巴特之後的聖經無誤 Inerrancy after Barth
摘錄自邁克何頓（Michael Horton）著，麥種翻譯小組譯，《基督徒的信仰》（麥種，2016年九月），第4章
Chapter
Four SCRIPTURE AS COVENANT CANON
3)
The Truthfulness of Scripture (p. 173)
b)
Inerrancy after Barth https://akowcm.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/%E5%B7%B4%E7%89%B9%E4%B9%8B%E5%BE%8C%E7%9A%84%E8%81%96%E7%B6%93%E7%84%A1%E8%AA%A4/
鑒於阿奇博赫治和華腓德以及其他人對逐字默示作出了認真的系統闡述，像陶德（C. H. Dodd）這位富批判性的新約聖經學者一樣顯赫的人物，依然繼續誤解或扭曲完全逐字默示的概念，實在令人驚訝。[1] 對聖經無誤的辯論，在一般美國更正教內部，尤其是在美國福音派內部，大多是老普林斯頓和巴特之間的衝突。將前一種觀點和基要派觀點劃上等號，與將後一種觀點和自由派（或現代主義）觀點劃上等號，都只能被看作是醜化的做法。但基要派和自由派的立場都與更正教正統信仰頗為不同。In view of the
careful articulation of verbal inspiration by Hodge and Warfield, among others,
it is surprising that as eminent a figure as the critical New Testament scholar
C. H. Dodd could continue to misunderstand or misrepresent the concept of
verbal-plenary inspiration.96 The inerrancy debate in American Protestantism
generally and evangelicalism specifically is largely a controversy between Old
Princeton and Karl Barth. Both the identification of the former view with
fundamentalism and of the latter with liberalism (or modernism) can only be
considered caricatures. Nevertheless, both positions are quite different from
Protestant orthodoxy.
首先，巴特對聖經無誤的傳統論述的批評，源自他獨特的活動（actualist）本體論。因此，他關於聖經的邏輯可以用這三段論形式表達：(1) 神的存有乃是在行動中；(2) 啟示等同於神，因此永遠是一個事件（行動），絕非既有的交託物（a given deposit）；(3) 因此，聖經作為客體（也就是筆之於書的文本），不能直接等同於啟示。First, Barth’s criticism of the traditional accounts of
biblical inerrancy arises from his distinctive actualist ontology. Therefore,
his logic concerning Scripture might be put in the form of this syllogism: (1)
God’s being is in act; (2) revelation is identical with God and is therefore
always an event (action), never a given deposit; (3) therefore, Scripture, as
an object (i.e., written text), cannot be identified directly with revelation.
巴特反對田立克的觀點，主張神真的在聖經和講道中說話：「說話不是一種『象徵』。」[2] 但正如我們已經看到的，對巴特來說，啟示不僅是神的行動，也等同於神的本質（因神是行動中的存有）。因此，神的本質和受造的製成品之間沒有中間物，而我已經論證當用本質—能量的區分劃分出中間物。巴特論證說，由於啟示就是耶穌基督，我們可以論及「神的道，不只是作為宣講和聖經，而是作為神在宣講和聖經中的啟示……」（強調字體為引者標明）。[3] Against
Tillich, Barth maintains that God genuinely speaks in Scripture and in
preaching; “Speaking is not a ‘symbol.’”97 Nevertheless, as we have seen, for
Barth, revelation is not only God’s action, but is identical with God’s essence
(since God’s being is in act). Thus, there is no tertium quid between God’s
essence and a creaturely artifact, as I have argued there should be by drawing
on the essence-energies distinction. Since revelation simply is Jesus Christ,
Barth argues, we may speak of “the Word of God not as proclamation and
Scripture alone but as God’s revelation in proclamation and Scripture …”
(emphasis added).98
