THE GHOST OF APOLLINARIS IN CHINESE CHURCHES TODAY
今日华人教会中的亚波里那流幽灵
曾劭愷
加拿大維真學院道學碩士．英國牛津大學神學系哲學博士候選人（主攻歷史神學）．
印尼雅加達國際歸正福音神學研究院中文部客座教師
URL: http://herewestand.org/blog/2012/11/02/the-ghost-of-apollinaris-in-chinese-churches-today/
Introduction 介言
In recent years a doctrinal confusion regarding Christ’s human nature has arisen in Chinese churches. A group of Christians identifying themselves as “Reformed” have asserted that Christ’s humanity is uncreated and pre-existent, co-eternal with His deity. Central to their general position is a challenge against what they think to be Chalcedon’s assumption, namely, that human nature must include the flesh. Their proposal is that Christ’s human nature is uncreated and eternally within His divine Person, and this human nature is the “image of God” in which human beings are created. On this view, Christ would be the archetypal human. According to their proposal, the incarnation would be Christ’s act of taking on merely human flesh, but not human nature, which already subsists within Christ’s Person from all eternity without the body. Their very fundamental starting point is that “no part of Christ’s Person can be created,” which, of course, does not necessarily contradict the historic orthodoxy of the Church if this very imprecise statement is properly qualified.
近年来华人教会间出现了一种对于基督人性的辩论。一群自称为“改革宗”的基督徒坚持基督的人性是非受造的，先存的，与其神性同为永恒。他们基本的立场乃是挑战他们所认为迦克顿信条的内容，也就是说，基督的人性必须被包含在其肉身之中。他们认为基督的人性乃是非受造的，并且与祂的神格同为永存，这个人性是‘神的像’，人性在其中被造。根据这个看法，基督是人类的原型。根据他们的看法，道成肉身乃是基督取了人类肉身的行为，基督并没有取得人性，这个人性已经从永远就存在于基督的位格中，却没有身体。他们最基本的观点乃是，‘基督位格中没有任何被造的部分（no part of Christ’s Person can be created），’当然，这个非常含糊不清的宣告若是能够正确的被解释，它不必然会跟教会的正统教义产生冲突。
However, given that it is not incorrect—though imprecise it may be—to say that “no part of Christ’s Person can be created,” it is a serious misreading of Chalcedonian Christology to interpret its description of Christ’s human nature as “a part of” His Person. On the Chalcedonian understanding, the relation between Christ’s human nature and divine Person is not to be understood as “part of the whole,” but rather a relation of : Christ human nature in such a way that it is inseparably to His divine nature in His divine Person with abiding distinction. If this “relation of communion” is hard to understand, think of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three “parts” of the Triune Godhead, but rather, as Augustine famously puts it, each Person in the of the divine Being. The three Persons are inseparably united in a relation of mutual indwelling (Greek: perichoresis) without ever blurring the distinction between the Persons. In a similar way, Christ’s two natures are not two “parts” of His Person, but are in a relation of communion and mutual communication, such that to see the man Jesus to see the very Son of God Himself. One important difference between Christ’s two natures and the Triune Godhead is that while the three Persons are co-eternally self--existent, Christ’s human nature was (i.e., taken on) by His divine Person upon the incarnation, before which Christ is called the “ ”—“Word without flesh.” Thus, when the Bible says that He “emptied Himself” (Greek: kenosis), it does not mean that He dumped some of His divine attributes, but rather He assumed or took on the form of a servant. In other words, it is a self--emptying rather than. In other words, Christ’s human nature was to His divine Person upon the incarnation, before which He was without human nature.
然而，因为这个宣告是错误的—虽然它可能只是含糊不清—宣称“基督位格中没有任何被造的部分”乃是对于迦克顿基督论的严重误解，并将它对基督人性的描述诠释为祂位格的‘一部分’。在迦克顿的理解之中，基督人性和神格间的关系不能被了解成为“部分（part of whole）”，而是相通的关系：基督取了人性的方式时代它以一种无法被分隔的方式，在祂的神格中，以彼此内住的方式，与祂的神性联合。若这个“相通的关系”不容易被理解，我们可以想像三位一体：父，子和圣灵不是神格的三个“部分”，而是根据奥古斯丁著名的说法，每个位格皆拥有神完全的存有。三个位格以不可分割的方式在‘彼此内在’的方式中（希腊文：Perichoresis—相互渗透）相互联合，同时三个位格的分别也不会被模糊。同样的，基督的二性也不是祂位格的两个“部分”，而是在相通和彼此相通的关系之中，如此观看为人的基督，就是观看神儿子的本身。在基督的二性和三一神的神格间很重要的一个不同点在于，在三个位格是同永恒，和自有的同时，基督的人性是祂的神格在成为肉身时被取的（例如，穿上），在这之前，基督被成为‘Logos asarkos’—“没有肉身的道。”故此，当圣经说祂“倒空自己”（希腊文：Kenosis）的时候，并不代表基督把祂神性的属性都倒光了，而是祂取了，或穿上奴仆的形像。换句话说，祂乃是借由‘添加’而自我倒空，并不是因‘减少’而自我倒空。换句话说，基督的人性在道成肉身的时候被加在祂的神格之上，在这之前，祂是没有人性的。
This is of key import to our knowledge of Jesus Christ: suppose that Christ’s human nature were “a part of” His divine Person, and given that the proponents of the aforementioned heterodox Christology are indeed right in their conviction that “no part of Christ’s Person may be created,” then the necessary inference would be that Jesus’s humanity is uncreated and eternally a part of His Person (this is precisely their proposal). Yet, after Christ “emptied” Himself, His humanity underwent : He took on the form of a servant, experienced bodily as well as mental growth (Luke 2:40), tasted death, and became incorruptible upon His resurrection. Now, if Christ’s humanity were uncreated and eternally subsisting as “a part of” His Person, there would then be two possible inferences. The first is to admit that Christ experienced all these changes in the fulness of His humanity, body and soul. But if His humanity, or indeed part of His humanity, were uncreated and eternally “a part of” His divine Person, would this not mean that a part of His very Person also underwent change? But Christ’s Person is the Person of the Son of God, the Creator--Logos: He is —in Him there is not a shadow of change! To avoid this inference, one may then argue for a second possibility: what experienced all these changes was only Christ’s physical body but not His entire human nature. On this view, Christ’s uncreated human nature has indeed been a part of His Person from all eternity, and this part—indeed no part—of His Person underwent change, because what experienced all the changes was only Christ’s body that was not a part of His humanity until the incarnation. Sure this would avoid the inference that Christ’s Person underwent change, but would it not then lead to the conclusion that Christ’s body was only a shadow, as it were? Yet that is an ancient heresy repudiated by Ecumenical Council known as “docetism”, namely, the theory that Christ did not really go through any of the things that happened during His earthly time: what suffered on the cross, for example, was only a shadowy body rather than His true and full human nature. As far as I know, the proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity in contemporary Chinese churches have rejected docetism and recognised it as heresy. What this means, then, is that when they posit that Christ’s uncreated humanity subsists eternally within His Person, they cannot avoid the inference that Christ’s Person underwent change. For this reason, Chalcedonian Christology emphasises that Christ’s humanity is “a part of” His Person, thus eternally self--existent (indeed, if His humanity were “a part of” His Person, it would have to be eternal and uncreated if the whole Person is to be eternal and uncreated), but to His self--existent Person by . This way, Chalcedonian Christology can state that Christ really experienced in the fulness of His humanity all that He went through from His conception to the ascension, and all the changes that Christ underwent in His humanity would not constitute any shadow of change in His Person. Thus, it is of key import to understand the relation of Christ’s humanity to His Person as one of by . In my opinion, one key reason for the ongoing Christological confusion in Chinese churches today is a lack of understanding of the crucial differences between “a part of” and “united to.”
