免費論壇 繁體 | 簡體
Sclub交友聊天~加入聊天室當版主
分享
返回列表 發帖

The Nature of Man 人的本性



This video is being made available for use by the MLJ Trust by the kind permission of Dame Joan Bakewell.
Dame Joan Bakewell Interviews Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. December 1970

此錄影乃由瓊.貝克韋爾女爵士善意授權 MLJ Trust 使用。
瓊.貝克韋爾女爵士於一九七零年十二月訪問鍾馬田醫生。




Joan Bakewell: Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, you are an evangelical preacher. And it's your wish to bring people back to the biblical truth about man. Now in so doing, you persuade man that the modern popular idea of what man is is on the wrong track. Could you specify where you think it’s making mistakes?

瓊.貝克韋爾:鍾馬田醫生,你是一位福音派傳道人,你的心願是把人帶回聖經中論及「人」的真理。在此,你提到現今普遍關於「人」的理論其實是走錯方向,你可否指出哪裡出錯?

Dr. Martyn Llody Jones: Well, it makes mistake in that the essential biblical view of man is that he is a creature of who has gone astray. In other words, I criticise the modern view of man on two grounds. One is that it makes too much of man; secondly that it doesn't make enough of man. It doesn't make enough of man in that it tends to regard him as just an animal. Perhaps his cerebellum was developed to little more than most animals’, but still essentially an animal. And I think that is degrading man and debasing him. And then on the other side, they make too much of him. In the sense that they believe that he has got it within himself to order himself and this society, more or less, to create a perfect world. And so I criticise on both those grounds, it's inconsistent. Whereas the biblical view to me is a consistent view of man on this way that it says that man is a creature created in the image and likeness of God. He is not a mere animal. That he's the lord of creation, that the image of God, which means his reason and his power to criticise and evaluate, and to control himself. This image of God is in him. And that is man essentially. Well, then why is man as he is? Well that is because he rebelled against this, rebelled against God, and regards himself as a god. And he is incapable of functioning as such. The result is, here, we've got chaos. But this is a unified view.

鍾馬田醫生:聖經指出,人類是已經走錯了路的被造物。或許我這樣說,今天人有兩個錯誤觀點:一、是把「人」放得太高;二、是把「人」放得太低。把「人」放得太低是指人類視自己只是一種動物,只是腦部比其他動物的發展得好,而這個觀念正是貶低和輕看自己。另一方面,把「人」放得太高是指人類認為自己能夠靠著管理自我和管理社會,或多或少也好,便可建立一個完美的世界。我對這兩個觀點是予以否定的,因為它們都站不住腳。而聖經指出,人是照上帝的形象樣式被造的,所以他不只是一隻動物,而是萬物之靈,這是確鑿的。因為有上帝的形象,人才能夠思考、分析、批判和控制自己。擁有上帝的形象就是人禽之別。但為何人今天會弄成這樣?這是因為人的悖逆:人悖逆上帝,把自己與上帝同等,因此人便不能好好地運作,結果造成混亂。這見解非常獨特。

Bakewell: There’re some of the elements that you find wrong with the modern image of man. Now you say that he's put...he's treated as less than man, but in respect of the animal instincts and the research that has been done into man as a naked ape and the victim of the environment and heredity. Now you cannot presumably quarrel with the actual facts that have been scientifically ascertained about this.

貝克韋爾:你覺得現時人對於「人」的觀念在哪裡出了亂子?你說人把自己看低了。但從動物的本能來說,以及一些研究都指出,人類是和猩猩同一祖宗的,是進化來的產物,你大概不可能質疑這些具科學證據的事實吧?

