Tin-Chee Lo's Blog

By T.C. Lo

With the quadrennial (every four year) election event right around the corner, question arises as to how do we make difficult choices in a country with a Two-Party System?

As a starting point, I wish to draw out some principles from Christian-politicians. I turned to ChatGPT for help. Although it quickly provides me many names informationally, it does not give me satisfactory spiritual discernment as far as making sound judgments is concerned.

So, I had to go back to my own library of more than 200 books to seek out insights. Thankfully, I found an article written by Chuck Colson which I deem very biblical.  Colson was a politician and a trusted Christian who had great influence on the Kingdom of God. His article is copied verbatim herein. I hope you’ll enjoy reading it.

*****************

How Should a Christian Understand the Role of Government? by Charles Colson

Originally published by <Breakpoint> which is associated with the Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Christianity is about much more than salvation it speaks to all of life. “Jesus is Lord’ was the earliest baptismal confession. Scripture mandates taking dominion and cultivating the soil (Gen 1) and being salt and light (Mt 5:13-16). Abraham Kuyper, former Dutch prime minister and theologian, famously said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry out ‘Mine!’  

No area of cultural engagement is more important than government and politics: We are commanded to submit to governing authorities (Rm 13); Jesus Himself said, “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mt 22:21). This means Christians must be good citizens, pay taxes, obey laws, and serve (as called) in government, Augustine argued that Christians are to be the best citizens: what others do only because the law demands, we do out of love for God.

Because government is ordained by God to preserve order and do justice, we’re instructed to honor the king (1 Pt 2:13-17) and pray for those in authority that we might live peaceful lives (1 Tm 2:1-22). The only thing worse than bad government is anarchy.

The authorities are established by God, Paul said. Hence, John Calvin accorded the magistrate’s office as having one of the most important roles in any society-working as a servant for good (Rm 13:4). It’s a noble calling for Christians to enter public service. Contrary to common caricatures of politicians, some of the finest public servants I’ve known are serious believers who live out their faith in office without compromising their convictions.

The cultural mandate means the church has an important role to play with respect to political structures-working for justice, speaking prophetically, and often being the conscience of society, even when this means persecution, prison, or death, as it did for many in the confessing church in Nazi Germany. Though there have been times when the church has failed in this responsibility, thankfully today it’s at its post, the strongest voice in American society in defense of life and human rights. The church is also the agency that, in this age of terrorism, prophetically holds government to the moral boundaries of the just war tradition. Though in America we observe a strict separation of church and state (the state shouldn’t establish a state church or restrict the free exercise of religion), there should never be a separation of religion and public life. The public square needs religious influence; indeed, the Christian faith has played a critical role in shaping our institutions. Reformation doctrines such as sphere sovereignty (government doesn’t rule alone; all structures—the family, the church, private associations-have ordained responsibilities) and the rule of law made Western liberal democracy possible. Our Founding Fathers respected the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” recognizing that without a moral consensus resting upon Judeo-Christian tradition, virtue could not be maintained and self-government would fail. Noted historian Will Durant wrote that he could find no case in history where a nation survived without a moral code and no case where that moral code was not informed by religious truth.

But the church must approach its public role with caution and sensitivity. Pastors and other church leaders, for example, should never make partisan endorsements of candidates (which can divide our ranks and politicize the faith) or allow themselves to be in the hip pocket of any political party. That said, the pastor should never hesitate to speak boldly from the pulpit about pressing moral concerns.

There are clear dangers in dealing with politics. Among my duties as special counsel to President Nixon was winning the support of special interest groups. I found religious leaders easily impressed with the trappings of office. And later, watching from the outside, I saw Christian leaders succumb to these allures. There’s a fine line here. It was wrong when, for most of the twentieth century, evangelicals stood apart from politics; so too it’s wrong to allow ourselves to be married to a political party.

Christians individually and through organizations must engage in the political process, always preserving their independence and fulfilling the prophetic office (which may mean calling friends to account). Though Christians are to be the best of citizens, our first loyalty is not to the kingdom of man but to the kingdom of God.

Ref. 《The Apologetics Study Bible》，pp. 1802-1803

*****************

Appendix: 2024 Political platform Comparison

Source: Chinese Christian Crusade Monthly, September 2024 issue. 紐約家庭基金會 (NYFF) 的政策總監史蒂芬‧海福律師 (Stephen P. Hayford, Esq.) 。紐約家庭基金會是個非謀利教育組織，致力處理紐約州的信仰與家庭相關問題。自1990年以來，一直捍衛生命、婚姻、父母權利和宗教自由。欲了解更多信息，請瀏覽：NewYorkFamilies.org。海福律師對兩黨政綱給與詳盡分析，並以公平的立場，提供以下兩黨政綱比較

DEMOGRATIC PARTY POSITION — PROPOSED [民主黨立場擬議]

ECONOMIC (經濟)

支持每小時15美元的聯邦最低工資及公共部門的談判權。支持對人工智慧安全研究所投資，該平台反對工作權法。

Supports a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour and public sector bargaining rights. Supports investment in AI Security Institute, a platform that opposes right-to-work laws.

RECREATIONAL DRUGS (娛樂性毒品)

呼籲增加美國入境口岸可檢測芬太尼 (Fentanyl) 的檢查機器數量。

Calls for increasing the number of screening machines that can detect fentanyl at U.S. ports of entry.

FIREARMS (槍枝)

支持對槍支購買進行背景調查，聯邦禁止攻擊性武器和大容量彈匣；允許臨時沒收可能對他人構成危險之槍支的紅旗法。結束槍支製造商對其產品實施的槍枝相關犯罪免於承擔民事責任。

Support background checks for gun purchases, a federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and red flag laws that allow for the temporary confiscation of guns that may pose a danger to others. End gun manufacturers’ immunity from civil liability for gun-related crimes committed by their products.

EDUCATION (教育)

呼籲免費普及幼兒園教育，加強特許學校的問責制，貿易學校和社區學院免費學費，增加佩爾助學金 (Pell Grants) 的數量。反對私立學校學券計劃。

Calls for free universal kindergarten education, strengthened charter school accountability, free tuition at trade schools and community colleges, and increased Pell Grants. Oppose private school voucher programs.

ABORTION (墮胎)

民主黨支持聯邦立法，使墮胎在50個州合法化。此外，呼籲納稅人為墮胎提供資金。表示支持藥物流產、擴大節育機會和體外受精。

Democrats support federal legislation to legalize abortion in all 50 states. Additionally, taxpayers are called upon to fund abortion. Expresses support for medical abortion, expanded access to birth control, and in vitro fertilization.

TAXES (稅務)

呼籲為低收入和中等收入美國人減稅，為億萬富翁設定25%的最低稅率• 提高富人的醫療保險工資稅，將企業稅率從21%提高到28%．擴大兒童稅收抵免，為首次購房者提供一萬美元免稅額。

Calls for tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans and a 25% minimum tax rate for billionaires • Increases the Medicare payroll tax for the wealthy and increases the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Expand the child tax credit to provide a $10,000 tax exemption for first-time homebuyers.

FOREIGN POLICY (外交)

民主黨綱領表達對烏克蘭的支持，呼籲有效外交阻止伊朗成為核武國家，呼籲台海和平與穩定，並呼籲限制中國取得某些技術。以色列綱領呼籲擊敗哈馬斯，呼籲以色列/哈馬斯戰爭停火，並呼籲建立巴勒斯坦國的兩國解決方案。

The Democratic Party platform expresses support for Ukraine, calls for effective diplomacy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state, calls for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and calls for restrictions on China’s access to certain technologies. The Israeli platform calls for the defeat of Hamas, a ceasefire in the Israel/Hamas war, and a two-state solution that would create a Palestinian state.

TRANSGENDERISM (變性)

民主黨綱領呼籲通過《平等法》，該法將在全國範圍內禁止基於性別認同的歧視。還呼籲擴大女同性戀者（LGBT）的心理健康和自殺預防工作，禁止消除「性別不安心理健康服務」。

The Democratic platform calls for the passage of the Equality Act, which would ban discrimination based on gender identity nationwide. It also called for the expansion of lesbian (LGBT) mental health and suicide prevention efforts and the elimination of “gender dysphoria mental health services.”

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY（移民與邊境安全）

民主黨表示支持為長期非法移民提供獲得公民身分的途徑。該綱領也呼籲建立安全的南部邊界；擴大合法移民，包括增加家庭和就業簽證數量、尋求庇護者的法律顧問；緊急授權驅逐移民；以及繼續兒童入境暫緩遺返（DACA）計劃。

Democrats have expressed support for providing a path to citizenship for long-term illegal immigrants. The platform also calls for a secure southern border; expansion of legal immigration, including increased family and employment visas, legal counsel for asylum seekers; emergency authorization to deport immigrants; and continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (同性婚姻)

民主黨表示支持《尊重婚姻法》，這是一項2022年聯邦法律，要求美國政府和所有州政府承認同性婚姻。

Democrats expressed support for the Respect Marriage Act, a 2022 federal law requiring the U.S. government and all state governments to recognize same-sex marriage.

HEALTH CARE (健康保險)

反對削減醫療保險，呼籲增加預防性護理的資金。呼籲將健康保險保費稅收抵免永久化，並呼籲將醫療補助擴大到全國。此外，還要求處方藥費用每年上限為 2,000美元，胰島素價格每月上限為35美元。

Oppose cuts to Medicare and call for increased funding for preventive care. Calls to make the health insurance premium tax credit permanent and to expand Medicaid nationwide. It also requires capping prescription drug costs at $2,000 per year and capping insulin prices at $35 per month.

REPUBLICAN PARTY POSITION 共和黨立場

ECONOMIC (經濟)

呼籲減少聯邦法規和聯邦支出，取消對能源生產的限制，對外國製造的產品徵收關稅，並鼓勵加密貨幣和人工智慧的成長。

Calls for reducing federal regulations and federal spending, removing restrictions on energy production, imposing tariffs on foreign-made products, and encouraging the growth of cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence.

RECREATIONAL DRUGS (娛樂性毒品)

呼籲美國海軍檢查船隻是否藏有芬太尼和芬太尼原材料。

Call on the U.S. Navy to inspect ships for fentanyl and fentanyl raw materials.

FIREARMS (槍枝)

表示支持攜帶武器的權利。註：建國之初，美國立法讓國民擁有槍枝，原因是「如有獨裁者出現，人民可以武力抵抗。」

Express support for the right to bear arms. Note: At the beginning of the founding of the country, the United States legislated for citizens to own guns because “if a dictator appears, the people can resist with force.”

EDUCATION (教育)

呼籲全民擇校（即支持學券計劃，讓家長自由為孩子選讀私校）；教師續效薪資、教師任期的結束；促進父母權利、宗教自由和公民教育；取消向學生灌輸性別意識形態、性行為或批判種族理論的學校的資助。

Call for universal school choice (i.e., support the voucher program to allow parents to freely choose private schools for their children); renew teachers’ salaries and end teachers’ tenure; promote parental rights, religious freedom, and civic education; and eliminate the indoctrination of students into gender ideologies, sexual orientation, Funding for schools of behavioral or critical race theory.

ABORTION (墮胎)

共和黨綱領認同美國憲法第十四修正案，防止未經正當法律程序剝奪生命或自由。該綱領聲稱，各州可自由通過保護生命和自由法律。反對晚期墮胎，支持節育和體外受精。

The Republican platform endorses the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law. The platform states that states are free to pass laws protecting life and liberty. Opposes late-term abortion and supports birth control and in vitro fertilization.

TAXES (稅務)

呼籲將 2017年減稅和就業法案各部分永久化，包括標準扣除額加倍和擴大兒童稅收抵免。還呼籲對工人減稅，對擁有住房實行稅收激勵措施，並取消餐廳和酒店工作人員的小費稅。    

Calls to make parts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 permanent, including doubling the standard deduction and expanding the child tax credit. There are also calls for tax cuts for workers, tax incentives for homeownership and the elimination of tip taxes for restaurant and hotel workers.

FOREIGN POLICY (外交)

共和黨綱領呼籲為美國建立鐵穹防空系統。還呼籲美國盟友為自己的國防支付公平的份額。支持以色列，並表示應禁止中國購買美國財產和工業。

The Republican platform calls for the creation of the Iron Dome air defense system for the United States. It also called on U.S. allies to pay their fair share for their own defense. Supports Israel and says China should be banned from buying U.S. property and industry.

TRANSGENDERISM (變性)

共和黨表示阻止男性參與破壞女性隱私的行為（例如進入女性衛生間及更衣室）。取消納稅人對變性手術的資助，阻止學校促進性別轉變，以及推翻拜登政府的第九條規定。

The Republican Party said it would prevent men from engaging in behavior that violates women’s privacy (such as entering women’s restrooms and locker rooms). Eliminate taxpayer funding for gender reassignment surgeries, prevent schools from promoting gender transition, and overturn the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations.

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY (移民與邊境安全)

共和黨呼籲在美國南部邊境建造隔離牆；恢復川普政府邊境政策，包括留在墨西哥政策和川普旅行禁令；使用軍事人員支援邊境執法；加重對移民犯罪的處罰；將被販運的無證兒童送回原籍國的父母身邊；擇優移民；以及取消對庇護城市的資助。

Republicans call for building a wall on the U.S. southern border; restoring the Trump administration’s border policies, including the Remain in Mexico policy and the Trump travel ban; using military personnel to support border enforcement; increasing penalties for immigration crimes; sending trafficked undocumented children to Returning to parents in their country of origin; merit-based immigration; and defunding sanctuary cities.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (同性婚姻）

共和黨並未就此議題表明立場。

Republicans have not taken a position on the issue.

HEALTH CARE (健康保險)

反對削減醫療保險，支持保留和加強醫療保險。呼籲擴大退伍軍人的初級保健服務範圍和醫療保健選擇。

Oppose cuts to health insurance and support preserving and strengthening health insurance. Calls for expanded primary care services and health care options for veterans.

Character and Policy

Candidates are sinners, we agree. The debate among Christians is: which candidate’s sin is more serious. We tend to “quantify” sinfulness. But God sees things differently than we do, even though we don’t know it clearly. To God, all sins are a fall-short of His glory. Compared with God’s holiness, all sins are big sin. This is the doctrine of “Total Depravity.”

God called David “a man after His own heart.” But no one’s sins were more heinous than David’s: he robbed other person’s wife, designed to cover up his own sins, and in order to silence her husband, he used tricks to kill him who was also his trusted and loyal general. But to our surprise, God greatly used David. God does not pay attention to the “quantity” of man’s sin because when He chooses a person, the Holy Spirit will come to that person, causing him to irresistibly repent and be regenerated (irresistible grace). It’s all (100%) God’s mercy. Paul’s example is even clearer. God chose to use him before he is converted by the resurrected Christ. The difference David and Paul is that Paul persecuted the church of God and David was morally corrupted against God, both were equally sinful. But God can use heinous people. Why this is so, we have no way of knowing fully. So, what should we do?

The Bible tells us that anything “that is not done according to our conscience” is sin. When it comes to this election, it is nice to tell others the information we know about so as to help  other people to make what they think is a wise decision. But we must not attempt to “convince”a person how to vote. Instead, we should encourage him to act according to his conscience, lest he may commit a sin of  “against his conscience” due to your instigation. Christians believe that the outcome of election is in the hands of the sovereign God. My personal position is: respect other people’s opinions and decisions, leave the result to God without any worries, and continue to concentrate on doing what you should do every day. As a matter of fact, the Bible offers ONLY ONE clear prescriptive order on politics, that is to “pray for those in authority.” Apart from this, to my mind, there is no explicit instruction on politics. Therefore, there is no manner of voting that we can consider as “offending God.” You just simply vote from your conscience and be at peace. You have no ground to criticize the way your friends vote.

The “character” of a candidate is certainly important, but there is a Separation of Powers built into the check and balance system. But policy mistakes are like driving in the wrong direction, the faster and farther you drive, the harder it is to turn back. The interaction of both character and policy must be considered.

Ultimately, we must know that whoever sits in the White House is ordained by the sovereign God according to His wise and good will. Christians should not be too anxious or emotional about the outcome. Our job is to pray for the ones in authority as instructed by the Scripture.

By T.C. Lo (卢天赐)

English version: https://hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=1231

One of the most FAQ: Among all religions in the world, why is only Christianity credible?

有一次马大 (Martha) 女士烤了一个美丽的蛋糕带到办工室来, 好让同事们分享。 同事们都是有名望的专家, 每人都吃一小块。 但他们连吃疍糕都三句不离本行, 每人都把疍糕研究一番, 居然各人写了一分佈告:

• 营养科学家: 计算蛋糕内含多少卡路里 (calories) 并告诉我们对健康有何影响。
• 生化学家: 告诉我们关於蛋糕内的疍白质和脂肪的分子结构。
• 化学家: 他的描述牵扯到内在的基本元素及其原子的结合详情。
• 物理学家: 他可以依据基本粒子 (fundamental particles) 来深入分柝。
• 数学家: 无疑地提供一组方程式来描述粒子的运转状态。

我们可以说, 这疍糕巳经完全被解释了。 真的吗? 不。 至少我们不知道为什么马大女士会烤了这个蛋糕? 目的何在? 答案议论纷纷: 某人生日? 老闆生日? 某人升职? 庆祝部门工作成绩优秀? 但事实上单单只有烤蛋糕的马大才知道真正的答案。

有一次, 一个爸爸带着一个五岁的小孩子往纽约去看看大城市。 不料那小孩因太兴奋了便放开爸爸的手, 独自往人群里跑, 不到一分鐘, 小孩便不见了。 我相信小孩一定很慌张地在找爸爸, 而爸爸也迫切地找儿子。 你认为小孩找到爸爸容易呢? 还是爸爸找到小孩更有把握呢? 我想你我都知道同一答案。

古代的中东人很喜观说寓言故事。 下面是一个你我读小学时都听过的故事: 在印度王 Benares面前有5个瞎子, 有人把一头大象带进来, 任瞎子们去惴摸。

• 第一个瞎子摸着象的鼻子, 便说, 呀! 原来象是一条水管
• 第二个瞎子摸着象的大脚, 便说, 呀! 原来象是一栋大柱
• 第三个瞎子摸着象的身子, 便说, 呀! 原来象是一壁大墙
• 第四个瞎子摸着象的耳朵, 便说, 呀! 原来象是一把扇子
• 第五个瞎子摸着象的尾巴, 便说, 呀! 原来象是一条绳子

瞎子们都用他们过去所领会到的经验来描述大象, 他们的知识实在离实体太远了! 只有明眼的人才能真真正正把大象的真相告訢他们。

还有, 你有没有想过这个似乎是不言而喻的奇怪问题呢? 你怎样知道你是你妈妈的女儿? 答案是, 你无法知道, 除非你妈妈告诉你。 甚至你爸爸告诉你, 你也只能用信心接受, 唯独生你的妈妈才真正具有正确的答案。

上面所说的四个故事阐明一个非常重要的真理, 就是 “启示的必要性”。 甚么是启示呢? 启示就是你不能确实知道, 除非有一位比你更聪明, 更有智慧, 更有能力, 更有洞察力的智者告诉你。 如果他没有告诉你, 你只有像瞎子们一般去猜侧, 无法有把握地全知其详情。

我们所知道的宗教大至可分为两大类: 以人为本的宗教 (即人本宗教), 和启示宗教。 人本宗教的上帝是人想出来的, 是人造出来的, 每个人的文化背景都各不同，人生经历也不同, 因此一定议论纷纷, 公有公理, 婆有婆理, 结果形成宗教林立。 你相信印度有三万万三千万位神明吗? 佛教本是无神的哲学，是人悟出来的思想，由其是当它被传到中国后，便弄到满天神佛。 中国的民间宗教与希腊神话一样，完全是人想像的东西。台湾面积不大，却处处可见庙宇及祠观。政府登记在案的庙宇就有三万多，还不包括土地公庙。可见各式各样的偶像崇拜都是以人为本的信仰。

但启示宗教是神亲自告诉人类祂是怎样的一位神。 如果你根据上述的寓言故事并承认启示真理比人本真理更可信, 那么问题便巳解决了一大半, 我们便可以把以人为本的信仰—佛教, 道教, 儒教, 印度教, 民间宗教, 毛神教 （以毛泽东为神的教），偶像膜拜之类—排除在考虑之内了。 剩下就只有基督教 (包括天主教), 回教, 耶和华见证人教, 摩门教, 等类了。 它们都是以启示为始点的。

在启示宗教中, 神是启示者, 而人是接受启示者。 人是有限的, 世上没有一个人能独自承担神伟大的启示。 再者, 神的启示真理是超越时空的, 如果祂只向一个人启示, 不但那人不能完全承担, 而那个启示也只能适合于那一个人当时所处的世代而矣。 这种 “向一人只一次” 的启示之例有:

穆罕默德在一个特别的晚上, 天使加伯列 (Gabriel) 向他顯現, 其後他又骑骡升天, 在天上他获得属灵的启示后. 但他甚感困惑, 不知意义何在。 他需要别人告诉他这是神的声音。 回教就是这样被创立了。

摩门教的总部设于美国犹他州盐湖城。 它的教主约瑟史密斯 (Joseph Smith) 有一天在纽约上州的 Palmyra 小镇附近的克莫拉丘 (Hill of Cumorah 在 Rochester 与 Syracuse 之间) 遇见一位天使。 据他说天使给他几片金板牌 (gold plates), 上面有革新的埈及象形文字 (Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics)。 史密斯靠着乌陵和土明 (Urim 和 Thummim 是圣经旧约时代祭司用来作决定用的物件) 之助, 把它翻译成为今天的摩门经。 摩门教就是这样被创立了。

但基督教与回教和摩门教大不相同; 基督教的启示是 “向多人且多次” 的。 圣经的内证 (internal evidences) 是: 神在古时藉著40多位众先知多次多方地晓諭以色列人的列祖，到了耶穌降世, 神便更直接地藉著耶稣晓諭给世人，并声明衪是神的儿子, 是早已被立为承受万有的，并声明衪就是那创造诸世界的那一位。简言之: 这就是神藉着启示, 宣告耶稣是神。 整个启示过程长达 1600年之久。 先知们把他们所领受的启示记录下来便成了66卷书, 总合起来就是一本圣经。 究竟作者共数十位, 时距共一千多年, 有何特别意义吗? 大有意义! 这样長期的启示过程是渐进的。 这种渐进式说明了人类受神启示的限度。 这启示:

• 是经多次多方的: 既说 “多次多方” 和 “众先知 (或使徒)”, 可见每次, 每人所领受的都不完全。 神是逐渐地把衪的启示赐给人类直到完全赐下为止。 神并不是在一时之间, 就把全部的旨意, 完全的启示给某一个时代的某一个人, 而是一部分, 一部分地给许多个不同的人, 而且经历许多不同的时代。

• 是经长久时日的: 为什么神不在一时之间, 把祂的启示完全赐给一个人, 而要在不同的时候, 分别赐给不同的人, 直到祂的启示完全显露出来呢? 因为世上没有一个人, 有足夠属灵的悟性和程度, 可以承受神全部的启示。 另一方面, 没有一个时代的历史, 是足够表明神超时代的启示。 所以上帝需要在不同的时代, 选用适当的历史事故, 还要用不同的方法, 赐下启示。 例如神对旧约不同的先知, 有些用谜语, 有些用异象, 有些用异梦, 有些则是 “明说”。 如果圣经是在很短的时间内完成, 就不能在不同的时代中选取足够的历史教训。

• 是要选择可用之人的: 神要这样多次多方的藉著众先知晓諭祂的百姓, 又藉众使徒教导祂的教会, 并不是因为神的启示不完全要慢慢进步到完全; 而是因人是有限有罪, 也因人在属灵的智慧方面, 在属世的学识方面, 在不同时代的历史环境的限制, 对於人生的体验和灵性的领悟方面, 有种种的缺欠和限度, 以致受感写圣经的人都只能领受一部分的启示。 他们都受到环境和本身可以被神使用来领受祂的启示的限制。 如果全部圣经都由亚伯拉罕一个人写好, 那么当时的人对救恩的认识, 婚姻的观念, 家庭的制度, 事奉的生活体验, 真理的原则应用, 一定都限制在亚伯拉罕那一个时代的人的观念之下, 而不能具超时代的特性。 今天的人便说, “圣经是亚伯拉罕时代的东西, 现在过时了。” 但圣经的完成, 是由很多人经过很长时间写成, 其间已经过了许多现代人所谓的 “代沟”, 许多因时代不同而有的隔阂, 许多因环境不同而产生不同的人生观念, 已一再重复了多次, 巳具备超时代全备的真理原则了。 因此基督教圣经中的启示是远比回教,摩门教等等的 “向一人只一次” 的启示更合理, 更可信了。

既然 “向多人且多次” 的启示比 “向一人只一次” 的启示更合理, 而“向多人且多次” 的启示的产物是圣经—基督教的神向人类启示的记录, 那么圣经一定有它与众经不同的特点。兹列5点 (其实不止5点) 说明之:

• 圣经内容的连贯性: 四十多位作者活在1600年的期间分别写了66卷书。 这些作者有君王, 乡下人, 哲学家, 渔夫, 医生, 政治家, 学者, 诗人, 和农夫。 他们活在不同的文化, 有不同的人生经历, 具有不同的性格。 但圣经不是66卷书的集成体, 乃是一有连贯和中心思想的一本书。

• 预言及其应验: 圣经中至少有四分之一的篇幅是预言, 即所写的事件在书写时尚未发生。 今天, 这些预言极大部分巳应验, 只剩下耶稣再来那部分的预言尚待应验。

• 世上没有一本书曾用那么多种语言出版而为着那么多种族和文化而成书如圣经一般。

• 全书指向一位高尚完美的人物, 就是耶穌基督。

• 圣经是有历史根据和支持的书, 这就是它的外证 (external evidence)。

既然耶穌是整个基督教启示的中心, 衪一定有些与众宗教创始人不同的独特性。 只列数点为例说明之:

• 独特的品格—-无与伦比的纯洁。 衪的家人, 门徒, 敌人都承认衪是无罪的。

• 独特的起源—-童女所生 (与圣经敌对的可兰经也承认) 。

• 衪能行神蹟作可信的凭据 (都有历史证据)

• 衪从死里復活 (Easter之源。 真正研究的人都得到正面结论并信了耶稣)。

• 祂自己知道 (self-knowledge) 并自己宣告祂是神 (穆罕默德自称获启示而不自知)。

• 衪对罪 (sin罪) 和罪性的描述是何等真实透澈 (现代人淡化罪; 你能说最近枪杀20名小学生和6名教职人员的事件不是罪吗? 是幻觉吗?) 。

• 祂对你我的弊病 (罪) 提供了一個独一无二的救法 — 教育, 道德, 宗教, 能救人吗?

• 衪插入 (乐於参与) 人类历史的时间当中 (摩门教教主约瑟史密斯的金牌启示, 既无历史根据, 又无证人在场。 可信吗?)。

当我们了解“圣经的独特性”和“耶稣基督的独特性”后，我们便可以总结几个铭刻于心的重点：

• 圣经中的上帝，本着祂的怜悯，差遣自己的独生子为世人的罪而牺牲。世上没有任何宗教具有如此惊人的宣告。赦免与恩典是福音的特色, 是世上没有任何宗教可提供的。

• 基督教是建立在历史的事实上。所以它是可以研究的。例如耶稣基督的复活，除了圣经的内证外，还是历史的外证。

• 圣经作为历史的文献，其可靠性使基督教与其它信仰系统不同。

• 关于生命最深层的问题，就是：
  源头：我们从哪里来？
  意义：我们人生的目的？
  道德：我们如何去生活？
  归宿：我们死后往哪里去？
  只有基督教的世界观才能提供互相密合，且令人满意的答案。

上述每一点都是非常大的题目, 不能在此文详细说明。 敬请读者暂时先接受, 以后再谈。 在我们人生的学习过程中, 我们岂非都经历过 “我相信, 为要明白” 的真理么?

说到这里, 我必需声明一件事, 就是错误地选择信仰的严重性。 相信有神的人大都认为宗教是人性中最祟高的表达。 一般来说, 人们的意见都视宗教为一种固有地令人钦佩, 視為高尚且对社会有益处的东西。 應註意的是: 在所有人文学科 (哲学, 文学, 艺术等) 中没有一样比宗教对人的灵魂更具潜在性的危害力。 没有一样事情比错误的宗教更邪恶, 且邪恶得更透切。 因此, 耶穌在世时常常毫不保留地严严地斥责那些披着圣经真理外衣的假师傅和犹太宗教的领袖们。 使徒保罗在新约圣经中也是如此表达他对宗教的看法。 我个人不太喜欢用 “基督教” 这个名词, 我在此文中所提到的基督教, 正确而言, “基督教” 乃是指 “基督的教導”，或可应称之為 “福音”。 所以传福音不是传一种称为 “基督教” 的宗教, 乃是介绍基督教所论及那位神圣伟大的人物—耶穌—给别人, 让他们认识耶穌是救世主并愿意与祂建立个人的关系。 这不是说我们不能用 “基督教” 这三个字来代表福音, 乃是说, 当我们用 “基督教” 这三个字时, 我们要清楚了解其内涵乃是指与耶穌基督建立个人的关系, 不是靠善行功德, 乃是透过信心接受衪的恩典。

我们如何接受福音呢? 说来简单! (1) 承认自己是罪人。 (2) 承认自救无力。 (3) 相信基督是你个人的 (personal) 救主。 (4) 向衪认罪悔改。當你𠄘認基督是你的個人救主後，你就立刻發現原來住在我們心中的的聖靈是基督信仰和真理的最終保證。這一點我們應牢記在心。

讀者可參讀下列Blog文:

http://www.hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=469

http://www.hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=284

http://www.hocl.org/blogs/tincheelo/?p=59

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

創世記的重點

• 只要我們把創世記的重點抓住就夠了。這些重點是上帝要我們必須知道的:
• 宇宙有一位創造主
• 宇宙非永恆，它是有一個開始的
• 上帝是用祂的話語創造萬有
• 祂的話語是帶著能力, 創造是「從無到有 (Ex nihilo) 」的
• 祂的創造不是一氣呵成的，而是有步驟的: 每一步驟都是上帝獨立的創造, 而非建立在前一個步驟之上, 這些階段的次序大至是：從無機到有機，從植物到動物，從簡到繁
• 創造生物的法則是「各從其類」
• 最後的創造是「有靈的活人」

這幾點是上帝要我們必須牢記，其餘都是次要的。

重點之外有爭議 1

聖經明確指出上帝是用六「日」創造萬有。「日」在希伯來文是「Yom」。

而「Yom」是一個多義詞。它可以指一搬24小時的一天，也可以指「一段長時段」，甚至其它。忠於字面解經的神學家也碰到同樣的問題，究竟「日」是指24 小時呢？還是指「一段長時間」呢？這個爭論就形成了兩派的爭議：前者被稱為「年輕地球創造論」 而後者被稱為「年老地球創造論」。

可喜的是，兩派的基督徒的動機都是好的：他們都是以「尊重聖經的杈威和無誤性，熱愛上帝，認真地追求真理」為出發點。對我而言，支持「年輕地球論」與支持「年老地球論」都不重要。因它是在重点之外。

重點之外有爭議 2

另一個爭議點是「日球在那一天被創造」。

 創1: 3 宣告：「神說、要有光、就有了光。」上帝自己就是光，所以「光」是不需要創造的。所以「就有了光」應解釋為「光的載體 (light bearer)」」的創造。所以我們有理由相信太陽是在頭一日創造的。

但我們如何解釋記載在創1:16的第四日創造：「於是　神造了兩個大光、大的管晝、小的管夜．又造眾星。」其合理的假設 (或推測)是: 在第四日之前雖然已經存在，但是因為大氣層有濃厚的水蒸氣所以從地球上是觀察不到他們的，但仍有足夠的陽光使植物藉着光合作用可以生長。第四日水蒸氣和陸地慢慢分開使從地球可以觀察到日月星辰的運作，準備人類出現時可以使他們定節日和數算自己的日子，從而得着智慧之心。

支持太陽是在第四個創造日完成的理由是：上帝知道先民認為太陽是生命之母，所以去敬拜它。上帝為了教導人類不要拜太陽，所以日頭是在創造植物之後才出現，以說明日頭不是生命的必要條件。這說法也是有其道理，供讀者參考。

但無論你是贊成太陽是第一日被造或是第四日被造對我們救贖無關對其他大自然科學的解釋也沒有關係也不影響我們與神的關係。對其它大自然的解釋也沒有影響。讀者可自由選擇。

斷言的不可能性

創世記 1，2 是上帝向人類啓示宇宙萬物的由來。是宇宙學最可靠的第一手資料。這兩章的經文，不到700個字, 然而宇宙學學者，神學家，釋經者對此兩章聖經的闡述和評論，自古至今，不計其數。除了上帝要我們必須知道上述的幾個重點外，任何人都不能斷言他的解釋。沒有人能聲稱絕對的合理性，只有尋求比較式的合理性。

「假設」的必要性

我們可想像到人對宇宙的解釋、只要超出上述幾個重點的陳述、都是屬於「假設 (hypothesis)」的領域。讀者必須把這個事實放在腦海中。「假設」在科學 (不單指自然科學) 和推理上佔著不可或缺的地位。所有偉大的科學理論都是從假設為其起點。但從「假設」到「理論 (principle)」，需要一個過程，這個過程就是「小心的求證」。聖經難題的處理也遵循這個原則。

對聖經難題的處理

「假設」不是胡思亂想。嚴謹的神學家也是用假設作為起步點，但他的假設必須符合下面三個原則：

• 假設必須符合邏輯和常識。
• 假設必須有聖經的經文來支持，才可以把這個假設視為真理。
• 如果沒有任何經文的支持，我們就退而反問，「這個假設有沒有被任何一節經文所推翻？」
  • 如果有，我們就必須摒棄這個假設；
  • 如果沒有，這個假設就成了解釋聖經的合法可能性，但這只是一個可能性而矣。

我們應用這三個原則來評估異議。

感謝上帝

「年輕地球論者」 或「年老地球論者」都同意上述幾十個字的重點  。他們的爭論的核心，乃是關乎「創造的速度」問題。這顯然不是基要的福音真理，與我們靈魂的救贖毫無關係，所以兩派人仕無必要堅持誰對誰錯, 两者是可以和平共處的。但在追求真理的層面上，和在訓練批判思维 (critical thinking) 上, 我們是可以去研究一下那個觀點比較對大自然有更強大的解釋能力。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜）

基督徒，尤其是那些喜愛讀詩篇的，都一致地渴望上帝的同在和同行，並且知道這是蒙福的渴望。既然這是一個自然的流露，那麼為甚麽還要思想「如何」呢？這種渴望真的是「自然」嗎？

《路加福音》第5章記載了一個故事：耶稣在加利利海边找到彼得和他的同伴，他们整夜打鱼却一无所获。耶稣告诉他们把网撒在水深之處，结果他们大有收穫，並把魚裝滿了兩隻船、甚至船要沉下去。 (參看4-7節) 。彼得沒有很高興地說, 主阿, 祢的同在真好，我知道祢很忙，只要祢每週陪伴我幾小時, 像今天一樣, 我就滿足了。彼得沒有這樣說，相反地，他感到非常畏懼，然後「俯伏在耶穌膝前、說、主阿、離開我、我是個罪人 (v. 8) 」舊約中也有類似這種「不願與主同在」的例子：

• 亞當和夏娃犯罪之後，「聽見　神的聲音、就藏在園裡的樹木中、躲避耶和華　神的面（創世記 3:8）」。
• 約拿在神呼召他去尼尼微宣講悔改的信息時，他不甘願，試圖逃往他施，躲避耶和華　神的面。（約拿書）。
• 烏撒也是一樣，當他看到正在被牛車拉動的約櫃快要倒下來便不由自主地伸手扶住神的約櫃。聖潔的耶和華向烏撒發怒、因這錯誤擊殺他、他就死在　神的約櫃旁 (撒下6:6-7)。

誰願意親近這位上帝?

然而，詩篇的作者們 (及其他聖經人物) 有截然不同的心願，他們都深深地渴望上帝的臨在，並認為這是一件非常有福氣的事情。為什麼信徒有這種極端的看法呢？

原來當一個人察覺到自己的罪性和罪行上的污穢，又同時看到那位「聖哉、聖哉、聖哉、萬軍之耶和華（賽6:3）」時，這種強烈的對比，使人無法在這純潔無瑕的主面前站立得住，精神上感到極大的創傷，面對這種衝擊、唯一的出路就是哀求主離開他，像彼得所做的那樣， 或自己逃避上帝的同在，懼怕像神那聖潔的審判臨到約拿一搬。如果是這樣，我們面臨另一個問題: 對於詩篇中那些渴望上帝的同在的子民，難道他們真的對上帝的聖潔沒有深度的認識嗎?

