Alumine Five of Stenheim
Stenheim is a relatively late entrant to the high-end speaker field. It was founded in 2010 by a collective of mainly ex-Goldmund engineers, and its products have inherited an unmistakable aesthetic and, to a lesser extent, sonic DNA, although it was a significantly evolved character that was to emerge in the shape of the debut model, the compact, two-way Alumine Two. It’s a developmental divergence that has continued and, if anything, accelerated with the emergence of each subsequent product. The latest Stenheim speakers, developed under the auspices of new owner Jean-Pascal Panchard, definitely have their own, unambiguous identity, both visually and musically.
I’ve been seriously looking forward to the arrival of the Alumine Five. Previous experience with the brand has included impressive exposure to the various versions of the enormous and enormously impressive Ultime Reference models, as well as a brief but highly rewarding flirtation with the stand-mounted Alumine Two in my own system. The possibility of combining the sense of musical articulation, enthusiasm and communication I experienced from the Alumine Two, with more than a hint of the clarity, scale and authority so effortlessly delivered by the Reference models, all in a package that, if not exactly affordable, at least isn’t completely out of the question, makes the Alumine Five a distinctly interesting proposition.
Yet, confronted with the Alumine Five in the flesh, there’s little to hint at the extraordinary promise lurking within. Resolutely rectangular in true Stenheim style, the Five’s aluminum cabinet, with its plate-to-plate construction, stands just 48" tall, 15" deep and presents a broad 11" face to the world, dimensions based on golden-ratio numbers. The front baffle is split by a physical break between the upper midrange-treble enclosure and the lower bass cabinet, independently ported by the laminated full-width slots above and below, a physical separation that is mirrored by the contrasting inlaid strips that help visually break up the one-piece side panels. The regular lines, smooth surfaces, flawless matte finish and lack of visible fixings could easily result in a bland, almost featureless appearance. But those trim strips and the offset midrange and treble drivers do just enough to give the Five a subtle hint of individual style without resorting to the sort of gauche and ostentatious flourishes that so often pass as design.
The result is a refreshingly clean, classical appearance that will blend seamlessly with a range of different decors. Despite the lack of grilles (although they are available as an option, does anybody really spend this kind of money on a speaker and then compromise the performance by fitting covers?), the beautifully profiled baffle and absence of visible fixings makes for a genuinely neat, finished appearance that matches the superb surface finish on the cabinet. The end result just looks right, in a way that makes you wonder why you’d want grilles anyway.
The first hint of its potent sonic capabilities comes when you try to pick it up. Each comparatively compact cabinet tips the scales at 220 pounds. That’s a grunt-inducing, two-man lift. Now, take a look at the figures for bandwidth and sensitivity, and an in-room response that digs down as far as 28Hz combined with 94dB efficiency should raise your eyebrows, especially given the compact cabinet dimensions. Which brings us to the first experiential disconnect: boxes this size shouldn’t produce this much bass or do it so easily. Nor should they weigh so much -- although therein lies the clue to this particular conundrum. When it comes to bass extension, it’s not the external dimensions of the box that matter, but its internal volume. Just like the Crystal Cable Minissimo, a thin-wall cabinet makes for a much larger internal volume than the external dimensions might suggest -- especially if we apply the expectations of more conventional wood-based construction. Throw in the sheer weight of the aluminum panels and the combination of mass and physical dimensions would subconsciously suggest massively thick walls -- and a correspondingly limited internal volume. Instead, what we have here is a deceptively large volume, which, combined with the inertia of the heavy cabinet and the mechanical stability provided by the material, makes for an effective mechanical reference for driver movement, meaning that more of the energy your amplifier sticks into the speaker comes out as sound and (at least in theory) it will be more precisely rendered.
