Theology Today

今日神学

http://ttj.sagepub.com/content/65/4/489

The online version of this article can be found at:

这篇文章的线上版可以在此处阅读：

DOI: 10.1177/004057360906500407

Theology Today 2009 65: 489

今日神学 2009.65:489

Myk Habets

''Reformed Theosis?'': A Response to Gannon Murphy

“改革宗的神化教义”：对于Gannon Murphy的回应

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 - Jan 1, 2009

Theology Today Critic’s Corner

“Reformed Theosis?”

“改革宗的神化教义？”

A Response to Gannon Murphy

对于Gannon Murphy的回应

MYK HABETS

Any attempt to reclaim Orthodox aspects of the “great tradition” for contemporary theology is to be applauded. In this light, Gannon Murphy has done the church a real service in stimulating discussion surrounding the compatibility of an Orthodox notion of theosis with contemporary Reformed theology. Having argued the same thing previously, I stand beside Murphy as a brother in arms. There are, however, differing views on how best to incorporate theosis and Reformed thought. In this essay, I point out areas of agreement between Murphy and myself, discuss a number of areas in which I disagree with Murphy’s proposal, and finally offer a brief reflection on how I think Reformed theology and a doctrine of theosis are compatible. At the outset I wish to affirm my agreement with Murphy and make it clear that we share much in common despite our disagreements.

任何在近代神学中尝试从正统的角度宣告“伟大传统”之尝试，都该得到我们的掌声。从这个角度而言，Gannon Muyphy激发了围绕着东正教观念中的theosis（译者：即‘神化’）和近代改革宗神学间的兼容性，扎扎实实的服侍教会。即使我曾与他争论这个题目，我仍是与Murphy并肩站立的弟兄。不论如何，我们仍对于如何更好的将theosis和改革宗思想融合有不同的看法。在这篇论文中，我将指出Murphy和我都认同的重点，并讨论某些我不同意Murphy建议的几个方面，最后提供一个我认为改革宗神学和theosis如何得以兼容的简要回馈。在论文的一开始，我要先肯定与Murhpy都认可的重点，好让读者清楚，即使我们间存在者分歧，但是我们更是一同分享共同的看法。

Points of Agreement 认同的重点

Doctrines of theosis have a well-rehearsed history, from the ancient world, through Scripture, the early church, medieval disputes, Byzantine theology, to contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. Less well-rehearsed but no less present is the history of theosis in Western theology from the early church to the present day. Within a specifically Reformed context, doctrines of theosis have more typically been subsumed under such rubrics as participation, union with Christ, communion, sanctification, and the language of exchange. In these guises a concept of theosis has been far more acceptable. Only more recently, as the language of “participation” and “theosis” has become more prominent, have Reformed theologians turned their attention to this latter term as signaling a distinctive doctrine. They are now starting to take sides over whether theosis in this sense is compatible with Reformed perspectives.

Theosis的教义有一个非常显赫的历史，从古代的世界，借由圣经，古教会，中古世纪的争论，拜占庭神学，知道今日的东正教。从早期教会直到今日，Theosis在西方教会的神学中虽然不是那么显赫，但从没有销声匿迹。在某些改革宗的材料中，theosis的教义一般都被归类在有份，与基督联合，交通，成圣和互相交换这样的用词之下。在这种包装下，theosis的观念才能够变得比较容易被接受。只有在最近，当‘有份（participation）’和‘theosis’这样的用词变得凸出后，改革宗的神学家们才开始把他们的注意力转向后者，并视后者为一个独立的教义。他们现在也开始为theosis是否能被改革宗的观点兼容而选择自己的立场。

Murphy makes a compelling case that a doctrine of theosis “is best appropriated within a Reformed theological framework” (192). I could not agree more. To bolster this claim he examines the Christus in nobis and the unio mystica doctrines as traditionally conceive. Many Reformed theologians consider union with Christ to be the centerpiece of a Reformed theology, from Calvin to the present day. Throughout Calvin’s theology three distinct but interrelated “unions” are presented. The first is the incarnational union; the second, the unio mystica; and the third, a spiritual union. While we need not follow Calvin’s strict vocabulary, his attempt to express the depth of the reality of the union with Christ is a hallmark of Reformed thought. Clearly sympathetic to this view, Murphy argues that a doctrine of theosis can naturally be understood as an aspect of the unio mystica.

