×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
本帖引用『安心條款』，謝絕『三尺士萊馬赫』蒞臨指教！
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××
網絡上找到一篇蠻有意思的文章。因為發現華人基督教的『亞波里拿流』
主義極其囂張，所以特別轉貼過來，讓大家參考。當然，也是打臉那個
事實上想要建立新的基督教正統，不知道真正的基督教正統為何物，又
宣稱新教不能彼此批判非正統的謬論。:)
=====================================================
Against Apollinarius
駁斥亞波里拿流
by
Gregory of Nyssa
女撒的貴格利
Introduction
When taking into consideration the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ,
one does not discover a developed theological account of his person. Rather,
the message or kerugma found there depicts a person who fully shares our
human characteristics: Jesus interacts with his friends, enemies and
environment yet at the same time he stands apart from them as someone
different from the rest of us. This dissimilarity results both from the
claims Jesus says with regard to his own person, his relationship with God
and most dramatically of all, his miracles. Despite the tantalizing picture
handed down to us in the Gospels, we are completely ignorant as to what we
would now designate as his awareness or mental experience. In other words,
Jesus eludes any attempt to subject his person to psychological
investigation.
當我們思考新約關於耶穌基督的記載，並不會發現任何關於祂位格、已經發展完成的神學
記述。反而，有一種描述完全有份我們人性特徵位格的信息或kerugma：耶穌與祂的朋友
們、敵人們和環境互動，在同時，祂也與他們不同，也與我們不同。這種相異性乃是來自
耶穌論到祂自己的位格、祂與神的關係，並最為引人注目的，祂行的神蹟。在福音書中傳
給我們的激情描述外，我們完全不知道祂的知覺或心理經驗。歡聚哈說，耶穌讓人們對於
將祂的位格置於心理學研究的嘗試徒勞無功。
As the early Church expanded and came into contact with the larger
Hellenistic world, it was compelled to translate the message of the Gospels
to non-Judaic peoples and to make use of their philosophi c heritage. One of
the pressing issues confronting Christian apologetics at the time was the
personhood of Jesus Christ who was proclaimed as both man and God. The very
fact that such a duality could be attributed to a single person was a source
of agitation among those educated Greeks being evangelized as well as
Christians who were engaged in proclaiming the faith. Several centuries of
occasionally heated discussion in the Church were required to resolve the
difficulty of two natures in Christ, human and divine. It was not until 451
when the Council of Chalcedon settled the earlier Christological disputes.
Briefly put, Chalcedon articulated the unity of these two natures(1) though
in abstract terms.
當早期基督教擴張並與後期的希羅世界接觸的時候，不得不把福音的信息翻譯為非猶太人
的信息，並使用他們的哲學。在當時一個基督教護教所面臨，令人印象深刻的例子是耶穌
基督的位格，祂被宣告為人和神。這種可以被歸於一個位格並對於那些受過教育的希臘人
會造成了騷動的雙重特性，在宣揚信仰的過程中，當作福音傳給基督徒。幾個世紀中偶爾
在教會中升溫的討論中，要求解決在基督裡面，神與人兩個性質的難題。直到451年的迦
克頓大會才解決了早期的基督論爭議。簡單的說，迦克頓大會透過了抽象的名詞解決了那
兩個性質聯合的問題。
From the vantage point of Chalcedon with its clearly defined teaching on the
two natures of Christ we can look backwards, so to speak, upon the teachings
of Apollinarius of Laodecia (310-c.390). In many ways he brings to a head the
conflicting elements of the great Christological disputes of the fourth
century, controversies which can be confusing even to the trained eye. The
question of the full humanity of Jesus Christ, that is, his possession of
body and soul, have direct bearing upon the question of human freedom.
Although Christ fully assumed the human condition, a number of Christian
apologetics subtly viewed his personhood in a Docetist fashion. When the
Church Fathers sought to defend themselves against such a teaching,
especially when referring to the Incarnation, they developed two frameworks
which scholars commonly call Logos-sarx (Word-flesh) and Logos-anthropos
(Word-man). The former was developed in reaction to Origen's doctrine on the
preexistence of souls. This view failed to account for a human soul in
Christ; instead, the Incarnation was perceived as a union of the Logos with
human flesh(2). On the other hand, the latter framework had as its basic
principle the notion that the Logos united himself with a complete humanity,
including a soul and a body. In patristic scholarship these two types of
Christologies have been termed Alexandrian and Antiochene, respectively.
