1.31.2009

Justifying Faith and the Role of Good Works in Salvation Part II

Note: This is the second part of a paper I recently wrote on the nature of justifying faith. IN this section I outline the particular views of Norman Shepherd to show how his definition of faith has driven much of the controversy. Please see first PART I

II. The Present Controversy

Norman Shepherd

Beginning in 1974, Norman Shepherd, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, said something that troubled the faculty: the instrument in justification, Shepherd insisted, includes both faith and works.[1]
On May 27, 1977 formal charges were filed against Shepherd in the Philadelphia Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Shepherd submitted his “Thirty-four Theses on Justification in Relation to Faith, Repentance, and Good works.” Four theses in particular called into question Shepherd’s view of justifying faith.

Thesis 20: The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, “the doers of the Law will be justified,” is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).

Thesis 21: The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb 3:6, 14).

Thesis 22: The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer’s justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Thesis 23: Because faith which is not obedient faith is dead faith, and because repentance is necessary for the pardon of sin included in justification, and because abiding in Christ by keeping his commandments (John 15:5; 10; 1 John 3:13; 24) are all necessary for continuing in the state of justification, good works, works done from true faith, according to the law of God, and for his glory, being the new obedience wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer united to Christ, though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification (Rom. 6:16, 22; Gal. 6:7-9).[2]

Concerns were immediately raised that Shepherd had improperly joined works to faith in God’s act of justifying the sinner.[3]
Without rehearsing all the details of the controversy, and before we evaluate Shepherd’s position, it is important to understand what motivated his re-formulation of the Protestant doctrine of justification.
In his article “Justification by Faith Alone”, Shepherd explores what Protestants mean by the doctrinal formula, “justification by faith alone.”[4] In the introduction Shepherd expresses concern over the problem of antinomianism.[5] To suggest that the “alone” of justification means a simple act of faith by which Jesus accepts the sinner will lead people to think there is no need “to escape from sin or its consequences.”[6] The answer for Shepherd lies in how we should understand the “alone” of this faith that justifies. According to Shepherd, there is one kind of saving faith that the Scriptures, a “living, active and obedient faith.”[7]

Defined this way, there is no need for a logical distinction between justification and sanctification. Shepherd accuses evangelicals of typically “dodging” the verses that Rome employs to refute the Reformation. When Paul speaks of “faith working through love,” or James speaks of Abraham as “justified by works,” all of this dodging becomes unnecessary when we understand that Paul is always speaking in a soteric sense. Faith is never alone because the virtues (what Shepherd calls “gifts and graces”) belong inherently to the nature of faith. This is a Roman definition of faith, since the faith that justifies always includes these gifts. Subsequently, Shepherd is able to say that repentance is necessary for justification, both are intertwined and cannot be separated, and “there is no justification without a penitent faith.”[8] The faith that is the alone instrument of justification is a living faith, “ever accompanied with all other saving graces and is no dead faith, but worketh through love.”[9]

Shepherd clothes his revision of historic Reformed theology in terms of the covenant. Shepherd defines covenant as a “relationship of union and communion between God and his people in the bonds of mutual love and faithfulness.”[10] According to Shepherd, “all the same principles are operative in all covenants,” so the covenants are all covenants of works and grace.[11] Whether we are speaking of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or the New Covenant, all require the condition of righteousness to be met.[12] The question of what meets this condition of righteousness is germane to understanding Shepherd’s concern of both legalism and antinomianism.

It is important to note that classic Reformed theology distinguished between covenants that operated upon the fundamentally different principles of law and grace. In Shepherd’s mono-convenantal schema, the law and the gospel, faith and works, are meshed together in such a way that “faith and works are inclusive of one another.”[13] In flattening out all covenants without distinguishing whether the given covenant is operating on the principle of law or grace, faith and obedience are joined together and form the believer’s obligation to fulfill the blessings of the covenant.

