弟兄，我们现在正在为在我YouTube频道上观看的人进行直播。 Brother, we are now live for the people watching on my YouTube channel.
大家已经知道，因为我们使用StreamYard，当我们亲爱的弟兄Jonat han Prejean在这里说话时，会有大约20秒的延迟才能传达给你们。 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.
尽管如此，这是你们花点时间为我们的演讲者祷告的时候 ，他已经慷慨地来到这里，牺牲宝贵的时间来教导我们。 Nonetheless, this is when you guys take a moment to pray for our speaker, who has been gracious enough to come here and sacrifice his precious time to educate us.
我会让他自我介绍，他的背景是什么，目前的职位是什么，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.
所以，弟兄，感谢你这样做；我真的很感激。 So, brother, thank you for doing this; I really appreciate it.
你能听到我说话吗？ Can you hear me?
谢谢，很高兴见到你，Sam。 Thanks, nice to meet you, Sam.
我是Jonathan Prejean，我一直…… Jonathan Prejean, and I have been...
我是一个平信徒；我没有正式学习过天主教神学，但我对它感兴趣已经很长时间了，自 从2002年我开始热衷于此。所以，你知道，我研究这些事情已经有一段时间了。 I’m a layman; 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.
我进行过一些非常好的对话，很多时候是与东正教。 I’ve had some very good dialogues, a lot of times with the Eastern Orthodox.
我和Perry Robinson是好朋友，他真的帮助我找到了要学习的东西。 I’m good friends with Perry Robinson, and he was a guy who really kind of helped me find things to learn about.
我研究信心已经很长时间了。 I’ve been studying the faith for a long time.
我的背景是物理学，所以我长期以来对创造充满敬畏，这将是今晚的主题：作为 基督徒，我们要正确地敬畏神，就是要有一种敬畏感，意识到神远远超越我们。 My background is in physics, so I’ve had an awe of creation for a long time, and 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，人们就会犯错误，所以这是我今晚要大量讨论的内容。 When we don’t do that, that’s when people make mistakes, and so that’s what I’m going to talk about a lot tonight.
一个有趣的小事实：我的祖先约瑟·威利斯是密西西比河以西的第一位浸信会传道人。 An interesting little fact: 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，让我获得了一些视角，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，这对他来说是一个很大的风险。 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，这是一个为主燃烧自己的人。 He swam across the Mississippi River on a mule to preach the Word of God, and that’s a man who was just on fire for the Lord.
我绝对相信他的信心和我将来会有的任何信心一样伟大。 I absolutely believe that his faith was as great as anything I’m ever going to have.
所以，这里的重点不是要诋毁那些爱主的加尔文主义者或浸信会信徒，因为他们有很多。 So, the point here is not to trash people who are Calvinists or Baptists who love the Lord, because there are plenty of them.
而且，你知道，因为我们在神学上有分歧，因为我认为人们可能会在神学上犯错误，但这 并不意味着我认为他们不是基督徒，或者我认为他们不爱耶稣，或者他们有什么问题。 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 that they’re Christians or that I don’t think they love Jesus or that there’s anything wrong with them.
或者他们有什么邪恶之处导致他们有那些信仰； 那不是我相信的，也不是我今晚要试图传达的。 Or anything evil about them that causes them to have those beliefs; that’s just not what I believe, and that’s not what I’m going to try to get across tonight.
所以我只是想让大家在我开始之前明白这一点。 So I just want everybody to understand that before I start.
我的重点是基础神学，所以这基本上意味着：我们如何以一种 连贯的方式，用我们的理性来敬拜神，来肯定耶稣就是神？ My focus is fundamental theology, 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基础？ And why do I pick Jesus as fundamental?
因为这基本上就是全部了。 Because that’s basically it.
哥林多前书15章12-19节谈到复活对信心有多么重要。 1 Corinthians 15, verses 12 to 19, talks about how important the resurrection is for the faith.
保罗在那里使用的话语是：「若基督没有复活， 我们所传的就是枉然，你们的信心也是枉然。」 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.
「你们若不信基督复活，你们的信心就是徒然，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.
基本上就是这样；这就是我们必须相信的。 That’s basically it; that’s what we have to believe.
所以这是我们基督徒生命的核心；这是我们基督教信仰的核心。 So that’s the core of our Christian life; that’s the core of our Christian belief.
如果我们不以一种能够用理性解释、证明和捍卫的方式来相信这 一点，那么在向世人作见证方面，我们就处于非常糟糕的境地。 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.
所以这就是我关注这个问题的原因；这就是我多年来一直关 注这个问题的原因，也是我认为这是最重要的事情的原因。 So that’s why I focus on this; that’s why I’ve focused on this for many years and why I believe that it’s the most important thing to do.
那么说耶稣是神意味着什么呢？ So what does it mean to say that Jesus is God?
神是我们从自然中认识的：祂是一切存在之物的非物质创造者。 Well, God is what we know by nature: He’s the one immaterial creator of everything that is.
通过启示，我们知道这就是旧约中以色列人敬拜的独一真神。 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.
所以我们基督徒相信，历史上的拿撒勒人耶稣是 神的独生子，从神而出的神，与父同为一神。 So 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，不是多于一位的。 That means one God; there are not more than one.
完全是神，也完全是人，这就是我们对耶稣的信仰。 Fully God and fully man, so that’s what we believe about Jesus.
我所说的就是我们需要能够连贯地说明这一点。 And what I’m talking about is what we need to be able to coherently say that.
所以对于神是什么，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。 And when I talk about God, what I mean is monotheism.
一神论的信仰是，创造万有的神只有一个真正的神性和大能。 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、基督教和伊斯兰教都是一神论宗教。 In that sense, we call Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all monotheist religions.
现在，我们将讨论为什么我们可能认为某些基督教信仰和穆斯林信仰 与我们认为的关于这些事情的真实信仰不一致，但这就是一神论。 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.
这就是为什么我们认为它们是一神论：因为我们确实相信只有一位神创造了万有。 That’s why we consider them monotheist: because we do believe that there’s only one God who created everything that is.
多神论是相信有许多神明的信仰；这些通常只是宇宙的一部分。 Polytheism is the belief that there are many divine powers; those are typically just parts of the universe.
我们今晚不会讨论多神论，但那就是那种信仰。 We’re not going to be talking about polytheism tonight, but that’s what that belief is.
还有泛神论，即认为神性是宇宙的一个属性或存在于宇宙之中的观点。 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，但这再次不是我们要处理的。 There are several philosophical beliefs that have that, but that’s again not what we’re going to deal with.
所以我们相信耶稣基督在一个位格里联合了神性和人性，这个位格就是神的道，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.
那么我现在为什么要谈加尔文主义呢？ So why am I talking about Calvinism now?
我长期以来一直认为加尔文主义不是尼西亚信经的，它 没有教导尼西亚信经所说的关于神是什么和耶稣是谁。 I’ve 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；我从来就不是加尔文主义者 ，所以我与加尔文主义者没有太多共同点可以讨论。 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，我有一些同情，因为就像我说的，我发现我的祖 先是一位特殊浸信会的传道人，他为神的道燃烧自己。 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.
所以我有一些同情。 So I’ve got some sympathy.
但是，你知道，在智力讨论和经验方面，我没有那些。 But, you know, in terms of intellectual discussions and experiences, I haven’t had those.
然而，我最近一直在研究三位一体。很凑巧地，一位加尔文主义者要 求我证明那个立场，解释为什么我认为加尔文不符合尼西亚信仰。 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.
所以这与我已经在尼西亚神学方面所做的工作相吻合。 So it fit with the work that I was already doing on Nicene theology.
我说：「好的，听起来是个好时机」，所以我写了一篇文章。 I said, Okay, sounds like a good time, so I did a piece on it.
在研究这篇文章时，我发现这实际上是改革宗浸信会当时的一个大事，因为 有很多改革宗浸信会人士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.
关于圣子的永恒生养和永恒功能从属的讨论也在进行。 The eternal begetting of the Son and eternal functional subordination was another discussion that was being had.
做过这方面工作的人包括詹姆斯·多勒扎尔，他最近写了一本书叫《神里 的一切》，主要讨论神的单纯性方面的错误，但也涉及神的本质——这也 是我今晚要讨论的内容——因为他们创造了一种类似开放神论的神观。 Some of the people who have done this include James Dolezal, who wrote a book recently called All That Is in God, which addresses errors basically in divine simplicity, but 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.
我读过他的书《没有部分的神》，大约10年前 出版，讨论神的单纯性，所以我知道他是谁。 And 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，他在2021年4月17日 接受了特殊浸信会YouTube频道的采访，非常精彩。 He’s a smart guy, has done a lot of research, and he had an interview on the Particular Baptist YouTube channel on April 17th of 2021 that was just excellent.
我的意思是，他在总结神的单纯性教义方面做得非常出色。 I mean, he does a fantastic job of summarizing the doctrine of divine simplicity.
所以有那个讨论。 So there was that discussion.
马修·巴雷特写了一本书叫《简单的三位一体》，再次涵盖了我们将要讨论的许多问题。 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《在不可分割的运作中行万事的同一位神》。 Then there was a Romanian Baptist theologian, Adonis Vidu, who wrote a book called Same God Who Works All Things on Inseparable Operations.
关于这个主题的书不多，我们会讨论它，但这是一本非常好的书。 There aren’t many books about that, and we’ll talk about it, but this is a very good book.
就在这个月，他出版了一本书，叫《神的差遣：导论》，我会稍微谈一下。 Just this month, he came out with a book called The Divine Missions: Introduction, that I’m going to talk about a little bit.
所以，你知道，他做了很多好的工作，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.
嗯，在某个时候，有人指责詹姆斯·怀特否认神 的单纯性教义，我想这个频道的人会知道他。 Well, at some point, someone accused James White, who I think people on this channel will know, of denying the doctrine of divine simplicity.
我不确定这是怎么提出来的，但我猜是基于人们之前的这些讨论。 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.
我很久以前就知道詹姆斯·怀特，我们也来回讨论过一点。 I’ve been aware of James White for a long time, and we’ve gone back and forth a little bit.
佩里·罗宾逊和我实际上都认为他在我的主题神学中犯了一些严 重的错误，你知道，我们现在已经知道这一点超过10年了。 Perry Robinson and I actually both thought that he made some serious errors in my theme theology, and you know, we’ve known about this for more than 10 years at this point.
但出于某种原因，他们决定开始关注它，所以他经常被点名。 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，所有那些内部讨论基本上都是关于加尔文是异端这一事实。 What I’m going to say tonight is that all of those internal discussions are basically about the fact that Calvin was the heretic.
加尔文就是那个否认神的单纯性的人；加尔文就是那个犯了很多这些错误的人。 Calvin was the guy who denied divine simplicity; Calvin was the guy who made a lot of these errors.
他们在改革宗浸信会社群中遇到这些问题的原因是加尔文错了。 The reason that they’re having these problems in the Reformed Baptist community is that Calvin was wrong.
在某种程度上，即使在他们的信仰告白中，这些错误也被写了进去，这就是我要谈的。 To some extent, even in their confessions, they’ve got these errors built in, and that’s what I’m going to talk about.
你知道，最近有一些讨论；理查德·穆勒——这是因为理查 德·穆勒在加尔文研究中掀起了一场历史革命，这是真的。 You know, there have been some recent discussions; Richard Muller—this is because Richard Muller started a historical revolution in Calvin, and that’s true.
我的意思是，他确实以一种让人们今天真正理解 加尔文的方式，重新带回了对加尔文的研究。 I mean, he did bring back sort of the study of Calvin in a way that really lets people understand him today.
嗯，唯一的问题是也发生了一场教父革命，所以我们也学到了很 多关于早期基督徒的知识，以及尼西亚会议之后的人的信仰。 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 who especially after Nicaea believed.
问题就在这里：我们现在了解了加尔文的真实信仰，也了解了 尼西亚教父和尼西亚会议后支持尼西亚信经的教父们的信仰。 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.
这两者不能放在一起，这基本上就是我今晚要讲的内容。 Those two can’t be put together, and that’s essentially what I’m going to go through tonight.
那么让我们以詹姆斯·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问题；我知道他不想谈，但他还是继续谈论它。 He’s basically continued to talk about this; I know he doesn’t want to, but he’s continued to talk about it.
他在1月6日的「分界线节目」中谈到了神的单纯性，然后他在2月2日 与克里斯·阿恩曾一起上了「铁磨铁节目」，谈论神的单纯性这个问题。 He’s got 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.
简而言之，他就是弄错了。 The short version is he just gets it wrong.
实际上，有一部分他是对的。 Actually, there’s part of it that he gets right.
他说对的部分是，单纯性或神的单纯性意味着神不依赖任 何其他事物来达到完美，不改变，或在自己里面变化。 The part of it that he gets right is that simplicity, or 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·阿奎那所说的情感——祂不改变或变化。 That’s all St. Thomas Aquinas means by emotion—that He doesn’t change or become.
这并不是真正的公教会观点，他谈论的神的单纯性实际上并没有问题。 It’s not really a Catholic thing, and what he was talking about with divine simplicity actually isn’t problematic.
然后他说了一堆关于辩论的错误观点。 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；圣经和自然关系都表明神不依赖被造物，是不改变的。 For one thing, this isn’t an issue of speculative philosophy; both Scripture and natural relations say that God doesn’t depend on creation and is unchanging.
这就是神的单纯性的全部内容，所以那里并没有真正的问题。 That’s all divine simplicity is, so there’s not really a problem there.
你知道，说神没有部分并不比说神没有身体或神没有情感更有争议。 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.
你知道，拒绝拟人论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.
我们必须深入圣经，阅读并理解当它谈到神有手时，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；这只是承认我们所知道的关于祂作为创造者的事实。 So it’s not really speculative philosophy to say that God is simple; it’s just acknowledging what we know about Him as Creator.
这并不特别是托马斯主义或亚里士多德主义。 It’s not particularly Thomist or Aristotelian.
奥古斯丁持有同样的信念；所有的卡帕多西亚教父，所有支持尼西亚信经的教 父普遍都持有这一信念，更不用说圣经本身也说神不依赖被造物，神不改变。 This same belief was held by Augustine; it was held by all the Cappadocians, all the pro-Nicene Fathers generally, not to mention Scripture itself, which says that God doesn’t depend on creation and 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勒扎尔（Dolezal）特 别引用了阿奎那，但阿奎那实际上只是一个例子，他只是跟随圣奥古斯丁。 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.
所以我认为他再次误解了这个问题的实质。 So I think he’s just again missing what this is about.
这不是试图让每个人都皈依托马斯主义；这甚至与托马斯·阿奎那无关。 This is not about trying to convert everybody to Thomism; it’s not really even about Thomas Aquinas.
一个令人困惑的地方是，他似乎认为这意味着我们不能思考神有属性，所以 根据詹姆斯·怀特对神的单纯性的理解，我们不应该谈论或讨论神的属性。 One bit of confusion is that he seems to think that this means that we can’t think about God having attributes, so 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，我们所思考的是我们局限性的反映；这不是神本身。 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.
你知道，例如关于神的愤怒。 You know, about God’s wrath, for example.
我们谈论神的愤怒，我们谈论神的旨意，我们谈论很多在我 们理解中并不反映神真实区别的事情，因为祂是单纯的。 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 because He’s simple.
祂不依赖任何其他事物；祂没有部分。 He doesn’t depend on anything else; He doesn’t have parts.
祂不会有一个独立于其他事物的意志。 He’s not going to have a will separate from something else.