Although such a division runs the risk of over-simplification, it provides us
with a rule of thumb and enables us to make our way through this often
confused period of Church doctrine. What must be kept in mind is that both
the Logos-sarx and Logos-anthropos Christologies affirm that the person of
Jesus Christ entered into union with mankind. In other words, Christ was not
perceived as a divinely inspired man after the fashion of Arius and his
followers.
從迦克頓的優勢地位，並它明確的關於基督二性的教義定義，我們能夠回朔，也就是說，
老底嘉的亞波里拿流（Apollinarius of Laodicia, 310-c.390）的教義。他用許多方式
把四世紀重要基督論爭議的元素匯集在一起，對於許多受過訓練的人而言，那些爭議仍然
是令人困惑的。關於耶穌基督完整人性的問題，就是，祂所擁有的身體和魂，都與人類的
自由間有著密切的關係。雖然基督完全取得了人類的境況，有些基督教的護教士隱約的用
幻影論的風格來認識祂的位格。當教會的教父們嘗試抵擋那樣的教義的時候，特別是當論
及道成肉身的時候，他們發展出兩種學術界普遍稱為道—肉（Logos-sarx/Word-flesh）
和道—人（logos-anthropos/Word-man）的架構。前者是根據針對俄列根的靈魂先存說的
反應而發展出來的。這個觀點忽視了對基督人性魂的描述；反而，道成肉身被視為道（
Logos）與人類肉身的聯合。在另一方面，後者的架構的基本觀念是，道親自與完整的人
性，包括魂和身體聯合。在教父的學術研究中，那兩種基督論也被稱作亞歷山大和安替阿
派的基督論。雖然那樣的區分具有過分簡化的危險，但向我們證明一種簡要的方式，並讓
我們能夠讓我們了解這段往往令人感覺困惑的教會教義的時期。我們必須記得，道—肉和
道—人基督論都肯定耶穌基督的位格與人類聯合。換句話，基督並不被認為是如同亞流和
他的跟隨者所認為的，是一位被神所啟迪的人類。
Apollinarius was one of the most famous personages associated with the
Antiochene school and became bishop of Laodicea, a town about fifty miles
south of Antioch on the Syrian coast(3). He was regarded as a person of
immense literary accomplishment who together with his father sought during
the pagan revival under the emperor Julian to disguise the Christian
scriptures in classic forms. They both composed the Gospels in the form of
Platonic dialogues and some of the Old Testament books into heroic verse. The
writings of Apollinarius and his father (who had the same name) sometimes
took poetic form; they enjoyed immense popularity during this time of
persecution and enabled the faithful to maintain their Christian roots during
such difficulties. A number of famous persons had attended the lectures of
Apollinarius such as Jerome which enjoyed great renown at the time. However,
it was about this period that the Christology of Apollinarius was beginning
to be suspect as deviated from the orthodox position of the Church.
亞波里拿流是與安替阿學派有關最為有名的人士，他也成為，一個在敘利亞海邊，離開安
替阿大約五十英里的一座小城—老底嘉的主教。他被認為是一位妙筆生花的人，與他的父
親在朱利安（Julian）皇帝時期的異教復興運動中，用古典的方式以藏基督教的經文。他
們用柏拉圖式的對話編撰福音，並把某些舊約的書卷編撰為英雄式的詩歌。亞波里拿流和
他父親（同名）的作品有時候採用詩歌體裁；他們兩位在這個鄙派的時期享有盛名，並使
得忠信的信徒得以在那個艱難的時期中，維持他們基督教根基。許多出名的認識都出席過
亞波里拿流的課程，就像在當時非常有名的耶柔米。然而，也就是在這個時期，亞波里拿
流的基督論開始被華裔離開了教會的正統立場。
Despite the geographical proximity to Antioch, it is more natural to
associate Apollinarius with Alexandria (his father came from that city) and
its teaching on the sharp division between two natures in Christ which later
gave birth to Nestorianism. At a later time Cyril of Alexandria was to take
over some basic tenets of Apollinarius' thought, especially his famous mia
phusis or one nature of the incarnate Word(4). Apollinarius enjoyed a close
friendship with Athanasius, the famous bishop of Alexandria, and shared many
of his views on Trinitarian doctrines. Such a friendship makes it more
natural to affiliate Apollinarius with Alexandria rather than with Antioch.
