CHRISTOLOGICAL CONFUSION & CHINA'S REFORMING CHURCHES
基督论的错解以及中国改革中的教会
POSTED BY BRUCE BAUGUS
联结∶http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/08/christological-confusion-china.php
Introduction
介言
Christological confusion has sunk a root into the rich soil of China's emerging Reformed community. At present, some pastors and others on the mainland believe Christ's human nature is uncreated and eternal. What is more, some believe this view represents orthodox Reformed Christology.
对於基督论的错解已经深深的扎根於中国欣欣向荣的改革宗群体这块肥沃的土壤之中。目前，有些牧师并中国大陆的信徒相信基督的人性是非受造并永恒的。除此以外，有些人还相信这就是正统改革宗的基督论。
Although it is unclear just how pervasive this view has become, the controversy is known throughout China's reforming churches due to the prominence of a current proponent. Soliciting varying responses across East Asia, the vast majority of China's Reformed believers, including many of those most concerned about this man's Christology, highly regard him and his ministry. For this reason, most appear to be willing to overlook or even accommodate this odd opinion.
虽然目前还不清楚这种观点渗透的情况，这个争议已经因著其支持者的声望，在中国改革中的教会变的家喻户晓。相较於东亚各种的回应而言，绝大部分的中国改革宗信徒，包括许多非常关系此君之基督论的人士，都非常推崇他本人并他的职事。因著这个缘故，大多数人似乎愿意完全忽视或接受这种怪异的观点。
Largely unknown in the West, the scope, depth, and apparent persistence of this confusion in China's vibrant but tender Reforming churches deserves some attention from the global Reformed community--which is not isolated from these developments. The humanity of Jesus Christ is created and finite, just as ours; the view that his human nature is, in any actual sense, uncreated and eternal is problematic and potentially dangerous to the faith.
西方对於这个错解在中国的规模，影响深度，并冥顽不化基本上是一无所知的，然而脆弱的改革中的教会应当获得世界改革宗群体更多的注意力－－他们并不能独善其身。耶稣基督的人性是被造并有限的，就如同我们的人性一样；不论在任何意义上认为 的人性是非受造并永恒的观点都是有问题的，并具有危及信仰的潜力。
Preview of Series
此系列的预告
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.
本文乃是关於现今在东亚关与基督论的错解之十二篇博文的第一篇。在接下来的博文中，我将会简要的描绘在中国欣欣向荣的改革宗群体中，这个错解的原因并背景。第三并第四篇博文将展现对於基督人性之起源的圣经教训，传统的并正统的理解，这种理解已经被大公教会指定为信仰准则（第三篇），以及改革宗的标准（第四篇）。从第五到第十一篇中，我将审视目前错解中关於基督人性的几个论点（每篇一个论点），并在第十二篇中作出总结。
（博文一结束）
Context & Cause of the Current Confusion
现有错解的背景与起因
In one of the most fascinating developments in global Christianity today, many pastors and other believers in China are embracing Reformed theology and reforming their beliefs and practices. Though a few observers challenge the claim, a Reformed community in China (as opposed to isolated individuals and congregations) does exist, and not just online. The tendrils of this community often twine around the ministries of a relatively few widely recognized ministers. As such, these individuals, whose ministries are often based outside of China, exercise remarkable influence on theological opinion within the still relatively secluded world of Reformed Christianity on the mainland.
在今日全球基督教发展中最令人惊叹的现象是，许多在中国的牧师并信徒接受了改革宗神学并正在改革他们的信仰与实行。虽然某些人士否定这样的宣告，但是在中国确实存在一个改革宗的群体（并不是单独的个人或会众），而不单单是网路群体罢了。这个群体的触角往往缠绕於少数广为人所知之牧师的职事。因著这个缘故，那些个人的职事往往在中国之外，在神学观念上，却对仍然相对隔绝的中国大陆改革宗基督徒中产生巨大的影响力。
For many years now, and at least as recently as 2013, one such influence with an international ministry and reputation has been saying some very confusing things about the human nature of Jesus Christ. At times, he has attempted to clarify and defend his comments. One such attempt is found in a series of three recordings he made in 2012, which were subsequently transcribed and translated by others. Though these three recordings and a booklet he published in 1991 are the sources cited below, the primary source of the confusion in China's Reformed community has been his oral statements to the same effect in sermons, lectures, and especially question and answer sessions.
