欢迎回到「无耻教皇党」。 Welcome back to Shameless Popery.
我是乔·赫施迈尔，上周「捕捉基督教」YouTube频道的卡梅伦 ·伯图奇制作了一个视频，名为「每个新教徒都必须回答的问题」。 I'm Joe Heschmeier, and last week Cameron Bertuzzi of the Capturing Christianity YouTube channel made a video called The One Question Every Protestant Must Answer.
如果你想知道的话，这个问题是关于我们如何知道 哪些书卷属于圣经，特别是哪些书卷属于新约。 That question, if you're wondering, is about how we know which books are in the Bible, particularly which books are in the New Testament.
每个基督徒都必须回答的问题是：我们如何知道哪些书卷属于新约？ The question that every Christian has to answer is this: How do we know which books belong in the New Testament?
新约记载了从耶稣的生平到救恩的信息的一切，但基督 徒并非一直都对哪些书卷应该包含在其中达成一致。 The New Testament is where we find everything from the life of Jesus to the message of salvation, but Christians haven't always agreed on which books belonged inside of it.
新约二十七卷书的清单并非一开始就确定下来。 There wasn't always a really neat list of 27 New Testament books.
一些我们现在认为必不可少的书卷曾经备受争议， 而其他一些著作则受到珍视，甚至在教会中诵读。 Some books we now consider essential were heavily disputed, while other writings were cherished and even read in church.
虽然实际上所有基督徒都认同构成新约的二十七卷书，但其中一些书卷曾经很有 争议——比如雅各书、希伯来书、彼得后书、约翰二书和三书，以及启示录。 After all, while virtually all Christians agree on the 27 books that make up the New Testament, some of those books were controversial—books like James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Book of Revelation made it in.
这些被称为「争议书卷」，或被人反对的书卷。 These are something called the Antilegomena, or spoken against books.
还有其他一些书卷，比如《十二使徒遗训》、《巴拿巴书信》、《 革利免一书》和《黑马的牧人书》，这些都是早期基督徒喜爱的著 作，一些基督徒认为它们应该收入圣经，但最终并未被收录。 Then there are other books, so think of things like the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which were beloved early Christian writings that some Christians thought belonged in the Bible and ultimately didn't make it in.
需要明确的是，我们不是在讨论异端书籍，我们不是在谈论诺斯底福音书之类的东西。 So to be clear, we're not talking about heretical books; we're not talking about the Gnostic Gospels or anything like that.
那些是容易判断的非黑即白的情况。 Those are the easy kind of black-and-white cases.
我们讨论的是那些模棱两可的情况，一些基督徒认为应该收录，另一些则认为不应该。 用专业术语来说，卡梅伦提出的是所谓的正典问题：我们如何知道圣经正典的内容？ We're talking about those gray area cases where some Christians think it belongs and some Christians think that it doesn't. In technical terms, Cameron is proposing what's called the canon question: How do we know the contents of the canon of the Bible?
他提出了五种可能解决这个问题的方法。 He proposes five ways that we could try to solve this problem.
在这个视频中我会探讨其他几种方法，但他说的第一种是，我们可以信任教会的权威。 I'm going to look at a few others in the course of this video, but he says, number one, we could trust the authority of the Church.
到这个时期，我们主要谈论的是四世纪，所以我 认为你不能否认这里所说的教会就是大公教会。 By this point, we're largely talking the fourth century, so I don't think you can really deny that the Church in question here is the Catholic Church.
这个问题稍后再谈。 More on that later.
所以，你知道，这个方法是可行的。 So, you know, that way works.
如果你信任教会的权威，你就可以相信我们对新约的认定是正确的。 If you trust the authority of the Church, you can trust we've got the New Testament right.
但显然，许多新教徒不愿意信任四世纪教会的权威。 But obviously, many Protestants are reluctant to trust the authority of the fourth-century Church.
第二，你可以考察使徒作者身份，但这里的问题是并非所有新约书卷都是由使徒写的。 Second, you could look to things like apostolic authorship, but the problem here is that not all of the books of the New Testament are written by an apostle.
比如马可福音和路加福音。 For instance, the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke.
第三，你可以考察与使徒的亲近程度。 Third, you could look at proximity to the apostles.
也许你不必是使徒，你只需要是使徒的朋友、同伴或亲近的人。 Maybe you don't have to be an apostle; you just need to be friends or companions or close to an apostle.
但这里的问题是还有其他著作，比如《革利免一书》，似乎也与使徒很亲近。 But here the problem is that there are other writings, like 1 Clement, that seem proximate to an apostle.
保罗曾经提到革利免的名字——假设是同一个人。 Clement is addressed—presuming it's the same person—by name by St. Paul.
第四，你可以说，好吧，我们要的是与正统信仰一致的书卷。 Then fourth, you could say, well, we want the books that are consistent with orthodoxy.
但当然，这有两个问题：第一，如果不是从圣经得来，你怎么知道什么是正统信仰？ But of course, there are two problems: one, how do you know what's orthodox if you're not getting it from the Bible?
第二，有很多好书都符合正统信仰，但这并不意味着它们就是默示的圣经。 And two, there are plenty of good books that are orthodox; that doesn't make them inspired Scripture.
第五，你可以说，好吧，我只是相信神引导着教会。 Fifth, you could say, well, I just have faith that God guided the Church.
现在，希望我们已经看到，第二、三、四点并不真的可行，所以就只剩下第 一点和第五点：我们信任教会的权威，并且最终我们相信神对教会的引导。 Now, hopefully, as we've already seen, points two, three, and four don't really work very well, so that leaves us with one and five: we trust the authority of the Church, and ultimately we trust God's guidance of the Church.
这完全说得通。 That makes total sense.
作为一个公教徒，我很好奇新教徒会如何回应，但 说实话，我对他评论区里回应的水平感到失望。 As a Catholic, I was wondering how Protestants would respond to that, and I was honestly disappointed in the caliber of the responses I was seeing in his comments.
现在，我知道你在说什么：这当然是YouTube评论嘛。 Now, I know what you're saying: it's YouTube comments, of course.
但他的评论区通常都有很好的评论。 But oftentimes he has really good comments.
这次也有一些好的评论，但很多人仅仅因为他提出这个问题就攻击他。 This time there were some good ones, but a lot of people attacked him just for asking the question.
我甚至看到有人宣布不再给他经济支持，并鼓励其他新教徒撤回对他 探索基督教护教学的资助，就因为他问了些他们不想让他问的问题。 I even saw people who announced that they were no longer going to support him financially and encouraged other Protestants to pull funding from his exploration of Christian apologetics because he was asking questions they didn't want him asking.
现在，我要在这里停一下说，我通常不这样做，但如果你有意愿，有能力 也有这个心愿的话，我鼓励你去Patreon支持「捕捉基督教」。 Now, I'm going to pause on this point and say I don't normally do this, but if you are so inclined, you have the means and the desire to do so, I would encourage you to go over to Patreon and support Capturing Christianity.
考虑成为会员吧，因为我认为他做的工作很好，我不喜欢看到他因为 问新教徒如何知道哪些书卷属于圣经这样的问题而受到经济胁迫。 Consider becoming a member because I think he's doing really good work, and I don't like seeing him bullied financially by people who just don't want him asking questions about how Protestants know which books are in the Bible.
所以，你知道，如果他要失去一些赞助者，就让他 获得一些鼓励他理性探索和诚实态度的赞助者吧。 So, you know, if he's going to lose some donors, let him get some donors who encourage his intellectual inquiry and his honesty.
再说一次，我也不想只指出那些负面评论。 So again, I don't want to also single out just the negative commenters.
一些评论确实让我很失望，但也有一些很好的评论，特 别是加文·奥特伦德博士做了一个很好的回应视频。 I was really disappointed in some of the comments, but there were some really good ones as well, and I would say in particular a really good response video came from Dr. Gavin Ortlund.
我在这个频道多次批评过加文我们不同意的观点，今天我还要再次这样做。 Now, I've critiqued Gavin multiple times on this channel for things upon which we disagree, and I'm going to do that again today.
但他的回应中有很多我认为很好的地方。 But there's a lot in his response that I thought was really good.
他的回应视频叫做「我们如何知道新约正典？」 His response is called How Do We Know the New Testament Canon?
在视频中他认真对待了卡梅伦的问题。 In which he takes Cameron's question seriously.
实际上，我发现自己比预想的更认同加文的观点，特别是我同意他对公教 论证的一些批评，或者说对那种涉及无误论的流行公教论证方式的批评。 Now, I actually found myself agreeing with Gavin much more than I thought I would, and in particular, I agree with some of his critiques of the Catholic case, or the way the Catholic case is kind of popularly made involving infallibility.
我一会儿会解释原因，但首先让我们回顾一下，还记得 卡梅伦提出的那五种探索或捍卫新约正典的方法吗？ I'll explain why in a minute, but first, let's just say, okay, remember the five ways that Cameron sort of threw out that you could explore or defend the New Testament canon?
和我一样，加文也认为第一点和第五点是在理论上最有力的。 Like me, Gavin is going to suggest that the first and the fifth of those are the intellectually strongest.
这些是我们应该依赖的：教会的权威和神对教会的引导。 These are the ones we should be relying upon: the authority of the Church and God's guidance of the Church.
如果你看过他的视频，我在这里给出的答案与他的第一和第五个选项有些共鸣，基本上 就是：我们可以相信神对早期教会正典化过程的引导，即使这个过程是可能有误的。 The answer I'll give here has some resonance with his first and fifth options if you watched his video, and that's basically this: we can trust God's guidance of the process of canonization in the early Church, even though it was a fallible process.
教会对正典的接受可能有误，但仍然值得信赖。 The Church's reception of the canon can be fallible and yet still trustworthy.
所以我们显然在无误性这个问题上有分歧，我很快就会谈 到为什么需要无误性，这将是我今天讨论的主要内容。 So we're going to obviously disagree on that question of infallibility, and I'll get to why infallibility is needed shortly; it's going to be the bulk of what I talk about today.
但现在，让我们认识到我们都同意，如果我们要有新约， 那是因为我们能够信任教会的权威和神对教会的引导。 But right now, let's just recognize we agree that if we're going to have a New Testament, it's going to be because we're able to trust the authority of the Church and trust God's guidance of the Church.
这是一个非常重要的观点。 That's a really important point.
在他对卡梅伦的回应中，加文链接了他之前做的一个更长的关于 同一主题的视频，在那里他以更有力的方式阐述了这一观点。 Now, in that response he made to Cameron, Gavin linked to a much longer video that he did on the same topic, in which he makes the point in a really stronger way.
他谈到了一些早期新教改革家，特别是那些倾向改革宗或加尔文主义 的人，他的结论是他们都同意教会作为神的道的见证人有其角色。 He talks about some of the early Protestant reformers, particularly those of a more Reformed or Calvinist bent, and he concludes they all agree the Church has a role as the witness unto the Word of God.
正典化是其中的一个方面，这是一个必要的角色。 Included as one aspect of that is canonization, and it's a necessary role.