Dr. Jones: I would, a little bit, query this scientifically ascertained. You see so much today is as certain as fact in a realm of science which is nothing but theory and hypothesis. This is one of the great troubles, it seems to me today. And, I’m not only sceptical about it, I tend to ridicule it for this reason that I know in my medical training, we were told, you see, that a hundred years ago they regarded the thyroid gland as a vestigial remains, no function. But we know now that we can’t live without it. And they are still saying that about the appendix. Usually they said this about so much. This is the arrogance of modern man. Because his knowledge is limited, he makes these wild assertions that can’t be proved. All I’m prepared to agree with is this: that man today is behaving like an animal. But the question is why.
鍾醫生:我會有點質疑那些所謂的「科學證據」。你看,今天有許多所謂的科學「事實」其實只不過是些理論和假說。依我來看,這也是現今人類一大問題。所以,我不單對這些「事實」存疑,我更對之抱有嗤笑的態度。舉例來說,當我還在醫學院受訓時,我們曉得一百年前的理論告訴我們甲狀腺是一個沒有功能、已退化的部分,但現今我們知道沒有它則不能生存;而今天對於盲腸仍有很多類似的說法。這是現今人的驕傲:因為人的知識是有限的,才發表一些不能證實的斷言。但有一點我是同意的,就是今天人類真活得像動物似的;但我們要問:原因何在?

Bakewell: You say in one of your books that the very essence of the problem is in the nature of sin. And you also say that, in fact, sin has also been part of man’s nature but sin used to be ashamed of itself, whereas, today, sin excuses itself.

貝克韋爾:在你其中一本書提到,罪的本質才是問題的癥結所在。你亦說過罪一直是人的本性,但在過往,罪被視為可恥的;然而今天,人卻為罪辯護。

Dr. Jones: Yes. I don’t think I’ve ever said that sin is an essential part of man. Man, I would say, as the bible teaches, was originally perfect, but since man’s original fall, sin has been a part of human nature. And that has been true, of course, throughout the centuries. I would say that the story of humanities is just a proof of this fact that man is sinful now by nature. And this is bound to show itself.

鍾醫生:我想我沒有說過罪是人必然的本性。按照聖經教導,我會說人原本是完美的,但自從人第一次犯罪後,罪便成為人的本性了,而且這事實一直貫穿人類歷史。我會說,整個人類歷史都在證明人現在的本性是罪惡的,而且必然繼續。

Bakewell: What you quarrel with is that the initial assumption about man today is that he’s basically good, but he goes astray and the blame must be put elsewhere. Now, indeed there is some legitimacy in that point of view, in that poverty and pressure and exploitation does set many problems for man in which he doesn’t always behave well. Would you not subscribe to it at all?

貝克韋爾:那你所爭持的觀點是人之初,性本善,只是人走錯了路,而責任必需被歸咎。但有些人把責任歸咎於社會問題,如貧窮、壓力、被剝削等,所以偶爾不能循規蹈距也是在所難免。你是否完全不認同他們?

Dr. Jones: Yes. This is where we’ve got to start with man as he is today. My quarrel is, with the general outlook of today, is this that they begin to talk about treatment before they establish to true diagnosis. Now, I can’t help putting it like this you see. It’s a very poor doctor who medicates symptoms and isn’t aware of the disease that is producing the symptoms. Well, to me, the disease is this fallen sinful nature of man. And because that is true, none of your medication of the symptoms is going to deal with the problem. And I maintain that this is what history is teaching us, that with all our advantages today, the problem is as great as ever.
鍾醫生:嗯,這就是我們要探討的問題:為何社會今天會弄成這樣?我覺得今天人普遍的狀況,就是未正確診斷問題以先便急著要解決,就像一個非常差勁的醫生在未找到病的根源便施行治療(我忍不住要用這個比喻),而這個病,就是人墮落後的罪性。人有罪性是真實的,但沒有一個人能對症下藥。我確實指出,這是歷史一直以來給我們所看見的。而即使現今社會比過往發達,問題仍依舊繼續。

Bakewell: What then is the nature of man’s sin that you wish us to recognize?
貝克韋爾:那麼,在人類罪惡的本質中,有甚麼是你想我們注意?

