學生聯合會的福音事工 - 劉智欽

從一九三七年到一九四九年之間，中國教會最大的特色，就是學生中的佈道培靈工作，而「學聯」的發展過程．包括基督徒怎樣在中國大學興起，和基督徒學生奮鬥的經過，這些已成為過去三十年歷史不可分割的一部份，只有當我們明白其中的來龍去脈，我們才能做好充分準備．去面對亞洲及西方教會可能要共同遭遇的危機。

一、前言

「當學生決定行動時，事情就發生了，在宣教的歷史中說明，許多宣教的運動乃是由具有普世異象的學生所點燃。」這是大衛豪爾(David Howard)在「Student Power in World mission」一書中的序言。它還說明了學生福音運動在近代教會宣教史的地位。

不但在教會宣教、神學教育等的範圍內是如此，綜觀近代各國政冶，社會的變革，學生更是一股不可忽視的力量，中外皆然。 在近百年來中國教會史中，無論是神學立場較自由派的「基督徒學生運動」(以下簡稱「學運」)，或神學立場較為保守之「基督徒學生聯合會」(以下簡稱「學聯」)，他們在中共政權建立前的事工，都具有長遠的影響。唯因「學運」之歷史較久，文獻資料存留與後人論著也較多，而「學聯」的工作，時間只有從一九四五~一九五一(民國卅四年至四十年)，文字資料亦少，但因一九三七到一九四九年間，中國教會最大的特色，就是學生中的佈道培靈工作；(註1)而「學聯」的發展過程，「包括基督徒怎樣在中國大學興起和基督徒學生奮鬥的經過，這些已成為中國教會過去三十年歷史不可分割的一部份，只有當我們明白其中的來龍去脈……我們才能作好充分準備，去面對亞洲及西方
教會可能要共同遭遇的危機。」(註2)這其中「就是當時基督徒學生的思想感受和共黨領袖採用的策略」(註3)，已在當年「學聯」副總幹事大衛．艾得理牧師( Rev David Adeney)所著《祂必保守》一書中表達。


但我們所需要的不只是一個信仰的反省，對於了解當時事工的全貌，從而知古鑑今，對今日處於徘徊十字街口的台灣、香港的學生福音事工，更是重要的。

二、近代基督徒學生運動及對中國教會之影響

一八八五年七名英國劍僑大學畢業生，加入由戴德生(James Hudson Taylor)甫於一八六五成立的中國內地會(China Inland Mission)，在英國大學基督徒團契間帶來了一陣衝擊，在赴中國就任時，途經美國而帶動了一八八六年興起的「學生志願運動」(Student Volunteer Movement for foreign Missions)，這運動在起初的四十年，一共派遣了一萬零五百位宣教士，其中約三分之一來到了中國，但由於此一運動在信仰上漸傾向自由神學，以致劍橋大學團契於一九一九年，宣佈脫離上述組織，並將該團契的信念推動到全英國各大學，而為今日之「全英國大學基督徒團契」(University & College Christian Fellowship)

一九三四年起，由英、美等國之學生工作者，每年舉辦學生福音會議。一九三九年大戰之前，亦籌備了一次大規模的國際學生會議，參加者達八百餘人，但因大戰的爆發，使得原本倡議成立之國際學生福音運動組織，無法順利進行。

大戰結束，一九四六年英國牛津召開首次之國際學生會議，代表們深感成立一國際組織的時機業已成熟，於一九四七年於美國波士頓正式成立「國際學生福音團契」( International Fe1lowship Evangelical Student FCBP)。(註4)

隨著歐、美學生工作的分裂，中國自難脫離其影響，當時在中國為第一大宗派之內地會，其宣教士有不少的比例是受福音派學生工作所影響，自然不會坐視「學運」在中國對學生之影響，這當中極具關鍵的人物，仍是一九三四年來到中國的大衛．艾德理，他在大學時為「劍橋基督徒團契」學生宣教祕書，畢業後任「全英國大學基督徒團契」(U.C.C.F.)宣教祕書，並成立大學宣教團契，團訓為：「廣傳福音，不完不休。」(註5)

三、「中國各大學基督徒學生聯合會」的成立

一九三七年(民國廿六年)「七七事變」，中國宣佈對日抗戰，隨著戰局逆轉，華北、華東、華南相繼落入日軍手中，國民政府亦由南京而漢口，最後遷往重慶，此時各國立大學不是遷後方就是停辦，而教會大學有遷往成都之基督教聯合大學，該校由華西、金陵、金陵女大、齊魯醫學院、東吳大學生物系等組成。並有移往租界接受外國保護的，如聖約翰、滬江、之江、東吳大學，在上海公共租界組成上海基督教大學。(註6)

國民政府為因應當時情勢，在大後方亦設立了不少大學，招收了不少逃難的流亡學生，苦難與戰爭的陰影，為抗戰時期的人心預備了沃土，遠離家園的學子不再有家庭的束縛，有利福音在學生中的傳揚，這是大時代的走向，就另一方面而言，「學運」亦因原事工大多集中在沿海的教會大學內，內地是他們事工較弱的區域，而青年會幹事亦投入救濟等社會工作，一這使得以青年會為主體的「學運」，只能在十三所偏僻的國立大學，利用外國之捐款成立學生公社。(註7)

另一方面，屬於基要或福音派信仰的傳道人，卻在大後方的大學中向學生傳福音，這些人包括了計志文牧師，他曾在成都的華西壩體育館、重慶沙坪壩中央大學禮堂，分別向一千多位學生佈道。(註8)內地會的孔保羅牧師，以及當時負責「十字軍」向邊區傳福音之趙君影牧師，該「十字軍」接受美國Zondervan公司之經濟支持，而趙君影牧師因看到當時學生工作的需要，所以亦向學生傳福音。

一九四四年冬(民國卅三年)，趙君影牧師在重慶沙坪壩中央大學與重慶大學的聯合校址佈道三天，每晚大禮堂座無虛席，約有兩千餘人，在台前認罪決志信主者約有兩百多人。學生工作在極短的時間遍及大後力的大學。(註9)

一九四五年七月「十字軍」改組為「中華傳道會」，趙君影牧師決定用此外國捐款召開「全國基督徒學生夏令會」，地點在重慶南山的靈修學院，賈玉銘牧師為主要講員。(註10)共計有來自川、陝、雲、貴等省，四十二個院校一百六十九位參加。(註11)滕近輝牧師當時為西北大學團契主席，回憶該次的夏令會：

「我們坐了數天無蓋無座卡車，穿山越嶺，付了很大的代價，才到達重慶。聖靈在大會數百大學生中間大大作工，我自己得到靈性的復興，有十六位學生獻身全職事奉主(其中有陳終道牧師)。這是我初次嚐到復興的滋味。」(註12)

於夏令會結東前夕，七月十二日「中國各大學基督徒學生聯合會」組織成立，趙君影牧師被選為總幹事。

四、「學聯」同工與事工狀況

隨著對日抗戰的勝利，「學聯」的事工也發展到華東、華北各地，學生們迅速的在各大學成立小組，除東北、台灣之外，在當時一百五十多所大學中，其中九十八所有「學聯」的事工，近百名的學生成為志願同工，推動事工直到一九五一年止，有近兩萬多的學生信主。(註13)

一這段時期「學聯」的全職幹事，一般都維持在卅多人的狀況，陸續參與的則約有四十多人，其中國人與洋人各半，洋人則以「內地會」的同工為主，包括孔保羅、賴恩融及任職副總幹事的艾得理。

一九四六年一月「內地會」將艾得理牧師，借給「學聯」，由於當時急需人手，他便由倫敦搭大型水上飛機，飛往重慶，家人則乘輪船來華，甫抵重慶便參加了第一區的冬令會，與學生們在大學的體育館內席地而睡。這個冬令會使華西各大學的基督徒團契人數與日俱增。(註14)。

為了方便有效的推動事工促進基督徒的參與，趙君影牧師在「學聯」成立之初，便成立了「顧問會」，賈玉銘牧師為第一位首席顧問，學生則成立「學生執行委員會」來執行事工，並成立校際地區聯合會，以強化校際間的福音運動。(註15)

南京為「學聯」總部的所在，一九四七年七月，假「華東神學院」舉行的第二屆夏令會，為「學聯」最後一次全國性的聚會，但它的影響卻是深遠的。大會主席由仍為學生的焦源濂擔任(註16)。

負責當時場地與總務的南京大學等團契，在會前工作中，將人分成兩組，一組進行打掃，一組則禱告守望，隔段時間則兩組互調。(註17)在當時通貨膨脹，政冶與社會混亂中，這群大學基督徒活出了信仰美好的見證。在與會的五百多位學生中，有近一百位獻身，其中查逸錕弟兄為往後台灣校園福音團契的創立者。(註18)講員則有楊紹唐、計志文、賈玉銘、趙君影及內地會會督華福蘭。(註19)

由於「學聯」事工的興旺，使得神學院不得不修改教學課程，以適應這些大學畢業生的需要(註20)。不少教會、神學院亦因「學聯」而受益匪淺。如南京之「靈修學院」一九四人年遷回南京時，就得頗多大學畢業生之助。(註21)而位於廣州之「東山浸信會」「其中的大學團契尤為突出，在廣州愛主的青年基督徒，除了一部份在聚會處，其餘的大部份都在這個團契裏，他們也是各大喜學校內的團契負責人。」(註22)

「學聯」在各大學事工的發展，不但引起小群教會與耶穌家庭的注意，更引起了共黨的注意。(註23)它的成功引發了教會內外的關注。

五、「學聯」的信仰與屬靈觀

要了解「學聯」的信仰，我們可從領導人趙君影的成長過程去分析。在台灣設立「中原大學」與「關渡基督書院」的賈加美牧師，為趙君影中學時代的校長，但趙君影卻在進入「之江大學」後，受到了自由派信仰的影響，大學期間因得肺結核病而休學，休養期間在賈加美牧師家中，適值計志文牧師前來佈道，而清楚信仰，待身體痊癒後就沒返「之江大學」就讀，(註24)而隨賈加美牧師到各中學佈道。

趙君影本人亦說；「我在當時所作的學生工作，在教義上是與賈玉銘一條路線，工作上是與王明道相呼應的，在奮興的事工上是宋尚節式的，現在回想起來，抗戰期間大學生的復興工作在基層上的教義都是基教派的，也就是賈玉銘所教授的。」因此「學聯「的信條，在趙君影擬妥之後，交由賈玉銘牧師過目修正。(註25)這信條共計四條，條列加下：(註26)

1.信聖父、聖子、聖靈三位一體之真神。
2.信全部聖經是神所默示的。
3.信主耶穌由聖靈藉童貞女道成肉身，曾釘死在十字架，替人贖罪，復活升天，必二次再來，審判世界。
4.信唯一的救法是以信心接受主耶穌基督，從聖靈重生，得為神的兒女。

根據上述的信仰原則，他發展了一套基督教的宇宙觀、人生觀、社會觀、歷史觀、經濟觀、人類的命運與天國的理想。而其中的人生觀與宇宙觀更是在大學佈道中最常講演，其三篇典型的講章為「我為什麼信上帝？」與「基督教的宇宙觀」，「基督教的人生觀」。(註27)

對於當時內戰期間的社會關懷工作，雖然「學聯」的領導人趙君影亦有其社會關懷理論的提出，但他認為當時教會不容，認為他信仰變節，而始終未行。(註28)因此「傳揚福音，造就靈性」(註29)設立團契，成為「學聯」極重要的工作模式。而趙君影在回顧這段事奉的過程後，亦認為「抗戰期間的學聯，徒有屬靈的追求，未能進一步對國家民族有所貢獻。」「由此可知，學生運動應該雙管齊下。」(註30)

