三分人論：諾斯底派影響的灘頭堡
Trichotomy: A Beachhead for Gnostic Influences
作者：Kim Riddlebarger  誠之譯自：
http://reformedperspectives.org/article.asp/link/http:%5E%5Ereformedperspectives.org%5Earticles%5Ekim_riddlebarger%5Ekim_riddlebarger.Trichotomy.html/at/Trichotomy
https://yimawusi.net/2021/03/22/trichotomy-a-beachhead-for-gnostic-influences/
 
摘要：在一些深具影響力的福音派人士中，我們可以找到眾多顯著的例子，其中三分人論（trichotomy；或譯為三分論，三元論，三相論）以及相關的「屬肉體的基督徒」（Carnal Christian）的教義，導致諾斯底主義脈動（Gnostic impulse）在教會中找到其立足點。
There are many notable instances among influential Evangelicals wherein trichotomy, and the related Carnal Christian teaching, has led to a foothold for the Gnostic impulse.
 
任何神學傳統所面臨的最困難問題之一，就是在該傳統的神學家和學者所肯定的「官方教義」，與教會一般成員實際相信和實踐的教義之間，往往在關鍵點上存在著根本性的差異。或許，沒有比廣為流行的三分人論概念更能說明這一點了。幾乎所有基督教傳統中的主要神學家都拒絕接受三分人論，認為它是一種投機性的希臘哲學概念，而不是聖經的概念，但三分人論卻很可能是今天美國福音派圈子裏關於人的本質最盛行的概念（譯按：深受聚會所神學影響的華人教會亦同）。除了少數例外，基督教會都異口同聲地肯定了人本質的雙重性。作為男人和女人，我們必然是一個身體——我們本性中的物質元素——同時我們也是一個靈-魂——非物質層面，這在《聖經》中被描述為魂或靈。這二個成分（物質與非物質）結合在一起，成為一個人；這是一種心身的合一（psychosomatic unity）。這就是所謂的二分人論（dichotomy）。然而，三分人論者認為，人的本質是三分的（tri-partite），也就是說，作為男人和女人，我們是體、魂、靈。但是，福音派神學家遵循歷史的先例，絕大多數都拒絕三分人論的概念，但在福音派流行的教義和文獻中，卻充斥著或此或彼的三分論人性觀。
One of the most difficult problems any theological tradition faces is that there are often fundamental differences at critical points between the "official doctrine" affirmed by the divines and academics of that tradition, and those doctrines actually believed and practiced on a popular level by the rank and file. There is, perhaps, no greater illustration of this than the popular notion of trichotomy. Rejected by virtually all major theologians in all streams of the Christian tradition as a speculative Greek philosophical notion rather than a Biblical conception, trichotomy is very likely the reigning notion of human nature in American Evangelical circles today. With few exceptions, the Christian church has affirmed, with one voice, that human nature is two-fold. As men and women, we are necessarily a body--the physical element of our nature--and we are also a soul-spirit--an immaterial aspect described in the Bible as either soul or spirit. These two are united together as one person; as a psychosomatic unity. This is simply known as dichotomy. Trichotomists, however, contend that human nature is tri-partite, that is, as men and women we are body, soul and spirit. But while the theologians of Evangelicalism, following the historic precedence, overwhelmingly reject the notion of trichotomy, the popular teaching and literature of Evangelicalism abounds with trichotomistic views of human nature in one form or another.
 
在現今追求靈性過程中如此猖獗的諾斯底主義脈動，通過三分人論的人性觀找到了一個現成的灘頭堡，進入到福音派的圈子裏，這絕非偶然。如果把諾斯底主義的脈動定義為對秘密知識（gnosis）的追求，以及對物質的貶低，包括對身體與智性事物的厭惡，再加上（在他們的思想裏）宗教在本質上是對沒有明確定義的「靈性」的追求，是通過神秘的靈命提升，而不是通過手段和一位中保，來達到與上帝相遇的目的，那麼人類在本質上是一種屬靈的存有，而不是身體與靈魂（soul）的統一，這一概念就為一系列嚴重的神學錯誤和饒有趣味的悖論打開了大門。
It is also no accident that the Gnostic impulse, now so rampant in the quest for spirituality, finds a ready-made beachhead into Evangelical circles through the trichotomist view of human nature. If the Gnostic impulse is defined as a quest for secret knowledge (gnosis), and a disparaging of matter, including an aversion to things physical and intellectual, coupled to the notion that religion is essentially a quest for a vaguely defined spirituality attained via a mystical ascent into the heavenlies to encounter God apart from means and a mediator, then the notion that humans are essentially spiritual beings rather than a body-soul unity, opens the door to a host of serious theological errors and interesting paradoxes.
 
一方面，福音派信徒瘋狂地努力反對新紀元運動（New Age Movement），因為它試圖秘密地滲透到教會中去；另一方面，同一群福音派信徒也會在不知不覺中受到同樣將現實拆分為靈肉（善惡）的二元思想所引誘，陷入屬靈與屬物質的二元對立中，而這種二元對立首先催生了像新紀元運動這樣的時尚。因為如果我們本質上是靈，而不是肉體，如同三分人論者所主張的那樣，那麼，實際上，我們就樹立了與經典諾斯替主義相關聯的那種二元分層結構（dualistic hierarchy），在這種結構中，靈被高舉在魂和體之上。
While on the one hand Evangelicals work feverishly to oppose the New Age Movement as it attempts to secretly infiltrate the church, on the other, the same Evangelicals can be quite unwittingly seduced by the same dualistic separation of reality into a spirit-matter dichotomy that has spawned fads like the New Age movement in the first place. For if we are essentially spirit rather than flesh, as the trichotomists propose, then, in effect, we establish the same kind of dualistic hierarchy associated with classic Gnosticism, in which the spirit is exalted above both soul and body.
 
