记号，所象征的实物和圣礼的关系Sign,Thing Signified, and Sacramental Relationship

作者: Lane Keister  译者:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/sign-thing-signified-and-sacramental-relationship/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/1948013122011762370466/

理解圣餐最主要的困难是要认识圣餐的三个元素——记号（sign），记号所象征的实物（the thing signified），以及圣礼的本身。以洗礼为例，水是洗礼的记号，无论是洒水、倒水或浸入（我相信用多少水是无关紧要的）。记号所象征的实物是基督洁净的宝血。很多人忽略的一件事是，圣礼包括了记号所代表的实物。这在今天许多教会中是很大的问题。许多教会只是把圣礼当作记号。因此，当我们用“洗礼”这个词时，通常只认为它是记号，只是一个仪式。然而，这不是理解圣礼唯一的方式。《威斯敏斯德大要理问答》问答163明确地说，“外在记号所象征的内在属灵真理”，也是圣礼的一部分。这不应该让我们感到紧张，因为真正的问题是洗礼的效用到底何在。

One of the main difficulties in understanding the sacraments is understanding the relationship among these three elements of the sacraments. We’ll take baptism here for an example. The sign is the water, whether sprinkled, poured, or immersed (I believe that the amount of water used is ultimately immaterial). The thing signified is the cleansing blood of Christ. One important thing that is usually missed here is that the sacrament includes the thing signified. This gets at a huge problem in the church today. The church tends to refer to the sacrament as including only the sign. Therefore, when we use the term “baptism,” we usually mean just the sign, just the rite. However, this is not the only way to understand the sacrament. WLC 163 explicitly says that the “inward and spiritual grace thereby signified” is also part of the sacrament. This shouldn’t make us nervous in the least, because the real question is where the efficacy of baptism lies.

洗礼的能力不是在记号上。罗马书4：11的结论，绝对地证明了这点，那里明确说到，亚伯拉罕在他还没有得到记号之前，就已经得到了记号所象征的实物。割礼被描述为是记号与印证/印记（sign and seal）。这可以直接驳斥那些相信“印证”隐含了「传递」（conferral）涵义的人。罗马书4：11里所说的印记，不可能是指传递已经据有的事物。

The power of baptism cannot lie in the sign. This is proven absolutely, 100% conclusively by Romans 4:11, which states explicitly that Abraham already had the thing signified long before he ever had the sign applied to him. Circumcision is described as a sign and seal. This refutes directly those who believe that the “seal” language implies conferral. For here in Romans 4:11 is a seal that most definitely could not confer something already possessed.

记号所象征的实物具有拯救的能力。基督的宝血具有客观的拯救能力。但这个能力是如何施行到我们身上的呢？答案在于记号和所象征的实物之间，在『圣礼上的联合』（sacramental union）。描述这种圣礼上的联合的另一种方式是：“圣灵所赐的信心。”这是我们避免路德宗一直存在的问题——把拯救的能力赋予洗礼，同时又说着“唯独信心”——的方法。如果是圣灵所赐的信心把记号和所象征的实物连在一起，那么，这就是唯一能拯救人的信心。信心也把记号和所象征的实物连在一起，以至于整个的圣礼今天仍然存在。

The thing signified obviously has saving power. The blood of Christ has an objectively saving power. But how does it get applied to us? The answer is in the sacramental union of sign and thing signified. Another way of describing this sacramental union is “Spirit-given faith.” This is how we avoid the problem that the Lutherans constantly have of ascribing saving power to baptism, and yet also saying “sola fide.” If it is Spirit-given faith that connects sign to thing signified, then that is faith alone that saves. Faith also connects the sign and the thing signified so that the whole sacrament is now present.

注意到要拥有记号而不拥有所象征的实物是相当可能的（例如那些被遗弃的人）。拥有所象征的实物而没有记号也是可能的（例如亚伯拉罕在割礼之前）。人要拥有整个圣礼的唯一方式是圣灵赐给我们信心。我相信，只有当我们以这种方式来理解圣餐，才能避免过高地看重记号（和它施行的时间）的问题，这是一方面；以及在另外一方面贬低圣礼，把圣礼当作只是光秃秃的记号。

Note here that it is quite possible to possess the sign without the thing signified (as in the reprobate). It is also quite possible to possess the thing signified without the sign (as in Abraham before he was circumcised). The only way one can possess the whole sacrament is for the Holy Spirit to give us faith. I believe that it is only as we understand baptism this way that we can avoid the problem associated with too high a view of the sign (and the time-point of its administration), on the one hand; and a devaluing of the sacrament on the other, making the sacrament into a bare sign.

我相信，这和改革宗强调圣礼是「确认的记号」（a confirmatory sign）是相符的。当他们用这个语言时，是说到记号的本身。但当他们用这个语言来反驳「重洗派」（他们的立场通常是反对光秃秃的记号。译按：重洗礼派不看重外在的记号）时，他们是论及记号和所象征的实物。这是我们使用圣礼语言正常的方式，而我们必须仔细区分，当我们说到记号时，我们是不是只认为那只是记号，还是我们是指整个圣礼，包括圣灵所赐的信心。我相信如果在这点上我们小心地区分，可以避免许多的误解和混乱。

This fits in, I believe, with the Reformed emphasis of the sign as a confirmatory sign. When they use this language, they are talking about the sign by itself. But when they use language reacting against the Anabaptists (usually rejecting the position of a naked and bare sign), they are talking about the sign and the thing signified together. This is the normal way we use sacramental language, and we have to be careful to delineate whether we mean the sign considered just as a sign, or whether we are referring to the whole sacrament, including Spirit-given faith. I am convinced that massive amounts of miscommunication and confusion could be avoided if we are careful at just this point.

