a. The problem of Gnosticism We mentioned -from our very first lessons -- that we would be tracking the Symbol of Faith (Creed) in the structuring of Dogmatics. Up to now, we have covered the first few words of the Creed: “I believe in one God, the Father…” Continuing on, we encounter the words “the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth”. And this is where we find the problem regarding Creation - the dogma on creation. God is not only the Father of His Son; He is not only Triadic; He does not have existence only unto Himself; we do not simply confess that He exists eternally. We confess that this God embarked on an act, an energy outside of Himself, which brought into existence something else, other than Himself. And this, precisely, is the dogma on Creation. We need to point out from the very start that this act of God, of creating something else outside of Himself, did not constitute a necessity for God. When we say “necessity”, we do not imply any form of psychological necessity (as many contemporary dogmaticians do), such as “loneliness”, or “the desire to have someone else, other than Himself”, etc. We must never apply the concept of “psychology” when referring to the existence of God, even though the Holy Bible and our Theology may sometimes resort to referring to God with the aid of psychological terms (e.g., ‘God is angry’, or ‘the wrath of God’, etc.; even the fact that He ‘loves’ us is often perceived from a psychological point of view). All such terms –when they do not have an ontological basis- are anthropomorphic and should not be applied to God’s being. We cannot apply psychology to God. Augustine (as we saw) did apply it, and eventually created the problems that we pointed out. Consequently, when we say that ‘God created the world’ (i.e., a thing outside of Himself) out of ‘love’, or ‘motivated by love’, we should not attribute any sentimental meaning to this word ‘love’. This is where the problem arises, as to how we should perceive God’s motives in the creation of the world. At this point, in accordance with the principle that we follow in our lessons, we should firstly take a look at the history of the dogma on Creation, to see under what historical prerequisites it appeared, and afterwards see what this could entail for us. This way, we will also be able to give a reply to the question posed before, regarding the motives of Creation; in other words: Why was the world created by God? During this stage of “…the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible…” the Creed has -as a prerequisite- certain concepts regarding ‘the creation of the world’, or ‘the world’; notions, which the Fathers and the Church deemed heretic and unacceptable. At first, the Creed was simply a confession of faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The addition of these phrases was the result of a historical necessity. We need to therefore examine what sorts of ideas regarding Creation are exempt from the Creed first of all. Then, we shall examine what sorts of ideas are hidden behind these expressions. Historically, the first thing that brought about this extension to the Creed was the idea that Gnosticism had, regarding Creation. Gnosticism put great emphasis on the transcendental status of God, in order to resolve the problem of theodicy, in other words, the problem of why there is so much evil in the world and how we can explain the existence of evil in the world; that is, how it originated. Naturally, if we say that God is responsible for evil, we immediately endanger the concept of God. God must not be held