G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 1 很多时候我们不接受三位一体，还是受到我们自己理智理性的限制
我们认可只有一位神，所以只能圣父是神，基督就不能再是神了，基督既然不是神，三
位一体自然就没有意义了。
当然这个问题解决了，我们就理三位一体更近了一步，而接受圣灵是神也很容易了。
正如我在另一个帖子里说的，我们因为自己理性的限制和魔鬼撒旦借着假先知和异端的
搅扰，例如耶证异端等，我们不愿意相信基督的神性。所以需要从圣经认真阅读。
但是这又需要一个前提，即我们要相信圣经是无误的，如果把圣经中自己不喜欢或者不
符合自己理性的经文排除在外，还是不以圣经为权威，实际上是自己的理性挂帅，也就
是所谓的现代主义怀疑一切。所以必须要以圣经为权威，并且唯独圣经，以此为前提来
讨论。
下面就要看看圣经中神的启示，关于耶稣基督的属性。包括人性和神性。
历史上对于这个有不同的观点，一个异端借着一个异端出现被被否定，再出来在被否定
最后才出了几大信经。其实在圣经中异端就已经出现了。
轻看约翰书信和犹大书 | q********g
发帖数: 10694 | | G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 3 首先给大家看个故事，然后再探讨经文：
林慈信牧师的《基督教教义发展史》中提到这个：
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_622134fd01013i7l.html
基督论的发展史(1)：基督论的争辩
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST (1):
The Christological Controversies
(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, pp. 101ff.)
基督论与三位一体之问题的关联
Connection of Christological and Trinitarian Problems
基督论的难题可以从一般神学（译注：神论）方面，与拯救论方面来加以
研究。早期教父对基督论拯救方面的关系，虽未曾加以轻忽，但他们在重要的讨论上却
没有重视。在三位一体争论的气氛中，他们从一般神学（译注：神论）方面来研究基督
，乃天经地义的事，而三位一体争论所导致的决定则是，基督为神的儿子，事与父同质
的，因此祂是神。从此而发生的问题，就是基督神性与人性间之关系。
The Christological problem can be approached from the side of th
eology proper and from the side of soteriology. Though the early Church fat
hers did not lose sight of the soteriological bearings of the doctrine of Ch
rist, they did not make these prominent in their main discussions. Breathin
g the air of the Trinitarian controversies, it was but natural that they sho
uld approach the study of Christ from the side of theology proper. The deci
sion to which the Trinitarian controversy led, namely, that Christ as the So
n of God is consubstantial with the Father and therefore very God, immediate
ly gave birth to the question of the relation between the divine and the hum
an nature in Christ.
早期基督论的争辩，并未带给人多大的造就，其中情感上的激动过于表面
化，不正当的阴谋往往扮演着重要的角色，有时甚至出现暴 的场面。从外表上看来，
在这种气氛之下只会产生错误，没想到这些争辩却导致基督位格教义的信条，就是到今
天也还被认为是教会教义的标准。圣灵往往借着羞耻与混乱引导教会进入更清楚真理的
环境（译注：境界）中。有些人声称，教会在定义根本难以解说的奥秘上实在是大费周
章，可是我们应当注意，早期教会并没有声称将这些伟大的真理予以全然了解，也并没
有在迦克敦会议上冒然的解说道成肉身的问题；该次会议仅希求保卫真理，抵抗各项异
端，并提出了信仰上的条文，企图避免各种显然不合圣经对真理的解释。
The early Christological controversies do not present a very edi
fying spectacle. The passions were too much in evidence, unworthy intrigues
often played an important part, and even violence occasionally made its app
earance. It might seem that such an atmosphere could only be productive of
error, and yet these controversies led to a formulation of the doctrine of t
he Person of Christ that is still regarded as standard in the present day.
The Holy Spirit was guiding the Church, often through shame and confusion, i
nto the clear atmosphere of the truth. Some claim that the Church attempted
too much when it tried to define a mystery which from the nature of the cas
e transcends all definition. It should be borne in mind, however, that the
early Church did not claim to be able to penetrate to the depths of this gre
at doctrine, and did not pretend to give a solution of the problem of the in
carnation in the formula of Chalcedon. It merely sought to guard the truth
against the errors of theorizers, and to give a formulation of it which woul
d ward off various, palpably unscriptural, constructions of the truth.
教会所希求的是有关基督的见解，以致不损及以下的各点：（一）祂的真
实与本有的神性；（二）祂的真实与妥切、适当的人性；（三）神人二性联合于一位格
；与（四）神人二性在一位格内适当的区分。若是以上所提的要求未能达成，或仅仅达
到一部份，那么有关督的见解就是不完全的。早期教会中所兴起的基督论的一切异端，
都起因于未能将所有这些真理，在教义方面的声明予以联合。有些人完全或部份否认基
督的神性，又有些人则完全或一部份的驳斥祂的真人性；有些人着重基督位格上的合一
，但却忽视神人二性上的区分，有些人则将二性分清，却忽视了基督位格上的合一性。
The Church was in quest of a conception of Christ that would do
justice to the following points: (a) His true and proper deity; (b) His true
and proper humanity; (c) the union of deity and humanity in one person; and
(d) the proper distinction of deity from humanity in the one person. It fe
lt that as long as these requirements were not met, or only partly met, its
conception of Christ would be defective. All the Christological heresies th
at arose in the early Church originated in the failure to combine all these
elements in the doctrinal statement of the truth. Some denied wholly or in
part the true and proper deity of Christ, and others disputed wholly or in p
art His true and proper humanity. Some stressed the unity of the person at
the expense of the two distinct natures, and others emphasized the distinct
character of the two natures in Christ at the expense of the unity of the Pe
rson.
I. 争辩的第一阶段
First Stage of the Controversy
[a] 背景The Background.
基督论难题的兴起
此争辩是尤其根源的。爱宾派 (Ebionites)、非「道」派 (Alogi)、与动
力的神格唯一派别 (Monarchians) 否认基督的神性；幻影派 (Docetae)、神哲派 (Gno
stics)、与形态派别 (Modalists) 则拒绝基督的人性。他们只是把基督论难题重的名词
之一给取消了，而有些人则不那么极端地将基督的神性或人性给否定掉。亚利乌派反对
在基督里成为肉身的道 (the Son-Logos)，说祂没有绝对的神性。老底嘉主教阿波林(A
pollinaris)， 否认耶稣基督的真实人性，与亚利乌对照下，他是拥护基督的真神性，
企图以道来代替人里头的令，来确保祂的无罪，因阿氏认为，人的灵是罪的根据地，而
一个完全的人性，自然就包括罪性在内；此外他企图使着道成肉身容易为人的理性所接
受，他推测在道的里面又原初人的永远倾向。但是阿波林的解释不能令人满意，正如赛
德 (Shedd) 说：「如果从人减除理智的成份，那么那人不是变成白痴，就是变成禽兽。
」然而阿波林的目的是值得赞扬的，他是想确保基督位格合一与无罪。
This controversy also had its roots in the past. Ebionites, Alo
gi, and Dynamic Monarchians denied the deity of Christ, and Docetae, Gnostic
s, and Modalists rejected His humanity. They simply ruled out one of the te
rms of the problem. Others were less radical and denied either the full dei
ty or the perfect humanity of Christ. The Arians denied that the Son-Logos,
who became incarnate in Christ, was possessed of absolute Godhead. And on
the other hand Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea (d. c.390), denied the true a
nd proper humanity of Jesus Christ. He conceived of man as consisting of bo
dy, soul and spirit, and sought the solution of the problem of the two natur
es in Christ in the theory that the Logos took the place of the human pneuma
(spirit). In his opinion it would be easier to maintain the unity of the P
erson of Christ, if the Logos were simply regarded as taking the place of th
e higher rational principle in man. Over against Arius he defended the true
divinity of Christ, and sought to safeguard His sinlessness by substituting
the Logos for the human pneuma, which he regarded as the seat of sin. Acco
rding to him a complete human nature would naturally involve sinfulness. Mo
reover, he tried to make the incarnation intelligible by assuming an eternal
tendency to the human in the Logos Himself as the archetypal man. But the
solution of Apollinaris could not satisfy, because, as Shedd says, “if the
rational part be subtracted from man, he becomes ether an idiot or a brute.”
His purpose was praiseworthy, however, in that he sought to safeguard both
the unity of the Person and the sinlessness of Christ.
对阿波林的反抗
Opposition to Apollinaris
由于阿波林对问题提出了解决的论点，因而引起了相当的抗议。有加帕多
三教父于西拉流主张，如果道没有取得完整的人性，那么祂就不能作我们的救赎主，既
然全罪人需要重生，那么基督就须具备完整的人性，而非仅是（不）重要的一点点。他
们也在阿波林的教训中，指出其中有幻影说的成份在内。如果基督里没有真正属人的意
志，那么祂就不能够在祂为人的生活中有真实的试验与进步。然而，就是阿波林的论敌
，虽然着重基督的完全人性，但也认为基督受到祂神性的影响。尼撒的贵格利也说，基
督的肉体被改变了，借着与神性的联合，失去其一切功能。
There was considerable opposition to the solution of the problem offered by
Apollinaris. The three Cappadocians and Hilary of Poitiers maintained that,
if the Logos did not assume human nature in its integrity, He could not be
our perfect Redeemer. Since the whole sinner had to be renewed, Christ had
to assume human nature in its entirety, and not simply the least important p
arts of it. They also pointed to a docetic element in the teachings of Apol
linaris. If there was no real human will in Christ, there could be no real
probation and no real advance in His manhood. Even the opponents of Apollin
aris, however, while stressing the complete humanity of Christ, conceived of
this as overshadowed by His divinity. Gregory of Nyssa even says that the
flesh of Christ was transformed and lost all its original properties by unio
n with the divine.
在主后三六二年，亚历山大亚的会议中，所讨论的初步结果声称，在基督里有
属人的「灵魂」 (soul)。「灵魂」一词为会议所使用，认为包括有理性的范围在内，就
是阿波林所称的「灵」 (pneuma)。
One result of this preliminary skirmish was that the Synod of Al
exandria in 362 asserted the existence of a human soul in Christ. The word
“Soul” was used by the Synod as inclusive of the rational element, which A
pollinaris called pneuma or nous.
[b] 争辩的各党派
The Parties to the Controversy
（一）涅斯多留派。
有些早期教父所用的表词，似乎是否认在基督里有两性的存在，并且假定只有一个性，
就是「成肉身并可尊敬的道」。从此观点，马利亚往往被称为神之母。而亚历山大学派
特别表显出此派的倾向。另一方面，安提阿学派走相反的路线，着在摩普绥提亚之狄奥
多的教训中可看出。
[1] The Nestorian Party.
Some of the early Church Fathers used expressions which seemingly denied the
existence of two natures in Christ, and postulated a single nature, “the i
ncarnate and adorable Word.” From this point of view Mary was often called
theotokos, mother of God. It was particularly the School of Alexandria that
revealed this tendency. On the other hand the School of Antioch went to th
e other extreme. This appears especially in the teachings of Theodore of Mo
psuestia.
摩普绥提亚之狄奥多。
他的出发点乃在基督完全的人性，以及祂属人经验的完全现实性，他说基督的确与人的
情绪相搏斗，经历了试探而得胜；祂拥有胜过罪恶的能力：(a) 祂的生是无罪的； (b)
有属神的道 (Logos) 与祂的人性联合。狄奥多否认在基督里道有实质上的存在，道住
在里面仅仅是名义上道德性的方式存在，在他看来，神在基督里与在人里面没有什么基
要的区分，只是在基督里的成份比较多一些而已。此一观念实际上是以道德的成份住在
为人的耶稣里面，来取代道成肉身。
虽然如此，狄奥多仍企图避免由此见解所达到的必然结论，那就是在基督里有双重的位
格，他说在两位格间还有道德性的联合存在，且此联合是如此的密切，因此可以说成只
有一位，正如丈夫与妻子可以成为一体一样。
Theodore of Mopsuestia. He took his starting-point in the complete manhood
of Christ and the perfect reality of His human experiences. According to hi
m Christ actually struggled with human passions, passed through a veritable
conflict with temptation, and came out victoriously. He owed the power to k
eep himself free from sin (a) to His sinless birth, and (b) to the union of
His manhood with the divine Logos. Theodore denied the essential indwelling
of the Logos in Christ, and allowed only for a mere moral indwelling. He s
aw no essential difference, but only a difference of degree, between the ind
welling of God in Christ and that in believers. This view really substitute
s for the incarnation the moral indwelling of the Logo sin the man Jesus. N
evertheless, Theodore shrank from the conclusion to which his view would see
m to lead inevitably, that there is a dual personality in Christ, two person
s between whom a moral union exists. He said that the union was so close th
at the two might be spoken of as one person, just as husband and wife can be
called one flesh.
涅斯多留。
此安提阿学派见解的必然发展，可在涅斯多留派中发现。涅氏步狄奥多的后尘，否认「
神之母」一词能适当地应用在马利亚身上，只因马利亚不过是带来了一个有道同在的人
而已。涅氏虽然没有从此立场推出一必然的结论，但反对他的人区利罗 (Cyril)却一定
要他为此结论负责任，区利罗指出： (a) 假如马利亚不是神之母，那么她就是人之母亲
，而那个人也就是属神的人，且此被认为与道发生交通的人，取代了神的道成肉身； (
b) 如果马利亚不是神之母，那么基督与人的关系就要改变了，祂就不再是人类有效的救
赎主。涅氏的从者毫不迟延的下了这些结论，显得非常草率。
Nestorius and Nestorianism.
The logical development of this Antiochian view is seen in Nestorianism. Fo
llowing in the footsteps of Theodore, Nestorius denied that the term theotok
os could properly be applied to Mary for the simple reason that she only br
ought forth a man who was accoampnied by the Logos. Although Nestorius did
not draw the inevitable conclusion that followed from this position, his opp
onent, Cyril, held him responsible for that conclusion. He pointed out (a)
that, if Mary is not theotokos, that is, the mother of one person, and that
person divine, the assumption of a single human being into fellowship with t
he Logos is substituted for the incarnation of God; and (b) that, if Mary is
not theotokos, the relation of Christ to humanity is changed, and He is no
more the effectual Redeemer of mankind. The followers of Nestorius did not
hesitate to draw the conclusion.
对涅斯多留派的评估。
涅斯多留派在思想上是不健全的，并不是在基督两性的教义上，乃是`在一个位格的教义
上。真神性与真人性他都接受，但并没有把这两项认为是一真的合一，并且成为单一的
位格。此派认为，这两个性，也是两个位格，但却对共有的属性与各自独立生存的位格
之区分，完全予以忽视，且没有把神人二性混淆成为单一的自我意识，而使这两性并行
成为一道德上的合一。基督这人并不是神，乃是神性的持有者 (theophoros)， 而基督
被崇拜，不是因为祂是神，乃是因为神在祂里面。涅斯多留的重点，就是在于强调基督
的人性，并且认为是正当的，同时，他们这种作法完全与圣经的证据相违背。叫教会高
举也稣基督的人格、敬虔与道德，但却将祂位神又为人的救主，就是一切属灵能力、恩
典与救赎的根源，给抹杀了。
Evaluation of Nestorianism.
Nestorianism is defective, not in the doctrine of the two natures in Christ,
but in that of the one Person. Both the true and proper deity and the true
and proper humanity are conceded, but they are not conceived in such a way
as to form a real unity and to constitute a single person. The two natures
are also two persons. The important distinction between nature as substance
possessed in common, and person as a relatively independent subsistence of
that nature, is entirely disregarded. Instead of blending the two natures i
nto a single self-consciousness, Nestorianism places them alongside of each
other with nothing more than a moral and sympathetic union between them. Th
e man Christ was not God, but God-bearer, theophoros, a possessor of the God
head. Christ is worshipped, not because He is God, but because God is in Hi
m. The strong point in Nestorianism is that it seeks to do full justice to
all the scriptural proofs for the unity of the Person in the Mediator. It l
eaves the Church with an exalted example of true piety and morality in the h
uman person of Jesus, but robs it of its divine-human Redeemer, the source o
f all spiritual power, grace, and salvation.
（二）区利罗派。
涅斯多留最大的劲敌就是亚历山大的主教区利罗。据他来说，为了要救赎
人，道 (Logos) 取了完全的人性，同时又成为神而人的独一位格，但他用此名词，却未
加以澄清。一方面他似乎只教导说，道 (Logos) 取了人性，所以在基督里有两个性，者
两个性在道 (Logos) 的一个位格内找到了他们不可分解的合一，而两性本身却没有任何
的改变。但区氏也使用一词句，借着属性的互通来强调在基督里二性的合一，并且说到
基督的位格就好像是由一结果而产生出合一性。区氏与涅斯多留相比较下，他着重之点
乃在于强调基督位格的合一性，他强调的三点完全与当时大公教会的信仰相符合，即 (
a) 二性不可分的联合； (b) 人性 (manhood) 的客观性与依存性，也就是道 (Logos)
用以为祂的工具 （或手段、媒介）；与 (c) 在基督里位格的合一性与继续性。可是偶
而地，区利罗用的一些词句，似乎是认为后期地犹提干派是正确的。他只把性用在道 (
Logos) 上，而不用在基督的人性上，如此他用性(phusis) 与位格 (hypostasis)，好像
是异字同义的名词。有时区氏要负担起字基督里只有一个神而人的性的教义（这是指着
道成肉身以后说的），并可能叫人认为区利罗对基督一性说者 (Monophysites) 发生兴
趣，此派叫人相信基督只有一个位格，所以在中保内也有一个性。虽然区氏极力反对这
两性的混同，但他还是继续不断地对他们发生兴趣。（译注：应翻译为：但是基督一性
说者还是会诉诸区利罗来支持他们的说法。）以弗所会议提出了一个妥协的方案，一方
面支持神之母 (theotokos) 一词可能用在马利亚身上，另一方面则又坚称基督二性分清
的教义。
[2] The Cyrillian Party.
The most prominent opponent of Nestorianism was Cyril of Alexandria. Accord
ing to him the Logos assumed human nature in its entirety, in order to redee
m it, but at the same time formed the only personal subject in the God-man.
His terminology was not always clear, however. On the one hand he seemed t
o teach simply that the Logos assumed human nature, so that there are two na
tures in Christ, which find their indissoluble union in the one Person of th
e Logos, without any change in the natures themselves. But he also used expr
essions in which he stressed the unity of the two natures in Christ by means
of a mutual communication of attributes, and spoke of the Person of Christ
as if it were a resultant unity. His great significance lies in the fact th
at, over against Nestorianism, he stressed the unity of the Person of Christ
. The three points which he emphasized above all were in perfect harmony wi
th the catholic doctrine of the day, namely: (a) the inseparable conjunction
of the two natures; (b) the impersonality and dependence of the manhood, wh
ich the Logos uses as His instrument; and (c) the unity and continuity of th
e Person in Christ. Occasionally he used expressions, however, which seemed
to justify the later Eutychian error. He applied the term phusis (nature)
to the Logos only, and not to the humanity of Christ, thus using it as a syn
onym of hypostasis. This gave some occasion to saddle on him the doctrine t
hat, after the incarnation, there was only one divine-human nature in Christ
, and made it possible for the Monophysites to appeal to him, when they want
ed to prove that, as there was but one Person, so there was also only a sing
le nature in the Mediator. They continued their appeal to him in spite of h
is strenuous denial of any mixture of the natures. The Council of Ephesus e
ffected a sort of compromise by maintaining on the one hand that the term th
eotokos could be applied to Mary, and asserting on the other hand the doctri
ne of the two distinct natures of Christ.
