作者outra (奧特羅)
看板Christianity
標題[討論] 代貼 和好=成神嗎?請教神學家!
時間Thu Jun 9 12:22:07 2016
和好=成神嗎?請教神學家!
神學家東拉西扯的神功相信大家都非常的憎惡。這次,他為了標榜自己的神功蓋世,竟然
把愛任紐拖出來做他的擦屁股紙,這種侮辱先人的行為太過分了。所以,要修理修理他。
他這次用了一種很詭異的邏輯,就是:和好和神化都是屬於同歸於一;所以和好就是同歸
於一,而神化也是同歸於一(recapitulation);所以和好(reconciliation)就是神化
(deification)。對於看不太懂我在說什麼的,我這樣解釋:這就好像說,因為神學家
的頭和屁股都是神學家的,所以神學家的頭就是神學家的屁股。以下是神學家的相關語錄
:
※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1465358851.A.FFC.html
→ theologe: 法理當然是稱義,正教神學不是偏生機我輸你 06/08 15:38
→ theologe: 復和就是神化觀啦 06/08 15:38
※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1465399663.A.6A0.html
→ theologe: 嗯嗯 我是照貼的,或許他這點有錯誤吧,不過不影響復和 06/09 00:20
→ theologe: 與同歸於一論的關係。 06/09 00:2
神學家扛出【愛任紐】畢竟令我蠻驚訝的。因為目前中文,只有基督教文藝出版社的一部
“不完全”的翻譯。若要真的瞭解愛任紐的神學,必須閱讀Pillip Schaff《古教父全集
》的anf01。區區正好曾經把anf01中愛任紐的《反異端》的第三到第五卷,一字不漏的拜
讀過一次。因為您既然如此熟悉愛任紐的神學,肯定是拜讀過anf01的高手;華人基督教
有此功力的人,只能用鳳毛麟抓形容之。所以,在此,小弟用三段話向神學家請教他自己
的論點。
為了完整表達愛任紐的神學,我引用的部分會比較長,免得產生“斷章取義”的錯誤。
1.
Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: “Mu
ch more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] li
fe, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus.”3607 It follows from this, that he knew
nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour ab
ove, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and
the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other
descended upon him who was born, and left him again, it is not one, but two,
that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was b
orn and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle:
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptiz
ed in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also wal
k in newness of life.”3608 But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was
Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at th
e time appointed beforehand, he says: “For how is it, that Christ, when we we
re yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth
His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. M
uch more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were 【reconciled】 to God by t
he death of His Son; much more, being 【reconciled】, we shall be saved by His
life.”3609 He declares in the plainest manner, that the same Being who was l
aid hold of, and underwent suffering, and shed His blood for us, was both Chri
st and the Son of God, who did also rise again, and was taken up into heaven,
as he himself [Paul] says: “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died
, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.”3610
And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:”3611
for, as himself foreseeing, through the Spirit, the subdivisions of evil teach
ers [with regard to the Lord’s person], and being desirous of cutting away fr
om them all occasion of cavil, he says what has been already stated, [and also
declares:] “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwel
l in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your morta
l bodies.”3612 This he does not utter to those alone who wish to hear: Do not
err, [he says to all:] Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one and the same, who
did by suffering reconcile us to God, and rose from the dead; who is at the r
ight hand of the Father, and perfect in all things; “who, when He was buffete
d, struck not in return; who, when He suffered, threatened not;”3613 and when
He underwent tyranny, He prayed His Father that He would forgive those who ha
d crucified Him. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Hims
elf the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our
Lord. (PG 639-640)
2.