Murphy提出了一个令人信服的案例，就是theosis的教义“与改革宗神学的架构最为相符的”（192）。我衷心赞同这个观点。为了加强这个宣告，他查考了Christus in nobis（Christ in us，在我们里面的基督）和unio mystica（mystical union with Christ，与基督奥秘的联合）之教义，作为传统的例证。从加尔文至今日，许多改革宗神学家都认为与基督联合乃是改革宗神学的核心。三个不同却又是彼此紧紧相连的‘联合’出现并贯穿了加尔文的神学。第一个乃是道成肉身的联合（incarnational union）；第二个，unio mystica；第三个，属灵的联合（spiritual union）。当我们不一定一定要遵循加尔文严谨用词的同时，他尝试表达改革宗思想的标签被深深的埋在与基督联合实际的深处。因着充分理解这个观点，Murphy主张theosis的教义能够非常自然的被理解为unio mystica的一个方面。

While Murphy helpfully presents various aspects of the unio mystica that have been examined in the past by such figures as Watson, Berkhof, and Strong, he does not discuss the role of the hypostatic union, although I am sure he would agree with what follows. Union with Christ is the soteriological correlate to the christological notion of the hypostatic union. This makes the hypostatic union commensurate (distinct but inseparable) with the unio mystica. Only by means of the Incarnation does God join men and women to his Son in order for them to enjoy the benefits of salvation in Christ. The sole access to the Father is through Christ the Son, made possible by faith, which is the operation of the Spirit. Calvin specifically cuts out any exclusively extrinsic notions of justification or reconciliation by positing justification as a benefit of union with Christ. Through participation in Christ we receive all the benefits of salvation, including Christ’s righteousness. Calvin insists on the forensic nature of justification but equally insists that we are justified as a result of our union with Christ. This is affirmed when he writes, “You see that our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ; indeed, with him we possess all its riches.” In this way theosis and a Reformed doctrine of justification may be considered compatible. I would urge Murphy to extend his understanding of the locus of theosis to all three aspects of “union” outlined by Calvin. I will comment more on this below.

当Murphy积极地展现好几个已经在过去被沃森（Watson），伯克富（Berkhof），和斯特朗（Strong）这些大师所检视过的，关于unio mystica的不同方面之时，他并没有探讨位格联合（hypostatic union）的角色，虽然我们肯定他必会认可以下的论点。与基督的联合（Union with Christ）乃是一个在救赎论与基督论间所产生的位格的联合的观念。这使得位格的联合与奥秘的联合成为密不可分的（不同但不可分割—distinct but inseparable）。只有借由道成肉身才能将人类与祂的儿子联合，好叫他们能够在基督里享受救赎的益处。我们只能够借由在圣灵中运作的信，通过子基督接触父。加尔文特别讲称义作为与基督的联合之益处，以排除任何任何外在的，对于称义或与神和好的观念。借由在基督中有份，我们领受了救赎所有的益处，包括基督的公义。加尔文坚持称义法理的本质，但是也同样坚持我们的被称义，乃是我们与基督联合的结果。他写到，“你们可以看见，我们的公义并不是在我们里面，乃是在基督里，乃是因为我们在基督里有份而拥有了它；确实，我们带着他而拥有了祂一切的丰富。”theosis和改革宗称义的教义以这种方可以被认为是乳水交融的。我建议Murphy进一步将他对于theosis核心观念的理解，延伸到加尔文所描述之‘联合’的三个方面。以下，我会提出更多的建议。

Murphy also mounts a strong case for a monergistic view of salvation understood within a compatibilist lens. In this way, he writes, “Reformed soteriologies avoid the enervative doctrines of human independence” (199). Murphy thus safeguards a doctrine of theosis from the familiar synergistic conceptions of salvation characteristic within Eastern Orthodoxy. Once again I wholeheartedly agree. However, to bolster this argument one should, I submit, appeal to the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. As a direct consequence of the doctrines of the homoousion and the hypostatic union flows the concept of the vicarious humanity of Christ whereby Christ becomes the last Adam and New Man to whom all humanity is ontologically related and in whom all humanity must participate for communion with God to be realized. The work of theosis is first of all a work of God in Jesus Christ—literally a theopoiesis—and only then a reality applied to specific human beings. This approach is a consistent application of one of Karl Barth’s central axioms, namely, God’s original choice never to be except to be for us in Jesus Christ.

