Hey, I'm Doug Beaumont. Welcome to my channel. It's all about Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. 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. Everybody else pretty much knows it as All Hallows' Eve or Halloween. 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. 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 called A Defense of Sola Scriptura. Now, Dr. Cooper is a fairly popular YouTuber. I've seen him before just searching around, so I know this guy's legit. 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.

嘿，我是道格·博蒙特。欢迎来到我的频道。这里主要讨论基督教神学、哲学和护教学。今天实际上是宗教改革日，也就是马丁·路德在维滕贝格张贴他的95条论纲的日子，这被认为是宗教改革的正式启动，不管是好是坏。其他人基本上都知道这一天是万圣节前夕或万圣节。现在，据说有两大主要因素推动了宗教改革，即宗教改革的物质原则和形式原则，形式原则是唯独圣经的理念，即圣经是基督徒在信心和道德问题上的最终权威。好吧，我决定看看网上有哪些关于捍卫唯独圣经的内容，所以我输入了“捍卫唯独圣经”，点击了第一个结果，发现了乔丹·B·库珀博士的视频《捍卫唯独圣经》。库珀博士是一个相当受欢迎的YouTuber，我以前在搜索时见过他，所以我知道他是个靠谱的人。他是一位路德宗学者，所以我决定看看他的视频，看看他是如何捍卫唯独圣经的，并提供我的回应。

Now, when setting up his video, he doesn't go into a lot of discussion over what sola scriptura actually is. 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 solo scriptura, which is more of your Baptist fundamentalist type view. 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.

现在，在设置他的视频时，他并没有详细讨论什么是唯独圣经。事实上，他后来提到圣经是唯一的权威，这通常不是新教徒想要表达的意思，而是圣经是最高权威或类似的东西。为了将自己与有时被称为唯独圣经的观点区分开来，这种观点更像是浸信会原教旨主义者的看法。他并没有明确说明这一点，但他确实对传统发表了一个有趣的声明，这与唯独圣经相对立，这是他所说的。

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.

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、所教和所敬拜的方式非常相似。

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. And although he actually will say that in the video, I don't think that's exactly what he meant.

好的，这对库珀博士的回应来说并不是特别重要，但既然他提到了，我还是想指出，很多更传统的新教徒确实想要与圣经是唯一权威来源的这种观点保持距离。虽然他在视频中确实会这么说，但我认为这并不是他的本意。

And what he is getting out, I believe, with this reference to the Lutheran and Anglicans is that they have a respect for tradition. They have a respect for the Church Father.

我相信，他提到路德宗和英国圣公会，是因为他们尊重传统。他们尊重教父。

In fact, if you look behind him on his bookshelf, he's got the writings of the Church Fathers.

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。

Mine is right here and up here. So I do want to respond to this, though, because many times Protestants seeing the trap that they are going to fall into if they deny Christian tradition will give sort of a disclaimer, a little asterisk, a little qualification regarding the fact that, oh, you know, we respect the Church Fathers. We believe a lot of the same things the Church Fathers do. They teach a lot of the same things we do.

我的就在这里和上面。所以我确实想回应这一点，因为很多时候新教徒看到如果他们否认基督教传统将会陷入的陷阱时，会给出一种免责声明，一个小星号，一个关于事实的小小的限定，哦，你知道，我们尊重教父。我们相信很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。

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. The problem is, what it really boils down to is that this respect for tradition is simply saying that where the Church teaches and what I believe Scripture teaches overlaps, we are in agreement.

这个想法似乎是为了稍微缓和一下唯独圣经的概念，因为，嗯，唯独圣经并不意味着我们不尊重传统。问题在于，归根结底，这种对传统的尊重只是说，当教会的教导和我认为圣经的教导重叠时，我们是一致的。

Well, of course, that's just true by definition. 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. 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.

嗯，当然，这只是定义上的正确。任何人都可以说他们尊重其他传统或其他权威来源，只要他们只在同意的时候才尊重它。我是说，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在任何方面对我来说是宗教权威。

So the fact that Anglicans and Lutherans might agree with 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. They're just agreeing with what they agree with, and that is not answering the issue of authority, which is what sola scriptura is really about.

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。

Okay, so then Dr. Cooper goes into his actual defense of sola scriptura, 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.

