1/2 gospel = good advice

Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). The kingdom of God is the central message of his teaching. Repentance of sin and putting one’s trust in Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah are the two criteria to enter into the kingdom of God. Repentance and trust are two sides of the same coin. We cannot just talk about repentance (turning away from sin) apart from trust (turning to Jesus), or vice versa. Often time, we want people to believe Jesus so bad that we un/intentionally share the good news without telling gospel receivers to repent from sins before trusting Jesus. We want people to be saved so bad that we do not offer them a saving message. Can people get to know Jesus truly without showing any remorse for their iniquities? Can people have a new direction if they do not make a U-turn from their (wrong) directions? How often gospel communicators merely tell gospel receivers to believe and stop there. How often we only share half of the truth, but it is not the gospel truth.

The good news is called the good news because it is also a bad news. It is a bad news in the sense that it demands repentance—a radical change of mind that leads to proper behavior. The good news is made of the messages of salvation and judgment. We are saved when we repent and believe; we are judged when we do not repent and believe (Jn. 3:16-18). Is it considered a success to have ten or twenty people to believe without emphasizing the fact that Jesus died for their sins? Is it a failure to have one person or no one to repent and believe? Are we looking for a churchly statistic? Or a heavenly statistic? Are we satisfied with certain numbers instead of caring for the eternity of others? We often talk about evangelizing people in the mission field, but we often neglect the church as a mission field in which it is filled with many believing “Christians.” Didn’t Paul refer to the church at Corinth as God’s field (1 Cor. 3:9)? In order for this field to produce a harvest, Paul planted the seed. Apollos watered it. God made it grow (1 Cor. 3:6). Planting and watering are human acts; growing is a divine act. In 1 Cor. 3, Paul does not speak like an evangelist. Rather, he talks like a pastor. As John Stott said, “We think of Paul as an evangelist, a missionary, a church-planter. But here he thinks of himself as a pastor, resolved above all else to lead his converts into Christian maturity.” [Basic Christian Leadership: Biblical Models of Church, Gospel and Ministry (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 82.] The art of pastoring a local church is a great missional act.

Do not tell me that people tend to walk away from the gospel because we mention repentance of sins. Do not tell me that people do not want to be told that they need to change. Do not tell me that as long as they believe Jesus, they are saved. A saving faith requires total allegiance with Jesus in and through whom our sins are confronted and convicted, and a new orientation of life is presented to us. Do not tell me to water down the good news as a therapeutic message in which we only preach “peace, peace, peace.” There is no peace without forgiveness of sins.

We often share the ½ news because our gospel message is human-centered, not cross-centered. We give what people want and, unfortunately, we think Jesus wants it too. If people do not want to hear the good news, we give them good advice. But no one is truly saved by hearing and accepting good advice. Good advice makes us feel good; the good news makes us look bad.

In The Crucified God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), Jürgen Moltmann writes:

Thus dehumanized man, who must exalt himself, because he cannot ensure himself as he is, in practice uses these religious insights only in the interest of his own self-deification. As a result, they do not help him to achieve humanity, but only give greater force to his inhumanity. The knowledge of the cross is the knowledge of God in the suffering cased to him by dehumanized man, that is, in the contrary of everything which dehumanized man seeks and tries to attain as the deity in him. Consequently, this knowledge does not confirm him as what he is, but destroys him. It destroys the god, miserable in his pride, which we would like to be, and restores to us our abandoned and despised humanity (p. 71).

Good advice keeps maximizing the dehumanized women and men who know no God but their own pride. However, the good news destroys the gods of people so that they can be restored. We preach the good news that is also a bad news. Evangelization of the church ought to be constantly confronted and refuted by the cross, for “the cross is the test of everything which deserves to be called Christian” (The Crucified God, p. 7).

