每个诉诸圣经的人，都是诉诸圣经的解释。唯一真正的问题是：诉诸谁的解释？

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

二十世纪，粗略来说，可以说是一个神学无政府状态（theological anarchy）的世纪。自由派和一些近乎异端的教派已经公然拒绝正统基督教的基本教义。但是有更多晚近的、宣称自己是福音派的学者，则是在提倡许多教义的修正版，例如“敞开神学”（openness theology）的提倡者就在提倡一种新的修正过的神论（译按：这种神论主张神为了尊重人的自由意志，限制自己全知的能力，谦卑地与人在苦难中同在，一起面对未知的未来，称为“神的敞开性”）。末世预言实现论（Preterism）的提倡者则推动一种修正后的末世论（译按：这种末世论主张圣经关于未来的预言已经在第一世纪初代教会时就实现了）。一些“保罗新观”（"new perspectives" on Paul）的学者则提倡一种修正后的唯独因信称义的教义。通常这些修正者会宣称他们只是在重述一项比较古老的教义。不过，批判者经常很快就会指出，这些修正实际上是在扭曲这些古老的教义。

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.

讽刺的是，有一种类似的修正主义者之唯独圣经（sola Scriptura ）的教义，也在新教主义的内部兴起了。但是与修正版的唯独信心教义不同的是，唯独圣经的修正教义并没有在宗教改革的子孙中引起太多的争议。其中一个原因是因为这个修正过的教义在几个世纪以来，已经取代了宗教改革的教义。事实上，在福音派世界的许多角落，这个修正的教义是今日最主要的观点。许多人宣称这个修正的教义就是宗教改革的教义。不过，和修正过的唯独信心的教义一样，这个修正过的唯独圣经的教义，实际上是对宗教改革教义的扭曲。

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.

采用这个修正过的唯独圣经的教义，在新教的教会中，已经造成了许多圣经、神学和实际上的困难。最近几年，这些困难已经成了人们关注的焦点，因为有许多新教徒转变他们的信仰，归信罗马天主教和东正教。他们宣称，他们转变信仰的原因有一大部分是因为他们认为唯独圣经的教义是不合理的（indefensible）。最近，罗马天主教和东正教的护教学家很快地利用这种情势，出版了许多书籍和文章，矢志要批判这个唯独圣经的教义。然而，其中一个问题是，这些转变信仰的人和这些护教学家们似乎都不明白，他们所批判和拒绝的教义，其实只是修正后的唯独信仰的教义，不是古典的宗教改革的教义。为了要明白其中的差异，我们必须介绍一下当时的背景。

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.

历史观察

Historical Observations

要了解宗教改革时期唯独圣经的教义，其中一个部分的困难来自一个事实，就是历史的争辩常常被简化为只是在“圣经对抗传统”这个框架下的辩论。新教徒被认为是在教导“唯独圣经”（Scripture alone），而罗马天主教被认为是在教导“圣经加上传统”（Scripture plus tradition）。然而，这并不是真正历史的准确图像。这个争辩实际上应该以这个角度来看，即圣经与传统之间究竟是什么关系，其中有许多彼此竞争的观念。为了明白宗教改革时期唯独圣经的观念，我们必须更准确地明白当时的历史背景。

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.

改教时期对唯独圣经的争辩并不是发生在真空中的。这个争辩其来有自，乃是接续了自中世纪以来的一个辩论，及对圣经与传统之间的关系，以及什么是“传统”的意义的辩论。在教会初期的三、四个世纪，初代教父们所教导的，是一个相当一致的圣经的权威观。他们认为，神的启示以及具有权威的教义规范（the authoritative doctrinal norm）之唯一的来源，乃是旧约加上使徒的教训（已经被书写下来，记录在新约圣经中的使徒的教训）。圣经必须在教会内、由教会在“regula fidei”（rule of faith信仰准则）（译按：相当于基要信条）的背景下来诠释。不过，不论是教会或此“信仰准则”，都不能被视为神的启示的第二个附加的来源。教会是神在圣经中之启示的诠释者，而信仰准则是解经的背景（hermeneutical context），但是只有圣经是神的话。一位研究宗教改革历史的神学家海戈. 欧伯曼（Heiko Oberman，1930-2001）把这个启示只有单一来源的观念，称为“传统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."