無論是否有意如此，我們都已經向諾斯底主義的本質敞開了大門，即物質是惡的，靈（精神）是善的。如果我們採用三分人論者對人性的理解，我們就不可避免地建立起相同的用二分法來拆解現實的觀念，而諾斯底主義的脈動就在其中成長壯大。我們在新紀元運動中會立即認出這樣的觀念，但是當它出自某些受人歡迎的福音派人物之口或筆下時，我們就看不到了，因為它是用聖經而不是哲學術語表述的。因此，重要的是列出二分人論的聖經證據，然後評估三分人論的捍衛者所提出的論證。同樣重要的是評估三分人論，以及它的神學表親，即所謂「屬肉體的基督徒」的成聖概念，是如何在無意間為諾斯底主義脈動提供了理由。正如我們將看到的那樣，令人驚訝的是，對人性本質的三分人論的理解是如何有效地使這樣一種異教意識形態在無數福音派教徒的心中和精神中建立起了重要的橋頭堡。
Whether we intend to do so or not, we have opened the door wide to the essence of Gnosticism, namely, that matter is evil and spirit is good. If we adopt the trichotomist understanding of human nature, we inevitably set up the same dualistic conception of reality in which the Gnostic impulse thrives, and which we immediately recognize in the New Age movement, but fail to see when it comes from the lips or pens of certain popular Evangelical figures, because it is couched in Biblical rather than philosophical terms. Therefore, it is important to set out the Biblical evidence for dichotomy, and then evaluate the arguments raised by defenders of trichotomy. It is also important to evaluate how trichotomy, and its theological cousin, the so-called "Carnal Christian" notion of sanctification, provides an unwitting justification for the Gnostic impulse. As we will see, it is surprising how effectively a trichotomistic understanding of essential human nature enables such a pagan ideology to establish a significant bridgehead in the hearts and spirits of countless Evangelicals.
 
歷史上，基督徒認為，二分人論在整本聖經中都有明確的教導。毋庸置疑，聖經不僅教導了人性中必不可少的物質方面，聖經也同樣排除了任何諾斯底主義傾向的觀念，即因為身體是物質的，所以要貶低它。上帝首先創造了我們的身體，然後才將生命之氣吹入祂所造的身體裏（創二7）。創造的記載是無比清晰的，上帝宣告祂所造的一切都是「好」的（創一31），包括人的身體。從某種意義上說，我們是塵土，因此也是物質的（創三17），但正如約翰·慕理（John Murray）所指出的，「[亞當]歸於塵土的原因不是因為他是塵土，而是因為他犯了罪」。（註1）
Historically, Christians have argued that dichotomy is clearly taught throughout Scripture. There is no doubt that the Scriptures not only teach a material aspect that is essential to human nature, the same Scriptures preclude any notion of the Gnostic tendency to depreciation of the body because it is material. God created our bodies first, and only then did God breathe life into the body he had made (Gn 2:7). The creation account is unmistakably clear; God pronounced everything that he had made to be "good" (Gn 1:31), including the human body. We are, in one sense, dust, and therefore material (Gn 3:17), but as John Murray notes, "the reason for [Adam's] return to dust is not that he is dust, but that he has sinned." 1
 
除了創世的記載外，還有其他重要的考慮因素證明了作為人的這個物質方面的重要性。首先，在道成肉身時，耶穌基督作為聖三位一體的第二位格，為自己取了真正的人性（加四4）。被定罪為「敵基督的靈」的，就是這種諾斯底脈動，因為這種靈凸出地否認耶穌基督在肉身中仍然是神（約壹四2、3）。這就是幻影論異端（docetic heresy），它教導的是只以人形出現的真正的聖人耶穌，而不是像約翰福音序言中所教導的那樣，是一個具有真正人性的聖邏各斯（divine Logos）。
In addition to the creation account, there are other vital considerations proving the importance of this material aspect of being human. First, in the Incarnation, Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, assumed to himself a true human nature (Gal 4:4). It is the Gnostic impulse that is condemned as the "spirit of Antichrist" because this spirit emphatically denies that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh (1 Jn 4:2, 3). It is the docetic heresy which teaches a truly divine Jesus who only appears in human form, rather than a divine Logos who takes on a true human nature, as taught in the prologue to John's Gospel.
 
第二個同樣重要的考量是復活。耶穌的復活是身體的復活（林前十五3-8；路廿四40-43），祂的復活本身就是那些在基督裏的人身體復活的基礎（林前十五35-58）。我們不會是帶著豎琴的靈魂，飄浮在雲端，而是作為得救的人，在復活和榮耀的身體裏，永遠與我們的魂-靈重合，因為耶穌基督通過自己身體的復活和榮耀，已經解除了罪的刑罰，就是死亡，以及身體與靈魂的分離。正是考慮到這一點，慕理提醒我們，諾斯底脈動對基督徒有哪些危險。
A second, equally important, consideration is that of the Resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is a bodily one (1 Cor 15:3-8; Lk 24:40-43), and his resurrection is itself the basis for the bodily resurrection of those who are in Christ (1 Cor 15:35-58). We will not spend eternity as spirits with harps, floating weightlessly on the clouds, but instead as redeemed persons in resurrected and glorified bodies, forever rejoined to our soul-spirit, as Jesus Christ through his own bodily resurrection and glorification has undone the penalty of sin, which is death and separation of body from soul. It is with this in mind, that Murray reminds us of the dangers of the Gnostic impulse to the Christian.
 