没有教会，我们就没有圣经。 Without the Church, we have no Scripture.
对一个新教徒来说，这是一个相当有力的声明：没有教会，我们就没有圣经。 So that's a pretty strong statement for a Protestant to make: without the Church, we have no Scripture.
没有教会就不能有圣经了吗？ You cannot have the Scriptures anymore without the Church?
我是说，想一想。 I mean, think about it.
如果我作为一个公教徒这么说，我想很多新教徒会指责我 把教会提升到偶像崇拜的地步，把教会置于圣经之上。 If I said that as a Catholic, I think it's fair to say many Protestants would accuse me of elevating the Church to an idolatrous level, of putting the Church over Scripture.
但事实并非如此。 And that's not what's happening.
加文很清楚地指出，公教徒和新教徒都同意是神，而不 是教会，是圣经的作者，是使圣经获得默示的那一位。 Gavin is very clear that both Catholics and Protestants agree that God, and not the Church, is the author of Scripture and the one who makes Scripture inspired.
但教会在告诉我们什么是和什么不是圣经这一点 上，仍然扮演着不可或缺且无可替代的角色。 But the Church nevertheless has this indispensable and irreplaceable role in telling us what is and isn't Scripture.
所以没有这个角色，你就不会有新约，因为你不知道神默示了什么，没有默示什么。 So without that role, you don't have the New Testament because you don't know which things God did and didn't inspire.
真的就是这么简单。 It really is that simple.
但听到加文明确地说出这一点，并引用新教改革家来支持这一主张，我感到很兴奋。 But I'm thrilled to hear Gavin say it explicitly and to back the claim up with an appeal to Protestant reformers.
现在，尽管如此，尽管相信没有教会就没有圣经，尽管相信我们可以信任新约正典，因 为我们可以信任教会的权威和神对教会的引导，加文仍然认为这个过程不是无误的。 Now, despite this, despite believing that without the Church we don't have the Bible, and despite believing that we can trust the New Testament canon to the extent that we can trust the authority of the Church and God's guidance of the Church, Gavin nevertheless believes that this process isn't infallible.
他在我刚才引用的那段话中说，我们可以信任神对早期教 会正典化过程的引导，即使这是一个可能有误的过程。 He says in the bit I quoted a moment ago, We can trust God's guidance of the process of canonization in the early Church, even though it was a fallible process.
现在，我并不否认某事物可以既是可能有误的——有犯错可能的——同时又是正确的。 Now, I don't dispute that something could be both fallible—capable of error—and still right.
如果你在做基础数学，你知道二乘二等于四，即使你有可能搞错，你也能得到正确答案。 If you're doing basic math, you know two times two is four, or you can get that right even though you're capable of screwing it up.
试试一些更难的数字，你就会发现你确实有做错数学题的可能。 Try some of the harder numbers, and you'll see your capacity to get math problems wrong.
但你仍然是可信的，即使你有可能犯错，你仍然是对的。 But you're still trustworthy; you're still right even though you're capable of error.
你是可能有误的，但你并没有错。 You're fallible, but you're not wrong.
所以我对这个区别没有异议。 So I don't have a problem with that distinction.
我有问题的是另一点：一个过程怎么可能既是由神引导的——你知道，神对正典化过程的引 导意味着神在掌控，他在带领——同时又可能有误呢？毕竟这就是「可能有误」的意思。 I have a problem with a different one: how can a process be both guided by God—that's, you know, God's guidance of the process of canonization means God is the one in control; he's the one leading it—and also capable of error, which is what fallible means, after all?
我理解你我在做数学题时的情况，我们虽然可能做错，但也可能得到正确答案。 I see how you or I are doing a math problem; we could get the answer right even though we're capable of getting it wrong.
但如果神是作者，最终是他在引导历史，是他在引导教会进入真理。 But if God is the one who's the author, ultimately he's the one guiding history; he's the one leading the Church into the truth.
这怎么还会是可能有误的呢？ How is it still fallible?
现在，加文要论证三点来为他的观点辩护，说明为什么他认为这整 个过程是可能有误的，为什么即使是神引导的过程也不是无误的。 Now, Gavin's going to argue three things in defense of why he thinks that this whole process is fallible, why it's not an infallible process even though it's led by God.
其中两点我不会讨论，因为我以前已经讨论过了。 Two of them I'm not going to address because I've addressed them before.
他在较长的视频中有一个关于认识论和无误性本质的哲学论证，我觉得不太有说服力。 He has a philosophical argument in his longer video about epistemology and the nature of infallibility that I don't find very persuasive.
我想他也意识到这个论证不是特别有力，因为他也承认这一点，而且 我在一个叫做「个人解释的问题」的视频中已经讨论过这个问题。 I think he even realizes it's not super strong because he kind of acknowledges that, and I've addressed it before in a video called The Problem of Personal Interpretation.
他还声称耶稣时代的犹太人没有无误性，但他们仍然知道哪些书卷属于圣经，哪些不属于。 He also has a claim that the Jewish people in Jesus' day didn't have infallibility, but they still knew which books were and weren't in the Bible.
这在事实上是不正确的，我在多个视频中都指出过这一点，最近在一个叫 做「耶稣时代的圣经：有多大差异？」的视频中，探讨了在耶稣之后的几 个世纪里，拉比们实际上一直在争论哪些书卷属于圣经，哪些不属于。 That's just factually untrue, as I point out in multiple videos, but most recently in a video called The Bible in Jesus' Day: How Different Was It? looking at how there were actually ongoing rabbinic debates about which books did and didn't belong in the Bible for centuries after Jesus.
但我要把这两点搁置一边。 But I'm going to leave those two aside.
相反，我想关注他提出的第三个论证，我认为这 是他最有力的论证，我想他也认识到这一点。 Instead, I want to focus on the third argument he makes that I think is his strongest, and I think he recognizes that as his strongest.
这个论点是说在早期教会中并没有无误的会议或教宗座 前宣告来解决哪些书卷属于圣经，哪些不属于的问题。 It's the idea that there was no infallible council or ex cathedra papal declaration in the early Church settling the question of which books did and didn't belong in the Bible.
这是他在较长的视频中论证的方式。 So here's the way he makes the argument in the longer video.
现在假设这没有说服你，那是较弱的论证。 Now suppose that doesn't convince you; that's the weaker argument.
啊，我应该从较强的论证开始。 Ah, I should have started off with the stronger one.
好吧，没关系，让我们继续。 Oh well, that's okay, let's go forward.
这才是真正的论证，因为逻辑哲学的论证是一回事， 但在这里，我认为变得非常具有决定性：历史论证。 Here's the real one, because logical philosophical appeals are one thing, but here's where it becomes very, I think, decisive: the historical argument.
我们可以确定地知道教会不需要无误性来辨别正典，因为历史上就不是这样发生的。 There's a way that we can know with certainty that the Church does not need infallibility to discern the canon, and that is just it didn't happen that way.
无误的正典清单在历史上出现得很晚，接近中世纪末期，几乎到了近代初期。 Infallible canon lists come way late in history, toward the end of the Middle Ages, almost into the early modern era.
换句话说，如果这对新教徒来说是个问题，那么对历 史上大多数时期的大多数基督徒来说也是个问题。 In other words, if this is a problem for Protestants, it's a problem for most Christians throughout history, most times throughout history.
现在，公教徒可能会反对说，那迦太基第三次会议或罗马会议又如何呢？ Now, Catholics might object, Well, what about something like the Third Council of Carthage or the Council of Rome?
它们在确立正典方面不是发挥了重要作用吗？ Didn't they play this important role in setting the canon?
是的，但加文会正确地回应说，那些不是大公会议，而是地区性会议。 Yes, but Gavin would rightly respond to you by saying those weren't ecumenical councils; those were regional councils.
它们很重要，一个是因为罗马，另一个是因为有奥古斯丁在场，但它们本身并不是无误的。 They were important ones, in one case because Rome, in another case because St. Augustine is there, but they're not of themselves infallible.
这不是公教徒或新教徒对地区性会议的信念。 This is not something either Catholics or Protestants believe about regional councils.
在教会最初的1500年里，没有无误的行动来决定正典。 There were no infallible operations deciding the canon during that first 1,500 years of the Church.
四世纪末的会议——大约1500年左右，我稍后会说明佛罗伦萨会 议和特伦特会议——这些四世纪末的会议，我必须先说明这一点，因 为每个人都会提到其中一些，它们是地方会议，是可能有误的。 The late fourth-century councils—1,500-ish; I'll define Florence and Trent in a second—these late fourth-century councils, I just have to say this up front because everyone's going to bring up some of these, they were local councils; they were fallible.
然而，尽管没有任何无误的行动，教会在四世纪左右就对新约达成了 几乎普遍的共识，实际上比那更早一些，但在那时完全确定下来。 And yet, despite the absence of any infallible operations, the Church came to a virtually universal agreement about the New Testament somewhere around the fourth century, or really a little earlier than that, but totally finalized around then.
加文关于这些大部分都是对的。 Gavin is mostly right about all of this.
如果你是公教徒，你说我们可以知道圣经是因为教宗以某种具有约束力的无误方 式说了，或是因为大公会议之类的原因，我认为这种自上而下的圣经正典知识论 证并不特别有力，因为在这个问题上并没有太多自上而下的无误权威在行使。 If you're a Catholic and you're presenting the case that we can know the Bible because the Pope said so in some binding infallible way or because of an ecumenical council or something like that, I just don't think that the top-down case for our knowledge of the canon of Scripture is particularly strong because there isn't a ton of top-down infallible authority being exercised on this question.
所以我在这里完全同意加文的观点，除了一点。 So I completely agree with Gavin here, except for one thing.
也就是说，神带领基督徒从对新约内容的困惑和 分歧，到如他所说的几乎一致的统一的过程。 Namely, that process by which God leads the Christian people from confusion and disunity on the contents of the New Testament to, as he puts it, this near-unanimous unity.
这不仅仅是人为努力的结果，这是一个无误的、神所默示和引导的过程， 即使它是自然发生的，是自下而上而不是自上而下的，它仍然是无误的。 That's not just happening by human effort; that's an infallible, divinely inspired and led process that is still infallible even though it's happening organically and from the bottom up rather than top-down.
我要说两点。 I'd say two things.
第一：没有神帮助的人类根本无法这样达成统一。 Number one: unended men simply don't arrive at unity this way.
你可以想想宗教之外的事物，比如政治。 You can think outside of religion on something like politics.
你可以想想巴别塔的事。 You can think about something like the Tower of Babel.
没有神恩典的帮助，我们能有多团结？ How unified were we without the assistance of divine grace?
比较一下巴别塔和五旬节。 Compare Babel to Pentecost.
或者你可以想想新教宗派主义的本质。 Or you can think about something like the nature of Protestant denominationalism.
没有一个新教团体能够说服所有其他新教团体，说他们掌握了所有真理， 每个人都应该成为，你知道，长老会信徒、浸信会信徒，随便填什么。 No one Protestant group has ever been able to convince all the other Protestant groups that they've got all the truth and everyone should become, you know, Presbyterian, Baptist, fill in the blank.