responsible for evil. Then what should we do, to ensure that God is not held responsible for the evil that exists in the world? Gnosticism’s reply to this question was its theory that this world was not created by God - this ‘God the Father’. ‘God the Father’ is apparently so transcendental and unapproachable, so foreign to what is going on in the world, that He can even be considered altogether alien to the world. This is the “stranger-God” of Marcion. Thus, by alienating God from the world, they have acquitted Him of the responsibility for the existence of evil; however, they then needed to explain why and how this world exists. The answer that Gnosticism gave to this question was that this world was the creation of another, inferior being whom they called ‘Creator’, thus distinguishing between ‘Father’ and ‘Creator’. ‘God the Father’ was one thing, and a ‘god-Creator’ was another. This ‘Creator’ of theirs is found among the series of “aeons” - beings that link the world to God. This ‘Creator’ of theirs is found among the series of “aeons” - beings that link the world to God. There, towards the end, near the world, is the place of this ‘Creator’ who created the world and who is therefore also responsible for the evil that exists in the world. Because, a prerequisite of Gnosticism is that this world is by definition evil. In other words, evil resides within matter, within the structure of matter, within all of creation, within everything that exists in this world. Subsequently, this world cannot even be repaired. To be saved, you must therefore get out of this world. And a Gnostic is supposedly the one who is asked to abandon space and time, through the knowledge that he possesses. The Patristic response – and chiefly Saint Ireneos, who confronted Gnosticism with his significant treatise “Against Heresies” – was comprised of the following points, which are also the prerequisites in the Symbol of Faith (Creed) : THE FIRST POSITION maintained by Saint Ireneos is that ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Creator’ is one and the same Persona. We do not make any distinction between the Father and the Creator. This is why in the Creed, these words are so close to each other, that many interpret the notion of ‘Father’ as pertaining to Creation and not to His eternal state of existence. And indeed, in the 2nd century, this anti-Gnostic position of relating the ‘Father’ with the ‘Creator’ was so intensely stressed, that the impression was given –when reading the Patristic texts of that period– that the words “I believe in one God, the Father..” implied the Creator more than it did the eternal God, that is, the Father of the Son. This was clarified at a later stage, mainly during the 4th century following Arianism, when the problem became more pressing and acute and the answer was given, that God is indeed the Father - not as a Creator, but as the Father of one Son, Who always existed, Who pre-existed, Who always existed, within the Essence of God. This, therefore, was the first position. THE SECOND POSITION is that this God/Father/Creator is directly involved in the act of Creation: He is not a Creator through any intermediaries. The theory of ‘aeons’ - of all those intermediaries between God and the world according to Gnosticism – is rejected, and is replaced by the insertion of the idea of the immediacy of God’s involvement in the act of Creation. This is a direct relating of God to the world. Here of course, is where the other point is brought up, which appears later on in the other clause of the Creed (“…through Whom everything