So far, not very much that’s new. It’s not like Stenheim (or Magico, or YG Acoustics) has exclusivity when it comes to aluminum cabinets. But what does make Stenheim different is the unique material they use in damping their cabinet panels. Of course, the separate enclosures and the internal baffles they demand make for an inherently heavily braced structure, but look inside a dismantled Alumine Five and you’ll find strategically placed pads stuck to the cabinet walls. These three-layer, self-adhesive pads combine a heavy damping layer (adjacent to the cabinet wall itself) with added foam and impervious layers, allowing the low-volume pads to influence both the mechanical behavior of the cabinet itself and the enclosed volume. It’s an interesting solution because it manages to overcome the weakness so often audible in simple, braced aluminum cabinets (the all-too-recognizable resonant signature of the material itself) while maximizing the benefits (large volume and rigidity) by obviating the need to stuff the internal space full of wadding or long-haired wool. In fact, if the Stenheims were stood behind a sonically transparent curtain, you’d be hard-pressed to recognize the music as emanating from an aluminum cabinet at all. The absence of the bleached, grainy or lean colorations, the lack of sterile, mechanistic reproduction, is one big half of the Stenheim story, living, breathing proof that it’s not what you use but how you use it that counts.
The other half is down to the drive units, and after the cabinets, those come as quite a surprise, both the lineup and the chosen materials. In stark contrast to the use of the latest, precision CNC techniques, complex damping pads and finishing options, the Alumine Five's drivers are as traditional as they come, with a coated silk-dome tweeter and pulp or laminated paper midrange and bass drivers. The cone drivers use textile double-roll surrounds and massive magnets more normally found in pro-audio applications, and while Stenheim doesn’t build its own drivers, the company works closely with its chosen supplier (PHL, definitely not one of the usual suspects) to specify the electrical parameters, mechanical characteristics and precise details of the surface coating.
The use of such lightweight cone materials and large motors aids the system efficiency, while a hybrid second-order/Linkwitz-Riley crossover, the result of extended listening and evolution, ensures phase coherence and excellent out-of-band attenuation and makes for easy non-reactive load characteristics, despite the three-way topology. The other aspect of the driver lineup that might be considered slightly unusual is the use of a large-diameter (6 1/2") midrange unit -- although less so since Vandersteen’s patent on the approach lapsed some years ago, resulting in a rash of companies suddenly exploring the possibilities of the topology.
Perhaps more important, in the case of the Alumine Five, it means that you are getting the tweeter and midrange drivers from the Ultime Reference series speakers, teamed here with a pair of 10" woofers but without the benefit of a super tweeter. Even so, Stenheim quotes bandwidth out to 35kHz, which should suffice for most purposes. The review speakers arrived with the optional second set of terminals installed, allowing for biwiring or, more significantly, biamping, an upgrade opportunity that makes this an option you should take. If, in the meantime, you are single-wiring the speakers, make sure you factor in a set of jumpers that match your speaker cables: the Alumine Five's overall sense of musical coherence makes the benefits especially obvious. Likewise, good wiring practice is essential, both in terms of cable dressing and diagonal connection (red to midrange/treble, black to bass, with jumpers arranged accordingly).
Aside from the speaker's substantial weight, the parallel sides and flat surfaces of the four-square cabinet make setting up the Fives an absolute joy. Precise, repeatable, angular adjustments are easily achieved, while changes in attitude are just as straightforward, helped by the beautifully profiled stainless-steel spiked feet and deeply cupped footers. Both the cones and their locking rings have nice, large ports to take the supplied pry bars, but it’s worth greasing the threads before installation. One other thing to watch out for: the spikes are seriously (refreshingly) sharp -- sharp enough to penetrate a thick rug and score the floor below, so be careful where you stand the speakers once the feet are installed. Final positioning disposed the speakers on a broad front with minimal toe-in. When it came to dialing in their considerable musical energy, the most critical factor proved to be height off the ground, with tiny adjustments of the spikes making profound differences to the weight and pace of the presentation. Likewise, equal weighting of the four spikes was crucial to a proper sense of grounded weight and dynamic authority.
........................................................
Price: $60,000 per pair.
Warranty: Five years parts and labor.
