藉中文知识认识的路德神学并不一定是路德神学；通过其他教派，特别是加尔文宗派转介过来的路德神学尤其失真。举例来说，污称路德也是“人文主义者”因此支持镇压农民起义、因此拒绝承认雅各书是正典等等自相反驳的指控，如果不是出于恶意构陷，就一定是因为无知。马克思主义或儒家变种的“穷人正义”，在圣经里毫无意义，最多不过人的自以为义。利未记19:15说：“你们施行审判，不可行不义，不可偏护穷人，也不可重看有势力的人，只要按着公义审判你的邻舍”；这是理解路德政治立场的出发点。不仅如此，当年有具体的时代背景，毋宁说路德是为了避免更大的杀戮。现代主义的政治正确或鞭尸派不能马后炮。至于路德拒绝承认雅各书为正典，首先与“人文主义者”无关，毋宁说是极端反人文主义的。但更为根本的是，路德从未说过雅各书不属于圣经。的确，在Luthers Works, vol. 35. p. 395-398中，路德对雅各书诚实地讲了“个人的感受”（to state my own opinion about it），正如任何一位诚实的基督徒对66卷书都可能有不同偏好一样。不仅如此，正相反，路德多次作为圣经正典引用雅各书（James 5:16、James 1:14、James 2:26、James 4:7、James 5:13，参见W 10 I, 1, in Plass，1097，1302；W10 III, 287 f in Plass 1231；W-T 1, No. 407，p 1349；W-T 1, No. 956 in Plass 1350。又参见Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction，Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994）。特别在W6,95f-E op var arg5,281-SL19,1432中，路德在注释雅各书2：17节的时候，强调雅各和保罗是一致的，两个人不过是从不同侧面来说明信心；路德在相关注释中进一步赞同雅各的观点，不结果子的树是无用的，没有好行为的信心是愚蠢的梦（W45,691-E49,330-SL8,552; W40I,266-E Gal.1,227-SL9,210）。有趣的是，加尔文主义者对路德的诬告往往发生在加尔文被人文主义攻击的时候。尽管加尔文在日内瓦的统治却有可商榷之处，并塑造了他的神学；但中国知识分子对加尔文的攻击更多出于无神论愚蠢和家国天下的狂妄。日内瓦的不道德暴君和长城脚下的道德暴君相比，都面临一样的审判：“从前西罗亚楼倒塌了，压死十八个人，你们以为那些人比一切住在耶路撒冷的人更有罪吗？我告诉你们，不是的。你们若不悔改，都要如此灭亡”（路13：4-5）。

目前“信义宗教会”的中译工作比较匮乏，且有所偏颇——中国信义宗（主要分布在港台与北美，中国大陆绝无仅有）基本上承接了The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America（ELCA）的道统，至少受其影响。但更为传统或保守的路德宗派是由德国移民在新大陆组建的The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod（LCMS）。LCMS的神学是我关切的重点。一般来说，了解路德神学的必读书应是：The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921)。其中包括The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church、Luther’s Small（Large） Catechism、Augsburg Confession等。路德神学特别注重原文释经，因此释经学是神学中心，可参考Concordia Publishing House近年出版的原文系列释经丛书The Concordia Commentary；这套书可以说是是目前释经丛书中真正的出类拔萃者。当然路德本人的著作也很重要，尽管路德在路德教会中从未达到加尔文在改革宗中的不容置疑、见异必伐的地位。路德文集德文版为D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. 70 vols. Weimar: Verlag Hermann Bhlaus Nachfolger, 1883ff.。英文版有大小两个版本：Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. 55 Volumes. Various translators. St. Louis, Minneapolis: Concordia Publishing House, Fortress Press, 1957-1986与The Works of Martin Luther. 6 vol.. Ed. and trans. by Adolph Spaeth, L. D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al.. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company. 1915 ff.。对初学者来说，Plass, Ewald M的“语录版”足够了：What Luther Says: An Anthology. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959/1994。当然，了解路德教会的崇拜神学，Lutheran Service Book（CPS，2006）必不可少。此外，就是关于路德神学的专著。首先出场的LCMS第一任校长Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther（1847-1850），他的代表作是The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel，以及Walther, C. F. W. Church and Ministry. J. T. Mueller, trans. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1987。其次是1899-1911出任校长的Franz August Otto Pieper，Pieper穷毕生精力撰写的Christian Dogmatics（Christliche Dogmatik. 3 vols.，St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917-1924；或者，Christian Dogmatics,4 vols.，St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950-1953）。我这里翻译的文章即取自该书第一卷第25-29页。Pieper在这篇文章里谈到的第一个问题涉及改革宗“一次得救终身得救”、“恩典不可抗拒”等主题；第二个问题围绕圣餐论；第三个问题实际上关涉到加尔文的预定论。目前中译本值得推荐的是台湾信义神学院1999年译出的《马丁-路德神学》，作者为Paul Althaus。关于The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America（ELCA）与The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod（LCMS）之间的神学分野，我介绍一篇文章放在附录，供有兴趣的读者参阅。

