240114 XZSex 10 性別性向同性戀：認信基礎02

有弟兄姊妹支持，新福才有能力分享資源。若您受益於新福網路事工，我們邀請您為新莊改革宗福音教會奉獻：「台灣基督教改革宗協會」華南銀行新店分行 (008) 166-10-005656-4。海外奉獻 PayPal: [email protected] 。索取繳稅憑單請來信 [email protected] 謝謝您。

240114新福主日學：性別性向同性戀：認信基礎02高阿丹 參考文件：2020 PCA Ad Interim Committee On Human Sexuality： https://pcaga.org/aicreport/新福西敏信仰告白主日學課程： https://archive.org/details/@pulireformed?query=XZWCF+ 中文翻譯：高阿丹/新莊改革宗福音教會；使用中文版本請註明出處 CONFESSIONAL FOUNDATIONS REGARDING THE NATURE OF TEMPTATION, SIN, AND REPENTANCE 關於試探、罪、悔改本質的認信基礎II. APPLICATION TO CURRENT ISSUES 當前議題的應用 At the heart of much of our current concern is how to understand homosexual attraction in relation to the gospel and the Christian life. The doctrine we have described in the Westminster Confession of Faith shows the way forward on this question, enabling us to make several applications to the issue of same-sex attraction. To begin with, consider the question of concupiscence. The experience of homosexual attraction is an example of concupiscence. As with all other disordered desires, this attraction is contained in what is referred to in the Confession as our “corruption of nature…and all the motions thereof,” and is “truly and properly sin” (WCF 6.5). But that is just the beginning of what should be said. For the Confession says much more about the corruption of our nature than that it is sin. It relates it in a balanced and careful way to the reality of the Christian life. There are several implications of the Confession’s teaching that bear on the issue before us. But first, more must be said about concupiscence.我們當前關注的核心問題是：如何理解同性吸引與福音和基督徒生命之間的關係。

西敏告白敘述的教義指明我們在這個問題上的前進方向，使我們能夠在同性吸引議題上做出一些應用。首先，我們考慮情慾的問題。同性吸引的經歷就是一種情慾的經歷。與所有其它失序的慾望一樣，這種[同性]吸引也包含在西敏告白中所說之我們「本性的敗壞 ...... 本身以及其所引發的作為，都真真實實的是罪」（WCF 6.5）。但這僅僅是我們該說的話之起頭。因為西敏告白不僅僅說我們本性的敗壞是罪。告白以一種平衡而謹慎的方式處理這種基督徒生命之現實[情慾]。西敏告白的教導多方面影響我們如何思想當前面對的問題。但首先，我們必須對情慾有更詳細的闡述。

II.A. Importance of Concupiscence 情慾的重要性 Let’s start with asking the significance of the affirmation that concupiscence (i.e., our “corruption of nature…and all the motions thereof”) is “truly and properly sin.” Why is this important? The broadest answer to this question can be found by asking the historical question, “Why was it important to the Reformers?” How did the Protestant view differ from the Roman view and why? The Roman view is summarized in the Council of Trent’s decree on original sin:首先，讓我們問：確認情慾（就是我們「本性的敗壞 ...... 本身以及其所引發的作為」）「真真實實的是罪」有什麼重要？

為什麼重要？藉著提問歷史性的問題「這對宗教改革者有什麼重要？」，我們可得到一個廣義的答案。宗教改革者與羅馬天主教在此議題有什麼差異？為什麼有差異？

天特會議關於原罪的教令總結羅馬天主教[關於情慾]的立場： But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive [to sin]; which, since it is left for us to strive against, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary opinion, let him be anathema.30但本聖公會議宣認並深知，在受洗者身上仍有情慾，或[犯罪]的誘因；既然它留給我們去努力抵制，就不會傷害那些不同意、而靠著耶穌基督的恩典勇敢抵抗的人；是的，合法奮鬥的人必得冠冕。

使徒有時稱這情慾為罪，[但是]聖公會議宣布，天主教會從未認知而稱其為罪，就是在重生的人身上之真正和確實的罪，因為它關乎罪，並傾向於罪。如果有人持相反的觀點，那就讓他被咒詛吧30。

As this has often been summed up, the Council says that concupiscence is a result of sin and inclines to sin, but is not itself sin. The anathema is aimed at the Reformers. What was so important to the Reformers that they would be willing to make a sticking point of this doctrine and be anathematized by the Council?總而言之，天特會議指出，情慾是罪的後果，並傾向於罪，但情慾它本身並不是罪。

