顯示具有 W.Robert Godfrey 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 W.Robert Godfrey 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2021-08-15

 
Worship: Evangelical orReformed?
1 崇拜:福音派還是改革宗?
2 敬拜:福音派?还是改革宗?
3“敬拜:‘福音派’与‘改革宗’之间的差异”

作者:W. Robert Godfrey (加州西敏神學院院長,URC牧師)
譯者:1誠之譯版   2维语译/和卫校版 3 Virginia Yip节录译版
原刊於20024月信正長老會(OPC)雜誌New Horizon
https://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=193原文
http://www.crtsbooks.net/blog/post/2012/05/17/Worship_Evangelical_or_Reformed.aspx1駱鴻銘譯
https://www.churchchina.org/archives/170306.html2维语译 / 和卫校
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4097072803679255/3 Virginia Yip
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206聖經神學研究推廣小組
https://yibaniba.blogspot.com/2017/03/worship-evangelical-orreformed-w.html 原中英转载版


摘要:
我們改革宗的人對敬拜的思考,有一個很大的難題,就是在許多地方,我們的敬拜已經不知不覺地遵從福音派的方法。與此同樣重要的,如果我們要欣賞領會我們改革宗在敬拜上的遺產,如果我們要向其他人傳遞它的重要性、特色和能力,我們必須明白我們敬拜獨特的性質。(1誠之譯版)
 
 
One of the challenges of being Reformed in America is to figure out the relationship between what is evangelical and what is Reformed. Protestantism in America is dominated by the mainline Protestants, the evangelicals, and the charismatics. After these dominant groups, other major players would include the confessional Lutherans. But where do the Reformed fit in, particularly in relation to the evangelicals, with whom historically we have been most closely linked?
 
正文:
在美國要作一個改革宗的信徒,其中的一個挑戰是要想清楚福音派和改革宗之間的關係是什麼。在美國,新教主義是由新教的主流,即福音派和靈恩派所主導的。在這些主要的團體之後,其他主要的參與者還包括認信的路德宗。但是要把改革宗放在什麼位置呢?特別是改革宗和福音派的關係,因為從歷史來看,改革宗和福音派的關係是最為緊密的。(1誠之譯版)
 
在美国改革宗信徒所面临的挑战之一是理清福音派改革宗二者之间的关系。美国的基督教新教Protestantism由主流更正教会[2]mainline Protestants、福音派evangelicals以及灵恩派charismatics所主导。在这些主导团体之外,另一个主要派系是认信的路德宗(the confessional Lutherans)。但改革宗应处于什么位置,尤其和历史上联系最为紧密的“福音派”之间的关系是怎样的?2维语译/和卫校版)
 
[的确,福音派与改革宗之间的崇拜聚会,其相似之处多于不同之处。]……改革宗与福音派的崇拜程序几乎完全一致。两者都有唱诗歌、诵读圣经、祷告、讲道、施行洗礼和圣餐礼。但这些相似之处,只不过反映出了双方在外表形式上的相似而已,他们各自对这些敬拜礼仪动作的意义和功能,却有着各自不同的认识、理解。
 
福音派和改革宗在崇拜聚会上所存在的本质上的差异,主要体现在两方面:第一是对“上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在”这个概念的理解;第二是对“领会者的圣职人员的职份”这个概念的理解。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
Some observers argue that the confessional Reformed are a subgroup in the broader evangelical movement. Certainly over the centuries in America, the Reformed have often allied themselves with the evangelicals, have shared much in common with the evangelicals, and have often tried to refrain from criticizing the evangelical movement. But are we Reformed really evangelical?
 
有些觀察者認為認信的路德宗是更廣的福音派運動裡的一個小團體。當然,在美洲過去的幾個世紀以來,改革宗經常和福音派結盟,和福音派也有很多共同之處,也經常試著在批評福音派運動上有所節制。但是,我們改革宗真的是福音派嗎?(1誠之譯版)
 
有人指出“认信的改革宗”(the confessional Reformed)是宽泛的福音运动的分支团体。的确,在美国过去的几个世纪里,改革宗常常与福音派联合,与其有许多的相似性,并时常竭力避免去批判福音派运动。但我们改革宗真是福音派吗?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
One area in which the differences between evangelical and Reformed can be examined is the matter of worship. At first glance, we may see more similarities than differences. The orders of worship in Reformed and evangelical churches can be almost identical. Certainly, both kinds of churches sing songs, read Scripture, pray, preach, and administer baptism and the Lord's Supper. But do these similarities reflect only formal agreement, or do they represent a common understanding of the meaning and function of these liturgical acts in worship?
 
有一個可以檢查出福音派和改革宗之間的差別的領域,就是在崇拜這件事上。粗略地看,我們也許會看到之間的相似性大過其差異性。改革宗和福音派教會在敬拜的次序上幾乎可以是完全相同的。確定的是,兩種教會都會唱詩歌,讀經,禱告,講道,並施行洗禮和聖餐。但是這些相似性反映的只是形式上的一致,還是它們代表著對崇拜中這些禮儀的行動,它們的意義和功用有著共同的理解?(1誠之譯版)
 
有一个领域可以表明福音派和改革宗之间的差异,那就是敬拜事宜。初看之下,我们可能会发现它们的相似多于不同。改革宗教会和福音派教会的敬拜程序几乎完全一致。的确,两种教会都唱诗、读经、祷告、讲道、执行洗礼和圣餐。但这些相似之处只是反映出表面的一致性,还是说它们对敬拜中仪式之意义和功能的理解也是一样?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
If we look closely, I believe that we will see the substantive differences between evangelicals and Reformed on worship. That difference is clear on two central issues: first, the understanding of the presence of God in the service; and second, the understanding of the ministerial office in worship.
 
如果我們仔細查看,我相信我們會明白福音派和改革宗在崇拜的事情上,有著本質上的差別。這種差別顯明在兩件很重要的事情上。首先,對神在崇拜服事上的同在的理解;其次是對崇拜者牧師職分的理解。(1誠之譯版)
 
如果仔细观察,我相信我们会看到福音派和改革宗在敬拜上有着相当本质的不同。这主要体现在两个方面:第一,对敬拜中神同在的理解;第二,对敬拜中牧师职分的理解。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
The Presence of God in Worship
 
在崇拜中神的同在(1誠之譯版)
敬拜中神的同在2维语译/和卫校版)
1. 上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The presence of God in worship may seem a strange issue to raise. Do we not both believe that God is present with his people in worship? Indeed we do! But how is God present, and how is he active in our worship?


