(Continuation of this entry will be deal with at: The Incarnation of Christ (Person) entry Jan 9, 2013.)
This has spawn a few debates in the christendom.
I remembered Alex's take on Dr. Tong's issue on this. Which Alex later concluded that he still respect Dr. Tong for "admitting" he is unsure of any conclusion, as a humble servant. And from there, my dear Minister Tseng went on with his deep analysis on Christ's human body, of which I am unable to follow and must humbly refuse to further this debate, for now.
This does make me recall, of one Witness Lee (李常受), whom Dr. Tong strongly attacked on his "createdness of Christ's body". Even Larry Pan (潘良佐) AKA 陳鴿, also attacked Lee's heresy. A recent research shown. I shall paste it also in my comment sections, since I notice lately, some external links in my entries are dead.
To me, it is still a mystery, I would put it just as Rev. Tong would "...如果他的身体是[被造的]，那么他整个身体是自己造的...那他到底有分于受造的部份，或是受造的部份有分于他呢？" I call it mystery because I'm not saying for sure it is created nor do I say it is uncreated. it is beyond my understanding. I'm simply saying, do we really know that much about philosphy and physics to judge such a standard? Obviously, I, Timothy Law, don't. Which means I have much to learn. In the mean time, I am ready to be sharply criticizing those who have taken this doctrine too far, left or right.
As an aside, some Chinese Christians have recently jettisoned a millennia-long Christological orthodoxy handed down from Chalcedon, claiming that Jesus Christ’s humanity is eternal and uncreated, serving as the prototype of humanity and the image of God in which Adam was made. I will not go into the details of why this theory would finally lead to an abandonment of the entire doctrine of salvation taught by the Church since Chalcedon, especially by the Reformation. Suffice it to say here that this theory completely neglects the exegetical details I have provided above on the biblical doctrine of the image of God, confusing the Imago Dei of the original creation with that of the new creation. It also confuses our union with Christ as His work of mediation with His human nature that He assumed in His divine Person upon the incarnation (i.e., this theory confuses Christ’s work with His Person), which was “for us and for our salvation,” as Nicea and Chalcedon put it. The assumptio of human nature whereof Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy and Reformation theology speaks, along with Catholicism, is such that Christ’s human nature is not eternal nor is it inherent to His Person, but rather He assumed it (that is, He took on human nature) in His one divine Person in order to accomplish our salvation from sin. The theory that Christ’s humanity is the uncreated image of God in which Adam was created is both dogmatically and exegetically under-informed and unsound. The Christian leader to whom this theory is attributed only proposed it as a possibility, and it is a possibility that troubles him. Yet, his followers have turned it into a new orthodoxy, jettisoning the entire Nicene-Chalcedonian as well as Reformed orthodoxy, and a lot of them even think that Christ’s “uncreated humanity” is what Reformed theology has always taught! They do not realise that the theory of Christ’s “uncreated humanity” so troubles the leader whom they think they are following, precisely because their leader, who is really my leader and not theirs because they fail to do him justice and are on the brink of turning him into a heretic, knows that this theory is against the universally acknowledged orthodoxy of the Church. This leader is still troubled by the exegetical possibility that Christ’s humanity is uncreated, because he has not yet found the the Church’s orthodoxy convincing. More precisely, he has not read enough about the Church’s decision against such a theory. As a great man whom I most admire, he has humbly asked me to assemble dogmatic materials from Chalcedon onwards to show him why the Church’s orthodoxy has always and universally insisted that Christ’s humanity is created, and why those who even hinted that there is an uncreated aspect to Christ’s humanity, such as Apollinaris and Meister Eckhart, have found their theories condemned as heresies by the Church. I hope those who follow him would learn from his humility and learn from what the Church has been saying since Chalcedon, otherwise their ignorance could posthumously turn this great man into a heretic–he is not!
