靠恩典入門，靠行為留在約中？（Mark Jones）

IN BY GRACE, REMAIN IN BY WORKS?

作者：Mark Jones

誠之譯自：https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/06/in-by-grace-remain-in-by-works

另參：未來的稱義？按行為施行的未來審判（Mark Jones）

在一個只要擁有鍵盤和互聯網，就能在Twitter和Facebook上作「神學」研究的時代，我們越來越容易受到一些神學陳述的影響，但這些陳述在細究之下，卻不會給人太大幫助。這些陳述要麼很明顯是錯誤的，或表面上看來很有道理，卻經不起仔細的審查或分析。我們經常會聽到以下說法：「這種觀點主張，我們是靠恩典入門（進入盟約），但要靠行為留在約中。」（we are in by grace but remain in by works）這顯然是錯誤的。然而，這種特定的神學觀點（「靠恩典入門，靠行為留在約中」）卻可以從幾個角度來理解。

我認為最粗淺的理解可能是這樣的：「上帝以賜與屬靈生命來恩待罪人，但罪人一旦得救，能否對上帝保持忠誠，就取決於罪人自己的行為。人靠恩典起步，而靠行為抵達終點。」

不難理解，為什麼「靠恩典入門，靠行為留在約中」（in by grace, remain in by works）這一短語，會成為那些想要藉著將這種觀點強加給他人，以批判他人或一些神學傳統的人，所採用的一種極具修辭力量的手段。但要找到一個神學體系或一位神學家，會如此粗鄙地直白表述這一觀點，卻並非易事。僅僅拋出「靠恩典得救，靠行為留在約中」這一被視為謬誤的說法，或許能產生某種修辭上的號召力，但它卻未能充分理解所批判的觀點。

所討論的說法是否符合正統教義？也就是說，雖然我們絕不應以如此粗暴的方式表述自己的觀點——那種認為「我們雖因恩典得救，但作為此救恩的一部分，仍須藉著信心與行為對上帝保持忠誠」的信念，竟然是毫無道理可言的嗎？我之所以非常喜愛研讀改革宗經院神學家的著作，正是因為他們總是選取一個命題，並探討該命題在何種意義上可能為真，而在何種意義上課能為假。

多特會議（Synod of Dort）的英國代表約翰·達夫南特（John Davenant）針對這個特定問題——藉著我們的行為繼續與上帝保持立約關係（留在上帝的盟約中）——進行了細緻的討論。他指出：「善行對於保持和維持稱義的狀態是必要的，並非因為善行本身就能產生或贏得這種狀態，而是因為它們是手段或條件，若沒有這些手段或條件，上帝就不會在人身上保守稱義的恩典」（《論稱義》，1:300）。他的論證很簡單：如果一個人從基督那裏獲得稱義的地位，他們也必然會獲得成聖的狀態（例如，「治死肉體，不斷悔改……」）。這些行動/行為（acts/works）是必要的，因為如果它們的「操練中斷了，那麼與稱義之人的本性相悖的事物就會取而代之。」如果沒有結出聖靈的果子，那麼肉體的行為就會成為主導原則。保羅在強調肉體的行為之後，又說：「我從前告訴你們，現在又告訴你們，行這樣事的人必不能承受上帝的國」（加五21）。

人若順從肉體活著，他必定會死。但若靠著聖靈治死肉體的惡行，必要活著（羅八13）。考慮到這一點，達夫南特指出，相信、悔改和治死，這些行為本身並不能使我們維持得蒙稱義的狀態，也無法因此配得這種狀態。我們在這些事上的表現並不完美。因此，儘管我們有許多不完美之處，但上帝仍保守那些重生的人，使他們留在他們的成聖當中。因此，這些行為「並非藉著確保『保守』這一效果本身，來恰當地、獨立地保守恩典的生命；而是排除和除去毀滅的原因，間接地、附帶地起到保守的作用。」正如我所說，這是我們可以解釋的途徑之一，說明我們如何藉著聖靈所成就的、使我們不隨從肉體而活的作為，與上帝「保持立約關係」。

如你所見，達夫南特在肯定「善行對於保持和維持稱義地位是必要的」這一命題時，非常謹慎地解釋了他的意思，以及不是什麼意思。我們或許可以將其概括為「靠恩典入門，靠行為留在約中」，但這未免過於簡單，無法概括關於善行對最終救贖必要性的複雜神學觀點。我的論點很簡單：跟許多神學陳述一樣，這裏所討論的陳述，即可以用正統意義來解釋，也可以用非正統意義來解釋。然而，僅僅陳述這一命題本身，實際上並不能證明任何事情。

約翰福音十五章5-10節表明，為了留在基督裏，就必須「結果子」：

(5) 我是葡萄樹，你們是枝子。常在我裏面的，我也常在他裏面，這人就多結果子；因為離了我，你們就不能做什麼。(6) 人若不常在我裏面，就像枝子丟在外面枯乾，人拾起來，扔在火裏燒了。(7) 你們若常在我裏面，我的話也常在你們裏面，凡你們所願意的，祈求，就給你們成就。(8) 你們多結果子，我父就因此得榮耀，你們也就是我的門徒了。(9) 我愛你們，正如父愛我一樣；你們要常在我的愛裏。(10) 你們若遵守我的命令，就常在我的愛裏，正如我遵守了我父的命令，常在他的愛裏。

