[Script Info]
Title: Merged Subtitles
ScriptType: v4.00+
WrapStyle: 0
ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes
Collisions: Normal
PlayResX: 384
PlayResY: 288

[V4+ Styles]
Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding
Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:04.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嘿，我是道格·博蒙特。欢迎来到我的频道。这里主要讨论基\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hey, I'm Doug Beaumont. Welcome to my channel. It's all about Christian theology, philosophy,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:04.00,0:00:10.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}督教神学、哲学和护教学。今天实际上是宗教改革日，也就\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and apologetics. Today is actually Reformation Day, the day that Martin Luther nailed up
Dialogue: 0,0:00:10.52,0:00:16.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是马丁·路德在维滕贝格张贴他的95条论纲的日子\N{\an2\fs10\i1}his 95 theses in Wittenberg, and that's kind of considered the official launch of
Dialogue: 0,0:00:16.16,0:00:20.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，这被认为是宗教改革的正式启动，不管是好是坏。其\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the Reformation, for better or for worse. Everybody else pretty much knows it as All
Dialogue: 0,0:00:20.84,0:00:26.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他人基本上都知道这一天是万圣节前夕或万圣节。现在，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Hallows' Eve or Halloween. Now, it is said that there are two major things that drove
Dialogue: 0,0:00:26.00,0:00:31.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}据说有两大主要因素推动了宗教改革，即宗教改革的物质\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the Reformation, the material and the formal principles of the Reformation, the formal
Dialogue: 0,0:00:31.68,0:00:37.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}原则和形式原则，形式原则是唯独圣经的理念，即圣经是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}principle being sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.13,0:00:42.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基督徒在信心和道德问题上的最终权威。好吧，我决定看看\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for the Christian in matters of faith and morals. Well, I decided it would be interesting
Dialogue: 0,0:00:42.20,0:00:46.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}网上有哪些关于捍卫唯独圣经的内容，所以我输入了“\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to see what is being offered out there on the Internet in defense of sola scriptura,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:46.59,0:00:52.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}捍卫唯独圣经”，点击了第一个结果，发现了乔丹·B·库珀\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and so I typed in a defense of sola scriptura, clicked on the very first one, and discovered
Dialogue: 0,0:00:52.75,0:00:59.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}博士的视频《捍卫唯独圣经》。库珀博士是一个相当受欢\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Dr. Jordan B. Cooper and his video called A Defense of Sola Scriptura. Now, Dr. Cooper
Dialogue: 0,0:00:59.27,0:01:04.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}迎的YouTuber，我以前在搜索时见过他，所以\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is a fairly popular YouTuber. I've seen him before just searching around, so I know
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.04,0:01:09.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我知道他是个靠谱的人。他是一位路德宗学者，所以我决\N{\an2\fs10\i1}this guy's legit. He is a Lutheran scholar, and so I decided I would have a look at his
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.63,0:01:15.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}定看看他的视频，看看他是如何捍卫唯独圣经的，并提供我的回应。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}video and see how it is that he defended sola scriptura and offer my responses.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.12,0:01:27.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，在设置他的视频时，他并没有详细讨论什么\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, when setting up his video, he doesn't go into a lot of discussion over what sola
Dialogue: 0,0:01:27.12,0:01:32.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是唯独圣经。事实上，他后来提到圣经是唯一的权\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scriptura actually is. In fact, he actually refers to it later as the Bible is the only
Dialogue: 0,0:01:32.40,0:01:38.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}威，这通常不是新教徒想要表达的意思，而是圣经是最\N{\an2\fs10\i1}authority, which is not usually what Protestants want to say about scripture, but rather that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:38.36,0:01:42.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}高权威或类似的东西。为了将自己与有时被称为唯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}it's the ultimate authority or something like that. In order to set themselves apart
Dialogue: 0,0:01:42.83,0:01:48.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}独圣经的观点区分开来，这种观点更像是浸信会原教\N{\an2\fs10\i1}from what is sometimes called solo scriptura, which is more of your Baptist fundamentalist
Dialogue: 0,0:01:48.23,0:01:53.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}旨主义者的看法。他并没有明确说明这一点，但他确实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}type view. Now, he doesn't really spell that out, but he does make an interesting statement
Dialogue: 0,0:01:53.68,0:02:00.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对传统发表了一个有趣的声明，这与唯独圣经相对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with regard to tradition, which is kind of the opposition to sola scriptura, and this
Dialogue: 0,0:02:00.04,0:02:02.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}立，这是他所说的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is what he has to say.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.68,0:02:08.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但是对于路德宗或英国圣公会的信徒来说，我认为我们看待教\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But for a Lutheran or Anglican, it's, I think, quite a bit different in the way that we look
Dialogue: 0,0:02:08.11,0:02:12.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}父的方式有些不同，因为我们确实看到，这与我们今天所说、所\N{\an2\fs10\i1}at the Fathers because we do see, hey, this is very similar to what we're saying and teaching
Dialogue: 0,0:02:12.11,0:02:13.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教和所敬拜的方式非常相似。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and how we're worshiping today as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.60,0:02:18.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，这对库珀博士的回应来说并不是特别重要，但\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so this is not super important to Dr. Cooper's response, but since he brings it
Dialogue: 0,0:02:18.75,0:02:25.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}既然他提到了，我还是想指出，很多更传统的新教徒确实想\N{\an2\fs10\i1}up, I do want to point out that a lot of your more traditional Protestants do want to distance
Dialogue: 0,0:02:25.00,0:02:29.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要与圣经是唯一权威来源的这种观点保持距离。虽然\N{\an2\fs10\i1}themselves from this idea that the Bible is the only source of authority. And although
Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.67,0:02:34.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在视频中确实会这么说，但我认为这并不是他的本意。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}he actually will say that in the video, I don't think that's exactly what he meant.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.36,0:02:38.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我相信，他提到路德宗和英国圣公会，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And what he is getting out, I believe, with this reference to the Lutheran and Anglicans
