August 23, 2023
Q:阿里乌斯派是基督一性论吗?
A:阿里乌斯派（Arianism）并不是基督一性论。阿里乌斯派是早期基督教的一个异端，其主要教导是认为耶稣基督并不与上帝父同质，即他们不是同一本性。阿里乌斯派认为基督是上帝的首次被创造的存在，而不是与上帝同等的神性。
基督一性论则与基督的两性论相对。一性论认为基督只有一个联合的自然，而两性论则认为基督有两个自然，即完全的神性和完全的人性。
这两个议题都在早期教会的历史中引起了很大的争议，但最终在教会公认的教条中，阿里乌斯派被认定为异端，而基督的两性论被确认为正统的教导。
Q:肉体幻灵论与基督教诺斯替主义的关系
A:肉体幻灵论（Docetism）和基督教诺斯替主义（Gnosticism）都是早期基督教的异端思想。它们在某些方面有联系，但也有其各自独特的特点。
-
肉体幻灵论（Docetism）：
- 肉体幻灵论来源于希腊语“δοκέω”（dokeo），意思是“看似”或“显得”。
- 这一教导认为耶稣只是“看似”有肉体，而实际上他的肉体是虚幻的。换句话说，耶稣并没有真正的人类身体，而只是一个神秘的、幻灵的存在。
- 这种观点否认了基督的真实人性。
-
基督教诺斯替主义（Gnosticism）：
- 诺斯替主义是一种复杂的宗教和哲学体系，它融合了基督教、犹太教和希腊哲学的元素。
- 诺斯替主义强调特殊的“知识”或“启示”（希腊语“γνῶσις”，gnosis）是实现救赎的关键。
- 诺斯替主义者通常看待物质世界为邪恶的和堕落的，这是由一个次级的神性创造的。
- 在这个背景下，有些诺斯替主义者采纳了肉体幻灵论的观点，认为耶稣不可能拥有一个真正的物质身体。
所以，虽然肉体幻灵论和诺斯替主义是两种不同的思想，但在否定耶稣的真实人性这一点上，它们是有联系的。一些诺斯替教派确实采纳了肉体幻灵论的观点。但是，要注意的是，并不是所有的诺斯替主义者都是肉体幻灵论者。
Q:马西昂的教会是反犹主义的起源吗?
A:马西昂（Marcion）是2世纪的一个基督教教师，他的教导被早期基督教会认为是异端。马西昂的观点确实与犹太教有很大的断裂，但称其为反犹主义的起源可能过于简化。
马西昂的主要观点包括：
- 两位神论：他认为有两位神——一个是旧约中的创造神，他描述为一个愤怒和审判的神；另一个是新约中的爱的神，即耶稣基督的父神。
- 拒绝旧约：由于他的这种二元观点，马西昂拒绝了整个旧约经文，并制定了自己的新约经文目录，其中只接受部分路加福音和保罗的书信。
- 对犹太教的排斥：马西昂的教导显然与犹太教产生了断裂，他否认旧约中的神与新约中的神是同一神。
尽管马西昂对犹太教有强烈的反感，但将他视为反犹主义的起源并不准确。反犹主义是一个复杂的现象，其根源可以追溯到基督教的初期，也与许多社会、政治和宗教因素有关。马西昂的教导可能加剧了基督教与犹太教之间的断裂，但反犹情绪和行为在他之前就已经存在。
总的来说，马西昂的教会确实对犹太教有强烈的反感，但他只是反犹主义历史中的一部分，而不是其起源。
Q:孟他努派是不是早期的修道运动?
