Α. ON DOGMATICS AND DOGMAS

A. 教義學和教義

3. The affiliation of dogmas to the Holy Scriptures

3。 教條與聖經的從屬關係

The affiliation of dogmas to the Scriptures is a hermeneutic one. The problem posed by Western theologians, after the Reform Era, as to whether we have one or two “sources of divine revelation” as they were named, denotes the specific concern between Roman Catholics and Protestants, given that the latter had rejected the authority of the Tradition of the Church, and had introduced the principle of “sola scriptura” (=only the scripture). In Orthodox Theology, the problem was posed through the so-called “Orthodox Confessions” of the 17th century (prev.ref.). Thus, depending on the deviation of these “confessions” (Mogilas=Roman Catholicism, Cyril Loukaris=Calvinism, etc.), the answer was –and continues to be- provided by the Orthodox. The West was led into this concern for two reasons, which do not apply in Orthodoxy: 1. The West lacked the element that a revelation is always something personal, and never something logical or intellectual. God revealed Himself to Abraham, to Moses, to Paul, to the Fathers, etc.. Consequently, it is never an issue of a “new” revelation, or an “addition” to a revelation, or even a case of John’s Revelations being “incremented”, as suggested even by Orthodox theologians. 2. In the West, an objectification of the Scriptures and the Church had become prevalent to such an extent, that expressions such as “treasuries” of the truth were coined. But in Orthodox tradition, both the Scripture and the Church are considered to be testimonies of experience of the truth, and not merely “masterminds” that perceive, record and transmit truths. This is because the truth in Orthodox Tradition is not a matter of objective, logical proposals; the truth consists of (personal) stances and relations between God, mankind and the world. (For example, I do not become acquainted with the truth by intellectually knowing and finally accepting that God is Triune; it is only when I am personally involved existentially in the Triadic existence of God, through which my entire being –as well as the world’s– acquires a meaning. In this way, any ordinary, everyday woman who is however a proper member of the Church, can “know” the dogma of the Trinity. The same applies for Christology etc.). But we shall go into this topic of Gnosiology in more detail, later. Consequently, if the Revelation of God is a matter of personal experience and a broader implication of man in a lattice of relations with God, with fellow-man and the world, and if it pours new light onto overall existence, then the Scripture that testifies to this Revelation is considered complete, both from the aspect of the Revelation’s content, as well as for every other similar kind Revelation pursuant to the composing of the Bible’s Canon. We must add the following clarifications here: Even though in every case of such personal and existential revelations, the revelations are of the One and Only God, the means by which they are revealed differ; for instance, on Mount Sinai we have a revelation of God Himself, which is revealed to us in Christ, but not in the same way. With Christ, we are enabled not only to see or hear God, but to actually touch Him, to feel Him, to commune with Him physically: “Who was from the beginning, Whom we heard, Whom we saw and Whom our hands touched”. (John I, 1:1). The divine epiphanies of the Old Testament, and subsequently in the New Testament, while having the same content, are not revealed in the same way. And, because a Revelation –as we said– is not a matter of objective knowledge but a personal relationship, the form of a Revelation is of vital importance because it introduces new relationships, or in other words, new existential ways. (The matter of relations between Old and New Testaments is historically very old in Patristic Theology, and it was solved through the Theology of saint Irineos, who dramatically corrected Justin’s teaching on the Logos, and was later formulated excellently by Saint Maximus the Confessor, in his principle that stated: “the contents of the Old Testament are the shadow, the contents of the New Testament are the image, and the (contents of) the things to come is the truth.”) Consequently, in the person of Christ we have a unique form of revelation that is characterized by communion with the senses (vision, touch, taste, etc., as per the passage of John I, 1:1 where we read: «and Whom our hands touched»), and not