以經解經
Interpreting Scripture by Scripture
轉貼自: http://peddrluo.ccblog.net/archives/2010/37593.html
文/霍頓（Michael S. Horton） 譯/誠之
原載《當代宗教改革》雜誌，2010年，7/8月號，總19卷第4期，10-15頁。
獲授權翻譯
如同保羅對提摩太的提醒，“聖經都是神所默示的，於教訓、督責、使人歸正、教導人學義都是有益的”（提後3：16）——全部的聖經，不只是“生命經文”（life verses）。
As Paul reminded Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is [therefore] useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)--all Scripture, not just our "life verses."
與此同時，威敏思特信仰告白（Westminster Confession）正確地提醒我們，不是所有的經文都是同樣清楚或同等重要的（譯按：WCF，第一章，第7條）。我們必須在比較清楚的經文的亮光下，來解釋比較困難的經文，而且我們是藉著研讀經文的各部分來認識整體的意義，也是靠學習經文整體的意義來學習各部分的意義。我們需要拼圖的盒頂蓋（有整個拼圖的圖案），也同時需要那些拼圖片。
At the same time, the Westminster Confession properly reminds us that not everything in Scripture is equally plain or equally important. We have to interpret the more difficult passages in the light of clearer ones. Scripture interprets Scripture, and we learn the whole meaning of Scripture by studying its parts and its parts by learning the whole. You need the box-top and the puzzle-pieces.
當然，哪些經文是“困難的”，哪些是“清楚的”，哪些是更為重要的，有着許多不同的看法。我認為，我們都同意一件事，就是基督降到陰間的意義，不如祂的道成肉身、祂主動與被動的順服、祂的復活升天和再來的意義來得清楚，也沒有來得那麼重要。然而，在其他的一些要點上，就有許多不同意見了。大多數的福音派人士，會把教會治理模式（church government）放在“無關緊要”的類別中。這雖然不是信仰的核心，但是此一觀點卻嚴重到足以使改革宗傳統在聖公會、長老會和公理會的教會體制中造成分裂。對東正教人士來說，主教制對教會的存在，是最根本的；而羅馬天主教則更進一步，堅持羅馬的主教才是首要的。
Of course, there is disagreement about which verses are "difficult" and which are "clear," as well as which are more important. I think we'd all agree that the meaning of Christ's descent into hell is less clear and less important than his incarnation, active and passive obedience, resurrection, ascension, and return. Nevertheless, on a host of other points the roads diverge. Most evangelicals would place church government in the "Who Cares?" category. Far from being at the core of the faith, such a view was at least important enough to divide the Reformed tradition over Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational polities. For Eastern Orthodoxy, episcopacy is essential to the very existence of the church, and Rome takes it one step further, insisting on the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
即使論及福音，也有許多相當不同的意見。東正教認為清楚和重要的經文強調人的“神化”（theosis）——一個被模造成基督樣式的過程，藉著恩典與自由意志的結合，得到最終的拯救。羅馬天主教的傳統主張清楚和重要的經文教導的是：在教會中的人，藉著教會對功績（treasury of merit）的管理，使人與神和好。
Even when it comes to the gospel, there are quite different assumptions at play. Eastern Orthodox churches think that the clear and important passages emphasize theosis--a process of being conformed to Christ-likeness that leads to final salvation through a combination of grace and free will. Roman Catholics have traditionally maintained that the clear and important passages teach the reconciliation of humanity in the church through its management of the treasury of merit.
阿民念認為清楚和重要的經文教導：神的愛，普世的恩典，以及人類絕對的自由意志（libertarian free will）是居於首位的（比其他的屬性更重要）。雖然改革宗神學從來沒有教導神的主權（預定）要作為一個“中心教條”（central dogma），即所有其他的教義必須由此推導而出，在標準的阿民念系統中，神的愛和絕對的自由意志的確有這種作用。阿民念者經常會注意到一個僵持不下的局面（a stand-off）：加爾文者把神的主權和預定奉為神明，而他們把神普世的愛和人的自由意志作為規範。“你們有你們的經文，我們有我們的經文”，是經常聽到的遁詞，這只會削弱信徒對聖經的統一性、前後一致性和可靠性的信心。
Arminians think that the clear and important passages teach the primacy of God's love (over other attributes), the universality of grace, and the libertarian free will of human beings. While Reformed theology never teaches God's sovereignty (predestination) as a central dogma from which every other doctrine is deduced, the love of God and a libertarian view of free will do function that way in standard Arminian systems. Arminians often acknowledge a stand-off: Calvinists enshrine God's sovereignty and predestination, while they make God's universal love and human freedom normative. "You have your verses and we have ours," is the oft-heard shrug that can only weaken the believer's confidence in the unity, consistency, and reliability of Scripture.
願真理顯明，我們沒有“我們的經文”，他們也沒有“他們的經文”；只有上帝有“祂的經文”，也因此，所有這些經文都屬於“我們”。如果我們有的只是“我們的經文”，那麼，我們並沒有真的理解這些經文真正教導的。畢竟，只有聖經能解釋聖經，而如果為了維持前後的一致，我們感到不得不只擁抱一些經文而放棄一些經文，我們就還沒有真正認識到“我們的經文”。
Truth be told, we don't have "our verses" and they don't have "their verses." God has "his verses," and therefore all of them belong to "us." If we have "our verses," then not even these teach what we think they do. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, and if we feel compelled to embrace some passages over others in order to maintain consistency, we haven't really understood "our verses."
阿民念派的神學家克拉克•賓諾克（Clark Pinnock）和約翰•桑德斯（John Sanders）一個共同的預設前提，就是神所有的屬性都不能和祂的愛相比，而且，祂計劃要拯救所有的人。事實上，祂把這些要點視為其預設前提或“公理”，所有的釋經必須以此來檢驗（注1）。例如，從阿民念的前提出發，賓諾克為“包容主義”（inclusivism）辯護。包容主義是主張即使人對基督沒有完全的信心，只要能對神所給他們的亮光作出回應，人們還是可以得救。他說，“我同意包容主義不是聖經所討論的中心主題，其證據也不盡理想。但是神的愛的這個異象是如此強烈，因此現存的證據對我來說似乎是足夠的。”（注2）在這裡，賓諾克似乎是承認，他把一個一般性的原則作為法寶，來支持他在釋經上相對薄弱的立場。對他來說，盒頂蓋比拼圖片要來得重要得多。
Arminian theologians Clark Pinnock and John Sanders share the presupposition that all of God's attributes are subservient to his love and that his purpose is to save every person. In fact, he recognizes that these theses function as presuppositions or "axioms" by which exegesis must be tested. (1) For example, from Arminian premises Pinnock defends "inclusivism": the view that even apart from explicit faith in Christ, people are saved if they respond to the light they have been given. He adds, "I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and that the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God's love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me." (2) Here Pinnock seems to admit that a general principle trumps the weak exegetical support of his position. The box-top is more important than the pieces of the puzzle.
對極端加爾文主義者（hyper-Calvinists）來說，神的主權是王牌，可以把所有其他的屬性比下去，而預定論經常會使其他經文變得相對不重要，甚至被抵消，即使這些經文似乎是同樣清楚而且是同樣重要的。例如，雖然聖經同樣清楚，也同樣強調地教導神藉著福音的外在呼召是普世的，神恩典的愛及於所有生靈，以及宣教的必要性，極端的加爾文主義者卻僅僅重複着“鬱金香”（TULIP）的經文，而不是認真地把所有聖經的教導融匯到他們的信仰和實踐當中。對其他人而言，“歸正”意味着要更新變化所有的文化領域——即使這意味着要把救恩的問題（這是改革宗信條的核心）變得相對不重要，甚至不予重視。最近，有些人主張，“與基督聯合”——而不是預定——才是改革宗神學的中心教條（central dogma）。不過，“中心教條”有一個特殊的涵義。這是一條論述，其他的一切都必須由此推導而出，而不是從整本聖經的教導所推論得出的中心教導。
For hyper-Calvinists, God's sovereignty trumps other attributes, and predestination often marginalizes or even cancels out other passages that seem equally clear and important. For example, although Scripture just as clearly and emphatically teaches the universality of God's external call through the gospel, God's gracious care for all creatures, and the missionary imperative, hyper-Calvinists simply repeat the "TULIP" passages instead of seriously incorporating the whole teaching of Scripture into their faith and practice. For others, "Reformed" means transformation of every cultural sphere, even when that means marginalizing or even downplaying the soteriological questions that are at the heart of the Reformed confession. More recently, some argue that "union with Christ," not predestination, is the central dogma of Reformed theology. "Central dogma," however, has a particular meaning. It's a thesis from which everything else is deduced, rather than a central teaching that emerges inductively from the whole teaching of Scripture.
在路德神學的歷史中，稱義有時是作為一個中心教條，會相對不重視其他清楚且重要的聖經教導，或甚至與聖經的教導相違背。路德呼籲要把聖經中“凡宣講基督” 的經文給予特別的重視。許多自由派的新教徒把此呼籲極端化，就提倡一種“正典中的正典”（canon-within-a-canon）的釋經法：我們不需要接受聖經里所講的一切，只要接受那些傳揚基督的經文。即使在認信的路德宗人士當中，我們有時也會看出一種傾向，不只是適當地看重聖經自己對稱義的見證，而且是把它當作一個中心教條，所有其他的聖經教導要從這裡推導而出。
In the history of Lutheran theology, justification has sometimes functioned as a central dogma that downplays or even contradicts other clear and important teachings of Scripture. Radicalizing Luther's call to privilege in Scripture "whatever preaches Christ," many liberal Protestants advanced a "canon-within-a-canon" hermeneutic. We need not accept everything in Scripture, but only that which proclaims Christ. Even in confessional Lutheranism, one may sometimes discern a tendency not only to give proper weight to the Bible's own testimony to justification, but to treat it as a central dogma from which all other biblical teachings are deduced.
有些保守福音派人士把創造論和字面解經依此方式來對待，而嚴格的時代論者把聖經主要解讀為一系列的關於今日以色列、末日決戰（Armageddon），以及字面的千禧年的預測。至少在比較老舊的版本中（即司可福聖經所主導的），七個時代的架構就變成一個框架，所有的經文都被壓縮在這個框架之內。
Some conservative evangelicals treat creationism and a literalistic hermeneutic in this manner, with strict dispensationalists reading the Bible primarily as a series of predictions concerning present-day Israel, Armageddon, and a literal millennium. At least in the older version, dominated by the Scofield Study Bible, the seven-dispensation scheme becomes a grid into which all of Scripture is pressed.
