Α. ON DOGMATICS AND DOGMAS

A. 教義學和教義

1. Definition – Sources – Content and Method of Dogmatics:

1。 定義 - 發源 - 教義學的内容和方法：

a. Forms and character of Dogmatics Dogmatics – as a particular ‘branch’ and ‘lesson’ of Theology – appeared in the West for the first time and was introduced in the Orthodox Theological Schools during later times. A major characteristic of this branch, as compared to other lessons of Theology, is its systematic character. While other branches of Theology are preoccupied with the dogmatic belief of the Church, Dogmatics approaches this faith by theme, and systematically expounds it. The Church’s systematic preoccupation with the faith appears during the patristic period for the first time, especially with Origen (his work “On Principles”), and in a strictly organized way with Saint John the Damascene (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith). Ever since that time, this subject has continued to develop in the West during Medieval times (Thomas Aquinatus, SUMMA) and during the post-Reform period, with the blossoming of Confessional Theology, in which Orthodoxy (wrongly) participated (Mogila Confession, Cyril Lucareus, Dositheos etc). In later times (after Eugene Vulgaris), this phenomenon blossomed in the 19th century (Athanasios Parios “Epitome” 1806. Moschopoulos “Epitome of dogmatic and ethical theology”, 1851. Especially among the Russians, we note the Metropolitan Anthony, Makarios of Moscow – both widely acknowledged). In the 20th century, Z. Rossis is in the lead in Greece, with Ch. Androutsos as the central persona; I. Karmiris and P. Trembelas follow, basically correcting Androutsos but still maintaining the same method and division. This branch was successfully cultivated in the Theological School of Chalki, by the Metropolitan of Myra, Chrysostom Constantinides. A new boost to Dogmatics was given by John Romanides, with his persistence that the character of the dogma entails the experience of it, and also his search for the patristic roots of the dogmas, as opposed to Western Theology. However, systematic preoccupation is not the only form of dogmatic theology. This species didn’t exist in the Bible or in the Fathers of the first century; instead, a circumstantial dogmatic theology prevailed, in the following forms:  (Ι) Adorational and mostly Eucharist: Christological hymns in the New Testament, which Paul discovered in the first communities (i.e., Philippians 2). These comprise theological-dogmatic elements for his entire line of thought. The same applies with the literary content of John’s Gospel (John’s Gospel is considered by many as a Eucharist-liturgical text; if not entirely, then at least in its basic core. As for the Gospel’s prologue, it most probably comprises liturgical material that John found to be used in worship). Peter’s literary work also: (Peter’s Epistle A is quite possibly a baptismal Liturgy), etc. The same applies to the Eucharist references of the first centuries, which comprise forms of prophetic-charismatic theology by the bishops that headed the Eucharist congregations (who –by the way- were initially free to improvise, as testified in Justin, the Teaching, etc.)  (ΙΙ) Baptismal The baptismal form, along with the catechist preparation that preceded it. This is also the chief source of Symbolic Theology (i.e., the Symbols of Faith). All Symbols were Baptismal and they remained thus during the first centuries. For example, the 1st Ecumenical Council (Synod) uses as the basis of its Creed the baptismal symbols of the local Churches.  (ΙΙΙ) Anti-heretic This form boosted the development and expansion of the initial baptismal symbols to a broader range of symbols, in order to confront the dangers of heresies (i.e. Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.). In this context, Patristic Theology (Irenaeus, Athanasios, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor etc.) attained special importance and evolved as opposition, and were not intended as a positive exhibition of faith.  (ΙV) Synodic and especially the Ecumenical Councils (Synods), which originated from a combination of anti-heretic theology (=the exclusion of heresies), and the baptismal-symbolic theology. Thus, the terms and the symbols of the Synods -as well as many of their Canons- likewise comprise fundamental forms of dogmatic theology.  (V) Empirical This is a form of theology that originated in the ascetic (mainly) experience of the Fathers, which is of special significance to the Orthodox. Here, the maxims of the desert Fathers, the works of Saint John of the Ladder, Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the Young Theologian, the Esychasts and especially Gregory Palamas, all express dogmatic theology through ascetic experience. Because of all these elements, Dogmatics is basically an experience, an empirical issue, and not a matter of intellectual perception or the presentation of logical proposals. It is not a matter of approving and confessing truths that are merely directed at one’s mind and logic, but are empirically experienced relations between man and God. From this last point it can be surmised that the meaning of empirical experience should not be understood as reverential (=a psychological experience of the person), or as ethical (=a specific behavior of the person - certain actions of his); it should be understood existentially, in the broader sense of the term, which relates to ontology. In other words, Dogmatics involves issues that relate to the very being of a person (=to exist or not to exist), and such issues are –for example- the naught (“non-being”) (=creation), life and death as terminal points of existence, the created and the uncreated as an issue of freedom (of being), the persona and love as the borderline distinctions between man and animal (=the moment during which man is either elevated as a man, or falls), in other words, the problem of evil and sin – and generally everything that touches on fundamental and ontological matters, and not merely on matters of life improvement (i.e., the organizing of social life in a more productive way etc.. Certain theologians preoccupy themselves mainly with this, in the West). A result of all these positions is that Dogmatics always pertains to vital issues, of salvational significance; the Church always dogmatizes in order to save, and not in order to enrich our knowledge of God, the world etc.. Each dogma of the Church and each synodical dogmatic decision always pertains to a specific problem of salvation; this means that our entire relationship with God and the world changes