不過，正如華得（Timothy Ward）指出的：「這樣將啟示等同於耶穌基督自己，與較早時宣稱啟示『本身』是言說，兩者之間似乎存在矛盾。啟示怎能是一位又是言說？巴特似乎留意到這難題。他要肯定神的道的「位格化」，而又不將它「非言語化」。但他害怕將啟示變成「客體或物」，似乎勝過他想要確定它是言說的關注。[4] 因此，巴特總結說：「按其本身來說，聖經不是神過去的啟示，」它雖然具有規範作用，卻是人為啟示所作之可能有誤的見證。[5] 否則，我們就是把神（啟示）變為一種人的佔有物。「在神使聖經成為祂的聖言，和在祂藉著聖經說話的這種意義上，聖經是神的道。」[6] However, as
Timothy Ward points out, “There seems to be a
contradiction between this equation of revelation with the person of Jesus
Christ and the earlier claim that revelation is speech ‘in and of itself as such.’” How can revelation be a person and speech? Barth
seems aware of the problem. He wants to affirm the “personalizing” of the Word
of God without “deverbalizing” it. Yet his fear of making revelation into an
“object or thing” seems to triumph over his concern to affirm it as speech.99
Therefore, Barth concludes, “The Bible is not in itself and as such God’s past
revelation,” but is a fallible, though normative, human witness to
revelation.100 Otherwise, we will make God (revelation) a human possession.
“The Bible is God’s Word to the extent that God causes it to be his Word, to
the extent that He speaks through it.”101
華得回答說，人並不比言語會少受到企圖控制和掌控的影響。宗教領袖和群眾一再嘗試要控制耶穌──這在把祂釘十字架這件事上最明顯表現出來。Ward replies that
persons are no less susceptible to attempts to control and master than are words.
Jesus was subjected to repeated attempts of the religious leaders and crowds to
gain mastery over him — most notably, in the crucifixion
因此，「佔有不是閱讀和詮釋的必然後果。」我們可以憑信心和順服閱讀並聆聽耶穌基督，正如門徒跟隨成了肉身的道一樣。[7] Therefore, “possession is not a necessary corollary of
reading and interpretation.” One may read and
hear Jesus Christ in faith and obedience, just as the disciples followed the
Incarnate Word.102
第二，對巴特而言，神在自我啟示中向我們說話時，採取那「被帕子遮蓋」（受造）的形式，它不僅必然有謬誤，更是墮落的。巴特的神學沒有為未墮落的人性留下空間。事實上，他主張，為了讓耶穌的成為肉身能以完整，子所取的人性本質是有罪的，雖然耶穌自己沒有犯任何罪。[8] 但是在聖經中，耶穌的人性──包括軟弱、受苦和受試探──與罪並沒有必然的聯繫。耶穌基督「曾凡事受過試探，與我們一樣，只是祂沒有犯罪」（來四15；最後一句，參《恢復本》「只是祂沒有罪」）。罪性是人性的附屬品，而不是人性的本質。因此，人性（就其本身來說）和錯誤之間並無內在固有的關係。神可以藉著軟弱、有限、受限的受造物和我們聯絡，以複本的真理俯就我們的能力，同時卻以祂的聖靈保守這啟示免於錯誤。因此，我們毋需接受這種只能在以下兩者之間二選一的錯誤選擇：單義地對應著神的思想的百科全書般的命題，和只是多義地與神的道有關、純粹是人為基督所作的見證。基督如何，聖經也是一樣：軟弱並不必然意味著失敗。如果不朽的神取了我們必朽的人性，卻未降服在真正的試探之下，那麼這同一位神肯定知道怎樣藉著有罪的使者啟示祂自己，保守他們寫的聖經不會有錯，卻絲毫不削弱聖經的受造性。Second, for Barth,
the “veiled” (creaturely) form in which God addresses us in self-revelation is
not only necessarily fallible but fallen. There is no room in Barth’s theology
for an unfallen human nature. In fact, he held that in order for Jesus’
incarnation to be complete, the human nature that the Son assumed was
inherently sinful, although Jesus was not guilty of any personal sins.103
However, there is no necessary correlation in Scripture between Jesus’ humanity
— including weakness, suffering, and temptation — and sin. Jesus Christ “in
every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15).