两种来源的观念传统最早是出现在第四世纪巴西略（Basil）和奥古斯丁的著作中。这个观念认为传统是第二个启示的来源，是圣经启示的补充。欧伯曼把这个双重来源的传统观念称之为“传统2”（欧伯曼教授有许多恩赐；但是想出一个好记的标签显然不是他的恩赐之一）。我们无法绝对地肯定，巴西略或奥古斯丁是否真的教导这两种来源的观点，但是事实是他们的著作中隐藏了这个观点，也确保这个观念会在中世纪时占有一席之地。这当然是需要时间的，因为在中世纪大部分的时间中，传统1，也就是早期教会的立场，仍然是主流的观点。十二世纪，一个朝向传统2的强而有力的运动才郑重地展开。直到十四世纪时，在奥卡姆的威廉的著作中才到达一个转捩点。他是最早拥抱这个启示的双重来源的中世纪神学家之一（如果不是第一个的话）。那么，我们从十四世纪开始，就看到这两个对立观念之平行发展：传统1和传统2。宗教改革就是发生在这个持续进行的中世纪的辩论的背景之下。

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.     

如果我们记住这个中世纪的背景，宗教改革时期关于唯独圣经的争辩就会变得更加清晰。改教家不是凭空捏造出这样的一个新的教义。他们只是接续一个已经进行好几个世纪的争论而已。他们在那个特殊的历史背景下，主张要恢复传统1，以抗衡在马天主教会之内的传统2而已。这些具有权柄的改教家（magisterial reformers）论证说，圣经是启示唯一的来源，它也要在教会内，由教会来诠释，而且是在信仰准则的背景下来诠释。他们坚持回到古老的教义，而当传统1与新教的信念越来越靠近时，罗马教会的回应就是趋向传统2，而且最终在天特会议中正式采用了传统2的观点。（罗马教会从那时起，就采用了欧伯曼称之为“传统3”的观点，即“当时的教会权柄”（Magisterium of the moment）被认为是真正启示的唯一来源。不过，这个议题已经超过这篇短文的范畴了。

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).

与此同时，这些具有权柄的改教家提倡要回到传统1（唯独圣经），而一些极端的改教家（译按：即当时的重洗派；这种观念也盛行在今日华人教会的地方教会、灵恩派释经观念）则呼吁要同时摒弃传统1与传统2，并采用一种全新的对圣经与传统的认识。他们主张，圣经不只是唯一无误的权威，也是唯一完全的权威。教会真正而次等的权威，以及信仰准则的权威，就这样被完全弃绝了。根据这个观点（传统0），在真正意义上传统不具有任何的权威。反而，个别的信徒唯独需要的，只是圣灵与圣经（译按：最有名的口号是：“一本圣经，两个膝盖”）。

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世纪的美国，这个极端宗教改革之个人式的观点，与启蒙运动的理性主义与新式民主的平等主义结合在一起，创造了一种极端的传统0的版本，几乎取代了宗教改革的唯独圣经的教义（传统1）。这个新的教义——也许可以称为圣经“独唱”（‘solo’ Scriptura），而不是“唯独”圣经（sola Scriptura）——攻击教会正当、次等的权威，也攻击教会的大公信条。很不幸的，许多持守这个观点的人错误地相信并教导，这就是路德与加尔文的教义。

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.

宗教改革唯独圣经的教义

The Reformation Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

总结宗教改革唯独圣经的教义，或宗教改革关于圣经与传统之关系的教义，我们可以说圣经必须被视为是神的启示的唯一来源；它是神唯一默示的，无谬误，最终的，以及具有权柄的信仰与生活的准则。圣经必须在教会内，由教会来解释；它也要在信仰准则（基要信条）这个释经背景内来解释。正如理查·慕勒（Richard Muller）的观察，唯独圣经这个改革宗教义的意思，从来不是说“所有的神学必须从新建构，不需要参考教会的诠释传统，只需要靠孤寂的释经家面对赤裸裸的经文。” 这是宗教改革对圣经、传统与权威的教义，可以藉著查考一些改教家的著作来加以证明，我们只会举一些例子。

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.

