聖經屬於所有時代The Bible Belongs to Every Age

作者: Stephen Nichols  譯者: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/bible-belongs-every-age/

在1733-34年，喬納森愛德華茲 (Jonathan Edwards) 和北安普敦的會眾經歷了一次復興。康涅狄格河流域、康涅狄格和馬薩諸塞殖民地的其他許多教會也經歷了復興。1733年秋天，愛德華茲作了一些言辭激烈的講道。其中一次是1733年11月宣講的《人想要的講道》。此次講道從舊約開始，他觀察到上帝子民一直不缺假先知：「假先知總是在他們的罪中奉承他們。」 真先知則斥責罪人。假先知任由罪人「在他們的罪中平安享樂」。接著，針對他那個時代的人對假先知的渴望，他指出：「若牧師們受差遣去告訴大家，他們可以滿足他們的欲望而毫無危險……那麽有些人就會多麽熱切地傾聽他們的話，寄予他們多麽高度的關注。」他補充說：「他們想要一個在他們的罪裏拯救他們的救主，勝過要一個拯救他們脫離罪的救主。」

愛德華茲回應當日那些自認比上帝說話懂得更多的人。他還寫論文回應那些自認比上帝說話明白得更多的學者。愛德華茲時代的英國學術界被啟蒙運動的新思想迷惑。自然神論者掌握實權。他們相信上帝創造世界後就撤手不管了，現在祂讓世界自行運轉。他們拒絕「上帝在祂的說話中啟示祂的旨意」這一觀點。他們拒絕基督道成肉身和基督之神性的教義。他們拒絕神跡的可能性，更莫提神跡的實際發生。他們已經「長大成人」。啟蒙運動思想家和神秘主義者資質深厚，以致無法屈從於古書。

哲學家們影響了教會。1727年，一群獨立的牧師在倫敦集會，討論基督的神性。他們恰恰17世紀堅定的清教徒的後裔。他們就基督的神性和基督喪失神性進行表決。這些人應該知道得更清楚，但他們卻屈從於當天的突發奇想。

愛德華茲與時俱進，跟上這些發展的步伐。他不是邊遠地區的牧師，他擁有最新書藉，洞悉最新觀念。他看到這些觀念將美洲殖民地的教會帶向何方。他發出警報。他也看到他的會眾是如何容易被錯誤的追求引入歧途。他更看到世俗是如何伏在門口，準備突然降臨在那些願意讓步的人身上。

所以，他不是浸沒在清教徒泡沫裏。他對自己的文化和會眾作出回應。他講道，寫書——都是為了捍衛聖經。

我們並不像愛德華那樣，處身歷史上的啟蒙運動初期，而是處身啟蒙運動的沒落期。我們生活在後現代主義初期。我們生活在那些拒絕聖經的人當中。我們生活在那些屈服於世俗爪子的人當中。罪也伏在我們的門口。

那麽愛德華茲提供什麽教牧建議呢?  他將他的會眾指向聖經。他根據聖經來反對啟蒙運動的思想家和自然神論神學家。他依靠上帝的話語。

正如愛德華茲指出，聖經屬於每一個時代。它不僅僅是第一世紀上帝真實的說話。它不僅僅是第一世紀上帝權威的說話。它不僅僅是第一世紀上帝必需的說話。它不僅僅是第一世紀上帝全備（足夠）的說話。

它是歷世歷代，包括二十一世紀的上帝真實、權威、必需、全備的說話。有時神學家說這些都是聖經的屬性。正如上帝的屬性幫助我們認識上帝一樣，聖經的屬性也幫助我們明白聖經。聖經首要的屬性是它的權威性。聖經具有權威性。讓我們再次傾聽殉道者彼得·維米利（Martyr Vermigli）對我們的提醒，這一切都歸結為「耶和華如此說」。若聖經是上帝的說話，它就具有權威性。

本文摘自Stephen Nichols博士所著的《A Time for Confidence》一書。

The Bible Belongs to Every Age

FROM Stephen Nichols

In 1734 and 1735, Jonathan Edwards and the congregation at Northampton experienced a revival. So did many other churches in the Connecticut River Valley in the colonies of Connecticut and Massachusetts. In the fall of 1733, Edwards preached some hard-hitting sermons. One of them, preached in November 1733, has been titled “The Kind of Preaching People Want.” Edwards starts his sermon in the Old Testament, observing that God’s people have had no shortage of false prophets, “that always flattered them in their sins.” True prophets rebuke the sinner. False prophets leave sinners “to the peaceable enjoyment of their sins.” He then turns to the desire that people in his own day had for such false prophets. Edwards continues, “If ministers were sent to tell the people that they might gratify their lusts without danger… how eagerly would they be listened to by some, and what good attention they would give.” He adds, “They would like a savior to save them in their sins much better than a savior to save them from their sins.”

Edwards was responding to those of his day who thought they knew better than the Word of God. He also wrote treatises to respond to the academics who thought they knew better than God’s Word. The English academic world of Edwards’ day was enthralled with the new thinking of the Enlightenment. The deists ruled. They believed that God created the world and then backed away, and now He lets it run along all on its own. They rejected the idea that God reveals His will in His Word. They rejected the doctrine of the incarnation and the deity of Christ. They rejected the possibility, let alone the actual occurrence, of miracles. They had “come of age.” The Enlightenment thinkers and the deists were far too sophisticated to submit to some ancient book.

The philosophers had affected the church. In 1727, a group of independent ministers met in London to debate the deity of Christ. These were the exact descendants of the stalwart Puritans of the 1600s. They voted on the deity of Christ, and the deity of Christ lost. These were men who should have known better. They capitulated to the whims of the day.

Edwards kept up with these developments. He was not a backwoods minister. He had the latest books and kept current with the latest ideas. He saw where these ideas would take the church in the American Colonies. He sounded the alarm. He also saw how his congregation could be so easily led astray by the wrong pursuits. He saw how worldliness crouched at the door, ready to overtake those who so willingly gave in.

So, he was not in a Puritan bubble. He responded to his culture and to his congregation. He preached sermons and he wrote books—all defending the Bible.

