A Look at Biblical Inerrancy: Biblical Inerrancy in Church History (2B) Part 2
Speaker: Pastor Lin Cixin; Proofreader: Brother Liu Jiali; English: Brother Chen; Text: Sister Zhao
Okay, so we went up to 1960, then 1965. From 1960 to 1972, the Catholic Church held a 12-year-long conference called the Second Vatican Council. Of course, it didn’t meet every day, nor did it last 1000 days straight; there were periods of inactivity and return. Simply put, the Second Vatican Council aimed to allow the Catholic Church to directly engage with the world at the end of the 20th century and address contemporary issues. For example, they stopped denouncing Christianity as infidels. So, after 1970, you’d see one, two, or three Catholics joining many Christian fellowships, becoming friends with us, and singing the same hymns. You know, many Catholics were even reading the Bible, praying, and sharing the Gospel. Okay, the Vatican was changing; sorry, the Catholic Church was changing. The Second Vatican Council was a very important turning point.
Okay, let’s look at the Dei Verbum (the position paper on the Word of God) published by the Vatican during Vatican II . In the 1960s, they firmly believed that the inerrancy of the Bible referred to four aspects: faith, life, science, and history. However, when the final version of the Dei Verbum was published on November 18, 1965, the Catholic Church and Augustine finally separated. They said, “We firmly, sincerely, and inerrancy believe that the words of the Bible tell us what God wants us to know so that we may be saved. Because God wants us to know how to be saved, what God says in the Bible is inerrancy, and therefore, it doesn’t mention science or history.”
In 2000, Reverend Charles J. Chaput, the Archbishop of Denver, Colorado, addressed a meeting of Catholic bishops in the United States. His prepared address, titled * Dei Verbum Thirty-Five Years Later * (a position paper on the Word of God from the Second Vatican Council 35 years later), addressed how we should understand the Word of God 35 years later. He stated that * Dei Verbum* offers a middle way between protestant fundamentalism and secular rationalism. He said the final version of the position paper from the Second Vatican Council provides a middle path between Christian fundamentalism and secular rationalism, and clearly teaches divine inspiration of the sacred authors and therefore the inerrancy of the writings. He said the position paper clearly teaches that the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, and therefore their writings are inerrancy.
So, the books of scripture, which I didn’t read earlier but will now read in English, say: “The books of scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures.” God, for our salvation, has placed certain truths in the Bible, and the books of scripture resolutely, faithfully, and inerrancy teach these truths for our salvation. You see, Catholicism is responding to modern rationalism, that is, to the idea that modern people don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Catholicism is responding to this view, but it avoids the so-called literal interpretation of scripture as inerrancy. Occasionally, some Catholic scholars will object to this view, but they still return to the position that Catholicism, from Augustine to the present, has basically taught a more fundamental biblical doctrine.
Okay, so on. In the eighth and ninth paragraphs, we’ll just briefly mention that in the Christian community, there’s James Kugel (who was a professor of Hebrew at Harvard University from 1982 to 2003), H. Richard Niebuhr (uncertain, just guessing), and Olivier Clément (uncertain, just guessing).
The first is James Kugel, who taught at Harvard University from 1982 to 2003. His Bible course at Harvard, a non-Christian university, had enrollments as high as 900 students. He wrote a book called * How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now* (I just Googled it and found it; it’s also available on Amazon, and it’s not an old book). He said that early Church Fathers, or Catholic Fathers, believed the Bible was infallible and worked hard to harmonize and reconcile it to prove its infallibility.
So, although the entire Bible is a collection of texts, unfortunately, all ancient biblical commentators believed that the biblical text was error-free. Ancient commentators had four premises, and the third premise when interpreting scripture was that the Bible had no contradictions, no errors, and was completely harmonious, even though it was a collection of texts. This is from James Kugel, a scholar in the Christian community.
The second is Heimal Rhine Nipter (phonetic, uncertain). Simply put, there was no contradiction between Martin Luther and later Lutheran orthodox and Scholastic scholars; Martin Luther believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. Another is Olivier Father, who believed in Calvin and also had no contradiction with later Calvinists and theologians, similarly believing in the inerrancy of the Bible.
