基督論的錯解以及中國改革中的教會 （改革宗教會）
CHRISTOLOGICAL CONFUSION & CHINA'S REFORMING CHURCHES
2015-2016
Dr. Bruce Baugus
作者現任清教徒改革宗神學院系統神學和護教學教授（Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary）。曾任改革宗神學院哲學及神學副教授（Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary）。著作包括《改革宗道德神學的根源》（The Roots of Reformed Moral Theology）（宗教改革遺產圖書，2022年）和《中國改革宗教會》（China’s Reforming Churches: Mission, Polity, and Ministry in the Next Christendom）的編輯（宗教改革遺產圖書，2014年）
中譯
博文一
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china.php
引言
Introduction
錯解的基督論已經深深的紮根於中國欣欣向榮的改革宗群體這塊肥沃的土壤之中。目前，有些牧師和中國大陸的信徒相信基督的人性是非受造並永恒的。除此以外，有些人還相信這就是正統改革宗的基督論。雖然目前還不清楚這種觀點滲透的情況，這個爭議已經因著其支持者的聲望，在中國改革中的教會變的家喻戶曉。相較於東亞各種的回應而言，絕大部分的中國改革宗信徒，包括許多非常關係此君（譯註：即唐崇榮）之基督論的人士，都非常推崇他本人並他的職事。因著這個緣故，大多數人似乎願意完全忽視或接受這種怪異的觀點。
Christological confusion has sunk a root into the rich soil of China's emerging Reformed community. At present, some pastors and others on the mainland believe Christ's human nature is uncreated and eternal. What is more, some believe this view represents orthodox Reformed Christology. Although it is unclear just how pervasive this view has become, the controversy is known throughout China's reforming churches due to the prominence of a current proponent. Soliciting varying responses across East Asia, the vast majority of China's Reformed believers, including many of those most concerned about this man's Christology, highly regard him and his ministry. For this reason, most appear to be willing to overlook or even accommodate this odd opinion.
西方對於這個錯解在中國的規模，影響深度，並冥頑不化，基本上是一無所知的，然而脆弱的改革中的教會應當獲得世界改革宗群體更多的注意力—他們並不能獨善其身。耶穌基督的人性是被造的並有限的，就如同我們的人性一樣；不論在任何意義上，認為人性是非受造並永恒的觀點都是有問題的，並具有危及信仰的潛力。
Largely unknown in the West, the scope, depth, and apparent persistence of this confusion in China's vibrant but tender Reforming churches deserves some attention from the global Reformed community--which is not isolated from these developments. The humanity of Jesus Christ is created and finite, just as ours; the view that his human nature is, in any actual sense, uncreated and eternal is problematic and potentially dangerous to the faith.
此系列的預告
Preview of Series
本博文是關於東亞當前混亂的基督論十二部分系列中的第一篇。在下一篇中，我將簡要描述中國新興改革宗群體中這種混亂的原因和背景。博文三和四將簡要介紹傳統、正統對聖經關於基督人性起源的教導的理解，這些教導編纂在普世信經（博文三）和改革宗標準（博文四）中。在第五至十一篇文章中，我將檢查了七個關於基督的人性的陳述（每個帖子一個），這些陳述導致了當前的混亂，然後在第十二篇博文結束這個系列。
This post is the first in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion in East Asia. In the next post I briefly describe the cause and context of this confusion within China's emerging Reformed community. Posts 3 and 4 briefly present the traditional, orthodox understanding of the biblical teaching on the origin of Christ's human nature as codified in the ecumenical creeds (post 3) and Reformed standards (post 4). In posts 5-11 I inspect seven statements (one per post) about the human nature of Christ contributing to the current confusion, before concluding the series in post 12.
（博文一結束 Post 1 Ends）
博文二
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-1.php
現有錯解的背景與起因
Context & Cause of the Current Confusion
在今日全球基督教發展中最令人驚歎的現象是，許多在中國的牧師並信徒接受了改革宗神學並正在改革他們的信仰與實行。雖然某些人士否定這樣的宣告，但是在中國確實存在一個改革宗的群體（並不是單獨的個人或會眾），而不單單是網路群體罷了。這個群體的觸角往往纏繞於少數廣為人所知之牧師的職事。因著這個緣故，那些個人的職事往往在中國之外，在神學觀念上，卻對仍然相對隔絕的中國大陸改革宗基督徒中產生巨大的影響力。
In one of the most fascinating developments in global Christianity today, many pastors and other believers in China are embracing Reformed theology and reforming their beliefs and practices. Though a few observers challenge the claim, a Reformed community in China (as opposed to isolated individuals and congregations) does exist, and not just online. The tendrils of this community often twine around the ministries of a relatively few widely recognized ministers. As such, these individuals, whose ministries are often based outside of China, exercise remarkable influence on theological opinion within the still relatively secluded world of Reformed Christianity on the mainland.
多年以來，最起碼到2013年，一個具有此影響力與聲望的國際性布道團（譯註：相信即指“唐崇榮布道團”）不斷的在傳講某些對於基督人性非常令人困惑的觀點。他不斷的嘗試澄清並捍衛自己的論點。其中的一個嘗試乃是他在2012年錄製的三卷錄音，被他人抄錄並翻譯。雖然這三卷錄音並他在1991年出版的小冊子都是接下來要引用的資料來源，造成中國改革宗錯解的主要資料來源是他在講道、神學課程，以及特別是問答中口頭的表述。
For many years now, and at least as recently as 2013, one such influence with an international ministry and reputation has been saying some very confusing things about the human nature of Jesus Christ. [1] At times, he has attempted to clarify and defend his comments. One such attempt is found in a series of three recordings he made in 2012, which were subsequently transcribed and translated by others. Though these three recordings and a booklet he published in 1991 are the sources cited below, the primary source of the confusion in China's Reformed community has been his oral statements to the same effect in sermons, lectures, and especially question and answer sessions.
雖然此君（譯註：唐崇榮）公開的講述是目前錯解的主要源頭，一位改革宗觀察者解釋到，「對於基督人性為非受造的信仰是中國基督教中與改革宗神學有關之領袖長久以來的傳統，包括賈玉銘（Jia Yuming）。」這個傳統看起來也被反映在《比利時信條》（the Belgic Confession）的中文翻譯之中。所有這一切原先就有的，對於這個觀點支持者的宣告可能使得他看見了一個根深柢固、非常古怪的東方基督論傳統—一個無法獲得支持而逐漸消亡的傳統。
Though this man's public statements are the source of the current confusion, as one Reformed observer explains, "the belief that Christ's humanity is uncreated actually has had a longstanding tradition among Chinese Christian leaders associated with Reformed theology, including Jia Yuming." [2] This tradition appears to be reflected in the widely used Chinese translation of the Belgic Confession, which curiously drops the original's explicit affirmation that the human nature of Christ is created. [3] All of this predates the current proponent of this view, whose statements may represent what he sees as an established, albeit eccentric, Eastern Christological tradition--a tradition that seemed certain to fadeaway without his advocacy.
小心謹慎的評論
A Cautious Critique
教會中有些最為偉大的教父們，有時候也會說出關於耶穌基督的怪異論點，後世視其為不明智，或就是錯誤的。以極力反對亞流派的亞他拿修為例，在嘗試表明他的對手胡謅希伯來書三2中關於耶穌的成為，或被造或被設立為大祭司的時候，他使用了以下的例子來描繪道成肉身：
Some of the church's greatest fathers have occasionally said some odd things about Jesus Christ, things later generations viewed as ill-advised or just plain wrong. Take Athanasius of contra mundum fame for his stand against ascendant Arians. Once, while trying to show how his adversaries mangled Hebrews 3:2 about Jesus' becoming or being made or appointed high priest, he drew this analogy of the incarnation:(https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%203.2)
救主在祂的來臨中所作的，就是這個亞倫根據律法所預表的。亞倫並沒有因為披上了大祭司的衣袍而有任何的改變，披上衣袍的他仍是一樣⋯同樣的，在主的身上，我們也當正確的領會，他並沒有因為取了肉身而變得不一樣；「成為（He became）」和「 被造（He was made）」不能被理解為好像道被造，而使道，作為萬有的塑造者，隨後因著披上了一個有起源並被造的肉身被造為大祭司，也以這個方式為我們獻上自己；有鑒於此，被稱作是被造的。
What the Savior did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high-priestly dress, but remaining the same was only robed, . . . in the same way it is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not become other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before, He was robed in it; and the expressions 'He became' and 'He was made,' must not be understood as if the Word, considered as the Word, were made, but that the Word, being Framer of all, afterwards was made High Priest, by putting on a body which was originate and made, and such as He can offer for us; wherefore He is said to be made. [4]
這樣的詮釋往往會引發針對亞他拿修令人不快的懷疑，懷疑他運用某種基督具有不完整人性的觀點—就是子取了一種不完全的，缺乏理性並意志之人性。即便亞他拿修並沒有混亂基督的人性，這個比喻並他其它的一些評語往往使得讀者不知所措，它看不清楚他的正統性。
Comments like these continue to fuel sometimes uncharitable suspicions that Athanasius operated with a deficient view of Christ's humanity--that the Son assumed something less than a fully human nature complete with intellect and will. [5] Even if Athanasius was not confused about the humanity of Christ, this analogy and some of his other remarks confuse readers and obscure his orthodoxy as much as they disclose it.