詩篇與禱告

我習慣每天早上讀五篇詩篇作為靈修的開始。今早讀到詩篇139，有點領悟。詩人對上帝有一份很深刻的認識；他亦知道上帝很認識他。「你也深知我一切所行」（139：3下）。這是一種關係性的認識。這種認識表達上帝與人立約的恩情，不是「起你底，叫你知衰」。律法叫人知罪；恩情叫人悔罪。在這份上帝立約的恩典下，人重新厘定自己的位置和使命。這是每位信徒本位的事奉。

 

每次讀這篇詩篇，我必定會問一個問題：「點解有19-22節？」人越大，對人性越多了解。人不會是全善，亦不會是全惡。基督教的屬靈觀亦如是。我們喜歡將生命和事情二分化：不是全有，便是全無。我愛神，就不犯罪。我犯罪，就不愛神。在詩篇139中，我看到一個真正認識上帝的人，同時是一個認識自己情緒和認清何人和事支配他情緒的人。我相信這是盧雲（Henri Nouwen）提及的 inner movement。

若詩篇139停在第18節，是否更美？我們講見證希不經常停在這裏嗎？我未曾聽到一個見證說：「我跟上帝關係很深，每天跟祂有計傾。但我依然覺得某人極討厭。感謝上帝，祂有說不盡的恩賜。」我們常常有意無意美化基督徒的經驗，不提和不處理某人的存在。詩人禱告說：「神啊，你必要殺戮惡人；所以，你們好流人血的，離開我去吧！」（19節）這些所謂惡人頂撞神，詩人與他們為敵，甚至恨惡他們（20-22節）。詩人表達的屬靈觀不是逆來順受，一未歌頌神。他是有所為，有所不為的。他沒有美化眼前的惡人，反而，這些惡人成為他禱告的內容。

「你的作為奇妙，這是我心深知道的」和「我切切地恨惡他們」同時出現在禱告中，或許我們的信仰不容許，但詩篇的神學正正反映我們信仰的狹窄和壞鬼。

 

但詩人不是站在一個超然的位置作出這禱告，他站在歷史中，自覺有很多的限制，矛盾和敗壞。他禱告說：「神啊，求你鑒察我，知道我的心思，試煉我，知道我的意念，看在我裏面有甚麼惡行沒有，引導我走永生的道路」（23-24節）。一個真正認識神的人，同時是一個認識自己的人，當他説「神啊，我切切地恨惡他們」的時候，他亦自我批判和反省：「神啊，求你鑒察我。。。」

Fero

In discussion with the meaning of relationship, Clark Moustakas, one of the leading experts on humanistic and clinical psychology, has a good insight on the term relate:

The term relate is paradoxical. It comes from the Latin word refero. Suffer is derived from a similar Latin root, suffero. Thus, they share a common base, fero, “to bear,” to carry,” “to put up with.” In every genuine relationship, to achieve ultimate meaning, we must submit to it, undergo it, endure it, suffer with it. We must return again and again to its nature and its unfolding patterns, carry something of it with us. We must grapple with the intimacies of relationship, must surrender to its up and downs, and live with its burdens and stresses. [Being-In, Being-For, Being-With (Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc., 1995), p. 70.]

To relate is to suffer; to suffer is to bear, to carry, or to put up with. If we do not want to put up with the problems of others, we are not relating. We relate with no commitment or a sense of detachment or live in isolation because we are afraid of suffering. As a consequence, we stop following. Jesus suffers because he carries the burden of humanity. In other words, we are called to put up with it. “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master” (Matt. 10:24 ESV). In relating, we are following. To avoid suffering, we are not following.

I have pastoral ministry in my mind as I am writing this. To serve in the church is to put up with the church. To relate to the church can be a burden and cause stress. As I was reading Ephesians the other day, I meditated upon the role of the church in God’s overall plan: “So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places….to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:10, 21 ESV, emphasis mine). The visible Christ made the invisible God visible. The mystery of God is now made known through the body of Christ. The church does have a strategic, mediatorial role in God’s plan. How do I relate to the church? How do I follow Christ as a churchman?

Moltmann, Wilderness, Wildness, Newness

In Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making (Marshall, 1987), Richard Bauckham wrote in the “Preface”:

I first read Theology of Hope in April 1973, and I remember that first reading as one of the most exciting theological experiences of my life. I do not know many times I have reread it since, in the course of teaching Moltmann’s theology and in preparing this book, but it has proved, along with Moltmann’s later work, a source of constant stimulation and inspiration for my own theological thinking. For this reason, as well as because of the blindingly obvious fact that this book would not exist without his massive contribution to contemporary theology, I owe Jürgen Moltmann himself a very considerable debt of gratitude, greater than prefaces usually record.

