系統神學緒論(周必克) - 第01講 神學是甚麼(上)

此系列只有簡體字幕並只能在本台線上收看
本課程是2020清教徒改革宗神學院的序幕講座

0:00 – 01:34
So the first chapter as it were of our lecture is “What is theology”
我們課程的第一章是“神學是什麼”。
and I want to look at it simply as an academic discipline first of all.
我想先將其視為一門學科來查考。
So guided by the Holy Spirit, we’ve been hearing about Philip as we in our opening reading,
我們在課程開始時讀到，腓利在聖靈引導下，
where he encounters an Ethiopian official, returning from Jerusalem
遇到一位從耶路撒冷敬拜神回來的
where he had worshipped God.
埃塞俄比亞官員。

And Philip asks him, do you understand what you’re reading?
腓利問他，你所念的你明白嗎？

And the Ethiopian replies, how can I except some man should guide me?
埃塞俄比亞人說，“沒有人指教我，怎能明白呢？”

Well, lots of people feel that way when they read the Bible
其實很多人在讀聖經和開始從事神學研究時
and when they start to do theology.
都有這樣的感覺。

And I’ve encountered in my own life, millions of examples of people,
我自己在飛機上或其他許多地方
whether it’s on the plane, whether it’s in society somewhere
就遇到過許許多多這樣的人。
who kind of want to get into the Bible but they don’t have a clue about anything theological
他們想讀聖經，但對與神學相關的事情一無所知，
so they really don’t understand what they’re reading.
所以他們確實不明白自己在讀什麼。

And when you don’t understand theology or doctrine,
而當我們不明白神學或教義的時候，
you can read and read and read
即使我們不停地讀經，
and have some vague ideas
從而形成一些比較模糊的想法，
but you don’t know how to apply it to your own life.
我們也不知道如何將它應用到自己的生活中去。

So theology or doctrine, we are going to see in this lecture, is extremely important.
所以，我們在本講中所要探討的神學或教義，是極其重要的。

01:35 – 02:32
It wasn’t that long ago I was in some Amish country,
前不久我去了一個阿米什村莊，
and I came up to some Amish guys and we started talking.
在那裏遇到了一些阿米什人，我們就開始聊天。

So I said what do you guys really believe,
我問他們，你們所相信的是什麼？
and they said that well we believe in the Bible.
他們回答說，我們相信聖經。

I said yeah well, a lot of people believed in the Bible
我說，很多人都相信聖經，
but what do you believe about the Bible?
你們相信聖經的什麼呢？
How do you interpret the Bible?
你們是如何解讀聖經的？

Well, you know, we get up every Sunday, someone just speaks
（他們說）主日的時候，如果有人覺得有聖靈的帶領，
if he feels led by the Spirit.
他就會發言。

And I said, no I mean something more concrete,
我說，不，我是指一些更具體的東西。
like for example, do you believe that man is saved by free will
比如，你們相信人是因自由意誌而得救，
or by grace?
還是因恩典而得救？

And they said, huh? I don’t understand what you mean at all,
他們說，啊？我們完全不明白你的意思。
What’s free will? I’ve never heard of that.
自由意誌是什麼？我從沒聽過這個說法。

And you just get this feeling of like, wow!
這時你就會有這樣的一種感受：哇！
you gotta go all the way back to the beginning.
他們需要從最基本的開始學習。

And just when people aren’t trained in doctrine and theology,
若我們沒有在教義和神學方面受過訓練，
they don’t have a grid through which to read the Scriptures.
我們在閱讀聖經時就沒有一個輔助性的坐標。

So, “how can I unless someone guides me?”
所以這裏才說，“沒有人指教我，怎能明白呢？”
That’s one of the questions that is introductory to systematic theology.
這便是帶領我們進入係統神學的一個導入性問題。

02:32 – 04:00
And though the basic meaning of the Bible is startlingly clear,
雖然聖經的基本信息非常清楚，
we do have to acknowledge from the outset
我們仍然需要從一開始就認識到、並承認，
that there are certain parts of Scripture that are challenging and difficult and perplexing.
聖經裏有些部分是難懂、難解、令人困惑的。

And so the search for understanding what the Bible is saying
因此，為了要明白聖經
leaves us to the hard work of close reading, careful thinking, fervent praying,
我們就要勤奮地仔細閱讀、認真思考、熱切禱告，
and conferring with Christians who are wiser than we are.
並且與比我們更有智慧的基督徒交流。

And as we then are enabled to crystalize our thoughts, with this close reading,
然後，藉著這樣的仔細閱讀、
careful thinking, fervent praying, conferring with Christians,
認真思考、熱切禱告，以及與其他基督徒的交流，
we crystalize our thoughts about God
我們就能藉著聖靈的恩典，
in more clear and penetrating insights, by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
用清晰透徹的見解明確我們對上帝的認識。

We then are better equipped to serve other people，
這樣，因著我們自己對聖經內容更好的理解，
because we have a better understanding about what the Bible is saying ourselves.
我們也獲得了更好的裝備去服侍別人。

And this already, in these few sentences,
這短短幾句，
is I am just putting my big toe here in the water of the process of doing theology.
僅僅是探索神學這一個過程的開始。

It begins, it begins with close reading, careful thinking,
神學的探索，就始於仔細閱讀、認真思考、熱切禱告，
fervent praying, and conferring with other Christians.
以及與其他基督徒的交流。

04:00 – 07:35
Now the very word “theology” is a word
“神學”這個詞，
that mystifies some people and intimidates other people.
使一些人困惑，又使另一些人生畏。

I have it with medical terminology, you know.
當我面對醫學術語的時候，就是這樣的感受。
Doctors come and tell me about my personnels,
當醫生來跟我談在教會中服侍的某個人的身體狀況時，
say, flip out medical terms that I don’t understand,
若他說的是一些我聽不懂的醫學術語，
it’s rather intimidating.
我就會覺得緊張不安。

And then I tried to repeat it to my consistory what this person’s problem is,
之後，在不明白這些術語意思的情況下，
I don’t understand all the language,
我要試著向我的長執會複述這個人的身體問題是什麼，
it’s difficult.
這真的很困難。

And for quite a few years, I had a couple of doctors in my elder’s role,
有好幾年，在教會的長老中有幾個醫生，
and they would correct me
他們會糾正我，
and it seems like I can never get my arms around all these medical terminology.
但我覺得我似乎永遠也無法掌握這些醫學術語。

Well, that’s the way a lot of people feel about theology.
而這就是許多人在面對神學時的感受。

So when you are a future minister of the Gospel
所以，當你作為一位未來的福音傳道人
and you’re teaching a congregation,
在教導會眾時，
a lot of these theological terms like “justification” “sanctification”,
很多神學術語，如“稱義“、“成聖”，
which to you are as easy as “the” “it is”,
對你來說就和“這”、“它是”一樣簡單，
you know, and this is your meat and drinking vocabulary.
因為這是你每天接觸、十分熟悉的詞彙。

But for them, it’s not that way.
但對他們而言就不是這樣。
And you got to explain.
所以，你必須要進行講解。

I mean, you can’t explain every single Sunday what “justification” is,
當然，你不可能每個主日都解釋一遍“稱義”是什麼，
but you better re-explain it every six months or so.
但是，最好每六個月左右就再講解一遍。

Because it’s amazing,
因為就像這些醫學術語
just like me with medical terminology goes in and goes out,
在我耳中左耳進、右耳出一樣，
it’s amazing, even Christians
即使那些渴望學習的基督徒
who want to learn.
也容易忘記這些術語的意思。

They are in a different world than you are,
他們所處的世界與你的世界不同，
they’re in a social workday world,
他們的工作是在社會中，
and this terminology can just go in and out.
所以這些術語也可能在他們耳中左耳進、右耳出。
So keep explaining the basics of doctrine and theology.
因此，要繼續堅持講解教義和神學的基本知識。

Some people, and you will have those people in your church too,
你的教會裏可能也會有一些人，
say, you know what, this theology business is so intimidating,
他們會說，神學太令人生畏，
I think it’s just a waste of time.
我覺得這就是浪費時間。
I don’t think that we really need it.
我認為我們不需要神學，
All we need is God, and me, and the Bible.
我們只需要上帝，我有聖經就可以了。

And of course, such people have very little understanding of the Word.
當然，這樣的人對上帝的話語知之甚少。

The idea that theology is a waste of time,
這種認為神學是在浪費時間的觀點，
often arises from an outlook controlled by materialistic naturalism,
通常源自一種被物質自然主義所影響的觀點，
which is the belief that only those things we see are real.
認為只有我們看得見的東西才是真實的。

That’s particularly true today, isn’t it?
這種情況在今天的世界中尤其是如此，不是嗎？

People say this to you all the time as a minister,
在你做牧師的時候，常常會有人對你說，
you know, I am a visual person, I only believe what I can see.
我是一個視覺型的人，我隻相信我看得見的。

Well, there’s a problem with that when it comes to theology,
但是在神學上，這是有問題的，
because “faith is the evidence of things not seen”.
因為“信是未見之事的確據”。

So we need to train our people through clear teaching,
因此，我們需要通過清楚的教導來訓練會眾，
that they’ve got to start appreciating things they can’t see,
他們必須學會開始領會這些看不見的事物，
which includes a large measure of what we call theology.
其中很大一部分就是我們稱之為神學的內容。

Theology really introduces us to an unseen world
神學確實將我們引進了一個看不見的世界，
and it proclaims that it’s far more enduring,
它宣稱，那個世界更長久，
an enduring world than the world of the stuff
比這個充滿各樣事物的世界更為長久，
that our hands can touch and that
即使這些事物是我們的雙手可以觸摸、
our eyes can see.
雙眼可以看見的。

And so if you are, again, going to be a minister of the Gospel,
所以，如果你要做一名福音傳道人，
I think you ought to be able to say, the most real things in my life
你必須要能夠說，你生命中最真實的，
are things I can’t see.
是你所看不見的。
God, and truth, and theology.
那就是：上帝、真理和神學。

7:36 – 10:16
So theology is really one of the most important task
因此，神學確實是人類可從事的任務中
a human being can undertake.
最重要的一個。
It deals with eternal realities.
因為它涉及到永恒的現實。

R. C. Sproul, you know, has a book called Everyone’s a Theologian,
史普羅有一本書，叫《每個人都是神學家》，
and he argues that actually every one,
他認為，實際上每個人，
even though they think they’re just visual, every one,
即使是那些認為自己是視覺型的人，
believes certain things
都會相信他們看不見的某些事物、
and doesn’t believe certain things, that they can’t see.
不相信看不見的另一些事物。

Everyone’s a theologian, Sproul says.
史普羅說，每個人都是神學家。

So whether you like to or not, or
所以，無論你願意與否，或者，
whether your people like to or not,
無論你的會眾願意與否，
you actually can’t escape theology.
你實際上都無法逃避神學。
You cannot escape it.
你無法擺脫它。

The question isn’t whether you can escape it or ignore it,
所以問題並非是你要逃避它還是忽視它，
the question is, whether your theology is true,
問題是，你的神學是否真實，
or are you living in a real dream world.
還是你只是活在一個理想世界中。

Now, theology as we will see, addresses all kinds of topics,
我們將會看到，神學會涉及到各樣的話題，
major topics taught in the Bible.
會涉及到聖經中所教導的主要話題。

But before we enter into that field of topical theology
但是，在我們進入主題性神學這個領域前，
like “who is God”,
在提出類似“上帝是誰”這樣的問題之前，
there are prior questions we need to ask.
我們先要問一些別的問題。

And that’s the focus of this course actually,
而這實際上就是本課程的重點，
initially to ask questions that are prior to doing theology,
在做神學研究之前提出的問題，
we call it a fancy word “Prolegomena”, Prolegomena.
我們給它取了一個名字，叫作“緒論”。

It’s a Greek word that simply
這是一個希臘詞，它的意思簡單說來
means “things spoken before”,
是“在…之前說的話”，
or “things spoken first”, things spoken first.
或者“事先說出的話”。

So what that means
它的意思是，
is to lay a good foundation for all other doctrines, the doctrine of Christ,
在我們探討關於基督、教會、救贖的教義之前，
the doctrine of the church, the doctrine of salvation, there are certain things
我們需要瞭解一些東西，
that we need to know, before we talk about those things.
來為我們學習這些教義奠定良好的基礎。

So that we actually ask that question,
這樣我們才能問，
how do we know what we know?
我們是如何知道我們所知道的？

So we need to ask ourselves, what is the Bible?
所以我們需要問自己，聖經是什麼？
And why should we build our theology
為什麼我們應該按照聖經所說的
and our lives on what the Bible says?
來建立我們的神學和生活？

That’s why the second half of this course
這就是為什麼本課程的後半部分
is gonna be the doctrine of Scripture.
將是探討關於聖經的教義。

Because Scripture is the foundation for doing all our other theology
因為聖經是我們在神學上一切其他研究的根基，
so we got to know what we think of Scripture.
我們必須要清楚自己對聖經有怎樣的看法。

10:16 – 12:28
First, Prolegomena.
首先，緒論。
And so the very first question we need to begin to ask is, what is theology?
我們需要提出的第一個問題是，神學是什麼？

I’ve used the word several times already,
我已經多次提到這個詞，
but we haven’t really defined it.
但我們還沒有真正地來定義它。
So let me give you a preliminary definition.
現在讓我給你一個初步的定義。

First thing I’m going to do, of course, is I’m going to acknowledge with you
當然，我首先要做的，是向你承認
that the word “theology” is not in the Bible.
“神學”這個詞並沒有出現在聖經中。

The closest we come to it is the Greek terminology
在聖經中最接近它的一個短語
behind the biblical phrase “oracles of God”,
是“上帝的曉諭”
oracles of God, “logia theou”, 1 Peter 4:11.
所指向的希臘詞是“logia theou”，彼得前書4章11節。

The term “theology”, coming from the Greek “theologia”,
“神學”這個術語來自希臘詞“theologia”，
means “words about God”, words about God.
意為“關於上帝的話語”。

Or you might say, “the study of God”,
或者你也可以說，是有關上帝的學習
and of God’s relationship to everything outside of God,
以及上帝與祂以外的一切事物、與世界、
God’s relationship to the world, for example, God’s relationship to us,
與我們的關係的學習
that’s theology.
這就是神學。

So the simplest way to explain it to people,
所以當你向人們解釋這個詞，
also when you get into your own church,
或者在自己的教會教導這個詞時，
is to simply say, this is coming from the word “logos”,
最簡潔的方式是告訴人們，這個術語來自“logos”這個詞
which can mean “word” or “study”,
它的意思是“話語”或者“學習”
and “theo” simply means “God”,
而“theo”的意思就是“上帝”，
so you can say “study of God”, that’s theology,
所以你可以說，神學就是有關上帝的學習，
and His relationship to the world, and His relationship to people,
並瞭解祂與世界、與人、
and His relationship to everything.
以及與萬物的關係。

Augustine of Hippo, the ancient father,
古代教父，希波的奧古斯丁，
understood “theologia” to mean “in an account or explanation of the divine nature”,
將“神學”(“theologia”)理解為“對上帝屬性的描述或解釋”。
an account or explanation of the divine nature.
對上帝屬性的描述或解釋。
Augustus Strong in the early 20 century said,
史特朗在20世紀初說，
theology is the science of God and of the relationships between God and the universe.
神學是有關上帝以及祂與宇宙之間關係的科學。