我們是否只要真心相信基督，就能住在基督裏？是的。但同樣重要的是，我們也必須結出果子，才能留在（住在）基督的愛裏。結出果子就是我們是基督門徒的證據，也就是說，正如達夫南特所說，如果我們沒有結出與悔改相稱的果子，那麼結果必然是相反的，加拉太書五章21節所描述的就是這種最終的結果：（因此約翰福音十五章6節也說，「就像枝子丟在外面枯乾……」）。

那麼，罪人是靠恩典進入盟約，又憑行為留在盟約當中嗎？這種說法是否正確，取決於「憑行為留在盟約中」的意思。我懷疑，這種說法的粗淺版本（某種半伯拉糾主義或羅馬天主教的觀點）在廣義的改革宗圈子裏可能並不流行。例如，這並不意味著「保羅新觀」（NPP）就是安全無虞的。我對NPP的不同版本都缺乏認同。但我的觀點是，我們不能簡單地拋出「靠恩典進入聖約，憑行為留在盟約中」這句話，就指望它擁有如此強大的解釋力，以至於我們所有人都會不加探究地接受它的謬誤，而不去探究它在哪些方面時錯誤的，在哪些方面又可能是正確的。

總而言之，靠恩典入門，憑行為留在約中，當然不代表我們不能說「靠恩典入門，也靠恩典留在約中」。我們得救是本乎恩，也唯獨是靠著恩典。靠著恩典，我們被帶進到上帝的家中。靠著恩典，我們繼續留在上帝的家中。我們靠著恩典悔改，並表達對基督耶穌的信靠。靠著恩典，我們留在基督耶穌裏，並且行善。我們乃是既靠著恩典入門，也靠著恩典留在約中。感謝上帝賜與我們改變生命的恩典，這恩典拯救我們，也使我們稱義，使我們成聖，保守我們直到末了。但是，我相信達夫南特也並非沒有道理，他肯定我們的善行（上帝預先為我們預備的）已經「間接地、附帶地」排除並消除了我們滅亡的根源。這就是上帝預定我們得救的方式，也就是說，通往生命的道路就是行善的道路。換句話說，既然我們的善行是上帝恩典的結果，那麼「靠行為留在約中」和「靠恩典留在約中」之間，就有和諧共存的可能性。或者我們可以說，我們是「靠恩典入門，並且靠那彰顯在善行（以及其他方面）的恩典而留在約中。」

—

註：

約翰·鮑爾（John Ball）曾說過類似於達夫南特所說的話：「那種充滿活力、樂於接受憐憫的信心，總是與真誠地立志遵行一切蒙上帝喜悅之事緊密相連；而當機會出現時，真誠地履行一切聖潔的順服，也總是伴隨著這種信心，藉此，我們得以持續地抓住曾經領受的應許。各種實際的善行（儘管程度不盡完美）對於持續獲得真正的稱義是必要的；因為，唯有當信心在實質上或實際上引導我們行在通往天國的道路上時，它才能繼續忠實地主張對生命應許的權利。」（《論恩典之約》，21頁）。

參加多特會議的英國代表團曾說：「因此，若有人違背上帝規定的道路，卻走上那條直接通往地獄的，寬闊且不潔的，以及不悔改的道路，他就永遠無法藉著這條路進入天國。是的，如果他在誤入歧途之際被死亡追上，他必將陷入永恆的死亡之中。」（多特信條，第四項主張）

原文鏈接已經找不到了，附錄英文原文如下：

IN BY GRACE, REMAIN IN BY WORKS?

MARK JONES

https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/11/06/in-by-grace-remain-in-by-works

In a time where “theology” is being done on Twitter and Facebook by anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection, we are becoming increasingly susceptible to statements that, on closer inspection, are not particularly helpful. The statements are made in a manner where they are either self-evidently false or self-evidently true, but without a whole lot of investigation and analysis as to why that is the case. It is not uncommon to hear the following: “this view states that we are in by grace but remain in by works.” This is supposed to be self-evidently wrong. Yet this particular theological view (“in by grace, remain in by works”) is capable of various understandings.

I suppose the crassest understanding might go something like this: “God is gracious to the sinner by imparting spiritual life, but once the sinner is saved it is up to the redeemed sinner to remain faithful to God by his own works. One begins by grace and finishes by works.”

It is easy to see why the phrase, “in by grace, remain in by works,” would be a rhetorically powerful move by those wishing to critique other persons or theological traditions by imputing this view to them. But it is not so easy to find a system of theology or a theologian who would simply state the matter so crassly. Simply offering the supposedly false statement “in by grace, remain in by works” may have a rhetorical appeal to some but it fails to adequately understand the view(s) being critiqued.

