我們所說的聖禮、記號、印記是什麽意思?WhatDo We Mean By Sacrament, Sign, And Seal?

作者: R. SCOTT CLARK     譯者:   Maria Marta

https://heidelblog.net/2018/07/what-do-we-mean-by-sacrament-sign-and-seal/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/8EdngKJtt6r

改革宗教會和改革宗神學家（即那些在改革宗信仰告白，諸如法蘭西信條〔French Co nfession, 1559〕、蘇格蘭信條〔Scots Confession, 1560〕、比利時信條〔Belgic Confession, 1561〕、海德堡問答〔Heidelberg Catechism, 1563〕、第二瑞士信條〔Helvetic Confession, Second〕, 1566）、多特信經〔Canons of the Synod of Dort, 1619〕、西敏信仰標準〔Westminster Confession, 1647〕範圍內認信和教導的人）常提到洗禮和聖餐是「聖禮」，是「記號」和「印記」。最近HB的讀者Barrett來信，請求我們對這些詞語作簡明扼要的解釋。

聖禮

聖禮一詞廣泛使用於各種基督教傳統，但對一些福音派的人而言，它是一個與羅馬天主教和錯誤的洗禮、聖餐觀有關聯的詞。我們的英語單詞聖禮「聖禮」（sacrament）源自拉丁軍事術語sacramentum，是向皇帝宣誓效忠的軍人誓言。希臘文新約聖經中的奧秘（ mystery）在聖經拉丁文譯本中常常被翻譯為sacramentum。早期教會通常將洗禮和聖餐描述為「基督教的奧秘」。在13世紀，即中世紀開始正式教導有7個聖禮，奧秘在聖餐中是指聖餐元素轉化為基督真實的身體和血。一些福音派人士擔憂，聖禮一詞帶有涵義（關聯意義），顯示洗禮和聖餐是以魔法方式施行（具有魔法能力），因為羅馬天主教的聖餐觀教導聖禮（他們承認7個聖禮）能把恩典給予領受者，無論何時施行聖禮，它們本身都能產生效果（ex opere operato，因功生效）。因此，在福音派陣營的部分地區使用「法例」（ordinance）一詞來取代聖禮。

確實，羅馬天主教在我們的主設立的兩個聖禮（洗禮和聖餐）上添加了五個假聖禮，並且在關於如何施行的問題上抱持錯誤的觀點。 然而，改革宗教會使用聖禮這詞，並不是羅馬天主教所指的意思。在海德堡教理問答中，我們這樣定義聖禮:

六十六問：聖禮是什麽？

「聖禮是聖潔的、可見的標志和印記。上帝設立聖禮，藉著聖禮的施行，祂可以更完全地向我們宣布並印證福音的應許，即祂因基督一次在十字架上所完成的犧牲，白白地把赦罪和永生賜給我們。」

我們認信，我們的主在新約只設立兩個聖禮：洗禮和主的晚餐（或聖餐）。 我們將它們定義為「記號」和「印記」。接下來我們會明白它們的含義，但最重要的是要知道，我們否認羅馬天主教的觀點：聖禮必然賜新生命（例如，洗禮使人重生）或藉著施行就能產生效果，或聖餐的元素轉化為基督的身體和血（神學上稱為變質説Transubstantiation）。生效的動詞（operative verb）在我們的定義中是一個宣講的字（a preaching word）：宣佈。 他們說。 他們宣佈。能力不在於做，而是在於說。

我們該如何處理聖禮一詞？假如我們思考片刻，我們很快就發現，祈禱一詞也有同樣的問題，因為在祈禱是什麽，向誰祈禱，祈禱的目的等問題上，我們與羅馬天主教有著截然不同的觀念。那麽，我們就應該放棄祈禱這個詞嗎？不應該的，因為這是定義的問題。可能有人論證說，聖經常常使用禱告一詞，卻沒有提到聖禮一詞。的確如此，但翻譯為「法例」（ordinance）的字 (但六7；六15)  在聖經中並非用來描述洗禮和聖餐的。因此，是否使用傳統術語是個謹慎與自由的問題。為了減輕混亂，一些認信的長老會和改革宗教會，特別是在美國南部，有時說洗禮和聖餐是法例。

在某些傳統中（特別是羅馬天主教傳統），有一種誘惑，那就是把聖禮與聖禮所證明的基督及其恩福混淆。這是一項巨大的錯謬，因為我們尋求將聖禮轉變成基督或拯救的那一刻，它們就不再是聖禮了。 根據定義，聖禮不是它所證明的事物。 基督不是聖禮，聖禮也不是基督。

有些人在回應中，將聖禮（或法例）與基督及其恩福切底分開，他們單單談論領受人，受洗人做了什麽，或領聖餐者做了什麽和正在做什麽。用這種方式談論聖禮也是個錯誤。在聖禮的施行中，信徒不是表演的明星，基督才是。聖禮證明祂為我們作成的一切。祂賺得我們的救贖。祂潔凈我們，賜給我們新生命。祂透過祂的聖靈奧秘地用祂自己來餵養我們。

記號

當我們說記號，我們的意思是指洗禮和聖餐指向某人和某事。它們指向基督所作成的事，並說明與證明祂福音的應許。 它們是基督為祂所有子民（選民）作成的事的記號，是他們所相信的真實事件的記號。 在基督來臨之前，記號的作用是真實的，現在，在祂升天之後依然是真實的。我們的主在伊甸園賜下兩個記號，即生命樹和死亡樹（分別善惡的樹）。在創世記二章17節，上帝說園中各樣樹上的果子，你可以隨意吃，但我們吃分別善惡樹上的果子那一天「必定死」。上帝的說話使它變成一棵死亡樹。 它們是聖禮的一種。 它們指向一個超越本身的實相。 它們清楚表明應許。

在救贖歷史時期，還有其他的聖禮記號，將人一直帶領到基督來臨的事件上。從某種意義上說，獻祭系統就是聖典，因為它表明一個無辜的替代者必須來代替選民受死。割禮是上帝在創世記十七章設立（命定）的，目的是要表明上帝必定會按祂的主權，滿有恩慈地將新心和新生命賜給祂的選民。它也應許救主將要來實現創世記三章15節的應許，即那一位後裔甚至不惜犧牲自己的生命來壓碎蛇。逾越節（出埃及記十二章）是一個聖禮，表明上帝的羔羊要來除去世人的罪（約一29），並教導我們，我們需要「吃他的肉，喝他的血」（約六53），好叫我們有永生。 紅海是一個聖禮，曠野的嗎哪也是一個聖禮。 我們知道這點，是因為使徒保羅在哥林多前書十章1-4節告訴我們的。

