為什麼要學習神學：合理且必要的推論
Why Study Theology: Good & Necessary Consequence
作者：Stephen Unthank 誠之譯自：
https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/why-study-theology-good-necessary-consequence
https://yimawusi.net/2021/04/05/why-study-theology-good-necessary-consequence/
 
《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》以許多人認為的最清晰的關於聖經教義的一些陳述開始。而在該信條對聖經的理解中，包含了一個關於如何研究神學（直譯：「作」神學）的簡短小條款。這個條款在幾個世紀以來引起了很多人的思考，它被放在那裏，作為捍衛聖經在所有生活中的充分性的一種表述。在第一章第六段中，威斯敏斯特神學家指出：「上帝全備的計劃，與關乎上帝自己的榮耀、人的得救、信仰、生活有關的一切必要之事，都是《聖經》明明記載的，或是可以用合理（或譯為正當）且必要的推論，從《聖經》引申出來。……」
The Westminster Confession of Faith begins with what many have deemed some of the most well articulated statements concerning the doctrine of Scripture. And incorporated right into the confession’s understanding of Scripture is a brief, little clause on how one might do theology. The clause, which has garnered much thought over the centuries, was placed there as an expression defending the sufficiency of Scripture in all of life. In chapter 1, paragraph six, the Westminster divines state that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture...”
 
  正如威爾斯福音神學院系統神學與歷史神學資深教授雷薩姆（Robert Letham, 1947～）所言，「靠著合理和必要的推論……」這句話非常重要。它指出了在閱讀、講道和思考聖經時需要仔細的思考。事實上，他提出的觀點是「它使神學成為必要。」[1]而雷薩姆是對的。除非教會願意從聖經中推導出合理且必要的推論，否則任何講道或神學工作都不可能做好。伯克富在評論教理的觀念和歷史時寫道：「教理（dogma）一詞源自希臘文動詞 dokein。在古典希臘文中，dokein moi 這種表達不僅是指：『對我來說』，或者，『我的意見是』，它也是指：『我已經得出結論，我確信，這是我的信念』」。[2]這樣，在這裏我們就看到了神學和教理學合理且必要的功能；一種理性的事業，在上帝權威的話語中找到了它的權威基礎。
As Robert Letham has said, the phrase “by good and necessary consequences...is a profoundly important statement.” It points to the need for careful thought in reading, preaching, and thinking about the Bible.” In fact, he makes the point that “it mandates theology.”[1] And Letham is right. No preaching or theological work can be done well unless the church is willing to deduce from Scripture good and necessary consequences. Louis Berkhof, commenting on the idea and history of dogma, writes that “the word dogma is derived from the Greek verb dokein. In classical Greek the expression dokein moi meant not only, ‘it seems to me’, or, ‘I am of the opinion’, but also, ‘I have come to the conclusion.’” [2] It is here then where we see the good and necessary function of theology and dogmatics; an enterprise of reason finding it’s authoritative grounding in God’s authoritative word.
 
  今天有許多人對神學和教理有一種不好的印象，尤其是當神學和教理與推理的觀念連在一起時，無論這個推理是否必要。蘇格蘭神學家坎甯漢（William Cunningham, 1805-1861）在威斯敏斯特大會200多年後寫道，他指出，許多人表現出一種極端的「對聖經中帶給我們的偉大主題所作的精確和明確的[神學]聲明的厭惡。這種對教義陳述的精確性和確定性的厭惡，有時會採取一種敬畏《聖經》的形式，仿佛這種厭惡產生於對神聖話語權威的絕對尊重，不願意把人的推理和演繹與上帝的直接宣告混為一談。」不過他繼續說到，「我們相信它產生於……一種對聖經的控制力的厭惡，[並]產生於想要逃避……[聖經]作為信仰和義務的無誤規則的管制力的權威。」[3]他的結論是：「這是正統神學家們普遍接受的教義，也完全符合理性和常識，即根據上帝的權威，我們必須不僅要接受『聖經中明文規定』的，將它們視為真理，而且要接受『通過合理和必要的推論，可以從聖經中推導出來的』，將它們視為真理」[4]。
To many people today, this idea of theology and dogma leaves a bad taste in their mouths, especially when connected to the idea of reasoning, necessary or not. William Cunningham, writing a little over 200 years after Westminster, noted that many express an extreme “dislike to precise and definite [theological] statements upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scriptures. This dislike of precision and definiteness in doctrinal statements sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible - as if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasoning and deductions of men with the direct declarations of God.” He continues though that “we believe it arises... from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture, [and] from a desire to escape...the authority... of [the Bible’s] regulating power as an infallible rule of faith and duty.”[3]  He concludes that “it has been the generally received doctrine of orthodox divines, and it is in entire accordance with reason and common sense, that we are bound to receive as true, on God’s authority, not only what is ‘expressly set down in Scripture,’ but also what, ‘by good and necessary consequences, may be deduced from Scripture.”[4]
 
