弟兄，我们现在正在我的YouTube频道上直播。 Brother, we are now live for the people watching on my YouTube channel.
正如大家所知，由于我们使用StreamYard，当我们 亲爱的弟兄乔纳森·普雷让说话时，会有大约20秒的延迟。 As people already know, because we're using StreamYard, there's going to be about a 20-second delay when our precious brother here, Jonathan Prejean, says something and it reaches you.
但愿大家趁此机会为我们的讲员祷告，他慷慨地来到这里，牺牲宝贵的时间教导我们。 Nonetheless, this is when you guys take a moment to pray for our speaker, who has been gracious enough to come here and sacrifice some of his precious time to educate us.
我要让他自我介绍一下他的背景和现状，然后我们再继续。 I'm going to let him introduce himself, what his background is, and what his current position is, and we'll take it from there.
弟兄，感谢你这样做。 So, brother, thank you for doing this.
我非常感激。 I really appreciate it.
你能听到我吗？ Can you hear me?
谢谢。 Thanks.
很高兴认识你，山姆。 Nice to meet you, Sam.
我是乔纳森·普雷让，我一直是个。 Jonathan Prejean, and I have been.
……我是个平信徒。 . . I'm a layman.
我没有正式学习过天主教神学，但我对它有很长时间的兴趣，自200 2年起就充满热情。所以，你知道，我研究这些已经有一段时间了。 I have not done Catholic theology formally, but I've been interested in it for a very long time, since I got a passion in 2002. So, you know, I've been studying these things for a while.
我曾与东正教有过很好的对话。 I had some very good dialogues, a lot of times with the Eastern Orthodox.
我与佩里·罗宾逊是好朋友，他确实帮助我找到了学习的方向。 I'm good friends with Perry Robinson, and he was a guy who really kind of helped me find things to learn about.
我研究信仰已经很长时间了。 I've been studying the faith for a long time.
我的背景是物理学，所以我对创造一直心怀敬畏。 My background is in physics, so I've had an awe of creation for a long time.
这将是今晚的主题：作为基督徒，我们要正确地敬畏神 ，就要有一种敬畏之心，认识到神是何等超越我们。 That's really going to be the theme tonight: what we have to have as Christians to properly respect God is a sense of awe, just realizing how far beyond us God is.
当我们不这样做时，人就会犯错。 When we don't do that, that's when people make mistakes.
所以这将是我今晚要多谈的内容。 So that's what I'm going to talk about a lot tonight.
一个有趣的小事实。 Interesting little fact.
我的祖先约瑟·威利斯是密西西比河以西第一位宣讲神道的浸信会传道人。 My ancestor, Joseph Willis, was the first Baptist preacher of the word west of the Mississippi River.
几年前得知这件事时，它给了我一些启发，因为当时在路易斯安那州做新教牧师是非法的。 Finding out about that a number of years ago was one of those things that gave me some perspective, because at the time it was illegal to be a Protestant minister in Louisiana.
所以，这对他来说是个很大的风险。 So, this was a big risk for him.
他骑着骡子游过密西西比河去传讲神的道。 He swam across the Mississippi River on a mule to preach the word of God.
他是一个为主火热的人，我完全相信他的信心和我将来所能拥有的一样伟大。 That's a man who was just on fire for the Lord, and I absolutely believe that his faith was as great as anything I'm ever going to have.
这里的重点不是贬低那些爱主的加尔文主义者或浸信会信徒，因为他们中有很多人。 The point here is not to trash people who are Calvinists or Baptists who love the Lord, because there are plenty of them.
你知道，因为我们有神学上的分歧，我认为人会犯神学错误，但这并不意味着我不认为他 们是基督徒，不认为他们爱耶稣，也不认为他们有什么不对或邪恶导致他们有这些信仰。 And, you know, because we have theological disagreements, and because I think that people can make theological mistakes, that doesn't mean that I don't think they're Christians, that I don't think they love Jesus, and that there's anything wrong with them or anything evil about them that causes them to have those beliefs.
这不是我的信念，也不是我今晚要表达的。 That's just not what I believe, and that's not what I'm going to try to get across tonight.
在开始之前，我只想让大家明白这一点。 I just want everybody to understand that before I start.
我的重点是基础神学。 My focus is fundamental theology.
那么，这基本上是什么意思呢？就是我们如何以合乎 理性的方式确认耶稣是神，用我们的理性来敬拜神。 So, what that basically means is: how do we affirm that Jesus is God in a coherent way that uses our reason to worship God?
为什么我选择耶稣作为根本呢？ And why do I pick Jesus as fundamental?
因为这就是根本。 Because that's basically it.
哥林多前书十五章十二到十九节论到复活对信仰的重要性。 1 Corinthians 15, verses 12 to 19, talks about how important the resurrection is for the faith.
保罗在那里说：「若基督没有复活，我们所传的便是枉然，你们所信的也是枉然。」 The words that St. Paul uses there are: if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain.
「若基督没有复活，你们的信便是徒然，你们仍在罪里。」 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you're still in your sins.
「我们若靠基督只在今生有指望，就算比众人更可怜。」 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
这就是根本。 That's basically it.
这是我们必须相信的，是我们基督徒生活的核心，是我们信仰的核心。 That's what we have to believe, and so that's the core of our Christian life; that's the core of our Christian belief.
如果我们不能以理性解释、证明和捍卫这信仰，我们就难以向世界作见证。 If we don't believe that in a way that we can explain, justify, and defend by reason, then we're in terrible shape in terms of being able to witness to the world.
这就是我多年来关注这个问题的原因，也是我认为最重要的事。 That's why I focus on this; that's why I have focused on this for many years, and why I believe that it's the most important thing to do.
那么，说耶稣是神是什么意思呢？ So, what does it mean to say that Jesus is God?
神是我们凭自然所认识的。 Well, God is what we know by nature.
祂是那位无形的创造者，创造了一切。 He's the one immaterial creator of everything that is.
通过启示，我们知道那就是旧约中以色列所敬拜的独一真神。 By revelation, we know that that's the one God that was worshipped by Israel in the Old Testament.
这就是神的定义。 That's the definition of God.
作为基督徒，我们相信历史上的拿撒勒人耶稣是神的独生子，从神而生，与父同为一神。 What we believe as Christians is that the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, is the only begotten Son of God, God from God, numerically one God with the Father.
这意味着只有一位神，不是多位。 That means one God; there are not more than one.
祂是完全的神，也是完全的人。 Fully God and fully man.
这就是我们对耶稣的信仰，我要讲的是我们如何合乎理性地表达这一信仰。 So, that's what we believe about Jesus, and what I'm talking about is what we need to be able to coherently say that.
关于神是什么，有不同的信仰。 So, there are different beliefs on what God is.
当我谈论神时，我指的是一神论。 When I talk about God, what I mean is monotheism.
一神论的信仰是，只有一位真神的本性和能力，祂创造了一切。 The belief in monotheism is that there's one true divine nature and power of the creator of everything that is.
这就是一神论的概念。 So, that's the concept of monotheism.
从这个意义上说，我们称犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教为一神论宗教。 In that sense, we call Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all monotheist religions.
接下来我们会谈到为什么我们认为某些基督教和伊斯兰教的信仰不符合我们认为的真信仰， 但这就是一神论，因此我们认为它们是一神论宗教：因为我们相信只有一位神创造了一切。 Now, we'll talk about why we may think that certain Christian beliefs and Muslim beliefs don't line up with what we think is the true belief about those things, but that's what monotheism is, and that's why we consider them monotheist: because we do believe that there's only one God who created everything that is.
多神论认为有许多神的能力。 Polytheism is the belief that there are many divine powers.
这些通常只是宇宙的一部分。 Those are typically just parts of the universe.
我们今晚不谈多神论，但那就是这种信仰。 We're not going to be talking about polytheism tonight, but that's what that belief is.
还有泛神论，认为神性是宇宙的属性或在宇宙本身。 Then there's pantheism, which is the idea that divinity is a property of the universe or in the universe itself.
有几种哲学信仰持有这种观点，但那不是我们要讨论的。 There are several philosophical beliefs that have that, but that's again not what we're going to deal with.
我们相信耶稣基督在一个位格中结合了神性和人性，这位格就是神的道，神的儿子。 So, we believe Jesus Christ unites divine nature and human nature in one person, and that person is the Word of God, the Son of God.
那么，为什么我要谈论加尔文主义呢？ So, why am I talking about Calvinism now?
我长期以来一直认为加尔文主义不符合尼西亚信经；它 没有教导尼西亚信经关于神是什么和耶稣是谁的内容。 I have believed for a long time that Calvinism is not Nicene; that it does not teach what the Nicene Creed says about what God is and who Jesus is.
但我不是加尔文主义者；我从未是加尔文主义者，所以我与他们没有很多共同基础来讨论。 But I'm not a Calvinist; I've never been a Calvinist, so I haven't had a lot of common ground with Calvinists for discussion.
你知道，我对他们有些同情，因为正如我所说，我发现 我的祖先是一位特定浸信会传道人，他为神的道火热。 You know, I've got some sympathy because, like I said, I found out my ancestor was a Particular Baptist preacher who was on fire for the Word of God.
所以，我有些同情。 So, I've got some sympathy.
但在智识上的讨论和经验方面，我没有。 But, you know, in terms of intellectual discussions and experiences, I haven't had those.
然而，我最近在做一些关于三位一体的研究，恰巧有一位加尔文主义 者请我证明我的立场，解释为什么我认为加尔文不符合尼西亚信经。 However, I have been doing some work on the Trinity recently, and just providentially, a Calvinist asked me to justify that position, to explain why I thought that Calvin wasn't Nicene.
所以，这与我正在进行的尼西亚神学研究相符。 So, it fit with the work that I was already doing on Nicene theology.
我说：「好吧，看来是个好时机，」于是我写了一篇文章。 I said, "Okay, sounds like a good time," so I did a piece on it.
在研究这篇文章时，我发现这在改革宗浸信会中是个大问题，因为许多 改革宗浸信会信徒在写关于尼西亚神学的文章，特别是神的单纯性。 In researching the piece, I found out that this was actually a big deal among Reformed Baptists at this time, because there were a lot of Reformed Baptists who were writing about Nicene theology, especially divine simplicity.
圣子的永恒生出和永恒的职能从属性也是另一个讨论的话题。 The eternal begetting of the Son and eternal functional subordination was another discussion that was being had.
其中一些人包括詹姆斯·多尔扎尔；他最近写了一本书，叫《神的一 切》，主要论述了神的单纯性中的错误，也涉及神的本性——正是我 今晚要谈论的内容——因为他们形成了一种开放神论版本的神。 Some of the people who have done this include James Dolezal; he wrote a book recently called "All That Is in God," which addresses errors basically in divine simplicity but also on the nature of God—on the same thing I'm going to be talking about tonight—because they have made kind of an open theist version of God.
我读过他大约十年前出版的《无部分的神》，关于神的单纯性，所以我知道他是谁。 I had read his book "God Without Parts," which came out about 10 years ago about divine simplicity, so I knew who he was.
他是个聪明人，做了很多研究。 He's a smart guy and has done a lot of research.
2021年4月17日，他在特定浸信会YouTube频道上有一次采访，非常精彩。 He had an interview on the Particular Baptist YouTube channel on April 17th, 2021, that was just excellent.
他对神的单纯性教义总结得非常出色。 I mean, he does a fantastic job of summarizing the doctrine of divine simplicity.
所以有那样的讨论。 So, there was that discussion.
马修·巴雷特写了一本书，叫《简单的三位一体》，也涵盖了我们要讨论的许多问题。 Matthew Barrett had written a book called "Simply Trinity," which again covers a lot of these issues that we're going to discuss.
还有一位罗马尼亚浸信会神学家阿多尼斯·维杜，他写了一本书， 叫《同一位神成就万事》，论不可分割的行动，这方面的书不多。 Then there was a Romanian Baptist theologian, Adonis Vidu, who wrote a book called "Same God Who Works All Things" on inseparable operations, and there aren't many books about that.
我们会谈到这个。 We'll talk about it.
但这是一本很好的书，本月他又出版了一本书，叫《神的使命：导论》，我会稍微谈谈。 But this is a very good book, and then just this month, he came out with a book called "The Divine Missions: Introduction," that I'm going to talk about a little bit.
他做了很多好的工作，也有很多这样的讨论。 So, you know, he did a lot of good work, and there was a lot of this discussion.
有人指责詹姆斯·怀特，我想这个频道上的人会知道他，否认神的单纯性教义。 Well, at some point, someone accused James White, who I think people on this channel will know of, of denying the doctrine of divine simplicity.
我不确定这是怎么回事，但我想是基于这些讨论。 I'm not sure how that came up, but I assume it was based on these discussions that people had had.
我想是的。 I think so.
我认识詹姆斯·怀特很久了，我们有过一些交流。 I've been aware of James White for a long time, and we've gone back and forth a little bit.
佩里·罗宾逊和我都认为他在尼西亚神学上犯了 一些严重错误，这一点我们已经知道十多年了。 Perry Robinson and I actually both thought that he made some serious errors in Nicene theology, and you know, we've known about this for more than 10 years at this point.
但由于某种原因，他们开始关注这个问题，所以他经常被指责。 But for some reason, they decided to start paying attention to it, so he was getting called out pretty often.
我今晚要说的是，这些内部讨论基本上都在于加尔文是异端。 What I'm going to say tonight is that all of those internal discussions are basically about the fact that Calvin was the heretic.
加尔文否认了神的单纯性。 Calvin was the guy who denied divine simplicity.
加尔文犯了许多这样的错误。 Calvin was the guy who made a lot of these errors.
改革宗浸信会群体出现这些问题的原因在于加尔文 的错误，甚至在他们的信条中也内含这些错误。 The reason that they're having these problems in the Reformed Baptist community is that Calvin was wrong, and to some extent, even in their confessions, they've got these errors built in.
这就是我要谈论的内容。 So, that's what I'm going to talk about.
最近有些讨论，理查德·穆勒引发了加尔文研究的历史革命。 There have been some recent discussions, you know, that Richard Muller—this is because Richard Muller started a historical revolution in Calvin.
这是真的；他确实以一种让人们今天能够理解的方式重新带回了加尔文的研究。 That's true; I mean, he did bring back sort of the study of Calvin in a way that really lets people understand him today.
唯一的问题是，也有教父学的革命，所以我们也学到了 很多关于早期基督徒的信仰，特别是尼西亚后的信仰。 Well, the only problem is there's also been a patristic revolution, so we've learned a lot about the early Christians too, and what the people, especially after Nicaea, believed.
问题在于：我们现在知道了加尔文的实际信仰，也知道 了尼西亚教父和尼西亚后支持尼西亚的教父的信仰。 That's the problem: we've learned now what Calvin actually believed, and we've also learned what the Nicene Fathers believed and the pro-Nicene Fathers after Nicaea believed.
这两者不能结合，这就是我今晚要讲的。 Those two can't be put together, and that's essentially what I'm going to go through tonight.
让我们以詹姆斯·怀特为例。 So, let's turn to James White as an example.
他基本上一直在谈论这个。 He's basically continued to talk about this.
我知道他不愿意，但他还是继续谈论。 I know he doesn't want to, but he's continued to talk about it.
他在1月6日的分界线上谈论神的单纯性，然后在2月2 日与克里斯·阿恩岑的《铁磨铁》节目上谈论这个问题。 He has a January 6th Dividing Line about divine simplicity, and then he was on Iron Sharpens Iron with Chris Arnzen on February 2nd, talking about this issue of divine simplicity.
简单来说，他错了。 The short version is he just gets it wrong.
实际上，他有部分是对的。 Actually, there's part of it that he gets right.
他正确的部分是，单纯性——神的单纯性——意味着神不 依赖其他任何事物以至于完美，祂自己不改变或成为。 The part of it that he gets right is that simplicity—divine simplicity—means God doesn't depend on anything else for perfection, doesn't change, or become in Himself.
这就是圣托马斯·阿奎那所说情绪的全部意思：神不改变或成为。 That's all St. Thomas Aquinas means by emotion: that He doesn't change or become.
这并不真的是一个公教会的问题。 It's not really a Catholic thing.
他谈论的神的单纯性实际上没有问题。 What he was talking about with divine simplicity actually isn't problematic.
但他对辩论说了一些错误的话。 Then he said a bunch of things about the debate that are just wrong.
首先，这不是一个思辨哲学的问题。 For one thing, this isn't an issue of speculative philosophy.
圣经和自然关系都说神不依赖受造物，祂是不变的。 Both Scripture and natural relations say that God doesn't depend on creation and is unchanging.
这就是神的单纯性，所以这没有问题。 That's all divine simplicity is, so there's not really a problem there.
说神没有部分，实际上并不比说神没有身体或没有情绪更具争议性。 You know, saying God doesn't have parts is really no more controversial than saying God doesn't have a body or that God doesn't have emotional passions.
拒绝拟人化是圣经的一个良好且必要的结果。 You know, rejecting anthropomorphism is a good and necessary consequence of Scripture.
我们要进入圣经，读它，理解当它说神有手时，祂并没有手。 We have to go into Scripture, reading it and understanding that when it talks about God having hands, He doesn't have hands.
所以，说神是单纯的并不是思辨哲学；只是承认我们对祂作为创造者所知的一切。 So, it's not really speculative philosophy to say that God is simple; it's just acknowledging what we know about Him as Creator.
这不是特别托马斯主义或亚里士多德主义的。 It's not particularly Thomist or Aristotelian.
这同样的信仰被奥古斯丁所持有；也被所有的伽帕多家教父和所有支持尼 西亚的教父所持有，更不用说圣经本身说神不依赖受造物，神不改变。 This same belief was held by Augustine; it was held by all the Cappadocians and all the pro-Nicene Fathers generally, not to mention Scripture itself, which says that God doesn't depend on creation and that God doesn't change.
我认为怀特将此与阿奎那联系在一起的原因是多尔扎尔特别引 用了阿奎那，但阿奎那只是一个例子，他只是跟随奥古斯丁。 The reason that I think White associates this with Aquinas is because Dolezal cites Aquinas particularly, but Aquinas is really only one example, and he's just following St. Augustine.
所以，我认为他又误解了这件事的本质。 So, I think he's just, again, missing what this is about.
这不是要将所有人都转变为托马斯主义；甚至不完全是关于托马斯·阿奎那。 This is not about trying to convert everybody to Thomism; it's not really even about Thomas Aquinas.
还有一个误解，他似乎认为这意味着我们不能认为神有属性；按照 詹姆斯·怀特对神的单纯性的理解，我们不应该谈论神的属性。 Then, another bit of confusion is that he seems to think that this means we can't think about God having attributes; we aren't supposed to speak or talk about God's attributes according to how James White understands divine simplicity.
