So let's just briefly kind of get into some of the biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura.

那么让我们简要地探讨一下唯独圣经的一些圣经依据。

And if you're talking to, say, a Roman Catholic apologist, somebody who is a defender of Roman Catholicism, especially people who have converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, usually a non-historical Protestantism, where they read the Fathers, all of a sudden they're amazed at the things that were taught. They don't sound like Protestants, therefore they become Roman Catholic.

如果你在与一位罗马公教会护教学者交谈，比如一个公教会的辩护者，尤其是那些从新教改信公教会的人，通常是从一个非历史性的新教背景来的，当他们阅读教父的著作时，突然对所教导的内容感到惊讶。这些教导听起来不像新教，因此他们就成为了公教徒。

It's often the way that it works itself out. But for a Lutheran or Anglican, it's, I think, quite a bit different in the way that we look at the Fathers, because we do see, hey, this is very similar to what we're saying and teaching and how we're worshiping today as well.

事情往往就是这样发展的。但对于路德宗或英国圣公会信徒来说，我认为我们看待教父的方式有很大不同，因为我们确实看到，嘿，这与我们今天所说、所教导以及我们崇拜的方式非常相似。

But if you're talking to a Roman Catholic apologist, when they're speaking about Sola Scriptura, they're always going to raise the same statement over and over again. You're going to hear this if you're looking at Roman Catholic apologetics or recent converts to Rome, and that is Scripture never teaches Sola Scriptura. So you are holding Scripture as the ultimate authority.

但如果你与一位罗马公教会护教学者交谈，当他们谈论「唯独圣经」时，他们总是会反复提出同样的论点。如果你关注公教会护教学或最近皈依罗马的人，你会经常听到这种说法，即圣经从未教导「唯独圣经」。所以你把圣经当作最高权威。

However, Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority. Therefore, you're contradicting yourself, because necessarily you're going outside of Scripture to say that Scripture is the only standard, and therefore we can throw out Sola Scriptura. So the Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, therefore Sola Scriptura is false, based on the inherent principles of Protestantism and Sola Scriptura itself. So it's self-contradictory. That's basically the argument that you're going to hear more than any other when you're talking to somebody about Sola Scriptura. So what do we do with that? I think the question that we have is, do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don't think we have to. We don't. There's nothing in, you know, you can't find, you know, in any of Paul's letters, for example, it's like he says to the Romans, by the way, Scripture is the only authority, and traditions are not an authority, and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings, which it seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position that they have to find a text that says that. No, I think more so what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3.16 is kind of the famous text that says this, that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly or sufficiently equipped for every good work. Now there are some important things, I think, that are taught in that text. One is that Scripture is God-breathed. It is breathed out by God. That in and of itself is not said of anything else, so it inherently gives Scripture a uniqueness that nothing else has. We are never told that there is a tradition or a set of traditions or a magisterium that are God-breathed in the same sense that Scripture itself is. So we do have something that is so clearly stated about the uniqueness of Scripture, and I think where Rome goes is to say that, well, the burden of proof is on you to say there's nothing else that's God-breathed or nothing else that has this unique authority, and I would say the opposite, to say that Scripture places as this authority that is so connected to God Himself that He breathed it out, that the burden is really on them to prove that anything else has those characteristics.

