福音派四大偏重之一就是聖經主義(參考第一篇緣起的介紹)。用大家耳熟能詳的術語,就是所謂的唯獨聖經。馬丁路德主張唯獨聖經,是因為他發現天主教的做法違反了聖經的原則,而這些錯誤做法的原因,就是教皇和主教的教導凌駕了聖經本身。在這樣的背景下(天主教當局的錯誤),我覺得馬丁路德別無選擇,他必須要在聖經和教會權威之間做選擇。換了是別人,只要是堅持真理,恐怕都會走上這條路。
但現在的唯獨聖經主張,也是被一般化了,成為一種僵硬的教條。容我嘗試把它理清楚。
首先,我要聲明,唯獨聖經的主張本身並沒有錯--如果它指的是聖經做為神的啟示的媒介的絕對權威性的話。換句話說,任何人的任何教導,包括教皇,主教,神父,牧師,都不能和聖經抵觸。這個主張,相信包括天主教,東正教和各新教教派都非常堅定。
那問題出在哪裡呢?出在對聖經的解釋上。首先要確立的是,我們必須把『聖經裡的神的啟示』,和『經由聖經在每一個人心中所領受的神的啟示』這兩件事情分開。用最通俗的話來說,假設我們說聖經是神對我們說話,那神所要表達的,和我們實際上意會到的,是兩件事。所謂聖經的絕對權威,當然指的是神想要借聖經說的道理是絕對的權威。而個人所意會到的,就看你如何認定它和神真正想要說的有多大的差別而定。
你相信神要說的和我們意會的完全一樣,大致相同,還是很不同?如果你相信神藉由聖經想要說的,平信徒直接讀聖經就可以大致無誤地意會,你就會和馬丁路德一樣,主張平信徒本身就是解釋聖經的權威,無需透過教會的教導權柄。如果你相信聖經一般人自己讀很可能會誤會神真正的意思,所以必須有其他東西的輔助,那我可以告訴你,所謂的教會傳統,或使徒繼承的教導權柄,就是這樣的機制,來確保平信徒所領受的真理,是神經由聖經所要啟示的真理。換句話說,這些批評的人所謂的聖經以外的權威,其實目的只有一個,就是為了維護聖經的絕對權威。
聽起來很弔詭,對不對?現在所謂的唯獨聖經這個標簽,已經脫離了原本馬丁路德的目的,為了捍衛聖經的絕對權威(相對於教會那些與聖經直接抵觸的教導),而是一個勁的反對任何確保聖經被正確理解的輔助措施,如使徒繼承權柄和教會傳統。從某個角度看,這樣反而讓個人隨己意的領受凌駕在神所要啟示的真理之上,說是捍衛聖經的權威,實則是保障隨意解經典自由,而損害了聖經的權威。
馬丁路德掙脫了這個『枷鎖』的結果是什麼呢?加爾文的後悔。請看加爾文自己承認教會必須是解經的權威:
“We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself.”
~Calvin’s Letter to Sadoleto (Calvini Opera 5:404)
“Pastors and teachers [are] in charge of… Scriptural interpretation- to keep doctrine whole and pure among believers.”
~Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.3.4)
這種狹隘的,一廂情願相信聖經是不證自明的觀點,在以下討論中不得不暫且以『唯獨聖經』這個標簽來代表。我還是強調我所反對的是這種理解下的唯獨聖經,而不是反對聖經的絕對權威。
唯獨聖經的影響是什麼?