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.24,0:02:43.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是因为他们尊重传统。他们尊重教父。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is that they have a respect for tradition. They have a respect for the Church Father.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:43.44,0:02:48.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，如果你看看他书架上的书，你会发现他有教父们的著作。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, if you look behind him on his bookshelf, he's got the writings of the Church Fathers.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:48.39,0:02:55.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的就在这里和上面。所以我确实想回应这一点，因为很多时\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mine is right here and up here. So I do want to respond to this, though, because many times
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.44,0:03:00.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}候新教徒看到如果他们否认基督教传统将会陷入的陷阱\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Protestants seeing the trap that they are going to fall into if they deny Christian
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.00,0:03:06.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}时，会给出一种免责声明，一个小星号，一个关于事实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition will give sort of a disclaimer, a little asterisk, a little qualification
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.55,0:03:10.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的小小的限定，哦，你知道，我们尊重教父。我们相信很\N{\an2\fs10\i1}regarding the fact that, oh, you know, we respect the Church Fathers. We believe a lot
Dialogue: 0,0:03:10.32,0:03:15.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}多教父所相信的东西。他们教导的很多东西和我们教导的一样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the same things the Church Fathers do. They teach a lot of the same things we do.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.16,0:03:19.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个想法似乎是为了稍微缓和一下唯独圣经的概念，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the idea seems to be to kind of soften this idea of sola scriptura because, well,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.75,0:03:25.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为，嗯，唯独圣经并不意味着我们不尊重传统。问\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sola scriptura doesn't mean that we don't respect tradition. The problem is, what it
Dialogue: 0,0:03:25.88,0:03:31.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}题在于，归根结底，这种对传统的尊重只是说，当\N{\an2\fs10\i1}really boils down to is that this respect for tradition is simply saying that where
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.96,0:03:38.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教会的教导和我认为圣经的教导重叠时，我们是一致的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the Church teaches and what I believe Scripture teaches overlaps, we are in agreement.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.03,0:03:43.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，当然，这只是定义上的正确。任何人都可以说他们尊重\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, of course, that's just true by definition. Anybody can say that they respect some other
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.47,0:03:48.36,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}其他传统或其他权威来源，只要他们只在同意的时候才\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition or some other source of authority if the only time they have to respect it is
Dialogue: 0,0:03:48.36,0:03:53.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尊重它。我是说，我在某些事情上同意摩门教徒和撒\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when they agree with it. I mean, I agree with Mormons and Satanists on some things,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.80,0:03:58.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但教徒，但这并不意味着他们在任何方面对我来说是宗教权威。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but that doesn't mean that they are in any way functioning as a religious authority for me.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:59.16,0:04:04.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}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们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the fact that Anglicans and Lutherans might agree with more of what the Church Fathers said
Dialogue: 0,0:04:04.75,0:04:10.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所说的更多内容，这并不会在重要的方面改变事情的本质，因为实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}than, say, a Baptist or an Evangelical doesn't really change things in an important way because
Dialogue: 0,0:04:10.83,0:04:15.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}际上这两个群体都在做同样的事情。他们只是同意他们所同意的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}really both groups are doing the same thing. They're just agreeing with what they agree with,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:15.72,0:04:22.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}内容，而这并没有回答权威的问题，这才是唯独圣经真正关心的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and that is not answering the issue of authority, which is what sola scriptura is really about.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:22.11,0:04:26.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，那么库珀博士接下来就要正式为唯独\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so then Dr. Cooper goes into his actual defense of sola scriptura,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.92,0:04:30.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣经辩护了，他首先要反驳的是这种观点，即\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and the first thing that he is going to go after is this idea that the Bible
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.83,0:04:35.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣经必须教导唯独圣经，唯独圣经才有意义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}has to teach sola scriptura in order for sola scriptura to make sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:35.95,0:04:39.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果你在和一个天主教辩护者谈论唯独圣经（sola sc\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If you're talking to a Roman Catholic apologist when they're speaking about sola scriptura,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.88,0:04:45.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}riptura）时，他们总是会反复提出同样的说法。如果你在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}they're always going to raise the same statement over and over again. You're going to hear this
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.32,0:04:48.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看天主教辩护或最近皈依罗马的人时，你会听到这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}if you're looking at Roman Catholic apologetics or recent converts to Rome,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:48.67,0:04:54.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}样的说法：圣经从未教导唯独圣经。所以你把圣经视为\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and that is Scripture never teaches sola scriptura. So you are holding Scripture
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.60,0:04:59.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}最终的权威，但圣经本身从未说过它是唯一的权威，因此你是在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}as the ultimate authority, however Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority,
Dialogue: 0,0:04:59.72,0:05:05.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}自相矛盾。好吧，首先，他并没有真正深入探讨这个问题，但我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}therefore you're contradicting yourself. Okay, so first off, he doesn't really go into this,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:05.48,0:05:11.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认为他想表达的是，我不需要一个明确无误的单一经文来阐明\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but I think that what he is getting at is this idea that I don't have to have a rock-solid,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:11.95,0:05:18.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}唯独圣经的教义，圣经也可以教导这一点，当然天主教徒会同意这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}single-proof text that spells out sola scriptura in order for the Bible to teach it, and of course
