陈鸽 （译者附加小标题）
话语的沟通
话语，对神而言很重要。毕竟，话语是神所拣选的沟通的方式、表达的途径。神并非藉着一些神秘、主观的经历让人们得以认识他而得救。反之，他是通过他写下的话语（文字）对他所造的人类说出了清晰、客观、命题的真理。
经上的话语
这就是为什么彼得，虽然在基督的生平中，也在他使徒的服事中，都亲眼目睹了神超自然的大能，但他却指着圣经说：“我们并有先知更确的预言……。”（彼后1:19）即便他亲耳听见神从天上来的声音（17-18节），但他对神经上记着的话语更加确凿相信、毫无置疑。
信经的话语
显然，身为堕落的人类，没有圣灵的默示，我们无法复制神那完美、权威、无误、神圣的表达；我们达不到他完美沟通的水平。尽管如此，基督徒在教会历史中仍留下了记录的文件，在这场正在进行的灵界争战中，作为抵挡错误教训的重要辩护。几百年来，从古代遗留下来的信经、信条、以及要理问答，不断地提醒基督徒，我们的信仰是不可丝毫妥协、值得竭力争辩的真理。
达拉斯宣言
《社会正义和福音的声明》，也称为“达拉斯宣言”（Dallas Statement）就是为此目的拟订的。因着教会内部关乎“社会正义”的花言巧语迅速地散播所导致的困扰，所以，几位基督教领袖起草了这份“达拉斯宣言”作为回应。约翰. 麦克阿瑟（JohnMacArthur）就是这份宣言的关键署名者，他更采取紧急行动，进一步详尽地证实了他所担心的并非空穴来风。近几个月来，通过一系列的博客文章和信息，他揭露了福音派“社会正义”运动所造成的威胁。果然不出所料，从那时起，强烈的反对声浪就喋喋不休、此起彼落。
鸡和鸭对话
但令人惊讶的，甚至大失所望的是：批评者普遍不涉及文章、信息、以及“达拉斯宣言”中明确指出的实际内容，反之，许多福音派人士选择去反对他们认为这些宣言所代表的东西，而不是他们实际说出来的话语。换言之，这是沟通的失败，理解的错误。
跟着感觉走
提姆凯乐（Tim Keller）是曼“哈顿救赎主长老会”（Redeemer PresbyterianChurch in Manhattan）创建的牧师。他坦率地承认，他没有面对所辩论的实质内容，那是因为他相信：他对“达拉斯宣言”所感觉的想法比它实际所说的更重要。
言语行为论
凯乐诉诸于世俗哲学来证明他观点，他利用“言语行为理论”（speech-act theory）作为理解别人的关键方法。（你可以看他说话的视频。）他说：
你不能仅仅根据他们所说的来分析，你更必须藉着他们所行的来分析他们的话语……当我看完“达拉斯宣言”，如果你真的非常严谨的话，那么我想，几乎人人都可以吸收百分之八十……但最终，我最担心的，不是它说了些什么，乃是它想要做什么……它试图边缘化那些谈论种族和正义的人。它试图说：“你们不合乎圣经。”从这个角度来说，这是不公平的。
后现代诛心
也许无意识中，凯乐显明他自己是个后现代哲学家（postmodernphilosopher）。真理，对他而言，变成他个人感观的问题，甚至在“达拉斯宣言”中挟带了客观不存在的观点；他竟愿把不纯的动机和隐藏的议程投射在那些起草宣言的人身上。他说：
若有人叫我一条条地落实，问我：“你同意这一点吗？你同意那一点吗？”我会回答说：“你在看它所说的层面，而不是它所做的层面。”我认为它想要做的是，它真正想要说的乃是：“不要强调这一点，不要担心穷人，不要关心不义，这些都不重要。”这才是它要说的。尽管总的来说，我可以同意它，我也不喜欢它，我不喜欢的是它所做的。
真理的领域
这里很清楚，凯乐已经把这场辩论带进了更高的境界，远超越了社会正义的范畴。这是对真理本质的挑战和攻击；涉及如何解释圣经的问题。尽管凯乐的言语并非是对所有命题真理的彻底否定，但实际上，当他凭着个人的感觉解读“达拉斯宣言”时，他已经敞开了否定真理的大门。
这不能不令人质疑，凯乐是否考虑过，他对真理的态度，对他自己的服事所造成的影响。他的会众可以不管到底他说了什么，只要他们情感上被他的话语伤害了，就拒绝他所传讲的信息？
灵意解经法
不但如此，凯乐的解释方法，当应用到神的话语时，会变成一种邪门的释经学。难道神写作的本意要被推翻来为读者的主权让路吗？凯乐对“言论行为理论”（speech-acttheory）的肯定，为任意的主观和自创的宗教敞开了一道大门。在此后现代文化中，这种解释方法是通往叛教之门的麻醉剂。
毒瘤的扩散
事实上，凯乐的立场是一种有毒观点的象征，这种观点早已在教会中造成了巨大的破坏，就是根据你的感觉，可以无视真理，这种理念是今天流行的大多数异端邪说和变态神学的基本理论。今天，女权主义影响力的加增，对创世记的怀疑，对同性恋广泛的接纳，对上帝新启示的“需求”，等等现象，追根究底，都是源于对圣经权威的漠视和否定。
真理的本体
恰好与大众的看法相反，我们的创造主才是真理的唯一裁判者。唯有掌管全地至高的主宰，才可以宣布并决定何为终极的真理。在他无限的智慧中，他选择将他完美的真理，清楚、客观、命题地写在圣经上，向我们启示出来。
真理的价值
麦克阿瑟（John MacArthur）在《犹大书解经》他的开场白中，强调了真理至高的价值，以及神的话是如何阐明这一点的。他写到：
所罗门的劝勉：“你当买真理；就是智慧、训诲，和聪明也都不可卖。”（箴23:23）这句话显明了圣经中：真理是无价之宝。毕竟，神是“真理的神”（诗篇31:5；赛65:16），他荣耀了他真理的话语（诗119:160；诗138:2；约17:17）。主耶稣基督是神在肉身显现，充满了“恩典和真理”（约1:14；参：约1:17）。他自己就是“道路、真理、生命”（约14:6；参：弗4:21）。圣灵是“真理的灵”（约14:17；15:26；16:13；约一5:6），那些接受“真理的道”的，就受了圣灵为得救的印记（弗1:13）。还有，教会是“真理的柱石和根基”（提前3:15），为要捍卫与传讲真理的福音（参：西1:5）。其实，正因相信了真理，人们才可以从罪恶与死亡中得到释放（约8:32）。
教会的内奸
虽然神的子民有时会忘掉真理的重要性，但撒旦可从不健忘。自从人类堕落，那撒谎之人的父（参：约8:44）一直都在尽其所能摧毁真理、隐藏真理、扭曲真理，它想方设法要偷梁换柱、以假乱真。很具讽刺性的是，撒旦最致命的攻击，不是来自于那些公开否认真理的人，而是来自于那些自称明白并相信真理的人。[1]
