系統神學系列〈3〉：比較新舊兩約所啟示的三一神，以及反思教導三一的重要性

 湃  恩

     對於正統的大公信仰而言，整本聖經，包括新約和舊約，都啟示神是三一的。神是獨一的神，祂名稱為耶和華，而這位神又是三，是父、是子、是靈。神的三一（Trinity）是一個重大的啟示，也是一個奧祕，且是一個奧祕中的奧祕。一面，雖然在聖經中，不論在新約或舊約，找不到『三一』這個詞，卻能看到神是三一的這個事實。另一面，雖然舊約和新約都有關於三一神的啟示，然而，若進行較仔細的研讀後，會發現有一些重點上的不同。

第一，舊約是以隱含的方式啟示三一神，而新約是以明言的方式啟示三一神：

     關於聖經兩約的關係，奧古斯丁曾說：『舊約藏新約，新約彰舊約。』[1] 舊約的預表，好像是用圖畫的方式把新約的實際表明出來。關於三一神這啟示也是如此。

（1）舊約，神自稱『我』，又稱『我們』，隱含地啟示神的三一

    以賽亞六章八節，神說，『我可以差遣誰呢？誰肯為我們去呢？』神一面稱自己作我，一面又作我們，證明『我』就是『我們』，『我們』也就是『我』。神是單數的，但也似乎是多數的。還有，創世記一章二十六節：『神說，我們要照著我們的形像，按著我們的樣式造人。』那獨一的神，在祂的聖言中，多次稱祂自己作『我們』，這隱含地啟示神有複數（plurality）一面的講究。這必是由於神有父子靈的講究。

（2）新約，主耶穌說出父子靈三者，明言地啟示神的三一

    馬太二十八章十九節，主耶穌說，『將他們浸入父子聖靈的名裏。』主在這裏說出父子聖靈三者。但主在這裏說到父子聖靈的名，所用的『名』字，在原文是單數的。這是說，父子聖靈雖是三者，名卻是一個。這一個名包括父子聖靈三者。這就說出神是三一的，祂雖是一位神，卻有父子靈三者的講究。三者一個名，明言地啟示神的三一。

第二，舊約較多三一神的「一」的啟示；新約則較著重三一神的「三」的啟示：

（1）舊約較新約更多提及神是只有一位

    無論在舊約或新約裏，都清楚並確定的告訴我們，神只有一位。但由於舊約時，關於三一神的「三」還沒有明言，只有隱含地啟示，舊約較多著重神的「一」，神只有一位。
  
    在舊約，神藉著摩西賜給以色列人的十誡，第一條即是『除了我以外，你不可有別的神』（出二十3，申五7）。申命記四35說，『…要使你知道惟有耶和華祂是神，除祂以外，再無別神。』39節說，『所以今日你要知道，也要記在心上，天上地下，惟有耶和華祂是神，除祂以外，再無別神。』這裏不是說除『祂們』以外，再無別神，而是除『祂』以外，再無別神。六4又說，『以色列阿，你要聽！耶和華我們 神是獨一的主。』以賽亞書四十五章五節說，『我是耶和華，在我以外並沒有別神，除了我以外再沒有神。』還有六節、十四節、十八節、二十一至二十二節，四十六章九節，四十四章六節、八節，都有同樣的話。除了以賽亞，舊約其他的先知，如撒母耳（撒下七22）、瑪拉基（瑪二10)、撒迦利亞（亞十四9）等亦都有類似的宣告。詩篇八十六篇十節：『惟獨你是神。』這裏不是說，惟獨你們是神；乃是說，惟獨你是神。這話也證明神只有一位。在這些經節中，神再三再四的說，『除了我以外，再沒有神。』祂不是說，除了我們以外，再沒有神；乃是說，『除了我以外，再沒有神』。『我』是單數的，只有一位。神這多次的宣言，強有力的證明，神只有一位。

    在新約，主耶穌重申舊約申命記六章四節，明言『主我們神是獨一的主』(可十二29)。使徒保羅在羅馬書三章三十節說，『神既是一位』，亦於哥林多前書八章四節說，『神只有一位，再沒有別的神。』都明言地否定三位神、兩位神，宣告只有一位神。還有，林前八6、加三20、弗四6、提前二5等經文都可見保羅顯著的一神觀念。再者，其他新約書信的作者如使徒雅各在雅二19、使徒約翰在啟四2、8～9節，都明確地宣稱神只有一位。然而，類似的經節，在數目上，新約明顯不及舊約多。但無論如何，無論舊約或新約聖經都明確宣告宇宙中只有一位神，再沒有別的神。

