每個訴諸聖經的人，都是訴諸聖經的解釋。唯一真正的問題是：訴諸誰的解釋？

All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation?

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

二十世紀，粗略來說，可以說是一個神學無政府狀態（theological anarchy）的世紀。自由派和一些近乎異端的教派已經公然拒絕正統基督教的基本教義。但是有更多晚近的、宣稱自己是福音派的學者，則是在提倡許多教義的修正版，例如“敞開神學”（openness theology）的提倡者就在提倡一種新的修正過的神論（譯按：這種神論主張神為了尊重人的自由意志，限制自己全知的能力，謙卑地與人在苦難中同在，一起面對未知的未來，稱為“神的敞開性”）。末世預言實現論（Preterism）的提倡者則推動一種修正後的末世論（譯按：這種末世論主張聖經關於未來的預言已經在第一世紀初代教會時就實現了）。一些“保羅新觀”（"new perspectives" on Paul）的學者則提倡一種修正後的唯獨因信稱義的教義。通常這些修正者會宣稱他們只是在重述一項比較古老的教義。不過，批判者經常很快就會指出，這些修正實際上是在扭曲這些古老的教義。

The twentieth century could, with some accuracy, be called a century of theological anarchy. Liberals and sectarians have long rejected outright many of the fundamental tenets of Christian orthodoxy. But more recently professing evangelical scholars have advocated revisionary versions of numerous doctrines. A revisionary doctrine of God has been advocated by proponents of "openness theology." A revisionary doctrine of eschatology has been advocated by proponents of full-preterism. Revisionary doctrines of justification sola fide have been advocated by proponents of various "new perspectives" on Paul. Often the revisionists will claim to be restating a more classical view. Critics, however, have usually been quick to point out that the revisions are actually distortions.

諷刺的是，有一種類似的修正主義者之唯獨聖經（sola Scriptura ）的教義，也在新教主義的內部興起了。但是與修正版的唯獨信心教義不同的是，唯獨聖經的修正教義並沒有在宗教改革的子孫中引起太多的爭議。其中一個原因是因為這個修正過的教義在幾個世紀以來，已經取代了宗教改革的教義。事實上，在福音派世界的許多角落，這個修正的教義是今日最主要的觀點。許多人宣稱這個修正的教義就是宗教改革的教義。不過，和修正過的唯獨信心的教義一樣，這個修正過的唯獨聖經的教義，實際上是對宗教改革教義的扭曲。

Ironically, a similarly revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has arisen within Protestantism, but unlike the revisionist doctrine of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has caused very little controversy among the heirs of the Reformation. One of the reasons there has been much less controversy over the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is that this doctrine has been gradually supplanting the Reformation doctrine for centuries. In fact, in many segments of the evangelical world, the revisionist doctrine is by far the predominant view now. Many claim that this revisionist doctrine is the Reformation doctrine. However, like the revisionist doctrines of sola fide, the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura is actually a distortion of the Reformation doctrine.

採用這個修正過的唯獨聖經的教義，在新教的教會中，已經造成了許多聖經、神學和實際上的困難。最近幾年，這些困難已經成了人們關注的焦點，因為有許多新教徒轉變他們的信仰，歸信羅馬天主教和東正教。他們宣稱，他們轉變信仰的原因有一大部分是因為他們認為唯獨聖經的教義是不合理的（indefensible）。最近，羅馬天主教和東正教的護教學家很快地利用這種情勢，出版了許多書籍和文章，矢志要批判這個唯獨聖經的教義。然而，其中一個問題是，這些轉變信仰的人和這些護教學家們似乎都不明白，他們所批判和拒絕的教義，其實只是修正後的唯獨信仰的教義，不是古典的宗教改革的教義。為了要明白其中的差異，我們必須介紹一下當時的背景。

The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has resulted in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their determination that the doctrine of sola Scriptura was indefensible. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to critiquing the doctrine of sola Scriptura. One issue, however, that neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura, not the classical Reformation doctrine. In order to understand the difference, some historical context is necessary.

歷史觀察

Historical Observations

要了解宗教改革時期唯獨聖經的教義，其中一個部分的困難來自一個事實，就是歷史的爭辯常常被簡化為只是在“聖經對抗傳統”這個框架下的辯論。新教徒被認為是在教導“唯獨聖經”（Scripture alone），而羅馬天主教被認為是在教導“聖經加上傳統”（Scripture plus tradition）。然而，這並不是真正歷史的準確圖像。這個爭辯實際上應該以這個角度來看，即聖經與傳統之間究竟是什麼關係，其中有許多彼此競爭的觀念。為了明白宗教改革時期唯獨聖經的觀念，我們必須更準確地明白當時的歷史背景。

Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach "Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.