人们在各宗派间流动，你知道，就像在宗派的旋转木马上转来转去。 People move around, and there's a, you know, kind of merry-go-round denominationally.
但相比之下，我们没有看到在正典问题上有团体从A到B到C这样变来变去的情况，你知 道，比如这周我认为希伯来书应该收录，你决定把它排除，然后下周我们又改变主意。 But in contrast, we don't see that happening where you don't just have groups going from A to B to C on the question of the canon, where, you know, Well, I think Hebrews is in this week, and you've decided it's out, and then we switch the next week.
这种情况根本没有发生。 That's not happening at all.
相反，你看到这种共识的形成方式不像是人为的努力，而像是神的工作。 Rather, you have this consensus emerging in a way that doesn't look like human effort; it looks like the work of God.
而神的工作是无误的。 And the work of God is infallible.
这就引出了第二点，我理解加文的观点从何而来。 So that leads to the second point, which is that I understand where Gavin's coming from.
当公教徒谈论无误性时，我们经常以一种自上而下的方式谈论：教宗说了什么？ Oftentimes when Catholics talk about infallibility, we talk about it in a top-down sort of way: what has the Pope said?
大公会议说了什么？ What has an ecumenical council said?
所以很多人，无论是新教徒还是公教徒，说实话都没有意识到公 教会对无误性的理解并不仅仅是以这种自上而下的方式运作。 And so many people, Protestant and Catholic alike, frankly don't realize that the Catholic conception of infallibility doesn't just work in that top-down sort of way.
我想你在加文的论证中可以看到这一点。 So I think you see that in Gavin's arguments.
他似乎很明确地将无误性与自上而下的方式联系在一起。 He seems to pretty explicitly link infallibility with a top-down approach.
他将其与他所说的教会内的有机过程进行对比，尽管从 公教会的角度来看，圣灵可以通过这两种方式工作。 He contrasts it with what he calls an organic process within the Church, even though from a Catholic perspective, the Holy Spirit can work in both of those ways.
正典的形成——新约正典——不是无误机制的结果， 不是教宗座前宣告的结果，也不是大公会议的结果。 The canon coming together—the New Testament canon—is not the result of infallible mechanisms; it's not the result of an ex cathedra statement from a Pope, and it's not the result of an ecumenical council.
这不是一个自上而下的宣告。 It was not a top-down declaration.
但当然，正如他所说，圣灵可以在这个有机发展的过程中自下而上地启发 教会，就像他可以通过信经、会议和教宗等方式自上而下地启发一样。 But of course, the Holy Spirit can inspire the Church from the bottom up in the organic unfolding of the process, as he puts it, just as much as he can from the top down with creeds and councils and Popes and the like.
所以与其谈论教宗无误性，让我们来谈谈…… So instead of talking about papal infallibility, let's talk about...
信众的无误性。 People infallibility.
你们中有些观看或收听的人可能会想，这听起来不太像公教会的说法，因为你 们对教会的印象是极其等级化的，每个决定都要在梵蒂冈或大公会议上解决。 Some of you watching this or listening to it might be thinking, That doesn't sound very Catholic of you, because you have this image of the Church being super hierarchical, that every decision is resolved at the Vatican or at an ecumenical council.
但这是一个讽刺画——说实话，许多公教徒都在传播这种讽刺画。 But that's a caricature—a caricature that, frankly, many Catholics are guilty of propagating.
这不是教会对自己或自己权威的主张。 It's not what the Church claims about herself or her own authority.
例如，梵蒂冈第二次大公会议明确指出，神的圣民也分享基督的先知职 分，因此全体信徒，既是被圣者所膏抹的，在信仰事项上就不会犯错。 For instance, the Second Vatican Council is quite explicit that the holy people of God share also in Christ's prophetic office, such that the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief.
注意，这明确地是关于无误性的，但不仅仅是教宗或大 公会议在以无误的方式行事，而是整个神的子民集体。 Notice this is explicitly about infallibility, but it's not just the Pope or ecumenical councils that are acting in an infallible way; it's the whole people of God collectively.
教义的这种有机展开——就是加文所描述的过程，神的子民在一个重要议题上从不统一到几 乎完全统一，即哪些书卷属于圣经——这完美地说明了梵二所说的基督徒受膏工作的标志。 That organic unfolding of doctrine—now that process that Gavin has described, where the people of God went from disunity to near-complete unity on an important topic, namely which books belong in the Bible—that's a perfect illustration of the kind of thing Vatican II is talking about as a sign of Christian anointing at work.
《公教会教理》在第91和92段中呼应了这一 点，说所有信徒都分享理解和传递启示真理。 The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes this in paragraphs 91 and 92, saying that all the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth.
这不仅仅是教会的训导职，所有信徒都领受了圣灵 的恩膏，圣灵教导他们并引导他们进入一切真理。 That is not just the teaching office of the Church; all the faithful have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.
这就是为什么，比如说，公教会平信徒能够指出他们的主教说的某些话不太对。 This is how you can have, for instance, Catholic laity who can point out if their bishop is saying something that's not quite right.
第92段说全体信徒在信仰事项上不会犯错。 Paragraph 92 says the whole body of the faithful cannot err in matters of belief.
当全体信徒，从主教到最后一位信徒，在信仰和道德事项上表现出普遍的共识时，这种 特征就表现在被称为信仰意识（sensus fidei）的对信仰的超性认识上。 This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith called the sensus fidei, or sense of the faith, on the part of the whole people when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.
那么这是从哪里来的？ So where's this coming from?
这是《教理》或梵二凭空编造的疯狂想法吗？ Is this just some crazy thing the Catechism made up or Vatican II made up?
完全不是。 Not at all.
你可以在约翰一书第2章等处找到圣经依据，其中圣约翰写道 ，你们从主所受的恩膏常存在你们心里，并不用人教训你们。 You can find the biblical support for this in places like 1 John 2, in which St. John writes that the anointing which you receive from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you.
现在，要完全说清楚，约翰显然不是说你真的不需 要基督教的教导，显然，他毕竟是在给他们写信。 Now, to be completely clear here, John is clearly not meaning that you literally do not need Christian teaching; obviously, he's writing them a letter, after all.
但他是说你对信仰的认识不仅仅来自教会的官方教导机构。 But he is saying that your knowledge of the faith isn't just coming from the official teaching body of the Church.
信徒不需要每一个神学观点和每一个道德问题都 由自上而下的无误决定或教会的定义来解决。 The faithful don't need every point of theology and every moral question settled by a top-down sort of infallible decision or a definition by the Church.
如果你在想，你知道，我应该去谋杀我的邻居吗？ If you're wondering, you know, Should I go murder my neighbor?
你不必翻出《教理》甚至圣经，你在内心层面就 知道，因为你已经被基督以这种方式塑造了。 you don't have to pull out the Catechism or even the Bible; you know at the level of your heart because you've been formed by Christ in this way.
这就是主张。 That's the claim.
而且，这再次强调，不仅仅是在个人层面，而是在集体层面。 And this, again, is not just at the level of the individual but collectively.
神的子民说他们是以这种方式被引导的。 The people of God say they are led in this way.
我们在约翰福音16章13节等处也看到这一点，耶稣在最后的晚餐上 应许说，真理的圣灵来了，他要引导你们进入一切的真理，因为他不是 凭自己说的，乃是把他所听见的都说出来，并要把将来的事告诉你们。 We see this as well in places like John 16, verse 13, in which Jesus at the Last Supper promises that when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
所以注意，不是你或我个人拥有全部真理，而是神的子民集体——广义的教会—— 不仅仅是等级制度意义上的教会，而是作为神子民的教会，拥有真理的完整性。 So notice it's not that you or I individually have all the truth; it's rather that the people of God collectively—the Church broadly—not just in a hierarchical sense of Church, but the Church as the people of God, has the fullness of the truth.
所以如果教会被引导进入真理的完整性，这实际上就是他所宣称 的，这意味着如果教会对某事达成共识，我们就可以信任它。 So if the Church is being led into the fullness of the truth, which is actually what he claims, that means that if the Church has come to a consensus on a thing, we can trust it.
这就是早期基督徒非常清楚地理解这个应许的方式。 And this is how the early Christians understood this promise very clearly.
因此，他们经常指出基督徒的共识作为圣灵以这种方式行事的证据，因此这是 具有约束力的，即使教会没有以自上而下的无误方式正式就某事发表意见。 As a result of that, they would regularly point to the consensus of Christians as evidence that the Holy Spirit had acted in this way, and that therefore that was binding, even if the Church hadn't officially spoken on a matter in an infallible top-down sort of way.
由于这种有机的共识，它仍然具有无误性。 It still possessed infallibility because of the organic consensus.
所以我要给你举几个早期教会中谈论这一点的人的例子。 So I'm going to give you a couple of examples of people who speak to this in the early Church.
其中之一是圣约翰·卡西安。 One of them is St. John Cassian.
在420年代的某个时候，他写道，所有人的一致同意本身就足以驳斥异端。 Sometime in the 420s, he writes that the agreement of all ought then to be in itself already sufficient to confute heresy.
注意，我不需要用论证来说服你，一旦你意识到所有人都反对你，你就应该意识到你错了。 Notice that I don't have to persuade you by the arguments; once you realize that everybody's against you, you should realize you're wrong.
这就是全体权威显示无可置疑真理的论证。 That's the argument for the authority of all showing undoubted truth.
然后他说，如果有人试图持有与这些相反的观点， 我们首先应该谴责他的顽固，而不是听他的论断。 Then he says that if a man endeavors to hold opinions contrary to these, we should in the first instance rather condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions.
因为，攻击全体判断的人预先宣告了自己的定罪 ，扰乱全体所确定之事的人甚至不配被倾听。 For one, he who impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own condemnation, and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all is not even given a hearing.
所以如果你有某种与延续两千年的传统不符的新版基督教，我们不 必听从，因为如果圣灵在引导我们进入一切真理，而你打破了这个 共识，那么要么是你错了，要么是圣灵错了，而圣灵永远不会错。 So if you have some new version of Christianity that doesn't match the tradition that's gone on for 2,000 years, we don't have to listen to it because if the Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth and you're breaking that consensus, then either you or the Holy Spirit are wrong, and the Holy Spirit's never wrong.
所以根据卡西安的说法，真理已经一次永远地被全体人确立了。 So according to Cassian, the truth has once for all been established by all men.
因此，任何与之相反的事物，就凭这个事实本身， 就应该立即被认出是虚假的，因为它与真理不符。 So then whatever arises contrary to it, by this very fact, is to be recognized at once as falsehood because it differs from the truth.
对不起，他说的是，当它已经如此确立的时候。 Excuse me, he says, when it has been so.
换句话说，他不是说所有教义都已确定，但当一个教义已经确定时，你就不能动摇它。 In other words, he's not saying all doctrine is settled, but when a doctrine is settled, you can't unsettle it.
这就是圣约翰·卡西安的观点。 Now, that's St. John Cassian.