林與樹
The Forest and the Trees
一方面，我們會有見樹不見林的危險。有些解經家把聖經當作一本永恆的原則、教義與箴言目錄，他們的假設是：只要用同樣的話來重述聖經就好了。一位著名的牧師曾經告訴我，“當我講登山寶訓的道的時候，我聽起來像是個律法主義者；當我在講整本加拉太書時，聽起來卻像個反律法主義者。”雖然這聽起來好像是忠於經文——經文怎麼說，我就怎麼講——這卻是大有問題的。至少有兩點理由。首先，這太天真了。沒有人是不帶着一個預設前提來閱讀聖經的。我們都有一些教義的架構。這個教義架構是我們過去多年來，與其他有類似教義背景的信徒一起研讀聖經時所獲得的。其次，這個假設破壞了聖經是統一的這個信念。耶穌並沒有教導律法主義，而保羅也沒有教導反律法主義。作為耶穌自己賦予權柄的使徒，並在聖靈的默示下寫作，保羅的信息就是基督的信息。如果我們把登山寶訓解釋為與加拉太書毫不相干（更遭的是以為他們彼此矛盾），那麼，我們就沒有正確地解讀此二者。
On one hand, there is the danger of missing the forest for the trees. Treating the Bible as a catalogue of timeless principles, doctrines, and proverbs, some expositors assume that they are just restating the Bible in so many words. A noted pastor once told me, "When I'm preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, I sound like a legalist; when I'm preaching through Galatians, I sound like an antinomian." Although this sounds like fidelity to the text--wherever it leads us--it is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it's naive. No one comes to the Bible without presuppositions. We all have some doctrinal framework we have acquired over years of studying the Bible together with other believers in a similar doctrinal background. Second, this assumption undermines confidence in the unity of Scripture. Jesus did not teach legalism and Paul did not teach antinomianism. As an apostle commissioned with the authority of Jesus himself and writing under the Spirit's inspiration, Paul's message is Christ's message. If we interpret the Sermon on the Mount as something completely unrelated (much less, contradictory) to Galatians, then we haven't gotten either right.
我們許多人是在這樣的教會長大的：牧師會誇口說他花了好幾年才把一本書卷講完。有人說，這是釋經講道的榮耀。但這是讀一個故事的好方法嗎？舊約的歷史書和新約的福音書，為我們提供了一個主要的敘事架構，在這個架構下，我們才會理解律法和教義。而書信就只是書信：是針對一個特定的教會（或一群教會）而寫的信件，在公眾崇拜中，也通常是以這樣的形式加以朗讀的。當這些信件被完整宣讀出來時，我們會學到很多。不過，每一周把這些豐富的內容逐漸展示出來，也是很重要的——但總是要把神的子民帶回到基本的論點當中。典型的情況是，歷史書和福音書會有故事情節，而書信則是一個論證（或一些論證）。但是在這種一節一節的宣講方式下，情節和論證都很可能容易失焦，變成支離破碎的解經。
Many of us were raised in churches where the pastor boasted that it took him years to get through one book. This is the glory of expository preaching, we were told. But is that a good way to read a story? The historical books of the Old Testament and the gospels of the New provide the overarching narrative within which the laws and doctrines make sense. The Epistles are, well, epistles: letters that were addressed to a particular church (or group of churches) and were generally read aloud as such in public worship. We get a lot out of these letters when we hear them read in their entirety, yet it's also important to unpack the rich content week by week--always bringing our people back to the basic argument. Typically, the historical books and the gospels have a storyline and the epistles have an argument (or series of arguments). But in this verse-by-verse approach, both the plot and the arguments can be easily lost to atomistic exegesis.
另一方面，還有一個危險，就是把一個正當的——甚至是重要的——聖經主題或教義，變成一個“中心教條”，而據此來推導出其餘的一切。這是見林不見樹。如果第一個觀點是專注在拼圖片上，忽略了盒頂蓋（更廣的聖經和系統神學），此觀點則被一種傾向所害，就是不看重、甚至是忽視“神的全部計劃”（the whole counsel of God；譯按，見徒20：27，新譯本）的一些重要層面。
On the other hand, there is a danger of turning a legitimate--even important--biblical motif or doctrine into a central dogma from which we deduce everything else. This is missing the trees for the forest. If the danger in the first view is to focus on the pieces of the puzzle without the box-top (a broader biblical and systematic theology), this view suffers from a tendency to marginalize or even ignore important aspects of "the whole counsel of God."
聖經是一部正典。雖然，適切地說來，因為聖經有許多不同的文體和作者，散布在許多的時代和地點中，因此，她更像是一部圖書館，而不是一本書，然而，聖經有一個內在的統一性。我們不是從外面把這個統一性加在聖經之上。我們並沒有把這些拼圖片強行拼湊起來，雖然在我們內心深處也許會以為他們是矛盾的。聖經的內在是統一的，因為她有一個基本的情節與教導。然而，啟示是緊跟着救贖的，它與神展開其計劃的歷史是同步的。神在不同時期以不同的約來行事。統一性與多樣性不可彼此偏廢。
Scripture is a canon. Although it is properly said that the Bible is more of a library than a book, because of its diverse genres and authorship spread over many times and places, there is a unity inherent within the Bible. We do not impose this unity on Scripture from without. We do not force the pieces to fit, even though deep down we might think that they are contradictory. Scripture is inherently unified in its basic plot and teachings. And yet revelation follows redemption. It keeps pace with the history of God's unfolding plan. God works differently in various periods with different covenants. Neither the unity nor the diversity is sacrificed to the other.
聖經不只包括許多不同的體裁，她也是由許多不同的作者“多次多方”（來1：1）寫成的。因為神的默示是有機的默示，而不是機械性的默示，聖經就同時反映出作者的人性，也反映出其神性。加拉太書不只是登山寶訓的重新講述，但是二者都是同一部新約正典的一部分。因此，他們必須一起來加以詮釋。
The Bible not only has diverse genres, it was written by diverse human authors "in many times and in many ways" (Heb 1:1). Because inspiration is organic rather than mechanical, Scripture reflects the humanity as well as the divinity of its authorship. Galatians is not just a restatement of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet both are part of the same new covenant canon. Therefore, they have to be interpreted together.
當我們這樣作的時候，我們就會更豐富地發現它們各自真實的意義。在加拉太書中，保羅是說到律法（西乃山）之約和應許（亞伯拉罕）之約的不同；前者是透過預表和影子來指向基督，而後者已經在基督里成全，祂是那應許的後裔，世上的萬國都在祂裡面獲得祝福。而在登山寶訓中，耶穌是在宣布一個政權的改變，舊約的神治政體（old covenant theocracy，包括其對外邦人的聖戰）讓步給一個新的社會——此社會屬於得赦免和蒙福的後裔，他們會為了基督的緣故，遭受迫害，並愛他們的仇敵。耶穌和保羅同樣都在吸引我們到同一個恩典的天國實體中，雖然耶穌是作為這個國度的開創者，而保羅是作為一個使徒，在這個神在歷史中展開的計劃中，探索其結果。
When we do this, we discover more richly what each actually means. In Galatians, Paul is talking about the difference between the covenant of law (Sinai) that points forward to Christ by types and shadows, and the Abrahamic covenant of promise that is realized in Christ as the seed in whom all the nations are blessed. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is announcing a regime change, as the old covenant theocracy (including its holy wars) gives way to a new society of forgiven and blessed heirs who endure persecution and love their enemies for Christ's sake. Jesus and Paul are drawing us into exactly the same reality of the kingdom of grace, though Jesus does so as its inaugurator and Paul does so as an apostle, exploring the ramifications within the unfolding plan of God in history.
躁動不安與歸正：預定論/神的主權
Restless and Reformed: Predestination/God's Sovereignty
既然“中心教條”的理論打亂了傳統，我就開始我自己的傳統吧。理查•穆勒（Richard Muller）和其他學者已經有系統地駁斥了一個觀念，就是預定論是改革宗神學的中心教條。事實上，這些歷史神學家證明了在改革宗系統中，沒有一條教義具有此種的功能。
Since the "central dogma" thesis cuts across traditions, I might as well start with my own. Richard Muller and other scholars have systematically dismantled the idea that predestination operates as a central dogma in Reformed theology. In fact, these historical theologians demonstrate that no doctrine functions like that in the Reformed system.
19世紀的歷史神學特別受到“大概念”（Great Idea）之思維的吸引：要找出一個中心的教條，這個系統中其他的東西都要從這個教條推導而出，來加以解釋，並與敵對的系統加以對比。當然，在釋經與爭論的場合中，加爾文是為奧古斯丁的神的主權和預定的教義辯護的。不過，這個強調，很難被視為是一個中心教義，然後推導出整個系統，特別是在他對基督信仰的摘要（日內瓦要理問答）中，加爾文甚至沒有提及這個教義。雖然如此，神的主權和預定仍然變成一種解釋或批評加爾文和改革宗神學的方式（無論來自友人和敵人都一樣）。對照之下，整個路德宗的系統據稱都是從神稱罪人為義這個教義而作出推論的。
Nineteenth-century historical theology was especially drawn to the "Great Idea" approach: locating a central dogma from which everything else in the system could be deduced, explained, and contrasted with rival systems. Of course, Calvin defended an Augustinian doctrine of God's sovereignty and predestination when exegetical and polemical occasion required. This emphasis, however, can hardly be considered a central dogma from which the whole system is deduced, especially when it is not even mentioned in his summary of the Christian faith (the Geneva Catechism). Nevertheless, God's sovereignty and predestination became a way of explaining or criticizing Calvin and Reformed theology, by friend and foe alike. By contrast, the entire Lutheran system was allegedly deduced from the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly.
上帝主權的恩典吞沒了我們整個的地平線。它改變了一切。我們能理解，這真是一個全新的發現。我們開始明白我們以往所忽略的經文。這是一個範式的轉移（paradigm shift）。但這恰恰是我們需要小心的地方：一個範式可以從一個對經文的新鮮解讀自然地得出，也可以是從外面強加在聖經之上。例如，如果我們從小就相信救恩是靠個人的自由意志來決定，預定則重述了神的自由。神有自由揀選人，有自由定人的罪。但是這僅僅是因為神掌主權嗎？當然不是。這是對神的主權的教導，一種近乎武斷的描繪。不！在聖經中，我們學到，上帝有自由揀選祂要揀選的人，也有自由定其餘的人有罪——因為所有的人都配受定罪。換句話說，上帝的主權不能與祂的公平和公義——或者與任何其他的屬性，包括祂的愛——分開。正如我們不能用一節經文或一段表列的經節來抵消其餘的經文，我們也不能把上帝的一個屬性奉為至高，超過其他屬性。崇拜上帝的一個屬性，而不崇拜上帝自己，是真正的危險。
Especially in cases of fresh discovery, it's understandable that God's sovereign grace swallows our whole horizon. It changes everything. We begin to see passages we had overlooked before. It's a paradigm shift. But that's exactly why we have to be careful at just that point: a paradigm can arise naturally from a fresh reading of Scripture or it can be imposed upon Scripture from without. For example, if one has been raised to believe that salvation depends on the individual's free will, predestination reasserts God's freedom. God is free to elect and to condemn. But is this merely because God is sovereign? Of course not. There is a kind of teaching of the sovereignty of God that is close to an arbitrary portrait. No, in Scripture we learn that God is free to elect whom he will and to condemn the rest because everyone deserves condemnation. In other words, God's sovereignty cannot be separated from his justice and righteousness--or from any other attribute, including his love. Just as we can't use one passage or list of verses to cancel out others in Scripture, we cannot enshrine one attribute of God above others. There is a real danger in worshipping an attribute rather than God himself.