六、「學聯」在政治處境中的回應

中共的「地下學聯」利用當時政冶動盪，籍「反饑餓、反貪污、反內戰」的口號，處處引起學潮，不但控制了「青年會」的「學運」，當這些親共學生無法控制該校學生會時，就藉團契的名義來進行政冶活動。以一九四八年的上海「滬江大學」為例，親共學生就陸續成立了「唯信」、「唯望」、「唯愛」、「新光」，以及一個以吸收廣東學生為主的「天南團契」。一九四九年秋，廣東仍在國民政府的控制中，但此時的「嶺南大學」好幾個團契都已經給親共學生滲透了。(註31)

正因中共假藉團契名義進行活動，所以「學聯」亦備受來自國民政府的批評，特別在大陸政權易手之前的的這段時間，他們不能了解這些學生怎會只為了研經祈禱而聚在一起，因此自由派人士公開指控「學聯會」是政府反革命運動的工具時，而國民黨卻懷疑它是共產黨徒的庇護所。(註32)

「學聯」為避免落入政冶鬥爭，亦為避免被滲透，因此在一九四七年的南京第二次全國大會中，修改章程，加強顧問會的權力，以平衡學生的執行委員會。(註33)更由於「學聯」堅持屬靈的工作，使親兵的學生要滲透進團契的核心極為不易，也們相信靈性與事奉的火熱是不易長期偽裝的，因為禱告會、見證會、查經班常令親共學生不知所措，甚至有團契在新同工上任時，先來個三小時的禱告會。(註34)

所以當一九四九年大陸政權易手時，其他事工團體所屬團契為中共大量控制時，「學聯」所屬的團契，基本的領導權仍在愛主基督徒學生的帶領，「可見當時學生團契，堅持要有堅穩的福音信仰才可以當團契領袖的重要。」(註35)中共政權初建立時，對各宗教仍保持寬忍的政策，各地「學聯」的團契仍可以聚會，但學生們深知可以自由敬拜的時間不長了，在校內他們的信仰面對「唯物論」，「學聯」的弟兄姊妹要時刻預備自己，跟這一群相信「唯物論」的同學幹部辯論。
為了面對上述的問題，「學聯」的幹事吳永泉於一九五○年初，出版了也的著作「信仰問題」，由於中共執政初期的宗教自由政策，使該書迅速的在學生中流傳，甚至進上海的「安息日會」、「天主教會」亦購買該書分發給會眾。短短六個月內共印了六萬冊，朱經許可而自行翻印的尚不知幾許。

一九五○年八月，艾得理牧師被迫離開大陸，不久「信仰問題」被列為禁書，吳永泉亦被監禁。這書大概是在共黨統治下出版的唯一基督教護教學的書籍。(註36)

七、「學聯」事工的結束

「學聯」總幹事趙君影於一九四八年十一月，為恐受共黨的鬥爭，而離開上海到香港，對當時的「學聯」幹事，學生團契的影想不小，但學生們也都預備好自己去面對一個活在反神政權下的信仰生活。當時中共急於對付三個基督徒團體，分別為在鄉村的「耶穌家庭」和城市的「聚會所」，以及大學內的「學聯」(註37)。

一九五○年，基督徒學生要接受為期五週的思想改造，當年八月「學聯」副總幹事艾得理被中共驅離大陸，「學聯」的事工亦因同學們的畢業而人數漸少，於一九五一年正式解散後，只有位於北平未正式加入「學聯」，而由十五所大學組成的「北平學聯」，卻到一九五五年仍有活動。(註38)

雖然大型的聚會被禁止了，「學聯」的團契亦不在中共所註冊的教會內聚會，所以他們便不惜以小組的方式來聚會，許多人因此被捕送入了勞改營。(註39)

八、結語

「學聯」在大陸的工作，若將抗戰末期一併計算，充其量不過十年，但當我們今日回顧當年事工，對今日台灣、香港、大陸教會的影響，就不能忽視它的存在。

台灣的「校園福音團契」與香港的「基督徒學生福音團契」，原則上承接了「學聯」事奉的異象，當年許多學生時代蒙召全職事奉者，為今日華人教會的領袖，在大陸「學聯」事工的成果，也透過小組轉入地下。

艾得理牧師的一段話，更可以為「學聯」的事工，註下最好的評語：

「五十年代中國基督徒學生的見證，無疑為七十年代家庭教會注入新的活力，掛名的基督徒無可奈何地妥協之後，信徒之間的團契就靠年青人去維持；各大學團契組織雖然被瓦解，昔日的基督徒學生及也們的子女，卻成為真正教會的一部份，這教會繼續在黑暗中發光。」(註40)

著名網球冠軍張德培的見證--得救見證、基督徒生活

著名網球冠軍張德培的見證

每年的春天，美國網球選手們都是從巴黎敗陣而歸。但在一九八九年的網球公開賽上，年僅十七歲的英俊少年張德培，改寫了美國網球史。猶如《聖經》中少年大衛擊敗巨人歌利亞一樣，張德培擊敗了所有高他一頭的網球高手，實現了四百九十四位美國選手所夢寐以求的心願--世界網球男子單打冠軍。

張德培是當今網壇上最年輕的世界級選手。幾年來，在國際，國內的比賽 中獲得的桂冠多不勝數。職業網球是一項要求運動員即有高超的技術又有良好的心理素質的運動。作爲一名優秀的運動員，張德培不僅在比賽場上有著天才般的 球技和果斷的球風；在現實生活中他也是一位正直可愛、文質彬彬的青年。

德培身高五尺九寸，且有著書生般的清秀，和那些身材高大的運動員相比， 他好象是站在歌利亞面前的少年大衛。所以德培通常給人的第一印象不像是一位驍勇善戰的職業網壇高手。然而，上帝卻藉著德培向全世界的觀衆啓示了一個偉 大的真理；人得勝不是依靠體力，乃是依靠上帝的恩賜。

德培經常說：「靠體力和高度，我無法與那些高大強壯的選手們抗衡。但 是我卻有其他選手所沒有的網球天分和敏捷。而這一切，我相信都是上帝所恩賜我的。」

雖然張德培有著千萬萬觀衆所羡慕的榮譽，整個世界所矚目的成就；然而，認識耶穌比網球重要。

對他來說，認識耶穌--他生命的主，則是他人生的最高追求。德培是一位知名 的虔誠基督徒。他每逢到一個國家或地方表演比賽，只要一有機會，他都願意向人分享他的信仰見證。德培雖然生長在一個基督徒家庭，不過像許多小孩子一 樣，他也不太喜歡在主日學背經文。德培真正開始信仰的追求，是在他青少年的時候。

「十幾歲的時候，我開始思考人生的許多問題，渴望找到人生的價值和意 義。祖父送給我一本《聖經》，那時我開始認真讀上帝的話，開始認識耶穌。《聖經》使我認識到，我人生中所發生的一切都不是偶然地巧合，而是有一位宇 宙的主宰爲我安排。我認識到耶穌才是我真正的盼望和人生的意義，我得到了從未有過的平安和充實。不久，我公開地接受了耶穌基督爲我的救主。」認識耶穌並接受他作救主，是德培個人生活和網壇生涯的轉捩點。有孜孜 不倦穌和他同在，弱小的德培，像當年的少年大衛一樣，面對無數的「歌利亞」 般的網壇高人，毫無畏懼。於一九八九年，一舉成爲世界網壇的巨人。

「然而對我來說，一場好的網球，不僅是精彩的正手球和反手球，而是一 次向觀衆見證上帝慈愛和傳揚基督福音的機會。球賽有結束的時候，網壇生涯也有告別的那一天，然而和耶穌基督的神聖關係卻永遠常存。」

輸與贏

在世界體壇的金榜上，從來就沒有落第者的名字。迴圈淘汰式的比賽，不 贏即輸的殘酷現實，這些壓力足以使久經沙場的老手精疲力盡。然而年輕的德培卻自有其對付沈重壓力的絕妙方法。


「其實我過去也相當在乎輸，德培誠懇地說。」但是，自從我成爲一個 基督徒，認識耶穌基督作我的救主以後，我的觀念發生了改變。我現在能以坦然的心境參加比賽，是因爲上帝卸去了我的重擔和包袱。上帝所賜給我的平安，是 心靈裏面真正的平安，是不會消失的。上帝也特別祝福我，因爲我有父母、嫂嫂慧蘭和哥哥君培（也是我的教練）的全力支援和他們在上帝面前爲我所獻上的真誠禱告。奇妙的是，上帝有時也通過我在賽場上的輸，讓我贏得更多的人相信耶穌。

有的時候，當我輸了一場球，雖然我仍會感到難過，但我已學會了在逆境 中讚美上帝。因爲我知道上帝掌管一切，輸贏都有他自己的美意。無論什麽樣的景況下，我都要儘量榮耀他的聖名。

基督教信仰的真諦

「我認爲基督教信仰的實質在於和耶穌建立一種密切的關係。而這種神聖 關係的獲得，既要有理性的認知，又要有親身的經歷。認識耶穌基督是我人生中最大的喜樂。我也深知上帝願意愛你、眷顧你、帶領你、教導你，並且賜給你一 生當中都在追求的內心的真正平安。凡相信主耶穌的人，他必教導你何爲人生的真諦，並幫助你活出它的全部意義。今天我真誠地希望你能相信耶穌，接受他作 你的救主。因爲當你把你的生命與耶穌相結合的時候，你將開始一個奇妙、而充實的人生。」

基督教的信仰與實質在於和耶穌建立一種密切的關係。

李淵如全集

李淵如（又名「如愚」）姊妹，她是位似乎為人所知—又似乎為人所不知—她進入有啟示的事奉以後，謙卑事奉主就少為人知。

六十多年前，也即二十年代中，李姊與汪姊（佩真）在滬認識了倪柝聲弟兄，開始有交通，並起首同工，尤其在屬靈文字上。上海福音書房成立以後，重要的書籍幾乎是經她訂定出版。政權易手前後，她靈裡深感時日緊逼，在尋求神的帶領後，有計劃、有選擇地出版大批有分量的書（大部分是倪柝聲弟兄的信息），及時供應了當時神的眾兒女，同時也是為了來日眾聖徒之需。直到今日（幾乎已被繙譯為外文），不論國內海外，不同國籍、膚色，凡屬神的人，靈命得供應，道路更清楚。這與李淵如姊妹的忠心事奉是分不開、割不斷的。

李姊敬畏神，忠心事主，因愛主為主擺上一切，她的捨己，正如在她自己作見證說：「在這地上，不再有我們的名譽與地位。」誠如加拉太書第六章十四節所言：「就我而論，世界已經釘在十字架上；就世界而論，我已經釘在十字架上。」

因此，她一直經歷使徒保羅所經歷的：「死在我身上發動，生卻在你們身上發動。」若你有機會與她有交通，必得幫助：有供應、受造就；有難處也因之迎刃而解。她實在是活出「身上常帶著耶穌的死，使耶穌的生也顯明在我們身上」之實際。在她身上確實有「認識基督而有的香氣」，叫人看見她身上那基督的豐富。

為了神榮耀的見證，每天只睡二、三個小時，她知道必有患難、捆鎖等著她，她早準備好一個包袱，等著那個時刻來到。一九五六年間為主被囚，其年已近七旬。但未經定罪（也無罪可定）就宣佈她無期徒刑。她殉道於獄中。何故？因她堅定不移地信神的兒子耶穌基督！（卻有某些人在李姊被囚的日子裡，極有用心削弱神在祂使女身上的見證。）若是定她有罪，那就是她太愛我們的主耶穌罷！


