社会财经
社会杂谈 政治军事 科学探索 商业财经
居家生活
百科大全 手工制作 亲子育儿 美食菜谱 居家装修 驾车宝典 安全知识 智能手机 保险理财
电脑办公
电脑设计 系统/上网/安全 优化/故障/维护 办公软硬件 电脑教程 图片素材 其它
健康养生
健康常识 健康饮食 养生保健 亚健康 两性健康 医药大全 疾病防治 母婴常识
学习教育
小学课堂 初中/中考 高中/高考 大学/成教 教师/教学 公务员考试 英语学习 作文大全 论文 范文大全 其它
资讯八卦
热点资讯 娱乐资讯 科技资讯 体育资讯 军事资讯 房产资讯 职场资讯 教育资讯 灵异事件 爆笑段子 奇闻趣事
兴趣爱好
影视曲 解梦 佛教 钓鱼 园艺 宠物 星座 游戏 风水 摄影 收藏 旅游/汽车 乐器 茶艺 书画 其它
时尚爱美
发型发艺 瘦身减肥 健身运动 美容护肤 化妆技巧 香水精油 整容整形 美体塑身 穿衣搭配 时尚资讯
情感心理
两性心理 解读男人 女性课堂 心理知识 情绪管理 情感文章 爱情攻略 励志成长
历史文化
文化杂谈 美文欣赏 中国历史 世界历史 野史秘闻 诗词古文 短篇小说 故事大全 原创文化 其它
首页居家生活百科大全
      

林慈信:三位一体教义发展简史(三)神格唯一说和教义争论

时间:2017-10-11  热:0℃  分享:彤彤

第四部份

神格唯一说

MONARCHIANISM

(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, 77-80﹔伯克富, 基督教教义史 ,页58-61。林慈信修。)

 

 

神格唯一说的兴起

Rise of Monarchianism

 

第二世纪最大的异端是诺斯底主义,而第三世纪最大的异端则是 神格唯一说 (Monarchianism) 。护教士,反诺斯底主义的教父,及亚历山大教父的 道的教义 ,都不完全令人满意。一般人认为 道的教义 有许多不当的地方。有人觉得伤害了神论﹔有些人又认为他们伤害了基督论。重视神论的人觉得 道的教义 认为 乃是另一位格,可能威胁了神的合一性,甚至一神论﹔而重视基督论者则认为 若次于父,就似乎妥协了基督的神性。因此有学识之士尝试解决这两个问题,一方面保持神的合一性,另一方面不能抹煞基督的神性。因此两派思想兴起,都被称为 神格唯一说  (这个名称是特土良所起) 。虽然严格来说,这名称只适合于那些要维护神的合一性的思想﹔然而到今天这名称是两派思想的总称。

            While the great heresy of the second century was Gnosticism, the outstanding heresy of the third century was Monarchianism.  The Logos doctrine of the Apologetes, the Anti-gnostic Fathers, and the Alexandrian Fathers did not give general satisfaction.  Apparently many of the common people regarded it with misgivings, since it seemed to impinge on their theological or on their Christological interests.  Where the theological interest was uppermost, the doctrine of the Logos as a separate divine Person appeared to endanger the unity of God or monotheism; and where the Christological interest was in the foreground, the idea that the Logos was subordinate to the Father seemed to compromise the deity of Christ.  In course of time men of learning took notice of the misgivings of the people and attempted to safeguard, on the one hand the unity of God, and on the other hand the deity of Christ.  This gave rise to two types of thought, both of which were called Monarchianism (a name first applied to them by Tertullian), though strictly speaking it could justly be applied only to that type in which the theological interest was uppermost.  In spite of its partial impropriety, the name is generally used up to the present time as a designation of both types. 

 

 

动力的神格唯一说

Dynamic Monarchianism

 

这派 神格唯一说 的目标乃是维护神的唯一性﹔可以说,完全与以前的 爱宾派(Ebionites) 及近代的 独神论派 (Unitarianism) 如出一辙。有人认为这派思想最初出现于阿罗该 (Alogi) 一个不著名的派别。斯伯克 (Seeburg) 不同意这个解释。此派比较可能的创始人,是被罗马大主教维克德 (Victor) 革出教会的一位拜占庭人,名 提阿多达 (Theodotus of Byzantium) 。此后一位 亚提蒙 (Artemon,在叙利亚出生) 试用圣经与传统来证明这一类 神格唯一说 。然而亚提蒙的论证被一位佚名氏所著 小迷宫 (Little Labyrinth) 一书所驳斥。这一派的神格唯一说不久就烟消云散。

            This is the type of Monarchianism that was mainly interested in maintaining the unity of God, and was entirely in line with the Ebionite heresy of the early Church and with present-day Unitarianism.  Some find the earliest manifestation of it in the rather obscure sect of the Alogi, but Seeberg questions the correctness of this.  In all probability its earliest representative was Theodotus of Byzantium, who was excommunicated by Victor, the bishop of Rome.  After that Artemon, a Syrian by birth, tried to prove the peculiar views of this type of Monarchianism from Scripture and tradition.  His arguments were effectively refuted, however, in the publication of an unknown author, entitled the Little Labyrinth

 

 

撒摩撒他之保罗

Paul of Samosata

 

            动力的神格唯一论,后来又由安提阿的主教撒摩撒他之保罗(Paul of Samosata) 将之死灰复燃。这位主教非常属世,也甚傲慢。他认为 是与父神同质 (homoousios, co-substantial),但在神性 (Godhead) 中没有独立的位格。道可以与神同为一 (identified with God) ,因为祂存在于神里面,正如人的理性存在于人里面。道是无位格的能力,存在于所有的人里面,但特别在耶稣这个人里面运作。因为道渐进地,独特地完全渗透了耶稣的人性 ,这个神的能力逐渐地神化了耶稣。因为这位人耶稣是如此被神化,所以祂配有神的尊贵﹔然而严格说来祂并不应被认为是神。撒摩撒他保罗如此建构道的教义,保持了神的合一性﹔神的本性 (nature) 和位格 (person) 都是一,道与圣灵不过是神性 (Godhead) 中无位格的属性 (impersonal attributes)。这种看法后来也被索西奴派 (Socinians) 及近代的独神论派所采用。这些神格唯一的派别都尝试维护神的合一性及耶稣真正的人性。马基弗 (McGiffert) 认为这些异端 [ 译注:撒摩撒他之保罗] 的目的,乃只是坚持耶稣的人性。