（2）新約較舊約更多提及神有「三」的一面：

     新約幾乎各卷書都是以「神聖的三一」為基本架構。「三」的啟示遍佈整本新約。在福音書裏，如約翰福音十四16～17節：『我要求父，父就另外賜給你們一位保惠師，叫祂永遠與你們同在，就是實際的靈。』在這兩節裏，子向父禱告，使父差遣靈（其他參太一20～23，三16～17，十二28，二八19，路一35，十五3～32，約四10，十四6～24，26，十五26，十六13～15等）。在使徒行傳，如二十28：『聖靈立你們作全群的監督，你們就當為自己謹慎，也為全群謹慎，牧養神的召會，就是祂用自己的血所買來的。』這裏題到聖靈立，神的召會和（子）的血。（其他參徒一1～2，4～5，8，11，21，二4，17～18，21～24，27，31～33，36，38，十三2，4，7，9～10，12，16，23，30，33～39，49～50，52，二八15，23，25，31等）。

    在保羅書信，如林後十三14節說，『願主耶穌基督的恩典，神的愛，聖靈的交通，與你們眾人同在。』這裏題到子基督的恩典，父神的愛，以及聖靈的交通或交流。（其他參弗一3～14，二18，三16～17上，四4～6，五19～20，六10～11，17，多三4～6，加四4～6，羅五5～6，八9，11，十五16，林前三10～16，十二4～6，林後一21～22，三3，五5～6，帖前一4～7，帖後二13～14，來二3～4，九14等）。 在彼得書信，如彼前一2節說，『就是照著父神的先見被揀選，藉著那靈得聖別，以致順從耶穌基督，並蒙祂血所灑的人：願恩典與平安，繁增的歸與你們。』這裏題到父神的揀選，那靈的聖別，以及耶穌基督的血（其他參彼前一2～3，11，二1～3，9，三4，四14，五10，彼後一14，三18）。在猶大書20～21節：『親愛的，你們卻要在至聖的1信仰上建造自己，在聖靈裡禱告，保守自己在神的愛中，等候我們主耶穌基督的憐憫，以至於永遠的生命。』  在約翰書信，如壹書四13～14：『神已將祂的靈賜給我們，在此就知道我們住在祂裡面，祂也住在我們裡面。父差子作世人的救主，這是我們所看見，現在又作見證的。』這裏有神、神的靈和子。在啟示錄也看見神聖的三一：『願恩典與平安，從那今是昔是以後永是的，從祂寶座前的七靈，並從那忠信的見證人、死人中的首生者、為地上君王元首的耶穌基督，歸與你們。』（啟一4下～5上，二一3，9，23，二二1～2。）這裏題到那今是昔是以後永是的、七靈，以及耶穌基督。

    因此，我們可以說，整本新約是以神聖的三一結構而成的。雖然在舊約沒有父、子、靈三者清楚的明言，卻從經文中可隱約的得知神有這三方面的講究。譬如，在民數記六章神要祭司以三重的方式祝福祂的子民以色列人，隱約啓示出神有父、子、靈三方面的講究。神說，『你們要這樣爲以色列人祝福，說，「願耶和華賜福與你，保守你。願耶和華使祂的臉光照你，施恩給你。願耶和華向你仰臉，賜平安給你。」（23～26另譯。）這三重的祝福吻合新約所說神聖三一的祝福。『願耶和華賜福與你，保守你』乃是父神的祝福。祂使我們蒙保守在父神的名裏，就是在祂神聖的人位裏，並蒙保守脫離那惡者。（約十七11，15）。『願耶和華使祂的臉光照你，施恩給你』乃是子神的祝福。祂作爲從高天臨到我們的清晨的日光，使我們接受祂，並且恩上加恩（路一78，約一16）。『願耶和華向你仰臉，賜平安給你』，乃是靈神的祝福。祂作爲三一神活的同在，賜給我們出人意外的平安。（約二十21～22，腓四7）。再者，以賽亞書四十八章十六節下說，『現在主耶和華差遣我和祂的靈來。』這更隱示神乃是三一的。  時代論學者Scofield 的Study Bible在該處的經文批註裏亦說，『「我」，說到道成肉身的基督，祂在這裏與全能的主和靈相關連，給我們瞥見舊約的三一（Trinity）。』[2] 另外，舊約有也些地方以『三』為經文的架構，如以賽亞六章3節：『（撒拉弗）彼此呼喊說，聖哉，聖哉，聖哉，萬軍之耶和華；祂的榮光充滿全地。』三次呼喊『聖哉』，似乎是向著聖父、聖子、聖靈，隱約啓示出神有父、子、靈三方面的講究（參啟四8）。

第三，舊約啟示神的『三』，主要是在三者的行動、作為上；新約啟示神的『三』，指明三者都有位格，且三者都享同等的神性：

（1）舊約啟示神的『三』，主要是在三者的行動、作為上

在創造上

    創世記一2～3節說，神的靈覆罩在水面上。神說，要有光，就有了光。詩三三6說，諸天藉耶和華的話而造，萬象藉祂口中的氣而成。可見創造時，父神是說話者（創一3）、子基督是父所說出的話（詩三三6，箴八）、靈神來配合運行（創一2）（『靈』希伯文與『氣』同字）。父、子、靈三者共同參與創造的工作。然而，這裏只含示一位（說話者）是有位格的，所說出的話和靈（或氣）並沒有含示是有位格的或是神格的一位。

