問答與回應:路德會對改革宗限定救贖論的批判

因為冬天已往:2016年12月4日的主日證道是對女牧師一次比較徹底全面的否定了。但是絕大部分女牧師和她們的支持者只會更恨我們,更剛硬。但我相信,會有越來越多的真正的基督徒離開那些如此公開違背聖經教導的假教會。特別反諷的是《芝加哥聖經無誤宣言》的簽署者們。相當一部分人一邊宣告聖經每一個字句都是正確無誤的,都必須無條件信守;另一邊她們就是女牧師,或者女牧師的支持者。所以表面上宣告「唯獨聖經」是沒有意義的,加爾文主義在這方面最高調,但他們彎曲聖經已經成了痼疾,人見人厭。另外我整理了路德教會關於普世救恩論的教義和Pieper對加爾文主義的批判,煩請不寐之夜轉發:

We believe that the Scriptures teach that God』s grace in Christ Jesus is universal, embracing all people of all times and all places. There is no sin for which Christ has not died. Says the Formula of Concord (1577),」We must by all means cling rigidly and firmly to the fact that as the proclamation of repentance extends over all men (Luke 24:47), so also does the promise of the Gospel . . . . Christ has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29)」 (FC SD XI, 28). Therefore, there need be no question in any sinner』s mind whether Christ has died for each and every one of his or her personal sins.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord XI. Election

28] Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47. For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ』s command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.

路德教會神學家F.Pieper對加爾文教義的嚴厲批判(均摘自Pieper的Christian Dogmatics)

Universal Grace

Justifying grace is universal (gratia universalis). The unmerited favor and love of God in Christ Jesus extends not merely to some (the elect), but to all men without exception. Gratia Dei salvifica erga homines lapsos non particularism sed universalis est. This paramount truth Scripture teaches in all passages in which it declares a) that Christ is the Savior of the whole world, of all men, John 3, 16 ; 1, 29 ; 1 John 2, 2 ; 1 Tim. 2, 4 ; Titus 2, 11 ; b) that God earnestly desires that each individual person be saved, 2 Pet. 3,9; Ezek. 33, 11; 18,23.32; c) that salvation has been secured even for those who reject the grace of God and are thus lost on account of their unbelief, Matt. 23, 37 ; Acts 7, 51 ; 1 Cor. 8, 11 ;2 Pet. 2, 1.The universality of divine grace is denied by all who limit the purpose and efficacy of divine grace to the elect (particularism, gratia particularis) .

These errorists may be divided into three groups: a) Supralapsarians: God decreed to create some to damnation; b) Infralapsarians: God decreed to leave some in the state of damnation into which they had fallen through their own fault (praeteritio) ; c) Amyraldists: God indeed offers grace to all, but bestows faith only upon the elect.

Every form of particularism is anti-Scriptural, being based upon the fallacy that, since not all men are actually saved, God does not desire the salvation of all. Misled by their error, all particularists claim that the term world (John 3, 16; 1, 29) signifies 「the elect,」 and they substitute for God』s universal counsel of grace (1 Tim. 2,4) a voluntas signi, in opposition to which stands His voluntas beneplaciti. That is to say, God indeed wishes to save all men according to that will which He has revealed in Scripture (voluntas signi, the revealed will) ; but by His secret will (voluntas beneplaciti, the will of His purpose), which is not revealed in Scripture, He wishes to save only the elect.

According to Calvinistic doctrine, God, in the final analysis, is the cause why some are not saved, while Scripture expressly teaches that those who are not saved perish through their unbelief, or rejection of divine grace, Luke 7, 30 ; Acts 13, 46 ; 7, 51 ; Matt. 23, 37. Charles Hodge writes : 「It cannot be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not intend to effect. … If all men are not saved, God never purposed their salvation and never devised, and put into operation, means designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God.」 (Systematic Theol., II, 323.)

In order to support the doctrine of particularism, the Synod of Dort (1618 — 19) declared that God can never be resisted whenever He earnestly offers His grace to men (irresistible grace). But also this doctrine is anti-Scriptural ; for Scripture affirms that the operation of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel can be resisted, Acts 7, 51; Matt. 23, 37, though the operation is itself one of divine power, Eph. 1, 19. 20. As in the realm of grace God can be resisted when He works through means, so also in the realm of nature ; for life, which is originated and sustained alone by divine omnipotence, Acts 17, 28, can nevertheless be destroyed by feeble man. God indeed cannot be resisted when He deals with man in His sovereign majesty (Luther: in nuda maiestate, Matt. 25, 31 ff.); but when He approaches man through means, resistance on his part is always possible.

If the objection is raised that God becomes the cause of a sinner』s damnation at least in eases where He hardens his heart (cf. the divine judgment of obduration), we reply that according to Scripture God very earnestly offers His grace even to those who harden their hearts, Rom. 10, 21 ; Ex. 5, Iff. The divine judgment of obduration is never absolute or arbitrary; God hardens only those who first have hardened themselves by resisting His Word And will, Rom. 11, 7. 20.