OK，好了，我们从奥古斯丁就暂时讲到这里。刚才说过，一直到1970年，大部分的人是不论哪一派的都相信，福音派、基要派，甚至乎奥古斯丁等等，当然马丁·路德跟加尔文这个不用说，都相信圣经无误。你至少记得奥古斯丁500年，马丁·路德、加尔文1500年代的，OK，普林斯顿1881，芝加哥宣言1974。
未经同意，请勿擅自在其它网站或平台转载和刊登课程的逐字稿；课程的逐字稿的版权归「中华展望」，禁止复印出版等商业用途。
中华网络圣约学院ccnci.org中华展望圣约学院[email protected]（PayPal）；chnci.org
历代我们都相信圣经无误，所以后来的Ernest Sandeen（欧内斯特·桑迪恩）1970说圣经无误是基要派（就是普林斯顿神学家）发明的，是毫无历史根据的。从奥古斯丁，最迟从奥古斯丁，经过了中世纪，马丁·路德跟他同时的天主教学者Johannes Eck（约翰内斯·埃克）、加尔文，路德、加尔文后来的路德宗、加尔文派的神学家，连那个Simon1678、天主教的教宗1893，都相信圣经无误，至少相信这个是天主教或者两千年来教会的核心教义。
两件事啊，圣经无误是从奥古斯丁就相信的，而圣经无误是2000年来教会的核心的教义，所以我们不是在教一套新的东西。那这个论点呢，马丁·路德、加尔文都要面对的，因为当时呢，宗教改革的时候呢，天主教就会说：你们懂什么？你们新兴的刚刚开始，我们天主教有，不但有圣经，有早期教父。路德，特别是加尔文，就会证明我们讲的什么因信称义啊等等呢，教父都在讲的。你们天主教说我们基督教没有根吗？我们有，不但有圣经，也有教父等等。
所以我们正统的福音派不但有无误的圣经，也有2000年来的见证，见证圣经无误，见证因信称义，见证基督神人二性，见证三位一体等等呢，还是很重要的。所以我们要读教会历史，首先一般的教会历史，《历史的轨迹》，校园出版社出版的。当时出版的时候，原稿英文是为了基督教中学的中学生写的，所以对你们来说不会太难就是，绝对不会太容易。改革宗立场的，坚定的基督教宗教改革历程。
读完这本，假如你好像今天晚上很糊涂，你要再糊涂一点的话，读伯克富的《基督教教义史》，最好读英文，中文我找到很多很多翻译的错误。所以我有一套的视频，早期《基督教教义史》，没有把整本书重新翻译，但是很多的片段，都已经在视频里面口头上重译过。认识教会历史是非常重要的。芝加哥圣经无误宣言代表着正统的福音派、基要派，不论是路德宗、改革宗、时代论、浸信会、卫理公会，或者是比较愿意考虑圣经的灵恩派，应该是多数的灵恩派，共同的信仰。
我在1975-78年在读神学硕士的时候，神学硕士是宣教学的，其中一位导师是简河培Harvie Conn，就是《认识现代神学》那本书的作者。一方面呢，我很佩服宗教改革，但是另外方面呢，有一次我跟Harvie Conn简河培说：哎呀，宗教改革是历史最伟大的事件。他走过路在走廊里面，他说：嘿嘿，too bad。他说：你这样相信，too bad。就是说你没有看到神还在做工，所以你要去世界各地亚洲等等，当然呢，他没有反对任何宗教改革的信仰，不是这个意思。
一方面我们遵从前人留下来的，另一个方面我们要表达，要应用。有一次简河培上课的时候他说：假如你在新几内亚写信仰宣言，你不必第一条写圣经的权威的，第一条可能是圣经论邪灵。在西马东马的Orang Asli（原住民）、 Oron？ 等等建立教会，信仰立场书第一条可能就是神与邪灵。不是没有圣经，第一章可能放在后面喽。就是我们要懂得面对怎么样的一个挑战，坚持。
OK，我的神学硕士论文的结论是这样子的。我们要做一个当代的面对时代的人呢，第一，圣经是绝对权威，但是要考虑到历史跟教会历史，要考虑到当代的世界和需要，要考虑到我自己——我的偏见、我的限制、我的背景。权威是圣经，另外历史、当代跟自我的认识也是不可缺少的。假如我要认识教会历史的话，坚持圣经的权威是不可以没有的，才能够读懂历史，也要懂得为什么在当代的挑战之下我读历史跟教会历史，还有我这个在读历史的人是怎么一个人，我的背景、我的偏见等等。假如要了解当代的时代的需要，圣经的权威是必须的，但是要有历史做参考借鉴，也要知道我是谁在研究当代的需要。每个人不一样，要自我诚实。要研究我自己呢，圣经的权威是必须的，研究我自己需要历史的参考，需要做的，当代我是成长在什么年代。所以无论权威方面，圣经是权威，无论研究历史方面，圣经是权威，研究当代的思想潮流挑战，圣经是权威，研究我自己，圣经是权威。但是四方面都要考虑到，这四方面不是平等的。就是研究圣经相信圣经的权威，研究自己自我的认识，研究历史，然后研究当代，不是平等的，圣经是权威。
那今天晚上我们做了一次历史的很简陋的研究就是，攻击普林斯顿的圣经无误论的人对历史的扭曲虚假化（falsification）。我说嘛，跟《达芬奇密码》一样，那《达芬奇密码》就更加的邪恶了。因为那个Ernest Sandeen呢，是比较自由派的，那到了这个《达芬奇密码》的作者Dan Brown，就比较后现代了，就是讲赢家是写输家的历史的那种的论点。
还有一件事情还没有提到的，我提过Stanley Grenz跟Roger Olson的reforming the center（对不起，Stanley Grenz写的），把福音派定义为浸信会跟卫理公会，改革宗不见了，OK，福音派的历史重写。我们改革宗要不要把自己放在福音派的大家庭里面？要的话，我们要看加尔文跟清教徒如何是福音派，在卫斯理之前就是，这个大河流是属于我们大家的。不然的话，别人帮你做二分法，别人再把你分，加尔文跟我们，不是跟那些不好的理性主义，就是普林斯顿神学院，威敏斯特跟普林斯顿都给你分，总之不好的就是硬的，好的他们捏造一个好的加尔文，一个好的什么东西是温暖的温馨的。不同派别的神学家、解经家都在做这些的手脚。
我们有光荣的历史，从圣经走过早期教父，到马丁·路德跟加尔文，清教徒、大觉醒、普林斯顿，还有这个荷兰的凯柏跟巴文克、慕理、范泰尔、克罗尼、傅兰姆，中间还有伯克富。大传统，奥古斯丁、马丁·路德、加尔文、清教徒、荷兰的敬虔主义、爱德华兹、贺治、小贺治、Warfield、荷兰的凯柏、巴文克、范泰尔、伯克富、慕理、克罗尼、傅兰姆，至少这么多，当然还有其他的了。