In classic covenant theology, when a covenant was determined to operate on the principle of grace, even the conditions of the covenant (as all covenants included promises, stipulations, blessings, and curses), were understood to be provided from the gracious hand of God. For instance, Perkins wrote,

In the covenant of grace two things must be considered the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God’s church and people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part, are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits: and this condition is by grace as well as the substance.[14]

Historically, the Abrahamic covenant has been understood to be a gracious covenant because God provides a mediator for the sinner, and because the condition of the covenant of works is considered, either by anticipation or in fact, to have been fulfilled. This gracious covenant is a response to what had been lost by Adam and his posterity in a previous covenant arrangement that operated on the principle of law. In the Abrahamic covenant God makes a provision for sinners to apply the merits and righteousness of the mediator by the instrument of faith.
Thus, when God required faith on the part of Abraham, it was an instrument that was also met by grace.[15] Understood in this way, there is no condition in the administration of the covenant of grace that a sinner in his own strength can do to merit God’s blessing. The entirety of this covenant operates under the principle of grace. It is for this reason that even conditionality, strictly speaking, becomes unconditional for the elect as God gives his own requirement of faith to the sinner.

The difference in Shepherd’s covenant theology is that he collapses the different words of law and gospel into one mono-covenantal system.[16] This collapsing of two fundamentally different principles has a direct bearing on how Shepherd explains conditionality in covenant relationship.

Adam’s covenantal obedience in the garden did not merit any reward; neither does our covenantal obedience. But both are required by the covenant demand. The threat for disobedience is eternal death. This threat is as real for us as it was for Adam in the garden. The warning of the New Covenant must not be blunted or made hypothetical in any way. God’s threat to Adam or to Israel was not idle, and the same sanction of the covenant is directed against us in the new Covenant.[17]

Shepherd’s covenant theology clearly implies that there is only one covenant, and it is, in effect, a covenant of works. Shepherd’s position is strikingly similar to Rome’s as the need for the active righteousness of a mediator, namely, Christ’s righteousness, becomes unnecessary. Shepherd writes, “the blessings of the covenant are the gifts of God’s free grace, and they are received by way of a living and active faith.”[18] Since all covenants operate upon the same principles, like Adam and Israel, if the new covenant believer does not fulfill his side of the covenant with what Shepherd calls an “obedient faith”, he too will be cut off.

When Shepherd states that faith fulfills the condition of righteousness in all covenants, since he understands all covenants as operating together upon the principles of law and grace, he has no option but to define faith as something other than apprehending and receiving the righteousness of Christ, and by so doing inculcates into justifying faith the sinner’s obedience. Shepherd writes,

The works to be distinguished from faith in the Pauline passages are not good works, but works of the flesh, works that are done to provide a meritorious ground of justification…Since faith, repentance, and good works are intertwined as covenantal response, and since good works are necessary to justification, the ordo salutis would better be: regeneration, faith/repentance/new obedience, justification.[19]

Shepherd calls into question what Paul meant in Rom. 3:28 when he wrote “that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” Shepherd defines the works of the law as “adherence to the provisions of the Mosaic covenant,” and sharply criticizes Luther for inserting the word alone into his translation.[20] This distinction is very important in Shepherd’s view. Historically, Protestants have excluded all works from faith as it functions in the act of justification, without distinction. But Shepherd makes a categorical separation between the works of the law and the works of faith. Theses 24 and 25 capture this distinction.

Thesis 24: The “works” (Eph. 2:9), or “works of the law” (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), or “righteousness of my own derived from the law” (Phil. 3:9), or “deeds which we have done in righteousness” (Titus 3:5) which are excluded from justification and salvation, are not “good works” in the Biblical sense of works for which the believer is created in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:10), or works wrought by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:22-26), or works done from true faith (I Thes. 1:3), according to the law of God, and for his glory, but are works of the flesh (Gal. 3:3) done in unbelief (Gal. 3:12) for the purpose of meriting God’s justifying verdict.

Thesis 25: The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from good works justifies, but that the way of faith (faith working by love), as opposed to the “works of the law” or any other conceivable method or justification, is the only way of justification. (John Calvin, Institutes, III, 11. 20. “Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies ‘but faith working through love’ [Gal. 5:6]. But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.”).[21]

Putting these statements together, the way of justification is by the way of an obedient, active, living faith which includes the good works of the law and not the works of the flesh.
In Shepherd’s discussion of Genesis 15:6 he writes that the faith that justified Abraham was a living and obedient faith. Shepherd correlates James chapter 2 to Abraham’s forensic justification and applies his obedience as part and parcel to the very faith that was credited to him as righteousness. Shepherd writes,