……

Holy Scripture sets forth most emphatically the sola gratia and the universalis gratia; that is to say, sinners are saved solely by grace, and divine grace desires the salvation of all sinners. This being true, the question arises: 「Why, then, are not all men saved ?」 The proposed explanation that the difference lies in men (aliquid discrimen in homine), since some are better than others, is most strenuously denied by God』s Word, which declares that all men by nature are in the same guilt (in eadem culpa). Rom. 3, 22 — 24: 「For there is no difference ; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.」

With the same emphasis Holy Scripture denies also the Calvinistic explanation that God has eternally predetermined some to damnation. Hence it is clear that Holy Scripture does not answer the question Cur alii, alii nonf This does not mean that Holy Scripture does not give us any information with regard to the question of salvation and damnation. It tells us clearly that, if sinners are saved, they are saved solely by grace and that, if they are lost, they are lost through their own fault. Nevertheless, when we compare two individual sinners, as David and Saul, or Peter and Judas, and ask, 「Why was the one saved and the other not?」 (Cur alii prae aliisf), this question remains unanswered. Nor is it proper for the Christian theologian to endeavor to answer the question ; for in that case he must draw on human reason to decide what is properly a matter of divine revelation. Attempts to solve the particular point in question have resulted either in Calvinism, the denial of universal grace, or in synergism, the denial of grace alone. But the Christian theologian must affirm both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia. In the system of Christian doctrine therefore lacunae, or doctrinal 「missing links,」 must be admitted, as St. Paul himself declares when he writes : 「We know in part, and we prophesy in part,」 1 Cor. 13, 9. The Christian theologian must know and teach in part only, that is, only as the divine truths which he is to inculcate are clearly set forth in Holy Scripture.

……

The doctrine of election will be treated at greater length under its proper head. Here we refer to it only inasmuch as it belongs to the eternal decrees of God. But in passing, we may say that from the eternal decree of predestination there must be excluded every form of synergism (denial of the sola gratia) and every form of Calvinism (denial of the gratia universalis). For this reason we affirm a) God did not choose the elect in view of their faith (intuitu fidei), and b) God did not predestinate any one to damnation, but earnestly desires all men to be saved (vocatio seria). The apparent discrepancy between particular election (electio particularis) and universal grace (gratia universaiis) we acknowledge as a mystery, which is indeed beyond reason, but which we should neither criticize nor try to explain. All attempts to harmonize the two doctrines have resulted either in synergism (the elect were chosen in view of their better conduct, which is opposed to Eom. 3, 22. 23) or in Calvinism (God does not desire to save all, which is opposed to John 3, 16 ; 2 Cor. 5, 19. 20 ; 2 Pet. 3, 9 ; Acts 17, 30; 1 Tim. 4, 2). The Formula of Concord rightly says: 「However, since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom and has revealed nothing to us concerning it in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thoughts, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Eom. 11, 33 ff., we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us.」 (Thor.Decl., XI, 55.)

Dr. A. L. Graebner summarizes the decree of predestination as follows: 「The decree of predestination is an eternal act of God (Eph. 1, 4 ; 3, 11 ; 2 Tim. 1, 9 ; 2 Thess. 2, 13), who for His goodr nestf sake (2 Tim. 1, 9; Rom. 9, 11; 11, 5) and because of the merit of the foreordained Redeemer of all mankind (Eph. 1, 4; 3,11) purposed to lead into everlasting life (Acts 13,48; 2 Tim. 2,10; Eom. 8, 28. 29), by the way and means of salvation designated for all mankind (Eph. 1, 4. 5 ; 1 Pet. 1, 2), a certain number (Acts 13,48; Matt. 20, 16; 22,14) of certain persons (2 Tim. 2, 19 ; John 13, 18) and to procure, work, and promote what would pertain to their final salvation (Rom. 8, 30 ; Eph. 1, 11 ; 3, 10. 11 ; Mark 13, 20. 22).」 {Outlines of Doctrinal Theology, § 51.)

……

Also with respect to the heathen we must maintain the gratia universalis because Holy Scripture includes all men in the gracious counsel of salvation. To deny the clear Scripture-teaching of universal grace because many heathen have never received the Gospel of salvation is an offense against the very divine grace which has enriched the world with the saving truth, Mark 16, 15. 16 ; Matt. 28, 19. On the basis of Scripture we therefore believe that God』s gracious will extends to the heathen also, though actually thousands of them perish without the Gospel. Nor are we to assume that the heathen are saved without the divinely appointed means of grace, Eph. 2, 12, since Holy Scripture teaches that the means of grace (the Word and the Sacraments) are appointed for the salvation of all sinners, Mark 16, 15. 16 ; Matt. 28, 19. 20. The opinion that the heathen may be converted after death is anti-Scriptural, Heb. 9, 27. The passage 1 Pet. 3, 18 ff. does not treat of salvation possible after death, but of the condemnation of those who during their life on earth refused to accept the saving Word of God.