这也不是真的。 That's just not true either.
我们所说的是，我们的思想反映了我们的局限，而不是神本身。 What we say is that what we think about is a reflection of our limitations; it's not what God is Himself.
所以，会有很多关于神的真实陈述。 So, there are going to be a lot of true statements about God.
例如，我们谈论神的忿怒，谈论神的旨意，我们谈 论很多在我们理解中并不反映神内真实区别的事。 You know, about God's wrath, for example, we talk about God's wrath, we talk about God's will, we talk about a lot of things that don't reflect real distinctions in God as far as we understand it.
因为祂是单纯的，祂不依赖其他任何事物，祂没有部分；祂不会有与其他东西分开的旨意。 Because He's simple, He doesn't depend on anything else, He doesn't have parts; He's not going to have a will separate from something else.
但有很多不同的解释方式。 But there are a lot of different ways to explain that.
在某些情况下，例如在东正教，他们将其视为神的 能量在神里面，因此在那些事之间有真实的区别。 In some cases, for example, in Eastern Orthodoxy, they view it as the divine energy being in God, so that there's a real distinction between those things.
但神仍然是单纯的；这不是真正的问题。 But God is still simple; that's not really the problem.
这不是说「哦，所有这些在神里面都是一样的」，因为我们都有不同的解 释版本，即使它们在神里面是一样的，我们仍然可以谈论神的不同属性。 It's not about being able to say, "Oh, all these things are the same in God," because we all have different versions of explaining how, even though they're the same in God, we can really talk about different attributes of God.
我们真正需要理解的是，对神的单纯性，我们无法完全掌握。 What we really have to understand is that with divine simplicity, it's something that we can't fully grasp.
所以，我们必须意识到我们在这方面的局限。 So, we have to be aware of our limitations in this area.
但这不是真正的问题。 But that's not really the problem.
问题在于加尔文主义者在他们看待神的方式中分割了神的单纯性。 The problem is that Calvinists have divided divine simplicity in the way they view God.
我的意思是，加尔文把三位一体之间对话的拟人化比喻当作 字面理解，认为在神内部有一个区别使他们成为三个位格。 What I mean by that is that Calvin has followed an anthropomorphic metaphor of conversation between the persons of the Trinity as literal, saying that there is an ad intra distinction that causes them to be three persons.
这就是问题所在，詹姆斯·怀特长期以来都有这个问题。 And that's the problem, and James White has had this issue for a long time.
我找到了1998年的一段话，我要读一下，因为这有些令人惊讶。 I actually pulled up something from 1998, and I'll read the quote here because it's kind of surprising.
它说：「最后，我们看到位格之间真实而永恒的关系。 It says, "Finally, we see real and eternal relationships between the persons.
内在的行动——位格存在的特征之一是意志。 The opera ad intra—one of the characteristics of personal existence is will.
很少有人会在与父的关系上对此争论，因为祂显然有意志。 Few would argue the point in relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will.
圣子也有意志，因为祂在园中对父说：『不要照我的意思，只要照你的意思。』 So too the Son has a will, for He says to the Father in the garden, 'Not as I will, but as You will.
当然，正统的理解是祂在说祂的人性意志。 ' Now, of course, the Orthodox way to understand that is that He's talking about His human will.
但在这里，他真正是说这是位格的特征。 But really here, He's talking about that being a characteristic of person.
然后他说，「将意志归于位格表示理性、思想、行 动、渴望的能力——所有这些与自我意识相关。 "Then he goes on, "The ascription of will to the persons indicates the ability to reason, to think, to act, to desire—all those things we associate with self-consciousness.
他在说有三个不同的意志：父有意志，子有意志，灵有意志。 " So, he's saying that there are three different wills: the Father has a will, the Son has a will, and the Spirit has a will.
这意味着神的意志，所以他们基本上像三个人一样对话。 By that, it means divine will, so they essentially are conversing as if they were three persons like three men.
这在三位一体的语境中毫无意义。 That doesn't make any sense in the context of the Trinity.
正如我所说，这是1998年的事，已经很久了。 And like I said, this is from 1998; this has been a long time.
但问题在于这来自加尔文，而不是詹姆斯·怀特。 But the problem is that comes from Calvin; that doesn't come from James White.
这来自加尔文。 That comes from Calvin.
所以，我们必须认真思考：加尔文主义者是否可能与尼西 亚教义和解，尼西亚教义说神只有一个意志和一个本性？ So, that's why we have to really think about: is it even possible for Calvinists to be reconciled to the Nicene doctrine that says there's one will in God and one nature in God?
我认为这不可能。 I don't think it's possible.
作为信奉尼西亚正统的人，我们同意圣经表明有三个位格 ，但我们不能将他们视为三位和谐的有三个意志的人。 So, we can agree that, as people who believe in Nicene orthodoxy, Scripture signifies that there are three persons, but we can't treat them as three men with three wills in harmony.
基本上，那些抱怨詹姆斯·怀特违反神的单纯性的改革宗 浸信会信徒应该责备加尔文，因为是他提出了这个想法。 Basically, the Reformed Baptists who have been complaining about James White violating divine simplicity should really be lecturing Calvin about it, because he was the guy who came up with this idea.
所以，他们现在讨论这个问题是好的。 So, it's good that they're having a discussion about it now.
我认为他们开始讨论这些事很好，但我现在谈论这个的原因是他们还没有纠正错误。 I think it's great that they're starting to discuss these things, but the reason that I'm talking about this now is that they haven't corrected the errors.
那么，让我们继续谈问题所在，我之前基本上提到过。 So, let's move on to what the problem is, and I sort of basically alluded to it before.
问题在于拟人化，拟人化的问题是如果你以拟人的理解进入，你就无法正确解读圣经。 The problem is anthropomorphism, and the issue with anthropomorphism is that you can't read Scripture correctly if you have an anthropomorphic understanding going in.
这是个错误。 That's a mistake.
基本上，如果你认为神可能有手，那么你就会误解。 Basically, if you think it's possible for God to have hands, then you're going to misread things.
同样，你对祂的心思也可以这样做。 Well, you can do the same thing with His mind.
乔纳森，我不想打断你，但请为那些刚学神学的人解释 一下什么是拟人化，因为我们很多人不懂这些术语。 Jonathan, I don't mean to cut you off, but just explain for those who are just learning theology what anthropomorphism is, because a lot of us don't know these terms.
所以，我不是故意打断你；我不会再这样做，只是因为这里有些人不懂。 So, I don't mean to cut you off; I won't do it again, just because there are people here who are like that.
不，请继续；你在问问题。 No, go on; you're asking the question.
不，这很好；谢谢你。 No, it's good; thank you.
好的，拟人化。 So, anthropomorphism.
这里的意思是——这是我所说的——对神的敬畏。 The idea there is—and this is what I was talking about—the awe of God.
神在根本上与我们不同。 God is not like us in a fundamental way.
明白吗？ Okay?
所以，当你谈到拟人化时，那是个长词，意思是「人的形式」。 So, when you talk about anthropomorphism, that's a big long word that translates to "in the form of a man.
所以，人们认为神是人的形象，祂有一些像人的特征。 " So, people are thinking about God being in the form of a man, so He has some characteristics that are man-like.
我们必须注意，因为神与我们不同。 We have to watch out for that because God is just different from us.
祂不依赖其他任何东西；祂是永恒的。 He doesn't depend on anything else; He's eternal.
祂不做决定；祂不改变。 He doesn't make decisions; He doesn't change.
祂的运作方式与我们不同。 He doesn't operate the same way that we do.
所以，我们这里谈的问题是，詹姆斯·怀特基本上把三位一体看作三个互相对话的人。 So, the problem that we're talking about here is that James White is basically thinking of the Trinity as three people who are talking to each other.
佩里给你一个纠正，神的运作方式有一点不同。 Perry's got a correction for you, so there's a little bit of a difference between how God operates.
我马上会谈到这个。 I'll get to it in a minute.
但基本上，我们看到的是我们在神的外面。 But basically, what we're seeing is we're on the outside of God.
我们看到神是创造者，但我们看不到神的思想，也看不到三位一体的内在。 We see God as Creator, and we can't see into what God thinks; we can't see into the Trinity.
这些活动就是我们所说的内在活动，即神自身之间的活动。 Those activities are what we call ad intra activities, so those are what happens with God among Himself.
我们对这些有一些了解，因为祂向我们启示了，但我们不真正理解三位一体的样子。 We have some understanding of that because He's revealed it to us, but we don't really understand what it's like to be three in one.
这是我们在其他地方未曾遇到的，对我们来说是个奥秘。 That's something that we don't encounter anywhere else; it's a mystery to us.
我们不明白。 We don't get it.
所以，我们必须考虑的是，我们不能把对位格的想法强加给神，期望神像我们一样。 So, what we have to think about then is that we can't put our ideas of what a person is and expect God to be like us in that way.
这适用于身体和心灵。 This applies both physically and mentally.
例如，有人对我们说了什么，我们可能会生气，但神不会那样生气，因为祂不受情绪影响。 For example, we might get angry if somebody says something to us, but God doesn't get angry in that way because He's immune to passion.
祂掌管一切；祂不依赖任何东西。 He controls everything; He doesn't depend on anything.
万事都依赖祂，所以祂从不感到意外，也从不沮丧。 Everything depends on Him, so He's never surprised, He's never upset.
我们说祂有忿怒，但那并不意味着祂有某种情绪状态会改变。 We talk about Him having wrath, but that doesn't mean that He has some emotional state that changes.
所以，当我们谈论神内部发生的事时，我们必须承认那是个奥秘。 So, when we talk about things that are happening inside God, we have to recognize that that's a mystery.
我们无法完全理解。 We can't fully understand them.
我们带着这种理解——我们说「看，有些事超出我们的理解」——来读圣经。 We take that understanding—where we say, "Look, there are things beyond our understanding"—and we read Scripture in that way.
这就是我们基本上如何保护自己不说错神的方式。 This is how we basically protect ourselves from saying wrong things about God.
好，例如，我们知道神有智慧和意志，因为我们有智慧和意志，我们是按神的形象被造的。 Okay, so for example, we know that God has an intellect and will because we have an intellect and will, and we're created in God's image.
所以，祂有类似心思的东西，但运作不如我们的。 So, He has something like a mind, but it doesn't work like ours.
这不是我们能感同身受的。 It's not something that we can empathize with.
所以，圣经说，例如在以赛亚书五十五章：「耶和华说：『 我的意念非同你们的意念，我的道路非同你们的道路。』」 So, Scripture says, for example, in Isaiah 55: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways," declares the Lord.
『天怎样高过地，照样，我的道路高过你们的道路，我的意念高过你们的意念。』」 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
然后在民数记二十三章说，「神非人，必不致说谎，也非人子，必不致后悔。」 " Then in Numbers 23, it says, "God is not man that He should lie, or a son of man that He should change His mind.
「他说话岂不照着行呢？」 Has He said, and will He not do it?
「他发言岂不要成就呢？」 Or has He spoken, and will He not fulfill it?
这些经文谈到神的心思远超我们的心思，神的旨意远超我们的旨意。 " These are passages that are talking about God's mind being way beyond ours and God's will being way beyond ours.
所以，我们可以理解神在某种意义上是理性的，但我 们必须限制我们理解神的理性意味着什么的能力。 So, we can understand that God is rational in some sense, but we have to put limits on our ability to understand what it means for God to be rational.
这基本上就是詹姆斯·怀特在之前的讨论中所违 反的，他说：「哦，他是个位格，他有意志。」 That's basically what James White transgressed in that previous discussion where he talks about, "Oh, well, He's a person and He's got a will.
这些都不对。 " None of those things are right.
如果我们以拟人的方式读关于神的经文，试图把祂变成人，我们就不是真的尊敬祂。 If we read passages about God in an anthropomorphic way, which is trying to turn Him into a man, we're not really respecting Him.
所以，如果你把神看作人，把三位一体看作三个互相交谈 或彼此同意的人，那么这种哲学概念会妨碍你理解圣经。 So, you know, if you get there and you're thinking about God as a man and you're thinking about the Trinity as basically three men talking to each other or agreeing with each other, then that philosophical concept is going to get in the way of your ability to understand Scripture.
这是个错误。 This is the mistake.
我认为他们将神拟人化的错误在于，他们真正把祂看作地上的君王。 What I think is the mistake when they anthropomorphize God is that they're really thinking about Him like an earthly sovereign.
我认为这不好的原因有很多，但显而易见的是，神的国和基督的国不一样。 The reason that I think that's bad—there are a number of reasons, but it should be obvious—is that God's kingdom and Christ's kingdom is not the same.
祂的治理方式不同于地上的君王。 He doesn't govern the same way that an earthly sovereign does.
所以，我给你一些相关经文。 So, I'll give you some passages about that.
约翰福音十八章：「我的国不属这世界。」 One is in John 18. "My kingdom is not of this world.
「我的国若属这世界，我的臣仆必要争战，使我不至于被交给犹太人。」 If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered to the Jews.
「只是我的国不属这世界。」 But my kingdom is not of this world.
如果祂愿意，祂可以召来一队天使，但祂不那样行事。 " If He wanted to, He could call down a legion of angels, but He doesn't behave that way.
祂本可以救自己免于被钉十字架，但祂不那样行事。 He could have saved Himself from the crucifixion, but He doesn't behave that way.
事实上，祂什么时候被称为王？ In fact, when is He labeled as King?
在十字架上。 On the cross.
约翰福音十九章说：「彼拉多又用牌子写了一个名号，安在十字架上。」 So, it says in John 19, "Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross.
「上面写的是：『犹太人的王，拿撒勒人耶稣。』」 It read, 'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
那是祂被标明为王的时候——当祂在十字架上。 '" That's when He gets marked as King—when He's on the cross.
这说明了什么？ So, what does that say?
作为王的神是慈爱的。 God as King is loving.
神是忌邪的神，不是因为祂对我们生气，而是因为祂爱我们。 God is a jealous God, not because He's angry with us, but because He loves us.
圣经中有一些例子，说明地上的王是什么样的。 You've got some examples in Scripture about what it looks like to have an earthly king.
实际上，人们对神为王不满，决定要像其他国家一样的王。 In fact, people were dissatisfied with God as King and decided they wanted their own king like other nations.
所以，在撒母耳记上八章，有人请求立王：「使我们像 列国一样，有王治理我们，统领我们，为我们争战。」 So, in 1 Samuel 8, there was a request for a king: "That we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.
他们求立王。 " They asked for a king.
那不是神所是的王。 That's not the kind of king God is.
神不是发号施令；神爱我们。 God isn't bossing people around; God loves us.
这就是神为王的意义。 And that's what it means for God to be a king.
但有些宗教试图将神塑造成地上的王，加尔文主义和伊斯兰教实际上都倾向于此。 But there are religions that try to put God into the mold of an earthly king, and Calvinism and Islam actually both lean that way.
那么，地上的王做什么呢？ So, what do earthly kings do?
如果我们继续看撒母耳记上八章，撒母耳实际上告诉他们王会做什么。 If we go further in 1 Samuel 8, Samuel actually tells them what they'll do.
他说：「管理你们的王必这样行：他必派你们的儿子为他赶车、跟马，奔走在车前；」 He says, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.
他必派定千夫长、五十夫长，使人耕种他的田地，为他收割庄稼，制造军器和车上的器械。 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
必取你们的女儿为他制造香膏，作饭烤饼。 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
也必取你们最好的田地、葡萄园、橄榄园赐给他的臣仆。 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.
你们的粮食和葡萄园所出的，他必取十分之一给他的太监和臣仆。 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.
又必取你们的仆人婢女，健壮的少年人，和你们的驴，供他的差役。 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys and put them to his work.
你们的羊群，他必取十分之一，你们也必作他的仆人。 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.
那时，你们必因所选的王哀求耶和华，耶和华却不应允你们。」 In that day, you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.
所以，地上的王是不慈爱的；他们是自私的。 "So, earthly kings are not loving; they are selfish.
他们夺取东西，这就是与神的区别。 They take things, and that's the difference between God.
神不需要我们任何东西。 God doesn't need anything from us.
祂完全爱我们，所以那是你所希望的王。 He's completely loving toward us, and so that's the kind of king you want.
但那不是他们所求的王。 But that's not the kind of king they're asking for.
祂不需要我们任何东西；祂甚至不需要我们的荣耀。 He doesn't need anything from us; He doesn't even need glory from us.
祂所做这一切唯一的原因是因为祂爱我们，而这正是人们不明白的。 The only reason He does any of this is because He loves us, and that's the part that people don't get.
你其实可以看到这一点；其中一个最好的例子是在罗马书九章， 因为你可以理解神对主权的理解与人对主权的理解有何不同。 You can actually see this; one of the best examples of it is in Romans 9, because you can understand what the difference is between God's understanding of sovereignty and man's understanding of sovereignty.
有趣的是，在罗马书九章，他们实际上是在求王。 What's interesting is that in Romans 9, they're actually asking for a king.
所以，罗马书九章开始时，保罗的对话者基本上在说：「 我们是亚伯拉罕的子孙；神向我们应许；祂欠我们。」 So, Romans 9 starts out where, you know, Paul's interlocutors are basically saying, "We're the children of Abraham; God made a promise to us; He owes us.
这基本上是四到五节所说的。 " That's basically what verses 4 and 5 go through.
然后保罗回答说：「不，不，不！ Then Paul's reply is, "No, no, no!
你们以为比神更明白，但神一直能够决定谁得祝福，正如祂对雅各和以扫所做的。」 You think you know better than God, but God has always been able to decide who will receive the blessings," like He did with Jacob and Esau.
所以，在九到十三节，他解释说神可以决定。 So, he goes through in verses 16 to 13 to explain that God can decide.
只是因为祂说你们是应许的子孙，并不意味着祂不能决定谁实际得到。 Just because He said you're the children of the promise doesn't mean He can't decide who actually gets it.
然后对话者指责神不公义。 Then the interlocutors accuse God of injustice.
在十四节，基于他们对祂应许的理解，他说：「不，神没这样说。」 In verse 14, based on their understanding of His promises, he's like, "No, that's not what God said.
「神说祂要这样做。」 God said He was going to do these things.
然后保罗再次回答：「不，你们不明白亚伯拉罕的约是什么。」 " Then Paul replies again, "No, you don't understand what the Abrahamic covenant is.
「我们一直可以容纳其他人，这约一直包括所有人。」 We've always been able to have other people in, and it's always been over everybody.
所以，在十五到十八节中他说：「不，祂可以怜悯外 邦人；祂可以怜悯任何人；祂可以刚硬任何人。」 " So, you've got in verses 15 through 18 him saying, "No, He can give mercy to Gentiles; He can give mercy to anybody; He can harden anybody.
