好的，欢迎回来，现在我们要讨论亚略主义争议。 Okay, so welcome back, and now we're going to be talking about the Arian Controversy.
亚略主义争议，如果你正在看讲义，这节课的讲义是关于四世 纪基督论神学辩论的，但我们现在只看左边和中间的栏目。 The Arian Controversy, and if you're following in the handout, the handout for this lecture is the handout on the Christological Theological Debates of the Fourth Century, but we're only looking at the left and middle columns right now.
所以你现在可以暂时不看右栏，只看左边和中间。 So you can leave the right column out for now and look at the left and middle.
好的，那么，这是公元319年，地点是亚历山大。 Alright, so, It's the year 319, and the city is Alexandria.
在亚历山大城，一场围绕着一位名叫亚略的祭司的冲突爆发了。 And in the city of Alexandria, a conflict arose around a priest named Arius.
亚略是一位采纳说信徒。 Arius was an adoptionist.
如果你回想一下讲义，你会看到一世纪有犹太教化者，二世纪有依 便尼派，三世纪有采纳说，而亚略可以说是四世纪采纳说的演变。 So if you think back to your handouts, you have the Judaizers in the 1st century, Ebionites in the 2nd century, Adoptionists in the 3rd century, and Arius is sort of the 4th century evolution of Adoptionism.
作为一个采纳说信徒，亚略认为因为耶稣受苦，他就不可能是神性的。 And as an Adoptionist, Arius believed that because Jesus suffered, he could not be divine.
事实上，亚略会指出，你看，耶稣是作为婴儿出生的，长大成 人，有不知道的事，也受苦，因此他是人，但不可能是神。 And so, in fact, Arius would point out that, you know, look, Jesus grew up, he was born as a baby, grew up, didn't know things and suffered, and therefore he is a human, but he can't possibly be divine.
如果他不可能是神性的，那就意味着他不可能是永恒的，特别是在过去不是永恒的。 And if he can't possibly be divine, that means he can't possibly be eternal, specifically eternal in the past.
对亚略来说，圣子的存在依赖于圣父或取决于圣父是不够的，它还必须在时序上是次等的。 For Arius, It's not enough that the Son's existence is dependent on the Father's, or contingent on the Father's, it has to also be sequentially inferior.
换句话说，圣子在时间上比圣父晚出现。 In other words, the Son comes into being chronologically later than the Father.
我稍后会向你解释我的意思。 And I'll show you what I mean in a minute.
但对亚略来说，如果圣父和圣子都是永恒的，在他看 来这就意味着有两个第一因，也就是说有两个神。 But for Arius, if the Father and the Son are both eternal, To him that would imply two first causes, and that would mean two gods.
因此对亚略来说，保持一神论、保持神的唯一性的方法 是，像其他采纳说一样，把耶稣从神性领域中剔除。 And so for Arius, the way you preserve monotheism, the way you preserve the oneness of God is, like the other adoptions, to sort of take Jesus out of the realm of the divine.
神是独一的，因为耶稣不是神。 God is one because Jesus is not God.
因此亚略得出结论，基督是一个被造物，就像我们其他人一样。在歌罗西书1 :15中，保罗说基督是首生的，亚略将其解释为他是第一个被造的存在。 And so Arius had concluded that Christ was a created being, like the rest of us, And in the passage Colossians 1.15, where Paul says that Christ was the firstborn of creation, Arius interpreted that as meaning that he is the first created being.
所以如果基督是被造的，那就意味着有一个时间点他开始存在。 And so if Christ is created, then that means there's a point in time at which he comes into being.
他的存在有一个开始，在那个时间点之前，他是不存在的。 He has a beginning to his existence, and before that point in time, he does not exist.
我在黑板上画了一个小时间线，你可以想象，这个时间线延伸到无限，在未来和过去都 是永恒的，但请原谅，它不是按比例画的。假设这里是创造，这里是基督的诞生，这里 是我们所处的2012年。我们知道耶稣的人性，但我们也从约翰福音第1章等处读到 ，基督的神性，即道，先于基督的诞生而存在，先于道成肉身而存在，所以基督的神性 一直存在到这里，约翰是怎么说的，太初有道，意思是在创造的时候，对吧？ So, I've drawn a little timeline on the board here, and if you can imagine, this timeline goes on into infinity, into eternity in both the future and the past, but, forgive me, it's not drawn to scale, but if you imagine, here is creation, here is the birth of Christ, and here we are in 2012. Now, we know that the human nature of Jesus But we also read from places like John chapter 1 that the divine nature of Christ, the Logos, Pre-exists the birth of Christ, pre-exists the incarnation, so that the divine nature of Christ existed all the way back here, what does John say, in the beginning, meaning at the time of creation, right?
但现在亚略会争辩说，是的，约翰说他是先存的，但约翰并没有说他是永恒先存的。 But now Arius would argue, yeah, John says that he is pre-existent, but John doesn't say that he is eternally pre-existent.
换句话说，亚略不得不承认道，即基督的神性，先于其他被造物而存 在，因为这在约翰福音第1章中。我可能告诉过你，我们的老朋友撒 摩撒他的保罗真的是最后一个试图否认基督先存性的采纳说信徒。 In other words, Arius has to admit that the Logos, the divine nature of Christ, pre-exists the rest of creation, because that's in John chapter 1. And I may have told you that our old friend Paul of Samosata was really the last of the adoptionists to try and deny the pre-existence of Christ.
记得吗，他说过类似这样的话，当然，他在神的心意中先存，因为神预知一切。 Remember, he said things like, well, sure, he pre-exists in the mind of God, because God foreknows everything.
但这是不够的，因为到这时，主流教会已经将约翰福音第1章解释为指真实的先存性。 But that's not going to be good enough, because by this time the mainstream church is interpreting John chapter 1 to refer to a real pre-existence.
所以亚略不得不承认，好吧，神性，或者说道，是先存的。 So Arius has to admit, okay, the divine nature, or the Logos, let's say, pre-exists.
但亚略会说，不是永恒的。 But Arius would say, not eternally.
因此亚略试图论证的是，道是在其他被造物之前被创造的。 And so what Arius was trying to argue was that the Logos was created Before the rest of creation.
所以太初有道可以是真的，但他想说的是，在某个更早的时候，道被 创造为首生的，作为第一个被造的存在，成为创造其他一切的代理。 So it can be true that in the beginning the Logos was there, but he wants to say that somewhere back here the Logos was created as the firstborn of creation, the first created being, to be the agent of creation of everything else.
现在，如果这是真的，当然，如果在这一点上道开始存在，那就意 味着在所有这段时间里，我们可以说是创造之前，是没有道的。 Now, if that were true, of course, if at this point that the Logos comes into being, Then that means that in all of this span of time, shall we say, pre-creation, there is no Logos.
道还不存在，因为他还没有被创造。 The Logos doesn't exist yet, because he hasn't been created yet.
所以亚略想说的是，是的，圣父在过去就永恒存在，但圣子不是。 So what Arius wants to say is, yeah, the Father exists into eternity in the past, but the Son does not.
圣子是在这里开始存在的，因为如果不是这样， 就会显得有两个永恒的存在，也就像有两个神。 The Son comes into being here, because if it were otherwise, it would seem like there are two eternal beings, and it would seem like there are two gods.
事实上，亚略甚至有一个与之相应的小口号。 And in fact, Arius even had a little slogan to go along with this.
这个口号是「曾有一时他不存在」。 The slogan was, there was a time when he was not.
意思是，曾有一个时候圣子是不存在的。 Meaning, there was a time when the Son did not exist.
对主流教会来说，问题在于这也意味着有一个时候圣父不是父。 The problem for the mainstream church is that this also implies that there is a time when the Father is not a Father.
因为如果圣子在创造之前的这段时间里不存在，如果圣 子不存在，那么如果父没有子，你怎么能称父为父呢？ Because if the Son doesn't exist in this span of time before creation, if the Son doesn't exist, Then how can you call the father, father, if the father has no son?
所以问题是，请跟上我的思路，问题是如果父一开始存在，但起初不是父，然后在某 个时点成为父，分发雪茄，这不是意味着神刚刚经历了从不是父到成为父的变化吗？ So the problem is, stay with me now, the problem is if the father starts out, if he exists, but starts out as not being a father, and then sort of becomes a father at this point, passing out cigars, doesn't that mean God has just gone through a change from being not a father to being a father?
所以主流教会会说，亚略，这对我们行不通，因为现在你有了一个会改变的神。 So the mainstream church is going to say, that's not going to work for us, Arius, because now you have a God who changes.
对吧？ Right?
这是个问题吗？ Is that a question?
好的。 Okay.
抱歉，如果有效的话，那就好了。 Sorry, if it worked, that'd be okay.
所以，亚略的口号是「曾有一时他不存在」。 So, Arius' slogan is, there was a time when he was not.
意思是，曾有一个时候神的儿子不存在，因为他 还没有被创造，因为亚略相信他是被创造的。 Meaning, there was a time when the Son of God didn't exist because he wasn't created yet, because Arius believes he was created.
嗯...然后亚略教导说，在这一点上被创造为创造代理的道后 来会在耶稣受洗时内住在人耶稣里面，这是采纳说的典型观点。 Um... Then Arius taught that the Logos who was created at this point to be the agent of creation would later indwell the man Jesus at his baptism, which is typical of adoptionism.
人耶稣因为完全顺服神而被神收养，在他受洗时，他就被道的灵内住了。 The man Jesus, because of his perfect obedience to God, gets adopted by God, And at his baptism, he is indwelt then with the spirit of the Logos.
这就是亚略如何调和道的先存性与纯人性耶稣的观念，即耶稣只是人的想法。 And so that is how Arius reconciled the preexistence of the Logos with the human-only Jesus, with the idea that Jesus was human only.
所以，归根结底，亚略是说只有圣父在过去是永恒的。 So, bottom line is, Arius was saying that only the Father is eternal in the past.
只有圣父的存在没有开始，圣子的存在是有开始的。 Only the Father has no beginning to his existence, the Son has a beginning to his existence.
只是因为神的预知，神知道人耶稣会完全顺服，这才使圣父创造了 圣子，即道，为了预期基于他的完全顺服而内住在人耶稣里面。 And it was only by God's foreknowledge that God knew the man Jesus would be perfectly obedient that caused the Father to create the Son, the Logos, back here in anticipation of indwelling the man Jesus based on his perfect obedience.