came into being….”) –but we shall discuss this in the future– and states that it was through the Logos, the Son, that God created the world. And this is where an impasse appeared somehow, on the issue of God’s transcendental status. This was such a delicate and difficult point, that it created much confusion, both in the 2nd and the 3rd and even the 4th century. This role of the Son in Creation (as the One through Whom God created the world) was responsible for the notion that the Father is so transcendental, that God as the Father was not the One who directly created the world, but Who used the Son to do it; thus, the Father remained the One that we could say nothing about; (we see here, how Gnosticism even took on a Christian form) He remained the Complete Stranger. The Son was the One who effected the work of Creation, but, because this had not been clarified (during the 2nd and 3rd centuries), whether the Son belonged within the sphere of the Uncreated God, or if the Logos of God had somehow appeared for the first time when God the Father was effecting the work of Creation; in other words, it was because of the prevailing confusion on this point, that we arrived at Arianism, which had posed the question as to whether the Logos belonged within the sphere of the created, or of the Uncreated. Naturally, the Church - through its 1st Ecumenical Council - decided that the Logos belonged in the sphere of the Uncreated, even though it espoused Ireneos’ position in this case, whereby, albeit the Father uses the Son in Creation, He is nevertheless acting in a direct manner. In other words, by saying that God created the world through His Son, we should not imply that the Father remains so transcendental that He has no direct involvement Himself in Creation. The creation of the world is a work of the Father’s love. It is executed by the Son, but the Father is also ever-present in the work of Creation, and, as elucidated in the 4th century, the Father and the Son are inseparable. At any rate, it is imperative that we stress, chiefly with the theology of Saint Ireneos, this immediacy of the Father’s involvement, even though He uses the Son in the work of Creation. We therefore have an ‘immediacy’ and a ‘coincidence’, between the terms ‘Creator’ and ‘Father’. The Son does not become Creator, just because the world is created through the Son. The Father is the Creator, according to the 4th century’s theology. This changes slightly during the Patristic period; however, I would like to remind you at this point, that we should not perceive the Patristic period as a monolithic period. Unfortunately, during recent years, a very unscholarly perception of patristic theology has become prevalent in orthodox theology. Patristic theology has a history of its own; we cannot say “Fathers” in one breath, and in this word include everyone, from Saint Ireneos through to Saint Gregory Palamas, as though no ‘fermentations’ whatsoever had occurred during this entire historical period. That which ensures the unity of Patristic thought, is that in basic issues (such as this one, of ‘immediacy’), all of Patristic theology is consistently in agreement. Thus, even if the Son does appear later on as the Creator, this does not negate the immediacy of the Father’s involvement. This is why the Creed insists: «….in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth…».

