Theology Today

今日神學

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

The online version of this article can be found at:

這篇文章的線上版可以在此處閱讀：

DOI: 10.1177/004057360906500407

Theology Today 2009 65: 489

今日神學 2009.65:489

Myk Habets

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

“改革宗的神化教義”：對於Gannon Murphy的回應

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?”

“改革宗的神化教義？”

A Response to Gannon Murphy

對於Gannon Murphy的回應

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.

任何在近代神學中嘗試從正統的角度宣告“偉大傳統”之嘗試，都該得到我們的掌聲。從這個角度而言，Gannon Muyphy激發了圍繞着東正教觀念中的theosis（譯者：即‘神化’）和近代改革宗神學間的兼容性，扎紮實實的服侍教會。即使我曾與他爭論這個題目，我仍是與Murphy並肩站立的弟兄。不論如何，我們仍對於如何更好的將theosis和改革宗思想融合有不同的看法。在這篇論文中，我將指出Murphy和我都認同的重點，並討論某些我不同意Murphy建議的幾個方面，最後提供一個我認為改革宗神學和theosis如何得以兼容的簡要回饋。在論文的一開始，我要先肯定與Murhpy都認可的重點，好讓讀者清楚，即使我們間存在者分歧，但是我們更是一同分享共同的看法。

Points of Agreement 認同的重點

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的教義有一個非常顯赫的歷史，從古代的世界，藉由聖經，古教會，中古世紀的爭論，拜占庭神學，知道今日的東正教。從早期教會直到今日，Theosis在西方教會的神學中雖然不是那麼顯赫，但從沒有銷聲匿跡。在某些改革宗的材料中，theosis的教義一般都被歸類在有份，與基督聯合，交通，成聖和互相交換這樣的用詞之下。在這種包裝下，theosis的觀念才能夠變得比較容易被接受。只有在最近，當‘有份（participation）’和‘theosis’這樣的用詞變得凸出後，改革宗的神學家們才開始把他們的注意力轉向後者，並視後者為一個獨立的教義。他們現在也開始為theosis是否能被改革宗的觀點兼容而選擇自己的立場。

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提出了一個令人信服的案例，就是theosis的教義“與改革宗神學的架構最為相符的”（192）。我衷心贊同這個觀點。為了加強這個宣告，他查考了Christus in nobis（Christ in us，在我們裡面的基督）和unio mystica（mystical union with Christ，與基督奧秘的聯合）之教義，作為傳統的例證。從加爾文至今日，許多改革宗神學家都認為與基督聯合乃是改革宗神學的核心。三個不同卻又是彼此緊緊相連的‘聯合’出現並貫穿了加爾文的神學。第一個乃是道成肉身的聯合（incarnational union）；第二個，unio mystica；第三個，屬靈的聯合（spiritual union）。當我們不一定一定要遵循加爾文嚴謹用詞的同時，他嘗試表達改革宗思想的標籤被深深的埋在與基督聯合實際的深處。因着充分理解這個觀點，Murphy主張theosis的教義能夠非常自然的被理解為unio mystica的一個方面。

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.

當Murphy積極地展現好幾個已經在過去被沃森（Watson），伯克富（Berkhof），和斯特朗（Strong）這些大師所檢視過的，關於unio mystica的不同方面之時，他並沒有探討位格聯合（hypostatic union）的角色，雖然我們肯定他必會認可以下的論點。與基督的聯合（Union with Christ）乃是一個在救贖論與基督論間所產生的位格的聯合的觀念。這使得位格的聯合與奧秘的聯合成為密不可分的（不同但不可分割—distinct but inseparable）。只有藉由道成肉身才能將人類與祂的兒子聯合，好叫他們能夠在基督里享受救贖的益處。我們只能夠藉由在聖靈中運作的信，通過子基督接觸父。加爾文特別講稱義作為與基督的聯合之益處，以排除任何任何外在的，對於稱義或與神和好的觀念。藉由在基督中有份，我們領受了救贖所有的益處，包括基督的公義。加爾文堅持稱義法理的本質，但是也同樣堅持我們的被稱義，乃是我們與基督聯合的結果。他寫到，“你們可以看見，我們的公義並不是在我們裡面，乃是在基督里，乃是因為我們在基督里有份而擁有了它；確實，我們帶着他而擁有了祂一切的豐富。”theosis和改革宗稱義的教義以這種方可以被認為是乳水交融的。我建議Murphy進一步將他對於theosis核心觀念的理解，延伸到加爾文所描述之‘聯合’的三個方面。以下，我會提出更多的建議。

