教我們數算自己的日子TeachUs to Number Our Days

作者：葛福瑞（W. Robert Godfrey）譯者:  駱鴻銘

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/teach-us-number-our-days/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157118975654653

求你指教我們怎樣數算自己的日子，好叫我們得著智慧的心。（詩篇九十12）

這節經文通常被視為一句箴言，意思是「生命短暫，所以要明智地生活。」但在整篇詩篇的背景下，它的意味更為深長，正如我們將要看到的。它是默想上帝和以上帝子民的身分生活的關鍵。

在希伯來文中，第12節是以「數算我們的日子」開頭的。這句話道出了貫穿這首詩篇的主題：時間。對時間的反思使我們看到我們是多麼軟弱，生命有多麼短暫：「你使人歸回塵土，說∶『世人哪！你們要歸回塵土。』...... 你使世人消逝，像被洪水沖去；他們好像睡了一覺；他們又像在早晨生長的草，早晨發芽生長，晚上就凋萎枯乾...... 我們一生的年日是七十歲，如果強壯，可到八十歲，但其中可誇耀的，不過是勞苦愁煩；我們的年日轉眼即逝，我們也如飛而去了。」（第3節，第5～6節，第10節；新譯本）。在這裏，詩篇九十篇顯示了它與詩篇八十九篇關於人的脆弱的擔憂：「求你記念我的一生多麼短暫，你創造的世人是多麼虛幻呢！有哪一個人能長活不死，能救自己的性命脫離陰間的權勢呢？」（詩八九47～48；新譯本）。這種對於我們軟弱的唯實主義看法，是任何真實智慧的必要基礎。「耶和華啊！求你使我知道我的結局，我的壽數有多少，使我知道我的生命多麼短促！」（詩篇卅九4；新譯本）。

人生的短暫和脆弱是世上的罪惡和審判的結果。詩人坦率地承認這種罪，說道：「你將我們的罪孽擺在你面前，將我們的隱惡擺在你面光之中。」（詩九十8）。他知道他聖潔的上帝會追討祂對罪人的審判。「我們一生的日子都在你的震怒中消逝，我們度盡的年歲好像一聲嘆息；...... 誰曉得你怒氣的威力，誰按著你該受的敬畏曉得你的忿怒呢？」（第9、11節；新譯本）。認為上帝的忿怒會抵消掉祂配得的所有順從，這當然是可怕的。

生命雖然短暫，且上帝的忿怒令人害怕，但上帝對祂子民的憐憫和保護卻是偉大的。上帝是祂子民的家：「主啊，你世世代代作我們的居所。」（第1節）。藉著祂的百姓世世代代的存在，一直追溯到創造的一開始，上帝一直保存和保護祂的子民。即使在伊甸園裏，祂也應許要救贖屬祂自己的人（創三15）。上帝一直是祂子民的家，因為祂是救贖的上帝。

摩西提醒我們，雖然人的生命脆弱而短暫，但上帝卻是永恆的。「諸山未曾生出，地與世界你未曾造成，從亙古到永遠，你是上帝。」（第2節）。摩西帶領我們回到上帝創造全地之前，提醒我們，我們的上帝是在時間之前，超越時間、超越這個世界。祂一直都在那裏，祂自己是圓滿具足的，並不需要我們。摩西在第4節中以另一種方式闡述了這一點：「在你看來，千年如已過的昨日，又如夜間的一更。」時間對上帝來說，和對我們的意義並不相同。對我們而言，一千年是一段漫長的時間，我們無法想像它到底有多長。但對於上帝來說，這與很短的時間並無二致。祂是永恆的，超越了祂所創造的時間。

這位永恆的上帝以無限的能力指揮著歷史的進程。曾看見上帝的能力經常顯明在拯救以色列離開埃及的過程中的摩西，繼續祈求上帝的聖工所顯明的威嚴會繼續展現在百姓眼前：「願你的作為向你僕人顯現；願你的榮耀向他們子孫顯明。」「（第16節）。正如上帝藉由祂的能力所帶來的痛苦，所以摩西祈求上帝賜福給他們：「求你照著你使我們受苦的日子，和我們遭難的年歲，叫我們喜樂。」（第15節；新譯本）。如果我們有必要藉由將我們日子的短暫與上帝的永恆本質加以對比，以數算它們，那麼我們就該向上帝祈求，求祂教導我們：「教我們怎樣數算自己的日子。」我們永遠不會靠自己的力量獲得教訓。如果任憑我們自己，我們不僅會無知，更會在不義中壓制真理（羅一18）。我們說服自己，只要我們保持健康，就還有很長的時間可活，我們真的相信，我們將永遠活在這個身體裏。我們需要一位教師，而唯一可以拯救我們的教師就是上帝。

這段摘錄改編自葛福瑞（W. Robert Godfrey）所著的Learning to Love the Psalms（暫譯：《學會喜愛詩篇》）。

Teach Us to Number Our Days

FROM W. Robert Godfrey

“Teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.” (Psalm 90: 12)

This verse is often treated as if it were a proverb that means, “Life is short, so live wisely.” But in the context of the whole psalm, it means much more than that, as we will see. It is a key part of a meditation on God and on living as the people of God.

In Hebrew, verse 12 begins with the words “to number our days.” This phrase picks up the theme of time that is so pervasive in this psalm. A reflection on time leads us to see how weak we are and how short our lives are: “You return man to dust and say, ‘Return, O children of man!’ … You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers… The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away” (vv. 3, 5–6, 10). Here, Psalm 90 shows its connection to the concerns of Psalm 89 about man’s frailty: “Remember how short my time is! For what vanity you have created all the children of man! What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?” (Ps. 89:47–48). Such realism about our weakness is the necessary foundation of any true wisdom. “O Lord, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am” (Ps. 39:4).

The shortness and weakness of human life are the fruit of sin and judgment in the world. The psalmist acknowledges that sin frankly, saying, “You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence” (Ps. 90:8). He knows that his holy God visits His judgment on sinners. “For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh… . Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you?” (vv. 9, 11). It is surely frightening to think that God’s wrath will equal all the obedience that is due to Him.

Although life is short and the wrath of God terrifying, the mercy and protection of God for His people are great. God is the home of His people: “Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations” (v. 1). Through all the generations of His people’s existence, reaching back all the way to creation, God has always preserved and protected His people. Even in the garden of Eden, He promised that He would redeem His own (Gen. 3:15). God remains the home of His people because He is the redeeming God.