12:31 – 14:16
Now one way to study the definition of theology
研究神學定義的一種方法
is to compare it to other words,
是將它與其他詞語進行比較，
and to get, to develop a picture.
以構成一幅圖畫。

And you can, you can, there’s four words here that we want to look at.
在這裏我們要看四個詞。
One is “theology”,
一個是“神學”，
“religion”, “doctrine”, and “dogma”.
然後是“宗教”、“教義”、和“教條”。
The biggest word, in terms of the most comprehensive,
若論全面性，
is of course, “religion”.
這其中最廣的詞當然是“宗教”。
Lately you’ve been seeing these people with T-shirts walking around,
最近我們看到一些人的T恤衫上寫著，
“I’m not religious, I am a Christian”.
“我不信奉宗教，我是基督徒”。

Well, that’s really confusing actually,
但這事實上卻是十分令人困惑的，
because the word “religion”, probably derives from the Latin “religio”,
因為“宗教”這個詞，很可能源自拉丁語“religio”，
which means “to bind”, to bind, or “to obligate”.
它的意思是“連接”或“使人有義務、有責任”。

And the original idea of “religion” is something that claims,
“宗教”的本來意思
something that claims to bind me to God.
就是指將我與上帝連接在一起的東西。

Well, a Christian, I’ll have you know,
而你們需要知道，一名基督徒
is someone who claims to be bound to God through the Lord Jesus Christ,
就是一個宣稱通過主耶穌基督與上帝連接的人，
so a Christian is religious.
因此基督徒是信奉宗教的。

Now, all religious people are not Christians,
但是，並不是所有信奉宗教的人都是基督徒，
it doesn’t work the other way around,
這一點不能反過來用，
because a lot of religions claim to bind people to God
因為很多聲稱能使人與上帝連接的宗教
who are false religions.
都是虛假宗教。

But we shouldn’t go around saying to people,
但我們不應該到處和別人說，
I’m against religion, but I am for Jesus Christ.
我反對宗教，但我支持耶穌基督。

It’s like saying, I am against of being bound to God,
這就好像在說，我反對與上帝的連接，
but I am bound to God in Jesus Christ,
但我在耶穌基督裏與上帝連接，
so it’s a contradiction.
這兩者是矛盾的。

14:16 – 17:59
All right, so Calvin said that “pure religion”
所以加爾文說，“純粹的宗教”
consists not in “cold speculation” about God
並不是對上帝的“冷漠的猜想”，
but “honoring him,”
而是“榮耀祂”，
for “he is to be duly honored according to his own will.”
因為“祂當照著祂自己的旨意得到應有的尊重。”

The biblical term that most closely approximates Calvin’s idea of “religion”
聖經中最貼近加爾文對“宗教”的理解的詞彙
is the Greek “eusebeia”, which is “godliness”, godliness.
是希臘詞“eusebeia”，即“敬虔”。

Paul says “godliness with contentment is great gain”.
保羅說“敬虔加上知足的心便是大利了。”
To be truly religious is to be truly godly.
有真敬虔才是真正的信奉宗教。

And that’s why, also of godliness, just like religion,
這就是為什麼，如宗教一樣，
there can be many false forms.
敬虔也可能有許多虛假的形式。

Paul said you can have “a form of godliness,
保羅說，你們可以“有敬虔的外貌”
but deny the power thereof”, 2 Timothy 3:5.
“卻背了敬虔的實意”，提摩太后書3章5節。

So if you picture “religion”, as that which binds a person to God,
因此，若你對“宗教”的描述是它將一個人與上帝連接，
and you think of true religion now,
你現在所想的是真正的宗教，
religion therefore is comprehensive in every area of life.
那麼宗教就應該全面體現在生活的各個方面。
In every area of life, I want to be bound to God, don’t I?
在生活各個方面，我都想要與上帝有連接，難道不是嗎？
I want to live to the glory of God,
我想要為上帝的榮耀而活，
I’m thinking of Calvin’s terminology, “honoring His will”.
我想起加爾文所說的，“尊崇神的旨意”。
I want to honor His will in my entertainment,
我想在我的娛樂中尊崇祂的旨意，
I want to honor His will in my friendship,
我想在我的友誼中尊崇祂的旨意，
I want to honor His will in my marriage,
我想在我的婚姻中尊崇祂的旨意，
I want to honor His will in my worship,
我想在敬拜中尊崇祂的旨意，
I want to honor His will even in my recreation.
即便在日常消遣中，我也想要尊崇祂的旨意。

Every area of my life, I want to be truly religious.
在我生活的各個方面，我都想要真正的信奉宗教。
And therefore, religion, comprehends everything.
因此，宗教涉及到了一切。

And you can make a good argument
因此，你有理由提出這樣一個論點，
that every single person in this entire world,
即世界上每一個人，
whether they recognize it or not,
無論他自己是否意識到了這一點，
is religious in some sense of the word,
在某種程度上都是信奉宗教的，
the protestant sense of the word.
這裏的“宗教”是在新教的語境下。

Because in every area of your life,
因為在你生命的每個方面，
you are related to God,
你都是與上帝有關係的，
whether you recognize it or not.
無論你自己是否意識到了這一點。
And God, you’ll give an account of every area of your life
而在審判的那一天，
on the day of judgement.
你將要為自己生命的每個方面向上帝做一個交代。
So that’s why some people say,
這就是為什麼有些人會說，
all of life is religious.
生命中的一切都與宗教有關。
and there’s a truth to it.
這句話確實有些道理。

But a Christian wants to be religious
而一名基督徒的渴望，
in every area of life.
是生命的各個方面都與宗教有關。

Now, “theology” therefore, is not as big as “religion”.
但是，“神學”一詞的涵蓋面並沒有“宗教”廣。
So we would say it’s a smaller circle inside the bigger circle.
所以我們說它是這個大圓裏的一個小圓。

Because in theology, I am consciously studying God,
因為在神學中，我是有意識地在研究上帝，
who is at the center of every area of my life.
祂是我生命每個方面的中心。
And I am not studying God 24 hours a day consciously, am I?
但我並不是有意識地、每天24小時都在研究上帝，對吧？

So I am not doing theology consciously 24 hours a day.
所以我並不是一天24小時都在有意識地從事神學研究。
So it’s a narrower circle.
所以這是一個較小的圓。

B. B. Warfield said, “Theology is narrower than religion or godliness,
華腓德說，“神學比宗教或敬虔的範圍更小，
for theology is not the whole of life of devotion,
因為神學不是用整個生命去敬拜，
but specifically engages the mind
而是作為宗教生活的基礎，
as the foundation for the religious life. ”
更側重於在思想方面的運用。”

“Theology, therefore, and religion are parallel products of
“因此，神學和宗教是出自同一事實的平行產物，
the same body of facts, but in diverse spheres;
但他們處於不同的領域;
the one is in the sphere of the thought,
一個處於思想領域，
and the other’s in the sphere of the life.”
另一個處於生命領域。”

Now I don’t know if I’ll agree totally with the last statement,
但我並不完全讚同華腓德最後的這句話，
because I think theology is also in the sphere of life.
因為我認為神學也屬於生命的領域。

But the point is this is a conscious act of the mind,
但重點是，神學是一種有意識的、思想上的行為，
this is more the whole way of life, okay?
而宗教更多是指整個的生命方式。

18:00 – 20:31
Now when it comes to the term “doctrine”, latin “doctrina”,
“教義”這個詞的拉丁語是“doctrina”，
that means more specifically yet, teaching or instruction.
它所指的是更加具體的教學或教導。

Paul recommended 1 Timothy 1:10, “sound doctrine”,
保羅在提摩太前書1章10節中讚揚說，“正道”；

(Paul) said that the Bible is “profitable for doctrine,” 2 Timothy 3:16.
（保羅）在提摩太后書3章16節說，聖經是“於教訓有益的”。

Now the way we use “doctrine” most of the time, now there is exceptions,
除去例外的情況，我們使用“教義”一詞的大部分時候，
is that something smaller than “theology”.
所指的都是比“神學”範圍更小的事物。

“Doctrine” usually refers to
“教義”通常指的
something that’s really fairly basic to the Christian life,
是對基督徒生命而言非常基本的東西，
some spelling out of some truth in the Bible,
他們是從聖經中的某些真理總結而來，
usually that a church or a group of churches called a “denomination” adhere to.
通常是一個教會或者一個“宗派”的教會團體所持守的。

So you say, what doctrines do you believe?
所以我們會問，你所持守的教義是哪些？
You wouldn’t say, would you,
而我們的回答不可能是
well I believe the doctrines of
“我相信加爾文《基督教要義》
all 1200 pages of Calvin’s Institutes.
1200頁中所包含的所有教義。

Now wait a minute, have you really dissected all 1200 pages?
等等，你真的仔細分析過這1200頁的全部內容？
Do you agree with every detail?
你真的讚同每一個小細節？
Probably most of us would say,
我想我們中的大多數人都會說，
well we agree with almost everything Calvin says,
我們讚同加爾文書中的絕大部分內容，
but we are not sure we agree with everything Calvin says.
但並不完全認同加爾文所說的一切。

See, in the Institutes, Calvin is doing theology,
加爾文在《基督教要義》中所做的就是神學研究，
he’s reflecting on God.
他在反思關於上帝的事情。
In the Heidelberg Catechism,
而《海德堡教理問答》
or the Westminster Shorter Catechism,
或《威斯敏斯特小教理問答》
that’s doing doctrine.
所做的是在編寫教義。
Or you could call it “theology”, there’s a overlap,
或者你也可以稱之為“神學”，這兩者有重疊的地方，
but I’m trying to get, I’m trying to
但我在這裏的目的是
get you to feel the nuances here.
想讓你感受到這裏面的細微差別。

Usually doctrine is something shorter, something the church embraces,
教義指的通常是較短的、教會所持守的信條，
often has more, a bit more authority behind it.
往往帶有更多的權威性。

Doctrine takes the established principles of theology,
教義採用的是既定的神學原則，
and uses them to build the church.
並用它們來建立教會。
Just as engineering takes established principles of physics
正如工程學會採用既定的物理原理，
and uses them to build machines.
用它們來建造機器一樣。

So doctrine is narrower than theology, it carries more authority.
因此，教義的範疇比神學窄，但它帶有更多的權威。
David Wells observed “Doctrine is the straightforward summary
大衛·威爾斯說，“教義是對聖經
of what the Bible teaches on any subject.”
在任何主題上的教導的直接總結。”

Whereas theology elaborates on doctrine in order to organize it,
而神學，則對教義進行詳細闡述，來使教義係統化、
explore its relationships, defend its veracity,
來探索教義與教義之間的關聯、捍衛它的真實性，
and link its implications to other fields of study.
並將它的應用與其他領域的研究聯繫起來。

20:33 -21:42
Now there’s a fourth term that would be the narrowest of all,
這第四個詞中範圍最窄的，
and that’s called “dogma”, dogma.
是“教條”。
That’s a transliterated Greek word that means “an authoritative decree”.
它從希臘語音譯過來，意為“權威法令”。

Now you can take that word up, of course, negatively,
你們可能會覺得這個詞的意思是負面的，
as many people do in our society today.
就如今天我們社會中許多人所想的一樣。
So they say, “oh, Richard, you’re being too dogmatic!” Right?
他們會說，“理查德，你太教條主義了！”

What they mean is, you are being, you are taking every little belief you have,
他們的意思是，你將你所認信的每一個細節，
or this particular belief we’re talking about
或某個你們正在談論的具體內容，
and you are making it an authoritative decree,
你把它視為一個權威法令，
that there’s only one way of looking at it.
並認為我們只能用一種方式來思考它。

So “dogma”, today in our society,
因此，在我們現今的社會中，
in which people are supposed to be free,
人們覺得自己理應像鳥一樣，
as a bird to believe whatever they want to believe,
自由地相信他們想相信的任何東西，
“forget what Scripture says,”
“不用管聖經說什麼，”
it’s a negative word.
教條這個詞成為了一個負面的詞。
It’s like a dirty word today.
在現今就如同一句髒話一樣。
“Dogma,” you don’t want to be called “dogmatic”.
“教條”，你可不想被人們稱作“教條主義”。
Unless you are reformed in your theology.
除非你的神學是改革宗的。
You’d say, that’s a compliment, I’m dogmatic.
你就會說，這是一種稱讚，我信奉教條。

21:43 – 24:22
So sometimes this word was used of God’s laws, Ephesians 2:15.
這個詞有時會被用來指上帝的律法，如以弗所書2章15節。
Sometimes of the decrees of the church, Acts 16:4,
有時用來指教會的條規，如使徒行傳16章4節，
about the Jerusalem council, says “they went through the city,
這節經文是關於耶路撒冷的議會，經文說“他們經過各城，
they delivered them the dogmas for to keep,
把耶路撒冷使徒
that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.”
和長老所定的條規交給門徒遵守。”
The King James says “the decrees”, but the word really is “dogma”.
英皇欽定本聖經（KJV）譯為“條規”的這個詞其實是“教條”。
Now one confusing thing here for those of you with Dutch background,
這對荷蘭人來說有點容易混淆，
English is easier
而在英語中更容易區別，
because we call this class systematic theology.
因為我們將這一類別稱為係統神學。
And that’s, that fits in with our nice little chart.
這也很符合我們的這張圖表。
And the Dutch, however, they call the big books of “theology”
但是，荷蘭人把探討“神學”的那些著作
“reformed dogmatics”.
稱為“改革宗教義”（dogmatics）。
It’s like kind of messes up our chart here a little bit,
這樣就有點弄亂了我們的圖表，
but you know the Dutch are the minority here,
但是既然這裏的荷蘭人是少數，
and we will let them keep doing that,
我們就讓他們延續他們的叫法，
but in English we speak of “systematic theology”.
但在英語中我們稱之為“係統神學”。

And “dogma” therefore is parallel,
因此，教條是與《使徒信經》同等的，
maybe the best example would be, to the Apostles’ Creed,
這可能是最好的例子，
or the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.
或《尼西亞信經》，或《亞他那修信經》。
Just the real, well, not even the Athanasian Creed,
甚至《亞他那修信經》也不能被稱為教條，
(cause) that’s really detailed about a few things.
（因為）《亞他那修信經》中有很詳細的闡述。
But the real basics,
教條指的是最為基本的，
Nicene Creed, Apostles’ Creed, that’s your “dogma”.
《尼西亞信經》，《使徒信經》，這就是“教條”。

So your dogma is not used generally to divide Christians.
所以一般來說，“教條”不會使基督徒分裂。
Dogma actually divides Christians from sects.
教條實際上會將基督徒與異端教派分別開來。
Sects, I mean SECTS.
異端教派，拚寫為SECTS。

So you say is Mormonism a Christian religion or is it a sect?
你可能會問，摩門教屬於基督教還是一個異端教派呢？
I say it’s a sect.
我認為它是一個異端教派。

Even though that created a lot of commotion in the news four years ago
雖然四年前，米特·羅姆尼競選美國總統，
when Mitt Romney was running for president of America.
在新聞中引起了很大的轟動。
People say how could you possibly say that Mormonism is a sect,
人們會說，你怎麼能說摩門教是一個異端教派呢，
you are so narrow, you are so full of bigotry.
你太狹隘，太多偏見。