We are not historically situated at the dawn of the Enlightenment as Edwards was. We find our place at the Enlightenment’s setting sun. We live in the dawn of postmodernism. We live among those who reject the Bible. We live among those who give in to the clutches of worldliness. Sin crouches at our door too.

So what pastoral counsel did Edwards offer? He pointed his congregation to the Bible. He argued against the Enlightenment thinkers and against the deist theologians based on the Bible. He looked to the Word.

As Edwards noted, the Bible belongs to every age. It is not simply the true Word for the first century. It is not simply the authoritative Word for the first century. It is not simply the necessary Word for the first century. It is not simply the sufficient Word for the first century.

It is the true, authoritative, necessary, clear, and sufficient Word for all centuries, including the twenty-first. Theologians sometimes speak of these as the attributes of Scripture. As the attributes of God help us to learn about God, the attributes of Scripture help us learn about Scripture. The first and foremost attribute of Scripture is its authority. Scripture is authoritative. We again hear Peter Martyr Vermigli remind us that it all comes down to “Thus says the Lord.” If Scripture is the Word of God, it’s authoritative.

This excerpt is adapted from A Time for Confidence by Stephen Nichols

聖誕節的真正意義The Real Meaning of Christmas

作者：Stephen Nichols  譯者: 駱鴻銘

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/real-meaning-christmas/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157177487364653

在現代歷史中最黑暗的時刻出現了一個非常特別的聖誕節故事。第一次世界大戰蹂躪了歐洲大陸，這場戰爭留下的盡是破壞與殘骸。犧牲的人數多達數百萬，令人震驚。但就在這黑暗的衝突中，1914年出現了這個聖誕節休戰的故事。在戰爭結束前僅僅幾個月的時間裏，西線是一個悲慘破壞的場面。彷彿是給士兵再次喘息的日子，有人提出休戰協定，從聖誕節前夕到聖誕節當天。

One of the most remarkable stories of Christmas comes from one of the darkest moments of modern history. World War I ravaged a continent, leaving destruction and debris in its wake. The human cost, well in the millions, staggers us. But from the midst of this dark conflict comes the story of the Christmas Truce of 1914. The Western Front, only a few months into the war, was a deplorable scene of devastation. Perhaps as if to give the combatants one day to breathe again, a truce was called from Christmas Eve through Christmas Day.

夜幕低垂，如毯子般覆蓋大地時，砲彈的爆炸聲和此起彼落的炮火掃射聲也逐漸消失。微弱的聖誕頌歌，一邊是法語或英語，另一邊是德語，漸漸升起，充滿了寂靜的夜空。

As darkness settled over the front like a blanket, the sound of exploding shells and the rat-tat-tat of gunfire faded. Faint carols, in French or English voices on one side and in German voices on the other, rose to fill the silence of the night.

到了早晨，起初猶豫不決的士兵們，開始從迷宮般的戰壕中魚貫而出，走到可怕的「三不管地帶」（No Man’s Land；註 ）的焦土上。歌聲越來越響亮。雙方交換口糧和香煙等禮物。家人的照片四處瘋傳。足球出現了。在西方戰線的前後，幾個小時之前還在作殊死戰的士兵們，如今在足球場上互相對抗。

By morning, soldiers, at first hesitantly, began filing out of the maze of trenches into the dreaded and parched soil of No Man’s Land. There was more singing. Gifts of rations and cigarettes were exchanged. Family photos were passed around. Soccer balls appeared. Up and down the Western Front, soldiers, who only hours before had been locked in deathly combat, now faced off in soccer games.

在這麼一個短暫又非常引人注目的日子裏，地上有了和平。有些人稱1914年聖誕節停戰是「西線奇蹟」（the Miracle on the Western Front）。

For one brief but entirely remarkable day, there was peace on earth. Some have called the Christmas Truce of 1914 “the Miracle on the Western Front.”

急於發行好消息的倫敦泰晤士報，報導了聖誕節的休戰事件。士兵們用家信和日記記錄了這一天。其中幾行話出現在報紙中，而其他的話直到以後才被曝光，為人所知。以下是德國步兵日記中的一行：

Anxious to print some good news, The Times of London reported on the events of the Christmas Truce. Soldiers recorded the day in letters home and in diaries. Some of those lines made it to newspapers, while others remained unknown until later brought to light. Here’s one such line from the diary of a German infantryman:

英國人從戰壕中帶來一個足球，很快就開始了一場熱鬧的比賽。多麼美妙，卻又多麼怪異。英國軍官對此也有同感。因此，聖誕節，愛的慶典，將敵人暫時當作朋友聚集在一起。

The English brought a soccer ball from the trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvelously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as friends for a time.

「暫時作朋友」，「愛的慶典」，「地上的和平」 ——這就是聖誕節的意義。但這些慶祝活動，這些停戰，並沒有持續下去。聖誕節過後，足球和士兵們又回到了戰壕。聖誕頌歌漸漸平息，戰爭繼續進行。第一次世界大戰即使最終結束了，幾十年後，歐洲的鄉村和城市卻又再次成為戰場，第二次世界大戰期間，非洲和太平洋也無法倖免。

“Friends for a time,” “the celebration of love,” “peace on earth”—this is the meaning of Christmas. But these celebrations, these truces, don’t last. After Christmas Day, the soccer balls and the soldiers went back into the trenches. The Christmas carols subsided and the war carried on. And even though World War I eventually ended, a few decades later, Europe’s countryside and cities became the field of battle once again, as did Africa and the Pacific, during World War II.

像聖誕節休戰這樣的活動值得慶祝。但它們缺少一些東西。它們缺乏永恆性。這種暫時的和平是我們在尋求聖誕節真正意義時經常發現的。如果我們想要尋求永恆和最終的善意、愛與和平，我們必須到互相送禮、聚會和公司派對以外的地方尋找。我們只能到馬槽那裏去找。

Events like the Christmas Truce are worth celebrating. But they lack something. They lack permanence. Such impermanent peace is what we often find in our quest for the real meaning of Christmas. If we are looking for permanent and ultimate goodwill, love, and peace, we must look beyond our gift-giving, get-togethers, and office parties. We must look to no other place than to a manger.