把神在崇拜中的同在當作一個問題,似乎是很奇怪的。我們不是都相信神在崇拜中會和祂的百姓同在嗎?當然,我們是這樣相信的!但是,神是如何同在的,以及祂在我們的崇拜中如何是主動的,才是問題的關鍵。(1誠之譯版)
 
提起敬拜中神的同在,可能会被认为这是一个奇怪的论题。难道我们不都相信在敬拜中神与他的子民同在吗?当然相信!但是神“如何”同在?他“如何”在我们的敬拜中行动?(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
若问上帝在敬拜中有没有与我们同在,这似乎是一个让人纳闷的问题。福音派也好,改革宗也好,都是相信上帝在敬拜中与祂的子民同在的。但区别在于,上帝是“怎么”与人同在的,以及祂是“怎么主动地”介入人的敬拜活动的。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
It seems to me that for evangelicalism, God is present in worship basically to listen. He is not far away; rather, he is intimately and lovingly present to observe and hear the worship of his people. He listens to their praise and their prayers. He sees their obedient observance of the sacraments. He hears their testimonies and sharing. He attends to the teaching of his Word, listening to be sure that the teaching is faithful and accurate.
 
我認為,對福音派來說,神在崇拜中的同在基本上只是安靜地聆聽。祂離我們不遠,而是很親密地、滿懷愛心地同在,來觀察並聆聽祂百姓的敬拜。祂傾聽他們的讚美和他們的禱告。祂看到他們順服地遵行聖禮。祂聽見他們的見證和分享。祂留心聽他們教導祂的話,好確定這個教導是忠心的、也是正確的。(1誠之譯版)
 
在我看来,对于福音派来说,神在敬拜中的同在等同于“神在倾听”。他就在不远处;更确切说,他是亲密和满有爱意地与他的子民在一起,察看并倾听他们的敬拜;他聆听他们的赞美和祷告;他观看他们忠实地履行圣餐仪式;他倾听他们的见证和分享;当他的话语被教导时,他也参与其中,并聆听这些教导,确保其忠实和准确。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
对福音派而言,他们对上帝在敬拜中的临在这个概念的理解,基本上就是“上帝在聆听”我们人对祂的敬拜赞美。祂不是站在距离我们很远地方看我们怎么敬拜祂,而是亲密、充满爱意地临在在祂的子民当中,察看、聆听他们的敬拜。祂倾听他们的赞美、他们的祷告、祂观看他们如何忠实地施行圣礼、祂留心听他们的见证和分享、当祂的话语传讲出来时,祂会专注留意细听,看看讲道者有没有忠实、准确地把祂的话语讲解清楚。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this sense of evangelical worship is that the stress is on the horizontal dimension of worship. The sense of warm, personal fellowship, and participation among believers at worship is crucial. Anything that increases a sense of involvement, especially on the level of emotions, is likely to be approved. The service must be inspiring and reviving, and then God will observe and be pleased.
 
福音派崇拜的這種見解,其結果是強調敬拜的水平層面,信徒參與在崇拜中,享受一種溫暖的、個人性的團契是最關鍵的。任何可以增進參與感的事——特別在感情的層面,會很容易得到贊同。敬拜服事必須能鼓舞人、振奮人心,然後神才會關注並得著喜悅。(1誠之譯版)
 
福音派这种敬拜方式强调了“水平”层面的敬拜。温暖的氛围、团契相交,以及信徒的参与是敬拜中最重要的。任何能够提高这种参与感的,尤其是情感层面的,都很可能被准许。这种敬拜服事必须能够鼓舞人,使人兴奋,这样神才会察看并悦纳。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
福音派对崇拜的这种认识,其结果就是,人们在崇拜聚会中把注重点放在一个“横向”的关系上。因此,对他们来说,温馨的感觉、与主个人的相交、如何让会众每个人都能参与到崇拜过程中等,这些都被视为是崇拜聚会的关键要素。任何有助提高这种参与感的建议,尤其是情感层面的参与感,都是很可能被教会批准接纳的。崇拜聚会一定要能够感动人、奋兴人,这样的聚会上帝才乐意观看并且悦纳(3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Reformed faith has a fundamentally different understanding of the presence of God. God is indeed present to hear. He listens to the praise and prayers of his people. But he is also present to speak. God is not only present as an observer; he is an active participant. He speaks in the Word and in the sacraments. As Reformed Christians, we do not believe that he speaks directly and immediately to us in the church. God uses means to speak. But he speaks truly and really to us through the means that he has appointed for his church. In the ministry of the Word—as it is properly preached and ministered in salutation and benediction—it is truly God who speaks. As the Second Helvetic Confession rightly says, "The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God."
 
改革宗信仰對神在崇拜中的同在有著本質上不同的理解。上帝的確在場聆聽。祂傾聽百姓的讚美和禱告。但是祂也在場說話。上帝不只是作為一個觀眾在場;祂更是積極的參與者。祂在聖道中說話,也在聖禮中說話。作為改革宗的基督徒,我們不只是相信祂在教會中直接、立即地對我們說話。神也使用一些管道(或途徑)說話,但是祂是透過祂為教會所指定的管道來說話。在聖道的職事中——也就是神的話得到正當的宣講,在致敬和祝福中得到適當的執行——是神真的在說話。正如瑞士第二信條(譯按:布靈格在1560年代所寫)所說的:“宣講神的話就是神的話本身。”(The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗信仰对于神同在的理解有着本质上的不同。的确,神同在是为倾听,他聆听他子民的赞美和祷告,但他同在也为了表达。神不仅是作为观察者同在,他更是一个积极的参与者。他透过经文和圣礼向我们说话。作为改革宗基督徒,我们不相信神在教会中会直接和即时地向我们说话;神是透过一些途径说话,用他向教会所指定的方式,真切地向我们说话。在传道事工里——当神的话被正确地传讲,并被妥善地使用在问安和祈祷祝福中时——这便是神在真正地说话。正如《第二瑞士信条》(the Second Helvetic Confession)所强调的:“被传讲出来的道才是神的话。” 2维语译/和卫校版)
 
对改革宗而言,他们对“上帝在崇拜聚会中的临在”的理解则有着本质上的不同。上帝临在,聆听人对祂的敬拜――聆听祂子民的赞美和祷告――这个没错。然而,祂并非仅仅以一个观众的形式临在,祂临在在祂的子民当中,更是为要向他们说话。换言之,在崇拜聚会中,上帝乃是一个积极的参与者,祂藉着圣道对我们说话、也藉着圣礼向我们说话。当然,改革宗的信徒并不相信上帝会在聚会中直接地、即时地向人我们说话(译注:不同于灵恩派的教会),改革宗的信徒相信的是上帝是透过渠道来向人说话的,即祂是透过祂自己为教会所指定的恩具(译注:即圣言的宣读、圣道的宣讲、圣礼的施行、祷告等)实实在在地、真真确确地向我们人说话。 例如:论到圣言这一恩具——无论是在证道时,还是在问安、宣召或最后祝福时,只要这些环节都是按照合乎圣经的方式被施行出来的——那就是上帝自己实实在在在向会众说话了,正如《第二瑞士信条》(The Second Helvetic Confession)所贴切总结的那样:“被传讲出来的话语就是上帝的话语。”此外,上帝也在圣礼中积极地临在,向我们说话。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
God is also actively present and speaking in the sacraments, according to the Reformed understanding. The sacraments are much more about him than about us. He speaks through them the reality of the presence of Jesus to bless his people as he confirms his gospel truth and promises through them.
 