这乃是我们对于基督认识的关键之处：若基督的人性是祂神格的‘一部分’，并假设前述异端基督论的拥护者（the proponents of the aforementioned heterodox Christology）正确的相信‘基督位格中没有任何被造的部分，’那么其必然的推论就是，基督人性是非受造的，并且从永恒就是祂位格的一部分（这正是他们的想法）。然而，在基督‘倒空’祂自己智慧，祂的人性经历了 ：祂去了奴仆的形像，在身体中经历了心智的成长（路加2：20），尝到了死亡，并在复活中成为不朽坏的。若，基督的人性是非受造的，并从永恒就是祂位格的‘一部分’，那么，就产生了两种可能的推理。首先，我们必须承认基督在祂人性，身体和魂的完全中经历了这一切的改变。但若他的人性，或他人性的任何部分是非受造的，并从永恒就是祂位格的‘一部分’，这难道不就意味着祂位格的某个部分经历了改变？然而基督的位格是神儿子，创造主-道的位格：祂是不改变的——在祂里面没有改变的影儿！若要避免这样的推论，有人就会争辩第二种可能性：经历这所有改变的单单是基督的物质身体，而不是祂的整个人性。这个看法，基督非受造的人性实际上已经从永远就是祂位格的一部分，而祂位格的这个部分—或者是没有的部分—经历的改变，因为经历所有改变的只是基督的身体，而这个身体直到道成肉身都不是祂人性的一部分。当然这能够避免基督位格经过改变的推论，但是，它难道不会导致基督的身体不过就是个幻影，或曾经是个幻影？是的，这个就是大公会议所否定的异端，成为“幻影论（docetism），”也就是说，那个理论教导基督在地上的时候，并没用真正经历那些发生过的事件：例如，在十字架上的受苦，不过就是个影子般的身体，而不是祂真实和完整的人性。就我所知道的，这些中国教会中支持基督非受造人性理论的人也已经拒绝形态论，并认为它是异端。那么，这就代表，当他们把基督非受造的人性在永恒中就置于祂的位格中之时，他们无法避免基督位格经过改变的推论。有鉴于此，迦克顿基督论所强调的，基督的人性 祂位格的“一部分”，故此，就不是在永远中自有的（确实，若祂的人性是祂位格的“一部分” ，如果整个位格是永远和非受造的，那么它就是永远的和非受造的），而是借由 （例如：披上的动作）与祂自有的位格 。如此，迦克顿基督论就能够宣称基督确实在他人性的丰满中经历了祂所经过的一切，从祂的成孕到升天，而基督在祂人性中所经过的所有改变并不会构成改变祂位格的阴影。故此，它乃是认识基督人性和祂的位格间之关系的钥匙，将其视为借由取而产生的联合为一。今日的中国教会缺乏对于在‘一部分（a part of）’和‘于。。联合（united to）’间那个关键不同的认识。
The irony in this whole confusion is that many proponents of the heterodox Christology claiming to be Reformed have actually stepped out of the limits of Chalcedon and confessional Reformed theology (see, for example, the Belgic Confession, Article 19) while accusing all those who remain within the boundaries of orthodoxy as heretical. This often irrational confusion is evident from online debates on the issue, almost all of which are in Chinese. If time permits, I will write about this online phenomenon in more detail in the future.
这个混乱局面中讽刺的一面是，许多异端基督论的支持者宣称他们是改革宗的信徒，他们自己已经跨出了加克顿和改革宗神学（例如，比利时信条，19条）的界限，却在同时攻击其他那些留在正统范畴中的人为异端。这个非理性（often irrational）的混乱局面在网络上的争论中非常的明显，这些争论都是用中文进行的。若时间许可，我会进一步更详细的描述这种网络上的现象。
The task with which I am engaging myself in this article is not to directly take on the aforementioned heterodox Christology, but to introduce an ancient heresy known as Apollinarianism. What motivated me to compose this entry was a conversation with a friend who is a member of a Reformed church in Asia. He wrote to me saying that he believes in Christ’s possession of a human soul that is created, but he is unsure whether this is right, for logically it would lead to the conclusion that Christ has two souls, which worries him because it sounds like a heresy known as Nestorianism. In my response, I assured him that according to the Definition of Chalcedon, Christ does indeed possess a creaturely, “rational soul” in His humanity. It was instead the denial of Christ’s possession of a creaturely soul/will/mind that was deemed to be heresy by Ecumenical Council in the Seventh Century A.D., and this kind of heresy is known as “monothelitism,” namely, the position that Christ only has one rational soul/mind/will, which is divine and not human. In what follows I shall introduce a specific kind of proto--monothelitism known as Apollinarianism, named after Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the Fourth Century A.D. I shall focus on how an Apollinarian pattern of thought is reflected through various aspects of the life of contemporary Chinese churches. I shall also introduce a staunch opponent of the heresy named Cyril of Alexandria, one of the great defenders of Nicene orthodoxy in the Early Church who made an invaluable contribution to the Council of Chalcedon posthumously.