The sect gradually dwindled away, but was revived again through the man who became its most noted representative, Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, who is described as a worldly-minded and imperious person.  According to him the Logos was indeed homoousios or consubstantial with the Father, but was not a distinct Person in the Godhead.  He could be identified with God, because He existed in Him just as human reason exists in man.  He was merely an impersonal power, present in all men, but particularly operative in the man Jesus.  By penetrating the humanity of Jesus progressively, as it did that of no other man, this divine power gradually deified it.  And because the man was thus deified, He is worthy of divine honour, though He cannot be regarded as God in the strict sense of the word.  By this construction of the doctrine of the Logos Paul of Samosata maintained the unity of God as implying oneness of person as well as oneness of nature, the Logos and the Holy Spirit being merely impersonal attributes of the Godhead; and thus became the forerunner of the later Socinians and Unitarians.  Like them he was interested in the defence of the unity of God and of the real humanity of Jesus.  McGiffert asserts that the latter was his primary interest. 

 

 

形态的神格唯一说                                                                                                             

Modalistic Monarchianism: Sabellianism

 

            另一种神格唯一说,影响比较广泛。这派一方面要保持神性的合一,但主要在基督论方面保持基督完全的神性。这派被称为 「形态上的三种形态」 (modes) 。西方教会称此派为「圣父受苦说」(Patripassianism),因为此说认为父神自己道成肉身成为基督,因此圣父在基督里受苦,与基督一同受苦。东方教会称此派为 「撒伯流派」 (Sabellianism) 。撒伯流派与 「动力神格唯一说」 不同之处,乃在坚持基督真正的神性。

            There was a second form of Monarchianism which was far more influential.  It was also interested in maintaining the unity of God, but its primary interest seems to have been Christological, namely, the maintenance of the full divinity of Christ.  It was called Modalistic Monarchianism, because it conceived of the three Persons of the Godhead as so many modes in which God manifested Himself; was known as Patripassianism in the West, since it held that the Father Himself had become incarnate in Christ, and therefore also suffered in and with Him; and was designated Sabellianism in the East after the name of its most famous representative.  The great difference between it and Dynamic Monarchianism lay in the fact that it maintained the true divinity of Christ. 

 

 

普拉克西亚与奴爱达

Praxeas abd Noetus

 

            特土良认为创始 「神格唯一说」的是一位不太有名的 「普拉克西亚」 (Praxeas) ,而希坡利达 (Hippolytus) 认为创始者是示每拿的奴爱达 (Noetus of Smyrna) 。可能两人都对倡导此派学说有功。普拉克西亚完全反对神性 (God) 中可以有位格上的不同。特土良批判他,说:「他将保惠师赶走,又将圣父钉死在十架。」普拉克西亚似乎并没有说圣父受苦﹔不过奴爱达就清楚的说出这点。希坡利达说:「他(奴爱达)说:基督自己就是圣父,乃是圣父自己降生,并受苦而死。」  (“He said that Christ is Himself the Father, and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died.”) 按照希坡利达,奴爱达大胆地说,圣父改变了自己的形态(mode of being),变成(became)祂的儿子。奴爱达自己是这样说:「当圣父尚未降生时,祂当被称为父﹔但祂按自己的美意,服在降世为人之下时,祂就出生,成为圣子﹔是祂自己 (He of Himself),并不是另一位 (of another,成为圣子)。」 

            Tertullian connects the origin of this sect with a certain Praxeas of whom little is known, while Hippolytus claims that it originated in the teachings of Noetus of Smyrna.  However this may be, both were evidently instrumental in propagating it.  Praxeas was absolutely inimical to personal distinctions in God.  Tertullian says of him: “He drove out the Paraclete and crucified the Father.”  Praxeas, however, seems to have avoided the assertion that the Father suffered, but Noetus did not hesitate at this point.  To quote the words of Hippolytus: “He said that Christ is Himself the Father,and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died.”  According to the same Church Father he even made the bold assertion that the Father by changing the mode of his being literally became His own Son.  The statement of Noetus referred to runs as follows: “When the Father had not yet been born, He was rightly called the Father; but when it pleased Him to submit to birth, having been born, He became the Son, He of Himself and not of another.”

 

 

撒伯流

Sabellius

            「形态神格唯一说」最著名的代表是撒伯流。他的著作只有很少的片断存留至今,我们因此不能详细断定他的教导。然而我们清楚晓得他特别重视神的本质是合一的 (unity of the divine essence),祂的显示则有多种 (plurality of its manifestations)。神的显示如同戏剧中的各部份。撒伯流虽说到三个位格,但对于他,「位格」乃是指一个演员所装扮的角色,或显示的形态。按他的看法,父,子,灵这三个名称,只不过是指唯一的神显示自己的独一神圣本质 (one divine essence)的三个阶段而已。神在创造,赐律法时以父显示自己﹔在道成肉身中以子显示自己﹔在叫人重生与成圣时,以圣灵显示自己。

            The most important representative of this sect was Sabellius.  Since only a few fragments of his writings are extant, it is hard to determine in detail just what he taught.  It is perfectly clear, however, that he distinguished between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifestations, which are represented as following one another like the parts of a drama.  Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divine persons, but then used the word “person” in the original sense of the word, in which it signifies a role of acting or a mode of manifestation.  According to him the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence manifests itself.  God reveals Himself as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarnation, and as Holy Spirit n regeneration and sanctification. 