I consult these works without reservation. It’s not that I can’t write creative articles after reading them, but since I resolved to uphold biblical inerrancy and Reformed faith in 1993, I’ve mostly been doing direct communication work; I’m a messenger. As someone who studies history and philosophy, I’m quite good at writing articles—a five-page introduction, a 30- or 50-page article—we can all do that. I can also be the author of some Gospel of Paul, okay, a chapter, a hundred or so footnotes per chapter—that’s not difficult. But for the good of the church, we must uphold mainstream orthodox faith, especially mainstream Reformed faith, and avoid seeking out absurd theories, such as those of Michael Horton and Westminster Theological Seminary in California. Follow the right path, the main road. Because we don’t have time, and Asian churches don’t have time to get involved in these pointless debates. There is no longer enough time to properly convey and spread the clear biblical concepts of inspiration, inerrancy, authority, the Trinity, God’s attributes, sin, the Fall, total fall, Christ’s divine and human nature, Christ’s work, his obedience, his death, his resurrection, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, and ecclesial doctrines. Instead, let’s avoid engaging in debates between different factions for the benefit of the church.
Okay, our prayer concludes: Thank you, Heavenly Father, for giving us these two short evenings. We thank you, Holy Spirit, for protecting the church throughout history. Although there are many who attack your words and their pronouncements, please preserve our pure faith. We love your Son, your church, and your word. We will remain steadfast in our faith, continuing to serve you, and if possible, strive to be at peace with everyone. Have mercy on us. In the holy name of Jesus Christ, Amen!
Note: This transcript is for private study and exchange within the church and for the purpose of edifying the church and its leaders and preachers. Unauthorized reproduction and publication of the transcript on other websites or platforms is prohibited. The copyright of the transcript and images belongs to “Horizon Covenant,” and commercial use such as copying and publication is prohibited. In case of discrepancies between the text and the audio recording, the audio recording shall prevail. May God bless the editors and proofreaders for their corrections! For any revisions, donations, or other questions, please contact us via the following email methods: Horizon Covenant Academy (ccnci.org), Horizon Covenant Academy ([email protected] (PayPal); chnci.org)