迦克墩基督論的基本原理
The Basics
of Chalcedonian Christology
作者：Keith A.
Mathison 誠之譯自：
https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/the-basics-of-chalcedonian-christology-2019-11/
https://yimawusi.net/2021/09/01/the-basics-of-chalcedonian-christology/
彼得認信耶穌是基督，是永生神的兒子，這是福音書敍事中的一個重大轉折點（太十六16）。在這個信仰宣認之後，我們讀到：「從此，耶穌才指示門徒，他必須上耶路撒冷去，受長老、祭司長、文士許多的苦，並且被殺，第三日復活」（太十六21）。彼得對這些話的反應表明，他對耶穌是彌賽亞的含義的理解是錯誤的。耶穌說，彌賽亞必須受苦和受死，然後從死裏復活，在這點上，祂沒有給人留下任何懷疑的餘地。
Peter’s confession that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is a turning point in the
Gospel narratives (Matt. 16:16). Following the confession, we read, “From that
time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer
many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
on the third day be raised” (Matt. 16:21). Peter’s response to these words
indicates that his understanding of what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah
was incorrect. Jesus leaves no doubt that the Messiah must suffer and die and
then rise from the dead.
引起彼得宣認的問題是什麼呢？耶穌曾問祂的門徒：「你們說我是誰？」（太十六15）。這是每個閱讀福音書的人都必須回答的問題。這也是早期教會幾個世紀以來被迫要去戰鬥的問題。當基督徒試圖教導他們的孩子和新的歸信者時，這個問題就會出現。當基督徒試圖回應那些拒絕他們教導的人時，這個問題也會出現。
What was the
question that elicited Peter’s confession? Jesus had asked His disciples, “Who
do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). This is the question that every reader of
the Gospels must answer. It is the question with which the early church was
forced to wrestle for several centuries. As Christians sought to teach their
children and new converts, this question would arise. As Christians sought to
respond to those who rejected their teaching, this question would arise.
但是，為什麼教會與這個問題糾纏了這麼多世紀？彼得的回答可能只用了不到五秒鐘。這個挑戰的出現是因為新約聖經中所揭示的內容的性質。當我們閱讀福音書時，我們發現拿撒勒人耶穌說了並做了只有上帝才能說的和做的事情。例如，祂赦免罪惡（可二10）。當我們閱讀使徒的著作時，我們發現他們以只能用來描述上帝的方式來描述祂。保羅告訴我們，萬物都是祂造的（西一16）。約翰說祂是神（約一1，14）。然而，在同一時間和同一本著作中，我們發現拿撒勒人耶穌說過和做過只有人才會說或做的事情。祂感到疲倦（約四6）。最重要的是，祂死了（羅八34）。
But why did the
church wrestle with this question for so many centuries? Peter’s response
likely took less than five seconds. The challenge arose because of the nature
of what is revealed in the New Testament. When we read the Gospels, we find
Jesus of Nazareth saying and doing things that only God can say or do. He
forgives sin, for example (Mark 2:10). When we read the Apostolic writings, we
find them describing Him in ways that can only be used to describe God. Paul
tells us that all things were created by Him (Col. 1:16). John says He is God
(John 1:1, 14). Yet, at the same time and in the same writings, we find Jesus
of Nazareth saying and doing things that only a man can say or do. He grows
weary (John 4:6). Most significantly, He died (Rom. 8:34).
當我們閱讀《新約聖經》中關於耶穌基督的啟示時，我們不可避免地會被迫回答基本的形而上學問題。形而上學（Metaphysics）研究的是存有（being）、現實和存在的本質。如果我們說耶穌是上帝，我們就是在說關於祂的存有。如果我們說耶穌是一個人，也是如此。困難就在這裏。神的存有與人的存有是非常不同的。神的屬性與人的屬性不同，而且不僅僅是在數量上的不同。上帝不只是像我們一樣，只是更大更強而已。神是自我存在的；人不是。神是永恆的；人不是。上帝是一個必要的存有（a necessary being）；人是一個偶然的存有（a contingent being）。等等。鑒於《聖經》啟示的性質，教會不得不問，耶穌是什麼樣的存有？這就是花了幾個世紀來回答的問題。
When we read
what the New Testament reveals about Jesus Christ, we are inevitably forced to
answer basic metaphysical questions. Metaphysics investigates the nature of
being, reality, and existence. If we say that Jesus is God, we are saying
something about His being. The same is true if we say that Jesus is a man.