Well, pardon me, but the word “sect”
很抱歉，但是“異端教派”這個詞，
means someone who doesn’t believe
指的是那些不持守基督教信仰中
in the basic dogmas of the Christian faith.
最基本教條的人。
And Mormonism does not believe in the Trinity.
而摩門教就不持守三位一體的教義。

And the Trinity enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed,
而三位一體教義被載入了《使徒信經》中，
anyone that does not believe in the Trinity,
《亞他那修信經》說，
says the Athanasian Creed, cannot be saved.
任何不相信三位一體的人都不能得救。
This is the ancient church of all ages.
這是曆世曆代的教會所持守的。
Mormonism, pardon me, is a sect.
所以很抱歉，摩門教是一個異端教派。

24:22 – 27:13
You see, so that’s how we define these things.
這是我們定義這些內容的方式。
So dogma then, separates all Christian religions from sects.
因此，教條將基督教宗教與異端教派分別開來。

Now I understand sometimes, it’s not quite that clear,
我也明白，有時候這些區分並不是那麼清楚，
with Roman Catholicism for example.
例如羅馬天主教。
Is Roman Catholicism a Christian religion or is it a sect?
羅馬天主教是基督教還是一個異端教派？

Well, Roman Catholics repeat the Apostles’ Creed.
一方面，羅馬天主教持守《使徒信經》，
So in one way, it’s Christian.
所以在某種程度上，我們可以說它屬於基督教。
But then they got all these other strange doctrines they make up.
但另一方面，他們又編造了所有這些奇怪的教義。
And you go, I don’t know, I don’t know what it is.
可能這時候你會說，我也不知道它到底算是什麼。

And I don’t think Roman Catholics themselves know.
我覺得連羅馬天主教教徒他們自己也不知道。
In fact I sit next to them on planes all the time,
實際上，我常常在飛機上遇見他們、坐在他們旁邊，
it seems like every person I meet is a Roman Catholic.
感覺好像我遇到的每個人都是羅馬天主教教徒。

And I say to them, are you a Christian?
然後我問他們，你是基督徒嗎？
Some of them will look back to me and say,
他們中有些人回頭看我，
no, I am a Roman Catholic.
說，不是，我是羅馬天主教徒。
Others will say, yes, I am a Roman Catholic.
但其他人又會說，是，我是羅馬天主教徒。
They don’t even know.
他們自己也不知道。

So there’s cases that’s hard to figure out.
所以，有些情況是比較難分別清楚的。
But doctrines can be used more to separate
但是，教義會將基督徒
Christians from other so called Christians.
與其他自稱基督徒的人分別開來。

So when you say, I believe the Bible,
如果你說，我相信聖經，
and I say, I believe the Bible too.
我說，我也相信聖經
Oh great, we are both Christians,
那太好了，我們兩個都是基督徒
wonderful that we have met, nice big hug.
我們能見面太棒了，來一個大大的擁抱。

And there I say, now wait a minute,
然後我說，等等，
do you believe the doctrines in the Heidelberg Catechism?
你持守《海德堡教理問答》中的教義嗎？
“Oh no no, I don’t believe those.”
“哦不不，我不相信那些。”

You see, then what happens is
那麼接下來發生的事情就是，
the doctrines in the Heidelberg Catechism, for example,
如《海德堡教理問答》中的教義，
will bind a church together
會將一個教會的人聚集在一起，
to show what we all believe together
表明我們所有人都持守這個信條，
while help the elders to rule over the flock,
這同時也幫助長老管理羊群、
correct people when they go wrong.
以及糾正走偏的人。

At the same time, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession,
與此同時，《海德堡教理問答》、《比利時信條》、
Canons of Dort, Westminster standards,
《多特信條》、《威斯敏斯特信仰準則》，
whatever your churches embraces,
無論你的教會持守的信條是什麼，
It helps distinguish us from other churches
這些都有助於將我們與其他
who believe all kinds of other things. Okay?
相信各種其他教義的教會區分開來。

So doctrine is more for that purpose.
所以，教義的功能主要在這個方面。
Theology, is more for the purpose of reflecting,
但是神學卻更多是為了思考、反思，
even within a church circle.
即使在同一個教會的圈子內。
You don’t have to agree on all aspects of theology
即使是這些經典，
even in these classics.
你也不是必須在神學的各個方面完全認可它們。

I mean, there are certain areas you might disagree with something I said,
我的意思是，在某些方面，你可能對我所說的持有不同意見，
and we might agree to disagree.
我們可能會保留各自意見。
And it’s not an essential of the faith.
但是它不是信仰的某個核心內容。

You get into the non-essentials in theology.
在神學中我們會涉及到一些信仰的非核心內容。
And theology wants to teach you
神學想要教導我們的，
the whole counsel of God as deposited in the Scriptures.
是上帝在聖經中啟示的祂的全備的旨意。

So theology then is a broad intellectual discipline
因此，神學是一個範疇廣泛的知識性學科，
that forms a crucial link between
它作為一個關鍵環節，
the doctrines cherished by the church,
將教會所珍視的教義，
and the whole exercise of religion of godliness in this world.
與我們在這個世界上對敬虔宗教的整體操練連接起來。

27:16 – 29:10
Millard Erickson writes, theology is the discipline
米拉德·艾利克森寫道，神學是一門
that strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith,
致力於對基督教信仰的教義進行連貫陳述的學科，
base primarily on the Scriptures,
首先它基於聖經，
placed in the context of culture in general,
通常它也處於文化背景下，
worded in the contemporary idiom,
它用現代語言表述，
and related to issues of life.
並與生命中的各個問題相關。

You see how he, he went this way, and then he went this way,
你們可以看到，他在對神學的定義裏既這樣說，又那樣說，
in his definition of theology to show that theology is related to all of this.
這就表明神學與這所有的一切都有關。

Robert Reymond says…
羅伯特·雷蒙德說… …
yeah I have just one comment and I’ll take questions.
我先說完這個評論，然後我就可以回答你們的問題。
Robert Reymond says, the systematic theologian
羅伯特·雷蒙德說，
viewing the Scriptures as a complete revelation
將聖經視為一個完整啟示的係統神學家，
seeks to understand holistically the plan, the purpose,
力圖全面理解上帝在聖經中所啟示的
the didactic intention of the divine mind revealed in the Holy Scriptures,
祂的計劃、旨意和教導目的，
and then to arrange that plan, and purpose,
並且將這個計劃、旨意、教導目的，
and didactic intention in orderly,
作為基督教信仰的宣言，
in coherent fashion as articles of the Christian faith.
以連貫有序的方式梳理出來。

So when you do theology,
所以，在你從事神學研究的時候，
you don’t only spell out all the doctrines in detail,
你不僅要詳細清楚地解釋所有的教義，
but then you arrange them in order,
你還要以有序的方式對它們進行整理，
that’s why we have seven courses in systematic theology.
這就是為什麼我們的係統神學一共有七門課程。

So that you go from Prolegomena, to the doctrine of God,
我們從緒論到有關上帝的教義，
to the doctrine of man, the doctrine of Christ,
到有關人的教義， 到有關基督的教義
the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the church,
到有關救恩的教義，到有關教會的教義
and the doctrine of the last things.
以及到有關末世的教義。

We call that Theology Proper, Anthropology,
我們將它們稱為神論、人論、
Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology.
基督論、救恩論、教會論、末世論。

And the goal then of systematic theology,
係統神學的目標，
we will come to that more in a few minutes,
我們一會兒會談到更多，
but the goal then is to cover all the doctrines of the Bible,
係統神學的目標是涵蓋聖經的所有教義，
expounding them in detail in theology.
在神學中對它們進行詳細的闡述。

So we really study what do we believe what the Bible says.
我們真的會研究我們到底相信聖經所說的什麼內容。
All right? All right, before we get into the branches of Theology though,
在我們開始講解神學的分支之前，
I am going to take a few questions. Yeah.
我先回答幾個問題。

29:10 – 31: 26
Student: Between dogma and doctrines,
學生：在教條和教義之中，
where are the essentials?
信仰的核心內容應該歸於哪裏？
Are you trying to say that the essentials are only in the dogmas,
您的意思是否是，信仰的核心內容隻存在於教條中，
or that essentials are in the doctrines as well?
還是它們也存在於教義中？
What about the term “heresy”,
那麼“異端”呢，
where would you put the term “heresy” in each circle then?
您會把“異端”這個術語放在各個圓圈的那個地方呢？

Beeke: Very, very good question.
周必克教授：這是一個非常好的問題。
You know, I just wish I could spell out an easy answer
我也希望自己能說出一個簡單的、
that everybody agreed on throughout the ages.
曆世曆代裏的每個人都同意的答案。
But already back in the Reformation times,
但是早在宗教改革時期，
there was this huge debate in also the 16th century Geneva.
在16世紀的日內瓦，人們對此就已經起了巨大的爭論。

Martin Klauber’s done a lot of work on that,
馬丁·克勞伯在這方面做了大量的工作，
over what’s called the fundamental articles,
主要是哪些是基要的信條，
what articles are necessary to believe to be a Christian.
一個人需要相信哪些信條才能成為一名基督徒。
And what you see is that in church history,
你們會在教會曆史中看到，
the more liberal the theologians are,
一個神學家越是自由化，
the fewer are there articles that are necessary to believe.
他認為人們需要相信的信條就會越少。
And the tendency is that
而趨勢是，
the more conservative theologians are,
一個神學家越保守，
the wider the set of necessary beliefs are the essentials.
他認為人們需要相信的核心信條的範圍就越廣。

And there can be differences even among Christians.
甚至在基督徒之間也可能存在差異。
I mean, we joke about the difference between baptist and pedo-baptist.
我們會笑談浸信會教友與幼兒洗禮主義者之間的不同。

You know, is that an essential of the faith?
這算是信仰的核心內容之一嗎？
Many pedo-baptists would say, no; some would say, yes.
許多幼兒洗禮主義者會說不是，也會有人說是。
Many baptists would say, no; some would say, yes.
許多浸信會教友會說不是，也會有人說是。

In this school, obviously, we’re, by the presence of baptists
很顯然，在這所學校裏有浸信會的教友，
and having them feel at home here,
學校也致力讓他們在這裏有家的感覺，
we are saying that this is not an essential of the faith.
我們通過這個表明，這不是信仰的核心內容之一。

Both sides will probably say, it’s an important doctrine,
兩方都可能會說，這是一個重要的教義，
but we are not going to let it divide us.
但我們不會讓它來分裂我們。
So, where does heresy come in?
那麼，異端是充當什麼角色、應放在哪裏呢？
That’s a thorny question.
這確實是一個棘手的問題。
Certainly not at this level.
顯然不是在神學的層面。
Certainly at this level.
無疑是在教條的層面。
This is the hard one, okay?
但教義這一層面是最難判斷的。
So how major is the doctrine of …
例如某個教義… …

31:26 – 34:15
Student: Say, Pelagius? Arminius?
學生：比如說，伯拉糾？亞米念？

Beeke: Yeah. Say free will versus free grace
周必克教授：對。比如說《使徒信經》中
is not embedded in the Apostles’ Creed.
並沒有提到是自由意誌還是白白的恩典的教義。
So is that a heresy to believe in the doctrine of free will?
那麼若有人持守自由意誌這個教義，他是一個異端分子嗎？
I personally would argue, it’s not a heresy,
我個人的意見是，這不是異端，
it’s a very serious doctrinal problem.
但是是一個非常嚴重的教義上的問題。
To me, if someone is heretical,
對我而言，若一個人是異端，
it means they really abandon the faith.
這就表示他真的離棄了信仰。

I mean, there are people that believe in free will doctrine
有一些持守自由意誌這一教義的人，
who are genuine Christians,
他們是真正的基督徒，
they just don’t understand free will doctrines very well, I think.
我認為他們只是不明白與自由意誌相關的教義。

I give them the benefit of doubt.
我願意對他們進行無罪推定。
But they are genuine Christians,
但是，如果他們是真正的基督徒，
and you’d know that when you hear them pray.
當聽到他們禱告時，你就能夠知道。

Because as B. B. Warfield says,
因為正如華腓德所說，
when the Arminian gets on his knees,
當一位亞米念主義者跪下禱告時，
if he’s a true believer, he sounds like a Calvinist.
若他是一個真信徒，他聽起來會像一個加爾文主義者。

Cause he’s saying, Lord, help me, and Lord, do this.
因為他說，主啊，幫助我，主啊，成就這事。
You know, he can’t do it on his own.
他靠自己無法去做。
So there really, there’s a clear answer to your question here,
所以關於你的問題，在神學層面有明確的答案，
there’s a clear answer here, and here there’s not.
在教條層面有明確的答案，但是在教義層面沒有。

And there’ll be lots of discussion till Christ returns
在基督回來前，我們對判斷異端的界線的定論，
on exactly where the line of heresy should be drawn.
還會有很多的討論。
Now you get certain people today, who I mean,
一個人曾經寫信給我，
one guy wrote me, I fell right into his trap.
而我正好就落入了他的圈套。

He wrote me. I thought he was very sincere
他給我寫信。
when he asked me the question.
我以為他是非常誠懇地在問我問題。
I didn’t know who he was,
我並不知道他是誰，
I didn’t know he had this blog and he was recording people’s names.
不知道他有一個博客，也不知道他在記錄人名。
He asked me the question:
他問了我這樣一個問題：
is it ever possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved?
一位羅馬天主教教徒有沒有得救的可能？
And is it ever possible for an Arminian to be saved?
一位亞米念主義者有沒有得救的可能？

Well, when you ask the words, “is it ever possible”,
如果一個人用“有沒有可能”來問問題的時候，
that includes all six billion people on this planet.
他所囊括的是地球上所有的60億人。
So I wrote back and said,
所以我回信說，
I don’t think it’s the norm, but I do think it’s possible.
雖然我不認為這是常態，但我認為是有可能的。

So I got blacklisted on the blacklist,
因為這個回答，我被他列入了他的黑名單，
because he is a real real real strong hyper hyper hyper Calvinist.
因為他是一個極其堅定的極度極端加爾文主義者。
And you know, I said well, how do, how do, I said to him later,
後來我對他說，
I said how do people come to get converted then
如果當一個人不在加爾文主義陣營時，他就無法改變，
if they can’t get converted in the Calvinist camp,
那他們該如何來加入加爾文主義陣營呢？
I mean, how do they get over into the Calvinist camp?
他們怎麼才能進入到加爾文主義陣營來呢？

You know, all kinds of people in church history,
教會曆史上有各種各樣的人，
I mean, take Martin Luther,
以馬丁·路德為例，
he didn’t just become protestant overnight,
他並不是在一夜之間就變成新教徒的，
the Lord was working in his soul.
是主在他的靈魂中不斷地作工。

But everything is black and white,
但是在這個人的心中，
and it’s an absolute heresy in this man’s mind,
一切都是黑白分明的，他認為，
if you have the least tinge of Arminianism.
如果一個人有絲毫亞米念主義，這個人就絕對是異端。

34:15 – 35:33
So the norm, I think the norm is that
所以我認為，通常來講，
the word “heresy” is pretty much confined here.
“異端”這個詞大致上是被限制在這個地方的。
But that doesn’t mean you don’t, as a pastor,
但這並不意味著，你作為牧師，
warn people of the serious consequences
你不去告誡人們，當他們相信可能損害他們靈魂的教義時，
when they take up doctrines that can damage their soul.
會產生很嚴重的後果。
That maybe don’t make them out loud heretics,
雖然這可能不會使他們成為異端，
but it can do a lot of damage to their spiritual life.
但是它可能對他們的靈命造成很大的損害。