我們必須留意出生時那位沒有炫耀、沒有排場，也沒有隆重儀式的嬰兒，祂是在絕望的日子裏由一對貧窮的父母所生的。在這方面，約瑟和馬利亞，以及小小耶穌都是真正的歷史人物。但在某種程度上，約瑟和馬利亞都超越了自己，超越了他們特定的地點和時間。他們代表著我們所有的人。我們都是窮乏人，生活在絕望的時代。我們中的一些人比其他人更會掩飾。儘管如此，我們都是窮乏人和絕望的人，因此我們都需要那個嬰孩的應許。

We must look to a baby born not with fanfare, pomp, and circumstance, but to poor parents in desperate times. Joseph and Mary, and the Baby Jesus for that matter, were real historical figures. But in a way, Joseph and Mary extend beyond themselves, beyond their particular place and time. They represent all of us. We are all poor and living in desperate times. Some of us are better than others at camouflaging it. Nevertheless, we are all poor and desperate, so we all need the promise bound up in that baby.

我們需要擺脫靈魂的貧困和人類景況的絕望狀態。這嬰孩躺在馬槽裏，我們在其中找到了盼望，祂是耶穌基督，是長久應許給人的彌賽亞、女人的後裔、救主、君王。

We are in need of a way out of our poverty of soul and the desperate state of our human condition. We find it in this child lying in a manger, who was and is Jesus Christ, the long-promised Messiah, Seed, Redeemer, and King.

許多世紀以前，耶穌的誕生或許與尋常的出生略有不同。即使在遠古時代，馬廄通常也不會又作分娩室，而馬槽通常也不會同時作為新生嬰孩的嬰兒床。那個剛出生的嬰兒非常特殊。當然，在某些方面，祂是十分平凡的。祂是一個人，一個嬰孩。祂會餓，會渴，會累。祂出生時，被襁褓衣包裹著——相當於古代的尿布。

The birth of Jesus so many centuries ago might have been a slightly-out-of-the-ordinary birth. Even in ancient times, stalls didn’t typically double as birthing rooms and mangers didn’t typically double as cribs for new-born babies. And that newborn baby was very much out of the ordinary. Of course, in some respects, He was perfectly ordinary. He was a human being, a baby. He got hungry. He got thirsty. He got tired. When He was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes—the ancient equivalent of Pampers.

一個嬰兒。無助、飢餓、冷漠、疲憊。

An infant. Helpless, hungry, cold, and tired.

然而，這個孩子是神的兒子，道成肉身。祂是以馬內利，翻出來的意思是「上帝與我們同在」。根據使徒保羅的說法，這位嬰孩創造了萬有。這位嬰孩創造了自己的馬槽。而這位嬰孩，這位君王，帶來了地上的和平，最終且永久的和平。

Yet, this child was the Son of God incarnate. He was Immanuel, which translated means “God with us.” According to the Apostle Paul’s account, this infant created all things. This infant created His own manger. And this infant, this King, brings peace on earth, ultimate and permanent peace.

聖經: 我們無誤與無謬的權威Scripture: Our Inerrant andInfallible Authority

作者: Stephen Nichols  譯者: Maria Marta  

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/scripture-our-inerrant-and-infallible-authority/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/RWWP2bEZs4L

這是我們希望能親眼目睹的時刻之一。它就是水門前廣場件事發生的時刻。清早以斯拉帶來律法書，他將書卷展開，開始宣讀，一直到中午，會眾都全神貫注地聽著。法律書被宣讀、解釋、研讀。尼希米記第八章記載了這事件，並告訴我們，這次學習聖經的集會引起敬拜。百姓們謙卑恭敬，臉伏在地。當上帝在祂的聖言中啟示祂自己時，百姓們都在祂面前屈膝。

這一舊約事件開創先例：上帝的子民聚集，聆聽上帝話語的宣讀，凝聽上帝說話的解釋和教導，然後他們敬拜。這是上帝子民該有的樣子。然而隨著歲月的流逝，人世的代謝，很不幸，上帝的話從祂子民生活的中心和祂會眾顯著的地位中退去。舊約先知們談及上帝話語的饑荒。當我們查閱整部聖經和整個教會歷史，我們找到這樣的饑荒時期。最嚴重的饑荒之一發生在宗教改革前夕。

最初，馬丁·路德(Martin Luther)就贖罪券問題向教會提出抗議。他想要一場辯論。在發表九十五條論綱後，他參與各種辯論，最終在萊比錫進行了一場真正、真實的辯論。夏季期間，路德與羅馬天王教最主要的神學家約翰·艾克(Johann Eck)對壘。在這場辯論的過程中，路德宣布唯獨聖經的宗教改革綱領，和對聖經絕對權威的堅定不移的委身。路德的著作和與這些辯論有關的報告使教皇獨利奧十世 (Pope Leo X) 確信這位德國修道士是一個異教徒。最終對決的日期、地點鎖定在1521年4月17-18日、沃木斯召開帝國議會，或沃木斯議會。

另一個我們都希望能親眼目的時刻是沃木斯事件發生的時刻。路德，穿著樸素的修士長袍，站在-----和反對-----穿著官方服飾的王子與貴族，紅衣主教與神父前面。王位上坐著21歲的神聖羅馬帝國皇帝查爾斯五世。路德的書攤放在他面前的桌子上。皇帝向路德發出命令：「撤銷!」-------撤回他的著作，撤回他唯獨信心 (唯獨藉著信心稱義)  和唯獨聖經的觀點。那天是4月17日。路德請求一天的考慮時間，得到了批準。他禱告了一夜，第二天再次出現。然後，發表了他名垂千古的宣言:

「我的良心是上帝之道的俘虜。因為違反良心，既不安全也無益處，因此，我不宣布放棄上帝的聖道。我別無選擇，這就是我的立場，願上帝拯救我，阿們。」

這件事引發另一件事，若能親眼目睹它發生的時刻，那是多麼的激勤人心。實際上它非發生在一瞬間，而是歷時數月，因為路德躲藏在俯瞰艾森納赫鎮（Eisenach）的瓦特堡城堡 (Wartburg Castle)。他在城堡裏把希臘新約聖經翻譯成德語;  通過樸實的研究，他寫了一系列講道集，稱為《教會註記》（Church Postil） (Kirchenpostille)。新約當然是上帝的話語，而教會註記是上帝話語的一系列闡述。上帝的話語需要宣講，但也需要解釋和教導。以斯拉在尼希米記八章開創先例。路德沒有做任何新事。相反，他在做非常古舊的事。

唯獨聖經可能被視為一項宗教改革綱領，但更準確地說，它也是一項符合聖經的綱領。然而，探討改教家如何思想唯獨聖經，將使我們受益良多。我們最好從路德對他的批評者的回應來看這一點。

路德不斷受到的批評之一就是:  你拋棄1500年的教會歷史。第二種批評是:  你丟棄教會。聲稱你的良心是上帝之道的俘虜，就是不需要傳統，也不需要教會。你不必為與數世紀以來甚至現在的聖徒交通操心。

路德絕不是一個放棄戰鬥的人，所以他接受這些批評。然而，在我們審視他的批評之前，有一點很重要，那就是看看一些冒稱唯獨聖經的人是如何為反對唯獨聖經辯護的。一些當代的福音派認為唯獨聖經是指他們不需要老師，他們可以丟棄兩千年的教會歷史。但是，路德和其他改教家所主張的唯獨聖經，並不是一項激進個人主義的呼籲，也不是對教會權威的拒絕。有一篇文稿對我們理解路德對議會和教會的看法非常有幫助。

此篇文稿發表於1539年，是路德對其二十年批評的回應。教會歷史價值、健康傳統價值、議會價值都是他所指出的要點之一。認為路德如此看重自己的觀點，以至完全漠視其他人的觀點的想法是錯誤的。即使他沒有將傳統提升至最終權威的地位，但他認為它是必要、有益、具啟發性的。對於改教家來說，傳統跟聖經不同，傳統是錯誤的權威，聖經乃無謬的權威。

保羅告訴提摩太，要訓練忠心能教導別人的人。這些人被交託了「信仰寶庫」(deposit of faith)，是可信賴的人。這些人由提摩太訓練，提摩太由保羅訓練。依次類推，這些人訓練其他人。保羅在提摩太後書二章2節中所使用的字，翻譯過來就是「交託」，是傳遞的意思，就好像你在傳遞遺產一樣。此字在武加大譯本（Vulgate），即拉丁文聖經譯本是傳統的意思，英語單詞傳統由此而出。傳統有健康的傳統。

傳統也有不健康的傳統。路德指出不健康傳統的明顯標誌:  它們高舉外在、形式、內在的實相，最終超越基督自己。第一世紀的法利賽人和撒都該人身上有這些特徵，十六世紀和在我們這個時代的人也有這些特徵。傳統只有在支持上帝話語的中心性和重要性的範圍內才是健康的。信條就是這麽做的。教會議會和改教家的正統教義就是這樣做的。簡單地說，健康傳統高舉基督、福音、與純正教義;  不健康的傳統則不然。

傳統在路德心中占有位置，他也堅定相信教師。新約認可教師職事。是的，我們的良心是上帝之道的俘虜。正因如此，上帝賜給我們教師，幫助我們明白祂的話，愛祂的話，並在我們的生命中實踐祂的話。

作為聖徒交通的一部分，我們並不與傳統或教會隔絕。我的同事馬西森 (Keith Mathison) 曾簡明扼要地指出:  是唯獨聖經 (sola Scriptura, 即聖經是是唯一無謬和最終的權威)，而非唯奉聖經 (solo Scriptura, 即聖經是唯一的權威)。肯定唯獨聖經就是清楚認識聖經的權威，就是像改教家所認識的那樣。

聖經是我們信心和生活唯一無誤和無謬的權威。聖經是上帝的話，上帝呼出的氣。因此，我們必須順服它。我們務要力爭看到聖經置於我們一切所作之事的中心，而非看到它被取代，被丟棄。我們可以回顧上帝聖言被賦予恰當位置的時刻。據尼希米記八章記載，在被擄歸回耶路撒冷的人當中發生這樣的時刻。在16世紀發生這樣的時刻。未能親眼目睹這些時刻，不要悲嘆。相反，讓我們為我們自己的時刻，即為將上帝的話置於中心，傳播上帝的話，看到上帝的話在作工的時刻祈禱。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

Scripture: Our Inerrant and Infallible Authority

FROM Stephen Nichols

It’s one of those moments we wish we could have seen firsthand. It took place in the square before the Water Gate. At daybreak, Ezra brought out the law. He unrolled the scroll and began reading. He kept on until noon, and all the while the great crowd gave their rapt attention. The law was read, interpreted, and studied. Nehemiah 8, which records this event, also tells us that this Bible study session resulted in worship. The people were humbled, and their faces looked to the ground. They bowed before God as He revealed Himself in His holy Word.

This event from the Old Testament is a precedent-setting moment. God’s people gather, they hear God’s Word read, they hear God’s Word interpreted and taught, and they worship. This is how it’s supposed to be. As the decades pass and generations come and go, however, God’s Word sadly recedes from the center of His people’s lives and from prominence in His congregation. The Old Testament prophets spoke of a famine of the Word of God. As we look through the pages of the Bible and through church history, we find such times of famine. One of the severest of these times of famine came on the eve of the Reformation.

Martin Luther originally launched his protest against the church over the issue of indulgences. He wanted a debate. While he was involved in various disputations in the wake of posting the Ninety-Five Theses, he finally got a real and true debate at Leipzig. Over the summer months, Luther squared off with Johann Eck, Rome’s premier theologian. Over the course of the debate, Luther declared the Reformation plank of sola Scriptura, the firm and unwavering commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture. Luther’s writings and the reports of these debates convinced Pope Leo X that this German monk was a heretic. The date and the time was set for the ultimate showdown: April 17–18, 1521, at the Imperial Diet, or meeting, at Worms.