在这篇文章中我为自己定下的目标乃是，不要直接处理前述的异端基督论，而是要先介绍一个古代的异端，就是亚波里拿流主义（Apollinarianism）。趋势我这样做的原因是我与一位在亚洲改革宗成员的对话。他写信个我，告诉我他相信基督拥有一个被造的人类魂，但是他不确定这是否是正确的，因为从逻辑上而言，这会导致基督有两个魂，因为这听起来就像涅斯拖流主义（Nestorianism），使得他很困扰。在我的回信中，我向他宝座，根据迦克顿定义，基督在祂的人性中确实拥有一个被造的‘理性魂’。反而七世纪的大公会议定罪否定基督永远一个被造的魂/意志/心思是异端，这种异端被成为‘基督一志论（monothelitism），’也就是说，它认为基督只有一个神的，而非人的理性魂/心思/意志。这也促使我将介绍一种基督一志论的原型（proto-monothelitism），被称为亚波里拿流主义（Apollinarianism）。亚波里拿流（Apollinarius）是四世纪老底嘉的主教。我也会着重于近代中国教会如何反射出亚波里拿流模式的思想。我也会介绍一位名为亚历山大的区利罗，他是这个异端的坚定反对者，在早期教会中伟大的尼西亚教义的捍卫者，他为了身后的迦克顿会议做出了不可磨灭的贡献。
Apollinarianism and Its Implications 亚波里拿流主义以及其内涵
As I mentioned, Apollinarianism is a kind of proto--monothelitism denying Christ’s possession of a creaturely mind (in what follows, I will use the word “mind” synonymously with the term “rational soul,” in accordance with the usage adopted by the Definition of Chalcedon). Positing that the human mind is the seat of sin and is necessarily sinful while attempting to uphold Christ’s sinlessness, Apollinaris argues that Christ’s humanity consists only of a physical body and a non--rational soul, and that He does not possess a creaturely mind. As such, Apollinaris practically rejects Christ’s full and true humanity, thereby denying that Christ is of the same nature or substance with us in His humanity (what Apollinaris practically negates is an important dogma known as “consubstantiality,” or, in Greek, : Christ is of the same substance with us in His humanity, like unto us in all things, except without sin; and of the same substance with the Father in His deity, possessing the fulness of divine nature). Apollinaris himself did not hesitate to concur that Christ’s humanity and ours were indeed different. On this note, contemporary proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity are indeed right in stating that “there is a qualitative difference between the Eternal and the created.” Yet, by this very same token they contradict themselves when they hold that Christ’s humanity is uncreated but consubstantial with ours. Apollinaris does not commit this fallacy of self--contradiction. Rather, he resorts to an outright denial of the Nicene position and asserts that Christ’s humanity differs from ours, thereby he practically negates Christ’s full and true humanity. Yet, the Bible clearly teaches that Christ “should be made like unto us in all things” (Hebrews 2:17), thus Apollinaris’s position is blatantly unbiblical, and it was repudiated as heresy at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The Council of Chalcedon that took place some seventy years later would declare over against Apollinarianism that in His humanity Christ possesses the “rational soul” of a creature as well as a body, and that in His human nature He was “consubstantial with us,” “like unto us in all things, but without sin.” Although the Definition of Chalcedon does not use the predicate “creaturely” or “created” to describe Christ’s humanity or rational soul, any scholar would agree that this was Chalcedon’s position. Thus Chalcedonian orthodoxy completely precluded Apollinarianism, along with a number of other heresies.
如同我已经提过的，亚波里拿流主义是基督一志论的原型，否认基督永远一个被造的心思（接下来我将根据迦克顿定义的使用方式，把‘心思’当作‘理性魂’的同义词）。亚波里拿流将人类的心思当作罪的温床，在尝试坚持基督的无罪性的时候，把人的心思视为必然有罪的，他认为基督的人性只包括一个物质的身体，和一个非理性的魂，这样祂就不会拥有一个被造的心思。因着这个缘故，亚波里拿流刻意拒绝基督完整和真实的人性，而进一步否定基督在祂的人性中，拥有与我们相同的性质或本质（亚波里拿流特别反对的是一个被称作‘同质性-consubstantiality’的教义，或，希腊文是，homoousion：基督在祂的人性中与我们有同样的本质，在凡事上面与我们一样，只是没有最；在祂的神性中与父同质，拥有神性一切的丰满。）亚波里拿流毫不保罗的认为基督的人性与我们的人性根本就是不同的。有鉴于此，今日对基督非受造人性的支持者们事实上正确的宣告“在永恒和被造之间有一种质量上的不同。”然而，当他们坚称基督的人性是非受造却与我们同质的时候，他们确是自我矛盾的。亚波里拿流并不认为这种谬论是自我矛盾。他反而采取直接否则尼西亚的立场，坚称基督的人性与我们不同，故此他基本上否定了基督完全和真神的人性。然而，圣经明确的教导基督“在凡事上与我们一样”（希伯来2：17），因此亚波里拿流的立场是公然的反对圣经，并在381年的第一次康士坦丁堡大会上被拒绝，定为异端。而七十年后举起的迦克顿大会又在次定罪亚波里拿流主义，在基督的人性中，祂拥有一个被造之物的‘理性魂’和身体，在祂的人性中，祂‘与我们同质，’‘在凡事上与我们一样，只是没有最。’虽然迦克顿公式并没有使用‘被造的（creaturely）’和‘被造（created）’来描述基督的人性或理性魂，所有的学者们都会同意，这就是加克顿的立场。故此迦克顿正统神学完全拒绝了亚波里拿流主义，以及一些其他的异端。
But what kind of consequences would Apollinarianism lead to, such that the Ecumenical Council would treat it so seriously? One scholar of the last century relied on the insights of Cyril of Alexandria to helpfully outline four implications of Apollinarianism. First, Apollinaris’s denial of a human mind in Christ “deprives Jesus of fully human experience,” and so Christ cannot fully participate in the human condition. This “destroys [Christ’s] representative capacity as Man before God. Hence worship of God cannot be .”
然而，亚波里拿流主义会造成什么后果，而导致大公教会必须如此严肃的处理它呢？上个世纪中一位学者用亚历山大的区利罗的观点作为基础，帮助他列出了亚波里拿流主义的四个内涵。首先，亚波里拿流否认在基督里有人类的意志，而“剥夺了基督完整的人类经验，”基督也无法完全有份于人类的境况。这“摧毁了[基督]在神面前代表人的资格。故此我们无法基督来敬拜神。”
Second, the denial of the complete humanity of Christ “damages ‘the whole economy’ of salvation,” for if Christ were not consubstantial with us (i.e., not of the same nature with us, like us in all things except without sin), there would have been no real union between God and true humanity in Christ—it would instead be a union between God and an incomplete humanity that is not consubstantial with ours. Yet, if Christ did not possess a creaturely mind, it would have been impossible for our creaturely sins that sprang forth from our minds to be counted as Christ’s. This would mean that Christ could not have taken on our sins and suffered God’s punishment in our place. There thus remains a “considerable gap” between God and humanity, and without our union with Christ, “worship of God does not take place Christ.”
其次，否定基督完整的人性“损害了整个救赎的经纶（the whole economy of salvation），”因为若基督与我们不同质（例如，与我们的本质不同，只是在凡事上像我们，而没有罪），在基督里面的神和真实人性间，就没有真正的联合—这就成了神与一个不完整人性的联合，那个人性与我们不同质。然而，若基督没有一个被造的心思，从我们心思所产生的被造的罪就不可能被算为是基督的最。这就代表基督无法披上我们的罪，并在我们的地位上为神所审判。这就会导致在神与人类间留下了一个“巨大的鸿沟（considerable gap）”，若我们无法与基督联合，“就无法 基督 敬拜神。”
Third, as implied above, Apollinarianism is unable to deal with the problem of sin because according to it Christ “did not take up into himself without sin that which had sinned intellectually, namely the soul.” Thus, Apollinarianism divorces “worship of God from the redemption of the human soul where it is so deeply in need of salvation within the depth of its struggle with sin.”
