什麼是神學？

THEOLOGY IS FULL of definitions of things. One of the useful features of a systematic theology is that you can turn there and get quick definitions of terms such as justification, glorification, or hypostatic union. Definitions are useful, but we should be warned that they are rarely, if ever, found in Scripture itself. Such definitions are themselves theology in that they are the work of human beings trying to understand Scripture. This work is fallible, and theological definitions are almost never adequate in themselves to describe the complex ways in which language is used in the Bible. For example, when John speaks of those who “believed” in Jesus in John 8:31, he is not using the term in any of the classical theological definitions of belief or faith. You can tell, because in verse 44 Jesus tells them, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.”

神學充滿了事物的定義。系統神學的有用特徵之一是，你可以轉向那裡並獲得諸如稱義、得榮耀或實存的聯合等術語的快速定義。定義很有用，但我們應該注意到，它們很少（如果有的話）在聖經本身中找到。這些定義本身就是神學，因為它們是人類試圖理解聖經的工作。這項工作是容易出錯的，神學定義本身幾乎不足以描述聖經中語言使用的複雜方式。例如，當約翰在約翰福音 8 章 31 節中談到那些“相信”耶穌的人時，他並沒有在相信或信心的任何經典神學定義中使用這個術語。你可以看出來，因為耶穌在第 44 節告訴他們：“你們是出於你們的父魔鬼，你們父的私慾，你們偏要行。”

This reminder is especially appropriate when we are defining terms that arenot explicitly found in Scripture itself. Theology itself is one of these. Theologians have developed a number of terms and concepts that are absent from Scripture itself, such as Trinity, substance, person, nature, aseity, inerrancy, effectual calling. There is nothing wrong with inventing new terms in order to better communicate biblical teaching. Indeed, this happens on a grand scale whenever the Bible is translated into a new language. When people first translated the Bible into French, German, English, and other languages, each time they had to come up with a whole set of new terms for everything in the Bible. From this fact, we can see that the line between translation and theology is not sharp.

當我們定義聖經本身沒有明確找到的術語時，這個提醒特別合適。神學本身就是其中之一。神學家發展了許多聖經本身所沒有的術語和概念，例如三位一體、實體、位格、本性、自在性、無誤性、有效的呼召。為了更好地傳達聖經教導而發明新術語並沒有什麼錯。事實上，每當聖經被翻譯成一種新語言時，這種情況就會大規模發生。當人們第一次將聖經翻譯成法語、德語、英語和其他語言時，每次他們都必須為聖經中的所有內容想出一整套新術語。由此可見，翻譯與神學之間的界限並不明顯。

Theologians came up with the term effectual calling to distinguish one biblical use of the term calling from others. Effectual calling is God’s sovereign summons that actually draws a person into union with Christ. But this is not the only kind of calling mentioned in Scripture. Calling can also refer to a name-giving, or an invitation, or a request for someone’s attention. So the term effectual calling isolates a particular biblical concept, distinguishing it from others. We see again, then, how making a definition is itself a theological task. It can help us to understand something of the teaching of Scripture.

神學家提出了“有效呼召”一詞，以區分聖經中對呼召一詞的用法和其他用法。有效的呼召是神主權的呼召，實際上吸引人與基督聯合。但這並不是聖經中提到的唯一一種呼召。呼召也可以指命名、邀請或請求某人的注意。因此，“有效呼召”一詞孤立了一個特定的聖經概念，將其與其他概念區分開來。那麼，我們再次看到，定義本身就是一項神學任務。它可以幫助我們理解聖經的一些教導。

Definitions, then, can be helpful teaching tools. But we should not look at them to find what something “really is,” as though a definition gave us unique insight into the nature of something beyond what we could find in the Bible itself. A theological definition of omniscience doesn’t tell you what omniscience really is, as if the biblical descriptions of God’s knowledge were somehow inadequate, even misleading or untrue. Even though there are none to few definitions in the Bible, Scripture, not any theological definition, is our ultimate authority. Theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around.

那麼，定義可以成為有用的教學工具。但我們不應該通過它們來發現事物“究竟是什麼”，就好像一個定義給了我們對某些事物本質的獨特見解，超出了我們在聖經本身中所能找到的。全知的神學定義並不能告訴你全知到底是什麼，就好像聖經對神知識的描述在某種程度上是不充分的，甚至是誤導性的或不真實的。盡管聖經中沒有多少定義，但聖經，而不是任何神學定義，才是我們的最終權威。神學定義必須符合聖經，而不是相反。

Nor should we assume that there is only one possible definition of something. Sin can be defined as (1) transgression of God’s law or as (2) rebellion against God’s lordship. Other definitions, too, may be possible, but let’s just consider these. Of course, if you define sin as transgression of God’s law, you may well need to make it clear that such transgression constitutes rebellion. And if you define it as rebellion, eventually you will probably need to say that the rebellion in question is a rejection of a divine law. You may use either definition as long as you understand that each implies the other. You may choose either one as your definition, as long as you recognize the other as a description.