Worms is another one of those moments that we all wish we could have seen first-hand. Luther, adorned in his simple monk’s garb, stood before—and against—princes and nobles, cardinals and priests, all wearing the trappings of their offices. On the throne sat the twenty-one-year-old Charles V, the Holy Roman emperor. Luther’s books were spread out on a table before him. He was commanded, “Revoco!” —to recant his writings, to recant his views of sola fide (faith alone as the instrument of justification) and of sola Scriptura. That was April 17. Luther asked for a day to consider, and he was granted it. He spent the night in prayer and appeared again the next day. Then, he delivered his famous speech:

I am bound to the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise. Here I stand. May God help me. Amen.

That moment led to one more moment that would have been wonderful to have seen firsthand. Actually, it was not a moment, but a few months, as Luther was holed up in Wartburg Castle overlooking the town of Eisenach. There he translated the Greek New Testament into German, and there, in his modest study, he wrote a series of sermons called the Church Postils (Kirchenpostille). The New Testament is, of course, the Word of God, and the Church Postils are a series of sermons that expound the Word of God. The Word needed to be proclaimed, but the Word also needed to be interpreted and taught. Ezra set the precedent in Nehemiah 8. Luther was not do-ing anything new. Instead, he was doing something very old.

Sola Scriptura may be considered a Reformation plank, but it is also, more accurately, a biblical one. It is fruitful, however, to consider how the Reformers thought of sola Scriptura. We see this best in the way Luther responded to his critics.

One of the incessant criticisms Luther received amounted to this: You have thrown away fifteen hundred years of church history. The second criticism was this: You have thrown away the church. By claiming that your conscience is captive to the Word of God, you need neither tradition nor the church. You need not bother with the communion of saints through the centuries or even now.

Luther was never one to back down from a fight, so he took these criticisms head on. Before we look at his criticisms, however, it is important to see how some people who profess sola Scriptura justify these objections. Some contemporary evangelicals take sola Scriptura to mean that they do not need teachers and that they can jettison two thousand years of church history. But the affirmation of sola Scriptura by Luther and the other Reformers was not a call for radical individualism or a rejection of church authority. One text that is helpful here is Luther’s On the Councils and the Church.

In this text from 1539, Luther responds to two decades of criticism. One of the things he points out is the value of church history, the value of healthy tradition, and the value of the councils. It’s a mistake to think that Luther thought so highly of his own views that he totally disregarded the views of all others. While not elevating tradition to the position of final authority, he did see it as necessary, helpful, and instructive. Tradition, to the Reformers, is a fallible authority, unlike Scripture, which is an infallible authority.

Paul tells Timothy to train faithful men who will be able to teach others. These are men entrusted with the “deposit of faith,” men who are trustworthy. They are to be trained by Timothy, who was trained by Paul. They, in turn, train others. The word Paul uses in 2 Timothy 2:2, translated as “entrusted,” means to hand over, as if you are passing on an inheritance. The word in the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, is tradidit, from which we get the English word tradition.There is such a thing as a healthy tradition.

There is also such a thing as an unhealthy tradition. Luther points to a clear sign of unhealthy traditions: they exalt the externals, the forms, over internal realities and ultimately over Christ Himself. This happened among the Pharisees and Sadducees in the first century, and it happened in the sixteenth century. It happens in our day. A tradition is only healthy to the extent that it supports the centrality and prominence of the Word of God. Creeds do this. The orthodox teachings of the church councils and of the Reformers do this. Simply put, healthy tradition exalts Christ, the gospel, and sound doctrine; unhealthy tradition does not.

Luther had a place for tradition, and he also firmly believed in teachers. The New Testament sanctions the office of teacher. Yes, our consciences are held captive to the Word of God. And because of that, God has given us teachers to help us understand His Word, love His Word, and live out His Word in our lives.

As part of the communion of saints, we are not isolated from tradition or from the church. Keith Mathison, my colleague, put it succinctly: It’s sola Scriptura (the Bible is the only infallible and final authority) not solo Scriptura (the Bible is the only authority). To affirm sola Scriptura is to understand the Bible’s authority well and to understand it as the Reformers did.

Scripture is our only inerrant and infallible authority for faith and life. It is God’s Word, God breathed. Therefore, we must obey it. We must strive not to see it displaced and cast aside but to see it placed at the center of all that we do. We can look back at moments when the Word was given its proper place. It happened among the exiles upon their return to Jerusalem as recorded in Nehemiah 8. It happened in the sixteenth century. Let us not lament that we did not see these moments first-hand. Instead, let us pray for our own moments when we put God’s Word at the center, when we broadcast God’s Word, and when we see it at work.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

愛德華滋與第一次大覺醒JonathanEdwards and the First Great Awakening

作者:  Stephen J. Nichols   譯者: Maria Marta

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/07/jonathan-edwards-first-great-awakening/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/e2VxzyCSbxv

1716年5月10日，約拿單‧愛德華滋（Jonathan Edwards）給他的十個姐妹之一瑪麗寫了一封信。當時他十二歲，這是已知他最早寫的一封信。第一段是關於覺醒。 也就是說，我們現存愛德華滋最早寫的一句話是關於覺醒。 愛德華滋寫道：

「因著上帝奇妙的憐憫與良善，這個地方有一種異常明顯的激動，上帝將祂的靈澆灌下來，現在仍然如此，我想我有理由相信它在某種程度上減弱了，但希望不是太多。大約有十三人加入教會，大家都處於一種完全交流的狀態…… 我想每逢周一通常約有三十人與父親談論他們靈魂的狀況。」

他接著告訴她，阿比蓋爾、漢娜、露西，還有三個姐妹都得了水痘，他自己也得了牙痛。 但愛德華滋對這次覺醒的描寫，在關於他父親在康涅狄格州東溫莎（East Windsor, Conn.）事奉的教會的報告中占著主導地位。

