the Union is that it be formed on a Scriptural basis.

从这场争议中学到的功课Applied lessons from the Controversy

争议本身从来就不是令人愉快的事情,但就好像所有其他争战一样,神呼召教会战斗,“在你们中间不免有分门结党的事,好叫那些有经验的人,显明出来” (林前11:19)。每一位信徒应当牢记在心最大的教训就是要预备站在破口之中,不为敌人的猛烈进攻所吓倒。尽管世人都要跌倒,但基督徒要宣告和捍卫真道。司布真因为涉及到这场争议当中而健康恶化,然而他不愿沉默不语。“我因信,所以如此说话”(林后 4:13)。我们越蒙恩赐,对我们在前线进入阵地的呼召就越急迫。司布真看到这点,他忠心地服从。Controversy is never pleasant in itself, but as in every other battle that the church is called to fight, “there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). The prime lesson to be taken to heart by every believer is to be ready to stand in the breach and not be intimidated by the onslaught of the enemy. Though the world fall, yet the Christian is to proclaim and defend the Faith. Spurgeon’s health suffered because of his engagement in the Controversy, and yet he would not keep silent. “I believed, and therefore have I spoken” (2 Corinthians 4:13). And the more gifted we are the more urgent becomes the call the take our place on the front. Spurgeon saw this and faithfully obeyed.

尽管相对而言很少人站在司布真一边,然而他没有被吓倒。真理一定要被证明为正确,现在历史已经证明了这位真理捍卫者的正确。我们这些今天的基督徒感激他面对邪恶浪潮的勇敢。那么我们岂不也是蒙了呼召去同样行,与敌人争战,放弃舒适和受人尊敬吗?Though comparatively few sided with Spurgeon, yet he would not be deterred. Truth must be vindicated...and history has now vindicated Truths Defender. We Christians today are appreciative of his boldness to withstand the evil tide. Are we then not called to do the same, that is, to engage the enemy and forego comfort and respectability?

在这场争战最激烈的时候,司布真所讲的话值得我们思考。“不管是浸信派教会,或者圣公会,或者长老宗教会,只要错误偏离了基督的道路,它对我们任何人来说就根本算不上什么;我们所关心的是基督,以及基督的真理,我们要越过人所造的一切障碍,加以跟随。”司布真伟大之处在于他看到,即使他自己要与他自己的宗派脱离关系,只要真理这样要求,他就会这样做。许多时候我们看到自己在捍卫我们自己的宗派,丑陋的,所有的我们都捍卫,而不停下来思考我们自己的宗派可能根本就是错了。In the heat of the battle, Spurgeon made comment that is worthwhile considering. “Whether it be the Baptist Church, or the Episcopalian, or the Presbyterian Church which errs from Christ’s way, it is nothing to any one of us which it may be; it is Christ we are to care for, and Christ’s truth, and this we are to follow over all the hedges and ditches of men’s making.” Spurgeon was magnanimous enough to see that even though he had to disassociate himself from his own denomination, he would do it if the truth so demanded. Many times we ourselves are found defending our own denomination, warts and all, and do not stop to consider that our own denomination might be in error after all.

还有,司布真不愿意“把维护真理降服在维护宗派的兴旺和合一之下”。真理比合一更重要,因为真正合乎圣经的合一(那得神欢喜的合一)总是围绕在他的真理周围的。合一不是一群人同在一个屋檐下;它是一群人坚持,任信同一个真理。当基督徒相信,顺服同一神的话语时,合一就显明出来了。这是和我们今天相关的功课!Again, Spurgeon was not ready to subordinate the maintenance of truth to denominational prosperity and unity. Truth is more essential than unity, for true biblical unity (that pleases God) is always around His Truth. Unity is not a group of people under one roof; it is a group of people holding fast and confessing the same Truth. Unity becomes visible when Christians believe and obey the same Word of God. A relevant lesson for us today!

司布真高举旌旗的时候,绝大多数的人满足于维持现状。如果他们正巧在浸信会联盟内,尽管他们看到了里面的罪恶,他们是不会退出的。那使大部分的人留在司布真正确离开的联盟内的原因是,他那个时候大多数的浸信会信徒认为他们的教会有一个全国性的机构,这对他们的好处来说至关重要。差传和许多其他的活动是通过联盟的渠道进行的,一家浸信派教会脱离联盟还怎能生存?这个问题是在许多人的脑海里的,但司布真坚信向神忠心(尽管这实际意味着不再如此受人欢迎,也许“成功”的机率低了)比“生存”更重要。As Spurgeon lifted the standard high, the vast majority were content to maintain the status quo. If they happened to be in the Baptist Union, they would not pull out, even though they saw the evil therein. And the factor which retained the multitude in the Union which Spurgeon rightly left was that most Baptists of his day regarded a national organisation of their churches as essential to their well-being. Missions and many other activities were channeled through the Union; how could a Baptist church survive outside the Union? This was the question in the minds of many, but Spurgeon was convinced that faithfulness to God (even though it practically meant less affectivity and perhaps a slower rate of “success”) was more important than “surviving.”