我們也不應該假設某事物只有一種可能的定義。罪可以被定義為（1）違反神的律法或（2）悖逆神的主權。其它定義也是可能的，但我們只考慮這些。當然，如果你將罪定義為違反神的律法，你可能需要明確指出這種違法行為構成了叛逆。如果你將其定義為悖逆，最終你可能需要說，所討論的悖逆是對神律法的拒絕。你可以使用任一定義，只要你理解每個定義都暗示着另一個定義即可。你可以選擇其中之一作為你的定義，只要你將承認另一個描述即可。

So of course, definitions are not something to live or die for. We should seek to understand the definitions of various writers, recognizing that someone who uses a different definition from ours might not differ with us at all on the substantive doctrine.

當然，定義並不是生死攸關的東西。我們應該努力理解不同作者的定義，認識到使用與我們不同的定義的人可能在實質性教義上與我們沒有任何不同。

Long and Short Definitions

Theologians often prefer very long definitions. One of Karl Barth’s definitions of theology is an example:

Theology is science seeking the knowledge of the Word of God spoken in God’s work—science learning in the school of the Holy Scripture, which witnesses to the Word of God; science labouring in the quest for truth, which is inescapably required of the community that is called by the Word of God.

長定義和短定義

神學家通常更喜歡很長的定義。卡爾·巴特對神學的定義之一就是一個子：

神學是尋求在神的作為中所說的神的道的知識的科學——在聖經學校中學習的科學，它見證了神的聖言；科學致力於追求真理，這是神的聖言所呼召的社群不可避免的要求。

Here Barth tries to bring a large amount of theological content into his definition. This attempt is understandable, since every theologian wants his concept of theology to be governed by the content of theology. So he tries to show how the very definition of theology reflects the nature of the gospel, the content of Scripture, the preeminence of Christ, the nature of redemption, and so on.

在這里，巴特試圖將大量的神學內容帶入他的定義中。這種嘗試是可以理解的，因為每個神學家都希望他的神學概念受神學內容的支配。因此，他試圖表明神學的定義如何反映福音的本質、聖經的內容、基督的卓越性、救贖的本質等等。

I think this is a mistake. In his Semantics of Biblical Language, James Barr warned biblical scholars of the fallacy of supposing that the meanings of biblical terms were loaded with theological content. The meaning of Scripture comes not from its individual terms, but from its sentences, paragraphs, books, and larger units. For example, the word created, just by itself, out of all context, teaches us nothing. But “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) teaches us a great deal. “By him all things were created” (Col. 1:16) teaches us even more.

我認為這是一個錯誤。詹姆斯·巴爾（James Barr）在他的《聖經語言的語義學》一書中警告聖經學者，認為聖經術語的含義充滿神學內容是錯誤的。聖經的意義不是來自它的個別術語，而是來自它的句子、段落、書籍和更大的單位。例如，“創造”這個詞本身，脫離了所有的上下文，並沒有教給我們任何東西。但“起初，神創造天地”（創 1：1）卻教導我們很多。 “萬有都是靠祂造的”（西書1:16）甚至教導我們更多。

The same warning is appropriate for theologians. Certainly our theological methods and conclusions must be derived from God’s revelation. But our definition of the word theology need not recapitulate those conclusions, though it must certainly be consistent with its conclusions. That is, the definition of theology cannot be a condensation of all the content of the Scriptures. Yet it must describe an activity that the Scriptures warrant.

同樣的警告也適用於神學家。當然，我們的神學方法和結論必須來自神的啟示。但我們對神學一詞的定義不需要重述這些結論，盡管它肯定與其結論一致。也就是說，神學的定義不可能是聖經所有內容的濃縮。然而它必須描述聖經所保證的活動。

Theology as Application

Let us then attempt to develop a concept or definition of theology. The basic idea of theology is evident in the etymology of the term: a study of God. But we should seek a more precise definition.