亞他拿修在別處肯定了神聖的道與完全人性，就是身體與魂的聯合。故此，我們不能根據此處怪異的比喻或別處的論述作出結論。不論上面的比喻是有益的，抑或是令人困惑的，相較於我們想要了解亞他拿修基督論的內涵而言，則是另一個問題。我們可以結論到，就是說，這個比喻非常令人困惑，或那個論點並不是非常的有幫助，而在同時完全無法捍衛關於基督人性的整個觀點。
Elsewhere, Athanasius affirms the union of the divine Word with a fully human nature, body and soul. [6] So, we should not conclude too much from an odd analogy here or argument there. Whether the one above is helpful or confusing is a different question than any we might ask about Athanasius's Christology. We may conclude, that is, that this analogy is very confusing or that argument not at all helpful while taking no position on or even defending the source's overall view of Christ's humanity.
類似的，接下來的批判著重於當下在中國欣欣向榮的改革宗群體中的基督論錯解之原因。直接的原因可以在某些公開的宣告中尋獲。我無法肯定那些宣告被正確的領會，亦或是牠們代表了這位弟兄的觀點；我只能結論到，他的宣告就是造成引起如此注意之錯解的原因。
Similarly, the following critique centers on the cause of the current Christological confusion within China's emerging Reformed community. The immediate cause is found in certain public statements. I take no position on whether these statements are being understood correctly or if they accurately represent this brother's views; I only conclude that his statements are the cause of some confusion that deserves at least this much attention.
（博文二結束） （Post 2 Ends）
Notes:
1. For several good reasons I need not explain here, I am not going to name the current source of this apparently confused and certainly confusing teaching. Those most likely tobenet from me doing so will already know who it is; those who do not know probably do not need to know.
2. Jia (1880-1964, formerly known as Chia Yu-ming) had strong ties to prewar Presbyterianmission work in China, teaching at both Nanjing Jinling Seminary and North China Theological Seminary. He gained an international reputation and became vice-chairman of the Committee of the Chinese Church Three-Self Patriotic Movement in 1954. BiographicalDictionary of Chinese Christianity, (http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/j/jia-yuming.php; accessed July 22, 2015)(http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/j/jia-yuming.php;)
3. This edition of the Belgic Confession was translated by Charles Chao, published byReformation Translation Fellowship, and is now available online athttps://www.ccel.org/contrib/cn/creeds/belgic.html .(https://www.ccel.org/contrib/cn/creeds/belgic.html)
4. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2.8.
5. See, for example, Christopher Beeley, The Unity of Christ: Continuity and Confllict in Patristic Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 165. Beeley's harsh interpretationof Athanasius includes accusations that he invented the Arian controversy and died a bittercontroversialist defending his narrow Word-Flesh Christology.
6. In Letter to Epictetus, 7, he writes this: "But truly our salvation . . . does not extend to the body only, but the whole man, body and soul alike, has truly obtained salvation in the Word Himself. That then which was born of Mary was according to the divine Scriptures human by nature."
博文三
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-2.php
問題
The Question
用該人士自己的話，問題的癥結乃是「究竟基督的人性並物質身體是被造的，抑或是在世界的創造前就已存在的。」正統的答案，也正是改革宗所堅持的答案，乃是道成肉身之子的人性，身體與魂都是有限並被造的，就如同我們的一樣，在透過聖靈的能力於馬利亞的腹中成孕的時候所披上的。透過這個成孕的過程，子成為完全的人而未曾喪失祂完整的神性。
In his own words, the question is "whether Christ's human nature and his physical body were created or pre-existent before the creation of the world." [1] The orthodox answer, which the Reformed tradition maintains, is that the human nature of the incarnate Son, body and soul, is finite and created just as ours and is assumed by him in the conception that occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. By the means of this conception the Son becomes fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.
保羅寫給加拉太人說，「以至時後滿足，神就差出祂的兒子，由童女所生，且生在律法以下」（加四4）。明顯的，時後滿足乃是歷史中一個特定的時刻。在這個時刻之前，從歷史的角度而言，子不是人類；在這個時刻後，祂就成了人類。那個時刻標出道成肉身的獨特事件，子在那個時刻「成為人」並且不斷的被因著在童女腹中那個神秘的成孕的時刻被視為人。
As Paul writes to the Galatians, "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law" (Gal 4:4 ). Clearly, the fullness of time came at a particular historical moment. Prior to this moment, from an historical perspective, the Son was not human; after this moment he is. That moment marks the unique event of the incarnation when the Son "became man" and has consistently been identified as the moment of the mysterious conception in the virgin's womb.(https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gal%204.4)
基督的人性不能以抽象的方式並獨立於那個在道成肉身中所成為的那個人之外。相反的， 所取並擁有的人性就是那個所是的那個人的人性，身體與魂，在馬利亞的腹中成孕，生於伯利恒，被釘十字架，復活並升天。子如今與我們同質（consubstantial）因為在一個獨特的歷史時刻中成為那個拿撒勒的耶穌。雖然我們能夠以合適的方式抽象地論述的人性，但是說子在耶穌基督裡道成肉身之前就已有分於我們的性質是毫不合理的。
Christ's humanity does not exist abstracted from and independent of the particular man he became in the incarnation. On the contrary, the human nature he assumes and possesses today just is the humanity of the particular human being he is, body and soul, as conceived in Mary's womb, born in Bethlehem, crucified, raised again, and ascended. The Son is now consubstantial with us because he became a particular man, Jesus of Nazareth, at a unique historical moment. While it is appropriate to speak of human nature abstractly, there is no actual sense in which the Son shared our nature prior to becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ.
大公會議信經 Ecumenical Creeds
這就是教會在她的普世性信仰宣告中所承認的。尼西亞信經宣告道的神格「從天而來，並藉由聖靈，透過童女馬利亞成為肉身，並成為人」，不曾成為其他的事物。不僅僅在道成肉身中取了一個物質的身體，而是真正成為一個完全的人卻又同時是完全的神。
This is what the church affirms in her ecumenical confessions. The Nicene Creed states that the divine person of the Word "came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man," something he otherwise was not. He did not merely assume a physical body in the incarnation but actually became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.
同樣的，迦克頓肯定耶穌基督乃是，
Likewise, Chalcedon asserts that Jesus Christ is,
祂真是神，也真是人，具有理性的靈魂，也具有身體。按神性說，與聖父同一實質（substance)；按人性說，與我們同一實質；在凡事上與我們一樣，只是沒有罪。按神性說，在萬世之先，為聖父所生；按人性說，為了我們⼈，為了拯救我們，由神之母童女馬利亞所生。是同一基督，是聖子，是主，是獨生的，具有二性；不相混亂，不相交換，不能分開，不能離散。
Truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.
「在這末後的日子」道成肉身使得根據其神性仍然「與父同質」（consubstantial with the Father）的子，照著祂的人性也「與我們同質」（consubstantial with us）。雖然沒有一個說法特別的否認祂的人性先存於祂的成為肉身，但是也沒有任何說法容許那樣的觀點。在任何實際的意義上肯定祂在成為肉身前擁有人性似乎就是否定正統教義對於道成肉身本身的理解，就是神聖的子在時間的某一點中取了一個完整的人性—身體與魂。
The incarnation "in these latter days" made the Son, who remains "consubstantial with the Father" according to his divine nature, also "consubstantial with us" according to his human nature. Although neither symbol explicitly denies his human nature pre-existed the moment he became incarnate, neither one seems to permit such a view. To assert he possessed a human nature in any actual sense prior to becoming incarnate would appear to deny the orthodox understanding of the incarnation itself, that the divine Son assumed a fully human nature, body and soul, at a specific point in time.
我們在下一篇博文中將會看見大公教會的信經對於改革宗信仰標準產生之獨一無二的影響。
As we shall see in the next post, what appears to be the case in the ecumenical creeds is made explicit in the Reformed standards.
（博⽂三結束）
Notes:
1. All quotes of the author are from reliable translations of Chinese originals, consisting of both published literature and transcriptions of sound recordings of the source of these remarks. I am gratefully indebted to three individuals who translated and edited the English transcripts I cite, with only incidental modifications, in this essay. As mentioned before, I have decided not to identify the speaker by name in this series.
博文四
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-3.php
改革宗對於基督⼈性的標準
Reformed Standards on the Human Nature of Christ
改革宗承認同樣的正統基督論。例如，在此摘錄了《威敏斯特大教理問答》的第36與37題∶
The Reformed confess the same orthodox Christology. Here, for example, are Q&As 36 and37 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
問36．誰是恩典之約的中保？
Q. 36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
答．恩典之約唯一的中保是主耶穌基督，作為神永遠的兒子，與父同一性質並同等，在時期滿足的時候成為人，在兩個完全不同的性質並一個位格中，曾是並一直是神與人直到永遠。
A. The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.
問.37. 基督作為神的兒子，如何成為人？
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
答.基督乃是藉由親自取了一個真實的身體並一個理性魂而成為人，透過聖靈的大能在童女馬利亞的腹中成孕，並從她並她的性質而生，卻沒有罪。
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.