沒有一個聖禮是以魔法方式施行的。沒有一個人因為受割禮、過紅海(洗禮)、吃逾越節 (或別的節期) 的筵席、或在曠野吃嗎哪 (主的晚餐) 而獲得新生命。聖禮總是記號，指向基督和祂的恩福，我們唯獨藉著信心------聖靈所賜的恩賜(弗二8-10) ------領受基督和祂的恩福。在新約，那實體，即基督已經到來。隨著祂的死，舊預表 (說明; 林前十; 來八5) 和預示 (西二17; 來八5；十1) 就結束了，被不流血的記號和洗禮、聖餐這兩個聖禮取代。

印記

在古代世界，通信既困難又緩慢。 即使最強大的國王也必需依靠那些可能無法前往目的地的信使与外界聯繫。一旦抵達到目的地，信使必須證明所傳送的文書的真實性。 這就是印記的作用。 將融化的蠟滴在文書的封口邊緣，蓋上圖章戒指，籍此表明文書不是偽造的。現在我們仍然以不同的方式做這件事。我們的貨幣標有線條和標記，旨在表明它的真實性。我們的駕照也有蓋印。重要的文件(如證書、結婚證、出生證) 上仍然有(浮凸的) 蓋印，為的是表明它們的真實性。而在古代世界則用蠟封印。

印記不能創造實體。印記證明其他人所做的事的真實性。若一個從未上過學的人在清倉拍賣中找到一張文憑，但擁有文憑也不能使他成為一個畢業生。封印的文件不具魔法能力，但它是對人的應許，唯獨依靠恩典，唯獨藉著信心，人就能擁有文件所證明的內容。 洗禮和聖餐是對信徒的保證：主已賜給信徒新生命和真信心，聖禮所宣告和所應許的對信徒而言都是真實的（會實現）。

因此，在海德堡教理問答中，我們說洗禮是印記：

六十九問：洗禮怎樣表明並印證基督在十字架上一次獻上的犧牲，使你得益呢？

回答：「乃是這樣：基督指定了這外在的水洗，並加上祂的應許，使我因祂的寶血和聖靈，得以洗凈靈魂一切汙穢，即所有罪惡，恰如通常用水洗去身體的汙穢一般。」

聖禮叫人看見福音。 我們需要看得見的應許和保證，因為我們是罪人，我們的信心軟弱，常常動搖。 所以，我們對信徒說（信徒的資格是必須的），就如你可被水清洗是确实無疑的，基督和祂的靈潔凈你一樣是確實無疑的。洗禮不能潔凈你們，而是基督透過祂的靈潔凈你們，洗禮則證明這是千真萬確的。

聖餐也是如此。海德堡教理問答七十五問：

聖餐怎樣向你表明並印證你與基督在十字架上一次完成的犧牲及其一切恩惠有份呢？

回答：「乃是這樣：基督已經吩咐我和眾信徒吃這擘開的餅，喝這杯，為的是記念祂；並且賜給以下的應許：首先，祂的身體在十字架上為我而舍，為我破碎，祂的寶血為我而流，正如我親眼看見主的餅為我擘開，主的杯遞給我一樣確實；其次，祂那被釘的身體和流出的寶血，餵養我的靈魂，直到永生，正如我從牧師的手裏接受，並親嘗主的餅和杯，作為基督的身體和寶血的標記一般確實。」

我們從聖經得知基督設立（命定，因此是法例）洗禮和聖餐。像洗禮那樣，聖餐也叫人看見福音：基督順服、死亡、被埋葬、復活，升天坐在父上帝右邊，為我們代求。好消息是，因著恩典，我們白白地得蒙拯救，在基督裏，唯獨藉著信心，我們白白地得稱為義。在我們領受聖餐時，基督對信徒說：你們屬於我。我是替你們贖罪的替代者。你的罪確實被除去。你確實得到新生命，我透過我的靈正在你們裏面作工，更新你，使你有基督的形象。聖餐的元素沒有發生任何方式的改變，基督奧秘地用祂真實的身體和血餵養我們，就如在最後的晚餐中祂使門徒得到滿足那樣。聖餐對信徒說：這是真實的，對你來說也是真實的。它不是葬禮，也不僅僅是記念。它是奇妙、奧秘、歡樂的宴席，信徒與我們復活的主一起進餐。毫無疑問我們領受這些元素，毫無疑問我們吃聖餐時，再次得到保證，我們是祂肉中的肉，骨中的骨（海德堡教理问答七十六）。

聖禮、記號、印記不是魔法，也不是純粹的記念，而是上帝賜給祂的寄居子民的奇妙恩賜，這些恩賜將我們指向基督、祂的恩福、對信徒的應許，正如我們得潔凈是真實的，正如我們吃這餅和喝這杯是真實的，我們屬於基督，基督也屬於我們也同樣是真實的。

What Do We Mean By Sacrament, Sign, And Seal?

by R. SCOTT CLARK

https://heidelblog.net/2018/07/what-do-we-mean-by-sacrament-sign-and-seal/

The Reformed churches and Reformed theologians (i.e., those who confess and teach within the bounds of the Reformed confessions, e.g., the French Confession (1559), the Scots Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the Canons of Dort (1619), the Westminster Standards (1646–48), speak about baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “holy sacraments” and as “signs” and “seals.” Recently HB reader Barrett wrote to ask for a brief, simple explanation of these terms.

Sacrament

The word sacrament is widely used by a variety of Christian traditions but for some evangelicals it is a word that is associated with Romanism and a false view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.Our English word sacrament is derived from the Latin military term, sacramentum, which was a military oath of loyalty. In the Latin translations of Scripture where the New Testament uses the term mystery the Latin text often uses the word sacramentum. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were often described by the early church as “Christian mysteries.” In the 13th century, the medieval began to teach officially that there are 7 sacraments and that in the Lord’s Supper the mystery is that the elements are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. The concern for some evangelicals is that the word sacrament carries with it a connotation (an associated meaning) that signals that baptism and the supper work by magic because the Roman communion teaches that the sacraments (they confess 7 sacraments) necessarily confer grace upon the recipient because they work whenever they are used (ex opere operato). Thus, in some parts of the evangelical world the term “ordinance” is used instead.

It is true that Rome has added five false sacraments to the two instituted by our Lord (baptism and the supper) and that she has a false view of how they work. When the Reformed churches use the word sacrament, however, we do not mean by what Rome means. In the Heidelberg Catechism we define sacrament this way:

66. What are the Sacraments?

The Sacraments are visible holy signs and seals appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that of free grace, He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.