根據改革宗的理解,上帝在聖禮中也是主動同在、主動說話的。聖禮更多是關乎祂,更甚於關乎我們。祂透過聖禮說話,把耶穌同在要賜福給祂的百姓的真相傳達出來。透過聖禮,神確認基督的福音真理和應許。(1誠之譯版)
 
按照改革宗的理解,神在圣礼中也积极同在,并向我们说话。圣礼更多是关于神自己,而不是我们。透过圣礼,神向我们传达耶稣同在的事实,赐福他的子民,同时也藉着圣礼证实他福音的真理和应许。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
根据改革宗的信仰,圣礼乃是一件关乎上帝自己的事过于关乎我们的事。上帝透过圣礼向我们传达耶稣与我们同在这一事实,以此来祝福他们,正如祂藉着圣礼向人印证祂的福音真理和福音应许是多么地真实一样。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this understanding of Reformed worship is that the stress is on the vertical dimension of worship. The horizontal dimension is not absent, but the focus is not on warm feelings and sharing. Rather, it is on the community as a unit meeting their God. Our primary fellowship with one another is in the unified activities of speaking to God in song and prayer and of listening together as God speaks to us. The vertical orientation of our worship service insures that God is the focus of our worship. The first importance of any act of worship is not its value for the inspiration of the people, but its faithfulness to God's revelation of his will for worship. We must meet with God only in ways that please him. The awe and joy that is ours in coming into the presence of the living God to hear him speak is what shapes and energizes our worship service.
 
改革宗對敬拜的這種理解,其果效是強調敬拜的垂直層面。水平的層面不是沒有,但是焦點不是溫暖的感覺和分享,而是聖約群體作為一個統一體,面見他們的上帝。我們與肢體彼此的相交是在這種合一的活動中,即共同在詩歌和禱告中,向神說話;在神向我們說話時,一起聆聽。我們敬拜服事的這種垂直層面,會保證上帝是我們崇拜的焦點。任何崇拜的行動,其首要的重點不是激勵鼓舞百姓,而是是否忠於神對崇拜所啟示的旨意。我們必須按照討上帝喜悅的方式來面見上帝。我們進到上帝的同在中,聆聽祂說話而產生敬畏和喜悅,才是塑造我們崇拜服事的外型,以及賦予我們崇拜活力的動力。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对敬拜的此种理解强调的是敬拜的“垂直”层面。这并不是意味着水平层面的缺乏,而是敬拜的焦点没有放在温暖的感觉和分享上。更确切地说,敬拜应该是会众作为整体来朝见神。我们与他人最主要的团契是同作一个肢体,向神唱诗、祷告,并彼此倾听,而与此同时,神也一直对我们说话。我们敬拜服事的垂直层面确保了神才是我们敬拜的焦点。对于任何一种敬拜行为,首要的都不是关注人的灵感,而是要忠实于神对于敬拜所启示的他的旨意。我们必须以神喜悦的方式与他相遇。当我们来到永生神的面前,聆听他的话语并发出由衷的敬畏和喜乐时,这才会塑造并激励我们的敬拜服事。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对崇拜的这种认识,其结果就是,人们在崇拜聚会中把注重点放在一个“纵向”的关系上。不是说横向的关系不见了、被取消了,而是说他们的焦点不是放在会众个人的温馨感受和分享上,而是放在会众作为一个整体来朝见上帝这件事上。会众彼此间的相交活动,主要体现在他们共同参与在一环一环合一的崇拜动作中,即集体性的唱诗、祷告、一同领受、聆听上帝对我们说话等这些事上。这种对纵向层面的敬拜关注,确保了上帝才是我们敬拜的焦点。任何一种敬拜,其最重要的都不是这个敬拜活动能对人带来什么启发、感动,而是它有没有忠实于上帝所启示给人、教人理当如何敬拜祂的旨意。我们人只能单单按照上帝所喜悦的方式来朝见祂。我们的崇拜聚会怎么才能充满活力和激情呢?唯有当我们人是带着对上帝由衷的敬畏和喜乐来到永生神的面前、切切想听到祂要对我们说什么时,方有可能。这才是塑造教会崇拜聚会的因和动力。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Ministerial Office in Worship
 
崇拜中的牧者職分(1誠之譯版)
敬拜中的牧师职能2维语译/和卫校版)
. 领会者的圣职人员的职份 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The difference between the Reformed faith and evangelicalism on the presence of God in worship is closely tied to their differences on the ministerial office in worship. For evangelicalism, the ministers seem to be seen as talented and educated members of the congregation, called by God to leadership in planning and teaching. The ministers use their talents to facilitate the worship of the congregation and instruct the people. The ministers are not seen as speaking distinctively for God or having a special authority from God. Rather, their authority resides only in the reliability of their teaching, which would be true for any member of the congregation.
 
改革宗信仰和福音派信仰對神在崇拜中的服事的差別,與他們對牧者在崇拜中職分的看法差別有緊密的關聯。對福音派來說,牧者(或敬拜的帶領者)似乎被視為是會眾中最具天分和最有知識的會友,神呼召他做領袖來計劃和教導。牧者們用他們的天賦來促進會眾的敬拜,並教導百姓。他們不認為牧者是特別代表神來說話,或具備來自神的特殊權柄。反而,他們的權柄只在於他們教導的可靠性,對所有的會眾來說,都同樣適用。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗和福音派对敬拜中“神同在”的不同理解也体现在他们对敬拜中牧师职能理解的不同。对于福音派来说,牧师们是会众里有才能且受过教育的成员,被神呼召来管理教会的治理和教导。牧师们用他们的才能来促进会众的敬拜,并教导神的子民。牧师们未被看作是特别代表会众向神说话的人,也没有从神而来的特殊权柄。更确切地说,他们的权柄只源自他们教导的可靠性,而会众中只要有人能忠实地教导神的话,他也可成为牧师。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗与福音派对崇拜聚会中上帝的临在的不同理解,也体现在他们对领会者圣职职份的理解上的不同。对于福音派来说,教会的圣职人员似乎就只是一些教会中较有才干、受过教育的会友,他们蒙上帝呼召出来在治理和教导等事工上带领教会。在崇拜中,这些带领人只是运用他们的才干来协助、促进会众敬拜上帝,并讲道教导他们。一般会众或领会者本身并不觉得他们是特别代表上帝向会众说话的,也不拥有什么从上帝而来的特殊权柄。反之,他们的权柄只彰显在他们教导的可靠性上,而这种权柄,会众中任何一个有能力忠实教导上帝话语的人都能有。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this evangelical view of office is to create a very democratic character to worship, in which the participation of many members of the congregation in leading the service is a good thing. The more who can share, the better. The many gifts that God has given to members of the congregation should be used for mutual edification. Again, the horizontal dimension of worship has prevailed.
 