A:孟他努派（Montanism）是2世纪中叶的一个基督教运动，由小亚细亚的先知孟他努（Montanus）和他的追随者推动。尽管孟他努派确实强调了敬虔的生活、道德的严格性和末世的预期，但将其简单地视为“早期的修道运动”可能并不准确。
孟他努派的主要特点和教导包括：
-
先知权威：孟他努派特别强调圣灵的现行作为和先知的权威。孟他努及其两位女先知，普里斯卡和马西米拉，声称他们接受了新的启示，这些启示与使徒的教导一样重要。
-
末世预期：孟他努派强调了末日即将到来的预期，并且相信新耶路撒冷将在小亚细亚的一个特定地点建立。
-
道德严格性：孟他努派鼓励信徒过上严格的道德生活，他们强调禁欲、禁食和祷告。这些要求比当时主流的基督教更为严格。
尽管孟他努派确实强调了禁欲和敬虔的生活，这与后来的修道主义有一些相似之处，但它们之间还是存在明显的差异。修道主义是一个更为组织化和制度化的运动，旨在通过隐居和团体生活实践基督教的教导，而孟他努派则更注重先知的启示和末日的预期。
总之，尽管孟他努派和早期修道运动在某些道德和宗教实践上有相似之处，但它们是两个不同的运动。
Q:公元199年罗马帝国的皇帝
A:公元199年，罗马帝国的皇帝是塞普蒂米乌斯·塞维鲁斯（Septimius Severus）。他从公元193年统治罗马帝国，直至公元211年去世。塞维鲁斯是塞维鲁斯王朝的创始人，并在他的统治下，帝国经历了相对的稳定和繁荣。
Q:公元2世纪基督教会剥夺了女性基督徒的领导权，是为了对抗基督诺斯替主义吗?
A:公元2世纪基督教会中女性领导权的减少是一个复杂的现象，与多种因素相关。与基督诺斯替主义（Gnosticism）的斗争确实是其中一个因素，但不是唯一的原因。
-
反诺斯替主义：早期诺斯替主义教派中，女性往往有更多的领导机会。例如，马利亚·玛达肋纳在某些诺斯替文献中被视为特殊的启示者或门徒。为了与这些教派划清界限，正统基督教可能限制了女性在教会中的领导角色。
-
与罗马社会的融合：随着基督教与罗马帝国社会的更加紧密的融合，教会可能开始模仿罗马社会的男性主导的领导结构。罗马社会的性别角色和期望对教会的组织和实践有所影响。
-
神学和经文解释：某些新约经文，如提摩太前书2:12，被解释为反对女性在教会中担任教导或领导角色。这些经文的解释和应用可能导致女性被排除出领导层。
-
传统和权威的形成：随着时间的推移，教会开始形成更加固定的传统和权威结构。在这个过程中，已有的领导模式和结构可能被进一步巩固，导致女性的角色被边缘化。
总之，虽然反诺斯替主义的斗争可能是导致女性领导权被剥夺的原因之一，但还有其他社会、文化和神学因素在其中发挥作用。这是一个复杂的现象，不应简单归因于单一的原因。
Q:修道主义与耶稣会和洗礼派的关系是什么
A:修道主义、耶稣会和洗礼派都与基督教的历史和实践有关，但它们之间存在显著的差异。下面是关于这三者的简要介绍及它们之间的关系：
-
修道主义:
- 修道主义起源于基督教的早期，当时一些信徒选择隐退于世、过上禁欲的生活以追求更高的属灵境界。这导致了修道院制度的建立。
- 修道士和修道女遵循某种规则（如本笃会规则）进行生活，并承诺贫穷、纯洁和顺从的誓言。
- 修道主义对中世纪欧洲的基督教传统产生了深远的影响，尤其在艺术、教育和医疗等领域。
-
耶稣会（或称“耶稣会士”）:
- 耶稣会是在16世纪由圣依纳爵·罗耳拉创立的，是天主教的一支。
- 虽然耶稣会士的生活方式有些类似修道士，但他们不居住在隔离的修道院中，而是活跃在社会中进行传教、教育和其他福音工作。
- 耶稣会在反宗教改革时期起到了关键作用，并因其教育和传教活动而闻名。
-
洗礼派:
- 洗礼派起源于16世纪的宗教改革期间，与改革家马丁·路德和约翰·加尔文的教导有所不同。
- 洗礼派强调成人洗礼（而非婴儿洗礼），认为只有信仰的成年人才应受洗。
- 洗礼派也强调教会和国家应当分开，反对国家教会的概念。
关系：
- 修道主义与早期和中世纪的基督教传统紧密相关。
- 耶稣会与修道主义有某些相似之处，如生活誓言，但它更注重在社会中的活动和外部使命。
- 洗礼派与上述两者有所不同，它与16世纪的宗教改革背景有关，并强调信徒的自主选择和教会的独立性。
总的来说，这三者都在基督教的历史和传统中占有一席之地，但它们在起源、实践和神学上都有所不同。
Q:修道主义和洗礼派是不是都提倡独自学习圣经?
