注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

守诚阁

基督徒世界观 译介圣经神学

 
 
 

日志

 
 

什么是“两个国度”?  

2012-04-01 06:08:36|  分类: 国度生活 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

诚之摘译自:http://www.credomag.com/2012/03/20/interview-with-david-vandrunen-on-two-kingdoms-theology/

加州西敏神学院的系统神学教授David VanDrunen最近接受Credo Magazine的访问,谈到他对“两个国度”的教义(Two Kingdoms Theology)的看法。其中两点特别能解释什么是两个国度:

其一。我喜欢这样来简短描述“两个国度”的教义:上帝用两种截然不同的方式,透过祂的儿子来统管全世界。作为造物主并维系这个世界,上帝统管自然界的秩序、世上一般的机构和人类社会的组织。这是透过普遍恩典所完成的,为的是保存这个世界的生命,使之能继续存活。作为救赎主,上帝也透过拯救的恩典统管着末世性的国度。祂借着宣讲圣经,呼召一群特殊的百姓归向自己。作为基督徒,我们同时参与在这两个国度之中,但是不应当把二者的目的相互混淆。作为投身于非常丰富的圣约神学的改革宗神学家,我认为根据圣经中的圣约来看这两个国度是有帮助的。洪水之后,在上帝与挪亚所立的约当中,上帝应许要保存自然界和人类社会的秩序(不是要救赎他们!),这包括所有的人类和所有的生物。但是上帝也设立了一个特别的、救赎的圣约。这是透过亚伯拉罕、透过摩西和以色列,如今是和教会所设立的新约来完成的。我们基督徒同时参与在挪亚之约和新约当中(记得上帝与挪亚所立的圣约会一直持续到地球被毁灭为止),也透过它们,参与在上帝对世界的双重统治——或,上帝的两个国度之中。

对基督与文化的关系中,有一种称为“改造文化派”(transformationist)的看法。有许多人拥护这种看法,对此也有许多不同的定义。基于这些分歧的看法和定义,我常常怀疑这种分类法有什么用处。如果“改造文化”(transformation)的意思只是说我们作为基督徒,要在生活所有的领域力臻完美,并且尽力对我们的职场,邻舍等等,造成好的影响,我就属于“改造文化派”。但是人们通常对“改造文化派”的定义是要在此时此地救赎人类社会的组织和结构,换句话说,就是要根据基督救赎国度的模式来改造它们,我相信两个国度的教义所提供的方法,明显是和这种方法有所不同的。例如,如果基督徒遵循的是两个国度的教义,他不会为救赎这个国家(不管你如何定义)而努力,而是认识到上帝保存这个国家有其良善的目的,并努力帮助这个国家在暂时性和神的摄理的目的里,在最佳的情况下运转。

其二,我不认为教会在选举年的责任,和其他任何时候有什么不同。教会应当宣讲圣经中神全部的计划(其中当然包括教导有关国家,人类生活的价值,婚姻,对待穷人,等等)。但是圣经没有设定政治政策的议题,或拥护一个特定的政党,因此,在这点上,教会应当保持沉默,因为它没有基督的授权,代表基督说话。而在支持某一个政党或候选人,或公共平台或策略上,个别的基督徒有自由运用上帝所给他们的智慧,来做出他们所相信的,一般来说会为社会带来最大好处的决定。政治总是需要妥协,要选择最少的恶,并拒绝让少数人的利益影响到大多数人的利益。基督徒对这些事情会有不同的判断,而教会基于审慎的理由,不应当试图介入,捆绑信徒的良心。这样想也许会有帮助:在基督徒饱受政治广告、标语和看板的轰炸下,在主日可以跨越这种对政治的狂热,而和上帝救赎的百姓聚集在一起,来庆祝他们在天上的国籍,该是多么令人振奋的事啊。他们与基督的联结,应当超越所有的国家、种族和政治上的分歧。


附原文如下:

The first:

I like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer, God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society (not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants (remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.

The “transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians, should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those temporary and provisional purposes.

 

The second:

I don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(692)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017