……

Against Calvinism. Calvinism teaches persistently that it is impossible for those who have once been endowed with faith to lose it again, even if they should commit enormous crimes (peccata enormia). Its claim is that, while the exercise of faith (exercitium fidei) may cease, faith itself never ceases. Calvin: Tenendum est, quantumvis exigua sit ac debilis in electis fides, quia tamen Spiritus Dei certa Mis arrha est ac sigillum suae adop- tionis, nunquam ex eorum cordibus deleri posse eius scvlpturam.

{Inst., II, 2, 12.)

The doctrine of the inamissibility of faith is taught by the Calvinists to remove the uncertainty which the individual Eeformed believer must feel with respect to his state of grace in view of the fact that he dare not believe in universal grace (gratia universalis).

Luther, on the other hand, who affirmed the gratia universalis, taught also the Scriptural doctrine of the amissibility of faith, 1 Cor. 10, 12; Luke 8, 13; Is. 1, 2. ‧ The Augsburg Confession (Art. XII) teaches: 「They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost.」 Those who were troubled about their state of grace, Luther comforted with the gracious promises of God in Christ Jesus, revealed and offered in the Gospel to all sinners, Titus 2, 11, and not with any 「past or present experience of Christ』s presence and indwelling in the heart/』 as the Calvinists do.

Luther』s method alone is Scriptural; for not only does the Gospel truly comfort all alarmed sinners, but it is also the divine means by which those who have fallen from grace may be restored to faith in Christ, Rom. 10, 17. It goes without saying that all who deny the gratia universalis are unable to console despairing sinners with the gracious Gospel promises. Since they teach particular grace (gratia particularis), it is impossible for them to assure the individual sinner that God』s grace is seriously meant for him. By a fortunate inconsistency the practise of Calvinistic preachers is often better than is their theory.

……

It is true, Calvinism speaks of the Word and the Sacraments also as 「signs,」 「symbols,」 etc., of divine grace (signa, symbola, tesserae, sigilla; Conf. Helv., II, c. 19; Conf. Belgica, Art. 33). But as long as it holds that divine grace is particular and that the same signs may be 「signs of salvation」 and 「signs of condemnation,」 the believer must forever remain in doubt regarding his state of grace, since he cannot determine whether the signum or sigillum in his case means salvation or damnation. Hence he is obliged to put his hope for salvation in the interior illuminatio, or in the inward illumination of his heart; and that, after all, is nothing else than the gratia infusa.

However, the case is still more serious. The Calvinistic denial of universal grace and of the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace destroys also the Scriptural doctrine of saving faith and saving grace. A faith that does not rely solely on the gracious promises of the Gospel is not true faith in the sense of Scripture, but only a mere fancy (Einbildung). According to the express teaching of the Bible saving faith is engendered through the preaching of the Gospel and consists essentially in reliance upon the Gospel promises, Eom. 10, 17; Mark 1, 15; 16, 15. 16. Every other kind of trust is confidence in a man-made foundation and therefore a fictitious faith.

But right here Calvinism and Bomanism meet to disavow the Scripture doctrine of saving faith. Bomanism, on account of its rejection of the sola gratia, is forced to trust in infused grace (gratia infusa, t. e., sanctification, good works) for salvation; Calvinism, on account of its rejection of the gratia universalis, is likewise compelled to trust in sanctification for assurance of salvation (interior illuminatio). Romanism makes the mistake of claiming that divine grace is infused into the sinner ex opere operate), or without faith on the part of man; Calvinism makes the equally great mistake of teaching that the Holy Spirit works regeneration or faith immediately, or without the means of grace. The departure from Scripture in either case is evident and, consistently maintained, makes saving faith impossible, since it assigns to it a false foundation, sc. gratia Dei in nobis, or the sanctified heart.

However, saving faith and saving grace are correlatives, and he who perverts the one is bound to pervert also the other. As Romanism and Calvinism pervert the doctrine of saving faith by resting faith upon a good quality in man, so they also pervert the doctrine of saving grace (gratia salvifica). Both regard saving grace not as God』s gracious disposition toward the sinner for Christ』s sake (Dei favor gratuitus), but rather as God』s gracious sanctifying operation in the heart, known in the one case as gratia infusa (Romanism) and in the other as interior illuminatio (Calvinism).

This is true despite the fact that many Reformed theologians expressly state that the object of the sinner』s trust is the Dei favor gratuitus. What they teach in theory they retract in practise, especially whenever they are obliged to comfort a sinner who is alarmed about his state of grace. Since they deny universal grace and the objective reconciliation of the whole world through the death of Christ, they must point the sinner who is looking for assurance of salvation to divine grace as this is active in his heart, or to 「the present experience of Christ』s presence and indwelling, corroborated by active service and purity of life」 (Strong). For additional assurance they point, moreover, to the supposed fact that the Holy Ghost, once granted to the believer, can never be lost. But both these doctrines are man-made, and so the assurance of salvation derived from them is likewise man-made and therefore nugatory and vain.

