|
请楼上的朋友好好查考圣经，从您所发表的内容，可以看出您对于圣经当中的一些经文的解释是不正确的，您也没有明白牧师所回复的主题。
您的认识在于将道德律、民事律，礼仪律三者没有区别开，认为现在不需要遵守诫命了，是吗？
一个人若说他认识神，是神所改变，救赎的人，必定是因着神所赐的信心，尽心竭力的尽本份，基督徒不会认为他们按照圣经的教导尽本份，遵守道德律是赚取功劳，是靠行为称义，遵守道德律是基督徒当尽的本份，不是他的功劳，因为人的义是污秽的衣服，人所行的若不是出于信心就是罪，并不能靠着所行的上天堂。这方面需要主怜悯我们，使我们得以有清楚的认识，基督徒不会认为按道德律尽本份是牢笼他的，马太福音5：17节-20节论到律法时说：“
| 5:17 |
莫想我来要废掉律法和先知。我来不是要废掉、乃是要成全。 |
| 5:18 |
我实在告诉你们、就是到天地都废去了、律法的一点一画也不能废去、都要成全。 |
| 5:19 |
所以无论何人废掉这诫命中最小的一条、又教训人这样作、他在天国要称为最小的。但无论何人遵行这诫命、又教训人遵行、他在天国要称为大的。 |
| 5:20 |
我告诉你们、你们的义、若不胜于文士和法利赛人的义、断不能进天国。 ” | 约翰福音14：21：有了我的命令又遵守的，这人就是爱我的。14：23：人若爱我，就必遵守我的道。24：不爱我的人就不遵守我的道。约翰一书2：4：人若说“我认识祂，”却不遵守祂的诫命，便是说谎话的，真理也不在他的心里了。
对于经文的解释与运用，若结果是不要遵守圣经的教导，认为现在是恩典时代，不必遵守神在西奈山上颁布的道德律，不需要按照道德律来尽本份，还认为这是正确的真理，就与圣经不合了，以下是牧师对于类似问题的回复，在此引用：
旧约当中所颁布的律法分为三种律法，第一种是道德律，第二种是民事律，第三种是礼仪的律法，道德律就是十条诫命，那是所有的律法的总纲，民事律就是关係到以色列人的生活作息，刑罚的实际方式等。礼仪律又是关係他们在敬拜神时所应守的规定，基本上，民事律和礼仪律就是特别为这个与神立约的以色列民族来实践道德律（即十诫）的，可见为十诫的道德律是这一切律法的总纲，而在基督钉十架之后，「礼仪律废去了」「至圣所的幔子从上到下裂开了」「但那渐旧渐衰的，就必快归无有了。」我们也不必再受「不可拿、不可尝、不可摸」等类的规条所綑绑。 可是民事律和礼仪律所指向的道德律，十条诫命却是不可能有一点是废去的，这律法也实接指向道成肉身基督的完美德性,引我们到基督面前「Mat 5:18」（Gal 3:24）。礼仪律中提到的经期的问题，是在礼仪律的范围之中，这样洁净的问题与大痲疯条例是具有一样的共通点：具有自然的接触感染不洁的性质，都是要承担礼仪上的不洁净，而此种礼仪的不洁净，都是为要叫神的百姓想起他（她）在道德上的不洁净，就是叫人想起他的罪来（Heb 10:3），既然这种不洁净是从人类的始祖亚当就带给全人类的影响，那一个女人可以说她可以自外于神所给夏娃的刑罚之外呢？特别女人又在生儿育女的相关事上，不都刻著神所施与女人罪刑的影响么（Gen 3:16）？但起初造天地时并不是这样（Mat 19:8），而且那时神看一切所造的都甚好（Gen 1:31），可见，神这里并不是说祂自己当初的创造不好，也不是在利未记里面嫌祂当时的创造安排上有瑕疵。而是说，当罪进入世界后污染了人的一切，神又藉由这礼仪的律，让人从身体的污染想起罪对于道德的污染来。人如果在看这律法时，却没有看到神在这里的用意，如保罗所说「2Co 3:14 但他们的心地刚硬，直到今日诵读旧约的时候，这帕子还没有揭去。这帕子在基督里已经废去了。」那就是没有看到人自己的罪，也就没有看到基督为他的罪所完成的赎罪之功了。这样对基督的赎罪之功无知的人，当然在律法的咒诅底下，如经上常说：「这人必从民中剪除。」而近亲通婚的事，（利十八）本来就不行，现在也不行（1Co 5:1），从保罗的强烈憎恨与指责就可以看出来。因为这会导致本来就慾火暗烧的人类，更加方便地助长罪人情慾的发旺，试想,罪人本身已经够遭了,还让他的罪恶本性更加方便,这不是等于要害死他（她）么？而使他（她）焚烧像只野兽。但在最起初只是允许兄妹，否则该隐的妻子从哪里来呢？亚伯拉罕和撒莱也是近亲。起初是可以，但是罪恶慾望越来越发达的影响，就导致后来堕落的罪人近亲通婚的可怕后果。而迦南人与埃及人是完全不管这些的，甚至有父母与子女更可怕乱伦的关係都被他们允许。我把加尔文对这事的解释附在后面，单字很多。希望这样有解答您的问题。黄牧师敬上 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near. This name does not include all female relations; for cousin-ger-mans of the father’s or mother’s side are permitted to intermarry; but it must be restricted to the degrees, which He proceeds to enumerate, and is merely a brief preface, declaring that there are certain degrees of relationship which render marriages incestuous. We may, therefore, define these female relations of blood to be those which are spoken of immediately afterwards, viz., that a son should not marry his mother, nor a son-in-law his mother-in-law; nor a paternal or maternal uncle his niece, nor a grandfather his granddaughter, nor a brother his sister, nor a nephew his paternal or maternal aunt, or his uncle’s wife, nor a father-in-law his daughter-in-law, nor a brother-in-law his brother’s wife, nor a step-father his stepdaughter. The Roman laws accord with the rule prescribed by God, as if their authors had learnt from Moses what was decorous and agreeable to nature. The phrase which God uses frequently “to uncover the turpitude,” is intended to awaken abhorrence, in order that the Israelites may beware more diligently of all incest. The Hebrew word, indeed, hwr[, gnervah, signifies nakedness, therefore some translate it actively, “the nakedness of thy father,” i.e., the womb which thy father hath uncovered; but this meaning would not be suitable to the nakedness of thy daughter, or thy daughter-in-law, or thy sister. Consequently, there is no doubt but that Moses means to denote that it is a filthy and shameful thing. We must remember, what I have already hinted, that not only are incestuous connections out of wedlock condemned, but that the degrees are pointed out, within which marriages are unlawful. It is true, indeed, that this was a part of