多年以来，最起码到2013年，一个具有此影响力与声望的国际性布道团不断的在传讲某些对於基督人性非常令人困惑的观点。他不断的尝试澄清并捍卫自己的论点。其中的一个尝试乃是他在2012年录制的三卷录音，并被他人抄录并翻译。虽然这三卷录音并他在1991年出版的小册子都是接下来要引用的资料来源，造成中国改革宗错解的主要资料来源是他在讲道，神学课程，特别是问答中口头的表述。
Though this man's public statements are the source of the current confusion, as one Reformed observer explains, "the belief that Christ's humanity is uncreated actually has had a longstanding tradition among Chinese Christian leaders associated with Reformed theology, including Jia Yuming." 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. All of this predates the current proponent of this view, whose statements may represent what he sees as an established, albeit eccentric, Eastern Christological tradition--a tradition that seemed certain to fade away without his advocacy.
虽然此君公开的讲述是目前错解的主要源头，一位改革宗观察者解释到，「对於基督人性为非受造的信仰是中国基督教中与改革宗神学有关之领袖长久以来的传统，包括贾玉铭（Jia Yuming）。」这个传统看起来也被反映在比利时信条的（the Belgic Confession）中文翻译之中。所有这一切原先就存有的，对於这个观点支持者的宣告可能使得他看见了一个根深柢固，非常古怪的，东方基督论传统－－一个无法获得支持而逐渐消亡的传统。
A Cautious Critique
小心谨慎的评论
Some of the church's greatest fathers have occasionally said some odd things about Jesus Christ, things later generations viewed as ill-advised or just plain wrong. Take Athanasius of contra mundum fame for his stand against ascendant Arians. Once, while trying to show how his adversaries mangled Hebrews 3:2 about Jesus' becoming or being made or appointed high priest, he drew this analogy of the incarnation:
有些教会最为伟大的教父有时候也会说出关於耶稣基督的怪异论点，後世视其为不明智，或就是错误的。以极力反对亚流派的亚他拿修为例，在尝试表明他的对手胡诌希伯来书三2中关於耶稣的成为，或被造或被设立为大祭司的时候，他使用了以下的例子来描绘道成肉身∶
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.
救主在 的来临中所做的，就是这个亚伦根据律法所预表的。亚伦并没有因为披上了大祭司的衣袍而有任何的改变，披上衣袍的他仍是一样。。。同样的，在主的身上，我们也当正确的领会，他并没有因为取了肉身而变得不一样；「 成为（He became）」和「 被造（He was made）」不能被理解为好像道被造，而使道，作为万有的塑造者，随後因著披上了一个有起源并被造的肉身被造为大祭司， 也以这个方式为我们献上自己；有鉴於此， 被称作是被造的。
Comments like these continue to fuel sometimes uncharitable suspicions that Athanasius operated with a deficient view of Christ's humanity--that the Son assumed something less than a fully human nature complete with intellect and will. Even if Athanasius was not confused about the humanity of Christ, this analogy and some of his other remarks confuse readers and obscure his orthodoxy as much as they disclose it.
这样的诠释往往会引发针对亚他拿修另人不快的怀疑，怀疑他运用某种基督具有不完整人性的观点－－就是子取了一种不完全的，缺乏理性并意志之人性。即便亚他拿修并没有混乱基督的人性，这个比喻并他其它的一些评语往往使得读者不知所措，并看不清楚他的正统性。
Elsewhere, Athanasius affirms the union of the divine Word with a fully human nature, body and soul. So, we should not conclude too much from an odd analogy here or argument there. Whether the one above is helpful or confusing is a different question than any we might ask about Athanasius's Christology. We may conclude, that is, that this analogy is very confusing or that argument not at all helpful while taking no position on or even defending the source's overall view of Christ's humanity.
