Theology Today 今日神學

http://ttj.sagepub.com/content/65/2/191

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/004057360806500206

Theology Today 2008 65: 191

Gannon Murphy

Reformed Theosis? 改革宗的神化教義？

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Princeton Theological Seminary

Additional services and information for Theology Today can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ttj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ttj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

What is This?

>> Version of Record - Jul 1, 2008

Downloaded from ttj.sagepub.com at University of Bristol Library on April 25, 2012

Reformed Theosis?

改革宗的神化教義?

Abstract: Theologians in the classical Reformed tradition have not always recognized the elements in their own theologies that bear striking similarity to the doctrine of theosis principally advocated in Greek patristic and Byzantine theology and carried onward by historic and contemporary Eastern Orthodox thought. After a brief review of the classical Reformed doctrine of Christus in nobis (“Christ in us”), I propose a reconsideration and reformulation of the viability of theosis within classical Reformed theology, positing not only its fidelity to the biblical soteriology that Reformed theology seeks to guard but its suitability within Reformed theological and ecclesiastical contexts. It is indeed possible to conceive of a “Reformed theosis,” provided it enjoins a certain substructural transmutation from that of its Eastern theological forebears.

摘要:傳統改革宗的神學家們常常忽視，事實上，改革宗神學中的許多成分與主要由希臘教父和拜占庭神學所倡導的神化教義有着令人驚訝的相似之處，這個教義被歷史上和當代的東正教思想繼續保持一致。在簡略的回顧傳統改革宗Christus in nobis（“基督住在我們裡面”）的教義後，我提議在傳統改革宗神學的範疇中重新思考並重新架構神化教義，我們不能單單假設它乃是忠實的建立在改革宗神學所要捍衛的聖經救贖論之上，它符合改革宗的神學和教會文獻。事實上，從對於東正教前輩神學家們對於神化教義結構式的調整，我們可以構思出一個‘改革宗的Theosis’教義。

The Reformers are particularly notable for their commendation and construction of the Christus in nobis (“Christ in us”) principle, the principle that speaks so richly of the mystical union (unio mystica) into which all the faithful are translated following a unilateral pneumatological regeneration. What are not often considered among Reformed theologians both past and present, however, are the surprising elements of developed Reformed theological constructions that bear striking similarities to the concept of theosis, principally advocated in Greek patristic and Byzantine theology and, of course, within historic and current Eastern Orthodoxy. After a brief review of the classic Reformed doctrine of Christus in nobis, I propose a reconsideration of the scriptural warrants of theosis and posit not only that it is biblically sound but that it is best appropriated within a Reformed theological framework.

改革宗學者們因提倡並架構Christus in nobis（“基督住在我們裡面”）的神學規範而揚名於世，這個規範極其豐富地論及奧秘的聯合（unio mystica），在其中所有的信徒能夠被詮釋為一個僅從聖靈才能獲得（unilateral pneumatological）的重生。出乎意料的，從古至今的改革宗神學家往往忽略了在已經發展完備的改革宗神學架構中，也涵蓋主要在希臘教父和拜占庭神學以及，當然，歷史上和今日的東正教所提出的，與神化觀念的相似性。在簡要地回顧傳統改革宗Christus in nobis的教義後，我提議我們該對聖經所支持的theosis教義進行重新的評估，且最好將其置於在改革宗的神學架構之內。

Christ in Us 在我們裡面的基督

Christus in nobis and unio mystica are closely allied terms. I will use both where appropriate, though I prefer the former term in that it appears better in communicating the operative principle at work in which the latter is established. At times, I will use them almost synonymously, but I nevertheless deliberately choose one term over the other in order to bring out a nuanced difference between the “mechanism” and the “fruit.” Union with Christ is the basis for genuine divine-human relationality; Christus in nobis is the theologically centered, unilateral principle that produces that reality in accord with the meticulous divine Providence classically advocated in historic Reformed theology. The reality of genuine union with Christ, the Reformers well knew, was hardly a tangential idea to the New Testament writers. Indeed, it is thematic in no less a fashion than the doctrine of justification. John Murray writes of the mystical union as actually being “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ.” He adds that “the whole process of salvation has its origin in one phase of union with Christ and salvation has in view the realization of other phases of union with Christ. . . . Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.” 

在我們裡面的基督（Christus in nobis）和奧秘的聯合（unio mystica）是兩個唇齒相依的詞。雖然我更傾向於前者，但我會根據情況使用合適的詞，它看起來更能夠合適的闡明後者所基於的在（基督）工作中運行的原則。大多數的時候，我交替的使用他們，然而，我也會特別傾向於選擇其中的一個詞好明確的在‘機制（mechanism）’和‘結果（fruit）’間劃分出清楚的分界線。與基督聯合（Union with Christ）是神-人關係（divine-human relationality）的真正基礎；在我們裡面的基督（Christus in nobis）是以神學為中心。在改革宗神學的歷史中，它乃是根據神一絲不苟的護理被提出的單方面標準。改革宗非常清楚，與基督真實聯合的事實對新約的作者們，絕對不是一個次要的觀念。反而，它的重要性絕不低於稱義的教義。約翰慕理（John Murry）寫到奧秘的聯合實際上就是‘救贖教義的核心真理，不單單是在應用上，也是基督一次完全有功效所完成的事實。’他還加上，‘救贖的整個過程都起源與與基督聯合這句話中，救贖乃是與基督聯合的其他相關教訓之完成。。。與基督聯合是正救贖論的核心真理。’

The concept of Christus in nobis is certainly mysterious and exceedingly difficult to systematize. Indeed, Calvin wrote, “this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature.” Naturally, given the already problematic nature of philosophical anthropology, the ease with which it can be misunderstood and therefore misconstructed is a present danger even at its most basic levels. Yet the Reformation forebears of modern evangelicalism, notably Luther and Calvin, placed a tremendous premium upon the importance of recognizing Christ’s personal activity in the mystical union. Luther so emphasized the vitality of this union that he spoke of those adopted into God’s family as being

Christus in nobis的觀念無疑是奧秘的，極其難以被系統化。加爾文確實寫到，“這個與基督與信徒聯合的奧秘是人性所無法理會的。”有鑑於哲學化人論本身具有爭議的本質，人很容易根據自己的本性產生誤解，並錯誤地架構其觀念，這是今日我們面臨的，最根本的危險。然而近代福音派的改革宗的先行者們，特別是路得和加爾文，花了極大的力氣來確認基督在奧秘聯合中，與其位格活動的重要性。路得強調這個聯合的活力到一個地步，他論到那些被認養為神家的人為存有（being）。

so intimately with Christ, that He and you become as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: “I am now one with Christ. Therefore Christ’s righteousness, victory, and life are mine.” On the other hand, Christ may say: “I am that big sinner. His sins and his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him.”

（你）與基督是那麼的親密，以至於祂和你成為就像一個人一樣（as it were one person）。使得你能夠因此放膽的說：“我如今與基督是一。故此，基督的公義，得勝和生命都是我的。”在另一方面，基督也能夠說：“我是個大罪人。因為他與我聯合，我與他聯合，他的罪和死都是我的。”

Calvin, perhaps even more so than Luther, placed critical emphasis on the believer’s union and oneness with Christ. I find it both strange and unfortunate that this emphasis of Calvin seems so often unnoticed even by those who thoroughly espouse his theology. Abraham Kuyper remarked that “although Calvin may have been the most rigid among the reformers, yet not one of them has presented this, unio mystica, this spiritual union with Christ, so incessantly, so tenderly, and with such holy fire as he.” Calvin writes that “to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.” Calvin further draws upon this oneness language saying, “Christ does not so much come to us as become encumbered with our nature to make us one with him.” He elaborates on this by drawing a distinction between the unitive and legal aspects of Christ’s indwelling:

加爾文，或許比路得還更為激進的強調信徒與基督的聯合為一（oneness）。我發現，很不幸的，甚至連那些精通他神學的人往往也都會忽視這件事。亞伯蘭肯普（Abraham Kuyper）感嘆，“雖然加爾文在改教者中可能是最死板的，但是改教者中並沒有任何人提及unio mystica。這個屬靈與基督的聯合如同祂是如此綿延不絕，那麼的柔細，並帶着聖別的火焰。”。加爾文寫到，“對於那個頭和肢體的聯合，就是基督在那個美好和奧秘的聯合中，內住在我們心中。當基督成為我們的時候，我們得到至高無上的地位（we assigen the highest rank），使我們在祂所曾經忍受的恩典中，成為祂的同伴。因此，我們不再把祂當作遙遠並缺少我們的，我們反披上祂，被接枝到祂的身體裡面，祂的俯就使我們與祂成為一。因此，我們因與祂有公義的交通而得榮。”加爾文進一步發展這個一（oneness）的說法，說，‘基督的來臨，並不是要拖累我們的本性，而是要讓我們與祂合一。’他從基督內住（在我們裡面）的聯合和法理的兩個不同方面，詳述這個題目：

The phrase in ipso (in him) I have preferred to retain, rather than render it per ipsum (by him) because it has in my opinion more expressiveness and force. For we are enriched in Christ, inasmuch as we are members of his body, and are engrafted into him: nay more, being made one with him, he makes us share with him in every thing that he has received from the Father.

我傾向於使用In ipso (在祂裡面)這句話，而不是per ipsum（藉由祂），因為我認為這句話更清楚也更有力。我們因在基督里變得富足，就像我們是祂身體的肢體一樣；我們也被接枝到他裡面：更有甚者，與祂成為一，祂使我們有份與祂從父領受的一切。

As evangelicals and their predecessors have attempted to systematize biblical doctrine since the sixteenth century, the Christus in nobis principle has generally been eclipsed theologically by the more justificatory principle of Christus pro nobis (“Christ for us”). Christus pro nobis speaks to those doctrines more specifically concerned with satisfaction, atonement, and justification. These are obviously vital concerns to Reformation and post-Reformation theology, yet in explicating them, the resultant unitive aspect of soteriology has not received nearly as much attention as it deserves. Mention is made here and there (often in sermons), but substantial scholarly treatments are noticeably lacking. This deficiency may, in part, be why current-day “open theists” and several quasi-immanentist, open-theistic-sounding theologians of the recent past find recourse in a radically different construction of the divine complexion in order to save divine-human relationality. They do not grasp that a fuller-orbed understanding of the mystical union, as well as elements of theosis, have been on hand for centuries without compromising the broader Vincentian understanding of the incommunicable divine attributes (including exhaustive foreknowledge). Ironically, they have attempted to recast nearly the entire doctrine of God in order to rescue what was never in jeopardy.