作為應用的神學

然後讓我們嘗試發展神學的概念或定義。神學的基本思想在該術語的詞源中顯而易見：對神的研究。但我們應該尋求一個更精確的定義。

As I will argue in chapters 23–28, in Christianity the study of God is a study of God’s revelation of himself. Natural revelation and word revelation illumine one another. Scripture (our currently available form of word revelation) is crucial to the task of theology because as a source of divine words it is sufficient for human life (2 Tim. 3:16–17), and it has a kind of clarity not found in natural revelation. But natural revelation is a necessary means of interpreting Scripture. To properly understand Scripture, we need to know something about ancient languages and culture, and that information is not always available in Scripture alone. Nevertheless, once we have reached a settled interpretation as to what Scripture says, that knowledge takes precedence over any ideas supposedly derived from natural revelation.

正如我將在第 23 至 28 章中論證的那樣，在基督教中，對神的研究就是對神對自己的啟示的研究。自然啟示和話語啟示彼此光照。聖經（我們目前可用的話語啟示形式）對於神學的任務至關重要，因為作為神聖話語的來源，它足以維持人類的生命（提後 3:16-17），而且它有着一種在自然啟示中未曾有過的清晰性，但自然啟示是解釋聖經的必要手段。為了正確理解聖經，我們需要了解一些有關古代語言和文化的知識，而這些信息並不總是僅在聖經中可見到。然而，一旦我們對聖經所說的內容達成了確定的解釋，知識就優先於任何據稱源自自然啟示的想法。

So theology must be essentially a study of Scripture. It should not be defined as an analysis of human religious consciousness or feelings, as in the view of Friedrich Schleiermacher. But we need to ask how theology is to study Scripture. Theology is not interested in finding the middle word in the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes, for example.

因此，神學本質上必定是對聖經的研究。它不應該像弗里德里希·施萊爾馬赫（Friedrich Schleiermacher）那樣被定義為對人類宗教意識或情感的分析。但我們需要問神學如何研究聖經。例如，神學對在希伯來文《傳道書》中尋找中間詞不感興趣。

Charles Hodge saw theology as a science that dealt with the facts of Scripture, as an astronomer deals with facts about the heavenly bodies or a geologist deals with facts about rocks. He said that theology “is the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation, with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole.” If Schleiermacher’s concept of theology is subjectivist, Hodge’s might be called objectivist. Schleiermacher looked inward, Hodge outward. Schleiermacher looked primarily at subjective feelings, Hodge at objective facts. To Hodge, theology seeks the objective truth about God through Scripture. He wants the “facts” and the “truths.”

查爾斯·霍吉將神學視為一門處理聖經事實的科學，就像天文學家處理有關天體的事實或地質學家處理有關岩石的事實一樣。他說，神學“是以適當的順序和關系展示聖經事實，以及事實本身所涉及的原則或普遍真理，這些原則或普遍真理遍及並協調整體。”如果施萊爾馬赫的神學概念是主觀主義的，那麼霍吉的神學概念可能被稱為客觀主義的。施萊爾馬赫看內在，霍吉看外在。施萊爾馬赫主要關注主觀感受，霍吉則主要關注客觀事實。對霍吉來說，神學通過聖經尋求關於神的客觀真理。他想要“事實”和“真理”。

Certainly Hodge’s definition of theology is better than Schleiermacher’s, because Hodge’s is Bible-centered. But Hodge, like many orthodox evangelical theologians, leaves us confused about an important question: why do we need theology when we have Scripture?

當然，霍吉對神學的定義比施萊爾馬赫的更好，因為霍吉的神學定義是以聖經為中心的。但霍吉像許多正統福音派神學家一樣，讓我們對一個重要問題感到困惑：當我們有了聖經時，為什麼我們還需要神學？

Scripture itself, given Hodge’s own view of Scripture, tells us objective truth about God. We don’t need a theological science to give us that truth. So what is the role of theology?

In the statement quoted above, Hodge says that theology is an “exhibition of the facts of Scripture.” But aren’t the facts of Scripture already exhibited in the biblical text itself?

鑒於霍吉自己對聖經的看法，聖經本身告訴我們關於神的客觀真理。我們不需要神學科學來告訴我們這個真理。那麼神學的作用是什麼？

在上面引用的聲明中，霍吉說神學是“聖經事實的展示”。但聖經的事實不是已經在聖經經文本身中展現出來了嗎？ 

He further says that theology exhibits these facts “in their proper order and relation.” This sounds a bit as though the order and relation of the facts in Scripture itself are somehow improper, and that theology has to put them back where they belong. People sometimes talk about the theological “system” of biblical doctrine as if that system stated the truth in a better way than Scripture itself, or even as if that system were the real meaning of Scripture hidden beneath all the stories, psalms, wisdom sayings, and so on. I don’t think Hodge had anything like this in mind; such ideas are inconsistent with Hodge’s high view of Scripture. But his phrase “proper order and relation” doesn’t guard well against such notions. And in any case, it leaves unclear the relation between theology and Scripture.

