您的位置 首页 灵恩派

反神学的“教义”(麦克阿瑟)2018-11-5 陈鸽翻译

(译者加小标题)

愚民政策

 牧师的会众中需要有庇喱亚人”,就是“甘心领受这道,天天考查圣经,要晓得这道是与不是”的会员(徒17:11,因那些愿意教导神话语的人,必须对其严格的标准承担责任。然而不幸的是,对于那些想要发表个人观点及宣讲自己经验的人而言,恰恰相反,他们的生存空间取决于他们压抑别人一切的神学检验能力。

 逆我者亡

 为“圣笑”一类的神秘现象辩解的人,经常告诫批评他们的人说:不要消灭圣灵的感动,不要叫圣灵忧伤,还有最糟糕的是:不要亵渎圣灵,他们因此将自己置于危险的地步。往往,这些只不过是一种精神上的恐吓,但却相当有效,并且屡试不爽,因它压抑了理智的声音,免除神秘现象推动者的责任,让他们不用提供任何合理的圣经根据,来支持他们所做的事情。

 先入为主

 然而,请注意,所有这些消灭圣灵感动的严厉警戒,构成了一个很明显的循环推论。他们从一开始就假定了他们想要成立的观点,即这些现象确实是圣灵的工作。这就是推论的实质:若我们对于所发生的事情无法解释,或找不到圣经的依据,那么,我们就不敢质疑或挑战它们,因这些现象就是圣灵工作的实际证据。因此,纯粹的神秘主义等同于“圣灵的感动”。任何慎思明辨者试图按照(帖前5:21)的吩咐,试图“凡事察验”,就会受到警戒说他们冒犯了圣灵。

 非法定罪

 最竭力捍卫这一观点的其中一人是狄阿提嘎(WilliamDeArteaga)(译者注:简称“狄氏”)。为此,他写了《消灭圣灵之感动》一书,它封面上的推荐读到:“审视几个世纪以来对圣灵感动的抵挡”[1]。虽然这本书够不上学术水平,也不甚精确,但因为许多人曾利用它来支持灵恩神秘主义在教会历史上的合法性,所以我们必须加以批判。狄氏(DeArteaga)很肯定:凡反对现代灵恩现象的人,无一例外,都是末世的法利赛人。他甚至暗示,有些人可能已犯下了不可饶恕的罪。[2]

 法利赛主义成了狄氏(DeArteaga)反对的象征。他对法利赛人的评估很发人深省,他说:

 藐视神学

 “法利赛人真正的问题来自两个方面。第一,他们过分地高估了神学在人灵命中的角色,即将神学的正确当作敬虔生活的首要美德。因此,在此过程中,不知不觉地,那爱神与爱人的最大诫命便屈从于正确的神学理论了。第二,他们有一种人本的自信,以为他们的神学传统是完全无误的解经。因此,他们错将自己的神学,又称为古人的传统,放在与圣经同等的地位上。”[3]

 指鹿为马

 请注意,狄氏(DeArteaga)对法利赛主义的描述,等同于对神学变相地攻击,特别是对“神学的正确性”。他暗示:对神的爱与对正确神学的注重之间,在某些程度上,存有一些冲突。他甚至把纯正的神学和圣经本身对立起来,暗示那些关注“神学正确性”的人,错误地将他们的神学置于与圣经同等的地位。

 一体两面

 然而,这些都是错误的二分法。真正对神的爱与对真理的爱是分不开的。那真心爱神的心,一定会被真理吸引的(参:帖后2:10;约二 6),而且唯有从正确地解经当中,才能得出真正纯正的神学(提前 6:3-4;多 1:9)。那些定意要抛弃纯正神学的人,也必须要抛弃圣经(提后 4:2-3)。圣经和正确的神学不是相互矛盾的;他们乃是不可分割的双胞胎。你不可能一方面尊重圣经,另一方面藐视神学;不可能一方面爱神,另一方面对他的真理漠不关心,因他通过圣经,显明了他自己,因此要真认识神,就必须对圣经有正确的理解。

 张冠李戴

 此外,狄氏(DeArteaga)完全误解了法利赛人真正的错误,他们的问题根本不是过分强调神学的正统性,恰恰相反,他们的问题是没有严谨地去寻求明白圣经,其实,他们用自己僵化的传统取代了圣经。因此,导致他们堕落的是传统,不是神学。倘若他们一直持守圣经,并且将神学建立在唯独圣经的基础上,他们就不至于陷入错误当中了。主耶稣责备法利赛人,是因他们的骄傲自义、他们灵里的瞎眼、他们的律法主义、他们的缺乏怜悯、他们的好大喜功、以及他们对神的话语的无知;主从来没有因他们过分强调“神学的正确性”斥责他们。