Herein lies the difficulty. The being of God is very different from the being
of man. The attributes of deity differ from the attributes of humanity, and not
in a merely quantitative way. God isn’t just like us, only bigger and stronger.
God is self-existent; man is not. God is eternal; man is not. God is a
necessary being; man is a contingent being. And so on. Given the nature of the
biblical revelation, the church was forced to ask, What kind of being is Jesus?
This is what took centuries to answer.
早期基督論異端的歷史，本質上是一部對形而上學問題的錯誤答案的歷史。教會拒絕的這些答案所遇到的問題是，它們沒有把聖經的所有啟示完全考慮在內。例如，伊便尼派（Ebionites）通過否認基督是神「解決」了這個問題。幻影派（Docetism）通過否認基督的人類身體是真實的而「解決」了這個問題。最重要的早期基督論異端是亞流主義（Arianism）及其變種。亞流主義否認聖子與聖父具有相同的本質。亞流派認為，聖子是一種不同於父或人類的存有。他們說，聖子是介於聖父（真神）和人類之間的一種存有。亞流派認為，聖子是一個被造物，曾經有一段時間，祂不存在。亞流派的爭論跨越了第四世紀的大部分時間。兩個大公會議，即325年的尼西亞會議和381年的君士坦丁堡會議，都處理了這個問題。一個重要的結果是《尼西亞-君士坦丁堡信經》（通常簡稱為《尼西亞信經》）。該信條的第二部分肯定了耶穌基督的以下內容：
The history of
early Christological heresy is essentially a history of incorrect answers to
the metaphysical question. The problem encountered in these answers the church
rejected is that they do not take into account all of the biblical revelation.
Ebionites, for example, “solved” the problem by denying that Christ is God.
Docetism “solved” the problem by denying that Christ’s human body was real. The
most significant early Christological heresy was Arianism and its variants.
Arianism denied that the Son has the same nature as the Father. The Arians
argued that the Son is a different kind of being than the Father or a human
being. They said the Son is a being somewhere between the Father, who is true
God, and human beings. The Arians argued that the Son is a creature, and there
was a time when He was not. The Arian controversy spanned the bulk of the
fourth century. Two ecumenical councils, the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the
Council of Constantinople in 381, dealt with it. One important result was the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (usually referred to simply as the Nicene
Creed). The second section of this Creed affirms the following of Jesus Christ:
「我們信獨一的主，耶穌基督，上帝的獨生子，在萬世以前為父所生，從上帝所出的上帝，從光所發出的光，從真上帝所出的真上帝，受生而非被造，與父同質，萬物都是藉著祂造的；為我們世人和我們的拯救，從天降臨，因聖靈的大能，為童女馬利亞所生，成為人；在本丟彼拉多手下，為我們釘在十字架上，受死，埋葬；照聖經所說，第三天復活，並且升天，坐在聖父的右邊；將來必在榮耀中再臨，審判活人死人；祂的國度永無窮盡。」
[We believe] in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father before all worlds; God
of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and
for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit
of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again,
according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and
the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
當基督是真神的問題得到解決後，接下來的一系列爭論就集中在祂如何既是神又是人這個問題上。亞坡里拿留派（Apollinaris）把基督說成是「中間的存有」，是神性和人性的混合物。他的觀點被教會拒絕了。回答這個問題的另一種嘗試被稱為「兩個兒子」的教義（“Two Sons” doctrine）。這個教義與大數的戴奧多若（Diodore of Tarsus）和摩普綏提亞的狄奧多若（Theodore of Mopsuestia）有關，他們聲稱上帝的兒子和馬利亞的兒子是兩個不同的主體。在所有我們看到耶穌說的和做的只有上帝才能說的或做的事情的地方，上帝的兒子是主體。而在所有我們看到耶穌說的和做的只有人可以做的事情的地方，馬利亞的兒子是主體。顯然，這導致了一些嚴重的聖經和神學問題，其中最嚴重的是支持者無法將馬利亞之子與上帝之子視為等同。
When the issue
of Christ’s true deity was settled, the next series of controversies were
focused on how He can be both God and man. Apollinaris spoke of Christ as a
“middle-being,” something of a mixture of deity and humanity. His view was
rejected. Another attempt to answer the question has been termed the “Two Sons”
doctrine. This teaching, associated with Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, claims that the Son of God and the Son of Mary are two distinct
subjects. The Son of God is the subject in all of the places where we see Jesus
saying and doing things only God can say or do. The Son of Mary is the subject
in all of those places where we see Jesus saying and doing things only a man
can do. Obviously, this leads to some serious biblical and theological
problems, the most serious of which is the inability of proponents to identify
the Son of Mary with the Son of God.