第三，如同上面所表明的，亚波里拿流主义无法处理罪的问题，因为根据它，基督“并没有以无罪的方式披上了那个在理智上犯罪的部分，也就是魂。”故此，亚波里拿流主义切割了“从人类灵魂的救赎中对神的敬拜，而它在其深处急需救赎来帮助它对罪的挣扎。”
Fourth, the salvation of through the “reconciling exchange of Christ” is impossible if Christ did not have a human mind. In dissolving our mental union with Christ, “worship cannot be thought of as taking place Christ.”
第四， （the whole human person）借由“基督和好的交换（reconciling exchange of Christ）”的救赎只有当基督具有人类心思的情况下才有可能。消灭我们在心思上与记得的联合，必然导致“无法想像 基督 敬拜神。”
In short, Apollinarianism destroys the saving significance of the incarnation by cutting off the only possible bridge between God and humanity, namely, the true and full deity and humanity of Christ. As a result, Apollinarianism “had no place for [Christ’s] priesthood or human mediation in our worship of the Father, and by the same token it took away the ground for any worship of God with our human minds.”
简而言之，亚波里拿流主义以切除在神与人类间，也就是真神和完整的神性与基督的人性间，唯一可能的桥梁的方式，摧毁了道成肉身的救赎意义。亚波里拿流主义的结果就是，“在我们对父的敬拜中，[基督]完全失去了祂的祭司和人类中保的职份，它也同样的夺走了任何我们在人类心思中敬拜神的地位。”
Note that this twentieth- century critic of Apollinarianism consistently points out that this heresy cannot lead to true worship of God. This is of utmost significance, because, in the dear words of my beloved teacher, good old Jim Packer, “the purpose of theology is doxology.” If a theology does not lead to true worship, it is false theology.
读者当主义这个20世纪对亚波里拿流主义的批判不断的指出这个异端无法帮助人有对神真实的敬拜。这是最具意义的部分，因为，我亲爱的老帅Jim Packer曾经说过，“神学的目的是在敬拜中赞美。”若一个神学无法产生真实的敬拜，它就是一个伪神学。
Cyril of Alexandria 亚历山大的区利罗
Notable Church Fathers of Nicene orthodoxy who led to the repudiation of Apollinaris at the Council of Constantinople in late Fourth Century A.D. included Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers. However, in my opinion one definitive, though indirect, rejoinder to Apollinarianism in the Early Church came from Cyril of Alexandria. By the time Cyril was active, Apollinaris had long been condemned as a heretic, and Cyril never wrote a treatise against Apollinarianism. However, his two--nature Christology provided a positive system that exposed the defects of Apollinarianism.
在四世纪的康士坦丁堡大会上，带头定罪亚波里拿流的著名尼西亚正统教父包括亚他那修和迦帕多加教父。然而，我认为最早期教会中具关键，却不是最直接驳斥亚波里拿流主义的人物是亚历山大的区利罗。当时区利罗是非常活跃的，而亚波里拿流早就被定罪为异端，区利罗也未曾专门为反对亚波里拿流主义写过任何一篇论文。然而，他的二性基督论（two nature Christology）提供了一个积极曝露亚波里拿流主义破绽的系统。
Cyril was born in late Fourth Century and lived into the Fifth Century A.D. The years of his theological output spanned the period between the Second and the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and he led the Third Ecumenical Council (First Council of Ephesus) in repudiating the heresy of Nestorianism and affirming that Jesus was not two but one Person, and that the baby to whom Mary gave birth was the Second Person of the Triune. He was a great defender of Nicene-Constantinople orthodoxy, and though he died just years before the Council of Chalcedon, there is no question that he was the true leader in the establishment of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
区利罗了生于四世纪下半叶，并一直活到五世纪。他的神学著作生产期是介于第二和第四次大公会议之间，他也带领召开第三次大公会议（第一次以弗所会议）以拒绝涅斯拖留主义异端，并肯定基督不是两位，而只有一个位格，从马里亚所生的婴孩乃是三一神的第二个位格。他是伟大的尼西亚-康士坦丁堡正统的捍卫者，虽然他在迦克顿大会前一年过世，他建立迦克顿正统教义的真领袖地位是毋庸置疑的。
Cyril’s basic starting point is the Nicene understanding of the incarnate God as creaturely man: the Son of God assumed true and full humanity that is consubstantial with ours, creaturely as ours, with a rational soul just like ours except without sin, and in this one incarnate Person the one and the same Son of God acts from two sides, that is, from the side of God towards humankind and from the side of humanity towards God, as He is at once God and human. True enough, the Nicene--Constantinople Creed as published by the first two Ecumenical Councils does not contain the word “consubstantial” to relate Christ’s humanity to ours, but the word was used widely in liturgical versions of the Creed, and there is no question that this was the position of Nicene orthodoxy, which was of fundamental import to Cyril’s theology.
区利罗的起点是尼西亚对于道成肉身的神是一个被造之人的理解：神的儿子取了真神和完整的人性，完全与我们同质，如同我们也是被造的，并如同我们一样有一个理性魂，只是没有罪，在这个道成肉身的位格中，那一位不变之神的儿子从两方面运作，就像他曾经是神，又是人一样。确实，头两个大公会议颁布的尼西亚—康士坦丁堡信经在描述基督人性与我们的关系时并没有使用“同质（consubstantial）”一词，然而那个字在白话文版的信经中被广泛的使用，它无疑的就是尼西亚正统的立场，也被区利罗引用作为其神学的基础。
Underlying Cyril’s works is an Athanasian (Athanasius was a Church Father in the Fourth Century A.D. who defended the Trinitarian orthodoxy set forth by the First Council of Nicea against heretics, notably the Arians) formula: “Jesus Christ our Lord, whom and whom, to the Father the Son Himself in the Holy Spirit…”
在区利罗作品的内里是一种亚他那修式（亚他那修是四世纪的一位教会教父，他捍卫了第一次大公会议知道的三位一体的正统性，抵挡了亚流异端）的公式：“我们的主耶稣基督， 祂并 祂，在圣灵里同着神的儿子向着父。。。。”
Cyril insists that Christ worships God as a human being with a human mind, and not as a subordinate deity. Contemporary proponents of the theory of Christ’s uncreated humanity emphasise that no part of Christ, not even His humanity, is created, because Christ is our object of worship whereas no creature may be worshipped. Apollinaris used the same argument to argue that Christ could not have possessed a creaturely mind. Yet, Cyril would flip them on their head and ask: were Christ not truly and fully a creature while being truly and fully the uncreated Creator, how could He have been our High Priest, that is, one who worships the Uncreated? Indeed, a creature must not be worshipped, but then can the Creator be a worshipper? Suppose Christ worshipped the Father as the Creator Logos rather than created human, wouldn’t this make the Creator Logos a subordinate deity to the Father? (This was also the rebuttal that Gregory of Nyssa, Nicene--orthodox Cappadocian Church Father of the Fourth Century, A.D., offered against Apollinaris). Thus, the biblical truth that Christ is both the Worshipped One and the worshipper means that He is both uncreated Creator and created human being. It is in this way that His mediatorial role in worship is fulfilled: as creaturely human He offers up worship , with Himself as both Priest and sacrifice, and by our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit, we in His worship of the Father.