當然不是: 例如和大衛在詩篇92篇說，「要將耶和華的名所當得的榮耀歸給他．以聖潔 (holiness) 的妝飾〔或作為〕敬拜耶和華。」那麼，我們如何回答彼得和大衛的对立想法呢？這個問題的答案牽涉到福音的核心。但首先我們要知道，彼得最終是與詩人一樣，深深地渴望與主有深厚的關係的。讓我們看看以下的例子。

彼得在殿門前奉耶穌之名使生來是瘸腿的人行走。然後向驚訝的群眾說，「以色列人哪，為什麼驚訝呢？為什麼定睛看我們，好像我們憑自己的能力或虔誠使這人行走呢? (徒3:12) 」，這句話暗示了彼得對耶穌的依賴和對主的使命的承擔，顯示了他希望與主同在的深切願望, 因為「依賴」與「承擔」是基于「渴望與主的同在」。

彼得從「主阿、離開我」到「渴望與主的同在」是需要一個過程的。這過程就是「福音」。有罪的人與聖潔的上帝是水火不相容的的。但當罪人被耶穌的義袍覆蓋後，他就可以坦然無懼地, 並歡歡喜地, 來到上帝的面前與他建立親密的同在。「被義袍覆蓋」代表已經重生。但我在這𥚃不是說彼得當時尚未重生。其實，耶穌的門徒，除了猶大之外，個個都是被主的靈重生過的人。但「已經重生」與「意識到巳重生」是兩回事。當彼得說「主阿、離開我」之時，他未能清楚地「意識到」他已經是基督徒，所以他雖然得救，但卻沒有享受到與主同在的福氣。 但隨着不斷跟隨主，並與主學習，他的靈命慢慢成熟，最後成為耶穌基督的忠心的使徒，甚至在受迫害中, 也能享受到與主同在的甜美，甚至為主捨命也在所不惜。

基督徒对得救的地位，有四種可能性:

1. 他已重生，他知道自己是已經重生
2. 他已重生，但自己不知道他已重生
3. 他沒有重生，但他以為自己巳重生
4. 他沒有重生，但他知道他沒有重生

彼得從第二類基督徒，轉化成第一類基督徒。換句話說，基督徒必須知道自己是屬於第一類，才能感受到與主同在的實際及其所帶來的福氣。新約數處教導信徒要殷勤省察確實知道自己得救的地位。

• (哥林多後書 13:5), “你們要自己省察，有沒有在信仰上；要試驗自己。難道你們不知你們自己是基督耶穌在你們裡面麼？除非你們是被棄絕的人。”
• (彼得後書 1:10), “所以弟兄們，要更加殷勤，靠著你們所蒙召的，揀選的，堅定你們的呼召，這樣，就必不至跌倒。”
• (約翰一書 5:13), “我將這些話寫給你們信奉神兒子之名的，叫你們知道自己有永生。”

當我們明確肯定自己得救的地位，我們便能在履行大使命中堅持信仰並且享受上帝的同在同行的福氣。使徒保羅見證道：“我為這事忍受這些苦難，然後我不羞愧，因為我知道我所信的是誰，也深信他能保全我所交託他的，直到那日。” (提摩太後書1:12)

By Tin-chee Lo

Introduction

With the development of archeology and geology, ancient fossils and ape-men skeletons were gradually unearthed in modern times. Anthropologists claim that these “human-like” or “monkey-like” creatures existing hundreds of millions of years ago were ancestors of human beings. This is clearly contrary to the Bible teaching. Christians believe that the ancestor of mankind was Adam and Adam is recognized by people (both Christians and non-Christians alike) as a person who lived about, say, ten thousand years ago. Christians who support the “Young Earth Creationism” cannot reconcile the Bible with the archaeological and geological data. Their only way out is to assert that, scientific data in general, and the archaeological and geological data in particular, are unreliable as far as the age of the earth is concerned.

This assertion can hardly convince scientists and intellectuals. Such Christians are not only being regarded by the learned communities as ignorant, but also greatly weaken the credibility of the Bible which they take as their authority. This is obviously detrimental to evangelism which Christ charges them to carry out.

However, if we allow “the sixth creation day” to be a long period of time rather than just a twenty-four hours day, then these many paleoanthropological phenomena can have a chance to be explained.

Two Stages of the Sixth Day

The epilogue of “Sixth Day” in the creation story reads: “God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, which was the sixth day (Genesis 1:31).” Many things had happened before this ending statement. This ” sixth day” can be divided into two stages. The first stage is all God’s work; the second stage regards God’s creation of Adam and Eve and their (especially Adam’s) responsibilities. 

• The first stage describes the creation of living creatures such as livestock, insects, wild beasts as recorded in Genesis 1:24 including dinosaurs, ape-men, and other paleontological species. If this stage lasted for a very long time in billions of years, then we would have no problem explaining the existence and antiquity of fossils and ape-men skeletons, and it would be possible to harmonize scientific data with the biblical narrative. But a new question arises. Does paleo-anthropologists imply that death existed before the emergence of sin? Does this seem to go against the teachings of the Bible? We shall explain it later.
• The second stage, also the final stage, of the Sixth Day deals with the creation of man, that is, the creation of Adam and Eve. First, we must note that Adam was always only human, whether before or after he sinned. God did not make him a superman, nor a god-like man. He is physically, intellectually and emotionally limited just as we are. But physiologically, Adam is no different than those ape-like animals created in the first stage, because both are made from dust out of the ground (Gen. 2:7, 19).

Definition of Human

The key difference between Adam and the ape-men is that Adam received the breath of life from God (Genesis 2:7), and most importantly, he was made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), so he was uniquely called a “living being.” This term applies only to Adam (including Eve) and their descendants and serves as the very definition of mankind. In other words, ape-men are not human beings although they may look like outwardly. Therefore, ape-men are not our ancestor, Adam and Eve are. Christians should not let anthropologists’ speculative assertion about the age of humans shake their confidence in the authority and credibility of the Bible.

God gave Adam works to do

After Adam was created, God immediately gave him a task to manage this huge Garden of Eden. This wasn’t an easy task, nor could it be done in 24 hours. In the process of doing this work, Adam felt satisfied initially, but doing the same things repeatedly, especially jobs involving labor, would make him bored and distressed over time.

In addition to the labor job, God gave Adam an intellectual job which was another challenging assignment, which was to name all the animals. Today we call it “taxonomy” which is the starting point of all sciences. Because all sciences begin with naming and classifications. It took 18th-century naturalist Carl Linnaeus several decades to classify the then-known species in Europe.

Granted, in the Eden era, species may have been much simpler, but it was still impossible to give unique names to all creatures within a twenty-four-hour timeframe. Also, memorizing these names requires a systematic structure. Adam had to establish a nomenclature system first before he could begin to assign names to the living beings.

Adam’s Limitations and the need for a helper

Let me emphasize again that Adam was just a human being, and he was just like us (it should be said that we were just like him). Although he had the rich presence and help of God, God did not turn him into a “superman” or a “god-man”. Therefore, Adam’s physical strength, intelligence, and spiritual endurance were limited. Long-term physical and mental work made him feel helpless and empty. Therefore, the last part of the “Sixth Creation Day” cannot be shorter than 24 hours.

Some may say that God’s instructions to Adam to take care of and guard the Garden of Eden (physical strength) and to name various creatures (intelligence) were just instructions and did not expect Adam to complete them within the Sixth Day. But I believe that God at least required him to actually carry out these works on the Sixth Day, so that Adam could truly feel that “it is not good to be alone” in his human nature, as “Genesis 3:18” says. Because a man does not feel lonely when they are alone in the short term, but rather feel free and at ease. However, when he falls alone for a long time, he will gradually feel psychologically lonely. This feeling takes a long time to develop. At this juncture, God had compassion on Adam’s soul and body, and created Eve from his rib for him. Eve appeared before Adam and became his wife. It is important to note that these two instructions were issued before the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day”, which should be consistent with the interpretation of this phrase for the other five days, that is, all the descriptions before this phrase are practical works rather than abstract edicts.

If you are to read Genesis casually, you will get the impression that God made Eve immediately after Adam was created. In fact, it was not true. It was only when Adam felt physically and spiritually restless then God created Eve for him, this suggests that there ought to be a long period of time in between, which again means that the “Sixth Day” could not be a 24-hour day. This does not mean that God’s ability is limited, but that human limitations require the “Sixth Day” be a rather long period of time.

Explanation of Ape-Men and Global Flood

Genesis 6:3 reads, “At that time there were great men on the earth. Then the sons of God conceived with the daughters of men and had sons, and they became the mighty and famous men of old.” Who are these “sons of God”?

Although the descendants of the ancient ape-men (great men) did not possess the breath of God as Adam’s descendants do, they were nonetheless had the same physiological made-up as Adam’s descendants, so when these ape-men had intercourse with Adam’s female descendants, they together could produce children which presumably were called the “mighty and famous men of old” in the Bible. This mixed race could not be considered as the descendants of Adam. God was furious when he saw the situation of confusing racial identities. God’s surefooted way was to send a flood to completely wipe out all the living creatures of unclear origins, leaving only Noah’s family of eight who were unquestionably “pure offsprings of Adam.” 

This proves indirectly that the flood must be global rather than regional. We don’t need to appeal to geological data to explain the universality of the flood. Of course, because it is indeed true, the above biblical explanation must cohere with scientific observations — and it does. Although the population at that time had not spread all over the earth as it has today, the global flood does provide the post-flood human beings with the assurance that they are the descendants of Adam.

This guarantee is significant: The salvation of Jesus Christ was designed for the descendants of Adam, not for angels or other creatures with non-adamic elements. Since we already know for sure that we are descendants of Adam, so there is no need for us to doubt whether God’s salvation is applicable for us or not. More importantly, the “human” side of the incarnate Christ is a “real man” which affirms the effectiveness of the redemption of Jesus Christ. He was indeed “the seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15).

Death before the Fall and the myth of fossils

Romans 5:12 reads, “Just as through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death came to all men, because all have sinned.” Doesn’t this clearly say that death can only appear after Adam and Eve sinned”?

The word “death” in the Bible has multiple meanings:

• “Physical Death” is the separation of soul and body.
• “Spiritual Death” refers to the state of alienation from God after man has sinned. After the Fall, all Adam’s descendance are dead in their transgressions and sins when they are born, and “rebirth” which means believing in Jesus by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, is the only solution.
• “Eternal Death” refers to the verdict of the final judgment in front of the great white throne. The fate of those who do not believe in Jesus Christ is to be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will never be able to recover.

Therefore, when it comes to “death” in Romans, we have no reason to interpret it exclusively as “physical death.” It is more reasonable to interpret it as “spiritual death.” The Bible says that when Adam and Eve sinned, they were immediately separated from their relationship with God. This is exactly what Genesis 2:17 means, “for in the day you eat of it you will surely die.” Adam eventually experienced “physical death” when he lived to the age of 930 after his spiritual death. This reprieve was all God’s grace.

As for whether there is “physical death” before Adam’s sin, or even before Adam’s existence, we cannot say with absolute certainty. But if I say “Yes”, my answer does not violate the teachings of the Book of Romans, rather, it resolves the mystery of the existence of a large number of fossils and ancient ape-men’s bones.

I tend to believe that “physical death” existed before Adam sinned. The reason is that when God said to Adam in Genesis 2:16, “In the day you eat of it you will surely die.” God assumes Adam knew what “death” meant otherwise the communication breaks down. Adam fully understood God’s prohibition. If there had never been “death,” then there would be a great obstacle to God’s communication with Adam. Furthermore, Adam and Eve and other animals all needed to eat fruits and vegetables before the Fall, so at least the death of plants was something Adam had understood. So, we have no reason to believe that physical death did not exist before Adam sinned.

Now a hypothetical question arises: If Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit, (of course they would not experience “spiritual death”) would they experience physical death? I cannot be sure. But even if they would, it would not violate the teaching of Romans insofar as the meaning of “death” is properly interpreted. Another thing we need to take note is that though “physical death” seems to be a very terrible thing to people but to a much lesser degree to God. This is why one of the Ten Commandments sanctions, “Thou shalt not kill.” But in the eyes of God, “physical death” is not that serious. We often read in the Bible that God took the lives of people (even saints) for good reason because God has the power to restore life but people have not.

Science and Genesis

Now we see that if we accept the hypothesis that the Sixth Day is not a “24-hour day”, we have great explanatory power to reality. But if we stubbornly insist on the claim that the Sixth Day must be a twenty-four-hour day, then the Bible and scientific data can never be reconciled. Why do science and the Bible should be able to integrate in coherence and not stand in opposition to each other? The short answer is that they both come from the same source.

The Bible is inerrant and cannot contain errors. We call this the doctrine of “biblical inerrancy” or “the infallibility of the Bible” as the most basic believe of Christianity. But the “interpretation of the Bible” can err, and it has happened in history. The Bible is the truth, but there is also truth outside the Bible (such as science). Otherwise, we would only need to read the Bible and no need to go to college to study. Theologian Francis Schaeffer was right when he said, “All truth is God’s truth.” However, if conflicts between the “biblical truth” and the “truth outside the Bible” emerge, the Bible must be on the right side. This is what the term “the authority of the Scripture” means.

There are four possibilities for the relationship between the Bible and science:

• Bible interpretation is correct, science is incorrect (the ancient “flat earth theory” vs. the biblical “round earth theory”)
• Bible interpretation is wrong, science is correct (Copernicus’ “heliocentric theory” vs. Catholic “geocentric theory”)
• Correct Bible interpretation, and correct science (this article’s explanation of the “Sixth Day”)
• Both are wrong (liberals’ view on miracles)

Cosmological Evidences

Those who oppose science cannot justify themselves. Those who are holding mobile phones or iPads in hand to give a presentation to justify their anti-science position to the audience have forgotten that the electronic devices they are using are products of science. More importantly, these tools are built based upon the most basic scientific principles. Astronomers of modern times use the same scientific principles to build various astronomical telescopes to calculate the age of the universe. Their results consistently indicate that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago.

This long age not only shows that the universe had a beginning, consistent with the first verse of Genesis Chapter 1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” but also explains that the “Day” mentioned in Genesis have to be a long period of time rather than a 24-hour-day. If the Sixth Day is not a 24-hour-day, there is no reason to demand other days be 24 hours. In fact, some days (Genesis 1:3-5) do not require 24 hours, such as the first day when God said, “Let there be light” and instantly there was light.

Does long Sixth Day violate the Bible interpretation?

The answer to this question is crucial. If the above explanation violates what the Bible author meant to say, you have wasted your time reading it. But if not, we have something to ponder upon. Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 record that God created the universe in six days. People’s first understanding of the word “day” is a twenty-four-hour “day”. But “day” in Hebrew is “YOM” which has multiple meanings: it can mean twenty-four hours, or it can mean different forms of “indeterminate periods of time.” Therefore, when we say that the Sixth Day is a time period of much longer than 24 hours, we are not saying anything unbiblical.

Evolution

Many people think that those who advocate Old-Earth Creationism must have been influenced Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. This is why some Young-Earth creationists spent a lot of time to disprove evolution in the context of refuting the Old-Earth Creationists. Of course, evolutionists have to believe that the earth is old, but this does not mean that Christians who believe in Long Creation Days are influenced by the evolutionary ideas. Creation-Date and Evolution are two separate topics, linking them together is like comparing oranges with apples. This is why the word “evolution” does not appear in the text above, as it has nothing to do with the purpose of what we are discussing.

Conclusion

If we insist that the Sixth Day must have been a twenty-four-hour day, there is absolutely no chance for science and the Bible to agree. But if we allow the Sixth Day to be a long period of time which the Bible does not disagree, then we have acquired a great deal of explanatory power to reality, such as fossil records, dinosaurs, the origin of man, the global flood, and some hard sayings in Genesis. It is my prayerful hope that readers may open their minds to explore the contrarian views to find out which one is more reasonable, not in an absolute sense but in a comparative sense.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

隨着考古學和地質學的發展, 古代化石和猿人的骸骨逐漸地被發掘，人類學家揚言這些億萬年前那些「似人的𤠣」或「似猴的人」的動物是現代人類的始祖， 這顯然與聖經背道而馳。 基督徒所相信的是人類的始祖是亞當。而亞當都被人們 (基督徒與非基督徒) 公認是一萬年前左右的人物。支持 「年青地球」的基督徒無法把聖經與考古學和地質學的資料調和，他們只有一條出路，就是斷言考古學和地質學的資料和推論是虛假的。這種斷言無法說服科學家和知識分子。這樣的基督徒不但反被人認為是無知，並且大大削弱了聖經的可信性。這顯然與傳福音有損無助。但是，如果我們允許「第六個創造日」是一段很長的時間而不堅持只是二十四小時，那麼很多難題就有被解釋的機會。

「第六個創造日」的結語是：“神看著一切所造的都甚好．有晚上、有早晨、是第六日 (創1:31)。” 在這結語之前的一「日」發生了很多事情。這「日」可以分為兩個階段。頭一個階段全是上帝的為；第二個階段是上帝與人一同參與的。

頭一個階段述及牲畜、昆蟲、野獸、的創造 (創1:24)。野獸包括恐龍，猿人，及其他古生物。如果這一階段是很長的億萬年，那麼我們就沒有困難去解釋化石和猿人骸骨的存在及其古老性，科學與聖經就有可能獲得和諧。但在此產生了一個新的問題，就是這說法暗示死亡已經在罪惡出現之前巳經存在，這是否違反了聖經的教導？ 我們將會在下文作出交代。

第二個阶段，也是第六日最後的一個階段，是述及人的創造，即亞當與夏娃的受造。首先我們要注意亞當只是人，與我們一樣，儘管當時亞當還沒有犯罪。但他不是超人，也不是神人，他與我們同樣地在體力上及智力上都是有限的。但單單在生理上來說，亞當與猿人 (泛指在第一階段受造那些像猴子的動物) 無異，因為兩者都是從塵土做出來的 (創2:7, 19)。 亞當與猿人唯一不同之處，也是最重要的一點，乃是亞當有上帝的靈氣 (創2:7) 並且他是照著神的形像受造的 (創1:27)，所以他獨特地被稱為「有靈的活人」，此詞只應用在亞當身上。這一口靈氣就給「甚麼是人？」作了一個重要且肯定的答案。據此定義，我們可以斷言：「猿人絕對不是人」。因此猿人不是我們的始祖，亞當才是我們的始祖。基督徒不應因人類學家對人類年齡的説法，而對聖經的權威或可信性產生動搖。

亞當受造之後，上帝立即給他一個使命就是管理這個巨大的伊甸園。這不是一個容易的工作，也不是24小時可以完成的工作。在這工作過程中，亞當開始時感到興奮，但是重複地進行同樣的事情，特別是用勞力的事情，久而久之就會讓他感到厭煩和苦惱。上帝因此給亞當另一個有挑戰性的工作，就是命令他為所有動物命名。這就是命名學 (taxonomy) 的開始，也是科學的開始。因為所有科學都是由命名起步的。18世紀的林奈 (Carl Linnaeus) 花了幾十年才能把當時已知的物種分門別類。當然，在伊甸園的時代，物種可能比較簡單、但也不可能在二十四小時內把所有的動物給予獨特名字。還有, 把這些名字記憶起來是需要一個有系統的架構的。亞當要把這個系統建立起來，才能開始進行命名的大業。

我們再次强調，亞當只是人，他與我們一樣 (應說，我們與他一樣) ，儘管他有上帝豐富的同在和幫助，但上帝並沒有把他成為「超人」，或「神人」，所以亞當的體力，智力，和心靈的耐力是有限的。長期的體力與腦力的工作使他感到無助和空虛。所以「第六個創造日」的下一部份也不可能是短过24小時。或許有些說, 上帝吩咐亞當修理看守伊甸園 (體力) 和為各類動物命名 (智力)，只是一些指令而上帝並沒有期待亞當在第六日內要完成。但我相信上帝至少要求他在第六日內實實際際進行這些工作，好讓亞當真正感受到自己人性中的「獨居不好」正如 “創3:18” 所說的那樣。因為男人在短期内的獨處是不會感到孤獨的, 反而感到自由自在; 但長期的獨處，心理上就漸漸覺得寂寞了。這種體驗是需要長時間的。正在此時此際，上帝知道亞當靈魂體的需要，便從他的肋骨中創造了夏娃。夏娃就出現在他的面前成為他的妻子。注意，這兩個指令是在「有晚上、有早晨、是第六日 」之前頒布的，這應與其它五日對此短句有一致的解釋，即所有此短句之前的描述, 都是實際的工作而非抽象的指令。

如果你只草草地讀創世記，便以為神創造亞當之後便馬上創造夏娃。其實夏娃不是在亞當出世後馬上被造的，乃是等到亞當感到有心靈空虛時，上帝才為他造了夏娃。這就意味着中間是有一段長久的時間，再次說明「第六個創造日」不可能是24小時的一天了。

另一個令人注意的是就是：「夏娃」這個名字不是上帝給她的，上帝只稱她為「女人」。但要等到人類墮落之後 (創3:19) ，亞當 (命名專家) 才給他的妻子起名叫「夏娃」。這是否也進一步暗示「夏娃」 不是在亞當出現之後馬上出現的呢? 這一點，我也不太清楚，只是在此順便提一下，讓讀者去思考！

說了那麼多，我們可以得出這樣的結論，就是「第六個創造日」不可能是二十四小時的。這不代表神不能使它如此，乃是人的有限性必須要求「第六個創造日」是一個頗長的時段。

如果「第六個創造日」的確是一個「長日」那就對其它經文提供了一個非常强大的解釋能力。創世記其中一節難明的經文: 「那時候有偉人在地上、後來　神的兒子們、和人的女子們交合生子、那就是上古英武有名的人」 (創6:3）。

上古猿人的後代 (偉人) 雖然沒有神的靈氣，但他們在生理上是與亞當一樣的, 所以他們與亞當的後代女子交合是可以生出兒女的；這就是「上古英武有名的人」的族類。此族類就不能說是亞當的純種後裔了。上帝看到這混種的情形非常憤怒，唯一的辦法就是降下洪水，將所有「來源不清」的雜種完全消滅，只剩下「純亞當種」的挪亞一家八口。這就指明了洪水的普世性而不是局部性的解釋了。我們不一定要訴諸地質科學的方法去說明洪水的普世性。誠然, 當時的人口雖然不是遍佈「全」球，但全球性的洪水提供給後人一個保證，使他們無疑地知道他們一定是亞當的後裔。這個保證意義重大：耶穌基督的救贖是為亞當後裔而設立的，而不是為天使或其它來源不明的族類設立的。但我們已經肯定地知道我們是亞當的後裔，那就不用懷疑究竟救恩是否與我無關。更重要的是，基督的「神人二性」中的「人」是「真真正正」的人，肯定了耶穌基督的救贖的有效性。他的的確確是「女人的後裔」(創3:15).

最後，我們還要交代一個懸而未決的問題。羅馬書說, 「這就如罪是從一人入了世界、死又是從罪來的、於是死就臨到眾人、因為眾人都犯了罪 （羅5:12）」。這豈不是明說死亡是在亞當「犯罪之後」才出現嗎? 但以上的解釋似乎暗示「死亡是在亞當犯罪之前巳經存在。」如何解釋?

聖經中「死」這個字是有多重意義的。它可以指「肉身的死」，「與神隔絕的靈死」，和「火湖地獄的永死」。「肉身的死」大家都知道；「靈性的死」是指人犯罪之後那個與神隔離的狀態。我們一生下來便死在過犯罪惡當中，而「重生」是解決「靈死」的方法。「永恆的死」 乃是指在白色大寶座前的最後審判的判決，凡不信耶穌的人的結局就是被扔在火湖𥚃，永無翻身的地步，是「永恆的死亡」。因此，羅馬書中所說的「死」，我們沒有理由把它單單解釋為「肉身的死亡」。更合理的是把它解釋為「靈死」。聖經說，當亞當夏娃犯罪之後，他馬上與神的關係隔離，這就是「因為你喫的日子必定死 (創2:17)」的意思。亞當在靈死後還活到930歲 (創5:5) ，才經歷了「肉身的死亡」，這個緩刑顕示了上帝的恩典。

至於人犯罪之前有沒有「肉身的死亡」呢？雖然我們不能斷言其答案，但是如果我說「有！」，這也沒有違反羅馬書的教導，反而解釋了「古代猿人死亡」和「化石」之謎。

我傾向相信在亞當犯罪之前「肉身死亡」巳存在的理由是：當上帝對亞當說「你喫的日子必定死」時，亞當必需知道「死」字的意思才能明白神向他說的禁令的意義。如果從來都沒有「死」，那麼上帝和他的交通就有極大的障礙了。再者，亞當和夏娃以及其它動物都需要吃蔬菜水果，那麼，至少植物的死是他們可以明白的。所以我們怎能說，在亞當未犯罪之前死亡是不存在呢？

假設亞當一直都沒有吃禁果，他當然不會經歷「靈死」，但他會不會經歷「肉身之死」呢？我就不感斷言了。但有一件事我們要明白，就是「肉身之死」對人看來似乎是非常不得了的事情；所以在十誡中有一條誡命：「不可殺人」。但在上帝眼中，「肉身之死」並不是那麼嚴重。我們在聖經中常常讀到上帝奪取人 (甚至聖徒) 的生命，這是因為上帝有「使人復活的能力」，而人卻的沒有。

現在我們看到如果我們接受「第六日不是二十四小時」的假說，我我們就持有極大的解釋能力。但如果你一意孤行地堅持「第六日一定是二十四小時」的說法，那麼聖經與科學就絕對無法融合。然而科學與聖經是應該融合一致的, 原因如下:

聖經是絕對無誤，而且不可能有誤。這相念我們把它稱為「聖經無誤論 (in errancy of the Bible; 或 the infallibility  of the Bible) 」, 這是基督教的最基本教義。但「解經」是有可能錯誤的, 在歷史上曾經發生過。上帝是真理的源頭。因此，所有真理都是上帝的真理。

聖經是真理, 但聖經之外 (如科學) 也有真理, 否則我們便只需讀聖經而不需要讀大學了。因此, 神學家薛華 (Francis Schaeffer) 説, 「所有真理都是上帝的真理 (All truth is God’s truth) 」。如果「聖經真理」與「聖經之外的有真理」有衝突時, 聖經一定是對的一方。此稱「聖經杈威 (the authority of the Scripture) 」。

聖經與科學的關係存在著四個可能性:

• 解經正確，科學不正確 (古人的 “地平説” vs. 聖經的 “地圓説”)
• 解經錯誤，科學正確 (哥白尼的 “日心説” vs. 天主教的 “地心説”)
• 正確的解經，正確的科學 (本文對 “第六日” 的解釋)
• 兩者都錯 (新派神學的神蹟觀)

那些反對科學的人是不能自圓其說的。他們手拿着手機電腦去發表他們反對科學的言論, 然而這些工具都是科學的產品。不但如此，這些工具的背後都是由一些最基層的科學原理來支持的。天文學家也藉同樣的科學原理去建制各式各樣的天體望遠鏡來計算宇宙的年齡。其結果是一致地指出宇宙在 137億年前開始存在。這個天文數字不但說明了宇宙是有一個開始的, 這就符合了創世記第一章第一這就節的說法: 「起初神創造天地」! 也說明了六個「二十四小時的創造日」是近乎不可能。其實有些創造 (創 1:3-5) 是不需要24小時的, 只要一瞬間便夠了。

我們還要回答一個問題，就是「為什麼聖經與科學一定需要調和」呢？ 創世記第一章和第二章記錄了上帝用六日創造了宇宙萬物。人們對「日」一詞的一搬領會是二十四小時的「一天」。但「日」在希伯來文 “YOM” 中卻有多重意義: 它可以是二十四小時，也可以是指不同形式的「不確定的時段。」所以當我們們説, 「第六個創造日」是一個「遠超過24小時」的時段,也就不能被指控為不合乎聖經了。

很多人認為，那些主張「長日創造」的人一定是受到了達爾文演化論的影響。其實不然。雖然演化論者必須相信地球是古老的，但自稱為是古老地球創造論者的基督徒必須拒絕演化論。一些年輕地球創造論者花了很多時間反駁演化論，試圖以此推翻老年地球論者的說法。其實這就好像將橘子與蘋果作比較一樣。這也是為什麼「演化論」一詞沒有出現在上面的文本中，因為它與我們所討論的主題無關。

結論：如果我們堅持第六日的創造必需是二十四小時的一天，科學與聖經絕對無法融合。但是如果我們讓「第六日的創造」是一段長時間，那麼我們對大自然就產生了極大的解釋能力。而且這些解釋是合附聖經的解釋。

别的觀点供参考:
从系统神学的角度看创造六日 | 基督教北京守望教会 (shwchurch.org)

六日創造天地是怎麼一回事？聖經創世紀第一章釋疑 (luke54.org)

By: Tin-chee Lo

Introduction

My granddaughter has been loving writing since her childhood. When she was in college, I always thought she was majoring in “English Literature.” I attended her graduation ceremony in May this year, and I asked her what degree is she getting? She said her bachelor degree is titled “Creative Writing and Business.” After I heard it, I felt little bit confused. I understand what is “Creative Writing,” but why is it related to “Business”? After thinking about it for a while, I realized that this makes sense, because in the business world, rigorous language is a must. Doesn’t signing a contract require precise language? Later I asked her to send me an article that she wrote so that I could have a deeper understanding of her thoughts. She gave me one of her works related to John Milton’s masterpiece, <Paradise Lost>. This article is my response to reading my granddaughter’s work and my comments on <Paradise Lost> based on my limiting understanding of Milton’s great classic.

A brief introduction to <Paradise Lost>

Content:

From my granddaughter’s article, I learned that <Paradise Lost> is an exposition, in epic form, of Genesis 3, that is, it deals with the issue of “original sin.”

Author:

John Milton (1608-1674). This masterpiece was written in 1665 when Milton was 57. He was blind at the time and relied entirely on dictation from his many helpers. I think this is one of the reasons why he wrote it in the genre of “epic poem”, because “poetry” can use the least number of words to express the most profound feelings. Although this literary device has a very limited ability to explain Scripture and theological doctrines with the needed precision, it does give readers some freedom for extensions and creative speculations—the value other genres of literature cannot have done.

The necessity of “speculations”

I have never read the book “Paradise Lost” seriously, but from my granddaughter’s article, I can get a slight glimpse of Milton’s thoughts, especially his theological perspectives. The latter is the area that interests me the most.

Chapter 3 of Genesis discusses the fall of our ancestors, Adam and Eve, and its consequences. This is the only source-information on the fall of mankind. Please note that the entire chapter is less than 700 words. However, <Paradise Lost> is a huge book with more than 80,000 words. Therefore, it goes without saying that in order to fill the volume, a huge part of the content in the book is based on speculation. The reader must keep this fact in mind.

Speculation is not a wild and fanciful thought. Speculation is one of many legitimate scientific methods. All scientific theories are developed from speculations. But speculation requires “careful verification” in order to become a scientific theory. The same is true for the treatment of biblical difficulties. In terms of theology, a rigorous theologians can also use speculation as a starting point to explore interpretation, but their speculation must comply with the following criteria:

• It must be logical and comply with common sense.
• It must be supported by the Scripture (at least one verse) in order for this speculation to be qualified as truth.
• If there is no positive support from anywhere in the Bible, we have to step back and ask a second tier question: “Is this speculation refuted by any verse in the Scripture?”
  • If so, we must abandon this speculation;
  • if not, this speculation can be considered as one of the legitimate possible interpretations.

I shall use these three principles to test the reasonableness of the content of <Paradise Lost>.

Two things that go unnoticed

God issued the prohibition to Adam, “You may freely eat of any tree of the garden. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

• This prohibition was directed only to Adam; Eve was not present at the time. Eve had to understand this prohibition by receiving teaching from Adam. Therefore, what Eve received was only a second-hand knowledge from Adam, not first-hand knowledge from God. We now see that teaching Eve was one of Adam’s responsibilities. We also understand from this why Satan cleverly tempted the vulnerable Eve in the absence of Adam.

• After Eve was created, God brought her to Adam and said that this person is flesh of your flesh and of bone of your bone. God did not give her a name, only called her “woman.” The name “Eve” was given to her by Adam—the taxonomist—not by God. And also this happened after the Fall (Genesis 3:20) not before the Fall.

From these two facts, we can begin to figure out many subtleties in Eve’s thoughts and behaviors.

Milton’s View of Eve’s Fall

Milton points out that Eve’s Fall was a gradual process.

• One day Eve strolled the Garden of Eden alone. Beside the calm and crystal-clear brook, she saw for the first time her own reflection and realized how beautiful she was. So, she went to watch her reflection every day. [Narcissus in Greek mythology was famous for being obsessed with one’s own beauty. This ancient fairy tale may have originated from Eve. This is also the origin of the word “narcissism.”] Eve’s “self-appreciation became the beginning of her vanity in the future. So, the first reason that led to Eve’s fall was “Covetousness of Vanity.”

• Satan praised her beauty in front of her day and night, using flattery to cater to Eve’s “love of vanity.” So, the second reason that led to Eve’s fall was “Being complacent.”

• “Vanity” led Eve to pursue the right of “equality between man and woman.” As she felt God was unfair to her, she thought to herself, “My husband was directly created by God, and I was just made from his rib. Am I inferior by design?” She mused again, “God talk to my husband directly, and I have to learn from him to understand God’s heart. God, is it fair?” Satan egged this doubt on her, saying, “God is indeed not fair; what He says is worth doubting.” So, the third reason that led to Eve’s fall was “Grudging against God”.

• Why should I learn from my husband? Eve questioned to herself. In order not to be a second-rate human being, “becoming like God” had to be Eve’s ultimate goal. Satan knew the time was ripe and used deceitful words to seduce Eve. Everyone knows the rest of the story. So, the fourth reason that led to Eve’s fall was “Disobey Authority”.

Milton’s View of Adam’s Fall

Milton seems not to have said much about Adam’s Fall, this is why Grace’s article mainly focuses on Eve. But Milton is not completely silent about the causes of Adam’s Fall:

• Eve’s beauty became an idol which Adam worshiped. So, the first cause for Adam’s fall was “Idolatry.”

• After Eve ate the forbidden fruit, Adam could actually have refused to make the same mistake. But because Adam loved Eve deeply, he thought, “I love her, and I can’t live without her. I would rather die together than to live alone! There’s no point to live by myself and toil without helper.” Then, Adam decided to eat the forbidden fruit fully aware of the consequences. He, in effect, acted emotionally and put his feeling above his reason. This was the reason for Adam’s Fall according to Milton. So, the second cause of Adam’s fall was “Contempt of God.”

Milton’s Theological Fallacy

Let us first recap Milton’s explanations of the reasons for the Fall.

For Eve:

• “Covetousness of vanity” (Gal. 5:26; Phil. 2:3)
• “Being complacent” (Proverbs 16:18; James 4:6)
• “Grudge against God” (Isaiah 55:8-9)
• “Disobey authority” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

For Adam:

• “Idolatry” (Exodus 20:3-5)
• “Contempt of God” (Genesis 3; Proverbs 1:7)

Milton lists various reasons for the fall of Eve and Adam. At first glance, I think his speculations are quite reasonable and can be regarded as good common sense and logical. I can say that they are “acceptable speculations”. However, after a second glance, I realize that all the so-called “causes of the Fall” listed above are actually typical manifestations of human sinful nature acquired “after the Fall” in the Bible (as shown in the cited verses). However, Milton placed these “post-fall sinful natures” in the “Pre-Fall” world where there should have no sinful nature in the first place. Now, you see that the problem begins to surface.

John Milton is in effect saying, “Adam and Eve, being in a state of innocent sinlessness, committed some sins that brought them into a state of sinful nature.” We sin because our sinful nature compels us to sin. How could a person without sinful nature commit a sin? This obviously falls prey to the fallacy of “circular logic”. Milton’s reasoning throughout the book is thus subjected to be challenged and questioned.

Granted, this is understandable. Because we are all “post-Fall creatures,” our thinking has been distorted by our “sinful nature”. We cannot fully comprehend the state of the human mind in the prelapsarian (or pre-Fall) world. Only Adam and Eve had such experiences, and no one else has had, we then can make some excuses for Milton.

Although we should not regard <Paradise Lost> as a rigorous theological exegesis, we can surely appreciate its beautiful literary work that can make readers’ souls feel refreshed after reading it. Furthermore, we surely can draw practical and valuable applications from this book as below.