I don’t fully understand Jürgen Moltmann’s theology in a lot of ways. But his theology does energize me to think theologically and creatively and look forward to what is yet to come with anticipation and possibility. Moltmann says, “It is through faith that man finds the path of true life, but it is only hope that keeps him on that path” [Theology of Hope (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 20]. How true this statement has been since I read it the first time in the midst of my searching for direction in ministry. It is such hope that has kept me believing and searching for new possibilities in the providential care of God. He who began the good work will bring it on to completion (Phil. 1:6). My calling is bracketed by the beginning and end of God.

Moltmann’s theology excites me to a great extent because he helps me see God in a new way. Nowadays, there is no excitement in Christian discipleship because there is no excitement in knowing God, for God is a domesticated deity, who could be anything but surprise. In our Christian thinking, there is no newness in God. Isaiah’s theology almost disappears in our theological vision: “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland” (43:19) How desperate we are in need of Isaiah’s sense of newness in pursuing Christian theology.

There is no clear path in the wilderness because wilderness almost sounds like wildness. Wilderness is a wild place that can no way be tamed. The good news is that when Jesus was with the wild animals in the wilderness and being tempted by Satan, the angels were ministering to him (Mk. 1:12-13). The word “ministering” (Gk. dihko,noun) is in the imperfect tense, suggesting that the angels were ministering or serving Jesus in the whole process.[1] The angels showed up during the forty days and forty nights. From the beginning to the end, Jesus was not alone. The angels were with him in the midst of the wild beasts. As James Edwards writes, “The way of the Son of God has the Father’s blessing, and even in his trials by the archenemy Jesus is sustained by the Father’s celestial attendants.”[2]

---

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 541.

[2] James Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 2002), p. 42.

活在被擄的人中

開始閱讀以西結書，一本我不太熟識和不太願意讀的舊約經卷。由信主到現在，整本聖經讀過很多篇，但有些書卷就是沒有印象，以西結書是其中一卷。整卷書很長，看似沒有嚴緊的結構，有種雜亂無章的感覺。當然，這是個人觀感。

以西結是被擄時期的先知，活在被擄的以色列民中間。在巴比倫的異域，如何走下去？如何信下去？這不純是個人的迷失和混亂，而是整個民族，甚至時代，被這被擄事件顛覆過來。甚麼神是全知、全能、全愛也被顛覆過來。以西結活在這班人當中，他得見神的異象（結1：1-3）在人群中，他觀看：他見到這班人信仰的混沌。他同時見到神的駕入。以西結沒有忽視信仰歷史的真實面，但不會被它完全呑滅，已至看不見信仰超越的一面。

神對這班被擄的以色列民控訴，以西結傳遞這些信息。在失望和迷失的人中，是否應該傳講安慰的信息？是否應該鼓勵他們很快便能返回耶路撒冷？在這班被擄的人中，以西結應該相當「黑人憎」。反過來說，受歡迎的，往往不會是先知吧。「平安，平安」的信息，往往是假先知傳的。以西結活在不平安的人中傳講不平安的信息。我不相信他是個很平安的人，因他看不到面前的人和環境反映神自己將要來臨的平安。這個終末遠景迫使以西結注目現在，改變現况和嘗試帶來當下的更新。

差不多十年

開始在印城一間華人教會粵語堂參與事奉。由神學院讀書，實習，畢業，到牧會工場事奉，一直沒有機會正式參與以粵語為主的事工。用粵語（我的母語）表達自己，教導聖經，不需再理會英語發音或口音的問題，亦不需再擔心哪裏有些英文生字不懂。故此，少了一份自覺，多了一點自信。由自覺到自信，差不多十年的時間。

人生不是，亦不會太長，但上帝要我們學習的功課往往不會在短時間內完成。我不太清楚這是祂做事的一貫方式，或是，在人生中，人只需學好幾樣功課，所以，祂就用一段頗長頗短的時間來訓練人。

想到耶利米的事奉，二十三年來，從早到晩叫以色列人悔改，當然沒有人回應 (耶25：1-7）。他不是第一天宣講便知道未來的二十三年也會是這樣。若是，我相信他一早便放棄。這二十三年來，他沒有放棄，只因他忠於一日的宣講。縱然今日失望，他亦自勉：「一天的難處，一天當便夠了。明天或會更好。」起床，耶利米重復昨日的工作，期盼明日的改變。就是這樣，他做了二十三年。二十三年的事奉，偉大嗎？刻苦嗎？我不認為耶利米自覺偉大，沒有人聽他，他如何自覺偉大。他渺小，但忠於當下的今日。忠誠地活在當下，就是這樣，上帝使耶利米慢慢成為堅城、鐵柱、銅牆（耶 1：18）。