針對重浸派認為基督的肉身雖然是肉身，卻又是源於天上的錯誤所撰寫的《比利時信條》，這信條更為肯定的論及基督人性的來源∶
The Belgic Confession, written while the Anabaptist error of the supposed heavenly origin of Christ’s flesh was still fresh, is even more assertive on the origin of Christ's humanity:
第18條∶論耶穌基督的道成肉身
Article 18: Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
故此，我們承認，就是神。。。在指定的時後被差遣進入世界，自己獨一並永遠的兒子為自己取了一個奴僕的形狀並成為像人一樣，真正的取了一個人形，並其軟弱，除了罪一位，藉由聖靈的能力在有福的童女馬利亞腹中成孕，而不是透過人類的方式； 不僅僅只是取了人性作為的身體，也取了真是的人類魂，使得成為一個真正的人。因為魂與身體一同喪失，所以也必須同時取得兩者來拯救兩者。故此，我們承認。。。基督成為祂兒女血肉之體的有分者，並在凡事上成為與祂的弟兄一樣，只是沒有罪，好叫能夠根據真理成為我們的以馬內利，就是所謂神與我們同在。
We confess, therefore, that God . . . sent into the world, at the time appointed by him, his own only-begotten and eternal Son, who took upon him the form of a servant, and became like unto man, really assuming the true human nature, with all its infirmities, sin excepted, being conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that he might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that he should take both upon him, to save both. Therefore we confess . . . that Christ is become a partaker of the flesh and blood of the children . . . and became like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted, so that in truth he is our Immanuel, that is to say, God with us.
第19條∶論在基督位格中二性的聯合與不同
Article 19: Of the Union and Distinction of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ
我們相信根據這個觀念，子的位格以一種不可分割的方式與人性聯合並聯接；以至於沒有兩個神的兒子，也沒有兩個位格，而是兩性在一個位格中聯合：然而，每一個心智仍然保留其獨特的特性。就如同神性永遠是非受造的，無起始也無結束，充滿天地；同樣的，人性也沒有失去其特質，而繼續是一個被造之物，有起始，並是一個有限的性質，保留了一個真正身體所有的特質。雖然祂透過復活將不朽賜予這個身體，然而祂卻沒有改變祂人性的真實性；就好像我們的救贖與復活也都必須依賴於祂身體的真實性一樣。然而這兩性是那麽緊密的在一個位格中聯合，以至於牠們也不能被祂的死分開。故此，當祂死的時候，交托在父的手中乃是一個真實的人類靈，與其身體分開。然而，在同時，神性總是與人性聯合，即便當祂躺臥在墳墓之中。神格從未從 裡面消失，就如同當祂是個嬰孩的時候就擁有神格一樣，雖然神格在一段時間中並沒有明確的顯明自己。故此，我們承認，就是真神，也是真人：真神，乃是因為祂勝過死的大能；真人，乃是因為祂可以根據肉身的軟弱為我們死。
We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct properties. As then the divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth: so also has the human nature not lost its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though he has by his resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless he has not changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body. But these two natures are so closely united in one person, that they were not separated even by his death. Therefore that which he, when dying, commended into the hands of his Father, was a real human spirit, departing from his body. But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when he lay in the grave. And the Godhead did not cease to be in him, any more than it did when he was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while. Wherefore we confess, that he is very God, and very Man: very God by his power to conquer death; and very man that he might die for us according to the infirmity of his flesh.
這些改革宗的信仰標準，特別是對於基督人性的起源的解釋，都完全呼應尼西亞信經與迦克墩信經。神聖的子「藉著為自己取了一個真實的身體並理性魂成為人」的人性乃是透過聖靈在馬利亞的腹中以一種超自然的方式成孕，並「從她的素質而生」。基督的人性與我們同質（consubstantial），雖然在馬利亞腹中成孕的時候以一種不可分割的方式在道的位格中與神性聯合，它「仍然是一個被造之物，又開始之日並有一個有限的性質」就如同在祂的神性中「全然是非受造的，沒有開始之日或生命的結束，並充滿天地一樣」。
Echoes of Nicea and Chalcedon are clear in these Reformed standards and their elaborations on the origin of Christ’s humanity are explicit. The divine Son "became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul." His humanity originates with the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb and is "of her substance." Christ's human nature is consubstantial with us, and though at the time of the conception in Mary's womb it was inseparably united to the divine nature in the person of the Word, it "remained a creature, having beginning of days [and] being a finite nature" just as he "remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth" in his divine nature.
所以，改革宗的傳統毫無偏差地堅持，拿先斯的貴格利所一再重複的公式：「〔神的兒子〕是甚麼，祂仍繼續是甚麼；祂取得原非祂所是的並將它聯於祂自己。」（1）一個永恒的人性與子聯合的觀點並不是—最少不是—貴格利所要表達的意思。
So, the Reformed standards maintain, without deviation, the much-repeated formula of Gregory of Nazianzus: "What [the Son of God] was he continued to be; what he was not he took to himself." [1] Views that posit an eternal human nature united with the Son do not—at least not the sense Gregory intended.
Notes:
[1] Orations, 29.19.
（博文四結束）
博文五
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-4.php
關於基督人性引起混亂的論點
Confusing Claims About Christ's Humanity
讓我們轉向東亞的混亂局面，我們的弟兄（譯註：指唐崇榮）肯定「子來到世界成為一個人」 並「真正的成為人」。他解釋到，成為人乃是子獨特的（作為）「因為父與聖靈絕不可能進入世界成為肉身。」並且，「子成為人乃是源自於道，這個道成為了 Logos ensarkos，在肉身中的道（Word-in-flesh）」。（1）
Turning to the confusion in East Asia, our brother affirms "the Son came into the world to be a human being" and "truly became human." Becoming human, he explains, is unique to the Son "since the Father and the Spirit never came into the world to be incarnate." Also, "the Son who became human was originally the Logos, and this Logos became Logos ensarkos ,Word-in-Flesh."[1]
實在很難斷定成為人到底是甚麽，然而，因為他也「宣稱⋯首先，基督的人性並基督的身體是非受造的，其次，基督的人性乃是永存的。」（2）表面上看，這兩個宣告看起來與前面所引述之大公教會會議並改革宗的基督論中無法一致的（參考博文三及四）。為了捍衛這樣的論點，他承認牠們與「所謂古大公教會」和許多所謂偉大的改教者的觀點「完全相矛盾的（completely contradict）」。（3）然而，他建議「這個大爭議乃是術語與定義的問題」並宣稱「我的術語與其他人所使用的術語與定義不同。」（4）
It is difficult to know just what becoming human amounts to, however, since he also "claims. . . first, that Christ's human nature and Christ's body are uncreated and, second, that Christ's human nature has existed from all eternity."[2] On the surface, these two assertions seem impossible to square with the Christology of the ecumenical and Reformed standards cited above (see parts 3 (http://www.reformation21.org/articles/an-orientation-to-chinasreforming-
churches-part-three.php) and 4 (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-3.php)). In defending these statements, he admits they "completely contradict" views held by "the so-called ancient catholic church" and "many of the so-called great Reformers."[3] Yet, he also suggests "this great controversy is a matter of terminology and definitions" and claims "my terminology is different from the terminology and definitions that others use."[4]
第一個陳述∶基督的人性與原人性（Humanness）
First Statement: Human Nature & Humanness
用一種怪異的方式使用早已約定成俗的神學術語嘗試把事情搞得更為複雜。他（譯註：指唐崇榮）嘗試重新定義一個標準的中文詞匯－「人性」，例如，為的是要在一個更為廣義的範圍內區分人性並一種他用英文稱之為－man-ness（為了能夠清晰表達的緣故，我會將其稱之為「原人性，humanness」）的一種特殊的人性。（5）
Idiosyncratic uses of long-established theological terms do tend to complicate matters. He attempts to redefine a standard Chinese term for human nature (人性, rénxìng), for example, in order to distinguish between human nature (or humanity) in some broad sense and a special sort of human nature he calls, in English, "man-ness" (and for clarity's sake I will call humanness).[5]
他解釋到，原人性（humanness）「與承襲自教義史和古教會傳統之人性（的觀念）不同」；它乃是「正式的起因（formal cause）」或「人性的起源（original form of human nature）」。（6）原人性（humanness）指的是人性的「原型（prototype）」，是非受造並永恒的，「在創造世界之前。。。就已經在神的裡面。」（7）他結論到，這個原始形式的人性就是神的形像，就是耶穌基督。
Humanness, he explains, "is different from the [concept of] human nature . . . inherited from the history of theology and from ancient church tradition;" it is the "formal cause" or "original form of human nature."[6] As such, humanness refers to the uncreated and eternal "prototype" of humanity that, "before the creation of the world, . . . was already within God."[7] This original form, he concludes, is the image of God who is Jesus Christ.
另一面，人性（human nature）乃是各人根據在原型的樣式—在神的形像中—被創造而擁有的。在創造之前，他宣稱，「基督已經擁有一種原始並永恒的人性形式（即，原人性，humanness），在祂來到世界後，祂得到了一個有肉身的人性（an incarnate human nature），即人類的身體。」（8）接著，子在一種意義上乃是永遠的人；在另一種意義上，在道成肉身中，祂藉由取得一個物質的人類身體，看似（apparently）成為人。
Human nature, on the other hand, is what individual humans possess by being created in the likeness of the prototype--in the image of God. Prior to creation, he states, "Christ was already in possession of an original and eternal form of human nature [that is, humanness],and then after he came into the world, he came to possess an incarnate human nature, the nature of a human body."[8] The Son, then, who is eternally human in one sense(humanness), apparently became human in another sense in the incarnation by assuming a physical human body.