身體不是附屬物。身體是靈魂的監獄，靈魂被囚禁在身體裏，這種觀念是異教的起源，也是違反聖經的；它是柏拉圖式的觀念，與聖經的觀念毫無相似之處。《聖經》徹頭徹尾都把身體的解體和肉體與靈魂的分離描繪為一種罪惡，是罪的報應和工價，因此，也是對上帝在創造時所建立的完整性的破壞。（註2）
The body is not an appendage. The notion that the body is the prison-house of the soul and that the soul is incarcerated in the body is pagan in origin and anti-biblical; it is Platonic, and has no resemblance to the Biblical conception. The Bible throughout represents the dissolution of the body and separation of body and spirit as an evil, as the retribution and wages of sin, and, therefore, as a disruption of that integrity which God established at creation. 2
 
我們除了身體之外，還有一個非物質的元素（在聖經中稱為「魂」或「靈」），這一點在聖經中同樣清楚。是我們的主教導我們，我們是「身體和（靈）魂」（太十28），在馬太福音廿六章41節，耶穌同樣將「肉體和靈」進行了對比。這兩個詞似乎可以互換使用。「靈」是非物質的（路廿四39）；它是「在我們裏面」的（林前二11），成聖被說成是淨化我們自己，脫離「身體、靈（魂）一切的污穢」（林後七1）。雅各書告訴我們，沒有靈的身體是「死的」（二26），因為死後靈會離開身體（太廿七50；路廿三46；約十九30和徒七59）。「魂」（soul）一詞在聖經中以不同的方式被用來指「藉著身體所構成的生命」（太六25，十39，十六25-26，廿28；路十四26；約十11-18；徒十五26，廿10；腓二30；約壹三16）。（註3）「魂」除了作為人自己的同義詞外，當然也以「靈」的同義詞出現（太十二18；路十二19；徒二27、41、43，三23；羅二9，三11；來十38；雅一21，五20；彼前一9，二25）。根據這些證據，慕理總結說：「這裏提出的論點只是，聖經出現的次數足夠頻繁了，『魂』和『靈』一樣，都被用來指稱人身上明顯的成分。」 （註4）
The fact that we have an immaterial element (called "soul" or "spirit" in Scripture), in addition to our bodies, is equally clear in Scripture. It is our Lord who taught us that we are "body and soul" (Mt 10:28), and in Matthew 26:41, Jesus likewise contrasts "flesh and spirit." The terms seem to be used interchangeably. A "spirit" is immaterial (Lk 24:39); it is "within us" (1 Cor 2:11), and sanctification is spoken of as purifying ourselves from "everything that contaminates body and spirit" (1 Cor 7:1). James tells us that a body without a spirit is "dead" (2:26), for at death the spirit leaves the body (Mt 27:50; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30 and Acts 7:59). The term soul is used in various ways throughout Scripture as referring to "life constituted in the body" (Mt 6:25; 10:39; 16:25-26; 20:28; Lk 14:26; Jn 10:11-18; Acts 15:26; 20:10; Phil 2:30; 1 Jn 3:16). 3 Soul certainly appears to be synonymous with spirit, in addition to serving as a synonym for the person themselves (Mt 12:18; Lk 12:19; Acts 2:27, 41, 43; 3:23; Rom 2:9; 3:11; Heb 10:38; Jas 1:21; 5:20; 1 Pt 1:9; 2:25). In light of this evidence, Murray concludes, "the thesis is simply that, with sufficient frequency, 'soul' as 'spirit' is used to designate the distinguishing component in the human person." 4
 
一種學說不一定僅僅因為它的血統可疑就一定是錯誤的，但要記住，一種學說的血統往往是很好的線索，可以看出它的來源和最終後果。而從歷代基督徒反思的角度來看，毫無疑問，三分人論有著非常可疑的血統。三分人論起源於柏拉圖對身體和靈魂進行的區分，亞里士多德又進一步將靈魂分為「動物性」和「理性」兩個要素，因此，三分人論將人性視為三個分部的觀念，無疑是屬於希臘和異教的，而不是束縛希伯來人和聖經的。正如伯克富所指出的那樣，「三分人論最常見、也是最粗糙的形式是這樣認為的：身體是人性中的物質組成，魂是動物生命的原則，靈則是人裏面與上帝相關的理性和不朽的要素」 （註5）
A doctrine is not necessarily false simply because it has a dubious pedigree, but it is important to remember that a doctrine's pedigree is often times a very good clue as to its source and its ultimate consequences. And when viewed from the perspective of Christian reflection across the ages, there is no doubt that trichotomy has a very dubious pedigree. With its roots in Plato's distinction between body and soul, and Aristotle's further division of soul into "animal" and "rational" elements, the trichotomist notion of human nature as tri-partite is unmistakably Greek and pagan, rather than Hebrew and biblical. As Louis Berkhof notes, "the most familiar but also the crudest form of trichotomy is that which takes the body for the material part of man's nature, the soul as the principle of animal life, and the spirit as the God-related rational and immortal element in man." 5