（三）犹提干派。
许多区利罗的信者，都不同意犹提干派的主张，因他们不接受两性分清的
教义。犹提干为一很老的修士，其信念很不平衡，非常反对涅斯多留派，对于康士坦丁
的亚历山大神学、运动或主张，都拳拳服膺。根据狄奥多热脱 (Theodoret) 所记载，犹
氏事实上主张，基督里的人性与基督里的神性是相同的，所以祂的身体和我们的身体不
是同质料的，实在说来祂并非是人。犹氏在主后四四八年的君士坦丁堡会议中被定为异
端，但他不服，就上诉罗马主教利欧，在利欧接到夫拉维安有关此案的全部报告后，发
表了他对夫拉维安所讲述的「大卷」 (Tome)。因为「大卷」深深影响到迦克墩信条，所
以其中的重点应当注意，兹述之如下： (a) 在基督里有二性，是永远分清的。 (b) 二
性联合于一个位格，而一个性在道成肉身的生活中，都行使其本身适当的功能。 (c) 由
位格的合一而产生的交通 (communication idiomatum)。 (d) 救赎的工作需要一位既是
人又是神、能朽坏又不能朽坏、受感的又不受感的中保。道成肉身是神那方面的屈尊行
动，但是道 (Logos) 在道成肉身中，并未中止祂就是神。 (e) 在基督里的人性是永久
的，并且否认此点，就暗示着一种否认基督的真实性，着实是西方教会基督论的清华之
点。
[3] The Eutychian Party: Eutichus and Eutichianism. Many of Cyr
il’s adherents were dissatisfied. They did not take kindly to the doctrine
of the two distinct natures. Eutyches, an aged monk of rather unbalanced c
onvictions and with a strong anti-Nestorian bias, espoused the cause of the
Alexandrian theology at Constantinople. According to Theodoret he maintaine
d in effect, either an absorption of the human nature in the divine, or a fu
sion of the two natures, resulting in a sort of tertium quid. He was of the
opinion that the human attributes were assimilated to the divine in Christ,
so that His body was not consubstantial with ours and He was not human in t
he proper sense of the word. Condemned by the Council of Constantinople in
448, he appealed to Leo, the bishop of Rome. After Leo received a full repo
rt of the case from Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, and was urged to expr
ess his opinion, he addressed to Flavian his celebrated Tome. Because this
Tome profoundly influenced the Chalcedon formula, it may be well to note its
main points, which are as follows: (a) There are two natures in Christ, whi
ch are permanently distinct. (b) The two natures unite in one Person, each
one performing its own proper function in the incarnate life. (c) From the
unity of the Person follows the communication of *attributes (communication
idiomatum). [* this word was missing in the English original.] (d) The work
of redemption required a Mediator both human and divine, passible and impass
ible, mortal and immortal. The incarnation was an act of condescension on t
he part of God, but in it the Logos did not cease to be very God. The forma
servi did not detract from the forma dei. (e) The manhood of Christ is per
manent, and its denial implies a docetic denial of the reality of the suffer
ings of Christ. This is really a compendium of western Christology.
[c] 迦克墩会议的决议
在开过几次地方性的会议之后，对犹提干是毁誉参半，联合大公会议于四
五一年在迦克墩召开，并发表有关基督位格教义的重要声明如下：
[c] The Decision of the Council of Chalcedon.
After several Councils had met, some favouring and some condemning Eutyches,
the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was convened in the year 451, and issued
its
famous statement of the doctrine of the Person of Christ. This reads as fol
lows:
「我们追随圣教父，一致教导人承认一位圣子，我们的主耶稣基督，有完
全的神性也有完全的人性，祂是真神也是真人，有理性的灵魂与身体；按神性来说是与
父同质，按人性来说是与我们同质，在凡事上与我们一样，但没有罪；按神性说，祂在
诸世代以前为父所生，按人性说，在末世是由童贞女马利亚（神之母），为我们及我们
的得救而生，也就是这位基督、圣子、主、独生的儿子，被认为由两性，不混淆、不改
变、不可分的，而二性的分清不能由于联合而消失，反而每一性的本质应被保存，同时
发生在一个位格、一个生活方式中（译注：一个生存形式中），并不是两个位格，乃是
一个，就是这同一的圣子，那独生的子，为道的神，就是主耶稣基督；以上所说的正像
先知从起初关于基督向我们宣布的，与主耶稣所教导的，并圣父的信经所一脉相传下来
给我们的。」
“We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, tea
ch men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perf
ect in Godhead nad also perfect in manhood; truly God and also truly man, of
a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the
Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all tings
like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according
to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born
of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one and th
e same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly (asuggutos), unchangeably (atreptos), indivisibly (adiairetos),
inseparably (achoristos), the distinction of natures being by no means take
n away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,
and concurring in one Person and one subsistence, not parted or divided int
o two persons, but one and the same Son, the Only-begotten, God the Word, th
e Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concer
ning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of
the Holy Fathers has handed down to us.”
此声明最重要的涵意如下： (1) 神人二性的本质可以归属于一个本质，例
如无所不知于有限的知识。 (2) 神而人 (God-man) 的受苦可以被认为是真实的无限，
然而是无感于神性的。 (3) 基督位格的根基，是在于祂的神性，而非祂的人性。 (4)
道 (Logos) 并非与一般人类中的个人联合，乃与人性联合。三位一体神之第二位，并不
是首先和一个体的人联合，这个联合早在童女马利亚怀孕耶稣基督的时候就联合了。
The most important implications of this statement are the follow
ing: (1) The properties of both natures may be attributed to the one Person,
as, for instance, omniscience and limited knowledge. (2) The suffering of
the God-man can be regarded as truly and really infinite, while yet the divi
ne nature is impassible. (3) It is the divinity and not the humanity that c
onstitutes the root and basis of the personality of Christ. (4) The Logos d
id not unite with a distinct human individual, but with a human nature. The
re was not first an individual man, with whom the Second Person in the Godhe
ad associated Himself. The union was effected with the substance of humanit
y in the womb of the virgin.
基督论的发展史HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST(2)
争辩的第二阶段
The Second Stage of the Controversy
1.迦克墩会议决定后的混乱
[a] Confusion after the Decision of the Council of Chalcedon
迦克墩会议关于基督论的争辩，正如柰西亚会议关于三位一体的争辩一样，并
没有得到圆满的效果。虽然罗马已经成为正统信仰的中心，但是在埃及、叙利亚与帕勒
斯丁等地，还包含着许多犹提干派狂热信仰的修道士。事实上，教义发展的程序，已迅
速地从东方教会传至西方。[译注：其实教义的发展，很快地从东方教会转移，落在西方
教会的手中。]
The Council of Chalcedon did not put an end to the Christologica
l disputes any more than the Council of Nicaea terminated the Trinitarian co
ntroversy. Egypt, Syria, and Palestine harboured many fanatical monks of Eu
tychian convictions, while Rome became ever-increasingly the centre of ortho
doxy. In fact, the process of dogmatic development was fast passing from Ea
st to the West.
基督一性说派。
迦克墩会议后，区利罗与犹提干的跟从者，都被称为基督一性说派，因为
他们承认在联合之后，基督有一个混合的性，并否认祂有两个分清的神人二性。正如他
们所了解的，这分清的二性包含有双重性格的可能性（译注：这分清的二性必然导致两
个分清的位格的结论），在不同的派别之间有 长又不适当（不漂亮）的争辩。就是在
基督一性派之间，意见也不一致，他们又分为好几个支流，欧尔博士 (Dr. Orr) 说，光
是他们这几个派的名称，就叫人不寒而栗了。这些名称就是父神受苦派 (Theopaschiti
sts)；另一派则是基督人性合我们相似派 (Phthartolatrists)， 此派主张与迦克墩信
条很相近，强调基督人性与我们一样的事实，因此祂能受苦，也因而说应崇拜那会朽坏
的；和正与此相反的基督人性与我们相反派 (Aphthartolatrists)，此派主张基督的人
性与我们不同质，乃赋有神的属性，因此是无罪的，不可毁灭与不可衰残的。
The Monophysites.
After the Council of Chalcedon the adherents of Cyril and Eutichus were call
ed Monophysites, because they conceded that after the union Christ had a com
posite nature, but denied that He had two distinct natures. As they saw it,
two distinct natures would necessarily involve a duality of persons. There
was a lengthy and rather unseemly struggle between the different parties.
Even the Monophysites were not all agreed among themselves. They were divid
ed into several sects, of which the names alone, says Dr. Orr, “are enough
to give one a cold hsiver.” There were the Theopaschitists, who emphasized
the fact that God suffered; the Phthartolatrists, who came nearest to the f
ormulation of Chalcedon, and stressed the fact that the human nature of Chri
st was, like ours, capable of suffering, and were therefore said to worship
that which is corruptible; and the Aphthartodocetists, who represented just
the opposite view, namely, that the human nature of Christ was not consubsta
ntial with ours, but was endowed with divine attributes, and was therefore s
inless, imperishable, and incorruptible.
拜占庭的李安迪。
迦克墩神学最能干、显著迪护卫者就是拜占庭迪李安迪，他在基督教义神
学迪构造（译注：基督论的建构）上有所加添后，又为大马色约翰予以充分的发挥，所
论之点乃是：涅斯多留派的反对，可能导致基督人性独立客观的存在，此一观念是受到
客观的 (anupostasis) 与在位格内的 (anupostasia) 两名词所助成。因此李安迪强调
，基督人性的事实是在位格内的，而非客观性的，自从道成肉身的那一剎那开始，在神
儿子的位格中，就有其个人的生存 (personal subsistence)。
Leontius of Byzantium.
The ablest and most prominent defender of the Chalcedonian theology was Leon
tius of Byzantium. He added an element to the dogmatical construction of th
e doctrine of Christ, which was more fully worked out by John of Dasmascus.
The point is this: The rejection of Nestorianism might lead to the idea of
an independent impersonal existence of the human nature of Christ. This ide
a was apt to be fostered by the use of the terms anupostasis and anupostasia
. Therefore Leontius stressed the fact that the human nature of Christ is e
nupostasia, not impersonal but in-personal, having its personal subsistence
in the Person of the Son of God from the very moment of the incarnation.
五五三年罗马皇犹斯提念 (Justinian) 在君士坦丁堡召开第五此大公会议
，定狄奥多所写的为异端，使得情势对基督一性说派有利。但是单单就基督一性说派咒
诅那些声称迦克墩会议暂助其所定罪之错谬这方面来说，对他们就不利。这件事并没有
另基督一性说派满意，反而使他们与罗马国帝国教会分离。
In 553 the emperor Justinian summoned the fifth oecumenical Coun
cil at Constantinople, which was favourable to the Monophysites in its conde
mnation of the writings of Theodore, but unfavourable to it in so far as it
anathematized those who declared that the Council of Chalcedon countenanced
the very errors which it condemned. This did not satisfy the Monophysites,
but rather sealed their separation from the Church of the Empire.
2．基督一志说的争辩。
[b] The Monothelitic Controversy.
不久就见出企图在会议中解决基督一性说的事未能圆满达成。几项重要的
问题尚未解决，在基督的二性不单指基督内的二性（翻译注：基督内的二性如何是二性
）时，另外又产生了一个问题，即在位格中包括多少，在属性中又包括多少？且与此有
关更重要的问题是，意志是属于前者或是后者？这就等于问，基督里是不是只有一个意
志，还是两个？若说只有一个，那似乎剥夺了基督有真正属人的意志，因此就从祂人性
的完整上有所减损；另一方面，若说有两个意志，那又回到涅斯多留的阵营中了。
It soon became evident that the attempted settlement of the Monophysite cont
roversy by the Council did not restore harmony. Several vital questions rem
ained unanswered. Not only did the how of the two natures in Christ remain
unsolved, but the additional question arose, How much is included in the per
son and how much in the nature? In this connection the very important quest
ion was raised, whether the will belongs to the former or to the latter. Th
is is equivalent to asking, whether there is but one will in Christ or two?
To say that there is but one seems to rob Christ of true human volition, an
d therefore to detract from the integrity of His humanity. On the other han
d, to say that there are two seems to lead right into the Nestorian camp.
基督一志说派。
结果从基督一性说派中又兴起了一新的基督一志说派 (Monothelites)。顾
名思义，该派的主张是由位格的合一开始，并宣称基督只有一个意志。此教义具有两种
说法：一说是基督属人的意志被属神的意志合并了，所以只有属神的意志在活动；另一
说法则是，意志被认为是混合体，是由神的意志于人的意志注入的结果。反对基督一志
说的人被称为基督二志说派 (Dyothelites)，此派的立场是主张基督有二性，并宣称在
基督里有两个意志。而基督一志说派反对他们破坏了基督个人生活（基督位格的生命）
的合一性。
Monothelites. The result was that a new sect arose among the Mo
nophysites, called Monothelites. As the name indicates, they started from t
he unity of the Person and asserted that there is but one will in Christ. T
his doctrine also took two forms: either the human will was regarded as merg
ed in the divine, so that the latter alone acted; or the will was regarded a
s composite, resulting from the fusion of the divine and the human. The opp
onents of the Monothelites were called Duothelites. These took their stand
on the duality of the natures and asserted the presence of two wills in Chri
st. The Monophysites charged them with the destruction of the unity of the
personal life of Christ.
有一个时期，能力 (energeia)一词在此次争辩中先于意志 (thelema) 而被使
用（译注：比较更被接纳），但不久「意志」一词较「能力」一词表达更为清楚，所以
就取代了「能力」而被使用。但有一件事必须注意，就是「意志」一词的意义非常广泛
。严格说来，当我们用「意志」的时候，意思是意愿、自决、与选择的功能；但此字也
用在广义方面，包括直觉、嗜好、愿望、与爱情（译注：情操），及其与之相反的意义
。这些在从前的争辩中，都包括在「意志」一词中，所以就带出了一个问题，即基督是
否惧怕，并逃避苦难与死亡？若否认基督属人的意志，那么基督的人性就多少带有幻影
派的色彩。
For a time the term energeia (energy) was used in this controver
sy in preference to thelema (will), but soon the latter, as the more definit
e term, prevailed. It should be borne in mind, however, that the word “wil
l” was used in a broad sense. Strictly speaking, we mean by “will” the f
aculty of volition, of self-determination, and of choice. But the word is o
ften used in a broader sense, as including the instincts, appetites, desires
, and affections, with their corresponding aversions. All this was covered
by the term “will” in the ancient controversy, so that this included the q
uestion, whether Christ was capable of fear and of shrinking from suffering
and death. The denial of the human will in Christ would therefore give His
humanity a somewhat docetic character.
君士坦丁堡第六次大公会议（主后六八零年），具有罗马主教的合作，采
纳了二意志、二能力教义为正统的信仰立场，但也决定了基督内属人的意志必须被了解
为从属于属神的意志。被公认的意见乃是说，在基督里属人的意志，并没有因与属神的
意志联合而削减了人的成份，反而因着联合而被提升，并达于完全，此二者总是有一种
完全协和的姿态一起活动。
The sixth ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680), with the c
o-operation of the bishop of Rome, adopted the doctrine of the two wills and
two energies as the orthodox position, but also decided that the human will
must always be conceived as subordinate to the divine. The established opi
nion was that the human will by its union with the divine did not become les
s human, but was heightened and perfected by the union, the two always actin
g in perfect harmony.
3．大马色约翰的基督论
[c] The Construction of the Doctrine by John of Damascus.
希腊教会神学在大马色约翰时的发占达于最高点，因此注意他对基督的位
格教义的了解是非常重要的。根据他的说法，道 (Logos) 取了人性，并不是也稣这个人
取了道。这意思就是说， Logos 是一个具有约束性的代理，目的在求得二性的联合（译
注：Logos 是形成基督，控制基督位格的个体，二性因此合而为一），而并没有取属人
的个人性（并没有取一个个体的人），也没有采取一般的人性（也没有取人性的共相）
，乃是具有潜力的人（而是一个有潜力成为个体的人），亦即尚未发展成一位格的人性
。藉 Logos 与具有潜力的人（人性），在马利亚的腹中联合，而后者需要（译注：取得
了）一个体的存在。虽然说基督的人性没有祂自己独立的位格，但是借着 Logos 而有其
个体的（位格的）存在，祂并非是位格的（译注：祂并非是非位格的），但却（而是）
在位格之内。
In John of Damascus the theology of the Greek Church reached its
highest development, and therefore it is of importance to notice his constr
uction of the doctrine of the Person of Christ. According to him the Logos
assumed human nature, and not vice versa, that is, the man Jesus did not ass
ume the Logos. This means that the Logos is the formative and controlling a
gency, securing the unity of the two natures. The Logos did not assume a hu
man individual, nor human nature in general, but a potential human individua
l, a human nature not yet developed into a person or hypostasis. Through th
e union of the Logos with this potential man in the womb of Mary, the latter
acquired an individual existence. While the human nature of Christ has no
independent personality of its own, it nevertheless has personal existence i
n and through the Logos. It is not non-hypostatic, but en-hypostatic.
祂将基督二性的联合比作人身体与灵魂的联合，认为在基督里有一种神和人彼此互相存
在的关系 (circumincession)，即神的属性与人的属性互相交通，所以属人第性情被神
化，也可以说是神在肉身受苦，而人性也只有在这种情形中有效，因此人性纯粹是接受
的，并且是被动的。神的儿子（包括祂的完全人性在内）乃是教会崇拜的对象，虽然有
一减损基督人性到一仅为 Logos之器官的倾向，但是却承认两性合作，并且一个位格在
每一个性中都有所行动和意愿。意志被认为是属与本性的，但却声称在基督里属人的意
志，已成为道成肉身之神的意志。
He illustrates the union of the two natures in Christ by the union of body a
nd soul in man. There is a circumincession of the divine and the human in C
hrist, a communication of the attributes to the human nature, so that the la
tter is deified and we may also say that God suffered in the flesh. The hum
an nature only is thus affected, and is therefore purely receptive and passi
ve. The Son of God, now including His complete humanity, is an object of wo
rship for the Church. Though there is a tendency to reduce the human nature
of Jesus to the position of a mere organ or instrument of the Logos, it is a
dmitted that there is a co-operation of the two natures, and that the one Pe
rson acts and wills in each nature. The will is regarded as belonging to th
e nature, but it is claimed that in Christ the human will has become the wil
l of the incarnate God.
4．西方教会的基督论
[d] The Christology of the Western Church.
西方教会并未受到东方教会激烈争辩的影响。整体的说来，似乎西方教会
的思想，对于哲学的区分还没有充分地了解，以致未能在问题的讨论上采取主动参与，
认为这些问题是如此地深奥于诡 （微妙），以致使东方教会分裂。
The Western Church remained comparatively unaffected by the controversies th
at were raging in the East. It seems that on the whole the western mind was
not sufficiently familiar with all kinds of fine philosophical distinctions
to take an active part in the discussion of questions that were so deep and
subtle as those that divided the Eastern Church.
嗣子说 (Adoptionism)。
在七、八世纪中，西班牙关于基督论又出现瞭一个新的运动，称之为嗣子
说的争论。「嗣子」一词在西班牙使为人所熟知的，因为在主后六七五年托理多会议中
宣称基督是神的儿子，是由于本性 (nature)，而非由于领养 (adoption 嗣子)。嗣子说
教义的真正健将，就是俄基拉之主教非利士 (Felix of Urgella)，他认为基督在祂神性
着方面（就是 Logos）当然是神的独生子，但在人这方面说，乃是领养的神之子。他同
时想要借着强调耶稣在马利亚腹中之时，人子与神的儿子就联合的事实，来保守位格上
的合一。
Adoptionism.
A new movement of Christological thought appeared in Spain, however, in the
seventh and eighth centuries, called the Adoptionist Controversy. The term
“adoption” was already familiar in Spain, since a Council of Toledo declar
ed in 675 that Christ was the Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The
real champion of the Adoptionist doctrine was Felix, bishop of Urgella. He
regarded Christ as to His divine nature, that is the Logos, as the only-beg
otten Son of God in the natural sense, but Christ on his human side as a Son
of God by adoption. At the same time he sought to preserve the unity of th
e Person by stressing the fact that, from the time of his conception, the So
n of Man was taken up into the unity of the Person of the Son of God.