我們什麼時候需要讀註釋書？WhenShould We Read Commentaries?

作者：Lane Keister  譯者：駱鴻銘

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/when-should-we-read-commentaries/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2015/08/29/%E6%88%91%E5%80%91%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%E6%99%82%E5%80%99%E9%9C%80%E8%A6%81%E8%AE%80%E8%A8%BB%E9%87%8B%E6%9B%B8%EF%BC%9F.aspx

如果你問五個不同的牧師，你會得到五種完全不同的答案。例如，Paul Levy，他會把幾本註釋書完整讀完後，才開始一個講道系列。之後，他只有在卡住的地方才去讀註釋書。其他人（這似乎是絕大多數人的立場）則提倡，我們應該只在寫講章或研經過程的最後，才使用註釋書。針對這個立場提出的理由是，我們應該給聖靈的運行留下空間，也不應該像鸚鵡學舌那樣，僅僅重覆別人說過的話。有些人甚至倡導，直到講章寫完之前，都不應該讀註釋書。我的經驗有點不同。

Ask five different pastors this question, and you will get five completely different answers. Paul Levy, for instance, reads a couple commentaries all the way through before starting a sermon series. After that, he uses them only when he’s stuck. Others (and this seems to me to be the majority position) advocate that one should only use commentaries at the very end of the process of writing a sermon or Bible study. Oftentimes, the justification for this position is that one must make allowance for the work of the Holy Spirit, and we should not merely parrot what other people say. Some even advocate that no commentaries should be read until after the sermon is written. My experience is a little different.

我發覺在我很仔細地讀完聖經原文後，我仍然不會有太多原創的想法。我一向不是個很有原創思想的人。只有當我和其他人對話時，我才會開始形成我自己的想法，而這些人比起我在經文上所下的功夫要深得多。

I find that after I have gone through the text in the original languages very carefully, I still don’t have very many thoughts of my own. I am not much of an original thinker. I really only form my ideas of what the text says in conversation with others who have delved far more deeply into the text than I have.

正如任何神學書籍，我們都會把肉吃進去，把骨頭吐出來，讀註釋書也是同樣的情形。當然，要盡一切努力，獨力地、仔細地閱讀經文（而且是先讀，特別是這樣，你才能明白註釋書在說些什麼）。不過，你為什麼要只限定在你自己的想法上呢？為什麼不能讓教會歷史的詮釋，豐富你對經文的理解？我通常會發現，我對一段經文最終的立場，是從許多來源蒐集來的金礦所得到的折衷。我經常會感到驚訝，這是如何辦到的。我曾經花好幾個星期讀的一本註釋書，有時候會在某一處它抓住經文意義的地方，證明其存在的理由，是其他註釋書找不到的。有時候這會是很驚人的洞見。也有些註釋書，幾乎在每一頁上，都有很牢靠的見解（雖然這樣的註釋書很少）。

As with any theological book, one eats the meat and spits out the bones. The same is true for commentaries. By all means, work through the text carefully on your own (and do it first, not least so that you can understand what the commentaries are saying). However, why limit yourself to your own ideas? Why not allow the historical stream of churchly interpretation to feed into your understanding of the text? I usually find that my final position on a text has a very eclectic set of nuggets gleaned from many different sources. I am often surprised at how it works. A commentary from which I got no help for weeks at a time sometimes justifies its very existence in one week where it nails the text and none of the others did. It can be breathtaking at times. Then there are those commentaries that very often have solid insights on almost every page (though these are rare).

要回應有關聖靈的反對意見很簡單。首先，聖靈是藉著禱告而來。我深深地懷疑讀更多的註釋書會構成聖靈無法克服的障礙。此外，為什麼聖靈無法透過那些註釋書給你所需要的來運作呢？聖靈不能使用一些已經過世的歐洲和美國男性白人（有些還活著）的話嗎？也有一些很精彩女性的註釋家，寫了不少很棒的註釋書（我的腦海裡很快浮現出Joyce Baldwin和Karen Jobes）。

To answer the objection about the Holy Spirit is easy. Firstly, the Holy Spirit comes through prayer. I seriously doubt that reading more commentaries constitutes an obstacle that the Holy Spirit cannot overcome. Furthermore, why couldn’t the Holy Spirit be operating through those commentaries to give you what you need? Can the Holy Spirit use the words of dead white European and American males (and a few of them alive still)? There are some excellent female interpreters of Scripture as well, who have written good commentaries (Joyce Baldwin and Karen Jobes spring immediately to mind)

我所想到的最悲哀的事情是當一個牧師以為他比教會歷史上所有的人都聰明，因此沒有必要參考任何人對一段經文的想法。真的嗎？你比加爾文更聰明嗎？比奧古斯丁更聰明嗎？你有聖靈，而他們沒有？我們不是任何一位註釋家的奴隸。我們不需要去相信任何一位沒有受到聖靈光照的神學家所寫的任何東西。讀註釋書的意思不是說我們就受到它們的限制，而是鐵磨鐵，讓我們的思想更敏銳，如同聖經/箴言所說的。為什麼要讓我們的思想，因為拒絕去參與有關這段經文的意義之歷史悠久的對話而變得呆滯呢？不必要地限制自己，會造成非常沉悶的講章，經文中的許多金礦就這樣被忽略掉，好叫他可以只挑他喜歡講的來講。

The saddest thing of all in my mind is when a pastor thinks he is so much smarter than church history that he doesn’t need to read what anyone else thought on a passage of Scripture. Really? So you’re smarter than Calvin, are you? Smarter than Augustine? You have the Holy Spirit and they did not? We are not enslaved to any one interpreter. We are not required to believe everything that any non-inspired theologian wrote. Reading them does not mean that we are limited to them. But iron sharpens iron, as the biblical proverb has it. Why allow ourselves to be dulled by refusing to engage in the great centuries-old conversation about the meaning of the text? Limiting ourselves unnecessarily can result in very dull sermons, where so many nuggets in the text are simply by-passed so that the pastor can get up on his hobby-horse.