  蘇格蘭清教徒基列斯比（George Gillespie）等神學家為這種按照邏輯方法讀經的方式辯護，他們指出馬太福音二十二章32節等經文，耶穌自己引用出埃及記三章6 節，「我是亞伯拉罕的神，以撒的神，雅各的神」來為自己的復活神學辯護。正是從這節經文中，耶穌必然推斷出族長們雖然早已死去埋葬，但實際上仍然活著，從出埃及記的經文中推理出「神不是死人的神，乃是活人的神」（太廿二32）。
Theologians such as the Scottish puritan George Gillespie defended this way of logically reading Scripture by pointing to verses like Matthew 22:32 where Jesus himself defends his theology of the resurrection by quoting Exodus 3:6, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” It is from this verse that Jesus necessarily deduces that the patriarchs, though long dead and buried, are actually alive, reasoning from the Exodus passage that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32).
 
  當然，堅定的加爾文主義者基列斯比會大膽地堅持申命記二十九章29節作為正確的釋經學研究的基礎，他同意加爾文的觀點，即上帝的話「對我們來說是公義的唯一法則，也是萬事萬物最完美的原因」。換句話說，他決不願意藉著單純的猜測，逾越聖經的界限和規法，「以[人類]自己的虛妄而誇口。」[5]然而，基列斯比卻自信地宣稱，一個「被基督的順服所俘虜和征服的理性，……站在聖經的原則上……。[可以]確信並滿足於從聖經中得出的推論和結論。」對基列斯比和其他威斯敏斯特神學家來說，這是一件合理而且虔誠的事[6]。
Of course, Gillespie, a strong Calvinist, would have boldly upheld Deuteronomy 29:29 as a foundational basis for proper hermeneutical investigation, agreeing with Calvin that God’s word “may be for us the sole rule of righteousness, and the truly just cause of all things.” In other words, he would never want in mere speculation to overstep the bounds and rule of Scripture and “exult in [mankind’s] own vanity.”[5] And yet, Gillespie was confident to declare that a “reason captivated and subdued to the obedience of Christ and... standing to scriptural principles... [can be] convinced and satisfied with the consequences and conclusions drawn from Scripture.” To Gillespie and the other Westminster divines, this was a good and godly thing.[6]
 
   尚且，也不僅僅是清教徒為這種釋經學辯護。三個世紀之前，奧坎的威廉（William of Ockham）寫道，基督徒必須相信「聖經中所說的，或者通過必要的推理可以從中推斷出的。」[7]事實上，在更早的時候，在為過去和現在基督教教理的核心信條辯護時，許多早期教會的教父就採用了這樣的邏輯推理來為三位一體辯護。閱讀上帝三位一體教義的歷史，誰也不會不看到合理和必要的推論在得出教理結論的過程中發揮了多麼重大的作用[8]。
And it wasn’t just the Puritans who defended such a hermeneutic either. Three centuries earlier William of Ockham wrote that Christians must believe “what is said in holy Scripture, or what can be inferred therefrom through necessary reasoning.”[7] In fact, much earlier in defense of what was and is a central tenet of Christian dogma, many of the early church fathers employed such logical deductions in their defense of the Trinity. No one can read the history of the doctrine of God’s triunity without seeing what a major role good and necessary consequence played in coming to dogmatic conclusions.[8]
 
    亞他那修在對亞流派的辯護中就給出了這樣的理由。亞流派認為，像 「三位一體」和「本質為一」這樣的術語是不符合聖經的詞語，致使該教義成為不符合聖經的教義。但亞他那修明智地回應說，這樣的措辭和短語「如果準確地查驗，會發現它們都是真理的呈現，特別是如果勤奮地注意引起這些表述的場合的話，這樣的說法是合理的……。[而且]即使這些表述方式在聖經中沒有使用那麼多的詞語，然而，正如前面所說，它們包含了聖經的意義，並且把這個含義表達出來，這些表述就把這個意義[正確地]傳達出來了。」[9]對於像亞他那修這樣的人來說，推導出某些術語來描述和捍衛聖經本身所隱含的內容，即使不總是明確的，也必然是合理的。
Athanasius gave grounds for this in his defense against the Arians. It was argued by the Arians that terms like “Trinity” and “one in essence” were unbiblical words, thus rendering the doctrine unbiblical. But Athanasius wisely responded that such wording and phraseology “if accurately examined, will be found to be altogether a representation of the truth and especially if diligent attention be paid to the occasion which gave rise to these expressions, which was reasonable... [and] that, even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it [rightly].”[9] For men like Athanasius, it was necessarily good to derive certain terms to describe and defend what was implicit, if not always explicit, in Scripture itself.
 
