问答与回应:路德会对改革宗限定救赎论的批判

因为冬天已往:2016年12月4日的主日证道是对女牧师一次比较彻底全面的否定了。但是绝大部分女牧师和她们的支持者只会更恨我们,更刚硬。但我相信,会有越来越多的真正的基督徒离开那些如此公开违背圣经教导的假教会。特别反讽的是《芝加哥圣经无误宣言》的签署者们。相当一部分人一边宣告圣经每一个字句都是正确无误的,都必须无条件信守;另一边她们就是女牧师,或者女牧师的支持者。所以表面上宣告“唯独圣经”是没有意义的,加尔文主义在这方面最高调,但他们弯曲圣经已经成了痼疾,人见人厌。另外我整理了路德教会关于普世救恩论的教义和Pieper对加尔文主义的批判,烦请不寐之夜转发:

We believe that the Scriptures teach that God’s grace in Christ Jesus is universal, embracing all people of all times and all places. There is no sin for which Christ has not died. Says the Formula of Concord (1577),”We must by all means cling rigidly and firmly to the fact that as the proclamation of repentance extends over all men (Luke 24:47), so also does the promise of the Gospel . . . . Christ has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29)” (FC SD XI, 28). Therefore, there need be no question in any sinner’s mind whether Christ has died for each and every one of his or her personal sins.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord XI. Election

28] Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47. For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ’s command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.

路德教会神学家F.Pieper对加尔文教义的严厉批判(均摘自Pieper的Christian Dogmatics)

Universal Grace

Justifying grace is universal (gratia universalis). The unmerited favor and love of God in Christ Jesus extends not merely to some (the elect), but to all men without exception. Gratia Dei salvifica erga homines lapsos non particularism sed universalis est. This paramount truth Scripture teaches in all passages in which it declares a) that Christ is the Savior of the whole world, of all men, John 3, 16 ; 1, 29 ; 1 John 2, 2 ; 1 Tim. 2, 4 ; Titus 2, 11 ; b) that God earnestly desires that each individual person be saved, 2 Pet. 3,9; Ezek. 33, 11; 18,23.32; c) that salvation has been secured even for those who reject the grace of God and are thus lost on account of their unbelief, Matt. 23, 37 ; Acts 7, 51 ; 1 Cor. 8, 11 ;2 Pet. 2, 1.The universality of divine grace is denied by all who limit the purpose and efficacy of divine grace to the elect (particularism, gratia particularis) .

These errorists may be divided into three groups: a) Supralapsarians: God decreed to create some to damnation; b) Infralapsarians: God decreed to leave some in the state of damnation into which they had fallen through their own fault (praeteritio) ; c) Amyraldists: God indeed offers grace to all, but bestows faith only upon the elect.

Every form of particularism is anti-Scriptural, being based upon the fallacy that, since not all men are actually saved, God does not desire the salvation of all. Misled by their error, all particularists claim that the term world (John 3, 16; 1, 29) signifies “the elect,” and they substitute for God’s universal counsel of grace (1 Tim. 2,4) a voluntas signi, in opposition to which stands His voluntas beneplaciti. That is to say, God indeed wishes to save all men according to that will which He has revealed in Scripture (voluntas signi, the revealed will) ; but by His secret will (voluntas beneplaciti, the will of His purpose), which is not revealed in Scripture, He wishes to save only the elect.

According to Calvinistic doctrine, God, in the final analysis, is the cause why some are not saved, while Scripture expressly teaches that those who are not saved perish through their unbelief, or rejection of divine grace, Luke 7, 30 ; Acts 13, 46 ; 7, 51 ; Matt. 23, 37. Charles Hodge writes : “It cannot be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not intend to effect. … If all men are not saved, God never purposed their salvation and never devised, and put into operation, means designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God.” (Systematic Theol., II, 323.)

In order to support the doctrine of particularism, the Synod of Dort (1618 — 19) declared that God can never be resisted whenever He earnestly offers His grace to men (irresistible grace). But also this doctrine is anti-Scriptural ; for Scripture affirms that the operation of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel can be resisted, Acts 7, 51; Matt. 23, 37, though the operation is itself one of divine power, Eph. 1, 19. 20. As in the realm of grace God can be resisted when He works through means, so also in the realm of nature ; for life, which is originated and sustained alone by divine omnipotence, Acts 17, 28, can nevertheless be destroyed by feeble man. God indeed cannot be resisted when He deals with man in His sovereign majesty (Luther: in nuda maiestate, Matt. 25, 31 ff.); but when He approaches man through means, resistance on his part is always possible.

If the objection is raised that God becomes the cause of a sinner’s damnation at least in eases where He hardens his heart (cf. the divine judgment of obduration), we reply that according to Scripture God very earnestly offers His grace even to those who harden their hearts, Rom. 10, 21 ; Ex. 5, Iff. The divine judgment of obduration is never absolute or arbitrary; God hardens only those who first have hardened themselves by resisting His Word And will, Rom. 11, 7. 20.