但有很多不同的方式来解释这一点。 But there are a lot of different ways to explain that.
例如在某些情况下，在东正教中，他们将其视为神的能量在神 里面，所以这些事物之间有真正的区别，但神仍然是单纯的。 In some cases, for example, in Eastern Orthodoxy, they view it as the divine energy being in God, so there’s a real distinction between those things, but God’s still simple.
这并不是真正的问题。 That’s not really the problem.
所以这并不是要能够说「哦，所有这些事情在神里面都是一样的」，因为我们都有不 同的版本来解释，即使它们在神里面是一样的，我们实际上可以谈论神的不同属性。 So 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，神的单纯性是我们无法完全理 解的，所以我们必须意识到我们在这个领域的局限性。 What we really have to understand is that with divine simplicity, it’s something that we can’t fully comprehend, so we have to be aware of our limitations in this area.
但这并不是真正的问题。 But that’s not really the problem.
问题是加尔文主义者在他们看待神的方式上分割了神的单纯性。 The problem is that Calvinists have divided divine simplicity in the way they view God.
我的意思是，加尔文将三位一体位格之间的对话的拟人化比喻按字面意思 理解，说有一个内在的区别导致他们成为三个位格，这就是问题所在。 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, and that’s the problem.
詹姆斯·怀特长期以来一直有这个问题。 James White has had this problem for a long time.
我实际上找到了1998年的一段话，我在这里读一下引文，因为有点令人惊讶。 I actually pulled up something from 1998, and I’ll read the quote here because it’s kind of surprising.
它说：「最后，我们看到位格之间有真实和永恒的关系， 即内在的工作（opera ad intra）。」 It says, “Finally, we see real and eternal relationships between the persons, the opera ad intra.
「个人存在的特征之一是意志。」 One of the characteristics of personal existence is will.
「很少有人会在与圣父的关系中争论这一点，因为祂显然有一个意志。」 Few would argue the point in relationship to the Father, as He obviously has a will.
「所以圣子也有一个意志，因为祂在园中对圣父 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，东正教的理解方式是祂在谈论祂的人性意志， 但实际上在这里，祂是在谈论这是位格的一个特征。 Now, of course, the Orthodox way to understand that is that He’s talking about His human will, but really here, He’s talking about that being a characteristic of personhood.
然后他继续说：「将意志归于位格表明有推理、思考、行动、渴 望的能力——所有这些我们与自我意识联系在一起的事情。」 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.”
所以他是在说有三个不同的意志：圣父有一个意志，圣子 有一个意志，圣灵有一个意志，这指的是神圣的意志。 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, and by that, it means divine will.
本质上，他们在交谈，就好像他们是三个位格，像三个 人一样，这在三位一体的教义背景下没有任何意义。 Essentially, they are conversing as if they were three persons, like three men, and that doesn’t make any sense in the context of the Trinity.
就像我说的，这是1998年的事；已经有很长时间了。 Like I said, this is from 1998; this has been a long time.
但问题是这来自加尔文；这不是来自詹姆斯·怀特。 But the problem is that this comes from Calvin; this doesn’t come from James White.
这来自加尔文。 This comes from Calvin.
所以这就是为什么我们必须认真思考：加尔文主义者是否有可能 与尼西亚信经所说的神只有一个意志和一个本性的教义和解？ And so that’s why we have to really think about, look, 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?
我认为这是不可能的。 I don’t think it’s possible.
我们可以同意，相信尼西亚正统信仰的人可以同意圣经表明有 三个位格，但我们不能将他们视为三个意志和谐一致的人。 We can agree that the people who believe in Nicene orthodoxy can agree that Scripture signifies that there are three persons, but we can’t treat them as three men with three wills in harmony.
所以基本上，那些一直抱怨詹姆斯·怀特违反神的单纯性的改革宗浸信会（Reform ed Baptist）信徒，真的应该去教训加尔文，因为他才是提出这个想法的人。 So 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.
你知道，他们现在讨论这个问题很好；我认为他们开始讨论这些事情真是太好了。 You know, it’s good that they’re having a discussion about it now; I think it’s great that they’re starting to discuss these things.
但我现在谈论这个的原因是他们还没有纠正错误。 But the reason that I’m talking about this now is that they haven’t corrected the errors.
所以让我们继续讨论问题是什么，我之前基本上已经提到了。 So let’s move on to what the problem is, and I sort of basically alluded to it before.
问题是神人同形论（即把神想象成人的形态），这种理解方式的问 题在于，如果你带着这种理解去读圣经，你就无法正确理解圣经。 The problem is anthropomorphism, and the problem with anthropomorphism is that you can’t read Scripture correctly if you have an anthropomorphic understanding going in.
这是一个错误。 And that’s a mistake.
基本上，如果你认为神有可能有手，那么你就会误读经文。 Basically, if you think it’s possible for God to have hands, then you’re going to misread things.
同样，你也可能对祂的心智做同样的事。 Well, you can do the same thing with His mind.
乔纳森，我不是要打断你，但请为那些刚开始学习神学的人 解释一下什么是拟人论，因为我们很多人不知道这些术语。 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.
所以我不是要打断你；我不会再这样做了，只是因为这里有些人是这样的。 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，继续说。 No, go on.
问这个问题吗？ Asking the question?
不，这很好；谢谢你。 No, it’s good; thank you.
那么，拟人论。 So, anthropomorphism.
这里的观点是，这就是我之前谈到的关于敬畏神的事：神在根本上不像我们。 The idea there is, and this is what I was talking about regarding the awe of God: God is not like us in a fundamental way.
明白吗？ Okay?
所以当你谈论拟人论时，这个长单词的意思是「以人的形式」。 So when you talk about anthropomorphism, that’s a big long word that translates to in the form of a man.
人们在想象神以人的形式存在，所以祂有一些类似人的特征。 People are thinking about God being in the form of a man, so He has some characteristics that are man-like.
我们必须警惕这一点，因为神与我们完全不同。 We have to watch out for that because God is just different from us.
祂不依赖任何其他事物，祂是永恒的。 He doesn’t depend on anything else; He’s eternal.
祂不做决定，祂不改变，祂的运作方式与我们不同。 He doesn’t make decisions; He doesn’t change; He doesn’t operate the same way that we do.
我们在这里讨论的问题是，詹姆斯·怀特基本上把三位一体看作是三个相互交谈的人。 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.
所以那将是——佩里对你有一个更正——所以神的运作方式有一点不同。 So that is going to be— and Perry’s got a correction for you—so there’s a little bit of a difference between how God operates.
我一会儿就说到。 I’ll get to it in a minute.
但基本上，我们所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.
我们将神视为创造者，我们无法看到神的思想，我们无法看到三位一体的内在。 We see God as Creator, and we can’t see into what God thinks; we can’t see into the Trinity.
那些活动就是我们所说的内在活动，也就是神自己内在的活动。 Those activities are what we call ad intra activities, so those are what happens within God among Himself.
我们对此有一些了解，因为祂已经向我们启示了 ，但我们并不真正理解三位一体是什么样的。 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.
那是我们在其他任何地方都不会遇到的事情，这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.
所以我们必须思考的是，我们不能把我们对一个位 格的看法强加于神，期望神在那方面与我们相似。 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.
这包括身体和心智方面。 And that’s physical and mental.
例如，如果有人对我们说了什么，我们可能会生 气；神不会以那种方式生气，因为祂不受感性。 For example, we might get angry if somebody says something to us; God doesn’t get angry in that way because He’s immune to passion.
祂掌控一切，祂不依赖任何事物。 He controls everything; He doesn’t depend on anything.
万物都依赖祂，所以祂从不感到惊讶，从不感到不安。 Everything depends on Him, so He’s never surprised, He’s never upset.
所以我们谈论祂的愤怒，但这并不意味着祂有某种会改变的情绪状态。 And so we talk about Him having wrath, but that doesn’t mean that He’s got some emotional state that changes.
当我们谈论神内在发生的事情时，我们必须认识到那是一个奥秘，我们无法完全理解它们。 When we talk about things that are happening inside God, we have to recognize that that’s a mystery; we can’t fully understand them.
我们以这样的理解来说：「看，有些事情是超出 我们理解的」，我们就以这种方式来阅读圣经。 We take that understanding where we say, “Look, there are things beyond our understanding,” and we read Scripture in that way.
这有助于保护我们不会对神说错误的话。 This helps protect us from saying wrong things about God.
例如，我们知道神有智慧和意志，因为我们有智慧和意志，而我们是按照神的形象被造的。 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.
所以祂有类似心智的东西，但它的运作方式与我们不同，这不是我们可以完全感同身受的。 So He has something like a mind, but it doesn’t work like ours; it’s not something that we can fully empathize with.
例如，圣经在以赛亚书55章中说：「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。」 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23章，祂说：「神非人，必不致说谎，也非人子，必不致后悔。」 Then in Numbers 23, He says, “God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
「祂说话岂不照着行呢？」 Has He said, and will He not do it?
「祂发言岂不要成就呢？」 Or has He spoken, and will He not fulfill it?”
这些经文都在谈论神的心智远远超越我们，神的意志远远超越我们。 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，祂是一个位格，祂有一个意志。」 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.
所以如果我们以拟人的方式来读关于神的经文， 试图把祂变成一个人，我们就没有真正尊重祂。 So 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.
如果你到了那里，你把神想象成一个人，你把三位一体基本上想象成三个人 在互相交谈或互相同意，那么这个哲学概念就会妨碍你理解圣经的能力。 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.
这就是错误，这就是我认为他们把神人格化时的错误。 This is the mistake, and this is what I think is the mistake when they’re anthropomorphizing God.
他们真正在做的是把祂想象成一个地上的君王。 What they’re really doing is thinking about Him like an earthly sovereign.
我认为这不好的原因——有很多原因，但这应该 是显而易见的——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.
祂的统治方式与地上的君王不同。 He doesn’t govern the same way that an earthly sovereign does.
我给你一些相关的经文。 I’ll give you some passages about that.
一处在约翰福音18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.”
所以如果祂愿意，祂可以召唤一个天使军团，但祂不会那样做。 So if He wanted to, He could call down a legion of angels, but He doesn’t behave that way.
祂本可以使自己免于被钉十字架，但祂不会那样做。 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19章说：「彼拉多又写了一个铭文，安在十字架上。」 It says in John 19, “Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross.
「上面写着：『犹太人的王，拿撒勒人耶稣。』」 It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.’”
那就是祂被标记为王的时候——当祂在十字架上的时候。 That’s when He gets marked as King—when He’s on the cross.
那说明了什么？ So what does that say?
作为王的神是慈爱的。 God as King is loving.
神是嫉妒的神，不是因为祂对我们发怒，而是因为祂爱我们。 God’s a jealous God, not because He’s angry with us, but because He loves us.
但你在圣经中有一些关于地上君王是什么样子的例子。 But you’ve got some examples in Scripture about what it looks like to have an earthly king.
事实上，人们对神作王不满意，决定像其他国家一样要自己的王。 In fact, people were dissatisfied with God as King and decided they wanted their own king like other nations.
所以在撒母耳记上第8章，有一个要求立王的请求：「我们也可 以像列国一样，有一个王治理我们，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.”
他们要求一个王，但那不是神作王的方式。 They asked for a king, but that’s not the kind of king God is.
神不是在指挥人；神爱我们。 God isn’t bossing people around; God loves us.
这就是神作王的意义。 And that’s what it means for God to be a King.
但有一些宗教试图把神放入地上君王的框架中，加 尔文主义和伊斯兰教实际上都倾向于这种方式。 But there are religions that try to put God into an earthly king framework, and Calvinism and Islam actually both lean that way.
那么地上的王会做什么呢？ So what do earthly kings do?
如果我们继续看撒母耳记上第8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：「管辖你们的王必这样行：派你们的儿子为他赶车、跟马，奔走在他的车前。」 He says, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.
「派他们作千夫长、五十夫长，为他耕种田地，收割庄稼，打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，做饭烤饼。」 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神，神却不应允你们。」 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.”
所以地上的王不是慈爱的，他们是自私的。 So earthly kings are not loving; they are selfish.
他们索取，这就是他们与神的区别。 They take things, and that’s the difference between God.
神不需要我们的任何东西，祂完全爱我们。 God doesn’t need anything from us; He’s completely loving toward us.
那是你想要的王，但不是他们要求的那种王。 That’s the kind of king you want, but that’s not the kind of king they’re asking for.
祂不需要我们的任何东西，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.
祂这样做的唯一原因是因为祂爱我们，这是人们不明白的部分。 The only reason He does any of this is because He loves us, and that’s the part that people don’t get.
你实际上可以看到这一点——罗马书第9章就是最好的例子之一—— 因为你可以理解神对统治权的理解和人对统治权的理解之间的区别。 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，在罗马书第9章，他们实际上是在要求一个王。 And what’s interesting is that in Romans 9, they’re actually asking for a king.
罗马书第9章开始时，你知道，保罗的对话者基本上是在说： 「我们是亚伯拉罕的子孙，神向我们应许，祂欠我们的。」 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.”
这基本上就是第4节和第5节所讲的。 That’s basically what verses 4 and 5 go through.
保罗的回答是：「不，不，不，你以为你比神更懂，但神一直 能决定谁将得到祝福」，就像祂对雅各和以扫所做的那样。 Paul’s reply is, “No, no, no, 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.
所以他在第13节到第16节解释说：「不，神可以决定。」 So he goes through in verses 16 to 13 to explain, “No, God can decide.
「祂说你们是应许的儿女，并不意味着祂不能决定谁真正得到应许。」 Just because He said you’re the children of the promise doesn’t mean He can’t decide who actually gets it.”
然后对话者在第14节根据他们对神应许的理解指责神不公平。 Then the interlocutors accuse God of injustice in verse 14 based on their understanding of His promises.
他说：「不，神不是这么说的。」 He’s like, “No, that’s not what God said.
「神说祂要做这些事情。」 God said He was going to do these things.”
然后保罗再次回答，他说：「不，你们不明白亚伯拉罕之约是什么。」 Then Paul replies again; he’s like, “No, you don’t understand what the Abrahamic covenant is.
「我们一直能接纳其他人，这约一直是给所有人的。」 We’ve always been able to have other people in, and it’s always been over everybody.”
所以在第15节到第18节，他说：「不，祂可以怜悯外 邦人，祂可以怜悯任何人，祂也可以使任何人刚硬。」 So you’ve got in verses 15 through 18, he’s saying, “No, He can give mercy to Gentiles; He can give mercy to anybody; He can harden anybody.”
就像，仅仅因为你把自己置于罪中刚硬的境地，那不是神不公平。 It’s like, just because you put yourself in this situation where you’re hardened in your sin, that’s not unfair by God.
所以最后的回答基本上是要求一个王。 So the last answer is basically to ask for a king.
他们在第19节基本上是在说：「如果祂如此公 义，为什么不直接让我们做祂想要的事呢？」 They’re basically saying in verse 19, “Why didn’t He just make us do what He wanted if He’s so just?”
问题是，许多人，特别是加尔文主义者会说：「你知道，这些人是在否认神的主权。」 The thing is, a lot of especially Calvinists will say, “Well, you know, these guys are denying God’s sovereignty.”
他们不是在否认神的主权，他们是在说神滥用主权，因为祂没有强迫他们 做他们应该做的事，这与他们在撒母耳记上第8章对王的要求一样。你应 该指挥我们，这是在要求王审判我们，这样我们就可以逃避行为的责任。 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, which is the same request that they had for the king in 1 Samuel 8. You’re supposed to boss us around; 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9:20中回应的背景：「你这个人，竟敢质疑神的美善？」 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?”
