050 罗马书 9章30至33 主的预定与人的责任
050 罗马书9章30至33 主的预定与人的责任
-
- 问：Pic 圣经强调哪一个？ 圣经强调两者：上帝掌管万有 Vs 人要附全部责任
- 上帝的预定并不排除人需要附上全责
- e.g.滥用预定论：上帝预定，所以我祷告了也没有用！
- e.g.滥用预定论：我不传福音也上帝预定的！
- a.p.谨慎：罪人的逻辑往往要推卸责任。害怕你们滥用预定论来推卸责任！
- e.g.我犯罪是因上帝预定，所以我不需要负责任！
- e.g.你不努力读书，不可推卸责任
- e.g.你若是打我，我一定责怪你。不可推卸责任说是上帝预定你打我！
- Pic加尔文比喻:岛上的公主后来遇见一个坐船来找她的男子，后来公主被骗了之后她怪造船的[3]
- 加 6:7 不要自欺，上帝是不可轻慢的。人种的是什么，收的也是什么
- 我们所做一切是自己心肝乐意, 自愿的，所以必须附责任与后果！
- 人不是无辜的！罪人是按本性自己压制、抵挡真理（罗1:18）
- 当上帝的恩典越过他使，他会按自己的本性忤逆上帝
- 人灭亡是人自己的选择[4]，不能怪责上帝！
- Pic问：两个小偷,其中一个被你成功阻止。另外一个偷了东西,被抓后坐牢。是谁的错？
- 问：小偷被抓坐牢，可以怪你没有阻止他偷东西吗？
- a.p.人灭亡的原因是因为人自己的罪！人休想怪责上帝[5]
- 问：上帝的掌管计划是必定发生的，那么不是与人的责任冲突吗？
- Pic上帝的掌管计划与人的责没有冲突。这表面上的冲突这是人无法明白的奥秘。[6]
- 谨慎：任何否定上帝掌管一切，或 否定人必须完全尽责，[7]将损害自己的生命！
- Pic 比喻：三个人在船上的故事
- 罗9:30-33
- 上文V2保罗大大忧愁，心里常常伤痛，因祂的同胞犹太人拒绝主耶稣
- 保罗用何西阿与以赛亚先来证明，以色列人得救不过是余数。V25-27
- 问：谁是上帝所拣选的器皿？
- Ans 有犹太人与外邦人（V24）
-
- 问：犹太人是如何自己跌倒？
- 接下来，保罗让我们看见犹太人是如何自己跌倒
- V31 但以色列人追求律法的义（原文作“义的律法”）[11]… (KJV) But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness
- 两个翻译都可以。不过按原文翻译比较是义的律法 νόμον δικαιοσύνης
- 被掳归回后的犹太人，非常看重律法。
- e.g.不再拜偶像、谨守安息日e.g.如不能去超过10公里、守节期等等
- 他们追求律法，因他们以为能靠律法在上帝前称义 (路10:25-28、18:18-27)
- e.g.注重圣洁到一个地步，都不愿与罪人吃饭 (太9:11、11:19、路15:2)
- 路 15:2 法利赛人和经学家，纷纷议论说：“这个人接待罪人，又和他们一起吃饭。”
- 他们追求律法，不能容忍那些违背律法的罪人（路7:39、19:7）
- 他们清楚看见别人的问题与罪，却不看不见自己的问题与罪
- 路 18:11 法利赛人站着，祷告给自己听，这样说：‘上帝啊，我感谢你，我不像别人，勒索、不义、奸淫，也不像这个税吏。12 我一个礼拜禁食两次，我的一切收入都奉献十分之一。
- e.g.他们的宗教道德修为极高，好像圣人
- e.g.他们按律法不害人、不行不义的事、热衷宗教、奉献、事奉。
- e.g.律法师以为他真的能够做到爱神、爱人如己（路10:25-29）
- e.g.当主耶稣告诉犹太人他们是罪的奴隶时，大多数都拒绝主耶稣（约8:31-48）
- 问：是不是所有的犹太人都是这样？
- 在主耶稣时代，反而是许多肮脏污秽的犹太人信主！
- 太21:31…耶稣对他们说:“我实在告诉你们：税吏和娼妓比你们先进上帝的国。（你们=犹太人）
- 问：爱律法，遵守神的律法好吗？（罗13:8-10）
- 注：他们错在依靠律法来称义(路10:25-28、18:18-27)
- 注：律法的最主要用意是见证指向基督！(约1:45、罗3:21、10:4、加3:24、来10:1)
- 谨慎：我们信主后，越来越圣洁时，开始论断人
- 谨慎：越圣洁时，就以为我们被上帝接纳是因为我们“好”
-
- V31 …却达不到律法的要求【得不著律法的义】。[12] (ESV)did not succeed in reaching that law
- 问：为什么达不到律法的要求？
- V32 这是什么缘故呢？因为他们不凭信心，只靠行为[13]。…
- 我们没有一个人能达到律法的要求
- 靠律法/行为称义的人，都是自以为义的 self-righteous
- e.g.有时越道德的人越是抗拒福音
- e.g.加拉太教会一些信徒离开福音。（加1:6）
- 他们认为信耶稣还不能得救，还要加上律法（割礼）才能得救 (加2:12、5:1-12)
- 加3:10 凡是靠行律法称义的，都在咒诅之下…
- 靠律法称义的，只有一个结局就是被律法定罪 (罗3:20、5:20、7:8)
- 任何加上行律法或行为来称义，就是不信福音 (V32-33)
- 天主教教导称义是信心加行为
-
- V32…他们绊倒在那绊脚石上，33正如经上所记：“看哪，我在锡安放了一块绊脚石，是绊倒人的磐石…
- 引自 赛8:14-15
- 其实旧约一直在讲有块石头是犹太人会拒绝的 （诗118:22）
- 这块石头会使到不信的犹太人跌倒 （赛8:14-15）。
- 虽然记载在圣经中，但犹太人的心刚硬不信。
- 这块石头对信的人来说，是救恩与盼望 （赛28:16）
- 问：这石头是什么？或是谁？
- 这石头预表的是基督 （太21:42、可12:10-11、路20:17-18、徒4:11、彼前2:4-8）[14]