在爭戰上

    如在士師記六章，當基甸準備同以色列人爭戰時，『耶和華的使者』向基甸顯現（12），『耶和華』就向基甸說話（14），然後，『耶和華的靈』就披戴在基甸身上（34），加強他的能力。這裏看見父、子、靈三者共同幫助以色列人爭戰。然而，『耶和華的使者』向基甸顯現時，說話者卻是『耶和華』，而『耶和華的靈』只是作為加強爭戰的能力。

在建造上

     在出埃及記三十五章，耶和華召了比撒列建造會幕（30），以神的靈充滿他，使他有智慧，有悟性，有知識，能作各樣的工（31）。這裏有題及『耶和華』和『神的靈』，都有參與建造的工作。然而，似乎呼召的耶和華是有位格的，沒有含示神的靈有位格，神的靈只是作為人的能力。

在拯救上

    在以賽亞六十三章，先知以賽亞論到以色列的復興時說，『（以色列人）在一切苦難中，祂也同受苦難。』（9上），『祂面前的使者』拯救他們；祂在自己的愛和憐憫中救贖他們，在古時的一切日子保抱他們，懷搋他們（9下），他們竟悖逆，使主『聖別的靈』憂愁。（10上）。這裏指明『耶和華』、『耶和華的使者』和『聖別的靈』都有參與拯救以色列人的工作。父定意拯救者，子是拯救者，靈是聖別人者。

小結：

    舊約有啟示神的『三』的方面，但主要是在三者參與的行動和作為上，如創造、爭戰、建造、拯救等。

（2）新約清楚啟示神格的三者都是神

    新約啟示神格的三者都是神（但不是三位神）。父是神。新約聖經多處經文說到父神。以弗所一章十七節保羅說，『我們主耶穌基督的神，榮耀的父』；四章六節說，『一神，就是衆人的父』；林前一章三節說，『神我們的父』；彼前一章二、三節說，『…父神的先見，…我們主耶穌基督的父神！』。子也是神。我們必須清楚看見神的兒子耶穌乃是神。希伯來一章八節說，『論到子卻說「神阿，你的寶座是永永遠遠的」』；羅馬九章五節宣稱基督是『在萬有之上，永遠可稱頌的神。』約翰一章一節，十四節啓示耶穌是太初永遠的話，就是神，祂成了肉體並且住在人的中間。靈也是神。在行傳五章三至四節裏，我們看見靈是神。第三節彼得告訴亞拿尼亞，他欺哄了聖靈；而在下一節說，他欺哄了神。在這兩節中，聖靈等於神。保羅在林前三章十六節說，我們是神的殿；而六章十九節又說我們是聖靈的殿。聖靈並非獨一之神以外的另一位神，聖靈從永遠到永遠就是獨一的神自己。  新約清楚的啟示我們，父子靈三者都是神，但這三者不是三位神，乃是一位神。

總結和反思

     在聖經裏，雖然重點有些不同，但無論是在舊約或是在新約，都有關於三一神的啟示。因著舊約是新約的影兒、圖畫和預言，新約是舊約的實際和應驗，故舊約三一神的啟示是隱含的方式，新約三一神的啟示是明言的方式。有些信徒以為，只有在新約才有關於三一神的教導。然而，整本聖經都是啟示神是三一的。我們若持守正統的三一信仰，則不能忽視舊約的教導。如果完全忽視舊約的教導，可能會有以下的後果：

第一，會使人懷疑聖經新舊約的一致性：

    因為三一神是基督教信仰的核心真理之一。它啟示的根據必須是從整本聖經綜合得來，而非單憑某一節、某一卷或某一部分。新約既是舊約啟示的延續和發展，也是舊約的實際和應驗，關於三一神這核心真理的啟示的起始和根基也必是存在於舊約。若忽視舊約的三一神教導，就無法給人看見聖經啟示的一致性和連續性，讓人對聖經的整體啟示產生疑問。

第二，從教義發展歷史的角度看，會使基督教信仰失去根基和立場：

    另外，從教義發展歷史的角度看，基督教的根基完全是在於舊約聖經。基督教信仰的中心和對象是耶穌基督。初期教會使徒們和教父們所要作的見證，就是「耶穌」是那舊約聖經中所預言、所應許要來，帶給世人救恩的受膏者、彌賽亞、基督。這位「耶穌」，既是舊約的耶和華神親自道成了肉身，也是永遠裏的神的兒子。第一代的使徒們並不是另立創立全新的宗教。相反，他們是相信舊約聖經的啟示，而耶穌正應驗了是舊約關於基督之預言和預表。故此，他們必須要援引用舊約聖經，指出耶穌的生活與工作如何應驗了舊約。此外，新約正典在頭一世紀末在全部成書 。[3] 其後，雖然新約書卷在各教會內普遍獲得正典的地位，但是到第五世紀初，全部新約正典才正式確定。[4] 因此，舊約聖經成了使徒們、教父們和信徒最重要的信仰經典和基礎。