Moses reminds us that while the life of man is frail and short, God is eternal. “Before the mountains were brought forth or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (v. 2). Moses takes us back before God created the earth to remind us that our God is before and beyond time and this world. He has always been, and He is sufficient to Himself without us. Moses makes this point in another way in verse 4: “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” Time does not have the same meaning for God that it has for us. For us, a thousand years is a time so long that we cannot really imagine experiencing it. For God, it is no different from a very short period of time. He is eternal, above the time that He created.

This eternal God directs the course of history by His infinite power. Moses, who had seen the power of God often displayed in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, continues to pray that the majesty of God’s works would remain before the eyes of the people: “Let your work be shown to your servants, and your glorious power to their children” (v. 16). As God had brought suffering by His power, so Moses prays that God will send blessing: “Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, and for as many years as we have seen evil” (v. 15). If our need is to number our days by contrasting their shortness with the eternal nature of God, then our prayer to God is that He would teach us: “Teach us to number our days.” We will never learn that lesson in our own strength. We are not only ignorant if left to ourselves, but we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). We convince ourselves that we have a long time to live, and as long as we are healthy, we really believe that we will live forever in this body. We need a teacher, and the only teacher who can rescue us from ourselves is God.

This excerpt is adapted from Learning to Love the Psalms by W. Robert Godfrey.

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

作者：Robert Godfrey  譯自：駱鴻銘

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/why-was-reformation-necessary/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10157042330479653

教會不斷需要改革。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。教會需要進行根本性的改革，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謀士所包圍，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，改革還要「更久的拖延」或等待「緩慢的補救措施」。他拒絕這一論點，說改教家犯了「魯莽和邪惡革新」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里多（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.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

追求有用的知識Pursue Useful Knowledge

作者: W. Robert Godfrey   譯者:  Maria Marta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Fk7uGYy1c

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/pursue-useful-knowledge/

https://plus.google.com/u/1/106695469993489516884/posts/YA5cFiGAa5u

這段短視頻錄制自2012年召開的全國大會，視頻中，戈弗雷（W. Robert Godfrey）博士鼓勵我們追求有用的知識。

約翰加爾文意識到基督教歷史上各種與智力有關的緊張與張力。正如他《基督教要義》中寫道，基督徒當中有兩個極端，一端認為我們不必知道所有事情，另一端則認為我們要比所知道的了解更多。

在他所著的哥林多前書註釋書中，在第八章他引用了一句古老的諺語：「傲慢自大，莫過於無知」。你若知識豐富，你可能很清楚這諺語的含義，因為曾與你交談的無知之人，他們不知道你所知道的，但卻聲稱他們知道。傲慢自大，莫過於無知-------除非被知識充滿。

加爾文說道，「我們如何平衡這兩個極端？我們讓聖經來為我們保持它們的平衡。」我們渴望了解有用的知識——不推測我們無法理解的，對我們來說太深奧的事；不拒絕思考聖經已向我們啟示的，鼓勵我們要知道的事。我們渴望追求有用的知識，這些知識對我們心思、意志的更新非常有用，這些知識能讓我們明白上帝在祂的聖言中賜給我們的真理的奇妙深度，並鼓勵我們作徹底、全面、仔細的思考，研究它們的含義。

上帝吩咐我們要更新我們的心意。上帝吩咐我們要全心意愛祂。上帝吩咐我們要認識我們的救主就是真理，並提醒我們救主對我們說過的話：「你們若持守我的道，就真是我的門徒了；你們必定認識真理，真理必定使你們自由。」（約八31-32 ; 《聖經新譯本》）

Pursue Useful Knowledge

FROM W. Robert Godfrey

In this brief clip from our 2012 National Conference, W. Robert Godfrey encourages us to pursue useful knowledge.

Transcript

John Calvin was aware of the various strains and tensions in the history of Christianity in relation to the intellect. As he says in his Institutes, one extreme amongst Christians is to think we don’t need to know anything. And the other extreme is to think we know a lot more than we know.

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 8, he quotes an old proverb: “Nothing is as arrogant as ignorance.” If you know anything, you probably know that because you’ve talked to some ignorant person who doesn’t know what you know yet claims they do. Nothing is as arrogant as ignorance—unless it’s being puffed up with knowledge.

And Calvin says, “How do we balance these things? We allow the Bible to balance them for us.” We desire to know useful knowledge—not speculating into things that we can’t comprehend, that are too high for us, and not refusing to think about what the Bible has revealed to us and encourages us to know. We desire to pursue useful knowledge, knowledge that is useful for our minds and for our wills, knowledge that will enable us to understand the wonderful depths of the truth that God has given us in His Word and encouraged us to think through, think out, and study the implications of.

God calls us to the renewing of our minds. God calls us to love Him with all our minds. God calls us to recognize that our Savior is the truth and reminds us that our Savior said to us, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–32).

加尔文的敬拜观JohnCalvin’s Views on Worship

------罗伯特•戈弗雷博士在格林维尔神学院敬拜研讨会上的发言

文/长老会与改革宗新闻杂志 译/煦 校/述宁

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2003/john-calvins-views-on-worship/

https://www.churchchina.org/archives/170303.html

The great danger the church faces today is the separation of our theology from our practice or the viewing of the Bible as somehow separate from theology

by Dr Robert Godfrey

一、背景

2003年3月11日，在南卡罗来纳州的泰勒斯市格林维尔神学院关于敬拜的研讨会上，加利福尼亚威斯敏斯特神学院院长戈弗雷（Robert Godfrey）探讨了约翰•加尔文的敬拜观。戈弗雷博士也是一位教会历史学的教授，并在北美联合归正教会事奉。他以朗读诗篇第2篇并解释对于加尔文常见的误解开始。戈弗雷博士说，人们认为加尔文是一个“无趣的、煞风景的、毁了日内瓦人生活的人。”人们对加尔文的这种消极反应始于16世纪，那时“他的敌人散播谣言说他的妻子死于无聊。”

In Taylors, South Carolina on March 11, 2OO3, at the Greenville Seminary Conference on Worship, Robert Godfrey, President of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, discussed John Calvin’s views on worship. Dr. Godfrey, who is also a church history professor as well as a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America, began by reading Psalm 2 and by addressing common misapprehensions regarding Calvin. People think of him, stated Dr. Godfrey, as a "joyless killjoy, ruining people’s lives in Geneva." People have had this sort of negative reaction to Calvin since the l6th century when, ‘His enemies circulated the rumour that his wife had died of boredom"

在加尔文主义者中关于加尔文的误解也几乎同样比比皆是，因为我们认为他是一位神学家甚于把他看作是一位牧师。但戈弗雷博士说，我们不能将“神学家加尔文”与“牧师加尔文”分开来，因为牧师不仅关注真理，而且还关注真理的服事与应用。

Nearly as many misapprehensions abound about Calvin among Calvinists because we think of him as more of a theologian than as a pastor. We must not, Dr. Godfrey said, divorce Calvin the theologian from Calvin the pastor, one concerned not only with the truth but with the application and ministration of that truth.

