|
作者
|
內容
|
|
獨立思考
|
Posted -
2005/3/18 下午 11:30:12
|
|
|
請問羅馬書9章14-23節, 這幾節經文是什么的道理?
經文如下:
「14. 那麼，我們可說什麼呢﹖難道天主不公道嗎﹖絕對不是!
15. 因為祂對梅瑟說過：『我要恩待的，就恩待；我要憐憫的，就憐憫。 』
16. 這樣看來，蒙召並不在乎人願意， 也不在乎人努力，而是由於天主的仁慈，
17. 因為經上有話對法郎說：『我特興起了你，是為在你身上彰顯我的大能，並為使我的名傳遍全世界。 』
18. 這樣看來，祂願意恩待誰，就恩待誰；祂願意使誰心硬，就使誰心硬。
19. 或者，你要問我說：既是這樣， 為什麼祂還要責怪人呢﹖有誰能抗拒祂的意志呢﹖
20. 人呀!你是誰，竟敢向天主抗辯﹖製造品豈能對製造者說：你為什麼這樣製造了我﹖
21. 難道陶工不能隨意用一團泥， 把這一個作成貴重的器皿， 把那一個作成卑賤的器皿嗎﹖
22. 如果天主願意顯示自己的義怒，並彰顯自己的威能，曾以寬宏大量，容忍了那些惹祂發怒而應受毀滅的器皿；
23. 祂如此作，是為把祂那豐富的光榮，在那些祂早已準備好，為進入光榮而蒙憐憫的器冊身上彰顯出來，又有什麼不可呢﹖」
聖保祿親自說明梅瑟出埃及時期是天主令到法朗王內心剛硬的, 因為聖保祿在羅馬書9章18節說「祂願意恩待誰，就恩待誰；祂願意使誰心硬，就使誰心硬」。問題是, 如果天主要令法朗心硬, 那么又為什么天主因為法朗的心剛硬而降十災給埃及人? 這樣是公義和慈愛嗎? 法朗的心在天主的操控下, 能使用自由意志令自己的心不去剛硬嗎? 答案是冇可能的! 既然天主要令法朗心剛硬, 而法朗又不能抗拒天主, 那么天主為何要懲罰埃及人?
接著, 聖保祿在(羅馬書9章19-21節)中又說道:「19. 或者，你要問我說：既是這樣， 為什麼祂還要責怪人呢﹖有誰能抗拒祂的意志呢﹖
20. 人呀!你是誰，竟敢向天主抗辯﹖製造品豈能對製造者說：你為什麼這樣製造了我﹖
21. 難道陶工不能隨意用一團泥， 把這一個作成貴重的器皿， 把那一個作成卑賤的器皿嗎﹖」
這樣看來, 即是天主刻意這樣做? 天主要令法朗心剛硬, 又要因此使埃及人受十災; 在默示錄中, 天主預定了將來必有假默西亞假先知和一班死不悔改要下地獄的人, 但天主又要他們因他們的行為負上責任, 這樣是公義和慈愛嗎?
當有這些問題時, 看到(羅馬書9章14-23節)聖保祿這樣寫, 這是什么道理?
究竟是天主要恩待誰，就恩待誰；祂願意使誰心硬，就使誰心硬, 還是聖保祿寫這幾節經文時加上了他自己的意思, 而不是天主的意思?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/3/19 下午 09:40:03
|
|
|
獨思兄：
因著近來在這兒的討論，小弟亦多讀了點書。在此推介已故Charles Journet樞機所著的《The Meaning of Grace》（Scepter, 1996）。一本薄薄的不到一百五十頁書仔，將天主教傳統神學的恩寵論作了扼要的闡述。
該書有詳談我們從傳統教義的觀點，對宗徒致羅馬人書八至九章關於「預定」的見解。謹擇錄如下：
9. I think this distinction I have given will enable you to understand this ninth chapter. Read it first of all as referring to the sphere of vocation in this present life and the charismatic gifts. These are what St. Paul begins with.
“Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham his children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son”(Rom 9:6-9).
Abraham had a son by Agar the slave, but Sara his wife remained barren. Then the angel came and announce that Sara would bear a son the following year. So from that time there were two sons: Ishmael, son according to the flesh, and Isaac, the child of the promise. From which would the descendants come? From Ishmael, whom Islam claims as forbear? No , but from Isaac, the child of the promise; by him the prophetic message was to continue. That does not mean that Ishmael was rejected by God in what pertains to eternal salvation, but he was not chosen to be the bearer of the prophetic message.
Then comes another disjunction. “And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father.” They were twins, Esau and Jacob. Which of the two will be the bearer of the prophetic promise? Here again, God is entirely free. “For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand); not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated”(9:10-13).
“Jacob I have loved,” as bearer of the promise. “Esau I have hated,” not as regards eternal life, but, as far as the promise is concerned, I have disregarded him.
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may show my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth”(9:14-17).
How is this passage to be understood? Moses was sent by God to Pharaoh to say to him: “Let my people go.” But Pharaoh refused to understand him. Had he been more enlightened, he would have said, “Go with thy people.” Then he would himself have entered into God’s plan; he would have shared, in some degree, in the vocation of the people who were the bearers of the promise. But Israel left against his will, and he sent his army in pursuit of them. Pharaoh sent wrong in the realm of high politics. This does not mean that he was necessarily damned but that he showed forth the glory of God in spite of himself. Moses and his people passed over the sea wherein Pharaoh’s armies were lost.