不要搞錯了：無論你對閱讀註釋書採取什麼立場，都存在著一些危險。讀很多註釋書的危險是驕傲，過度的解讀，呈現太多的不同解讀（這常常會讓會眾感到無所適從），僅僅是鸚鵡學舌地重覆他人說過的話，以及混淆我們對一段經文意義的了解。然而，閱讀太少的註釋書的危險，在我看來，遠比讀太多註釋書要嚴重。以下是讀太少註釋書的危險：不斷複製自己的見解；獨特的見解；錯失經文太多的細節；一些沒有經文根據的應用；即興的講道（美其名是由聖靈帶領，想講什麼就講什麼）。驕傲，過度依賴自己的詮釋技巧（抵觸了箴言的格言，不要依賴自己的聰明）；蔑視教會歷史；輕看聖靈在教會其他時代的工作；「年代勢利眼」（古代的一定比現代的差）。對我來說，讀太多註釋書的危險，比起讀太少的註釋書的危險要更容易避免，因為它們都是很明顯的。倘若一篇講章是與這段經文的許多心智互動的結果，這不就是有許多的謀士嗎？這不是更安全嗎？因此，我提倡，也實行一種在寫講章和預備研讀聖經過程中，早一點閱讀註釋書的做法。我提倡，在仔細用原文閱讀經文後，馬上去閱讀註釋書（在時間和金錢容許下，越多越好）。

Make no mistake: there are dangers no matter what position you take on the reading of commentaries. The dangers of reading lots of commentaries are pride, an overdose of explanation, a presentation of too many alternative interpretations (which can easily bewilder a congregation), merely parroting in the sermon what others say, and confusion in one’s own mind about the meaning of the text. The dangers of reading too few commentaries, however, outweigh the dangers of reading too many, in my opinion. For here are the dangers of reading too few: ingrown, idiosyncratic interpretation; missing too many details of the text; application that has no root in the meaning of the text; stream of consciousness preaching; pride and over-reliance on one’s own interpretive skills (which would fall foul of Proverbs’ dictum to lean not on your own understanding); a despising of church history; a denigration of the Holy Spirit’s work in other ages of the church; chronological snobbery. It seems to me that the dangers of reading too many are more easily avoidable than the dangers of reading too few, since they are more obvious. If a sermon is the result of one mind interacting with many minds about the text, is there not a multitude of counselors? Isn’t that safer? I advocate, therefore, and practice an earlier reading of the commentaries in the process of sermon-writing and Bible study preparation. I advocate reading the commentaries (and as many as time and money allow) right after the careful reading of the text in the original languages.

世俗主义与教会Secularismand the Church 

作者: Rev. Lane Keister     翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/secularism-and-the-church/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/1948013122011769310609/

撒但在今天用什么武器攻击教会？John Sittema在他的书With a Shepherd’s Heart（《牧人的心》）中列出五项（他称之为“狼牙”teeth of the wolves）：世俗主义，物质主义，相对主义，实用主义和女性主义（49页）。下面几篇博文会讨论这些“狼牙”。我们必须清楚这些敌人，不只为保护自己，也保护其他的羊，不受这些狼牙的攻击。

John Sittema’s excellent book entitled With a Shepherd’s Heart has several good chapters on what he calls the “teeth of the wolves.” These are the ways in which Satan is generally attacking the church today. He lists five main attacks: secularism, materialism, relativism, pragmatism, and feminism (p. 49). I’d like to do a few blog posts on these “teeth.” It is crucial for us to recognize these enemies and not only be on guard ourselves, but also guard our flocks from these teeth.

Sittema 对世俗主义的定义很精彩：“神的创造有「定时性」（timed-ness）——在时间内的，受时间限制的，而神看一切所造的都甚好。但是当被造界的「定时性」，当我们作为被造物的现在性（here and now），吞没了我们的永恒观，并占据所有人的心思和注意力时，你所得到的就是世俗主义。”（50页）其带来的结果就是：“只有对此生（here and now）有价值的宗教，才具有真正的意义。”这对人的思想的影响如下：1. 追求即时的满足（instant gratification）；2. 用二元论的二分法（dualistic dichotomy）来绝对区分圣与俗（相对于简单的区分）；3. 对“适切性”（relevance）的痴迷。

So the first one is secularism. Sittema’s definition is quite excellent: “There is a timed-ness to God’s creation; and according to God’s own assessment, it is good! (par. break, LK) But when that timed-ness of creation, when the here and now of our creatureliness, gobbles up any sense of our eternity and occupies all of man’s heart and mind and attention, you have secularism” (p. 50). The upshot of it is that “Only if religion has value for the here and now is it of any real significance” (ibid.). The consequences for people’s thinking are several-fold: 1. instant gratification; 2. dualistic dichotomy (rather than a simple distinction) between secular and sacred, 3. obsession with relevance (pp. 51-52).

