The Incarnation of Christ (Person)

(This entry shares with my other entry and is the main entry of focus)

Before Christmas, there seems to have much talk of this, between Alex, Dr. Tong, East, West.

It is orthodox belief, that Christ is both fully God and fully Man. As man he is vulnerable, limited, flesh, etc.

However, Western theology rarely speaks of Christ being created. Hence the debates arose. As much as the Nestorians and Apollinarianism were wrong in Christology, the God-Man duality has attracted other debates, like that of Witness Lee's and subsequently Alex and Tong.

I myself have not looked into this, so I would place this entry under "Projects" category.

Some references:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/heresies.htm

 

This entry was posted in Projects, Theologization. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to The Incarnation of Christ (Person)

  1. Pingback: Is Jesus’ Body created? | Timothy Law's Journal

  2. timlyg says:

    Great reference: Monergism with keywords: Person of Christ

    Fred Zaspel's outline on the Person of Jesus Christ is helpful.

    Currently reading Matthew McMahon's A Meditation on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. I should also email him as contact info is provided in his article.

    ===
    7/10/2013
    There's a nice chart on the heresies against Christ's duality.
    This chart let me to this, via google.
    Also, William Lane Craig has good notes on these. He even proposed to treat Christ's soul as the 2nd Person of Trinity. Hence, this brings light to the question of whether Christ has 2 souls or not. Which requires my further reading.

    ================
    7-12-2013
    I've heard of it during his live lecture, but Dr. Tong's Swedenborg reference is found in the earlier workshop here, and also in his 2002 Summer workshop . This reference is important for me to paste the whole content below. It is least seen in comparison to his other Q&A entry stating that "no parts of Christ is created".
    I've also found a table made to compare Dr. Tong's view to others here. Somewhat relating Dr. Tong to a Caspar Schwenckfeld.

  3. timlyg says:

    Dr. Tong's:
    七、基督神人二性中人性的部份,是在永世中就存在,或者是道成肉身才存在?如果是道成肉身以后才有,那基督升天以后他的人性存在吗?我曾问传道人这个问题,但是得到的答案是基督的人性是道成肉身以后才有的,基督徒升天以后就没有了。可是基督是被生,被成孕,后来没有听过基督属性中有被造的成分,这使我感到混乱,暂存的部份是不是在受苦的范围?.... (我不知道你最后的字是什么。)

      答:这是很伟大的问题,我实在没有资格回答,因为有关基督论的「神人二性」的问题,实实在在是没有类比可以解释的。所谓「类比」就是 analog,analogy,而 analog 不是你录音带,anglag,digital,不是那个意思,就是「用相类的东西来比」。因为所谓「三位一体」是唯一的上帝,the only God is the only triad God.所以这个上帝是独一的三位一体的上帝,没有别的,所以没有别的办法来解释,也没有办法用别的被造之物来比喻。因为其他被造之物都不是神,而神就是不是被造之物,所以 no analogy。很多护教学里面论到神的事情,no analogy,没有办法去了解,但是这个是违背,或者不是理性范围中间,却没有违背理性的超理性。

      所以,关于基督的神人二性论,我如果说基督道成肉身之先已经有人性的话,那祂还没有做人怎么有人性呢?你这样问对不对。那我问你,「什么叫作人性?」就是人才有人性嘛!人才有人性是神造的对不对。神造人的时候是按照祂自己的形象样式造的,对不对?那么人性会不会也是照着神里面的一切神形像的源头,神自己里面的人性?所以巴特 (Karl Barth, 1886-1968) 写一本书叫作 Humanity of God,《上帝的人性》。所以我告诉你,这个很难解释。

      在几百年前,有一个瑞典人叫作瑞典堡 (Emanuel Swedenborg, 1688-1772),这个人说,「耶稣基督道成肉身以前已经有人性,而人被造的时候,就是按照那个还没有道成肉身以前的人性而被造的,所以就像上帝」,是这样解释。但是多数的神学家是不接受他的,你注意听啊,我不过告诉你有这种神学家,有这样的论调,因为这个思想是很可能引起很多的异端产生出来,副作用存在。那如果说,那么要怎么回答呢?我只能告诉你,现在很多神学家解人性,是有身体的人里面的一些属性。比如说,「怎么知道耶稣有人性?」他会睡觉。「怎么知道耶稣有人性?」他需要吃饭,他要喝水,他会疲累,他会困倦,所以他在船上就沉睡了,这些都是耶稣有人性的记号。耶稣在客西马尼园就惊恐起来,这是心理的一种反应,这是人性。

      所以,所谓今天神学界里面「人性」是指什么?是指人有肉身,在肉身之中,这种的反应,这种的性质叫作「人性」。如果从这个角度来看,耶稣基督是道成肉身以后才有这个人性。那人之所以为人,是不是因为这个人?所以中国人说,人之所以为人,因为有是非之心,有恻隐之心,有辞让之心,还有羞恶之心。那么,这个就是孟子超越孔子的地方,把人性中间的这种道德感,这种责任感,这种能够感动的这种良心功用连起来才叫作人性。那从这个角度来看,人性不是单单肉身的那种性质的反应才叫作人性。所以我告诉你,我们实在很难说我有足够资格,来解答这个问题。但是有一件事情就是耶稣死的时候,是他的人性的身体死,不是他的神性死,因为神是不能死的。大家说,「神是不能死的。」

      耶稣受试探的时候,以人的地位受试探,因为神是不受试探的,神不受试探,神不能死,所以「那独一不死的永恒之中的上帝」(参:提摩太前书:6 章 16 节),是独一不朽坏的上帝,那才叫做神性。那耶稣基督能死,就表示他进入过程,Anything which is in the process is not absolute. God is absolute God. absolute God is absolute God. God in Jessu Christ incarnet Himself, He becomes man. 他变成人,所以他就变成一个能有过程,在过程中甚至有可能能改变,能长大,能衰老,能死。所以耶稣基督有死的可能,因为他披戴了身体。而他为这个事情,不是哀怨,不像保罗说「我真苦啊,谁能救我脱离这取死的身体呢?」(参:罗马书:7 章24 节)他说,「父啊,你为我预备了身体,我来要遵行你的旨意行」(参:希伯来书:10 章 5 节)遵行什么?这个身体能被杀,能够死的身体是他来的目的。所以基督像弟兄一样,凡事像弟兄有血肉的身体,他也照样成了血肉之体,特为要借着死,打败什么?---- 掌死权的魔鬼(参:希伯来书:2 章 14 节)。

      这样,耶稣基督是故意来死,故意基督来做人的,这是爱到一个地步,进入程序。He enter into the process.Anything which is in the process is not absolute,神是绝对的,神不在程序里面,所以不可以接受「程序神学」(进程神学),这个叫作什么?叫做Process theology。Process Thoeology 从哪里开始?从一从赫斯安(Charles Hartshorne, 1897-2000) 开始的,赫斯安受谁的影响?受怀海德 (Alfred North Whitehead, 1861-1947) 的影响,怀海德是谁呢?就是跟罗素一同写那一本《数学原理》 (The priciple of Mathematic) 的那个人。

      而这个英国的大教授怀海德 (Alfred North Whitehead, 1861-1947),就是姓叫作「白头」的,white head,「白头」嘛!白头教授他说「一切的一切都在进化,进步的过程中间。连上帝自己也在进程中间,所以祂不知道以后他变成怎么样的上帝。」那这个理论到了赫斯安的时候 Even God He didn't know what will happen to Him,所以Even God there is future unknown quantity,有一个不知分量,不知程序的未来,祂自己都不知道。所以好象你小的时候,「我大了要变成怎样」,你能不能画一张图画,老的时候,刚好就是这样。你不能对不对,以后你长大变成怎么样你不知道。他说,「连上帝以后变成怎么样上帝都不知道。」这种神学你可以接受吗?不能。所以圣经早就知道怀海德有一天要**了,所以上帝说,「耶稣基督昨日、今日、直到永远是一样的」(参:希伯来书:13 章 8 节)「在他没有转的影儿,祂 没有改变」(参:雅各书:1 章 17 节)。所以祂不在程序中间。」但是当耶稣道成肉身的时候,他是进到程序中间,所以他身体会从小长大,慢慢增长,耶稣基督的身量也在长大中间,神与人喜欢他的心也在增加中间(参:路加福音:2 章 52 节)。He was in process。

      后来有一个人叫作端纳_贝利 (Donald Macpherson Baillie,1887-1954),这个人就写了一本书,God was in Christ 上帝在基督里。这样,道成肉身的基督,在程序过程中间曾经做为人。但是,当耶稣被杀,被钉的时候,他讲七句话在十字架上, 第一句Father,forgive them. 第七句,Father, I commit my soul in Your hand.「父啊赦免他们。」第七句呢?「父啊,我把我的灵魂交在你的手里。」第一句用什么?父。第七句用什么?父。第四句用什么?MyGod! My God! 他不是说 My Father! My Father! 「父啊,为什么离开我?」他说「我的上帝,我的上帝,为什么离开我?」所以基督被撇弃的时候,是以人的身份,不是以神的身份被上帝所丢弃。所以,这样,基督的人性死,基督的神性不可以死。

      这样,基督的人性死,人性再复活,如果神会死,神再复活,会死的神是什么神呢?你就是完全违背圣经了。所以,在从前,历史上有一个异端叫作 Patripassianism,这个就是说「圣父受苦说」。在十字架上的耶稣就是上帝,所以耶稣死了,上帝就死了。我对不起讲一句话,在三十年前,寇世远讲过一篇道理讲错了,那个时候我才三十三岁,我看了,我很婉惜!他说什么?「怎么明白三位一体呢?圣父到地上做人就变成圣子,圣子升天再用灵的身份回来就变成圣灵。」对不对呢?不对!不对的。

      我们中国教会的历史中间最伟大的传道人,寇世远是很好的传道人,但是他的神学的造就不够,所以有的时候有漏洞,我们都要知道。倪柝声的错误在哪里,计志文的错误在哪里。以后你要找出来我的错误在哪里,明白吗?这样教会才不会受伟人的影响有所偏差。

      我们可以找出来吴勇的错误在哪里。那么,因为我不是上帝嘛!所以我如果有错,你要指正出来。你有错下一辈指正出来,教会才回头忠于圣经,你明白吗?「归正」就是说要回到圣经,但是不要因为这样就轻看那些伟人。倪柝声还有伟大的地方,但李常受就不对了,因为李常受说「耶稣是被造的」,这个就神论跟基督论完全乱到已经到异端的程度里面去了。

      那么,上帝在地上变成人的时候,就变成圣子,那如果这样,圣子被钉十字架的时候,圣父变成圣子。那么圣子一死的时候,父就没有了?这个很危险,对不对?但耶稣在十字架上死的时候,上帝也跟他死了,那么,那个时候谁管宇宙?那三天天地运行,因为发条还在?如果因为发条还在,那就变成「自然神论」 (Deism)。「自然神论」从哪里来的,从英国的舍伯里 (Herbert of Cherbury, 1583-1648) 来的,后来就转到法国,以后佩力 (William Paley, 1743-1805) 机械论,「上帝做钟表,把它转转转,转完了以后,让它滴答滴答发条一直转,转到有一天滴答滴答....,停了,叫作世界末日。」那这个自然神论也是错误的!所以我告诉你,我们信耶稣,我听圣经,我们读经,我们一定要慎思明辨,好好分析,好好归正,这是终身的事情,不是简单的。那,我这样讲就是要使你明白,我们不可随便对待上帝的道,因为神的道是最重要的。刚才是提到什么地方啊?

      O.K. 关于神人二性的问题。那耶稣死了以后,他复活的时候,他人死了,那么,复活以后人不复活,复活不复活?耶稣是一个人,对不对?后来他死了,复活的时候是神还是人?如果人死了,神复活。那么,神怎么复活?没有死的神怎么复活?所以,耶稣以人的身份死,后来复活是以人的身份复活或者以神的身份复活?因为神不必死嘛!所以没有死的东西不必复活嘛,对不对?所以耶稣基督复活的时候还有人性。他就带着复活的人性升天了,然后以神人二性的中保的身份,在上帝面前为我们做中保,为我们祷告。

      那么,很多传道人,对不起,很多搞不清楚后来就毕业了。因为总要毕业嘛!难道一直读不毕业?那毕业了。有没有毕业了全部懂的?毕业了还有一些不懂的嘛!所以,有一些传道人你问他问题的时候,他没有办法答得清楚,因为他毕业了,但是有一些还不懂。

      如果有一个牧师说「耶稣基督一升天了,就没有人性了。」那么,我相信他这一方面还不懂。

  4. timlyg says:

    Since Alex mentioned on his site both great preachers (唐崇榮 & 康來昌) whom he wishes to see doing "street" preaching, I found that 康來昌 stood on 李常受's side on this. Then could this two different interpretations on Witness Li's book/article, assuming that Li didn't make changes to his work. Dr. Tong's criticism on Li on this seems well grounded as well, that Li was claiming eventually that Christ was made, instead of both uncreated and created.

    Excerpt from wiki:
    而自1965年起,香港地方教会内也出现裂痕。香港教会的长老魏光禧支持李常受海外工作“工头”地位,而另一位在1949年由倪柝声安排来香港的长老陈则信则认为,李常受“工头”地位已经成为历史。1968年,李常受出版《整编本诗歌》,陈则信指责其中李常受创作的关于三一神真理的诗歌为亚流派异端,对《整编本诗歌》并他所讲基督为受造的而加以拒绝。1970年两派为天文台道香港教会尖沙咀聚会所之使用权出现争执,并公开分裂。后来,曾与李常受在上海和美国的同工江守道也与李分开。

    Hence I have a quote of Martin Luther...人是受造物,基督是人,所以是受造物。 Hence used by Li.

  5. oldfish says:

    Please Refer to:

    圣灵论
    约翰欧文
    图片
    第六章 圣灵与基督的人性

    一个位格,两个属性

    圣子穿上了人性,结果是祂的人性与神性结合在祂一个位格里,永不分开。甚至当基督在坟墓里祂人性的灵魂离开祂人性的肉体时,其神性与人性也没有分离。基督的灵魂与肉体的结合的特性是,祂的性格并不因灵魂离开肉体而被破坏。换句话说,祂不是一个本性两个位格,而是一个位格有两个本性,一是人性,一是神性。

    由两个本性结合在圣子的一个位格内,不是说人性获得神性的属性。人性方面并没有变为全知或全能,而神性方面也没有获得人的特性。神性仍然保持全然神的本性,绝不曾沾染任何一些人性;而人性也保持完全人性,也绝没有变为任何的神性。因此,当基督在十字架上呼喊说:「我的上帝,我的上帝,为什么离弃我?」,我们不应认为祂的神性离弃祂的人性,只不过是在那个时刻,祂的神性从祂的人性收回光和安慰。于是,作为真正的人,基督真实地为祂子民的罪受苦。

    。。。。

    因此,基督的人性在任何方面都没有带着神性,其神性是自由运行,随意对人性启示属上帝的真理,赐给安慰与
    力量,或者收回这一切。

    。。。。。。。。。。。。。

    此必要的原因,是主耶稣必须成为跟我们人性完全一样,除了无罪之外。唯有如此我们的罪才可以归到祂身
    上(来二14;罗八3,4)。

    因此,在马利亚胎中的基督人性,乃是圣灵的工作。圣灵以祂的大能从马利亚的身体中创造了基督的肉身。
    从这伟大的真理中我们必须认清几点:主耶稣基督不是圣灵的儿子。基督的人性与圣灵的关系乃是被造者与
    创造者的关系。基督被称为上帝的儿子乃只是对圣父而言,因为只有基督才是天父永恒中独生的儿子。基督为圣
    子的身份,是指着祂的神性而言,而不是祂的人性。不过,上帝的儿子穿上了人性。祂整个位格是上帝的儿子,是
    真神也是真人。

    圣灵创造基督人性的工作与圣子穿上人性,将其人性与神性联合的工作,是有所不同的。圣子没有创造祂自
    己的人性,祂只把人性与神性结合起来。所以只有圣子道成肉身,圣灵并没有道成肉身。

    基督的人性在童女马利亚胎中成孕是一霎而成的创造神迹,此后这人性在马利亚的胎中渐长。还未与神子联合之前,耶稣基督的人性是不可能存在的。当人性霎时被创造,「道」就「成了肉身」,耶稣就「为女子所生」了(约一14;加四4)。

    使童女怀孕生子这工作,为何归因于圣灵又归因于童女马利亚?因为圣经早有清楚的预言:「必有童女怀孕生子」(赛七14)。「怀孕」这个字也用来描述其它妇人的怀胎(创四1)。使徒信经却宣称:耶稣是「因圣灵感孕,从童女马利亚所生。」

    要明白使徒信经这句话,我们必须理解:圣灵借着祂的大能创造了基督的人性,所以基督耶稣是「因圣灵感孕」的。童女马利亚在这工作上是被动的,因为基督的身体是从她的实体被创造出来。

    圣灵论 约翰·欧文,改革宗出版社

  6. timlyg says:

    Thank you OldFish for your input. I've read the context of your input before. On the whole, I believe we are in agreement on the orthodox stand of the dual nature of Christ. However, I am still trying to understand this further.