Dr. Jones: It is this. It isn’t so much that he does things that are wrong, and that thereby makes himself miserable. No, I think this is an important point, if I may say so, I’m glad you asked that question. There are some people who represent sin as a sickness, and say that ‘man is sick’. There are a lot of Christians who would say this. Well, I agree that man is sick. But to me, that’s not the essence of the problem. The essence of the problem is that man is a rebel, and he is sick because he is a rebel. In other words, the business of Christianity, ultimately, is not simply to make us feel happier, or even to make us live a better life. It is to reconcile us to God. Man, you see, from this biblical standpoint, was never meant to be autonomous or self-contained. This is my quarrel with the modern view. They regard man as autonomous -- he is the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. It is so obviously ridiculous, because he isn’t. However, this is where they start.

Whereas, I start by saying, that man was not only not meant to be autonomous, and can’t be and can’t act as such, but, he only functions truly when he lives his life under God; the God who made him, and made him in a given way and has put laws in his nature. Well, man doesn’t respond to this essential law of his being and is quarreling with his maker; he’s bound to go wrong. He’s bound to be miserable in what he does. He’ll produce chaos. And he has done so throughout the centuries. This is the whole story of the human race. But, it isn’t merely that he’s sick; it’s that his attitude towards his maker is wrong. Now, the apostle Peter, for instance, puts it in a phrase like this that Christ came into the world to bring us to God. That’s why Christianity must never be thought of as a sort of cult which heals your body, enables you to sleep at night and stop worrying… now, that they turn it into a cult.

The real object is to bring man to his true position, which is that he’s in communion with his maker and he’s living to the glory of his maker. Now, there’s a very well-known definition of this, a Scottish confession of faith, a Presbyterian confession of faith, known as the Westminster Confession of Faith. They produced a shorter catechism, and the first question in that is about man: ‘What is the chief end of man?’ And this is the answer: ‘The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.’ But, do you see the order? You glorify God. Well, let me put it in another way to you. A clever fellow, a lawyer, I don’t know why they tackled Jesus Christ, and said, ‘Which is the first and the greatest commandment of the law?’ You see, they were dealing with about 613 commandments, and they were arguing about which one is the greatest. Well, that fellow had a great shock when Christ answered him. He said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind and all thy strength. That is the first and the chiefest commandment. The second is liken to it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’(Matthew 22:37-39) Now today, people start with the second and forget the first.

鍾醫生:很高興你問這個問題!有一點很重要:我們要知道,人今天的苦況不只是因為人做了一些錯事;另外亦有些人,抱括基督徒,把罪等同於病,並說「人病了」。沒錯,我同意人是病了,但這還不是問題的癥結所在,問題的癥結是在於人是反叛者,正因為人是反叛者,所以人才病了。換句話說,整個基督信仰的最終目的,並不是膚淺地要人開心些,提升生活質素等等,而是要人與上帝和好。從聖經中你會清楚看見,人從來不是自主的、不是自成體系的。現今人常認為人是自主的,能主宰自己的命運,能掌控自己的靈魂,這顯然是很可笑,因為人根本沒有這個能力,可是人卻一直以為能。

人是不可以,並且不能夠自主,人根本從來就不是自主的。上帝創造人時給予人特定的方向,給予人自然的律,人只有願意活在創造他們的上帝之下,才能正確地運作。但人不但不服上帝所定的律,而且還向祂強嘴,這樣下去人必繼續走錯,且必因自己所作的而愁苦,人只會不停製造混亂。這狀況已持續了千百多年,這是人類整體的故事。人類不是病了這麼簡單,而是對造物主的態度錯了。使徒保羅實實在在地指出,基督來到世上就是要把我們帶回上帝那裡去。今天許多人都把基督信仰當成一種心靈寄託,讓人身體得醫治、讓人晚上睡好些、讓人不再擔憂等等,但這些並不是整個基督信仰的核心。

基督信仰的核心是要把人帶回真正的地位,就是和他的造物主有情感交融,對準造物主的榮耀而生活。在蘇格蘭信仰宣言(又稱長老會信仰宣言或西敏斯特信仰宣言)中對此有很著名的定義,在他們的教理問答中,第一條問題就是:「人生的最終目的是甚麼?」而答案是:「人生的最終目的是榮耀上帝和享受上帝,直到永遠。」你看到次序嗎?你要榮耀上帝。或許我這樣說,曾經有一個很聰明的律法師和一班人來挑戰耶穌,並問:「夫子,律法的誡命,哪一條是最大的呢?」猶太人當時有613條律例要守,常常爭辯哪條是最大。但當那律法師聽到基督耶穌的回答時,便很震驚,因基督耶穌這樣回答:「你要盡心、盡性、盡意愛主你的上帝,這是誡命中的第一,且是最大的;其次也相倣,就是要愛人如己。」(聖經馬太福音22章37-39節)不過今時今日,人都只強調後者而忘卻了前者。