第五部份

关于三位一体的争论

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY

(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, 81-93﹔伯克富, 《基督教教义史》 ,页63-72。林慈信修。)

 

 

一.    争论的背景

The Background

 

三位一体争论的兴起

Rise of the Trinitarian Controversy

 

三位一体的争论,到了亚利乌与阿他拿修间之争达到了高潮。这是有它的根源的。上面说过,早期教父并没有清晰的三位一体观念,有的认为「道」是非位格的理性 (impersonal reason) ,在创造是才有位格。另一些教父们则认为「道」 是有位格的,与父神同永,享有神的本质,但却认为 「道」从属与父。在他们的讨论中,圣灵并不重要﹔他们提到圣灵,主要是关于在信徒的生命中运行救赎。有人认为圣灵不仅从属于圣父,也从属于圣子。特土良是首先清楚说神是三个位格的教父,并坚持三位格在本体上同一。但连他也不能将三位一体的教义说清楚。

            The Trinitarian controversy, which came to a head in the struggle between Arius and Athanasius, had its roots in the past.  The early Church Fathers, as we have seen, had

No clear conception of the Trinity.  Some of them conceived of the Logos as impersonal reason, become personal at the time of creation, while others regarded Him as personal and co-eternal with the Father, sharing the divine essence, and yet ascribed to Him a certain subordination to the Father.  The Holy Spirit occupied no important place in their discussion at all.  They spoke of Him primarily in connection with the work of redemption as applied to the hearts and lives of believers.  Some considered Him to be subordinate, not only to the Father, but also to the Son.  Tertullian was the first to assert clearly the tri-personality of God, and to maintain the substantial unity of the three Persons.  But even he did not reach a clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity.  

 

            神格唯一论(Monarchianism)此时兴起,强调神的合一性与基督真正的神性,实际上否认了真正的三位一体教义。西方教会里有特土良与希坡利达 (Hippolytus)驳斥神格唯一论﹔在东方,奥利金给予此异端致命的打击。他们都维护《使徒信经》所表达的三位一体教义。但奥利金对三位一体的解释并不妥当。他坚称圣父与圣子都是神圣的位格 (divine hypostases) ,都有位格的存在 (personal subsistences) 。但他未能合乎《圣经》地讲出神性中三位个与一本质之间的关系。奥氏虽然是第一位用 「永远生出」的观念 (eternal generation) 来解释父子关系,但是他的定义包含了第二位在本质上从属第一位的意思。而圣父传达给圣子(communicated) 的神性是次等的,可以称为神 (Theos), 但不能称为唯一的神  (Ho Theos) 。奥氏有时甚至称圣子为第二位神 (Theos Deuteros) 。这是奥利金三位一体教义中最基本的缺点,为后来的亚利乌铺路。另外比较次要的缺点,是他说子之生出宾公费父神的必要作为 (necessary act) ,而是出自父神主权的旨意 (sovereign will) 。不过他小心地避开了父子在时间上有先后 (temporal succession) 的观念。奥氏的圣灵论就离《圣经》的教训更远了。他不仅将圣灵从属于圣子,而且将圣灵当为子所创造的。在奥氏的言论中,似乎有一处说到圣灵只是受造之物。

            Meanwhile Monarchianism came along with its emphasis on the unity of God and on the true deity of Christ, involving a denial of the Trinity in the proper sense of the word.  Tertullian and Hippolytus combated their views in the West, while Origen struck them a decisive blow in the East.  They defended the Trinitarian position as it is expressed in the Apostles’ Creed.  But even Origen’s construction of the doctrine of the Trinity was not altogether satisfactory.  He firmly held the view that both the Father and the Son are divine hypostases or personal subsistences, but did not entirely succeed in giving a scriptural representation of the relation of the three Persons to the one essence in the Godhead.  While he was the first to explain the relation of the Father to the Son by employing the idea of eternal generation, he defined this so as to involve the subordination of the Second Person to the First in respect to essence The Father communicated to the Son only a secondary species of divinity, which may be called Theos, but not Ho Theos He sometimes even speaks of the Son as Theos Deuteros This was the most radical defect in Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity and afforded a stepping-stone for Arius.  Another, less fatal, defect is found in his contention that the generation of the Son is not a necessary act of the Father, but proceeds from His sovereign will He was carefully, however, not to bring in the idea of temporal succession.  In his doctrine of the Holy Spirit he departed still further from the representation of Scripture.  He not only made the holy Spirit subordinate even to the Son, but also numbered Him among the things created by the Son.  One of his statements even seems to imply that He was a mere creature. 

 

 

二.    争论的性质

The Nature of the Controversy

 

  1. 亚利乌与亚利乌派

Arius and Arianism

 

三位一体的大争论,通常被称为亚利乌派之争论 (the Arian controversy),因为是亚利乌反三位一体所引起的。亚氏为亚历山大里亚的长老 (即牧师),是辩论高手,但生命缺乏深度。他主要的思想观念是神格唯一派的一神论原则,即只有一位神,祂不是被生的,是没有源始的存有者,也没有存在之始。亚氏将临在神里面 (immanent in God),仅为神的一种力量 (a divine energy) 「道」,与最终成为肉身的子或 「道」 加以区分。后者是有起头的:祂是父神所生,用亚利乌的说法,就等于说基督是被造的。祂在创造世界以前从无被造出来,因此基督不是永远的,也没有神的本质。祂是一切受造物中最伟大,最初的﹔祂被造的目的,是藉者祂创造世界。因此祂是可变的,但因为祂预见的功德被神所拣选,也想到祂未来的荣耀,被称为神的儿子,也由于祂被神认为义子,所以祂能受人的崇敬。亚利乌从《圣经》中到似乎说圣子次于圣父的经节,来支持他的见解,即如箴八22 (在七十士译本中) 太二十八18,可十三32,路十八19,约五19,十四28,林前十五28

            [a] Arius and Arianism.  The great trinitarian strife is usually called the Arian controversy, because it was occasioned by the anti-trinitarian views of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, a rather skilful disputant, though not a profound spirit.  His dominant idea was the monotheistic principle of the Monarchians, that there is only one unbegotten God, one unoriginated Being, without any beginning of existence.  He distinguished between the Logos that is immanent in God, which is simply a divine energy, and the Son or Logos that finally became incarnate.  The latter had a beginning: He was generated by the Father, which is the parlance of Arius was simply equivalent to saying that He was created.  He was created out of nothing before the world was called into being, and for that very reason was not eternal nor of the divine essence.  The greatest and first of all created beings, He was brought into being that through Him the world might be created.  He is therefore also mutable, but is chosen of God on account of his foreseen merits, and is called the Son of God in view of His future glory.  And in virtues of His adoption as Son He is entitled to the veneration of men.  Arius sought Scripture support for his view in those passages which seem to represent the Son as inferior to the Father, such as, Prov. 8:22 (Sept.); Matt. 28:18; Mark 13:32; Luke 18:19; John 5:19; 14:28; I Cor. 15:28. 