好的，那么库珀博士接下来就要正式为唯独圣经辩护了，他首先要反驳的是这种观点，即圣经必须教导唯独圣经，唯独圣经才有意义。

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, however Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority, therefore you're contradicting yourself. Okay, so first off, he doesn't really go into this, 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, and of course Catholics would agree with that. I mean, anybody that knows anything about theology would agree with that because many times a theological position is built up from the data of Scripture and not just a single verse. In fact, typically 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.

如果你在和一个天主教辩护者谈论唯独圣经（sola scriptura）时，他们总是会反复提出同样的说法。如果你在看天主教辩护或最近皈依罗马的人时，你会听到这样的说法：圣经从未教导唯独圣经。所以你把圣经视为最终的权威，但圣经本身从未说过它是唯一的权威，因此你是在自相矛盾。好吧，首先，他并没有真正深入探讨这个问题，但我认为他想表达的是，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。

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. However, usually Roman Catholic apologists are well aware of this, and what they are getting at is that there isn't the teaching of sola scriptura in Scripture. It's a much more robust claim. So what do we do with that? And 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 has 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. I don't know how many times a Protestant has said, well, where is blank in the Bible with regard to Roman Catholic teaching? 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. And Cooper basically admits that that is not the case. 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. 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. Okay, so this is an interesting tactic and one that unfortunately is doomed to failure. Now, I know that Dr. Cooper made this video, you know, it looks like without editing.

所以，如果一个天主教辩护者攻击新教徒关于唯独圣经的概念，因为没有经文明确说过这一点，那就会有问题。然而，通常天主教辩护者对此非常清楚，他们的意思是圣经中没有唯独圣经的教义。这是一个更为强有力的主张。那么我们该如何处理这个问题呢？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？我认为我们不需要。我们不需要。你知道的，没有任何经文，比如在保罗的信中，你找不到他说，顺便说一句，圣经是唯一的权威，传统不是权威，没有任何教会权威被赋予了某种不可错误的权威来传递不可错误的教义。似乎很多天主教辩护者认为新教徒要捍卫他们的立场，必须找到一段经文说这一点。我不知道有多少次新教徒说，关于天主教教义，圣经中哪里有空白。所以有趣的是，他有点在攻击天主教辩护者，但这实际上是新教徒很少使用的策略，因为他们知道这不太有效。而库珀基本上承认情况并非如此。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的证明文本，那就是提摩太后书3:16-17。我认为我们更应该谈论圣经的独特权威和圣经的独特性质。只是说圣经确实呈现为神所默示的。提摩太后书3:16是一个著名的经文，说所有的圣经都是神所默示的，对教导、责备、纠正和在义中训练都是有益的，使神的人可以完全或充分装备，做各种善事。好吧，这是一个有趣的策略，但不幸的是注定要失败的。我知道库珀博士制作了这个视频，看起来没有编辑。

I think he went straight through. He definitely makes a couple of misstatements here and there, but he says this one over and over and over again. He frames the debate as if the Catholic Church thinks that Scripture and tradition are both inspired. 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. And then he goes on after that to talk about how argumentation should work and how the debate should work. The fact that the burden of proof is on the Catholic to show that anything is inspired other than Scripture. 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. We are in agreement that that is the case. In fact, the claim is so strange to me that I actually thought, gosh, I guess some Roman Catholic apologist must have said this. 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. I could not find one. So, you know, mea 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. Only the Scripture is inspired. We use the word infallible for other sources that are not inspired, but still are protected from error. That's a completely different claim though.

我觉得他直接说了。他确实在这里那里有几处错误，但他这一点反复强调。他把辩论框定为公教会认为圣经和传统都是受默示的。然后他继续做了一个相当长的论证，说明圣经并没有指出任何圣经以外的东西是受默示的。接着他又谈到了论证应该如何进行，辩论应该如何进行。事实是，证明圣经以外的任何东西是受默示的责任在于天主教徒。好吧，问题在于，公教会并没有教导说教宗、会议或信经或任何圣经以外的东西是受默示的。我们同意这是事实。事实上，这个说法对我来说如此奇怪，以至于我真的以为，天哪，我猜一定是某个罗马天主教辩护者说过这个。所以我上网试图找到一些有信誉的天主教网站，说教宗、教会或圣经以外的任何东西是受默示的。我找不到一个。所以，你知道，Cooper 博士，如果你确实有这个例子，但我可以向你保证，公教会并没有教导传统是受默示的。只有圣经是受默示的。我们用“无误”这个词来形容其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。