区利罗坚称基督乃是作为一个人并带着人类的心思来敬拜父，而不是作为一个次等的神祗。今日基督非受造人性的支持者强调，基督没有一个部分，甚至祂的人性，是被造的，因为基督是我们敬拜的对象，而没有被造之物能够被我们敬拜。亚波里拿流就是用同样的论点变成基督不可能拥有一个被造的心思。然而，区利罗却敲着他们的头，问他们：若基督不是同时是完全并完整的被造之物，又是完全并完整非受造的造物主，祂怎么可能成为我们的大祭司，就是说，大祭司也是敬拜敬拜非受造的那一位？假设基督以造物主—道的身份，而而不是被造之物的身份来敬拜父，这难道不会使得造物主—道变成一个次等的神祗？（这也是尼撒的贵格利，四世纪尼西亚—正统迦帕多加教父，所否定亚波里拿流的论点）。故此，拯救的真理是，基督同时是被敬拜的那位，也是敬拜者，这代表祂同时是非受造的创造主和被造的人类。这样才能完成祂在敬拜中中保的职份：作为一个被造的人，祂为了我们的缘故献上敬拜，祂本身同时是祭司和祭物，因我们借由圣灵与基督的联合，我们 于祂对父的敬拜。
Our “union with Christ in worship” whereof Cyril speaks includes a “mental union.” One scholar comments: “Christian worship is offered in and through .” He identifies this as “the essence of our worship of the Father through the Son,” for “it is only on the ground of this mental union between us and Christ that He can be said .” The ground of this “mental union” with Christ is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit —an important notion in Reformed theology—hence the phrase “in the Holy Spirit” in the Athanasian formula: Christ sends His Spirit to indwell us as the “bond of unity” between Christ and us, such that Christ is us and we Christ the Holy Spirit, who , according to Cyril and Athanasius whom he follows, the very divine “Mind of Christ.” It is in this way that our theology, that is, our knowledge of God , , and Christ by the Holy Spirit, may lead to true worship of the Triune God. Apollinarianism, as we have seen, cannot achieve this because of its practical denial of Christ’s true and full humanity that is consubstantial with ours.
区利罗在此处论及的，我们“在敬拜中与基督的联合（union with Christ in worship）”包括了一种“心智的联合（mental union）”。一位学者这样评论到：“基督教的敬拜乃是 基督的心思 ，并 基督的心思而被献给神的。”他将其事物“我们借由子敬拜父的元素，”因为“这个在我们和基督间心智的联合是祂能够被称作 的唯一立场。”这个与基督“心智的联合”的立场是圣灵的内住—一个改革宗神学非常重要的特定—故此，“在圣灵中（in the Holy Spirit）”这句话在亚他那修的公式中：基督差遣祂的圣灵来住在我们里面，并作为在基督和我们之间“联合的联结（bond of unity）”，圣灵基督能够 我们 ，我们也能够 基督 ，根据区利罗和亚他那修，圣灵 基督那个神的心思’。也就是在这个模式之下，我们的神学，就是我们对神的认识乃是因着圣灵 基督 ， 基督，并 基督，它能够带领一个对三一神真正的敬拜。如同我们已经看见的，亚波里拿流主义不能达到这个目的，因为它可以否认了基督真神和完全，并与我们同质的人性。
Apollinarian Patterns of Thought in Chinese Churches Today 今日华人基督教中的亚波里拿流思维模式
Although Apollinarianism was repudiated as heresy by Ecumenical Council as early as the Fifth Century A.D., its diehard ghost does not go away so easily. The Roman Catholic tradition of the Intercession of the Virgin Mary is one example. Many people are of the opinion that the Chalcedonian title of Mary as “God--bearer” or “Mother of God” (Greek: ) is to blame for later confusions in Mariology. However, I do not think this opinion is well--grounded in the historical study of theology. Just as a note of clarification, by giving to Mary the title of God--bearer, the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon are emphasising that the baby to whom Mary gave birth was the very Person of the Son of God, and not a human person indwelled by divine nature. This was directed against the Antiochene title of Mary as “Christ--bearer” or “mother of Christ” ( ), which was meant to express that Mary gave birth to a human person who was indwelled by deity and thus adopted as the Son of God. The Chalcedonian title of Mary as “God-bearer” is to stress that Christ’s two natures are united in Person instead of two, and that His Person is divine and not human, eternal and uncreated. Now, if we look at history, I do not think we can find firm evidence to link this Chalcedonian title of Mary to later confusions in Mariology that arose in the Middle Ages. The veneration and intercession of Mary, in particular, derived from the notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” developed by Ephraim the Syrian and John Damascene in early Middle Ages, and later by Bernard of Clairvaux. One scholar last century pointed out that this notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” was really developed from an Apollinarian pattern of thought.
虽然亚波里拿流主义早在四世纪的大公会议就被否定并被定为异端，它的幽灵却不是那么容易被消灭。罗马天主教对于童女马里亚的童女怀孕传统就是一个例子。许多人认为迦克顿福音马里亚“生神者（God--bearer）”或“神的母亲（Mother of God, 希腊文：theotokos ）”是后世马里亚学所造成混乱的罪魁祸首。然而，我不认为这种观念在神学历史的研究中站的住脚。我首先要澄清，以弗所和迦克顿大会赐予马里亚生神者的称号乃是为了强调从马里亚所生的婴孩就是神儿子的位格，而不是一个有神性内在的人类位格。这乃是直接真的安提阿学派称马里亚为“生基督者（Christ-bearer）”或“基督的母亲（mother of Christ，Christotokos）”，这意指马里亚所生的是一个人类位格，借由内住的神性而被认养成为神的儿子。迦克顿称马里亚为“生神者”是为了强调基督的二性被联合在一个，而不是两个位格中，而祂的位格是神的，而不是人的，是永恒的和非受造的。如今，若我们查考历史，我不认为我们能够找到任何的证明将迦克顿对马里亚的称呼与中世纪马里亚学所造成的混乱联系起来。对马里亚的尊崇和求情，特别是针对中世纪初期叙利亚的以法莲（Ephraim the Syrian）和大马士革的约翰（John Damascene）以及后来Bernard of Clairvaux所发展出来的“Mediatrix（女中保——译者）”的观念。上个世纪有一位学者指出，认为马里亚是“女中保”的观念实际上就是亚波里拿留式的思维模式所发展出来的。
What I mean by “Apollinarian pattern of thought” is a kind of theological tendency to uphold Christ’s full and true divine nature by compromising His full and true human nature. This includes any denial of Christ’s consubstantiality with us in His humanity, of the creatureliness of Christ’s humanity, of His possession of a creaturely mind, etc., as well as any kind of general tendency to emphasis Christ’s deity and undermine or neglect His humanity. Such Apollinarian pattern of thought has continually influenced Christian thinking since very early on. For example, until the Second Century A.D.—well before Apollinarius’s time—the symbol of the cross was scarcely to be found in Christian art, because for Christians under the rule of the Roman Empire, the cross was a symbol of utmost humiliation, and in their artworks they did not dare to associate it with Christ whom they confessed to be God. In fact, Apostle Peter once held to a proto--Apollinarian pattern of thought as well: as soon as he confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he rejected the thought that Jesus would die, and for that reason Jesus rebuked him with the harshest words (see Matthew 16). Peter’s confession of Christ as Son of God was not yet orthodoxy, but only half--orthodoxy, and as soon as Peter denied the mortality of Christ’s humanity, his half--orthodoxy turned into Satanic heresy! In the Middle Ages, Apollinarian patterns of thought gave rise to the heresy of “monothelitism” that I mentioned earlier, as well as the traditions of the intercession and veneration of Mary. But how? Well, in the theological writings of aforementioned figures such as Ephraim the Syrian, John Damascene, and Bernard of Clairvaux, there is a lack of emphasis on Christ’s humanity, thus drawing Christ so far away from us, making Him so different from us, such that another mediatorial agent became necessary between Christ and us. Thus the notion of Mary as “Mediatrix” emerged. Believers began praying to Mary and venerating her.