改教時期對唯獨聖經的爭辯並不是發生在真空中的。這個爭辯其來有自，乃是接續了自中世紀以來的一個辯論，及對聖經與傳統之間的關係，以及什麼是“傳統”的意義的辯論。在教會初期的三、四個世紀，初代教父們所教導的，是一個相當一致的聖經的權威觀。他們認為，神的啟示以及具有權威的教義規範（the authoritative doctrinal norm）之唯一的來源，乃是舊約加上使徒的教訓（已經被書寫下來，記錄在新約聖經中的使徒的教訓）。聖經必須在教會內、由教會在“regula fidei”（rule of faith信仰準則）（譯按：相當於基要信條）的背景下來詮釋。不過，不論是教會或此“信仰準則”，都不能被視為神的啟示的第二個附加的來源。教會是神在聖經中之啟示的詮釋者，而信仰準則是解經的背景（hermeneutical context），但是只有聖經是神的話。一位研究宗教改革歷史的神學家海戈. 歐伯曼（Heiko Oberman，1930-2001）把這個啟示只有單一來源的觀念，稱為“傳統1”。

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of "tradition" itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei ("rule of faith"), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation "Tradition 1."

兩種來源的觀念傳統最早是出現在第四世紀巴西略（Basil）和奧古斯丁的著作中。這個觀念認為傳統是第二個啟示的來源，是聖經啟示的補充。歐伯曼把這個雙重來源的傳統觀念稱之為“傳統2”（歐伯曼教授有許多恩賜；但是想出一個好記的標籤顯然不是他的恩賜之一）。我們無法絕對地肯定，巴西略或奧古斯丁是否真的教導這兩種來源的觀點，但是事實是他們的著作中隱藏了這個觀點，也確保這個觀念會在中世紀時占有一席之地。這當然是需要時間的，因為在中世紀大部分的時間中，傳統1，也就是早期教會的立場，仍然是主流的觀點。十二世紀，一個朝向傳統2的強而有力的運動才鄭重地展開。直到十四世紀時，在奧卡姆的威廉的著作中才到達一個轉捩點。他是最早擁抱這個啟示的雙重來源的中世紀神學家之一（如果不是第一個的話）。那麼，我們從十四世紀開始，就看到這兩個對立觀念之平行發展：傳統1和傳統2。宗教改革就是發生在這個持續進行的中世紀的辯論的背景之下。

The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition "Tradition 2" (Professor Oberman had many gifts. The ability to coin catchy labels was apparently not one of them). It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.     

如果我們記住這個中世紀的背景，宗教改革時期關於唯獨聖經的爭辯就會變得更加清晰。改教家不是憑空捏造出這樣的一個新的教義。他們只是接續一個已經進行好幾個世紀的爭論而已。他們在那個特殊的歷史背景下，主張要恢復傳統1，以抗衡在馬天主教會之內的傳統2而已。這些具有權柄的改教家（magisterial reformers）論證說，聖經是啟示唯一的來源，它也要在教會內，由教會來詮釋，而且是在信仰準則的背景下來詮釋。他們堅持回到古老的教義，而當傳統1與新教的信念越來越靠近時，羅馬教會的回應就是趨向傳統2，而且最終在天特會議中正式採用了傳統2的觀點。（羅馬教會從那時起，就採用了歐伯曼稱之為“傳統3”的觀點，即“當時的教會權柄”（Magisterium of the moment）被認為是真正啟示的唯一來源。不過，這個議題已經超過這篇短文的範疇了。

When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of theregula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent. (Rome has since developed a view that Oberman has termed "Tradition 3," in which the "Magisterium of the moment" is understood to be the one true source of revelation, but that issue is beyond the scope of this brief essay).