福音派這種對教會職份的觀點,其果效是創造了一種非常民主的敬拜風格,會眾中有許多人參與帶領敬拜的當中,是一件好事。越多人可以分享就越好。上帝賜給會眾的眾多恩賜,應該用在彼此的建造上。再次。這種敬拜強調的重點是水平的層面。(1誠之譯版)
 
福音派对牧师职能的这种看法给敬拜带来了一种民主的特征,会众中许多成员参与带领敬拜是一件好事。参与的人越多越好。神赐予会众的恩赐应该被用来彼此造就。这里同样的,水平层面的敬拜是主导。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
福音派对圣职的这种看法所导致的结果,就是为崇拜聚会创造出了一种民主特征,而在这个民主氛围下,越多会众能够参与在崇拜活动中越好,越多人有分享越好。上帝赐给众人的恩赐总得用出使大家彼此的造就嘛。我再说,这是一种以“横向”关系为主导的敬拜观。(3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The Reformed view of ministerial office is quite different. The minister is called by God through the congregation to lead worship by the authority of his office. He is examined and set apart to represent the congregation before God and to represent God before the congregation. In the great dialogue of worship, he speaks the Word of God to the people and he speaks the words of the people to God, except in those instances when the congregation as a whole raises its voice in unison to God.
 
改革宗對牧者職位的看法是相當不同的。神透過會眾來呼召牧者,讓他們透過這個職分的權柄來帶領敬拜。他要受檢驗並被分別為聖,在神面前代表會眾。在崇拜的偉大對話中,他向百姓說出神的話,也向神說出百姓的話——除了在一些例子上,會眾要作為一個整體,一起揚聲頌讚上帝之時。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对于牧师职能的观点则大不相同。神从会众中呼召牧师,赐给他职分的权柄来带领敬拜。他受过审查、也被区别开来,在神面前代表会众,也在会众面前代表神。在敬拜的伟大对话中,他向会众传递神的话,也将会众的话带到神面前,除了作为一个整体会众一齐向神告白的时候。我们改革宗信徒不遵从水平的敬拜安排不是因为我们反对民主,或我们相信牧师是会众里唯一有恩赐的成员。我们遵循这种模式,因为我们相信这是符合圣经的,并且是神所设定的敬拜模式。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对领会者的圣职职份的看法则大不相同。圣职人员乃是被上帝从整个教会中呼召出来的,他们是带着他们圣职职份中的权柄来带领敬拜的。他在出任这个职份前,是需要接受过审核、特别分别出来的,祂在崇拜聚会中担当的角色乃是:在上帝面前代表会众、在会众面前代表上帝。崇拜聚会活动乃是一个伟大的神、人对话,在这个对话活动中,他向会众传讲上帝的话语,又把会众的要对上帝说的话带到祂面前(除了崇拜环境中的那些整体会众一齐向上帝发声的环节外)。改革宗崇拜聚会有这样的安排,不是因为因为他们反对民主,或者他们之相信全教会只有牧师一人才是有恩赐的。他们遵循这个模式因为他们相信这是符合圣经的,且正正就是上帝所设定的敬拜模式。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
We who are Reformed do not embrace this arrangement because we are antidemocratic or because we believe that the minister is the only gifted member of the congregation. We follow this pattern because we believe that it is biblical and the divinely appointed pattern of worship.

我們這些改革宗的人,不是因為我們反對民主制度,或是因為我們相信牧者是會眾中唯一具有天賦的會員才喜歡這種安排。我們之所以遵循這種模式,是因為我們相信這是合乎聖經的,也是神所指定的敬拜模式。(1誠之譯版)
 
改革宗对于牧师职能的观点则大不相同。神从会众中呼召牧师,赐给他职分的权柄来带领敬拜。他受过审查、也被区别开来,在神面前代表会众,也在会众面前代表神。在敬拜的伟大对话中,他向会众传递神的话,也将会众的话带到神面前,除了作为一个整体会众一齐向神告白的时候。我们改革宗信徒不遵从水平的敬拜安排不是因为我们反对民主,或我们相信牧师是会众里唯一有恩赐的成员。我们遵循这种模式,因为我们相信这是符合圣经的,并且是神所设定的敬拜模式。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对领会者的圣职职份的看法则大不相同。圣职人员乃是被上帝从整个教会中呼召出来的,他们是带着他们圣职职份中的权柄来带领敬拜的。他在出任这个职份前,是需要接受过审核、特别分别出来的,祂在崇拜聚会中担当的角色乃是:在上帝面前代表会众、在会众面前代表上帝。崇拜聚会活动乃是一个伟大的神、人对话,在这个对话活动中,他向会众传讲上帝的话语,又把会众的要对上帝说的话带到祂面前(除了崇拜环境中的那些整体会众一齐向上帝发声的环节外)。改革宗崇拜聚会有这样的安排,不是因为因为他们反对民主,或者他们之相信全教会只有牧师一人才是有恩赐的。他们遵循这个模式因为他们相信这是符合圣经的,且正正就是上帝所设定的敬拜模式。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
The effect of this view of office is to reinforce the sense of meeting with God in a reverent and official way. It also insures that those who lead public worship have been called and authorized for that work by God. The Reformed are rightly suspicious of untrained and unauthorized members of the congregation giving longer or shorter messages to the congregation. In worship we gather to hear God, not the opinions of members. The vertical dimension of worship remains central.
 
這種對職分的觀點,會增強以敬畏和正式的方式來面見上帝的觀念。它也保證那些帶領公眾崇拜的人是神所呼召的,神賦予他們權柄來執行這項工作。讓會眾中未經訓練和未獲授權的會員,對會眾給予稍長或稍短的信息,改革宗很正確地懷疑這種做法。在崇拜中,我們是聚集在一起聆聽神說話,而不是聆聽會友的意見。崇拜的垂直層面仍然是最重要的。  1誠之譯版)
 
对牧师职分的这种观点加强了与神交通的敬畏感和正式感。它也确保了那些在公开场合带领敬拜的人是由神呼召并赐予权柄从事此项事工的。改革宗正当地怀疑那些未经门训或授权的成员在会众面前给出或长或短的讲道信息。在敬拜中,我们聚集是来聆听神的话语,而不是会员们的观点。垂直层面的敬拜依然处于核心地位。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
改革宗对圣职的这种看法所导致的结果,就是透过一种庄严肃穆、正式规矩的方式加强了人与上帝相会的感觉。它也确保了那些带领公共崇拜聚会的人,确实是蒙上帝呼召且被上帝赋予权柄从事这项工作的。改革宗一般对未有经过训练、未经授权的会友随便站讲台的是都会持怀疑、谨慎的态度,这不是没有道理的。我们聚集敬拜,乃是来聆听上帝话语的,不是来听会众的各人领受或见解的。所以,大家可以看到,此乃一个以“纵向”为主导的敬拜观。 3 Virginia Yip节录译版)
 
 
Conclusion
總結
 
The contrast that I have drawn between evangelical and Reformed worship no doubt ought to be nuanced in many ways. I have certainly tried to make my points by painting with a very broad brush. Yet the basic analysis, I believe, is correct.
 