讓預定變成一個“中心教條”，基督教就無法與伊斯蘭教無異。我曾經見過並聽過一些極端加爾文主義者的演講，高舉神的主權而不曾提到耶穌基督。然而加爾文說，只有在基督里我們才能找到我們的揀選。我也聽過一些演說，把神定罪的行動說成是與祂拯救的行動相等。然而，這是忽略了聖經清楚的教導，即祂從整個被定罪的人類當中，揀選一些人使他們得救。許多經文讚美上帝的慈愛，祂揀選的恩典。但是上帝唯獨在選民的救恩上受到讚美，而沒有在非選民的定罪上受到讚美。這就是為什麼多特信經（1618-19）——“加爾文五要點”的出處——確認“改革宗教會全心憎惡”（"Reformed churches detest with their whole heart）這個觀點，說上帝在定罪人的事上，所涉入的程度與祂在救恩的事上涉入的一樣深。當我們以預定或神的主權成為基礎，在其上建造出一棟神學系統的摩天大樓，其結果就是我們把一些經文挑選出來，讓它們的地位高過其他的經文。這就成了“正典中的正典”。這是改革宗正統所絕不允許的事。
When predestination is made the central dogma, Christianity becomes indistinguishable from Islam. I've seen and heard a few hyper-Calvinist presentations that extolled the sovereignty of God without ever mentioning Jesus Christ. And yet Calvin said that it is only in Christ that we find our election. I have also heard presentations in which God's activity in condemnation was treated as equivalent to his activity in salvation. This, however, ignores the clear biblical teaching that has chosen some to be saved from the mass of condemned humanity. There are lots of passages that celebrate God's mercy in electing grace. But God is praised as directly and solely responsible for the salvation of the elect, not as directly and solely responsible for the condemnation of the nonelect. That is why the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19)--from which we get the so-called "five points of Calvinism"--affirm that "Reformed churches detest with their whole heart" the view that God is as involved in damnation as he is in salvation. When predestination or the sovereignty of God is made the foundation on which we build a skyscraper of a theological system, we end up picking out some passages of Scripture to stand over others in judgment. It becomes a canon within a canon. This is something Reformed orthodoxy never allowed.
然而，批判者不這樣以為是情有可原的。首先，目前的趨勢是把改革宗神學貶低為只是加爾文主義五要點。有時候，這會給人一種印象，就是只要相信預定論，就是改革宗。當然，這就會使得湯瑪斯•阿奎拿（Thomas Aquinas）歸正的程度變得和史普羅（R. C. Sproul）一樣了！不過，這“五要點”本身是多特信條的總結，而多特信條比起這個總結要豐富並完整得多。尚且，多特信條是歐陸的改革宗基督徒（包括來自英國教會的代表）所撰寫的，是作為對阿民念主義的反駁。此信條和比利時信仰告白、海德堡要理問答一起，是作為改革宗信仰與實踐之僅次於聖經的標準。威敏思特標準（譯按：即威敏思特信仰告白，大、小要理問答等三份文件）也認信同樣的信仰。無論何時，當神全部的計劃被簡化成幾個“基要真理”時，我們就失去這些教義的豐富性與深度。再者，當這些教義從更大的信仰系統與實踐被孤立出來的時候，它們就很容易落入片面強調的陷阱中。
Critics, however, may be forgiven for thinking otherwise. First, there is a growing tendency right now to reduce Reformed theology to the five points of Calvinism. Sometimes the impression is given that anyone who believes in predestination is Reformed. Of course, that would make Thomas Aquinas as Reformed as R. C. Sproul! However, these "five points" are themselves a summary of the Canons of Dort, which are much richer and fuller than that summary. Furthermore, the Canons were drawn up by Reformed Christians on the Continent (with representatives from the Church of England) as a refutation of Arminianism. They serve along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as a standard for Reformed faith and practice, subordinate to Scripture. The Westminster Standards confess the same faith. Whenever the whole council of God is reduced to a few "fundamentals," we lose the richness and depth of those very doctrines. Furthermore, when these doctrines are isolated from the broader system of faith and practice, they yield easily to one-sided emphases.
第二，批評者經常把加爾文主義描繪成極端加爾文主義。而且，很不幸地，他們實際上會接觸到體現出這種諷刺的人。對初信的人來說，走極端一直是一種誘惑。有很多流行的版本，的確把神的主權或預定變成經文的中心。當然，我們必須在聖經的亮光下來解釋聖經。對一些人來說，把這類經文和同樣清楚的關於神無條件的揀選的經文一起並排來看，真的會令人困惑。不過，問題出在我們。默示“全部聖經”的聖靈，使用各種不同的聲音或不同的聖經作者——每個人有他自己的性格，風格，或甚至信念——但仍然教導一個統一的信息。上帝的確知道如何“多次多方”，且沒有矛盾地和我們溝通。因此，我們必須小心，不要把聖經的教導變得很單調，好像它只是在教導一個真理，或甚至只集中在一個真理上。與此同時，我們必須很小心，不要讓多樣性變成互相矛盾。
Second, critics often paint Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism. And, unfortunately, they may actually encounter people who embody this caricature. Falling into extremes is always a temptation for new converts. There are popular versions on the ground that do make God's sovereignty or predestination the center of Scripture. Of course, we have to interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture. It may be confusing for some people to read verses like this alongside other equally clear passages concerning God's unconditional election. The problem, however, lies with us. The Spirit who inspired "all Scripture" employs the richly diverse voices of different biblical writers--each with his own personality, style, and even beliefs--while nevertheless teaching a unified message. God indeed knows how to communicate "in many times and in many ways," yet without contradiction. So we must beware of flattening out biblical teaching, as if it taught only one truth or even concentrated on one truth. At the same time, we have to be careful not to turn diversity into contradiction.
最近我們也經常看到，加爾文主義的新手們已經開始領悟到這點，就是古典改革宗對“與基督聯合”的強調是非常豐富的。也許這才是改革宗的中心教條，而不是預定論。在所有的人中，戈馬克斯•貝爾（Max Goebel）和馬蒂斯•施奈肯伯格（Matthias Schneckenburger，1804-48）在這方面是特別成功的。他們定義改革宗的基督教信仰特別擁護與基督聯合，而路德宗則強調法理上的稱義（forensic justification）（注3）。有時候，這會成為當代的改革宗學者批判或重新評估“救贖次序”（ordo salutis ）的理由。
Just as often these days, neophyte Calvinists have begun to realize the wealth of classical Reformed emphasis on union with Christ. Perhaps this, rather than predestination, is the central dogma. Among others, such as Max Goebel, Matthias Schneckenburger (1804-48) was particularly successful in defining Reformed Christianity as the champion of union with Christ over and against the Lutheran emphasis on forensic justification. (3) This is sometimes used to critique or reevaluate the ordo salutis by contemporary Reformed thinkers.
當然，如果聖經中有任何的“中心教條”，非基督莫屬。不過，即使是基督的位格和工作，其功用也不是用來作為“中心教條”的。聖經的確是以基督的位格和工作為中心的，但若說是以此為中心教條，還是大不相同的。中心教條是指一個論點，所有其他的論點都要從這裡作出推論。這個教條甚至可能是合乎聖經的。但是當它的作用是作為中心教條，它就會扭曲，而不是照亮其他的經文。
Surely, if there is any central dogma in Scripture, it is Christ. However, not even Christ's person and work function as a central dogma. There is an important difference between the centrality of Christ's person and work in Scripture and a central dogma. A central dogma is a thesis from which everything else is deduced. Such a dogma may even be biblical. But when it functions as a central dogma, it distorts instead of illuminating everything around it.
改革宗的釋經法並不是以預定、神的主權、稱義或與基督聯合為起點的。其系統是從聖經而來的，而不是強加在聖經身上的。不過，它也不是假裝只是解釋個別的經文，而不去考慮聖經自己對其更廣的許多主題的說明。我們相信，有三個釋經學（詮釋）主題，是從經文本身很自然地產生出來的：律法與福音的區別，以基督為中心的救贖歷史釋經，以及聖約的結構。
Reformed exegesis does not start with predestination, the sovereignty of God, justification, or union with Christ. Its system arises from Scripture rather than being imposed upon Scripture. It does not, however, pretend merely to interpret individual passages apart from an account of the Bible's own broader motifs. There are three hermeneutical (interpretive) motifs that we believe arise naturally from the Scriptures themselves: a law-gospel distinction, redemptive-historical exegesis centering on Christ, and a covenantal scheme.
律法與福音
Law and Gospel
當我們把律法和福音當作一個中心教條，所有的講道——不管是哪一段經文——聽起來都會是一個樣子。不知道為什麼，講道必須符合這樣的窠臼：“這是你為何會失敗”，以及“基督就是這樣拯救你”。就講道而言，這未必是最糟糕的，但這本身並不是在闡釋經文。
When law and gospel function as a central dogma, every sermon--regardless of the passage--sounds the same. Somehow, the sermon has to conform to "Here's how you've blown it" and "Here's how Christ saves you." As preaching goes, this may not be the worst thing in the world, but it is not itself an exposition of Scripture.
改教家認同這點，就是把律法和福音作出區分是很重要的。對任何一段經文，牧師或聖經的讀者必須把這個基本區分牢記在心。然而，我們所要闡釋的，是這段經文。我們不是在解釋律法和福音的類別，而是在這個重要區分的亮光下來解釋聖經。
The Reformers affirmed the importance of distinguishing between law and gospel. It is one of those basic distinctions that a preacher or reader of Scripture must bear in mind when coming to any passage. Nevertheless, it is the passagethat must be interpreted. We are not exegeting the categories of law and gospel but the Scriptures in the light of that important distinction.
在路德宗和改革宗的信條中，律法的第三個作用（引導信徒）同樣受到肯定。經文呼召我們要有智慧，過一個感恩的生活。我們的講道和聖經閱讀，不應該因此而感到困惑、難堪。雖然我們的擔心是合理的，就是許多的吩咐（imperatives）會導致自義或絕望，但有時候，給這些吩咐加上千百種的限制條件，就扼殺了這些吩咐。最近，我在家庭讀經的時間中，把箴言從頭到尾讀過了一邊。雖然有時候在有些地方，基督被擬人化成為智慧，但是箴言書中許多地方只是日常生活中的智慧。我們必須小心，不要對某種形式的化約主義（把聖經當作一本日常原則的手冊）作出過度的反應，結果是變成另一種的化約主義（忽略日常生活的智慧）。雖然我們必須牢記要恰當地區分律法和福音，要知道它們各自有不同的作用，然而，我們仍然需要聆聽從神口裡所出的一切話。
The third use of the law (to guide believers) is affirmed in the Lutheran as well as Reformed confessions. Our preaching and reading of Scripture should not be embarrassed by the calls in Scripture to wise and grateful living. Sometimes imperatives die the death of a thousand qualifications, worried as we understandably are that imperatives can lead to self-righteousness or despair. I've been reading through Proverbs in family devotions, and while there are remarkable places where Christ is personified as Wisdom, a lot of the book is simply wisdom for daily living. We have to beware of overreacting against one form of reductionism (using the Bible as a handbook for daily principles), only to fall into another form (ignoring its wisdom for daily living). Always bearing the proper distinction between law and gospel, aware that each does different things, we nevertheless need to listen to every word that comes from the mouth of God.