only with the mind or the heart. This is why this way was judged by the Fathers as being the supreme and fullest way. Nothing is superior to Christophany (Christ being revealed): “Whomsoever has seen me, has seen the Father”. Thus, the New Testament –in which is recorded the experience of those people who had this physical communion with God (“Whom we saw and Whom our hands touched”) – gives meaning to both the Theophanies (God being revealed) in the Old Testament, as well as those that followed, after the Bible. In fact, the Fathers (Irineos and others) maintain that after the Incarnation of the Logos, we have a fuller and newer form of revelation than that of the Old Testament. In respect to the Disciples, this superiority is attributed to their tangible and physical association with Christ; in respect to the subsequent Church, this superiority is attributed to the Sacraments and especially in the Eucharist, which has preserved this physical communion (see Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria etc.). Those who participate deservedly in the Divine Eucharist, can “see” God much better than Moses. Thus, the entire life of the Church draws the revelation of God from the event of the historical Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. And that is why the New Testament has the status of an exceptional and primeval dogma, compared to which, all other revelatory means (including the Old Testament and subsequent dogmas) comprise renditions of it, in the more profound, existential sense of the word, i.e. the means of experiencing existence, as a new relationship between God, mankind and the world. Conclusion: Neither the rendering of the New Testament or the dogmas can circumvent the event and the person of Christ, because that would require the insertion of a new kind of revelation, fuller and superior to that of Christ. We can draw a great number of individual conclusions from this, but I will note only the following: A. The Divine Eucharist, as the exceptional form of tangible communion –and therefore cognizance- of God, remains forever the highest and most perfect form of God’s revelation, in its personal, existential sense (“and Whom our hands touched”). B. The viewings of God (every form of Theophany), whether through holy icons or through the ascetic experience, are viewings of the Uncreated Light, always in the form that it is revealed in Christ, and not independent of it; in other words, they are essentially Christophanies. (This should be stressed, in order to avoid misunderstandings that are unfortunately beginning to increase in number). As proof of this, it suffices to mention that, as regards the icons, the entire argumentation of saints John the Damascene, Theodore the Studite etc Iconophiles is: that Christ’s incarnation imposes the veneration of icons as forms of God’s revelation; and as for the Uncreated Light, that this light was understood by the holy Esychasts to be the Taborian Light, in other words, as a partaking of the light that radiated from the historical body of Christ. Getting back to the association between Scripture and dogmas, we therefore note that every dogma, regardless of what it pertains (even the issue of the Holy Trinity), is essentially a memorandum to the event of Christ, through which God is revealed as an existential experience of a relationship, in other words, as truth. It is not by chance, that, for instance, the 1st Ecumenical Council (Synod), while founding the Trinitarian theology, also did this on the pretext and the basis of the truth regarding the Persona of Christ. The same was done by all the pursuant Ecumenical Councils, even though they were also preoccupied with all other issues. This indicates that the Apostolic experience that is recorded in the Bible comprises the first dogma, which is then interpreted by all the other dogmas. It is therefore impossible for any dogma to impinge on this experience; it can only interpret it. The Apostolic experience and tradition is of decisive importance for the dogma. In this way, we have a consecutiveness of dogmas, a sequence of dogmas, which resemble icons of Christ that are painted by different people in different eras, and with the means that every era had at its disposal. This sequence is both external (= a fidelity to the preceding tradition and finally to the Bible), and also internal (= a preservation of the same existential relationship between God, mankind and the world, as fulfilled and revealed in Christ).