撒旦的阴影
麦克阿瑟一针见血地指出，每一次对明确的命题真理攻击的背后，都有撒旦的根源。撒旦与人类的第一次碰头，就是告诉夏娃说：对她来说最重要的是判断神为什么说话，而不是听神实际上说了些什么话。（参：创3:1-5）
伊甸园中最初的骗术就是今天“言语行为理论”（speech-acttheory）的真正源头。夏娃不该相信它，我们也不该上当。
—————————-
Assaulting the Nature ofTruth
by Cameron Buettel
Monday, October 1, 2018
Words matter to God. After all, they are His chosen meansof communication. He doesn’t bring people to a saving knowledge of Himselfthrough mystical, subjective experiences. He has spoken clear, objective,propositional truth to His creatures through His written Word.
That’s why Peter—who saw firsthand the profoundsupernatural power of God, both in the life of Christ and in his own apostolicministry—pointed to Scripture as “the prophetic word made more sure” (2Peter 1:19). Even after Peter heard the voice of God from heaven (v.17-18), his unfailing confidence was in the written Word of God.
Obviously, as fallen creatures not inspired by the HolySpirit, we are incapable of replicating that divine standard of perfect,authoritative, inerrant communication. Nonetheless, Christians throughouthistory have deployed written statements as a vital defense in the ongoing waragainst false teaching. Ancient Christian creeds and catechisms have enduredfor centuries as constant reminders that the truth of our faith isnon-negotiable and worthy of vigorous defense.
The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel(also referred to as the Dallas Statement) was crafted for similar reasons.Troubled by the rapid rise of social justice rhetoric within the church,several Christian leaders drafted the Dallas Statement in response. JohnMacArthur is a key signatory to that statement and has moved with urgency tofurther substantiate his concerns in great detail. In recent months he hasresponded through a series of blog posts andsermonsexposing the dangers posed by the evangelical social justice movement. Asexpected, loud opposition has flowed freely ever since.
What is surprising—even disappointing—about the pushbackis the widespread failure of critics to engage with the actual content of whathas been stated clearly in the articles, sermons, and the Dallas Statement.Many evangelicals have chosen to argue against what they perceive thosedeclarations to represent—not what they actually say. What we’ve got here isfailure to communicate.
Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer PresbyterianChurch in Manhattan, is candid enough to admit his complicity in not dealingwith the substance of the arguments set forth. But that’s because he believeshow he feels about the Dallas Statement is more important than what it actuallysays.
