關於“福音派”、“基要派”、“教會合一”等答劉重明先生

                
                   

雷默：“基要派最大的罪是狹隘，福音派最大的罪是妥協。” （David Wells, No Place for Truth, p.129.）此君承認，福音派之問題的根源就在於他們“任憑自己所認信的核心教義隨意消散”。這一教義就是聖經無謬的教義。今天大部分福音 派人士接受所謂的“聖經高等批判”，使聖經經文出於一種不確定的狀態，從根本上動搖了聖經的無謬性和上帝對聖經的保守。 

劉重明弟兄：你說基要派的罪是狹隘，福音派的罪是妥協，請問你這樣說的根據是什麽？是不是打擊一大片呢？看來你是改革宗加爾文派的，加爾文不是基要派或福音派嗎？難道是新派嗎？世人一般認為基督教主要可分為這三派。你是否認為加爾文派是第四派呢？請指教。本人最反感宗派鬥爭，真正的基督徒應該在主裏合一，不要說我是屬保羅的，你是屬彼得的，甲是屬路德的，乙是屬加爾文的。 本人網站http://lcming.51.net寫了一篇《論基督徒的合一》的文章，請指教。 

雷默：劉重明先生，謝謝用你的真名參加討論，也謝謝你能夠針對問題討論。這兩點看起來簡單，但在目前華人教會圈子內，尤其是大陸教會中，有諸多軟弱，很多人很難做到。感謝上帝對你特別的保守和帶領。 

 我的“說法”有出處，是David Wells所著的 No Place for Truth一書中的說法，是在129頁。以下在我在網上搜索“David Wells，No Place for Truth”搜索出來的英文述評。其實，這本書我在中國時曾經讀過，到美國後也見到很多神學家和神學生對這本書很認同。其實，David Wells所說的更嚴厲，他甚至指責今日“福音派”已經完全背離了“福音主義”的立場，成為“教會經紀人”！他們所強調是人數和教會的增長，對於基本要道已經漠然置之，甚至任憑自由派人士偷梁換柱，或者自己幹脆舊瓶裝新酒，僅僅保留“福音派”的名稱，在本質上卻發生了徹底的改變。你若能讀英文，還可以查考鍾馬田的助手，現在英國愛丁堡真理之旗出版社負責人Iain Murray所著的Evangelicalism Divided――《福音派的分化》一書，其中描述美國福音派代表人葛陪理如何宣稱，哪怕是不信救主耶穌基督的人也可以升天堂；英國福音派代表斯格托如何否定聖經中所啟示的關於地獄的教義，等等。很多弟兄姊妹想讓我寫一寫關於福音派具體的界定、發展、分化的文章，隻是我現在忙於學習，實在無法集中注意力從事這一工程。希望有負擔的弟兄姊妹把這兩本書翻譯為中文，其實就解決了關於“福音派”之爭的大部分問題。 

“基要派”和“福音派”這一名詞一樣，本來就有混亂，現在更加混亂。改革宗神學家，威斯敏斯德神學院創辦人梅欽博士一度被人認為是“基要派”的代表任務。 但梅欽始終強調自己是不折不扣的改革宗人士。我們改革宗認識持守聖經中所啟示的基要教義，但我們不是那樣的“基要派”；正如我們也同樣持守福音主義的信仰，但我們也不是那樣的“福音派”一樣。 

我上你的網站察看，有廣告帖子反複出現，非常影響閱讀。我向你提一點建議：一般而言，認真嚴肅的神學論文和討論，包括其他學術探討，一般都不會讓這種商業性信息直接影響閱讀或交通，希望你能改進網站的管理或設置。 

你在教會合一上頗有自己的看法。你認為：
“當前中國基督徒的合一與和好的障礙，主要是三自教會和家庭教會之間的矛盾與不和。在三自教會內部和家庭教會內部 也有神學思想和觀點方麵的分歧。但是許多基層教會的同工和信徒，都認為基督徒應該合而為一，也能夠合而為一。大家在反對異端－東方閃電方麵，觀點是一致的，深受其害。在有些地方三自教會的和家庭教會的弟兄姊妹之間有交通有來往，相互勉勵；並不是水火不相容。”

其實，你自己也當知道，“三自教會”和“家庭教會”的界定非常混亂。主要不是基督教會本身的緣故，更多地是因為國家幹預的緣故。為什麽在各個自由國家不存在“三自教會”與“家庭教會”的矛盾？！這不是一個普通的宗教問題，涉及很大的政治問題，並不是個人一廂情願就能解決的。 

