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(六):肉体与属灵  

2011-06-20 21:06:00|  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(六):肉体与属灵
Luther vs. Zwingli 6: Flesh and Spirit


作者:Trevin Wax 译者:诚之
原文链接:http://trevinwax.com/2008/02/15/luther-vs-zwingli-6-flesh-and-spirit/
(感谢作者授权翻译 )

续上篇

如果路德最喜欢用来支持他的观点的经文是“这是我的身体”,慈运理最喜欢的经文则是约翰福音6:63,耶稣说,“肉体是无益的”。
If Luther’s favorite text in support of his view was “This is my body,” Zwingli’s favorite was John 6:63, where Jesus claims “The flesh profits nothing.”

走过基督论争论的过程,来看基督是否在主的晚餐中,我们会发现一种强烈的肉体与灵魂的二分法。对路德来说,属灵的同在却没有身体的同在,就不是真正的同在。对慈运理而言,相信基督的身体和血包含在饼与酒之内,几近乎偶像崇拜。慈运理不断对路德施压,质问他如果“肉体是无益的”,为什么身体的同在是必要的。
Coursing through the Christological debate over Christ’s presence in the Supper was a strong dichotomy between flesh and spirit. For Luther, a spiritual presence with no physical local presence was not a true presence at all. For Zwingli, the belief that the bread and wine contained the physical body and blood of Christ bordered on idolatry. Zwingli continually pressed Luther on why the physical presence was necessary if the “flesh profits nothing.”

慈运理的同伴艾科兰巴迪(Oecolampadius),也参与了马尔堡的辩论,他宣称约翰福音6:63表明,只有借着信心在“属灵”上吃喝基督才是必要的,没有必要吃喝真实的身体。路德同意艾科兰巴迪的说法,约翰福音6章是指属灵的吃喝,但是他不同意这个观念,即属灵的吃喝不需伴随着真实身体的吃喝。
Zwingli’s cohort Oecolampadius, who also contributed to the debate at Marburg, claimed that John 6:63 indicates that it is a spiritual feeding on Christ through faith that is necessary, not a carnal, fleshly feeding. Luther agreed with Oecolampadius that John 6 refers to a spiritual eating, but he disagreed with the idea that the spiritual eating is unaccompanied by bodily eating.

路德也肯定圣经中有许多比喻的说法,但是他不相信慈运理和艾科兰巴迪有足够的论证说明耶稣设立晚餐的话必须被解读为比喻。“我有清楚有力的经文!”他宣称。
Luther also affirmed the presence of many metaphors in Scripture, but he did not believe Zwingli and Oecolampadius had strong arguments for seeing Jesus’ words of institution as necessarily metaphorical. “I have a clear and powerful text!” he proclaimed.

马尔堡辩论的原因有很多必须追溯到慈运理的倾向,他惯于把真实的(外在的)和属灵的(内在的)加以二分,以及路德的倾向,他总是把二者紧密结合在一起。二位改教家的论点都不错,但是都走上了极端。他们都想安全地翱翔在基督论的绝壁上,一方的危险是把基督的两个本性分得太开(慈运理),另一方的危险是把祂的两个本性绑得太紧(路德)。
The basis for much of the debate at Marburg goes back to Zwingli’s tendency to draw a dichotomy between the physical (outward) and the spiritual (inward) as well as Luther’s tendency to keep them too closely united. Both Reformers made good points; both went to extremes. Both were trying to navigate their way safely over a Christological precipice that threatened either to divide Christ too much (Zwingli) or unite his natures too closely (Luther).

慈运理认为路德对主的晚餐的观点是不合理性的信仰,是重回罗马天主教的教义。他认为路德是害怕割断与罗马的脐带,要用理性在圣经中找寻对圣餐的真正理解。
Zwingli saw in Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper an irrational belief that hearkened back to Roman Catholic dogma. In his mind, Luther was afraid to cut the ties from Rome and to seek the true understanding of the Eucharist found in Scripture and based on reason.

根据慈运理的说法,路德对圣礼的理解会让人依赖教会,并把一个外来的架构引到圣经经文内。路德同样认为慈运理对主的晚餐的看法是重回到罗马教会。慈运理对“真实存在”的看法,确实与化质说有很大的不同,但是他强调圣餐的纪念层面,并认为这是顺服的举动,而不是神的恩赐。对路德来说,这就变成是做“善工”来领受神的祝福。路德觉得,正如罗马天主教把圣餐变成一种善工,并且把圣餐的元素单单保留给神父,慈运理的教义也会导致圣餐只是个记号,如此,就剥夺了庆祝圣餐的理由。
According to Zwingli, Luther’s understanding of the sacraments kept one dependent upon the Church and introduced a foreign paradigm to the biblical texts. Luther likewise saw a return to Rome in Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper. Granted, Zwingli’s view of the “real presence” was quite different than transubstantiation, but his emphasis on the memorial aspect of the Supper and his view of it as an act of obedience more than a gift from God seemed to Luther to be a “good work” performed to receive God’s blessing. Luther felt that just as Roman Catholicism had turned the Eucharist into a good work and kept the elements for the priests alone, Zwingli’s doctrine would lead to the Eucharist as a mere sign, which would then take away any reason for celebrating the Eucharist.

二位改教家不只是在“肉体”和“属灵”的问题上有相反的看法,他们对逻辑和理性在哲学上的理解也有所不同。
The two Reformers not only had opposing views on the question of “flesh” and “spirit,” but they also differed on the philosophical understanding of logic and rationality.

慈运理相信圣经肯定逻辑与理性,因此当基督在约翰福音12:8说,“你们不常有我”时,必然排除了身体的同在,因为一个身体不可能同时在天上又在地上。路德诉诸神迹,说无论它听起来在逻辑上多么荒谬,两种说法都是真的。“我承认基督的身体在天上,但是我也承认它存在于圣礼中。”
Zwingli believed that the Scriptures affirmed logic and reason, and therefore when Christ said in John 12:8 “You will not always have me,” a bodily presence must necessarily be excluded for one body cannot be both in heaven and on earth at the same time. Luther appealed to the miraculous, stating that both are true, no matter how logically absurd it may sound. “I confess that the body is in heaven, but I also confess that it is in the sacrament.”

艾科兰巴迪试图让双方修好,他指出他们共同的立场。“我们一致同意的是基督在天上(根据祂的神性和人性),也在晚餐中(根据祂的神性)。”然后,他告诉路德不要依附在基督的人性和肉体上,而是要把他的想法提升到基督的神性上。
Oecolampadius sought to bring the two together by pointing out the common ground. “What we are agreed on is that Christ is present in heaven (according to his divinity and humanity) and in the Supper (according to his divinity).” He then told Luther that he should not cling to the humanity and the flesh of Christ, but instead lift up his mind to Christ’s divinity.

路德的回应清楚表明他不会妥协。“除了那位成了肉身的神以外,我不认识其他的神,我也不会想要别的神。”路德用这些话间接暗示,当慈运理在追求对主的晚餐的理性认识时,否认了基督真正的人性。到最后,这场争论不欢而散,基督论的问题使得改教家在圣餐的教义上分道扬镳。
Luther’s response made it clear that no compromise would take place. “I do not know of any God except him who was made flesh, nor do I want to have another.” With those words, Luther indirectly implied that Zwingli was denying the true humanity of Christ in his pursuit for a rational understanding of the Supper. The debate would come to an unhappy close, with the Christological questions keeping the Reformers apart on the doctrine of the Eucharist.

(未完,续下篇
  评论这张
 
阅读(384)| 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