“爱子…是一切受造之物的首生者”
（《新约圣经恢复本》，《歌罗西书》1章15节译文）
以下是李常受的原话 (异端谬论）：
“基督既是人，当然他也就是受造者”
（李常受《关于基督身位》30页）
“那带着肉身的耶稣部份，那人性部份，那从马利亚生的部份，并不是神的儿子。”
（李常受《罗马书生命读经》24页）
“我们必须领悟，成为肉体的是整位神，不仅是神的儿子，这是很重要的。约翰一章十四节说，那是神的话，成了肉体。话所是的这位神，不是部分的神，乃是整个神─子神、父神、灵神。新约不是说，成了肉体的话是子神。新约乃指明，太初有话，这话是整位三一神─父、子、灵。因此，在成为肉体里，基督是整位神显现于肉体。”
(李常受《新约总论》之“基督─祂的身位（六）”)
“在这里我介绍一个新的词：‘子化’。耶稣的人性，经过了所有的试验，复活拔高，就成为神的儿子，这就是‘子化’。或者说‘子化’就是人性被带进神儿子的名份里，基督虽然是神的儿子，但在他复活以前，他所穿着的人性，并没有儿子的名份，有一天他的人性经过死，并且从死里出来……经过这些过程，他的人性就‘子化’而成为神儿子的名份。”
（李常受《希伯来书生命读经》523、524页）
“耶稣在他的灵里是神的儿子。按著他的神性，他是神的儿子；但按著他的人性，他是人的儿子。耶稣基督有一部分，就是他的肉体，完全是属人的。这一部分不是神圣的，不是神的儿子。要使他成为长子，耶稣的人性必须被神神圣的子化。他的人性不是神子的一部分，乃是人子的一部分。这一部分必须被神带到死里，并使它复活，而成为神圣的，成为神的儿子。借着这样的过程，他就在他的人性里被神神圣的子化了。他属人的部分被神在复活里神圣的子化了。”
（李常受《神新约的经纶（六）》第五章 “子在神性里带着人性的复活”）
陈鸽评：这就是李常受自创的、亵渎神的、违背圣经的“基督谬论”。
--------
近来，刘志雄长老与康来昌牧师（注1）所提倡的【基督人性受造论】，给华人教会带来了一场极大的风波与争论。
首先，我要表明对这两位主内弟兄的尊重，然而，我更要表明对他们所认同的【基督人性受造论】的坚决反对。
原因如下，
一、圣经从来没提及基督的人性是‘受造的’。(注2）
二、基督是完全的人，又是完全的神，但他只有一个位格。他不能既是创造主，又是受造者；他独一的位格是不能分割的。
三、基督是神（创造主），取了人（受造者）的形象（腓2:7），但他仍然是创造万有的（西1:15-17）。
四、基督是圣洁的，“成为罪身的形状”（罗8:3），但他仍然是无罪的（林后5:21）。
五、基督是永恒的，“亲自成了血肉之体”（来2:14）“为人人尝了死味” （来2:9），但他仍然是永活的（太16：16）。
永生的神能死吗？圣洁的神能“成为罪身的形状”吗？创造的神能穿上人（受造者）的形象吗？
这实在是莫大的奥秘，正如（提前3:16）说的，“大哉，敬虔的奥秘！无人不以为然：就是神在肉身显现……。”让我们都谦卑的相信，更俯伏敬拜这位甘心从天而降，为我们的罪死在十字架上、又从死里复活、升上高天、如今坐在父神宝座右边的“神的羔羊”（约1:29）：我们的救主耶稣基督。惟他是配！阿门！阿门！
腓 2:5 你们当以基督耶稣的心为心： 6 他本有神的形像，不以自己与神同等为强夺的； 7 反倒虚己，取了奴仆的形像，成为人的样式； 8 既有人的样子，就自己卑微，存心顺服，以至於死，且死在十字架上。
西 1:15 爱子是那不能看见之神的像，是首生的，在一切被造的以先。 16 因为万有都是靠他造的，无论是天上的，地上的；能看见的，不能看见的；或是有位的，主治的，执政的，掌权的；一概都是藉著他造的，又是为他造的。 17 他在万有之先；万有也靠他而立。
罗 8: 3 律法既因肉体软弱，有所不能行的，神就差遣自己的儿子，成为罪身的形状，作了赎罪祭，在肉体中定了罪案。
来 2:14 儿女既同有血肉之体，他也照样亲自成了血肉之体，特要藉著死败坏那掌死权的，就是魔鬼， 15 并要释放那些一生因怕死而为奴仆的人。
来 2:9 惟独见那成为比天使小一点的耶稣；因为受死的苦，就得了尊贵荣耀为冠冕，叫他因著神的恩，为人人尝了死味。
太 16:16 西门彼得回答说：「你是基督，是永生神的儿子。」
林后 5:21 神使那无罪（无罪：原文作不知罪）的，替我们成为罪，好叫我们在他里面成为神的义。
注1：康来昌：“基督的人性是被造的吗？”http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_692933db0100k7yc.html
刘志雄：“基督学房”
注2：虽有人引用（箴言8:22-24）来支持基督受造论，但这难免牵强附会。请参考：防备‘耶和华见证人’陷害人的异端：http://larrypan.blog.sohu.com/160310188.html
附：唐崇荣牧师驳【基督人性受造论】
问：主耶稣既是完全的神，又是完全的人；道成肉身，神性穿上人性。可见主耶稣有分于受造的人性，甚至他复活的肉身也是会朽坏的。若因此下结论；主耶稣不但是创造者，也是受造的，有分于受造的，这样的结论有没有问题？
答：大有问题！耶稣是[创造者]。如果他的身体是[被造的]，那么他整个身体是自己造的，他进去他自己造的里面；那他到底有分于受造的部份，或是受造的部份有分于他呢？你把它颠倒过来了！是[道成肉身]，不是道进到被造肉身之中，是[道成肉身]；换句话说，道经过一个过程以后，就在肉身中间显现。圣经从来没有提到，耶稣有受造的一部份，这个是亚流的异端、是诺斯底主义的异端、是李常受的异端来毒害教会。
耶稣基督里面没有受造的一部份，他是创造者，他是配受敬拜和永恒歌颂的。罗马书九章５节：〔列祖就是他们的祖宗，按肉体说，基督也是从他们出来的；他是在万有之上，永远可称颂的上帝。阿门。〕他是永远被歌颂、领受敬拜的创造者，他不是被造的。至于启示录三章14节所提到的：[你要写信给老底嘉教会的使者，说：那个阿门的，为诚信真实见证的，在上帝创造万物之上为元首的说。]那一位在创造界中为元首的，有的人用希腊文把它翻译为[在创造中间最先的]，或"The first created one",或"The first born of the creatures"。我们应当怎样翻译才合乎全本圣经的思想呢？在被造中间成为阿拉法的、最原先的、做领导的、做领袖的、首先的那一位，他是阿拉法、俄梅戛。所以耶稣基督不是受造的，在基督的位格里面，没有受造的成分；连他的人性、肉身中间，还是神自已以他无穷的大能在肉身的范围中间向人显现，他才是我们的救主。
Pingback: The Incarnation of Christ | Timothy Law's Journal
Dear Tim,
I think you have to respect Orthodox Tradition on this topic. Let me show you some information, just Reformed:
URL: http://rti.myfineforum.org/ftopic2250-0-asc-75.php