在耶魯大學畢業後，愛德華滋在馬薩諸塞州的北安普頓（Northampton, Mass.）擔任助理牧師。他的外祖父斯托達德（Solomon Stoddard）擔任牧師。兩年後，斯托達德去世，愛德華滋成為新英格蘭殖民地（the New England Colonies）第二大教會的主任牧師，也是唯一的牧師。1731年，愛德華滋應邀在哈佛大學畢業典禮上發表相應的星期四演講。對新英格蘭的神職人員來說，哈佛畢業典禮就像超級盃（美式職業足球的總冠軍賽）。所有人都來觀看。愛德華滋向神職人員講道，當中許多人的牧會時間要比愛德華滋活著的時間要長得多。愛德華滋的講道題目是：《上帝在救贖工作中得榮耀》（God Glorified in the Work of Redemption）。這是他公布的第一篇講道，他在講道中宣稱：「上帝因救贖工作中出現救贖子民對祂絕對完全的倚靠而得著榮耀」。也就是說，救恩自始至終都是上帝的工作。愛德華滋總結道：「讓我們唯獨高舉上帝，並將救贖的一切榮耀歸祂他。」

在接下來的三年裡，愛德華滋向他在北安普頓的會眾宣講恩典的教義。 1734年，他作了題為《神性超自然之光》（A Divine and Supernatural Light）的講道。死人復活得生命；瞎的可以看見福音的榮美；聾的可以聽見基督救贖之工改變人的真理——全因神聖超自然之光。這是人為與自然界的光不能作成的。靈性的覺醒是來自天上的大能作為。

正如以賽亞書五十五章10-11節的應許，上帝聖言的宣講必不徒然返回。 它成就上帝的目的。 從1734年到1736年，在康涅狄格河谷的城鎮和教會都出現了復興。 愛德華滋在他的第一本書中報道了這一點，書名是《對上帝在北安普頓及周邊城鎮歸正成千上萬靈魂的驚人之工的忠實記敘》（A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton and in the Neighboring Towns）（1737）。

愛德華滋的第一封信是關於上帝聖靈傾瀉的描述。他第一篇發表的證道明確宣告上帝在救贖工作中的主權。 他第一本書記錄了一次復興。 覺醒是愛德華滋生活和事奉的主要主題。

但康涅狄格河谷的覺醒只是前奏。 在1740年至1842年期間，上帝帶來另一個聖靈澆灌期，不僅殖民地上上下下的教會被喚醒，連老英格蘭土地上的人民也被喚醒。在老英格蘭，喬治懷特腓（George Whitefield）和約翰衛斯理（John Wesley）、查裏斯衛斯理（Charles Wesley）兩兄弟對數萬人講道 ------大多數是戶外聚會。 不久，懷特腓穿越大西洋，在殖民地向同樣規模的人群講道。懷特腓是個不知疲倦的佈道家，他飛奔往返大西洋，騎馬旅行逾數千英裏。

與此同時，愛德華滋繼續宣講令人信服的福音。 1741年7月8日，愛德華滋在康涅狄格州恩菲爾德(Enfield, Conn.) 參與周三的事奉。他不是預定講員。預定講道的牧師因病無法宣講。伊利劄‧惠洛克(Eleazer Wheelock)------特茅斯學院（Dartmouth College）的創建人和不斷變革、創新的領導者------用肘輕推愛德華滋上講壇。愛德華滋作了標題為《落在忿怒上帝手中的罪人》（Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God）的講道，它可能是美國本土最著名的講道，和最多人閱讀的講章。講稿征服了人群，尖喊聲、哭叫聲響徹會場。愛德華滋並沒有使用演講技巧，也沒有隨著激動振奮的人群喧鬧，反而，等會眾回復平靜後繼續講道。愛德華滋的演講稿沒有運用寫作技巧，而是說出真相，即我們所有人都受到永恆詛咒，都處於永恆審判的懸崖上的真相。上帝忿怒的箭已在弦上，弓已拉緊，箭頭直指我們。我們就像被一根細線吊著的蜘蛛，懸在地獄火坑上，暫時免於火燒。上帝用愛德華滋的話來刺穿人心。

愛德華滋將審判的圖像與救贖的圖像相配。 基督已經「把憐憫之門打開，站在門口哭著對可憐的罪人呼喊。」這是對福音滿懷熱情的表現。

歷史學家稱這段時期為第一次大覺醒。 它仍然是美國歷史上最重要的事件之一。 它有支持者、狂熱份子，也有反對者。狂熱份子包括達文波特（James Davenport）這樣的人。 他經常將牧師描述為「披著羊皮的狼」，他曾為焚燒書籍而帶領公眾篝火，並表現出各種極端行為。雖然他後來寫了撤回書並作出修正，但在大覺醒期間他對覺醒本身造成巨大的傷害。 他的滑稽動作助長了大覺醒詆毀者，包括像查爾斯‧昌西（Charles Chauncy）這樣的人的批評。昌西輕視他在大覺醒中看到的缺乏禮儀的舉止。他支持秩序和更私人的宗教表達。然而，更有問題的是昌西的神學。他是個普救論者。他很清楚自己的時代，所以選擇不發表闡釋他的異端觀點的手稿。但是他從未停止過對大覺醒或其傳道人的批評。

在這些狂熱份子和反對者之間，是上帝使用的，給殖民地帶來覺醒時期的傳道人。愛德華滋  是大覺醒的偉大神學家，懷特腓是大覺醒的偉大佈道家。另外還有人加入到他們當中。坦嫩特（Gilbert Tennent）是愛爾蘭移民，著名的長老會牧師。他作了一次題為《未歸正牧師帶來的危險》（The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry）的講道。可以想像得到，這次講道導致長老教會新舊兩派分裂。（公理會，愛德華滋漫步的地方，稱分裂為新燈和舊燈。）分裂的另一個因素是在牧師培訓的問題上存在分歧，特別在賓夕法尼亞州內沙米尼（Neshaminy, Pa.）木屋學院 (Log College) 提供培訓的問題上，木屋學院由坦嫩特的父親滕能特(William Tennent) 創立並領導。木屋學院向東遷移，穿過特拉華河(Delaware River)，在命名為普林斯頓之前，更名為新澤西學院。一連兩代，普林斯頓大學培養了受過良好訓練和認信的長老會牧師，以及律師和醫生。1812年，普林斯頓神學院成立，承擔培訓牧師的任務。普林斯頓的寶貴遺產延續到20世紀20年代的梅晨（J. Gresham Machen）時期，這一切都始於第一次大覺醒。