救贖歷史詮釋法
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation
這也適用於要在所有經文中尋求基督。這在改革宗和路德宗的圈子內，已經變成一種咒語（mantra）。威爾翰•尼塞爾（Wilhelm Niesel）留意到：
The same can be said of looking for Christ in all the Scriptures. This has become something of a mantra in Reformed as well as in Lutheran circles. Wilhelm Niesel observes:
改革宗神學，和路德宗一樣，知道是那來自聖經的神的道在對我們說話，在我們裡面生發信心，而這個道就是基督自己。但是這並不是我們能控制的經驗，以為我們只要能把聖經讀完，並查驗看它是否能“闡明基督”。加爾文閱讀整本聖經，期望在當中找到基督（注4）。再次，當它成為釋經的焦點，而不是詮釋的眼鏡，這個健康的強調也會被扭曲。
Reformed theology, just like Lutheran, knows that it is God's Word which addresses us from the Bible and produces faith and that this Word is Christ himself. But this address does not become an experience within our control on the basis of which we can read through the Bible and test whether it "sets forth Christ." Calvin read the whole Bible expecting to find Christ there. (4)
Again, this healthy emphasis can become a distortion when it is the focus of exegesis rather than an interpretive lens.
有時候我們會對聖經的多樣性感到不知所措，對利未記或以斯帖記是否與馬太福音或羅馬書怎麼會有關係感到懷疑。那條把所有的敘事、律法和智慧，預言、詩歌、吩咐與勸勉連在一起的那條線究竟是什麼呢？從創世記到啟示錄，的確有一個統一的信息，就是基督，祂把所有的線索結合在一起。當我們根據其情節來閱讀聖經時，事情就變得井然有序了。隱藏在所有故事、智慧、詩歌和預言後面的，是基督的奧秘和祂救贖工作的展開。
Sometimes we are bewildered by the diversity of the Bible, wondering how Leviticus or Esther bears any relation to the Gospel of Matthew or to Romans. What is the thread that pulls together all of the narratives, laws and wisdom, prophecy, poetry, instruction and exhortation? There really is a unifying message from Genesis to Revelation, and it is Christ who brings all of the threads together. When we read the Bible in the light of its plot, things begin to fall into place. Behind every story, piece of wisdom, hymn, exhortation, and prophecy is the unfolding mystery of Christ and his redemptive work.
耶穌自己告訴我們如何去閱讀聖經——全部的聖經。神把聖經託付給法利賽人。對他們的跟隨者來說，他們對聖經的詮釋是滿有權威的。然而，對他們來說，聖經主要只是一個關於西乃山的故事：以色列人與神立約，要遵守所有的誡命。它不是陪襯的情節——如同保羅所描述的，引我們到基督那裡的“師傅”——而是主角。當彌賽亞最後真的到來，祂要把羅馬人趕出去，重新建立猶太人的神權政治。以賽亞只是達到目的的手段，不是——如保羅對基督的稱呼——“律法的總結”（the end of the law。譯按，參羅10：4）。
Jesus himself told us how to read the Bible--all of it. The Pharisees were the guardians of the Bible. For their followers, they were its authoritative interpreters. Yet for them the Bible was primarily a story about Sinai: the covenant that Israel pledged to fulfill all of the commands of his law. It was not the subplot--the "schoolmaster" leading to Christ, as Paul described--but the main thing. When the Messiah finally arrived, he would drive out the Romans and reinstitute the Jewish theocracy. The Messiah was a means to an end, not--as Paul called Christ--"the end of the law."
耶穌自己告訴那些宗教領袖，“你們查考聖經，因你們以為內中有永生；給我作見證的就是這經。然而，你們不肯到我這裡來得生命。”（約5：39-40）耶穌教導祂的門徒要根據應許與應驗來閱讀整本聖經（就當時來說，是指舊約聖經），而祂自己是主角（路24：25-27；44-45）。無論他們把一些經文記得多牢，或他們多快能回想起以色列歷史的關鍵時刻，在耶穌沒有向他們解釋，聖經就是關於祂的故事之前，聖經對他們來說，完全是一個奧秘。
Jesus himself told the religious leaders, "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39). Jesus taught his disciples to read the whole Bible (at that point, the Old Testament) in terms of promise and fulfillment, with himself as the central character (Luke 24:25-27; 44-45). No matter how well they had memorized certain Bible verses or how quickly they could recall key moments in Israel's history, the Bible was a mystery to them before Jesus explained it as his story.
基督是把聖經啟示所有各種不同的股繩，結合在一起的那條線繩。離開基督，聖經的情節就會散落一地，混雜着許多人物，不相干的故事，令人費解的律法，以及令人困惑的諸多預言。門徒們最後似乎明白了耶穌所說的，因為福音透過他們的見證，從耶路撒冷傳播到異教的世界。即使是曾三次否認基督的彼得，之後也能夠以使徒的身份寫到：
Christ is the thread that weaves together all of the various strands of biblical revelation. Apart from him, the plot falls apart into a jumble of characters, unrelated stories, inexplicable laws, and confusing prophecies. The disciples finally seemed to understand this point, since the gospel went from Jerusalem to the Gentile world through their witness. Even Peter, who had denied Christ three times, was able later to write as an apostle:
“論到這救恩，那預先說你們要得恩典的眾先知早已詳細的尋求考察， 就是考察在他們心裡基督的靈，預先證明基督受苦難，後來得榮耀，是指著什麽時候，並怎樣的時候。 他們得了啟示，知道他們所傳講的一切事，不是為自己，乃是為你們。那靠著從天上差來的聖靈傳福音給你們的人，現在將這些事報給你們；天使也願意詳細察看這些事。”（彼前1：10-12）
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Pet. 1:10-12)
生永恆的兒子在創世故事的一開始，就已經存在（約1：1-3；西1：15-20）。祂是為以色列人的罪在曠野被擊打的磐石（林前10：4）。而在聖經最後的書卷中，祂也是神最後的話，說道：“不要懼怕！我是首先的，我是末後的，又是那存活的；我曾死過，現在又活了，直活到永永遠遠；並且拿著死亡和陰間的鑰匙”（啟1：17-18）。在天上的景象中，只有羔羊能展開包含所有歷史啟示的書卷：“他們唱新歌，說：你配拿書卷，配揭開七印；因為你曾被殺，用自己的血從各族、各方、各民、各國中買了人來，叫他們歸於神，又叫他們成為國民，作祭司歸於神，在地上執掌王權。”而所有在天上的人俯伏在羔羊面前，向祂敬拜（啟5：9-14）。這是神的好消息的目標。
God's eternal Son is present at the beginning of the story at creation (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-20). He is the Rock struck in the wilderness for Israel's sins (1 Cor. 10:4). And in the Bible's closing book he is God's last Word, too: "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forever more, and I have the keys of Death and Hades" (Rev. 1:17-18). In the heavenly scene, only the Lamb was able to open the scroll containing the revelation of all of history: "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." And everyone in heaven fell down before the Lamb in worship (Rev. 5:9-14). That is the goal of God's good news.
我們有許多人都是在一些不太知道如何處理舊約——除了找到一些道德榜樣以外：“要勇於作個但以理”——的教會長大的。只有當我們在圍繞着基督的救贖情節的展開中來閱讀聖經，那些不相干的書卷，才會變成一部合一的正典。不過，正如律法與福音，救贖歷史的思路也有時會把所有的講道變成同樣的講道。無論經文是什麼，信息基本上總是創造、墮落、救贖，以及國度的成全。可笑的是，此救贖歷史講道法的最重要的目標反而無法達成，因為這樣的講道並沒有引導信徒明白這段經文如何嵌合在神更遼闊的、神在基督里的目的的歷史當中。
Many of us were raised in churches that didn't quite know what to do with the Old Testament, except perhaps to find moral examples: "Dare to be a Daniel!" When we read the Bible in the light of the unfolding plot of redemption around Christ, otherwise unrelated books become a unified canon. Nevertheless, as with law and gospel, a redemptive-historical approach can sometimes turn every sermon into the same sermon. Regardless of the passage, the message is basically creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Ironically, the very goal of redemptive-historical preaching is not met, because believers are not led to see how this passage fits within the broader history of God's purposes in Christ.
聖約結構
Covenantal Scheme
改革宗神學就是聖約神學。神在基督了展開的目的，是在聖約的關係中實現的。此外，古典的改革宗神學在聖經中辨識出三個主要的聖約：1) 救贖之約（the covenant of redemption），這是三位一體的神與基督在永恆中所立的約，基督要作為選民的中保；2) 工作之約（the covenant of works），這是與亞當所立的約，亞當要作為全人類的約的代表； 3) 恩典之約（the covenant of grace），這是與信徒和他們的兒女在基督里所立的約，基督要作為末後的亞當。
Reformed theology is covenant theology. God's unfolding purposes in Christ are realized in a covenantal relationship. Furthermore, classic Reformed theology discerns in Scripture three overarching covenants: the covenant of redemption, made in eternity between the persons of the Godhead with Christ as the mediator of the elect; the covenant of works, made with Adam as the federal representative of humanity; and the covenant of grace, made with believers and their children in Christ as the last Adam.
再次，這個聖約神學可以是從聖經里讀出來的，也可以是強加在聖經上的。在主要的改革宗神學系統中，這些聖約構成其結構。我們不會經常看到一棟建築的結構 ——其支持的框架與樑柱。同樣，這些聖約在所有的經文中也不總是很清楚的。為了能守約地解釋聖經，我們不需要把所有的講道都變成聖約神學的演講。如同律法和福音之間的區分，以及救贖歷史的詮釋法，聖經的聖約神學也是我們從聖經中讀出來的，也是我們作為講道人、聽眾和所有經文的讀者所帶着的前提。但是我們必須聆聽每一段經文，不只是不斷重複着聖約神學。
Once again, this covenant theology can be read out of the Scriptures or it can be imposed upon the Scriptures. In the major Reformed systems, these covenants form the architecture. We don't always see the architecture of a building--its supporting framework and columns. Similarly, these covenants are not always explicit in every passage. We need not turn every sermon into a covenant theology lecture in order to interpret the Scriptures covenantally. As with the distinction between law-and-gospel and redemptive-historical interpretation, the Bible's covenant theology is something that we read out of Scripture and bring with us as preachers, hearers, and readers of each text. But we must hear each text, not just repetitions of covenant theology.
因此，沒有“正典中的正典”這回事——全部的聖經都是神所默示的，因此是有益的（也就是說，是具有正典的權威的），可以規範教會的信仰與實踐。我們同時需要拼圖的盒頂蓋和拼圖片，同時需要森林和樹木。事實上，是拼圖片構成了拼圖，樹木構成了森林。我們需要找回我們的信心：是神藉著祂的靈和祂的兒子默示了這些經文。這些經文的內容是以基督為中心的，祂是各個部分的主，也是整本聖經的主。
There is therefore no "canon within a canon"--all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore useful (that is, canonical) for norming the church's faith and practice. We need the box-top and the pieces, the forest and the trees. In fact, it's the pieces that make up the puzzle and the trees that make up the forest. We need to recover our confidence that the Father who inspired these texts by his Spirit, with his Son as its central content, is Lord of the parts and of the whole.
________________________________________
1 [ Back ] Clark Pinnock, "Overcoming Misgivings about Evangelical Inclusivism," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, vol. 2, no. 2 (Summer 1998), 33-34.
2 [ Back ] Pinnock, 35.
3 [ Back ] Matthias Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegriffs, ed. Eduard G& #252;der, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1855).
4 [ Back ] Wilhelm Niesel, Reformed Symbolics: A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, trans. David Lewis (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 229.
Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, People and Place, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, and Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype.
Issue: "Interpreting Scripture" July/August Vol. 19 No. 4 2010 Pages 10-15
You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org).
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.