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.00,0:05:22.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一点。我的意思是，任何对神学有了解的人都会同意这一点，因为\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Catholics would agree with that. I mean, anybody that knows anything about theology would agree
Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.44,0:05:29.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}很多时候，一个神学立场是从圣经的数据中建立起来的，而不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with that because many times a theological position is built up from the data of Scripture
Dialogue: 0,0:05:29.00,0:05:35.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}仅仅是一个单一的经文。事实上，通常当一个神学立场仅基于一个\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and not just a single verse. In fact, typically when a theological position is based on a single
Dialogue: 0,0:05:35.39,0:05:40.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}单一的经文时，它往往是错误的，因为它没有被其他经文的陈述所平衡。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}verse, it is often wrong because it isn't balanced out by statements from other verses.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.67,0:05:46.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，如果一个天主教辩护者攻击新教徒关于唯独圣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So if a Roman Catholic apologist attacks a Protestant on the notion of sola scriptura
Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.27,0:05:51.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经的概念，因为没有经文明确说过这一点，那就\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because there's no verse that says that, that's a problem. However, usually Roman
Dialogue: 0,0:05:51.32,0:05:56.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}会有问题。然而，通常天主教辩护者对此非常清楚，他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Catholic apologists are well aware of this, and what they are getting at is that there isn't
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.76,0:06:03.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}们的意思是圣经中没有唯独圣经的教义。这是一个更为强有\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the teaching of sola scriptura in Scripture. It's a much more robust claim. So what do we do with
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.48,0:06:08.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}力的主张。那么我们该如何处理这个问题呢？我认为我们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that? And I think the question that we have is, do we have to find a particular Scripture that
Dialogue: 0,0:06:08.92,0:06:15.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}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\N{\an2\fs10\i1}says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don't think we have to. We don't. There's nothing
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.64,0:06:20.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的权威？我认为我们不需要。我们不需要。你知道的，没有\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in, you know, you can't find, you know, in any of Paul's letters, for example, it's like he says
Dialogue: 0,0:06:20.04,0:06:24.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}任何经文，比如在保罗的信中，你找不到他说，顺便说一句\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to the Romans, by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:24.83,0:06:29.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，圣经是唯一的权威，传统不是权威，没有任何教会权威\N{\an2\fs10\i1}there is no magisterium that has given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible
Dialogue: 0,0:06:29.39,0:06:35.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}被赋予了某种不可错误的权威来传递不可错误的教义。似\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teachings. Which it seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.07,0:06:40.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}乎很多天主教辩护者认为新教徒要捍卫他们的立场，必须\N{\an2\fs10\i1}defend their position that they have to find a text that says that. I don't know how many times
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.20,0:06:45.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}找到一段经文说这一点。我不知道有多少次新教徒说，关于\N{\an2\fs10\i1}a Protestant has said, well, where is blank in the Bible with regard to Roman Catholic teaching? So
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.72,0:06:50.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}天主教教义，圣经中哪里有空白。所以有趣的是，他有点在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}it's funny that he's kind of going after Roman Catholic apologists, but this is really one of the
Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.60,0:06:56.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}攻击天主教辩护者，但这实际上是新教徒很少使用的策\N{\an2\fs10\i1}only times that a Protestant would use this particular tactic because they know it doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.67,0:07:02.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}略，因为他们知道这不太有效。而库珀基本上承认情况并非\N{\an2\fs10\i1}work very well. And Cooper basically admits that that is not the case. Instead, what he does is he
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.92,0:07:08.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如此。相反，他提出了最接近的东西。他说了两次，这是你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}brings up the closest thing. He says this twice. It's the closest thing to a proof text that you're
Dialogue: 0,0:07:08.11,0:07:16.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}能得到的最接近的证明文本，那就是提摩太后书3:16-\N{\an2\fs10\i1}going to get, and that is 2 Timothy 3.16 through 17. No, I think more so what we have to do is just
Dialogue: 0,0:07:16.20,0:07:23.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}17。我认为我们更应该谈论圣经的独特权威和圣经的独特\N{\an2\fs10\i1}speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture. And just to say
Dialogue: 0,0:07:23.32,0:07:30.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性质。只是说圣经确实呈现为神所默示的。提摩太后书3:\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3.16 is kind of the famous text that
Dialogue: 0,0:07:30.76,0:07:34.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}16是一个著名的经文，说所有的圣经都是神所默示的，对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}says this, that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and
Dialogue: 0,0:07:34.51,0:07:39.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教导、责备、纠正和在义中训练都是有益的，使神的人可\N{\an2\fs10\i1}training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly or sufficiently equipped for
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.16,0:07:45.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以完全或充分装备，做各种善事。好吧，这是一个有趣的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}every good work. Okay, so this is an interesting tactic and one that unfortunately is doomed to
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.64,0:07:51.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}策略，但不幸的是注定要失败的。我知道库\N{\an2\b1}珀博士制作了这个视频，看起来没有编辑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}failure. Now, I know that Dr. Cooper made this video, you know, it looks like without editing.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:51.39,0:07:55.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我觉得他直接说了。他确实在这里那里有几处错误，但他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think he went straight through. He definitely makes a couple of misstatements here and there,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:55.55,0:08:01.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这一点反复强调。他把辩论框定为公教会认为圣经和传统\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but he says this one over and over and over again. He frames the debate as if the Catholic Church