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也在兼容的視野強烈的標明神恩獨作。他用這個方式寫到，“改革宗的救贖論避免了人是獨立的這種軟弱的教義”（199）。Murphy以此避免了以眾人所知，東正教內部對於救贖的神人合作論的教導，捍衛theosis的教義。我要再次衷心的同意這個論點。不論如何，為了更進一步加強這個論點，我提議當訴諸於耶穌基督得勝的人性。作為從基督得勝的人性所延伸出來之Homoousion（同質）和位格聯合教義的直接結果，基督因此成為末後的亞當和新人。人類都是在本質上聯於祂，在祂裡面眾人都必須有份於祂，好叫與神的交通得以完成。首先，Theosis的工作乃是神在耶穌基督裡面的工作—更正確的說，是Theopoiesis(成聖，譯者：即theosis的另一個翻譯，divinization)—只有如此，某些特定的人類才能夠得到這個實際。這個就是卡爾巴刻的一個中心思想之應用，也就是說，在耶穌基督里，神原始的抉擇完全是為着我們的。

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).

一個更着重與耶穌基督得勝人性的觀點也能夠支持Murphy捍衛改革宗theosis教義，並避免使其暗示任何的泛神論的可能。Murphy正確的指出，在theosis中人並不會變成神格，而仍然只是一個人。改革宗的theosis教義可以定位在被造中有一個神直接的顯現，和被造能夠真實的在神中有份。不論如何，神與人絕對不能被混亂或混合成為一體。這能夠在改革宗基於koinonia（communion，交通）而發展出來的theosis教義，和希臘哲學基於methexis（mixture of being，存有的混合）所發展的“divinization（神聖化，即神化）”的觀念間，保持一個區分。

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並不是如同常人說認為的，不過就是人類的‘神聖化（divinization）’或‘神化（deification）’，而是我們在那個具有活力的，為了在耶穌基督獨一位格中神性和人性的互動中，重新創造我們所失去的人性。藉由它，我們得以進入神那個在三個位格間（intra-trinitarian）的生命之三重（triune）交通中。就像一位改革宗神學家所說的，“我們在基督里的‘神化’乃是與祂‘人化的過程（inhominization）’相對應的。”這就使得在改革宗思想中的theosis能夠在其他的神化或神聖化教義中，顯得與眾不同。

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.

藉由這個方式，我們能夠在道成肉身的基督（位格的聯合）和我們藉由和好的互相交換（reconciling exchange），以及在基督中有份於祂之中，確認神和被造的不同。Theosis乃是三一神在恩典中的工作，使人類的位格能夠有份於神性。從技術上而言，它能夠被認為是在三一神的交通（Triune communion）中有份，或perichoresis（譯者：互相滲透，神學中對於三一神‘有分別卻不是分開的’另一種描述方式）。藉由與耶穌基督這位神人（the God-man）聯合，我們被連於祂那個被神化的人性（divinized humanity），藉由那個關係，我們就能夠享受與神的交通。道成肉身的目的就是要我們能夠在耶穌基督中被聚集，並被包括在祂在父前的自我顯現（self-presentation）中，在那個關係中，得以有份於神性。

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與我在他對於‘神化關係的手段（means of theotic relationality）’的討論中，最後一個共同認可的部分。Theosis主要在道，聖禮和禱告為主的手段中，theosis的祝福就得以成就。我認為對於任何關於theosis的討論中，提及theosis如何在我們今日的職事，敬拜，末後的復活，以及在末世被更豐滿的敬拜中被完成是非常重要的。這並不是認可或不認可Murphy，而是我察覺在他的討論中，關乎theosis最後這幾個方面都被忽略了。對於unio mystica，基於神恩獨作對救贖的理解，以及‘神化關係的手段’這些方面，我完全贊同Murphy對於勾勒改革宗theosis教義的嘗試，即使在其內容中還有需要加強的部分。

Points of Disagreement 不同意的觀點

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.

雖然我基本上同意Murphy的論點，但某些重點仍然是我所無法認可的。特別是兩個方面：Murphy對於東正教關於神的素質（essence）和能力（energies）所採取的接納態度，以及他決定主要把theosis至於成聖的核心之中。我認為頭一點完全與改革宗神學無法相容；第二點更是在架構theosis時致命的錯誤。我會簡要的解釋其原因。

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.