因此，此说是在自然为神的儿子（译注：在本性上是神的儿子）与领养成为神的儿子间
作了一区分，而前者是指着基督神性说的，后者是指着基督人性说的。非利士及其信从
者将以下几点作为他们信仰（立场）的根基：(1)根据基督里两性的区分，暗示着在子权
里两种方式的区分（译注：暗示着：基督作为「子」的位份有两种形式）。(2) 根据圣
经中的经文，指出基督是个人，在圣父之下从属于父神（译注：指出作为人的基督低于
父神，从属父神）。(3) 根据信者被神领养，得儿子的名份，成为神的儿子，并且也成
为基督的「弟兄」，这似乎暗示（译加：在同一样的意义上，）基督在人性上也是神的
儿子。为了在进一步地了解此意义他们就在基督在伯利恒自然的生与属灵的生之间作一
区分，而此属灵的生是从耶稣受洗时开始，并在复活后中止（完结）；此属灵的生使基
督成为神的嗣子。
This theory therefore makes a distinction between a natural and an ado
ptive sonship, the former predicated of the divinity and the latter of the h
umanity of Christ. Felix and his followers based their opinion: (1) On the
distinction of natures in Christ, which, according to them, implied a distin
ction between two modes of sonship. (2) On passages of Scripture which refe
rs to the inferiority of Christ as man to the Father. And (3) On the fact t
hat believers are sons of God by adoption, and are also called “brethren”
of Christ. This would seem to imply that Christ as to his human nature was
a Son of God in the same sense. In order to explain their meaning still fur
ther they distinguished between a natural birth of Christ at Bethlehem and a
spiritual birth, which had its inception at the time of baptism and was con
summated in the resurrection. This spiritual birth made Christ the adopted
Son of God.
反对此见解的人虽然未能攻击嗣子说派，说他们教导有关基督双重位格的明显错误，但
他们却坚称此见解的必然结果就是有两个神之子 (dual sonship)（必然结果就是基督的
儿子位份有两个）。查理曼时代的著名学者亚勒昆 (Alcuin)，就基督分有两个儿子的问
题与非利士大起争辩，他主张没有一个父亲能够有本性上是儿子，而同时又是领养的儿
子，毫无疑问地，嗣子派将一种从外来的生疏的立场加诸于基督的人性上，只等到基督
借着一特殊领养的作为，才能成为神的儿子，这实是一种错误的想法。这个错谬在主后
七九四年的法兰克福大会 (Synod of Frankfurt) 上被定为异端。
While the opponents of this view did not charge the Adoptionists with
the explicit error of teaching a dual personality in Christ, they asserted t
hat this would be the logical result of a dual sonship. Alcuin, the noted s
cholar of the days of Charlemagne, took issue with Felix and charged him wit
h dividing Christ into two sons. He maintained that no father could have a
son, who was such both by nature and by adoption. Undoubtedly, the Adoption
ists were in error, when they assigned to the human nature of Christ a sort
of alien position until He was made to partake of divine sonship by a specia
l act of adoption. This error was condemned by the Synod of Frankfurt in AD
794.
后期基督论的检讨：中古世纪
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST IN THE MIDDLE AGES
在中古世纪时期，基督位格的教义并未居于显著的地位，而其他的问题如
有关最于恩的教义、救赎工作的教义，都为当时人们注意的中心。简单提示阿奎那对于
基督解释最显著之点，将足以说明此问题在宗教改革时的情形。
During the Middle Ages the doctrine of the Person of Christ was
not in the foreground. Other problems, such as those connected with the doc
trines of sin and grace, and with the doctrine of the work of redemption, be
came the centre of attention. A brief indication of the most salient points
of Thomas Aquinas’ construction of the doctrine of Christ will be sufficie
nt to indicate how the matter stood at the time of the Reformation.
阿奎那的基督论
Christology of Thomas Aquinas
至于在基督里二性的联合，阿奎那赞成过去教会所领受的神学立场。 Log
os 的位格在道成肉身联合的时候成为混合体，此联合「阻碍」 (hindered) 了基督的人
性，使之未能达于独立的位格。由于与 Logos 的联合，基督的人性领受了双重的恩惠，
即 (1) 联合的 (gratia unionis)， 或谓从人性与神性联合的结果而产生出的尊严，所
以基督的人性也成为崇拜的对象；与 (2) 成圣的恩惠 (gratia habitualis)，此成圣之
恩是给予为人的基督，使之在与神的关系中做为对人性的支持（译注：支持着基督人性
与上帝的关系）。在基督属人这方面的知识可分为两种，即注入的知识 (scientia inf
usa)与取得的知识 (scientia acquisita)。由于前者使得基督能知道人所能知道的一切
事，并由于启示而得知的一切事，酒知识上来说是完全的，但是因为人是受造的，所以
受到限制。由于后者，借着理智的才能（译注：功能），基督因而知道一切所能知的事
。在抽象的两性之间没有属性的互通，但在位格上却能有人与神的属性（译注：抽象的
来说，两性之间没有属性的互通，但可以说，位格里有人性与神性）。基督的人性并非
无所不能，而是受到人情感上的控制，即如忧愁、悲哀、恐惧、稀奇、与愤怒。在基督
里有两个意志，但最终的因果关系乃属与神的意志（译注、译加：但神的意志才是至终
的成因，人的意志总是服在神的意志之下）。
As to the hypostatic union in Christ, Thomas Aquinas adhered to
the received theology. The Person of the Logos became composite after the u
nion at the incarnation, and this union “hindered” the manhood from arrivi
ng at an independent personality. A twofold grace was imparted to the human
nature of Christ in virtue of its union with the Logos, namely: (a) the gra
tia unionis or the dignity that resulted from the union of the human nature
with the divine, so that the human nature also became an object of worship;
and (b) the gratia habitualis, the grace of sanctification which was vouchsa
fed to Christ as man, sustaining the human nature in its relationship to God
. The human knowledge of Christ was twofold, namely, scientia infusa and sc
ientia acquisita. In virtue of the former He could know all things that can
be so known by men and all that is made known to them by revelation, a know
ledge perfect in its kind but yet subject to creaturely limitation. And in
virtue of the latter He knew all that can be known through the intellectual
faculties. There is no communication of attributes between the natures in t
he abstract, but both human and divine attributes may be ascribed to the Per
son. The human nature of Christ was not omnipotent, but was subject to huma
n affections, such as sorrow, sadness, fear, wonder, and anger. There are t
wo wills in Christ, but ultimate causality belongs to the divine will. The
human will is always subject to the divine.
第二课 三位一体教义发展简史
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
第一部份
诺斯底主义(神哲派)
GNOSTICISM
诺斯底派的主要教义
The Main Teachings of Gnosticism
(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, 47-49 ﹔伯克富， 《基督教教
义史》，页30-32。林慈信修。)
我们在此不讨论诺斯底主义的各种派系，如Valentinus 与 Basilides 等﹔我们只
简单地讨论诺斯底主义的教义。他们的教义有 “二元论”(dualism) 的特征。宇宙有两
个原始原则，或两个神，他们彼此敌对，一个高于另一个，什至一善一恶。至高的神，
即善神，是无可测度的深渊。他在自己与有限的被造物中间，造了一连串的中级存有者
(middle beings, 或 aeons: 灵体)，都是从神性放射的 (emanations of the divine)
, 这些神圣的存有也被称为分神。善神与这些分神总合在一起，称为 “圆满” (pler
oma)，就是神性本质的丰满 (fullness of the divine essence) 。至高的神只能借这
些 “分神” 与被造物发生关系。世界并不是善神所造，乃是因为神性丰满中发生了堕
落﹔所以世界是一位低级的，可能由敌意的神所造。这位低级的神被称为 “造物主”
(Demiurge)，即是旧约的耶和华，是一位较低的，有限的，有激情的，有时也会报复的
存有者。这位造物主与至高真神之间，有着强烈的对照﹔至高真神是至善，至德，至真
之源﹔他在基督里显示出来。
We cannot discuss the various Gnostic systems, such as those of Valentin
us and Basilides, but can only briefly indicate the teachings of Gnosticism
in general. A trait of dualism runs through the whole system and manifests
itself in the position that there are two original principles or gods, which
are opposed to each other as higher and lower, or even as good and bad. Th
e supreme or good God is an unfathomable abyss. He interposes between Himse
lf and finite creatures a long chain of aeons or middle beings, emanations f
rom the divine, which together constitute the Pleroma or fullness of the div
ine essence. It is only through these intermediate beings that the highest
God can enter into various relations with created beings. The world is not
created by the good God, but is the result of, probably, a fall in the Plero
ma, and is the work of a subordinate, possibly a hostile, deity. This subor
dinate god, is called the Demiurge, is identified with the God of the Old Te
stament, and is described as an inferior, limited, passionate, and vengeful
being. He is contrasted with the supreme God, the source of goodness, virtu
e, and truth, who revealed Himself in Christ.
物质世界既是这一位低等的，可能是 “恶神” 所造，因此物质本身是邪恶的。然
而物质里有灵界的馀种，就是人的灵魂，是从高级圣洁世界来的一道光。这馀种怎样与
物质缠在一起，无人能解释。灵魂得解脱，只有借善神的介入。有一个救法，就是一位
使者从众光的国度差遣到黑暗的世界来。基督教的诺斯底主义通常认为基督就是这使者
。关于基督，他们有多种描述：有时他被视为一位属天存有 ， 以一种幻影的灵体出现
。有时他又被视为一位属世的人，暂时与一种更高的力量或灵体相连。物质既然本是恶
的，这位高超的灵不可能有一般的人体。
The world of matter as the product of a lesser and possibly an evil god,
is essentially evil. There is found in it, however, a remnant from the spi
rit-world, namely, the soul of man, a spark of light from the upper world of
purity which in some inexplicable way became entangled in evil matter. Its
deliverance can be obtained only through some intervention of the good God.
A way of deliverance has been provided by the sending of a special emissar
y from the kingdom of light into the world of darkness. In Christian Gnosti
cism this emissary is regularly identified with Christ. He is variously rep
resented, either as a celestial being appearing in a phantasmal body, or as
an earthly being, with whom a higher power or spirit temporarily associated
himself. Since matter is in itself evil, this higher spirit could not have
an ordinary human body.
若要在救赎上有份，或胜过世界，必需参加诺斯底派，领受入教的秘密仪式。救赎
之途径包括以下各步骤：进入与基督结婚的奥秘，特殊的洗礼，神奥的名字，以及特别
的膏抹。这样才能获永存的秘密知识 (secret knowledge of Being)。从这方面看，诺
斯底主义近乎一种秘密宗教。人类分为三种：属灵的人，是教会中高级委员﹔属魂的人
，是教会中一般的会友﹔属物质的人，即所有的外邦人。只有第一类才能获得更高的知
识，因之有更高的福份。第二类借信心与行为也能得救，他们只能获得次等的福份。第
三类是毫无盼望，失丧之人。
Participation in redemption, or victory over the world, was gained only
through the secret rites of the Gnostic associations. Initiation into the m
ysteries of marriage to Christ, of peculiar baptism, of magic names, and of
special anointing, by which the secret knowledge of Being was secured, forme
d the path of redemption. At this point Gnosticism became more and more a s
ystem of religious mysteries. Men are divided into three classes: the pneum
atic who constitute the elite of the Church, the psychic consisting of the o
rdinary Church members, and the hylic or the Gentiles. Only the first class
is really capable of higher knowledge (epignosis) and thus obtains the high
est blessedness. The second class may be saved through faith and works, but
can only attain to an inferior blessedness. Those belonging to the third c
lass are hopelessly lost.
诺斯底主义的伦理哲学有两种相反的结果：他们的伦理道德与他们的救赎观有关。
有时主张苦修主义，但也有人认为属灵的人既有了属天的祝福，肉体方面的行为并不能
影响他们的救恩，所以不禁止肉体的情欲，过着放荡的生活。诺斯底主义的教义完全忽
视末世论，他们否认死人复活的教义。他们认为当人的灵魂离开物质的身体时，就进到
“完满” 的境界，这就是人生的结局。
The ethics, or moral philosophy, accompanying these views of redemption,
was dominated by a false estimate of sensuousness, which resulted either in
strict ascetic abstinence or in low carnality, born of the assurance that n
othing could really hinder those who were favoured of heaven. There was asc
eticism on the one hand and libertinism on the other. The ordinary eschatol
ogy of the Church had no place in this system. The doctrine of the resurrec
tion of the dead was not recognized. When the soul was finally released fro
m matter, it returned to the Pleroma, and this marked the end.
附录：诺斯底派的敬拜
-- 从高到低 -- 从不变的本质 – 灵 – 到魂，到变与死，物质，到无有
-- 每一种存有没有更好的事物：本质的不同
-- 低的存有被更高的 (属灵人) 毁灭
「当约翰见了福徒拿都的不变心灵时，说道：啊，那不变位较好的本性呀！啊，那停驻
于愚顽的魂之泉呀！啊，那充满黑暗的腐败之本质呀！啊，那欢跃于属死亡的他们之死
亡呀！啊，充满火烧的无果之树呀！啊，那结着石炭之果的树木呀！啊，那与物质的疯
狂及不信者邻舍同住之物质呀！你证明了你是谁和总是跟你的儿女同被判决。你不知道
怎样赞颂较好的事物；因为你没有它们。因而你的道路（成果）怎样，你的根底和你的
本性也是怎样。愿你从那些信靠主的他们遭受毁灭，从他们的思想，从他们的心念，从
他们的灵魂，从他们的身体，从他们的行为，他们的生活，他们的谈话，从他们的工作
，他们的职业，他们的谋略，从复活到安息于上帝，从他们的那你将不可分享的甘甜的
滋味，从他们的信仰，他们的祈祷，从圣洗，从圣餐，从肉的饼，从酒，从衣，从爱，
从看顾，从节制，从公义；从这一切，你那最不洁的撒但，上帝的敌人啊，我们的上帝
耶稣基督必要即作为你和你性格一样的人的审判官，必将使你们从以上所说的一切斩绝
而至灭亡。」(<约翰行传>，第84章。《基督教早期文献选集》，页465。)
诺斯底派对基督的赞歌
* 基督不是真有物质身体的
* 基督的人性，身体 = 幻影？举身离地?
* 基督的事 = 神秘，无从言说
(约翰说) 众弟兄，我又要告诉你们另一荣耀之事。当我把捉住他，我忽捉到一具物质的
僵硬的身体，而另一时当我感触了他，这实体却又是非物质的，而像毫无存在的样子。
每当他被某个法利赛人请吃饭而允许去的时候，我们跟了他去，而主人在我们每一个人
面前放了一块面包，他也跟我们一样受了一块；他祝福了他那一块，而把它分给了我们
；每一个人无不从那个小面包吃饱了，而我们所有的一块全都不吃了因而主人惊奇呆木
了。我曾屡次跟他同走，想察看他的脚印是否留在地面上；因为我看他好似举身离地，
我从不曾见他脚踪。众弟兄，我告诉了你们这些事，为的是鼓励你们对他的信心；因为
我们今日必不说到他的大能和奇妙作为，由于它们实皆无可言说的，可能是，完全无从
讲起或听到的。(<约翰行传>，第93章。《基督教早期文献选集》，页467。)
第二部份
反诺斯底主义的教父们
The Anti-Gnostic Fathers
(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, 62-69﹔伯克富， 《基督教教
义史》 ，页43-50。林慈信修。)
护教学的教父时期，很自然地转入另一个时期，就是继承他们的 「反诺斯底主义的
教父」(Anti-Gnostic Fathers) 。其中最重要的有三位。
From the Apologists we naturally pass on to the anti-gnostic Fathers who
succeeded them. Three of these stand out with great prominence.
爱任纽 (Irenaeus)
第一位反诺斯底主义的教父是爱任纽。他出生于东方，后来称为坡旅甲的门徒，但
他的一生大部份时间住在西方。他本是一位长老(presbyter, 即牧师)，后来成为里昂(
Lyon)的监督。他的着作显示一种实践的基督徒精神，他的思想近于约翰的教义，但有时
他的观念中也会重视感情。他最主要的作品是《反异端》 (Against Heresies) 一书，
其中特别批判诺斯底主义。从本书中可以看出他的才干，他所论述的基督教的福音也非
常纯粹，中肯。
The first one that comes into consideration here is Irenaeus. He was bo
rn in the East, where he became a disciple of Polycarp, but spent the main p
art of his life in the West. At first a presbyter, he afterwards became bis
hop of Lyons. He evinces a practical Christian spirit in his writings, and
represents a Johannine type of Christian doctrine, though not without some t
races of a more sensuous conception. In his chief work, Against Heresies,
he takes issue particularly with Gnosticism. It is a work marked by ability
, moderation, and purity in its representation of Christianity.
希坡利达 (Hippolytus)
第二位是希坡利达，据说是爱任纽的门徒，他的思维取向很像他的老师。他也是一
位非常单纯，中肯，实践的人。他虽不像爱任纽那样有天才，但他很喜好哲学思想。他
主要在罗马附近事奉，据说在那里殉道。他最重要的着作是 《驳斥异端》(The Refuta
tion of All Heresies)。他发现所有教义上的谬误，是出于在哲学上的揣测。
The second of these Fathers is Hippolytus, who is said to have been a di
sciple of Irenaeus and greatly resembled his teacher in mental make-up, bein
g simple, moderate, and practical. Less gifted than Irenaeus, he gives evid
ence of a greater fondness for philosophical ideas. After labouring in the
neighbourhood of Rome, he seems to have suffered martyrdom in that city. Hi
s principal work is entitled The Refutation of All Heresies. He finds the r
oot of all the perversions of deoctrine in the speculations of the philosoph
ers.
特土良 (Tertullian)
三位教父中最伟大的一位是特土良﹔他不但有深奥的智慧和丰富的情感，又有活泼
的想像力。他的学问很高，又有敏锐的观察力。他在迦太基作长老(牧师)，因此是北非
神学派系的代表。又因为他的性格非常激烈，所以他为基督教辩护时会用严励的言辞。
他本是律师，对罗马法律非常熟悉，他的神学着作中也使用法律名词与观念。他与希坡
利达一样，认为所有的异端乃受希腊哲学的影响，因之他竭力反对哲学。他真诚热切的
本性，使他对时代的放荡精神非常厌憎，后来什至接纳了厌世的孟他努主义 (Montanis
m) 。他认为与异端辩论不会发生功效，因此认为处置异端最简单的方法就是向他们提出
异议。他是对西方神学思想影响最深的教父。
The third and greatest of the famous trio was Tertullian, a man of profo
und intellect and deep feeling, of a vivid imagination, and distinguished by
acuteness and great learning. As presbyter of Carthage he represents the N
orth African type of theology. Due to his violent temper he was naturally p
assionate in his representation of Christianity and somewhat given to extrem
e statements. As a lawyer he was familiar with Roman law and introduced leg
al conceptions and legal phraseology into theological discussions. Like Hip
polytus he, too, was inclined to deduce all heresy from the philosophy of th
e Greeks, and therefore became a zealous opponent of philosophy. His native
fervour reacted strongly against the lax spirit of the age, and even induce
d him to embrace Montanism in later life. Convinced of the futility of argu
ing with heretics, he said it was best to meet them with a simply demurrer.
He influenced Western theology more than any of the others.
神论，人论，及救赎历史
Their Doctrines of God, Man, and the History of Redemption
神的教义
Doctrine of God
他们认为诺斯底主义最大的错误，乃是将真神与创造主分为两位。他们认为诺斯底
主义是出于撒但的亵渎﹔他们特别重视只有一位真神，他不但是创造之主，也是救赎的
主。律法由他所赐，福音也是他所启示。这位神是三一真神﹔有三个位格 (three pers
ons)，但只有一个本质 (a single essence)。特土良是教会历史上第一个指出神有三个
位格，也是首先使用 “三位一体” (Trinitas) 专名的人。为了要驳斥神格唯一派 (M
onarchianism)，他特别重视神是一位，但有三个位格﹔只有一个本质 (one substance
) 。虽在数字上是三位，但神的本体绝无分裂。虽是如此，特土良的三一观仍是不太正
确，因为他认为三位格中有等次之分。
They regarded the separation of the true God and the Creator as the fund
amental error of the Gnostics, as a blasphemous conception suggested by the
devil, and stressed the fact that there is but one God, who is both Creator
and Redeemer. He gave the law and also revealed the Gospel. This God is tr
iune, a single essence subsisting in three persons. Tertullian was the firs
t to assert the tri-personality of God and to use the word “Trinity.” In
opposition to the Monarchians he emphasized the fact that the three Persons
are of one substance, susceptible of number without division. Yet he did no
t reach the proper Trinitarian statement, since he conceived of one Person a
s subordinate to the others.