耶利米宣講的道，改變了誰？南國猶大一樣在主前587年滅亡。改變了宣講的人。神的道與講道人有著千絲萬縷的關係。有限的人詮釋無限的道，用楊牧谷的講法，是人在這詮釋的過程中不斷與恩典相遇。是的，因着恩典，人才能作有限的詮釋。

Newness

In Theology of Hope (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), Jurgen Moltmann writes:

God is not something in the Beyond, but he is coming and as the coming One he is present. He promises a new world of all-embracing life, of righteousness and truth, and with this promise he constantly calls this world in question—not because to the eye of hope it is as nothing, but because to the eye of the hope it is not yet what it has the prospect of being (p. 164).  

God is not below us, above us, but before us. Instead of us moving towards him, he is coming to us. In the light of his promise, we are not satisfied with what we see in the present, for the present conditions are far from the future conditions as promised by God. The eye of hope does not overlook the problem of the world, escape from it, and create our own utopia. Rather, the eye of hope fully engages with the worldly problems because the cross of Christ grounds the Christian hope in history. The eye of hope is not succumbed to the present-historic contexts because of the not-yet prospect of the promise of the coming kingdom of God. The resurrection of Jesus dealt with death and its evilness, transcended it, and has guaranteed the promise of not-yet in the present. Thus, what is not yet gives us an access to the future horizon of what is to come and allows us to engage prophetically with what is already, which is being transformed within the horizon of the history of the working of God’s promises.

God is before us and coming to us. Newness is possible before us. An anticipation of such newness in life points us to look at the God of promise ahead of us. The future newness keeps us in perspective that what we see and have now will pass away and become obsolete soon in the light of the newness to come.

 

Another Theology Is Just Out There

In The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), Douglas John Hall writes:

We are at the beginning of a period in which many things will have to be tried. A few will work; many will not. But the place where the courage to attempt something different—something by way of participation in the worldly suffering of God—begins is thinking critically about the theology that has accomplished Christendom and asking for another theology. Not just for a new strategy, or greater commitment to social programs, or more exciting liturgies, or more sincere spirituality—no, for a different theology. And I am comforted by the thought that we do not have to invent such a theology. Unlike what passes for art today, theology does not thrive on novelty! The theology that we need is already there, and indeed it is impressively and profoundly there—from the Old Testament onwards! It is really just a matter of letting go of some of our conditioned beliefs and assumptions and allowing what is there to speak to us as we are, where we are, and when we are. (p. 178)

We are always in the theology on the way, constantly searching for a right model for contemporary churches. In the discussion of “the crisis of Christendom” in the West, Douglas Hall points out that many people (young people in particular) confess Christ and yet condemn the church. “Can any apology for the church today realistically provide young people with a positive way of thinking about the link between Christian faith and church affiliation?” (p. 176) This kind of question can only be bridged by theological integrity, sensitivity, and relevance.

I always believe that our theologizing task is locally conditioned by who we are, where we are, and when we are. As long as we, as pastors and leaders, pay enough attention to the experience of the congregation and listen to their needs with great attentiveness, we are almost there to develop another theology to theologize the task of pastoral ministry. We tend to look for another strategy, another program, another commitment, and another slogan to keep the church going. I think that the reason why we want to do that is because we don’t want the experience of a people of God to captivate the direction of ministry. In other words, we, as pastors and leaders, do not want another theology, but our theology in order to make sense in our religious thoughts. As leaders and pastors, we do have the responsibility to discern the direction of the church. But it is theologically and pastorally irresponsible to captivate it at the expense of the whole experience of a people of God. The church is made up of redeemed souls who confess Christ as their Lord and Savior. The experience of this redeemed community helps us discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit in which we discern how to theologize the word of God in this particular local context and integrate it in the congregational experience.

