Two forms of subscriptions of Book of Concord:Quia or Quatenus？
对《协同书》的两种签署形式:因为，还是在一定条件下？
Excerpt One:
选文一：
Francis Pieper Christian Dogmatics Page 354-356
弗朗西丝.皮珀《基督信仰教义》354-356页
Volume 1-Holy Scripture-Part 15: The Authority of Scripture and the Confessions
第一卷--圣经论-第15部分：圣经权威及信仰告白
This same truth---that the Lutheran Church does not set up in its Symbols a second norm alongside Scripture ---is evidenced by its insistence on the quia form of subscription. It binds its teachers to the doctrine contained in the Confessions not because it is the doctrine of the Confessions, but because it is the doctrine of Scripture. There are many who insist on the quatenus form of subscription--- “in so far as” the symbols teach the Scripture truth. One wonders whether these people take a serious view of the obligation involved. J.G. Walch aptly remarks that with the restrictive quatenus one could place his signature under the Koran or the Racovian Catechism. A person who seeks to justify the quatenus by saying that he is not yet certain what is the Scriptural truth and how far the Symbolical Books give expression to this truth must be told that he is not yet ready for the ministerial office. And if he complains that the quia subscription would entail the coercion of his conscience, he must be told that nobody is coercing him to take up the office of pastor or teacher. As a rule, only such people speak of coercion here as have gotten away from God’s Word and still want to find purchasers of their own thoughts at the expense of the congregation. Walther writes in his Pastoraltheologie, p. 52: “ The minister who is called by a congregation must obligate himself to teach according to God’s Word and the Church’s Confession; he owes this to the congregation as a guaranty that he will not dispense his own wisdom, but will preach publicly and privately the pure Christian doctrine and not attempt to be master of their faith.” The quatenus subscription annuls the Symbols as a confession of faith.
路德宗教会并未在其信仰告白书中设立与圣经等量齐观的第二个标准（norm衡量教义的），这同样的事实是可以因着它对协同书quia(拉丁文：because因为）的签署形式的坚持得以证实的。路德宗教会将它的教师们约束在信仰告白所含有的教义之下，不是因为这教义是信仰告白的教义，乃是因为它是圣经的教义。有许多人持守对协同书quatenus(拉丁文：in so far as在一定条件下）的签署形式---就是说在信仰告白书教导圣经真理的“条件下。”我们怀疑这些人是否对其中所牵涉的责任采取一个严肃的立场。J.G.Walch(约翰.葛格.韦尔奇：德国路德宗神学家）很恰当地评论说：带着这种限定性的“quatenus签署形式，”一个人可以将他的名字签署在可兰经或者拉克文信经（Racovian Catechism：16世纪出现的否定三位一体神论的信仰告白）之下。一个人说他还未确定圣经真理是什么或者信仰教义书在多大程度上表达了这圣经真理，且试图以此为quatenus（在一定条件下的签署形式）辩护，他必须被告知他还没有预备好领受传道的职份。如果他抱怨说quia（因为式的）的签署给他的良心带来一定的强迫，那么他必须被告知，没有任何人强迫他承担牧师或教师的职份。作为一个规律，只有这些已经偏离上帝的话语并且仍然想以牺牲堂会为代价来为他们自己的思想寻找买主的人才会在此论及强迫（或政治压力）。沃瑟(C.F.W.Walther)在《牧养神学pastoraltheologie》52页写到：“被一间堂会呼召要做话语执事（牧师）的人必须要求自己按照上帝的话语和教会的信仰告白教导；他必须将之作为一个保证许诺给那间堂会，就是他必不传播他自己的智慧，而是必将公开和私底下传讲纯正的基督信仰教义，并且不会尝试去成为他们信仰的主人。”quatenus(一定条件下）的签署拆毁了这些作为信仰告白的信条总集（协同书）。
The quatenus pledge has appeared in several forms.
Quatenus(一定条件下）的宣誓以几种形式出现：
Form 3: Again, there are those who are ready to subscribe to the Confessions with the understanding that they be interpreted “according to Scripture,” or “correctly.” In this sense, Reformed theologians, including Calvin, have signed the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. And a Lutheran pastoral conference in Germany proposed to the fathers of the Missouri Synod that the Lutheran Confessions be “understood according to Scripture and in the light of the error specifically rejected” (Lutheraner, Vol. X, P. 90). That has a pious and Scriptural ring, but in fact it completely overlooks and does away with the purposes of the Symbols. By subscribing to the Symbols a man does not declare his readiness to interpret them “according to Scripture,” but the minister or candidate in question makes the solemn declaration to the congregation that he has already discovered what Scripture teaches and he finds the Lutheran Confessions to be the expression of his own faith and confession.