從十六世紀以來，福音派人士和他們的先祖就嘗試將聖經的教義系統化，這造成從神學的角度而言，Christus in nobis這個神學原理在Christus pro nobis(“基督為了我們”)這個能夠起到辯護作用的原理面前，顯得黯然失色。Christus pro nobis更明確的描述了成聖，代死，和稱義的教義。這些對於宗教改革宗（Reformation）和宗教改革宗前（post-Reformation），都是必不可少的，然而在詮釋它們的時候，救贖論中聯合（unitive）的層面並沒有受到該有的注意力。只不過（總是在講道中）零碎的被提及，完全缺乏學術上的處理。這個缺陷也為今日的“開放神論（open theists）”和某些‘准泛神論（quasi-immanentist）’。近期開放神論的神學家們（open-theistic-sounding theologians）在一種對於神屬性的極端特異的架構中尋找資源，，以拯救神-人關係。他們並沒有察覺到，一個對於奧秘聯合更為全面理解，就像神化（theosis）的成分，在沒有犧牲Vincentian對於不可交流之神性理解（包括完全的預知）的前提下，已經存在了許多世紀。很諷刺的是，他們想要重新塑造整個神論來拯救從未陷入危機的（神論）。

Among the key biblical passages giving rise to the doctrine of the union of Christ and believers are those that speak of believers being “in” Christ and Christ “in” believers. We are “in Christ” (en Christô), “in him” (en autos) (alternatively “in him,” that is, Christ in the believer), “into Christ” (eis Christon), “in the Lord” (en kuriô), and “in me” (en emoi). For example, “if anyone is in Christ [en Christô] he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor 5:17). Jesus declares, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me [en emoi], and I in him [en autos]” (John 6:56). Ephesians declares, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in him [en autos] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before him” (Eph 1:3–4). Also, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus [en Christos Iesous] for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Eph 2:10). Colossians speaks of “the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to his saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you [Christos en humin], the hope of glory” (Eph 1:26). The very mystery (musterion; literally, “secret”) that has been revealed is the Christus in nobis principle itself. Paul writes to the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). In other places, we read of Christ and the church as the head and body (Eph 1:22–23; 4:12–16; 5:23–32). This “in” language has enormous implications for the manner in which the believer carries out God’s work. Paul says, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose” (Phil 2:12–13). Jesus uses horticultural metaphors such as the vine and the branches to describe the mystical union: “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing’” (John 15:4–5). Jesus also speaks of dwelling within the believer: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him (John 14:23).

那些用來證明基督與信徒聯合教義的經文都提到信徒‘在’基督‘裡面’和基督‘在’信徒‘裡面’。我們‘在基督里’（en Christo），‘在祂裡面’（en autos）（與‘在祂裡面’相對的，就是，基督在信徒裡面（Christ in the believer）），‘進入基督（into Christ）’（eis Christon），“在主裡面”（en kurio），和“在我裡面”（en emoi）。例如，“若有人在基督里[en Christô]，他就是新造的人，舊事已過，都變成新的了”（林後5:17） 。耶穌宣告，‘吃我肉、喝我血的人常在我裡面[en emoi]，我也常在他裡面[en autos]”’（約6:56）。以弗所書宣稱，“願頌讚歸與我們主耶穌基督的父神！他在基督里曾賜給我們天上各樣屬靈的福氣：就如神從創立世界以前，在祂里[en autos]揀選了我們，使我們在他面前成為聖潔，無有瑕疵”（弗1:3-4）。和，“我們原是他的工作，在基督耶穌里[en Christos Iesous]造成的，為要叫我們行善，就是神所預備叫我們行的。”（弗2:10）。歌羅西書說，“這道理就是歷世歷代所隱藏的奧秘；但如今向他的聖徒顯明了。神願意叫他們知道，這奧秘在外邦人中有何等豐盛的榮耀，就是基督在你們心裡成了有榮耀的盼望”（歌1:26）。這個奧秘（musterions；直譯，“秘密”）乃是在Chritus in nobis（基督在我們裡面）這個原則中，被啟示出來。保羅寫給加拉太人，“我已經與基督同釘十字架，現在活著的不再是我，乃是基督在我裡面活著”（加2:20）。在另一處，我們讀到基督和教會乃是互為頭和身體（弗1：22-23；4：12-16；5：23-32）。這個‘在。。裡面’這個詞被大量的用來暗示信徒在其中作神的工。保羅說，“這樣看來，我親愛的弟兄，你們既是常順服的，不但我在你們那裡，就是我如今不在你們那裡，更是順服的，就當恐懼戰兢做成你們得救的工夫。因為你們立志行事都是神在你們裡面運行，為要成就他的美意。”（腓2:12-13）。耶穌用了一個園藝的圖畫，就是葡萄樹和枝子，來描述這個奧秘的聯合：“你們要常在我裡面，我也常在你們裡面。枝子若不常在葡萄樹上，自己就不能結果子；你們若不常在我裡面，也是這樣。我是葡萄樹，你們是枝子。常在我裡面的，我也常在他裡面，這人就多結果子；因為離了我，你們就不能做什麽”（約翰15:4-5）。耶穌也論到住在信徒之中：“人若愛我，就必遵守我的道；我父也必愛他，並且我們要到他那裡去，與他同住。”（約翰14:23）。

Thus, the Christus in nobis principle, if difficult to grasp, is essential for a fully biblical theology. So deeply mysterious is it that a conscious limit to the parameters of analogy and even an apophatic approach often seem warranted. What is it really to be made one with God? Kuyper observed that the mystical union by which Christ dwells in us

故此，即使很難掌握Christus in nobis的原則，它仍完全符合聖經的神學。它是如此的奧秘，以至於理智的限制保證無法以類推法，甚至否定法的方式（來理解它）。到底什麼事與神是一？肯普（Kuyper）認為，奧秘的聯合乃是藉由住在我們裡面的基督

has a nature peculiar to itself; it may be compared to other unions, but it can never be fully explained by them. Wonderful is the bond between body and soul; more wonderful still the sacramental bond of holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; equally wonderful the vital union between mother and child in her blood, like that of the vine and its growing branches; wonderful the bond of wedlock; and much more wonderful the union with the Holy Spirit, established by His indwelling. But the union with Immanuel is distinct from all these. . . . It is a union invisible and intangible; the ear fails to perceive it, and it eludes all investigation; yet it is very real union and communion, by which the life of the Lord Jesus directly affects and controls us. As the unborn babe lives on the motherblood, which has its heartbeat outside of him, so we also live on the Christ-life, which has its heartbeat not in our soul, but outside of us, in heaven above, in Christ Jesus.

（這個奧秘的聯合）有自己的特性；我們可以將它和其他的聯合做比較，卻又絕對無法被它們完全解釋。身體和魂的聯繫已經是夠奇妙的了；而聖洗禮和主的晚餐間的聯繫還要更奇妙；母親和兒女的血緣關係也是同樣奇妙的，就像葡萄樹和它在生長中的枝子；婚姻的生活也是奇妙的；藉由聖靈內住而建立與聖靈的聯合遠遠還要更奇妙。與以馬內利聯合，乃是與眾不同的。。。這是一個看不見、無法捉摸的聯合；耳朵聽不到，人的感官也無法察覺；然而，那個聯合和交通是如此的真實，藉由主耶穌的生命直接影響並控制我們。如同還未出生的嬰孩依賴母親的血液而存活，母親的心跳乃是在嬰兒之外，我們同樣也依賴基督—生命（Christ-life），祂的心跳也不在我們的魂裡面，而是在我們之外，在上面的天裡面，在耶穌基督裡面。

Kuyper’s comparisons are quite useful. Especially poignant is the metaphor of mother and child. When a child, a baby for example, is left crying to itself, it is unconnected and, in a sense, inauthentic, to use a Heideggerian term. It is not as though the baby has either ceased to exist or that it lacks distinct personhood. Rather, it is ungrounded in estrangement. Its world is one of unrelated aloneness. Yet when the mother arrives and the baby beholds her face, the child’s world is transformed. The child is enveloped in the world of the mother and is “authenticated” in the sense of being grounded and relationally contextualized, as the child “subsists” in its life source or sustainer. Similarly, our unitive bond with Christ transforms our world of disconnected aloneness into one in which the Lord is our world. This unspeakable bond is incomplete in this life, though it is progressively increased through sanctification (and theotic in nature, as I will soon argue). As such, God’s elect are caught between two worlds: the world of man, which is ultimately marked by unceasing estrangement, and the world of the Lord, which is our true home.

肯普的比較是非常有用的。母親和嬰兒的圖畫特別能夠打動人心。當一個小孩，或一個嬰兒，獨自嚎嚎大哭的時候，它是沒有人管的，從某個角度而言，可以用海得格爾（Heideggerian）的話，稱作不真實的（inauthentic）。這不代表這個嬰兒就不存在了，或它沒有自己獨立的位格。而是，它在不和諧（ungrounded in estrangement）中，沒有安全感。它的世界是一個封閉的孤獨。然而當母親來臨，嬰兒看見她的臉，嬰兒的世界就改變了。嬰兒被母親的世界所包圍，在這個意義上，它的世界因為安全感和母親的安慰而成了‘真實、有依靠的（authenticated）’，嬰兒在它生命的源頭或支持者（sustainer）裡面‘生活（subsisit）’。同樣的，我們與基督的聯繫把我們孤獨孤立的世界變化成為一個主是我的世界（Lord is our world）的世界。這個聯合雖然藉由我們的成聖逐漸增長（它的屬性乃是神，我接下來就會講到這點）,它無法在此生完成。神的選民被困在兩個世界之間：由無止盡的不和，所代表人的世界，和主的世界，我們的真家鄉。

Metaphors and analogies abound in descriptions of the union mystica. The Puritan Thomas Watson referred to the mystical union as “a marital union between Christ and believers” and suggested that its composition was twofold. First, it forms a natural union that all human beings share, believers and unbelievers alike. This natural union is present due to Christ’s having taken on human nature, whereas the same was not done of the angelic realm (Heb 2:16). For Watson, however, this union was merely incidental and bears no significance to being relationally united with Christ.

