转贴与翻译:John Frame什么是神学? |
送交者: 谨守 2023年12月03日19:01:39 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话 |
什么是神学?
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.” 神学充满了事物的定义。系统神学的有用特征之一是,你可以转向那里并获得诸如称义、得荣耀或实存的联合等术语的快速定义。定义很有用,但我们应该注意到,它们很少(如果有的话)在圣经本身中找到。这些定义本身就是神学,因为它们是人类试图理解圣经的工作。这项工作是容易出错的,神学定义本身几乎不足以描述圣经中语言使用的复杂方式。例如,当约翰在约翰福音 8 章 31 节中谈到那些“相信”耶稣的人时,他并没有在相信或信心的任何经典神学定义中使用这个术语。你可以看出来,因为耶稣在第 44 节告诉他们:“你们是出于你们的父魔鬼,你们父的私欲,你们偏要行。” 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. 当我们定义圣经本身没有明确找到的术语时,这个提醒特别合适。神学本身就是其中之一。神学家发展了许多圣经本身所没有的术语和概念,例如三位一体、实体、位格、本性、自在性、无误性、有效的呼召。为了更好地传达圣经教导而发明新术语并没有什么错。事实上,每当圣经被翻译成一种新语言时,这种情况就会大规模发生。当人们第一次将圣经翻译成法语、德语、英语和其他语言时,每次他们都必须为圣经中的所有内容想出一整套新术语。由此可见,翻译与神学之间的界限并不明显。
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. 神学家提出了“有效呼召”一词,以区分圣经中对呼召一词的用法和其他用法。有效的呼召是神主权的呼召,实际上吸引人与基督联合。但这并不是圣经中提到的唯一一种呼召。呼召也可以指命名、邀请或请求某人的注意。因此,“有效呼召”一词孤立了一个特定的圣经概念,将其与其他概念区分开来。那么,我们再次看到,定义本身就是一项神学任务。它可以帮助我们理解圣经的一些教导。 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. 那么,定义可以成为有用的教学工具。但我们不应该通过它们来发现事物“究竟是什么”,就好像一个定义给了我们对某些事物本质的独特见解,超出了我们在圣经本身中所能找到的。全知的神学定义并不能告诉你全知到底是什么,就好像圣经对神知识的描述在某种程度上是不充分的,甚至是误导性的或不真实的。尽管圣经中没有多少定义,但圣经,而不是任何神学定义,才是我们的最终权威。神学定义必须符合圣经,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. 我们也不应该假设某事物只有一种可能的定义。罪可以被定义为(1)违反神的律法或(2)悖逆神的主权。其它定义也是可能的,但我们只考虑这些。当然,如果你将罪定义为违反神的律法,你可能需要明确指出这种违法行为构成了叛逆。如果你将其定义为悖逆,最终你可能需要说,所讨论的悖逆是对神律法的拒绝。你可以使用任一定义,只要你理解每个定义都暗示着另一个定义即可。你可以选择其中之一作为你的定义,只要你将承认另一个描述即可。 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. 当然,定义并不是生死攸关的东西。我们应该努力理解不同作者的定义,认识到使用与我们不同的定义的人可能在实质性教义上与我们没有任何不同。 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. 长定义和短定义 神学家通常更喜欢很长的定义。卡尔·巴特对神学的定义之一就是一个子: 神学是寻求在神的作为中所说的神的道的知识的科学——在圣经学校中学习的科学,它见证了神的圣言;科学致力于追求真理,这是神的圣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. 在这里,巴特试图将大量的神学内容带入他的定义中。这种尝试是可以理解的,因为每个神学家都希望他的神学概念受神学内容的支配。因此,他试图表明神学的定义如何反映福音的本质、圣经的内容、基督的卓越性、救赎的本质等等。 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. 我认为这是一个错误。詹姆斯·巴尔(James Barr)在他的《圣经语言的语义学》一书中警告圣经学者,认为圣经术语的含义充满神学内容是错误的。圣经的意义不是来自它的个别术语,而是来自它的句子、段落、书籍和更大的单位。例如,“创造”这个词本身,脱离了所有的上下文,并没有教给我们任何东西。