1.容易產生對聖經字面無誤的偏執。抑制了運用理性,根據客觀考古事實,學術研究成果,從更深的層次領受神的啟示的努力。
如果聖經不是一本科學教課書,堅持它在自然科學上的無誤性有何意義?到今天還有許多人堅持地球只有六千年壽命,因為根據創世紀算一算地球只有六千年。有必要這樣堅持嗎?這是神想要說的嗎?你知道創世紀前十一章是什麼時候寫成的嗎?多數學者相信是在被擄歸回建了第二聖殿的時候,也就是文士以斯拉編訂律法書的時候。你知道所謂的文件說嗎?也就是摩西五經最可能是由一票人東拼西湊,從好幾處不同的文件編撰而成,而創世紀前十一章可能是另外加上的序言。我說可能,因為不見得所有學者都同意這種理論,正確性已不重要,這是一個例子,來說明聖經以外的知識有可能大幅改變我們對神的啟示的認識。我們面對這些新的知識,是盲目打為離經叛道,還是接受它,使用它,讓我們更深的認識神的啟示?有人很天真的以為,聖經是神的話的意思是,神只是用作者的手,所以每一句話的每一個字都是神直接的話。所以無需知道作者在想什麼,作者所處的環境是什麼,他寫作的用意是什麼。因為作者只是一個傀儡。神的本意是要這樣啟示的嗎?保羅在加拉太書情緒化的咒詛割禮派把自己給割絕了,是人的話還是神的話?人的情緒還是神的情緒?啟示錄該當成預言看還是寓言文學?耶穌說法利賽人如何如何差勁,而文獻顯示當時的法利賽人的教導和祂的教導是一樣的,耶穌在登山寶訓中說你們說如何如何,我說如何如何,全都在冤枉法利賽人的教導,你要如何看待這件事?當崑蘭古卷出土,愛色尼人的研究成熟了,才發現有可能愛色尼人才是耶穌修理的對象,法利賽人的本相才得澄清。太多新的證據讓我們不能迴避,只能往更深處尋求神的啟示。這難道不是神的本意嗎?很多人對歷史批判研究法很有戒心,認為那是站在不信的立場把聖經當作人的著作來研究,嚴重褻瀆神。難道神不是讓萬物互相效力,巧妙地借由每一個肉身,依循自然規律和自由意志,來完成祂的啟示嗎?就一定要把作者當傀儡才算對神的話有敬畏之心嗎?
2.給斷章取義開方便之門。
斷章取義不僅存在於異端之中,而是普遍存在於一般教會的日常的教導之中。第一篇中所介紹的屬靈四定律就是最好的例子。例如,為了說明我們必須接受耶穌為個人的救主,引約翰福音1:12『凡接待他的,就是信他名的人,他就賜他們權柄,作 神的兒女』。偷換概念在哪裡?請看原文有『必須』的意思嗎?更別提這段經文的上下文了。為什麼唯獨聖經的說法會助長斷章取義?因為他鼓勵你相信字面上的意思就是神的意思,而不鼓勵你尋求經文之間的平衡,和表面上的抵觸下的更深的涵義。
3.助長了教會的分裂,有形和隱形的宗派林立,和對信徒的轄制。
這很明顯吧?嚴格講起來自從新教砍掉使徒繼承教導權柄和傳統後,教會中就沒有真正的屬靈權柄。我沒有意思要貶低牧師的價值,但很不幸的,我很同情牧師的處境。我相信他們心裡清楚沒有人真正把他當權威。有一些牧師或佈道家很有魅力,教會很成功,跟隨著眾,這些牧師就講話比較大聲。有些教會是長老執事當家,牧師只是受僱,往往在真理上都得妥協。成立教會太容易了。你只要口才好,人喜歡聽,聚個十幾個家庭就可以開一間教會。沒有資格限定,你說你是牧師,你就是牧師。也因此新教教會很重視人數。是十足的民粹主義,人數就是你的屬靈權柄!
對信徒的轄制怎麼說?很簡單,就是我這幾篇文章的主旨,讓你看到有許多沒有必要的教條,無形中加在信徒頭上。
4.福音內涵日趨狹隘偏頗,福音喪失時代性,信徒在福音之外找刺激,滿足。
聖經的啟示是多層次的。有許多真理真的要借助許多外在的資料才能夠呈現出來。我們所處的時代應該讓我們左右逢源,多方參考,享受神啟示的深度和豐富才對,可是結果正好相反,福音的內涵日漸狹隘乾枯。此外,如果聖經不是擺在歷史文化之中被理解,難怪道理也無法抽離歷史文化後再重新應用在現今的文化中。福音失去了時代性。當年的最小的是孤兒寡婦,現在的最小的是什麼呢?當年病和罪被理解成一件事,所以這麼多醫治的神蹟,而且和赦罪常常連在一起(你得病表示你有罪被懲罰)。放在今天,現代醫療和科學已完全將病和罪分開,醫治這件事的屬靈意義還如同當年嗎?
