Sola Scriptura Reconsidered in a Redemptive-Historical Framework

From a Reformation Slogan to Jesus’ Revelation Principle

1. Two Different Starting Points of Authority

Within the sixteenth-century Reformation context, the slogan sola scriptura functioned as a liberating protest against the medieval triplex authority structure of “Scripture–Tradition–Magisterium,” which often subordinated Scripture beneath ecclesiastical pronouncements. Luther’s famous declaration at Worms signified not philosophical individualism, but the refusal to allow any merely human authority to overrule the divine authority normatively preserved in Scripture.

Yet the biblical authority principle embodied in Jesus’ own words operates at a more fundamental level: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). Here Jesus does not restrict the divine word to a single medium, but grounds human life upon the living utterance of God—spoken, written, embodied, and enacted within redemptive history. Thus the Reformation slogan addresses the conflict between human tradition and biblical text, whereas Jesus’ declaration addresses the ontology of divine self-disclosure.

Both concern authority, but one is polemic and contextual, the other ontological and redemptive-historical. For a movement like Adventism—self-consciously situated within the eschatological consummation of salvation history—this distinction becomes decisive.

1. The Biblical Witness to a Multi-Modal Revelation

The Bible itself never reduces divine revelation to a single form. Instead, Scripture testifies to a rich diversity of revelatory modes:

• Direct speech(Gen 3; Exod 3),
• Patriarchal oral tradition(Gen 5; Heb 11),
• Dreams and visions(Gen 28; Dan 7),
• Prophetic proclamation(Jer 1:9; Amos 3:7),
• Historical acts of judgment and deliverance(Isa 10; Exod 12),
• Incarnation as climactic revelation(Heb 1:1–2; John 1:1,14),
• Pentecostal and ongoing Spirit guidance(John 16:13; Acts 2).

Textual revelation is thus normative, but not exclusive. To equate the fullness of revelation with the literary canon alone risks collapsing the redemptive-historical structure into a static bibliology alien to Scripture’s own self-presentation.

III. From Literary Witness to Living Word: Christ the Center

Jesus’ conflict with the scribes and Pharisees exposes the danger of what may be called textual absolutism. His words are striking:

“You search the Scriptures… yet you refuse to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39–40)

Christ affirms Scripture’s authority, but rebukes its isolation from its telos. The Scriptures bear witness to Him, but they are not the life-giving source in themselves. Thus:

• The Scriptures are the normative witness of the Word,
• Christ is the Word Himself,
• The Spirit is the One who actualizes the Word in history.

This establishes a revelatory order:

Christ (the ontological Word) → Scripture (the normative witness) → Spirit (the interpretive and applicatory power)

This order prevents the reduction of the Word to the textual artifact and avoids the opposite error of Spirit mysticism detached from biblical normativity.

1. Revelation, Canon, and the Continuing Work of the Spirit

Canon formation itself occurred under the Spirit’s guidance within the believing community. This yields three important theological observations:

1. Pre-canonical revelation existed(Abraham, Moses, prophets).
2. Canonical formation presupposed Spirit-led discernment, not solitary proof texts.
3. Post-canonical Spirit guidance was promised, not revoked (John 16:13; Acts 2).

The New Testament authors themselves cite non-canonical sources (e.g., Jude 9; Acts 17:28), demonstrating that truth was recognized beyond the boundaries of the fixed canon without undermining the canon’s normative authority.

Thus, Scripture is the norming norm, but not the only locus of divine action or speech.

1. “The Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus”: Canon and Prophecy in Revelation

Revelation opens with a crucial theological pairing:

“…who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:2).

Historically, when John wrote, the New Testament was not yet canonically consolidated; thus “the word of God” referred primarily to the Old Testament Scriptures, yet also to prophetic revelation and the gospel proclamation. In Revelation, the pairing is not accidental but structural:

• “The word of God”= the normative content of revelation.
• “The testimony of Jesus”= the Christ-centered interpretive and prophetic agency of revelation.

This distinction is clarified explicitly:

“…the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10).

And it becomes eschatologically constitutive of the remnant:

“…who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17).