任何宗派的神学都是有局限的，正如“我不属于任何宗派、只属基督”那种炫耀个人主义信仰立场的局限一样。神学最多给我们提供的仅仅是阅读圣经的某一种方法；但这种方法也是有价值的。因此，我这篇导语及译文，绝非要引起宗派争执，更非要附和反智主义对神学的偏见。我会继续完成自己中译路德神学的负担，但我的工作绝非“护教（派）”性的。对我来说，路德神学不等于圣经；但我会努力向中国读者介绍真实的路德神学，并在自己的侍奉中高度尊重路德神学特别符合真理的所有见证。当然， 我也预备好了“故作含泪状” 或者“以温柔敬畏的心回答各人”。如果Pieper的观点基本是公正的，那么，有两条神学线路已经显出端倪。第一、加尔文主义中的极端部分，左右分别连接着阿民念-自由派运动与极端灵恩运动，这三者之间的张力和连续性同在。对“圣灵”的推崇，使五旬节运动开始脱离唯独圣经的改革传统；对理性的推崇，造成了人在教会和社会里扮演神的现代解放运动。第二、抗议宗运动的分裂是绝对的悲剧，其政治后果是政治神学的崛起以及教会与世界的纠缠。理性主义在教会和教义中的复兴带领教会从中世纪教皇制进入现代教皇制，她要对“神学在哈弗和牛津”以及福音在西方的衰落这两种倒退承担责任。西方的衰落在教会史的意义上是真实的，但其根源在教会向国家和社会的投诚，在日内瓦模式从旧大陆向心大陆的滥用。在某种意义上，Pieper为我们勾勒出“罗马-日内瓦-华盛顿”这样一条理性轴心。我们带着敬意看见理性神学不折不挠地和左右两翼的敌人进行搏斗，只是他使用的武器是理性，与对方可谓短兵相接。只是这是一场内战，等候耶和华军队的元帅，等候祂的“话”或“道”。历史回到耶利哥城下。“约书亚靠近耶利哥的时候，举目观看，不料，有一个人手里有拔出来的刀，对面站立。约书亚到他那里，问他说，你是帮助我们呢？是帮助我们敌人呢？他回答说，不是的，我来是要作耶和华军队的元帅。约书亚就俯伏在地下拜，说，我主有什么话吩咐仆人”（书5:13-14）。——任不寐2009年8月2日星期日

译文开始——

改革宗在原则上也承认圣经神启之神圣权威。无论在过去还是在今天，很多改革宗神学家以不同的方式声援圣经的神启性。但是，在实践中，改革宗神学舍弃了圣经原则（“唯独圣经”）。这种论调目前很流行：改革宗和路德宗之间的分歧在于，改革宗教会独树一帜地将基督教教义建造在圣经源头上；然而，路德会更深地陷入过去、拥有更加保守的性质，不仅接受圣经，也赋予传统以威权（Luthardt, Dogmatik, 11th ed., p.26f.）。但是，这不是事实。教义史表明：在那些与路德教会分道扬镳的教条中，在那些以此在基督教会里分门结党的运动中，远溯茨文利（Zwingli）和加尔文，偏离了圣经原则并以理性主义取而代之。改革宗神学家坦承，理性必须在基督教教义中占有一席之地。