In the eyes of Athanasius, his friend from Laodicea steadfastly held fast to
the orthodox teaching of Nikaea.
儘管亞波里拿流的地理位置距離安替阿比較近，他往往被理所當然的認為與亞歷山大（他
的父親就是來自那座城市）並其教義有關，特別是在對於在基督中二性的明確區分，隨後
促發了聶斯多留主義（Nestorianism）。亞歷山大的區利羅在後世去用了亞波里拿流思想
的某些長老，特別是他有名的mia phusis或成為肉身之道的一個性質（one nature of
the incarnate Word）。亞波里拿流與著名的亞歷山大主教亞他那修間有親密的友情，並
分享了他的三位一體教義的許多觀點。那個友情是的亞波里拿流更容易被歸為亞歷山大派
而不是安替阿派。在亞他那修嚴重，他從老底嘉來的朋友堅定不移的捍衛了尼西亞的正統
教義。
It may be helpful to briefly state the position Athanasius maintained on the
person of Christ which serves to give a better picture of Apollinarius'
doctrine of the Savior. The bishop of Alexandria is known for his monumental
struggles against Arianism, the teaching which claimed that the Son of God
was created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for creation and
salvation. Christ was not God by nature but a noble creature who received the
title of Son of God due to his righteousness which had been foreseen by the
Father. Athanasius stressed the unity between Logos and flesh while each
retains their own characteristics in a close unity. Such an "indwelling
framework"(5) was the object of reproach and conflict with the Antiochene
school who favored the Logos-anthropos Christology. On the other hand, the
school of Alexandria, whose most famous son was Origen, seemed to treat the
flesh as a thing in which the Word made his home. In their minds it created
an unnecessary dualistic approach to the person of Christ and devalued the
role of human personhood.
簡單的描述亞他那修堅持的，關於基督位格的立場可能會有幫助，這個立場能夠更好的為
亞波里拿流關於救主的教義提供一副更清楚的圖畫。亞歷山大逐漸因與亞流主義的爭鬥而
名揚天下，亞流宣稱神的兒子是由父從虛無（nothing）中所造出來的，作為創造和救贖
的工具。基督的本質不是神，而是一個高貴的被造之物，因為他的公義為父所遇見，領受
了神兒子的稱號。亞他那修強調道和肉身間的聯合，兩者仍然在一個緊密的聯合中保留了
各自的特徵。那樣的『內住架構（indwelling framework）』被傾向於道—人基督論的安
替阿學派反對，並與其產生衝突。在另一方面，亞歷山大學派，最有名的學者是俄列根（
Origen），被視為把肉體當做道居住，作為家的一件東西。在他們的思想中，它造成了一
種不需要的，對於基督位格的二元處理方式，減低了基督位格的角色。
For Athanasius the Logos-sarx framework is the source of all existence and
subject of statements about Christ. The human aspect in Christ is ruled by
the Logos, a position which has lead scholars to believe that Athanasius did
not ascribe to a human soul in the Savior(6). For him, to "become man" or
flesh implies an intimate union between the divine and human to such an
extent that it may be said that the Logos is actually man. We will see later
how this position maintained by Athanasius in his struggle against Arianism
which sought to denigrate the role of Jesus Christ influenced his friend
Apollinarius. The position which Apollinarius has subsequently taken flows
from the basic principles of Athanasius' theology. It maintains that God is
the only one who can save, an insight which had been hammered out in his
controversy with the Arian opposition. For Athanasius, salvation rested upon
the incarnation of divinity in all its unchangeable glory; the changeable
human mind which is liable to sin could not conceivably be united with the
atreptos nature of divinity.