(Source: The Audio Beat)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「separation at source」的推薦目錄:
- 關於separation at source 在 Lee388 Hi Fi 發燒專頁 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於separation at source 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於separation at source 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於separation at source 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於separation at source 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於separation at source 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於separation at source 在 The Malaysian Insider, profile picture - Facebook 的評價
- 關於separation at source 在 What is Source Separation? 的評價
- 關於separation at source 在 Lec 7: Handling, separation and storage at source - YouTube 的評價
separation at source 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
A Joint Open Statement by Pastors:
A Declaration for the Sake of the Christian Faith(already signed by hundreds of pastors in China)
—————————————————————————
We are a group of Chinese Christians, chosen by the Most High God to be His humble servants, serving as pastors for Christian churches throughout various towns and cities.
We believe and are obligated to teach the world that the one true and living Triune God is the Creator of the universe, of the world, and of all people. All men should worship God and not any man or thing. We believe and are obligated to teach the world that all men, from national leaders to beggars and prisoners, have sinned. They will die once and then be judged in righteousness. Apart from the grace and redemption of God, all men would eternally perish. We believe and are obligated to teach the world that the crucified and risen Jesus is the only Head of the global church, the sole Savior of all mankind, and the everlasting Ruler and supreme Judge of the universe. To all who repent and believe in Him, God will give eternal life and an eternal Kingdom.
In September, 2017, the State Council issued the new “Regulations on the Administration of Religious Affairs” and began implementing these regulations in February, 2018. Ever since then, Christian churches across China have suffered varying degrees of persecution, contempt, and misunderstanding from government departments during public worship and religious practices, including various administrative measures that attempt to alter and distort the Christian faith. Some of these violent actions are unprecedented since the end of the Cultural Revolution. These include demolishing crosses on church buildings, violently removing expressions of faith like crosses and couplets hanging on Christians’ homes, forcing and threatening churches to join religious organizations controlled by the government, forcing churches to hang the national flag or to sing secular songs praising the State and political parties, banning the children of Christians from entering churches and receiving religious education, and depriving churches and believers of the right to gather freely.
We believe that these unjust actions are an abuse of government power and have led to serious conflicts between political and religious parties in Chinese society. These actions infringe on the human freedoms of religion and conscience and violate the universal rule of law. We are obligated to announce bad news to the authorities and to all of society: God hates all attempts to suppress human souls and all acts of persecution against the Christian church, and he will condemn and judge them with righteous judgment.
But we are even more obligated to proclaim good news to the authorities and to all of society: Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, the Savior and King of mankind, in order to save us sinners was killed, was buried, and rose from the dead by the power of God, destroying the power of sin and death. In His love and compassion God has prepared forgiveness and salvation for all who are willing to believe in Jesus, including Chinese people. At any time, anyone can repent from any sin, turn to Christ, fear God, obtain eternal life, and bring great blessing from God upon his family and country.
For the sake of faith and conscience, for the spiritual benefits of the authorities in China and of society as a whole, and ultimately for the glory, holiness, and righteousness of God, we make the following declaration to the Chinese government and to all of society:
1. Christian churches in China believe unconditionally that the Bible is the Word and Revelation of God. It is the source and final authority of all righteousness, ethics, and salvation. If the will of any political party, the laws of any government, or the commands of any man directly violate the teachings of the Bible, harming men’s souls and opposing the gospel proclaimed by the church, we are obligated to obey God rather than men, and we are obligated to teach all members of the church to do the same.
2. Christian churches in China are eager and determined to walk the path of the cross of Christ and are more than willing to imitate the older generation of saints who suffered and were martyred for their faith. We are willing and obligated under any circumstance to face all government persecution, misunderstanding, and violence with peace, patience, and compassion. For when churches refuse to obey evil laws, it does not stem from any political agenda; it does not stem from resentment or hostility; it stems only from the demands of the gospel and from a love for Chinese society.
3. Christian churches in China are willing to obey authorities in China whom God has appointed and to respect the government's authority to govern society and human conduct. We believe and are obligated to teach all believers in the church that the authority of the government is from God and that as long as the government does not overstep the boundaries of secular power laid out in the Bible and does not interfere with or violate anything related to faith or the soul, Christians are obligated to respect the authorities, to pray fervently for their benefit, and to pray earnestly for Chinese society. For the sake of the gospel, we are willing to suffer all external losses brought about by unfair law enforcement. Out of a love for our fellow citizens, we are willing to give up all of our earthly rights.