 

 

  1. 对亚利乌派的反抗

[b] The opposition to Arianism.

 

(一)   阿他那修 (Athanasius) 的势力

Strength of Athanasius

 

亚利乌首先受到他自己的主教亚历山得 (Alexander) 的反对,亚历山得为圣子的真神性据理力争,同时主张由父生出永远之子的教义。然而亚利乌真正最大的敌对者,是他教区中的大主教阿他那修。历史证明阿氏是坚强不屈不挠的真理斗士。西波尔说,阿他那修的伟大能力,在于三方面:(a) 他伟大坚定不移的性格﹔ (b)他有稳固的根基,就是他坚持神合一的观念,保守他不至于与当日最流行的从属观念 (subordinationism) 同流合污﹔与 (c) 他用正确的方法教导人承认基督位格的性质与意义; 他觉得若以基督为受造者,就是否认相信祂而得救和与神联合。

            Arius was opposed first of all by his own bishop Alexander who contended for the true and proper deity of the Son and at the same time maintained the doctrine of an eternal sonship by generation.  In course of time, however, his real opponent proved to be the archdeacon of Alexandria, the great Athanasius, who stands out on the pages of history as a strong, inflexible, and unwavering champion of the truth.  Seeberg ascribes his great strength to three things, namely, (1) the great stability and genuineness of his character; (2) the sure foundation on which he stood in his firm grasp on the conception of the unity of God, which preserved him from the subordinationism that was so common in his day; and (3) the unerring tact with which he taught men to recognize the nature and significance of the Person of Christ.  He felt that to regard Christ as a creature was to deny that faith in Him brings man into saving union with God.  

 

 

 

(二)   阿他那修论圣父与圣子之关系

Athanasius on the Relation of the Son and the Father

 

阿氏特别强调神的合一性,并坚持在三位一体教义的解说上,不得影响此合一性。虽然圣父与圣子是属于同一的,是神的本质,但在基本的神性上是没有区分的﹔若说有次等的神是非常严重的错误。虽然阿氏非常着重神的合一性,但他也承认在神性中有三个不同的位格。他拒绝相信亚利乌派所说,圣子是在创立世界以前造的,并且主张圣子独立,永远位格上的存在。同时,他牢记神性中的三位格并非是分立的﹔若是分立则导致多神主义。根据阿氏,神的合一性以及在在祂本性中的区分,最好是用 「本质上的一体」 一词来表明,这就清楚说明圣父与圣子是同质的,但也暗示二者也许在其他方面不同,例如在圣父与圣子的生存方面。阿氏如奥利金一样,教导圣子是由父所生的,但与奥利金有别﹔阿氏描述此生出乃如神的内在行为,因此是必要的,永远的,并非要依赖圣父主权旨意的作为。

            He strongly emphasized the unity of God, and insisted on a construction of the doctrine of the Trinity that would not endanger this unity.  While the Father and the Son are of the same divine essence, there is no division or separation in the essential Being of God, and it is wrong to speak of a Theos Deuteros But while stressing the unity of God, he also recognized three distinct hypostases in God.  He refused to believe in the pre-temporarily created Son of the Arians, and maintained the independent and eternally personal existence of the Son.  At the same time he bore in mind that the three hypostases in God were not to be regarded as separated in any way, since this would lead to polytheism.  According to him the unity of God as well as the distinctions in His Being are best expressed in the term “oneness of essence.”  This clearly and unequivocally expresses the idea that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, but also implies that the two may differ in other respects, as, for instance, in personal subsistence.  Like Origen he taught that the Son is begotten by generation, but in distinction from the former he described this generation as an internal and therefore necessary and eternal act of God, and not as an act that was simply dependent on His sovereign will. 

 

            影响阿他那修,并决定他神学见解的,非仅逻辑一致性的要求﹔他对真理解说的主要因素,乃在于宗教的主要信念。他的神学教义是自然而然地从他的拯救论信仰上产生的,他的根本立场是主张,要与神联合就必须得救,除了祂本身是神的那一位之外,没有一个受造之物能叫我们与神联合。因此西波尔说:「如果基督是神,祂来到人间,就是神来到人间。那么借着祂我们才能与神有交通,罪得赦免。祂把真理以及永生,确定地带给世人。」 (《教义史》,卷一,211

            It was not merely the demand of logical consistency that inspired Athanasius and determined his theological views.  The controlling factor in his construction of the truth was of a religious nature.  His soteriological convictions naturally gave birth to his theological tenets. His fundamental position was that union with God is necessary unto salvation, and that no creature, but only one who is Himself God can unite us with God.  Hence, as Seeberg says, “Only if Christ is God, in the full sense of the word and without qualification, has God entered humanity, and only then have fellowship with God, the foregiveness of sins, the truth of God, and immortality been certainly brought to man.”  Hist. of Doct. I, p. 211.

 

三.    尼西亚会议  (Council of Nicea)

 

为了解决此争端,尼西亚会议在主后325年召开。会议中讨论的问题非常清楚明了,可用一句话表明,即亚利乌派拒绝永远生出的概念,而阿他那修却坚称此点。亚利乌派说,圣子是从无中被创造出来的,而阿他那修主张,祂是从圣父的本质中而生出的。亚利乌派主张,圣子与圣父并非同质,而阿他那修坚称,祂是与父同质 (homo-ousios)

            The Council of Nicaea was convened in AD 325 to settle the dispute.  The issue was clear-cut, as a brief statement will show.  The Arians rejected the idea of a timeless or eternal generation, while Athanasius reasserted this.  The Arians said that the Son was created from the non-existent, while Athanasius maintained that He was generated from the essence of the Father.  The Arians held that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father, while Athanasius affirmed that he was homoousios with the Father. 

            在争论的双方之外,还有一个较大的中间派,即优西比乌 (Eusebius) 所领导的,构成了中间派中的较大多数。优西比乌是教会中最有名的历史家,此派又称为奥利金派,因为他的思想是来自奥利金的原理。

            Besides the contending parties there was a great middle party, which really constituted the majority, under the leadership of the Chuch historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, and which is also known as the Origenistic party, since it found its impetus in the principles of Origen. 