與此同時，這些具有權柄的改教家提倡要回到傳統1（唯獨聖經），而一些極端的改教家（譯按：即當時的重洗派；這種觀念也盛行在今日華人教會的地方教會、靈恩派釋經觀念）則呼籲要同時摒棄傳統1與傳統2，並採用一種全新的對聖經與傳統的認識。他們主張，聖經不只是唯一無誤的權威，也是唯一完全的權威。教會真正而次等的權威，以及信仰準則的權威，就這樣被完全棄絕了。根據這個觀點（傳統0），在真正意義上傳統不具有任何的權威。反而，個別的信徒唯獨需要的，只是聖靈與聖經（譯按：最有名的口號是：“一本聖經，兩個膝蓋”）。

At the same time the magisterial reformers were advocating a return to Tradition 1 (sola Scriptura), several radical reformers were calling for the rejection of both Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 and the adoption of a completely new understanding of Scripture and tradition. They argued that Scripture was not merely the only infallible authority but that it was the only authority altogether. The true but subordinate authority of the church and the regula fidei were rejected altogether. According to this view (Tradition 0), there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority. Instead, the individual believer requires nothing more than the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

在18世紀的美國，這個極端宗教改革之個人式的觀點，與啟蒙運動的理性主義與新式民主的平等主義結合在一起，創造了一種極端的傳統0的版本，幾乎取代了宗教改革的唯獨聖經的教義（傳統1）。這個新的教義——也許可以稱為聖經“獨唱”（‘solo’ Scriptura），而不是“唯獨”聖經（sola Scriptura）——攻擊教會正當、次等的權威，也攻擊教會的大公信條。很不幸的，許多持守這個觀點的人錯誤地相信並教導，這就是路德與加爾文的教義。

In America during the eighteenth century, this individualistic view of the radical Reformation was combined with the rationalism of the Enlightenment and the populism of the new democracy to create a radical version of Tradition 0 that has all but supplanted the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Tradition 1). This new doctrine, which may be termed"solo" Scriptura instead of sola Scriptura, attacks the rightful subordinate authority of the church and of the ecumenical creeds of the church. Unfortunately, many of its adherents mistakenly believe and teach others that it is the doctrine of Luther and Calvin.

宗教改革唯獨聖經的教義

The Reformation Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

總結宗教改革唯獨聖經的教義，或宗教改革關於聖經與傳統之關係的教義，我們可以說聖經必須被視為是神的啟示的唯一來源；它是神唯一默示的，無謬誤，最終的，以及具有權柄的信仰與生活的準則。聖經必須在教會內，由教會來解釋；它也要在信仰準則（基要信條）這個釋經背景內來解釋。正如理查·慕勒（Richard Muller）的觀察，唯獨聖經這個改革宗教義的意思，從來不是說“所有的神學必須從新建構，不需要參考教會的詮釋傳統，只需要靠孤寂的釋經家面對赤裸裸的經文。” 這是宗教改革對聖經、傳統與權威的教義，可以藉著查考一些改教家的著作來加以證明，我們只會舉一些例子。

To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura did not ever mean, "all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text." That this is the Reformation doctrine of Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of the reformers' writings, only a sampling of which may be mentioned here.

馬丁·路德在沃木斯會議（Diet of Worm）所作的宣告是眾所周知的：“除非我被聖經和明白的理由所說服——我不接受教皇和議會的權威，因為他們常常自相矛盾——我的良心是神話語的俘虜。”許多人把這個聲明作為證據，說路德反對傳統1，即早期教會的教導，但是我們在下這種結論之前，必須考慮其他的因素，即這個聲明的歷史背景，以及此一事實，即路德對這個主題曾經說過的，以及所寫的更多的東西。舉一個簡單的例子，在他1532年寫給普魯士公爵阿爾布雷希特（Duke Albert of Prussia）的一封關於“基督在聖餐中真實存在”的教義的信中，路德寫道：

Martin Luther is well known for his declaration at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other-my conscience is captive to the Word of God." Many point to this statement as evidence that Luther rejected Tradition 1, the teaching of the early church, but other factors must be considered before coming to such a conclusion, namely, the historical context of this statement and the fact that Luther said and wrote much more on the subject. As simply one example, in a 1532 letter to Duke Albert of Prussia about the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther wrote the following:

“更有甚之，這個條款從基督教會的一開始就清楚地被相信，被持守，直到今日，這是整個聖潔的基督教會的見證，如果我們沒有其他的見證，這對我們也是足夠的了。因為我們若聽從或相信反對那合一的見證、信仰與教義的任何東西，是非常危險與可怕的，因為此合一的見證，從起初到現在已經被持守達1500年之久，是全世界一致公認的。如果今天有人要加以懷疑，就如同是不相信基督教會，他不只是在咒詛整個聖潔的基督教會是可憎的異端，也是咒詛基督自己，以及所有的使徒和先知。”

This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour-a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.