Advice to young people

Especially to young men and young women who fall in love, they are advised not to make the same mistakes as Eve and Adam did.

• Young lady! Don’t be vain, don’t be complacent about people’s compliments on your beauty.

• Young man! Don’t lose your mind; only stupid men can’t resist the charms of a beautiful woman and succumbed to her temptation.

• Young men and women! Getting dumped is not a big deal. Falling out of love means that God has prepared a better one for you than the one you have now. The most unwise person in the world commits suicide because of broken love. Usually for those who are lovelorn, even if the person who abandons you is willing to come back to you again after a while, in most cases, you will also lose interest in the boomerang partner. When love is not mutual, beauty can turn into ugliness, and love can turn into hatred. So, trust God for His wisdom in arranging your marriage partner. God always works for good for those (the dumper and the dumped) who love Him.

Theology of the original sin

The concept herein is from “Reason to Believe” by RC Sproul; pp. 117-129.

There are two important assertions in the Bible:

• God is not the author of evil.
• The Bible clearly places the responsibility of transgression and sin on human beings.

With these two assertions, there has been an unanswered question since the ancient times:

Q: Where did sin come from? The answers to this question over the ages can be divided into at least five categories (A1 to A5), as follows:

A1: People sin because they are given the freedom of choice. 

Adam and Eve chose sin, which became the source of sinful nature in mankind. This has been viewed as “standard answer” to the very question. Most Christians stop at this point with satisfaction. But this answer is not without difficulties: Adam and Eve were perfectly made by God. Why did the perfect creatures choose evil?

A2: Adam and Eve were deceived.

The difficulty of this answer is: The Bible states that Adam and Eve knowingly committed an act of disobedience. Why was the Jehovah God asking them to be responsible for their own crimes and judged them if they were deceived or ignorant of their actions?

A3: Adam and Eve were forced to sin.

Biblical records do not agree. If they were compelled, sin will not be on them, but on the compeller.

A4: Adam and Eve sinned because they had the inclination to sin.

This statement has the following problems: Where did their tendency to sin come from? Is God unholy if inclination to sin came from God? If it came from the devil, we just push the problem up one level without really solving the problem.

A5: Adam and Eve had no tendency to sin. Their choice was not from logical reasoning. Their actions were just a mere accident.

Winfrey Oprah and Eckhart Tolle, the two prominent New Age Movement proponents, used this argument to downplay the gravity of sin. Accident does not involve moral responsibility. But the Bible states that Adam and Eve’s choices invoked moral responsibility. Without the desire or inclination, there is no ability to choose. I open the refrigerator because I want to eat (desire). I want to paint a picture today because I incline to paint. Adam and Eve did make a choice so they had inclination.

A6: Can you come up with any other answers?

Can you think of any? Please fill in.

Although it appears that we have not really answered the very question “Where did sin come from,” the key point to bear in mind is: We can exhaust all our imagination to leave some impressive “smart” answers to others, but we must realize that human reason is flawed and limited. The truths of Christianity cannot be answered by sophistry. Atheists often say, “The existence of evil proves that there is no God who is good, omniscient, and omnipotent.”

Although Christians do not fully understand the source of evil, we have no reason to ignore the abundant positive evidences of the existence of God. To deny what we have already known based on what we do not yet know is not only a poor theology but also a poor science.

Although Christians cannot fully explain evil, the Bible continually warns us to beware of evil’s influences (1 Peter 5: 8-9). Evil is indeed a mystery. God, in His infinite wisdom, hides something from us that we will never understand them in this world. And I believe the concealment of God is for our benefit, for example, God does not tell me when is the date I should die. Is this to me not God’s grace? The Bible says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29). The Origin of Sin is indeed a mystery.

Having said that, we must be careful not to abuse the term “mystery” whenever we encounter any bible difficulty. If we lightly say without hesitation that something is a mystery, we then stop pursue further understanding and research and as a result, we won’t grow in knowledge. It takes a process to reach the certainty of being able to say, “this is a mystery.” Historically, the process of reaching such conclusion may take several centuries. But throughout the process, we have learned. Therefore, I think the process is more important than the answer, because in the future when we see our Lord face to face in heaven, we will certainly get the correct answer from Him, but the processes we have experienced in this world becomes opportunities for us to grow in faith and in holiness. One theologian puts it well, “God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and he has left enough to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.”

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo

I guess the original intention of the questioner was to ask, “Do you love the gift which comes from God more than your love for God Himself who is the gift-giver?” The purpose of this thought-provoking question is meant to inspire Christians to examine the purify of their motives for loving God.

But in order to maximize the value of the gift, the questioner uses the word “Paradise” in place of the word “gift”. This can amplify the question so that a clearer answer may be obtained. This literary hyperbole is often used in Jesus’ parables, such as the one about the “camel passing through the eye of a needle.” But, by doing so, sometimes it makes the question more paradoxical that one cannot really answer it immediately by saying either “yes” or “no”.

If I change this question into a more manageable one as: “If God doesn’t give you benefits, do you still believe in God?”

Then commonly acceptable answer is: “We should still believe in God because He is God, not because He a Benefits-Giver.”

Although this is the “standard answer” to the very question, it nevertheless leaves some room for further discussion: What does it mean by “benefit”?

If the so-called “benefit” means: “being healed when sick, or finding a job after laid-off, or being saved from a disaster, and so on,” then the “standard answer” makes sense, because He is “God” and not treated as our “servant” who answers to our never-ending requests. In this case. not only must we trust Him and submit to His sovereignty, but we must also take hold of His promise stated in Romans 8:28.

If, however, by “benefit” we mean “Christ’s saving grace,” then the question is to be re-phrased as, “If there is no salvation, do you still believe in God?”  In this case, then there is room for further contemplation.

Salvation is for those who are “dead in sins and trespasses,” so it is entirely the grace of God. Because salvation is 100% from God and not a single drop of human merit. If the Father had not in the first place chosen us, regenerated us, and given us the gift of faith, not only would we be “unwilling” to believe in Him, we would “never be possible” to believe in Him. So, this would turn out to be a “wrongly asked question”.

Now we have enough basis to answer our original question: ” If there is no Paradise, do you still believe in God?”.

First of all, what is “Paradise”? Most people think of it as, say, the “New Heaven and New Earth” after the end of history. It is partially true; for the “New Heaven and New Earth” is the final and perfect fulfillment of the “Kingdom of Heaven”.

The Kingdom of Heaven is an “Already but Not Yet” state. When Jesus Christ came for the first time, He announced that the Kingdom of Heaven had already arrived. This means that God’s attributes and Christ’s sweet grace have been manifested tangibly on earth. Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven represents God’s peace, joy, righteousness, peace, holiness, and God’s abiding presence. In short, God’s attributes.

All these spiritual benefits define who God actually is. Moreover, these benefits come to the hearts of believers. This is, in fact, the essence of the Gospel. If the Gospel is the theme of the Kingdom of Heaven, then without the Gospel there is no Kingdom of Heaven. If Paradise is the ultimate and perfect fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven, there is no Paradise without the Kingdom of Heaven. We can now say this: 

If God does not give us Paradise, He must not be the God described in the Bible, and we should not believe in Him, because believing in something other than the biblical God is idolatry.

“If there is no Paradise, do you still believe in God?” The answer, to my mind, is: “I will not believe in a God without Paradise.”

By T.C. Lo (盧天賜)

我猜想這個問題者的原意是：「你愛上帝給你的禮物？還是你愛給你禮物的上帝？」目的是提醒基督徒要淨化他們愛上帝的動機。

但問者為了把禮物的價值提升到最高，便用「天堂」來代表「禮物」，這就可以把問題放大而得到一個更清晰的答案；耶穌的比喻常用這種文學手法，如「駱駝穿過針眼」的比喻是一例也。但有時卻把問題變得非常吊詭，使用我們不能馬上以「是」或「非」來回答。

讓我把這個問題改變為另一個更容易處理的問題：「如果上帝不給你好處，你還相信上帝嗎?」

那麼公認的答案是：「我們信上帝是因為他是上帝, 而不是因為他賜給我們好處。」

儘管這是基督徒的「標準答案」, 它也有討論的餘地, 就是: 什麼是「好處」？

如果所謂「好處」是指：「生病得醫治，失業再獲職，大難蒙解救」, 那麼「標準答案」 是對的，因為上帝就是「上帝」，而不是我們有求必應的「僕人」。我們不僅要相信祂，並順服在他主權之下，還要抓住羅馬書八章28節的應許。

如果所謂「好處」是指：「基督救贖的恩典」，那麼這個問題就變成，「如果沒有救恩，你還相信上帝嗎?」 那就有進一步討論的餘地了。救贖之恩對我們這些「死在罪惡過犯中的人」而言，完全是出於上帝的恩典，因為救恩百分之百源於上帝。若不是祂先揀選我們，重生了我們，給我們信心作禮物，我們不但「不願」相信祂，我們甚至「不可能」相信祂。所以這是一個「問錯了」的問題。

現在我們有足夠的基礎去回答「如果沒有天堂，你還相信上帝嗎?」

首先，甚麼是「天堂」? 一般人都認為是那個在歷史結束之後的「新天新地」。其實「新天新地」是「天國」最終的完美實現。天國是一個巳然卻未然 (already but not yet) 的狀態。耶穌基督第一次來臨時，祂巳宣告天國已經來到。意即上帝的屬性和恩典已經有形有體地在地上彰顯。因此，天國就是上帝的平安，喜樂，公義，和平，聖潔，同在，簡言之，就是上帝的屬性。這一切屬靈的好處，都臨到信徒的心中。這就是福音。如果福音的主題是天國，沒有福音就沒有天國，天堂是天國的終極和完美的實現。沒有天國就沒有天堂。如果上帝不給我們天堂，他就一定不是聖經中的那一位上帝，我們就不應該信他，因為相信不是「聖經中所描述的」上帝，就是拜偶像。結論: 「如果沒有天堂，你還相信上帝嗎? 」答案是:「我不會相信那沒有天堂的上帝。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

引言

我的孫女自小就喜歡寫作，當他讀大學的時候，我一直以為他是攻讀「英語文學」。今年五月我參加她的畢業典禮，我問她你究竟拿什麼學位？她說她的學士學位是「創意寫作和商業」。我聽了之後，覺得很稀奇。「創意寫作」我明白，但為什麼與「商業」拉上關係呢？稍為思考之後，我發覺這是有道理的，因為在商業界中，嚴謹的言語是必須的。簽署合同豈非需要準確的語言嗎? 後來我請她發送一篇文章給我，讓我對她的思想有更深的了解。她給了我一篇與彌爾頓的巨著，《失樂園》，有關的寫作。本文是我閱讀孫女作品後的回應並作出一些 對《失樂園》的評論。  

《失樂園》的作者和內容簡介

內容：從我孫女的文章中，得知《失樂園》是一本對創世記第三章，即對「原罪」的問題，以史詩 (epic) 形式作出闡述。

作者彌爾頓 (John Milton; 1608-1674) ：這本巨著是在1665寫成的。當時彌爾頓是五十七歲。那時他已經雙眼失明，寫作完全靠他許多的執筆者 (dictationist) 用听写的方式完成。我想這也是他用「史詩 （epic poem)」的體裁寫成的原因之一，因為「詩」能用最少的字數，卻能表達最深刻的心思的方法，儘管這種文學手法對神學教義的表達是有限制的，但它也給讀者一些自由度去作出延伸和揣摩。

「推測」的必要性

我從來沒有認真讀過《失樂園》這本書，但從孫女的文章中，我可以稍為窺探到彌爾頓的思想，特別是神學思想。後者是我最有興趣的方面。

創世記第三章是論到始祖亞當夏娃的墮落過程及其後果， 這是對人類墮落的唯一原始資料。請注意，全章經文不到700個字, 然而《失樂園》卻是一本超過80,000 字的著作。因此，我們可想像到書中極大部份的內容都是由推測出來的。讀者必須把這個事實放在腦海中。

推測不是胡思亂想。推測是一個合理的科學方法，所有科學理論都是從推測作出發點而發展出來的，推測是需要「小心的求證」才能使其成為科學理論。對聖經難題的處理方法也是如此。在神學方面, 嚴謹的神學家也可以用推測作為起步點，但他的推測必須符合下面三個原則：

• 它必須符合邏輯和常識。
• 它必須有聖經其他經文的支持，才可以把這個推測視為真理。
• 如果沒有任何經文的支持，我們就退而反問，「這個推測有沒有被任何一切經文所推翻？」
  • 如果有，我們就必須摒棄這個推測；
  • 如果沒有，這個推測就成了解釋聖經的合法可能性，但是也只是可能性的一種。

我將會用這三個原則來評論《失樂園》作品的內容。

兩件不為人注意的事實

上帝是向亞當頒布禁令，「園中各樣樹上的果子、你可以隨意喫．只是分別善惡樹上的果子、你不可喫、因為你喫的日子必定死。(創2:16-17）」

• 這禁令只是對亞當說的，當時夏娃並不在場。夏娃之所要明白這個禁令是她從亞當那裏學來的。因此，夏娃所獲得的，只是第二手知識，而不是從上帝直接領受的第一手知識。所以我們看到教導夏娃是亞當的職責之一。我們也因此明白到為什麼撒但只引誘夏娃、而沒有直接引誘亞當。
• 當夏娃受造之後，神將它帶到亞當的面前說這人是你骨中的骨肉中的肉。上帝並沒有給他名字，只稱她為「女人」。夏娃這個名字是亞當給她的，亞當是命名能手 （taxonomists)。而且這是在墮落之後發生的事(創3:20) 。

從這兩個事實，我們可以更深刻地揣摩夏娃的想法。

彌爾頓對夏娃墮落的看法

彌爾頓指出夏娃的墮落是一個漸進的過程。

• 有一天夏娃獨自遊覽伊甸園，在平靜清晰的河水邊，首次看到她自己的倒影，發覺原來她自己是那麼的美麗。於是每天都去觀看。[希腊神话中的那耳克索斯（Narcissus）以迷恋自己的美貌而闻名。這故事可能是源於夏娃。这也是个(narcissism)一词的由来。] 夏娃這種「自我陶醉」或「自恋」成為日後虛榮心 （vanity)的開始。所以第一個導致夏娃墮落的原因是「愛慕虛榮」。

• 撒但日夜在她面前讚美她的美麗，以阿諛奉承的手段去迎合了夏娃的「愛慕虛榮」。所以第二個導致夏娃墮落的原因就是「沾沾自喜」。

• 「虛榮心」使夏娃開始追求「男女平等」的權利。他感到上帝對她不公平的原因：她心裏想，「我丈夫是由上帝直接創造，而我只不過是從我丈夫的肋骨拿出來而已，難道我是次等的嗎？」 又想，「上帝直接和我丈夫說話，而我反而要向丈夫學習才得以明白上帝的心意。上帝呀！你公平嗎？」撒旦從中慫恿，說，「上帝是不公平的；祂所說的話也值得我們去懷疑。」所以第三個導致夏娃墮落的原因是「怨天尤人」。

• 我為什麼要向丈夫學習呢？為了不作次等人，所以「能夠像神」便成了夏娃的終極目標。撒但知道時機成熟, 便用詭詐的語言引誘夏娃。其餘的故事大家都知道了。所以第四個導致夏娃墮落的原因是「不服權柄」」。

彌爾頓對亞當墮落的看法

彌爾頓對亞當的墮落好似說得不多，所以 Grace 的文章也只關注在夏娃身上。但彌爾頓並非完全沒有提到亞當墮落的原因：

• 夏娃的美麗成為亞當敬拜的偶像。所以導致亞當墮落的第一個原因是「崇拜偶像」。

• 夏娃吃了禁果後，其實亞當是可以拒絕重疊覆轍的。但因亞當深愛夏娃，所以他想，「我愛她，我不能沒有他而活着。我們就一同死吧！反正我一個人獨自活着也沒有什麼意思」。亞當因為感情用事，而將他的感情放在他理智之於是也吃了禁果。」所以第二個導致亞當墮落的原因是「藐視上帝」。

彌爾頓的神學謬誤

首先讓我們回顧彌爾頓對墮落的原因的解釋。

夏娃:

• 「貪慕虛榮」（加5:26; 腓2:3)
• 「沾沾自喜」 (箴16:18 ；雅各書4:6）
• 「怨天尤人」 （賽 55:8-9）
• 「不服權柄」（弗5:22-24）

亞當:

• 「崇拜偶像」 (出 20:3-5)
• 「藐視上帝」(創 3；箴1:7)

彌爾頓列出夏娃和亞當墮落的各種理由。乍一看, 我覺得他的推測頗合道理，也可算是合乎常識和邏輯，我們可以說它們是一種「可接受的推測」。但經過仔細分析、我發現以上所有列出的所謂「墮落原因」其實在聖經中 (如經文所示) 都是「墮落之後」 的人類罪性 (sinful nature) 的典型表達。然而彌爾頓卻把這些「墮落後的罪性」放在應該沒有罪性的「墮落前的世界 (Prelapsarian world) 」中。約翰·彌爾頓實際上是在說，「亞當和夏娃處於沒有罪性的狀態，犯了一些罪，導致他們陷入有罪性的狀態中。」我們犯罪是因為我們有罪性。一個沒有罪性的人又怎麼可能會犯罪呢？

這顯然犯了「循環邏輯(circular logic)」的謬誤。因此彌爾頓的整本書的推理受到厳重的挑戰和質疑。

誠然，這是可以了解的。因為我們都是「墮落之後的人」，所以我們的思維都是一種有了「罪性」的思維。我們無法完全知道在「沒有墮落之前」的人類的思想的狀態。只有亞當和夏娃才有這樣的經歷，其他所有的人都沒有，當我們明白這一事實之後，我們就可以對彌爾頓有所諒解。

儘管我們不要把《失樂園》當作是嚴謹的神學解經，但我們可以把它欣賞為一本美麗的文學作品，讓我們讀後可以心靈舒暢。

對年輕人的勸告

彌爾頓對亞當夏娃的分析，也具有屬靈的教訓可讓少男少女可以支取，特別對墮入愛河的男女說，不要重蹈夏娃與亞當的覆轍。年輕女子啊！不要愛慕虛榮，不要把人對你的稱讚感到沾沾自喜。年輕男子啊！不要失去你的理智；只有愚蠢的男子才過不了美人關。年輕的男女啊！失戀不是了不起的事。失戀代表上帝為你預備一個比現在這個更好的對象。世上最愚蠢的人就是因失戀而自殺。通常失戀的人，過了不久，如果丟棄你的人願意再次回到你的身邊，一搬來說，你也不再对他興趣了。當失去彼此相愛的時候，漂亮也成為醜陋，愛也變成恨了。

「原罪」的神學Theology of the original sin

聖經內有兩項重要的斷言:

• 神不是邪惡的創始人 (author of evil).
• 聖經清楚地把過犯和罪的責任放置在人的身上。

隨着這兩個聲明,  產生了一個古今難題: Q: 罪從那裡來? [參考: “Reason to Believe” by R.C. Sproul; pp.117-129]. 歷世歷代對此問題的答案至少可分為五類 (A1 to A5), 如下:

A1: 人之可能犯罪是因他們赋予選擇的自由。

亞當與夏娃選擇罪, 這就是罪之源了。這是基督徒所獲得的一般 “標準答案” 。大部份基督徒停留於此, 並以此答案為滿足。 可是這個答案並非沒有困難: 神造亞當與夏娃時他們是完美的; 為何完美的受造者會選擇邪惡?

A2: 亞當與夏娃是受騙的。

這答案的困難是: 聖經明說亞當與夏是明知故犯。如真被騙或對他們的行為是無知, 為何耶和華神要求他們對自己的罪行負責並加予審判?

A3: 亞當與夏娃是被迫犯罪。

聖經記載並非如此。 如他們是被迫, 罪就不在他們身上, 應只在強制者的身上。

A4: 亞當與夏娃犯罪是因為他們有犯罪的傾向。

這說法產生下列問題: 他們犯罪的傾向從何而來? 如果是從上帝而來, 上帝豈非是不聖潔嗎? 如果是從魔鬼而來, 我們只是把問題往上推一級而沒有真正解決問題的困境。

A5: 亞當與夏娃他們的行動只是一個意外。

亞當與夏娃並無犯罪的傾向, 他們的選擇並非出於理性, 他們的行動只是一個意外。新紀元運動者 (Winfrey Oprah and Eckhart Tolle) 用此說法來淡化罪的嚴重性。意外不涉及道德責任。 但聖經明說他們的選擇是有責任的。如果沒有渴望或傾向, 就沒有選擇的能力。我打開冰箱是因為我想吃東西 (desire)。 我今天想繪畫, 是因為我有喜歡繪畫的傾向 (disposition)。

雖然好似我們還沒有真正回答此問題, 但要牢記的重點是: 邪惡從那裡來? 邪惡之源並沒有另人完全滿意的答案。 我們可窮盡一切的想像力去給別人留下一些印象深刻的 “聰明” 答案, 但人的理性是有殘缺和極限的。 基督教的真理不是可藉詭辯術來提供答案的。 無神論者常說, “邪惡的存在證明全善, 全知, 全能的神不存在。”雖然基督徒不能完全明白邪惡的来源, 但我們沒有理由去忽視對神存在的大量正面的證據。 根據我們不知道的來否定我們所知道的, 這不但是拙劣的神學, 也是拙劣的科學。 基督徒雖不能完全解釋邪惡, 但聖經不斷地警誡我們要提防邪惡的影響力 (1 Peter 5:8-9) 。

邪惡是個奥秘。 有些事是上帝 (用他無限的智慧) 不讓我們在世上知道的, 我相信這是為我們的好處, 比如, 他不告訴我們那一天死, 豈非恩典嗎? 經上說, “隱秘的事是屬耶和華我們　神的；惟有明顯的事是永遠屬我們和我們子孫的，好叫我們遵行這律法上的一切話” ( 申命記29:29)。 這就是奥祕。但我們不要濫用「奥祕」這個名詞, 只要一碰到難題便不假思索地說, 這是個奧祕我們不用討論了, 這樣我們便不會長進了。 要達到 「這是個奧秘」 的結論是需要一個過程的, 就是要的確達到了人有限理性的窮巷時, 才可以用這句話, 有時這個過程可長達數世紀之久。 我認為過程比答案更重要,  因為我們反正將來在天上與主面對面時, 一定會從主裡得到正確的答案, 但在世上所經歷的過程就成為我們長進成聖的机会了。 有位神學家說得好, 「神給我們知道的是足夠讓我們踏出信心的一步, 但祂也為我們保留一些東西好讓我們認識祂的偉大而去敬拜衪, 讚歎衪, 並遵行衪的旨意。」

Why is the Bible called the 《Old and New Testaments》?

By: Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

「約」是神與人交往的媒介. 神學家以「約的關係 (covenant relationship)」一詞來表達。「舊約」和「新約」不僅是指聖經的兩大部份，乃是實實在在地說聖經兩大部份的內容都是指神向人所立的約。所以和合本聖經的正統書名是《新舊約全書》，以強調兩部份聖經的內容都是上帝與人所立的「約」。

簡言之，舊約和新約之間的一個重要區別是：舊約強調上帝對人類的要求是遵守律法，而新約則突顯了耶穌基督已經滿足了這個要求。這個「滿足」就是指祂的救贖行為，即他為我們背負了罪惡，成為我們的代罪羔羊。因此，我們可以這樣說，「舊約是關於上帝要求人去做的 (使人知道自己無能)，而新約是關於耶穌為我們所做的 (使人知道只靠恩典)」。因為所「做」的內容沒有改變，區別是「誰做」。所以我們可以說，兩約是連續的，而非廢此留彼。奧古斯丁說，「舊的就是新的隱藏，新的就是舊的顯露。」這句話更顯出兩者的連續和相關性。

(來8:13) 「既說新約。就以前約為舊了。但那漸舊漸衰的、就必快歸無有了。」 

希伯來書作者提出了「快歸無有」的定義，目的是說明從耶利米宣告新約的那一刻起，第一個約就已經死了。舊約的「漸舊漸衰」表明新約尚未完成，而是處于一個「已然, 未然」的狀態。但隨著舊約下生活的罪和死亡的舊秩序 (old order) 漸漸消失，它在上帝子民的經歷中變得越來越真實。 「漸」字強調啓示的漸進性。 「衰」字強調：耶穌既為我們做了，我們便不用再做了，我們這一方的工作衰敗了, 也徒然了。

然而耶穌的 「做」與我們的「不做」如何連結起來呢？ 研究這個「連結」就在教會歷史中發展了很多重要的教義，如：「雙重歸算論 (doctrine of double imputation)」， 「唯獨因信稱義 (justification by faith alone)」， 「唯獨恩典 (sola gratia)」等都是說明耶穌的「話語 (Word)」和「工作 (work)」與信徒的「相信 (faith)」的密切關係。

Why is the Bible called the 《Old and New Testaments》?

“Covenant” is the medium or bridge for communication between God and man. Theologians express it by the term “covenantal relationship”. “Old Testament” and “New Testament” not only are the two major parts of the Bible, but also two modes of contents concerning the relationship between God and man.

Therefore, the orthodox title of the Chinese Union Bible is <The Old and New Testaments> to emphasize that the contents of both parts of the Bible are two modes of the “covenants” established between God and man.

In a word, the important difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the Old Testament emphasizes God’s requirement for humans to obey the law, while the New Testament highlights that Jesus Christ has satisfied this requirement.

This “satisfaction” refers to Christ’s act of redemption, that is, He became our scapegoat and bore our sins. Therefore, we can say, “The Old Testament is about what God asked people to do (making people aware of their own inability), while the New Testament is about what Jesus has done for us (making people aware of the necessity of God’s grace).”

Because the content of the “doing” has not changed, the distinction becomes the question of “who does it.” Therefore, we can say that the two covenants are seamlessly continuous, rather than abolishing one and adopting the other. Augustine said, “The Old is the New concealed, the New is the Old revealed.” This quotation further shows the continuity between the two.

Hebrews 8:13 says, “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (NIV)

The author advances a definition of “obsolete” in order to say that the first covenant was as good as dead from the moment Jeremiah announced the new, implying that the new covenant has already began at Jeremiah’s time but it has not yet been fully consummated. Though it is not here in all of its fullness, it is becoming ever more real in the experience of God’s people as the old order of sin and death that characterized life under the old covenant continues to pass away. The new covenant is in the state of Already-but-Not-Yet even in the old covenant time.

But how does Jesus’ “DO” connect with our “NOT-DO”? Studying this connection has led to the development of many important doctrines throughout church history. Such as doctrines of

• double imputation,
• justification by faith alone, and
• grace alone (sola gratia), etc.

All these illustrate the close relationship between Jesus’s Word and Work, and believers’ Faith.

作者: 盧天賜 (T.C. Lo)

爭論的核心與本文的目標

創世記第一章和第二章記錄了上帝用六日創造了宇宙萬物。人們對「日」一詞的一搬領會是二十四小時的「一天」。但「日」在希伯來文 “YOM” 中卻有多重意義: 它可以是二十四小時，也可以是指不同形式的「不確定時段。」究竟創世記的作者的原意是指什麼呢？不休的爭論便從這一點開始了。可喜的是，兩派的基督徒的動機都是好的：他們都是以「尊重聖經的杈威和無誤性，熱愛上帝，認真地追求真理」為出發點。對我而言，支持「年輕地球論」與支持「年老地球論」都不重要，只要我們把創世記的重點抓住就夠了。這些重點是：

• 宇宙是有一個開始
• 上帝是創造者
• 上帝是用祂的話語創造萬有
• 祂的話語是帶著能力
• 祂的創造不是一氣呵成的，而是有步驟的: 每一步驟都是上帝獨立的創造, 而非建立在前一個步驟之上
• 在生動界中，上帝的法則是：各從其類

感謝上帝，雙方人仕都同意上述數點。他們的爭論的核心，乃是關乎「創造的速度」問題。這顯然不是基要的福音真理，與我們靈魂的救贖毫無關係，所以兩派人仕無必要堅持誰對誰錯，甚至爭到面紅耳熱的地步，應該在人際關係的層面上，彼此尊重和接納。但在追求真理的層面上，我們是可以去研究一下那個觀點比較對大自然有更強大的解釋能力。

有人主張「以經解經」。他引用彼得後書三章八節的經文，「主看一日如千年，千年如一日」，去和解爭議。這就等於說，不要爭吵了，反正一萬年在主眼中也可以是等於一百多億年。這也無可厚非，但筆者不會採取這種避重就輕的「懶人方法」，而失去許多研經和思考的機會。但如果你堅持這種解經之法，這也無妨礙，那麼你就不用再看下文了。

然而，非常少數的一批死硬派「年輕地球論」者，如 Ken Ham 等人，他們是「絕對字面釋經論 (absolute literalism)」者，他們堅持YOM就是24 小時, 但卻忽略了此字有多重意義的事實。如果你真的是「絕對字面釋經論」者，你就必需相信駱駝真的可以穿過針眼。

死硬派「年輕地球論」者不但絕對地堅信宇宙是在六個24小時的「日」被造成，他們更帶著權威性的和絕對性的語調宣告, 說：

“接受 「古老地球論」就是今天基督教世界 (Christendom) 式微，世俗主義興盛，和社會秩序腐敗 的最基本根源。”

這是非同小可的斷言。然而此宣告對基督徒有極大的負面影響，特別是對那些準備進入大學的年青基督徒 (下文對此點將有詳述)。鑒此, 筆者感到有責任去駁斥這個宣告的絕對性和真實性。

歷史名人的觀點

此爭論既是一個解經的問題，顯然就不是一個近代才出現的問題。遠自古猶太教和第一世紀教會直至如今，此分歧仍然且繼續存在。現在看看一些著名的歷史人物的的見解:

• 約瑟夫斯 (Flavius Josephus) 是第一世纪的猶太學者和歷史學家，在他的著作《猶太古史》中，他遵循了創世記中的六天創造的字面傳統解釋。

• 斐洛 (Philo of Alexandria) 是第一世纪的犹太哲学家和圣经注释家，他试图将希腊哲学与犹太教结合，認為創世記中的 “日” 是象征性的，不是字面意义上的24小时。

• 奥利金 (Origen of Alexandria)：第三世纪的基督教教父，他倾向于采用寓言和象征性的方法，認為創世記的 “日” 并非指字面的24小时，而是象征着更长的时间周期。

• 奧古斯丁(354-430 AD) 認為創造日是一段「寓意式的長時期，」但他似乎也不反對「二十四小時」的看法。

• 聖巴西爾 (Basil of Caesarea) 是第4世紀的教父，他在其著作《六日創世》中解釋創世記，表示創造日是普通的24小時日。

• 詹姆斯·阿瑟 (James Ussher, 1581-1656) 是一位愛爾蘭主教。他計算出創造的具體日期為公元前4004年。他是根據聖經中的世系表和其他歷史記錄，認為創世記中的 “日” 是現代意義上的24小時。
• 鲁益师 (C.S. Lewis; 1898-1963): 認為通過科學手段確定的地球年齡並不與基督教信仰相矛盾。儘管他沒有明確表達他對地球年齡的看法，但他對現代科學的接受態度和他對《聖經》的解讀方式，表明他可能會接受科學共識，即地球已有數十億年的歷史。
• 廿世紀的葛理翰 (Billy Graham) 博士/牧師/佈道家，相信「年輕地球」論，但他對「年老地球」論卻採取開放的態度。

• 唐崇榮 (Stephen Tong) 是一位著名的华人基督教神学家和传道人。他在其教导和讲道中，通常强调对《圣经》的严格解释和传统基督教信仰。在他是否支持 「年老地球」論的问题上，并没有明确的公开表态。他對西方歷史和教會歷史非常熟悉，但他並沒有把意識形態歷史的發展與地球的年齡拉上關係。

• 已故的神學家/牧師/哲學家/鮑爾博士 (RC Sproul), 是我所尊敬的學者之一，支持「年輕地球」論, 反對「宇宙大爆炸 (Big Bang Theory)」論。

• 已故的護教學家/紐約市Redeemer 長老會牧師，Timothy Keller，是我所尊敬的學者之一 ，主張「年老地球」論。

顯然，我們不能把「”今天” 基督教世界 (Christendom) 的式微」歸咎於基督徒對「年老地球」論的支持，因為這個爭辯在 “今天” 之前，久已存在。然而，為什麼一些死硬派的「年輕地球」論者有這種想法呢？我們就必先看看西方的科學知識與意識形態的發展史，然後再作出有意義的推測。

思想產生後果

這樣句話是正確的。但我們必須把「思想」和「後果」的「因果關係」弄清楚才使這句話成為有意義。

我們已經看到: 兩種對創造速度的說法都同時存在於長久的歷史中，但總的而言，在14世紀之前，支持「年輕地球論」者的數目總是比支持「年老地球論」者的數目較多。但我們觀察到，自文藝復興之後直至今天，支持「年老地球論」的人士不斷緩升。原因何在? 我們就要先看看西方的科學和意識形態的歷史發展過程。

文藝復興 (14世紀至17世紀): 人類的累積知識增長，基督徒科學家察覺到「年輕地球論」的假說 (hypothesis) 不能解釋許多前所未有的新現象，便漸漸覺得「年老地球」的假說具有更強的解釋能力。然而他們也是忠於聖經的，只是採取對「Yom」的解釋作為「時段」而非「24小時」，因此，他們對聖經的權威和無誤性，完全沒有妥協。

工業革命始於18世紀後期，持續到19世紀初。因着同樣的緣故，「年老地球」論在解經上的地位更被強化了。

到了20世紀，隨着相對論的發表，量子力學的出現，和宇宙大爆炸理論的崛起，促使人類在理論物理學上對宇宙的了解，踏上新的里程碑。

以上我們看到人類因着知識的發展和科學的突飛猛進，漸漸因着人類潛在的罪性所帶來了驕傲, 認為上帝是不必要的。這種思維便導致基督教世界 (Christendom) 在歐陸的衰微。這種現象顯然不是因為基督徒支持「年老地理」所致的。相反地，因為科學所揭露的新現象，使支持「年老地球」的趨勢增加。所以, 這是「科學影响解經」而不是「解經影响 (導致基督教走下坡的) 科學。」這個因果關係不能混淆。

進化論: 支持進化論的人一定要支持「年老地球論」。但支持「年老地球論」的人不一定要支持「進化論」，相反地，基督徒都是堅決反對宏觀進化論的。筆者數年前曾經花了一段不短的時間，從封面到封底，讀完了達爾文的《物種起源》巨著, 但我絲毫沒有發覺到達爾文是因受了「年老地球論」的啓發而發表進化論；也不是因為他要推翻「年輕地球論」而發表《物種起源》。誠然，進化論對基督教和社會有不可磨滅的負面作用，但教會和社會問題絕不能歸咎於「年老地球論」。

現在我們轉移到意識形態方面的歷史發展。我們常聽到「後現代主義 (post-Modernism)」這個名字。究竟它是什麼意思呢？我們首先要明白什麼是「現代主義 (Modernism)」是甚麼。

如果我們要用一些事件去標誌著「現代」的開始，那就是1905年愛因斯坦的「特殊相對論 (Special Relativity)」的發表。「現代主義」的特色是: 反傳統，個人主義，等。「後現代」開始的標誌事件是1945年第二次世界大戰的結束。「後現代主義」的特色是：世俗主義，多元主義，懷疑主義，相對主義, 等。這些名詞雖然神秘，但顧名思義，它們已足夠使人知道人的「思念變為虛妄、無知的心就昏暗」了。這正是意識形態導致基督教走下坡, 而不是支持「年老地球」導致基督教走下坡, 這個因果關係不能混淆。

總言之，科學知識使人驕傲，意識形態使人離開上帝。這就是今日基督教世界的衰微，人本主義的抬頭，世俗主義的升起，社會敗壞的根本原因。這顯然與支持「老地球論」無關。如果硬說基督教的衰落是由於基督徒支持「老地球論」之故，那就反而說明了基督教的影響力很大，那又怎會衰微呢? 這豈不是前提與結論背道而馳嗎？

在美國99.9%的教會牧師，都幾乎沒有在講道上強調這個爭議的對錯。 但如果支持「年老地球論」對人類文化有這麼大的負面影響，而支持「年輕地球論」又可以挽回社會的腐敗，而這些牧師們又沉默不言，豈非他們對神的國度犯了失責的大罪嗎？

「年輕的地球」 vs 「年老的地球」: 誰是誰非?