  7. timlyg says:

    In the Q&A of Dr. Tong's First Peter expository 002, he mentioned "Christ's eternal glory is not created..." @ mark 21min.

    那个尊贵荣耀的人子,是神的形象,是神本体的真相。人就是按照他那个形象而被造的。 所以人性的根本是基督, 而基督在永恒中间的尊贵不是被造的。 我们是被造像祂,我们不是上帝的儿子, 。。。 祂有人性最根本的荣耀跟尊贵。 感谢上帝! 那么耶稣到地上做人的时候, 倒空自己, kenosis。。。祂完全限制倒空自己。 从永恒的神,来到地上成为人。这种不公义的,。。。谁把祂平凡过来?没有一个人能平凡耶稣基督。唯一能平凡祂的,就是圣灵。所以耶稣说: 圣灵来了,祂要荣耀我。。。祂【圣灵】清楚祂的使命是什么:荣耀基督。。。

  8. timlyg says:

    In episode 1-17 of Calvin's Institutes lecture series, Dr. Samuel Ling mentioned according to John Owen's "Holy Spirit", it's said that the Holy Spirit created the humanity of Christ. (@ 11:40 mins)
    The same episode also emphasized Christ having a human soul which is distinct from his divine nature.

  9. timlyg says:

    http://www.theopedia.com/Two_natures_of_Jesus
    excerpt:
    Two minds and wills, or one?

    "Some conclude that when Jesus took on his human nature he possessed two minds, a human mind and a Divine mind, with the human mind responsible for Jesus' knowledge rather than the Divine mind. Others hold that Jesus had one mind but while in his mortal body he chose to have a subconscious mental part that was inaccessible to the conscious mind and then, after his resurrection, his humanity became dominated by the Divine so his subconscious became accessible."^[2]^ For an example of the "two minds view", see The Logic of God Incarnate, by Thomas Morris. For the "divided mind" view, which speaks of "two systems of belief [in one mind] to some extent independent of each other", see Richard Swinburne's Christian God, p. 201^[3]^. For a critique of these, see "The Inclusion model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects", by Tim Bayne^[4]^.

    The view that Jesus only has one will is called Monothelitism.

  10. timlyg says:

    He so loved us that, for our sake,
    He was made man in time,
    although through him all times were made.
    He was made man, who made man.
    He was created of a mother whom He created.
    He was carried by hands that He formed.
    He cried in the manger in wordless infancy, he the Word,
    without whom all human eloquence is mute.
    - Augustine, Sermon 188,2

  11. timlyg says:

    Dr. David Garner of WTS in Prolegomena lesson 5: Epistemology I, at the end, Phil 2:6-7 "Kenosis is not so much subtraction as it is addition. Because in that empty, he actually takes on something he was not before. So he takes on humanity, and when he takes on humanity, he takes on change!"

  12. timlyg says:

    The Chinese Christians were not the only one struggling about this, even the Westerners:

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/christs-human-nature-47400/

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/imputation-adams-guilt-creationism-why-virgin-birth-necessary-50100/

    More advanced, they talked about the contrast of immediate creation (like Adam, which Christ was not) and mediate creation (like us now, as Christ was as well).

  13. timlyg says:

    on Incarnation
    http://www.ccel.org/topic/incarnation
    - St. Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 3: ...He formed himself in the virgin...

  14. timlyg says:

    Books on the subject:
    1. Scott Oliphint's God with Us.
    2. Donald MacLeod's The Person of Christ.

  15. timlyg says:

    The Pre-existence of Humanity in Christ/God
    I have been looking for this out of the norm view ever since I heard Dr. Tong mentioned about Swedenborg having this view. I believe he was referring to Emmanuel Swedenborg, who in his "The Heavenly Doctrine", wrote about Christ's incarnated humanity uniting with God's humanity, etc.

    Also, according to Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 8 by John McClintock & James Strong [pg 502-503], Dr. Watts (Isaac Watts) is famously known for similar view: Pre-existence of Christ's human soul. As I expected, the root of this view is from the concept of the "image of God", which God made men in.

    My patience finally paid off in searching for this particular norm.

  16. oldfish says:

    Athanasius, Contra Arianos 2.14.11

    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.

    Athanasius, ON THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA (DE DECRETIS) 14

    “So is this passage simply pointless?” This is what they keep buzzing all round us, like a swarm of mosquitoes. Not at all; it is not pointless but is rather quite to the point. He is indeed said to be created also, but that is when he became a human being; for this is what properly belongs to (idion) being human. Such a meaning will be found to be well laid out in the sayings of the Scriptures by one who undertakes the reading of them not as if it were some subsidiary matter, but rather searches out the time and the persons and the purpose of what is written, and on this basis judges and contemplates what is read.[35] He will thus discover and come to knowledge of the time of this text: that, forever being Lord, he later, at the completion of the ages, became human; and being Son of God, he became also the son of Man.[36] Such a reader will also perceive the purpose: that, wishing to nullify our death, he took to himself a body from the virgin Many so that, having offered this as a sacrifice (thusian) for all to the Father, “he might set free us all who, through fear of death, had been subject to slavery our whole life long” (Heb 2:15). As to the person (prosopon), it is that of the Savior; but it is said when he takes a body and then says, “The Lord created me as a beginning of his ways for his works” (Prov 8:22). For just as it well befits the Son of God to be eternal and to be in the bosom of the Father, so also, upon becoming human, it is fitting for him to say, “The Lord created me”. Then it was that this as said of him. He also hungered and was thirsty,and enquired where Lazarus was laid, and suffered and rose. And just as when we hear that he is Lord and God and true light, we perceive him as being from the Father, so it is right that when we hear ‘created’ and ‘servant’ and ‘suffered’ not to refer these to the divinity, for they are out of place there, but rather to measure these statements in reference to the flesh which he bore for us. For these things properly belong (idia) to the flesh and the flesh is not another’s but is the Word’s.[37] If someone wishes to learn the benefit that results from this, he will discover that also: “For the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14) in order that he may offer it for the sake of all and so that we receiveing from his Spirit may be enabled to be divinized. In no other way would we attain to this, if it were not that he himself put on our created body. For thus have we begun to be called “people of God” and people who are in Christ. But just as when we receive the Spirit we do not destroy our proper being (idian ousian), so also, when the Lord becomes a human being for our sakes and puts on a body, he is none the less God. He was not lessened by the covering of the body, but rather divinized it and made it immoral.[38]

  17. oldfish says:

    《教义手册》
    奥古斯丁
    图片
    第三十四章 中保基督由童女马里亚所生是个不可言喻的什么

    论到这位中保所用的叙述,占很多篇幅,甚至是人力所不能的。试问谁能用适宜的言语解释下面这句话,即“道成了肉身,住在我们中间”(约1:14),好使我们对那由圣灵从童女马里亚所生全能之父上帝的独生子有信心呢?所谓道成了肉身,并不是说把神性变成肉体,而是说神性带上了我们的血肉。这里所说“血肉”就是“人”的意思;血肉即是人的一部分,就被用来指整个的人,正如经上所说:“凡有血肉的,没有一个因行律法能在上帝面前称义”(罗3:20)意思是说,没有一个人能因行律法称义。我们必须相信上帝独身者所带上的人性是完全的人性,不缺少其中的任何部分。但是祂的人性却能完全不受罪恶的沾染,因为这人性不是有两性的人欲而生的,一定会犯罪,必须借重生的洗才得洁净。但祂的人性却是由童贞女借着信,而不是接着情欲产生的。若是童贞女的真机为求把祂带到世上而受了会上,祂就不能算是由童贞女所生了,而全教会所信所说祂是由童女马里亚所生,就不是真的了,但这是绝不可能的。这教会也模仿耶稣的母亲,天天增加肢体,而期间却仍旧是童贞女。请读我论圣马里亚的童贞性写给我所敬爱的伟人窝路仙(Volunsianus)先生的信(书信集第137函)。

    第三十五章 耶稣基督是上帝的独生子,同时也是人

    据以上所述,上帝的儿子耶稣基督也是又是神又是人。在诸世纪之前,祂是上帝,在人世中,祂是人。祂是上帝,因为祂是上帝的道,”而道就是上帝“(约1:1)。祂是人,因为在祂的一个人格之内,道与肉身及一有理性的心灵合而为一。以祂是上的而言,祂好天父是一位,由祂是人而言,天父就比祂大。当祂为上帝之独生子——这是由于本性,不是出于恩惠——时,祂为要蛮有恩惠,就成了人的儿子。祂具有两种本性:既是神,又是人,成了一位基督。祂本身有上帝的形象,不以自己与上帝同等为强夺的,因为按照本性祂是如此(腓2:6),但祂反倒虚己,取了奴仆的样式。但祂之如此作,并不丧失或减少祂的上帝的形象。按照这个道理,祂是一方面被降低了,但同时仍然和上帝平等,是因祂是道,祂之降低,是因祂是人;祂既是道,就和天父平等,既是人,就低于天父。祂是上帝的独生子,同时又是上帝的儿子。祂不是上帝的两个儿子,即一个是上帝,一个是人,祂乃是上帝的独一儿子。从祂是上帝而言,祂是无始的,从祂是人而言,祂是有始的,即我们的主也是基督。

    第三十八章 耶稣基督的肉体有圣灵成孕而生,其意并非指圣灵是其父

    但我们可否由此说,圣灵是那个属人性的基督之父呢?可说父上帝生了道,圣灵上帝生了人,这两个属性合起来就形成了基督吗?或说,由道而言,祂是父上帝的儿子,由人而言,祂是圣灵上帝的儿子,因为圣灵是其父,使祂由童女马里亚而生吗?谁敢这样说呢?不用说有许多其他胡言乱语由此兴起,卑污不堪入耳。隐藏,我们在信经中要说:“我们的主耶稣基督,是出于上帝而为上帝,由圣灵从童女马里亚而生,而成为人,有神性和人性,是全能父上帝的独生子,圣灵是由父上帝出来的”(印自古拉丁教会所用使徒信经)。如果圣灵没有生基督,则所谓基督是由圣灵所生,当如何解释呢?或者可以说,祂是由圣灵造的吗?因为虽然按祂是上帝说:“万物都是祂造的”(约1:3),但按祂是人说,祂也是受造的。例如使徒说:“按肉体说,祂是从大卫后裔生的”(罗1:3)。但这种说法也有问题。这个由童女怀孕所生的受造者虽然只于子的位格相结合,但是受造于整个三位一体(因为三位一体的工作是不能分开的),那么此处为何只说圣灵生祂呢?这或者是因为每逢提到其中之一的工作时,实即指三者共同的工作而言。这个解释是对的,我们能举出实例来证明。不过我们无需在这个解答上花费更多的工作。因为我们的那个谜乃是,祂既从任何意义上说不是圣灵的儿子,则“祂是有圣灵所生”这句究竟系何所指?因为上帝虽然 造了这个世界,但不能说世界是上帝的儿子,或说世界是由上帝而生。我们要说世界是上帝创造的,上帝形成的,上帝制作的,或用别的合宜的说法。当我们在信经中说,基督是有圣灵和童女马里亚所生,我们的难题是,如何解释祂不是圣灵的儿子,只是童女马里亚的儿子,而事实上祂是有圣灵和马里亚两者而生。显然,基督是由圣灵所生,并不能和祂是有童女马里亚所生,做同一解释。圣灵生了基督,但圣灵不是基督的父亲,马里亚圣灵基督,马里亚却是基督的母亲。

    宗教文化出版社,321-322页

  18. timlyg says:

    I can believe that the Man-Christ is created, a creature, creation.
    The only question I shall challenge the late 李常受 would be this:
    Is the human nature of Christ, that which Lee has said to be created, ever part of the Trinity?

  19. timlyg says:

    If one has to argue for all properties of human as a creation, I as a human being, am a person, I have personhood, the human personhood. However, we do not speak of Christ as a human person, but as having a human nature? Furthermore, we say that Christ is only one person, that is, of two natures: God and Man. Not two persons.

  20. timlyg says:

    "God himself who died"
    Recent FB post from Alex mentioned that Sproul erred in saying God died. Or as Alex puts it: (R. C. Sproul 即為一例:他禁止信徒講述『聖子之死』,而這基本上是涅斯多留派的異端--涅斯多留自己其實沒教導這異端). This is supposedly from http://reformedarsenal.com/2014/12/14/advent-series-nestorianism/
    Which refers to Sproul's quote from Ligonier, when Sproul criticized the hymn "And Can It Be"...how can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me.

    I would think that 聖子之死, is an misinterpretation on Alex's part, perhaps for reading too fast or simply being careless. While Arsenal counters Sproul and says God must die for us or else "the payment is insufficient to atone for an infinite cost", claiming that this is from Anselm. The quickest and closest online search pertaining to Anselm is his Why Did God Became Man?...and died on the cross. If treating it on the surface, this is insufficient to support Arsenal's claim.

    There are many theologically well trained believers who would defend Sproul.

    As for me, I agree with Sproul but I can still comfortably sing this hymn on the count that "It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death." ~Sproul's quote. Otherwise, I would be like Arsenal, picking on the insufficiency of human language, simply because I don't want to throw this hymn away.

    The point of Sproul is to avoid theopassianism and patripassianism. There is a follow-up from Alex's side by Mark Jones. The way I see it, it's now just manipulation of intension, sense and references.

    It's interesting both Alex and Jones use the label "Son of God" to criticize Sproul's usage of "the second person of the trinity" who died. Sproul is not seen using the phrase "the Son of God".

    They do converge in agreement of it is the God-man who died. Only that Jones calls it it the "concrete" (name of the God-man person). Perhaps that's how he would differ himself from Sproul?

    Jones did directly attack the phrase "The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ". He did bring up a good point: "The atonement had to be made by the person because the atonement needed to be infinite in value." But this is too rash of an attack. I therefore prefer how McMahon puts it: The atonement is accepted because the human nature is attached to the DIVINE SON who is considered by the Father as having offered an infinite sacrifice due to his person-hood as the Son, Jesus. His divinity allows the human sacrifice to have infinite value and worth. God didn't die. The human nature of Christ died. This is why Christ once called out "My God my God why hast Thou forsaken me!". This is very human to me, it is absurd to see a divinity doing so, unless it was "My Father my Father..." instead of "My God my God".

    Jones ended his article with a quote "...God has been murdered." (Melito of Sardis), I don't mind that either, given our differences in intensions but pointing the same references.

  21. timlyg says:

    On Humanity of Christ:
    Question: Do we then worship a creature if the human nature of Christ is created?

  22. timlyg says:

    It would appear that William Lane Craig would fail here somewhat. He argued against dyothelitism that was sanctioned under the Third Council of Constantinople in 681AD (6th ecumenical council).