Murphy也在兼容的视野强烈的标明神恩独作。他用这个方式写到，“改革宗的救赎论避免了人是独立的这种软弱的教义”（199）。Murphy以此避免了以众人所知，东正教内部对于救赎的神人合作论的教导，捍卫theosis的教义。我要再次衷心的同意这个论点。不论如何，为了更进一步加强这个论点，我提议当诉诸于耶稣基督得胜的人性。作为从基督得胜的人性所延伸出来之Homoousion（同质）和位格联合教义的直接结果，基督因此成为末后的亚当和新人。人类都是在本质上联于祂，在祂里面众人都必须有份于祂，好叫与神的交通得以完成。首先，Theosis的工作乃是神在耶稣基督里面的工作—更正确的说，是Theopoiesis(成圣，译者：即theosis的另一个翻译，divinization)—只有如此，某些特定的人类才能够得到这个实际。这个就是卡尔巴刻的一个中心思想之应用，也就是说，在耶稣基督里，神原始的抉择完全是为着我们的。

A more concentrated focus on the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ would also support Murphy’s fine attempt to defend a Reformed doctrine of theosis from any hint of pan(en)theism (200). Murphy correctly points out that in theosis the human is not transformed into a divine person but remains human. A Reformed doctrine of theosis can posit an immediate divine presence in creation and creation’s real participation in God; however, God and humanity are never confused or mixed together. This allows a distinction between a Reformed doctrine of theosis conceived in terms of koinonia (communion) and a Greek philosophical conception of “divinization” in terms of methexis (mixture of being).

一个更着重与耶稣基督得胜人性的观点也能够支持Murphy捍卫改革宗theosis教义，并避免使其暗示任何的泛神论的可能。Murphy正确的指出，在theosis中人并不会变成神格，而仍然只是一个人。改革宗的theosis教义可以定位在被造中有一个神直接的显现，和被造能够真实的在神中有份。不论如何，神与人绝对不能被混乱或混合成为一体。这能够在改革宗基于koinonia（communion，交通）而发展出来的theosis教义，和希腊哲学基于methexis（mixture of being，存有的混合）所发展的“divinization（神圣化，即神化）”的观念间，保持一个区分。

Theosis is not so much the “divinization” or “deification” of humanity, as popularly (mis)understood, but the re-creation of our lost humanity in the dynamic, atoning interaction between the divine and human natures within the one person of Jesus Christ, through whom we enter into the triune communion of God’s intra-trinitarian life. As one Reformed theologian states, “Our ‘deification’ in Christ is the obverse of his ‘inhominization.’” This is what distinguishes theosis in Reformed thought from other expressions of deification or divinization.

Theosis并不是如同常人说认为的，不过就是人类的‘神圣化（divinization）’或‘神化（deification）’，而是我们在那个具有活力的，为了在耶稣基督独一位格中神性和人性的互动中，重新创造我们所失去的人性。借由它，我们得以进入神那个在三个位格间（intra-trinitarian）的生命之三重（triune）交通中。就像一位改革宗神学家所说的，“我们在基督里的‘神化’乃是与祂‘人化的过程（inhominization）’相对应的。”这就使得在改革宗思想中的theosis能够在其他的神化或神圣化教义中，显得与众不同。

In this way we are able to affirm the eternal distinction between God and creation both in the incarnate Christ (hypostatic union) and in our participation in Christ through the reconciling exchange. Theosis is the work of the triune God in graciously allowing human persons to participate or partake of the divine nature. It is technically understood as participation in the triune communion, or perichoresis. Through being united to Jesus Christ, the God-man, we are united to his divinized humanity, and through that relationship we enjoy fellowship with God. The goal of the Incarnation is that we may be gathered up in Christ Jesus and included in his own self-presentation before the Father and, in that relationship, to partake of the divine nature.

借由这个方式，我们能够在道成肉身的基督（位格的联合）和我们借由和好的互相交换（reconciling exchange），以及在基督中有份于祂之中，确认神和被造的不同。Theosis乃是三一神在恩典中的工作，使人类的位格能够有份于神性。从技术上而言，它能够被认为是在三一神的交通（Triune communion）中有份，或perichoresis（译者：互相渗透，神学中对于三一神‘有分别却不是分开的’另一种描述方式）。借由与耶稣基督这位神人（the God-man）联合，我们被连于祂那个被神化的人性（divinized humanity），借由那个关系，我们就能够享受与神的交通。道成肉身的目的就是要我们能够在耶稣基督中被聚集，并被包括在祂在父前的自我显现（self-presentation）中，在那个关系中，得以有份于神性。

A final area of agreement between Murphy and myself is in his discussion of the “means of theotic relationality.” By means of the Word primarily, as well as the sacraments and prayer, the blessings of theosis are realized. I think it important in any discussion of theosis also to comment on how theosis is worked out in ministry and worship now and more fully in the eschaton at the final resurrection. This is not to agree or disagree with Murphy but rather to observe that in his presentation these latter aspects of theosis were passed over. So with respect to the unio mystica, a monergistic understanding of salvation, and the “means of theotic relationality,” I am fully in accord with Murphy’s attempt at outlining a Reformed doctrine of theosis, even though more needs to be said by way of its content.