那时他说：「你这个人哪，你是谁呢？」 That’s when he says, “Who are you, O man?”
这不是因为他们否认神的保证，而是因为他们在说：「你知道，神真的 应该更像这些王，只是指挥我们，这样我们就不用为自己负责了。」 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11:33-35，以及约伯记4 0章和42章中给出的那种回答。这就是答案。 That’s the kind of answer that’s given in Romans 11:33 to 35, and really in Job 40 and 42. That’s the answer.
祂说：「看，我创造了宇宙，你不能说我现在做错了。」 He says, “Look, I created the universe; you don’t get to say that I’m doing it wrong at this point.”
这就是他们真正要求的。 And that’s really what they’re asking for.
所以整章都在说，你知道：「为什么神不强迫我们遵守约 ，这样我们就可以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’s promised to us?”
这是对约的错误理解。 And that’s a false understanding of the covenant.
这种对约的错误理解实际上是另一个福音，这就是加拉太书1:6或9节所说的。所以， 我的意思是，误解神的主权并试图把祂基本上变成一个地上的王，会有非常糟糕的后果。 That false understanding of the covenant is actually another gospel; that’s what they’re talking about in Galatians 1:6 or 9. So, I mean, there are really bad consequences for misunderstanding God’s sovereignty and trying to make Him into basically an earthly king.
所以这就是拟人论。 So that’s anthropomorphism.
让我们来谈谈我们应该真正相信关于神的什么。 Let’s get to what we should actually be believing about God.
我们应该真正相信关于神的是，祂拥有创造的大能。 What we should actually be believing about God is that He’s got the creative power.
我们的意思是，作为创造者的神，三位一体，有一个神的本性和一个神的大能。 What we mean by that is that God, the Trinity as creator, has one divine nature and one divine power.
所以这就是规则，这是尼西亚会议之后每个人关注的原则。 So that’s the rule, and this was the principle that everybody after Nicaea focused on.
所有那些后来的教父基本上都说：「看，如果所有这些位格都在做神的工作——如果 圣灵在做神的工作，如果圣子在做神的工作——那么圣父显然也在做神的工作。」 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.”
这意味着他们有相同的本性和相同的大能。 That means they have the same nature and the same power.
所以这个原则对于相信神是创造者至关重要。 So that principle is essential for believing that God’s a creator.
这个观点是，如果他们有相同的本质，他们就有 相同的神能，而且这个能力在数量上是一个。 The idea is, 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，不是三个位格用这个能力做不同的事情。 It’s not three powers; it’s not three persons doing separate things with the power.
这是一个能力，这就是所谓的不可分割运行的教义。 It is one power, and that’s called the doctrine of inseparable operations.
但你真的应该称之为完全相同的运行。 But you should really call it identical operation.
这意味着他们所做的事情没有区别——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情。 They always all do the same thing.
一个位格可以是神的作为的对象；所以只有圣子取了人性，只有圣子在人性中行动。 An individual person can be the object of a divine action; so only the Son has humanity assumed to Him, and only the Son acts in humanity.
但是圣子按照祂的神的本性，仍然只是作为三位一体在行动。 But the Son, according to His divinity, is still only acting as a Trinity.
这是一件重要的事情要记住：你不能区分三位一体的行为。 That’s an important thing to remember: you cannot distinguish between the acts of the Trinity.
他们在创造方面所做的一切对他们所有人来说都是一样的。 Everything that they do with respect to creation is the same for all of them.
有一个关于差遣的小概念，差遣应该是位格发出的延伸，他们的意 思是圣子是被生的，圣灵是发出的，基本上，差遣就是圣子和圣灵 如何延伸到创造中，就像他们在永恒中从圣父延伸出来一样。 There’s a little idea of missions where the missions are supposed to be an extension of the procession of the persons, and 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.
但我们必须记住的是，即使那样，也不意味着他们实际上在做不同的事情。 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动。 What that means is that they are able to act for us as a point of contact.
所以在我们接触他们的方式中，我们理解或意识 到这一点是从圣灵开始的，或者是圣灵的特点。 So 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.
所以它让我们通过位格与神建立关系，但这并不意味着位格本身在做任何不同的事情。 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，有一些行为更能体现位格的特点，我们 称之为适合，因为它只是帮助我们理解的东西。 Generally, there are some acts that are more characteristic of the person, and we call that appropriation because it’s just something to help us understand.
但事实是他们总是做同样的事情，这种能力的统一基本上就是作为创造主的神的独特之处。 But the reality is they’re always acting the same, and that unity of power is basically what differentiates God as the Creator.
这种能力与我们所拥有的任何东西都不同。 That power is something different than anything we have.
人类之间没有不可分割的运行，实际上在任何受造之物中也没有。 There are no inseparable operations among human beings, and there’s nothing among any created thing, actually.
我在圣经中看到的关于这一点的最好解释之一，实际 上就在不久前山姆谈到格雷格·斯塔福德的时候。 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.
这是在二月二十一日，大约从十五分钟开始。 This was on February 21st, and it starts around 15 minutes in.
他真的选了一些很好的经文来说明这一点。 He really picked some great passages that illustrate this.
第一个——我喜欢山姆对此的处理——是约翰福音五章十九节。经上说：「 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 says, “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」（希腊文「相同」之意） ，它很好地解释了为什么这个词的意思是完全相同。 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，子也做，圣灵也做。 That’s what it means: whatever the Father is doing, the Son is doing, and the Holy Spirit is doing.
它是完全相同的，是一样的。 It’s identical; it is the same.
在约翰福音十二章四十九节、十四章十节和十七章二十二至二十三节中也有类似的 陈述。我还想提出的是，这实际上与彼得后书一章十七节有关——山姆也提到了这 段经文：「他从父神得尊贵荣耀的时候，从极大荣光之中有声音向他说：『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 to 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.”
这描述的是变像，圣彼得当时就在场，它解释了这在三位一体中是如何运作的。 That’s describing the Transfiguration, which St. Peter was actually there for, and it explains how this works in the Trinity.
很明显，圣子从神那里所得的尊贵和荣耀，就是祂在永恒中所得的；它们是同一个身份。 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 of the same identity.
同样有趣的是，在同一章中，彼得谈到我们参与同样的大能。 What’s also interesting is that in that same chapter, Peter is talking about our participation in that same power.
他谈到神的本性对三位一体是共同的，并且讨论我们参与那个本性。 He’s talking about divine nature being common to all three and also discussing our participation in that nature.
这让你了解它对基督教有多么关键。 That gives you an idea of how critical it is for Christianity.
所以我现在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.
这就是我所说的自然神学。 This is what I would call natural theology.
有时这个术语被误用，但自然神学基本上就是我 们如何通过观察创造来理解作为创造者的神。 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情。 We understand a lot about God from creation.
我们也知道有些事情是我们无法理解的。 We also know that there are things that we can’t understand.
我们已经谈了一点，我们不想让神受到限制，或把祂当作像我们其他人一样的人。 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.
所以，你知道，自然神学和启示都说我们对神的认识是有限的，神实际上给人们一些宽容。 So, you know, natural theology and revelation both say that our knowledge of God is limited, and 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.”
那是因为他们不可能知道钉死神的严重性；这是不可能的。 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，经上说：「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.”
所以这里承认我们不能理解一切。 So there’s recognition that we can’t understand everything.
我的意思是，我们对神的认识是有限的。 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情。 But the problem isn’t lack of knowledge; we can know things about God.
问题在于如何明智地运用知识。 The problem is wise use of knowledge.
有很多经文说——你知道，最著名的一句，诗篇 十四篇一节：「愚顽人心里说：『没有神。』」 There’s a lot that says—you know, the famous one, Psalms 14:1, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
这并不意味着他不可能知道有神；这意味着他只是没有按照这个事实行事。 That doesn’t mean he can’t possibly know that there’s a God; that means he’s just not behaving like it.
在传道书一章十四节和十八节，他说：「我见日光之下所做的一切事，都 是虚空，都是捕风。智慧越多，烦恼也越多；知识越多，忧伤也越多。」 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情；它只是说你可能会徒然地使用它。 That’s not to say we don’t want to know things about God; it’s just saying you can use it in vain.
我的意思是，就像你拥有的任何其他恩赐一样，你有可能会误用它。 I mean, it’s possible, like any other gift that you have, that you use it wrong.
所以，你知道，有很多这样的经文说我们有可能滥用知识。 So, you know, there are a lot of passages like this that say it’s possible for us to misuse knowledge.
但好消息是，这意味着他们也有可能获得知识。 But the good thing is that means it’s possible for them to gain knowledge too.
所以我把这看作是一种慈善的途径；每个人都可以理解关于神的事情。 So I see this as an avenue of charity; everybody can understand things about God.
每个人都有理性。 Everybody has reason.
如果你失去了与理性的联系，那么你将很难与他们打交道。 If you lose touch with that reason, then you’re going to have trouble dealing with them.
所以这就是我们应该把它视为慈善途径的地方。 So that’s the part where we should view it as an avenue of charity.
如果人们不同意，就说：「好吧，我认为你是理性的；否则，我就无法吸引你。」 If people disagree, say, “Okay, well, I think you’re reasonable; otherwise, I couldn’t appeal to you.”
所以你必须认为他们是理性的。 So 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.
你知道，人们会犯错误，你应该像对待其他事情一样对待它——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!
那么你如何将自然神学用作护教学呢？ So how do you use natural theology as apologetics?
我对此的看法来自彼得前书三章十四节和十七节。经上说：「你们心里要尊主基督为 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, “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, yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
那里实际上有个希腊词「phobo」，这很有趣，因为它真正讲的是敬畏主。 There’s actually the Greek word there, “phobo,” which is kind of interesting because it’s really about fear of the Lord.
基本上，这样做的结果是拥有一个好的良心，这样当你被 诽谤时，那些毁谤你在基督里的好品行的人就可能蒙羞。 Basically, 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.
我认为你应该对人友善；我认为你应该温和，特别是如果你在诉诸自然神学的时候。 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，你完全搞错了。」 Like I said, you can say that they’re wrong; you can say, “Wow, you’ve totally missed this.”
但是你知道，我努力保持友善。 But you know, I try to be kind.
这是针对非信徒的；我的意思是，这段经文讲的是当你被要求为信仰辩护时。 This is for unbelievers; I mean, this passage is about when you’re being asked to give a defense.
除非有人指责你，否则没人会要求你为信仰辩护，但你知道，这是在要求一个理由。 Nobody asks you to give a defense unless they’re accusing you, but you know, it’s asking for a reason.
所以这是在说：「看，如果他们没有理性思维的能力，那就是浪费时间。」 So that’s saying, “Look, it’d be a waste of time if they don’t have the power of reason.”
人们有可能听你的话并理解你。 It’s possible for people to listen to you and understand you.
就是这样；与他们讨论，把他们当人对待，因为他们可能就是。 So that’s it; just have the discussion with them, treat them like people because they probably are.
现在，还有几段经文你也应该思考一下。 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，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。」 One is Matthew 7:6: “Do not give to dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
现在，这是什么意思呢？ Now, what does that mean?
嗯，每个人都有理性，所以他们不是字面意义上的狗或猪。 Well, everybody has reason, so they’re not literally dogs or swine.
这句话的意思是，如果人们丧失理智——如果他们 完全不讲道理——你对此无能为力，这很不幸。 What that’s saying is that if people have lost it—if they’re not being reasonable at all—there’s not much you can do with that, and that’s unfortunate.
你只能与他们断绝来往。 You just kind of have to cut them off.
你必须说：「看，我们不能进行这个对话，因为你现在的状态无法做到。」 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；你必须与人断绝来往。 And that’s basically what you have to do; you have to cut people off.
所以这就是要灵巧像蛇，驯良像鸽子。 So that’s being wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
如果争论毫无意义，你就必须远离它。 If there’s a fight and there’s no point in it, you’re going to have to get away from it.
但我的一般方法更像撒母耳记上二十六章，这是大卫和亚比筛的故事。 But my general approach is more like 1 Samuel 26, and this is the story of David and Abishai.
在这个情况下，你知道，扫罗基本上在营地里。 This is the case where, you know, Saul is basically in camp.
神使众人都睡着了，大卫和亚比筛偷偷溜进去。 God puts everybody to sleep, and David and Abishai sneak in.
扫罗头旁有枪，他旁边有水瓶，亚比筛说：「看哪，让我刺死他，一刺就成。」 There’s the spear behind Saul’s head and his water jug next to him, and Abishai is like, “Look, just let me stab him, and he’s dead.”
大卫说：「不可杀害耶和华的受膏者。」 David says, “No, let’s not kill the Lord’s anointed.”
想一想，我们所接触的每一个基督徒都是神的受膏者，因为他们已经受洗。 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：「不可杀害耶和华的受膏者。」 So that’s how we should deal with them: we should say, “You don’t kill the Lord’s anointed.”
你也可以这样想，每个人都是按照神的形象造的，每个人都有理性。 You can also think about it as that everybody’s made in the image of God and that everybody has reason.
所以当你与他们争论时，目标不是要摧毁他们。 So when you’re having these fights, 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.”
但他拿走了扫罗的枪和水瓶，并嘲笑押尼珥让枪和水瓶被拿走。 But he took his spear and took his jug and ridiculed Abner for letting the spear and jug be taken away.
这就是我看待理性力量的方式。 That’s how I view the power of reason.
就像如果他们在辩论，就把他们的论点夺走——拿走他们 的枪，拿走他们的水瓶——这样他们就无法维持论点。 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.
如果他们误用圣经，拿走他们的枪，拿走他们的水瓶，这样他们就不能从中得力。 If they’re misusing Scripture, take their spear, take their water jug, so they’re not getting refreshed by it.
所以这就是我认为护教学的任务。 So that’s the job that I see in apologetics.
好的，让我们谈谈自然神学。 Alright, so let’s talk about natural theology.
什么是本性？ What are natures?
本性是神对创造的美好想法。 Well, natures are the good ideas that God has about creation.
它们基本上就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万物，所以存在的一切事物都含有部分神的爱。 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.
这就是它被创造的原因。 It's why it was created.
我们在圣经中将恶定义为违反本性。 We’ve defined evil in Scripture as violations of nature.
所以我们理解理性；我们通过理性理解本性。 So we understand reason; we understand nature by reason.
当我们违背本性时，我们就违背了理性。 We violate reason when we sin against nature.
他们说罪人压制真理，存邪僻的心，这在罗马书一章十八至 三十二节。一切邪恶的事——这就是我们解释恶的方式。 They say sinners suppress the truth and have a debased mind, and that’s in Romans 1:18 to 32. Everything that’s evil—that’s how we explain evil.
恶是违反本性的，因为它不可能是神所创造的。 Evil is a violation of nature because it can't be something that God creates.
神根本不创造恶。 God doesn’t create evil at all.
所以本性是我们理解神的基础。 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 们基本上是在说神是不可理解的；我们就无法理解神。 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，所以我们必须肯定神是本性的创造者。 But we know that God’s nature is also infinite, so we have to affirm that God is the author of natures.
本性这样的东西是存在的，但我们不能理解神的本性本身。 There are such things as natures, but we can’t comprehend God’s nature in itself.
罗马书十一章有一节经文谈到这一点：「弟兄们， 我不愿意你们自以为聪明，却不知道这奥秘。」 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.”
所以我们无法理解神为什么以及如何运行万物，这就是我们之前谈论的内容。 So we can’t get into why and how God runs everything, and that’s the same thing that we were talking about.
