我們為何使用非毫無錯謬的信經信條?IFTHE CREEDS AREN'T INFALLIBLE, WHY USE THEM?
作者:
Michael Horton 譯者: Maria Marta
彼得注意到保羅書信中「有些難明白的地方，那不學無術和不穩定的人加以曲解，好像曲解別的經書一樣，就自取滅亡。」（彼後三16; 《聖經新譯本》） 這裏不是說聖經許多書頁的內容是不清楚的，也不是說聖經的作者們自相矛盾，而是說它包含一些難明白的段落，這些段落很容易因人的不學無術和不穩定性而遭扭曲。近兩千年來，信經、信仰告白、教理問答為我們提供了對不學無術和不穩定之人的必要性約束。
「我只相信聖經」的信條不能抵禦邪教、迷信、叛教、異端的滲透和危害，因為過去兩千年來，幾乎所有的教派都聲稱其信仰得到聖經的支持。 本文標題的意圖不是要教會的教師絕無謬誤地解釋聖經，也不是要忽視教會的教師，而是要我們謙卑認識「鐵磨鐵」的教導（譯註：參箴廿七17），並吸取數個世紀無數解經者的智慧和洞察力，從而幫助我們看到我們的盲點。 只有蠢人才會忽視近二十個世紀積累起來的智慧。
信經毫無錯謬嗎？ 不，盡管存在其他分歧，但整個教會打從一開始就通用的信仰告白是聖經所清晰教導的，使徒信經、尼西亞信經、亞他那修信經、迦克墩信經所確信的，對我們的救恩至關重要的信仰陳述。
新教(抗羅宗/ 更正教)信徒、天主教信徒、東正教信徒都一致承諾維護這些基本的信仰陳述。它們是不真實的，因為教會是這麽說的; 教會既然這麽說，因為它們是真實的。呼籲召開普世教會會議的傳統始於使徒自己，第一次會議是耶路撒冷會議，目的是與猶太教的異端作鬥爭。
雖然會議可能會犯錯，在中世紀甚至出現自互矛盾的錯誤，但早期的大公會議獲得各地所有基督徒的一致認同，直至現在。 我們為什麽要容忍我們當中那些牧羊人，其教導不符合整個基督教會從一開始就取得的明確共識？
唯獨聖經的宗教改革教義並非指每個個人自己解釋聖經。路德說：「那就表示，每個人都以自己的方式下地獄。」相反，宗教改革期間參與討論的人包括整個教會、平信徒、神職人員。
信仰告白和要理問答代表整個教會的共同聲音，而不僅僅是宗教精英的決定。合乎聖經的觀念與宗教改革的觀念都是：要作為教會，不是自己個人，一起來研讀聖經。 如果想象/天馬行空是偶像的工廠，那麽個人主義無疑是異端的磨坊。
新教、羅馬天主教、正教都同意，信經是對「羅馬天主教會是聖經的詮釋者」的堅持的約束。宗教改革的信仰告白使我們的詮釋保持在「福音派」完好的範圍之內，我們的教理問答在那些得到我們特定教會認可的真理範圍內教導我們。
一個人若否認基本的「大公」信條，如教會在信經中見證的那樣，那麽此人就不是基督徒，而是異教徒。一個人若否認基本的「福音派」 信條，如教會在宗教改革信仰告白中見證的那樣，那麽區分錯誤與異端的界限就變得有點難以辨別，但對福音派基本教義----唯獨依靠恩典，唯獨藉著信心稱義的教義------的正式否認，無疑是對福音的毀滅性否定。
路德宗教友和加爾文主義者可能在一些重要事上彼此意見不同，但在他們都同意的地方------界定了「福音派」基督教的教義規範。捍衛這些教義規範，實際上就是捍衛聖經，我們的教會再次使用它們，就是遵循保羅對提摩太的忠告：歷代信徒都要抵擋這些人，他們耳朵發癢，增添許多帶領他們脫離他們孩童時代就知道的真理的教師。
願上帝保守我們免遭宗教迫害和迷惑。願我們看到一批新一代的亞他那修般的英雄，為世人和拯救世人而抵抗世界。
Adapted
from Michael S. Horton, "All About Heresy" Modern Reformation,
Jan/Feb 1994. Used by permission.