Student: So would you say purgatory is a heresy or not?
學生：所以您認為煉獄這個教義是異端嗎？

Beeke: I would, I probably would.
周必克教授：我可能會說它是異端。
Because it’s just not in the Bible at all
因為它根本就沒有出現在聖經中，
and it does so much damage.
還造成了巨大的損害。
I think that’s a heretical doctrine.
我認為它是一個異端教義。

Now, see then you have another question.
然而現在我們又有了另一個問題。
If someone believes in purgatory
如果有人因忠誠於羅馬天主教會，
out of faithful allegiance to the Roman Catholic church,
而相信煉獄，
and the Lord is really beginning to work in their heart.
但是主也開始在他們心中動工。
And they just haven’t even confronted that doctrine yet,
他們只是還沒有去解決那個教義的問題，
they are wrestling with their sin,
他們正在與罪做鬥爭，
they are wrestling with their relationship with God,
正在為他們與上帝之間的關係而掙紮，
are they a heretic?
那他們是異端嗎？

You know, it’s one thing to say a doctrine is heretical,
要知道，說某個教義是異端是一回事，
it’s another thing to say a person’s a heretic
說某個相信這個教義的人是異端，
who believes in that doctrine,
這又是另外一回事。
when he believes in all kinds of other things that are, that are good.
因為這個人同時還相信很多其他的、正確的教義。
So it’s a very thorny question. All right, yes.
所以這是一個非常棘手的問題。好。

35:33 – 38:51
Student: Really quick.
學生：我很快就說完。
I think you actually just hit on it.
您剛剛其實談到了這一點。
But a helpful distinction that I have been taught
但我自己學到的一個有用的區分方式就是，
is we should ask a question that is “essential to what?”
我們應該問一個問題，那就是，“對什麼而言是核心的？”

And the objective Christian faith is different in our subjective faith.
客觀的基督教信仰在我們的主觀信仰中是不同的。
And so, we can very clearly proclaim that, for example,
因此，我們可以非常清楚地認信，如白白的恩典，
free grace is essential to the objective Christian faith.
它對於客觀的基督教信仰是至關重要的核心。
Or is it essential for one to be saved?
那對於一個人的得救而言，它是至關重要的核心？
that’s a totally different question.
這是一個完全不同的問題。

Beeke: I wouldn’t say totally different question,
周必克教授：我不認為這是一個完全不同的問題，
but it’s a different question.
但它是一個不一樣的問題。

Student: Correct.
學生：對。

Beeke: Yeah, yeah, that’s helpful, that’s helpful, yeah.
周必克教授：是的，這很有幫助。

Student: What’s essential for the objective Christian faith?
學生：對於客觀的基督教信仰哪些是至關重要的核心？
There are subjective faith as a Christian.
作為基督徒，我們是有主觀信仰的。

Beeke: Yeah, okay? One more question? Yeah.
周必克教授：好。還有問題嗎？

Student: Would you say that this question on
學生：您是否認為，這個關於什麼是異端、什麼是核心、
what’s heresy and what’s essential and all that,
以及其他所有的問題，
it changes based on context in history?
會根據曆史背景的改變而改變？
Whereby, you know, when one particular doctrine,
因此，若某一個具體的教義，
perhaps not so addressed or not so fleshed out in the past,
也許在過去沒有被提出過、或者沒有這樣具體地提出過，
they believe in that or believe in something contrary to that,
那麼人們相信這個教義，或相信與此教義相反的教導，
it’s not as serious as perhaps in our time
比起我們這個時代而言，是不是沒有那麼嚴重？
when there’s a lot of discussion going on about it?
因為在這個時代已經出現了許多與此有關的討論了。

Beeke: Yeah. Yeah, you have to be careful how you answer that question.
周必克教授：是的。但我們在回答這個問題時必須要很謹慎。
But I think that’s true.
但我認為確實是這樣。

In the ancient church, for example,
例如，在古代教會時，
when the whole issues of “free will versus free grace”
當整個“自由意誌、還是白白的恩典”的問題
wasn’t that hammered out and that well defined,
還沒有被確定、也沒有較為完善的定義時，
for someone to have some, anachronistically,
一個人，相比今天一個穩固的改革宗基督徒而言，
some Arminian convictions, would be much more common than,
在那時持有一些亞米念主義的想法，
say, someone who’s solidly reformed today to embrace those convictions.
是更為常見的。
It’ll be more of a serious problem.
但這在今天會是一個較為嚴重的問題。

In a culture where there are, just about zero men in the church,
若在某個文化中，教會裏幾乎沒有任何弟兄，
and women take some leadership roles in the church,
姐妹在教會中有一些領導的角色，
is that a serious problem as in North America,
這與在北美是同樣嚴重的問題嗎？
when we have men
在北美，我們的教會中有許多弟兄，
and the Bible plainly says?
而聖經也清楚明白地教導了。

I was talking to a man last night actually,
我其實昨晚剛和一個人談過此事，
who came to me and said,
他來問我說，
so where do you get in the Bible that women
你從聖經的哪處得出了這個結論，
shouldn’t serve in the offices in the church?
認為姐妹不應該有教會的職分來服侍？

So I explained to him where,
於是我向他解釋了是在聖經的哪裏，
and I was mentioning the text
我也提到了
that women should not speak in the churches.
姐妹不應該在教會裏發言的經文。
He said, yeah, but it means speak with authority.
他說，是，但這裏指的是帶著權威發言。

And he had, he had a nice Dutch accent, he says,
他有很強的荷蘭口音，
as long as the woman does not speak with authority in the church,
他說，只要姐妹不在教會裏帶著權威發言，
she can speak in the church,
她就可以在教會裏發言，
she just can’t speak too strongly in the church with authority.
她只是不能帶著很強的權威在教會中發言。

I said, well, where in the world do you get that exegesis from?
我問道，你究竟是從哪裏得到那樣的解釋的？
I mean, that’s crazy.
這實在令人難以置信。
So, I think it’s a more serious problem
因此，我認為，
when he distorts Scripture like that
相比一個沒有弟兄在教會裏服侍的文化，
than is in a culture where there’s just aren’t no men to serve in the church.
他對聖經所進行的曲解，是一個更嚴重的問題。
What do you do in such a culture?
在那樣的文化裏，你能怎麼辦？
It’s a thorny problem.
這是一個棘手的問題。

So I think, yes, somewhat
所以，我認為某種程度上是這樣，
as long as you don’t use that argument to condone liberalism
只要你不會用這個論點來縱容自由主義，
and make it look less serious than erroneous beliefs are.
或者用它來減輕謬誤教義的嚴重性。

38:51 – 40:19
So above all of that, you always have to place this truth,
所以最重要的是，你需要認識到這一點，
that every parcel of truth is important.
那就是真理的每一個部分都很重要。
And it must be as scriptural as possible,
而它必須儘可能地符合聖經，
we must not ever minimize truth.
我們絕不能減少真理。
And one of our problems is we can say,
我們有一個問題就是，我們會說，
oh well, that’s from a different culture,
噢，那只是文化不同，
and therefore it’s not so serious.
因此沒那麼嚴重。

And we can minimize that too much as well
我們也會過度地減少真理，
and be overly tolerant when the Bible is very plain,
還會在聖經寫得非常清楚的地方過於縱容，
and that’s how liberals really become as liberal as they are,
這才是自由主義者如何變得如此自由主義的原因，
because they get overly tolerant that way.
是因為他們過度地縱容。
So a lot of caveats on the answer,
所以我的這個答案中有很多提醒，
I think your answer, you’re correct,
我認為你是對的，
but a lot of caveats and be careful with it.
但我也有很多提醒，要小心。

Student: I think I was asking more in terms of the leeway. (Not clear)
學生：其實我問的更多是關於餘地的方面。（此處不清晰）

Beeke: Well, yes.
周必克教授：好。
And the Holy Spirit leads the Church throughout the ages.
聖靈在曆世曆代中都在帶領教會。
So we need to recognize that.
我們需要認識到這一點。

And we are more accountable as time goes on,
隨著時間的推移，我們要擔負的責任會更多，
and we’ve got more good books
我們有更多的好書，
and all kinds of things that other people didn’t have,
擁有過去的人們所沒有的各樣事物。
Even the fact that we got the Bible to read.
我們甚至有聖經可讀。

You know, you start to think about it,
你們想一想，
most of history, most of church history from Adam till today,
在從亞當至今的教會曆史的絕大部分時間裏，
people did not have the Scriptures in their hands.
人們都是沒有聖經可讀的。
This is phenomenal, we are so privileged.
這實在是令人驚歎的，我們擁有著這麼多的恩典。

40:19 – 42:54
All right, branches of theology.
好，神學的分支。
When we speak of theology,
當我們講到神學時，
we’re often referring specifically to systematic theology.
我們常常是在特指係統神學。

That’s particularly true, of course,
這一點，當然在我們稱之為
in these seven courses offered in our, in our curriculum,
“改革宗係統神學”教學大綱中的這七門課中
and what we call “Reformed systematic theology.”
體現得尤其如此。

However, theology also engages several other academic disciplines,
然而，神學也涉及到其他幾個學科，
all of which depend on each other in one way or another.
而所有這些學科都以某種方式相互依存著。

Since the early 19th century,
自19世紀初以來，
most European and American seminaries
大多數的歐美神學院
have defined their curricular according to four major branches.
都根據四個主要分支來製定課程。

First of all, you have biblical studies, biblical theology.
首先，有聖經研究、聖經神學。
Well, I shouldn’t use the word “biblical theology” here,
不，我不應該在這裏使用“聖經神學”這個詞，
because that could be one branch of biblical studies,
因為它可以被分作聖經研究下的一個分支，
just say “biblical studies”.
那就說“聖經研究”吧。

And then the whole area of church history,
然後是整個教會史，
or you might say “historical theology.”
你也可以稱之為“曆史神學”。
And then systematic theology,
然後是係統神學，
of which prolegomena is the intro.
而這個緒論就是它的介紹部分。

And then there’s a thing called practical theology,
然後有一個叫做實踐神學的分支，
which is, I wish they didn’t name it that,
要是他們不這樣給它命名就好了，
because it’s kind of confusing,
因為這容易讓人混淆，
you think it’s theology practiced in your daily life.
讓人以為它是指將神學應用到人們的日常生活中。

But it’s actually pastoral ministry,
但實際上它指的是教牧學，
it’s theology related to everything to do with ministers and carrying out the ministry.
它是與牧者和進行事工這一切有關的神學。

Now, these four areas when combined together,
我們將這四個方面結合在一起，
are called the “theological encyclopedia,” the theological encyclopedia,
就有了“神學百科全書”。
cause taken together is one huge field of theology.
因為它們一起構建了一個範疇廣泛的神學領域。

In the olden days, centuries ago, you know,
你知道嗎，幾個世紀以前，
each field of theology was big,
雖然神學的每個領域都很大，
but if you were a studious minister,
但是如果你是一位好學的牧師，
you could kind of be a master of all fields of theology.
你差不多可以掌握神學的所有領域。

Today, as a minister,
然而今天，作為一個牧師，
you need to know some about each one,
你需要在神學的每個領域都學習一些知識，
and that’s really what seminary is all about in the three and half years.
這也就是在神學院的三年半時間裏能達到的目標。
You get the basic tools of each of them,
你可以掌握每個領域的最基本的知識，
but you can hardly be a specialist in more than one.
但是你很難在超過一個領域的方面成為專家。

I mean, some of us in this Seminary,
神學院中也有一些人，
I am in systematics and homiletics, which is pastoral theology,
我是係統神學和講道學，也就是教牧學，
so I’m trying to, you know, put my feet in two different areas.
所以我算是在這兩個不同的領域中努力嚐試著。
No way on earth, I could read 24 hours a day,
但是，就算我一天24小時都在讀書，
I couldn’t read all the books I should be reading, and in both areas.
我也不可能讀完這兩個領域中所有我該讀的書。
I mean they are coming out every week.
因為每週都有新書被出版。

42:54 – 45:01
The fields, you see, have become so specialized now.
這些領域現在都變得十分專業。
And it’s hard to master even one field.
要完全掌握一個領域的知識都是非常困難的。
So think of the medical profession.
想一想醫療專業。
Today you go to a third world country,
比如你現在去了一個第三世界的國家，
and you ask somebody, what do you do for work?
然後你問某個人，你是做什麼工作的？

And he says, I am a medical doctor.
他說，我是一名醫生。
And you say, what’s your specialty?
你又問，那你的專長是什麼？
He says, what do you mean my specialty? I am a family doctor.
他說，我不懂你說的“專長”是什麼。我是一名家庭醫生。
You say, family doctor, oh yeah I remember that when I was a kid,
你想起來了，家庭醫生，對啊，記得我還是個孩子的時候，
there were a few family doctors walking around.
我們那時也是有家庭醫生的。

But today, you know, “I am an endocrinologist,”
但現在人們會說，“我是一個內分泌科的醫生”，
you know, I am this, I am that, some particular small specialty.
我是做這個的，我是做那個的，一些具體的、很特定的專長。
“I do nothing but work with kidneys,”
“我是專攻腎臟方面的問題的”，
“I do nothing but work with,” you know, “some part of the eye.”
“我是專攻眼睛中某一個部分的問題的”。
Not just the eye, but some part of the eye.
還不是整隻眼睛，是眼睛中的某一個部分。

So it’s the same thing in theology.
如今在神學界也是如此。
The fields are so big today,
這些領域包含的內容如此豐富，
that if you are gonna specialize in something
以至於如果你要專於某一個領域
and really write in a certain area,
並且要寫關於那個領域的書籍，
you got to devote almost your whole life energy
你就必須將你生命中幾乎所有的力量
to that area.
都投入到那個領域裏面。

So theological encyclopedia does not refer to
神學百科全書並不像現代百科全書那樣，
an alphabetical collection of articles
是一本按字母順序排列的文獻集，
that summarize knowledge in every topic like a modern encyclopedia.
而每一個文獻是對某個主題知識的總結。

But it refers to the Greek expression, “enkuklios paedeia”,
神學百科全書所指的是一個希臘語詞，”enkuklios paedeia”,
which best translated, “circle of education”, circle of education,
對它最好的翻譯就是“教育界”，
the full scope of academic study in other words.
換句話說就是學術研究的全部領域。

Abraham Kuyper, for example, writes on the sacred principles of theological encyclopedia,
例如，亞伯拉罕·凱波爾在神學百科全書的神聖準則方面有所著述
and he uses this term a lot.
他就經常使用這一術語。

Kuyper observed, first the Holy Scripture,
凱波爾說，首先是聖經，
as such is the foundation of theological encyclopedia, then is the second group
因為它是神學百科全書的根基，然後第二組
that are working with the Word of God in the life of the church,
是在教會生活中與上帝的話語一起作工，
and then the third group, the content of the Scripture and our consciousness,
然後第三組，聖經的內容與我們的意識，
and finally, how the working of the Word of God subject to its ordinances must be maintained.
最後，我們必須確保是上帝的聖言在帶領上帝話語的作工。

45:01- 47:52
So these four aspects, then of theological encyclopedia,
神學百科全書的這四個方面
are then further subdivided into various disciplines.
被進一步細分為了不同的學科。
So you have biblical studies, right?
有聖經研究，
Well, within biblical studies, you have first of all, what’s called “exegetical theology.”
而在聖經研究中，我們首先有“釋經神學”。