Bakewell: You know, this point of view is obviously held with great conviction by you. But, I would have thought it brought you into great conflict not only with people who don’t subscribe to the Christian religion, but to many other Christians too.

貝克韋爾:嗯,這是你所堅信的論點。但這論點不但叫非基督徒不能認同,而且在基督徒中也引起迴響。

Dr. Jones: Well, of course it does, but I’m sorry about this; this is something I deeply regret. But, this isn’t the first time, you know, that minority has been right. And, in any case, we don’t decide this kind of question by counting heads. I know nothing about these things primarily, apart from what I find in the Bible. But, I maintain that the story of the human race, and the story of civilization is a proof of the truth of the Bible.

鍾醫生:沒錯,這是理所當然的事,但我也對此深表遺憾。你也該知道,少數人支持的論點不一定是錯的。無論如何,這些問題的答案不能夠靠人數來定奪的。若非從聖經裡尋找,這些問題是不可能有答案。我堅說,整個人類歷史和人類文明,正是引證聖經的真實。

Bakewell: But, what I would suggest is that whereas they would tolerate your point of view as rather different and divergent view of Christianity, you are unprepared to tolerate their view as a possible version of the truth.

貝克韋爾:也許他們會包容接納你的論點,視之為眾多基督教觀點的其中一個;但你就完全不會與他們的論點妥協,不會認為他們的論點符合真理,對嗎?

Dr. Jones: I am, of course I am. And for this I say, of course, quite deliberately, for this reason: that Christianity is a very exclusive and dogmatic faith. Take the apostle Paul, for instance, writing- ‘Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that you have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ (Galatians 1:8) He puts it like that. Now, you may say, ‘That’s the arrogance of Paul.’ I say, ‘No, this man has been given his message, he has received it by revelation. It isn’t his point of view.’ If a man asserts his own point of view, as a result of his own thinking, in this intolerant manner, well, he’s a –, he’s not to be tolerated; he’s a hopeless fellow. But, when you are given truth, what you claim is truth from God, well, then you have no right to be anything but intolerant. When I find people insinuating their own theories and ideas, and using the name of Christ, well, I have to protest. This is dishonest, apart from anything else, in my opinion.
鍾醫生:完全正確!基督信仰從來就是一個不和其他立場相容的信仰,是一個非常著重教義的信仰。使徒保羅在書信中說過:「無論是我們,是天上來的使者,若傳福音給你們,與我們所傳給你們的不同,他就應當被咒詛。」(聖經加拉太書1章8節)你看,他這句話是非常凝重。或者你會認為他太驕傲。其實不是,因為保羅是直接從上帝得啟示,這些話並不是保羅自己的意見。的確,若有人把自己的意見思想如此絕對化,當然不該想望有人會同意他,他本身也沒甚麼希望。但當你得到真理以後,而且是從上帝而來的真理,那麼你就絕對不會容忍與之偏差的道理。所以,當我發現有人假借基督之名來傳揚自己的理論時(我認為這是相當不誠實的行為),我當然要為道爭辯。

Bakewell: But, nonetheless, sir, it’s a highly regarded Christian virtue these days to be both charitable and tolerant with people of different views of oneself. Do you disapprove of that?

貝克韋爾:但現今人認為基督徒的美德應該是仁慈寬容,願意接納不同意見。你會反對嗎?