约翰·卡西安，但我意识到不是很多人听说过他。 John Cassian, but I realize not a lot of people have heard of him.
在这个话题上更有名的是圣文森特·勒林，他写道在大公教会本身中 ，我们必须尽一切可能持守那在各处、常常、为众人所信的信仰。 More famous on this topic is St. Vincent of Lérins, who wrote that in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold the faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.
我偶尔听到新教徒以一种扭曲的方式使用这个来反对他们不接受的 公教教义，但我没有听到他们真正理解文森特实际上在论证什么。 I occasionally hear Protestants use this in a kind of a distorted way to argue against Catholic doctrines they don't hold, but I don't hear them actually grapple with what Vincent is actually arguing for.
他说我们可以通过坚持三件事来遵循这个规则：普遍性、古老性和共识。 He says we can follow this rule by holding to three things: universality, antiquity, and consent.
他这是什么意思？ What does he mean by that?
就普遍性而言，我们应当承认全世界教会所承认的信仰为真。 By universality, we ought to confess the faith to be true as the whole Church throughout the world confesses.
这很简单。 This is pretty simple.
作为一个公教徒，我可以坐飞机去地球上几乎任何国家，都 能找到其他有着相同信仰、相同信经、相同教理的公教徒。 As a Catholic, I can get on a plane, go to almost any country on Earth, and find other believing Catholics there who have the same faith, the same creed, the same catechism.
这就是普遍性。 That's universality.
这就在「公教」这个名字里，这就是「公教」这个词的含义。 It's right there in the name of Catholic; that's what the word Catholic means.
第二，是古老性。 Second, there's antiquity.
就像我可以坐飞机一样，我也可以坐时光机，发 现我与我们的圣祖先和教父们有着相同的信仰。 Just as I can get on a plane, I could also get in a time machine and find out that I have the same faith as our holy ancestors and fathers.
即使我回到16世纪之前也是如此，这不是每个人都能说的。 And that's true even if I go before the 16th century, which is not something everybody can say.
第三，需要共识，因为文森特意识到基督徒有时会彼 此不同意——有时甚至早期基督徒也会彼此不同意。 Third, there's this need for consent because Vincent realized that sometimes Christians disagree with each other—sometimes even the early Christians disagree with each other.
他说我们应该遵循所有或至少几乎所有祭司和博士的决定。 He says that we should follow the determinations of all, or at least of almost all priests and doctors.
所以对于伟大的神学家和伟大的祭司们，我们应该听取他 们的意见，因为这是我们能看到信徒意识的方式之一。 So the great theologians, the great priests, we should be listening to what they have to say because that's one of the ways we can see the sense of the faithful.
所以你看：你要看得广泛，深入历史，看看那些伟大人 物的高度，这就能让你感受到大家普遍同意的是什么。 So there you have it: you look broad, you look deep into history, and you look at the heights of, you know, who are the kind of great figures, and that gives you a sense of what did everybody kind of agree on.
这就是文森特的观点，你知道，他真正谈论的是信徒的意识。 So that's Vincent, and he's speaking to, you know, really the sense of the faithful.
但比约翰·卡西安更有名，比圣文森特更有名的，当然是圣奥古斯丁。 But even more famous than John Cassian, even more famous than St. Vincent, is of course St. Augustine.
在谈到正典问题时，他不是在看新约正典…… And speaking on the canon question, he's not looking at the canon of the New Testament...
奥古斯丁要对旧约正典提出论证。 Augustine's going to make an argument about the canon of the Old Testament.
他要引用智慧书，并论证即使教会没有在会议上说明，我们也能知道它是默示的圣经。 He's going to appeal to the Book of Wisdom, and he's going to argue that we can know it's inspired Scripture even though the Church hadn't said so at a council.
因为多年以来，这本书一直配得在基督的教会中被诵读，从基督教会的读经员的位置上。 Since for so long a course of years, that book has deserved to be read in the Church of Christ, from the station of the readers of the Church of Christ.
换句话说，它在礼仪中被诵读，被所有基督徒听到，从主教到最低层 的平信徒、预备悔改者和慕道者，都以对神权威的敬意来对待它。 In other words, it's been read liturgically and heard by all Christians, from bishops downward to the lowest lay believers, pre-penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration paid to divine authority.
你会注意到《教理》第92段引用了这一点，这 是对我们如何知道信仰意识或信徒意识的描述。 You'll notice paragraph 92 of the Catechism is referencing that; it's a description of how we know the sensus fidei or the sensus fidelium.
所以这就是这个观念：当每个人都知道某事是真实的，即使没 有正式的定义或宣告，它仍然是具有约束力的无误教会教导。 So that's the idea: when everybody just knows a thing to be true, even if there's not an official definition or declaration out there, it is still binding infallible Church teaching.
但也要注意，对信徒意识的这种理解并不是将信众与主教或教会的训导职对立起来。 But notice as well this understanding of the sensus fidelium doesn't pit the people against their bishops or against the teaching office of the Church.
这只是共同的理解，即使训导职还没有以那种方式行使其权威。 It's just the common understanding, even if the teaching office hasn't exercised its authority in that way.
有时你会遇到这种对信徒意识的误解，比如说，很多公教徒不同意教会关于性问题的教导。 Sometimes you'll get this kind of misconception of the sensus fidelium, like, Well, a lot of Catholics disagree with the Church's teaching on sexual issues.
这不是我们在这里讨论的内容。 That's not what we're talking about here.
我们说的是当信徒，无论你在哪里找到他们，在什么时候找 到他们，都对作为忠实的基督徒意味着什么有共同的认识。 We're talking about when the faithful, wherever you find them and whenever you find them, have a common idea of what it is to be a faithful Christian.
我们可以相信这一点，即使你知道，比如说没有正式的教会文件谴责食人。 We can trust that, even if, you know, like there's not some official Church document that condemns cannibalism.
这无关紧要，我们已经知道那种事情违背公教信仰，违背基督教。 It doesn't matter; we already know that thing is contrary to Catholicism, contrary to Christianity.
你不需要正式的教会无误宣告，我们可以把那个共识本身作为无误的。 You don't need an official infallible Church declaration; we can hold that consensus infallibly itself.
好的，现在我刚才引用的所有人都来自300年代末和400年代初， 我认为这很重要，部分原因是这正是新约正典最终确定和传播的时期。 Okay, now all of the people I've just cited here are from the late 300s and the early 400s, and I think that matters in part because this is the period of time in which the canon of the New Testament was being finalized and propagated.
但我还想往前追溯。 But I want to also go back further.
我不仅想谈论那个时期的基督徒并看看他们的神学框 架，我想表明这是他们实际上接受和继承的东西。 I want to not just address the Christians at that time and look at their theological framework; I want to show that this is something they had actually received and inherited.
这不是300年代的某种新发明，这不是理解耶稣应许的某种新方式。 This is not some new invention from the 300s; this is not some new way of understanding Jesus' promises.
我想一直追溯到200年前的特土良。 I want to go all the way back about 200 years to Tertullian.
他大约生活在公元160年到240年，所以当我 们第一次听到四福音书被列出时，他大约20岁。 Now, he lived from about the year 160 to about the year 240, so he's roughly 20 when we first hear the four Gospels being listed.
正是圣爱任纽在大约180年告诉我们马太、马可、路加和约翰是四福音书。 Exactly St. Irenaeus, in about 180, tells us that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four Gospels.
特土良当时还是个年轻人，所以他非常接近这个早期阶段。 Tertullian is a young man at the time, so he is very close to this kind of early stage.
特土良和他之前的爱任纽一样，主张我们必须持守教会的信仰，特别是 使徒建立的那些教会的信仰，即使是在那些尚未正式定义的事情上。 Tertullian, like Irenaeus before him, argues that we have to hold the faith of the Church, and particularly the churches that are established by the apostles, even on things that haven't been formally defined.
他是这样论证的：他说我们只能通过听使徒所传的道来知道基督所启示的，而我们 只能通过听使徒所建立的教会告诉我们他们所传的道来知道使徒所传的是什么。 He makes the argument this way: he says that we can only know what Christ revealed by listening to what the apostles preached, and we only know what the apostles preached by listening to what the churches they had founded tell us that they preached.
我们说的这些教会是像耶路撒冷、安提阿和罗马这样的地方。 Those churches we're talking about are places like Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome.
因此，他总结说，所有与使徒教会——那些信仰的模 范和原始来源——相符的教义都必须被视为真理。 Therefore, he concludes, all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith—must be reckoned for the truth.
他总结说，我们与使徒教会保持共融，因为我们的教义在任何方面都与他们的没有不同。 He concludes, We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs.
这是我们对真理的见证。 This is our witness of truth.
所以这就是你如何知道你是否有信徒的意识：你是否相信早期基督 徒所相信的同样的事情，特别是像罗马这样地方的早期基督徒？ So that's how you know if you have the sense of the faithful: do you believe the same thing the early Christians did, and especially the early Christians of places like Rome?
如果你相信，很好；如果你不相信，就不太好。 And if you do, great; and if you don't, not great.
当然，引用特土良在这方面的话有一定的讽刺意味， 因为他最终成为了一个异端，成为了孟他努派信徒。 Now, of course, there's a certain irony in citing Tertullian on this because he ends up becoming a heretic; he becomes a Montanist.
但他给出了一个他自己本应该遵循的模式：如果你想知道一件事是 否正确，你可以看看基督徒的共识，包括历史上的基督徒共识。 But he gives a model he should have followed himself: that if you want to know if a thing is correct, you can look at Christian consensus, including the historic Christian consensus.
现在你可能在听这个，特别是如果你不是公教徒，你会说，那么我们怎么知道这是对的？ Now you might be listening to this, particularly if you're not a Catholic, and saying, Well, how do we know that that's right?
我们怎么知道圣灵真的引导每个人进入真理，而不是所有的教会都犯了错？ How do we know the Holy Spirit really did lead everybody into the truth and that it isn't just the case that all of the churches have erred?
因为我要指出，嘿，看，早期基督徒在一个教义上是一 致的——无论是洗礼、圣餐、主教，还是其他什么。 Because I'm going to point out, Hey, look, the early Christians were unanimous on a doctrine—baptism, Eucharist, bishops, whatever it is.
人们会回应说，好吧，这只是意味着错误比我们想象的更早出现。 People will respond, Well, that just means that the error came in earlier than we thought.
我们怎么知道它是可信的？ How do we know it's trustworthy?
而特土良对此有论证。 And Tertullian has arguments for that.
他要提出两个论证。 He's going to really make two arguments.
他写道，换句话说，好吧，让我们就把耶稣所应许的一切都不是真的作为起点假设。 He writes, in other words, like, Okay, so let's just take as a starting assumption that everything Jesus promised wasn't true.
他试图向你表明这是荒谬的。 He's trying to show you that this is silly.
然后他说，好吧，让我们假设圣灵忽视了他作为基督 代表的职责，允许教会在一段时间内有不同的理解。 And then he says, Okay, let's then grant that the Holy Spirit neglected his office as the vicar representative of Christ, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently.