……

And Calvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the sola gratia, but in denying universal grace. But if the Christian believer, on the basis of Scripture, maintains both the gratia universalis and the sola gratia, then indeed the mystery remains : Why are some elected and others not ? ( Cur alii, alii nonf Cur alii prae aliisf) This mystery the true Christian believer does not try to solve since it belongs to God』s unsearchable judgments and His ways which are past finding out, Rom. 11, 33 — 36. But he keeps all his thoughts on the doctrines of eternal election, conversion, and salvation within the revealed teaching of Scripture : He who is saved is saved alone by grace ; he who is lost perishes through His own unbelief, Hos. 13, 9. Prom any attempt to solve the mystery which is involved in the doctrine of eternal election he will abstain all the more, since God』s Word tells him that he now knows in part, but that in heaven he shall know even as also he is known, 1 Cor. 13, 12.

平安。關於阿民念主義和加爾文主義,我上個主日證道中特別提到一個問題,放在這裡與大家分享。人神合作說實際上就是肉身成道的異教,會摧毀基督徒的教會生活。這是人類文明的一個普遍現象。豬說:我比你聖潔。於是中國不需要教會,美國不去教會,甚至控告教會。而限定救恩論必然引領教會中選民對棄民的階級鬥爭,這是教會內戰進而也是人類內戰的意識形態基礎。雙重預定與古代中國的君子小人說以及現代中國的階級鬥爭學說一脈相承。因此 ,阿民念主義個加爾文主義兩種人本主義教會都會變成吃人的邪教;因此,宗教改革同時是人類的改革。這不是我們的工作,這是聖靈的感動。願主耶穌基督的恩惠,神的慈愛,聖靈的感動,常與你們眾人同在。阿門。

1

親愛的牧師,聽你講的楊乃武案件,我才知道這個事。看得流流滿面。特別是看到器官移植方面的爭論,更是窒息而恐懼。您能再為他和寫幾句話嗎,謝謝。

平安。從1873到2016年,闊別143年再聽到「平反冤假錯案」這個「新聞」的時候,我有一點不忍心直視大清。實際上清人不知道怎樣用手去接這旅行了7890天然後突然扔過來的包裹,官府和新聞正在鬧市與屍體合影留念。蒙冤本是我的生活或我存在的意義;而除了上帝,我拒絕接受任何人類給我平反。復活之外絕無正義。多年前我為楊案寫過一些文字,今天的文字卻只有一個目的:「逃命吧。不可回頭看」(創世紀19:17)。為此我講四個理由,實際上也是揚案的四個未盡事宜。

1、巴力邪教

都這樣了,仍然不肯悔改。阻擋悔改的至少有兩大鬼魔的道理或龍的邏輯。第一、這是個別事件。這是災民社會才可能形成的政治正確,用於遮蓋內心的恐懼、對鄰舍的冷血和對兇手的諂媚。聖經的道理與鬼魔的道理針鋒相對:每一個人都以「個別」的方式存在;每一個生命在神面前看為寶貴,而且你自己就是個別的那人:「5流你們血,害你們命的,無論是獸,是人,我必討他的罪,就是向各人的弟兄也是如此。6凡流人血的,他的血也必被人所流。因為神造人是照自己的形像造的」(創世紀9:5-6);「12一個人若有一百隻羊,一隻走迷了路,你們的意思如何。他豈不撇下這九十九隻,往山裡去找那只迷路的羊嗎?13若是找著了,我實在告訴你們,他為這一隻羊歡喜,比為那沒有迷路的九十九隻歡喜還大呢。14你們在天上的父,也是這樣不願意這小子裡失喪一個」(馬太福音18:12-14)。第二、平反證明了進步和正義不會遲到。這是一種巴力崇拜,他人生命悲劇成為一種政治合法性的見證。正如迦南人將兒女經火獻給摩洛,好證明巴力是主(列王記下17:16-17)。事實上揚案只證明了一個事實:我們犯罪了。如果不認罪悔改,反過來以惡為美,就見證我們不過是咒詛之民:「禍哉,那些稱惡為善,稱善為惡,以暗為光,以光為暗,以苦為甜,以甜為苦的人」(以賽亞書5:20)。這就是問題的實質:「以人血建立錫安,以罪孽建造耶路撒冷」(彌迦書3:10);「以人血建城,以罪孽立邑的有禍了」(哈巴谷書2:12)。上述兩種邏輯顯示靈魂徹底敗壞了,他們的心裡沒有神的愛。同時也顯示,神仍然憐憫我們,因為按這樣的罪孽,人本是不配活著的。但是,有誰感謝上帝呢。