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.27,0:08:08.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}都是受默示的。然后他继续做了一个相当长的论证，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}thinks that Scripture and tradition are both inspired. And then he goes on from there to
Dialogue: 0,0:08:08.20,0:08:14.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说明圣经并没有指出任何圣经以外的东西是受默示的。接着\N{\an2\fs10\i1}make this pretty lengthy argument about the fact that Scripture does not identify anything outside
Dialogue: 0,0:08:14.44,0:08:20.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他又谈到了论证应该如何进行，辩论应该如何进行。事实是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of itself as inspired. And then he goes on after that to talk about how argumentation should work
Dialogue: 0,0:08:20.35,0:08:24.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，证明圣经以外的任何东西是受默示的责任在于天主教徒。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and how the debate should work. The fact that the burden of proof is on the Catholic to show that
Dialogue: 0,0:08:24.67,0:08:28.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，问题在于，公教会并没有教导说教宗、会议或信经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}anything is inspired other than Scripture. Okay, the problem with all of this is that the Catholic
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.83,0:08:36.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}或任何圣经以外的东西是受默示的。我们同意这是事\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Church does not teach that the magisterium, or the pope, or the councils, or the creeds,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:36.28,0:08:42.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实。事实上，这个说法对我来说如此奇怪，以至于我真的以\N{\an2\fs10\i1}or anything is inspired outside of Scripture. We are in agreement that that is the case. In fact,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:42.76,0:08:47.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为，天哪，我猜一定是某个罗马天主教辩护者说过这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the claim is so strange to me that I actually thought, gosh, I guess some Roman Catholic
Dialogue: 0,0:08:47.71,0:08:54.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}个。所以我上网试图找到一些有信誉的天主教网站，说教\N{\an2\fs10\i1}apologist must have said this. So I got on the internet trying to find some reputable Catholic
Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.67,0:08:59.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}宗、教会或圣经以外的任何东西是受默示的。我找不到\N{\an2\fs10\i1}website that says that the magisterium, or the church, or the pope, or anything outside of
Dialogue: 0,0:08:59.08,0:09:04.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个。所以，你知道，Cooper 博士，如果你确实有这个例\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture is inspired. I could not find one. So, you know, mea culpa, Dr. Cooper, if you actually
Dialogue: 0,0:09:04.35,0:09:10.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}子，但我可以向你保证，公教会并没有教导传统是受默示\N{\an2\fs10\i1}have an example of this, but I can assure you the Catholic Church does not teach that tradition is
Dialogue: 0,0:09:10.52,0:09:17.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的。只有圣经是受默示的。我们用“无误”这个词来形容其\N{\an2\fs10\i1}inspired. Only the Scripture is inspired. We use the word infallible for other sources that are not
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.79,0:09:24.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他不是受默示但仍然免于错误的来源。但这是一个完全不同的说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}inspired, but still are protected from error. That's a completely different claim though.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:24.11,0:09:28.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}由于他基于提摩太后书3:16来论证，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And since he bases everything on this inspiration coming from 2 Timothy 3.16,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.84,0:09:35.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他视频的这一部分基本上是无效的。首先，他从提摩太\N{\an2\fs10\i1}basically this entire section of his video is moot. So first he argues from 2 Timothy 3.16 that
Dialogue: 0,0:09:35.00,0:09:40.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}后书3:16论证圣经具有独特的地位，我们同意这一点，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture has this unique status, and we agree, so there's nothing else to say there. Second,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:40.84,0:09:47.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以在这方面没有什么好说的。其次，他说圣经具有特\N{\an2\fs10\i1}he says that it has a particular sufficiency, and that because it has this sufficiency,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:48.11,0:09:53.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}定的充足性，因为这种充足性，使其成为基督徒的最终权\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that puts it in a position to be the Christian's ultimate authority. The other thing that is
Dialogue: 0,0:09:53.40,0:09:58.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}威。该文本中另一个重要的点是，它确实说圣经足以装\N{\an2\fs10\i1}important in that text is it does say that Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.44,0:10:05.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}备人行各样的善事。圣经具有充足性，或者说圣经的充足\N{\an2\fs10\i1}good work. Scripture has a sufficiency, or the sufficiency of Scripture, to equip for every
Dialogue: 0,0:10:05.23,0:10:10.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性，足以装备人行各样的善事。然而，问题在于，尽管他在视\N{\an2\fs10\i1}good work to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works. Now the trouble is, although he says
Dialogue: 0,0:10:10.52,0:10:16.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}频中一遍又一遍地重复，提摩太后书3:16和17根本没\N{\an2\fs10\i1}it over and over and over and over again in the video, 2 Timothy 3.16 and 17 don't use the word
Dialogue: 0,0:10:16.76,0:10:22.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有使用“充足”或“充足性”这个词，事实上，我认为仔细阅\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sufficient or sufficiency at all, and in fact I think a careful reading of it shows that it's not
Dialogue: 0,0:10:22.28,0:10:27.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}读会发现它根本没有提出这样的主张。现在，许多天主教辩\N{\an2\fs10\i1}even making that claim in the first place. Now a lot of Catholic apologists will point out that
Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.32,0:10:32.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}护者会指出，充足性实际上有两种形式。即使圣经，即使道足\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sufficiency actually kind of comes in two flavors. Even if the Bible, even if the Word of God is
Dialogue: 0,0:10:32.59,0:10:40.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}以作为基督徒的最高或唯一权威，这并不意味着它不需要被\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sufficient to function as the Christian's highest or sole authority, that doesn't mean that it
Dialogue: 0,0:10:40.59,0:10:45.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}解释，因为虽然文字材料可能在那里，但在被解释之前，它们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}doesn't have to be interpreted, because although the words materially might be there, until they
Dialogue: 0,0:10:45.32,0:10:51.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上没有任何意义。因此，天主教徒可能会认为形式上的充\N{\an2\fs10\i1}are interpreted they really don't have anything to say. And so the formal sufficiency the Catholic
Dialogue: 0,0:10:51.96,0:10:57.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}足性来自教会，即使材料上的充足性来自圣经。但再次强调\N{\an2\fs10\i1}might argue comes from the Church, even if the material sufficiency comes from Scripture. But
Dialogue: 0,0:10:57.40,0:11:01.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，我们甚至不需要在这节经文上讨论这个问题，因为这节\N{\an2\fs10\i1}again, we don't even really need to go there with this verse, because the verse doesn't say