但“起初,神创造天地”(创 1:1)却教导我们很多。 “万有都是靠祂造的”(西书1:16)甚至教导我们更多。 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. 同样的警告也适用于神学家。当然,我们的神学方法和结论必须来自神的启示。但我们对神学一词的定义不需要重述这些结论,尽管它肯定与其结论一致。也就是说,神学的定义不可能是圣经所有内容的浓缩。然而它必须描述圣经所保证的活动。 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. 作为应用的神学 然后让我们尝试发展神学的概念或定义。神学的基本思想在该术语的词源中显而易见:对神的研究。但我们应该寻求一个更精确的定义。 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. 正如我将在第 23 至 28 章中论证的那样,在基督教中,对神的研究就是对神对自己的启示的研究。自然启示和话语启示彼此光照。圣经(我们目前可用的话语启示形式)对于神学的任务至关重要,因为作为神圣话语的来源,它足以维持人类的生命(提后 3:16-17),而且它有着一种在自然启示中未曾有过的清晰性,但自然启示是解释圣经的必要手段。为了正确理解圣经,我们需要了解一些有关古代语言和文化的知识,而这些信息并不总是仅在圣经中可见到。然而,一旦我们对圣经所说的内容达成了确定的解释,知识就优先于任何据称源自自然启示的想法。 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,神学本质上必定是对圣经的研究。它不应该像弗里德里希·施莱尔马赫(Friedrich Schleiermacher)那样被定义为对人类宗教意识或情感的分析。但我们需要问神学如何研究圣经。例如,神学对在希伯来文《传道书》中寻找中间词不感兴趣。 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.” 查尔斯·霍吉将神学视为一门处理圣经事实的科学,就像天文学家处理有关天体的事实或地质学家处理有关岩石的事实一样。他说,神学“是以适当的顺序和关系展示圣经事实,以及事实本身所涉及的原则或普遍真理,这些原则或普遍真理遍及并协调整体。”如果施莱尔马赫的神学概念是主观主义的,那么霍吉的神学概念可能被称为客观主义的。施莱尔马赫看内在,霍吉看外在。施莱尔马赫主要关注主观感受,霍吉则主要关注客观事实。对霍吉来说,神学通过圣经寻求关于神的客观真理。他想要“事实”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? 当然,霍吉对神学的定义比施莱尔马赫的更好,因为霍吉的神学定义是以圣经为中心的。但霍吉像许多正统福音派神学家一样,让我们对一个重要问题感到困惑:当我们有了圣经时,为什么我们还需要神学? 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? 鉴于霍吉自己对圣经的看法,圣经本身告诉我们关于神的客观真理。我们不需要神学科学来告诉我们这个真理。那么神学的作用是什么? 在上面引用的声明中,霍吉说神学是“圣经事实的展示”。但圣经的事实不是已经在圣经经文本身中展现出来了吗? 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. 他进一步说,神学“以适当的顺序和关系”展示这些事实。这听起来有点好像圣经中事实本身的顺序和关系在某种程度上是不正确的,神学必须将它们放回原来的位置。人们有时谈论圣经教义的神学“体系”,好像这个体系比圣经本身更好地阐述了真理,甚至好像这个体系就是隐藏在所有故事、诗篇、智慧格言等等的真意。我不认为霍吉有这样的想法。这些想法与霍吉对圣经的崇高看法不一致。但他的短语“适当的秩序和关系”并不能很好地防范这种观念。无论如何,这就让神学和圣经之间的关系并不清楚。 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? 他继续说,神学连同其将圣经事实置于适当顺序和关系中的工作,试图陈述“事实本身所涉及的原则或普遍真理,这些原则或普遍真理遍布并协调整体。”当然,这是神学家所做、而且应该做的事情之一。但我们再次问:圣经不是已经这样做了吗?如果确实如此,那么神学还要做些什么呢? 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? 在寻找神学的定义时,我们不仅需要强调它与圣经的连续性,而且还需要强调它的不连续性。前者对于正统新教徒来说并不困难:神学必须符合圣经。但后者更难制定。显然,神学与圣经不同。它不只是重复圣经的话。因此,关于神学的主要问题是:神学和圣经之间有什么区别,以及如何证明这种区别是合理的? 