Interpreting Scripture by Scripture
轉貼自: http://peddrluo.ccblog.net/archives/2010/37593.html
文/霍頓（Michael S. Horton） 譯/誠之
原載《當代宗教改革》雜誌，2010年，7/8月號，總19卷第4期，10-15頁。
獲授權翻譯
如同保羅對提摩太的提醒，“聖經都是神所默示的，於教訓、督責、使人歸正、教導人學義都是有益的”（提後3：16）——全部的聖經，不只是“生命經文”（life verses）。
As Paul reminded Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is [therefore] useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)--all Scripture, not just our "life verses."
與此同時，威敏思特信仰告白（Westminster Confession）正確地提醒我們，不是所有的經文都是同樣清楚或同等重要的（譯按：WCF，第一章，第7條）。我們必須在比較清楚的經文的亮光下，來解釋比較困難的經文，而且我們是藉著研讀經文的各部分來認識整體的意義，也是靠學習經文整體的意義來學習各部分的意義。我們需要拼圖的盒頂蓋（有整個拼圖的圖案），也同時需要那些拼圖片。
At the same time, the Westminster Confession properly reminds us that not everything in Scripture is equally plain or equally important. We have to interpret the more difficult passages in the light of clearer ones. Scripture interprets Scripture, and we learn the whole meaning of Scripture by studying its parts and its parts by learning the whole. You need the box-top and the puzzle-pieces.
當然，哪些經文是“困難的”，哪些是“清楚的”，哪些是更為重要的，有着許多不同的看法。我認為，我們都同意一件事，就是基督降到陰間的意義，不如祂的道成肉身、祂主動與被動的順服、祂的復活升天和再來的意義來得清楚，也沒有來得那麼重要。然而，在其他的一些要點上，就有許多不同意見了。大多數的福音派人士，會把教會治理模式（church government）放在“無關緊要”的類別中。這雖然不是信仰的核心，但是此一觀點卻嚴重到足以使改革宗傳統在聖公會、長老會和公理會的教會體制中造成分裂。對東正教人士來說，主教制對教會的存在，是最根本的；而羅馬天主教則更進一步，堅持羅馬的主教才是首要的。
Of course, there is disagreement about which verses are "difficult" and which are "clear," as well as which are more important. I think we'd all agree that the meaning of Christ's descent into hell is less clear and less important than his incarnation, active and passive obedience, resurrection, ascension, and return. Nevertheless, on a host of other points the roads diverge. Most evangelicals would place church government in the "Who Cares?" category. Far from being at the core of the faith, such a view was at least important enough to divide the Reformed tradition over Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational polities. For Eastern Orthodoxy, episcopacy is essential to the very existence of the church, and Rome takes it one step further, insisting on the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
即使論及福音，也有許多相當不同的意見。東正教認為清楚和重要的經文強調人的“神化”（theosis）——一個被模造成基督樣式的過程，藉著恩典與自由意志的結合，得到最終的拯救。羅馬天主教的傳統主張清楚和重要的經文教導的是：在教會中的人，藉著教會對功績（treasury of merit）的管理，使人與神和好。
Even when it comes to the gospel, there are quite different assumptions at play. Eastern Orthodox churches think that the clear and important passages emphasize theosis--a process of being conformed to Christ-likeness that leads to final salvation through a combination of grace and free will. Roman Catholics have traditionally maintained that the clear and important passages teach the reconciliation of humanity in the church through its management of the treasury of merit.
阿民念認為清楚和重要的經文教導：神的愛，普世的恩典，以及人類絕對的自由意志（libertarian free will）是居於首位的（比其他的屬性更重要）。雖然改革宗神學從來沒有教導神的主權（預定）要作為一個“中心教條”（central dogma），即所有其他的教義必須由此推導而出，在標準的阿民念系統中，神的愛和絕對的自由意志的確有這種作用。阿民念者經常會注意到一個僵持不下的局面（a stand-off）：加爾文者把神的主權和預定奉為神明，而他們把神普世的愛和人的自由意志作為規範。“你們有你們的經文，我們有我們的經文”，是經常聽到的遁詞，這只會削弱信徒對聖經的統一性、前後一致性和可靠性的信心。
Arminians think that the clear and important passages teach the primacy of God's love (over other attributes), the universality of grace, and the libertarian free will of human beings. While Reformed theology never teaches God's sovereignty (predestination) as a central dogma from which every other doctrine is deduced, the love of God and a libertarian view of free will do function that way in standard Arminian systems. Arminians often acknowledge a stand-off: Calvinists enshrine God's sovereignty and predestination, while they make God's universal love and human freedom normative. "You have your verses and we have ours," is the oft-heard shrug that can only weaken the believer's confidence in the unity, consistency, and reliability of Scripture.
願真理顯明，我們沒有“我們的經文”，他們也沒有“他們的經文”；只有上帝有“祂的經文”，也因此，所有這些經文都屬於“我們”。如果我們有的只是“我們的經文”，那麼，我們並沒有真的理解這些經文真正教導的。畢竟，只有聖經能解釋聖經，而如果為了維持前後的一致，我們感到不得不只擁抱一些經文而放棄一些經文，我們就還沒有真正認識到“我們的經文”。
Truth be told, we don't have "our verses" and they don't have "their verses." God has "his verses," and therefore all of them belong to "us." If we have "our verses," then not even these teach what we think they do. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, and if we feel compelled to embrace some passages over others in order to maintain consistency, we haven't really understood "our verses."
阿民念派的神學家克拉克•賓諾克（Clark Pinnock）和約翰•桑德斯（John Sanders）一個共同的預設前提，就是神所有的屬性都不能和祂的愛相比，而且，祂計劃要拯救所有的人。事實上，祂把這些要點視為其預設前提或“公理”，所有的釋經必須以此來檢驗（注1）。例如，從阿民念的前提出發，賓諾克為“包容主義”（inclusivism）辯護。包容主義是主張即使人對基督沒有完全的信心，只要能對神所給他們的亮光作出回應，人們還是可以得救。他說，“我同意包容主義不是聖經所討論的中心主題，其證據也不盡理想。但是神的愛的這個異象是如此強烈，因此現存的證據對我來說似乎是足夠的。”（注2）在這裡，賓諾克似乎是承認，他把一個一般性的原則作為法寶，來支持他在釋經上相對薄弱的立場。對他來說，盒頂蓋比拼圖片要來得重要得多。
Arminian theologians Clark Pinnock and John Sanders share the presupposition that all of God's attributes are subservient to his love and that his purpose is to save every person. In fact, he recognizes that these theses function as presuppositions or "axioms" by which exegesis must be tested. (1) For example, from Arminian premises Pinnock defends "inclusivism": the view that even apart from explicit faith in Christ, people are saved if they respond to the light they have been given. He adds, "I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and that the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God's love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me." (2) Here Pinnock seems to admit that a general principle trumps the weak exegetical support of his position. The box-top is more important than the pieces of the puzzle.
對極端加爾文主義者（hyper-Calvinists）來說，神的主權是王牌，可以把所有其他的屬性比下去，而預定論經常會使其他經文變得相對不重要，甚至被抵消，即使這些經文似乎是同樣清楚而且是同樣重要的。例如，雖然聖經同樣清楚，也同樣強調地教導神藉著福音的外在呼召是普世的，神恩典的愛及於所有生靈，以及宣教的必要性，極端的加爾文主義者卻僅僅重複着“鬱金香”（TULIP）的經文，而不是認真地把所有聖經的教導融匯到他們的信仰和實踐當中。對其他人而言，“歸正”意味着要更新變化所有的文化領域——即使這意味着要把救恩的問題（這是改革宗信條的核心）變得相對不重要，甚至不予重視。最近，有些人主張，“與基督聯合”——而不是預定——才是改革宗神學的中心教條（central dogma）。不過，“中心教條”有一個特殊的涵義。這是一條論述，其他的一切都必須由此推導而出，而不是從整本聖經的教導所推論得出的中心教導。
For hyper-Calvinists, God's sovereignty trumps other attributes, and predestination often marginalizes or even cancels out other passages that seem equally clear and important. For example, although Scripture just as clearly and emphatically teaches the universality of God's external call through the gospel, God's gracious care for all creatures, and the missionary imperative, hyper-Calvinists simply repeat the "TULIP" passages instead of seriously incorporating the whole teaching of Scripture into their faith and practice. For others, "Reformed" means transformation of every cultural sphere, even when that means marginalizing or even downplaying the soteriological questions that are at the heart of the Reformed confession. More recently, some argue that "union with Christ," not predestination, is the central dogma of Reformed theology. "Central dogma," however, has a particular meaning. It's a thesis from which everything else is deduced, rather than a central teaching that emerges inductively from the whole teaching of Scripture.
在路德神學的歷史中，稱義有時是作為一個中心教條，會相對不重視其他清楚且重要的聖經教導，或甚至與聖經的教導相違背。路德呼籲要把聖經中“凡宣講基督” 的經文給予特別的重視。許多自由派的新教徒把此呼籲極端化，就提倡一種“正典中的正典”（canon-within-a-canon）的釋經法：我們不需要接受聖經里所講的一切，只要接受那些傳揚基督的經文。即使在認信的路德宗人士當中，我們有時也會看出一種傾向，不只是適當地看重聖經自己對稱義的見證，而且是把它當作一個中心教條，所有其他的聖經教導要從這裡推導而出。
In the history of Lutheran theology, justification has sometimes functioned as a central dogma that downplays or even contradicts other clear and important teachings of Scripture. Radicalizing Luther's call to privilege in Scripture "whatever preaches Christ," many liberal Protestants advanced a "canon-within-a-canon" hermeneutic. We need not accept everything in Scripture, but only that which proclaims Christ. Even in confessional Lutheranism, one may sometimes discern a tendency not only to give proper weight to the Bible's own testimony to justification, but to treat it as a central dogma from which all other biblical teachings are deduced.
有些保守福音派人士把創造論和字面解經依此方式來對待，而嚴格的時代論者把聖經主要解讀為一系列的關於今日以色列、末日決戰（Armageddon），以及字面的千禧年的預測。至少在比較老舊的版本中（即司可福聖經所主導的），七個時代的架構就變成一個框架，所有的經文都被壓縮在這個框架之內。
Some conservative evangelicals treat creationism and a literalistic hermeneutic in this manner, with strict dispensationalists reading the Bible primarily as a series of predictions concerning present-day Israel, Armageddon, and a literal millennium. At least in the older version, dominated by the Scofield Study Bible, the seven-dispensation scheme becomes a grid into which all of Scripture is pressed.