我们不理解作为创造者意味着什么。 We don’t understand what it is to be the Creator.
我们通过类比稍微理解一点，我们知道神爱我们，否则事物就不会存在。 We understand it a little bit by analogy, and we know that God loves us because otherwise, things wouldn’t exist.
但我们能做的只有这么多。 But there’s only so much we can do.
关于本性有一件重要的事，如果你不理解本性就 不可能理解的，就是圣经中这些普世的经文。 One thing that is important 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美意。 The reason is that natures are the goodwill of God toward everything.
这就是为什么所有的创造都以某种方式得救，山姆指出了这一点。 That’s why all of creation gets saved in some way, and Sam’s pointed this out.
所以，就像歌罗西书一章二十节所说：「既然藉着祂在十字架上所流的血成 就了和平，便藉着祂叫万有，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.”
有很多经文是普世性的。 There are a lot of passages that are universal.
这真正的意思是，所有种类的创造，所有的本性，都得到拯救。 And what that really means is that all kinds of creation, all of the natures, get saved.
所以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是普世得救的旨意。 So 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观点。 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 states, “Therefore, as one trespass leads to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification in life for all men.”
正如罗马书十一章三十二节所说，神将众人都圈在不顺服之中，特意要怜悯 众人。彼得后书三章九节也类似：「乃是宽容你们，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：「祂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.”
所以这就是本性，这就是它的内容。 So that’s nature; that’s what that’s about.
然后我们相信，救恩是在基督里本性的联合。 Then salvation, we believe, is the unity of the natures in Christ.
拯救我们的是基督的人性因与神性联合而得神化这一事实。 What saves us is the fact that Christ’s human nature is divinized by union with the divine nature.
关于这一点的圣经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。」这是耶稣说祂为自己成圣，「叫他们也因真理成圣」。 The Bible passage about this is John 17:19: “And for their sake I consecrate myself,” which is Jesus saying that He consecrates Himself, “that they also may be sanctified in truth.”
这就是教父们所相信的——基本上，这是参与神性，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事物，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联合。 That’s what the Fathers believed—basically, that this is participation in divine nature, and that’s the part that was mentioned in 2 Peter 1. So we know that 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.
所以这涵盖了这里所必需的，以及尼西亚信经的基本内容。 So that covers what is necessary here and what is basically in Nicaea.
我想在这里稍微提一下，你知道，既然山姆在东方教会，我 只想指出我们都可以在这一点上达成一致，这不是问题。 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，我对于我认为涅斯多留发生了什么有自己的看法。 Actually, I’ve got my own idea about what I think happened with Nestorius.
涅斯多留的许多神学术语来自叙利亚语，所以他们有一 个「kayyana」的概念，类似于我们的本性。 A lot of Nestorius' theological terms were from Syriac, so they had an idea of a “kayyana,” which is like our nature.
他们有「konoma」，类似于本性的表达，然后他们有一个「p arsopa」的概念，有点像我们所认为的位格，但更像是角色。 They had “konoma,” which was like the expression of the nature, and then they had a concept “parsopa,” which is kind of what we think of as person, but it was more like role.
希腊语有更多的术语；希腊语有「ousia」，是本 性，希腊语还有「physis」，也是一种本性。 Greek had a lot more terms; Greek had “ousia,” which was nature, and Greek had “physis,” which was also kind of nature.
他们有…… They had...
「denominis」，是能力；「energia」，是活动；「hypo stasis」，我们都知道；「prosopon」，是位格的另一个版本。 Denominis, which is power; energia, which is activity; hypostasis, which we all know; prosopon, which was another version of person.
然后拉丁语实际上比叙利亚语术语稍微多一些。 Then Latin actually had slightly more than the Syriac terms.
他们有「substantia」，用于实体，本质上是本质。 They had substantia, which was used for substance, essentially essence.
他们也有「sentient」；「persona」，他们用于位格。 They had sentient as well; persona, which they used for person.
他们还有「forma」和「species」，基本上是 形式或外观，有点像表达——这些是特土良使用的术语。 They also had forma and species, and that’s basically form or appearance, and it was kind of like the expression—those were the terms Tertullian used.
所以我认为发生的事情是，如果涅斯多留能够与拉丁神 学家进行基本的讨论，我想我们可能已经度过难关了。 So what happened was I think that if Nestorius could have had basically a discussion with the Latin theologians, I think we probably could have gotten past it.
因为「konoma」与拉丁人所说的「forma」非常相似，利奥 实际上在《教宗书》中使用了「forma」；他谈到了本性的表达。 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.
所以这里有一些我们共同拥有的真实事物。 So there were real things here that we had in common.
问题是涅斯多留真的不明白——他不明白区利罗在说什么。 The problem was Nestorius really didn’t understand—he didn’t understand what Cyril was talking about.
他对此不熟悉。 He wasn’t familiar with it.
所以当区利罗说「hypostasis」时，他将其视为「 parsopa」，他的理解是区利罗一定是在混淆本性。 So when Cyril was saying hypostasis, he saw it as parsopa, and his understanding was that Cyril's got to be confusing the natures.
他说：「这没有任何意义。」 He was like, “This doesn’t make any sense.
「为什么是『konoma』——他在混淆本性。」 Why is 'konoma'—he’s confusing the natures.”
即使在他生命的最后，涅斯多留仍然不明白为什么他的希腊语翻译没有表达出重点。 Even at the end of his life, Nestorius still didn’t understand why his translation in Greek wasn’t getting the point across.
幸运的是，我们有1994年的《共同基督论宣言》，至少在天主 教一方，罗马公教会和东方教会之间，表示我们有共同的信仰。 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, saying that we have a common belief.
但你知道，我认为这是一个误解，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.
涅斯多留用希腊语解释的方式老实说是错误的， 因为没有人那样理解它，而且它误用了术语。 The way Nestorius explained it in Greek was honestly wrong because no one understood it that way, and it misused the terms.
但从我的角度来看，东方教会在这一点上没有重大分歧。 But the Church of the East, from my perspective, has no significant difference on this point.
所以我只是说，基本上我们没有问题。 So I’m just saying that to basically say we don’t have a problem.
我在这里不是伪君子，说「你知道，我们不能达成一致。」 I’m not being a hypocrite here and saying, “You know, we can’t agree.”
显然，我们在这一点上不与东正教分歧；我们完全同意这一点。 Obviously, we don’t disagree with the Eastern Orthodox on this; we completely agree on this.
所以本质上，所有使徒传统都同意这就是它的工作方式。 So essentially, all of the apostolic traditions are in agreement that this is how it works.
位格和本性是真实的范畴，是我们可以在自然界中看到 的形而上学可理解的事物，是我们可以理解的事物。 Person and nature are real categories, metaphysically comprehensible things that we can see in nature, things that we can understand.
我不是说涅斯多留没有犯任何错误，但我是说我们已经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.
那么这一切是如何出错的呢？ So how did all this go wrong?
加尔文怎么了？ What happened to Calvin?
嗯，加尔文追随了奥坎的威廉。 Well, Calvin followed William of Ockham.
奥坎的威廉是一位哲学家，他要为我们所说的唯名论负责。 William of Ockham was a philosopher, and he was responsible for what we call nominalism.
它基本上将所有这些关于本性和位格的哲学事物转化为我们对它们的理性理解之类的概念。 It basically converted all of these philosophical things about nature and person into concepts like our rational understanding of them.
关于他是否真的在形而上学上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.
他当然没有说得足够清楚，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.
所以他基本上有三个问题。 So he had basically three problems.
一个是单义性。 One was univocity.
单义性是一个长单词，它的意思是当我们说关于神的 事情时，它在神里的意思与在我们里的意思相同。 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.
这很难奏效；我不是说这是不可能的，但这很难。 It’s hard to make that work; I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s hard.
大多数神学家接受某种类比，基本上是说我们对神的认识 是真实的知识，但在神里并不完全与我们所知道的一样。 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起的名字。 Ockham also believed in nominalism, which is that natures are basically just the names that we put on things that have similar characteristics.
所以这是由我们的理性强加的东西。 So it’s something that’s imposed by our reason.
然后他相信意志论。 Then he believed in voluntarism.
意志论以神的意志命名，它基本上意味着神的自由优先于祂的知识。 Voluntarism is named after the will of God; it basically means God’s freedom has priority over His knowledge.
所以当你把这三者放在一起，基本上你最终得到的是神的意志被用来解释一切。 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.
你可以想象，当神的意志是一切的解释，而你也把神 看作一个地上的君主时——这是一个糟糕的组合。 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.
其结果基本上是神的意志和人的意志在同一个层面上运作。 The consequences are basically that divine will and human will are operating on the same plane.
这意味着它们是冲突的，没有办法回避。 That means they conflict; there is just no way around it.
所以关于本性和恩典的一切都不起作用，因为神的意志将凌驾一切。 So everything about nature and grace just doesn’t work, because God’s will is going to override everything.
这使得恶成为一个非常大的问题。 It makes evil a really big problem.
因果关系基本上就是神在其中工作，这使得神成为真正的原因。 Causality is basically just God working in whatever it is, and that makes God the real cause.
传统对恶的理解消失了，因为如果神是一切的原因，祂怎么可能不是恶的创造者呢？ 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，恶在传统上被理解为神大能的逻辑限制。 Actually, evil was traditionally understood as a logical limit on God’s power.
祂创造本性，但祂不能使自己能创造邪恶的事物。 He creates nature, but He can’t make it so that He can create things that are evil.
这可以追溯到圣彼得·达米安，他是最早谈论神全能的人之一。 That goes back to St. Peter Damian, who was one of the first guys who talked about divine omnipotence.
如果你不理解本性，你就会误解圣经，因为有时圣经谈到的本性 并不是字面意义上的本性，我们知道这一点是因为它是邪恶的。 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，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 lust of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”
你可能会将其解释为有一个罪性，但那是不可能的；本性不可能是导致你犯罪的本性。 You could interpret that as there being a sin nature, but that can’t be; a nature can’t be a nature that causes you to sin.
然而，如果你与加尔文主义者交谈，你会看到他们一次又一次地犯这个错误。 Yet certainly, 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因为他们不理解本性；他们基本上 是在这个奥坎主义的框架内运作，而这是行不通的。 The reason they do is because they don’t understand natures; they’re basically operating in this Ockhamist framework, and that doesn’t work.
归根结底，圣三位格最终被简化为他们的活动，因为意志是他们必须解释的唯一范畴。 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.
所以就像圣三位格本质上就是他们所做的事情和 他们扮演的角色，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，同样的事情在伊斯兰教中也发生了，你可 以看到这些观点是如此相似，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.
伊斯兰教中发生的事情是有一个哲学家学派，阿维森纳可能是其中最伟大的。 What happened in Islam was there was a school of philosophers, and Avicenna was kind of the greatest of them, probably.
但他们愿意向基督徒学习；他们接触到希腊哲学，所以他们有这种神是超越的观念。 But they were open to learning from Christians; they had access to Greek philosophy, so they had this kind of idea that God was transcendent.
他们没有这个，然后在阿沙里学派中——它实际 上是由一位名叫阿尔-加扎利的哲学家创立的。 They didn’t have this, and then there was in the Ashari school—it was really started by a philosopher named Al-Ghazali.
所以他写了一本书叫《哲学家的非连贯性》，在书中他说这都是无稽之谈，基 本上除了神的意志之外，他剥夺了所有的解释——这与奥坎所做的完全一样。 So he wrote a book called The Incoherence of the Philosophers, where he says this is all nonsense and basically takes away every explanation except the divine will—exactly the same thing that Ockham does.
学者们很久以前就指出了这一点，这不是我提出的新观点。 Scholars have pointed this out for a long time; this isn’t new with me.
所以奥坎和阿尔-加扎利基本上是穆斯林版本和基督教版本，但最终殊途同归。 So Ockham and Al-Ghazali are basically the Muslim version and the Christian version, but it ends up in the same place.
有趣的是，你知道，当我研究这个问题时，我发现了一位名叫哈姆扎·优素福的穆斯林学者 写的一篇文章，他将穆斯林社会中出现的许多问题归咎于奥坎，说是我们从那里得到的。 What was interesting was, you know, when I was looking into this, I found an article by a Muslim scholar named Hamza Yusuf, 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文章中回 应，指出这实际上来自阿什尔学派，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.
你可以真正看到这不是一个独特的问题。 You can really see that this is not a problem that is unique.
如果你做错了，如果你是唯名论者，这就会发生在你身上。 If you do this wrong, if you’re a nominalist, this is going to happen to you.
这无关紧要，这甚至不是一个特别基督教的事情。 It doesn’t matter; it’s not even a particularly Christian thing.
这在伊斯兰教中也会有同样的后果。 This is going to have the same consequences in Islam.
那么你的立场是什么？ So where do you land?
你得到了这种对创造的控制的观念，就像如果他们不指挥创造，他们就不是一个好的君主。 You get this idea of control over creation; like if they’re not bossing creation around, they’re not being a good sovereign.
这是地上君王的观念，然后定义属性就像神对创造的主权。 It’s this idea of earthly kingship, and then the defining attributes are like God’s sovereignty over creation.
就像除非祂有效地指挥创造，否则祂就不是主权者。 It’s like unless He’s bossing creation around effectively, He’s not sovereign.
所以你最终得到所有这些预定论，所有这些机会论 ——这一切都只是试图把神变成一个地上的国王。 So you end up with all this predestinarianism, all this occasionalism—that’s all just trying to turn God into an earthly king.
这与撒母耳记上第八章发生的事情一样。如果你要求一个王，那是不对的。 That’s the same thing that happened in 1 Samuel 8. If you ask for a king, that’s not right.
我的意思是，这是同样的事情，你知道奥坎是问题所在，因为即使在一 个完全不同的神学中，当每个人都追随奥坎时，也发生了同样的事情。 I mean, this is the same thing, and you know that Ockham is the problem because even in a completely different theology, the same thing happened when everybody followed Ockham.
所以我们真的可以把问题归咎于奥坎。 So we can really blame Ockham for the problem.
我的意思是，如果你跟随奥坎，你就会一团糟。 I mean, if you’re following Ockham, you’re going to be a mess.
奥坎基本上是发明新教的人。 Ockham is the guy who basically invented Protestantism.
而它在伯拉纠派争议中出现的方式，在这个完全奥坎主义的体系中被重新想象。 And the way it came up within the Pelagian controversy got reimagined in this completely Ockhamist system.
有几个不同的人做过这件事。 There are a couple of different people that have done this.
一位是路易斯·布耶神父，他有一本书叫《新教 的精神和形式》，谈到唯名论如何影响新教。 One is Father Louis Bouyer; he’s got a book called The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism that talks about how nominalism affects Protestantism.
但是，你知道，它真的使这个本性-恩典的事情变成了 一场没有人能赢的战斗——其中没有留下正确的答案。 But, you know, it really makes this nature-grace thing 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，实际上他还在。 There was a scholar named Joseph Incandela; actually, he’s still around.
他1986年的论文将其描述为神的意志与人的意志之间的冲突。 His 1986 dissertation described it as a clash between the wills of God and man.
我的意思是，这只是一场战斗，没有办法回避。 I mean, it’s just a fight, and there’s no way around it.
这就是新教的背景。 That’s the background for Protestantism.
然后一个反常的人物，一个名叫罗伯特·霍尔科特的人，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。 So 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.