亚他拿修在别处肯定了神圣的道与完全人性，就是身体与魂的联合。故此，我们不能根据此处怪异的比喻或别处的论述作出结论。不论上面的比喻是有益的，抑或是令人困惑的，相较於我们想要了解亚他拿修基督论的内涵而言，则是另一个问题。我们可以结论到，就是说，这个比喻非常令人困惑，或那个论点并不是非常的有帮助，而在同时完全无法捍卫关於基督人性的整个观点。
Similarly, the following critique centers on the cause of the current Christological confusion within China's emerging Reformed community. The immediate cause is found in certain public statements. I take no position on whether these statements are being understood correctly or if they accurately represent this brother's views; I only conclude that his statements are the cause of some confusion that deserves at least this much attention.
类似的，接下来的批判著重於当下在中国欣欣向荣的改革宗群体中的基督论错解之原因。直接的原因可以在某些公开的宣告中寻获。我无法肯定那些宣告被正确的领会，亦或是它们代表了这位弟兄的观点；我只能结论到，他的宣告就是造成引起如此注意之错解的原因。
（博文二结束）
The Question
问题
In his own words, the question is "whether Christ's human nature and his physical body were created or pre-existent before the creation of the world." [1] The orthodox answer, which the Reformed tradition maintains, is that the human nature of the incarnate Son, body and soul, is finite and created just as ours and is assumed by him in the conception that occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. By the means of this conception the Son becomes fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.
用该人士自己的话，问题的症结乃是「究竟基督的人性并物质身体是被造的，以或是在世界的创造前就是现存的。」正统的答案，也正是改革宗所坚持的答案，乃是道成肉身之子的人性，身体与魂都是有限并被造的，就如同我们的一样，在透过圣灵的能力於马利亚的腹中成孕的时候所披上的。透过这个成孕的过程，子成为完全的人而未曾丧失完整的神性。
As Paul writes to the Galatians, "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law" (Gal 4:4). Clearly, the fullness of time came at a particular historical moment. Prior to this moment, from an historical perspective, the Son was not human; after this moment he is. That moment marks the unique event of the incarnation when the Son "became man" and has consistently been identified as the moment of the mysterious conception in the virgin's womb.
保罗写给加拉太人说，「以至时後满足，神就差出 的儿子，有童女所生，且生在律法以下」（加拉太四4）。明显的，时後满足乃是历史中一个特定的时刻。在这个时刻之前，从历史的角度而言，子不是人类；在这个时刻後， 就成了人类。那个时刻标出道成肉身的独特事件，子在那个时刻「成为人」并且不断的被因著在童女腹中那个神秘的成孕的时刻被视为人。
Christ's humanity does not exist abstracted from and independent of the particular man he became in the incarnation. On the contrary, the human nature he assumes and possesses today just is the humanity of the particular human being he is, body and soul, as conceived in Mary's womb, born in Bethlehem, crucified, raised again, and ascended. The Son is now consubstantial with us because he became a particular man, Jesus of Nazareth, at a unique historical moment. While it is appropriate to speak of human nature abstractly, there is no actual sense in which the Son shared our nature prior to becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ.
基督的人性不能以抽象的方式并独立於那个 在道成肉身中所成为的那个人之外。相反的， 所取并拥有的人性就是那个 所是的那个人的人性，身体与魂，在马利亚的腹中成孕，生於伯利恒，被钉十字架，复活并升天。子如今於我们同质（consubstantial）因为 在一个独特的历史时刻中成为那个拿撒勒的耶稣。同时，我们也能够正确的论述 的人性乃是抽象的，说子在耶稣基督里道成肉身之前就有分於我们的性质是毫无意义的。
Ecumenical Creeds
大公会议
This is what the church affirms in her ecumenical confessions. The Nicene Creed states that the divine person of the Word "came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man," something he otherwise was not. He did not merely assume a physical body in the incarnation but actually became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine.