……

Holy Scripture sets forth most emphatically the sola gratia and the universalis gratia; that is to say, sinners are saved solely by grace, and divine grace desires the salvation of all sinners. This being true, the question arises: “Why, then, are not all men saved ?” The proposed explanation that the difference lies in men (aliquid discrimen in homine), since some are better than others, is most strenuously denied by God’s Word, which declares that all men by nature are in the same guilt (in eadem culpa). Rom. 3, 22 — 24: “For there is no difference ; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

With the same emphasis Holy Scripture denies also the Calvinistic explanation that God has eternally predetermined some to damnation. Hence it is clear that Holy Scripture does not answer the question Cur alii, alii nonf This does not mean that Holy Scripture does not give us any information with regard to the question of salvation and damnation. It tells us clearly that, if sinners are saved, they are saved solely by grace and that, if they are lost, they are lost through their own fault. Nevertheless, when we compare two individual sinners, as David and Saul, or Peter and Judas, and ask, “Why was the one saved and the other not?” (Cur alii prae aliisf), this question remains unanswered. Nor is it proper for the Christian theologian to endeavor to answer the question ; for in that case he must draw on human reason to decide what is properly a matter of divine revelation. Attempts to solve the particular point in question have resulted either in Calvinism, the denial of universal grace, or in synergism, the denial of grace alone. But the Christian theologian must affirm both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia. In the system of Christian doctrine therefore lacunae, or doctrinal “missing links,” must be admitted, as St. Paul himself declares when he writes : “We know in part, and we prophesy in part,” 1 Cor. 13, 9. The Christian theologian must know and teach in part only, that is, only as the divine truths which he is to inculcate are clearly set forth in Holy Scripture.

……

The doctrine of election will be treated at greater length under its proper head. Here we refer to it only inasmuch as it belongs to the eternal decrees of God. But in passing, we may say that from the eternal decree of predestination there must be excluded every form of synergism (denial of the sola gratia) and every form of Calvinism (denial of the gratia universalis). For this reason we affirm a) God did not choose the elect in view of their faith (intuitu fidei), and b) God did not predestinate any one to damnation, but earnestly desires all men to be saved (vocatio seria). The apparent discrepancy between particular election (electio particularis) and universal grace (gratia universaiis) we acknowledge as a mystery, which is indeed beyond reason, but which we should neither criticize nor try to explain. All attempts to harmonize the two doctrines have resulted either in synergism (the elect were chosen in view of their better conduct, which is opposed to Eom. 3, 22. 23) or in Calvinism (God does not desire to save all, which is opposed to John 3, 16 ; 2 Cor. 5, 19. 20 ; 2 Pet. 3, 9 ; Acts 17, 30; 1 Tim. 4, 2). The Formula of Concord rightly says: “However, since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom and has revealed nothing to us concerning it in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thoughts, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Eom. 11, 33 ff., we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us.” (Thor.Decl., XI, 55.)

Dr. A. L. Graebner summarizes the decree of predestination as follows: “The decree of predestination is an eternal act of God (Eph. 1, 4 ; 3, 11 ; 2 Tim. 1, 9 ; 2 Thess. 2, 13), who for His goodr nestf sake (2 Tim. 1, 9; Rom. 9, 11; 11, 5) and because of the merit of the foreordained Redeemer of all mankind (Eph. 1, 4; 3,11) purposed to lead into everlasting life (Acts 13,48; 2 Tim. 2,10; Eom. 8, 28. 29), by the way and means of salvation designated for all mankind (Eph. 1, 4. 5 ; 1 Pet. 1, 2), a certain number (Acts 13,48; Matt. 20, 16; 22,14) of certain persons (2 Tim. 2, 19 ; John 13, 18) and to procure, work, and promote what would pertain to their final salvation (Rom. 8, 30 ; Eph. 1, 11 ; 3, 10. 11 ; Mark 13, 20. 22).” {Outlines of Doctrinal Theology, § 51.)

……

Also with respect to the heathen we must maintain the gratia universalis because Holy Scripture includes all men in the gracious counsel of salvation. To deny the clear Scripture-teaching of universal grace because many heathen have never received the Gospel of salvation is an offense against the very divine grace which has enriched the world with the saving truth, Mark 16, 15. 16 ; Matt. 28, 19. On the basis of Scripture we therefore believe that God’s gracious will extends to the heathen also, though actually thousands of them perish without the Gospel. Nor are we to assume that the heathen are saved without the divinely appointed means of grace, Eph. 2, 12, since Holy Scripture teaches that the means of grace (the Word and the Sacraments) are appointed for the salvation of all sinners, Mark 16, 15. 16 ; Matt. 28, 19. 20. The opinion that the heathen may be converted after death is anti-Scriptural, Heb. 9, 27. The passage 1 Pet. 3, 18 ff. does not treat of salvation possible after death, but of the condemnation of those who during their life on earth refused to accept the saving Word of God.