    根據教會歷史發展，當耶穌作為基督、救主、救恩的成就者的身分得著確認後，教會就接著開始探討耶穌基督作為神的兒子，與父的關係是如何。第二世紀有一派異端為馬吉安（Marcion）派，因認為新約和舊約所啟示的神是不同的，自行嘗試編列他心中的《新約》正典，並刪除與他觀念不合的書卷。引起教父們強烈的回應。這表明教父們強烈的護衛舊約的權威對基督信仰的重要性，並不認同新約和舊約所啟示的神是有衝突和矛盾的。

     爾後，經過325年的尼西亞大公會議，子和父的關係基本上得到確定—子與父為同質（homoousia），二者的神性是相同的。及至第四世紀後半，教會的討論才再思考聖靈的身分。經過加帕多加等教父們的努力後，聖靈的神性和位格得到確定，三一論基本上得著完滿闡釋。至此，確認新約聖經清楚的啟示神的三一，而這位三一神就是舊約所啟示同一位的神。雖然在舊約沒有明顯的揭示，卻有多處明顯的隱含三一神的啟示。故此，整本聖經，新約和舊約，均有關於三一神的啟示。舊約為新約的根基，新約為舊約的延續和發展。舊約三一神的啟示是用隱含的方式，新約三一神的啟示是用明言的方式。整本聖經都啟示神是三一的。

    故此，從教義發展的歷史觀點看，若舊約的三一神論不穩固，則新約所啟示三一神就和舊約的神有衝突了，這樣，新約的正典地位就被懷疑了，整個基督教的根基就動搖了。情況就會像今日摩門教，摩門經所啟示的神因和新約的有極大不吻合，摩門經被教會所質疑其啟示性，故摩門教也就被質疑了其正統性。因此，基督教的根基完全是在於舊約聖經。我們必須給人教導關於舊約三一神的啟示，也必須要給人顯示新約如何與舊約在三一神的啟示上是一致，基督教才能證明自身的合法性和真實性。不然，就會使基督教信仰失去根基和立場。

第三，從信徒的經歷看，信徒就會失去許多如何經歷三一神的細節的圖畫：

    三一神的真理不是僅為著客觀的教義，而是為著信徒在生命上的經歷的。林後十三章十四節說：『願主耶穌基督的恩，神的愛，聖靈的交通，與你們眾人同在。』聖經《恢復本》譯本在這節有一個很好的註解，指出神聖的三一不是僅為著信徒神學上的研究，而是為著信徒在生命上對三一神的經歷和享受：

  

    『主的恩就是主自己作我們的生命，給我們享受；（約一17，林前十五10），神的愛就是神自己，（約壹四8，16，）作主恩的源頭；聖靈的交通就是聖靈自己，作了主恩同著神愛的傳輸，給我們有分。這不是三件分開的東西，乃是一件東西的三方面，正如主、神、聖靈不是三位分開的神，乃是“同一位不分開，也不能分開之神的三個實質。”（Philip Schaff，薛夫。）…本節很強的證明，神格的三一，不是為著人在道理上領會系統的神學，乃是為著神在祂的三一裡，把自己分賜到所揀選並救贖的人裡面。在聖經中，神聖三一從未僅僅當作道理啟示人，總是在說到神與祂的造物，特別與祂所造的人，尤其是與祂所揀選並救贖之人的關係時，纔啟示或說到。…因此，聖經從創世記到啟示錄，對神格的三一所有的神聖啟示，顯然都不是為著神學上的研究，乃是為著叫我們領會，神在祂奧祕而奇妙的三一裡，如何將祂自己分賜到祂所揀選的人裡面，使我們這些蒙祂揀選、救贖的人，能像使徒對哥林多信徒的祝福所指明的，有分於、經歷、享受並得著經過過程的三一神，從今時直到永遠。』（林後十三14註1)

    舊約聖經像是一幅圖畫，給我們新約信徒對三一神的經歷的詳細細節，而新約則說明實際和教訓。舉例，新約教導信徒要有信心，信靠神，不信靠自己（參林後一9），但信心的榜樣和信心的道路如何，舊約挪亞、亞伯拉罕、大衛等等的經歷，就給我們新約信徒許多圖畫的細節。他們與我們所經歷的，都是同一位三一神。儘管舊約還沒有明言父子靈三者，但他們已經歷了父神的愛、保守，子神的拯救、恩典，靈神的臨在、安慰等等。這些細節能幫助新約信徒對三一神的經歷，幫助他們生命長大。故此，若是光有新約的教導而沒有舊約的教導，則信徒就缺乏細節經歷的圖畫，容易將新約的教訓變成客觀的道理，而使信徒靈命受到虧損。