你没有一个哲学解释来说明为什么神不改变主意、修复事物或做任何事情。 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，好吧，你知道，有这样一类约 ，如果神立了约，那么祂就不能改变主意。」 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.”
所以这就被带入了这场伯拉纠派的冲突中，正如你所料。 So that gets taken, as you might expect, into this Pelagian conflict.
有一个叫托马斯·布拉德沃丁的人，他震惊地发现自己被贴上了 伯拉纠派的标签，因为他当时处于这种唯名论的经院哲学中。 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章，但他开始攻击霍尔科 特，因为他说：「嗯，你没有足够尊重神的主权。」 He then wrote anti-Pelagian texts, but he started attacking Holcott because he said, “Well, you aren’t respecting God’s sovereignty enough.
「约真的需要是一个永恒的法令，决定谁得救谁不得救。」 The covenant really needs to be an eternal decree that decides who’s saved and who’s not.”
然后最后是当时在巴黎大学的雷米尼的格列高利，他接受了这些观点并传播开来。 Then the end of it was Gregory of Remini, who was at the University of Paris at the time, took these ideas and disseminated them.
那就是新教的开端。 That was the beginning of Protestantism.
雷米尼的格列高利本质上是新教的零号病人。 Gregory of Remini is essentially patient zero for Protestantism.
所以这就是这种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（Via Scola Augusti niana）之间有争斗，这本应是奥古斯丁版本，但却是唯名论的，然后 还有现代学派（Via Moderna），由更多经院现代主义者组成。 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 comprised people who were more scholastic modernists.
但在那个时候，这一切都是奥坎的思想，所以他 们都是超级意志论者，正如我们所说的那样。 But it’s all Ockham at that point, so they were all super voluntarists in exactly the way that we were talking about.
他们都有这种本性和恩典之间的错误困境。 They all had this false dilemma between nature and grace.
他们没有真正的基督教对本性和恩典的理解。 They didn’t have the real Christian understanding of nature and grace.
有些人会试图将此归咎于邓司各脱，但布拉德沃丁和雷米尼的格列高利不是司各脱主义者。 Some people will try to blame this on Duns Scotus, but Bradwardine and Gregory of Remini weren’t Scotists.
所以，你知道，他们谈论早期的经院哲学家；对我来说，这始于奥坎，终于奥坎。 So, you know, they talk about earlier scholastics; to me, it starts and ends with Ockham.
一旦奥坎的思想开始传播，一切就都错了。 Once Ockham’s thoughts started getting out, that was how it all went wrong.
总之，这基本上就是你如何从加尔文那里得到这些观点。 So anyway, that’s basically how you get there with Calvin.
我在开始时说了很多大话，现在所有这些都汇集在一起了。 I talked a big game at the beginning; now here’s where all of that comes together.
加尔文犯了三个重大的神学错误，它们本质上都是因为 这个奥坎的背景——都是因为完全搞错了本性和位格。 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.
这三个重大的神学错误是，首先，拟人论。 The three big theological mistakes are, first, anthropomorphism.
他以拟人的方式思考位格，就像一个字面意义上的神圣议会——就 像他们在自己中间交谈，做决定，制定法令作为人与人之间的约。 He’s thinking of person in an anthropomorphic sense, like a literal divine council—like they talk among themselves, they make decisions, they make decrees as covenants among people.
那是行不通的。 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，他把关系和本质看作是谈论神的方式。 Because he’s a nominalist, he’s thinking about the relations and the essence as ways of speaking about God.
而且因为它们只是谈论神的方式，他认为它们之间必须有这种绝对的脱节。 And because they’re just ways of speaking about God, he thinks there has to be this absolute disconnect between them.
他没有把它看作是在下面的形而上学的真实事物，它们之间实际上有真实的关系。 He’s not thinking about it as metaphysically real things that are underneath there that actually have real relations between them.
所以他基本上破坏了位格和本性之间区分的基础。 So he’s essentially destroyed the basis for the distinction between person and nature.
他根本不理解教父关于位格和本性的概念，所以他一直在错误地解读教父。 He doesn’t understand the patristic concepts of person and nature at all, so he’s reading the Fathers wrong all the time.
他就是不明白。 He just doesn’t get it.
我的意思是，他甚至弄错了奥古斯丁，而这显然是应该众所周知的。 I mean, he even gets Augustine wrong, and that’s obviously the one that’s supposed to be well known.
所以他从奥坎那里得到了关系的形而上学；他无法理解在他之前的任何东西。 So he’s gotten his metaphysics of relations from Ockham; he can’t understand anything that came before him.
所以这就是它的来源。 So that’s where it comes from.
然后重要的观点是，这些神的差遣就像角色，这就是为什么它如 此重要，以及为什么我们谈论神所做的一切都是一体的观点。 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.
这确实是完全合一的——毫无分别。 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，你知道，这是神的差遣作为角色的观点。 So, you know, it’s this idea of divine missions as roles.
我的意思是，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.
问题是他认为基督在祂作为中保的角色中，在祂 的神性中做了一些不同的事情，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，因为他实际上被人指出了这一点。 He’s wrong about it because he actually got called on it.
所以这个基督作为中保的观点——有一位路德宗的弗朗切斯科·斯坦卡罗在这一 点上是正统的，他说：「不，基督作为中保所做的，祂是作为一个人做的。」 So this idea of Christ as mediator—there was a Lutheran, Francesco Stancaro, who’s orthodox on this point, and he says, “No, what Christ does as mediator, He does it as a human being.”
事情就是这样的，是人的活动在我们和神之间进行调解。 That’s how that works; it’s human activity that mediates between us and God.
现在，重要的是祂是一个神性的位格，这就是祂的牺牲的价值所在。 Now, it’s important that He’s a divine person; that’s what gives His sacrifice value.
但这与说祂的调解与一个不同的神性行为相关联是不一样的。 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.
它违反了行为的同一性——不可分割的行为。 It violates the identity of operations—the inseparable operations.
毫无疑问，没有办法挽救它，它打破了神的单纯性。 Unquestionably, there’s no way to save it, and it breaks divine simplicity.
我不知道还有什么办法可以说。 I don’t know how there’s any way to say it.
所以如果我们仔细研究，会发现——这里有三个问题。 So if we go through, there are going to be—here are the three problems.
第一个是拟人论。 First is the anthropomorphism.
这是我要开始引用加尔文主义学者的地方，只是为了让人们明白这不是我提出来的。 This is where I’m going to start using the Calvinist scholars just so people understand this is not something I came up with.
我不是在加尔文的著作中寻找错误的东西，这只是我在阅读加尔文主义学者的著作。 I’m not diving into Calvin’s writings looking for something that’s wrong; this is just me reading Calvinist scholars.
关于拟人论，斯蒂芬·埃德蒙森在他的《加尔文的基督论》一书中是 这样说的：在加尔文所致力的古典拉丁语中，这基本上是罗马哲学。 For anthropomorphism, the way Stephen Edmondson, who wrote a book called Calvin's Christology, puts it this way: in the classical Latin to which Calvin was committed, this is Roman philosophy, basically.
Persona主要指一个人在社会结构中的角色或性格——不是一个人简单 地扮演的角色、性格或职位，而是定义一个人在整体运作中的重要性的东西。 Persona designated principally one's role or character in a play or office within the fabric of society—not the role, character, or office that one simply filled, but that which defined one’s significance within the outworking of the greater whole.
所以这就是他在思考的，他在思考角色。 So that’s what he’s thinking about; he’s thinking about roles.
Persona，在这个古典意义上，主要关注一个人在周围环境中的 活动，其次才是一个人作为扮演这个角色的实质性自我或人物的地位。 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.
这就是他在想的，他在想社会中的角色。 That’s what he’s thinking of; he’s thinking of a role in society.
但他在谈论神中的位格在做这件事，这没有任何意义。 But he’s talking about persons in God doing this, and it doesn’t make any sense.
你可以看出他误解了希腊观点，因为他在《基督教要义》中实 际上引用了希腊观点，说他试图断言希腊人使用同样的观点。 You can tell that he’s misunderstanding the Greek view because he’s actually got a quote in the Institutes about the Greek view, saying where he tries to assert that the Greeks are using that same idea.
所以他说：「事实上，位格这个词的使用并不局限于拉丁教会，因为希腊教会以同样 的方式，也许是为了表明他们的同意，教导说神里有三个位格（prosopa）。 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，所有这些人，无论是希腊人还是拉丁人，虽 然在词语上有所不同，但在实质上是完全一致的。」 All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.”
所以prosopon确实是一个角色，我的意思是，这就是它在希腊语中被理解的方式。 So it’s true that prosopon was a role; I mean, that was how it was understood in Greek.
但他们所做的是，当他们谈论prosopon时 ，绝对确保他们在谈论hypostasis。 But what they did was to make absolutely sure when they were talking about prosopon that they were talking about hypostasis.
他们非常清楚，当他们说位格时，他们指的就是本位。 They were very clear that when they meant person, they meant the same thing as hypostasis.
他们知道位相的那个定义，但在希腊教父那里拒绝了它。 They were aware of that definition of prosopon but rejected it in the Greek Fathers.
但加尔文显然认为他们在想与他一样的事情，这完全是一个误解。 But Calvin clearly thinks that they’re thinking the same thing he was, and that’s just a perfect misunderstanding.
这就是在说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。 That’s just saying he’s thinking of God as a person playing a role, which is exactly the same thing that the Eastern Fathers all rejected.
这是无法回避的，我的意思是，这就是一个错误，你无法修正它。 There’s just no way around that; I mean, it’s just a mistake, and you can’t fix it.
同样地，在神性关系和属性方面，他也是在编造。 Similarly, on the divine relations and the properties, he’s just making it up.
他编造的原因是因为奥坎永远无法解决关系的问题。 The reason he’s making it up is because Ockham could never solve the problem of relations.
保罗·特罗姆有一本很好的书，叫《三位一体的逻 辑》，实际上从奥古斯丁开始追溯这整个问题。 There’s a great book by Paul Trom, called The Logic of the Trinity, that actually traces this whole thing back from Augustine.
但关键是，奥古斯丁有一个形而上学上非常扎实的关系概念，这就是他用来定义位格的。 But the bottom line is that Augustine had a very metaphysically robust concept of relations, and that was what he used to define person.
这就是波爱修斯和圣托马斯·阿奎那所说的同一个自存关系。 That’s the same subsistent relation that Boethius talked about and that St. Thomas Aquinas talked about.
所以这是一个真实的事物。 So it’s a real thing.
而奥坎，由于他的形而上学，基本上摧毁了本性的基础，也摧毁了位格的基础。 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，他从未弄明白。 It doesn’t work for relations either, and he never figures it out.
嗯，加尔文试图弄明白，但他没有。所以，他提出这个观点，认为 位格是自神——自身即是神——但在本质方面，它们都是一样的。 Well, Calvin’s trying to figure it out, but he doesn’t. So, he comes up with this idea that the persons are autotheos—God of themselves—but with respect to the essence, they’re all the same.
然而，当它们相互关联时，它们就不一样了。 However, when they’re relating to each other, they’re not.
既然关系处理的是位格，本质不能介于位格之间，它必须只是自存。 Since relation deals with person, the essence can’t be coming between the persons; it has to just be the subsistence.
自存就是我们所说的位格。 The subsistence is what we call the person.
在他看来，自存和本性之间没有关系。 There’s no relation between subsistence and nature in his view.
所以最后发生的是这种奇怪的三神论，在这种情况下，位格之间几乎 是相处融洽的，因为——我也说不清——因为它们是彼此自存的。 So what ends up happening is this kind of bizarre tritheism, where it’s almost like the persons get along because, I don’t know, because they’re subsistences from each other.
但基本上，它们有自由选择，它们必须本质上行使自己的意志 来联合，而不是拥有一个由圣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.
再次，这是完全脱离教父共识的事情。 Again, it’s something that is completely outside of the patristic consensus.
它与尼西亚信经无关，而且再次说明，它是三神论的，因为如果 在行为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.
所以这样做的效果是，它也减少了我们的参与，因为加尔文理解 参与的方式是，我们基本上是在参与三位一体位格的这种共融。 So the effect of that is it also reduces our participation because the way Calvin understands participation is that we’re basically participating in this communion of the Trinitarian persons.
但他看到的是这种一致——这种意志的一致。 But what he sees is this agreement—this agreement of will.
所以基本上，他认为我们的参与就是我们与神意见一致 ，你知道，从基督教救恩的角度来看，这根本不真实。 So it’s like, basically, what he sees as our participation is that we agree with God, which just isn’t real, you know, from the perspective of Christian salvation.
那算不了什么。 That’s nothing.
所以，你知道，他处于这样一种情况，这个自神的问题永远不会得到解决。 So, you know, he’s in the situation where this autotheos problem is just never going to be solved.
他对关系的理解完全消失了。 His understanding of relations is totally gone.
他关于关系属性的属性的观点是不连贯的，因为他在本质和位格之间没有联系。 His idea of the properties of the relational properties is incoherent because he has no connection between the essence and the person.
所以他说位格与本质是通过一个不可分割的联系相连的——这 就是他在《基督教要义》1.13中的描述。这是什么意思？ So 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，它不是任何玄学的东西。 I mean, it’s not anything metaphysical.
那是什么样的联系？ What kind of tie is that?
没人知道。 Nobody knows.
它不是同一性，而这正是其他人所理解的——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.
这没有任何意义。 It doesn’t make any sense.
他提出了这个基本上类似的观点，「嗯，当我们思考位格时，那就没问题。」 He comes up with this idea that’s basically like, “Well, when we’re thinking about persons, then it’s okay.
「当我们在比较时，我们可以思考它，但它是我们思维中的东西。」 When we’re comparing, then we can think about it, but it’s something in our thinking.”
而这根本没有任何意义。 And it just doesn’t make any sense.
它谈到将事物归于圣父作为区别的标志，并试图将其分开——这永远不会奏效。 It’s talking about things being attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction and trying to separate this—it’s just never going to work.
还有佩里，我注意到他有一些很棒的评论。 And Perry, I noticed that he’s had some great comments.
他让我读了布兰登·埃利斯的这本书。 He made me read this book by Brandon Ellis.
实际上我不会说是他让我读的，我会读佩里建议的任何东西。 I won’t say made me, actually; I read anything that Perry suggested.
但这本书是《加尔文、天主教性与诗篇的自有性》，它贯穿了所有这些观点。 But it’s Calvin, Catholicity, and the Aseity of the Psalm, and it’s going through all these ideas.
他基本上说的是，「是的，这是分离。」 What he basically says is, “Yeah, it’s the separation.”
他试图以位格和本质之间分离的观点来重新解释整个基督 教历史，而这基本上误读了他引用的教父时代的每个人。 He tries to reinterpret all of Christian history in this idea of the separation between person and essence, and it just misreads essentially everybody he cites from the patristic era.
我想要表示同情，但就是——就这样。 I like to be sympathetic, but it’s just—that’s it.
基本上就像唯名论中发生的这样：你就是无法理解任何事情了。 It’s basically like this is what happens in nominalism: you just can’t make sense of anything anymore.
就像我说的，如果你将其与保罗·特罗姆的《三位一体的逻辑》进行对比，看看形而 上学上实际发生了什么，埃利斯的错误是如此明显，你知道，我认为这不言自明。 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——这对加尔文来说是个大问题——能力是相似的，但不相同。 Finally—and this is the big one for Calvin—the power is like, but not the same.
如果你看基督教历史，当某些东西应该是相同的，而人们开始说「嗯，它像」，你知 道，「圣子像圣父」，「基督像人」，每次他们这样做，你就知道有些地方不对劲。 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.