Thus the remnant possess both Scripture’s normative authority and the prophetic witness of Jesus mediated through the Spirit.

This is functionally parallel to Jesus’ rebuke concerning Moses:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.” (John 5:46)

Rejecting Christ necessarily entailed rejecting Moses, for Moses testified of Christ.
Likewise, if Scripture testifies that the Spirit of prophecy accompanies the remnant, then rejecting that prophetic witness is not fidelity to Scripture, but denial of Scripture’s own claims.

In short, fidelity to the canon requires fidelity to what the canon predicts, endorses, and commands.

1. The Remnant Across the Closing of Probation

Revelation distinguishes two eschatological phases:

1. In the era of mercy (prior to the close of probation):
   The remnant are defined by:

• Commandment-keeping
• Possession of the testimony of Jesus(Rev 12:17)

Here the Spirit of prophecy functions as illumination, warning, instruction, and preparation.

2. After probation closes and divine wrath is poured out:
   The saints are described as:

“Here is the patience of the saints; here are they who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” (Rev 14:12)

At this point, the prophetic illumination has completed its preparatory mission, and what sustains the saints is “the faith of Jesus”—the righteousness of Christ that saves “to the uttermost” (Heb 7:25).

Thus the Spirit of prophecy serves the church toward that final maturity, but does not replace the faith of Jesus in the final crisis.

VII. The Adventist Integration: Normative Authority, Illuminative Witness, Ecclesial Discernment

Adventist theology, at its best, preserves a threefold structure:

1. Scripture— the normative authority (norma normans).
2. Spirit of Prophecy— the illuminative authority for the eschatological community.
3. The Spirit-led community— the discerning and embodying authority (Acts 15:28).

This triadic pattern:

• Prevents Rome’s elevation of tradition above Scripture,
• Avoids Protestant cessationist reductionism,
• Avoids charismatic anti-nomian subjectivism.

It is a functional fulfillment of Jesus’ Matt 4:4 principle:
the people of God live by every word that proceeds from God, not merely by every text that has been canonized.

VIII. Toward a Logos-Centered Revelation Theology

A more biblically comprehensive formulation would be:

1. Source of revelation:the Triune God.
2. Center and fullness:the incarnate Christ—the ontological Word.
3. Normative witness:the canonical Scriptures.
4. Illuminating and applicatory witness:the Spirit—including the Spirit of prophecy.
5. Historical embodiment:the Spirit-formed church.
6. Final goal:new creation and face-to-face communion (Rev 21:3).

In this structure:

• Sola Scripturaretains its normative function,
• Christ retains His ontological and hermeneuticalcentrality,
• The Spirit retains His historical and eschatological

No relativism is introduced because all illumination is tested by Scripture and oriented to Christ.

1. Conclusion: From Reformation to Consummation

The true inheritance of the Reformation is not a fossilized slogan but a living principle: the church must always be reformed by the Word of God. In the last days, this means more than wielding the canon against tradition—it means submitting to Christ the Word, to Scripture the witness, and to the Spirit the illuminator.

Only in such a Logos-centered framework can the remnant faithfully proclaim the final message, endure the final crisis, and welcome the coming King.

“唯独圣经”：在救赎史视野中的再定位与超越

——从宗教改革口号到耶稣启示观的神学展开

一、问题的起点：两种不同的权威性宣告

十六世纪宗教改革时期，马丁·路德在沃尔姆斯议会前所提出的“我站在此”与“唯独圣经”（sola scriptura）口号，是一种处于历史危机中的革新呼声。它的指向并非反对圣经本身，而是反对将教会训令、传统与教阶权威置于圣经之上的体制性垄断。该口号在当时确实具有重大解放意义，恢复了圣经在教会生活中的规范性地位。

然而，更早在旷野试探中，耶稣基督提出的宣告，揭示了更为根本的启示原则：“人活着，不是单靠食物，乃是靠上帝口里所出的一切话”（太4:4）。此处的“一切话”指向上帝多样化的自我表达：包括直接启示、口述传统、文字记载、圣灵引导与道成肉身本身。换言之，耶稣所呈现的是一种启示本体论原则，而宗教改革所捍卫的是一种权威监管原则。两者关注点不同：