in a dangerous way if a certain dogma is not accepted, or, in the opposite case, it will be formulated in a salvational way for us and the world, if the dogma becomes accepted. Consequently, in Dogmatics we must always seek the salvational significance of the dogmas and not just present them dryly, like logical “formulas”. This is what we mean by existential comprehension of the dogma or empirical theology in its true sense. Thus, Dogmatics has to always strive to interpret the dogmas, and not preserve them or present them as expressed in their original form. This subject is huge and extremely sensitive, and needs to be analyzed. b. Dogmatics as Hermeneutics (Interpretation) 1. The problem of hermeneutics (interpretation) is of timely importance, not only for the dogmas, but for the Holy Bible itself. I would say that hermeneutics itself is essentially the problem. Just as the Bible is a dead letter when not interpreted, thus the dogmas become fossilized and museum items – archaeological objects – which we simply preserve and describe if we don’t proceed to interpret them. One could say that the dogmas are essentially the interpretation of the Bible. 2. The interpretation of the dogmas or the Bible involves two limbs: a. The attempt to comprehend faithfully (not anachronistically – which is a difficult thing, as it needs good historians) the historical reality, in the framework of which the dogma (or the Scripture) was expressed. This involves the following questions:   Ι.   What kind of problems did the Church have to confront during that historical period?    ΙΙ. What means did it resort to, to solve these problems ? In other words:   Α. What kind of written and verbal tradition did the Church have at its disposal? (Holy Bible, Tradition etc.)? (Every Synod would always take into account any previous tradition).   Β. What kind of vocabulary and meanings did the cultural environment of that era have at its disposal?  (for example, the 4th century uses the word “homoousios” –of the same essence- which the New Testament doesn’t have, while the 14th century includes other meanings etc.)    C. What kind of experiences (worship, ascetic living etc.) did it have?  (for example, martyrdom in the New Testament, the icons in the 7th Ecumenical Council/synod, Esychasm, etc.)   All of the above must be taken into account, in order to form an idea of the historical environment. Without an accurate historical basis, every interpretation would be a risky one. The interpretation of the Bible is not possible, unless there is previously an accurate and subjective (as much as possible) research into the historical background, as with the dogmas. We need to see which problems led to the drafting of a dogma; what kind of literary and philosophical material the Fathers utilized, and from what experience (worship, ascetic etc.) the formulation of the dogma sprang. An able dogmatist must also be an able historian.    b. The attempt to locate and to define contemporary problems that demand evaluation, for example:   Ι. Possible new heresies or new, agonizing questions of mankind, always of a fundamental character (nowadays the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.; also technology, ecology etc.)   