这就是教会在她的普世性信仰萱高中所承认的。尼西亚信经宣告道的神格「从天而来，并藉由圣灵，透过童女马利亚成为肉身，并成为人」， 不曾成为其他的事物。 不仅仅在道成肉身中取了一个物质的身体，而是真正成为一个完全的人却又同时是完全的神。
Likewise, Chalcedon asserts that Jesus Christ is,
同样的，迦克顿肯定耶稣基督乃是，
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.
他真是上帝，也真是人，具有理性的灵魂，也具有身体。按神性说，与圣父同一实质（substance)；按人性说，与我们同一实质；在凡事上与我们一样，只是没有罪。按神性说，在万世之先，为圣父所生；按人性说，为了我们人，为了拯救我们，由上帝之母童女马利亚所生。是同一基督，是圣子，是主，是独生的，具有二性；不相混乱，不相交换，不能分开，不能离散。
The incarnation "in these latter days" made the Son, who remains "consubstantial with the Father" according to his divine nature, also "consubstantial with us" according to his human nature. Although neither symbol explicitly denies his human nature pre-existed the moment he became incarnate, neither one seems to permit such a view. To assert he possessed a human nature in any actual sense prior to becoming incarnate would appear to deny the orthodox understanding of the incarnation itself, that the divine Son assumed a fully human nature, body and soul, at a specific point in time.
道成肉身「在这末後的日子」使得根据其神性仍然「与父同质（consubstantial with the Father）」子，根据 的人性也「与我们同质（consubstantial with us）」。虽然没有一个说法特别的否认 的人性先存於 的成为肉身，但是也没有任何说法否定那样的观点。在任何实际的意义上肯定 在成为肉身前拥有人性似乎就是否定正统教义对於道成肉身本身的理解，就是神圣的子在时间的某一点中取了一个完整的人性，身体与魂。
As we shall see in the next post, what appears to be the case in the ecumenical creeds is made explicit in the Reformed standards.
我们在下一篇博文中将会看见大公教会的信经对於改革宗信仰标准产生之独一无二的影响。
（博文三结束）
Reformed Standards on the Human Nature of Christ
改革宗对於基督人性的标准
The Reformed confess the same orthodox Christology. Here, for example, are Q&As 36 and 37 of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
改革宗承认同样的正统基督论。例如，在此摘录了伟敏斯特大教理问答的第36与37题∶
Q. 36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
问36．谁是恩典之约的中保？
-
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.
答．恩典之约唯一的中保是主耶稣基督，作为神永远的儿子，与父同一性质并同等，在时期满足的时候成为人，在两个完全不同的性质并一个位格中，曾是并一直是神与人直到永远。
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
问.37.基督作为神的儿子，如何成为人？
-
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.
答.基督乃是借由亲自取了一个真实的身体并一个理性魂而成为人，透过圣灵的大能在童女马利亚的腹中成孕，并从她并她的性质而生，却没有罪。
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:
针对重浸派假设基督的人性虽然是人性，却又是源於天上的错误所撰写的比利时信条更为肯定的论及基督人性的起源∶
Article 18: Of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ
第18条∶论耶稣基督的道成肉身
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.
故此，我们承认，就是神。。。在指定的时後被差遣进入世界， 自己独一并永远的儿子为自己取了一个奴仆的形状并成为像人一样， 真正的取了一个人形，并其软弱，除了罪一位，借由圣灵的能力在有福的童女马利亚腹中成孕，而不是透过人类的方式； 不仅仅只是取了人性作为 的身体，也取了真是的人类魂，使得 成为一个真正的人。因为魂与身体一同丧失，所以 也必须同时取得两者来拯救两者。故此，我们承认。。。（ ）在凡事上成为与 的弟兄一样，只是没有罪，好叫 能够根据真理成为我们的以马内利，就是所谓神与我们同在。
Article 19: Of the Union and Distinction of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ
第19条∶论在基督位格中二性的联合与不同
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.