Verse 21 [of James 2] says that Abraham was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. His faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did…James goes on to say that faith without deeds is dead. For that reason, he can also say in verse 24 that a “person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” The faith credited to Abraham as righteousness was a living and active faith.[22]

In the Mosaic covenant Shepherd again states, “without a living, active, penitent, and obedient faith, Israel could not remain in the Promise land.”[23]
Even more striking is the way Shepherd applies covenant conditionality in the new covenant to the work of Jesus Christ. Shepherd writes, “His [Christ’s] was a living, active, and obedient faith that took him all the way to the cross. This faith was credited to him as righteousness.”[24] Drawing a conclusion for the new covenant believer, Shepherd writes, “A living, active, and abiding faith is the way in which the believer enters into eternal life.”[25] Like Adam, if the new covenant believer does not fulfill his side of the covenant with an obedient faith, he too will be cut off and face eternal condemnation.

Shepherd’s view can be summarized this way: God graciously establishes the covenantal relationship with believers and their children. But in this mutual covenantal bond of love, the believer maintains this relationship and fulfills the condition of righteousness by a faith that is living, active, abiding, and obedient, by which the believer enters eternal life. Justification as a narrower concept and salvation as a broader concept that includes sanctification, an important distinction in Reformed theology, is an absent distinction in Shepherd. Therefore, the justification of the sinner is by the way of faith and good works.[26]

Having overviewed Norman Shepherd’s view of justification and good works, we now transition to demonstrate how Shepherd’s views have impacted the present-day Reformed community.


[1]“Reasons and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd,” in A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy, ed. by John W Robbins (Unicoi, Tenessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2003), 135. See also Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, ed., by R. Scott. Clark (Philippsburg: P&R, 2007), 3-24.
[2]O Palmer Robertson. A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy, ed. John W. Robbins (Unicoi, Tennessee: The Trinity Foundation, 2003), 34-35.
[3] For an evaluation of other documents, see the 258th Synod of the RUCS Report of the Special Committee to Study Justification In Light of the Current Justification Controversy.
[4] “Justification By Faith Alone,” Reformation and Revival 11 No. 2 (Spring 2002): 75-90.
[5] Ibid., 76. Shepherd asks elsewhere, “How do you preach grace without suggesting that it makes no difference what your lifestyle is like? In other words, how do you preach grace without being antinomian? On the other hand, how do you preach repentance without calling into questions salvation by grace apart from works? How do you insist on obedience without being legalistic?” Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace,(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2000), 8-9.
[6] Shepherd, Justification by Faith Alone, 75.
[7] Ibid., 81.
[8] Ibid., 85.
[9] Ibid., 79.
[10] Shepherd, Call of Grace, 12.
[11] Ibid., 51.
[12] For instance, the Reformed confessions clearly present the covenant in the garden with Adam as a covenant of works, upon which the law principle of “do this and live” was operative. See Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 6, 9; But in the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed, the operative principle was grace. By the instrument of faith, the sinner, as a recipient of the gracious covenant made through Abraham, is called to renounce his own works and look in true faith to the promised Christ who, as the second Adam was sent to merit all the demands of righteousness that the first Adam had lost in the garden. This righteousness received by faith is the ground of the sinner’s justification before God.
[13] Richard Philips, “Covenant Confusion,” Seminar Address for the Philadelphia Conference on Reformation Theology Phoenix/Indianapolis/Philadelphia (March-April, 2004). See also, “Which Covenant Theology” by Michael S. Horton in CJPM, 197-228.
[14]Perkins, Reformed Catholik, 571.
[15] Instrument is probably a much safer word to employ in light of the current controversy. CF. “Faith Formed by Love of Faith Alone? The Instrument of Justification” W Robert Godfrey in CJPM, 267-284.
[16] Cf. “Letter and Spirit: Law and Gospel in Reformed Preaching” R.S. Clark in CJPM, 331-363.
[17] Robertson, Companion, 151-152.
[18] Shepherd, Call of Grace, 22.
[19] Reasons and Specifications Supporting the Action of the Board of Trustees in Removing Professor Shepherd,” in A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy, 150.
[20] Calvin’s commentary on Gal. 3:28 is helpful in this context, “The meaning is, that there is no distinction of persons here, and therefore it is of no consequence to what nation or condition any one may belong: nor is circumcision any more regarded than sex or civil rank. And why? Because Christ makes them all one. Whatever may have been their former differences, Christ alone is able to unite them all. Ye are one: the distinction is now removed. The apostle’s object is to shew that the grace of adoption, and the hope of salvation, do not depend on the law, but are contained in Christ alone, who therefore is all. Greek is here put, as usual, for Gentile, and one department for the whole class. John Calvin Calvin’s Commentaries Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 112.