第二代的路德派學者馬丁·開姆尼茨（Martin Chemnitz，1522-1586），在他的《審查天特會議》書中，也寫到類似的話：

The second-generation Lutheran scholar Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), writes along similar lines in his Examination of the Council of Trent:

這也是確定的，就是沒有一個人可以只靠他自己的智慧來解釋聖經，即使是最清楚的經文……我們也心懷感恩地，帶着敬畏地來使用教父們的努力，他們對聖經所作的注釋大大幫助我們澄清了聖經的許多經節。而我們也承認，古代教會的見證在聖經真實和純正的理解上，也大大地堅定了我們的信心。我們也不贊同此事，即有人自以為發明了一種意義，而此意義是與過去所有古老教義相矛盾的，而且顯然過去的教會也沒有如此的見證。

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages.... We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

另一個提到這個議題的具有權柄的改教家是約翰·加爾文。例如，在1559年版的《基督教要義》中，他寫道：

Another of the magisterial reformers who addressed this issue was John Calvin. In the 1559 edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, for example, he writes:

如此，我們甘心地擁抱並敬畏早期大公會議的信條，並視之為聖潔，例如尼西亞會議，康士坦丁堡會議，以弗所會議，迦克頓會議等等。它們所關切的都是為了駁斥錯誤——只要這些錯誤與信仰的教導有關。這些信條所包含的無他，不過是純正真實的對聖經的闡釋，是聖潔的教父們使用屬靈的明辨，粉碎當時興起的宗教的敵人。

In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus I, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors-in so far as they relate to the teachings of faith. For they contain nothing but the pure and genuine exposition of Scripture, which the holy fathers applied with spiritual prudence to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen.

此外，

And further:

我們樂意讓步，如果要討論任何的教義，最好且最安全的方案是召集一個由真正的監督所組成的會議，來檢查這些有爭議的教義。

We indeed willingly concede, if any discussion arises over doctrine, that the best and surest remedy is for a synod of true bishops to be convened, where the doctrine at issue may be examined.

總結傳統新教徒的觀點，19世紀改革宗的神學家查理斯·賀治（1897-1978）的話是很允當的：

To sum up the traditional Protestant view, the words of the nineteenth-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878) are appropriate:

再次，新教徒承認，從福音第一次被提到（protevangelium；譯按：指創世記3：15），一直到啟示錄結束，一直有個未曾中斷的真理傳統，因此一直有一個傳統源流的教導在基督教會呢流傳，從五旬節開始，直到當代。這個傳統一直是信仰的準則，任何違背這個傳統的，就不是真的信仰。基督徒不是孤立而各自站立的，各自抱持着自己的信條。他們是一個身體，擁有一個共同的信條。反對這個信條，或其中任何一部分，就是在拒絕基督徒之間的團契，與聖徒相通或同為基督身體的原則不符。換句話說，新教徒承認，教會有一個共同的信仰，沒有人有自由去拒絕它，反對這個共同的信仰，就不是基督徒。

Again, Protestants admit that as there has been an uninterrupted tradition of truth from the protevangelium to the close of the Apocalypse, so there has been a stream of traditionary teaching flowing through the Christian Church from the day of Pentecost to the present time. This tradition is so far a rule of faith that nothing contrary to it can be true. Christians do not stand isolated, each holding his own creed. They constitute one body, having one common creed. Rejecting that creed, or any of its parts, is the rejection of the fellowship of Christians, incompatible with the communion of saints, or membership in the body of Christ. In other words, Protestants admit that there is a common faith of the Church, which no man is at liberty to reject, and which no man can reject and be a Christian.

修正主義者的聖經“獨唱”教義

The Revisionist Doctrine of "solo" Scriptura

與宗教改革唯獨聖經的教義對照，修正主義者聖經“獨唱”的教義，其特色是極端的個人主義，以及拒絕教會與諸多大公信條的權威。如果我們把聖經“獨唱”的倡導者的聲明，和以上宗教改革時期的基督徒的聲明加以對比，很快就可以看出其明顯的差異。注意這個教義在早期美洲是如何出現的，也是很重要的。如同拿單·赫其（Nathan O. Hatch）提到的，把個人的判斷置於教會與信條的判斷之上的第一批美洲人，是非正統的牧師們。

In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of "solo" Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident. It is also important to observe the source of this doctrine in early America. As Nathan O. Hatch notes, the first Americans to push the right of private judgment over against the church and the creeds were unorthodox ministers.