對於亞他那修而言，道—肉架構是所有關於基督的神學宣告的主題和根源。在基督裡人類
的方面被道管轄，這個立場是的學者們相信亞他那修不認為救主裡面有一個人類的魂。對
於他而言，『成為人』或肉身意味著一種在神性和人性間的內在聯合，到一個程度，我們
能夠說道就是人。我們隨後將會看見亞他那修在對抗亞流主義的過程中所堅持的立場，詆
毀了耶穌基督角色的觀點影響了他的朋友亞波里拿流。亞波里拿流隨後採取的立場源自於
亞他那修神學的基本原則。這個原則堅信神是唯一能夠拯救的那位，這種觀點乃是從他與
亞流派的反對立場中鍛煉出來的。對於亞他那修而言，救贖乃是根據神在祂不改變的榮耀
中成為肉身；會改變的人類心思會犯罪，不能被認為能夠與神性那個atreptos（譯者：不
可被分離）的性質聯合。
Due to the influence of Athanasius, Apollinarius must have had his position
in mind which implied that Christ lacked a human mind or soul; salvation for
mankind depends totally upon the immutable power of God through the
Incarnation minus any cooperation from the human sphere. For Gregory,
perfection is not immutability but a progression towards the good which
involves correct moral behavior and alteration. It is this notion of change
which enables Gregory to respond to Apollinarius, "Since the human mind is
mutable, it is unable to have knowledge of the Only-Begotten God and to speak
of its origin" (J.194). However, he accepts the premise of Apollinarius that
the human spirit is mutable (treptos)(7), "The human race and the entire man
is not saved by the assumption of mind but by assuming flesh, its natural
governing principle. The immutable mind does not require submission to the
flesh by any defect of knowledge; rather, it unites the flesh to itself
without coercion" (J.195). However, for Apollinarius this mutability belongs
to free will's ability to chose between good and evil. If the nous (mind) is
mutable by nature, the Logos clearly cannot have assumed a human mind. To
this accusation Gregory responds, "just as [Christ] was not defiled by his
birth in the flesh, neither is the mind (nous) diminished by assuming
mutability (trope," J.195). For him trope implies that the spirit does not
consist solely in alternation between good and evil. The human spirit is able
to become atreptos and be healed from the inclination towards evil without at
the same time ceasing to be a created spirit, for even the human nature of
Christ uses trope towards the good.
亞波里拿流因著亞他那修的影響，必然在心中認為基督缺少人類的心思或魂；人類的救贖
完全根據神透過道成肉身那個不可改變的能力，不需要人類方面的任何配合。對於貴格利
而言，完美（perfection）並不是不可改變的，而是一個向著良善的過程，需要正確的道
德行為和變化。這種可以改變的觀念讓貴格利能夠回應亞波里拿流，『因為人類的心思是
會改變的，就不能得到對於神獨生子的知識，並論到其起源。』（J.194）然而，他接受
亞波里拿流的前提，人的靈是會改變的（treptos），『人類和整個人並不會因著取得心
思，肉身的管理原則，而是因為確定了肉身得到拯救。不改變的心思不需要因著任何不完
全的知識而順服肉身；反而，它在不被強迫的情況下與肉身聯合』（J.195）。然而，對
於亞波里拿流而言，這種改變性屬於自由意志選擇善惡的能力。如果nous（mind/心思）
的本性是會改變的，道明顯的不能取得人的心思。對於這個批判，貴格利回應說，『就如
同[基督]在肉身中並不會因著祂的出生而變得不完全，靈就不會一直在善和惡之間變換。
人的靈能夠成為atreptos，並能夠從邪惡的傾向中得到醫治，並在同時不再是被造的靈，
甚至基督的人性都會採用傾向良善的trope（行事風格）。
The writings of Apollinarius confront us with the problem of a dichotomy or
more specifically, a trichotomy, soul/spirit-flesh. The bishop of Laodecia
maintains that man is an enfleshed mind, a composite of spirit and flesh,
pneuma and sarx. As a source for these terms he refers to St. Paul whose
apparently trichotomist terms appeal to him. Since both man and the Logos are
enfleshed minds (nous ensarkos), to be made in man's likeness means that the
Logos has an enfleshed mind. It was the intent of Apollinarius not to pay too
much attention to such terminology; rather, his concern laid in preferring
the God enfleshed (theos ensarkos) with an inspired man (anthropos entheos),
for this latter phrase implies a created mind enlightened by wisdom(8). In
addition to this, Apollinarius is fond of St. Paul's term, a "heavenly man."