ΙΙ. The vocabulary and the categorizing of that time (we saw how the Fathers were also contemporaries of their time, yet without remaining fixed to the letter of the New Testament – see reference on ‘homoousios’)   ΙΙΙ. The adorational and ascetic lifestyle of the Church (which cannot essentially differ from the old one, but is possible for it to have varying forms and emphasis, for example martyrdom, mental prayer in the specific Hesychastic form, the influence of monkhood on the ‘secular’ services of the Church – Hours, etc. – and the gradual disengagement from it - albeit incomplete and inconsistent, as observed for example in our days. All these are indications of a shift in emphasis in the adorational and ascetic experience, which cannot but affect the interpretation of a dogma. In order to provide a good interpretation, the dogmatician must not only be a good historian, but a good philosopher as well (with philosophical thought and a knowledge of contemporary philosophy), and he must also have a poemantic disposition (love towards mankind, leaning over their problems etc.). He is also obliged to be familiar with the liturgical experience and the life of the Church and its Canonic structure, because these elements also express the dogmatic faith of the Church. (Of course all of the above cannot be concentrated in one person in a unique way - in other words, a unique researcher of all the above – but he must, if he desires to be a good dogmatician, be kept informed of the latest positions of the specialists in those individual areas).  c. The Dogmatics method As you can see, Dogmatics has a broad spectrum of research and presupposes a manifold knowledge as well as sensitivity and creative thought. It is for this reason, that the Dogmatics method must include: A. A very general plan or structure, which would be the Symbol of Faith (Creed) as it had always prevailed in Baptismal and Eucharist worship. The reason this structure is recommended, is that it was basically upheld during the Patristic era, and also, because it is linked to the very structure of relations that God – through Christ and in the Holy Spirit – had provided for our salvation.  You must observe here that, when the subdivision by theoretical material of topics such as Triadology, Christology, Salvation, Sacraments, eschatological, etc. is not directly linked to the structure of the Symbol of Faith  (Creed), it becomes dangerous. This was developed in the West and was copied by the Orthodox, with the Russians and Androutsos at the lead. Β. This plan has to be very general, so that it may accommodate the various components. For example, in the sector on the Holy Trinity, reference can be made to the Church and vice versa. Or, on the Sacraments, to End Times etc.. In this way, Scholastic Dogmatics that came from the West is avoided. However, analogies must always be maintained, as we shall see in the respective chapters.   C. Verification and a faithful presentation of the significance of dogmas in their era are imperative, i.e.: What kind of problems did they have in mind, and what means (literary-philosophical) did they use, to confront those problems? In other words, Orthodox Dogmatics must always contain an element of history; if it lacks a solid dogmatic history, then it cannot become part of Orthodox Dogmatics. D. Attempts should be made to interpret each dogma, with the following as guides: Ι.  