關於「誰是誰非」的問題，因為上帝創造之時，我們都不在場。所以我們不可能有絕對的答案，我們只能有比較式的答案。就是比較那一方的說法能對上帝的創造 (大自然）提供更強力的「解釋能力」。 

隨着理論物理學的進步，實驗物理學也更上了一層樓。各種超功能的望遠鏡 (如Hubble Space Telescope, James Webb Space Telescope，等) 和特殊的人造衛星 (如Planck satellite) 的發明與不斷的改良，科學家巳設計了各種不同的方式去測量宇宙的年齡，更重要的是，從這些不同的方法所獲得的結果都是非常靠近的; 這就說明這些測量方法的有效性。最終，物理學家及宇宙學科學家都一致同意：宇宙年齡是137.8億年 (即13.8 billion years) 。這對基督徒科學家而言，是一個驚人的結論，導致支持「年老地球論」的說法的基督徒科學家數目增加，因為「科學數據」與「年輕地球論」絕無妥協的可能性。

「年輕地球論」者對宇宙年齡的看法又如何？兩派人士都一致同意：亞當在創世過程中是最後的創造; 且亞當的創造是在一萬年前。如果上帝的創造只是六個廿四小時的「日」，那麼宇宙年齡就是「一萬年加五天」了。面對如此巨大的不調和，「年輕地球論」者如何回應呢？唯一的辦法就是作出不可證明且毛骨悚然的宣告：「科學無效!」

回顧科學的歷史，人人都同意過去科學理論的確是不斷地在修正，甚至被取代。死硬派「年輕地球」論者便說，「科學理論不可靠! 唯有上帝的話語安定在天。」 他們雖然說得振振有詞，但在這個情形下，「年輕地球」論所暗示的宇宙的一萬年的歷史，與科學算出來的百幾億年的歷史相差實在太遠了，它大大超出了科學家所允許的 “誤差幅度 (margin of error)”，這意味著在這種情況下，即使科學是非常錯誤的，也不會錯到支持年輕地球神創論也可以與科學相協調的程度。

個人觀點

儘管我巳經提過，「支持 “年輕地球論“ 戓 支持 “年老地球論” 都不重要，只要我們把創世記的重點抓住就夠了。」 但這不代表我對此爭議沒有立埸。我是偏向「年老地球論」的。在此列舉數大原因：

• 首先，我是科學家和工程師，我無法接受宇宙年齡是一萬年。
• 其次，創世記記載在第六個創造日中，上帝和人都作了很多的事。全能的上帝當然可以完成祂那份工作，但亞當是人，不是超人，也不是神人，他絕不可能在少於 (因為他是最後的受造) 24 小時內完成上帝指派給他的使命。所以「第六日」一定是一段相當長的時段。
• 第三，夏娃是在第六日受造，但她不是在亞當之後「立即」被造，同意嗎？這就要求第六日必需是一個「長日」, 而非24小時了。
• 最後，把創造日YOM解釋為「時段」而非「24小時」，我不覺得有不忠於聖經之處, 反而支持了「科學與信仰調和」的原则。

無論如何，你的選擇都不會影響你活在上帝面前的屬靈健康，也不要以為你的選擇會影響到神國的盛衰或社會的福祉。你只要在上帝主杈之下，活著去順服祂，尊崇祂，榮耀祂，你就會蒙祂的喜悅。

結語: 釋經思想

對「教會」一詞的理解，我們有「外形教會 (visible Church)」和「無形教會 (invisible church) 的區分。「外形教會 」就是我們所見到的實體教會，內中有「未重生者」和「巳重生者」摻雜在一起，除了上帝之外，無人能把他們分別出來，例如當基督教被迫害時，「外形教會」顯著地縮小，但「無形教會 」可能大大增大，它的質和量，只有上帝才知道。耶穌用麥子和稗子的比喻闡明了這個真理。 「無形的教會」完全是屬靈的，由所有重生者構成，內中全部都是麥子。她是有生命的個體，她的增長情況，完全在上帝主杈的手中。正如植物種子的增長一般：人在「黑夜睡覺、白日起來、這種子就發芽漸長、那人卻不曉得如何這樣」(可4:27)，因為生命的事情, 唯獨上帝才能掌管。「外形教會」的盛衰可以受人為的左右，但是對「無形教會」而言，人的一切手段，包括基督徒對 「創造日」所持的看法，對「無形教會」的生長毫無影響。

附: 對大學生的忠告

如果你真的被說服宇宙的年齡只有一萬年，並相信你這樣做是因為你忠於聖經的原故，那麽, 你就必須首先在解經學上多下功夫，不要隨便輕信。

絕對地相信「年輕地球論」是有後果的：當你進入校園之後，你一定被人取笑你是無知。很快你的信心就被動搖，甚至失去你過去十八年所領受的基督教真理。再者, 堅持「宇宙年齡只有一萬年」的信念對傳福音又損無益。

不但如此，你還犯了不知不覺的大罪。因為聖經教導我們「凡不出於信心的都是罪。」如果你良心真的相信科學是無意義，而你又進入大學去學那些你不相信的東西，我可以告訴你，你在專業上一定不會成功的，至少不會有大的成功。畢業後在職塲上, 你一定是對業不敬的。再者，去學一些你不相信的東西，就等於浪費你父母親的錢財。希望您們多多用自己的獨立思維去分辨事非，不要盲目地相信我或別人所説的。

Appendix: Advice to High School Graduates

Author: Tin-chee Lo

The core of the debate and the objectives of this article

​Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 record that God created the universe in six days. People’s first understanding of the word “day” is a twenty-four-hour “day”. But “day” in the Hebrew word “YOM” has multiple meanings: it can be twenty-four hours, or it can refer to different forms of “indeterminate periods of time.” What is the original intention of the author of Genesis? Endless debate begins at this point. The good news is that the motives of Christians of both groups are good: they all start from “respecting the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, loving God, and earnestly pursuing the truth.” To me, it doesn’t matter whether we support “young earth view” or “old earth view”, as long as we grasp the key points of Genesis. These key points are highlighted here:

• The universe has a beginning
• God is the Creator
• God used His Word to create all things
• His Word has power
• His did not create all things in one go, but step by step; each step is God’s independent creation, not built upon the previous steps
• In the creation of living things, God’s law is: Each According to Its Kind

Thankfully, both sides agree on the above points. The core of their dispute is about the “speed of creation.” This is obviously not the basic gospel truth and has nothing to do with the salvation of our souls. Therefore, there is no need for the two groups to insist on who is right and who is wrong, or even argue to the point of being red-faced. They should respect each other on the level of interpersonal relationships. and acceptance. But on the level of pursuing truth, we can study which viewpoint has a stronger ability to explain reality.

Some people advocate “interpreting scriptures by scriptures.” He quotes 2 Peter 3:8, “To the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” to resolve the dispute. This is equivalent to saying nothing, arguing that in the sight of the Lord, ten thousand years can be equal to more than ten billion years anyway. This is a possible option, but whether it is actually so is another question. As to me, I won’t adopt this “lazy approach” to avoid important matters and losing many opportunities for Bible study and critical thinking. But if you insist on this method of interpreting the Bible, it is OK, so you don’t need to read further.

However, a very few numbers of “young earth die-hards”, such as Ken Ham (with remarkable fast-speaking intelligence) and others, are “absolute literalism” believers. They insist that YOM is 24 hours (though ignore the fact that this word is polysemous). If you are truly an absolute literalist, you must believe that a camel can go through the eye of a needle.

Not only do young earther die-hards absolutely believe that the universe was created in six 24-hour-days, they also declare in an authoritative and absolute tone, saying:​

“Accepting the Old Earth Theory” is the most basic root cause for the decline of Christendom, the rise of secularism, and the corruption of social order of today. “

This is an extraordinary assertion. This is no small matter, for this declaration has a huge negative impact on Christians, especially the high school graduates preparing to enter college (more on this subject below). In view of this, the author feels the burden to refute the absoluteness and validity of this statement. Let me build my case gradually. 

The views of historical figures

​Since this controversy is a question of biblical interpretation, this dichotomy naturally has existed as far back as from ancient Judaism and the first century church until today and undoubtedly to exist in the future. So, it is obviously not just a “modern-time” issue. Now take a look at some famous historical figures’ viewpoints throughout history to demonstrate it is not an era-sensitive controversy:

​Flavius ​​Josephus was a first-century Jewish scholar and historian who, in his book Jewish Antiquities, followed the literal traditional interpretation of six days of creation in Genesis.

• Philo of Alexandria was a first-century Jewish philosopher and Bible commentator who tried to combine Greek philosophy with Judaism. He believed that the “day” in Genesis was symbolic and not a literal 24 hours.​

• Origen of Alexandria: The Christian church father of the third century. He tended to adopt an allegorical and symbolic approach, believing that the “day” in Genesis did not refer to the literal 24 hours, but symbolized a longer period of time or cycle.

• Augustine (354-430 AD) considered the day of creation to be an “allegorical long period,” but he does not seem to object to the “twenty-four hours” view.​

• Basil of Caesarea, a 4th-century church father, explained Genesis in his work “Six Days of Creation” and stated that the day of creation was an ordinary 24-hour day.

• James Ussher (1581-1656) was an Irish bishop. He calculated the specific date of creation as 4004 BC. Based on the genealogy table in the Bible and other historical records, he believed that the “day” in Genesis was 24 hours in the modern sense.

• C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) believed that the age of the earth as determined by scientific means did not contradict Christian beliefs. Although he did not explicitly express his views on the age of the Earth, his acceptance of modern science and the way he interpreted the Bible suggest that he might accept the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old.​

• In the 20th century, Dr. Billy Graham/pastor/evangelist believed in the “young earth” theory, but he adopted an open attitude towards the “old earth” theory.

• Stephen Tong is a famous Chinese Christian theologian and preacher. In his teaching and preaching, he generally emphasized a strict interpretation of the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs. He has not made a clear public statement on whether he supports the “old earth” theory. He was very familiar with Western history and church history, but he did not, to the best of my knowledge, relate the development of ideologies to the age of the earth.​

• The late theologian/pastor/philosopher/Dr. RC Sproul (RC Sproul), one of the scholars I respect, supports the “young earth” theory and opposes the “Big Bang Theory”.

• The late apologist/pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, Timothy Keller, one of the scholars I respect, advocated the “old earth” theory.​

Obviously, we cannot attribute the current decline of Christendom to today’s Christians-support for the old earth theory, because this debate exists long before “today”. But why do some “young earth” die-hards think this way? We must first look at the development history of Western scientific knowledge and ideologies before making meaningful speculations.

Idea Has Consequence

​This statement is correct. But we must clarify the “causal relationship” between “ideas” and “consequences” to make this statement meaningful.

We have seen that both old-earthers and young-earthers of about the creation speed coexisted throughout history, but generally speaking, before the 14th century, the number of supporters for the “young earth hypothesis” was always greater than the number of supporters for the “old earth hypothesis.” However, we have observed that since the Renaissance until today, the number of people supporting the “old earth view” has continued to increase. What is the reason? We must first look at the historical development process of Western science and ideology.

Renaissance (14th century to 17th century): As humankind’s cumulative knowledge increased, Christian scientists realized that the “young earth” hypothesis could not explain many unprecedented new phenomena, and gradually felt that the “old earth” hypothesis had greater explanatory power than sticking to the young-earth view. However, they felt that they were still loyal to the integrity of the Bible, but only adopt the interpretation of “YOM” as a “period” rather than “24 hours.” Therefore, they have not compromised the authority and inerrancy of the Bible.

The Industrial Revolution began in the late 18th century and lasted until the early 19th century. For the same reason, the position of the “old earth” theory in biblical exegesis has been strengthened.​

In the 20th century, with the publication of the theory of relativity, the emergence of quantum mechanics, and the rise of the Big Bang theory, mankind’s understanding of the universe in theoretical physics reached a new milestone.

We have seen from above that due to the development of knowledge and the rapid advancement of science, mankind had gradually become proud due to mankind’s potential sinful nature, and believed that God was unnecessary. This kind of thinking led to the decline of Christendom in Europe. This phenomenon is clearly not caused by Christians supporting “old earth” theory. On the contrary, the upward trend in favor of old-earth view is because new phenomena were revealed by science that could not be explained by young-earth view. In this sense, it was science which influenced the Bible interpretation rather than the Bible interpretation influenced science (that allegedly led to the decline of Christianity) as the young earth die-hards claim. This causation relationship cannot be confused.

Theory of Evolution: Those who support the theory of evolution must support the “old earth theory”. But those who support the “old earth theory” do not necessarily support the “theory of evolution.” On the contrary, Christians always firmly oppose the theory of macroevolution. A few years ago, I spent a long-hours reading cover-to-cover Darwin’s masterpiece <The Origin of Species>. However, I did not see at all that Darwin was inspired by the “old earth theory” to come up with his theory of evolution, nor did he publish <The Origin of Species> because he wanted to overturn the “young earth theory.” He simply didn’t care or totally oblivious of the controversy. It is true that the theory of evolution has had an indelible negative impact on Christianity and society, but church and social problems have nothing to do with Christian’s adoption of “old earth theory.”

We now move to the historical development of ideologies. We often hear the term “post-modernism” in our daily life. But what exactly does it mean? We must first understand what “modernism” is before we can understand what “post-modernism” means.

If we want to use some events to mark the beginning of “modern times”, it would be the publication of Einstein’s <Special Relativity> in 1905; the characteristics of “modernism” are: anti-tradition, individualism, etc. The symbolic event that marks the beginning of “postmodernity” is the end of World War II in 1945; the characteristics of “postmodernism” are: secularism, pluralism, skepticism, relativism, etc. Although these terms are cryptic to many of us, just as the words suggest, their soundings are enough to convince people know that “people’s thoughts have become futile and their ignorant hearts are already darkened” (Romans 1:21). It is quite clear that ideologies have led to the decline of Christianity, rather than the supporting the “old earth” does. This causality relationship must be understood correctly.

In short, scientific knowledge makes people proud, and ideology alienates people from God. These two are today’s fundamental reasons for the decline of Christianity, the rise of humanism, the rise of secularism, and the corruption of society. This obviously has nothing to do with supporting the “old earth theory”. If we insist that the decline of Christianity is due to Christians supporting the “Old Earth Theory”, then it is another to say that Christianity does have great influence, so how can it decline? Is it not that the premise contradicts the conclusion?

Today in the United States, 99.9% of church pastors leaders rarely talk about the young-earth/old earth controversy in their sermons or teachings. If supporting the “old earth theory” has such a negative impact on human’s wellbeing, and supporting the “young earth theory” can reverse the corruption of society, and these pastors remain silent on the subject, are they not committing a sin against the kingdom of God? Or dereliction of duty at the very lease?

“Young Earth” vs “Old Earth”: Who is right and who is wrong?

​Regarding the question of “who is right and who is wrong,” there is no absolute answer because we were not present when God created the world. Though we don’t have absolute answer, we can only have a comparative answer. It is to compare which hypotheses can provide a stronger “explanatory power” for God’s creation (nature).

As theoretical physics advances, so does experimental physics. With the invention and continuous improvement of various super-functional telescopes (such as Hubble Space Telescope, James Webb Space Telescope, etc.) and special artificial satellites (such as Planck satellite), scientists have designed various ways to measure the age of the universe. And more importantly, the results obtained from these various different methods are very close which illustrates the validity of these measurement methods. In the end, physicists and cosmologists agreed that the age of the universe is 13.78 billion years. This is a shocking conclusion for Christian scientists, which has led to an increase in the number of “old earth theory” supporters because there is no possibility to harmonize the “billion years” of science with the “six days” of the young earth theory.”

What do “young earthers” think about the age of the universe? Both camps agree that Adam was the last creation in the creation process; and that Adam was created 10,000 years ago. If God’s creation was completed in literal 6 twenty-four-hour “days,” then the age of the universe would be “ten thousand years plus five days.” Facing such a huge discord, how do “young earthers” respond? The only respond they can offer is to declare: “Science is invalid!”

Looking back the history of science, we all agree that scientific theories in the past have gone through constant revision and even replaced. Die-hard “young earth” supporters may say, “Science is not reliable! Don’t believe it. Only God’s Word is trustworthy.” Although they speak plausibly, in this case, we should not lightly ignore the enormous magnitude of the disparity. The difference between 10,000 years implied by the Young Earther and 1.38 billion years calculated from science is astronomical; it greatly exceeds the “margin of error” allowed by scientists which means that in this case, even if science is VERY WRONG, it will not be so wrong to the degree that supporting Young Earth Creationism can harmonize with science.

Personal Opinion

​Although I have mentioned earlier, “It doesn’t matter whether we support the young earth theory or the old earth theory, as long as we grasp the key points of Genesis, we should be at peace with God,” this does not mean that I don’t have my own opinion about this controversy: I am leaning on the side of “old earth theory” for the following reasons:

First, I am a scientist and engineer. I cannot honestly accept that the age of the universe is merely 10,000 years. The cell phone and computer I am using now is the application of some scientific theories, the same theories the cosmologist used to calculate the age of the universe.

Second, Genesis records that in the sixth-day of creation, both God and man did a lot of things. Almighty God could certainly complete His part of the work at any speed he wished, but Adam was still a human being, not a superman, nor a divine man, even before he sinned, he could never be able to complete the job (taking care of the garden, and giving names to creatures) in 24 hours (strictly speaking, less than 24 hours, because Adam was last made). So, the “sixth day” had to be a VERY long “day”.

Third, Eve was created on the sixth day. However, she was not made “immediately” after Adam was made. Adam must be a bachelor for a long time before he could begin to feel lonely. Then

God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” This further requires that the sixth day must be a “long day” rather than a 24-hour day.

Finally, I don’t think I have compromised the integrity of the Bible by interpreting the polysemous word YOM as a long period. I also believe that if we interpret the Bible correctly and the scientific theory is correct, Bible and science should be in harmony because “All truth is God’s truth.”

Closing Remark – an Expository Thought

In our understanding of “church”, we have a distinction between “visible Church” and “invisible Church”. “The visible church” is the physical church we see in which there are “unregenerated people” and “regenerated people” mixing together, no one can distinguish them except God. For example, during persecution, the “visible church” shrinks significantly, but the “invisible church” may flourish significantly, her size is known only to God. Jesus illustrates this truth with the parable of the wheat and the tares. The “invisible church” is entirely spiritual, made up of all true believers, within it is all wheat. She is a living organism, and her growth is entirely in the sovereign hand of God. Just like the growth of a plant seed described in the Bible, “Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how.” (Mark 4:27). Why the man does not know? Because only God can control the matters of life. The rise and fall of the “visible church” can be influenced by human thoughts and actions, but for the “invisible church”, all human means, including Christians’ views on the “Day of Creation”, have no impact whatsoever on the growth of the “invisible church”.

Appendix: Advice for college students

​If you are truly convinced that the universe is only 10,000 years old by adopting the “Young-Earth Theory” only because you want to be faithful to the Bible, then your attitude is commendable. What you need to do next is to diligently investigate the validity of  your exegesis and to see if it is right, and not to be so gullible.

​There are consequences for being an absolute Young-Earther. For one thing, as you step into the college campus, you’re bound to be teased for your ignorance if you insist on 10 thousand years old universe. Soon your faith will be shaken and you may even lose your faith which you have been nurtured over the past 18 years. After all, your insistence on young universe does no good to evangelism because people will reject you before they have a chance to hear your gospel.

There is a spiritual consequence also. Being an absolute Young-Earther, you have obliviously committed a grave sin without feeling it. Paul in Romans 14:23 says, “everything that does not come from faith is sin.” If your conscience really believes that science is meaningless, and yet you pay to go to college to learn about science which you don’t have faith right at the beginning, I can assure you that you won’t enjoy your learning and can hardly achieve great success professionally and become disrespectful to your career when you work. I hope you will use your own independent thinking to distinguish between right and wrong, and do not blindly believe what I or others say.

​In any case, your choice over Young or Old Earth will not affect your spiritual health before God. As long as you live under the Lordship of God, obey Him, honor Him, and glorify Him, you will be Jesus’ good disciple.

By T.C. Lo

“Peace, I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” (John 14:27)

In this short verse, Jesus gave a definition, made a distinction, and inspired two questions.

• Definition: “Peace” is defined as the absence of “trouble” and “fear”, the elimination of “sorrow and timidity.”
• Distinction:  between two kinds of peace: one is “the peace that Jesus gives us”; the other is “the peace that the world gives us.”
• Two questions inspired:
  • What is “the peace Jesus gives us”?
  • What is “the peace that the world gives us”?

A pastor said an interesting metaphor in his sermon: “Rats are afraid of cats; cats are afraid of dogs; dogs are afraid of men; men are afraid of women; women are afraid of rats.“

This parody is somewhat humorous, but unknowingly has a profound meaning: this is a circular chain. When you use worldly methods (such as psychology, education, or inspirational positive energy, etc.) to deal with “fear”, you are actually just pushing the problem from one link of the chain to the next. The result of this repeated cycle is that you haven’t solved the problem of “fear” at all. Your efforts are ultimately in vain. This is the characteristic of what Jesus called “the peace offered by the world.” It is no more than what the Proverbs describes, “chasing after the wind.”

And “the peace that Jesus gives us” is not circular, but linear. It is like an arrow that does not retreat, connoting its certainty. In what direction does this arrow point? It points to the love and faithfulness of God.

“The peace Jesus gives us” can be broadly classified into two categories:

• The peace derived from the forgiveness of our guilt.
• The Peace presence in the midst of calamity and suffering.

The first one is spiritual pointing to our alienation from God. The second one is existential, describing the reality of our fallen world.

A person experiences inner turmoil and discomfort as a result of feeling guilty or remorseful for their actions or choices. The only solution is “forgiveness.” Who can forgive sins? Only God can. So, forgiveness of sins comes from God.

Peace even amid the unfavorable circumstances comes from “the presence of God”, as David said in Psalm 23, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” Therefore, the state of grace of “being in trouble but having peace of mind” is given by God, and by Him alone.

Jesus also said, “So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.” (John 16:22). Here, Jesus connects “the absence of grief” and “rejoicing” as two sides of the same coin.

What Jesus means is: Although you do not have “peace” now, when I take the initiative to come among you and be with you, you will surely bear the fruit of peace, which is “joy”. Since peace comes from Christ, its fruit must also come from above. As peace and joy are in God’s hands, so no one can take them away from you.

There is a famous passage from the <Confessions> in which Saint Augustine states that “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless (absence of Peace and Joy) until it rests in you (in Christ).”

From now on, when we say to our relatives and friends, “May God’s peace and joy always be with you,” we will know that this well-wish words is no longer just an auspicious mantra but an affirmation of God’s love and faithfulness.

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo (盧天賜)

「我留下平安給你們、我將我的平安賜給你們．我所賜的、不像世人所賜的．你們心裡不要憂愁、也不要膽怯。」(約14:27)

耶穌在這短短一節經文中，下了一個定義，作了一個區分，啓發了兩個問題。

• 定義：「憂愁和膽怯」是「平安」的相反詞。換句話說，「平安」就是「憂愁和膽怯」的消除。
• 區分兩種平安：一種是「耶穌給我們的平安」； 一種是「世人給我們的平安」。
• 啓發了兩個問題：
  • 甚麼是「耶穌給我們的平安」?
  • 甚麼是「世人給我們的平安」?

一位牧師在講道中說了一個喻道趣語:「老鼠怕貓； 貓怕狗； 狗怕男人；男人怕女人；女人怕老鼠。」

這句話頗有幽默感，但卻有深奧的意義：這是一個循環的連鎖鏈。當你用世界的方法 (如心理學, 教育, 或勵志性的正能量等) 去克服「害怕」的時候，其實你只不過是把那問題從一環推到下一環而矣。這周而復始的結果, 就是你根本沒有徹底地解決「害怕」的問題，你一切的工夫最終都是徒勞。這就是「世人給我們的平安」的意思；到頭來都是空虛和捕風。

而「耶穌給我們的平安」不是圆圈式的，而是線性的。它是像箭一搬不會回頭的。這箭頭向什麼方向指？向著上帝。「耶穌給我們的平安」特殊地可分兩大類：

• 赦罪的平安
• 在患難中的平安

第一類是屬靈的，指向我們與神疏遠。第二類是有關存在的，描述了我們墮落世界的現實。

一個人因自己的行為或選擇而感到內疚或悔恨，導致內心經歷混亂和不適。惟一解決的良藥就是「赦免」。誰能赦罪呢？唯獨上帝才有赦罪之恩。所以赦罪源於上帝。

患難中的平安來自「上帝的同在」，正如大衞所說，「我雖然行過死蔭的幽谷、也不怕遭害．因為耶和華與我同在」。所以「身處患難，心卻平安」的恩典狀態是上帝所賦予的。

耶穌又說，「你們現在也是憂愁．但我要再見你們、你們的心就喜樂了, 這喜樂、也沒有人能奪去」(約16:22)。耶穌把平安和喜樂拉上了關係。耶穌的意思是：「你們現在雖然沒有平安，但當我主動地來到你們中間與你們同在的時候，你們便必會結出平安的果子，這果子就是喜樂。」平安既來自上帝，所以它的果子也必定是從上頭結出來的。平安與喜樂均掌握在上帝的手中，所以世人不能把它們奪去。

奧古斯丁在他的《懺悔錄》一書中，留下了一句名言：「主啊！ 禰為自己的緣故，創造了我們。 我們的心得不着安息 (平安, 喜樂)；除非我們的心安息在禰裡面 (在基督里)。」

從今以後，當我們對親友說，「願上帝的平安喜樂常與你同在」，我們便知道這句話不再是一句吉祥安慰和善意的口頭禅，而是真正具有屬靈的實際根植在其中。

By TC (Tin-chee) Lo 盧天赐

“我差你們去，如同羊進入狼群，所以你們要靈巧像蛇，馴良像鴿子。(太10:16)

伊甸園中引誘夏娃犯罪，吃下善惡果，從此蛇被視作撒但的象徵。但是民數記 21:5-7中出現的「銅蛇」一詞，卻代表神的醫治，所以現代醫學相關標誌，有許多是以一根手杖盤繞兩條蛇來表達，此典故乃是出自聖經；在約翰福音3章中，耶穌更是直接用銅蛇比喻神給世人的救恩，賦予銅蛇更深一層的意義。

上帝將懲罰罪行的火蛇，變成治癒的銅蛇，而十字架原本是懲罰罪犯的工具，但當耶穌被釘十字架後，這個刑具也轉化成為救恩的象徵，如此化咒詛為祝福的大能，叫人不得不讚嘆上帝行事的奇妙。

如果聖經用 A 來比喻B , 這不是說 B=A，乃是說 A 的某種特徵可以用來解釋 B。例如，在路加18:1-8 的比喻中，那「不義的法官」是借用來表明上帝是聽「恆切禱告的人」的祈求，而不是說上帝是一位「目中無神的法官」。第七節就解釋了：「神的選民、晝夜呼籲他、他縱然為他們忍了多時、豈不終久給他們伸冤麼。」

另一例：耶穌要我們學習小孩子的「依靠(childlike)」上帝的那方面。但不要學小孩子的「幼稚 （childish)」，只能吃奶，不能吃飯，只顧玩耍而不求長進。

同理，傳福音有時像「羊進入狼群」，如果你不「醒目」，你一定會比豺狼「食到唔撈骨」。 所以你要學蛇一搬「一眼三關」，「風吹草動」都先知先覺。亦即要學蛇那種轉彎抹角的「鬼馬」的那一部份，而不是說你要成為一條蛇。基督教導他的門徒們要「靈巧 “像” 蛇」，為要透過比喩使他們明白真理。撒但也教導他的小魔鬼們要 「“像” 光明的天使」。我們看到: 聖經(特別是啟示錄）都直接或間接地記錄了撒但不斷地扮演著「冒牌基督」，為要迷惑上帝的子民。因此，雅各如此教導我們：「故此你們要順服　神．務要抵擋魔鬼、魔鬼就必離開你們逃跑了（雅各4:7）。」

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

「我們曉得萬事都互相效力、叫愛　神的人得益處、就是按他旨意被召的人。(羅馬書八章28節)」

其實中國人也稍為明白到這一節聖經的道理, 儘管他們尚未認識耶穌，但上帝不斷地對神州子孫有一般的恩典 （General Grace)。中文成語手册中，可以找出兩三句：

1.「磨刀霍霍向豬羊」：意思是經過磨練和磨難，才能成就偉大的人才。

2.「破釜沉舟」，常用来形容面临困境时所產生的决心和勇气能勝過患難獲得成功。

3.「浴火重生」，它形容一个人在经历了痛苦、挫折或失败后，重新崛起、焕发新生。

今天吃早餐時，用手機隨便瀏覽互聯網，發現了一個中國人都引以為榮的例子，論及一位從「餐館打工」的留學生成了一位譽為「AI 女神」的名人，李飛飛。

這例子無疑地說明了苦難能產生出成功的「益處」。然而，聖經對「益處」卻有一個更崇高的定義，就是在乎這些「益処」有沒有像「金，銀，寶石」般的永恆價值。而這些「永恆益處」只有那些「愛　神的人」，就是信耶穌的人，才能獲得。

如果李飛飛有一天相信了耶穌 (假設她今天尚未信），她今天屬世的豐功偉績，也可透過「死而復活」的過程，更新變化成為「永恆的益處」，為福音作美好的見證。

耶穌基督就是最典範的例子：祂忍受了十字架的羞辱和痛苦，卻成就了救恩的根源，給人類帶來「永恆的益處」。

by Tin-Chee Lo

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:32)

Jesus is the Son of God, and He has the sovereign authority to forgive people’s sins. So when He wants to forgive a sinner, He does so immediately. But this time (possibly the only time in the Bible), He said, ” Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:32).” Why was this time Jesus specifically appealed to the Father to execute forgiveness while He could do it himself?

First, let’s look at the first half of the verse”: “Father, forgive them.” As the idiom goes: “it is not what you know but WHO you know.” This time, Jesus emphasized the oughtness and importance of forgiveness by addressing to Father directly. This way of interpreting seems to have no biblical basis, but is not wrong in itself. However, some preachers, with the sentiment of a shepherd, did so in hope that the congregation will know that If God the Father forgives you, why don’t you forgive others? This kind of teaching has the effect of encouraging the congregation to practice forgiveness as an example of life application to the Word of God, commendable, but seems not entirely hermeneutically proper.

I believe that Jesus’ appeal to the Father in this instance is intended to bring out this message: “I am going to the cross now to be a spotless sacrifice once and for all for your sins, but in a little while, I will ascend to heaven and be glorified and to become the High Priest interceding for you forever and this is what you should know.” One of the important tasks of the high priest is to intercede for the elect as a mediator. So, when Jesus said “Father!” it was to express that He would be the “Eternal Priest” as mentioned in Hebrews 5:6, continuously interceding for His people. Jesus delivered this important teaching before His leaving so people would never forget.

Now let’s look at the second part of the verse, “For they do not know what they are doing.” Are they really ignorant of their heinous act? Not only did they choose to release the great notorious Barabbas, but they insisted on crucifying Jesus, the one in whom even Pilate could not find any crime. This was obviously a knowingly intention. How could one claim that they didn’t know? Even the two robbers who were crucified together (one evil and one good) knew it, then how could the masses have an excuse to say they didn’t know? But these are indeed the words spoken by Jesus Himself, and they cannot be wrong. So how do we perceive  it?

When Jesus said, “they do not know what they are doing,” He was referring to the fact that those (actually including us today) who crucified Him were indeed ignorant because they did not “fully” understand the extent of the seriousness of their sin: they were in fact crucifying God’s only begotten Son.” However, ignorance does not absolve them of their sin; it simply highlights the depth of human depravity that we can commit such heinous acts without fully understanding their gravity. We are judged based on what we know and not on the depth of our understanding.

Now let’s put the two phrases together, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” This saying raises another question: “Did Jesus forgive ALL the witnesses?” If your answer is “yes,” then you are bordering on the unbiblical “universalism” which suggests that everyone is saved indiscriminately, an idea going against the grain of the Gospel.

The forgiveness taught in the Bible is not a blanket forgiveness for all sinners without repentance. The forgiveness offered by Jesus on the cross is indeed open to ALL, but only applies to those who through faith and repentance receive it, as was in the case of the thief at the cross. The other robber represents the unrepentant people of that time, who obviously could not receive the grace of salvation.

Building on the above discussion, we can now answer the question more directly: “Did Jesus forgive “all” witnesses at the foot of the cross? “

Peter and Judas both opposed Jesus, but Peter, who denied the Lord three times, was forgiven, whereas Judas was not. Why? Because Jesus prayed for Peter but not for Judas (note).

Jesus said to Peter, “But I have prayed that you may not lose faith, but that you may strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31).” To whom did Jesus pray for Peter? Praying to God the Father, of course. “Intercession” is the duty of the High Priest. Therefore, the “them” in the phrase, “Father, forgive them,” obviously refers only to “the Elect” among the masses, a group of people chosen by God the Father before the foundation of the world. As for Judas, Jesus once said, “The Son of Man needs to die, as it is written of Him, but woe to him who betrays the Son of Man. It would have been better for him not to have been born in the world (Matthew 26:24).” Obviously, disciple Judas was not one of among the ranks of Elect.

(Note) The Bible does not explicitly mention Jesus praying for Judas. However, as recorded in John 17:6-19, Jesus did pray about His disciples, but Judas was not specifically mentioned in the prayer. The scope of Jesus’ prayer for Judas is not specified in the Bible. The object of His intercession in John 17 (known as the “High Priestly Prayer” passage) is exclusively the Elect.

