嗨，我是道格·博蒙特。 Hey, I'm Doug Beaumont.
欢迎来到我的频道。 Welcome to my channel.
这里全是关于基督教神学、哲学和护教学的内容。 It's all about Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics.
今天其实是宗教改革纪念日，就是路德在威登堡张贴他的九十五条论 纲的日子，这被认为是宗教改革正式开始的日子，不论是好是坏。 Today is actually Reformation Day, the day that Martin Luther nailed up his 95 theses in Wittenberg, and that's kind of considered the official launch of the Reformation, for better or for worse.
其他人都把这天称为万圣节前夜或万圣节。 Everybody else pretty much knows it as All Hallows' Eve or Halloween.
据说，推动宗教改革的有两个主要因素，即宗教改革的实质原则和形式原则，其中 形式原则就是唯独圣经，即认为圣经是基督徒在信仰和道德问题上的最高权威。 Now, it is said that there are two major things that drove the Reformation, the material and the formal principles of the Reformation, the formal principle being sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for the Christian in matters of faith and morals.
我决定看看互联网上有什么关于唯独圣经的辩护，于是我搜索了唯独圣经的辩护， 点击了第一个结果，发现了乔丹·B·库珀博士和他的视频「称我为宗教改革」。 Well, I decided it would be interesting to see what is being offered out there on the Internet in defense of sola scriptura, and so I typed in a defense of sola scriptura, clicked on the very first one, and discovered Dr. Jordan B. Cooper and his video, Call Me the Reformation.
它的标题是「唯独圣经的辩护」。 It's called A Defense of Sola Scriptura.
库珀博士是一位相当受欢迎的油管主。 Now, Dr. Cooper is a fairly popular YouTuber.
我以前在搜索时见过他，所以我知道这个人是正统的。 I've seen him before just searching around, so I know this guy is legit.
他是一位路德宗学者，所以我决定看看他的视频，看 看他是如何为唯独圣经辩护的，并给出我的回应。 He is a Lutheran scholar, and so I decided I would have a look at his video and see how it is that he defended sola scriptura and offer my responses.
在他的视频开头，他并没有深入讨论唯独圣经的实际含义。 Now, when setting up his video, he doesn't go into a lot of discussion over what sola scriptura actually is.
事实上，他后来将其称为圣经是唯一权威，这通常不是新教徒想要表达 的意思，他们更倾向于说圣经是最高权威之类的，以此将自己与有时被 称为唯独圣经的观点区分开来，后者更像是浸信会基要主义的观点。 In fact, he actually refers to it later as, the Bible is the only authority, which is not usually what Protestants want to say about Scripture, but rather that it's the ultimate authority or something like that, in order to set themselves apart from what is sometimes called sola scriptura, which is more of your Baptist fundamentalist type view.
他并没有明确说明这一点，但他确实对传统做出了一个有趣的 陈述，这在某种程度上与唯独圣经相对立，以下是他的说法。 Now, he doesn't really spell that out, but he does make an interesting statement with regard to tradition, which is kind of the opposition to sola scriptura, and this is what he has to say.
「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，这与我们今天所说的、所教导的以及我们崇拜的方式非常相似。」 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.
好的，这对库珀博士的回应并不是特别重要，但既然他提到了，我确实想指出 ，许多更传统的新教徒确实想要与圣经是唯一权威来源这一观点保持距离。 Okay, so this is not super important to Dr. Cooper's response, but since he brings it up, I do want to point out that a lot of your more traditional Protestants do want to distance themselves from this idea that the Bible is the only source of authority.
虽然他在视频中确实这么说了，但我认为这并不是他的本意。 And although he actually will say that in the video, I don't think that's exactly what he meant.
我相信，他提到路德宗和英国圣公会的意思是，他们尊重传统。 And what he is getting at, I believe, with this reference to the Lutheran and Anglicans, is that they have a respect for tradition.
他们尊重教父。 They have a respect for the Church Fathers.
事实上，如果你看他身后的书架，你会发现他有教父的著作。 In fact, if you look behind him on his bookshelf, he's got the writings of the Church Fathers.
我的就在这里和上面。 Mine is right here and up here.