這個混濁不清的說法聽起來就像俄列根式的柏拉圖對與道成肉身的看法，這將會是下一個博文的主題。
This vaguely sounds like Origen's broadly platonic view of the incarnation, which is the subject of the next post.
（博文五結束）
Notes:
[1] First Recording.
[2] Second Recording.
[3] Second Recording.
[4] First Recording. He returns to this point to open the Third Recording.
[5] First Recording. Since he is obviously speaking about something that pertains to humanity, male and female, rendering his peculiar sense of ⼈性 (rénxìng) as humannessseems better.
[6] Original form could also be translated as formal cause. The speaker uses 因 (yīn), whichis often translated as cause, but here has the sense of formal cause.
[7] Third Recording.
[8] Third Recording.
博文六
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-5.php
第二個陳述：柏拉圖二元論
Second Statement: Platonic Dualism
正如上篇博文末尾所指出（見第五部分），他(指：唐崇榮)在區別人性(human nature)和原人性(humanness)下對道成肉身的討論，聽起來有點像俄利根(Origen)（或以撒華茲)(Isaac Watts）。俄利根相信人類靈魂是先存的，並教導聖子的道成肉身分為兩個階段，第一階段是從創造之初，祂就與耶穌之未墮落的人性靈魂的聯合，第二階段是在馬利亞腹中與人性身體聯合。俄利根解釋說，聖子與人性靈魂的先前聯合（譯註:即第一階段）正是何以「在整本聖經中，不僅用人的言語來說到神性，而且也用神聖尊貴的稱謂來修飾人性。」[1] （http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-4.php）
As noted at the end of the previous post (see part 5 ), his discussion of the incarnation under the distinction between human nature and humanness vaguely sounds like Origen (or Isaac Watts). Origin believed in the pre-existence of human souls and taught a two-stage incarnation of the Son, the first consisting of his union with the un-fallen human soul of Jesus from the beginning of creation and the second a union with a human body in Mary's womb. The prior union of the Son with a human soul is why, he reasons, "throughout the whole of Scripture, not only is the divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human nature is adorned by appellations of divine dignity."[1] (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-4.php)
我們的講者（譯註:指唐崇榮）也提出了類似的主張，從聖經所見證道成肉身之前人性就有「尊貴和榮耀」而得出了同樣的結論。[2] 雖然他不贊同人性靈魂是先存的，但他將人性(humanness)視為人類的原始、先存的形式，後來體現在拿撒勒人耶穌身上，祂是所有受造之人的原型。這說法很接近俄利根的說法。傳統上，人性靈魂（anima）被認為是人性身體的形式（forma corporis）。大多數改革宗神學家對此採用了廣泛的亞里士多德式的解釋，其中形式(form)（在這種情況下指「靈魂」）只存在於所形成的特定事物(particular)（在這種情況下指「具有身體的人」）中。[3] 然而，像俄利根一樣，我們的講者(譯註:指唐崇榮)擁抱柏拉圖二元論的一種版本，其中形式獨立於形成的事物而真實地存在：
Our speaker makes similar claims, drawing the same conclusion about the biblical witness to humanity's "dignity and glory" prior to the incarnation.[2] Though he does not endorse the pre-existence of the human soul, his notion of humanness as the original, pre-existing form of the humanity later embodied in Jesus of Nazareth and prototype of all created humans comes close. Traditionally, the human soul (anima) is conceived as the form of the human body (forma corporis). Most Reformed theologians adopted a broadly Aristotelian interpretation of this, in which the form (soul, in this case) only properly exists in the particular thing formed (the embodied human).[3] Like Origen, however, our speaker embraces a version of Platonic dualism in which forms really exist independent of the thing formed:
「原人性」(Humanness )是人內在的本質，是人作為人的本質。這個人類的本質從永恆就存在了，是神內在的東西，祂打算用它作為祂創造人類的基因。它是神的形象;它是基督的本體存有。[4]
Humanness is the essence within human beings, the essence by virtue of which human beings are human. This human essence has existed from all eternity, and is something within God's being that he intended to use as the gene for his creation of humankind. It is the image of God; it is the ontological being of Christ. [4]
換句話說，那原始、先存的原人性(humanness）形式不僅僅是神心中的一個想法，更是一個實際存在的事物，與俄利根不同，他(指唐崇榮)宣稱它（這原人性）是永恆的，並位於神的所是之中。在下一篇文章將討論這點對於理解在馬利亞腹中之道成肉身這獨特時刻的含義。
In other words, the original, pre-existing form of humanity (humanness) is not just an idea in God's mind but an actually existing thing, which he, unlike Origen, declares eternal and locates within God's being. The implication of this for understanding the unique moment of the incarnation in Mary's womb is taken up in the next post.
Notes:
[1] Origen, De Principiis, 2.6.3-5. See also Isaac Watts, "The Glory of Christ as God-man" in The Works of the Rev. Isaac Watts, vol. 6 (Leeds: Edward Baines, 1813), pp. 484-670, and the discussion of this work in Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 423-28.
[2] First Recording
[3] Ordinarily, form and matter are considered inseparable in this tradition. The separation of soul from body in death is a temporary, abnormal state.
[4] First Recording
（博文六結束）
博文七
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-6.php
第三個陳述：道成肉身（只是？）取得一個身體
Third Statement: Incarnation as the Assumption of a Body (Alone?)
儘管我們的弟兄（譯註：唐崇榮）看來是二元人觀，但他實際上沒有肯定兩個階段的道成肉身（或，原人性是祂的魂）。俄利根相信基督的人性靈魂是未墮落的、先存的，卻是受造的，在創造之初就為子所取得的。但我們的弟兄卻將基督的人性說成是非受造的和永恆的，不是取得的，而是「存在於神的所是之中」的某種東西。因此，在道成肉身前，基督已是人；而在那只有一個的道成肉身時刻，基督取得一個物質的人性身體。故此，在解釋「成肉身的道」（Logos ensarkos）之意義時，他這樣宣告：
Despite his apparent anthropological dualism, our brother does not actually affirm a two-stage incarnation (or refer to humanness as his soul). Origen believed Christ's human soul was un-fallen and pre-existent but also created and assumed by the Son at the beginning of creation. But here, Christ's humanness is said to be uncreated and eternal, not something assumed but "something within God's being." So, there is only one incarnational moment, which involves the assumption of a physical human body by the one who is already human without the incarnation. Thus, in explaining the meaning of " Logos ensarkos, Word-in-flesh," he declares this:
關於這個「肉身」，聖經有三個重要的說法：（1）「父為我預備了一個身體」；（2 ）子自己取了奴僕的樣式，因而從馬利亞繼承了一個物質的身體；（3）童女因聖靈成孕生子，就是神來住我們中間—以馬內利。
About this "flesh", the Bible has made three important statements: (1) "the Father has prepared a body for me"; (2) the Son Himself took the form of a slave, thus inheriting a physical body from Mary; (3) the Virgin conceived and gave birth by the Holy Spirit, so God came to dwell among us--Immanuel.
他從這三點往前解釋為何他不願意稱基督的身體（或肉身）為受造的。我們將在第十部分探討這點。這裡的要點是他明顯地將道成肉身約化成取得一個人性物質的身體。用他的原話來說，「基督已經擁有了那原始和永恆的人形（即「原人性」），然後在祂來到世界之後，祂就擁有了一個有肉身的人性，即一個人性的身體。」[1]
He proceeds to explain from these three points why he is unwilling to call Christ’s body (or flesh) created, which we will return to in part 10. The point here is to observe the apparent reduction of the incarnation to just the assumption of a physical human body. Again, in his words, "Christ was already in possession of an original and eternal form of human nature, and then after he came into the world, he came to possess an incarnate human nature, the nature of a human body."[1]
這句話可以理解為，不只約化了道成肉身，而且將受造的人性（created human nature）約化為擁有人性的身體，或我們「憑藉擁有身體」所獲得的某些性質。然而，他否認這一點，而說「一個人之所以是人，是因為在他或她內在存在『人性』（在『原人性』意義上）」。[2] 如前所述（見第5部分），「『原人性』是人內在的本質，是人作為人的本質」。[3] 但是，根據他的說法，聖子從永恆就已經擁有了『原人性』，因此在這意義上基督已是人。因此，聖子並沒有在人性的意義上取得人性，也沒有在馬利亞的腹中受孕時成為完全的人，而只是獲得了「人性的身體」。
This statement could be read as reducing not just the incarnation, but created human nature to possessing a human body or some property we acquire "by virtue of having a body." He denies this, however, and prefers to say "a human being is human because there is human nature [in the sense of humanness] within him or her."[2] As already observed (see part 5 ), "humanness is the essence within human beings, the essence by virtue of which human beings are human."[3] But, according to him, the Son already possessed this from eternity and thus was a human being in precisely this sense. So, the Son did not assume human nature in the sense of humanness or become fully human when conceived in Mary's womb, but acquired just "the nature of a human body."(http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china- 4.php)
他通過堅持基督的人性是先存的，而阻止了使他這種觀點陷入「道--肉體」（Word-flesh）或亞波里拿留主義的基督論。雖然這些陳述表明這講者對子在道成肉身中所取得的觀點，很像亞波里拿留主義的觀點，但這講者堅持認為道成肉身的聖子「像我們一樣有[人類]身體，靈魂、情感、理性和意志」。[4] 目前尚不清楚他的人類靈魂是否與道成肉身之前的人性相同（asarkos），或者只是顯現（ensarkos），但原人性似乎是指基督人性的屬靈（智力和意志）方面，因此祂的人性包括身體和靈魂，包括阿波利納主義者所否認的智力方面。
By insisting on the pre-existence of Christ's humanness, he arrests this view from collapsing into a Word-flesh or Apollinarian Christology. Although these statements suggest a broadly Apollinarian view of what the Son assumed in the incarnation, the speaker insists that the incarnate Son "has a [human] body, a soul, affection, reason, and a will just like us."[4] It is unclear whether his human soul is identical with his humanness prior to the incarnation(asarkos) or only as embodied (ensarkos), but humanness seems to refer to the spiritual(intellectual and volitional) aspect of Christ's human nature, and thus his humanity includes both body and soul, including the intellectual aspect denied by Apollinarians.[5]
然而，避免了亞波里拿留主義不過是一點安慰而已。
Avoiding Apollinarianism, however, is little consolation.