無論諾斯底脈動是因還是果，人性的三元論結構都很好地服務於有諾斯底傾向的福音派，因為它似乎涵蓋了聖經的幾個要點。三分人論允許一種墮落的教義——身體是邪惡的，使我們犯罪。此外，由於我們在屬靈上是死的，當我們重生時，上帝在我們身上所行的神蹟，就是賜給我們一個新的靈，或者有人更願意說，祂在我們裏面創造了一個靈。因此，作為基督徒，我們就有了新的生命，這是非基督徒所沒有的。華腓德（B. B. Warfield），偉大的普林斯頓神學家，敏銳地指出，這樣的計劃沒有看到與三分人論相關的明顯而致命的神學缺陷，即：
Whether the Gnostic impulse is a cause or an effect, the trichotomist structure of human nature has served gnostically inclined Evangelicals quite well by appearing to cover several Biblical bases. Trichotomy allows for a doctrine of depravity--the body is bad and makes us sin. Furthermore, since we are spiritually dead, the miraculous work that God performs upon us when we are born again, is that he gives to us a new spirit, or as some would prefer, he creates a spirit within us. Thus, as Christians, we have new life, which the non-Christian does not possess. B. B. Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, astutely noted that such schemes fail to see the obvious and fatal theological flaw associated with trichotomy, namely:
 
這樣一來，這個人根本就沒有得到救贖；一個不同的新造的人代替了他。當舊人被除掉——而舊人最終必須被除掉，[我們]並不懷疑——剩下的得救的人根本不是那個應該要被拯救的舊人，而是一個從未需要任何救贖的新人。（註6）
that thus the man is not saved at all; a different newly created man is substituted for him. When the old man is got rid of--and that the old man has to be ultimately got rid of [we do] not doubt--the saved man that is left is not at all the old man that was to be saved, but a new man that has never needed any saving. 6
 
此外，三分人論者的方案還容許了自由意志的教義，因為身體作為肉體，是傾向於邪惡的，我們被說成是靈性上的死亡；不過，魂仍然保留著（當然是在足夠的誘惑下）做出接受基督為救主的決定的能力。這使得三分人論者能夠嘗試認真對待那些描述人類墮落狀況的聖經經文，但仍然允許典型的美式偶像，即認為人的意志，而不是上帝的恩典，是決定我們究竟在哪裏度過我們的永恆的最終因素的觀念。
In addition, the trichotomist scheme also allows for a doctrine of free will, since the body, as flesh, tends toward evil, and we are said to be spiritually dead; nevertheless, the soul retains the ability (with sufficient enticements, of course) to make a decision to accept Christ as Savior. This enables the trichotomist to attempt to take seriously those Biblical passages describing the fallen human condition, and yet still allows for the typically American idol, namely the conception that the human will, and not the grace of God, is the ultimate factor in determining just where, exactly, we will spend our eternity.
 
三分人論者對人性的理解的另一個重要影響，是它為五旬節派（Pentecostalism；譯按：即靈恩派第一波）的迅速發展提供了許多神學上的理由。在這種情況下，三分人論允許五旬節派爭辯說，由於精神是人性的高級要素，「說方言」是神指定的繞過人性的低級要素，如思想和靈魂的理性的手段。在五旬節派的框架中，我們可以直接與上帝交流，而不受人性和語言等低級元素的阻礙。事實上，在這樣的框架中，我們可以直接與上帝交流，根本不需要任何手段。三分人論方便地為一系列新諾斯底傾向的五旬節派實踐提供了手段。
Another significant impact of the trichotomist understanding of human nature, is that it provides much of the theological justification for the rapid growth of Pentecostalism. In this case, trichotomy allows Pentecostals to argue that because the spirit is the higher element of human nature, "speaking in tongues" is the divinely appointed means of bypassing the lower elements of human nature, such as the rationality of mind and soul. In the Pentecostal scheme, we can commune with God directly, without the hindrances of the lower elements of human nature and language. Indeed, in such schemes, we can commune with God directly, apart from any means at all. Trichotomy conveniently provides the means for a host of neo-gnostically inclined Pentecostal practices.
 
三分人論的概念得到了許多方面的辯護。在流行的文學和講道中，人們常常斷言，既然上帝是三位一體的，作為人，既然我們是按照上帝的形象被造的，那麼人也應該是三分的，有體、有魂、有靈。但這樣的類比並不是直接從聖經資料本身得出的，只是通過粗略的推論來的。此外，有兩段經文一直被用來所謂的證明三分人論是聖經中的人論（anthropology）。幾位早期基督教作家，如俄利根，在《帖撒羅尼迦前書》五23所記載的保羅的話中，找到了對這些希臘文分類的一種確認。保羅說：「願你們的靈與魂與身子得蒙保守……完全無可指摘。」這句話被解釋為保羅認可體、魂、靈三分部的區別。但正如已故的霍安東（Anthony Hoekema）所指出的那樣，如果從聖經其他資料的角度來看，這些資料的教導並不是這樣的，保羅一定有其他的意圖。
The notion of trichotomy has been defended in a number of ways. In popular literature and preaching, it is often asserted that since God is a Trinity, and since as humans we are created in God's image, humans, too, are tri-partite, having a body, a soul and a spirit. But such analogies are not drawn directly from the Biblical data itself; they come only by way of crude inference. In addition, there are two texts that have been used to supposedly prove trichotomy to be the Biblical anthropology. Several early Christian writers, such as Origen, found a kind of confirmation to these Greek categories in the words of Paul, recorded in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Paul's words, "may your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless," are interpreted to mean that Paul endorsed the tri-partite distinction of body, soul and spirit. But as the late Anthony Hoekema has pointed out, when viewed in the light of the rest of the Biblical data, which teaches otherwise, there must be some other intention on Paul's part.
 