……

Against Calvinism. Calvinism teaches persistently that it is impossible for those who have once been endowed with faith to lose it again, even if they should commit enormous crimes (peccata enormia). Its claim is that, while the exercise of faith (exercitium fidei) may cease, faith itself never ceases. Calvin: Tenendum est, quantumvis exigua sit ac debilis in electis fides, quia tamen Spiritus Dei certa Mis arrha est ac sigillum suae adop- tionis, nunquam ex eorum cordibus deleri posse eius scvlpturam.

{Inst., II, 2, 12.)

The doctrine of the inamissibility of faith is taught by the Calvinists to remove the uncertainty which the individual Eeformed believer must feel with respect to his state of grace in view of the fact that he dare not believe in universal grace (gratia universalis).

Luther, on the other hand, who affirmed the gratia universalis, taught also the Scriptural doctrine of the amissibility of faith, 1 Cor. 10, 12; Luke 8, 13; Is. 1, 2. • The Augsburg Confession (Art. XII) teaches: “They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost.” Those who were troubled about their state of grace, Luther comforted with the gracious promises of God in Christ Jesus, revealed and offered in the Gospel to all sinners, Titus 2, 11, and not with any “past or present experience of Christ’s presence and indwelling in the heart/’ as the Calvinists do.

Luther’s method alone is Scriptural; for not only does the Gospel truly comfort all alarmed sinners, but it is also the divine means by which those who have fallen from grace may be restored to faith in Christ, Rom. 10, 17. It goes without saying that all who deny the gratia universalis are unable to console despairing sinners with the gracious Gospel promises. Since they teach particular grace (gratia particularis), it is impossible for them to assure the individual sinner that God’s grace is seriously meant for him. By a fortunate inconsistency the practise of Calvinistic preachers is often better than is their theory.

……

It is true, Calvinism speaks of the Word and the Sacraments also as “signs,” “symbols,” etc., of divine grace (signa, symbola, tesserae, sigilla; Conf. Helv., II, c. 19; Conf. Belgica, Art. 33). But as long as it holds that divine grace is particular and that the same signs may be “signs of salvation” and “signs of condemnation,” the believer must forever remain in doubt regarding his state of grace, since he cannot determine whether the signum or sigillum in his case means salvation or damnation. Hence he is obliged to put his hope for salvation in the interior illuminatio, or in the inward illumination of his heart; and that, after all, is nothing else than the gratia infusa.

However, the case is still more serious. The Calvinistic denial of universal grace and of the Scriptural doctrine of the means of grace destroys also the Scriptural doctrine of saving faith and saving grace. A faith that does not rely solely on the gracious promises of the Gospel is not true faith in the sense of Scripture, but only a mere fancy (Einbildung). According to the express teaching of the Bible saving faith is engendered through the preaching of the Gospel and consists essentially in reliance upon the Gospel promises, Eom. 10, 17; Mark 1, 15; 16, 15. 16. Every other kind of trust is confidence in a man-made foundation and therefore a fictitious faith.

But right here Calvinism and Bomanism meet to disavow the Scripture doctrine of saving faith. Bomanism, on account of its rejection of the sola gratia, is forced to trust in infused grace (gratia infusa, t. e., sanctification, good works) for salvation; Calvinism, on account of its rejection of the gratia universalis, is likewise compelled to trust in sanctification for assurance of salvation (interior illuminatio). Romanism makes the mistake of claiming that divine grace is infused into the sinner ex opere operate), or without faith on the part of man; Calvinism makes the equally great mistake of teaching that the Holy Spirit works regeneration or faith immediately, or without the means of grace. The departure from Scripture in either case is evident and, consistently maintained, makes saving faith impossible, since it assigns to it a false foundation, sc. gratia Dei in nobis, or the sanctified heart.

However, saving faith and saving grace are correlatives, and he who perverts the one is bound to pervert also the other. As Romanism and Calvinism pervert the doctrine of saving faith by resting faith upon a good quality in man, so they also pervert the doctrine of saving grace (gratia salvifica). Both regard saving grace not as God’s gracious disposition toward the sinner for Christ’s sake (Dei favor gratuitus), but rather as God’s gracious sanctifying operation in the heart, known in the one case as gratia infusa (Romanism) and in the other as interior illuminatio (Calvinism).