第一篇

這人撒種那人收成

今年在新年佈道會的時候，我認識了一位女士；她一連到戶部街禮拜堂聽了好幾次道，很有愛慕的心，有一天她對我說：「我很記念一位王歷人先生師母，我從前跟她求學，她勸我信耶穌基督，後來她到福建去了。有一次，她給我一封信，外面寫的是『信耶穌的人，不被定罪，不信的人，罪已經定了』；我當時回王師母的信說：信裡頭的話，我都懂；惟有信外面寫的，我一點不懂。但是現在覺得那幾句話，是很有道理、很可寶貝的。」

我聽了前面的這一番話，就想起主耶穌說：「這人撒種，那人收成」的話來，叫我得了幾個教訓：

（1） 你與人談道，若是他很容易領受，你當知道，在你以先，已有善根在他的心了，你不過是收成而已。

（2） 你甚麼時候，看見一個人，總要藉著機會，把真道的要緊告訴他，用幾句聖經的話幫助他，就是目前看不見有甚麼果效，卻千萬不要灰心，你當深信神的話是活潑有功效的，若是深入了那人的心，總有一天會結實的，或者不是你親自收成，但那人真能得救，也就是你的真快樂了。

（3） 你甚麼時候與人通信，總要存著一個榮耀神的心思，存著一個救人的目的，用幾句聖經的話，勉勵人、感動人，比較用你自己的幾千萬言，還有力量。

我現在再說到這位女士，她現在靈性程度，已經達到了甚麼地步：

（1） 她信有一位真神，是造萬物的主宰。
（2） 信人因原罪，就與神隔絕了。
（3） 信「神愛世人，甚至將祂的獨生子賜給他們」作人的中保。
（4） 信人靠主耶穌方能得救，並且靠祂進到父神面前。
（5） 信聖經完全是神的話，遵守順服，就能榮耀神。
（6） 信主要快來，自己要儆醒預備。
（7） 現在知道何為罪，願意完全倚靠主，也願意查考聖經，好在人面前作見證。

前面的話，乃是這位女士用筆告訴我，我很感謝神，祂感動一個人，叫人真的認識祂，但我有一種感想，就是有多年的教友和慕道友，雖然口裡說是信，到底信到了甚麼地步，自己還不知道，傳道的人，也有忽略這一點，這是很可惜的事！我又想到王歷人先生與他的師母，有很大的信心，要用神自己的話來作工，所以每次寫給人的信，信封外面，總要寫句聖經的話，盼望能叫人受主的感動，這一次已經顯出他們撒種聖經的種子的果效了，
從事靈工的弟兄姊妹們阿！你的信心如何，你撒種子是甚麼呢？

一九二二年

第二篇

有一個女人

「有一個女人，患了十二年的血漏……。」（可五25-34）

這個「女人」是誰呢？看馬可福音第五章二十五節就可以知道，她是與耶穌同時的人，她很痛苦的：患了十二年的血漏，在好些醫生手裡，受了許多的苦；又花盡了她所有的，一點也不見好，病勢反倒更重了，她聽見耶穌的事，就從後頭來，雜在眾人中間，摸耶穌的衣裳，意思說：我只摸祂的衣裳，就必痊癒，於是她的血漏的源頭，立刻乾了，她便覺身上的災病好了。

這一件事乃是實在的，並非虛語，只是對這個女人的評論，或者各人有不同，就我所知道的舉出幾個例子：

一、淺見的評論

這個女人病勢很重，又不止一年兩年，醫生都治不好，錢都花盡了，可見是毫無盼望的人，心裡想摸祂的衣裳，就必痊癒，這豈不是作夢，那裡能有這樣的事呢？

二、學理的評論

這個女人，因為許多醫生都治不好她的病，錢也沒有，實在又痛苦、又絕望，既聽見主耶穌的事，就發生盼望的心，因盼望有了信心，誠能感動，只不過是一種心理的作用，或者主耶穌曉得人的心理，就用一種精神治療法來醫治她，也未可知。

三、信心的評論

聖經的記載，都是可信的，主耶穌：「在人這是不能，在神凡事都能。」這是主耶穌的能力能醫治這個女人，並不算得希奇，但是這個女人前後的光景，很有可比較的：

（1） 她從前是靠醫生，後來是求救主。
（2） 從前是靠錢財，後來是憑信心。
（3） 從前是受許多的苦，病勢反加重，後來是立刻止了漏，災病都好了。

總而言之，這個女人的大信心，就是能得恩典的大秘訣，所以，從絕望中而有盼望，從死裡得生了。

我從這個女人得了莫大的屬靈教訓，我的評論是與第三信心評論表同情，我也盼望信徒的信心，能像這一個女人。

一九二四年


第三篇

要緊的話

《靈光報》差不多每期都印上「經訓」，讀者看它太儀文、太陳舊？現在特說明它的原因，請讀者注意：

《靈光報》是鑒於信仰的腐敗、異端的繁興而刊行的，同人惟知倚靠主，就忘記了自己的軟弱無能、不學無術，願本著聖經，為主的真理，作一點見證，更是盼望真愛主、真得基督的生命的信徒，都被主興起來，一天比一天多的興旺起來，為真道打美好的杖，作美好的見證。

親愛的基督徒阿！請你用這篇「經訓」，與你自己的信仰，今日教會的新潮流，對照一下，在這時，願你用赤子之心（把自己的理想、學說、知識、資格都放下），求主指示你現在靈性的狀況，並你前途的工作，應當順服主—完全順服主，不要貪愛「從人來的榮耀」，去受時潮的支配；不要以「主的福音為恥」，就不肯傳替罪人釘死十字架的基督；不要怕受逼迫苦難，就不肯背十字架跟隨主：「你們務要堅固，不可搖動，常常竭力多作主工。」（林前十五58）
親愛的基督徒阿！我們不能「心持兩意」；我們不能承認「是者是，非者也是」，求主使我們能分別是非：「神的兒子耶穌基督，總沒有是而又是非的，在祂只有一是，……都是是的；……也都是阿們。」（林後一19-20原文）

求主使我們吹一定的號聲：「若吹無定的號聲，誰能預備打杖呢？」（林前十四8）
求主使我們忠心用聖經為祂作見證；主說：「給我作見證的就是這經。」（約五39）

一九二五年


第四篇

靈歷隨筆

十月一日　種豆盼望得瓜

有一位人講了一個故事說：「有一個僕人，盼望得瓜，他所撒的，卻是豆種。他的主人，就責備他說：『愚拙的人哪！你所種的是豆，如何能盼望結瓜呢？』那僕人說：『主人！我是從你那裡學來的。』於是主人就著急地說：『你甚麼時候，看見我這樣行呢？』那僕人回答說：『我天天都看見的，因為你不是天天講道，勸人信耶穌，有好行為麼？但是主人所行的，卻樣樣都是與所講的道相反，這豈不是像我種豆盼望得瓜麼？』」唉！此事雖小，喻意可大。

原來一般傳道人，在講台上講到聖潔、仁愛，及至下了講台後，仍舊去犯罪，與外邦人一樣。一般的教友，進會堂是唱詩、禱告、讀經、聽道。但是出了會堂就吸煙、飲酒、打牌、看電影，正是種豆盼望得瓜的人一樣。我因此也想到自己平日的言行，有多少過失，卻不知種了許多敗壞的種。從今以後，當以加拉太書第六章七至八節：「不要自欺，神是輕慢不得的；人種的是甚麼，收的也是甚麼。順著情慾撒種的，必從情慾收敗壞；順著聖靈撒種的，必從聖靈收永生。」

十月二日　傳道的感力

在一日之內，我聽見兩個信徒講道，一位講得娓娓動聽，那些話不是無學問的人所講得出來。但層次也很清楚，不過到底講是講、聽是聽，並不覺得有甚麼感力。

另一位講得很平常，且微有錯誤，也沒有甚麼層次，只是他一句一字，都深感動人的心。但他所說的，多是聖經上的話，可見神的話，真是沒有一句不帶著能力的（路一37）。從此深信傳道不在乎用高大智慧委婉的言語，乃在乎聖靈和大能的明證阿！（林前二1-4）

十月三日　他豈不是說比喻的麼？

「主耶和華阿！人都指著我說：他豈不是說比喻的麼？」（結二十49）

不禁掩面而歎息！今日的講解聖經的人，對於已往的事實，以及將來必要快成的事，也多有說：那不過是比喻。這也不過是比喻，那裡是真事呢？唉！反對先知、藐視神的話，今人仍蹈古人覆轍，這樣實在可惜！

十月四日　幸災樂禍的人成為鑒戒

讀了以西結書第二十六至二十七章，就看見亞門、摩押、西珥、推羅的受審判，其原因惟在乎「幸災樂禍」這四個字，我在此得了很大的教訓。我素日對於日本人不大有情感，每讀報記載到日本有天災人禍，我心裡未嘗不說：好的！好的！當我讀到聖經：主不喜愛人幸災樂禍。

又讀到以賽亞先知為受審判的悲傷勸勉，更使我慚愧。且思念基督耶穌降世，為要拯救罪人，使人得平安。我豈可不以基督的心為心。我若以眼還眼、以牙還牙，這是於行舊約的時代，卻不是行新約裡面。我的仇敵就是罪，我惟恨惡所犯的罪，思想到要救其人，卻不可因其人有罪；逐痛惡其人，而願他死亡。

主耶穌說：「要愛你們的仇敵；為那逼迫你們的禱告。」（太五44）我雖軟弱，實在求主憐憫施恩。

十月六日　巴底買

讀了馬可福音第十章四十六至五十二節所說的話，深感我的心。巴底買的境遇，不但是個瞎子，而且是個討飯坐在路旁的瞎子。他聽見了是拿撒勒的耶穌，就竭力的喊求，許多人也攔不住他，他那喊求的聲音，果然使尊榮的耶穌止步，被尊榮的耶穌垂青，也從尊榮的耶穌得著救恩。他因信丟去衣服、因信就跳起來、因信到耶穌那裡、因信就立刻看見了、因信就在路上跟隨耶穌。
從此可知境遇不能攔阻我來聽耶穌，逼迫也不能攔阻我來求耶穌。若不能得救，就是因你不肯來到耶穌那裡得生命呢！

十月二十二日　有用無用

我們信主的人，如何算為有用、如何算為無用，我從前很容易下一個界說；然而今晨讀到約翰福音第二章五節：「祂母親對用人說：祂告訴你們甚麼，你們就作甚麼？」我得了教訓。我想主告訴作甚麼，我就作甚麼，這就是「有用」。主所要我作的，我不去作，主所不願意我作的，我要去作，這就是「無用」。因為我靠主，方能作萬事，不靠主，這就一點也不能作甚麼。

我也把這意思，講給高師竹牧師聽，高師竹說：「多人因為不明白聽主的聲音，所以也不容易分辨甚麼是主告訴他的。」我回答說：「這雖然是一種原因，不過我確實知道，多人有許多長處，是主給他的，他不肯照著所得的恩去作。他偏要主給他別的恩賜，主不給他的，他就似乎不願意作甚麼了？」

感謝主！今日叫我明白這是「有用無用」的意思，我從此惟有求主的靈引導，使我完全順服主的旨意。阿們！

一九二二年

爭戰

何時撒但來攻擊我，何時聖靈即為我抵擋。爭戰的開始，惟將自己完全交託主。

「耶和華阿！與我相爭的，求你與他們相爭；與我相戰的，求你與他們相戰。」（詩三十五1）
在爭戰的時候，皮膚的傷痕，雖不可免的，靈裡的深處，就無大樣的。爭戰以後，愈發使我就近我的主、我的父，因祂是我的山寨、是我的盾牌、是拯救我的角、是我的高台。這樣愈發使我知道自己是卑微無用、缺欠、軟弱，為要在主面前自卑；並且對主說：「主阿！我算得甚麼？你竟顧念我。感謝神！常帥領我們在基督裡誇勝。」