當保羅為帖撒羅尼迦人禱告，希望他們每個人的靈、魂、體都能得到保全或保守時，他顯然不是要把人分成三部分，就像耶穌說「你要盡心、盡性、盡力、盡意愛主你的神」（路加福音十27）時，並沒有打算把人分成四部分一樣。因此，這段經文也沒有為人的構造的三分人論觀點提供任何依據。（註7）
When Paul prays for the Thessalonians that the spirit, soul, and body of each of them may be preserved or kept, he is obviously not trying to split man into three parts, any more than Jesus intended to split man into four parts when he said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27). This passage therefore also provides no ground for the trichotomic view of the constitution of man. 7
 
在希伯來書四章12節中，有人認為作者對魂和靈作了明確的劃分，暗示它們不可能是同義的。但約翰·慕理爭論說，這裏所用的動詞——在NIV中譯為「dividing」（《和》作「剖開」）——在經文的其他地方從未用來表示區分兩種不同事物的意思，而總是用在分配和劃分同一事物的不同方面時使用（見來二4；路十一17-18；太廿七35；約十九24）。（註8）問題的關鍵不在於神的道將兩種不同的東西——魂與靈——分開，而是「上帝的道辨明[judging；可譯為判斷、審斷]人心中的思念和主義」（來四12）。神的道並沒有把魂和靈分開，好像這是兩個不同的實體，但神的道確實把魂和靈剖開了，意思是神的道滲透到了我們的內心深處。
In Hebrews 4:12, it is argued that the author makes a clear division between soul and spirit, implying that they cannot be synonymous. But John Murray contends that the verb used here--translated as "dividing" in the NIV--is never used elsewhere in Scripture in the sense of distinguishing between two different things, but is always used when distributing and dividing up various aspects of the same thing (see Heb 2:4; Lk 11:17-18; Mt 27:35; Jn 19:24). 8 The point is not that the Word separates two distinct things--soul from spirit--but that "The Word of God judges the thoughts and attitude of the heart" (Heb 4:12). The Word does not divide soul from spirit, as though these were two distinct entities, but the Word does divide soul and spirit in the sense of penetrating into our inner most parts.
 
我們所肯定的每一個教義都會產生後果，這些後果必然會影響我們作為基督徒的生活，三分人論也不例外。在一些深具影響力的福音派人士中，我們可以找到眾多顯著的例子，其中三分人論以及相關的「屬肉體的基督徒」（Carnal Christian）的教義，導致諾斯底主義的脈動在教會中找到其立足點。我們可以舉幾個明顯的例子，這些例子非常值得考慮，因為它們有力地說明了這種傾向有多麼普遍，以及它是多麼容易地溜進本原本會有效的基督教事工中。每當諾斯底主義的影響顯露出來時，總會在教會的生活中產生直接的後果。
Every doctrine we affirm has consequences which will inevitably effect our lives as Christians, and trichotomy is no exception. There are many notable instances among influential Evangelicals wherein trichotomy, and the related Carnal Christian teaching, has led to a foothold for the Gnostic impulse, with all of its associated doctrinal fall-out. There are several clear examples of this which are important to consider because they so powerfully illustrate how pervasive this tendency can be, and how easily it slips into what are otherwise effective Christian ministries. There are always direct consequences in the life of the church whenever Gnosticism makes its influence known.
 
加略山禮拜堂（Calvary Chapel）的創始人和牧師查克·史密斯（Chuck Smith）就是一個典型的例子，他的三分人論傾向產生了嚴重的教義和意識形態的後果。在評註《帖撒羅尼迦前書》五23——兩個關鍵的三分人論者證明經文之一時，史密斯斷言：「在我們的靈的領域裏遇見神」。（註9）在對哥林多前書二～三章的討論中；史密斯肯定了經典的「肉體基督徒」的教導。我們讀到，「許多哥林多基督徒還沒有進入屬靈的層面」，「聖靈賜給我們超越我們經驗的知識」。（註10） 當斯密宣稱「我們的問題來自於作為得贖的靈活在未得贖的身體裏」時，與三分人論相關的諾斯底主義脈動就達到了頂峰，「我們渴望從這些肉體中解脫出來，以便我們能享受靈裏充實、豐富、充溢的生命。」 （註11）
Calvary Chapel founder and pastor, Chuck Smith, is a prime example of one whose trichotomist leanings have produced serious doctrinal and ideological consequences. In commenting upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23, one of two key trichotomist proof-texts, Smith asserts, "we meet God in the realm of our spirit." 9 In his treatment of 1 Corinthians 2-3; Smith affirms the classic Carnal Christian teaching. We read that "many of the Corinthian Christians hadn't entered the spiritual dimension yet," and that the "Holy Spirit gives us knowledge beyond our experience." 10 The Gnostic impulse associated with trichotomy is at its height when Smith declares that "our problem arises from living as redeemed spirits in unredeemed bodies. We desire to be delivered from these bodies of flesh so that we can enjoy the full, rich, overflowing life in the spirit." 11
 
在史密斯的觀念中，上帝並不像新教徒歷來所肯定的那樣與我們相遇——通過聖言和聖禮等途徑——相反，上帝立即「在我們的靈的領域裏」與我們相遇。因為是這樣，所以並不是所有的基督徒都「進入了靈的領域」。按照斯密的說法，我們現在有兩類基督徒，即「屬肉體的」和「屬靈的」，而聖經只知道有一類「基督徒」。
In Smith's conception, God does not meet us as Protestants have historically affirmed--through means such as the Word and Sacrament--but instead, God meets us immediately "in the realm of our spirit." Because this is the case, not all Christians have "entered into the spiritual." According to Smith, we now have two categories of Christians, the "carnal" and the "spiritual," when the Bible knows only of one category, "Christians."
 