By TC Lo （盧天賜)

耶穌是上帝的兒子，祂在地上是絕對有赦罪的權柄的。 所以當他願意赦免罪人的時候，祂就立刻施行赦免。但這一次 （也可能是聖經中唯一的一次），祂說， 「父阿，赦免他們，因為他們所作的，他們不曉得。」 為什麼就是這一次，耶穌特意訴諸於天父的名去施行赦免呢？

首先，我們先看看這「十架七言」之一的上半句： 「父阿，赦免他們」。俗語說：「有關係，就沒有關係；沒有關係，就有關係。」 耶穌這次是藉着與父神拉上關係以加強赦免的能力和表達其重要性。這種解釋似乎沒有明確聖經根據，但本身也沒有錯。然而，有一些牧長，帶着牧人的情懷，盼望會眾知道：「如果連父神都赦免你，你還不去赦免別人嗎？」這種說法，有鼓勵群羊去學習赦免的功課的作用，在生活應用的觀點上，是無可厚非的，但似乎，不是合宜於釋經。筆者認為，這次耶穌訴諸於天父的禱告，乃是要帶出一個信息：「我現在上十字架是為了你們的罪作無瑕疵的祭品, 一次獻上永遠獻上，但再不多時，我將會升天得榮耀，成為永遠的大祭司，這是你們應該知道的。」大祭司重要工作之一就是為選民「代求」。「代」就是作「中保」之意，所以當耶穌說「父阿！」乃是要表達祂將會是那希伯來書中所提及的「永遠的大祭司」，為民代求。耶穌是在臨別前傳遞這個永誌不忘的重要教義。

現在我們思想下半句：「因為他們所作的，他們不曉得。」 他們真的不䁱得嗎？他們不但選擇釋放大罪犯巴拉巴，反而堅持釘死那位「連彼拉多都找不出他的罪行來」的耶穌。這顯然是明知故犯的行動，怎能說「他們不曉得」呢？連與同釘十架的兩位強盜（一惡一善)都知道, 群眾怎會有藉口說不知道呢？但這卻是耶穌親口所說的話，是一定不會錯的。那麼我們如何去理解它呢？

當耶穌說「他們不知道自己在做什麼」時，耶穌指的是：那些 (即所有) 把他釘在十字架上的人的確是不知真情的，因為他們沒有「完全」理解自己的罪有多嚴重，就是：「他們正在將上帝的獨生子釘死在十字架上」 的事實。然而，無知並不能免除他們的罪孽；無知只是凸顯了人類墮落的深度，我們可以在沒有充分了解其嚴重性的情況下，犯下如此令人髮指的行為。然而, 上帝将按照他們所知的審判他們。

現在我們把上下片語放在一起，「父阿，赦免他們，因為他們所作的，他們不曉得」。這就引發另一個問題：「耶穌是否赦免了當時 “所有” 的目睹者呢？」如果你的答案是「是」，你就等同於贊成不附合聖經的「普救論( universalism)」了。

聖經所講的寬恕，並不是在不悔改的情況下全面赦免所有的罪人。耶穌在十字架上所提供的赦免是向所有的人開放的，但只有那些透過信心和悔改的人才能獲得赦免，十架旁的一位強盜是一例也。另一位強盜就代表了當時死硬不悔改的人，顯然他們不能獲得救贖之恩。

建立在以上討論所基礎上，現在讓我們可以更直接地回答這個問題:「究竟耶穌是否在十字架上赦免了 “所有的” 目睹者呢？」

彼得和猶大同樣背叛耶穌，但三次不認主的彼得獲赦免, 而猶大卻沒有。為什麼呢？因為耶穌為彼得禱告，而沒有為猶大禱告 （註）。耶穌對彼得說，「但我已經為你祈求、叫你不至於失了信心．你回頭以後、要堅固你的弟兄 （路加22:31)。」耶穌向誰為彼得祈求？當然是向父神祈求。「代選民祈求」是大祭司的職責。所以,「父阿，赦免他們」中的「他們」顯然是單指群眾中「所有」在創世以前被父神揀選的一群「選民」。耶稣曾說, 「人子必要去世、正如經上指著他所寫的、但賣人子的人有禍了．那人不生在世上倒好(太26:24)」。顯然, 猶大一定不在選民的行列之中。

(註) 聖經沒有明確提到耶穌為猶大祈禱。然而，正如約翰福音 17 章 6-19 節所記載的，耶穌確實為他的門徒禱告，但這段禱告中沒有特別提到猶大。聖經中並沒有詳細說明耶穌為猶大禱告的範圍, 但約翰福音 17 章 (被稱為 “大祭司的禱告” 段落) 的代禱對象顯然是選民。

Edited & Translated by T.C. Lo

由於世上沒有任何情況可以與地獄的痛苦相提並論，因此世上也沒有任何歡樂可以準確地比喻天堂的奇蹟。

正如我們發現聖經中地獄的冷酷可怕的形像一樣，我們也發現聖經中天堂的豐富而有希望的形象。它被比作樂園，亞伯拉罕的懷抱，以及從天而降的榮耀之城。新耶路撒冷被描述為半透明的黃金街道、有珍貴寶石牆的地方、以及永恆和永恆的歡樂的環境。

關於天堂，最值得注意的是它不存在的東西以及它存在的東西。

• 將會不存在的事物包括：眼淚，悲傷，死亡，痛苦，黑暗，不敬虔的人，罪，聖殿，太陽或月亮，以及亞當罪孽的咒詛（參考創 3:14-19）。

• 天上存在的事物包括：聖徒，生命水的河，醫治的果子，神的羔羊，敬拜，婚宴羔羊和他的新婦，上帝未遮蓋的面容，以及公義的日頭。

天堂就是基督所在的地方。這是與神人相交的永恆幸福。喬納森·愛德華茲 (Jonathan Edwards) 在試圖表達信徒將在天堂中找到的喜樂時寫道：

“聖人將在愛的海洋中暢遊，並永遠被神聖之愛的無限明亮、無限溫和和甜美的光芒所吞沒；永遠接受光、永遠充滿光、永遠被包圍與它一起旋轉，並永遠地將它反射回它的泉源。”

雖然聖徒會喜歡與他們的神和救主相交，但沒有理由相信他們不會認識他們在地球上認識的聖徒並與他們相交。天堂是一切美好事物的居所。

在天堂裡會有不同程度的祝福。保羅用同一個天上不同亮度的星星閃耀來比喻這一點。然而，有幾點需要澄清。

• 首先，所有的星星都會發光。也就是說，天堂裡沒有不快樂的事。所有人的幸福都超越了我們最有洞察力的想像。
• 其次，基督的贖罪工作對所有聖徒都有同樣的拯救功效。
• 最後，信徒的「行為」雖然「值得」或多或少的祝福，但本身並不好。相反，上帝至高的喜悅將這些行為視為有功德。他這樣做只是為了基督的緣故。

地獄最大的恐怖在於它的永恆性，而天堂最大的快樂之一就是保證它永遠不會結束。最後的敵人，死亡，將不復存在。路加福音 20:34-38 向信徒保證，天上的賞賜是永遠的。

天堂最大的喜樂是幸福的異象 (beatic vision)，就是看見神的面容。然而，這種難以言喻的喜悅，卻是透過靈魂的眼睛流露出來的。神是靈，選民將在靈中看見祂。這是基督贏得的獎賞，也是祂的孩子們享受的獎賞。(更正宗助讀本) P. 2330

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

有一位「面書友」向我提問： 「我熱愛自由，並將永遠追隨自由。我喜歡自由帶給我的快樂。這是一種舒適、無拘無束的享受。不要在意別人的看法。你自己的喜好就是自由。愛自由就是愛自己。你怎麼認為？」

從這段話中似乎看出她對「自由」的看法，認為自由就是「為所欲為」。其實這就是今天美國社會文化的「色调」。人們認為每個人都應該自由地按照自己的意願生活，只要他們不傷害他人就好了。因此，自由被認為是一種社會認可的唯一無條件的善。為甚麽他們強調「無條件」呢？因為他們認為「條件」便是「限制」，「限制」就是「消除自由」。例如，按照《十誡》而生活就是一種限制。換句話說，在沒有觸犯律法的情況下，為什麼要試圖將一套道德權利價值觀加在每個人身上呢？這是他們的質疑。

這種「不傷害別人」的原則，似乎使選擇自由成為一種自我糾正的絕對金科玉律，以至為我們共同生活和社會秩序提供指導，而不需要任何形式的宗教或道德價值判斷。據此，今天唯一的道德絕對 (moral absolute) 應該是「自由」，唯一的罪惡應該是「不寬容或偏執」。

哲學家區分了「積極自由 (positive freedom)」和「消極自由 (negative freedom)」。

我們現代文化的自由觀念是完全負面的。只要沒有人限制我們的選擇，我們就是自由的。然而，這個概念太單薄，太不夠充分了。

（1）消極自由是拒絕任何對我們選擇的障礙或限制的自由。

（2）積極自由是利用我們的自由以特定方式 (目標導向) 去生活的自由。

追溯其源，這種「絕對消極自由」的想法來自後現代主義的思維，就是對任何道德基礎都要產生懷疑。其結果是：自由不是達到目的的手段，自由就是目的的本身。這就像陽光下舞動的一粒塵埃一樣，它是自由的，隨意地飄來飄去，但它最終落實在地上那一個位置，它卻無法預測或甚至不在乎。所以，對這粒塵埃而言，自由變成它存在的「目的」而不是一種「手段」去達到特定的目的，可說是一種無目的的「自由」。

然而，真正的自由「需要目的」，我們希望帶著自由降落在某個預定地方，那個「目的」才是真正的「價值」；自由不可能是最高或唯一的價值。

我們必須利用我們的選擇自由來做某事——但我們的文化非常害怕說出那件事應該是什麼或我們應該降落在哪裡。為什麼？因為我們擔心如果我們告訴人們 “你應該這樣做”，這就會限制了他們的自由，所以我們只有隨波逐流，「尊重」他們那負面的自由，而被人稱許為「寬容大量」。

只有當「自由」能夠讓你真正做一些好事時，它才是好的。例如，如果你要有一個美滿的婚姻關係 (良好的目的)，你就要接受束縛, 放棄一些「負面的自由」，你就不再像單身漢一搬, 我行我素了。

消極自由是一個不穩定的狀態，是一個不完整的故事。如果我們拒絕為了做一些積極的事情而作出承諾 （commitment) 並減少我們的消極自由，那麼我們就不是完全自由的。自治 (為所欲為) 本身是不完整的。「不完全的自由」就等於「沒有自由」。所以「真自由」就是從「負面自由」中被釋放出來。如何被被釋呢？耶穌說，「所以天父的兒子若叫你們自由、你們就真自由了。」 (約翰福音8:36)

參考：「Making Sense of God—-An Invitation to the Skeptical」byTimothy Keller (提摩太.西凱勒) 著; 第104-110真。

By Tin-chee Lo

John Newton (1725-1807) was the author of the lyrics to “Amazing Grace.” This hymn has become one of the most popular and widely recognized songs in the world, beloved not only by church choirs but even by people from different cultures and backgrounds. He also wrote an interesting book entitled <Seven Christian Blemishes>. The “blemish” referred to in his book is something that is not helpful for spiritual growth, but it is not a sin, nor is it something prohibited by the Bible. John Newton pointed out with his heart of a pastor that if these “blemishes” are allowed to develop, it will easily evolve into a lifestyle which will hinder the spiritual growth of a Christian, just like a frog dies in slowly from cold to boiling water without realizing it.

John Newton’s writing is very unique, quite similar to that of the style of the <The Pilgrim’s Progress> written by John Bunyan. He uses the names of some outlandish fictional characters to illustrate the nature of these seven blemishes in a metaphorical way. The names of these made-up characters are: Austerus, Humanus, Prudens, Volatills, Cessator, Curiosus, Querulus.

This article, however, picks only one of the seven characters for discussion: Querulus. This quirky name was borrowed from the English word “querulous” which means “complaining”, “picky”, “whiny”, “irritable”, and “grievous”. John Newton creatively and humorously twisted the word “querulous” into “Querulus”.

Let me rewrite John Newton’s story about Mr. Querulus in our modern-day context:

Mr. Querulus likes to talk about politics. He often denounces the mismanagement of public affairs, but he has no touch of the source of the giant wheel that drives the government machinery. No matter how loudly he shouts, he cannot speed up or slow down the bureaucratic wheel of government. Mr. Querulus has neither legal qualifications as a judge or lawyer, nor has he ever received academic degree on Public Policy. He is also not a historian nor journalist. Why is he so troubled or intense about politics? His information comes from CNN or Fox News, TV talk shows, YouTube, ChatGPT and other social media, as well as some friends who share the same views as his. If Mr. Querulus is just a member of society, then his troubles will just become his own personal blemish. But if Mr. Querulus is a Christian, his troubles are not just blemish; what’s worse is that he runs counter to the biblical teaching of “Do not be conformed to this world” and unknowingly forgets the sovereignty of God. Although Mr. Querulus is critical of society or the government, if he has the opportunity to live in another country for three or four months, after coming back, he may feel that the country he lives may not be as bad as the country he always criticized.

But if a Christian is placed in the field of public service, such as being a civil servant or supervisor in a government department, or even appointed as a high-ranking official, there is no doubt that he should be loyal to God’s call on him to be in politics and use all legal methods to improve the Society. Based on his Christian worldview, he should do things to benefit citizens and their children and grandchildren. The noticeable biblical examples for God fearing politicians were Prophet Daniel, an important minister of the five pagan dynasties, and Joseph who were sold by his brothers but rose to prominence as the prime minister of the Gentile Egypt. They both unquestionably and steadfastly bore good witnesses for God.

For Mr. Querulus, the best thing for him is to “let the dead bury the dead!” Instead of making noises about political issues, it is better to use the rest of his life to achieve better goals, such as diligently studying the Bible, helping other believers to grow, and if possible, participating in the teaching ministries, because teaching can be a good means of learning too. 

Most people, including Christians, are powerless to change the political reality, as the workings of the heavenly bodies are unaffected by the controversies of astronomers. However, they can perform more fruitful services such a praying for the government leaders as taught by the Bible.

Mr. Querulus’ zeal is not only unhelpful to others, but also harmful to himself. He makes himself suffer mentally and diverts his thoughts from more important things and prevents him from feeling the blessings and worth that he actually has.

Let us not misunderstand that John Newton was an “anti-politics” person. On the contrary, he was very interested in improving social policies. Let’s first look at his background: John Newton was a British sailor whose job was to participate in the transatlantic slave trade. Once, when he was on a stormy sea, he experienced a profound spiritual transformation. He later became increasingly aware of the immorality of his involvement in the slave trade. He transformed from the captain of a slave ship to an outspoken and ardent advocate of the abolition of slavery. John Newton eventually gave up his career as a seafarer and became an Anglican priest. He began to speak out against slavery, using his experience and insights to convince others of its evils. He published an influential pamphlet entitled “Reflections on the African Slave Trade.” His collaboration with his friend William Wilberforce and other abolitionists played a key role in the abolitionist movement in Britain. Later, William Wilberforce also wanted to become a priest, but John Newton strongly discouraged him and encouraged him to participate in politics and he eventually became a member of Parliament. William Wilberforce also gradually realized that being a politician was God’s calling for him. Through his gift of eloquence, William Wilberforce exerted a huge influence in the British Parliament, which finally led to the abolition of the slave trade in Britain.

John Newton, with deep pastoral love, intended to help us to identify our blemishes in our interactions with the world. Christians should be grateful that they have discovered their blemishes. These blemishes can easily overshadow the sweet aroma of the Gospel and taint the collective witness of the local church. Let us look at ourselves and see our sin and be willing to change the way we live our lives.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

約翰·牛頓 (John Newton，1725-1807) 是《奇異恩典》歌詞的作者。這首讚美詩已成為世界上最受歡迎和廣泛認可的歌曲之一，不但教會詩班喜歡，甚至在不同文化和背景的人們中也引起了共鳴。他也寫了一本有趣的書, 書名是《Seven Christian Blemishes (基督徒七大瑕疵)》。書中所指的「瑕疵」是一種對靈命長進沒有幫助的東西，但它不是罪，也不是聖經所禁止的東西。約翰以牧者的心肠指出: 如果基督徒讓這些「瑕疵」發展下去，就很容易演變成一種生活形態，那就會妨礙基督徒的靈命長進，就像青蛙在慢慢沸騰的溫水中漸向死亡而不自知。約翰·牛頓的寫作很奇特，頗像約翰·本仁 (John Bunyan) 所寫的《天路歷程》的寫作風格，就是用一些奇異的虛構人物的名字，透過寓意的方式來表達這七個「瑕疵」的本質。這七個虛構人物是：Austerus, Humanus, Prudens, Volatills, Cessator, Curiosus, Querulus.

但本文只討論其中一個人物: Querulus。這個古怪名字是從一個英文字 Querulous 演變而來的。這個英文形容詞的意思是「抱怨的, 爱挑剔的, 发牢骚的, 易怒的, 鸣不平的」。約翰把 Querulous 幽默地借音扭曲為「Querulus」，可音譯為「奎魯斯」。但中文讀起來很拗口，所以我把「奎魯斯」改名為「吹水佬」。這個名字的典故是：有些人談笑風生，講到興高采烈的時候，口沫橫飛，熱情洋溢，和他們一起也頗有樂趣，廣東人稱這種人為「吹水佬」。但當談到政治或宗教的事情時，其中有些人非常敏感，有時甚至會鬧到面紅耳熱。現在我把 約翰·牛頓 的文章用今天的語言去表達, 使讀者更感切身。

「吹水佬」喜歡談政治，他常常譴責公共事務的管理不當，但他卻沒有接觸到推動政府机制的巨輪的源頭。 無論他如何大聲疾呼也不能使政府的官僚巨輪加速或減緩。「吹水佬」既沒有合法的法官資格，也從未受過「公共政策」的學術研究，他也不是歷史學家, 為什麼他對政治會那麼煩惱或激烈呢？他的資料來自報紙新聞，電視節目，YouTube, ChatGPT 及其它各社交媒體, 或從一些同聲同氣的朋友那裏來的。如果「吹水佬」只不過是社會的一份子，那麼他的煩惱就只不過成為他個人的「瑕疵」而矣。但如果「吹水佬」是基督徒，他的煩惱就不僅僅是「瑕疵」 ， 更糟糕的是，他與「不要效法這個世界」的聖經教導背道而馳，且不知不覺地忘記了上帝的主權。雖然「吹水佬」對社會或政府有批評，但如果他有機會到別的國家住了三四個月，回來後，他可能會感到他所住的國家並沒有他所批評的那麼糟糕。

但如果基督徒被置於公共事業的領域內，例如在政府機構作公務員或主管，甚至当高官、無疑地, 他應該忠於上帝對他從政的呼召，並透過一切合法的方法，去改良社會，本於基督教的世界觀去造福市民及子子孫孫，就好像五朝重臣但以理先知一搬，為上帝作美好見證。另一位從政的好榜樣就是約瑟。他的言行在外邦人面前，為神作了不可磨滅的見證。

對「吹水佬」來說，最好就是「讓死人去埋葬死人」吧！與其在政治議題上大肆喧嘩，不如好好地利用自己一生餘下的時間來實現更好的目標，例如好好地研讀聖經，幫助信徒，若是可能，多參與一些教導性的事工，因為教學是可以相長的。基督徒, 或者是大多數的人民, 都無能為力改變現實，但他們可以透過為國家祈禱，做出更重要的事奉，而不是對他們「無能為力去改變的事情」諸多挑剔，甚至與他觀點不同的人鬧到面紅耳熱，不歡而散散。就好像天體的運作不受天文學家爭議的影響一樣。「吹水佬」的熱心不僅對別人無益處、對自己也有害。他弄到自己在精神上痛苦，並把他的思想從更重要的事情轉移、並阻止他感受到他實際擁有的那些祝福和價值。

我們不要誤會 約翰·牛頓 是反對基督徒談政治。剛剛相反，他對改進社會政策非常有興趣。首先讓我們看看他的背景。約翰是一位英國水手, 他的工作是參與跨大西洋奴隸貿易。他在一塲暴風雨中的海上，經歷了深刻的屬靈轉變。其後他越來越意識到自己參與奴隸貿易的不道德行為。他從奴隸船的船長改變成廢奴主羲的直言不諱的熱心倡導者。約翰·牛頓最終放棄了航海事業，成為英國聖公會牧師。他開始公開反對奴隸制，利用自己的經驗和見解說服其他人認識到奴隸制的罪惡。他出版了頗具影響力的小冊子《對非洲奴隸貿易的思考》。他和他的一位朋友 威廉·威伯福斯 (William Wilberforce) 及其他廢奴主義者的合作，在英國廢奴運動中發揮了關鍵性的作用。後來威廉·威伯福斯也希望成為牧師，但 約翰·牛頓 極力勸阻，並鼓勵他參與政治成為國會議員。威廉·威伯福斯 也慢慢意識到「從政」是上帝對他的呼召。藉着他那雄辯的恩賜，威廉·威伯福斯 在英國國會中發輝了非常巨大的影響力，使英國最終廢除了販賣奴隸制度。由此，我們不要誤會 約翰·牛頓 是「反對政治」的人。剛剛相反，他對政治有一個正面的看法，正如國父孫中山先生所說的那樣：「政」就是「眾人的事」；「治」就是「管理」之意。所以「管理眾人的事」就是「政治」。難道社會不需要有人管理嗎？

約翰·牛頓 以牧者之愛，打算幫助我們所有人找到與世界互動中的性格缺陷。基督徒應該已找到自己的缺陷而心存感激。這些性格特徵很容易掩蓋基督甜美的香氣，污染當地教會集體的見證。讓我們審視自己，看到我們的罪而願意改變我們生活的方式。

By Tin-chee Lo 盧天賜

C

90:7 我們因你的怒氣而消滅、因你的忿怒而驚惶。

90:8 你將我們的罪孽擺在你面前、將我們的隱惡擺在你面光之中。

90:9 我們經過的日子、都在你震怒之下．我們度盡的年歲、好像一聲歎息。

90:10 我們一生的年日是七十歲．若是強壯可到八十歲．但其中所矜誇的、不過是勞苦愁煩．轉眼成空、我們便如飛而去。

C’

90:11 誰曉得你怒氣的權勢、誰按著你該受的敬畏曉得你的忿怒呢。

90:12 求你指教我們怎樣數算自己的日子、好叫我們得著智慧的心。

(90:7) 我們因你的怒氣而消滅、因你的忿怒而驚惶。

公義聖潔的上帝絕不會視有罪為無罪。 上帝對罪人的回應，乃是用祂的忿怒來提醒他們，讓他們知道自己得罪了上帝而悔改。 C.S. 魯益師曾经写道：「神在我们的快乐中，对我们耳语；在我们的良心上，向我们说话； 但却在我们的痛苦中，向我们唿喊：这是祂的扩音器，以此唤醒这个聋聩的世界。」 或許容我加上一片語：「上帝在我們犯罪中，爆發祂的震怒，」好叫我們因祂的忿怒而驚惶像快被火消滅的那樣。舊約聖經常把上帝的憤怒比喻為烈火，表喻有練淨的作用。神的怒氣不但讓我們知罪而悔改，並期望我们能通过祈祷向他求助，使我們再次听到他的耳语，所以我們可這樣說，神的震怒是祂對罪人的愛的一種表達。

(90:8a) 你將我們的罪孽擺在你面前

上帝用憤怒來喚醒罪人，但頑固的罪人往往無視上帝的警告。上帝便用不同的方式來對付我們的罪。對於我們那「明知故犯」的罪行，上帝一項一項地將它們陳列在自己的面前、使罪人和祂一起看看罪的黑暗和醜陋。正如耶穌所點出來的那樣，「因為從心裡發出來的、有惡念、兇殺、姦淫、苟合、偷盜、妄證、謗讟 (馬太15:18)。」聖經還有數處將人的罪孽表露無遺。

(90:8b) [你] 將我們的隱惡擺在你面光之中。

「隱惡」是把我們的惡隱藏起來，以為神不知鬼不覺。我們的罪行是可以在人面前隱藏的，但在全知和全然聖潔的上帝面前，我們又怎能隱藏呢？「無所不知」是上帝的屬性之一，我們怎會那麼愚蠢把自己的惡隱藏起來？

我讀到滕近輝牧師的《使徒時代教会十二危机》一書, 內中有一段發人深省的話：「欺哄自己的方法不一, 最巧妙的一種是安慰自己的良心. 那一個人不善於此道呢? 信徒在良心受責備的時候, 常常使用極巧妙的方法, 把心中的不安擺脫掉, 或把良方的刺尖折斷. 人十分懂得逃避心中微小声音的藝術, 個個是对付良心責備的能手, 老練而富有智謀. 難怪聖灵要藉着良心的感動, 在信徒身上作深刻而徹底的工作, 是何等的不易! 衪的手很難抓着我们的心, 我们太滑了。」

多年前，我聽到一位牧師的道，內中他說到有一位基督徒少女愛上了一位不信主的年輕男子。她心裏一直不平安，便去問牧師：基督徒和非基督徒可不可以結婚？牧師說，聖經不是明說「信與不信，原是不配嗎？」她憂憂愁愁地離去。過幾天，她又去問另一位牧師，牧師也照樣回答她。她還是不服氣，於是又再去找另一位較年長的牧師。這位有解經恩賜的牧師說，「其實這一節聖經不是論到婚姻的，乃是…」當她聽到這一句話時，她的良心得到了安慰，牧師以下所說的話她都不再留意聽了，懷着被安慰的良心，高高興興地與牧師告別了。你看，良心的作用是多麼巧妙的！

聖經中也有例子：先知約拿明明知道上帝是全知的，但他似乎當作上帝不知道，而逃避上帝對他的使命。約拿是上帝重用的先知，耶穌也用他的故事向門徒預言祂即將到來的身體復活。所以我們可以斷言約拿不會是愚蠢的。但約拿為甚麽會躲在船艙下，以為上帝看不見他呢? 當約拿回顧以色列的歷史，他清清楚楚知道耶和華是恨惡亞述人而深愛以色列民的。所以我想，約拿會這樣想：「上帝召我向亞述人傳悔改之信息，大可能是上帝正在試煉我，看看我有沒有明白上帝最終的心意。」當約拿越向這個方向想，他就越覺得這次上帝對他的命令其實是上帝給他的試煉，因此，他認為不順從這一次的使命，才能在這次試練中得勝。呀！他的良心開始受到安慰了，不再責備他了，所以他不但理直氣壯地違背上帝的命令，反倒覺得這才是真正討神喜悅的方法，因為他認為這是順服上帝最終旨意的表達。這就是約拿的「隱惡」。

約拿逃避上帝的命令是因為他不願意去對尼尼微城傳神的旨意。約拿擔心尼尼微人會悔改而得到上帝的憐憫，他想看到上帝降下審判。所以當一個人過分強調自己的「意願」而把它放在上帝的命令之上，他就等於把自己的惡隱藏在自己的想法之內，使他看不見上帝的旨意。這也是一種「隱惡」了。然而，上帝將此人的隱惡以一種故事式的行動擺在約拿的面前和上帝自己的面光之中，就是約拿被大魚吞嚥，經歷了三天三夜的困境後，他最終悔改並履行了上帝的使命。这个故事表明，即使我們知道上帝是全知的，我們也會作出不順服的逃避。

上帝如何對付我們的「隱惡」呢？就是將我們的「隱惡」擺在他自己的面光之中，讓他真理的光暴露我們「安慰良心」幌子，和沖昏了頭的「自以為是」的想法。

(90:9a) 我們經過的日子、都在你震怒之下．

基督徒的成聖生活是一個不斷掙扎的生活。保羅把自己的掙扎寫在羅馬書中寫道:

7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律、和我心中的律交戰、把我擄去叫我附從那肢體中犯罪的律。
7:24 我真是苦阿、誰能救我脫離這取死的身體呢。

我們的心靈是「善惡之爭」的戰場；是「老我」與「新人」角力的武台；是活在上帝「震怒」與活在上帝「憐憫」之間的交接点。但值得感恩的是，聖靈保證我們得勝：

7:25 感謝　神、靠著我們的主耶穌基督就能脫離了。這樣看來、我以內心順服　神的律．我肉體卻順服罪的律了。

(90:9b) 我們度盡的年歲、好像一聲歎息。

我們對時間的感受往往在乎我們的環境和我們的心態。有小孩子的父母親往往覺得一日的時間很長。一早起來，為孩子預備早餐，然後送他們上學；下課後，送他們去參加課外活動。回家後準備晚餐；飯後督促孩子做作業，再陪他們玩耍直至他們洗澡及上床為止才可坐下休息。星期六還要帶他們去學打球或彈琴；作父母親的便感嘆地說，日子真是漫長呀！然而，日復一日，年復一年，轉眼孩子長大了，準備離家進大學。作父母的又感嘆地說，啊！一年一年地過得真快呀！在不知不覺中，轉眼間便到了退休年齡，突然又感到光陰似箭，日月如梭。當我們出生時，臍帶一斷便是第一個呼吸的開始；當我們離世那一刻，也是以「一聲歎息」為結束。這豈不是人對時間的感受嗎?

(90:10a) 我們一生的年日是七十歲．若是強壯可到八十歲．

年日的長短，雖然在主觀上是有不同的感受，但在客觀上的確是可以數算的。如唐代的詩人杜甫所說，「人生七十古來稀」。但今天活到八十， 九十，甚至一百歲也不算稀奇。然而, 一生的年日與永恆相比，也只不過是像昙花的一现而矣。

(90:10b) 但其中所矜誇的、不過是勞苦愁煩．

我們的一生真的是全部都是勞苦愁煩，沒有好過的日子嗎？我想不是的。舉凡嬰孩的出生，生日喜慶，出外旅行，重病得癒，久別重逢等，都是大部分人都曾經歴過的好時光。我們怎能以憤世嫉俗的態度去認定人生只有勞苦愁煩呢？我們千萬不要忘記，上帝是喜歡我們獲得喜樂的，因為祂是喜樂的泉源。但罪人的問題總是這樣：好的事情不去數，感恩的事情不去算，而壞的事情卻耿耿於懷。我們更忘記了羅馬書八章28節所說，萬事中有好事也有壞事；而甚至壞事，對愛上帝的人來說，都是有益處的。然而對一個不愛上帝的人來說，他的一生的確是只有「勞苦愁煩」。我們如何去理解這道理呢?

奧古斯丁認為, 從根本上來說, 塑造我們的不是我們所相信的，也不是我們所思想的，甚至不是我們所作的，而是我們所愛的。當我們問 「這個人是不是一個有美德的好人」 時，其實我們想問的就是 「他熱愛什麼?」。因為對奧古斯丁來說, 人類的美德 (如勇氣和誠實）其實是某種愛的形式。勇氣就是愛鄰舍的福祉多過愛自己的安全。誠實就是愛鄰舍的利益多過愛自己的利益，甚至會因此行動而將自己置於不利的地位。很多人把罪的定義簡化為「缺乏愛」。

但奧古斯丁認為所有的罪都不是因為缺乏愛，而是把「愛的層次」弄亂了。我們常常多愛一些不重要的東西而少愛一些重要的東西。這些愛的混亂就成為我們不快樂的原因。例如，熱愛工作並沒有什麼錯，但如果你愛工作勝過愛家庭, 婚姻大可能會失控。賺錢也沒有不對，但是如果你愛錢財多過愛公義，你就會出問題。有些從商者揚言愛社會平等與正義，但當他作出商業決策的時候，由於他愛自己的繁榮過於愛別人的福利，就可能會做成剝削別人的後果，因為他的愛失去正確的次序。簡言之，你在此刻最深愛的東西，就決定你在此刻作出的決定和行動。

勞苦愁煩的相反是喜樂。喜樂的源頭是上帝。 奥古斯丁在这里提炼了圣经的人性观。人类是按照三位一体的上帝的形象创造的——圣父、圣子和圣灵。从永恆起，这三位神圣位格就以无限的喜乐和荣耀彼此相爱。我们被创造是为了通过卓越地爱上帝和荣耀上帝来体验这种喜樂。无论我们是否承认上帝，因为我们是为此而被创造的，所以我们总是会在与神的爱的交流中寻找无限的快乐。不愛上帝的人總是會转向世界上的事物来给予他们快樂。但是当我们忽视愛的秩序，将我们的爱集中在受造物而不是造物主的身上时，我们不但犯了罪，而且經歷到即使是最好的世俗東西，也无法让我们满足，因为我们生来就是为了获得那種神聖的快乐和满足而活的。而世物却无法产生这种满足感。正如奥古斯丁在《忏悔录》开头对上帝所说的一句著名的话：「你激励人们以赞美你为乐，因为你为自己创造了我们，我们的心只有安息在你里面，才能得到真正的安息和喜樂。」 我们是为上帝而造的，因此没有什么可以提供我们「只有上帝才能给予的」无限喜乐。詩人說得對, 「以別神代替耶和華的、他們的愁苦必加增 (詩16:4)」。這就是「人一生中所矜誇的、不過是勞苦愁煩」的意思。

(90:10c) 轉眼成空、我們便如飛而去。

「轉眼成空」又是再指出人生的短暫和空虛。我們與上帝約會的一天終於來到了。在你的追思禮拜中，孩子帶着依依不捨的心情為你頌讀悼词。不管你在生前作了多麼豐功偉績，你的生平也只不過是一兩頁紙的描述和用不超過廿分鐘的時間向人宣讀。那時，你在永恆中便明白到，你所度盡的年歲、豈不是好像「一聲歎息」嗎？

(90:11) 誰曉得你怒氣的權勢、誰按著你該受的敬畏曉得你的忿怒呢。

上帝的義怒是帶着權柄的。沒有權柄的怒氣只不過是一種「發脾氣」或「出氣」。要了解「上帝的權勢」我們可從了解「地上政府的權勢」開始。保羅在《羅馬書 13:4》寫道，「因為他 (地上的官長) 是　神的用人、是與你有益的。你若作惡、卻當懼怕．因為他不是空空的佩劍 (有施法的杈柄)．他是　神的用人、是伸冤的、刑罰那作惡的。」

這𥚃我們看到「杈勢」，「怒氣」，還有「義務」是一體的三面。稅務局的「杈柄」是由它可以把「繳稅的義務」加於國民身上表達出來；並具有施法的「怒氣」向不順服者執行。同理，至高無上的上帝的宇宙性「杈勢」是由祂可以把「順服的義務」加於整個受造界表達出來；凡不順服的國民必因祂的「怒氣」而驚惶甚至消失。然而，稅務局的杈勢還是有限的，國民可以不同意它所加予的責任而訴諸高等法院。稅務局和高等法院都是「該受敬畏」的機構，但高等法院「所該受敬畏」程度比稅務局高， 因為它有最終的發言權。所以高等法院所具有的「怒氣權勢」比稅務局的「怒氣權勢」更強有力。我們在此看到「怒氣的杈勢」是與「該受的敬畏」的程度成正比的。上帝在全宇宙中是至高無上的，所以我們不可輕看他的怒氣。因為祂配得那無與倫比的「該受的敬畏」。

(90:12) 求你指教我們怎樣數算自己的日子、好叫我們得著智慧的心。

我們不能不承認在這個罪惡墮落的世界中沒有一件完美的事，也沒有一個完美的決擇，直到我們進入了新天新地才行。科技的進步帶來環保的問題；豐厚的投資回報必涉及大的風險；选择更多的休闲时间就意味着牺牲工作效率；精巧玲瓏的電腦需便於攜帶，但視屏一定短小，對閱讀不便。長壽當然是可喜的事，但看到自己兒女先比自己先離世的機會更大，這也算是人生悲傷事。婚姻帶來快樂，但誰能說美滿的婚姻就不會有吵架的時刻？「悲傷」往往是「愛」的代價。所以在這不完美的世界中，我們沒有完美的答案，也不能作出天衣無縫的決擇，我們只有权衡的答案而沒有完美的答案。要在各種因素中作出权衡就需要智慧。我們如何得着智慧呢？如何分辨我們的决擇是討上帝的喜悦呢？我們就需要從上頭而來的智慧。詩人摩西告訴我們要學習「數算自己的日子」。數算「過去的日子」或可把往事作前車之鑒，或想起上帝在過去的帶領而激發感恩之心，這是很好的，所以我們應該回顧過去的日子，數算上帝在過去給了我們的厚恩。但單單數算過去的日子也會使人驕傲；惟有學習數算「餘下的日子」，我們才可以得著智慧的心，並認識到珍惜光陰的重要性。

By TC Lo (12/23/2023)

Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday roughly every 11 years. Tomorrow morning 7:00 AM, Christmas Eve, to the on-line Church <天空聖城> which I am serving, I shall preach a message based on John 1:1-18. 

A question being asked: “TC, why do you preach John on Christmas Eve?” This seems to be a trivial question on the surface, but beneath which there is a strategic answer. Therefore, I love to take this opportunity to answer this rare question from a historic context.

Traditionally, most preachers preach Christmas message with such popular passages as Luke 2:1-20 (the nativity story), Matthew 1:18-25 (Joseph’s perspective), and Isaiah 9:6 (a prophecy about the birth of Jesus), but I use a different methodology to select sermon Scripture. 

Within Christianity, the use of pre-assigned, scheduled readings from the scriptures can be traced back to the early church, and seems to have developed out of the practices of the second temple period. Before Reformation, there is no such thing as Roman Catholic and Protestant distinction, the Middle Age Church designed the “Lectionary” to make sure the preachers follow the instruction of Matthew 24:45 to “give them (congregation) their food (the Word) at the proper time （按時分糧).”  After the Reformation, Protestant churches freely developed many lectionaries to achieve the same goal. 

A Lectionary, in a word, was a schedule of assigning a host of suggested passages for each and every Sunday of the year in a three years cycle, so the congregations are well fed with a broad spectrum of the Bible and the preachers have no trouble of thinking “What should I preach this coming Sunday?” In this approach, the preachers have lots of freedom to choose from for their expository sermons, yet they don’t have totally unrestrained freedom to pick whatever they like or pick the most familiar ones; otherwise, for example, the congregation may hear “1 Corinthians 13” many times over within a year.

The Lectionary I use is the modern version which can be found in:

https://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=113

For this Sunday, John 1:1-18 is the verses I have selected from the pool of suggested passages. After all, having studied carefully, we all will be convinced that John 1:1-18 DOES have a very strong Christmas message!  So, the Lectionary designers were not ignorant of the timely-ness of seasonal considerations.

In passing, may I humbly suggested that the guest-speakers are to take this into considerations when going to your hosting church to preach. 

By Tin-Chee Lo (盧天賜)

聖經不是神話傳說，它是建立在歷史事實的架構上。但上帝在適當的時刻直接插手於人類歷史當中，使那段時代成為「救贖史」。如: 亞伯拉罕的蒙召，以色列人出埈及，大衛王朝的盛衰，巴比倫的被虜等。當這些事件累積而達到高峰時，便是「日期滿了」的基督降生時刻。這是聖誕節的由來。

出埈及記是非常重要的救贖史。埈及王法老之名號Pharaoh中間有 “RA” 兩字母。RA 是太陽神之意。 法老自己認為他是太陽神之子。當摩西面對紅海，前無去路，後由追兵之際，那本來作為帶領以色列人的雲柱現在轉到他們後邊立住，擋住法老大軍，成為以色列人的保護。然而法老所拜的太陽神，現在被烏雲遮蓋，使他失去方向，喪失理智，以致作出愚蠢的決定，下令他的兵馬追趕色列人，結果全軍覆滅, 葬身於紅海。

聖誕節是普天同慶的日子，但並不是每一個人都很快樂的，因為他們可能正在面對感到絕望的紅海，可能是失去工作或患了絕症；後面又有債務的追兵，或老闆規定的工作截止期限的追兵，他們怎能快樂呢？但降世為人的耶穌是我們的火柱雲柱, 祂與我們同在，衪是我的指路明燈，又是我們的保障，祂總是會給我們一條意想不到的出路。只要我們信靠這位稱為「奇妙的策士、全能的神、永在的父、和平的君」的耶穌，我們的不快樂就被轉為滿有喜樂的昐望，因為祂曾應許說: 「凡勞苦擔重擔的人、可以到我這裡來、我就使你們得安息 (太11:28) 。

2023 Christmas Reflection

The Bible is not a myth or legend; it is based on historical facts. But God directly intervened the human history at the appropriate moment, making that era a “redemptive history.” Examples abound: the calling of Abraham, the exodus of the Israelites, the rise and fall of the Davidic dynasty, the Babylonian Captivity, etc. When the accumulation of these historic events reached its climax, it came the birth of Christ “when God’s time had fully come.”

