We Are Rebels

You see, in our time we have over-emphasized the psychology of the sinner’s condition. We spend much time describing the woe of the sinner, the grief of the sinner and the great burden he carries. He does have all of these, but we have over-emphasized them until we forget the principal fact—that the sinner is actually a rebel against properly constituted authority! 

That is what makes sin, sin. We are rebels. We are sons of disobedience. Sin is the breaking of the law and we are in rebellion and we are fugitives from the just laws of God while we are sinners.
 
So it is with sinners. Certainly they are heartbroken and they carry a heavy load. Certainly they labor and are heavy-laden. The Bible takes full account of these things; but they are incidental to the fact that the reason the sinner is what he is, is because he has rebelled against the laws of God and he is a fugitive from divine judgement.

- Tozer, A. W., I Call It Heresy

Understanding Sin

Another way to calculate the importance of a biblical understanding of sin is through the use of a series of theological continua. For example, a high view of humanity (humans are basically good morally) and our capacity for good typically maintains a low view of sin’s serious effects upon humanity. Alternately, a heightened view of sin (humans are radically depraved) will result in a reduced view of human capacity for spiritual good.

The theological understanding of Christ’s work is also impacted by one’s view of sin. A milder view of sin tends to parallel a nonpunitive view of the atonement. When the cross is viewed as an answer to the wrath of God, a clearly heightened view of sin (human helplessness before a holy God) is the presupposition.

God’s grace is another area directly impacted by one’s view of sin. The more sinful we appear to ourselves, the more we recognize the strategic nature of God’s grace. In the matter of soteriology, a positive view of human ability coupled with an optimistic view of the human condition depreciates the need for salvation and opens the door for alternate interpretations of the nature of our deliverance from sin (e.g., liberationist definitions of salvation as deliverance from political, sexual, or racial exploitation). In terms of conversion, repentance and faith are directly related to the nature of sin. Thus, do we have the capacity to repent and believe, or are these capacities granted to us at conversion?

Finally, as became clear to Augustine, one’s view of predestination is impacted by one’s view of sin. A more severe view of sin prompts a more pronounced understanding of predestination and election. Alternately, modifications to God’s free unconditional election (conditional election, for example) are supported by a less stringent view of human depravity.
 

- John W. Mahony, “A Theology of Sin for Today,” in Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 

eds.  Christopher. W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, 2013.

The Reality of Sins

The strategic importance of sin theologically and practically prompts us to ask about the nature of sin itself. Typically, post-fall definitions of sin (that is, those that reflect our fallen condition) come from either lexical analyses of the biblical words or from the various biblical images for sin (such as disease, defilement, or debt). Christian confessional statements, articles of faith, and systematic theologies contain definitions that have been coalesced from biblical usage and historical precedents. 

More recent efforts to define sin, however, reflect the existential and realist contexts of the last century: “[Sin] is universal, tragic estrangement, based on freedom and destiny in all human beings, and shall never be used in the plural. Sin is separation, estrangement from one’s essential being.” Existentially, sin is a deep sense of dread or anxiety, the tension that arises from our finitude and the openness of the future.

The trend away from more objective statements about sin tends to cloud the issue of sin’s essence. Compared to the existential, man-centered approach to sin, classic doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Larger Catechism defined sin with a clear reference to God and his law: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.” Within the Roman Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas defined sin as “a word, deed, or desire which is against the eternal law.” John Calvin defined sin as “unfaithfulness.”10 James Arminius claimed that sin is “something thought, spoken, or done against the law of God, or the omission of something which has been commanded by that law to be thought, spoken or done.”

Each of these definitions captures the essential meaning of sin as a violation of God’s law, covenant, or will. They also reflect a traditional understanding of the historicity of Adam and interpret the account of the fall in Genesis 3 quite literally. Consequently, sin is viewed more in relation to God. The perspective, however, is still post-fall.

A. H. Strong defined sin as the “lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state.” In a subsequent clarification of the definition, he declared: “It therefore considers lack of conformity to the divine holiness in disposition or state as a violation of law, equally with the outward act of transgression.”

 “Lack of conformity,” however, is only true of humankind after the fall of Adam; the expression cannot be applied either to Adam before the fall or to the incarnate Son of God. From a pre-fall perspective, the essential nature of sin is expressed in a single act of rebellion; from a post-fall perspective, the violation of God’s law is only one component among innumerable others.

In regard to the post-fall perspective, then, sin possesses many different facets and expressions. The Scripture also uses an array of terms for sin and describes it in many different ways. The following is a summary of the biblical usage and serves as an exposition of the post-fall reality.

 

 - John W. Mahony, “A Theology of Sin for Today,” in Fallen: A Theology of Sin, 

eds.  Christopher. W. Morgan & Robert A. Peterson, 2013.