他進一步說，神學“以適當的順序和關系”展示這些事實。這聽起來有點好像聖經中事實本身的順序和關系在某種程度上是不正確的，神學必須將它們放回原來的位置。人們有時談論聖經教義的神學“體系”，好像這個體系比聖經本身更好地闡述了真理，甚至好像這個體系就是隱藏在所有故事、詩篇、智慧格言等等的真意。我不認為霍吉有這樣的想法。這些想法與霍吉對聖經的崇高看法不一致。但他的短語“適當的秩序和關系”並不能很好地防範這種觀念。無論如何，這就讓神學和聖經之間的關系並不清楚。

He continues by saying that theology, together with its work of putting the facts of Scripture into proper order and relation, seeks to state “the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole.” Certainly this is one of the things that theologians do, and ought to do. But again we ask: hasn’t Scripture done this already? And if it has, then what is left for theology to do?

他繼續說，神學連同其將聖經事實置於適當順序和關系中的工作，試圖陳述“事實本身所涉及的原則或普遍真理，這些原則或普遍真理遍布並協調整體。”當然，這是神學家所做、而且應該做的事情之一。但我們再次問：聖經不是已經這樣做了嗎？如果確實如此，那麼神學還要做些什麼呢？

In seeking a definition of theology, we need to emphasize not only its continuity with Scripture, but its discontinuity, too. The former is not difficult for orthodox Protestants: theology must be in accord with Scripture. But the latter is more difficult to formulate. Obviously, theology is something different from Scripture. It doesn’t just repeat the words of Scripture. So the main question about theology is this: what is the difference between theology and Scripture, and how can that difference be justified?

在尋找神學的定義時，我們不僅需要強調它與聖經的連續性，而且還需要強調它的不連續性。前者對於正統新教徒來說並不困難：神學必須符合聖經。但後者更難制定。顯然，神學與聖經不同。它不只是重復聖經的話。因此，關於神學的主要問題是：神學和聖經之間有什麼區別，以及如何證明這種區別是合理的？

Evidently the theologian restates the facts and general truths of Scripture, for some purpose. But for what purpose? Hodge does not tell us.

In my view, the only possible answer is this: the theologian states the facts and truths of Scripture for the purpose of edification. Those truths are stated not for their own sake, but to build up people in Christian faith.

顯然，神學家出於某種目的重申了聖經的事實和普遍真理。但出於什麼目的呢？霍吉沒有告訴我們。

在我看來，唯一可能的答案是：神學家為了啟迪（譯者註：和合本譯作“造就”）的目的陳述聖經的事實和真理。陳述這些真理不是為了它們本身，而是為了培養人們的基督教信仰。

In this way, we align the concept of theology with the concepts of teaching and preaching in the NT. The terms for teaching—didasko, didache, and didaskalia—refer not to the stating of objective truth for its own sake, but to the exposition of God’s truth in order to build up God’s people. Consider Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 14:6; 1 Tim. 1:10; 2:7; 4:6, 16; 6:3–4; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9. These passages contain words of the didasko group, translated “teacher,” “teaching,” “doctrine.” Notice the frequent emphasis in these passages that teaching has the purpose of building people up in faith and obedience to God. Notice also the phrase sound doctrine, in which sound is hygiainos, “health-giving.” The purpose of teaching is not merely to state the objective truth, but to bring the people to a state of spiritual health.

通過這種方式，我們將神學的概念與新約中教導和講道的概念放在一條線上來看。教導的術語——didasko、didache 和 didaskalia——不是指為了真理本身的緣故而陳述客觀真理，而是指為了建立上帝的子民而闡述上帝的真理。想想使徒行傳 2:42； 林前14:6; 1 提前1:10； 2:7； 4:6、16； 6:3-4； 提後4:2;多 1:9；約二 9。這些段落包含 didasko 組的詞語，翻譯為“教師”、“教導”、“教義”。請注意這些經文中經常強調的一點是，教導的目的是培養人們對神的信心和順服。還要注意“純正的教義”這個短語，其中譯作“純正的”這個希臘文是“hygiainos”，是“給予健康”的意思。教導的目的不僅僅是陳述客觀真理，而是使人們達到屬靈健康的狀態。

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。

Theology, on this basis, responds to the needs of people. It helps those who have questions about, doubts about, or problems with the Bible. Normally we associate theology with questions of a fairly abstract or academic sort: How can God be one in three? How can Christ be both divine and human? Does regeneration precede faith? But of course, there are other kinds of questions as well. One might be confronted with a Hebrew word, say dabar, and ask what it means. Or he might ask the meaning of a Bible verse, say Genesis 1:1. A child might ask whether God can see what we are doing when Mom isn’t watching. I see no reason to doubt that all these sorts of questions are proper subject matter for theology.