在第一次大覺醒早期，懷特腓在賓夕法尼亞州切斯特縣（Chester County, Pa）的櫟樹橡樹林中講道。超過一萬人前來聽他講道，也就是說幾乎縣內和周邊城鎮上所有的人都來聽他講道。在這段時期，在這片櫟樹橡木林附近，塞繆爾·布萊爾（Samuel Blair）創立了長老教會和他自己版本的木屋學院。布萊爾有一位名叫戴維斯（Samuel Davies）的傑出學生。他是威爾士浸信會（Welsh Baptist）的後裔，後來成為在弗吉尼亞聖公會（Anglicans/Episcopalians in Virginia）的長老會宣教士。他領導自己的復興，最終，他的成功使他成為聖公會擬定的目標。他們認為他是「不受歡迎的闖入者」。他進行反擊，並贏得在弗吉尼亞傳道的自由，這使戴維斯成為最早主張政教分離的人士之一。戴維斯也寫讚美詩，作品包括《奇妙的上帝》（Great God of Wonders）。他於1759年接替愛德華滋擔任普林斯頓大學校長。他的任期持續了18個月，於1761年2月4日去世。

第一次大覺醒有它的過激行為和缺點，但它也在它自己的年代——十七世紀四十年代的十年——產生了重大影響，並對美國教會和美國文化發揮了持久的影響。 還有更多的大覺醒。 1825年左右，開始以查爾斯．芬尼（Charles G. Finney）為中心的第二次大覺醒。十九世紀即將結束時，德懷特穆迪（Dwight L. Moody）是第三次大覺醒的中心。更確切地說，19世紀見證了許多復興浪潮，這些浪潮在性質、持續時間和地點上都各不相同。20世紀也步先前復興的後塵，有兩位突出人物，分別是上半葉的比利桑迪(Billy Sunday)和下半葉的葛培理 (Billy Graham)。

所有這些復興都帶出一些相當重要的問題。我們如何看待覺醒和復興？這些都是好事嗎？我們應該為它們禱告嗎？

縱觀美國歷史上有名的大覺醒，毫無疑問，有過激的行動，也有許多不良神學的例子。可悲的是，已造成了許多傷害。盡管如此，我們也可以仔細篩選，找到很多有用的經驗教訓，特別是當我們回到北安普敦和1731-34年時期。愛德華茲純粹是一個忠心牧師，履行他忠心宣講上帝福音的職責。愛德華滋憑信念講道，好像生命要依賴這些信念一樣------因為確實如此。他講道滿懷激情，因為他知道當下的緊迫性。

你可以說有兩種覺醒。一種是換醒人，使人從死亡中復活過來，獲得新生命。這是對可憐罪人的呼喚。（另一種）但即使那些被喚醒的人也需要覺醒。 我們在屬靈的懶惰中沈睡，所以我們被召喚從沈睡中醒過來。 這是對得贖罪人的呼喚。覺醒不是透過人類努力來實現，也不是透過自然手段來實現。我們得以覺醒是唯獨靠著神聖超自然之光-----唯獨上帝的恩典，而且總是為了上帝的榮耀。

Dr. Stephen J. Nichols (@DrSteveNichols) is president of Reformation Bible College, chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries, and a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow. He is author of numerous books and host of the podcasts 5 Minutes in Church History and Open Book.

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2018年七月號  。

Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening

by Stephen J. Nichols

On May 10, 1716, Jonathan Edwards wrote a letter to one of his ten sisters, Mary. Written when he was twelve years old, it is the earliest known letter by Edwards. The very first paragraph is about awakening. That is to say, the earliest extant sentence that we have from Jonathan Edwards is about awakening. Edwards writes:

Dear Mary,

Through the wonderful mercy and goodness of God there hath in this place been a very remarkable stirring and pouring out of the Spirit of God, and likewise now is, but I think I have reason to think it is in some measure diminished, but I hope not much. About thirteen have joined the church in an estate of full communion. . . . I think there comes commonly a-Mondays above thirty persons to speak with father about the condition of their souls.

He goes on to let her know that Abigail, Hannah, and Lucy, three other sisters, all have the chicken pox and that he himself has a toothache. But this time of awakening dominates Edwards’ report of his father’s church at East Windsor, Conn.

After completing his degrees at Yale, Edwards took the post of assistant minister in Northampton, Mass. His maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, served as minister. Two years later, Stoddard died and Edwards found himself the senior and lone minister of the second-largest church in the New England Colonies. In 1731, Edwards was called upon to deliver the Thursday lecture corresponding with the commencement at Harvard. For the New England clergy, Harvard commencements were like the Super Bowl. Everyone came out to watch. Edwards preached to a packed house of clergy, many of whom had pastored for far more years than Edwards had been alive. Edwards preached the sermon “God Glorified in the Work of Redemption.” It was his first sermon to be published, and in it he declared, “God is glorified in the work of redemption in this, that there appears in it so absolute and universal dependence of the redeemed on God.” That is to say, salvation is a work of God from start to finish. “Let us exalt God alone,” Edwards concluded, “and ascribe to Him all the glory of redemption.”

For the next three years, Edwards preached the doctrines of grace to his congregation at Northampton. In 1734, he preached a sermon titled “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” When dead souls rise to new life, when blind eyes see the beauty of the gospel, and when deaf ears hear the transforming truth of the redemptive work of Christ—all of this is because of the divine and supernatural light. It is not a human or a natural light. Spiritual awakening comes from heaven above.

As Isaiah 55:10–11 promises, the preaching of the Word of God did not return void. It accomplished God’s purpose. From 1734 to 1736, there was a revival in the towns and churches dotting the Connecticut River Valley. Edwards reported on this in his first book, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton and in the Neighboring Towns (1737).