马丁·路德在沃木斯会议（Diet of Worm）所作的宣告是众所周知的：“除非我被圣经和明白的理由所说服——我不接受教皇和议会的权威，因为他们常常自相矛盾——我的良心是神话语的俘虏。”许多人把这个声明作为证据，说路德反对传统1，即早期教会的教导，但是我们在下这种结论之前，必须考虑其他的因素，即这个声明的历史背景，以及此一事实，即路德对这个主题曾经说过的，以及所写的更多的东西。举一个简单的例子，在他1532年写给普鲁士公爵阿尔布雷希特（Duke Albert of Prussia）的一封关于“基督在圣餐中真实存在”的教义的信中，路德写道：

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，这个条款从基督教会的一开始就清楚地被相信，被持守，直到今日，这是整个圣洁的基督教会的见证，如果我们没有其他的见证，这对我们也是足够的了。因为我们若听从或相信反对那合一的见证、信仰与教义的任何东西，是非常危险与可怕的，因为此合一的见证，从起初到现在已经被持守达1500年之久，是全世界一致公认的。如果今天有人要加以怀疑，就如同是不相信基督教会，他不只是在咒诅整个圣洁的基督教会是可憎的异端，也是咒诅基督自己，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.

第二代的路德派学者马丁·开姆尼茨（Martin Chemnitz，1522-1586），在他的《审查天特会议》书中，也写到类似的话：

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

这也是确定的，就是没有一个人可以只靠他自己的智慧来解释圣经，即使是最清楚的经文……我们也心怀感恩地，带着敬畏地来使用教父们的努力，他们对圣经所作的注释大大帮助我们澄清了圣经的许多经节。而我们也承认，古代教会的见证在圣经真实和纯正的理解上，也大大地坚定了我们的信心。我们也不赞同此事，即有人自以为发明了一种意义，而此意义是与过去所有古老教义相矛盾的，而且显然过去的教会也没有如此的见证。

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.

另一个提到这个议题的具有权柄的改教家是约翰·加尔文。例如，在1559年版的《基督教要义》中，他写道：

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，我们甘心地拥抱并敬畏早期大公会议的信条，并视之为圣洁，例如尼西亚会议，康士坦丁堡会议，以弗所会议，迦克顿会议等等。它们所关切的都是为了驳斥错误——只要这些错误与信仰的教导有关。这些信条所包含的无他，不过是纯正真实的对圣经的阐释，是圣洁的教父们使用属灵的明辨，粉碎当时兴起的宗教的敌人。

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:

我们乐意让步，如果要讨论任何的教义，最好且最安全的方案是召集一个由真正的监督所组成的会议，来检查这些有争议的教义。

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.

总结传统新教徒的观点，19世纪改革宗的神学家查理斯·贺治（1897-1978）的话是很允当的：

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

再次，新教徒承认，从福音第一次被提到（protevangelium；译按：指创世记3：15），一直到启示录结束，一直有个未曾中断的真理传统，因此一直有一个传统源流的教导在基督教会呢流传，从五旬节开始，直到当代。这个传统一直是信仰的准则，任何违背这个传统的，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条。他们是一个身体，拥有一个共同的信条。反对这个信条，或其中任何一部分，就是在拒绝基督徒之间的团契，与圣徒相通或同为基督身体的原则不符。换句话说，新教徒承认，教会有一个共同的信仰，没有人有自由去拒绝它，反对这个共同的信仰，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.

修正主义者的圣经“独唱”教义

The Revisionist Doctrine of "solo" Scriptura

与宗教改革唯独圣经的教义对照，修正主义者圣经“独唱”的教义，其特色是极端的个人主义，以及拒绝教会与诸多大公信条的权威。如果我们把圣经“独唱”的倡导者的声明，和以上宗教改革时期的基督徒的声明加以对比，很快就可以看出其明显的差异。注意这个教义在早期美洲是如何出现的，也是很重要的。如同拿单·赫其（Nathan O. Hatch）提到的，把个人的判断置于教会与信条的判断之上的第一批美洲人，是非正统的牧师们。

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，自由派的牧师西面·霍华德（Simeon Howard, 1733-1804），曾建议牧师们“把所有附加在人的系统上的东西，所有对于人名、大公会议和众多教会的偏好抛在脑后，并真诚的问，‘圣经说了什么？’”查理士·比彻（Charles Beecher, 1815-1900）努力要推翻正统的基督教。他曾公然指责“信条的权力”，并为“圣经，整本圣经，只有圣经”的立场辩护。普救论的牧师葛洛许（A. B. Grosh，1884殁）也同样宣告，“在宗教信仰中，我们只有一个父亲，一个主人，而圣经，就是圣经，是我们唯一认可的信条书籍。”

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."