（博文七結束）
Notes:
[1] Third Recording. Also worth noting, the speaker identifies flesh with body and contrasts it to both the soul and what Jesus possessed prior to the incarnation.
[2] First Recording
[3] First Recording
[4] Second Recording
[5] Hodge, Systematic Theology, pp. 421-23, interprets Emanuel Swedenborg's extensive but scattered comments on the incarnation as positing an eternal humanness in God that becomes materially manifest in time by the God's assumption of a physical body. Hodge is followed by Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove: InterVarsityPress, 1997), p. 137.
博文八
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-7.php
第四個陳述：被重塑之神的形象
Fourth Statement: The Recast Image of God
通過基督永恆人性的概念（見第5部分），神的形象不再只是關於人類原初按照神的樣式被創造的方式，現在也關於人類的原始形式（「原人性」）如何永遠地先存在於「神的所是之中」。他（譯註：唐崇榮）的辯解是「神的形象是基督，因此基督在永恆中就是人性的原始形式」。[1] 他將「神的形象」顛倒過來，從「原人性是基督的本質......基督是神的形象」推論到「這個形象包含著人性的原始形式。」他提出「也許，這（原人性）可以被稱為神在基督裡未知的人性」。
Recast by the concept of Christ's eternal humanness (see part 5 ), the image of God is no longer just about the way humans were originally created in God's likeness but now also about how humanity's original form eternally exists "within God's being." He reasons that "the image of God is Christ and therefore Christ in eternity is the original form of human nature."[1] Turning the imago Dei on its head, he proceeds from the claim that "humanness is the essence of Christ and . . . Christ is the image of God" to the (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-4.php) conclusion that "this image contains within it the original form of the essence of human nature. Perhaps," he proposes, "this could be called the 'Unknown humanity of God in Christ'." [2]
正統改革宗神學家有時說基督是神本質的形像（imago essentialis），因為作為子，祂與父是本質相同。然而，當他們這樣說時，他們小心翼翼地將這種神聖形像的意義與人類按照神的形像（imago accidentalis）創造的意義區分開來，並否認人類擁有神本質的形像。[3]
Orthodox Reformed theologians sometimes speak of Christ as the essential image of God (imago essentialis) in the sense that, as the Son, he is co-essential with the Father. When they do, however, they carefully distinguish this sense of the divine image from the sense in which humans are created in God's image (imago accidentalis), and deny that humans possess the essential image of God.[3]
耶穌基督作為道成肉身的兒子，在某種意義上使看不見的神成為可見的。因此，祂是「看不見之神的像」（西一15）和「神本性的印象」（來一3），超越了任何的人。只有道成肉身的子才具有本質的形像，它（這本質的形像）不能再被傳遞、丟失或損壞，就像祂永遠是三位一體的第二位格一樣。
As the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ in some sense makes the invisible God visible. Hence he is "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15 ) and "the exact imprint of his nature" (Heb 1:3 ) in away that surpasses anything that could be said of mere humans. Only the incarnate Son bears the essential image and it cannot be transmitted, lost, or damaged anymore than he could be duplicated or fail to be the second person of the Trinity. (https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Col%201.15) (https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Heb%201.3)
然而，在人裡面之神的形像，是最初在創造時賜給亞當的自然禮物。它從亞當已經傳給了整個族類，並且在墮落時受到嚴重破壞了並部分失落了。這種破壞是指著神聖形象的內在方面說的，就是人類如何像神一樣，具有心思、意志和情感的靈魂。雖然人裡面之神的形像受損，但這些能力在墮落中保存下來。從這個意義上說，人類仍繼續擁有神聖的形像。神聖形像的外在方面，即亞當和夏娃，也像神一樣，原初是公義的、聖潔的和純潔的，在墮落時失去了。
The image of God in mere humans, however, is a natural gift originally given to Adam at creation. From him, it has been passed on to the whole race and, in the fall, was also severely damaged and partly lost. The damage was done to the intrinsic aspect of the divine image, which is how humans are, like God, spiritual beings with intellect, will, and affections. Though damaged, these faculties survive the fall and in this sense humans continue to bear the divine image. The extrinsic aspect of the divine image, which is how Adam and Eve, also like God, were originally righteous, holy, and pure, was lost in the fall.
混淆子的本質形像和神賦予人類的形像，就是混淆了神性和人性。我們的講者（指唐崇榮）意識到了危險：
To confuse the Son's essential image with the image of God given humanity is to confuse the divine and human natures. Our speaker is aware of the danger:
在這裡，我無意混淆基督的人性和神性。我的意思是，基督的人性[或原人性]，即創造人性的原始形式，就在祂裡面。
Here, I do not intend to confuse Christ's human and divine natures. What I mean is that Christ's human nature [or humanness], which is the original form by which human nature is created, is within him.[4]
然而，以上關於神形像的陳述，沒有堅持神在基督裡作為神聖兒子的本質形象和作為禮物賜給人類的神聖形像，兩者之間保持任何區別。因此，它們無法防止神性和人性之間的這種混淆。相反，藉著追溯人裡面之神的形像（imago Dei），透過「基督的本體所是」到「神的所是」，這種（神性與人性的）混亂似乎是不可避免的。
The statements on the image of God above, however, fail to maintain any distinction between the essential image of God in Christ as the divine Son and the divine image given to humanity as a gift. Consequently, they fail to prevent this kind of confusion between the divine and human natures. On the contrary, by tracing the imago Dei in humans back through "the ontological being of Christ" to "God's being," this sort of confusion seems unavoidable.
（博文八結束）
Notes:
[1] First Recording
[2] Second Recording. The phrase "Unknown humanity of God in Christ" is originally given in English by the speaker and thus not translated, and for that reason offset here in quotation marks
[3] This sense of the imago essentialis should not be confused with, for example, G. C. Berkouwer's use of that term in Man the Image of God: Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 38-41, to refer to the constitutive aspect of the image of God inhumanity. Note also that Lutheran theologians draw a similar distinction between the substantial image of God (imago substantialis) uniquely in Christ as the divine Son and the accidental image (imago accidentalis) originally in Adam.