「就像因为你把自己置于罪中刚硬的境地，这并不是神不公平。」 " It's like just because you put yourself in this situation where you're hardened in your sin, that's not unfair by God.
最后的回答基本上是求王。 The last answer is basically to ask for a king.
他们在十九节基本上说：「如果神如此公义，为什么不让我们做祂所愿的事？」 They're essentially saying in verse 19, "Why didn't He just make us do what He wanted if He's so just?
很多人，尤其是加尔文主义者，会说：「这些人是否认神的主权。」 " The thing is, a lot of, especially Calvinists, will say, "Well, you know, these guys are denying God's sovereignty.
他们不是否认神的主权；他们是说神滥用了主权，因为祂没有强迫他们做应该做的事。 " They're not denying God's sovereignty; they're saying He's misusing it because He's not forcing them to do what they should be doing.
这与撒母耳记上八章他们对王的请求相同：「你应该统治我们。」 This is the same request that they had for the king in 1 Samuel 8: "You're supposed to boss us around.
这是请求王来审判我们，以便我们可以避免为自己的行为负责。 " It's asking the king to judge us so we can avoid responsibility for our actions.
这就是保罗在罗马书九章二十节回答的背景：「 你是谁，竟敢以为自己比良善的神更明白？」 That's the context of Paul's response in Romans 9:20: "Who are you to think that you know better than God who is good?
这就是他说「你这个人哪」的时候。 " That's when he says, "Who are you, O man?
这并不是因为他们否认神的应许；而是因为他们说：「你知道， 神真的应该更像这些王，统治我们，使我们不必为自己负责。」 " And it's not because they deny God's guarantee; it's because they're saying, "You know, God really should be more like these kings and just boss us around so that we're not responsible for ourselves.
这就是罗马书十一章三十三到三十五节和约伯记四十章、四十二章给 出的答案。答案是：「看哪，我创造了宇宙；你不能说我做错了。」 " That's the kind of answer that's given in Romans 11:33 to 35, and really in Job 40 and 42. The answer is, "Look, I created the universe; you don't get to say that I'm doing it wrong at this point.
这正是他们所求的。 " And that's really what they're asking for.
所以，这整章讲的是，为什么神不强迫我们遵守 约，使我们成为我们认为祂应许给我们的样子？ So, this entire chapter is about, you know, why isn't God forcing us to obey the covenant so that we can be what we think He promised to us?
这是一种对约的错误理解，而这种错误理解实际上是另一个福音。 That's a false understanding of the covenant, and that false understanding of the covenant is actually another gospel.
这就是加拉太书一章六节和九节所说的。误解神的 主权并试图将祂变成地上的王，后果十分严重。 That's what they're talking about in Galatians 1:6 or 9. There are really bad consequences to misunderstanding God's sovereignty and trying to make Him into basically an earthly king.
这就是拟人化。 So, that's anthropomorphism.
让我们来谈谈我们实际应该信的关于神的事。 Let's get to what we should actually be believing about God.
我们应该信的是神有创造的能力。 What we should actually be believing about God is that He has creative power.
我们的意思是，作为创造者的三位一体的神，只有一个神性和一个神的能力。 What we mean by that is that God, the Trinity as Creator, has one divine nature and one divine power.
这就是原则，这是尼西亚后所有人关注的原则。 So, that's the rule, and this was the principle that everybody after Nicaea focused on.
所以，事后的所有教父基本上都说：「看，如果所有这些位格都在做神的工作— —如果圣灵做神的工作，圣子做神的工作——那么，圣父显然也做神的工作。 So, all of those Fathers after the fact were basically like, "Look, if all of these persons are doing God's work—if the Holy Spirit does God's work, if the Son does God's work—then the Father obviously does God's work.
这意味着他们有同样的本性和同样的能力。」 That means they have the same nature and the same power.
这个原则对于相信神是创造者至关重要。 " This principle is essential for believing that God is a Creator.
意思是，如果他们有同样的本质，他们就有同样的神能，而那能力在数值上是一。 The idea is that if they have the same essence, they have the same divine power, and that power is numerically one.
所以，正如他们是同一位神，他们有完全相同的能力。 So, just as they are the same God, they have exactly the same power.
这不是三个能力；不是三个位格用能力做不同的事。 It's not three powers; it's not three persons doing separate things with the power.
这是一个能力，这就是不可分割的行动教义。 It is one power, and that's called the doctrine of inseparable operations.
但你应该称之为相同的行动。 But you should really call it identical operation.
这意味着他们所做的没有区别——完全没有区别。 That means there is no distinction in what they do—no distinction at all.
他们总是做同样的事。 They always all do the same thing.
一个单独的位格可以是神行动的对象；例如，只 有圣子取了人性，所以只有圣子在人性中行动。 An individual person can be the object of a divine action; for example, only the Son has humanity assumed to Him, so only the Son acts in humanity.
但圣子按祂的神性，仍然只是作为三位一体行动。 But the Son, according to His divinity, is still only acting as a Trinity.
这一点很重要：你不能区分三位一体的作为。 That's an important thing to remember: you cannot distinguish between the acts of the Trinity.
他们对待创造的一切作为对他们都是一样的。 Everything that they do with respect to creation is the same for all of them.
关于使命有个小观点，认为使命是位格流出的延伸。 There's a little idea of missions, where the missions are supposed to be an extension of the procession of the persons.
他们的意思是，圣子被生，圣灵发出，基本上，使命是圣子和 圣灵如何延伸到创造中，就像他们在永恒中从父延伸而出。 What they mean by that is the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds, and basically, the mission is kind of how the Son and the Holy Spirit extend into creation, like they extend from the Father in eternity.
但我们必须记住，即便如此，这并不意味着他们实际上在做不同的事。 But the thing that we have to remember is that even then, that doesn't mean they're actually doing separate things.
这意味着他们能够作为一个接触点为我们行事。 What that means is that they are able to act for us as a point of contact.
在我们接触他们的方式中，我们理解——或意识到——这始于圣灵或具有圣灵的特征。 In the way that we reach out to them, we understand that—or we are aware of the fact that it starts from the Spirit or is characteristic of the Spirit.
因此，它让我们通过位格与神相连，但这并不意味着位格本身在做任何不同的事。 So, it lets us relate to God through the person, but it doesn't mean the persons themselves are doing anything different.
一般来说，有些作为更具某个位格的特征，我们称之为归属，因为那只是帮助我们理解。 Generally, there are some acts that are more characteristic of a person, and we call that appropriation because it's just something to help us understand.
但实际上，他们总是以相同的方式行事。 But the reality is they’re always acting the same.
能力的合一基本上就是神作为创造者的区别所在。 That unity of power is basically what differentiates God as the Creator.
那能力不同于我们所拥有的任何东西。 That power is something different than anything we have.
在人类中没有不可分割的行动，实际上在任何受造物中都没有。 There are no inseparable operations among human beings, and there’s nothing among any created thing, actually.
我见过的一个关于此的最佳圣经解释，实际上不久前山姆谈到格雷格·斯塔福德时提到过。 One of the best explanations that I've seen of this from Scripture was actually not very long ago when Sam talked about Greg Stafford.
这是在2月21日，大约在15分钟开始，他确实选择了一些很好的经文来说明这个。 This was on February 21st, and it starts around 15 minutes in, but he really picked some great passages that illustrate this.
第一个——我很喜欢山姆对此的处理——是约翰福音五章十九节。耶 稣对他们说：「我实实在在地告诉你们，子凭着自己不能做什么， The first one—and I love what Sam did with this—was John 5:19. It said, "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord.
惟有看见父所做的，子才能做。父所做的事，子也照样做。」 '" But only what He sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
这里有「homoios」，可以很好地解释为什么「homoios」意味着相同。 There is "homoios," and it can be a great explanation for why "homoios" means the same.
这就是它的意思：父所做的事，子在做，圣灵也在做。 That's what it means: whatever the Father is doing, the Son is doing, and the Holy Spirit is doing.
这完全相同；就是一样的。 It's identical; it is the same.
在约翰福音十二章四十九节，十四章十节，十七章二十二到二十三节中也有类似的话 。我还想提到的是，这实际上与——山姆也提到过这段经文——彼得后书一章十七节 有关：「他从父神得尊贵荣耀的时候，从极大荣光之中有声音出来说：『这是我的爱 子，我所喜悦的。』我们同他在圣山的时候，亲自听见这声音从天上出来。」 There are similar statements in John 12:49, John 14:10, and John 17:22-23. The thing that I also want to bring up is that this actually relates to—and Sam also brought up this passage—2 Peter 1:17: "For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven.
这描述了登山变像，彼得亲身经历，解释了这在三位一体中如何运作。 " So, that's describing the Transfiguration, which St. Peter was actually there for, and it explains how this works in the Trinity.
很明显，圣子从父神所得的尊贵荣耀就是祂在永恒中所得的；这完全相同。 It's clear that the honor and glory that the Son has received from God the Father is the one that He received in eternity; it's identical.
有趣的是，在同一章中，彼得谈到我们参与——在一章三到四节中，我们参与同样的能力。 What’s also interesting is that in that same chapter, Peter is talking about our participation—in chapter 1, verses 3 through 4, our participation in that same power.
他谈到神性为三位所共有，也谈到我们参与那神性。 He's talking about divine nature being common to all three and also talking about our participation in that nature.
这让你了解到这对基督教的重要性。 That gives you an idea of how critical this is for Christianity.
现在，我想花点时间谈谈「本性」和「位格」对基督徒意味着什么。 So, I want to spend a minute now talking about what "nature" and "person" mean for Christians.
这就是我所谓的自然神学。 This is what I would call natural theology.
有时这个词用得不好，但自然神学基本上就是我们从观察创造中理解神作为创造者。 Sometimes that term gets used kind of badly, but natural theology is basically just how we understand God as Creator from looking around at creation.
我们从创造中了解很多关于神的事，但我们也知道有些事我们无法理解。 We understand a lot about God from creation, but we also know that there are things that we can't understand.
我们已经谈到，我们不想把神限制，或把祂当作和我们一样的位格。 We've talked a little bit about how we don't want to make God limited or treat Him like He's a person like the rest of us.
自然神学和启示都说我们对神的认识是有限的。 So, you know, natural theology and revelation both say that our knowledge of God is limited.
神实际上对这一点宽容人。 God actually gives people a break for some of this.
在路加福音二十三章三十四节，耶稣说：「父啊 ，赦免他们！因为他们所做的，他们不晓得。」 In Luke 23:34, Jesus says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
因为他们无法知道钉神在十字架上的严重性；这不可能。 " That's because they can't possibly know the magnitude of crucifying God; it's not possible.
在哥林多前书二章八节说：「这智慧世上有权有位的人没有一 个知道的；他们若知道，就不把荣耀的主钉在十字架上了。」 In 1 Corinthians 2:8, it says, "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
所以，承认我们无法理解一切。 " So, there's recognition that we can't understand everything.
我们的确对神的认识有限。 I mean, we have limits to what we can know about God.
但问题不在于缺乏知识；我们可以知道关于神的事。 But the problem isn't a lack of knowledge; we can know things about God.
问题在于如何智慧地使用知识。 The problem is the wise use of knowledge.
有很多经文，比如那句著名的话：「愚顽人心里说：『没有神』」（诗篇十四 篇一节）。这并不意味着他不可能知道有神；而是说他不像知道的那样行事。 There's a lot that says, you know, the famous one: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). That doesn't mean he can't possibly know that there's a God; it means he's just not behaving like it.
在传道书一章十四和十八节中，他说：「一切都是虚空…… 因为多有智慧，就多有愁烦；加增知识的，就加增忧伤。」 In Ecclesiastes 1:14 and 18, he talks about, "All is vanity, for in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow.
这并不是说我们不想知道关于神的事；而是说你可能徒然使用它。 " That's not to say we don't want to know things about God; it's just saying you can use it in vain.
就像你拥有的任何其他恩赐一样，可能错误地使用它。 I mean, it's possible, like any other gift that you have, to use it wrong.
所以，有很多这样的经文说我们可能误用知识。 So, you know, there are a lot of passages like this that say it's possible for us to misuse the knowledge.
但好的一面是这意味着别人也可能有知识。 But the good thing is that means it's possible for others to have knowledge too.
我把这看作仁爱的途径。 I see this as an avenue of charity.
每个人都可以了解关于神的事；每个人都有理性。 Everybody can understand things about God; everybody has reason.
如果你失去与理性的联系，你就会难以与他们相处。 If you lose touch with that reason, then you're going to have trouble dealing with them.
所以，让我们把这看作仁爱的途径。 So, that's the part where, you know, let's view it as an avenue of charity.
如果有人不同意，说：「好吧，我认为你是理性的；否则，我无法与你沟通。」 If people disagree, say, "Okay, well, I think you're reasonable; otherwise, I couldn't appeal to you.
你必须认为他们是理性的。 " You have to think that they're reasonable.
另一方面，指出某人愚蠢也是可以的。 On the other hand, it's okay to point out when somebody's being foolish, too.
人会犯错，你可以像对待其他事一样——可以说：「你错了。」 You know, people make mistakes, and you should treat it like anything else—it's okay to say, "You're just wrong.
「你疯了！」 " You're crazy!
那么如何使用自然神学作为护教学呢？ So how do you use natural theology as apologetics?
我从彼得前书三章十四和十七节中得出我的看法。「不要怕人的 威吓，也不要惊慌，只要心里尊主基督为圣。有人问你们心中盼 望的缘由，就要常作准备，以温柔、敬畏的心回答各人。」 I've kind of taken my view of that from 1 Peter 3:14 and 17. It says, "Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
但要有温柔和敬畏。 Yet do it with gentleness and respect.
这里有个希腊词「phobo」，很有趣，因为它实际上是关于敬畏主。 " There's actually the Greek word there, "phobo," which is kind of interesting because it's really about the fear of the Lord.
这样做的结果是有无亏的良心，使你们在何事上被毁谤，就在 何事上可以叫那诬赖你们在基督里有好品行的人自觉羞愧。 The result of that is having a good conscience, so that when you're slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
所以，我认为你应该对人友善；你应该温柔，特别是当你诉诸自然神学时。 So, you know, I think you ought to be kind to people; I think you ought to be gentle, especially if you're appealing to natural theology.
就像我说的，你可以说他们错了；你可以说：「哇，你完全错过了这个。」 Like I said, you can say that they're wrong; you can say, "Wow, you've totally missed this.
但我尽量友善，这是对不信的人。 " But I try to be kind, and this is for unbelievers.
这段经文是关于当你被要求为信仰辩护的时候。 I mean, this passage is about when you're being asked to give a defense.
除非有人指责你，否则没人要求你辩护。 Nobody asks you to give a defense unless they're accusing you.
但这要求一个理由，所以说：「看，如果他们没有理性能力，那就是浪费时间。」 But, you know, it's asking for a reason, so saying, "Look, it'd be a waste of time if they don't have the power of reason.
人们有可能听你说，理解你。 " It's possible for people to listen to you and understand you.
就是这样：与他们讨论，像对待人一样对待他们，因为他们很可能是。 So, that's it: just have the discussion with them, treat them like people, because they probably are.
现在，有几段经文你也应该考虑。 Now, there are a couple of passages that you should also think about.
一段是马太福音七章六节：「不要把圣物给狗。」 One is Matthew 7:6: "Do not give to dogs what is holy.
「也不要把你们的珍珠丢在猪前，恐怕它践踏了珍珠，转过来咬你们。」 " "Do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
这是什么意思呢？ " Now, what does that mean?
每个人都有理性，所以他们不是字面上的狗或猪。 Well, everybody has reason, so they're not literally dogs or swine.
这就是说，如果人失去了理性——我指他们根本不讲理性——你就无能为力了。 What that's saying is that if people have lost it—I mean, you know, they're not being reasonable at all—there's not much you can do with it.
这很不幸；你只能与他们断绝联系。 And that's unfortunate; you just kind of have to cut them off.
你必须说：「看，我们无法进行这次对话，因为你不在可以进行的状态。」 You have to say, "Look, we can't have this conversation because you're not in a state where you can do it.
这基本上就是你必须做的；你必须断绝联系。 " That's basically what you have to do; you have to cut people off.
这就是灵巧像蛇，驯良像鸽子。 So, that's being wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
如果有争斗而毫无意义，你就得离开它。 If there's a fight and there's no point in it, you're going to have to get away from it.
但我一般的做法更像撒母耳记上二十六章，这是大卫和亚比筛的故事。 But what my general approach is more like 1 Samuel 26, and this is the story of David and Abishai.
在这种情况下，扫罗基本上在营中。 In this case, you know, Saul is basically in camp.
神使众人沉睡，大卫和亚比筛潜入。 God puts everybody to sleep, and David and Abishai sneak in.
扫罗的头旁有枪，旁边有水瓶。 There's the spear behind Saul's head and his water jug next to him.
亚比筛说：「让我刺他，他就死了。」 Abishai is like, "Look, just let me stab him, and he's dead.
大卫说：「不，我们不可害耶和华的受膏者。」 " And David says, "No, let's not kill the Lord's anointed.
如果你想想，我们所接触的每个基督徒都是神的受膏者，因为他们受了洗。 " Well, if you think about it, every Christian that we're dealing with is going to be God's anointed because they've been baptized.
所以，我们应该这样对待他们；我们应该说：「你不可害耶和华的受膏者。」 So, that's how we should deal with them; we should say, "You don't kill the Lord's anointed.
你也可以把这看作每个人都按神的形象被造，有理性。 " You can also think about it as everybody being made in the image of God and having reason.
所以，当你有这些分歧时，目标不是要毁灭他们。 So, when you're having these disagreements, the goal just isn't to destroy them.
大卫说：「今日耶和华将你交在我手里，我却不肯伸手害耶和华的受膏者。」 What David says is, "The Lord delivered you into my hands today, but I would not lay a hand on the Lord's anointed.
大卫拿了枪和水瓶，讥讽押尼珥让枪和水瓶被拿走。 " He took his spear, took his jug, and ridiculed Abner for letting the spear and jug be taken away.
这就是我对理性能力的看法。 That's how I view the power of reason.
就像如果他们在辩论，就把他们的论点拿走——拿 走他们的枪和水瓶——这样他们就无法滋养它。 It's like if they're making arguments, take their arguments away from them—take their spear, take their water jug—so they can't nourish it.
如果他们滥用圣经，就拿走他们的枪和水瓶，使他们无法从中得力。 If they're misusing Scripture, take their spear, take their water jug, so they're not getting refreshed by it.
所以，我认为这就是护教学的职责。 So, that's the job that I see in apologetics.
好了，让我们谈谈自然神学。 All right, so let's talk about natural theology.
什么是本性？ What are natures?