比喻和類比能夠豐富的描述union mystica。清教徒的多馬士沃森（Thomas Watson）把奧秘的聯合比喻為“基督和信徒的婚姻聯合”並建議它的組成乃是雙方面的。首先，它構成了一個所有人類所共享的本性聯合（natural union），信徒和非信徒並沒有分別。這個本性的聯合基於基督取了我們的人性，這個本性並不是屬於天使的範疇（希伯來2:16）。不論如何，對於沃森（Watson），這個聯合不過是一個隨機性的事件，不含有任何與基督產生關係上的聯合之意。

The second, however, is what Watson called the “sacred union.” By this, Watson believed, we are mystically united to Christ. He admits that “it is hard to describe the manner of it. . . . It is hard to show how the soul is united to the body, and how Christ is united to the soul. But though this union is spiritual, it is real.” Oddly, Watson adds the statement that this “union with Christ is not personal.” Watson was apparently concerned that if we spoke of Christ as being personally united with us, it would be tantamount to Christ’s essence being transfused into the person of a believer such that all the person did would become meritorious. Watson preferred, then, to think of the mystical union in more objective terms. First, the union is federal, or covenantal, in the sense that believers are represented by Christ. Second, it is effectual, in the sense that Christ becomes conjugally united to the faithful. In this sense, believers become “one” with him.

其次，沃森稱之為‘神聖的聯合。’沃森相信，藉由它，我們被奧秘的聯於基督。他承認‘我們無法描述它是如何做到的。。。我們也無法表明魂如何與身體聯合，和基督如何與魂聯合。雖然這個聯合時屬靈的，它仍是真實的。’很奇妙的是，沃森還加上了這句話，‘與基督的聯合不是位格的（personal）。’看起來，沃森擔心若基督在其位格上與我們聯合，這就等同於基督的素質滲透入信徒的位格而導致所有的人都會成為配得敬拜的。沃森寧願認為奧秘的聯合乃是一個更為客觀的名詞。首先，這個聯合乃是聯邦式的（federal），而不是基於約，就這個意義而言，信徒乃是被基督獻上（給神的）。第二，它也是有效的（effectual），就這個意義而言，基督與相信祂的人有婚姻之約的聯合。從這個角度而言，信徒與祂成為“一”。

Much of what Watson says concerning the union is helpful. The conjugal metaphor is certainly scriptural (e.g., Matt 9:15; Luke 5:35; John 3:29; Rev 21:2) and speaks well to the positional nature of the union. I fear, however, that Watson’s treatment of the mystical union reduces it merely to objective elements (indeed, forensic) instead of including both the objective and subjective. Watson calls the union spiritual but denies that it is personal. When considering the union, it is difficult to see what the operative difference is between the spiritual and the personal or what Watson’s statement really accomplishes. Is Christ’s Spirit nonpersonal? Even on the purely conjugal understanding, why cannot the union still be thought of as a personal one, indeed, a deeply personal one? Watson may actually be trying to avoid pantheism with this statement, by which the person of Christ and person of the human being become so amalgamated as to be nearly indistinguishable.

沃森對於聯合的論述大部分都是有幫助的。婚姻之約的比喻當然是屬靈的（例如：馬太9:15；路加5:35；約翰3:29；啟示21:2），他也恰當的描述了聯合中地位（positional）的性質。我仍擔心，沃森對於奧秘聯合的處理方式會將其貶低為一個客觀的成分（甚至是法理的（forensic））而缺少了客觀和主觀的兩個方面。沃森稱這聯合為屬靈的，卻否認它是位格的（personal）。當我們思考這個聯合的時候，我們無法看見在屬靈和位格間的運作有什麼不同，或沃森那個宣告的真實目的。難道基督的靈是非位格的（nonpersonal）？甚至對於婚姻之約的理解上，為什麼這個聯合仍然不能被當作是位格的聯合，甚至是深度的（deeply）位格聯合？沃森可能只是為了避免這句話中的泛神論，導致基督的位格和人的位格融合到一個地步，以至於幾乎無法分辨。

Watson is also not clear about what problem may be presented by the idea of meritorious works being performed by the Christian as they issue from the mystical union. If, for example, those very works were actually given to the believer by God (Eph 2:10) and it is God that works in the believer to do them (Phil 2:12–13), then they are the fruit, not the cause, of the unitive work of the Trinity made manifest in the life of the believer. Further, such meritorious works could be conceived as rewards, in that such rewards and their basis were both given as gifts of grace from God. I hold Watson to be a wonderful expositor of the Christian faith, but these issues underscore the manner in which wrestling with an understanding of the mystical union has been difficult in the forensic-dominated Western theological climate.

沃森可能對於基督徒從奧秘聯合所行的善工這個觀念所產生的後果，缺乏深刻的認識。例如，那些善工實際上是由神賜給信徒的（弗2:10），也是神在信徒中所行出來的（腓2:12-13），那麼，它們就是三位一體在信徒生命中彰顯的結果，而不是起因。除此以外，這樣的善工也能被認為是神給人的獎賞，而這個獎賞和它們的基礎乃是從神賜下的恩典。我堅信沃森是一位真實的基督教信仰詮釋者，但是在以法理為主導力量的西方神學環境之下，嘗試了解奧秘的聯合是一件困難的工作。

Augustus Strong may have struck a better balance between the objective and subjective elements of our union with Christ in his statement that “as the Holy Spirit is the principle of union between the Father and the Son, so he is the principle of union between God and man. Only through the Holy Spirit does Christ secure for himself those who will love him as distinct and free personalities.” He further underscores the subjective aspects in tandem with the concept of “mutual interpenetration”:

奧古斯塔斯斯特朗在他的宣告“如同聖靈是父和子聯合的基礎，祂也神與人聯合的基礎。只有藉由聖靈，基督才能夠將那些愛他，與自己不同（性質）和自由的位格緊緊的聯於自己，”這句話中，令人驚訝的對於我們與基督聯合的基礎提出了一個在主觀和客觀並重的平衡。他進一步用“彼此互相滲透（mutual interpenetration）”將主觀的部分串聯起來：

The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral influence, a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the head.

聖經宣告，神的運行形成了一個靈魂與基督的聯合，它與神的本質以及神對於所有靈魂的護理不同。這個聯合也不同於以往單單基於結合，憐憫，道德的模仿，或道德影響的聯合。它乃是一個生命的聯合，具有最真實的獨立性和位格之分別（personal distinctness），人的靈在其中被基督的靈滲透（interpenetrated）並加力（energized）。這個聯合是無法被理解的，也是不可分解的與祂是一，叫人成為那個以祂為頭，被重生，相信祂並被祂稱義之人性的肢體和有份者。

For Strong, to be a Christian at all is literally to be indwelt by Christ. It is more than “mere juxtaposition or external influence.” Christ’s work is performed not by an external agent but as one conjoined within the very nature of the redeemed. Loving God and obeying his commands are granted by the Spirit of God himself, inclining and motivating the secondary agent to do so.

對於斯特朗，作基督徒就是住在基督裡面（indwelt by Christ）。其意義遠超過“單單與祂並列或外界的影響。”基督的工作不單單是藉由一個外面的中介執行，而是在被救贖者的本質之內（within），於他聯合。愛神並遵行祂的命令乃是神的靈親自賜給我們的，使得領受者傾向於，並被驅動愛神並遵行祂的命令。

Louis Berkhof recognized two equal and opposite dangers when considering the subjective union. One is to understand the union as “a union of essence, in which the personality of the one is simply merged into that of the other, so that Christ and the believer do not remain distinct persons.” The other is to

路易斯伯克富（Louis Berkhof）察覺，就着客觀的聯合而論，有兩個對立的危險。其一是把這個聯合理解為“素質的聯合，在其中一方的位格被融入另一方的位格中，使得基督和信徒不在是不同的位格。”另一個危險乃是

represent the mystical union as a mere moral union, or a union of love and sympathy, like that existing between a teacher and his pupils or between a friend and friend. Such a union does not involve an interpenetration of the life of Christ and that of believers. It would involve no more than a loving adherence to Christ, friendly service freely rendered to him, and ready acceptance of the message of the Kingdom of God.

把奧秘的聯合只當做道德的聯合或愛與憐憫的聯合，就好像老師和學生間的聯合是朋友和朋友間（的關係）。這個聯合不是基督生命滲透到信徒裡面。不過就是對基督堅定的愛，對他有一種白白的，朋友間的服務，並預備好接受神國度的信息。

This latter error is built on the philosophy of libertarianism and is the unavoidable deduction of it. Thus, human love of God on most Arminian-Wesleyan, and certainly on open-theistic, constructs is chosen autonomously and voluntaristically according to the random vicissitudes of the will. Such love has no theologically grounded explanation, but in fact it becomes completely anthropocentric and quasi-deistic.

後者的錯誤乃是在哲學和自由主義的基礎上，無可避免的降低了奧秘的聯合的概念。故此，大部分的亞米念-衛斯理派（Arminian-Wesleyan）的人士就是根據開放神論來思考人對神的愛，人的意志根據周圍環境的變化，自主和自願的選擇是否愛神。這樣的愛根本無法根據正統的神學立場加以解釋，事實上，它成為完全以人為中心，也是標準的自然神論（quasi-deistic）。

From a Reformed standpoint, elect believers most certainly do “invite” Christ into union with them as distinct individuals, but this act of the will is shot through with the providence and purposes of God as first cause in which he inclines the whole person toward the fruits of their own proximate causation. Human agents are not the sufficient cause of the unio mystica in either an initial or ongoing sense but exhibit cause as the fruit of God’s first working the miracle of regeneration in them and continuously in their sanctification. The will itself is liberated as its former, wicked inclinations are given a wholly new direction.

