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(五):人性与无所不在  

2011-06-19 02:31:00|  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(五):人性与无所不在
Luther vs. Zwingli 5: Humanity and Omnipresence


作者:Trevin Wax 译者:诚之
原文链接:http://trevinwax.com/2008/02/14/luther-vs-zwingli-5-humanity-and-omnipresence/
(感谢作者授权翻译 )

续上篇

路德相信慈运理“属灵同在”的观点会贬低基督的人性,而慈运理则认为,路德的观点才会真正贬抑祂完全的人性。
Though Luther believed Zwingli’s view of “spiritual presence” downplayed Christ’s humanity, Zwingli argued that it was Luther’s view that actually demoted Christ from his proper place as fully Man.

根据慈运理的说法,路德混同基督的神性和人性,是和“基督一性论”(Eutychianism 宣称基督的两种本质混合在一起,创造出第三种本质的异端),或者更严重的是和幻影派(Docetism 基督只是看起来像人的异端)有危险的暧昧关系。慈运理相信,路德过于强调基督的神性,以至于忽略(甚至于否定)祂人性的身体层面。
According to Zwingli, Luther’s fusion of Christ’s divine and human natures was a dangerous flirtation with Eutychianism (the heresy that claimed Christ’s natures were fused together, creating a third kind of nature), or even worse, with Docetism (the heresy that Christ only appeared to be human). Zwingli believed Luther had so emphasized Christ’s divinity that the physical aspects of his humanity were being dismissed or worse, denied.

慈运理诉诸奥古斯丁来支持他的观点,圣礼是记号,基督的身体、祂的人性本质不可能是无所不在的。慈运理也援引圣经为自己辩护,不只是诉诸理性。慈运理坚持基督设立圣餐的话必须解读为:“这‘象征’我的身体。”,而不是照字义解释为“这‘是’我的身体。”
Zwingli appealed to Augustine as a supporter of his view that the sacrament is a sign and that Christ’s physical, human nature cannot be omnipresent. Zwingli also appealed to Scripture in his defense, not merely to reason. Zwingli insisted that Christ’s words of institution should be understood as “This signifies my body” instead of the literal “This is my body.”

当慈运理引用希腊文经文时,路德打断他,要他念德文或拉丁文。但是慈运理继续使用希腊文,作为人文主义传统的学者,他相信语言是很重要的。翻译是无法与原文匹敌的。对慈运理来说,希腊原文中没有“是”这个字是很重要的,因为路德选择把他全部的论证寄于这个字的字面意义上。
As Zwingli cited the Greek text, Luther interrupted him and ordered him to read German or Latin. Zwingli continued to use Greek, as a scholar of the humanist tradition who believed that the language mattered very much. Translation did not equal equivalency. The absence of the word “is” in the Greek was important to Zwingli because Luther had chosen to hang his entire argument on the literal meaning of that word.

路德坚持,这句经文必须按字面来解释。因此慈运理反驳路德,要他按字面来解释耶稣所说的,“我不在世上”(约17:11)和圣礼之间的关系。他也挑出旧约圣经里面的几处例子说明“是”必须按比喻来解释(结5:1;赛9:14等)。
Luther remained adamant that the text should be interpreted literally. So Zwingli pushed back at Luther by telling him to interpret literally Jesus’ statement “I am no more in the world” with regard to the Eucharist. He also culled several examples from the Old Testament where “is” is interpreted metaphorically (Ezekiel 5:1, Isaiah 9:14, etc.).

马尔堡会谈的第三场会议(周日,十月三日)的主题是基督论的辩论,这是整个争议的核心。慈运理论到路德的观点不让基督人性的身体留在天上,在父神的右边,是诋毁基督的人性。路德论到慈运理的观点,否认基督的身体与主的晚餐同在,是在诋毁基督的人性。
The third session of the Marburg Colloquy (Sunday morning, October 3) featured the Christological debate that formed the heart of the entire controversy. Zwingli argued that Luther’s view denigrated the humanity of Christ by not allowing Christ’s human body to remain in heaven, at the right hand of the Father. Luther argued that Zwingli’s view denigrated Christ’s humanity by denying its presence in the Lord’s Supper.

慈运理相信路德的看法特别危险,因为如果基督的人性分享祂神性无所不在的性质,那么我们很自然地可以得到这个结论,就是基督的身体到处存在于每一片饼中,甚至大自然的每个部分。
Zwingli believed that Luther’s view was particularly dangerous, for if Christ’s humanity shares the attribute of omnipresence with his divinity, then one could naturally conclude that Christ’s body is in every piece of bread everywhere and even in every part of nature.

因为圣经和大公信条严格区分基督的两个本质,慈运理试图解释基督在主的晚餐中的同在是属灵的同在。对慈运理来说,路德肯定人的身体的无所不在,无可避免地会否定人的身体的真正本质。
Because the Scriptures and the ecumenical creeds demanded a strict distinction between the natures of Christ, Zwingli sought to interpret the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper spiritually. For Zwingli, Luther’s affirmation of a human body’s omnipresence inevitably negated the very essence of what a human body is entirely.

路德回应慈运理基督论的论证,他再次诉诸基督设立圣餐的话。耶稣说,“这是我的身体”,如果耶稣说的是事实,那么神的无所不在必定也包括基督的身体,以至于祂的身体在物质层面和其他的人体是不同的。
Luther responded to Zwingli’s Christological argument by again appealing to Christ’s words of institution. If Jesus was speaking truthfully when he said “This is my body,” then God’s omnipotence must govern Christ’s body, so that his body is not corporeal in the same way other human bodies are.

慈运理同意神有能力让同一个身体同时出现在不同地方,但是他在圣经中看不到这个证据,说明这会发生在主的晚餐中。此外,慈运理也相信路德的解释削弱了他的基督论,忽略基督与我们的人性认同的许多重要层面。
Zwingli agreed that God has the power to make a body be in different places at the same time, but he saw no Scriptural proof to indicate that this happens in the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, Zwingli believed Luther’s interpretation weakened his Christology, neglecting important aspects of Christ’s identification with our humanity.

(未完,续下篇
  评论这张
 
阅读(259)| 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