 

 

尼西亚会议及其决定

 

            奥利金倾向于亚利乌派,反对圣子与圣父同质的教义。该派事先由优西比乌起草了一项声明,在此声明中除了上述之外,一切都与亚历山得与阿他那修相同,并建议用 「似质」 (homoi-ousios) 一词代替 「同质」 (homo-ousios) 以此教导说,圣子与圣父有相似的本质。经过相当的辩论之后,皇帝最终运用他的权威, 倾向阿他那修派,因而获胜。会议就所争论之点,采纳了下列的声明: 「我们相信一位神,就是全能的父,有形与无形之物的创造者。又信一位主,就是耶稣基督,是生出而非被造 (begotten, not created),与圣父同质 (homoousios) 等。这是非常清晰的声明。「同质」 一词,除了圣子的本质与圣父相同以外,不能谬解作其他的意义,这样就把圣子放在与圣父同等的地位,并非被造者,乃承认祂本身就是神。

This party had Arian leanings and was opposed to the doctrine that the Son is of the same substance with the Father (homoousios).  It proposed a statement, previously drawn up by Eusebius, which conceded everything to the party of Alexander and Athanasius, with the single exception of the above-named doctrine; and suggested that the word homoiousios be substituted for homoousios, so as to teach that the Son is of similar substance with the Father.  After considerable debate the emperor finally threw the weight of his authority into the balance and thus secured the victory for the party of Athanasius.  The Council adopted the following statement on the point in question: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of things visible and invisible.  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father,” et cetera This was an unequivocal statement.  The term homoousios could not be twisted to mean anything else than that the essence of the Son is identical with that of the Father.  It placed Him on a level with the Father as an uncreated Being and recognized Him as autotheos

 

 

四.    尼西亚会议争论的后果

The Aftermath

 

1.      不圆满的会议决定

[a] Unsatisfactory nature of the decision. 

 

会议的决定并没有止息争端,只是成为争端的开始。会议的决定是由于皇帝高压手段的结果,未能达成圆满,而且平息的期间也不太确定,使得基督教信仰的决定,似乎在于皇帝的善变与宫廷中的谋算。阿他那修本人虽然得胜,但对于此种解决教会争论的方法,也深表不满,他宁可借着辩论的威力来说服对方。结果清楚证明,皇帝态度的改变,影响着结论的改变,占优势的一派可能立刻受到挫败,这在以后的历史中是屡次发生的事。

            The decision of the Council did not terminate the controversy, but was rather only the beginning of it.  A settlement forced upon the Church by the strong hand of the emperor could not satisfy and was also of uncertain duration.  It made the determination of the Christian faith dependent on imperial caprice and even on court intrigues.  Athanasius himself, though victorious, was dissatisfied with such a method of settling ecclesiastical disputes.  He would rather have convinced the opposing party by the strength of his arguments.  The sequel clearly proved that, as it was, a change in emperor, an altered mood, or even a bribe, might alter the whole aspect of the controversy.  The party in the ascendancy might all at once suffer eclipse.  This is exactly what happened repeatedly in subsequent history.   

 

 

2.      半亚利乌派在东方教会中暂时的兴盛

Temporary Ascendancy of Semi-Arianism in the Eastern Church

 

尼西亚会议后期的三位一体争论中的伟大人物,就是阿他那修,他是当代位伟人,杰出的学者,拥有坚强性格的一位,也是一位为他的信念有勇敢抱负的人,随时准备为真理受难。此时的教会,逐渐归属于亚利乌派,皇帝也随风倾倒过去,所以当时有一句通俗流行的话:「一个阿他那修抵抗全世界。」 这位神的忠实仆人,五次被放逐,其职位由一些不配的阿謏者所取代,他们为教会带来奇耻大辱。

 

            The great central figure in the Post-Nicene Trinitarian controversy was Athanasius.  He was by far the greatest man of the age, an acute scholar, a strong character, and a man who had the courage of his convictions and was ready to suffer for the truth.  The Church gradually became partly Arian, but predominantly semi-Arian, and the emperors usually sided with the majority, so that it was said: “Unus Athansius contra orbem” (one Athanasius against the world).  Five times this worthy servant of God was driven into exile and succeeded in office by unworthy sycophants, who were a disgrace to the Church. 

 

(一)   对尼西亚会议决定的反抗

Opposition to the decision of Nicaea

 

对于《尼西亚信经》的反抗,分为不同的几方面。甘宁汉说:「比较更凶悍,更诚实的亚利物派说,圣子是非本质的 (heteroousios) ,是属于与神完全不同的本质﹔又有的人说,祂不像父神﹔又有些人说 (一般认为是半亚利乌派者) ,祂是有与父相似的本质 (homoiousios) ﹔但是他们却都异口同声的拒绝《尼西亚信经》中所说的,因为他们反对《尼西亚信经》中圣子真正神性的教义。」 (《历史神学》,卷一,290) 半亚利乌主义在东方教会非常盛行,然而西方教会在此问题上才不同的见解,并且忠于尼西亚会议的决定。这在以下的事实上得到了说明,那就是东方教会受到奥利金从属主义 (subordinationism)的影响,意即圣子是在圣父之下的主义﹔而西方教会多受特土良的影响,并发展出一种神学,与阿他那修的主张趋于一致。然而除此之外,西方教会与东方教会之间的抗衡,也需予以检讨。当阿他那修从东方教会被放逐的时候,他受到西方教会的欢迎,其中罗马会议 (主后341) 与撒底迦 (Sardica) 会议 (主后343) ,都无条件地赞助他的见解。

            The opposition to the Nicene Creed was divided into three different parties.  Says Cunningham: “The more bold and honest Arians said that the Son was heteroousios, of a different substance from the Father; others said that He was anomoios, unlike the Father; and some, who were usually reckoned semi-Arians, admitted that He was homoiousios, of a like substance with the Father; but they all unanimously refused to admit the Nicene phraseology, because they were opposed to the Nicene doctrine of the true and proper divinity of the Son and saw and felt that that phraseology accurately and unequivocally expressed it, though they sometimes professed to adduce other objections against the use of it.”  Historical Theology I, p. 290.  Semi-Arianism prevailed in the eastern section of the Church.  The West, however, took a different view of the matter, and was loyal to the Council of Nicaea.  This finds it explanation primarily in the fact that, while the East was dominated by the subordinationism of Origen, the West was largely influenced by Tertullian and developed a type of theology that was more in harmony with the views of Athanasius.  In addition to that, however, the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople must also be taken into account.  When Athanasius was banished from the East, he was received with open arms in the West; and the Councils of Rome (341) and Sardica (343) unconditionally endorsed his doctrine. 