所以，他承认道是创造的代理，但他也说道实际上是第一个被造物。 So, he's admitting that the Logos is the agent of creation, but he's also saying that the Logos is really the first created thing.
所以对亚略来说，神的儿子不能以与圣父相同的意义被称为神。 So the Son, for Arius, the Son of God, can't really be called God in the same sense as the Father.
事实上，如果他活在我们这个时代，他甚至可能不想把「神的儿子」中 的「儿子」大写，因为作为一个采纳说信徒，所以，亚略正在教导这些 ，他被亚历山大的其他祭司confronted，并被指控为异端。 And in fact, if he lived in our time, he might not even want to capitalize the S on Son of God, because as an adoptionist, So, Arius is teaching this, and he's confronted by his fellow priests in Alexandria, and he is accused of heresy.
现在，与此同时，亚历山大的主教是亚历山大，亚历山大的亚历山大。 Now, meanwhile, the bishop of Alexandria, who is Alexander, Alexander of Alexandria.
我没有编造这些。 I don't make this stuff up.
我知道这听起来像是一个英国入侵乐队的名字。 I know it sounds like a British invasion band.
亚历山大和亚历山大人。 Alexander and the Alexandrians.
但那就是他的名字。 But that's his name.
亚历山大的亚历山大是主教。 Alexander of Alexandria is the bishop.
现在，亚历山大正在传讲我们讨论特土良，特别是诺瓦天时所说的那种内容。 Now, Alexander is preaching exactly the kind of stuff we were talking about when we talked about Tertullian and especially Novatian.
永恒生出的观念。 The idea of eternal generation.
这个观念认为，虽然圣子的存在依赖于圣父，但他同样是永恒的。 The idea that while the son's existence is dependent on the father, He is no less eternal.
对亚历山大来说，圣子属于过去的无限和永恒。 For Alexander, the son, belongs back here in the infinity, eternity in the past.
所以亚历山大的亚历山大正在传讲永恒生出的教义。 So Alexander of Alexandria is preaching the doctrine of eternal generation.
但对于像亚略这样的采纳说信徒来说，这听起来像是异端。 But to an adoptionist like Arius, that sounds like heresy.
如果你仔细想想，按照你的图表来看，如果你处于 一个极端，看向中间，它看起来就像另一个极端。 And if you think about it, if you think in terms of your chart now, if you're on one extreme and you're looking at the middle, it looks like the other extreme.
所以从亚略在采纳说一方的有利位置来看，他看着处于中间的亚历山大，但对他 来说，亚历山大看起来像是形态论者，或者是在传讲三个神，或类似的东西。 So from Arius' vantage point on the adoptionist side, he's looking at Alexander, who's in the middle, but to him, Alexander looks like a modalist, or somebody who's preaching three gods, or something like that.
是吗？ Yes?
关于永恒生出，基本上是说圣子与圣父同在吗？ In regards to eternal generation, basically saying that the Son was there with the Father?
是的。 Yes.
对。 Right.
永恒生出说圣父和圣子在过去都是永恒的。 The eternal generation says both the Father and the Son are eternal in the past.
这就是问题所在。 And that's going to be the issue.
每个人都同意圣父在过去是永恒的，他的存在没有开始，一直都在那里。 Everybody agrees the Father is eternal in the past, has no beginning to his existence, has always been there.
问题是圣子在过去是否也是永恒的。 The question is whether the Son is also eternal in the past.
现在，我知道你在想什么。 Now, I know what you're thinking.
那圣灵呢？ What about the Holy Spirit?
先不要担心圣灵。 Don't worry about the Holy Spirit yet.
我们稍后会讨论圣灵。 We'll get to the Holy Spirit later.
这将是同样的问题，但我们会讨论到的。 It's going to be the same question, but we'll get there.
但现在，问题仍然只是关于圣父和圣子之间的关系 ，以及圣子是否也与圣父一样在过去是永恒的。 But for now, the question is still just about the relationship between the Father and the Son, and whether the Son is also eternal in the past with the Father.
这里由亚历山大代表的主流教会说，是的，圣子在过 去是永恒的，这就是我们所说的永恒生出的意思。 The mainstream church, represented here by Alexander, is saying, yes, the Son is eternal in the past, that's what we mean by eternal generation.
他是被生出的，但他是永恒被生出的。 He's generated, but he's eternally generated.
生出不是创造，不是他从无到有，而只是描述他与圣父关系的存在状态。 Generation is not creation, it's not him coming into being from nothingness, it's simply the state of being in terms of his relationship with the Father.
但是，你知道，亚略说，等等，如果圣父和圣子在 过去都是永恒的，那我们不应该称他们为兄弟吗？ But, you know, Arius is saying, well wait, if both the Father and the Son are eternal in the past, Shouldn't we then call them brothers?
你知道，而不是父和子，对吧？ You know, instead of father and son, right?
这就是亚略的论点。 That's Arius' argument.
所以亚略指责他的主教是异端，指责他的主教是形态论者。 And so Arius accused his bishop of heresy, accused his bishop of being a modalist.
而亚历山大，当然，指责亚略是异端，并试图让他停止传教。 And Alexander, of course, accused Arius of heresy and tried to get him to stop preaching.
亚历山大会用自己的口号来反驳亚略的口号。 And Alexander would counter Arius' slogan with a slogan of his own.
「曾有一时他不存在。」 There was a time when he was not.
亚历山大的口号是「永远是父，永远是子」。 Alexander's slogan is always a father, always a son.
父一直是父，一直有子。 The father was always a father and there was always a son.
永远是父，永远是子。 Always the Father, always the Son.
这就是一个反驳。 So that's a counter.
所以每一方都有自己的口号。 So each side has its slogan.
但注意这里发生了什么。 But notice what's happened here.
亚略把基督变成了一个被造物，一个被创造的存在，为了维护神的独一性和不变性。 Arius has made Christ into a creature, into a created being, in order to safeguard the oneness of God and the immutability of God.
他说，因为耶稣改变和受苦，他不可能是神性的。 He says, well, because Jesus changed and suffered, he can't be divine.
所以为了维护神的不变性，他把圣子变成了一个被 造物，但这样做，他却使圣父经历了一个变化。 So to safeguard the changelessness of God, He makes the Son a created being, but in doing so, he makes the Father go through a change.
所以，讽刺的是，他说，因为我无法接受神性圣子有变化的观念，我 要说圣子不是神性的，但这样做，他却迫使我们看到圣父的变化。 So, ironically, he says, because I can't deal with the idea of change in a divine Son, I'm going to say the Son's not divine, but in doing that, he then forces us to see change in the Father.
因此，他最终把耶稣变成了一个被造物，一个可能犯罪并可能没有赢得收养的被造物。 And so, he ultimately makes Jesus a creature, and a creature who might have sinned and who might not have earned the adoption.
所以耶稣成了一个普通人，通过完全的顺服赢得了收养，但因为他只是 个普通人，他可能并不完全顺服，可能犯罪，可能没有赢得他的收养。 So Jesus becomes a mere human who achieved adoption by his perfect obedience, but because he's a mere human, he might not have been perfectly obedient, he might have sinned, and he might not have earned his adoption.
我想告诉你们关于亚他拿修的事，你们将会读到他，因为亚他拿 修是亚历山大的执事和得力助手，后来他将成为下一任主教。 I want to tell you about Athanasius, whom you will be reading, because Athanasius He is the deacon and right-hand man to Alexander, and later he will be the next bishop.
所以我们称他为亚历山大的亚他拿修。 So we know him as Athanasius of Alexandria.
他将提供对亚略反对意见的主流回答，即对圣子可变性的反对。 He is going to provide the mainstream answer to Arius' objection, the objection of the mutability of the Son.
记住，亚略反对称圣子为神性的观点，因为圣子会改变和受苦。 Remember, Arius is objecting to the idea of calling the Son divine because the Son changes and suffers.
亚他拿修将阐明教会的主流回答，即神的儿子中这些变化和受苦的特征只是人性的特征。 And Athanasius will articulate the mainstream answer of the Church that says that these characteristics of change and suffering in the Son of God are characteristics of the human nature only.
这些是他的人性，他的人性所具有的人的特征， 是他的人性出生、成长、有需要、受苦和死亡。 They're human characteristics taken on with his humanity, with his human nature, and it is his human nature that was born and grew up and needed things and suffered and died.
他的神性并非如此。 His divine nature did not.
神性仍然是不受感性的，不能受苦，是不变的，不能改变。 The divine nature remains impassable, cannot suffer, immutable, cannot change.
因此，主流教会对此的回答在于基督的两性。 And so the mainstream church's answer to this is in the two natures of Christ.
完全的神性，道，神性和耶稣完全的人性。 The full divinity, the Logos, the divine nature and the full humanity of Jesus.
主流教会将从这个意义上看待耶稣基督的位格。 The mainstream church is going to look at the person of Jesus Christ in this sense.
一个位格有两性。 One person with two natures.
一个获得人性的神性。 A divine nature that acquires a human nature.
不是像亚略想要争辩的那样，一个被创造的灵内住的人。 Not, as Arius wants to argue, a human person who is indwelt by a created spirit.
这是非常不同的看法。 Very different way of looking at it.
我们在亚历山大城有这样的冲突，所以召开了一个地方会议。 We've got this conflict in the city of Alexandria, and so a local council was held.
记住，当一个会议只是地方性或城市性的会议时，我喜欢用「主教会议」这个词。 And remember, when a council is just like a local or a city council, I like to use the word synod.
所以，在亚历山大举行了一次地方会议或主教会议，制定了一个信经，但亚略拒绝签署。 So, a local council or synod was held in Alexandria, and a creed was written which Arius refused to sign.
他拒绝同意。 He refused to agree to it.
这个想法是，我们要写一个信经，它将解释信仰，任何不签署的人都将被逐出教会。 And the idea was, we're going to write a creed, It will explain the faith, and anyone who doesn't sign it is excommunicated.
亚略拒绝签署。 Arius refused to sign it.
他被逐出教会并被驱逐出亚历山大城。 He was excommunicated and banished from the city of Alexandria.
