你知道不？大使命！！！！！

18耶稣进前来，对他们说，天上，地下所有的权柄，都赐给我了。
19所以你们要去，使万民作我的门徒，奉父子圣灵的名，给他们施洗。（或作给他们施洗归于父子圣灵的名）
20凡我所吩咐你们的，都教训他们遵守，我就常与你们同在，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、、、作门徒——教导，因为门徒就是“学生”的意思）all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching (didaskō, 教导教义)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的思维体系中，凡是“教导”就是教导教义，就是教导“人的吩咐”，那你俩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.

在定义神学时，并不严格需要将其与单个圣经术语保持一致，但当我们能够做到这一点时，这无疑是一个优势。我建议我们将神学定义为圣经教导的概念的同义词，强调教化（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，神学不是施莱尔马赫意义上的主观神学，但它具有主观推力。除了圣经之外，我们还需要神学，因为神授权了教会中的教导，也因为我们需要这种教导才能在信仰上成熟。为什么霍吉不把这个说成我们需要神学的原因呢？也许他想鼓励对学术性神学工作的尊重，所以他强调其客观的科学性。也许他担心提及我们的主观教化（造就）会鼓励施莱尔马赫的门徒。但这样的考虑不足以证明神学定义的合理性。即使在这里，圣经也必须是决定性的，圣经向我们推荐了一种考虑到在人们理性上的需要之教导。