注意那句话，它真的很重要。 Notice that line; it's really important.
他要论证，如果教会即使只是短暂地陷入背教，耶稣的应许 就会落空，因为那就不是圣灵在引导我们进入一切真理。 He's going to argue that Jesus' promise will have failed if the Church, even for a little bit of time, goes into apostasy because that's not the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth.
那将是在引导我们进入错误。 It would be leading us into error.
所以，好吧，即使是一段时间，假设你认为圣灵失败了， 引导我们相信与耶稣自己通过使徒所传的不同的东西。 So, okay, even for a time, let's say you think the Holy Spirit failed and led us to believe differently from what Jesus himself was preaching by the apostles.
然后他提出一个逻辑问题：那么，这么多教会，这 么大的教会，都偏离到同一个信仰中，这可能吗？ Then he poses a logical problem: well, is it likely that so many churches and so great of churches should have gone astray into one and the same faith?
现在，我要确保你理解这个论证，因为我认为它真的很好。 Now, I'm going to make sure you're getting this argument because I think it's really good.
他论证说，一方面，你有所有这些圣经的应许说这不会发生，所以不用担心。 He's arguing that on the one hand, you've got all these biblical promises that won't happen, so don't worry about it.
但另一方面，即使你不相信这些应许或不这样解释它们，这仍然只是一 个逻辑问题：整个教会都朝着完全相同的方向犯错的可能性有多大？ But on the other hand, even if you don't believe those promises or don't interpret them like that, it's still just a logical problem: how likely is it that the whole Church is going to err in the exact same direction?
正如他所说，没有人为的行动会产生完全相同的结果。 No man-made action, as he puts it, issues in one and the same result.
再想想政治，想想体育，想想人们在任何事情上的分歧。 Think again about politics, think about sports, think about any number of things that people disagree on.
它们往往会分裂，无论你把它们称为宗派还是教派还是其他什么。 They tend to fractionalize; they tend to split into, whether you want to call them denominations or sects or whatever.
如果是人为的，如果不是神引导的，它就会分裂成越来越小的群体。 If it's man-made, if it's not led by God, it breaks up into smaller and smaller groups.
因此，特土良说，然而，当在许多人中间所保存的被发 现是一致的，这不是错误的结果，而是传统的结果。 Thus, Tertullian says, When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error but of tradition.
那么有谁会如此鲁莽地说，那些传递传统的人是错误的？ Can anyone then be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
答案是有的，确实有人如此鲁莽，说即使在教会是统 一的地方，它仍然是错的，这个人就是马丁·路德。 And the answer to that is yes; there is someone who is reckless enough to say that even where the Church is unified, it's still wrong, and that would be Martin Luther.
现在，我保证我会回到新约正典这个具体问题上。 Now, I promise I'm going to get back to the particular question of the canon of the New Testament.
我在这里的观点是，这个关于正典的论证似乎也是反对新教改革的 论证，因为马丁·路德提出我们实际上不能相信早期教会的共识。 My point here is that this case for the canon also seems like a case against the Protestant Reformation because Martin Luther makes the argument that we actually can't trust the consensus of the early Church.
早期基督徒确信它是无误的。 The early Christians were convinced it was infallible.
他认为它不仅是可能有误的，他实际上把早期基督徒比 作挪亚时代的恶人，而把自己比作挪亚，唯一的义人。 He thinks not only is it fallible; he actually compares the early Christians themselves to the wicked men in the days of Noah and compares himself to Noah, the only one righteous.
这是出自他对创世记的注释。 This is from his commentary on Genesis.
这是一段引人入胜的段落，我想稍微详细地引用一下。 It is a fascinating passage, and I want to quote it at a little bit of length.
他说，毫无疑问，一个堕落的世代极度憎恨他——挪亚——用各种方 式折磨他，侮辱他，因此这个公义和圣洁的人一定在心里认定…… He says, There is no doubt that a depraved generation hated him—Noah—inordinately tantalizing him in various ways and insulting him, and thus the just and holy man must have concluded in his mind that...
现在，听到这些，你可能会说，等一下，这些在创世记里都没有。 Now, in hearing this, you might be saying, Wait a second, none of that's in Genesis.
我们没有发现他们说「你是唯一有智慧的人吗？」 We don't find them saying, 'Are you the only wise one?'
在创世记里。 in Genesis.
这听起来非常像自传，因为我们知道这是对路德的指控之一。 That sounds awfully autobiographical, since we know that was one of the accusations made against Luther.
为了避免过于含蓄，路德很清楚地表明他并不是 真的在想挪亚，他是在把自己想象成新的挪亚。 And in case that was too subtle, Luther makes it very clear he's not really thinking of Noah; he's thinking about himself as like the new Noah.
他是这么说的，对吧？ He says, right?
所以你可以看到，希望你能看到公教会论证的智慧：整个教会 不是被引向真理而是被引向教义错误和异端，这真的可信吗？ So you can see, hopefully, the wisdom of the Catholic argument: is it really plausible that the whole Church was led not into truth but into doctrinal error and heresy?
整个教会集体和教会最伟大的思想家们——最圣洁和最受爱戴的人，像奥古 斯丁、安布罗修、伯纳德这样的人——而马丁·路德却耸耸肩说，是的。 Both the whole Church collectively and the greatest minds of the Church—the holiest and most beloved people, the Augustines and Ambroses and Bernards and the like—while Martin Luther sort of shrugged and was like, Yeah.
他说，当然，面对挪亚本人也不会更容易，在人子们炫耀着教会的名号 ，当父亲的儿子们与这些人结盟的时候，只有他被称为公义和正直的。 He said, Well, surely no less difficult to confront Noah himself, who alone is called just and upright at a time when the very sons of men paraded the name of the Church, when the sons of the fathers allied themselves with these.
他们确实认为挪亚和他的人发疯了，因为他遵循另一种教义和另一种敬拜。 They forsooth believed that Noah, with his people, raved because he followed another doctrine and another worship.
我发现这段话无比引人入胜，因为路德在谈论他自己和宗教改革时说的话。 I find this passage endlessly fascinating because of what Luther is saying about himself and about the Reformation.
我的意思是，他不仅是在说他认为，与所有早期基督徒不同，基 督徒的共识可能是错的，他认为基督徒的共识实际上是错的。 I mean, he's not only just saying that he thinks, unlike all the early Christians, that the Christian consensus could be wrong; he thinks the Christian consensus was, in fact, wrong.
他公开地把自己表现为遵循与早期基督徒信仰不同的另一种 教义和另一种敬拜，而这是可以的，因为他就像新的挪亚。 He openly is presenting himself as following another doctrine and another worship from the faith of the early Christians, and this is okay because he's like the new Noah.
所有为信仰而死的早期基督徒实际上就像那些憎恨挪亚的古时恶人，尽管他们自称是什么。 All of the early Christians who died for the faith are really just like the wicked men of old who hated Noah, even though they claim to be something.
我们实际上并没有发现他们自称是义人，我们只是发现他们确实很邪恶。 We don't actually find them claiming to be righteous; we just find them being really wicked.
但为了他论证的目的，我们必须想象他们表现得很圣洁但实际上并不 是。这是对创世记的错误分析，是对挪亚和他同时代人的错误分析。 But for the purposes of his argument, we have to imagine that they presented themselves as really holy but actually weren't. It's a bad analysis of Genesis; it's a bad analysis of what Noah and his contemporaries were on about.
但这很能揭示路德自己的心态。 But it is a very revealing insight into Luther's own mind.
所以我们不必猜测早期基督徒——像圣约翰·卡西安这样的人——会如何回应，因为他 们直接告诉我们：我们首先应该谴责他的乖谬，而不是听他的主张，因为一个攻击众人 判断的人是在预先宣告自己的定罪，而扰乱众人所确定的事的人甚至不配被倾听。 And so we don't have to wonder how the early Christians—folks like St. John Cassian—would respond because they told us directly: We should in the first instance rather condemn his perverseness than listen to his assertions, for one who impugns the judgment of all announces beforehand his own condemnation, and a man who disturbs what has been determined by all is not even given a hearing.
我只想说他们不可能都是对的。 I would just suggest it's not possible for them both to be right.
要么早期教会是对的，要么马丁·路德是对的，但他们不可能都是对的， 因为他们在重要问题上有相反的神学观点，比如我们能否相信信徒意识？ Either the early Church is right or Martin Luther is right, but they cannot both be right because they have opposite theologies on important questions, like can we trust the sensus fidelium?
我们在是否可以相信圣灵引导教会进入真理而不是错误这个问题上有相反的神学观点。 We have opposite theologies on whether we can trust the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into truth instead of error.
这些观点就是不可能都是对的。 Those just cannot both be right.
如果基督教有任何历史意义的话，一个能说「只有我是义的 ，其他人都要下地狱」的神学从根本上就不是基督教神学。 A theology where he can say, I alone am just; everyone else is going to hell, is fundamentally not a Christian theology if Christianity has any historic meaning.
所以这就是我论证的要点：我们能知道哪些书属 于新约，因为我们可以相信早期基督徒的共识。 So that's the case I'm arguing for in a nutshell: we can know which books belong in the New Testament because we can trust the consensus of the early Christians.
我们可以相信信徒意识。 We can trust the sensus fidelium.
我同意加文的观点，只是我认为这整个过程是无误 的，因为是神在引导它，即使不是自上而下的。 And I agree with Gavin, except that I think this whole process is infallible because God is leading it, even if it's not top-down.
它不必如此。 It doesn't have to be.
但如果你认真对待这一点，就会有几个其他的结论随之而来。 But if you take this seriously, several other things follow from that.
你就不能转身拒绝早期基督徒在洗礼、圣餐、主教权威，或者 旧约包含哪些书卷上的共识——我知道加文拒绝这些，对吧？ You can't then turn around and reject the consensus of the early Christians on baptism, or on the Eucharist, or on the authority of bishops, or on which books are in the Old Testament—all of which I know Gavin rejects, right?
而且我知道很多新教徒都拒绝这些。 And all of which I know many Protestants reject.
我不是要对个人不敬，我只是想说，如果你记得卡梅伦最初的框架， 你不能指着一和五说我们可以相信教会的权威和神对教会的引导，然 后在不合你意的时候又转身拒绝教会的权威和神对教会的引导。 I don't mean that as a personal slight; I just mean to say you can't point to one and five on, if you remember Cameron's original frame, and say we can trust the authority of the Church and God's guidance of the Church, and then turn around and reject the authority of the Church and God's guidance of the Church when it doesn't suit you.
所以其他人不会同意。 So other people aren't going to agree.
很多新教徒会听到这个并说，好吧，也许有其他方式可以知道哪些书属于新约。 Many Protestants are going to hear this and say, Well, maybe there's some other way we can know which books belong in the New Testament.
所以我现在想转向这个问题并说，好的，我们已经看 了加文的论证，那么那些给我们不同模式的人呢？ So I want to turn to that now and say, okay, we've looked at kind of Gavin's case; what about those who would give us a different model?
对此我要说：没有其他方法可行。 And I would say to this: no other method works.