神學正是在此基礎上回應了人的需要。它可以幫助那些對聖經有疑問、懷疑或有問題的人。通常我們將神學與相當抽象或學術的問題聯系起來：神怎麼可能是三而一的呢？基督怎麼可能既是神又是人呢？重生先於信心嗎？但當然，還有其他類型的問題。人們可能會遇到一個希伯來語單詞，比如“dabar”，並詢問它的含義。或者他可能會問聖經經文的含義，例如創世記 1:1是什麼意思？孩子可能會問，當媽媽不在看（着他們）時，神是否能看到我們在做什麼。我認為沒有理由懷疑所有這些問題都是神學的適當主題。

Nor would it be wrong to say that theology occurs in the lives of people, in their behavior, as well as in their speech. Behavior consists of a series of human decisions, and in those decisions believers seek to follow Scripture. Behavior, too, as well as speech, can be edifying or unedifying. Example is an important form of teaching. Imitating godly people is an important form of Christian learning, and the behavior of these people is often a revelation to us of God’s intentions for us (1 Cor. 11:1). Their application of the Word in their behavior may be called theology. So theology is not merely a means of teaching people how to live; it is life itself.

說神學存在於人們的生活、他們的行為以及他們的言論中也沒有錯。行為由一系列人類決定組成，在這些決定中，信徒尋求遵循聖經。行為和言語一樣，可以有啟發性，也可以無啟發性。舉例是一種重要的教導形式。效法敬虔之人是基督教學習的一種重要形式，這些人的行為往往向我們揭示了神對我們的旨意（林前 11:1）。他們在行為中應用神的話語可以稱為神學。因此，神學不僅僅是教導人們如何生活的一種手段，它就是生活本身。

There really is no justification for restricting theology only to academic or technical questions. (How academic? How technical?) If theology is edifying teaching, theologians need to listen to everybody’s questions. My point, however, is not to divert theology from theoretical to practical questions, or to disparage in any way the theoretical work of academic theologians. But I do think that academic and technical theology should not be valued over other kinds. The professor of theology at a university or seminary is no more or less a theologian than the youth minister who seeks to deal with the doubts of college students, or the Sunday school teacher who tells OT stories to children, or the father who leads family devotions, or the person who does not teach in any obvious way but simply tries to obey Scripture. Theoretical and practical questions are equally grist for the theologian’s mill.

確實沒有理由將神學局限於學術或技術問題上。 （學術性如何？技術性如何？）如果神學是啟迪性教導，那麼神學家就需要傾聽每個人的問題。然而，我的觀點並不是要把神學從理論問題轉向實踐問題，或者以任何方式貶低學術神學家的理論工作。但我確實認為學術性神學和技術性神學不應該比其他神學更受重視。大學或神學院的神學教授或多或少都是神學家，就像尋求解決大學生疑慮的青年傳道，或者給孩子們講舊約故事的主日學老師，或者帶領家庭靈修的父親一樣 ，或者不以任何明顯的方式教導而只是試圖遵守聖經的人。理論和實踐問題對於神學家來說同樣重要。

The only term I know that is broad enough to cover all forms of biblical teaching and all the decisions that people make in their lives is the term application. To apply Scripture is to use Scripture to meet a human need, to answer a human question, to make a human decision. Questions about the text of Scripture, translations, interpretation, ethics, Christian growth—all these are fair game for theology. To show (by word or deed) how Scripture resolves all these kinds of questions is to apply it. So I offer my definition of theology: theology is the application of Scripture, by persons, to every area of life.

Why, then, do we need theology in addition to Scripture? The only answer, I believe, is “because we need to apply Scripture to life.”^[1]

我所知道的唯一一個足以涵蓋所有形式的聖經教導以及人們在生活中做出的所有決定的術語是“應用”。應用聖經就是使用聖經來滿足人的需要，回答人的問題，做出人的決定。關於聖經經文、翻譯、解釋、倫理、基督徒成長的問題——所有這些對於神學來說都是公平的游戲。要（通過話語或行為）表明聖經如何解決所有這些類型的問題，就是應用它。因此，我給出我對神學的定義：神學是人將聖經應用到生活的各個領域。

那麼，為什麼除了聖經之外我們還需要神學呢？我相信，唯一的答案是“因為我們需要將聖經應用到生活中”。

^[1] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 5–8.