[4] Second Recording
博文九
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-8.php
第五種陳述：單純的功能相似
Fifth Statement: Merely Functional Likeness
諷刺的是，對神的形像持單一的觀點（譯註：即把神賦予人類的形像等同為子的本質形像）（見第8部分（http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/01/christological-confusion-china-7.php））導致我們的講者（指唐崇榮）堅持認為基督的人性「與被造的我們有根本上的不同」。[1] 這是偏離了迦克墩傳統所承認道成肉身的兒子「按照人說，與我們同質，[並且]在凡事上與我們一樣，只是沒有罪」（見第3部分（http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-2.php）。
Ironically, holding a univocal view of God's image (see part 8 (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/01/christological-confusion-china-7.php)) leads our speaker to insist that Christ's human nature "is fundamentally different from us who have been created."[1] This is a startling departure from the Chalcedonian tradition's confession that the incarnate Son is "consubstantial with us according to the manhood [and]in all things like unto us, without sin" (see part 3 (http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-2.php)
如果只有一種神聖的形像，而這個形象是永恆的兒子，也是人類的本質，那麼永恆的兒子在某種意義上一定是永恆的人——即祂永恆的原人性。正如他（指：唐崇榮）所說，
If there is only one kind of divine image and that image is the eternal Son and is also the essence of humanity then it follows that the eternal Son must be eternally human in some sense--the sense of his eternal humanness. As he puts it,
耶穌基督擁有神的形像，[而]我們是按照神的形像受造的。因此，基督本身就是形象，即是人性的基因。在基督裡面是人性的原始形式，或原始的人性。這是沒有受造的成分。這就是我的意思。所以，我相信基督的人性是非受造的，是先存於神裡面的。
Jesus Christ possesses God's image, [while] we were created after God's image. Therefore, Christ himself is the image, which is the gene of human nature. Well, within Christ is the original form of human nature, or original human nature. This is something that is not created. This is what I mean. So, I believe that Christ's human nature is uncreated and pre-existent within God.[2]
還有，And again,
既然人類是按照這個形像受造的，人類是按照神的形象受造的，也就是說，是按照基督的樣式受造的。既然人類是按照基督的樣式被造的，基督一定在全人類被造之前就已經存在了。「在基督裡的人性」一直先存在於基督裡面。這就是我要表達的意思。
Since humankind was created in this image, humankind is said to have been created in the image of God, that is, created in Christ's likeness. Now, since humankind was created in Christ's likeness, Christ must have pre-existed before the creation of all human beings. The "humanness in Christ" has always pre-existed within Christ. This is what I mean to express.[3]
所以，基督是原始的人，我們是按照祂的人性形像創造的複製品：「我們反照祂，祂是原型。」
So, Christ is the original human, we are the copies created in the likeness of his humanness: "we reflect Him, he is the prototype."[4]
因為祂（基督）的人性是非受造的和先存的，我們不能說祂除了罪之外在各方面都像我們——或者相反，我們就像祂一樣。相反，我們必須得出結論，祂的「原人性與傳統上所說的人性或人性並不十分相似」，並且即使在拿撒勒人耶穌身上道成肉身，祂也只是「在許多事情上與我們相似」。[5] 甚至「他的身體與我們的身體完全不同」。
Because his human nature is uncreated and pre-existent we cannot say he is like us in everyway except sin--or conversely, that we are just like him. We must instead conclude that his "humanness is not very similar to what is traditionally referred to as humanity or human nature" and that, even as incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, he is only "like unto us in many things."[5] Even "his body is entirely different from ours."[6]
他直接談到迦克墩的主張—基督在除了罪之外，在各方面都像我們一樣—他問道：
Directly addressing the Chalcedonian claim Christ is like us in every way except sin, he asks,
祂在所有這些事情上都像我們一樣嗎？祂是人，所以，就像我們一樣，祂可能會變得饑餓、口渴和身體疲倦；祂會睡覺；祂經歷了我們所經歷的許多事情。
Is he like unto us in all these things? He is a human being, so, just like us, he could grow hungry, thirsty, and physically weary; he would sleep; he experienced many of the things that we experience.[7]
但是，祂和我們一樣的許多方面可能只與一系列的身體機能和相應的經歷有關：
But the many ways he is like us may relate only to a range of bodily functions and corresponding experiences:
祂的身體與我們的身體完全不同，因為我們的身體是被創造的。耶穌基督的身體既不是從塵土中創造的，也不是從男人和女人的結合中創造的。所以祂的身體肯定和我們的不同。然而，不同的是，祂真的變成了人，祂必須擁有我們所擁有的那種身體的所有功能，所以祂會睡覺，祂會累，祂會餓，祂會口渴，等等。祂身體的功能「在一切事情上都像我們一樣」。
His body is entirely different from ours, because our bodies have been created. . . .Jesus Christ's body was neither created from dust, nor from the union of a man and a woman, . . . so his body is certainly different from ours. Different, yet, he truly became human, and he had to possess all the functions of the kind of bodies that we have, so he would sleep, he would be tired, he would grow hungry, he would be thirsty, etc. The functions of his body were "like unto us in all things."[8]
雖然耶穌的身體功能必需要像我們一樣，但單憑具體的經驗並不能保證祂與其他人同質（consubstantial）。功能性相似的身體並不足以確保符合迦克墩傳統（更不用說希伯來書的作者）所堅持的那種對人性的認同，這（同質的人性）是「為了我們的救贖」所必需的。正如拿先斯的貴格利（Gregory of Nazianzus）所宣告的格言：「祂所沒有取得的，就不能被醫治。」
Although Jesus is necessarily like us in his bodily functions, embodied experience alone falls short of being consubstantial with the rest of humanity. Functional somatic similarity, if you will, is not enough to secure the kind of identification with humanity the Chalcedonian tradition, not to mention author of Hebrews, maintains is necessary "for our salvation." As the maxim laid down by Gregory of Nazianzus declares, "that which was not assumed is not healed."[9]
Notes:
[1] First Recording
[2] Third Recording
[3] First Recording
[4] First Recording
[5] First Recording
[6] Third Recording
[7] Second Recording
[8] Third Recording
[9] Letter to Cledonius (Ep. 101), p. 5
（博文九結束）
博文十
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-9.php
第六陳述：一個非受造的身體
Sixth Statement: An Uncreated Body
《比利時信條》堅持永恆的兒子成為完全的人，祂所取的「人性」並沒有失去「它的屬性，而是仍然是一個受造物，有開始的，是有限的本性，並保留了真實身體的所有屬性」（見第4部分）然而，我們在亞洲的弟兄否認耶穌的人性是被造的。我們已經（http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-3.php）觀察了他關於聖子永恆人性的特殊主張（見第5部分），但他也否認基督的身體是被造的。（http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-4.php）
The Belgic Confession insists the eternal Son became fully human and that "the human nature" he assumed did not lose "its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body" (see part 4 ) Our brother in Asia, however, denies that the human nature of Jesus is created. We have already(http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-3.php)
observed his peculiar claims regarding the eternal humanness of the Son (see part 5 ), but he also denies the body of Christ was created.(http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/09/christological-confusion-china-4.php)
他暗示聖經中只有兩種關於人類如何被創造的記載——要麼人像亞當和夏娃一樣從塵土中，要麼人像其他族類一樣通過交合被創造——他得出結論，既然兩者都不適用於耶穌，我們不能說祂的身體是被造的：
Suggesting that there are only two biblical accounts of how a human being may be created--either from the dust as Adam and Eve or through sexual intercourse as the rest of the race--he concludes that since neither applies to Jesus we cannot say that his body has been created:
我們是否允許或合適將「受造」這個詞用於與聖子身體有關的事情？就我個人而言，我認為我不太願意使用這個詞，因為子是創造者——子的起源從永恆、永恆的過去就存在了，子在道成肉身時「成為」肉身意味著甚麼是一個謎。
Is it permissible or appropriate for us to apply the word "created" to matters relating to the Son's body? Personally, I think I am not very willing to use this word, because the Son is the Creator--the Son's origin has existed from all eternity, eternity past, and what it means for the Son to have "become" flesh upon the incarnation is a mystery[1]
他更強烈地寫道：「主耶穌不但是創造者，也是受造的，有分於被造之物」的說法是「大有問題的」。
More strongly, he writes that the claim that "the Lord Jesus is not only the Creator but is also created and partakes in that which is created" is "greatly problematic."[2]
耶穌是『創造者』﹗如果祂的身體是「被造的」，那麼祂整個身體是自己造的，祂進去祂自己造的裡面；那祂到底有分於受造的部份，或是受造的部分有分於祂呢？你把它顛倒過來了！⋯聖經從來沒有提到，耶穌有受造的一部分，這是亞流的異端、是諾斯底主義的異端、是李常受的異端來毒害教會。
Jesus is [the Creator]. If his body is created, then his whole body is self-created, and he entered into that which he himself created. Then, in the final analysis, is a portion of him a partaker of creation or does a portion of creation partake of him? You have turned him upside down! . . . The Bible never mentions Jesus having a created portion; this is the heresy of Arianism, the heresy of Gnosticism, the heresy of Witness Lee that has come to harm the church.[3]
還有，And again,
耶穌基督裡面沒有受造的一部分，祂是創造者，祂是配受敬拜和永恆歌頌的。⋯耶穌基督不是受造的，在基督的位格里面，沒有受造的成分；連祂的人性、肉身中間，還是神自己以祂無窮的大能在肉身的範圍向人顯現。祂才是我們的救主。
Within Jesus Christ there is no created portion. He is the Creator, he is worthy to receive worship and eternal praise. . . . Jesus Christ is not created; in the person of Christ, there is no created portion, even within his human nature and flesh, he is still God revealing himself to man by his boundless power within the scope of flesh, and is[thereby] our savior[4]
然而，迦克墩傳統並沒有因為堅持認為基督的人性是有限的和受造的，而滑入亞流派、諾斯替派或任何其他錯誤的危險。
The Chalcedonian tradition, however, is not in danger of slipping into Arian, Gnostic, or any other error by insisting the human nature of Christ is finite and created.
提到倪柝聲的跟隨者和承繼者李常受，或能說明（這牧師的）問題。在1991年的時候，就是這牧師首次出版上面最後的評論時，我們的講者可能已經早已遠離了李氏的教導。然而，人們可能為這爭論而誇大其詞並不擇手段，都被他在以後二十多年來繼續捍衛他相同的立場所稍弱：
The mention of Witness Lee, Watchman Nee's disciple and successor, may be telling. Still living in 1991, when these last comments were first published, our speaker may have been distancing himself from Lee's teachings. Any allowance one might make for polemical overstatement, however, is undermined by his continued defense of this same position over twenty years later:
那麼，耶穌的身體是不是被造的呢？我說不。我的意思是，祂的身體與我們的身體完全不同，因為我們的身體是被造的。耶穌基督的身體既不是用塵土被造的，也不是從男人和女人的結合中被造的。祂的身體不是以這兩種方式中的任何一種創造的，所以祂的身體肯定與我們的身體不同。
Now, was Jesus' body created or not? I say No. What I mean is that His body is entirely different from ours, because our bodies have been created . . . Jesus Christ's body was neither created from dust, nor from the union of a man and a woman. His body was not created in either of these two ways, so His body is certainly different from ours [5]
他對這種特殊觀點—基督的身體是非受造的—的委身是根深蒂固的，但也許不是不可救藥的。
His commitment to this peculiar view--that Christ's body is uncreated--is entrenched, but perhaps not incorrigibly so.