Exegetical theology ask the question:
釋經神學提出的問題是：
what does a particular part of the Bible teach?
聖經某特定部分的教導是什麼？
Greek word “exegesis” refers to the explanation
希臘詞語“exegesis”的意思
of the inherent meaning of a particular text in God’s Word.
是對上帝話語中某特定文本的內在含義的解釋。

So the word comes from a verb, meaning “to lead out” or “to explain,” “exēgeomai,”
這個詞源自一個動詞，意為“引出”或“解釋”，“exēgeomai”
which appears in John 1:18. “No man hath seen God at any time,
它在約翰福音1章18節中有出現：“從來沒有人看見神，
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,”
只有在父懷裏的獨生子將他表明出來。
he hath “exegeted” him, “he has declared him.”
將他表明出來，也可以說是將他“解釋”出來。

So exegetical theology includes things like this:
因此，釋經神學所包括的方面有：
the study of the Canon, which books are part of the Bible and why;
對正典聖經的研究，哪些書卷屬於正典聖經及其原因；
textual criticism, what did the original text of the Bible actually say;
經文考證，即考究聖經的原始文本到底說了什麼；

biblical languages, Hebrew, Greek, and a little bit, of course, Aramaic;
聖經原文：希伯來語，希臘語，當然還有一些亞蘭文。
the literary genres of Scripture,
聖經的文學體裁，
why do you interpret text in Revelation differently
為什麼對啟示錄文本的解釋
than you interpret text in 2 Chronicles;
不同於對曆代誌下文本的解釋；
idioms, rhetorical forms, the history, and the geography,
習語，修辭，曆史，地理，
and the culture of the ancient Near East;
以及古代近東地區的文化；

introductions to each book of the Bible,
聖經每卷書的介紹，
in terms of its author, its theme, outline, occasion;
包括作者，主題，大綱，以及時間；
and the whole big field usually is often placed
還有人們通常放在釋經神學裏的、
under exegetical theology called “Hermeneutics,”
被稱為“釋經學”的這一整個領域，
that is the principles of interpretation.
即解經的原則。
All of these things are part of biblical studies.
所有的這些都屬於聖經研究。

And they are all foundational, really, for systematic theology.
而它們實際上是係統神學的根基。
John Murray said, the main source of revelation is the Bible,
約翰·默裏說，啟示的主要來源是聖經，
hence exposition of the Scripture is basic to systematic theology.
因而對聖經的清晰闡述是係統神學的基礎。

Systematics must coordinate the teaching of particular passages
係統神學必須要整合特定經文的教導，
and systematize this teaching under the appropriate topics.
並將這一教導係統歸在適當的主題之下。

47:53 – 50:50
Murray goes on to say, systematic theology has gravely suffered,
默裏接著說，當係統神學斬斷了與釋經神學的密切聯繫時，
indeed has deserted its vocation,
它就已經嚴重受到損害，
when it divorced itself from meticulous attention to biblical exegesis.
實際上，它已經拋棄了它的使命。

So systematic theology needs biblical exegesis
因此，係統神學需要釋經神學為之提供內容，
to get its content through which it looks at the biblical doctrine as a whole.
借此來整體考慮聖經的教義。
But exegesis also needs systematic theology.
但釋經學同時也需要係統神學。

Because if exegesis just takes a little microscope
因為若釋經學隻用孤立的視角來放大、
and looks at one particular text, you know, thou shalt not kill.
來考慮某特定文本，例如解釋“不可殺人”，
Exegesis, if it doesn’t look at systematic theology
當它不考慮係統神學，
and look at all the text in the Bible about killing,
不考慮聖經中所有關於殺戮的經文時，
it’s going to come to this conclusion:
釋經學就會得出這樣一個結論：
killing is always wrong under every condition.
殺戮在任何情況之下都是錯誤的。

Unless it has systematic theology.
除非釋經神學有係統神學的幫助。
For at systematic theology, it says now wait a minute,
因為係統神學會讓我們看到，
there’s an exception over here, capital punishment,
死刑是一種例外情況，
there’s an exception over here, in just war,
正義的戰爭是一種例外情況，
there’s an exception over here, when you are attacked, you can defend yourself.
而正當防衛也是一種例外情況。
So systematic theology brings that all together.
所以係統神學將這一切都結合在了一起。
So when you are an exegete,
因此，若你是一名釋經神學學家，
systematic theology is always in the back of your mind.
你要時刻思想著係統神學。
When you are a systematic theologian,
若你是一名係統神學學家，
exegesis is always in the back of your mind.
你要時刻思想著釋經神學。

Now another big branch of biblical studies
聖經研究的另一個重要分支，
is what we call “biblical theology”.
就是“聖經神學”。
And that term today refers to
這一術語在今天也會被用來表示
a particular branch of the theological discipline as well.
神學學科的一個特定的分支。

It answers the question:
聖經神學回答的問題是，
how was a particular doctrine of the Bible developed
在聖經中救贖曆史中有著獨特地位的某特定教義，
in a particular book or group of books,
是如何從某本特定的書卷中、
situated in its unique position in redemptive history?
或如何從數本書卷中發展形成的？

You know, when you don’t, when you are not aware of biblical theology,
當我們不瞭解聖經神學時，
you will make tons of mistakes.
我們會犯下很多的錯誤。
And the denomination I grew up in, the ministers,
我想在我成長的宗派裏，
I don’t think they were ever trained at all in biblical theology.
牧師們並沒有受過聖經神學的訓練。

I mean I remember one preaching the sermon on
我記得，有一位牧師在講道時講創世紀，
Jacob in the book of Genesis, when he wrestled with the angel,
講雅各與天使摔跤後，
and walked away, halting on his thigh.
跛著腿走了。

The minister said, what he experienced there
那位牧師說，雅各在那裏所經曆的，
was justification in the court of his conscience.
是在他自己的良心法庭上被稱義。
And you go, what, where did you get that from?
如果你問他，什麼，您從哪裏看出這一點的？
Well, the Lord revealed it to me.
他會說，是主向我顯明的。

You know, and, but he gathered it from the fact that
看起來好像雅各的罪在那裏被饒恕了，
it appears that Jacob was forgiven there,
他就是從這一點推測出來的，
therefore that was justification in the court of conscience,
於是這就是在良心法庭上的稱義。
which is a 19th century phrase of a particular experience
其實這是19世紀才有的一種說法，
that a believer could possibly have,
指一個信徒可能經曆的一種感受，
like being in the courtroom.
好像他自己在法庭上一樣。

So he imposed that way back on Genesis
於是他就將這一點強加到創世紀中，
and said that was exactly what Jacob was experiencing there,
並說這正是雅各在那個地方所經曆的，
and we all need to experience the same thing.
還認為我們都需要去經曆同樣的事情。

50:52 – 53:11
Now he is not altogether wrong in every sense of the word.
雖然他並非在各個方面都是完全錯誤的。
But he’s using the wrong vocabulary,
但是他使用了錯誤的詞彙，
and he’s defining that wrongly with no context of historical redemptive history.
還在沒有考慮救贖曆史背景的情況下對之進行了錯誤的定義。

Or other preachers, and this is a more common mistake,
還有種更常見的錯誤是，有一些牧師
could take Genesis 3:15 and have an entire theology coming out of it
在教導創世紀3章15節時，就從中得出一個完整、詳細的神學
with all the detail as if all the promises of the Old Testament,
彷彿舊約中所有的應許，
which got more and more and more and more and more specific about Christ,
就是出現得越來越多、越來越詳細的關於基督的應許，
as if they were all right there in Genesis 3:15.
都已經全部出現在創世紀3章15節中了。

Now principally in the mind of God they may be.
主要來說，這些應許確實已經在上帝的心中。
But you know, Genesis 3:15 does, I believe, point to a promised Messiah,
我也相信創世記3章15節確實指向一位應許中的彌賽亞，
but it doesn’t say a whole lot about the Messiah other than that,
但是它除了說他會戰勝魔鬼、取得勝利之外，
he’s gonna get the victory by conquering the devil.
並未說其他太多關於這位彌賽亞的事。

So you don’t import into text early on in the Scripture
所以我們不要把還在救贖曆史中逐漸展開的東西，
things that aren’t there yet in the unfolding of redemptive history.
過早地放到聖經早期的文本中去。
So that’s what biblical theology protects.
這就是聖經神學要預防發生的事情。

Now at the same time, biblical theology needs systematic theology,
與此同時，聖經神學也需要係統神學，
because the acorn does turn into an oak tree.
因為雖然橡子確實最終會變成一棵橡樹，
It’s just that when it’s an acorn,
但當它還是橡子的時候，
you can’t talk about it as if it were a whole oak tree.
我們不能把它當作一整棵橡樹一樣來討論。

But principally, everything is in that acorn.
但主要來說，一切都已經在橡子裏了。
And so there’s a connection, the Bible is an amazing unity.
所以仍然有一種連接性。聖經有一種驚人的統一性。
So some people make too much of biblical theology
有些人將聖經與係統神學分開，
by divorcing it from systematics,
過分地強調聖經神學，
and then they end up saying things
最後他們所說的話，
that imply that the rest of the Bible doesn’t exist.
似乎在暗示聖經的其餘部分都不存在。

And so because the Bible is one unit,
因此，由於聖經是一個整體，
the danger of biblical theology is
聖經神學的危險之處
you take things in its own historical context
在於人們把事情置於它自己的曆史背景之下，
and you forget what the rest of the Bible says.
卻忘記了聖經的其餘部分是怎麼說的。
And you end up coming to conclusions
所以你最終得出的結論
that are contradictory later in biblical history.
在後來的聖經曆史中卻是互相矛盾的。
That’s a problem.
這就是一個問題。
So again, systematic theology needs biblical theology,
所以再次重申，係統神學需要聖經神學，
and biblical theology needs systematic theology.
聖經神學需要係統神學。

53:13 – 55:11
So biblical theology serves exegetical theology
因此，聖經神學通過將每個文本
by locating each text in its proper redemptive and covenantal context,
放到相對應的救贖、聖約背景下來服務於釋經神學
rather than flattening out the Bible
而非將聖經平面化，
as if it were all revealed in one day.
彷彿它在一天之內就被全部啟示完畢一般。
And that’s to protect systematic theology from taking text out of context.
而這也是為了避免係統神學將文本帶離語境。
It also serves systematic theology by linking together parts of the Bible
聖經神學用貫穿救贖曆史的重大主題來連接聖經的各個部分，
with great themes that span redemptive history,
最終以神人耶穌基督、祂的事工和祂的子民為頂點，
and culminate in the person and work and people of Jesus Christ.
這就是聖經神學服務係統神學的方式。

And then, in that way, it’s a powerful tool, you see, to demonstrate the unity of the Bible.
聖經神學作為一個強大的工具，證明了聖經的統一性。
So if you preach a sermon on Micah 5 verse 2,
所以，如果你的證道經文是彌迦書5章2節，
that Jesus, the Messiah is going to be born in Bethlehem.
即彌賽亞將在伯利恒出生。
And you spend the first 10 minutes of your sermon
你可以用講道的前十分鍾講創世記3章15節，
going from Genesis 3:15 and showing how this prophecy
向會眾解釋這個預言
is getting more and more specific throughout historical redemption.
是如何在救贖曆史中變得越來越具體的。
That ten minutes may be well spent.
這十分鍾可能花得很值得。
So that the glory and the beauty and the specificity of Micah 5 verse 2
因為彌迦書5章2節中的榮耀、美好、和特殊
will just jump out at your people.
將會一下子吸引住你的會眾。
And they will see this as another major advance
他們會看到這其實是逐步展開的救贖曆史中的
in the history of progressive redemption.
又一大重要進展。
And then you’ll go from there to Luke 2,
然後你可以從那裏切換到路加福音第2章，
where he’s actually born in Bethlehem,
講到這位彌賽亞實際上在伯利恒出生，
this little tiny place that was rather despised, almost entirely unknown.
在這個非常被人看不起、幾乎完全不為人知的小地方出生。
Just a wonderful unity of Scripture just overwhelms you,
聖經所擁有的這種美好的統一性會令你驚歎，
and it speaks with authority.
並且，聖經的話還具有權威性。

That’s a good use of biblical theology.
這是對聖經神學的一個很好的應用。
All right, so when you preach, you’re always remembering
所以在你講道時，你需要記住
what the exegesis is of your text, your context,
你的證道經文的解釋、語境是什麼，
you’re remembering what the book is all about, biblical theology,
你要記住這一整卷書的內容背景，就是聖經神學，
where it is in the covenantal line of history of redemption.
以及這卷書在救贖曆史的聖約係統中的位置。

And then you’re putting it in a context
這樣你就把它放到了
of the whole of what the Scripture has to say.
整本聖經所要表達的內容的範圍之內。
So these are the disciplines that meet together.
這就是這些學科交叉融合的地方。

55:11 – 57:26
Now what about historical theology?
那麼曆史神學呢？
Well, that answers the question:
曆史神學回答的問題是：
what have particular theologians or churches taught about particular doctrines
特定的神學家或教會在基督教曆史中
in the context of the history of Christianity?
教導了哪些教義？

It looks at writings of past theologians.
曆史神學會研究過去的神學家的著作。
And here you have something similar,
同樣，這裏也與前面提到的問題相似，
you see, you don’t expect Geert Groote of the 13 century,
雖然13世紀的海爾特·格魯特在許多方面
you don’t expect him to teach clearly justification by faith alone,
都是宗教改革的一位真正的先驅，
even though he was, in many ways, a real forerunner of the reformation.
但我們也不能期望他能夠清晰地教導因信稱義的教義。
You recognize that Luther had a breakthrough in the 1500s
你們需要認識到，路德在16世紀做了一個突破，
that really brought clarity to this doctrine.
真正清楚地明白了“因信稱義”這一教義。
And that the reason the forerunners are called the forerunners
而先驅之所以被稱為先驅，
is because none of them had that kind of clarity.
就是因為他們中還沒有人達到那一程度的明晰。

So you put John Wycliffe, John Hus, Thomas Bradwardine,
所以我們把約翰·威克裏夫、約翰·胡斯、托馬斯·佈雷德沃丁、
Gregory of Rimini, Geert Groote,
裏米尼的格雷戈裏、海爾特·格魯特
you put them as forerunners for a specific reason.
稱為先驅，是有具體緣由的。
You understand their position in the flow of historical theology.
是因為我們明白了他們在曆史神學這一長河中的位置。
So historical theology serves systematic theology in a number of ways.
因此，曆史神學在許多重要的方面
A number of important ways.
服務於係統神學。

Number one, it offers the opportunity to study theology
第一，它提供了良機，讓我們能夠從教會曆史中
under some of the greatest minds of the church.
最具才智的一群信徒那裏學習神學。
You can learn so much from studying Augustine.
你們可以通過研究奧古斯丁學到很多東西。
But you can also be astonished at times
但偶爾你也可能會因奧古斯丁
at how Augustine erred in certain areas,
在某些地方的謬誤而感到十分驚訝，
as he’s very early on in church history.
這也是因為他的年代處於教會曆史十分早期的時候。

Secondly, historical theology opens our eyes to alternative interpretations
第二，曆史神學可以打開我們的眼睛，
of the Scripture which we may not have considered before.
讓我們看到自己從前未曾想過的對聖經的不同的詮釋。