 篡改史实

 狄氏的书所表现的是随心所欲、信手拈来、重新编写的历史。例如,他以美国“大觉醒运动”为例,表明“神学正确性”如何构成圣灵工作的拦阻和威胁。这个论点值得我们更进一步的探讨,因为“大觉醒”已经成了现代神秘派最喜欢利用的(复兴)模式,但正如我们下次即将看到的:十八世纪的那次大复兴,实际上是被神秘现象所破坏,而不是被驱动的。


(改编自“莽撞的信心”)

——————————–

 The Doctrine ofAnti-Theology

 by John MacArthur

Monday, November 5, 2018

 Pastors need Bereans in their congregations—members “whoreceived the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to seewhether these things were so” (Acts17:11). Those who would teach God’s Word must be held accountable toits exacting standards. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for those whodesire to preach personal opinions and exegete experiences. Their very survivaldepends on their ability to suppress all theological scrutiny.

 Defenders of mystical phenomena such as “holy laughter”frequently admonish critics that they are in danger of grieving, quenching, orworst of all, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Often this is nothing more than aform of spiritual intimidation. But it usually proves quite effective,silencing the voice of reason and absolving the promoters of mystical phenomenafrom any responsibility to give a sound biblical basis for what they are doing.

 Notice, however, that all the stern warnings againstquenching the Spirit constitute a very obvious circular argument. They assumefrom the outset the very point they wish to establish—that these phenomena arethe work of the Holy Spirit. This is the essence of the argument: if thingshappen we cannot explain or find a basis for in Scripture, we dare not questionor challenge them. Such phenomena are de facto proof that the Holy Spirit isworking. Thus sheer mysticism is equated with the moving of the Holy Spirit.Any discerning souls who attempt to “examine everything carefully” in accordwith 1Thessalonians 5:21 are warned that they are sinning against the HolySpirit.

One of the fullest efforts to defend this perspective is a book by WilliamDeArteaga titled Quenching the Spirit. The blurb on the book’s cover reads,“Examining Centuries of Opposition to the Moving of the Holy Spirit.” [1] This book is neither scholarly or accurate butmust be addressed since many have used it in an effort to give historicallegitimacy to charismatic mysticism. DeArteaga is convinced that all who opposemodern charismatic phenomena are simply latter-day Pharisees—and he impliesthat some may have already committed the unpardonable sin. [2]

 Pharisaism becomes the metaphor for all that DeArteagaopposes. His appraisal of the Pharisees is revealing:

 The Pharisees’ real problem came from two sources. First,they drastically overvalued the role of theology in spiritual life and madetheological correctness the chief religious virtue. Somewhere in the processthe primary command to love God and mankind was subordinated to correcttheology. Second, they had a man-given confidence in their theologicaltraditions as being the perfect interpretation of Scripture. They falselyplaced their theology, referred to as the traditions of the elders, on the samelevel as Scripture. [3]

 Notice that DeArteaga’s portrayal of pharisaism amountsto a not-so-subtle attack on theology—especially “theological correctness.” Heimplies that love for God is somehow in conflict with a concern for correcttheology. He even pits sound theology against Scripture, suggesting that those concernedwith “theological correctness” are guilty of placing their theology on the samelevel as Scripture.

 But those are false dichotomies. Real love for God isinseparable from love of the truth. The heart that genuinely loves God will beinclined to truth (see 2Thessalonians 2:10;2John 6). And true theological correctness is foundonly in an accurate understanding of Scripture (1Timothy 6:3–4;Titus1:9). Those determined to cast sound theology asidemust also abandon Scripture (2Timothy 4:2–3). Scripture and sound theology are notantithetical; they are indissolubly bound together. One simply cannot esteemScripture highly yet scorn sound doctrine. One cannot love God and remainindifferent to His truth. Scripture is how He makes Himself known. So a soundunderstanding of Scripture is essential to a true knowledge of God.

 Moreover, DeArteaga completely misunderstands the realerror of pharisaism. The Pharisees were in no sense guilty of an undue emphasison theological orthodoxy. If anything, their problem was the opposite. Theyweren’t careful enough in seeking to understand the Scriptures. In fact, theyset Scripture aside in favor of their own rote traditions. Tradition, nottheology, was their downfall. If they had stuck to Scripture and built theirtheology on that alone, they would not have fallen into error. Jesus confrontedthe Pharisees for their pride, their spiritual blindness, their legalism, theirwant of compassion, their love of power and recognition, and their lack ofknowledge about the Word of God. At no time did He rebuke them foroveremphasizing “theological correctness.”

 DeArteaga’s book is a freewheeling romp throughrevisionist history. For example, he uses the Great Awakening as a model toshow how “theological correctness” poses a threat to the working of the HolySpirit. This argument is worth examining more closely, because the GreatAwakening is becoming a favorite paradigm for modern-day mystics. But as we’llsee next time, that great eighteenth-century revival was actually derailed—notdriven—by mystical phenomena.

 

(Adapted from Reckless Faith)

关于作者: 陈鸽

热门文章