Sinfulness is including weakness, suffering, and temptation — and sin. Jesus
Christ “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb
4:15). Sinfulness is accidental rather than essential to human nature.
Consequently, there is no inherent relationship of humanity (as such) and
error. God can reach us through frail, finite, limited creatures with ectypal
truth accommodated to our capacity while preserving that revelation from error
by his Spirit. Thus, we need not accept the false choice between an encyclopedia
of propositions that correspond univocally to God’s mind and a merely human
testimony to Christ that is related only equivocally to God’s Word. As with
Christ, so also with Scripture: frailty does not entail failure. If the
immortal God assumed our mortal humanity without surrendering to genuine
temptation, then surely the same God knows how to reveal himself through sinful
ambassadors, preserving their sacred writings from error without diminishing
their creatureliness in the slightest degree.
第三，正如我們所見，神在單一的啟示事件中親自對一個人說話，巴特傾向於在該啟示中將默示壓縮到光照裏。對巴特而言，聖經是基督徒為啟示所作的見證，是具有規範性的，但我們很難明白，根據他的觀點，聖經如何能不只是出類拔萃（the first among
equals）──在量而非質上有別於教會的詮釋。因此，雖然他付出值得敬佩的努力，要將教會重新置於聖經的規範之下（Deus dixit!〔「神已經說話！」〕），這樣做的本體論理據仍然可疑。事實上，他拒絕直接把神的道和聖經這受造的言語劃上等號，反映出我們在激進重洗派、敬虔派和啟蒙運動思維中發現的「聖靈」與「字句」之間的二分法。Third, as we have
seen, Barth tends to collapse inspiration into illumination in a single event
of revelation in which God addresses an individual personally. The Scriptures
are for Barth the normative Christian witness to revelation, but it is
difficult to see how in his view the Bible could be more than the first among
equals — quantitatively but not qualitatively distinct from the church’s
interpretation. So, in spite of his noble labors to place the church back under
the norm of Scripture (Deus dixit! ["God has said!”]), the ontological
rationale for doing so remains questionable. Indeed, his refusal of any direct
identification of God’s Word with creaturely words of Scripture reflects the
dualism of “Spirit” and “letter” that we discover in radical Anabaptist,
pietist, and Enlightenment thinking.
有人已經努力嘗試要調和巴特的聖經教義與教會的傳統觀點，其中特別值得留意的是布洛許。[9] 他承認巴特的闡述太過尖銳地將道和言語分開，但卻論證說，「在強調聖靈的啟示工作時，〔巴特〕在這方面比現代基要主義更接近改教家的意圖。」[10] 布洛許意識到，更正教正統信仰「尋求維持對啟示和默示的動態觀點，」並避免基要主義否定人的一面的傾向。[11] 他正確地指出，基要主義的機械式觀點和「聖經關於神的單義語言」的信念之間的關係。後者「與過去大部分神學名人的立場不同，這些人主張人關於神的語言是隱喻性的，或者最多也只是類比性的。」[12] There have
been valiant attempts to reconcile Barth’s doctrine of Scripture with the church’s traditional view, among which that of Donald
Bloesch is especially notable.104 He allows that Barth’s formulation too sharply separated the Word from the words,
yet argues that “in his emphasis on the revealing work of the Spirit [Barth] is
closer to the intention of the Reformers than is modern fundamentalism in this
regard.”105 Bloesch realizes that Protestant orthodoxy “sought to maintain a
dynamic view of both revelation and inspiration” and eschewed fundamentalism’s
tendency to deny its human aspect.106 He correctly observes the correlation
between fundamentalism’s mechanical view and belief in “the univocal language
of Scripture concerning God, which contravenes the position of most theological
luminaries of the past who held that human language concerning God is either
metaphorical or at the most analogical.”107
