福音派何时始为圣经无误分歧？
张逸萍译自：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，反对圣经无误的人，主要是那些福音派以外的。让我解释：1986年，卡森（D.A.
Carson）看见一篇文章，留意到福音派对圣经观点的一致意见在转变。他说：「直到相当最近，圣经的无谬（infallibility）或无误（inerrancy）是福音派用以自我鉴别的旗帜，她的敌友都明白。」[1] 当卡森写这篇文章的时候，已经很明显，这样的一致意见，已经「迅速消失」。[2]
然而，早已有迹象显示，福音派在了解圣经权威问题上，有分裂在酿造中。潘恩（J.
Barton Payne）在1967报导说：「怀疑圣经的诚实……不仅止于怀疑信仰之人……目前，在那些被归类为福音派的神学家们、那些仰望耶稣基督为主和救主的人之中，也有怀疑的声音。」[3]
1980年，奥肯加（Harold
J. Ockenga）也留意到同样的发展。[4] 然而，巴刻（J.
I. Packer）在他的书《超出为圣经而战斗》（Beyond
the Battle for the Bible ，1980）里，把这个关于圣经无误的现代争论的起跑点放在：一位自称福音派的人，比格（Dewey
Beegle）1963年所发表的一本书。[5]
比格争论说，上帝使用人为器皿写圣经，包括允许经文里有少许的历史错误。[6] 再者，无误的教义是站不住脚的，最终对神学的构成是无助的。[7] 为了支撑他的论点，他在犹大书、列王记下、创世记、使徒行传、加拉太书、马可福音、和哥林多前书中找到所谓错误。[8] 高登克拉克（Gordon
Clark）回应，评论比格的作品为「拼老命、毫无禁忌、好斗挑衅、时而阴险狡诈地对圣经真实性的攻击。」[9] 可是，在1975年，比格的书《圣经，传统和权威》（Scripture,
Tradition, and Authority ）次版，克拉克发表书评之前两年，
凌赛尔（Harold
Lindsell）的书《超出为圣经而战斗》正式暴露，福音派日益为圣经无误问题而分歧。[10]
凌赛尔的同事，奥肯加在《超出为圣经而战斗》的序言中描绘福音派中越来越严重的分裂，他为两个对立观点作出简单定义：「第一个观点认为圣经全部是神所默示，是真实的，包括历史、地理、和科学方面的教导；第二个观点主张，圣经只有在救恩-历史和教义方面的教导是真的，圣经在信仰和行为上是权威。」[11] 奥肯加同意凌赛尔所言，在圣经无误方面的冲突，已经是福音派内部的问题，无可质疑。凌赛尔《超出为圣经而战斗》书中，也以多个福音派宗派和机构内部的变节例子支持这个声称。本文讨论中最突出的例子，是凌赛尔自己曾是创办教职员之一的一个基督教机构——富勒神学院（Fuller
Theological Seminary），还有一本由富勒教职员罗葛斯（Jack
Rogers）主编的书《圣经权威》（Biblical
Authority）。[12]
富勒神学院
当富勒神学院在1947年开始的时候，创办人查理·富勒（Charles
E. Fuller）和其他就职的教职员[13] 展望他们成熟巩固的神学院能为福音派提供所需：「一个跨宗派的神学院，在学术上杰出，又实质上是福音派的。」[14] 可是
，当她成为福音派神学教育中心不久之后，这所学校发现自己被一个重要争论所充斥，就是——圣经无误。
创办之后十五年，就是1962年，十二月一日星期六，在教职员和董事会的一个计划会议中，富勒神学院职员中酝酿著的，为圣经无误的意义之分歧， 终于沸腾为激动的辩论。有神学院教职员建议采用一条新教义，奥肯加回应，质问为什么有这样的需要，于是辩论就爆发了。[15] 创办人的儿子，也是即将成为富勒的院长的但以理·富勒（Daniel
Fuller），回应奥肯加的质问，声称圣经理里有错误，只是以底本为辩解理由，不是足够的。[16] 但以理·富勒进一步坚称，圣经自己本身只称在启示性部分无误，至于历史和宇宙论方面的细节，上帝「歪曲迁就当时的不完美知识，于是圣经里有错误，但并不阻碍上帝启示的目的。」[17]
内尔（E.
J. Carnell）反对富勒的立场
，认为这样对圣经无误的归纳著手法，是『哲学性灾难』。[18]
根据马斯登（George
Marsden）描绘当时情形，其中保守的——主张全部圣经无误，包括历史、地理、和科学细节的人，以更正教历史来说明，「圣经无误方面若有任何不坚定，就会打开一扇门，自由神学必然闯进来。」[19] 当大卫·哈巴特（David
Hubbard）在1963年冬季成为富勒神学院院长，几位保守的教授辞职。根据一些教职员透露，哈巴特在圣经无误一事上的立场是可疑的。[20] 他们每一个都说，他们离开的主要原因都是学校对圣经无误问题的让步。[21]
罗葛斯主编的《圣经权威》
虽然凌赛尔的书得到热烈的好评，[22] 和严厉的批评[23] ，还有一本对手的书，可算是一个公开的警报：福音派里面已经有一个重要的神学观点在改变。《圣经权威》出版于1977年，是罗葛斯所编辑的文章概括集「警醒了很多福音派教会，还有一般的宗教团体，一个新的神学观点对立，正在出现之中。」[24] 《圣经权威》出版之后，很多人开始明白，在福音派中，关于圣经权威，有两个对立的学派。
书中有一章，可算是这多作者的巨书的先行词，[25] 罗葛斯争论说，环视几个历史上的重要神学家之后，可说，「若说，二千年来的基督徒所相信的圣经权威，包括科学和历史细节上无误的现代观念，是对历史不负责任的话。」[26] 既然有这样的话和这样的争论，我们现在非常清楚，在福音派行列中，有一些人不仅不满圣经无误的教义，他们现在准备好要以冗长和仔细的论点，表达他们的不满。
因
为《圣经权威》的出版，福音派里的破裂现在非常显明了。但这不是一夜之间发生的事情：对圣经无误的不一致，自从1960年代以来，已经在福音派里溃烂——尽管是渐渐的。到1977年，罗葛斯编的书出版，那些自认是福音派的人，对圣经无误的分裂，就不再含糊了。
作者Derek
J. Brown是南部浸信会神学院的基督教神学客座教授，也是硅谷恩典圣经团契的牧师助理。他毕业于南部浸信会神学院（Louisville,
KY），获硕士和博士学位；他也曾是《Journal
of Discipleship and Family Ministry》的执行编辑；发表学术性和流行书籍，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》发表书评和文章；又曾在福音派神学协会全美会议中发表研究成果。
[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.
请到http://www.inerrantword.com/180015375/page/220000004/Inerrancy_Affirmations_Map
，肯定圣经无误。
分享於：http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_c036712e0102vr8k.html
回主页