Jonathan Edwards’ first letter was an account of the outpouring of the Spirit of God. His first published sermon was a clear proclamation of the sovereignty of God in the work of redemption. His first book chronicled a revival. Awakening was a dominant theme of the life and ministry of Jonathan Edwards.

Awakening was a dominant theme of the life and ministry of Jonathan Edwards.

  SHARE

That Connecticut River Valley awakening, however, served only as prelude. In 1740–42, God brought about another season of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as awakening came not only to the churches up and down the Colonies, but also in the lands of Old England. In Old England, George Whitefield and brothers John and Charles Wesley preached to tens of thousands—mostly gathered outdoors. Soon, Whitefield crossed the Atlantic and preached to crowds of similar size in the Colonies. An indefatigable evangelist, Whitefield crisscrossed the Atlantic and logged thousands of miles on horseback.

Meanwhile, Edwards continued his compelling preaching of the gospel. On July 8, 1741, Edwards was in Enfield, Conn., for a midweek service. He was not the intended preacher that night. The intended preacher had become ill and was out of commission. Eleazer Wheelock, who would go on to found Dartmouth College, gave Edwards the nudge to stand in the pulpit. Edwards delivered what is likely the most famous and the most read sermon ever preached on American soil, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The drama overwhelmed the crowd. They shrieked and cried out. But the drama did not stem from Edwards’ technique. Rather than whoop up the crowd into a frenzy, Edwards waited for the congregation to regain its composure, and then he pressed on in his sermon. The drama came not in the technique but in the truth, the truth of eternal damnation, the truth that all of us are on the precipice of eternal judgment. The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow is pointed directly at us. We are like spiders dangling over the pit of hell, saved from the flames for the time being by a mere thread. God used Edwards’ words to pierce hearts.

Edwards equally matched his imagery of judgment with imagery of redemption. Christ has “flung the door of mercy wide open and stands in the door crying and calling with a loud voice to poor sinners.” This was passion for the gospel.

Historians call it the First Great Awakening. It remains one of the most significant events in United States history. It had proponents, opponents, and zealots. The zealots included the likes of James Davenport. He routinely characterized pastors as “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” led public bonfires for the burning of books, and exhibited all manner of extreme behavior. While he later wrote retractions and made amends, he caused great harm during the Awakening itself. His antics fueled the criticisms of the Awakening’s detractors, including men such as Charles Chauncy. Chauncy looked down on the lack of decorum he saw in the Awakening. He was for order and a far more private expression of religion. Much more problematic, though, was the theology of Chauncy. He was a universalist. Being well aware of his times, he opted not to publish the manuscript that laid forth the argument for his heretical views. But he never held back his criticism of the Awakening or of its preachers.

Between these zealots and opponents stand the ministers used by God to bring a season of awakening to the Colonies. Edwards was the great theologian of the Awakening, and Whitefield was the great evangelist of the Awakening. They were joined by a whole cast of others. Gilbert Tennent was an Irish immigrant and famous Presbyterian minister. He preached a sermon titled “The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry.” The sermon, as one might imagine, helped lead to a split in the Presbyterian church between the New Side and the Old Side. (In the Congregational churches, where Edwards roamed, the split was referred to as New Lights and Old Lights.) Another factor in the split was disagreement over ministerial training, especially concerning the training provided at the Log College in Neshaminy, Pa., which was founded and led by Gilbert Tennent’s father, William. The college moved east across the Delaware River and was renamed The College of New Jersey before it received the name Princeton. For two generations Princeton University provided well-trained and confessional Presbyterian ministers as well as lawyers and physicians. In 1812, Princeton Theological Seminary was founded to take on the task of training ministers. That great legacy of Princeton, which endured through the time of J. Gresham Machen in the 1920s, all started at the First Great Awakening.

In the early days of the First Great Awakening, Whitefield preached in an oak grove in Chester County, Pa. More than ten thousand people came to hear him preach, which is to say nearly every single person in the county and surrounding towns came to hear him preach. During this time and near this oak grove, Samuel Blair founded a Presbyterian church and his own version of the Log College. Blair had one standout pupil, Samuel Davies. Of Welsh Baptist descent, Davies would become a Presbyterian missionary in Anglican Virginia. He led his own revivals, and eventually his success made him a target for the established Anglican church. They viewed him as an “unwanted intruder into these parts.” He fought back and won the freedom to preach in Virginia, making Davies one of the earliest voices for disestablishmentarianism. Davies also wrote hymns, including “Great God of Wonders!” He succeeded Jonathan Edwards as president of Princeton in 1759. His term lasted eighteen months, as he died on February 4, 1761.

The First Great Awakening had its excesses and faults, yet it also made a significant impact during its own time, the decade of the 1740s, and had a lasting impact on both the American church and American culture. There would be more Great Awakenings. Beginning around 1825, there was the Second Great Awakening, with Charles Grandison Finney at the epicenter. Dwight L. Moody is at the center of the Third Great Awakening as the nineteenth century was coming to a close. It’s more accurate to say that the nineteenth century witnessed many waves of revivals that varied in nature, duration, and location. The twentieth century followed suit, with the two standout figures being Billy Sunday in the first half and Billy Graham in the second half.

All of this leads to some rather important questions. What are we to make of awakening and revivals? Are these good things? Should we pray for them?

No doubt, there have been excesses, and no doubt, there have been many examples of bad theology throughout America’s storied history of awakenings. Sadly, much damage has resulted. Nevertheless, we can sift through it all and find much that is helpful, especially if we return to Northampton and the years 1731–34. Edwards was simply being a faithful pastor, carrying out his charge of faithfully proclaiming the gospel of God. He preached with conviction as if lives depended on it—because they did. He preached with passion because he knew of the urgency of the moment.

You could say awakening comes in two forms. There is the awakening, the raising of new life out of death. This is the call to poor sinners. But even those who have been awakened need awakenings. We slumber in our spiritual laziness, and so we are summoned to wake up. This is the call to redeemed sinners. And it’s not by human effort or by natural means. We are awakened only and always by a divine and supernatural light—only by God’s grace and always for God’s glory.