詛咒是針對宗教改革者。有什麼事對宗教改革者來說如此重要，以至於他們願意在這個教義上有所堅持，並受天特會議的詛咒？

The quotation from Trent above reveals one of the Reformers’ concerns. Trent declared, “This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin,…the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again,…” Here the decree refers to Paul’s language in Romans 5-8 from which the Church gets the language of indwelling sin and which all parties at the time associated with concupiscence. When the Reformers heard this part of the decree, they heard something like, “The Bible calls it sin, but we as the Church never have.” This touches on issues of authority and tradition that were key to the Reformation. Beyond the issue of authority itself, it was important to the Reformers that sin be defined by Scripture and by God’s Law, not by human experience, expedience, or tradition. If a motion or feeling arises in us that is in a direction contrary to the righteousness described in God’s Law, it is sin, the extent to which we think we consciously deliberated or decided upon it notwithstanding.31 The Reformers placed a high importance on the issue of Biblical authority and the defining of sin as any lack of conformity to God’s Law.32以上來自天特的引文正好表達宗教改革者的擔憂之一。

天特宣稱：「使徒有時稱這情慾為罪，[但是]聖公會議宣布，天主教會從未認知而稱其為罪，就是在重生的人身上之真正和確實的罪。」教令在此引用保羅在羅馬書第5-8章的措辭，就是教會論及內住罪用詞的來源，而當時各方都認知保羅這段經文關乎情慾。天特這部分的教令在宗教改革者的耳中成了：「儘管聖經稱它為罪，但我們教會卻從來沒有這樣說。」這正好觸及宗教改革的關鍵，就是關乎權威和傳統的問題。權威問題本身以外，宗教改革者最在乎的是，我們必須按照聖經和上帝的律法來定義罪，而非根據人的經驗、權宜之方便或傳統。

如果我們心中產生牴觸上帝律法所規範的公義之動作或感覺，這就是罪，不論我們自認可否或什麼程度有意識地思考或決定。31宗教改革者高度重視聖經的權威，並認定凡不符合上帝律法的就是罪。

32  But on this issue the concern went beyond sin to the gospel, beyond hamartiology to soteriology. Nineteenth-century Free Church of Scotland theologian and historian William Cunningham put it this way: “Scriptural views of the effects of the fall, and of the actual condition of men as fallen, firmly held and fully applied, are fitted to exert a most wholesome influence upon men’s whole conceptions of the way of salvation, and their whole impressions of divine things, and, indeed, are indispensable as a means to this end.” The Reformers were convinced that this was true regarding the question of concupiscence, and that the Roman view corresponded to serious errors in understanding the gospel. “Two of the most striking and dangerous tendencies or general characteristics of the theology of the Church of Rome are, first, exaggerating the efficacy and influence of external ordinances; and, secondly, providing for men meriting the favour of God and the rewards of heaven; and both these tendencies are exhibited in this single doctrine of the innocence or non-sinfulness of concupiscence.”33但在這個議題上，我們關注不只何為罪、更關心何為福音；我們不僅在乎犯罪論、更在意救恩論。

十九世紀蘇格蘭自由教會神學家和歷史學家威廉坎寧安（William Cunningham）說：「只要堅持和充分應用，聖經如何看待墮落的影響和人在墮落中的實際光景，就最有益地影響我們對救贖之道的整個概念以及對神聖事物的整體印象；事實上，[堅持和充分應用聖經看待罪的觀點]是達到這一目的必不可少之手段。」宗教改革者深信，這是正確處理情慾問題的看法，而羅馬天主教在這議題的觀點則反映對福音理解的嚴重錯誤。

「羅馬天主教會神學的兩個最顯著、最危險的傾向或一般特徵是：第一，誇大外在規範（ordinances）的功效和影響；第二，提供人賺取上帝恩寵和天國獎賞的途徑；這個視情慾無罪或非罪論的教義凸顯這兩個傾向。」

33 Cunningham’s perception of these tendencies in this doctrine is especially connected to the language of the Council of Trent that immediately precedes the direct mention of concupiscence: 坎寧安對這一教義中這些傾向的見解，特別與天特會議直接論及情慾之前的措辭有關： If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that all that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only erased, or not imputed,—let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, God hates nothing, because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new one, who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard them from entrance into heaven.34如果有人否認，因著我們主耶穌基督在洗禮中賜予的恩典，原罪的罪咎得到了赦免；甚至斷言，沒有除去所有真正和確實具有罪性的東西，而只是說它被抹去了，或沒有歸算，那就讓他受詛咒吧。

因為在那些重生的人身上，上帝什麼也不憎恨，因為那些藉著洗禮真正與基督一同埋葬在死亡中的人不被定罪；他們不按肉體而行，而是脫去舊人，穿上按上帝所造的新人，成為無罪的、無暇的、純潔的、無害的、蒙上帝所愛的人，確實是上帝的後嗣，與基督同為後嗣；因此，沒有任何東西可阻礙他們進入天堂。

