福音派何時始為聖經無誤分歧? 

 

張逸萍譯自﹕Derek J. Brown著﹕

When Did the Fracture over Inerrancy Occur Among Evangelicals?」(http://www.inerrantword.com/180015375/blog/180004060/220000064/When%20Did%20the%20Fracture%20over%20Inerrancy%20Occur%20Among%20Evangelicals? 

 

1970年代中以前,反對聖經無誤的人,主要是那些福音派以外的。讓我解釋﹕1986年,卡森(D.A. Carson)看見一篇文章,留意到福音派對聖經觀點的一致意見在轉變。他說﹕「直到相當最近,聖經的無謬(infallibility)或無誤(inerrancy)是福音派用以自我鑒別的旗幟,她的敵友都明白。」[1] 當卡森寫這篇文章的時候,已經很明顯,這樣的一致意見,已經「迅速消失」。[2] 

然而,早已有蹟象顯示,福音派在了解聖經權威問題上,有分裂在釀造中。潘恩(J. Barton Payne)在1967報導說﹕「懷疑聖經的誠實……不僅止於懷疑信仰之人……目前,在那些被歸類為福音派的神學家們那些仰望耶穌基督為主和救主的人之中,也有懷疑的聲音。」[3]  1980年,奧肯加(Harold JOckenga)也留意到同樣的發展。[4] 然而,巴刻J. I. Packer在他的書《超出為聖經而戰鬥》(Beyond the Battle for the Bible 1980)裏,把這個關於聖經無誤的現代爭論的起跑點放在﹕一位自稱福音派的人,比格(Dewey Beegle1963年所發表的一本書。[5]  

比格爭論說,上帝使用人為器皿寫聖經,包括允許經文裏有少許的歷史錯誤。[6] 再者,無誤的教義是站不住腳的,最終對神學的構成是無助的。[7] 為了支撐他的論點,他在猶大書、列王記下、創世記、使徒行傳、加拉太書、馬可福音、和哥林多前書中找到所謂錯誤。[8]  高登克拉克(Gordon Clark)回應,評論比格的作品為「拼老命、毫無禁忌、好鬥挑釁、時而陰險狡詐地對聖經真實性的攻擊。」[9] 可是,在1975年,比格的書《聖經,傳統和權威》(Scripture, Tradition, and Authority )次版,克拉克發表書評之前兩年, 淩賽爾Harold Lindsell)的書《超出為聖經而戰鬥》正式暴露,福音派日益為聖經無誤問題而分歧。[10]  

淩賽爾的同事,奧肯加在《超出為聖經而戰鬥》的序言中描繪福音派中越來越嚴重的分裂,他為兩個對立觀點作出簡單定義﹕「第一個觀點認為聖經全部是神所默示,是真實的,包括歷史、地理、和科學方面的教導;第二個觀點主張,聖經只有在救恩-歷史和教義方面的教導是真的,聖經在信仰和行為上是權威。」[11] 奧肯加同意淩賽爾所言,在聖經無誤方面的衝突,已經是福音派內部的問題,無可質疑。淩賽爾《超出為聖經而戰鬥》書中,也以多個福音派宗派和機構內部的變節例子支持這個聲稱。本文討論中最突出的例子,是淩賽爾自己曾是創辦教職員之一的一個基督教機構——富勒神學院(Fuller Theological Seminary),還有一本由富勒教職員羅葛斯(Jack Rogers)主編的書《聖經權威》(Biblical Authority)。[12] 

 

富勒神學院 

當富勒神學院在1947年開始的時候,創辦人查理富勒(Charles E. Fuller和其他就職的教職員[13] 展望他們成熟鞏固的神學院能為福音派提供所需﹕「一個跨宗派的神學院,在學術上傑出,又實質上是福音派的。」[14] 可是 ,當她成為福音派神學教育中心不久之後,這所學校發現自己被一個重要爭論所充斥,就是——聖經無誤。 

創辦之後十五年,就是1962年,十二月一日星期六,在教職員和董事會的一個計劃會議中,富勒神學院職員中醞釀著的,為聖經無誤的意義之分歧, 終於沸騰為激動的辯論。有神學院教職員建議採用一條新教義,奧肯加回應,質問為什麼有這樣的需要,於是辯論就爆發了。[15] 創辦人的兒子,也是即將成為富勒的院長的但以理富勒(Daniel Fuller),回應奧肯加的質問,聲稱聖經理裏有錯誤,只是以底本為辯解理由,不是足夠的。[16] 但以理富勒進一步堅稱,聖經自己本身只稱在啟示性部分無誤,至於歷史和宇宙論方面的細節,上帝「歪曲遷就當時的不完美知識,於是聖經裏有錯誤,但並不阻礙上帝啟示的目的。」[17] 內爾(E. J. Carnell)反對富勒的立場 ,認為這樣對聖經無誤的歸納著手法,是『哲學性災難』。[18] 