所以我确实想对此作出回应，因为很多时候，新教徒看到如 果他们否认基督教传统就会陷入的陷阱，就会给出一些…… So I do want to respond to this, though, because many times Protestants, seeing the trap that they're going to fall into if they deny Christian tradition, will give some...
某种免责声明，一个小星号，一个小限定，说明哦，你知道，我们尊重教父。 sort of a disclaimer, a little asterisk, a little qualification regarding the fact that, oh, you know, we respect the Church Fathers.
我们相信很多与教父相同的东西。 We believe a lot of the same things the Church Fathers do.
他们教导很多与我们相同的东西。 They teach a lot of the same things we do.
这种想法似乎是为了淡化唯独圣经的概念，因为唯独圣经并不意味着我们不尊重传统。 And the idea seems to be to kind of soften this idea of sola scriptura because, well, sola scriptura doesn't mean that we don't respect tradition.
问题是，归根结底，这种对传统的尊重仅仅是在说，在教会 的教导和我相信圣经的教导重叠的地方，我们是一致的。 The problem is, what it really boils down to is that this respect for tradition is simply saying that where what the Church teaches, and what I believe Scripture teaches, overlaps, we are in agreement.
当然，这从定义上来说是正确的。 Well, of course, that's just true by definition.
任何人都可以说他们尊重某种其他传统或某种其他权威来源，如果他们只在同意的时候才尊重它。 Anybody can say that they respect some other tradition or some other source of authority if the only time they have to respect it is when they agree with it.
我的意思是，我在某些事情上同意摩门教徒和撒但教徒 ，但这并不意味着他们以任何方式成为我的宗教权威。 I mean, I agree with Mormons and Satanists on some things, but that doesn't mean that they are in any way functioning as a religious authority for me.
所以，英国圣公会和路德宗可能比浸信会或福音派更同意教父所说的话，这 一事实并没有从根本上改变什么，因为实际上，两个群体都在做同样的事。 So the fact that Anglicans and Lutherans might agree with Mormons, more of what the Church Fathers said than, say, a Baptist or an Evangelical, doesn't really change things in an important way because, really, both groups are doing the same thing.
他们只是同意他们同意的东西。 They're just agreeing with what they agree with.
这并没有回答权威的问题，而这正是唯独圣经真正要解决的问题。 And that is not answering the issue of authority, which is what sola scriptura is really about.
好的，接下来库珀博士开始了他对唯独圣经的实际辩护。 Okay, so then Dr. Cooper goes into his actual defense of sola scriptura.
他首先要反驳的是这样一个观点：为了使唯独圣经有意义，圣经必须教导唯独圣经。 And the first thing that he is going to go after is this idea that the Bible has to teach sola scriptura, in order for sola scriptura to make sense.
如果你在与罗马公教会护教士讨论唯独圣经时，他们总是会反复提出同样的观点。 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.
如果你关注罗马公教会的护教学或最近皈依罗马的人，你会经常听到这种说法。 You're going to hear this if you're looking at Roman Catholic apologetics or recent converts to Rome.
那就是，圣经从未教导唯独圣经。 And that is, Scripture never teaches sola scriptura.
所以你把圣经视为最高权威。 So you are holding Scripture as the ultimate authority.
然而，圣经本身从未说它是唯一的权威。 However, Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority.
因此，你自相矛盾了。 Therefore, you're contradicting yourself.
好的，那么…… Okay, so...
首先，他并没有真正深入探讨这个问题。 First off, he doesn't really go into this.
但我认为他想表达的是，我不需要一个铁证如山的单一证 明文本来明确阐述唯独圣经，才能说圣经教导了这一点。 But I think that what he is getting at is this idea that I don't have to have a rock -solid, single -proof text that spells out sola scriptura in order for the Bible to teach it.
当然，公教徒也会同意这一点。 And, of course, Catholics would agree with that.
我的意思是，任何了解神学的人都会同意这一点。 I mean, anybody that knows anything about theology would agree with that.
因为很多时候，一个神学立场是建立在圣经的整体数据之上，而不仅仅是一个单独的经文。 Because many times, a theological position is built up from the data of Scripture and not just a single verse.
事实上，通常…… In fact, typically...