Is the statement in question capable of an orthodox sense? That is to say, while one should never describe one’s view so crassly, is the actual belief that we are saved by grace but that, as part of that salvation in a full sense, we must nevertheless remain faithful to God through faith and works a belief that has no truth at all to it? I have enjoyed the Reformed scholastics so much because they take a proposition and discuss the sense(s) in which the proposition may be both true or false.

The English delegate to the Synod of Dort, John Davenant, offers a careful discussion of this particular question over “remaining” in covenant with God by our works. He states that “Good works are necessary for retaining and preserving a state of justification, not as causes, which by themselves effect or merit this preservation, but as means or conditions, without which God will not preserve in men the grace of justification” (A Treatise on Justification, 1:300). His argument is rather simple: if someone receives justification from Christ they will also necessarily receive sanctification (e.g., “mortifying the flesh, constantly repenting…”). These acts/works are necessary because if their “exercises are interrupted, then their opposites, which are contrary to the nature of a justified man, begin to occupy their place.” If the fruit of the Spirit is not present then the works of the flesh will be the dominant principle. And, after highlighting the works of the flesh, Paul says: “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21).

If one lives according to the flesh he will die; but if one, by the Spirit, puts to death the misdeeds of the flesh he will live (Rom. 8:13). With this in mind, Davenant notes that the acts of believing, repenting, and mortifying do not effect or merit the preservation of our justified state. We do these things imperfectly. God thus preserves the regenerate in their sanctification, despite our many imperfections. Therefore these acts “do not properly and of themselves preserve the life of grace by securing the effect itself of preservation; but indirectly and incidentally by excluding and removing the cause of destruction.” This is, as I say, one way in which we can explain how we “remain in covenant” with God through our Spirit-wrought works that keep us from living according to the flesh.

As you can see, Davenant is careful to explain what he means and does not mean when he affirms the proposition that “good works are necessary for retaining and preserving a state of justification.” We could perhaps summarize this as “in by grace, remain in by works” but that would be a pitiful way to describe what is a somewhat complicated theological view concerning the necessity of good works for final salvation. My point is simply this: the statement in question, like many theological statements, can be explained in an orthodox sense or an unorthodox sense. However, simply stating the proposition does not actually prove anything.

The necessity of “fruit-bearing” in order to remain in Christ is seen in John 15:5–10,

[5] I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [9] As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. [10] If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

Is it the case that we will abide in Christ if we truly believe in him? Yes. But it is also necessarily the case that we must bear fruit in order to remain (abide) in Christ’s love. The bearing of fruit is the evidence that we are Christ’s disciples, which is to say, with Davenant, that if we do not bear fruit in keeping with repentance then the opposite effect must be true, in which case Galatians 5:21 is the outcome (and thus John 15:6, “he is thrown away like a branch and withers…”).

So are sinners brought into the covenant by grace and remain in by works? That is a statement that may be either sound or unsound depending on what is meant by the “remaining in by works.” I suspect that the crass version of this – a sort of semi-Pelagianism or Roman Catholic view – is probably not a view that has much current in broadly Reformed circles. That does not mean the NPP, for example, is safe. I have very little sympathy for the various versions of the NPP. But my point is that one cannot simply throw out the statement, “in by grace, remain in by works” and expect that to have such explanatory power that we all simply accept its falsehood without inquiring in what sense it is false and in what sense it may be true.

In sum, to be in by grace and to remain in by works does not mean, of course, that we cannot also say, “in by grace, remain in by grace.” We are saved by grace and only by grace. By grace we are brought into the family of God. By grace we remain in the family of God. By grace we repent and express our faith in Christ Jesus. By grace we remain in Christ Jesus and do good works. In by grace, remain in by grace. Thanks be to God for transforming grace, grace that saves, grace that justifies, grace that sanctifies, grace that preserves until the very end. But Davenant is also not wrong, I believe, to also affirm that our good works (prepared in advance for us to do) “indirectly and incidentally” exclude and remove the cause of our destruction. This is how God has ordained our salvation, namely, that the road that leads to life is the road of good works. In other words, since our good works are a result of God’s grace then there can be harmony between “remaining in by works” and “remaining in by grace.” Or we can say, “in by grace, remain in by the grace that finds expression in good works, among other things.”

—-

Note:

John Ball said something similar to Davenant: “The faith that is lively to embrace mercy is ever conjoined with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy obedience, as opportunity is offered, does ever attend that faith, whereby we continually lay hold upon the promises once embraced. Actual good works of all sorts (though not perfect in degree) are necessary to the continuance of actual justification, because faith can no longer lay faithful claim to the promises of life, then it doth virtually or actually lead us forward in the way of heaven.” (Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 21.)

The British Delegation to the Synod of Dort: “If any many therefore walke in a way contrarie to Gods ordinance, namely, that broad way of uncleannesse and impenitencie, (which leads directly downe to hell) he can never come by this meanes to the kingdome of heaven. Yea and if death shall overtake him, wandring in this by-path, hee cannot but fall into everlasting death.” (The Fourth Position).