今天教会面临的巨大危险是我们的神学与我们的实践分离，或认为圣经在一定程度上是与神学分离的。加尔文认为真正的神学没有不是出自于圣经的，而来自于圣经的神学是统一连贯的。戈弗雷博士说，当看到人们认为改教神学没有充分的圣经依据而拒绝它时，是令人痛心的。关于加尔文在回答他人时是否过于尖酸刻薄，戈弗雷的回应是，今天大多数做出这样指控的人对圣经的了解不及约翰•加尔文或马丁•路德的十分之一。

The great danger the church faces today is the separation of our theology from our practice or the viewing of the Bible as somehow separate from theology. Calvin believed that there was no theology that did not come out of the Bible, but that out of the Bible came a theology of coherence. It is distressing, President Godfrey said, when people dismiss the theology of the Reformation as being not adequately Biblical. Concerned with being "mean spirited" in his reply, Godfrey responded that most people today who would make such a charge do not know one tenth as much about the Bible as John Calvin or Martin Luther did.

加尔文没有把他的神学与圣经分开或与他的牧养分开。他是一位出色的讲道者，虔诚的牧师，一位自己写要理问答的教义教导者，一位探访病人的探访者，一位辅导者，一位非常关心宣教、关心普世教会、关心教会体制和教会纪律的人。

Calvin did not separate his theology from the Bible or from his pastoring. He was an extraordinary preacher, a devoted pastor, a catechist who wrote his own catechism, a visitor of the sick, a counsellor, and one deeply concerned about missions, ecumenism, church polity, and church discipline.

二、加尔文论敬拜

按照戈弗雷博士的说法，在生活每一个领域，加尔文都是一位牧者，他也是一位对敬拜有着仔细思考的牧师。

He was, according to the seminary president, a pastor in every area of life, and he was a pastor in the matter of the careful thought he gave to worship.

在他的论文《关于教会改革的必要性》（由改教运动领导人提交给皇帝查理五世的一份文件）中，加尔文写道：

In his treatise, "On the Necessity of Reforming the Church," a document to be presented by the leaders of the Protestant movement to the Emperor Charles V, Calvin wrote.

基督教何以长期存在于我们中间并保持她的真理？如果要按照事情的主次来查究，那么你会发现以下两方面不仅占据了主要位置，而且它们也涵盖了所有其他部分，并且因此它们就是基督信仰的整个实质，即，第一，关于恰当地敬拜上帝的方式的知识；其次，关于得救来源的知识。

"If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly; the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained."

戈弗雷博士表示，加尔文将敬拜排在第一，认为其重要性超过得救，是出于一个非常重要的事实，即得救是达到某种目的的一种手段，而敬拜就是这目的本身。戈弗雷博士说，我们得救是为了现在和永远敬拜上帝，而我们的公众敬拜是我们将来天上敬拜的预演。所以，对于约翰•加尔文来说，敬拜不是外围性的，而是基础性的。

The speaker stated that Calvin’s ranking worship as first in importance over salvation is due to one very important fact, namely that salvation is a means to an end, with worship being the end itself: We are saved, Dr. Godfrey said to worship God, now and eternally, with our public worship being a foretaste of the heavenly worship that awaits us. So, worship was not peripheral to John Calvin but fundamental.

才华横溢的红衣主教沙杜里多（Sadoleto）是一位宗教改革的批判者，加尔文在回答他的信中写下了这些话：“没有什么比一个荒谬和不正当的敬拜对我们的得救更加有害。”加尔文对敬拜非常重视，他写道：“让我们知道并完全相信，只要信徒们按照神的话语所指定的，以正当的形式并且单纯地敬拜他，无论他们在哪里聚集来进行这一庄严的敬拜，因着恩典，他必临在他们中间。”

In Calvin’s reply to Cardinal Sadoleto, one of the brilliant defences of the Reformation, Calvin penned these words: "There is nothing more perilous to our salvation than a preposterous and perverse worship of God." Calvin took worship very seriously. He wrote, "Let us know and be fully persuaded, that wherever the faithful, who worship him purely and in due form, according to the appointment of his word, are assembled together to engage in the solemn acts of religious worship, he is graciously present, and presides in the midst of them."

戈弗雷博士说，这就是我们的敬拜所失去的（很大程度上是由于复兴传统）——敬拜主要不是为了让人们得救或教导会众，而是与上帝会面。他认为有些人被更重视礼仪的教会吸引，是因为去这样教会的人通常明确自己是去与上帝会面的，而在我们福音派教会里，我们常常失去了敬拜中那种虔诚参与的感觉。

This, Dr. Godfrey said, is what has been lost in our worship due largely to the Revivalist tradition – the fact that worship is not primarily about getting people saved or about instructing people but about meeting with God. He stated he believes that people’s attraction to more liturgical churches is that in such churches it is often clear the people have come to meet with God, and too often in our Evangelical churches we have lost that sense of reverent anticipation in worship.