Keller appeals to secular philosophy in order to make hiscase, using speech-act theory as the key to hisinterpretive approach (the video can be viewedhere).
You can’t just analyze words by what they say, you alsohave to analyze words by what they do. . . . When I go through [the DallasStatement]—if you go really, really strictly—I think just about anybody wouldtake about eighty percent of it. . . . But in the end what concerns me mostabout it is not so much what it’s saying but what it’s trying to do. . . . It’strying to marginalize people who are talking about race and justice. It’strying to say, “You’re really not biblical.” And it’s not fair in that sense.
Keller, perhaps unwittingly, is identifying as apostmodern philosopher. Truth, for him, becomes a matter of personalperception—even to the point of inserting ideas into the Dallas Statement thatare objectively absent. He’s even willing to go so far as to project motivesand concealed agendas onto those who drafted the statement.
If somebody starts to go down it with me and says, “Wouldyou agree with this, would you agree with this?” I would say, “You’re lookingat the level of what it says and not at the level of what it’s doing.” And I dothink what it’s trying to do—what it’s really trying to say is, “Don’t makethis emphasis, don’t worry about the poor, don’t care about the injustice, it’snot really that important.” That’s what it is saying. Even if I could agreewith most of it, I don’t like it. It’s what it’s doing that I don’t like.
Make no mistake—Keller has raised the stakes far beyondthe debate on social justice. This is an assault on the nature of truth itself.Hanging in the balance is how we interpret Scripture. While Keller’s wordsaren’t an outright rejection of all propositional truth, that is effectivelywhat he opens the door to when he subjugates the words of the Dallas Statementto his feelings about what has been said.
One can only wonder if Keller has considered theimplications of his approach to truth when it comes to his own ministry. Canmembers of his congregation reject his messages if they feel emotionallywounded by his words—regardless of what he actually says?
Moreover, Keller’s interpretive approach becomes asinister hermeneutic when applied to God’s Word. Does God’s authorial intentneed to be overthrown to make way for the sovereignty of the reader?
Keller’s affirmation of speech-act theory opens the doorto rampant subjectivity and self-styled religion. In this postmodern culture,such an approach is a gateway drug to apostasy.
In fact, Keller’s stance is emblematic of a poisonousperspective that is already wreaking havoc in the church. The notionthat you can disregard truth on the basis of how it makes you feelundergirds most of the heresies, false doctrines, and twisted theologiesplaguing the church today. The rise of feminism’s influence, doubts about theGenesis account, the widespread acceptance of homosexuality, the supposed needfor fresh revelation from God—these factors and more all stem from afundamental disregard for and dismissal of the authority of Scripture.
Contrary to popular opinion, our Creator is the solearbiter of truth. Only the sovereign Lord of the universe is allowed to decreeand determine what is ultimately true. And in His infinite wisdom, He chose toreveal His perfect truth to us written clearly, objectively, andpropositionally on the pages of Scripture.
In the opening remarks of his commentary on Jude, JohnMacArthur highlights the critical value of truth and how it is stated in God’sWord:
Solomon’s admonition “Buy truth, and do not sell it” (Proverbs 23:23) reflects the fact that truthis a precious commodity in Scripture. After all, God is the “God of truth” (Psalm 31:5;Isaiah 65:16),having magnified His Word which is truth (Psalm119:160; Psalm 138:2;John 17:17). The Lord Jesus Christ, God inhuman flesh, is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14;cf. John 1:17), being Himself “the way, and thetruth, and the life” (John 14:6;cf. Ephesians 4:21). The Holy Spirit is the“Spirit of truth” (John 14:17;John 15:26; John 16:13;1 John5:6), sealing the salvation of those who embrace “the messageof truth” (Ephesians1:13). And the church is the “pillar and support of thetruth” (1 Timothy3:15), protecting and proclaiming the truth of the gospel(cf. Colossians 1:5). In fact, it is by believingthe truth that people are set free from sin and death (John 8:32).
Although God’s people sometimes forget the importance ofthe truth, Satan never does. Ever since the fall, the father of lies (cf. John 8:44) has done everything in his powerto destroy, hide, and twist the truth—constantly attempting to replace it withfalsehood and deception. Ironically, his deadliest attacks do not come fromthose who openly reject the truth, but rather from those who profess to knowand believe it. [1]
It’s appropriate that John would point out the satanicfoundation underlying every assault on clear, propositional truth. Satan’sfirst interaction with humanity was to inform Eve that it was more importantfor her to judge why God spoke rather than to listen to what He actually said(cf.Genesis3:1–5).
That initial deception in the garden is the true originof speech-act theory. Eve shouldn’t have bought into it, and neither should we.
微信扫一扫订阅