風浪

主耶穌在船尾上睡覺，風浪能打入船內，及至主耶穌醒了，起來，斥責風和海，風和海就大大平靜了（太八23-26；可四37-39）。在個人、在教會，難免有風浪的興起。此時不可惶惶恐恐，躁急不平，惟有求主耶穌起來斥責風浪，必可力抵於平。否則橫生枝節，以致撒但有可乘的隙，就風浪愈發擴大了。

一九二三年七月至九月

聲音

「他們大聲催逼彼拉多，求他把耶穌釘在十字架上。他們的聲音就得了勝，彼拉多這才照他們所求的定案。」（路二十三23-24）

「他們的聲音就得了勝。」 這可以說是人的聲音得勝了，也就是魔鬼的聲音得勝了；因此他就把榮耀的主耶穌，定了死罪。甚麼時候我們不順服聖靈的聲音，讓人和魔鬼的聲音得了勝，那就是我們最危險的時候。

主耶穌說：「你們所聽的要留心。」（可四24）

「求主提醒我的耳朵，使我能聽，像受教者一樣。」（賽五十4另譯）

不要怕，只要信

環境的刺激、前途的攔阻，每次足以使我灰心喪膽。「屋漏又遇連陰雨，行船又遭打頭風。」在困苦中常有如此光景，但一想到主耶穌說：「不要怕，只要信。」這六個字，即是「剛強壯膽」了。

同工某位姊妹，蒙主指示須到鄉間未聽過福音的地方工作，我身雖未能與她同行，但心實在與她同工。然而實在不知有何等大的攔阻，三四個月以來，似乎四面黑暗，舉步荊棘。於是屈膝在主的面前，真不禁淚濕襟袖。方得一個好消息，即生一個意外攔阻，火熱盼望的心，此時像被澆上冷水一樣。有時音信杳然，如同進到絕境，再加上不知我的人又論斷我，撒但從旁邊來譏笑，使我難堪到極處了。

然而感謝讚美主！祂使我的耳朵中、心中常聽見、常想到「不要怕，只要信」這六個字。所以，我滿心相信神所應許的必能成就，和黑暗變為光明，除去了荊棘，進到平坦的道路。哈利路亞！主是可讚美的。

一喜一憂

自日本發生劇烈的地震和火災以後，據報章所記載多處繼續有地震火災的發生。

「日月星辰要顯出異兆；地上的邦國也有困苦；因海中波浪的響聲，就慌慌不定；天勢都要震動；人想起那將要臨到世界的事，就都嚇得魂不附體。那時，他們要看見人子，有能力、有大榮耀，駕雲降臨。一有這些事，你們就當挺身昂首；因為你們得贖的日子近了。……這樣，你們看見這些事漸漸的成就，也該曉得神的國近了。」（路二十一25-31）

前面所說的，已實現於今日。我盼望主的再來，於近日光景，知主實在快來了，我所以喜樂了。然而舉目觀看四處，屈指一數，在世界上，尚有許多人未認識耶穌。我的骨肉親友，信主者寥寥無幾。我安得滿身都是口，以傳揚主的救恩呢？我安得滿身都是腳，而逐家佈道呢？我安得滿身都是手，握筆寫書給天下人論到主耶穌再來的道呢？我誠有所不能，我的心何能不憂愁呢？但求主加我火熱的心、愛心、能力，使我能作得人之人，在祂來的時候，有許多人能站在祂面前，我就喜樂了。

燒香禮拜的人

我看見一位燒香禮拜的人，汗流滿面的，一步一步，目不傍視，勇往直前，真是使我覺得慚愧。他所拜的是偶像，有那樣的虔誠熱心，不畏道路的艱阻，而一步一步，不怕路人的譏笑，而伏地敬拜。我所信的是真神，第一，熱心不及他；第二，未受他那樣的苦；第三，不像他那樣不怕羞辱。感謝主！藉著這樣的事來激勵我，使我愈發熱心事奉祂。

苦難

「你使人坐車軋我們的頭；我們經過水火；你卻使我們到豐富之地。」（詩六十六12）
當經過水火時，苦就苦了。因此而到豐富之地，苦算得甚麼？今日的苦，生出他日的快樂，苦何以苦呢。苦難的來臨，乃是鞭策我們親近主的良好方法。《頌主詩》第一百七十九首：「無非益我恩至深」，「都是驅我到你前」，這乃是在苦難中的常道。

有一次信心受了極大的試煉，與同工某姊，且禱告、且讚美，將《頌主詩》第五十首：

「我一瞻望十字寶架，榮耀之主在上捨生。
萬般尊貴皆算卑下，一切利益皆算損傷。
求主禁我別有誇耀，惟以我主替死為榮。
我今為祂寶血神妙，撇去一切虛物浮情。」

「因為我遭遇患難，祂必暗暗的保守我；在祂亭子裡，把我藏在祂帳幕的隱密處。」（詩二十七5）

「耶和華的名，是堅固台；義人奔入，便得安穩。」（箴十八10）

何時苦難來到，仍當讚美主，在祂施恩座前，必有滿足的喜樂，足以抵擋外來的悲痛。

謙卑

「摩西為人極其謙和，勝過世上的眾人。」（民十二3）

我實在慚愧平日缺少謙和的態度，同工某姊妹常來提醒我，我雖知道，然未能實行。如今也知真有謙和的心，始有謙和的態度，時刻思念主是如何的虛己、如何存心卑微，不期然而自謙和了。

一九四二年四月一日

末底改知道 - 侯秀英

【讀經】：以斯帖記第四章。

　　　　末底改知道所作的這一切事

　　我們讀一至二節：「末底改知道所作的這一切事，就撕裂衣服，穿麻衣，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。到了朝門前停住腳步，因為穿麻衣的不可進朝門。」

　　末底改是豫表我們所經歷的這位聖靈。在第三章那裏，末底改不是隨便不跪不拜，他知道他作的是甚麼；他也知道前面的為難是甚麼。第四章一開頭就說：「他知道所作的這一切事（指王准許哈曼所作的)他就撕裂衣服，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。」以斯帖能到達第五章的光景，實在是從末底改出來的。從第二章開始，我們就看見末底改如何撫養以斯帖，後來就把她送入王宮，並囑咐她不可叫人知道她的籍貫宗族；而且天天在女院前邊行走，要知道以斯帖平安不平安？並後事如何。這是說到聖靈對於一個蒙恩的人是如何的關心，撫養長大，送入王宮，囑咐教導，天天關心，打聽消息。

　　後來末底改知道了王准許哈曼謀滅末底改及其同族這件事情之後，他並沒有叫別人痛哭，他乃是自己撕裂衣服，穿麻衣，蒙灰塵，在城中行走，痛哭哀號。直到今天，我們不知道聖靈為神的家怎樣的憂傷？怎樣的難過。

　　以弗所書四章三十節說：「不要叫神的聖靈擔憂。」可見聖靈為著神的家，為著我們(神的兒女)常常在那裏擔憂。羅馬書八章二十六節說：「我們本不曉得當怎樣禱告，只是聖靈親自用說不出來的歎息替我們禱告。」在創世記六章三節說：「人既屬乎血氣，我的靈就不永遠住在他裏面。」加拉太書五章十七節：「因為情慾和聖靈相爭，聖靈和情慾相爭…。」這就是說到人墮落以後聖靈就和人在那裏相爭。這個救恩是三而一的神所作的。

　　聖靈這個「心」若不是聖靈自己叫我們裏面懂得一點，即沒有人能懂得。在祂的憐憫中，我們稍稍的經歷一點點。有的時候我們裏面有說不出來的傷痛，但我們不懂得這是甚麼意思？固然有的時候聖靈是叫我們為著我們的罪自己責備自己而傷痛；但有的時候是神的憐憫，要我們懂得祂的「心」。末底改在城中行走，是說到聖靈在神的全地上運行。尤其是到了主快來的時候，聖靈更是加緊迫切的作了這件事。形式上看來，他所愛的人已經作了王后，可是這個王后本身還不知道這件事哪。只有聖靈知道，後來王后以斯帖的宮女和太監來把這件事告訴她，她甚是憂愁，就送衣服給末底改穿，要他脫下麻衣，叫他不要這樣難過，但是，他卻不受。

　　有的時候，聖靈在我們裏面豈不也是作同樣的工作麼？祂叫我們裏面有一種說不出來的難過，我們就對自己說：「不要這樣難過吧。」若是我們留心，聖靈現在還作這件事。在好幾年前，不知道為甚麼裏面有說不出來的難過？甚至難過到一個地步，以為自己是病了。有一年，我以為我真是病了，所以我真的跑到醫院裏去檢查，大夫說：「沒有甚麼病。」

　　　　「告訴」、「看」又「說明」

　　在以斯帖這卷書中，以斯帖算是站在很重要的地位上。但是，當你讀第四章時，你就要發現，際此大難臨頭之前夕，她卻毫無所知。當她剛被送入王宮，甚麼都不知道的時候，末底改就天天在王宮外邊打聽她的消息。當王的太監想要下手害王時，她也不知道，末底改知道了，就告訴她，然後她就奉末底改的名報告於王。當末底改…穿麻衣…痛哭哀號時，她甚是憂愁，就送衣服給末底改，要他脫下麻衣…他卻不受。於是她就吩咐太監哈他革去見末底改，要知道這是甚麼事？是甚麼緣故？


　　第七節說：「末底改將自己所遇的事，並哈曼為滅絕猶太人應許捐入王庫的銀數都告訴了她。」這是聖靈對王后所作的事。將自己所遇的事(就是指著哈曼要殺他的事)，直到今天，也是這個樣子。我們(基督徒)沒有一個人說不要聖靈，但到底要不要呢？要不要呢？因為聖靈在我們裏面所作所說的和我們天然的人是合不起來的，所以聖靈來真是要我們的命。故此，聖靈(末底改)和天然的老自己(哈曼)是不共戴天，勢不兩立的。

　　關於這一位聖靈懂得，祂知道若不藉著王后以斯帖出來，祂就沒有辦法了。這也是奧秘。祂既是三而一的神，按理祂能作嘛。祂也可以作嘛。但，不！祂卻要藉著王后以斯帖作。所以，末底改就將自己所遇的事，並哈曼為滅絕猶大人應許捐入王庫的銀數都告訴了以斯帖。魔鬼常藉著人的舊人(天然也就是自己)，而這個舊人為要滅絕聖靈的作為，就把一萬他連得的銀子(包括金錢、學問、時間、精神、體力一切所有的…)統統都捐上。不過有一點我們必須清楚的，就是：一面說固然是魔鬼作的；但另一面說，如果人不和牠合作，牠也是沒有辦法的。所以，我們不要把責任全數推卸在魔鬼們的身上，因為所有的惡謀、惡事、惡行…都是這惡人與惡魔聯合所產生的惡果。

