顯示具有 Tom Ascol 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Tom Ascol 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2021-09-21

 

按理领受主餐:各人要审察自己的心
Worthy Partaking: Examining the Heart

作者: Tom Ascol  译者:  Virginia Yip 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4225781594141708/
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/worthy-partaking-examining-heart

前言:
         我发现在中国大陆的具体教会对施行主餐这个过程往往很马虎大多因为不知道该怎么操作),但对维护主桌则是非常严厉许多教会还不给非本教会的信徒领餐领餐前要有一段深刻的认罪祷告好像罪没有认清、悔改不透彻就不得领餐。我认为,这并不是出于对主餐的慎重对待,而是道德主义在作祟。
       我的敬拜课有一节课讲的是如何实行圣餐,但是大多数的问题都在问,什么什么人可以不可以领圣餐等等。所以,我翻译了这篇文章,顺便与大家分享。
     大家对这个话题感兴趣也可以在下面讨论哦。
 
领受主餐是一件很严肃的事,起码对上帝来说是。然而,从当今许多教会对主餐实施的状态来看,我们得到的印象却非如此。许多时候,我们看到是,圣餐这个环节不过是主日崇拜后最后一项附加的程序,而且教会更多注重的是怎么尽快把这件事做完了就算了,而不是怎么让会众对守主餐这件事更加重视。
Participation in the Lord’s Supper is serious business. At least it is to God. That is not, however, the impression that is given by the way many churches approach this sacrament today. Too often the observance of the Lord’s Supper is tacked on to the end of a worship service, and efficiency, not seriousness, is the main concern.
 
久而久之,许多教会会友自打受洗加入教会后,就从来没有被鼓励过要他们对这个圣礼的性质作出深刻的思考,更不用说在领餐前对预备领餐这件事的必要性有所思考了。守主餐是很容易就被视为是一项宗教仪式的,人们认为只要按时按后照规矩行了就完事了。
Consequently, many church members have never been encouraged to think very deeply about the nature of this ordinance, much less about the need to make proper preparations before participating in it. It is easily dismissed as a religious ritual that can be ritualistically observed.
 
保罗在对哥林多人论及来到主餐桌前这件事时,既提出了一项严重的警告,也提出了一项慎重的劝告。主餐这件事是上帝极其在乎的,当耶稣说:“你们应当如此行,为的是纪念我”时,祂乃是向祂的跟随者发出了一道命令,吩咐他们,要来到祂的桌前,守这个餐。其后,祂又藉着祂的使徒保罗告诉我们如何来到祂的桌前守这个餐。
In his instructions to the Corinthians on this subject, Paul issues both a severe warning and a clear admonition about coming to the Lord’s Table. It matters to God. When Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” He was issuing a command to His followers to come to His table. Later, through the apostle Paul, He tells us how to come.
 
在哥林多前书十一章27节那里,保罗说:“所以,无论何人,不按理吃主的饼,喝主的杯,就是干犯主的身、主的血了。”单单就吃喝主餐是有可能“不按理” 吃喝的(译注:《和合本》将“in an unworthy manner”这句相应的希腊文原文,译作“不按理”;《新译本》将之译作“用不合适的态度”;《环球译本》和《现代标准译本》将之译为“不合宜地”;《新普及译本》将之译为“不恰当地”。中文的各种翻译中,翻不出“不配得”、“辜负了”(unworthy)这重意思),这句话来看,也足以让我们在来到主的餐桌前停一停,认真思考一下了。
In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul writes, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” The very fact that it is possible to eat and drink “in an unworthy manner” should be enough to make every thoughtful Christian pause when approaching the Lord’s Table.
 
而当我们读到,这个不按理吃喝主餐的罪,足以令到一个人“干犯主的身、主的血”时,我们不仅需要停一停脚步,更是要完全静止行动,直到我们弄清楚保罗这些话到底是什么意思,以及我们施行主餐的方式到底做对了没有,以致不会落入这种干犯主身体的严重错误中。
When we read that this particular sin makes one “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord,” we should not merely pause but come to a full stop until we make sure we know exactly what Paul means and are certain of the pathway that avoids this serious failure.
 
