任何宗派的神學都是有局限的，正如“我不屬於任何宗派、只屬基督”那種炫耀個人主義信 仰立場的局限一樣。神學最多給我們提供的僅僅是閱讀聖經的某一種方法；但這種方法也是有價值的。因此，我這篇導語及譯文，絕非要引起宗派爭執，更非要附和 反智主義對神學的偏見。我會繼續完成自己中譯路德神學的負擔，但我的工作絕非“護教（派）”性的。對我來說，路德神學不等於聖經；但我會努力向中國讀者介 紹真實的路德神學，並在自己的侍奉中高度尊重路德神學特別符合真理的所有見證。當然， 我也預備好了“故作含淚狀” 或者“以溫柔敬畏的心回答各人”。如果Pieper的觀點基本是公正的，那麼，有兩條神學線路已經顯出端倪。第一、加爾文主義中的極端部分，左右分別連接 着阿民念-自由派運動與極端靈恩運動，這三者之間的張力和連續性同在。對“聖靈”的推崇，使五旬節運動開始脫離唯獨聖經的改革傳統；對理性的推崇，造成了 人在教會和社會裡扮演神的現代解放運動。第二、抗議宗運動的分裂是絕對的悲劇，其政治後果是政治神學的崛起以及教會與世界的糾纏。理性主義在教會和教義中 的復興帶領教會從中世紀教皇制進入現代教皇制，她要對“神學在哈弗和牛津”以及福音在西方的衰落這兩種倒退承擔責任。西方的衰落在教會史的意義上是真實 的，但其根源在教會向國家和社會的投誠，在日內瓦模式從舊大陸向心大陸的濫用。在某種意義上，Pieper為我們勾勒出“羅馬-日內瓦-華盛頓”這樣一條 理性軸心。我們帶着敬意看見理性神學不折不撓地和左右兩翼的敵人進行搏鬥，只是他使用的武器是理性，與對方可謂短兵相接。只是這是一場內戰，等候耶和華軍 隊的元帥，等候祂的“話”或“道”。歷史回到耶利哥城下。“約書亞靠近耶利哥的時候，舉目觀看，不料，有一個人手裡有拔出來的刀，對面站立。約書亞到他那 里，問他說，你是幫助我們呢？是幫助我們敵人呢？他回答說，不是的，我來是要作耶和華軍隊的元帥。約書亞就俯伏在地下拜，說，我主有什麼話吩咐僕人”（書 5:13-14）。——任不寐2009年8月2日星期日

譯文開始——

改革宗在原則上也承認聖經神啟之神聖權威。無論在過去還是在今天，很多改革宗神學家以不同的方式聲援聖經的神啟性。但是，在實踐中，改革宗神學捨棄 了聖經原則（“唯獨聖經”）。這種論調目前很流行：改革宗和路德宗之間的分歧在於，改革宗教會獨樹一幟地將基督教教義建造在聖經源頭上；然而，路德會更深 地陷入過去、擁有更加保守的性質，不僅接受聖經，也賦予傳統以威權（Luthardt, Dogmatik, 11th ed., p.26f.）。但是，這不是事實。教義史表明：在那些與路德教會分道揚鑣的教條中，在那些以此在基督教會裡分門結黨的運動中，遠溯茨文利 （Zwingli）和加爾文，偏離了聖經原則並以理性主義取而代之。改革宗神學家坦承，理性必須在基督教教義中占有一席之地。

第一、理性考量形成了改革宗特有的關於恩乘（means of grace）的教義（Means of Grace，有中譯為“（施）恩具、恩典的工具、蒙恩之道、恩典的途徑、恩的媒介”等等，筆者以為，“恩乘”更符合中文傳統。means of grace主要指兩方面，即神的話語或聖經，或稱聖道；及神所設立的聖禮，包括聖洗禮和聖餐禮-譯者注）。

按聖經之教導，上帝在基督里赦免罪人，基督通過祂自己所設立的外在方式（extertal means，即“恩乘”-譯註）贏得、創造並保守這樣的信心；這些外在方式包括福音之道、洗禮和聖餐。茨文利和加爾文則爭辯說，如此一來，則與聖靈的工作 不和諧，因為聖靈根本不需要這些外在方式去顯示和實施神的恩典；不僅如此，事實上，聖靈根本不訴諸它們以成救恩。現代加爾文主義者堅守同一立場。在宗教改 革時代，這一“聖靈”——從恩乘方面服役於聖靈工作——造成了抗議宗陣營的分崩離析；它指控路德不明白福音，指控路德緊緊抓住恩乘表明他還活在肉體當中。