We confess that, in the New Testament, our Lord instituted only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or holy communion). We define them as “signs” and “seals.” We will get to what that means in a moment but the most important thing to know here is that we deny the Roman view that sacraments necessarily give new life (e.g., baptismal regeneration) or that “by the working it is worked” or that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation). The operative verb in our definition is a preaching word: declare. They speak. They announce. Their power lies not in doing but saying.

What should we do with the word sacrament? Should we think about this for a moment we soon see that we might have the same problem with the word prayer since Rome has a very different notion of what prayer is, to whom we pray, and to what end. Should we give up the word prayer? We do not because it is a matter of definition. One might argue that prayer is used in Scripture whereas sacrament is not. That is certainly true but the word translated as ordinance (Dan 6:7; 6:15) is not used in Scripture to describe baptism and the supper. So whether to use the traditional term is a matter of prudence and liberty. To alleviate the confusion, some confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches, particularly in the southern US sometimes speak of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as ordinances.

In some traditions (especially in Rome) there has been a temptation to confuse the sacraments for the things to which they testify: Christ and his benefits. That is a great mistake because the moment we seek to turn the sacraments into Christ or into salvation, then they are no longer sacraments. By definition, a sacrament is not the things to which testifies. Christ is not a sacrament and no sacrament is Christ.

In reaction, some have come to talk about sacraments in a way that so utterly divorces the sacraments (or ordinances) from Christ and his benefits that they come really only to speak about the recipient, what the baptized person has done or what the communicant (the person receiving the Lord’s Supper) has done or is doing. This is also a mistake. In the administration of the sacraments, the believer is not the star of the show, Christ is. They testify to what he done for us. He has earned our salvation. He has washed us with new life. He is feeding us mysteriously, by his Holy Spirit, with himself.

Sign

When we say sign we mean that baptism and the supper point to someone and something. They point to what Christ has done. They illustrate and testify to his gospel promises. They are signs of what he has done for all his people (elect) and what is true of all those who believe. This was true before Christ came and it remains true now after his ascension. In the garden our Lord gave two signs, a tree of life and a tree of death (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In Genesis 2:17 God said that we were free to eat from any tree in the garden but the day we ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “you shall surely die.” That makes it a tree of death. They were sacraments of a kind. They pointed beyond themselves to realities. They illustrated promises.

There were other signs sacraments in the period of redemptive history leading up to the coming of Christ. In a sense the sacrificial system was sacramental insofar as it illustrated that an innocent substitute had to come to die in the place of the elect. Circumcision was instituted (ordained) by the Lord in Genesis 17 in order to signify the necessity of a new heart and new life sovereignly, graciously given by the Lord to his elect. It also promised the coming Savior who would fulfill the promise made in Genesis 3:15 that a the Seed would come to crush the serpent even at the cost of his own life. The Passover (Exod 12) was a sacrament illustrating the coming of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and teaching us that we needed to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” (John 6:53) that we might have eternal life. The Red Sea was a sacrament as was the manna in the wilderness. We know this because the Apostle Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4.

None of these worked by magic. No one was ever given new life by virtue of being circumcised or going through the Red Sea (baptism) or by eating the Passover (or any other feast) or by eating manna in the wilderness (the Lord’s Supper). Sacraments are always signs, pointing to Christ and his benefits and we receive Christ and his benefits through faith alone, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8–10). In the New Testament the reality came: Christ. With his death the old types (illustrations; 1 Cor 10:6; Heb 8:5) and foreshadows (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1) ended and were replaced by the bloodless signs and sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Seal

In the ancient world communication was difficult and slow. Even the most powerful kings had to rely on messengers who might not make it to the destination. Once there they had to prove that a communication was authentic. That is what a seal did. It was a bit of wax melted on to a document and marked with a signet ring thus showing that it was not a forgery. We still do this in various ways. Our currency has lines and marks designed to show that it authentic. Our driver’s licenses have the same things. Important documents (e.g., diplomas, marriage certificates, birth certificates) still have a mark impressed (embossed) into them to show that they are authentic. So it was in the ancient world with a wax seal.

The seal does not create a reality. It testifies to the truth of what has already been done by someone else. Should a person never attend school but find a diploma at a rummage sale, possession of the diploma would not make that person a graduate. A sealed document is not magic but it is a promise to the person who, by grace alone, through faith alone, has what the document testifies. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are guarantees to the believer, one to whom the Lord has already given new life and true faith, that what the sacraments declare and promise really are true for the believer.

So, in the Heidelberg Catechism we talk about baptism as a seal this way:

69. How is it signified and sealed to you in Holy Baptism, that you have part in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross?

Thus: that Christ instituted this outward washing with water and joined therewith this promise: that I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, as certainly as I am washed outwardly with water, whereby commonly the filthiness of the body is taken away.

The sacraments are the gospel made visible. We need the these visible promises and guarantees because we are sinners and our faith is sometimes weak. We waver. So, we say to the believer (this qualification is essential), that just as surely as you were washed with water, that is how certain it is that you were cleansed by Christ and by his Spirit. Baptism does not do this. Christ does it by his Spirit but baptism testifies to the believer that it is really true.

The same is true of the Lord’s Supper. Heidelberg 75 says:

75. How is it signified and sealed to you in the Holy Supper, that you do partake of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross and all His benefits?

Thus: that Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup in remembrance of Him, and has joined therewith these promises: First, that His body was offered and broken on the cross for me and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup communicated to me; and further, that with His crucified body and shed blood He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.

We know from Scripture that Christ instituted (ordained, hence ordinance) the baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Like baptism, the supper is a visible presentation of the gospel: Christ obeyed, died, was buried, raised, and is ascended to the right hand of the Father where he intercedes for us. The good news is that we have been saved freely, by grace, that we are accepted (justified) freely, through faith alone, in Christ alone. When we receive the Lord’s Supper Christ says to the believer: you are mine. I was your atoning substitute. Your sins really have been wiped away. You really have been given new life and I am working in you now by my Spirit to renew you into my image. Mysteriously, not by changing the elements in any way, Jesus is feeding us with his true body and blood just as he fed the disciples at the last supper. The supper says to the believer: it is really true and it is true for you. It is not just a memory nor is it a funeral. It is a wonderful, mysterious, happy feast in which believers commune together with our risen Lord. As surely as we receive the elements and surely as we eat we are reassured that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone (HC 76).

Sacraments, signs, and seals are not magic nor are they mere memories but they are wonderful gifts from God for his sojourning people that point us to Christ and his benefits and promise to believers that just as we were washed and just as we eat the bread and drink the wine, so truly are we Christ’s and he our.