IF
THE CREEDS AREN'T INFALLIBLE, WHY USE THEM?
Michael
Horton
Peter
noted that Paul's letters "contain some things that are hard to
understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pt 3:16). It is not that the
Bible, for its many pages, is unclear, nor that its writers are contradictory,
but that it contains difficult passages, which lend themselves easily to
distortion based on ignorance and instability. For nearly two millennia,
creeds, confessions, and catechisms have provided the necessary constraints
against ignorance and instability.
"I
just believe the Bible" is no defense against cults, superstitions,
apostasy, and heresy, since nearly every sect for the last two thousand years
has claimed the Bible for support. The answer is not to make the church's
teachers infallible interpreters of Scripture. Nor to ignore the church's
teachers, but to have the humility to recognize that "iron sharpens
iron" and that it takes the wisdom and insight of many interpreters over
many centuries to help us to see our blind spots. Only a fool would ignore the
accumulated wisdom of nearly twenty centuries.
Are
the creeds infallible? No, but the universal confession of the whole church
since its beginning, despite other divisions, is that the Bible clearly teaches
that the affirmations we find in the Apostles', Nicene, Chalcedonian, and
Athanasian creeds are essential for our salvation.
Protestants,
Catholics, and Orthodox believers are united in their commitment to these
essentials. They are not true because the church says so; the church says so
because they are true. The tradition of calling the universal church for a
council began among the apostles themselves, with the Council of Jerusalem, to
combat the Judaizing heresy.
While
councils may err and have erred to the point of even contradicting each other
in the middle ages, the early ecumenical councils carry the assent of all
Christians everywhere and have right up to the present. Why should we tolerate
as shepherds among us anyone whose teaching fails to conform to the clear
consensus of the whole Christian church from its earliest days?
The
Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura did not mean that each individual
interprets the Bible for himself. "For that would mean," said Luther,
"that each man would go to hell in his own way." Rather, the
Reformation included the whole church, the laity as well as the clergy, in the
discussion.
Confessions
and catechisms represent the common voice of the whole congregation, not just
the dictates of a religious elite. The Reformation ideal, and the biblical
ideal, is to learn the Scriptures together, as a church, and not by oneself. If
the imagination is an idol-factory, then surely individualism is the gristmill
of heresy.
Creeds
are the constraint for maintaining a "catholic" interpretation of
Scripture, which is shared by Protestants, Rome, and Orthodoxy. Our Reformation
confessions keep our interpretations within the parameters of
"evangelical" soundness, and our catechisms instruct us in the truths
that have received assent from our particular churches.
If
one denies a fundamental "catholic" tenet, as the church has
witnessed to it in the creeds, that person is not a Christian, but a heretic.
If one denies a fundamental "evangelical" tenet, as the church has
witnessed to it in the Reformation confessions, the line separating error from
heresy becomes a bit more difficult to discern, but a formal denial of the
cardinal doctrine of evangelicalism-justification by grace alone through faith
alone, is surely a fatal denial of the gospel.
Lutherans
and Calvinists may disagree with each other over important matters, but where
they agree, that agreement defines the doctrinal parameters of
"evangelical" Christianity. By defending these, we are in fact
defending Scripture, and by employing them once more in our churches, we will
be following Paul's counsel to Timothy to withstand those in every age who seek
to gather teachers to tickle their ears and lead them from the truth they have
known since they were children.
May
God preserve us from witch-hunts and from being bewitched. May we see a new
crop of Athanasian heroes to stand against the world, for the world and its
salvation.