第三种形式：还有一些准备签署信仰告白的人带着这样一种认识，那就是信仰告白（协同书）应当“依照圣经，”或者“正确地”得到阐释。在这种意义上，改革宗的神学家们，包括加尔文，也曾签署过没有更改的奥斯堡信条。并且一个在德国的路德宗牧师会议曾向密苏里总会的前辈们提议，就是路德宗信仰告白应当“按照圣经，并且是在具体被拒绝之错误的光照下得以理解”（路德宗Lutheraner,第十卷，90页）。那听起来是有一种敬虔且符合圣经的钟声，但事实上却完全无视或摒弃了信仰告白书的目的。一个人签署信仰告白书并不是说他预备好要“按照圣经”来解释它们，而是说在这里谈及的签署牧师或候选人乃是在向堂会做出一个庄严的宣告，即他已经发现了圣经所教导的，并且他也发现路德宗信仰告白正是他个人信仰和告白的表述。
Form 4. It is a quatenus form of subscription when men profess to follow, not the “letter,” but the “spirit,” of the Confessions. The rationalists of the eighteenth century were very willing to sign the Confessions with this restriction. By “spirit” they meant their own spirit, which transformed the essence of Christianity into heathen morality.
第四种形式：当有人宣称要跟随信仰告白的“精神，”而不是它的“字句”的时候，这就是一种quatenus（一定条件下）的签署形式。18世纪的理性主义者也曾非常愿意带着这种限定性来签署此信仰告白。提及“精神，”他们的意思是他们自己的精神，这精神（或灵）将基督信仰的精义转变为外邦人的伦理学（道德说教）。
All these and other quatenus forms frustrate the purpose of the confessional obligation. The congregation can never know how much of the doctrine contained in the Confessions is being accepted. These quatenus forms are, at bottom, in conflict with common honesty and uprightness. And experience shows that behind the demand for a conditional subscription lies the refusal to accept certain doctrines of the Confessions. That applies also to those Lutherans of our day who insist on some form of the quatenus subscription because they are not in accord with the doctrinal position of the Confessions in the doctrines, e.g., of the Church, of the Ministry, of the Last Things (Chiliasm), and of Antichrist.
所有这些还有其它的quatenus（一定条件下）签署形式都在挫败信仰告白约束力的目的。堂会永远不能弄明白信仰告白里面含有的教义有多少是正在被接受的。这些quatenus（一定条件下）的签署形式，说到底，是与普世价值诚实和正直相违背的。并且经验也表明，在要求一个有条件式的签署背后，隐藏着对信仰告白中某些教义的拒绝承认。这也同样适用于在我们今天那些持守某种quatenus（在一定条件下）签署形式的路德宗人士，因为他们在教义上与信仰告白的教义立场不一致，比如：在教会论上，在圣职论上，在末后论（千禧年）上，和在敌基督论上。
Excerpt Two:
选文二：
-Hermann Sasse, “Quatenus or Quia” (1938), The Lonely Way, Volume 1, (p. 459)
赫曼.撒希，《Quatenus or Quia在一定条件下，还是因为》1938，孤独的路，卷一，459页
An actual and serious doctrinal pledge can never consist in the pastor pledging himself to a confession in so far as [Quatenus] this confession agrees with the Word of God. For it is self-evident that a confession in any church which stands upon the sola scriptura [“Scripture alone”] has authority only so far as it agrees with the Bible as the norma normans [the norming norm] and correctly explicates the same. Here the Lutheran and Reformed are in complete agreement. Only crass ignorance or malevolent slander has, since the days of the Formula of Concord, been able to condemn our church for placing the confessions over the Bible. I am of course prepared to surrender any assertion of the confessions or the confessions in their entirety if it be shown to us that the doctrine contained therein is contrary to Scripture. If the quatenus [in so far as] is meant to say nothing more than this, then we find no difficulty with it. But the distinction must be made between the question of what we would have to do if our confession did not teach scriptural truth and the entirely different and for us essential question, namely, whether they in fact do teach truth or falsity. We reject the quatenus because it is used to avoid or minimize the seriousness of this question. I can only preach with conviction when I, with Luther, am convinced that what I preach is the pure doctrine of the Word.