当一个神学立场仅基于单一经文时，它往往是错误的，因为它没有被其他经文的陈述所平衡。 When a theological position is based on a single verse, it is often wrong because it isn't balanced out by statements from other verses.
所以，如果一个罗马公教会护教士因为没有经文明确 说明而攻击新教徒的唯独圣经观念，那就是个问题。 So, if a Roman Catholic apologist attacks a Protestant on the notion of sola scriptura because there's no verse that says that, that's a problem.
然而，通常罗马公教会的护教士都很清楚这一点。 However, usually, Roman Catholic apologists are well aware of this.
他们想表达的是，圣经中并没有唯独圣经的教导。 And what they are getting at is that there isn't the teaching of sola scriptura in Scripture.
这是一个更加有力的主张。 It's a much more robust claim.
那么……那么，我们该如何处理这个问题？ So... So, what do we do with that?
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圣经是唯一的权威？ And I think the question that we have is, do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority?
我认为我们不必这样做。 And I just don't think we have to.
我们不需要。没有任何…… We don't. There's nothing in...
你知道，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。 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.
也没有任何训导权被赋予某种无误的权威来传递无误的教导。 And there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.
似乎很多罗马公教会的护教士认为，新教徒为了捍卫 他们的立场，必须找到一段明确说明这一点的文本。 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.
我不知道新教徒说过多少次，好吧，关于罗马公教会的教导，圣经中哪里有空白？ I don't know how many times a Protestant has said, well, where is blank in the Bible with regard to Roman Catholic teaching?
所以，有趣的是他在某种程度上批评罗马公教会的护教士，但这实际上是新 教徒唯一会使用这种特殊策略的时候，因为他们知道这种策略效果不佳。 So, it's funny that he's kind of going after Roman Catholic apologists, but this is really one of the only times that a Protestant would use this particular tactic, because they know it doesn't work very well.
库珀基本上承认情况并非如此。 And Cooper basically admits that that is not the case.
相反，他提出了最接近的东西，他说了两次，这是你能得到的最 接近证明文本的东西，那就是提摩太后书3章16至17节。 Instead, what he does is, he brings up the closest thing, he says this twice, it's the closest thing to a proof text that you're going to get, and that is 2 Timothy 3 .16 through 17.
不，我认为更重要的是，我们要做的就是谈论圣经的独特权威和圣经的独特性质。 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.
只需说圣经确实将自己呈现为神所默示的。 And just to say that Scripture does present itself as God -breathed.
提摩太后书3章16节是一段著名的经文，说的是所有的圣经都是神所默示的。 2 Timothy 3 .16 is kind of the famous text that says this, that all Scripture is God -breathed.
「圣经」对于教导、责备、纠正和培养义行都是有益 的，使神的人可以完全装备，预备行各样的善事。 He's 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.
好的，这是一个有趣的策略，但不幸的是注定要失败。 Okay, so this is an interesting tactic, and one that unfortunately is doomed to failure.
现在，我知道库珀博士制作这个视频，看起来是没有经过剪辑的。 Now, I know that Dr. Cooper made this video, you know, it looks like without editing.
我想他是一口气说完的。 I think he went straight through.
他确实在这里那里有几处错误陈述，但他反复强调这一点。 He definitely makes a couple of misstatements here and there, but he says this one over and over and over again.
他把辩论框定为好像公教会认为圣经和传统都是默示的。 He frames the debate as if the Catholic Church thinks that, Scripture and tradition are both inspired.
然后他从这一点出发，做了一个相当长的论证，说明 圣经并没有将自身以外的任何东西识别为默示的。 And then he goes on from there to make this pretty lengthy argument about the fact that Scripture does not identify anything outside of itself as inspired.
之后他继续讨论论证应该如何进行，辩论应该如何进行。 And then he goes on after that to talk about how argumentation should work and how the debate should work.
事实上，举证责任在公教徒身上，要证明除了圣经之外还有什么是默示的。 The fact that the burden of proof is on the Catholic to show that anything is inspired other than Scripture.
好的，这一切的问题在于，公教会并不教导训导权、教 宗、大公会议、信经或圣经以外的任何东西是默示的。 Okay, the problem with all of this is that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Magisterium, or the Pope, or the Councils, or the creeds, or anything is inspired outside of Scripture.