我對福音派和改革宗的敬拜所作的比較,無疑地在許多方面需要加以微調。我是用非常粗略的筆觸試圖說明我的論點。不過我相信基本的分析是正確的。(1誠之譯版)
 
毫无疑问,我所列出的福音派和改革宗看待敬拜的区别还可以在许多细微层面加以展开。我在此描绘的只是宏观一笔。然而,我相信这些基本的分析是准确的。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
One great difficulty that we Reformed folk have in thinking about worship is that our worship in many places has unwittingly been accommodated to evangelical ways. If we are to appreciate our Reformed heritage in worship and, equally importantly, if we are to communicate its importance, character, and power to others, we must understand the distinctive character of our worship.
 
我們改革宗的人對敬拜的思考,有一個很大的難題,就是在許多地方,我們的敬拜已經不知不覺地遵從福音派的方法。與此同樣重要的,如果我們要欣賞領會我們改革宗在敬拜上的遺產,如果我們要向其他人傳遞它的重要性、特色和能力,我們必須明白我們敬拜獨特的性質。(1誠之譯版)
 
我们改革宗信徒面对的最大难题是,我们的敬拜方式在很多方面已经毫无察觉地被福音派同化了。如果我们要珍视我们改革宗在敬拜方面的遗产,如果我们要向他人传达它的重要、特点及大能(这一点也同样重要),我们必须了解我们敬拜的独特之处。2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
Our purpose in making this contrast so pointed is not to demean evangelicals. They are indeed our brethren and our friends. But we do have real differences with them. If Reformed worship is not to become as extinct as the dinosaurs, we as Reformed people must come to a clear understanding of it and an eager commitment to it. In order to do that, we must see not just formal similarities, but more importantly the profound theological differences that distinguish evangelical worship from Reformed worship.
 
做出這種區分的目的不是為了要貶低福音派。他們的確是我們的弟兄和朋友。但是我們的確與他們有一些真實的差別。如果要讓改革宗的敬拜不會像恐龍一樣滅絕,我們作為改革宗的人必須對它有一個清楚的了解,以及熱切的委身。為了達成這點,我們必須不只是看到表面的相似性,而是更重要地要看到深層的神學差異,這是福音派的崇拜和改革宗的崇拜不同之處。(1誠之譯版)
 
我们做此明确区分的目的并不是要贬低福音派。他们实际上是我们的弟兄和朋友。但是我们与他们之间确实有许多不同。如果改革宗敬拜不至于像恐龙一样灭绝,我们改革宗信徒必须清楚了解改革宗敬拜,并迫切地忠实于它。为此,我们必须不仅要看到改革宗和福音派在敬拜上的表面相似,更重要的是两者的区别背后的重大神学差异。(2维语译/和卫校版)
 
 
Dr. Robert Godfrey is president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California and a minister in the United Reformed Churches. This article is reprinted, with permission, from New Horizons, April 2002

Virginia Yip译版 叶老师为她的敬拜课程特别预备,仅为原文之全部内容的节录(省去了原文的“引言”和“总结”部分),是在《教会杂志》维语为的中文译文之上做出的修改或重译,为方便教学,中文题目也稍作了改动。
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206/posts/4097072803679255/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/462030323850206聖經神學研究推廣小組
 


2019-11-03


宗教改革為什麼是必要的?WhyWas the Reformation Necessary?


教會需要不斷的改革。即使在新約聖經中,我們也看到耶穌在譴責彼得,保羅在糾正哥林多人。由於基督徒永遠是罪人,教會就不斷需要改革。然而,對我們來說,問題在於:何時是絕對需要改革的時候?
The church is always in need of reform. Even in the New Testament, we see Jesus rebuking Peter, and we see Paul correcting the Corinthians. Since Christians are always sinners, the church will always need reform. The question for us, however, is when does the need become an absolute necessity?

十六世紀的偉大改教家們認為,當時的改革是緊迫的、必要的。在為教會進行改革時,他們拒絕了兩個極端。一方面,他們拒絕那些堅持認為教會基本健全,不需要從根本進行變革的人。另一方面,他們拒絕那些自以為可以在每個細節上創造出完美教會的人。教會需要根本的改革,但它也必須不斷地自我歸正。改教家是從他們對聖經的研究得出了這些結論。
The great Reformers of the sixteenth century concluded that reform was urgent and necessary in their day. In pursuing reform for the church, they rejected two extremes. On the one hand, they rejected those who insisted that the church was essentially sound and needed no fundamental changes. On the other hand, they rejected those who believed that they could create a perfect church in every detail. The church needed fundamental reform, but it would also always need to be reforming itself. The Reformers reached these conclusions from their study of the Bible.

1543年,斯特拉斯堡的改革家馬丁•布瑟(Martin Bucer)要求約翰•加爾文(John Calvin)為宗教改革撰寫一份辯護文,以便在1544年在斯拜爾(Speyer)舉行的帝國會議中呈現給皇帝查理五世。布瑟知道羅馬天主教皇帝被一些政客所包圍,他們不斷詆毀改革教會的努力,他相信加爾文是最有能力捍衛更正教事業的牧師。
In 1543, the Reformer of Strasbourg, Martin Bucer, asked John Calvin to write a defense of the Reformation for presentation to Emperor Charles V at the imperial diet set to meet at Speyer in 1544. Bucer knew that the Roman Catholic emperor was surrounded by counselors who were maligning reform efforts in the church, and he believed that Calvin was the most capable minister to defend the Protestant cause.

加爾文接受了這個挑戰,並撰寫了他最佳的作品之一:〈改革教會的必要性〉(The Necessity of Reforming the Church)。這篇重要的論文並沒有說服皇帝,但它已被許多人視為有史以來說明改革宗理想的最佳說帖。
Calvin rose to the challenge and wrote one of his best works, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church.” This substantial treatise did not convince the emperor, but it has come to be regarded by many as the best presentation of the Reformed cause ever written.

加爾文首先觀察到,每個人都認為教會有「無數的、嚴重的毛病」。加爾文認為事情如此嚴重,以至於基督徒無法忍受「更久的拖延」或等待「緩慢的補救措施」來改革教會。他拒絕這個論點,說改教家犯了「魯莽和邪惡的創新」的罪。相反,他堅持認為「上帝興起了路德和其他人」,以保護「敬虔的真理」。加爾文看到基督教的基礎受到了威脅,唯有聖經真理才能更新教會。
Calvin begins by observing that everyone agreed that the church had “diseases both numerous and grievous.” Calvin argues that matters were so serious that Christians could not abide a “longer delay” for reform or wait for “slow remedies.” He rejects the contention that the Reformers were guilty of “rash and impious innovation.” Rather, he insists that “God raised up Luther and others” to preserve “the truth of our religion.” Calvin saw that the foundations of Christianity were threatened and that only biblical truth would renew the church.