我们相信根据这个观念，子的位格以一种不可分割的方式与人性联合并联接；以至於没有两个神的儿子，也没有两个位格，而是两性在一个位格中联合∶然而，每一个心智仍然保留其独特的特性。就如同，神性永远是非受造的，无起始也无结束，充满天地；同样的，人性也没有失去其特质，而继续是一个被造之物，有起始，并是一个有限的性质，保留了一个真正身体所有的特性。虽然 透过复活讲不朽赐予这个身体，然而 却没有改变 人性的真实性；就好像我们的救赎与复活也都必须依赖於 身体的真实性一样。然而这两性是那麽紧密的在一个位格中联合，以至於它们也不能被 的死分开。故此，当 死的时候，交托在父的手中乃是一个真实的人类灵，与其身体分开。然而，在同时，神性总是与人性联合，即便当 躺卧在坟墓之中。神格从未从 里面消失，就如同当 是个婴孩的时候就拥有神格一样，虽然神格在一段时间中并没有明确的显明自己。故此，我们承认， 就是真神，也是真人∶真神，乃是因为 胜过死的大能；真人，乃是因为 可以根据肉身的软弱为我们死。
Echoes of Nicea and Chalcedon are clear in these Reformed standards and their elaborations on the origin of Christ's humanity are explicit. The divine Son "became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul." His humanity originates with the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb and is "of her substance." Christ's human nature is consubstantial with us, and though at the time of the conception in Mary's womb it was inseparably united to the divine nature in the person of the Word, it "remained a creature, having beginning of days [and] being a finite nature" just as he "remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth" in his divine nature.
那些改革宗的信仰标准，特别是对於基督人性的起源的解释，都完全呼应尼西亚信经与迦克顿信条。神圣的子「藉著为自己取了一个真实的身体并理性魂成为人。」 的人性乃是透过圣灵在马利亚的腹中以一种超自然的方式成孕，并「从她的素质而生」。基督的人性与我们同质（consubstantial），虽然在马利亚腹中成孕的时候以一种不可分割的方式在道的位格中与神性联合，它「仍然是一个被造之物，又开始之日 并 有一个有限的性质」就如同 在 的神性中「让然是非受造的，没有开始之日或生命的结束，并充满天地」一样。
So, the Reformed standards maintain, without deviation, the much-repeated formula of Gregory of Nazianzus: "What [the Son of God] was he continued to be; what he was not he took to himself." [1] Views that posit an eternal human nature united with the Son do not--at least not the sense Gregory intended.
所以，改革宗的传统毫无保留的坚持不断被重复的，拿先斯的贵格利的公式∶「凡（神的儿子）之所继续是的；凡 没有为自己取得的。」（1）视一个永恒的人性与子联合并不是－最起码不是贵格利所要表达的意思。
Notes:
[1] Orations, 29.19.
（博文四结束）
Confusing Claims About Christ's Humanity
对与基督人性混乱不清的论点
Turning to the confusion in East Asia, our brother affirms "the Son came into the world to be a human being" and "truly became human." Becoming human, he explains, is unique to the Son "since the Father and the Spirit never came into the world to be incarnate." Also, "the Son who became human was originally the Logos, and this Logos became Logos ensarkos, Word-in-flesh."[1]
让我们转向东亚的混乱局面，我们的弟兄认定「子来到世界成为一个人」并「真正的成为人」。他解释到，成为人乃是子独特的（作为）「因为父与圣灵绝不可能进入世界成为肉身。」并且，「子成为人乃是源自於道，这个道成为了Logos ensarkos，在肉身中的道（Word-in-flesh）」。（1）
It is difficult to know just what becoming human amounts to, however, since he also "claims . . . first, that Christ's human nature and Christ's body are uncreated and, second, that Christ's human nature has existed from all eternity."[2] On the surface, these two assertions seem impossible to square with the Christology of the ecumenical and Reformed standards cited above (see parts 3 and 4). In defending these statements, he admits they "completely contradict" views held by "the so-called ancient catholic church" and "many of the so-called great Reformers."[3] Yet, he also suggests "this great controversy is a matter of terminology and definitions" and claims "my terminology is different from the terminology and definitions that others use."[4]