我们一致认为情况就是如此。 We are in agreement that that is the case.
事实上，这种说法对我来说如此奇怪，以至于我真的想， 天哪，我猜一些罗马公教会的护教士一定说过这种话。 In fact, the claim is so strange to me that I actually thought, gosh, I guess some Roman Catholic apologists must have said this.
所以我上网试图找一些可靠的公教会网站，说训导权、教会、教宗或圣经以外的任何东西是默示的。 So I got on the internet trying to find some reputable Catholic website that says that the Magisterium, or the Church, or the Pope, or anything outside of Scripture is inspired.
我找不到一个。 I could not find one.
所以，你知道，库珀博士，如果你真的有这样的例子，我很 抱歉，但我可以向你保证，公教会并不教导传统是默示的。 So, you know, Mia Culpa, Dr. Cooper, if you actually have an example of this, but I can assure you the Catholic Church does not teach that tradition is inspired.
只有圣经是默示的。 Only the Scripture is inspired.
我们用「无误」这个词来形容其他虽然不是默示的，但仍然不会出错的来源。 We use the word infallible for other sources that are not inspired, but still are protected from error.
不过，这是一个完全不同的说法。 That's a completely different claim though.
既然他把一切都建立在提摩太后书3章16节的这个默 示之上，基本上他视频的整个部分都是无关紧要的。 And since he bases everything on this inspiration coming from 2 Timothy 3 .16, basically this entire section of his video is moot.
所以首先，他从提摩太后书3章16节论证圣经具有这种独特的地位，我们同意。 So first, he argues from 2 Timothy 3 .16 that Scripture has this unique status and we agree.
所以在这一点上没有什么可说的了。 So there's nothing else to say there.
其次，他说圣经有特定的充分性，因为它有这种充分性，使它处于成为基督徒最高权威的地位。 Second, he says that it has a particular sufficiency and that because it has the sufficiency that puts it in a position to be the Christian's ultimate authority.
那段经文中另一个重要的点是，它确实说圣经足以装备人行各样的善事。 The other thing that is important in that text is it does say that Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every good work.
圣经有充分性，或者说圣经的充分性足以装备人行各样的善事，足以装备人行善。 Scripture has a sufficiency, or the sufficiency of Scripture to equip for every good work to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works.
现在，问题是，尽管他在视频中反复强调，提摩太后书3章 16和17节根本没有使用「充分」或「充分性」这个词。 Now, the trouble is, although he says it over and over and over and over again in the video, 2 Timothy 3 .16 and 17 don't use the word sufficient or sufficiency at all.
事实上，我认为仔细阅读就会发现，它一开始就没有做出这样的主张。 And in fact, I think a careful reading of it shows that it's not even making that claim in the first place.
现在，许多公教会护教士会指出，充分性实际上有两种形式。 Now, a lot of Catholic apologists will point out that sufficiency actually kind of comes in two flavors.
即使圣经，即使神的道足以作为基督徒的最高或唯一权威，这并不意味着它不需要解 释，因为虽然文字实质上可能存在，但在被解释之前，它们实际上没有任何意义。 Even if the Bible, even if the Word of God is sufficient to function as the Christian's highest or sole authority, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be interpreted because although the words materially might be there, until they are interpreted, they really don't have anything to say.
因此，公教徒可能会争辩说，形式上的充分性来自教会，即使实质上的充分性来自圣经。 And so the formal sufficiency, the Catholic might argue, comes from the church, even if the material sufficiency comes from Scripture.
但是再说一遍，我们甚至不需要用这节经文来讨论这个问题，因为这节经文并没有说圣经是充分的。 But again, we don't even really need to go there with this verse because the verse doesn't say, Scripture is sufficient.
相反，它说的是圣经是有用的、有益的、有帮助的。 Rather, what it says is that Scripture is useful, profitable, helpful.
这个词可能有几种不同的翻译方式。 There's a couple different ways that this word might be translated.
但关键是，这里说圣经是为了使神的人预备行各样的善事。 But the point is that the Scripture here is said to be contributing to the man of God becoming prepared for every good work.