重要的是，我們的講者並沒有聲稱基督的身體是永恆的或有源自天上的。目前尚不清楚他還有哪些其他選擇，但他並沒有明確主張如在激進改革家卡斯珀·士閔克非（Casper Schwenckfeld）（他的觀點源自莫奇奧利茨派（Melchiorites）,或被稱為霍夫曼派（Hoffmanites）和門諾派（Mennonites），或當代神學家斯蒂芬·韋伯（Stephen Webb）所提倡那種屬天肉身基督論。然而，他（指唐崇榮）反對在創造主耶穌基督裡面沒有任何「被造的成分」的想法，他似乎沒有其他選擇，只能選擇一個永恆的（基督人性）。從這個意義上，就是是基督的身體源自天上。然而，與其肯定那麼多，他更願意宣佈基督身體的起源是一個不可逾越的奧秘。
Importantly, our speaker does not claim Christ's body is eternal or has a heavenly origin. It is not clear what other options exist, but he does not explicitly advocate the sort of heavenly flesh Christology we encounter in the radical reformer Casper Schwenckfeld, whose view took root among the Melchiorites and Mennonites, or the contemporary theologian Stephen Webb.[6] Yet he takes exception to the very idea that there is any "created portion" within Jesus Christ, the Creator, and this seems to leave no other option but an eternal and in that sense heavenly source of Christ's body. Rather than affirm as much, however, he prefers to declare the origin of Christ's body an impenetrable mystery.
他顯然是為了保護基督作為創造主的榮耀，祂移取了神在耶穌基督里對罪人恩典的屈尊降卑，成為更大榮耀的化身。祈克果（Kierkegaard）觀察到，道成肉身是對人類墮落和不斷過度的理性的冒犯。每一個基督論的異端都可以被理解為試圖迴避這種冒犯——道成肉身成為有限理性的人明顯是荒謬的。我們的講者被永活之子道成肉身成為受造物所冒犯，可能真的有可能否認「神與人之間的一位中保，就是基督耶穌，他捨己為眾人作贖價」（提前二5-6）
In an apparent effort to protect the glory of Christ as the Creator he guts the incarnation of the greater glory of God's gracious condescension to sinners in Jesus Christ. The incarnation is an offense to humanity's fallen and constantly overreaching reason, Kierkegaard observed. Every Christological heresy can be understood as an attempt to dodge this offense—the apparent absurdity of the incarnation to finite reason. Offended by the creatureliness of the eternal Son incarnate, our speaker may be in real danger of denying the reality of the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:5-6 ).(https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1%20Tim%202.5-6)
Notes:
[1] First Recording.
[2] This is translated from Q&A XIII of his 1991 booklet on Christology, published in Chinese by his ministry organization.
[3] Booklet, Q&A XIII, 1991. Arianism broadly refers to a family of Christologies that view the Son as a created being, denying he is consubstantial with the Father (and also with humanity, ordinarily). Gnostic Christologies are often docetic--one way or another God only seemed to be human. Here, however, the speaker almost certainly has in mind the common gnostic belief that creation is the work of a lesser being--a demiurge--which may or may not be associated with the Son. As for Witness Lee, the allusion is more difficult to identify, but a summary of his unusual view of the incarnation is given in his booklet, All-Inclusive Spirit of Christ (Los Angeles: Living Stream Ministry, 1969):
Take a cup of plain water and mix it with tea. Now the water is more than just water. Originally, it was water, but now it is water mingled with tea. Before Christ was incarnated, He was God alone, but after His incarnation He is God mingled with man. In Him is not only the divine nature but also the human nature, the human essence, the human element. He is God, He is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Spirit, and He is man. He is so rich!
Note both the mingling metaphor and incarnation of both Father and Spirit with the Son in Jesus Christ. Whether these are Lee's actual views or just imprecise and confusing ways of expressing himself is debated.
[4] Booklet, Q&A XIII, 1991.
[5] Third Recording, in which he also says "I have examined the Christology that I have taught, namely, the printed book Christology [基督論] that I mentioned, as well as my recently published book, The Eternal Christ and Jesus of History [永世的基督和歷史的耶穌]. As I carefully examined them, I believe that my basic view remains unchanged."
[6] Schwenkfeld eventually published his views in the Great Confession of the Glory of Christ (1541). Webb's work, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford, 2012), is intended to be a theological bridge between Christianity and Mormonism, but to my knowledge has not been used by any supporters by orthodox believers on either bank of that divide.
博文十一
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-10.php
第七個陳述：「神在基督裡未知的人性」
Seventh Statement: The "Unknown Humanity of God in Christ"
卡維里（Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen）觀察到，「直到近代，[基督]人性先存在的想法不僅沒有獲得肯定，而且很多時被認為是危險的，甚至是異端的。[1] 然而，這並沒有阻止不斷挑釁的卡爾·巴特對基督論的想法。他首先在他的《教會教義學》中暗示這個，後來在瑞士改革宗牧師協會面前論證，神在基督裡的人性必須在福音派神學中佔有中心地位。他承認，他和他的同僚們在反對神學自由主義的論戰中「把[對神的看法]從中心移到了邊緣，從強調的原則轉移到了不太強調的從屬」，他現在認為恢復（神在基督裡的人性）是一項緊迫的任務。[2] 從那以後，其他一些神學家也玩起了這種說法。其中包括Wilhelm Vischer，Donald Bloesch，Robert Jenson，Thomas Senor和之前曾提過的Webb。[3] 顯然，我們在亞洲的兄弟應該被添加到這個名單中。
"Until recent times," Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen observes, "the idea of the pre-existence of the human nature [of Christ] was not only not affirmed but at times considered to be dangerous or even heretical."[1] This did not prevent the ever-provocative Karl Barth from
Contriving such a Christology, however. First hinted at in his Church Dogmatics, he later argued before the Swiss Reformed Ministers' Association that the humanity of God in Christ must have a central place in evangelical theology. Admitting that he and his cobelligerents had "moved [this perspective on God] from the center to the periphery, from the emphasized principle clause to the less emphasized subordinate clause" in their polemic against theological liberalism, he now considered its recovery an urgent task.[2] Since then a number of other theologians have played suit. Among them are Wilhelm Vischer, Donald Bloesch, Robert Jenson, Thomas Senor, and the already noted Webb.[3] Apparently, our brother in Asia should be added to this list.
雖然他沒有引用任何來源來說明他的陳述（除了聖經中一些可疑的翻譯或解釋的地方），但他的語言有時似乎直接從巴特的幾次討論中說出來，包括他聲稱基督永恆的人性是人類的非受造「原型」，「可以被稱為『神在基督里不為人知的人性』。」[4] 例如，巴特在討論人類的創造時說：
Although he does not cite any sources for his statements (other than a few dubiously translated or interpreted places in Scripture), his language sometimes seems lifted right out of Barth's several discussions, including his claim that the eternal humanness of Christ is the uncreated "prototype" of humanity and "could be called the 'Un-known humanity of God in Christ'."[4] Here, for example, is Barth's discussing the creation of humans:
有一個真實的先存的人⋯即，預先存在於神的旨意中，就此意義，於神自己中，即神的兒子中，作人類的非受造原型。它（非受造的人性）將與神聯繫起來......當神自己反照在這個形象中時，祂創造了人 [5]
There is a real pre-existence of man... namely, a pre-existence in the counsel of God, and to that extent, in God Himself, i.e., in the Son of God, in so far as the Son is the uncreated prototype of the humanity which is to be linked with God... As God Himself is mirrored in this image, He creates man [5]
關於神的人性，巴特宣稱「正確的理解，正是神的神性包括祂的人性」，並且「祂的神性本身就包含了人性」。他認為，人性隱藏在神聖的存在中，但通過耶穌基督揭示：「在祂裡面，這事實一次而永遠確定，沒有人，神就不存在。」還有，「在耶穌基督人性的鏡子里，隱藏在祂的神性中之神的人性被啟示出來」。 [6]
On the humanity of God, Barth declares "it is precisely God's deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity" and that "His deity encloses humanity in itself." Humanity, he argues, is hidden within the divine being but revealed through Jesus Christ: "In Him the fact is once for all established that God does not exist without man." Again, "in the mirror of this humanity of Jesus Christ the humanity of God enclosed in His deity reveals itself." [6]
巴特明白，「我們已經從基督中心推進到......關於神的人性（以馬內利）的陳述，這不能不產生最深遠的後果。」 [7] 但後果是由一個人提出的特定觀點的細節決定的。儘管語言相似，但巴特和我們在亞洲的兄弟從不同的出發點對基督的人性先存有不同的看法，最終持有不同的立場——後者甚至比前者更奇特。
Barth understands that "the statement regarding God's humanity, the Immanuel, to which we have advanced... from the Christological center, cannot but have the most far-reaching consequences."[7] But the consequences are determined by the details of the particular view one advances. Despite the similarity of language, Barth and our brother in Asia arrive at the irrespective views on the pre-existence of Christ's humanity from distinct starting points and, in the end, hold distinct positions--the latter's even more exotic than the former's.