But now the case stands thus, that the Word has saved that which really was [c
reated, viz.,] humanity which had perished, effecting by means of Himself that
communion which should be held with it, and seeking out its salvation. But th
e thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood. For the Lord, taking dus
t from the earth, moulded man; and it was upon his behalf that all the dispens
ation of the Lord’s advent took place. He had Himself, therefore, flesh and b
lood, recapitulating in Himself not a certain other, but that original handiwo
rk of the Father, seeking out that thing which had perished. And for this caus
e the apostle, in the Epistle to the Colossians, says, “And though ye were fo
rmerly alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now ye have
been 【reconciled】 in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present yo
urselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight.”4567 He says, “Ye
have been 【reconciled】 in the body of His flesh,” because the righteous fle
sh has reconciled that lesh which was being kept under bondage in sin, and br
ought it into friendship with God. (pg786)
3.
If, then, any one allege that in this respect the flesh of the Lord was differ
ent from ours, because it indeed did not commit sin, neither was deceit found
in His soul, while we, on the other hand, are sinners, he says what is the fac
t. But if he pretends that the, Lord possessed another substance of flesh, the
sayings respecting reconciliation will not agree with that man. For that thin
g is reconciled which had formerly been in enmity. Now, if the Lord had taken
flesh from another substance, He would not, by so doing, have reconciled that
one to God which had become inimical through transgression. But now, by means
of communion with Himself, the Lord has reconciled man to God the Father, in r
econciling us to Himself by the body of His own flesh, and redeeming us by His
own blood, as the apostle says to the Ephesians, “In whom we have redemption
through His blood, the remission of sins;”4568 and again to the same he says
, “Ye who formerly were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ
;”4569 and again, “Abolishing in His flesh the enmities, [even] the law of c
ommandments [contained] in ordinances.”4570 And in every Epistle the apostle
