對「駁基督人性受造論」一文之糾正
曾劭愷
URL：http://herewestand.org/blog/2013/04/08/christscreaturelyhumanityresponse/
對「駁基督人性受造論」一文之糾正Posted on April 8, 2013
(http://herewestand.org/blog/2013/04/08/christscreaturelyhumanityresponse/) by Administrator
(http://herewestand.org/blog/author/administrator/)
今天在網上看到一篇短文，題為「駁基督人性受造論」，作者為基督教華人改革宗教會牧師。這篇文章並未提出任何值得回應的論點，但其中許多技術性的錯誤，可能誤導一些對語文、神學並無深入了解的信徒，故筆者在此列出三點糾正。「駁」文載於https://theologychina.com/%e9%bb%84%e5%a3%ab%e5%93%b2-%e9%a7%81%e5%9f%ba%e7%9d%a3%e4%ba%ba%e6%80%a7%e5%8f%97%e9%80%a0%e8%ab%96/
糾正壹：約翰歐文論基督人性受造
「駁」文作者聲稱，清教徒神學家約翰歐文（John Owen）並未主張「基督人性受造」。作者稱：「誤解約翰歐文持『基督人性被造』的觀點是來自： 1. 勞羅伯聖靈論筆記的錯誤，而非歐文原著的看法。 2. 英文的錯誤翻譯和認知。3. 以訛傳訛的結果。4.聚會所李常受和信友堂的康來昌牧師的錯謬加以推波助瀾。」
誠然，在勞羅伯所譯《聖靈論》中，歐文並未使用created一詞形容基督人性，而是用formed。然而，這不代表約翰歐文在其它著作中從未主張「基督人性受造」或「基督人性屬於受造界」。
在 “The Humiliation and Condescension of Christ” 這篇講章中，歐文清楚寫道：
The top of the creation, the flower, the glory of it, is the human nature of Christ; yet is it not self-sufficient. It eternally lives in dependence on God and by communications from the divine nature. No creature can be self-sufficient. (John Owen, Sermons of John Owen, 496)
這段話意思是：「受造物之首、受造之物的花朵與榮耀，就是基督的人性；但[就連]它[基督的人性]也不是自有自足的。它[基督的人性]永遠活在對神的依靠中，永遠藉著與[基督的]神性相通而活著。沒有任何受造物是自有自足的。」
對於任何歐文研究專家來說，歐文主張「基督人性受造」乃是不爭的事實。Sinclair Ferguson 如此，Carl Trueman 也如此。關於這點，我在 Westminster Theological Seminary 的朋友皆可作證。例如，以下這段文字出自 Westminster Theological Seminary 歷史神學教授、歐文研究專家 Carl Trueman，我暫不翻譯，讓懂英文的網友自己讀：
Christ’s human nature, as a creature, will be obliged to God as creator even in the eschaton, a point he [Owen]supports with reference to the communication of properties which will never involve the direct communication of self-existent deity to Christ’s humanity… Indeed, as Owen elaborates upon the saving efficacy of Christ’s mediation, he is very clear that the terms of Christ’s penal work on the cross are set by the Creator-creature framework as covenantally established in Genesis 13.(Carl Trueman, 112).
糾正貳：愛德華茲
「駁」文作者以為，愛德華茲（Jonathan Edwards）在以下這段文字中，並未主張基督人性受造：
And it was necessary not only that Christ should take upon him a created nature, but that he should take upon him our nature. It would not have sufficed for Christ to have become an angel, and to have obeyed and suffered in the angelic nature. But it was necessary that he should become a man, upon three accounts.
「駁」文作者辯稱：「愛德華茲[在這段文字中]沒有講到基督人性被造的看法，他論到這點很小心的使用『披上』（take upon）一詞。」
誠然，愛德華茲是說基督披戴受造的人性。然而，「駁」文作者似乎不明白，「披戴」一詞源自初代教會，拉丁文是 ，英文有時用 take upon，有時用 assume，意思還有「取了」。 這概念是指基督人性並非永恆自存：聖子位格本無人性，是在道成肉身的過程中「取了」人性。愛德華茲的說法與正統教父一致：基督所「取」或「披戴」的人性，乃是受造的人性。
糾正參：比利時信條
「駁」文作者主張：「還有人認為，比利時信條也有講到基督人性是被造的，這同樣是翻譯上的錯誤，我們援引英文版的比利時信條，同樣沒有講到基督的人性是被造的。」作者引用比利時信條原文：
Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature…… These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man– true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.
在此，「駁」文作者聲稱：「這應翻譯為：『祂的人性也未喪失其屬性，就具有真實肉體的一切屬性。』」
筆者認為，「駁」文作者此處頗有欺瞞不懂英文的網友的嫌疑。原文明顯用了creature 一詞，但「駁」文作者卻故意不翻譯出來（”His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature “）。這句話意思是：「祂的人性並未失去其屬性，而至終擁有受造物的屬性。」
比利時信條十九條在基督神性與人性之間作了對比：基督神性並非受造（”Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated）、無始無終（”without beginning of days or end of life”）、充滿萬有（”filling heaven and earth”）。
反觀基督人性，比利時信條十九條宣稱：基督人性擁有一切受造物的屬性（”Christ’s human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature”）。這代表，基督人性並非永恆自存，而是有開始存在的一天（”it has a beginning of days”）；基督人性是有限的（it is of a finite nature）；基督人性擁有一切屬於真實身體的屬性（“…and retains all that belongs to a real body”）。
試問，基督人性若非永恆自存，而是有開始存在的一天，那麼它的存在是神造出來的，還是自然變出來的？比利時信條既說基督人性有開始存在的一天（it has a beginning of days），又說基督人性擁有一切受造物的屬性，那麼其立場則清楚
不過了：
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.
以上是筆者對「駁基督人性受造論」的三點技術性糾正。
曾劭愷
牛津大學神學系教義神學科哲學博士候選人
请参考：
钱耀诚黄士哲 耶稣基督人性是被造的吗
黄士哲 駁基督人性受造論
侯军 改革宗《比利时信条》没有讲“基督的人性是受造而来的”