  23. timlyg says:

    Stephen Tong's own acknowledgment of how others see his Christology:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FatlOo_n36A&feature=youtu.be&t=348
    “那么有的人认为,我的基督论有一些毛病。那我严格的告诉你,我真正相信基督是道成肉身,神的身份在地上做人,所以他是独一的中保,是人与神之间独一的救主。”

  24. timlyg says:

    Of course, by human nature, I'm extending the definition to things like emotion. Such as cry, happy, etc. In that sense, our emotions are in the likeness of God and how are they in the context of createdness. Also, what is the relationship between Jesus' divine nature and humn nature in such context?

  25. timlyg says:

    From Alex on FB, my comment in red:
    有個關於西方(拉丁)基督教正統三一論的問題,很多人會答錯。

    問:聖子是自存(a sé)的嗎?

    很多人會不假思索地回答:當然是!

    然而,嚴格來說,這答案是錯的。[I would prefer the answer to be an Yes & No answer] 西方正統認信,聖子的本質是自存的,此乃三一上帝的本質。唯有在此意義上,我們可以較不嚴謹地說「聖子是自存的」。但「聖子」一詞是指位格,而非本質。西方正統認信,聖子的位格並非自存。

    換言之,自存的是三一上帝,是聖子與聖父、聖靈共有的本質(essentia、substantia、divinitas),不是上帝任何在其自身的單一位格。我們可以說「聖子是自存的上帝」,可以說祂的本質是自存的,卻不能說祂的位格是自存的。

    亞他拿修信經論及聖子,有這麼一句話:「祂是神,在諸世界之前受生,出於聖父的本質」(Deus ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus)。

    此處 "ex substantia Patris" (出於聖父的本質),是西方基督教持守的正統。此正統否定了聖子在其自身的自存性(aseity)。

    當加爾文用"autotheos"(自身即上帝)形容聖子時,當時的正統三一論神學家曾指控他犯了三神論的異端。為他辯護的,不是別人,居然是 Bellarmine。加爾文究竟是否接受 ex substantia Patris,在當代加爾文研究中仍是學者辯論的議題。

    後期改革宗神學則清楚提出了 communicatio essentiae (本質相通)的教義,在改革宗正統時期成為具有規範性的教理。這教義其實就是從亞他拿修信經來的:聖子的本質並非自有(of himself),而是出於聖父的本質(ex substantia Patris)。是聖父將祂的本質傳遞(communicate)給了聖子。

    但這並不是否認聖子的神性與父同等,也不是否認聖子與父同永恆。這更不是說,聖子本來沒有神性,是聖父把神性給了聖子。這「傳遞」乃是「分享」的意思,用以表達「受生」:這是一種永恆、動態、必然、不變的行動。聖子並非一次受生,就被生下來;聖子乃是永遠、恆常地受生於父。

    父將自己本質分享給聖子,也是永遠、恆常、必然地。因此,聖子的神性雖非「出於自己」,聖子卻永恆而必然地擁有「出於聖父」的神性。

    子恆在,如父恆在。子必然存在,正如父必然存在。但位格卻非「自存」。

    否認子的自存性,是要強調,上帝必然是三一、永恆為三一,任何一個位格皆不能只在其自身而存在,必須為另外的位格存在。子不能沒有父,父也不能沒有子。沒有父,子就不是子;沒有子,父就不是父。若非三一,上帝就不是上帝。當然,這「若非」的假設本身並不成立,因為上帝不可能不是上帝。

    亞他拿修信經並非亞他拿修所寫,而是西方基督教在奧古斯丁三一論的基礎上寫成的文獻,因此communicatio essentiae、ex substantia Patris必須在奧古斯丁三一論的框架下去明白。

    在奧古斯丁的三一論當中,上帝的自存性與三一性乃一體兩面。奧古斯丁指出,約翰說上帝是愛(「神就是愛」)。愛必然有三個要素:付出愛的、被愛的、愛的行動。若沒有愛的對象,就沒有愛的行動,也就沒有愛的主體。那麼,上帝所愛的對象何在?如果沒有這對象,上帝就不是愛了;以此類推,上帝若無任何行動對象,祂的一切屬性就都是空泛而不存在的,因為祂的屬性都牽涉行動、關係。

    上帝不需要祂之外的對象來愛、來滿足祂的任何屬性,因為祂是三一者。祂自己就是愛的主體、愛的對象、愛的行動。如此,「自存」的乃是三一上帝,而非上帝任何位格在其自身。

    以此三一論理解之,聖父乃是生出者,而聖子乃受生者。聖父以聖子為對象,分享祂完整的本質。只有在此本質的分享、相通之中,我們才能理解上帝為自存者。

    (這對康德是個強而有力的回應:康德「物自身」的不可知性,跟他所述「內在屬性」與「關係屬性」之隔閡有密切關係)。

    ...

    Timothy Peng 我以前沒注意到 aseity 是本質,不是位格這細節,但經你一提發覺這至關重要,謝謝
    1
    Hide or report this
    Like
    · Reply · See Translation · 3d
    Shao Kai Tseng
    Shao Kai Tseng Turretin的解釋很詳細,很精采,可以參考。
    改革宗信仰告白當中,Irish Articles關於 communication of essence 的認信最清晰: "The essence of the Father doth not beget the essence of the Son; but the person of the Father begetteth the person of the Son by communicating his whole essence to the person begotten from eternity" (Article 9).
    3
    Hide or report this
    Like
    · Reply · 3d
    Timothy Peng
    Timothy Peng Shao Kai Tseng 我好久没讀 Turretin 了,I am ashamed‍♂️
    Hide or report this
    Like
    · Reply · See Translation · 3d
    Shao Kai Tseng
    Shao Kai Tseng Timothy Peng 哈哈 Turretin像寫課本,很少人會沒事一直去讀的

  26. timlyg says:

    In Tong's Hebrews series #38, around 42nd min time frame, he admitted that he doesn't know how to distinguish the God-Man nature.
    The question was: Can Jesus sin? When he was tested, was he possible to sin? Absolutely not able to sin?
    The only answer he can provide:
    Logically, Yes.
    Ontologically, No.

    *pulled from my old notes from smartphone: 2018-05-23

  27. timlyg says:

    @1:48:41 道成肉身,基督的人性和道是有关系的。这个人性超过所有的人性。他有自己舍去生命的权柄,有自己取回生命的权柄。
    John Chapter 10, Jesus has authority to give and take back his life.

    This uniqueness, I think, Tong illustrated, and perhaps insinuated that those who argued for the human nature of Christ vehemently, such as Alex, has not looked deeper into the meaning of Christ's human nature. Alex may have gotten the textbook version correctly, but he failed to connect the human nature of Christ to reality, that is, the sinless nature of it and the mystery behind it, the connection of Christ's human nature to its Creator. Rather, they would just leave it as that, that just imagine Christ's human nature is 100% created human being with respect to our understanding, don't break Deut 29:29, and be fine with it because you'll get an A+ in school.

  28. timlyg says:

    Tong touched on this topic again in his expository of John 12. I'll copy paste from that entry here:

    An excerpt on Jesus' human nature: 耶稣最有权柄叫希律王狐狸因为:
    人是他造的,人是为他造的,人被造是为了他,每一个人被造透过他,所以基督是人性最原先的本质,我们按上帝形象样式造的,所以基督是每一个人的样式形象,我们的形象样式原版就是基督.

    Many theologians treat Likeness & image the same thing, using these interchangeably. But Tong disagrees slightly:
    形象是原本的状态,样式是终久学习应当达到的果效。
    Jesus said, 你们要学我的样式 Matthew 11:29 - no mention of image. 所以,原先被造的潜在能是神的形象 (image)被造之后生活的果效是样式(likeness)
    因为我们有神的形象,所以我们应当像神;因为基督到世界上成为我们的样式,所以我们应当效法他的样式。
    Therefore IMAGE (human ALPHA) => more about potentiality. LIKENESS (human OMEGA) => more about the teleological effect.

  29. timlyg says:

    @47:50 in expository video on Gospel of John (no translator) #138.

    Tong mentioned that Christ's body is not created. That his body has to be different than our created bodies. Indestructible life - Heb 7:16
    If not created is it human? If not human can he be a substitution for us on the cross?
    The Bible said He became man - therefore He is man.
    Tong also said (could be some inconsistency here with previous statement of non-created):

    耶稣的身体能修坏吗?圣经说:不让他的圣者见朽坏 - 是因为本来可以朽坏,那上帝不让他朽坏,或者是上帝为他造一个不能朽坏身体呢?

    We will know the true answer in heaven, Tong said.
    Word became Flesh is itself a mystery. [I think this is the crux of Tong's puzzle].

    But Tong affirmed that Jesus is truly man, with flesh and blood like us. The Bible said He's like us, but not exactly like us in every way, corruptible creatures. Bible said he took on the form of a slave (Phil 2:7).

    So far this I think is the clearest take from Pak Tong.

  30. timlyg says:

    A Good Chinese Source that delves into this and Stephen Tong:
    http://briancsk.blogspot.com/2018/02/blog-post_14.html

    Copied here:

    重探「基督人性非受造」論的來歷和發展: 看「屬天肉身」基督論在華人教會的復辟
    湃 恩

    摘要:

    近年,華人基督教中出現一種對正統基督論的錯解,認為基督的人性乃是非受造的。從神學思想歷史脈絡來看,華人教會近年的「基督人性非受造」論可以追溯至改革時期士閔克非版本的「屬天肉身」基督論,以及在初期教會的原始版本「一性說」和「幻影說」。他們的目標都是為了強調基督的神性而損害了祂的人性,教導一種不完全或不真實的基督人性。本文旨在先從歷史研究的進路,重新探索「屬天肉身」基督論的來歷和發展史,看它如何從教會歷史起頭,一直以「變種」的方式「復活」,又不斷被判定異端。然後,分析華人教會近代的「基督人性非受造論」跟「屬天肉身」論的相同和差異,從而證明從神學關注、理據和影響來看,它是「屬天肉身」論的延續和發展。「基督人性非受造」論繼承了亞波里拿留的「一性說」及「幻影說」傾向,且在「屬天肉身」說的基礎上,發展成基督的人性是基督「自取的」、是永恆地「先存」在基督位格內,以及是「獨一無二的」。這是今日華人教會中「基督人性非受造」的基督論,在神學思想上突破以往異端的地方。然而,按照大公正統以及改革家的觀點,它仍不脫基督人性的異端觀點。

    關鍵詞:基督論、屬天肉身、基督人性非受造、基督一性說、幻影說

    前 言
    近年,華人基督教中出現一種對正統基督論的錯解,認為基督的人性乃是非受造的(或是非受造的及永恆的),可稱作「基督人性非受造」論。[1] 這錯解漸漸有擴散且牢固的趨勢。去年(2015年),美國改革宗圈子已留意到在華人教會中,尤其中國大陸改革宗圈子,這錯解的基督論「已經深深的扎根於中國欣欣向榮的改革宗群體這塊肥沃的土壤之中」,甚至「有些人還相信這就是正統改革宗的基督論」。[2] 儘管近年中國改革宗學術界漸有文章陳明這「基督人性非受造」論且指出其錯誤,惜收效甚微。[3]

    「日光之下無新事」。不難發現,這「基督人性非受造」論並非突然冒起,而是在教會歷史中不斷以不同面貌或詭辯重現。正統信仰雖然已表明道成肉身的奧祕,即我們的救主耶穌基督,祂是完全的神,也是完全的人,但關於祂肉身(人性)的來源和本質這一點,多個世紀以來仍在不斷引起辯論。從神學思想歷史脈絡來看,華人教會近年的「基督人性非受造」論可以追溯至改革時期士閔克非版本的「屬天肉身」基督論(Heavenly Flesh Christology)(或稱「屬天身體」,Celestial Body),以及在初期教會的原始版本「基督一性說」(Monophysitism)和「幻影說」(Docetism)。他們的目標都是為了強調基督的神性而損害了祂的人性,教導一種不完全或不真實的基督人性,結果違犯了歷代教會所一直守護之道成肉身的奧祕,損毁了道成肉身所帶給人類救恩的福音。

    本文旨在從歷史研究的進路進行神學思想發展比較。先按前尼西亞、後尼西亞和改革運動三段時期,重新探索「屬天肉身」基督論的來歷和發展史,看它如何從教會歷史起頭,一直以「變種」的方式「復活」,又不斷被判定為異端。然後再看這「屬天肉身」論之現代版本—「基督人性非受造」論—在華人教會的復辟之趨勢。最後,本文展示華人教會近代的「基督人性非受造論」跟「屬天肉身」論的相同和差異,從而指出它是「屬天肉身」論的延續和發展。本文是「探討華人教會近年基督人性非受造論」系列文章的第一篇。以後將陸續從聖經與傳統關係、聖經詮釋、大公會議與信經、教會歷史各異端爭論等,來深度分析華人教會近年「基督人性非受造」論這種錯解基督論所產生的成因,以及所帶來的神學影響。筆者冀望世界各地信徒持守著聖經的啟示,幫助華人教會端本清源,看見這種錯解基督論的來歷和發展,並匡正華人教會,重返大公教會正統之正軌。

    一、重探屬天肉身基督論的來歷和發展
    (一)前尼西亞前時期
    1. 幻影說
    第一世紀末葉,隨著原始諾斯底主義(Proto-Gnosticism)和希臘哲學侵入教會,有一派人不相信基督真實地是從肉身而來。約翰福音書和書信的寫作動機之一,也是為駁斥這派的觀點(約壹四2–3,約貮7)。這派有一種很強烈的二元觀,認為物質是邪惡的,故那來救贖人類的基督就不可能有著與我們相同的肉身。基督被人所看見的肉身其實不是真實的,只是看似真實,猶如幻像。這派對基督人性的謬論被教父們斥之為幻影說(Docetism)異端,這名稱可能源自古希臘字dokeō,原意是看見(to appear)或看似(to seem)。大多的幻影派說法乃是,這位基督一直是一位「屬靈的基督」(Spiritual Christ),「屬天的救贖者」(Heavenly redeemer)。基督在受浸時進到為人的耶穌裏面,穿上這身體作為偽裝(disguise),而在釘十字架之前,就離開了祂。故此,耶穌的幻影身驅成功騙過撒但,使他以為他已經將神釘死。[4] 安提阿的以格那丟(Ignatius of Antioch,公元35–108)駁斥他們,堅持基督有一個物質的出生,帶著「肉身」在十字架受苦、死和復活。若「屬肉的基督」(Fleshly Christ)沒有復活,我們的人性就不可能被變化。[5] 幻影派由於在本質上已看物質是邪惡的,故認為基督根本從未有一個物質的身體。為要避免將基督「貶低」到一個地步而有分於肉體,確保基督是完全「神聖的」,幻影派就犠牲基督的人性來確保基督與物質是沒有關係的,結果發展出一種基督的人性不真實,不過是像幻影般出現的基督論。