“与上帝会面”也许是对敬拜最佳的简短定义，这是加尔文所理解的。加尔文因此觉得敬拜必须按照上帝的话来构造。虽然加尔文的著作中没有出现“限定性原则”（Regulative Principle）这一说法，但这种观念在他的著作里是普遍存在的。对于戈弗雷博士来说，那些认为清教徒的敬拜观不如加尔文的敬拜观念“开放”的人，好像没有读过加尔文所说的：

"Meeting with God" is perhaps the best brief definition of worship, and it is something Calvin understood. Calvin felt as a result that worship must be structured according to God’s word. Although the phrase "Regulative Principle" does not appear in Calvin’s writings, the idea is pervasive. Those who suggest that the Puritans were less open in their ideas of worship than Calvin can suggest such only, it seems to Dr. Godfrey, if they have not read Calvin who said:

我知道，要说服世界相信这一点是多么困难的事:上帝反对所有明显不符合他的话语的敬拜模式。错误的信念根深蒂固，好像是深入他们的骨骼和骨髓，就是，无论他们做什么，只要它具有某种荣耀神的热心，就足够被认可了。

"I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God."

戈弗雷博士说，大多数人认为，如果他们在敬拜中所做的是真诚的，上帝就会高兴。这是不对的。不管你有多真诚，如果你错了，你仍然错了。再次，根据加尔文下面的话：

Most people think, Dr. Godfrey stated, that if what they do in worship is sincere, God will be pleased. This is not true. It doesn’t matter how sincere you are. If you’re wrong, you’re still wrong. Again, according to Calvin:

但是，不管我们怎样热情地敬拜上帝，却背离了他的命令，上帝不仅会视这样的敬拜为无用，而且也很讨厌；我们怎么通过一个相反的过程获益？上帝的话语是清晰的，“听命胜于献祭。”“他们将人的吩咐当作道理教导人，所以拜我也是枉然。” （撒上 15:22；太15:9）。在他的话语之外添加的任何东西都是谎言，特别是在这个问题上。单纯的“崇拜意愿”是虚荣。这是定论，一旦法官做了决定，就不再有辩论的余地。

"But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, ‘Obedience is better than sacrifice.’ ‘In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,’ (1 Sam. xv. 22; Matth. xv 9). Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate."

戈弗雷博士说，“这和所有清教徒的观点一样‘狭隘’。”加尔文认为，我们本性是偶像崇拜者。我们在第一诫中看到，我们不能随意地敬拜他神。第二诫也涉及偶像崇拜的问题，它提醒我们不要以错误的方式来敬拜真神。以色列人建造金牛犊的时候，是要用它来代表耶和华的，而不是另一个神！

"That," said the church history professor, "is as narrow-minded as any Puritan ever was." Calvin believed we were by nature idolaters. We see in the first commandment that we are not free to worship other gods. The second commandment also relates to the problem of idolatry and warns us against worship of the true God in a false way. When Israel built the golden calf, it was meant to be a representation of Yahweh, not another god.

根据加尔文的说法，“经验告诉我们，人类头脑中谬误的土壤是多么肥沃，再小的谷物被播种都会得到巨大的收获。”

According to Calvin, "Experience teaches us how fertile is the field of falsehood in the human mind and the smallest grains when sown there will grow to yield an immense harvest."

加尔文认为人心是偶像加工厂，这就解释了为什么加尔文认为有必要对我们的敬拜如此谨慎。戈弗雷博士说，因为我们在敬拜方面很容易堕落，我们迫切需要从上帝那里得到充分的启示，告诉我们如何敬拜；而加尔文认为我们已经得到了这样的详尽启示。他看到，在我们的敬拜中，我们常常想取悦自己，而不是取悦上帝。加尔文写道，“不容置疑的是，在神圣热情的掩盖之下，迷信的人们放纵肉体；撒旦用作诱饵的虚假敬拜模式是那样的有吸引力，以至于他们心甘情愿地渴望被俘获并且顽固地留在那里。”

The fact that Calvin believed human hearts to be factories of idols explains why Calvin thought it so necessary to be so careful about our worship. Dr. Godfrey stated that because we are so prone to corruption in our worship, we are desperately in need of a full revelation from God about how we are to worship, and Calvin believed we have been given such an exhaustive revelation. He saw that too often, we want to please ourselves rather than please God in our worship. Calvin wrote, "Nor can it be doubted but that, under the pretence of holy zeal, superstitious men give way to the indulgences of the flesh; and Satan baits his fictitious modes of worship with such attractions, that they are willingly and eagerly caught hold of and obstinately retained."

加尔文也说，上帝与我们如此不同，那些最让我们开心的，对上帝来说却是可恶和恶心的，由此人性越喜爱的东西，信徒就越是应该怀疑。

Calvin says as well that God is so far unlike us that those things that please us most are loathsome and nauseating to God, that the more something delights human nature, the more it ought to be suspected among believers.

戈弗雷博士指出，中世纪的教会视自己为热情敬拜上帝的，集结自己所有的艺术天赋用于对上帝的敬拜。对于那时的教会来说，似乎人再也不能比在宏伟的大教堂里感觉更接近上帝。但是，这样的人类发明并没有忠实地表达出上帝所启示的他渴望被敬拜的方式。加尔文洁净了日内瓦的大教堂，去掉所有的圣像和宗教象征物。对加尔文而言，圣经是最重要的影响来源，但作为一个真正的大公教会的基督徒，他也仔细研究了古代教父们的著作，以检验自己对圣经的解释。他认为纯粹的敬拜包含两部分：话语的仪式和圣餐的仪式。

The professor pointed out that the Medieval church had seen itself as zealous in the worship of God and had marshalled all their artistic talents for the worship of God. It seemed to that church that one could not feel closer to God than one did in their magnificent cathedrals. But, such human invention did not express in a faithful, way what God has revealed about how He desires to be worshipped. Calvin purified the cathedral church in Geneva, taking out all images and religious symbols. The Bible was the most important source of influence for Calvin, but being a truly catholic Christian, he also studied care fully the writings of the ancient fathers of the church to test his own Biblical interpretation. He concluded that pure worship contained two parts: The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the upper room.

关于圣餐，加尔文的结论是，应该每周施行。他认为圣餐是对福音的总结，由此他认为每次讲道都应该以领受主的晚餐作为福音性结尾，这是适当的。真正的得救信心是通过传讲福音而有的，而且这福音是透过圣礼向我们证实的。

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Calvin concluded that it should be administered weekly. Believing that the Lord’s Supper is a summary of the Gospel, he believed there was an appropriateness that every sermon should end with the Gospel by the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. True saving faith comes by the preaching of the Gospel, and that Gospel is confirmed to us by the Sacraments.