在第29节,保罗解释了他这句话的意思,其严重性既指这项罪的本身,也指这项罪所带来的后果。保罗说:“因为人吃喝,若不分辨是主的身体,就是吃喝自己的罪了。”不按理领受主餐就是指,在吃主的饼、喝主的杯时没有正确认识到这饼和这杯所象征的是什么,以及基督呼召我们为了纪念的死而守圣餐的这一目的。
In verse 29 Paul explains his meaning, both the sin involved and the consequences that result. “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” To commune unworthily, then, is to eat and drink the elements without properly regarding what they represent and the purpose for which Christ calls us to remember His death.
 
保罗在前面的经文就解释过了,每当我们吃这饼、喝这杯时,就是为了纪念主的死(26节)。主餐乃是对福音戏剧式的演绎,是一种上帝为罪人提供恩典救赎之工肉眼可见的见证。主教导我们说,这些饼杯的设立,乃是为了提醒我们祂在十字架上为我们的罪所受的痛苦和具羞辱性的死。
Paul earlier explains that whenever we eat the bread and drink the cup we are proclaiming the Lord’s death (v. 26). The Lord’s Supper is a dramatization of the Gospel. It is a visible testimony of God’s gracious provision for the salvation of sinners. The elements, our Lord teaches us, are designed to call to mind His painful and shameful death on the cross for our sins.
 
耶稣要设立主餐这项规定,其本身就是变相对我们的一种控告/责备,责备我们什么呢?祂的意思就是说,除非有这种有形的记号,让我们可以借助来常常被提醒,否则我们是很健忘的。健忘什么呢?就是对自己已经是蒙了救赎之人这一事实、自己是需要被救赎的这一状态、以及主为了救赎我们所付出的代价有多沉重等这些事情。主餐乃见证了祂的智慧和大爱,因为祂竟然俯就我们的软弱,愿意把一种持续不断的、经常性的、戏剧演绎式的、可见的方式赐予我们,让我可以经常被提醒,是我们不会忘记这些救恩真理。
The very fact that Jesus instituted this practice for His disciples is an indictment of our own tendency to forget the reality, necessity, and cost of our redemption. It is also a testimony to His wisdom and love in providing us with an ongoing, regular, and dramatic reminder of these saving truths.
 
那么,保罗告诫我们的话,就不能被错误地被解读成,他的意思是,如果教会让很坏很坏的罪人领受主餐就是“不按理”领受主餐了。犯了最大、最多罪的罪人,来到主的餐桌前,乃是再合宜不过的事了,因为只有这样的人,才是领餐者中的最佳人选。按理不按理的“理”(合宜性、配领餐性),不在于领受主餐这个人其个人的义上。反之,一个罪人怎么才是“按理”(配)来到主餐桌前呢?就是当他清晰地意识到他的罪性,以及基督为拯救他脱离罪而付出的巨大代价时。这时,他来领受主餐就是最配得、最合宜、最按理不过的了。
Paul’s warning, then, should not be misconstrued to mean that really bad sinners are somehow unworthy to come to the Lord’s Table. Those are the only kind of people who are legitimate candidates. Worthiness is not to be found in some kind of supposed level of personal righteousness in the communicant. Rather, a sinner comes to the table “worthily” when he soberly remembers his sin and the great cost that Christ paid to redeem him from it.
 
海德堡要理问答对这一点说得十分清楚,第81问问:“圣餐是为哪些人设立的呢?”答“就是那些真正厌弃自己的罪恶,且相信因为基督的缘故,他们的罪已得蒙赦免;并且相信他们罪得赦免之后的软弱也借着基督的受苦、受死,得蒙遮盖的人;他们强烈的渴望信心会越来越得着坚固,过更圣洁的生活……。
 The Heidelberg Catechism makes this point very clear in response to the question, “For whom is the Lord’s supper instituted? For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy….”
 