这就是加尔文对行为所做的，他说行为是相似的，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.
《基督教要义》中的重要引文，再次出自第一卷第十三章：「其区 别在于：行动的开始、万物的源泉与根源归于圣父，行动中的智慧 、谋略与安排归于圣子，而行动的能量与效力则归于圣灵。」 The big quote from the Institutes, again from Book 1, Chapter 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.”
所以那里的观点是，即使他们都在做同样的事情——好 吧，他们都在做同样的事情——但他们有不同的角色。 So the idea there is, even though they’re all doing the same thing—so, okay, they’re all doing the same thing—they’ve got different roles.
他们以不同的方式做这件事，你不能有那种区分。 They’re doing it in different ways; you can’t have that distinction.
如果他们在做不同的事情，那就不可能是同一个行为。 There’s no way it’s not the same act if they’re doing different things.
他有这样一个观点，认为他们在所做的行为中基本上以不同的方式行事，这是不可能的。 He has this idea where they’re basically behaving in different ways in the acts they’re doing, and it just can’t be.
其中真正重要的是，他特别说秩序的区分不是无意义或多余的。 What’s really important in that is that he says specifically the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous.
这意味着他认为这是一个真实的事物，而且他是一 个唯名论者，所以他以这种方式看待它非常重要。 That means he thinks that this is a real thing, and he’s a nominalist, so it’s very important that he views it that way.
很明显，加尔文的观点是错误的，而且再次说明，没有办法挽救它。 It’s clear that Calvin’s idea is just wrong, and again, there’s no way to save it.
所以，你知道，这基本上就是这个观点。 So, you know, that’s basically the idea.
如果我们看不同的加尔文主义学者，他们对这个结果非常清楚。 If we look at the different Calvinist scholars, they’re very clear on how this turns out.
当他们谈论内在活动时，他们谈论的是三位一体的三个位格之间的合同 ——他们之间的约——除非你是三神论者，否则这甚至没有任何意义。 When they’re talking about internal activities, they’re talking about a compact among the three persons of the Trinity—a covenant among them—and that doesn’t even make any sense unless you’re a tritheist.
那根本就不可能。 That’s just not even possible.
在《基督教要义》中，加尔文在3.21.5中特别 说：「祂与自己立约，决定每个人将成为什么。」 In the Institutes, Calvin says specifically, in 3.21.5, “He compacted with Himself what He willed to become of each man.”
这就是他所认为的法令——三位一体的位格之间的合同，就 像一个字面意义上的补偿，一个他们之间达成的真实交易。 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·穆勒称之为加尔文教义拱门的拱心石——这个永恒的法令。 Richard Muller calls this the keystone of Calvin’s doctrinal arch—this eternal decree.
迈克尔·霍顿称之为在永恒中制定的三位一体内在的 救赎之约，通过父、子和灵的相互工作实现自己。 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·巴文克在这里说：「所有约的基础都在神永恒的谋议中，在三位一体的 位格之间的约中」，即拉丁文的Pactum Salutis（救恩之约）。 Herman Bavinck here states, “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.
吉罗拉莫·赞奇是一位改革宗经院哲学家，他写了一本关于三位一体的以罗欣的书。 Girolamo Zanchi, who was a Reformed scholastic, wrote a book on the Triune Elohim.
显然，他认为这意味着议会中有三位，他问道：若非各自独立存在且具有理解 力的实体，他所说的这些位格如何能各自听闻并协作，按自己的形象造人呢？ It’s clear that he thought that that meant there were three in council, and 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?
这基本上就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，加尔文坚持一种教义，认为三个位格在神性上是平等的，并 且不是通过分享一个非位格性的本质，而是通过他们相互的团契和互居而联合。 Gerald Bray notes that Calvin held to a doctrine which said that 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.
卡帕多西亚教父关于神互居的教义适用于位格层面，而不是本质层面。 The Cappadocian doctrine of perichoresis in God applies at the level of person, not essence.
保罗·赫尔姆实际上也谈到了雷的立场，并这样描述它：根 据加尔文，三位一体的每个位格都是自神——自己就是神。 Paul Helm actually talked about Ray's position as well and described it this way: according to Calvin, each person of the Trinity is autotheos—God of Himself.
这确保了他们之间的关系必须是自愿的，因为没有一 个位格能声称有权将自己的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.
我不知道这是怎么发生的，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著作，都是一样的。 I’ve read a bunch of these guys, and it’s the same thing.
那外在的活动呢？ What about the external activity?
有一位加尔文主义者阿曼杜斯·波拉努斯试图对此做出解释。 There’s a Calvinist, Armandus Polanus, who tries to give an explanation of this.
他基本上说，考虑到行为如何终止，它们是个别位格的工 作，所以神有可能决定这些行为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 possible for God to decide that the acts are going to be the work of the individual person.
现在，我们之前谈过这个，这没有任何意义。 Now, we talked about that before; that doesn’t make any sense.
这意味着他们可以成为行为的对象，这样我们就可以通过灵到子，再到父那里来到神面前。 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，这并不能使他们 做任何不同的事情，这正是波拉努斯在这里所说的。 But that makes them the object of what we’re doing; that doesn’t make them do anything different, and that’s exactly what Polanus is saying here.
加尔文本人在《基督教要义》1.13.18中再次说 ：「因为彼得也证明，感动众先知的乃是基督的灵。」 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.”
所以圣经经常说那是父神的灵。 So the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God’s Father.
他显然认为灵在这一点上在做一些独特的事情——那就是祂的角色。 He clearly thinks that the Holy Spirit is doing something separate at this point—that that’s His role.
你知道，在我写完这篇文章后，我的注意力被约翰·欧文所说的一些事情吸引了。 You know, after I wrote the article, I had my attention drawn to some things that John Owen was saying.
当我读这些人写的书时，约翰·欧文基本上也走了那条路。 When I was reading the books that these guys had written, John Owen was the guy that basically took that route as well.
他采取了与泰罗尼厄斯完全相同的路线，基本上就是神可以决定其中一个位格单独做某事。 He takes exactly the same route as Thelonious, which is basically that God can decide that one of the persons is doing something separately.
这没有任何意义，你不能在本应相同的行为之间有区别。 That makes no sense; you can’t have a distinction between an act that’s supposed to be identical.
这将他们分裂成三个神，所以这是不可能的。 That breaks them up into three gods, and so it’s not possible.
有一个人做了一些出色的工作，他实际上是国际神学委员会的成员 ，西蒙·弗朗西斯·盖恩斯神父，他一直在写许多对此的回应。 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.
我只是鼓励你去读那些，因为它不是——无论如 何，我的意思是，答案就是没有办法回避它。 I just encourage you to read those because it’s not—well, anyway, I mean, the answer is there’s just no way around it.
所以最后，这就是改革宗浸信会内部正在发生的 讨论，这就是为什么我们无法与他们达成一致。 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，但没有办法回避这个问题。 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，他刚出了一本关 于差遣的书，犯了同样的错误，还有马太·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.
维杜在写他关于神的作为的书时，跟随了布鲁斯· 马歇尔的观点，在我看来，那是对阿奎那的误读。 Vidu, when he wrote his book on the divine operations, followed Bruce Marshall’s, what I view as a misreading of Aquinas.
他当时是一个路德宗信徒，现在是一个天主教徒，但我认为那 是对阿奎那的误读，我不确定他今天是否还会同意那个观点。 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.
巴雷特追随圣巴西流，因为他实际上说圣灵是完善的原因。 Barrett follows St. Basil because he actually said that the Spirit was the perfecting cause.
所以这就是他们有这种观点的来源，就像「好吧，也许他们在做不同的事情」。 So that’s where they had this kind of idea that it’s like, “Okay, well, maybe they’re doing separate things.”
这有一个技术上的原因，但我认为这可能只是不准确。 There’s a technical reason for that, but I think that is probably just inaccurate.
我认为我们现在不会接受这个观点的本意，你知道，这是在 发展的早期阶段，人并不总是完美的，我认为那并不完美。 I don’t think we would accept that these days as it’s meant, and you know, this is early in the development; people aren’t always perfect, and I think that that was not perfect.
但他们依赖于此。 But they’re relying on that.
我想说，教父们的共识并不支持这一点。 I’m like, the patristic consensus doesn’t support that.
所以即使巴西流当时这样说，这并不重要。 So even if Basil said this at the time, it doesn’t really matter.
底线是，我读过所有试图使不可分割的作为符合正统的 尝试，就像加尔文解释的那样，但它们就是不正统。 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.
他们永远也到不了那里。 They’re never going to get there.
令人难过的是，他们在各种事情上都是对的，但在这一点上他们就是错的。 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，错误已经进入了信仰告白。 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《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》8.7中，它说：「基督在中保的工 作中，按着两性而行，各性行其所当行的；然而因位格的联合， 本是这性所当行的，圣经有时却归与那性所称呼的位格。」 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.”
所以他们直截了当地说，基督在祂的中保工作中，以祂的神性个别地工作。 So they’re flat out saying Christ works in His divine nature individually in His work of mediation.
这是异端邪说，仅此而已。 It’s heretical; that’s all it is.
这就在信仰告白中——1689年的《伦敦浸信会信仰告白》。 And that’s in the Confession—the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
所以这在8.1和8.7中：「神按着祂永恒的旨意，乐意拣选并任命主耶稣 ，就是祂的独生子，按照圣父与圣子二位所立的约，作神人之间的中保。」 So 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.”
这在信仰告白中明确表达了三神论。 That’s tritheism explicitly in the confession.
然后他们也有关于基督和中保工作分别行动的基本上完全相同的说法。 And then they also have essentially exactly the same language about Christ and the work of mediation acting separately.
所以他们在信仰告白中有三神论和分割的作为。 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，这与詹姆斯·怀特在1998年采 取的立场相同。他遵循信仰告白，但这并不好。 By the way, that’s the same position that James White took in 1998. He’s following the confession, but it’s not nice.
所以，你知道，我们就讨论到这里。 So, you know, that’s where we get to.
我要在这里列出参考书目，因为我知道我讲了很长时间，但这些只是来自加尔文主义学者。 I’m going to list the bibliography here because I know I’ve gone on for a long time, but this is just coming from Calvinist scholars.
我认为人们应该读的书是理查德·穆勒的。 The books that I think people should read are Richard Muller.
他有一本经典著作《基督与法令》，涵盖了所有这些内容。 He’s got a classic, Christ and the Decree, which covers all of this.
他还有一本更新的书，《神意与人选》，所以这是你的历史神学。 He’s also got a more recent book, Divine Will and Human Choice, so that’s your historical theology.
穆勒很棒。 Muller is great.
斯蒂芬·埃德蒙森的《加尔文的基督论》是一本很棒的书。 Stephen Edmondson’s Calvin's Christology is a fantastic book.
他对斯坦卡罗以及他们在基督的中保工作中是否有人的参与或 神的参与的争议的解释非常出色——每个人都应该读一读。 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《神论》是一本系统神学著作，也非常有用。 Gerald Bray’s book, The Doctrine of God, is a systematic theology and 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》，非常值得一读。 Paul Helm has a book called John Calvin's Ideas on Philosophical Theology, which is a very good read.
詹姆斯·多勒扎尔的《没有部分的神》和《神里的一切》也很重要。 James Dolezal’s God Without Parts and All That Is in God are important as well.
再次说明，他在特殊浸信会的采访非常精彩；你应该读一读，因为如果你 读了他说的话，他说的与我说的并无不同；我们只是在结果方面有分歧。 Again, his interview on the Particular Baptist 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.
马太·巴雷特的《简单的三位一体》很好，阿多尼斯·维杜的《在不 可分割的运作中行万事的同一位神》很难找到，但那是一本好书。 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 that’s a good book to read.
《神的差遣》也是一本好书。 Divine Missions is also a good book to read.
问题只是要确保你留意，因为他会遗漏一些东西，我在 网站上指出了其中一些，但他还是会遗漏一些东西。 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, but he’s going to miss things.
我实际上不推荐埃利斯的书，因为问题是里面有太多神学内容，它搞乱了历史方法。 Ellis’s book, I don’t actually recommend 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东西，而且这是一本非常昂贵的书，而且根本没有与哲学互动。 So I think you have to filter too much, and it’s a really expensive book, and there’s really no interaction with the philosophy at all.
所以我不推荐那本书，我认为那不太好。 So I don’t recommend that one; I don’t think that’s great.
还有一些关于加尔文与基督联合的参与神学的好书。 Then there are some good books about what Calvin’s theology of participation in union with Christ is.
朱莉·坎利斯写了一本书叫《加尔文的阶梯》，非常精彩。 Julie Canlis wrote a book called Calvin's Ladder that is fantastic.
我真的读了它，我想：‘好的，通过读这本书， 我终于真正了解了加尔文的信仰和他的错误。’ I actually read it, and I’m like, “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《加尔文的阶梯》是一本非常好的书，我对此毫无保留。 So Julie Canlis’s Calvin's Ladder is a very good book, and I don’t have any reservations about that.
我不同意其结论，但这是伟大的学术成果。 I disagree with the conclusions, but it’s great scholarship.
迈克尔·霍顿有一本Zondervan的电子书叫《与基督联合》。 Michael Horton has a Zondervan Digital Short called Union with Christ.
迈克尔·霍顿是一个著名的人，你可以相信他写的东西。 Michael Horton is a well-known guy; you can trust what he writes.
罗伯特·莱瑟姆的观点有点偏激，他有一本书叫《在圣 经、历史和神学中与基督联合》，这也是一本好书。 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·加西亚有一本关于与基督联合的书叫《在基督里的生命》，非常优秀。 Mark Garcia has a book called Life in Christ about union with Christ, and that’s excellent.
我认为每个人都忽略了一本真正非常好的书，那就 是查尔斯·赖斯的《阿奎那和加尔文论罗马书》。 The book that I think everybody’s sleeping on that is really, really good is Charles Raith's Aquinas and Calvin on Romans.
我真的很喜欢这本书的原因是他详细解释了释经， 所以这是一本非常符合圣经的书，而且是公平的。 The reason I really like this one is he goes in detail on the exegesis, so it’s a very scriptural book, and it’s fair.
它真正解释了他们在这方面的差异，我以前没有见过这样的书。 It really explains the differences between them on this, and I hadn’t seen anything like this.
这是一本很棒的书，我认为我会绝对推荐这本书。 It’s a fantastic book, and I think I would just absolutely recommend that one.
那本书真的很棒。 That one is just a really great book.
总之，这就是要读的书，我认为这很好。 So anyway, that’s the reading to do; I think that’s great.
但是我有点，你知道，这大概就是我想讲的时间，所以我就讲到这里。 But I’m kind of, you know, this is about how long I wanted to go, so I’m here.
我的问题是：如果最后证明我是对的，加尔文基本上 认可了三神论和分割的作为，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 has basically endorsed tritheism and endorsed divided operations, then what’s the point anymore?
我认为有一些非尼西亚信经的加尔文主义者是公开的非尼西亚信经的，比如巴特。 I think there are non-Nicene Calvinists that are sort of openly non-Nicene, like Karl Barth.
新正统主义可能是一致的，可能始终如一地保持认信，这很有趣。 Neo-orthodoxy might be consistent and might be consistently confessional, and that’s interesting.
但问题是，好吧，但你在传统中的立场在哪里？ 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?
我们为什么要以这种方式阅读圣经？ Why are we reading Scripture in this way?
它从哪里来的？ Where did it come from?