第一、理性考量形成了改革宗特有的关于恩乘（means of grace）的教义（Means of Grace，有中译为“（施）恩具、恩典的工具、蒙恩之道、恩典的途径、恩的媒介”等等，笔者以为，“恩乘”更符合中文传统。means of grace主要指两方面，即神的话语或圣经，或称圣道；及神所设立的圣礼，包括圣洗礼和圣餐礼-译者注）。

按圣经之教导，上帝在基督里赦免罪人，基督通过祂自己所设立的外在方式（extertal means，即“恩乘”-译注）赢得、创造并保守这样的信心；这些外在方式包括福音之道、洗礼和圣餐。茨文利和加尔文则争辩说，如此一来，则与圣灵的工作不和谐，因为圣灵根本不需要这些外在方式去显示和实施神的恩典；不仅如此，事实上，圣灵根本不诉诸它们以成救恩。现代加尔文主义者坚守同一立场。在宗教改革时代，这一“圣灵”——从恩乘方面服役于圣灵工作——造成了抗议宗阵营的分崩离析；它指控路德不明白福音，指控路德紧紧抓住恩乘表明他还活在肉体当中。

将恩典与恩乘剥离，实际上，这种神学不过是罗马“注入的恩典”（infused grace; Gratia infusa）之教义的翻版；是对基督教会称义教义的背叛。因为当人们脱离外在恩乘他们就不再依靠神所设立的救恩方式（favor Dei propter Christum）将信心建造在上帝里面。例如，将信心建造在因基督罪得赦免之信息之上——这是神藉福音应许给我们的恩典——支取这样的恩典又被视为根于客观的应许和供应；他们就不可避免地将对神的信心建造在内在的的改变、反省和更新上；其结果，必然浸淫于寓意性的“临场发挥”（immediate operation）。最终，这将恩典缩小并归结为人的优越品质。既然圣灵并非如此“临场发挥”，所有追随茨文利和加尔文的教导、并寻求“临场发挥”和灵命更新的人，不可避免地以他们自己属人的成果取代圣灵的真实工作。所以路德反复强调：“教皇党人和奋兴主义者原属一家”（Papist and ‘enthusiast’are one）。这一看见在16世纪并非一种激进主义的争辩，它实在言之有据。

尽管改革宗拒绝恩乘教义，其中很多信徒仍然信守。路德不断指出这种矛盾状况，特别是在施马加登信条（Smalcald Articles）中。如果改革宗愿意将他们预设的关于圣灵“临场发挥”的神学付诸实践，那么，他们就不得不克制宣告纸上或说出来的福音话语，并保持沉默，以免干扰圣灵的工作。但他们又拒绝这样做，最多，他们教导救主并为世界的罪上十字架；他们给圣灵这样的机会，圣灵负责创造和维系对基督的信心，（他们的“宣道”中）并不是没有道或拒绝诉诸于道，但是，道只是中介。

第二、当改革宗否认基督的身体和血在圣餐中真实的临在，他们实际上援用理性的理由对抗神的道。

他们承认，直接和间接地，圣经关于圣餐的教导，第一印象（prima facie）显然是基督的身体和血真实临在，并非不在场。但是，他们说，基督创立圣餐的话语必须按他们能同意的“认信”重新解释。如果你问他们什么是他们的“认信”并要求他们给出圣经根据，改革宗的神学家们永远不会援引圣经，只是引证理性公理。他们坚称：既然每个人的身体都占据一定的空间并是可见的，基督的身体也只能是可见的、有一定处所的存在；否则，就不可能是真正的人类的身体。加尔文说，基督人性的存在，不能超越基督身体自然的空间，超出大约6英寸；因此（基督的身体）不可能足够在全世界很多地方同时祝领圣餐。