And since he bases everything on this inspiration coming from 2 Timothy 3.16, basically this entire section of his video is moot. So first he argues from 2 Timothy 3.16 that Scripture has this unique status, and we agree, so there's nothing else to say there. Second, he says that it has a particular sufficiency, and that because it has this sufficiency, that puts it in a position to be the Christian's ultimate authority. The other thing that is important in that text is it does say that Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every good work. Scripture has a sufficiency, or the sufficiency of Scripture, to equip for every good work to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works. 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, and in fact I think a careful reading of it shows that it's not even making that claim in the first place. Now a lot of Catholic apologists will point out that sufficiency actually kind of comes in two flavors. 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. And so the formal sufficiency the Catholic might argue comes from the Church, even if the material sufficiency comes from Scripture. But again, we don't even really need to go there with this verse, because the verse doesn't say Scripture is sufficient. Rather what it says is that Scripture is useful, profitable, helpful.

由于他基于提摩太后书3:16来论证，所以他视频的这一部分基本上是无效的。首先，他从提摩太后书3:16论证圣经具有独特的地位，我们同意这一点，所以在这方面没有什么好说的。其次，他说圣经具有特定的充足性，因为这种充足性，使其成为基督徒的最终权威。该文本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。圣经具有充足性，或者说圣经的充足性，足以装备人行各样的善事。然而，问题在于，尽管他在视频中一遍又一遍地重复，提摩太后书3:16和17根本没有使用“充足”或“充足性”这个词，事实上，我认为仔细阅读会发现它根本没有提出这样的主张。现在，许多天主教辩护者会指出，充足性实际上有两种形式。即使圣经，即使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被解释，因为虽然文字材料可能在那里，但在被解释之前，它们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足性来自教会，即使材料上的充足性来自圣经。但再次强调，我们甚至不需要在这节经文上讨论这个问题，因为这节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。

There's a couple different ways that this word might be translated, but the point is that the Scripture here is said to be contributing to the man of God becoming prepared for every good work.

这个词可能有几种不同的翻译方式，但重点是这里的经文被认为是帮助神的人为每一个善工做好准备。

But of course that's a very different claim than that Scripture is the sole or highest authority for the Christian. And in fact the very phrase prepared for every good work is not unique to this verse. St. Paul talks about this several times, and in the other verses where he talks about it he doesn't even mention Scripture. 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, interesting, 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. So again, there's a couple problems here. Number one, 2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17 does not even use the word sufficient. Second, the words that it does use are insufficient. It's actually using words like helpful or profitable or, you know, that kind of thing. And the object of those words is not dogma or orthodoxy, it's preparing a man of God to do good works. So this is really nothing like the claim of sola scriptura, which pits Scripture against tradition. In fact, one of the verses actually talks about sufficiency with that word in that verse, and it still doesn't mean what Dr. Cooper seems to think 2 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. 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.

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。事实上，“为各样的善工预备齐全”这个短语并不是这节经文独有的。圣保罗多次谈到这一点，在其他谈到这一点的经文中，他甚至没有提到圣经。所以问题在于，显然有几件事是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的，有趣的是，这实际上是关于善工的，但没有任何一件事暗示这是唯一能起到这个作用的东西。所以，再次，这里有几个问题。首先，提摩太后书3章16至17节甚至没有使用“足够”这个词。其次，它使用的词语是不足的。它实际上使用的是像“有益”或“有利”这样的词语。而这些词语的对象不是教义或正统信仰，而是准备一个神的人去做善工。所以这实际上与唯独圣经的主张完全不同，后者将圣经与传统对立起来。事实上，有一节经文实际上使用了“足够”这个词，但它仍然不是库珀博士认为提摩太后书3章16至17节所说的意思。好，现在他要转向他认为是罗马天主教辩护者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，所以它还没有完全写完。因此，他只是在谈论旧约，如果你认为这是在谈论圣经的足够性，那么它只是在谈论旧约的足够性，而根本不是新约的足够性。