牧師、葛培理原則、與智慧Pastors,The Graham Rule, And Wisdom

作者:  R. SCOTT CLARK   譯者: Maria Marta

https://heidelblog.net/2018/07/pastors-the-graham-rule-and-wisdom/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/FuuDfi9BsRK

本周宣布另一位牧師最近被免職。這類事件以前發生過，可悲的是，會再次發生。我寫此文時，一系列案例在我腦海中浮現，而將它們連接在一起的是這一題目：「牧師作出愚蠢的選擇，將自己置於危險之中」。在陳述我的理由之前，讓我們先思考一些對「葛培理原則」（Billy Graham rule）的批評，該原則規定：男人不應與不是他們妻子的女人單獨相處。有爭論說，這原則對女性不公平，因為女性在男性所接受的同一教牧關懷中被隔離開來。這原則也被批評為不切實際，因為在晚期現代」（late modernity）生活中，作為同事，男女常在一起工作，包括一齊出席私人聚會、晚宴等等。第三種批評傾向於把女性塑造為誘惑者。第四種，對我們來說也是最後一種批評，說這原則判斷錯誤，因為問題的癥結不是男女獨處，而是動心動情。假如男人的心是純潔的，那麽沒有理由男女不能私下會面。

在回應上述批評之前，讓我們思考導致原本富有成效的教牧職事走向終結的其中一種情況。一位抱怨遭丈夫虐待的婦女，聯系一位婚姻幸福的牧師，請求輔導。他們先是電話聯系，然後是視頻聊天，再然後就見面了。幾個月後，他們開始婚外情。之後被發現，其後果對女方家庭和牧師家庭來說都一樣是毀滅性的。想一想一位年輕牧師，在他第一次真正主持的輔導講座中，認識一位年輕妻子，她的丈夫被忽視了，而事實證明，她和牧師的秘書有婚外情。在一次情緒激動的會議上，一位牧師對另一位女士的遭遇深表同情，她哭，他也哭。有時候情緒會有些失控——不是因為性，而是情感上的原因。會議一結束，牧師幾乎立刻就意識到自己是多麽的愚蠢，事態是多麽的容易失控。此後，他立志絕不再與女性單獨見面，絕不將自己和女士置於這樣的危險境地。

類似的個案多不勝數，牧師們也知道我所說的是真實的。 這是智慧的問題。 一位已故的牧師朋友在60多歲時向我承認，「我過去常常精挑細選我認為有魅力的女性。現在她們似乎對我都很有吸引力。」牧師仍然是男人。 他們成為牧師，因為他們確信他們既有牧養的內在呼召，也有來自教會，確認他們的呼召感的外在呼召。大多數時候，牧師常會憐憫他們所接觸的人。教牧職事是助人的職業。傾聽人承認他們的罪、恐懼、與掙紮，必然會產生一種親密感。我們傾聽人最黑暗的經歷和恐懼，聽後不起憐憫、共鳴、同情之心，這種人大概不應該事奉。

問題是:  同情的界限可能因為各種原因很快就模糊了。上帝只呼召罪人作教牧職事，而教牧職事往往是要求高、壓力大的工作。牧師的婚姻時常成為事工的犧牲品之一。牧師與女性建立起輔導的關系後，有時還可維持健康的婚姻，但並非總能如此。當牧師的婚姻不完美，當他和他的妻子因為昨晚醫院來的緊急電話，和今早的輔導會發生爭吵時，情況會怎樣呢?  他何時有時間陪她和孩子們？在輔導會後，女受輔者輕輕握著牧師的手，感謝他的接待，傾聽她的心聲——她的「懶丈夫」似乎從來沒有這樣做過——而且有一瞬間的電光、一種火花，還有一種理解的眼神、一瞥、一絲聯系。當時什麽也沒有發生，但當他回到家裏、辦公室時，他回想那一刻，她也一樣。你知道這個故事的結局是怎樣的。

這就是葛培理原則存在的原因。也許它太僵化。 當然，此原則必須與恩典、仁愛、與智慧一起應用。 人可能想象利用這原則來證明虐待的合理性。當然，這種濫用並非我腦中所想的。 此外，自從葛培理開始事工以來，世界在不斷變化，這原則的應用亦變得更加覆雜，但就我所知，從來沒有任何關於葛培理不道德行為的指控。此文的按例調查都集中在輔導方面，因為這是牧者常常出現不謹慎行為的地方和渠道。所有我聽說的個案幾乎都涉及輔導。當然還有其他案例，如牧師和他們的秘書，牧師和他們的同工 (例如，詩班的音樂家或兒童事工部主任)，即便這些個案與輔導無關，但也與輔導的個案有共同之處:  獨處時間過長；發展親密、同情的情感；感情誤導。

葛培理原則是否對女性受輔者產生負面影響？可能會。但有一些方法可以緩解這個問題。一位我認識的輔導員只有在他的妻子在場時才與受輔者會面（不是在房間，而是在房子裏）。另一種方法是利用現代視頻技術。就像警察訊問要攝像記錄那樣，牧師的輔導室裏也要安裝攝影機，遠距離存儲會面情況，好叫他和她受到保護。另外一些牧師只在公共場所與受輔者見面，例如咖啡館或餐館。聖經有如此指導：「老年婦人舉止行動要恭敬，不說讒言，不給酒做奴僕，用善道教訓人，  好指教少年婦人愛丈夫，愛兒女，  謹守，貞潔，料理家務，待人有恩，順服自己的丈夫，免得神的道理被毀謗。」（多二3-5）。有一個受過高等神學教育的年長姐妹擔任輔導員也許能解決這些問題。也許牧師會和這位年長女輔導員一起與受輔者見面。所有這些解決辦法都不是理想的，但它們總比私下會面更可取，因為私人會面播下罪惡和毀滅的種子。

在我們的晚期現代文化中，也許葛培理原則的確令人尷尬，但離婚和被解除職務至少也可以說是尷尬之事。葛培理原則假定所有女性都是波提乏的妻子嗎（創卅九7-18）？根本沒有這意思。 相反，規則的意圖是承認歷史和現實。男女關系不同於同性（非同性戀）關系。 男女關系不同於男人與男人的關系或女人與女人的關系。

第四種反對意見是最有力的，但最終也是不足夠的。坦白說，我們生活在墮落的世界。自墮落以來，男女關系已變得複雜，直到新天新地才會回復簡單。誠然，所有的人際關系都很複雜，但男女關系是特別的複雜。如上所述，通奸關系（特別是在牧師和受輔者之間）並不總是以性關系開始。他們的關系通常以情感關系開始，如果放任不管，就會變成性關系。第四種反對意見有一定的說服力。但問題在於心，牧師的心是敗壞的，受輔者心也是敗壞的。是的，牧師需要省察他的心，但種反對意見（至少據我的理解）似乎忽略了化學反應在男女之間所發生的作用，此種化學反應通常不會在兩個異性戀的男人之間或兩個同性戀的女人之間發生作用。很難對這種化學反應進行量化，但一般認為所有30歲以上的人都有足夠的經驗認識它。