---

[1] NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings, Chapter 27 [XV.] (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xi.xxx.html)
[2] 《新司可福參考聖經》（The New Scofield Reference Bible）在該處的經文批註裏說，『這是舊約中暗示三一（Trinity）最清楚的（經文）之一，因爲這裏說話的不是先知，而是主自己。(參考12節)。』
[3] 新約最後一卷書成書一般相信為《啟示錄》，於主後96年完成。
[4] 主後419年，新約27卷在迦太基會議中被正式接納為正典。 

歷史神學系列〈2〉：再思亞他那修在亞流爭論中的論據 Rethinking of Athanasius's Arguments in Arian Controversy

湃  恩

     筆者在本文旨在從亞流的兩封書信：《亞流致尼哥米底亞的優西比烏（Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia）》和《亞流致亞歷山大的亞歷山大（Arius’s Letter to Alexander of Alexandria）》，以及亞他那修《駁亞流四論文（Four Discourses Against the Arians）》的卷一和卷三，論證在第四世紀的亞流爭論中，亞他那修（Athanasius，AD 296-373）最大的關注乃是亞流（Arius，AD 256-336）的異端教訓，抹殺了在道成肉身中神性與人性的聯合，並含示了墮落的人類再沒法在神人聯合裡得著有效的救恩。亞他那修的論據乃是從當時的形而上論、認識論，以及更重要的是救恩論—即以在基督裡被神化（theosis），作為在神經綸裡救恩的目標—來證明子基督的神性，以及子與父的關係。
In this essay, I argue according to Arius's Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius’s Letter to Alexander of Alexandria, and Athanasius's Four Discourses Against the Arians, that in the fourth century's Arian controversy, Athanasius's greatest concern to the Arians' heretic teaching is that there is no genuine union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation of the Word, implying there is no efficacious salvation for the fallen human race from the God-man union. His arguments range from metaphysics, epistemology, and most importantly, soteriology - the thought of deification (theosis) in Christ as the goal of salvation in the economy of God, to demonstrate the divinity of Christ the Son, and his relationship with the Father.

亞流對神與基督的理解
Arians’ Understanding on God and Christ

亞流為著持守絕對一神論（absolute monotheism），他堅稱唯有神是永恆地自存（self-subsistent）、非受生（unbegotten）、不改變（unchangeable），以及沒有複數（plurality）。神為要創造世界，在時間和各世代之先，祂憑著祂的自由意志，藉著祂自己的「智慧」和「道」，創造子作為依賴的存有。在亞流的觀念中，子是與神自己截然不同的存有，子是可改變的（changeable），非永恆地存在（not eternally-existed），是受生的（begotten），並因而是有一個開始。正如他自己常說的話，「曾有一時，祂（子）並不存在。」子作為首生和完全的受造物，祂分享父的生命、存有和榮耀，祂所有的都是從父接受的。 子藉著在肉身的時候完全順服父的旨意，被父高舉作為祂美德和自我改進的奬賞。祂被父收養，有分於父的恩典，而被稱作「神（god）」、「道」和「智慧」。如此，子就成了人類救恩的模型（pattern）。
In holding an absolute monotheism, Arian maintains that God alone is self-subsistent eternally, unbegotten, unchangeable, and without any plurality. To create the world, God, by his entirely free will, through his own "Wisdom" and "Word", creates the Son as a subsistent being who is wholly distinct from himself, before times and ages.[1] The Son in Arian's view is changeable, not eternally-existed, and thus was begotten and has a beginning. As he often said, "there once a time when he (the Son) was not". As the firstborn and perfect creature, the Son shares the Father's life, being, and glory, receiving all his things from the Father.[2] He, through fully obeying the Father's will in the flesh, was exalted as a reward for virtues and improvement, being called "god", "word" and "wisdom" by adoption and participation of grace.[3] As such, the Son's pattern acted as a salvation for all humankind.