2、該隱族譜

都這樣了,沒有人承擔責任。或許追責真的啟動了,但沒有任何理由對真正的公義保持樂觀。這是一位訟師提交的一份追責名單,足以讓所有楊乃武們顫慄於權力恐怖主義的面前狼狽移民。惟願權力恐怖不僅僅導致向西方的移民,也催逼罪人向天國移民。這是遠東一份該隱家譜:時任直隸副總督、後在京畿任職的許某某,而拚死阻止此案平反的則是已落馬的前直隸刑部張越;直隸司獄長平義傑,副職王毓恭,揚案一審司獄康平平,相關衙役建琴,張貴軍,田麗,趙桂雲,王振平,姜楓,郭連申,尚中華、焦輝廣、張日強、杜同福、魯嘉亮、陳勇、張建良、劉生吉、劉實臣,崔建江、魯嘉亮、楊孟數、周建文、王建兵、呂修森、靳昌山等;證人余秀琴和王麗平……我個人對這份追責名單缺乏實證能力,複製在這裡僅供參考。該隱家譜的起點是這樣的:「9耶和華對該隱說,你兄弟亞伯在哪裡?他說,我不知道,我豈是看守我兄弟的嗎?10耶和華說,你作了什麼事呢?你兄弟的血,有聲音從地裡向我哀告。11地開了口,從你手裡接受你兄弟的血。現在你必從這地受咒詛。12你種地,地不再給你效力。你必流離飄蕩在地上」(創世紀4:9-12)。問責並沒有阻止該隱家族的敗壞,到了第七代,「司法文明」進入萬劫不復的絕境:「23拉麥對他兩個妻子說,亞大,洗拉,聽我的聲音。拉麥的妻子,細聽我的話語,壯年人傷我,我把他殺了。少年人損我,我把他害了。(或作我殺壯士卻傷自己,我害幼童卻損本身)24若殺該隱,遭報七倍。殺拉麥,必遭報七十七倍」(創世紀4:23-24)。這為大洪水的審判提供的基本的背景:「4那時候有偉人在地上,後來神的兒子們和人的女子們交合生子,那就是上古英武有名的人。5耶和華見人在地上罪惡很大,終日所思想的盡都是惡。6耶和華就後悔造人在地上,心中憂傷……11世界在神面前敗壞,地上滿了強暴。12神觀看世界,見是敗壞了。凡有血氣的人,在地上都敗壞了行為。13神就對挪亞說,凡有血氣的人,他的盡頭已經來到我面前。因為地上滿了他們的強暴,我要把他們和地一併毀滅」(創世紀6:4-13)。但是有一條方舟,停泊在今夜。冷月清輝,初雪荒寒。孩子,你在哪裡。

3、聖誕故事

民間問責開始覆蓋了大清政治官報盲點訪談及其主持人敬妃妃,以及翰林院叫獸紅道德。邸報和磚家在小雷子案件中扮演了同樣的角色,於是國恥卡通化,一覽無餘。肉體消滅之外,還有輿論侮辱,以及做假見證陷害人。殺人和說謊是魔鬼不可分割的兩大品質,耶穌就曾這樣揭示法利賽人和他們祖宗的諸般罪孽。這裡有兩個視頻,都出於邸報,時間跨度僅僅一年之半(略,可搜素查看)。在某種意義上,暴力和謊言正是聖誕的背景。首先是希律王的謊言:「7當下希律暗暗地召了博士來,細問那星是什麼時候出現的。8就差他們往伯利恆去,說,你們去仔細尋訪那小孩子。尋到了,就來報信,我也好去拜他」(馬太福音2:7-8)。希律是在光天化日之下向全世界(東方博士)以及全體臣民公然說謊,希律從未悔改。其次就是屠嬰暴力:「希律見自己被博士愚弄,就大大發怒,差人將伯利恆城裡,並四境所有的男孩,照著他向博士仔細查問的時候,凡兩歲以裡的,都殺盡了」(馬太福音2:16)。在某種意義上,楊案是聖誕故事的一部:耶穌基督降生在希律依靠暴力和謊言而作王的世界。聖誕帶入救贖的盼望,直到今天。誰來安慰母親呢?「在拉瑪聽見號啕大哭的聲音,是拉結哭她兒女,不肯受安慰,因為他們都不在了」(馬太福音2:18)。對揚母的任何人本主義的安慰都是謊言的第二次傷害。2016年的聖誕節就要到了,只有那個嬰孩,帶來了上帝對我們人類尚未絕望的信息。