從改革宗的立場而言，作為彼此不同個體的選民無疑會‘邀請’基督進入與他們的聯合中，這個意志的行為乃是以神的看護和旨意作為主因，使得整個位格傾向於最符合他們起因的結果。人的介入不論在啟動或繼續發展的過程中，都不足以構成起因，它不過就是表明基督起初重生他們的工作乃是一個神跡和起因，並繼續於他們成聖的過程中。意志本身從原先軟弱的傾向中被釋放出來，並被賜予一個全新的方向。

Reformed soteriologies avoid the enervative doctrines of human independence, stressing rather a “soft” omnicausalism that generates the divine-human relationship according to the purposes and good pleasure of the Deity. They attempt to bring together a teleology of God’s own creational glory with a doctrine of providence that thereby translates the believer into Christ so that the perichoretic Trinity delights in himself and his own glory—in us. Blaise Pascal rightly said:

改革宗的救贖論避免了人性獨立的這種軟弱的教義，強調一個“軟性的” 全面因果主義（omnicausalism）。它根據神的旨意和良善的喜悅產生神-人間的關係（the divine-human relationship）。他們嘗試結合神自己創造之榮耀的目的和看護的教義，以將信徒帶入基督裡面，好叫互相滲透的（perichoretic）三位一體在自己和自己的榮耀中喜悅—在我們裡面。Blaise Pascal正確的論到：

[T]he God of Christians is not a God who is simply the author of mathematical truths, or of the order of the elements. . . . He is not merely a God who exercises His providence over the life and fortunes of men, [in order] to bestow on those who worship Him a long and happy life. . . . The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of Christians, is a God . . . who fills the soul and heart of those whom He possesses, a God who makes them conscious of their inward wretchedness, and His infinite mercy, who unites Himself to their inmost soul, who fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, who renders them incapable of any other end than Himself.

基督徒的神不單單是一位作者或數學公式，或化學元素順序之神。。。祂也不單單是一位在人的一生中施行看護的神，[好叫祂能]將長壽和快樂的一生賜予那敬拜祂者。。。亞伯拉罕的神、以撒的神、雅各的神，基督徒的神，乃是一位神。。。祂充滿屬於祂之人的靈魂和內心，使得他們意識到他們裡面的彎曲，以及祂無盡的憐憫，祂將自己與他們最深處的魂聯合，將謙遜和喜樂充盈其中，並帶着自信和愛，祂也讓他們不會得到任何在祂自己以外的結局。

There is no love that humans can render unto God other than God’s own love relationally given to them. Relationality is reciprocally given, returned, and received as believers are brought into the very being of God himself as creatures who mutually benefit from enjoying their own subjective experience of this union, a union that nevertheless begins, obtains, and subsists in God’s own being.

除了神賜給人那個自己的愛以外，人類沒有愛能夠回報神。被造的信徒被帶入神自己的那個存有中，這個關係是以互惠的方式所賜予，回報，並被領受。雙方各自從對於這個聯合之主觀經歷的享受中，相互得到益處。儘管如此，這個聯合乃是在神自己的存在中開始，得到並被維持的。

Toward a Reformed Doctrine of Theosis 向改革宗的神化教義進發

The foregoing excursus of Christus in nobis thus prepares us to consider the viability of theosis, indeed, a decidedly Reformed theosis. I argue that elements of theosis further elucidate the Christus in nobis principle as one in which Christians truly become divinized. Theosis relates to Christus in nobis in speaking of operation. God’s very being shared with and in his elect effects the oneness that is salvation itself.

前面對於Christtus in nobis的記述乃是為了幫助我們了解theosis的活力，它無疑就是改革宗的神化教義（Reformed theosis）。我堅決主張以theosis的元素進一步詮釋Christus in nobis的原則，就是基督徒在這個過程中，真正的被神化（divinized）。Theosis乃是在論到在神的運行（operation）之中，產生了與Christus in nobis的關係。神自己的存有被祂的選民所分享，並在他們裡面產生了一（oneness），就是救恩。

The manifold risks of appropriating a theotic component into the broader framework of a Reformed model of divine-human relationality have not escaped my attention. Chief among these risks is the possibility for ambiguity and misunderstanding, especially that which results in a gross, nay heretical, overstatement of the doctrine. My intention is to unpack an understanding of theosis that provides the substructure for divine-human relationality but that nevertheless remains in fidelity with Reformed theology and in which the Creator-creature distinction is upheld to avoid pantheism or panentheism. No doubt, any Christian formulation of the doctrine of theosis must set an impassable limit on its elucidation that guards against the idea of created humanity ever being construed to become, ontologically, either God or a god.

我並沒有忽略，將這個神學的組成部分納入更為廣闊的改革宗神學對於神-人關係的架構中，會產生各種危險。其中最為嚴重的就是產生模稜兩可和誤解的可能性，特別是在粗糙的誇大這個教義後，這個危險將會是異端性的。我的動機乃是要揭開一個提供神-人關係基礎之theosis的理解，卻仍然維持對於改革宗神學的忠誠。而改革宗神學中創造者-被造之物間的鴻溝乃是為了避免泛神論（pantheism）和萬有在神論（panentheism）。我絕不懷疑，任何基督教對於theosis教義的公式必然設下了不可超越的界限，以詮釋並堅決抵制任何被造人性的本體（性質）能夠成為神（God）或小神（god）的觀念。

Thus, my understanding of the doctrine acknowledges that God’s elect do literally share or become “partakers” in the divine, but their creaturely status and individual personality are not distorted or erased. On the contrary, the theotic aspect of Christus in nobis and unio mystica does not entail the erasure of the human person but the actualization of it. Our entire person—mind, body, soul—is designed to be in communion with the Trinity, to be totally embraced by God and enveloped by the glory of the Lord.

故此，我對於這個教義的理解乃是，神的選民確實分享神性，或成為神性的“分享者（partakers）”，但是他們被造之物的地位和位格，並不會被扭曲或消失。相反的，Christus in nobis和unio mystica的神性層面並不會使得消滅人的位格成為這個比喻的必要條件，而是使其變得更為真實（actualization）。我們的整個人格—心思，身體，魂—就是被設計為了要與三位一體交通，並完全被神所擁抱，並被主的榮耀所包圍。

Moreover, the “glory” that God’s elect are to reflect in the eschaton is always theologically centered and, in this sense, not an autonomously generated phenomenon but a finite reflection and enjoyment of infinite glory. A classical Reformed doctrine of theosis must also be consistent with a monergistic soteriology. It is this that distinguishes a uniquely Reformed theosis from others in which the engagement of autonomous praxis is often thought to be necessary in order to appropriate or attain theosis as a kind of reward for holy behavior. A Reformed understanding must ground theosis and its fruits in the unilateral operation of God in the believer in both ends and means. As such, theosis is certainly in a sense “acquired” through praxis but never autonomously. It is rather the processive product of God working in, through, and for the believer to his own eternal glory.

此外，神選民在末世要返照的“榮耀”總是以神學為中心。從這個意義而言，它並不是一個自我發生的顯現，而是一個有限的返照，並對於無限榮耀的享受。傳統的改革宗theosis教義必須與神恩獨作（monergistic）的救贖論一致。這也是唯一將改革宗的theosis和其他總是將autonomous praxis（自發對於信仰的實踐）作為theosis的必要條件，並把theosis當做一種對於聖潔行為的獎賞的這些theosis區分開來的分別。改革宗的理解必須將Theosis在神在信徒中的單方面運作的結果作為基礎。這樣一來，theosis必然是從實踐中‘得到’的，而絕對不會是自發的。它乃是神在我們裡面工作逐漸產生的一個產品，藉由它，信徒才能夠進入祂自己永遠的榮耀里。

Theosis (literally, “deification”) and the cognate theopoiesis (“being made God”) are terms that tend to mean very different things to varying ecclesiastical bodies. In Roman Catholic theology, theosis has not typically been thought of as either primarily eschatological or as a universal phenomenon applicable to all Christians. Rather, it is entirely a here-and-now phenomenon capable of realization among a select few people of saintly stature. Further, unlike some other versions of theosis, it is not thought of as a state of sinless perfection or completed sanctification. Rather it is “a more perfect knowledge of God possible in this life, beyond the attainments of reason even enlightened by faith, through which the soul contemplates directly the mysteries of divine light. The contemplation in the present life is possible only to a few privileged souls, through a very special grace of God: it is the theosis of a mystic union.” Theosis in much of Western Catholicism is a rarely attained temporal enlightenment and is more experiential than ontological.

Theosis（直譯為“神化-deification”），同義語是theopoiesis（“被作為神—being made God”），它們在不同的教會團體中，會傾向於表達不同的含義。在羅馬天主教的神學中，theosis基本上並不會被認為是早期教會的末世論，或一個能夠被用在所有基督徒身上的普遍現象。反而，它完全是一個只能被用在少數被封聖者的現象。另外，它也與其他版本的theosis不同，它不被當做是一種無罪的完美狀態或完全的聖化。它反而是“一個在此生能夠得到對神更完全的認識，遠超過理智所能達到的程度，甚至遠超過信仰的光照，藉由它，魂能夠直接理會神聖之光（divine light）的奧秘。藉由非常特殊之神的恩典，只有少數被賦予特權的魂在此生得以凝視（祂）：這乃是奧秘聯合的theosis。”在西方的天主教神學中，theosis很少被聯繫於（神的）光照，更多的是被聯於超越人本體的經驗。

Theosis has also been used within the Wesleyan tradition, influenced by the Pietist movement, to describe the possibility of realized sanctification in the course of this life. Wesley himself referred to realized sanctification as “the highest state of grace,” or as being “perfected in love,” and said that those who claim to have “attained” it in this life should be “exhort[ed] . . . to pray fervently, that God would show them all that is in their hearts” in order to be sure that the attainment is true. Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed bodies have uniformly rejected this Wesleyan interpretation. Indeed, some four centuries earlier at the Council of Vienne (1311), the Roman General Council declared heretical the doctrine that “a person in this present life can acquire a degree of perfection which renders him utterly impeccable and unable to make further progress in grace.” The Westminster Divines also opposed the idea of realized sanctification, saying, “Sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” Lutherans stressed Luther’s forensic concept simul iustus et peccator (“at the same time just and sinner”) and taught that the struggle with sin is never fully conquered in this life but that we must continually “engage in callings which are commanded, render obedience, avoid evil lusts, and the like.”