將恩典與恩乘剝離，實際上，這種神學不過是羅馬“注入的恩典”（infused grace; Gratia infusa）之教義的翻版；是對基督教會稱義教義的背叛。因為當人們脫離外在恩乘他們就不再依靠神所設立的救恩方式（favor Dei propter Christum）將信心建造在上帝裡面。例如，將信心建造在因基督罪得赦免之信息之上——這是神藉福音應許給我們的恩典——支取這樣的恩典又被視為根於 客觀的應許和供應；他們就不可避免地將對神的信心建造在內在的的改變、反省和更新上；其結果，必然浸淫於寓意性的“臨場發揮”（immediate operation）。最終，這將恩典縮小並歸結為人的優越品質。既然聖靈並非如此“臨場發揮”，所有追隨茨文利和加爾文的教導、並尋求“臨場發揮”和靈 命更新的人，不可避免地以他們自己屬人的成果取代聖靈的真實工作。所以路德反覆強調：“教皇黨人和奮興主義者原屬一家”（Papist and ‘enthusiast’are one）。這一看見在16世紀並非一種激進主義的爭辯，它實在言之有據。

儘管改革宗拒絕恩乘教義，其中很多信徒仍然信守。路德不斷指出這種矛盾狀況，特別是在施馬加登信條（Smalcald Articles）中。如果改革宗願意將他們預設的關於聖靈“臨場發揮”的神學付諸實踐，那麼，他們就不得不克制宣告紙上或說出來的福音話語，並保持沉 默，以免干擾聖靈的工作。但他們又拒絕這樣做，最多，他們教導救主並為世界的罪上十字架；他們給聖靈這樣的機會，聖靈負責創造和維繫對基督的信心，（他們 的“宣道”中）並不是沒有道或拒絕訴諸於道，但是，道只是中介。

第二、當改革宗否認基督的身體和血在聖餐中真實的臨在，他們實際上援用理性的理由對抗神的道。

他們承認，直接和間接地，聖經關於聖餐的教導，第一印象（prima facie）顯然是基督的身體和血真實臨在，並非不在場。但是，他們說，基督創立聖餐的話語必須按他們能同意的“認信”重新解釋。如果你問他們什麼是他們 的“認信”並要求他們給出聖經根據，改革宗的神學家們永遠不會援引聖經，只是引證理性公理。他們堅稱：既然每個人的身體都占據一定的空間並是可見的，基督 的身體也只能是可見的、有一定處所的存在；否則，就不可能是真正的人類的身體。加爾文說，基督人性的存在，不能超越基督身體自然的空間，超出大約6英寸； 因此（基督的身體）不可能足夠在全世界很多地方同時祝領聖餐。

不僅卡爾施塔特（Carlstadt）和茨文利，加爾文也如此明確地否認真實臨在說（Real Presence）,《基督教要義》有着如此清楚的教導，這些教導出於理性正典的勇氣：無論基督的身體在哪裡，它必須占據有限空間並是可見的 （Calvin, Inst. IV, ch. 17,19,29；加爾文在這裡用他的理性重新解釋了約20：19“那日，（就是七日的第一日）晚上，門徒所在的地方，因怕猶太人，門都關了。耶穌來站在 當中，對他們說，願你們平安。”與路24：31，“他們的眼睛明亮了，這才認出他來。忽然耶穌不見了”）。因此，改革宗對真實臨在說的否定絕非建立在聖經 基礎之上，而是基於人類理性；對他們來說，理性判斷凌駕於神的話語之上。加爾文接受路德關於“status controversiae”的定義，“他們的所有立論建基於此：基督的身體必須只能在某一地點，位於某處並可感觸之”。

第三、加爾文主義在形式和內容兩方面的錯誤教義特別在他們回復以下問題時得以確證：神的救恩是普世性的（gratia universalis，並非人人都能得救的普救論-譯註），還是特選的（gratia particularis，也譯“有限的贖罪”）？

加爾文主義者不容許聖經來回答這個問題，儘管聖經上很多信息教導救恩是普世性的（約1：29；3：16ff.；約一2：2；提前 2：4-6，etc.）；但是，他們要在歷史結局（result）或歷史經驗中尋找答案。何治（Hodge）說：我們必須假定結局才是上帝目的的解釋” （Syst. Theol. II,323. 加爾文也持同樣的觀點，參見Calvin, Inst., ch.24,17,15）。改革宗辯稱，既然事實上不是所有人都被拯救，我們必須得出這樣的結論，即基督的恩典和上帝的旨意並非普及所有人；或者說，上帝 願意一些事情發生（所有人得救）卻僅僅部分地成就，是為了證明上帝的智慧、權柄和超越。加爾文反駁救恩的普世性的邏輯，起點在他的上帝主權論（God’s omnipotence，參見Inst.III, ch.24, par.16）。值得注意的是，在加爾文引用詩篇115：3的時候，他改變了原文的措辭；通過加入ubi將原意完全顛覆了：原意是“我們在天上的神隨自己 的意旨行事”（包括行在地上），結果被篡改為“我們的神在天上隨自己的意旨行事。”理性結論廢止了聖經啟示。