Exodus was a very important history of redemption. The identity of the Egyptian King, Pharaoh, has two letters “RA” in the middle which means sun god. Pharaoh himself believed that he was the son of the sun god. When Moses faced the Red Sea, with no way forward and the pursuers behind him, the pillar of cloud, which was originally used to guide the way of the Israelites, now stood behind them, blocking Pharaoh’s army and becoming the shield for the children of God. However, the sun god that Pharaoh worshiped was now covered by dark clouds, causing him to lose his direction and reason, so he made a fool’s decision to order his troops and horses to chase the Israelites. As a result, the entire army was destroyed and buried in the Red Sea.

Christmas is a joyful day celebrated the world over, but not everyone is happy, because they may be feeling the red sea of ​​despair due to the lost their job or having a terminal illness; they may be pursued by creditors after their debts, or they may have a deadline which is impossible to meet. Jesus is our pillar of fire and pillar of cloud. He is with us. He is our guiding light and our protection. He will always give us an unimaginable way out. As long as we believe in Jesus, whose name is “Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” our unhappiness will be turned into joyful hope, for Jesus has promised that “all who labor and are heavy laden come to me, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

宇宙有開始也有結束。 人的生命有開始也有結束。這兩種「結束」都是屬於未來的。「未來」的神學術語是「末世論」或較廣泛的「終末論」，本文兩詞互用，而英文同作 “Eschatology”。可見在神學上至少有兩種末世論: 「個人末世論」和「宇宙末世論」。 這兩種末世論並非各自獨立的，乃是密切相關的。兩者的相遇點就是「上帝的國」，或稱為「天國」。耶穌在福音書中經常用我們日常生活的例子來比喻天國的已臨，可見天國是與我們的日常生活息息相關的。然而國度的觀念在「宇宙末世論」的討論中佔著極其重要的地位。所以「天國」是兩種末世論的橋樑。在基督第一次來臨時耶穌宣告天國已經開始了，但要等到祂第二次的來臨後，天國才達到完美的實現。我們今天是活在一個「已然」卻「未然」的掙扎中。

在「個人末世論」中，我們選讀詩篇九十篇作為討論的起始點。我們對未來無能為力，但如果我們把「未來」帶到「現在」，我們便可以有所作為。其實這是一個「不知道自己知道」的理念。例如，我們買了房子後，若把將來那「不確定的火災」帶到現在，我們便作出了「買火災保险」的决定和行動。然而聖經啟示給我們的「未來」是確定的，我們豈不更應該把「確定的未來」帶到「現在」，好讓我們今天可以做一些工作嗎？甚麼工作呢？詩篇九十篇告訴我們要作一些上帝會堅立的工。儘管我們的工作在人看來是豐功偉蹟，若不是被上帝所堅立，它們都只不過是「草木禾𥟠」，隨着宇宙的消失而煙消雲散。

詩篇第八篇告訴我們：我們雖是滄海的一粟，但上帝卻將榮耀尊貴給我們為冠冕。我們如何把工作和榮耀上帝拉上關係呢？當我們作一些上帝不喜悅的事時，我們便虧欠了祂的榮耀。這就暗示當我們作一些討上帝喜悅的事時，我們便等於將榮耀歸給祂，與此同時，上帝也堅立了我們手所作的事，這些事便成了上帝眼中可存到永恆的「金銀寶石」。你看，上帝先賜我們榮耀尊貴為冠冕，然後我們作出回應，藉著作一些祂所竪立的工來榮耀衪，這是何等美麗的「神人同工」。這就是我們在「巳然而未然」的狀態中應活出的人生意義。

如何分辨我們手所作的工是蒙上帝堅立呢？我們就需要從上頭而來的智慧。詩篇九十篇告訴我們要學習「數算自己的日子」。數算「過去的日子」或可作前車之鑒，或激發感恩之心，這也無妨，但也會使人驕傲；惟有學習數算「餘下的日子」，我們才可以得著智慧的心，並認識到珍惜光陰的重要性。

在「個人末世論」中我們會談到「死後」直至「未來的身體復活」之間的「中間狀態」。透過「復活」的專題，我們更能把「個人末世論」與「宇宙末世論」的關係拉近並汇聚起來。

在「宇宙末世論」的討論中，《啟示錄》是我們的教科書。《啟示錄》一方面是書信，對書信我們應該用敍事的逐字解經的方法去理解它。但在另一方面，《啟示錄》在很大的程度和範圍上、是象徵性和喻意式的文體，對此就不能用字面去解釋它了。由於聖經沒有把體裁的界線明確地劃分給我們看，那就無形中給解經家們一個很大的自由度，以至歷世歷代的神學家對《啟示錄》都有不同的詮釋。雖然如此，每一項預言事件，如：復臨、被提，大災難、敵基督，千禧年，最後的戰爭、和大審判等，聖經都算是有頗清晰的描述。所爭議的是，事件與事件之間的時間先後問題的不確定性, 以至有「災前被提」, 「災中被提」，「災後被提」，及「怒中被提」等討論。至於字面與灵意的分辨中，便產生了「前千禧年」、「後千禧年」、「無千禧年」等神學觀點。這些都是「未然」的事。然而《啟示錄》也談到「已然」的事件，如七教會及其所面臨的苦難等。但《啟示錄》大部分的關注都在主復臨後那「未然」所將發生的各種事情。可喜的是，儘管異議的存在，基督徒都一致同意：在不斷的善惡之爭的過程中，基督最後得勝，天國最終完滿地實現，正義最終得到伸張，聖徒必進入新天新地，惡人和魔鬼撒旦必被扔在火湖裡。

至此，我們不能不問，舊約的信徒對末世論的觀點如何？ 我想舊約的末世論是一種前瞻性的末世論，百姓祈求上帝不斷進行干預他們的歷史，他們前瞻的目標，就是彌賽亞的來臨。希伯來書十一章提到很多舊約的信心偉人，正是因為這個前瞻性的信心，使他們勇往直前，奔跑他們人生的道路。

介於「個人末世論」和「宇宙末世論」之間，存在著一個稱為「文明末世論」的層面。在耶穌第一次降臨至第二次降臨之間，就是我們的歷史，也就是人類文明發展的記錄。在這期間人類有兩種勢力: 抵擋上帝和尊崇上帝。在這兩種勢力參雜中，歷史事件不斷發 生，那麽它們的意義何在？ 首先我們談談聖經否定的歷史觀： 從古希臘到近代的存在主義哲學家，加繆 (Albert Camus), 他們認為歷史是無始無终地循環著的。新冠疫情雖然過去，但人們一致肯定，新的流感也必再來。縱使在疫情中有很多科學家不遺餘力地發展疫苗，履行他個人的文化使命，豐功可嘉。但這種歷史觀明顯地具有「個人主義」的局部意義，但整體來說，歷史是沒有意義的。一個循環式的過程就像希臘神話所描寫的一般，石頭從山上滾下來。大力士用力把它再推上，週而復此，何來意義呢？但聖經中的歷史觀卻截然不同。它是線性的：有明確的開始 (創世記) 也有明確的結束 (啟示錄)，其中的特點是：上帝在歷史中絕對掌杈，基督是歷史的中心，天國已經來臨但等待完美的滿足，人類一切的作為都是朝向新天新地的方向邁進。這就是聖經的「文明末世論」。

今天，當我們看到历史結束後那榮耀的盼望，並接受且明白「我們的生活、動作、存留、都在乎基督」，我們便可以坦然輕看那至暫至輕的苦楚，而注目在那將來無比的榮耀，並積極地遵從保羅的教導：「務要堅固不可搖動、常常竭力多作主工、因為知道我們的勞苦、在主裡面不是徒然的（林前15:58)。」

編者: 盧天賜

編者合併了三篇文章來展示清教徒對歷史和屬靈的貢獻：移民的象徵; 美國立國精神; 感恩節; 宗教自由的價值觀; 對中國人的影響。兩篇文章取材於2023年11月角聲的《號角》美東版。另一篇來自 <基督燈枱神學教育中心> 的Bryan 老師。

歷史背景

1620年9月16日，英國3桅蓋倫 (galleon) 大帆船「五月花 (Mayflower)」載着102 位英國清教徒 (其中35 人是船員) 從英格蘭出發，經過為期 66 日的艱苦航行，抵達「新大陸」，原本的目的地是在現在的紐約曼哈頓一帶的陸地, 但大風逼迫他們停靠新英格蘭東部的普利茅斯朝鱈魚海灣。在那裏, 他們開墾了在美洲的第一片居住地。那年的冬天異常寒冷，在繁忙勞動及嚴寒天氣下，許多人感染了傳染病，歷經千辛萬苦來到美洲的移民倖存只有 50位。

「感恩節」之源

這群朝聖者到了第二年 (1621) 春天，幸得原住民印地安人的幫助 ，終在秋季迎來了大豐收，也因此有了第一個感謝神眷顧及賜予的「感恩節」, 象徵着感恩、團結以及歐洲定居者與美洲原住民之間的和平共處，被視為美國歷史上跨文化互動的早期典範。

移民美國的象徵

「五月花號」具有深遠的歷史意義。五月花號將一群英國朝聖者(清教徒) 送往新大陸。清教徒也被稱為分離主義者，是一群因宗教迫害而信奉與英國教會分離的宗教異見者。他們尋求一個可以自由信奉其信仰的地方，五月花號的航行就是對宗教自由的追求。這種對宗教自由的渴望是美國移民史的一個基本主題。朝聖者到達新大陸後，面臨着嚴峻的困難，包括惡劣的天氣、疾病和物資匱乏。許多人在第一個冬天喪生。倖存者堅持不懈，建立了普利茅斯殖民地。他們從原住民斯康托 (Squanto) 和薩莫塞特 (Samoset) 等獲得援助，展現出堅韌不拔和協作的移民品質。五月花號航程被視為移民美國的象徵，歷史上的朝聖者們對宗教自由的追求，為追求更美好生活而甘願忍受苦難的精神，與無數當代移民在美國尋求庇護或機會的經歷共情。身為美國移民，「五月花」成為我個人在美國生活奮鬥的激勵和作了基督徒後的傳福音動力。

美國的立國精神的基石

1620年11月11日 ，五月花號靠岸時，船上新移民中的 41 名成年男子簽署了《五月花號公約》。這是一份確立自治形式的文件，被認為是北美最早的成文憲法範例之一，開創了民主自治的先例，促進了美國民主的發展。這份公約成為美國日後無數自治公約中的首例，簽約方式及內容代表着「人民可以由自己的意思來決定自治管理的方式、不再由人民以上的強權來決定管理。」開創了一個自我管理的社會結構，在王權與神權統治的時代，暗示民主的信念。《五月花號公約》寫道：「為了上帝的榮耀，為了增加基督教的信仰，為了提高我們國王和國家的榮耀，我們飄洋過海，在維吉尼亞北部開發第一個殖民地。我們這些簽署人在上帝面前共同莊嚴立誓簽約，自願結為民眾自治團體。為了使上述目的能得到更好的實施、維護和發展，將來不時依此而製定頒佈，被認為是對這殖民地全體人民都最合適、最方便的法律、法規、條令、憲章和公職，我們都保證遵守和服從。」五月花號和清教徒的故事深深地融人了美國文化和移民身分認同的結構之中，反映了宗教自由、自治等永恒的價值觀，是美國移民史上的重要篇章。

屬靈意義

五月花號抵達美洲十年后，麻薩諸塞灣 (Massachusetts Bay) 總督溫斯羅普(John Winthrop) 在取得開辟殖民地的特許狀后，率领了 700人，11 艘船，更有规模的展开上帝的业绩。在他的布道宣讲《論基督徒的恩慈》中，他曾宣称：所有民族都与上帝有契约。清教徒正是在实践这个宗教契约。他们必须成为一座山巅之城，展示上帝的道路, 让所有人的眼睛都能看着。

溫斯羅普指出, 每個人必有機會活出上帝的榮耀和能力；不同層階的人们，只要行基督之道，必能結出聖靈的果實；律法與恩典是人生學習的并存功課，他引用彌迦書6:7-8：何為上帝所喜悅的善？即行公義、好憐憫、存謙卑的心，與你的神同行。 溫斯羅普四度擔任麻薩諸塞總督，屡屡克服新移民、统治、纷争、宗教、土著、奴隶、贸易、外交等问题，带领殖民地开拓前进。

山巔之城一词更被甘迺迪就任美国总统前的演说和雷根的辞别演说中被引用。灵命的觉醒，又是宗教生命实践的基石，特别是在公共领域方面。正当美国走向独立革命前，由怀特菲尔德 (George Whitefield; 1714-1770) 导火，爱德华兹 (Jonathan Edwards) 启动的大觉醒，给殖民地的百姓有更深刻的宗教敬虔、更朴实的民情秩序；开国的元勋们高瞻远瞩的思想与包容性，相信也与当下的宗教內涵相关。

對中國人的影響

大觉醒又慢慢孕育出了后续的普世宣教的心志-– 你们是世上的盐，世上的光！我们中国，在普世宣教运动中，更是获益良多。和合本圣经，正是出生在美国宾州坎伯兰 (Cumberland) 的狄考文 (Calvin Wilson Mateer) 策划完成的。除了和合本，狄考文更为中国引进了阿拉伯数字 (123456790) 和电灯；又创办了山東的广文大学 (齐鲁大学之前身)。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

我成長在一個沒有牧師的教會中。作為教會的領導人，就要與同工擔負一些牧養的工作。初信主的基督徒們常問我，「我很想读圣经，但沒有門路，我應從那裏開始呢？」我就請教一些老牧師和屬靈長者，他們大致都異口同聲地說，「先讀讀約翰福音吧！」在華人教會圈子中，這幾乎成了標準答案。但我不太明白他們為何如此見議，大概是說，「讓他們首先知道 ”耶穌是神” 吧!」最近聽了史鮑爾牧師 (Dr. R.C. Sproul) 的一篇福音講道，他把約翰福音作了一個精闢的簡介，以下是他的講道摘要：

馬太，馬可，路加，這三本福音書提供耶穌生平和事工的梗概。它們被稱為「對觀福音書 (Synoptic Gospel)」。而約翰福音卻與三書不同；它所關注的是神學，特別是基督論。約翰花了三分之二的篇幅去描述基督在世上最後一週所發生的事情；特別把焦點放在濯足節 (Maundy Thursday，受難前的那個禮拜四）中的救贖性歷史活動中。與對觀福音比較，約翰福音最獨特之處是約翰記錄了從耶穌口中介紹聖靈上帝的最廣泛啓示，讓我們更加了解三位一體真神中的第二位格。

約翰福音第一章頭18節被稱為約翰福音的是序言 (the Prologue)。在教會頭三百年的歷史中，沒有別的經文比這十八節經句更能吸人早期的基督教思想家。基於這短短的經文，神學家全神貫注地研究基督的位格，並在此基礎上發展了所謂「邏各斯基督論 (Logos Christology)」，把基督理解為上帝的「道 (the Word)」。

約翰寫這福音書的目的何在？答案可以從本福音書最後一句結語看出來。「 但記這些事、要叫你們信耶穌是基督、是　神的兒子．並且叫你們信了他、就可以因他的名得生命 (20:31)。」約翰用這個序言特別指出耶穌的終極身份。

認識一個人最常問的三個問題是: 你叫什麼名字？你做什麼事情？你從哪裏來？約翰福音特別告訴我們耶穌是從哪裏來。

新約用了幾個稱呼耶穌的字眼。最常出現的是「基督 (Christos)」，即新約的「彌賽亞  (Messiah)」，「基督」不是姓氏，而是頭銜。所以「耶穌基督」是對「耶穌是彌賽亞」的肯定。第二常見的頭銜是「主(Lord)」。遠遠排在第三位的稱號是「人子 (Son of Man)」，在新約中用了約80次，但卻是耶穌最喜歡的自我稱呼 (self-designation)。如果你問耶穌，祢叫甚麼名字？耶穌最可能給出的答案是「我是人子」。

當我們聽到耶穌自稱是「人子」時，我們很自然地以為耶穌是站在人性的地位上作出謙卑的表達，認為耶穌是刻意強調祂與人類認同。但這卻不是耶穌的意思。當第一世紀的猶太人聽到「人子」這個名字時，他們馬上聯想到但以理書 (7:13-14) 所表達的意思。「13 我在夜間的異象中觀看、見有一位像人子的、駕著天雲而來、被領到亙古常在者面前、14得了權柄、榮耀、國度、使各方各國各族的人都事奉他．他的權柄是永遠的、不能廢去、他的國必不敗壞。」明顯地，但以理中的「人子」是指一位從寶座來的「天上人」，具有審判的權柄。所以當耶穌自稱是「人子」時，他是表明他那屬天的源頭。

有時，耶穌對自己的源頭作出明確的陳述：「 因為我從天上降下來、不是要按自己的意思行、乃是要按那差我來者的意思行 (6:38)。」論到猶太列祖，耶穌說、「我實實在在的告訴你們、還沒有亞伯拉罕、就有了我。(8:58) 。」猶太人聽見，馬上用石頭想將耶穌處死。因為祂的宣告被理解為以往上帝對摩西對自己名字的啓示：「神對摩西說、我是自有永有的．又說、你要對以色列人這樣說、那自有的打發我到你們這裡來 (出3:14) 。」有一次，耶穌醫好一位癱瘓的人後，便對他說，「但要叫你們知道人子在地上有赦罪的權柄、就對癱子說、起來、拿你的褥子回家去罷 (太9:6)。」可見「人子」並非是謙卑的言論或暗示。透過上面的經文陳述，耶穌公開表明祂是從天而降。而約翰的序言正是要表達這一個信息。

創世紀的迴響

「太初有道、道與　神同在、道就是　神。這道太初與　神同在(約1:1-2)。」這句話，使教會頭300年內的神學家和思想家困惑不堪。「道與神同在」說明「道」與「神」是有區別的，而「道就是神」說明「道」與「神」卻是等同的。然而這句話是三位一體教義的信仰宣言的基礎，上帝在三位格中是一體的。

約翰寫道,「萬物是藉著他造的 (約1:3a)。」耶穌被認為是道成肉身的三位一體中的成員: 萬有是為(for) 祂，由 (by) 祂，並在 (in) 祂𥚃面而造成的。「凡被造的、沒有一樣不是藉著他造的 (約1:3b)。」我們是被祂造的。約翰作出另一個非凡的聲明，「生命在他裡頭．這生命就是人的光 (1:4) 。」

在約翰福音中，有兩個字是反複出現的，就是「光」和「生命」。這兩個字在序言中也出現了。聖經常用兩個反義詞來描述墮落的世界，就是「黑暗」和「死亡」。有人用「我看見光了」或「我的燈亮了」來敘述他們重生的經歷。他們看見生命在基督裡，基督也賜他生命。保羅重生的那一剎那，他看見了大光。相反的，在基督以外的人，雖然有肉身的生命，但沒有終極的生命，他們只有靈性的死亡。洛威爾 (Lowell Ivey) 是維吉尼亞州維吉尼亞海灘 (Virginia Beach, VA) 宗教改革東正教長老會的組織牧師。洛威爾因19 歲時犯下的搶劫罪被判17 年徒刑，在監獄服刑超過15 年，最終皈依基督教。一天晚上，當他收聽廣播節目《光來了 (Here comes the Light)》時，上帝發出了榮耀的光。福音進入洛威爾的心中，並讓他在耶穌基督裡獲得自由。

序言的後部份，約翰寫道：「道成了肉身、住在我們中間、充充滿滿的有恩典有真理。我們也見過他的榮光、正是父獨生子的榮光 (1:14)。」約翰肯定是談論登山變相的那一刻。他和另外兩個們徒親眼看到天上榮耀的彰顯。三們徒眼花繚亂, 就把臉伏在地上, 極其懼怕, 耶穌就過來摸他們，說：「起來吧，別害怕。」 門徒所見到的光是真實的，是可見的。耶穌在他的整個事工中，給人們帶來「真理之光」。

非基督徒，異教徒，無神論者中，都有天才人物，他們所作的事, 都可能對社會有貢獻，甚至改變人類的歷史。如果他們發現一些偉大的真理，其實不是憑藉他們的力量，追溯其源，他們的亮光乃是來自那「來到世上的光」借來的，因為一切美善的源頭都是從眾光之父那裡降下來的 （雅各書1:17)。這是上帝普遍的恩典。這一點在第二世紀初葉的殉教者游斯丁(Justin Martyr) 在他向異教徒哲學家辯道時所提出的。

在 (1:6-8) 中，約翰介紹另一位約翰，就是施洗約翰。「6 有一個人、是從　神那裡差來的、名叫約翰。7 這人來、為要作見證、就是為光作見證、叫眾人因他可以信。8 他不是那光、乃是要為光作見證。」施洗約翰是耶穌的先驅。「1:15 約翰為他作見證、喊著說、這就是我曾說、那在我以後來的、反成了在我以前的．因他本來在我以前。」其後，施洗約翰作了一個非同小可的宣告：「看哪、　神的羔羊、除去〔或作背負〕世人罪孽的 (1:29）」。

序言也包含了可怕的審判斷詞：「10 他在世界、世界也是藉著他造的、世界卻不認識他。11 他到自己的地方來、自己的人倒不接待他。」耶穌談及他自己被拒絕的經驗：「3:19 光來到世間、世人因自己的行為是惡的、不愛光倒愛黑暗、定他們的罪就是在此。」

在序言中約翰宣告好消息，好讓讀他的書信的人，特別是那些被黑暗籠罩的人，可以信耶穌。「12 凡接待他的、就是信他名的人、他就賜他們權柄、作　神的兒女。」

希望這篇短文對初信者有幫助，對信主多年的弟兄姊妹能對福音有更深的理解。啊門！

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

神學家範甘麥倫 (Willem A. VanGemeren) 在他的詩篇注釋中觀察到詩篇九十篇呈現一個對偶式 (chiasm) 的文學結構。由外偶 (A-A’), 中偶 (B-B’), 内偶 (C-C’) 構成：

A 神是主 (90:1-2)

                B 神在人身上的主權 (90:3-6)

                        C 神的愤怒 (90:7-10)

                        C’人對神忿怒的反應 (90:11-12)

                B’ 祈求神的憐憫 (90:13-16)

A’ 願主是我們的神 (90:17)

本文企圖從中偶 (B, B’) 中找出它的信息。在默想的過程中，發現原來上帝可以藉著這幾節經文啓示給我們祂的心意。

(中偶上) 90:3-6

3你使人歸於塵土、說、你們世人要歸回。

4在你看來、千年如已過的昨日、又如夜間的一更。

5你叫他們如水沖去．他們如睡一覺．早晨、他們如生長的草．

6 早晨發芽生長、晚上割下枯乾。

「使人歸於塵土 (v. 3)」這句話把我們帶回到創世記3:19，「你必汗流滿面纔得糊口、直到你歸了土、因為你是從土而出的．你本是塵土、仍要歸於塵土。」

詩篇90:3-6 再次提醒我們的罪性和我們的叛逆所惹動的上帝的憤怒。摩西似乎聯想到以色列人在曠野漂流時的景象。曠野是不毛之地，但它不是沙漠。雖然土地乾旱，但並非完全沒有雨水。下雨後，因為土地乾固，無法吸收水份，於是很快地成了急流，地面上的植物很快地「如水沖去 (v. 5)」。因為泥土潮濕，新的植物也在「早晨發芽生長」，但在炎熱的氣候中，很快地如割下的草一般，便枯乾了(v. 6)，河流也成了干河床 (wadi), 這是曠野循環式的的生態環境。

如果出埈及記是上帝救贖計劃的歷史表達，那麼，內中的四十年曠野漂流便代表信徒在世上經歷成聖生活中的掙扎。

(中偶下) 90:13-16

13耶和華阿、我們要等到幾時呢．求你轉回、為你的僕人後悔。

14求你使我們早早飽得你的慈愛、好叫我們一生一世歡呼喜樂。

15求你照著你使我們受苦的日子、和我們遭難的年歲、叫我們喜樂。

16願你的作為向你僕人顯現．願你的榮耀向他們子孫顯明。

第十三節是一個認罪的禱告。首先我們看看另兩処聖經。
「當我們死在過犯中的時候、便叫我們與基督一同活過來 (以弗所書2:5)」
「你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是　神所賜的．(以弗所書2:8)」

這兩處的經文告訴我們: 我們生下來就有了原罪 (original sin）, 所以我們都是罪人。聖經也説, 罪的工價乃是死, 所以天然人在屬靈上是死人，死在罪惡過犯當中。既是死人，就不會, 也不可能, 愛慕和明白屬靈的事。因此，神對祂的選民 (被神揀選的人) 要做的第一件事就是, 先把他們救活, 這就稱為「重生」, 就是賦予他們屬靈的生命。人有了屬靈的生命之後，便能作出合理正當的決擇。首先, 他看到以前看不到的, 就是知道自己是個罪人。這樣的醒悟 (路加15:17) 促使他知道需要一位救主來赦免他的罪過。然後他便急不及待地作出這樣的禱告：「耶和華阿、我們要等到幾時呢．求你轉回、為你的僕人後悔 （v. 13) 」。

這𥚃的「後悔」絕非指「悔不當初」或「後悔莫及」中的後悔。全知的上帝不會事先不知道然後事後補救的。此処乃是指罪人懇求上帝的憐憫，希望上帝能改變祂對被赦免的人的態度。慈愛的上帝應允他們的禱告就賜給他們信心作禮物，憑著這個禮物，透過救主耶穌在十字架上已經成就了的救恩，我們便因信稱義了。這就是我們的救贖故事。

第十五和第十六節，我們看到人生光明的一面。

15求你照著你使我們受苦的日子、和我們遭難的年歲、叫我們喜樂。

在這墮落的世界中苦難是不能避免的事情, 上帝甚至呼召我們這些因信稱義的人去經歷苦難，因為苦難在祂的手中可以轉化為喜樂，也是得榮耀的必要途徑。正如羅馬書5:1-5所說的那樣：

1我們既因信稱義、就藉著我們的主耶穌基督、得與　神相和。

2我們又藉著他、因信得進入現在所站的這恩典中、並且歡歡喜喜盼望　神的榮耀。

3不但如此、就是在患難中、也是歡歡喜喜的．因為知道患難生忍耐．

4忍耐生老練．老練生盼望．

5盼望不至於羞恥．因為所賜給我們的聖靈、將　神的愛澆灌在我們心裡。

羅馬書8:28又說:「我們曉得萬事都互相效力、叫愛　神的人得益處、就是按他旨意被召的人。」此處的「萬事」是指所有的事，當然也包括患難和困苦和各式各樣不如意的遭遇，但如果我們的心被神的愛澆灌而堅持不懈地愛上帝，受苦卻成為得著某種屬靈益處，包括喜樂。不但如此、詩90:15告訴我們這喜樂是與我們所遭難的年歲成正比的。

在摩西帶領以色列人走曠野的路途中，上帝呼籲他的百姓要觀看祂榮耀可畏的作為。「耶和華說、我要立約、要在百姓面前行奇妙的事、是在遍地萬國中所未曾行的．在你四圍的外邦人、就要看見耶和華的作為、因我向你所行的是可畏懼的事。(出34:10)」

而摩西在九十章中，回應上帝的呼籲，作出合乎上帝心意的禱告：「願你的作為向你僕人顯現 (90:16a）。」基督徒應該渴望上帝的作為，因為這是出於對上帝的信心和對神聖引導的渴望，相信上帝的作為是至善至美的。

「願你的榮耀向他們子孫顯明 (90:16b）。」此處的「榮耀」也是指上帝的「作為」，因為上帝的榮耀是表達在祂的作為上。我們不但自己渴望上帝的作為，也祈求我們的兒女，後代，子孫也渴望上帝的作為。養育孩子就是促進和支持孩子從嬰兒期到成年的身體、情緒、社交、精神和認知發展。但父母更應該關注的莫過於帶領他們更多地認識上帝的榮耀。

By T.C. Lo (盧天賜)

神學家範甘麥倫 (Willem A. VanGemeren) 在他的詩篇注釋中觀察到詩篇九十篇呈現一個對偶式 (chiasm) 的文學結構。其中有 「外偶 A-A’)」 ，「中偶 B-B’)」，和「内偶 C-C’)」組成。

——————

A 神是主 (90:1-2)

                B 神在人身上的主權 (90:3-6)

                        C 神的愤怒 (90:7-10)

                        C’人對神忿怒的反應 (90:11-12)

                B’ 祈求神的憐憫 (90:13-16)

A’ 願主是我們的神 (90:17)

——————

筆者企圖從外偶 (A, A’) 找出它的信息。在默想的過程中，發現原來上帝可以藉著 （A-A’）這幾節經文啓示給我們人生的意義。

(外偶上 A)： 神是主 (90:1-2)

v.1〔神人摩西的祈禱。〕主阿、你世世代代作我們的居所。

v.2 諸山未曾生出、地與世界你未曾造成、從亙古到永遠、你是　神。

「主阿」是指 Adonai, 即「一切的主」或「至高的主」。即申命記 10:17 所描述的「 萬神之　神、萬主之主、至大的　神、大有能力、大而可畏的　神」。〔神人摩西的祈禱〕：摩西在這𥚃把它用作禱告對象的「个人称呼」，即「我的主阿！」之意。

「世世代代」指人類的所有歷史，即在受造界中所有時間的總和。

「居所」說到上帝願在我們中間支答帳棚，讓我們住在其中。耶穌之名是「以馬內利」，我們也是祂的会幕，基督居住在会幕中。”神的同在” 的主題貫穿整本聖經，也是詩篇 23 篇的中心短句，就是「你與我同在 （v.4)」。此句之前和之後的字數相等，說明它是整篇的重心。豈是偶然巧合嗎？

「諸山未曾生出、地與世界你未曾造成」把我們帶會摩西所寫的 <創世記>，不言而喻地暗示了上帝是萬物的創造者；宇宙並非永恆。人是照著神的形象受造。

「從亙古到永遠」表明上帝是時間 (time) 的創造者。時空 (time/space) 尚未出現之「前」，是沒有時間的，此處稱它為「亙古」；在歷史結束之「後」，也是沒有時間的，此處稱它為「永遠」。「亙古」不是無限的過去； 「永遠」不是無限的將來，兩者乃是要表達一種「沒有時間的狀態 (state of timelessness) ］, 聖經常用「永恆 (eternity)」表達之。我們姑且用「前」與「後」去形容它，其實這是極為用詞不當的，也是不得巳的表達。人的言語已到了極限，我們只能 “會其意, 而不能下其定義”。

「你是　神」是描述上帝的「永恆性」和「自存性」。祂告訴摩西祂的名字是「自有永有」。我們所敬拜的神是如此超越，是超過言語所能表達。我們只能用敬拜和稱謝去回應其偉大之萬一。筆者在「基督燈枱全球學院」2023 課程所授教的《創世記難題》中，對創世記 1，2 有詳細的解釋。

(外偶下 A’)： 願主是我們的神 (90:17)

17 願主我們　神的榮美、歸於我們身上．願你堅立我們手所作的工．我們手所作的工、願你堅立。

在 1, 2 節中對上帝那无法形容的屬性，聖經常濃縮為「榮美」或「榮耀」來表達。當我們提到神的榮耀時，我們馬上想到耶穌在登山變相的景象 (臉面明亮如日頭、衣裳潔白如光) 和啟示錄中對耶穌異像 (口中出來一把兩刃的利劍．面貌如同烈日放光) 的描述。然而第十七節告訴我們：神的榮耀是可以實體地透過我們對祂的事奉和工作彰顯岀來的。

詩篇第八篇是摩西的另一首詩歌：

v. 4「便說、人算甚麼、你竟顧念他．世人算甚麼、你竟眷顧他。

v. 5 你叫他比天使〔或作　神〕微小一點、並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕。

v. 6 你派他管理你手所造的、使萬物、就是一切的牛羊、田野的獸、空中的鳥、海裡的魚、凡經行海道的、都服在他的腳下。

在 8:5 中，上帝「賜他 (子民) 榮耀尊貴為冠冕」，表明上帝願意主動地把他的榮耀與人分享。而在90:17 中，摩西卻向神如此禱告：「願神的榮美、歸於我們身上」。一個照着神的心意去求問的禱告是最討神喜悅的禱告，猶大書稱之為「在聖靈𥚃的禱告」。此類禱告必蒙神應允。當上帝賜給我們榮耀尊貴為冠冕的同時，祂也賜給我們一個在創世記巳經提過的文化使命，就是管理祂「手所造的萬物 (8:6) 」。換句話說，「榮耀上帝」是可以藉「工作」來表達出來的。

所以, 作為舊約中保 (預表基督是終極的人類中保) 的摩西如此禱告:「願你堅立我們手所作的工．我們手所作的工、願你堅立」。究竟摩西作了甚麼蒙神堅立的工作？在出埈及中，我們的確知道摩西所作的工是與以色列人的救贖有關的，所以我們可以肯定他的工作必蒙神堅立。最崇高的榜樣就是,：基督透過十字架的苦難事件，救贖了不配的罪人，以此升為至高，彰顯上帝的榮耀。故此，基督的工必被父神所竪立。因此，如果我們的工若要蒙神堅立，它也必須與救贖有關的福音連在一起。

任何世界觀都要回答下列四個問題：

有關源頭和歸宿，我們問：

1. 我們從那裡來？
2. 我們往那裡去？

在源頭和歸宿之間，我們問：

3. 我們生活的道德標準是甚麼？

4. 我們的生命的意義何在？

基督徒對這四問題都有從上帝啓示而來的明確的答案。不信上帝的人用他們的宗教去回答 1 和 2，但卻沒有肯定的答案。不信上帝的人用他們的哲學去回答 3，從而產生各式各樣的意識形態，道德上的「對」與「錯」並無絕對的標準，當你說「殺人是錯」的同時，恐怖份子並沒有認為他們是錯的，結果給社會帶來傷害。第 4 個問題是與詩篇九十篇有關的，我們在此有更多的討論。

我不能說不信上帝的人的生命是無意義的。我們也必須承認，非基督徒在各種領域中的工作，無論是在科學，醫學，教育，藝術等領域，對人類都有顯著的貢獻，我們怎能說他們的人生是無意義的呢? 他們都能用自己的意志和聽明去為自己「創造」人生的意義, 這是上帝給人类的普片恩典 (general grace)。

你為什麼努力工作？

我工作是為了賺錢。

你為什麼要賺錢？

讓我可以為兒子交學費。

那麼，當兒子大學畢業之後，你的「自創式的人生意義」就消失了。

你為什麼努力工作？

我工作為了賺錢。

你為什麼要賺錢？

賺錢是讓我可以幫助窮人，增進社會福利。

那麼，當你失去賺錢的能力，或者離開這個世界，你的「自創式的人生意義」隨之化為烏有。

你們的人生意義是甚麼？

我的人生是要有所作為 (making a difference), 為人類作出貢獻。

那麼，當你離開這個世界的那一天，你的「貢獻」也慢慢被人遺忘。 你的「自創式的人生意義」也變成無意義，好像你從未活過在這地球上一搬。

讓我們用更宏觀的眼光去看看「自創式的人生意義」的最終意義：科學家都同意太陽並非永存，所以在這個宇宙必会終結。終結之後，你這些「貢獻」都像草木禾秸，被火燒盡。所以從永恆的眼光來看，他們自己創造出來的人生意義是沒有永恆價值的。

那麼甚麼是有永恆價值的「人生意義」呢？基督徒承認人是上帝所創造。那麼，明顯地，人生真正的意義就是要達到上帝創造我們的目的。所以，比「自創式的人生意義」更高層次的意義一定是「啓示式的人生意義」，即上帝所指定的人生意義。