亞他那修的反駁
Athanasius's Refutation

形而上論中子與父的關係
Relationship between Son and Father on Metaphysics

首先，因著亞流派認為父是「非起始」（unoriginated）的，而子是「有起始的」（originated），他們認為將子的神性等同父的神性即否認了父的非起始性。亞他那修指出亞流跟隨了當代希臘哲學的邏輯，亞流意味著父必定是唯一的創造者，萬物包括子都是起始於祂。因此，亞流推斷子必定是受造物，是在父的本質以外的。 亞他那修反駁指出，若如亞流所說，作為受造物的子，能因有分恩典而被稱作「神」，那麼，我們能否因所有受造物有分於神的恩典，而稱它們都為「神」？若子是次神，則有為何沒有第三、第四、第一百萬的神？ 故此，對亞他那修來說，「亞流派不是帶來泛神論，就是無神論。」
To begin with, Arians say that since the Father is "unoriginated" while the Son is "originate", equaling the Father and the Son is to deny the "unoriginality" of the Father. Athanasius pointed out that following the logic of the Greek philosophy, Arius infers that the Father must be the only Creator who originates all things, including the Son. Thus, the Son must be a creature, external from the Father's substance.[4] Athanasius argues that if the Son is a creature we call "God" only by participation, as Arians said, can we call all creatures "God" as all creatures are participating in the grace of God? Or if the Son is a second God, why not a third, fourth, millionth?[5] Thus, for Athanasius, "The Ario-maiacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism."[6]

憑著全然有分互相内在，而與神是一
Co-inhering being One God by wholly participation

        亞他那修認為基督取得和持守祂的兒子名分的方式，乃是在本質上不同於我們的方式。祂作為子，並非如我們這些受造物般憑著收養或恩典，外在並依賴地有分於父，而是憑著本質全然地有分於父。 在《駁亞流四論文》卷三，亞他那修引入「互相内在」（coinherence）這概念來說明這點。父和子各是完整和完全的神。正如約翰福音14至17章所示，祂們互相內在彼此裡面，故祂們的本質是一並相同。因為子是在父裡面，祂所有的就是父所有。子作為父自己的形像和兒子，子與父乃是同一位神。
    Athanasius suggests the way which Christ gains and holds his Sonship is essentially different from ours. He is not participating in the Father by adoption or grace, as creatures do, externally and dependently,[7] but is "wholly participating" in the Father by nature, even that what is partaken from the Father, is the Son.[8] In Book 3, Athanasius introduces the concept of the coinherence to illustrate this point. The Father and the Son, each whole and perfect God, are in each other as shown in the Gospel of John 14-17, so their substance is one and the same.[9] Since the Son is in the Father, he has all that the Father has. Being Father's own Image and offspring, the Son and the Father are one God.[10]

子的不變性
Immutability of the Son

對於亞流所認為道是「可變的」，亞他那修反對這看法而反問：「怎能一位既是父的形像，而沒有像父的不變性？」， 並回應說：「因此，不變之神的形像必定也是不變的」，因為「子的存有和本質既是來自父，子也就如父自己一樣是不改變的。」故此，亞他那修總結，子是如父一樣不改變，因為祂分享父相同的本質。
Concerning the Arian statement whether the Word is "mutable", Athanasius objects to it by asking a rhetorical question "how can such a one be the Father’s Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness?"[11] and replying "therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable" because "the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself."[12] 

子的可知性
Son's Knowability

為回應亞流的觀念，認為子對父缺乏完全的認識， 亞他那修回答為何子在肉身時看似對父的認識是無知的，他指出子的知識就是父的知識，然而為著門徒的益處，祂情願像人一樣不認識父。
In response to the Arian view that the Son lacks perfect knowledge to the Father,[13] Athanasius answered why the Son seemed irrogant to the Father when he was in the flesh, saying the knowledge of the Son is the knowledge of the Father, but for the profit of his disciples, he did not know as a man.[14]

對救恩的關切
Urgency to Salvation

亞流持守與亞他那修截然不同的救贖觀。他理解子乃是一個完美的受造物，祂在祂的生命和屬地職事裡，藉著順服完美地滿足了父的旨意，並被高舉為「神」，以作為「祂美德的賞賜」或「提昇」，因而成了人類提昇至神，被收養而取得兒子名分的模型和先鋒。亞他那修認為亞流這觀點，廢除了子成肉身使神自己與人性聯合的工作。他堅持除非道就是神自己親自成為肉身而來，否則我們仍是活在罪中。在他看來，不僅子的成肉身，連祂的降卑、受膏、受苦難、受死、被高舉等一切過程，都是為著我們的救恩，甚至是「代表我們」。亞他那修跟隨教會傳統的神化教導，指出子成肉身乃是為著人被神化這終極的救恩目標。只有祂是神自己才能使人神化成為神的眾子。然而，子在祂肉身裡取上人性時並沒有失去祂的神性。反之，因祂就是神自己，祂甚至能神化祂所取的肉身。 因此，對亞流派來說，因為看子是作為給人類道德的模型，故子必定是如墮落的人類般是受造物；但對亞他那修來說，因為看子是人類能憑有分恩典而成為神的拯救者，故子必定是本質上是神。
Arius holds a radically different soteriological point from Athanasius. He understood that as a perfect creature, the Son has perfectly fulfilled Father’s will through obedience in his life and earthly ministry, and exalted to be “god” as "a reward for his virtue" or “promotion”[15] , thus becoming the model and pioneer of men’s progress to God that man may be adopted and gain their Sonships. Athanasius considers this view as undoing the work of the Son’s incarnation in which God himself unified with humanity.[16] He insists that unless the Word is God coming to us in flesh, then we are still in our sins. He regards not only the Son's incarnation, his being humbled, anointed, suffering, death and exalted are also for our salvation and even “on our behalf”.[17] Athanasius, following the tradition church teaching of deification, argues that the Son’s incarnation is for human’s deification as the goal of salvation. Only he, being God, can deify man to be sons of God.[18] The Son, however, did not lose his divinity when taking up humanity in the flesh. Rather, because he is the very God, he even deified the flesh he took up.[19] Thus, to Arians, for acting a moral improvement model for men, the Son must be a creature as fallen men; while to Athanasius, for men to be saved unto the gods by participation in grace, the Son must be the true God by nature.