• 宗教改革处理的是：传统 vs 圣经文本的规范性冲突；
• 耶稣处理的是：上帝启示本体 vs 启示载体的终极关系。

这一差别使我们能够更深刻地理解“唯独圣经”应如何在救赎史中被定位，而不致将其绝对化为一种封闭的启示观。

二、启示的圣经见证：先于、超越并归于圣经的圣言

圣经自身从未宣称“上帝的启示只存在于文字之中”。相反，圣经见证了启示在历史中的多样活动方式：

• 上帝在伊甸园直接对人说话（创3）；
• 在族长时代，上帝藉梦境与直接应许启示（创28；创15）；
• 透过口述的信仰传统传承真理（来11）；
• 借着先知的口宣告上帝的作为（耶1:9）；
• 借着历史事件施行审判与拯救（赛10；结36）；
• 最终借着道成肉身的基督启示达到顶峰（来1:1–2）。

从这个意义上说，圣经作为正典，是上帝启示的规范性文字见证，却不是上帝启示的唯一存在形式。若将“唯独圣经”误解为“唯有圣经，除此之外上帝不说话”，就会背离圣经本身对启示的见证。

三、从文字到位格：基督对“文本中心主义”的超越

耶稣引用圣经，却不断突破对文字的封闭化处理。他对法利赛人的批判具有极强的神学指向性：

“你们查考圣经……然而不肯到我这里来得生命。”（约5:39–40）

这里揭示了关键结构：

• 圣经指向基督；
• 基督是生命源头；
• 圣灵是将真理活化于信徒心中者（约16:13）。

因此，圣经具有规范性，但不是启示的本体；基督才是启示的本体。这种秩序可以表述为：

基督（道的本体） → 圣经（道的规范文字见证） → 圣灵（道的活化与引导）

这防止了“文本偶像化”，即将启示的载体绝对化，脱离其所指向的终极实在。

值得注意的是，耶稣的启示观包含一个重要逻辑原则：

“你们若信摩西，也必信我，因为他书上有指着我写的话。”（约5:46）

耶稣的意思是：拒绝基督 = 拒绝摩西，因为摩西的文字见证指向基督。这一逻辑后面将对理解启示录具有关键意义。

四、正典形成与圣灵引导：从过去到末世

正典生成过程本身就是圣灵在信仰群体中引导历史的见证：

1. 正典之前，上帝已真实说话（挪亚、亚伯拉罕、族长）。
2. 正典形成期，教会在圣灵引导下辨别哪些文本具有规范权威。
3. 正典形成之后，圣灵的引导并未止息（约16:13）。

因此，圣经为检验一切启示的最高规范，但不是上帝启示的全部范围。

五、启示录的结构性见证：圣经与预言之灵的并列

启示录为处理“唯独圣经”问题提供了关键线索。在启示录开篇，约翰这样描述自己的见证：

“这人便将上帝的道和耶稣基督的见证都证明出来。”（启1:2）

此处清楚呈现两条并列的启示线：

1. 上帝的道（the word of God）
2. 耶稣基督的见证（the testimony of Jesus）

在约翰写作时代，新约正典并未形成最终形态，因此“上帝的道”主要指旧约及上帝的启示。而“耶稣基督的见证”则指基督藉圣灵向教会的见证与启示。

启示录进一步定义这一关系：

“耶稣的见证就是预言之灵。”（启19:10）

也就是说：

• “耶稣的见证” = “预言之灵”
• 是基督藉圣灵向末世群体的活的见证

由此，启示录不是把启示锁进过去，而是把启示推进到末世。

六、余民的双重标志：启12:17 与启19:10 的神学结构

启示录对末世信徒的身份有明确定义：

“守上帝诫命、为耶稣作见证的余民。”（启12:17）

其构成如下：

1. 守上帝诫命—— 律法与顺从维度
2. 为耶稣作见证—— 启示与见证维度

而启19:10则解释“见证”本体：

“耶稣的见证就是预言之灵。”