Have you ever read someone like Calvin and you said,
你是否曾在閱讀如加爾文這樣的神學家寫的東西后說，
wow, I never understood that text that way.
哇，我從來不知道可以這樣理解這段經文。
And then you started thinking about it,
然後你開始思想它，
you said, this makes perfect sense.
發現這樣的解讀完全說得通。
And so, historical theology helps you a lot in developing your systematics.
所以曆史神學可以大大地幫助人們發展係統神學。

Three, it makes us more aware of the stream of orthodox Christianity
第三，曆史神學使我們更加清楚明白
that has flowed through the ages as well as the heresies,
曆經世代的主流基督教，也讓我們更清楚明白
that the church has rejected.
教會所拒絕的這些異端邪說。

57: 28 – 01:00:04
Four, it encourages us by showing us the continuity of our faith
第四，曆史神學讓我們看到，我們的信仰與曆世曆代信徒的信仰
with that previous generations.
是相連貫的，使我們因此而受到鼓勵。
And five, this is an important one for humility purposes,
第五，此點對“促使我們謙卑”這一目的而言很重要，
it punctures our insulated individualism,
曆史神學打破了讓我們彼此隔絕的個人主義，
and broadens our awareness that we, surprise surprise,
拓寬了我們的視野，讓我們“驚訝”地意識到，
are not the first theologians ever to open the Bible.
原來自己並非第一個打開聖經的神學家。

But we participate in a grand project
我們在參與的是一個融彙了曆世曆代、
that has engaged the church of all times and all places.
各地的教會的宏大項目。
This is one reason why I just love to do systematic theology,
這是我熱愛從事係統神學研究的其中一個原因，
I just love it. I mean, I can eat it, sleep it and drink it.
我真的很熱愛它。我可以無時無刻地思想它。

Cause it’s so exciting to me,
因為我見證了聖靈在曆世曆代
to see how the Holy Spirit develop it over all the ages.
係統神學的發展中的作工，這讓我感到非常興奮。
And I am just maybe one little tiny tiny little cog in the wheel.
而我不過是其中無足輕重的一個小小的人物。
I am bringing it to you people, and you know, through books,
雖然我現在通過寫書的方式來傳遞係統神學，
but I’m well aware that I’m just a tiny little guy
但我很清楚，自己只是排在眾人之後的
at the end of a long long stream of men
一個小人物，這些人物已經對係統神學
who’ve developed this and done it in such wonderful ways.
做出了極大的貢獻，令人讚歎。
The Holy Spirit has guided the church
聖靈一直在帶領教會，
and kept it from errors on the left and errors on the right.
使其避免偏左或偏右的錯誤。
And heretics come along all the time,
雖然異端分子一直不停地在出現，
and the Holy Spirit uses the heretics,
聖靈卻能夠利用異端分子，
Satan doesn’t get his way.
讓撒但的詭計不能得逞。
And gradually the churches become more and more refined,
逐漸地，教會變得越來越完善，基督徒所持守的信仰
and the beliefs are more and more biblical, it’s beautiful.
也變得越來越符合聖經。這十分美好。

And I want to be a little part of that.
而我希望自己作為一個小小的部分能夠參與其中。
So historical theology keeps you small.
因此，曆史神學可以讓我們保持謙卑。
But it’s exciting. Herman Bavinck said,
但是它又是激動人心的。赫爾曼·巴文克說，
“processing the content of Scripture dogmatically, however,
“從神學角度來詮釋聖經”，
is” … dogmatically, he means theologically, he’s Dutch,
（他的意思是“從神學角度”，他是荷蘭人）
“is not just the work of one individual theologian,
“不只是某個神學家或某間教會的工作，
or a particular church, but of the entire church
而是曆世曆代的教會的工作，
throughout the ages of the whole new humanity regenerated by Christ.”
這間大教會是由被基督重生的‘新人’組成的。”

And by the way, when you do systematic theology,
順便說一句，當我們從事係統神學研究時，
you don’t just learn from the theologians
我們學習的對象不只是
who’ve written the famous books.
那些寫過著作的神學家。
The beautiful thing about doing systematic theology,
從事係統神學研究的美妙之處在於，
is you can learn from your average fairly uneducated parishioner
我們還可以向未曾受過太多教育的普通教友學習，
who’s been really led by the Lord in a private visit
例如在我們探訪的時候，他們會在主的感動下
as they talk about what Jesus Christ means to them.
與我們談論耶穌基督對他們的意義是什麼。
That can shed light on text for you.
而這樣的談論可以讓你更加明白聖經。
You can learn from your people.
你可以向你的會眾學習。
Systematic theologian is someone
一位係統神學家同時還是一個
who’s always learning, also experientially.
以經曆式的方式來學習的人。

01:00:04 – 01:03:19
So one of the most helpful contributions of historical theology
曆史神學對係統神學所作的最大貢獻之一，
to systematic theology, is that the historical discipline
是這個曆史性學科能夠使我們看到自己的信仰，
enables us to recognize how our beliefs, of personally and as churches,
不管是個人還是教會，
have been influenced by the theology of the past.
是如何受過去的神學所影響的。

Now as a systematic theologian,
雖然我是一個係統神學家，
I can not tell you how many times historical theology has helped me,
但曆史神學無數次地幫助了我，
not just in teaching this class,
不僅在我教授這門課的過程中幫助我，
but it helped me in the consistory room,
也在教會的長執會中幫助我。
where consistory members have come up with ideas
因為有時候，長執會成員可能會因缺乏曆史依據，
that are not healthy for the church,
（因為他們不瞭解）
because they lack the historical grounding
而提出一些
that they just don’t know about.
不宜於教會健康發展的想法。
And so, a minister has an important role here,
此時，一位牧者就要發揮他的重要作用，
being better educated in these things,
因為他在這些方面受過更好的教育，
to be able to say, but wait a minute brother,
他要能夠說，稍等，弟兄們，
that really was the error of Sandemanianism back,
你們知道嗎，這其實是出現於某世紀的
you know, century X. You know,
桑德曼主義的錯誤。
when people just said if you just believe the doctrine objectively,
那時人們說只要一個人客觀地相信這個教義，
that’s all there is to salvation.
他就有了救恩了。
Maybe you have an elder that’s leaning that way.
也許你的長老中有人開始有這樣的傾向。
And you point out, how the reformed fathers opposed that teaching,
那麼你就可以指出改教家們是如何反對這種教導的，
“no it’s got to be brought to the heart.”
“不，信心一定要是心裏的。”
Even on the small things, you know.
你知道嗎，即使在小事上也是如此。

We still do the Lord’s Supper in the front of our church,
在我的教會，我們仍在講台前擺設桌椅舉行聖餐，
people come forward.
聖餐時會眾們會到前面來。
And it was always a custom in our background that when you leave,
而我們教會一直有這樣一個傳統：在會眾離開聖餐桌時，
you just leave a little money under a cloth at table,
他們會在桌布底下留下一點錢，
and you go back to your seat.
然後才回到他們的座位上。

And that came up in the consistory room, so that was,
於是有人在長執會時提議要討論這件事，大家說，
“this is crazy, it’s like you have to pay money to go to Lord’s Supper.”
“這太荒唐了，讓人有種要付錢才能領主餐的感覺。”
And I just let the discussion go, you know,
大家一直在討論，而我只是靜靜地等待著討論繼續進行，
and they are gonna make the decision,
最後，有人作了提議，得到了附議，
and I got right there, you know, the motion was made,
討論也完成了。
it was seconded, the discussion happened.
他們馬上就要做出決定了。

So I just said at the end, “but brothers,
最後我說話了，“可是兄弟們，
I think you are forgetting the historical context here.
你們可能忘記了這個傳統的曆史背景。
You know, our forefathers, reformed fathers set this up
要知道，我們的先輩、改教家們之所以設立這個傳統，
because it was a reflection of what Paul said in Corinthians,”
是為了回應保羅在哥林多書中所說的，
So here we are coming in with exegetical study
“不可空手朝見主。”
and historical study combined,
你看，我們可以結合釋經神學和曆史神學，
“that you should never serve the Lord, never appear before the Lord empty.”
在此處來加入大家的討論，

“Because there were people who were coming to the Lord’s Supper
“因為當時有人僅僅是為了食物而來領主餐。
just to get food. The apostle said, no, you take up a collection
使徒們說，不行，你們應該為這些人做募捐，
for these people and you give them food.
以此方式來給他們食物。
So historically in reformed churches,
於是在曆史上的改革宗教會裏，這些留在主餐桌上的錢
that money left at the Lord’s table was not because you pay to go there,
並非是因為人們需要付錢才能領主餐，
it was for the poor.”
而是因為要把這些錢留給窮人。

“Now that tradition has been going on for 500 years,
“這個傳統流傳至今，已經500年了，
now we have to discuss, does it, in the reformation,
那麼現在我們必須要討論一下，在宗教改革時期，
is it a worthy tradition?”
這是否是一個應有的傳統？”
But when I began to talk about that, they said,
當我說到這些時，長執會的弟兄們說，
oh, wait a minute, we didn’t know, we didn’t know,
“噢，稍等一下，
we didn’t know anything about this historically,
我們對這一傳統的曆史背景一無所知，
we better be careful what we do,
我們最好小心一點，
we don’t want to break a 500 year tradition
我們可不想在並無充分理由的情況下，
without a good reason.
打破一個有著500年曆史的傳統。”

Maybe, maybe we should re-study the question.
“可能我們需要重新探究這個問題。”
So we restudied the question historically.
於是我們在曆史背景下重新研究了這個問題。
Now we just leave it up to people’s conscience
現在，我們教會就是讓會眾自己
whether they want to put money there,
憑著良心來決定是否要放錢在主餐的桌上，
but we don’t forbid them from doing that like we were going to,
我們沒有採用最開始的討論結果去禁止他們。
because of the historical value of,
這是因為這一傳統的曆史價值，
and the principle of never appearing before the Lord empty.
也因為“不可空手朝見主”的這一原則。

01:03:19 – 1:05:49
Now you could argue that we could forbid, it’s not a big deal.
也許你們會說，其實長執會可以決議禁止這個傳統，
But I am just saying to you,
但我想對你們說的是，
this happens a thousand times in the consistory room.
這樣的事情常在長執會出現，
Historical theology, systematic theology,
曆史神學和係統神學
will help you so much in the ministry.
都會在教會事工方面對你們有極大的幫助。
Historical theology also challenges some presuppositions
通過使我們接觸其他時代的神學家，
and traditions we inherit from our own churches
曆史神學也會讓我們對自己的教會和
and cultures by exposing us to theologians from another time.
文化中的一些預設和傳統提出質疑。
See? It can work in reverse.
看到了嗎？它也可以通過這樣的方式來幫助我們。

“Where in the world did this tradition come from?”
當你去一個教會的時候，你可能會疑問，
You say when you come to a church,
“這個傳統究竟是從哪裏來的？
“which contradicts something else that our forefathers taught.”
這與先輩們所教導的其他教義是相互矛盾的。”
And somehow this tradition was accepted in the church,
不知何故，這間教會的人接納了這個傳統，
you can talk about anything you want to,
但是無論怎麼說，
but a tradition really is not biblical.
這個傳統確實不符合聖經。

And when you can have historical groundings,
當你不僅僅有聖經，還有曆史依據時，
not just Scripture, that’s most important, of course,
（當然聖經是最重要的）
and you can back it up historically and say,
你就可以從曆史角度來證明你的觀點，
our forefathers were against this.
你就可以說，我們的先輩們是反對這樣的傳統的。
You know, it holds a weight.
這樣的論據是舉足輕重的。

In my first church, there were some people in my consistory room
在我牧養的第一間教會中的長執會裏，
who were literally taking the position of hyper-Calvinism,
有一些人持有極端加爾文主義的立場，
that God only offers His grace to sensible sinners,
認為上帝隻向罪人中已經明白的這些人施與祂的恩典。
who didn’t know
但是，長執會的這些弟兄
it was a position of hyper-Calvinism.
並不知道自己持有的是極端加爾文主義的立場。
And so when they began to express it,
所以當他們開始闡述這個觀點時，
I had to say in the consistory,
我就不得不在長執會裏說，
I say, brother, you know I appreciate you
親愛的兄弟，你知道我是很敬重你的，
and I appreciate your view and so many things, but
你也知道我很敬佩你的想法、以及許多其他的方面，
you know, what you’ve just said
但是你知道嗎，你剛剛所說的這一點
is really a position of hyper-Calvinism.
其實是站在了極端加爾文主義的立場。
I left that church three and half years later,
三年半以後，我離開了那間教會，
and the clerk began to print in the bulletin every single Sunday
之後教會秘書開始在每個主日的程序單上
William Huntington’s “Love is the only rule of life”.
印威廉·亨廷頓的“愛是生命的唯一準則”。
William Huntington, was a hyper-Calvinist
威廉·亨廷頓是一位極端加爾文主義者，
who believed that the law no long functions,
他認為律法不再起作用，
Ten Commandments no longer function in the believer’s walk of life.
十誡在信徒的生命曆程中不再起作用。
And the clerk from the church that I ministered for three and half years,
這是我服侍了三年半的教會，
and taught and preached repeatedly about the necessity of walking by the law.
我在那裏一再教導和傳講遵行律法的必要性。
He’s putting that whole book,
然而就是這間教會的秘書，
directly against what I taught them,
他居然把這整本書，這本與我的教導他們完全相反、
directly against what the reformed faith always said,
與改革宗信仰完全相反的書，
in the bulletin every Sunday.
印在了每個主日的程序單裏。
There’s no way I can let that go.
我實在沒有辦法不去管它。
So I called him up
於是我就給他打電話，
and I explained the whole thing to him historically,
從曆史層面向他解釋了這整件事情，
I thought he would be upset with me,
我本以為他會生氣，
cause he loved Huntington,
因為他特別喜歡亨廷頓，
but he understood, he understood.
但是他居然能夠理解、能夠明白。
And he said, I never knew that,
他跟我說，我從來都不知道這一點，
I just didn’t know it that way.
我就是不知道，沒有從這個角度瞭解過。
So he took out the book immediately.
他立刻就停止了在程序單中印這本書。
So there’s all kinds of things here that will help you.
因此，曆史神學能夠對你有各種各樣的幫助。

01:05:50 – 01:09:34
Philosophical theology.
哲學神學。
Philosophical branch of theology answers the question:
神學的哲學分支回答的問題是：
how do logic and reasoning help us
邏輯和推理如何幫助我們
to develop the doctrines taught in passages of Scripture
使聖經中所教導的教義
into a coherent perspective?
擁有一個連貫一致的視角？

The Christians have declared a categorical opposition
基督徒們已經多次宣稱
between philosophy and theology many times.
哲學與神學是明確對立的。
Tertullian famously said,
特土良曾說過一句名言：
“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
“雅典與耶路撒冷有什麼關係？
What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?
學院和教會之間有什麼共識？
What between heretics and Christians?”
異端分子與基督徒之間有什麼關係？”

Tertullian viewed all philosophers as heretics,
特土良認為，所有的哲學家都是異端分子，
and philosophy could only damage the Christian church.
哲學只會破壞基督的教會。