加爾文著眼於教會生活中需要改革的四個重要領域。這些領域構成了他所謂的「教會的靈魂和身體」。教會的靈魂是由「對上帝的純淨和正當的敬拜」和「人的救贖」所組成。而教會的身體是由「聖禮」和「教會治理」所組成。對加爾文來說,這幾件事是宗教改革辯論的核心。它們對教會的生活至關重要,也只能根據聖經的教導才能正確理解。
Calvin looks at four great areas in the life of the church that needed reform. These areas form what he calls the soul and the body of the church. The soul of the church is composed of the “pure and legitimate worship of God” and “the salvation of men.” The body of the church is composed of the “use of the sacraments” and “the government of the church.” For Calvin, these matters were at the heart of the Reformation debates. They are essential to the life of the church and can only be rightly understood in light of the teaching of the Scriptures.

我們可能感到驚訝的是,加爾文把「如何敬拜上帝」作為宗教改革的首要問題,但這是他一貫堅持的主題。早些時候,他寫信給紅衣主教沙度裏多(Sadoleto):「沒有什麼比荒謬的崇拜對我們的得救更為有害的。」崇拜是我們與上帝會面的地方,這樣的會面必須按照上帝的標準來進行。我們的崇拜形式會表明,我們是否真正接受上帝的話語作為我們的權威並順服它。自己創造的崇拜,既是一種靠行為稱義的形式,也是偶像崇拜的表現。
We might be surprised that Calvin placed the worship of God as the first of the Reformation issues, but this was a consistent theme of his. Earlier, he had written to Cardinal Sadoleto: “There is nothing more perilous to our salvation than a preposterous and perverse worship of God.” Worship is where we meet with God, and that meeting must be conducted by God’s standards. Our worship shows whether we truly accept God’s Word as our authority and submit to it. Self-created worship is both a form of works-righteousness and an expression of idolatry.

接下來,加爾文轉向我們通常認為的,宗教改革最重要的議題,即稱義的教義:
Next, Calvin turned to what we often think of as the greatest issue of the Reformation, namely, the doctrine of justification:

「我們堅持認為,無論我們如何描述一個人的行為,他在上帝面前被視為義人,都只是基於白白的憐憫;因為上帝在不看重人的行為的情況下,藉著將基督的義歸算給人,就在基督裏白白地納認他,把他當成屬自己的百姓。我們稱之為信心的義,也就是說,一個人對一切行為失去了信心,確信他蒙上帝接納的唯一理由就是自己所缺乏的義,並且是從基督借來的。世界總是受到誤導而誤入歧途之處(因這個錯誤幾乎盛行在每個時代在),在於想像:人無論有多少缺陷,仍然在某種程度上可以藉著行為得到上帝的恩寵。」
We maintain, that of what description so ever any man’s works may be, he is regarded as righteous before God, simply on the footing of gratuitous mercy; because God, without any respect to works, freely adopts him in Christ, by imputing the righteousness of Christ to him, as if it were his own. This we call the righteousness of faith, viz., when a man, made void and empty of all confidence of works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with God is a righteousness which is wanting to himself, and is borrowed from Christ. The point on which the world always goes astray, (for this error has prevailed in almost every age,) is in imagining that man, however partially defective he may be, still in some degree merits the favor of God by works.

這兩樣構成教會靈魂的基本事宜是由教會身體所支持的:聖禮和教會治理。聖禮必須恢復到聖經所規定的純淨而單純的意義和用法。教會治理必須拒絕所有違背神的話、捆綁基督徒良心的暴政。
These foundational matters that form the soul of the church are supported by the body of the church: the sacraments and the government of the church. The sacraments must be restored to the pure and simple meaning and use given in the Bible. The government of the church must reject all tyranny that binds the consciences of Christians contrary to the Word of God.

當我們看到今日的教會時,我們很可能會得出結論:在加爾文關注的許多領域上,教會仍然需要進行宗教改革——誠然,這是必要的。只有上帝的聖道和聖靈才能改變教會。但我們應該忠心地禱告和工作,懇求主讓這種改革在我們這個時代就降臨。
As we look at the church in our day, we may well conclude that reformation is needed—indeed, is necessary—in many of the areas about which Calvin was so concerned. Only the Word and Spirit of God will ultimately reform the church. But we should pray and work faithfully that such reform will come in our time.

2019-02-06


多特的因由The Reason for Dort

作者: W. Robert Godfrey   譯者: Maria Marta  

猶大在他的書信中教導使徒已將信仰交給教會歷代以來教會都必須一次又一次地捍衛這一信仰(3)。保羅反對律法主義者,亞他那修Athanasius)反對亞流(Arius),奧古斯丁(Augustine)反對伯拉糾(Pelagius),馬丁·路德(Martin Luther)反對伊拉斯謨(Erasmus)等等,這些都是歷史上基督徒如何竭力維護使徒信仰的典範。宗教改革之後,使徒信仰面臨的最大挑戰之一來自荷蘭改革宗教會的一位牧師兼教授雅各布·阿米念(Jacobus Arminius)及其追隨者。

阿米念 (1559-1609) 童年時在荷蘭反抗西班牙的戰爭中失去父親。在改革宗教會的慷慨解囊下他在萊頓(Leiden)的新建大學接受教育之後在日內瓦和巴塞爾繼續深造。當時,約翰·加爾文的繼任者西奧多·貝紮是日內瓦著名的神學家,也是加爾文教義的偉大擁護者。阿米念是一個聰明好學, 才華橫溢的學生。畢業後,阿米念帶著貝紮的推薦信回到荷蘭,在阿姆斯特丹被按立為牧師。從1588年到1603年,他一直在那裏擔任牧師。1603年,他與另外兩位教授被任命為他母校萊頓大學的神學教授。他在那裏工作直到1609年去世。

雖然阿米念在日內瓦和阿姆斯特丹遇到一些爭議但沒有給他帶來持續的麻煩。但在萊頓早年他的教義令人深感擔憂。這些擔憂很難評估,因為阿米念生前從沒發表過任何著作。他死後才發現他留下大量作品——足夠填滿三卷巨著——但非同尋常的是,這些作品沒有發表。阿米念在世時,對他的神學評判是根據學生的報告,他的同事教授和牧師對他越來越擔憂。最後於1608年,他被要求寫出他的觀點——他的情感宣言Declaration of Sentiments)——供監督這所大學的政府官員評估。這份宣言表明他反對加爾文主義的揀選教義。對阿米念作品的最新研究得出結論,認為他的動機與其說是聲稱在救恩上人有自由或可與恩典合作,不如說是捍衛上帝的良善,反對任何認為上帝是暴君或罪惡制造者的說法。