This is true despite the fact that many Reformed theologians expressly state that the object of the sinner’s trust is the Dei favor gratuitus. What they teach in theory they retract in practise, especially whenever they are obliged to comfort a sinner who is alarmed about his state of grace. Since they deny universal grace and the objective reconciliation of the whole world through the death of Christ, they must point the sinner who is looking for assurance of salvation to divine grace as this is active in his heart, or to “the present experience of Christ’s presence and indwelling, corroborated by active service and purity of life” (Strong). For additional assurance they point, moreover, to the supposed fact that the Holy Ghost, once granted to the believer, can never be lost. But both these doctrines are man-made, and so the assurance of salvation derived from them is likewise man-made and therefore nugatory and vain.

……

And Calvinists differ from Lutherans not in maintaining the sola gratia, but in denying universal grace. But if the Christian believer, on the basis of Scripture, maintains both the gratia universalis and the sola gratia, then indeed the mystery remains : Why are some elected and others not ? ( Cur alii, alii nonf Cur alii prae aliisf) This mystery the true Christian believer does not try to solve since it belongs to God’s unsearchable judgments and His ways which are past finding out, Rom. 11, 33 — 36. But he keeps all his thoughts on the doctrines of eternal election, conversion, and salvation within the revealed teaching of Scripture : He who is saved is saved alone by grace ; he who is lost perishes through His own unbelief, Hos. 13, 9. Prom any attempt to solve the mystery which is involved in the doctrine of eternal election he will abstain all the more, since God’s Word tells him that he now knows in part, but that in heaven he shall know even as also he is known, 1 Cor. 13, 12.

平安。关于阿民念主义和加尔文主义,我上个主日证道中特别提到一个问题,放在这里与大家分享。人神合作说实际上就是肉身成道的异教,会摧毁基督徒的教会生活。这是人类文明的一个普遍现象。猪说:我比你圣洁。于是中国不需要教会,美国不去教会,甚至控告教会。而限定救恩论必然引领教会中选民对弃民的阶级斗争,这是教会内战进而也是人类内战的意识形态基础。双重预定与古代中国的君子小人说以及现代中国的阶级斗争学说一脉相承。因此 ,阿民念主义个加尔文主义两种人本主义教会都会变成吃人的邪教;因此,宗教改革同时是人类的改革。这不是我们的工作,这是圣灵的感动。愿主耶稣基督的恩惠,神的慈爱,圣灵的感动,常与你们众人同在。阿门。

1

亲爱的牧师,听你讲的杨乃武案件,我才知道这个事。看得流流满面。特别是看到器官移植方面的争论,更是窒息而恐惧。您能再为他和写几句话吗,谢谢。

平安。从1873到2016年,阔别143年再听到“平反冤假错案”这个“新闻”的时候,我有一点不忍心直视大清。实际上清人不知道怎样用手去接这旅行了7890天然后突然扔过来的包裹,官府和新闻正在闹市与尸体合影留念。蒙冤本是我的生活或我存在的意义;而除了上帝,我拒绝接受任何人类给我平反。复活之外绝无正义。多年前我为杨案写过一些文字,今天的文字却只有一个目的:“逃命吧。不可回头看”(创世纪19:17)。为此我讲四个理由,实际上也是扬案的四个未尽事宜。

1、巴力邪教

都这样了,仍然不肯悔改。阻挡悔改的至少有两大鬼魔的道理或龙的逻辑。第一、这是个别事件。这是灾民社会才可能形成的政治正确,用于遮盖内心的恐惧、对邻舍的冷血和对凶手的谄媚。圣经的道理与鬼魔的道理针锋相对:每一个人都以“个别”的方式存在;每一个生命在神面前看为宝贵,而且你自己就是个别的那人:“5流你们血,害你们命的,无论是兽,是人,我必讨他的罪,就是向各人的弟兄也是如此。6凡流人血的,他的血也必被人所流。因为神造人是照自己的形像造的”(创世纪9:5-6);“12一个人若有一百只羊,一只走迷了路,你们的意思如何。他岂不撇下这九十九只,往山里去找那只迷路的羊吗?13若是找着了,我实在告诉你们,他为这一只羊欢喜,比为那没有迷路的九十九只欢喜还大呢。14你们在天上的父,也是这样不愿意这小子里失丧一个”(马太福音18:12-14)。第二、平反证明了进步和正义不会迟到。这是一种巴力崇拜,他人生命悲剧成为一种政治合法性的见证。正如迦南人将儿女经火献给摩洛,好证明巴力是主(列王记下17:16-17)。事实上扬案只证明了一个事实:我们犯罪了。如果不认罪悔改,反过来以恶为美,就见证我们不过是咒诅之民:“祸哉,那些称恶为善,称善为恶,以暗为光,以光为暗,以苦为甜,以甜为苦的人”(以赛亚书5:20)。这就是问题的实质:“以人血建立锡安,以罪孽建造耶路撒冷”(弥迦书3:10);“以人血建城,以罪孽立邑的有祸了”(哈巴谷书2:12)。上述两种逻辑显示灵魂彻底败坏了,他们的心里没有神的爱。同时也显示,神仍然怜悯我们,因为按这样的罪孽,人本是不配活着的。但是,有谁感谢上帝呢。

