思齐姐妹，楼下有人用『反三位一体』的大棒，要把人愿意『奉主耶稣基督的名受洗』的一点『软弱的信心』都要消灭干净，我感到很可惜。我在这里将自己三年前从一位正统神学家那里收的一份信件翻译一下。你会看到我的标题是什么意思。我的翻译中，我会将trinity这个词译为『三合一』，而不是『三一真神』，因为trinity这个词里既没有『真』，也没有『神』（感谢神），所以我就要照样译出来。至於triurianGod之类的词我就译为『三而一神』。原件的英文附在后面，你可以对照。原件所引的正统派的资料，我能不译就不译，你自己去查。我会在译文中插一些我自己的回应。

> I have examined all the passages with reference to "baptism" -- esp.
> the verb "baptize" -- in the NT. The result is as follows:

我查考了新约中所有有关『洗（浸）』（特别是作为动词的）经文。结论如下：

> I. The references to baptism in the 4 Gospels are not relevant to the
> matter at issue. The passages that concern us are in Acts and Paul's
> Letters.

一、引证四福音书中提到的受浸经文来讨论这个问题不切合。我们要考虑的是使徒行传和保罗书信。

> II. According to Luke's historical narrative in Acts, when the
> apostles baptized converts, they always baptised them "in the name of
> Jesus Christ / the Lord Jesus". In this respect, Luke used 3 kinds of
> expressions:

二、根据路加在使徒行传中的历史叙述，当使徒们给新信徒施浸时，他们总是『奉耶稣基督／主耶稣的名』。对此，路加用了三种表达：

> 1. baptize in (epi) the name of the Jesus Christ:
> Acts 2.38 (Peter's statement at the Pentecost preaching)
> 2. baptize in (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus:
> 8.16: the Samaritans were baptized by Philip;
> 19.5: Paul baptized the "disciples" of John (cf. 19.3);
> 3. baptize in (en) the name of the Jesus Christ:
> 10.48: Peter baptized Cornelius and his relatives
（南乡哥：不译）

> III. In Paul's letters, we find that Paul used only one Greek form:
> baptize into (eis)

三、在保罗的书信中，我们发现保罗只用了一个希腊词的形式：受浸归入。

> 1. we have been baptized into (eis) Christ Jesus / into His death (Rom
> 6.3)
> 2. you have been baptized into (eis) Christ (Gal 3.27)
> 3. were you baptized in (eis) the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1.13) 4. no one
> can say that you were baptized in (eis) my name (1 Cor 1.15).
（南乡哥：不译）

> From all these we can see clear evidence of the apostles' teaching
> and practice in the early church: the baptism of the converts was always
> carried out "in the name of Jesus."

从这些地方我们可以看到清楚的使徒的教训与初期教会的作法：对新信徒的施浸总是『奉耶稣的名』进行的。

> IV. The problem now is how to explain Matt 28.19, Jesus commanded the
> disciples to baptize people "in the name of the Father and of the Son
> and of the Holy Spirit"? This is a problem that has been debated by
> scholars, but we need not enter into the debate. It suffices here to
> mention some main points.

四、问题是如何解释马太福音２８章１９节【南乡哥：不妨强解】，耶稣命令门徒『奉父子圣灵的名』给人施浸？这是一个一直被学者辩论的问题，但我们在这里不需要卷入这个辩论【南乡哥：我们不靠辩论神学来吃饭】。提出下面几个主要点就足够了：

> A. Some scholars question the authenticity of this passage (Matthew
> 28.18-20) and hold that the baptism in the name of the Trinity was the
> rite established by the church and read back onto the lips of Jesus.
> But this view is rightly rejected by evangelical scholars [see the
> discussions of Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand
> Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 747-48; and D. A. Carson, Matthew, in F. E.
> Gaebelein (ed.), Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids:
> Zondervan, 1984), 597-99].