這裡不是在比較研究巴特關於基督人性先存的觀點，以及這說法在今天在中國紮根後所產生的變異。但是，正如巴特正確指出，任何關於神在基督裡的人性的陳述都會產生深遠的後果，正如卡維里（Kärkkäinen）所觀察到的，其中一些後果長期以來被視為威脅451年制定的迦克墩定義中所包含的聖經的理解。
This is not the place to enter into a comparative study of Barth's view of Christ's pre-existent humanity and the variety of this species taking root in China today. But, as Barth correctly notes, any statement regarding the humanity of God in Christ will have profound consequences, some of which, as Kärkkäinen observes, have long been considered dangerous to the understanding of Scripture captured in the Chalcedonian definition set down in 451.
Notes:
[1] Kärkkäinen, Christ and Reconciliation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 184-85.
[2] His 1956 address to the Swiss Reformed Ministers' Association was entitled "The Humanity of God" and subsequently translated into English and published in Karl Barth, The Humanity of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), pp. 37-65. See also Barth's Christocentric discussion of election in Church Dogmatics II/2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957),pp. 95-194 (especially p. 145), and of the creation of "real man" in Church Dogmatics III/2(1960), p. 155.
[3] See, for example, Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ, trans. A.B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth, 1949); Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 132-43; Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), especially pp. 125-45; and Thomas D. Senor, "Incarnation and Trinity" in Reason for the Hope Within, ed. by Michael Murray (Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 238-59, especially 241-52. Bloesch also names Klaas Runia and Ray Anderson as proponents, p. 137. Like Matt Slick, President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, who states "Jesus is uncreated" several times in his article on "Jesus" available at https://carm.org/cut-jesus , it is difficult to know Runia and Anderson intended to assert the uncreated humanity of Christ or were just speaking loosely about his pre-existence as the Son. After Barth, Jenson's views have attracted the most attention, including sharp critiques by Simon Gathercole, "Pre-existence and the Freedom of the Son in Creation and Redemption: An Exposition in Dialogue with Robert Jenson," International Journal of Systematic Theology, 7.1 (January2005), pp. 38-51, and Oliver D. Crisp, "Robert Jensen on the Pre-existence of Christ," Modern Theology 23:1 (January 2007), pp. 27-45, the latter concluding Jenson's view is "simply incoherent," p. 42.(https://carm.org/cut-jesus)
[4] Second Recording.
[5] Church Dogmatics III/2, p. 155.
[6] Barth, Humanity of God, pp. 46, 49, 50, and 51, respectively (emphasis original). It is worth noting that the Barth's language regarding the humanity of God has spread far beyond just those who afrm Christ's humanity is pre-existent. Take, for example, the title to James Torrance's festschrift, Christ in our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World: Essays presented to James Torrance (Eugene: Pickwick, 1989)or the language of Jürgen Moltmann in many passages of The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
[7] Barth, Humanity of God, p. 52.
博文十二
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/christological-confusion-china-11.php
結論
Conclusion
也許有一些方法可以在不違反迦克墩正統的情況下解釋基督人性的先存——克拉斯·魯尼亞（Klaas Runia）肯定地認為巴特做到了這一點。[1]
There may be ways to construe the supposed pre-existent humanity of Christ without transgressing Chalcedonian orthodoxy--Klaas Runia certainly thought Barth achieved this.[1]
為這緣故，改革宗神學家通常認為這種觀點（基督人性的先存）是令人反感的，但本身並不是異端。[2] 儘管本文所回顧的一些陳述很難與迦克墩一致，並且顯然與上面引用的改革宗標準不相容，但我在這裡關心的不是評估這個人的觀點，而是解決他的陳述在改革宗圈子裡中國大陸（及以後）造成的基督論混亂。
For this reason, among others, Reformed theologians have generally treated this view as objectionable but not, by itself, heretical.[2] Even though some of the statements reviewed in this essay are difficult to square with Chalcedon and obviously incompatible with the Reformed standards cited above, my concern here is not assessing this man's views but addressing the Christological confusion his statements are causing within Reformed circles on the mainland of China (and beyond).
也許這些陳述並不能準確代表他的觀點。它們陳述得不夠精確，有些是推測的，並且沒有從聖經中明確論證。這裡還涉及層層語言，距離這些錄音至少已經過去了兩年——這足夠他改變主意的時間了。
Perhaps these statements do not accurately represent his views. They are imprecisely stated, somewhat speculative, and not clearly argued from Scripture. There are also layers of language involved here and at least two years has passed since these recordings were made--enough time for him to have already changed his mind.
無論如何，這些陳述在整個中國大陸流傳，影響了剛剛發現改革宗傳統的信徒，並引起了足夠的基督理論混亂，值得我們關注。任何圍繞這「兩個主張⋯首先，基督的人性和基督的身體是非受造的；其次，基督的人性從永恆中就一直存在」而發展他們的基督論觀點的人，似乎肯定會偏離正統改革宗標準一貫堅持的迦克墩基督論。耶穌基督不是隱藏在神裡面的永恆原人性的具體表現；道成肉身的神不只在一系列身體功能上與我們相似，而且與我們同質——就像我們一樣，除了罪；而且不存在非受造的物質身體這樣的東西。
Whatever the case may be, these statements are circulating throughout mainland China, influencing believers who are just discovering the Reformed tradition, and causing enough Christological confusion to warrant our concern. Anyone who develops their Christological views around these "two claims, . . . first, that Christ's human nature and Christ's body are uncreated; and, second, that Christ's human nature has existed from all eternity," seems certain to stray from the Chalcedonian Christology the orthodox Reformed standards consistently maintain. Jesus Christ is not a bodily manifestation of an eternal humanness hidden within God; God-incarnate is not just similar to us with respect to a range of bodily functions but consubstantial with us--just like us in every way except sin; and there is no such thing as an uncreated physical body.
雖然神聖和永恆的子取得一個完全的、像我們一樣是被創造和有限的人性，包括身體和靈魂，是一個羞辱，但這是神在耶穌基督裡拯救恩典的榮耀羞辱，這對我們和我們的救恩是必要的。
Though the divine and eternal Son assuming a fully human nature, body and soul, created and finite just like ours, is a scandal, it is the glorious scandal of God's saving grace in Jesus Christ, necessary for us and our salvation.
Notes:
[1] Klaas Runia, The Present-Day Christological Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1984), pp. 16-21.
[2] An interesting example of this is Hodge, Systematic Theology, pp. 421-28, who treats the views of Swendenborg and Watts on this point as merely objectionable and describes the latter as undoubtedly "a devout worshiper of our Lord Jesus Christ," p. 423.
後記
P.S.
自從我撰寫並提交了關於中國普遍存在的基督論混亂的一系列文章（從這裡開始）以來，我收到了一封信，確認我對他的聲稱所暗示的觀點是謹慎且有根據的。正如我在該系列的最後一篇文章中沉思的那樣，（http://www.reformation21.org/articles/an-orientation-to-chinas-reforming-churches.php）
Since writing and submitting the series of posts (beginning here) on the pervasive Christological confusion in China, I have received a communication confirming that my caution about attributing to our brother the view suggested by his assertions is well founded. As I muse in the final post of the series, (http://www.reformation21.org/articles/an-orientation-to-chinas-reforming-churches.php)
也許這些陳述並不能準確代表他的觀點。它們陳述得不夠精確，有些是推測的，並且沒有從聖經中明確論證。這裡還涉及層層語言，距離這些錄音至少已經過去了兩年——這足夠他改變主意的時間了。
Perhaps these statements do not accurately represent his views. They are imprecisely stated, somewhat speculative, and not clearly argued from Scripture. There are layers of language involved here and at least two years has passed since these recordings were made--enough time for him to have already changed his mind.
根據最近的通信，這位弟兄宣稱他「擁抱改革宗信仰的全部」，並在毫不保留地即時對當前混亂的根源作出了一些聲稱。他無意混淆任何人對基督人性的教義，不相信在中國流傳的聲稱是廣泛的，並否認這對基督人性的聲稱「充分代表」他在這個問題上的全部或最終立場。
According to this recent communication, this brother declares that he "embraces the totality of the Reformed faith" and made some of the assertions at the root of the present confusion in unguarded extemporaneous moments. He did not intend to confuse anyone on the doctrine of Christ's humanity, does not believe the assertions circulating widely in China are well-understood, and denies that they "adequately represent" his full or final position on this matter.
就我所見，這是一個令人鼓舞的消息。當然，混亂本身仍然存在，值得任何必要的關注，以澄清聖經和所認信關於基督人性的教導是甚麼。展望未來，願我們同心同德地專注於在我們手中的教義問題，為各處地方的教會謀福祉。
So far as I can see, this is encouraging news. The confusion itself persists, of course, and deserves whatever attention is necessary to clarify just what the biblical and confessional teaching on Christ's humanity is; going forward, may we concentrate on the doctrinal issue at hand with one heart and mind for the welfare of the church here, there, and everywhere.