plainly testifies, that through the flesh of our Lord, and through His blood,
we have been saved. (pg787)
在此,我想請教神學家三個問題:
1- 上面三段的內容是什麼?
2- 上面三段對於【和好(reconciliation)】的定義是什麼?
3- 上面三段有沒有說【和好=神化】?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.217.151.70
※ 文章網址: https://webptt.com/m.aspx?n=bbs/Christianity/M.1465446130.A.D9A.html
1F:推 springxx: 沒聖經依據 都是廢文 06/09 12:33
2F:→ springxx: 神學家唬爛的幻想文 06/09 12:34
3F:推 jacklin2002: 樓上,沒聽過的東西最好安靜看就好... 06/09 12:35
4F:→ springxx: 沒經文做支持解釋 都是廢文 憑空想像 06/09 12:36
5F:→ springxx: 神學家各家各派 全背起來 看聖經也是看不懂 06/09 12:37
6F:推 jacklin2002: 愛任紐是基督教的古教父,據說是約翰的門徒... 06/09 12:38
7F:→ springxx: 因為這些神學家 本身就是看不懂 才會各種猜測 06/09 12:39
8F:→ springxx: 把福音 系統化 就知道腦筋死了 06/09 12:40
9F:推 jacklin2002: 人家是西元130年的人,聖經還沒編成他就在護教了... 06/09 12:44
10F:→ eno4022: 其他人都幻想,只有春天你不是? 06/09 13:17
11F:推 springxx: 福音系統化時 就等於知識化 那時就做壞掉了06/09 13:17
12F:推 jacklin2002: 那你覺得,聖經章節的編成算不算系統化XD?06/09 13:18
13F:推 springxx: 分類 分拆 就壞掉06/09 13:19
14F:→ sCHb68: 「知識化、系統化就是廢文、壞掉」有聖經根據嗎?06/09 13:21
15F:推 springxx: 若有人說知道福音 因信稱義 但卻沒講到 亞伯拉罕06/09 13:21
16F:→ sCHb68: 沒有的話,春天你也是是畫虎蘭而已啊。06/09 13:22
17F:→ springxx: 基本上 可以推定 這人並不全然了解福音06/09 13:22
18F:→ springxx: 保羅 也在提亞伯拉罕06/09 13:23
19F:→ springxx: 因為 整個新約福音 就是建構在亞伯拉罕的應許上06/09 13:24
20F:→ sCHb68: 約翰書信也沒有提到亞伯拉罕欸?06/09 13:24
21F:→ springxx: 講到福音 絶對離不開亞伯拉罕06/09 13:24
22F:→ springxx: 其他門徒 也很少 因為負責解釋福音的是保羅 06/09 13:25
23F:→ sCHb68: 原來沒提到亞伯拉罕就是不全然了解福音(筆記)。 06/09 13:25
24F:→ springxx: 就連司提反 也提到亞伯拉罕 06/09 13:26
老魚說,春天恐怕還不知道,聖經不是天上掉下來的。新約聖經正典第一次被肯定是亞他
那修的復活節文告。最終確定是425年的迦太基會議。鄉憨至此,令人莞爾。本人宣佈,
此君(或此妹)絕對不是地方召會的,他(她)的行為當自己負責。
25F:→ sCHb68: 那你不讀約翰的書信喔? 06/09 13:26
※ 編輯: outra (180.217.151.70), 06/09/2016 13:27:03
26F:→ springxx: 又來了 不想跟你們討論 就是這樣 06/09 13:27
27F:→ springxx: 你們都故意曲解 我講的意思 06/09 13:27
28F:→ springxx: 反我 可以講 沒想要為反而否定講的東西 06/09 13:28
29F:→ sCHb68: 我問你啊,請趕快澄清好嗎? 06/09 13:28
30F:→ springxx: 澄清什麼 outra 一直不斷扭曲我的文章意思 06/09 13:29
31F:→ sCHb68: 所以牧師沒有從亞伯拉罕講福音要小心了。 06/09 13:29
32F:→ springxx: 他不了解全部意思情況下 就說我錯 06/09 13:30
33F:→ springxx: 解釋這個 又挑那個 06/09 13:30
34F:→ sCHb68: 又不是每次都專注於福音的整個歷史脈絡, 06/09 13:31
35F:→ sCHb68: 說沒講亞伯拉罕就是不全然了解福音, 06/09 13:31
36F:→ springxx: 就是為反而反 根本沒在討論 只為否定我 06/09 13:31
37F:→ sCHb68: 你會不會太瞎了? 06/09 13:31
38F:→ springxx: 這樣還討論什麼 06/09 13:31
39F:→ springxx: 保羅在書信中 為什麼要不斷的提到 亞伯拉罕的信 06/09 13:32