如何对抗这个敌人呢？Sittema 提出三点建议：1. 辨认“即时满足”这个敌人（自我欺骗、盲目是世俗主义的关键特色）；2. 教导圣经的管家原则（特别要装备执事们做到这点）；3. 问自己是否对圣与俗有刻板的分割，而不是简单的区分。我还会加上几项建议：教导神的子民寄居者/天路客（pilgrimage）的原则。注意“世俗主义”和“这个世界”或“这个时代”在字源上的关联。我强烈建议要指出新天新地所应许的福分，因为这个世界非我家，我们盼望一个更美的家乡。当然，作为好管家，我们要看顾神托付给我们的这个世界。但是，我们是寄居者，我们应该用末世的眼光来看待我们现世的生活。

Sittema offers three suggestions for how to fight this enemy: 1. Point out the enemy of instant gratification (self-delusion and blindness are often key characteristics of secularism), 2. Teach the principles of biblical stewardship (especially equip the deacons to do this). 3. Ask people whether they have this rigid divide between secular and sacred, rather than a simple distinction. And a few more suggestions I would add: teach people the principle of pilgrimage. Noting the etymological connection of “secularism” to “this worldliness” or “this aged-ness,” I would strongly suggest pointing out the blessedness of the new heavens and the new earth, since this world is not our home. We are looking for a better country. Now, obviously, we should take care of this world as good stewards of what God has entrusted to us. Nevertheless, we are pilgrims, and that should color everything, and give us an eschatological perspective on life.

物质主义与教会  Materialism and the Church  

 作者: Rev. Lane Keister     翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/relativism-and-the-church/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/1948013122011769340330/?suggestedreading&wumii

Sittema提到的第二颗“狼牙”是物质主义。世俗主义看重现世（here and now），而物质主义则是看重你所拥有的。所以，世俗主义与时间比较有关，而物质主义与空间比较有关（55页）。这里的问题是，西方教会是非常富有的。基本上，如果你有任何可以自由运用的收入，你就属于富有的阶级，大部分美国人都属这个阶层。但是物质会生出贪婪，拥有越多，想要的越多，而人的欲望是无穷的。曾有人问美国的富翁洛克菲勒，拥有多少财富才算是足够，他的回答很经典，足以代表物质主义：“只要再多一点就够了。”物质永远无法填满上帝在人心所造的那个空洞。

The second “tooth” of the wolf that Sittema talks about is materialism. Secularism is the idea that the here and now is all that’s important. Materialism says that stuff is all that’s important. So, secularism has more to do with time, whereas materialism has more to do with space (see p. 55). The problem here is that the church is incredibly wealthy in the West. Basically, if you have any discretionary income at all, you are wealthy, and that would describe most Americans. But stuff breeds greed for more stuff. It is intoxicating to have more and more. And yet, those who are honest with themselves would admit that it’s never enough. John D. Rockefeller, a very rich American, was asked how much is enough, and his answer was the classic statement of the problem of materialism: “Just a little bit more.” It will not fill the God-shaped hole in anyone’s life.

广告世界靠的就是物质主义，它用的是不满足的诱饵，刺激你想要得到更多。Sittema指出，这危险在于物质主义否认财富所蕴含的属灵危机（58页）。Sittema不是指财富本身是邪恶的，而是说，拥有越多，诱惑就越大。这看法当然是正确的。在这章其余的部分，Sittema总结了圣经的回应。我认为他提到的最能抵抗物质主义的一点是圣经的管家原则，包括我们当看自己所拥有的财富，是上帝为了祂的国度所讬付给我们的。这会让我们更容易地把钱财施舍出去，因为从一开始，这些财富就不是属于我们的。Phillip Ryken 会这样说：“我的就是上帝的。” 

The advertising world banks on materialism, because it uses the classic hook of dissatisfaction with what you have in order to entice you to want more. The danger here, as Sittema points out, is that materialism denies the spiritual dangers inherent in wealth (p. 58). Sittema is not here saying that wealth is inherently evil. Rather, he is saying that with much comes much temptation, and he’s certainly correct in this assessment. In the rest of the chapter, Sittema outlines a biblical response. I think the most helpful point here that he mentions in combating materialism is the principle of biblical stewardship, which includes a view of one’s possessions as not one’s own, but merely entrusted to us by God to be used for His kingdom. This makes giving away possessions and wealth much easier: it’s not really ours to begin with. Phillip Ryken would put it this way: “What’s mine is God’s.”

其次，我们需要明白，财富会变成何等可怕的偶像，我们需要辨识这个偶像，并且悔改。我们心中的偶像也许不像洛克菲勒的那么露骨：也许只是以神国为代价，追求舒适的生活。但是舒适通常只是“再多一点”的美丽说辞而已。舒适是我在美国中西部所看到的偶像之一。找到原因并不难：北达科达州的冬天非常酷寒，但是人们所想出的各种避寒方法，往往到了奢侈的程度。我不是專找北达科达州人的麻烦，美国其他地方的人也会用其他的方式表现出他们的偶像崇拜，只是因为我住在这里，那是我看到的。

And, secondly, we need to realize what a terrible idol wealth has become, and we need to identify it and repent of our own idolatry. Our idolatry may not be as blatant as Rockefeller’s: it may come in the form of desiring our own comfort at the expense of the kingdom of God. But comfort is often just another way of saying “a little bit more.” Comfort is one idol I see up here in the Midwest. And it is not hard to find out why: North Dakota is absolutely brutal in the winter-time. It is not exactly comfortable. But people usually build things in order to make them comfortable here. There are different ways this idol makes itself manifest elsewhere in the US, so I’m not singling out North Dakota, by any means. But that’s just where I am, and that’s what I see.