問責制是一種解決辦法。實際上牧師需要自我監督是理所當然的。他們行使職責有如自雇員工。許多人在戶外進行一部分的工作，但也會與教區居民和其離家在外的人見面。他們每周都與他們的監督(治理長老)見面。但實際上在治理長老的照管和監督下，治理長老幾乎不可能監督牧師的日常工作。然而，他們可以求助於定期 (甚至每周)的輔導預約和聯系記錄。翻查牧師與誰聚會，有何目的，在何種情況下等記錄。增加輔導員 (如上文所建議的) 也可緩解一些挑戰。當然，如果牧師決心繞過護欄，那就沒什麽可做的了，但接下來我們要看第四種反對意見所預見的那種基本的動心問題。

我們需要重新思考聖經對教牧職事的資格要求。在提摩太前書3章2節，保羅說監督(ἐπίσκοπος) 必須是「無可指責」(ἀνεπίλημπτον)。他在提多書一章6-7節也是這樣說的。保羅告訴我們這意味著：「若有無可指責的人，只做一個婦人的丈夫，兒女也是信主的，沒有人告他們是放蕩不服約束的，就可以設立。監督既是神的管家，必須無可指責，不任性，不暴躁，不因酒滋事，不打人，不貪無義之財。」有些資格要求比另一些資格要求更高。一夫一妻制似乎不是很高的要求。但「頭腦冷靜」和「自我控制」是更難達到的要求。放蕩很難察覺，但通常有會眾(如教會秘書) 知道，出於恐懼或不恰當的忠誠，知情者一般不會說出來。暴躁和酗酒也是一個人不合資格的表現，或者如果他已經被按立和事奉，他會嚴重跌倒，並且很快會完全出軌。無可指責不是對西班牙宗教裁判(中世紀天主教審判異端的宗教法庭)的要求，而是對在現實主義之下，在某些情況下重新參與事工的日常生活而要具備敬虔智慧所作的要求。

牧師的跌倒，讓我們有機會去反思、省察、重新思考投身事工的方式是否明智、敬虔。

Pastors, The Graham Rule, And Wisdom

It was announced this week that another pastor was recently removed from ministry. It has happened before and, sadly, it will happen again. As I write, a series of cases are running through my mind but one of the themes that unites them is that ministers put themselves in jeopardy by making foolish choices. Before I make my case let us consider some of the criticisms of the Graham Rule, which says that men should not be alone with women who are not their wives. One argument says that the rule is unfair to women since it segregates them from the same pastoral care that men receive. It also is criticized as impractical since, in late-modern life, men and women frequently work together as colleagues including private meetings, dinners, etc. A third criticism is that it tends to cast females as seductresses. Fourth, and finally for our purposes, it is criticized for misidentifying the problem, which is said not to be men being alone with women but in the heart. If men’s hearts are pure, then there is no reason why men and women should not be able to meet privately.

Before responding to the criticisms let us consider one of the situations that has led to the end of otherwise productive pastoral ministries. A pastor, who is happily married, is contacted for counseling by a woman who complains that her husband is abusive. They meet first by telephone, then by video chat, then personally. After a couple of months, however, they begin having an affair. It is discovered and the consequences to the woman’s family are as destructive as they are for the pastor. Consider the young pastor who, in his first real counseling session, meets with a young wife, whose husband was neglectful, and, as it turns out, having an affair with his secretary. It is an emotional meeting. The pastor feels empathy for the woman. She is crying. He is crying. It might lead to something untoward—it does not—not for sexual but for emotional reasons. Almost as soon as the meeting is over the pastor realizes how foolish he had been, how easily things might have spun out of control. Thereafter, he resolves never to meet alone with another female, never to place himself and a woman in such jeopardy.

Similar cases could be multiplied. Pastors know that what I am saying is true. It is a matter of wisdom. A now-deceased pastor friend confessed to me in his 60s, “I used to be more selective about the women I find attractive. Now they all seem attractive to me.” Men who pastor are still men. They become pastors because they become convinced that they have an internal call to ministry and that sense of calling is confirmed by an external call from the church. Most of the time, pastors are moved with compassion for those with whom they come into contact. Pastoral ministry is a helping vocation. Listening to people confess their sins, fears, and struggles necessarily creates a kind of intimacy. We hear people’s darkest experiences and fears. Hearing those things does not move one to compassion, sympathy, and empathy, one probably should not be in ministry.

Here is the problem: the line between empathy and inappropriate feelings can become blurry very quickly for a variety of reasons. God only calls sinners to pastoral ministry, which is often a demanding, high-stress vocation. The pastor’s marriage can too often become one of the casualties of ministry. What happens when the pastor’s marriage is not perfect, when he and his wife just had an argument because he had an emergency hospital call last night and now a counseling meeting this morning? When is he going to have time for her and for the children? After the counseling session, the female counselee reaches out to touch the pastor’s hand softly to say thanks for meeting with her and for listening to her so attentively—something her “slob of husband” never seems to do—and there’s a little electricity, a spark. There is an understanding look, a glance, a connection. Nothing happens right away, but as he goes back to his home office he thinks about that moment and so does she. We know how this story ends.

This is why there is a Graham rule. Certainly it has to be applied with grace, charity, and wisdom. One can imagine ways the rule could be used to justify cruelty. Of course, such abuses are not what I have in mind. Further, the world has changed since Billy Graham began ministry, thus making the application of the rule more complicated, but as far as I know, there were never any allegations of immorality against Graham. The scenarios surveyed here have centered on counseling because this is where and how ministerial indiscretions often happen. In just about every case of which I have heard counseling was involved. There are other kinds of cases, e.g., pastors and their secretaries, pastors and a member of their staff (e.g., a musician or children’s ministry director) but even these cases share commonalities with the counseling scenarios: too much time alone, the development of emotional intimacy, empathy, misdirected affection.

Does the Graham rule adversely affect female counselees? It may. There are some ways to mitigate the problem. One counselor I know only meets with counselees when his wife is present (not in the room but about the house). Another way is to make use of modern video technology. Just as police interviews are recorded on video, some pastors have a video camera in the counseling room where the video is stored remotely for his and her protection. Other pastors only meet in some public place, e.g., a coffee-house or a restaurant. We have guidance in holy Scripture, which says, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:3–5). Having an older woman with some advanced theological education, who is equipped as a counselor, might resolve many of these issues. Perhaps the pastor and an older female counselor might meet together with a female counselee. None of these solutions is ideal but they are preferable to private meetings which sow the seeds of sin and destruction.