    2. 諾斯底的華倫提努派
    在第二世紀教會所面臨異端之一乃是華倫提努派(Valentinians)。華倫提努派是基督教諾斯底派中對大公教會最具影響力的一支,他們繼承了第一世紀的幻影式基督論。根據特土良(Tertullian,155–240)記載,華倫提努(Valentinus,100–160)長大及求學於亞歷山大,後來在136至140年間到了羅馬,在失落羅馬主教之位後開創他的學派。[6] 在華倫提努的諾斯底式系統裡,宇宙至高的、不為人知、萬有的父的獨一位格神稱作「普累若麻」(Pleroma,意豐滿),從這獨一個體「發散」(emanates)著許多不同神性程度的靈,稱作「愛安」(Aeons)。基督/洛格斯(Logos)是宇宙三十位愛安之中的蘇菲亞(Sophia)的兒子。對華倫提努派而言,基督的神性來自愛安所接受普累若麻發散的神性。[7] 根據在《拿戈瑪第經集》(Nag Hammadi library)中相信是華倫提努派著作的《真理福音》(Gospel of Truth),基督並非從道成肉身而來,而是從「父」豐滿的天上世界(celestial world)而來。基督來不是要按照父神的旨意作人類的贖罪祭,而是要喚醒遺忘了「父」的「知識」(gnosis)的人類,使他們得到啟蒙而得救。[8] 對於基督人性的來源,按特土良描述,華倫提努派認為基督從童女馬利亞出生,就像從「穿過水管」一樣,基督並沒有從馬利亞的肉身取得甚麼。[9] 同樣地,根據愛任紐(Irenaeus,130–202)在《駁異端》(Against Heresies)的描述,對於基督的人性,華倫提努派說,「那由馬利亞而來的,乃是有時間性的耶穌,而那稱為基督的救主,從上降在她身上,並且祂將祂的權能和名分與耶穌分享,這樣,耶穌乃把死權毁壞,而天父乃由那降下的救主啟示出來了。所以,他們口中雖承認一位基督耶穌,但其意義卻與我們不同。因為正如我們曾说,他們相信,那被『獨生者』差來建立充實境界的是一位,那差遣來榮耀天父的救主又是一位,那有時間性的受難者另是一位。」[10] 因此,根據兩位教父的描述,華倫提努派相信基督和耶穌是兩位。基督並沒有從馬利亞取得人性,祂的神性只是降在馬利的腹中,借用耶穌的人性當作祂看似祂的人性。基督本質上其實從沒有從馬利亞身上取得人性。在華倫提努派眼中,這位救主基督一直是「屬天的」。

    3. 護教士的回應
    護教士特土良在他的《論基督的肉體》(On the Flesh of Christ)中駁斥華倫提努的基督論,指出他們因唯恐基督會被人認為微小,就拒絕基督的人性是屬地的,是被造的:「當我讀到一些華倫提努的卑鄙宗派作家時,他們唯恐主被人認為比天使微小,而天使不是由屬地的血肉所造的,就此一開始就拒絕相信基督的人性和屬地的本質是被造的。」[11] 另一護教士愛任紐也窮半生力抗諾斯底主義,尤其是華倫提努派。對愛任紐來說,救贖者基督就是那位創造萬有的神,而基督的道成肉身更是整個救贖的關鍵。神的兒子(道)必須成為有血有肉的人,真實經歷人性生活,才能拯救與恢復墮落的人性。他以他的「萬有歸一」(recapitulation,意『重新作頭』)之說來駁斥華倫提努,認為基督的救贖乃是給人性提供新的起頭:[12] 「主在自己身上重演始祖(愛氏引羅五19),正如始祖亞當的身體是處女而來,而為神的手及神的道所造成,照樣道本身,即在自己身上重演亞當,乃從童女馬利亞誕生,而有亞當的人性。若是頭一個亞當有一個人作他的父,才有理由說第二個亞當為約瑟所生。但若頭一個亞當是由神用塵土造成,那在自己身上重演所造的人,也就理當有同樣的生。那麼神為何不再用塵土,卻叫耶穌由馬利亞所生呢?這是為要避免另外有一個創造,和另外一個需要得救贖的,所以祂重演了原來的創造,從頭至末保存了相似之處。」[13] 愛任紐認為,基督為了能拯救亞當的族類,祂必須重演亞當的歷史。基督必須從馬利亞而生而取得亞當的人性。基督人性的來源必須是來自人—馬利亞,而非另外來源或另外創造,如此,祂才能成為第二亞當,重覆且扭轉第一亞當作為人的失敗,恢復人原初「神的形像」,更使人藉分享祂的新人性,成為新族類。[14]

    4. 小結
    對於幻影派和華倫提努派為代表的諾斯底派而言,他們的基督論共通點都是由於視物質本質為「低級的」、邪惡的,故為了強調基督是「屬天的」、是一個「屬靈的存有」(Spiritual Being),就在本質上就否定基督人性真實存在的可能,[15] 他們也因此無需處理基督人性來源的問題。他們之基督論的關注都是怕受造的物質或受造的人性,會貶低基督的整個身分,以致要犠牲基督肉身的真實性,來「提高」基督的身分。華倫提努派雖承認基督是由馬利亞而生,但仍否定基督從馬利亞取得任何人性本質,以確保救主絕不有分於墮落人類的人性從而有分於罪。可以說,華倫替努派和幻影派均力求使救主的肉身是「屬天的」,但使徒後教父和護教父則堅持救主的肉身是「屬地的」和「屬肉的」的。原則上,華倫提努派的基督論仍屬幻影論。儘管經過第一、二世紀的使徒後教父和護教士的努力,這種「幻影論」的傾向並未在教會中間消失過。它從起頭就一直纏擾著歷代教會。

    (二)後尼西亞前時期
    1. 基督一性論
    第四世紀起基督一性論(Monophysitism)開始活躍於東方教會,尤其在亞歷山大學派中間,其起源可以追溯到亞波里拿留(Apollinaris,–390)。他是亞他那修(Athanasius)的朋友。從亞流爭論開始起,也一直是亞流主義的堅決反對者,竭力支持子與父是同質的(homoousion)。他關注的問題是救恩。為此,他要致力要維護基督完整的神性,以及神人二性在基督位格內的統一性(Unity/Singularity)。他認為救恩就是人在聖餐中分享基督「神化(apotheosized)的肉身」,使人性因著與神聖的「道」聯合而聖化。對亞波里拿留而言,基督若不是完全的神,就不足以拯救人。基督若要是完全的神,祂的人性必是被取到祂的神性內,以致祂成為人可以敬拜的對象。[16] 他從基督只有一個位格的角度批評當時安提阿學派(Antiochene School)二元式的基督論(Dyophysitism),反對神人二性並存於基督位格內,認為這等同是「宣告在基督裡面有兩個理性靈魂」。[17] 他在於363年寫給皇帝約維安(Iovianus,332–364)的信內說︰「(在基督裡)並非存有兩個本性,一是受敬拜,另一是不受敬拜;在成為肉身之神的道裡面,是只有一性的(mia physis, one nature)」。[18] 亞波里拿留擔心,在基督位格內,「假如與基督的神性並存的只是普通的人性,那麼道成肉身的首要目的──勝過罪惡,就不會在祂身上成就了」。[19] 在亞波里拿留眼中,道跟人受造的理性靈魂(rational mind, nous)同為主導和管理一個位格的部分(self-determining principle),故二者不能共存,否則會影響位格的統一性,產生「兩個子」:「神子」和「人子」。另外,人的理性靈魂的存在基督位格內,也會影響使基督有犯罪的可能。故此,為了維護基督完整的神性和位格的統一性,亞波里拿留就否認在基督的人性裡,具有一個人受造的理性靈魂,而主張由道(Logos),即神聖理性(divine mind)所取代。[20]

    在亞流爭論中,東方教父首要關注的基本問題是:若神格永恆不改變,祂是如何成為肉身?[21] 對於如何理解道成肉身的事件,亞波里拿留一再地強調道是那位先存的神聖者,而道成肉身是神自己取了肉身,從天上降到人裡面。祂雖然從馬利亞而生,但並不是在馬利亞裡面成肉身,而只是暫時地經過她。祂一直是那位永存者,而在肉身中顯現。童女感孕的描述在亞氏的著作中,並非佔亞氏基督論的中心。[22] 亞波里拿留認為這樣解釋基督的神人二性,可表明基督的思想是完全神聖的(fully divine),不會受罪惡的影響,基督就被確保沒有犯罪的可能。不但如此,在基督位格裡沒有人受造的理性靈魂,基督可以說保證是創造者了,以表示救贖必須來自神自己。救贖者耶穌基督不是低於神的中介者,祂是與其他所有人有所區別,是獨特的。如此,他認為就有效防止了伊便尼主義(嗣子論)和亞流主義。

    2. 迦帕多加教父的回應
    亞氏的說法雖然看似鞏固了基督救贖的能力,另一面卻使基督喪失了人受造的理性靈魂。這意味否定了基督真正體驗過我們人性的掙扎,否定了基督是人類的真實性,也意味著否定墮落的人類無法得到救贖,因為沒有一個真正的人為墮落的人類而死。亞波里拿留的說法引起大公教會的駁斥,如拿先斯的貴格利(Gregory of Nazianzus,329–390)反駁說:「祂[基督]所沒有取的[部分],就沒有被醫治。」[23] 這意思是說,基督若沒有取得人受造的理性魂,我們的人受造的理性魂就無法被醫治。我們不可能為守護中保基督的獨特性而移除祂人的靈魂。基督必須取得人完全的人性,包括人的肉身和靈魂,祂才能經驗人從出生到死亡之生存的每一部分和每一面。對亞氏的觀點,迦帕多迦教父們認為:道在成肉身時所取的是一個完整的人性,是包括人的理性靈魂。基督必須如此才能成為人類的救贖者和原型(pattern)。亞氏因過分地否認了基督位格內存在兩個位格(the existence of two persons),以致也否認了兩個本性(the existence of two natures)的存在。[24] 基於亞氏對道成肉身的理解,女撒的貴格利(Gregory of Nyssa,335–394)認為亞氏的觀點其實偏向了變種的「幻影說」:將基督的神性蓋過祂的人性而成為一性。這樣,基督就沒有真實地進入世界。[25] 亞氏的錯誤在於,人若要得著完全的拯救,不僅基督固然必須是完全的神,但基督也必須取得真實的、完全的人性,「凡事與弟兄一樣」,一種與人性完全的認同,才能把人救贖過來。亞氏的觀點在公元381年的君士坦丁堡會議上被定異端。

    3. 一性傾向的陰魂不散
    亞波里拿留主義的一性傾向,一直纏擾著東方教會。在第五世紀初也發展出另一種的一性論—「歐迪奇主義」(Eutychianism)。歐迪奇(Eutyches,380-456)為了針對聶斯多留主義,提出一種基督論,認為在基督一個位格內,神人二性完全溶化在一起成為一種第三性,結果使自己墮進亞波里拿留主義一性的陷阱。公元451年的迦克墩會議一面宣告基督擁有「人的理性靈魂」來駁斥亞波里拿留主義,也宣告基督神人二性「不相混合」來駁斥「歐迪奇主義」;另一方面也試圖以宣告「一個位格」(one hypostasis)來說服「基督一性論」者拋棄其一性說。但最後以失敗告終。埃及、埃塞俄比亞(Ethiopia)、敘利亞、亞美尼亞等教會不接受迦克墩界說,東方教會隨後開始分裂。迦克墩以後,一性傾向還未從教會徹底清理。「基督一性論」者為嘗試修訂迦克墩界說,在第七世紀將它發展成「基督一能論」(Monoenergism)—承認基督有神人二性,但只有一個神聖能量(energeia),以及「基督一志論」(Monothelitism)—承認基督有神人二性,但只有一個神聖意志(divine will)。[26] 這兩種說法可視為「半基督一性論」(Semi-monophysitism),也共同在680至681年的第六次大公會議上正式被讉責為異端。

    4. 小結
    亞波里拿留之基督論的關注是救恩。可惜,為了保證人類獲得完全的救恩,採取了幻影論的思考方向。儘管亞波里拿留和他的跟隨者曾承認救主是從馬利亞而生,並從馬利亞取得了人性,但這人性是一個不完全的人性,只有人的身體和感性靈魂,而沒有人的理性靈魂。他們不自覺地跌入了幻影論的基督論:為了強調基督的神性並犠牲祂的人性,以保證人類的救恩。結果,這使基督的人性不完全、不真實。亞波里拿留的基督論也可算是一種幻影式的基督論。

    (三)改革運動時期
    1. 士閔克非的屬天肉身論
    士閔克非(Casper Schwenckfeld,1489–1561)與路德同時代,為改教運動時代中「屬靈派」(Spiritualists)的始創人。「屬靈派」通常被教會歷史學者歸入為「激進宗教改革」(Radical Reformation)的一支。激進宗教改革者提倡一種比當時主流改教者如路德、慈運理及加爾文,更激烈、更徹底的改革。「屬靈派」乃激進宗教改革中的主觀主義者,他們強調聖靈內在生命光照(inner light)。對屬靈派而言,聖靈在生命裏內在光照比教會傳統,甚至比客觀權威的聖經更重要。

    士閔克非著名於開創出一種「屬天肉身」的基督論。[27] 他雖然承認耶穌的肉身是來自馬利亞,但是「基督無論在祂的人性和神性裡均是神的兒子,均以神作祂的父。」[28] 他認為基督的人性是一個「無罪且得榮耀」的人性:在成肉身時,基督所取的人性是無罪的。當基督在地上生活工作時,祂的人性一步步地被「神化」(divinized),就從出生時的卑微改變到復活後得榮耀。基督在十字架上受苦時,祂是以祂的神性和人性來忍受;而祂在復活後,祂得榮耀的人性便與祂的神性無法分開,甚至消失在神性之中。[29] 士閔克非的觀點是由於他關心的問題是人如何成為屬靈(spirituality)或神化(deification)的問題。他認為基督人性的來源必須是神聖的(divine),人類才能像基督同樣得榮耀(glorified)或成為神聖的。藉著祂的肉身被屬靈化(spiritualized)、復活,並得榮耀,基督就能吸引人類歸向祂以致成為屬靈的(spiritual)。按士閔克非的理解,唯有透過基督「屬天肉身」一說,才能保障基督對信徒屬靈的影嚮是從天上來的。[30]

    士閔克非的「屬天肉身」基督論與他的聖餐觀有關。他自1519年加入德國改革運動起,觀察到當時會眾的道德低落,就漸漸懷疑基督的肉身真實地存在聖餐之中。他看聖餐中的餅只是象徵那看不見基督天上的肉身(celestial body)。[31] 他認為真正的聖餐並不是一種外在的儀式,而是内在、屬靈的吃屬天的糧,就是基督屬天的肉身。這種「屬靈的吃」使參與者有分於基督神聖的性情,而被變化像基督,可以去愛神愛人,實行基督的命令。士閔克非不贊同路德從法律的角度解釋稱義的信心,他提出從生命的角度理解信心。他認為在聖餐中,參與者運用信心,就能吃到基督這屬天的糧。信徒越吃基督,他們的信心就越增長。當信徒藉著吃而與基督聯合時,就會使他們漸漸被神化(deified),提昇他們的道德生活水平。[32]

    2. 否定人性與受造性必然等同
    士閔克非可算第一位否定人性與受造性(creaturehood)關係必然是等同的。他認為凡是人都必定有血有肉,但並非凡人都是受造物,因為受造物是指他(它)是被他者造出來,而非指(它)他的本身的本質(nature,essence)。[33] 士閔克非視聖(holiness)的意思就是與任何受造之物有別。士閔克非把這區分運用在基督的人性上。他認為基督的人性雖是真實的,但這人性卻非受造的。[34] 他說:「沒有受造物能照著祂的本質成為聖的,因為我們知道真正的聖,必不是來自受造之物的工作,而是在恩典裡,從其出生、本質和素質都是來自神的」[35]。他看基督的人性是由父給祂的。基督只是經馬利亞「生」出來,而非「被造」。若基督的人性是由馬利亞而得,祂就擁有一個有罪受造物的特性,祂就不能在神面前代表我們。基督照著祂的人性,降生成人時已是神的兒子。因此,基督並非一個受造物。[36] 對士閔克非而言,受造性和神兒子的身分,正如靈和物質、天和地,是互不相容的(mutually exclusive)。對於基督的位格,他直言:「簡言之,神和受造物在一個位格內不能容許彼此的存在」。[37] 他於1528年開始宣言「受造物」這形容詞不能應用在升天之基督的人性上,只能應用在耶穌在地上為人的一段日子上。至1538年,就連在地上的耶穌他也認為不可再稱為「受造物」。[38] 士閔克非於1538年在他〈關於道成肉身〉(From the incarnation of Christ)一文中斷言,「為人的耶穌基督不是受造物,而該照著福音,稱為至高者的兒子,神的兒子,以馬內利。」[39] 從士閔克非看,基督若是神的兒子,祂就不可能是受造物。然而,若是基督所擁有的人性是屬天的、非受造的,則基督就能夠是既是一個人卻又不是一個受造物。他認為「屬天肉身」基督論能夠避免墮入亞流的陷阱,解決亞流的問題。[40]