教條與聖經的從屬關係是解釋性 （hermeneutic）的 。西方的神學者在改革時代以後擺出這樣的問題：我們到底是有一個還是兩個「神的啟示的來源」。 這個問題表示出天主教徒和新教徒之間的特别的擔憂，尤其是當我們考慮到新教徒已經拒絕了教會傳統，自己介紹出「sola  scriptura」（= 只有聖經） 的這件事實。而在正教的神學中，這個問題是經過十七世紀所謂的「正教告解」而被提出的。所以，依照於這些其他教派的偏離的程度（莫吉拉斯 [Mogilas] = 古羅馬天主教，西里爾 - 路卡里 [Cyril Loukaris] = 喀爾文主義 [Calvinism]，等等），這個問題的答案仍然是繼續由東正教所提供的。西方教派是因兩個原因被帶領到這個擔憂的境界的，而這兩個原因皆不存在于正教觀念中： 1. 西方的神學缺少啟示 (revelation) 總是個人私有的體驗，而絕不是邏輯性的或是知識性的東西的那種了解。上帝對阿伯拉罕， 摩西， 以及保羅顯示自己， 所以，它向來不是關于「新的」顯示，或是「新加的」顯示，或者甚至是以約翰的啟示為「慢慢增加的」顯示 （如一些東正教神學者所建議過的）。 2.在西方的世界中，聖經和教會的一種「物體性質化」 （objectification） 已成為如此廣範流行，連「真理的財寶」這個詞也被創造出。但是在正教的傳統中，聖經和教會被認為是真理的體驗之證言，不只是一種可察覺，記錄， 和傳送真理的「超级理性」 (mastermind)。這是因為在正教的傳統中， 真理不是一個（物體式的）客觀性質的以及邏輯程式形的東西；真理是組成于在上帝， 人類， 和世界之間所有的（個人私有性的）姿態和關係之中的。（例如，我不是以利用智力而終於認識和知道上帝是三位一體的這個真理 ；這個知識只發生在當我個人在我的存在中涉及到上帝的三位一體的存在之時，並且我的整個存有 -- 以及世界的存有-- 是只有經過上帝的三位一體的存有才可獲得意義的。如此，一名身為教會的成員的日常女人能够「知道」上帝為三位一體的教條 [dogma]。對於基督學 [Christology] 來說，也是同樣的，  等等。）但是我們不久之後將更加詳细地進入「知識學」（Gnosiology ）這個主題。 所以，如果上帝的啟示是屬於私人的體驗並且是在於一個更廣闊的人與人和人與世界的關係的格子之中的話，以及如果它給與所有的存在事物新的光亮，證實這個啟示的聖經即可被認為是完整的，這不但是從啟示的內容的方面看來是如此，也是從其他種组成聖經的啟示的方面看來。我們在這裡必須更加澄清： 雖然在這種私人的和存在性的啟示裡，所啟示的向來都是獨一的上帝，但所啟示的方式却不同；例如，在西奈山上我們有得到上帝的自我顯示，而這個顯示是經由基督的，但是這不是以同樣的方式。當我們與基督在一起時，我們不僅僅可以看見或聽到上帝，而且還可以碰到他，感覺到他，與他真正地共融：「論到從起初原有的生命之道，就是我們所聽見、所看見、親眼看過、 親手摸過的。」（約翰 1， 1:1）舊約聖經中的神顯 (epiphany)，以及後來新約聖經中的神顯，雖有同樣的內容，却是以不一樣的方式來顯示的。並且，如同我們所說過的，啟示不是一種客觀的知識， 而是一種個人私有的與神的關係； 啟示的方式的類形是有非常的重要性的，這是因為它將我們介紹于一種新的與神的關係，也就是說，一種新的存在的方式。 （這個舊約和新約聖經之間的關係的問題在教父神學中已是個老問題了；它是由 Saint Irineos 的神學所解決的。 Saint Irineos 引人注目地改正了Justin 的對語詞 (Logos) 所作出的教義，後來宣信者聖馬克西摩（St. Maximos the Confessor）又將此傑出地闡明過，尤其可見于在他的原則中所陳述過的：「舊約聖經的内容是影子，新約聖經的内容是圖像，將要到來的事情的内容則是真理。」) 所以，在基督的人格中我們有一種獨特的，以感覺器官所共融的啟示（以視力，觸覺，味覺，等等，就像我們在約翰 1， 1:1 中所念到的：「就是我們所親手摸過的」)， 而不僅僅是以理智或是以心的。