你知道不？大使命！！！！！

18耶穌進前來，對他們說，天上，地下所有的權柄，都賜給我了。
19所以你們要去，使萬民作我的門徒，奉父子聖靈的名，給他們施洗。（或作給他們施洗歸於父子聖靈的名）
20凡我所吩咐你們的，都教訓他們遵守，我就常與你們同在，直到世界的末了。

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Go ye therefore, and teach （mathēteuō，使、、、作門徒——教導，因為門徒就是“學生”的意思）all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching (didaskō, 教導教義)them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

而在你和老N的思維體系中，凡是“教導”就是教導教義，就是教導“人的吩咐”，那你倆如何遵行天父旨意呢？？？？？？？

In defining theology, it is not strictly necessary to align it with a single biblical term, but it is certainly an advantage when we can do this. I propose that we define theology as synonymous with the biblical concept of teaching, with all its emphasis on edification.

在定義神學時，並不嚴格需要將其與單個聖經術語保持一致，但當我們能夠做到這一點時，這無疑是一個優勢。我建議我們將神學定義為聖經教導的概念的同義詞，強調教化（和合本通常用“造就”）。

So theology is not subjective in Schleiermacher’s sense, but it has a subjective thrust. We need theology in addition to Scripture because God has authorized teaching in the church, and because we need that teaching to mature in the faith. Why did Hodge not state this as the reason we need theology? Perhaps he wanted to encourage respect for academic theological work, so he stressed its objective scientific character. Perhaps he was worried that reference to our subjective edification would encourage the disciples of Schleiermacher. But such considerations are inadequate to justify a definition of theology. Scripture must be decisive even here, and Scripture commends to us a kind of teaching that has people’s needs in mind.

因此，神學不是施萊爾馬赫意義上的主觀神學，但它具有主觀推力。除了聖經之外，我們還需要神學，因為神授權了教會中的教導，也因為我們需要這種教導才能在信仰上成熟。為什麼霍吉不把這個說成我們需要神學的原因呢？也許他想鼓勵對學術性神學工作的尊重，所以他強調其客觀的科學性。也許他擔心提及我們的主觀教化（造就）會鼓勵施萊爾馬赫的門徒。但這樣的考慮不足以證明神學定義的合理性。即使在這里，聖經也必須是決定性的，聖經向我們推薦了一種考慮到在人們理性上的需要之教導。