Ａ、有些学者对太２８：１８到２０节的真实性提出怀疑，认为奉『三合一』【南乡哥：将『三合一』来代表『父子圣灵』，还说不是亵渎？还说是为了『简化』？至少在中文里，『三合一』这个词较『父子圣灵』只省了一个字。所有中国教会也许有福了，不需要省这个字】的名施浸是教会后来建立的作法，而反过来把它塞进耶稣的嘴里。但这种观点被福音派学者正确地驳回了（见讨论、、、）。

> B. Evangelical exegetes have observed:
> 1. in Matt 28.18-20, Matthew was summarizing the gist of Jesus'
> teaching; in other words, "there is no evidence we have Jesus'
> ipsissima verba here" [Carson, Matthew, 598; so also R. T. France,
> Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 415, and Morris, Matthew,
> 747].

Ｂ、福音派的解经提出：
１、在马太福音２８章１８到２０节，马太是在总结耶稣教导的主旨【南乡哥：所以不是原话？】；换句话说，『没有证据显示我们这里读到的是耶稣的原话』（参考资料、、、）【南乡哥：果然！可是，这岂不怪哉，马太福音里面有哪一话是耶稣的『原话』？】

> 2. accordingly, "the church did not regard the command of Jesus here
> as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a
> breach of canon law. E. Riggenback (Der Trinitarische Taubefehl Matt.
> 28:19 [Gersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901) points out that as late as the
> Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the
> Trinity coexist side by side: the church was not bound by precise
> "formulas" and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them,
> precisely because Jesus' instruction, which may not have been in these
> precise words, was not regarded as a binding formula." (Carson,
> Matthew, 598; similarly Morris, Matthew, 747-48).

２、这样，『教会并没有将耶稣的命令看成是施浸的公式，完全照字面的形式到这样地步以致于忽略它会破坏正统教理。』（参考、、、）【南乡哥：请自查字典自译上句】瑞根拜克指出，晚至『十二使徒遗训』流行的世代【南乡哥：这是背道的假道开始爬进教会的年代】，『奉耶稣名』与『奉三合一名』施浸的情形是并存的：教会不觉得非按某形式施浸，也不以有多种受浸形式而耻，这正是因为耶稣的指令的原文不是这样，所以他的这指令不被认为是非照此不可的』。【南乡哥：邪恶在这里露出破绽－－－如果耶稣的『原话』果然如此，那这些学者将会证明初期教会（使徒们）是违背了耶稣的命令！在这样的逻辑下，『奉三合一的名』是『出于信心』、『遵主命令』，而奉主耶稣基督的名是『信心软弱』！】

>3. The preposition (baptizing) "into (eis)" in Matt 20.19
> suggests a "coming-into-relationship-with or a
> coming-under-the-Lordship-of" (Carson, Matthew, 597).

３、马太提到的『受洗归入』的意思，是『进入与、、的一个关系』，或说『归入、、的主权之下』。

> I must say that I also think that Matt 28.18-20 records the words of
> Jesus, although, in stating my own view on this issue (point 3), I
> tentatively followed scholars to use the word "summarized." Why did I
> use this word? I asked myself. Perhaps I was unconsciously
> influenced by the Synoptic problem -- when I compared the accounts of
> Luke 24.44-49 and Matt 28.18-20, I was not sure which reflects the
> precise words of Jesus in giving the commission to disciples. Well,
> this is another thorny issue which will demand hard thinking!

我必须说我也以为马太记录的是耶稣的原话，只是在我前面表述的时候，我按着其他学者的『总结式』的思路。我为什么用『总结式』这个词？我问我自己。也许我无意中被所谓『符类福音问题』所影响－－－当我比较路加２４：４４－４９与马太２８：１８－２０时，我不是确信到底耶稣给出大使命的原话是什么。这个，又是另外一个棘手的问题，需要艰苦的思考。【南乡哥：可怜！】

> 4. The Trinitarian idea in this passage goes back to Jesus Himself,
> and the followers of Jesus also thought of God as trinune -- e.g., Rom
> 8.11; 2 Cor 13.14; Gal. 4.6; Eph 4.4-6; 2 Thess 2.13, etc.
> (Carson, Matthew, 598; Morris, Matthew, 748).