所以，他向他的一个老朋友，他的一个老同学求助，这个人恰好是新首都的主教。 So, he appealed to an old friend of his, an old schoolmate of his, Who just now happens to be the bishop of the capital, the new capital.
此时的首都是尼科米底亚。 Now at this point the capital is Nicomedia.
所以这位主教就是尼科米底亚的优西比乌。 And so the bishop in question is Eusebius of Nicomedia.
我很抱歉，他和凯撒利亚的优西比乌同名，但那是完全不同的人。 And I'm sorry, but he has the same name as Eusebius of Caesarea, but that's a whole different guy.
他们都倾向于亚略主义，但重点是尼科米底亚的优西比乌现在是帝国首都的主教。 They both lean toward Arianism, but the point is that Eusebius of Nicomedia is now bishop of the imperial capital.
所以，亚略向他求助。 So, Arius appeals to him.
现在，想想这个。 Now, think about this.
亚略在亚历山大，理应在亚历山大主教的权威之下 ，但他们将他逐出教会并基本上将他驱逐出城。 Arius is in Alexandria, supposedly under the authority of the bishops of Alexandria, but they excommunicate him and basically banish him from the city.
那么他怎么做？ So what does he do?
他去向另一个会同意他的主教求助。 He goes and appeals to another bishop who will agree with him.
尼科米底亚的优西比乌确实支持他。 And Eusebius of Nicomedia does support him.
亚略开始获得追随者，不仅包括尼科米底亚的优西比乌 ，还有我们的另一个优西比乌，凯撒利亚的优西比乌。 And Arius starts gaining followers, including not only Eusebius of Nicomedia, but our other Eusebius, Eusebius of Caesarea.
再次抱歉这些相似的名字，我对此无能为力。 Again, sorry about the similar names, nothing I can do about it.
所以现在亚略正在获得追随者。 So now Arius is gaining followers.
亚历山大的主教亚历山大不得不开始写信，敦促他的主教同僚尊重他的逐出教会决定。 And Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria has to start writing letters urging his fellow bishops to honor his excommunication.
现在记住，这可以追溯到安提阿的伊格那丢。 Now remember, this goes all the way back to Ignatius of Antioch.
这正是他所担心的那种事。 This is exactly the kind of thing he was worried about.
因为如果一个城市有两个主教，如果你被一个逐出教会，你就可以去找另一个。 Because if you had two bishops in one city, and if you're excommunicated from one, you just go over to the other one.
现在虽然不是一个城市，但如果主教们不支持彼此的逐 出教会决定，那么逐出教会的惩戒就变得毫无意义。 Well, now it's not one city, but If bishops don't support each other's excommunications, then the discipline of excommunication becomes meaningless.
所以亚历山大不得不写信给其他主教说，你知道，请尊重我对这个亚略的逐出教会决定。 And so Alexander has to write to other bishops saying, you know, please honor my excommunication of this Arius guy.
有些人照做了，有些人没有。 Some of them did and some of them did not.
尼科米底亚的优西比乌举行了自己的小型主教会议，与亚略和解。 Eusebius of Nicomedia held his own little synod and reconciled Arius.
所以现在看看你得到了什么。 So now look at what you've got.
现在你有了对立的主教和对立的会议。 Now you have a matter of opposing bishops and opposing councils.
所以，亚历山大和亚历山大会议说亚略是异端。 So, Alexander and the Council of Alexandria says Arius is a heretic.
尼科米底亚的优西比乌和尼科米底亚会议说亚略不是异端。 Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Council in Nicomedia says Arius is not a heretic.
与此同时，亚略在亚历山大的追随者正在街头骚乱。 Meanwhile, Arius' followers in Alexandria are rioting in the streets.
所以这是一个情况，你知道，必须有所让步，对吧？ So this is a situation that, you know, something's gotta give, right?
不过，在我继续讲故事之前，我想确保我们清楚亚略到底在教 导什么，我想谈谈亚略主义的教导与主流教会教导的对比。 Before I go on with the story, though, I want to make sure we're clear on exactly what Arius was teaching, and I want to talk about contrasting the teachings of Arianism with the teachings of the mainstream church.
现在，你必须记住，我们所知道的亚略的教导，大多来自亚他拿修的著作。 Now, you have to remember, though, that what we know of Arius' teachings, we mostly know from the writings of Athanasius.
所以，当你阅读所谓的异端时，你总是要小心。 And so, you always have to be careful when you're reading about the so-called heretics.
如果你从他们的敌人那里了解他们，你总是要怀疑，在这种情 况下，亚他拿修在报道亚略的教导时是否完全公平或准确。 If you're reading about them from their enemies, you always have to wonder whether, in this case, Athanasius is being completely fair or accurate in reporting what Arius taught.
我认为他在大多数情况下是准确的，但可能并不总是公平的。 I would argue that he's accurate for the most part, but maybe not always fair.
一些学者甚至会说，亚略主义本身的概念是亚他 拿修发明的，目的是创造一个稻草人来反驳。 And some scholars will go so far as to say that the concept of Arianism itself is invented by Athanasius in the sense of creating a straw man to argue against.
我认为这有点过分了，但你明白我的意思。 I think that goes a little too far, but you get the idea.
我们必须小心。 We have to be careful.
有很多人身攻击。 There's a lot of name-calling.
主教们喜欢用一些词来称呼亚略的追随者，这些词只能被翻译成 英语中类似「狂热分子」这样的词。我本来没打算讲这个，但我 的笔记里确实有一点，所以如果最后有时间的话我会讲到。 The bishops like to call Arius' followers words that can only be translated into English as things like aeromaniacs, I wasn't planning on going into that, but I do have that in my notes a little bit, so if we have time at the end I'll get into that.
问题是，每种基督论背后都有一种人类学。 The question is, there's an anthropology behind every Christology.
正如你从我的三个定律中所知道的，每种基督论也都与一种救赎论相关联。 And as you know from my three laws, every Christology is also associated with a soteriology.
所以我们会讨论到这一点。 So we'll get into that.
我们会看看今天能讲到哪里，还有多少时间讨论这个，但这是个好问题。 We'll see how far we get and how much time we have for that today, but that's a good point.
但让我们先来看看亚略主义的基本教导，并将它们与主流或亚历山大人的做法进行对比。 But let's just go through the basic teachings of Arianism and contrast them with what the mainstream or what the Alexandrians are doing.
好的，亚略是这么说的。 Alright, Arius is saying this.
我们在圣经中读到基督是父独生的儿子。 We read in the scriptures that Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father.
问题是，「生」是什么意思？ The question is, what does begotten mean?
对亚略来说，「生」意味着被创造，而且是从无中创造。 For Arius, begotten means created, and created from nothing.
所以对亚略来说，圣子是被创造的，因此他的存在有一个开始。 So for Arius, the Son is created, and therefore there is a beginning to his existence.
因此，圣子与圣父不是共永恒的。 And therefore, the Son is not co-eternal with the Father.
曾有一个时候圣子是不存在的。 There was a time when the Son did not exist.
也曾有一个时候圣父不是父。 And there was a time when the Father was not a Father.
所以，基本上，圣子与我们其他人没有什么不同，只是他达到了完美。 So, basically, the Son is no different from the rest of us, except in that He achieved perfection.
他可能会犯罪，但他没有。 He might have sinned, but He did not.
所以他被赐予了收养的儿子身份作为奖励。 So He was rewarded with adopted Sonship.
神的儿子只是通过收养成为神的儿子，因此不是生命的源 头或圣灵的赐予者，而是生命的接受者和圣灵的接受者。 The Son of God is only Son of God by adoption and so therefore is not the source of life or a giver of the Holy Spirit but is a recipient of life and a recipient of the Holy Spirit.
所以本质上，你知道，虽然亚略可能不愿意谈论神本身是三位 一体的，但对亚略来说，三位一体是一个神性的等级制度。 So in essence, you know, while Arius probably would not want to talk about God as a trinity per se, for Arius the trinity is a hierarchy of divinity.
你最终得到的是一个被内住的耶稣基督，耶稣被 神的道内住，这使他的地位提升到一种准神性。 What you end up having is a Jesus Christ who is indwelt, Jesus is indwelt with the Law of God, which elevates him in status to a kind of quasi-divinity.
所以如果亚略谈论圣子的神性，那是一种获得的神性 ，一种接受的神性，它不是与圣父同等级的神性。 So if Arius talks about the divinity of the Son, it's an acquired divinity, a received divinity, and it is not the same level of divinity as the Father.
这是一个被提升的地位。 It's an elevated status.
圣子被提升到一个更高的地位。 The Son is Elevated to a higher status.
因此，除了三位一体中的权威等级之外，在神性方面也 存在等级，因为对亚略来说，圣父的神性比圣子更高。 And so in addition to the hierarchy of authority in the Trinity, there would also be a hierarchy of divinity in the sense that for Arius, the father is of a higher order of divinity than the son.
那么圣父和圣子之间的合一实际上只是意志合作的合一，意 思是使圣子与圣父合一的是圣子的意志与圣父的意志合作。 And the unity then between the father and son is really only a unity of cooperating will in the sense that What unifies the Son with the Father is that the Son's will cooperates with the Father's will.
但圣父和圣子之间仍然存在本体论上的分离。 But there is still an ontological separation between Father and Son.
在他们的本质上，在他们的实体上，他们是不同的。 In their very being, in their very substance, they are different.
圣子与圣父是不同的实体。 The Son is a different substance from the Father.
到目前为止，这说得通吗？ Does that make sense so far?
你需要我澄清什么吗？ Do you want me to clarify anything?
这是个好问题。 That's a good point.
我认为在大多数情况下，主流教会会以我们看待它的方式来看待这个问题。 I think for the most part the mainstream church would see this the same way we would see it.
要成为神性的，一个存在要么是神性的，要么不是神性的。 To be divine, a being is either divine or a being is not divine.
大多数人会认为你不可能是部分神性的，或者或多或少是神性的。 Most people would think you can't be Partially divine, or more or less divine.
神性是没有程度之分的。 There aren't degrees of divinity.
但是你看，对亚略来说，在某种程度上，神性是有等级的，因为圣父是最高等级的神性。 But see, for Arius, in a way, there are degrees of divinity, because the Father is of the highest order of divinity.