Gregory of Nyssa levels an especially strong invective against this position,
claiming that the flesh of the divine Logos preexisted in heaven right from
the beginning. As Raven has demonstrated(9), such a view was held by some of
his more extreme followers while the fragments assembled by Lietzmann do not
reveal this fact.
亞波里拿流的作品讓我們看見二元人論的問題，或更明確的說，三元人論，魂/靈-肉身。
老底嘉的主教堅稱人是一個肉身包裹的心思，由靈和肉身，pneum和sarx所構成。他引用
保羅的作品作為這些詞彙的來源，訴諸保羅看起來採用的三元論主義的名稱。因為人和道
都是被肉身包裹的心思（nous ensarkos），在人的樣式（likeness，在本文中，
likeness指人類出生的方式。但為了忠於原文，仍採用樣式的翻譯——譯者）中被造的意
思是道成為一個被肉身包裹的心思。亞波里拿流的動機並不是要過於注重那些詞彙；反而
，他的關注點在於神帶著一個被（聖靈）啟迪的人（anthropos entheos）被肉身包裹（
theos ensarkos），因為anthropos entheos這斷話暗示一個被智慧光照的被造心思。在
此之外，亞波里拿流也使用保羅的詞彙，『屬天的人（heavenly man）』。女撒的貴格利
特別強烈的反對這個立場，宣稱神聖之道的肉身從太初就先存於天上。就如同Raven所展
示的，某些他激進的跟隨者也堅信那樣的觀點，但是在同時，Lietzmann所收集的殘篇卻
沒有展現出那樣的事實。
Apollinarius has taken up the teaching of Athanasius, that God must remain
immutable in order to save us. The difficulty he experiences lies in the
problem of how God can assume a middle position between his own divinity and
humanity. Gregory scoffs at this by presenting the example of a goat-stag
(tragelaphos, J.215-16). Here he mocks Apollinarius' position who calls
Christ a Man-God: "the combination of names [goat and stag] denotes the
participation of one nature in another." For the bishop of Laodicea Christ is
not an Arian demiurge standing midway between full divinity and humanity;
rather, he is a mixis or mixture of both components. Regardless of the source
of his teaching and whether or not it comes from scripture, Apollinarius
penned his thoughts out of a formidable literary and scholarly background. He
upheld the homoousion, that the Trinity is one as proclaimed by Nikaea.
Despite this noble defense of the faith and the admiration of his friend
Athanasius, Apollinarius was condemned for heresy by the Council of
Constantinople in 381, by the pope in the late 370's, and by a local synod at
Antioch.
亞波理拿流採取了亞他那修的教義，就是神必須是不可改變的才能更拯救我們。他面對的
難題乃是要解決神如何能在祂自己的神性和人性間採取一種中間的立場。貴格利用山羊鹿
（goat-stag,tragelaphos, J.215-216）的例子嘲笑這種觀點。他嘲笑稱基督為人神（
Man-God）的亞波里拿流：『結合不同的名字[山羊和鹿]表明有份於彼此的性質。』對於
老底嘉的主教而言，基督不是亞流派，身處於完整的神性和人性間的造物主（demiurge）
；反而，祂是一個兩種成分組成的混合者或混合物。不論他的教義從何而來，甚至是來自
聖經，亞波里拿流用難以辯駁的文字和學術性的背景寫下了他的思想。他堅守同質（
homoousion）的觀念，就是三位一體是如同尼西亞所宣稱的，是一位。儘管他擁有捍衛信
仰的高貴動機，並尊崇他的朋友亞他那修，亞波里拿流被381年的康士坦丁大會，在370年
代後期被教會，並在安替阿的地方會議中被定罪為異端。
Despite the close affiliation with Antioch, Apollinarius perceived the
humanistic approach of this school as threat to Christ's nature by dividing
it into two elements. It thereby rendered him into something akin to a
divinely inspired man whose Arian counterpart was the belief that Christ was
a lesser god. Apollinarius undertook what was perhaps the most comprehensive
attempt to date at theologizing about the personhood of Christ. The salient
point of his teaching is the rejection of a human mind in Jesus, something
akin to Arianism. Nevertheless, as J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out(10),
Apollinarius was a powerful antagonist against the Arians regarding
Trinitarian matters, so it seems unusual that such a figure would succumb to
their Christological principles. We have also observed that the great
Athanasius tended to neglect the presence of a human soul in Christ, a
feature of the Alexandrian school in general. The sometimes rigid manner of
their Logos-sarx framework which makes the Logos the soul in Christ has an
innate tendency of treating the Logos as something secondary. Apollinarius
had understood that the Father and Son form one identical divine substance, a
position taught by his friend Athanasius. However, problems arose when he
turned his sharp mind to Christology.
