愛與邏輯 Love and Logic
作者: Joseph Torres 譯者: 駱鴻銘
愛和邏輯之間有什麼關連呢？我們所熟悉的畫面是它們是對立的。愛是溫暖的、擁抱人的、有人情味的。邏輯則剛好相反，是冷酷的、與人保持距離的，也是不講人情的。大致說來，基督徒思想家，尤其是護教學家，必須準備好要反駁這類的嘲諷。對一個想要訓練自己成為一個擁有強健思想的基督門徒的人來說，這種看法是虛假的，也是危險的。What is the
relationship between love and logic? The picture many of us are used to is one
of opposition. Love is warm, embracing, and personal. Logic, on the other hand,
is cold, distancing, and impersonal. Christian thinkers in general, and
apologists in specific, must be ready to counter this caricature. It is both
biblical false and dangerous to a robust Christian discipleship of the mind.
聖經的例證Biblical Examples
福音書裏的例子。已經有不少著作具體說明了耶穌自己如何使用敏銳的批判性思考。儘管我們要有基督的樣式，其意義也許或多過這點，但至少不會少於這點。以下是一些例子：The Example of the
Gospels. Several pieces have been written clarifying specific ways in which
Jesus himself employed sharp critical thinking. While our Christlikeness may
mean more than this, it certainly does not mean less. Here are some examples:
魏德樂（Dallas Willard）：《耶穌與邏輯學家》（Jesus The Logician）
莫蘭德（J. P. Moreland）:《耶穌如何與人辯論？耶穌與邏輯》（How Did Jesus
Argue? Jesus & Logic）
米勒（Dave Miller）：《耶穌使用邏輯》（Jesus Used Logic）
格魯休斯（Douglas Groothius）：《論耶穌》（On Jesus）
Jesus
The Logician – Dallas Willard
How
Did Jesus Argue? Jesus & Logic – J. P. Moreland
Jesus
Used Logic – Dave Miller
On
Jesus, by Douglas Groothius
福音書在描繪耶穌時，經常使用邏輯的論證。我們該如何處理馬太福音經常出現的「這是要應驗……」這句話呢？這些經節的邏輯如下：「耶穌是猶太人的彌賽亞，這就是你們為什麼必須相信的原因。」The Gospels often
present logical reasons for their portraits of Jesus. How best should we handle
passages in Matthew which say, “this was done in
fulfillment of…”? The logic of
these passage is as follows: “Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and this is why you
should believe it.”
保羅的榜樣。如果用推理來說明我們的信仰——目的是說服不信的人——是錯誤的想法，那麼，我們應該如何處理使徒行傳裏所說的保羅與其他人辯論，要說服他們相信他所傳的信息的經文呢（徒十八4，廿六28，廿八24；另比較林後五11）？保羅書信是詳細的論證，以支持某些結論。因此，在加拉太書裏，保羅論證說你不能在基督救贖的工作上加上你的善行，並且花了好幾章的篇幅提出仔細的論證來支持他的聲明。The Example of
Paul. If a reasoned articulation of our faith, one with the goal of persuading
unbelievers, is wrong-headed how best should we handle the biblical passages in
Acts that say that Paul “reasoned” with others to convince them of his message
(such as Acts 18:4, 26:28, 28:24, compare also 2 Cor. 5:11)? Paul’s epistles
are extended arguments in favor of certain conclusions. So, in Galatians,
Paul’s argue you cannot add your good works to the atonement of Christ, and
spends several chapters presenting carefully reasoned arguments to support his
claim.
實際的考量Practical
Considerations.