我想看看其他几种方法。 I want to look at several other methods.
就像我说的，卡梅伦考虑了一些不同的——你知道 ，他看了我们可以解决这个问题的五种不同方式。 Like I say, Cameron considers some different—you know, he looks at those five different ways we can solve the problem.
我想在此基础上加上约翰·麦克阿瑟、迈克尔·克鲁格和加尔文提出的论证。 I want to add to that the arguments put forward by John MacArthur, Michael Kruger, and John Calvin.
首先，约翰·麦克阿瑟在他的《为什么相信圣经》一书中提到了 四个不同的论证，说明为什么他认为你能知道哪些书属于新约。 So first, John MacArthur, in his book Why Believe the Bible, mentions four different arguments for why he thinks you can know which books belong in the New Testament.
我要说这四个论证都完全合理，完全有效，但只有在 你能相信早期教会的情况下，它们才是很好的理由。 And I would say on all four of these that they're perfectly sound, perfectly valid; they're great reasons if and only if you can trust the early Church.
比如，他说有使徒性：这本书是由一位使徒或与使徒关系密切的人所写的吗？ So for instance, he says there's apostolicity: was the book authored by an apostle or someone closely associated with an apostle?
现在，麦克阿瑟声称——他并没有真正解释为什么——但他说要成为默示的，就 必须是由一位使徒写的，一个曾与主同行同话的人，或者是使徒的亲密伙伴。 Now, MacArthur claims—he doesn't really explain why—but he says that to be inspired, it had to be written by an apostle, someone who had walked and talked with the Lord, or someone who had been a close companion of an apostle.
他并没有真正解释为什么神必须以那种方式默示，但即使你接受这一点，好吧。 He doesn't really explain why God has to inspire in that way, but even if you accept that, fine.
四福音书都没有告诉我们是谁写的。 None of the four Gospels tell us who wrote them.
我们完全是从外部来源知道这些信息的，比如确认四福音书使徒性的口头传 统，这些我们是从早期基督徒那里知道的，而不是从圣经本身的任何内容。 We know this information exclusively from external sources, like oral tradition affirming the apostolicity of the four Gospels, which we know from the early Christians, not from anything within the Bible itself.
没有任何书提到任何福音书是，你知道，路加说或类似的话，这种情况根本不存在。 No book refers to any of the Gospels as, you know, Luke says or anything like that; it just does not happen.
所以使徒性只有在你能接触到——而且是可靠地接触到——圣经之外的 传统，并且你能相信早期教会准确和忠实地保存了那个传统时才有效。 So apostolicity only works if you have access—and reliable access—to extra-biblical tradition, and you can trust that the early Church preserved that tradition accurately and faithfully.
所以如果你能相信教会中的传统，很好，你也可以用这个方法确定新约。 So if you can trust tradition in the Church, great; you can have the New Testament using this method as well.
这是四个中的第一个。 That's the first of the four.
第二，正统性：这些著作是否符合使徒教义？ Second, orthodoxy: did the writings square with apostolic doctrine?
好吧，当然，你怎么知道？ Well, of course, how do you know?
如果你所读的与所传讲的相符，除非你也知道这传讲是受 保护的，否则你又一次在诉诸传统和保存传统的教会。 If what you're reading matches with what was preached, unless you also know that the preaching is protected, again you have an appeal to tradition and to the Church in preserving tradition.
否则，你就没有任何东西可以用来比较推定的新约著作。 Otherwise, you have nothing to compare the putative New Testament writings against.
你怎么知道它们是否正统？ How do you know if they're orthodox or not?
如果不是从圣经和/或传统和/或教会，你从哪里得到你的正统信仰？ Where are you getting your orthodoxy from if not from Scripture and/or tradition and/or the Church?
你还能从哪里得到它？ Where else are you going to get it?
我们正试图弄清楚什么是新约。 We're trying to figure out what is the New Testament.
你不能只是说，这些是我对信仰的预设，我只接受那些与我已有信念相符的新约书卷。 You can't just say, Here are my presuppositions about beliefs, and I'm only going to accept the books of the New Testament that agree with what I already believe.
这说不通，对吧？ That doesn't make sense, right?
所以再说一次，第二个测试只有在你有教会传统或者你有这种忠信意识的情况下才有效。 So again, the second test only works if you have tradition in the Church or if you have this sense of fidelity.
第三是礼仪使用：教会是否在各教会中诵读和使用它？ Third is liturgical usage: was the Church reading and using it in the churches?
它是否是基督徒敬拜的一部分？ Was it part of Christian worship?
好吧，我的意思是，这相当明显是在诉诸早期教会的可靠性。 Well, this is, I mean, pretty explicitly an appeal to the reliability of the early Church.
同样，第四个是它是否被后代使用。 And likewise, the fourth one, whether it was used by the next generations.
他看了从坡旅甲、殉道者游斯丁、特土良、俄利根、优西比乌、亚他拿修、耶柔米到奥古 斯丁这样各不相同的人，他把他们都称为使徒教父——虽然他们不是——但这没关系。 He looks at people as varied as Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, and he calls all of them apostolic fathers—which they're not—but that's fine.
无论如何，这明显是在诉诸早期基督徒的权威。 Either way, it's explicitly an appeal there to the authority of the early Christians.
所以总结一下，我要说的是，他的所有论证只有在你 能相信早期教会的正统性和可靠性的情况下才有效。 So all I'll say in summary is that all of his arguments work if and only if you can trust the orthodoxy and reliability of the early Church.
这就是麦克阿瑟的观点。 So that's MacArthur.
我想看的第二个是加文自己推荐的人：迈克尔·克鲁格，他专门研究正典。 The second one I want to look at is someone that Gavin had promoted himself: Michael Kruger, who has worked specifically on the canon.
加文在那个较长的视频中推荐了他。 Gavin recommends him in that longer video.
用专业术语来说，迈克尔·克鲁格是所谓的预设论者。 In technical terms, Michael Kruger is what's known as a presuppositionalist.
他来自范泰尔学派，这是一种奇特的基督教版康德主义。 He comes from this kind of Van Til school; it's kind of a weird Christian version of Kantianism.
他论证说我们不可能用我刚才那样的方式，早期基督 徒的方式，甚至似乎是加文的方式来捍卫圣经正典。 He makes the argument that we can't possibly defend the canon of Scripture in the way that I've just done, the way the early Christians did, even the way seemingly that Gavin did.
他说我们不可能用任何圣经之外的东西来捍卫圣经正典。 He says we cannot possibly defend the canon of Scripture by anything outside of itself.
在他的《正典再思》一书中，他提出这样的论证 ：要成为终极权威，就必须是自我认证的标准。 In his book Canon Revisited, he makes this argument: For ultimate authorities to be ultimate authorities, they have to be the standard for their own authentication.
就像我说的，不用详细解释我的意思，你要么理解这一点，要么不理解。这 是一种基督教版的康德主义，它基于一种不属于基督教的奇怪形而上学。 As I say, without getting into any further detail about what I mean by this, you either understand this or you won't. This is a kind of Christian Kantianism, and it's based on a sort of weird metaphysics that just does not belong in Christianity.
我现在要说的是，这完全不符合圣经。 I will say for now that it is thoroughly unbiblical.
想想这个说法：如果我们试图通过诉诸其他终极权威来验证 一个终极权威，那么我们就证明它并不是真正的终极权威。 Think about this claim: that if we try to validate an ultimate authority by appealing to some other ultimate authority, then we've just shown that it is not really the ultimate authority.
现在想想这个说法，再想想耶稣是如何被描述的，特别是在约翰福音中。 Now think about that claim and then think about the way Jesus is presented, particularly in the Gospel of John.
耶稣在约翰福音第5章31至33节说：「我若为自己作见证，我的见证就不真。」 Jesus in John 5, verses 31 to 33, says, If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true.
「另有一位给我作见证，我知道他给我作的见证是真的。」 There is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true.
「你们曾差人到约翰那里，他为真理作过见证。」 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth.
所以你会注意到耶稣并不是要求我们凭他自己的终极权威相信他，这明确不是他所说的。 So you'll notice Jesus is not demanding we believe him by his own ultimate authority; that's explicitly not what he says.
「我若为自己作见证，我的见证就不真。」 If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true.
相反，他表明你可以基于施洗约翰的见证相信他，因为施洗约翰是神差来为他作见证的。 Instead, he suggests you can believe in him on the basis of John the Baptist, who was sent by God to bear testimony to him.
现在，你可能会说，好吧，耶稣，那我猜你不是终极权威了，我猜施洗约翰才是。 Now, you could say, Well, Jesus, I guess you're not the ultimate authority then; I guess John the Baptist is.
但是对耶稣这么说就太荒谬了。 But that'd be a silly thing to say to Jesus.
让我们继续看约翰福音第14章。在最后的晚餐上，耶稣又说，等一下！ So let's go on to John 14. At the Last Supper, again Jesus says, Hold on!
那么耶稣不是终极权威吗？ Is Jesus not an ultimate authority then?
他不是代表圣父说话吗？ He didn't speak on the Father's behalf?
或者说圣经作为终极权威比耶稣的权威还要高吗？ Or is the Bible as an ultimate authority a higher authority than Jesus?
这两种说法都是荒谬的论证。 Either of those is a silly argument to make.
「我对你们所说的话，不是凭着自己说的，乃是住在我里面的父做他自己的事。」 The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
「你们当信我是在父里面，父在我里面；即或不信，也当因我所做的事信我。」 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
所以现在，就像他早先指向施洗约翰来证实他的信息一样，现在他既指向 上面的父，又指向外面他自己的神迹，这两者都是证实他权威的方式。 So now, just as earlier he pointed to John the Baptist as a way of authenticating his message, now he's pointed both upwards to the Father and outwards to his own divine works, both as ways of authenticating his authority.
然后…… And then...
福音书作者约翰甚至在约翰福音第20章指向他自己的写作，说他写这些话是要叫 你们信耶稣是基督，是神的儿子，并且叫你们信了他，就可以因他的名得生命。 John the Evangelist even points to his own writing in John 20, saying that he's written these words so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
所以他要你基于他自己的话相信耶稣。 So he wants you to believe in Jesus on the basis of his own words.
这是否使约翰福音比耶稣的权威更高？ Does that make the Gospel of John a higher authority than Jesus?
希望你的答案是，当然不是。 Hopefully, your answer is, of course not.
耶稣很乐意让施洗约翰、门徒约翰、他自己的作为和他的父来证实他的身份和信息。 Jesus is quite happy to have his person and message authenticated by John the Baptist, John the disciple, his own works, and his Father.
克鲁格的整个框架在形而上学上、哲学上都是错误的，而且从根本上违背圣经。 Kruger's whole framework here is just metaphysically, philosophically wrong and fundamentally unbiblical.
但是尽管如此，要明白这就是正在发生的事，而且许多新教徒觉得这很有说服力。 But nevertheless, just realize that's what's going on, and many Protestants find this very convincing.