然而，圣经本身从未说它是唯一的权威。因此，你自相矛盾，因为你必然要超出圣经范围来说圣经是唯一标准，所以我们可以摒弃唯独圣经。圣经并不教导唯独圣经，因此根据新教和唯独圣经本身的固有原则，唯独圣经是错误的。所以它是自相矛盾的。这基本上是你在与人讨论唯独圣经时会听到的最常见论点。那么我们该如何应对？我认为我们的问题是，我们是否必须找到一段特定的经文说明圣经是唯一的权威？我认为我们不必这样做。我们不需要。你在保罗的任何书信中都找不到，比如他对罗马人说，顺便说一下，圣经是唯一的权威，传统不是权威，也没有训导权被赋予某种无误的权威来传递无误的教导。似乎很多公教会护教学者认为新教徒为了捍卫自己的立场必须找到一段这样说的经文。不，我认为我们更应该做的是谈论圣经独特的权威和独特的本质，只需说圣经确实呈现自己是神所默示的。提摩太后书3章16节是一段著名的经文，说到这一点，「圣经都是神所默示的，于教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义都是有益的，叫属神的人得以完全，预备行各样的善事。」我认为这段经文教导了一些重要的事情。首先是圣经是神所默示的。它是神所呼出的。这本身就没有用于描述其他任何事物，因此它本质上赋予了圣经其他事物所没有的独特性。我们从未被告知有任何传统或一套传统或训导权是以与圣经本身相同的方式被神默示的。所以我们确实有一些非常清楚地陈述了圣经独特性的内容，我认为罗马的做法是说，举证责任在你身上，要证明没有其他东西是神所默示的，或者没有其他东西具有这种独特的权威，而我会说相反，圣经将自己置于如此与神自己相连的权威地位，以至于祂将其呼出，真正的举证责任在他们身上，要证明还有其他东西具有这些特征。

So I turn it around, and I don't think the burden of proof is on us to try to prove this isn't God-breathed or this doesn't have that same kind of sense of authority, because there are various groups that claim all sorts of things are on par with Scripture or are on an equal level with Scripture in terms of divine inspiration, and the burden of proof is not on me to prove that all of those things are false.

所以我反过来说，我认为举证责任不在我们这边，不需要我们去证明这不是神所默示的，或者这没有同样的权威性，因为有各种团体声称许多东西与圣经同等，或在神的默示方面与圣经处于同等地位，而举证责任不在我这边去证明所有这些说法都是错误的。

I don't have a burden of proof to demonstrate that every false prophet out there in the world who claims that they're infallibly teaching the things that are given to them by the Spirit or that there are some new Messiah or all of these kinds of groups, the burden is not on me to prove that they don't have that divine authority. The burden on them is to prove that they do have some kind of divine authority that is equal with the uniqueness of Scripture.

我没有责任去证明世上每一个假先知都是错的，他们声称自己无误地教导圣灵所赐的事，或者说有什么新弥赛亚，或者其他类似的团体。我没有责任去证明他们没有神圣权柄。相反，他们有责任去证明他们确实拥有某种与圣经独特性相当的神圣权柄。

So that's the first point. I think we're coming from different starting points in terms of who has to prove what. So I fundamentally deny that principle at all, that to prove sola scriptura you have to prove that the Bible says sola scriptura somewhere. No, I think that is just a conviction that comes out of the uniqueness of Scripture and what Scripture is.

这就是第一点。我认为我们在谁需要证明什么这个问题上有不同的出发点。所以我从根本上否认这个原则，即为了证明唯独圣经，你必须证明圣经某处说了唯独圣经。不，我认为这只是源于圣经的独特性和圣经本质的一种信念。

You have to prove that something else has that uniqueness that Scripture itself has and claims for itself, and I don't think that tradition in the various forms that one tries to speak about it has that. The other thing that is important in that text is it does say that Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every good work, and it outlines those things for you as being teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

你必须证明其他事物也具有圣经所独有并自称具有的独特性，我认为传统以各种形式所表达的并不具备这种独特性。那段经文中另一个重要之处是，它确实说明圣经足以装备人行各样的善事，并为你列出了这些事，即教训、督责、使人归正、教导人学义。