本性是神关于创造的美好意念。 Well, natures are the good ideas that God has about creation.
它们基本上是神创造万物的原因。 They're basically why God created everything.
我们知道神出于爱创造了一切，所以存在的每一物都包含神的爱。 We know God created everything out of love, so everything that exists has part of God's love in it.
这就是本性。 That's what the nature is.
这是它被创造的原因。 It's why it was created.
我们在圣经中将恶定义为对本性的违背。 We've defined evil in Scripture as violations of nature.
所以我们理解理性；我们通过理性认识本性，当我们违背本性犯罪时，就违背了理性。 So we understand reason; we know nature by reason, and we violate reason when we sin against nature.
圣经说，罪人压制真理，心地昏昧，这在罗马书一章十 八到三十二节中。所以，一切邪恶就是这样解释的。 It says sinners suppress the truth and have a debased mind, and that's in Romans 1:18-32. So, everything that is evil—that's how we explain evil.
邪恶不是神创造的；它必须是对本性的违背，因为神根本不创造邪恶。 Evil is not something that God creates; it has to be a violation of nature because God doesn't create evil at all.
因此，本性是神对我们有意义的基础。 So, natures are the basis of how God makes sense to us.
如果没有本性这样的东西，如果我们不能理解本性，我 们基本上就是在说神没有意义；神无法对我们有意义。 If there aren't such things as natures, if we can't understand natures, we're basically saying God doesn't make sense; there's no way for God to make sense to us.
但我们知道神的本性也是无限的，所以我们必须确认神是本性的创造者。 But we know that God's nature is also infinite, so we have to affirm that God is the author of natures.
本性是存在的，但我们无法理解神本身的本性。 There are such things as natures, but we can't comprehend God's nature in itself.
罗马书十一章中有一句话：「弟兄们，我不愿你们不知道这奥秘，恐怕你们自以为聪明。」 There's a verse in Romans 11 about that: "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers.
所以，我们无法知道神为何及如何管理万有。 " So, we can't get into why and how God runs everything.
这就是我们所说的；我们不明白成为创造者的意义。 That's the same thing that we were talking about; we don't understand what it is to be the Creator.
所以，我们通过类比稍微理解一点，我们知道神爱我们，否则万物就不存在。 So, we understand it a little bit by analogy, and we know that God loves us because otherwise things wouldn't exist.
但我们能做的有限。 But there's only so much we can do.
关于本性的重要一点是，如果你不理解本性，就无法理解圣经中的这些普遍性经文。 One important thing about natures and what is impossible to understand if you don't understand natures are these universal passages in the Bible.
原因是本性是神对万物的善意，这就是为什么整个创造在某种程度上得救。 The reason is that natures are the goodwill of God toward everything, and that's why all of creation gets saved in some way.
山姆指出了这一点。 Sam's pointed this out.
比如歌罗西书一章二十节说：「既然借着他在十字架上所流的血成就了 和平，便借着他叫万有，无论是地上的、天上的，都与自己和好了。」 So, like Colossians 1:20 says, "And through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross.
有很多普遍性的经文，这实际上意味着万类被造——所有的本性——都得救。 " There are a lot of passages that are universal, and what that really means is that all kinds of creation—all of the natures—get saved.
哥林多前书十五章二十二节和二十八节，提摩太前书二章四节讲到普世的救赎旨意。 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 15:28, 1 Timothy 2:4 is the universal will for salvation.
提摩太前书四章十节也有类似的意思。 1 Timothy 4:10 also has a similar idea.
罗马书五章十八节说：「如此说来，因一次的过犯，众人都被 定罪；照样，因一次的义行，众人也就被称义得生命了。」 Romans 5:18 says, "Therefore, as one trespass leads to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification in life for all men.
神将众人都圈在不顺服之中，为要怜悯众人，如罗马书十一章三 十二节所述。彼得后书三章九节也类似：「不愿有一人沉沦。」 " God has confined all to disobedience that He may have mercy on all, as stated in Romans 11:32. 2 Peter 3:9 is similar: "Patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish.
约翰一书二章二节说：「他为我们的罪作了挽回祭 ，不是单为我们的罪，也是为普天下人的罪。」 " 1 John 2:2 says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
约翰一书四章十四节说：「父差子作世人的救主，这是我们所看见且作见证的。」 " Then 1 John 4:14 states, "And we have seen and testified that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.
这就是本性；这就是它的意义。 " So, that's nature; that's what that's about.
然后，救恩，我们相信，是基督里本性的合一。 Then salvation, we believe, is the unity of the natures in Christ.
救我们的是基督的人性与神性结合而神化的事实。 What saves us is the fact that Christ's human nature is divinized by union with the divine nature.
关于这点的经文是约翰福音十七章十九节：「我为他 们的缘故，自己分别为圣，叫他们也因真理成圣。」 And the Bible passage about this is John 17:19: "And for their sake, I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
这就是耶稣自己分别为圣，这是教父们所信的——基本上，这是参与神性。 " That's Jesus consecrating Himself, and that's what the Fathers believed—basically, that this is participation in divine nature.
这是彼得后书一章提到的部分。所以，我们知道这就是我们必须 相信的：我们必须相信有本性这样的东西，我们必须相信神性超 出我们的理解，我们必须相信在基督里有人性和神性的结合。 That's the part that was mentioned in 2 Peter 1. So, we know that’s what we have to believe: we have to believe there are such things as natures, we have to believe that the divine nature is beyond our comprehension, and we have to believe that in Christ, there is the union of the human nature and the divine nature.
这涵盖了这里所需和尼西亚信经基本的内容。 So, that covers what is necessary here and what is basically in Nicaea.
我想稍微谈谈一点，既然山姆在东方教会，我只想 指出我们都可以在这点上达成一致；这没问题。 One thing I’d like to cover a little bit here is, you know, since Sam’s in the Church of the East, I just want to point out that we can all agree on this; that's not a problem.
实际上，我对我认为聂斯托留发生的事情有自己的看法。 Actually, I've got my own idea about what I think happened with Nestorius.
聂斯托留的许多神学术语来自叙利亚语。 A lot of Nestorius' theological terms were from Syriac.
他们有「kayyana」的概念，类似于我们的本性。 So, they had an idea of a "kayyana," which is like our nature.
他们有「konoma」，类似于本性的表现，还有「par sopa」的概念，有点像我们所认为的位格，但更像角色。 They had "konoma," which was like the expression of the nature, and then they had a concept of "parsopa," which is kind of what we think of as person, but it was more like role.
希腊语有更多术语。 Greek had a lot more terms.
希腊语有「ousia」，是本性，还有「physis」，也是本性。 Greek had "ousia," which was nature, and Greek had "physis," which was also kind of nature.
他们有。 They had.
「denomis」，是能力；「energia」，是活动；「hypo stasis」，我们都知道；「prosopon」，是另一种位格。 . . "Denomis," which is power; "energia," which is activity; "hypostasis," which we all know; "prosopon," which was another version of person.
拉丁语实际上比叙利亚语稍多一些术语。 Then Latin actually had slightly more than the Syriac terms.
他们有「substantia」，用于本体，基本上是本质。 They had "substantia," which was used for substance, which is essence, basically.
他们还有「sentient」，以及用于位格的「persona」。 They had "sentient," as well, and "persona," which they used for person.
他们还有「forma」和「species」，基本上是形式或外观，有点像表现。 They also had "forma" and "species," which is basically form or appearance, and it was kind of like the expression.
这些是特土良使用的术语。 Those were the terms Tertullian used.
所以，我认为如果聂斯托留能与拉丁神学家讨论，我想我们可能已经解决了问题。 So, what happened was I think that if Nestorius could have had a discussion with the Latin theologians, I think we probably could have gotten past it.
因为「konoma」与拉丁语中的「forma」非常相似，而利奥 实际上在教皇书信中使用了「forma」；他谈论的是本性的表现。 Because "konoma" would have been very similar to what the Latins meant by "forma," and Leo actually used "forma" in the Tome; he was talking about the expression of the natures.
所以，这里有我们共同的真实事物。 So, there were real things here that we had in common.
问题在于聂斯托留真的不理解——他不明白区利罗在说什么。 The problem was that Nestorius really didn't understand—he didn't understand what Cyril was talking about.
他不熟悉，所以当区利罗说「hypostasis」时，他将 其视为「parsopa」，他认为区利罗一定是混淆了本性。 He wasn't familiar with it, so when Cyril was saying "hypostasis," he saw it as "parsopa," and his understanding was that Cyril must be confusing the natures.
他想：「这毫无意义。 He thought, "This doesn't make any sense.
为什么「konoma」——他混淆了本性？」 Why is 'konoma'—he's confusing the natures?
即使在他生命的尽头，聂斯托留仍不明白为什么他翻译成希腊语没能传达要点。 " Even at the end of his life, Nestorius still didn't understand why his translation into Greek wasn't getting the point across.
幸运的是，我们有1994年的《共同基督论声明》，至少在天主 教方面，在罗马公教会和东方教会之间，声明我们有共同的信仰。 Fortunately, we had this 1994 Common Christological Declaration, at least on the Catholic side, between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the East, stating that we have a common belief.
但我认为这是个误解，这有点不幸，因为我们没有神学术语来处理它。 But, you know, this was a misunderstanding, I think, and it's kind of unfortunate because we just didn't have the theological terminology to deal with it.
聂斯托留用希腊语解释它的方式确实是错的，因为没有人那样理解，它误用了术语。 The way Nestorius explained it in Greek was honestly wrong because no one understood it that way, and it misused the terms.
从我的角度看，东方教会在这一点上没有显著差异。 From my perspective, the Church of the East has no significant difference on this point.
我这样说基本上是为了表明我们没有问题。 I'm just saying that to basically say we don't have a problem.
我不是在这里伪善地说我们不能达成一致。 I'm not being a hypocrite here and saying we can't agree.
显然，我们在这点上与东正教没有分歧；我们完全同意。 Obviously, we don't disagree with the Eastern Orthodox on this; we completely agree on this.
所以，基本上，所有使徒传统都同意这是其运作方式：位格和本性是真实的范畴， 形而上学上可以理解的东西，我们可以在自然中看到——我们可以理解的事物。 So, essentially, all of the apostolic traditions are in agreement that this is how it works: person and nature are real categories, metaphysically comprehensible things that we can see in nature—things that we can understand.
我不是说聂斯托留没有犯任何错误，但我说我们已经达到了可以就此达成一致的地步。 I'm not saying that Nestorius didn't make any mistakes, but I'm saying we've gotten to the point where we can agree on that.
那么，这一切是怎么出错的呢？ So, how did all this go wrong?
加尔文发生了什么？ What happened to Calvin?
加尔文跟随了奥坎的威廉。 Well, Calvin followed William of Ockham.
奥坎的威廉是一位哲学家，他负责我们所说的唯名论。 William of Ockham was a philosopher, and he was responsible for what we call nominalism.
它基本上将关于本性和位格的所有哲学思想转化为基于我们理性理解的概念。 It basically converted all of these philosophical ideas about nature and person into concepts based on our rational understanding of them.
关于他是否真的形而上学地相信这一点存在疑问 ，但实际上，这就是造成所有这些问题的原因。 There's a question as to whether he really believed that metaphysically or not, but practically speaking, that's what created all these problems.
他显然没有明确表明他没有处理这个问题。 He certainly didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't dealing with it.
他基本上有三个问题。 He had basically three problems.
一个是单义性。 One was univocity.
单义性是个长词，意思是当我们谈到神时，它在神里面的意思和在我们里面一样。 Univocity is a long word that just means when we say something about God, it means the same thing in God that it means in us.
很难使之成立。 It's hard to make that work.
我不是说不可能，但很难。 I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's hard.
大多数神学家采用某种类比，基本上说我们对神的认识 是真实的知识，但在神里面并不完全与我们所知相同。 Most theologians embrace some kind of analogy, basically saying that what we know about God is real knowledge, but it's not exactly the same in God as it is in how we know it.
奥坎也相信唯名论，即本性基本上只是我们给具有相似特征的事物贴的标签。 Ockham also believed in nominalism, which is that natures are basically just the names we put on things that have similar characteristics.
所以，这是由我们的理性强加的。 So, it's something that's imposed by our reason.
然后他相信意志主义。 Then he believed in voluntarism.
意志主义，以神的意志命名，基本上意味着神的自由优先于祂的知识。 Voluntarism, named after the will of God, basically means God's freedom has priority over His knowledge.
所以，当你把这三者结合在一起，基本上结果就是用神的意志来解释一切。 So, when you put all three of those together, basically what you end up with is that God's will is used to explain everything.
当你用神的意志解释一切，并把神看作地上的君王时——这就是个糟糕的组合。 You can think about when God's will is the explanation for everything, and you're also thinking of God as an earthly sovereign—that's a bad combination.
结果是神的意志和人的意志在同一个层面上运作。 The consequences are that divine will and human will are operating on the same plane.
这意味着它们冲突；无可避免。 That means they conflict; there is just no way around it.
所以，关于本性和恩典的一切都无法运作，因为神的意志将凌驾于一切之上。 So, everything about nature and grace just doesn't work because God's will is going to override everything.
这使邪恶成为一个极大的问题。 It makes evil a really big problem.
因果关系基本上只是神在任何事物中运行，这使神成为真正的原因。 Causality is basically just God working in whatever it is, and that makes God the real cause.
传统对邪恶的理解不复存在，因为如果神是一切的原因，祂如何不是邪恶的始作俑者？ The traditional understanding of evil is gone because how is God not the author of evil if He's the cause of everything?
实际上，传统上邪恶被理解为对神能力的逻辑限制。 Actually, evil was traditionally understood as a logical limit on God's power.
祂创造本性，但祂不能——祂不能造出邪恶的事物。 He creates nature, but He can't make it—He can't make things that are evil.
这可以追溯到圣彼得·达米安，他是最早谈论神的全能的人之一。 That goes back to St. Peter Damian, who was one of the first guys to talk about divine omnipotence.
如果你不理解本性，你会误解圣经，因为有时圣经谈论的 本性并不字面上指本性，我们知道这是因为它是邪恶的。 If you don't understand natures, you'll misinterpret Scripture because there are times when Scripture talks about a nature that doesn't literally mean a nature, and we know that because it's evil.
例如，在以弗所书二章三节说：「我们从前也都在他们中间，放纵肉体的 私欲，随着肉体和心中所喜好的去行，本为可怒之子，和别人一样。」 For example, in Ephesians 2:3, it says, "Among them, we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
你可以把这解释为有一种罪性，但那不能是导致你犯罪的本性。 " Now, you could interpret that as there being a sin nature, but that can't be a nature that causes you to sin.
然而，如果你与加尔文主义者交谈，你会发现他们一再犯这个错误。 However, if you talk to Calvinists, you will see them make that mistake over and over again.
他们这样做的原因是他们不理解本性；他们基本 上在这个奥坎主义框架中运作，而这行不通。 The reason they do this is that they don't understand natures; they're basically operating in this Ockhamist framework, and that doesn't work.
最终，神的位格被简化为他们的活动，因为意志是他们唯一需要解释的范畴。 At the end of the day, the divine persons end up reduced to their activity because will is the only category they have to explain.
所以，神的位格本质上是他们所做和所扮演的角色，这就是我们遇到问题的地方。 So, it's like the divine persons are essentially what they do and the roles they play, and that’s where we get into problems.
有趣的是，这在伊斯兰教中也发生了，你可以看 到这些思想如此相似，以至于很难区分它们。 What’s interesting about this is that the same thing happened in Islam, and you can see these ideas are so similar that it's hard to even think about distinguishing them.
在伊斯兰教中，有一个哲学家学派，阿维森纳可能是其中最伟大的。 What happened in Islam was that there was a school of philosophers, and Avicenna was kind of the greatest of them, probably.
他们愿意向基督徒学习，接触希腊哲学，所以他们有神是超越者的观念。 They were open to learning from Christians and had access to Greek philosophy, so they had this idea that God was transcendent.
然而，后来出现了艾什尔里学派，实际上是由一位名叫阿尔-加扎利的哲学家创立的。 However, then there was the Ash'ari school, which was really started by a philosopher named Al-Ghazali.
他写了一本书，叫《哲学家的矛盾》，他认为他们的思想是无稽之谈，基 本上除了神的意志外，否定了所有解释——这与奥坎所做的完全一样。 He wrote a book called "The Incoherence of the Philosophers," where he argued that their ideas were nonsense and basically took away every explanation except the divine will—exactly the same thing Ockham does.
学者们早就指出了这一点；这不是我首次提出的。 Scholars have pointed this out for a long time; this isn't new with me.
所以，奥坎和阿尔-加扎利基本上分别是基督教 和伊斯兰教的版本，但他们最终走到了一起。 So, Ockham and Al-Ghazali are basically the Christian and Muslim versions, respectively, but they end up in the same place.
有趣的是，当我研究这个问题时，我发现一位名叫哈姆扎·尤瑟夫的穆斯林学 者写了一篇文章，他将伊斯兰社会中许多问题归咎于奥坎，说是我们引入的。 What was interesting was, you know, when I was looking into this, I found an article by a Muslim scholar named Hamza Youssef, where he blamed a lot of the things that were going wrong in Muslim society on Ockham, saying that we got it in there.
有一位名叫梅赫里格的哲学史学家在博客中回应， 指出这实际上来自艾什尔里学派，而不是奥坎。 There was a historian of philosophy named Meherig who responded in a blog entry, pointing out that it actually came from the Ash'ari school, not from Ockham.
所以，你可以看到这不是独特的问题。 So, you can really see that this is not a problem that is unique.
这就像——如果你做错了，如果你是唯名论者，这将发生在你身上。 This is like—if you do this wrong, if you're a nominalist, this is going to happen to you.
这无关紧要；这甚至不是特别基督教的事情。 It doesn't matter; it's not even a particularly Christian thing.
这在伊斯兰教中也会产生同样的后果。 This is going to have the same consequences in Islam.
那么，你会落在哪儿呢？ So, where do you land?
你得到一种对创造的控制观念，好像如果他们不统治创造，他们就不是一个好的君王。 You get this idea of control over creation, like if they're not bossing creation around, they're not being a good sovereign.
这是一种地上王权的观念。 It's this idea of earthly kingship.
然后，定义属性就像神对创造的主权。 Then the defining attributes are like God's sovereignty over creation.
好像除非祂有效地统治创造，否则祂就不是主权者。 It's like unless He's bossing creation around effectively, He's not sovereign.
所以，结果就是所有这些预定论和偶因论；这些都只是试图把神变成地上的王。 So, you end up with all this predestinarianism and all this occasionalism; that's all just trying to turn God into an earthly king.