the political constitution which God established for His ancient people; still, it must be borne in mind, that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself, and from the natural feelings implanted in us by Him. Absurd is the cleverness which some persons but little versed in Scripture pretend to, f87 who assert that the Law being abrogated, the obligations under which Moses laid his countrymen are now dissolved; for it is to be inferred from the preface above expounded, that. the instruction here given is not, nor ought to be accounted, merely political. For, since their lusts had led astray all the neighboring nations into incest, God, in order to inculcate chastity amongst his people, says; “I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my statutes; walk not after the doings of the land of Egypt and of Canaan;” and then He adds what are the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which the marriage of men and women is forbidden. If any again object that what has been disobeyed in many countries is not to be accounted the law of the Gentiles, the reply is easy, viz., that the barbarism, which prevailed in the East, does not nullify that chastity which is opposed to the abominations of the Gentiles; since what is natural cannot be abrogated by any consent or custom. In short, the prohibition of incests here set forth, is by no means of the number of those laws which are commonly abrogated according to the circumstances of time and place, since it flows from the fountain of nature itself, and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable. Certainly God declares that the custom which had prevailed amongst the heathen was displeasing to Him; and why is this, but because nature itself repudiates and abhors filthiness, although approved of by the consent (suffragiis) of men? Wherefore, when God would by this distinction separate His chosen people from heathen nations, we may assuredly conclude that the incests which He commands them to avoid are absolute pollutions. Paul, on a very trifling point, sets before our eyes the law of nature; for, when he teaches that it is shameful and indecorous for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider, whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn; and finally adds, that nature itself does not permit it. (<461114>1 Corinthians 11:14.) Wherefore, I do not see, that, under the pretext of its being a political Law, f88 the purity of nature is to be abolished, from whence arises the distinction between the statutes of God, and the abuses of the Gentiles. If this discipline were founded on the utility of a single people, or on the custom of a particular time, or on present necessity, or on any other circumstances, the laws deduced from it might be abrogated for new reasons, or their observance might be dispensed with in regard to particular persons, by special privilege; but since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible. It may indeed be decreed that it should be lawful and unpunished, since it is in the power of princes to remit penalties; yet no legislator can effect that a thing, which nature pronounces to be vicious, should not be vicious; and, if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will presently shine forth and prevail. When, formerly, the Emperor Claudius had married his niece Agrippina, f89 for the purpose of averting the shame, he procured a Senatusconsultum, which licensed such marriages; yet no one was found to imitate his example, except one freedman. Hence, just and reasonable men will acknowledge that, even amongst heathen nations, this Law was accounted indissoluble, as if implanted and engraved