但当圣子，当耶稣被道内住时，当圣子被收养时，他被提升 到一个神性的等级，虽然不如圣父高，但比我们其他人高。 But when the Son, when Jesus is indwelt with the Logos, when the Son is adopted, he is elevated almost to an order of divinity that is not as high as the Father, but higher than the rest of us.
这说得通吗？ Does that make sense?
所以这就是我在谈论神性等级时所指的。 So that's what I'm getting at there in terms of hierarchy of divinity.
主流教会可能不愿意说神性有任何程度之分。 The mainstream church would probably not want to say that there's any degrees of divinity.
但亚略说神性是有程度之分的，而且圣子的神性，如果 我们允许圣子有任何神性的话，那是一种有限的神性。 But Arius is saying that there are degrees of divinity, and the Son's divinity, if we're to allow any divinity for the Son at all, it's a qualified divinity.
它是比圣父低的神性。 It's a lesser divinity than the Father.
这是一种获得的神性，因为他的地位被提升了。 It is an acquired divinity because he has been elevated in status.
现在，与主流教会的教导相比，是的，耶稣是被生的。 Now, contrast that With what the mainstream church is teaching, yes, Jesus is begotten.
但「生」并不意味着被创造。 But begotten doesn't mean created.
对主流教会来说，「生」意味着产生，在这个意义上，圣 子的存在依赖于圣父，取决于圣父，但不是被创造的。 For the mainstream church, begotten means generated, in that sense that the Son's existence is dependent on the Father, contingent on the Father, but not created.
没有圣子不存在的时候。 There is no time when the Son did not exist.
因此，对于主流教会来说，「生」并不意味着被创造，这就允许圣子永恒存在。 And so because begotten does not mean created for the mainstream church, it allows for the eternal existence of the Son.
圣子在过去是永恒的，就像圣父一样。 The Son is eternal in the past, just like the Father.
所以圣子是非受造的。 So the Son is uncreated.
事实上，这就是神性的定义，或者说是部分定义。 In fact, that would be the very definition of divinity, or part of it.
非受造的，他的存在没有开始。 Uncreated, with no beginning to his existence.
他是永恒被生的。 He's eternally generated.
与圣父共永恒，这意味着圣父一直是父。 Co-eternal with the Father, which means the Father was always a Father.
所以圣父没有变化，圣子没有变化，事实上三位一 体也没有变化，因为三位一体一直是三位一体。 So there's no change in the Father, there's no change in the Son, and in fact there's no change in the Trinity because the Trinity has always been a Trinity.
对于主流教会来说，圣子在本体论上与圣父并无不同。 For the Matron Church, the Son is not ontologically different from the Father.
圣父和圣子是同一实体，神的儿子本性上就是神的儿子。 The Father and the Son are of the same substance, The Son of God is the Son of God by nature.
他是神的亲生儿子，这就使他与我们有了区别。 He's the natural Son of God, and so that makes a distinction between Him and us.
我们是神的养子。 We're adopted children of God.
他不需要被收养。 He does not need to be adopted.
他是神的亲生儿子，本性上、实体上或本质上是神的儿子。 He's the natural Son of God, the Son of God by nature or by substance or essence.
所以三位一体的合一，圣父和圣子之间的合一，不仅仅是意志合作的合一。 So the unity of the Trinity, the unity between Father and Son, is not simply a unity of cooperating wills.
这不仅仅是可能不存在的合一，而是本质的合一，实体的合一，神性本身的合一。 It's not simply a unity that might not have been, but it's an essential unity, a unity of essence, a unity of substance, a unity of divinity itself.
神性没有等级之分，没有更高或更低的神性。 There is no hierarchy of divinity, there's no greater or lesser divinity.
你要么是神性的，要么不是。 You're either divine or you're not.
圣父是神性的，圣子在他的神性上也是如此。 And the Father is, and the Son is in his divine nature as well.
因此，圣父和圣子之间的合一就是一个神性的合一。 And so the unity between Father and Son is that unity of one divinity.
他们共享同一个神性。 They share the one same divinity.
所以三位一体中的任何等级都不是实体或本质的等级。 So any hierarchy that there is in the Trinity is not a hierarchy of substance or essence.
这不是本体论的等级。 It's not an ontological hierarchy.
这是权威的等级。 It is a hierarchy of authority.
我们在讨论诺瓦天时稍微谈到了这一点。 We talked about this a little bit when we were doing Novation.
这就是我们看到那种平衡，合一和区别的平衡。 And this is where we see that balance, the balance of unity and distinction.
你知道，我忘了打开麦克风。 You know, I forgot to turn the microphone on.
这就是我们看到三位一体内部合一和区别的平衡。 This is where we see the balance of unity and distinction within the Trinity.
神性是平等的，但权威是有等级的。 There's an equality of divinity, but a hierarchy of authority.
因此，圣父和圣子是有区别的，但不是分离的。 And so the Father and Son are distinct, but not separate.
他们是一体的，但不是相同的。 They're one, but not the same.
所以，你知道，亚略想说圣父和圣子是分离的。 And so, you know, Arius wants to say the Father and Son are separate.
主流教会想说，他们是有区别的因为他们不是完全相 同的，但他们不是分离的因为他们共享同一神性。 The mainstream church wants to say, well, they're distinct because they're not identical, but they're not separate because they share the same divine nature.
你看，这里发生的是亚略的追随者从意志的角度思考。 You see, what's happening here is the followers of Arius think in terms of will.
父与子之间的合一是意志的合一。 The unity between father and son is a unity of will.
子的意志与父的意志合作。 The son's will cooperates with the father's will.
这完全是关于顺服。 It's all about obedience.
基督，或者说耶稣，耶稣通过顺从神的旨意赢得了与神的合一。 Christ, or Jesus, Jesus earned unity with God by conforming to the will of God.
因此他赢得了这种提升的地位，这种准神性，虽然比父的神性低。 And so he earned this elevated status, this quasi-divinity that's less of a divinity than that of the Father.
你我也可能做同样的事。 And you and I might do the same.
如果我们能像耶稣那样顺服，我们就能赢得成为神的儿女的收养，就像他那样。 If we can be obedient the way Jesus was, we can earn the adoption as sons and daughters of God just like he did.
但这就是基督论变成救赎论的地方。 But this is where the Christology becomes a soteriology.
如果你接受亚略的基督论，你最终会得到一个这样的救赎论... If you accept the Christology of Arius, you end up with a soteriology that is...
把基督称为救主，意味着他仅仅为我们铺平了道路。 To talk of Christ as Savior means little more than He paved the way for us.
他指明了道路，但我们仍然必须做他所做的。 He showed the way, but we still have to do what He did.
他是我们要效法的榜样，但救赎的工作实际上必须由我们来完成。 He's an example to follow, but the work of salvation really has to be done by us.
所以如果父与子之间的合一是意志的合一，那么为了让我们与神合一。 So if the unity between Father and Son is a unity of will, then in order for us to be United to God.
我们也必须通过我们的意志，通过我们的顺服来赢得那种合一。 We also have to earn that union by our will, by our obedience.
现在，相比之下，亚历山大人，主流教会，你知道，他们不是 那么多从意志的角度思考，而是从本质或实体的角度思考。 Now, the Alexandrians, the mainstream church, by contrast, you know, they're not thinking so much in terms of will, they're thinking in terms of essence or substance.
这完全是关于神性的实体。 It's all about the substance of divinity.
圣子拥有圣父的神性。 The Son has the Father's divinity.
他是老神性块上的一个碎片，因为圣父和圣子共享同一神性。 He is a chip off the old divine block because the Father and Son share the same divinity.
这就是为什么圣子能成为我们的救主。 This is why the Son can be our Savior.
不是因为他只是指明道路而我们也必须这样做，而是因为他本身就是神圣干预的化身。 Not because He just shows the way and we have to do it too, but because He is the very embodiment of divine intervention.
他的神性是完全的神性，与圣父平等。 And His divinity is a full divinity equal to the Father.
所以我认为，主流教会会拒绝神性有程度之分的观念。 And so the mainstream church, I think, would reject the idea of degrees of divinity.
基督是神的亲生儿子。 Christ is the natural Son of God.
我们是被收养的儿女。 We're the adopted sons and daughters.
我们被神收养，不是通过效法基督的榜样或完全顺服，因为谁能做 到呢，而是通过与神的儿子认同，或接受神的儿子而被神收养。 We are adopted by God, not by following Christ's example or by being perfectly obedient, because who could do that, but we are adopted by God by identification with the Son of God, or by acceptance of the Son of God.
你知道，约翰福音开头，第1章第12节，你知道，谁是神的儿女？ You know, the Gospel of John in that beginning, chapter 1, verse 12, you know, who are the children of God?
那些接受神的儿子的人。 Those who receive the Son of God.
凡接待他的，他就赐他们权柄作神的儿女。 To those who receive Him, He gave the right to be called children of God.
所以，通过认同基督作为我们的兄长，我们成为神的养子和养女。 So, by identifying with Christ as our brother, we become adopted sons and daughters of God.
但并不期望我们能完全顺服。 But it's not expected that we could be perfectly obedient.
但这就是重点。 But here's the point.
如果你接受亚略的基督论，你最终会得到一个期望你做所有工作的救赎论。 If you go with the Arian Christology, you end up with a soteriology that expects you to do all the work.
这是一个人为努力的救赎论。 It's a soteriology of human effort.
基本上，这是一个靠行为得救的理论。 It's a salvation by works, basically.
如果你接受主流基督论，那么你最终会得到一个主要关于神圣干预的救赎论。 If you go with the mainstream Christology, then you end up with a soteriology that is primarily about divine intervention.
基督的道成肉身是神介入并解决我们无法解决的问题。 The incarnation of Christ is God stepping in and fixing a problem that we can't fix.
这说得通吗？ Does that make sense?
是的，问题是罪，再次回到卡罗尔的观点，对于罪如何影响我们有不同的看法。 Yes, the problem is sin, and again, to Carol's point, there's different views on how sin affects us.
这也是其中的一部分。 And that plays into it.
所以我们看看能否稍后讨论一下这个问题。 So we'll see if we can talk about that in a bit.
但我真的希望你们能理解这个对比。 But I really want you to get this contrast.