上帝所配合的，基督徒絕對不可分開：思想真理，心向真神（A heart for God and
a mind for truth）（這是RTS的校訓）。我們在傳福音時，可以、也必須和「爭辯」結合在一起，用福音的真理來說服人。我不用「調和」這個字，因為我不相信理性、邏輯、論證必須和我們內心感受到的信仰加以調和，好像它們是彼此矛盾的一樣！（註1）Christians should never separate what God has
united: A heart for God and a mind for truth (The RTS motto). Our proclaiming
the gospel can and should be combined with “arguing for,” and persuading people
of its truth. I don’t use the word reconcile, because I don’t believe that
reason, logic, and argument need to be reconciled with heart-felt faith …they
aren’t at odds![i]
當不信的人用「邏輯」來反對其根基，當然是誤用了邏輯（註2），但是這並不代表基督徒就失去了使用上帝所賜的這個極佳禮物的資格。再次說，事實上，這種論證的思路，說要放棄不信的人所誤用的，實在是過頭了。這是意味著我們不再能使用音樂來傳福音的真理，因為不信的人也同樣用音樂來傳播錯誤的世界觀。這也意味著基督徒不再能用戲劇、詩歌，或小說，因為它們都是這個世界用來傳遞他們（和其他宗教）虛假的信仰系統的技巧。這就是這種思路的結果。Unbelievers
certainly misuse “logic” when they turn it against its very
foundation[ii], that doesn’t mean that Christians are disqualified from
utilizing this good gift of God. In fact, again, the line of reasoning that
abandons things unbelievers misuse proves much too much. This would mean no
longer using music as a means of conveying gospel truth because unbelievers
likewise employ music to communicate false worldviews. It would also mean that
Christians may no longer use theatre, poetry, or allegorical writings because
they are all tactics the world (and other religions) use to convey their false
belief systems. This where this line of thinking takes us.
不要誤以為我是在提倡一種冷漠的、乾巴巴的理智主義，這完全不是事實。當我試圖改善我的思想，讓它更加敏銳時，我就是在榮耀上帝。我乃是全心全意相信聖經是上帝的話，因此可以站立得住，抵擋那些反對上帝話語的人，所謂的「理性上」的攻擊。我相信最好的思想會說明、證明、符合聖經所有的內容，也與聖經的內容一致。我是不是已經解決了所有的難題，也能安全地告訴不信的人，已經不再有任何挑戰了，才相信這點的呢？不！我乃是信靠基督，以及聖經所教導的一切，因為他們都是上帝所啟示的。我相信這些，是因為上帝打開我的心，讓我悔罪，也賜給我新的眼睛看見祂的世界。聖靈已經剝去我眼睛上的鱗片，向我證明基督的美麗，祂就是「所積蓄的一切智慧知識，都在祂裡面藏著」的那位（西二3）。Don’t get the impression that I’m advocating a heartless, dry intellectualism. That is
simply not the case. When I seek to sharpen and improve my thinking, I seek to
honor God. I believe with all my heart that Scripture is God’s word, and can
therefore stand up to all supposed “intellectual” attacks made by those who
oppose it. I believe that the best thinking shows, demonstrates, coheres with,
and is in accordance with everything that we find in the Bible. Do I believe this because I’ve worked out all
of the problems and can safely tell unbelievers that there are no challenges?
No! I believe in Christ, and all that Scripture teaches because God has
revealed them. I believe these things
because God has opened my heart, causing me to repent of my sin, and has given
me new eyes to see His world. The Holy Spirit has taken the scales off my eyes,
shown me the beauty of Christ as the One in whom “are hidden all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
護教上的考量Apologetic
Considerations.
當我們把推理應用在護教學上面的時候，我們必須記得，儘管我們的論證很有說服力，但是若我們說的話沒有伴隨著愛心，它們就是：1) 對不信的人的不實陳述（彷彿基督信仰是冷酷無情的信仰）；2) 不討上帝喜悅的。一個在生發仁愛的心上沒有功效的信仰（加五5）是死的，也是毫無益處的（雅二14）。在和信徒或非信徒在作個人談話時，我們絕不可提倡一種冷酷無情、缺乏愛心的方法，單單訴諸歷史或邏輯。When applying our
reasoning to apologetics, we should remember that regardless of how persuasive
we are, when our words are not accompanied by love they are both 1) a
misrepresentation to the unbeliever (as if Christianity is a heartless faith),
and 2) displeasing to God. A faith that does not work itself out in love (Gal.
5:6) is both dead and useless (James 2:14). We should never, in personal
conversation with either believer or unbeliever, advocate a heartless, loveless
appeal to history or logic.