福音乾枯又過時,那些刺激你腎上腺素的教會,表演魔術的教會,信心喊話的教會,和安立直銷大會一樣的教會就受到歡迎。這些都叫做基督教,你說基督教到底是什麼?
《結語》
再重申一次,唯獨聖經的意思已經變質了。就好像馬丁路德的其他改革理念一樣。今天的唯獨聖經指的不是堅持聖經的權威,而是指一種解釋經文的態度。是這種解釋經文的態度造成問題,而不是對聖經權威的堅持。
天主教當年的錯誤,造就了馬丁路德,而馬丁路德也幫助了天主教的改革。其實天主教最黑暗的時期,她的教皇主教體系爛掉的時候,經院哲學和修道主義都在開花結果。經院哲學發揚了神所賜的理性思考的恩寵,是現代大學的濫觴,而修道主義開拓了人和神心靈的交通。神的工作看似受阻,其實從未停歇。當年媽媽生病而出走的孩子,現在恐怕連馬丁路德都認不出來了。不過我相信,神借馬丁路德醫治天主教,祂也能借天主教保守失散的孩子。
I would agree many of the phenomenon description as quite true, but I would have described them differently. The way you stated them is kind of too critical, don't you think? For example 唯獨聖經的說法會助長斷章取義, not always, it can work the other way around. I would not promote 唯獨聖經的説法though, as you said, traditions and faith confession are equally important in understanding messages properly. 唯獨simply sounds too extreme.
ReplyDeleteRex,
ReplyDeleteThis is a good article in illustrating how things have been evolved under the slogan 唯獨聖經. You are very nice to Luther though in assuming that this slogan was originally good and that his original intention was also good. I would argue that the problem indeed started with Luther and rooted with the teaching of 唯獨, just as a_seed pointed out in her comment that “唯獨simply sounds too extreme”.
Although Luther’s original intention is not a point of interest here, he did set a pretty bad example how the Bible authority could be respected. He wanted to take out a few of the books from the Bible because the books did not fit into Luther’s theme. He literally inserted唯獨into his German translation of Bible so that St. Paul’s writing in Bible would do a better job in support Luther’s point.
Does the Bible teach 唯獨? In order to argue for唯獨, one has to use the methods you criticized here to stretch the Bible quote quite a bit. This again sets example how to read the Bible.
唯獨聖經is not just a restatement of what has been historically shared belief of Bible authority. 唯獨 is a Luther innovation. Just as you pointed out, by 唯獨, it seems holding up the Bible authority. It is deceiving! As the Bible is now lifted up so high, it is detached from its supporting structure. Just like a verse loses its meaning when quoted out of content, without a structural support, Bible is a book whatever you feel like but not a Bible with authority.
More on 唯獨聖經
Our nation has a written constitution that we uphold as the ultimate authority. Many of us would agree a written constitution is a wonderful idea and is critically important, a corner stone of a nation. Indeed, the idea of constitution is so popular now that every country has its own constitution and almost every company/organization has its own constitutional by-law.
How about the kingdom of God? Is the Bible its constitution?
Our nation’s founding fathers ranked it one of the highest priorities to write a sound constitution for a new nation they intended to build. Where was Jesus' priority when He rebuilt God's kingdom? Why did not Jesus lift a finger of His own to write? After all, God did twice for Moses. Did not Jesus foresee the challenge of the absolute authority of the Bible? Then, would it be a reasonable expectation that He should at least designate someone specifically to write the Bible, to show He is serious about the absolute authority of the book? On the contrary, He did not mention a single word about Bible writing. Why?