４、这节经文中德三而一的概念源起于耶稣自己，而耶稣的跟随者们也认为神是三而一的。【南乡哥：但愿这句对许多人是个安慰与安全。】

> V. My view on this matter:
> 1. It is not surprising that Jesus should spoke of the Father, the
> Son, and the Holy Spirit in Matt 28.18-20, for during His ministry He
> had already spoken of the close relationship between the Father, the
> Son, and the Holy Spirit; and now as He gave final instructions to
> the disciples before His ascension, it is natural for Jesus to command
> them to preach the gospel and to lead people into close relationship
> with the Triune God.

五、我对这个问题的看法：
１、耶稣在此提到父子圣灵并不奇怪，因为在他的事工时期，他已经谈到父子圣灵之间密切的关系；从而，当他即将升天的时候，他命令他们传福音，将人带入与三而一神密切的关系之中。

> 2. From my own examination of Luke's historical narrative in Acts and
> the relevant passages in Paul's Letters (I & II above), I agree with
> Carson that "the early church did not regard the command of Jesus here
> as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a
> breach of canon law." The reason is quite simple: if the Lord Jesus
> had commanded the apostles to baptize people in the name of the
> Trinity, they would certainly have observed it closely, just as they
> had observed the Lord's Supper in the way He had commanded.

２、从我对路加在使徒行传的历史叙述与保罗书信中的相关经节的考查，我同意卡尔生说的：『初期教会并没有将耶稣的命令看成是施浸的公式，完全照字面的形式到这样地步以致于忽略它会破坏正统教理。』原因很简单：如果耶稣真的命令他们用『三合一』这名给人施浸，则使徒必会照章办事，正如他们按主的原话来守主餐一样。【南乡哥：可怜！以消灭圣经的绝无谬误来强解。』

> 3. However, the practice of the church after the apostolic period to
> baptize pepole in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
> Holy Spirit has not violated the ????ural idea, for it is also based
> on the teaching of Jesus as summarized by Matthew in Matt 28.18-20 and
> is consistent with the apostles' concepts of the Trinity as expressed
> in Paul's Letters.

３、然而，使徒时代之后，教会用父子圣灵的名施浸的作法，并未违背了圣经的观点，因为这是基於耶稣在马太福音２８章的教训【南乡哥：注意神学家在这里的逻辑应用，显出他是一个思维严谨的人】，并且与保罗书信中表达的三合一的概念是一致的。

【南乡哥：注意这段，我需要特别解说一下。先是，他说因为使徒从耶稣听的原话并不是『奉父子圣灵的名施洗』，所以使徒实际上按『耶稣基督的名』施洗；接着，他说教会为了表达正确的神学，开始按『不是原话』的『三合一』的名来施洗。－－这样，耶稣的『大使命』原文是什么，天知道了！并且，教会后来对使徒，作出了一个改进式的纠正！谁要是不信在正统的神学家中间不存在『强解圣经』的事的话，这里为提供一个实例。我们网上的受过正统神学训练的人们，不必羞答答的，出来澄清一下吧：是不是你们的『老师们』就是这样教你们的？】

> 4. Since the Lord Jesus is the a member of the Trinity, there is no
> difference in baptizing people in the name of Jesus and baptizing
> people in the name of the Trinity.

４、由於主耶稣是三合一的一个成员【南乡哥：我想哭！】，所以人奉耶稣的名或是奉三合一的名受洗，都没有区别。

【南乡哥：我对这位神学家，保持着我作为基督徒对我弟兄的正确的态度－－尊重，接纳。但是、、、。就说到这里吧！我对这个专题的讨论到此结束，不再争论。愿神祝福！】