 

(二)   安吉拉之马赛路(Marcellus of Ancyra)

 

由于马赛路在西方教会晋升为尼西亚神学的健将,因而导致阿他那修思想活动的逐渐没落。马氏又重回到神性中永远的与非位格的道之间的古老区分上,次非位格的道,意即在创造之工上显明为神的能力,而此道在道成肉身时成为位格。马氏否认 「生出」 (generation) 一词可以用在先存的道上,因此把「神的儿子」 这名词,仅限于成肉身的道上﹔并且主张在祂道成肉身生活的末了,这个道 (Logos) 要回到祂在创造世界以前与父的关系。马氏的学说,明显是属于奥利金派或优西比乌派的见解,如此成为加深东西教会分裂的工具。

His cause in the West was weakened, however, by the accession of Arcellus of Ancyra to the ranks of the champions of the Nicene theology.  He fell back on the old distinction between the eternal and impersonal Logos immanent in God, which revealed itself as divine energy in the work of creation, and the Logos become personal at the incarnation; denied that the term “generation” could be applied to the pre-existent Logos, and therefore restricted the name “Son of God” to the incarnate Logos; and held that, at the end of his incarnate life, the Logos returned to his premundane relation to the Father.  His theory apparently justified the Origenists or Eusebians in bringing to charge of Sebellianism against their opponents, and was thus instrumental in widening the breach between the East and the West. 

 

(三)   协调的努力

Reconciling Efforts

 

为了挽救分裂,曾有多方面的努力。在安提阿所召开的会议中,接纳了尼西亚的定义,虽然有两项重要的例外。他们坚称,「似质」 并子之生出,是由于父之旨意的作为。当然这不能满足西方的教会。以后,又有其他的总会及会议,在这些会议中,优西比乌派要求西方教会不承认阿他那修的见解,并另起草一折衷的信经,均遭失败。后来,康士坦丢斯登基,用一种狡猾的手段及势力,强迫西方教会主教在亚勒尔与米兰的会议上,与优西比乌派站同一阵线。

            Various efforts were made to heal the breach.  Councils were convened at Antioch which accepted the Nicene definitions, though with two important exceptions.  They asserted the homoiousios, and the generation of the Son by an act of the Father’s will.  This, of course, could not satisfy the West.  Other Synods and Councils followed, in which the Eusebians vainly sought a western recognition of the deposition of Athanasius, and drew up other Creeds of a mediating type.  But it was all in vain until Constantius became sole emperor, and by cunning management and force succeeded in bringing the western bishops into line with the Eusebians at the Synods of Arles and Milan (355).

 

 

3.       潮流的转变

The Turning of the Tide. 

 

反抗的受阻

Disruption of the Opposition

 

            不正当运动的得胜,再次证明此为一件危险的事,这事实上市反尼西亚派的疾候。这一派的中间分子,就是主张三位一体中之第二位不是生出来的,他们一旦杰出了外部的压力,就显露出内部的不合,这时非常明显的事。亚利乌派与半亚利乌派并不相投合,后者并没有组织上的合一,在357年底舍米安会议 (Council of Sirmium)上,他们就想将各派联合起来,将本质,同质与似质等名词一边不加理会,认为这三名词并非是人的知识所能及。为求解决这件事,深感棘手,至此亚利乌派原形毕露,就逼迫保守的半亚利乌派进入尼西亚阵营。

           

Victory again proved a dangerous thing for a bad cause.  It was, in fact, the signal for the disruption of the anti-Nicene party.  The heterogenous elements of which it was composed were united in their opposition to the Nicene party.  But as soon as it was relieved of external pressure, its lack of internal unity became ever increasingly evident.  The Arians and the semi-Arians did not agree, and the latter themselves did not form a unity.  At the Council of Sirmium (357) an attempt was made to unite all parties by setting aside the use of such terms as ousia, homoousios, and homoiousios, as pertaining to maters far beyond human knowledge.  But things had gone too far for any such settlement.  The real Arians now showed their true colours, and thus drove the most conservative semi-Arians into the Nicene camp. 

 

 

加帕多加三教父

The Cappadocian Fathers

 

            此时新兴的尼西亚派,为奥利金学派的弟子所组成,但对真理更完全的解释,则有负于阿他那修与《尼西亚信经》。其中主要的人物就是加帕多加的三位教父,巴西流,尼撒贵格利,以及拿先斯贵格利。他们看出,使用本质 (ousia) 与位格 (prosopon) 等名词,是导致误解的根源,因此禁止用它们来指明圣父与圣子位格上的本质 (personal subsistence) 。他们又想出一个方法不走阿他那修的路线,即不走在神里面有一个本质 (本体) 的路线,这三位教父思想的出发点则集中在神性中的三个位格上,并企图将此三位格置于神本质的观念中。二贵格利将神性中的三位格与神性的关系比作三个人与一般人类间之关系。正因为他们强调神性中的三位格,所以他们才使尼西亚有关三位一体的教义,脱离了在优西比乌派眼中所看见的撒伯流主义的色彩,这样一来,道 (Logos) 的位格就得到了充份的保障。同时,他们三人极力主张三位格在神性中的合一性,并多方予以说明。

 

            Meanwhile a younger Nicene party arose, composed of men who were disciples of the Origenist School, but were indebted to Athanasius and the Nicene Creed for a more perfect interpretation of the truth.  Chief among them were the three Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.  They saw a source of misunderstanding in the use of the term hypostasis as synonymous with both ousia (essence) and prosopon (person), and therefore restricted its use to the designation of the personal subsistence of the Father and the Son.  Instead of taking their starting-point in the one divine ousia of God, as Athanasius had done, they took their point of departure in the three hypostases (persons) in the divine Being, and attempted to bring these under the conception of the divine ousia The Gregories compared the relation of the Persons in the Godhead to the divine Being with the relation of three men to their common humanity.  And it was exactly by their emphasis on the three hypostases in the divine Being that they freed the Nicene doctrine from the taints of Sabellianism in the eyes of the Eusebians, and that the personality of the Logos appeared to be sufficiently safeguarded.  At the same time they strenuously maintained the unity of the three Persons in the Godhead and illustrated this in various ways. 