By linking it to the adorational and ascetic experience of the Church (e.g., Christ, as the Son of God: how He is worshipped and how He is experienced within the Church?). ΙΙ.  By linking it to mankind’s most fundamental existential problems during each era, such as: the quest for freedom, love, the transcendence of death etc. (example: the significance of faith in a Trinitarian God in each of these cases). ΙΙΙ. By linking it to mankind’s current problems. This is mainly the field of Ethical Poemantics, but it should be prepared –at least with cues- by dogmatic theologians. (for instance, current day social problems, issues that are raised by technology, ecology, etc.) ΙV. By linking it to the broader problems of Knowledge nowadays, as posed by Natural Sciences etc.

a. 教義學 (Dogmatics) 的形式和性質 教義學 （Dogmatics） 以神學中的一個特殊的分支和課業的身份先出現于西方世界， 後来则被介紹于正教神學院。與神學的其它學術單位比較， 這個神學分支的一個主要特徵是它的系統性。其它的神學分支和學術單位所 關心的只是教會的教條和信仰，  教義學则是以論題 (by theme) 来接近這些教 會信仰， 并系統性地闡明它們。 正教教會對教會信仰的系統性的研究第一次出現在教父時期，  特別是在鄂李根 （Origen）的時期 (比如他的 On Principles)，  或者，這種系統性的研究更以一個嚴密組織的方式出现在聖約翰大馬新的書寫中 (The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: 正教信仰的博覽) 。自從那 時候以後，  這個主題繼續出現在西方中世紀時代 (比如說，聖多瑪斯‧阿奎納（Thomas Aquinas）的 SUMMA) 以及在改革時期之後， 而最開花于正教曾 (錯誤地) 參與過 (比如說，Mogila Confession, Cyril Lucareus, Dositheos 等) 的懺悔神學 (Confessional Theology)。在此之後 (在 Eugene Vulgaris 以後)，  這個現象则在十九世纪中最為進展 (比如說，Athanasios Parios 的1806 年的 Epitome； Moschopoulos 的1851年的 Epitome of dogmatic and ethical theology 。在俄國人中 ，  我們则特别提及 Metropolitan Anthony 和 Makarios of Moscow。 這兩位皆廣泛地被重認) 。 在20世紀中， Z. Rossis 是在希臘的主要角色， 而 Ch. Androutsos 也是重要的。 I. Karmiris 和 P. Trembelas 隨後跟着， 基本上是改正 Androutsos 的錯誤等等，但仍然抱留着同樣的研究方法和分類等等。這個學術支派则在 Chalki 的神學院裡由 Metropolitan of Myra 和 Chrysostom Constantinides 所成功地培養了 。而今日約翰‧羅馬尼德斯（John Romanides) 则給與教義學一個新的冲劲， 這是由于他堅持着， 教義的經驗必须跟隨着教義的性質， 並且也是由于他一直尋找着教義的教父時代之根 。 這是與西方神學所相對的。 但是，系統性的研究並不是教義神學的唯一形式。這種 研究並不存在于聖經或第一世紀的教父們的書寫中。  反而， 一個間接性的 (circumstantial) 教義神學却以以下形式佔了優勢： I 崇拜性的 (Adorational)和主要為聖餐性的 (mostly Eucharist)： 這裡是說在新約聖經中的基督讚美詩 (Christological hymns)。 保羅是在第一個教會團體中發現這些讚美詩的 (腓立比書 2) 。這些讚美詩包括他的整個思想的神學教義元素。約翰福音的文藝內容也是如此。(約翰福音被許多人認為是聖餐禮拜儀式所用的禱告文式； 如果它不是整個是如此，那麼至少在它的基本核心中是如此的。至於那福音的序言呢， 那大概是包括着約翰所發現的被使用于禮拜儀式中的材料和文件等等。) 彼得的書寫也是如此  (彼得的書信 A 很可能是一個洗禮儀式所用的禱告文式)， 等等。第一世紀的聖餐參考書寫等等也是同樣的： 這些包括着由领導聖餐聚會的主教們所作的預言以及神賜形的 (prophetic-charismatic) 神學作品等等 。（這些主教們在那時是可自由即席地創作教義教學等等的， 就像雅斯丁 (Justin) 曾作證過的一樣。) II 洗禮式 (Baptismal) 洗禮形式， 以及在它之前的要理問答式 (catechist) 的準備。這並且是象徵性神學 (Symbolic Theology: 信仰的符號標誌 (symbols) 等等) 的首要泉源 。所有的符號標誌皆是洗禮性的 ， 並且他們在第一世紀期間仍然是如此。例如， 第 一大公會議用地方教堂的洗禮符號標誌来作為它的信條的基礎。 III 反異論式 這個形式促使當初的洗禮符號標誌等等發展和擴大至一個更加寬廣範圍的符號標誌之類， 以對抗異論邪說的危險 (比如说，諾斯替教 (Gnosticism) 以及阿裡烏斯教 (Arianism) 等等) 。在這種情况下， 教父神學 (patristic theology: 例如伊里那我 （Irenaeus）， 亞歷山大的濟利祿 (Cyril of Alexandria)， 宣信者聖馬克西摩（St. Maximos the Confessor）， 阿特纳西 (Athanasios)) 则成為特別重要的，并且演變為反對派的說法， 它是未意欲作為正片面的信仰解明的。 IV 宗教會議 (Synodic) 以及特別是起源於一些反異論式的神學綜合 (= 為了排除異論邪說) 的大公會議 (宗教會議) ， 而且還有洗禮性-象徵性的神學。因而，宗教會議的符號標誌和術詞與其許多的教規一起皆成為教義神學的基本形式。 V 經驗性的 (Empirical) 這種神學形式起源於教父們的， 對正教来說是具有特別意義的 (主要為) 禁慾經驗 。在此， 沙漠教父們的格言， 聖約翰天梯 (St. John of the Ladder) 的作品， 宣信者聖馬克西摩， 年輕神學家西蒙 (Simeon the Young Theologian)， Esychasts 以及特別是聖國瑞 - 巴拉馬斯 (Gregory Palamas) -- 他們全都是通過禁慾經驗以表達教義神學的。 由於所有這些要素， 教義學在基本上是一種經驗， 或者說是一個經驗性的問題， 它不是一種智力悟性的動用或邏輯提案的提出。