因着聖潔運動（Pietist movement）的影響，Theosis在衛理會的傳統中也被用來描述在此生中可能達到的聖化。衛斯理本人將這聖化稱為‘恩典最高的狀態，’或是‘在愛中被完全，’並稱那些宣稱在此生已經“達到（attained）”的人為“被勸勉。。。要忠實的禱告，好叫神能夠向他們敞開心懷”好叫他們能夠肯定所達到的是真實的。羅馬（天主教），路德和改革宗都異口同聲的拒絕這種衛理會的詮釋。實際上，在維埃納大會（Council of Vienne，1311）前四個世紀左右，羅馬天主教的大會宣布“一個人在此生能夠達到某種程度的完全，並帶給他無瑕疵並無法在恩典中繼續長進”是異端的教義。衛敏斯特神學也反對能夠達到的生活，說“聖化是全人的事情；然而在此生無法無完全，在我們的每個部分中仍殘留着敗壞：因此（我們裡面）不斷的，也是不可避免的有爭戰，肉體的情慾抵擋聖靈，聖靈抵擋肉體。”路德會方面強調路德法理的觀念simul iustus et peccator（“同時是義人和罪人”）並教導在此生中我們無法完全征服罪，但是我們必須不斷的“遵從神所命令我們的，順服，避免邪惡的情慾，等等。”

What then does it mean to be or to become “divinized” or “deified” if not that humans become gods? Athanasius himself penned some of the strongest theotic language used in the ancient church, yet it was also he who furiously defended a homoousios christology in which Christ is “of one substance” with God the Father, as opposed to “of similar substance” (homioousios) as held by Arius and his followers. While Arius believed that Christ is a created being of the highest order, Athanasius defended a christology in which Christ is uniquely and fully divine. Interestingly, it is this very christology upon which Athanasius built his understanding of theosis. Beginning christologically, Athanasius argued that in order for humans to be ushered into a divine state, God first needed to descend to earth, take on the nature of a man, represent humanity as a man, become glorified, and thus pass this glory onto all humans as they become partakers in divinity. Jesus Christ, he writes,

若人類不會變成神，被“聖別化（divinized）”和被“神化（deified）”到底是什麼意思呢？亞他那修自己就寫下了在古教會最強烈的神化教訓，然而，也是他堅定不移的捍衛同質（homoousios）的基督論，基督乃是與父神‘同一性質（of one substnce）’，與其相對的，乃是亞流和他的跟隨者所堅持的‘類質量（of similar substance）（homoioousios）’。當亞流和他的跟隨者認為基督乃是一個最高等級的被造之物（created being of the highest order），亞他那修捍衛基督那是獨一併完全擁有神性的基督論。很有意思的是，亞他那修就是在這個基督論上建構了他對於theosis的理解。從基督論開始，亞他那修爭辯，為了讓人類能夠被服侍進入神聖的狀態，神首先需要降世，取了人的本性，將人性展現在一個人裡面，使得他（譯者：基督的人性）被融合，並將這個榮耀在人類成為神性的分享者時，傳輸給每一個人。他寫到，耶穌基督，

is thus become the Deliverer of all flesh and of all creation. And if God sent His Son brought forth from a woman, the fact causes us no shame but contrariwise glory and great grace. For He has become Man, that He might deify us in himself, and He has been born of a woman, and begotten of a Virgin, in order to transfer to himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and “partakers of the Divine Nature,” as blessed Peter wrote.

（基督）因此成為所有肉體和所有被造之物的拯救者。若神差遣了祂的兒子由女人而生，我們就不應該覺得羞恥，反而要覺得榮耀，並得到偉大的恩典。因為祂成為人，好在祂的人性中神化我們，祂也從女人所生，從童女降世，為了親自來到我們背謬的世代，叫我們能夠成為聖潔的族類，和“神性的分享者”，就如同有福的彼得所寫的一樣。

Athanasius’s soteriology was inextricably bound up with his christology. God’s intention from the beginning of the world was to make his church and those men and women in it genuine partakers of the divine. Christ’s assuming human flesh was the practical means to realize this objective. In On the Incarnation, Athanasius writes that “the Word Incarnate, as is the case with the Invisible God, is known to us by His works,” and “by them we recognise His deifying mission.” He continues:

亞他那修的救贖論與其基督論密不可分。神從太初就有的旨意，乃是要祂的教會，和那些在其中的男女成為神性的真實分享者。基督披上人類的肉身就是為了完成這個目地。在《論道成肉身》中，亞他那修寫下“在道成肉身中，看不見的神藉由祂的工作為我們所知，”並“藉由其工作，我們也認出祂神化的工作。”他繼續說：

If a man should wish to see God, Who is invisible by nature and not seen at all, he may know and apprehend Him from His works . . . [and] let him marvel that by so ordinary a means things divine have been manifested to us, and that by death immortality has reached to all, and that by the Word becoming man, the universal Providence has been known. . . . For He was made man that we might be made God.

若有人想要見那位本質上是不可見，也未曾被人見過的神，從祂的工作中，他就應該能夠認識並領會祂。。。[並]讓他讚嘆神的事情能夠以如此平凡的方式，有秩有序的被顯明給我們看，藉由死亡不死臨及眾人，藉由道成肉身，對眾人的看護為我們所知。。。因為祂成為人，好叫我們能夠成為神。

Vladimir Lossky, perhaps the most preeminent Eastern theotic theologian of the twentieth century, calls these writings of Athanasius, and those similar among the Cappodocians, to be nothing less than “the very essence of Christianity.” God descends to the nadir of existence—fallen humanity, marked by death—so that a pathway of ascent can be made for humans to the divine. Lossky calls this the “descent (katabasis) of the divine person of Christ mak[ing] human persons capable of ascent (anabasis) in the Holy Spirit.”

Vladimir Lossky，或許是二十世紀比較突出的東正教神化神學家，他稱這些亞他那修的作品，以及加帕多的類似作品，是‘基督教最核心的素質。’神降世成為最卑賤的存在—由死亡所標出墮落的人性—好為人類打通升往神性的道路。Lossky稱這個為“基督神聖位格的降世（katabasis）使得人類的位格（persons）能在聖靈中升高（anabasis）。”

It is baffling to me that such a central concept has been so ill pursued in Western theology—especially within the Reformed context. This is a soteriology that is entirely God-centered, focused on the unilateral purpose and plan of God’s becoming realized among his creation. Indeed, I maintain that it is a soteriology best explained through the monergistic initiative so axiomatic in Reformed thought. It focuses on what God is doing, as opposed to the autonomous powers of humanity. Further, it grounds the unio mystica and, in turn, genuine love and relationality between the human and the divine by emphasizing true love’s having always a divine rather than human etiology. Humans do not choose to love God unless God’s love is first put in them.

我一直搞不清楚這樣核心的觀念竟然被西方神學所貶抑—特別是改革宗的材料。它乃是一個完全以神為中心（entirely God-centered）的救贖論（soteriology），着重於神在被造之物間被實化的，那個不會改變的目的和計劃之上。然而，我堅持它最好被改革宗思想中的神恩獨作思想為主軸來詮釋。它着重在神的作為，與人自發的能力相對。另外，它並藉由強調在神裡面那個真正的愛，而不是藉由人類自己的etiology，將unio mystica基於人和神間那個真正的愛和關係。除非神先將祂的愛置於人的裡面，人類不可能選擇愛神。

Two scriptural texts are crucial to the study of theosis: Genesis 1:26 and 2 Peter 1:4. The first of these illustrates the creational uniqueness of humanity. God declares, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Robert Rakestraw observes that “the Greek Fathers taught that, in the fall, humanity lost the likeness but retained the image.” Rakestraw quotes Gerald Bray:

兩處對於研究theosis非常重要的經文：創世紀1:26和彼得後書1:4。第一處經文描述了人性被造的獨一特質。神宣告‘讓我們照着我們的形象，按着我們的樣式造人。’Robert Rakestraw觀察到，“希臘教父們教導，在墮落中，人性失去了樣式，但是保留了形象。”Rakestraw引用Gerald Bray的話：

The Christian life is best conceived as the restoration of the lost likeness to those who have been redeemed in Christ. This is a work of the Holy Spirit, who communicates to us the energies of God himself, so that we may become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The energies of God radiate from his essence and share its nature; but it must be understood that the deified person retains his personal identity and is not absorbed into the essence of God, which remains for ever [sic] hidden from his eyes.

我們最好視基督徒的一生為恢復那些在基督里被救贖者所失去的樣式的過程。這是聖靈的工作，祂將神自己的能力（energy）交流給我們，好叫我們能夠成為神性的分享者（彼後1:4）。神的能力從祂的素質中發散出來，並分享它的本性；它只能被理解為，被神化的人仍然保留其人格特徵，並不會被吸收入神的素質之中。神的素質永遠是無法被他們眼見。

The issue at hand is not whether it is the image or likeness that is restored (or whether these are a kind of hendiadys in which they have essentially the same referent) but with “the Christian’s reintegration into the life of God.”

我們目前的挑戰並不是那個被重建的形象或樣式（或者它們（指形象和樣式）根本就是同一件東西的兩個不同的名字罷了）而是“基督徒重新被整合到基督的生命裡面”。

The Second Epistle of Peter breathes new life into this reintegration, locating its realization in the advent of Christ. This letter claims “that his [God’s] divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us his precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” (1:3–4). Here the church is reminded, on the basis of Christ’s own commitment and work, that believers become genuine participants in the life of God. This new life is engendered en Christô and translates the redeemed from both physical and spiritual death unto new life. Moreover, John 17 and the “in Christ” scriptural texts, already noted in my discussion of the mystical union, are also key in theotic theology.

彼得後書將新生命吹入這個重新的整合（reintergration）裡面，並在基督的再臨時得到實現。這封書信宣稱“祂的[神的] 能力已將一切關乎生命和虔敬的事賜給我們，皆因我們認識那用自己榮耀和美德召我們的主。因此，他已將又寶貴又極大的應許賜給我們，叫我們既脫離世上從情慾來的敗壞，就得與神的性情有分”（1：3-4）。在基督的獻身和工作的基礎上，讓我們想到教會，好叫信徒真正成為在神生命中的分享者。這個新生命產生與基督之中（en Christo），並將物質和屬靈的死亡轉變並救贖成為新生命。除此以外，以及在我針對奧秘聯合的討論中被提及，約翰17章和“在基督里（in Christ）”的經文，它們都是神化神學的鑰匙

The Byzantine monk Gregory Palamas (1335) called theosis “God [setting] before us all His riches and truly beneficial gifts to share. . . . ‘The person who has been deified by grace will be in every respect as God is, except for His very essence.’” That Palamas and the Greek Fathers made a careful distinction between theosis as participation in the divine “energies” as opposed to God’s essence is widely known among students of Eastern Orthodoxy and should serve to placate the fears of the theological West that theotic soteriology somehow implies either pantheism or humanity as attaining to substantial godhood. George Mantzaridis, commenting on Palamas, writes,

拜占庭修士Gregory Palamas（1335）稱theosis為，“神將祂的豐富和真正有益的祝福放在我們面前，讓我們分享。。。‘被恩典神化的人在各方面將會如同神，除了祂自己的素質（essence）外。’”Palamas和希臘教父們，非常謹慎的在作為有份於神的‘能力（energies）’和有份於神的‘素質（essence）’間做出區別，這是研究東正教的學生們所熟知的，也能安撫西方神學對它也暗示泛神論，或人類從本質上達到神的恐懼。Geroge Mantzaridis在注釋Palamas的時候，寫到，

Man’s deification is not realized through participation in God’s essence, but through communion in His divine energy. Man may share in God’s glory and brightness, but the divine essence remains inaccessible and nonparticipable. Thus, the deified man is made god in all things, but he neither is identified with the divine essence nor shares it.