这就是撒母耳记上八章发生的事情。如果你求王，那是不对的。 And that's the same thing that happened in 1 Samuel 8. If you ask for a king, that's not right.
所以，我的意思是，这是同样的事情。 So, you know, I mean, this is the same thing.
你知道奥坎是问题所在，因为即使在完全不同的神学中， 当每个人都像奥坎一样行事时，同样的事情也发生了。 And you know that Ockham is the problem because even in a completely different theology, the same thing happened when everybody did the same thing as Ockham.
所以，我们可以真的把问题归咎于奥坎。 So, we can really blame Ockham for the problem.
我的意思是，如果你跟随奥坎，你就会陷入混乱，而奥坎基本上是发明新教的人。 I mean, if you're following Ockham, you're going to be a mess, and Ockham is the guy who basically invented Protestantism.
在伯拉纠派争论中出现的方式在这个完全奥坎主义的系统中被重新构想。 And the way it came up within the Pelagian controversy got reimagined in this completely Ockhamist system.
有几个人这样做过。 There are a couple of different people who have done this.
一个是路易·布耶神父；他有一本书叫《新教的精神与形式》，讨论唯名论如何影响新教。 One is Father Louis Bouyer; he has a book called "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism" that discusses how nominalism affects Protestantism.
但这真的使本性与恩典的问题变成一场无人能赢的争斗——没有正确答案留下。 But, you know, it really makes this nature-grace issue into a fight that nobody can win—there's no right answer left in it.
有一位名叫约瑟夫·因坎德拉的学者；事实上，他还在。 There was a scholar named Joseph Incandela; actually, he's still around.
他1986年的论文将其描述为神与人的意志冲突。 His 86th dissertation described it as a clash between the wills of God and man.
我的意思是，这就是一场斗争，无可避免。 I mean, it's just a fight, and there's no way around it.
这是新教的背景。 That's the background for Protestantism.
然后，一位名叫罗伯特·霍尔科特的异类人物引入了约的 概念，以使神的意志稳定，因为神的意志是唯一的解释。 Then one of the anomalous figures, a guy named Robert Holcott, introduced this idea of covenant to make God's will stable because God's will was the only explanation.
你没有哲学解释为什么神不直接改变心意或修正事情或做任何事。 You didn't have a philosophical explanation for why God didn't just change His mind or fix things or do whatever.
所以他说：「哦，你知道，有约这个范畴，如果神立了约，祂就不能改变心意。」 So, he said, "Oh, well, you know, there's this category of covenant where if God makes a covenant, then He can't change His mind.
如你所料，这被带入了伯拉纠派的冲突中。 " That gets taken, as you might expect, into this Pelagian conflict.
有个名叫托马斯·布拉德华丁的人，当时在唯名论经院 哲学中，他震惊地发现自己被贴上了伯拉纠派的标签。 There was a guy named Thomas Bradwardine who was shocked to find himself labeled Pelagian because he was in this nominalist scholasticism at the time.
然后他写了反伯拉纠派的文本，但他开始攻击霍尔科特，因为他说： 「嗯，你不够尊重神的主权；约确实需要是一个永恒的旨意……」 Then he wrote anti-Pelagian texts, but he started attacking Holcott because he said, "Well, you aren't respecting God's sovereignty enough; the covenant really needs to be an eternal decree that.
决定谁得救，谁不得救。 . . " That decides who’s saved and who’s not.
最终，雷米尼的格雷戈里，当时在巴黎大学，采纳并传播了这些思想。 The end of it was Gregory of Remini, who was at the University of Paris at the time, took these ideas and disseminated them.
那是新教的开始。 That was the beginning of Protestantism.
雷米尼的格雷戈里基本上是新教的零号病人。 Gregory of Remini is essentially patient zero for Protestantism.
这就是奥坎主义的思想如何传播开来的。 So, that’s how this Ockhamism just spread around.
基本上，他们所谓的「奥古斯丁学派之路」与「现代之路」之间有争斗，前者 本应是奥古斯丁的版本，但却是唯名论者，后者包括更经院的现代主义者。 It’s like, basically, there were fights between what they called the "Via Scola Augustiniana," which was supposed to be the Augustinian version but was nominalist, and then there was the "Via Moderna," which included people who were more scholastic modernists.
但那时一切都是奥坎的影响。 But it's all Ockham at that point.
他们全都是我们所谈论的超级意志主义者。 They were all super voluntarists in exactly the way that we were talking about.
他们都有这种本性与恩典之间的错误两难；他们没有对本性和恩典的真正基督教理解。 They all had this false dilemma between nature and grace; they didn't have the real Christian understanding of nature and grace.
有些人会试图把这归咎于邓斯·司各脱，但布拉德华丁和雷米尼的格雷戈里不是司各脱派。 Some people will try to blame this on Duns Scotus, but Bradwardine and Gregory of Remini weren't Scotists.
当他们谈论早期经院学者时，对我来说不是早期经院学者；它始于奥坎，终于奥坎。 When they talk about earlier scholastics, it’s not earlier scholastics to me; it starts and ends with Ockham.
一旦奥坎的思想开始传播，一切就这样走上了错误的道路。 Once Ockham's thoughts started getting out, that was how it all went wrong.
总之，这基本上就是加尔文的形成过程。 So, anyway, that’s basically how you get there with Calvin.
我一开始说了很多。 You know, I talked a big game at the beginning.
现在，这就是一切汇聚的地方。 Now here’s where all of that comes together.
加尔文犯了三个重大神学错误，本质上都是因为奥坎的背景——完全误解了本性和位格。 Calvin makes three big theological mistakes, and they’re essentially all because of this background in Ockham—all from getting nature and person completely wrong.
第一个重大神学错误是拟人化。 The first big theological mistake is anthropomorphism.
他以拟人化的方式思考位格，就像一个字面的神的议会，他们 在其中交谈，做出决定，并将旨意作为人与人之间的约定。 He’s thinking of person in an anthropomorphic sense, like a literal divine council where they talk among themselves, make decisions, and establish decrees as covenants among people.
这行不通。 That doesn’t work.
然后他从奥坎那里得到了关系的形而上学。 Then he gets his metaphysics of relations from Ockham.
因为他是唯名论者，他将关系和本质仅仅视为描述神的方式。 Because he’s a nominalist, he’s thinking about the relations and the essence as just ways of speaking about God.
既然它们只是描述神的方式，他认为它们之间必然有绝对的分离。 Since they’re just ways of speaking about God, he thinks that there has to be this absolute disconnect between them.
他没有将其视为形而上学上真实存在的东西，实际上在其中有真实的关系。 He’s not thinking about it as metaphysically real things that are underneath there and actually have real relations between them.
所以，他从根本上破坏了位格和本性之间区别的基础。 So, he’s essentially destroyed the basis for the distinction between person and nature.
他根本不理解教父的位格和本性概念，所以他始终误解教父们。 He doesn’t understand the patristic concepts of person and nature at all, so he’s reading the Fathers wrong all the time.
他根本不明白。 He just doesn’t get it.
我的意思是，他甚至误解奥古斯丁，而那显然应该是他熟知的。 I mean, he even gets Augustine wrong, and that’s obviously the one that’s supposed to be well-known.
所以，他从奥坎那里获得关系的形而上学；他无法理解他之前的一切。 So, he’s gotten his metaphysics of relation from Ockham; he can’t understand anything that came before him.
这就是一切的来源。 That’s where it all comes from.
然后，大观念是将神的使命视为角色，这就是为什么这如此 重要，以及为什么我们谈论神所做的一切都是一的观念。 And then the big idea is this divine missions as roles, and this is why it's so important and why we talked about the idea that everything God does is one.
那确实是一——没有区别。 That’s really one—no distinctions.
加尔文不这样认为；詹姆斯·怀特也不这样认为。 Calvin doesn’t think that; James White doesn’t think that.
所以，我的意思是，这是将神的使命视为角色的观念。 So, you know, I mean, it’s this idea of divine missions as roles.
我所指的特别是基督作为中保的问题。 What I mean by that is especially the problem with Christ as Mediator.
问题在于他认为基督在作为中保的角色中做了一些在神性中不同的事情，这是不可能的。 The problem is he thinks that Christ is doing something different in His role as Mediator in His divinity, and that’s impossible.
他错了，因为他确实被指出了这一点。 He’s wrong about it because he actually got called on it.
基督作为中保的观念被一位路德宗的弗朗切斯科·斯坦卡罗提出，他在这一点上是正统的。 This idea of Christ as Mediator was addressed by a Lutheran, Francesco Stancaro, who’s orthodox on this point.
他说：「不，基督作为中保所做的，祂是以人性做的。」 He says, "No, what Christ does as Mediator, He does it as a human being.
这就是它的运作方式。 " That’s how that works.
是人性的活动在我们与神之间调解。 It’s human activity that mediates between us and God.
当然，祂是神性的位格，这使祂的牺牲有价值。 Now, it's important that He’s a divine person; that’s what gives His sacrifice value.
但这并不等于说有一个与祂的中保身份相关的不同神性行为。 But that’s not the same thing as saying that there’s a different divine act associated with His mediation.
这完全是错误的。 It’s just flat-out wrong.
这无疑违背了行动的一致性——不可分割的行动。 It violates the identity of operations—the inseparable operations—unquestionably.
无可挽救，它破坏了神的单纯性。 There’s no way to save it, and it breaks divine simplicity.
所以，我不知道有什么办法可以说清楚。 So, I don't know how there's any way to say it.
如果我们来看这三个问题，首先是拟人化。 If we go through three problems, the first is anthropomorphism.
这就是我要开始引用加尔文主义学者的地方，以便人们明白这不是我凭空想出来的。 This is where I'm going to start using Calvinist scholars just so people understand this is not something I came up with.
我不是在深入研究加尔文的著作寻找错误；这只是我在阅读加尔文主义学者。 I'm not diving into Calvin's writings looking for something that's wrong; this is just me reading Calvinist scholars.
对于拟人化，写了《加尔文的基督论》一书的斯蒂芬·爱德蒙森这 样说：在加尔文所坚持的古典拉丁语中——这基本上是罗马哲学— —「persona」主要指一个人在社会结构中的角色或职分。 For anthropomorphism, the way Stephen Edmondson, who wrote a book called "Calvin's Christology," puts it is this: in the classical Latin to which Calvin was committed—this is Roman philosophy, basically—"persona" designated principally one's role or character in a play or office within the fabric of society.
这不仅仅是一个人简单扮演的角色、性格或职分 ，而是定义了一个人在更大整体运作中的意义。 It’s not just the role, character, or office that one simply filled, but that which defined one’s significance within the outworking of the greater whole.
所以，这就是他所想的。 So, that’s what he’s thinking about.
他在思考角色。 He’s thinking about roles.
在这种古典意义上，「persona」主要关注一个人在周围经济 中的活动，其次才是作为填补这一角色的实质自我或人物的地位。 "Persona," in this classical sense, was focused primarily on one’s activity within the surrounding economy and then only secondarily on one’s status as a substantial self or personage who fills this role.
这就是他所想的；他在思考社会中的角色，但他谈论的是神里面的位格这样做。 That’s what he’s thinking of; he’s thinking of a role in society, but he’s talking about persons in God doing this.
这毫无意义。 It doesn’t make any sense.
你可以看出他误解了希腊的观点，因为他在《教义问答》中引用 了一段关于希腊观点的话，试图说希腊人使用的是同样的观念。 You can tell that he’s misunderstanding the Greek view because he actually has a quote in the Institutes about the Greek view saying where he tries to say that the Greeks are using that same idea.
所以他说：「位格这个术语的使用并不限于拉丁教会；因为希 腊教会也许是为了表明他们的同意，教导说神有三个位格。」 So he says, "Nor indeed was the use of the term person confined to the Latin Church; for the Greek Church, in like manner, perhaps for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three prosopa in God.
然而，所有这些——无论是希腊人还是拉丁人—— 虽然在词语上有所不同，但在本质上完全一致。 All these, however—whether Greeks or Latins—though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.
「prosopon」在希腊思想中确实被理解为角色，但他们所做的是绝对确保 当他们谈论「prosopon」时，他们也在谈论「hypostasis」。 " It's true that "prosopon" was understood as a role in Greek thought, but what they did was to make absolutely sure that when they were talking about "prosopon," they were also talking about "hypostasis.
他们非常明确，当他们说「位格」时，他们的意思与「hypostasis」相同。 " They were very clear that when they meant "person," they meant the same thing as "hypostasis.
所以，他们知道「prosopon」的定义，但希腊教父们拒绝了它。 " So, they were aware of that definition of "prosopon," but they rejected it in the Greek Fathers.
加尔文显然认为他们与他想的一样，而这正是一个彻底的误解。 Calvin clearly thinks that they’re thinking the same thing he was, and that’s just a perfect misunderstanding.
他把神看作一个扮演角色的位格，这正是东方教父们所拒绝的。 He’s thinking of God as a person playing a role, which is exactly the same thing that the Eastern Fathers all rejected.
对此无可回避；这就是一个错误，你无法修正。 There’s just no way around that; it’s simply a mistake, and you can’t fix it.
同样地，在神的关系和属性上，他只是凭空编造。 Similarly, on the divine relations and the properties, he’s just making it up.
他这样做的原因是奥坎从未解决关系的问题。 The reason he’s making it up is that Ockham could never solve the problem of relations.
有一本保罗·托姆写的好书，叫《三位一体的逻辑》，确实把这一切追溯到奥古斯丁。 There’s a great book by Paul Trom, spelled T-H-O-M, called "The Logic of the Trinity," that actually traces this whole thing back to Augustine.
但关键是奥古斯丁有一个非常形而上学上强有力的关系概念，他用它来定义位格。 But the bottom line is Augustine had a very metaphysically robust concept of relations, and that was what he used to define person.
这就是伯伊修和圣托马斯·阿奎那谈到的同一存在关系。 That’s the same subsistent relation that Boethius talked about and that St. Thomas Aquinas talked about.
所以，这是真实的。 So, it’s a real thing.
而奥坎由于他的形而上学，基本上破坏了本性的基础，也破坏了位格的基础。 And Ockham, because of his metaphysics, has basically destroyed the basis for nature and destroyed the basis for person.
这对关系也不起作用，他从未弄清楚。 It doesn’t work for relations either, and he never figures it out.
加尔文试图弄清楚，但他没有成功。 Well, Calvin's trying to figure it out, but he doesn't succeed.
于是，他提出了一个观念，即位格是自有永有的神。 So, he comes up with this idea that the persons are, um, autophiles—God of themselves.
但就本质而言，他们都是一样的。 But with respect to the essence, they’re all the same.
然而，当他们彼此相关时，他们不是。 However, when they’re relating to each other, they’re not.
因为关系涉及位格，本质不能介于位格之间；它只能是存在。 Since relation deals with person, the essence can’t be coming between the persons; it has to just be the subsistence.
存在就是我们所说的位格。 The subsistence is what we call the person.
在他看来，存在与本性之间没有关系。 There’s no relation between subsistence and nature in his view.
结果是这种奇怪的三神论，几乎像位格相处，因为——我不知道，因为他们是彼此的存在。 What ends up happening is this kind of bizarre tritheism, where it’s almost like the persons get along because, and I don’t know, because they’re subsistences from each other.
但基本上，他们有自由选择；他们必须本质上行使意志 来合一，而不是拥有父赐给圣子和圣灵的共同本性。 But basically, they have a free choice; they have to essentially exercise their will to be united instead of having a common nature that was given by the Father to each of the Son and the Spirit.
这再次完全超出了教父共识。 Again, it’s something that is completely outside of the patristic consensus.
与尼西亚无关，而且再次，它是三神论的，因为如果在行 动中有任何这样的分裂，如我们所见，那就分裂了本性。 It has nothing to do with Nicaea, and again, it’s tritheistic, because if there’s any kind of division in the operations like that, as we saw, that divides the nature.
所以，其结果是也减少了我们的参与。 So, the effect of that is it also reduces our participation.
加尔文理解的参与方式是我们基本上参与了三位一体位格的共融。 The way Calvin understands participation is that we’re basically participating in this communion of the Trinitarian persons.
但他所看到的是这种意志的同意。 But what he sees is this agreement—this agreement of will.
所以，他基本上认为我们的参与就是我们同意神，而这并不真实。 So, it’s like basically what he sees as our participation is that we agree with God, which just isn’t real.
从基督教救恩的角度看，那算不了什么。 You know, from the perspective of Christian salvation, that’s nothing.
所以，他处于一种自有神的问题永远无法解决的境地。 So, he’s in a situation where this autotheos problem is just never going to be solved.
他对关系的理解完全消失。 His understanding of relations is totally gone.
他对关系属性的理解不连贯，因为他没有本质与位格之间的联系。 His idea of the properties of the relational properties is incoherent because he has no connection between the essence and the person.
他说位格与本质通过不可分解的纽带相连；他在《教 义问答》一卷十三章中这样描述。这是什么意思？ He’s saying that the person is connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie; that’s how he describes it in Institutes 1. 13. What does that mean?
不知道。 No idea.
我的意思是，这不是形而上学的东西。 I mean, it’s not anything metaphysical.
那是什么样的纽带呢？ What kind of tie is that?
没人知道。 Nobody knows.
这不是同一性，其他人都理解为位格就是本质。 It’s not identity, which is what everybody else understood it to be—that the persons were the essence.
这毫无意义。 It doesn’t make any sense.
他提出的这个观念基本上是这样的：当我们思考位格时，这实际上只是我们的思想。 He comes up with this idea that’s basically like, well, when we’re thinking about persons, it’s really just all in our thinking.
当我们比较时，我们可以思考，但这只是我们的思想。 When we’re comparing, then we can think about it, but it’s something in our thinking.
这根本说不通。 It just doesn’t make sense.
这谈到归于父的事作为区别的标志。 It’s talking about, you know, things being attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction.
试图将这分开是行不通的。 And trying to separate this is just never going to work.
佩里，我注意到他有一些很好的评论，所以他让我读布兰登·埃利斯的这本书。 Perry, I noticed he’s had some great comments, so he made me read this book by Brandon Ellis.
我不会说他强迫我；实际上，佩里建议的任何东西我都会读。 I won't say he made me; I actually read anything that Perry suggested.
但这是《加尔文、普世性与诗篇的自有性》，书中探讨了所有这些观念。 But it's "Calvin, Catholicity, and the Aseity of the Psalm," and it goes through all these ideas.
他基本上说的是，对，就是分离。 What he basically says is, yeah, it's the separation.
他试图围绕位格和本质分离的观念重新解释整个基督教 历史，这基本上误解了他引用的教父时代的每一个人。 He tries to reinterpret all of Christian history around this idea of the separation between person and essence, and it just misreads essentially everybody he cites from the patristic era.