所以克鲁格要论证说，要使圣经成为终极权威——他声称它 就是——它必须是自我认证的，它必须是自我认证的标准。 So Kruger is going to argue that for the Bible to be an ultimate authority—which he claims it is—it has to be self-authenticating; it has to be the standard of its own authentication.
这到底是什么样子？ What does that even look like?
他说我们需要的是一个不把新约正典建立在外部权威上的正典模式。 He says what's needed is a canonical model that does not ground the New Testament canon in an external authority.
所以你不能说，我们相信我们得到了正确的新约是因为神引导了教 会，因为教会是一个外部权威，那样就会把教会放在太高的地位。 So you can't say, We believe that we got the New Testament right because God guided the Church, because the Church is an external authority, and that would then put the Church on too high of a level.
这就是他的论证。 That's his argument.
甚至加文关于没有教会就没有圣经的说法似乎也给了教会太多权威。 Even seemingly Gavin's statement about how without the Church you don't have the Scriptures would seem to give too much authority to the Church.
克鲁格这种观点的表述——我不知道你会如何与之互动，所以我不想代表 克鲁格或加文或任何人说话，但他们在这一点上似乎说的是相反的事情。 Kruger's kind of articulation of the view—I don't know how you'd interact with that, so I don't want to speak for Kruger or Gavin or anybody, but it seems like they're saying opposite things on this point.
所以他说我们需要一个不把新约正典建立在外部权威上的正典模式 ，而是要把正典建立在它唯一可能建立的地方：它自己的权威上。 So he says we need a canonical model that doesn't ground the New Testament canon in an external authority but seeks to ground the canon in the only place that it could be grounded: its own authority.
他的论证是神必须以这种方式工作。 His argument is that God has to work in this way.
毕竟，如果正典带有神本身的权威，它还能诉诸什么其他标准来证明自己？ After all, if the canon bears the very authority of God, to what other standard could it appeal to justify itself?
好吧，明显的答案是神在正典之外的作为——在教会中，在传统中。 Well, the obvious answer is God's action outside the canon—in the Church, in tradition.
这仍然是神在工作，就像耶稣可以把他自己的神圣使命建立 在父的神圣使命上而没有矛盾，也不会说他不是终极权威。 It's still God at work, just as Jesus can ground his own divine ministry in the divine ministry of the Father with no contradiction, without saying that he's not an ultimate authority.
三位一体神学不是那样运作的，所以神可以在传统和教会中工作，两者可以互相支持。 Trinitarian theology doesn't work that way, and so God can work in tradition and the Church, and the two can be mutually supporting.
但好吧，他认为这必须是圣经内部的。 But fine, he argues it has to be internal to Scripture.
然后他论证说我们要寻找的特征——他说基本上有 三个——是区分正典书卷和所有其他书卷的特征。 He then argues that the attributes that we're looking for—he says there are basically three—are characteristics that distinguish canonical books from all other books.
但要注意…… But notice that...
据说有三个特征可以区分正典书卷——属于圣经的书卷——和所有其他书卷。 There are three attributes allegedly that distinguish canonical books—books that belong in the Bible—from all other books.
这三个特征是：第一，神性特质：正典书卷带有神性的标记。 The three attributes are these: Number one, divine qualities: canonical books bear the marks of divinity.
第二，群体认可：正典书卷被整个教会认可。 Number two, corporate recognition: canonical books are recognized by the Church as a whole.
第三，使徒来源：正典书卷是使徒救赎历史活动的结果。 Number three, apostolic origins: canonical books are the result of the redemptive historical activity of the apostles.
但是再说一次，显然，它们不必是由使徒直接写的。 But again, obviously, they don't have to have been written by the apostles directly.
认识使徒的人写的书有些是默示的，有些不是。 The people who knew the apostles wrote books that both were and weren't inspired.
他们其实不知道第三点是如何运作的。 They don't really know how number three would work.
实际上，问题在于：我之前提到的马太、马可、路 加和约翰福音并没有告诉我们它们是由使徒写的。 Really, it comes out of this: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—which I mentioned before—do not tell us they were written by apostles.
新约内部没有任何内容告诉我们这一点。 Nothing internal to the New Testament tells us that.
新约内部完全没有任何内容告诉我们这一点。 Nothing at all internal to the New Testament tells us that.
使徒来源不是我们能从圣经内部证据知道或评估的事情；我们必须诉诸外部权威 ，比如历史、传统、早期基督徒、教会，才能知道某个著作是否具有使徒来源。 Apostolic origin is not something we can know or evaluate on the internal evidence of Scripture; we have to appeal to an external authority like history, like tradition, like the early Christians, like the Church, to know whether apostolic origins apply or not to a particular writing.
这不是内部数据，而是外部数据。 It is not internal data; it's external data.
同样，关于群体接受：书中没有任何内容告诉我们它们有一天会被教会用作圣经。 Likewise, corporate reception: nothing in the books tells us that they're going to one day be used as Scripture in the Church.
没有任何书卷为自己作这样的声明，没有任何书卷作出这样的预言。 None of the books claim that about themselves; none of the books make those predictions.
它们本可以这样做，但它们没有。它们本可以说，我，马可，写这些 话，但它们没有。这些简单地不是我们在书卷本身中能找到的东西。 They could have; they don't. They could have said, I, Mark, write these words, but they don't. These simply are not things that we find within the books themselves.
这些都是我们在圣经正典之外找到的东西。 These are all things we find external to the biblical canon.
所以克鲁格能指出的唯一内部特质就是这个非常模 糊的说法，即它具有神性特质——神性的标记。 So the only internal quality that Kruger can point to is this really vague one that it has divine qualities—the marks of divinity.
这变成了一个极其循环的论证，一方面他声称，任何具有 使徒来源的书都是由圣灵构成的，因此会具有神性特质。 This becomes this incredibly circular argument where he claims, on the one hand, that any book with apostolic origins is a book constituted by the Holy Spirit and therefore will possess divine qualities.
但另一方面，如果一本书具有神性特质，那么它的内容 必定来自于以神的权威说话的人，也就是使徒来源。 But also, if a book has divine qualities, then its content must derive from someone who speaks with the authority of God, namely an apostolic source.
所以如果它是使徒的，它就会有神性特质；如果它有神性特质，它就会是使徒的。 So if it's apostolic, it'll have divine qualities; if it has divine qualities, it'll be apostolic.
如果你不是真的需要全部三个标记，你可以只有两个。 If you don't really need all three marks, you could just have two.
好吧，这是循环论证。 Fine, it's circular.
但你可能会说，好吧，我们怎么知道哪些书有神性特质，哪些没有？ But you might say, Well, how do we know which books do and don't have divine qualities?
这是不是像品酒一样？ Is this like wine tasting?
你能直接判断，「哦，它有神性特质的芬芳？」 You can just tell, 'Oh, it has a fragrant aroma of divine qualities?'
实际上有点像，因为克鲁格的论证是这种极端主观的论证，关于圣灵的 内在见证——不是对整体教会的见证，而是对每个个别信徒的见证。 Kind of, actually, because Kruger's argument is this radically subjective one on kind of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit—not to the Church collectively, but to each individual believer.
现在，他在这里深受加尔文的影响，所以我要直接转向加尔文， 因为我认为他提出了这个论证的更强版本，而且你可以从这位更 著名和受爱戴的新教改革家那里看到为什么这个论证行不通。 Now, he's strongly indebted here to John Calvin, so I'm just going to turn to Calvin directly because I think he makes a stronger version of this argument, and you can see why it doesn't work from this more well-known and beloved Protestant reformer.
加尔文在《基督教要义》中论证说，你根本不需 要教会就能知道哪些书属于圣经，哪些不属于。 John Calvin, in the Institutes of Christian Religion, argues you just don't need the Church to know which books do and don't belong in Scripture.
事实上，他有点嘲笑这个问题。 In fact, he kind of makes fun of the question.
他说，「如何在不借助教会法令的情况下相信圣经来自神」这个问题，就 像在问「我们如何学会分辨黑暗与光明，白色与黑色，或甜与苦」一样。 He says, The question, how shall we be persuaded that Scripture came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church, is akin to saying, how shall we learn to distinguish darkness from light, white from black, or sweetness from bitter?
因为按照他的说法，「这是默示的还是不是」这个问题， Because according to him, the question, Well, is this inspired or not?
就是这么简单，就像分辨黑白一样。 is just so easy; it's like telling white and black apart.
在加尔文的观点中没有灰色地带。 There's no gray area in Calvin's view.
一切不是甜就是苦，不是黑就是白，不是光明就是黑暗。 Everything is sweet or bitter; everything is black or white; everything is light or dark.
没有困难的案例，尽管我们知道历史上确实存在这样的案例。 There's no hard cases, even though we know historically there were.
他就是确信我们会知道。 He is just convinced that we'll know.
那么我们怎么知道？ And how will we know?
用他的话说，通过圣灵的内在见证。 In his words, by the inward testimony of the Spirit.
在你的心里，你就会知道哪些书属于圣经，哪些不属于——这就是他的论证。 In your heart, you're just going to know which books do and don't belong in the Bible—that's his argument.
然后他通过更多诉诸情感和感觉来发展这个论证。 He then builds on that argument by appealing more to emotions and just feelings.
他说如果你读哲学家的作品——柏拉图、亚里士多德、西塞罗等——然后 转回来开始读圣经的一卷书，你会注意到在心灵层面发生的不同事情。 He says if you read the works of the philosophers—Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and the like—and then you turn back and start reading a book of the Bible, you're going to notice different things happening at the level of your heart.
他声称，这表明在圣经中有一种神圣的真理，使它远远超越人所能达到的一切恩赐和恩典。 This, he claims, makes it manifest that in the sacred volume there is a truth divine, something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man.
表面上看，我认为很多人觉得这种论证很有说服力，显然，迈克 尔·克鲁格也这么认为，他引用了加尔文对这个话题的论述。 Now, on the surface, I think many people find this kind of argument persuasive, and clearly, Michael Kruger does; he quotes from Calvin's treatment of this topic.
但是这种方法中有几点我希望是明显错误的。 But there are several things that I hope are obviously wrong in this approach.
第一是这对早期基督徒并不管用。 The first is that this did not work for the early Christians.
他们实际上争论过哪些书属于圣经。 They actually debated which books belonged in the Bible.
没有人声称对哪些书属于和不属于有特殊的、无误的感知 ；没有人声称他们获得了能轻易解决一切的特殊感觉。 None of them claimed to have a special, infallible sense about which did and didn't belong; none of them claimed they were getting special feelings that solved everything easily.
第二，在加尔文的例子中，他在比较读西塞罗这样的世俗书籍和属灵书籍。 Second, in Calvin's example, he's comparing reading a secular book like Cicero with a spiritual book.
但如果你读过属灵经典——无论是像奥古斯丁的《忏悔录》还是现代作品如路易斯的《返 璞归真》或《虔诚生活导论》——你可能知道你的心可以被圣经之外的东西感动和激励。 But if you've ever read a spiritual classic—whether it's like St. Augustine's Confessions or even something modern like C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity or An Introduction to the Devout Life—you may know that your heart can be moved and stirred by things that are Scripture.