一个人来到主餐做前却没有认真反思主餐的意义、也没有有意识地纪念主的死,就是吃喝定在他自己身上的罪了。为什么这么说呢?因为他这么做,就是在藐视基督在十字架上所成就的救赎之功。
To come without serious reflection and intentional remembrance is to eat and drink judgment on oneself. It is to treat the redemptive work of Christ on the cross with contempt.
 
这就是在哥林多教会发生的事,而保罗说他们当中有的人患了重病,有的人甚至死了,正是由于他们如此不按理领受、辜负了主餐的原故(30节)。上帝是可以因为人不按理领受主餐而击杀人的。我们或许不把主餐当回事,但是上帝自己是从来不会的。
That was happening at Corinth and Paul says that such unworthy communion was the reason that so many of them were weak and ill, and some had died (v. 30). God killed people for coming to the Lord’s Table in an unworthy manner. We may take it lightly. He never does.
 
保罗对我们发出的警告也正正衬托出他劝告我们那些话的重要性。我们在这件事上留意遵守上帝的话语不但是为了顺命、追求敬虔也是为了保命啊
The severity of Paul’s warning underscores the significance of his admonition. Heeding God’s Word at this point is not only a matter of piety, it is also a matter of self-preservation.
 
保罗劝告我们要自我省察,免得我们不按理吃主的饼、喝主的杯,以致亵渎了基督的死,惹来上帝的管教,“人应当自己省察,然後吃这饼、喝这杯”(28节)。他劝告我们要各自在我们的良心深处设立一个法庭,启动一个探查我们生活为人的行动(注意,他说各人要“自己”省察)。
To keep us from eating and drinking unworthily, thereby profaning Christ’s death and invoking God’s discipline, Paul commends self-examination. “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (v. 28). He admonishes us to set up a court in our own consciences, to initiate an investigation into our own lives (notice that he says each person is to examine “himself”).
 
那在这个良心法庭上,我们要把什么东西拿来提堂受审呢?我们全部的人生。那这样的审查要达到的目的是什么呢?就是要我们问自己:我们与这位为我们的罪流血牺牲的基督的关系是不是正确?那么与祂正确的关系又是长什么样子的呢?就是一个信靠悔改的人生——不是说是我们可以完完全全做到信靠悔改这件事(正如加尔文很有智慧地告诫我们的),而是指我们正活在一个信靠悔改的现实状态中。
What are we to put on trial? Our whole lives. What is the object of our investigation? To see if there is a right relationship to Jesus Christ who shed His blood for our sins. What will this relationship look like? A life of faith and repentance — not in perfection, as Calvin wisely warns us, but in reality.
 
只有当信靠和悔改不断加强时,我们才会与持续缠累我们的各样罪越发能够划清界限,才会继续不断地面向基督,把我们所有的喜乐和盼望都安放在祂那里、建基在祂为我们所成就的一切救赎之工上。只有这样,我们才会对上帝藉着基督在十字架上为我们所做的工而生发出真诚的爱和感恩。
Where faith and repentance are being strengthened there will be ongoing renunciation of sins and continued effort to see and find joy and hope in all that Jesus Christ is and has done for us. There will be genuine love for and gratitude to God for the work of Christ on the cross.
 
所以,在预备领主餐时,我们需要审察的是我们看待自己罪的态度以及对待基督救赎之工的态度。当我们真正这么做的时候,就必定发现,我们是不可能既不把自己的罪当回事儿,又同时可以为基督的救赎之工欢喜快乐的。莱尔(J.C. Ryle)说得好:“罪人如果生活在公开的罪中,并且不打算放弃这种罪恶的生活,就没有任何理由到主餐桌前来领受主餐。不然就是对基督公认的羞辱,也是对祂福音的藐视了。一方面说我们要宣告我们在纪念主的死,另一方面又紧紧抓住导致主为我们死的原因,这不很荒唐吗?”
So in preparation for communing at the Lord’s Table we should examine our attitude toward our own sin and toward Christ’s redeeming work. And we should do so with the clear understanding that we cannot delight in both at the same time. J.C. Ryle puts this very plainly: “Sinners living in open sin, and determined not to give it up, ought on no account to come to the Lord’s Table. To do so is a positive insult to Christ, and to pour contempt on His Gospel. It is nonsense to profess we desire to remember Christ’s death, while we cling to the accursed thing which made it needful for Christ to die.”
 