一位牧师将自己宣誓于一个信仰告白，（背后的观念却是）在这个信仰告白与上帝的话语相一致的条件下【Quatenus】，那么在他里面就永远不会有一个真实和严肃的教义宣誓。因为任何建造在Sola Scriptura【“唯独圣经”】之上的教会，它的信仰告白都仅仅是在它与作为norma normans【衡量的标准】的圣经相一致，并且准确地辨明相同教义的条件下才有权威。在此路德宗和改革宗是完全一致的。只有粗鲁的无视或恶毒的中伤，自从《协同式》形成之日以来，才会去谴责我们教会说它将信仰告白（协同书）凌驾于圣经之上。若有人能向我们显明里面包含的教义是与圣经相违背的，我当然准备好放弃信仰告白里面的任何主张或者连同整个信仰告白一起舍弃。如果quatenus【在一定条件下】意思恰恰是这个，那么我们并不觉得有什么困难。但我们必须区分两个问题，第一个问题就是如果我们的信仰告白没有教导圣经真理我们必须如何办，而另外一个完全不同，且对我们至关重要的问题就是，它们（信仰告白《协同书》）事实上是否的确在教导真理或是假道。我们驳斥quatenus（在一定条件下签署），因为这是被用来回避或者减弱此问题的严肃性。只有当我，与路德一起，坚信我所传讲的就是圣道之纯正教义的时候，我才能带着坚定确信去传道。
What in our church’s doctrine is false? Where does it contradict the Word of God? Where does it fail to rightly understand the Gospel? There are concrete answers to these concrete questions. Thus far Holy Scripture has not been shown to refute our confessions. The most significant attacks upon our dogma, Calvin’s doctrines of the Lord’s Supper and predestination, are, at most, based upon philosophical considerations and are not grounded in Holy Scripture. What our congregations ought and must expect from their pastors is a clear yes or no to the question with which we are dealing here. If we do not know what we teach as church and why we do so, if we leave the question open as to what of our doctrine is correct or perhaps false, then it is actually more correct to replace the pledge to Scripture and confession with the pledge to teach the Holy Scripture according to our best understanding and conscience. I can only ordain on the basis of the Augustana [the Augsburg Confession] because [quia], after the most serious study of the Scriptures, I am convinced that it is the correct explication of the Gospel. Only the quia establishes a real pledge to the confessions. The quatenus is in reality only a polite and mild form of the disintegration of doctrinal confession.
我们教会的教义中有什么错谬之处吗？其中哪里与上帝的话语相冲突呢？其中哪里没能正确地理解福音呢？对这些实际的问题有实在的答案。到目前为止，并未有人可以拿圣经来驳斥我们的信仰告白。对我们教义的最重要攻击，就是加尔文的圣餐论和预定论教义，也顶多是，基于哲学上的思辨，而不是基于圣经。关于在此我们所要面对的问题（协同书信仰告白总集是在教导真理或是假道），我们的众堂会应当而且必须从他们的牧师那里期待一个是或否的明确答案。如果我们不知道我们作为教会所教导的是什么，或者我们为什么如此教导，如果我们将此关于我们教义是正确或可能是错误的问题做开放姿态，那么事实上，我们放弃对圣经和信仰告白的宣誓，并以按照我们最好的理解和良心来教导圣经这样的宣誓取而代之，是更正确的。我只能依据Augustana【奥斯堡信条】为根基来按牧，因为【quia】,在对圣经的最严肃查考之后，我确信，奥斯堡信条是对福音的正确阐述。唯有quia（因为式的签署）可以建立一个对信仰告白（协同书）的真实宣誓。Quatenus（在一定条件下的签署）事实上仅仅是对教义信仰告白进行肢解拆除的一种客气，温和方式而已。
献给中国路德宗初学者以及对主圣道持敬畏态度的人。
Lutheran Translation Society (Public Domain)路德宗翻译社 (版权开放）
翻译：Gary Liu 主后2017.02.23
没有评论:
发表评论