根據馬斯登(George Marsden)描繪當時情形,其中保守的——主張全部聖經無誤,包括歷史、地理、和科學細節的人,以更正教歷史來說明,「聖經無誤方面若有任何不堅定,就會打開一扇門,自由神學必然闖進來。」[19] 當大衛哈巴特(David Hubbard)在1963年冬季成為富勒神學院院長,幾位保守的教授辭職。根據一些教職員透露,哈巴特在聖經無誤一事上的立場是可疑的。[20] 他們每一個都說,他們離開的主要原因都是學校對聖經無誤問題的讓步。[21] 

 

葛斯主編的《聖經權威》 

雖然淩賽爾的書得到熱烈的好評,[22] 和嚴厲的批評[23] ,還有一本對手的書,可算是一個公開的警報﹕福音派裏面已經有一個重要的神學觀點在改變。《聖經權威》出版於1977年,是羅葛斯所編輯的文章概括集「警醒了很多福音派教會,還有一般的宗教團體,一個新的神學觀點對立,正在出現之中。」[24] 《聖經權威》出版之後,很多人開始明白,在福音派中,關於聖經權威,有兩個對立的學派。 

書中有一章,可算是這多作者的巨書的先行詞,[25] 羅葛斯爭論說,環視幾個歷史上的重要神學家之後,可說,「若說,二千年來的基督徒所相信的聖經權威,包括科學和歷史細節上無誤的現代觀念,是對歷史不負責任的話。」[26] 既然有這樣的話和這樣的爭論,我們現在非常清楚,在福音派行列中,有一些人不僅不滿聖經無誤的教義,他們現在準備好要以冗長和仔細的論點,表達他們的不滿。 

因為《聖經權威》的出版,福音派裏的破裂現在非常顯明了。但這不是一夜之間發生的事情﹕對聖經無誤的不一致,自從1960年代以來,已經在福音派裏潰爛——儘管是漸漸的。到1977年,羅葛斯編的書出版,那些自認是福音派的人,對聖經無誤的分裂,就不再含糊了。

 

 

作者Derek J. Brown是南部浸信會神學院的基督教神學客座教授,也是矽谷恩典聖經團契的牧師助理。他畢業於南部浸信會神學院(Louisville, KY),獲碩士和博士學位;他也曾是《Journal of Discipleship and Family Ministry》的執行編輯;發表學術性和流行書籍,包括﹕《Reformation Faith: Theology and Exegesis in the Protestant Reformation (UK: Paternoster, 2014);亦在《The Gospel Coalition》(TheGospelCoalition.org)、《Family Ministry Today》(sbts.edu/family)、《The Journal of Discipleship and Family Ministry》和《Credo Magazine》發表書評和文章;又曾在福音派神學協會全美會議中發表研究成果。

 