40F:→ sCHb68: 不然你的意思是啥?牧師講道非得都要提亞伯拉罕嗎? 06/09 13:33
41F:→ springxx: 堅固各的聖徒 06/09 13:33
42F:→ sCHb68: 不然這位牧師就是半桶水的福音? 06/09 13:33
43F:→ springxx: 不是一定要 我指的是 若有人說 他知道福音 因信稱義 06/09 13:34
44F:→ springxx: 聖經都被他解開了 但 卻不提亞伯拉罕 06/09 13:34
45F:→ sCHb68: 所以講道要整個救贖的歷史講一次喔? 06/09 13:34
46F:→ springxx: 可以表示 這人根本不知道福音是什麼 06/09 13:34
47F:→ springxx: 又來 雞同鴨講 06/09 13:35
48F:推 jacklin2002: 愚昧人若靜默不言也可算為智慧;閉口不說也可算為聰 06/09 13:36
49F:→ jacklin2002: 明。 箴17:28 06/09 13:36
50F:→ springxx: 我講話 很屁沒錯 但也沒必要只想抓我講話漏洞 06/09 13:37
51F:→ springxx: 就否定掉講的東西 06/09 13:37
52F:→ jacklin2002: 老實說啦,愛任紐是誰其實我也不知道,我也是看完這 06/09 13:37
53F:→ jacklin2002: 篇才去google的 06/09 13:37
54F:→ sCHb68: 好啦,原來別人都沒提到亞伯拉罕, 06/09 13:38
55F:→ springxx: 坡甲旅 06/09 13:38
56F:→ sCHb68: 那我不知道人家恩約神學中的亞伯拉罕之約是怎麼回事, 06/09 13:38
57F:→ sCHb68: 你就是在標榜自己最懂福音, 06/09 13:38
58F:→ jacklin2002: 而且這篇又不是回給你的,你到底跳進來亂幹嘛...... 06/09 13:38
59F:→ sCHb68: 才用一個亞伯拉罕來高抬自己,以為別人沒提就不懂。 06/09 13:38
60F:→ sCHb68: 召會肯定也有類似亞伯拉罕之約的神學, 06/09 13:40
61F:→ sCHb68: 但是春天大認為自己提了亞伯拉罕別人沒提, 06/09 13:40
62F:→ sCHb68: 就變成別人不全然了解福音了。 06/09 13:40
63F:推 springxx: Z Z z =.= 06/09 13:40
64F:→ sCHb68: 不過你的狂我喜歡,反觀…有人狂也不狂出來。 06/09 13:41
65F:→ springxx: 反正 你們就是要戰我 =.= 但我說的是事實 06/09 13:41
66F:→ springxx: 不止你們 我現實也碰過幾位 06/09 13:42
67F:→ sCHb68: 改革宗神學裡也有從亞伯拉罕講福音也是事實。 06/09 13:42
68F:→ springxx: 我講的 大家認同 但 也都說 別人難道不懂嗎 只有你懂 06/09 13:43
69F:→ springxx: 我真的想說 :是的 目前 我碰到的 只有我知道 06/09 13:44
70F:→ springxx: 誰會明白呢 06/09 13:44
71F:→ sCHb68: 希望你是先天下之憂而憂,而不是自我感覺良好。 06/09 13:45
72F:→ sCHb68: 不過可能性極小,如同駱駝穿過針眼。 06/09 13:45
73F:推 springxx: 自我感覺良好 o.o 正解 06/09 13:48
74F:→ eno4022: 不虧是鐵三角之二,夠狂 06/09 13:48
75F:→ springxx: 其實還要向大家多學習 06/09 13:48
76F:→ sCHb68: (#・∀・),你真的太狂了,小弟真心佩服。 06/09 13:48
77F:→ springxx: 請多多指教 06/09 13:49
78F:→ sCHb68: 狂屬性點滿了,猛! 06/09 13:49
79F:→ springxx: 其實 主要是在這裡跟大家討論 一起成長 06/09 13:50
80F:→ springxx: 本身太宅 還走不出 ptt 06/09 13:52
81F:→ springxx: 去教會聚會 講這些 其實也沒人要聽 06/09 13:52
82F:推 jacklin2002: 幫QQ 06/09 13:53
83F:→ eno4022: 不過私心建議,要批評人家教義,就要能接受質疑,不然你 06/09 13:53
84F:→ eno4022: 最好謙虛說你不能接受就好,沒必要說人家的東西都亂講。 06/09 13:53
85F:→ eno4022: 你這樣開地圖炮,然後又不能或不敢跟人pk,只會讓人覺得 06/09 13:53
86F:→ eno4022: 你low而已。有多少東西講多少話,這基本的,不要料不夠多 06/09 13:53
87F:→ eno4022: 就表現那麼狂。 06/09 13:53
88F:→ springxx: 福音 反而沒人有興趣 大家反而喜歡研究神學家 佈道家 06/09 13:53
89F:→ springxx: 聽光鮮亮麗的牧師講道 06/09 13:54
90F:→ jacklin2002: 那我建議你,你可以自己開一篇文章試著講講看 06/09 13:54