西敏斯特小要理問答 (The Westminster shorter catechism)的

第一問：人的首要目的是什麽？

答：人的首要目的就是榮耀上帝，並以他為樂，直到永遠。

我們以上巳經提過，榮耀神就是作祂所堅立的工。唯有那些被上帝堅立的工，就如金银宝石，才能存到永遠 (林前3:12)。摩西的工與救贖有關而被上帝堅立。同樣，我們的工，如果與福音有關，一定也同樣被上帝堅立，並且，它的價值能存到永恆。神沒有呼召我們每個人要去當牧師或任何聖職人員，但如果我們採納一個以福音為重的生活形態，在各種情況下，藉著祂呼召我們的行業，忠心履行耶穌給我們的大使命，那麼，無論我們在什麼職業崗位上，我們手所作的工必蒙上帝堅立。

申命記第六章強調一種「以福音為重的生活形態」作為上帝子民生活的人目標：

「6 我今日所吩咐你的話、都要記在心上．

7也要殷勤教訓你的兒女、無論你坐在家裡、行在路上、躺下、起來、都要談論。

8也要繫在手上為記號、戴在額上為經文。

9又要寫在你房屋的門框上、並你的城門上。」

當上帝將祂榮美歸於我們身上時，透過我們的工作，我們便把祂的榮美反射到黑暗的世界，以「為主作光」來榮耀祂。這就是基督人生的意義。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

基督徒常引用保羅在羅馬書八章28節所說的,「我們曉得萬事都互相效力、叫愛　神的人得益處…」, 去安慰那些正在苦惱中的人，或在自己的難処中自我安慰, 或將這句話視為「金句」，作為我們預備應付未來苦難的神學基礎。一點也沒有錯！

但未信主的人卻說，我們不用訴諸聖經，中國文化也有一句話，「塞翁失馬，焉知非福」。這也可作為面對苦難的錦囊妙計。意思是說，不好的事只不過是變相的祝福，何必太在意呢? 不錯，用這句話來紓解我們的痛苦，也是無可厚非的。

那麼，「塞翁失馬的效應」與「萬事的互相效力」究竟有什麼分別呢？答案是：天淵之別。

首先，讓我們看看「塞翁失馬」的典故。此词出自《淮南子·人间训》，我不知它是否一個真實的故事，或只是一種人生哲學的喻意，但不重要！話說：「在塞外有一位老翁，他善於養馬。有一天，他的一隻駿馬逃跑到胡人之地去了。他的朋友前來安慰，塞翁卻說，”有什麼好傷心的呢？失去一隻馬難道不可能會帶來意想不到的福氣嗎?” 過了幾天，那失落的馬竟然帶了一群野馬回來。朋友前來恭賀，老人卻無動於衷，感嘆道，”難道這不是患難的兆頭嗎? 過了幾天,他的兒子興奮地騎著一匹野馬，在得意忘形之際，從馬背摔下來，跌斷了一條腿。朋友又來慰問。老人說，你沒有聽過因禍得福嗎？過了幾年，胡人入侵，王帝下令所有年輕人都要入伍從軍，捍衛國土。這場戰役非常厲害，大部份的年青軍都死在沙場，為國捐軀，而老人的兒子，因跛了腳，就免被徵召，因此性命得以保存。」

當你知道這個典故，你就發現「塞翁失馬」並非安慰之言。儘管你相信禍患是變相的祝福，它卻是一個非常恐怖的警告。如果有人給你福氣，你敢接受嗎？因為這個福氣日後也必變成禍患。其實「塞翁失馬，焉知非福」乃是指世事無常, 禍福是胡亂的隨機，是一種無法控制的命運。誠然，一搬人把這句口頭禪作為紓解生活上的煩惱的良藥，這也未嘗不可，人之常情。

「塞翁失馬」的哲學顯然是一個沒有考慮到神的存在的哲學。所以它看起來有點像聖經中傳道書所說的那樣：「日光之下所作的一切事、都是虛空、都是捕風 (1:13)」。假若上帝不存在，一切事物的發生都只能是隨機的，是無目標的；所有的得失也只不過是出於一種無位格的命運的支配。然而傳道書是上帝所默示的話語, 目的是要指出一個沒有上帝(日光之下) 的世界是多麽無意義。在無神論者的眼中，世界是混亂無序的，事情的發生是隨機的，人對環境是束手無策的。然而，在上帝主杈的掌管下，宇宙冥冥中是井井有條的，因為世事也是由祂命定的。「意外」一詞在上帝的字典中是找不到。上帝甚至在「似乎看不到上帝」的傳道書中寫道：

3:1 凡事都有定期、天下萬務都有定時．
3:2 生有時、死有時．栽種有時、拔出所栽種的、也有時．
3:3 殺戮有時、醫治有時．拆毀有時、建造有時．
3:4 哭有時、笑有時．哀慟有時、跳舞有時．
3:5 拋擲石頭有時、堆聚石頭有時．懷抱有時、不懷抱有時．
3:6 尋找有時、失落有時．保守有時、捨棄有時．
3:7 撕裂有時、縫補有時．靜默有時、言語有時．
3:8 喜愛有時、恨惡有時．爭戰有時、和好有時。
3:9 這樣看來、作事的人在他的勞碌上有甚麼益處呢。
3:10 我見　神叫世人勞苦、使他們在其中受經練。
3:11 神造萬物、各按其時成為美好．又將永生安置在世人心裡．〔永生原文作永遠〕然而　神從始至終的作為、人不能參透。

這豈非說明世事並非隨機，乃是照神的計劃有條不吝地按著祂的時間表一步步地展開。傳道書的目的是要讓我們知道自己的有限，可憐，和絕望，從而驅駛我們轉目去仰望那「將永生安置在世人心裡」的上帝。(傳道書 3:1-11)

那麼羅馬書的「萬事互動得益」與「塞翁的無奈失馬」的核心區別在那裡呢？

《塞翁失馬》強調事物的變化常常具有不確定性，令人產生無奈之感，並教導我們應該以「逆來順受」的態度去欣然接受環境。而《羅馬書》第八章第28節則強調信仰的重要性，並肯定上帝的計劃存在著一個能「互相效力」的智慧。讓我們再看看這節經文：

「我們曉得萬事都互相效力、叫愛　神的人得益處、就是按他旨意被召的人。(羅8:28)」

其中有兩個關鍵性的字眼：「神」和「愛」。

• 神：此經句的前設是相信宇宙存在著一位獨一的真神。祂是全知，全能，全善的創造主，人是照著祂的形象受造。所以人生的目的不是「自製」的，而是「赋予」的。
• 愛：這是上帝的屬性，因為「神就是愛」。人對上帝應有的回應是「愛神」。然而我們愛神不是…乃是因為祂先愛我們。凡真正信靠耶穌的人，一定會愛神，因為「愛」是信靠的內容，也是信心所結的果子。

這𥚃我們看到一個「神人互動」的關係。這種關係在「塞翁失馬」的封閉哲學中是絕對找不到的。

結論：

上帝是歷史的主宰，是人類命運的掌握者。雖然我們無法逃脫人生有患難，但是全權的神卻可借用人生的患難，透過祂測不透的智慧，轉變成一種屬靈的祝福。這種命運的轉變牽涉到一個關鍵性的條件，乃是基於我們有沒有愛神。然而一個真正「信」耶穌的人，一定會「愛」神。因為起初的「愛」是包含在「得救的信心」𥚃面。因此，我們應該反醒自問:「我重生了沒有？」基督徒「成聖的信心」是可以增長的。透過：敬拜，讀經，禱告，團契，和奉獻，五管齊下，我們的信心一定會日益增加。從患難所轉變成的福氣也隨著信心成正比地豐富起來。

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo (盧天赐)

“A Leap of Faith” is a phrase oftentimes used by secularists to sneer at Christians of their having blind faith. Therefore, “A Leap of Faith” is a phrase typically means to believe something with little or no evidence. In that sense, it has a negative connotation for Christianity because the Christian faith is not without evidences. 

For example, when we believe in the resurrection of Christ, we never take a leap of faith, we took pain to examine all evidences.

I like Lee Strobel’s definition: “Faith means to go in the direction where the evidences point.” 

Also, Ravi Zacharias, in order to give a proper balance between faith and reason, said: “God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing, and He has left enough to make it impossible to live by sheer reason.”

Jesus never asks us to “take a leap of faith”. On the contrary, He asked us to “look before you leap.” (Luke 14:28). Therefore, “A Leap of Faith” is not faith. That’s credulity. That’s superstition.

You may also find this resource helpful: https://www.ligonier.org/ and search for “a leap of faith”.

如何理解 “信仰的飛躍” 一詞?

“信仰的飛躍 (a leap of faith)” 是世俗主義者經常用來嘲笑基督徒盲目信仰的短語。因此， 這個短語通常意味著在很少或沒有證據的情況下相信某事。從這個意義上說，它對基督教具有負面含義，因為基督教信仰並非沒有證據。

例如，當我們相信基督的複活時，我們從來沒有「信仰的飛躍」，我們費盡心思去檢驗所有的證據。

我喜歡Lee Strobe 的定義：“信仰意味著朝著證據指向的方向前進。”

另外，為了在信仰和理性之間取得適當的平衡，有人說：“上帝在世界上投入了足夠的東西，使對祂的信仰成為最合理的事情，而他也留下了足夠的東西，使人不可能完全靠理性生活。”

耶穌從來沒有要求我們作出 “信仰的飛躍”。相反，他要求我們 “三思而後行 （Look before you leap” (路加福音 14:28). 因此, “信仰的飛躍” 不是信心, 乃是輕信。乃是迷信。

By TC Lo (盧天賜)

我最近常聽到一句說得振振有詞的話，「你們要愛罪人，恨罪惡」，因為「上帝是愛罪人，恨罪惡」的。這種說法符合聖經真理嗎？

人是感情的個體，所以人有「愛」與「恨」的心靈表達。但人的「愛 (philia; storge)」 總是多多少少有些私心的和帶著不純潔的成份；人的「恨(hate) 」也總是懷有惡意的。所以我們常用這句話「你們要愛罪人，恨罪惡」去鼓勵，提醒，或督促別人和自己、要用基督的愛(agape)去愛「罪人」，但不可要認同他們的「罪」、以免自己也因著體貼肉體而做出不討上帝喜悅的罪行。所以「你們要愛罪人，恨罪惡」是一個很好的座右銘。

然而，人們以為這句話是出於聖經，所以他們再加上另一句短語：「因為 “上帝是愛罪人，恨罪惡” 的」。在此，我們就不能不問：上帝真的是不恨惡罪人嗎？

首先，我們要知道，上帝的愛 (agape; hesed) 是無私的、是犧牲的。上帝的恨 (hate) 是公義的, 聖潔的，是不壞惡意的、祂的意念總是平安的意念。所以只有上帝是可以恨人的，而人是不可以恨人的。

在聖經中，我們屢次看到上帝將他的憤怒 或 震怒 (wrath) 像烈火搬傾倒在罪人身上，他恨人的嚴重性在聖經的語言中表達無遺。上帝愛那些被赦免的人，但恨那些不願悔改的罪人。所以我們不可能說「上帝愛罪人。」

當我們說「愛罪人，恨罪惡」時，我們似乎把「人」和「罪」作了一個清晰的「二分法」。其實人與罪是不能分割的。「罪」在「罪人」一詞中是個形容詞。所以「罪人」就是指一個有位格的人。當耶穌譴責一個「罪人」的時候，他是針對「那個人」並不是單單針對他所犯的「抽象性的罪」。責備一個抽象的觀念是毫無意思的。可見「愛罪人，恨罪惡」這句短語是一半的真理；一半的真理其實就不是真理。

Does the saying “You shall love the sinners and hate their sins” conform with the teaching of the Bible?

I often hear a plausible saying as, “You must love a sinner but hate his sin, because God loves the sinners and hates their sin”. Does this statement conform to the truth of the Scripture?

Humans are emotional beings, so we have the passionate expressions such as “love” and “hate”. But people’s love (philia; storge) is more or less selfish and impure; people’s “hatred” is always malicious. Therefore, when we use the phrase “You must love sinners and hate sin,” we may use it to encourage, remind, or urge others to love “sinners” with Christ’s love (agape; hesed), but at the same time, we must not agree with their sins, lest we may also commit sins that displease our God by being carnally minded. In this sense, “Love the sinner and hate the sin” is a good motto.

However, people thought this phrase was a biblical concept, so they qualify their expression by adding, “because God loves the sinners and hates their sins,” so we must do likewise. Here, we must then ask: Does God really NOT hate sinners?

First of all, we need to know that God’s love is not the same as ours. His love (agape; hesed) is selfless and sacrificial. God’s “hatred” is also different from ours. God’s “hatred” is just, holy, and not evil or malicious. His thoughts are always thoughts of peace. So only God can hate men, but men cannot hate men.

In the Bible we repeatedly see God pouring out His wrath like fire upon sinners, and the severity of His hatred is expressed in various ways and metaphors in the language of the Bible. God loves the forgiven but hates the unrepentant. So we cannot say, “God loves sinners.” In fact, God hates sinners because He is just and holy. Does God’s hatred have an element of love? If God’s intent is to use His wrath to lead people to repentance, the answer is YES. But for those who consistently not repent, judgment will surely come and they are the object of God’s hatred.

When we say “love the sinner and hate the sin”, we seem to imply a distinct dichotomy between “sinner” and “sin” as if they are rather unrelated entities. In fact, person and sin are inseparable. “Sin” is an adjective in the word “sinner”. So “sinner” refers to a person not a concept. When Jesus condemned a “sinner,” he was referring to “that person” and not just an “abstract concept of sin” that this person had committed. There is no point in blaming an abstract idea. It can be seen that the phrase “love the sinner and hate the sin” is half-truth; half-truth is not a truth at all.

By TC Lo (盧天賜)

(傳道書3:21) 說，「誰知道人的靈是往上升、獸的魂是下入地呢?」動物有靈魂嗎？但想不到在約伯記中，我卻連想到一個可能合理的答案。

義人約伯擁有七個兒子和三個女兒 (1:2)，並許多多的牲畜, 其數目是: 七千羊、三千駱駝、五百對牛、五百母驢（1:3)。但他受到上帝的試練，在一天之內，失去這一切 (1:16, 18)。然而，在這不能想像的浩劫中，我們看到上帝用恩典補償他：「耶和華賜給他的、比他從前所有的加倍 (42:10)。」信實的耶和華定意成就祂的應許，「這樣、耶和華後來賜福給約伯、比先前更多．他有一萬四千羊、六千駱駝、一千對牛、一千母驢 (42:12)，」剛剛是先前數目的兩倍。但值得注意的是：上帝並沒有再賜約伯十四個兒子，和六個女兒；只補償他七個兒子和三個女兒，如以前的一樣。為什麼會這樣呢？

約伯本來有的兒女，雖然死亡了，但並沒有失落，因為他們的靈魂已經「往上升」了，生命仍然存在。所以現在約伯也有了雙倍的孩子，一半在天上，一半在地上，成就了上帝對約伯的承諾。這樣看來，由上帝賜牲畜給約伯的數目，就暗示了動物是沒有靈魂的。我相信動物之死是如燈滅。我們都𠄘認，吃人肉是非常恐怖的。但人是可以吃動物的肉而無良心不安之感。甚至在挪亞出方舟之後，聖經明文允許我們可吃動物的肉的。彼得所見的異象也表明「凡物皆潔」的原則。

再者，在傳道書3:21中，人用「靈」，獸用「魂」作描述，也表示兩者不能混為一談。我甚至認為動物沒有思想和意志。貓狗之所以能表現出來的「似人行動或感情」，這只不過是上帝賜予它們為了生存的天性或本能 (instinct) 而矣。當獸死時，它們的本能也化為烏有，「下入地」而被埋葬了。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐)

這是一個具爭議性的問題。既然有人問我這個問題，我就直言不諱地表達我個人的觀點。既是「觀點」我就不把它絕對化，只把我的理由陳述，給讀者參考。首先讓我们考慮两処經文

(A）「凡女人禱告或是講道、若不蒙著頭、就羞辱自己的頭．因為這就如同剃了頭髮一樣。(林前11:5) 」

此經節顯然暗示女人是允許公禱或講道。「講道」英譯作「說預言」之意。聖經充滿預言，所以釋經講道就等於說預言。但女人講道有限制嗎? 有。她必須蒙著頭。然而蒙頭是甚麼意思呢？讓我們看看下一節經文。

(B) 「但女人有長頭髮、乃是他的榮耀．因為這頭髮是給他作蓋頭的 (林前11:15) 。」

「蒙著頭」不單是指「以巾蓋頭」。保羅把物質的頭巾延伸到女人的「長頭髮」。

頭巾代表順服。講道者 (不論男女) 都要順服在聖經的杈威之下。保羅把「長頭髮」同等於「頭巾」乃指「女人必須像個女人」。有些女牧師為了彰顯權柄，在講台上手舞足蹈，大聲疾呼，完全失去女人的本性，甚至近乎不合體統，這就是保羅所警告的。

由（A）和（B）我們得出這樣的結論：聖經並沒有禁止女人講道，但男女是有別的，只要她以「像個女人」的方式, 按上帝給她的恩賜講道即可。

為何會有這樣的一個問題呢？其實這問題只源於一節聖經：

(C) 「我不許女人講道、也不許他轄管男人、只要沉靜。(提前2:12) 」

另有版本譯作：

「我不允許女人教導男人或對男人擁有權威；她必須保持沉默。(提前2:12)」

「我不許」是一個強烈的字眼，但我們必須知道保羅「不允許」的是甚麼東西。中文的「講道」英譯為「教導」。難道男人不需被教導嗎？當葛培理牧師 (Billy Graham) 的事工開始之前，他受到十九世紀的自由主义神学 (Liberal Christianity) 的衝擊，使他甚為困惑，甚至對上帝失去信心。後來有位老姊妹教導他關於尊重聖經權威，並強調「耶和華如此說 (Thus saith the Lord)」的重要性，他就在某一個晚上皎潔的月光之下，重新悔改，後成為廿世紀眾所周知的偉大佈道家。這是在他自傳《Just as I Am》中所述的故事。當保羅說「不允許女人教導男人」時，他的意思是指當時 (甚至現今) 有些女人在男人面前指三指四，大不得體。「教導」也可指女人在姊妹中間，八八卦卦一些「流言蜚语」, 這當然是應該禁止的。

有些教會的章程是規定不許女人講道的。就好像「未受洗不能領聖餐」一樣，兩者雖不是聖經所禁止，但因從另一方面來看，聖經也教導教會的行事，必須有規有矩，因此，只要你是會友就應尊重教會的規章，作為順服的表達。但我不同意把規章中的「禁令」，視為聖經教義的要求 (doctrinal requirement)。如果上帝賜給姊妹講道的恩賜，我們有甚麼理由因著她們的性別而禁止她們在話語方面的事奉呢？再者，觀看教會歷史，特別是在宣教運動 (mission movement) 展開之後，女人講道在宣教職場上非常普遍，且起了至關重要的作用，這是無可厚非的。

Are Women Allowed to Preach? 

This is a well-known controversial issue. Since I’ve been asked away this question, I’m not bashful to respond but to speak bluntly without euphemism about my personal opinion. Since I label it as an “opinion”, I will not make it absolute, but only state my reasons for readers to meditate. First, let’s consider two verses:

(A) 1 Corinthian 11:5

「And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved.」

This verse clearly implies that women are allowed to pray or preach in public. The English translation for “preaching” means “prophesying”. The Bible is full of prophecies; thus, expository preaching is tantamount to prophesying. But is there a limit to a woman’s preaching? There is. She must cover her head. But what does it mean to cover the head? Let’s look at the next verse.

(B) I Corinthians 11:15

「But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

“Covering the head” does not just mean “covering the head with a scarf”. Paul extends the textile scarf to a woman’s “long hair”. The scarf signifies submission. Preachers (whether male or female) are to submit to the authority of the Bible. Paul equates “long hair” with “scarf” to mean that a woman must act like a woman. In some cases, female pastors, in order to show their authority, shout like men on the podium, completely losing their feminine nature, and even almost inappropriate. This is what Paul warns.

From (A) and (B) we come to this conclusion:

Bible does not prohibit a woman from preaching so long as she preaches in a manner compatible with a woman.

Why is there such an issue in the first place? In fact, this issue stems from only one verse in the Bible:

(C) 1 Tim 2:12

「I do not permit a woman to preach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 」

Why “preaching” and “authority over men” link together? Another version translates “preach” as “teaching.”

“I do not permit” is an emphatic phrase, but we must know what it is that Paul “forbids”. The English translation “preach” is the word “teaching.” Don’t men also need to be taught? Before Billy Graham’s ministry began, he was hit by the Nineteenth-Century Liberal Christianity, which confused him and even made him lose confidence in God. Later, an old church woman taught him about respecting the authority of the Bible by emphasizing the important and repeating phrase, “Thus saith the Lord”. He repented under the bright moonlight one night, and henceforth became a well-known evangelist in the twentieth century. This is a story told in his autobiography “Just as I Am“. When Paul says, “Women are not allowed to teach men,” the context was that there were some women back then (and even today) who would wag fingers in front of men, which was inappropriate. “Teaching” can also refer to “gossiping” among women within the church, which of course should be prohibited.

Some church bylaws stipulate that women are not allowed to preach; it is somewhat like “unbaptized are not allowed to take communion.” Although both are not prohibited by the Bible, however, from another point of view, the Bible also teaches that the church must operate in an orderly manner. Bylaws are designed for that purpose.  So as long as one is holding a church membership, one should respect the bylaws as an act of submission to authority. But I do not agree with such “prohibition” is instituted in the name of biblical doctrine. If God has given women the gift of preaching, why should we forbid them from participating in the Word Ministries merely because of their gender? Furthermore, looking at the church history throughout generations, especially after the development of the Mission Movement, woman-preaching is undeniably very common and has played a vital role in the mission fields.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

為什麼同性戀是罪？可否簡述？上帝給人類一個文化使命，就是：生養眾多遍滿全地。男女的結合使產生後代 「成為可能」。但同性戀的結合，「絕對不能」產生後代。所以同性戀必定不是上帝設計的目的。因此同性戀行為絕對是違反上帝的旨意。既是違反上帝的旨意，它必是罪。「性快感」是上帝的恩典，催促人類完成文化使命的方式。同性戀者單追求「性快感」而「藐視」上帝的旨意，可說是罪加一等。因為他們不但不「尊重」上帝的旨意，更「濫用」上帝的恩典。律法可能有時代性或文化性，染色體也可能有錯誤的可能性，但本文不用訴諸於律法或生物學來回答此問題。
如果你還否定「同性戀是罪」，其實你就是否定了下列數點中任何一點：

1. 上帝的存在。
2. 上帝是一個有意志的上帝。
3. 違反上帝的旨意就是罪。

這三點與同性戀的問題沒有直接的關係。「同性戀是罪」的結論、是從肯定這三點引伸出來的。

Why is homosexuality a sin? Can you give a brief description?

God has given human beings a “Cultural Mission, which is “to multiply and populate the earth.” The union of a man and a woman makes it possible to produce offspring. But homosexual unions “absolutely cannot” produce offspring. So homosexuality must not be the purpose of God’s design. Therefore, homosexual behavior is absolutely against the will of God. Since it is against the will of God, it must be a sin. “Sexual pleasure” is the grace of God, a way to urge human beings to fulfill their cultural mission. Homosexuals who pursue only “sexual pleasure” but “defy” God’s purpose can be said of doubling their sinfulness because they not only “disrespect” God’s will, but also “abuse” God’s grace. Laws may be epochal or cultural, and chromosomes may mutate wrongly, but the above reasoning does not appeal to law or biology in answering the underlining question.
If you still deny that “homosexuality is a sin”, you are actually denying any of the following points:

1. God exists.
2. God has a will.
3. To disobey God’s will is sin.

These three points are not directly related to the issue of homosexuality. The conclusion that “homosexuality is sin” is a logical outworking from affirming these three points.

by T.C. Lo

Facing spiritual battles and secular ideological bombardments in the campuses for today’s young people are as real as the rising of the sun in the morning.  Even Billy Graham in the midst of his thriving ministries had gone through such struggles and the concomitant agonies. So it should not come as surprises to the report that a good proportion of young people who just go into college had quickly lost their confidence in God and in the Bible.

A recent re-read of Billy Graham’s biography reveals that his spiritual voyage had nearly shipwrecked. But by the grace of God, his faith turned out surer and stronger and had become what I believe to be the greatest evangelist that God mightily used in the twentieth century. I prayerfully hope that this article may serve as an encouragement to today’s youths—and those who raise doubt about Christianity.

Here is my “Cliffs note” version of his triumphant story extracted from Billy’s book 《Just as I Am》.

“Chuck Templeton (note) and I (Billy Graham) went around together all the time on that trip; we roomed together and had a lot of fun, becoming real pals. A Canadian, he impresses us all with his knowledge of the history and culture of places like Ireland (p.100). By the spring 1949, I gave serious consideration to taking a two-year leave of absence from Northwestern to work toward a Ph.D. degree. A Bachelor of Arts degree hardly seemed adequate for a college president, and it did not help Northwestern Schools (p.112) in its pursuit of accreditation. …. To have or not to have a degree was not my only dilemma. My faith was under siege. In 1946, Chuck Templeton had resigned from his church in Toronto to enroll at Princeton Theological Seminary. I talked with him two or three times that winter of 1948-49—his first year as a graduate student—and discovered that he was undergoing serious theological difficulties, particularly concerning the authority of the Scriptures. My respect and affection for Chuck were so great that whatever troubled him trouble me too. I had similar questions arising from my own broadened reading habits. I want to keep abreast of theological thing at mid-century, but brilliant writers such as Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr really made me struggle with concepts that had been ingrained in me since childhood. They were the pioneers in what came to be called the neo-orthodoxy. While they rejected old liberalism, the new meaning they put into some of the old theological terms confused me terribly. I never doubt the Gospel itself, or the deity of Christ on which it depended, but other major issues were called into question (p.135). The particular intellectual problem I was wrestling with, for the first time since my conversion as a teenager, was the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Seeming contradiction and problems with interpretation defied intellectual solutions, or so I thought. Could the Bible be trusted completely? If this had sprung up in my student days, as it did for so many, it might have been taken as a normal development. But neo-orthodoxy’s redefinition of inspiration to allow for Bible prone to mistakes and to subjective interpretations certainly should not have been an option for someone in my position. I was not a searching sophomore, subject to characteristic skepticism. I was the president of the liberal arts college, Bible school, the seminary—an institution whose doctrinal statement was extremely strong and clear on this point. I professed to believe in the full inspiration of the Scriptures. But did I believe in the same sense that my predecessor, Dr. W.B. Riley (p.45), had believe? Feeling a little hypocritical, I began an intensive study of this question. I read theologians and scholars on all sides of the issue. I also turn to the Bible itself:

• 2 Timothy 3:16 (“God-breathed writings” was an impenetrable mystery)
• 2 Peter 1:21 (prophecy came from the Holy Spirit)
• Matt.24:35 (Christ’s word shall not pass away)

The disturbing conversations with Chuck Templeton, my confused reaction to studying influential and sometimes contradictory theologians, the quandary over a career in education versus ministry in evangelism, and the most recently the fiasco in Altoona—all these were intellectual, spiritual, and emotional baggage I was carrying in the summer of 1949 as we began to prepare for Los Angeles, the largest citywide Campaign to date. I, as a college president had agreed to speak at the annual College Briefing Conference met at Forest Home, a retreat center east of Los Angeles, at the end of August in 1949. Dr. Louis Evans, Chuck Templeton, and J. Edwin Orr were there. Head of the conference was Miss Henrietta Mears, director of religious education at First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood. Her enthusiasm for the Lord Jesus Christ was contagious (p.136-137).

She had faith in the integrity of the Scriptures, and an understanding of Bible truth as well as modern scholarship. I was desperate for every insight she could give me. By contrast, Chuck Templeton has a passion for intellectualism that had been stimulated by his studies. He made no attempt to hide his feelings about me. “Billy, you’re 50 years out of date. People no longer accept the Bible as being inspired the way you do. Your faith is too simple. Your language is out of date. You’re going to have to learn the new jargon if you’re going to be successful in your ministry.” My friend Bob Evans, who had been at Wheaton with me, was also at Forest Home. He overheard Chuck say, “Poor Billy, I feel sorry for him. He and I are taking two different roads.” This cut me to the quick; the friendship and fellowship we had enjoyed meant a great deal to me.

I ached as if I were on the rack, with Miss Mears stretching me one way and Chuck Templeton stretching me the other. Alone in one evening, I read every verse of Scripture I could think of that had to do with “thus saith the Lord.” I recalled hearing someone say that the prophets had used the phrase “the Word of the Lord said” or similar wording more than 2000 times. I have no doubts concerning the deity of Jesus Christ or the validity of the Gospel, but was the Bible completely true? If I was not exactly doubtful, I was certainly disturbed. As the night wore on, my heart became heavily burdened. Could I trust the Bible (p.138)?

If I could not trust the Bible, I could not go on. I would have to quit the school presidency. I would have to leave the pulpit evangelism. I was only 30 years of age. It was not too late to become a dairy farmer. But that night I believed with all my heart that the God who had saved my soul would never let go of me. I got up and took a walk. The moon was out. The shadows were long in the San Bernardino Mountains surrounding the retreat center. Dropping to my knees there in the woods, I opened the Bible at random on a tree stump in front of me. I could not read it in the shadowy moon light, so I had no idea what text lay before me. Back at Florida Bible Institute, that kind of woodsy setting had given me a natural pulpit for proclamation. Now it was an altar where I could only stutter into prayer. “O God! There are many things in this book I do not understand. There are many problems with it for which I have no solution. There are many seeming contradictions. There are some areas in it that do not seem to correlate with modern science. I can’t answer some of the philosophical and psychological questions Chuck and others are raising.” I was trying to be on the level with God, but something remained unspoken. At last, the Holy Spirit freed me to say it. “Father, I am going to accept this as Thy Word—by faith! I am going to allow faith to go beyond my intellectual questions and doubts, and I will believe this to be Your inspired Word.” When I got up from knees at Forest Home that August night, my eyes stung with tears. I sensed the presence and power of God as I had not sensed it in months. Not all my questions were answered, but a major bridge had been crossed. In my heart and mind, I knew a spiritual battle in my soul had been fought and won (p.139).”

Note:

Charles Templeton—a Toronto Youth for Christ (YFC) organizer and pastor of Toronto’s Avenue Road Church, one of the largest congregations in the city (p.98).

By Tin-chee Lo

Science (astronomy, geology, archaeology, anthropology, cosmology, big bang theory) suggests:

• Age of Earth: 4.5 billion years
• Age of the universe: 13.7 billion years

Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1 suggests

• The day in Genesis 1 is 24-hour solar day
• It follows that the universe was created in six solar days.

How old was Adam:

• Adam was last created in God’s creation order.
• Adam was created in 4004 B.C. according to Bishop James Ussher’s calculation which is based on biblical genealogy.
• The recorded history of mankind is about five to six thousand years.
• Therefore, it is an acceptable to say that Adam appeared on earth no more than 10,000 years ago.
• Christians and non-Christians generally agree without controversies that modern-man history is around 10,000 years.

What is human?

• Christians believe that Adam was the first human, because he was the first creature possessing the breath of life (soul-ness) from God. Hence, Adam was mankind’s first ancestor.
• Evolutionists believe that some monkey-like men of antiquity (millions of years ago based on fossil record) were the ancestors of man. So, the difference between thousands of years and millions of years of human ages stem from “the definition of man”.   

The age of our universe

• Scientists believe that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old (as already mentioned above).
• Biblical literalists insist that the age of the universe equals to ten-thousand years (age of the last created Adam) plus his preceding five 24-hour days.
• Such a gargantuan time difference not only makes the accuracy of scientific dating irrelevant, and also begs the question: “who is right?”

The “inerrancy” of the Bible vs. “the interpretation” of the Bible

• Christians are expected to believe that the Bible is infallible (cannot make mistake) and inerrant (makes no mistake) as our first-principle.
• Biblical literalists insist that they are faithful to the Bible; this is a commendable attitude.
• In light of such gigantic difference regarding the age of the universe, literalists must examine whether they think they are faithful to the divine Bible—or–they actually are faithful to their “human interpretation” of the Bible. Such distinction must be made with open-mindedness.
• Divine Bible (refers to the very original) is absolutely inerrant, human interpretations of the Bible are not infallible and have been historically confirmed.
• To say <a “day” is 24 hour> in Genesis 1 is an “interpretation” but not a full interpretation. The Hebrew word for day is yom, it does not strictly translate into the literal twenty-four-hour day. Within the context of the first two chapters of Genesis we find the word yom used in three different ways.
  • A solar day (1:14) – 24 hours
  • Daylight as opposed to night (1:5,14,16) – 12 hours
  • The entire creative period (2:4) – a stage, a phase.

To insist on <a “day” equals to 24 hour> exclusively is not faithful to the Bible.

How long was the time between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve?

(Gn. 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Literal interpretation of Chapter 1:27 yields this statement: “Adam and Eve were created in the last hours of the sixth 24-hour day.” Does it make sense? Let us examine the text further:

After Adam was created in the sixth day, he did many great things. Neither one of them can be accomplished in a single 24-hour day.

• Keep up the garden; diligently cultivate the land (1:28)
• Classify and give names to every living creature (2:19)
• Feel the need of a helper as a gardener, and feel the sense of loneliness as a single man (2:20)

Psychological feelings cannot be developed in few hours. Adam was without sin but he was still a human being, so he had psychological needs that took time (much more than 24 hours) to discover as part of his human nature. When God saw the time is ripe (2:20), He took a rib from Adam’s side and create a woman for him as wife (Gn. 2:21-23). So, it is safe to conclude that Eve could not have been created in less than 24-hours after Adam was created as literalist suggested in Genesis 1:27. It follows that the Sixth Creation Day cannot be a 24-hours day but an unspecified long period of time.

If one insists that the “Sixth Creation Day” must be 24 hours, the Bible and science cannot be reconciled.

What are God’s Teachings in Genesis Chapter 1 which is less than a thousand words.

The first chapter of Genesis provides a framework of Creation not the details and certainly not the speed of creation. What God wants us to know are the following key points:

• God is the sole Creator of the universe (1:1)
• The universe had a beginning: “In the beginning…” (1:1)
• God’s creation is “from nothing (Ex nihilo)”
• He created all things with His Word: “And God said”
• Genesis 1’s focus is not about the speed of creation
• Genesis 1 states that there were six stages of creation. This is the methodical and systematic way, expressed by the word “yom”. Therefore, it is more reasonable for “day” to refer to “stage”.