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.23,0:11:06.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经文并没有说圣经是充足的。相反，它说的是圣经是有用的，有益的，有帮助的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture is sufficient. Rather what it says is that Scripture is useful, profitable, helpful.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:07.55,0:11:11.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这个词可能有几种不同的翻译方式，但重点是这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's a couple different ways that this word might be translated, but the point is that the
Dialogue: 0,0:11:11.55,0:11:18.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}里的经文被认为是帮助神的人为每一个善工做好准备。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture here is said to be contributing to the man of God becoming prepared for every good work.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:18.52,0:11:24.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，这与圣经是基督徒唯一或最高权威的说法是非常不同的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But of course that's a very different claim than that Scripture is the sole or highest authority
Dialogue: 0,0:11:24.76,0:11:30.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，“为各样的善工预备齐全”这个短语并不是这节经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for the Christian. And in fact the very phrase prepared for every good work is not unique to
Dialogue: 0,0:11:30.91,0:11:35.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}文独有的。圣保罗多次谈到这一点，在其他谈到这一点的经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}this verse. St. Paul talks about this several times, and in the other verses where he talks
Dialogue: 0,0:11:35.71,0:11:41.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}文中，他甚至没有提到圣经。所以问题在于，显然有几件事是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}about it he doesn't even mention Scripture. So the trouble is there's obviously several things
Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.88,0:11:48.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}圣保罗认为有助于或帮助一个神的人为所有善工做好准备\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that St. Paul thinks contribute or help a man of God become prepared for all good works,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:48.11,0:11:52.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的，有趣的是，这实际上是关于善工的，但没有任何一\N{\an2\fs10\i1}interesting, it's about good works by the way, but none of them imply in any way that
Dialogue: 0,0:11:53.55,0:11:58.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}件事暗示这是唯一能起到这个作用的东西。所以，再次，这里有\N{\an2\fs10\i1}it is the only thing that does that function. So again, there's a couple problems here. Number one,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:58.28,0:12:03.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}几个问题。首先，提摩太后书3章16至17节甚至没有使用“\N{\an2\fs10\i1}2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17 does not even use the word sufficient. Second, the words that it does
Dialogue: 0,0:12:03.71,0:12:09.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}足够”这个词。其次，它使用的词语是不足的。它实际上使用\N{\an2\fs10\i1}use are insufficient. It's actually using words like helpful or profitable or, you know, that
Dialogue: 0,0:12:09.23,0:12:17.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的是像“有益”或“有利”这样的词语。而这些词语的对象不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}kind of thing. And the object of those words is not dogma or orthodoxy, it's preparing a man of
Dialogue: 0,0:12:17.64,0:12:23.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是教义或正统信仰，而是准备一个神的人去做善工。所以这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God to do good works. So this is really nothing like the claim of sola scriptura, which pits
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.40,0:12:28.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上与唯独圣经的主张完全不同，后者将圣经与传统对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture against tradition. In fact, one of the verses actually talks about sufficiency
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.44,0:12:32.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}立起来。事实上，有一节经文实际上使用了“足够”这个\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with that word in that verse, and it still doesn't mean what Dr. Cooper seems to think
Dialogue: 0,0:12:33.00,0:12:39.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}词，但它仍然不是库珀博士认为提摩太后书3章16至17节\N{\an2\fs10\i1}2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17 are saying. Okay, now he is going to turn to what he sees as the prime
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.79,0:12:47.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所说的意思。好，现在他要转向他认为是罗马天主教辩护者\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Roman Catholic apologist response to this argument. Now, the rebuttal to that from Rome is
Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.15,0:12:51.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对此论点的主要回应。现在，来自罗马的反驳总是一样的，那就\N{\an2\fs10\i1}always going to be the same, which is, well, when that particular text was written, the entirety of
Dialogue: 0,0:12:51.96,0:12:59.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是，当那段特定的经文被写下时，新约的全部内容正在被写下，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the New Testament was being written, so it's not yet totally written. Therefore, he's speaking only
Dialogue: 0,0:12:59.15,0:13:03.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它还没有完全写完。因此，他只是在谈论旧约，如果你认\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the Old Testament, and if you take that to be speaking about the sufficiency of Scripture,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:04.11,0:13:09.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为这是在谈论圣经的足够性，那么它只是在谈\N{\an2\b1}论旧约的足够性，而根本不是新约的足够性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}then it's only speaking about the sufficiency of the Old Testament and not at all the New Testament.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:09.47,0:13:14.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，我同意你的看法。我不认为这是一个非常有\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, so here I'm just going to say I agree. I don't think this is a tremendously powerful
Dialogue: 0,0:13:14.03,0:13:19.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}力的论点。我认为有些版本的论点可能会更细致一些，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}argument. I think there are some versions of it that are nuanced a bit that, you know, maybe take
Dialogue: 0,0:13:19.23,0:13:24.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能会让讨论更深入一些，但我愿意承认这并不是一\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the discussion a little farther down the field than is being admitted here, but I'm willing to
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.59,0:13:31.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}个很好的论点。我确实认为我们可以把圣保罗对提摩太\N{\an2\fs10\i1}concede that this just is not a great argument. I do think that we could take St. Paul's words to
Dialogue: 0,0:13:31.00,0:13:36.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的话作为关于圣经本质的声明，所以无论什么被算\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Timothy as a statement about the nature of Scripture, and so whatever counts as Scripture,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.67,0:13:42.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}作圣经，无论何时开始被算作圣经，都履行了圣保罗\N{\an2\fs10\i1}whenever it begins being counted as Scripture, fulfills the function that St. Paul's talking
Dialogue: 0,0:13:42.44,0:13:48.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所谈论的功能。新约的一些部分还没有完成，正典还\N{\an2\fs10\i1}about. The fact that some of the New Testament wasn't done yet, the fact that the canon wasn't
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.11,0:13:52.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有定义，我认为这些都没有太大的区别，所以我愿\N{\an2\fs10\i1}defined yet, I don't think any of that really makes too much of a difference, so I'm willing