總結
Conclusion

總結來說，亞他那修乃是照著「信仰的規範」（the scope of faith）， 即子基督是永恆的道、是父的道、光輝和智慧，成肉身來作我們的救主。[21] 亞他那修從形而上論、認識論和救贖論，論證子乃是在「創造-受造界線」中的創造者，祂有完全的神性。為了從亞流的誤用和誤解聖經語言中區別出來，亞他那修採用了當時哲學詞彙「同質」（homoousios），並視唯有這詞才能足以描述聖經的觀念—子與父乃是本體上（ontologically）與父相同本質。
To sum up, the Son understood in the view of Athanasius is according to "the scope of faith"[20], that he is the Eternal Word, being the Father’s Word, and Radiance and Wisdom, made flesh becoming our Savior.[22] From the perspectives of metaphysics, epistemology and soteriology, Athanasius demonstrates that the Son is of the Creator in the Creator-creation distinction to have the perfect divinity, and in order to differentiate from Arians’ misusing and misinterpreting biblical languages, he employed the philosophical word homoousios and deems only this word was sufficiently enough to describe the biblical sense that the Son and the Father are ontologically the same substance.[23]

        有趣的是，亞流和亞他那修二人均是亞歷山大學派俄利根之屬靈遺產的繼承者。然而，亞他那修嘗試努力地遵循他先前教父的神學釋經，就是按照「信仰準則」（Rule of Faith），以基督作為神永恆救贖計劃（oikonomia）中心的釋經。儘管亞他那修採用了當時哲學的非聖經用語，他並沒有跟隨亞流採用當時的哲學思考路徑來詮釋聖經。反之，他乃是跟隨教會傳統，尤其是以救贖論的角度，來詮釋聖經。這教會傳統的救贖論，就是神為要使人成為神，祂親自成為了人。在亞他那修向亞流派的論據中，清楚顯示出救恩作為神化這觀念佔據他的神學思想一個首要且中心的位置。這觀念亦塑造了後期教會的神學發展，尤其是東方教會。筆者認為若要更完全地明白初期正統神學發展史，這點值得今日的更正教福音派注意，以重新發掘教父的神學釋經，以及神化的救贖觀。
Both Arius and Athanasius, interestingly, are the successors of Origen's spiritual inheritance. However, Athanasius was trying to keep in the Patristics' theological interpretation, which is Christocentric in the God's eternal salvation plan (oikonomia) according to the "Rule of Faith". I found that though taking the extra-biblical languages from philosophy, Athanasius did not interpret Scripture in that track as Arius did, but in the church tradition track, particularly the soteriological track, that God in order to make men God, he himself has to make man. In Athanasius's argument with the Arians, it is clearly shown that salvation as deification takes the primary and central position in his theological thought. This concept has also shaped the theological development of the latter church, particular the Eastern Church. I think it is worth the attention of today's evangelicals to rediscover Patristics' theological interpretation and especially, this traditional soteriological concept of deification in order to better understand the history of early orthodox theological development.

---

[1] Arius, "Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia", 4-5, in The Trinitarian Controversy, William G. Rusch trans. and ed. (U.S: Fortress Press, 1980), pp.29-30.

[2] Arius, "Arius’s Letter to Alexander of Alexandria", 3-5 in ibid., pp.31-32.

[3] Athanasius, NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1.9: “(Arius said) And ‘Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures.”
  1.38: "they say this of the Savior… of the mere grace given to Him, and for a Creator of His being according to essence, after the similitude of all others. And being such, as they maintain, it will be manifest further that He had not the name Son’ from the first, if so be it was the prize of works done and of that very same advance which He made when He became man, and took the form of the servant; but then, when, after becoming ‘obedient unto death,’ He was, as the text says, ‘highly exalted,’ and received that ‘Name’ as a grace, ‘that in the Name of Jesus every knee should bow.’ (translated by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 1891, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html)

[4] Ibid., 1.31: " But if they still are satisfied with merely asking, ‘Is the Unoriginate one or two?’… they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equalling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works; and all to reduce the Son into their number (works)."