4、他的腎呢

後來有人說楊乃武小白蔡還活著,至少他們的器官還活著;網絡爭吵楊葛之腎可能還活在某位嬪妃的身體裡。從嚴從快和冰天雪地為網民提供了更為慘烈的想像空間。古代中國有四大發明:殉葬、凌遲、小腳(妻妾成群)、腐敗封建制(郡縣制與大一統)。隨著科學的進步,我們又看見了第五大發明:奪腎……近年的進展可以參考以下文獻: ……特別值得強調的是附錄的文件……讀每一個字,好痛!身體和靈魂正在被切割。腎在哪裡,按依法治國的基本邏輯說,真相近在咫尺,唾手可得。只是我今天要向太平洋兩岸轉述另外一個真相;不是象徵,而是事實。耶穌說:這是我的身體,為你們捨的(馬太福音26:26;馬可福音14:22;路加福音22:19;哥林多前書11:24);於是,「惟有一個兵拿槍扎他的肋旁,隨即有血和水流出來」(約翰福音19:34)。已經成全的咒詛和救贖,在東方和世界仍然是未盡事宜。2017年即將開始,親愛的弟兄姐妹,我的骨肉之親,「你們要看見一個嬰孩,包著布,臥在馬槽裡,那就是記號了」(路加福音2:12)。阿門。

附錄1:1984年10月09日《關於利用死刑罪犯屍體或屍體器官的暫行規定》

各省、自治區、直轄市高級人民法院、人民檢察院、公安廳(局)、司法廳(局)、衛生廳(局)、民政廳(局):

隨著我國醫學事業的發展,一些醫療、醫學教育、醫學科研單位為進行科學研究或做器官移植手術,提出了利用死刑罪犯屍體或屍體器官的要求。為了支持醫學事業的發展,有利於移風易俗,在嚴格執行法律規定、注意政治影響的前提下,對利用死刑罪犯的屍體或屍體器官問題,特作規定如下:

一、對判處死刑立即執行的罪犯,必須按照刑法有關規定,「用槍決的方法執行」。執行完畢,經臨場監督的檢察員確認死亡後,屍體方可做其他處理。

二、死刑罪犯執行後的屍體或火化後的骨灰,可以允許其家屬認領。

三、以下幾種死刑罪犯屍體或屍體器官可供利用:

1.無人收殮或家屬拒絕收殮的;

2.死刑罪犯自願將屍體交醫療衛生單位利用的;

3.經家屬同意利用的。

四、利用死刑罪犯屍體或屍體器官,應按下列規定辦理:

1.利用單位必須具備醫學科學研究或移植手續的技術水平和設備條件,經所在省、市、自治區衛生廳(局)審查批准發給《特許證》,並到本市或地區衛生局備案。

2.屍體利用統一由市或地區衛生局負責安排,根據需要的輕重緩急和綜合利用原則,分別同執行死刑的人民法院和利用單位進行聯繫。

3.死刑執行命令下達後,遇有可以直接利用的屍體,人民法院應提前通知市或地區衛生局,由衛生局轉告利用單位,並發給利用單位利用屍體的證明,將副本抄送負責執行死刑的人民法院和負責臨場監督的人民檢察院。利用單位應主動同人民法院聯繫,不得延誤人民法院執行死刑的法定時限。

對需徵得家屬同意方可利用的屍體,由人民法院通知衛生部門同家屬協商,並就屍體利用範圍、利用後的處理方法和處理費用以及經濟補償等問題達成書面協議。市或地區衛生局根據協議發給利用單位利用屍體的證明,並抄送有關單位。

死刑罪犯自願將屍體交醫療單位利用的,應有由死刑罪犯簽名的正式書面證明或記載存人民法院備查。

4.利用死刑罪犯屍體或屍體器官要嚴格保密,注意影響,一般應在利用單位內部進行。確有必要時,經執行死刑的人民法院同意,可以允許衛生部門的手術車開到刑場摘取器官,但不得使用有衛生部門標誌的車輛,不准穿白大衣。摘取手術未完成時,不得解除刑場警戒。

5.屍體被利用後,由火化場協助利用單位及時火化;如需埋葬或做其他處理的,由利用單位負責;如有家屬要求領取骨灰的,由人民法院通知家屬前往火化場所領取。

五、在漢族地區原則上不利用少數民族死刑罪犯的屍體或屍體器官。

在少數民族聚居地區,執行本規定時,要尊重少數民族的喪葬習慣。

附錄2:相關視頻,僅供參考

(1)2015年4月30日焦點訪談

http://news.cntv.cn/2015/04/30/VIDE1430395342070128.shtml(可能已經無法觀看)

http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10326/1d1d7aa98fbc43db901dd896ef1e17cd

(2)2016年12月12日法治封面

http://tv.cctv.com/2016/12/02/VIDE1XUdieCr0owbFjnKjwgE161202.shtml

(3)2015年1月11日面對面

http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10359/a9023ab6c56643d28de2b16f69ecc48d

2

不知任牧聽說過齊宏偉這個人嗎?這個人寫了很多的書,你怎麼看這個人和他寫的書。弟兄敬上。

平安。齊宏偉弟兄也算故人,他也是新語文的編委之一。人還算正派,至少與新語文部分編委比起來更不像偽君子和吃人犯。以前我調侃過他:靠文學小品和講故事布道的人。近年聽說他也極端加爾文主義了。按我的經驗,極端加爾文主義者難免淪為邪教徒。願他一路好走。