試著說服人基督信仰是真信仰是壞事嗎？如果我們從聖經得到線索，其答案是否定的。猶大書告訴我們要「為從前一次交付聖徒的真道竭力的爭辯」（猶3），保羅教導提摩太要「勸戒那抵擋的人」（提後二25），聖經對「督責、使人歸正」（提後三16），以及「用百般的忍耐，各樣的教訓，責備人、警戒人、勸勉人」（提後四2）是有益的。保羅也教導提多，長老必須能「堅守所教真實的道理，就能將純正的教訓勸化人，又能把爭辯的人駁倒了」（多一9），並且要能「堵住」那些假教師的口（多一11）。聖經中所有這些經文都吩咐我們，在適當的時候，要爭辯、讚揚、提倡，並「辯論」說聖經對上帝、世界、人、基督等等的理解是正確的。我們必須嚴肅認真地看待這些聖經經文。Is trying to
persuade people that Christianity is true a bad thing? Not if we take our queue
from the Bible. Jude tells us to “contend for the
faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), Paul instructs Timothy to “correct
opponents” (2 Tim. 2:25), that Scripture is profitable for “correction and
reproof” (2 Tim. 3:16), as well as to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with
complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). Like to Titus Paul teaches that
Elders must “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be
able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who
contradict it (Titus 1:9),” and that false teaches “must be silenced” (Titus
1:11). All of these verses in the pages
of God’s word command us to, at appropriate times, contend, commend, advocate,
and “argue” that the biblical understanding of God, the world, man, sin,
Christ, etc. is correct. These are biblical passages that must be taken
seriously.
在我們信仰的事情上拒絕使用理性和論證，是所謂的「唯信主義」（fedeism；或譯為信心主義）。唯信主義將我們的信仰變成一種非理性的、或與理性無關的信仰。基督徒不應該在盲目的信心上接受基督教。那種把基督信仰的真理建立在人的主觀看法的唯信主義式的信念（因為他們強烈地感受到這種信念），是走過頭了。末世聖徒教會的信徒也許宣稱他們真的、真心相信約瑟·斯密（Joseph Smith）是上帝的先知，但是單單相信這點並不會讓摩門教就變成一個真宗教。穆斯林也許全心全意宣稱他們相信穆罕默德是阿拉的先知，但是這並不會讓伊斯蘭變成一個真宗教。To reject the use
of rationality and reason in matters of our faith is known as fideism. Fideism presents our faith as either an
irrational or non-rational. No Christian should accept Christianity based on
blind faith. The kind of fideistic conviction that grounds the truth of Christianity
in one’s subjectivity (i.e. because they feel strongly about it) proves too
much. A Latter-day Saint may claim that they truly, truly believe Joseph Smith
is a prophet of God, but simply believing it doesn’t make Mormonism true. A
Muslim may claim with all their heart that they believe Mohamed was the prophet
of Allah, but this doesn’t make Islam true.
糟糕的哲學帶來的危害The Danger of Bad
Philosophy
再次說，邏輯本身不是有罪的。開發一個人的分析能力純粹只是在訓練清晰的思考，並避免在推理時犯錯誤而已。它能夠、也必須按照榮耀上帝的方式來使用。常常被引用來反對「哲學」重要性的聖經經文，例如林前一、二章，當然是正確的。我們必須避免空洞和世俗的哲學。但是我們也要看這些經節的上下文。保羅在這些經文中所強調的可以被簡化成幾個要點：1) 福音真理不能被簡化或解釋為只是「漂亮話（fancy-talking）」（即保羅所謂的「委婉的話語」，「世上的智慧，等等」；2) 不信者通過把上帝賜給他們的恩賜（思考的能力），用來反對上帝，證明了他們是敵對上帝的。Once again: logic
is not inherently sinful. Developing one’s analytical abilities is simply the discipline of
thinking clearly and avoiding mistakes in reasoning. It can, and must, be used
in a God-honoring fashion. Biblical passage frequently cited to dismiss the
importance of “philosophy,” like 1 Cor. 1-2, are of course, all true. Let’s
avoid hollow and worldview philosophy. But let’s also look at the context of
such passages. The point Paul is making in all of those verses can be reduced
to a few simple points: 1) the truth of the gospel cannot be reduced or
explained merely be “fancy-talking” (what Paul calls “persuasive words,”
“worldly wisdom,” etc), and 2) unbelievers show their hostility to God by
taking a gift that He has given them (the capacity to think) and trying to use
it against Him.