相对主义与教会Relativism and the Church

作者: Rev. Lane Keister     翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/relativism-and-the-church/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/1948013122011769310609/

相对主义是攻击教会的第三颗“狼牙”。我认为，这颗牙是特别难处理的，因为它是如此的普遍，而且很难对抗。你甚至无法总是用逻辑来对抗，因为他们通常完全地拒绝逻辑（至少，他们是这样说的）。其后果对教会来说是很严重的。每一件事都变成“关系性的”（relational），对真理的委身就失去了根基（见Sittema, With a Shepherd’s Heart, p. 61）。唯一一件绝对错的事是持守绝对的价值（62-63页）。教会管教就变得极端困难，因为长老们竟然胆敢告诉我，我正在犯罪！（他们不是也是罪人吗！）人们失去了这个信念，就是圣经真的是神的话。

Relativism is the third tooth in the mouth of the wolf that attacks the church. This one is particularly nasty, in my opinion, because it is so prevalent, and so hard to fight. You can’t always even use logic to fight this one, because they usually reject logic outright (at least, they say they do). The consequences are severe for the church. Everything becomes “relational,” while commitment to truth simultaneously erodes (see Sittema, With a Shepherd’s Heart, p. 61). The only thing that is absolutely wrong is to hold absolute values (pp. 62-63). Church discipline becomes extremely difficult, since how dare those elders tell me that I am sinning! People lose conviction that the Bible is really God’s Word.

Sittema给我们5个建议，如何对抗这种可怕的错误。1. 大声并经常地宣告圣经之无谬误和绝对的权柄。2. 以正确的名称称呼罪：罪！3. 教导圣经（我会包括背诵圣经）；4. 用圣经来责备罪人；以及5. 用榜样来带领。我会在这里加上其他有帮助的建议，特别是针对年轻人的，他们是最受相对主义毒害的。 6. 用要理问答教导年轻人，让要理问答成为他们生命的一部分。 7. 讲道时要反驳电视的言论（如果电视完全掌握了我们年轻人的时间，我们如何对抗相对主义的教导呢？此外，电视通常很少有价值。） 8. 教导青少年和大学生护教学，好让我们不只是知道有相对主义，也知道如何理解相对主义，并加以避免，甚至帮助其他人避免。

Sittema gives us five suggestions on how to fight this horrific error. 1. Proclaim loudly and often the infallible and absolute authority of the Bible; 2. Call sin by its rightful name: sin! 3. Teach the Bible (I would include with this Bible memorization); 4. Rebuke sinners with the Bible; and 5. Lead by example. I might add a few other suggestions here that will help, especially geared towards young people, who are the most affected by relativism. 6. Teach young people the catechisms, so that it’s in their blood. 7. Preach against the television (who can fight the indoctrination of relativism if the television has such a complete grasp of the time of our young people? Plus, there is usually little of value on the TV) 8. Teach apologetics to the youth groups and to college age folks, so that they are not only aware of relativism, but also how to understand it and avoid it, and even maybe help others avoid it.

实用主义与教会  Pragmatism and the Church

 作者: Rev. Lane Keister     翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/pragmatism-and-the-church/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/194801312201176938037/

第四颗“狼牙”是实用主义（pragmatism），这是非常有特色的。说不出来有多少次，我听到人们以此为基础来作决定，完全不管圣经说什么。这是Sittema对实用主义所下的精彩的定义：“实用主义的意思是，首先你决定一个行动是不是实用，它会带给你快乐还是痛苦，以此过程你决定这件事是对的，还是错的。”（67页）“对”的事就是会带给我快乐的事；“错”的事就是会增加我痛苦的事。你的婚姻有困难吗？实用主义的对策是：离开这个婚姻，不管这种的离婚是否有圣经的根据。不小心怀孕妨碍到你的生活？去堕胎，把小孩拿掉就好了。我们不需要担心圣经说什么，是吗？这就是实用主义的对策，而这是世俗生活哲学的重要组成部分。每一件事都要放在快乐和痛苦，或方便、对我有利的天平上来计算。但是你是否注意到这种哲学的结果是什么？圣经被抛诸脑后。突然之间，圣经说了什么都不重要了，重要的是，它很有效。另一个例子：如果教会中缺少愿意服事的弟兄，而既然我们需要领袖，为什么不选举一个女人来填补这个职位呢？实用主义就推翻了圣经的命令。这是非常阴险的哲学，因为它颠覆了神的律法，就构成了对律法的颁布者，神自己的权威的直接攻击。

The fourth tooth of the wolf is pragmatism, and it is a real doozy. I can’t tell how many times I’ve seen people make decisions on this basis, completely ignoring what the Bible might say. Here is Sittema’s excellent definition of pragmatism: “Pragmatism means first you determine whether an act seems practical, whether its consequences bring you pleasure or pain, and by that process you determine what is right or wrong” (p. 67). What is right is what will increase my pleasure. What is wrong is what will increase my pain. Have a difficult marriage? The pragmatic approach says get out, whether or not such a divorce has biblical grounds or not. Have an unwanted pregnancy that will cramp your style? Just get rid of the child in an abortion. We don’t need to worry about what the Bible says, do we? This is the approach of pragmatism, and it is part and parcel of the world’s philosophy of life. Everything is calculated down to a nicety on the scale of pleasure and pain, or convenience, or advantage. But have you noticed what happens in such a philosophy? The Bible gets thrown out the window. All of a sudden, it doesn’t matter anymore what the Bible says. What matters is what will work. Another example: if a church is getting low on men who are willing to lead, then since we have to have leaders, why not elect a woman to fill the spot? Pragmatism over-rides the Biblical mandates. This is a very insidious philosophy, since it overturns the law of God, thus constituting a direct attack on the authority of the Law-giver, God Himself.

Sittema说到，实用主义不是讲求实际（68页）。我们必须把“实用”（pragmatic）和“实际”（practical）分开。它们不是同一件事。真正的实际是把圣经说了什么，放在我们的对策中。“实用”的意思是把圣经抛诸脑后。因此，让人很难相信的是，有时候“实际”和“实用”事实上是完全相反的。

Sittema makes the excellent point that pragmatism is NOT practical (p. 68). We must distinguish between “pragmatic” and “practical.” They are not the same thing. Being truly practical means putting into practice what the Bible says. Being pragmatic means throwing out what the Bible says. Hard to believe as it may seem, therefore, oftentimes “practical” and “pragmatic” are actually complete opposites.