4. For this reason, we believe and are obligated to teach all believers that all true churches in China that belong to Christ must hold to the principle of the separation of church and state and must proclaim Christ as the sole head of the church. We declare that in matters of external conduct, churches are willing to accept lawful oversight by civil administration or other government departments as other social organizations do. But under no circumstances will we lead our churches to join a religious organization controlled by the government, to register with the religious administration department, or to accept any kind of affiliation. We also will not accept any “ban” or “fine” imposed on our churches due to our faith. For the sake of the gospel, we are prepared to bear all losses—even the loss of our freedom and our lives.
Signatories of the Joint Statement (116 people total)
First Group (29 people):
Pastor Wang Yi (Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church)
Pastor Yang Hua (Guiyang Living Stone Church)
Pastor Jin Mingri (Beijing Zion Church)
PastorZhang Xiaofeng, Elder Sun Yi, Elder You Guanghui (Beijing Shouwang Church Governance Committee)
Pastor Huang Xiaoning (Guangzhou Bible Reformer Church)
Pastor Dou Shaowen (Zhengzhou Conerstone Church)
Elder Zhang Chuanlei (Guiyang Renai Reformed Church)
Elder Wen Hongbin (Chengdu Xishuipang Reformed Church)
Minister Yang Xibo (Xiamen Xunsiding Church)
Minister Jiang Jianping (Foshan Olive Tree Church)
Elder Xue Honggen (Chengdu Yudu Zhuen Reformed Church)
Elder Char Changping (Chengdu Shengmingzhiquan Church)
Minister Shi Shangbiao (Zhangzhou Feilizhijia Church)
Pastor Li Tao(Kunming Endian Church)
Pastor Shen Xianfeng (Wuhan Zhongfu Chenxing Church)
Elder Tang Bohu (Shanghai Caihong Reformed Church)
Pastor Cui Quan (Shanghai Wangbang Xuanjiao Church)
Pastor Su Yaorong (Taizhou Tianfu Reformed Church)
Minister Wang Teng (Taizhou Mingdao Reformed Church)
Pastor Wang Changyi (Tiazhou Tiantai Fuyin Church)
Pastor Ji Jianyang (Tiazhou Xianju Mengen Church)
Pastor Guo Chuanyu (ChangchunLinhezhifu Reformed Church)
Pastor Li Lianmin (Shenzhen Shajing Bible Reformed Church)
Pastor Zhuang Zhiyong (Shenzhen Huaqiang Bible Reformed Church)
Pastor Chen Jingtang (Shengzhen Guifangyuan Bible Reformed Church)