狄奧多若的一個學生是一個叫涅斯多留的人（譯按：涅斯多留派後來在唐朝時傳到中國，稱為景教），他在公元428年成為君士坦丁堡的大主教。他追隨他老師的腳步，也教導了相當於「兩個兒子」的學說。他的教導引起了亞歷山大主教區利羅（Cyril）的注意，並引發了一場巨大的爭論。區利羅給涅斯多留寫了幾封信，試圖糾正他的觀點，但最終不得不召開另一個會議。以弗所會議於公元431年召開，涅斯多留被視為異端而受到譴責。然而，事情並沒有完全解決，二十年後，另一個會議在小城迦克墩召開。
One of
Theodore’s students was a man named Nestorius, who became archbishop of
Constantinople in the AD 428. Following in the footsteps of his teacher, he,
too, taught what amounted to a “Two Sons” doctrine. His teaching caught the
attention of Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, and a huge controversy resulted.
Cyril wrote several letters to Nestorius attempting to correct his views, but
ultimately another council had to be convened. The Council of Ephesus met in AD
431, and Nestorius was condemned as a heretic. Matters were not completely
settled, however, and twenty years later another council was convened in the
small city of Chalcedon.
迦克墩會議（公元451年）是神學史上的一個重大里程碑，正如尼西亞會議是一個里程碑一樣。該會議產生的信條（稱為迦克墩信經，Chalcedon Definition）從那時起就一直是正統基督論的信仰標準，不僅在羅馬天主教和東正教教會，而且在更正教教會也是如此（不認信此信條的就會被列為異端）。正是在這次會議上，教會考慮到了全部的聖經啟示，從而確立了一種談論基督存有的方式。因此，基督徒必須閱讀並理解迦克墩信條。
The Council of
Chalcedon (AD 451) is a landmark in the history of theology in the same way
that the Council of Nicaea was a landmark. The definition produced by the
council has been the standard of orthodox Christology ever since, not only in
the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches but in the Protestant churches
as well. It was at this council that the church established a way of talking
about the being of Christ that took into account all of the biblical
revelation. It is imperative, therefore, that Christians read and understand
the Chalcedonian Definition.
The second
person of the Trinity, the Son, is God, and thus all divine attributes are
properly predicated of Him.
如果一個人在網上搜索「迦克墩信經」（The Definition of Chalcedon），十條結果中會有九條，也許更多，都是包含一段話的網頁鏈接。這段話包含了大公會議對基督論教義的神學總結，但重要的是要理解這段話是一份很長的文件中的倒數第二段，必須在其更大的背景下閱讀和理解。例如，前面的段落重申了前三個大公會議的教導，即尼西亞、君士坦丁和以弗所會議。然而，最重要的是，大公會議指出，它已經接受了亞歷山大主教區利羅所寫的某些信件，以及羅馬主教大利奧的《大卷》（Tome of Leo the Great），認為它們表達了對《尼西亞信條》中基督論教義的正確理解。從本質上說，迦克墩會議是在說他們的神學總結是名副其實的，因為它就只是一個總結。對於那些想要閱讀更全面解釋的人來說，他們指出區利羅給涅斯多留的第二和第三封信和他給安提阿的約翰的信，以及利奧給弗拉維安（Flavian）的信。這些信為正確解釋《迦克墩信經》提供了必要的神學背景。
If a person
does an online search for “The Definition of Chalcedon,” nine out of ten
results, perhaps more, will be links to pages that contain a single paragraph.
This paragraph contains the theological summation of the Christological
teaching of the council, but it is important to understand that this paragraph
is the penultimate paragraph in a significantly longer document and must be
read and understood in its larger context. Earlier paragraphs, for example,
reaffirm the teaching of the first three ecumenical councils: Nicaea,
Constantinople, and Ephesus. Most significantly, however, the council makes the
point that it has accepted certain letters written by Cyril of Alexandria as
well as the Tome of Leo the Great as expressing the proper understanding of the
Christological teaching of the Nicene Creed. Essentially, the council of
Chalcedon is saying that their theological summation is just that—a summary.