Okay, so here I'm just going to say I agree. I don't think this is a tremendously powerful argument. 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, but I'm willing to concede that this just is not a great argument. I do think that we could take St. Paul's words to Timothy as a statement about the nature of Scripture, 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, the fact that the canon wasn't defined yet, I don't think any of that really makes too much of a difference, 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. Now that, I think, is as close of a text as you're going to get that proves sola scriptura. 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，我同意你的看法。我不认为这是一个非常有力的论点。我认为有些版本的论点可能会更细致一些，可能会让讨论更深入一些，但我愿意承认这并不是一个很好的论点。我确实认为我们可以把圣保罗对提摩太的话作为关于圣经本质的声明，所以无论什么被算作圣经，无论何时开始被算作圣经，都履行了圣保罗所谈论的功能。新约的一些部分还没有完成，正典还没有定义，我认为这些都没有太大的区别，所以我愿意承认这一点，但我也想指出，优秀的天主教辩护者对这节经文有更多的解释。我认为这是你能找到的最接近证明唯独圣经的经文。如果有任何证明唯独圣经的经文，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。

Okay, then Dr. Cooper moves on to his second major scriptural argument, which comes from Matthew 15.

好的，然后库珀博士继续他的第二个主要圣经论点，这个论点来自《马太福音》第十五章。

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. 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.

所以我会引用《马太福音》第十五章，这段经文在讨论圣经与传统的关系时被多次引用。这段经文讲述了圣经与传统之间的关系，并且涉及到文士和法利赛人的教导。

So what we have here is a claim about an infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses and its relationship to Scripture. 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.

所以我们这里讨论的是一个关于从摩西传下来的无误传统及其与圣经关系的主张。这与通过教会权威传递的无误传统的主张，以及通过文士和法利赛人从摩西传下来的无误传统的主张有很多相似之处。

There's several things here that I find somewhat troubling. 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.

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。

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. Where did he get this idea that this was considered an infallible tradition? There may have been some people that thought that, but I don't see that anywhere in Scripture, 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. Second, we have to be very careful here that when Jesus makes a qualification of a term, we need to pay attention to that.

库珀博士一遍又一遍地重复这句话，试图在法利赛人在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系。我不知道他从哪里得出这个被认为是无谬传统的想法。可能有些人是这么认为的，但我在圣经中没有看到任何相关内容，所以我不确定他为什么会这么说，除了试图让它看起来更像大公教会的情况。其次，我们必须非常小心，当耶稣对一个术语进行限定时，我们需要注意这一点。

Jesus doesn't just refer to tradition here. He refers to them as traditions of men. That is because traditions of men and traditions are two different things. 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? What is the standard for knowing the difference between a tradition and a tradition of men? 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? I suppose if Jesus had not said anything further, that might be a legitimate question, but he does. Jesus specifically says that they have made void the Word of God by their traditions. So if there's a tradition that voids what the Word of God teaches, then that could be considered a problematic tradition of men, and that's when whatever principle Dr. Cooper thinks is being instantiated here comes into play. You can't just use that for any tradition, because there are traditions that are to be obeyed. This is stated several times in Scripture. You look at 2 Thessalonians 2.15. You look at 1 Corinthians 11.2. In fact, we can even look at the fuller context of 2 Timothy 3, where St. Paul says that Timothy should believe what he was taught because he was taught it by St. Paul, and this was before Scripture was written. The fact is, Scripture is very pro-tradition. In fact, St. Paul specifically says you need to follow the traditions, whether they're written or not. 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. 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. So Jesus is not making a blanket condemnation of traditions here. He is not setting up a principle by which we judge all tradition. If you want to argue that the Catholic Church is teaching a tradition of men, well, then you need to find something that voids the Word of God. And I know Protestants think that there are Catholic traditions that do that, but as I showed in another video, it's pretty easy to show Protestants doing the same thing. So at worst, we're probably on equal footing here. I won't go any deeper into this issue, but merely to say that already he's kind of setting this up problematically. 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. 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. But what if we picked a different passage? What if we picked Acts chapter 15? 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. 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 texts. They were never treated as definitive sola scriptura authoritative arguments one way or the other. The only thing the verse that was quoted showed was that Gentiles were going to come into the kingdom. It said nothing about whether or not they needed to follow Jewish laws. 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. Rather, what happens is the apostles come in, they give arguments based on their experience and what they think about the whole situation, and then when Peter gives his talk, James, who was kind of running the meeting because he was the bishop of Jerusalem, it was his city, stands up and says, well, there you go. And he doesn't say, Peter proved this from Scripture. He doesn't say, oh yeah, that verse from the Old Testament has convinced me. He doesn't say here I stand, I can do no other. Rather, he says, you know what, 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.