在亚略所呈现的基督论和主流教会所教导的之间。 between what Arius was presenting as his Christology and what the mainstream church was teaching.
主教们，亚历山大和亚他拿修，他们指责亚略试图 将基督从与圣父平等的地位降低到某种中间地位。 The bishops, Alexander and Athanasius, they accused Arius of trying to demote Christ from equal to the Father to some intermediate status.
但事实上，这并不是亚略真正想做的。 But in fact, that's not really what Arius was trying to do.
亚略试图展示他如何相信基督从一个普通人被提升为一个准神性的存在。 Arius was trying to show how he believed Christ got promoted from a mere human to a quasi-divine being.
换句话说，对亚略来说，耶稣是一个赢得道内住的人，被提升到一个新的更高的地位。 In other words, for Arius, Jesus is a man who earned the indwelling of the Logos and is promoted to a new and higher status.
不是像圣父那样高的地位，但比我们其他人更高。 Not a status as high as the Father, but higher than the rest of us.
嗯，在一些现代版本的采纳说，亚略主义中，你确实 有一种信念，认为每个人都可以成为神性的存在。 Well, in some In some modern versions of adoptionism, Arianism, you do have a belief that every human being can become a divine being.
所以这被构建在某些... And so that is built into certain...
一些将基督视为先驱、指明道路的基督论，假设信徒可 以追随他的脚步，不仅赢得收养，还能获得神性地位。 some Christologies that have Christ as sort of the pioneer, showing the way, assume that then the believer can follow in his footsteps and also earn not only the adoption but also the divine status.
所以在一些体系中确实有这种观点。 So you do have that in some systems.
但在主流基督教观点中，不是这样的。 But in the mainstream Christian viewpoint, it's not about that.
我的意思是，显然我们仍然被期望行善，但不是为了赚取救恩，而是作为救恩的结果。 I mean, obviously we're still expected to do good works, but not to earn salvation, but rather as a result of it.
这就是底线。 Here's the bottom line.
对亚略来说，亚略主义的基督是一个成为神的人。 For Arius, the Arian Christ is a man who becomes a god.
也许不是那个神，也许不是与圣父同等级的，但他成为一个准神性的存在。 Maybe not the God, maybe not on the same level as the Father, but he becomes a quasi-divine being.
所以，对亚略来说，基督是一个成为神的人。 So, for Arius, Christ is a man who becomes a God.
我们称这为上升的基督论，因为他被提升，他的地位被提高。 We call this a Christology of ascent, going up, because he's promoted, he's elevated in status.
现在，这是一个神吗？ Now, is this a God?
我要把这个打出来了。 I'm going to type this already.
小写的g？当然，我会用小写的g，是的。 Small g? Sure, I would go with small g, yeah.
好的，所以对亚略来说，基督是一个成为神的人。 Okay, so for Arius, Christ is a man who becomes a God.
对于主流教会，亚历山大人来说，基督是成为人的神。 For the mainstream church, the Alexandrians, Christ is God who becomes human.
你看到区别了。 You see the difference.
我们称这为下降的基督论。 We call this a Christology of descent.
他降下来。 He comes down.
这正是我们在腓立比书第2章中看到的。他必须谦卑自己，倒空自己，成为人。 This is exactly what we get in Philippians chapter 2. He has to humble himself and empty himself to become human.
所以下降的基督论是神成为人。 So the Christology of descent is God becomes human.
神性的道获得了人性，成为人。 The divine law of us acquires a human nature and becomes a human.
这与亚略所说的非常不同。 That's very different from what Arius is saying.
亚略说耶稣是一个成为神的人。 Arius is saying that Jesus was a man who became a god.
所以这是上升的基督论（人成为神）和下降的基督论（神成为人）之间的区别。 So it's the difference between a Christology of ascent, man who becomes a god, and a Christology of descent, god becomes a human.
所以这就像蝙蝠侠和超人之间的区别。 So it is the difference between Batman and Superman.
现在你们都知道蝙蝠侠和超人是谁，对吧？ Now you all know who Batman and Superman are, right?
信不信由你，我曾经上过一些课，有人不知道，所以没关系。 Believe it or not, I've had classes where people didn't know, so that's okay.
但这是美国流行文化中的两个超级英雄。 But these are two superheroes from American popular culture.
在故事中，蝙蝠侠只是一个普通人，通过纯粹的 意志力和个人纪律，将自己提升到英雄地位。 And in the story, Batman is a mere human who, through sheer willpower and personal discipline, elevates himself to hero status.
但他并没有真正的超能力，对吧？ But he doesn't really have any superpowers, does he?
他只是聪明，你知道，他是个技术宅之类的。 He's just smart and, you know, he's a techie and all that.
另一方面，超人是来自另一个星球的奇怪访客，他做什么？ Superman, on the other hand, is this strange visitor from another planet who, what does he do?
他降临地球，成为人类的救世主形象。 He comes down to Earth to be a savior figure for the human race.
但他有非凡的力量，他成为我们中的一员，但他最初并不是我们中的一员。 But he has extraordinary powers, and he becomes one of us, but he's not initially one of us.
所以这是一个很好的方式来思考亚略主义和主流教会基督论之间的区别。 And so this is a good way to think about the difference between Arianism and the mainstream church's Christology.
亚略主义是一种蝙蝠侠基督论，一个普通人通过自己的努力提升自己，赢得英雄地位。 Arianism is a Batman Christology, a regular person who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps and earns hero status.
主流教会是一种超人基督论，一个本来是外来者，成为我们中的一员并降临拯救我们的人。 The mainstream church is a superman Christology, someone who's originally other, who becomes one of us and who comes down to save us.
这里还有一个。 Here's another one.
这里有星际迷航的粉丝吗？ Any Star Trek fans in here?
你们记得卡洛斯是谁吗？ Do you remember who Kalos is?
卡洛斯是克林贡人的救世主形象。 Kalos is the Klingon savior figure.
有一集讲述了关于卡洛斯回归的神话，他们克隆了他以假装他已经回归。 And there's an episode where there's a mythology about Calus returning and they clone him so they can pretend he's returned.
最后，这一集以这样的话结束：我们发现这不是真正的卡洛斯，我们 都很失望，但归根结底，这句话是，归根结底，言语比人更重要。 And in the end, in the end, the episode ends with, well, you know, we figured out this isn't the real Calus and we're all disappointed, but at the end of the day, and here's the line, at the end of the day, the words are more important than the man.
你明白他们在说什么吗？ See what they're saying?
卡洛斯，克林贡人的救世主形象，他所说的和教导的比他是谁更重要。 Calus, the Klingon savior figure, what he said and what he taught is more important than who he was.
这是一种非常亚略主义的看待救世主形象的方式。 That is a very Aryan way of looking at a savior figure.
他树立了榜样，有伟大的教导，但他是谁不如他 树立的榜样、他的行为和他教导的话语重要。 He set an example, and he has great teachings, but who he is is less important than the example he set, the actions he did, and the words that he taught.
主流教会绝不会接受这种观点，因为耶稣是谁至少与他教导的内容同样重要。 The mainstream church would never buy that, because it is At least as important, who Jesus was as what he taught.
因为他过去是谁和现在是谁，就是成为人的神性道。 Because who he was and who he is, is the divine Logos who became human.
没有这种神圣的干预，救赎就不可能实现。 And without that divine intervention, salvation wouldn't be possible.
另一种看法，我想知道，这种亚略主义，亚略式的 救赎论，他们是否在说我们都可以在地上成为神？ Another way to look at it, I want to know, this Arianism, Arian way of soteriology, now, are they saying that we can all become a god on earth?
那么，他们是否在说，基本上，一旦我们死了，那时我们就达到完美，现在我们成为神？ Well, are they saying that basically, once we die, that's when we reach perfection and now we become a god?
首先，我们必须把亚略所说的，他的追随者所说的， 与现代版本的亚略主义可能现在所说的区分开来。 Well, first of all, we have to separate what Arius was saying, what his followers were saying, from what modern versions of Arianism might be saying now.
当我们开始问，亚略会对这个或那个怎么说时，我们不会得到所有问题的答案。 We won't get all of our questions answered when we start asking, well, what would Arius say about this or that?
因为再次强调，我们对他教导的了解仅限于亚他拿修和其他人想要记录下来的内容。 Because again, our knowledge of what he taught was limited to whatever Athanasius and others wanted to write down.
记住，这些都是以「这就是那个肮脏的亚略在教导的」这种方式表述的。 And remember, it's all phrased in Here's what that dirty Arius is teaching.
我们实际上并不知道。 And we don't really know.
我认为亚略会说，至少在这一生中成为这种被收养的、准神性状态是可能的，但我真的不知 道，除非你记得什么具体的内容，但我认为我们从亚略那里并没有关于这方面的任何信息。 I think that Arius would say that it is at least possible to become this adopted, quasi-divine state in this life, but I don't really know Unless you remember anything specific, but I don't think we really have anything on that from Arius.
现在，现代版本的亚略主义五花八门，我认为他们中的大多数会说，如果 你在这一生中完成了一定程度的顺服和善行，你可能在死后会成为神。 Now, modern versions of Arianism are all over the map, and I think most of them would say, so probably after you die, you become a god if you've accomplished a certain amount of obedience and good works in this life.
这是一个棘手的问题，再次强调，这里有另一种 思考亚略主义和主流基督论之间差异的方式。 It's a tricky question, and again, Here's another way to think about the difference between Arianism and what the mainstream Christology was.
想象一下，如果加拿大和墨西哥发生争议，加拿大和墨西哥正在发生争议，决定 需要一个谈判者介入，与加拿大和墨西哥的代表坐下来调解争议并带来和解。 Imagine if the countries of Canada and Mexico had a dispute Canada and Mexico were having a dispute and it was decided that a negotiator was needed to come in and sit down with representatives from Canada and Mexico and mediate the dispute and bring reconciliation.
那么问题就是，好的，现在我们要在加拿大和墨西哥之间选择一个调解人。 So the question would be then, okay, so now we're going to choose a mediator between Canada and Mexico.
你有两个选择。 You have two choices.
你可以选择一个美国公民，他是加拿大和墨西哥之间的国家的公民 ，或者你可以选择一个同时拥有加拿大和墨西哥双重国籍的人。 You can choose a U.S. citizen who is a citizen of a country in between Canada and Mexico, or you can choose someone who has dual citizenship of Canada and Mexico.