Pastor Huang Lei (Wuhan Shangxiatang Church)
Pastor Zhang Yong(ChangchunYangguangzhijia Reformed Church)
Second Group (87 people):
Pastor Gao Lijun (Wenzhou Wangkun Church)
Minister Cai Jingliang (Foshan Fangzhou Church)
Minister Xu Jianwei (Hebei Tangshan Church)
Minister Jiangtian (Chengdu Gospel Church)
Minister An Yankui (Taiyuan Xuncheng Reformed Church)
Elder Haoming (Deyang Qiuyu Qingcaodi Church)
Minister Li Zihu (Chengdu Ziuyu Enyue Church)
Minister Cheng Zhangchun (Chengdu Qiuyu Jianan Church)
Minister Cao Qingen (Chengdu Linxishu Reformed Church)
Minister Wang Tianmin (Shamen New Creation Church)
Elder Wang Zhaorong, Minister Wan Changchun (Bangbu Huoshi Reformed Church)
Pastor Li Jiale (Beijing Daohang Zhijia Church)
Pastor Huang Yizi (Wenzhou Pingyang Fengwo Church)
Pastor Lin Yage (Guiyang Mengen Church)
Pastor Wu Yiqi (Changchun Fuyin Zhiguang Reformed Church)
Minister Gu Hongfei (Beijing Aixuan Church)
Pastor Xu Zhibing (Jiangsu Guanyun Xiansi Duizhong New Church)
Pastor Peng Qiang (Chengdu Enfu Reformed Gospel Church)
Elder Zheng Zhaobei, Minister Ren Lichuan, Minister Jie Shoutuan (Chengdu Xishuipang Reformed Gospel Church)
Elder Jiang Guocheng, Elder Peng Yuan (Renshou Enhui Reformed Gospel Church)
Elder Liu Maolin (Linyi Enyue Reformed Church)
Elder Yan Xiaoxin (Rizhao Enzhao Reformed Church)
Elder Huowei (Linyi Enquan Reformed Church)
Elder Chen Shun (Linyi Enyuan Reformed Mission)
Elder Li Rongtai (Linyi Enlin Reformed Church)
Minister Yang Binchuan (Zaozhuang Zhuentang Church)
Pastor Liu Hongwei (Beijing Ganlanshan Church)
Minister Lin Hesheng (Chengdu Fanglin Church)
Minister Liu Zhiyong (Xi’an Jitaicun Cornerstone Church)
Minister Luo Ruisheng (Guangzhou Sui Guizheng Fuyin Tuanqi Huangshen Jiangdian)
Minister Ye Xinde (Fujian Zhangpu Yilin Zhijia Reformed Church)
Minister Meng Yongguang (Gansu Lanzhou Chenxing Church)
Minister Wang Zisheng (Qingdao Jimiya Church)
Minister Huang Wenyou (Hong Kong Chinese Christian Church)
Minister Chen Huizhen (Zhangzhou Longhai Shima Xincheng Church)
Pastor Liu Yang (Xi’an Xinwang Ai Church)
Minister Sun Chao (Yunnan Qujing Feila Tiefei Church)
Pastor Xu Mei (Xi’an Enquan Church)
Pastor Dong Zhi (Beijing Hemujia Church)
Brother Liang Yongen (Dalian Shien Zhen Church)
Pastor Ju Dawei (Xi’an Halleluiah Church)