Next he adds, “This Word was in the beginning with God.” He had not said these two words together. He had said, “This Word was in the beginning” and “He was with God.” Now he joins the two together. That is why we must so contemplate Jesus Christ that we do not estimate that He is not true God and of the same essence with the Father. He has, to be sure, been created with respect to His human nature, but we must go further to know Him as our eternal God, Who is in such a manner our God that He is the wisdom of His Father which has been with God from all time. That, then, is the summary of it. Now when we remember this exposition (as it is simply expressed) it will suffice to instruct us for our salvation. Surely it is all we need to know about it.
他（约翰）接下来加上，“这道太初与神同在。”他并没有同时论及那两个字。他说的是‘太初有道’，和‘道与神同在。’如今他讲将两句话联在一起。那就是为什么我们必须凝视耶稣基督，好叫我们不会不把祂当作真神，越不会不把祂当作不与父同质。从祂的人性而言，他当然是被造的，然而我们要进一步认识祂乃是我们永远的神，祂是如此作为我们的神，好叫祂是与神永远同在之父的智慧。那，就是这句话的总结。如今，当我们纪念这样的表述时（就是它直白的表述），它就足以引导我们的救赎。当然，它也就是我们所需要知道的。
Src: Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 1 on John 1:1-5, John Calvin
We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties. Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body. But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.
《比利时信条（BELGIC CONFESSION）》
Being the Head of all creation by whom all things were formed the Son who was by nature eternally of the same uncreated nature with the Father and the Spirit, received to Himself the created human nature and became fully human in body and soul so that through it he might unite himself with the entire creation.
作为万有借祂而有，万有的头，子的本质永远与父与圣灵那非受造的本性一样，当祂接受一个被造的人性而在身体和灵魂里成为完全的人，祂就能将祂自己与整个被造联合为一。
<改革宗-东正教 《基督论联合宣言（AGREED STATEMENT ON CHRISTOLOGY）》
The question here becomes very interesting: Is Tong attacking Reformed itself? or Lee? This is the reason that Alex has to stand up against Tong. In fact, for Christ to have a CREATED Human nature is NOT a mystery, but an hard evidence that have been carried down from the Church Fathers to Reformed Theology. Let me show you another piece of information:
11. Hence it holds that the Apostle’s expression, ‘He made,’ does not prove that the Word is made, but that body, which He took like ours; and in consequence He is called our brother, as having become man. But if it has been shewn, that, even though the word ‘made’ be referred to the Very Word, it is used for ‘begat,’ what further perverse expedient will they be able to fall upon, now that the present discussion has cleared up the word in every point of view, and shewn that the Son is not a work, but in Essence indeed the Father’s offspring, while in the Economy, according to the good pleasure[271] of the Father, He was on our behalf made, and consists as man? For this reason then it is said by the Apostle, ‘Who was faithful to Him that made Him;’ and in the Proverbs, even creation is spoken of. For so long as we are confessing that He became man, there is no question about saying, as was observed before, whether ‘He became,’ or ‘He has been made,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘formed,’ or ‘servant,’ or ‘son of an handmaid,’ or ‘son of man,’ or ‘was constituted,’ or ‘took His journey,’ or ‘bridegroom,’ or ‘brother’s son,’ or ‘brother.’ All these terms happen to be proper to man’s constitution; and such as these do not designate the Essence of the Word, but that He has become man.
《CONTRA ARIANOS》 2.14, 亚他那修
I wonder if Tong dares to Charge Athanasius as Arianism as the way he charges Lee. :))