你說“東方閃電”是異端，我自己也承認他們所宣揚的確實是異端信仰。我在國內在對他們在文字作過一定考察，和他們的工人也數次發生直接的對峙和衝突。但是，你也不得不承認，很多自以為是“基督徒”的人，非常讚同“東方閃電”的立場，而且認為此異端最合乎聖經。因為，毫無疑問，我們可以說，“東方閃電”成為基督教裏麵的一個異端派別。另外，我在英國和美國，和華人教會有很多接觸，甚至參與講道侍奉，也通過互聯網以及其他渠道調查，發現在英美等國，“東方閃電”似乎並沒有多少活動。因此，有人說“東方閃電”是由中國大陸不信者運用政治權勢在教會內部設的陰謀和圈套，利用“東方閃電”等名義從內部擾亂、打擊教會，並為從外部幹預教會提供借口。這也是令人深思的！但無論如何，“東方閃電”也算是一個派別。我唐突地問你，能和這個派別合一嗎？還有安息日複臨會，也被國內正式承認為基督教的一個派別，能和他們合一嗎？還有天主教，你認為新教能和天主教合一嗎？還有東正教，也有很多教義有根本性的不同，你認為也當和東正教合一嗎？ 

宗派的存在是曆史性的現實，不是我們能夠回避的。宗派並不是我們創立的，而是曆史性的存在，當然也是上帝允許存在的。有真教會，就有假教會；即使都是真教會，真的程度也有不同。真的與假的就有不同，就是截然對立的“兩派”！這是任何人都可以理解的常識。許多教會已經淪落為“鬼魔的住處，和各樣汙穢之靈的巢穴，並各樣汙穢可憎之雀鳥的巢穴”，上帝給我們的警誡和吩咐就是“我的民哪，你們要從那城出來，免得與她一同有罪，受她所受的災殃”（啟18：2，4）。 因此，作為熱愛上帝和熱愛真理的人，不能抽象地談論教會的合一，尤其是在形式和組織上的合一。真正屬於主耶穌基督的人和教會，在基督裏已經是合一的，並且永遠是合一的，任何受造物都不能使我們與上帝的愛分開，這愛惟獨是在“我們的主基督耶穌裏”（羅8：39）。對於我們而言，最關鍵的還是認識上帝，認識他所差派來的獨一的救主耶穌基督。我們必須明白真道，並與那些偏離真道、藐視上帝的人和組織保持一定的距離。 

你所談及的是一個大問題，我在《中國旌旗》網刊上有兩篇文章，一是關於中國教會的訪談錄，一是直接談宗派的問題，希望你能查考，但願能對你有所幫助。我自己修煉過瑜伽功，在靈恩派和福音派教會都侍奉過，也認識很多在“三自教會”侍奉的弟兄姊妹。我也主張要按照上帝的真道寬容別人，但不要在自己認信的真道的立場上動搖。 上帝給我的帶領是保守的曆史性的改革宗信仰，我自己確信改革宗信仰最接近聖經。其實，每個人都有自己的確信，關鍵是你對什麽有確信，更關鍵的是對自己所確信的有明確的自覺的認識。許多人用神學反神學，用宗派反宗派，這就是我們中國人常說的“打著紅旗反紅旗”！主要是反對別人的紅旗，並不反對自己的紅旗。基督教的派別很多，遠遠不止三派。請你自己多作考察。 

沒有人喜歡宗派鬥爭，最好是一片形勢一篇大好，到處鶯歌燕舞。不僅在教會內部不要有衝突，就是在社會上，甚至政治領域中有宗派鬥爭，我也不喜歡。但是，世界不是按我們的喜歡為轉移的，我們不過是匆匆過客而已。當然，更重要的是，這個世界就是充滿鬥爭的世界，這也是上帝在曆史中的旨意，上帝明確說：“我又要叫你和女人的後裔彼此為仇；你的後裔和女人的後裔也彼此為仇”（創3：15）。上帝並沒有叫亞當和夏娃與毒蛇和平共處，也沒有叫女人的後裔和毒蛇的後裔搞合一。這場爭戰隻有到主耶穌基督再來審判世界的時候才會結束。即使到那時，悔改信主的人在天堂與上帝同在，冥頑不化的人在地獄裏永遠與上帝隔絕，絕不會有 上帝與魔鬼的合一，也絕不會有天堂之子與地獄之子的合一！