為了趁機討好理性主義，加爾文在揚棄太23：37、路19：41ff.、賽65：2和羅10：21關於上帝真切地願所有人得救的啟示時，以一種非常 肆無忌憚的方式棄絕了聖經原則。這也許具有諷刺意味，他聲稱，當認真對待耶穌的哀嘆和眼淚，以及神“整天伸手招呼那悖逆的百姓”，免得把一切屬人的性格歸 於上帝（Inst. III, ch.24,17）。顯然，加爾文如此着迷他關於上帝全能的理性論斷，以至於淪為整本聖經關於普世恩典教義的苦毒之敵。

棄絕恩典普世性造成一個不可避免的結果，就是導致福音實際的癱瘓。正在煎熬中的罪人不會相信罪人的救主；如果他真的接受改革宗的觀點，即耶穌僅僅是 某些罪人的救主。在加爾文主義的改革宗教會裡，神的兒女們快樂地享受基督為他們賺取的恩典，恰恰因為他們從未相信救贖是有限的；或者，如果他們已經在理性 上接受了有限的救贖理論，他們就會援用恩典是普世性的，去安慰自己的良心恐懼。所以當改革宗的神學家違背他們自己的教義去指導失喪的罪人進入普世恩典之 時，他們自己就會因特選理論而譴責自己的宗派偏見（Vergleichende Darstellung d.luth.u.ref. Lehrbegriffs I, 260ff.）。改革宗教會的阿民念支派（The Arminian）更支持救恩的普世性，但是絕非建基在“唯獨恩典”的信條之上；阿民念主義是人神合作說（human co-operation）的借屍還魂。

附錄: The Differences Between the ELCA and the LCMS/A. L. Barry, President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

August 1997 will be long remembered as an important time in the history of the Lutheran church here in America. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(ELCA) made a number of very significant decisions during that month. It declared full communion with three Reformed churches: the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church-USA. It based this decision on its opinion that there is no longer essential disagreement between the ELCA and these Reformed churches.

Furthermore, the ELCA decided that the long-standing differences between Lutheranism and the Roman Catholic Church over the question of how we are saved have been resolved. These decisions have caused considerable confusion within the ELCA as well as within our own church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod（LCMS）. It has caused many people to wonder what the differences are between the ELCA and the LCMS, even though our two churches both use the name "Lutheran." The LCMS has a tremendous opportunity to make it very clear, both to our own members, as well as to the world at large, what it means to remain committed to the full truth of the Holy Scriptures and the historic confessions of the Lutheran church. This pamphlet is intended to offer a brief overview of the key differences between the ELCA and the LCMS. Hopefully, it will help you understand these differences so that you will be able to discuss them with others.

Our Difference Over the Bible

The LCMS and the ELCA disagree about the nature and authority of the Bible. While both of our churches profess allegiance to the Reformation principle that Scripture alone is the supreme authority for the church's doctrine and life, our two church bodies have significant differences when it comes to putting this principle into practice. The LCMS believes that the Bible is actually the Word of God, and therefore, is totally truthful, reliable and free from any error. We believe that the Scriptures are the final standard by which we must judge everything that we believe, teach and confess. The ELCA, on the other hand, avoids making statements that confess the full truthfulness of the Bible. It holds that Scripture is not necessarily always accurate or trustworthy in all its details and parts. The ELCA tolerates and encourages methods of interpreting the Scripture that presuppose that the Bible contains error and is unclear about various doctrinal matters. Our difference over the Bible explains other more visible differences. For example, our churches disagree about the ordination of women to the pastoral office, the issue of homosexuality and the question of abortion. The LCMS does not ordain women to the pastoral office, while the ELCA does, in spite of the fact that Holy Scripture clearly teaches otherwise. The LCMS unequivocally teaches that homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful because it is contrary to God's Word. In love, we want to help the person caught up in the homosexual life to repent of his sin and receive God's forgiveness. The ELCA has been unable to take a clear Biblical stand against homosexual behavior. It also tolerates groups within its midst that openly advocate the homosexual lifestyle both for clergy and laity. The LCMS has repeatedly condemned willful abortion as contrary to God's clear commandment not to murder. The ELCA has not been able to speak out clearly against abortion, and, sadly, even pays for willful abortion procedures for members in its health insurance plan. While there are other examples, these three serve to make the point that our differences over the authority and reliability of God's Word lie at the heart of the other differences between the ELCA and the LCMS.