-
- V33 …；信靠他的人，必不致失望【羞愧】shame。”
- 引自 赛28:16
- 彼此问：你信靠主耶稣吗？
- 彼此对说：信靠他的人，必不致【羞愧】shame
总结：
-
- 上帝的预定并不消除人的责任。
- 犹太人跌倒是因为他们追求律法来称义 NIV pursued the law as the way of righteousness
- 我们信靠主耶稣的人，必不失望
[1] possible reason of why majority are infralapsarianism
[2] 泥本是卑微的 (罗9:21)。 后来一部分泥被塑造成贵重的
[3] Calvin did differentiate between remote and proximate cause. The proximate cause is the princess decision and the wicked man but the remote cause is the ship builder.
[4] 人得救却是主的恩典。因为主需要重生他，使他对主的信心活过来。上帝恩典使我们从死亡的状态中活过来相信接受主耶稣（弗2:1-5）
[5] Some may point to the fact that Why God has ordained to allow the fall of mankind? A mystery that were not explained by scripture
[6] I agree with John Stott’s statement “ If…anybody is lost, the blame is theirs, but if anybody is saved, the credit is God’s. This antinomy contains a mystery which our present knowledge cannot solve; but it is consistent with scripture, history, and experience.
[7] Denying either the existence of first cause (God’s providence) and secondary cause (man’s responsibility) will do harm to a believer’s life.
[8] 何西阿书与以赛亚书的背景是以色列百姓因拜偶像被上帝遗弃。被遗弃的以色列人“不是上帝的子民”后来主却恩待成了上帝的子民,“不是蒙爱”后来却蒙上帝爱，成为上帝儿子 (罗9:26-27）外邦人也同样本不是上帝的子民也不蒙爱，如今因着上帝拣选的恩典因基督成为上帝儿子。Cransfield have quite similar view for the construction of the question: Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then?
[9] When Gentiles are said not to follow righteousness, there is allusion to the fact that they were outside the pale of special revelation and had been abandoned to their own ways (cf. 1:18–32; Acts 14:16; 17:30). But thought is focused on what is central to the theme of this epistle in the earlier chapters and again in Chapter 10, namely, that they did not seek after the righteousness of justification. It is not that they were destitute of all moral interest (cf. 2:12–15) but that the matter of justification and of the righteousness securing it was not their pursuit. On the other hand, Israel unto whom the oracles of God had been committed did pursue this righteousness. We may not tone down this statement. As possessors of special revelation, epitomized in the Abrahamic covenant, the matter of righteousness with God unto justification was focal in their interest; it was central in their religion. It is this contrast that points up the tragedy of the sequel. Gentiles attained to this righteousness and Israel failed to arrive there. Murray, J.