這是一個典型的例子，諾斯底主義的脈動在福音派的核心裏樹立了一個主要的灘頭堡。如果這是真的，那麼這種諾斯底主義影響的可能來源是什麼呢？不，查克·史密斯可能沒有去參加新紀元的研討會，也沒有學習普羅提諾（Plotinus）的作品。但是，查克·史密斯是著名的《司可福串注聖經》（Scofield Reference Bible）中的時代論解經系統的熱心支持者，乍一看，這不太可能是諾斯底主義影響的來源。然而，當人們考慮到司可福串注聖經中包含的幾條主張三分人論的註釋時，讀者就立即被吸引住了，例如，哥林多前書二章14節的註釋與普羅提諾的神秘主義和臆測哲學之間的雷同。簡單作個比較就足夠了。《司可福串注聖經》宣稱：
This is a classic case of the Gnostic impulse establishing a major beachhead in the very heart of Evangelicalism. If this is true, what then is the likely source of this Gnostic influence? No, Chuck Smith has probably not been going to New Age seminars or studying the works of Plotinus. But Chuck Smith is an ardent supporter of the dispensational system of annotations found in the famous Scofield Reference Bible, at first glance an unlikely source for Gnostic influences. When one considers, however, several of the notes advocating trichotomy contained in the Scofield Reference Bible, the reader is immediately intrigued, for example, by the affinities between the notes on 1 Corinthians 2:14, and the mystical and speculative philosophy of Plotinus. A simple comparison will suffice. The Scofield Bible asserts:
 
保羅把人分為三類：(1) psuchikos，意思是感官的，有感覺的，（雅三15；猶19），自然的（natural；可譯為屬血氣的人），即如同亞當的人，未因重生而得到更新（約三3、5）；(2) pneumatikos，意思是屬靈的，即重生的人被靈充滿，憑著聖靈行事，與上帝完全相通（弗五18-20）；(3) sarkikos，意思是屬肉體的（carnal），按照肉體（fleshly），即重生的人，卻「按著肉體」行事，在基督裏仍然是個嬰孩（林前三1-4）。屬血氣的人可能學識淵博，溫文爾雅，口才出眾，引人入勝，但聖經的屬靈內容對他來說絕對是隱秘的；屬肉體、按著肉體的基督徒，只能理解最簡單的真理，即「（靈）奶」（林前三2）。（註12）
Paul divides men into three classes: (1) psuchikos, meaning of the senses, sensous, (Jas 3:15; Jude 19), natural, i. e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new-birth (Jn 3:3, 5); (2) pneumatikos, meaning spiritual, i.e., the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph 5:18-20); and (3) sarkikos, meaning carnal, fleshly, i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh," remains a babe in Christ (1 Cor 3:1-4). The natural man may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual content of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; and the fleshly or carnal Christian is able to comprehend only its simplest truths, "milk" (1 Cor 3:2). 12
 
普羅提諾在我們可以引用的一個例子中，確認了一個驚人的類似的三分結構：
Plotinus, in but one example that may be cited, affirms an amazingly similar tri-partite structure:
 
所有的人，從出生開始，更多的是靠感覺而不是靠思想生活，因為他們是被迫的，所以他們必須留意來自感覺的印象。有些人一生都停留在感覺之中。對他們來說，感覺是一切的開始和結束。善與惡是感性的快樂，也是感性的痛苦；追逐一個，逃避另一個就夠了。他們當中那些哲學化了的人說，其中的智慧是在於….其他人確實提升了自己，比地面高出一點點。他們更高級的部分把他們從愉悅的地方轉移到可敬的地方。但是，因為無法感知任何更高的東西，無處安放自己，他們就以美德的名義墜落——落回到他們以為要逃避的那個低級領域的活動和「選擇」上。但是，還有另一類人，也就是第三類人——在他們力量的偉大和感知的敏銳性上，他們是像神一樣的人。他們清楚地看到了從天上照耀出來的輝煌。他們從地上的霧氣和迷霧中，把自己高舉到天上。他們停留在那裏，從天上看見地下的東西，在真理中享受他們的快樂。（註13）
All men, from birth onward, live more by sensation than by thought, forced as they are by necessity to give heed to sense impressions. Some stay in the sensate their whole life long. For them, sense is the beginning and the end of everything. Good and evil are the pleasures of sense and the pains of sense; it is enough to chase the one and flee the other. Those of them who philosophize say that therein wisdom lies....Others do lift themselves, a little above the earth. Their higher part transports them out of the pleasurable into the honorable. But, unable to perceive anything higher and with nowhere to set themselves, they fall back in virtue's name--on the activities and "options" of that lower realm they had thought to escape. But there is another, a third class of men--men godlike in the greatness of their strength and the acuity of their perceptions. They see clearly the splendors that shine out from on high. Thither, out of the mist and fogs of the earth, they lift themselves. There they stay, seeing from above what is here below, taking their pleasure in truth. 13
 