[21]Robertson, Companion, 34-35. Again Calvin is worth citing, “There would be no difficulty in this passage, were it not for the dishonest manner in which it has been tortured by the Papists to uphold the righteousness of works. When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification. The Papists themselves are accustomed to tear faith after a murderous fashion, sometimes presenting it out of all shape and unaccompanied by love, and at other times, in its true character. We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works. With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow; and neither must it be supposed that love possesses any such influence. John Calvin Calvin’s Commentaries Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 152-3.
[22] Shepherd, Call of Grace,16.
[23] Ibid., 30.
[24] Ibid., 19.
[25] Ibid., 51. This summarizes Shepherds view of faith, but the same definition is dispersed throughout his writings. In his paper the “Grace of Justification”, the same joining of obedience as an element of faith. Shepherd speaks of “faith as entailing obedience”, and is “invariably intertwined with repentance.” Further, the forsaking of sin and rebellion is itself an “act of faith.” This is thoroughly Pelagian
[26] Morton Smith similarly states, “In the Call of Grace the author’s primary thesis can be summarized as follows: The way of salvation, that is justification, is the way of faith and good works. The faith that saves, the faith that justifies is active, living, and abiding. It perseveres to the end. The way or instrument of justification (though Shepherd does not employ the term “instrument”) is faith and works. Morton Smith, The Biblical Plan of Salvation, With Reference to the Covenant of Works, Imputation, and Justification by Faith, (The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision), ed. E. Calvin Beisner (Knox Theological Seminary: Fort Lauderdale, 2004), 103.

1 comment:

  1. October 18, 2007悉怛多缽怛囉阿門
    ***英國哲學家培根說過:『歷(讀)史令人明智。』



    英國哲學家培根說過:『歷(讀)史令人明智。』

    全文(翻譯及原文)

    培根《論讀書》

      讀書足以怡情,足以博彩,足以長才。其怡情也,最見於獨處幽居之時;其傅彩也,最見於高談闊論之中;其長才也,最見於處世判事之際。練達之士雖能分別處理細事或一一判別枝節,然縱觀統籌、全局策劃,則舍好學深思者莫屬。讀書費時過多易惰,文采藻飾太盛則矯,全憑條文斷事乃學究故態。讀書補天然之不足,經驗又補讀書之不足,蓋天生才幹猶如自然花草,讀書然後知如何修剪移接;而書中所示,如不以經驗範之,則又大而無當。有一技之長者鄙讀書,無知者羨讀書,唯明智之士用讀書,然書並不以用處告人,用書之智不在書中,而在書外,全憑觀察得之。讀書時不可存心詰難作者,不可盡信書上所言,亦不可只為尋章摘句,而應推敲細思。書有可淺嘗者,有可吞食者,少數則須咀嚼消化。換言之,有只須讀其部分者,有只須大體涉獵者,少數則須全讀,讀時須全神貫注,孜孜不倦。書亦可請人代讀,取其所作摘要,但只限題材較次或價值不高者,否則書經提煉猶如水經蒸餾、淡而無味矣。
    *** <
      讀書使人充實,討論使人機智,筆記使人準確。因此不常作筆記者須記憶特強,不常討論者須天生聰穎,不常讀書者須欺世有術,始能無知而顯有知。讀史使人明智,讀詩使人靈秀,數學使人周密,科學使人深刻,倫理學使人莊重,邏輯修辭之學使人善辯:凡有所學,皆成性格。人之才智但有滯礙,無不可讀適當之書使之順暢,一如身體百病,皆可借相宜之運動除之。滾球利睾腎,射箭利胸肺,慢步利腸胃,騎術利頭腦,諸如此類。如智力不集中,可令讀數學,蓋演題須全神貫注,稍有分散即須重演;如不能辨異,可令讀經院哲學,蓋是輩皆吹毛求疵之人;如不善求同,不善以一物闡證另一物,可令讀律師之案卷。如此頭腦中凡有缺陷,皆有特藥可醫。 >