成为一个会带来安全和受人承认的大机构的会员,这并不能保证我们可以维持一种与众不同的基督徒品格。要“做大”,一家机构就不得不预备把那些构成正统基督教信仰的内容减少到最低点,还要采取一种“爱”,使人不愿意去质疑任何宗派在神面前的立场是否纯正。司布真准备好(尽管他是抱着最好的愿望)挺身而出,被数算(全部人里唯一的一个),而不愿意迷失在一大群的不信当中。Being a member in a big organisation which promises safety and recognition is not a guarantee of maintaining a distinctively Christian character. To remain “big,” an organisation has to be ready to reduce what constitutes the content of orthodox Christianity to a minimum, and also adopt a “love” which made men unwilling to question the standing of any denomination in the sight of God. Spurgeon was ready (though he had hoped for the best) to stand up and be counted (all alone) rather than being lost in a morass of unbelief.

司布真他自己给了我们选择,我们这个时代的人认真思想以后可以加以学习。他写道:“对基督徒来说,和不传讲基督的福音的牧师联系在一起,结盟,这就是招致定罪。” Spurgeon himself gives us the options, from which, upon due reflection we may learn in our generation. He wrote: For Christians to be linked in association with ministers who do not preach the gospel of Christ is to incur guilt.

“一个不管它的成员教会是否属于共同信仰的联盟是没有尽到任何圣经所讲的功用。” A Union which can continue irrespective of whether its member churches belong to a common faith is not fulfilling any scriptural function.

“维护宗派的组织机构,而它却无力对异端实行纪律,这样的做法不能以维护‘基督教的合一’为理由而得到认可。” The preservation of a denominational association when it is powerless to discipline heretics cannot be justified on the grounds of the preservation of Christian unity.

“破坏教会合一的是谬误,留在一个纵容谬误的宗派联盟里就是支持分裂。” It is error which breaks the unity of churches, and to remain in a denominational alignment which condones error is to support schism.

当司布真退出浸信会联盟,从方方面面看他都是行了一件分裂的事。但事实上那些留在联盟内的人,不为他们的不信悔改的人,是在分裂上有罪。司布真的其中一篇题为《分开而非分裂》的文章中阐明了今天很多人都没有看到的这一点:“与对基要错误的放任纵容,或者不把‘生命的粮’给正在灭亡的灵魂的做法分开,这不是分裂,而只是真理,良心和神对所有要被神视为忠心的人的要求。” For all appearances Spurgeon committed an act of schism when he pulled out of the Baptist Union. But in reality it was those who remained within the Union, unrepentant of their unbelief, who were guilty. One of Spurgeon’s articles, entitled, “Separation not Schism,” elucidates the point, missed by many today: “Separation from such as connive at fundamental error, or withhold the ‘Bread of Life’ from perishing souls, is not schism, but only what truth, and conscience, and God require of all who would be found faithful.”

“降格争论”也给我们教训,要小心实用注意。慕雷(Iain Murray)解释说,“降格争论”是“表明了许多牧师以更宽容的政策会获得更大的好处为理由,为他们不采取坚定的行动辩护。这是那些同情司布真的关切,但对他的退出表示遗憾的人的态度,他们把这件事情和假如他留在联盟内部可能施加的影响力作对比衡量。”(《被遗忘的司布真》第160页)但司布真驳斥他们在道德上的懒惰,他问道:“你我和以牺牲真理为代价,来维持我们的影响力和地位有何相干?为了得到可能最大的好处而去犯一些小小的错误,这从来就是不对的....你的责任就是做正确的事情:结果是在神的手中”(《被遗忘的司布真》第161页)。这是何等正确....然而我们是多么容易落在这个试探中啊!The Downgrade teaches us to beware of pragmatism too. Iain Murray explains that it showed a readiness on the part of many ministers to justify their lack of firm action on the grounds of the greater good to be gained by a more accommodating policy. This was the attitude of those who sympathised with Spurgeon’s concern, but regretted his withdrawal as they balanced it over against the influence he might have exerted had he stayed in the Union” (The Forgotten Spurgeon, p. 160). But Spurgeon retorted to their moral laziness by asking, “What have you and I to do with maintaining our influence and position at the expense of truth? It is never right to do a little wrong to obtain the greatest possible good....Your duty is to do the right: consequences are with God” (ibid., p.161). How profoundly true....and yet how prone we are to fall into that very temptation!

事后看,衡量这场争议的发展,我们意识到司布真是何等如英雄般勇敢,他是何等接受从上头而来的智慧的引导,而不是被世界的哲学所左右。我们是多么需要留心他的建议:“如果犯一件罪可能使我的用处增长十倍,我没有权利去这样做;如果一件义行可能看上去要摧毁我所有表面上的用处,我仍要这样做。尽管天塌下来,你我要做正确的事,无论后果如何,都要听从基督的命令” (《被遗忘的司布真》第162页)。像司布真一样,我们一定要避免那使神受辱的耶稣会一般的狡辩。Using hindsight and evaluating the course of the Controversy, we realise how heroic Spurgeon was, how he was guided by wisdom from above rather than being dictated to by worldly philosophy. How we need to take heed of his advice: “If an act of sin would increase my usefulness tenfold, I have no right to do it; and if an act of righteousness would appear like to destroy all my apparent usefulness, I am yet to do it. It is yours and mine to do the right though the heavens fall, and follow the command of Christ whatever the consequences may be” (ibid., p.162). Like Spurgeon we are bound to avoid Jesuitical sophistry that dishonours God.?