林與樹
The Forest and the Trees
一方面，我們會有見樹不見林的危險。有些解經家把聖經當作一本永恆的原則、教義與箴言目錄，他們的假設是：只要用同樣的話來重述聖經就好了。一位著名的牧師曾經告訴我，“當我講登山寶訓的道的時候，我聽起來像是個律法主義者；當我在講整本加拉太書時，聽起來卻像個反律法主義者。”雖然這聽起來好像是忠於經文——經文怎麼說，我就怎麼講——這卻是大有問題的。至少有兩點理由。首先，這太天真了。沒有人是不帶着一個預設前提來閱讀聖經的。我們都有一些教義的架構。這個教義架構是我們過去多年來，與其他有類似教義背景的信徒一起研讀聖經時所獲得的。其次，這個假設破壞了聖經是統一的這個信念。耶穌並沒有教導律法主義，而保羅也沒有教導反律法主義。作為耶穌自己賦予權柄的使徒，並在聖靈的默示下寫作，保羅的信息就是基督的信息。如果我們把登山寶訓解釋為與加拉太書毫不相干（更遭的是以為他們彼此矛盾），那麼，我們就沒有正確地解讀此二者。
On one hand, there is the danger of missing the forest for the trees. Treating the Bible as a catalogue of timeless principles, doctrines, and proverbs, some expositors assume that they are just restating the Bible in so many words. A noted pastor once told me, "When I'm preaching through the Sermon on the Mount, I sound like a legalist; when I'm preaching through Galatians, I sound like an antinomian." Although this sounds like fidelity to the text--wherever it leads us--it is problematic for at least two reasons. First, it's naive. No one comes to the Bible without presuppositions. We all have some doctrinal framework we have acquired over years of studying the Bible together with other believers in a similar doctrinal background. Second, this assumption undermines confidence in the unity of Scripture. Jesus did not teach legalism and Paul did not teach antinomianism. As an apostle commissioned with the authority of Jesus himself and writing under the Spirit's inspiration, Paul's message is Christ's message. If we interpret the Sermon on the Mount as something completely unrelated (much less, contradictory) to Galatians, then we haven't gotten either right.
我們許多人是在這樣的教會長大的：牧師會誇口說他花了好幾年才把一本書卷講完。有人說，這是釋經講道的榮耀。但這是讀一個故事的好方法嗎？舊約的歷史書和新約的福音書，為我們提供了一個主要的敘事架構，在這個架構下，我們才會理解律法和教義。而書信就只是書信：是針對一個特定的教會（或一群教會）而寫的信件，在公眾崇拜中，也通常是以這樣的形式加以朗讀的。當這些信件被完整宣讀出來時，我們會學到很多。不過，每一周把這些豐富的內容逐漸展示出來，也是很重要的——但總是要把神的子民帶回到基本的論點當中。典型的情況是，歷史書和福音書會有故事情節，而書信則是一個論證（或一些論證）。但是在這種一節一節的宣講方式下，情節和論證都很可能容易失焦，變成支離破碎的解經。
Many of us were raised in churches where the pastor boasted that it took him years to get through one book. This is the glory of expository preaching, we were told. But is that a good way to read a story? The historical books of the Old Testament and the gospels of the New provide the overarching narrative within which the laws and doctrines make sense. The Epistles are, well, epistles: letters that were addressed to a particular church (or group of churches) and were generally read aloud as such in public worship. We get a lot out of these letters when we hear them read in their entirety, yet it's also important to unpack the rich content week by week--always bringing our people back to the basic argument. Typically, the historical books and the gospels have a storyline and the epistles have an argument (or series of arguments). But in this verse-by-verse approach, both the plot and the arguments can be easily lost to atomistic exegesis.
另一方面，還有一個危險，就是把一個正當的——甚至是重要的——聖經主題或教義，變成一個“中心教條”，而據此來推導出其餘的一切。這是見林不見樹。如果第一個觀點是專注在拼圖片上，忽略了盒頂蓋（更廣的聖經和系統神學），此觀點則被一種傾向所害，就是不看重、甚至是忽視“神的全部計劃”（the whole counsel of God；譯按，見徒20：27，新譯本）的一些重要層面。
On the other hand, there is a danger of turning a legitimate--even important--biblical motif or doctrine into a central dogma from which we deduce everything else. This is missing the trees for the forest. If the danger in the first view is to focus on the pieces of the puzzle without the box-top (a broader biblical and systematic theology), this view suffers from a tendency to marginalize or even ignore important aspects of "the whole counsel of God."
聖經是一部正典。雖然，適切地說來，因為聖經有許多不同的文體和作者，散布在許多的時代和地點中，因此，她更像是一部圖書館，而不是一本書，然而，聖經有一個內在的統一性。我們不是從外面把這個統一性加在聖經之上。我們並沒有把這些拼圖片強行拼湊起來，雖然在我們內心深處也許會以為他們是矛盾的。聖經的內在是統一的，因為她有一個基本的情節與教導。然而，啟示是緊跟着救贖的，它與神展開其計劃的歷史是同步的。神在不同時期以不同的約來行事。統一性與多樣性不可彼此偏廢。
Scripture is a canon. Although it is properly said that the Bible is more of a library than a book, because of its diverse genres and authorship spread over many times and places, there is a unity inherent within the Bible. We do not impose this unity on Scripture from without. We do not force the pieces to fit, even though deep down we might think that they are contradictory. Scripture is inherently unified in its basic plot and teachings. And yet revelation follows redemption. It keeps pace with the history of God's unfolding plan. God works differently in various periods with different covenants. Neither the unity nor the diversity is sacrificed to the other.
聖經不只包括許多不同的體裁，她也是由許多不同的作者“多次多方”（來1：1）寫成的。因為神的默示是有機的默示，而不是機械性的默示，聖經就同時反映出作者的人性，也反映出其神性。加拉太書不只是登山寶訓的重新講述，但是二者都是同一部新約正典的一部分。因此，他們必須一起來加以詮釋。
The Bible not only has diverse genres, it was written by diverse human authors "in many times and in many ways" (Heb 1:1). Because inspiration is organic rather than mechanical, Scripture reflects the humanity as well as the divinity of its authorship. Galatians is not just a restatement of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet both are part of the same new covenant canon. Therefore, they have to be interpreted together.
當我們這樣作的時候，我們就會更豐富地發現它們各自真實的意義。在加拉太書中，保羅是說到律法（西乃山）之約和應許（亞伯拉罕）之約的不同；前者是透過預表和影子來指向基督，而後者已經在基督里成全，祂是那應許的後裔，世上的萬國都在祂裡面獲得祝福。而在登山寶訓中，耶穌是在宣布一個政權的改變，舊約的神治政體（old covenant theocracy，包括其對外邦人的聖戰）讓步給一個新的社會——此社會屬於得赦免和蒙福的後裔，他們會為了基督的緣故，遭受迫害，並愛他們的仇敵。耶穌和保羅同樣都在吸引我們到同一個恩典的天國實體中，雖然耶穌是作為這個國度的開創者，而保羅是作為一個使徒，在這個神在歷史中展開的計劃中，探索其結果。
When we do this, we discover more richly what each actually means. In Galatians, Paul is talking about the difference between the covenant of law (Sinai) that points forward to Christ by types and shadows, and the Abrahamic covenant of promise that is realized in Christ as the seed in whom all the nations are blessed. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is announcing a regime change, as the old covenant theocracy (including its holy wars) gives way to a new society of forgiven and blessed heirs who endure persecution and love their enemies for Christ's sake. Jesus and Paul are drawing us into exactly the same reality of the kingdom of grace, though Jesus does so as its inaugurator and Paul does so as an apostle, exploring the ramifications within the unfolding plan of God in history.
躁動不安與歸正：預定論/神的主權
Restless and Reformed: Predestination/God's Sovereignty
既然“中心教條”的理論打亂了傳統，我就開始我自己的傳統吧。理查•穆勒（Richard Muller）和其他學者已經有系統地駁斥了一個觀念，就是預定論是改革宗神學的中心教條。事實上，這些歷史神學家證明了在改革宗系統中，沒有一條教義具有此種的功能。
Since the "central dogma" thesis cuts across traditions, I might as well start with my own. Richard Muller and other scholars have systematically dismantled the idea that predestination operates as a central dogma in Reformed theology. In fact, these historical theologians demonstrate that no doctrine functions like that in the Reformed system.
19世紀的歷史神學特別受到“大概念”（Great Idea）之思維的吸引：要找出一個中心的教條，這個系統中其他的東西都要從這個教條推導而出，來加以解釋，並與敵對的系統加以對比。當然，在釋經與爭論的場合中，加爾文是為奧古斯丁的神的主權和預定的教義辯護的。不過，這個強調，很難被視為是一個中心教義，然後推導出整個系統，特別是在他對基督信仰的摘要（日內瓦要理問答）中，加爾文甚至沒有提及這個教義。雖然如此，神的主權和預定仍然變成一種解釋或批評加爾文和改革宗神學的方式（無論來自友人和敵人都一樣）。對照之下，整個路德宗的系統據稱都是從神稱罪人為義這個教義而作出推論的。
Nineteenth-century historical theology was especially drawn to the "Great Idea" approach: locating a central dogma from which everything else in the system could be deduced, explained, and contrasted with rival systems. Of course, Calvin defended an Augustinian doctrine of God's sovereignty and predestination when exegetical and polemical occasion required. This emphasis, however, can hardly be considered a central dogma from which the whole system is deduced, especially when it is not even mentioned in his summary of the Christian faith (the Geneva Catechism). Nevertheless, God's sovereignty and predestination became a way of explaining or criticizing Calvin and Reformed theology, by friend and foe alike. By contrast, the entire Lutheran system was allegedly deduced from the doctrine of the justification of the ungodly.
上帝主權的恩典吞沒了我們整個的地平線。它改變了一切。我們能理解，這真是一個全新的發現。我們開始明白我們以往所忽略的經文。這是一個範式的轉移（paradigm shift）。但這恰恰是我們需要小心的地方：一個範式可以從一個對經文的新鮮解讀自然地得出，也可以是從外面強加在聖經之上。例如，如果我們從小就相信救恩是靠個人的自由意志來決定，預定則重述了神的自由。神有自由揀選人，有自由定人的罪。但是這僅僅是因為神掌主權嗎？當然不是。這是對神的主權的教導，一種近乎武斷的描繪。不！在聖經中，我們學到，上帝有自由揀選祂要揀選的人，也有自由定其餘的人有罪——因為所有的人都配受定罪。換句話說，上帝的主權不能與祂的公平和公義——或者與任何其他的屬性，包括祂的愛——分開。正如我們不能用一節經文或一段表列的經節來抵消其餘的經文，我們也不能把上帝的一個屬性奉為至高，超過其他屬性。崇拜上帝的一個屬性，而不崇拜上帝自己，是真正的危險。
Especially in cases of fresh discovery, it's understandable that God's sovereign grace swallows our whole horizon. It changes everything. We begin to see passages we had overlooked before. It's a paradigm shift. But that's exactly why we have to be careful at just that point: a paradigm can arise naturally from a fresh reading of Scripture or it can be imposed upon Scripture from without. For example, if one has been raised to believe that salvation depends on the individual's free will, predestination reasserts God's freedom. God is free to elect and to condemn. But is this merely because God is sovereign? Of course not. There is a kind of teaching of the sovereignty of God that is close to an arbitrary portrait. No, in Scripture we learn that God is free to elect whom he will and to condemn the rest because everyone deserves condemnation. In other words, God's sovereignty cannot be separated from his justice and righteousness--or from any other attribute, including his love. Just as we can't use one passage or list of verses to cancel out others in Scripture, we cannot enshrine one attribute of God above others. There is a real danger in worshipping an attribute rather than God himself.