我愿意表示同情，但这基本上就是唯名论中发生的事情：你再也无法理解任何事情。 I like to be sympathetic, but it’s just—it’s basically like this is what happens in nominalism: you just can't make sense of anything anymore.
正如我所说，如果你将其与保罗·托姆的《三位一体的逻辑》对比，看看形 而上学上实际发生的事情，埃利斯所做的错误如此明显，我想这不言自明。 And like I said, if you contrast that with Paul Trom's "The Logic of the Trinity" and see what was actually going on metaphysically, it’s so obvious what Ellis is doing wrong that, you know, I think it speaks for itself.
最后——这对加尔文来说是大问题——能力相似但不相同。 And so finally—and this is the big one for Calvin—the power is alike but not the same.
如果你看基督教历史，当某物应该是相同的，人们开始说：「嗯，你 知道，子像父；基督像人，」每次他们这样说，你就知道有问题。 If you look at Christian history, when something is supposed to be the same and people start saying, "Well, it's like, you know, the Son is like the Father; Christ is like a man," every time they do that, you know something is wrong.
这就是加尔文对待行动的方式；他说行动相似但不完全相同——它们是可区分的。 That’s what Calvin is doing with the operations; he’s saying that the operations are alike but not exactly the same—that they’re distinguishable.
再次引用《教义问答》十三卷中的大段话：「区别在于，父被归为行动的开始，万物的 泉源和根源；子被归为行动中的智慧、谋略和安排；而行动的力量和功效归于圣灵。」 The big quote from the Institutes again, from Book 13, is: "The distinction is that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action; while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit.
所以，观念是即使他们都在做同样的事——好吧 ，他们都在做同样的事——他们有不同的角色。 " So, the idea there is that even though they're all doing the same thing—okay, they’re all doing the same thing—they’ve got different roles.
他们以不同的方式做。 They’re doing it in different ways.
你不能有那种区别；如果他们在做不同的事，那就不可能是同一个行动。 You can’t have that distinction; there’s no way it’s not the same act if they’re doing different things.
他有这个观念，认为他们在所做的行动中基本上以不同方式行事，而这不可能。 He has this idea where they’re basically behaving in different ways in the acts they’re doing, and it just can’t be.
非常重要的是，他明确表示秩序的区别不是无意义或多余的。 What’s really important in that is that he says specifically that the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous.
这意味着他认为这是真实的，而且他是唯名论者，所以他以这种方式看待它非常重要。 That means he thinks this is a real thing, and he’s a nominalist, so it’s very important that he views it that way.
很明显，加尔文的观念就是错的，而且再次，无法挽救。 It’s clear that Calvin’s idea is just wrong, and again, there’s no way to save it.
所以，这基本上就是观念。 So, you know, that’s basically the idea.
如果我们看不同的加尔文主义学者，他们对结果非常清楚。 If we look at the different Calvinist scholars, they’re very clear on how this turns out.
当他们谈论内部活动时，他们谈论的是三位一体位格之间的协议——他们之间的约。 When they’re talking about internal activities, they’re talking about a compact among the three persons of the Trinity—a covenant among them.
这根本毫无意义，除非你是个三神论者；这根本不可能。 That doesn’t even make any sense unless you’re a tritheist; that’s just not even possible.
在《教义问答》中，加尔文在三卷二十一章五节中明确 表示，神「与自己订立协议，决定每个人的命运」。 In the Institutes, Calvin says specifically in 3. 21. 5 that he "compacted with Himself what he willed to become of each man.
他认为那就是旨意：三位一体位格之间的协议，像字面的补偿，他们之间的字面交易。 " That’s what he views as the decree: a compact among the persons of the Trinity, like a literal compensation, a literal deal that they make among themselves.
理查德·穆勒称其为加尔文教义结构的基石——这个永恒的旨意。 Richard Muller calls this the keystone of Calvin's doctrinal arch—this eternal decree.
迈克尔·霍顿称其为在永恒中制定的三位一体内部 的救赎之约，通过父、子、灵的共同工作实现。 Michael Horton calls it the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption made in eternity that realizes itself through the mutual working of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
就是这样。 There you go.
赫尔曼·巴文克指出，所有约的基础都在神的永恒计 划中，在三位一体位格之间的约——「救赎之约」。 Herman Bavinck states that the basis of all covenants was found in the eternal counsel of God in a covenant between the very persons of the Trinity—the "Pactum Salutis.
改革宗经院派的吉罗拉莫·赞奇写了一本关于三位一体的书。 " Girolamo Zanchi, who was a Reformed scholastic, wrote a book on the Triune Elohim.
显然，他认为这意味着三位在会议中。 It’s clear that he thought that meant there were three in council.
他问，除非有通过自身存在并理解的实体，否则他所说的那 些如何能听到并以各自的方式合作，按自己的形象造人？ He asked how could those to whom he spoke hear and collaborate, each in their own way, to make man in their own likeness unless there were substances subsisting through themselves and understanding?
这基本上是认为三位一体是三个人。 That’s basically thinking that the Trinity is three guys.
杰拉尔德·布雷指出，加尔文持有一种教义，认为三个位格在神性上是平 等的，彼此联合不是通过分享无人格的本质，而是通过相互的团契和共存 ——伽帕多家教父所讲的神的相互内住应用在位格层面，而不是本质。 Gerald Bray noted that Calvin held to a doctrine that said the three persons were co-equal in their divinity and united with each other not by sharing an impersonal essence but by their mutual fellowship and co-inherence—the Cappadocian doctrine of perichoresis in God applied at the level of person, not essence.
保罗·赫尔姆也谈到布雷的立场，描述说：根据加尔文，三位一体的每个位格都是自有神。 Paul Helm actually talked about Bray’s position as well, describing it this way: according to Calvin, each person of the Trinity is autotheos—God of Himself.
这确保他们之间的关系必须是自愿的，因为没有位格可以声称有权将意志强加于其他位格。 This ensures that the relations between them must be voluntary since no one person can claim the authority to impose his will on others.
我不知道这怎么发生的，但这就是三神论。 I don’t know how that happened, but it’s just tritheism.
我读过这些人的很多作品，都是一样的。 I’ve read a bunch of these guys, and it’s the same thing.
那么外部活动呢？ What about the external activity?
有位加尔文主义者，阿曼都斯·波拉努斯，试图解释这个。 There’s a Calvinist, Armandus Polanus, who tries to give an explanation of this.
他基本上说，考虑到行动的终止方式，它们是个别位格的工 作，所以基本上神可以决定这些行动将是个别位格的工作。 He basically says that considering how the acts terminate, they are the work of individual persons, so it’s basically possible for God to decide that the acts are going to be the work of the individual person.
我们之前谈过这个；这毫无意义。 Now we talked about that before; it doesn’t make any sense.
这意味着他们可以是行动的对象，以便我们可以通过圣灵到圣子，到圣父。 What it means is that they can be the object of the act so that we can come to God through the Spirit, to the Son, to the Father.
这是可能的；我们理解这一点。 That’s possible; we understand that.
但这使他们成为我们所做之事的对象；这并不使他们做任何不同的事。 But that makes them the object of what we're doing; it doesn't make them do anything different.
这正是波拉努斯在这里所说的。 That’s exactly what Polanus is saying here.
加尔文本人在《教义问答》一卷十三章十八节中再 次说：「彼得也证明，是基督的灵感动了先知。」 Calvin himself, again in 1. 13. 18 of the Institutes, says, "For Peter also testifies that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets.
所以，圣经常说那是父神的灵。 " So the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.
他显然认为圣灵在此时做了分开的事——那是祂的角色。 He clearly thinks that the Holy Spirit is doing something separate at this point—that that’s His role.
在我写完文章后，我注意到约翰·欧文所说的一些事。 After I wrote the article, my attention was drawn to some things that John Owen was saying.
当我读这些人写的书时，约翰·欧文基本上走了和特洛尼乌 斯一样的路，认为神可以决定其中一个位格单独做某事。 When I was reading the books that these guys had written, John Owen was the one who basically took that same route as Thelonious, which is basically that God can decide that one of the persons is doing something separately.
这毫无意义。 That makes no sense.
你不能在一个应该相同的行为之间有区别；这会把他们分成三个神。 You can't have a distinction between an act that’s supposed to be identical; that breaks them up into three gods.
这根本不可能。 It’s just not possible.
国际神学委员会的西蒙·弗朗西斯·盖恩斯神父对此写了许多回应，做了很好的工作。 There’s some great work by a guy who’s actually on the International Theological Commission, Father Simon Francis Gaines, who has been writing many responses to this.
我建议你读那些，因为这不是——但无论如何，我的意思是，答案是无可避免。 I just encourage you to read those because it’s not— But anyway, I mean, the answer is there’s just no way around it.
最后——这是改革宗浸信会中正在进行的讨论，这就是我们无法与他们认同的原因。 So finally—this is the discussion that’s happening among the Reformed Baptists, and this is why we just can’t get on board with them.
他们非常努力，但无可避免。 They’re trying very hard, but there’s no way around it.
我关注的两个人是阿多尼斯·维杜，他刚写了一本关 于使命的书，犯了同样的错误，以及马修·巴雷特。 The two guys that I was looking at were Adonis Vidu, who just had a book on the missions that makes the same mistake, and Matthew Barrett.
维杜在写关于神的行动的书时，遵循了布鲁斯·马歇尔对阿奎那的误读。 So, Vidu, when he wrote his book on the divine operations, followed Bruce Marshall's what I view as a misreading of Aquinas.
他当时是路德宗；现在是天主教徒，但我认为那是 对阿奎那的误读，我不确定他今天是否会同意。 He was a Lutheran at the time; he’s a Catholic now, but I think it was a misreading of Aquinas, and I’m not sure that he would agree with it today.
巴雷特跟随圣巴西尔，因为他实际上说圣灵是成全的原因。 Barrett follows St. Basil because he actually said that the Spirit was the perfecting cause.
这就是他们有这种观念的地方，好吧，也许他们在做不同的事。 That’s where they had this kind of idea that it’s like, okay, well, maybe they’re doing separate things.
这有技术原因，但我认为这可能不准确。 There’s a technical reason for that, but I think that is probably just inaccurate.
我认为我们今天不会按其本意接受这个。 I don’t think we would accept that these days as it’s meant.
你知道，这是发展初期；人们不总是完美的，我认为那不完美。 You know, this is early in the development; people aren’t always perfect, and I think that was not perfect.
但他们依赖于此。 But they’re relying on that.
我觉得，教父共识不支持这个。 I’m like, the patristic consensus doesn’t support that.
所以即使巴西尔当时这样说了，也无关紧要。 So even if Basil said this at the time, it doesn’t really matter.
关键是，我读过所有试图使不可分割的行动如加 尔文所解释的那样正统的尝试——但它们不是。 The bottom line is I’ve read all of the attempts to try to make inseparable operations, as Calvin explains them, orthodox—and they’re just not.
他们永远无法做到，悲哀的是，他们在很多事情上是对的，但在这点上就是错的。 They’re never going to get there, and what’s sad is they’re right about all kinds of things, but they’re just wrong on this.
最后，我认为这在认信团体中行不通的真正原因是错误已经进入了信条。 Finally, the real reason that I think this is not going to work in confessional bodies is that the mistakes have made it into the confessions.
在《威斯敏斯特信条》八章七节中写道：「基督在中保的工作中按两性行事，每个性做其 所当做的；但因位格的合一，圣经有时将属于一个性的事归于另一个性所称的位格。」 In the Westminster Confession of Faith 8. 7, it states, "Christ in the work of mediation acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.
所以他们直言基督在中保工作中以神性单独工作。 " So they’re flat out saying that Christ works in His divine nature individually in His work of mediation.
这是异端；就是这样。 It’s heretical; that’s all it is.
在1689年伦敦浸信会信条中，这在八章一节和七节：「神按祂永恒的旨意，悦纳拣 选和委派主耶稣，祂的独生子，按祂与父子之间所立的约，作神与人之间的中保。」 In the 1689 London Baptist Confession, this is in 8. 1 and 8. 7: "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, the Father and the Son, to be the mediator between God and man.
这在信条中明确是三神论。 " That’s tritheism explicitly in the confession.
然后他们关于基督和中保工作单独行动的语言基本相同。 Then they also have essentially exactly the same language about Christ and the work of mediation acting separately.
所以他们在信条中有三神论和分裂的行动。 So they’ve got tritheism and divided operations in their confession.
我不知道你怎么修正这个。 I don’t know how you fix that.
顺便说一下，这是詹姆斯·怀特在1998年采取 的相同立场，所以他在跟随信条，但这不妥当。 And by the way, that’s the same position that James White took in 1998, so he’s following the confession, but it’s not nice.
所以，我们就到这里。 So, you know, that’s where we get to.
我要在这里列出参考书目，因为我讲了很长时间，但这些都来自加尔文主义学者。 I’m going to list the bibliography here because, you know, I’ve gone on a long time, but this is just coming from Calvinist scholars.
所以，我认为人们应该读的书是理查德·穆勒的。 So, the books that I think people should read are by Richard Muller.
他有一本经典著作，《基督与旨意》，涵盖所有这些内 容，他还有一本较新的书，《神的旨意与人的选择》。 He’s got a classic, "Christ and the Decree," which covers all of this, and he also has a more recent book, "Divine Will and Human Choice.
那是你的历史神学；穆勒很出色。 " That’s your historical theology; Muller is great.
斯蒂芬·爱德蒙森的《加尔文的基督论》是一本极好的书。 Stephen Edmondson's "Calvin's Christology" is a fantastic book.
他对斯坦卡罗的解释以及他们关于基督的中保工作中是否有人的 参与或神的参与的争论的解释很出色——每个人都应该读读。 His explanation of Stancaro and the dispute they had on whether there is human participation or divine participation in Christ's work of mediation is excellent—everybody should read it.
杰拉尔德·布雷的《神的教义》是一本非常有用的系统神学书。 Gerald Bray's book "The Doctrine of God" is a systematic theology that’s also very useful.
保罗·赫尔姆有一本书，叫《约翰·加尔文的哲学神学思想》，很值得一读。 Paul Helm has a book called "John Calvin's Ideas on Philosophical Theology," which is a very good read.
詹姆斯·多尔扎尔的《无部分的神》和《神的一切》也很重要。 James Dolezal's "God Without Parts" and "All That Is in God" are also important.
他在特定浸信会频道上的采访很精彩；你应该读读，因为如果你读 他所说的，他并没有说与我不同的话；我们只是在后果上有分歧。 His interview on the Particular Baptist channel was fantastic; you should read that because if you read what he says, he’s not saying something different than I am; we just disagree on what the consequences are.
马修·巴雷特的《简单的三位一体》不错，阿多尼斯·维杜的《同 一位成就万事的神》关于不可分割的行动很难找到，但值得一读。 Matthew Barrett's "Simply Trinity" is good, and Adonis Vidu's "The Same God Who Works All Things" on inseparable operations is very hard to find, but it’s a good book to read.
《神的使命》也是一本值得一读的好书。 "Divine Mission" is also a good book to read.
问题是你要确保注意，因为他会遗漏一些东西，我在网站上指出了一些。 The problem is just to make sure you're watching out because he’s going to miss things, and I pointed out some of those on the website.
但他会遗漏一些东西。 But he’s going to miss things.
埃利斯的书，我其实不推荐，因为问题在于里面有太多神学，搞乱了历史方法论。 Ellis's book, I don’t actually recommend it because the problem is that there’s too much theology in it, and it messes up the historical methodology.
所以，我认为你必须过滤太多，而且这书很贵。 So, I think you have to filter too much, and it’s a really expensive book.
里面没有与哲学的互动，所以我不推荐那本书。 There’s really no interaction with the philosophy at all, so I don’t recommend that one.
我认为那不太好。 I don’t think that’s great.
还有一些关于加尔文的参与神学和与基督联合的好书。 Then there are some good books about Calvin's theology of participation and union with Christ.
朱莉·坎利斯写了一本书，叫《加尔文的梯子》，很出色。 Julie Canlis wrote a book called "Calvin's Ladder," which is fantastic.
我读了之后，觉得「好吧，终于，我确实从这本书中了解了加尔文所信的和他的错误」。 I actually read it and thought, "Okay, finally, I actually learned about what Calvin believed and what his mistakes were" from reading that book.
所以，朱莉·坎利斯的《加尔文的梯子》是一本很好的书，我对此没有任何保留。 So, Julie Canlis's "Calvin's Ladder" is a very good book, and I don’t have any reservations about that.
我不同意其中的结论，但那是很好的学术作品。 I disagree with the conclusions, but it's great scholarship.
迈克尔·霍顿有一本曾德文出版的电子短文，叫《与基督联合》。 Michael Horton has a Zondervan digital short called "Union with Christ.
迈克尔·霍顿是位知名人士；你可以信任他所读的。 " Michael Horton is a well-known guy; you can trust what he reads.
罗伯特·莱瑟姆写了一本书，叫《圣经、历史和神学中的与基督联合》，也是一本好书。 Robert Letham, who’s a little bit farther out there, has a book called "Union with Christ in Scripture, History, and Theology," which is also a good book.
马克·加西亚写了一本书，叫《在基督里的生命》，关于与基督联合，非常好。 Mark Garcia has a book called "Life in Christ" about union with Christ, and that’s excellent.
我认为大家都忽略了一本非常好的书，是查尔斯·雷斯的《阿奎那与加尔文论罗马书》。 The book that I think everybody’s sleeping on, which is really, really good, is Charles Raith's "Aquinas and Calvin on Romans.
我非常喜欢这本书的原因是他详细讲解了释经， 所以这是一部非常符合圣经的书，而且公正。 " The reason I really like this one is that he goes into detail on the exegesis, so it’s a very scriptural book, and it’s fair.
它确实解释了他们在这方面的差异，我以前没见过这样的书。 It really explains the differences between them on this, and I hadn’t seen anything like this.
这是一本极好的书，我绝对推荐；这真的是一本很棒的书。 It’s a fantastic book, and I would absolutely recommend that one; it’s just a really great book.
无论如何，这就是要读的书；我认为这很棒。 So, anyway, that’s the reading to do; I think that’s great.
但我有点——这就是我想说的时间，所以我在这。 But I’m kind of—this is about how long I wanted to go, so I’m here.
这是我的问题：如果事实证明我说的是对的，加尔文基 本上支持三神论和分裂的行动，那还有什么意义呢？ Here’s my question: if it turns out that I’m right about this and that Calvin’s basically endorsed tritheism and endorsed divided operations, then what’s the point anymore?
我认为有些非尼西亚的加尔文主义者公开地非尼西亚，比如卡尔·巴特。 I think that there are non-Nicene Calvinists who are sort of openly non-Nicene, like Karl Barth.