Pastor Zhao Yanwei (Zhengzhou Zhongai Church)
Pastor Ren Jinbiao (Hebei Botou Shihong Grace Church)
Pastor Huang Lei (Hunan Yueyang Shipan Shisheng Jingdu Church)
Pastor Sun Hong (Jilin Shengyue Zhendao Church)
Minister Zhu Lehai (Zhangjiajie Hope Christian Church)
Pastor Zhang Qianjin (Beijing, missionary)
Pastor Gao Quanfu (Xi’an Zhiguang Church)
Pastor Guo Zhi (Dongguan Reformed gospel Church)
Minister Chen Shengda (Wenzhou Boteli Church)
Minister Wang Lanqing (Shandong Linyi Tiancheng Shengyue Church)
Pastor Guo Yijun (Beijing Endao Reformed Baptist Church)
Minister Xu Fengchuan (Anhui Fuyang Nanzhao Xingqi Faguang Church)
Minister Huang Wenguang (Shenzhen Jehovah Yile Church)
Minister Li Jianxuan (Shenzhen Thanksgiving Church)
Minister Yin Xuguang (Beijing Shijing Shanshuguang Church)
Pastor Zhou Yunfeng (Xianyang Xin Wang Ai Yangwang Church)
Minister Yang Fuli (Shijiazhuang Hongdao Church)
Teacher Cheng Chaohua (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team)
Minister Qin Shengjie (Henan Balizhuang Church)
Teacher Wang Weixin (Wenzhou Yufutang Church)
Pastor Weng Xiangkun (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team)
Pastor Huang hanxin (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team)
Minister Wang Xiao (Henan Dongguocun Church)
Pastor Zhu Jiahao (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team)
Minister Xinyi Chuandao (Datong Lirenzao Church)
Minister Zhao Lihui (Datong Lirenzao Church)
Pastor Lin Jinlian (Wenzhou Shenzhou Preaching Team)
Pastor Yan Xiaojie (Wenzhou Shangjiang Church)
Minister Chen Jiafu (Chen Dawei) (Fuzhou Boteli Reformed Church)
Pastor Du Youchang (Jingmen Ganlanshan Church)
Pastor Wang Yongcheng, Elder Feng Guangxiong (Shen Ai Shi Ren Fengshou Church)
Pastor Ruan Dawei (Zhanjiang Gengxin Church)
Minister Guan Xinyuan (Jiangsu Liyang Family Church)
Minister Zhao Ruohan (henan Xihuo Church)
Minister Sun Chanli (Hubei Shiyan Rongguang Biliya Church)
Elder Li Youhong (Chengdu Shengming Zhi Quan Church)
Elder Yan Xixia, Elder Su Bingsen, Elder Li Yingqiang, Elder Tan Defu, Minister Zhang Xudong (Chengdu Early Rain Covenant Church)
All pastors, elders, and ministers of Chinese churches are welcomed to co-sign the joint statement. Please include your church’s abbreviation. Send emails to earlyraincovenantchurch@gmail.com