 

 

4.      关于圣灵的争辩

[d] The Dispute about the Holy Spirit.

 

关于圣灵的早期见解

Early Opinions about the Holy Spirit

 

            虽然关于这题目有许多不同的意见表露出来,但到目前为止,圣灵还没有受到广泛的注视。亚利乌主张,圣灵是由圣子所产生的头一个受造者,此观点与奥利金的非常符合,而阿他那修则坚称,圣灵与圣父是同质的,但是《尼西亚信经》则仅包括一不确定的说明:「我信圣灵。」至于加帕多加教父则跟随阿他那修,强烈主张圣灵与圣父的同质。在西方教会有圣希拉流 (Hilary of Poitiers) 主张圣灵是为帮助人寻求神深奥之事,所以不可能没有属神的本质。康士坦丁堡的主教马西顿纽斯 (Macedonius) 则发表了一完全不同的见解,他声明圣灵是被造的,从属于圣子﹔但他的见解被认为是异端,而其从者被人称作 「反圣灵派」(Pneumatomachians) 。主后381年,在康世坦丁堡大会席上,宣布承认尼西亚信经》,并在拿先斯贵格利指导下,接受有关圣灵的下列信条:「我们信主圣灵,是生命的赐予者,是从父而出,与圣父,圣子同得荣耀,并藉先知发言。」 

 

            Up to this time the Holy Spirit had not come in for a great deal of consideration, though discordant opinions had been expressed on the subject.  Arius held that the Holy Spirit was the first created being produced by the Son, an opinion very much in harmony with that of Origen.  Athanasius asserted that the Holy Spirit was of the same essence with the Father, but the Nicene Creed contains only the indefinite statement, “And (I believe) in the Holy Spirit.”  The Cappadocians followed in the footsteps of Athanasius and vigorously maintained the homoousis of the Holy Spirit.  Hilary of Poitiers in the West held that the Holy Spirit, as searching the deep things of God, could not be foreign to the divine essence.  An entirely different opinion was voiced by Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who declared that the Holy Spirit was a creature subordinate to the Son; but his opinion was generally considered as heretical, and his followers were nicknamed Pneumatomachians (from pneuma, spirit, and machomai, to speak evil against).  When in AD 381 the general Council of Constantinople met, it declared its approval of the Nicene Creed and under the guidance of Gregory of Nazianzus accepted the following formula respecting the Holy Spirit: “And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be glorified with the Father and the Son, and who speaks through the prophets.” 


 

 

5.      圣三位一体教义的完成

[3] Completion of the Doctrine of the Trinity

 

圣灵由圣子而出

Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son

 

            康世坦丁堡会议的声明中,有两点并不完善,令人不满意: (1) 「同质」 一词未能使用,所以圣灵与圣父是属于同一本质的关系没有说出﹔与 (2) 圣灵与其他二位格之关系未能确定。声明中写着说,圣灵由圣父而出,但这里没有确定也没有否认圣灵也是由圣子而出,在这一点上没有完全的一致性﹔若说圣灵之从圣父而出,这似乎是否认圣子与圣父在本质上帝相同 (Essential Oneness)﹔若说圣灵也是从圣子而出,那么似乎又将圣灵置于依存圣子的地位上,并对圣灵的神性加以侵犯。阿他那修,巴西流与尼撒贵格利坚称,圣灵由圣父而出,但并不反圣灵也由圣子而出的教义﹔而伊比法纽与马赛拉斯也赞同此教义。

            The statement of the Council of Constantinople proved unsatisfactory in two points: (1) the word homoousios was not used, so that the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father was not directly asserted; and (2) the relation of the Holy Spirit to the other two Persons was not defined.  The statement is made that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, while it is neither denied nor affirmed that He also proceeds from the Son.  There was no entire unanimity on this point.  To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, looked like a denial of the essential oneness of the Son with the Father; and to say that He also proceeds from the Son, seemed to place the Holy Spirit in a more dependent position than the Son and to be an infringement on His deity.  Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa, asserted the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, without opposing in any way the doctrine that He also proceeds form the Son.  But Epiphanius and Marcellus of Ancyra positively asserted this doctrine. 

 

            一般西方教会都主张圣灵是由圣父与圣子而出﹔在主后589年的托理多会议 (Synod of Toledo) 上,又加上了 「和子」 (fileoque) 这个字。东方教会则有大马色约翰提出圣灵教义最终的信条,根据他所说,只有一个属神的本质与三位格,而这三位格被认为是神性中的实体,并不像三个人彼此间的关系。除了他们存在的方式外,神一体中的三位,不论从那方面说都是合一的,而圣父的特性是 「非生的」 (non-generation) ,圣子是 「生出的」 (generation) ,圣灵则是 「发出的」 (procession)。三位格彼此间的关系,被描述为一互通的关系,并没有混杂不清。大马色约翰虽然极其反对从属主义,但他仍然说到圣父为神性之源,并说圣灵是借着道由父而出,这依旧是希腊从属主义的遗物。东方教会从未采取托理多会议所附加的 「和子」 一字,这也是东西教会分离的主因。

 

            Western theologians generally held to the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son; and at the Synod of Toledo in AD 589 the famous “filioque” was added to the Constantinopolitan Symbol.  In the East the final formulation of the doctrine was given by John of Damascus.  According to him there is but one divine essence, but three persons or hypostases.  These are to be regarded as realities in the divine Being, but not related to one another as three men are.  They are one in every respect, except in their mode of existence.  The Father is characterized by “non-generation,” the Son by “generation,” and the Holy Spirit by “procession.”  The relation of the Persons to one another is described as one of “mutual interpenetration” (circumincession), without commingling.  Notwithstanding his absolute rejection of subordinationism, John of Damascus still spoke of the Father as the source of the Godhead, and represents the Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Logos.  This is still a relic of Greek subordinationism.  The East never adopted the “filioque” of the Synod of Toledo.  It was the rock on which the East and the West split.