我所指的“亚波里拿留式的思维模式（Apollinarian pattern of thought）”是一种为了坚持基督完全和真实神性而牺牲其完全和真实人性的神学张力。这包括许任何否认基督在人性上与我们同质，基督人性的被造性，祂永远被造的心思等等，同样包括任何为了强调基督的神性而忽视或否认祂的人性的张力。例如，在二世纪—远在亚波里拿留的时代之前—基督教的艺术作品中几乎找不到十字架的机会，因为对在罗马帝国统治下的基督徒而言，十字架是一个最为羞辱的记号，在他们的作品中，他们不敢把它联于他们所承认是神的基督。事实上，使徒彼得也曾经采取了亚波里拿留原型的思维模式：只要承认耶稣是基督，活神的儿子，他拒绝耶稣会死的观念，因着这个缘故耶稣用最严厉的话来责备他（参考马太16）。彼得承认基督是神的儿子还不够正统，而只是半个正统，只要彼得一开始否认基督人性是会死亡的，他的半个正统立刻就会变成属撒旦的异端！在中世纪，亚波里拿留主义的思维模式造成了我前面提及的“基督一志论”，已经对尊崇马里亚并向马里亚求情的传统。怎么可能呢？因为在前面提及的叙利亚的以法莲，大马士革的约翰和Bernard of Clairvaux的作品中缺乏对基督人性的强调，故此把基督置于远方，让祂与我们是那么的不同，造成在基督和我们之间需要另一个中保的代表。这就孕育了马里亚为“女中保”的观念。信徒开始向马里亚祷告，并尊崇她。
Many Chinese churches in our day also exhibit an implicitly Apollinarian pattern of thought by exalting Christ’s eternality and deity at the expense of His true and full humanity. The recent proposal to deny the creatureliness of Christ’s humanity is an example—it echoes Apollinaris’s claim that Christ does not possess a creaturely mind. Of course, to be sure, this heterodox Christological proposal is quite different from Apollinarianism in terms of the formal aspects of their respective doctrines. However, it is not hard to see that the two share similar concerns and exhibit similar patterns of thought.
今日的许多中国教会也表现出亚波里拿留式的思维模式，而过分高举基督的永恒性与神学而牺牲了祂真实和完整的人性。近期对于基督人性的被造性之否认就是一个例子——它呼应了亚波里拿留所宣称的，基督并没有拥有一个被造的心思。当然，这个异端基督论的提纲肯定与亚波里拿留主义在相应的公式和教义上面是非常的不同。然而，我们不难看见两者都共享相似的顾虑，已经体现出相似的思维模式。
Upholding the deity of Christ at the expense of His humanity in such an Apollinarian way would create a gulf between Christ and the rest of humanity. According to Nicene--Chalcedonian orthodoxy and historic Reformation theology, the Mediator between God and humanity must be the union of full and true deity and humanity in one Person, for if the Mediator were wholly God but not wholly human, then the divine--human “ontological divide” (as one contemporary theologian likes to put it), let alone the gulf of sin, would persist between humankind and the Mediator Himself. One strategy to overcome this gulf, as we have seen in the example of Roman Catholic Mariology, is to find a mediatorial agent between Christ and us. That is, if Christ were fully and truly God without at the same time being truly and fully human, then there would still be an infinite gulf between Christ and us, requiring us to be mediated to Christ by yet another agent, say, the intercession of Mary or the saints.
用亚波里拿留主义的方式高举基督的神性并牺牲基督的人性会在基督和其他的人类间划出一道鸿沟。根据尼西亚—迦克顿正统神学和历史上改革宗的神学，神和人类间的中保必须在一个位格中联合完全和真神的神性与人性，因为若中保只是完全的神而不是完全的人，那么神-人“本体上的分别（ontological divide）”（今日的神学家们喜欢这样称呼它），在人类和中保本身间就会留下一道罪的鸿沟。在我们看见罗马天主教马里亚学的例子中，就看见在基督和我们之间有另一个中保。就是说，如果基督是完全和真实的神，在同时却不是完全和真实的人，那么在基督和我们之间仍然有一道无法跨越的鸿沟，需要另一位中保在我们和基督间调停，这就是对马里亚和圣人的尊崇。
In many Chinese churches today, the same root of the problem has led to an opposite result. When we undermine the full and true humanity of Christ, neglecting or even denying His possession of a creaturely and rational mind, we have also come to forget the truth that Christ in His creaturely humanity offered up Himself as sacrifice, so that and Him we may also come to worship God. We forget that the gulf of sin still separates sinners from God, that we are still sinners, and that only by Christ’s mediation can we come before God. Thus in our churches we sing praises to God without sufficiently high regard for the Lord’s Supper, which is the spiritual sign and seal of our participation in the Mediator Jesus Christ. On that note, it is worth mentioning that in the good old days of the Reformation, John Calvin insisted that the Lord’s Supper be observed at least every Sunday, if one could not keep it every day! In an average Chinese church today, however, usually the Lord’s Supper is observed only once a month—for Calvin that would have been horrendous!