它的目的不在于承認或告解一些僅僅是指對于一人的理性和邏輯的真相事情， 而是在于一個經驗到的人和上帝之間的聯繫關系。 我們從這最後一點可想像到， 經驗的意義 不應該被瞭解為尊敬性的 (reverential = 一人的心理經驗)， 或 者是道德性的 (= 一人的某些行為)； 它應該以存在性的意義而被瞭解 -- 存在性在此是用于其廣范的意義，  與 存在論相關的。 教義學所關心的是與人的本質有關的問題 (= 存在或不存在)，  而這些問題则是 -- 例如：無 (非是: non-being) (= 世界創造)； 為人的存在的起點和終點的生與死的問題； 作為自由問題的受造和未受造的性質；作為人與動物之間的分别界限的人格和愛 (persona and love) 的問題 (= 當人或被舉起為一人或 將墮落的瞬間)， 換句話說， 邪惡和罪孽的問題 --以及一般来說一切接觸到基本性和 存在性的方面上， 不僅僅是關於生活之改善的東西 (即為： 促使社會生活成為更加有生產力等等。某些西方的神學家只關心這個) 。 所有這些形式的結果是，  教義學向來是關心于重要問題的， 也就是說有救世意義的問題的； 教會是為了拯救人類而公布教義的， 不是為了使我們對上帝和世界的知識等 等更為豐富。每一個教會所定的教條和每一個會議所作出的決定都是關于某一個具體的救世的問題；  這意味著， 如果有些教條我們不接受，  我們與上帝和世界的整個關係將朝一個危險的方向改變； 而相反的，如果我們接受教條，  這些教條將以為了拯救我們和世界的方式而被定作 。所以呢， 在 教義學中我們必須尋找教條的救世意義， 而不只是將它們好像邏輯公式的一般公布出 。這就是我們所說過的「對教條的存在性的領悟」以及「經驗性的神學」的真 正的意思。 所以， 教義學必須一直努力地解釋教條教義， 而不只是保存他們或者是只依照他們的原形將他們表 示出來。這個題目则是巨大和極端敏感的， 并且需要我們好好地分析分析。 b. 作為解釋學 (Hermeneutics) 的教義學 1. 這個解釋學的問題是有實時性的重要性的。  這不僅是對教條教義來說是如此的， 但也是對聖經來說。我想說， 解釋學本身就是問題。正如聖經如果不被解釋则只是一本死書，如果我們只是想保存和叙述而不繼續去解釋這些教條教義的話，它們就會變成為化石或者是博物館裡的典藏物品 -- 也就是說，考古學所研究的遺跡。我們可以說，教義就是聖經的詮釋。 2.教義或聖經的詮釋涉及到兩種問題： a.忠實地 --而不是時代錯置地 (anachronistically) --去理解教條（或聖經）被表達時的歷史背景。 不是時代錯置地 -- 那可是一件困難的事情，因為這需要非常好的歷史學家。 而這又涉及到以下的問題： I. 教會在那段歷史期間面臨着甚麼種類的問題？ II. 而它又走上了甚麼途徑來解決這些問題？換句話說： A. 教會擁有着甚麼種類的書面和口頭的傳統？（比如說， 聖經，傳統等等？） （每一個宗教會議 (Synod) 總是會考慮到任何以前的傳統）。 B. 那個時代的文化環境包括些甚麼樣的辭彙和意義？（例如， 第四世紀的文化使用這個名詞「homoousios」 （屬于同樣的性質）--  而《新約聖經》却還沒有這字。然而第十四世紀却又包括了其他的意思等等。） C. 這個文化又有些甚麼樣的經驗（崇拜，苦行禁欲性的居住等等）？（例如，《新約聖經》中的殉教行為，第七大公會議的聖像， Esychasm ， 等等） 如果我們要對歷史環境有一個正確的認識，我們必须關注到以上所有問題。如果我們没有一個準確的歷史基礎，我們對教條或聖經的解釋则會是危險的。除非我們之前已對歷史背景進行過正確和主觀的研究，否则聖經的解釋將會是不可能的。 教義也是如此。我們必需明白哪些問題導致于哪些教條的草擬；我們必需明白教父們利用着哪些文學和哲學的材料，以及他們是從哪種經驗（崇拜性的，苦行禁欲性的等等）出發而定下這些教義的。一個有才能的教義學家也必須是一個好的歷史學家。 b. 找出和定義需要評估的當代問題，例如： I. 可能為新的異論或人類的新的，特别折磨人的問題。 這些問題總是屬于基本性的（如今所謂的耶和華見証者等等；也比如說，科技，環境保護等等）。 II. 這個時代所用的辭彙和世物的類目（我們已看到教父們也是與他們的時代同代的，而不完全固定于《新約聖經》中的辭彙 -- 比如說，「homoousios」。 ） III. 教會的崇拜性和苦行禁欲性的生活方式。 這不能與老式不同，但它可能有不同的形式和強調重點，例如殉教行為，在心裡默默杞禱 （Hesychastic）的方式，修道士對教會服侍的影響 -- 例如， 正經時刻 (Hours) -- 以及教會與此逐漸的解脫：即使這個解脱並不是完全的也不是一致的，如同我們今日所觀察到的。所有這些皆表示着在崇拜性和苦行禁欲性的經驗中， 所強調的重點已經改變了，而這個變動又不能不影響到教義的解釋。 一個教義學家為了给與好的解釋， 则不僅僅得是一個好的歷史學家，他也必須是一位好的哲學家， 也就是說，一個擁有哲學的思想能力以及對當代的哲學發展有所認識之人； 而他也必須有 poemantic 的傾向（也就是有對人類的愛以及對他們的問題之傾向等等）。他也必須對禮拜的經驗， 教堂的生活， 和其教規的結構等等有所熟悉，因為這些也表達着教會的教義信仰。（當然， 以上的所有這些不可能以獨特的方式全部集中于一人之中 ；  換句話說，我們不可能有一個獨特的全部都可吸收研究之人； 但是如果有人希望成為一個好的教義學家，他就一定得對在這些研究地區中的最新發展保持靈通的消息。） c. 教義學的方法 您现在能夠明白，教義學擁有一個廣闊的研究範圍並且必須包括多種的知識， 以及容有敏感度和創作性的思想。所以，教義學的方法必須包括： A.一個非常概括性的計劃或組織，而這個計劃或組織则是在洗禮和聖餐禮拜中所廣泛成立的信仰的象徵（信條：Creed）。 這個結構之被推薦的理由呢，则是因為它在基本上在教父時代已被贊成，而也是因為它是與那個上帝透過聖靈和基督而拯救我們的結構關係等等有所連接的。您在這裡必須認識到，當我們將神學理論的内容細分為三位一體學  （Triadology）， 基督學 （Christology），救世，聖事， 末日學等等的主題時，而這分類又不直接地與信仰的象徵的結構聯繫（信條）有所關係的話，這就變得非常危險的。 這種情势是在西方所發起的，但東正教 （由俄國人和 Androutsos 所領導的）也如此複作。 B. 這個計劃必須是非常概括的，以便容納多種的内容組件。例如，在關於神聖的三位一體的領域中， 我們可講至教會（或者與此相反而行）。或者在關於聖事的領域中， 我們可講至末日，等等。如此，我們可避免來自西方的經院教義學 (Scholastic Dogmatics)。可是，我們將在各自的章中看到， 類比 (analogy) 是必須保留的。 C. 我們必須查證和忠實地表現出教義對當前時代的意義，比如，教義是為了解决甚麼樣的問題，它又是使用些甚麼種（文學或哲學）的方式來解决這些問題？換句話說，正教教義學總是必須包含歷史的部份；如果它缺少一段教義歷史，它就不能成為正教教義學的一部分。 D. 我們必須設法解釋每條教條，並以以下為響導： I. 將它與教會的崇拜和苦行禁欲的經驗聯繫上（比如說， 身為上帝之子的耶蘇基督：他是如何被崇拜的，以及他在教會中是如何被信仰者體驗到的？) II. 將它與每個時代的人類的最基本的存在性的問題聯繫上，比如：自由的探索，愛，死亡的超越等等（例如：對身為三位一體的上帝的信仰在這些例子中的意義）。 III. 將它與人類目前的問題聯繫上。這主要是 Ethical Poemantics 的領域，但是教義神學者應該為此準備 （至少在暗示上的）。（例如，今日的社會問題，科技與生態環境學所舉出的問題，等等。 ） IV. 將它與更廣闊的知識上的問題聯繫上，比如說，由自然科學所舉出的問題等等。