[10] The discussion of righteousness and faith shows that he is still concerned with his great topic of justification by faith; he has not completed it and then gone on to the Jewish problem.Morris, L.
[11] 31. But is adversative; Paul sets Israel over against Gentile believers as they pursued a law of righteousness. The verb conveys the idea of earnest effort, which was, of course, characteristic of many Jews. Neither noun has the article, which puts some stress on the quality in each case. Law is sometimes understood as “a rule of life which would produce righteousness”. Morris, L.
This should not be taken as referring to the righteousness of the law, that of works. “Law” in this case is similar to its use in 3:27b; 7:21, 23; 8:2 and means principle or rule or order. Israel is represented as pursuing that order or institution which was concerned with justification. But Israel came short of gaining the righteousness to which that institution bore witness；Murray, J.
[12] What one expects after v. 30 is: Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων δικαιοσύνην εἰς δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔφθασεν. Had Paul written that, his meaning would be clear. But, instead of the expected double δικαιοσύνην, he has written νόμον δικαιοσύνης and νόμον (with δικαιοσύνης no doubt to be understood). In such a situation it is important that we should try to resist both the temptation to rewrite Paul’s sentence for him3 and also the temptation to treat Greek grammar as though it were a waxen nose that can be pulled into any shape one pleases. The rendering of JB, ‘looking for a righteousness derived from law’, for instance, should surely be rejected as an example of surrender to the latter temptation.4 Had Paul meant this, what reason could he have had for not using either δικαιοσύνην νόμου or (on the analogy of δικαιοσύνην … τὴν ἐκ πίστεως which he had just used in v. 30) δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου (cf. 10:5)? Moreover, any interpretation which assumes that by νόμον δικαιοσύνης in v. 31 Paul intended to indicate something which the Jews were wrong to aim at, falls foul of v. 32; for v. 32 implies that it was not the object of their pursuit which was wrong but the way in which they had pursued it (had they pursued it ἐκ πίστεως instead of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων, they would have been doing what was required). Why then did Paul introduce the word νόμος at this point? Surely because he wanted to bring out the truth that Israel had been given the law to aid it in its quest for righteousness before God.1 The law is the law of righteousness because it was intended and designed to show the people of Israel how they could be righteous before God, to show them that the way to this righteousness is—faith.2 In the law which they were pursuing so zealously they had that which was all the time pointing out the way to the possession of a status of righteousness in God’s sight. It was important for Paul’s argument that he should at this point make it as clear as possible that the disobedient majority of Israel had not just been seeking in a general way after righteousness before God, but had actually been pursuing specifically that very thing which was indeed the way appointed for them to lead them to that righteousness. The majority of Jews have zealously pursued the law of God which had been given to them to bring them to a status of righteousness in God’s sight: their tragedy is that, though they have pursued God’s law, and still are pursuing it, with so much zeal, they have somehow failed altogether really to come to grips with it, failed altogether to grasp its real meaning and to render it true obedience.Cranfield, C. E. B
[13] Paul is again affirming the impossibility of salvation other than by justification by faith. Righteousness is by faith, but the Jews did not come in faith. They sought the right goal indeed, though they did it in the wrong way: “but as of works” where “as” is important. Paul does not say that righteousness could be attained in this way, but only that the Jews thought so and therefore acted “as” though it could. Morris, L.
[14] Characteristically Paul rounds off this section of his argument with a quotation from Scripture, this time one in which he combines words from Isaiah 28:16 with some from Isaiah 8:14. The former passage has the stone motif, but there it is “a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation”. This Paul replaces with words from the latter passage about the stumbling stone. He could have used the original words, for Christ is the sure foundation on which Israel might well have built. But at this point he is more concerned to bring out Israel’s stumbling, so he concentrates on the words that make this clear. Israel failed to recognize the “stone” God laid in Zion,146 and she bears responsibility accordingly. The stone motif is found in a number of Old Testament passages (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Dan. 2:34–35, 44–45) and is taken up in the New (Matt. 21:42; Luke 20:17–18; Acts 4:11; 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4–8). It does not always have the same significance, but the New Testament writers see Christ as the stone. The 1 Peter passage combines the two Isaiah passages as Paul does here (it adds Ps. 118:22) Morris, L.