For those who want to read a fuller explanation, they point them to Cyril’s
second and third letters to Nestorius and his letter to John of Antioch as well
as to Leo’s letter to Flavian. Those letters provide the necessary theological
context for correctly interpreting the Definition of Chalcedon.
那麼，迦克墩會議的基督論所教導的是什麼呢？這段著名的內容如下：
What, then, is
the Christological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon? The famous paragraph
reads as follows:
我們跟隨聖教父，同心合意教導人宣認同一位子，我們的主耶穌基督：有完全的神性，也有完全的人性；真是神，也真是人；有理性的靈魂，也有身體；按神性說，與父本體相同（homoousios）；按人性說，與我們本體（substance， essence）相同，凡事與我們一樣，只是沒有罪；按神性說，在萬世之先，為父所生；按人性說，在這末後的日子，為了拯救我們，由上帝之母，童女馬利亞所生；這位基督，既是子，又是主，也是神的獨生子；具有二性，不相混亂（unconfusedly），不相交換（unchangeably）；不能分開（indivisibly），不能離散（inseparably）；二性的區別不因聯合而消失，各性的特點反而得以保存，會合於一個位格、一個實存主體（subsistence）之內，不是分離成為兩個位格，而是同一位子，是神的獨生子，是道，是上帝，是主耶穌基督；正如眾先知一開始論到祂時所講的，也如主耶穌基督自己所教訓我們的，又如諸聖教父的信經所傳給我們的。（按：unconfusedly，unchangeable，indivisibly，inseparably 也可譯為：沒有相混，沒有改變，不能切割，不能分離）
So, following
the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in
humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body;
consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same
consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except
for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and
in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin
God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,
only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no
change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the
natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures
is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent
being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same
only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught
from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed
us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.
這段話的主要內容可以闡述如下：
The major
points of this paragraph can be set forth as follows:
1. 耶穌基督是單一的位格。本段中最引人注目的是反復使用「同一位」（one and the same）這個短語和多次使用「真是」（the same）。迦克墩信經是在向人們說明，在福音書中，只有一個耶穌，祂所說的和所做的都是歸於上帝。馬利亞的兒子與上帝的兒子是「同一位」（one and the same）。不存在兩個兒子。在此，《迦克墩信經》也遵循了《尼西亞信經》的第二條，其中該部分的每個動詞都只有一個主語。
Jesus Christ is
a single person. The most striking thing in this paragraph is the repeated use
of the phrase “one and the same” and the multiple uses of “the same.” The
Chalcedonian Definition is driving home the point that in the Gospels, there is
only one Jesus who says and does everything attributed to Him. The Son of Mary
is “one and the same” as the Son of God. There are not two Sons. Here the
Definition of Chalcedon is also following the second article of the Nicene
Creed, in which there is a single subject of every verb in that section.
2. 耶穌基督在神性和人性上都是完美的。在這裏，大公會議正在回答形而上學的問題。耶穌是「真正的神和真正的人」。關於耶穌的神性，祂與天父是本體相同（homo-ousios；或譯為同一個本質），關於祂的人性，祂與我們是本體相同（homo-ousios）。除了罪之外，祂在各方面都和我們一樣，因為祂沒有墮落的人性。作為永恆的兒子，三位一體的第二位格，祂是「在萬世之先，為父所生」（eternal generation，永恆的受生）。按祂的人性說，祂是在末後的日子，為馬利亞所生（神蹟般的童女感孕）。這就是為什麼馬利亞可以被正確地稱為「上帝之母」（theotokos）（譯按：摩普綏提亞的狄奧多若拒絕承認馬利亞是「Theotokos」（上帝之母），這點在他的學生涅斯多留（Nestorius）身上特別明顯）。大公會議肯定了這個詞的使用，因為它肯定了馬利亞藉由她的子宮所生的那位是道成肉身的神（God incarnate）。
Jesus Christ is
perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity. Here the council is answering the
metaphysical question: Jesus is “truly God and truly man.” Jesus is
consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father regarding His deity, and He is
consubstantial (homoousios) with us regarding His humanity. He is like us in
every way apart from sin because He does not have a fallen human nature. As the
eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, He is “begotten before the ages
from the Father” (eternal generation). He is begotten from Mary in time
regarding His humanity (the miraculous virginal conception). This is why Mary
can be rightly called “God-bearer” (theotokos). The council affirms the use of
this word as a way of affirming that the one whom Mary bore in her womb was God
incarnate.