但当然，这与说圣经是基督徒唯一或最高权威的说法是非常不同的。 But of course, that's a very different claim than that Scripture is the sole or highest authority for the Christian.
事实上，「预备行各样的善事」这个短语并不是这节经文独有的。 And in fact, the very phrase prepared for every good work is not unique to this verse.
圣保罗多次谈到这一点。 St. Paul talks about this several times.
在他谈到这一点的其他经文中，他甚至没有提到圣经。 And in the other verses where he talks about it, he doesn't even mention Scripture.
所以问题是，显然圣保罗认为有几件事可以帮助神的人预备行各样的善事。 So the trouble is there's obviously several things that St. Paul thinks contribute or help a man of God become prepared for all good works.
有趣的是。 Interesting.
顺便说一下，这是关于善行的，但没有任何一个暗示它是唯一具有这种功能的东西。 It's about good works, by the way, but none of them imply in any way that it is the only thing that does that function.
所以再说一遍，这里有几个问题。 So again, there's a couple problems here.
第一，提摩太后书3章16至17节甚至没有使用这个词。 Number one, second Timothy 3 16 through 17 does not even use the word.
第二，充分，它使用的词是不充分的。 Sufficient second, the words that it does use are insufficient.
它实际上使用的是像有帮助或有益之类的词，你知道，那种东西。 It's actually using words like helpful or profitable or you know, that kind of thing.
而这些词的对象不是教条或正统信仰。 And the object of those words is not dogma or orthodoxy.
它是在预备神的人行善。 It's preparing a man of God to do good works.
所以这与唯独圣经的主张完全不同，唯独圣经是将圣经与传统对立起来。 So this is really nothing like the claim of sola scriptura, which pits Scripture against tradition.
事实上，其中一节经文确实用那个词谈到了充分性。 In fact, one of the verses actually talks about sufficiency with that word in that verse.
但它仍然不意味着库珀博士似乎认为的提摩太后书3章16和17节所说的 。好的，现在他要转向他认为是罗马公教会护教士对这个论点的主要回应。 And it's still, doesn't mean what Dr. Cooper seems to think second, Timothy 3 16 and 17 are saying, okay, now he is going to turn to what he sees as the prime Roman Catholic apologist response to this argument.
现在，罗马对此的反驳总是一样的，那就是当这段特定的经文被写下时，整个新约正在被写作。 Now the the rebuttal to that it 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 was being written.
所以它还没有完全写完。 So it's not yet totally written.
因此，他只是在谈论旧约。 Therefore, he's speaking only of the Old Testament.
如果你认为这是在谈论圣经的充分性，那么它只是在谈论旧约的充分性，而不是新约。 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.
好的。 Okay.
所以在这里我只想说我同意。 So here I'm just going to say I agree.
我不认为这是一个非常有力的论点。 I don't think this is a tremendously powerful argument.
我认为它有一些稍微细微的版本，你知道，可能会使讨论比这里承认的更深入一些。 I think there are some versions of it that are nuanced a bit that, you know, maybe take the discussion a little farther down the field than is being admitted here.
但我愿意承认这确实不是一个很好的论点。 But I am willing to concede that this just is not a great argument.
我确实认为我们可以把圣保罗对提摩太的话视为关于圣经本质的陈述。 I do think that we could take St. Paul's words to Timothy as a statement about the nature of Scripture.
所以无论什么被视为圣经，无论它何时开始被视为圣经，都能实 现圣保罗所说的功能，尽管新约的一些部分当时还没有完成。 And so whatever counts as Scripture, whenever it begins being counted as Scripture fulfills the function that St. Paul's talking about the fact that some of the New Testament wasn't done yet.
正典还没有被确定的事实。 The fact that the Canon wasn't defined yet.
我认为这些都不会造成太大的差异。 I don't think any of that really makes too much of a difference.
所以我愿意承认这一点，但我也想指出，优秀的公教 会护教士对这节经文有更多的看法，不仅仅是这些。 So I'm willing to concede this but I also want to point out that good Catholic apologists have a lot more to say about this verse than just that.
现在我认为这是你能找到的最接近证明唯独圣经的经文。 Now that I think is as close of a text as you're going to get that proves Sola Scriptura.