[1]D. A. Carson, “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture,” in Collected Writings on Scripture (Wheaton. IL: Crossway, 2010), 62. Carson is commenting on one of the main points in Martin Marty’s article, “Tensions within Contemporary Evangelicalism: A Critical Appraisal,” in The Evangelicals, ed. David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 170-88.    [2]Carson, “Recent Developments,” 62. [3]J. Barton Payne, “Apeitheo: Current Resistant to Biblical Inerrancy,” in Evangelicals and Inerrancy, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 115.  [4]Harold J. Ockenga, preface to Inerrancy and Common Sense, ed. Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsay Michaels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 7. [5]R. Albert Mohler notes two other indicators that a split was forming among evangelicals over inerrancy.  The first was a book written in 1957 by Gabriel Herbert in which he “accused British evangelicals of holding, in effect, to a view of scriptural truth and authority that is tantamount to idolatry.  He rejected not only inerrancy but also any affirmation, however, qualified, of the Bible’s total truthfulness.” R. Albert Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” in Five Views on Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 33. Mohler is referring to Gabriel Herbert,Fundamentalism and the Church of God (London: SCM Press, 1957).   J. I. Packer responded with Fundamentalism and the Word of God in which he defended the wholesale truthfulness of the Bible. See J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958). The second indicator was a meeting of evangelical leaders in 1966 in Wenham, Massachusetts where “it became clear that at least some evangelical scholars present had serious reservations about inerrancy” (Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks,” 32).   [6]Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 165-68. [7]Ibid., 170.  [8]Dewey Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 175-97.  This book was the revised edition to The Inspiration of Scripture, published in 1973 under a slightly different name. In the foreword to the revised edition, F. F. Bruce located Beegle’s first edition, The Inspiration of Scripture within the evangelical tradition, although he admits that Beegle had broadened his potential audience with the second edition.  See F. F. Bruce, foreword to Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, 7.     [9]Gordon H. Clark, “Beegle on the Bible: A Review Article,” JETS 20 (1977): 265. [10]In 1984, Packer recognized three primary precursors to the inerrancy debate. “The direct antecedents of the current evangelical debate were: (1) Dewey M. Beegle’s book,The Inspiration of Scripture (1963, enlarged and reissued as Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility, 1973), an attack by a professed evangelical on the idea of inerrancy, (2) the view that Scripture taught (and the use of it modeled) in some professedly evangelical seminaries during the sixties and seventies, and (3) Harold Lindsell’s strident, Battle for the Bible (1976), the first blast of his trumpet against what he saw as the monstrous regiment of biblical errantists in the modern evangelical world.” J. I. Packer, “John Calvin and the Inerrancy of Scripture,” in Inerrancy and the Church, ed. John D. Hannah (Chicago: Moody, 1984), 145.   [11]Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 8.  Clark summarizes the debate well when he observes, “Discussions on inerrancy in recent years have often distinguished between the theological teaching and the so-called phenomena—i.e., historical, chronological, geographical and statistical data” (Clark, “Beegle on the Bible,” 265).   [12]Jack Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1977).  [13]Wilbur B. Smith, Everett F. Harrison, Carl F. H. Henry, Harold J. Ockenga, and Harold Lindsell. [14]George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 55-56. [15]Ibid. [16]Ibid., 211.  [17] Ibid., 212. [18]Ibid.  [19]Ibid., 214.  The fall of Princeton, along with other schools that, in the past, did not regard inerrancy as a test of orthodoxy and who had also fallen headlong into liberalism (e.g., Harvard University, Andover Seminary, and Union Theological Seminary) served as cautionary tales to the faculty at Fuller.  [20]Including men like Wilbur Smith, Harold Lindsell, and Gleason Archer. [21]Ibid., 220-23, 224.  Charles Woodbridge had left Fuller in November 1956, having already indicated that he was concerned over Fuller’s drift away from orthodoxy.  See also Rudolph Nelson, The Making and Unmaking of an Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 104.  In the midst of Lindsell’s and Archer’s departure, another significant change occurred.  The statement in the school’s catalog that required the faculty to sign the statement of faith without mental reservation was removed from the 1964-65 version.  Later, in December of 1967, Daniel Fuller, in an address at a meeting of ETS in Toronto, argued for two kinds of Scripture: revelational and non-revelational (see Daniel Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History: A Critique in the Light of the New Testament,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society11 (1968): 75-83).  According to Lindsell, Fuller’s point was plain: “revelational scripture is wholly without error; nonrevelational Scripture is not” (Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 113).   In 1971, Fuller Seminary would adopt a new statement of faith in accord with the position Daniel Fuller articulated in Toronto (Allison, Historical Theology, 116). Whereas the former statement declared the Bible was “free from error in whole or in part,” the new statement only affirmed the Bible as an infallible rule in faith and practice (Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, 116). To Lindsell, the implications of the new statement were unmistakable: Fuller Seminary now clearly advocated partial inerrancy.  Lindsell would assert this conviction and provide even more evidence of Fuller’s departure from inerrancy in a later work.  See Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 183-243.  [22]Approval like that of Stanley Gundry who agreed with Lindsell’s argument that the abandonment of inerrancy usually led to an institutions departure from Christian orthodoxy over time. See Stanley N. Gundry, “Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?” inQuo Vadis, Evangelicalism? ed. Andreas Köstenberger (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 75-77.  In a recent historical assessment of   the debate, Barry Hankins designated The Battle for the Bible as a “bellwether call for the return to biblical inerrancy.”  Barry Hankins,Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: A Documentary Reader (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 20.  [23]Donald W. Dayton, “‘The Battle for the Bible’: Renewing the Inerrancy Debate,” The Christian Century, November 10, 1976, 976-80.  In a brief book review, Donald W. Shriver, Jr., of Union Theological Seminary in New York, concluded, “Here is a poorly researched, poorly reasoned, and poorly targeted book about the richest subject in the world!”  Donald W. Shriver, Jr., “Review: The Battle for the Bible,” Interpretation 32, no. 2 (1978): 214-18.   [24]John D. Hannah, ed., Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1984), vii-viii.  [25]I refer here to Jack Rogers and Donald McKim’s book, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979).  [26]Jack B. Rogers, “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack B. Rogers (Waco, TX: Word, 1977), 44. 

 

 

請到http://www.inerrantword.com/180015375/page/220000004/Inerrancy_Affirmations_Map ,肯定聖經無誤。

 

 

 

請繼續參考有關文章﹕

 

芝加哥聖經無誤宣言

聖經有沒有錯?

聖經無誤的證據

「無限無誤」vs「有限無誤」

聖經「有限無誤」的問題 

下一代?聖經無誤發展

福音派何時始為聖經無誤分歧?

我們可以相信新約文本嗎?

聖經批判學 

聖經無誤(Defending Inerrancy)網站上,有簽名支持聖經無誤的邀請,希望大家都支持﹕http://defendinginerrancy.com/sign-the-petition/

 

 

 

分享於﹕https://www.facebook.com/lois.chan.568/posts/387903294734845?pnref=story

 

            

回主頁

 

 

©Copyright 2015. All rights Reserved. Lois Chan