Our differences over the authority of the Lutheran Confessions

Our two churches also disagree about the authority of the historic Lutheran confessional statements contained in The Book of Concord. The LCMS binds itself to the entire doctrinal content of the 16th century Lutheran confessional writings. We agree with the confessions of our church not merely insofar as they agree with the Bible (a position which would allow individual members to reject certain doctrines), but because these confessional statements are in complete harmony with God's inspired and inerrant Word. We therefore accept without reservation all the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, normative also for the church today. The ELCA, on the other hand, does not require that its church workers and congregations pledge unqualified acceptance of the full doctrinal content of the Book of Concord. The ELCA views the Lutheran Confessions as historical expressions of the faith held to be true at the time that they were written, but not necessarily as normative standards for teaching and practice today.

Our differences over what is necessary for church fellowship

Given its approach to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, it comes as no surprise that the ELCA would consider it possible to enter into fellowship with churches that teach things that are clearly contrary to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. These sorts of fellowship arrangements are a reflection of the attitude that absolute truth is unable to be known, confessed and asserted. This attitude is contrary to the confessional principle of the Lutheran church that is characterized in the Book of Concord with two very important phrases: "We believe, teach, and confess" and "We reject and condemn." These phrases reflect the Lutheran church's firm belief that God's Word is clear, that it does assert truth that is binding for all times and all peoples, and that we are able with joy to confess and proclaim this truth. The LCMS believes that the Bible requires full agreement in doctrine before it is possible to join in altar and pulpit fellowship with other churches (Rom. 16:17). On the other hand, the ELCA believes that disagreement in important doctrinal truths does not prohibit altar and pulpit fellowship with other churches. A good example of this attitude is found in the documents the ELCA used to establish church fellowship with the three Reformed churches. In these documents, it is admitted that "important theological differences... remain between our two churches in such questions as the understanding of the Lord's Supper and Christology." These differences are viewed "not as disagreements that need to be overcome, but as diverse witnesses to the one Gospel that we confess in common."

What this means is that the ELCA is willing to tolerate the Reformed church's denial that Jesus Christ is really present in the consecrated bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The Reformed believe Jesus is present only "spiritually" but not really present in a miraculous manner in the bread and wine. Lutheranism has never accepted the Reformed Church's denial of our Lord's real presence in Holy Communion. The ELCA now claims that the errors of the Reformed church regarding the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the person and work of Christ are acceptable options. This has never before been the position of the Lutheran church, and reveals a decided movement away from historic Lutheranism on the part of the ELCA. The ELCA's attitude toward doctrine obscures the vital relationship that exists between the saving Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and all other teachings of Scripture that are centered and rooted in that Gospel—teachings our Lord Himself has given to us to believe and to share with others (Matt. 28:20). The ELCA position regarding church fellowship compromises Scripture's clear mandate to confess and proclaim "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:28)—in all its Gospel-centered truth and purity.

An opportunity for faithful clarity

All Lutherans have a wonderful opportunity to wrestle with the question of what it means to be a confessional Lutheran church in this day and age. What does it mean to say that we embrace the Holy Scripture as the inerrant and inspired Word of God? What teachings will therefore be rejected? What truths will be raised high as positions that can never be compromised or bargained away for the sake of external church unity? What does it mean to say we agree unconditionally with the Lutheran Confessions as pure expositions of the Word of God? Given this unqualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, what issues are non-negotiable and can never be surrendered or given up by Lutherans who wish to remain genuinely confessional Lutherans? What makes for true church union? Is "agreeing-to-disagree" an appropriate attitude for Lutherans when it comes to establishing church fellowship? The differences between our two churches are a source of great sadness for the LCMS. We take no pleasure in talking about these differences. We wish that our two churches could share a common confession of what it means to be Lutheran. It is important that the members of LCMS congregations have a clear picture of why our two churches are not in fellowship. Knowing the basic differences between our two churches will help us talk with our ELCA friends and family members in a loving and kindly manner.

您可能也喜歡：

Pieper：路德神學和加爾文神學的分歧

PCL型制砂機

夏天怎樣才能釣多魚

成龍新片演小兵 王力宏獲林鳳嬌欽點當將軍

主板診斷卡代碼詳解

0