請注意，人的第一等級，即普羅提諾所謂的「感覺」（sensate）層級，直接對應於司可福的屬血氣的人。那麼在第二等級中，有一些人把自己提升到地面之上，但卻無法感知更高的東西。在普羅提諾的觀念中，這與司可福的「屬肉體的基督徒」（Carnal Christian）有很好的對應，他們只能理解最簡單的真理，即聖經中的「奶」。司可福的「聖靈充滿的基督徒」，據說他與上帝完全相通，這反映了普羅提諾的第三類人，即那些超越霧氣和迷霧的最高水平的人。因此，人們可能不必察看中東的神秘宗教，或美國這裏的新紀元運動，就會受到諾斯替主義的影響。人們可能僅僅因為採用了三分人論，或「屬肉體的基督徒」對成聖的理解，而不知不覺地上當，這種理解常常與已經成為原教旨主義神學一部分的凱錫克（Keswick）或「更高等生命」（higher-life）的教義聯繫在一起——查克·史密斯就是從這種神學中深深地汲取了營養。雖然加略山禮拜堂在傳福音方面做了很多偉大的事，也讓我們很多人第一次接觸到嚴認真的聖經學習——確實有真正福音的元素存在——但加略山禮拜堂在查克·史密斯的領導下，也開創了與《主必快來！音樂》（Maranatha! Music）這個音樂品牌相關的以經驗為基礎的敬拜形式，稱為「讚美敬拜」，這絕非偶然。雖然在很多情況下，加略山禮拜堂一直強調誦唱經文，這是改革宗的歷史慣例，值得稱道，但加略山禮拜堂現在無處不在的「讚美歌曲」，卻打開了一扇門，專門以激發敬拜對象的主觀情感為目的的讚美和敬拜合唱，從而使敬拜者擺脫「自然」，進入迷霧之上的「靈」。充滿內容的讚美詩，以及基於聖經文本的敬拜禮儀，只能阻礙這樣的追求。是的，我們的教義確實會造成一些後果，甚至對我們的崇拜也有影響。
Note that the first level of men, the so-called "sensate" of Plotinus corresponds directly to the natural man of Scofield. Then in the second class, there are those who lift themselves above the earth, but are not able to perceive anything higher. In Plotinus' conception, this corresponds well to Scofield's "Carnal Christian" who can only comprehend the simplest truth, the "milk" of Scripture. Scofield's "Spirit-filled Christian," who is said to have full communion with God, mirrors Plotinus' third class of men, those who attain the highest level above the fog and mist. Thus, one may not have to look to the mystery religions of the Middle East, or to the New Age Movement here in America to be influenced by Gnosticism. One may be unwittingly taken in merely by adopting the trichotomist anthropology, or "Carnal Christian" understanding of sanctification, so often associated with the Keswick or "higher-life" teachings that have become part and parcel of fundamentalist theology--a theology from which Chuck Smith has drawn deeply. While Calvary Chapel has done great things in terms of evangelism, and in giving many of us our first exposure to serious Bible study--there are indeed elements of the true Evangel present--it is no accident that Calvary Chapel, under Chuck Smith's leadership, has also pioneered the experience-based form of worship known as "Praise and Worship" associated with Maranatha Music. While in many cases, there has been a commendable emphasis upon the singing of Scripture, a historic Reformed practice, Calvary Chapel's now ubiquitous "praise songs" have opened the door to a seemingly endless stream of praise and worship choruses specifically aimed at arousing the subjective emotions of the worshipping subject, thereby enabling the worshipper to escape the natural, and enter into the spirit above the mists. Content-laden hymns, and liturgy based upon biblical texts, can only hinder such a quest. Yes, our doctrines do have consequences, even for our worship.
 
自稱是「平衡的事工」，加略山禮拜堂的特點是在它所反對的東西上有明顯的不平衡：它反對聖禮作為恩典的管道（means of grace，蒙恩之道），反對任何形式的敬拜禮儀，反對宗教改革時期神學（特別是揀選的教義，歸算的義和明確的律法與福音的區別），反對受過教育的神職人員，反對宗派和任何形式的傳統。重要的是要注意到，被定罪的東西正是更正教歷史上認為相當重要的東西，如果不是必不可少的話。被定罪的東西顯然是諾斯底主義脈動的果實，它是通過三分人論和「屬肉體的基督徒」的基督教生活概念被帶入運動中的。
Claiming to be the "ministry of balance," Calvary Chapel is characterized by a marked imbalance in what it opposes: Sacraments as means of grace, liturgy in any form, Reformation theology (especially the doctrines of election, justification by an imputed righteousness, and a clear Law-Gospel distinction), an educated clergy, denominationalism and any form of tradition. It is important to notice that the things which are condemned are the very things that Protestants have historically thought quite important, if not essential. The things that are condemned are clearly fruit of the Gnostic impulse, brought into the movement by means of a trichotomist anthropology, and "Carnal Christian" conception of the Christian life.
 