人的教义
Doctrine of Man
他们在人论上也反对诺斯底主义﹔他们特别指出，在人里面的善恶，并不是天赋的
本性的 (natural endowments) 。假使物质是恶的，那么人的本性是恶的，人就不能被
视为有道德选择的存有者 (a free moral being)。然而人是按着神的形像而造，并非不
朽 (意即：并非完全)﹔但是人若顺服，则可能获得不朽。罪乃是叛逆，结果是死亡﹔正
如顺服神的结果是不朽。全人类都在亚当里服在死亡之下。当时的教父们并没有详细指
出我们的罪怎样与亚当的罪有关，唯有特土良曾略为提到这一点。他说自从一个人出生
，恶就在人的本性里，这种光景借着繁殖传递给人类。这是论到原罪的教义最早的记录
。
In the doctrine of man they also opposed the Gnostics by stressing the f
act that good and evil in man do not find their explanation in different nat
ural endowments. If evil is inherent in matter, and therefore in man as suc
h, he can no more be regarded as a free moral being. Man was created in the
image of God, without immortality indeed (i.e. without perfection), but wit
h the possibility of receiving this in the way of obedience. Sin is disobed
ience and brings death, just as obedience brings immortality. In Adam the w
hole race became subject to death. The connection of our sin with that of A
dam is not yet clearly apprehended, though Tertullian makes some suggestive
statements on the subject. He says that evil became, as it were, a natural
element in man, present from birth, and that this condition passes over thro
ugh generation upon the whole human race. This is the first trace of the do
ctrine of original sin.
救赎历史
History of Redemption
Irenaeus has something special on the history of redemption. He says th
at god expelled man from paradise and suffered him to die, in order that the
injury sustained might not remain for ever. From the start God was deeply
concerned for the salvation of the race, and sought to win it by three coven
ants. The law written in the heart of man represented the first covenant.
The patriarchs were righteous before God because they met its requirements.
When the knowledge of this law faded away, the Decalogue was given, represe
nting the second covenant. On account of Israel’s sinful disposition the l
aw of ceremonies was added, to prepare the people for following Christ and f
or friendship with God. The Pharisees made it of none effect by robbing it
of its chief content, namely, love. In the third covenant Christ restored t
he original law, the law of love. This covenant is related to the preceding
as freedom to bondage, and requires faith, not only in the Father, but also
in the Son, who has now appeared. It is not, like the preceding, limited t
o Israel, but is universal in its scope. Christians received a stricter law
than the Jews and have more to believe, but they also receive a greater mea
sure of grace. To these three periods Tertullian, while an adherent of Mont
anism, still added the era of the Spirit.
基督的位格与工作
Their Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ
对于基督位格的教义，爱任纽与特土良大相迳庭﹔所以我们必需分别讨论。
Irenaeus and Tertullian differ considerably in their doctrine of the Per
son of Christ, and therefore it may be well to consider them separately.
1. 爱任纽
Irenaeus’ Christology
爱任纽的基督论比特土良和希波利达更正确，他的基督论也影响了希波利达。他非
常讨厌对 「道」的揣测，因为这样只会带来更多的揣测。他只指出「道」是永存的，也
是借着道而将父神显示出来。他以历史上显示的神的儿子为真正的出发点。借着 「道成
肉身」， 道成为历史上的耶稣﹔从那时起他是真神，也是真人。他反对诺斯底主义的异
端，就是说那位不能受苦的基督在十字架钉死之前与那位能受苦的耶稣分开了。他却指
出神与人性联合是至为重要的。人类在第二亚当基督里再次与神联合。人类，无论是以
往的或将来的人，在他里面得到恢复 (recapitulation)，这恢复使人类从亚当堕落后踏
上之途挽回过来。这是爱任纽基督论的中心思想。他提到耶稣基督替死赎罪，但没有太
强调。基督工作的最重要因素是他的顺服，他的顺服抵消了亚当的不顺服。
The Christology of Irenaeus is superior to that of Tertullian and Hippol
ytus and influenced the latter to a greater extent. He is averse to specula
tions about the Logos, because these lead at most to probable guesses. He m
erely asserts that the Logos existed from all eternity and was instrumental
in revealing the Father; and then takes his real starting-point in the histo
rically revealed Son of God. Through the incarnation the Logos became the h
istorical Jesus, and thereafter was at once true God and true man. He rejec
ts the heresy of the Gnostics that in His suffering and death the passible J
esus was separated fro the impassible Christ, and attaches the greater signi
ficance to the union of God with human nature. In Christ as the second Adam
the human race is once more united to God. There is in Him a recapitulatio
n of mankind, which reaches backward as well as forward, and in which mankin
d reverses the course on which it entered at the fall. This is the very cor
e of the Christological teaching of Irenaeus. The death of Christ as our su
bstitute is mentioned but not stressed. The central element in the work of
Christ is His obedience, whereby the disobedience of Adam is cancelled.
2. 特土良
Tertullian’s Christology
特土良的基督论以 「道」 为出发点，发展出在历史上很重要的教义。他说：基督
教的 「道」 有实际的本质(a real subsistence)， 是一位独立的位格 (Person)，是
神所生，从神而出﹔不是从神流出，乃是自动生长 (self-projection)，正像树木从根
生长出来一样。他的存在是有起点的 (There was a time when he was not)。特土良强
调 「道」 与父同质(substance) ，但生存的形态 (mode of existence) 却与父不同。
他有自己的位格。他的存在不是由于和父神分隔开来 (partitioning)，乃是借自我彰显
(self-unfolding)。父是全部的本质，而子只是本质的一部份，因为子是演展出来的
(derived)。特土良并没有完全脱出子是低于父的观念。特土良的长远重要性，乃是因为
他是第一位提出本质 (substance) 与位格 (person) 这个观念者﹔后来制订尼西亚信经
( Nicene Creed) 时，就用到这些观念。我们可以说他扩大了 「道」 的教义，发展为
三位一体的教义。为了驳斥神格唯一派，特土良强调神性中的三个位格只有一个本质。
位格乃众数，却没本体之别。可惜他并没有完全讲明三位一体的教义。他只看到 「道」
是在神里面的 「无位格理性」 (impersonal reason)， 在创造时才有位格。一个位格
低于另一个位格这观念，又以粗略的方式表达：第一位格参与神性的本质 (substance)
比较多， 而第二位格的参与较少。
Tertullian takes his starting-point in the doctrine of the Logos, but de
velops it in a way that became historically significant. He stresses the fa
ct that the Logos of the Christians is a real subsistence, an independent Pe
rson, who was begotten by God and thus proceeded from Hi, not by emanation,
but by self-projection, just as a root projects a tree. There was a time wh
en He was not. He emphasizes the fact that the Logos is of the same substan
ce with the Father, and yet differs from Him in mode of existence as a disti
nct Person. He did not come into existence by partitioning but by self-unfo
lding. The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is only a part of it,
because He is derived. Tertullian did not entirely get away from the idea
of subordination. His work is of lasting significance in connection with th
e introduction of the conception of substance and person into theology, idea
s that were utilized in the construction of the Nicene Creed. It may be sai
d that he enlarged the doctrine of the Logos into a doctrine of the Trinity.
In opposition to the Monarchian theory he stressed the fact that the three
persons in the Godhead are of one substance, susceptible of number without
division. Yet he did not succeed in reaching the full Trinitarian statement
. He too conceived of the Logos as originally impersonal reason in God, bec
ome personal at the time of creation. And subordination of the one person t
o the other is presented in the crude form of a greater and lesser participa
tion of the first and second persons in the divine substance.
关于基督的神人二性，特土良与小亚细亚派的说法非常相似。关于基督完全的人性
，除了麦利都 (Melito) 之外，他比其他教父们都讲得更清晰。他清楚地分辨基督的两
性不混淆，神性人性都有各自的属性。他认为两性并没有融合起来 (fusion)，神人二性
在基督里聚在一起 (conjunction)。他很重视耶稣基督的死，但没有详细解明，因为他
并没有强调耶稣受刑替死赎罪的必需性。他只注重罪人必需诚心悔罪。他虽认为神的公
义有刑罚的因素，但特别高举神的怜悯。同时，他的教导中有律法主义的趋向。他认为
人受洗之后若犯罪，必须悔改或认罪，才能满足神的要求。他又认为借禁食及禁欲来治
死罪 (self-mortification)，能叫人逃避永刑。
Relative to the God-man and His two natures Tertullian expressed himself
very much as the School of Asia Minor did. He surpasses all the other Fath
ers, except Melito, in doing justice to the full humanity of Christ, and in
his clear distinction of the two natures, each one retaining its own attribu
tes. According to him there is no fusion, but a conjunction of the human and
the divine in Christ. He is very emphatic on the importance of the death o
f Christ, but is not entirely clear on this point, since he does not stress
the necessity of penal satisfaction, but only that of penitence on the part
of the sinner. While he does recognize a punitive element in justice, he ex
alts the mercy of God. At the same time a certain legalism pervades his tea
ching. He speaks of satisfaction made for sins committed after baptism by r
epentance or confession. By fasting and other forms of mortification the si
nner is able to escape eternal punishment.
3. 爱任纽论救赎的工作
Irenaeus on the Work of Redemption
在反诺斯底派的教父中，爱任纽对于基督救赎大功的描写最详细，但他的讨论不完
全一致。爱任纽是教父之中最正统的一位，但在他的着作中有两种思想不合乎《圣经》
：一是道德取向的，二是神秘主义取向的。前者乃是说：人若自动地拣选善 – 这是靠
己力能做到的 -他就能重获得到永生的命运。基督圣工的真正重要性，是叫我们确实的
认识神，因此强化了人的自由。后者，基督叫人类在他里面复原 (recapitulation)，在
神人之间建立了新的关系，成为叫人类获新生命的面酵。“道” 借着受苦受死与人类认
同，也借着使人类成圣与赐人不朽，使人类升到更高的境界。他使人类在他里面复原，
挽转了人类在亚当里启动的命运。他赐给人类新生与不朽的的面酵。这种说法可被解释
为：救赎是透过神秘的过程 (mystical process) ，从道成了肉身直到人类神化 (deif
ication)。爱任纽在这方面的强调，可能因为他受到约翰的影响，比保罗的影响更深。
显然地，爱任纽的用意并不是要教导救赎是完全神秘的，超肉体的。他虽特别重视基督
与他救赎的子民必须有生命的联合 (living union) – 圣安瑟伦并没有论到这一点 –
但他也提到这方面与救赎其他方面的关系：如基督为我们顺服神，满足了神的要求﹔他
为我们受苦，为我们付上罪债，向父神献上挽回祭，挽回父神的忿怒 (propitiation)
。他也救赎我们脱离撒但的权势。
Of the Anti-gnostic Fathers Irenaeus gives the fullest description of th
e work of redemption, but his representation is not altogether consistent.
While he is regarded as one of the most orthodox of the early Church Fathers
, there are two lines of thought present in his writings which are hardly Sc
riptural, the one moralistic and the other somewhat mystical. According to
the former, man regains his destiny when he voluntarily chooses the good whi
ch he is still able to do. The real significance of Christ’s work lies in
the fact that He brought the sure knowledge of God and thus strengthened the
freedom of man. According to the second Christ recapitulates the whole hum
an race in Himself, and thus establishes a new relation between God and man
and becomes the leaven of a new life in humanity. The Logos identifies Hims
elf with humanity in His sufferings and death, and becomes instrumental in r
aising it to a higher level by sanctifying and immortalizing it. He recapit
ulates in Himself the whole human race and reverses the course which derives
its impetus from the fall of the first Adam. He communicates to it the le
aven of a new and immortal life. This may easily be, and has frequently bee
n interpreted as teaching atonement by a mystical process begun in the incar
nation and resulting in the deification of man. The emphasis on this idea i
n the writings of Irenaeus may be due to the fact that he was influenced by
the Johaninne writings more than by the Pauline Epistles. It is quite evide
nt, however, that Irenaeus did not mean to teach a purely mystical or hyper-
physical redemption. While he strongly emphasizes the necessity of a living
union of Christ with the subjects of his redemption – something which Anse
lm failed to do – he associates this with other ideas, such as that He rend
ered for us the obedience required by God, that He suffered in our stead, pa
ying our debt and propitiating the Father, and that He redeemed us from the
power of Satan.
救恩，教会，末世论教义
Their Doctrines of Salvation, of the Church, and of the Last Things
Irenaeus is not altogether clear in his soteriology. He emphasizes the
necessity of faith as a prerequisite for baptism. This faith is not only an
intellectual acceptance of the truth, but also includes a self-surrender of
the soul which issues in a holy life. By baptism man is regenerated; his si
ns are washed away and a new life is born within him. He evidently has no c
lear conception of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, for his r
epresentation of the relation between faith and justification is different.
Faith necessarily leads on to the observance of the commandments of Christ,
and is therefore sufficient to make a man righteous before God. The Spirit
of God endows the Christian with new life, and the fundamental characterist
ic of the new life is that it brings forth the fruits of righteousness in go
od works.
The works of Tertullian marks no particular advance in the doctrine of t
he application of the work of Christ. Moralism again appears in the view tha
t the sinner by repentance earns for himself salvation in baptism. His repr
esentation of the doctrine of penance is of special interest, however, since
he introduces legal terms here which were in later theology applied to the
redemptive work of Christ. He regards God as a Lawgiver and Judge, who look
s upon sin as transgression and guilt, and therefore demands satisfaction, a
nd in lieu of satisfaction inflicts punishment. Sins committed after baptis
m require satisfaction by penance. If this is rendered, the punishment is w
arded off. In this representation we find the foundation for the Roman Cath
olic sacrament of penance. The legal terms employed, such as “Judge,” “g
uilt,” “punishment,” and “satisfaction,” were transferred to the work o
f Christ in the theology of the Church.
In their teachings respecting the Church these fathers reveal a tendency
to yield to Judaism in substituting the idea of an external community for t
hat of a spiritual fellowship. They sowed seeds which bore fruit in the Cyp
rianic or Roman Catholic conception of the Church. They do indeed still ret
ain the idea that the Church is a spiritual community of believers, but repr
esent this as coinciding with an external fellowship. In fact, they represe
nt the visible organization as the channel of divine grace, and make partici
pation in the blessings of salvation dependent on membership in the visible
Church. They who separated themselves from the external communion of the Ch
urch, which was of Apostolic origin and had its head the sedes apostolicae,
thereby also renounced Christ. Due to the influence of the Old Testament t
he idea of a special mediating priesthood also came to the foreground.
The Anti-gnostic Fathers in general championed the doctrine of the resur
rection of the flesh, and based it on the resurrection of Christ and on the
indwelling of the Spirit. The end will come when the devil has succeeded in
giving the entire apostate throng a new head in Antichrist. Then Christ wi
ll appear, and the six thousands yeas of the world will be followed by the f
irst resurrection and the sabbatic rest of the millennium. In Palestine bel
ievers will enjoy the riches of the land. After the millennium there will b
e a new heaven and a new earth, and the blessed will live in graded order in
the mansions prepared for them.
第三部份
亚历山大的教父
THE ALEXANDRIAN FATHERS
(Louis Berkhof, A History of Christian Doctrines, 70-76﹔伯克富， 《基督教教
义史》，页51-57。林慈信修。)
正如在第一世纪，犹太教宗教思想与希腊哲学混合，产生一派由斐罗 (Philo) 代表
的思想﹔同样在第二，第三世纪，希腊哲学与福音真理混合起来，形成了亚历山大派的
神学。当时有些杰出的神学家，将诺斯底主义中最深奥的揣测，用来建立教会的信仰。
在这过程中，他们用了隐喻法解释；《圣经》 (allegorical interpretation)。基督教
真理成为一种用文学方式表达的学问。这派基督教学术中最重要人物，乃是亚历山大的
革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 与奥利金 (Origen)。
Just as in a former century Jewish religious learning and Hellenistic ph
ilosophy combined to produce the type of thought represented by Philo, so in
the second and third centuries Hellenistic learning and the truths of the G
ospel were combined in a rather astonishing way to give birth to the Alexand
rian type of theology. The attempt was made by some of the leading theologi
ans to utilize the profoundest speculations of the Gnostics in the construct
ion of the Church’s faith. In doing this they resorted to the allegorical
interpretation of the Bible. The truths of the Christian religion were turne
d into a science couched in literary form. The most important representativ
es of this form of Christian learning were Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
亚历山大的教父
The Alexandrian Fathers
亚历山大的革利免
Clement of Alexandria
革利免与奥利金代表东方的神学，这派比西方的神学更抽象。两位都是亚历山大教
义学院 (School of the Catechetes) 的老师，影响力至深。若与爱任纽和特土良比较
，我们可以说革利免不是正统基督徒。他没有像爱任纽与特土良遵守信仰的准则 (The
Rule of Faith)。他乃根据护教士的方法，尝试以自己对当日哲学的理解，来配合基督
教的传统，有时几乎以哲学取代传统教义。革利免与特土良不同，他对哲学友善，坚持
基督教神学家必须在外邦学术思想与福音之间建立桥梁。他觉得《圣经》与理性 (他尤
其高举理性) 都是认识神之泉源﹔又因采用隐喻 (灵意) 解经法，引进许多人为的猜测
。不过，他对希腊哲学的估价并不一贯﹔有时认为希腊哲学有启示的成份，但有时又谴
责是从希伯来先知们剽窃而来。
Clement and Origen represent the theology of the East, which was ore spe
culative than that of the West. Both were influential teachers of the schoo
l of the catechetes at Alexandria. Clement was not an orthodox Christian in
the same measure as Irenaeus and Tertullian. He did not adhere to the Rule
of Faith as much as they did, but followed in the path of the APologetes in
seeking to wed the philosophy of the day, as he understood it, to the Chris
tian tradition, and sometimes practically substituted the former for the lat
ter. In distinction from Tertullian he was friendly to philosophy, and insi
sted on it that the Christian theologian should build a bridge between the G
ospel and Gentile learning. He found the sources of the knowledge of divine
things in Scripture and reason, exalted the latter unduly, and by his alleg
orical interpretation opened wide the door for all kinds of human speculatio
n. His estimate of Greek philosophy is not altogether consistent. Sometime
s he ascribes it to a partial revelation, and sometimes he stigmatizes it as
plagiarism from the Hebrew prophets.
奥利金
Origen
奥利金的父母亲是基督徒，小时受基督教教育。他非常早熟，年轻就开始严谨的苦
修操练。他继承了他的老师 – 亚历山大的革利免，出任教义学院院长。为了装备自己
，他彻底研究了当时流行的新柏拉图派哲学 (Neo-Platonism)，和当时最重要的异端，
尤其是诺斯底主义。不久他就名扬四海，越来越多人参加他的讲座。他是早期教会中最
有学问，思想最深奥的思想家。他的教义非常抽象，后期被判为异端。他竭力反对诺斯
底主义，也使神格唯一论受到极大的打击。然而这些都是次要的﹔他主要的工作乃是建
立一套基督教教义系统。他最重要的着作《原道》 (De Principiis)，是基督教最早的
一部完整的系统神学。其中有一部份后来被定为异端，然而他对后来的教义发展有极大
的影响。他似乎愿意在信仰上作正统的基督徒﹔他坚持遵照神的圣道与信仰的准则，作
为他诠释的标准﹔认为若不出于《圣经》的教训或是根据《圣经》的教义的推论，就当
拒绝。虽是如此，他的神学深受新柏拉图主义的影响，而他的隐喻法解经引致各样的猜
测与随意解释。
Origen was born of Christian parents and received a Christian education.
He was a precocious child, and from early childhood practiced a rigorous a
sceticism. He succeeded his teacher, Clement, as catechist at Alexandria.
To fit himself for the work he made a thorough study of Neo-Platonism, which
was then coming into favour, and of the leading heretical systems, especial
ly Gnosticism. His fame soon spread and large numbers attended his lectures
. He was the most learned and one of the profoundest thinkers of the early
Church. His teachings were of a very speculative nature, and in later life
he was condemned for heresy. He battled against the Gnostics and also struc
k a decisive blow against Monarchianism. But this was all incidental to his
main purpose, that of constructing a systematic body of Christian doctrine.