所以是一个实际上同时是加拿大和墨西哥公民的人。 So someone who is actually a citizen of both Canada and Mexico.
现在，亚略主义的基督，作为神和人类之间的调解者，就像 那个卡在中间的美国公民，但最终既不是这个也不是那个。 Now, the Arian Christ, as a mediator between God and humanity, would be like that US citizen who is stuck in the middle, but ultimately is not either one.
换句话说，亚略主义的基督被提升到这种准神性地 位，但他不是完全神性的，也不再是完全人性的。 So in other words, the Arian Christ has been elevated to this quasi-divine status, but he's not fully divine, and he's not really fully human anymore.
所以他是一个调解者因为他在中间，但他既不是神性的也不是人性的。 So he's a mediator because he's in the middle, but he's also neither divine nor human.
主流教会教导的基督是神和人类之间的中保，因为他既是神又是人。 The mainstream church is teaching a Christ who is mediator between God and humanity because he's both God and human.
他就像一个拥有双重国籍的人。 He would be like someone who has dual citizenship.
他拥有神性和人性的双重「国籍」，因为他有神性和人性。 He has dual citizenship of God-ness and human-ness because he has a divine nature and a human nature.
所以从这个意义上说，他是中保因为他既是神性的又是人性的。 So in that sense, he is the mediator because he's both divine and human.
这说得通吗？ Does that make sense?
好的。 Okay.
无论如何，这就是康斯坦丁登场时东方教会面临的争议。 Well, at any rate, This is the controversy that faced the Eastern Church when Constantine arrived on the scene.
公元324年，康斯坦丁打败李锡尼乌斯，成为整个罗马帝国的唯一皇帝。 The year 324, Constantine defeats Licinius to become the sole emperor of the whole Roman Empire.
他很高兴地来到东方说，谢天谢地，现在我是一个统一帝国的皇帝。 And he is so happy to arrive in the East and say, thank goodness, now I'm the emperor of an undivided empire.
哎呀。 Oops.
教会在这个问题上分裂了。 The Church is divided over this issue.
事实上，这个争议在东方是巨大的。 In fact, this controversy was huge in the East.
凯撒利亚的优西比乌写道，东方教会分裂了，每个人都有自己的看法。 Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that the Eastern Church was divided and everybody had an opinion.
再次记住，这正是安提阿的伊格那丢所担心的。 And again, remember, this is exactly what Ignatius of Antioch feared.
如果主教们意见不一致，所有平信徒都会被迫在他们之间做出选择。 That if you had bishops who disagreed, all of the laypeople would be forced to choose between them.
你要跟随谁？ Who are you going to follow?
事实上，我们读到甚至异教徒也在剧院里嘲笑基督徒。 In fact, we read that even pagans were taunting the Christians in the theaters.
所以如果你是一个基督徒去剧院，你可以预料到异教徒会嘲笑 你，大喊「嘿，那个争议怎么样」，你知道，为此取笑你。 So if you were a Christian and you went to the theater, you could expect the pagans to like taunt you and yell, hey, what about that controversy, you know, and make fun of you for that.
现在，为什么这是如此重要的事？ Now, why was it such a big deal?
我的意思是，因为让我们面对现实，如果这真的只是关于三位一体的解剖学的辩论？ I mean, because let's face it, if this was really just a debate over The Anatomy of the Trinity?
普通人真的会那么担心吗？ Would the average person have really worried about it that much?
为什么这是如此重要的事？ Why is it such a big deal?
因为第三定律，基督论影响救赎论。 Because Law 3, Christology informs soteriology.
所以你对基督的信仰影响你对救赎的信仰，并导致对救赎的特定信念。 And so that what you believe about Christ affects what you believe about salvation and leads to a particular belief about salvation.
记住，普通人关心的是救赎。 And remember that the average person is concerned about salvation.
耶稣说，你知道，在我父的家里有许多住处，无论你怎么翻译。 Jesus said, you know, in my Father's house are many rooms, however you want to translate that.
作为一个基督徒，我想知道其中一个房间有一扇门上写着我的名字，在等着我。 I want to know, as a Christian, that one of those rooms has a door with my name on it, waiting for me.
我想知道天堂有我的位置。 I want to know there's a place in heaven for me.
所以事实证明，这不仅仅是关于三位一体解剖学的争论，而是关于救赎如何运作的争论。 And so it turns out this is not just a fight about the anatomy of the Trinity, it's a fight about how salvation works.
因为基督论，你对救主的信仰，决定了你对救主如何拯救的信仰。 Because the Christology, what you believe about the Savior, determines what you believe about how the Savior saves.
如果亚略是对的，那么救赎就是通过人的努力。 And if Arius was right, then salvation is by human effort.
是通过遵守律法。 It's by following the law.
是通过顺服神。 It's by being obedient to God.
是通过赢得神的收养。 It's by earning God's adoption.
如果亚历山大人是对的，那么救赎主要是通过神的干预。 If the Alexandrians are right, then salvation is primarily by divine intervention.
亚略派在说，效法那个成为神的人的榜样，你也会找到救赎。 The Arians were saying, follow the example of the man who became a god and you too will find salvation.
但我在想，如果我必须这样做，我的机会有多大？ But I'm thinking, if I have to do that, what are my chances?
所以主流教会说，因为人类已经堕落，如果我们要得救，所需要的是神的干预。 So the mainstream church is saying that because humans are fallen, what is required if we are to have salvation is divine intervention.
必须是成为人的神来拯救我们。 It's got to be the god who becomes human who saves us.
这引出了一个更大的问题，我们在研究其他争议时会更深入地讨论。 And this brings up a bigger question, which we're going to get into more later when we study other controversies.
但更大的问题是，在救赎方面，神做多少，我们做多少？ But the bigger question is, when it comes to salvation, how much does God do, and how much do we do?
是全靠神吗？ Is it all God?
是全靠我们吗？ Is it all us?
还是有一些中间地带？ Or is there some middle ground?
你不会惊讶地知道我认为有一些中间地带，但我们稍后会讨论到这一点。 And it won't surprise you to know that I think there is some middle ground, but we'll get to that.
所以这就成了问题。 So that becomes the question.
现在，我们的时间怎么样？ Now, how are we doing on time?
好的，卡罗尔之前提到的是，你知道，除了基督论与救赎论相连，它还与人类学相连。 Okay, so what Carol was referring to earlier is that, you know, in addition to Christology being connected to soteriology, it's also connected to anthropology.
换句话说，每种基督论背后，都潜藏着一种人类学。 In other words, behind each Christology, there is an anthropology lurking in the background.
我这么说是什么意思？ What do I mean by that?
有两种看待罪的方式。 There are two ways to look at sin.
我们同意问题是罪，对吧？ We agree the problem is sin, right?
我们可以同意罪在我们出生之前就存在于世界上，对吧？ And we can agree that sin was in the world before we were born, right?
我的意思是，当我来到这个世界时，它已经破碎了，对吧？ I mean, it was broke when I got there, right?
我们可以在这一点上达成一致。 We can agree on that.
问题是，我如何对罪负责？ The question is, how am I responsible for sin?
罪是如何来到我身上的？ How does sin come to me?
有两种看待这个问题的方式。 And there are two ways to look at that.
一种看法是说，当我出生时，我是作为一个全新的、纯洁的、清白的神的造物而出生的。 One way to look at it is to say that when I was born, I was born as a brand new A pure, clean creature of God with a clean slate.
但不久之后我就犯罪了，所以罪在我身上是因为我犯了罪。 But then it wasn't too long before I sinned, and so sin is on me because I committed sin.
我错误地使用了自由意志，犯了罪，所以现在我要为此负责。 Used my free will incorrectly, and I sinned, and so now I'm responsible for it.
这是我的责任。 That's on me.
这是看待罪的一种方式。 That is one way of looking at sin.
另一种看待罪的方式是说，人性中有某种固有的东西，通过这种东西罪代代相传。 The other way of looking at sin is to say that there is something inherent in human nature by which sin is transmitted down through the generations.
所以，正如在亚当里众人都犯了罪，某种程度上亚当的罪通过我和亚 当共有的人性传给了我，即使我能够完美，实际上，已经太晚了。 So, as in Adam all sin, somehow Adam's sin is transmitted to me through the human nature that Adam and I share, so that even if I Even if I could be perfect, and really, it's too late.
如果你不太了解我，让我告诉你，已经太晚了。 If you don't know me that well, let me just tell you, it's too late.
但即使我能从头开始并保持完美，这种看待罪的方式也 无关紧要，因为罪无论如何都会从前几代传到我身上。 But even if I could start with a clean slate and be perfect, this way of viewing sin doesn't matter because sin would be on me anyway from previous generations.
它就像一种先天性疾病一样粘在我身上，通过我的基因，通过我的遗传学传给了我。 It's just stuck on me like a congenital disease that I've inherited through my genes, through my genetics.
所以这是两种不同的看待罪和罪如何传播的方式。 So those are two different ways of looking at sin and how sin is transmitted.
要成为一个亚略派，你基本上必须采用第一种看待罪的方式。 In order for you to be an Arian, you pretty much have to have the first way of looking at sin.
你基本上必须相信我们生来就是白纸一张，如果 我们努力enough，实际上可以变得完美。 You pretty much have to believe that we're born with a clean slate and we can in fact be perfect if we try hard enough.
这将继续是教会东部许多人看待它的方式。 And this will continue to be the way that a lot of people will look at it in the eastern part of the church.
现在当我说东方和西方时，情况变得有点复杂，因为我们习惯于将亚历山大包括在东方。 Now when I say east and west here, it gets a little tricky, because we're used to including Alexandria in with the east.
但实际上，你必须往更东边去，这一点才适用。 But the reality is that you have to sort of go farther east for this one to apply.
所以更远的东方，比如安提阿，巧合的是亚略的许多追随者来自那 里，他们继续保持这种对人性的古典乐观主义，认为，嗯，你知道 ，斯多葛学派告诉我们人类可以在美德上进步，甚至变得完美。 So farther east, like Antioch, which coincidentally was Where a lot of Arius' followers came from, they continued to have this classical optimism about human nature that says, well, you know, the Stoics told us that humans can progress in virtue and even become perfect.