    3. 瑞士改革宗的回應
    鑒於士閔克非所教導的「屬天肉身」及「人性非受造」的基督論,刺激了許多改革家大力駁斥。在改革運動時期,主流改革家(mainstreamed reformers)一面反對中世紀羅馬教會的傳統,另一面也反對激進改革者對大公傳統的輕忽。主流改革家則重視初期大公教會傳統的信仰立場,在基督論上認同迦克墩的基督論。慈運理的繼承者瑞士改革宗的布塞爾(Heinrich Bullinger,1504–1575)於1539年出版了Orthodoxa Epistola,反駁士閔克非的基督論,他堅持基督按祂的人性,全然是一個受造物。[41] 他於1564年所撰寫,最代表瑞士改革宗慈運理派立場的《第二瑞士信條》(Second Helvetic Confession),仍在駁斥士閔克非,認定基督是真人,擁有真實的肉身:「…因我們既不想也不教導說,在基督得榮之後,他的身體就不再是一個真身體,或說這身體被神化,並身體神化後就將身體的成份脫掉,完全成為神的性質了,並成為單獨的本質;因此我們不接受士閔克斐詭譎、複雜、暗昧與矛盾的爭論,以及其他類似關於此問題的爭論者;我們也不贊成士閔克非的見解。」[42] 布靈格的跟隨者斯姆勒(Josias Simmler,1530–1576)亦指責士閔克非和他的跟隨者,誤用了教父反駁亞流的論據來支持他們自己異端的論述,去否定基督的肉身是受造的。他們所作的正如從前基督一性論者所作的。[43]

    4. 路德的回應
    在德國,路德於1540年也寫了《關乎基督之神性與人性的辯論》(Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ)一文來反駁士閔克非的基督論。路德在第一部分立論中指出「屬性相通」(communicatio idiomatum)的結果乃是:「凡是屬人的東西[即屬性,properties]亦可用以描寫神;反過來說,凡是屬神的東西都可用以描寫人。」[44] 路德認為只要不將這原則延伸至與人性有關比較抽象的名詞(abstract noun),我們仍可以說「這人創造世界」,又可以說「這位神受苦,受死,被埋」等。故此,路德說:「因這緣故,有人能大膽的說︰『基督是受造之物』,因為明顯的,基督是被造的。」路德繼續駁斥士閔克非說:當我們說基督照著的人性可稱為『受造物』,士閔克非以其蛙兵鼠將(batarchomyomachis)愚昧地嘲笑我們。[45] 他在第二部分指責士閔克非派總是扭曲正統信仰中對「基督是受造物」的理解,總是扭曲教父們的話。路德說:「我們沒有說基督僅僅是一個受造者,我們是說是神,又是人,並且只有一個身位。兩性在祂位格裡聯而為一,並沒有兩個聖子、兩位審判人的、兩位耶穌,基於兩性的一致並其不能分離的合一,在這兩性間有屬性的相通。故此,屬於一性的東西也可同時應用(attributed)於另一性,因為在身上只有一個位格。」「我們是說基督就著的人性是受造者,但照著的神性是創造者。」[46] 在第三部分,對於士閔克非詭辯地否認基督人性受造的說法,路德均一一反駁,包括士閔克非指,「沒有受造物是可受敬拜的。基督是可受敬拜的,故此基督不是受造之物。」路德反駁說:「凡敬拜基督之人性的,並不是僅以作為受造者而敬拜之,而是同時以作為創造者而敬拜之。基本的點是二性的聯合。」[47] 士閔克非又稱:「假若基督僅在人性里是受造者,而不是純粹的是受造者,那就是說,在基督里有一些東西是沒有參與二性聯合的。換句話說,在基督里有一些東西不是神聖的。」路德再反駁:「基督不是純粹是受造者,基督徒的確宣稱基督照著的人性說是受造者。故此,人性是不能與神性獨立,分開來描寫的。基督的人性不是一個位格,乃是一個性質。」[48] 路德認為他必須作出這樣的反駁,以指引並保護教會,維護基督二性一位格的教義,避免教會受到士閔克非的基督論所破壞。[49]

    5. 小結
    士閔克非於1541年出版《基督之榮耀的偉大認信》(Great Confession on the Glory of Christ)重申他的「屬天肉身」基督論。書中他和他的跟隨者稱自稱為「基督的榮耀之認信者」(Confessors of the Glory of Christ)。[50] 然而,由於士閔克非認為得榮耀之基督的人性與祂的神性無法分開,他的基督論始終被路德指責為歐迪奇主義,即基督的人性被神性所吞沒成為只有一性,否認了基督完全人性的異端,使基督的人性與我們的不同。[51] 士閔克非的基督論和聖餐觀同樣不為路德及瑞士改革宗所接受。士閔克非創造出「屬天肉身—非受造人性」基督論,他以為自己解決了亞流的問題,並常指責他人中了「亞流的毒」。[52] 然而,因為他在「創造–受造」的分界線間,建立了一種「非受造的人性」,就像亞流建立了一種「受造的神性」,不幸地使他自己不自覺地也成了「類亞流」(Quasi-Arian)。

    6. 重浸派領袖「屬天肉身」論的發展
    (1)賀夫曼
    宏觀來看,士閔克非對激進宗教改革的影響不大,但他的「屬天肉身論」,卻影響了後來16世紀後半其他激進改教者(Radical reformers),如賀夫曼(Melchior Hoffman,1495–1543)、賀夫曼的跟隨者迪克·腓力斯(Dirk Philips,1504–1568)和門諾·西門(Menno Simons,1496–1561)等人的基督論。這些激進改教者雖然表面上接受正統的三一論和基督的神人二性,但他們對基督人性的看法往往被主流和許多激進改教家視為異端。對於基督人性的來源,門諾和腓力斯教導耶穌的人性並非來自馬利亞。這樣的教導是來自賀夫曼,而賀夫曼或許是從士閔克非那裡接受了其「屬天肉身」論啟發。[53] 賀夫曼是一位平信徒傳道者,沒有經過神學訓練。他是重浸派中首位開始探索基督人性的來源。他認為:「我們聽過了所有亞當的後裔,不論男的、女或、童女,都是受咒詛,並永遠滅亡。現在,若耶穌基督也有這肉身,也是出於這後裔的話…,則救贖就無法成就,因亞當後裔乃是屬於撒但並由那惡者所有。」[54] 賀夫曼以後,他的荷蘭重浸派跟隨者繼續展開對基督肉身來源的探索。但這些重浸派領導者的觀點與士閔克非最大的區別在於,士閔克非強調他的基督論與賀夫曼派不同,儘管他認為基督的肉身是「屬天的」,他並不否定基督的人性也是來自馬利亞;[55] 然而,這些重浸派則認為基督的出生只是在馬利亞裡面(in Mary),而非出於馬利亞(of Mary),意即馬利亞僅是孕育(nourish)基督的肉身,她並沒有給予基督的肉身任何的本質。[56] 這些重浸派繼承了士閔克非、賀夫曼的「屬天肉身」說,並繼續發展它,這是因為他們重視基督徒的道德行為,以及要建立一個聖潔的教會。對持「屬天肉身」觀的重浸派而言,若要教會—基督的身體—是聖潔沒有瑕疵的,基督必須是無罪的,並且祂的人性必須是來自神聖的源頭(divine origin)。[57]

    (2)門諾
    另一位重浸派領袖門諾·西門也接受了這「屬天肉身」觀點,將這觀點教導給他的荷蘭重浸派跟隨者,並成了他所開創的門諾會(Mennonites)初期主要信仰之一。[58] 門諾認為基督人性的來源與救恩論和教會論關係至為緊要。對於基督,門諾總結道:「這屬天的後裔(或種子,Seed)—神的道—被撒在馬利亞裡面;並且,憑著她的信心和聖靈在她裡面成孕,道成了肉身,並在她的身體裡成長;因此,祂被稱作她腹中的果子,就像天然的果子或後代,祂被稱作祂天然母親的果子。」[59] 門諾在這裡雖然沒有明言基督的人性是否從馬利亞取得,卻表示馬利亞腹中的果子是來自屬天的後裔。門諾多少扭曲了正統的信經,他視基督的神性和人性均在基督的位格裡,又強調基督的神性過於其人性。門諾對基督道成肉身的理解相信是來自賀夫曼。他看基督的成肉身不過是穿過馬利亞的子宮,就像一束陽光穿過在玻璃杯中的水。基督並沒有從馬利亞取得人性,因她的肉身是「有罪的肉身」。對門諾而言,唯有如此理解道成肉身,救主才能被確保是完全的,祂救恩的工作和祂的教會也才能是完全的。[60] 這「屬天肉身」說一直影響著重浸派內的群體,並遭遇重浸派內激烈的反對, 這可從1571年重浸派領袖在弗蘭肯塔爾舉行的辯論(Frankenthal Disputation)的十三項決議共識的第三項見到:「關於基督:不論基督肉身的本質,是取自童女馬利亞肉身的本質,或是從其他來源」。[61] 甚至連士閔克非自己也反對過賀夫曼的說法,曾說服過賀夫曼的跟隨者接受基督從馬利亞取得人性的正統信仰觀點。[62] 門諾派本身意識到「屬天肉身」說是有違正統信仰,後來也漸漸拋棄其始創人西門的觀點。[63] 雖然賀夫曼和西門的「屬天肉身」基督論並未成功在重浸派群體中取得一個正式的、主流的地位。但無論如何,基督人性的來源在16世紀中葉的重浸派中間曾是一個激烈爭議的基督論議題,其「屬天肉身」和「非受造人性」基督論也曾被主流和激烈改革家反對並斥為異端,這點卻是一個不爭的事實。

    7. 加爾文的回應
    加爾文在他的《基督教要義》中,清楚地駁斥了西門「屬天的後裔」的觀點:「基督被稱為『亞當的後裔』…這修辭也表達了基督真實的人性。因為祂雖非直接由人類的父親所生,但祂的起源乃從亞當而來。」[64] 這裡指明加爾文反對西門的「屬天肉身」說,他認為基督按其人性是亞當的後裔,其人性來自亞當,其本質與我們的人性一樣。在同卷另一段論到基督作中保中,加爾文也駁斥另一異端。他站在迦克墩正統信仰上,指出基督要作我們的中保,祂必須是完全的神,也是完全的人—是亞當的兒子,才能作我們的中保:「故此,路加也不猶豫地在祂的家譜裡認祂為亞當的兒子(路三38)。除非為著提升受破壞的亞當後裔,把人的狀況賦予了祂,否則我要問為何保羅稱基督作第二亞當(林前十五47)」。[65] 加爾文反駁那些認為基督的人性是在道成肉身前先存的觀點,他否定基督人性是在祂成肉身前已先存的,否則基督就不會稱作「第二亞當」,祂就無法恢復我們第一亞當後裔墮落的人性。在其向日內瓦教會一篇〈關於基督的神性〉的講道中,加爾文清楚指出這位永恆的道:「從祂的人性而言,祂當然是受造的」。[66] 這位注意神性與人性的區分,並且基督是當受敬拜的加爾文,他並沒有因為為著強調基督是當受敬拜的,就抹殺祂的人性變為非受造;反之,他承認按基督的人性而言,基督當然是受造的。

    8. 路德宗的回應
    路德宗於1577年制定的《協和信條》(Formula of Concord)中,就有最少兩點是針對當時因重浸派「屬天肉身」說所引起的異端教導。其中第十二段關於「《奧斯堡信條》沒有處理的異端」段落,第一組乃是針對重浸派而寫的。它指出儘管重浸派內部分作許多小群體,但第一點來自重浸派,不能容忍在教會中教導的異端乃是:「基督並沒有從童女馬利亞取得祂的肉身和血,而是從天上來的。」[67] 第二組針對的異端派別乃是士閔克非派(Schwenkfelds),其中第一項指出不能容忍其在教會中教導的異端乃是:「基督中的肉身在祂升天後取得所有神聖的屬性,以至作為人的基督,在祂的權能、力量、尊貴、榮耀等一切,其地位和程度本質上都有如父和道所擁有的,使基督的兩性,現在只有一種本質、特性、意志和榮耀,並使基督的肉身成了屬於神聖三一的本質。」[68] 《協和信條》最清楚地表達了後路德時代的路德宗信仰,它表明基督的人性是來自童女馬利亞;相反,任何教導基督人性是來自天上的或是其他的,都被視作異端。它也表明基督的人性的一切屬性,均不能與神性相混。不僅在祂成孕之時,甚至在祂升天後,《協和信條》也否定了這個相混的可能性。換句話說,《協和信條》間接地否定了基督的人性是來源之天上或神聖的,以及其本質是「非受造」之可能。從路德宗的《協和信條》和路德的《關乎基督之神性與人性的辯論》可見,關於基督人性的來源是來自馬利亞,以及基督人性的本質是受造的問題上,路德宗和路德本人一直堅持他們的立場,並沒有改變過。

    9. 小結
    由士閔克非開創出的「屬天肉身」基督論明顯地跟隨了亞波里拿留主義的思考路徑。士閔克非以為若基督取得我們的人性,則祂就會成為神的一個受造物。除了在少數群體例如波格米勒派(Bogomiles)和卡特里派(Cathars)之外,這種思想在中世紀甚少出現。[69] 當改革時期,這種亞波里拿留主義的思想重新受到注視,尤其在激進的改革者之間。[70] 跟亞波里拿留的想法相似,士閔克非為了確保基督是一位受敬拜的對象,基督就不能有分於受造的人性。此外,士閔克非和亞波里拿留同樣也是出於對救恩的關注,認為基督必須是完全神聖的,才能確保人類得著完全的救恩。跟亞波里拿留一樣,士閔克非的基督論也可算是一種幻影式的基督論。

    二、「屬天肉身」論在華人教會的復辟
    於已過二十年在華人教會中間,「基督人性非受造」論開始大行其道,近幾年在學術界更開始受到注意。以下檢視一下「基督人性非受造」論主要提倡者的主要觀點,比較這些觀點與「屬天肉身」論的異同和發展。

    (一) 唐崇榮
    1. 「在基督的位格裡面,並沒有任何受造的成分」
    唐崇榮可說是近代「屬天肉身」論在華人教會中復辟的始作俑者,他是其中一位最強力的推手。對基督如何取得人性,在其《唐崇榮問題解答類編(上冊)》中,唐崇榮認為若果基督有分於受造的人性,則基督的位格內就有受造的成分,祂就會成為受造者,會落入亞流的異端和諾斯底的異端。他宣告說:「聖經從來沒有提到耶穌有受造的一部分;」「耶穌基督不是受造的,在基督的位格裡面,並沒有任何受造的成分。」[71] 對唐崇榮而言,基督的人性並不是在祂位格以外取的,而是在祂位格內。在道成肉身的過程之中,雖然基督是生在馬利亞裡面並從她而生,但祂與馬利亞並沒有本質上的關係,祂並沒有從馬利亞身上取得任何人性本質。基督的人性是出自基督自己。因為唐崇榮認為基督人性的來源是並非來自馬利亞,而是基督永恆位格之內,因而它的本質也必然是「非受造的」。這觀點可視為「屬天肉身」論在華人教會中的復辟。但唐崇榮比先前的「屬天肉身」論所更強調的,乃是基督肉身的非受造性質,以及按此人性來理解基督並非「受造者」而是創造者、永恆者。如此,唐崇榮認為就能確保祂是永遠被歌頌、領受敬拜的創造者而不是受造的,祂才是我們的救主。基督一旦有分於受造的人性,祂就必然成為受造的神,降格為「次等神」,祂就不能成為人類的救主。[72] 他確信為了確保不落入亞流和諾斯底異端,基督絕不能有分於受造的人性。