论到话语的礼仪，戈弗雷博士说，在敬拜中上帝来与我们会面，而牧师的功能是向上帝的子民宣讲上帝的话语。这就是为什么牧师在讲道中没有权利说自己的观点。上帝的子民不应该从主日讲台接受牧师的个人意见，因为他在那里不是来说他个人的意见，而是把上帝施恩的管道带给上帝的子民。

Regarding the liturgy of the Word, God, said the URCNA minister, comes to meet with us in our worship, and the function of ministers is to speak God’s Word to the people of God. That is why a minister has no right ever in a sermon to speak his opinions. The people of God should not be subjected to a minister’s personal opinions on the Sabbath day from the pulpit, as he is there, not to speak his personal opinions but to administer the means of God’s grace to God’s people.

三、加尔文敬拜观的几个原则

 Several principles inform Calvin’s approach to worship.

首先是话语的中心性。宗教改革后的敬拜，尽管被指责为过于理性化，但实际上是符合上帝心意的。上帝给我们话语来学习。有人认为我们对于敬拜方式和教导不再需要小心，这种观点往往被概括为“在新约圣经中没有利未记。”戈弗雷说，新约里的确“有”利未记，就是使徒行传2:42。旧约敬拜和新约敬拜的区别不是在于：旧约是严格的，而新约是自由的；而是旧约是复杂的，新约是简单的。新约的“利未记”就是讲道、祷告、团契和圣礼。

1] First is the centrality of the Word. Reformed worship, though accused of being too intellectualistic, is in fact God’s idea. God gave us a Word to study. The suggestion that we are no longer meant to be careful in our direction and instruction for worship is often summarized that "There is no book of Leviticus in the New Testament." Godfrey said there is indeed a book of Leviticus in the New Testament, and its Acts 2:42. The difference between Old Covenant worship and New Covenant worship is not that one is rigidly instructed and the other is free. It is rather that the old is complex, and the new is simple. It is preaching and prayer and fellowship and sacraments.

然而，在我们的敬拜中我们不需要更多地投入情感了吗？当圣经教导我们敬拜的时候，它确实教导我们的头脑，但它也召唤我们的心参与其中。

Don’t we, though, need more emotion in our worship? When the Bible informs our worship, it does inform our minds, but it calls upon our hearts to be engaged as well.

第二个基本原则是简单性。这对加尔文意味着没有让人分心的事物，如精心的装饰和人类发明的仪式。加尔文反对艳丽的敬拜仪式。敬拜应该是单单专注于上帝的。

2] The second basic principle is that of simplicity. This meant for Calvin the absence of distractions such as elaborate decoration and rites of human invention. Calvin was opposed to showiness in worship. It should be rather a focusing on God in simplicity.

第三个原则是，当我们与上帝相遇时，我们在属灵方面得以提升。改革宗希望简单的敬拜场所的一部分原因是为了防止我们把它当作圣殿，因而不恰当地依赖于我们敬拜的场所。加尔文坚持改教传统，他知道我们真正敬拜的场所是在天上。我们看这天上的耶路撒冷，不是凭着我们的眼睛，乃是靠着信心，我们在敬拜中，就是向这锡安山举起我们的心与上帝相遇。我们不是在地上重建一座圣殿，因为我们作为新约儿女的特权就是在天上的圣殿和耶稣基督一起敬拜。

3] The third principle is that we ascend spiritually when we meet with our God. Part of the reason the Reformed wanted simple places of worship was to prevent our thinking of them as temples and thus becoming unduly attached to the place in which we worship. Calvin, in the Reformed tradition, knew that the real place in which we worship is Heaven. We see this Heavenly Jerusalem not with our eyes but by faith, and it is to this Zion that we lift up our hearts to meet with God in worship. We don’t recreate a temple here on earth, because our privilege as children of the New Covenant is to worship in the Heavenly temple with Christ.

第四，加尔文非常关注敬畏上帝。戈弗雷博士引用诗篇2篇，“当存畏惧事奉耶和华，又当存战兢而快乐。”然后他据此质疑强调快乐的当代敬拜，其中在快乐之外是否也应该有战兢。他说，快乐不能压过敬畏。当然，敬畏也不能压过快乐，但真正的快乐不只是滑稽或感觉不错。真正的快乐与敬畏之间并没有张力。加尔文写道：“纯粹和真正的虔诚就是：信心与对上帝真诚的畏惧如此不可分割，而这种畏惧也包括心甘情愿地敬畏，因而带出来按着律法规定的正当的敬拜”，“我们应该更加努力注意这个事实：所有的人对上帝都有一个模糊的尊敬，但很少人有真正的敬畏；只要有大排场仪式的地方，真诚的心就确实罕见。”

4] Fourthly, Calvin was very concerned about reverence. Dr. Godfrey quoted from Psalm 2, "Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling"; and then questioned whether or not contemporary worship, in which there is an emphasis on rejoicing, there is also trembling to accompany the rejoicing. Joy can’t trump reverence, he said. Neither, of course, can reverence trump joy, but real joy is not ‘just goofiness" or feeling good. There is no tension at all between real joy and reverence. Calvin wrote, "Here indeed is pure and real religion: faith so joined with an earnest fear of God that this fear also embraces willing reverence, and carries with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed in the law," and, "we ought to note this fact even more diligently: all men have a vague veneration for God, but very few really reverence him; and wherever there is great ostentation in ceremonies, sincerity of heart is rare indeed."

加尔文相信我们的情感应该参与敬拜，且我们被创造成有情感的存在。但他也认为，由于我们的堕落，我们必须非常小心我们的情感。

Calvin believed that our emotions ought to be engaged in worship and that we were created to be emotional beings. But he also believed that we must be very careful with our emotions due to our fallenness.

根据戈弗雷博士的说法，今天很多人似乎认为应该依赖我们的情绪，仿佛它在引导我们达到真诚和行动上是完全可靠的指南。十九世纪的复兴运动形式带着太多的自由放纵的情感主义。

According to the lecturer, many people today seem to think that our emotions are to be depended on as a totally reliable guide to genuineness and to action. Forms of 19th century Revivalism carried too much free reign emotionalism.