His principal work, De Principiis, is the first example of a positive and
well-rounded system of theology. Part of his teachings were afterwards decl
ared heretical, but he had an enormous influence on the development of doctr
ine. It seems that he desired to be an orthodox Christian: he took his stan
d squarely on the Word of God and the Rule of faith as a standard of interpr
etation; and maintained that nothing should be received that was contrary to
Scripture or to a legitimate deduction from Scripture. Yet his theology bo
re the earmarks of Neo-Platonism, and his allegorical interpretation opened
the way for all kinds of speculation and arbitrary interpretation.
神论与人论
Their Doctrine of God and of Man
神论
Doctrine of God
如同护教士们，奥利金认为神是绝对的，是不可认知的，不可测度的，不可被动的
﹔是自足的，超乎任何需要和缺乏的﹔他也像反诺斯底派的教父们那样，反对诺斯底主
义者将善神与 「造物主」 (Demiurge) 分为两位神。神是一位，旧约与新约的神是同一
位神。神是绝对的第一因 (absolute causality) 。因他认为神的属性，如 「无所不能
」 以及 「公义」 等，永远是动性的 (eternally in action)， 因此他提倡神永远创
造的教义 (eternal creation)。
Like the Apologetes, Origen speaks of God in absolute terms, as the inco
mprehensible, inestimable, and impassible One, who is beyond want of anythin
g; and like the Anti-gnostic Fathers, he rejects the Gnostic distinction bet
ween the good God and the Demiurge or Creator of the world. God is One, the
same in the Old and in the New Testament. He ascribes absolute causality t
o God, and since he can conceive of such attributes as omnipotence and justi
ce only as eternally in action, he teaches the doctrine of eternal creation.
「道」 的教义
Doctrine of the Logos
亚历山大的革利免对 「道」 的解释什不清楚。他认为 「道」是有位格地存在的
(personal subsistence)，与父同一 (oneness with the Father)，他是父神在永恒中
生的 (eternal generation) ; 但又称 「道」 为神的理性 (divine reason)，次于圣
父。他将 「道」 分为两位，一位是 「真的神的道」 (real Logos of God)，另一位是
在肉身出现的 「神子道」 (Son- Logos)。从起初开始，「道」 是神启示的媒介 (med
iates revelation)，因为 「道」 在创造大工上加上神智慧的印记。 「道」 将理性之
光赐予人类﹔为真理作了特别的启示﹔并在基督里道成肉身。「道」 的光帮助外邦人，
在他们来就福音完备之光上作踏脚石。
Clement of Alexandria is by no means clear in his representation of the
Logos. He stresses the personal subsistence of the Logos, His oneness with
the Father, and His eternal generation; but also represents Him as the divin
e reason, and as subordinate to the Father. He distinguishes between the re
al Logos of God and the Son-Logos who appeared in the flesh. From the begin
ning the Logos mediates the divine revelation by stamping divine wisdom on t
he work of creation, by imparting to men the light of reason, by making spec
ial disclosures of the truth, and by His incarnation in Jesus Christ. The l
ight of the Logos serves the Gentiles as a stepping-stone to the fuller ligh
t of the Gospel.
奥利金说独一神主要是圣父，但他借着 「道」 自我启示，也借着 「道」 来行事
。「道」 是有位格的，与父同永 (co-eternal)，是由父神一个永恒的作为 (one eter
nal act) 而生。奥利金论子从父而生时，完全拒绝子是从父射出来 (emanation) 或分
出来 (division) 的看法。但他虽承认子有完全的神性，但有时又好像说子是次于父 (
subordination)。他虽说子是在永恒里由父而生，但当他解释这句话时，不单认为子在
救赎计划上次于圣父 (economic subordination)，而在本质上也次于圣父 (essential
subordination)。他有时称子为第二位神 (Theos Deuteros)。在道成肉身中，道与一
个人的灵魂联合，这灵魂在先存时 (pre-existence) 乃是纯洁的。基督的神性与人性是
有别的 (kept distinct) ﹔但奥利金又说道复活与升天之后，将他的人性 「神化」了
。
Origen says that the one God is primarily the Father, but He reveals him
self and works through the Logos, who is personal and co-eternal with the Fa
ther, begotten of Him by one eternal act. In connection with the generation
of the Son every idea of emanation and division is rejected. But though he
recognizes the full divinity of the Son, he uses some expressions that poin
t to subordination. While he speaks of eternal generation, he defines the p
hrase in such a way as to teach not merely an economic but an essential subo
rdination of the Son to the Father. He sometimes calls the Son Theos Deuter
os. In the incarnation the Logos united himself with a human soul, which in
its pre-existence remained pure. The natures in Christ are kept distinct,
but it is held that the Logos by His resurrection and ascension deified His
human nature.
圣灵论
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
革利免没有尝试解释圣灵与圣父和圣子的关系。可是奥利金对三位一体第三位的教
义，比他对基督的观点更偏离大公教会的教义。他说圣灵是父借子所造的第一位受造物
。圣灵与圣父的关系没有圣子与圣父的关系那么亲密。他更说：圣灵没有在整个宇宙中
运行﹔他只在圣徒的生命中运行而已。圣灵的本质是善的，他使罪人更新与成圣，也是
敬拜神者敬拜的对象 (object of divine worship)。
Clement does not try to explain the relation of the Holy Spirit to the o
ther Persons of the Trinity, and Origen’s view of the third Person is furth
er removed from the Catholic doctrine than his conception of the Second Pers
on. He speaks of the Holy Spirit as the first creature made by the Father t
hrough the Son. The Spirit’s relation to the Father is not as close as tha
t of the Son. Moreover, the Spirit does not operate in creation as a whole,
but only in the saints. He possesses goodness by nature, renews and sancti
fies sinners, and is an object of divine worship.
奥利金的人论
Origen’s Doctrine of Man
奥利金论人的教义也非常独特。因他持 「永远创造论」 (eternal creation) ，所
以他认为人是先存的 (pre-existence of man)，因为原本的创造只创造了有理性的灵
(rational spirits), (与神)平等(co-equal)，(与神)同永 (co-eternal)。今天人类的
光景预设了一个先存的堕落，从圣洁堕落到有罪。物质世界就是在这先存的堕落时候被
造的。堕落了的灵，因之成为灵魂，穿上了肉体。物质之被造，是要为这些堕落的灵预
备居所，使他们受管教，得以炼净 (purgation)。
Origen’s teachings respecting man are somewhat out of the ordinary. Th
e pre-existence of man is involved in his theory of eternal creation, since
the original creation consisted exclusively of rational spirits, co-equal as
well as co-eternal. The present condition of man presupposes a pre-existen
t fall from holiness into sin, which was the occasion for the creation of th
e present material world. The fallen spirits now became souls and were clot
hed with bodies. Matter was called into being for the very purpose of suppl
ying an abode and a means of discipline and purgation for these fallen spiri
ts.
基督的位格与工作的教义
Their Doctrine of the Person and Work of Christ
道成肉身的教义
Doctrine of the Incarnation
这两位教父都认为道成肉身，就是道成了完全的人，有完整的人性，包括人的身体
与灵魂，因此成了一个真实的人，即 「神 –人」 。可是革利免脱不出 「幻影说」。
他说：耶稣基督吃东西，并不是因为他需要食物，乃是要借此使人不能否认他的人性﹔
他又说基督不可能有人的悲伤与喜乐等感情。奥利金坚持，基督的灵魂是 「先存的」，
如其他一切的灵魂一样，他什至说基督的灵魂在 「先存的」 状态中，是与 「道」 联
合的。其实在道成肉身之前，基督的灵魂与 「道」 早已完全彼此融合 (complete int
erpenetration)。「道」 所充满的灵魂取了一个身体，什至这个身体也被 「道」 穿入
(penetrated) 而 「神化」 (divinized) 。因为在基督里神性与人性是如此混合 (min
gling)，所以当他被荣耀时，他等于成为无所不在 (ubiquitous)。奥利金并没有成功地
维持基督里神性与人性的完整性 (integrity)。
Both of these Fathers teach that in the incarnation the Logos assumed hu
man nature in its entirety, body and soul, and thus became a real man, the G
od-man, though Clement did not entirely succeed in avoiding Docetism. He sa
ys that Christ used food, not because He needed it, but simply to guard agai
nst a denial of his humanity, and that he was incapable of emotions of joy a
nd grief. Origen maintains that the soul of Christ pre-existed, like all ot
her souls, and was even in its pre-existence united with the Logos. In fact
, even before the incarnation a complete interpenetration had taken place be
tween the Logos and this soul. The Logos-filled soul assumed a body, and th
en even this body was penetrated and divinized by the Logos. There was such
a mingling of the divine and the human in Christ that by his glorification
He became virtually ubiquitous. Origen hardly succeeded in maintaining the
integrity of the two natures in Christ.
论基督工作的教义
Doctrine of the Work of Christ
他们对基督的工作有不同的看法。革利免认为基督献上自己作为赎价 (ransom)，但
他并没有看到基督为人类的罪成了赎罪的挽回祭 (propitiation)。他特别重视基督为赐
律的主，教师，能教导引致永生不朽的道路。对于他，救赎的工作并不是要使过去的罪
得以赦免，而是叫人能从堕落的光景中升高，过一种更完善的生活。奥利金论到基督救
赎之工时，认为基督是大医师，牧师，赐律者，并作我们最好的榜样。他对罪人说是医
师，对那些已经被洁净的人是教师，对他的百姓是赐律者，对那些跟从他的人是道德生
活的好榜样。基督是大医师，教师，赐律者，好榜样，所以能使人因他获得神的性情。
奥利金同时看到信徒的救恩完全靠着基督为我们受苦替死。基督因为能够蒙蔽撒但的眼
，而将信徒从魔鬼的权势之下拯救出来。他将自己交给撒但作为赎价，撒但接受了这个
赎价，却不知道因为基督是完全无罪的。撒但就无法将他留住。基督之死是替罪死，是
赎罪之祭，如此方能叫死人的罪得了代赎。“道” 所作成的救赎功效，不但在今世，而
且在来世也照样有效。不但是古往今来的世人，就是那些堕落的灵，什至撒但与它的恶
魔们也会受到基督救赎的影响。末日时，万事都要复兴。
There are different representations of the work of Christ, which are not
properly integrated. Clement speaks of the self-surrender of Christ as a r
ansom, but does not stress the idea that He was a propitiation for the sin o
f mankind. He places far greater emphasis on Christ as the Lawgiver and Tea
cher, and as the way to immortality. Redemption does not so much consist in
undoing the past as in the elevation of man to a state even higher than tha
t of unfallen man. The dominant thought in Origen is that Christ was physic
ian, teacher, lawgiver, and example. He was a physician for sinners, a teac
her of those who had been purified, the lawgiver of His people, requiring ob
edience to God and faith in Christ, and the perfect example of a virtuous li
fe for His followers. In all these capacities He makes sinners, as much as
possible, partakers of the divine nature. At the same time Origen recognize
s the fact that the salvation of believers is dependent on the sufferings an
d death of Christ. Christ delivers them from the power of the devil, and do
es this by practicing deceit on Satan. He offers Himself to Satan as a rans
om, and Satan accepts the ransom without realizing that he would not be able
to retain his hold on Christ, the Sinless One. The death of Christ is repr
esented as vicarious, as an offering for sin, and as a necessary atonement.
The redemptive influence of the Logos extends beyond this life. Not only m
en who have lived on earth and died, but all fallen spirits, not excluding S
atan and his evil angels, are brought under redemptive influences. There wil
l be a restitution of all things.
论教会的教义，论未来的事的教义
Their Doctrine of Salvation, Of the Church, and Of the Last Things
救恩的教义
Doctrine of Salvation
亚历山大的教父们承认人有自由意志，所以当耶稣基督的救恩传给他的时候，他就
会接受救恩，弃恶从善。神将救恩赐下，人有权自由接纳。但奥利金虽然一方面说信心
是出于人意志的行动，但他也认为人有信心是由于神的恩惠。信心是得救过程中最初的
步骤，因此，救恩的获得是出于信心。然而信心不过是接受神启示的第一步，此外还必
须要提高到知识与悟性，也必须进到好行为的表现。信心使人得救，但信心的目标乃是
行为。这些都很重要。奥利金常提到救恩的两个步骤，一是信心 (对外的) ，一是知识
(对内的) 。这两位教父并没有看到保罗所教导的信心与称义的观念。此外，奥利金特
别提到信心并不是得救的唯一条件。在他看来，悔改比信心更重要，因为悔改是在神面
前承认我们的罪。他所论的救恩是内在的，不是像西方的教父，尤其是特土良等，所着
重的法律上的救恩。
The Alexandrian Fathers recognize the free will of man, which enables hi
m to turn to the good and to accept the salvation that is offered in Jesus C
hrist. God offers salvation, and man has the power to accept it. But while
Origen represents faith as an act of man, he also speaks of it as an effect
of divine grace. It is a necessary preliminary step to salvation, and ther
efore salvation may be said to depend on it. However, it is only an initial
acceptance of God’s revelation, must be elevated to knowledge and understa
nding, and must lead on to the performance of good works. Faith saves becau
se it ever has works in view. These are the really important things. Orige
n speaks of two ways of salvation, one by faith (exoteric), and another by k
nowledge (esoteric). These Fathers certainly did not have the Pauline conce
ption of faith and justification. Moreover, Origen stresses the fact that f
aith is not the only condition of salvation. Repentance is even more neces
sary, which consists in the confession of our sins before God. He ascribes
to it a more inward, and less legal, character than the Western Fathers, and
particularly Tertullian.
教会论
Doctrine of the Church
Origen regards the Church as the congregation of believers, outside of w
hich there is no salvation. He discriminates between the Church properly so
called and the empirical Church. And while he recognizes all believers as
priests, he also speaks of a separate priesthood with special prerogatives.
Both he and Clement teach that baptism marks the beginning of the new life
in the Church, and includes the forgiveness of sins. Clement distinguishes
between a lower and a higher state of the Christian life. In the former man
attains to holiness under the influence of fear and hope, while in the latt
er fear is cast out by perfect love. This is the life of real knowledge tha
t is enjoyed by him to whom the mysteries are revealed. The eucharist besto
ws participation in immortality, for through it the communicant enters into
fellowship with Christ and the divine Spirit. In Origen the sacraments are
spiritualized. They are symbols of divine influences, though they also repr
esent gracious operations of the Holy Spirit.
末世论
Doctrine of the Future
According to both Clement and Origen the process of purification, begun
in the life of the sinner on earth, is continued after death. Chastisement
is the great cleansing agency and cure for sin. Origen teaches that at deat
h the good enter paradise or a place where they receive further education, a
nd the wicked experience the fire of judgment which, however, is not to be r
egarded as a permanent punishment, but as a means of purification. Clement
asserts that the heathen have an opportunity to repent in hades and that the
ir probation does not end until the day of judgment, while Origen maintains
that God’s work of redemption will not cease until all things are restored
to their pristine beauty. The restoration of all things will even include S
atan and his demons. Only a few people enter upon the full blessedness of t
he vision of God at once; the great majority of them just pass through a pro
cess of purification after death. Both of these Fathers were averse to the
doctrine of a millennium, and Origen has a tendency to spiritualize the resu
rrection. He seems to have regarded the incorporeal as the ideal state, but
did believe in a bodily resurrection. According to him a germ of the body
remains and gives rise to a spiritual organism, conformed to the nature of t
he particular soul to which it belongs, whether it be good or evil.
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 「道」
乃是另一位格，可能威胁了神的合一性，什至一神论﹔而重视基督论者则认为 「道」
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 outstan
ding heresy of the third century was Monarchianism. The Logos doctrine of t
he Apologetes, the Anti-gnostic Fathers, and the Alexandrian Fathers did not
give general satisfaction. Apparently many of the common people regarded i
t with misgivings, since it seemed to impinge on their theological or on the
ir Christological interests. Where the theological interest was uppermost,
the doctrine of the Logos as a separate divine Person appeared to endanger t
he 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 on
e hand the unity of God, and on the other hand the deity of Christ. This ga
ve 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 u
ppermost. In spite of its partial impropriety, the name is generally used u
p 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) 一个不着名的派别。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
被一位佚名氏所着 《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 maintain
ing the unity of God, and was entirely in line with the Ebionite heresy of t
he early Church and with present-day Unitarianism. Some find the earliest m
anifestation of it in the rather obscure sect of the Alogi, but Seeberg ques
tions the correctness of this. In all probability its earliest representati
ve 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 argu
ments were effectively refuted, however, in the publication of an unknown au
thor, 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 Samosat
a) 将之死灰复燃。这位主教非常属世，也什傲慢。他认为 「道」 是与父神同质 (hom
oousios, 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) ，因为他存在于神里面，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，所以他配有神的尊贵﹔然而严格说来他并不应被认为是神。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 An
tioch, who is described as a worldly-minded and imperious person. According
to him the Logos was indeed homoousios or consubstantial with the Father, b
ut was not a distinct Person in the Godhead. He could be identified with Go
d, because He existed in Him just as human reason exists in man. He was mer
ely an impersonal power, present in all men, but particularly operative in t
he 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 t
he doctrine of the Logos Paul of Samosata maintained the unity of God as imp
lying 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 t
he forerunner of the later Socinians and Unitarians. Like them he was inter
ested 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」 (Sabel
lianism) 。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 in
terest seems to have been Christological, namely, the maintenance of the ful
l divinity of Christ. It was called Modalistic Monarchianism, because it co
nceived of the three Persons of the Godhead as so many modes in which God ma
nifested Himself; was known as Patripassianism in the West, since it held th
at the Father Himself had become incarnate in Christ, and therefore also suf
fered in and with Him; and was designated Sabellianism in the East after the
name of its most famous representative. The great difference between it an
d 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 Hi
mself 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)他的儿子。奴爱达自己是这样说：「当圣父尚未降生时，他当被称为父﹔但他
按自己的美意，服在降世为人之下时，他就出生，成为圣子﹔是他自己 (He of Himsel
f)，并不是另一位 (of another，成为圣子)。」
Tertullian connects the origin of this sect with a certain Praxeas of wh
om little is known, while Hippolytus claims that it originated in the teachi
ngs of Noetus of Smyrna. However this may be, both were evidently instrumen
tal in propagating it. Praxeas was absolutely inimical to personal distinct
ions in God. Tertullian says of him: “He drove out the Paraclete and cruci
fied the Father.” Praxeas, however, seems to have avoided the assertion th
at 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 th
at the Father Himself was born and suffered and died.” According to the sa
me 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 Noetu
s referred to runs as follows: “When the Father had not yet been born, He w
as rightly called the Father; but when it pleased Him to submit to birth, ha
ving been born, He became the Son, He of Himself and not of another.”
撒伯流
Sabellius
「形态神格唯一说」最着名的代表是撒伯流。他的着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 (un
ity of the divine essence)，他的显示则有多种 (plurality of its manifestation
s)。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 onl
y a few fragments of his writings are extant, it is hard to determine in det
ail just what he taught. It is perfectly clear, however, that he distinguis
hed between the unity of the divine essence and the plurality of its manifes
tations, which are represented as following one another like the parts of a
drama. Sabellius indeed sometimes spoke of three divine persons, but then u
sed the word “person” in the original sense of the word, in which it signi
fies a role of acting or a mode of manifestation. According to him the name
s Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are simply designations of three different ph
ases under which the one divine essence manifests itself. God reveals Himse
lf as Father in creation and in the giving of the law, as Son in the incarna
tion, 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 (im
personal 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 betwee
n 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 reg
arded Him as personal and co-eternal with the Father, sharing the divine ess
ence, and yet ascribed to Him a certain subordination to the Father. The Ho
ly Spirit occupied no important place in their discussion at all. They spok
e of Him primarily in connection with the work of redemption as applied to t
he hearts and lives of believers. Some considered Him to be subordinate, no
t only to the Father, but also to the Son. Tertullian was the first to asse
rt 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 d
octrine 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 (T
heos), 但不能称为唯一的神 (Ho Theos) 。奥氏有时什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 (tempor
al 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 p
roper sense of the word. Tertullian and Hippolytus combated their views in
the West, while Origen struck them a decisive blow in the East. They defend
ed the Trinitarian position as it is expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. But
even Origen’s construction of the doctrine of the Trinity was not altogeth
er satisfactory. He firmly held the view that both the Father and the Son a
re divine hypostases or personal subsistences, but did not entirely succeed
in giving a scriptural representation of the relation of the three Persons t
o the one essence in the Godhead. While he was the first to explain the rel
ation 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 t
he First in respect to essence. The Father communicated to the Son only a s
econdary 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 ra
dical defect in Origen’s doctrine of the Trinity and afforded a stepping-st
one 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 id
ea of temporal succession. In his doctrine of the Holy Spirit he departed s
till further from the representation of Scripture. He not only made the hol
y 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，他不是
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 Go
d)，仅为神的一种力量 (a divine energy) 的 「道」，与最终成为肉身的子或 「道」
加以区分。后者是有起头的：他是父神所生，用亚利乌的说法，就等于说基督是被造的
。他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。他是一切
受造物中最伟大，最初的﹔他被造的目的，是借者他创造世界。因此他是可变的，但因
为他预见的功德被神所拣选，也想到他未来的荣耀，被称为神的儿子，也由于他被神认
为义子，所以他能受人的崇敬。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 vie
ws of Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, a rather skilful disputant, though n
ot a profound spirit. His dominant idea was the monotheistic principle of t
he Monarchians, that there is only one unbegotten God, one unoriginated Bein
g, without any beginning of existence. He distinguished between the Logos t
hat is immanent in God, which is simply a divine energy, and the Son or Logo
s that finally became incarnate. The latter had a beginning: He was generat
ed by the Father, which is the parlance of Arius was simply equivalent to sa
ying that He was created. He was created out of nothing before the world wa
s called into being, and for that very reason was not eternal nor of the div
ine essence. The greatest and first of all created beings, He was brought i
nto 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 cal
led the Son of God in view of His future glory. And in virtues of His adopt
ion 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 in
ferior 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.