　　魔鬼對猶大說：「你賣祂吧！可得三十塊錢。」三弄兩弄他聽了魔鬼的話，就把耶穌賣給他們。可見，猶大（人）如果不和魔鬼聯起來，即使魔鬼有天大的本事也沒有辦法。所以不要把責任全數推在魔鬼身上。甚至我們有的時候在傳說神的話，肉體還會出來。不禱告是肉體，禱告也在那裏發肉體，聲調、態度都是肉體，是不是？我自己也有的時候對自己說：「怎麼還這個樣子？」你看，這裏這個以斯帖就不是這樣，神藉著末底改也沒有對她多說甚麼，實在是個希奇的事，他只作了一點點，她就明白了，他也沒有對她說：第三天你要進去見王，你要怎樣穿朝服，怎樣進王宮的內院，怎樣對殿站立…都沒有講。聖靈在我們身上實在是寶貝的事，這就是主耶穌所說的，等到我往父那裏去以後…父就另外賜給你們一位保惠師。這位保惠師，「就是父因我的名所要差來的聖靈，祂要將一切的事指教你們。」（約十四26)祂要作你們的保惠師，甚麼事情祂都會教導。這裏只有說聖靈(末底改)將自己所遇的事…告訴以斯帖。

　　到底三而一的神來，就是要叫我們知道祂的事。我們常說要愛耶穌，要愛耶穌，其實我們永遠不會愛，乃是等到三而一的神來了，祂把主耶穌的愛啟示在我們心裏，你會不會愛呢？妳會不會愛呢？這是根本的事。

　　末底改是豫表聖靈，在以斯帖身上是叫她知道自己所遭遇的事，也叫她知道哈曼的惡謀，又將所抄寫傳遍書珊城要滅絕猶大人的旨意交給哈他革，要給以斯帖看，又要給她說明。因為那個時候，他沒有和以斯帖直接碰頭見面說話的機會。

　　當時，哈曼的惡謀是個旨意，所以是件大事。這一班撒但、肉體，牠不滅絕猶大人牠就沒有事做。所以，末底改叫哈他革要把那旨意給以斯帖看，又要給他說明聖經上有許多的地方都說到撒但、肉體，真是該讓聖靈指給我們看，聖靈也實在當我們讀聖經的時候就指給我們看，說：「你看，那一個肉體，要了那一個人的命了。你看這一個肉體，要了這一個人的命了。」

　　參孫是個很好的人嘛。但，就是那個肉體，那個肉體是甚麼呢？那個肉體就是愛一個女人，又愛一個女人。結果連眼睛也被剜去了。起先他向著主還清楚一點，但後來，三弄兩弄就體貼那個肉體了。體貼到眼睛被剜去了，剜去了就看不見了。今天，好多基督徒，得救是得救，但是眼睛被剜去了，因此，在許多屬靈的事上毫無看見。

　　再說，西底家吧！他裏面知道耶利米是先知；但他屈服在環境之下，又懼怕那些人，弄來弄去，他又不聽耶和華藉著耶利米所說的話了，後來他的眼睛也是被剜去了。

　　末底改叫哈他革把旨意給以斯帖看，又給她說明。深願我們讀聖經的時候，聖靈來指給我們看，又給我們說明。不錯，有的時候讀聖經就是這樣讀過去就是了，但有的時候聖靈真是在那裏顯明，指給你看，又給你說明，是不是？

　　　　根基若毀壞義人還能作什麼？

　　前幾天讀到詩篇十一篇三節說：「根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼呢？」撒但竭力要把這個根基就是三而一的神毀壞。自然牠不能毀滅，牠只能毀壞，牠就叫我們這裏加上一點，那裏減少一點。不說別的，就說這位聖靈吧，我們常說這是靈恩，其實聖靈來不只是個靈恩，聖靈乃是三而一的神啊！
　　你有爸爸媽媽沒有？有沒有？有爸爸、媽媽，他們都是很親近的人。我們被撫養到今天實在是在他們恩典的手中。我們不能因為爸媽對我好，所以沒有人對我好時，我就認個爸爸，認個媽媽，這是不對的。當教會沒有生氣，沒有活力沒有......時，我們常用這個話說：「我們就來一個聖靈充滿吧！」這是不對的。你若覺得沒有人對待你好，你又看見某某人的爸爸媽媽實在好，你就想，我也要來一個爸爸，來一個媽媽。實在說你這樣來的一個乾爸爸、乾媽媽，他們也不會對你好的。這是三而一的神啊！這是三而一的神啊！這是三而一的神啊！用人的話不得不說：「聖父、聖子、聖靈。」但祂是三而一的神啊！

　　你不用說，你沒有力量，你沒有聖靈的恩賜，所以你就來一個聖靈吧！這是三而一的神，根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼？

　　聖靈來就是把這三而一的神叫我們認識。一個人認識他的父母，孝敬他的父母，你想這個人好不好？好不好？在還沒有信耶穌以前要求一個忠臣，有一個標準就是：「求忠臣出於孝子之門。」一個人如果是家庭的「孝子」，他也必是國家的「忠臣」。換句話說，一個人如果不是個「孝子」，他也必不是個「忠臣」。所以未信耶穌以前，一個人若待父母不好，你別想他能作你的好臣僕、好朋友、好同事…照樣，一個基督徒對於三而一的神若沒有真實的認識，若沒有讓聖靈在該站的地位上，他就沒有辦法作個好的基督徒；更談不上在神的家中(在教會中)能有真實合乎祂心意的事奉。所以詩篇十一篇三節才那樣說：「根基若毀壞，義人還能作甚麼？」

　　我記得不大清楚，不過卻是有這麼一件事情，就是論到唐朝時傳入我國之景教(基督教之一派)，當時首先把耶穌傳入中國的那一位傳教士名叫納士多雷安，他是一個很有學問很有才幹的人。按著歷史上的記載：當時耶穌這個名幾乎傳遍了全中國。一時竟有幾百個傳道人，教堂也很普遍。但是，過了不多時，此教派竟完全消滅了，弄得乾乾淨淨，教徒一個也沒有留下。原因沒有別的，就是他所傳的耶穌，在三而一的神身位上、信仰上，有出入，有錯誤。一直到了利瑪竇時，神才再打發他來把耶穌傳入中國。

　　　　「定例」與「違例」

　　那麼以斯帖就說：「我沒有蒙召進去見王已經三十日了。」末底改又對她說：「妳要進去見王。」末底改真是豫表聖靈，就在這麼為難的時候，要進去見王。

　　我們信了主耶穌，對於神的敬畏是對的。照平常說：王召她，她該去；王不召她，她不該(不敢)去。但是聖靈這裏說了，妳要進去見王。我說不出裏邊所要說的。敬畏是件事情，懂得妳是王后的位分又是一件事情。

　　她雖作了王后，但她還在定例的裏邊。這個很難說了，你還得守「定例」，但末底改要你「違例」進去見王。難道末底改不知道這個禁令麼？他知道的。他所以說你要「違例」進去見王，乃是因為他知道王的心。雖然哈曼被抬舉高升，但是王的心還是愛他自己的國家啊！所以末底改要她違例去見王。只有聖靈，只有聖靈能帶我們到王面前。

　　我們實在該讓聖靈帶我們到主的面前，在我們的王面前，在我們的父面前。我們不說話，也不禱告。我這樣說，你不要一定這麼聽啊。也許你就要說，你既要說，你又不叫我們聽，那麼，你說甚麼？就是在主，在神面前，主耶穌說：「你要進你的內屋，關上門，禱告你在暗中的父。」下邊就說那麼一個禱告。關於禱告這件事，很難說，有的人一禱告就嘩啦嘩啦一大堆；正像有的人一見面就說，你好麼？好久不見了，我很想念你阿，你長胖了…像這樣的禱告不算什麼。真實的禱告是裏邊的，是靈裏的。這一個我們也會有感覺才是。有的人你和他坐下來，雖然沒有說多少話，但心靈中卻有一種甜美默然的交通。照樣我們到神面前，跪在祂面前，俯伏在祂面前，雖然沒有多少的話語，但心靈中卻有寶貴滿足深處的響應。

　　這個姊妹禱告說：「我們小得不能再小了。」小就小吧！我們就是這麼小。這幾天我心裏有一點感覺，到底也不知道怎麼樣？直到昨天晚上，裏邊還有這個感覺，我就跪在主面前說：「主啊！我是這樣感覺，到底你怎麼樣呢？」說不出的禱告，真是等到主在你裏邊說了一句(這個我們都嚐過的)那可是比甚麼都好。今天早晨，我就起來跪在那裏，一面讀讀聖經，一面默默禱告，祂在裏面說了，就是「這個」。一整天滿了「這個」。那麼美！那麼好！那麼踏實！這就是在主面前。

　　照著常例她不敢進去見王，但聖靈來要催促我們進去見主耶穌，帶我們到這位王的面前。聖靈來就是帶我們親近主，親近王。雖然出了這個禁令了，但聖靈懂得神的心；雖然沒有人知道神的事，但聖靈卻是知道的。這就是林前二章九節所說的：「是眼睛未曾看見，耳朵未曾聽見，人心也未曾想到的。」這是人沒法教導我們的。耳朵聽見是人的教導；眼睛看見是人的觀察；人心想到是人的領會；只有聖靈能把神深奧的事向我們顯明。讀到這些話，說出我們差得遠了！要給神時間，要給神時間，讓祂說話，真是寶貝。

　　末底改並沒有告訴以斯帖要禁食，乃是以斯帖因著知道末底改在外邊的為難以及事情之嚴重，她覺得要禁食了。聖靈雖沒有那樣說，但以斯帖裏面懂了，她說：「你去告訴所有的猶大人，為我禁食三晝三夜......我和我的宮女，也要這樣禁食。然後我違例進去見王，我若死就死吧！」感謝主！這個最艱難的時間就這樣的過去了，終於來到了第五章，現在我們禱告。

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology (1993); President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

E-mail: mohler@sbts.eduWebsite: http://www.albertmohler.com/

Education:

B.A., Samford University

M.Div., Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dr. Mohler became the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in August 1993. Before assuming the office of president, Dr. Mohler served as editor of the Christian Index, the state paper for Georgia Baptists. He also previously served as Assistant to the President at Southern Seminary. A leader among Baptists and American evangelicals, Dr. Mohler is widely respected as a theologian, speaker, and author. Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S." In addition to his presidential duties, Dr. Mohler hosts a daily radio program for the Salem Radio Network. He also writes a popular commentary and daily blog focusing on moral, cultural, and theological issues. Many of Dr. Mohler’s writings, his radio show, and his sermons and speeches can be accessed through his website http://www.albertmohler.com/.

His writings have been published throughout the United States and Europe. He has contributed to several books including Whatever Happened to Truth, Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, Here We Stand: A Call From Confessing Evangelicals and The Coming Evangelical Crisis. He served as General Editor of The Gods of the Age or the God of the Ages: Essays by Carl F. H. Henry and served from 1985 to 1993 as Associate Editor of Preaching, a journal for evangelical preachers. He currently serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.

The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D.A. Carson

The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D. A. Carson,

research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.

Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.

The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.

It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.

At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. [Footnote 1: If someone denies unconditional election, as an informed Arminian (but not an Amyraldian) would, most Calvinists would want to start further back.] That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.

But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).

The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.

So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God: (1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love, (2) God’s love displayed in his providential care, (3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and (5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.

In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.

Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.

In recent years I have tried to read both primary and secondary sources on the doctrine of the Atonement from Calvin on. [Footnote 3: One of the latest treatments is G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997).] One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.

I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).

Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.

(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it. [Footnote 4: Cf. somewhat similar reflections by Hywel R. Jones, “Is God Love?” in Banner of Truth Magazine 412 (January 1998), 10-16.]

(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.

D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79.

Donald A. Carson

Donald A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978.

Dr. Carson came to Trinity from the faculty of Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he served for two years as academic dean. He also taught at Northwest Baptist Theological College, Richmond College, and Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto. He has served as assistant pastor and pastor and has done itinerant ministry in Canada and the United Kingdom.

Dr. Carson received the Bachelor of Science in chemistry from McGill University, the Master of Divinity from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, and the Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from Cambridge University.