以下乃是Murphy与我在他对于‘神化关系的手段（means of theotic relationality）’的讨论中，最后一个共同认可的部分。Theosis主要在道，圣礼和祷告为主的手段中，theosis的祝福就得以成就。我认为对于任何关于theosis的讨论中，提及theosis如何在我们今日的职事，敬拜，末后的复活，以及在末世被更丰满的敬拜中被完成是非常重要的。这并不是认可或不认可Murphy，而是我察觉在他的讨论中，关乎theosis最后这几个方面都被忽略了。对于unio mystica，基于神恩独作对救赎的理解，以及‘神化关系的手段’这些方面，我完全赞同Murphy对于勾勒改革宗theosis教义的尝试，即使在其内容中还有需要加强的部分。

Points of Disagreement 不同意的观点

While I agree with Murphy’s general argument, there are important points with which I disagree. Two aspects in particular call for some attention: Murphy’s acceptance of the Eastern Orthodox notion of the divine essence and energies, and his decision to locate theosis primarily within the locus of sanctification. The first of these issues I take to be thoroughly incompatible with Reformed theology; the second I consider to be a grave mistake in any construction of theosis. I shall briefly seek to explain why.

虽然我基本上同意Murphy的论点，但某些重点仍然是我所无法认可的。特别是两个方面：Murphy对于东正教关于神的素质（essence）和能力（energies）所采取的接纳态度，以及他决定主要把theosis至于成圣的核心之中。我认为头一点完全与改革宗神学无法相容；第二点更是在架构theosis时致命的错误。我会简要的解释其原因。

A fundamental axiom of Reformed theology is that to know God we must know his being in his act. God is in his own being what he is as God’s revealing word and saving act toward us. Through Christ and the Spirit we are given access to God as he is in himself. This access to God includes the form of knowledge of God as he is in himself, in his internal relations as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Accordingly, Jesus Christ is homoousios with God in being and in act. The logical step beyond this assertion of Christ’s oneness with God is to apply the homoousion to the Trinity as a whole and to see this heuristic device as stating the ontological relation between the economic and the immanent Trinity. What God reveals to us in Jesus Christ is nothing other than a self revelation of his own being. The Holy Spirit is the other Paraclete whom Christ sends to act in his place. In his homoousion with Christ, in being and act the Spirit is Christ’s other self through whose presence in us Christ makes himself present to us. The God who acts ad extra is the God who is in se. This is in accordance with the concept of perichoresis.

改革宗神学的基本原则乃是，我们必须通过神在祂工作中的所是，来认识祂。神的所是在祂对我们启示的道和救赎的工作中，被启示出来。借由基督和圣灵，我们被赐予通往祂的管道，就如同祂在自己里面一样。这个通往神的管道包括了对于神之所是的知识，就如同祂（基督）在祂（父）里面，和在祂作为父、子和圣灵的内在关系中一样。有鉴于此，耶稣基督在本质和行动上，都是与神同质（homoousios）的。在这个基督与神是一（oneness）的坚持之上的逻辑步奏，是为了将同质（homoousion）应用到整个三位一体身上，并用这个启发性的工具来描述经纶的三一（Economic Trinity）和内在的三一（Immanent Trinity）之间的那种本体的关系。神在基督里向我们所启示的就是对于祂之所是的自我启示（self revelation）。圣灵乃是另一位保惠师（other Paraclete），基督差遣了祂以代替自己尽职。在祂（圣灵）与基督之所是和行动的同质（homoousion）中，圣灵就是基督的另一个自我（Spirit is Christ's other self），经由祂在我们里面的同在，基督也向我们显现。那位外在（ad extra）行动的神，乃是在我们里面（in se）的神。这乃是根据互相渗透（Perichoresis）的观念。

Because of the oneness in being and act between Christ and God, salvation, knowledge, and theosis are possible. Before these benefits can be applied to human persons, they first of all become a reality in the person of the Mediator, Jesus Christ. The homoousion thus necessitates the hypostatic union, the distinct instantiation of communion between God and humanity in the person of the Son. Despite the radical distinction between divine and human being in the Reformed tradition, we have seen that room is still left for a real communion between the two. This is effected through theosis, the participation of human being in the divine being through the Son and by the Holy Spirit.