世界曆史就是不斷分化的過程，關鍵是你自己占在什麽陣營。若是我們與基督同死同活， 完完全全按上帝的聖言去行，就會遭遇逼迫，就會遭遇反對，就會遭遇紛爭。當初主耶穌在這個世界上的時候，法利賽人人、撒都該人、希律黨，甚至虔誠的猶太人中間，都起了紛爭，主耶穌也沒有叫他們完全合一！在當今中國，在當今教會裏，包括英美等國，很多個人，很多教會，放棄真理，一味尋求人的喜悅，一味應和世上的潮流，一味講究無原則的合一，這樣的合一絕不是上帝所喜悅的，上帝也必不與這樣的人合一！因此，關鍵還是借助基督與上帝合一，與真教會合一，與信靠基督、敬畏上帝的人合一！ 

屬於彼得也好，因為彼得是屬於基督的；屬於保羅也好，因為保羅也是屬於基督的。我們當效法彼得，也當效法保羅，他們都是上帝的忠仆，隻是效法他們不可過於聖經所記。那些說自己屬於基督的人，往往是最無知最驕傲的人。認為自己屬於基督，別的基督徒，哪怕他們有自己所歸屬的宗派，最終就不屬於基督嗎？中國教會中常常有人說別人是宗派的信徒，是宗教的信徒，惟獨自己和自己所在的教會才能得著了生命，是基督的信徒，這是很重的論斷，不過是出於驕傲和無知而已。改革宗明白自己的立場，也堅守自己的立場。同時，也承認其他很多教會或宗派是正統教會，比如路德宗、安立甘宗、循道宗、長老宗等等。改革宗甚至承認即使在不信主的人身上，也有真理的閃光，隻是這真理並不是救贖性的真理。因此，在這一點上來說，真正的改革宗往往是最寬容的。同時，改革宗也是最不“寬容”的，因為 上帝是忌邪的上帝，他也希望我們能夠分別為聖，為上帝有忌邪之心，包括在教會組織上與那些離經叛道的假教會分別開來。 

不能更多詳談。看你的網站，知道你確實下了很多學習的功夫，也整理了很多東西。惟求主幫助我們，使我們明白真理，熱愛真理，在耶穌基督這惟一的盤石上生根建造。惟願上帝保守你，也保守我們之間的交通！ 


附錄： 

No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? 
Author: David Wells

Description: Has something indeed happened to evangelical theology and to evangelical churches? According to David Wells, the evidence indicates that evangelical pastors have abandoned their traditional role as ministers of the Word to become therapists and “managers of the small enterprises we call churches.” Along with their parishioners, they have abandoned genuine Christianity and biblical truth in favor of the sort of inner-directed experiential religion that now pervades Western society.

Specifically, Wells explores the wholesale disappearance of theology in the church, the academy, and modern culture. Western culture as a whole, argues Wells, has been transformed by modernity, and the church has simply gone with the flow. The new environment in which we live, with its huge cities, triumphant capitalism, invasive technology, and pervasive amusements, has vanquished and homogenized the entire world. While the modern world has produced astonishing abundance, it has also taken a toll on the human spirit, emptying it of enduring meaning and morality.

Seeking respite from the acids of modernity, people today have increasingly turned to religions and therapies centered on the self. And, whether consciously or not, evangelicals have taken the same path, refashioning their faith into a religion of the self. They have been coopted by modernity, have sold their soul for a mess of pottage. According to Wells, they have lost the truth that God stands outside all human experience, that he still summons sinners to repentance and belief regardless of their self-image, and that he calls his church to stand fast in his truth against the blandishments of a godless world.

No Place for Truth is a contemporary jeremiad, a clarion call to all evangelicals to note well what a pass they have come to in capitulating to modernity, what a risk they are running by abandoning historic orthodoxy. It is provocative reading for scholars, ministers, seminary students, and all theologically concerned individuals.