加尔文对敬拜中情感所扮演的角色的关注使他十分关注敬拜音乐。他明白音乐是我们在敬拜中表达我们感情的主要方式之一。因为知道它是强大的，其潜力不是有利就是有害，所以他非常仔细地考虑它。因此，他认为教会的音乐需要认真地监管。加尔文按照他所认为的早期教会的教导，在教堂只唱诗篇并淘汰乐器。他认为教会不应该保留乐器，正如不应该保留熏香和献祭一样。对于加尔文来说，诗歌最重要的是，我们应该有合适的话语来向上帝歌唱，配上可以适当地承载主题的旋律。我们唱的歌和我们如何唱之间一定有相应的关系。

Calvin’s recognition of the part emotions play in worship caused him to be very concerned about worship music. He understood that music is one of the chief ways by which we give expression to our emotions in worship. He thought about it very carefully due to knowing it was powerful and so had the potential to be either advantageous or pernicious. As a consequence, he believed music of the church needed careful regulation. Calvin, in following what he thought was the teaching of the ancient church, practised exclusive Psalmody and eliminated musical instruments in the church. He thought the church should no more retain musical instruments than that it should retain incense and sacrifice. For Calvin, the most important thing about music was that we should have the right words to sing to God supported by melodies that can appropriately carry the weight of the subject. There must be a correspondence between what we are singing and how we are singing it.

Calvin was deeply concerned about the heart in worship. While sincerity does not justify practice, correct practice doesn’t count much with God if it’s not coming from a sincere heart. We should, Dr. Godfrey said, meditate on Psalm 50 to be careful about more than just the externals of worship. We must be those who come to meet with God, to hear the Gospel, to praise and pray and be built up in the faith.

加尔文是一位出色的牧师，他的牧养和事奉融合了神学和实践，值得我们这些改革宗信徒仔细思考，以便帮助引导我们走上被更新的信心之路。

Calvin was a wonderful pastor, and it is his pastoral ministry in its integration of theology and practice that we need to ponder as Reformed people to help lead us in new paths of faithfulness.

Presbyterian and Reformed News, January-March 2003

多特信經簡介The Synod of Dort

作者: W. Robert Godfrey    譯者: Maria Marta    

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/06/the-synod-of-dort/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/NdgtAoiQ45D

加爾文主義有五要點嗎？ 這是愚蠢的問題嗎？ 不，問得好!  答案也許令人驚訝。答案既是肯定的，又是否定的。

是的，加爾文主義有五要點 ------毫無無疑。 我們有論述五要點的書。《桌上一席談》 (Table Talk) 雜志有論述五要點的文章。 我們甚至用郁金香(TULIP)  來記住這五要點：全面敗壞（total depravity）、無條件揀選（unconditional election）、限定的救贖（limited atonement）、不可抗拒的恩典（irresistible grace）、聖徒永蒙保守（perseverance of the saints）。

然而我們也可以說：「不，加爾文主義不是五要點」。這五點不是加爾文主義的總結。倘若你想要一份加爾文主義總結，你必須求助於它的偉大信仰告白等文獻，諸如比利時信條或西敏信仰告白。 這些信仰告白涵蓋多個主題，比五要點所涵蓋的要多得多。 加爾文主義遠不止五點。

那麽，「加爾文主義五要點」源自何處？ 現在提出這個問題尤其恰當，因為2018-19年是加爾文主義五要點四百周年紀念。 （如果你錯過了路德《九十五條論綱》五百周年的慶祝，這次紀念活動將為你提供繼續慶祝的內容。）這五要點實際上始於雅各布斯·阿民念 ( Jacobus Arminius)死後，加爾文主義者對荷蘭阿民念主義者的回應，這一回應在多特會議（1618-19）上達到高峰。

荷蘭的改革宗教會在巨大的鬥爭中誕生。加爾文主義首批傳道人講法語，來自加爾文時代的日內瓦和法國。最初，那裏早期的改革宗教會經歷了嚴重的迫害。這些迫害加上其他的壓制行動引發了一場反抗西班牙國王菲利普的起義，菲利普國王當時也統治荷蘭。在巨大的沖突中，荷蘭與荷蘭改革宗教會幾乎同時誕生。低地諸國最終分裂成南北兩個部分，南部大致相當於現今的比利（仍然信奉羅馬天主教），和北部的荷蘭（主要是改革派）。北部的省份變成著名的「聯省共和國」。

改革宗教會吸引了大批普通民眾追隨，但不是大多數人口。追隨者中占主導地位的人主要來自支持聯省共和國的部分省份，他們支持改革宗教會，並宣布羅馬天主教會為非法。 改革宗教會緊緊遵循加爾文和新出現的加爾文主義者正統（Calvinist orthodoxy）的教導。 在希望教會自治與獨立於過多國家幹預的議案中，這些教會也遵循加爾文的指引。 然而，政府內許多人想嚴厲限制教會獨立，因為加爾文主義者有時變得過於嚴厲和過於要求嚴格。

盡管教會總體上相當正統和守規矩，但仍有些持異議者。 有些人在公場合是守規矩的，但另一些人似乎悄悄或私下提出異議。 在這些不外露的異議人士當中，阿民念是最著名的一個。

阿民念是一位聰明的學生，在泰奧多爾·貝紮(Theodore Beza)   時代，在日內瓦學習過一段時間，加爾文的繼任者貝紮是日內瓦最著名的牧師。阿民念從日內瓦回來後，於1588年至1603年期間在阿姆斯特丹教會擔任改革宗牧師。1603年，他被任命為萊頓最著名的荷蘭大學的神學教授。 他在那裏執教六年，直到1609年去世。在作為牧師和教授的整個職業生涯中，他寫了幾本批判加爾文主義神學的著作，但他生前從未出版過這些著作。

盡管阿民念的著作從未出版，但他的教導的確影響了他的牧師同工和學生。在他1610年去世後，大約四十二位牧師簽署了一份請願書，要求政府對他們的觀點予以寬容和保護。 他們知道他們將因其觀點而受教會懲戒，因此他們呼籲國家保護他們免受教會懲戒。

這些阿民念主義者在他們的請願書或「抗辯文」（Remonstrance）中，以偏離加爾文主義神學的五個要點作總結，為此他們尋求寬容。 最初的五要點是阿民念主義者提出的五要點：有條件的揀選、無限定的救贖、嚴重的敗壞、可抗拒的恩典、對蒙保守不確定。