Dr. Jones: Again, for the same reason, I am bound to. Christ Himself said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.’ (John 14:6)  He says all others have been thieves and robbers. (Ref. John 10:1-15)  So when I find the thieves and robbers being accepted into the church, and their views being tolerated and praised, surely I am bound to protest. The point is this, that Christ- we claim, I claim-  is unique; you mustn’t put anybody near Him. You mustn’t mention Him in the same category as Confucius, or the Buddha, or Mohammad, or anybody else. Why not? Well, because He is the only begotten Son of God. This isn’t my theory; this is Christianity. This is what the apostles preached.  They preached Jesus and the resurrection. Now, take a man like the apostle Paul; he, as a Pharisee, resented all this. The Pharisees regarded Christ as a blasphemer. ‘Who is this fellow? How can this man teach, never having learned Himself? Who is this man who claims to be equal with God?’ And Saul of Tarsus persecuted the church and he hated Christ. He says so. But then, he came to see that this was the Lord of glory. And he preached nothing else.

鍾醫生:我必須再提,基督耶穌親口說:「我就是道路、真理、生命,若不藉著我,沒有人能到父那裡去。」(聖經約翰福音14章6節)祂形容其他模仿祂的都是賊、是強盜(請參閱聖經約翰福音10章1-15節),所以當我發現有這類賊和強盜站在教會講台講道,而竟然得人接受和讚賞時,我必須要為道爭辯。我們(或者我)一直傳揚:基督是惟一真理,那自然就不可把其他的與之同等。你不可能把孔子、釋迦牟尼或穆罕默德等,或者其他的人與耶穌基督同等。為甚麼呢?因為祂是上帝的獨生子。這可不是我的理論,這是基督信仰,這是使徒們所傳的福音,他們傳揚耶穌並他的復活。以使徒保羅作例子,他是法利賽人,曾經對基督信仰恨之入骨,甚至把耶穌視為褻瀆者,他心裡存疑:「這人是誰?這人沒有學問,怎可作教導?這人是誰,竟自稱與上帝同等?」大數人掃羅(譯按:即保羅)曾逼迫教會,曾憎恨耶穌基督。但後來他看清了原來他就是那榮耀的上帝,自此便只傳耶穌基督的福音。

Bakewell: I must take you up on the social relevance of all the things you’ve been saying, because, if the church here on earth, the church militant here on earth, has a role to play in the lives of all people, whether Christian or not, and I wonder whether the dogma, the dogmatic nature of the church, as you speak of it, doesn’t inhibit you from having a role in the lives of ordinary people. A lot of people would find it, in a sense, easier to reject you, than someone who you would regard as 'liberal social minded regimen'.

貝克韋爾:你所提及關於社會的問題,我有點疑問。教會在社會上應該有自己的角色,服務社會上不同的人,包括基督徒和非基督徒。但你所提到的那些著重教義的教會,能對社會大眾有貢獻麼?對比那些被你指為「太開放、太包容、把基督信仰當成心靈寄託」的人,我想某程度上,社會大眾會拒絕你多些吧......

Dr. Jones: Precisely. And that’s why the world is as it is. That’s exactly the explanation. You’ve put it very perfectly. Now, I cannot accept the statement that the church is a social institution in your sense. A church, to me, consists of people  who are truly Christian. Now then, you say: What is the relevance of this to the social conditions and the problems? Well, I would say that it is the business of individual Christians to play their part in society. And, of course, historically, this is what is the most interesting.

The church has had its greatest influence upon society and social conditions when she’s been most evangelical. Now, this isn’t, again, my theory. I can establish this. I was in Scotland last week, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the death of John Knox. You read the accounts of the conditions in Scotland before Knox, and he’s always charged with intolerance and  all the things you were saying, but that man changed the life of the whole of Scotland. He introduced an educational system, he changed it morally, politically, and in every respect. The Puritans did it in this country. Cromwell, don’t forget was an evangelical Christian. And then, you come on to the 18th century, you have the evangelical awakening, and the Whitfieldand the Wesley’s, that did more to improve social conditions in this country than all the dabbling of ecclesiastics in politics.