雖然如此，布洛許依然重複對華腓德立場的那種流行的醜化觀點，他認為華腓德「不肯，往往也不願意肯定」聖經的人性，包括它「歷史制約的標記」。[13] 更有問題的是布洛許自己在調和上所做的嘗試。一方面，他寫道：「啟示既包括神在聖經歷史中自我啟示的事件，也包括先知和使徒對它們的詮釋。」另一方面，他補充說：「同時，我們絕不能推論說聖經中的命題陳述本身是〔神所〕啟示的，因這就令聖經成為與《可蘭經》同類的書，後者宣稱是完全屬神的。」[14] 把命題包括在其他言說行動中，成為啟示的一部分，為何就必然導致如伊斯蘭教看《可蘭經》那樣「完全屬神」的口授？我不清楚。我們若排除命題式陳述，又如何能前後一貫地堅持聖經──包括「先知和使徒」對神作為的「詮釋」──是神所默示的？如果聖經不能簡化為命題，排除這些陳述同樣是完全武斷的。Nevertheless,
Bloesch repeats the prevalent caricature of Warfield’s position when he suggests that the latter “is reluctant and often unwilling to affirm” the humanity of Scripture, including its
“marks of historical conditioning.”108 More problematic is Bloesch’s own
attempt at reconciliation. On one hand, he writes, “Revelation includes both
the events of divine self-disclosure in biblical history and their prophetic
and apostolic interpretation.” On the other hand, he adds, “At the same time we
must not infer that the propositional statements in the Bible are themselves
revealed, since this makes the Bible the same kind of book as the Koran, which
purports to be exclusively divine.”109 It is unclear to me how the inclusion of
propositions among other speech acts as part of revelation necessarily entails
an “exclusively divine” dictation, as Islam considers the Qur’an to be. How can
we maintain coherently that Scripture is inspired — including “prophetic and
apostolic interpretation” of divine acts — if we exclude propositional
statements? If Scripture cannot be reduced to propositions, it is just as
arbitrary to exclude such statements.
在一般福音派圈子裏，除非聖經無誤受到挑戰，人都認定情況如此，而不加以明確地詳細闡述。華腓德和阿奇博?赫治幫助闡述了這立場，而這立場在〈芝加哥聖經無誤宣言〉（Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy，1978）中更為正式地得到總結。[15] 像任何為了回應一種具體錯誤、或對信仰和實踐領域一種特定關注而形成的陳述一樣，聖經無誤教義也引來許多合理的問題和批評。但它其他的替代方案都不及它那樣令人滿意。聖潔、無誤和可信的父無論說什麼──完全只因這出於祂──都是聖潔、無誤和可信的；而且，神言說的內容不是別的，正是祂所賜下那永恆的子，祂為我們和我們的救恩成了肉身。因此，啟示不僅是歷久常新的事件，藉著聖經的見證發生；它還是成文的正典，為每一世代的聖約群體定下一份持久的、由聖靈呼出的保證和憲章。因此，基督教信仰真的是「那純正話語的規模」，和「從前所交託你的善道」，我們要「依靠那住在我們裏面的聖靈」，「牢牢地守著」（提後一13～14；參：提前六20）。它是一個啟示事件，不僅創造出我們的信心（fides qua creditor，也就是個人信心的舉動），按照猶大書第3節，它也以正典形式包含了「從前一次交付聖徒的真道」（fides quae creditur）。In evangelical circles
generally, inerrancy was assumed more than explicitly formulated until it was
challenged. Warfield and Hodge helped to articulate this position, which is
more formally summarized in the “Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978).110 Like any formulation developed in response to
a particular error or area of concern for faith and practice, the inerrancy
doctrine invites legitimate questions and critiques. However, its alternatives
are less satisfying. Whatever the holy, unerring, and faithful Father speaks is
— simply by virtue of having come from him — holy, unerring, and faithful. In
addition, the content of God’s speech is none other than the gift of the
eternal Son who became flesh for us and for our salvation. Revelation,
therefore, is not merely an ever-new event that occurs through the witness of
the Bible; it is a written canon, an abiding, Spirit-breathed deposit and
constitution for the covenant community in every generation. Thus, the Christian
faith is truly a “pattern of the sound words” and “the good deposit entrusted
to you” that we are to “guard” by means of “the Holy Spirit who dwells within
us” (2Ti 1:13 — 14; cf. 1Ti 6:20). It is an event of revelation that not only
creates our faith (fides qua creditor, i.e., the personal act of faith) but,
according to Jude 3, contains in canonical form “the faith that was once for
all delivered to the saints” (fides quae creditur).