不仅卡尔施塔特（Carlstadt）和茨文利，加尔文也如此明确地否认真实临在说（Real Presence）,《基督教要义》有着如此清楚的教导，这些教导出于理性正典的勇气：无论基督的身体在哪里，它必须占据有限空间并是可见的（Calvin, Inst. IV, ch. 17,19,29；加尔文在这里用他的理性重新解释了约20：19“那日，（就是七日的第一日）晚上，门徒所在的地方，因怕犹太人，门都关了。耶稣来站在当中，对他们说，愿你们平安。”与路24：31，“他们的眼睛明亮了，这才认出他来。忽然耶稣不见了”）。因此，改革宗对真实临在说的否定绝非建立在圣经基础之上，而是基于人类理性；对他们来说，理性判断凌驾于神的话语之上。加尔文接受路德关于“status controversiae”的定义，“他们的所有立论建基于此：基督的身体必须只能在某一地点，位于某处并可感触之”。

第三、加尔文主义在形式和内容两方面的错误教义特别在他们回复以下问题时得以确证：神的救恩是普世性的（gratia universalis，并非人人都能得救的普救论-译注），还是特选的（gratia particularis，也译“有限的赎罪”）？

加尔文主义者不容许圣经来回答这个问题，尽管圣经上很多信息教导救恩是普世性的（约1：29；3：16ff.；约一2：2；提前2：4-6，etc.）；但是，他们要在历史结局（result）或历史经验中寻找答案。何治（Hodge）说：我们必须假定结局才是上帝目的的解释”（Syst. Theol. II,323. 加尔文也持同样的观点，参见Calvin, Inst., ch.24,17,15）。改革宗辩称，既然事实上不是所有人都被拯救，我们必须得出这样的结论，即基督的恩典和上帝的旨意并非普及所有人；或者说，上帝愿意一些事情发生（所有人得救）却仅仅部分地成就，是为了证明上帝的智慧、权柄和超越。加尔文反驳救恩的普世性的逻辑，起点在他的上帝主权论（God’s omnipotence，参见Inst.III, ch.24, par.16）。值得注意的是，在加尔文引用诗篇115：3的时候，他改变了原文的措辞；通过加入ubi将原意完全颠覆了：原意是“我们在天上的神随自己的意旨行事”（包括行在地上），结果被篡改为“我们的神在天上随自己的意旨行事。”理性结论废止了圣经启示。

为了趁机讨好理性主义，加尔文在扬弃太23：37、路19：41ff.、赛65：2和罗10：21关于上帝真切地愿所有人得救的启示时，以一种非常肆无忌惮的方式弃绝了圣经原则。这也许具有讽刺意味，他声称，当认真对待耶稣的哀叹和眼泪，以及神“整天伸手招呼那悖逆的百姓”，免得把一切属人的性格归于上帝（Inst. III, ch.24,17）。显然，加尔文如此着迷他关于上帝全能的理性论断，以至于沦为整本圣经关于普世恩典教义的苦毒之敌。

弃绝恩典普世性造成一个不可避免的结果，就是导致福音实际的瘫痪。正在煎熬中的罪人不会相信罪人的救主；如果他真的接受改革宗的观点，即耶稣仅仅是某些罪人的救主。在加尔文主义的改革宗教会里，神的儿女们快乐地享受基督为他们赚取的恩典，恰恰因为他们从未相信救赎是有限的；或者，如果他们已经在理性上接受了有限的救赎理论，他们就会援用恩典是普世性的，去安慰自己的良心恐惧。所以当改革宗的神学家违背他们自己的教义去指导失丧的罪人进入普世恩典之时，他们自己就会因特选理论而谴责自己的宗派偏见（Vergleichende Darstellung d.luth.u.ref. Lehrbegriffs I, 260ff.）。改革宗教会的阿民念支派（The Arminian）更支持救恩的普世性，但是绝非建基在“唯独恩典”的信条之上；阿民念主义是人神合作说（human co-operation）的借尸还魂。

附录: 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.