So there certainly is a sense in 1 Timothy that Scripture has a sufficiency or the sufficiency of Scripture to equip for every good work, which includes all of those things connected to teaching. So teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. So there is a unique authority. The unique authority of Scripture in that it is God-bred gives it that sufficiency, and so it is sufficient to equip one in good works that include teaching because of its unique character. Now that I think is as close of a text as you're going to get that proves sola scriptura. Not that the point of the text is to say let's compare Scripture to tradition and different kinds of authority and levels of authority. That's not the point of the text, but it does speak about the unique authority of Scripture as being theanoustos or God-breathed being connected to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works and for teaching. Now the rebuttal to that from Rome is always going to be the same, which is, well, when that particular text was written, the entirety of the New Testament was being written, so it's not yet totally written. Therefore, he's speaking only of the Old Testament, and if you take that to be speaking about the sufficiency of Scripture, then it's only speaking about the sufficiency of the Old Testament and not at all the New Testament, and then you have a problem because Protestants who believe in sola scriptura believe in the authority of the Old and New Testaments when they're saying sola scriptura. But I kind of think that that's really missing the point of the text. The point of the text is not really to outline what the books of the Bible are. It's just speaking about the nature of Scripture. So it is true that it is in the nature of Scripture, whether he's speaking about the Old and New Testament, that it is the thing that makes one sufficient in those good works. And so if that is true of the Old Testament and what had been written of the New Testament at this time, and there can be some debate about that and exactly which books had been written or understood as Scripture or transmitted at that point in any broad sense at all, but it's speaking about the nature of what Scripture is. So I think it would be the understanding that in terms of the sufficiency of what Scripture is for, if New Testament books are written and continuing to be written, including First Timothy itself, they would have that same unique character as well that the Old Testament did have. So I think that there is, if there's any proof text for sola scriptura, that would be the closest one that there is because of the uniqueness and the sufficiency of Scripture that is taught there.

因此，在提摩太前书中确实有一种观念，即圣经具有充分性或足够性，可以装备人行各样的善事，包括与教导有关的一切事情。所以教导、责备、纠正和训练人学义都包括在内。圣经有独特的权威。圣经的独特权威在于它是神所默示的，这赋予了它充分性，因此它足以装备人行善事，包括教导，这是因为它的独特性质。我认为这是你能找到的最接近证明唯独圣经的经文。这段经文的重点并不是要比较圣经与传统，或不同种类和层次的权威。但它确实谈到了圣经的独特权威，作为神所默示的，与其充分性相连，足以装备人行善事和教导。罗马公教会对此的反驳总是一样的，即当这段经文写成时，新约全书正在写作中，尚未完全写成。因此，他只是在谈论旧约，如果你认为这段经文谈的是圣经的充分性，那么它只是在谈论旧约的充分性，而不是新约，这样你就有问题了，因为相信唯独圣经的新教徒在说唯独圣经时，相信的是新旧约的权威。但我认为这真的是误解了经文的重点。经文的重点并不是要列出圣经的书卷。它只是在谈论圣经的本质。所以，无论他是在谈论新约还是旧约，圣经的本质确实是使人在这些善事上充分的东西。因此，如果这对旧约和当时已写成的新约部分是真实的，尽管关于当时究竟有哪些书卷被写成或被理解为圣经或在广泛意义上被传播，可能存在一些争议，但它谈论的是圣经的本质。所以我认为，就圣经的充分性而言，如果新约书卷正在继续写作，包括提摩太前书本身，它们也会具有与旧约相同的独特性质。因此，我认为如果有任何支持唯独圣经的证明经文，这将是最接近的一个，因为它教导了圣经的独特性和充分性。

But at the same time, I don't think you have to necessarily prove that the Bible says sola scriptura in so many words. It is in terms of the uniqueness and authority of Scripture, you have to prove that there is something else that is given that authority outside of Scripture.