要如何对抗这种哲学呢？Sittema的建议是：1. 当长老探访他的羊群时，多问问“为什么”。实用主义并不是很难发现。多数的时候，只是茫无头绪地按直觉行事，完全不考虑圣经说了什么。2. 教导神的标准是永恒不变的真理。神不变的律法决定什么是对的，什么是错的，不是什么会带给我们世界的快乐。3. 和年轻人讨论一些案例，使他们看到人作选择的方式是如此地不同，让他们清楚神说了什么。我会加上第四点，常常把神的律法以及所有必要的警告摆在人面前要区别律法的三重功用，等等）。

Sittema’s suggestions for combating this philosophy: 1. Ask “why” a lot as the elder visits his flock. Pragmatism is not that difficult to detect. Most of the time, it is a simple “fly by the seat of the pants” approach without any biblical considerations coming into play whatsoever. 2. Teach God’s standards as eternal, unchangeable truths. God’s unchanging law determines what is right and wrong, not what brings worldly happiness. 3. Discuss case studies with the youth and enable them to see the radically different ways that people make choices, and make clear to them what God says. I would add 4. Keep the law in front of the people often, with all the caveats that needs (distinguishing among the three uses of the law, etc.).

女性主义与教会Feminism and the Church

作者: Rev. Lane Keister   翻译:  骆鸿铭

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/feminism-and-the-church/

http://peddrluo.blog.163.com/blog/static/1948013122011769400788/

第五颗狼牙是女性主义（feminism）。我明白，这个帖子是非常“政治不正确”的，但是该说的还是要说。另一个必须说的警告是教会在回应女性主义时，不可诋毁神给女性的恩赐，也要积极寻找女性可以在适当的场合使用他们的恩赐的方法。有时候在保守的教会中，对女性的态度着重在女人不能做什么上面，而不是鼓励女性做她们能做的。

The fifth tooth of the wolf is feminism. This post will be very politically incorrect, I realize, but it must be said. The other caveat I would issue here is that the church, in reacting against feminism, should not denigrate the gifts God has given to women, and should be actively looking for ways in which women can use their gifts in proper settings. Sometimes it seems as if the attitude towards women in conservative churches is more focused on what women cannot do, as opposed to encouraging women to do what they should do.

这里也要给另一个警告：不是所有的女性主义都是同一个样子。例如，不是所有的女性主义者都全部同意Sittema所描述的。在这些问题上，当然有不同的意见。除了这些警告以外，无疑地，Sittema所描述的，对教会来说的确是非常危险的。

One other caveat should be given here, and that is that not all forms of feminism are the same. Not all feminists, for instance, would agree with every point of Sittema’s description. There is definitely a range of opinions on these matters. All these caveats aside, there is no doubt that the feminism Sittema describes is very dangerous to the church.

以下是Sittema从杜布森（James Dobson）对联合国第四次世界女性会议的分析，这似乎相当能代表主流的女性主义。对我们这些习惯于比较良善、温柔的女性主义形式的人来说，这会让我们感到吃惊。但这是他们的议题：1. 婚姻是女性的敌人，因为男人就定义来说是压迫者。 2. 家庭要为女人遭受暴力负责。 3. 婴孩的性别是从出生就强加在他们身上的，而不是出自生物性（即：这完全是社会的建构，因此是一种压迫）。 4 “妻子，丈夫，儿子，女儿，姐妹，兄弟”等等语言，必须改成“双亲，配偶，孩子，家庭成员”等等。 5. 政府需要立法，命令家庭的责任要50/50均分，军队也一样。 6. 堕胎是所有女人的权利。 7. 同性恋的议题和女性主义是相伴同行的，因为它要重新定义传统的角色和性别。 8. 所有父系社会的宗教都必须加以压制。 9. 圣经压制女性，不让她们和男人一样承担教导的角色，所以圣经就是没有权威的。如果圣经没有提到现代女性的经验，那么它在这点上就不具有权威。 10. 传统的基督教教义需要被重新定义，包括人论，神论，罪论，救赎论和基督论，要更受女性欢迎。

Here are the points that Sittema summarizes from James Dobson’s analysis of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. In other words, this appears to be fairly mainline feminism. For those of us used to kinder, gentler forms of feminism, this may come as something of a shock. But this is their agenda: 1. Marriage is the enemy for women, since men are by definition oppressors. 2. The family is to blame for violence suffered by women. 3. The sex of a baby is something imposed on them from birth, and is not biological (i.e., it is entirely a social construct, and is therefore oppressive). 4. The language of “wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother,” etc. must be changed to “parent, spouse, child, and sibling.” 5. The government needs to mandate that household responsibilities be divided 50/50, and so must the military also. 6. Abortion is a mandated right for all women. 7. The homosexual agenda walks hand in hand with feminism in its redefinition of traditional roles and sex. 8. All patriarchal religions must be oppressed. 9. The Bible is not authoritative when it oppresses women by forbidding teaching roles to them over men. If the Bible does not speak to modern women’s experience, then it has no authority there. 10. Traditional Christian doctrines need to be redefined, including the doctrine of man, God, sin, redemption, and Christology, to be more favorable to women.

我们很快可以看到，首先，我们许多人认为的比较“极端”的女性主义，其实更加是主流。这是世界女性主义会议的内容。One can quickly see, first of all, that what many of us would regard as “radical” feminism is actually more mainstream. This is what the world council on feminism has said.