在许多今日的中国教会中，这个问题的根已经造成了一种反面的结果。当我们贬低基督完全和真实的人性时，就忽视或甚至否认祂拥有一个被造和理性的魂，我们也会忘记基督在祂被造的人性中将自己献上为祭，好叫我们 祂里面，并祂能够近前来敬拜神的真理。我们也会忘记罪的鸿沟仍然将分割了罪人和神，使得我们仍然是罪人，只有基督的中保职分能够让我们来到神的面前。故此，在我们的教会中我们尝试赞美神却对主的晚餐没有足够的尊重，它乃是我们有份于中保耶稣基督的属灵记号和印记。顺着这个思路，我觉得值得提及改革宗美好的过去，约翰加尔文坚持主的晚餐应该最起码每个礼拜举行一次，若不能每天都有！然而，今天的华人教会平均每月只举办一次主的晚餐—对于加尔文而言，这是令人胆战心惊的！
Similarly, Word and Sacrament, as well as preaching and worship, in many conservative Evangelical Chinese churches, especially ones that identify themselves as Reformed, have grown into disproportion, partly because of an implicit—and in some cases explicit—Apollinarian pattern of thought among these churches. Recall that for Cyril of Alexandria, the rational, creaturely soul of Christ is so crucial because it ensures that our human, creaturely reason can be united to Christ in worship. Put another way, theology as a rational activity can lead to worship precisely because our creaturely reason is united to the creaturely mind of Christ. Conversely, to emphasise our participation in Christ’s creaturely mind is to stress that the purpose of theology is doxology. Yet, in conservative Evangelical Chinese churches today, it is often the other way around: doxology often becomes subservient to theology. For instance, the standard length of a sermon in an average Evangelical Chinese church would range from 45 minutes to an hour, whereas the worship would comprise about twenty to thirty minutes only. At the start of the service, the “worship leader” would often say, “Let’s start singing praises to God in order to prepare our hearts for listening to His Word.” This one-sided emphasis on the centrality of the Word is part and parcel of the marginalisation of sacrament and liturgy in the vast majority of conservative Evangelical Chinese churches today: doxology is no longer the purpose of theology, but rather theology has been made the purpose of doxology!
同样的，道和圣礼就像传道和敬拜一样，在许多保守的福音派中国教会中，特别是那些自认为是改革宗的教会中，已经发展的不成比例了，部分的原因是因为在这些教会中的—在某些事例上特别明显—这种亚波里拿留式的思维模式。让我们回想，对于亚历山大的区利罗，基督理性和被造的魂是那么的重要，因为它保证了我们人类被造的理性能够在敬拜中与基督联合为一。换个方式说，神学是一种理性的活动，因着我们被造的理性被联合与基督被造的理性，能够产生正确的敬拜。相反的，强调我们有份于基督被造的心思就是强调神学的目的乃是要在敬拜中赞美神（doxology）。然而，在现在的福音派华人教会中，往往反其道而行：在敬拜中赞美往往成为神学的下属。例如，在一个标准的华人福音派教会中，标准讲道的时间约在45分钟到一个小时之间，而敬拜的时间往往被压缩到20到30分钟。在聚会的一开始，“敬拜的领导者（worship leader）”往往会说，“让我们开始唱敬拜神的诗歌，好预备我们的心以聆听祂的话语。”这种单方面强调道的中心性是今日大部分保守福音派华人教会把圣礼和敬拜仪式边缘化做法的一部分：在敬拜中赞美神不再是神学的目的，反而把神学当作在敬拜中赞美的目的！
There are, of course, many Chinese churches today—not just Charismatic ones but also the less conservative among Evangelical churches (in the Chinese usage, “Charismatic” and “Evangelical” often tend to be mutually exclusive)—that exhibit an opposite tendency to marginalise the Word and fill their worship services with emotional “singspiration” or “praise and worship.” I would venture to posit that this also has to do with an implicitly Apollinarian pattern of thought characteristic of certainly more than just a small minority of Chinese churches today: as the mind of Christ is undermined in worship, one twentieth -century theologian observes, “the noetic character of the liturgy as ‘rational service’ progressively faded into the background,” and a “detachment of worship from theology” occurs. Additionally, contemporary “praise and worship”—not just in Chinese churches but in the West as well—often tends to seek to overcome the lack of Christ’s mediatorial role in their worship services by undermining God’s utter transcendence. That is, they tend to think that the Most Holy Place is not such a dreadful place to enter without a High Priest. The lyrics of a praise--and--worship song popular in both East and West today make my point clear:
当然，今天仍有许多华人教会—不单单是温和灵恩（Charismatic）教会，也包括较不是那么保守的福音派教会（在中文世界中，“温和灵恩派（Charismatic）”和“福音派（Evangelical）”常常是互相排斥的）—这表现出一种将道边缘化的相反张力，用情绪化的‘歌颂获得灵感（singspiration）’或‘赞美敬拜（prasie and worshiip）’充斥着他们的崇拜。我要大胆的指出这也是与今日华人教会的一小群教会所具有的亚波里拿留式的思维模式特征有关的：就像基督的心思在敬拜中被贬低，一位二十世纪的神学家察觉到，“礼仪中为‘理性服务’的抽象特征慢慢的淡化到背景之后，”以及“使敬拜从神学中脱节”已经发生了。除此以外，今日所谓“敬拜赞美”—这不单单发生在华人教会中，也同样发生在西方的叫花子—往往借由贬低神的完全超越性，来客服在他们敬拜中缺乏基督为中保的缺失。就是说，他们总认为最圣洁的地方（指至圣所——译者）并不是我们必须由基督伴随一同进入的那个令人生畏的所在。这种今日在东西方都盛行的，抒情式的敬拜赞美诗歌让我的诉求点变得非常清晰：
When the music fades, all is stripped away,
And I simply come; longing just to bring
Something that’s of worth, that will bless Your heart.
当音乐逝去，揭开一切的表象，
我单纯的前；希望之带来
配得过的事物，以祝福你的心肠。
I’ll bring you more than a song,
For a song in itself is not what You have required.
You search much deeper within, through the way things appear;
You’re looking into my heart.
我不单单带个你一首歌，
因为歌曲的本身并不是你所要求的。
你在我的更深之处寻觅，借由显现给我的事物；
你正在查验我的心。
These lyrics betray a widespread Evangelical attitude in worship today, namely, the notion that believers themselves are offerers of worship, and the content of offering is not Christ but human emotions. Several points can be observed here. First, the mediatorial role of Christ is scarcely found in Evangelical “praise--and--worship” songs today (there are exceptions of course, such as many hymns written by Keith and Kristyn Getty). Second, the rational element—the “mind”—in worship is lost; the centrality of the worshipping mind of Christ is replaced by human emotions. Third, this style of worship is detached from the overall conservative theology of Evangelicalism, which stresses the transcendence and wrath of God, and the penal nature of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.