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.84,0:13:58.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意承认这一点，但我也想指出，优秀的天主教辩护者对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to concede this, but I also want to point out that good Catholic apologists have a lot more to say
Dialogue: 0,0:13:58.03,0:14:04.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这节经文有更多的解释。我认为这是你能找到的最接近证\N{\an2\fs10\i1}about this verse than just that. Now that, I think, is as close of a text as you're going to get that
Dialogue: 0,0:14:04.28,0:14:09.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}明唯独圣经的经文。如果有任何证明唯独圣经的经文，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}proves sola scriptura. If there's any proof text for sola scriptura, that would be the closest one
Dialogue: 0,0:14:09.15,0:14:13.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那将是最接近的一节，因为那里教导了圣经的独特性和充分性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that there is because of the uniqueness and the sufficiency of Scripture that is taught there.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:13.40,0:14:19.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，然后库珀博士继续他的第二个主要圣经\N{\an2\b1}论点，这个论点来自《马太福音》第十五章。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, then Dr. Cooper moves on to his second major scriptural argument, which comes from Matthew 15.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:19.23,0:14:25.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我会引用《马太福音》第十五章，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So the other place that I would go is from Matthew 15, and this is a text that is cited
Dialogue: 0,0:14:25.79,0:14:30.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这段经文在讨论圣经与传统的关系时被多\N{\an2\fs10\i1}many times in the relationship between Scripture and tradition. This is a text that speaks
Dialogue: 0,0:14:30.52,0:14:35.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}次引用。这段经文讲述了圣经与传统之间\N{\an2\fs10\i1}about the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and it speaks about the relationship
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.47,0:14:39.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的关系，并且涉及到文士和法利赛人的教导。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}between Scripture and tradition in relation to the teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.55,0:14:46.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们这里讨论的是一个关于从摩西传下来的无误\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what we have here is a claim about an infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.91,0:14:51.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}传统及其与圣经关系的主张。这与通过\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and its relationship to Scripture. There's a lot of similarity between
Dialogue: 0,0:14:52.67,0:14:58.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教会权威传递的无误传统的主张，以及通过文士和法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the claims of an infallible tradition passed on through the magisterium and the claims of an
Dialogue: 0,0:14:58.11,0:15:02.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}利赛人从摩西传下来的无误传统的主张有很多相似之处。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}infallible tradition being passed on through the scribes and Pharisees that come down from Moses.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:02.52,0:15:08.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里有几件事让我感到有些困扰。我可能需要对此进行更多\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's several things here that I find somewhat troubling. I probably need to do more research on
Dialogue: 0,0:15:08.59,0:15:16.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的研究，但我不知道犹太人认为法利赛人的传统是绝对正确的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}this, but I am not aware that the Jews considered the traditions of the Pharisees to be infallible.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:16.91,0:15:21.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}库珀博士一遍又一遍地重复这句话，试图在法利赛人在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Dr. Cooper says this over and over and over and over again, trying to kind of, I think,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:21.64,0:15:26.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}旧约中的情况与大公教会和圣经之间强行建立一种平行关\N{\an2\fs10\i1}force a parallel between the situation of the Pharisees in the Old Testament and the Catholic
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.52,0:15:33.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}系。我不知道他从哪里得出这个被认为是无谬传统的想法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Church and the Scripture. Where did he get this idea that this was considered an infallible
Dialogue: 0,0:15:33.55,0:15:39.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。可能有些人是这么认为的，但我在圣经中没有看到任何相\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition? There may have been some people that thought that, but I don't see that anywhere in
Dialogue: 0,0:15:39.23,0:15:43.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}关内容，所以我不确定他为什么会这么说，除了试图让它\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture, so I'm not sure why he's even making that claim, other than to try to make it seem
Dialogue: 0,0:15:43.96,0:15:48.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}看起来更像大公教会的情况。其次，我们必须非常小心，当\N{\an2\fs10\i1}more like the situation with the Catholic Church. Second, we have to be very careful here that
Dialogue: 0,0:15:48.76,0:15:52.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣对一个术语进行限定时，我们需要注意这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when Jesus makes a qualification of a term, we need to pay attention to that.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:53.08,0:15:58.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣在这里不仅仅是指传统。他称之为人的传统。这是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Jesus doesn't just refer to tradition here. He refers to them as traditions of men. That is
Dialogue: 0,0:15:58.84,0:16:04.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因为人的传统和传统是两回事。现在，库珀博士承认这一点\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because traditions of men and traditions are two different things. Now, Dr. Cooper admits this,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.55,0:16:13.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，但他对此的回应有点奇怪，他说，那么，你怎么知道呢\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but then he gives this kind of almost strange response to that by saying that, well, how would
Dialogue: 0,0:16:13.32,0:16:18.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}？判断传统和人的传统之间区别的标准是什么？当罗马天\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you know? What is the standard for knowing the difference between a tradition and a tradition
Dialogue: 0,0:16:18.11,0:16:22.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}主教辩护者接近这个文本时，他们总是会说，这只是谴责\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of men? What Roman Catholic apologists do when they approach this text is they're always going
Dialogue: 0,0:16:22.59,0:16:28.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}某种特定的传统，那就是人的传统，因为这是耶稣\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to say, well, this is just condemning a particular kind of tradition, and that is
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.28,0:16:32.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}使用的词语。所以区别在于罗马不教导人的传统，但犹太人，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the traditions of men, because that's the phrase that Jesus uses. So the difference is Rome doesn't
Dialogue: 0,0:16:32.44,0:16:38.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们据说有一套无误的教义和圣经解释，他们在教导人的传\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teach the traditions of men, but the Jews, who had supposedly had this infallible set of teachings