如果有任何证明唯独圣经的经文，那就是最接近的一个，因为它教导了圣经的独特性和充分性。 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.
好的，然后库珀博士转向他的第二个主要圣经论点，来自马太福音第15章。 Okay, then Dr. Cooper moves on to his second major scriptural argument, which comes from Matthew 15.
所以我要提到的另一处经文是马太福音第15章。 So the other place that I would go is from Matthew 15.
这是一段经常被引用来讨论圣经和传统关系的经文。 And this is a text that is cited many times in the relationship between Scripture and tradition.
这段经文谈到了圣经和传统之间的关系，以及圣经和传统与文士和法利赛人的教导之间的关系。 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.
所以我们这里有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。 So what we have here is a claim about an infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses and its relationship to Scripture.
通过训导权传递的无误传统的说法和通过文士传递的无误传统的说法之间有很多相似之处。 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.
以及从摩西传下来的法利赛人。 And Pharisees that come down from Moses.
这里有几点我觉得有些令人不安。 There's several things here that I find somewhat troubling.
我可能需要做更多的研究，但据我所知，犹太人并不认为法利赛人的传统是无误的。 I probably need to do more research on this, but I am not aware that the Jews considered the traditions of the Pharisees to be infallible.
库珀博士反复强调这一点，我认为他是在试图强行在旧约 中法利赛人的情况与公教会和圣经之间建立平行关系。 Dr. Cooper says this over and over and over and over again, trying to kind of, I think, force a parallel between the situation of the Pharisees in the Old Testament and the Catholic Church and the Scripture.
他从哪里得到这被认为是无误传统的想法？ Where, where did he get this idea that this was considered infallible tradition?
可能有一些人是这么想的，但我在圣经中没有看到任何这样的说法。 There may have been some people that thought that, but I don't see that anywhere in Scripture.
所以我不确定他为什么要做出这种说法，除非是为了让它看起来更像公教会的情况。 So I'm not sure why he's even making that claim, other than to try to make it seem more like the situation with the Catholic Church.
其次，我们在这里必须非常小心，当耶稣对一个术语做出限定时，我们需要注意这一点。 Second, we have to be very careful here that when Jesus makes a qualification of a term, we need to pay attention to that.
耶稣在这里不仅仅是指传统。 Jesus doesn't just refer to tradition here.
他称之为人的传统。 He refers to them as traditions of men.
这是因为人的传统和传统是两回事。 That is, because traditions of men and traditions are two different things.
现在，库珀博士承认这一点，但随后他给出了一种几乎奇怪的回应，说，好吧，你怎么知道？ Now, Dr. Cooper admits this, but then he gives this kind of almost strange response to that by saying that, well, how would you know?
什么是区分传统和人的传统的标准？ What, what is the standard for knowing the difference between a tradition and a tradition of men?
罗马公教会护教士在处理这段经文时总是会说，好吧 ，这只是在谴责一种特定的传统，那就是人的传统。 What Roman Catholic apologists do when they approach this text is they're always going to say, well, this is just, this is just condemning a particular kind of tradition, and that is the tradition of men.
因为这是耶稣使用的短语。 Because that's the phrase that Jesus uses.
所以区别在于罗马不教导人的传统，但那些据说有这套无 误的圣经教导和解释的犹太人，他们在教导人的传统。 So the difference is Rome doesn't teach the traditions of men, but the Jews who had supposedly had this, you know, infallible set of teachings and interpretations of scripture, they were teaching traditions of men.
这就留下了一个问题，也就是说，根据什么，你如何判断一个是人的传统，而另一个不是人的传统？ 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?
我想如果耶稣没有进一步说什么，这可能是一个合理的问题，但他确实说了。 I suppose if Jesus had not said anything further, that might be a legitimate question, but he does.
耶稣明确地说，他们用他们的传统废弃了神的道。 Jesus specifically says that they have, have made void the word of God by their traditions.
所以如果有一个传统废弃了神的道所教导的，那么这可以被视为有问题的人的传统。 So if there's a tradition that voids what the word of God teaches, then that could be considered a problematic tradition of men.
这就是库珀博士认为在这里体现的任何原则开始发挥作用的时候。 And that's when whatever principle Dr. Cooper thinks is being instantiated here comes into play.