34  The significance of this quotation is Trent’s description of what is done to “all that which has the true and proper nature of sin.” The Council opposed those who would deny that it is taken away, but only say that it is erased and not imputed. The Reformers saw in this a gospeldestroying shift from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to a confidence in our own. Though reference is made to Romans 8:1, the righteousness that Trent describes as belonging to the Christian is not imputed and alien, but infused and inherent. To the Reformers this struck at the heart of the gospel. The Christian would be encouraged to rest in a righteousness within himself. The paragraph on concupiscence follows immediately, so as to say that though the experience of the pull of concupiscence was still there, the Christian was to believe that all sin was ontologically removed from him (therefore concupiscence must not be sin). The Reformers, however, stressed the importance of recognizing the ongoing presence of sinful concupiscence in the Christian precisely because it highlighted that the righteousness given is only and completely an imputation of that which is Christ’s. 這段引文重要性在於天特描述如何處理「所有真正和確實具有罪性的東西 」。

天特會議反對那些否認原罪被除去，只說原罪被抹去而不歸算為罪的人。宗教改革者從中觀察到一種破壞福音的轉變，即從基督之義的歸算轉變為對自己公義的信心。即使天特提到了羅馬書8章1節，但天特所形容屬於基督徒的義並不是歸算的、外來的（imputed and alien），而是注入的、繼承的（infused and inherent）。對宗教改革者來說，這正觸及福音核心。[天特]鼓勵基督徒在自己內在的公義中得著安息。

緊接的就是關於情慾的段落，意味雖然情慾的誘惑仍舊存在，但基督徒應相信，所有的罪在本體上（ontologically）都已從自己身上除去了（因此情慾本身一定不是罪）。

然而，宗教改革者強調認知有罪的情慾持續存留在基督徒身上之重要性，正因為它強調了所賜予的義單單是、也完全是基督的義歸算給基督徒的。

Cunningham mentioned as a second tendency, “exaggerating the efficacy and influence of external ordinances.” This was not only in the fact that this “removal” of sin is accomplished by the sacrament of baptism, but also in the way the sacramental system of the church would then relate to the Christian life. Since “all that pertains to the true essence of sin” is removed, the Christian is in an innocent, pure state—the corruption from original sin is no longer sin. The only sin that remains possible is actual sin, which would then be dealt with through the sacrament of penance: “Men may still, indeed, incur guilt by actual transgressions of God‘s law, but the church of Rome has provided for their comfort the sacrament of penance, another external ordinance by which this guilt is taken away.”35 In summary, the Reformers saw two dangers in the Roman view of concupiscence, a view of the Christian life which was heavily weighted towards reliance on church authority and rites, combined with a view of self and everyday Christian experience that would be more confident than it ought to be in maintaining a pure avoidance of sin. In other words, the daily Christian life would be characterized by a weakened awareness of one’s constant need for the grace and righteousness of Christ (as opposed to the grace administered through the sacramental system of the church). 坎寧安提到的第二個傾向是「誇大外在規範（ordinances）的功效和影響」。

這不僅體現在通過洗禮「除去」罪這件事上，還呈現於教會的聖禮系統與基督徒生命之間的關係之中。既然「一切關乎罪真實本質的」都被除去了，基督徒就處於無罪、純潔的狀態——來自原罪的敗壞不再是罪。唯一可能存在的罪是實際的罪，將通過懺悔的聖禮來解決：「事實上，人們仍可能因實際違反上帝的律法而犯罪，但羅馬天主教會提供懺悔聖禮以安慰他們，就是另一種除去這個罪咎的外在規範」。35 總言之，宗教改革者從羅馬天主教的情慾觀點中看到兩種危險，一種是過重依賴教會權威和儀式的基督徒生活觀，再加上一種對自我和基督徒日常經驗的認知，過分地自信可全然維持避免犯罪。

換句話說，這種基督徒日常生命的特徵就是，削弱自己總是需要基督的恩典和公義之意識（相對於通過教會聖禮系統實施的恩典）。

These concerns are certainly not irrelevant to today’s issues. The Reformation doctrine in this area highlights that there are implications of the discussion of homosexuality that extend far beyond the issue itself. The issues pertain to our understanding of the gospel, to justification, to the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. There is and should be concern for how the church’s teaching affects those among us who experience homosexual attraction. But the church’s teaching on these things affects everyone, for it affects the gospel. Keeping in mind how these questions connect to the Christian faith and experience of everyone in the church, we are in a better position to consider some of the implications specific to the issue of homosexuality.這些關切絕對有關當今議題。

宗教改革在這方面的教義凸顯，同性戀議題討論之含義遠遠超出議題本身範疇。這些問題涉及到我們對福音的理解，對稱義的理解，對基督之義的歸算的理解。我們關心，也理當關注教會的教導如何影響我們中間那經歷同性戀吸引的人。