其次，我们可以看到，如果照女性主义的办法，圣经的权威就完全被破坏了。我在女性主义当中，见过两种对圣经的看法。第一种是否认圣经的权威。这实际上是比较诚实取向。另一个取向（特别是对提摩太前书第二章这类的经文）是“解释”这段经文，让它们的意思实际上与圣经所说的相反。这是所谓的“福音派女性主义”所做的，他们仍想坚持圣经的权威。如同Ligon Duncan说过的，如果有人可以让“我不许女人讲道，也不许她辖管男人”，去指“我容许女人讲道或辖管男人”，那么，我们就可以让圣经赞同任何我们想要说的事。Second of all, one can see that if feminism has its way, then the Bible’s authority will be completely undermined. I have seen two approaches to the Bible in feminism. The first approach is to deny the Bible’s authority. This is actually the more honest approach. The other approach (especially with passages such as 1 Timothy 2) is to “interpret” the passage to make it mean pretty much the opposite of what it actually says. This is done by the so-called “evangelical feminists,” who still want to cling to the authority of the Bible. As Ligon Duncan said, if one can make “I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over a man” to mean “I do permit a women to teach or have authority over a man,” then one can make the Bible say absolutely anything.

Sittema建议教会里有四种方法对抗女性主义： 1. 教导圣经性别关系的模式。 2. 不要反应过度。 我们必须谨记，有各种不同的看法。即使有人会说上述10点中的一点，也不意味着他们相信全部。 3. 在教会里使用女性和她们的恩赐。他引用了值得背诵的名言：“异端是教会没有付清的帐”（cults are the unpaid debts of the church）。如果教会能鼓励女性在适当的场合使用她们的恩赐，发挥她们的能力，那么女性主义就不会有太多空间在教会里推销他们的看法。 4. 在教会中尊重婚姻，家庭和母亲的身份。让教会明白，圣经如何称赞这些事情，而这些是对女人何等崇高的呼召。我会加上第5点，对那些真的曾经被男性伤害/虐待过的女性，要有更多的同情心。这是绝对不能被宽容的，即使我们对“虐待”的定义和女性主义者不同。例如，我们不能说让男人在教会里担任长老和执事是对女性的虐待。但是口头上或身体上虐待女性，的确会发生，我们对这种虐待绝不可手软，只因为我们要对抗女性主义。

Sittema suggests four ways of fighting feminism in the church: 1. Teach the Biblical model of gender relationships. 2. Don’t over-react. We must remember that there are a range of views. Just because someone might say something like one of the above 10 points doesn’t mean that they believe all of them. 3. Use women and their gifts in the church. He quotes the memorable dictum “cults are the unpaid debts of the church.” If the church were to encourage women to use their gifts to the best of their ability, and in the right setting, then feminism would not have much room to make inroads into our churches. 4. Honor marriage, family, and motherhood within the church. Show the church how much the Bible praises these things, and what a high calling these are for women. I would add 5. Be sympathetic towards women who really have been abused by men. This should never be tolerated, even though our definitions of “abuse” will be different from the feminists’ definition. We would not regard keeping men as elders and deacons in the church as a form of abusing women, for instance. But verbal and physical abuse of women does happen, and we should never become soft on such abuse just because we’re reacting against feminism.

我們什麼時候需要讀註釋書？When Should We Read Commentaries?

作者：Lane Keister  譯者：駱鴻銘

https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/when-should-we-read-commentaries/

http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2015/08/29/%E6%88%91%E5%80%91%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%E6%99%82%E5%80%99%E9%9C%80%E8%A6%81%E8%AE%80%E8%A8%BB%E9%87%8B%E6%9B%B8%EF%BC%9F.aspx

如果你問五個不同的牧師，你會得到五種完全不同的答案。例如，Paul Levy，他會把幾本註釋書完整讀完後，才開始一個講道系列。之後，他只有在卡住的地方才去讀註釋書。其他人（這似乎是絕大多數人的立場）則提倡，我們應該只在寫講章或研經過程的最後，才使用註釋書。針對這個立場提出的理由是，我們應該給聖靈的運行留下空間，也不應該像鸚鵡學舌那樣，僅僅重覆別人說過的話。有些人甚至倡導，直到講章寫完之前，都不應該讀註釋書。我的經驗有點不同。Ask five different pastors this question, and you will get five completely different answers. Paul Levy, for instance, reads a couple commentaries all the way through before starting a sermon series. After that, he uses them only when he’s stuck. Others (and this seems to me to be the majority position) advocate that one should only use commentaries at the very end of the process of writing a sermon or Bible study. Oftentimes, the justification for this position is that one must make allowance for the work of the Holy Spirit, and we should not merely parrot what other people say. Some even advocate that no commentaries should be read until after the sermon is written. My experience is a little different.

我發覺在我很仔細地讀完聖經原文後，我仍然不會有太多原創的想法。我一向不是個很有原創思想的人。只有當我和其他人對話時，我才會開始形成我自己的想法，而這些人比起我在經文上所下的功夫要深得多。I find that after I have gone through the text in the original languages very carefully, I still don’t have very many thoughts of my own. I am not much of an original thinker. I really only form my ideas of what the text says in conversation with others who have delved far more deeply into the text than I have.

正如任何神學書籍，我們都會把肉吃進去，把骨頭吐出來，讀註釋書也是同樣的情形。當然，要盡一切努力，獨力地、仔細地閱讀經文（而且是先讀，特別是這樣，你才能明白註釋書在說些什麼）。不過，你為什麼要只限定在你自己的想法上呢？為什麼不能讓教會歷史的詮釋，豐富你對經文的理解？我通常會發現，我對一段經文最終的立場，是從許多來源蒐集來的金礦所得到的折衷。我經常會感到驚訝，這是如何辦到的。我曾經花好幾個星期讀的一本註釋書，有時候會在某一處它抓住經文意義的地方，證明其存在的理由，是其他註釋書找不到的。有時候這會是很驚人的洞見。也有些註釋書，幾乎在每一頁上，都有很牢靠的見解（雖然這樣的註釋書很少）。As with any theological book, one eats the meat and spits out the bones. The same is true for commentaries. By all means, work through the text carefully on your own (and do it first, not least so that you can understand what the commentaries are saying). However, why limit yourself to your own ideas? Why not allow the historical stream of churchly interpretation to feed into your understanding of the text? I usually find that my final position on a text has a very eclectic set of nuggets gleaned from many different sources. I am often surprised at how it works. A commentary from which I got no help for weeks at a time sometimes justifies its very existence in one week where it nails the text and none of the others did. It can be breathtaking at times. Then there are those commentaries that very often have solid insights on almost every page (though these are rare).