    Of Study

      STUDIES serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment, and disposition of business. For expert men can exe-cute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one; but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs, come best, from those that are learned. To spend too much time in studies is sloth; to use them too much for ornament, is affectation; to make judgment wholly by their rules, is the humor of a scholar. They perfect nature, and are perfected by experience: for natural abilities are like natural plants, that need proyning, by study; and studies themselves, do give forth directions too much at large, except they be bounded in by experience. Crafty men contemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them; for they teach not their own use; but that is a wisdom without them, and above them, won by observation. Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of them bothers; but that would be only in the less important arguments, and the meaner sort of books, else distilled books are like common distilled waters, flashy things.

      Reading make a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. And therefore, if a man write little, he had need have a great memory; if he confer little, he had need have a present wit: and if he read little, he had need have much cunning, to seem to know, that he doth not. Histories make men wise; poets witty; the mathematics subtitle; natural philosophy deep; moral grave; logic and rhetoric able to contend. Abeunt studia in mores. Nay, there is no stand or impediment in the wit, but may be wrought out by fit studies; like as diseases of the body, may have appropriate exercises. Bowling is good for the stone and reins; shooting for the lungs and breast; gentle walking for the stomach; riding for the head; and the like. So if a man\'s wit be wandering, let him study the mathematics; for in demonstrations, if his wit be called away never so little, he must begin again. If his wit be not apt to distinguish or find differences, let him study the Schoolmen; for they are cymini sectors. If he be not apt to beat over matters, and to call up one thing to prove and illustrate another, let him study the lawyers\' cases. So every defect of the mind, may have a special receipt.
    參考資料 < cite > http://www.peacehall.com/forum/qglt/598.shtml < /cite >









    我不想 說 誇大不實ㄉ話
    不妄語 綺語 兩舌 要平等恭敬

    仍戒殺放生 吃素吃蔬食 斷惡修善 [喝酒就會是下地獄ㄉ因]

    *

    悉怛多缽怛囉 不結婚 不讓人貪愛 可以環球367天




    謝謝老師
    不要殺盜淫妄
    不戰
    要 和睦相處 '平等對待

    莫殺生 防輕生 要自愛 須放生






    ::::

    UFO:帶我投胎到 有佛法和功名ㄉ星球去

    把 好ㄉ文明 也攜帶過去

    http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!hWtdGeaEER3NLCUj6UChUlk-/article?mid=568

    http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!hWtdGeaEER3NLCUj6UChUlk-/article?mid=568
    香巴拉 香格里拉











    #

    *

    同上,上面這票話證明,就算是唸加州理工,只要練了法螺功,一樣練得
    神智不清

    小結:

    這段沒啥賣點,就是不斷抱怨大陸的迫害,大陸迫害法螺功是事實,但
    這不表示什麼唬爛都可以拿大陸迫害當理由合理化,更不代表唬爛都是真
    的。滿口「澄清真相/象」,結果手法奇差無比,法螺功滿口「大陸造
    謠」,結果自己也一樣唬爛法螺嗚嗚響。


















    加入書籤: Yahoo!奇摩 BookMark Furl BookMark Technorati
    BookMark HEMiDEMi BookMark MyShare BookMark udn BookMark
    funP BookMark del.icio.us BookMark
    當日人次: 1 累積人次: 25
    文章分類: 百冷修螺
    此分類上一篇: 百冷修螺(六)─是踢爆還是搞笑?(之三)法螺立場與論述
    此分類下一篇: 百冷修螺(六)─是踢爆還是搞笑?(之五) 馬後砲,馬後屁
    Yenchinn at 無名小站 於 12:23 PM 發表 | 回應(3) | 引用(0) | 轉寄
    給朋友
    * qubqub32 於 June 4, 2008 03:31 PM 回應 | 來源: | | 刪除 | 設為隱藏

    *

    香格里拉 香巴拉 在雪山

    法輪功不屬於佛教 此功是 來滲透佛教亂佛教ㄉ
    # 版主 於 June 7, 200
    (不要墮落到 三途:貪水災餓鬼道、 瞋火災地獄道、 癡風災畜牲道 )
    0推薦此文章 推 收
    加入書籤: Yahoo!奇摩 BookMark Furl BookMark Technorati BookMark HEMiDEMi BookMark MyShare BookMark udn BookMark funP BookMark del.icio.us BookMark
    當日人次: 1 累積人次: 13
    您可以對此收藏留下註解