[1]
C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (London: Collins, 1960), 14-15：「通常稱為『逐字默示』的理論是頗為明確的。它主張整本聖經是由一些著作組成的，其中每一個詞語（據推測是在我們永遠都接觸不到的原始手稿中）都直接由神『口授』，……因此它們傳達絕對的真理，沒有絲毫錯誤或相對性。」他認為，這是以十分否定歷史的方式使用默示這詞帶來的結果：「對原始宗教思想來說，『受默示』的人在超自然影響控制之下。」作為回應，我會說聖經原始的手稿不是「我們永遠都接觸不到的」，就好像其他得到良好印證的古代文本，它們有多個抄本流傳，可以加以比較，找出最可能的原始解讀。雖然華腓德和赫治明確拒絕一種機械式的觀點，陶德仍將他們的完全逐字默示論述簡化為「口授」，並將人的作用理解為好像靈魂出竅一樣。
[2]
Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pt. 1, 132-33。
[3] 同上，vol. 1, pt. 1, 132-37。
[4]
Timothy Ward, ‘The Sufficiency of
Scripture,” in Reformed
Theology in Contemporary Perspective (ed. Lynn Quickley; Edinburgh: Rutherford
House, 2006), 15。
[5]
Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pt. 1, 111-12。
[6] 同上，vol. 1, pt. 1, 109。
[7]
Ward, “Sufficiency of
Scripture,” 17-18。
[8]
Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, pt. 2, 510-12, 531。參Mark D. Thompson, “Witness to the Word: On Barth’s Doctrine of Scripture,” in Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical
Critiques (ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange; London: T&T Clark, 2008),
168-97。
[9]
Donald G. Bloesch, “The Primacy of
Scripture,” in The Authoritative
Word: Essay on the Nature of Scripture (ed. Donald McKim; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983), 118。但在幾處地方，他的論述屈從於矛盾之下。一方面，聖經「完全是神的道」，但又「不是啟示本身」（118）。布洛許作出以下補充時，更可能讓人思想混亂：「但我們必須進一步肯定，聖經不僅是人為啟示作的見證：它是啟示本身，通過人的言語傳達」（強調字體為引者標明）。布洛許嘗試調和這矛盾，就求助於光照這觀念：「聖經本身不是神給相信之人的啟示，而是它得到聖靈光照時才成為啟示。同時，除非它已經體現了啟示，除非它包括在啟示的事件中，否則它就不能成為啟示。聖經不僅（如卜仁納主張的那樣）是『指向啟示』，而是因著聖靈的行動，它正確承載著啟示，是『神聖真理的』工具或『管道』（韓客爾）」（119）。
[10] 同上，120。
[11] 同上，147。
[12] 同上。正如我們已經看到，這些神學家認為我們對神的知識是類比性的，但我不同意布洛許將他們的觀點描述為「隱喻性的」。
[13] 同上，149。
[14] 同上。
[15] 芝加哥宣言可以在R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone:
The Evangelical Doctrine (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R, 2005), 177-93和其他地方找到。