讓預定變成一個“中心教條”，基督教就無法與伊斯蘭教無異。我曾經見過並聽過一些極端加爾文主義者的演講，高舉神的主權而不曾提到耶穌基督。然而加爾文說，只有在基督里我們才能找到我們的揀選。我也聽過一些演說，把神定罪的行動說成是與祂拯救的行動相等。然而，這是忽略了聖經清楚的教導，即祂從整個被定罪的人類當中，揀選一些人使他們得救。許多經文讚美上帝的慈愛，祂揀選的恩典。但是上帝唯獨在選民的救恩上受到讚美，而沒有在非選民的定罪上受到讚美。這就是為什麼多特信經（1618-19）——“加爾文五要點”的出處——確認“改革宗教會全心憎惡”（"Reformed churches detest with their whole heart）這個觀點，說上帝在定罪人的事上，所涉入的程度與祂在救恩的事上涉入的一樣深。當我們以預定或神的主權成為基礎，在其上建造出一棟神學系統的摩天大樓，其結果就是我們把一些經文挑選出來，讓它們的地位高過其他的經文。這就成了“正典中的正典”。這是改革宗正統所絕不允許的事。
When predestination is made the central dogma, Christianity becomes indistinguishable from Islam. I've seen and heard a few hyper-Calvinist presentations that extolled the sovereignty of God without ever mentioning Jesus Christ. And yet Calvin said that it is only in Christ that we find our election. I have also heard presentations in which God's activity in condemnation was treated as equivalent to his activity in salvation. This, however, ignores the clear biblical teaching that has chosen some to be saved from the mass of condemned humanity. There are lots of passages that celebrate God's mercy in electing grace. But God is praised as directly and solely responsible for the salvation of the elect, not as directly and solely responsible for the condemnation of the nonelect. That is why the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19)--from which we get the so-called "five points of Calvinism"--affirm that "Reformed churches detest with their whole heart" the view that God is as involved in damnation as he is in salvation. When predestination or the sovereignty of God is made the foundation on which we build a skyscraper of a theological system, we end up picking out some passages of Scripture to stand over others in judgment. It becomes a canon within a canon. This is something Reformed orthodoxy never allowed.
然而，批判者不這樣以為是情有可原的。首先，目前的趨勢是把改革宗神學貶低為只是加爾文主義五要點。有時候，這會給人一種印象，就是只要相信預定論，就是改革宗。當然，這就會使得湯瑪斯•阿奎拿（Thomas Aquinas）歸正的程度變得和史普羅（R. C. Sproul）一樣了！不過，這“五要點”本身是多特信條的總結，而多特信條比起這個總結要豐富並完整得多。尚且，多特信條是歐陸的改革宗基督徒（包括來自英國教會的代表）所撰寫的，是作為對阿民念主義的反駁。此信條和比利時信仰告白、海德堡要理問答一起，是作為改革宗信仰與實踐之僅次於聖經的標準。威敏思特標準（譯按：即威敏思特信仰告白，大、小要理問答等三份文件）也認信同樣的信仰。無論何時，當神全部的計劃被簡化成幾個“基要真理”時，我們就失去這些教義的豐富性與深度。再者，當這些教義從更大的信仰系統與實踐被孤立出來的時候，它們就很容易落入片面強調的陷阱中。
Critics, however, may be forgiven for thinking otherwise. First, there is a growing tendency right now to reduce Reformed theology to the five points of Calvinism. Sometimes the impression is given that anyone who believes in predestination is Reformed. Of course, that would make Thomas Aquinas as Reformed as R. C. Sproul! However, these "five points" are themselves a summary of the Canons of Dort, which are much richer and fuller than that summary. Furthermore, the Canons were drawn up by Reformed Christians on the Continent (with representatives from the Church of England) as a refutation of Arminianism. They serve along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism as a standard for Reformed faith and practice, subordinate to Scripture. The Westminster Standards confess the same faith. Whenever the whole council of God is reduced to a few "fundamentals," we lose the richness and depth of those very doctrines. Furthermore, when these doctrines are isolated from the broader system of faith and practice, they yield easily to one-sided emphases.
第二，批評者經常把加爾文主義描繪成極端加爾文主義。而且，很不幸地，他們實際上會接觸到體現出這種諷刺的人。對初信的人來說，走極端一直是一種誘惑。有很多流行的版本，的確把神的主權或預定變成經文的中心。當然，我們必須在聖經的亮光下來解釋聖經。對一些人來說，把這類經文和同樣清楚的關於神無條件的揀選的經文一起並排來看，真的會令人困惑。不過，問題出在我們。默示“全部聖經”的聖靈，使用各種不同的聲音或不同的聖經作者——每個人有他自己的性格，風格，或甚至信念——但仍然教導一個統一的信息。上帝的確知道如何“多次多方”，且沒有矛盾地和我們溝通。因此，我們必須小心，不要把聖經的教導變得很單調，好像它只是在教導一個真理，或甚至只集中在一個真理上。與此同時，我們必須很小心，不要讓多樣性變成互相矛盾。
Second, critics often paint Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism. And, unfortunately, they may actually encounter people who embody this caricature. Falling into extremes is always a temptation for new converts. There are popular versions on the ground that do make God's sovereignty or predestination the center of Scripture. Of course, we have to interpret Scripture in the light of Scripture. It may be confusing for some people to read verses like this alongside other equally clear passages concerning God's unconditional election. The problem, however, lies with us. The Spirit who inspired "all Scripture" employs the richly diverse voices of different biblical writers--each with his own personality, style, and even beliefs--while nevertheless teaching a unified message. God indeed knows how to communicate "in many times and in many ways," yet without contradiction. So we must beware of flattening out biblical teaching, as if it taught only one truth or even concentrated on one truth. At the same time, we have to be careful not to turn diversity into contradiction.
最近我們也經常看到，加爾文主義的新手們已經開始領悟到這點，就是古典改革宗對“與基督聯合”的強調是非常豐富的。也許這才是改革宗的中心教條，而不是預定論。在所有的人中，戈馬克斯•貝爾（Max Goebel）和馬蒂斯•施奈肯伯格（Matthias Schneckenburger，1804-48）在這方面是特別成功的。他們定義改革宗的基督教信仰特別擁護與基督聯合，而路德宗則強調法理上的稱義（forensic justification）（注3）。有時候，這會成為當代的改革宗學者批判或重新評估“救贖次序”（ordo salutis ）的理由。
Just as often these days, neophyte Calvinists have begun to realize the wealth of classical Reformed emphasis on union with Christ. Perhaps this, rather than predestination, is the central dogma. Among others, such as Max Goebel, Matthias Schneckenburger (1804-48) was particularly successful in defining Reformed Christianity as the champion of union with Christ over and against the Lutheran emphasis on forensic justification. (3) This is sometimes used to critique or reevaluate the ordo salutis by contemporary Reformed thinkers.
當然，如果聖經中有任何的“中心教條”，非基督莫屬。不過，即使是基督的位格和工作，其功用也不是用來作為“中心教條”的。聖經的確是以基督的位格和工作為中心的，但若說是以此為中心教條，還是大不相同的。中心教條是指一個論點，所有其他的論點都要從這裡作出推論。這個教條甚至可能是合乎聖經的。但是當它的作用是作為中心教條，它就會扭曲，而不是照亮其他的經文。
Surely, if there is any central dogma in Scripture, it is Christ. However, not even Christ's person and work function as a central dogma. There is an important difference between the centrality of Christ's person and work in Scripture and a central dogma. A central dogma is a thesis from which everything else is deduced. Such a dogma may even be biblical. But when it functions as a central dogma, it distorts instead of illuminating everything around it.
改革宗的釋經法並不是以預定、神的主權、稱義或與基督聯合為起點的。其系統是從聖經而來的，而不是強加在聖經身上的。不過，它也不是假裝只是解釋個別的經文，而不去考慮聖經自己對其更廣的許多主題的說明。我們相信，有三個釋經學（詮釋）主題，是從經文本身很自然地產生出來的：律法與福音的區別，以基督為中心的救贖歷史釋經，以及聖約的結構。
Reformed exegesis does not start with predestination, the sovereignty of God, justification, or union with Christ. Its system arises from Scripture rather than being imposed upon Scripture. It does not, however, pretend merely to interpret individual passages apart from an account of the Bible's own broader motifs. There are three hermeneutical (interpretive) motifs that we believe arise naturally from the Scriptures themselves: a law-gospel distinction, redemptive-historical exegesis centering on Christ, and a covenantal scheme.
律法與福音
Law and Gospel
當我們把律法和福音當作一個中心教條，所有的講道——不管是哪一段經文——聽起來都會是一個樣子。不知道為什麼，講道必須符合這樣的窠臼：“這是你為何會失敗”，以及“基督就是這樣拯救你”。就講道而言，這未必是最糟糕的，但這本身並不是在闡釋經文。
When law and gospel function as a central dogma, every sermon--regardless of the passage--sounds the same. Somehow, the sermon has to conform to "Here's how you've blown it" and "Here's how Christ saves you." As preaching goes, this may not be the worst thing in the world, but it is not itself an exposition of Scripture.
改教家認同這點，就是把律法和福音作出區分是很重要的。對任何一段經文，牧師或聖經的讀者必須把這個基本區分牢記在心。然而，我們所要闡釋的，是這段經文。我們不是在解釋律法和福音的類別，而是在這個重要區分的亮光下來解釋聖經。
The Reformers affirmed the importance of distinguishing between law and gospel. It is one of those basic distinctions that a preacher or reader of Scripture must bear in mind when coming to any passage. Nevertheless, it is the passagethat must be interpreted. We are not exegeting the categories of law and gospel but the Scriptures in the light of that important distinction.
在路德宗和改革宗的信條中，律法的第三個作用（引導信徒）同樣受到肯定。經文呼召我們要有智慧，過一個感恩的生活。我們的講道和聖經閱讀，不應該因此而感到困惑、難堪。雖然我們的擔心是合理的，就是許多的吩咐（imperatives）會導致自義或絕望，但有時候，給這些吩咐加上千百種的限制條件，就扼殺了這些吩咐。最近，我在家庭讀經的時間中，把箴言從頭到尾讀過了一邊。雖然有時候在有些地方，基督被擬人化成為智慧，但是箴言書中許多地方只是日常生活中的智慧。我們必須小心，不要對某種形式的化約主義（把聖經當作一本日常原則的手冊）作出過度的反應，結果是變成另一種的化約主義（忽略日常生活的智慧）。雖然我們必須牢記要恰當地區分律法和福音，要知道它們各自有不同的作用，然而，我們仍然需要聆聽從神口裡所出的一切話。
The third use of the law (to guide believers) is affirmed in the Lutheran as well as Reformed confessions. Our preaching and reading of Scripture should not be embarrassed by the calls in Scripture to wise and grateful living. Sometimes imperatives die the death of a thousand qualifications, worried as we understandably are that imperatives can lead to self-righteousness or despair. I've been reading through Proverbs in family devotions, and while there are remarkable places where Christ is personified as Wisdom, a lot of the book is simply wisdom for daily living. We have to beware of overreacting against one form of reductionism (using the Bible as a handbook for daily principles), only to fall into another form (ignoring its wisdom for daily living). Always bearing the proper distinction between law and gospel, aware that each does different things, we nevertheless need to listen to every word that comes from the mouth of God.