所以，新正统可能是一致的，可能是一贯认信的，这很有趣。 So, neo-orthodoxy might be consistent and might be consistently confessional, and that’s interesting.
但问题是，好吧，那你在传统中处于什么位置？ But then the question is, okay, but where are you with the tradition?
这种非三位一体的信仰从何而来？ Where does this non-Trinitarian belief come from?
为什么我们要以这种方式读经？ Why are we reading Scripture in this way?
这从何而来？ Where did it come from?
那时正统的历史标志是什么？ What are the historical signs of orthodoxy at that point?
我不是说他们不能思考，但这是为什么？ I’m not saying that they can’t think about it, but it’s like, why?
那从何而来？ Where is that coming from?
当然，就加尔文本人而言——好吧，这是一位中世纪的 律师，没有圣经支持，没有历史支持，没有传统支持。 And certainly with respect to Calvin himself—okay, this is a lawyer from the Middle Ages who doesn’t have scriptural support, doesn’t have historical support, doesn’t have traditional support.
我们知道他犯错的原因。 We know why he made the mistakes that he made.
那我们为什么要听他呢？ So why would we listen to him?
他没有任何神迹，他不自称是先知，他没有任何神秘活动；没有真实的迹 象表明，「好吧，是的，这位律师是我们应该在这件事上听从的人。」 He doesn’t have any miracles, he doesn’t claim to be a prophet, he doesn’t have any mystical activity; there’s no real sign that it’s like, "Okay, yeah, this lawyer is the person that we should be listening to on this.
他唯一的论据是他是多么好的圣经解经者。 " His only argument is how good an exegete he is of Scripture.
我认为如果我们将他与教父们比较，他肯定不更好。 Well, I think that if we compare him to the Fathers, he’s certainly no better.
所以，这就是我的问题：如果我们知道这一切，为什么在21世纪还有人听加尔文呢？ So, that’s my question: why is anybody listening to Calvin in the 21st century if we know all this?
我认为这只是因为我们认识得太晚了。 I think it’s just because we’re getting late to it.
但在我看来，现代学术基本上摧毁了加尔文，听他的理由并不充分。 But, to me, the futuristic scholarship has basically decimated Calvin, and there’s not really a good reason to listen to him.
即使在他的同时代人中，他也被弗朗切斯科·斯坦卡罗正确地斥责，他 基本上说：「是的，我要加倍坚持这一点，我要做个不悔改的异端。」 And even with his contemporaries, he got rebuked by Francesco Stancaro, correctly, and basically said, "Yep, I’m going to double down on this, and I’m going to be an unrepentant heretic.
那双重中保的异端信仰在《威斯敏斯特信条》和《伦敦浸信会信条》中。 " That heretical belief in double mediation is in the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession.
那么，为什么你要加入一个非尼西亚的认信共融呢？ So, why are you going to be in a confessional communion that’s non-Nicene?
为什么你要加入一个说我们否认尼西亚信经的信仰团体呢？ Why do you want to be in a confession that says we’re denying the Nicene Creed?
这没有多大意义。 It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
然后，你知道，声称有圣经支持的说法通常基于拟人化。 Then, you know, the claims of scriptural support are generally based on anthropomorphism.
我的意思是，山姆批驳那些使用拟人化的人。 Well, I mean, Sam decimates people who use anthropomorphism.
如果你看摩门教徒、耶和华见证人、一位论者——其 他使用拟人化理解圣经的攻击——我们不听他们的。 If you look at Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians—other attacks using anthropomorphic understandings of Scripture—we don’t listen to them.
那我们为什么要听加尔文呢？ So why would we listen to Calvin?
每个跟随他的主要神学家都犯了同样的错误。 Every major theologian who followed him is making the same mistakes.
彼得·维米利、弗朗西斯·图雷丁、约翰·欧文、乔纳森·爱德华兹 、B.B.华菲尔德——所有接受改革宗特征的人都犯了这些错误。 Peter Vermilye does, Francis Turretin does, John Owen does, Jonathan Edwards does, B. B. Warfield does—all of these guys who accept the Reformed distinctives are making these mistakes.
所以这就是我目前的立场，这就是我写文章和做演讲的原因。 So that’s essentially where I am at this point, and that’s why I wrote the article and that’s why I’m giving the presentation.
我们在做什么？ What are we doing?
为什么我们还要与加尔文主义纠缠不清？ Why are we hanging around with Calvinism anymore?
你知道，正如我所说，这并不是说我不相信有些人确实相信神，真的爱耶稣。 You know, and like I said, it’s not that I don’t believe there are some fantastic people who really believe in God and really love Jesus.
我相信他们这样做，这就是我呼吁的原因。 I believe they do, and that’s why I’m making this appeal.
就像你不需要在那边；这是个错误，我希望他们能纠正。 It’s like you don’t need to be over there; this is a mistake, and it’s a mistake that I hope they’ll correct.
所以这就是我的立场——这就是我的呼吁。 So that’s where I am—that’s my pitch.
山姆，如果你有任何问题，或类似的事情，我准备好了。 If you’ve got any questions, Sam, or anything like that, I’m ready to go.
是的，这确实是一个很棒的讲座。 Yeah, it actually is a phenomenal session.
荣耀归于三一神，荣耀归于父、主耶稣和圣灵。 Glory to the Triune God, glory to the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
感谢神赐下这次演讲！ Thank God for this presentation!
我想多听几遍；其中内容丰富，我想鼓励大家分享链接。 I want to listen to it more than once; there’s a lot of meat, and I want to encourage everyone to share the link.
你可以上传我的任何讲座，但我强烈推荐你上传这次。 You can upload any of my sessions, but I highly recommend you upload this one.
非常深入；真是太棒了。 Very in-depth; it’s amazing.
还有，上传佩里·罗宾逊那长达一万年的讲座——不，我只是开玩笑！ And also, upload Perry Robinson’s 10,000-year-long lecture—no, I’m just kidding!
那是五小时的精彩讲座，深入剖析了试图将唯独信心解释为早期教父的问题。 That was a phenomenal five hours of intense dissecting of the problems with trying to read sola fide into the early Church Fathers.
那真是了不起，所以这些都是很棒的讲座。 That was phenomenal, so these are some great sessions.
我可能先问几个问题。 I may start off asking questions.
朋友们，如果你们想提问，我会回答几个。 Guys, if you want to ask questions, I’ll take several.
我不想让我们的弟兄呆太久，因为他那边已经快到晚上十一点 了，正如你所见，像我一样，他需要美容觉——只是开玩笑！ I don’t want to keep our brother too long because it's already close to 11 PM where he’s at, and as you can see, like me, he needs beauty sleep—just kidding!
但我想问你，你提到约翰·加尔文说基督是自有神。 But I want to just ask you, you mentioned that John Calvin spoke of Christ being autotheos—God of Himself.
现在，对于我们这些哲学上不敏锐的人——我也不敏锐 ——因为当我刚信主时，我受到耶和华见证人的攻击。 Now, for those of us who are not philosophically astute—and I’m not—because when I first came into the faith, I got attacked by Jehovah's Witnesses.
说攻击，我是指灵性上的，显然不是身体上的，耶 和华见证人和穆斯林想让我从圣经中为信仰辩护。 When I say attacked, I mean spiritually, obviously not physically, by Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims who wanted me to make a case from Scripture.
他们没有受过哲学训练，我也没有，所以我大部分时间都花在为我所信的寻找圣经支持上。 They were not philosophically trained, neither was I, so most of my time has been spent on scriptural support for what I believe in.
现在我需要温习我的哲学，因为我不想说出我不知情的异端言论。 Now I need to brush up on my philosophy because I don’t want to be saying things that are heretical unbeknownst to me.
对于不理解自有神及其含义的人来说，为什么说耶稣是自有神会有问题？ Why, for someone who doesn't understand autotheos and its implications, would that be a problem to say that Jesus is autotheos?
这如何违背尼西亚基督论？ And how would that go against Nicene Christology?
是的，关键是他们如何达到那里？ Yeah, well, the trick is how do they get there?
因为你必须这样思考：我们需要回到独一的神。 Because the way you have to think about it is we need to get back to one God.
他们如何保持独一的神？ How do they stay one God?
他们保持独一的原因是因为他们在这些永恒的关系中，这些永恒的关系使他们相同。 The reason they stay one God is because they’re in these eternal relationships, and they’re the kind of eternal relationships that make them the same.
这就是这个形象的真正意义，圣经中父与子的语言就是我们为何称之为生。 So, that's really what this image is, and the biblical language of Father and Son is why we describe it as begetting.
我们说它是永恒的，因为它永远发生。 We say it’s eternal because it happens forever.
但你必须处于一个他们本性上都是神的状态。 But you’ve got to be in a situation where they’re all God by nature.
如果他们本性上不是神，或者只是通过协议成为神——这就是我 之前说的——如果只是自愿的，那么原则上，他们可能会分裂。 If they’re not all God by nature, or if they’re just God by agreement—which is what I was talking about earlier—if it’s just voluntary, then in principle, they might break up.
如果他们是同一位神，那么他们实际上就是一；没有区别。 If they’re the same God, then they’re actually one; there’s no distinction.
所以这就是问题所在。 So that’s the problem.
如果你认为每个位格都是自有的神，你无法将他们合一。 If you think that each person is God of Himself, you can’t get them back together.
这就是为什么他们说父是自有的神，而圣灵和圣 子是子嗣；否则，你会造成无法容忍的分裂。 That’s why they say the Father is God of Himself, and the Holy Spirit and the Son are the offspring; otherwise, you’re going to create a division that you just can’t have.
圣灵从父而出，而圣子是被生的。 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Son is begotten.
我只是不想让人误解你的意思。 I just don't want people to misunderstand what you're saying.
所以那是一个问题，因为我试图弄清加尔文说自有神是什么意思，为什么这有问题。 So, that was one question, because I was trying to figure out what Calvin was trying to say by autotheos and why this is problematic.
因为正如你所说，如果他们都是自有的神，你就不能有独一的神；这导致三神论。 Because, like you’re saying, then you can’t have one God if they’re all God of themselves; it leads to tritheism.
那么，如果——顺便说一下，那在当时也令人困惑。 Now, what if—and that was, by the way, confusing for the people at the time too.
圣罗伯特·白敏正试图弄清他在说什么，但只部分理解。 St. Robert Bellarmine was trying to figure out what he was saying and only sort of got it.
那么，如果有人说：「好吧，加尔文和改革者想表达的并不是说有三个神，但他们只是 这样表达，虽然没有达到应有的准确性，因为如果他们推到极致，就会导致三神论。 So, what if someone says, "Well, what Calvin intended and what the Reformers are intending to say isn’t so much that there are three gods, but they’re just articulating it, though not as accurately as they should be, because if they take it to its conclusion, it leads to tritheism.
但那不是他们的意图；他们仍然希望是三位一体的独一神。」 But that’s not their intention; they still want it to be one God in three persons.
我们能否说我们可以原谅他们，因为他们的意图是真诚的，因此不应指责他们三神论？ " Can we say that we can give them a pass because their intention is sincere, and therefore the charge of tritheism shouldn’t be leveled against them?
对此你会怎么说？ What would you say to that?
因为他们的意图是确保这些不是同一位格，意思 是父不是子在不同的形态中，也不是三个神。 Because their intention is to safeguard that these are not the same person, meaning the Father is not the Son in a different mode, and it’s not three gods.
我认为，就自有神本身而言——这又是某些人关 注的——我认为你可以给出一个合理的解释。 I think that in terms of autotheos by itself—which is again what some people were looking at—I think there’s an explanation that you could give that would make sense of it.
问题实际上是父、子、灵通过意志互动的观念。 The problem is really this idea of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit interacting by will.
这就像，如果你想到回到亚略。 That’s kind of like, if you think about going back to Arius.
亚略的问题在于他认为圣子是通过意志行为被生的。 The problem with Arius was that he thought the Son was begotten by an act of will.
你无法修正这个。 There’s no way you can fix that.
他们尝试了，想出了很多东西，但这些无法调和。 And they tried, and they came up with a lot of things, but there’s no reconciliation between those.
要么黑，要么白，这正是亚他拿修真正强调的：你知道，这是非黑即白。 It’s either black or white, and that’s what Athanasius really put the screws to him on: you know, it’s black or white.
要么圣子是通过意志行为被造的，要么不是。这和三位一体中的意志一样。 Either the Son is made by an act of will, or He isn’t. That’s the same thing with this, you know, bill in the Trinity.
这远远不够；不能是意志的共融。 It’s just not enough; it can’t be a communion of will.
必须是本性的同一性，没有其他正统的解释方式。 It has to be identity of nature, and there’s no other orthodox way to explain it.
即使他们本意是好的——因为我确信有些亚略派本 意是好的——即使他们本意是好的，这就是错的。 Even if they mean well by it—because I’m sure there were some Arians that meant well by it—even if they mean well by it, it’s just wrong.
根据尼西亚，这无论如何都不可能是对的。 There’s no way that this can be right according to Nicaea.
太好了！ Excellent!
这引出了我想问的一个问题，因为我们在谈论加尔文，但现在说的是改革宗。 This leads me to a question I want to ask because we’re talking about Calvin, but now these are Reformed.
你如何看待像威廉·莱恩·克雷格这样的人？ What do you do with someone like William Lane Craig?
他不是加尔文主义者；他是亚米念主义者，卫斯理派哲学家。 He’s not a Calvinist; he’s an Arminian philosopher, Wesleyan.
但他几乎完全抛弃尼西亚基督论，说这是过时的 ，因为这会使圣子居次，使祂成为较低的神。 But he pretty much jettisons Nicene Christology altogether, saying this is outmoded because it would subordinate the Son, making Him an inferior deity.
因此，如果说到永恒的生出和发出，推到极致就会使他们成为受造物。 So, to speak of the eternal beginning procession would pretty much make them creatures if you take it to its conclusion.
他还复兴了一种新的亚波里拿留主义，关于基督两性的神性。 He’s also reviving a neo-Apollinarian view of Christ’s two natures—the divine nature.
你怎么看待这个？ What do you think about that?
所以，他几乎——我读过，在他的网站上。 So, he pretty much—I’ve read it; it’s on his site.
他说「父」和「子」是耶稣道成肉身时他们采用的术语。 He says that "Father" and "Son" are terms that they took on when Jesus was incarnate.
换句话说，祂在道成肉身时成为圣子，那时神成为父。 In other words, he becomes a Son at the Incarnation, and that’s where God is Father to the Son.
这并不真正指他们的永恒关系。 It’s not really referring to their eternal relationships.
这为什么危险，为什么我们应该避免这种关于三位一体本性的哲学化？ Why is that dangerous, and why should we avoid this type of philosophizing regarding the nature of the Triune Godhead?
对此我有几点回应。 I’ve got a couple of responses to that.
首先，这种所谓的新古典哲学本质上围绕着一些这样的观念。 First, this essentially neoclassical philosophy—what they call it—is built around some of these ideas.
我可以详细说说，但你有一个哲学立场，实际上 是从奥坎主义和由此产生的怀疑中发展出来的。 I could go into more detail on that, but you’ve got a philosophical position that’s really developed out of Ockhamism and the skepticism that came out of it.
所以，他们实践神学的方式没有考虑本性，没有真正接受他们需要接受的东西。 So, how they’re practicing theology doesn’t take nature into account and doesn’t really accept the things that they need to.
首先，好吧，你在什么平台上运作？ I mean, first of all, it’s like, okay, well, what platform are you operating on?
你是怎么思考的？ How are you thinking?
我认为成为古典哲学家有很好的理由。 I think there are good arguments for being a classical philosopher.
但有个叫约书亚·西尤瓦提的人做新古典哲学，但是真正的正统。 But there’s a guy named Joshua Sijuwati who does neoclassical philosophy but with actual orthodoxy.
所以，保持正统并仍然这样做是可能的，但很难。 So, it’s possible to be orthodox and still do this, but it’s hard.
我认为克雷格的很多假设是不一致的。 You know, I think a lot of the assumptions that Craig is making are inconsistent.
顺便说一下，我认为——我是说，他是莫林主义者。 And by the way, I think that—I mean, he’s a Molinist.
莫利纳认为自己是托马斯主义者。 Molina believed himself to be a Thomist.
我之前提到的约瑟夫·因坎德拉在他的论文中提出了一个 相当好的论点，他认为莫利纳根本不理解托马斯的意思。 Joseph Incandela, who I mentioned before, makes a pretty good argument in his dissertation that Molina just doesn’t understand what St. Thomas is about.
所以这是一个例子，说明你知道，这一切都是基于哲学的； 它不是传统的；它不是基于托马斯主义或司各脱主义的。 So that’s an example of how, you know, it’s all philosophically based; it’s not traditional; it’s not based on Thomism or Scotism.
顺便说一下，我不是莫林主义者，因为我认为那不对。 I’m not a Molinist, by the way, because I think it’s just off.
我认为它所问的问题是错误的。 I think the questions it’s asking are wrong.
所以，我在很多方面对整个方法论有问题，这就是问题所在。 So, I have a problem with the whole methodology in a lot of ways, and that’s the problem.
然后第二件事是，好吧，如果我对方法论有问题， 我对方法论的渊源也有问题——因为它从哪里来？ Then the second thing is, okay, well, if I have a problem with the methodology, I also have a problem with the genealogy of the methodology—because where did it come from?
比如，你知道，谁授权克雷格偏离教父？ Like, you know, who authorized Craig to deviate from the Fathers?
他说，你知道，「看，我认为我在这方面比教父们更好。」 He’s saying, you know, "Look, I think I’m better than the Fathers at this.
那么，你知道，他怎么能这样声称？ " Well, you know, how does he make that claim?
他用来论证的标准不是我信任的东西。 The criteria he’s using to make that argument are not things that I trust.
教父被称为教父是有原因的，因为教会这样说。 There’s a reason why the Fathers are called Fathers, and that’s because the Church has said so.
所以，你知道，我的意思是，如果你有一个来自NSA的人，那就 是加尔文，因为我认为克雷格可能比加尔文更好地处理这些问题。 So, you know, I mean, if you’ve got an individual from an NSA, it’s Calvin because I think Craig probably has a better handle on the issues than Calvin did.
但即便如此，我的意思是，最终，为什么要这样做？ But still, I mean, at the end of the day, it’s like, why do this?
你为什么要抛弃传统？ Why would you throw over the traditions?
而且为什么你甚至在没有传统支持的情况下相信这个？ And why would you even believe this without the tradition behind you?
所以，你知道，我会说，看看，任何在基督教传统之外 做事的人，我总是有点想，「嗯，你怎么到这儿的？ So, you know, I’d say, look, anybody who is doing anything outside of the Christian tradition, I always wonder a little bit, "Well, how did you get here?