Moltmann said that “to know God is to suffer God…But to suffer means to be changed and transformed.” [Theology of Hope (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), p. 118]. As long as we remain in ourselves and pay little/no attention to a people of God, we live in a closed system in which we remain unchanged and untransformed. We are called to follow Christ, implying that we are called to suffer. We suffer in a sense that our surrounding constantly exposes our idols and we are expected to be confronted, changed, and transformed. Another theology is not developed in our fervent prayer but in the midst of a prayerful community.

自行餵養的群體

Taken from http://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=75580&Pid=1&Version=0&Cid=145&Charset=big5_hkscs (assessed 11/24/2012)

再思自行餵養                      胡志偉 

　　當前教會面對的內部對挑戰是走出牧養「項目化」的心態，重新回到「以人為本」的牧養取向。當牧養於堂會成為不同「項目式」事工，不同教牧同工嘗試把最熱門與受歡迎的事工款式植入堂會之內，於是兒童事工或青少年事工就「外判」予外界機構了。項目事工有一定的時限，要交一定的服務數據；重要是出席率或參與人數，並非著眼於受眾的長期關係及成長需求。

　　有牧者認為，坊間神學院與機構有這麽多課程，堂會的主日學或培訓根本難以競爭，不如取消本身已經人數不多的課程。現時，神學院與機構推出不同課程，百花齊放，選擇甚多。可惜是大多課程只是質素的提升（有好的講師、資訊、場地與願意學習的信徒），卻未能提升信徒成為「自行餵養」（self- feeding）的門徒。

　　神學院與機構注重的自然是招生，重要是市場佔有率；有學生心滿意足取了資訊，還要期望甚麽？教會長期存在不健康的「共依存」（co-dependent）關係，指向信徒長期要依賴專業教牧與講師，才能維持信仰。「共依存」信徒的問題是長期要依賴講座與課程，不能自行查考聖經與獨立思考，始終停留信仰幼稚化的階段。

　　從「自行餵養」的角度看，現有課程的不足是其「單向式」教導，未能培育堂會成為「學習的群體」（learning community）。這說明了我們宗教教育的失敗，就是怎樣養成鼓勵與推動信徒自行學習的文化土壤。當不少堂會要推行「門訓」，關鍵不在於哪套課程最合適，乃是我們有否塑造門徒的文化？

　　堂會有否建構良好的學習「平台」，讓信徒能互換資訊，並能有持續與深入的關係（這正是堂會以外不能提供的），坦誠分享，一起成長。從宗教教育角度看，「聚會」最大作用不是提供全部內容，乃是供應有關內容的思考，或指引信徒如何自行發掘真理（網絡資訊與書刊等），從而深化信仰，這才是「自行餵養」所達成。

　　要走出「聚會主義」，幫助信徒能「自行餵養」，教牧必須重新調整牧養方向與資源分配。我們要有勇氣，告別牧養項目化，重視「以人為本」的發展，教練與賦權他人，這是我們要走的緩慢成長之路。

基督教信仰入門 2

基督教信仰入門第二課​​​​​​                                

 

第二課: 認識救恩

1. 甚麽是救恩？

a.  「得救解釋作拯救，表示從危險，滅亡中拯救出來。得救已假定人原是在滅亡中，或者屈服在罪惡底下，被控制在魔鬼手中。得救最主要是從罪和滅亡中解脫出來，罪會使人滅亡，如果人沒有滅亡的危機，就不需要得救。因之，滅亡與得救恰好相反。」[1]　

b.  所以，救恩就是救贖的恩典，將我們從危險境況中解救出來。這救恩強調神解決了人類一個極大的困境，而這個困境是人類本身完全沒有辦法解決的。

c.  得救就是從一個危險的境況中，被拯救出來，放在安全的地位。這安全的地位是屬靈的，因為發生在耶穌基督裡。

2.  救恩的起因

a.  上帝的特徵 （character）

                   i.   聖潔

1.  詩71：22；78：41；89：18；99：9；賽1：4；5：19，24；6：3

2.  祂的聖潔是我們效法的榜樣（利19：2；11：44-45；彼前1：16）

a.  為何上帝的聖潔在教會和信徒中如此不被重視？[2]