极端的圣经“独唱”的美洲版本，在复原主义者（Restorationists）的著作当中，得到了完满的表达。他们把民主的平等主义原则应用到启蒙运动的基督教身上。1809年，复原主义者以利亚斯·史密斯（Elias Smith, 1769-1846）宣称，“在宗教的事物上，要冒险做个独立的人，如同那些尊敬你生活所在的政府一样。”巴顿·史东（Barton Stone, 1772-1844）宣称过去的历史。“在基督被钉十字架后”，应该“被丢到垃圾堆”。亚历山大·坎贝尔（Alexander Campbell，1788-1866）将他对圣经个人式的观点说明得很清楚，他宣称，“我试着这样来阅读圣经，有如在我之前没有人读过一样；我也尽力防止我今日的阅读，受到我昨天的观点，或一周之前的观点的影响，如同我避免受到任何外来的名字、权威或任何系统的影响一样。”如同改革宗普林斯顿神学家撒母耳·米勒（Samuel Miller, 1769-1850）所正确观察到的，“那些最热心的反对信条的人，通常都是些自由主义者（latitudinarians）和异端（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."

为什么我们必须拒绝圣经“独唱”

Why "Solo" Scriptura Must Be Rejected

修正主义者圣经“独唱”的教义，是如此深入到现代的教会中，今日许多新教的基督徒，仍然会情感丰富地更加同情以上所摘录的自由派与极端派的牧师的话，而不是同意改教家的教导。然而，圣经“独唱”的教义，在今天的问题与危险，和过去几个世纪一样。它仍然是不合圣经的，不合逻辑的，也是无法实践的。下面我要说明的是更明显的问题。

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.

圣经“独唱”最根本的问题是它会导致人的自主（autonomy）。它带来的后果是最后的权威会被神的话以外的东西所取代。它的问题与罗马天主教的教义具有同样的问题。唯一的差别是罗马天主教把最后的权威交给教会，而圣经“独唱”把最后的权威交给个别的信徒。所有的教义与信仰实践都要用一个最后的标准来衡量，而此最后的标准就是个别信徒的个人判断，哪些符合圣经，哪些不符合圣经。结果是主观主义与相对主义。然而，改教家诉诸“唯独圣经”的意思，从来不是“唯独我自己”。

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."

圣经本身显然没有教导圣经“独唱”。基督以权柄的结构设立祂的教会，并赐给祂的教会一些特别被任命从事神的话语的职事的人（徒6：2-4）。如果有争议兴起，使徒并没有吩咐个别的信徒回家，让他们自己决定谁是对的。他们举行了一个会议（徒15：6-29）。即使是在最著名的例子中的庇哩亚人，也不支持圣经“独唱”（参见徒17：10-11；另参1-9节）。保罗并没有吩咐个别的庇哩亚人回家，自己决定他所教导的是否是真的。反而，庇哩亚人天天和保罗一起考查旧约圣经，好看看他关于弥赛亚的教导是否是真的。

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.

至于释经法，圣经“独唱”的教义也是毫无盼望的。只靠圣经“独唱”，圣经的解释会变成全然主观化、相对化，也没有解决差异的可能。这的确是事实，即圣经有许多部分有各种不同的解释。持守圣经“独唱”的人被教导说，这些不同的解释只要回到圣经就可以得到解答。但是这个有不同解释的问题，如何能靠诉诸其他的解释来解决呢？每个诉诸圣经的人，都是诉诸圣经的解释。唯一真正的问题是：诉诸谁的解释？对圣经有不同解释的人，不可能把圣经直接摊在桌上，要圣经解决他们的差异。圣经要作为权威，必须被某个人阅读，被某个人所解释。根据圣经“独唱”的原则，这个“某个人”就是每个个人，所以，最终的结果是，有多少解释圣经的人，就有多少最终的权威。这是主观主义和相对主义的横行。圣经“独唱”的倡导者正确地定罪罗马教会对解经的暴政，但是解决解经暴政的方法不是解经的无政府主义。

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.