Dr. Carson's areas of expertise include biblical theology, the historical Jesus, postmodernism, pluralism, Greek grammar, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, and questions of suffering and evil. He is a member of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, and the Institute for Biblical Research.

Dr. Carson has written or edited more than fifty books, including The Sermon on the Mount (Baker 1978), Exegetical Fallacies (Baker 1984), Matthew (Zondervan 1984), From Triumphalism to Maturity (Baker 1984), Showing the Spirit (Baker 1987), How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Baker 1990), The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans 1991), A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Baker 1992), New Testament Commentary Survey, 6th ed. (Baker 2006) and Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Zondervan, 2005). His book, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan 1996), won the 1997 Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Award in the category "theology and doctrine." He coauthored An Introduction to the New Testament (Zondervan 1991) and other works. His edited works include It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Cambridge University Press 1988) and Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (Sheffield Academic Press 1993). Dr. Carson occasionally writes and edits with faculty colleague John Woodbridge; together they wrote the novel Letters Along the Way (Crossway 1993) and edited Scripture and Truth (Baker 1992) and God and Culture (Eerdmans 1993).

Dr. Carson was founding chair of the GRAMCORD Institute, a research and educational institution designed to develop and promote computer-related tools for research into the Bible, focusing especially on the original languages. Dr. Carson is an active guest lecturer in academic and church settings around the world.

Dr. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two children. In his spare time, Dr. Carson enjoys reading, hiking, and woodworking.

Together for What? By Mark Dever

College freshman Bob becomes convinced of the doctrine of election and has a burning desire to convince everyone else. He’s in the early "cage stage" of Calvinism.

Imagine his conversations with his friends, in his campus fellowship, in his church.

Everything becomes an illustration of God’s sovereignty. It’s all he wants to talk about. And if you disagree with Bob, watch out!

The question for you and me is, when we teach others the truth, do we do it with condescending pride and arrogance—we know something they don’t? Or do we teach with the humility of one beggar sharing his bread with another?

Compromise is bad. Cooperation is good. But how do you tell the difference? What are the primary doctrinal positions for which we need to contend, and what are the secondary doctrinal positions about which we can disagree with charity and love?

I’d like to consider how we can encourage each other to hold the truth with humility by setting out six questions:

Do we follow commands to purify or to unite?
What are some common fights Christians have?
What’s the specific purpose for cooperating?
What must Christians agree upon? (Essentials)
What may Christians disagree about? (Non-essentials)
How can Christians disagree well?

1. DO WE FOLLOW COMMANDS TO PURIFY OR TO UNITE?

First, do we follow commands to purify or to unite?

The Basic Problem

I trust most Christians recognize the problem confronting us: We live in a fallen world, where the truth will not always find a home. What’s true is not necessarily the same as what’s popular.
As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "There have been periods in history when the preservation of the very life of the Church depended upon the capacity and readiness of certain great leaders to differentiate truth from error and boldly to hold fast to the good and to reject the false. But our generation does not like anything of the kind. It is against any clear and precise demarcation of truth and error" (ital mine; from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Maintaining the Evangelical Faith Today (1952), 4-5).

We shouldn’t be surprised at times such as ours, when people oppose distinguishing truth from error. In Paul’s last letter, he warns, "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Was Paul simply paranoid—overly focused on ideas of truth? I don’t think so. The Lord Jesus teaches us to be on our guard. It was he who taught, "False christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard" (Mark 13:22-23).

How do we be on our guard? We must admit that we all tend to be either too inclusive (thus slighting God’s call to purity and undervaluing his truth) or too exclusive (thus slighting the width of God’s love and the amazing examples of his work).

Do you see how this happens? By pitting God’s Word against itself; by playing off one aspect of God’s character against another—say, his holiness against his love—we actually confuse ourselves and harm others. What we should do, instead, is grow in our knowledge of God’s Word and our own hearts. Then we will be more attuned to his truth as he has revealed it—both his call for holiness and for love.

Truth and humility shouldn’t be enemies. The fact is, they’re great friends, and truly growing in one should lead to growth in the other.

Too often, however, we find ourselves becoming a caricature of our tendencies. We either become a unity person or a purity person.

The Unity People

The unity people love Bible chapters like John 17. They perceive clearly that our unity with one another testifies to our unity with God in Christ, and that our love for one another shows God’s love for us (as Jesus taught in John 13:34-35). They love the love passages in the Bible:
"Make my joy complete by being like-minded" (Phil. 2:2);

"agree with each other in the Lord" (Phil. 4:2);

"all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Cor. 1:10);

"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love" (Col. 2:2).

There have been many unity movements among professing Christians in the last few decades. There is old-line liberal ecumenism—"let’s bring all the denominations together." There are the parachurch ministries which rally people from different churches to share the gospel—from Billy Graham to Campus Crusade. There is the charismatic movement, which has helped to create fellowship across old church divides. More recently there has been what we could call Great Traditionalism, which relies on an "oldest-common-denominator." You see this in the current fad among some evangelicals to use methods and objects associated with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as aids to piety.

The popular T-shirts among the unity crowd say things like "Doctrine divides" or "Love unites" or "Mission unites." It was from this camp that one bishop came who, not too long ago, said, "Heresy is better than schism." These doctrinal minimalists want "No creed but Christ; no law but love."

The Purity People

The opposite of the unity people are the purity people. They want purity of doctrine and purity of life. They want purity in our churches, in our Christian colleges, and in our seminaries.
These people take the Bible’s command to separate seriously. They know 2 John well: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work" (vv. 10-11).
Or John’s warning from his first letter: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (4:1).

And then there is Paul’s warnings: "keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (2 Thes. 3:6).

And "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? . . . ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord’" (2 Cor. 6:14, 17).

Add to these all the passages on church discipline (e.g. 1 Cor 5.) as well as Jude’s command, "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3).

The folks contending for the faith are the Fundamentalists and conservative Mennonites among us. These brothers and sisters will contend more quickly than they cooperate.

If you’re tempted to quote Jesus in Matthew 7:1 to such contenders—"Do not judge, or you too will be judged"—you should look a little further down the same page at verse 15 of the same chapter, where Jesus taught "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (7:15). And, of course, it’s Jesus in Matthew 18 who commands the church to eject unrepentant sinners from its fellowship!

The purity people seem to have a prophetic ministry of correction, just like the Puritans are stereotyped as having. Maybe their shoes were too tight. That made them grouchy. Their approach to everything can feel like, "Shoot first; ask questions later."

As we consider the unity people and the purity people together, the question we want to ask ourselves is, how do we take the best of both? The biblical desire for unity and cooperation as well as the biblical desire for truth and holiness?

2. WHAT ARE SOME COMMON FIGHTS CHRISTIANS HAVE?

For now, let’s consider another question: what are some common fights among Christians?
There are just so many to chose from! Should we pray for the dead? Is the Protestant Reformation over? Should we support city-wide evangelistic meetings that send the reported converts to the nearest church? Does the Fourth Commandment concerning the the Sabbath still apply today? Should we use hymns or choruses? Organs or guitars? Does God elect those that he foresees will believe, or does he simply elect? Are the supernatural gifts still active today? Is prophecy still happening today? Should churches accept repenting Christians who denied Christ in times of persecution back into their fellowship? Should churches be led by elders, a single pastor, a city-wide bishop? What does baptism do? Who should be baptized? Who should baptize? How should they baptize? Must baptism precede church membership? Is the Bible the church’s sole authority? Is it sufficient? Is it inerrant? Are there gender roles in the Bible that we are supposed to follow today? Are women supposed to be elders in a church? What’s an appropriate salary for a Christian minister? Should Christians tithe to their local churches? Should children be present throughout the whole morning service? Should Christians send their children to Christian schools or public schools; or should they homeschool them? Should ministers wear clothes that distinguish him from church members? Should church gatherings include performed music? Should churches hire non-Christian musicians to play for our public services? Should we believe before we belong, or belong before we believe? Is helping the poor a necessary part of evangelism?

Suppose you’re in the midst of such a disagreement with other leaders or members in your church. What should you do? I would move on to the next question, question number 3.

3. WHAT’S THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR COOPERATING?

Purpose Matters

What’s the specific purpose for which you are considering cooperating with other Christians? The kind of cooperation we are aiming at determines how much agreement is necessary. I can be friends with someone whom I wouldn’t marry. I can buy something from an individual I wouldn’t hire. I can pray with someone whose church I wouldn’t join. I can read a book by someone with whom I disagree. I can believe that someone would do a good job at some things, but not at others.

When it comes to religious questions, we must consider what the purpose is of a proposed agreement. For the purpose of salvation? For the purpose of belonging to the same church? For the purpose of attending the same conference or working together on the same project? What is the circumstance, the need, the purpose of cooperation?

Circumstances May Matter

Along these lines, Christians have found that the circumstances of the occasion matter. If you live in an area where Christians are persecuted, there is more motivation to cooperate. The number of Christians may well be small and fellowship hard to find. Christians in these circumstances may find far more encouragement in sharing and using the gifts of thirty people than in six or seven each establishing their own separate assemblies. Circumstances like these have led many Christians to work with people of other denominations more than they would have back in the United States. In other words, Baptists and Presbyterians are more likely to meet regularly together in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia than in Raleigh, North Carolina!

As Christians in America become more and more of a "cognitive minority"—a group which thinks differently than the majority culture—we, too, may find ourselves becoming more aware of our commonalities with other Christians than previous generations of American Christians have been.

Still, different kinds of cooperation require different levels of agreement. The requirements for church membership are more comprehensive than the requirements for planning an evangelistic outreach. The level of agreement needed between fellow church planters is greater than what’s needed for initiating college student fellowships together. We can recognize other people as Christians, in other words, even though we might not think it wise to plant a church with them.
Conferences and one-time events can be pulled off with even less agreement, and Bible translations with perhaps even less. (I can imagine that Bible translators are able to agree in matters of translation even when they don’t agree on the content of the gospel.) And, of course, Christians can practice co-belligerency with non-Christians on some public issues involving law and moral standards.

Creeds & Confessions

Throughout church history, Christians have composed written creeds like the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed in order to state clearly what beliefs they hold in common. Confessions like the Westminster Confession or the New Hampshire Confession do the same. So, too, with the statements of faith of individual churches and parachurch ministries. All such creeds, confessions, and statements express the basic level of agreement necessary for pursuing a common goal.

4. WHAT MUST CHRISTIANS AGREE UPON?

So here’s the million dollar question: what must Christians agree upon?

This is a dangerous question, and we must proceed very carefully. We don’t want to be like the teenager who asks, "How far can I go with my girlfriend?" which is to say, "What can I get away with?" In our case, we are not asking, "What’s the least that I need to believe and still be considered a Christian?" True Christians will find themselves growing in the desire to pursue God’s truth over every matter in which he has revealed himself in his Word.

The Apostles Teaching

To begin with, Christian fellowship can only be shared with those who share the Christian faith, that is, that body of teaching which articulates what Christians believe. In Acts 2:42, Luke describes the fellowship between the first Christians by saying, "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship…" Notice that Luke says they shared the apostles’ teaching before it says they shared fellowship.

Doctrinal choices that destroy and damn are called "heresies." The word "heresies" comes from the Greek word for "choice," and though we today are accustomed to using the word "choice" in a positive context, the apostle Peter showed how it can be used in just the opposite: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false prophets among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves" (2 Peter 2:1). A doctrinal heresy or choice is a departure from the accepted rule of faith. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is the right teaching of the Word of God.

As we’re looking to cooperate with other believers, we want to make sure we share the apostles’ teaching, not destructive heresies.