在他去世後的幾年,那些聲稱追隨他的人在神學上變得更加激進。他們日益采納我們所認為的「阿米念派」或「半伯拉糾派」的觀點,此觀點教導罪對人的能力的影響是有限的,人有一定尺度的自由,以致人能夠與救恩合作,或抗拒救恩。1610年,他們在一份稱為抗辯書的文件中對自己的觀點作出總結。總結有五個要點: 有條件的揀選,普世的代贖,全面的敗壞,可抗拒的恩典,和聖徒蒙保守的不確定性。
  
從阿米念去世到多特總會召開期間的一大特點, 就是教會內部的神學爭議和分歧日益加劇。荷蘭社會承受巨大的壓力,內戰一觸即發。只有更疊政府,和在港口城市多德萊希特召開荷蘭改革宗教會全國性會議,才阻止了這場戰爭。

荷蘭加爾文主義者認為總會不應僅僅是一個全國性的會議。因此他們邀請歐洲大多數改革宗教會的代表出席並且成為總會的正式投票成員。結果是﹐改革宗教會舉行有史以來規模最大、範圍最廣的集會。(為免我的長老會朋友們覺得我在輕視威斯敏斯特總會,請讓我提醒他們,嚴格地說,此次議會不是教會集會,而是一群神學家為英國國會出謀獻策的集會。

多特總會的工作既仔細又徹底。會議從161811月中旬持續到16195月下旬,先是聽取阿米念派的意見,在他們不合作的時候,再閱讀他們的著作。這次總會最大的成果是醞釀著名的多特信經。多特信經或裁決回應了亞米念主義的五要點。嚴格地說,加爾文主義並非只有五要點;  相反,它有許多要點,你可以在比利時或威斯敏斯特信仰告白中找到。針對阿米念主義的五個錯誤,加爾文主義有五個答案。多特信經逐點回應阿米念派1610年提出的總結。信經的第一個教義標題 (或分章)是無條件的揀選。第二個教義標題是有限的贖罪。信經第三和第四個教義標題合並,表明只有教導不可抗拒的恩典之必要性,才能堅稱人全面的敗壞。第五個教義標題教導因著上帝恩典的保守,聖徒才蒙保守到底。

每項教義標題都分為若幹條正面條文,和拒絕特定的阿民念主義錯誤的條文。關於「如何寫這些條文」最重要的決定,就是決定這些條文的適用對象是教會人員而非大學教授。總會計劃讓所有教會成員都能清楚明白這份信經。多年來糾纏著一個問題:信經的英文版保留了在拉丁文中表達清晰,在英文中卻表達含糊的長句。但即使讀者一條一條閱讀較早期的英譯本,也能清楚了解它們的意思。

總會也希望顯示改革宗信仰的大公性(/普遍 catholicity),並否定阿米念對「改革宗教會在傳授宗教新奇事」這項指責。因此,所有教義標題都以一段羅馬天主教、路德宗、改革宗都一致認同的大公聲明作開始。從首條大公條文到接下來更多的條文都表明,完備的改革宗教學乃遵循大公教會之根基。

在首個教義標題 (論無條件揀選的) 的第六條可以感受到信經某些特征:

「有些人蒙神思典得以相信有些人則否這都是出於神的永旨eternal decree)這話是從創世以來顯明這事的主說的(徒十五18),這原是那位隨己意行做萬事的,照著他旨意所預定的(弗一11)。神所揀選的人無論怎樣固執,神都按照這個永旨,以恩典軟化他們的心,使他們願意相信;至於神所沒有揀選的人,神就按照衪的公義,決定任憑他們存邪僻頑梗的心。我們從這件事可以特別看出神深奧、憐憫,同時又公義的本性,因為神對同樣陷入滅亡絕境的人,卻用不同的方式對待他們,這就是聖經啟示的神揀選與遺棄(reptobation)的元旨。悖論、不潔與不堅固的人雖然強解這元旨decree) 就自取沈淪但聖潔敬虔的人卻從這元旨得到無比的安慰。」

此條文以典型的方式清晰闡述首條教義,顯示它的聖經出處,並堅持認為上帝的主權和拯救的目的給上帝子民帶來安慰。

總會也做了其他重要的工作,為未來幾個世紀荷蘭改革宗教會的生活和健康作準備。總會還任命一個委員會,為新的聖經荷蘭語譯本進行準備工作。這本譯本在荷蘭語世界的地位和影響力,如同欽定版在英語世界的地位和影響力。這個版本聖經支撐著荷蘭基督徒的虔誠和生活,直到20世紀。

因為發現比利時信條較早的版本略有不同,所以總會也重申教會對比利時信條的認可,並確定它的正式文本。總會被要求寫一份新的,所有歐洲改革宗教會都會接受的信仰告白。會議的結論是,它沒有時間進行這項任務,但它批準比利時信條為所有改革宗一致認同的信仰告白。

會議也正式通過一項教會法規,為今後幾個世紀的荷蘭教會提供了議事/程序規則。教會法規描述了牧師、長老、執事的工作,和會眾的事奉和崇拜守則,也擬定了本地教會議會 (Consistory,即長老會的session ) 、區域性議會(Classis,即長老會的Presbytery )  、總議會( synod,即長老會的General Assembly )   的工作。

總會還被要求就安息日教義作出明確聲明。再一次,總會沒有時間進行決定性的研究,但它確實準備了一份簡短聲明,以幫助教會和基督徒。畢竟,安息日不僅僅是教會的教導,也是教會虔誠和生活重要的組成部分。總會呼籲在主日安息和敬拜。在聲明範圍外,當被問及如果傳統晚禱出席人數很少,該如何處理時,總會建議,即使只有牧師的家人出席,也應舉行晚禱。隨著時間的推移,荷蘭改革宗教會變得謹慎的遵守基督教的安息日,這兩項事奉對培育虔誠且受過良好教育的平信徒有極大幫助。

多特會議的卓越工作,四百年後仍值得慶祝。會議保存了聖經關於救恩的真正教導,也以其他方式供應了教會福祉生活所需。多特會議打了一場猶大對基督徒所吩咐的美好的仗。這場戰鬥確實導致教會分裂。一小部分人離開,成立抗辯派兄弟會(Remonstrantse Broederschop)。但正如猶大書所明確指出的,這樣的分裂錯不在於正統派,而在於那些反對真理的人  (19)。多特會議的偉大成就在於它保存、教導、捍衛了我們的信仰,即「我們同得的救恩」(3)

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow and president emeritus and professor emeritus of church history at Westminster Seminary California. He is also the featured teacher for the six-part Ligonier teaching series A Survey of Church History and author of several books, including Saving the Reformation.

The Reason for Dort
by W. Robert Godfrey

Jude in his epistle teaches that while the faith was given to the church by the Apostles, the church through the ages will have to defend that faith over and over again (Jude 3). Paul opposed the legalists, Athanasius opposed Arius, Augustine opposed Pelagius, and Martin Luther opposed Erasmus. These are a few examples of how Christians have contended for the Apostolic faith in history. After the Reformation, one of the greatest challenges to the Apostolic faith arose within the Dutch Reformed Church from a minister and professor named Jacobus Arminius and from his followers.