And we say to Tertullian today, don’t we?
而今天的我們會對特土良這樣說：
“Certainly Tertullian, you were right in one sense.
“特土良，在某種意義上，您確實是正確的。
We do not base our faith, whatsoever, upon pagan philosophy,
我們的信仰不是建立在任何異教哲學的基礎之上，
and Colossians 2:8 warns us,
並且歌羅西書2章8節也警告我們，
‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
‘你們要謹慎，恐怕有人用他的理學和虛空的妄言，
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
不照著基督，乃照人間的遺傳和世上的小學，
and not after Christ.’
就把你們擄去。’
So we say, Amen.
對此我們說，阿門。
However, the Bible also uses logic,
但是聖經中也使用了邏輯。
and it’s impossible to do theology well
並且，如果我們不使用邏輯推理，
without using logical arguments,
特別是無矛盾律，
especially the law of noncontradiction.”
是不可能做好神學研究的。”

So Bavinck noted, Herman Bavinck,
赫爾曼·巴文克指出：
“If the knowledge of God
“若我們對上帝的認識
has been revealed by himself in his Word,
是上帝借祂自己的話語中揭示出來的話，
it cannot contain contradictory elements
它就不可能包含任何矛盾的元素，
or be in conflict with what is known of God
也不可能與人們從自然和曆史中
from nature and history.
形成的對上帝的認識相衝突。
God’s thoughts cannot be opposed to one another
上帝的想法不可能相互對立，
and thus they necessarily form an organic unity.”
它們必然會形成一種有機統一體。”

So some philosophical categories can be useful to describe
因此，一些哲學類別對描述事物的本質、
the nature of things, the necessity of things, the causes of things.
事物的必然性、以及事物的起因非常有幫助。
And we must reflect upon these categories critically
而我們也必須帶著批判來思考這些類別，
so that we can use them biblically.
以便能夠以符合聖經的方式來使用它們。

So Tertullian exaggerated this case.
所以特土良的說法誇大了這一情況。
And later in church history,
在後來的教會曆史中，
reformed theologians have come to a more subtle conviction
改革宗神學家們得出了一個更為精準的結論，
that a better approach to using philosophy is
他們認為，我們若想要更好地使用哲學，
that philosophy always remains a servant of God’s Word, not its master.
就必須讓哲學始終作上帝話語的仆人，而不是主人。

What philosophy does is it supplies content for theology at times,
哲學可以為神學提供信息，
it helps you defend theology and establish its truth,
也可以幫助人們保護神學、建立神學真理，
and it helps you scrutinize the concepts and arguments of theology.
它還可以幫助我們仔細查考神學概念與神學論點。

Student: Sorry, can you repeat that again?
學生：抱歉，您能再重複一遍剛才所說的嗎
Beeke: Yeah. It supplies content at times,
周必克教授：可以。哲學可以會提供信息，
it defends true theology,
可以保護真神學，
and it scrutinizes the ideas and the arguments.
還可以幫助我們仔細查考觀點和論點。
So as to the first idea,
至於這裏所提到的第一點，
we must reject the idea
我們必須要抵擋這樣一種觀點，
that philosophy can add to the teachings of the Bible,
即認為哲學可以在聖經教導之上增加其他的內容，
or to do new doctrines not revealed in the Bible.
或者可以研究出聖經中從未啟示的新教義。
For theology must stand upon the Word of God
因為神學若要有權威性，
alone for its authority.
就必須唯獨基於上帝的話語之上。
But philosophy can help supply arguments
但是哲學可以幫助我們提供論點和見解，
and insights that help you in crafting your theology from the Scriptures.
也可以幫助我們從聖經中構造神學。

01:09:34 – 01:12:45
A question was just raised:
那麼人們就要問，
is philosophical theology then part of systematics?
哲學神學是否是係統神學的一部分？
Usually it is included under systematic theology
通常，哲學神學是被包含在係統神學中的，
as a branch of it, a handmaid to it.
它是係統神學的一個分支、一個仆人。

But systematic theology ask the question:
係統神學所問的問題是：
what does the Bible, the whole Bible, teach about each topic,
整本聖經在每個主題、
and that in relationship to other topics?
以及它和其他主題的關繫上的教導是什麼？
So a person could write a systematic treatment
所以一個人可以就某一特定教義寫一本係統神學的書，
of a particular doctrine, but the term “systematic theology”
但“係統神學”這一術語通常適用於當人們研究
often pertains to an organized presentation of
“上帝在某一特定教義上全備的旨意是什麼”後，
all the counsel of God on that particular doctrine.
對研究結果清晰有條理的呈現。
So I mentioned already an example,
我曾用過一個聖經中有關殺戮的教導的例子，
let me just used it again: killing,
這裏我用它來解釋一下。
what is the systematic theological position in the Bible about killing?
聖經中關於殺戮的係統神學的立場是什麼？

Well, the Bible nowhere gives you, does it,
其實聖經中並沒有一個聚集了所有有關殺戮的經文的地方，
eight verses and says: as a general rule, you may not kill,
比如說：“原則上你不能殺人，
but you may kill, you must kill in capital punishment;
但是執行死刑時你需要殺人；
when someone kills someone else, you must kill them;
如果有人殺了別人，你需要處死殺人犯；
when you defend yourself in a just war;
當你在一次正義的戰爭中保護自己時，可以殺人；
or when there’s an accident happen like an ax head,
或者，如果你在使用斧頭時出現了一個意外，
you accidently kill someone, you are not to be held guilty for that.
你不小心殺了一個人，你不應該因此被判故意殺人罪。”
Nowhere is there a list like that,
你在聖經中找不到這樣一個清單。
but what systematic theology does is it studies the whole Bible
而係統神學所做的，就是研究整本聖經，
and it brings it all together
彙集所有關於殺戮的教導，
and develops maybe a 20 page article
可能最後的研究結果會變成一篇20頁的文章，
on when killing is allowed in the Bible,
來集中總結聖經中什麼時候允許有殺戮
and when it’s not allowed.
以及什麼時候不允許。
And that takes the whole counsel of God about “killing”
這是上帝在聖經中顯明的，
from the Scriptures and presents it to you.
在有關殺戮的問題上的全備旨意。
So, when you take the whole of the Bible
所以，當我們在係統神學中以主題性教導的方式
and you present it in systematic theology in a particular teaching,
來呈現整本聖經在某一具體主題之上的教導時，
you’re doing three things.
我們其實在做的一共有三件事。

You have a “constructive” task,
我們首先在做一個“建設性”的任務，
and I’m actually borrowing this from Berkhof,
實際上我是從伯克富那裏借用這一點的。
a constructive task where it builds a structure of thought
一個“建設性”的任務，就是構建一個思想體係，
bringing each doctrine into a clear formulation
用清晰的形式呈現每個教義，
and organic relation to other doctrines, constructive task.
並使其與其他教義一起形成一個有機整體。
It’s a “demonstrative” task, for it shows, it demonstrates,
其次，它還是一個“論證性的”任務。因為它論證了
how every part of the system is deeply rooted in the Holy Scriptures.
這個整體中的每一部分是如何深植於聖經的。
You prove in systematic theology,
我們需要在係統神學中證明，
all your significant positions from the Word of God.
我們持有的所有重大觀點都是從上帝的話語而來。

And it’s a “critical” task,
再者，它是一個“批判性的”任務，
because it doesn’t simply cast off all the theological systems
因為它即非要簡單粗暴地拋棄所有過去的神學體係，
of the past nor does it accept any of them blindly,
也不是要盲目地接受它們中的任何一個，
but it compares things, all things to the Word of God.
而是將所有一切與上帝的話語進行比較。
And it aims to defend orthodox Christianity,
至少從我們的角度來看，
at least from our perspective.
它的目的是捍衛正統基督教。
We’ll be talking more about that.
我們以後還會更多地討論這個問題。
So in systematic theology, we’re building theology
因此，我們在係統神學中建設性地、
constructively, demonstratively, and critically.
論證性地、批判性地建立神學。
And we’ll talk later in this course about
我們以後會在這門課中講到
how to actually do systematic theology in a step-by-step process.
如何一步一步地實踐係統神學的研究。

01:12:49 – 01:15:21
All right, so then you also have apologetic and polemical theology.
好，接下來還有護教神學和辯惑神學。
Systematic theology must also engage with erroneous systems of belief,
係統神學必須要與錯誤的信仰體係交戰，
false religions, Christian heresies, errors in Christian churches.
無論是虛假宗教、基督教異端，還是基督教會中的錯誤。
And that requires patient instruction,
這需要對抵擋真理之人的耐心勸誡，
says Paul in 2 Timothy 2:24,
保羅在提摩太后書2章24節中說，
requires patient instruction of those who oppose the truth.
對待那些反真理的眾人要忍耐著教導。
And Jude 3 tells us,
猶大書第3節也告訴我們，
we need to do this to earnestly contend
要為從前一次交付聖徒的真道
for the faith once delivered unto the saints.
竭力地爭辯。
Now, what’s the difference, then, between apologetics and polemics?
那麼，護教學和辯惑學之間有何不同呢？

Well, when the engagement primarily intends to
當這一交戰的目的主要是為了
defend Christian doctrine against outside attacks,
捍衛基督教教義免受外來攻擊時，
it’s called apologetics, coming from the Greek word “apologia”,
它被稱之為護教學。這一術語源自希臘詞語“apologia”
meaning “defense”.
意為“防禦”。

So you’re defending Christianity in apologetics,
所以我們從使徒行傳22章1節中可以看出，
Acts 22:1.
我們在護教學中的工作是捍衛基督教。
It’s actually the word Peter uses also, interestingly, in 1 Peter 3:15,
有意思的是，彼得其實在彼得前書3章15節中就用了這個詞，
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts,
只要心裏尊主基督為聖，
“be ready always to give an answer,”
“要常做準備回答”，
to give an apologia, a defense,
要護教，要捍衛，
“to every one that ask you for a reason of the hope
“以溫柔、敬畏的心
that is in you with meekness and fear.”
回答問你們心中盼望緣由的人”。

And so apologetics was a discipline
因此，護教學是一門
that was very needed very early in the Christian church,
在基督教會初期就非常需要的學科。
because as Christianity spreaded in the ancient Greek or Roman world,
因為隨著基督教在古希臘羅馬世界中的傳播，
it was attacked severely, almost immediately,
它幾乎立刻就遭到了猛烈的攻擊。
as irrational, as seditious, as a dangerous religion,
它被視為一種非理性、帶有煽動性及危險性的宗教，
justifying persecution against Christians.
而這則被用來證明對基督徒的迫害是正當的。
And so what were many of the early ancient fathers called?
所以人們是如何稱呼早期的教父們的？
Apologist. Right?
護教士。對吧？
Justin Martyr, was an apologist, 100 to 165 A.D.
公元100至165年的遊斯丁，就是一位護教士。
Because he defended the faith against accusations and arguments
他為了維護基督教的真實與高尚
in order to assert the veracity and nobility
而捍衛信仰，
and the truthfulness of Christianity.
反對對其展開攻擊的指控與爭論。

01:15:24 – 01:19:05
Now when the engagement aims to attack
而當這一交戰旨在抨擊虛假教義時，
false doctrine from within, it’s known as polemics.
它被稱為辯惑學。
There’s a fine line of difference here,
這裏有一個細微、
but it’s an important difference.
但很重要的區別。

From the Greek word “polemos”, meaning “war” or “battle”,
辯惑學這一術語源自希臘詞語“polemos”，
it’s almost like in civil war, okay?
意為“戰爭”或“戰役”，就像在內戰中一樣。
Christians, believe in speaking in tongues, okay?
例如，有的基督徒相信還有說方言的恩賜，
We don’t embrace that view.
而我們不接受這樣的觀點。
So we do polemics, exposing what we think is an unbiblical line
所以我們用辯惑學來表明立場，即我們認為人們在靈恩運動
of reasoning in the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement.
和五旬節運動中的推理路線是不符合聖經的。
It’s just to take one example.
例如，我們可以
Luke 21:9, and compare that with Revelation 17:14.
將路加福音21章9節與啟示錄17章14進行比較。

So Paul says, “for though we walk in the flesh,
保羅說，“因為我們雖然在血氣中行事，
we do not war after the flesh,
卻不憑著血氣爭戰。
for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,
我們爭戰的兵器本不是屬血氣的，
but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds,
乃是在神面前有能力，可以攻破堅固的營壘，
casting down imaginations, and every high thing
將各樣的計謀、各樣攔阻人認識神的那些自高之事，
that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and we want to
一概攻破了，
bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”
又將人所有的心意奪回，使它都順服基督。
2 Corinthians 10:3 through 5.
哥林多後書10章3節到5節。

Now apologetics and polemics therefore often overflow into each other,
護教學和辯惑學常常聯合起來，
for engagement with hostile systems of belief
因為要與敵對體係交戰，
requires both a strong defense – apologetics,
我們既需要堅強的防禦 – 護教學，
and a strong offense – polemics.
又需要強有力的進攻 – 辯惑學。
Ultimately, of course, both depend upon the Bible for authority.
當然，最終兩者都要仰賴於聖經才能有權威。
As Calvin observed,
正如加爾文所觀察到的那樣，
while rational arguments may confirm the truth of Christianity,
雖然理性論證可以證實基督教的真實性，
they can never be the basis of faith,
但它們永遠不能成為信仰的根基，
which receives the Word of God on its own divine authority
因為信仰是通過聖靈的光照去接受上帝的話語，
by the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
這話語本身就帶著上帝的權威。

That’s why Van Til disagreed with Warfield,
這就是為什麼，
and I think rightly so,
當華腓德說護教學是
when Warfield said “apologetics is a science
“確立基督教真理的科學”時，
that establishes the truth of Christianity.”
範泰爾並不認可，而我也如此認為。

Now Warfield tried to clarify that by saying,
華腓德試圖澄清這一點，他說，
“that is not to argue that it is by apologetics that men are made Christians,
這並不是說人們是因護教學才成為基督徒的，
but that apologetics supplies to Christian men the systematically
但是護教學確實為基督徒提供了一個係統有組織的基礎，
organized basis on which the faith of Christian man must rest. ”
而基督徒的信仰必須要依靠在這一基礎之上。“

Van Til responds to that, rightly I think,
範泰爾對華腓德所說的這一點做出了回應，（我也認可他說的）
by pointing out that we can not start with a neutral position,
他指出，我們不可能從一個中立的立場出發，
and by apologetics, build the foundation of belief in God,
然後再通過護教學來建立對上帝的基本信仰，
for there’s no neutrality.
因為根本就沒有中立的立場。
Apologetics must instead stand up
相反，護教學必須基於上帝在聖經中的啟示，
on the biblical revelation of God and defend that truth.
並捍衛這一真理。
So you don’t get from apologetics to the Bible,
因此，我們不是從護教學出發，然後到達聖經，
you begin presuppositionly with the Bible,
而是預先以聖經為起點，
and you use apologetics as you stand on the Word.
在聖經話語的基礎上來使用護教學。
One minute.
稍等一下。
The Bible does not attempt to prove the existence of God,
聖經並沒有試圖證明上帝的存在，
but declares Him and calls men to submit to His Word.
而是直接宣佈祂的存在，呼召人們要順服祂的話語。
So apologetics and polemics don’t attempt
因此，護教學和辯論學
to lay a foundation for the Christian faith,
不應該試圖為基督教信仰創建基礎，
but start with the written word of God, revealed in Jesus Christ,
而是必須以上帝成文的話語、在基督耶穌裏的啟示開始，
for that is our only foundation, Isaiah 28:6.
因為那才是我們唯一的根基，以賽亞書28章6節。
But then, apologetics and polemics build off of that.
直到那時，護教學和辯惑學才能夠繼續發展下去。