                                                i.   上帝己被教會和信徒邊緣化。祂的旨意和特性跟我們日常生活沒有關係，我們亦不想跟祂有真正的關係。

                                              ii.   追求和培養美德是困難的。敗壞的人性亦不喜歡跟上帝的聖潔打交道（羅8：7）。

1.  道德冷感vs.神的聖潔

                                            iii.   過分或單單高舉神的愛。談論神的聖潔會冒犯人，人喜歡聽神是愛。喜歡被接受，但不需要改過。

                 ii.   慈愛（hesed）

1.  舊約

a.  「耶和華在他面前宣告說：耶和華，耶和華，是有憐憫有恩典的神，不輕易發怒，並有豐盛的慈愛（hesed）和誠實。」（出34:6）[3]

b.  神的慈愛最能代表神與人的關係。神的慈愛不能單單用「愛」來表達，在聖經裡，「慈愛」包含恩慈，憐憫，忠誠，責任和義務。「慈愛」往往在立約的關係中理解。在舊約中，神和以色列的關係被理解為「立約的愛」（申7：9；12：1;王上8：23；尼1：5；9：32；但9：4）。「慈愛」常常用來表達神對人的關係（佔了三分二）。只有一些時候用來表達人對神的關係（耶2：2；何6：4，6）。[4]

2.  新約

a.  立約的愛

                                                i.   神的愛，基督的死，人的罪（羅5:8）

b.  「神就是愛」（約壹4:8）

                                                i.   無盡的

                                              ii.   無條件的

                iii.   公義

1.  「神是公義的意思是神常常按著怎麼是對來行事和祂自己就是對的表準。」[5]

2.  出34:6-7；申32:4; 賽45：19

3.  面對著世人都犯了罪這景況，神不能不理會。因祂慈愛的本性，祂不願懲罰罪人，反而想拯救他們。但神公義的本性，祂不能，亦不會漠視人的罪惡。所以，神因著祂的慈愛和公義，成就救贖，而這救贖就是耶穌基督。

b.  人的需要

                   i.   羅馬書 1：18-3：20

1.  外邦人 （1:18-32）

2.  猶太人（2:1-3:8）

3.  普世的人（3:9-20）

                 ii.   人活在罪惡中和神的憤怒中（1：18；3:19-20）

c.  上帝的需要

                   i.   「神設立耶穌作挽回祭[6]，是憑著耶穌的血，藉著人的信，要顯明神的義；因為他用忍耐的心寬容人先時所犯的罪。」（羅馬書3:25）

1.  贖罪Expiation (dealing with sin and guilt)

2.  息怒Propitiation (appeasing God)

                 ii.   「上帝的忿怒被挽回，人所犯的罪被耶穌代贖，上帝得補償（satisfaction）,律法的主得到滿足。」[7]

3. 救恩的目的：救贖

a.  「因基督也曾一次為罪受苦（有古卷作：受死），就是義的代替不義的，為要引我們到神面前。按著肉體說，他被治死；按著靈性說，他復活了。」（彼前3：18）

b.  「基督教的中心信息是救贖。救贖把上帝與世界接連起來。上帝與受造之物本來相處無間，可惜，因為人犯了罪，使上帝與萬物隔絕。上帝的美善、全能，全愛使祂肯定所造的原為美好，所以並不向犯罪的受造物橫施毀滅。反之，祂肯定所造的，所以施行救贖，這種『肯定』使萬物有了價值，也使人有了能被贖的條件。人在得贖的過程中經驗了客觀和主觀的經驗：基督對人得救的應許，人對基督救贖的經驗。」[8]

                   i.   我們從甚麽被拯救出來？Saved from What?

1.  神的憤怒 （羅1:18）

2.  罪的支配（羅3:9）

3.  死的權勢（羅5:21）

4.  世界的價值觀 （羅12：1；約壹5:19）

5.  脫去從前行為上的舊人 （弗4:17-24）

                 ii.   我們如何被拯救出來？Saved by What/Who?

1.  因著基督：「如今卻蒙神的恩典，因基督耶穌的救贖，就白白的稱義。」（羅3:24）

2.  藉著基督：「我們藉這愛子的血得蒙救贖，過犯得以赦免，乃是照他豐富的恩典。」（弗1:7）

3.  在基督裡（羅8：1-2；弗1:1；林前1:2）

                iii.   我們爲甚麽被拯救出來？Saved for What?