要回應有關聖靈的反對意見很簡單。首先，聖靈是藉著禱告而來。我深深地懷疑讀更多的註釋書會構成聖靈無法克服的障礙。此外，為什麼聖靈無法透過那些註釋書給你所需要的來運作呢？聖靈不能使用一些已經過世的歐洲和美國男性白人（有些還活著）的話嗎？也有一些很精彩女性的註釋家，寫了不少很棒的註釋書（我的腦海裡很快浮現出Joyce Baldwin和Karen Jobes）。To answer the objection about the Holy Spirit is easy. Firstly, the Holy Spirit comes through prayer. I seriously doubt that reading more commentaries constitutes an obstacle that the Holy Spirit cannot overcome. Furthermore, why couldn’t the Holy Spirit be operating through those commentaries to give you what you need? Can the Holy Spirit use the words of dead white European and American males (and a few of them alive still)? There are some excellent female interpreters of Scripture as well, who have written good commentaries (Joyce Baldwin and Karen Jobes spring immediately to mind)

我所想到的最悲哀的事情是當一個牧師以為他比教會歷史上所有的人都聰明，因此沒有必要參考任何人對一段經文的想法。真的嗎？你比加爾文更聰明嗎？比奧古斯丁更聰明嗎？你有聖靈，而他們沒有？我們不是任何一位註釋家的奴隸。我們不需要去相信任何一位沒有受到聖靈光照的神學家所寫的任何東西。讀註釋書的意思不是說我們就受到它們的限制，而是鐵磨鐵，讓我們的思想更敏銳，如同聖經/箴言所說的。為什麼要讓我們的思想，因為拒絕去參與有關這段經文的意義之歷史悠久的對話而變得呆滯呢？不必要地限制自己，會造成非常沉悶的講章，經文中的許多金礦就這樣被忽略掉，好叫他可以只挑他喜歡講的來講。The saddest thing of all in my mind is when a pastor thinks he is so much smarter than church history that he doesn’t need to read what anyone else thought on a passage of Scripture. Really? So you’re smarter than Calvin, are you? Smarter than Augustine? You have the Holy Spirit and they did not? We are not enslaved to any one interpreter. We are not required to believe everything that any non-inspired theologian wrote. Reading them does not mean that we are limited to them. But iron sharpens iron, as the biblical proverb has it. Why allow ourselves to be dulled by refusing to engage in the great centuries-old conversation about the meaning of the text? Limiting ourselves unnecessarily can result in very dull sermons, where so many nuggets in the text are simply by-passed so that the pastor can get up on his hobby-horse.

不要搞錯了：無論你對閱讀註釋書採取什麼立場，都存在著一些危險。讀很多註釋書的危險是驕傲，過度的解讀，呈現太多的不同解讀（這常常會讓會眾感到無所適從），僅僅是鸚鵡學舌地重覆他人說過的話，以及混淆我們對一段經文意義的了解。然而，閱讀太少的註釋書的危險，在我看來，遠比讀太多註釋書要嚴重。以下是讀太少註釋書的危險：不斷複製自己的見解；獨特的見解；錯失經文太多的細節；一些沒有經文根據的應用；即興的講道（美其名是由聖靈帶領，想講什麼就講什麼）。驕傲，過度依賴自己的詮釋技巧（抵觸了箴言的格言，不要依賴自己的聰明）；蔑視教會歷史；輕看聖靈在教會其他時代的工作；「年代勢利眼」（古代的一定比現代的差）。對我來說，讀太多註釋書的危險，比起讀太少的註釋書的危險要更容易避免，因為它們都是很明顯的。倘若一篇講章是與這段經文的許多心智互動的結果，這不就是有許多的謀士嗎？這不是更安全嗎？因此，我提倡，也實行一種在寫講章和預備研讀聖經過程中，早一點閱讀註釋書的做法。我提倡，在仔細用原文閱讀經文後，馬上去閱讀註釋書（在時間和金錢容許下，越多越好）。Make no mistake: there are dangers no matter what position you take on the reading of commentaries. The dangers of reading lots of commentaries are pride, an overdose of explanation, a presentation of too many alternative interpretations (which can easily bewilder a congregation), merely parroting in the sermon what others say, and confusion in one’s own mind about the meaning of the text. The dangers of reading too few commentaries, however, outweigh the dangers of reading too many, in my opinion. For here are the dangers of reading too few: ingrown, idiosyncratic interpretation; missing too many details of the text; application that has no root in the meaning of the text; stream of consciousness preaching; pride and over-reliance on one’s own interpretive skills (which would fall foul of Proverbs’ dictum to lean not on your own understanding); a despising of church history; a denigration of the Holy Spirit’s work in other ages of the church; chronological snobbery. It seems to me that the dangers of reading too many are more easily avoidable than the dangers of reading too few, since they are more obvious. If a sermon is the result of one mind interacting with many minds about the text, is there not a multitude of counselors? Isn’t that safer? I advocate, therefore, and practice an earlier reading of the commentaries in the process of sermon-writing and Bible study preparation. I advocate reading the commentaries (and as many as time and money allow) right after the careful reading of the text in the original languages.