    2. 「基督的肉身是祂大能的顯現」
    唐崇榮承接了他對基督人性的理解,在此基礎上進一步闡釋道成肉身事件如何發生。他闡釋這事件是在基督位格內發生一個改變的過程:「道成肉身,不是道進到被造肉身之中,而是道『成』肉身,是「道經過一個過程以後,就在肉身中間顯現」。[73] 這位道成肉身的基督乃是「連祂的人性、肉身中間,還是神自已以祂無窮的大能在肉身的範圍中間向人顯現」。這一種「顯現」就是唐所理解的「神在肉身顯現」(提前三16)。在其《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》中,唐崇榮往前闡釋道成肉身的事件。他指這事件乃是那位永恆的道「到世界來變成一個暫存者」的事件:「這個道在永恆中是神,到暫時中間生出來的時候是人;又是永恆者,又是暫存者。」[74] 從唐崇榮看來,耶穌作為人在地上所顯現的不過是「暫時的,是歷史上曾經有生的開始,有死在十字架上的記錄的那一位」,但耶穌真正的身分是「永恆者」。[75] 那位歷史上的耶穌是那位永恆的道「從天降到地上,以永恆者的身份進入暫時。」[76] 對於唐崇榮,道成肉身並不是那永恆的道取了完全的人性至祂的位格(enhypostasis)的過程,而不過是一種幻影式的顯現。按照迦克墩的二性聯合一位格(hypostatic union)的觀念,基督在成肉身時了取了完全的人性,卻沒有取到人性位格(human person)。基督的完全人性是沒有位格的(anhypostasis,impersonal),而是聯於聖子的神聖位格的(enhypostasis,in-personal)。但唐崇榮理解道成肉身的事件不過是「在聖靈感孕之下,使童女馬利亞的子宫,變成有實體的道成肉身的嬰孩在裡面。」[77] 這種對道成肉身的理解,跟迦克墩的理解並不一致,乃是一種是幻影式的理解。

    (二) 楊慶球:「基督的人性是先存的」
    楊慶球繼承了唐崇榮對基督人性的理解。在其《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》中,楊慶球否認基督的人性是從馬利亞。理由是基督就會有被造的人性,而因此被稱作被造的:「表面看來,耶穌的人性是從馬利亞而來,因有人據此說耶穌的人性是被造的。如果耶穌的道使祂被稱為上帝,永恆的主,那麼,耶穌的人性同樣使祂稱為真正的人,被造的人。這點看似很合乎邏輯。如果耶穌的人性得自馬利亞,這人性就是被造的。」[78] 楊慶球以為基督的人性若是受造的,就會等同亞流主義:「如果說耶穌的肉身來自馬利亞,則祂的人性便是受造,這就與亞流否認基督與上帝有同等神性的看法一致。」[79] 他指出,「我們不能因耶穌成為肉身而把它看成被造,因為這[基督的]肉身是創造的秩序,源於基督的內部結構。[基督的]肉身是出於上帝創造的旨意,也是藉著子的結構而來的。」[80] 楊慶球指出基督人性(肉身)的來源是「基督的內部結構」,絕非是在基督位格以外取的。

    楊慶球在唐崇榮對基督人性的理解基礎上,往前推論,指出基督的人性是在基督位格內先存的。他說,基督的人性是「其實也是先存的…藉馬利亞而來,但非由馬利亞給予,它是萬世以前父為子預備的。」[81] 由於基督的人性在道成肉身前在萬世前,萬物未造前早已先存在基督位格內的,故此,楊慶球認為基督肉身的本質不是被造的,道成肉身的基督不能看成被造。

    (三) 蘇穎智:「基督的肉身是獨一無二的」
    蘇穎智在他新修訂版的《認識主基督》中,陳明出他的基督論:「基督既擁有一個有血有肉有骨的身體,他的肉體也是受造的,聖經有這樣說嗎?肯定沒有﹗」[82] 蘇穎智認定基督有血有肉有骨的身體不是受造的。他認為若基督的人性真是受造的,它也必是基督自己造的。[83] 但是基督並沒有為自己造一個肉身,乃是「祂親自成了一個肉身。」[84] 在蘇穎智看來,基督人性的來源乃是祂自己。蘇穎智帶著跟唐崇榮和楊慶球的相似的道成肉身的理解,認為道成肉身的事件,是基督「親自成了一個肉身」。並因而否認基督的人性是受造的。

    關於基督人性的本質,蘇穎智在他的理解基礎上繼而主張:「『基督的肉身』不是像亞當或你、我等受造之物,而是獨一無二的『道成肉身』」。蘇氏這裡用亞當和我們的肉身,跟基督的肉身作對比,指基督的肉身是跟我們是根本上不同的,祂的肉身是獨一無二的。按蘇氏理解,亞當和我們亞當後裔的肉身是來自地或人,但基督的肉身則是由道自己變成的。換句話說,基督肉身的本質和來源,跟亞當和我們的都在本質和來源上有根本上徹底的不同。基督的肉身可以說是「屬天的」,不是「屬地的」。這就是蘇所指「獨一無二的道成肉身」之意義。縱然耶穌是肉身顯現的神,但藉以顯現的肉身乃是一個「獨一無二的肉身」,其來源源於祂自己,其本質不是受造的,它可視作一個「屬天的肉身」。因此,按這種理解,「耶穌就當受敬拜」。[85] 對於傳統「主耶穌是百分百的神,是造物主;祂也是百分百的人,也是受造物」的表述,蘇氏則歸類並稱之為「部分受造論」。[86] 按照蘇穎智對基督肉身的理解,基督的肉身是「獨一無二的」,但這就與《迦克墩信經》中所指:按人性(Manhood)說,「祂與我們同體(co-essential)」有根本的相違。蘇穎智所理解的基督人性,是一種與我們來源和本質上徹底不相同的人性。蘇穎智的基督論,與唐崇榮和楊喜慶球的,同樣可為算為一種幻影式的基督論。

    (四)「基督人性非受造」論的神學發展脈絡及反思
    總結來看,不難發現,雖然神學處境和神學用辭不盡相同,但從神學關注、神學理據和神學影響來看,華人教會中今日的「基督人性非受造論」其實是繼承自改教時期在激進改革者間曾引發激烈爭論的「屬天肉身」論。這理論遠溯至後尼西亞(第四紀起)的「基督一性論」和前尼西亞(頭二世紀)的「幻影論」。它們同樣地因傾向神性而輕忽人性。比較士閔克非、賀夫曼、西門的「屬天肉身」論,相同的點有四:

    (一),「基督人性非受造」論者同樣承認肯定基督擁有過物質的肉身,且這肉身是經過馬利亞而生,但這肉身(人性)來源卻非來自馬利亞,而是來自「天上」,故這肉身本質上必然是獨特的。
    (二),他們同樣地以為若基督的人性是取自人—馬利亞—的話,將使基督的人性本質上成為有罪,甚至是被造的。故基督不可能從馬利亞取得任何人性。
    (三),「基督人性非造論」不約而同地與「屬天肉身」論同樣認為,人性與受造性並沒有必然關係,意即,人性不一定含示必然是受造的。在他們來看,宇宙中存有一種「非受造的人性」,而且它是且唯獨是存在基督的位格內。
    (四),他們出於同樣的動機,為了確保基督的位格是神聖的且是創造者,這兩說都因而作出推論:既然基督是創造者,那在基督位格內的人性,其本質自然也是「非受造的」了。跟亞波里拿留的一性傾向的相同理由,對他們而言,受造的人性是不可能在非受造的神性位格內存在,否則,基督就不能保證是一位「受人敬拜的對象」。為了調和這種位格內的「矛盾」,基督受造的人性就被犠牲成非受造的了。如此的結果也有四:

    (一),基督非受造的人性就能存在其非受造的位格之內,協調了位格內的「矛盾」。
    (二),如此,就確保了基督的位格永遠是神聖的,必然是受敬拜者的身分。
    (三),有效地解決了道成肉身的基督為何無罪的問題,保證了道成肉身的基督並沒有任何犯罪的可能。
    (四),就能一勞永逸地避免了幾個歷史上的異端問題,包括聶斯多留主義和亞流主義的問題,即避免造成基督有兩個的位格,以及避免稱呼基督為「受造之物」。

    「基督人性非受造論」跟「屬天肉身」論所不同的是:「屬天肉身」論者並沒有多解釋基督是如何取得其非受造的人性;反而,「基督人性非受造」論者則在「屬天肉身」論的基礎上進一步推論:既然基督人性的來源不是來自人—馬利亞,它就是本身來自基督位格內的。它是基督「自取的」或是「變成的」,甚至在基督的位格內早已「先存的」。故此,基督的人性在本質也就跟我們徹底不同:它是「獨一無二的」。如此的結果,基督道成肉身的奧祕,就被理解成跟幻影式的神在肉身「顯現」—一種在「非受造的人性」,不同於我們的人性中的「顯現」。不難發現,「基督人性非受造」論者為了確保基督的位格是神聖的,為了確保基督是受敬拜的對象,為了避免基督的人性有犯罪的可能,為了避免聶斯多留主義和亞流主義,結果「基督人性非受造」論者不察覺自己採取了「屬天肉身」論的理據,走上「亞波里拿留」一性傾向的思考路徑,混淆了正統基督論之神性與人性,使基督的人性與我們在來源和本質上根本徹底的不同,最後產生了「幻影式」顯現的基督論。當我們鳥瞰歷史上各種基督人性的異端後,我們會發現「基督人性非受造」論者眼中基督的人性,其實並不與我們的人性同體,它不是一個真實、完全的人性。套用正統教父們的說法,若基督未曾取過受造的人性,我們受造的人性就無法被醫治,我們人類仍是沒有完全的救恩。

    由於華人教會的傳統主要是來自更正教的西方教會,對於東方教會傳統的認識並不如對西方教會。東方教會數百年之久受基督一性論傾向所造成的異端所纏擾。筆者認為雖然這段歷史主要是發生在東方教會的傳統中,但是西方教會亦承認東方教會在基督人性問題上的判斷是準確的。以往華人教會多數只知道這些基督一性論異端之名,而鮮有深入考據其神學處境、關注和理據。故此,筆者認為東方教會的這段歷史,也該受華人教會注意及值得更多研究。否則,就會帶來今日華人教會出現「基督人性非受造」論的危險。

    結 論
    本文要指出的是,當我們從歷史神學脈絡,以更廣闊的視野去追尋華人教會今日「基督人性非受造」的來源和發展之時,會發現歷史上許多關於基督人性出了問題的異端,其共通點都是要藉各樣的說法,為了強調基督是完全神聖的一位,而否定基督位格裡擁有一個完全且受造的人性。教會從起頭一直堅持「基督的人性是受造的」,作為一個必要理據來否定這些異端的基督論:基督未曾擁有過一個完全且受造的人性。本文指出了華人教會近代「基督人性非受造」論,其實是「屬天肉身」說的延續。它繼承了亞波里拿留的「一性說」及「幻影說」傾向,且在「屬天肉身」說的基礎上發展成基督的人性是基督「自取的」,是永恆地「先存」在基督位格內,以及是「獨一無二的」。這是今日華人教會中「基督人性非受造」的基督論,在神學思想上突破以往異端的地方。然而,按照大公正統以及改革家的觀點,它仍不脫基督人性的異端觀點。

  31. timlyg says:

    References, continued from above article:

    參考書目
    原始資料:
    加爾文。《基督教要義》。
    唐崇榮。《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》。臺北:歸正福音,2010。
    ________。《唐崇榮問題解答類編(上冊)》。臺北:中福,2011。
    ________。〈第一二一講〉,《唐崇榮牧師希伯來書歸正查經講座》。http://members.iinet.net.au/~pcccsb/CellGroup/Emmanuel/Hebrews/121e.html(2016年7月23日讀取)。
    蘇穎智。《認識主基督(修訂版)》。香港:更新資源,2016。
    Apollinaris. Fragment 87 of Apodeixis, in Lietzmann, Hans ed. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schute. Tiibingen: Verlag von J. C. Mohr, 1904.
    ________. Epistula and Jovianum in Lietzmann, Hans ed. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schute. Tiibingen: Verlag von J. C. Mohr, 1904.
    Calvin, John. "Sermons on the Deity of Christ." The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons. Nixon, Leroy translated. Old Paths Publications, 1997.
    Gregory of Nazianzus, Letters 101
    Tertullian, Against All Heresies
    ________, Against the Valentinians
    ________, On the Flesh of Christ

    第二資料:
    侯軍。〈基督人性受造爭議之深度解析〉。載於《基督教思想評論》第十四輯(上海:上海人民出版社,2012)。
    馬丁路德。《關於神性與人性辯論》(Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ)。于忠綸譯。香港:真理書房,2006。
    曾邵愷,〈大公教會正統論基督人性受造〉,載於《基督教思想評論》第十七輯(上海:上海人民出版社,2013)。
    凱利(J. N. D. Kelly)。《早期基督教教義》(Early Christian Doctrine),康來昌譯。臺北:華神,1984。
    漢斯·約納斯(Hans Jonas)。張新樟譯。《諾斯替宗教》(Gnostic Religion)。香港:道風書社,2003。
    楊慶球。《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》。香港:天道,2006。
    奧爾森(Roger E. Olson)。《神學的故事》(The Story of Christian Theology)。吳瑞誠、徐成德譯。臺北:校園,2002。
    Anderson, William, P. "Some Reflections on the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea." Marian Library Studies: Vol. 17, Article 16, 197–206.
    Baugus, Bruce. "Christological Confusion & China's Reforming Churches." 登於 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/08/christological-confusion-china.php. (accessed 23 July 2016)
    Beachy, Alvin J. "The Grace of God in Christ as Understood by Five Major Anabaptists Writers." 5–33, 52.
    Capito, Wolfgang. The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito: Volume 3 (1532-1536), Kooistra, Milton edited. Rummel, Erika translated. University of Toronto Press, 2015.
    Carter, Timothy John. The Apollinarian Christologies: a study of the writings of Apollinarius of Laodicea. Raleigh: lulu, 2012.
    Erb, Peter C. "The Life and Thought of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig." Christian History, volume VIII Number 1. Carol Stream: Christianity Today Inc. 1989.
    Estep, William. The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism. Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
    Haga, Joar. Was there a Lutheran Metaphysics?: The interpretation of communication: The interpretation of communicatio idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.
    Josias Simmler, Scripta veterum.
    Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians.
    ________, Romans.
    ________, Trallians
    Irenaeus, Against Heresies
    King, Karen L. "Valentinus" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second Edition, edited by Everett Ferguson. New York: Routledge: 1999.
    Klaassen, Walter. Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources, Sixth Edition. Herald, 1981.
    Krahn, Cornelius and Marlin E. Miller. "Christology." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989. Web. 23 Jul 2016.
    ________, Cornelius and Cornelius J. Dyck. "Menno Simons (1496-1561)." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1990. Web. 23 Jul 2016.
    Lindberg, Carter, ed., The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
    Loewen, Harry. Ink Against the Devil: Luther and His Opponents. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2015.
    Maier, Paul L. Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core. Wipf & Stock, 2004.
    McGrath, Alister. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Second Edition. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
    McLaughlin, R. Emmet. Caspar Schwenckfeld Reluctant Radical. New haven: Yale, 1996.
    Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
    Perkins, Pheme. "Docetism" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second Edition. edited by Everett Ferguson. New York: Routledge: 1999. 341–342.
    Raven, Charles E., Apollinarianism: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church, Reissue edition. Cambridge, 2014.
    Roth, John and Stayer, ‎James. A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521–1700. Leiden: Brill. 2007.
    Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Vom himmlischen Fleisch Christi. Tübingen, 1951.
    Schwenckfeld, Caspar. Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, ed. Hartranft, C. D. and Johnson, E. E. S.. Vol. 1-15. Leipzig, 1907-1939.
    Simons, Menno. The Complete writings of Menno Simons: c.1496-1561. Verduin, Leonard translated. Wenger, J. C. edited. Herald Press, 1956.
    Voolstra, Sjouke. "The Word Has Become Flesh: The Melchiorite-Mennonite Teaching on the Incarnation." Mennonite Quarterly Review 57 (1983), 155-60.
    Webb, H. Stephen. Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter. Oxford University Press, 2011.
    Weigelt, Horst. “Schwenckfeld, Kaspar von.” TRE 30 (1999): 712–19.
    Whitford, David M. Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, V. 79). Truman State University Press, 2008.
    Williams, George H. The Radical Reformation. 3rd edition. Truman State University Press, 2000.
    Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25 March 2002. Casiday, Augustine and Louth, Andrew ed. Routledge, 2006.
    Mennonite Quarterly Review. Volumes 36-37. Mennonite Historical Society, 1962.
    Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century. Arthur C. Cochrane edited.
    The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Tappert, Theodore Gerhardt translated and edited. Fortress Press, 1959.
    The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. McGuckin, John Anthony edited. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
    The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd Revised edition, Cross, Frank Leslie and Livingstone, Elizabeth A. edited. Oxford University Press, 2005.