人的神化並不能藉由有份於神的素質而完成，乃是藉由於祂神聖能力的交流。人能夠在神裡面有份於祂的榮耀和光輝，但是神的素質（essence）依然是不可觸及和不可被分享的。故此，被神化的人在各方面都成為神（god），但是他不會變的與神的素質一樣，也不會有份於神的素質。

The distinction made by the Eastern theologians between God’s energies and essence, knowability and unknowability, is remarkably similar to points raised by the Scholastics and Reformers in which created humans cannot know God as he is in himself, nor can they share in his essence. Basil writes, “The operations [of deification] are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.”

東方神學家在神的能力和素質間所作的區別，可以被知道和不可以被知道，與經院神學和改革宗所強調的，被造的人類不能在自己裡面認識神，也不能有份與其素質的論點有着驚人的類似性。巴西流寫到，“[神化的]運作是有許多不同的方式，但是素質是純一的，我們可以說我們從神的運作中認識神，但是無法接近祂的素質。祂的運作臨及我們，但是祂的素質是遙不可及的。”

Deification, our nexus of union with Christ, occurs through participation in God’s energies (which are nevertheless truly God) but not through sharing in God’s essence. This is vitally important both in understanding the theotic dynamic and in preserving an Orthodox biblical theology. Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia) notes:

神化，我們與基督nexus的聯合，乃是藉由有份於神的能力（它無疑就是真神）而產生的，但不是有份於神的素質。這在了解神化的張力和保守正統的聖經神學上，是極其重要的。Timothy Ware（Diokleis的Kallistos主教）注意到：

[T]his distinction between God’s essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. . . . However remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men. These energies are not something that exist apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. . . . It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and immediate relationship with mankind. In relation to man, the divine energy is in fact nothing else than the grace of God; grace is not just a “gift” of God, not just an object which God bestows on men, but a direct manifestation of the living God Himself, a personal confrontation between creature and Creator. . . . When we say that the saints have been transformed . . . by the grace of God, what we mean is that they have a direct experience of God Himself. They know God—that is to say, God in His energies, not in His essence.

神的素質（ousia，即性質）和祂的能力之間的分別乃是源於加帕多加教父。。。。不論如何，神不在祂的素質中，但卻在祂的能力之內，將祂自己啟示給我們。這些能力（eneregies）並不是存在於神之外，也不是一個神賞賜給人的恩典：它們乃是神在對着世界的行動和啟示之中的自己。神完全並完整的存在在祂所有的能力之中。。。神藉由這些能力進入了一個於人類直接和應時的關係之中。在與人類的關係中，神的能力事實上就是神的恩典；恩典不單單是一個神的“禮物”，也不單單是一個神澆灌於人的東西，而是活神自己的顯現，是被造之物和造物主間位格的遭遇。。。當我們說聖徒已經藉由神的恩典被變化了。。。我們指的是他們有了對神自己的主觀經歷。他們認識神—也就是說，神在祂的能力中，並不是在祂的素質之內。

This deification through God’s energies is, first and last, a work of God’s grace. Palamas (in part defending the Hesychastic disciplines) wrote that “union with God” is accomplished only through the “deifying grace of the Spirit.” Further,

神能力所產生的神化從始自終都是神恩典的作為。Palamas（在捍衛誦念祈禱（註：以誦念聖經經文為禱告）中）寫到，“與神的聯合”只能藉由“聖靈神化的恩典”才得以完成。除此以外，

if deification is accomplished according to a capacity inherent in human nature and if it is encompassed within the bounds of nature, then of necessity the person deified is by nature God. Whoever thinks like this should not attempt, therefore, to foist his own delusion upon those who stand on secure ground and to impose a defiled creed upon those whose faith is undefiled; rather he should lay aside his presumption and learn from persons of experience or from their disciples that the grace of deification is entirely unconditional, and there is no faculty whatever in nature capable of achieving it since, if there were, this grace would no longer be grace but merely the manifestation of the operation of a natural capacity.

若神化是根據在人類本質中所繼承的能力而得以完成的，好像在本性中被包圍，那麼人就必然是被神的性質所神化。所以，凡是這樣認為的人，就不能將自己的幻想強加於那些站在正確立場的人，並把被污穢的信仰強迫灌輸於那些堅守純正信仰之人身上；他反而必須把自己成見擺在一邊，從那些有經驗的人或他們所受的規範，學習神化的恩典完全是無條件的，在我們的本質中沒有任何才能能夠達到它，因為，我們若有任何超然的能力，這個恩典就不再是恩典，而不過就是人性能力之運作的彰顯罷了。

Theosis through God’s energies is by grace. This theotic grace speaks to God’ intentions and work in making genuine relations possible between himself and created humanity. This very thing is itself the mystery of the Christian faith. Colossians teaches that it is God’s purpose to “reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross” and that Christ “has now reconciled you in his fleshly body through death, in order to present you before him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” (1:20, 22). This is the “mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to his saints” (1:26).

theosis乃是經由神的能力、借着恩典（而成就的）。神化的恩典說出了神的動機和工作，就是要在祂自己和被造的人性中建立與自己真實的關係。這件事就是基督教信仰的奧秘。歌羅西書教導，若神的旨意是要“藉著他在十字架上所流的血成就了和平，”以及基督“藉著基督的肉身受死，叫你們與自己和好，都成了聖潔，沒有瑕疵，無可責備，把你們引到自己面前。”（1:20,22）這就是“這就是歷世歷代所隱藏的奧秘；但如今向他的聖徒顯明了。”（1:26）。

Theosis, in part, may be thought of as a summary term for the subjective, relational nature of salvation. Whereas justification and satisfaction refer to the forensic appeasement of God such that created humans might be positionally “clean” in God’s eyes, theosis encompasses the subjective aspects of the order of salvation (ordo salutis)—regeneration, sanctification, and glorification— and explains each of them as the sole work of God. Each of these I construe as subspecies of theosis such that we might even rename them, respectively: inaugural theosis, progressive theosis, and consummative theosis.

Theosis，從某種程度上而言，可以被視為一個救贖客觀和相應本質之總結。儘管稱義和成聖都被用來指神法理的平息，好叫被造的人類在神的眼中有個“乾淨”的地位。theosis保護了救恩順序（ordo salutis）的主觀方面—重生，聖別和得榮—並將它們解釋為神獨有的工作。我將它們每一項都解釋為theosis下面的分題，這樣我們甚至就可以將它們重新命名為：開始的（inaugural）theosis，漸進的（progessive）theosis和終極的（consummative）theosis。

Rakestraw refers to the anthropological reception of this gift as “Christification,” preferring this to deific terminology. Another theologian uses the term “Trinification.” These terms may be helpful in Western circles to avoid possible misunderstandings of deification. Nevertheless, the principle is essentially the same. Relationality is possible as humans are brought progressively into the relational being of God by his grace or energies. Whatever humans render unto God that is pleasing to him is that which was sovereignly given. This work is theologically centered in God’s own purpose but is graciously extended to his church for their mutual fulfillment, that the church may become “one” with him, and that the glory of God may shine forth in all that God does.

Rakestraw將這個恩典稱為“基督化（Christification），”傾向於神化這個名詞。別的神學家則使用“三位一體化（Trinification）”這個詞。這些詞彙或許能夠幫助西方世界避免可能對於神化所發生的誤解。儘管如此，它們的原理仍然是完全一樣的。（神-人）關係能夠因人類藉由神的恩典或能力被逐漸帶入與神的關係中，而成為可能。不論人類如何回報神，使神喜悅的，都是祂所賜予的。在神學上，這個工作乃是以神自己的旨意為中心，在恩典中延伸到祂的教會，為了（神人）相互的滿足，讓教會能夠與祂成為“一”，叫神的榮耀能夠從神所作的一切照耀出來。

This model of relationality also precludes the necessity of the open theistic remedy of divine nescience of future contingencies. It grounds vital relationality in God himself and establishes it in humans according to the purposes of the divine will. Exhaustive divine foreknowledge presents no obstacle to the view, as theotic relationality and the Christus in nobis principle at once ground genuine relationality while simultaneously unfolding it according to the movement and sovereign predilection of the triune God. As with creation, it is a triune activity, never “adding” to the divine nature but expressing the eternal perfections. This view similarly avoids fatalism because it is always the glorious purposes of God at work accomplishing his ends through means that concurrently infuse humanity with its creational significance. This is quite opposed to the purposeless machinations of the “Fates,” which fundamentally lack telos. Basil writes:

這種關係的模式也能夠防止開放神論對所認為的，神無法遇見未來之事的無知論點。它將這種充滿活力的關係根植於神的裡面，也將其建立在那些根據神旨意（而活）之人的裡面。神全面、完全的預知不存在任何盲點，如同神化關係和Christus in nobis的原則一旦根植於（神人間）真實的關繫上，就同時根據三一神的喜好而有的運作和主權，而被揭示出來。創造乃是一個三位一體的活動，絕不會再將任何事物‘加入’神性之中，只顯明祂那永恆的完全。這個觀點也能夠避免宿命論，因為它總是神在工作中榮耀的旨意，藉由如今將被造之物的意義注入人性而得以完成。這與“命運”那種毫無目標的詭計是完全對立的，它基本上缺少了目的。巴西流寫到：

Through His aid hearts are lifted up, the weak are held by the hand, and they who are advancing are brought to perfection. Shining upon those that are cleansed from every spot, He makes them spiritual by fellowship with Himself. Just as when a sunbeam falls on bright and transparent bodies, they themselves become brilliant too, and shed forth a fresh brightness from themselves, so souls wherein the Spirit dwells, illuminated by the Spirit, themselves become spiritual.