圣经“独唱”的教义也要面对一个历史的难题。即这个教义与第一世纪的教会以及之后的几个世纪的教会内的真实情况无法调和。如果圣经“独唱”是真的，那么，在很多年中，大多数的教会都没有真理的标准。在第一世纪中，人们无法走进他当地的基督教书店去买一本圣经。当时圣经书卷的是手抄的，不是每个信徒的家中都有。新约圣经的第一卷书卷甚至直到基督遇难后十年，还没有完成。逐渐地，有些教会开始获得一些书卷，而其他教会有其他的书卷。直到许多年之后，我们现知的新约圣经才被完整地收集起来。即便在当时，这些经卷也是手抄的，不是每个基督徒的家中都会有。如果个别的人要靠自己根据圣经来判断并评估所有的事，如同圣经“独唱”的倡导者所说的，这个原则如何在第一世纪，在新约圣经还没有完成之前得到实践呢？

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?

有关圣经“独唱”最明显的问题是正典的问题。如果有人要说圣经无论如何是唯一的权威，那么，一个合理的问题就是：我们如何决定什么是“圣经”，什么不是“圣经”? 圣经“独唱”的倡导者宣称圣经是有权威的，但是却无法以权威说出圣经是什么。圣经前面的目录本身不是神默示先知或使徒写下来的，而是，在真正的意义上来说，是一个教会的信条，宣告教会相信这是圣经的内容（译按，例如，比利时信条，威敏思特信仰告白就明白列出这些经卷的名称）。说明圣经“独唱”面对的有关正典的问题的一种方法是只须要问以下的问题：圣经“独唱”要如何处理现代的马吉安（Marcion。译按：第二世纪的异端，否认旧约是圣经正典的一部分）？例如，圣经“独唱”的倡导者要如何和一个宣称真正的新约圣经只包括路加福音，使徒行传，罗马书和启示录的人争辩？他无法诉诸教会，历史或传统。一个圣经“独唱”的持守者，如果是前后一致的，他就无法回应这种观点，因为，如同一位立场一致的这种信念的持守者在私人的通信中告诉我的，这是每个个别的基督徒的权利和义务，要靠自己、为自己决定哪一卷圣经的书卷是正典。对圣经“独唱”的倡导者来说，这是唯一能够采取的前后一致的立场。但这是自打嘴巴，因为它摧毁了任何圣经是客观的观念。例如，如果每个人靠自己、为自己决定罗马书是否实际上是正典，是有权威的圣经的书卷，人们就不能诉诸罗马书具有圣经的权威。

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.

正典的问题不是圣经“独唱”所引起的唯一的神学问题。另一个很严重的问题是采用圣经“独唱”的观念事实上会摧毁一个可能性，就是存在一个客观的定义，可以界定什么是基督教，什么不是基督教。圣经“独唱”会彻底摧毁正统和异端的概念。如果拒绝大公信条的权威，让每个个别的信徒自己决定所有教义的问题，那么，所有正统和异端的定义就完全是相对的，和主观的。一个人认为三位一体的教义是合乎圣经的；另一个人则认为这不合圣经。一个人认为敞开神学是合乎圣经的，另一个人则认为它不合圣经。对所有其他的教义也是如此。每个人都可以根据自己的喜好，来定义基督教。最后，我们必须了解，圣经“独唱”会忽略现实。圣经并不是直接从天上直接就空投到我们的怀中的。若不是许多人，包括考古学家，语言学家，抄写圣经的文士，经文鉴别学家，历史学家，翻译者，还有更多人的努力，我们甚至无法靠自己阅读圣经。如果圣经“独唱”的观点是正确的，那么，直接把没有翻译过的、古代的希伯来文和希腊文圣经、旁经和伪经的抄本给地球上一些与世隔绝的部落的人读，就是可能的。他们不需要任何人的协助，可以学会希伯来文和希腊文，可以阅读各种的抄本，自己决定哪些是正典，然后获得一个正统的，对基督教信仰的理解。然而，这所以是不可能的原因，正是因为圣经“独唱”是不正确的。这是不合圣经的，对真理的扭曲。

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.

修正主义者之圣经“独唱”的观念，已经对基督的大业造成了很大的伤害。具有权柄的改教家拒绝这种早期版本是正确的。这些早期版本已经出现在一些极端分子的教导中。改教家当代的子孙必须在这点上跟随这些改教家的脚踪。这场战争必须从两个阵线上来打。我们不只是要拒绝罗马天主教的教义（无论是双重来源的传统2的教义，或唯独教会的传统3的教义），就是把最终的、自主的权威交给教会。我们也要拒绝修正主义者圣经“独唱”的教义。这个教义把最终的、自主的权威交在所有个别的基督徒手上。

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).