由此得到清晰结构：

余民 = 守诫命 + 具预言之灵

这对复临信徒有重大启示：

• 若圣经见证末世群体将具备预言之灵
• 而我们却拒绝预言之灵
• 那么这并非“忠于圣经”，反而是“不信圣经”

这与约5:46逻辑完全平行：

若信摩西 → 必信基督
若信启示录 → 必接纳预言之灵

否认预言之灵并非坚持唯独圣经，而是否认圣经所预告的末世现实。

七、恩门关闭前后的见证：启12:17 与启14:12 的互补性

启示录不仅定义余民的标识，也定义其在救赎史中的阶段性功能。

（1）恩典时期：启12:17

余民的见证是：

• 守诫命
• 有耶稣的见证 = 预言之灵

此阶段的预言之灵承担：

• 光照
• 劝勉
• 警戒
• 装备

其目标是使教会预备迎接末后的大危机。

（2）恩门关闭后：启14:12

当审判进入终局，“预言之灵”的使命完成，而此时圣徒的标志为：

“守上帝诫命和耶稣真道的。”（启14:12）

这里的“耶稣真道”不是预言之灵本身，而是能救到底的基督的义（来7:25）。

预言之灵的功能是引导余民进入这种成熟的信心顺从。因此：

• 预言之灵是预备性的
• 耶稣真道是终局性的

两者并非竞争，而是救赎史的功能互补。

八、复临神学的整合优势：规范、光照与群体辨明

复临信仰的神学遗产在此显现出高度的整合能力：

1. 圣经—— 规范性权威（norma normans）
2. 预言之灵—— 光照性权威（illumination）
3. 圣灵引导下的群体—— 辨别与实践的场域（徒15:28）

这种格局既避免：

• 天主教式的“传统凌驾圣经”
• 新教式的“唯理性停滞”
• 灵恩派式的“主观化泛滥”

也贴合耶稣的启示观：“活着靠上帝口里所出的一切话”（太4:4）。

九、“唯独圣经”的局限与“道本位启示观”的建构

若将“唯独圣经”绝对化，就会出现一个复临内部长期存在的矛盾：

• 我们承认预言之灵是圣灵的工作，是对圣所真理的进一步启示；
• 但在信仰表达上却又不知如何将之安放在“上帝的道”的范畴之内；
• 导致一方面肯定其启示性，另一方面却又否认其“话语”属性；
• 结果形成“理论上不接纳、实际中又依赖”的张力。

这是由于：

将“上帝的道”狭义化为“文字正典”，
而非“上帝所有形式的自我表达”。

若以耶稣的口号为准绳：“靠上帝口里所出的一切话”，则：

• 口述启示（族长时期）
• 文字正典（圣经）
• 末世光照（预言之灵）

都能自然地安放在“道”的同一范畴之内，各司其职、互补运作。

从此，我们可以提出一种更贴近圣经见证的道本位启示论：

1. 源头：三一上帝
2. 中心与顶峰：道成肉身的基督
3. 规范：圣经正典
4. 光照与应用：预言之灵与圣灵引导
5. 辨明与见证：信仰群体
6. 终局：新天新地，与上帝同住（启21:3）

此框架既保留宗教改革的成果，又超越其局限，并符合启示录的末世结构。

十、结语：从宗教改革到救赎完成

宗教改革的“唯独圣经”让圣经摆脱了传统的箝制；
耶稣的“口里所出的一切话”揭开了启示的全景；
启示录的“上帝的道与耶稣的见证”揭示了末世的结构性见证；
余民的“双标志”揭示了末世教会的身份与使命。

因此，末世子民的任务不是回到中世纪，也不是停留在十六世纪，而是参与救赎史的终章：既守诫命，又有见证；既认规范，又受光照；既持守圣经，又顺服圣灵；既被真理带领，又被基督义覆盖。

如此，教会才能完成三天使信息的使命，忍耐度过最后的大试炼，最终迎接那“成了”的荣耀时刻。