你不能把这个用于任何传统，因为有些传统是应该被遵守的。 You can't just use that for any tradition because there are traditions that are to be obeyed.
这在圣经中多次提到。 This is stated several times in scripture.
你看帖撒罗尼迦后书2章15节。 You look at second Thessalonians 2 15.
你看哥林多前书11章2节。事实上，我们甚至可以看提摩太后书第3章的更 完整背景，其中圣保罗说提摩太应该相信他所学的，因为是圣保罗教导他的。 You look at first Corinthians 11 2. In fact, we can even look at the fuller context of second Timothy chapter 3, where Saint Paul says that Timothy should believe what he was taught because he was taught it by Saint Paul.
而这是在圣经被写下之前。 And this was before scripture was written.
事实是，圣经非常支持传统。 The fact is scripture is very pro -tradition.
事实上，圣保罗明确说你需要遵循传统，无论它们是否被写下。 In fact, Saint Paul specifically says you need to follow the traditions, whether they're written or not.
问题在于人的传统，试图从一段关于特定类型传统的经文 中提炼出一个原则，并将其应用于所有传统是不公平的。 It's the traditions of men that are a problem and it's not fair to try to make a principle out of a passage, about a specific kind of tradition as if it applies to all traditions.
如果我们看马太福音23章，我们实际上可以看到这一 点的实际应用，耶稣自己说要遵循法利赛人的传统。 And if we look at Matthew 23, we can actually see this very thing in action where Jesus himself says follow the traditions of the Pharisees.
所以耶稣在这里并不是在全面谴责传统。 So Jesus is not making a blanket condemnation of traditions here.
他并没有建立一个用来判断所有传统的原则。 He is not setting up a principle by which we judge all tradition.
如果你想争辩说公教会在教导人的传统。 If you want to argue that the Catholic Church is teaching a tradition of men.
那么，你需要找到一些废弃神的道的东西。 Well, then you need to find something that voids the word of God.
我知道新教徒认为有一些公教会的传统是这样做的。 And I know Protestants think that there are, uh, Catholic traditions that do that.
但正如我在另一个视频中所展示的，很容易证明新教徒也在做同样的事。 But as I showed in another video, it's pretty easy to show Protestants doing the same thing.
所以最坏的情况下，我们可能在这里处于平等的地位。 So at worst, we're probably on equal footing here.
我不会更深入地探讨这个问题，只是想说他已经在有问题地设置这个问题了。 I won't go any deeper into this issue, but merely to say that already he's kind of setting this up problematically.
而这个原则是，传统和圣经之间确实可能存在对立。 And the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition and scripture.
当圣经和传统相冲突时，应以圣经为准。 And when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture.
这才是最终决定的因素。 That is the thing that gets the final say.
我看到的这种论证方式的第三个问题是，库珀博士选择了马太福音第15章 作为他认为是建立传统和圣经似乎不一致时应该怎么办的原则的关键段落。 The third problem I see with this line of argumentation is that Dr. Cooper has picked Matthew chapter 15 as what he thinks is kind of the seminal passage for establishing a principle of what happens when tradition and scripture don't seem to agree.
但如果我们选择一个不同的段落呢？ But what if we picked a different passage?
如果我们选择使徒行传第15章呢？ What if we picked Acts chapter 15?
这里我们看到现在被称为犹太主义者和教会之间的分歧，当时有一个活跃的问 题是外邦人是否需要遵守犹太律法，特别是在成为基督徒时是否需要受割礼。 Here we have a disagreement between people that are now called the Judaizers and the church, where there was a live question about whether or not Gentiles needed to follow Jewish law, specifically by being circumcised when they became Christian.
现在，有趣的是，如果你实际阅读这是如何进行的， 有一些经文被提出来，但它们从未被视为证明文本。 Now, what's interesting is that if you actually read how this went along, there were some verses tossed out there, but they were never treated as proof text.
它们从未被视为决定性的唯独圣经权威论点，无论是这样还是那样。 They were never treated as definitive sola scriptura authoritative arguments one way or the other.
被引用的经文唯一显示的是外邦人将要进入神的国。 The only thing the verse that was quoted showed was that Gentiles were going to come into the kingdom.
