注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

守诚阁

基督徒世界观 译介圣经神学

 
 
 

日志

 
 

路德与慈运理(四):人性与实体  

2011-06-15 21:15:00|  分类: 教会议题 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

路德与慈运理(四):人性与实体
Luther vs. Zwingli 4: Humanity and Physicality


作者:Trevin Wax 译者:诚之
原文链接:http://trevinwax.com/2008/02/13/luther-vs-zwingli-4-humanity-and-physicality/
(感谢作者授权翻译 )

续前

虽然路德和慈运理似乎在“真实同在”的问题上势同水火,但是实际上他们的立场比我们想象的更为接近。
Though Luther and Zwingli seemed to be strongly opposed on the question of the “real presence,” they were actually closer than one might expect.

他们都肯定基督在圣餐中的同在。
Both affirmed Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

都肯定圣礼的本质是记号,可增强信徒的信心。
Both affirmed the nature of the sacrament as a sign that strengthens faith in the hearts of believers.

都拒绝化质说,以及罗马天主教把弥撒当作献祭的认识。
Both rejected transubstantiation as well as the Roman Catholic understanding of the mass as a sacrifice.

这两位改教家的分歧之处在哲学领域,特别是实体(physicality)的本质。慈运理不赞同实际的身体会无所不在这样的观念,这就是他为什么相信基督在主的晚餐中只能是属灵的同在。路德相信“属灵”的同在实际上就是根本不存在,而这个信念会剥夺了主的晚餐的能力,让基督设立晚餐的话成为谎言。
Where the two Reformers diverged was in the philosophical realm, specifically the nature of physicality. Zwingli could not affirm the idea of an omnipresent physical body, which is why he believed that Christ could only be spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper. Luther believed that a “spiritual” presence was really no presence at all and that this belief emptied the Lord’s Supper of its power, making Christ’s words of institution to be a lie.

但是在这些争论的背后是马尔堡争论的核心:基督论,特别是基督的人性的问题。
But behind these squabbles is the heart of the Marburg debate: Christology, and specifically the question of Christ’s humanity.

路德:“基督的人性使得祂在主的晚餐中与我们实际同在成为必要。”
Luther: “Christ’s Humanity Demands a Physical Presence in the Lord’s Supper”

路德相信并教导耶稣的人性本质参与(participated)在祂的神性本质中,意思是祂的身体(既是人又是神)必然享有祂的神性,包括无所不在。因此,路德毫不迟疑地肯定耶稣的身体存在于某个地方,也同时存在于其他地方。他并未试图要解决由此而来的逻辑张力,因为圣经并没有提到这些问题。
Luther believed and taught that Jesus’ human nature participated in his divine nature, meaning that his body (as both human and divine) must share in the attributes of divinity, including omnipresence. Therefore, Luther had no problem affirming both that Jesus was physically present in one location while also present in another. He did not seek to resolve the logical tensions that arose from such a view since Scripture did not address those issues.

在马尔堡,路德拒绝放弃发生在圣礼的元素和基督的身体和血之间的“圣礼联合”的这个观念。虽然他拒绝饼与酒实际上被转化的这个观念,但是他相信基督的身体和血在圣礼中是与饼与酒联合在一起的,因此,当我们吃饼的时候,我们是在吃基督的身体。在某些方面,路德甚至走得比罗马天主教更远,他说,一个人如果把饼咬碎,同样,基督的身体也被压碎,因为基督的身体和饼是联合在一起的。
At Marburg, Luther refused to give up the idea of “sacramental union” that took place between the elements and Christ’s body and blood. Though rejecting the idea that the bread and wine were actually transformed, he believed that Christ’s body and blood were sacramentally united to the bread and wine, so that when one ate the bread, one was eating Christ’s body. At some points, Luther goes farther than the Roman Catholic Church, by stating that if a person’s teeth crush the bread, then the same thing happens to Christ’s body also, since Christ’s body is united to the bread.

路德在主的晚餐这件事上无法与慈运理妥协,因为他相信道成肉身的教义和基督的人性会因此受到危害。慈运理根据逻辑结论和理性来辩论;路德则一再诉诸基督所说的“这我的身体”。路德把耶稣在最后晚餐所说的话当作他所需的全部弹药,以击倒其他任何的意见。
Luther would not compromise with Zwingli on the Lord’s Supper because he believed the doctrines of the incarnation and Christ’s humanity to be at stake. Zwingli sought to debate based on logical conclusions and reason; Luther appealed again and again to Jesus’ words “This is my body.” Luther saw Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as all the ammunition he needed to shoot down any other opinions.

慈运理根据逻辑和人类理性相信,人类身体不可能出现在一个以上的地方;路德向他挑战,要他相信基督自己说的话;如果耶稣说祂实际在场,那么,逻辑和人类理性就要被迫符合基督永存的话语——而不是相反。在路德的眼中,慈运理是试图修改阅读基督的话最自然的方式,好让它能符合人类理性。
Zwingli believed, based on logic and human reason, that a human body could not be present in more than one place; Luther challenged him to take Christ at his word. If Jesus said he was physically present, then logic and human reason should be forced to correspond to the everlasting words of Christ – not the other way around. In Luther’s eyes, Zwingli was seeking to modify the natural reading of Christ’s words in order to make it compatible with human reason.

“我不是在问基督如何同时是神又是人,以及祂的两个本质如何能联合在一起。因为上帝能够超越我们的想象来行动。对于上帝的话,我们只能顺从。当基督自己说,‘这是我的身体’,是否要证明基督不在场,取决于你自己。我不想听理性的一面之词。我断然拒绝世俗和几何的论证……”
“I do not ask how Christ can be God and man and how His natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ Himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments…”

路德并不明白慈运理为何无法接受基督在圣餐中实际的同在。他相信正如基督的身体对救恩来说是必要的,因此,基督的身体实际与我们同在,对主的晚餐来说,也是非常重要的。路德把慈运理试图把基督的同在“属灵化”,视为想要在暗地里否定基督真实的人性。
Luther did not understand Zwingli’s reticence to accept a physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He believed that just as the body of Christ was necessary for salvation, so a physical presence of Christ was important for the Lord’s Supper. Luther saw Zwingli’s attempt to “spiritualize” the presence of Christ as a backhanded way of denying Christ’s true humanity.

续下篇
  评论这张
 
阅读(319)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017