I shall continue the passage, still keeping within the first sphere. “Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth”(9:18). That is to say, he leaves in error whomever he decides to. Pharaoh went astray on the level of high politics. Cyrus, however, saw more clearly and , freeing Israel from captivity, sent it back to its own country to rebuild the temple. He furthered the plan of God and so is praised in Scripture.
“Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will? O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might show the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?”(9:19-23).
Wishing to “show his wrath” means to set on one side. The message is passed on in another way. “As in Hosea he saith: I will call that which was not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved; and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy. And it shall be in the place where it was said unto them: You are not my people; there they shall be called the sons of the living God. And Isaiah crieth out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved … because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth”(9:25-28).
10. We have read these passages as referring to the sphere of vocations in this present life. Now let us take some of them again in their application to the vocation to eternal salvation. This is not the plane St. Paul directly refers to, but, from time to time, it may have been underlying his thought.
First of all we take this text: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (9:13). If this meant: I have loved Jacob in person and saved him for eternal life; I have hated Esau in person and rejected him for eternal life; then we would say that, from all eternity, God knows that the supreme initiative of Jacob’s final act of love comes from himself; Jacob is saved by the divine goodness. And from all eternity God knows that the supreme initiative of Esau’s refusal comes from Esau himself. Esau is rejected in consequence of this free refusal made, in spite of God’s goodness toward him. He is rejected because he made these divine graces of no effect.
We must distinguish clearly between the way in which Jacob is saved (namely through the divine goodness) and that in which Esau is rejected (through his bad will). To fail to see this distinction and to say that God has the first initiative in Esau’s damnation as he has in Jacob’s salvation, that he is the cause of the former as of the latter, is to fall into the error of Calvin.
The second text is: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy” (9:15). Taking this on the plane of the call to salvation, this is the Catholic interpretation: let us suppose a man to whom God has offered his love and who sins, freely refuses his love, destroys grace in himself. God could say to him, “From now on, I shall leave you in your sin. Is that justice or injustice?” He would have to answer, “It is justice.” But God might also say, “In justice, I ought to abandon you, as I have in the case of others; nonetheless, once again, purely out of mercy and compassion, I shall go in search of you.”
Now let us look at the Calvinist interpretation: original sin has destroyed our free will. God chooses certain ones among us to be saved; he has mercy on whom he will have mercy. The rest are predestined to hell. And if you protest that it is iniquitous that men deprived of free will should be thrown into hell, Calvin will rise up against you and say that, since God does so, it is not iniquitous, but a mystery we must adore.
The third text is: “The scripture saith to Pharaoh: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may show my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will he hardeneth” (9:17-18). On the plane of eternal salvation, to “harden” someone means, in the Catholic sense, to allow their consequences to follow on acts that he has voluntarily chosen to do. I have committed a certain sin, which will normally lead to certain other sins. If God does not intervene, out of pure mercy, to break this sequence of sins, if he abandons me to the logic of my own actions, he will be said to harden me. I go of my own free will down the slope that leads from sin to sin. Is it in this sense that Pharaoh was hardened? Was he personally rejected? How can we know? In the Calvinist sense, to “harden” means to be plunged ever further into sin by a deliberate punitive action on the part of God.
The fourth text is: “Thou wilt say therefore unto me: Why then doth he find fault? For who resisteth his will? O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?” (9:19-21). According to Catholic teaching, God is bound to give grace to all, but he is not bound to give it equally. He gives his servants one, two, or five talents, to each according to his capacity (Mt 25:15); and this diversity will contribute to the splendor of the Paradise. But he is bound by his love to give each of us such graces that, if we fail to attain heaven, we shall have to admit our own sole responsibility.
The fifth text is: “What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might show the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?” (9:22-23). God may abandon the sinner to his sin and the logical results of his sin; it is then that he “show his wrath”, he endures with much patience” the vessels of wrath ripe for perdition. Why does he endure them? It may be that, at the last moment, he will visit them once again in his goodness. But God may also draw the sinner straightaway from his evil state; it is then that he “shows his glory” in regard to the vessels of mercy. Both Peter and Judas denied Jesus, and he could have abandoned both of them to their sin; it would have been quite just. But he looked on Peter, and his look overwhelmed him; that was mercy.
In the Calvinist view, God endures with much patience vessels of wrath destined to perdition, just as he makes vessels destined to glory. That is the doctrine of double predestination. ….
|
|
小寶 gary
|
Posted -
2005/4/18 下午 12:03:32
|
|
|
看到大家討論有關天主仁慈與恩寵和"天主要令法郎心剛硬, 又要因此使埃及人受十災"的故事，突然想起曾經聽過這個聖經故事。
撒下 24章 達味統計人口獲罪上主
點解達味做人口普查得罪天主竟要累以色列人民受罰?要知道聖經包含默感，也包含了人的理解和文字表達的缺憾。
聖經首要功用是要我們知道有一位天主，一位創造的天主。舊約的作者身處的環境是人人不信天主，於是他們便在經文表達出強硬的天主，事事都與祂有關的天主。
如何看聖經，先祈求天主聖神開啟我們的心，請祂教我們如何認識天主吧。
|
|
獨立思考
|
Posted -
2005/5/5 下午 11:12:05
|
|
|
我見到這一大段英文字就頭痛，我嘗試去查字典，但理解上仍有困難.......請大家為我代禱，求天主使我可以盡快理解這一大堆的英文字......
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2005/5/16 上午 08:35:20
|
|
|
最近瀏覽互聯網，發現原來該書已有網上版。
各位可按此連結參考。
|
|