    [1] 見侯軍,〈基督人性受造爭議之深度解析〉,載於《基督教思想評論》第十四輯(上海:上海人民出版社,2012)及〈「道-成為-人」基督論——兼回應《大公教會正统論基督人性受造》〉,載於《基督教思想評論》第十七輯(上海:上海人民出版社,2013)
    [2] 見Bruce Baugus, "Christological Confusion & China's Reforming Churches," 登於 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/08/christological-confusion-china.php. (accessed 23 July 2016)。筆者譯。(本文以下若沒有標明中文譯者,則是筆者譯。)Baugus一文剖析了華人教會近年的「基督人性非受造」論,闡述了正统改革宗基督論的内涵為:基督的人性如同我們的人性一樣,是被造與有限的。
    [3] 曾邵愷,〈大公教會正統論基督人性受造〉,載於《基督教思想評論》第十七輯(上海:上海人民出版社,2013)。
    [4] Pheme Perkins, "Docetism" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, edited by Everett Ferguson (New York: Routledge: 1999), 341–342.
    [5] Ignatius of Antioch, Eph. 1.1; Rom. 6.6; Trallians 9.2; Smyrneans 7.1.
    [6] Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, 4.
    [7] Karen L. King, "Valentinus" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, edited by Everett Ferguson (New York: Routledge: 1999), 1155.
    [8] Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 37.
    [9] Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 4.
    [10] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.16.1
    [11] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 15.
    [12] 凱利(J. N. D. Kelly),《早期基督教教義》(Early Christian Doctrine),康來昌譯(臺北:華神,1984),15–19。
    [13] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.10.
    [14] 奧爾森(Roger E. Olson),《神學的故事》(The Story of Christian Theology),吳瑞誠、徐成德譯(臺北:校園,2002),85–87。
    [15] Pheme Perkins, "Docetism" in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, edited by Everett Ferguson (New York: Routledge: 1999), 341–342.
    [16] William P. Anderson, "Some Reflections on the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea," Marian Library Studies: Vol. 17, Article 16, 197–206. See p.204.
    [17] Apollinaris, Fragment 87 of Apodeixis, in Hans Lietzmann, ed., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schute (Tiibingen: Verlag von J. C. Mohr, 1904), 247. 參Timothy John Carter, The Apollinarian Christologies: a study of the writings of Apollinarius of Laodicea (Raleigh: lulu, 2012), 209–210.
    [18] Apollinaris, Epistula and Jovianum in Lietzmann, 250–251. 參Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25 March 2002 Augustine Casiday and Andrew Louth ed. (Routledge, 2006), 52.
    [19] Apollinaris, Anakephalaiosis, 1, in Lietzmann, 242.
    [20] Apollinaris, Fragment 87 of Apodeixis, in Lietzmann, 226. 參Carter, The Apollinarian Christologies, 17.
    [21] Charles E. Raven, Apollinarianism: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church, Reissue edition (Cambridge, 2014), 201.
    [22] Carter, The Apollinarian Christologies, 138–139.
    [23] Gregory of Nazianzus, Letters 101, 5.
    [24] See Anderson, William P. (2014) "Some Reflections on the Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea," Marian Library Studies: Vol. 17, Article 16, 197–206.
    [25] Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium, 22–24. 見Carter, The Apollinarian Christologies, 138.
    [26] 「基督一能論」與「基督一志論」和「基督一性論」的詳細區別,見The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, John Anthony McGuckin edited (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 538–539.
    [27] Sjouke Voolstra, "The Word Has Become Flesh: The Melchiorite-Mennonite Teaching on the Incarnation," Mennonite Quarterly Review 57 (1983), 151.
    [28] Alvin J. Beachy, "The Grace of God in Christ as Understood by Five Major Anabaptist Writers," Mennonite Quarterly Review 37 (1963), 27.
    [29] Paul L. Maier, Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core (Wipf & Stock, 2004), 37.
    [30] Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Vom himmlischen Fleisch Christi (Tübingen, 1951), 36.
    [31] Horst Weigelt, “Schwenckfeld, Kaspar von,” TRE 30 (1999): 712–19.
    [32] Paul L. Maier, Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core (Wipf & Stock, 2004), 37-39.
    [33] Stephen H. Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter, (Oxford, 2012), 156.
    [34] David M. Whitford, Reformation and Early Modern Europe: A Guide to Research (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, V. 79) (Truman State University Press, 2008), 97.
    [35] Caspar Schwenckfeld, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, ed. C. D. Hartranft and E. E. S. Johnson. Vol. 1-15. Leipzig, 1907-1939. VII, 547, cited in Maier, Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core, 35.
    [36] R. Emmet McLaughlin, The Freedom of Spirit, Social Privilege, and Religious Dissent: Casper Schwenckfeld and the Schwenckfelds (Baden-Baden: V. Koerner, 1996), 82.
    [37] Schwenckfeld, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, VII, 506, cited in Maier, Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core, 35. Cf. also VII, 548.
    [38] Maier, Caspar Schwenckfeld on the Person and Work of Christ: A Study of Schwenckfeldian Theology at Its Core, 35–36.
    [39] Cited from Weigelt, "Schwenckfeld," 715.
    [40] Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter, 156.
    [41] George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3rd edition (Truman State University Press, 2000), 703. Cf. Maier, Casper Schwenckfeld, 39–40.
    [42] Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, Arthur C. Cochrane edited, 244.
    [43] Josias Simmler, Scripta veterum, fol. 113r. Cf. Luca Baschera, Bruce Gordon, Following Zwingli: Applying the Past in Reformation Zurich (Routledge, 2014), 74.
    [44] 馬丁路德,《關於神性與人性辯論》(Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ),于忠綸譯(香港:真理書房,2006),5。
    [45] 路德,《關於神性與人性辯論》,10。
    [46] 路德,《關於神性與人性辯論》,21,24。
    [47] 路德,《關於神性與人性辯論》,34–35。
    [48] 路德,《關於神性與人性辯論》,36。
    [49] Joar Haga, Was there a Lutheran Metaphysics?: The interpretation of communication: The interpretation of communicatio idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 70-71.
    [50] "Schwenckfelds," The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd Revised edition, Frank Leslie Cross, Elizabeth A. Livingstone edited (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 1481.
    [51] Harry Loewen, Ink Against the Devil: Luther and His Opponents (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2015), 181.
    [52] 參Wolfgang Capito, The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito: Volume 3 (1532-1536), Milton Kooistra edited, Erika Rummel translated (University of Toronto Press, 2015), 221. Footnote 9.
    [53] Schwenckfeld, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum, V, 522. Cf. Sjouke Voolstra, "The Word Has Become Flesh: The Melchiorite-Mennonite Teaching on the Incarnation," Mennonite Quarterly Review 57 (1983), 155-60.
    [54] Cited from Walter Klaassen, Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Sources, Sixth Edition (Herald, 1981), 27.
    [55] Schwenckfeld, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum VII, 304.
    [56] Alvin J. Beachy, "The Grace of God in Christ as Understood by Five Major Anabaptist Writers," Mennonite Quarterly Review 37 (1963), 33.
    [57] Krahn, Cornelius and Marlin E. Miller. "Christology." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989. Web. 23 Jul 2016. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Christology&oldid=134524
    [58] Sjouke Voolstra, “Menno Simons (1496–1561),” in Carter Lindberg, ed., The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 371.
    [59] Menno Simons, The Complete writings of Menno Simons: c.1496-1561, Leonard Verduin translated, J. C. Wenger edited (Herald Press, 1956), 437.
    [60] Krahn, Cornelius and Cornelius J. Dyck. "Menno Simons (1496-1561)." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1990. Web. 23 Jul 2016. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Menno_Simons_(1496-1561)&oldid=134526
    [61] Mennonite Quarterly Review, Volumes 36-37 (Mennonite Historical Society, 1962), 22.
    [62] Schwenckfeld, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum VII, 281 ff., VI, 483.
    [63] William Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 151–176.
    [64] 加爾文,《基督教要義》,2.13.2,曾邵愷譯,見〈大公教會正統論基督人性受造〉一文註63。
    [65] 加爾文,《基督教要義》,2.12.6-7。
    [66] Calvin, "Sermons on the Deity of Christ," The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, Leroy Nixon translated (Old Paths Publications, 1997), 24.
    [67] The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Theodore Gerhardt Tappert translated and edited (Fortress Press, 1959), 634.
    [68] The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 635.
    [69] 波格米勒派,是十世紀時於保加利亞第一帝國內建立的基督教諾斯底主義派別,主要流行於馬其頓與波斯尼亞地區。卡特里派,是一個中世紀的基督教諾斯底派別,受到摩尼教思想的影響,興盛於12世紀與13世紀的西歐,主要分佈在法國南部。
    [70] Schoeps, Vom himmlischen Fleisch Christi, 13.
    [71] 唐崇榮,《唐崇榮問題解答類編(上冊)》(臺北:中福,2011),134–135。
    [72] 唐崇榮,〈第一二一講〉,《唐崇榮牧師希伯來書歸正查經講座》:「所以耶穌如果被稱為神,那是因為他是次等神,是被造的神,the created second rate God. 被造的神,次等的神,這是希臘哲學,Demiurge,柏拉圖這麼寫,諾斯底主義(Gnosticism) 這樣寫,不是聖經。耶穌是次等神,耶穌是被造的神,這個是亞流派這樣寫,這個是『撒伯流主義』這樣信…」。http://members.iinet.net.au/~pcccsb/CellGroup/Emmanuel/Hebrews/121e.html(2016年7月23日讀取)
    [73] 唐崇榮,《唐崇榮問題解答類編(上冊)》,134。
    [74] 唐崇榮,《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》,(臺北:歸正福音,2010),100。
    [75] 唐崇榮,《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》,102。
    [76] 唐崇榮,《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》,103。
    [77] 唐崇榮,《永世的基督與歷史的耶穌》,176。
    [78] 楊慶球,《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》(香港:天道,2006),21。
    [79] 楊慶球,《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》,21。
    [80] 楊慶球,《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》,23。
    [81] 楊慶球,《基督教不可信?:兼駁《哲道行者》》,23–24。
    [82] 蘇穎智,《認識主基督(修訂版)》(香港:更新資源,2016),171。
    [83] 蘇穎智,《認識主基督(修訂版)》,171。
    [84] 蘇穎智,《認識主基督(修訂版)》,171。
    [85] 蘇穎智,《認識主基督(修訂版)》,160。
    [86] 蘇穎智,《認識主基督(修訂版)》,157。

  32. timlyg says:

    Interestingly, this was brought up again in FB, between David Tong and others:
    Some highlights:

    Yamin Tedja
    Bagaimana kalau adanya kemanusiaan Kristus sebelum inkarnasi?
    Reply5d
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja apa definisi dari "kemanusiaan" di sini?
    Reply5d
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong itu tidak dijelaskan oleh pak tong atau pak tjip yang mengajarkan hal ini, saya juga tidak apa maksud pak tong dengan kemanusiaan disini, bukan daging, bukan roh, tapi pak tjipto bilang kemanusiaan itu seperti blueprint manusia, jadi Tuhan perlu ada kemanusiaan dalam dirinya untuk buat manusia, pak david tong mungkin tahu pengajaran ini
    Reply5d
    David Tong
    Kalau "kemanusiaan" berarti natur manusia (termasuk tubuh fisik), maka ini tidak ada sebelum inkarnasi dan Pak Tong tidak memegang hal ini. Tapi kalau "kemanusiaan" diartikan sebagai "humanness" kita bisa mendisuksikan hal ini, karena memang kita diciptakan dalam gambar dan rupa Allah Tritunggal dan Kristus adalah manusia sejati.
    Reply5d
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong pak david pernah baca artikel ini? https://www.tapatalk.com/.../the-ghost-of-apollinaris-in... , ini ditulis oleh shao kai zeng, mungkin pak david kenal dia. Ini artikel berbicara tentang adanya pandangan yang beredar di gereja gereja cina yang percaya kalau "Christs humanity is uncreated and pre-existent, co-eternal with His deity." Their proposal is that Christs human nature is uncreated and eternally within His divine Person, and this human nature is the image of God in which human beings are created. Menurut shao kai zeng ini adalah pandangan yang berbahaya dan yang mengajarkan adalah pak tong.
    Reformed Theology Institute-The Ghost of Apollinaris in Chinese Churches Today
    TAPATALK.COM
    Reformed Theology Institute-The Ghost of Apollinaris in Chinese Churches Today
    Reformed Theology Institute-The Ghost of Apollinaris in Chinese Churches Today
    Reply5d
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja ya sudah baca. Dan Pak Tong sudah menjelaskan "humanity" dalam pandangan dia bukan dalam arti "tubuh manusia."
    Reply5d
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong ok, tapi kalau ada Roh manusia berarti tidak boleh juga yah, natur manusia bukan hanya tubuh saja, melainkan roh juga bukan?.
    Reply5d
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja ya tidak boleh juga.
    Reply5d
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong saya ada koresponden dengan zhao kai zeng dan ini jawaban dia
    Sorry about the late reply, and thank you for the message. Yes, I am the author of that article. And yes, I do know Pastor Tong personally.
    Back in 2011-2012, Pastor Tong drew himself into a large-scale controversy because of his teaching that violated historic orthodox of the Church. He did not introduce these teachings in Bahasa Indonesia, so the controversy was confined to the Chinese-speaking world. Still, certain leaders at your church felt uneasy with his teaching. A closed-door conference was held at your church, and I was invited as an external representative. The division at your church on this issue was quite clear: all the pastoral staff were in support of Pastor Tong's view, while all the seminary faculty members were against it (including David Tong, Benjamin Intan, Billy Kristanto, and a few others whom I did not know personally).
    The matter drew the attention of Westminster Theological Seminary. After some behind-the-scenes negotiation, Pastor Tong agreed to withhold his view as a private opinion. For several years, he had not taught that view. However, someone told me last year, that he taught it again publicly before his farewell tour trough the world.
    That's pretty much the story in a nutshell.
    Yours,
    Shao Kai Tseng
    Reply5d
    David Tong
    Ya, sudah diklarifikasi oleh Pak Tong sendiri setelah 2011-2012. Languange yang digunakan back then memang tidak presisi. Tapi Pak Tong jelas mengatakan "humanity" yang dimaksudkan bukan "natur manusia."
    Reply5d
    Agus Biyanto
    David Tong jd kristofani di PL itu non fisik? kok bisa "gulat" dg yakub?
    Btw sy ndak ngerti statement pak. Bukankah sbl kedatangan kedua, Xp itu hadir secara fisik 2000 th lalu?
    ReplySee Translation5d
    David Tong
    Agus Biyanto mungkin lebih tepatnya asalah apakah Christophany harus fisik. Setahu saya hal ini tidak ada konsensus bahkan di antara tradisi Reformed. Tapi kalau fisik bukan berarti tubuh manusia Kristus itu dari eternity past sampai eternity future. B… See more
    Reply4d
    Agus Biyanto
    David Tong ok berarti tdak harus selalu fisik. Nah skrg pak tulis eternity future. Tubuh kemuliaan Xp itu bukankah mengandung aspek fisik? Bisa disentuh dan makan ikan goreng.
    ReplySee Translation4d
    David Tong
    Agus Biyanto setelah inkarnasi memang memiliki tubuh sampai eternity future.
    Reply4d
    Yamin Tedja
    David TongDavid Tong ok, kalau begitu sudah clear
    Reply4d
    Sandy Ekahana
    David Tong yesus memang manusia sejati. Tapi rasanya ga perlu mendefinisikan eternal humanness. Justru sebut saja manusia itu ada sifat2nya yg disebut gambar dan rupa itulah bagian dari Allah yg memang kelal. Jd istilah manusia tidak kelal.
    Reply4d
    David Tong
    Sandy Ekahana memang tidak ada yang mengatakan tubuh Yesus kekal dari eternity past sampai eternity future.
    Reply4d
    Sandy Ekahana
    David Tong ya tetap aja jadi roh manusianya Yesus kekal gitu maksudnya?
    Reply4d
    David Tong
    Sandy Ekahana roh manusia Yesus? Baru ada setelah inkarnasi.
    Reply4d
    Sandy Ekahana
    ya makanya muter2 kan jadinya. humaness itu apa?
    Reply4d
    David Tong
    Sandy Ekahana manusia kan diciptakan menurut gambar dan rupa Tuhan. Itu humanness bagi Pak Tong. Sebelum ada first human sudah ada pattern-nya.
    Reply4d
    Yamin Tedja
    David TongDavid Tong pak david, apakah perlu ada pattern ? Dan berdasarkan Firman Tuhan apa kalau Tuhan perlu pattern untuk menciptakan manusia.
    Reply4d
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja gambar dan rupa Tuhan sendiri sudah pattern. Mana mungkin Tuhan menciptakan sesuatu tanpa pattern? Acak? Kemah Suci saja juga dibuat berdasarkan pattern di sorga.
    Reply4dEdited
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong iya tapi Tuhan sendiri yang menjadi pattern manusia, Tuhan tidak perlu buat pattern lagi untuk manusia. Dalam kata lain apakah Tuhan perlu humaness untuk menciptakan manusia? Itu sama aja seperti bilang manusia perlu robotness untuk mencipta… See more
    Reply4d
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja oh saya tidak pernah mengatakan Tuhan membuat pattern lagi ya. Bisa dibaca lagi tanggapan sayan
    Reply4d
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong Pak david, saya barusan ada dengar lagi PA dari pak tjip tentang dwi natur Kristus. Di situ dia mengatakan bahwa Kristus sudah ada natur manusia sebelum inkarnasi. Waktu inkarnasi Kristus hanya mengambil daging. Jadi Dwi natur Kristus sudah … See more
    Reply2h
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja Saya tidak kalau dikatakan dei natur sudah ada sejak kekekalan hanya tambah daging (dan roh) saat inkarnasi. Tapi silakan dibicarakan dengan yang bersangkutan saja.
    Reply2h
    Yamin Tedja
    David Tong Jadi pak david memegang bahwa Kristus mengambil natur manusia saat inkarnasi dan sebelum inkarnasi Kristus hanya memiliki satu natur saja, dan ini yang sesuai dengan kalsedon yah?
    Saya tidak mungkin bicara hal ini dengan pak tjip, karena s… See more
    Reply1h
    David Tong
    Yamin Tedja pada akhirnya kesulitannya pada definisi "natur manusia". Apakah roh manusia, kehendak manusia, pikiran manusia, perasaan manusia juga termasuk di dalamnya? Inkarnasi bukan hanya tambah tubuh daging saja.