There is no agreed upon list of which errors should be called heretical, and it’s probably not useful to refer to all errors as "heresy." Doing so just ratchets up the emotional heat without adding light to a conversation. Not all errors are the same. In fact, it’s dangerous to treat all errors as the same. A misunderstanding of church membership is less important than a misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ! Some errors must be corrected; others can be endured for a lifetime.

Determining which errors can be borne with and which require separation requires us to understand the significance of the doctrine in which the disagreements occur, and even of the days in which a particular doctrine is in dispute. Just like some organs are more important than others, so some doctrines are more central than others. Our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross is more important than our view of the Sabbath, just like our heart is more important than our appendix. A human can survive the removal of his wisdom tooth or his appendix, but not his heart!

How To Learn

How do we learn what we must agree on? Let me suggest three ways: through the Bible, through our church, and through our conscience.

We learn the truth fundamentally, supremely, finally, and mostly through the Bible. This is God’s Word written. Study your Bible. Get to know God’s Word well. Always be growing in your understanding and your love for it. Read Psalm 119 in your quiet times for a month in order to meditate and grow in your appreciation for the great gift to us of God’s Word.

But God does not intend us to be earthly orphans, self-taught, self-regulating, self-centered. God has called us to belong to local churches that teach the Bible accurately and that are full of people whose lives show the fruit of his Spirit. Good teaching should bear good fruit. The elders in our churches should be able to teach us God’s Word, which means we should submit ourselves to them and their teaching. When teachers teach as they should, Christians together in a church will have a clear grasp on the gospel that saved them. (Paul assumes in Galatians 1:8-9 that this would be the case.) Ultimately, then, it is the duty of the local church to define what we must agree upon to be a Christian, and to be a member of that congregation.

We learn also through our consciences. Each of us has a conscience. By the Fall, the conscience was radically harmed, but this important aspect of God’s moral image has not been eliminated from our character. We all have an inherent sense of right and wrong. But that sense is inherent, not inerrant. Many people today treat their internal moral sense as their own unique god within, but the conscience must be corrected, trained, and taught, and it is our duty to do that according to the Scripture.

Clarity and Agreement

How can you tell if a doctrine is important and worth seeking agreement upon? Here are several tests for answering this question:

How clear is the doctrine in Scripture?
How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)?
How near is the doctrine (or its implications) to the gospel itself?
What would be the practical and doctrinal effects of allowing disagreement in this area?

The people of God have always recognized that both summarizing and teaching the heart of the truth is important. So God gave his people a summary of his law in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20). Moses in Deuteronomy 6 provided another summary on how they were to teach their children. And Christians from the earliest times have used the summaries provided by catechisms to prepare individuals for baptism—which is how the Apostles’ Creed was originally used. The church father Vincent of Lerins said in the fifth century that we should believe what has been believed always, everywhere, by all.

Right News, Right Views

One of the best words for Christian is "evangelical." An "evangelical" is one who is defined by certain specific news. "Good news" is what evangel means. Jesus says in the Gospel of John that the correct belief or views about his identity is necessary for someone to have eternal life; otherwise they will die in their sins (John 8:24).

Likewise, Paul tells us exactly what Christians should stand for—what is of first importance:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Do you feel uncomfortable prioritizing some truths over others? Apparently, Paul wasn’t.
Are you clear in your understanding that you must believe certain things in order to be a Christian? Paul was clear: "if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9).

Paul specifically urged the Romans to keep to the teaching they had already received (see Rom. 16:17). The Galatians, too: "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8; cf. Eph. 4:14).
He referred to "the truths of the faith" (1 Tim. 4:6) and encouraged Timothy to "devote himself to teaching" (1 Tim 4:13).

Paul warns that "if anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing" (1 Tim. 6:3-4). This is why heresies can be so destructive, because knowing and believing the truth is necessary to our salvation (see 2 Peter 2:1).

In fact, the apostle John taught that "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6). John also says,

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house [meaning, I think, the local church] or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work (2 John 7-11).

Jude refers to godless men "who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our own Sovereign and Lord" (Jude 4).

In the letter of Jesus to the church at Pergamum, Jesus called those who held to a particular teaching—the teaching of the Nicolaitans—to repent (Rev. 2:15).

Do you see how often godlessness and falsehood go together? We Christians are those whose understandings and whose lives are shaped by the Good News of Jesus Christ! That’s why Paul writes to the Corinthian church: "you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat" (1 Cor. 5:11).

Peter quotes Leviticus to remind Christians that "just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’" (1 Peter 1:15-16).
Throughout the Bible God declares that his people must not worship false gods or live lives devoted to them. John concludes his first epistle by writing, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). The idols he is talking about, I think, are the false gods of a christ who is not God incarnate, or a christ who tolerates immorality or a lack of love.

We are justified by faith alone, but a justifying faith produces Christians who look more and more like the God they worship.

Believe that God Is One

So what must Christians agree upon? I would say that Christians must agree upon God, the Bible, and the Gospel.

First, we must believe that God is one. He is triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is uncreated, self-existing. He is morally perfect. He is characterized by holy love. He is our sovereign Creator and Judge. He is the one we are called to believe in (Num. 14:11). As the LORD says to his people in Isaiah,

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:10-11).

We also read in Acts 16 that the Philippian jailer’s family rejoiced "because they had come to believe in God" (Acts 16:34).

And we read in Hebrews 11:6 that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists…"

This essential belief in God is the sincere acknowledgement of a fact. But it’s also more than that. James tells us, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder" (James 2:19). A saving belief in God transforms us increasingly into a reflection of his character. So John writes, "love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8).
Believe that the Bible Is God’s Truth

Second, we must believe that the Bible is how we know the truth about God. The Scriptures are God’s revelation of himself and, therefore, have authority in our lives and teaching. The verse right before the one just quoted says this: "We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6).

John’s words seem to match what Jesus taught in John 10:4—that the sheep know the voice of the Good Shepherd. They recognize his voice and follow it.
Likewise, Paul commanded the Thessalonian Christians to follow his instructions and to ostracize those who did not (2 Thess. 3:6, cf. 14-15).

Believe in the Gospel

Third, we must believe the gospel. The Good News is that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God incarnate (see 1 John). Without understanding this, we could not uphold the truth of God’s triune nature. The Trinity and the incarnation support each other. One cannot be attacked without attacking the other. As Paul said, "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

But the gospel includes not only Christ’s incarnation, it also includes his substitutionary death on the cross, his bodily resurrection, and his return in power and great glory.
Again, remember Paul’s summary of what Christianity is in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians had been dividing over all kinds of wrong things, which Paul spent fourteen chapters addressing. But now he turns finally to what they should contend for!

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance; that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Do you see the facts here associated with the gospel? Christ has died for our sins. Christ was buried. Christ was raised. There it is! And make no mistake: clarity on the centrality of the cross will promote fellowship theologically (as the relative importance of doctrines is clarified) and experientially (as humility is encouraged in our character).

As we lift up the cross, the gospel appears. It contains the News of a Holy God. It contains the News of man made in God’s own image, yet tragically fallen into terrible rebellion against God and under God’s judgment (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10; 5:12). It contains the News of Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and in whom we are to believe for eternal life (John 3:16, 18; 12:44; 17:20; 20:31; Acts 15:11; 16:31; Rom . 3:22; 10:9; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 1:29; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 4:14; 1 John 2:22-23; 3:23; 4:2-3, 15; 5:1, 5, 10). And it contains the News that we can be forgiven by God and reconciled to him through the gift of repenting and believing. Our repentance, moreover, will show itself in loving commitment to each other in the fellowship of the local church (Matt. 16; 18; Mark 1:15; Rom. 16:26; Heb. 10:25, 1 John 3:23; 4:19-21; 5:3, 13).

And the faith which alone justifies is faith in this God (Num. 14:11). It is trusting in his deliverance (Ps. 78:22). He has acted so that we may believe in him (Isa. 43:10). So Jesus’ first words in Mark’s gospel conclude with this call: "Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15).

John also wrote, "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16; cf. 3:18; 11:26; 19:35; 20:31; Acts 16:31, 34; Rom. 3:22; 4:24; 10:9-10, 14; 16:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:7, 22; Phil. 1:29; 1 Tim, 1:16; Heb. 10:39; 11:6; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:24).

We are justified only by trusting in this Jesus. Someone who doesn’t believe this gospel isn’t a Christian. Even people who call themselves "Christians," "church members," or "evangelicals" are not truly Christians if they don’t believe this gospel! Calling yourself something doesn’t make you one.

God, the Bible, the Gospel. You cannot have true Christian fellowship with someone who disagrees with you on these matters.

5. WHAT MAY CHRISTIANS DISAGREE ABOUT?

What then may Christians disagree about?

Again, I want to be very careful about this. I’m not giving you permission to not care about things that God has revealed in His Word. Nor am I trying to teach you how little you must believe and how much you can cooperate.

The answer to the question of what Christians may disagree about is best determined by the Bible and with the agreement of a Bible-preaching church.

Practical Matters

Christians can certainly have disagreements about practical matters. And some of these disagreements will, of practical necessity, cause local divisions. You cannot do something in two different ways. If this group of people are convinced that something should be done this way, and that group of people is convinced it should be done in another way, and it can’t be done both ways, then the simple answer may be to work separately, but with love and cooperation.
So in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas came to opposite conclusions about the way of wisdom in their work. Paul thought that they couldn’t work with John Mark; Barnabas thought they should. Instead of fighting about it, they "parted company" (Acts 15:39). We have no reason to think that either stopped believing the other brother was a Christian; it’s just that they knew they couldn’t continue working together because of this practical disagreement.

True or False

As we think specifically of gatherings that claim to be a "church," we may categorize them as either "true" or "false." By this I don’t mean that a "true church" never says anything false, or that a "false church" never says anything true. Rather, I mean that a "true church" preaches the true gospel, and is following Christ’s commands to baptize and celebrate the Lord’s Supper (including the practice of church discipline). A "false church," on the other hand, is one which has forsaken the preaching of the true gospel.

Regular or Irregular

Churches that preach the same true gospel we may classify as regular (according to the rule/Scripture) or irregular.

For example, it is my and my church’s understanding that the Bible teaches that baptism is only for believers. Any church who preaches the same gospel as we do but who practices infant baptism we would call true but irregular churches (my Presbyterian brethren, of course, would return the compliment).

But the point is, if we call them true churches, we can fellowship with them in the gospel, even if we wouldn’t agree with them on everything. We must have unity in the gospel to recognize each other as Christians.

Disputable Matters

But it’s clear from the New Testament that there are a number of other issues that true Christians differ about. For instance, the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols was a burning issue in many of the churches. But Paul was not overly concerned about Christians disagreeing with each other over this issue because they were not maintaining that a certain conclusion was necessary for salvation. They could work together so long as they wouldn’t be distracted by their disagreement. His sage advice? "Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God" (Rom. 14:22).

Paul also faced questions in the church about Christians regarding some days being more holy than others (see Rom. 14:6). But he called this issue a "disputable matter" (Rom. 14:1).
What are our disputable matters today? They are many. Questions about the particular practices of church membership are disputable.

Or consider the question of what the millennium is in Revelation 20. Some Christians would say we need to agree on this in order to have a church together. What do you think? Let’s run this through the tests I suggested earlier:

Test 1: How clear is it in Scripture? It’s mentioned in the two verses in Revelation 20 and nowhere else. And evangelical, Bible-believing commentaries are not in agreement about what John was referring to.

Test 2: How clear do others think it is in Scripture (especially those you respect and trust as teachers of the Word)? Again, I find a variety.

Test 3: How near is it (or its implications) to the gospel itself? I think it is unrelated. As long as we agree that Christ is returning, what he does during the Millennium seems to be of little significance to me right now.