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. 显然,神学家出于某种目的重申了圣经的事实和普遍真理。但出于什么目的呢?霍吉没有告诉我们。 在我看来,唯一可能的答案是:神学家为了启迪(译者注:和合本译作“造就”)的目的陈述圣经的事实和真理。陈述这些真理不是为了它们本身,而是为了培养人们的基督教信仰。 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. 通过这种方式,我们将神学的概念与新约中教导和讲道的概念放在一条线上来看。教导的术语——didasko、didache 和 didaskalia——不是指为了真理本身的缘故而陈述客观真理,而是指为了建立上帝的子民而阐述上帝的真理。想想使徒行传 2:42; 林前14:6; 1 提前1:10; 2:7; 4:6、16; 6:3-4; 提后4:2;多 1:9;约二 9。这些段落包含 didasko 组的词语,翻译为“教师”、“教导”、“教义”。请注意这些经文中经常强调的一点是,教导的目的是培养人们对神的信心和顺服。还要注意“纯正的教义”这个短语,其中译作“纯正的”这个希腊文是“hygiainos”,是“给予健康”的意思。教导的目的不仅仅是陈述客观真理,而是使人们达到属灵健康的状态。 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。 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. 神学正是在此基础上回应了人的需要。它可以帮助那些对圣经有疑问、怀疑或有问题的人。通常我们将神学与相当抽象或学术的问题联系起来:神怎么可能是三而一的呢?基督怎么可能既是神又是人呢?重生先于信心吗?但当然,还有其他类型的问题。人们可能会遇到一个希伯来语单词,比如“dabar”,并询问它的含义。或者他可能会问圣经经文的含义,例如创世记 1:1是什么意思?孩子可能会问,当妈妈不在看(着他们)时,神是否能看到我们在做什么。我认为没有理由怀疑所有这些问题都是神学的适当主题。 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. 说神学存在于人们的生活、他们的行为以及他们的言论中也没有错。行为由一系列人类决定组成,在这些决定中,信徒寻求遵循圣经。行为和言语一样,可以有启发性,也可以无启发性。举例是一种重要的教导形式。效法敬虔之人是基督教学习的一种重要形式,这些人的行为往往向我们揭示了神对我们的旨意(林前 11:1)。他们在行为中应用神的话语可以称为神学。因此,神学不仅仅是教导人们如何生活的一种手段,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. 确实没有理由将神学局限于学术或技术问题上。 (学术性如何?技术性如何?)如果神学是启迪性教导,那么神学家就需要倾听每个人的问题。然而,我的观点并不是要把神学从理论问题转向实践问题,或者以任何方式贬低学术神学家的理论工作。但我确实认为学术性神学和技术性神学不应该比其他神学更受重视。大学或神学院的神学教授或多或少都是神学家,就像寻求解决大学生疑虑的青年传道,或者给孩子们讲旧约故事的主日学老师,或者带领家庭灵修的父亲一样 ,或者不以任何明显的方式教导而只是试图遵守圣经的人。理论和实践问题对于神学家来说同样重要。
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] 我所知道的唯一一个足以涵盖所有形式的圣经教导以及人们在生活中做出的所有决定的术语是“应用”。应用圣经就是使用圣经来满足人的需要,回答人的问题,做出人的决定。关于圣经经文、翻译、解释、伦理、基督徒成长的问题——所有这些对于神学来说都是公平的游戏。要(通过话语或行为)表明圣经如何解决所有这些类型的问题,就是应用它。因此,我给出我对神学的定义:神学是人将圣经应用到生活的各个领域。 那么,为什么除了圣经之外我们还需要神学呢?我相信,唯一的答案是“因为我们需要将圣经应用到生活中”。
[1] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 5–8. |
|
|
|
|
实用资讯 | |
|
|
一周点击热帖 | 更多>> |
|
|
一周回复热帖 |
|
|
历史上的今天:回复热帖 |
2022: | 致我的亲人:最坏与最好的消息 | |
2021: | 降临节灵修第三天 Circumcised受了割礼 | |
2020: | 婴孩死亡能否进入天堂?本着圣经的回答 | |
2020: | 预言和应验:这是一个最严肃的唯独圣经 | |
2019: | 我现在知道 被你读成 我早知道 了吗? | |
2019: | 因為神是創造主,所以祂才是救贖主 | |
2018: | 摩西:一家族取一只羊 | |