    再次，奧坎的威廉拾起了這種在早期教會中看到的神學推論，他說到：「這的確是我們整個神學觀點體系應該藉以形成的過程；在進行這一過程時，對於那些只能從聖經中才能知道的主題，需要特別小心和謹慎……[但]我們完全有理由根據聖經的權威得出結論：聖子……具有神性或神的本質。」
Again, William Cunningham picks up on this theological deduction seen in the early church when he states that “this is indeed the process by which our whole system of theological opinions ought to be formed; and there is need for special care and caution in conducting this process, in regard to topics which can be known only from Scripture...[but] we are fully warranted in concluding, upon the authority of Scripture that the Son... has a divine nature or substance.”[10]
 
從耶穌本人、早期教會和中世紀教會以及威斯敏斯特神學家的例子來看，合理和正確的神學可以、而且應該通過認識到從聖經中得出的「合理和必要的推論」來完成。
From the examples we have from Jesus himself, from the early church and medieval church, as well as the Westminster divines, good and right theology can and should be done by seeing the “good and necessary consequences” derived from Scripture.
 
  今天，隨著許多對話都是圍繞著一個人的「世界觀」打轉，甚至在某些圈子裏，神學是否是一種合適的事業，這種「合理和必要的推論」的想法就有了新的意義。對於來自各門各派的基督徒來說，對聖經的解讀如果不能以合理的方式應用其明確的原則，推論出與敬虔和正確的生活有關的內容，就可能是有害的，尤其是在這個世界上，我們的許多日常活動，在聖經中都沒有明確地提到。基督徒要如何思考與「變性人風潮」（transgender movement）、社交媒體的興起、新科學或其他任何問題互動，徹底扎根於聖經的真理（這些真理是在聖經的明確教導中被明文規定的，以及從必要的推論中推導出來的），將幫助我們有智慧地生活，並且為神的榮耀而活。事實上，正如傅蘭姆（John Frame）所闡明的那樣，「在我們違背了聖經的應用的程度上，我們就違背了聖經本身」（to the extent that we disobey the applications of Scripture, we disobey Scripture itself）。因為作神學，除了將聖經應用於所有的生活之外，還能是什麼呢？
Today, with much conversation revolving around one’s ‘worldview’, or even in some circles whether or not theology is an appropriate endeavor, this idea of “good and necessary consequences” takes on renewed import. For Christians of all stripes, a reading of the Bible which fails to apply its explicit principles in a reasonable way, deductions which pertain to godliness and right living, can be detrimental, especially in a world where many of our everyday activities are not explicitly spoken of in Scripture. How Christians are to think about and interact with issues such as the transgender movement, the rise of social media, new science, or whatever, a thorough grounding in the truths of Scripture, truths which are expressly set down in its explicit teaching as well as derived from necessary consequences, will help us live wisely to God’s glory. Indeed, as John Frame clarifies, “to the extent that we disobey the applications of Scripture, we disobey Scripture itself.” For what more is the doing of theology then the application of Scripture to all of life?
 
   上帝一切的話語都是充足的，「關乎上帝自己的榮耀、人的得救，信仰、和生活有關的一切必要之事，都是《聖經》明明記載的，或是可以用合理且必要的推論，從《聖經》引申出來。所以無論在任何時刻都不可加添；無論是藉著『聖靈的新啟示』，或憑人的遺傳，都不能加添《聖經》的內容成為最高權威」[11]。
All of God’s word is sufficient for “all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, and is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”[11]
 
Stephen Unthank（Capital Bible Seminary道學碩士）在華盛頓特區外的馬里蘭州Greenbelt Baptist Church服事，他與妻子Maricel和兩個孩子Ambrose和Lilou住在馬里蘭州。
 
誠之按。關於這個主題，Reformed Forum 有一個很棒的討論，見下：
By Good and Necessary Consequence。
 
註：
[1] Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly,  139.
[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 18.
[3] William Cunningham, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 2000) pp. 523
[4] ibid. 526
[5] Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.17.2. and 1.6.2
[6] George Gillespie, Treatise of Miscellany Quotations, 100-101 as seen in C.J. Williams, “Good and Necessary Consequences in the Westminster Confession”, pp. 175-6.
[7] William of Ockham, Dialogue against Heretics, bk. 2, chap. 5 in George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns & Oats, 1959) pp. 35.
[8] See Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), pp. 211-25
[9] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xiv.ii.v.html
[10] William Cunningham, Historical Theology vol. 1 (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1994) pp.284-85
[11] http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/