例如，自由派的牧師西面·霍華德（Simeon Howard, 1733-1804），曾建議牧師們“把所有附加在人的系統上的東西，所有對於人名、大公會議和眾多教會的偏好拋在腦後，並真誠的問，‘聖經說了什麼？’”查理士·比徹（Charles Beecher, 1815-1900）努力要推翻正統的基督教。他曾公然指責“信條的權力”，並為“聖經，整本聖經，只有聖經”的立場辯護。普救論的牧師葛洛許（A. B. Grosh，1884歿）也同樣宣告，“在宗教信仰中，我們只有一個父親，一個主人，而聖經，就是聖經，是我們唯一認可的信條書籍。”

The liberal minister Simeon Howard (1733-1804), for example, advised pastors to "lay aside all attachment to human systems, all partiality to names, councils and churches, and honestly inquire, 'what saith the Scriptures?'" In his own effort to overturn orthodox Christianity, Charles Beecher (1815-1900) denounced "creed power" and argued for "the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." The universalist minister A. B. Grosh (d. 1884) declared in a similar way, "In religious faith we have but one Father and one Master, and the Bible, the Bible, is our only acknowledged creed book."

極端的聖經“獨唱”的美洲版本，在復原主義者（Restorationists）的著作當中，得到了完滿的表達。他們把民主的平等主義原則應用到啟蒙運動的基督教身上。1809年，復原主義者以利亞斯·史密斯（Elias Smith, 1769-1846）宣稱，“在宗教的事物上，要冒險做個獨立的人，如同那些尊敬你生活所在的政府一樣。”巴頓·史東（Barton Stone, 1772-1844）宣稱過去的歷史。“在基督被釘十字架後”，應該“被丟到垃圾堆”。亞歷山大·坎貝爾（Alexander Campbell，1788-1866）將他對聖經個人式的觀點說明得很清楚，他宣稱，“我試着這樣來閱讀聖經，有如在我之前沒有人讀過一樣；我也盡力防止我今日的閱讀，受到我昨天的觀點，或一周之前的觀點的影響，如同我避免受到任何外來的名字、權威或任何系統的影響一樣。”如同改革宗普林斯頓神學家撒母耳·米勒（Samuel Miller, 1769-1850）所正確觀察到的，“那些最熱心的反對信條的人，通常都是些自由主義者（latitudinarians）和異端（heretics）”

The radical American version of "solo" Scriptura reached its fullest expression in the writings of the Restorationists as they applied the principles of Democratic populism to Enlightenment Christianity. In 1809, the Restorationist Elias Smith (1769-1846) proclaimed, "Venture to be as independent in things of religion, as those which respect the government in which you live." Barton Stone (1772-1844) declared that the past should be "consigned to the rubbish heap upon which Christ was crucified." Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) made his individualistic view of Scripture very clear, declaring, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them to-day, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever." As the Reformed Princeton theologian Samuel Miller (1769-1850) rightly observed, "the most zealous opposers [of creeds] have generally been latitudinarians and heretics."

為什麼我們必須拒絕聖經“獨唱”

Why "Solo" Scriptura Must Be Rejected

修正主義者聖經“獨唱”的教義，是如此深入到現代的教會中，今日許多新教的基督徒，仍然會情感豐富地更加同情以上所摘錄的自由派與極端派的牧師的話，而不是同意改教家的教導。然而，聖經“獨唱”的教義，在今天的問題與危險，和過去幾個世紀一樣。它仍然是不合聖經的，不合邏輯的，也是無法實踐的。下面我要說明的是更明顯的問題。

The revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura has become so entrenched in the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of "solo" Scriptura, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable. Here I will address some of the more obvious problems.

聖經“獨唱”最根本的問題是它會導致人的自主（autonomy）。它帶來的後果是最後的權威會被神的話以外的東西所取代。它的問題與羅馬天主教的教義具有同樣的問題。唯一的差別是羅馬天主教把最後的權威交給教會，而聖經“獨唱”把最後的權威交給個別的信徒。所有的教義與信仰實踐都要用一個最後的標準來衡量，而此最後的標準就是個別信徒的個人判斷，哪些符合聖經，哪些不符合聖經。結果是主觀主義與相對主義。然而，改教家訴諸“唯獨聖經”的意思，從來不是“唯獨我自己”。

The fundamental problem with "solo" Scriptura is that it results in autonomy. It results in final authority being placed somewhere other than the Word of God. It shares this problem with the Roman Catholic doctrine. The only difference is that the Roman Catholic doctrine places final authority in the church while "solo" Scriptura places final authority in each individual believer. Every doctrine and practice is measured against a final standard, and that final standard is the individual's personal judgment of what is and is not biblical. The result is subjectivism and relativism. The reformers' appeal to "Scripture alone," however, was never intended to mean "me alone."