因为在在所是和行动中，基督与神间的一（oneness），救赎，知识和theosis都是可能的。在这些益处能够应用在人类身上之前，它们都先在中保，耶稣基督的位格上成为事实。故此，同质（homoousion）成为位格联合的必要条件，就是神和人类在子位格中的交通所成为的范例。撇开在改革宗传统中，神和人间的那种根本性的不同，我们已经看见在两者间仍然有真实交流的空间。这就是theosis所产生的结果，人类经由子借着圣灵在神的存有中有份。

Murphy turns to Athanasius in support of his proposal, as do I. Athanasius saw the distinction between the enousios logos and enousios energeia. Enousios logos refers to the Word/Reason inherent in the ousia, or being, of God; enousios energeia refers to the activity or movement of power inherent in the ousia, or being, of God. God’s logos inheres in his own being eternally, and that logos has become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Jesus Christ we have access into the being of God, into his divine intelligibility, or logos. Likewise, if God’s energeia, or “act,” inheres in his being, and that act has taken the form of Jesus Christ in the Incarnation so that he is identical with the action of God, then we know God in accord with the acts of his being, consistent with his activity in disclosing himself to us. For this reason we must reject the Eastern Orthodox distinction between the essence and energies of God. The identity of the being and act of God in Christ Jesus will not allow this.

Murphy接着如同我一样，诉诸于亚他那修，以支持他的论点。亚他那修清楚的看见了在素质中的道（enousios logos）和素质中的能力（enousiao energeia）间的不同。在素质中的道（enousios logos）指的是在神的本质（Ousia）或所是（being）中所固有的道/理智（Word/Reason）；素质中的能力（enousiao energeia）指的是在神的本质（Ousia）或所是（being）中所固有之能力的活动或运作。神的道乃是在永恒，在祂自己的所是中所固有的，道也已经在耶稣基督里成为肉身。借由耶稣基督我们能够进入神的所是，并进入神的智慧，或道之中。同样的，若神的能力（energeia）或‘行动（act）’住在祂的所是中，那么那个行动乃是在耶稣基督在道成肉身中的样式里所施行的，好让祂与神的行动完全是一。那么我们能够根据祂所是中的行动来认识神，这与祂向我们揭示祂的自己之行动乃是完全一致的。因着这缘故，我们必须拒绝东正教对于神的素质和能力间所做的区别。在基督耶稣里，神之所是和行动的合一性不允许这种分别的存在。

Two important implications follow: First, God’s being as logos means that God’s being is speaking being. Hence, there can be no thought of knowing God in his mute being, for apart from his Word there is no such God (thus rejecting a tenet of Latin mysticism). Second, God’s energeia inheres in his being, and this means that God’s being is in his act and his act is in his being (thus rejecting a tenet of Eastern apophaticism). It naturally follows that what the Greek patristic theologians termed theosis is essentially the consubstantial self-giving of God to humankind through Christ and in his Spirit.

这会产生两种重要的暗示：第一，神作为道（logos）的存有意指神的存有乃是一个说出来的存有（speaking being）。所以，在祂寂静的存在中不可能何认识神，因为除了祂的道外，没有这样的一位神（故此，就能够拒绝拉丁神秘主义的原则）。第二，神的能力（energeia）存在于祂的所是之中，这就意味着神的所是在祂的行动中，祂的行动也是在祂的所是中（故此，拒绝了东方否定神学- apophaticism的原则）。其结果自然就是，东方教父神学家们所谓的theosis根本就是自我是同质之神经由基督，在祂的灵里面，并在其本质中将自己给了人类。

Thus, we can see a basic difference between Reformed theology and Eastern Orthodoxy. The homoousion means that God reveals himself not simply through his impersonal energies but in a very real way through his personal essence: in the Incarnation God gives himself in grace. Unlike Palamite divinization, theosis in the Nicene theologians represents communion through Jesus Christ in the Spirit. We must continue to insist that in Jesus Christ we can participate in God. While this participation in God has creaturely limitations and goes beyond anything we may comprehend, and thus there is an apophatic character about it, this does not necessitate the distinction, as in Eastern Orthodoxy, between God’s unknowable essentia, understood as God’s being, and his impersonal energeia, understood as God’s act. In fact, it positively denies it. Such an Orthodox understanding actually undermines a doctrine of theosis. It also reduces the act of God to something other than a revelation of his being, thus demoting Christ and the Holy Spirit to intermediaries of God, not God himself.