3

迪基格斯:想聽聽博主關於『清教徒精神』這個話題的看法,身邊流行太廣泛了,可是又感覺哪裡有點問題。

平安。首先,清教徒精神不等於美國精神。其次,清教徒精神顯然是被誇大了,他們不是什麼屬靈偉人,這是一個學術神話。按聖經的常識,他們最多是蒙恩的罪人。神曾指著以色列選民說:你們得救不是因為你們的義,而是因為我特定愛你們;而是因為他們的惡。再次,中國教會和知識分子對清教徒精神的神化,主要來自改革宗的鸚鵡們。因為他們樂意將加爾文視為清教精神之父;而且他們基本的信仰就是加爾文的雙重預定論:「他們相信得救預選說,認為上帝早已預定哪些人可以得救,哪些人會被投入地獄的永火裡。後來,清教徒的傳教士開始傳講勸人悔改的信息。18世紀的牧師喬納森·愛德華茲曾發表一個演講,講題是:『落在憤怒之神手中的罪人』。他把地獄描述得實在太駭人了,令信眾惶恐不安、心神煩亂,以至他們需要其他牧師的撫慰」(維基)。另外,在神學上,清教徒大多數持社會福音的立場,並且對教會真理缺乏基本的尊重和理解。他們的的確確是分離主義者,實際上奉行「豬學」的邏輯:我比你聖潔。在我看來,他們從起初就沒有將美國教會建立了純正的真理根基上,「美國衰落」到今天,清教徒難辭其咎。

4

任牧您好!我是一個住在美東的姐妹。最近半年迷上CSMP 的課程。非常感動 經常聽的淚流滿面。想知道您可以介紹一些兒童或青少年的讀物給孩子們嗎?除了CS Lewis 彷彿不知道什麼別的了。非常感謝。Blessings,Helen

平安。謝謝您的關注。首先我還是建議您堅持給孩子講聖經。要相信孩子領受聖言的能力,因為神將聖經賜給人類,不僅是賜給大人,也是賜給我們的孩子。不要被世俗教育學欺騙,以至於孜孜以求「適合孩子的福音讀物」。這是教牧書信兩節特別重要的經文,供你參考,也請普天下的父母參考:提摩太后書1:5,「想到你心裡無偽之信。這信是先在你外祖母羅以,和你母親友尼基心裡的。我深信也在你的心裡」;提摩太后書3:15,「並且知道你是從小明白聖經。這聖經能使你因信基督耶穌有得救的智慧」。所以建議你和孩子制定一個親子讀經計劃,堅持下去,必然蒙福。當然,主日學課程還是需要的,只是我看不到特別好的教材。所以我們開始著手編寫這方面的教材,盼望不久以後能完成。求主幫助。

5

任牧師:您好!我是之前在博客上跟您留言的那位。請問您在國內授課的書面教材(利未記精讀,舊約導論,新約導論等)如何獲取,需要付費麼?如何付費?獲取的教材主要用於本教會的查經和學習。謝謝!

平安。這些講章的文字還沒有完全整理完成。我個人盼望在提摩太書信結束之後能有時間交稿。

6

仰望恩典:不寐牧師平安:有一個問題向您請教,您在解讀創世記3:1的時候說魔鬼的第一重試探就是「神豈是真說」,您說這是懷疑主義。我的問題是,如果這句經文說的是「神豈是真說不許你們吃分別善惡樹的果子嗎?」那麼這個懷疑主義的邏輯非常清晰。但是這句話是「神豈是真說不許你們吃園中所有樹上的果子嗎?」魔鬼首先精心編造了一個謬論,並宣稱是神說的,然後煞有介事的去質疑。魔鬼真的很狡猾,我有點猜不透牠葫蘆裡賣的什麼藥,似乎並非單單懷疑主義那麼簡單。不知您對這節經文有沒有更多的解讀?謝謝您,願神祝福您。+不寐牧師您好:我注意到,正如保羅追溯到創世記說:「13因為先造的是亞當,後造的是夏娃。14且不是亞當被引誘,乃是女人被引誘,陷在罪裡。」而且第15節「然而女人若常存信心愛心,又聖潔自守,就必在生產上得救。」與創3:16「……我必多多加增你懷胎的苦楚,你生產兒女必多受苦楚。……」也有呼應的關係。或許可以說神要將女人從起初的那個咒詛中拯救出來。夏娃生產的苦楚一方面可能在於生理上的疼痛;另一方面更在於,她所寄予厚望的長子該隱成為了殺人犯,殺死了自己的另一個兒子亞伯。女人的得救或許在於,因著她的歸正,該隱被更新為提摩太(提後1:5)。只是生產時生理上的疼痛依然被保留下來,正如男人汗流滿面才得餬口的重擔也被保留下來一樣。不知我這樣理解是否正確?