3. 基督的兩種本性是聯合在一起的，不相混淆，不能交換。這句話排除了亞波里拿留派（Apollinaris）和歐迪奇派（Eutyches）的某些教義。它強調的重點是，兩種本性（神性和人性）在聖子的一個位格（hypostasis）中聯合在一起，卻沒有以任何方式被混合在一起。這種混合會導致第三種存有，即既不是真正的神性也不是真正的人性。
The two natures
of Christ are united without confusion or change. This statement rules out
certain teachings of Apollinaris and Eutyches. It emphasizes the point that the
two natures (divine and human) are united in the one person (hypostasis) of the
Son without being blended or mixed in any way. Such blending or mixture would
result in a third kind of being, one that is neither truly divine nor truly
human.
4. 基督的兩種本性是聯合在一起的，不能分割、不能分開。本條款的其餘部分譴責涅斯多留派和任何種類的「兩個兒子」的教義。神性和人性永久地聯合在一個位格身上。這個教義被稱為「位格合一」（hypostatic union）的教義，因為兩種本性在聖子的一個位格（hypostasis）中聯合在一起。
The two natures
of Christ are united without division or separation. The remaining section of
this clause condemns Nestorianism and any kind of “Two Sons” doctrine. The
divine and human natures are permanently united in one person. This doctrine is
referred to as the doctrine of the “hypostatic union” because the two natures
are united in the one person (hypostasis) of the Son.
5. 兩種本性的屬性都被保留下來。即使在聯合之後，每個本性都保留了其適當的形而上學屬性。神性在位格聯合中沒有改變，受造的人的身體和靈魂也沒有因為與神性聯合而變成其他東西。神性不具有或獲得了受造物的屬性，人性也不具有或獲得了創造者的屬性。
The property of
both natures is preserved. Even after the union, each nature retains its proper
metaphysical attributes. The divine nature is not changed or altered in the
hypostatic union, and the created human body and soul are not turned into
something else by virtue of being united to the divine nature. The divine
nature does not take on or acquire the attributes of created being, and the
human nature does not take on or acquire the attributes of the Creator.
迦克墩信經為聖經啟示提供了神學解釋。聖經怎麼能在描繪獨一的主耶穌所說的和所做的只有上帝才能說和做的事情的同時，又把祂描繪成說和做只有人可以做的事情呢？這都是因為位格合一。三位一體中的第二位格，即聖子，是神，因此所有的神性屬性都可以正確地用來指稱祂。祂在道成肉身時並沒有停止成為神，因此，所有的神性屬性都可以繼續正確地指稱祂。而在道成肉身時，聖子具有未墮落的真正人性，真正的人類身體和靈魂，具有真正人性所應有的一切屬性。既然是祂的人性，一切真實的屬性也可以適當地用來描述它所屬的那個位格。重要的是，要理解這裏沒有說的是什麼。人性的屬性不具有（cannot be predicated of）神性，神性的屬性也不具有人性，但兩種本性的屬性都可以成為它們所屬的那個位格的屬性。
The
Chalcedonian Definition provides the theological explanation for the biblical
revelation. How can the Bible portray the one Lord Jesus saying and doing
things that only God can say and do while at the same time portraying Him as
saying and doing things that only a man can do? It is because of the hypostatic
union. The second person of the Trinity, the Son, is God, and thus all divine
attributes are properly predicated of Him. He did not cease to be God in the
incarnation, and therefore, all divine attributes can continue to be properly
predicated of Him. In the incarnation, the Son assumes an unfallen, true human
nature, a true human body and soul, with all of the attributes proper to a true
human nature. Since it is His human nature, everything true of it can also be
properly predicated of the one person to whom it belongs. It is important to
understand what is not being said here. The attributes of the human nature
cannot be predicated of the divine nature, and the attributes of the divine
nature cannot be predicated of the human nature, but the attributes of both
natures can be predicated of the one person to whom they belong.