牧者联署:为基督信仰的声明(第二版,116位牧者)
——————————————————————————
我们是中国的一群基督徒,被至高的上帝拣选,成为祂卑微的仆人,并在各城各乡作基督教会的牧者。
我们相信并有责任教导世人,一位又真又活的三一上帝,是宇宙、世界和地上各族的创造主,人应该敬拜上帝,而不应敬拜任何人和任何事物;相信并有责任教导世人,上自国家领袖,下至乞丐囚徒,人人都犯了罪,人人都有一死,死后且有公义的审判,若没有上帝的恩典和救赎,人人都将永远沉沦;相信并有责任教导世人,那位曾被钉死在十字架上、又复活了的耶稣,是全球教会的唯一元首,是全人类的唯一救主,也是全宇宙永远的统治者和最高的审判者,一切信祂、向祂悔改的人,上帝赐给他们永远的生命和永远的国度。
从2017年9月国务院颁布新的《宗教事务管理条例》以来,到2018年2月该条例执行以后,中国各地的基督教会,在公共敬拜和信仰实践上受到了来自政府部门的程度不一的逼迫、藐视和误解,甚至包括各种企图改造和扭曲基督教信仰的行政措施。其中一些粗暴的举动,是文革结束以来前所未有的。如拆毁教会建筑的十字架,粗暴干涉基督徒家庭悬挂、张贴的十字架和春联等信仰表达,强迫和威胁教会加入官方控制的宗教组织,强迫教会悬挂国旗或歌颂世俗国家、政党,禁止基督徒的未成年子女进入教会和接受信仰教育,剥夺和取缔教会和信徒的自由聚会等。
我们认为这些诉诸公权力的不义之举,使中国社会面临严重的政教冲突。这些行为违背了人类的信仰和良心自由、也有悖于普遍的法治原则。我们有责任告诉掌权者和全社会一个坏消息,那就是对人的灵魂的一切压制和对基督教会的一切迫害,都为上帝所憎恶,并必将受到上帝公义的责备和审判。
我们更有责任向掌权者和全社会传扬一个好消息,那就是上帝的独生儿子、人类的救主和君王耶稣,为了拯救我们罪人而曾被杀,埋葬,并以神的大能从死里复活,胜过了罪恶和死亡的权势。因着爱和怜悯,上帝为包括中国人在内的一切愿意相信耶稣的人都预备了赦免和救恩。在任何时候,任何人,都可以从任何罪恶中向主悔改,归向基督,敬畏上帝,使个人得着永远的生命,使家庭和国家蒙受上帝慷慨的祝福。
为信仰和良心的缘故,也为中国的掌权者和全社会的属灵益处,并最终为着上帝的荣耀、圣洁和公义,我们向中国政府及全社会作出如下声明:
1、在中国的基督教会,无条件地相信《圣经》是上帝的话语和启示,是一切公义、伦理和救恩的来源和最高权威。任何政党的意志、政府的立法和人的命令,若直接违背《圣经》的教导,损害人的灵魂和反对教会所信仰的福音,我们有责任顺从神、而不顺从人,也有责任如此教导教会的全体成员。
2、在中国的基督教会,始终仰慕和决心走基督的十字架道路,也乐意效法那些曾为信仰而受苦、殉道的中国教会的前辈圣徒,在任何情况下,我们都情愿和有责任以和平、忍耐和怜悯之心,承受来自政府和社会一切可能的逼迫、误解和暴力。因为当教会拒绝服从恶法时,不是出于任何政治目的,不是出于怨恨和对抗,乃是单单出于福音的要求,出于对中国社会的爱。
3、在中国的基督教会,愿意顺服上帝在中国设立的掌权者,尊重政府有管理社会和人的行为的权柄。我们相信并有责任教导教会的全体信徒,政府的权柄乃是出于神的,只要政府不越过《圣经》为世俗权力所设定的界限,即不干涉和侵犯一切关乎信仰和灵魂之事,基督徒就有责任尊敬掌权者,并热心为他们的益处祷告,也切切为中国社会祷告。甚至甘愿为福音的缘故,忍受不公平的执法所带来的一切外在损失;出于对同胞的爱而情愿放弃一切原本属于我们肉身上的权利。
4、为此,我们相信并有责任教导信徒,凡在中国属于基督的真教会,必当持守政教分立的原则和基督是教会唯一元首的立场。我们声明,教会愿意在外在行为上,如其他社会团体一样,接受民政或其他政府部门的依法管理;但在任何情况下,不带领教会加入官方控制的宗教组织,不带领教会在宗教管理部门登记,也不接受任何方式的挂靠。我们也不接受因信仰的缘故而对基督教会的“取缔”和“罚款”;并愿意为着福音的缘故,预备承担一切损失乃至失去自由和生命的代价。
牧者联署(共116人)
第一批29人:
王 怡牧师(成都秋雨圣约教会)
仰 华牧师(贵阳活石教会)
金明日牧师(北京锡安教会)
张晓峰牧师、孙毅长老、游冠辉长老(北京守望教会治委会)
黄小宁牧师(广州圣经归正教会)
窦绍文牧师(郑州磐石教会)
张春雷长老(贵阳仁爱归正教会)
温洪斌长老(成都溪水旁归正教会)
杨希伯传道(厦门巡司顶教会)
蒋建平传道(佛山橄榄树教会)
薛红根长老(成都郫都主恩归正教会)
查常平长老(成都生命之泉教会)
施尚标传道(漳州腓利之家教会)
李 涛牧师(昆明恩典教会)
申先锋牧师(武汉中福晨星堂)
唐伯虎长老(上海彩虹家归正教会)
崔 权牧师(上海万邦宣教教会)
苏耀荣牧师(台州天福归正教会)
王 腾传道(台州明道归正教会)
王昌以牧师(台州天台福音教会)
暨建羊长老(台州仙居蒙恩教会)
郭春雨牧师(长春临河之福归正教会)
李怜悯牧师(深圳沙井圣经归正教会)
庄志勇牧师(深圳华强北圣经归正教会)
陈景堂牧师(深圳桂芳园圣经归正教会)
黄 磊牧师(武汉下上堂教会)
张 勇牧师(长春阳光之家归正教会)
第二批(87人):
高丽俊牧师(温州望坤教会)
蔡景良传道(佛山橄榄树教会)
徐建伟传道(河北唐山堂)
姜添 传道(成都福音堂)
安彦魁传道(太原郇城归正教会)
郝 鸣长老(德阳秋雨青草地教会)
李子虎传道(成都秋雨恩约堂)
程章纯传道(成都秋雨迦南堂)