 

Rhetorical Analysis of Paul's Letters

Why was rhetoric so important to a young evangelistic religious movement like Christianity? T. Engberg-Pedersen explains the matter perfectly: "Paul has also shown that precisely when the question is one of changing other people's lives the very content of the gospel demands a ‘method' of effecting such changes which is directly opposed to any use of force [or trickery].... It is that of speaking to them in ways that do not encroach upon their independence." One cannot command people to believe the gospel but must persuade them, and the art of persuasion in the Greco-Roman world was rhetoric.
 
Even after one has persuaded persons to believe, an apostolic figure like Paul knew that it continued to be better to persuade than to command one's converts, as in his words to his coworker Philemon in the midst of another impressive piece of deliberative rhetoric: "Therefore, although I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.... I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would be voluntary" (Phlm. 8-9, 14). Paul knew perfectly well that proclaiming a monotheistic Jewish message in a polytheistic culture where anti-Semitism was rife required more than just words spoken in earnest and with passion. It required persuasion. The objections and the mental and emotional obstacles in the minds and hearts of the listeners had to be answered and removed if Jesus was to become their Lord and not merely another religious sideshow. And Paul knew that God had not left it simply up to the Holy Spirit to do all the heavy lifting of persuasion. Rather God commissioned proclaimers to do their part so that word and Spirit might work together to persuade and convert. The use of rhetoric was especially apropos and important in cities in the empire heavily influenced by Greco-Roman values, including by rhetoric - cities like Philippi, which had at the turn of the era become a Roman colony.
 
Deliberative rhetoric, had been the rhetoric of the Greek assembly (the ekklesia), the rhetoric of advice and consent, the rhetoric that helped people make decisions about the course they would take into the future. This sort of rhetoric, in the main, is what we find in Paul's persuasive missives as he seeks to shape the course charted by his charges into their future, including when he would no longer be around. As Quintilian stressed, letters that are meant to be proclaimed on arrival are in the main written-out speeches and were closer in both form and substance, in both style and content, to acts of persuasion than to ordinary mundane letters.
 
A bit more should be said at this juncture about the rhetorical device known as "exemplification." According to Quintilian, a named or anonymous person's character is set forth in part to excite or conciliate an audience's feelings and to spur them on to imitation. Using such examples was not merely an effective way to embellish one's oratory and bring it to the point of persuasion, but also a deliberate means of paraenesis, and used precisely that way by rhetoricians and moralists of Paul's era. The importance of this for analysis of Philippians should be obvious. Paul is using theologically charged arguments, including using a Christ hymn to urge the audience to have the same mindset as was found in Christ and in those who, like Paul, imitate Christ, and to walk worthily of the gospel and its principles.
 

--- Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 2011.

Synagogue

The destruction of the temple during the Jewish exile led the Jews to emphasize the study and application of Old Testament law. This attitude contributed to the establishment of the synagogue as a pillar of Jewish practice. The exact time of the origin of the synagogue is uncertain, but many scholars have suggested that synagogues first appeared during exilic or postexilic gatherings of Jews to read and study the law. By the first century, synagogues were widely located throughout Palestine and the Diaspora. It was customary to form a synagogue whenever as many as ten Jewish men resided in a community.

The synagogue served as the center of religious, social, and educational life for the Jewish community. Jews gathered weekly for the study of the law and the worship of Jehovah. During the week children were instructed in the Jewish faith and learned to read and write. The synagogue also served as a center for receiving offerings for the poor and administering charity to the needy.

The synagogue was organized around a head or president (Mark 5:22), who likely was elected by vote from the body of elders. He presided over synagogue services and intervened in any disputes (Luke 13:14). The elders had general responsibilities for spiritual care of the congregation. An officer known as a hazzan cared for the building and its contents, blew the trumpet announcing the Sabbath day, and sometimes taught in the school at the synagogue. Perhaps the official of Luke 4:20 who received the scroll of Scripture from Jesus held this office. The use of the term rabbi as a reference to an ordained scholar belongs to the period after the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70. In the New Testament, the term was largely used to address Jesus or others as an authoritative teacher or master (Matt. 23:7; Mark 9:5; John 1:38; 3:2).

The synagogue building was normally a substantial stone structure, often elaborately furnished. Each synagogue had a chest containing the law scroll. The speaker’s platform was raised, and the congregation sat on stone benches around the walls or on mats or wooden chairs in the center of the room. To read from the scroll, the speaker stood. To preach, he sat down (Luke 4:16–20).

The synagogue service consisted of a recitation of the Jewish creed known as the Shema (see Deut. 6:4–5). This recitation was accompanied with praises to God known as the Shemone Esreh and was followed by a ritual prayer. The term Shemone Esreh suggests that there were eighteen benedictions of praise, but the actual number of benedictions varied by time and place. The reading of the Scriptures was followed by a sermon, explaining the portion that had been read. A blessing by a priest closed the service. In the absence of a priest, a prayer was substituted.

Jesus regularly attended and participated in synagogue services. Paul made synagogues his initial point of contact in the cities he visited (Acts 13:5). Some early Christian worship may have taken place in the synagogue, ...
 
