最終權威在哪裏？Where Does Ultimate AuthorityLie?
作者:
R.C. Sproul 譯者: Maria Marta
在神學和聖經研究中有一門學科，我們稱之為詮釋學。它是一門註釋聖經的學科。它教導規範我們對經文處理的客觀原則與規則，以免我們將聖經變成一塊粘土，可以按自己的喜好來捏造、定形，就像法利賽人所做的那樣。在改革宗神學中，詮釋學科的核心是信仰準則（regula fidei or
rule of faith），它是這樣說的：聖經的任何部分都不能與聖經的其他部分抵觸。第一個假設是整部聖經都是上帝的話。第二個假設是上帝的話非模淩兩可，祂在說話中所啟示的真理總是前後一致。有句諺語說：一致性是思想狹隘人士的魔障。若此言屬實，我們不得不說，能夠找到的最狹隘的思想就是上帝的思想。然而，我相信一致性是真理清晰性的標誌，上帝的話本身是前後一致的。
聖經的一部分和另一部分對立的明顯事例，只需看看耶穌在曠野裏受試探就可以了。在撒旦試圖試探耶穌時，牠對耶穌引用聖經。牠將耶穌帶到耶路撒冷聖殿的最高處，挑戰祂跳下去，說: 「主要為你吩咐他的使者用手托著你，免得你的腳碰在石頭上。」 此句話引自詩篇九十一篇11節（太四6），撒旦即是說: 「你可以跳下去，沒有什麽壞事會發生，因為上帝已經應許祂的天使會接住你。」耶穌回答說：「經上又記著說：『不可試探主你的神。』」（太四167; 申六16)。耶穌即是說: 「撒但，你違背信仰準則。你使用劣拙的釋經法。你把聖經和聖經對立起來。聖經說我不能試探神。如果我一定要聽從那句諺語，我就不認同你的建議。」 耶穌不允許撒但試探祂，使祂按一節從上帝整體的話的脈絡剝下來的經文來行動。
這就是耶穌在與法利賽人和文士爭論時處理的事情。他們的傳統造成種種漏洞，容許人擺脫上帝真理的明確教導。因此，耶穌說他們「藉著所領受的傳統，把神的話廢棄了。」 (可七13; 《聖經新譯本》)。
教會歷史上最大的神學爭議是16世紀的宗教改革。從表面上看，整個爭議似乎都是關於一個教義——唯獨藉著信心稱義，它乃福音本身。當馬丁路德與教會親王（天主教的樞機們，the princes of the
church）發生爭執時，他們提醒他，他對稱義的理解不是傳統上的理解，教會早就在不同的類別中解釋了稱義。但路德簡單回應: 「聖經是這麽說的。我的良心是上帝之道的俘虜。我必須服從聖經，而不是人為的傳統。」 所以，第二個問題是權威問題。
最終權威在哪裏? 僅在聖經中，還是在聖經和傳統中? 如果在聖經和傳統兩者中，那麽傳統就壓過一切，給予具約束力的聖經解釋。所以，實際上，沒有聖經和傳統兩個真正的權威源頭，而是傳統一個源頭，它變得比上帝的話本身更重要。
我不明白任何有知覺的受造物，是如何從閱讀新約的教導，尤其是保羅寫給羅馬人的信中關於稱義的教導中，得出任何類似於以傳統為基楚的羅馬天主教教義的觀點。但不僅僅羅馬天主教是這個問題的犧牲品。我們所有人都是。傳統與聖經之間，我們都傾向於更重視傳統。我們都很容易回顧並說道：「法利賽人可恥」，「拉比人可恥」，或者「中世紀的羅馬神學家可恥」。但我們只需看看我們自己的內心。上帝的聖言必須是所有神學和道德爭論的最終仲裁者。
This
excerpt is adapted from the Saint Andrew’s Expositional Commentary on Mark by
R.C. Sproul.
Where Does Ultimate Authority
Lie?
FROM
R.C. Sproul
There
is a science in theology and in biblical studies that we call hermeneutics. It
is the science of biblical interpretation. It teaches objective principles and
rules that govern our treatment of the text, lest we turn the Bible into a
piece of clay that we can shape and form for our own desires, as the Pharisees
did. At the heart of the science of hermeneutics in Reformed theology is the
regula fidei, or “the law of faith,” which says that no portion of Scripture
must ever be set against another portion of Scripture. The first assumption
here is that all of Scripture is the Word of God. The second assumption is that
God does not speak with a forked tongue, that what He reveals in His Word is
always consistent. It is sometimes said consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds. If that adage is true, we have to say that the tiniest mind to be found
is the mind of God. However, I believe consistency is the sign of clarity of
truth, and God’s Word is consistent with itself.
For a
glaring example of pitting one portion of Scripture against another, we need
look no farther than Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. When Satan tried to
seduce Jesus, he quoted Scripture to Him. He took Jesus to the pinnacle of the
temple in Jerusalem and dared Him to leap off, saying, “He shall give His
angels charge over you,” a quotation from Psalm 91:11 (Matt. 4:6). He was
saying to Jesus: “Throw Yourself down. Nothing bad will happen because God has
promised that His angels will catch You.” But Jesus replied, “It is written again,
‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God’ ” (Matt. 4:7; Deut. 6:16). Jesus said:
“Satan, you’re violating the rule of faith. You’re operating with a poor
hermeneutic. You’re setting Scripture against Scripture. The Bible says I am
not to tempt God. If I am to be obedient to that dictum, I cannot acquiesce to
your suggestion.” He did not allow Satan to tempt Him to act on one verse of
Scripture ripped from the context of the entire Word of God.
That
is the kind of thing Jesus was dealing with in His dispute with the Pharisees
and scribes. Their traditions were opening all kinds of loopholes to permit
people to get out from under the clear teaching of the truth of God. For this
reason, He said, they were “making the word of God of no effect through [their]
tradition” (Mark 7:13).
The
biggest theological controversy in church history was the Protestant
Reformation of the sixteenth century. On the surface, it seemed as if the whole
controversy was about one doctrine—justification by faith alone, which is the gospel
itself. When Martin Luther was brought into disputes with the princes of the
church, they reminded him that his understanding of justification was not the
traditional understanding, that the church long had explained justification in
different categories. But Luther simply said: “Here is what the Bible says. My
conscience is held captive by the Word of God. I must submit to Scripture, not
to man-made traditions.” So, the secondary issue was the question of authority.
Where
does ultimate authority lie? Is it in the Scriptures alone or is it in the
Scriptures and tradition? If it is in both Scripture and tradition, tradition
trumps everything by giving the binding interpretation of Scripture. So, for
all practical purposes, there are not really two sources of authority,
Scripture and tradition, but one, tradition, which becomes more important than
the Word itself.
I do
not understand how any sentient creature could read the New Testament teaching,
particularly Paul’s words in his letter to the Romans about justification, and
draw from it anything that resembles the Roman Catholic doctrine, which is
based on tradition. But it is not only Roman Catholics who fall prey to this
problem. We all do. We all tend to give our traditions more weight than Scripture.
It is easy for us to look back and say, “Shame on the Pharisees,” “Shame on the
rabbis,” or “Shame on the medieval theologians of Rome.” But we need to look no
farther than our own hearts. The final arbiter of all theological and moral
debates must be the Word of God.
This
excerpt is adapted from the Saint Andrew’s Expositional Commentary on Mark by
R.C. Sproul.