在那个时候，正统信仰的历史标志是什么？ What are the historical signs of orthodoxy at that point?
我不是说他们不能思考这个问题，但这就像是，为什么？ I’m not saying that they can’t think about it, but it’s like, why?
这是从哪里来的？ Where is that coming from?
当然，就加尔文本人而言——好吧，这是一个来自中世纪的 律师，他没有圣经支持，没有历史支持，也没有传统支持。 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.
我们知道他为什么会犯他所犯的错误。 We know why he made the mistakes that he made.
那我们为什么要听他的呢？ So why would we listen to him?
他没有任何神迹，他不声称自己是先知，他没有任何神秘活动。 He doesn’t have any miracles, he doesn’t claim to be a prophet, he doesn’t have any mystical activity.
没有真正的迹象表明「好的，是的，这个律师就是我们在这个问题上应该听从的人」。 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一个多么好的圣经注释家。 His only argument is how good an exegete he is of Scripture.
嗯，我认为如果我们把他与教父们比较，他肯定不会更好。 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的呢？ 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太晚意识到这一点。 I think it’s just because we’re getting late to it.
但对我来说，未来主义的学术基本上摧毁了加尔文，没有真正充分的理由听他的。 But to me, the futuristic scholarship has basically decimated Calvin; there’s not really a good reason to listen to him.
即使是与他同时代的人，他也被斯坦卡罗正确地指责，他基本上说： 「是的，我要在这个问题上加倍下注，我要做一个不悔改的异端」。 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.”
那种对双重中保的异端信仰就在《威斯敏斯特认信》和《伦敦浸信会认信》中。 That heretical belief in double mediation is in the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession.
那么，你为什么要加入一个非尼西亚信经的认信团契呢？ So why are you going to be in a confessional communion that’s non-Nicene?
你为什么要加入一个声称我们否认尼西亚信经的认信呢？ 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，对圣经依据的主张通常是基于拟人论的。 Then you know, the claims of scriptural support are generally based on anthropomorphism.
嗯，我的意思是，山姆摧毁了那些使用拟人论的人。 Well, I mean, Sam decimates people who use anthropomorphism.
如果你看摩门教、耶和华见证人、一神论者，其他使用拟人化理解 圣经的攻击，我们不听他们的——那为什么我们要听加尔文的呢？ If you look at Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, other attacks using anthropomorphic understandings of Scripture, we don’t listen to them—so why would we listen to Calvin?
而且每一个跟随他的主要神学家都在犯同样的错误。 And every major theologian who followed him is making the same mistakes.
所以彼得·韦尔米利做了，弗朗西斯·图雷丁做了，约翰·欧文做了，乔纳森·爱德 华兹做了，B.B.沃菲尔德做了——所有接受改革宗特点的人都在犯这些错误。 So Peter Vermigli does, Francis Turretin does, John Owen does, Jonathan Edwards does, B.B. Warfield does—all of these guys that accept the Reformed distinctives are making these mistakes.
所以这基本上就是我目前的立场，这就是我写这篇文章和做这个演讲的原因。 So that’s essentially where I am at this point, and that’s why I wrote the article and why I’m giving the presentation.
我们在做什么？ What are we doing?
我们为什么还要与加尔文主义为伍？ Why are we hanging around with Calvinism anymore?
所以，你知道，就像我说的，并不是我不相信有一些了不 起的人真的相信神，真的爱耶稣；我相信他们是这样的。 So, 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 who really love Jesus; I believe they do.
这就是我发出这个呼吁的原因。 That’s why I’m making this appeal.
就像你不需要在那边一样。 It’s like you don’t need to be over there.
这是一个错误，我希望他们能纠正这个错误。 This is a mistake, and it’s a mistake that I hope they’ll correct.
所以这就是我的立场。 So that’s where I am.
这就是我的观点！ That’s my pitch!
如果你有任何问题，山姆，或者类似的问题，我随时准备回答。 If you’ve got any questions, Sam, or anything like that, I’m ready to go.
是的，这实际上是一个非常精彩的讲座。 Yeah, it actually was a phenomenal session.
荣耀归于三位一体的神——荣耀归于神、主耶稣和圣灵。 Glory to the Triune God—glory to the Father, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
为这个演讲感谢神！ Thank God for this presentation!
我想多听几遍，里面有很多精华。 I want to listen to it more than once; there’s a lot of meat in it.
我想鼓励大家分享链接。 I want to encourage everyone to share the link.
你可以上传我的任何讲座，但我强烈建议你上传这一个。 You can upload any of my sessions, but I highly recommend you upload this one.
它非常深入，令人惊叹。 It’s very in-depth; it’s amazing.
还有，上传佩里·罗宾逊的一万年长的讲座——不，我只是开玩笑！ Also, upload Perry Robinson’s 10,000-year-long lecture—no, I’m just kidding!
那真是精彩绝伦——五个小时激烈地剖析试图将唯独因 信（sola fide）读入早期教父著作的问题。 That was phenomenal—five hours of intense dissecting of the problems with trying to read sola fide into the early Church Fathers.
那太精彩了！ That was phenomenal!
所以这些都是一些非常棒的讲座。 So these are some excellent sessions.
如果你们想问问题，我可以先问几个问题。 I may start off asking questions, guys, if you want to ask questions.
我会问几个，我不想让我们的弟兄讲太久，因为他那里已经快晚上1 1点了，正如你所看到的，像我一样，他需要美容觉——开玩笑的！ I’ll take several; 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——你听到很多，你也提到了——加尔文说 基督是自神（autotheos，意为自身为神）。 But I want to just ask you— you hear a lot, and you mentioned it—that John Calvin spoke of Christ being autotheos, God of Himself.
现在，对于我们这些哲学上不精通的人来说——我也不精通—— 因为当我第一次进入信仰时，我受到了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.
当我说受到攻击时，我显然是指在属灵上，而不是身体上— —耶和华见证人和穆斯林想要我从圣经中为我的信仰辩护。 When I say attacked, I mean spiritually, obviously not physically—Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims who wanted me to make a case from Scripture.
他们没有接受过哲学训练，我也没有，所以我大 部分时间都花在为我所信的寻找圣经依据上。 They were not philosophically trained, neither was I, so most of my time has been spent on scriptural support for what I believe in.
现在我需要复习我的哲学知识，因为我不想在不知不觉中说出异端的言论。 Now I need to brush up on my philosophy because I don’t want to be saying things that are heretical unbeknownst to me.
对于不理解自神及其含义的人来说，为什么说耶稣是自神会有问题？ Why, for someone who doesn't understand autotheos and its implications, would that be a problem to say that Jesus is autotheos?
这又是如何违背尼西亚信经的基督论呢？ And how would that go against Nicene Christology?
是的，关键是他们是如何得出这个结论的？ 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?
嗯，他们保持独一的神的原因是因为他们处于这些 永恒的关系中，而这些永恒的关系使他们相同。 Well, 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.
所以这就是这个形象的真正含义。 So that’s really what this image is.
圣经中圣父与圣子的语言就是我们称之为生养的 原因，我们说它是永恒的，因为它永远发生。 The biblical language of Father and Son is why we describe it as begetting, and we say it’s eternal because it happens forever.
但你必须处于这样一种情况，他们在本性上都是神。 But you’ve got to be in a situation where they’re all God by nature.
如果他们不是在本性上都是神，或者如果他们只是通过协议成为神——这就 是我之前谈到的——如果这只是自愿的，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，那么他们实际上是一体的，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己的神，你就无法让他们重新合一。 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圣父是自己的神，圣灵和圣子是后 代；否则，你就会制造出一个你根本不能接受的分裂。 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.
圣灵从圣父而出，而圣子是被生的。 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Son is begotten.
我只是不想让人们误解你的意思。 I just don’t want people to misunderstand what you’re saying.
所以这是一个问题，因为我试图弄清楚加尔文用自神想要表达什么，以及为什么这有问题。 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，就像你说的，如果他们都是自己的神，你就不能有独一的神；这会导致三神论。 Because, like you’re saying, then you can’t have one God if they’re all God of themselves; it leads to tritheism.
现在，如果——顺便说一下，这对当时的人来说也很混乱—— 圣罗伯特·贝拉明试图弄清楚他在说什么，但只是有点明白。 Now, what if—and that was, by the way, confusing for the people at the time too—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：「嗯，加尔文的意图和改教家们想要表达的不是他们是 三个神，而是他们只是在阐述这一点，尽管不如他们应该的那样准确？」 So what if someone says, “Well, what Calvin intended and what the Reformers are intending to say isn’t so much that they’re three gods but that they’re just articulating it, though not as accurately as they should be?”
因为如果他们把它推到最后，它确实会导致三神论，但那 不是他们的意图；他们仍然希望是三位格中的独一真神。 Because it does lead, if they take it to its conclusion, to tritheism, but that’s not their intention; they still want it to be one God in three persons.
那么我们能说，我们可以原谅他们，因为他们的意图 是真诚的，因此不应该对他们提出三神论的指控吗？ So 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?
对此你有什么看法？ What would you say to that?
因为他们的意图是要维护这些不是同一个位格，意思是圣 父不是以不同方式存在的圣子，也不是三个神，对吗？ Because their intention is to safeguard that these are not the self-same person, meaning the Father is not the Son in a different mode, and it’s not three gods, right?
我认为就自神本身而言——再次说明，这是一些人正在关 注的——我认为你可以给出一个解释，使其变得有意义。 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.
真正的问题是圣父、圣子和圣灵通过意志互动的观点。 The problem is really this idea of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit interacting by will.
这有点像，如果你想回到亚流，亚流的问题是他认为圣子是通过意志的行为而生的。 That’s kind of like, if you think about going back to Arius, the problem with Arius was that he thought the Son was begotten by an act of will.
你无法修正这一点，他们也尝试过；他们提出了很多东西，但这些东西之间无法和解。 There’s no way you can fix that, and they tried; they came up with a lot of things, but there’s no reconciliation between those.
要么是黑，要么是白，这就是亚他那修对他施加压力的地方：你知道，不是黑就是白。 It’s either black or white, and that’s what Athanasius just put the screws to him on: you know, it’s black or white.
要么圣子是通过意志的行为造的，要么不是。这个问题也是一样。 Either the Son is made by an act of will, or He isn’t. That’s the same thing with this.
你知道，仅仅在三位一体中是不够的。 You know, being in the Trinity, it’s just not enough.
它不能是意志的共融，它必须是本性的同一。 It can’t be a communion of will; it has to be identity of nature.
所以没有其他正统的方式来解释它。 So there’s no other orthodox way to explain it.
即使他们出于好意——因为我相信有一些亚流派是 出于好意——即使他们出于好意，这也是错误的。 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.
根据尼西亚信经，这绝对不可能是正确的。 There’s no way that this can be right according to Nicaea.
这让我想到一个问题，因为我们在谈论加尔文，但现在这些都是改革宗。 This leads me to a question I want to ask because we’re talking about Calvin, but now these are Reformed.
像威廉·莱恩·克雷格这样的人，你怎么看？他不是 加尔文主义者，他是一个阿民念哲学家，卫斯理宗。 What do you do with someone like William Lane Craig, who’s not a Calvinist; he’s an Arminian philosopher, Wesleyan?
但他几乎完全抛弃了尼西亚基督论，说这已经过时了， 因为它会使圣子从属，可以说使祂成为一个低等的神。 But he pretty much jettisons Nicene Christology altogether, saying this is outmoded because it would subordinate the Son, making Him an inferior deity, so to speak.
如果你把它推到最后，谈论永恒的发出就几乎使他们成为受造之物，他还 在复兴一种新亚波里拿流派关于基督的两性——神性和人性——的观点。 To speak of the eternal beginning procession would pretty much make them creatures if you take it to its conclusion, and he’s also reviving a neo-Apollinarian view of Christ’s two natures, divine and human.
你对此有什么看法？ What are your thoughts on that?
所以他基本上——我读过，在他的网站上——他说 圣父和圣子是耶稣道成肉身时他们采用的称谓。 So he pretty much—I’ve read it; it’s on his site—he says 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，那时神才成为圣子的圣父。 In other words, he becomes a Son at the Incarnation; that’s where God is Father to the Son.
这并不是真正指他们永恒的关系。 It’s not really referring to their eternal relationships.
为什么这是危险的，为什么我们应该避免这种关于三位一体神性的哲学思辨？ Why is that dangerous, and why should we avoid this type of philosophizing regarding the nature of the Triune Godhead?
我对此有几个回应。 I’ve got a couple of responses to that.
首先，这本质上就是他们所称的新古典哲学。 First, this essentially neoclassical philosophy is what they call it.
这种新古典哲学是围绕这些观点建立的，我可以更详细地讨论这一点。 This neoclassical philosophy is built around some of these ideas, and I could go into more detail on that.
但这种哲学立场实际上是从奥坎主义及其衍生的怀疑主义发展而来的。 But you’ve got kind of a philosophical position that’s really developed out of Ockhamism and the skepticism that came out of it.
他们实践神学的方式既没有考虑到本性，也没有真正接受他们本应接受的事物。 How they’re practicing theology doesn’t take nature into account and doesn’t really accept things that they need to.
我的意思是，首先，这就像是，「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?
「你是怎么想的？」 How are you thinking?”
我认为成为一个古典哲学家有很好的理由。 I think there are good arguments for being a classical philosopher.
有一个叫约书亚·西尤瓦提的人，他研究新古典哲学，但持守正统信仰。 There’s a guy named Joshua Sijuwati who does neoclassical philosophy but with actual orthodoxy.
所以保持正统并做这些事是可能的，但很难。 So it’s possible to be orthodox and still do this, but it’s hard.
你知道，我认为克雷格做出的很多假设是自相矛盾的。 You know, I think a lot of the assumptions that Craig is making are inconsistent.
顺便说一下，我认为——我的意思是，他是一个莫 利纳主义者，而莫利纳认为自己是托马斯主义者。 By the way, I think that—I mean, he’s a Molinist, so 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 个很好的论点，即莫利纳根本不理解圣托马斯的观点。 Joseph Incandela, whom I mentioned before, makes a pretty good argument in his dissertation that Molina just doesn’t understand what St. Thomas is about.
所以这就是一个例子，说明你知道，这在哲学上是完全不一致的。 So that’s an example of how, you know, it’s all philosophically misaligned.
这不是传统的，不是基于托马斯主义或司各脱主义。 It’s not traditional; it’s not based on Thomism or Scotism.
顺便说一下，我不是莫利纳主义者，因为我认为它就是不对。 And I’m not a Molinist, by the way, because I think it’s just off.
我认为它提出的问题是错误的。 I think the questions it’s asking are wrong.
所以我在很多方面都对整个方法论有问题。 So I have a problem with the whole methodology in a lot of ways.
这就是问题所在。 And that’s the problem.
第二个问题是，好吧，如果我对方法论有问题，我 也对方法论的谱系有问题——因为它从何而来？ 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?
就像，你知道，谁授权克雷格偏离教父们的观点？ Like, you know, who authorized Craig to deviate from the Fathers?
他说：「看，我认为在这方面我比教父们更好。」 He’s saying, “Look, I think I’m better than the Fathers at this.”
那么，你知道，他如何提出这种主张？ Well, you know, how does he make that claim?
他用来论证的标准不是我信任的。 The criteria he’s using to make that argument are not things that I trust.
教父之所以被称为教父是有原因的，那是因为教会如此说。 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，如果你要说一个新教传统中的人物，那就 是加尔文，因为我认为克雷格可能比加尔文更好地掌握了这些问题。 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.