它没有说他们是否需要遵守。 It said nothing about whether or not they needed to follow.
犹太律法。 Jewish laws.
事实上，我不知道你能否从圣经中得到最终答案，因为旧约 ，也就是他们当时唯一拥有的经文，非常明确地主张割礼。 And in fact, I don't know that you could get the final answer from scripture because the Old Testament, which are the only scriptures they had at the time very clearly argues for circumcision.
相反。 Rather.
发生的是使徒们进来，他们根据自己的经验和对整个情况的看法给出论点。 What happens is the Apostles come in they give arguments based on their experience and what they think about the whole situation.
然后当彼得发表讲话时，雅各主持会议，因为他是耶路撒冷的主教。 And then when Peter gives his talk James who was kind of running the meeting because it was he was the Bishop of Jerusalem.
这是他的。 It was his.
这座城市站起来说，好吧，就这样。 The city stands up and says, well, there you go.
他没有说彼得从圣经中证明了这一点。 And he doesn't say Peter proved this from Scripture.
他没有说，哦，是的，旧约中的那节经文说服了我。 He doesn't say, oh, yeah, that verse from the Old Testament has convinced me.
他没有在这里说。 He doesn't say,
我站在这里，我别无选择。 Here I stand I can do no other rather.
他说，你知道吗？ He says, you know what?
我们使徒和圣灵认为给出这个答案是好的，然后他给出了答案，讨论就此结束。 It seemed good to us the Apostles and the Holy Spirit to give this answer and then he gives it and that is the end of the discussion.
使徒行传15章中耶路撒冷会议的有趣之处在于，我认为它展示了教会应该如何行事的一个例子。 So what's interesting about the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is that I think it shows an example of what the church was supposed to do.
继续前进，因为这实际上是在一个我们正在了解教会如何前进的部分。 Going forward because this is actually in a section where we're learning what the church did going forward.
如果有教义争议，教会的领导者，也就是我们今天可能称之为训导权的人，会在一个会议 中聚集在一起，考虑圣经，考虑他们自己的想法，然后得出他们认为圣灵在教导的内容。 If there was a doctrinal dispute those in charge of the church, what we might call the magisterium today got together in a council considered scripture considered their own thoughts and then came up with what they thought the Holy Spirit was teaching.
这与唯独圣经的程序非常非常不同。 That is very very different than the kind of sola scriptura procedure.
你看到大多数新教徒所指的。 You see most Protestants referring to.
基本上你打开圣经，找到听起来符合你想法的经文，然后啪的一声合上圣经，说，好了，就是这样。 Where basically you open your Bible, you find the verse that sounds like it agrees with what you think and then you slam the Bible shut and you say, well, there you go.
就是这样，其他任何东西都是人的传统。 That's it and anything else is a tradition of men.
所以我认为，试图像库珀博士所说的那样，将马太福音1 5章作为支持唯独圣经的决定性证据，存在一些问题。 So I think there's a number of problems with trying to use Matthew 15 as definitively for a supportive sola scriptura as Dr. Cooper makes it sound like okay.
好吧，这是一个相当短的视频，但我是在回应一个相当短的视频，我认为我没必要继续说下去。 Well, this has been a pretty short video, but I'm responding to a pretty short video and I don't think it would be fair for me to go on and on and on.
而且，对于一个相当随意的视频，显然不是为了给我们提供库珀博 士在这个问题上的全部思想体系，我没必要做出非常详细的回应。 And, and go into great detail in a response to a video that was fairly off the cuff and obviously not meant to give us Dr. Cooper's entire corpus of thought on the matter.
但这就是我对YouTube在我输入「唯独圣经的辩护」时推荐的第一个视频的回应。 But that is my response to the number one video that YouTube suggests when I type in defensive sola scriptura.
所以我希望这对你有所帮助，如果有帮助的话，请给视频点赞，如果 你对基督教哲学、神学和护教学感兴趣，请订阅道格拉斯·博蒙特。 So I hope this has helped you out if it has once you give the video like subscribe to Douglas Beaumont if you are interested in Christian philosophy theology and apologetics.
下次再见，愿神保佑你。 And until next time God bless.