Perhaps the Graham rule does create awkwardness in our late-modern culture but divorce and being defrocked is also, to say the least, awkward. Does the rule presume that all females are Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39:7–18)? Not at all. Rather, the intent of the rule is to recognize history and reality. Male-female relationships are different than same-sex (not homosexual) relationships. Relationships between men and women are not the same as relationships between men or relationships between women.

The fourth objection is the most powerful but also ultimately insufficient. To say the obvious: we live in a fallen world. Male-female relations have been complicated since the fall and they will not become simple again until the new heavens and the new earth. It is true that all human relationships are complex but male-female relations are especially so. As suggested above, adulterous relationships (especially among pastors and counselees) do not always begin as a sexual relationships. Often they begin as emotional relationships, which, left unchecked, can become sexual relationships. Objection #4 has some weight. The problem is the heart but the pastor’s heart is corrupt and so is the counselee’s. Yes, the pastor needs to check his heart but the objection (at least as I understand it) seems to underestimate the chemistry can develop between a man and woman that would not ordinarily develop between two heterosexual men or between two heterosexual women. It is hard to quantify this chemistry but one would think that anyone over 30 would have enough experience to recognize it.

One solution is accountability. In the nature of things, pastors are practically self-supervised. They function as if they were self-employed. Many work partly out of their home but meet with parishioners and others away from home. They see their supervisors (the ruling elders) weekly but in the nature of things it is almost impossible for ruling elders to supervise the day-to-day work of the pastors under their care and supervision. Yet they can help by keeping a regular (even weekly) record of counseling appointments and contacts with whom is the pastor meeting, for what purpose, and under what circumstances. Expanding the counseling staff (as suggested above) might also alleviate some of the challenges. Of course, if the minister is determined to get around guardrails, there is little that can be done but then we are looking at the sort of fundamental heart-problem envisioned in objection #4.

We need to reconsider the biblical qualifications for pastoral ministry. In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul says that the Episkopos (ἐπίσκοπος) must be “above reproach” (ἀνεπίλημπτον). He says the same in Titus 1:6–7. Paul tells us what this means: “the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable” and “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination…he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain.” Some of these qualifications are easier than others. Monogamy would not seem to be too much to expect but “sober-minded” and “self-controlled” are more difficult. Debauchery can be hard to detect but typically someone in the congregation (e.g., the church secretary) knows about it but does not say anything out of fear or a misplaced loyalty. A quick temper and drunkenness are also symptoms that a man is not qualified or if he is already ordained and serving, is stumbling badly and about to go off the rails altogether. This is not a call for a Spanish inquisition but it is a call for godly wisdom, for realism, and in some cases, for re-engagement with the daily life of the minister.

When a minister falls it is an occasion for reflection, for self-examination, and for reconsidering whether the way we are conducting our ministry is wise and godly.

信經和信仰告白在做神學過程中的作用The Role of Creeds andConfessions in Doing Theology

作者: R. Scott Clark    譯者:  Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/02/role-creeds-confessions-theology/

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

聰明的旅行者為旅行作好準備（太十8-10）。任何不攜帶地圖，卻試圖走一段艱難旅程的旅行者，都將面臨無法抵達的危險或更糟糕的後果。 基督徒的生命是一趟要抵達天城的漫長旅程（來十一8-15）。 地圖是我們之前的旅行者的行程記錄。 然而奇怪的是，許多基督徒試圖踏上朝聖之旅，卻不受惠於地圖------在這個例子中，地圖是指大公信經和改革宗信仰告白。

信經creed一詞源自拉丁語credo，意思是「我相信」。信經通常是簡潔的信仰聲明。大公信經包括使徒信經（公元前頭四個世紀發展而成）、尼西亞君士坦丁堡信經（通常稱為尼西亞信經; 公元325/381年）、亞他那修信經（公元428年後）、迦克墩信經（公元451年），它們在各個時代被多個教會傳統廣泛接受。當中有些是古老教會對基督教歷史上臭名昭著的異端所作出的回應。例如，在尼西亞君士坦丁堡信經中，教會捍衛了聖經教義：聖子、聖靈、聖父本質相同（同本體）。聖子在永恆裏為聖父所生；聖靈在永恆裏由聖父和聖子而出。（在589年的托萊多第三次會議〔The Third Council of Toledo〕上，增加了所謂的「和兒子」 (filiopue) 這片語，即是說聖靈也從聖子而出。這次修訂被路德宗和改革宗教會接受。）

因此，根據尼西亞君士坦丁堡信經，聖子和聖靈不單單像上帝，而且祂們就是上帝。雖然上帝本質(或本性)  上是一，但祂也存於三個不同、永恒並存的位格之中，三個位格平等分享一個本質。沒有其他地方比亞他那修信經更清楚地教導三位一體和基督神人兩性的教義。迦克墩信經教導我們耶穌的人神兩性如何聯於一個位格，而不相混亂。使徒信經可作為古代教會對基督教信仰偉大教義的共識的總結。這些信經都是界限標記，越過標界，基督徒就無法安全前行。正如亞他那修信經所言：「凡人欲得救，首先當持守大公（即普世）教會信仰」。

信仰告白一詞源自拉丁語動詞confiteor，是「承認」的意思。偉大的改革宗信仰告白包括比利時信條（1561）、海德堡教理問答(1563)、多特信經(1619) 、威敏斯特準則（威敏斯特信仰告白、威敏斯特大、小要理問答）(1648) 。然而，信經和信仰告白非起源於教會歷史。

首先，聖經本身就含有信經和信仰告白。 第一個例子出現在申命記六章4節：「以色列啊，你要聽！耶和華我們神是獨一的主。」  經文中翻譯為「當聽」的希伯來詞Shema之後的部分，就是以色列人所宣讀的「示瑪」（譯註：申六4-5節是舊約信仰的認信總綱）。在兩約和新約時期，以色列人最基本的信仰告白示瑪每周在猶太會堂重覆宣讀一次。在馬可福音十二章29，我們的主親自節引用它，保羅在羅馬書三章30節和加拉太書三章20節也提到它。在雅各書二章19節，雅各暗指早期猶太基督徒慣例背誦示瑪。