91F:→ jacklin2002: 然後求大家先不要推文批評,讓你慢慢寫 06/09 13:54
92F:→ eno4022: 不能接受是你的自由,但說人家的東西都亂講,你就得對你 06/09 13:54
93F:→ eno4022: 的批評負責。 06/09 13:54
94F:→ springxx: 真正的福音 反而沒人在乎 06/09 13:55
95F:→ jacklin2002: 推 springxx: 沒聖經依據 都是廢文 06/09 13:55
96F:→ springxx: 他們確實是亂講 06/09 13:55
97F:→ outra: 傳講主耶穌,不傳講亞伯拉罕是不是福音? 06/09 13:55
98F:→ jacklin2002: 這篇又不是寫給你的,你劈頭第一句就廢文,實在..... 06/09 13:55
99F:→ springxx: 李常受弟兄 說 聖經被他解開了 但 他講的卻不是真正 06/09 13:56
100F:→ springxx: 聖經 使徒所講的內容 06/09 13:56
101F:→ springxx: outra 馬上表演 二分法 曲解我意思 06/09 13:57
102F:→ springxx: 我整個文章 意思 全被你扭曲的亂七八糟 06/09 13:58
103F:→ springxx: 你可以提自己的版本跟我比較 而不要動手扭曲文章 06/09 13:59
104F:→ outra: 地方召會有一本很好的書,叫做【亞伯拉罕,以撒,雅各的神 06/09 13:59
105F:→ outra: 】,鄭重推薦。 06/09 14:00
106F:→ springxx: 你們相信 真正的因信稱義的福音 對一個讀過聖經的人 06/09 14:01
107F:→ springxx: 讓他理解 其實 不需要幾年 幾個月 而是只要幾小時嗎 06/09 14:01
108F:→ springxx: 福音是怎一回事 其實只要半幾小時 就能解釋 06/09 14:02
109F:→ springxx: 你們相信 現實中 卻是一堆人 花數年 數月研究一堆神學 06/09 14:04
110F:→ springxx: 卻對 福音是怎回事 還一知半解 有各種版本 各種理論 06/09 14:05
111F:→ springxx: 因信稱義的福音 保羅 也是不懂的 06/09 14:06
112F:→ eno4022: 那你就慢慢對你的言論負責吧,懶得管你了 06/09 14:06
113F:→ springxx: 在司提反 睡著的時候 保羅也不知道 司提反在講的是什麼 06/09 14:07
114F:→ springxx: 主在四十天 顯現 將福音解釋給所有門徒明白 06/09 14:08
115F:→ springxx: 包括 保羅 06/09 14:08
116F:→ springxx: 而花的時間 有些只有半天 就像那路上認不出主的二個門徒 06/09 14:08
117F:→ springxx: 福音的解釋 其實只要花幾個小時解釋 你們相信嗎 06/09 14:09
118F:→ springxx: 二 三場電影的時間 就能明白福音 06/09 14:10
119F:推 springxx: o.o 06/09 14:16
120F:→ springxx: 不說了 今天碰到有人傳福音 發現他們很強 很有親和力 06/09 14:17
121F:→ eno4022: 結果發現是召會 崩潰 06/09 14:18
122F:→ springxx: 講的話 也吸引人 能帶起興趣 06/09 14:18
123F:→ springxx: 不知道 只知道開頭講 有好消息 06/09 14:18
124F:→ springxx: 不會一開頭就跟你講 主耶穌基督 神呀 多偉大 之類的 06/09 14:19
125F:→ springxx: 是講目前社會亂像 需要一個心靈 正面的導向 06/09 14:20
126F:→ springxx: 來開啓話題 06/09 14:20
127F:→ springxx: 跟之前碰過的不同 06/09 14:22
128F:→ springxx: 感覺像是耶證? 不知道 至少覺得 這方面遠不如人家 06/09 14:23
129F:→ springxx: 只能在ptt 跟弟兄亂鬥 06/09 14:23
130F:→ springxx: 講再多 要真的做出來才有用 06/09 14:26
131F:→ springxx: 講這些 不影響召會 李的文章多數是廢文的事實 06/09 14:27
132F:推 jacklin2002: springxx: 去教會聚會 講這些 其實也沒人要聽 06/09 14:39
133F:→ jacklin2002: 你跟別人講話,劈頭第一句就:你廢文,然後又說不出 06/09 14:39
134F:→ jacklin2002: 道理,那誰要聽啊...你邊緣人喔? 06/09 14:40
135F:推 springxx: 我這樣講一方面 幼稚個性使然 另一方面 是為了區分不同 06/09 14:41
136F:→ springxx: 跟一般教會 教的神學 一混在一起 脈絡就不見了 06/09 14:42
137F:→ springxx: 影響思緒 而不能分辨06/09 14:43