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐)

「彼得說、你們各人要悔改、奉耶穌基督的名受洗、叫你們的罪得赦、就必領受所賜的聖靈」 (使徒行傳 2:38) 。

• 同學問：這節經文暗示領受所賜的聖靈是以悔改受洗為條件的。 這似乎與 「重生先於相信和悔改」的説法相矛盾。 那麼，老師，你如何解釋這一句經文？
• 老師答: 首先讓我陳述聖經救贖論的要點:

聖經救贖論的中心思想

我們肉身生命的存在尚且不在我們自己支配之內，那麼我們屬靈生命的存在又怎能由我們自己去決定呢？屬靈生命的存在完全是上帝的作為, 我想這是一個合理的前設。

我們與生俱來的情況是「死在罪惡過犯中亅。在這靈死的狀態中，我們不會也不能對屬靈的事情有興趣。再者，我們一生下來，便是罪的奴僕。既是奴僕，我們的意志就沒有自由去選擇神。所以「不選擇神」是我們的默認 (default) 狀態。這就帶出了揀選的必要性。上帝只要作出正面的揀選，我們便得救了；上帝不用作出負面的拒絕，讓我們失落。因為我們原本就是失落的。

上帝的揀選乃是絕對地完全地出於祂那智慧的意志，祂完全不考慮人的善行或功德。也不是基於祂的預知能力, 而去選擇那些將來會對祂作出正面回應的人。這種「預知式的預定論」是有問題的:

• 如上所述，將來的人没有一個會作出正面的回應。
• 這種「預知式的預定論」根本就不是預定，因為歸根究底它仍是基於人的回應，只是一種尚未發生的回應。

支持「預知式的預定論」者往往訴諸於羅馬書8:29-30作為他們的支持：

「因為他預先所知道 (foreknew) 的人、就預先定下效法他兒子的模樣使他兒子在許多弟兄中作長子。預先所定下的人又召他們來．所召來的人、又稱他們為義．所稱為義的人、又叫他們得榮耀。」

其實實此處的預知 (fore-knew) 不是指預先知道，乃是指預先被深愛，因為 ”know” 一詞是指「親密的關係」之意。

上帝施予救恩的邏輯步驟：

• 祂使人的靈魂甦醒 (重生，成為新造的人)
• 祂𧶽新造的人信心作禮物 (指得救的信心)
• 新造的人，透過基督所成就的「雙重歸算」，便罪得赦免,  因信而稱義。

簡言之，重生在信心之先。救恩源於上帝。

但這些步驟是邏輯上的先後，在時間上是同時發生的。人一旦被重生，他們便馬上進入成聖的階段。在這階段中，信徒的行為極其重要。將來信徒也是基於他們的行為受審判或獲獎勵。

為何要傳福音？

既然得救是在乎上帝的揀選，那麼我們為什麼要去傳福音呢？原因最少有二：

• 傳福音是耶穌基督給我們的使命；服從基督是重生的果子。
• 傳福音者的工作，是代表神分派信心禮物。我們不知道誰被揀選，但是上帝知道。我們的職責就是把這份稱為「信心」的禮物，分派給所有人。凡是天選之民必用他們新造的意志，欣然接受。

實際情況下，我們如何去分派信心禮物？

說來容易，我們就把重生，得救，稱義，信心，成聖，昐望等道理告訴他們。但是在實際的情況下，當我們每次與人交談時，不可能把救恩的全部教義告訴他們，因為他們的接受能力有限，而且也受交談的時間的限制，所以傳福音者必須因人而異地選一兩項福音要點和他們交談。聖經的例子很多，使徒有時只用一句話或最多兩句話來傳達福音。因此，我們在解經時，不要執着他那一兩句話，便從中作出教義的宣告。如此就是本末倒置了。我們應該以教義的全部來解釋那一段短短的對話。

例如尼哥底母見耶穌時，耶穌只用「重生」和他對話，其餘的重要福音要素，如因信稱義，人的罪性，或代贘的意義，雙重歸算等，耶穌就沒有提及。所以我們在解釋重生時，必須把你的解釋放在整個救贖論的亮光下去被人理解。

另一例子是，當少年官問耶穌人如何進入永生？耶穌和他的對話乃是指出他在屬靈的事上是「無能為力」, 而沒有提到重生或信心。福音可以用不同的簡單方式來概括。以下面是一些耶穌或使徒的福音對話例子:

有時單單提及信心被稱為得救所必需的一件事

• (約3:16) 神愛世人、甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們、叫一切信他的、不至滅亡、反得永生。
• (徒16:31) 他們說、當信主耶穌、你和你一家都必得救。
• (羅10:9) 你若口裡認耶穌為主、心裡信　神叫他從死裡復活、就必得救．

有時單單提及悔改

• (路24:47) 並且人要奉他的名傳悔改赦罪的道、從耶路撒冷起直傳到萬邦。
• 徒3:19) 所以你們當悔改歸正、使你們的罪得以塗抹、這樣、那安舒的日子、就必從主面前來到．
• (徒5:31) 神且用右手將他高舉、〔或作他就是　神高舉在自己的右邊〕叫他作君王、作救主、將悔改的心、和赦罪的恩、賜給以色列人。
• (徒17:30) 因為他已經定了日子、要藉著他所設立的人、按公義審判天下．並且叫他從死裡復活、給萬人作可信的憑據。
• 林後7:10) 因為依著　神的意思憂愁、就生出沒有後悔的懊悔來 (悔改)、以致得救．但世俗的憂愁、是叫人死。

有時兩者都被提及或洗禮被提及

• (徒2:38) 彼得說、你們各人要悔改、奉耶穌基督的名受洗、叫你們的罪得赦、就必領受所賜的聖靈
• (徒20:21) 又對猶太人、和希利尼人、證明當向　神悔改、信靠我主耶穌基督。

使徒行傳 2 章 38 節中的勸告只是悔改和受洗

它並没有暗示一個任何規範的教義式次序。 嬰兒在受洗後才相信並悔改，但我們仍然正確地為他們施洗。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

看起來該隱有過錯，無論是在他的態度上還是在他獻給主的祭品上。 該隱的犧牲包括莊稼，他在他的田園（創世記 4:3）中種植，而不是血祭，不像他的弟弟亞伯在耶和華面前已設定的那樣。亞伯獻上了血祭，並憑著信心這樣做。

「(希伯來書 11:4) 亞伯因著信獻祭與　神、比該隱所獻的更美、因此便得了稱義的見證、就是　神指他禮物作的見證．他雖然死了、卻因這信仍舊說話。」

經文強烈暗示他從恩典之神那裡支取應許，因為他把他的羊羔放在祭壇上; 而這個上帝的應許是從他的父母那裡學到的。

因此，上帝看中亞伯的獻祭並以贊同的方式回應他，此與祂拒絕該隱的供物形成鮮明的對比。

「(創 4:4-5),亞伯也將他羊群中頭生的、和羊的脂油獻上．耶和華看中了亞伯和他的供物。只是看不中該隱和他的供物．該隱就大大的發怒、變了臉色。」

看起來該隱在選擇不流血的犧牲時遵循了他自己的判斷，無視上帝对流血的解釋的重要性 和替代贖罪原則的必要性，正如上帝向亞當和夏娃所解釋的那樣。而無。此代贖原則最终完全地實現在基督被釘十字架的事實上。該隱故意用自己手上的工作代替贖罪的恩典，隨後産生野蠻的嫉妒導致對他弟弟的強烈怨恨。這最終導致他在野外謀殺了亞伯，該還以為沒有人看到他。 他驕傲的任性導致他犯下了殺人罪，他的後代繼承了他那否認上帝的「以人為本」生活態度。

(創4:17-23) 記下一連串不敬虔子孫的家譜:

「17 該隱與妻子同房、他妻子就懷孕、生了以諾、該隱建造了一座城、就按著他兒子的名將那城叫作以諾。

18 以諾生以拿、以拿生米戶雅利、米戶雅利生瑪土撒利、瑪土撒利生拉麥。

19 拉麥娶了兩個妻、一個名叫亞大、一個名叫洗拉。

20 亞大生雅八、雅八就是住帳棚牧養牲畜之人的祖師。

21 雅八的兄弟名叫猶八．他是一切彈琴吹簫之人的祖師。

22 洗拉又生了土八該隱、他是打造各樣銅鐵利器的、〔或作是銅匠鐵匠的祖師〕土八該隱的妹子是拿瑪。

23 拉麥對他兩個妻子說、亞大、洗拉、聽我的聲音、拉麥的妻子細聽我的話語、壯年人傷我、我把他殺了、少年人損我、我把他害了．〔或作我殺壯士卻傷自己我害幼童卻損本身〕」

但上帝对該隱仍有恩典：

4:24 若殺該隱、遭報七倍、殺拉麥、必遭報七十七倍。

並为亞當保存敬度的後代：

4:25 亞當又與妻子同房、他就生了一個兒子、起名叫塞特、意思說、　神另給我立了一個兒子代替亞伯、因為該隱殺了他。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

難道以色列人在舊約之下是通過順服神而得救，而不是因為他們憑著信心期待著一個來臨救世主？ 哪些段落表明這種信仰對於他們的救贖是必要的？

從創世記到啟示錄，聖經清楚地表明沒有人因自己的善行而得救，只能因相信上帝的應許。只有在伊甸園中，救恩才建立在服從的基礎上，伴隨著死亡的警告因為違背上帝的旨意 命令：「只是分別善惡樹上的果子、你不可喫、因為你喫的日子必定死)」 (創2:17) 

在創世記 3 中，這一命令被夏娃和亞當違背，因他們回應撒旦的誘惑和欺騙； 上帝確認他們的死刑說,「你必汗流滿面纔得糊口、直到你歸了土、因為你是從土而出的．你本是塵土、仍要歸於塵土」(創3:19)。從那時起，沒有人因服從而得救——除了被救贖的種族，他們因相信基督的贖罪而得救，基督的服從行為為他們的救贖付出了代價。

的確，在兩部新約中都高度重視順服。 在出埃及記 19:5上帝應許以色列，「如今你們若實在聽從我的話、遵守我的約、就要在萬民中作屬我的子民、因為全地都是我的。」但這絕不意味著另一種方式 （在信心之外）通向天堂的道路； 相反，這個應許是給一群信徒的，他們已經為罪悔改，並在信仰中將他們的心交給主。服從是必要的證據或信仰的果實。 不是蘋果使它的父樹成為蘋果樹； 正是蘋果樹使它的果實變成了蘋果。耶穌說，“憑著他們的果子就可以認出他們來”（太7:16）； 換句話說，葡萄只來自葡萄藤，而不是荊棘叢，無花果只來自無花果樹，而不是薊<ji>。 順服是信心的必然和自然結果，但它從未被描述為信心的替代品在聖經的任何地方。

應該注意的是, 從一開始亞當和夏娃就教導他們的兒子必須為因他們可能犯下的罪獻祭給主 ; 因此，亞伯在他的祭壇上獻上了可接受的血祭——作為一種信心的行為，代表性地提前呈現後來 在髑髏地（各他山上）的贖罪提供。「亞伯因著信獻祭與　神、比該隱所獻的更美、因此便得了稱義的見證、就是　神指他禮物作的見證．他雖然死了、卻因這信仍舊說話(來11:4) 。」創世記十五章六節記載，當亞伯拉罕信神時，神就算他為義。 羅馬書 4 章 13 節告訴我們：「因為　神應許亞伯拉罕和他後裔、必得承受世界、不是因律法、乃是因信而得的義。」

至於摩西那代人，出埃及記19:5對摩西的應許，不可能對唯獨因信得救的原則有任何誤解，就是關乎單因信得救的原則。「如今你們若實在聽從我的話、遵守我的約、就要在萬民中作屬我的子民、因為全地都是我的」(出19:5)。在包含十誡的同一章中，第一條提到了祭祀:「你要為我築土壇、在上面以牛羊獻為燔祭、和平安祭…」(出20:24a) 。每個犧牲的基本原則是無辜的動物受害者的生命被取代有罪，喪失生命的信徒, 只有通過悔改和信仰，而不是通過服從．

希伯來書 10:4，提到舊約時代，宣稱，「因為公牛和山羊的血、斷不能除罪。」早些時候，在 9:11-12 中，經文說：「但現在基督已經來到、作了將來美事的大祭司、經過那更大更全備的帳幕、不是人手所造也不是屬乎這世界的．並且不用山羊和牛犢的血、乃用自己的血、只一次進入聖所、成了永遠贖罪的事。」

那麼，這种血贖罪的好處是如何帶給罪人的呢？ 它只能通過信仰，而不是通過服從行為作為功績——無論是在十字架之前還是之後。 正如聖經宣告的那樣，「你們得救是本乎恩、也因著信、這並不是出於自己、乃是　神所賜的」 (弗 2:8). 當然不是! 救恩只有通過真正活生生的信仰才能實現， 就是認真對待基督的絕對主權和結出敬虔生活的果子, 建立在心/感情、思想和身體真正降服基礎上 (羅12:1).

正是從這個角度我們才能理解舊約先知的懇切呼喚服從；「你們若甘心聽從、必喫地上的美物．若不聽從、反倒悖逆、必被刀劍吞滅．這是耶和華親口說的。」(賽1:19-20)

類似的是耶穌自己提出的要求：「你們為甚麼稱呼我主阿、主阿、卻不遵我的話行呢。」(路6:46）使徒同意 (羅6:11-12, 17-18):

11這樣、你們向罪也當看自己是死的．向　神在基督耶穌裡、卻當看自己是活的。

12所以不要容罪在你們必死的身上作王、使你們順從身子的私慾．

17感謝神、因為你們從前雖然作罪的奴僕、現今卻從心裡順服了所傳給你們道理的模範。

18你們既從罪裡得了釋放、就作了義的奴僕。

By T.C. Lo (盧天赐)

亞當和夏娃得救了嗎？ 當上帝在他們墮落之後給他們披上皮衣時，上帝是否也教導他們關於血祭和贖罪的事？ 亞當是他家族的大祭司嗎?

亞當和夏娃無疑是第一個被上帝寬恕的罪人。他們的悔改和寬恕在創世記 3:9-21 中是預設的，儘管它沒有明確說明。可以肯定的是，聖經明確記載，亞當夏娃逃避個人的道德責任吃了禁果。從亞當怪責夏娃，夏娃怪責蛇，就代表他們承認自己是巳犯了罪。

雖然沒有明文記載他們完全認罪和悔改, 由上帝對他們所採取的懲戒措施—

• 夏娃會經歷產痛 — 但仍可生兒育女,
• 亞當勉強維持生計 — 地仍有出產供食用,
• 兩人最終身體會死亡 — 但有永生為他們存留

—我們可以看出上帝

• 是出於愛的動機,
• 是以寬恕為行動,
• 是接納而非拒絕,
• 是嚴懲的管教而非絕望的刑罰。

這些懲戒措施對他們是有益的：

• 提醒他們過去的不顺服,
• 提醒他們應該把神放在他們生命中的首位。

(3:15) 「我又要叫你和女人彼此為仇、你的後裔和女人的後裔、也彼此為仇．女人的後裔要傷你的頭、你要傷他的腳跟。」這是聖經中頭一個宣告關乎救主降臨。我們可以合理地假設：當上帝為他們做皮衣的時候，已經將獻祭的觀念教導他們：「替代祭物」的血是「贖罪之血」。亞當兩個兒子也知道獻祭之事。

[Gen. 4:4]. 亞伯也將他羊群中頭生的、和羊的脂油獻上．耶和華看中了亞伯和他的供物。

亞當無疑將血祭贖罪的理解傳授給他的兩個兒子。他的次子亞伯在替代贖罪方面受過良好的教導。替代贖罪以「一隻無辜的羔羊在祭壇上犧牲」為像徵。該隱和亞伯都是自己親自接近祭壇。他們對自己的祭品各負個人的責任。經文沒有提到亞當以祭司身份為他們獻祭。該隱的祭品是素祭，是不會得到神的認可的，因他試圖在沒有贖血的情況下接近神。神「看不中該隱和他的供物．該隱就大大的發怒、變了臉色。(4:5) 」

我們得出的結論是：亞當與夏娃是第一批在上帝的恩典之下持有得救信心的人。亞當的兒子亞伯，雖然比父親早死了八百年 (創5:3-5)，他是第一個在得救狀態下死去的人。

沉默中得出結論的例子：福音書從未提及耶穌曾親吻他的母親。 但是否我們可以說他從未親吻過他的母親？耶穌愛他的母親，所以從沉默中得出結論是”他一定有”。聖經沒有明文表明亞當夏娃曾向上帝認錯，我們不能斷言亞當夏娃從沒有自我譴責和為罪悲傷。在亞當塵世生活的930年裡，他向耶和華表達他衷心的悔改是肯定發生過的。

By Tin-chee Lo; 盧天賜

耶穌是大衛哪個兒子的後代？ 在馬太福音 1:6 中，耶穌的祖先是追溯到所羅門，而在路加福音 3:31 中，則是追溯到拿單。

馬太福音 1:1-16 給出耶穌的家譜。耶穌是通過約瑟，約瑟本人是大衛王的後裔。 耶穌作為約瑟的養子，就他的繼承權而言，耶穌成為約瑟的合法繼承人。養子舆親生子有平等的合法地位。請仔細注意 (太1:16) 節的措辭：“雅各生約瑟，就是馬利亞的丈夫，那稱為基督的耶穌是從馬利亞生的”。這與前面關於約瑟的祖先繼承的經文所遵循的格式形成對比：“亞伯拉罕生以撒，以撒生雅各，等等” 。但並沒有說 “約瑟生了耶穌” 。相反地, 說: “約瑟是馬利亞的丈夫．那稱為基督的耶穌、是從馬利亞生的。”

另一方面，路加福音 3:23-38 似乎記錄了馬利亞自己的家譜，從希里 (馬利亞的父親) 一直向上追溯到超過亞伯拉罕時代直上達至人類的起源。(路3:23) 節的措辭似乎暗示了這一點： “耶穌，依人看來，是約瑟的兒子。”  這個 “依人看來” 表明耶穌並不是真正的約瑟的親生兒子，儘管這是公眾普遍認為他是。它進一步提醒我們注意, 馬利亞一定是耶稣「唯一的J人類上一輩，通過她，耶穌可以成為從她的祖先一脈相傳地下來。 她的家譜隨即被列出，

家譜從希里開始，约瑟是希里的兒子 (路3:23), 希里實際上是約瑟的岳父，即希里是馬利亞的父親, 希里一直向上可追朔到拿单 (路3:31) ,而拿单是大衛從别示巴所生别的兒子 (代上3:5)。約瑟的父親應該不是希里而是雅各 (太 1:16）。

根據 (代上3:5)，馬利亞的血統來自拔示巴的兒子拿單，根據 (太 1) 约瑟的血統來自所羅門王，而所羅门王是拔示巴的兒子。 拔示巴是大衛的妻子。 而所羅門和拿單都是大衛的兒子。因此，耶穌是大衛的自然後裔。耶稣可说是来自拿单，同时也可说是来自所罗门。

Ref. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer.

By Tin-chee (TC) Lo (盧天赐)

這是我常被問的問題之一。堅持 「創世記第一章的創造 “日” 是24小時」 的說法莫過於 Ken Ham 。在八零年代及其後的十多年，華人教會反對生物進化論的聲勢非常強大。那時在華人世界中有一位先鋒是台灣中原大學的教授, 韓偉。那時，我所知道的西方世界反進化者，可能就是 Kenneth Alfred Ham了。

在九零年代，我是 Ham 的忠誠跟隨者。他口齒伶俐，雖然他有澳大利亞口音， 但卻俱有「機關槍式」的高速演講恩賜。那時候我是教會的青少年領導人。我多次在禮拜五晚在我家放映 Ham 的 DVD 給我兩個孩子和青少年團契看。我非常佩服他，因為我同意他反對生物進化論的很多論據。Han 漸漸為人所知，他把他抗議生物進化論的想法延伸到宇宙的年齡。尤於他是「絕對字面釋經」的擁護者，所以他說宇宙是六個24小時就被創造的。但如果亞當是一萬年前的人物，那麼宇宙的年齡豈非只是一萬年加五天嗎？作為科學家的我，無法接受。然而Ham 更堅持宇宙年齡是只有6000年，我的下巴也掉下來了。

我後來讀了馮秉承 (aka 里程) 的《遊子吟》, 那就完全改變了我對「日是24小時」的觀點。馮秉承是生物學家，後來也成為牧師。我是受過半導體訓練的，便很容易與他共嗚。

牛頓力學適合於一搬生活的層面，但當進到宏觀的宇宙和對「時，空，光」的認識領域時，牛頓力學就失效了，相對論則取而代之，成了主導。但在另一極端，當進入原子核的世界，那些粒子完全不依從牛頓的動力運作，那時科學家就必須訴諸於量子力學。半導體(固態物理學) 涉及光與量子的层面和領域。這就是因我在這種科學背景下導致我對宇宙論的興趣。身為基督徒，只要談到宇宙論，就不能不對創世記第一章產生致力的聯想和詮釋。

我相信聖經是真理，但聖經以外也有真理，否則我們進學校念書就毫無意義。但當「聖經以外的真理」與「聖經的真理」有抵觸時。我們就必須相信聖經是對，外介 的 “真理” 一定是錯， 這就是「聖經權威」的意思。我也相信「所有真理都是上帝的真理」因它們都是同出一源。因此，正確的科學與正確的解經是必定調和的。因此，如果你堅持創世記第一章的「第六日」是24小時，「科學」與「此解經法」絕對無法調和。

當 Ham 與別的學者公開辯論時，他總是用這句話去辯駁異議：「你在哪裡？」其意是：當上帝創造宇宙時，你在哪裏？你既不在塲，你就沒有資格反對我。反之，我 (Ham) 也不在場，但我有上帝作我的後盾。這是一種微弱的論據，也是一種唬人的狡辯。當他面對基督徒異議者時，Ham 會這樣問，「你是否想兩面討好，將聖經杈威向科學妥協?」這是一種标籤式的 (labeling) 論調, 其意是，你若不信「日是24小時」，你就不尊重聖經杈威。反駁他的人說，你這兩個問題都不是科學性，Ham 自己也𠄘認。

我也不時自省，看看我是否「因偏見而向科學妥協」從而陷入「先入為主」的井中。其後，我讀了馮秉誠的兩大巨著《聖經的杈威》和《聖經的詮釋》後，知道馮牧師是對聖經存高見解 (have a highview on the Bible) 的人，這平息了我的良心，知道不一定要相信「24小時」的第六日說法，才是真正忠於「聖經無誤」者。

至於 Ken Ham 是否科學家，我不感斷言。但我相信他是非常尊重聖經杈威的基督徒，這是無可厚非的。面對目前巨大的科學證據，Ham 有否改變主意？我不知道。但如果他的整個成功的事工 (包括財路) 是建立在「以24小時為日」一句話的大前提上，那就很難想像到他能公開𠄘認了。這些都是我們不知道的。

By T.C. Lo (盧天赐)

It never occurred to me that this conundrum exists.  This question was raised by Professor Frank Chan of “Nyack College & Alliance Theological Seminary”, which arouses my interest.

 Someone said that Jesus was rejected in Nazareth (His hometown) twice:

  • Luke 4 is the first time

  • Mark 6:1-6 or Matthew 13:53-56 is the second time.

Is it right?

Let me succinctly analyze the text of the chapter 4 of Luke.

(vv. 14-15) These two verses occur in the middle period of Jesus’ ministry.  He often went into synagogues (plural) to teach.  It shows that Jesus’ work has begun for a while already.

(vv. 16-22) This is the first sermon delivered by Jesus, and the focus is on announcing that the Jubilee, the year of God’s favor, foretold by the prophet Isaiah, has arrived.  Moreover, this proclamation was praised by everyone, which also showed that people accepted it and no hint of rejection.  This occurs at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

(v. 23-30) This passage speaks of Jesus being rejected in His hometown.  This matter has not yet happened in chapter 4 of Luke until it happens in the middle of His ministry. Luke, however, chronologically moved forward perhaps for the purpose of contrasting the early acceptance (v. 22) against the later rejection. If you read verse 22 again, it is not difficult to understand that the rejection of Jesus does not happen immediately after Jesus’ first sermon, but is consistent with what is to be described in Mark 6:1-6 or Mark 13:53-56.

Conclusion: In the Gospels, there is ONLY ONE record of Christ being rejected by the masses of His hometown, NOT TWO.

By TC Lo (盧天賜)

The core of the Christmas story can be summarized in five verses as far as its meaning is concerned. They are recorded in Luke chapter 2 as:

• 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
• 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.
• 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
• 13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
• 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

Verse 10 states that there is a message to be announced. The message is good, joyful, and has the power to remove people’s fear, fear in the negative sense. It is a message for ALL peoples.

Verse 11 is the content of the message: “A Savior has been born unto you.” This is a short-hand version of the Gospel.

Verse 12 alludes to the very fact of Incarnation. Christ’s coming is physical, not spiritual as Docetism suggests.

Verse 13 is a beatified vision suggesting that the birth of Christ is utterly supernatural in addition to the virgin birth.

All above are agreed upon by Christians. Even though not explicitly spelled out by verse 11, it is also agreed upon that this message is the Gospel. Throughout the Bible, we know that the Gospel is all about PEACE. If you are not peaceful with yourself, it is because you are not peaceful with God. Gospel is related to our reconciliation (have peace) toward God. So, verse 10 can be paraphrased as “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of PEACE that will be for ALL the people.”

Verse 14 says, when the angels praise God in the highest, God responds with “peace among men.” But the verse continues to read concerning the scope of the peace, saying, this peace is “with whom He is pleased.”

How are we going to harmonize “the peace is for ALL people in verse 10” and “peace is JUST for God’s favorite in verse 14”?

First, God is love. “For God so loved the world.” He loves EVERY one even His enemies. Second, God’s revelations always have two aspects: The general revelation by the Elohim God. The special revelation by the Jehovah God, two different names but the same God. So, God indeed bestows upon mankind the peace in the general sense. However, God is all the more willing to bestow covenantal peace to the elect. Then the question becomes “what kind of peace that God gives without discrimination to humankind? There are plentiful.

A book written by D. James Kennedy entitled “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born”, 276 pages, gives ample of examples concerning the impact of Jesus’ birth, each of these examples do have rich elements of peace concerning mankind. Just mentioning not exhaustively here:

• Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
• Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
• Literacy and education for masses.
• Capitalism and free enterprise.
• Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
• The separation of political powers,
• Civil liberties.
• The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity, and a more modern time.
• Modern science.
• The discovery of the new world by Columbus.
• The elevation of women.
• The abolition of foot binding in China
• Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
• Higher standards of justice.
• The elevation of the common man.
• The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversion. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache.
• The civilizing of many Barbarian and primitive cultures.
• The codifying, and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.

If these are not the peace that the Christ-child brought about to mankind, I don’t know what they are. Antony Flew (1923-2010), a man who had preached atheism for as long as Billy Graham had preached the Gospel, remarked that when he saw the suffering of the Africans, having explored many approaches, finally admitted that the only solution to these Africans is the Gospel of peace. He later became a deist, if not Christion.

Therefore, we must join the angels to sing the doxology, “Glory to God in the highest and peace among all humanity in general and believers in particular.”

Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜) 12/25/2022

創世紀三次提到「生命樹 (tree of life)」:

• 耶和華　神使各樣的樹從地裡長出來、可以悅人的眼目、其上的果子好作食物．園子當中又有生命樹、和分別善惡的樹。(2:9)
• 耶和華　神說、那人已經與我們相似、能知道善惡．現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹的果子喫、就永遠活著．(3:22)
• 於是把他趕出去了．又在伊甸園的東邊安設基路伯、和四面轉動發火焰的劍、要把守生命樹的道路。(3:24)

使徒行傳三次把「樹」與「十字架」等同：

• 你們掛在木頭上 (hanging him on a tree) 殺害的耶穌、我們祖宗的　神已經叫他復活。(5:30)
• 他在猶太人之地、並耶路撒冷、所行的一切事、有我們作見證．他們竟把他掛在木頭上 (hanging him on a tree) 殺了。(10:39)
• 既成就了經上指著他所記的一切話、就把他從木頭上取下來 (took him down from the tree)、放在墳墓裡。(13:29)

從使徒行傳的經文中，使我們不難聯想到伊甸園中的生命樹就是耶穌基督的十字架的表徵。這表徵的後面是牺牲。

在伊甸園當中有無數的樹木，但聖經只提到兩棵樹，就是分別善惡的樹和生命樹，而且它們被安置在伊甸園顯眼的地方，就是園子的中心 (2:9)，即兩樹並列。如果分別善惡與罪惡有關，生命樹是與十字架有關，那麼兩樹並列就是代表一種明顯的對比：

• 犯罪與贖罪
• 審判與恩典
• 死亡與生命

聖經只提到分別善惡樹的負面禁令，卻沒有吃生命樹果子的正面吩咐。但是在亞當和夏娃犯罪後，神卻發出生命樹的禁令，為何如此？

亞當夏娃是唯一「生」下來便是得救的人。在他們未犯罪之前，他們是與神的生命連在一起的。所以他們吃與不吃生命樹的果子並無分別。那時生命樹只不過是「園中所有可吃的樹」之一。魔鬼也知道，所以牠說，「神豈是真說、不許你們喫園中 “所有” 樹上的果子麼? 」但牠只講一半的真理。牠並沒有說，「惟有園當中那棵樹上的果子、　神曾說、你們不可喫、也不可摸、免得你們死。」這樣是亞當夏娃清楚知道的。

為什麼一旦亞當夏娃犯罪之後，神要把守生命樹的道路? 理由很簡單，因為罪人不配得永生。就好像上帝不能把一個「未處理過」的罪人放在天堂裏一搬。罪人之所以能夠上天堂，他一定要經過基督寶血的救贖的處理。當亞當夏娃吃了禁果之後，神第一件事就是把他們趕出伊甸園，其目的乃是不讓他們再次接觸到生命樹。但慈愛的神有豐盛的恩典。祂看到亞當夏娃拿無花果樹的葉子、為自己編作裙子, 儘管這是徒勞的自救方法，但也許代表他們有悔改的心。但一個巳得救的人(亞當夏娃本來是得救的) 他的救恩是不會失落的，所以耶和華　神為他們用皮子作衣服、給他們穿。因為皮子是由殺死動物後才取下來的，所以這是獻祭的開始。正是這件皮子，他們雖不在伊甸園，但巳經與那棵生命樹發生關係了。這也說明了他們「本來就得救的地位」並無失落。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天賜)

亞當和夏娃得救了嗎？ 當神在他們墮落之後用獸皮給他們穿上時，神是否也教導他們有關血祭和贖罪的事？ 亞當是他家族的大祭司嗎？

第一個被上帝寬恕的罪人無疑是亞當和夏娃。 儘管聖經沒有明確說明，他們的悔改和寬恕在創世記 3:9-21 中是預設。然而我們可以在不同的各方面作出推論。可以肯定的是，根據關於亞當和夏娃的記錄, 包括吃禁果後的一些逃避個人責任 [亞當責備夏娃，夏娃責怪蛇], 經文都暗示兩人至少均承認自己實際上犯下違背上帝吩咐的罪。儘管經文沒有記錄真正的和完全的認罪和悔改，但沒有記下來，不表示他們沒有。再者，在亞當塵世生活的930年裡，他們向主表達他衷心的悔改是不難想像到的。

從上帝所分配給亞當夏娃的懲戒措施，我們看出這是寬恕的前奏曲。他們罪的後果是: 夏娃將有分娩的痛苦，並要從屬於她的丈夫； 亞當要從土壤中勉強維持生計，並意識到兩人都有最終身體死亡的可能性。這些勞苦愁煩是讓他們有悔改的機會。這就好像路加福音第15章中所說的那個小兒子，當他走頭無路。與豬同食時，聖靈就在那時光照他，使他「醒悟過來」而採取回家的行動。苦難提醒亞當和夏娃過去的不忠，並讓他們知道需要將神放在生命中的首位。

神給他們穿上皮衣，就是前奏曲後的主曲，這就說明了他們已被寬恕。上帝藉此機會，作出第一次救主降臨的預言：「我又要叫你和女人彼此為仇、你的後裔和女人的後裔、也彼此為仇．女人的後裔要傷你的頭、你要傷他的腳跟 (創3:15)」。這節經文是福音的真諦。

似乎我們可以合乎邏輯地說，當他們的赤身被披上皮衣 (動物的皮代表在祭壇上犧牲了一隻無辜的羔羊) 的那一刻，上帝一定把因信稱義和雙重歸算的基本教義傳授給他們，無疑地也傳授了血祭代罪的救贖意義 (創4:4)。

該隱和亞伯似乎是各自直接走近了他們自己的祭壇，親自為他們自己的祭品負責，因為沒有提到亞當以祭司身份為他們獻祭。 該隱和亞伯如何知道獻祭的教導呢？一定是從他們的爸爸哪裏學到的。所以我們可以肯定，該隱試圖用素祭而不用血祭作贖罪，一定不會獲得他父親亞當的認可，也一定使天父不喜悦。(創4:5)

因此，我們得出結論，亞當和夏娃的家庭是第一批在上帝的恩典中持有得救的信心的人類，在上帝恩典之下，亞伯是第一個在得救狀態下死去的人，比他父親早死了八百多年 (創5:3-5)。

By Tin-chee Lo (盧天赐)

經文:「迦南的父親含、看見他父親赤身、就到外邊告訴他兩個弟兄。於是閃和雅弗、拿件衣服搭在肩上、倒退著進去、給他父親蓋上、他們背著臉就看不見父親的赤身。挪亞醒了酒、知道小兒子向他所作的事、就說、迦南當受咒詛、必給他弟兄作奴僕的奴僕。又說、耶和華閃的　神、是應當稱頌的、願迦南作閃的奴僕。願　神使雅弗擴張、使他住在閃的帳棚裡．又願迦南作他的奴僕。(創24:22-27）」

挪亞有三個兒子 (創5:32)：

• 閃 (Sham)、
• 含 (Ham)、
• 雅弗 (Japheth) –- 他有一兒子名瑪代 (Madai; 創10:2)  

挪亞詛咒他的兒子含。原因是含發現父親在醉酒昏迷後赤身裸體便嘲笑和羞辱他。含本應尊重他的父親，即使他的父親在醉酒後出醜。(可能挪亞以前從未嚐過酒) 但應該注意的是，只有含的一個兒子，即迦南，被挑出來遭受含的詛咒。

「挪亞醒了酒、知道小兒子向他所作的事、就說、迦南當受咒詛、必給他弟兄作奴僕(‘ebed badim) 的奴僕。」(創9:24-25)

含 (Ham) 是挪亞的次子；他有有四個兒子 (創10:6):

• 古實(Cush)
• 麥西 (Mizraim）
• 弗 (Put)
• 迦南 (Canaan) – 只有他是咒詛的对象。

挪亞宣布的咒詛只針對迦南。而不是對迦南的弟兄。迦南是巴勒斯坦地區的居民的祖先。古實和弗可能是埃塞俄比亞 (Ethiopia) 人 和非洲黑人的祖先。

這個咒詛的應驗發生在約公元前1400年約書亞對迦南人的征服，以及波斯帝國對腓尼基和其他迦南人的征服。波斯人很可能是雅弗的兒子 瑪代 (Madai; 創10:2)  的後裔。這似乎是 ‘ebed 這個希伯來字在 “奴隸” 的意義上，在聖經中首次出現。所以創9:25中的「奴僕」是指在政治上的服從外國勢力，而不是指一種社会的合法制度。

在討論奴隸制在古代的道德地位之前, 我們必須承認，幾乎每個古代的民族都有奴隸制的實踐的歷史記錄: 埈及人, 蘇美爾人(Sumerians), 巴比倫人, 亞述人, 腓尼基 (Phoenicians), 叙利亚人, 摩押人,亞捫人, 以東人, 希臘人, 羅馬人, 等。中國历史中也有奴隸的記載，但似乎没有「奴隸制」的社会階級觀念。奴隸制在古代西方文化中是不可分割的一部分。 奴隸在商業, 稅收, 寺廟服務等各方面上都有甚佳的表现。

當時的社會良知並沒有「認為奴隸制是錯」的想法。直至人們醒覺到「人有天賦的尊嚴」。這種醒覺，源於聖經的教導，就是，人是照著上帝的形象創造的。隨着基督教的文化滲透到世界上，人們才開始批評奴隸制，並質疑奴隸制的存在權，從而出現了強烈的社會情緒。尤其是盛行美國的人杈運動。據我們所知，沒有在任何基督教以外的文化可以找到有類似的廢除奴隸激情。

根據摩西律法，奴僕服役六年後, 主人必須釋放他們，不能讓他們終生為奴，除非他們因對主人的愛，自願選擇繼續這樣做下去 (出21:2-7) 。聖經因歷史文化之故，没有明文要求廢除奴隸，但上帝对奴隸是滿有憐悯的。

從另一角度来看，我們常常把奴僕視為貶詞。其實在某些情況下，奴僕是受到極大的尊重的。例如，貴族通常被稱為他們國王的 “僕人”，這是一個榮譽的稱號。保羅將自己稱為耶穌基督的奴隸。

新約教導我們，當一個奴僕成為基督徒後，自由的基督徒應把他當作主內的弟兄看待，他們可以一同作上帝國度的繼承人。另一方面，聖經吩咐基督徒奴僕，要存恭敬的心和懷著正確的善意，忠心侍奉他們地上的主人，如同事奉主一搬 (弗6:5-8)：「你們作僕人的、要懼怕戰兢、用誠實的心聽從你們肉身的主人、好像聽從基督一般。不要只在眼前事奉、像是討人喜歡的、要像基督的僕人、從心裡遵行　神的旨意．甘心事奉、好像服事主、不像服事人。因為曉得各人所行的善事、不論是為奴的、是自主的、都必按所行的得主的賞賜。」

這不是說他們不應該爭取他們的自由。聖經這樣教導, 「你是作奴隸蒙召的麼、不要因此憂慮．若能以自由、就求自由更好。」(林前7:21) 。然而，聖經中關於人作為「按照上帝的形象塑造」的個體的概念是固有的，在上帝揀選的計劃中，人是天堂的候選人。條件不在乎膚色，社會地位，財富，學位，乃在乎人的悔改與對神的委身。

反對奴隸是一個動態的歷史過程。首先在基督教世界中得到體現，看看美國的獨立宣言，其中的一段話：「我們認為這些真理 (指人有神的形象) 是不言而喻的，人人生而平等，造物主賦予他們某些不可剝奪的權利，其中包括生命權、自由權和追求幸福的權利。(Note) 」這豈不是基督教的語言嗎？然後，其他宗教和文化在基督教的榜樣下感到蒙羞，以至在它們各自在自己的領域內廢除奴隸，最終讓上帝的終極旨意得以實現。

Note:  We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.