2、该隐族谱

都这样了,没有人承担责任。或许追责真的启动了,但没有任何理由对真正的公义保持乐观。这是一位讼师提交的一份追责名单,足以让所有杨乃武们颤栗于权力恐怖主义的面前狼狈移民。惟愿权力恐怖不仅仅导致向西方的移民,也催逼罪人向天国移民。这是远东一份该隐家谱:时任直隶副总督、后在京畿任职的许某某,而拼死阻止此案平反的则是已落马的前直隶刑部张越;直隶司狱长平义杰,副职王毓恭,扬案一审司狱康平平,相关衙役建琴,张贵军,田丽,赵桂云,王振平,姜枫,郭连申,尚中华、焦辉广、张日强、杜同福、鲁嘉亮、陈勇、张建良、刘生吉、刘实臣,崔建江、鲁嘉亮、杨孟数、周建文、王建兵、吕修森、靳昌山等;证人余秀琴和王丽平……我个人对这份追责名单缺乏实证能力,复制在这里仅供参考。该隐家谱的起点是这样的:“9耶和华对该隐说,你兄弟亚伯在哪里?他说,我不知道,我岂是看守我兄弟的吗?10耶和华说,你作了什么事呢?你兄弟的血,有声音从地里向我哀告。11地开了口,从你手里接受你兄弟的血。现在你必从这地受咒诅。12你种地,地不再给你效力。你必流离飘荡在地上”(创世纪4:9-12)。问责并没有阻止该隐家族的败坏,到了第七代,“司法文明”进入万劫不复的绝境:“23拉麦对他两个妻子说,亚大,洗拉,听我的声音。拉麦的妻子,细听我的话语,壮年人伤我,我把他杀了。少年人损我,我把他害了。(或作我杀壮士却伤自己,我害幼童却损本身)24若杀该隐,遭报七倍。杀拉麦,必遭报七十七倍”(创世纪4:23-24)。这为大洪水的审判提供的基本的背景:“4那时候有伟人在地上,后来神的儿子们和人的女子们交合生子,那就是上古英武有名的人。5耶和华见人在地上罪恶很大,终日所思想的尽都是恶。6耶和华就后悔造人在地上,心中忧伤……11世界在神面前败坏,地上满了强暴。12神观看世界,见是败坏了。凡有血气的人,在地上都败坏了行为。13神就对挪亚说,凡有血气的人,他的尽头已经来到我面前。因为地上满了他们的强暴,我要把他们和地一并毁灭”(创世纪6:4-13)。但是有一条方舟,停泊在今夜。冷月清辉,初雪荒寒。孩子,你在哪里。

3、圣诞故事

民间问责开始覆盖了大清政治官报盲点访谈及其主持人敬妃妃,以及翰林院叫兽红道德。邸报和砖家在小雷子案件中扮演了同样的角色,于是国耻卡通化,一览无余。肉体消灭之外,还有舆论侮辱,以及做假见证陷害人。杀人和说谎是魔鬼不可分割的两大品质,耶稣就曾这样揭示法利赛人和他们祖宗的诸般罪孽。这里有两个视频,都出于邸报,时间跨度仅仅一年之半(略,可搜素查看)。在某种意义上,暴力和谎言正是圣诞的背景。首先是希律王的谎言:“7当下希律暗暗地召了博士来,细问那星是什么时候出现的。8就差他们往伯利恒去,说,你们去仔细寻访那小孩子。寻到了,就来报信,我也好去拜他”(马太福音2:7-8)。希律是在光天化日之下向全世界(东方博士)以及全体臣民公然说谎,希律从未悔改。其次就是屠婴暴力:“希律见自己被博士愚弄,就大大发怒,差人将伯利恒城里,并四境所有的男孩,照着他向博士仔细查问的时候,凡两岁以里的,都杀尽了”(马太福音2:16)。在某种意义上,杨案是圣诞故事的一部:耶稣基督降生在希律依靠暴力和谎言而作王的世界。圣诞带入救赎的盼望,直到今天。谁来安慰母亲呢?“在拉玛听见号啕大哭的声音,是拉结哭她儿女,不肯受安慰,因为他们都不在了”(马太福音2:18)。对扬母的任何人本主义的安慰都是谎言的第二次伤害。2016年的圣诞节就要到了,只有那个婴孩,带来了上帝对我们人类尚未绝望的信息。