平安。這是路德的名言:所有異端邪教都源出「神豈是真說」。有的時候我們只是摘要「神豈是真說」這句話,也是提喻創世紀3:1-6整段魔鬼與夏娃的對話。你的敏感是對的,「豈是真說」後面的每一句話都非常險惡,那些蛇言都是「豈是真說」的一部分。實際上我曾在一篇講章中談到過魔鬼的三句話指向了人類三大文明主流:泛神論懷疑主義(神豈是真說);無神論相對主義(不一定死);人神論人本主義(你們便如神)。另外我非常感動你對「夏娃產難」的看見,只是我祈禱那用復活安慰馬利亞的神,也安慰普天下的母親:「西面給他們祝福,又對孩子的母親馬利亞說,這孩子被立,是要叫以色列中許多人跌倒,許多人興起。又要作譭謗的話柄。叫許多人心裡的意念顯露出來。你自己的心也要被刀刺透」(路加福音2:34);「這些人,同著幾個婦人,和耶穌的母親馬利亞,並耶穌的弟兄,都同心合意地恆切禱告」(使徒行傳1:14)。我正計劃下一屆CSMP課程開講創世紀,會進一步詳細解釋這段至關重要的信息。請為我和我們禱告,and also with you。

7

誤會弟兄2016-12-07 21:03:13說:最近一則新聞刷爆了華人的微信圈,這則新聞隱含了基督教的背景。雖然事件的餘波仍在擴散中,但事件的基本事實已經結束。當事人名叫羅爾,是一位在基督教深圳堂受洗的弟兄。他曾在回應某些人時說過,「宏揚基督教精神」發起募的目的之一。 (見下頁) 任牧師願意的話,懇請在主裡給予指導的意見。這起「羅爾事件」按照任牧的一貫的教導,應該定性為吃人事件。也就是說,這是一起正在發生的吃人事件;更具體地說,(至少在表面上)是一起外邦華人以一位基督教弟兄為大餐的饕餮狂歡。不知道事件的後續會不會波及基督教,或是以怎樣的方式波及基督教。 對這樣一位弟兄,應該持怎樣的態度?踏上一隻腳,與眾人同分一杯羹;或是劃清界線,分別為聖,以免玷污了基督的身體;還是向他展露「聖母馬利亞」的笑容,送去貼心的溫暖? 若是有外邦人談起羅爾事件,問及基督救人的福音,該如何回應?這個問題,對於藐視福音的人,自可隨機應變予以回擊;如果是慕道友呢? 如果(假設性的場景)羅爾是任牧教會的一位弟兄,您會怎樣處置呢?

平安。草草瀏覽了相關信息,我的感想如下,僅供參考。

第一、我很難將羅爾的行動定義為「情感經濟」或「宏揚基督教精神」,任何極端的結論都不誠實,更可能是魔鬼的謊言。對(罪)人的評論,對人間事件的評論,援用至真至善至美的標準,都可能是魔鬼的謊言;何況評論者自己以及評論動機從未至真至善至美。

第二、重病室(ICU)中羅一笑以及醫療費恐慌,應該問責「第二大經經濟體」。公民及其子女喪失醫療保障是大國的國恥。當然,普遍存在的醫療恐慌也是激發網民感同身受奉獻愛心的原因之一。

第三、輿論暴力是霾國的傳統,無論從公知還是從教會或者網民射來的冷箭與石頭,需要這種醫治:對人的軟弱多一點寬容。羅爾就是一個罪人,不比我們高尚,也未必比我們更卑鄙。不僅如此,極端「輿情」需要反省自己的罪惡,熱病和痢疾常常源出嫉妒、貪婪和淫者見淫,只是撒旦願意在別人的事故中向公眾的罪人扮演光明的天使和事後諸葛亮。

第四、「作為基督徒的羅爾」我一無所知,僅憑他的隻言片語和對事件的情緒性反應,可以說他的天路還沒有開始。羅爾仍在積貨城,就是比東和蘭塞以及深圳或北上廣深汗流滿面地搬磚偷瓦。

第五、人言從始至終是糞土,成也人言,敗也人言,這場舌頭的盛宴應該是羅爾的信仰啟蒙功課。神說,蛇說,人說;只有道成肉身的耶穌是道路、真理和生命。從其他路上進去的都是賊。

無論如何,這是一個以京劇為國粹的國家:罪人將罪人臉譜化是一種民族習性,論斷人在這裡卡通或幼稚老道為「鐵面無私」和「怒髮衝冠」。但上帝憐憫每一個生命,包括那個5歲的孩子,和輿論風暴中的每一個人。沒有人是上帝,但每個人應該仰望神的憐憫。願主基督的憐憫繼續帶領我們。阿門。

任不寐,2016年12月6-7日

發表評論

您的電子郵箱地址不會被公開。