然而教會在這些議題上的教導會影響所有人，因為它影響福音。我們牢記這些問題如何聯繫於基督徒信仰和所有人在教會的經歷，我們就能更好地思考一些特別針對同性戀議題的具體影響。

30  The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. Theodore Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1851), 23-24. See Fifth article of the First Decree of Session 5. Italics in this translation indicate Scripture quotations.天特會議的教條和教令，見第五會議，第一教令第一條。

31  So Calvin’s response to Trent is straightforward: “If they would better their case, they must first of all show that there is such a conversion in the nature of things that what is the same becomes unlike itself. It cannot be denied without effrontery, that repugnance to the law of God is truly sin. But the Apostle affirms this of a disease remaining in the regenerate. It follows, therefore, that of its own nature it is sin, although it is not imputed, and the guilt is abolished by the grace of Christ.” Calvin, Tracts, 3:87.加爾文直接回應天特： 「如果他們要顯得更有理，他們必須首先證明，事物的性質發生轉變，以至於相同的事物變得與本身不同。

違背上帝的律法就是真實的罪，否認這點就不敬虔。

然而使徒肯定這是殘留在重生人身上的一種疾病。因此，就其本身的性質而言，它就是罪，儘管它不是被歸算[的罪]，而基督的恩典廢除了它的罪疚。

」Calvin, Tracts, 3:87. （譯註：正統改革宗理解原罪的罪疚歸算給亞當後代，而罪性以及罪性所發出的罪行則是罪疚之後果或懲罰；這關乎基督之義歸算給人的平行性；見例如 Turretin, IET, 9.9, v1:613f）32  Consider William Cunningham’s expression of this: “But one thing is very manifest, that it should require evidence of no ordinary strength and clearness to warrant men in maintaining that that is not truly and properly sin, which the apostle so frequently calls by that name, without giving any intimation that he understood it in an improper or metaphorical sense; and that if there be any subject with respect to which men ought to be more particularly scrupulous in departing, without full warrant, from the literal ordinary meaning of scriptural statements, it is when the deviation would represent that as innocent which God’s word calls sinful, — a tendency which men’s darkened understandings and sinful hearts are but too apt to encourage.” William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960), 1:536.見坎寧安對此的表述： 「但有一點是非常明顯的，那就是需要非常有力和清晰的證據，才能證明人們所堅稱，使徒經常稱之為罪的東西並非真正和確實的罪，而且使徒沒有暗示他是以非正式或隱喻的意義上理解所謂罪的東西； 如果說在沒有充分理由的情況下，人們應該特別小心偏離聖經陳述的字面意義，那就是當這種偏離會把上帝的話語稱之為罪的東西說成是無罪的——人們黑暗的理解力和罪惡的心很容易助長這種傾向。

」坎寧安，《歷史神學》，2 卷，1:536。

33  Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:534. That Calvin also noticed this tendency is clear in that he pointed out that in effect the Roman view of concupiscence ended up doing the same thing with original sin in the regenerate as the Pelagians did with original sin in everyone: “If it were only a verbal question, still they ought no more to be listened to than those who affirm that infants cannot properly be said to be born with sin. Both interpret sin in the same way. There is this difference, that the latter speak thus of original sin generally, whereas these venerable Fathers maintain that after baptism a thing is no longer the same thing it was, though it remains the same.” Calvin, Tracts, 3:87. Explaining the effect of the Pelagian heresy on the understanding of the gospel was rhetorically unnecessary; it was enough then to assert that the Roman view of concupiscence was the same error.坎寧安，《歷史神學》，1:534。

加爾文也注意到了這一傾向，他指出，實際上，羅馬天主教的情慾觀在重生者的原罪問題上，與伯拉糾主義在所有人的原罪問題上的處理如出一轍：「如果這只是一個口頭問題，那麼他們與那些認為嬰兒生來就不能說有罪的人同樣不值得一聽。兩者對罪的解釋是一樣的。不同之處在於，後者（伯拉糾主義）指原罪一般而論，而這些可敬的教父則認為，在洗禮之後，一件事物雖不再是原來同樣的事物，雖然它仍舊沒有改變。（譯註：『可敬的教父』可能指羅馬天主教先賢；加爾文指出他們認為洗禮實質改變一個人的罪性，就是全然除去原罪，雖然洗禮本身其實並不改變人敗壞的本性。

）」Calvin, Tracts, 3:87. 解釋伯拉糾異端對福音理解的影響在此爭論上是多餘的；當時只要斷言羅馬天主教的情慾觀犯下同樣的錯誤就足夠了。34  Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 天特會議的教條和教令, 23.35  Cunningham, Historical Theology, 540.