Arminius (1559–1609) as a boy lost his father in the Dutch revolt against Spain. He was educated through the generosity of the Reformed churches at the new university in Leiden and then continued his studies at Geneva and Basel. At Geneva, Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor, was the leading theologian and a great champion of Calvinist teaching. Arminius showed himself to be a bright and clever student. With letters of recommendation from Beza, Arminius returned to the Netherlands and was ordained to the ministry in Amsterdam. He served there as a pastor from 1588 until 1603, when he was appointed to teach theology with two other professors at his alma mater, Leiden. He served there until his death in 1609.

While Arminius experienced some controversy in Geneva and in Amsterdam, no lasting trouble followed him. But concerns about his doctrine grew during his early years in Leiden. These concerns were difficult to evaluate because Arminius published nothing in his lifetime. After his death, a number of writings were found—enough to fill three sizable volumes—but, very unusually for the time, he had not published them. During his life, his theology was judged on the reports of students, and his fellow professors and ministers became more and more concerned. Finally, in 1608, he was required to write out his views—his Declaration of Sentiments—for evaluation by the civil government, which supervised the university. This declaration showed his rejection of a Calvinist doctrine of election. Recent studies of his work have concluded that he was motivated not so much by a desire to assert some human freedom or cooperation in salvation as by a desire to defend the goodness of God against any suggestion that God is a tyrant or the author of sin.

In the years after his death, those who claimed to follow him became more radical in their theologies. They increasingly adopted the views that we think of as “Arminian” or “semi-Pelagian,” teaching a limited effect of sin on human abilities and a measure of human freedom so that man is able to cooperate with or to resist saving grace. They summarized their views in a document that became known as the Remonstrance of 1610. That summary had five points: conditional election, universal atonement, complete depravity, resistible grace, and uncertainty about the perseverance of the saints.

The years from the death of Arminius to the meeting of the Synod of Dort were characterized by growing theological controversy and divisions in the church. The stress on Dutch society became so great that civil war became a real possibility. Only the change of the civil government and the call of the national synod of the Dutch Reformed Church to meet in the port city of Dordrecht prevented that war.

The Dutch Calvinists decided that the synod should be more than simply a national synod. They invited representatives from most of the Reformed churches of Europe to attend and to be full voting members of the synod. The result was the greatest and most ecumenical gathering of Reformed churches ever held. (Lest my Presbyterian friends feel that I am slighting the Westminster Assembly, let me remind them that that assembly was not properly a church gathering but a gathering of theologians to advise the English Parliament.)

The Synod of Dort did its work carefully and thoroughly. It met from mid-November 1618 until late May 1619, first hearing the Arminians and then, when they were uncooperative, reading their writings. The greatest accomplishment of the synod was the preparation of what are known as the Canons of Dort. These canons or rulings of Dort respond to the five points of Arminianism. Strictly speaking, Calvinism does not have only five points; rather, it has the many points that one finds in the Belgic Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Calvinism has five answers to the five errors of Arminianism. The canons respond point by point to the Arminian summary presented in 1610. The synod’s first head (or chapter) is on unconditional election. The second head is on limited atonement. The synod combines the third and fourth heads to show that total depravity is maintained only when the necessity of irresistible grace is taught. The fifth head teaches the perseverance of the saints because of the preserving grace of God.

Each head of doctrine is divided into several positive articles and rejections of specific Arminian errors. The most important decision about how to write these articles was the decision to write them for the people in the churches rather than for professors in the universities. The synod intended its canons to be clear and understandable for all the members of the church. Over the years, one of the problems has been that translations of the canons into English have kept the long sentences that work in Latin but are not clear in English. Even in the older English translations, however, when the reader moves from clause to clause, the meaning is clear.

The synod also wanted to show the catholicity of Reformed Christianity, denying the Arminian charge that the Reformed churches were teaching sectarian novelties. Therefore, each head of doctrine begins with a catholic statement with which Roman Catholics and Lutherans as well as the Reformed would agree. From that initial catholic article, further articles show that the fullness of Reformed teaching follows properly from catholic foundations.

Something of the character of the canons can be experienced in the first head of doctrine (on unconditional election), article 6:

The reality that some people are given faith by God in time, while others are not given faith, proceeds from God’s eternal decree. “He knows all His works from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). According to this decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard, and inclines them to believe. He also leaves the nonelect according to His just judgment in their wickedness and hardness of heart. This decree most powerfully shows us God’s profound, merciful, yet also just distinction among people equally lost. This decree of election and reprobation is revealed in the Word of God. And although the perverse, impure, and unstable twist it to their own destruction, it gives inexpressible comfort to holy and pious souls. (author’s translation)

In an exemplary way, this article states the doctrine clearly, shows its origin in the Bible, and insists on the comfort that a confidence in the sovereign, saving purpose of God brings to the people of God.

The synod also did other important work that provided for the life and health of the Dutch Reformed Church for centuries to come. The synod appointed a committee to prepare a new Dutch translation of the Bible. This Bible would have the same status and influence in the Dutch-speaking world that the King James Version of the Bible would have in the English-speaking world. This Bible would support the piety and life of Dutch Christians well into the twentieth century.

The synod also reiterated the church’s commitment to the Belgic Confession and established the official text of the confession, since slight variations were found in earlier publications. The synod had been asked to write a new confession of faith that all the Reformed churches of Europe would accept. The synod concluded that it did not have time for such an undertaking, but it did approve the Belgic Confession as an agreeable confession to all the Reformed.

The synod also adopted a church order that provided the rules of procedure for the Dutch churches for centuries to come. The church order described the work of ministers, elders, and deacons as well as the ministry and worship of congregations. It also laid out the work of local consistories (similar to sessions) as well as the work of the broader assemblies of the classes (similar to presbyteries) and synods.

The synod was also asked to make a definitive statement on the doctrine of the Sabbath. The synod again did not have time for a definitive study, but it did prepare a brief statement to help the churches and Christians. The Sabbath, after all, is not just a teaching of the churches but is a crucial part of the piety and life of the churches. The synod called for rest and worship on the Lord’s Day. Beyond its statement, when asked what to do with the traditional evening service if it was poorly attended, the synod advised that the evening service should be held even if only the minster’s family were in attendance. In time, the Dutch Reformed churches became careful in observing the Christian Sabbath, and the two services helped greatly in producing a devout and well-educated laity.

The Synod of Dort did outstanding work that is well worth celebrating four hundred years later. It preserved the true teaching of the Bible on salvation and provided in other ways as well for the well-being of the life of the church. The synod fought the good fight to which Jude calls Christians. The fight did lead to a fracture in the church. A small minority left to form the Remonstrant Brotherhood. But as Jude makes clear, such a division is not the fault of the orthodox but the fault of those who oppose the truth (Jude 19). The great accomplishment of the synod was that it kept, taught, and defended our faith, “our common salvation” (v. 3).