2. 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，就是否认相信他而得救和与神联合。
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 th
e doctrine of an eternal sonship by generation. In course of time, however,
his real opponent proved to be the archdeacon of Alexandria, the great Atha
nasius, who stands out on the pages of history as a strong, inflexible, and
unwavering champion of the truth. Seeberg ascribes his great strength to th
ree 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 concept
ion 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他本性中的区分，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 th
e 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 The
os Deuteros. But while stressing the unity of God, he also recognized three
distinct hypostases in God. He refused to believe in the pre-temporarily c
reated Son of the Arians, and maintained the independent and eternally perso
nal existence of the Son. At the same time he bore in mind that the three h
ypostases 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 essen
ce.” 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 i
n 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 a
nd eternal act of God, and not as an act that was simply dependent on His so
vereign 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，除了他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，他来到人间，就
是神来到人间。那么借着他我们才能与神有交通，罪得赦免。他把真理以及永生，确定
地带给世人。」 (《教义史》，卷一，211页)
It was not merely the demand of logical consistency that inspired Athana
sius and determined his theological views. The controlling factor in his co
nstruction of the truth was of a religious nature. His soteriological convi
ctions naturally gave birth to his theological tenets. His fundamental posit
ion was that union with God is necessary unto salvation, and that no creatur
e, 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 qu
alification, has God entered humanity, and only then have fellowship with Go
d, the foregiveness of sins, the truth of God, and immortality been certainl
y 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，他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，他是与父同质 (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 t
he idea of a timeless or eternal generation, while Athanasius reasserted thi
s. The Arians said that the Son was created from the non-existent, while At
hanasius maintained that He was generated from the essence of the Father. T
he Arians held that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father, whi
le 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 rea
lly constituted the majority, under the leadership of the Chuch historian, E
usebius 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，乃承认他本身就是神。
This party had Arian leanings and was opposed to the doctrine that the S
on is of the same substance with the Father (homoousios). It proposed a sta
tement, previously drawn up by Eusebius, which conceded everything to the pa
rty of Alexander and Athanasius, with the single exception of the above-name
d doctrine; and suggested that the word homoiousios be substituted for homoo
usios, 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 autho
rity into the balance and thus secured the victory for the party of Athanasi
us. The Council adopted the following statement on the point in question: “
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of things visible and invi
sible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten not made, being of one substa
nce (homoousios) with the Father,” et cetera. This was an unequivocal stat
ement. 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 r
ather 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 durat
ion. 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 arg
uments. 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 controver
sy. 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 r
eady 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 agains
t the world). Five times this worthy servant of God was driven into exile a
nd succeeded in office by unworthy sycophants, who were a disgrace to the Ch
urch.
(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，他不像父神﹔又有些人说 (一般认为是半亚利乌派者) ，他是有与父相似的
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页) 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年) 与撒底迦 (Sardica) 会议 (主后343年) ，都无
条件地赞助他的见解。
The opposition to the Nicene Creed was divided into three different part
ies. Says Cunningham: “The more bold and honest Arians said that the Son w
as 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 Fath
er; but they all unanimously refused to admit the Nicene phraseology, becaus
e they were opposed to the Nicene doctrine of the true and proper divinity o
f the Son and saw and felt that that phraseology accurately and unequivocall
y expressed it, though they sometimes professed to adduce other objections a
gainst the use of it.” Historical Theology I, p. 290. Semi-Arianism preva
iled in the eastern section of the Church. The West, however, took a differ
ent 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 t
he 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 Con
stantinople must also be taken into account. When Athanasius was banished f
rom the East, he was received with open arms in the West; and the Councils o
f 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﹔并且主张在他道成肉身生活的末了，这个道 (Logos) 要回到他在创造世界以前
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 Arcellu
s of Ancyra to the ranks of the champions of the Nicene theology. He fell b
ack 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 “genera
tion” 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 Fa
ther. His theory apparently justified the Origenists or Eusebians in bringi
ng to charge of Sebellianism against their opponents, and was thus instrumen
tal 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 ex
ceptions. They asserted the homoiousios, and the generation of the Son by a
n 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 w
estern 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 weste
rn bishops into line with the Eusebians at the Synods of Arles and Milan (35
5).
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 Nic
ene party. But as soon as it was relieved of external pressur | G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 4 再看看早期教父们的正确和错误的观点
林慈信：早期教会信仰真伪辨——上帝，圣父，圣子﹕我们的信仰
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_622134fd01013i7w.html
早期教会信仰真伪辨 THE FAITH OF THE EARLY CHURCH
上帝，圣父，圣子：我们的信仰
GOD, THE FATHER, AND THE SON: WHAT WE BELIEVE
1．上帝：一位格，三位格
GOD: ONE, PERSON, PERSONAL, THREE PERSONS
只有一位真神。宇宙并没有两位神（创造主 + 至高至善神：诺斯底主义）。
There is only one God. There aren’t two gods (creator-demiurge, plus the h
ighest God: Gnosticism).
上帝是位格。上帝不只是祂的属性的总和。
God is a person. God is not just a bunch of attributes.
上帝是有位格的。祂在永恒里计划要创造人，与人建立（约的）关系。
God is personal. He planned (decreed) to create man and to establish a rela
tionship (covenant) with man.
上帝是既有位格的，也是无限的。
God is both personal and infinite.
上帝是不可测度的，可是可以知道，可以认识的 – 借着启示。
God is incomprehensible, but knowable, through revelation.
上帝是三个位格。
God is 3 persons.
上帝同时是一个位格（一本质，一神格），也是三个位格。
God is both one person (one substance, one godhead), and three persons.
2．圣子：上帝的儿子，上帝的「道」
GOD THE SON (LOGOS)
我们称圣父为「上帝」。我们也称三位一体的上帝为「上帝」。
By “God” we mean the Father; by “God” we also mean the 3 persons.
圣子是神，不仅仅是一个神。圣子与圣父同质。
The Son is God, not a god. The Son is of the same substance as the Father.
不错，圣子启示圣父。可是圣子是圣子。祂是祂自己，不仅仅是父的形象，不仅仅是父
的启示。圣子自己是位格，祂是位格。
While the Son reveals (mediates) the Father, the Son is the Son. He is hims
elf, not just a revelation (image) of the Father.
圣子不仅仅是神的理性。圣子是有自己的位格的。
The Son is not just “divine Reason.” The Son is personal.
圣子是神，不仅仅是多神论中间的一个神。更不是另外一个神，不是低等的神。
The Son is God (ho theos), not just a god (theos): definitely not “a second
god.”
圣子与圣父同有全部的神性。圣子从来不是一个次等的神。
The Son is equal with the Father in divinity. The Son is not a lower god.
圣子是子（不是女儿，母亲，父亲…）。圣子有祂自己的存在模式。祂是以「子」的身
份在永恒里存在的。
The Son is the Son (not daughter, mother, father…): He has his own “mode o
f subsistence”.
3．父生子：「独生」是必须（必然）的，不是偶然的，不是上帝的「旨意」
THE FATHER BEGETS THE SON: GENERATION IS NECESSARY,
NOT FREE, SOVEREIGN DECREE
圣父在永恒里从来就是圣子的父。
The Father is always, in eternity, the Father of the Son.
圣子在永恒里从来就是圣父的子。
The Son is always, in eternity, the Son of the Father.
从来没有一时刻，圣子不存在。
There never was a moment when the Son did not exist.
圣父在永恒里生子，不是父的自由、主权行动；不是上帝计划的一部份。
The eternal generation of the Son (the Father begets the Son) is not a free
sovereign act of the Father; it isn’t part of God’s plan.
圣父在永恒里生子，是三位一体上帝存在的方式。父与子是同永的。
The eternal generation of the Son is the very way in which god the Trinity e
xists.
圣父在永恒里生子，是必须（必然）的，不是自由的、主权的。
The eternal generation of the Son is necessary, not free/contingent.
圣父在永恒里生子，不是神性的放射。
Eternal generation is not emanation.
圣父在永恒里生子，不是父上帝本质（神性）的分割。
Eternal generation is not division of a part of the Father.
父生子，不等于说，子比父有更少的上帝的本质；子比父有更少的上帝的属性。
Eternal generation does not make the Son have less divine substance, or less
attributes, than the Father.
4．圣子：位格
SON: A PERSON
圣子是一个位格：有上帝的所有的属性。
The Son is a person – with (God’s) attributes.
父的一切属性，子都有，圣灵都有。
Every attribute which the Father has, the Son has, the Spirit has also.
圣子是一个位格：有祂的思想、感情、意志、计划、关系。
The Son is a person – with his mind, will, emotions, plan, relationship.
圣子是一个位格： 道成肉身并没有使圣子成为第二个，另一个「道」（子）。
The Son is one person; incarnation doesn’t make him a 2nd logos.
5．道成肉身
THE INCARNATION
圣子道成肉身；圣父并没有道成肉身。
The Son became incarnate; the Father didn’t become incarnate.
道成肉身的圣子是：100% 神，100%人。
The incarnate Son is 100% divine, and 100% human.
圣子道成肉身的时候，不是不再是神，不是不再是三位一体的第二位。
The Son does not stop being 100% God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, after t
he Incarnation.
道成肉身的圣子是 100% 人：身体与灵魂。圣子所穿上的，是一个人性，不是一个人，
不是一个位格。
The incarnate Son’s human nature is 100% human: body and soul.
道成肉身,
道成肉身的圣子的人性是 100% 人：可是完全没有罪性。
The incarnate Son’s human nature is 100% human, but not sinful whatsoever.
三位一体的第二位取了100%人性：祂并不是只取了人的身体。
The 2nd person of the Trinity took on this 100% human nature; he didn’t jus
t take on the body alone.
三位一体的第二位取了 100%人性，包括人的灵魂：这不是发生在永恒里，乃是发生在道
成肉身的时候。
The 2nd person of the Trinity took on this 100% human nature, including the
soul; this happened at the Incarnation, not in eternity.
道成肉身的结果是：一个位格，神人二性一位格，一位耶稣基督。
The result of the incarnation is one person, one divine-human person, Jesus
Christ.
耶稣基督的神性与人性并不是混合，而是完全的融合、结合、联合 (united)。
In Jesus Christ the divine and human nature are not just co-mingled, but uni
ted in a perfect union.
这位100% 上帝、 100%人的耶稣基督从死里复活，升天，今天在天上。这位道成肉身的
耶稣基督有一天要在历史结束的时候以神人二性一位格回来。
It is this 100% God and 100% man, Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, asce
nded into heaven, and is in heaven today. This incarnate Jesus Christ will
return one day at the end of history: two natures (100% God, 100% man), one
person – Jesus Christ. 早期教会教义真伪辨：
尼西亚会议 (325 AD) 前的上帝论，基督论
TRUTH AND ERRORS IN THE EARLY CHURCH:
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA (325 A.D.)
F = False误 T = True正
诺斯底主义：上帝，人，与宇宙的真相
GNOSTICISM: GOD, MAN, AND THE UNIVERSE
误：（诺斯底主义的世界观）：宇宙不只一个神。最高的神是「纯神性」（纯存有）。
祂的神性放射（像太阳光放射）给不同的灵体；神与灵体造成「丰满」。
F (worldview of Gnosticism): There are many gods. The highest good is pure
divinity (pure Being). His divine nature is emanated (like sun rays from th
e sun) from him to other spiritual beings. He + all other spiritual beings =
pleroma.
正（爱任纽，特土良）：宇宙只有一位神。祂的神性不与任何其他活物分享：不与天使
或人分享。不过，上帝造人是按照自己的形象造的：有些上帝的属性是可以传递的。人
是有限的；在有限的范围里，起初人是圣洁的，公义的，智慧的等。这些可传递的属性
都因为亚当犯罪堕落的缘故，受了污染。总的来说，上帝的属性是不放射的。
T (Irenaeus, Tertullian): There is only one God. His divine nature is not s
hared with anyone, not angels, not humans. Man, however, is created in God’
s image – certain attributes are “communicable”, in the sense that man, o
n our finite level, was holy, righteous, wise, powerful, etc.; all these wer
e marred by sin after Adam’s sin. But God’s nature is not emanated to us.
误：人里有神性，因此人性与神性只是量的不同，不是质的不同。
F: There is (a spark of) divine nature in man. Therefore man’s nature and
God’s nature are different only in degree, not in essence.
正：创造主与被创造者之间有着绝对无限的区别。人性就不是神性。
T: There is an absolute, infinite distinction between the Creator and the cr
eature! Human nature simply IS NOT divine nature.
误（诺斯底派的教会仪式）：若要得救必须领受秘密仪式。
F (Gnosticism church rites): Salvation requires secret ceremonies.
正：要得救必须信靠基督，认罪悔改。洗礼是公开的仪式，教会作见证人。
T: Salvation requires faith and repentance. Baptism is not secret, but a pu
blic testimony in the company of the whole church.
误（诺斯底主义，一些宗教，部份基督徒）：物质是邪恶的。
F (Gnosticism, some religions, some Christians): Matter is evil.
正：物质被造的时候是好的。物质是好的；上帝要我们享受祂所赐给我们的恩赐（如：
食物），以祂规定的方法来享用（要节制）。我们若认为物质是邪恶的话，要就是禁欲
主义，不然就是无律法主义（放纵）。唯有正确的了解、使用、顺服上帝的律法，才能
避免律法主义与非律法主义。
T: Matter was created good. Matter is good; we are to enjoy the good gifts
God has given us (e.g. food), in the way God wants us to enjoy them (in mod
eration). If we regard matter as evil, we either become ascetic or lawless.
Only if we properly understand, use and submit to the law of God, can we a
void legalism and lawlessness (antinomianism).
误（诺斯底主义）：有两个上帝；至善的神（无底的深渊），和创造主（旧约的神），
后者是有激情，是次神。
F (Gnosticism): There are two gods: the highest good God (a bottomless abyss
), and the Demiurge = Creator = God of the Old Testament. The latter is a l
esser god who has passions.
正：只有一位神，祂是创造主，也是至善的救赎主。
T: There is only one God – He is the Creator and the all-holy Redeemer.
基督（基督教）与哲学
CHRIST (CHRISTIANITY) AND PHILOSOPHY
误：为了向知识分子传福音，就以哲学配合真理，甚至以哲学解释真理，取代真理。（
革利免，奥利金。）
F: Christians want to share the gospel with intellectuals; out of this motiv
e, they often take philosophy and tag it onto the truth. They use philosoph
y as a bridge. They end up interpreting truth according to philosophy, or e
ven substitute the truth with philosophy. (Clement of Alexandria, Origen.)
正：哲学需要被真理批判，然后真理来改造哲学，救赎哲学。
T: Philosophy needs to be critiqued by the truth. Then the truth (from Scri
pture) transforms, re-shapes philosophy, and in this way truth redeems philo
sophy.
误：《圣经》与理性都是认识真理的泉源，途径。（革利免，奥利金。）
F: Reason and Scripture are both paths to understanding truth. Reason and S
cripture are two sources of truth. (Clement of Alexandria, Origen.)
正：唯有上帝是真理的泉源。认识真理，必须靠上帝的启示，包括普遍启示与特殊（圣
经）启示。人的理性已经堕落，需要启示来改造，光照，才能正确地理解真理。
T: God only is the source of truth. To understand truth, man needs God’s r
evelation, including general revelation and special revelation (=Scripture).
Man’s reason is fallen, man needs God to re-make his reason, enlighten hi
s reason.
误：一些神学家坚守「信仰的准则」（《圣经》的权威），却受世俗哲学深深影响（奥
利金，20世纪众多中、西「福音派」神学家）。
F: Some theologians submit to “the rule of faith” (the authority of the Bi
ble), yet they are deeply influenced by secular philosophy (Origen, numerous
so-called “evangelical” theologians in the 20th century, both western and
Chinese).
正：坚持《圣经》的权威，就要从《圣经》的立场来批判哲学。
T: When a Christian confesses that he/she submits to the authority of the Bi
ble, then secular philosophy must be critiqued.
误：「道」将理性之光赐予人类，「道」的光帮助外邦人认识真理，为他们来到福音面
前作踏脚石。（奥利金。）
F: The Logos imparts to men the light of reason. The light of the Logos ser
ves as a stepping stone for Gentiles to come to the fuller light of the gosp
el. (Origen.)
正：「道」将理性赐人类，可是人类误用了理性，理性堕落了。现在的哲学并不是人原
有理性的正确使用的结果，乃是误用的结果。因此人的理性需要上帝光照，理性需要悔
改，来到上帝面前服在真理之下。理性须被上帝被改造（罗12：2：心意更新而变化）。
T: The Logos (Christ) indeed gave reason/mind to man at creation. But man h
as misused his reason. Reason has fallen. Philosophy today is not the use
of man’s original reason, but the misuse of it. Therefore man’s reason ne
eds a fresh illumination by God. Man’s reason needs to repent, needs to co
me to God and submit under him, and be transformed by him (Rom. 12:2).
误：神学家研究了哲学，如：新柏拉图主义（奥利金）；然后写系统神学，把世俗的哲
学思想写进基督教的系统神学。（如：今天中西众多神学家。）
F: Christians study philosophy (e.g. Origen studied neo-Platonism), then the
y write their systematic theology. As they do so, they write ideas from sec
ular philosophy into their theology.
正：研究哲学是为了护教，为了批判哲学。写系统神学时要黑白分明，批判世上的小学
。
T: We study philosophy for the purpose of apologetic, so that we can critiqu
e philosophy. When we write systematic theology, we must distinguish betwee
n truth and error, and critique secular philosophies.
误：基督（上帝的儿子）= 「罗格斯」（道）= 希腊哲学的「道」。
（这个「道的教义」从殉道者游斯丁的时代开始。）
F: Christ (the Son of God) = the Logos = the “Logos” of Greek philosophy.
(This “Logos doctrine” began with the period of Justin Martyr.)
正：基督 = 自我见证的主，祂就是真理本身。祂不是一个人想出来的观念，如：「绝对
真理」，希腊哲学的「道」，或中国《道德经》的「道」。
T: Christ is the self-attesting Lord who is truth. He is not a man-made co
ncept like “absolute truth,” the Greek “Logos,” or the Chinese Taoist “
Tao.”
误：基督 / 上帝的儿子 = 神圣的「道」=「神圣的理性」= 非位格的属性、能力。正如
人有理性和灵，上帝也有理性（道，子）和灵（圣灵）。
F: Christ/the Son of God = the Divine Logos = “divine reason” = an impers
onal attribute and power. Just as man has a mind and spirit, so God has his
reason (Logos) and his spirit (Holy Spirit).