鍾醫生:所言甚是。其實你已經道出了解釋,解釋了為何世人會如此,你所說的很對。不過我不會同意你所認為「教會是社會上的一個社團」。對我來說,教會是一群真基督徒的會。那麼你會問,到底教會對社會環境或社會問題有甚麼建樹呢?我會說,應該是每一個基督徒個人要對社會有建樹,在自己的崗位上盡忠,而這更是歷史曾給我們看見最引人入勝的地方:

教會曾在社會上有過極大的影響力,且是在教會仍主力於傳福音的時候。(重申,這不是我的理論。)上星期我在蘇格蘭參與約翰.諾克斯逝世400周年紀念活動。諾克斯常被人批評他不夠包容妥協,但他卻改變了整個蘇格蘭(你要比較一下在諾克斯以前的蘇格蘭),他引入了教育制度,改變了社會道德、政治,還有很多其他方面。清教徒們在那世紀也做了同樣的事情,例如奧利佛·克倫威爾。後來在十八世紀的福音派大覺醒,當中有喬治.懷特腓約翰.衛斯理等人。這大覺醒在國家裡對社會民生所帶來的改善,比那些參與政治的傳道人、牧師所帶來的更大。

Bakewell: You know, and yet, it’s often alleged against evangelicals that they promise salvation at the end of life and don’t, in fact, apply themselves to relieving man’s lot here on earth. Now, how concerned are you with man’s lot here on earth?

貝克韋爾:但福音派常常惹來這樣的批評:傳福音的人只應許人死後有永生,但他們根本沒有處理人今生的問題。那你會有多關注人今生的問題呢?

Dr. Jones: Well, I’m very concerned. And I’ve always criticized that particular presentation of evangelicalism. To me it wasn’t biblical. You see, the biblical view of man is that he’s to function in society. For instance, Paul’s teaching is that the powers that be are ordained of God. That magistrates, and all, are ordained by God. There are two elements in my position:
Man fundamentally needs this Gospel, which can renew him and renovate him, and make a new man of him. But in the meantime, he’s a believer in law and order, because sin must be held within bounds. If you don’t have magistrates and punishment and so on, you’ll get chaos. And, I think we’re witnessing a great deal of it at the present time. But this is a part of the whole Christian position. And Christian people, in the past, have played their part in politics and in various other aspects of Christian life. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, I agree, they have been somewhat guilty of the charge that you bring against them. But a number of us, by now, I think, that’s more or less gone. I find today that most evangelical Christians are very much concerned about the social implications and are laying a great stress upon it.

鍾醫生:我是非常關注的!我更常常批評福音派所表達的福音,我認為那些表達根本不符合聖經。從聖經裡我們可以看見,人是在社會上有他的功用的,例如保羅指出人的權力是上帝所賦予的,地上所有的官員都是上帝所授予的。我有兩點要提出:上帝的福音是人的根本需要,福音能使人更新和修復過來,使人成為新造的人;但在現時,人也是需要法律和秩序,因為罪惡必須受束。試想如果沒有法官和刑罰等等,整個社會都會混亂(我們現在也見證著很多這樣的事),這都是基督徒的位置。在過往,很多基督徒在政治上或其他社會階層上都有他們的位置,過著見證基督的生活。但可惜近這一百年裡,他們開始犯了你所提及的毛病。(我們很多人......嗯,或許現在都沒有幾個了。)我看見今天很多福音派的基督徒都很著重自己在社會上的功用,更對此常常強調。

Bakewell: Can we go back to this matter on ‘man having lost his sense of sin, and therefore not being in a situation of being able to be saved'. I would say, a great many people now feel that matters of sin are less than their immediate concern. And that being so, do you see much possibility of your point of view prevailing?

貝克韋爾:我想回到「人已對罪失去感覺,所以正處於不能自救的處境」這個觀點。我看到很多人都覺得罪的問題不及切身問題般值得關注,如此的話,你的觀點有可能得大眾認同嗎?