01:19:06 – 01:20:54
So apologetics and polemics are exercises in systematic theology
因此，護教學與辯惑學
under the tent of systematic theology,
是在係統神學中的練習，
perform in coordination with philosophy and history of other disciplines.
與其他如哲學、曆史等學科一起協同進行。

Yes, Frank.
恩，弗蘭克。

Frank: How do you reply to Kuyper in this perspective,
弗蘭克：凱波爾認為，
cause he thought apologetics were pretty much pointless
護教學在整個神學體係中是
or worthless to fit within the whole,
毫無意義、也毫無價值的，
especially someone who places so much emphasis
特別是對他這樣重視神學百科全書的人。
on the encyclopedia of theology.
您在這個方面會如何回應他呢？

Beeke: Yeah, yeah.
周必克教授：好的。
I think that Kuyper saw that Warfield was wrong,
我認為，凱波爾看到了華腓德的錯誤，
and didn’t have the advantage yet of hearing
卻還沒有機會聽到範泰爾
Van Til’s importance of the attached presuppositionism.
論證預設論的重要性。

My hunch is, although you can’t say it for sure, but my hunch is that
雖然我不能肯定，但我的直覺是
Kuyper would have really embraced Van Til’s presupposition.
凱波爾可能真的會接受範泰爾的預設論。
But I could be wrong.
但我也有可能是錯的。

I actually did answer that question
幾年前，
in an article where I looked at Kuyper a bit more,
我發表過一篇研究凱波爾的漫談文章，
that table talk published a couple of years ago.
我其實在文章中就回答過這個問題。
But yeah Kuyper’s obviously weak on apologetics.
不過很明顯，護教學確實不是凱波爾的強項。

I do think too much can be made of apologetics,
我也的確認為，人們有可能會過度使用護教學，
so I mean, it’s not that I totally disagree with Kuyper,
所以我並不是完全不認可凱波爾所說的。
but, and I have never been the kind of apologetics guy,
但我從來就不是護教學專家，
I ought to always been better at it.
我其實一直應該在這方面多努力一些的。

But you kind of have a certain kind of personality,
但是我覺得護教學家需要有一種特別的性格，
I think, to spend your whole life doing apologetics and polemics.
使他一輩子都可以做護教學和辯論學的工作。
You got to like to argue and fight a little bit, you know, you got,
他必須得要有點喜歡辯論和競爭，
and I’m just not that kind of a guy.
但我確實不是這樣性格的人。

01:20:54 – 01:23:21
Student: A question about systematic theology.
學生：我想問一個關於係統神學的問題。
Beeke: Yeah.
周必克教授：好。
Student: You said that it must be built on Scripture.
學生：您剛才說護教學必須建立在聖經的基礎上。
Some people would say, do not build a systematic doctrine
可有些人會說，我們不能把係統神學的某一教義
on one verse of Scripture,
隻建立在某一節經文上，
since it should be built on the whole Scripture.
因為它應該建立在整本聖經之上。
You can’t say one part of Scripture,
你不能單單讀聖經的某一個部分，
and say the Scripture says this doctrine here,
然後宣稱聖經在這裏的教導是這樣，
and you teach it as a doctrine.
之後就把它當作一個教義來教導。
You have to see this doctrine spread in the Scriptures.
你必須要從整本聖經的各處來看這個教義。

For instance, the millennium in Revelation 20.
例如，啟示錄20章中提到了千禧年。
Some people against this position would say
有些反對千禧年觀點的人會說，
it is only one part of Scripture,
這只是聖經的某一個部分，
you can’t build a whole doctrine on one part,
你不能單單用聖經的某一個部分、某一節經文、
or one verse, or whatever.
或諸如此類的來建立一整個教義。
So what do you think of this?
所以您會怎樣看待這個問題？

Beeke: Well, it depends what the verse is,
周必克教授：好。其實這要取決於這節經文是什麼，
and how clear that verse is.
以及經文本身有多清楚。
You know, when you get to Revelation 20,
當你讀到啟示錄20章時，你會發現，
there are so much mystery in the language of what’s going on,
那些用來描述所發生事件的語言中有許多的奧秘，
you do need to compare it to other portions of Scriptures.
我們確實需要把它與聖經的其他部分來作比較。
So you go back in systematics
所以我們要在係統神學中
to the Matthew 20:3, 4 and 5,
回到馬太福音20章的第3，第4，和第5節，
and you look at what that says about the end times,
看看裏面關於末世教導了些什麼，
and you look what other area says
然後我們要再看看聖經的其他地方，
about the end times.
看看它們關於末世又教導了些什麼。

And then you ask yourself:
之後你就要問問自己，
is Revelation 20 literally supporting Premillennialism, Postmillennialism?
按啟示錄20章的意思，它是在支持前千禧年論還是後千禧年論？
So you actually do bring out the Scriptures.
所以你確實需要顯明聖經的教導。

Some doctrines, you would have lots and lots of Scriptures to gather from.
有些教義可能是從多處的經文總結而來。
Other doctrines can be very very strong,
但還有一些教義，雖然它們本身可能非常穩固、有說服力，
you only have a few places.
但它只是從幾處的聖經經文總結而來。
For example, spiritual adoption.
例如，屬靈上的立嗣。
What an important doctrine that is!
雖然這是一個十分重要的教義，
But you know, the Scripture doesn’t say a whole lot about it.
但是聖經對此教義著墨甚少，
There’s three major pericopes
主要涉及的一共只有三段經文。
and you really build your systematics off of those three.
我們就需要從這三個地方來建立這一教義的係統神學。
But those three are so plain and so rich.
但是這三段是如此的清楚，又包含了如此豐富的內容。
You use those as a foundation
我們首先要以它們為基礎，
and then you can import other things
然後就可以加入其他處可能不那麼明確的、
that talk about the fatherhood of God that maybe aren’t so specific.
但談論上帝的父愛的內容。
So you start with your very clear, clear didactic portions,
因此，你首先從非常清晰明確的教導開始，
and then you can move to historical illustrations
然後再使用曆史例證
or maybe somewhat less clear portions
或一些不那麼清楚的經文，
that can help you build on what you’re already building.
來幫助你在已經構建好的內容之上繼續地建造。
But actually we’re gonna be talking about that
其實再過幾節課，
in a couple of lectures from now,
我們就要討論這個問題，
how you build systematic theology off of various text.
就是如何從不同的經文來構建係統神學的問題。
But it’s a very good question.
但這是一個很好的問題。

01:23:22 – 01:25:54
All right, ethical theology. I wanna wrap up here.
好，倫理神學。我講完這個就結束。
Christian ethics answers the question:
基督教倫理學回答的問題是：
what has God revealed in the whole Bible about the duties
上帝在整本聖經中啟示的
which He requires of us?
祂對我們要求的責任有哪些？

Ethics, therefore, really in my mind,
所以，其實在我心中，
is an immediate outgrowth of systematics.
倫理學是係統神學的一個直接產物。
Ethics is saying, what is the imperative of every doctrine?
倫理學在問，每一個教義對人提出的要求是什麼？
And sadly today, again because of this deeper, I’m sorry,
然而可悲的是，
this more broad development of theology that’s so big now,
由於如今的神學已有了十分龐大的拓展，
ethics and systematic theology in a very big school
所以在一所很大的學校裏，
is in two separate departments.
倫理學和係統神學會被劃分至兩個不同的院係。
And what happens then, is ethics is stripped away from systematics,
接下來發生的事，就是人們把倫理學從係統神學中分離出來，
and so people just read biblical text and say,
於是人們只是讀聖經，
well, what do you think about birth control,
然後問，你怎樣看待節育，
what do you think about all kinds of things?
你怎樣看待這樣、那樣的事情？
And almost always, whenever ethics,
曆史已經多次顯明，
history has shown, is stripped away from systematics,
每當人們把倫理學從係統神學中分離出來，
it goes in a liberal direction.
倫理學幾乎總是走向自由主義。
Because it feels the pressure of what people want to do,
因為倫理學感受到的壓力，是來自人的想法，
and it’s not grounded on truth.
而不是基於真理。
The old style, particularly in the Dutch,
原來的傳統方式，特別是荷蘭人改採用的方式，
which is a positive thing,
就是始終將倫理學與係統神學緊密聯繫起來，
was to always connect ethics right into systematics.
這其實是一件非常好的事情。
And that’s where, for example, Van Mastricht,
例如範‧梅斯特利、
and Brakel in particular, is very very good.
還有特別是佈雷克，在這方面做得非常好。
You notice Brakel,
你如果留心看佈雷克，
at the end of every chapter of systematic theology,
就會看到在他的係統神學著作的每一章的最後，
he’ll have a section, like how we use this doctrine,
他都有一個部分，講我們應該如何運用這個教義，
application of this doctrine.
即對這個教義的應用。
And then at the end of volume II,
然後在第二卷的最後，
when really volume I and II are his systematic theology,
其實他的第一、第二卷是係統神學，
Volumes III and IV, another thousand pages, is his ethics.
有一千多頁的第三、第四卷，才是他的倫理學。
So I have a whole chapter on how do you use the promise of God,
所以你會在一整章中讀到如何使用神的應許，
a whole chapter on how do you exercise spiritual courage about truth,
另一整章中讀到如何操練真理的屬靈勇氣，
a whole chapter on how do you wait on God.
還有的章節是關於如何等候神。
These are all ethical issues.
這些話題都在倫理學的範疇之內。
And then I’ll, what, three, four hundred pages on the Ten Commandments.
然後你會讀到大概三、四百頁的內容，是寫關於十誡的。
And what a tragedy for the church,
對教會而言，失去係統神學與倫理學的這種完美結合，
that we are losing that beautiful combination of,
是何等令人遺憾的一個悲劇。
Ames had it,
阿穆斯的著作中有這樣的結合，
Turretin has it,
圖倫丁的著作中有這樣的結合，
John Brown of Haddington, his systematic theology has it.
哈丁頓的約翰‧布朗的係統神學著作中也有。
But today too often, ethics are treated separately.
但今天，人們常常在脫離係統神學的環境下來研究倫理學。

01:25:54 – END
Berkhof said, while in itself this may appear quite harmless,
伯克富說，雖然此時本身並無危害，
it had disastrous results, since ethics gradually
但它確實是帶來了災難性的後果，
drifted from its religious moorings.
因為倫理學逐漸離開了它所依靠的宗教根基。
It is undoubtedly true that the two should always
毫無疑問，我們應該始終保持這兩個分支的緊密聯繫，
be regarded and studied in the closest relationship to each other.
在這樣的關係中來查考、研究它們。
The truth revealed in the Word of God calls for a life
上帝在祂話語中向我們所啟示的真理
that is in harmony with that truth.
要求我們過一種與其相符的生活。
So it’ll be like me, preaching two sermons on one text,
比如，我要用一段經文講兩篇講道，
first sermon would just be the doctrine,
第一篇講道，我隻講教義，
and I come a whole other week,
隔了整整一個星期之後，
and just try to preach how you should live out of that doctrine,
我再來講我們應該如何在生命中活出這個教義，
when you can’t remember what I said about the doctrine.
但此時會眾已經把我之前所講內容都忘記了。
It doesn’t work.
所以，這樣的方式是沒有效果的。

And then finally, practical theology, or poimenics.
好，最後一點，實踐神學，或教牧學。
All theology should be practical,
所有神學都應該具有實踐性，
in the sense that it calls for obedient
因為神學要求那些
action on the part of those who believe it.
相信它的人有順服的行為。

However, the discipline of practical theology,
然而，正如我之前已經提到的，實際上，
as I hinted it already, concerns the office and work of pastors.
實踐神學這一門學科涉及的是牧師這一職分與工作。
Therefore, it’s sometimes called poimenics,
所以人們有時也稱它為“教牧學”，
from the Greek word “poimēn”,
這一術語源自希臘詞語“poimen”，
meaning a “pastor” or “shepherd”, Ephesians 4:11.
意為一名“牧者”或一位“牧羊人”，以弗所書4章11節。
And so, poimenics, or practical theology includes things like this:
教牧學或實踐神學所包含的內容有：
pastoral qualifications, calling, internal calling, external calling,
牧養資格、呼召、內在的呼召、外在的呼召、
preaching or homiletics, teaching, leading public worship,
講道或講道學、教導、帶領公眾敬拜、
catechizing, counseling, evangelizing, doing missions, things like that.
教主日學、輔導、傳福音、以及宣教等。

In one sense, poimenics, is an extension of systematic theology as well,
從某種意義上說，教牧學也是係統神學的一個延展，
because it’s saying how do I take what the Bible teaches
因為它教導我們如何將聖經所教導的內容
and how do I convey that to other people in the church,
傳遞給教會中的其他人，
and how do I live out in church life.
以及我們應該如何在教會生活中活出聖經的教導。
But it could stand alone as well as its own department.
但是教牧學也可以作為一個獨立的部分而存在。

However, practical or pastoral theology
然而，實踐神學或教牧神學
must never be detached from systematic theology,
絕不能與係統神學分開，
or the ministry will ultimately be reduced to
否則教牧工作最終就會退化成一條一條
worldly principles of leadership that aims to please people,
旨在取悅人的世俗領導原則，
rather than understands what the Word of God says.
而不是去理解上帝的話語要傳講什麼。

Alright. So in conclusion, what you have here, is the whole field of theology,
好了。總而言之，係統神學要借鑒所有這些研究領域：
serving multiple purposes, exegesis, biblical theology,
解經學、聖經神學、曆史、哲學等等。
history, philosophy, etc., serving multiple purposes.
係統神學還有多種用途：
Building up the church in its worldview, number one,
首先，在其世界觀中建立教會；
defending the faith, number two;
第二，捍衛信仰；
demonstrating the fallacy of false teaching;
第三，證明虛假教導中的謬誤；
establishing the system of truth, and morality, and ethics;
第四，建立真理的道德倫理體係；
and guiding pastors in their work.
最後還要指導牧者的工作。

David Clark concludes,
大衛‧克拉克總結說，
all of these branches of theology are facets of the diamond
若把對真理的統一而全面的理解比作是鑽石，
of a unified and holistic understanding of truth.
這些神學分支則是這個鑽石的各個切面。
And so we need to seek out in the end,
所以，我們最終需要用一種有機融合的方式
in organic fusion of all these disciplinary horizons.
在這些學科中不斷追尋、探索。
And blessed is the man who understands them all.
若一個人能夠明白所有這一切，他是多麼的蒙福。
One day we will.
終有一天我們會的。
But that’s why we need each other,
這就是為什麼我們需要彼此，
like what we heard in chapel this morning.
正如我們在今天早上的敬拜中所聽到的，
I need even the men in this seminary,
我需要神學院裏的人們。
that’s why a one man seminary teacher doesn’t work,
這也是為什麼一間神學院不能只有一個老師，
you need each other in the disciplines.
因為我們在各個學科中都需要彼此。
And that’s one thing in the ministry too.
在教牧工作中也是這樣。
One day, you become a minister,
當你有一天成為一名牧師時，
seek out ministers who have the same overall convictions you do,
去找到那些與你持有大致相同的認信、
but who have different specialties,
但與你在專長上有所不同的牧師，
and you can learn from one another as you talk.
你們在相互的交流中就可以互相學習。
And that’s a wonderful thing.
這實在是一件很美好的事情。

感謝清教徒改革宗神學院特別授權