在迦克墩之後，出現了更多的問題，至今仍有更多的問題出現，但事實證明，迦克墩對所有後來者來說是一個必要而重要的起點。大公會議並沒有在其信經（definition）中回答每一個可能的問題，但它提供了四面圍墻（四個邊界），在這個圍墻內，可以對這些問題進行研究，而不會陷入異端。作為基督徒，我們應該感謝我們在基督裏的弟兄們，他們走在我們前面，上帝使用他們的恩賜，幫助教會在危險的神學爭論中找到方向。由於他們幾個世紀以來所做的工作，我們不必每一代都重新發明神學的車輪。
After
Chalcedon, more questions arose, and more questions continue to arise today,
but Chalcedon has proven to be a necessary and important starting point for all
who have followed. The council did not answer every possible question in its
definition, but it provided boundaries within which those questions can be
examined without falling into heresy. As Christians, we owe a debt of thanks to
our brothers in Christ who have gone before and whose gifts were used by God to
help the church find its way through dangerous theological controversy. Because
of the centuries of work they did, we do not have to reinvent the theological
wheel every generation.
Keith A. Mathison博士任教於佛羅里達州桑福德的改革聖經學院擔任系統神學教授。他的著作包括 The Lord’s Supper和From Age to Age 。
Dr. Keith A. Mathison is professor of
systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla. He is author
of several books, including The Lord's Supper and From Age to Age.
補充：
古代教會的基督論
摘自 何頓著，《基督徒的信仰》，麥種，2016，p. 486
亞歷山太學派
強調基督神性位格的統一。這初期教會柏拉圖主義的中心反映一種傾向，將歷史納進永恆裏，物質納進靈裏，歷史解經納進寓意（靈意）解經裏，基督的人性接納進祂的神性裏。它的著名代表包括俄利根、革利免和區利羅。雖然這學派在形式上是正統的（除了俄利根之外），它的過度主張引致亞波里拿留主義和基督一性論（monophysitism；歐迪奇主義[Eutychianism]），它們在君士坦丁會議（381）和迦克墩會議（451）中被判為異端。
安提阿學派
強調基督的位格作為神和人的區分，偏好人的那一面。嚴厲批評亞歷山太派的寓意釋經，這個學派緊緊跟隨歷史-字面的釋經。在正統神家中，這個學派產生了大數的戴阿多若（Diodorus of Tarsus）（死於主後390年）、屈梭多模（Chrysostom，347~407）和摩普綏提亞的狄奧多若（Theodore of Mopsuestia，350~428）。安提阿學派強調的過度主張，最先在狄奧多若出現──他拒絕承認馬利亞是「Theotokos」（上帝之母）──在他的學生湼斯多留（Nestorius）身上特別明顯。湼斯多留主義也被上面提到的會議判為異端。
尼西亞大會（325；381 君士坦丁）：確定上帝是三位格。駁斥了亞流主義（基督是受造物，與父不同質homoiousia——過分強調 diversity of persons）；也駁斥了撒伯流主義（神格唯一論——過分強調 unity of essence）。
迦克墩大會（451）：確定基督是一位格、二本性。駁斥涅斯多留主義（基督有二位格——否認聖子取了真實的人性）；也駁斥歐迪奇主義（基督一性論，混合神性與人性）。
三一神為何是一：同一本質，且相互內住（perichoresis）
關於 theotokos（摘自《耶穌是誰？簡明基督論》，p. 136-137）
馬利亞是不是聖子上帝的母親？換言之，我們可不可以，或者應不應該說馬利亞是「上帝之母」？大多數基督徒聽到這樣的稱謂，本能的反應是聯想到羅馬公教會的馬利亞崇敬。對華人信徒而言，「上帝之母」聽起來很像民間宗教的「聖母娘娘」。上帝是自有永有的，祂怎能有母親呢？
然而，迦克墩信經卻宣告馬利亞是「上帝之母」，希臘文原文是theotokos。毫無疑問，馬利亞是拿撒勒人耶穌的母親。我們都會承認這一點。但假如我們承認馬利亞是拿撒勒人耶穌的母親，卻否認馬利亞是聖子上帝的母親，我們就等於是把基督的存有分成了兩個位格。這等於是在說，那位拿撒勒人是馬利亞的兒子，但聖子上帝並沒有成為馬利亞的兒子。換句話說，這等於是在宣傳，拿撒勒人耶穌與聖子上帝不是同一位基督，而是兩位分開的位格。這異端在教會歷史上被稱為「涅斯多留主義」（儘管涅斯多留本人並未教導這異端）。如此，當迦克墩信經宣告馬利亞是「上帝之母」時，其實是在宣告，進入馬利亞的母腹、由馬利亞生下的那一位，就是聖子的位格，而不是聖子之外的另一個人。