实在很难断定成为人到底是什麽，然而，因为他也「宣称。。。手先，基督的人性并基督的身体是非受造的，其次，基督的人性乃是永存的。」（2）表面上看，那两个宣告看起来在前面所引述之大公教会会议并改革宗的基督论中是无法成立的（参考博文3，4）。为了捍卫这样的论点，他承认它们与「所谓古大公教会」和「许多所谓伟大的改教者」的观点「完全相悖逆（completely contradict）」。（3）然而，他建议「这个大争议乃是术语与定义的问题」并宣称「我的术语与其它人所使用的术语与定义不同。」（4）
First Statement: Human Nature & Humanness
第一个宣告∶基督的人性与Humanness
Idiosyncratic uses of long-established theological terms do tend to complicate matters. He attempts to redefine a standard Chinese term for human nature (人性, rénxìng), for example, in order to distinguish between human nature (or humanity) in some broad sense and a special sort of human nature he calls, in English, "man-ness" (and for clarity's sake I will call humanness).[5]
用一种怪异的方式使用早已约定成俗的神学术语尝试把事情搞得更为复杂。他尝试重新定义一个标准的中文词汇－人性，例如，为的是要在一个更为广义的范围内区分人性并一种他用英文称之为－man-ness（为了能够清晰表达的缘故，我会将其称之为humanness）的一种特殊的人性。（5）
Humanness, he explains, "is different from the [concept of] human nature . . . inherited from the history of theology and from ancient church tradition;" it is the "formal cause" or "original form of human nature."[6] As such, humanness refers to the uncreated and eternal "prototype" of humanity that, "before the creation of the world, . . . was already within God."[7] This original form, he concludes, is the image of God who is Jesus Christ.
他解释到，Humanness「与承袭自教义史和古教会传统之人性（的观念）不同」；它乃是「正式的起因（formal cause）」或「人性的起源（original form of human nature）」。（6）Humanness指的是一种非受造并永恒的人性的「原型（prototype）」，「在创造世界之前。。。就已经在神的里面。」（7）他结论到，这个原始的形式就是神的形像，就是耶稣基督。
Human nature, on the other hand, is what individual humans possess by being created in the likeness of the prototype--in the image of God. Prior to creation, he states, "Christ was already in possession of an original and eternal form of human nature [that is, humanness], and then after he came into the world, he came to possess an incarnate human nature, the nature of a human body."[8] The Son, then, who is eternally human in one sense (humanness), apparently became human in another sense in the incarnation by assuming a physical human body.
在另一方面，人性乃是各人根据在原型的样式中被创造而拥有的－在神的形像中。在创造之前，他宣称，「基督已经拥有一种原始并永恒的人性形式（就是Humanness），在 来到世界後， 的到了一个道所成为的人性（an incarnate human nature），人类身体的性质。」（8）接著，子在一种意义上乃是永远的人，在另一种意义上看起来（apparently）在道成肉身中，藉由取得一个物质的人类身体而成为人。
This vaguely sounds like Origen's broadly platonic view of the incarnation, which is the subject of the next post.
这个混浊不清的说法听起来就像俄列根式的柏拉图对与道成肉身的看法，这将会是下一个博文的主题。
Notes:
[1] First Recording.
[2] Second Recording.
[3] Second Recording.
[4] First Recording. He returns to this point to open the Third Recording.
[5] First Recording. Since he is obviously speaking about something that pertains to humanity, male and female, rendering his peculiar sense of 人性 (rénxìng) as humanness seems better.
因为他明显的论到了某些附属於人性的东西，男性与女性，认为他所谓人性在Humanness上的特殊意义看起来更为可取。
[6] Original form could also be translated as formal cause. The speaker uses 因 (yīn), which is often translated as cause, but here has the sense of formal cause.
原始形像也可以被翻译为原始起因。讲者使用了「因」这个往往被翻译为原因的字眼，但是在此处的意思当为正式的起因。
[7] Third Recording.
[8] Third Recording.