Dialogue: 0,0:16:38.84,0:16:43.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}统。然而，这留下了一个问题，那就是，根据什么？你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and interpretations of Scripture, they were teaching traditions of men. And that leaves a
Dialogue: 0,0:16:43.15,0:16:48.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如何判断一个是人的传统而另一个不是人的传统？我想如果\N{\an2\fs10\i1}question, though, which is to say, well, according to what? How do you judge one as a tradition of
Dialogue: 0,0:16:48.35,0:16:53.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}耶稣没有进一步说什么，这可能是一个合法的问题，但他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}men and the other not as a tradition of men? I suppose if Jesus had not said anything further,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:53.55,0:16:59.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}确实说了。耶稣明确表示，他们通过他们的传统使神的道无\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that might be a legitimate question, but he does. Jesus specifically says that they have made void
Dialogue: 0,0:16:59.32,0:17:07.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}效。所以，如果有一个传统使神的道无效，那么那可以被认为是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the Word of God by their traditions. So if there's a tradition that voids what the Word of God teaches,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:07.71,0:17:11.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个有问题的人的传统，这就是库珀博士认为在这里\N{\an2\fs10\i1}then that could be considered a problematic tradition of men, and that's when whatever
Dialogue: 0,0:17:11.64,0:17:17.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}被实例化的原则发挥作用的时候。你不能仅仅将其用于任何传\N{\an2\fs10\i1}principle Dr. Cooper thinks is being instantiated here comes into play. You can't just use that for
Dialogue: 0,0:17:17.56,0:17:23.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}统，因为有些传统是要遵守的。这在圣经中多次提到。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}any tradition, because there are traditions that are to be obeyed. This is stated several
Dialogue: 0,0:17:23.56,0:17:30.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你看看帖撒罗尼迦后书2:15。你看看哥林多前书11\N{\an2\fs10\i1}times in Scripture. You look at 2 Thessalonians 2.15. You look at 1 Corinthians 11.2. In fact,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:30.28,0:17:36.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}:2。事实上，我们甚至可以看看提摩太后书3章的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}we can even look at the fuller context of 2 Timothy 3, where St. Paul says that Timothy
Dialogue: 0,0:17:36.28,0:17:41.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}更完整的上下文，圣保罗说提摩太应该相信他所学到的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}should believe what he was taught because he was taught it by St. Paul, and this was before
Dialogue: 0,0:17:41.16,0:17:47.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，因为他是从圣保罗那里学到的，而这是在圣经写成之前。事\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture was written. The fact is, Scripture is very pro-tradition. In fact, St. Paul specifically
Dialogue: 0,0:17:47.16,0:17:52.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实是，圣经非常支持传统。事实上，圣保罗明确表示你需\N{\an2\fs10\i1}says you need to follow the traditions, whether they're written or not. It's the traditions of
Dialogue: 0,0:17:52.11,0:17:57.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要遵循传统，无论它们是否被写下来。问题是人的传统，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}men that are a problem, and it's not fair to try to make a principle out of a passage about a
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.31,0:18:03.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而不是试图将关于特定传统的段落原则化，仿佛它适用于\N{\an2\fs10\i1}specific kind of tradition as if it applies to all traditions. And if we look at Matthew 23,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:03.00,0:18:07.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所有传统。如果我们看看马太福音23章，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}we can actually see this very thing in action, where Jesus himself says,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:07.95,0:18:14.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们实际上可以看到这种情况的发生，耶稣自己说，遵\N{\an2\fs10\i1}follow the traditions of the Pharisees. So Jesus is not making a blanket condemnation of
Dialogue: 0,0:18:14.35,0:18:19.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}循法利赛人的传统。所以耶稣并没有在这里对传统进行全面\N{\an2\fs10\i1}traditions here. He is not setting up a principle by which we judge all tradition. If you want to
Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.16,0:18:22.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的谴责。他并没有建立一个判断所有传统的原则。如果\N{\an2\fs10\i1}argue that the Catholic Church is teaching a tradition of men, well, then you need to find
Dialogue: 0,0:18:22.92,0:18:28.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你想争论天主教会在教导人的传统，那么你需要找到一些使神\N{\an2\fs10\i1}something that voids the Word of God. And I know Protestants think that there are Catholic traditions
Dialogue: 0,0:18:28.04,0:18:33.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的道无效的东西。我知道新教徒认为有些天主教传统确实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that do that, but as I showed in another video, it's pretty easy to show Protestants doing the
Dialogue: 0,0:18:33.64,0:18:39.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如此，但正如我在另一个视频中所展示的那样，很容易证明新\N{\an2\fs10\i1}same thing. So at worst, we're probably on equal footing here. I won't go any deeper into this issue,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:39.07,0:18:45.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教徒也在做同样的事情。所以最糟糕的情况是，我们可能\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but merely to say that already he's kind of setting this up problematically. And the principle
Dialogue: 0,0:18:45.07,0:18:53.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这方面处于平等地位。我不会深入探讨这个问题，只是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition and Scripture. And when Scripture and
Dialogue: 0,0:18:53.64,0:19:01.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说他已经有点问题地设置了这个问题。原则是，传统和圣经之\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition are at odds, it is Scripture that is the thing that gets the final say. The third problem I
Dialogue: 0,0:19:01.00,0:19:07.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}间确实可能存在对立。当圣经和传统发生冲突时，圣经是最\N{\an2\fs10\i1}see with this line of argumentation is that Dr. Cooper has picked Matthew chapter 15 as what he
Dialogue: 0,0:19:07.71,0:19:13.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}终的决定因素。我在这种论证中看到的第三个问题是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}thinks is kind of the seminal passage for establishing a principle of what happens when
Dialogue: 0,0:19:13.00,0:19:18.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，库珀博士选择了马太福音第15章作为他认为的建立传统\N{\an2\fs10\i1}tradition and Scripture don't seem to agree. But what if we picked a different passage? What if we
Dialogue: 0,0:19:18.43,0:19:24.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}和圣经不一致时的原则的关键段落。但如果我们选择另一个段\N{\an2\fs10\i1}picked Acts chapter 15? Here we have a disagreement between people that are now called the Judaizers
Dialogue: 0,0:19:24.92,0:19:30.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}落呢？如果我们选择使徒行传第15章呢？这里我们有一\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and the Church where there was a live question about whether or not Gentiles needed to follow
Dialogue: 0,0:19:30.04,0:19:34.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}个现在被称为犹太化派和教会之间的分歧，关于外邦人是否需\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Jewish law, specifically by being circumcised when they became Christian. Now what's interesting is
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.68,0:19:39.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}要遵守犹太法律，特别是在他们成为基督徒时需要受割礼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that if you actually read how this went along, there were some verses tossed out there, but they