on the hearts of men. On this ground Paul, more severely to reprove the incest of a step-son with his father’s wife, says, that such an occurrence “is not so much as named among the Gentiles.” (<460501>1 Corinthians 5:1.) If it be objected that such marriages are not prohibited to us in the New Testament, I reply, that the marriage of a father with his daughter is not forbidden; nor is a mother prohibited from marrying her son; and shall it therefore be lawful for those, who are near of kin, to form promiscuous connections? f90 Although Paul expressly mentions only one kind of incest, yet he establishes its disgrace by adducing the example of the Gentiles, that at least we should be ashamed if more delicacy and chastity is seen amongst them. And:. in fact, another admonition of the same Paul is enough for me, who thus writes to the Philippians: “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” (<500408>Philippians 4:8.) As to those who ascend or descend ill a direct line, it, sufficiently appears that there is a monstrous indecency in the connection of father and daughter, or mother and son. A licentious poet, f91 being about to relate the frantic incest of Myrrha, says: “Daughters and fathers, from my song retire, I sing of horror.” In the collateral line, the uncles on both sides represent the father, and the aunts the mother; and, consequently, connection with them is forbidden, inasmuch as it would be of somewhat similar impropriety. The same rule affects affinity; for the step-mother, or mother-in-law, is held to stand in the relation of mother; and the step-daughter, or daughter-in-law, in that of daughter; as also the wife of the paternal or maternal uncle is to be regarded in the relation of mother. And, although express mention may not be made of it here, we must form our judgment by analogy as to what is prohibited; — the uncle on the father’s or mother’s side is not here forbidden to marry his niece; but, since the nephew is interdicted from marrying his paternal or maternal aunt, the mutual relation of the inferior to the superior degree must prevail. But if any should contend that there is a difference, the reason added by Moses refutes his objection, for it is said, “She is thy father’s or thy mother’s near kinswoman.” Hence it follows, that a niece is guilty of incest if she marries her uncle on either side. As to brothers and sisters, God pronounces that marriage with a sister, although she be not uterine, is unlawful; for He forbids the uncovering of the turpitude of a sister, who is either the daughter of thy father or thy mother.引用部分完毕
您也提到：“律法既是将来美事的影儿，不是本物的真像，总不能藉着每年常献一样的祭物，叫那近前来的人得以完全。”祭物的血是没有赎罪效力的，唯有主耶稣为祂的选民所流的宝血是有赎罪的效力。所以才说：“
因为公牛和山羊的血，断不能除罪。
所以基督到世上来的时候，就说，神阿祭物和礼物是你不愿意的，你曾给我豫备了身体。
”这献祭的礼仪律法乃是预表将来的耶稣基督的道成肉身，为祂的选民上十字架付上赎价，使祂的选民与神和好。
基督既然已经为祂的子民献上自己为祭，挽回神的愤怒，使祂的子民与神和好，那以前的礼仪律中所定的，被保罗称为叫人死的字据，就因此被废止了，因为基督已经献上了自己，这里说的不是很清楚吗？
律法既是将来美事的影儿，不是本物的真像，总不能藉着每年常献一样的祭物，叫那近前来的人得以完全。
这里的律法很清楚是指献祭的礼仪律而非道德律。正如基督所说，律法的一笔一划都不能废去。
保罗在罗马书有以下的教导：
| 6:1 |
这样、怎么说呢。我们可以仍在罪中、叫恩典显多么。 |
| 6:2 |
断乎不可。我们在罪上死了的人、岂可仍在罪中活着呢。 |
| 6:14 |
罪必不能作你们的主。因你们不在律法之下、乃在恩典之下。 |
| 6:15 |
这却怎么样呢。我们在恩典之下、不在律法之下、就可以犯罪么。断乎不可。 |
| 6:16 |
岂不晓得你们献上自己作奴仆、顺从谁、就作谁的奴仆么。或作罪的奴仆、以至于死。或作顺命的奴仆、以至成义。
|
保罗岂有教导说我们可以随己意而行，犯罪呢？
圣经在约翰一书3：4节：凡犯罪的，就是违背律法；违背律法就是罪。
圣经在加拉太书有以下教导：
| 4:4 |
及至时候满足、 神就差遣他的儿子、为女子所生、且生在律法以下、 |
| 4:5 |
要把律法以下的人赎出来、叫我们得着儿子的名分。 |
| 4:6 |
你们既为儿子、 神就差他儿子的灵、进入你们（原文作我们）的心、呼叫阿爸、父。 |
一个被神拯救的人，不会继续喜欢犯罪，并且将恩典变作放纵情欲的机会，愿神怜悯
可以看出，那种不要人遵守道德律，认为现在是恩典时代的教导不是圣经中的道理，那是时代论的异端，是人的发明，现今相当多的教会都受此种异端影响，我们需要远避。因为圣经教导我们传异端的不能承受神的国
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-7 17:00:44编辑过]
|
|小黑屋|手机版|恩友之光
( 桂ICP备2023005629号-1 )
雷达卡
发表于 2008-9-7 11:35
沉默卡
变色卡
显身卡
楼主