Dr. Jones: I not only see the possibility, I already see it happening. I find people are turning back to this. I’m travelling about the country a great deal now. I was telling you, I was in Scotland last week, I was in Glasgow wednesday night; I preached to 2,100 people. Well, it seems to me that something’s happening. I find, politicians, have it very difficult to get 50 people to listen to them. In other words, I believe, people are beginning to realize the utter bankruptcy of most of what’s been offered them, and are turning, perhaps vaguely, and even wistfully back in the direction of this great authoritative message of the New Testament, which I maintain is only represented by the evangelical standpoint. And we’ve got to bring them to an awareness of this. Of course they’re ignorant, but that’s the business of preaching.
鍾醫生:我不單覺得有可能,而且已經看見,我看見有些人正轉回這觀點。我現正在國家巡迴講道。剛才跟你說過,上星期我在蘇格蘭,星期三當晚我在格拉斯哥向二千一百人講道,我便看見這事情了。我發現,那裡的政客很難才找到五十人來聽他們講話,換句話說,我相信人們開始意識到那些政客不能做到所承諾的,人們才思念起新約聖經最高權威的訊息,就是只有福音派才有的立場,也是我一直所堅持的。所以,我們必須把他們的注意帶回來這裡。當然,有些人還是漫不經心,但這就是我們傳道的工作。

Bakewell: But, isn’t this need for an authoritative line, whatever it might be, in conflict with the other trend in man’s development, which is for self expression, fulfillment, self realization, which you actually disapprove of?

貝克韋爾:但如果必須要人達到某一些權威標準,這豈不和人的追求,如自我展現、滿足、自我實現等等有衝突?這些東西你都不同意嗎?

Dr. Jones: Well, yes, of course I do, because man as he is, the more he expresses himself, the worst things become. You see, if each man is autonomous,  and is to express himself or herself, you’re bound to get conflict, aren’t you? If each one of us is a god, and I determine I do what I think is right, well, you would think differently. Well, there’s a clashing immediately and you get chaos. You see, we must both of us, unto all others submit ourselves to God. We’ve got an authority outside of ourselves. And we have a motive and a reason and a purpose. You see, when people deny this, you must get chaos. And you’ve got it. This is the tragedy. And so, my business is to call people back to this. You’ve got, first of all, to show them why things are as they are. They’ve got to be clear about this. There’s no hope until they are. Now, I know that there are people going around today saying, ‘Jesus loves you…’ and so on. Well, if I was to be on the street, I would say, ‘Well, what about it? Who is your Jesus? I don’t want Him. I’ve got a car, I’ve got a refrigerator, I’ve got a television set; what are you bothering about? I’m not interested.’ That is my reply to them. You see, the Old Testament is the law, and as Paul puts it: the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), to show us our need. Now, when people confront the 10 commandments, there they see their failure. And it’s only when they realize this, truly, they see their failure. And it’s only people who see their failure, who are ready to listen to the offer of salvation.

鍾醫生:這個當然,因為從人的本質來看,他越展現自己,他越做錯事。你看,如果每一個人都是自主的,都要展現自己,那必然產生衝突,不是嗎?如果我們每一個都是上帝,我要做我自己認為對的事,但同時你又有其他意見,這樣必產生衝突和混亂。所以,我們必須將自己交給上帝,必須有一個外在的權力,我們才活得有動力,有意思,有目的。你看,當人否認上帝,結果就是混亂。你必須要認清楚這事,這事是悲劇。所以,我的工作是呼召人回到這點。首先,必須要讓人看見為何事情發展會弄成現在這樣,這是他們必須要搞清楚的事,否則人根本沒有盼望。我知道今天周圍有很多人常說「耶穌愛你、耶穌愛你......」如果我在街上聽到有人這樣說,我會反問他:「這又如何?耶穌是誰?我不需要他,我有汽車、有房子,妻賢子孝,生活美滿,你還要跟我說甚麼?我沒有興趣。」這是我對他們的回應。你看,舊約聖經是律法,就如保羅所說:「律法是我們訓蒙的師傅,引我們到基督那裡。」(聖經加拉太書3章24節)律法是顯明我們所需要的。當人在十誡面前,必然看見自己的失敗,只有真實看見自己的失敗,人才會願意了解何為救恩。

Bakewell: Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, thank you very much!

貝克韋爾:鍾馬田醫生,非常多謝你!


小火車 @ 基督教果園

Joan Bakewell 譯作瓊.碧慧儀會較好

TOP

返回列表