故此，我们就能够看见改革宗神学和东正教间的一个根本性不同。同质（homoousion）代表神不单单是借由祂那个非位格的能力（energeia）启示了自己，而是借由祂具有位格的素质，以一种非常真实的方式启示自己：在道成肉身中，祂在恩典中赐下了自己。不像帕拉玛派（Palamite）的神化（divinization，译者：其实divinization和theosis是同一个意思。作者特意使用这个词，以便于将错误的神化教义和正统的theosis分割。这点请读者注意），theosis对于尼西亚神学家们代表着在圣灵中，经由基督而有的交通。我们必须继续坚持，在基督里我们就能够在神里面有份。当这个在神里面的有份具有被造之物的限制性，并超越我们所求所想的时候，它就具有了否定神学的特征，这并不代表在神不可知的素质（essentia）--神的所是，和祂非位格的能力（energeia）--祂的行动（act），之间，必然有所不同，如同在东正教所相信的一样。事实上，我们可以肯定的否定它。这种东正教的理解实际上消弱了theosis的教义。它也把神的行动消减为某种启示祂之所是之外的东西，故此，把基督和圣灵降为神的中间人，不是神的自己。

A Reformed doctrine of theosis posits an ontological, not a metaphysical union. A metaphysical union is the underlying idea of a pan(en)theistic concept of union in which the believer becomes dissolved into the essence of the divine nature so that he or she ceases to exist as a distinct entity. Working within a Reformed understanding of theosis, we may say that humans can participate in the divine nature, but this is a thoroughly personal and relational experiencing of the triune relations. So the distinction between the economic and ontological aspects of the Trinity is employed with a different nuance than in the Eastern Orthodox use of the theologia and oikonomia. We may affirm that in the Son and Holy Spirit one comes to see, hear, and know God as he is in himself, but one does so in a creaturely way that is at once a revelation of the hiddenness of God. This maintains the ancient adage that Deus simper maior (“God is always greater”). Rejecting the Orthodox essence-energies distinction in favor of a Reformed economic-immanent one thus allows us to affirm simultaneously the knowability of God in the incarnate Son through the Holy Spirit and at the same time to stand with our hands over our mouths and fall on our knees to worship and adore that which will forever be beyond our comprehension.

一个改革宗的theosis教义指向一个本体的，而不是超自然的抽象联合。一个超自然的抽象联合是潜伏在泛神论观念中的想法，想像信徒被溶解于神性素质之中，导致他或她不再成为一个独立存在的个体。建构一个改革宗对于theosis的理解，我们就能够说人类能够在神性中有份，但是这完全是一个对于三位一体之关系的位格和关系上的经历。所以，在三位一体的经纶（economic）和本体（ontological）这两面间的不同，比起东正教使用的神学（theologia）和经纶（oikonomia）有着不同的精妙之处。我们就能够坚信在子和圣灵里面，人可以近前来看、听、并认识神在自己里面的所是，但人以被造之物的方式，来看见，听见并认识对于神之奥秘的启示。这就应验了古代谚语，Deus simper maior (“神总是更伟大的”)。拒绝东正教素质--能力（essence-energies）的分别，而采用改革宗的经纶--内在（economic-immanent）的分别，能够允许我们同时确认在圣灵中、借由道成肉身的子中对神的可知性，以及在静默中跪下，以敬拜并崇拜那位永远超过我们理会的那位。

The second point of disagreement is over the correct context theosis should occupy in the ordo salutis. Many times in the West, theologians have sought to restrict a doctrine of theosis to an aspect of sanctification, and in so doing they have attempted to safeguard somehow a doctrine of justification. While Murphy sees theosis as a holistic transformation, his apparent restriction of the doctrine to the subjective aspects of the ordo—regeneration (inaugural theosis), sanctification (progressive theosis), and glorification (consummative theosis) (13)— he appears to tread the same path. Throughout its historical development in all traditions, theosis has been understood to encompass the entirety of the ordo salutis so that it becomes one of a number of ways to speak of salvation in its entirety. Restricting theosis to the subjective aspects of the ordo risks undermining the full-orbed biblical notion of salvation in which justification and sanctification are held together. It also threatens to separate the person and work of Christ, and thus falls into an all too familiar concept in much Reformed thought that justification is only a forensic act resulting from a legal pronouncement of the Father Almighty. Even Reformation theologians such as Calvin did not separate justification from sanctification in a way that made the former external and forensic and the latter internal and progressive. This is not to suggest this is Murphy’s intent but rather to indicate a potential risk in this approach.