救贖歷史詮釋法
Redemptive-Historical Interpretation
這也適用於要在所有經文中尋求基督。這在改革宗和路德宗的圈子內，已經變成一種咒語（mantra）。威爾翰•尼塞爾（Wilhelm Niesel）留意到：
The same can be said of looking for Christ in all the Scriptures. This has become something of a mantra in Reformed as well as in Lutheran circles. Wilhelm Niesel observes:
改革宗神學，和路德宗一樣，知道是那來自聖經的神的道在對我們說話，在我們裡面生發信心，而這個道就是基督自己。但是這並不是我們能控制的經驗，以為我們只要能把聖經讀完，並查驗看它是否能“闡明基督”。加爾文閱讀整本聖經，期望在當中找到基督（注4）。再次，當它成為釋經的焦點，而不是詮釋的眼鏡，這個健康的強調也會被扭曲。
Reformed theology, just like Lutheran, knows that it is God's Word which addresses us from the Bible and produces faith and that this Word is Christ himself. But this address does not become an experience within our control on the basis of which we can read through the Bible and test whether it "sets forth Christ." Calvin read the whole Bible expecting to find Christ there. (4)
Again, this healthy emphasis can become a distortion when it is the focus of exegesis rather than an interpretive lens.
有時候我們會對聖經的多樣性感到不知所措，對利未記或以斯帖記是否與馬太福音或羅馬書怎麼會有關係感到懷疑。那條把所有的敘事、律法和智慧，預言、詩歌、吩咐與勸勉連在一起的那條線究竟是什麼呢？從創世記到啟示錄，的確有一個統一的信息，就是基督，祂把所有的線索結合在一起。當我們根據其情節來閱讀聖經時，事情就變得井然有序了。隱藏在所有故事、智慧、詩歌和預言後面的，是基督的奧秘和祂救贖工作的展開。
Sometimes we are bewildered by the diversity of the Bible, wondering how Leviticus or Esther bears any relation to the Gospel of Matthew or to Romans. What is the thread that pulls together all of the narratives, laws and wisdom, prophecy, poetry, instruction and exhortation? There really is a unifying message from Genesis to Revelation, and it is Christ who brings all of the threads together. When we read the Bible in the light of its plot, things begin to fall into place. Behind every story, piece of wisdom, hymn, exhortation, and prophecy is the unfolding mystery of Christ and his redemptive work.
耶穌自己告訴我們如何去閱讀聖經——全部的聖經。神把聖經託付給法利賽人。對他們的跟隨者來說，他們對聖經的詮釋是滿有權威的。然而，對他們來說，聖經主要只是一個關於西乃山的故事：以色列人與神立約，要遵守所有的誡命。它不是陪襯的情節——如同保羅所描述的，引我們到基督那裡的“師傅”——而是主角。當彌賽亞最後真的到來，祂要把羅馬人趕出去，重新建立猶太人的神權政治。以賽亞只是達到目的的手段，不是——如保羅對基督的稱呼——“律法的總結”（the end of the law。譯按，參羅10：4）。
Jesus himself told us how to read the Bible--all of it. The Pharisees were the guardians of the Bible. For their followers, they were its authoritative interpreters. Yet for them the Bible was primarily a story about Sinai: the covenant that Israel pledged to fulfill all of the commands of his law. It was not the subplot--the "schoolmaster" leading to Christ, as Paul described--but the main thing. When the Messiah finally arrived, he would drive out the Romans and reinstitute the Jewish theocracy. The Messiah was a means to an end, not--as Paul called Christ--"the end of the law."
耶穌自己告訴那些宗教領袖，“你們查考聖經，因你們以為內中有永生；給我作見證的就是這經。然而，你們不肯到我這裡來得生命。”（約5：39-40）耶穌教導祂的門徒要根據應許與應驗來閱讀整本聖經（就當時來說，是指舊約聖經），而祂自己是主角（路24：25-27；44-45）。無論他們把一些經文記得多牢，或他們多快能回想起以色列歷史的關鍵時刻，在耶穌沒有向他們解釋，聖經就是關於祂的故事之前，聖經對他們來說，完全是一個奧秘。
Jesus himself told the religious leaders, "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39). Jesus taught his disciples to read the whole Bible (at that point, the Old Testament) in terms of promise and fulfillment, with himself as the central character (Luke 24:25-27; 44-45). No matter how well they had memorized certain Bible verses or how quickly they could recall key moments in Israel's history, the Bible was a mystery to them before Jesus explained it as his story.
基督是把聖經啟示所有各種不同的股繩，結合在一起的那條線繩。離開基督，聖經的情節就會散落一地，混雜着許多人物，不相干的故事，令人費解的律法，以及令人困惑的諸多預言。門徒們最後似乎明白了耶穌所說的，因為福音透過他們的見證，從耶路撒冷傳播到異教的世界。即使是曾三次否認基督的彼得，之後也能夠以使徒的身份寫到：
Christ is the thread that weaves together all of the various strands of biblical revelation. Apart from him, the plot falls apart into a jumble of characters, unrelated stories, inexplicable laws, and confusing prophecies. The disciples finally seemed to understand this point, since the gospel went from Jerusalem to the Gentile world through their witness. Even Peter, who had denied Christ three times, was able later to write as an apostle:
“論到這救恩，那預先說你們要得恩典的眾先知早已詳細的尋求考察， 就是考察在他們心裡基督的靈，預先證明基督受苦難，後來得榮耀，是指著什麽時候，並怎樣的時候。 他們得了啟示，知道他們所傳講的一切事，不是為自己，乃是為你們。那靠著從天上差來的聖靈傳福音給你們的人，現在將這些事報給你們；天使也願意詳細察看這些事。”（彼前1：10-12）
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Pet. 1:10-12)
生永恆的兒子在創世故事的一開始，就已經存在（約1：1-3；西1：15-20）。祂是為以色列人的罪在曠野被擊打的磐石（林前10：4）。而在聖經最後的書卷中，祂也是神最後的話，說道：“不要懼怕！我是首先的，我是末後的，又是那存活的；我曾死過，現在又活了，直活到永永遠遠；並且拿著死亡和陰間的鑰匙”（啟1：17-18）。在天上的景象中，只有羔羊能展開包含所有歷史啟示的書卷：“他們唱新歌，說：你配拿書卷，配揭開七印；因為你曾被殺，用自己的血從各族、各方、各民、各國中買了人來，叫他們歸於神，又叫他們成為國民，作祭司歸於神，在地上執掌王權。”而所有在天上的人俯伏在羔羊面前，向祂敬拜（啟5：9-14）。這是神的好消息的目標。
God's eternal Son is present at the beginning of the story at creation (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-20). He is the Rock struck in the wilderness for Israel's sins (1 Cor. 10:4). And in the Bible's closing book he is God's last Word, too: "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forever more, and I have the keys of Death and Hades" (Rev. 1:17-18). In the heavenly scene, only the Lamb was able to open the scroll containing the revelation of all of history: "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." And everyone in heaven fell down before the Lamb in worship (Rev. 5:9-14). That is the goal of God's good news.
我們有許多人都是在一些不太知道如何處理舊約——除了找到一些道德榜樣以外：“要勇於作個但以理”——的教會長大的。只有當我們在圍繞着基督的救贖情節的展開中來閱讀聖經，那些不相干的書卷，才會變成一部合一的正典。不過，正如律法與福音，救贖歷史的思路也有時會把所有的講道變成同樣的講道。無論經文是什麼，信息基本上總是創造、墮落、救贖，以及國度的成全。可笑的是，此救贖歷史講道法的最重要的目標反而無法達成，因為這樣的講道並沒有引導信徒明白這段經文如何嵌合在神更遼闊的、神在基督里的目的的歷史當中。
Many of us were raised in churches that didn't quite know what to do with the Old Testament, except perhaps to find moral examples: "Dare to be a Daniel!" When we read the Bible in the light of the unfolding plot of redemption around Christ, otherwise unrelated books become a unified canon. Nevertheless, as with law and gospel, a redemptive-historical approach can sometimes turn every sermon into the same sermon. Regardless of the passage, the message is basically creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Ironically, the very goal of redemptive-historical preaching is not met, because believers are not led to see how this passage fits within the broader history of God's purposes in Christ.
聖約結構
Covenantal Scheme
改革宗神學就是聖約神學。神在基督了展開的目的，是在聖約的關係中實現的。此外，古典的改革宗神學在聖經中辨識出三個主要的聖約：1) 救贖之約（the covenant of redemption），這是三位一體的神與基督在永恆中所立的約，基督要作為選民的中保；2) 工作之約（the covenant of works），這是與亞當所立的約，亞當要作為全人類的約的代表； 3) 恩典之約（the covenant of grace），這是與信徒和他們的兒女在基督里所立的約，基督要作為末後的亞當。
Reformed theology is covenant theology. God's unfolding purposes in Christ are realized in a covenantal relationship. Furthermore, classic Reformed theology discerns in Scripture three overarching covenants: the covenant of redemption, made in eternity between the persons of the Godhead with Christ as the mediator of the elect; the covenant of works, made with Adam as the federal representative of humanity; and the covenant of grace, made with believers and their children in Christ as the last Adam.
再次，這個聖約神學可以是從聖經里讀出來的，也可以是強加在聖經上的。在主要的改革宗神學系統中，這些聖約構成其結構。我們不會經常看到一棟建築的結構 ——其支持的框架與樑柱。同樣，這些聖約在所有的經文中也不總是很清楚的。為了能守約地解釋聖經，我們不需要把所有的講道都變成聖約神學的演講。如同律法和福音之間的區分，以及救贖歷史的詮釋法，聖經的聖約神學也是我們從聖經中讀出來的，也是我們作為講道人、聽眾和所有經文的讀者所帶着的前提。但是我們必須聆聽每一段經文，不只是不斷重複着聖約神學。
Once again, this covenant theology can be read out of the Scriptures or it can be imposed upon the Scriptures. In the major Reformed systems, these covenants form the architecture. We don't always see the architecture of a building--its supporting framework and columns. Similarly, these covenants are not always explicit in every passage. We need not turn every sermon into a covenant theology lecture in order to interpret the Scriptures covenantally. As with the distinction between law-and-gospel and redemptive-historical interpretation, the Bible's covenant theology is something that we read out of Scripture and bring with us as preachers, hearers, and readers of each text. But we must hear each text, not just repetitions of covenant theology.
因此，沒有“正典中的正典”這回事——全部的聖經都是神所默示的，因此是有益的（也就是說，是具有正典的權威的），可以規範教會的信仰與實踐。我們同時需要拼圖的盒頂蓋和拼圖片，同時需要森林和樹木。事實上，是拼圖片構成了拼圖，樹木構成了森林。我們需要找回我們的信心：是神藉著祂的靈和祂的兒子默示了這些經文。這些經文的內容是以基督為中心的，祂是各個部分的主，也是整本聖經的主。
There is therefore no "canon within a canon"--all Scripture is God-breathed and therefore useful (that is, canonical) for norming the church's faith and practice. We need the box-top and the pieces, the forest and the trees. In fact, it's the pieces that make up the puzzle and the trees that make up the forest. We need to recover our confidence that the Father who inspired these texts by his Spirit, with his Son as its central content, is Lord of the parts and of the whole.
________________________________________
1 [ Back ] Clark Pinnock, "Overcoming Misgivings about Evangelical Inclusivism," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, vol. 2, no. 2 (Summer 1998), 33-34.
2 [ Back ] Pinnock, 35.
3 [ Back ] Matthias Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und reformirten Lehrbegriffs, ed. Eduard G& #252;der, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1855).
4 [ Back ] Wilhelm Niesel, Reformed Symbolics: A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, trans. David Lewis (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 229.
Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), host of the White Horse Inn, national radio broadcast, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, People and Place, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, and Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype.
Issue: "Interpreting Scripture" July/August Vol. 19 No. 4 2010 Pages 10-15
You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org).
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.