    ...

    and my little comment:
    Ini bukan hanya masalah gereja-gereja cina saja, tetapi hampir semua fundamentalists, khususnya anabaptists di mana-mana: Bagi Anabaptists, natur manusia diturunkan bersama Kristus dari surga ke dalam Maria (jadi bukan substance Maria juga - melawan WCF 8.2), jadi banyak mereka yang menyimpulkan natur manusia Kristus bukan dicipta.

    Jika saya diizin membelakan Pak Tong, semua khotbah-khotbah-nya yang menyentuh panutan kemanusiaan Kristus adalah dalam konteks makhluk penciptaan: "...saya [Pak Tong] mengagumi-Nya, jika itu saya...", sementara Pak Tong juga menasihati bahawa istilah "influx of the one divine life" oleh Emmanuel Swedenborg/William Blake sebagai dasar natur manusia, meskipun menarik, tapi mungkin ada akibat sampingnya. Jika mau lebih lanjut, juga boleh riset "communicatio idiomatum".

  33. timlyg says:

    Often times, Stephen Tong would illustrate the humanity of Christ with the example of the doubt of John the Baptist. "If I/you were Jesus, what would you do? Would you be so offended by John's doubt, offense, etc. that you fail where Jesus succeeded?" ~ Daniel's Series Video #4 @47:38

    Such constant illustrations of a very HUMAN Jesus by Tong would contradict the accusation that his view on Christ's human nature is heretical for saying that it is uncreated. Not to excuse Tong, for the uncreated human nature view is perhaps an influence/co-opinion with the Baptists, not a Chinese thing as Alex put it before, but sometimes our anthropomorphic language betrays us.

  34. timlyg says:

    A recent debate in my PCA church rekindled the interest to look back on this. This entry will be a summary of the 12 part articles by Bruce Baugus which I think actually brings out quite a great amount of light on the subject. I previously had only looked at the first part, so I couldn't gather much out of it. These parts would deal with "the image of God" vs. humanness (platonic form).

    Baugus does present it very thoroughly against Tong though Tong was not mentioned using a third party source being the source for Baugus. However, I do think that there is something though off topic, but must be mentioned in the entirety of this treatise, that the article is unjust. It unjustly place the entire heresy upon the East and particular preacher [Stephen Tong] as if this is only a Chinese thing today while in fact, it's very rampant in the West, in America today among the fundamentalists and Baptists, not just some Anabaptist's past sin. Therefore, I think it's unjust to point out the fault of other families while your own children is doing the same thing, even worse (as the American Baptist preachers I've encountered in particular, not only espouse the heresy of uncreated human nature of Christ, they also force such view upon others dogmatically). I am not sure why the sudden turn against Tong in Alex, for it would be inconsistent for him with others who held heretical views around him. Perhaps he held to Tong's error so vehemently until he was proven wrong by the likes of Baugus, which caused him great need to compensate that lost to blame it on Tong, but this is just my guess. Of course, there's also the whole debacle with Michael Liu's case which even Rev. Laura Lin turned against Stephen Tong. I do however wish there's a way to have those who once loved Tong reconciled with my favorite mentor.

    Nonetheless, here's the good summary of the 12-part article: Part 1:
    False stated: "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..."
    But it is not only known in the West, it is practiced more vehemently in the West than what Tong was doing. And practiced as sly as fox is what I would even describe. For in the West, those who turned a blind eye to this is like hired hands letting the wolves among the sheep, while calling out wolves in another planet.

    Preview of Series

    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.

    Part 2:
    Context & Cause of the Current Confusion
    "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."
    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 *Belgic Confession was translated by Charles Chao:
    ...因此神性總是非被造,無生之始,無命之終, 充滿天地;所以也有瓷的人性並未失去其屬性,既為有限,就具有真實肉體的一切屬性。雖然由于復活,有了不朽之性,然而瓷仍 未改變瓷人性的實際性;為了我們的救恩與復活也要靠瓷的肉身。
    Compared to the English one:
    Article 19: The Two Natures of Christ...Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. Christ’s 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.

    A Cautious Critique
    Athanasius of contra mundum fuels uncharitable suspicions that he operated with a deficient view of Christ's humanity. So the author recognized the need to treat your opponent's view accurately and fairly.
    Athanasius' analogy of the incarnation:
    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. Athanasius, Against the Arians, 2.8.
    Contrasting his accurate view on Christ's humanity:
    In Letter to Epictetus, 7, Athanasius 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."

    So with this caution, Baugus wanted to be excused from misinterpreting Tong, and that his information was more of a third party Chinese source.

    Part 3:
    The Question
    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."
    (Gal 4:4 [I would also add Rom 1:3...of David's seed]is where the orthodox answer would use, the moment of conception makes every human nature of Christ finite and created just as ours, assumed by the Son.)
    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.

    Ecumenical Creeds
    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," He did not merely assume a physical body in the incarnation but actually became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.

    Chalcedon asserts that Jesus Christ is:
    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.

    Part 4:
    Reformed Standards on the Human Nature of Christ
    Q&As 36 and 37 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
    Q. 36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
    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.
    Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
    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.

    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:
    Article 18: Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
    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.

    Article 19: Of the Union and Distinction of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ
    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.

    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." [Orations, 29.19.] Views that posit an eternal human nature united with the Son do not--at least not the sense Gregory intended.

    Part 5:
    Confusing Claims About Christ's Humanity
    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." [As opposed to Logos asarkos, Word-without-flesh before incarnation]
    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."
    he admits they "completely contradict" views held by "the so-called ancient catholic church" and "many of the so-called great Reformers."
    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."

    First Statement: Human Nature & Humanness
    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). 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." As such, humanness refers to the uncreated and eternal "prototype" of humanity that, "before the creation of the world, . . . was already within God." This original form, he concludes, is the image of God who is Jesus Christ.
    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."
    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.

    This vaguely sounds like Origen's broadly platonic view of the incarnation. See next part for this.

    Part 6:
    Second Statement: Platonic Dualism
    Due to time constrain, I'm not going to summarize but to just comply copy paste the source, in case it's broken from the original site. After all, it seems that each parts are not that long anyway. I will go through these and bold the phrases as I did with all the bolded text above that I think worthy in summary and commentary.

    This is the sixth post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see part 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

    Second Statement: Platonic Dualism

    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 [Origen] 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]

    Our speaker [Tong] 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:
    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]
    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

    Part 7:
    Third Statement: Incarnation as the Assumption of a Body (Alone?)

    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:
    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.

    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 [but not necessarily so] 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]

    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."
    [At this point I think this is basically platonic form, that Tong was allegedly taking the image of God to be within God to be the form of humanness. Basically the uncreated image of God viz. humanness form and the created human after the image of God. Not that I side with this view, but at least this would poke into answering who Adam and Christ were made differently? i.e. one peccable, one impeccable (even though Tong stood on the peccable side)]

    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] [If I was right about Tong's platonic form stand, then humanness is not referring to the spiritual/intellectual/volitional aspect of Christ's human nature, or at least not necessarily must be so, and thus invalidate Baugus' conclusion here]

    Avoiding Apollinarianism, however, is little consolation.

    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: InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 137.
    [I'm impressed that Swedenborg is mentioned here because that's who I told Rev. Lauran Lin about when this schism came up and she even inquired me about it, because I heard Tong mentioned Swedenborg's view on the pre-existence of human nature as a reference, not necessarily as his view.]

    Part 8:
    This is the eighth post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)

    Fourth Statement: The Recast Image of God [This is the meat for me, what I've been waiting to listen]

    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 conclusion that "this image contains within it the original form of the essence of human nature. Perhaps," he proposes, "this could be called the 'Un-known humanity of God in Christ'."[2]
    [This is where Baugus might have lost Tong. I would posit that Tong's eternal humanness is perhaps, to continue the platonic form, in the realm of Nathaniel Gray Sutando's Internal Ectypal theology in Sutando's diagram, not that I am necessarily onboard with Sutando's treatise on God & Logic nor even buy such diagram of his but Sutando, Alex and Baugus no doubt would be in the same camp on all these hence my using of him here because Tong's view, if I'm right, could easily fit in their compatriot's supposedly approved diagram, see image below which I red-underlined the part where Tong's eternal humanness could be:]
    Two theological accounts of logic - theistic conceptual realism and a reformed archetype-ectype model by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto
    [From: Two theological accounts of logic - theistic conceptual realism and a reformed archetype-ectype model by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto]

    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]
    [This is a good attack. By not allowing imago essentialis any connection to humanity because the divine is simple, cannot be separated to that which only the Son has but the Father has not, making them co-essential. However, that would also mean we may have to revise Sutando's diagram to make the above 2 latin definitions stick. But the only way to revise this diagram is to remove the bridge between internal & external ectypal theology in the diagram altogether, and we are back into the mystery of the connection between God's knowledge of himself and God's knowledge of the world.]

    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 a way 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.

    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.

    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:
    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]
    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. [Not necessarily: see Sutando's Internal & External Ectypal theologies]

    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 in humanity [Worth looking into]. 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

    Part 9:
    This is the ninth post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)

    Fifth Statement: Merely Functional Likeness

    Ironically, holding a univocal view of God's image (see part 8) 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)

    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,
    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]
    And again,
    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]
    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]

    Because his human nature is uncreated and pre-existent we cannot say he is like us in every way 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]

    Directly addressing the Chalcedonian claim Christ is like us in every way except sin, he asks,
    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]
    But the many ways he is like us may relate only to a range of bodily functions and corresponding experiences:
    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]
    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

    Part 10:
    This is the tenth post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9).

    Sixth Statement: An Uncreated Body

    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 observed his peculiar claims regarding the eternal humanness of the Son (see part 5), but he also denies the body of Christ was created.

    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:
    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]
    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]
    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]
    And again,
    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]
    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.

    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:
    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]
    His commitment to this peculiar view--that Christ's body is uncreated--is entrenched, but perhaps not incorrigibly so.

    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.

    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).

    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&AXIII, 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 [I highly doubt it, since he advocates creatio ex nihilo]. 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! [The erroneous idea that God is getting mature]
    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 that I mentioned, as well as my recently published book, The Eternal Christ and Jesus of History. 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.

    Part 11:
    This is the eleventh post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and 10).

    Seventh Statement: The "Unknown Humanity of God in Christ"

    "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.

    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:
    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]
    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]

    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 their respective 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.

    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 (January 2005), 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.

    [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 affirm 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.

    Part 12:
    This is the final post in a twelve-part series on the current Christological confusion taking root in China's emerging Reformed community (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and 10 and 11).

    Conclusion

    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] 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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

  35. timlyg says:

    So even Aquinas recognized the created nature of Christ's humanity:
    Thomas Aquinas' Opuscula I - Treatises - Compendium Theologiae - Book 1 On Faith C. 216
    C.216 on the Fullness of Christ's Wisdom
    ...But Christ’s soul is a creature, and whatever in Christ pertains exclusively to his human nature is created. Otherwise there would not be in Christ a human nature that is other than the divine nature, which alone is uncreated.
    [Interestingly, Aquinas also attempted to answer one of my question, as follow]
    However, the hypostasis or person of the Word of God, which is one in two natures, is uncreated. For this reason we do not call Christ a creature, speaking absolutely, because the hypostasis is connoted by the name ‘Christ.’ But we do say that the soul of Christ or the body of Christ is a creature. Therefore, Christ’s soul does not comprehend God, but Christ comprehends God by his uncreated wisdom. Our Lord had this uncreated wisdom in mind when, speaking of his knowledge of comprehension, he said in Matthew 11:27: No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.
    https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~CT.BookI.C216.6

  36. timlyg says:

    Probably the closest Stephen Tong's take on Christ's created human nature in his Hebrews Expository:
    (last 20 seconds in this clip)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAARULLtrbw
    耶穌是誰,耶穌變成一個人,是自然的。撒旦是誰,是超自然的。。。

    Therefore, at this point, you cannot truly isolate Tong out as a heretic without also doing the same to the Baptists.

Leave a Reply to timlyg Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.