第二个分歧点乃是在于theosis的正确上下文必须在救赎的顺序（ordo salutis—order of salvation）中占有一席之地。西方的神学家们总是希望从成圣的方面为theosis的教义寻找界限，并希望以此捍卫称义的教义。当Murphy看见theosis乃是一个全人的变化，他对于—重生（起始的theosis），神圣化（渐进的theosis）和荣化（终极的theosis）--主观方面的表面限制看起来也像在遵循Ordo同样的模式。从theosis在各神学传统中的历史发展来看，theosis已经被视为完全被ordo salutis所涵盖，以至于它成为完整描述救赎的一种方式。将theosis限制在ordo的主观的方面，就会消弱了圣经对于救赎完整的观念，它同时包含称义和成圣。它也会造成分割基督位格和工作的危险，并落入一种我们非常熟悉的改革宗观念，就是称义乃是从全能的父而来的一种法律宣告，并促成一种法律上的行动。甚至像加尔文这样改革宗的神学家也不会将称义从成圣分割出来，而使得前者成为外在和法理的，后者正常内在与渐进的。这并不是建议这个观念就是Murphy的动机，而是要指出这种方式可能造成的潜在风险。

More consistent with what has been said above about the unio mystica is to understand forgiveness not just as a word of pardon but a word translated into our existence by crucifixion and resurrection, by judgment and re-creation; it means the sinner is now given a right standing before God and is holy—that is, justified. The believer is even now holy in Christ. Forgiveness, which is intimately associated with justification, is experienced by us believers united to Christ in a perichoretic bond in which we partake of all Christ’s saving benefits precisely because we partake of Christ. Justification is a continuing act in Christ, in whom we are continuously being cleansed, forgiven, sanctified, renewed, and made righteous. This is not to imply that the process is fully completed in the present. This would be to deny the reality of the eschaton and of humanity’s bodily resurrection at the parousia. There is a time lag, in the context of space-time reality, between the resurrection of Christ, the head of the body, and the resurrection of those who are members of his body. Yet in the power of the Spirit we have real communion with God through the risen Christ in the present, a taste of the age to come. When related to justification, theosis is the effective or prospective aspect of justification. This allows us to affirm the forensic imputation of righteousness, so crucial to a Reformed understanding of justification, and simultaneously respect the breadth the doctrine of justification has in Scripture. The introduction of theosis to Reformed soteriology removes the doctrine of the articulus iustificationis from a central position and affords this place instead to union with Christ, from which flow all the blessings of salvation, including justification and sanctification.

为了更于我们前面论及关于unio mystica的段落一致，我们就需要不在把赦免当作一个饶恕的用词，而是借由钉十字架和复活，借由审判和重造（re-creation），（神的）道被转化到我们存有中。这就是说，一个罪人如今被赐予站在神面前的权利，并成为圣洁的--也就是说，被称义了。这个信徒在基督里，甚至就是圣洁的。赦免与称义紧紧相关，能够被我们这些信徒，以互相渗透之与基督联合的方式所经历，在其中我们因为有份于基督，能够有份于基督救赎一切的益处。称义是在基督中一个持续不断的动作，我们在其中不断的被洁净，赦免，圣别，更新，并成为公义。这并不是暗示这个过程在此生中会完成。乃是否认人的身体会在末世（eschaton）、在国度（parousia）中复活。根据上下文，在基督--身体的头之复活，和祂身体之肢体的复活间，有一个时间的落差。然而在圣灵的能力里面，我们能够拥有与神真实的交通。这是借由在今日复活的基督，尝到来世。当theosis与称义有个的时候，它就是称义那个有效或渐进的方面。这允许我们在称义上，根据法理将罪归于基督。这在改革宗对于称义的理解上，以及在圣经中对于称义教义的涵盖面，是极其重要的。将theosis引入改革宗的救赎论（soteriology）能够将称义（articulus iustificationis）的教义从改革宗的中心位置上挪开，并以与基督联合的教义代替其位置。借由与基督联合的教义涌流出救赎一切的祝福，包括称义和成圣。

A result of including theosis in a Reformed soteriology is that salvation is no longer thought of as exclusively salvation from sin, alienation, and hostility, although those themes are clearly part of any biblical soteriology. Instead, union, communion, and participation are more meaningfully incorporated. A retrospective focus is replaced with a prospective one without losing the strengths of the former. The ultimate goal of salvation is no longer to appease the wrath of an angry God but to attain to participation in the divine life through the Son by the Holy Spirit. This still necessitates judgment on sin and justification of the sinner, but it does not end there. Salvation in a theosis-centered soteriology is accomplished by the Incarnation in the hypostatic union. It is this perspective that should be emphasized by a Reformed soteriology.