曹庆恩传道(成都邻溪树归正教会)
王天民传道(厦门新造教会)
王兆荣长老、万长春传道(蚌埠活石归正教会)
李迦勒牧师(北京导航之家教会)
黄益梓牧师(温州平阳凤卧教会)
林雅各牧师(贵阳蒙恩教会)
吴轶奇牧师(长春福音之光归正教会)
顾洪飞传道(北京爱宣教会)
徐之兵牧师(江苏灌云县四队中心堂)
彭 强牧师(成都恩福归正福音教会)
郑照北长老、任利传道、界守团传道(成都溪水旁归正福音教会)
江国成长老、彭玉安长老(仁寿恩惠归正福音教会)
刘茂林长老(临沂恩约归正教会)
阎小新长老(日照恩照归正教会 )
霍 伟长老(临沂恩泉归正教会)
陈 舜长老(临沂恩源归正布道所)
李荣泰长老(临沂恩临归正教会)
杨 斌传道(枣庄主恩堂教会)
刘红伟牧师(北京橄榄山教会)
林和生传道(成都芳邻教会)
刘志勇传道(西安祭台村磐石教会)
罗锐生传道(广州穗归正福音团契黄深江点)
叶新德传道(福建漳浦以琳之家归正教会)
孟永光传道(甘肃兰州晨星教会)
王梓晟传道(青岛积米崖教会)
黄文祐传道(香港中华基督教会)
陈惠珍传道(漳州龙海石码新城教会)
刘 洋牧师(西安信望爱教会)
孙 超传道(云南曲靖非拉铁非教会)
徐 梅牧师(西安恩泉教会)
董 志牧师(北京和睦佳教会)
梁永恩弟兄(大连市恩真教会)
巨大卫牧师(西安哈利路亚教会)
赵燕伟牧师(郑州钟爱教会)
任金彪牧师(河北泊头市宏恩堂)
黄 磊牧师(湖南岳阳市磐石圣经基督教会)
孙宏广牧师(吉林圣约真道教会)
朱乐海传道(张家界盼望基督教会)
张前进牧师(北京,宣教士)
高全福牧师(西安锡安之光教会)
郭 志牧师(东莞归正福音教会)
陈胜达传道(温州伯特利教会)
王兰青传道(山东临沂天城圣约教会)
郭易君牧师(北京恩道归正浸信会)
徐 峰传道(安徽阜阳男照兴起发光教会)
黄文广传道(深圳耶和华以勒教会)
李拣选传道(深圳感恩教会)
尹旭光传道(北京石景山曙光教会)
周云峰牧师(咸阳信望爱仰望教会)
杨赋立传道(石家庄弘道教会)
程超华教师(温州 神州布道团)
秦胜杰传道(河南八里庄教会)
王伟信教师(温州渔夫堂教会)
翁祥昆牧师(温州 神州布道团)
黄汉新牧师(温州 神州布道团)
王 枭传道(河南东郭村教会)
朱家好牧师(温州 神州布道团)
辛 义传道(大同利仁皂教会)
赵丽辉传道(大同利仁皂教会)
林金减牧师(温州 神州布道团)
严晓洁牧师(温州上江教会)
陈家福(陈大卫)传道(福州伯特利归正教会)
杜友长牧师(荆门橄榄山教会)
汪永诚牧师、冯光雄长老(神爱世人丰收教会)
阮大卫牧师(湛江更新教会)
管新元传道(江苏溧阳家庭教会)
赵若翰传道(河南喜获教会)
孙产力传道(湖北十堰荣光庇哩亚教会)
李友洪长老(成都生命之泉教会)
严熙夏长老、苏炳森长老、李英强长老、覃德富长老、张旭东传道(成都秋雨圣约教会)
中国教会的牧师、长老或传道联署,请附所在教会的简称,致函:earlyraincovenantchurch@gmail.com
separation at source 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...
For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.
WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978
The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
separation at source 在 What is Source Separation? 的推薦與評價
Separating of musical signals. ... Source Separation is the process of isolating individual sounds in an auditory mixture of multiple sounds. [VVG18,CFL+18, ... ... <看更多>
separation at source 在 Lec 7: Handling, separation and storage at source - YouTube 的推薦與評價
![影片讀取中](/images/youtube.png)
Municipal Solid Waste ManagementCourse URL: https://swayam.gov.in/nd1_noc20_ce56/previewProf. Ajay KalamdhadCivil EngineeringIIT Guwahati. ... <看更多>
separation at source 在 The Malaysian Insider, profile picture - Facebook 的推薦與評價
Mandatory waste separation at source starts in Pahang, Johor, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Kedah, Perlis, Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur today. The programme... ... <看更多>