同樣地，保羅在歌羅西書中說到，「你們要謹慎，恐怕有人用他的理學和虛空的妄言，不照著基督，乃照人間的遺傳和世上的小學就把你們擄去」。 這節經文雖然經常被認為是要人完全排除學習哲學、邏輯，等等，實際上並非如此。這節經文要教導的是如果「不照著基督」的方式，就不要去學習這些。因此，信徒應該試著增進他們的推理能力，恰恰是因為他們要尊崇賜給他們這個能力的上帝，我們應當反射祂公義的思想。Likewise, in
Colossians, Paul says, “See to it that no
one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human
tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according
to Christ” (Col. 2:8). This verse, though commonly thought to rule out learning
philosophy, logic, etc. altogether, actually does no such thing. What this verse does do, however, is rule out
doing these things when done “not according to Christ.” So, believers should
seek to sharpen their reasoning abilities precisely because they seek to honor
the Lord who gave them this capacity and whose righteous thinking we are to
reflect.
保羅告訴基督徒不要效法這個世界，而要心意更新而變化（羅十二2）。保羅在這裏是說到在羅馬書前十一章所談到的罪、恩典、稱義，和上帝揀選的奧秘的偉大真理。法利賽人和他們的同黨並不是真的在和基督辯論，他們只是想要合理化他們的律法主義。這是很大的不同。這是惡質的、錯誤百出的、不敬虔的思想和屬靈的背叛，使他們反對上帝無罪的兒子。倘若我們把它怪罪到「邏輯」的頭上，讓我們也可以同意說，這是「不照著基督」的邏輯。邏輯不是人自己發明的，而是反映出上帝的心思，而祂的思慮是清晰的、統一的，毫無差錯或混亂。Paul tells Christians
not be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our
mind (Rom. 12:2). Here Paul is speaking of the great truths of sin, grace,
justification, and the mystery of God’s election covered in the first 11
chapters of Romans. The Pharisees and their ilk didn’t truly reason with
Christ, they tried to rationalize their legalism. Big difference. It was bad,
flawed, and ungodly thinking and spiritual rebellion that caused them to oppose
the sinless Son of God. If we blame it on “logic,” then let’s agree that it was
logic “not according to Christ.” Logic is not something man made, but rather
reflects the mind of God whose thinking is clear, unified, and without error or
confusion.
總結Conclusion
最後，我不是在提倡一種理性主義者的宗教。我認為思想真理和心向上帝都是必要的。批判性思考和活潑的信仰不是對立的。愛和仔細的推理同樣都可以為基督作見證。它們的作用就像是剪刀的兩個刀刃。吩咐我們「用愛心說誠實話」的同一位保羅也說到，要「將各樣的計謀，各樣攔阻人認識神的那些自高之事，一概攻破了，又將人所有的心意奪回，使他都順服基督。」（林後十5）In conclusion, I’m not advocating an intellectualist religion. I think
both are needed, a heart for God and a mind for truth. Thinking critically is not opposed to a
vibrant faith. Love and careful reasoning are both useful in testifying to
Christ. They work like the two blades on a pair of scissors. The same Paul that
commanded that we “speak the truth in love” also said, “We destroy arguments
and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every
thought captive to obey Christ…” (2 Cor. 10:5).
註：
[i]我不會把一個「辯論」定義為熱切的討論，而是為我們所珍惜的信念提供清楚的理據。
[ii]如同我先前說過的，我不認為這是邏輯的正確用法。
[i] I
don’t define an “argument” as a heated discussion, but rather providing clear
reasons for the convictions we hold dear.
[ii]
Though, as I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s the proper use of logic.