4、他的肾呢

后来有人说杨乃武小白蔡还活着,至少他们的器官还活着;网络争吵杨葛之肾可能还活在某位嫔妃的身体里。从严从快和冰天雪地为网民提供了更为惨烈的想象空间。古代中国有四大发明:殉葬、凌迟、小脚(妻妾成群)、腐败封建制(郡县制与大一统)。随着科学的进步,我们又看见了第五大发明:夺肾……近年的进展可以参考以下文献: ……特别值得强调的是附录的文件……读每一个字,好痛!身体和灵魂正在被切割。肾在哪里,按依法治国的基本逻辑说,真相近在咫尺,唾手可得。只是我今天要向太平洋两岸转述另外一个真相;不是象征,而是事实。耶稣说:这是我的身体,为你们舍的(马太福音26:26;马可福音14:22;路加福音22:19;哥林多前书11:24);于是,“惟有一个兵拿枪扎他的肋旁,随即有血和水流出来”(约翰福音19:34)。已经成全的咒诅和救赎,在东方和世界仍然是未尽事宜。2017年即将开始,亲爱的弟兄姐妹,我的骨肉之亲,“你们要看见一个婴孩,包着布,卧在马槽里,那就是记号了”(路加福音2:12)。阿门。

附录1:1984年10月09日《关于利用死刑罪犯尸体或尸体器官的暂行规定》

各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院、人民检察院、公安厅(局)、司法厅(局)、卫生厅(局)、民政厅(局):

随着我国医学事业的发展,一些医疗、医学教育、医学科研单位为进行科学研究或做器官移植手术,提出了利用死刑罪犯尸体或尸体器官的要求。为了支持医学事业的发展,有利于移风易俗,在严格执行法律规定、注意政治影响的前提下,对利用死刑罪犯的尸体或尸体器官问题,特作规定如下:

一、对判处死刑立即执行的罪犯,必须按照刑法有关规定,“用枪决的方法执行”。执行完毕,经临场监督的检察员确认死亡后,尸体方可做其他处理。

二、死刑罪犯执行后的尸体或火化后的骨灰,可以允许其家属认领。

三、以下几种死刑罪犯尸体或尸体器官可供利用:

1.无人收殓或家属拒绝收殓的;

2.死刑罪犯自愿将尸体交医疗卫生单位利用的;

3.经家属同意利用的。

四、利用死刑罪犯尸体或尸体器官,应按下列规定办理:

1.利用单位必须具备医学科学研究或移植手续的技术水平和设备条件,经所在省、市、自治区卫生厅(局)审查批准发给《特许证》,并到本市或地区卫生局备案。

2.尸体利用统一由市或地区卫生局负责安排,根据需要的轻重缓急和综合利用原则,分别同执行死刑的人民法院和利用单位进行联系。

3.死刑执行命令下达后,遇有可以直接利用的尸体,人民法院应提前通知市或地区卫生局,由卫生局转告利用单位,并发给利用单位利用尸体的证明,将副本抄送负责执行死刑的人民法院和负责临场监督的人民检察院。利用单位应主动同人民法院联系,不得延误人民法院执行死刑的法定时限。

对需征得家属同意方可利用的尸体,由人民法院通知卫生部门同家属协商,并就尸体利用范围、利用后的处理方法和处理费用以及经济补偿等问题达成书面协议。市或地区卫生局根据协议发给利用单位利用尸体的证明,并抄送有关单位。

死刑罪犯自愿将尸体交医疗单位利用的,应有由死刑罪犯签名的正式书面证明或记载存人民法院备查。

4.利用死刑罪犯尸体或尸体器官要严格保密,注意影响,一般应在利用单位内部进行。确有必要时,经执行死刑的人民法院同意,可以允许卫生部门的手术车开到刑场摘取器官,但不得使用有卫生部门标志的车辆,不准穿白大衣。摘取手术未完成时,不得解除刑场警戒。

5.尸体被利用后,由火化场协助利用单位及时火化;如需埋葬或做其他处理的,由利用单位负责;如有家属要求领取骨灰的,由人民法院通知家属前往火化场所领取。

五、在汉族地区原则上不利用少数民族死刑罪犯的尸体或尸体器官。

在少数民族聚居地区,执行本规定时,要尊重少数民族的丧葬习惯。

附录2:相关视频,仅供参考

(1)2015年4月30日焦点访谈

http://news.cntv.cn/2015/04/30/VIDE1430395342070128.shtml(可能已经无法观看)

http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10326/1d1d7aa98fbc43db901dd896ef1e17cd

(2)2016年12月12日法治封面

http://tv.cctv.com/2016/12/02/VIDE1XUdieCr0owbFjnKjwgE161202.shtml

(3)2015年1月11日面对面

http://tv.cntv.cn/video/C10359/a9023ab6c56643d28de2b16f69ecc48d

2

不知任牧听说过齐宏伟这个人吗?这个人写了很多的书,你怎么看这个人和他写的书。弟兄敬上。

平安。齐宏伟弟兄也算故人,他也是新语文的编委之一。人还算正派,至少与新语文部分编委比起来更不像伪君子和吃人犯。以前我调侃过他:靠文学小品和讲故事布道的人。近年听说他也极端加尔文主义了。按我的经验,极端加尔文主义者难免沦为邪教徒。愿他一路好走。