儘管亞波里拿流與安替阿有密切的關係，他被認為採取了一種源自於這個學派的人文主義
方式，將基督的性質切割成為兩種元素而威脅到基督的性質。因此認為基督不過是某種類
似得到神聖啟迪的人，他的亞流對手則相信基督是一位次等神。亞波里拿流同意了一種可
能是當時最為能夠被理解的嘗試，想神學化基督的位格。他的教義顯著的中的是拒絕在耶
穌裡面有人類的心思，與阿亞流主義間具有某種的類似性。有鑑於此，凱利（JND Kelly
）指出，亞波里拿流在三位一體的問題上是亞流派強而有力的對手，以至於那樣的認識屈
服於亞流派的基督論原則是非常不尋常的現象。我們也觀察到偉大的亞他那修也傾向於忽
視在基督裡裡面人類魂的存在，這是亞歷山大學派共有的特徵。道—肉架構使得道成為在
基督裡面的魂的嚴苛方法，具有一種內在的張力，將道視為某種次要的事物。亞波里拿流
從一個相同的神聖實質來理解父和子，這是他的朋友亞他那修教導的立場。然而，當他將
他敏銳的心思轉向基督論的時候，就產生了問題。
In attempting to conceive Christ's preexistence, Apollinarius is fully
orthodox and wields this belief against the Arians who subscribed to the
position that Christ had one (human) nature and was a divine though created
being(11). However, when he treating the Incarnation, Apollinarius slips from
the orthodox perception of Christ and says that he has only one true (divine)
nature. Apollinarius arrives at such a conclusion by the application of
rational investigation(12) which is intended to bolster faith. If this
approach were not taken, Christians would fall into error for "it behooves
Christians to be inquisitive and not to imprudently be unmindful of the
opinions belonging to either the Greeks or Jews" (J.135).
為了嘗試了解基督的先存，亞波里拿流是完全正統的，並使用這個信仰來對抗亞流派，他
們採取的立場是基督有一種（人類的）性質，雖然是神聖的，但是一個被造之物。然而亞
波里拿流在處理道成肉身的時候，就脫離了對於基督的正統認識，說，祂僅僅擁有一個（
神聖的）性質。亞波里拿流用理性分析做出一個結論，嘗試支撐信仰。如果不採取這個方
法，基督徒就會落入『好奇，而不會粗魯的忽視屬於希臘人或猶太人的看法』的錯誤中。
（J.135）
In accord with Church teaching, Apollinarius believed that Jesus Christ has
fully redeemed humanity. He is the only mediator between God and man, a fact
which led Apollinarius to maintain that if God were a unity, Christ himself
must be a unity. If the divine element were simply united with mankind, we
would have two sons, one of God by nature and the other by adoption. In this
light the flesh of Christ is not added to divinity but constitutes one nature
with the Godhead, a fact which prompted Gregory of Nyssa to write his
treatise against the bishop of Laodicea. Hence the Incarnation showed that a
physical body was joined with the immutable divine Logos. When John said "the
Word became flesh," Apollinarius interpreted this as the Logos taking on
flesh without assuming a human mind, the source of evil and unbecoming
thoughts. For Apollinarius, the Logos is the sole life of Jesus, the God-man,
even down to the physical level. He thereby constitutes one living unity in
whom the soul directs and the body follows this direction. No conflict of
wills is present in this view of Jesus, a basic of the Antiochene school we
have mentioned above and against which Apollinarius rebelled.