但同时，我认为你不必非要证明圣经用明确的词语说明唯独圣经。就圣经的独特性和权威而言，你需要证明在圣经之外还有其他东西被赋予了这种权威。

So the other place that I would go is from Matthew 15, and this is a text that is cited many times in the relationship between Scripture and tradition. It's discussed a lot if you read, you know, Martin Kamenetz or Luther or a lot of people at the time of the Reformation or in the post-Reformation scholastic era, because this is really the heart of the debate in many ways, because if tradition was given this equal authority to Scripture, then I shouldn't be Lutheran. I shouldn't be any kind of Protestant. I should be either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. And a lot of what, if you read the, you know, the earlier Lutheran writers, someone like Kamenetz or Gerhard or others, where they are going to focus a lot of their attention is on proving the contradictions in the Roman tradition itself and rebutting the claims of this absolute historical continuity and consistency that happens in Rome. I think they're absolutely right, and those are very good ways to argue, but today we're dealing a lot more with Eastern Orthodoxy, I think, especially within Lutheranism, because it's something that is more attractive to people than Roman Catholicism is, especially because of the, well, the liberalism that's snuck into Rome since Vatican II. It's hard to kind of take those absolutist claims of historical consistency seriously at all. I really can't do it, and the more I study the history of Rome and the papacy and read the Fathers and then switch to reading Roman Catholic writers today, that there's such an inconsistency that I'm not even slightly convinced of any claims of continuity at all. So that's not even a temptation at all. But Eastern Orthodoxy is different in that it has a lot more behind it, I think, in terms of consistency with the early church, and it doesn't have all this baggage that Rome has. So I think the problem in looking at some of the early Lutheran writers is that they spend so much time just dealing with the claims of Rome's tradition that they don't spend as much time just interacting with sola scriptura as a doctrine, dealing with tradition itself as a whole, because they're only thinking in terms of Rome. They're not thinking so much in terms of the East. But let's look at a text from Matthew 15, and this is a text that speaks about the relationship between scripture and tradition, and it speaks about the relationship between scripture and tradition in relation to the teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees. So this is Matthew 15, starting in verse 1.

因此，我要谈的另一段经文是马太福音第15章，这段经文在讨论圣经与传统的关系时经常被引用。如果你读过马丁·卡梅内茨或路德，或是宗教改革时期及后改革经院时代的许多人的著作，你会发现这段经文被广泛讨论，因为它在很多方面触及了辩论的核心。如果传统被赋予了与圣经同等的权威，那么我就不应该是路德宗信徒，也不应该是任何新教徒。我应该成为东正教徒或公教徒。如果你读早期路德宗作家的著作，比如卡梅内茨、格哈德或其他人，你会发现他们将大量注意力集中在证明罗马传统本身的矛盾，以及反驳罗马声称的绝对历史连续性和一致性。我认为他们是完全正确的，这些都是很好的论证方式。但今天，我们更多地在处理东正教的问题，我认为尤其是在路德宗内部，因为相比公教会，东正教对人们更有吸引力，特别是因为自梵蒂冈第二次大公会议以来，自由主义已经悄然渗入罗马。很难再认真对待那些关于历史一致性的绝对主张。我真的无法接受，而且我越是研究罗马和教宗制度的历史，阅读教父的著作，然后转而阅读今天公教会作家的作品，就越发现其中存在如此大的不一致，以至于我对任何连续性的主张都丝毫不信服。所以这根本不是一种诱惑。但东正教不同，它在与早期教会的一致性方面有更多支持，而且没有罗马那么多的包袱。所以我认为，看一些早期路德宗作家的问题在于，他们花了太多时间只是处理罗马传统的主张，而没有花太多时间专门讨论唯独圣经作为一个教义，或整体上处理传统本身，因为他们只考虑罗马，而没有太多考虑东方教会。但让我们来看看马太福音第15章的一段经文，这段经文谈到了圣经与传统的关系，特别是在文士和法利赛人的教导方面。这是马太福音第15章，从第1节开始。

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandments of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and your mother, and he who curses father and mother, let him be put to death. But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever prophet you might have received from me as a gift to God, then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

那时有法利赛人和文士从耶路撒冷来见耶稣，说「你的门徒为什么犯古人的遗传呢？因为吃饭的时候，他们不洗手。」耶稣回答说「你们为什么因着你们的遗传犯神的诫命呢？神说『当孝敬父母』又说『咒骂父母的，必治死他。』你们倒说『无论何人对父母说，我所当奉给你的已经作了供献，他就可以不孝敬父母。』这就是你们借着遗传，废了神的诫命。」

Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, These people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. So what we have here is a claim about an infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses and its relationship to scripture. And I think what we see here is a principle that we can apply today, which is so let's look at the claims of Rome and the claims of the Jews. And I think this is important because Chemnitz points this out a lot, which is there's a lot of similarity between the claims of an infallible tradition passed on through the magisterium and the claims of an infallible tradition being passed on through the scribes and Pharisees that come down from Moses. And so the Jews in the first century had a very similar notion that scripture itself is an authority, but there also are these other authorities, which are the sayings of, well, laws given by Moses, which become the sayings of the scribes and Pharisees. We think today of something like the Babylonian Talmud that is written down after the New Testament. But we have then these infallible traditions and what those infallible traditions do is serve to interpret scripture. And so if you're going to interpret various laws, for example, the Sabbath and what it means that we are to rest on the Sabbath. So look at that tradition or that commandment that's clear in scripture. Now we have various traditions that are passed on. We have Halakha and Haggadah, which are these kind of expansions of the Old Testament in terms of both narrative form as well as in terms of various laws and how those laws are developed. So we have within that, you know, say the command of the Sabbath, now we have various particular traditions would say this is now our guide to interpreting scripture. And that guide to interpreting scripture includes all of these various ways that we are to fulfill those commandments. And then it becomes not just scripture alone, but scripture as it is understood through these various traditions that have been said to be orally passed down by Moses. So it was taught that Moses had the written law and the oral law, which resulted in the situation that we have in the first century with the various traditions that Jesus himself is often judged by. So we certainly have a parallel. And I think it's really hard not to see the parallel between what we have in Rome and what we have in Judaism, which is we have two competing things. We have one that says there's this tradition and then there's scripture. And the tradition is said to simply interpret scripture or help us to understand scripture or give us the kind of infallible, not that the Jews are using that particular term at this time of the first century, but the same concept nonetheless, this kind of infallible interpreter of what scripture really means.

假冒为善的人哪，以赛亚指着你们说的预言是不错的。他说，「这百姓用嘴唇尊敬我，心却远离我。他们将人的吩咐当作道理教导人，所以拜我也是枉然。」这里我们看到一个关于从摩西传下来的无误传统及其与圣经关系的说法。我认为我们从中可以得出一个今天可以应用的原则，那就是让我们来看看罗马公教会和犹太人的主张。我认为这很重要，因为开姆尼茨经常指出这一点，即通过训导权传下来的无误传统的说法与通过文士和法利赛人从摩西传下来的无误传统的说法有很多相似之处。第一世纪的犹太人有一个非常相似的观念，即圣经本身是一个权威，但还有其他权威，即摩西所给的律法，后来成为文士和法利赛人的言论。我们今天想到的是类似于新约之后写下的巴比伦塔木德。但我们有这些无误的传统，这些无误的传统的作用是解释圣经。因此，如果你要解释各种律法，例如安息日以及我们在安息日休息的含义。所以看看那个在圣经中很清楚的传统或诫命。现在我们有各种传下来的传统。我们有哈拉卡和哈加达，它们是对旧约的一种扩展，既有叙事形式，也有各种律法及其发展方式。所以我们在其中有，比如说安息日的诫命，现在我们有各种特定的传统会说这是我们解释圣经的指南。这个解释圣经的指南包括我们履行这些诫命的各种方式。然后它就不仅仅是单单圣经了，而是通过这些据说是摩西口头传下来的各种传统来理解的圣经。所以据说摩西有书面律法和口头律法，这就导致了我们在第一世纪看到的情况，即各种传统，耶稣自己经常被这些传统来判断。所以我们肯定有一个平行。我认为很难不看到罗马公教会和犹太教之间的平行，即我们有两个相互竞争的东西。我们有一个说有这个传统，然后有圣经。据说传统只是解释圣经或帮助我们理解圣经，或给我们一种无误的，虽然犹太人在第一世纪并没有使用这个特定术语，但是同样的概念，这种对圣经真正含义的无误解释者。

And it's in that context that Jesus does set up some principles that I think are valid for the church today. And the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition and scripture. And when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture that is the thing that gets the final say. So scripture has this kind of overriding power over tradition. So if scripture says something and tradition says something, scripture wins every time.