[5] Ibid., 3.16: " For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct. And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the essay of those who revolt from the One God.

[6] Ibid., 3.15: "…Rather then will the Ario-maniacs with reason incur the charge of polytheism or else of atheism, because they idly talk of the Son as external and a creature, and again the Spirit as from nothing. For either they will say that the Word is not God; or saying that He is God, because it is so written, but not proper to the Father’s Essence, they will introduce many because of their difference of kind (unless forsooth they shall dare to say that by participation only, He, as all things else, is called God."

[7] Ibid., 1.6: " Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these."

[8] Ibid., 1.16: "Such thoughts then being evidently unseemly and untrue, we are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to Him, is entirely the Son; for it is all one to say that God is wholly participated, and that He begets…the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son…. For they cannot see the One in the Other, because their natures and operations are foreign and distinct. And with such sentiments, they will certainly be going on to more gods, for this will be the essay of those who revolt from the One God."

[9] Ibid., 3.3: "I in the Father and the Father in Me.’ For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father’s essence, as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoso sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son’s Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father."

[10] Ibid., 3.1: "For He is Himself the Father’s Power and Wisdom, and by partaking of Him things originate are sanctified in the Spirit; but the Son Himself is not Son by participation, but is the Father’s own Offspring.

Ibid., 3.4: "but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike31 its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's. Wherefore neither is the Son another God, …and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead".

[11] Ibid., 1.35: " For the Father is unalterable and unchangeable, and is always in the same state and the same; but if, as they hold, the Son is alterable, and not always the same, but of an ever-changing nature, how can such a one be the Father’s Image, not having the likeness of His unalterableness?"

[12] Ibid., 1.36: " Therefore the Image of the unalterable God must be unchangeable; for ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.’… And with reason; for things originate, being from nothing, and not being before their origination, because, in truth, they come to be after not being, have a nature which is changeable; but the Son, being from the Father, and proper to His essence, is unchangeable and unalterable as the Father Himself."

[13] Ibid., 1.6: "…he(Arius) has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension, but ‘He knows not even His own essence."

[14] Ibid., 3.49: "the Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all."

[15] Ibid., 1.37: “For if He received what He had as a reward of His purpose, and would not have had it, unless He had needed it, and had His work to shew for it, then having gained it from virtue and promotion, with reason had He ‘therefore’ been called Son and God, without being very Son.”.
  Ibid., 1.40: “And in vain do the Arians lay stress upon the conjunction ‘wherefore,’ because Paul has said, ‘Wherefore, hath God highly exalted Him.’ For in saying this he did not imply any prize of virtue, nor promotion from advance…”
  See more “reward of virtue”, “advancement” or “promotion” on 1.36, 1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.44, 1.47, 1.49, etc.

[16] Ibid., 3.32: “More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning does what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’”

[17] This point is particularly emphasized and shown in the fact that the phrase "for us" appears 47 times in Books 1 and 3. Ibid., 1.41: For example, "Therefore, because he was the image of the Father, and because he was immortal, the Word 'took the form of a slave' [Phil. 2:7] and for us as man in his flesh endured death, that thus on our behalf through death he might offer himself to the Father. There also as man, on account of us and on our behalf, he is said to be highly exalted, so that in in his death we all have died in Christ so that in Christ himself again we may be highly exalted…" Ibid., 1.41: For example, "Therefore, because he was the image of the Father, and because he was immortal, the Word 'took the form of a slave' [Phil. 2:7] and for us as man in his flesh endured death, that thus on our behalf through death he might offer himself to the Father. There also as man, on account of us and on our behalf, he is said to be highly exalted, so that in in his death we all have died in Christ so that in Christ himself again we may be highly exalted…"[17]

[18] Ibid., 1.38-39: "…he did not have the title of Son and God as a reward; rather, he himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified men, having become man himself… but being God, he later become man, that instead he might deify us." Similar expression regarding deification of Athanasius would be found in 1.42. 1.45, 3.39.

[19] Ibid., 3.38: "For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man’s; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh."

[20] Ibid., 3.28: " Now what has been briefly said above may suffice to shew their(Arian's) misunderstanding of the passages they then alleged; and that of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation."

[21] Ibid., 3.29: "Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this,—it contains a double account of the Savior; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man."

[22] Athanasius also used the emphatic vindication of worship as the exclusive prerogative of divinity. He argues that the worship of the Son even before his incarnation and exaltation proves that he is really the true God. See ibid., 1.43: "He only who is really God is worshipped in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the fact that the Lord, even when come in human body and called Jesus, was worshipped and believed to be God’s Son, and that through Him the Father was known…", and ibid., 3:32: "…we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Savior."

[23] Ibid., 1.9: '(He is) Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence (homoousios) with the very Father."