 

 

奥古斯丁论三位一体

Augustine on the Trinity

 

            西方教会有关三位一体的观念,在奥古斯丁的巨著 《论三位一体》 (De Trinitate) 中,达于最终的阶段。奥氏也强调本质上的合一与位格上的三分,说三位中的每一位都拥有全本质,并与本质是同一的,且与位格中的其他二位也是同一的。 圣父、圣子、圣灵并不像我们世间的三个人,只拥有出生人性的一部份;此外,三者不能缺一而独立,即父不能没有子,子不能没有父,圣灵不能没有子和父,祂们中间有相依存的关系。每一位都有属神的本质,但具有不同的观点,如使之出生、出生的,或者说由感化而存有的,这三位格之间,有一种互通、互住的关系。以「位格」一词来指明三位之间彼此的关系,不能令奥氏满意,但他仍然继续使用,正如他所说:「我用这词句,并不是为了表明三者之间之关系,乃是为了不甘寂寞。」论到三位一体这一方面的观念,圣灵自然是由圣父而出,但也是由圣子而出。

           The western conception of the Trinity reached its final statement in the great work of Augustine, De Trinitate He too stresses the unity of essence and the Trinity of Persons.  Each one of the three Persons possesses the entire essence, and is in so far identical with the essence and with each one of the other Persons.  They are not like three human persons, each one of which possesses only a part of generic human nature.  Moreover, the one is never and can never be without the other; the relations of dependence between them is a mutual one.  The divine essence belongs to each of them under a different point of view, as generating, generated, or existing through inspiration.  Between the three hypostases there is a relation of mutual interpenetration and interdwelling.  The word “person” does not satisfy Augustine as a designation of the relationship in which the three stand to one another; still he continues to use it, as he says, “not in order to express it (the relationship), but in order not to be silent.”  In this conception of the Trinity the Holy Spirit is naturally regarded as proceeding, not only from the Father, but also from the Son. 


 

 

拉丁神学中的三位一体教义

The Doctrine of the Trinity in Latin Theology

 

罗瑟林论三位一体
Roscellinus on the Trinity

 

            后期神学对三位一体的教义,并未作具体资料上的加入,只不过在形式上有所分歧,并在真理上予以重述而已。罗瑟林引用唯名派 (nominalism) 的理论,说普遍的概念仅仅是从属于三位一体的观念,如此而想要避免将数目的合一于一位神里位格的区分的困难。他认为神性中的三位格好像本质上不同的个人,也可以说在属性上是一个,而且只是在名义上;祂们的合一仅仅是意志与能力的合一。安瑟伦正确地指出,此立场不可避免的导致了三神论,并强调普遍的观念可以提供真理与现实的事实。

            Later theology did not add materially to the doctrine of the Trinity.  There were deviations from, and consequent restatements of, the truth.  Roscellinus applied the Nominalist theory that universals are merely subjective conceptions to the Trinity, and thus sought to avoid the difficulty of combining the numerical unity with the distinction of persons in God.  He regarded the three Persons in the Godhead as three essentially different individuals, which could be said to be one generically and in name only.  Their unity is merely a unity of will and power.  Anselm correctly pointed out that this position logically leads to Tritheism, and stressed the fact that universal conceptions present truth and reality. 

 

 

吉尔伯特论三位一体

Gilbert of Poitiers on the Trinity

 

            假如罗瑟林是以唯名论来解说三位一体的教义,那么吉尔伯特 (Gilbert of Poitiers) 就是以亚理斯多德式的温和现实主义来解说三位一体的教义,而此温和性的现实主义主张,普遍的观念是存在于特殊观念之中。吉氏在属神的本质与神之间加以区分,而且又将此种关系与人和具体的人类之关系作一对比。属神的本质并非是神,只不过是神的形式,或者说是使祂成为神。这个本质或形式,一般就是指着三位格,在哪方面说祂们是一个。这种区分的结果,是他被攻击位四神主义者 (Tetratheism 此说教导神性中有三位格,另外又有一属神的本质,而此属神的本质,是神性中三位格的来源,这样这教义就被解说为相信四个神)

            If Roscellinus gave a Nominalisitc interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Gilbert of Poitiers interpreted it from the point of view of a moderate Realism of the Aristotelian type, which holds that universals have their existence in the particulars.  He distinguished between the divine essence of God and compared their relation to that between humanity and concrete men.  The divine essence is not God, but the form of God, or that which makes Him to be God.  This essence or form (Latin forma, i.e., that which makes a thing what it is) is common to the three Persons and in that respect they are one.  As a result of this distinction he was charged with teaching Tetratheism. 

 

亚比拉论三位一体

Abelard on the Trinity

 

            亚比拉论三位一体教义的方法,被人攻击为撒伯流派。他似乎是把神性中的三个位格当作神的三个属性,那就是能力、智慧与善良,其中以能力代表圣父的名字,以智慧代表圣子的名字,以善良代表圣灵的名字。虽然他也用暗示神性中真正位格上的区分的表词,但是他也用一比方,使人明显察觉他是走向形态主义。

            Abelard spoke of the Trinity in a way that caused him to be charged with Sabellianism.  He seemingly identifies the three Persons in the divine Being with the attributes of power, wisdom, and goodness.  The name of Father stands for power, that of Son for wisdom, and that of Holy Spirit for goodness.  While he also uses expressions which seem to imply that the distinctions in the Godhead are real personal distinctions, he employs illustrations that clearly point in the direction of Modalism. 

 

            在阿奎那的思想中,我们发现有关三位一体教义的代表说法,并且是当时教会界最盛行的观点。

            In Thomas Aquinas we find the usual representation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and this was the prevailing view of the Church at the time. 



百度搜索“就爱阅读”,专业资料,生活学习,尽在就爱阅读网92to.com,您的在线图书馆!
标签:
分享此文
猜你喜欢