这些抒情歌曲背叛了今天福音派在敬拜中的态度，也就是说，是一种信徒将自己献上作为敬拜的观念，其奉献的内涵并不是基督，而是人的情感。在此处我们可以看见许多的重点。首先，基督中保的职份已经很难在今日福音派所谓‘敬拜-赞美’的是个中找得到了（当然也有例外，例如Keith和Kristyn Getty所写的诗歌）。其次，敬拜已经失去了理性的元素—“心思”；敬拜中以基督的心思为中心已经被人的情绪所替代。第三，这种敬拜的风格基本上已经脱离了福音派主义的保守神学，它强调神的超越性和愤怒，以及基督为我们替死代赎的法理本质。
Conclusion 结论
The implicitly Apolliniarian patterns of thought that I have identified thus far is reflected not only in various, and often conflicting, liturgical practices among many Chinese churches today, but also shown in a more rational-theological attitude among many Chinese Christians. At the beginning of this article I gave the example of a friend from a Reformed church in Asia. This good Christian is well in line with Nicene--Chalcedonian orthodoxy in his belief that Christ’s human soul was created. However, he was uncertain about this belief, because he was brought up in a church in which believers are unintentionally trained to be afraid of emphasising Christ’s true and full humanity. In particular, my friend was afraid that his belief in the creatureliness of Christ’s human soul might lead to the conclusion that Christ has two wills and two minds, one divine and one human.
我在此所指出的亚波里拿流思维模式的现象往往不只出现在今日许多的华人教会中互相矛盾的仪式之中，也出现在许多中国基督徒更为理性-神学性的态度中。在本文的一开始，我已经用我从亚洲改革宗教会的朋友作为例子。这位良善的基督徒完全以和合尼西亚-迦克顿正统教义的方式相信基督人类魂是被造的。然而他对这样的信仰却没有把握，因为他在一个充满了无意间被训练的成为害怕基督真实和完全人性的信徒之教会中被带大的。我的这位朋友特别担心他对于基督人性魂为被造的信仰可能导致基督有两个意志和两个心思，一个是神的，一个是人的这样的结论。
For many Chinese Christians, their religious instinct is to find such a conclusion unacceptable. They fear that it might tear apart Christ’s one divine Person, rendering Him schizophrenic, so to say. But, one may ask, isn’t this precisely one of Apollinaris’s fears? Apollinaris wanted to ensure that Christ is fully and truly God, and, in an effort to steer away from the heresy of Arianism, which emphasised Christ’s humanity by compromising His deity, Apollinaris went too far in the opposite direction, denying Christ’s possession of a creaturely mind, the “rational soul” in His humanity. One might ask, is the theory of Christ’s pre--existent humanity proposed in Chinese churches of our own day not akin to Apollinaris’s one--sided concern to safeguard the deity of Christ in their insistence that Christ’s humanity is uncreated, and, consequently, that Christ does not possess a creaturely soul?
对于许多中国基督徒而言，他们的宗教直觉会告诉他们这样的结论是无法接受的。他们害怕这回撕裂基督独一的神格，或者说，把他变成精神分裂换着。然而，有人或许会文，难道这不就是亚波里拿流所害怕的吗？亚波里拿流想要确保基督是完全和真实的神，为了能够彻底摆脱为了强调基督人性而消减基督神性的亚流主义异端，亚波里拿流在相反的方向跑的太远了，导致他否认基督在祂的人性中，拥有一个被造的心思，“理性魂”。有人或许会文，我们今天许多华人教会所提出的基督人性先存的理论，与亚波里拿流那种一面倒的，为了捍卫基督的神性而坚称基督的人性是非受造的，进而导致基督不会拥有一个被造之魂的顾虑难道是一样的吗？
In response to my friend who expressed his worries in holding to the belief that Christ’s human soul was created, I offered the following reassurance—and therewith I conclude my rather lengthy blog entry:
为了回应我这位相信基督人性魂是被造的朋友，我提供一下的保证—也借此为这篇颇长的博文做一个结论：
Indeed your position would lead to the conclusion that Jesus has two souls/wills/minds—but that is exactly the position that the Nicene-Chalcedonain Fathers decided to adopt! And no, it does not lead to Nestorianism or any other heresy. Quite the contrary, there was a heresy known as “monothelitism,” which holds that Jesus only had one soul/will/mind, divine and not human. Ecumenical Council of the Seventh Century A.D. decided that this was a heresy. One form of proto--monothelitism that became prominent early on was Apollinarianism, named after Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea in the Fourth Century A.D. Apollinaris was a staunch opponent of Arianism, and had a high view of Christ’s divine nature. However, Apollinaris exalted Christ’s divine nature at the expense of His human nature, asserting that Christ’s humanity did not include a rational soul, but only a lower soul (emotions and instincts).
事实上，你的立场会导致基督拥有两个魂/意志/心思的结论—然而，那正是尼西亚—迦克顿教父们决定采用的教义！不！它绝对不会导致涅斯拖留主义或任何其他的异端。反而，有一个被称作“基督一志论（monothelistism）”的异端，坚持基督只有一个魂/意志/心思，是神的，而不是人的。七世纪的大公会议将其定为异端。另外一种在其之前，极具影响力的基督一志论的原型就是亚波里拿流主义，根据四世纪老底嘉主教亚波里拿留命名的。亚波里拿流是亚流主义的坚决反对这，并正确的认识基督的神性。然而，亚波里拿流高举基督的神性到一个地步，以牺牲祂的人性为代价，坚称基督的人性不包括一个理性魂，而只有一个低级的魂（情感和本能）。
You mentioned Nestorianism. Interestingly, one great Nicene Father who was a staunch opponent of Nestorianism was Cyril of Alexandria. While Cyril opposed Nestorius’s Antiochene emphasis on Christ’s humanity, however, the Alexandrian Father had rejected the Christology of another heretic, and that was Apollinaris. For Cyril, Apollinaris compromised Christ’s full humanity to the extent that Christ was without a rational soul and thus, implicitly, was not consubstantial with us. Cyril agrees with Apollinaris that the rational soul is the “seat of sin,” but unlike Apollinaris, Cyril argues that without a rational soul, Christ could not have imputed unto Himself our sins as a true human being, and thus could not have been our Mediator. According to Chalcedonian orthodoxy of which Cyril was one of the most important founders, Christ possesses a “rational soul” in His creaturely humanity. This position is expressed clearly in the Chalcedonian Creed. Therefore, rest assured, your position is well in line with the historic orthodoxy of the holy universal Church!
你提到涅斯拖留主义。很有意思的是，一位坚决反对涅斯拖留主义的尼西亚教父是亚历山大的区利罗。当区利罗坚决反对涅斯拖留那种安提阿式的，对基督人性的强调的同时，这位亚历山大教父同时也拒绝了了你跟一个基督论异端，亚波里拿流。对于区利罗，亚波里拿流牺牲了基督完全的人性到一个地步，基督完全失去了理性魂，故此暗示基督与我们不同质。区利罗认可亚波里拿流所谓理性魂是“罪的温床”的说法，但是他与亚波里拿流不同之处在于，区利罗认为缺少了理性魂，基督就不能作为一个真正的人，将我们的罪背负在祂自己身上，故此不能成为我们的中保。根据区利罗作为主要建立者的迦克顿正统，基督在祂被造的人性中拥有一个“理性魂”。这个立场在迦克顿信经中表述的非常明确。故此，让我确认，你的立场完全与历史中，神圣的宇宙教会所坚守的正统完全一致！