藉由祂的幫助，我們的心被復甦，軟弱者被祂的手所扶持，長進而被帶入完全。照耀在那些斑點完全除淨的人身上，藉由與自己的交通，祂使得祂們成為屬靈。就像當光線落在光輝和透明的物體上面一樣，他們自己也成為光輝的，並從自身發出光輝出來，當聖靈住在魂裡面，他們就返照聖靈，成為屬靈人。

The Means of Theotic Relationality 神化關係的意義

The preceding, of course, raises the question of how the benefits of inaugural, progressive, and consummative theosis are communicated to us. Consummative theosis (or glorification) is an eschatological realization—an eternity of perfected fellowship and communion between recipient and Trinity. But inaugural and progressive theosis (or regeneration and sanctification) relate to experiences in the present life of the believer. How then are they normatively mediated such that we enjoy the unitive fruits of God’s grace? What are the God-ordained means of grace whereby the sanctifying influences of the Spirit are communicated to humans? I advance three primary means: the Word, the sacraments, and prayer.

當然，前面的論述必然會引發開始的（inaugural），漸進的（progessive）和終極的（consummative）theosis如何將益處交流給我們的問題。終結的theosis（或得榮）是對末世論的實現—一個永恆、完美交通和三位一體與領受者間的交通。然而開始的和漸進的theosis（或重生和聖化）與信徒今生中的經歷乃是緊緊相連的。那麼，他們如何能幫助我們享受神恩典的果實呢？神所命定之恩典的方法又是什麼？聖靈聖化的影響能夠藉由它，與人類相交嗎？我認為有三個主要的方法：道，聖禮和禱告。

The Word 道

The Word, quite simply, is Christ himself—condescending to humankind in the words of the gospel message, as they are believed by the Spirit. Christ the Word is to be found in Scripture, which, Calvin wrote, is “effectually impressed on the heart by the Spirit; if it exhibits Christ, it is the word of life converting the soul, and making wise the simple.” God calls us by his Word, Jesus Christ, the Logos known through the power of the Spirit operating in the simplicity and mundaneness of the gospel preached. By the hearing of the Word, the theotic blessings of God pour over to those in whom the Spirit inwardly inclines. This is true of both inaugural and progressive theosis; in the former instance as God works through his Word to “inlodge” faith, in the latter as God sustains those in whom he instills it.

道，很簡單，就是基督自己—在福音書中的話（words）臨及人類，使得他們藉由聖靈而相信。我們能夠在聖經中找到基督-道（Christ the Word），加爾文寫到“聖經的核心是極其令人驚訝的；它展覽基督，就是生命的話改變靈魂，使得聰明人變得單純。”神藉由祂的道，耶穌基督，呼召了我們，道藉由聖靈在單純人裡面的運行和福音平凡無華的傳揚而被眾人所知。藉由聽見道，神將神化祝福的能力傾倒在那些內心傾向聖靈的人身上。在開始和漸進的theosis中都是真實無誤的；在前面的事例中，神藉由祂的道作工，把信仰‘安置（我們）裡面（inlodge）’，神在後者中維持那些人。

The Sacraments 聖禮

In the sacraments, the same is true as of the Word but with a different mode of operation. The sacraments, that is, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, add to the theotic blessings of God a physical expression of the Word and an imbuing of empowering, unitive grace. None of this is to add a crass, magical component to the sacraments in which God has blindly bound himself to them such that the sacraments themselves, ex opere operato, communicate the theotic blessings of the Spirit. Rather, Calvin—echoing Augustine—stressed that “the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because it is [performed], but because it is believed.” Indeed, Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper heaping condemnation upon the recipient who takes of it in an “unworthy” manner (1 Cor 11:27–29), especially one in which the body of the crucified Lord is left unrecognized (11:29).

在聖禮中，道也是同樣真實的，但是具有不同的形式。聖禮就是浸禮和主的晚餐，再將對於道的物質彰顯，和一個充滿能力，獨一的恩典加入神化的祝福中。這些絕不會將任何愚蠢或神奇的成分加到聖禮裡面。神已經將祂自己綁在它們身上，好叫聖禮本身，ex opere operato，能夠交流聖靈神化的祝福。加爾文反而呼應奧古斯丁—強調“聖禮產生道的果效，並不是因為它被[實行]，而是因為它被相信。”保羅確實說到，若領受者若以“不配（unworthy）”的方式領受主的晚餐，咒詛則會堆積在他頭上（林前11:27-29），特別是當一個人不認識被釘死的主在這個身體裡面的時候（11:29）。

To the regenerate communicant, however, the sacraments are a principal means through which God “signs and seals” himself—his promises, his salvation, and our theotic communion with him. The sacraments are a constituent part not of inaugural theosis but of progressive theosis during the life of the believer. They are a spiritual picture and a spiritual food, intended for those already regenerated through the Spirit by his Word.

不論如何，對於重生的群體，聖禮的主要意義乃是，神將自己“標記並封印”於其內—祂的應許，祂的救贖和我們與祂神化的交通。在信徒的一生中，聖禮並不是開始的theosis，而是漸進的theosis的組成部分。它們乃是屬靈的圖畫和屬靈的食物，都是為了讓那些已經藉由道，經過聖靈而被重生的人。

Calvin spoke of the sacraments as a symbol: “an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of goodwill toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men.” The sacraments visibly signify and seal the reality of Christus in nobis. B. A. Gerrish summarizes Calvin’s sacramentology by noting, “The very nature of the symbolism suggests to Calvin that the Supper is a matter of nourishing, sustaining, and increasing a communion with Christ to which the word and Baptism have initiated the children of God.” As such, the sacraments are a spiritual food, operating in a progressive theosis, binding us more and more to Christ, until such union is made perfect in heaven (consummative theosis).

加爾文說到聖禮乃是標號：“一個外面的標記，藉由它，主將祂對我們良善旨意的應許封存於其中，好維持我們軟弱的信仰，我們在祂面前，在天使面前，也在世人面前見證我們對祂的敬虔。”看的見的聖禮意表並封存了Christus in nobis的實際。B. A. Gerrish將加爾文的聖禮論總結為，“這些標記的本質暗示加爾文聖餐乃是餵養，維持和增加與基督交流的事件，由道和浸禮在神的兒女間開始的。”如此，聖禮乃是屬靈的事物，在漸進的theosis裡面運行，逐漸的將我們聯於基督，直到聯合在天上得以完全（終極的theosis）。

Throughout ecclesiastical history, some wishing to emphasize more strongly the spiritual and noncorporeal over the earthly and mundane (notably the Anabaptists, Remonstrants, Zwinglians, Socinians, and others), have divested the sacraments (with particular attention to the Lord’s Supper) of being actual means of objective divine grace as a physical seal, preferring instead to consider them merely commemorative or celebratory in nature. It is interesting here to observe the quasi-Platonic undertones of the view, which is reluctant to connect the outworking of the Spirit of God to anything physical. Yet while commemoration and celebration are rightfully attached to the significance of the Eucharist (promise and declaration to baptism), it has largely been recognized by the Reformed—without recourse to what they deem an extremity of superstition in Roman sacramentology—that the sacraments are far more than mere external rites reminding the faithful of Christ’s ministry. Rather, they are real spiritual sustenance bringing with them real spiritual presence. Gerrish observes that, for Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is in fact the occasion for a double act of unitive self-giving: Christ giving himself to the church and the church reciprocally giving itself to God. “It is this double self-giving,” Gerrish writes, “that makes the Supper both embody and represent the perpetual exchange of grace and gratitude that shapes Calvin’s entire theology. The sacred banquet prepared by the Father’s goodness is the actual giving, not merely the remembering, of a gift of grace, and precisely as such it demands and evokes the answering gratitude of God’s children.”

在教會歷史之中，有些人希望更強烈的強調屬靈和非物質過於屬地和平凡（特別是重浸派，Remonstrant，慈運理，Socinians等等），他們拋棄了聖禮（特別是主的晚餐）所具有的那個帶着主觀神聖恩典的物質封印之真實意義，而寧願認為它們的本質不過就是個儀式或慶祝罷了。在此看見這種類柏拉圖主義（quasi-Platonic）的弦外之音是很有意思的事，他們拒絕將神的靈之工作聯繫於任何與物質有關的事物。然而，當紀念和慶祝被正確的聯於聖餐（對於受浸的應許和宣告）的時候，它被大多數的改革宗所承認（並接受）—這並非訴諸於他們所認為的，在羅馬天主教聖禮論中的迷信—聖禮遠超過外面的儀式，它提醒忠信者基督的職事。反而，它們乃是帶着真正屬靈的顯現的真正屬靈食物（spiritual sustenance）。Gerrish觀察到，對於加爾文，主的晚餐事實上乃是一個雙重自我賜予的場合（double self-giving）：基督將自己賜給教會，教會將自己獻給基督作為回報。Gerrish寫到，“它乃是一個雙重的自我賜予，使得晚餐成為永恆的，恩典和感謝互相交換的具體化身和展現，這塑造了加爾文整個的神學思想。父用祂的良善所預備的神聖宴席為了賜下恩典和恩賜，不單單是一個紀念，更準確的說，它要求並激發神的兒女以感謝作為對神的回應。”

With Calvin, though in the theotic language I have used, the sacraments are a means of progressive theosis in which they “[do] not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it.” Moreover, in so ordaining the sacraments as a means of grace, “our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings.”

雖然我使用了神化這個詞來描述，對於加爾文，聖禮是一個漸進的Theosis之手段，在其中,它們“並不是那麼強調他的話，而是要將我們建立在它的信仰之中。”除此以外，我們也是在這個基礎上，將聖禮視為恩典的手段，“我們憐憫的主，帶着無盡的俯就，好親自適應我們的能力，我們如禽獸的本質讓我們總是在地上爬行，撕咬血肉，完全不在乎屬靈的事，對屬靈的事也完全沒有概念，祂絕不用屬世的元素作為將我們引向祂自己的手段，甚至祂還把（自己的）肉身當做展示屬靈事物的一面鏡子。”

Contemporary pretensions may find themselves resistant to the notion that God has bound himself to something so “animal,” deeming it a crude throwback to antiquated, religious primitivism. Some may thus fear the doctrine as minimizing the Deity and tying God to something less powerful and or even less “spiritual.” Yet this fear should be abated and swiftly replaced with gratitude and thanksgiving when we recognize in the sacraments a tangible expression of the Deity’s having not neglected that we are sensuous beings. As such, both the body and soul are included among those means God uses to manifest and sustain us in the abundance of his theotic blessings—the communication of himself to us, holistically, as we are. God does not discard the corporeal nature of his children in his means of communion with them. Calvin quotes Chrysostom: “Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification.” The sacraments, then, are a principal means of theotic grace.