A:修道主义和洗礼派在多个方面都与圣经学习和解释有关，但他们的重点和背景不同。
-
修道主义：
- 修道主义鼓励对圣经的持续沉思和默想，这在拉丁语中被称为“Lectio Divina”。这是一种古老的圣经阅读和默想的实践，目的是与上帝更亲近。
- 然而，对于多数修道士和修道女来说，他们的圣经学习是在团体的环境中进行的，尤其是在诵读、祷告和日常礼拜的时候。
- 在中世纪，修道院通常是知识和学习的中心，其中一些修道士参与了圣经手稿的抄写和学术研究。
-
洗礼派：
- 洗礼派起源于16世纪的宗教改革时期，当时对圣经直接访问和个人阅读的重视正在增长。这是因为许多宗教改革家都强调“sola scriptura”（仅凭圣经）的原则。
- 洗礼派鼓励信徒独自学习圣经，并根据自己的良心和理解做出决策。
- 他们重视信徒的能力和权利直接与圣经互动，而不仅仅依赖教会的传统或神职人员的解释。
总结来说，尽管修道主义和洗礼派都鼓励与圣经的互动，但他们的方法和背景有所不同。修道主义更注重集体的默想和祷告，而洗礼派则强调个人的圣经学习和独立的解释。
Q:凯希里安和多纳徒的争辩是什么?
A:凯希里安（Cyprian）是3世纪的迦太基主教，而多纳徒（Donatists）是4世纪在北非出现的一个基督教派别。他们之间的争辩主要与“教会纯洁性”和“圣礼的效力”有关，但要注意，多纳徒争议在凯希里安之后的几十年才真正爆发。
以下是关于这些争议的背景和内容：
-
凯希里安与教会的纯洁性：
- 凯希里安生活在罗马帝国对基督徒进行迫害的时期。在迫害期间，一些基督徒为了逃避死刑而放弃了他们的信仰，这些人被称为“lapsi”（即“跌倒者”）。
- 凯希里安认为，那些背弃信仰的人如果想重新加入教会，必须进行公开的悔改。
- 凯希里安还与罗马教会的主教Stephen就圣礼的性质发生了争论。凯希里安认为，由异端或不纯洁的主教施行的洗礼是无效的，而Stephen则认为洗礼的效力来自于圣礼本身，而不是施行者的品格。
-
多纳徒争议：
- 多纳徒争议与凯希里安的一些观点有共鸣，尤其是关于教会纯洁性的部分。
- 在4世纪初的一次迫害中，一些教会领袖交出了圣书以避免迫害，这引发了关于他们是否仍然适合担任神职人员的争议。
- 多纳徒主张，由不纯洁的主教施行的圣礼是无效的，他们坚持教会必须维持纯洁性，并拒绝接受由背道者重新接纳的教会。
虽然凯希里安与多纳徒都关心教会的纯洁性和圣礼的效力，但他们的争辩发生在不同的时代和背景下。多纳徒争议延续了凯希里安的一些思想，但它更加激进，持续了很长时间，并对北非的基督教产生了深远的影响。
Q:基督一性论和聂斯托里派是不是完全相反的，各自继承了亚历山大派和安提柯派最极端的神学思想？
A:基督一性论（Monophysitism）和聂斯托里派（Nestorianism）确实是关于基督的两性（divine and human）的对立神学观点，它们各自反映了当时亚历山大派和安提柯派的神学争论。
-
基督一性论 (Monophysitism):
- 主张基督只有一个混合了的性质，即神性与人性完全融合为一个不可分的性质。
- 这个观点可以追溯到亚历山大派，尤其是强调基督的神性。尽管不是所有亚历山大的神学家都持有这种观点，但这种观点在某种程度上确实是亚历山大神学思想的延伸。
-
聂斯托里派 (Nestorianism):
- 聂斯托里派强调基督的两个分离的性质：神性和人性。他们认为这两个性质在基督里是分开的，而不是混合的。
- 这个观点与安提柯派的神学思想有关，这一派神学家倾向于强调基督的人性。
确实，基督一性论和聂斯托里派可以被看作是亚历山大派和安提柯派神学争论的两个极端。然而，需要注意的是，这两个“极端”观点都被基督教主流所拒绝。451年的迦克墩公会议确认了基督的两性教义，即基督同时具有完整的神性和人性，这两种性质既不混合，也不分离。
Q:What is the relationship between James V, King of Scotland’s wife, Mary of Guise, and Duke Henri Guise, the one who is involved in French religious war?