正：基督，上帝的儿子 = 上帝，拥有所有圣父的属性，所有圣灵的属性。上帝的属性包
括：祂是主，永恒，无限，不变；智慧，权能，圣洁，公义，良善（爱，忍耐，恩典）
，真理。
T: Christ/the Son = God, who has all the attributes of the Father and of th
e Spirit.
Attributes of God include: Lordship; God is eternal, infinite, unchangeable;
wise, powerful/sovereign, holy, just/righteous, good/gracious/loving, truth
.
我们的上帝，就是《圣经》所宣讲的上帝，是无限的，又是有位格的。异教、非基督教
的上帝，要就是无限但非位格的（如：希腊哲学的「形式 / 理念」，「道」），不然就
是有限但有位格的（如希腊神话中的神祇，中国民间宗教的神：关公，观音，黄大仙等
）。
Our God, the God of the Bible is both infinite and personal. Pagan/non-Chri
stian gods are either infinite but impersonal (e.g. Greek “form,” “idea,”
“Logos”), or finite and personal (the gods and goddess of Greek mythology
and Chinese folk religion, e.g. Guan Gong, Guan Yin. Wong Tai Sin, etc.).
误：基督（上帝的「道」）= 一切人间真理、智慧的来源， 因此：所有真理都是上帝的
真理。哲学，心理学，文学的成果都是上帝的启示。
F: Christ/the Logos of God = source of all enlightenment, source of all tru
th in men. Therefore: All truth is God’s truth. All philosophy, psycholog
y, literature, etc. = God’s revelation.
正：基督（上帝的「道」）= 所有真理的来源。上帝创造人的时候赐人智慧，真理，圣
洁与公义（创1：26-28，弗4：24）。可是人犯罪，从他原有的智慧，公义，圣洁堕落了
。因此，现在人所追求的，若没有上帝的帮助，必然是愚拙（林前1：18-31），是世上
的小学（西2：8）。人所能达到的 – 哲学，心理学，艺术，文学 – 都不是上帝的启
示，不可能是上帝的启示，而是堕落的罪人对上帝普遍群启示的回应。基督并不为罪人
的哲学与文化中对真理的扭曲和错误观念负责！
T: Christ/Logos = source of all truth. Man was endowed with wisdom, truth,
holiness and righteousness (Gen. 1:26-28, Eph. 4:24) when he was created; bu
t man fell from his original wisdom, righteousness and holiness. Therefore
what man seeks, without God’s help, is ultimately foolishness (I Cor. 1:18-
31). Thus what man arrived at, in philosophy, psychology, art, literature,
etc. is NOT God’s revelation. It CANNOT possibly be God’s revelation. Ra
ther, these are sinful, fallen man’s responses to God’s general revelatio
n. Christ is not responsible for the errors and twisted “truths” in falle
n sinners’ philosophy and culture!
上帝的不可知性与可知性
THE INCOMPREHENSIBILITY OF GOD AND THE KNOWABILITY OF GOD
误：上帝 = 完全不可知，无底的深渊。上帝是「全然的他者」。只有基督（「道）启示
上帝。」（古今中外各样的非理性主义。）
F: God = all unknowable, unfathomable; God is the “Wholly Other.” Only C
hrist/Logos reveals God (All kinds of irrationalism, ancient to modern).
正：上帝是不可知的，若祂不亲自启示自己给我们认识的话。可是，上帝是可知的，因
为祂计划了自我启示，也具体地透过（一）受造之物（大自然），（二）人地良心，（
三）《圣经》自我启示了。因此上帝是可知的。人需要圣灵的光照才能认识《圣经》的
真理。
T: God is unknowable to us if he didn’t reveal himself to us. But God dec
ided to, and did, reveal himself through (a) nature, (b) our hearts, and (c)
Scripture. Therefore God is knowable through revelation. The illumination
of the Holy Spirit is needed to understand God’s revelation in Scripture.
上帝的不变与动性
GOD IS UNCHANGEABLE, GOD IS DYNAMIC
误：上帝完全是动性的。（奥利金，当代的进程神学。）
F: God is always (eternally) in action. (Origen, today’s process theology.)
正：上帝是不变的。可是他计划了创造，掌管宇宙历史，救赎，审判，因此他不断执行
他的计划，从这角度来说，「我父作工至今。」可是上帝的动力，作为并没有使祂的本
性，计划，与应许改变。
T: God does not change. However God in eternity planned to (a) create the w
orld, (b) rule over history/the universe, (c) save sinners, and (d) judge th
e world. And he continues to implement his eternal plan. Thus “My Father
has worked till now.” But God is not active in a sense that He changes hi
s being, plan, or promises.
人的问题
MAN’S PREDICAMENT
误：人性里的善恶，不是天赋的本性。是永恒里灵体的堕落因此有物质，有人的肉体。
F: Good and evil in man are not divine endowments. Since some spiritual bei
ngs sinned and fell in eternity, therefore matter exists (was created), ther
efore man’s body exists.
正：人被造的时候是善的（包括身体，灵魂）。邪恶是因为人犯罪才存在在人间（罗5：
12）。
Man was created good (body and soul). Evil exists in man’s world because o
f man’s sin. (Romans 5:12)
误：人的问题，人为什么需要救恩 = 因为人是有限的，生命短暂。
F: Man’s problem, man’s need for salvation = because man is finite, life
is short. 正：人的问题，人为什么需要救恩 = 人背叛了上帝。人的问题是宗教性的，
属灵的（与上帝的关系，背叛了上帝）； 和道德性的（心的污秽，行为的不义）。「不
虔，不义」（罗1：18-21）。
T: Man’s problem, man’s need for salvation = because man has rebelled agai
nst God. Man’s problem is spiritual (his relationship with God, rebellion
against God) and moral (his heart is polluted, and his conduct is unrighteou
s). Man is “godless, unrighteous” (Rom. 1:18-21).
误：原罪借着繁殖传到全人类。（传统天主教教义）
F: Original sin was transmitted to all mankind through procreation (traditio
nal Roman Catholic teaching).
正：因为上帝对待亚当为人类的头，人类的代表，因此上帝把亚当的罪归算给全人类。
结果，繁殖的后果是每一个生出来的婴孩都有上帝所归算的罪。
T: God treated Adam as the head and representative of all mankind. Therefor
e God “charged” (reckoned, imputed) Adam’s sin/guilt on all mankind. The
result is: all babies born into this world have the imputed sin of Adam.
基督是上帝
CHRIST IS GOD
误：有两个「道」。
F: There are two Logos’es. (Origen.)
正：「道」，基督是一位。
T: There is only one Logos, only one Christ.
误：有两个「道」：上帝里面的能力，和道成肉身的道（亚利乌）。
F：There are two Logos’es: (1) the “divine reason” or energy which is imm
anent in God (inside the Godhead); and (2) the incarnate Logos (Arius).
正：三位一体里的第二位（圣子）是一个位格；道成肉身并不改变这事实。
T: The 2nd person of the Trinity is one person; the incarnation doesn’t al
ter this fact.
误：基督（上帝的「道」，上帝的儿子）= 从属父上帝，本质上低于父（奥利金）。
F: Christ/the Logos/the Son of God = subordinate to the Father in being. (O
rigen)
正：基督（上帝的儿子）= 与父上帝同等，同是上帝，同有尊荣，同是永恒，拥有所有
上帝的属性。但是，在永恒救赎计划中，子甘愿顺服父.，因此，在救赎计划中，子从属
父。
本质上的 (ontological) 三位一体：父，子，灵同等；父是上帝，子是上帝，灵是上帝
。
救赎计划上 (Economy) 的三位一体：子，灵顺服父。
T: Christ/the Son of God = equal with the Father in deity, glory, eternity,
and in all their attributes.
However in the plan of salvation, which the Father, Son and Spirit planned t
ogether in eternity, the Son decided to obey/submit to the Father. Thus in
the plan of salvation the Son is subordinate to the Father.
Ontological Trinity: the 3 persons are equally God. The Father is God, the
Son is God, the Spirit is God.
Economic Trinity: in the plan of salvation, the Son and Spirit submit to the
Father.
误：父生子不是必须的行动(necessary act)，而是自由的行动 (free act)（奥利金）
。
F: The Son’s eternal generation (the Father begetting the Son) is not a nec
essary act, but a free and sovereign act of the Father. (Origen)
正：父生子是三位一体在永恒里必须的存在模式；是必须的，不是自由（主权）的决定
、计划、行动。
T: The Father begetting the Son (eternal generation) is the very mode of exi
stence and relationship of the 3 persons of the Trinity; it is necessary, no
t a free, sovereign plan/decision/act.
错误：圣子是能变的（亚利乌）。
F: The Son is mutable (changeable) (Arius).
正：圣子与圣父，圣灵一样，是不变的神。
T: The Son, like the Father and the Spirit, is God. He is unchangeable.
误：「道」与耶稣（人）的灵魂在永恒里结合（奥利金）。
F: The Logos and the human soul of Jesus = united in eternity (Origen).
正：「道」（耶稣基督的神性，三位一体的第二位）与耶稣基督的整个人性（身体，灵
魂）在道成肉身的时联合：圣灵感孕马利亚的时候。
T: The Logos/divine nature of Christ (the second person of the Trinity) uni
ted with the entire human nature of Christ (soul and body) at the Incarnatio
n – when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary.
误：基督的神性与人性混合，祂是混合品，两性并没有融合。
F: The divine nature and human nature of Christ was composite. There is no
union, no fusion between the two natures.
正：基督的神性与人性是完全地联合 (union)。
T: The divine and human nature of Christ united in perfect union.
基督是位格；子是父在永恒里生的
CHRIST IS PERSON; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF FATHER
误：基督与父同质，可是祂不是位格。只有一个位格，就是父。祂只是神圣的理性、能
力（特土良，动力神格唯一说：撒摩撒他之保罗）。
F: Christ is of the same substance as the Father, but he is not a person. Go
d is only one person, i.e., the Father. He is divine power or divine reason
(Tertullian, Dynamic Monarchianism: Paul of Samosata).
正：基督与父上帝同质。祂是位格，正如父是位格。（不要把「位格」当作属性来看待
！）子的生存形态与父不同（特土良）。
T: Christ is of the same substance as the Father. But he is a person just l
ike the Father is a person. But the Son has a mode of existence which is dif
ferent from the Father’s (Tertullian). (But don’t treat “person,” “per
sonhood” as attributes.)
误：「道」是神里的理性，到创造等时候才有位格。
F: Logos is impersonal divine reason; only becomes personal at creation.
正：「道」（子）在永恒里就是位格。
T: Logos (Son) is person in eternity, from eternity.
误：子与父同质，可是只有父有全部的本质（特土良）。
F: The Son and the Father have the same substance, but only God the Father h
as all the substance (Tertullian).
正：子与父同质，子与父同有所有上帝的本性。
T: The Son and the Father are of the same substance. Each has full divine n
ature (complete divine substance).
误：父创造子（亚利乌）。子是父从无有创造出来的（亚利乌派，在尼西亚会议）。
F: The Son is created (Arius). The Father created the Son. The Father creat
ed the Son out of nothing (Arians, at Council of Nicea).
正：子与父同创造宇宙。父生子，不是创造子。
T: The Son is Co-Creator with the father of the universe. The Father begets
the Son, the Father did not create the Son.
误：父生子，是永恒里的作为（奥利金）。子有开始存在的时刻；有一段时间子并不存
在（特土良）。
F: The Father begets the Son as an eternal act (Origen). The Son has a begi
nning; there was a time when the Son/Logos was not (Tertullian).
正：父在永恒里生子；子没有开始存在的时刻。所有上帝所「计划」，所作的「作为」
，都是三位一体一起作的「计划」与「作为」。
T: The Father begets the Son in eternity; the Son has no beginning. Every “
plan” and “act” of God, is the plan/act of the three persons in the Trini
ty together.
从来没有一刻，子不是（不存在）的。
There was never a moment when the Son was not.
人的被创造；基督的人性
CREATION OF MAN; CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE
错误：人是在永恒里被创造的。
F: Man was created in eternity (eternal creation).
正：人是在七日的第六日被创造的；人是在时间的开始时被造的。
F: Man was created on the 6th day of 7 days; man was created at the beginnin
g of time.
错误：基督不真正是人。基督吃东西，并不是祂真正需要食物，而是要藉此使人不能否
认祂的人性（革利免）。
F: Christ is not really a man. Jesus ate food, not because he needed food,
but simply to guard against a denial of his humanity (Clement of Alexandria.
)
正：人不能否认基督的人性，因为祂真正的是人。
T: We cannot deny the humanity of Christ, because Jesus Christ was/is fully
human.
误：「道」所充满的灵魂取了一个身体，这个身体被「道」穿入而神化 (divinized)（
奥利金，动力神格唯一说的：撒摩撒他之保罗，后来基督新教中反对三位一体的教派）
。
F: The soul, which was filled with the Logos, assumed a body. This body, pe
netrated by the Logos, is divinized (becomes divine) by the Logos (Origen, D
ynamic Monarchianism: Paul of Samosata, Socinians, Unitarians).
正：「道」（三位一体的第二位）取了人性（灵魂与身体）。结果不是人性被神化，乃
是：道成肉身的耶稣基督是一个位格，一位耶稣基督：祂是100%神，又是100%人。
T: The Logos (The 2nd person of the Trinity) took on human nature (both bod
y and soul). The result is not that the human nature of Jesus Christ become
s divine. Rather, Jesus Christ incarnate is ONE person, ONE Jesus Christ: h
e is 100% God, 100% man.
误：耶稣被父认（收养）为儿子，因此被人尊敬为上帝的儿子（亚利乌）。
F: Jesus is recognized/adopted by the Father as Son, therefore men esteem hi
m as God’s Son (Arius).
正：子在永恒里就是父的独生子。因道成肉身的基督成就了救赎大工，父上帝荣耀祂，
高举祂，承认/宣称祂为爱子。可是这宣称并不是基督成为上帝儿子的原因，而是圣子完
成救赎大工的奖赏。
T: The Son was the only-begotten Son of the Father in eternity. When the in
carnate Christ finished his work of redemption, the Father chose to glorify
him, exalt him, and “adopt”/declare him to be Son of God. This declaratio
n is not the reason why Jesus Christ is God’s Son; rather it is the reward
for the Son’s completion of the work of redemption.
误：耶稣（人）取了「功德」，如：圣洁，对上帝的意识 （士来马赫）等。因此他成为
上帝的儿子，被称为上帝的儿子。
F: The man Jesus took on “meritoriousness” such as: holiness, consciousnes
s of God (Friedrich Schleiermacher), etc. Therefore he became the Son of Go
d.
正：上帝的儿子从来在永恒里就是上帝的儿子，与父同等。祂在道成肉身（圣灵感孕马
利亚）的时候穿上了人性。
T: The Son of God was always God in eternity, and equal with the Father. He
took on human nature at the Incarnation, when the Holy Spirit came upon Vir
gin Mary.
道成肉身、神人二性的基督是救赎主
CHRIST, THE INCARNATE GOD-MAN, IS THE REDEEMER
正：基督若是上帝，那么他来到世间，就是上帝来到世间。
T: If Christ is God, and only if He is God, in the full sense of the word, w
ithout qualification, God has entered humanity. (Reinhold Seeberg.)
误：基督只是教师，榜样，赐律法者。
F: Christ is only a teacher, an example, the lawgiver.
正：基督来更为罪舍命。祂是救主。
T: Christ came mainly to die for sins as a substitute. He is the Redeemer.
错误：基督借着付赎价 (ransom) 给魔鬼来拯救我们：基督欺骗了魔鬼。
F: Christ rescued us by paying the ransom to the Devil. Christ deceived the
devil.
正：基督的舍命，满足了父上帝的公义和公义的要求，因此平息了父的忿怒（ = 挽回祭
的意义）。
T: Christ’s death satisfied the justice and just requirements of God the Fa
ther, thus removed his wrath. (= propitiation)
误：基督的神性，在耶稣被挂在十字架的时候，已经离开耶稣（人）。
F: Christ’s divine nature left the human Jesus when the man Jesus hung on t
he cross.
正：神人二性的耶稣基督在十字架上舍命。这是莫大的奥秘。
T: Jesus Christ, the God-man, died on the cross (this is a profound mystery)
.
误：救赎就是神人合一：人能神化（爱任纽）。
F: Salvation involves the union of man and God. Man is deified (Irenaeus).
正：救赎是上帝与人和好。人不成为上帝！
而只有神自己：只有一位自己就是上帝的救主，才能使我们与上帝联合（啊阿他拿修）
。
T: Salvation is God reconciling himself with man. Man doesn’t become God!
And, only one who is himself God can unite us with God (Athanasius).
误：基督的神性与人性混合，因此基督升天的时候，就等于成为无所不在 (unibiquito
us)。（奥利金，马丁路德。）
F: The Divine and the Human in Christ was so co-mingled, that by his glorifi
cation, he became virtually ubiquitous. (Origen, Martin Luther.)
正：基督的神性与人性完全的联合。基督的神性从来就是无所不在的。祂升天的时候，
是以神人二性一基督的身份升天的。今天，道成肉身的神人基督在天上。
T: Christ’s divine nature was perfectly united with his human nature at th
e Incarnation. Christ’s divine nature includes omnipresence; the 2nd perso
n of the Trinity was always omnipresent. When Christ ascended into heaven,
he ascended as 100% God and 100% man. The God-man, Incarnate Christ is in h
eaven today.
误：耶稣基督的人性，在升天的时候消失了。
F: The human nature of Jesus Christ disappeared when he ascended into heaven
.
正：今天在天上的是神人二性的耶稣基督。
T: Today Jesus Christ, in both his divine nature and human nature, is in hea
ven.
三位一体
THE TRINITY
误：三位一体的三位，好像戏剧里的演员，角色，甚至像面具。（形体上的神格唯一说
，即：撒伯流主义；参：周联华，《信徒神学》。）
F: The three persons of the Godhead are like three actors/roles in a drama,
or one actor wearing three masks. (Modalism, or Modalistic Monarchianism,
i.e., Sabellius; cf.: Rev. Chow Lien-hwa.)
正：三位一体的三位，每一位都是位格，有别与其他两位；每位都是上帝。
T: There are three distinct persons in the Trinity, but there is only one Go
d.
误：圣父道成肉身，被钉在十字架上。（圣父受苦说。）
F: The Father became Incarnate, hung on the cross. (Patripassianism.)
正：圣子道成肉身。
T: The Son became Incarnate.
误：上帝是三位一体，「一体」或「同质」就像泥土，金，银，木头一样。
F: God is three persons in one substance: substance is like clay, gold, silv
er, wood.
正：三个位格的「位格」，和一体的「体 / 质」，这两个观念都是广泛的。我们可以说
：上帝是三个位格，同时是一个位格。不过很少人这样说，只有范泰尔 (Cornelius Va
n Til, 20世纪最伟大的护教家) 这样说。
T: “Person” (persona, hypostatis) and “substance” (ousia) mean “somethi
ng” – God is “three of something” and “one of something.” We can say
God is three persons and one person. Very few people say it this way, only
Cornelius Van Til, the greatest apologist in the 20th century, says it this
way.
《威敏斯特信仰告白》 第三章 论上帝与三位一体
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3 On God and the Trinity
三、上帝是独一的上帝，但祂里面有三个位格，同属一个本质，权能相同，同样永恒，
这三个位格就是：父、子、圣灵(三位一体的)上帝 (o)。父不属于、不受生于、也不出
于任何其他来源；子在永恒里为父所生 (p)；圣灵在永恒里由父和子而出 (q)。
3. In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, p
ower, and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (o). The Fath
er is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the e Son is eternally begot
ten of the Father (p) ; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father a
nd the Son (q) .