3

迪基格斯:想听听博主关于『清教徒精神』这个话题的看法,身边流行太广泛了,可是又感觉哪里有点问题。

平安。首先,清教徒精神不等于美国精神。其次,清教徒精神显然是被夸大了,他们不是什么属灵伟人,这是一个学术神话。按圣经的常识,他们最多是蒙恩的罪人。神曾指着以色列选民说:你们得救不是因为你们的义,而是因为我特定爱你们;而是因为他们的恶。再次,中国教会和知识分子对清教徒精神的神化,主要来自改革宗的鹦鹉们。因为他们乐意将加尔文视为清教精神之父;而且他们基本的信仰就是加尔文的双重预定论:“他们相信得救预选说,认为上帝早已预定哪些人可以得救,哪些人会被投入地狱的永火里。后来,清教徒的传教士开始传讲劝人悔改的信息。18世纪的牧师乔纳森·爱德华兹曾发表一个演讲,讲题是:‘落在愤怒之神手中的罪人’。他把地狱描述得实在太骇人了,令信众惶恐不安、心神烦乱,以至他们需要其他牧师的抚慰”(维基)。另外,在神学上,清教徒大多数持社会福音的立场,并且对教会真理缺乏基本的尊重和理解。他们的的确确是分离主义者,实际上奉行“猪学”的逻辑:我比你圣洁。在我看来,他们从起初就没有将美国教会建立了纯正的真理根基上,“美国衰落”到今天,清教徒难辞其咎。

4

任牧您好!我是一个住在美东的姐妹。最近半年迷上CSMP 的课程。非常感动 经常听的泪流满面。想知道您可以介绍一些儿童或青少年的读物给孩子们吗?除了CS Lewis 仿佛不知道什么别的了。非常感谢。Blessings,Helen

平安。谢谢您的关注。首先我还是建议您坚持给孩子讲圣经。要相信孩子领受圣言的能力,因为神将圣经赐给人类,不仅是赐给大人,也是赐给我们的孩子。不要被世俗教育学欺骗,以至于孜孜以求“适合孩子的福音读物”。这是教牧书信两节特别重要的经文,供你参考,也请普天下的父母参考:提摩太后书1:5,“想到你心里无伪之信。这信是先在你外祖母罗以,和你母亲友尼基心里的。我深信也在你的心里”;提摩太后书3:15,“并且知道你是从小明白圣经。这圣经能使你因信基督耶稣有得救的智慧”。所以建议你和孩子制定一个亲子读经计划,坚持下去,必然蒙福。当然,主日学课程还是需要的,只是我看不到特别好的教材。所以我们开始着手编写这方面的教材,盼望不久以后能完成。求主帮助。

5

任牧师:您好!我是之前在博客上跟您留言的那位。请问您在国内授课的书面教材(利未记精读,旧约导论,新约导论等)如何获取,需要付费么?如何付费?获取的教材主要用于本教会的查经和学习。谢谢!

平安。这些讲章的文字还没有完全整理完成。我个人盼望在提摩太书信结束之后能有时间交稿。

6

仰望恩典:不寐牧师平安:有一个问题向您请教,您在解读创世记3:1的时候说魔鬼的第一重试探就是“神岂是真说”,您说这是怀疑主义。我的问题是,如果这句经文说的是“神岂是真说不许你们吃分别善恶树的果子吗?”那么这个怀疑主义的逻辑非常清晰。但是这句话是“神岂是真说不许你们吃园中所有树上的果子吗?”魔鬼首先精心编造了一个谬论,并宣称是神说的,然后煞有介事的去质疑。魔鬼真的很狡猾,我有点猜不透牠葫芦里卖的什么药,似乎并非单单怀疑主义那么简单。不知您对这节经文有没有更多的解读?谢谢您,愿神祝福您。+不寐牧师您好:我注意到,正如保罗追溯到创世记说:“13因为先造的是亚当,后造的是夏娃。14且不是亚当被引诱,乃是女人被引诱,陷在罪里。”而且第15节“然而女人若常存信心爱心,又圣洁自守,就必在生产上得救。”与创3:16“……我必多多加增你怀胎的苦楚,你生产儿女必多受苦楚。……”也有呼应的关系。或许可以说神要将女人从起初的那个咒诅中拯救出来。夏娃生产的苦楚一方面可能在于生理上的疼痛;另一方面更在于,她所寄予厚望的长子该隐成为了杀人犯,杀死了自己的另一个儿子亚伯。女人的得救或许在于,因着她的归正,该隐被更新为提摩太(提后1:5)。只是生产时生理上的疼痛依然被保留下来,正如男人汗流满面才得糊口的重担也被保留下来一样。不知我这样理解是否正确?