While not mentioning a word about Bible writing, Jesus instead pointed to a specific person, repeatedly, and at certain other occasions a specific group of people, and asked them to take care of his flocks. Why? Did not Jesus understand that humans are weak and sinful, and are not reliable?
When we claim 唯獨聖經,聖經絕對權威 are we putting the Bible in our constitution framework of thinking logic? Would it be possible Jesus did not intend it to be a constitution at all? … a question at least worth asking in our prayer.
Xiwei姐妹,謝謝提醒。其實我是描述可能的傾向,並不是每一個新教基督徒都有這個傾向。你就是很好的例子,還有許多弟兄姐妹我知道的。
ReplyDeleteStan,非常精闢!
ReplyDelete馬丁路德究竟有沒有正當的理由高舉唯獨聖經,我是寧可信其有的態度,其實是有一個灰色地帶。當時天主教有關贖罪券的教導可能是正確的,而是執行的人的偏差。馬丁路德有多少理由認為是教導本身有問題,有帶進一步研究。但有一點我很確定的,就是他砍斷了這條臍帶(使徒繼承權柄和傳統)新教的發展就非他所能預料的。今天看了一個新教牧師批判天主教的講法是教皇是天主教的標幟,也就是天主教是從有教皇算起,這之前是正統教會,而新教是恢復天主教之前的正統教會。如果是這樣,新教就應該回到使徒繼承教導權柄和傳統上,因為這些早在一世紀就存在。
另外有關神有沒有把真理托付在聖經上,真的是一個主觀認定的問題。我想不可否認的是,先有教會才有聖經。先有口傳傳統才有文字記錄(聖經),聖經的正典也是在教會的機制下。這已經足以說明聖經和教會的主從關係了。聖經的絕對權威,也是建立在教會的根基上。
more on Bible NOT as a constitution.
ReplyDeleteBible is not a science book. Acknowledging the fact that Bible is not a science book shall never be understood as an attempt to undermine Bible as a book of truth. On the contrary, it is a misuse of Bible when one looks into Bible just for scientific knowledge.
Likewise, Bible is not a constitution for Kingdom of God. The statement does not deny it as the Word of God, nor undermine its authority. It only suggests us not to read (and use) the Bible in a legalistic manner.
A constitutional lawyer studies the constitution in order to find a code that “justifies” his cause. If he ever comes across a code that is against his cause, all he needs is to find a way to talk around it. A competent lawyer can always make seemingly sound arguments. Surly, the constitution is still recognized with its ultimate authority; just not the same kind of authority when Jesus spoke.
真理電台有一篇文章[唯獨聖經]內容也分析的很詳盡.可供參考
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tianzhu.org/tw/tz_makefriend_blog.php?mf_id=cGFvc2lrb0AxMjYuY29t&bo_id=4291&action=article
以往我並未注意有[唯讀聖經]一詞說法,謝謝永恕弟兄的文章.
聖經中不是單靠聖經就足夠,必需在聖經中活出天主的聖言.
Sorry that I cannot leave Martin Luther alone.
ReplyDeleteI had a dream ^o^. ... In first century Rome, we are with Luther standing at the foot where Peter speaks. He is just talking about Jesus … Luther raises his hand. He requests Peter to first distribute a script of Jesus’ original speech. He wants to check, in case Peter misrepresents Jesus. We know that Peter is now old and has never been properly educated. We know that he had denied Jesus three times. And We know that once Jesus even rebuked his idea as if from Satan. Most recently, Peter has been flip-flop on the critical issue of gentile when he was in Antioch.
Luther has also made up a slogan “唯獨Jesus”. We see already the zeal on the street when Peter is passing by. It is Luther’s concern that Peter is using his authority to bring worship to himself, which means away from God! After all, our faith is in Jesus, not in Peter, nor in Paul.
Can anyone tell me if Luther is unreasonable to Peter? Shall we still admire his critical thinking skill, and his quest for truth?
What the early church would look like after that? Luther will re-write the Acts for sure but do you believe he would make it any better or worse? or in short, do we need another Luther there in first century Rome?