第八章 论中保基督 Chapter 8 On Christ the Media
tor
二、上帝的儿子，三位一体中的第二位，正是永恒的上帝， 与父同质、同等；当日期满
足的时候，就取了人性 (k)，并人性一切基本的性质、共通的软弱，只是无罪 (l)﹔借
着圣灵的大能，在童贞女马利亚的腹中成孕，有她的本质(m)。所以在耶稣里面是两个完
整的、无缺的，且相异的性质（就是神性与人性），不可分地结合于一位格里，没有转
化、合成、混合 (n)。这个位格是真正的上帝，也是真正的人，却是一位基督，神人之
间的惟一的中保 (o)。
2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being truly and eterna
lly God,
of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time h
ad come, take upon Him man’s nature (k), with all its essential properties
and common frailties, yet without sin (l). He was conceived by the power of
the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary and of her substance (m). I
n this way two whole natures, the divine and the human, perfect and distinct
, were inseparably joined together in one person without being changed, mixe
d, or confused (n). This person is truly God and truly man, yet one Christ,
the only mediator between God and man (Romans 1:3-4).
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the
Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all thin
gs were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate
by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified a
lso for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third d
ay He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and
sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory,
to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds fr
om the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worsh
ipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one bapt
ism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to a
cknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in
Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of
a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his
Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manho
od; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotte
n of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, fo
r us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, withou
t confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the disti
nction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the char
acteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one p
erson and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one
and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as
the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ him
self taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
早期教会信仰真伪辨 THE FAITH OF THE EARLY CHURCH
人论，罪论，恩典论
DOCTRINE OF MAN, SIN AND GRACE
奥利金与希腊教父
1． 误：「永恒创造论」：人是先存的（奥利金）。
正：「历史的创造」：人是在时间的起初（第六天）被创造的。
2． 误：最初的创造所造的，只是又思想的灵体（没有肉体），是与上帝平等的，与
上帝同样永存的（奥利金）。
正：起初上帝创造的，是灵魂与身体结合的人（创1：26-28，2：7），绝对不与上帝平
等；绝对不与上帝一样永存。人有起源（被创造的时刻）。
3． 误：今天人类堕落的光景，是因有先存的堕落（灵体的堕落）- 奥利金。正：今
天人类堕落的光景，是因在历史（时间开始了之后）亚当的犯罪。
4． 误：希腊教父：亚当按照上帝的形象被造，没有道德的完全。
5． 正：亚当被造有圣洁，公义，真理（创1：28，弗4：24，西3：10）。
6． 误：希腊教父：亚当只有道德上完全的可能性。
7． 误：亚当本来就是完全的，若经得起上帝的考验（顺服的考验），就可以永远活
在道德的完全（圣洁，公义，知识）中。
8． 误：希腊教父：亚当将肉体的败坏传给后代，但它本身不是最，没有把人类陷在
罪孽里。
正：罪（罪孽）因一人进入到世界；因此死也进入到世界，因为世人都犯了（亚当一人
的）罪（罗5：12，15-21）。
9． 误：希腊教父：人类与亚当只有肉体上的关系。
正：人类与亚当除了有肉体上的关系，还有「约」中的关系；亚当在约里，是人类的头
，人类的代表。
10．误：希腊的教父：人类与亚当的关联，只与肉体与感官的本性有关；在人性比较高
尚的方面，和理性方面没有关联。
正：罪、审判、与死，由一人传给人类；堕落是全人的，我们整个人：灵魂，身体，都
死在罪恶过犯中（弗2：1）。
11．误：希腊的教父：人类与亚当的关系，与意志没有关系。
正：人类在亚当里的堕落，牵涉整个人：理性，意志，情感，身体等。
12．误：希腊的教父：罪，总是由于人的自由意志选择而来。
正：罪，固然是人的真正选择，但是罪的根源是罪性：人的心（灵魂）败坏。因此，罪
不仅是意志的选择。
13．误：希腊教父：婴孩不能算是有罪的。
正：我们在母腹里就是罪人（诗139篇）。
14．误：奥利金：人领受恩典，起点是人的自由意志，不是上帝的恩典。
正：我们得救乃是本乎恩，借着信（弗2：8-9）；起点是上帝的恩典。
15．误：奥利金：自由意志开始了重生的工作；然后上帝帮助人，上帝的能力与人的意
志合作，使着意志转离恶，行上帝眼中看为喜悦的事。
正：上帝的大能改变人的意志（这就是圣灵重生的工作），使人的意志甘心情愿地降服
在上帝面前，认罪悔改，信靠基督。
16．误：特土良：上帝创造了普遍的人性。然后上帝藉生殖个别化这普遍的人性 (God
individualizes generic human nature by procreation)。
正：《圣经》说：上帝创造了人，《圣经》没有提到「普遍的人性」。
17．误：上帝与人在重生合作 (synergism)。
正：重生，是唯独上帝的工作 (monergism)。
伯拉纠与奥古斯丁
人的被造
18．误：伯拉纠：亚当被上帝所造，并未赋予正面的圣洁。他起初的状态是中立的，既
非圣善，也非有罪。
正：亚当被上帝所造，有圣洁，公义，知识；是无罪的。
19．误：亚当有行善或作恶的可能性（比较误导的说法）。
正：亚当在约中面对上帝的吩咐；他起初的圣洁，公义，知识是能变的。
20．误：伯拉纠：亚当有一个自由，完全不被决定的意志 (free, un-determined will
)。
正：人的意志是由上帝的旨意掌管（决定）的；而上帝向人启示了祂的旨意，要人选择
遵守祂的话。因此人的意志不是完全不被决定，不是随意的。
21．误：伯拉纠：人有能力按自己的判断，犯罪或不犯罪。
正：人不犯罪的能力是上帝所赐予的。
22．误：伯拉纠：人被造是必死的，他已经被死的律所主宰。
正：人被造，是活在上帝的面光之中，在上帝的约里，充满着生命，福乐。
23．误：伯拉纠：人的本性中没有先存的恶来决定他一生的路程；人犯罪是自己的选择
。
正：不错，人犯罪是自己的选择，但是「先存的恶」有或没有，是否由它来决定人一生
的路程，是抽象的猜测，容易误导人的思想。
人的堕落
24．误：伯拉纠：人堕落在罪中，损伤的不是他人，仅是自己。人性并没有受到永久性
的负面影响。
正：亚当一人犯罪，以致罪、审判、死临到全人类。
25．误：伯拉纠：人类没有罪性或罪孽的遗传性传递。
正：人类在上帝的约（审判）之下，都被定罪。
26．误：伯拉纠：人的本性中没有任何恶的倾向或欲望，使他无可避免犯罪。
正：我们犯罪，是因为罪性导致（或住在我们里面的罪发动）。我们里面有犯罪的欲望
（罗7章）。
人的罪，罪孽，罪性
27．误：伯拉纠：人类仍然出生在亚当堕落以前的情况中，不仅没有罪孽，也没有罪的
污染。
正：人完全污染了；也承受了亚当的罪孽（罪名）。今天的人类，与亚当堕落前的情况
，是完全不同的。
28．误：伯拉纠：罪，不在于错误的情操或欲望，只在于意志的个别行动。
正：人犯罪，是因为「心」（情操，欲望）坏透了。
29．误：伯拉纠：每一次的犯罪都在于人自愿的选择。
正：每一次的犯罪在于人自愿的选择，可是不仅在于自愿的选择。
30．误：伯拉纠：人并不须要犯罪。
正：堕落后，人不可能不犯罪；人受了罪的辖制。
人的自由，行善的能力
31．误：伯拉纠：人与亚当一样，被赋予完全的自由意志，有选择的自由 (liberty o
f choice)，可称为「中性的自由」 (liberty of indifference)。所以在任何情况中，
人可以选择善，或选择恶。
正：堕落后的人，还是活在上帝的面光之中；人的自由堕落了，被污染了。人并不能完
全按着自己的意愿行事，特别没有行善的自由 / 能力。
32．误：伯拉纠：在上帝吩咐人行善这事实上，足以证明：人有行善的能力。
正：上帝吩咐人行善，只证明上帝的吩咐，并不证明人有行善的能力。堕落之后的人有
否能力行善，完全要看《圣经》怎么说。
33．误：伯拉纠：人的责任就是他的道德能力的尺度。
正：人的责任和人的能力的尺度，都在乎上帝在《圣经》怎么说。
34．误：伯拉纠：罪的普遍性，仅仅是由于错误的教育，不良的榜样，不可破的犯罪习
惯。
正：罪的普遍性，是因为人的「心」坏了。
恩典
35．误：伯拉纠：人弃恶向善，并非因为恩典。恩典仅是外在的恩赐和自然的赋予，如
：人的理性，《圣经》中上帝的启示，耶稣基督的榜样等等。
正：人离弃罪，是因为耶稣基督救赎的大能，和圣灵的呼召，重生。
奥古斯丁：罪的本质
36．误：奥古斯丁：罪不是积极之物，乃是消极的，是一种缺乏(privation) 。罪不是
有实质的恶，乃是善之缺乏 (privatio boni, privation of good)。
正：罪不是「物」，不过是「真」的。要按《圣经》，按上帝的判断来判断罪；罪的真
实/实质来自上帝的判断。罪包括（一）亚当不遵行 / 违反上帝的吩咐；（二）因上帝
的审判，而有的罪孽；（三）人性的污染：犯罪的倾向；（四）我们的罪行。把罪说成
太「具体」，反而成为更抽象。
37．误：奥古斯丁：罪的根源在于自爱 (self-love) 取代了对上帝的爱。
正：罪当然包含人的心偏离上帝，爱自己，爱世界。可是罪也是干犯上帝的律法。罪是
不荣耀上帝，不敬拜上帝。要维持三个角度来看罪：（一）准则：上帝的律法；（二）
心态：爱；（三）目标：荣耀上帝，敬拜上帝。
奥古斯丁：欲念；「能 / 不能」行善或犯罪（这就是「自由意志」问题的症结）
38．正：奥古斯丁：人背叛的结果包括灵魂中强烈欲念 (concupiscence)：感官欲望不
正之辖制；理性之律不再管制灵魂。
修正：不错，人的欲望辖制灵魂，人的灵魂不能正确运作。不过：情感（欲念），理性
，意志，都堕落了。每一功能和它们之间的关系都扭曲、败坏。
39．正：奥古斯丁：人被造是不朽的﹔他不是不会受死的影响，乃是他有身体不朽的可
能。他若证明自己的顺服，就会在圣洁里得以坚定 (confirmed in holiness) ﹔就会从
「能不犯罪」与「能不死」的境况中，过渡到「不可能犯罪」与「不可能死」的境况中
。但是他犯罪了，结果他进入了「不可能不犯罪」与「不可能不死」的境况中。
修正：「能」与「不能」犯罪，都在上帝的面光之中，都须从上帝的「约」的角度来看
。
40．正：奥古斯丁：人因为罪完全堕落，不能意旨 / 行出任何善事。不错，意志仍有本
性的自由 (natural freedom) ，人仍然能行社会公认的善；不过人与上帝分离，担负罪
孽，在恶的权势下，因此不能意旨神眼中正直的事。
奥古斯丁：亚当与人类的关系
41．误：奥古斯丁：亚当与人类有着有机的关联 (organic connection) 。人类的合一
性不是盟约性的 (federally)，是现实主义的 (realistically)。全人类的种子都在亚
当里﹔人类不是个别地组成，乃是有机地组成：亚当里有人类普遍的本性 (generic hu
man nature) ，而每一个个体 (individualizations) 都是在亚当里已有的普遍本性的
有机部份 (organic parts)。
正：「普遍人性」太抽象；「盟约」 (federal) 关系比较合《圣经》。
42．误：奥古斯丁：全人类都在他里面实际上犯了罪。
正：全人类都因为「约」在亚当里，亚当代表人类犯罪；从这意义上，全人类都犯了亚
当的罪。不是「现实主义」，乃是「约」的观念。
奥古斯丁：恩典
43．正：奥古斯丁：人的意志需要被更新：从始至终唯独是上帝恩惠的工作。
44．正：奥古斯丁：人的更新唯独归功于上帝的恩惠；这是上帝「不可抗拒的恩惠」。
可是神的恩惠并不违背人是自由行动者 (free agent) 的本性。上帝不勉强人的意志。
上帝乃改变人的意志，使之甘愿选择善。人的意志被更新了，恢复了他的真自由。上帝
的确在人的意志上运行，以致人的意志自由地选择美德，圣洁。
45．正：奥古斯丁：重生是完全靠上帝的恩典的 (monergistic)。在重生上，圣灵的运
行是必需的，不仅供应人里之不足，而且完全更新人内心的性情，以致人的灵完全的效
法上帝的律法。
46．正：上帝在人身上恩典的工作分三阶段：（一）预先的恩典 (prevenient grace)：
圣灵用律法产生罪与罪孽的意识。（二）运行的恩典 (operative grace) ：圣灵用福
音产生信心，使人相信基督和他赎罪大工，结果人被称义，与上帝和好。（三）合作的
恩典 (co-operative grace) 。 人被更新了的意志与圣灵合作，终生作成成圣的功夫
。上帝恩典的工作，使神的形象完全在人里更新，上帝的灵完全改变罪人，成为圣徒。
奥古斯丁：教会，圣礼
47．正：奥古斯丁：教会是支配神恩典的机构 (independent dispenser of grace)。
注：「支配恩典」这观念，从宗教改革宗后的角度来理解。
48．误：奥古斯丁：洗礼使人重生 (baptismal regeneration)。但是重生之恩会再次丧
失。只有那些重生而坚守，或重生后失丧又蒙恢复，才能至终得救。
奥古斯丁：上帝的预定
49．正：上帝在时间里更新罪人的恩典之工，乃是他在永恒计划里所意旨的。
50．误：早期的奥古斯丁：上帝预定是在乎 (contingent upon) 祂的预知。
评：这其实是把上帝对人自由的行动的的预知，当作祂预定的条件。
51．正：后期的奥古斯丁：人选择行善，相信基督，都是上帝恩典的效果。
52．正：奥古斯丁：预定就是从上帝永恒的观点看救恩 (salvation viewed sub speci
e aeternitatis, from the point of view of eternity)。
注：奥古斯丁：至于未被拣选者，他认为神在他的预旨中(decree of God) 忽略了他们
(pertermission)。遗弃与拣选是不同的，神的遗弃没有任何神的直接功效伴随着，来
达成预期的效果。（改革宗有两种看法。） | G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 5 前面两短故事看完了么？
从中可以看到这个教义在早期争议很厉害的。我们要感谢神，现在我们已经不需要再做
这样的重复工作了。
其实圣经中就已经出现了异端。
例如约翰一二三书中就提到有的人不相信基督的人性，认为基督是神。
所以约翰说到：
约一 4:1 亲爱的弟兄啊，一切的灵，你们不可都信，总要试验那些灵是出于 神的不
是；因为世上有许多假先知已经出来了。 约一 4:2 凡灵认耶稣基督是成了肉身来的，
就是出于 神的，从此你们可以认出 神的灵来。 约一 4:3 凡灵不认耶稣，就不是出
于 神，这是那敌基督者的灵。你们从前听见他要来，现在已经在世上了。 约一 4:4
小子们哪，你们是属 神的，并且胜了他们；因为那在你们里面的，比那在世界上的更
大。 约一 4:5 他们是属世界的，所以论世界的事，世人也听从他们。
而犹大更是认识到异端的严重，在书信中指出：
http://godwithus.cn/bible/Bible.Jude.1.5.html
犹 1:3 亲爱的弟兄啊，我想尽心写信给你们，论我们同得救恩的时候，就不得不写信
劝你们，要为从前一次交付圣徒的真道，竭力地争辩。 犹 1:4 因为有些人偷着进来，
就是自古被定受刑罚的，是不虔诚的，将我们 神的恩变作放纵情欲的机会，并且不认
独一的主宰我们(“我们”或作“和我们”)主耶稣基督。 | G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 6 圣经中，先知警告我们：
摩 3:7 主耶和华若不将奥秘指示他的仆人众先知，就一无所行。
申 29:29 “隐秘的事是属耶和华我们 神的；惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙
的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。”
让我们小心，彼得也说：
彼后 3:15 并且要以我主长久忍耐为得救的因由，就如我们所亲爱的兄弟保罗，照着
所赐给他的智慧写了信给你们， 彼后 3:16 他一切的信上也都是讲论这事；信中有些
难明白的，那无学问、不坚固的人强解，如强解别的经书一样，就自取沉沦。 彼后 3:
17 亲爱的弟兄啊，你们既然预先知道这事，就当防备，恐怕被恶人的错谬诱惑，就从
自己坚固的地步上坠落。 彼后 3:18 你们却要在我们主救主耶稣基督的恩典和知识上
有长进。愿荣耀归给他，从今直到永远。阿们。
因为神论是要认识神。但是，神是无限的，我们人是有限的，所以有限的很难完全认识
无限的。所以有些是“奥秘”，我们无法探究，因为我们实在有限。
保罗说：
林前 13:12 我们如今仿佛对着镜子观看，模糊不清(“模糊不清”原文作“如同猜谜”
)，到那时，就要面对面了。我如今所知道的有限，到那时就全知道，如同主知道我一
样。 (CUVS)
主耶稣也说：
约 3:12 我对你们说地上的事，你们尚且不信，若说天上的事，如何能信呢？ (CUVS)
所以我们必须要有谦卑受教的心。没有启示给我们的我们不要使劲去想，很容易出现异
端。
其实摩门教就是犯了这个错误。
4
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: 前面两短故事看完了么？
: 从中可以看到这个教义在早期争议很厉害的。我们要感谢神，现在我们已经不需要再做
: 这样的重复工作了。
: 其实圣经中就已经出现了异端。
: 例如约翰一二三书中就提到有的人不相信基督的人性，认为基督是神。
: 所以约翰说到：
: 约一 4:1 亲爱的弟兄啊，一切的灵，你们不可都信，总要试验那些灵是出于 神的不
: 是；因为世上有许多假先知已经出来了。 约一 4:2 凡灵认耶稣基督是成了肉身来的，
: 就是出于 神的，从此你们可以认出 神的灵来。 约一 4:3 凡灵不认耶稣，就不是出
: 于 神，这是那敌基督者的灵。你们从前听见他要来，现在已经在世上了。 约一 4:4
| G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 7 当然，神乐意我们认识他，凡是跟我们得救所需要的真理，神的属性，其实神都已经在
圣经中启示给我们了，让我们可以正确的认识他，相信他。
包括神论（三位一体），基督论（神人二性），救恩论（因信称义），末世论，教会论
等等等等。
而这些的总结最主要的就在历届信经信条中。
3:
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: 圣经中，先知警告我们：
: 摩 3:7 主耶和华若不将奥秘指示他的仆人众先知，就一无所行。
: 申 29:29 “隐秘的事是属耶和华我们 神的；惟有明显的事是永远属我们和我们子孙
: 的，好叫我们遵行这律法上的一切话。”
: 让我们小心，彼得也说：
: 彼后 3:15 并且要以我主长久忍耐为得救的因由，就如我们所亲爱的兄弟保罗，照着
: 所赐给他的智慧写了信给你们， 彼后 3:16 他一切的信上也都是讲论这事；信中有些
: 难明白的，那无学问、不坚固的人强解，如强解别的经书一样，就自取沉沦。 彼后 3:
: 17 亲爱的弟兄啊，你们既然预先知道这事，就当防备，恐怕被恶人的错谬诱惑，就从
: 自己坚固的地步上坠落。 彼后 3:18 你们却要在我们主救主耶稣基督的恩典和知识上
| q********g
发帖数: 10694 | | G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 9 相关的著作也浩如烟海，尤其是宗教改革之后的信条以及清教徒牧者的大量著作，实在
太多了，举不胜举。随便拿一两个，只要不是异端新正统的，都可以很好的用来学习。
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: 当然，神乐意我们认识他，凡是跟我们得救所需要的真理，神的属性，其实神都已经在
: 圣经中启示给我们了，让我们可以正确的认识他，相信他。
: 包括神论（三位一体），基督论（神人二性），救恩论（因信称义），末世论，教会论
: 等等等等。
: 而这些的总结最主要的就在历届信经信条中。
:
: 3:
| G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 10 下面大家建议用那个呢？
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: 相关的著作也浩如烟海，尤其是宗教改革之后的信条以及清教徒牧者的大量著作，实在
: 太多了，举不胜举。随便拿一两个，只要不是异端新正统的，都可以很好的用来学习。
| G*******s
发帖数: 4956 | 11 留了这么多时间，真正关心这个问题的同学们有答案了么？
【在 G*******s 的大作中提到】
: 下面大家建议用那个呢？
|
|