Title: The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd edition
Authors: David Alan Black, Thomas D. Lea
Publisher: B&H
  

20世纪的自由主义神学

受到自由主义神学的影响，一些大学、神学院和教会开始偏离他们原来的信仰。基督教基要派人士则成立了自己的机构，并采取了与现代文化划清界限的方式抵制自由主义神学的侵蚀。当自由主义神学开始侵占神学院和讲台的时候，基要派人士的回应是以激进的、分裂主义的观点看待整个生活——尤其是思想领域。他们消极避世的态度使得“反智主义”在他们当中一度盛行。他们把人们（甚至包括基督徒）接受教育并拥有知识看做危险之事，并把人的情感和经历高举到比思想更重要的地位上。
 
公众对基督教的看法一直很消极，基要派信徒也仍然持守着自己自杀式的、反对一切的分裂主义立场。终于，20世纪40年代，卡尔亨利（Carl Henry）和葛培理出现了。他们向人们展示出保守派基督教的一种更成熟的形式，它并没有在基督教的核心真理上妥协，这标志着现代福音派的诞生。
 
现代福音派重视人的思想，他们相信上帝呼召基督徒更多地参与到社会文化生活中，而不是消极地逃避它。因此，现代福音派在社会上得到了比基督教基要派更广泛的认同，但同时它也面临着挑战，那就是，在维持社会认知度的同时，它是否需要在基督教的核心信仰上有所妥协，或者是在文化无力改变社会现状的情况下，放弃基督徒警戒世人的责任？基督徒必须不断提醒自己，传递真理、影响社会是自己的责任。
 
新正统运动
 
20世纪初，自由主义神学的浪潮席卷了整个欧洲，然而，巴特坚持抵挡住了这股潮流的侵袭，开始了一场神学革命，后来被人们称为“新正统运动”。在面对纳粹党的疯狂举动时，他也表达了自己的反对立场。
 
巴特的思想无异于一枚炸弹，投向了自由主义神学阵营，于是他们开始向他咆哮，基督教保守派人士则开始向他鼓掌。不过，后者很快发现，他对圣经启示及其在基督徒生活中的作用的理解是有问题的。他说，圣经并不完全都是神的话，而是有一部分是神的话；圣经并不是来自神的直接启示，它记载的只是人类对上帝启示的回应。
 
结果，巴特遭到了来自两方面的批评。尽管如此，几乎所有生活在他那个时代和我们这个时代的人都承认，20世纪最伟大的神学家非巴特莫属。虽然他最初也来自自由主义神学的阵营，但后来他一直在尝试将自由主义神学拉回到正统基督教的根基上。即使他自己可能也没有完全归回，但正是他亲手埋葬了自由主义神学发展成为经典神学的希望。

——理查德 W. 科尼什，《简明教会历史》,2010.

20世纪对教会的冲击

除了科技的发展，另一个挑战便是共产主义的兴起与蔓延。自从主后一九一七年俄国革命以来，短短的几十年，共产政权统摄了世界三分之一的人口。共产主义是一套完整的宇宙人生观和历史观，对很多人有莫大的吸引力。共产主义之中不少人文理想根本是来自基督教，当然也有一些是与基督教对人的瞭解及理想有所冲突的。这些理想成为很多革命者的生命动力，推动革命。然而，共产主义的唯物思想否定了神的存在，也否定了宗教的价值，因此，当共产主义蔓延时，基督教便受到很大的压力。
 
马克思主义、存在主义、语言分析哲学等不断冲击基督教的思想，神学家面对这些思想的冲击不得不重新瞭解传统的信仰。从积极的角度来说，这是很好的，但偶一不慎，很容易让这些思想取代了教会信仰的实质。例如马克思主义在南美对神学思想影响极深，因而产生解放神学。解放神学固然不一定是错误，但问题是，当神学家完全用马克思主义去分析历史及社会状态，他们很容易失去了圣经的透视。不单如此，从马克思主义的角度看历史、社会的转变，革命是主要的动力。如此，神学家往往将圣经的信息解释成革命的信息，这是非常危险的。
 
语言分析哲学对神学也有相当的影响，语言分析哲学家认为神学语言是没有意义的，因此神学所讲的东西有很多都是在人的经验以外，是不能摸、不能见的事物，例如三位一体的理论等。因着这种挑战，在五十年代及六十年代纪中很多神学家便致力研究神学语言到底在20世纪是否还有它的地位。一些神学家研究的结论是，传统的神学语言在20世纪是完全无用的，就算是"神"这个字也没有什么意义；于是他们开始谈到将"神"这个名词从字典中抽出来。而"神死了"的神学思潮便是这样开始的。

20世纪是神学思潮汹涌，也是相当纷乱的时代。一个思潮兴起，流行一时，不到十年便又衰落。这种情况，使信徒感到很迷惘，甚至怀疑神学家在玩一些思想游戏，因此神学教导在很多信徒的心中也失去了过往崇高的地位。
 

——余达心，《基督教发展史新释》