聖經本身顯然沒有教導聖經“獨唱”。基督以權柄的結構設立祂的教會，並賜給祂的教會一些特別被任命從事神的話語的職事的人（徒6：2-4）。如果有爭議興起，使徒並沒有吩咐個別的信徒回家，讓他們自己決定誰是對的。他們舉行了一個會議（徒15：6-29）。即使是在最著名的例子中的庇哩亞人，也不支持聖經“獨唱”（參見徒17：10-11；另參1-9節）。保羅並沒有吩咐個別的庇哩亞人回家，自己決定他所教導的是否是真的。反而，庇哩亞人天天和保羅一起考查舊約聖經，好看看他關於彌賽亞的教導是否是真的。

The Bible itself simply does not teach "solo" Scriptura Christ established his church with a structure of authority and gives to his church those who are specially appointed to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:2-4). When disputes arose, the apostles did not instruct each individual believer to go home and decide by himself and for himself who was right. They met in a council (Acts 15:6-29). Even the well-known example of the Bereans does not support "solo" Scriptura(cf. Acts 17:10-11; cf. vv. 1-9). Paul did not instruct each individual Berean to go home and decide by himself and for himself whether what he was teaching was true. Instead, the Bereans read and studied the Scriptures of the Old Testament day by day with Paul present in order to see whether his teaching about the Messiah was true.

至於釋經法，聖經“獨唱”的教義也是毫無盼望的。只靠聖經“獨唱”，聖經的解釋會變成全然主觀化、相對化，也沒有解決差異的可能。這的確是事實，即聖經有許多部分有各種不同的解釋。持守聖經“獨唱”的人被教導說，這些不同的解釋只要回到聖經就可以得到解答。但是這個有不同解釋的問題，如何能靠訴諸其他的解釋來解決呢？每個訴諸聖經的人，都是訴諸聖經的解釋。唯一真正的問題是：訴諸誰的解釋？對聖經有不同解釋的人，不可能把聖經直接攤在桌上，要聖經解決他們的差異。聖經要作為權威，必須被某個人閱讀，被某個人所解釋。根據聖經“獨唱”的原則，這個“某個人”就是每個個人，所以，最終的結果是，有多少解釋聖經的人，就有多少最終的權威。這是主觀主義和相對主義的橫行。聖經“獨唱”的倡導者正確地定罪羅馬教會對解經的暴政，但是解決解經暴政的方法不是解經的無政府主義。

In terms of hermeneutics, the doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is hopeless. With "solo" Scriptura, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective and relative, and there is no possibility for the resolution of differences. It is a matter of fact that there are numerous different interpretations of various parts of Scripture. Adherents of "solo" Scriptura are told that these different interpretations can be resolved simply by an appeal to Scripture. But how is the problem of differing interpretations to be resolved by an appeal to another interpretation? All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to "solo" Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters. This is subjectivism and relativism run amuck. The proponents of "solo" Scriptura rightly condemn the hermeneutical tyranny of Rome, but the solution to hermeneutical tyranny is not hermeneutical anarchy.

聖經“獨唱”的教義也要面對一個歷史的難題。即這個教義與第一世紀的教會以及之後的幾個世紀的教會內的真實情況無法調和。如果聖經“獨唱”是真的，那麼，在很多年中，大多數的教會都沒有真理的標準。在第一世紀中，人們無法走進他當地的基督教書店去買一本聖經。當時聖經書卷的是手抄的，不是每個信徒的家中都有。新約聖經的第一卷書卷甚至直到基督遇難後十年，還沒有完成。逐漸地，有些教會開始獲得一些書卷，而其他教會有其他的書卷。直到許多年之後，我們現知的新約聖經才被完整地收集起來。即便在當時，這些經卷也是手抄的，不是每個基督徒的家中都會有。如果個別的人要靠自己根據聖經來判斷並評估所有的事，如同聖經“獨唱”的倡導者所說的，這個原則如何在第一世紀，在新約聖經還沒有完成之前得到實踐呢？