事实上，我认为对许多普通基督徒来说，阅读历代圣徒和伟大基督徒优美、 精彩的著作，你最喜欢的书可能在情感上比民数记的某段经文更能打动你。 In fact, I would suggest that for many ordinary Christians, reading the beautiful, brilliant writings of saints and great Christians throughout the ages, your favorite book might move you emotionally more than, say, a passage in Numbers does.
这并不能证明你最喜欢的书属于圣经而民数记不属于 ，这只能证明你在这些事情上不是可靠的见证人。 That doesn't prove that your favorite book belongs in the Bible and Numbers doesn't; it proves that you're not a reliable witness about these things.
无意冒犯——我也不是。 No offense—I'm not either.
第三个问题是，加尔文在这里为新约所作的论证和摩门教护教者的论证一样模糊和主观。 The third problem with this is that Calvin's case for the New Testament here is as mushy and subjective as the case made by Mormon apologists.
事实上，这是完全相同的论证。 In fact, it's the exact same case.
现在，在他原来的视频中，卡梅伦实际上指出了这一点：威廉·莱恩· 克雷格提出的论证与加尔文类似，这听起来更像摩门教而不是基督教。 Now, in his original video, Cameron actually points this out: that William Lane Craig was making a similar argument to Calvin, and that this sounds more like Mormonism than it does like Christianity.
我第一次真正面对正典问题是在多年前…… The first time that I had really confronted the problem of the canon was years ago...
我曾经听过威廉·莱恩·克雷格博士为他自己的新教版本辩护。 I had heard Dr. William Lane Craig defend his own Protestant version at one point.
克雷格博士甚至暗示圣灵最终会引导基督徒辨别哪些书属于圣经，这实 际上听起来更像摩门教徒如何为《摩门经》作为圣经的一部分辩护。 Dr. Craig even suggested that the Holy Spirit sort of ultimately guides Christians to discern which books belong in the Bible, which actually sounds a lot more like how Mormons defend the Book of Mormon as being part of Scripture.
这似乎有违直觉；基督徒辨别正典的方法不应该比摩门教徒能说的更扎实吗？ That kind of seems counterintuitive; shouldn't the Christian method of discerning the canon be a bit more solid than something a Mormon could say?
现在，我想很多新教徒在评论中对此感到冒犯，但从字面上说，他是对的。 Now, a number of Protestants, I think, were offended by that in the comments, but literally, he's right.
这实际上是《摩门经》中提出的一个论证。 This is actually an argument made in the Book of Mormon.
在《摩罗乃书》第10章4-5节中说，如果你想知道《摩 门经》是否是真实的，你不要去考古或神学或类似的东西。 In the Book of Moroni, chapter 10, verses 4-5, it says if you want to know if the Book of Mormon is true, you don't go to archaeology or theology or anything like that.
相反，你要为此祈祷，如果你感受到有时被称为「胸中燃烧 」的感觉，那么你就会通过圣灵知道这些说法是真实的。 Instead, you pray on it, and if you feel what's sometimes called the burning in the bosom, then you'll just know by the Holy Ghost that these claims are true.
事实上，我甚至会比卡梅伦走得更远，说不仅仅是摩门教徒会提出这种主观的主张。 In fact, I would even go further than Cameron does and say it's not just Mormons who make this kind of subjective claim.
穆斯林基本上提出了与加尔文相同的主张，关于 你如何知道基督教著作比柏拉图的著作好得多。 Muslims make basically the same claim that John Calvin makes about how you know that Christian writings are so much better than things like the writings of Plato.
穆斯林会说《古兰经》比任何其他书都更美。 Muslims are going to say the Quran is more beautiful than any other book.
《古兰经》实际上提出了一个挑战，如果这本书不是来自 神，神就挑战人类拿出或制作一个可与之相比的东西。 The Quran actually puts forward a challenge that if this book was from other than God, God challenges human beings to bring or to make something that is comparable to it.
总的来说，无论是摩门教徒、穆斯林还是加尔文主 义者，我把这些版本的论证称为达斯·维德论证。 Collectively, whether it's Mormons, Muslims, or Calvinists, I call these versions of the argument Darth Vader arguments.
这就像是一种「探索你的感觉」的神学和真理方法。 It's just like a search your feelings, man kind of approach to theology and the truth.
这不是真的，这是不可能的。 It's not true; that's impossible.
探索你的感觉就能知道这是真理？ Search your feelings to know it's the truth?
不！不！这种达斯·维德论证的问题在于它们完全是彻底主观的。 No! No! The problem with Darth Vader arguments like this is that they're completely and radically subjective.
你可能恰好发现《摩门经》或《古兰经》真的很 美或很有启发性，但这并不意味着它是真实的。 You may happen to find the Book of Mormon or the Quran really beautiful or inspirational; it doesn't mean it's true.
但第四个也是最后一个问题实际上有点滑稽。 But the fourth and final problem is actually kind of a hilarious one.
许多早期新教徒认为解决哪些书属于圣经的问题 会很容易——加尔文只是其中最著名的一个。 So many early Protestants thought it was going to be really easy to solve the problem of which books belonged in the Bible—John Calvin being just the most famous of them.
问题是他们彼此之间都无法达成一致，更不用说与早期教会一致了。 The problem is they couldn't agree with each other, much less with the early Church, about what those books were.
比如，路德在他1522年的德文圣经版本中主张，在他 的新约中不包括希伯来书、雅各书、犹大书和启示录。 So Martin Luther, for instance, argues in his 1522 edition of the German Bible that in his New Testament, he doesn't have Hebrews, James, Jude, or Revelation.
他把这些书从新约正典中移到后面的一个部分。 He moves them out of the New Testament canon into a section in the back.
许多新教徒——几乎是今天所有的新教徒——都会说他这样做是错的。 Many Protestants—almost all Protestants today—would say he was wrong to do so.
他还从旧约中删除了七卷书，而他们会说他这样做是对的。 He also removed seven books from the Old Testament, and they're going to say he was right to do so.
别让我为这里的推理辩护。 Don't ask me to defend the reasoning here.
同时，加尔文认为这会很容易——就像分辨黑白一 样——实际上认为《巴录书》是神所默示的圣经。 Meanwhile, John Calvin, who thought this was going to be super easy—like telling black and white apart—actually thought the Book of Baruch was divinely inspired Scripture.
他多次提到圣经，包括在他的哥林多前书注释中， 他引用先知巴录的话，并将其描述为先知的著作。 He refers to the Scripture numerous times, including in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, where he quotes from the prophet Baruch and then describes it as the writings of the prophet.
问题是，虽然公教徒会同意他的观点，认为《巴录书》确实属于圣经，但新教 徒——包括路德和大多数其他新教改革家——却不认为《巴录书》属于圣经。 The problem is, while Catholics would agree with him that Baruch does belong in Scripture, Protestants—including Martin Luther and most of the other Protestant reformers—didn't think Baruch belonged in Scripture.
所以显然，确实存在一些灰色地带。 So apparently, there is some gray area.
显然，这不仅仅是分辨黑白、光暗、甜苦那么简单。 Apparently, it's not just telling black from white, light from dark, sweet from bitter.
或者换句话说，如果像加尔文和迈克尔·克鲁格让你相信的那样容易— —只要有这些神性特质就能告诉我们——为什么没有人用这种方法能可 靠地得出正确的结论，甚至无法与其他尝试用这种方法的人达成一致？ Or to put it another way, if it is as easy as John Calvin and Michael Kruger would have you believe—there are just these divine qualities that will tell us—how come nobody trying this method can reliably come to the right conclusion with it or even agree with the other people trying to do it this way?
所以我认为这就是我们现在的处境。 So I think that's where we're at.
如果你能相信神通过教会的共识工作，你就能无误地知道 正典，甚至在教会以自上而下的方式发言之前就能知道。 If you can trust that God worked through the consensus of the Church, you can know the canon infallibly, even prior to the Church speaking in a top-down sort of way.
神已经以这种自下而上的方式工作了。 God has already worked from this bottom-up sort of way.
你甚至不需要追溯到佛罗伦萨会议、特伦特会议，或任何教宗在 这个问题上说过的话——梵蒂冈第一次会议，这些都不需要。 You don't even need to get to the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, or anything any Pope has said on the question—Vatican I, none of that.
相信信徒的共同意识就足够了。 It's enough to trust the sensus fidelium.
但如果你要这样做，在我看来你就不能同时暗示早期基督 徒在洗礼、圣餐、主教等方面的信徒共同意识都是错的， But if you're going to do that, it seems to me you can't also suggest that the early Christians were all wrong with the sensus fidelium on baptism, on the Eucharist, on bishops, etc.,
等等。要么神在引导他的子民，要么他没有。如果你不认为他在引导他的子民——如果你认 为他引导他的子民走向错误而不是真理，认为教会不仅会犯错，而且实际上在书卷上也犯了 错，比如在旧约中有争议的七卷书——如果你认为它在主要教义上犯了错，比如我们如何因 称义得救——所有这些——如果你这样认为，那么在我看来你就有一个更深层的问题。 etc. Either God is guiding his people or he isn't. And if you don't think that he's guiding his people—if you think he led his people into error instead of truth, that the Church was not only fallible but actually got books wrong, like the seven books that are disputed in the Old Testament—if you think it got major doctrines wrong, like how we are saved with justification—all of that stuff—if you think that, then it seems to me you've got a much deeper problem.
似乎没有办法知道这些迷途的羊或这些被误导的牧人在 告诉我们哪些书属于或不属于新约时是否真的正确。 There seemingly is no way of knowing that these gray sheep or these misguided shepherds are actually right when they tell us which books do and don't belong in the New Testament.
我实在看不出你怎么能两者兼得。 I just don't see how you can have it both ways.
似乎你要么接受新约和教会的权威，要么拒绝教会的权威但同时也削弱了新约。 It seems that you either accept the New Testament and the authority of the Church, or you reject the authority of the Church but also undermine the New Testament.
这就是问题的核心，我很想知道我是否遗漏了什么——是 否有什么很好的方法可以把基督的教会与他的圣经分开。 That's the case in a nutshell, and I'd love to hear if I've missed something—if there's some really good way that you can separate Christ's Church from his Scriptures.
有没有办法让你在接受早期基督徒被神引导的同时，又 认为他们搞砸了——不仅是个别的，而且是集体的？ Is there a way you can sort those out where you can accept that the early Christians were guided by God but still screwed up—not just individually but collectively?
是的，我很期待看到你会如何回应这个问题，因为我认为正典问题极其重要，而且我认为 这很能解释为什么一旦新教徒开始追问圣经从何而来，他们经常最终会转而成为公教徒。 I'm looking forward to, yeah, I guess how you'd engage with that because I think the canon question is super important, and I think it makes a lot of sense why once Protestants start asking where the Bible came from, they not infrequently end up becoming Catholics instead.
我是乔·赫施迈尔，在《无耻教皇党》节目上向您报道。 For Shameless Popery, I'm Joe Heschmeier.
愿神祝福你。 God bless you.