因此，如果我们从头开始，我们甚至可能进步到成为不朽的地步。 And so, if we start with a clean slate, we can perhaps even progress to the point of becoming immortal.
现在把这应用到基督教，这说明了什么？ Now apply that to Christianity, and what does that say?
它说没有所谓的原罪。 It says there's no such thing as original sin.
它说你可以在今生完全成圣。 It says you can be entirely sanctified in this life.
这就是东方的观点，这就是为什么亚略在更远的东方，比如安提阿，有更多的追随者。 That's the East, and that's why Arius had more followers from farther East, like in Antioch.
西方的观点，在这种情况下亚历山大必须包括在西 方，西方的观点是一种远不那么乐观的人类学。 The Western view, and in this case Alexandria has to be included with the West, the Western view is a much less optimistic anthropology.
这是一种认为你继承了罪并且无法摆脱的人类学，你永远不可能完 美，即使你能，也无关紧要，因为你仍然被你祖先的罪所束缚。 It's an anthropology that says you have inherited sin and you're stuck with it, and there's no way you could ever be perfect, but even if you could, it wouldn't matter because you're still stuck with the sin of your ancestors.
原罪。 Original sin.
一些早期教会作家甚至会说罪是通过性行为传播的。 Some of the early church writers will go so far as to say that sin is transmitted through sexuality.
性行为，即使在婚姻内，即使是为了生育，在某种程 度上仍然是罪，这就是罪如何从一代传到另一代的。 Sex, even within marriage, even to procreate, is still, on some level, a sin, and that's how sin is transmitted from one generation to the other.
记得那首诗篇吗？ Remember the Psalm?
我母亲在罪中怀了我。 In sin my mother conceived me.
对吧？ Right?
所以，这种西方观点，将会被奥古斯丁强化，我们还没有谈到他。 So, this Western view, which is really going to be reinforced by Augustine, whom we haven't talked about yet.
但奥古斯丁并没有发明原罪的概念。 But Augustine did not invent the concept of original sin.
他只是把它强化了。 He just put it on steroids.
所以，你看到这里的区别。 So, You see the difference here.
亚历山大人有更多的西方人类学，更悲观的人类学，这导致他们 必然要拒绝任何形式的行为称义，因为行为是完全不可能的。 The Alexandrians have more of a Western anthropology, more of a pessimistic anthropology, which leads to the fact that they will necessarily have to reject any kind of works righteousness because works are right out.
这是不可能发生的。 It's just not going to happen.
即使发生了，也无关紧要，因为你从出生那天起就已经有了罪的污点。 And even if it did, it doesn't matter because you already have the stain of sin from the day you were born.
所以我对这两种看待背后人类学的方式做了一些概括，但我确实希望你看到它的存在。 So I'm generalizing a little bit on these two ways of looking at the anthropology behind it, but I do want you to see that it's there.
对于亚略来说，亚略在东方成为了一种完美风暴，将这些乐观的人类学思想和 人类完美的可能性与采纳说结合起来，并对神性的层次等进行了一些推测。 And with Arius, Arius becomes kind of the perfect storm in the East of combining these ideas of an optimistic anthropology and the possibility of human perfection with adoptionism, And with some speculation about levels of divinity and all that.
他最终得出了4世纪采纳说的演变，其中基督是一个成为神的人。 And he ends up with the evolution of adoptionism in the 4th century, where you have the Christ who is a man who becomes a god.
对他来说，顺服的回报就是这种提升的地位，几乎是人的神化。 And for him, the reward for obedience, then, is this elevated stature, almost this deification of the person.
现在，让我在这里停下来，看看是否有问题。 Now, let me stop there and see if there are questions.
我不知道这是什么时候开始的，但是很多人不是相信洗礼可以消除那个吗？是的。 I don't know when this comes into play, but don't many people believe that baptism erased that Yes.
对。 Right.
好吧，问题是这样的。 Well, here's the thing.
如果你不相信有原罪，那么洗礼问题就不是那么重要了。 If you don't believe there is any original sin, then the baptism issue isn't as big of a deal.
但在西方，我们确实有这个原罪的概念，而且它已经存在了，是的。 But in the West, where we do have this concept of original sin, and it's already there, yes.
人们相信洗礼可以洗去原罪的污点。 Baptism is believed to wash away the stain of original sin.
所以洗礼给了你一个你在出生时没有得到的白纸一张。 So baptism gives you that clean slate that you didn't get at your birth.
但你必须记住的是，有时这被称为洗礼重生，有时被批评为仅仅因为你受洗就得救的想法。 But what you have to remember though is, and sometimes this is referred to as baptismal regeneration, and it's sometimes criticized as the idea that just because you're baptized you're saved.
仅仅因为你受洗，救赎就somehow得到保证。 That salvation is somehow guaranteed just because you're baptized.
但它从来没有这个意思。 But it never meant that.
这是我喜欢说的方式。 This is how I like to say it.
洗礼是一个白纸一张，不是免费的通行证。 Baptism is a clean slate, it's not a free ride.
换句话说，你必须记住，虽然洗礼消除了原罪，但它并不保证坚持。 So in other words, you have to remember that while baptism erases original sin, it does not guarantee perseverance.
所以一旦一个人在洗礼后犯罪，现在你又有罪了，这是你的责任，这是一个问题。 So that once one sins after baptism, now you have sin again, it's on you, and that's a problem.
所以，这就是为什么像康斯坦丁皇帝这样的许多人推迟他们的洗礼。 And so, this is why so many men, like the Emperor Constantine, postponed their baptisms.
如果我是一个人，特别是罗马世界的富人，我可能相信基督，我可能想成为一 个基督徒，但如果我有政府工作，或者我是一个士兵，或者出于任何原因，而 且有很多原因，我可能不想被教会的道德标准约束，我推迟我的洗礼，知道如 果我能把时间掌握得恰到好处，受洗然后死去，我就万无一失了，对吧？ If I'm a man, especially a wealthy man in the Roman world, I may believe in Christ, I may want to be a Christian, but if I have a government job, or I'm a soldier, or for whatever reason, and there were many, that I might not want to be held to the moral standards of the church, I postpone my baptism, knowing that if I can time it just right, get baptized and then die, I'm golden, right?
所以这就是问题所在。 So that's the issue there.
是的，洗礼洗去了原罪，但一旦你自己犯罪，现在你又有了另一个问题。 Yes, baptism washes away original sin, but then as soon as you commit sins of your own, now you've got another problem.
所以在早期教会中的洗礼... And so baptism in the early church...
今天一些传统教导说洗礼洗去过去、现在和将来的罪。 Some traditions today teach that baptism washes away sins past, present, and future.
但这不是早期教会的教导。 But that was not the teaching in the early church.
在早期教会中，洗礼洗去原罪和洗礼前所犯的任何罪，但未来的罪是另一个问题。 In the early church, baptism washes away original sin and any sins committed up to the baptism But future sins are another problem.
这就是为什么我们有忏悔和和好的概念，它变得更 加突出，特别是在迫害期间，正如你所看到的。 And that's why we have the concept of penance and reconciliation that becomes even more prominent, especially through the persecutions, as you saw.
但这成为处理洗礼后罪的方式。 But that becomes the way to deal with post-baptismal sin.
在教会早期，期望是，嗯，你在受洗后就不要再犯罪了。 In the early days of the church, the expectation was, well, you just don't sin after you get baptized.
当然。 Of course.
嗯，那没有持续很长时间，对吧？ Well, that didn't last very long, right?
所以，现实是... So, reality...
人们说，哦天哪，实际上人在受洗后确实会犯罪，所以我们会给你一次洗礼后的罪。 People say, oh gee, actually human beings do sin after their baptism, so we'll give you one post-baptismal sin.
即使是一些最严格的作者也试图说，嗯，人们应该得到一次洗礼后的罪吗？ Even some of the most rigorous writers were trying to say, well, should people get one post-baptismal sin?
但最终，现实是，我们在受洗后会犯多次罪。 But eventually, the reality is, we are going to commit multiple sins after our baptism.
所以这就是为什么有必要对洗礼后的罪有某种补救措施，即忏悔和和好。 And so that's why it becomes necessary to have some sort of remedy for the post-baptismal sin, which is penance and reconciliation.
这里有个问题。 Question here.
通过祷告和告解的悔改何时开始发挥作用，作为对人们罪的回应？ When does repentance through prayer and confession comes into play for the answer to people's sin?
嗯，你知道，告解一直是教会礼仪的一部分，比如集体告解行为 、忏悔祷告等。私下告解出现了，但不确定它是何时开始的。 Well, you know, confession has always been a part of the church's liturgy in the sense of corporate acts of confession, prayers of contrition, etc. Private confession comes in Not really sure how early it comes in.
它似乎在早期的凯尔特教会中与爱尔兰人一起更加正式化。 It seems to be formalized more in the Celtic church with the Irish early on.
但后来，通过迫害，比如在3世纪，它变得标准化了。 But then, through the persecutions, like in the 3rd century, it becomes standardized.
所以，问题就变成了，嗯，你向谁告解？ And so, then the question becomes, well, to whom do you confess?
告解者，坐在监狱里，或主教，或神父，你知道，所以他们必须把这些事情理清楚。 The confessor, sitting in prison, or the bishop, or the priest, you know, so they have to sort those things out.
但它真正成为更加标准化的，你知道，在3世纪将成为圣事的东西。 But it really comes in as a more standardized, you know, what will become a sacrament in the 3rd century.
好的，那么神总是意图一切都是完美的。 Okay, then God always intended everything perfect.
他创造的一切都是完美的。 He created everything perfect.
如果我们这样说，我们谈论自由意志发挥作用，那么这是亚当所拥有的选择。 If we say it that way, and we talk about free will coming into play, then that was a choice that Adam had.
所以我猜我的问题是，那么我们实际上没有选择，因为我 们从...继承了它。我是说我们实际上没有自由意志。 So I guess my question is, then we really don't have a choice because we inherit it from I'm saying that we really don't have free will.
这让我回到，我真的没有自由意志。 That brings me back to, I really don't have free will.
那么我们就没有选择。 We don't have a choice then.
是的，你知道吗？ Yes, you know what?
你正好预见到了下一个争议，因为你说得完全正确。 You are exactly anticipating the next controversy because you're exactly right.