The doctrine of "solo" Scriptura also faces historical problems due to the fact that it cannot be reconciled with the reality that existed in the first decades and centuries of the church. If "solo" Scriptura were true, much of the church had no standard of truth for many years. In the first century, one could not walk down to his local Christian bookstore and buy a copy of the Bible. Manuscripts had to be hand-copied and were not found in every believer's home. The first books of the New Testament did not even begin to be written until at least ten years after the death of Christ, and some were not written until several decades after Christ. Gradually some churches obtained copies of some books, while other churches had copies of others. It took many years before the New Testament as we know it was gathered and available as a whole. Even then, it too was hand-copied, so it was not available in the home of every individual Christian. If the lone individual is to judge and evaluate everything by himself and for himself by measuring it against Scripture, as proponents of "solo" Scriptura would have it, how would this have possibly worked in the first decades of the church before the New Testament was completed?

有關聖經“獨唱”最明顯的問題是正典的問題。如果有人要說聖經無論如何是唯一的權威，那麼，一個合理的問題就是：我們如何決定什麼是“聖經”，什麼不是“聖經”? 聖經“獨唱”的倡導者宣稱聖經是有權威的，但是卻無法以權威說出聖經是什麼。聖經前面的目錄本身不是神默示先知或使徒寫下來的，而是，在真正的意義上來說，是一個教會的信條，宣告教會相信這是聖經的內容（譯按，例如，比利時信條，威敏思特信仰告白就明白列出這些經卷的名稱）。說明聖經“獨唱”面對的有關正典的問題的一種方法是只須要問以下的問題：聖經“獨唱”要如何處理現代的馬吉安（Marcion。譯按：第二世紀的異端，否認舊約是聖經正典的一部分）？例如，聖經“獨唱”的倡導者要如何和一個宣稱真正的新約聖經只包括路加福音，使徒行傳，羅馬書和啟示錄的人爭辯？他無法訴諸教會，歷史或傳統。一個聖經“獨唱”的持守者，如果是前後一致的，他就無法回應這種觀點，因為，如同一位立場一致的這種信念的持守者在私人的通信中告訴我的，這是每個個別的基督徒的權利和義務，要靠自己、為自己決定哪一卷聖經的書卷是正典。對聖經“獨唱”的倡導者來說，這是唯一能夠採取的前後一致的立場。但這是自打嘴巴，因為它摧毀了任何聖經是客觀的觀念。例如，如果每個人靠自己、為自己決定羅馬書是否實際上是正典，是有權威的聖經的書卷，人們就不能訴諸羅馬書具有聖經的權威。

One of the most self-evident problems related to the doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is the question of the canon. If one is going to claim that Scripture is the only authority whatsoever, it is legitimate to ask how we then define what is and is not "Scripture." Proponents of "solo" Scriptura claim that Scripture is authoritative but cannot say with any authority what Scripture is. The table of contents in the front of the Bible is not itself an inspired text written by a prophet or an apostle. It is, in a very real sense, a creed of the church declaring what the church believes to be the content of Scripture. One way to illustrate the problem "solo" Scriptura faces in connection with the canon is simply to ask the following: How would "solo" Scriptura deal with a modern day Marcion? How, for example, would a proponent of "solo" Scriptura argue with a person who claimed that the real New Testament includes only the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Revelation? He can't appeal to the church, to history, or to tradition. A self-consistent adherent of "solo Scriptura" would have no way to respond to such a view because, as one such consistent adherent informed me in personal correspondence, it is the right and duty of each individual Christian to determine the canonicity of each biblical book by and for himself. This is the only consistent position for a proponent of "solo" Scriptura to take, but it is self-defeating because it destroys any objective notion of Scripture. One cannot appeal to the biblical authority of Romans, for example, if each believer determines for himself whether Romans is in fact to be considered a canonical and authoritative biblical book.