Finally, test 4: What would be the doctrinal or practical effects of allowing disagreement in this area? We have not found any effects in our church—other than providing opportunities to practice charity toward each other. For that matter, the elders in my church disagree on this matter, and I cannot perceive any unfaithfulness or practical problems flowing out of these differences.

Non-Essential ≠ Unimportant

Now don’t misunderstand me. Non-essential does not mean unimportant. It may sometimes; but at other times, what at first seems non-essential may prove to be important.

For instance, the question about prayers for the dead may at first seem non-essential. But as you come to recognize that this particular practice undermines justification by faith alone, you begin to see how important the topic is. Praying for the dead assumes that any decision they made in this life does not stand. It says we can directly affect the eternal states of others, when Scripture is clear that our eternal state is determined only by our faith in Christ alone.
6. HOW CAN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WELL?

Finally, how can Christians disagree well?

Perhaps you have heard this helpful statement that came out of the German reformation: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things, charity (or love)." We must agree on the essentials in order to have unity, which we’ve discussed. And we allow for diversity in non-essentials, which we’ve also discussed. But how do we achieve that daunting command to love in all this?

Roger Nicole has suggested that we answer these two questions:
What do I owe the person who differs from me?What can I learn from the person who differs from me?

Let’s think about these questions for a moment.
What Do I Owe?

What do I owe the person who differs from me? First, I owe love. We should speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Second, I owe respect. Do to others as you would have them do to you (Matt. 7:12). When you are in a disagreement, make it evident that you care about the person you’re disagreeing with as a person, more than care about winning an argument. Listen carefully to what they’re saying. Clarify anything you haven’t understood. Always go for what people mean, even beyond what they’ve said. One of my theology professors always wrote out the pros and cons of the differing views.

The principle here is that you want to represent the opposite perspective as well as you can, so that the proponents feel satisfied with your presentation. After all, debates tend to harden proponents in their own ideas.

In all of this, consider what goals you share. Can you see what your friend is aiming at in what he’s saying? One way I try to explore differences is to use what I call a "decision tree." I try to begin where we both agree, and then trace out the point at which we diverge and ask why he made one decision while I made the other. Your goal should always be to avoid alienating people, but instead to encourage them. That will usually get farther in persuading them anyway!

What Can I Learn?

The second question to ask yourself in learning to disagree well is, "What can I learn from the person who differs from me?"

After all, perhaps it’s the case that I am wrong. Certainly I can learn something of my own assertiveness, and the temptations I face in discussion. Are we more interested in winning a discussion and safeguarding our reputation, or in discovering truth and leading it to triumph?
A couple of years ago I was reading a biography of John Wesley and I ran across this brief account:

It was customary for the itinerant and local preachers to take breakfast together, on Sunday mornings, at City Road. On one occasion, when Wesley was present, a young man rose and found fault with one of his seniors. The Scotch blood of Thomas Rankin was roused, and he sharply rebuked the juvenile for his impertinence; but, in turn, was as sharply rebuked himself. Wesley instantly replied: ‘I will thank the youngest man among you to tell me of any fault you see in me; in doing so, I shall consider him my best friend.’" (L. Tyerman, Life and Times of Wesley (Harper & Bros; 1872), III.567.)

Now that takes humility! And without humility, we can’t learn. We can’t learn the truth about ourselves or the truth about the Bible. According to the ancient Greeks, the opposite of a friend was not an enemy, but a flatterer. Our pride is our greatest enemy in all this.

Welcome correction as a good enemy of your pride. And appreciate the way in which those who differ with you can sometimes help to fill out or better balance the picture you’re presenting. It can be good to have Christian friends that disagree with us on some things—it gives us the opportunity to learn and to exercise our love.

CONCLUSION

How can we summarize everything we’ve considered? Handle Scripture carefully and in context. Know the Bible well. Love God by loving his Word. Meditate on Psalm 119. As Paul told Timothy, "the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

Put it all in perspective. If you’re a Christian, you’re an heir of heaven! God has called you to be a messenger of his gospel more than any other message. And what is your witness? Do people think of you as argumentative or quarrelsome? We want to be known more by what we are for than by what we’re against. And we always want to be for the gospel, and for being reformed by the Word of God.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things love.

Mark Dever is the pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church and one of the principles of Together for the Gospel.
March/April 2008, © 9Marks
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by 9Marks.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: ©9Marks. Website: www.9Marks.org. Email: info@9marks.org. Toll Free: (888) 543-1030.

silver shovel

The silver shovel is kept on the southwestern corner of the altar. The shovel is used for the removal of ashes left on the altar, the first task performed by the priests each morning at the break of dawn.

copper laver

The copper laver and stand, which stands in the Temple courtyard between the sanctuary and the outer altar, is the first of the Temple vessels to greet the priests each morning. There the priests wash their hands and feet before proceeding to attend to the daily tamid offering.

如何听圣靈的聲音--安靜中的大能 - 宣信

當初耶和華神并不是在烈風、地震或火中向以利亞彰顯　的同在、傳達他的旨意，而是在一個宁靜、微小的聲音中。在整首合唱曲中，有那一個音符像強調的休止符那樣有力呢？在整卷詩篇里，有那一個字比「細拉」(意即暫停)更動人呢？有什么事情比風雨突發前的寂靜，比自然界中异常現象或騷動暴發前籠罩著整個大地怪异的安靜更可怕、更令人震顫的呢？有什么東西能夠像「安靜中的大能」那樣感動人心的呢?

基督所帶給我們的祝福中最甜美的就是靈魂的安息。造物之工成全以後所定的安息日是這件事的預表，而神應許他百姓進入的安息美地，也預表了神這個偉大的心意。有「神所賜出人意外的平安」、「平靜和安穩」為那些歇了自己工的心存留，如此就帶來了所需要的力量，帶來了「不受任何事物干擾」的甜美平安，和「非世界所能給也非世界所能奪的安息」。我們靈魂的最深處，有一個安靜的內室是神所居住的，只要我們進入那里，平息其他的音響，就可听到他那宁靜、微小的聲音。

在繞著軸心旋轉得最快的輪子里，有個中心點是全然靜止的；同樣地，在最繁忙的生活里，也有一隱密處為我們存留--在那儿我們可在永恒的安宁里与神單獨同住。

「要休息，要知道我是神。」(詩四六10)這是真認識神的惟一途徑。「神在他的圣殿中，全地都當肅敬靜默。」

二十五年前，有位朋友遞給我一本書，後來成了我生命中的一個轉捩點。那本書名叫「真平安」，是一篇古老的信息；書中所載只有一個中心思想，就是：神在我生命的最深處正等著与我談話，只要我能安靜下來听他。

我當時想這事并不難，於是開始安靜，但是當我一開始安靜時，所有嘈雜的　音竟都往我耳朵里沖進來了；許許多多喧鬧的音響從外面的環境，也從我的內心里涌上來，一直到後來，除了這些煩亂与喧囂外我几乎听不到別的。這許許多多的聲音中，有一些是我自己里面的聲音，有的是我自己的問題，我自己的挂慮和出於己的禱告；其他的是那誘惑者的建議，和從騷亂的世界里跑進來的聲音。似乎從來就沒有像當時那樣，有那么多的事情需要我去做、去說、去思想；那時我整個心思被四面八方來的音響拉拉扯扯，最後迎向我的就只有一些嘈雜的聲音，和無法形容的不安。彷佛我需要注意听其中的一些聲音，甚至需要回答它們，然而神說：「要安靜(休息)，要知道我是神。」但是，又有為「明天」的事，「明天」當盡的職責和為「明天」的挂慮，使腦海里重新涌起了思想的沖擊，只是神又說：「要安靜！」以後，接著涌上來的就是我那顆不安靜的心極想快快就近他的禱告，這次神又說：「要安靜！」

當我留意這些命令，慢慢地學習听話，而把我的耳朵向所有的聲音關閉時，我發現：過了一陣子，當其他的聲音停下來，或是我自己不再去听它們時，就有一個宁靜、微小的聲音在我生命的深處，開始用一种說不出來的溫柔、能力和安慰在說話。當我留心听時，它在我里面就成了一种禱告的聲音、智慧的言語和對所該做之事的提醒，以至於我不再需要那么費力地思想，也不需要禱告得很勉強或不容易相信；相反地，在我心坎里那個宁靜、微小的聲音是圣靈的聲音，是神自己在我靈魂隱密處的禱告，是神對於我所有問題的答應，是神自己的生命和力量成了我靈、魂、體的生命和力量。這個聲音成了所有智識、所有禱告和所有祝福的本質，因為它就是永生神自己成了我的生命和我的一切。

親愛的弟兄姊妹們！這是我們生命最深的需要。藉著這個我們學習真認識神，藉著這個我們的靈命得到更新和喂養，我們的心也得到滋潤和滿足，我們因此領受了「生命糧」，身體得了醫治，靈魂也飲於主的活水泉。於是，像經黑夜卻飽飲了清涼、晶瑩之甘露的花朵那樣，我們能夠挑起各項職責，進入人生的各類爭戰里。但是，露珠如何未曾降在暴風雨的夜里，神恩典的甘靈也同樣地不曾臨到不安宁的心里。

搭在一列列不斷前進的人生快車上，我們不可能只用短暫的十分鐘草率地吃頓午餐，就想叫生命得到足夠的喂養而活潑、有力地經歷人生。我們實在需要安靜的時刻，進入至高者的隱密處和等候主的時間--那時，我們就能重新得力、學會「如鷹展翅上騰」，然後才能「奔跑不困倦，行走不疲乏。」

關於「安靜」，最重要的是它給神一個作工的机會。「那進入安息的，乃是歇了自己的工，正如神歇了他的工一樣。」當我們歇了自己的工時，神就開始在我們里頭做工。當我們停下自己的思想時，神的思想就進入我們里面；當我們從忙亂的活動里安靜下來時，神就在我們里面運行，為叫我們立志行事都成就他的美意。當那時，我們只需把運作在里面的流露出來就好了。

親愛的弟兄姊妹們！我們來享受神那神圣的安靜吧！讓我們住在「至高者的隱密處」，進入神自己和他永恒的安息里吧！讓我們停息所有其他的聲音，好叫我們得听那「宁靜、微小的聲音」。我們還要提到另一种安靜，是當我們保持緘默，讓神來替我們做的安靜。那种安靜是放下自己的籌划、放下為自己的辯護，和靠著自己的聰明、智慧想出來的權宜之計，好應付所有加在我們身上的無情言辭和痛苦打擊。我們實在太常為保護自己而提出許多理由來還擊，卻忘了讓神來介入其間了！

在整部圣經里，有那個埸面比我們的救主被罵不還口那一幕更令人尊崇呢？至於那些誹謗他的人，他本大可以藉著神圣權能的一瞥或一聲嚴厲的斥責，把他們踐踏在腳底下的，他卻讓他們去說，讓他們去逞其惡，而兀自在安靜的權能中站立--，這真不愧為神圣洁、緘默的羔羊！

神也已把這种緘默的權能，這种有力的忍讓和宁愿受屈的精神給了我們；這些能叫我們靠著愛我們的主得胜有余了。讓我們的言語与生活的种种，都能像何烈山上微小的聲音般那樣宁靜地發出，而成了一股輕柔、靜謐的聲響吧！那么，當這世界上熾烈的爭競過去時，人們就會紀念我們，如同我們想到朝露、晨曦、陽光和向晚時分的微風，以及加略山上神的羔羊，与溫柔、圣洁的天堂之鴿。


摘自：住在幔內

司提反的职事 - 徐爾健

徐爾建弟兄信息, 只有MP3檔案,請點選以下連結

司提反的職事