你相信的是什么？ What is it that you believe in?
你怎么相信这是真的？」 How do you believe this is true?
是的，确实如此。 " Yeah, exactly.
你有这个问题，但没有多少人问这些问题，因为我想他们试图接受它。 You have this question, and not many people are asking these questions because I guess they’re trying to take it in.
你的清晰度令人惊叹。 It was amazing—your clarity.
我赞美神，你把它讲得很清楚，让像我这样的人 明白，因为正如我所说，哲学不是我的强项。 I praise God you made it very clear for someone like me to get it, because, like I said, philosophy is not my strong suit.
所以，荣耀归于神，感谢祂赐你的恩赐，使你能够将 这些非常复杂的主题简化，就像佩里·罗宾逊一样。 So, glory to God for that gifting that has enabled you to take these very complex subjects and simplify them, just like Perry Robinson as well.
愿主赐福你们这样的能力；很多人无法将其简化，因此像我这样的人才能明白。 The Lord bless you guys for that ability; a lot of people can’t make it simple, so for people like me to get it.
但这里有一个来自正统的沙达的问题：加尔文将自有神归于 圣子的观念在多大程度上根植于罗马公教会的本体理解？ But here’s a question from Orthodox Shada: to what extent is Calvin's autotheos attribution to the Son rooted in Roman Catholic hypostatic understanding?
是的，你明白了；你明白这个问题了。 Yeah, so you got it; you got the question.
是的，我明白你的意思。 Yeah, no, I got you.
所以我基本上会说那是奥坎主义的思维，我不认为奥坎反映了传统。 So basically what I would say to that is it's Ockhamist thinking, and I don't think that Ockham is reflective of the tradition.
我其实谈过这个，但我认为关系的形而上学实际上可 以追溯到奥古斯丁，这基本上是这些观念的来源。 I’ve actually given a talk about this, but I think that the metaphysics of relations actually go all the way back to Augustine, and that’s basically where all of these ideas come from.
所以我认为加尔文的立场很尴尬；他破坏了他本可以 建立的所有形而上学平台，我认为问题就出在这里。 So, I think where Calvin is, is just awkward; he’s broken all of the metaphysical platform that he would have built on, and that’s where I think that comes from.
我不认为这与「和子」有关，正如我所说，它来自奥古斯丁的关系观念。 I don’t think it has anything to do with the Filioque, which, like I said, comes from the Augustinian notion of relationship.
这些不是佩里·罗宾逊的问题；他只是对你说的内容进行补充说明。 These are not questions from Perry Robinson; he’s just also adding clarification to what you’re saying.
现在，关于你的最后一个问题：有人说他们需要观看几次才能提出正确的问题。 Now, to your final question: there are some people saying they need to watch it several times to ask the right questions.
你谈到耶稣说「不要成就我的意思，只要成就你的意 思」，因为那指的是祂的人性意志，因祂有两性。 You were talking about when Jesus says, "Not my will, but your will be done," because that’s referring to His human will since He has two natures.
祂是一个位格，因此在神格中，父、子、灵只能有一个意志，因为本性是一个。 He’s one person, and therefore, in the Godhead, there can only be one will of the Father, Son, and Spirit because the nature is one.
这里有个问题：如果有人说——因为我想过这个并为之挣扎——如果有 人说，「那么，怎么知道意志是本性的属性而不是位格的属性呢？」 Here’s a question: what if someone says—because I’ve thought about this and wrestled with it—what if someone says, "Well, how does someone know that the will is a property of the nature and not a property of person?
换句话说，因为有一个本性，所以必须有一个意志，但 这假定意志是事物本性的本质，而不是人格的延伸。 " In other words, because there’s one nature, there has to be one will, but that assumes that will is essential to the nature of a thing as opposed to being an extension of personhood.
我们怎么知道意志是事物本性的一部分，而不是使位格成为独特位格的一部分？ How do we know that the will is part of the nature of a thing, not part of what makes a person a distinct person?
谁能解决这样一个形而上学问题？ And who can settle such a metaphysical question?
我的意思是，是的，他们会说，「好吧，教父们同意」， 但他们不是默示的，所以我们为什么要认为他们是对的？ I mean, yeah, they’ll say, "Well, the Fathers agreed," but they were not inspired, so why should we then assume they were right?
因为我为什么这样说——好吧，我不会因为米亚非西派而深入讨论，但算了吧。 Because again, why I say this is—well, just I’m not going to get into it further because of the Miaphysites, but forget about it.
但继续，是的，就是这个问题，对吧？ But go ahead, yeah, just that’s the question, right?
这是个好问题。 And it’s a good question.
所以我会说，是的，教父们可能会错，但我们为什么普遍相信他们论亚略主义？ So what I would say is, yeah, the Fathers can err, but why do we believe them on Arianism generally?
关于意志与本性原则的重要性，以及行动不可分割 的原则，重要的是那是针对亚略派的护教论据。 What’s important about this principle of wills with nature and that the operations are undivided is that that was the apologetic against the Arians.
那是针对亚略派的胜利护教学。 It was the victorious apologetic against the Arians.
所以，我们知道有一个错误，他们就是这样回答那个错误的。 So, you know, we know that there was an error, and that’s how they answered that error.
如果我们到达不能依赖他们的地步，那是根本的——那是「耶稣是神」的事，对吧？ If we get to the point where it’s like we can’t rely on them for that, that’s fundamental—that’s the "Jesus is God" stuff, right?
那是基础神学。 That’s fundamental theology.
这到了这样一个地步：如果我们不信这个，我们真的相信耶稣是神吗？ It’s getting to the point where it’s like if we don’t believe this, do we really believe that Jesus is God?
那是他们给出的论据，我被说服了。 That was the argument they gave, and I’m convinced by it.
我认为今天仍然是正确的论据。 I think it’s still the correct argument today.
有几位历史学家对此深有研究：米歇尔·蕾妮·巴恩斯和刘易斯·艾尔 斯，他们的作品受到尊重，所以关于这是否是信仰并没有太多争议。 There are a couple of historians who have really been all over this: Michelle Renee Barnes and Lewis Ayres, that’s A-Y-R-E-S. And those guys' works are respected, so it’s not like there’s really a huge amount of controversy over whether that’s the belief.
所以我说，看看历史。 So I just say, look at the history.
我们相信亚略派是异端。 We believe that Arians are heretics.
如果你相信亚略派是异端，我不知道你为什么接受加尔文。 If you believe Arians are heretics, I have no idea why you would accept Calvin.
如果我们不相信，那我现在就得向格雷格·斯塔福德道歉，并与他团契。 If we don’t, then I have to now apologize to Greg Stafford and fellowship with him.
但正统沙哈达刚刚又有一个问题。 But Orthodox Shahada just had another question.
现在，我震惊地发现，我不知道约翰·加尔文拒绝签署尼西亚信经。 Now, I’m shocked to learn this; I didn’t know that John Calvin refused to sign the Nicene Creed.
我不知道。 I had no idea.
你能详细说明加尔文拒绝签署尼西亚信经吗？ Can you elaborate on Calvin refusing to sign the Nicene Creed?
加尔文似乎总是想把问题框定为政治问题，而不是神学问题。 Calvin seemed to constantly want to frame the issue as one of politics, not theology.
我不知道他拒绝签署。 I had no idea he refused to sign it.
是的，那有点复杂。 Yeah, that one’s a little bit tricky.
我知道这件事——不是真的很熟悉，因为我不是历史学家——但据我理解，这是公 平的，因为本质上有争斗，有人试图将其作为王牌，他知道这一点，所以说不。 I’m familiar with the incident—not really familiar because I’m not a historian—but my understanding of that is that it’s fair because there was essentially a fight, and somebody was trying to push it as basically like, "This is—you know, they’re basically trying to play it as a trump card," and he knew it, and he said no.
但另一方面，这就是我的看法：如果他签署了，我不认为他拒签是因为他认为这无效。 But on the other hand, here’s what I think: if he had signed, I don’t think he was refusing to sign because he thought it wasn’t valid.
如果你看他的著作，他说他相信尼西亚信经是有约束力的，并且有圣经根据。 If you look at his writings, he says he believes that the Nicene Creed is binding and that it has scriptural warrant.
我想说的是，他对尼西亚信经的理解与教父们的理解完全不同。 What I would say is his understanding of the Nicene Creed that he would have been signing on to is completely different from how the Fathers understood it.
我认为他可以签署他所相信的尼西亚信经。 I think he could have signed on to what he believed was the Nicene Creed.
我不认为他所信的尼西亚信经实际上是尼西亚信经要表达的。 I don’t think what he believed was the Nicene Creed was actually what the Nicene Creed was intended to say.
事实上，这让我想问你一个问题：他对「自有神」的理解——耶 稣，神的儿子——是否与尼西亚基督论相容，即圣子是被生的？ In fact, that was going to lead me to ask you a question: is his understanding of "autotheos"—Jesus, the Son of "autotheos"—compatible with Nicene Christology, that the Son is begotten?
可能是，但我不认为是。 It could be, but I don’t think it is.
埃利斯的书事实上解释了这一点，但正如我所说，那是一部冗长而痛苦的读物。 Ellis's book actually explains that, but like I said, that’s a long, painful read.
我不知道还有谁这样说过，但我不认为他能一贯地为此辩护。 I don’t know who else has said this, but I don’t think he can actually consistently argue for that.
我不认为加尔文所指的可以解释为正统。 I don’t think that what Calvin meant by it could be explained as orthodox.
我认为他在这一点上实际是异端的。 I think he was actually heterodox on this point.
新教的恶果——愿神因耶稣的名怜悯我们。 The bad fruits of Protestantism—may God have mercy on us in Jesus' name.
现在佩里有个关于泰瑞·罗宾逊的问题：你能否 详细解释加尔文如何看待行动既统一又不同？ Now here’s a question on Tyree Robinson from Perry: can you explain more about how Calvin views the operations as united but different?
是的，这基本上是他的观念，我引用过。 Yeah, so this is basically his idea, and I quoted it.
观念是他们都在行动——在一切事情上做一部分。 It’s the idea that they’re all kind of acting—doing a piece—in everything.
所以，父是起源。 So, the Father is the origin.
基本上，他认为行动是通过三位一体的关系流动的。 Basically, he thinks of the actions as kind of flowing through the Trinitarian relations.
但你知道，要实现这一点，必须在行动中有对应位格的区别，而我认为这行不通。 But, you know, for that to happen, there has to be a distinction in the actions corresponding to the persons, and I don’t think it works.
然后关于角色，它们是分开的。 Then with respect to the roles, they’re separate.
我的意思是，它们就是分开的。 I mean, they’re just divided.
所以，这就是观念：行动通过位格流动，但这种流动不适合统一。 So, that’s kind of the idea: the actions are sort of flowing through the persons, but that kind of flow just doesn’t really work for unity.
这不算是个问题，而是更具修辞性质：如果意志不根据 本性，还有什么可以作为位格共享同一本性的基础？ Well, this is not so much of a question but more rhetorical in nature: if the will is not according to nature, then what else would serve as the basis for anything that the persons share the same nature?
所以，这不算是个问题；只是说，如果他们没有相同的 意志，那么我们凭什么假设他们拥有相同的本性呢？ So, it’s not so much a question; it’s just saying, if they don’t have the same will, then what would be the grounds for us assuming they possess the same nature?
那是佩里·罗宾逊的问题。 That’s from Perry Robinson.
所以，我不——如果你想评论，可以啊；这由你决定。 So, I do not—well, if you want to comment, that’s fine; that’s up to you.
是的，我认为在那种情况下，你只剩下个体——基本上就是位格本身。 Yeah, no, I think that in that case, you’re just left with the individuals—basically, the persons themselves.
必须有一些解释，比如共同的意志或类似的东西，说明他们为何团结在一起。 There have to be some explanations, like a common will or something like that, for why they stick together.
但这基本上是奥坎的情况；你必须将合一强加给他们。 But that’s basically the occupant situation; you have to impose unity on them.
那几乎是唯一可能的方式。 That’s pretty much the only way that can happen.
问题差不多就这些了，弟兄。 That’s pretty much it for the questions, brother.
我刚在描述栏里链接了你的博客。 I just linked to your blog in the description box.
主若许可，我会把它置顶为评论。 Lord willing, I’ll pin it as a comment.
这是他的博客。 Here’s his blog.
请问，弟兄们，你没有YouTube页面吗？ Please, brothers, you don’t have a YouTube page?
因为我只看到一个博客链接。 Because I only saw a link to a blog.
你有YouTube页面吗？ You have a YouTube page?
没有，我刚开始做这个。 No, no, no, I just started doing this.
如果主赐你更多时间，并且你愿意，我强烈鼓励你把你的文章变成YouT ube讲座，因为遗憾的是，我们生活在一个人们宁愿看也不愿读的时代。 Well, if the Lord gives you more time and you’d be willing, I’d highly encourage you to take your articles and turn them into YouTube sessions because, sadly, we live at a time where people would rather watch something than read.
就像这些书，你必须非常认真，因为我们生活在一个每个人都希望 在YouTube上，在一个可以观看有人表达的论坛上的时代。 Like these books, you have to be very, very serious because we live in an age where everyone wants it on YouTube, on a forum where they can watch someone articulate.
所以让我鼓励你——如果主感动你，试着开一个YouTube频道，把你的 文章做成讲座，你可以阅读它们，也可以像这次演讲一样尽可能自由地呈现。 So let me encourage you—if the Lord puts it in your heart, try to start a YouTube channel and take your articles and make sessions where you either read them or just present them as freely as possible, like you did with this presentation.
弟兄们，这是他博客的链接，你有一个开放的邀请。 So, brethren, this is his link to his blog, and you have an open invitation.
你，佩里·罗宾逊，凯，你们所有人——你们都有一个开放的邀请。 You, Perry Robinson, Kai, all of you guys—you have an open invitation.
你们可以随时来我的频道，谈论任何重要话题。 You can come anytime you want on my channel to talk about any important topic.
我想，如果我们与更多新教徒分享这些事实，他们会明白，尽管有 些人认为新教是好事，但最终，其造成的损害超过了任何好处。 I think if we share these facts with more Protestants, they will see why, though some of them think that Protestantism was something good, at the end of the day, the damage it’s done outweighs any good that came out of it.
这是我感谢神让我看到的，这就是为什么我不想冒犯任何人。 This is something I praise God that He’s allowed me to see, which is why I’m not trying to offend anyone.
我不再是新教徒，我仍在神引导我走向真理丰满的旅程中。 I’m not a Protestant anymore, and I’m still on a journey wherever God guides me toward the fullness of the truth.
我顺服圣灵，我从心里这样祈祷。 I yield to the Spirit, and I pray that from my heart.
谢谢你，弟兄。 Thank you, brother.
如果你有任何最后的评论，请说，然后我们就结束。 If you have any final comments, make them, and then we’ll wrap it up.
嗯，我想说的是，正如我所说，到处都有爱耶稣的人。 Well, what I like to say about that is, like I said, there are Jesus-loving people everywhere.
你知道，这也是我们努力前进的一部分，因为我是说，我同意你的看法。 You know, this is part of us trying to move forward because, I mean, I agree with you.
我不认为新教总体上是件好事。 I don’t think that Protestantism, in net, has been a good thing.
我认为这反映了巨大的分裂，但这并不意味着他们是坏人。 I think that it’s a reflection of vast division, but that doesn’t mean that they’re bad people.
你知道，我的意思不是这个，这并不意味着他们不是基督徒。 You know, I mean, it’s not that, and it doesn’t mean that they’re not Christians.
所以，正如我所说，我认为——在我们必须冲突的范围内， 拿走枪和水瓶，然后说，「看，我拿走了你的枪和水瓶。」 So, like I said, you know, I see it as— To the extent we have to clash, you know, take away the spear and take away the jug, and then say, "Look, I took away your spear and your jug.
怎么样？ How’s that?
但你知道，这就是我们必须这样做的方式。 " But, you know, that’s how we have to do it.
我不想伤害每个人；他们做了很多好工作，诸如此类。 I don’t want to hurt everybody; they’re doing a lot of good work and things like that.
这只是个错误，而且是个严重的错误。 It’s just—it’s just a mistake, and it’s a bad mistake.
那些信仰在过去很危险，所以让我们努力超越它，继续前进，因为有一个完整的传统 ，让我们努力让每个人都到达那里，这样我们可以继续对世界产生强大的良好影响。 Those beliefs have been dangerous in the past, so let’s try to get past it and move on because there’s a whole tradition, and let’s try to get everybody there so we can keep being a powerful good influence for the world.
荣耀归于神！ Glory to God!
愿主耶稣垂听你的祷告。 May the Lord Jesus hear your prayer.
我也祈求我们努力促成不幸分裂的使徒教会的合一。 I also pray that we work towards a reunification of the Apostolic Churches that sadly are in division.
愿我们在主耶稣再来之前，在有生之年看到这一点，使基督得荣耀。 May we see that in our lifetime before the Lord Jesus tarries, so that Christ will be honored.
因为祂说：「你们若有彼此相爱的心，众人因此就认出你们是我的门徒了。」 Because He said, "By this they shall know you’re my disciples, if you have love for one another.
祂祷告说：「愿他们完全合一，像父你在我里面，我在你里面一样。」 " He prayed, "May they be perfectly united as you and I, Father, are one.
愿我们努力实现这个祷告，寻求在使徒传递的真理基础上重新统一使徒传统。 " May we seek to make that prayer a reality by seeking to reunify the Apostolic traditions on the basis of the truth that was passed on by the Apostles.
奉耶稣的名，我给你看佩里的评论，说：「干得好，乔纳森。」 In Jesus' name, I showed you Perry's comments and said, "Good job, Jonathan.
OKC雷霆说：「干得好，乔纳森」，正统沙哈达说：「我从佩 里那里认识你，我非常喜欢你最近关于加尔文主义的文章。」 " OKC Thunder says, "Great job, Jonathan," and Orthodox says, "I came to learn of you from Perry, and I thoroughly enjoyed your recent article on Calvinism.
我赞美神你的工作。 I praise God for your work.
我赞美神正统沙哈达的工作，佩里·罗宾逊和许多其他人。 " I praise God for Orthodox Shahada's work and Perry Robinson and a host of others.
愿神继续使用你们！ May God continue to use you!
基督复活了！ Christ is risen!
祂确实复活了！ Risen indeed!
愿耶稣在我们里面兴旺，愿我们衰微，愿我们被圣灵充满。 And may Jesus increase in us, and may we decrease, and may we be filled with the Spirit.
为祂的眼目竭力而行，因为耶稣配得。 To do our utmost for His eyes because Jesus is worthy.
阿们。 Amen.
主耶稣啊，我愿你来。 Come, Lord Jesus.
阿们。 Amen.