當代的（神學）主張會發現自己實際上在抵擋神將自己與那個“禽獸”（的本質）聯合的觀念，他們認為這是粗魯的回歸到古代，宗教的原始主義。有些人甚至恐懼這樣的教義會將神格壓制到最小的境界，將神減低為沒有能力，甚至是不‘屬靈的’。當我們發現，在聖餐中，神格有一個具體的彰顯，無法被我們忽視的時候，這種恐懼會迅速的被我們的感謝代。如此，身體和魂都被包括在神在祂豐盛神化的祝福中用來彰顯並維持我們的手段中—在歷史中，祂自己與我們交流，如同我們之所是的（as we are）。神並沒有在祂與祂子民交流中，拋棄祂子民物質的身體。加爾文引用屈梭多模的話：“若我們是非物質的，祂將會將這些事物以一種赤裸裸和非物質的方式賜個我們。如今，因為我們的魂乃是根植在身體中，祂在這些看得見的事物中賜下屬靈的事物。並不是說呈現在我們面前之聖禮的質量是從那些（看得見之）事物而來的，而是神在這個意義中賜下了它們。”聖禮就是神化恩典的主要手段。

Prayer 禱告

Augustine refers to prayer as “a turning of the heart” and a “purification of the inner eye.” As a means of grace, it “purifies our heart, and makes it more capacious for receiving the divine gifts, which are poured into us spiritually.” Calvin considered prayer to “draw as from an inexhaustible fountain.” To neglect availing ourselves of this inestimable privilege “were just as if one told of a treasure were to allow it to remain buried in the ground.”

奧古斯丁將禱告當做“心的轉向”和“心中之眼的潔淨。”作為一個恩典的手段，它“潔淨了我們的心，並使它更能夠領受神在靈中所傾倒於我們的恩賜。”加爾文認為禱告能“將我們帶往一個永不乾涸的泉源。”我們若忽略了這個無法度量的權利，“就如同知道那裡有寶藏的人還繼續讓寶藏埋藏在地裡面。”

Prayer might literally be considered “converse of the soul with God.” Yet as with the indwelling of the Word in our hearts and the efficacy of the sacraments as the Spirit indwells the disposition of the communicant, genuine prayer begins with the instigation of the Spirit unitively sanctifying the soul, urging it toward communion with God. Ephesians speaks of true prayer as prayer en pneuma (“in the Spirit”; 6:18). Calvin acknowledged the work of the Spirit in prayer, saying that to “pray aright is a special gift.” As the Spirit literally gives us prayer, and inasmuch as that prayer fills our souls with the theotic blessings of God, it too is a powerful means of grace.

禱告能夠被直接認為是“魂與神的對話。”然而因着道住在我們的內心和聖靈作為交流的成分使得聖禮有功效，真實的禱告乃是有聖靈聖別魂作為一個開始，促使它與神相交流。以弗所書說道一個真正的禱告乃是一個en pneuma (“在聖靈里”；6:18)的禱告。加爾文肯定聖靈在禱告中的工作，說“正確的禱告是一個特別的恩賜。”當聖靈直接將禱告賜給我們，禱告將神那個神化的祝福充滿我們的靈，它就是恩典最有威力的手段。

In this manner, prayer is an awesome expression of the unitive nature of progressive theosis in which we uniquely experience Jesus’ promise to the believer that he, the Father, and the Spirit “will come to him and make Our abode with him” (John 14:23). Prayer also brings out “all gracious affections: reverence, love, gratitude, submission, faith, joy, and devotion.” Moreover, “When the soul thus draws near to God, God draws near to it, manifests his glory, sheds abroad his love, and imparts that peace which passes all understanding.” Prayer, as with salvation itself, brings our focus upon the praises of God’s glory, which reciprocally fills our spirit.

禱告以這種令人驚嘆的方式成為漸進theosis的本質，我們在其中以一種獨特的方式經歷基督對於信徒的應許，將我們聯於祂、父和聖靈，“並且我們要到他那裡去，與他同住”（約翰14:23）。禱告也會帶來“對於恩典的意向：尊崇，愛，感恩，順服，信仰，喜樂，和獻身。”除此以外，“當靈魂被引導親近神，神被帶近靈魂，彰顯祂的榮耀，涌流出祂的愛，並把那超越我們所能領會的平安注入到我們裡面。”禱告與救贖把我們的注意力轉向對神榮耀的讚美，並充滿我們的靈。

The Normativity of These Means 對這些手段的規範

In a polemic against Pelagianism, Calvin wrote that “God works in his elect in two ways: inwardly, by his Spirit; outwardly, by his Word. By his Spirit illuminating their minds, and training their hearts to the practice of righteousness, he makes them new creatures, while, by his Word, he stimulates them to long and seek for this renovation.” These “two ways” may seem to contradict Calvin’s later identification of Word and sacrament as the normative means of grace (and identification of the true church), but they do not. Calvin consistently maintained, as I have, that regenerative grace (as well as preservation in faith) are the unmerited gifts of God bestowed upon the “elect” through a unilateral operation of the Spirit. This salvation, in turn, follows normatively through the hearing of the Word. Yet further, the sacraments themselves “[consist] of the word and the external sign.” Thus, salvation comes by faith in Christ, through God’s grace, normatively mediated through the Word and sustained by prayer, Word, and sacrament according to the power of the Holy Spirit. Further, it is through Christ’s holy church that the Spirit brings the Word and sacraments to those whom God the Father calls. Naturally, then, Scripture considers the temporal mission of the church to be both the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments (Matt 28:19; Luke 22:19). In this manner, the benefits of theosis are normatively communicated to the believer throughout the interadvental epoch.

在於伯拉糾主義爭辯的時候，加爾文寫到“神以雙重方式在祂的選民中做工作：藉由聖靈在他們的裡面作工；藉由祂的道在他們外面作工。祂的聖靈光照他們的心思，並訓練他們的心操練公義，把他們作成新造。同時，藉由祂的道，祂激動他們渴望追尋這個（內心神形象的）重建。”這個“雙重方式（two ways）”看起來跟加爾文後期將道和聖禮視為恩典的標準手段（以及真教會的記號）相悖逆，事實卻不是這樣。加爾文和我都不懈堅持重生的恩典（以及對於信仰的看護）都是神無條件的恩典，藉由聖靈單方面的作為，傾倒在“選民”身上。救恩這是接着聽見道而來的。聖禮更進一步“由道和外面的表號[所組成的]。”故此，救贖乃是在基督里藉由信心而來，藉由神的恩典，和道的調解，並根據聖靈的能力，由禱告，道，和聖禮所維持。除此以外，聖靈藉由基督神聖的教會將道和聖禮帶給那些父神所呼召的人。聖經順理成章的認為教會暫時性的任務乃是宣揚神的道和執行聖禮（馬太28:19；路加22:19）。Theosis的益處則以這種方式，在（基督）再度顯現間的時代中，交流給信徒。

It is important to stress the normativity of this operation. Reformed theologians in general (myself included) have often acknowledged the possibility that God can, and perhaps does, work in a special operation of grace upon those lacking access to the visible church and its ministry of Word and sacrament. No less an “arch-Calvinist” than Loraine Boettner, for example, confessed, “We do not deny that God can save some even of the adult heathen people if He chooses to do so, for His Spirit works when and where and how He pleases, with means or without means. . . . Certainly God’s ordinary method is to gather His elect from the evangelized portion of mankind, although we must admit the possibility that by an extraordinary method some few of His elect may be gathered from the unevangelized portion.” Nevertheless, such operation is not normative, nor is it admonished in Scripture as the commonplace means through which the Lord condescends spiritually to feed those whom he gathers and calls his own. In this sense, God has “bound” himself to Word and sacrament, not such that he is held captive to them, but insofar as the Lord has seen fit to offer himself to his church in mediate form of ordinary, altogether human means.

強調這些運作的規範性是很重要的。改革宗神學家們（包括我本人）一般都承認神能夠，或確實，在恩典特別的運行中，臨到那些無法接觸看得見教會，它所服侍的道和聖禮的人。Loraine Boettner這位‘半加爾文主義者（arch-Calvinist）’承認，“我們並不否認若神願意，祂甚至能夠拯救成年的異教徒。因為祂的靈乃是根據祂喜悅的時間，地點和方式作工，不論是使用什麼手段。。。當然神常用的方式乃是，從人類中接受福音的那部分人中聚集祂的選民，雖然我們必須承認祂也可能從那些未接受福音的人中，用非常的手段聚集少數的選民。”儘管如此，這樣的做法是特殊的，聖經也並非沒有忽略主藉由某些通用的手段，以屬靈的方式臨及，並餵養那些祂所呼召歸於自己的人。從這意義而言，神已經將自己與道和聖禮聯結，這並不是說祂被它們所捕獲了，不過就是主看起來以一種平凡，人類能夠接受的方式，合適的將自己給了教會。

Neither is this to deny or derogate the general providence of God in directing human affairs, freely bestowing his grace according to his own sovereign predilection and enjoining communion with the created order through limitless means. Similarly, the gathering of the church in general as the company of the faithful (coetus fidelium)—that is, apart from its administration of the sacraments—is also a vital means of communion with the Lord. Participation and fellowship in the church is indeed a mediative ministry of the Word as the Spirit indwells the movement. But should we seek the prominent means, spoken of in Scripture and identified generically in the course of Reformed theological reflection, we come back to the normativity of Word, sacrament, and prayer. But first among these, unifying and directing the others, is the Word.

這並不是否定或減損神直接的介入、對人的看護，並自由的根據祂自己的主宰、以無限的方式享受於被造之物的交流，傾倒下祂的恩典。同樣的，教會的聚集一般而言就是忠心者的聚集（coetus fidelium）—也就是說，除了服侍聖禮外—也是主交通的活潑手段。在教會中有份（Participation）和交通（fellowship）乃是道作為內住於該活動中聖靈之中保的職事。然而我們必須從聖經的教導和從改革宗神學所反映出來的相同之處，回到道，聖禮和禱告之上。然而，首先將眾人聯合為一的，乃是道。