改革宗救赎论吸收theosis的结果就是，救赎不再会被认为只是从罪，远离神，和神的敌意中得到拯救，虽然它们明显都是圣经救赎论的组成部分。反而，联合，交通和有份就能够以一种更有意义的方式被结合成为一个整体。一个对于律法追朔效力的中心（retrospective focus），被另一个具有盼望的中心（prospective focus）所代替，但却不会失去前者的优点。就是最终的目标不再只是为了平息愤怒之神的怒气，而是经由子，借着圣灵而能够在神的生命中有份。审判罪和罪人的称义仍然是需要的，但是它并不会停止在此处。在以theosis为中心的救赎论是在位格联合中的道成肉身所完成的。也是从这个角度而言，应当成为改革宗的救赎论所强调的重点。

Widening the Dialogue 促进对话

Several prominent Reformed thinkers have made their rejection of a doctrine of theosis known. In his spiritual memoir, Lewis Smedes states, “[Athanasius] had one argument to support his view and he hammered on it repeatedly: Jesus had to be God in order to make us gods. Tell that to a Calvinist! Nothing we could say about ourselves could be more scandalous to a Calvinist than that we could get to be gods.” By contrast, others have favorably adopted a doctrine of theosis and sought to situate it within a Reformed context. What distinguishes a Reformed use of theosis from Greek philosophy and Eastern Orthodoxy is the combination of the essential features of sacramental and transactional christologies, such as one finds in the works of Calvin and Barth. As long as such sacramental and transactional christologies remain separate, then doctrines of theosis will suffer from misinterpretation and will be rejected by those of the Reformed tradition. However, when these two christologies are brought together into a coherent unity, theosis is seen for what it is, namely, a biblical ideal with considerable theological weight and usefulness for presenting the gospel. If we can redirect Reformed theology to speak of human participation in the divine nature as union and communion with Christ in his human nature, as participation in his incarnate Sonship, and so as sharing in him the divine life and love, false notions of theosis may be avoided. 

好几位杰出的改革宗思想家已经公开的表态拒绝theosis的教义。在他的属灵回忆录中，Lewis Smedes宣称，“[亚他那修]以不断的强调同一个论点来支持他的看法：基督必然是神才能使我们成为神（Jesus had to be God in order to make us gods）。把这句话告诉加尔文主义者！没有什么比告诉一位加尔文主义者我们会成为神，更使得他愤慨的。”相反的，有些思想家却更倾向于采用theosis的教义，并将其融入改革宗的架构中。但是，使得改革宗对于theosis的使用与希腊哲学家和东正教的使用不同的，乃是在于改革宗结合了圣礼基督论中素质的特定和基督论中（神与人）的互动，这个特色可以在加尔文和巴刻的著作中看见。凡将圣礼基督论（sacramental christology）和互动的基督论（transactional christology）分割的做法，都会使得theosis被错误的诠释，并被坚持改革宗传统的人士所拒绝。不论如何，这两种基督论被结合成为一个条理分明的完整架构，阐明theosis的真谛，就成为一个具有不可忽视的神学分量和可操作性，并被圣经用来展示福音的观点。若我们能够将改革宗神学重新引导为，教导人在基督的人性中，与基督联合并交流，以有份于神的性情，而有份与祂道成肉身的儿子名分，并在祂里面有份于神的生命和爱，错误的theosis观念就能够被消除。

A staple principle of Reformed theology remains reformata sed simper reformanda. Murphy has sought to nudge the tradition forward by reclaiming aspects of orthodoxy from the past that have been overlooked or misrepresented, in this instance the doctrine of theosis.With Murphy, I want to see this venerable doctrine incorporated into Reformed theology in such a way that the benefits of Christ in all their grand design can be more clearly considered and proclaimed.

改革宗神学根深蒂固的总则仍然是改革，不断的改革（reformata sed simper reformanda）。Murphy已经以一种重新宣告历史中的正统来拥抱传统，却在theosis的教义上面被忽视或误解。我与Murphy都希望看见这个值得尊重的教义被融合入改革宗神学，而导致基督益处之壮丽的设计能够被更清楚的思考并宣告。