正典的問題不是聖經“獨唱”所引起的唯一的神學問題。另一個很嚴重的問題是採用聖經“獨唱”的觀念事實上會摧毀一個可能性，就是存在一個客觀的定義，可以界定什麼是基督教，什麼不是基督教。聖經“獨唱”會徹底摧毀正統和異端的概念。如果拒絕大公信條的權威，讓每個個別的信徒自己決定所有教義的問題，那麼，所有正統和異端的定義就完全是相對的，和主觀的。一個人認為三位一體的教義是合乎聖經的；另一個人則認為這不合聖經。一個人認為敞開神學是合乎聖經的，另一個人則認為它不合聖經。對所有其他的教義也是如此。每個人都可以根據自己的喜好，來定義基督教。最後，我們必須了解，聖經“獨唱”會忽略現實。聖經並不是直接從天上直接就空投到我們的懷中的。若不是許多人，包括考古學家，語言學家，抄寫聖經的文士，經文鑑別學家，歷史學家，翻譯者，還有更多人的努力，我們甚至無法靠自己閱讀聖經。如果聖經“獨唱”的觀點是正確的，那麼，直接把沒有翻譯過的、古代的希伯來文和希臘文聖經、旁經和偽經的抄本給地球上一些與世隔絕的部落的人讀，就是可能的。他們不需要任何人的協助，可以學會希伯來文和希臘文，可以閱讀各種的抄本，自己決定哪些是正典，然後獲得一個正統的，對基督教信仰的理解。然而，這所以是不可能的原因，正是因為聖經“獨唱”是不正確的。這是不合聖經的，對真理的扭曲。

The question of the canon is not the only theological problem caused by "solo" Scriptura. Another serious problem is the fact that the adoption of "solo" Scriptura destroys the possibility of having any objective definition of what Christianity is and is not. "solo" Scriptura destroys the very concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. If the authority of the ecumenical creeds is rejected, and if each individual believer is to determine all questions of doctrine by and for himself, then the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy are completely relative and subjective. One man judges the doctrine of the Trinity to be biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. One judges open theism biblical. Another deems it unbiblical. The same is true with respect to every other doctrine. Each man defines Christianity as it seems right in his own eyes.

Finally, it must be realized that "solo" Scriptura ignores reality. The Bible simply did not drop out of the sky into our laps. We would not even be able to read a Bible for ourselves were it not for the labors of many others including archaeologists, linguists, scribes, textual critics, historians, translators, and more. If "solo" Scriptura were true, it should be possible to give untranslated ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of biblical, apocryphal, and pseudepigraphal texts to some isolated tribe member somewhere on earth, and with no one's assistance, that individual should be able to learn the Hebrew and Greek languages, read the various manuscripts, determine which of them are canonical, and then come to an orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The reason this is not possible, however, is because"solo" Scriptura is not true. It is an unbiblical distortion of the truth.

修正主義者之聖經“獨唱”的觀念，已經對基督的大業造成了很大的傷害。具有權柄的改教家拒絕這種早期版本是正確的。這些早期版本已經出現在一些極端分子的教導中。改教家當代的子孫必須在這點上跟隨這些改教家的腳蹤。這場戰爭必須從兩個陣線上來打。我們不只是要拒絕羅馬天主教的教義（無論是雙重來源的傳統2的教義，或唯獨教會的傳統3的教義），就是把最終的、自主的權威交給教會。我們也要拒絕修正主義者聖經“獨唱”的教義。這個教義把最終的、自主的權威交在所有個別的基督徒手上。

The revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura has been a source of great damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesiadoctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual.

1 [ Back ] For more information on Heiko Oberman's concept of Tradition 1, see his work The Dawn of the Reformation(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), p. 280.

For background information on Tradition 0, see Alister McGrath's Reformation Thought, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 144.

For other background information on "solo" Scriptura see Nathan O. Hatch, "Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum," in The Bible in America, ed. N. Hatch and M. Noll, pp. 59-78.

The quotation from Richard Muller is taken from his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 51.

Luther's letter to Duke Albert of Prussia is cited in Philip Schaff's The Principle of Protestantism(Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1964 [1845]), pp. 116-117, note).

Chemnitz's quote can be found in Examination of the Council of Trent, tr. Fred Kramer, Vol. 1, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), pp. 208-209.

The quotations from Calvin are taken from his Institutes, 4.9.8 and 4.9.13.

Mr. Mathison has taken his quotation of Charles Hodge from Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 113-114.

Comments from Nathan Hatch on the revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura are taken from "Sola Scriptura and Novus Ordo Seclorum," in The Bible in America, ed. N. Hatch and M. Noll, p. 62.

The quotation from Samuel Miller is found in The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions (Greenville, SC: A Press, 1991 [1839]), p. 15.

For a fuller discussion on this topic, Mr. Mathison refers readers to his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001).