138F:→ springxx: 不區分 就全混在一起 變牛丸06/09 14:44
139F:→ springxx: 我自己 讀別人的解經 也會受影響 被拉走06/09 14:46
140F:→ springxx: 被帶到別人的觀點去06/09 14:47
141F:→ springxx: 這時 我會立即卡掉不讀 不然就掉進去 找不回原來的感覺06/09 14:48
142F:推 springxx: 有人讀各家各派 書看很多 這一類的我大概知道06/09 14:50
143F:→ springxx: 他己經很難單純思考聖經 因為己經充滿各種思緒06/09 14:52
144F:→ outra: 老魚說:麻煩鐵三角二號閃邊涼快,這帖是給鐵三角一號的06/09 15:01
145F:→ sCHb68: 七龍珠都是二號先出來應戰的。06/09 15:55
146F:→ sCHb68: 突然令我想起神學家另一個荒謬的例子。06/09 16:19
147F:→ sCHb68: 上次我批判上帝不是先預知A的行為才預定A的,06/09 16:19
148F:→ sCHb68: 這位神學家卻說我批判這樣的「預知」,06/09 16:19
149F:→ sCHb68: 也同時必然要批判預定。XD 真是胡扯。06/09 16:19
150F:→ sCHb68: 上帝永恆的旨意預定了一切所以祂預知,06/09 16:19
151F:→ sCHb68: 這位神學家無視這樣的邏輯,06/09 16:20
152F:→ sCHb68: 將預定與預知先混為一談,這樣他才能說:06/09 16:20
153F:→ sCHb68: 「你批判預知也要批判預定喔!!」。06/09 16:20
154F:推 jacklin2002: 就跟 不孝順仍是兒女=提倡不孝順 一樣啊06/09 16:23
155F:推 jacklin2002: 那篇到現在他還在胡扯...懶得回了06/09 16:25
156F:→ sCHb68: 不過希望神學家能好好回答老魚這篇的問題。06/09 16:35
157F:→ theologe: 老魚這篇引文引錯了,應該是引recapitulation的部分,再06/09 20:08
158F:→ theologe: 來看跟復和觀的關係。06/09 20:08
不僅臉被打的像豬頭,連腦子都是豬腦!老夫早就料到你會用這個賤招,早引用了.充鐵一次,你自己去找[]
2.
But now the case stands thus, that the Word has saved that which really was [c
reated, viz.,] humanity which had perished, effecting by means of Himself that
communion which should be held with it, and seeking out its salvation. But th
e thing which had perished possessed flesh and blood. For the Lord, taking dus
t from the earth, moulded man; and it was upon his behalf that all the dispens
ation of the Lord’s advent took place. He had Himself, therefore, flesh and b
lood, recapitulating in Himself not a certain other, but that original handiwo
rk of the Father, seeking out that thing which had perished. And for this caus
e the apostle, in the Epistle to the Colossians, says, “And though ye were fo
rmerly alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now ye have
been 【reconciled】 in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present yo
urselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight.”4567 He says, “Ye
have been 【reconciled】 in the body of His flesh,” because the righteous fle
sh has reconciled that lesh which was being kept under bondage in sin, and br
ought it into friendship with God. (pg786)
※ 編輯: outra (180.217.151.70), 06/09/2016 22:25:59
159F:→ caleb13241: 春天大還沒表達聖經是人系統化整理出來的有什麼看法 06/09 23:39