但是，我的意思是，归根结底，这就像是，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?
如果没有传统支持，你为什么还会相信这个？ And why would you even believe this without the tradition behind you?
所以，你知道，我会说，看，任何在基督教传统之外做 事的人，我总是有点好奇，你是怎么走到这一步的？ 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?
你知道，你相信什么？ You know, what is it that you believe in?
你如何相信这是真的？ How do you believe this is true?
是的，没错——你有这个问题。 Yeah, exactly—you have this question.
没有多少人问这些问题，因为我猜他们试图接受它。 Not many people are asking these questions because I guess they’re trying to take it in.
但令人惊讶的是，你的清晰。 But it was amazing, your clarity.
我赞美神，你让像我这样的人很容易理解，因为就像我说的，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，因为祂赐予你这样的恩赐，使你能够 把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.
愿主祝福你们有这样的能力，很多人不能把它简化，让像我这样的人能理解。 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派沙达的问题：加尔文将自神性（auto theos）归于圣子在多大程度上源于罗马公教会的位格神学？ But here’s a question from Orthodox Shada: to what extent is Calvin’s autotheos attribution to the Son rooted in Roman Catholic hypostatic theology?
是的，所以你明白了，你理解了这个问题。 Yeah, so you got it; you got the question.
是的，不，我明白你的意思。 Yeah, no, I got you.
所以基本上，我对此要说的是，这是唯名论的观点，我不认为奥坎反映了传统。 So basically, what I would say to that is it’s Ockhamist, and I don’t think that Ockham is reflective of the tradition.
我实际上已经就此发表过演讲，但我认为关系的形而上学实际 上可以追溯到奥古斯丁，这基本上就是所有这些观点的来源。 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 come from.
所以我认为加尔文的立场只是尴尬，他打破了他本应建 立的所有形而上学平台，我认为这就是问题的来源。 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.
我不认为这与圣灵从子发出（Filioque）有任 何关系，就像我说的，这来自奥古斯丁的关系概念。 I don’t think it has anything to do with the Filioque, which, like I said, comes from the Augustinian notion of relationship.
是的，这些问题不是皮埃尔·罗宾逊提出的，他只是在为你所说的内容添加澄清。 Yeah, these are not questions from Pierre Robinson; he’s just also adding clarification to what you’re saying.
所以我想问最后一个问题。 So I want to ask one final question.
有些人说他们需要看几遍才能问出正确的问题。 There are some people saying they need to watch it several times to ask the right questions.
好的，你之前谈到耶稣说「不要照我的意思，只 要照你的意思」，因为这是指祂的人性意志。 Okay, you were talking about when Jesus says, “Not my will, but Your will be done,” because that’s referring to His human will.
祂有两性，祂是一个位格。 He has two natures; He’s one person.
因此，在神性中，圣父、圣子和圣灵只能有一个意志，因为本性是一个。 Therefore, in the Godhead, there can only be one will of the Father, Son, and Spirit because the nature is one.
现在有一个问题，对吧？ Now here’s a question, right?
如果有人说——我也思考过并为此挣扎——如果有人说：「那么 ，一个人如何知道意志是本性的属性而不是位格的属性呢？」 What if someone says—and 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，因为只有一个本性，就必须有一个意志，但 这假设意志是事物本性的本质，而不是位格的延伸。 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.
我们如何知道意志是事物本性的一部分，而不是构成一个位格独特性的一部分？ 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的问题？ And who can settle such a metaphysical question?
我是说，是的，他们会说：「嗯，教父们达成了一致」， 但他们不是受默示的，我们为什么要假设他们是对的呢？ I mean, yeah, they’ll say, “Well, the Fathers agreed,” but they were not inspired, and why should we then assume they were right?
我这么说是因为我不打算进一步讨论米亚派的问题，但别管它了。 I say this because I’m not going to get into it further because of the Miaphysites, but forget about it.
但继续说吧，是的，就是——这就是问题，对吧？ But go ahead; yeah, just—that’s the question, right?
对，这是一个好问题。 Right, and it’s a good question.
所以我要说的是，是的，教父们可能会犯错，但 我们为什么通常相信他们关于亚略主义的观点？ So what I would say is, yeah, the Fathers can err, but why do we believe them on Arianism generally?
这个原则的重要性在于——意志随本性而定，行为是不可分割 的——这是针对亚略派的辩护，而且是战胜亚略派的辩护。 What’s important about this principle—wills with nature and that the operations are undivided—is that that was the apologetic against the Arians, and it was the victorious apologetic against the Arians.
所以，你知道，我们知道有一个错误，而这就是他们回应那个错误的方式。 So, you know, we know that there was an error, and that’s how they answered that error.
如果我们到了连这个都不能依靠他们的地步，那我们就处于一个困难的境地。 If we get to the point where it’s like we can’t rely on them for that, then we’re in a difficult situation.
但传统的理解是，意志不仅仅是位格的属性，它本质上与本性相关。 But the traditional understanding is that the will is not merely a property of person; it’s intrinsically tied to nature.
在这个框架中，意志的统一反映了神性的统一。 In this framework, the unity of will reflects the unity of divine essence.
这就是教父们阐明他们对三位一体的理解的方式，它仍然是正统神学的基石。 This is how the Fathers articulated their understanding of the Trinity, and it remains a cornerstone of orthodox theology.
这是根本的——这就是耶稣是神的内容，对吧？ That’s fundamental—that’s Jesus-is-God stuff, right?
这是基本神学。 That’s fundamental theology.
它到了这样一个地步，如果我们不相信这一点，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?
这就是他们给出的论证，我被它说服了。 That was the argument they gave, and I’m convinced by it.
我认为今天它仍然是正确的论证。 I think it’s still the correct argument today.
有几位历史学家真的对此进行了全面研究：米歇尔·蕾妮·巴恩斯 和刘易斯·艾尔斯（拼写是A-Y-R-E-S）。这些人的作品 受到尊重，所以关于这是否是当时的信仰，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 Ayers (that’s A-Y-R-E-S). Those guys' works are respected, so it’s not like there’s really a huge amount of controversy over whether that’s the belief.
所以我只是说，看看历史吧。 So I just say, look at the history.
我们相信亚略主义者是异端。 We believe that Arians are heretics.
如果你相信亚略主义者是异端，我不知道你为什么会接受加尔文。 If you believe Arians are heretics, I have no idea why you would accept Calvin.
如果我们不这样认为，那么我现在必须向格雷格·斯塔福德道歉并与他交往。 And if we don’t, then I have to now apologize to Greg Stafford and fellowship with him.
但正统派沙哈达刚刚又提出了一个问题。 But Orthodox Shahada just had another question.
现在，我很震惊地得知这一点；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.
我完全不知道。 I had no idea.
你能详细说明加尔文拒绝签署尼西亚信经的事吗？ Can you elaborate on Calvin refusing to sign the Nicene Creed?
加尔文似乎一直想把这个问题定位为政治问题，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，这个问题有点棘手。 Yeah, that one’s a little bit tricky.
我对这个事件有些了解——不是很了解，因为我不是历史学家——但我的理解 是，这是公平的，因为基本上有一场争斗，有人试图推动它，基本上就像是「 这是——你知道，他们试图把它当作王牌」，他知道这一点，所以他拒绝了。 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 trying to play it as a trump card,” and he knew it, and he said no.
但另一方面，我是这样认为的：如果他签了，我不认为他拒绝签署是因为他认为它无效。 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.
因为如果你看他的著作，他说他相信尼西亚信经具有约束力，并且有圣经依据。 Because if you look at his writings, he says he believes that the Nicene Creed is binding and that it has scriptural warrant.
我要说的是，他对尼西亚信经的理解，即他本来 要签署的那个版本，与教父们的理解完全不同。 What I would say is that his understanding of the Nicene Creed that he would have been signing onto is completely different than how the Fathers understood it.
我认为他本可以签署他认为是尼西亚信经的东西，但我不认为他 所相信的尼西亚信经实际上就是尼西亚信经想要表达的意思。 I think he could have signed on to what he believed was the Nicene Creed, but 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：他对自存神性（autotheos）的理解 ——耶稣是自存神性的圣子——与尼西亚基督论中圣子是被生的观点相容吗？ 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?
有可能，但我认为不是。 It could be, but I don’t think it is.
埃利斯的书实际上解释了这一点，但就像我说的，那是一本冗长而痛苦的书。 Ellis’s book actually explains that, but like I said, that’s a long, painful read.
我不知道还有谁说过这个，但我认为他实际上不能始 终如一——我认为加尔文的意思不能被解释为正统。 I don’t know who else has said this, but I don’t think that he can actually consistently— I don’t think that what Calvin meant by it was what could be explained as orthodox.
我认为他在这一点上实际上是异端。 I think he was actually heterodox on this point.
新教的恶果——愿神以耶稣的名怜悯我们。 The bad fruits of Protestantism—may God have mercy on us in Jesus' name.
现在有一个来自佩里关于泰瑞·罗宾逊的问题：你能进 一步解释加尔文如何看待行为是联合的但又不同的吗？ 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，所以这基本上是他的观点，我引用过，但这个观点 是他们都在某种程度上行动——在每件事中都做一部分。 Yeah, so this is basically his idea, and I quoted it, but it’s the idea that they’re all kind of acting—doing a piece in everything.
所以圣父是起源；基本上，他认为行为是通过三位一体的关系流动的。 So the Father is the origin; basically, he thinks of the actions as kind of flowing through the Trinitarian relations.
但是，你知道，要做到这一点，行为必须有与三 位一体各位格相对应的区别，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.
就角色而言，它们是分开的；我的意思是，它们只是被分割了。 With respect to the roles, they’re separate; I mean, they’re just divided.
所以这就是那个观点：行为在某种程度上通过三位一 体各位格流动，但这种流动并不真正有利于统一。 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.
嗯，这不太算是一个问题，更多的是修辞性质的。 Well, this is not so much of a question, but it’s more rhetorical in nature.
如果意志不是根据本性，那么还有什么可以作为位格具有相同本性的基础？ 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?
所以这不太算是一个问题，它只是说，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？ 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?
这是佩里·罗宾逊的观点。 That’s from Perry Robinson.
嗯，如果你想评论一下，那很好，这取决于你。 Well, if you want to comment on that, 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—— 必须有一些解释，比如共同的意志之类的，来说明他们为什么在一起。 Yeah, no, I think that in that case, you’re just left with the individuals—basically, the persons themselves—and there have to be some explanations, like a common will or something like that, for why they stick together.
但这基本上就是奥坎的处境。 But that’s basically the Ockham situation.
他们不能——你必须把统一强加于他们身上，这几乎是唯一可能发生的方式。 They can’t—you have to impose unity on them; that’s pretty much the only way that can happen.
问题基本上就是这些了，弟兄，我刚刚在简介框中链接了你的博客。 That’s pretty much it for the questions, brother, and I just linked to your blog in the description box.
主若愿意，我会把它钉在评论区。 Lord willing, I’ll pin it as a comment.
这是他的博客。 Here’s his blog.
拜托，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的链接。 Because I only saw a link to a blog.
你有YouTube页面吗？ Do you have a YouTube page?
不，不，不，我才刚开始做这个。 No, no, no, I just started doing this.
嗯，如果主给你更多时间，而且你愿意的话，我强烈鼓励你把你的文章变成YouTu be视频，因为遗憾的是，我们生活在一个人们宁愿看东西也不愿意读东西的时代。 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——你必须非常非常认真，因为我们生活在一个每个人都想在Y ouTube上看到它的时代，在一个他们可以看到有人阐述的论坛上。 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，如果主把这个放在你心里，试着开一个YouTube频道，把你的文 章变成视频，要么读出来，要么尽可能自由地展示，就像你在这个演讲中所做的那样。 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.
所以弟兄们，这是他博客的链接，你们有一个开放的邀请—— 佩里·罗宾逊、凯、你们所有人——你们有一个开放的邀请。 So brethren, this is his link to his blog, and you have an open invitation—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的话题，因为我认为如果我们与更 多的新教徒分享这些事实，他们就会明白为什么，尽管他们中的一些人认 为新教是好事，但归根结底，它造成的损害大于它带来的任何好处。 You can come anytime you want on my channel to talk about any important topic because 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.
我赞美神让我看到了这一点，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.
我不再是新教徒了，我仍在旅途中，无论神引导我走向真理的丰盛。 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，我从心底祷告。 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，说出来，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，就像我说的，到处都有爱耶稣的人。 Well, what I’d like to say about that is, like I said, there are Jesus-loving people everywhere.
你知道，这是我们试图前进的一部分。 You know, this is part of us trying to move.
我的意思是，我同意你的看法，我不认为新教总的来说是一件好事。 I mean, I agree with you; 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。 I think that it’s a reflection of vast division.
但这并不意味着他们是坏人，你知道吗？ But it doesn’t mean that they’re bad people, you know?
我的意思是，不是那样的，这并不意味着他们不是基督徒。 I mean, it’s not that, and it doesn’t mean that they’re not Christians.
所以，就像我说的，我认为——在我们必须冲突的程度上，你知道，拿走 长矛，拿走水罐，然后说：「看，我拿走了你的长矛和水罐，怎么样？」 And so, like I said, 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; how’s that?”
但是，你知道，我们必须这样做。 But, you know, that’s how we have to do it.
我不想伤害所有人，他们正在做很多好事之类的。 I don’t want to hurt everybody; they’re doing a lot of good work and things like that.
你知道，这只是一个错误，而且是一个严重的错误。 You know, it’s just a mistake, and it’s a bad mistake.
那些信仰在过去是危险的，所以让我们试着克服它，继续前进，因为有一个完整的传统，让 我们试着让每个人都到达那里，这样我们就可以继续成为世界的一股强大而良好的影响力。 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 just keep being a powerful, good influence for the world.
荣耀归于神！ Glory to God!
愿主耶稣听到你的祷告，我也祈祷我们为使徒教会的重新 统一而努力，遗憾的是，这些教会目前处于分裂状态。 May the Lord Jesus hear your prayer, and I also pray that we work towards a reunification of the apostolic churches that sadly are in division.
愿我们在主耶稣迟延之前，在我们有生之年看到这一点，这样基督就会得到尊崇。 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：「使他们完完全全合而为一，像我们一样。」 He prayed, “May they be perfectly united as You and I, Father, are one.”
愿我们通过在使徒传下的真理基础上寻求重新统一使徒圣传，来使这个祷告成为现实。 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，我给你看了佩里的评论，说干得好，乔纳森。 In Jesus' name, I showed you Perry's comments and said good job, Jonathan.
OKC Thunder说干得好，乔纳森，Orthodox Shahada 说：「我是从佩里那里了解到你的，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 Shahada says, “I came to learn of you from Perry, and I thoroughly enjoyed your recent article on Calvinism.
我为你的工作赞美神，我也为Orthodox Shaha da的工作赞美神，还有罗宾逊佩里，以及你们众多的人。 I praise God for your work, and I praise God for Orthodox Shahada's work, and Perry Robinson, and a host of you.
愿神继续使用你们。 May God continue to use you.”
基督复活了！ And Christ is risen!
祂真的复活了！ Risen indeed!
愿耶稣在我们里面增多，愿我们减少，愿我们被圣灵 充满，为祂的荣耀尽最大努力，因为耶稣是配得的。 May Jesus increase in us, and may we decrease, and may we be filled with the Spirit to do our utmost for His glory because Jesus is worthy.
阿们！ Amen!
主耶稣啊，我愿你来。 Come, Lord Jesus.
阿们。 Amen.