在新約聖經也有信仰告白的表達。 例如，在提摩太前書三章16節，使徒保羅引用教會使用的信經：

敬虔的奧祕真偉大啊，這是眾人所公認的，就是：

「他在肉身顯現，

在聖靈裡稱義，

被天使看見；

被傳於列國，

被世人信服，

被接到榮耀裡。」

（《聖經新譯本》）

示瑪和提摩太前書三章16節是關乎基督教信仰關鍵方面的信仰概述。上帝是獨一真神。 耶穌是上帝的兒子道成肉身，即復活升天的主和救主。 聖靈將祂從死裏復活，我們唯獨依靠恩典，唯獨藉著信心，與祂聯合。 保羅稱這些簡述為「可信的話」（提前一15三1; 四9; 提後二11; 多三8），它們是基督教信仰與實踐的概述。

其次，我們的主親自命令我們宣認信仰。祂說：「凡在人面前認我的，我在我天上的父面前也必認他；凡在人面前不認我的，我在我天上的父面前也必不認他。」（太十32-33） 我們知道早期基督徒承認「耶穌是基督」要承受巨大的壓力（約九22）。 使徒保羅教導提摩太承認信仰（提前六12）。 使徒約翰稱小亞細亞的教會承認道成肉身的基督，并反對拒絕此認信二元論者（約壹四15; 約貳7章）。認信基督和祂的真理如此重要，以至所有信徒都會這做，直至最後（腓二11）乃至在天上（啟三5）。

信經和信仰告白不僅是有益的，更是無不可避免的。甚至我們拒絕信經信條的朋友也有他們的信條。雖然「不要信條唯獨基督」（no creed but Christ）是一句非常簡短、不適當的信條，但它仍然是一句信條。 因此，問題不在於我們是否有信仰告白，而是在於信仰告白是否符合聖經，是否是大公的、純正的。

信經和信仰告白的權威

激起抵制信經和信仰告白的重大關切之一是人的教義和傳統不應取代聖經，這種關切是有道理的。唯獨上帝話語權威的權柄是更正教（新教/抗羅宗）改革的確切因由。「唯獨根據聖經」就是我們使用的拉丁口號sola Scriptura所指的意思。羅馬天主教承認教會和聖經這兩種權威，而更正教教會承認唯獨聖經的最高判斷的權威。對教會而言，她們只承認教會的權威。大公信經和改革宗信仰告白是教會權威的表達。關於信仰和基督徒的生活，長老會和改革宗教會認信他們所做的事，因為上帝的聖言是這樣說的。信仰告白服務於聖經。它們是教會認可的上帝聖言的總結。若發現它們需要修正以便更忠於上帝的聖言，可以通過正當程序進行修改。

信仰告白本身宣認，教會沒有其他權柄能與上帝的話語抗衡。 在比利時信條（1561）第七條，改革宗教會認信「聖經完全涵蓋了上帝的旨意」，人「在救恩方面當相信的一 切都已經在聖經正典中有充分的教導」。我們學習聖經的「整個敬拜方式」，唯獨聖經有如此的權威，以至於無論天使抑或使徒教導「與我們目前在聖經中所領受的相悖的東西都是非法的」。僅僅人類的著作，無論多麽崇高或遠古，都不能與聖經「具有同樣的價值」，這認信本身就是基督徒信仰和生活絕對可靠的準則。

確實有教會甚至整個宗派將大公信經和改革宗信仰告白貶入博物館或垃圾箱。 這種情況下，錯誤不在於信經和宗信仰告白，乃在於人的不忠。 對那些仍然相信上帝聖言的會眾和宗派來說，正如古老教會和宗教改革

所理解的那樣，在基督教教義和生活最重要的問題上，信經和宗信仰告白是教會明白上帝聖道的活潑聲音。

信經和宗信仰告白的作用

在改革宗神學的經典時期，大多數改革宗作者將神學界定為兩個層面：教義和實踐。 他們將神學將區分為: 神學是上帝對祂自己的認識；與神學是上帝向我們啟示出來的知識，主要在聖經中啟示給我們。他們教導，這種向我們啟示的知識是上帝對祂自己的認識原型（原始的）的複製本（副本）。（譯註：上帝所擁有的原型神學與我們對祂的經歷，或祂向我們的啟示的複本神學有所不同。複本神學是祂俯就人的有限而產生的自我啟示。）  他們將我們知道和做/研究的神學稱為「朝聖者的神學」（Pilgrim Theology）。

朝聖者是個比方，將我們帶回到開頭。 基督徒正走在天路上。 因著祂主權的恩典，父上帝在基督裡揀選了我們，唯獨藉著祂在我們心𥚃作成的信心,  聖靈藉此連結我們歸屬基督。 如比利時信條第三十四條所言，我們得蒙拯救，乃藉著「上帝的兒子所灑的寶血，祂就是我們的紅海，為了逃避法老— 也就是魔鬼--的暴政，進入屬靈的迦南美地。」

系統神學、聖經神學等、個別作家的著作都具有真正的價值，但大公信經和改革宗信仰告白遠超於是個人的觀點。 它們是基督教教會在基督徒信仰與生活最重要問題上經過仔細考慮與禱告的判斷。 從法律的角度而言，律師會認為他會如是這般，但他的意見是一回事，最高法院的裁決卻是另一回事。

許多人受試探孤立於教會的其他肢體來讀聖經。 這是嚴重的錯誤。在歷史上，這曾引起很嚴重的錯誤後果。 例如，在十七世紀初，蘇西尼派（Socinians）正是設法這樣做，結果他們拋棄了三位一體、基督的神性、替代性的贖罪等教義，以及其他基本的聖經真理。 這就是旅行者不攜帶地圖，基督徒不認識信經和信仰告白會發生的情況。我們閱讀聖經，手中有信經和信仰告白會，我們便與大公教會和改革宗教會一起閱讀。 我們從前人的旅程經驗中學習，並與他們一起學習基督教信仰至重要的教義和基本的基督徒實踐：遵守主日，參與敬拜、蒙恩管道、祈禱、悔改，唯獨靠著恩典治死罪，活出基督的生命。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2018年二月號 。

Dr. R. Scott Clark is professor of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California and associate minister of Escondido United Reformed Church. He is author of Recovering the Reformed Confession.

The Role of Creeds and Confessions in Doing Theology

by R. Scott Clark

A wise traveler makes preparations for a trip (Matt. 10:8–10). Any traveler who attempts a difficult journey without a map risks not arriving or worse. The Christian life is a journey to the heavenly city (Heb. 11:8–15). A map is a record of the journeys of travelers who have gone before us. Strangely, however, many Christians attempt the Christian journey without the benefit of maps—in this case, the ecumenical creeds and Reformed confessions.