Dialogue: 0,0:19:39.64,0:19:46.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在有趣的是，如果你实际阅读这个过程，有一些经文被引用\N{\an2\fs10\i1}were never treated as proof texts. They were never treated as definitive sola scriptura authoritative
Dialogue: 0,0:19:46.28,0:19:51.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，但它们从未被视为证明文本。它们从未被视为权威性的唯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}arguments one way or the other. The only thing the verse that was quoted showed was that Gentiles
Dialogue: 0,0:19:51.47,0:19:55.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}独圣经论证。引用的经文唯一显示的是外邦人将进入神\N{\an2\fs10\i1}were going to come into the kingdom. It said nothing about whether or not they needed to
Dialogue: 0,0:19:55.16,0:20:01.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的国度。它没有说他们是否需要遵守犹太法律。事实上，我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}follow Jewish laws. And in fact, I don't know that you could get the final answer from Scripture
Dialogue: 0,0:20:01.71,0:20:06.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不知道你是否能从圣经中得到最终答案，因为旧约，这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because the Old Testament, which are the only scriptures they had at the time, very clearly
Dialogue: 0,0:20:06.68,0:20:13.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是他们当时唯一的圣经，非常明确地主张割礼。相反，发生的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}argues for circumcision. Rather, what happens is the apostles come in, they give arguments based on
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.71,0:20:19.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是使徒们进来，他们根据自己的经验和对整个情况的看法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}their experience and what they think about the whole situation, and then when Peter gives his
Dialogue: 0,0:20:19.80,0:20:25.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}提出论点，然后当彼得发表讲话时，雅各，这次会议的主持\N{\an2\fs10\i1}talk, James, who was kind of running the meeting because he was the bishop of Jerusalem, it was
Dialogue: 0,0:20:25.23,0:20:31.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人，因为他是耶路撒冷的主教，这是他的城市，站起来说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}his city, stands up and says, well, there you go. And he doesn't say, Peter proved this from
Dialogue: 0,0:20:31.95,0:20:36.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，好吧，就这样。他没有说，彼得从圣经中证明了这一点。他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture. He doesn't say, oh yeah, that verse from the Old Testament has convinced me. He doesn't say
Dialogue: 0,0:20:36.68,0:20:42.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有说，哦，是的，旧约中的那节经文说服了我。他没有说，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}here I stand, I can do no other. Rather, he says, you know what, it seemed good to us, the apostles
Dialogue: 0,0:20:42.35,0:20:48.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里我站着，我别无选择。相反，他说，你知道吗，这对我们使\N{\an2\b1}徒和圣灵来说似乎是好的，然后他给出了答案，讨论就此结束。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and the Holy Spirit, to give this answer. And then he gives it, and that is the end of the discussion.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:48.04,0:20:54.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}《使徒行传》第15章中的耶路撒冷会议非常有趣，因为我认为它\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what's interesting about the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is that I think it shows an example of
Dialogue: 0,0:20:54.04,0:20:58.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}展示了教会未来应该做的事情的一个例子，因为这实际上是在我们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}what the church was supposed to do going forward, because this is actually in a section where we're
Dialogue: 0,0:20:58.59,0:21:03.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}学习教会未来所做事情的一个部分。如果有教义上的争议，教会\N{\an2\fs10\i1}learning what the church did going forward. If there was a doctrinal dispute, those in charge
Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.64,0:21:09.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的负责人，也就是我们今天可能称之为教会权威的人，会在一个\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the church, what we might call the magisterium today, got together in a council, considered
Dialogue: 0,0:21:09.40,0:21:15.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}会议上聚集在一起，考虑圣经，考虑他们自己的想法，然后得出他们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Scripture, considered their own thoughts, and then came up with what they thought the Holy Spirit was
Dialogue: 0,0:21:15.88,0:21:23.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认为圣灵在教导什么。这与大多数新教徒所提到的那种唯独圣经\N{\an2\fs10\i1}teaching. That is very, very different than the kind of sola scriptura procedure you see most
Dialogue: 0,0:21:23.95,0:21:29.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的程序非常不同，在那种程序中，你基本上是打开圣经，找到一个看\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Protestants referring to, where basically you open your Bible, you find the verse that sounds like it
Dialogue: 0,0:21:29.07,0:21:33.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}起来与你的想法一致的经文，然后啪的一声合上圣经，说，好了，就是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}agrees with what you think, and then you slam the Bible shut, and you say, well, there you go, that's it,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:33.71,0:21:39.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这样，其他任何东西都是人的传统。所以我认为，试图像库珀博士\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and anything else is a tradition of men. So I think there's a number of problems with trying to use
Dialogue: 0,0:21:39.47,0:21:47.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那样将《马太福音》第15章作为支持唯独圣经的决定性依据存在许多问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Matthew 15 as definitively for a supportive sola scriptura as Dr. Cooper makes it sound like.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:47.71,0:21:51.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，这段视频比较短，但我是在回应一个同样很短的视频。我觉\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, well, this has been a pretty short video, but I'm responding to a pretty short video, and I don't
Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.80,0:21:57.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}得如果我在回应一个显然是即兴的、并不打算全面展示库珀博\N{\an2\fs10\i1}think it would be fair for me to go on and on and on and go into great detail in a response to a
Dialogue: 0,0:21:57.07,0:22:06.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}士观点的视频时，详细展开讲解是不公平的。不过，这就是我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}video that was fairly off the cuff and obviously not meant to give us Dr. Cooper's entire corpus
Dialogue: 0,0:22:06.04,0:22:11.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对YouTube上推荐的关于捍卫唯独圣经论的第一视频的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of thought on the matter, but that is my response to the number one video that YouTube suggests
Dialogue: 0,0:22:12.59,0:22:17.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}回应。所以希望这对你有所帮助。如果有帮助的话，请给视\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when I type in defensive sola scriptura. So I hope that this has helped you out. If it has,
Dialogue: 0,0:22:17.31,0:22:21.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}频点赞，并且如果你对基督徒哲学、神学和护教学感兴趣的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}why don't you give the video a like, subscribe to Douglas Beaumont if you are interested in
Dialogue: 0,0:22:21.95,0:22:33.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}话，订阅道格拉斯·博蒙特的频道。下次见，愿神保佑。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics, and until next time, God bless.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:36.04,0:22:37.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you