耶稣在这里不仅仅是指传统。他称之为人的传统。这是因为人的传统和传统是两回事。现在，库珀博士承认这一点，但他对此的回应有点奇怪，他说，那么，你怎么知道呢？判断传统和人的传统之间区别的标准是什么？当罗马天主教辩护者接近这个文本时，他们总是会说，这只是谴责某种特定的传统，那就是人的传统，因为这是耶稣使用的词语。所以区别在于罗马不教导人的传统，但犹太人，他们据说有一套无误的教义和圣经解释，他们在教导人的传统。然而，这留下了一个问题，那就是，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？我想如果耶稣没有进一步说什么，这可能是一个合法的问题，但他确实说了。耶稣明确表示，他们通过他们的传统使神的道无效。所以，如果有一个传统使神的道无效，那么那可以被认为是一个有问题的人的传统，这就是库珀博士认为在这里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统，因为有些传统是要遵守的。这在圣经中多次提到。你看看帖撒罗尼迦后书2:15。你看看哥林多前书11:2。事实上，我们甚至可以看看提摩太后书3章的更完整的上下文，圣保罗说提摩太应该相信他所学到的，因为他是从圣保罗那里学到的，而这是在圣经写成之前。事实是，圣经非常支持传统。事实上，圣保罗明确表示你需要遵循传统，无论它们是否被写下来。问题是人的传统，而不是试图将关于特定传统的段落原则化，仿佛它适用于所有传统。如果我们看看马太福音23章，我们实际上可以看到这种情况的发生，耶稣自己说，遵循法利赛人的传统。所以耶稣并没有在这里对传统进行全面的谴责。他并没有建立一个判断所有传统的原则。如果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的道无效的东西。我知道新教徒认为有些天主教传统确实如此，但正如我在另一个视频中所展示的那样，很容易证明新教徒也在做同样的事情。所以最糟糕的情况是，我们可能在这方面处于平等地位。我不会深入探讨这个问题，只是说他已经有点问题地设置了这个问题。原则是，传统和圣经之间确实可能存在对立。当圣经和传统发生冲突时，圣经是最终的决定因素。我在这种论证中看到的第三个问题是，库珀博士选择了马太福音第15章作为他认为的建立传统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落呢？如果我们选择使徒行传第15章呢？这里我们有一个现在被称为犹太化派和教会之间的分歧，关于外邦人是否需要遵守犹太法律，特别是在他们成为基督徒时需要受割礼。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，但它们从未被视为证明文本。它们从未被视为权威性的唯独圣经论证。引用的经文唯一显示的是外邦人将进入神的国度。它没有说他们是否需要遵守犹太法律。事实上，我不知道你是否能从圣经中得到最终答案，因为旧约，这是他们当时唯一的圣经，非常明确地主张割礼。相反，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提出论点，然后当彼得发表讲话时，雅各，这次会议的主持人，因为他是耶路撒冷的主教，这是他的城市，站起来说，好吧，就这样。他没有说，彼得从圣经中证明了这一点。他没有说，哦，是的，旧约中的那节经文说服了我。他没有说，这里我站着，我别无选择。相反，他说，你知道吗，这对我们使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。

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 going forward, because this is actually in a section where we're learning what the church did going forward. 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. That is very, very different than the kind of sola scriptura procedure you see most Protestants referring to, 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, that's it, and anything else is a tradition of men. 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.

《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。

Okay, 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 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, but that is my response to the number one video that YouTube suggests when I type in defensive sola scriptura. So I hope that this has helped you out. If it has, why don't you give the video a like, subscribe to Douglas Beaumont if you are interested in Christian philosophy, theology, and apologetics, and until next time, God bless.

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士观点的视频时，详细展开讲解是不公平的。不过，这就是我对YouTube上推荐的关于捍卫唯独圣经论的第一视频的回应。所以希望这对你有所帮助。如果有帮助的话，请给视频点赞，并且如果你对基督徒哲学、神学和护教学感兴趣的话，订阅道格拉斯·博蒙特的频道。下次见，愿神保佑。

you

你