有關這份抗辯文的消息一傳出，加爾文主義者就作出敏銳與憤怒的回應。 他們開始堅持召開全國總會，目的是評估和判斷阿民念主義的五要點-----這是阿民念主義者或許多國家領導人最不希望看到的。 八年來，這些問題一直爭論不休，教會受到的壓力和困擾日益加深。

最後，在國家發生政變後，全國總會於1618年11月在多德雷赫特（Dordrecht）市召開。阿民念主義者抱怨，他們在這樣的總會上會受到不公平的審判，因此荷蘭政府邀請歐洲各地的改革宗教會選派代表前來出席。偉大的多特總會變成真正的國際性會議。代表們來自大不列顛、德國各地、講德語的瑞士、日內瓦。這次總會是歐洲許多擁有最睿智的改革宗頭腦的信徒的薈萃。這次總會大約有九十名教會代表出席，會議時間持續將近六個月。

總會工作的偉大成果被稱為多特信經。信經/正典（Canon）源自希臘字規則或準則（rule）。（譯註：早期基督教作家使用Canon一詞，作为使徒傳下來的核心教義的簡潔表述，有如後世的信經。）多特信經是多德雷赫特總會的準則，是改革宗對阿民念主義五要點的回應。

多特信經分為「五項教義」，對阿民念主義要點作出一一回應。 每項教義再分成數條，積極開展對該要點的改革宗立場的教導。  每項教義的結尾部分稱為「拒絕錯誤」，對阿民念主義的特定錯誤作出相應的回應。

按照阿民念主義五要點的順序，總會的第一項教義是論揀選。多特信經回應阿民念主義關於有條件揀選的教導。 有條件的揀選是指，假如某一類人符合上帝揀選的條件，上帝就會揀選這類人得生命。阿民念主義者強調信心是可預見的條件，目的是使人歸入選民之列。 在這種神學中，信心變成人必要的善行。

相反，多特信經教導揀選僅僅取決於上帝的喜悅。 信心是上帝賜給選民的禮物，而非揀選的基礎。 根據祂永恒的旨意，在救恩的每一個環節上，上帝都擁有至高的主權。

第二項教義是論基督在十架的拯救工作的範圍。阿民念主義者堅持認為基督為所有人的一切罪而死。 他們希望能夠對每一個人說：「基督為你們的一切罪而死」。我們必須要問的問題是，倘若基督為所有人的一切罪而死，所有人都得救嗎？ 不，阿民念說，因為你必須相信基督，才能分享祂死亡的益處。但正如約翰歐文在《基督之死吞滅死亡》的精彩論述：倘若不信是罪，那麽基督就為不信而死，倘若不信不是罪，那麽你就不能因不信而被定罪。 但阿民念主義的錯誤不僅僅在於教導一種毫無意義的神學。 其最大的錯誤在於它使基督成為可能性的救主，而不是一位完美的救主。

多特信經關於基督之死的立場通常被稱為有限的代贖的教導。多特信經主要不是論基督之死的有限性質，而是基督之死的果效。基督之死不是使救恩成為可能，而是使救恩成為現實。如比利時信條指出，基督不是半個救主。 雖然基督之死本質上有無限的價值，足以拯救全世界，但他的死的意圖是單單為選民的一切罪付上代價。 基督之死必定救贖選民。

總會將第三和第四個項教義合在一起，因為阿民念主義第三點似乎教導全面的敗壞，也就是說，人類在罪中完全失落與無助。 只有結合他們的第四點，才突顯他們對可抗拒恩典的教導實際上削弱了他們對全面敗壞的教導。

多特信經在回應中強調罪人完全失落與無助，因此選民死於罪惡的心靈要重生和重活過來，絕對需要不可抗拒的恩典。第三與第四項教義合起來，詳細檢查人類墮落的光景，以及恩典在上帝子民心中和生命中作工的方式。

第五項教義回應阿民念主義不確定那些因著恩典復蘇或重生的人，是否會蒙恩典保守，抑或從恩典和蒙得贖的生命中失落。多特信經堅定教導，上帝保守祂的選民處於恩典當中，所以他們必在恩典和信心中

蒙保守，直至最後。信經的所有這些教導旨在安慰和確保基督徒：「那在你們中間開始了美好工作的，到了基督耶穌的日子，必成全這工作。」（腓一6；《聖經新譯本》）。

對今天許多基督徒而言，多特信經的教導似乎是狹隘和無關緊要的。 在這個許多人完全拒絕基督，和基督徒在宣教和文化領域努力合作似乎是如此重要的世界，有些基督徒認為我們可以忽略或至少將這種神學關注邊緣化。 這種立場吸引了很多人。 但是，它是正確的嗎？多特信經宣揚以上帝為中心，以基督為中心的宗教，今天比十七世紀更需要這種宗教。上帝的主權和基督完美的救贖是我們唯一的盼望和信心。誠然，多特信經保存了宗教改革的精髓。 路德曾說，他寧願從上帝手中，而非自己的手中得到祂的救恩。 多特會議重申並澄清這一真理。確實，唯獨基督與唯獨恩典。 這些都是真正值得我們去慶祝的內容。

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

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌2018年六月號 。

The Synod of Dort

by W. Robert Godfrey

Does Calvinism have five points? Is that a silly question? No. It is a good question. And the answer may surprise. The answer is yes and no!

Yes, Calvinism has five points—obviously. We have books on the five points. Tabletalk has had articles on the five points. We even talk about TULIP as a way of remembering the five points: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

And yet we can say, “No, Calvinism does not have five points.” The five points are not a summary of Calvinism. If you want a summary of Calvinism, you must turn to one of its great confessional documents such as the Belgic Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Those confessions cover many more subjects than those covered in the five points. Calvinism has many more points than five.

So, where did the “five points of Calvinism” come from? It is particularly appropriate to ask that question now, because 2018–19 marks the four-hundredth anniversary of the five points of Calvinism. (If you are missing the celebrations of the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, this will give you something to go on celebrating.) The five points actually originate as a Calvinist response to the Arminians in the Netherlands after the death of Jacobus Arminius, a response that culminated in the Synod of Dort (1618–19).