a 。有關於洛斯替主義 （Gnosticism） 的問題 我們在我們最先的課堂中即提及到， 我們會看一看信仰的符號 (信條) 在教義的構造中所持有的路線。到現在爲止， 我們已講到了信條中的最初的一些話， "我相信一個上帝， 即父親..."。 繼續下去呢， 我們則遇到了這句話："創造了天地的全能之神" 。而這裡即是我們發現到有關於創世的這個問題、這個教義的地方。 上帝不僅僅是他的兒子的父親； 他不僅僅是三位一體的； 他不是只在他自己之中擁有存有的； 我們不是只承認出， 他是永恆地存在的。 我們承認， 這個上帝開始行動為在他自己之外的能量，以至使得在他自己之外的某某事物開始存在。而這即是有關於創世的教條。我們需要在一開始時即指出，這個上帝的能力，他的創造出在他自己之外的東西的能力，並沒有為上帝他自己構成一個必要性。當我們說"必要性"的時候， 我們並不是在指任何心理性的必要性 (就如許多當代的教義學家所認爲的)， 譬如"寂寞"， 或 "慾望有著除了他自己之外的別人"， 等等。我們必須絕對不用"心理學" 的概念來提及上帝的存有， 即使聖經以及我們的神學也常常運用心理性的説法來提及上帝 (即， “上帝發怒了”， 或者， “上帝之憤怒”，等等； 甚至連“他愛我們”的這件事實也經常是由一個心理性的觀點來察覺的) 。所有這些説法 -- 當它們沒有存在性的依據之時 -- 皆是擬人性的，並且不應該被應用於上帝身上。我們不能將心理學應用在上帝身上。我們已看到了，奧古斯丁如此作過，以至製造出我們已指出了的問題。 於是， 當我們說“上帝 因愛， 或由於愛的刺激，而創造了世界“ (一件在他自己之外的事物) 之時 ， 我們不應該給與“愛“這字任何感情上的意義 。 這就是有問題的地方， 有關於我們應該怎樣去看上帝之創作世界的動機的問題。在此，根據我們在之前的課堂中所用的原則， 我們應該首先看一看有關於創世的教義的歷史， 以便知道，它是在什麼樣的歷史前提之下出現的， 而在之後再看看，這對我們來說又會有什麼樣的意義。這樣， 我們也將能夠給與之前所提出的問題 （有關於創世的動機的問題）一個答復，換句話說： 為什麼上帝要創造世界？ 在於 “... 全能的神，天、地、以及所有可見和不可見的事物的創作者”的這個階段上， 信條擁有某些有關於“世界的創作” 或“世界”的概念來作為先決條件， 而教父們和教會卻將其視為不可接受的異論。起初， 信條只是坦承對於父親、兒子、和聖靈的信仰的方式。加上這些組詞，則是因歷史性的必要性之故。我們因此需要首先審查一下，什麼樣的有關於創世的想法是豁免於信條的。然後， 我們再將審查，掩藏在這些説法之中，又有些什麼樣的想法。 在歷史中， 造成這個信條之伸展的第一件事則是洛斯替主義所有的有關於創世的想法。洛斯替主義非常強調上帝的超越性， 以便能解決神義論（theodicy） 的問題， 換句話說， 為何世上會有這麽多的罪惡、以及我們如何才能解釋存在於世上的罪惡的這個問題； 也就是，罪惡是如何發源的。很自然地， 如果我們說，是上帝造成罪惡的， 那，我們就立即危及到了上帝的概念。上帝絕不能是造成罪惡之者。那麽，我們應該怎樣做，才能保證， 上帝不是造成存在於世上的罪惡之者? 洛斯替主義對於這個問題所給與的答復則是，這個世界不是由上帝 -- 這個“父親上帝” -- 所創造出的。“父親上帝”是如此超越於世界的、如此不可接近的、如此遠離於這個世界的、 他甚至可以被認為是完全相異於這個世界的。這是 Marcion 的“陌生的神” 。所以， 由於他們將上帝疏遠於世界之故， 他們即赦免了上帝對罪惡的存有所應負有的責任； 但是， 他們之後則必須解釋，這個世界是為什麼和如何會存在的。洛斯替主義對於這個問題所給與的答復則是， 這個世界是由另一個、下等的（他們所稱爲是）“創作者”所創造出的；於是他們在“父親” 和“創作者”之間作出了分別。“父親上帝”是一回事， 而“創作者神”又是另一回事。 他們的這個“創世者” 是生在於一連串的“分神”（aeons）--那些將世界與上帝連接上的靈體 -- 之中的。在那裏，在其之末端， 在接近世界的地方，有這個“創世者”的地方； 他創造了世界，並且也製造出所有存在於世界中的罪惡。洛斯替主義的前提條件就是，這個世界本來就是罪惡的。換句話說， 罪惡本來就是存在於物質性的事物之內的， 存在於物質本身的結構之内， 存在於所有受造物之內，存在於一切存在於這個世界裡的東西之内。以至， 這個世界是在根本上即無法被修理治好的。爲了能被救贖， 你因此必須離開這個世界。一個相信於洛斯替主義者於是認爲他必須以他擁有的知識而摒棄空間和時間。 至於教父們的反應呢 -- 那主要是 Saint Ireneos,他以他的非常重要的論文 "反對異端邪說" 來面對洛斯替主義 -- 那則包括著以下的幾點， 並且這些也是在信仰的符號 (信條) 中所有的前提條件： 由Saint Ireneos 所堅持的第一個立場則是， “父親上帝”以及 “創世者上帝” 是同一個人格。我們不在父親和創世者之間作出分別。這就是為什麼在信條中， 這些詞是如此地彼此接近，使得 許多人將“父親”的這個概念解釋為是屬於受造物的，而不是屬於上帝的永恆的存有。並且，的確， 在第二世紀之時， 這個反洛斯替主義的、將“父親”與“創世者”連接上的想法是如此地被強調著， 當人們讀教父時期的書寫之時，他們的印象是，“我相信是為一者的上帝，父親”這些字主要是表示出創世者的，而不是永恆的上帝， 也就是， 兒子的父親。 這個問題在之後則被澄清了, 主要是在第四世紀期間，在阿理烏斯教的事件之後；在那時，這個問題更加成爲緊迫和尖銳的了，於是終於有了答案，說道上帝的確是父親的 -- 不是以創世者的身份， 而是以一個兒子的父親的身份，而他向來是存在的，在事先就存在的， 向來就是存在於上帝的本質之內的。這就是第一個立場。 第二個立場則是, 這個上帝/父親/創世者是直接介入於創世之為中的； 他不是經由中間者而創世的。“分神”的這個理論 -- 所有那些根據洛斯替主義來説，在上帝和世界之間作爲中間人的靈體等等 -- 於是被拒絕了；上帝是直接參與於創世之為中的，這個想法則取代了洛斯替主義的理論。這將上帝直接與世界聯係上。 當然, 後來出現於信條的其他的條目中的論點 ("... 經由他一切開始存在....") 也是在此出現的， 但是我們將在以後再談論這些；這些論點説明， 上帝是經由 Logos， 也就是兒子, 而創造出世界的。 就是在這裡，我們似乎有個僵局，有關於上帝的超越性的方面上。這是如此細緻和困難的論點， 它在第二和第三世紀期間，甚至在第四世紀之時，製造出許多的糾紛。 兒子在創世中的作用 (上帝經由他而創造出世界的作用) 使得父親如此超越於這個世界， 以至身為父親的上帝甚至成爲不是直接創造出世界之者，而只是使用兒子來如此做； 因而，我們仍然是無法在有關於父親的方面上說出任何事情。 (我們在此看出， 洛斯替主義如何也擁有著基督教的形式。) 上帝仍然是位陌生人。兒子是引至創世之為之者， 但是， 因為這個問題在第二 和第三世紀期間未被澄清：兒子是否是屬於未受造的上帝的領域之內， 或者，上帝的 Logos 是當父親上帝在創世之時而首先出現的； 換句話說, 即是由於有關於這點的混亂之故， 我們才達至於阿理烏斯教；阿理烏斯教即問道，到底 Logos 是屬於受造物的領域之內呢， 還是未受造物的領域之内。 很自然地， 教會經由第一大公會議決定出，Logos 是屬於未受造事物的領域之内的， 即使它維護著 Ireneos 的立場， 也就是， 雖然父親是使用兒子來創造世界的， 但他仍然是直接地實行創世的。換句話說， 說道上帝是通過他的兒子而創造出了世界, 這並不應該暗示著， 父親是如此超越於世界的，他並沒有直接地介入於創世之為中。世界的創作是父愛之為。它是由兒子來執行的, 但是父親向來是身在於創作工作之中的， 並且, 就如在第四世紀時有被闡明過的一般，父親和兒子是不可分離的。 無論如何, 我們必須強調（首要在 Saint Ireneos 的神學中）這個父親在創世中的直接介入性， 即使他於此使用了兒子。我們因此在“ 創世者”和“父親”之間有一個“直接性” 和一個“符合性”。兒子並不由於世界是經由他而創造出的之故，就因此成為了創世者。根據第四世紀的神學來説，父親是創世者。這在教父時代曾稍微地有所改變； 但是, 我希望在這時提醒您, 我們不應該把教父時代看作是一個完全統一的整體。很不幸地， 最近， 一個非常沒有學者氣派的有關於教父神學的看法在正教神學中變得很流行。教父神學有它自己的歷史； 我們無法只說“教父” 並且在這個詞内包括所有人， 從 Saint Ireneos 開始一直到 Gregory Palamas, 好像在這整個歷史時期中沒有任何的“發酵”作用似的。那保證教父想法的統一性之事則是， 在有關於一些基本的問題的方面上 (譬如這個“直接性”)， 所有的教父神學的意見皆是一致的。因此, 既使兒子後來出現為創世者, 這並未否定了父親在創世之為中的直接介入性。 這就是為什麼信條堅持著， “....是為 一者的上帝、父親、創造天地的全能之神" 。