這就是為甚麼這種方式被教父們認為是最好的以及最完整的方式。世上沒有任何東西比 Christophany（基督之顯示）更高等：「誰看見了我，誰就看見了天父」。所以呢，記載着有過這種物體性的與神之共融的人的經驗（「就是我們所親眼看過、 親手摸過的。」）的新約聖經不但給與舊約聖經中的神顯現象其意義，也給與于聖經之後而接踵而來的神顯等等它們的意義。 事實上，教父們（Irineos 和其他的教父）聲稱， 在語詞 (Logos) 的道成肉身之後，我們有一個比舊約聖經中的還要完美的，還要新的啟示。 對使徒們來說，這個新約聖經的優越性是歸因於他們與基督的身體接觸性的交往；對後來的教會來說，這個優越性是歸因於聖事 (Sacrament）, 尤其是保留着這種身體接觸性的共融的聖餐（比如， Ignatius，Cyril of Jerusalem， Cyril of Alexandria 等等）。那些值得參與神聖的聖餐的人們，能够比摩西更好地「看見上帝。」 所以，教會的整個生命是從（如同新約聖經所記錄的）歷史性的基督的此事中所取得到上帝的啟示的。這就是為甚麼新約聖經有如此特别的和原來性的教條 (dogma) 的身份地位，與此相比，其他所有的啟示方式（包括舊約聖經和後來出现的教條等等）都只能是解釋性的：在此「解釋性」的這詞是以它的最深奥的，存在性的意思而被使用的，也就是說，一個能够將存有體驗為上帝與人類和世界之間的一種新的關係的工具。 結論：不論是新約聖經的解釋還是後來出现的教條， 皆不能夠避免或避開耶稣基督這個事件和人格，因為那會需要插入一種新的啟示，一種比基督還要完整，還要高級的啟示。我們可以從此得出許多的結論，但是我將只說以下的： A.神聖的聖餐 (Eucharist)是一種非常特别的接觸性的共融方式， 因此也是一種非常特别的認識上帝的方式。 它永遠都會是最高等的和最完美的上帝的啟示，這并且是以其私人性的，其存在性的意思（「就是我們所親手摸過的。」） 而是為如此的。 B. 與上帝之見面（也就是說， 每一種的神顯 [ Theophany]），無論是通過苦行還是通過聖像 (icons) ，向來是與未受造之光的見面，并且總是以在基督中所顯露出的形式，而不是與他無關的；換句話說，與上帝之見面必定得是一種基督现形  （Christophanies）。 （我們必须強調這點，以避免一些開始不斷增加的誤會。 ）如果有人想要關於這點的證據，我們则可提及，就肖像 (icons) 而言， saints John the Damascene, Theodore the Studite 等等的 Iconophiles 的論言是：基督的道成肉身促使我們將肖像如上帝的自我顯示的形式來崇拜 ；就未受造的光而言呢，誦唸祈禱者們（Esychasts）则是將其以為 Taborian light 來理解的，換句話說，一種參與到從歷史性的基督的身體中所散發出的光的光線。 我們現在再回到聖經和教條之間的關系的這個問題。從以上我們可以認識到，不管是關於哪點（即使是關於三位一體的問題），教條皆是使我們能够記得基督之事的一種備忘錄， 而經過此備忘錄， 上帝被顯示為一種人與神之間的關系的存在性的體驗， 換句話說，一個真理。例如，當第 一大公會議 ( Synod ) 以藉着基督人格的真理的基礎而創始那個三位一體的神學時， 這也不是偶然的。後來的大公會議也是同樣地如此做的，即使它們同時也得關注於其他的問題。 這表示着，聖經中所記載的使徒的經驗就是第一代的教條，而以後的所有其他的教條皆是為了解釋這些教條的。因此， 任何其他的教條皆不可能衝擊到這個經驗；他們只能解釋它。對教條來說， 使徒的經驗和傳統是具有決定性的重要性的。 於此，在我們眼前的是一種教條的連續，或者說是教條的順序，類似於那些不同的時代的人們以不同的方式所畫出的基督的肖像。 這個順序既是外在的（= 忠實於以前的傳統以及根據於聖經的）也是內在的（= 保存着在基督中所成立的和顯露出的上帝與人類和世界之間的同樣的關係）。