The Reformed Church in the Netherlands had emerged in the midst of great struggles. The first preachers of Calvinism there were French speaking, coming from Geneva in Calvin’s time and from France. Initially, the early Reformed churches there experienced significant persecution. Because of this persecution as well as other tyrannical actions, a revolt began against King Philip of Spain, who also ruled over the Netherlands. Both the Dutch state and the Dutch Reformed church were born at about the same time in the midst of great conflict. The state of the Low Countries was ultimately split in two, roughly corresponding to modern Belgium in the south (remaining Roman Catholic) and the Netherlands in the north (predominately Reformed). That northern country became a republic known as the United Provinces.

The Reformed church attracted a strong popular following, but not a majority of the population. Its dominant position came in part from state support in the United Provinces, which favored the Reformed church and outlawed the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformed church very much followed the teachings of Calvin and the emerging Calvinist orthodoxy. It also followed Calvin in wanting a measure of self-government for the church, independent of too much state interference. Many within the state government, however, wanted to keep strong limits on church independence, because Calvinists sometimes became too strict and too demanding.

While the church as a whole was quite orthodox and disciplined, there were those who dissented. Some were publicly disciplined, but others seem to have dissented quietly or privately. The most famous of these quiet dissenters was Jacobus Arminius.

Arminius was a brilliant student, studying for a time in Geneva in the days of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor as the most prominent minister there. Arminius returned from Geneva to serve as a Reformed minister in the church of Amsterdam from 1588 to 1603. In 1603, he was appointed to be a professor of theology at the most distinguished Dutch university at Leiden. He served there just six years until his death in 1609. Throughout his career as a pastor and professor, he wrote several works critical of aspects of Calvinist theology, but he did not publish any of them in his lifetime.

Although he did not publish, Arminius did influence fellow ministers and students by his teaching. After his death, in 1610, some forty-two ministers signed a petition to the state asking for toleration and protection for their views. They knew that their views would be disciplined in the churches and so appealed for the state to protect them from ecclesiastical discipline.

These Arminians in their petition, or “Remonstrance,” summarized their theological deviations from Calvinism, for which they sought toleration, in five points. The original five points were the five points of Arminianism: conditional election, unlimited atonement, serious depravity, resistible grace, and uncertainty about perseverance.

When word leaked out about this Remonstrance, the Calvinists reacted sharply and angrily. They began to insist on the calling of a national synod to evaluate and judge the five points of the Arminians—the last thing the Arminians or many leaders of the state wanted. For eight years, these issues were debated, and the churches were increasingly stressed and troubled.

Finally, after a coup d’etat in the state, the national synod was called to meet in the city of Dordrecht in November 1618. The Arminians complained that they could not receive a fair trial at such a synod, so the Dutch invited representatives from Reformed churches throughout Europe to come as delegates. The great Synod of Dort became a truly international synod. Delegates came from Great Britain, various parts of Germany, German-speaking Switzerland, and Geneva. The synod was a very distinguished gathering of many of the best Reformed minds in Europe. The synod had about ninety ecclesiastical delegates and met for nearly six months.

The great result of the work of the synod is known as the Canons of Dort. Canon is from a Greek word for a rule. The Canons of Dort are the rules of the Synod of Dordrecht, giving the Reformed answer to the five points of Arminianism.

The Canons of Dort are divided into “Heads of Doctrine,” answering the Arminian points. Each of the heads is divided into several articles, positively developing the Reformed teaching on that point. And at the end of each head is a section called the “Rejection of Errors,” answering specific Arminian errors.

Following the order of the Arminian five points, the Synod’s first head of doctrine was on election. The canons answered the Arminian teaching of conditional election. Conditional election means that God elects a category of people to life if they meet His chosen qualification. The Arminians stressed that faith is the foreseen qualification in order to be numbered among the elect. In this theology, faith is turned into the one good work required of man.

In contrast, the canons teach that election depends only on the good pleasure of God. Faith is the gift of God given to those who are elect, not the foundation of election. God is sovereign in every part of salvation according to His eternal purpose.

The second head of doctrine was on the extent of Christ’s saving work on the cross. The Arminians insisted that Christ had died for all of the sins of all people. They wanted to be able to say to everyone, “Christ died for all your sins.” The question that must be asked is, If Christ died for all the sins of all persons, are all saved? No, the Arminians say, because you have to believe in Christ to share in the benefits of His death. But, as John Owen showed so brilliantly in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, if unbelief is a sin, then Christ died for it, and if unbelief is not a sin, then you cannot be condemned for it. But the Arminian error is more than teaching a theology that does not make sense. The greatest error is that it makes Christ a potential Savior rather than a complete one.

The position of the canons on the death of Christ has often been characterized as teaching a limited atonement. The canons were not primarily on the limited nature of Christ’s death but on the effectiveness of it. Christ did not die to make salvation possible but to make it actual. As the Belgic Confession put it, Christ is not half a Savior. While the value of the death of Christ is inherently infinite and so sufficient to save the whole world, His intention in dying was to pay for all the sins of the elect alone. The death of Christ will certainly save the elect.

The synod combined the third and fourth heads of doctrine because the Arminians’ third point seemed to teach total depravity, which is to say, the complete helplessness of mankind lost in sin. Only in combination with their fourth point does it become clear that their teaching of the resistibility of grace actually undermines their contention of total depravity.

The canons in response stress the complete lostness and helplessness of sinners and so the absolute necessity of irresistible grace to renew and enliven the hearts of the elect dead in sin. Taken together, the third and fourth heads of doctrine examine carefully the fallen human condition and the ways in which grace works in the hearts and lives of God’s people.

The fifth head of doctrine responds to Arminian uncertainty as to whether those enlivened or regenerated by grace will certainly persevere in grace or may fall away from grace and life. The canons strongly teach that God preserves His elect in grace so that they will persevere in grace and faith to the end. All of these teachings of the canons are intended to comfort and reassure Christians “that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

For many Christians today, the teachings of the Canons of Dort seem narrow and irrelevant. In a world where many reject Christ altogether and where Christian cooperation in missions and cultural endeavors seems so important, some Christians think that we can ignore or at least marginalize such theological concerns. Such a position appeals to many. But is it right? The Canons of Dort proclaim a God-centered, Christ-centered religion that is more needed today than in the seventeenth century. God’s sovereignty and Christ’s perfect atonement are our only hope and confidence. Truly, the Synod of Dort preserved the Reformation. Luther had said that he would rather have his salvation in God’s hands than in his own. Dort reiterated and clarified that truth. Christ alone and grace alone indeed. Here is something truly to celebrate.