1.  縱的面：三一上帝 （創造主）

2.  橫的面：他人和世界（創造物）

3.  神-人-世界復和的關係（林後5：18-20）

 

4. 救恩的向度

a.  聖經的觀點[9]

                   i.   保羅對哥林多教會說：「祂曾救我們脫離那極大的死亡，現在仍要救我們，並且我們指望祂將來仍要救我們。」(林後1：10)

1.  過去：指一個人認罪和相信基督時，他以被寬恕，脫離神的憤怒和罪的權勢，得享永生。

2.  現在：指信徒現在各方面的需要。例如：在靈性上；在生活上；在情緒上；在身體上

3.  將來：指主再來時，信徒身體的贖—復活的身體，是榮耀的，永存的。

b.  神學的觀點

                   i.   過去：創造論

1.  「創造論是關乎世界的過去，也是關於世界屬誰、主權歸誰的問題。」[10] 我們從何處來？我們活在這個世界中，跟這世界屬誰有甚麼關係？

2.  「我信上帝，全能的父」：這是一項至為重要的認信。若我們相信的對象不是全能，祂便不是上帝。若這位全能的上帝高高在上，不能跟人發生任何關係，祂的所謂全能亦與我們沒有關係。

3.  「基督教信仰是先肯定，後進深；不是從問題產生懷疑，再由懷疑去確定，始踏出第一步。這樣，人是永遠不能踏出第一步的。」[11]

4.  理性,體驗，經歷

                 ii.   現在：救贖論

1.  我們屬於誰？

2.  我們現在為甚麼存活？

3.  我們的人生使命是甚麼？

                iii.   將來：末世論

1.  我們往哪裏去？

2.  我們期盼甚麼？

3.  我們有多少把握？

 

5. 得救的確據

a.  「凡接待祂的，就是信祂名的人，祂就賜他們權柄作神的兒女。」(約1：12)

b.  「我實實在在的告訴你們，那聽我話、又信差我來者的，就有永生；不至於定罪，是已經出死入生了。」（約5:24）

c.  「我實實在在的告訴你們，信的人有永生 。」（約6:47）

d.  「我將這些話寫給你們信奉神兒子之名的人，要叫你們知道自己有永生。」(約壹5：13)

 

6.  得救的三個階段[12]

a.  起點: 「你們得救是本乎恩。」（以弗所書2：5下，8上）

b.  過程： 神拯救的工作和人得救的工夫（腓立比書2:12-13）

c.  終點：「但受造之物仍然指望脫離敗壞的轄制，得享（享 ：原文是入 ）神兒女 自由的榮耀。。。我們得救是在乎盼望」（羅8:21，24上；8:18-25）

 

---

[1] 周聯華: 《神學綱要》卷二 （台灣:基督教文藝出版社, 2010），頁396。

[2] 衛爾斯著，呂素琴譯：《孤獨的神：後現代的福音派信仰危機》 （香港：天道，2003），頁117-120。（英文版：David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality Truth in a World of Fading Dreams [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994], pp. 133-136.）

[3] NIV: “Abounding (lit., great) in love.” Or “Great in covenant love [loyalty].” 在評論神的「豐盛的慈愛」 (ds,x,î-br:, Exod. 34:6), Douglas K. Stuart 寫到, “It connotes long-term, reliable loyalty of one member of a covenant relationship to another. However fickle and unreliable humans may be in their relationship to God, he is nothing of the sort but can be counted on in every situation and at all times to be completely faithful to his promises for his people.” Exodus, New American Commentary 2 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), p. 716.

[4] 參Robin Routledge, Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), pp. 108-110.

[5] “God's righteousness means that God always acts in accordance with what is right and is himself the final standard of what is right.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 204.

[6]i`lasth,rion (Gk.)：亦可釋作「贖罪祭」《新釋本》

[7]楊慶球：《會遇系統神學:真理與信仰體驗的整理》,二版(香港:中國神學研究院, 2001), 頁161。

[8]楊慶球：「救贖論」，《壞鬼神學》 楊牧谷編（香港：更新資源出版社，2000），頁171。

[9]參蘇穎智：《認識救恩》，新修版（香港：全心出版社，2004），頁13-15。

[10]楊牧谷：《基本信仰與超凡生命》（香港：更新資源出版社，1996），頁36。

[11]楊牧谷：《基本信仰與超凡生命》，頁65。

[12]周聯華: 《神學綱要》卷二，頁397-399。