这么说,主餐就是给信徒的一项经历上帝恩典的方式(恩具)了。藉着主餐,信徒对上帝恩典的经历得以加增。自我审察不应当是领受主餐的拦阻或障碍,而是为领受主餐所作出的预备之举。保罗说,在我们做完了自我审查,“然後吃这饼、喝这杯。”当我们重新恢复对罪的恨恶、对主的依靠后,那就让我们来存着快乐和盼望的心,掰主的饼、饮主的杯,与主共享主餐吧!
In this way the Lord’s Supper serves as a means of God’s grace being strengthened in the life of a believer. Self-examination is not to be a barrier to communion, but preparation for it. “And so,” Paul writes, after we have examined ourselves, let us “eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” With renewed hatred of our sin and dependence on our Savior, let us take the bread and the cup and with joy and hope commune with our Lord at His table.
 
本文为Virginia Yip 叶老师为她的敬拜课程特别预备。

2018-02-19


阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義的區別What'sthe Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?

作者:Tom Ascol 譯者:  Duncan Liang

據說已故的鐘馬田曾說過,“無知的阿民念主義者不明白加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的區別。”按照人經常把這兩者混淆的頻率,我認為這種無知並不局限於我們相信阿民念主義的朋友。雖然可以論述更多,但以下的概括已經表明了阿民念主義、加爾文主義和極端加爾文主義之間的基本區別。
The late Martyn Lloyd-Jones was reported to have said that “the ignorant Arminian doesn’t know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” Based on the frequency with which the two are often confused I would suggest that the ignorance is not limited to our Arminian friends. While much more could be said, the following summary reveals the basic differences between Arminianism, Calvinism, and hyper-Calvinism.

在一種意義上,極端加爾文主義和阿民念主義一樣,是對真加爾文主義的理性主義歪曲。阿民念主義削弱神的主權,而極端加爾文主義削弱人的責任。具有諷刺意味的是,阿民念主義和極端加爾文主義都始於同樣的、錯誤的理性主義預設前提,就是人的能力和責任具有相同的外延。這就是說,它們必須完全吻合,否則就不合理。如果一個人要為某件事負責,他就必然有做這件事的能力。另一方面,如果人沒有做這件事的能力,他就沒有義務要如此行。
The Similarity of Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism
In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism undermines divine sovereignty, hyper-Calvinism undermines human responsibility. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition, namely that human ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

阿民念主義者看這前提說:“同意!我們知道聖經要所有人為悔改和相信負責(這是對的),所以我們必然要得出結論,就是所有人在自己裡面都有悔改和相信的能力(按聖經這是錯的)。”就這樣,阿民念主義者教導說,未歸正的人在他們自己身上有悔改和相信的屬靈能力,雖然這種能力必須要有恩典幫助才行。
Arminian Rationalism
The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible holds all people responsible to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe, albeit such ability must be aided by grace.

極端加爾文主義者接受同樣的前提(就是人的能力和責任有同樣的外延),說道:“同意!我們知道聖經教導說,人在自己、靠自己並沒有悔改和相信的屬靈能力(這是對的),所以我們必然要得出結論,未歸正的人沒有悔改和相信福音的義務(按聖經這是錯的)。”
Hyper-Calvinist Rationalism
The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that the Bible teaches that in and of themselves all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true]. Therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible].”

與這兩種人形成對比的是,加爾文主義者看這前提說:“錯了!它看似合理,卻不符合聖經。聖經既教導人沒有屬靈的能力,也教導人有義務悔改和相信。只有靠著聖靈大能、使人重生的作為,人才得著能力盡他的本分悔改相信。”雖然在理性主義者眼中這可能看似不合理,當中卻沒有矛盾,並且這正是聖經教導的立場。加爾文主義的觀點可能看似不講理性,但實際上是超越理性——這種觀點是神的啟示。
Biblical Calvinism
In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches. The Calvinist view may appear irrational but in reality is supra-rational—it is revealed.