现在在东方，你知道，更远的东方，如果你说实际上没有原罪或其 他什么，你就不会有这个问题，因为东方总是会肯定自由意志。 Now in the East, you know, farther East, if you say there's really no such thing as original sin or whatever, you're not going to have that problem because the East will always affirm free will.
但在西方，你越是强调原罪，这类问题就越多。 But in the West, the more you go down this road of emphasizing original sin, the more those kinds of questions come up.
再次强调，在这个问题上神做了多少，而我做了多少？ Again, how much does God do in this versus how much do I do?
当我们讨论圣奥古斯丁与伯拉纠主义的争议时，我们将会处理这个确切的问题。 And we're going to deal with this exact problem when we talk about the Pelagian controversy with St. Augustine.
所以，你需要再耐心一点，但你的思路完全正确，因为那正是我们要去的方向。 So, you'll have to be patient a little bit, but you are thinking on exactly the right track, because that's right where we're going.
所以，是的，思考得很好。 So, yeah, good thinking.
好的，让我再说几件事，然后我会看看是否有最后的问题，然后我们就结束。 Alright, so let me say a few more things and then I'll see if there are any last minute questions and then we'll be done.
我想让你们看到的是，这些解释基督的位格和基督与神的关系，或者说圣父 与圣子之间关系的不同方式，这些不同的基督论都导致了不同的救赎论。 What I want you to see is that these different ways of explaining the person of Christ and Christ's relationship to God, or the relationship between the Father and the Son, these different Christologies all lead to a different soteriology.
我想，人类的最终目标是与我们的创造者联合，对吧？ The ultimate goal of the human being, I suppose, is to be united with our Creator, right?
所以，最终，这就是我们在救赎中所希望的。 And so, ultimately, that's what we hope for in salvation.
但主流教会会看到的问题是，那些边缘的基督论 自然会导致无法实现与神联合目标的救赎论。 But the problem that the mainstream church would have seen with the Christologies on the fringes is that those Christologies naturally lead to soteriologies that don't accomplish the goal of union with the divine.
让你到达你想去的地方。 Get you where you want to go.
所以，例如，我们之前讨论过形态论。 So, for example, we talked about modalism before.
记住，形态论强调三位一体的合一性，以牺牲三位一体位格之间的任何区别为代价，对吧？ Remember, modalism was the emphasis on unity in the Trinity to the detriment of any distinction between the persons of the Trinity, right?
所以，最终，在形态论中，你失去的是耶稣的人性。 And so, ultimately, with modalism, what you lose is you lose the humanity of Jesus.
因为如果圣子就是圣父，那么他就不可能真正是人。 Because if the Son is the Father, then he can't really be human.
嗯，如果你失去了耶稣的人性，你就失去了我们与耶稣的联系，他不再像我们了。 Well, if you lose the humanity of Jesus, You lose our connection to Jesus, he's not like us anymore.
如果我们与他没有联系，我们就无法与神性或神联系。 And if we're not connected to him, we can't then be connected to the divine or to God.
嗯，采纳说做了同样的事，但是从另一面。 Well, adoptionism does the same thing, but from the other side.
因为如果采纳说削弱了基督的神性，那么采纳说或亚略主义就削弱了基督与圣父神之间的 联系，所以如果这个联系被削弱了，那么他可能像我们，但我们又失去了与神的联系。 Because if adoptionism diminishes the divinity of Christ, then adoptionism diminishes, or Arianism diminishes, the link between Christ and God the Father, And so if that link is diminished, then he may be like us, but we lose the link again to God.
所以在任何情况下，如果圣父和圣子之间的联系 被削弱，那么我们与神之间的联系就被削弱了。 And so in either case, if the connection between the Father and Son is diminished, then the connection between us and God is diminished.
所以如果你能再次想象，基督作为中保的概念，或作为我们 与神之间的联系，嗯，他必须与我们、与神、与圣父联系。 And so if you can imagine, again, the idea of Christ as mediator, or as the link between us and the divine, Well, he has to be linked to us and to God, and to the Father.
所以，他通过他的神性与圣父联系，通过他的人性与我们联系。 And so, he's linked to the Father through his divine nature, and he's linked to us through his human nature.
而他的神性和人性之间的接触点，就是我们与神性联系的起点。 And it's at the point of contact between his divine and his human natures that is sort of the ground zero for our connection with the divine.
没有这种联系，我们就无法与神性联系。 And without that connection, we have no connection to the divine.
所以，从某种意义上说，基督的两性是我们得救、认识救 恩所必需的，因为缺少任何一性，这种联系就会崩溃。 And so, the two natures of Christ, in a sense, The two natures of Christ are required for us to be saved, for us to know salvation, because without one nature or the other, that link breaks down.
对于形态论，形态论说三位一体是一个有三个名字的位格，但那里实际上没有人性。 With modalism, modalism says the Trinity was one person with three names, but there's really no humanity there.
亚略主义基本上说三位一体是三个不同实体的意志合作，但基 督的位格失去了完全的神性，所以你在那里失去了那种联系。 Arianism says basically that the Trinity is three different substances with cooperating wills, but the person of Christ loses the full divinity, and so you lose that connection there.
所以正统的立场是，你得到一个三位一体，有三个位格共享一个实 体，而三位一体的第二位格有两个实体，两性，即神性和人性。 And so it's with the Orthodox position that you get a Trinity that has three persons who share one substance, and that second person of the Trinity has the two substances, the two natures, the divine and human.
但这说得通吗？ But does that make sense?
作为人类，我们最终寻求的是与神性的联系。 What we're looking for ultimately as human beings is connection with the divine.
教会历来得出结论，我们与神性的联系取决于基督位格中人性和神性之间的联系。 And the church has historically concluded that our connection with the divine depends on the connection between humanity and divinity in the person of Christ.
所以如果你削弱这两者中的任何一个，我们就失去了联系。 So if you diminish either one of those two, we lose the connection.
这就是我想说的。 That's what I'm getting at.
这是很多信息。 And it's a lot of information.
我们下周回来时会更深入地讨论这个问题。 And we're going to go into this more when we come back next week.
我们将讨论东方争议的结果，因为康斯坦丁皇帝不能简 单地让这种情况继续下去，因为它威胁到要分裂教会。 We're going to talk about the results of the controversy in the East because Constantine the Emperor cannot simply let this go on because it's threatening to split the Church.
公平地说，我把主流说成是多数，我把亚略主义说成是边缘立场之一。 And to be fair, I talk about the mainstream as the majority and I talk about Arianism as one of these positions on the fringe.
但在东方，有一段时间，亚略主义是否有足够的追 随者使自己不仅仅是少数派，这是值得怀疑的。 But in the East, For a while, it was questionable whether Arianism might not have enough followers to present itself as more than just a minority.
所以康斯坦丁将不得不介入，这将导致教会的第一次世界性会议，我们下周会讨论这个。 So Constantine is going to have to step in, and this will lead to the first worldwide council of the church, which we'll talk about next week.
还有最后的问题吗？ Any last minute questions?
那么，使徒传承现在算是死了吗？ So, is apostolic succession kind of dead now?
因为在过去当他们刚去罗马时，罗马的主教们刚刚压制了什么？ Because in the past when they had just gone to Rome, what, the Rome bishops had just squashed in?
嗯，这是个好问题。 Well, that's a good question.
使徒传承死了吗？ Is apostolic succession dead?
我会说不，它没有。 I would say no, it's not.
但我们也将发展到会议将具有很大分量的地步。 But we're also going to evolve to the point where councils are going to hold a lot of weight.
但是再次强调，你知道，我们已经看到了一种情况，尼科米 底亚有一个会议，亚历山大有一个会议，它们相互抵消了。 But again, you know, we already saw a situation where there was a council in Nicomedia and a council in Alexandria, and they cancel each other out.
所以，即使在会议的层面上，你也需要有一个对 整个基督教都有约束力的会议才能使之生效。 So, even at the level of councils, you're going to have to have one council that is binding for the whole of Christianity to make it stick.
即使这样，也需要多次这样的会议。 And even then, it's going to take multiple councils like that.
所以，使徒传承仍然存在。 So, apostolic succession is still around.
它主要将体现在罗马主教身上。 It's primarily going to be embodied in the Bishop of Rome.
所以，当我们讨论教宗职位时，我们会更多地讨论这个问题。 So, we'll talk about this more when we talk about the Office of the Papacy.
所以，你会看到罗马主教虽然不能亲自来尼西亚会议，但他会派代表。 So, you'll see that the Bishop of Rome, while he doesn't He's not able to come to the Council of Nicaea, he'll send delegates.
所以，它仍然存在，而且仍然有这样的假设，因为使徒传承， 无论我们在会议上决定什么，你都不能撤销以前所做的事。 And so, it's still around and there's still this assumption that because of apostolic succession, whatever we decide at a council, you can't undo what's been done before.
你不能与你的前任的结论相矛盾。 You can't contradict the conclusions of your predecessors.
所以这仍然是一种潜在的假设。 So it's still kind of an underlying assumption there.
所以至少在这一点上，罗马没有参与。 So at least at this point, Rome's not involved.
嗯，罗马没有参与亚略主义争议，因为在这一点上它只是东方的一个争议。 Well, Rome's not involved in the Arian controversy because at this point it's only a controversy in the East.
现在，亚略主义后来会向西移动，但现在西方一方面有自己的 问题，另一方面，西方已经在某种程度上解决了这些问题。 Now, Arianism will move west later, but right now the West has its own issues on the one hand, but on the other hand, the West has already sort of sorted these issues out.
我的意思是，特土良和诺瓦天已经给了我们所有这些问题的答案。 I mean, Tertullian and Novatian already gave us the answers to all these questions.
所以东方必须为讲希腊语的教会适当地采用这些，并且必须为东方解决这个问题。 So the East has to sort of appropriate that for the Greek-speaking church and has to sort this out for the East.
但在西方，这在此时并不是一个问题。 But in the West, it's kind of a non-issue at this point.
好的，还有什么问题吗？ Alright, anything else?
问得好。 Good questions.
好了，我们今晚已经讲得够多了。 Okay, we've done enough for one night.
谢谢你们的关注。 Thank you for your attention.
我们下周见。 We'll see you next week.