THE NECESSITY OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS

Our word creed comes from the Latin word credo, “I believe.” A creed is typically a short statement of faith. The ecumenical creeds, including the Apostles’ Creed (developed during the first four centuries AD), the Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed (often called the Nicene Creed; AD 325/381), the Athanasian Creed (after AD 428), and the Definition of Chalcedon (AD 451), have been widely accepted across the ages by multiple church traditions. In them, the ancient church responded to some of the great heresies of the Christian religion. For example, in the Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed, the church defended the biblical doctrine that God the Son and God the Spirit are of the same substance (consubstantial) with the Father. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. (The Third Council of Toledo in 589 added the so-called filioque clause that says the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. This revision has been received by the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.) Thus, according to the Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed, the Son and the Spirit are not merely like God—they are God. Yet, though God is one in nature, He also exists in three distinct, coeternal persons who share equally in that one nature. Nowhere are the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ more clearly taught than in the Athanasian Creed. The Definition of Chalcedon teaches us how to keep Jesus’ humanity and deity united in one person without confusing them. The Apostles’ Creed serves as a summary of the consensus of the ancient church on the great doctrines of the Christian faith. These are boundary markers beyond which no Christian may safely go. As the Athanasian Creed says, “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [that is, universal] faith.”

Our noun confession comes from the Latin verb confiteor, “to confess.” The great Reformed confessions include the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Canons of Dort (1619), and the Westminster Standards (1648). The idea of creeds and confessions did not originate in church history, however.

First, there are creeds and confessions in Scripture itself. One of the first examples occurs in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” It is known as the Shema, after the Hebrew word translated as “Hear!” in the verse. This most basic Israelite confession was repeated weekly in the synagogue during the intertestamental and New Testament periods. Our Lord Himself quoted it in Mark 12:29, and Paul refers to it in Romans 3:30 and Galatians 3:20. James alludes to the early Jewish Christian practice of reciting the Shema in James 2:19.

When we read the Scriptures with the creeds and confessions, we are reading them with the ecumenical church and with the Reformed churches.

  SHARE

There are also confessional expressions in the New Testament. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:16, the Apostle Paul quotes a confession used in the churches:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He [Christ] was manifested in the flesh,

vindicated by the Spirit,

seen by angels,

proclaimed among the nations,

believed on in the world,

taken up in glory.

The Shema and 1 Timothy 3:16 are brief accounts of the faith that touch on key aspects of the Christian faith. God is one. Jesus is God the Son incarnate, the ascended Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit raised Him from the dead, and we are united to Him by grace alone through faith alone. Paul calls these formulas “trustworthy saying[s]” (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8), short summaries of Christian faith and practice.

Second, our Lord Himself commands us to confess the faith. He said, “So everyone who confesses me before men, I also will confess before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32–33). We know that there was pressure on early Christians not to confess Christ (John 9:22). The Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to confess the faith (1 Tim. 6:12). The Apostle John called the churches of Asia Minor to confess the incarnation of Christ against the dualists who denied it (1 John 4:15; 2 John 7). Confession of Christ and His truth is so important that it is something all believers will do at the last day (Phil. 2:11) and even in heaven (Rev. 3:5).

Confessions and creeds are good, but they are also unavoidable. Even our friends who reject creeds have one. “No creed but Christ” is a very short and inadequate creed, but it is a creed nonetheless. Thus, the question is not whether we will have a confession but whether it will be biblical, ecumenical, and sound.

THE AUTHORITY OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS

One of the great concerns that animates resistance to creeds and confessions is the justifiable concern that human doctrines and traditions should not replace Scripture. The sole magisterial authority of the Word of God was the formal cause of the Protestant Reformation. This is what we mean by the Latin slogan sola Scriptura, “according to Scripture alone.” Where Rome confessed two streams of authority—church and Scripture—the Protestant churches recognized the supreme ruling authority of Scripture alone. To the church they admitted only ministerial authority. The ecumenical creeds and the Reformed confessions are expressions of that ministerial authority. The Presbyterian and Reformed churches confess what they do about the faith and the Christian life because God’s Word says what it says. The confessions serve the Scriptures. They are ecclesiastically sanctioned summaries of God’s Word. Should they be found to be in need of correction to be made more faithful to God’s Word, they may be revised by due process.

In the confessions themselves, the church declares that no other authority can rival God’s Word. In article 7 of the Belgic Confession (1561), the Reformed churches declare that the “Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God” and everything that one “ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein.” From the Scriptures we learn “the whole manner of worship,” and Scripture alone is so authoritative that it is “unlawful for anyone,” whether an Apostle or an angel, to contradict it. Merely human writings, no matter how highly regarded or ancient, cannot be of “equal value with” Scripture, which alone is the infallible rule for the Christian faith and life.

It is true that there are churches and even entire denominations that have relegated the ecumenical creeds and Reformed confessions to the museum or to the dustbin. In such cases, the fault lies not with the creeds and confessions but with infidelity. For those congregations and denominations that still believe God’s Word as it was understood in the ancient church and in the Reformation, the creeds and confessions are the living voice of the church’s understanding of God’s Word on the most important issues of Christian doctrine and living.

THE ROLE OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS

In the classical period of Reformed theology, most Reformed writers defined theology as having two aspects: doctrine and practice. They distinguished between theology as God knows it and theology as He reveals it to us, which is principally revealed to us in Scripture. This revelation, they taught, is an analogue of theology as God knows it. They described as “pilgrim theology” the aspects of theology as we know and do it.

Pilgrim is a figure of speech, and it brings us back to the beginning. Christians are on a journey. By His sovereign grace alone, God the Father has elected us in Christ, and the Holy Spirit has united us to Christ through faith alone. In the words of Belgic Confession 34, we have been redeemed by the “sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God, who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, who is the devil, and to enter the spiritual land of Canaan.”

Systematic theologies and biblical theologies and other works of individual writers have genuine value, but the ecumenical creeds and Reformed confessions are more than the opinions of individuals. They are the considered, prayerful judgment of Christ’s church on the most important issues of the Christian faith and life. In legal terms, a lawyer may think what he will, but his opinion is one thing and a Supreme Court ruling is another.

Many have been tempted to read the Scriptures in isolation from the rest of the church. That is a great mistake. Historically, it has led to serious errors. For example, in the early seventeenth century, the Socinians tried to do just that, and they abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and other essential biblical truths. This is what can happen when we travel without a map, without the creeds and confessions. When we read the Scriptures with the creeds and confessions at hand, we are reading the Scriptures with the ecumenical church and with the Reformed churches. We are learning from their journey before us and learning with them the most vital doctrines of the Christian faith and basic Christian practice: the observance of the Lord’s Day, attendance to worship and the means of grace, prayer, repentance, and dying to sin and living to Christ by grace alone.