根據教會的教導，亞波里拿流相信耶穌基督是一個完全被拯救的人。祂僅僅是神與人間的
中保，這個事實導致亞波里拿流堅稱，如果神是一個聯合體，基督自己也必須是一個聯合
體。如果神聖的元素僅僅與人類聯合，我們就有兩個兒子，一個的本質是神，另一個是認
養的兒子。基督的肉身在這個看法中，不能被加到神性中，而必須與神格構成一個性質，
這個事實造成女撒的貴格利寫下了反對老底嘉主教的神學小冊。所以，道成肉身表明物質
的身體與不可改變的神聖之道結合。當約翰說『道成為肉身』的時候，亞波里拿流詮釋為
道取得了肉身，但未曾取得人類的心思，就是邪惡的源頭和不相稱的思想。對於亞波里拿
流而言，道是耶穌—神人唯一的生命，即便是在物質的層次也是如此。故此，祂構成了一
個活的聯合體，魂在其中主導，身體跟隨。在這種對於耶穌的看法中，並不存在不同意念
的衝突，這裡有一種我們提過的安替阿派的基本院長，亞波里拿流就是反對這種張力。
Apollinarius maintained that the body does not by itself compose a nature
because it is not the source of vivification. On the other hand, the Word
cannot be perceived as a separate nature apart from his incarnate state since
the Lord dwelt with us in the flesh. The Incarnation represents a
self-emptying of the Word in order to assume human flesh; keep in mind,
though, that Christ does not empty himself of mind but there does remain the
mind of the Savior. Nevertheless, the flesh of Christ did not descend to us
from heaven, nor is his flesh on earth consubstantial with God as Gregory of
Nyssa wrongly perceived Apollinarius as teaching; rather, his flesh is God
inasmuch as it is united with divinity to form one person.
亞波里拿流堅信身體本身不能構成一種性質，因為它不是生命的源頭。在另一方面，道不
能被視為一個與其成為肉身狀態分開的性質，因為主在肉身中住在我們中間。道成肉身代
表道的自我倒空，為的是取得人類的肉身；要記得，雖然如此，基督並沒有倒空祂自己的
心思，仍然保留了救主的心思。有鑑於此，基督的肉身並沒有從天上降到我們中間，祂在
地上的肉身也不會與神同質，如同女撒的貴格利對亞波里拿流教義的錯誤理解一樣；反而
，祂的肉身就是神，它與神性聯合構成一個位格。
Such a doctrine reminds one of Arius who viewed the Son (who was not divine)
as the soul of Christ, whereas Apollinarius denied a rational soul or human
mind to Christ so that the Son would not be open to change, a characteristic
belonging to the created realm. As a consequence, the flesh of Christ is the
very flesh of God which is to be worshipped. While remaining God, the Logos
shares the properties belonging to the flesh, and the flesh, while remaining
flesh in its union with the Godhead, shares the properties belonging to God.
This view offered by Apollinarius safeguards the unity of Word and flesh in
Jesus Christ and demonstrated his full divinity. On the other hand, it
undermined the humanity of Christ. If the divinity assumed the place of the
human mind, how does God touch the rest of mankind? Soul and flesh lacking
intellect (man's most essential component) do not constitute man. The
teaching of Chalcedon towards which the Church was moving would have been
inconceivable for Apollinarius: one person containing two natures. It would
follow that Christ lacked a human mind due to its mutability and hence, its
tendency to sin, and Apollinarius seems to excuse persons who sin with their
minds: he has already demonstrated that even God cannot heal this human mind.
這樣的教育讓我們想起亞流，他認為子（不是神）是基督的魂，亞波里拿流則否認基督有
理性魂或人類的魂，以至於子不會改變，改變是屬於被造領域的特徵。這就造成，基督的
肉身就是神的肉身，當被敬拜。在同時，道仍然是神，有份與屬於肉身的屬性，仍然是肉
身的肉身在於神格的聯合中，有份於神的屬性。亞波里拿流提供的這個觀點保證了道與肉
身在耶穌基督裡面的聯合，並證明了祂完整的神學。在另一方面，它減低了基督的人性。
如果神性取代了人類心思的位置，神怎麼接觸其他的人類呢？缺少了理智（人最為不可缺
的構成部分）魂和肉身就不能構成一個人。教會制定迦克頓相關的教義對於亞波里拿流而
言是無法想像的：一個擁有兩個性質的位格。這將造成基督因為祂的不可改變而缺少了一
個人類的心思，因此，亞波里拿流看起來因著罪的傾向，排除了用心思犯罪的人類：他已
經表明即便神自己，也無法醫治這個人類的心思。
Despite the well-known opposition of Apollinarius to Arius, both men seem to
have possessed a similar Christology in that the Logos replaced the human
soul in Christ. One sometimes wonder whether or not Apollinarius assumed this
view held earlier by Arius and incorporated it into his own teaching(13). He
opposed any reference of human attributes to God, notably mutability, while
at the same time shunning those who may separate human components from God, a
reason for his stress upon the unity of divinity with human flesh.