平安。这是路德的名言:所有异端邪教都源出“神岂是真说”。有的时候我们只是摘要“神岂是真说”这句话,也是提喻创世纪3:1-6整段魔鬼与夏娃的对话。你的敏感是对的,“岂是真说”后面的每一句话都非常险恶,那些蛇言都是“岂是真说”的一部分。实际上我曾在一篇讲章中谈到过魔鬼的三句话指向了人类三大文明主流:泛神论怀疑主义(神岂是真说);无神论相对主义(不一定死);人神论人本主义(你们便如神)。另外我非常感动你对“夏娃产难”的看见,只是我祈祷那用复活安慰马利亚的神,也安慰普天下的母亲:“西面给他们祝福,又对孩子的母亲马利亚说,这孩子被立,是要叫以色列中许多人跌倒,许多人兴起。又要作毁谤的话柄。叫许多人心里的意念显露出来。你自己的心也要被刀刺透”(路加福音2:34);“这些人,同着几个妇人,和耶稣的母亲马利亚,并耶稣的弟兄,都同心合意地恒切祷告”(使徒行传1:14)。我正计划下一届CSMP课程开讲创世纪,会进一步详细解释这段至关重要的信息。请为我和我们祷告,and also with you。

7

误会弟兄2016-12-07 21:03:13说:最近一则新闻刷爆了华人的微信圈,这则新闻隐含了基督教的背景。虽然事件的余波仍在扩散中,但事件的基本事实已经结束。当事人名叫罗尔,是一位在基督教深圳堂受洗的弟兄。他曾在回应某些人时说过,“宏扬基督教精神”发起募的目的之一。 (见下页) 任牧师愿意的话,恳请在主里给予指导的意见。这起“罗尔事件”按照任牧的一贯的教导,应该定性为吃人事件。也就是说,这是一起正在发生的吃人事件;更具体地说,(至少在表面上)是一起外邦华人以一位基督教弟兄为大餐的饕餮狂欢。不知道事件的后续会不会波及基督教,或是以怎样的方式波及基督教。 对这样一位弟兄,应该持怎样的态度?踏上一只脚,与众人同分一杯羹;或是划清界线,分别为圣,以免玷污了基督的身体;还是向他展露“圣母马利亚”的笑容,送去贴心的温暖? 若是有外邦人谈起罗尔事件,问及基督救人的福音,该如何回应?这个问题,对于藐视福音的人,自可随机应变予以回击;如果是慕道友呢? 如果(假设性的场景)罗尔是任牧教会的一位弟兄,您会怎样处置呢?

平安。草草浏览了相关信息,我的感想如下,仅供参考。

第一、我很难将罗尔的行动定义为“情感经济”或“宏扬基督教精神”,任何极端的结论都不诚实,更可能是魔鬼的谎言。对(罪)人的评论,对人间事件的评论,援用至真至善至美的标准,都可能是魔鬼的谎言;何况评论者自己以及评论动机从未至真至善至美。

第二、重病室(ICU)中罗一笑以及医疗费恐慌,应该问责“第二大经经济体”。公民及其子女丧失医疗保障是大国的国耻。当然,普遍存在的医疗恐慌也是激发网民感同身受奉献爱心的原因之一。

第三、舆论暴力是霾国的传统,无论从公知还是从教会或者网民射来的冷箭与石头,需要这种医治:对人的软弱多一点宽容。罗尔就是一个罪人,不比我们高尚,也未必比我们更卑鄙。不仅如此,极端“舆情”需要反省自己的罪恶,热病和痢疾常常源出嫉妒、贪婪和淫者见淫,只是撒旦愿意在别人的事故中向公众的罪人扮演光明的天使和事后诸葛亮。

第四、“作为基督徒的罗尔”我一无所知,仅凭他的只言片语和对事件的情绪性反应,可以说他的天路还没有开始。罗尔仍在积货城,就是比东和兰塞以及深圳或北上广深汗流满面地搬砖偷瓦。

第五、人言从始至终是粪土,成也人言,败也人言,这场舌头的盛宴应该是罗尔的信仰启蒙功课。神说,蛇说,人说;只有道成肉身的耶稣是道路、真理和生命。从其他路上进去的都是贼。

无论如何,这是一个以京剧为国粹的国家:罪人将罪人脸谱化是一种民族习性,论断人在这里卡通或幼稚老道为“铁面无私”和“怒发冲冠”。但上帝怜悯每一个生命,包括那个5岁的孩子,和舆论风暴中的每一个人。没有人是上帝,但每个人应该仰望神的怜悯。愿主基督的怜悯继续带领我们。阿门。

任不寐,2016年12月6-7日

发表评论

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。