作者: Kevin DeYoung 翻译: 骆鸿铭
诚之按：许多基督徒基于许多理由，有着根深蒂固的想法，不赞成用（系统）神学来影响我们的解经，例如这句话：“神学已经被人们发展得太复杂了，还不如回归圣经”。但是什么叫“回归圣经”呢？基督徒都愿意回归圣经，但是确切的说，我们只能说，“根据我对圣经的理解”，而不能说“根据圣经”，因为我们对神、对圣经的认识，永远无法达到像神对自己的认识，和对圣经（神的话本身）的认识一样的高度。这就是归正神学家非常强调我们要区分原型神学和复本神学（archetype theology
vs ectypal theology）的区分的原因。但是，归正神学家也强调，我们对神、对圣经，不是一无所知的，在基督再来、我们得荣耀（包括我们的知识得荣耀）之前，我们固然是“对着镜子观看，模糊不清”（林前13：12），是有限的，模糊的，但是神的启示是清楚明白的，通过历代敬虔圣徒的努力，以及圣灵在历代教会的带领，我们对神神、对圣经还是有一定的把握的（例如历代的信条和神学总结，都给我们指出一定的方向和准则）。这就牵涉到对历代圣徒所累积的神学知识有一定的认识，换句话说，就是神学的功夫。
Kevin
DeYoung 在这篇博文中，引用了 Moises Silva（OPC牧师，曾在WTS担任圣经科教授多年） 的说法，说明解经必须受到系统神学的指导：
1. 系统神学的目的是力图在当代的背景下，以一种有意义，可以让当代人理解的方式重塑圣经的教导。系统神学的类别（categories ）不是静态的，而是会随着时代而变化的。但是系统神学基本上是处理历世历代基督徒最感兴趣的题目。如果把系统神学排除在解经的过程之外，实际上会让解释出来的经文，变成与我们的时代不相干。
“In the
first place, we should remind ourselves that systematic theology is, to a large
extent, the attempt to reformulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that are
meaningful and understandable to us in our present context” (208). There are
many learned commentaries that fail the preacher, let alone the parishoner,
because they refuse to ask any of the questions real people are asking. They
dive into history, philology, and redaction criticism, but won’t talk about
what this or that passage means for our view of marriage or our understanding
of the devil or our belief in providence. The categories of systematic theology
are not static. Some loci wax and wane with the times. But in general,
systematic theology deals with the questions Christians have been most interested
in discussing over the years or centuries. To set aside theology in the task of
exegesis is an invitation to make exegesis irrelevant.
2. 福音派的信念认为圣经是统一的，这就要求我们把整部圣经当作每一部分的前后文。在解经的过程中必须持守“the analogy of
faith”（信仰的类比）的原则（译按：请参考这篇文章），否则就是“忽略了我们所拥有的最重要的释经资源，即神的启示的统一性和完整性。”
2.
“In the second place, our evangelical view of the unity of Scripture demands
that we see the whole Bible as the context of any one part” (208). The current
debate about Adam, to cite just one example, demonstrates how critical the
unity of Scripture is in shaping our exegetical method. If we believe–in the
midst of genuine biblical diversity–there is behind each unique human author
one Divine author, then we will be concerned to see how the different voices in
Scripture make one harmonious sound. So if Romans teaches the doctrine of
original sin rooted in a historical Adam we will not be embarrassed to bring
this consideration to bear on our understanding of Genesis, not in a way that
ignores everything else going in ancient Mesopotamia but in a way that informs
our understanding of God’s inspired, unified Word. Of course, eisegesis is a
danger which is why some scholars want to set aside “the analogy of faith” in
the exegetical process. But to do so, Silva reminds us, “is to neglect the most
important hermeneutical resource we have, namely, the unity and wholeness of
God’s own revelation” (209).
3. 每个人都有自己的“系统神学”。后现代主义在这点上是对的：没有人是一种完全没有偏见的方式、在真空中解经的。所有的人都是以一种世界观，一种思想架构来看经文的，这是头脑运作的方式，也是神给我们的礼物，让学习成为可能。缺乏系统神学，很多经文就无法得到理解。作为基督徒，我希望我的神学是开放的，可以随时修正。但是作为一个牧者，我必须以一种系统神学为起点。每个人都是这样作的。对我而言，这意味着我是以归正神学和我的认信传统（即归正的信条）为起点的，并且尽力去持守，除非我找到更好的系统，有足够的理由去更新这个传统。
3.
“Third, and finally, my proposal will sound a lot less shocking once we
remember that, as a matter of fact, everyone does it anyway” (209). If
postmodernism has taught us anything it is that none of us comes to a text with
a completely unbiased, blank slate. We come to the exegetical task for a
framework, with a way of looking at the world, with a system. This is how the
mind works and one of God’s gifts which make learning possible. It also makes
the preacher’s herculean task more feasible. Without a systematic theology how
can you begin to know what to do with the eschatology of Ezekiel or the
sacramental language in John 6 or the psalmist’s insistence that he is
righteous and blameless? As a Christian I hope that my theology is open to
correction, but as a minister I have to start somewhere. We all do. For me that
means starting with Reformed theology and my confessional tradition and
sticking with that unless I have really good reason not to.
所以，与其假装我们在神学上是中立的、没有偏见的，倒不如承认我们自己的预设，并将之应用在解经的过程。如果我们够诚实，承认我们的神学系统，我们才有办法在这个系统出了问题时，重新建构这个系统，也才能开放地处理圣经经文中的难点。系统神学未必会扭曲经文，如果善加利用，系统神学会在诠释的过程中提供围栏，维护圣经的统一性，并且在一些（从神的话而来的）最重要和最困难的议题上投下亮光。
So
rather than pretend to be theologically unprejudiced, why not acknowledge our
own preconceptions and use them in the exegetical process? If we are honest
about our theological systems we will be better equipped to reformulate our
grid when it doesn’t work and better equipped to deal openly with the hard
spots in the text. Without a system we will approach a passage like James 2:24
and get it wrong; or just as likely, we will ignore the difficult questions
exploding in everyone’s brains. Theology does not have to distort exegesis.
Done well, it can help provide guardrails for the interpretive process, honor
the unity of Scripture, and throw a spotlight on the most important and most
difficult issues arising from the Word of God.