但諾斯底主義脈動並不總是進行正面攻擊。另一個重要的例證是諾斯底主義脈動在福音派圈子裏的運作方式，可以從達拉斯神學院的前教授查爾斯·雷歷（Charles Ryrie）的工作中看到，他的名字出現在一本相當流行的福音派研讀本聖經上。雖然雷歷全心全意地拒絕三元論，（註14）但他還是以稍作修改的形式肯定了與達拉斯神學院的創辦人薛弗爾（Lewis Sperry Chafer）（註15）相關的「屬肉體的基督徒」的教導。在雷歷的體系中，對諾斯底脈動的前門刻意被關上了。雷歷認為，男人和女人不是三部分的，而是二分的。對於這一點，我們應該感到高興。但問題是，後門卻大大地敞開著。因為一旦有人認為基督徒生活有兩個層次（屬肉體的和屬靈的），就會重新引入一種等級制度，這種等級制度的實際後果是再次使「屬靈的基督徒」在比「屬肉體的基督徒」更高的平原上運作，後者只相信耶穌是救主，但到目前為止，還沒有完全降服在基督的主宰地位之下。如果「屬血氣的人」不是基督徒，而「屬肉體的基督徒」雖然是基督徒，但還不是門徒，那麼問題就自然而然地產生了：「要想進入下一個層次，也就是靈性層次，必須做些什麼呢？」於是，另一個諾斯底原則就在無意中被重新引入討論，那就是宗教是一種神秘的上升到神性的概念。不管雷歷是否有意，一旦我們提供了一種分道揚鑣的成聖概念，我們就建立了一個系統，在這個系統中，攀登到下一個靈性層次的階梯就成為常態，我們也就再一次餵養了諾斯底脈動。我們從屬血氣的人，到屬肉體的人，再到屬靈人，逐步前進。這也就難怪，那麼多不會聽到雷歷對三分人論的駁斥的人，反而會通過三分人論的架構，聽到他屬血氣的人、屬肉體的人和屬靈人的分類。
But the Gnostic impulse does not always make a frontal assault. Another important illustration of the way in which the Gnostic impulse operates in evangelical circles, is seen in the work of Charles Ryrie, former professor of Dallas Theological Seminary, and whose name appears on a rather popular evangelical study Bible. While Ryrie wholeheartedly rejects trichotomy, 14 he nevertheless affirms, in slightly modified form, the "Carnal Christian" teaching associated with Lewis Sperry Chafer, 15 founder of Dallas Theological Seminary. In Ryrie's system, the front door is deliberately slammed to the Gnostic impulse. Men and women are not tri-partite, but dichotomous. For this we should be glad. The problem is, however, the back door is left wide open. For once it is argued that there are two-levels of the Christian life (the Carnal and the Spiritual), a hierarchy is re-introduced that once again has the practical consequences of making the "Spiritual Christian" operate on a higher plain than the "Carnal Christian," who has merely trusted Jesus as Savior but, as of yet, has not fully surrendered to Christ's Lordship. If the "Natural Man" is not a Christian, and the "Carnal Christian" is a Christian but not yet a disciple, the question naturally arises, "What must one do to move on to the next level--the spiritual level?" Thus, another Gnostic principle is unintentionally re-introduced back into the discussion, and that is the notion that religion is a kind of mystical ascent to the divine. Whether Ryrie intends to or not, once we have offered a bifurcated notion of sanctification, we have set up a system in which climbing the ladder to the next spiritual level is the norm, and we feed the Gnostic impulse yet again. We move progressively from Natural Man, to Carnal Man, to Spiritual Man. And it is no wonder then, that so many, who will not hear Ryrie's rejection of trichotomy, will instead hear his natural, carnal and spiritual categories through a trichotomist grid.
 
我們再一次看到，恢復並闡明聖經中關於人的本質是身體和魂-靈二分的概念，以及保留歷史上基督教對這些問題的思考結論的重要性。如果我們的教義確實會產生後果——當然，它們確實會產生後果——毫無疑問，三分人論會導致一些可預見的、非常有問題的道路。任何貶低身體和心智的框架，以及相應地提升靈性而不適當地考慮到上帝的聖靈通過上帝自己所創造的手段來工作的事實，實際上都深受諾斯底主義脈動的影響。將上帝所配合的東西（身體和[靈]魂）分開，總是會帶來真正的危險。無論我們的意圖多麼美好，無論追求靈性多麼時髦，在每一個試圖建立通往天堂的階梯的背後，都潛藏著諾斯底主義的脈動，我們必須非常小心地避免它深具破壞力的影響。我們需要時刻注意我們的思想是多麼容易「不照著基督，而照著人的傳統和世俗的言論，藉著哲學和騙人的空談」被擄去（西二8；參《新譯本》）。
Once again, we see the importance of recovering and articulating the biblical concept of human nature as a dichotomy of body and soul-spirit, as well as retaining the conclusions of historic Christian reflection on these issues. If our doctrines do have consequences--and they certainly do--there is no doubt that trichotomy will lead down some very predictable and problematic roads. Any scheme which depreciates the body and the mind, and which correspondingly elevates the spiritual without due regard to the fact that God the Holy Spirit works through the means that God Himself has created, is in fact, deeply influenced by the Gnostic impulse. There is always a real danger in divorcing what God has joined together (body and soul). No matter how well intended we are, and no matter how fashionable spirituality may be, the Gnostic impulse lurks behind every attempt to build a ladder to heaven, and we must be very careful to avoid its destructive influence. We need to be ever mindful of how easy it is to allow our minds to be captured by "hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8).
 
註：
 
1. John Murray, “The Nature of Man,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2 (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1977), p. 14.
 
2. Ibid.
 
3. Ibid., p. 21.
 
4. Ibid.
 
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 191 ff.
 
6. B. B. Warfield, “Review of He That Is Spiritual, by Lewis Sperry Chafer,” reprinted in Mike Horton, ed., Christ The Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 211-218.
 
7. Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 204 ff; John Murray, “Trichotomy,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2, pp. 23-33.
 
8. John Murray, “Trichotomy,” pp. 30-31.
 
9. Chuck Smith, New Testament Study Guide (Costa Mesa: The Word for Today, 1982), p. 113.
 
10. Ibid., p. 78.
 
11. Ibid., p. 193.
 
12. The New Scofield Reference Bible, note on 1 Corinthians 2:14, p. 1234.
 
13. Plotinus, “The Intelligence, the Ideas and Being,” in The Essential Plotinus, trans. Elmer O’ Brien (Indianapolis: Hacket Publications, 1964), pp. 46-47.
 
14. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1988), pp. 195-196.
 
15. See for example the notes in The Ryrie Study Bible, especially notes on 1 Cor 2:10 ff. See also Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 338-339; and So Great a Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992).