A:James V of Scotland’s wife, Mary of Guise, and Duke Henri of Guise, who was involved in the French Wars of Religion, were closely related. Mary of Guise was Henri’s aunt. Specifically:
-
Mary of Guise was the daughter of Claude of Lorraine, Duke of Guise.
-
Duke Henri of Guise, known for his role in the Wars of Religion, was the son of Francis, Duke of Guise, and Anna d’Este. Francis, Duke of Guise, was the elder brother of Mary of Guise.
Therefore, Duke Henri of Guise was the nephew of Mary of Guise, making her his maternal aunt.
Q:The differences and similarities between Erasmus and Spinoza’s thoughts.
A:Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) and Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) were both prominent thinkers, but they lived during different periods and focused on different areas of thought. Erasmus was a Christian humanist during the Renaissance, while Spinoza was a rationalist philosopher during the Enlightenment. Despite the differences in their periods and focuses, both were influential figures in the history of Western thought. Let’s examine their similarities and differences:
Similarities:
-
Critique of Religious Dogmatism: Both Erasmus and Spinoza were critical of religious dogmatism and the institutional power of the Church. Erasmus’s works, like “In Praise of Folly,” criticized various Church practices, while Spinoza’s “Theological-Political Treatise” critiqued religious superstitions and advocated for a separation of church and state.
-
Emphasis on Reason: Both thinkers placed a significant emphasis on reason. Erasmus believed in the power of education and human reason to interpret the Bible and Christian teachings, while Spinoza believed in a deterministic universe governed by rational laws.
-
Ethical Living: Both were concerned with how one should live a good life. Erasmus’s Christian humanism emphasized living according to the teachings of Christ, while Spinoza’s ethics was rooted in his rationalist philosophy, emphasizing the pursuit of knowledge and understanding as the path to blessedness.
Differences:
-
Religious Views: Erasmus remained a committed Christian throughout his life, working for reform from within the Church. Spinoza, on the other hand, developed a pantheistic view where God is equated with Nature. His views led to his excommunication from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
-
Views on Scripture: While both were critical of religious dogmatism, their views on scripture differed. Erasmus believed in returning to the original sources of Christianity (ad fontes) and produced a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Greek. Spinoza, however, analyzed the Bible as a historical document, arguing that it was a human (and thus fallible) creation and should not be seen as the literal word of God.
-
Philosophical System: Spinoza developed a comprehensive philosophical system, as evident in his “Ethics,” where he presented his views in a geometric manner, deriving propositions from self-evident axioms. Erasmus, on the other hand, was less systematic in his works, often employing satire and dialogues.
-
Political Views: Spinoza’s ideas were foundational to modern liberal democracy, especially his emphasis on freedom of thought and expression and the separation of church and state. Erasmus, though critical of many aspects of his society, was less radical in his political views.
In summary, while Erasmus and Spinoza shared some concerns, such as the role of reason and the critique of religious dogmatism, their methodologies, religious views, and philosophical systems differed considerably due to the distinct periods they lived in and their individual inclinations.
Q:What are the similarities and differences between Christian spiritualists like Boehme, George Fox and German Pietist like Spener and Johm Wesley?
A:Christian spiritualists like Jakob Böhme and George Fox and Pietists like Philipp Jakob Spener and John Wesley were all reform-minded individuals who sought to shift the focus of Christianity towards a more personal and experiential faith. Though they shared some common themes in their teachings, they arose from different contexts and exhibited distinct differences in their beliefs and practices.
Similarities:
-
Inner Experience and Personal Piety: All these figures emphasized personal piety and the importance of an inner, spiritual experience. They stressed the need for a personal relationship with God rather than just rote ritual or dogmatic theology.
-
Critique of Formalism: They were critical of the formalism and perceived spiritual deadness of the established churches of their times. Their movements arose as reactions against the perceived moral laxity and ritualistic tendencies of mainstream Christianity.
-
Role of the Holy Spirit: They all placed a significant emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the believer’s life and understanding of Scripture.