Apollinarius also came into conflict with a contemporary of his, Diodore of
Tarsus, and both were noted by a tendency to shun allegorical interpretation
of scripture. The fragments of Apollinarius handed down to us reveal his
concern about the tendency of Antiochene Christology as represented by
Diodore to join a man to God. Such a view is more plausible than the one
claiming that Apollinarius borrowed some of his insights from the Arians.
Indeed, there seems to have been a common thread of presuppositions
propagated throughout the area to which Apollinarius had put his own peculiar
interpretation upon them.
即便亞波里拿流因為反對亞流而著名，兩人看起來都持一種類似的基督論，就是道取代了
基督裡面的人類魂。人們有時候會好奇，亞波里拿流是否採取了早期的亞流論點，並將其
融合進入自己的教義中。他反對任何將人類屬性歸於神的做法，特別是可改變性（
mutability），在同時，卻又迴避了那些能夠將人類的構成部分從神分離的做法，這是他
強調神性與人類肉身聯合的一個原因。亞波里拿流也與當代的Diodore of Tarsus相衝突
，兩個人都被發現具有迴避寓意解經的張力。流傳給我們的亞波里拿流殘篇揭示他擔心
Diodore所代表安替阿派基督論的張力，將一個人與神聯合。這樣的觀點會比宣稱亞波里
拿流從亞流派借用了一些看法更容易讓人接受。確實，在那個地區看起來似乎有一種流行
的預設立場，亞波里拿流根據那個立場建構了自己特殊的詮釋。
Together with this notion of a common source to Apollinarius and Arius, we
have Muhlenberg's view(14) that Apollinarius desired to contrast Christ as
theos ensarkos, the enfleshed God, with the anthropos entheos, the inspired
man who mediated knowledge of God. Apollinarius stressed the role of the
divine mind as being enfleshed, a notion which appears to have come from his
belief that the personhood of Jesus Christ as being fully identified with God
could not be compromised with any pagan philosophy. The presence of a human
mind in Christ would therefore abolish any distinctive characteristic of
Christianity. The presentation of Apollinarius' actual teaching is extremely
difficult although the work of H. Lietzmann in 1904 have done much to clarify
the issue(15). Although we safely assume from a study of the fragments that
Apollinarius conceived of the Logos taking the place of the human mind in
Jesus Christ at the Incarnation, the real intent of Apollinarius, there
nevertheless remain difficulties as to his exact meaning.
在亞波里拿流和亞流共有的觀念的起源基礎上，我們就有了Muhlenberg的觀點，就是，亞
波里拿流想要將基督凸顯為theos ensarkos，被肉身包裹的神（the enfleshed God），
而不是anthropos entheos（在神中的人），一個被神啟迪的人，擁有對於神的知識。亞
波里拿流強調被肉身包裹之神聖心思的角色，這個觀念看起來是根據他所相信的，耶穌基
督的位格完全與神相等，不能與任何異教徒的哲學妥協。在基督裡面的人了心思將會被除
基督教的特性。清楚的展示亞波里拿流的教義是非常的困難的挑戰，雖然1904年
Lietzmann已經努力澄清了這個問題。雖然我們能夠相當有把握的根據對於各種殘篇的研
究，認為亞波里拿流相信道在成為肉身的時候，取代了耶穌基督的心思的位置，徹底了解
亞波里拿流真正的動機並真實的意義仍然是非常是一個難題。
×××××××××××××××××××××××××
這只是介言的第一部分。怕大家沒胃口，先貼這麼多。
如果有人看完覺得不過癮，說一聲，我再補上來。
再次聲明：這就是要公開打那個『從一個否定大公教會正統的教派
跑出來，沒讀過大公教會正統，卻又打著大公教會正統招搖撞騙的
做法！
當然，歡迎『該人士』用『大公教會正統』打回在下！在下脖子洗
乾淨等著嘞！ ：）））））））
×××××××××××××××××××××××××