Book Review: David Wells – No Place for Truth
(Reviewed by Monergism.com's Aaron Orendorff) 

“Perhaps no modern author has written more powerfully on this subject.”
Iain Murray

“No Place for Truth was the bomb that exploded on the evangelical playground.”
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

David F. Wells’ No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology is a compelling, poetic and brilliant analysis of today’s ever-widening evangelical landscape.  It would be difficult to find a book better suited or more convincingly argued than this, the first in Wells’ four volume series.  In it, Wells, Gordon-Conwell’s eminent sociological-theologian, tracks the rise and progress of modernity within Western culture detailing its destabilizing and secularizing effects upon the often hapless souls of men.  Wells’ thesis is simple: ours is a day that prizes pragmatisms and profitability.  Where character and virtue were once touted and cultivated, now we are left with personality and image.  Self-searching and self-fulfillment have triumphed, while self-sacrifice has been eschewed.  “Spiritual, but not religious” is the mantra, or perhaps better, the bumper-sticker of our age.  And sadly the church is hardly immune.  On the contrary, as Wells records, “It may be the case that Christian faith, which has made easy alliances with modern culture in the past few decades, is also living in a fool’s paradise, comforting itself about all the things that God is doing in society (which is the most commonly heard religious version of this idea of progress) while it is losing its character, if not is soul” (68).

 

Wells’ assessments of modernity and its younger, more boisterous sibling – post (or ultra) modernity – are pointed, clear and exhaustively researched.  Following in the steps of cultural critics like Robert Bellah, Peter Berger and Neil Postman, Wells skillfully navigates the lonesome streets of Western society’s sprawling, consumerist cities.  In particular, he charts well the impact of enlightenment thinking and post-Kantian ideology upon the religious centers of academia both with its whole-sale abandonment of confessional orthodoxy and its unyielding embrace of empirical and experiential epistemology.  What this shift in thinking produced within academia was a stalwart bias towards “the sort of classical liberalism that Schleiermacher argued for (which seeks the disclosure of God within human experience).”  Outside of the academy, however, and within evangelicalism at large, the “disappearance of a confessional element” was the result, not of autonomous intellectual rigor, but of autonomous and democratic sentimentality.  Having lost its doctrinal heart the word evangelical has itself become “descriptively anemic.”  “It is not hard to see,” Wells explains, “that the disappearance of a center of values in culture is now paralleled by a disappearance of a theological center in evangelicalism.”  This disappearance is evidenced in the pulpit and the pew alike, creating in the first a gospel of romanticized self-help and in the second vacuous and entertainment driven lives full of moral indecision.

 

Far from being a mere experiment in doomsday-ism, however, at point after point Wells returns to the redemptive message of apostolic Christianity to find his footing and point a way out.  As the following excerpt explains, it is again to the gospel we must turn – to the foolish and scandalous word of cross – to die to ourselves, our way of thinking, believing and living, that we might truly live a life worthy of the name (pg. 279):

 

It is the biblical world of meaning, its way of interpreting life, into which we are invited to enter, to make its world our own.  We stand at its door, like Bunyan’s Pilgrim before the Cross, the bundle of our self-understanding and of our self-interpreted world upon our back.  This bundle, as with that of our sin, must be abandoned.  If we are to enter this new world of meaning, we will have to do so hermeneutically naked, our modern horizons and taste, our modern fascination with ourselves wrenched from us and abandoned on entry.  For we come to take from this new world, not to give.  We come to take meaning; we come to give up the narrative of our own life with its parables of self-constructed meaning in order to find the truth that God has given in his own narrative.

 

And here, strangely enough, lies the watershed both of the ancient and the modern worlds. Where is the locus of God’s truth to be found?  To the pagan who heard the voice of the gods within, who listened to the whisperings of intuition, and to the modern who similarly listens within for the voice of self, the answer is the same.  For the Israelite it was different.  The Bible is not a remarkable illustration of what we have already heard within ourselves; it is a remarkable discovery of what we have not and cannot hear within ourselves.  Thus, our inward sense of God and our intuitions about meaning are irrelevant in any effort to differentiate biblical truth from pagan belief.  It is how we apply ourselves to learn what God has disclosed of himself in a realm outside ourselves that is important.  And unless we steadfastly maintain this distinction in the face of the modern pressures to destroy it, we will soon find that we are using the Bible merely to corroborate the validity of what we have already found within our own religious consciousness – which is another way of saying that we are putting ourselves in place of the Bible.  It is another way of reasserting the old paganism.  When that happens, theology is irredeemably reduced to autobiography, and preaching degenerates into mere storytelling

http://www.monergismbooks.com/reviews/noplacefortruth.html

 

 

另附一書評 （誠之轉載）： 

[elisha]

謝謝您！願上帝賜福給您！
翔Tony