正是在这种背景下，耶稣确立了一些我认为对今天的教会仍然有效的原则。这个原则就是，传统和圣经之间确实可能存在对立。当圣经和传统发生冲突时，圣经才是最终的决定性因素。因此，圣经对传统有这种压倒性的权威。所以，如果圣经说一件事，而传统说另一件事，圣经总是胜出。

And it's not just that we have to always interpret scripture in light of the various supposed infallible traditions that have been passed down as ways to interpret scripture.

而且，我们不仅要始终根据各种据称是无误的传统来解释圣经，这些传统被传承下来作为解释圣经的方法。

So we have that going on in the first century, which is very much parallel to what's happening throughout the late middle ages when we arrive at the time period of the Reformation. Now, what Roman Catholic apologists do when they approach this text is they're always going to say, well, this is just condemning a particular kind of tradition, and that is the traditions of men, because that's the phrase that Jesus uses. So the difference is Rome doesn't teach the traditions of men, but the Jews who had supposedly had this infallible set of teachings and interpretations of scripture, they were teaching traditions of men. And that leaves a question, though, which is to say, well, according to what? How do you judge one as a tradition of men and the other not as a tradition of men? Because they're making pretty much the same claims. And so the first century Jews are making the same claims, and they could point out to Jesus here the same thing. They could say, hey, Jesus, where does the Old Testament say that the Old Testament is the only authority and not the traditions of men? You see, they could use the same argument. But of course, that wouldn't work with Jesus. But why is that any different? Again, the burden of proof was on them to show when Jesus says, hey, there's opposition between scripture and the traditions, the burden of proof is on then the Pharisees to go back and say, no, here is where we know that these traditions are indeed true and infallible and correct, and they really came from Moses. But Jesus gives us a way to interpret that relationship between scripture and tradition, which is scripture overrides tradition when there is a contradiction between the two. And, you know, Jesus doesn't then make some distinction to say, well, this is traditions of men, but there also are these other traditions which are on par with scripture, and those are ones passed on by God. And by the way, here's how you know the difference.

所以我们看到这种情况发生在第一世纪，这与宗教改革时期的晚期中世纪所发生的情况非常相似。现在，公教会护教学者在处理这段经文时总是会说，这只是在谴责某种特定的传统，那就是人的遗传，因为这是耶稣所用的词。所以区别在于，罗马公教会并不教导人的遗传，而那些据称拥有无误的圣经教导和解释的犹太人，他们却在教导人的遗传。但这就留下了一个问题，那就是，根据什么标准？你如何判断一个是人的遗传，而另一个不是人的遗传？因为他们基本上在做同样的声称。第一世纪的犹太人也在做同样的声称，他们可以向耶稣指出同样的事。他们可以说，嘿，耶稣，旧约在哪里说旧约是唯一的权威，而不是人的遗传？你看，他们可以使用同样的论点。但当然，这对耶稣是行不通的。但为什么会有什么不同呢？再次说明，举证责任在他们身上，当耶稣说，嘿，圣经和传统之间存在对立时，举证责任就落在法利赛人身上，他们需要回去说，不，这里是我们知道这些传统确实是真实、无误和正确的，它们确实来自摩西。但耶稣给了我们一种解释圣经和传统之间关系的方法，那就是当两者之间存在矛盾时，圣经凌驾于传统之上。你知道，耶稣并没有做出某种区分说，好吧，这是人的遗传，但还有其他与圣经同等的传统，那些是神传下来的。顺便说一下，这就是你如何知道其中的区别。

He certainly seems to be functioning on a sola scriptura kind of principle when he is evaluating the traditions of the Jews. And I don't see any reason why we shouldn't apply that same principle in the way that we look at traditions in the church as well.

他在评估犹太人的传统时，似乎确实是按照唯独圣经的原则行事。我看不出有什么理由不应该用同样的原则来审视教会的传统。