免費論壇 繁體 | 簡體
返回列表 發帖

Little exercise in historic Reformed soteriology

作者：曾劭愷 Alex ShaoKai Tseng


A little exercise in historic Reformed soteriology for students of Reformed theology. 在此進行改革宗救恩論的演練，供同學參考。

1. In historic Reformed terminology, "good works" is closely related to but not synonymous with "repentance unto life," "renewal through repentance," "mortification of the flesh/old man," or "sanctification." In my previous post on faith and salvation I stated that justification is by faith and that sanctification is by repentance unto life, as taught by the WLC. I never mentioned "good works" in the post, so whoever wants to refute what I have written by discussing the topic of good works is fighting a straw man. 在歷史性改革宗詞彙裡，「善工」跟「得生命的悔改」、「藉悔改更新」、「治死肉體/舊人」或「成聖」等表達，雖然有緊密關係，卻不是它們的同義詞。在我之前有關信心與救恩的文章裡頭，我提到我們是藉著信心稱義，以及靠著得生命的悔改成聖，這個跟西敏大要理問答的教導相符。我在文中並不是處理「善工」的議題，任何嘗試以關於「善工」的論述來反對我，都猶如在堆拼稻草人。

2. Some people like to quote from Scripture without offering any exegesis when they engage in theological debates. I assume that Reformed seminarians understand how bad this is. The fact is that it is equally bad to cite a passage from one of the Reformed standards without any exposition and be like, "There you go," "In your face," or "This proves you wrong." 有些人在神學辯論中熱衷於引用經文，卻毫不提供任何解經。我猜諸位改革宗神學生也意識到這有多糟糕。事實上，這好比各位引用一段改革宗信仰準則又不給予闡述，然後跟對方說「你自己看」、「給你自己打臉」、「是我對了吧」的做法不相上下，一樣糟糕。

3. When a certain historic Reformed confession denies that salvation is "by" good works and that the latter is necessary for the former, for example, it does not negate anything I have stated in the previous post. 舉例來說，當特定歷史性改革宗信仰告白否認救恩是「靠」善工，而後者（善工）是前者（救恩）的必要條件時候，這並沒有推翻我前文所陳述的言論。

A responsible theologian (that includes seminarians) would explain the precise meaning of this article of the confession. As I explained in the previous post, in this context "by" refers to what Calvin and later Reformed scholastics call "instrumental causality." Good works contribute nothing to salvation instrumentally, materially, formally, efficiently, meritoriously, antecedently, etc., but are rather the result and partial purpose of salvation. This means that good works do have a place in the complex causal framework of the ordo salutis: they are a FINAL CAUSE (purpose), though not the ultimate and highest one (which is the glory of God), of salvation. 一個負責任的神學人（包括神學生）理當可以解釋這段信仰告白的精準意義。猶如我前文提到，上下文的「靠」，是指向加爾文和後期經院改革宗所稱的「工具因」。善工於救恩一事上，並沒有帶來任何工具上、物質上、形式上、動力上、功勞上的、先行上等等的貢獻，善工反而是救恩的結果和一部分的目的。這是說善工在「救恩次序」的複雜因果架構上有其位置：儘管它不是救恩最終極與最高之目的（神的榮耀才是），但善工就是救恩之目的因。

4. Repentance unto life, on the other hand, is a "saving grace" wrought by the Holy Spirit. Like faith, it is a necessary and sufficient instrumental cause of one of the steps in the ordo salutis. As I explained in my exposition of the Westminster standards in the previous post, WLC makes it sufficiently clear that justification is "by" faith as sanctification is "by" repentance unto life in a parallel manner. That is, faith is a necessary and sufficient instrumental cause of justification, just as repentance unto life is a necessary and sufficient instrumental cause of sanctification. Both faith and repentance are called "saving graces" (plural!) in the WLC. 另一方面，「得生命的悔改」是聖靈所帶來的「救贖恩典」。跟信心一樣，它是「救恩次序」裡其中一個步驟的必然和充足的工具因。正如我在上文對西敏標準的解釋所說，西敏大要理問答很清楚表明稱義是「靠」信心，與之平行的成聖是「靠」得生命的悔改。因此，信心是稱義必然和充足的工具因，好比「得生命的悔改」是成聖必然和充足的工具因。西敏大要理問答中，信心與悔改同是「救贖恩典」（是複數的恩典！）

John Murray, among many others, has emphasized that faith and repentance are inseparable despite their abiding distinction. To assert that salvation can occur by faith alone without repentance is to contradict the normative standards of historic Reformed theology. Those who answer that saving faith already includes within itself the element of repentance is to violate the distinction between the two saving graces. Those who assert that faith without the saving grace of repentance is sufficient for the whole process of salvation are in effect saying that sanctification is also by faith, which is a fascinating idea nowhere taught in classical Reformed standards of faith. 如同很多別的人士一樣，約翰慕理強調信心和悔改儘管有不可磨滅的區別，卻同時不可分離。若斷言救恩可以單單通過信心，而不經悔改，是與歷史性改革宗神學的規範性標準相矛盾。假如某人認為得救的信心裡頭已經包含悔改的元素，其實也是違反了這兩個救贖恩典的區別。假如某人斷言整個救恩的有效性只需要信心，卻不需要悔改的救贖恩典，就等同他在說成聖也是靠信心。可是我們無法從任何經典改革宗信仰標準裡，找到這個有趣的講法。

Faith is the instrumental cause whereby the believer is united to Christ. In this sense faith secures the rest of the ordo salutis, for sanctification, adoption, and all other benefits of salvation are conferred to the believer IN Christ. This cannot be taken to mean that sanctification is by faith, or that salvation, comprehensively understood in terms of the ordo, can occur without repentance. In historic Reformed theology salvation is understood existentially and not ontologically. This means that every element in to ordo, including both faith and repentance, are necessary unto salvation. 信心是信徒們可與基督聯合的工具因。從這個意義來說，信心保證了救贖次序其餘的層面，包括成聖、立嗣、和其他救恩的福分都授予給基督「裡」的信徒。這不可以陳述為「成聖靠信心」，也不可說救恩的產生——透徹地以救贖次序來理解，可以剔除悔改。歷史性改革宗神學的救恩觀，是靠存在性的角度，而不是本體論的角度來理解的。這代表救贖次序的每個元素，包括信心與悔改，對救恩都是必需的。