-
Bible-Centric: They all underscored the importance of the Bible as a central authority for faith and practice, emphasizing personal reading and interpretation.
Differences:
-
Theological Foundations:
- Böhme: He had a mystical approach, emphasizing the inner struggles between good and evil. His thought is characterized by a kind of Christian theosophy, combining elements of mysticism, alchemy, and the Kabbalah.
- Fox: Founder of the Quakers (or the Religious Society of Friends), he believed in the “Inner Light” — the idea that God communicates directly with individuals without the need for clergy or rituals.
- Spener: Known for his “Pia Desideria,” he is considered the father of Pietism. Spener emphasized the importance of Bible study in small groups (collegia pietatis) and believed in the priesthood of all believers.
- Wesley: While he emphasized personal piety and evangelism, Wesley also maintained a structured approach, with methods for personal devotion and service (hence Methodism’s name).
-
Church Organization and Practices:
- Böhme: He didn’t establish a church or movement, but his writings influenced many spiritualist and mystical groups.
- Fox: The Quaker movement, stemming from Fox’s teachings, has distinct practices like silent worship and a testimonial lifestyle (e.g., pacifism, simplicity).
- Spener: While he aimed to reform the Lutheran Church from within, his focus was more on small group practices and personal piety than establishing a separate church.
- Wesley: He initially sought to reform the Anglican Church, but his followers eventually formed a distinct Methodist denomination with its own structure and practices.
-
Views on Sacraments:
- Böhme & Fox: Both were skeptical of formal sacraments, seeing them as less important than spiritual communion with God.
- Spener & Wesley: While they emphasized personal piety, they still valued sacraments, albeit with a more personal and heartfelt approach.
-
Geographical and Cultural Context:
- Böhme: German mystic operating in the context of the Lutheran Reformation.
- Fox: Operated in England during a time of religious turmoil and the rise of various dissenting groups.
- Spener: Worked within the Lutheran tradition in Germany, seeking a more heartfelt and devout expression of faith.
- Wesley: Operated within the Anglican Church in England but influenced by the Pietist movement and the Moravians.
In summary, while all these figures sought a more genuine, heartfelt Christianity that emphasized personal experience and devotion, they differed in their theological nuances, practices, and the movements they influenced or established.
Q:Why the northern states of the 13 colonies first adopted religious freedom?
A:The northern states of the original 13 American colonies were among the earliest to adopt policies or sentiments of religious freedom. Multiple factors contributed to this trend:
-
Religious Diversity: The northern colonies, especially those in New England, were established by various religious dissenters seeking refuge from the Church of England. The presence of various denominations, such as the Puritans in Massachusetts, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Dutch Reformed Church in New York, necessitated a degree of religious tolerance to maintain peace and harmony.
-
Religious Dissent: Many of the early settlers in the northern colonies were dissenters from the Church of England. For instance, the Pilgrims, who were Separatists, and the Puritans both sought to practice their religion without interference from English authorities. Their experience with persecution influenced their views on religious freedom, even if some of these groups (like the Massachusetts Bay Puritans) did not always extend full religious freedom to others.
-
Economic Motivations: The desire for economic prosperity often overruled religious differences. As colonies like Pennsylvania, founded by Quaker William Penn, sought to attract settlers for economic growth, they promoted policies of religious tolerance and freedom as a selling point.
-
Enlightenment Ideals: The Enlightenment era, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and freedom of thought, greatly influenced many American colonial leaders. This philosophical movement encouraged the idea of separation of church and state and the notion that the state shouldn’t coerce religious beliefs or practices.
-
Practical Governance: Leaders in colonies with diverse populations quickly realized that religious pluralism could be a strength rather than a weakness. By embracing religious freedom, they could promote social harmony and focus on issues of governance rather than religious disputes.
-
Reaction against Established Churches: Some colonies had established churches and faced issues with enforcing religious uniformity and collecting tithes. The difficulties and controversies surrounding established churches pushed some towards advocating for religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
It’s essential to note that while many northern colonies moved toward religious freedom earlier than some of their southern counterparts, the journey wasn’t uniform. Some colonies, like Massachusetts, initially persecuted dissenting religious groups (e.g., Quakers and Baptists) before gradually embracing religious tolerance. The full realization of religious freedom as a fundamental right came with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the end of the 18th century.