    收藏分類: 新增收藏分類
    收藏註解:

    個人分類: 未分類文章 全站分類: 心情 / 行業 / 上班一族
    zycxxcz1234 at 無名小站 於 07:59 AM 發表 | 回覆(1) | 引用(0) | 收藏(0) | 轉寄給朋友 | 檢舉
    [本篇文章引用網址]

    回覆

    *

    1樓

    1樓搶頭香

    名人名言論讀書

    讀書人怎樣論讀書呢? 我們不妨從西方名人對書所作的各種比喻中細心體
    會一下, 也許能幫助我們讀書有嶄新的認識。

    ●喜讀書

    首先, 我們思想一下到底甚麼叫 "讀書" , 讀書的目的是為了甚麼?

    亞里斯多德說: 人類需要三方面的知識-----理論﹑實用及鑒別的能力。

    赫塞說: 學問就是分辦事物異同的能力。

    魯巴金說: 讀書是在別人思想的幫助下, 建立起自己的思想。

    培根說: 讀書不是為了雄辯和駁斥, 也不是為了輕信和盲從, 而是為了思
    考和權衡。

    愛因斯坦說: 讀書是要找出可以使自己昇華的東西。

    羅曼. 羅蘭說: 從來沒有戈讀書, 只有人在書中省察自己﹑發現自己和檢
    查自己。

    ●樂讀書

    讀書, 既耗時又費神, 何樂之有?

    笛卡兒說: 讀一切的好書, 就是和許多高尚的人談話。

    伊薩克. 巴羅說: 一個愛書的人, 他必不缺少忠實的朋友﹑良好的導師﹑
    可愛的伴侶和優婉的安慰者。

    羅素說: 知識是使人類快樂的主要因素。

    蘇格拉底說: 讀書是輕易把別人辛苦得來的經驗吸收進來。

    培根說: 史鑒使人明智, 詩歌使人巧慧, 數學使人精細, 博物使人深沉,
    倫理使人莊重, 邏輯與修辭使人善辯。

    ●勤讀書

    那麼, 應該怎樣讀書才能獲益呢?

    史邁爾說: 學間之事, 功夫要精密, 解悟要透徹。蓋學問之益不在讀書之
    多, 而在運用之熟。

    伏爾泰說: 讀書多而不加思考, 就自以為知道得很多; 思考愈多時, 就發
    現自己知道得很少。

    狄斯雷利說: 多觀察, 多經驗, 多研究, 是學習中的三大棟樑。

    貝靳斯說: 吊兒郎當的學習者並不勝於學習吊兒郎當的人。

    最後, 還是佚名者說得最直接了當: 書, 對懶惰皂人是一堆廢紙, 對虛浮
    的人是裝璜擺設, 只有對勤學的人才是無價寶貝。

     

    作者: 王
    * zycxxcz1234 於 October 18, 2007 08:20 AM 回應 | 檢舉


    December 30, 2007
    辯證

    http://blog.udn.com/castvoice/80633


    http://youth.ngo.org.tw/dk-study/20060710.htm
    http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-HFU/nx099381.html



    http://public1.ntl.gov.tw/publish/sci_knog/49/text37.htm
    http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ001/bj089696.htm
    http://taup.yam.org.tw/comm/comm0110/t005-7.htm

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1607111211153
    http://intermargins.net/Forum/2005/lonentai/let10.htm
    http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%BE%AF%E8%AD%89%E7%A5%9E%E5%AD%B8
    0推薦此文章 推 收
    加入書籤: Yahoo!奇摩 BookMark Furl BookMark Technorati BookMark HEMiDEMi BookMark MyShare BookMark udn BookMark funP BookMark del.icio.us BookMark
    當日人次: 1 累積人次: 20
    您可以對此收藏留下註解

    收藏分類: 新增收藏分類
    收藏註解:

    個人分類: 未分類文章 全站分類: 生活 / 興趣 / 星座命理
    zycxxcz1234 at 無名小站 於 09:02 PM 發表 | 回覆(71) | 引用(0) | 收藏(0) | 轉寄給朋友 | 檢舉

    ReplyDelete