改革宗神學的基本原則乃是，我們必須通過神在祂工作中的所是，來認識祂。神的所是在祂對我們啟示的道和救贖的工作中，被啟示出來。藉由基督和聖靈，我們被賜予通往祂的管道，就如同祂在自己裡面一樣。這個通往神的管道包括了對於神之所是的知識，就如同祂（基督）在祂（父）裡面，和在祂作為父、子和聖靈的內在關係中一樣。有鑑於此，耶穌基督在本質和行動上，都是與神同質（homoousios）的。在這個基督與神是一（oneness）的堅持之上的邏輯步奏，是為了將同質（homoousion）應用到整個三位一體身上，並用這個啟發性的工具來描述經綸的三一（Economic Trinity）和內在的三一（Immanent Trinity）之間的那種本體的關係。神在基督里向我們所啟示的就是對於祂之所是的自我啟示（self revelation）。聖靈乃是另一位保惠師（other Paraclete），基督差遣了祂以代替自己盡職。在祂（聖靈）與基督之所是和行動的同質（homoousion）中，聖靈就是基督的另一個自我（Spirit is Christ's other self），經由祂在我們裡面的同在，基督也向我們顯現。那位外在（ad extra）行動的神，乃是在我們裡面（in se）的神。這乃是根據互相滲透（Perichoresis）的觀念。

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.

因為在在所是和行動中，基督與神間的一（oneness），救贖，知識和theosis都是可能的。在這些益處能夠應用在人類身上之前，它們都先在中保，耶穌基督的位格上成為事實。故此，同質（homoousion）成為位格聯合的必要條件，就是神和人類在子位格中的交通所成為的範例。撇開在改革宗傳統中，神和人間的那種根本性的不同，我們已經看見在兩者間仍然有真實交流的空間。這就是theosis所產生的結果，人類經由子借着聖靈在神的存有中有份。

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接着如同我一樣，訴諸於亞他那修，以支持他的論點。亞他那修清楚的看見了在素質中的道（enousios logos）和素質中的能力（enousiao energeia）間的不同。在素質中的道（enousios logos）指的是在神的本質（Ousia）或所是（being）中所固有的道/理智（Word/Reason）；素質中的能力（enousiao energeia）指的是在神的本質（Ousia）或所是（being）中所固有之能力的活動或運作。神的道乃是在永恆，在祂自己的所是中所固有的，道也已經在耶穌基督里成為肉身。藉由耶穌基督我們能夠進入神的所是，並進入神的智慧，或道之中。同樣的，若神的能力（energeia）或‘行動（act）’住在祂的所是中，那麼那個行動乃是在耶穌基督在道成肉身中的樣式里所施行的，好讓祂與神的行動完全是一。那麼我們能夠根據祂所是中的行動來認識神，這與祂向我們揭示祂的自己之行動乃是完全一致的。因着這緣故，我們必須拒絕東正教對於神的素質和能力間所做的區別。在基督耶穌里，神之所是和行動的合一性不允許這種分別的存在。

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.

這會產生兩種重要的暗示：第一，神作為道（logos）的存有意指神的存有乃是一個說出來的存有（speaking being）。所以，在祂寂靜的存在中不可能何認識神，因為除了祂的道外，沒有這樣的一位神（故此，就能夠拒絕拉丁神秘主義的原則）。第二，神的能力（energeia）存在於祂的所是之中，這就意味着神的所是在祂的行動中，祂的行動也是在祂的所是中（故此，拒絕了東方否定神學- apophaticism的原則）。其結果自然就是，東方教父神學家們所謂的theosis根本就是自我是同質之神經由基督，在祂的靈裡面，並在其本質中將自己給了人類。

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，我們就能夠看見改革宗神學和東正教間的一個根本性不同。同質（homoousion）代表神不單單是藉由祂那個非位格的能力（energeia）啟示了自己，而是藉由祂具有位格的素質，以一種非常真實的方式啟示自己：在道成肉身中，祂在恩典中賜下了自己。不像帕拉瑪派（Palamite）的神化（divinization，譯者：其實divinization和theosis是同一個意思。作者特意使用這個詞，以便於將錯誤的神化教義和正統的theosis分割。這點請讀者注意），theosis對於尼西亞神學家們代表着在聖靈中，經由基督而有的交通。我們必須繼續堅持，在基督里我們就能夠在神裡面有份。當這個在神裡面的有份具有被造之物的限制性，並超越我們所求所想的時候，它就具有了否定神學的特徵，這並不代表在神不可知的素質（essentia）--神的所是，和祂非位格的能力（energeia）--祂的行動（act），之間，必然有所不同，如同在東正教所相信的一樣。事實上，我們可以肯定的否定它。這種東正教的理解實際上消弱了theosis的教義。它也把神的行動消減為某種啟示祂之所是之外的東西，故此，把基督和聖靈降為神的中間人，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.

一個改革宗的theosis教義指向一個本體的，而不是超自然的抽象聯合。一個超自然的抽象聯合是潛伏在泛神論觀念中的想法，想像信徒被溶解於神性素質之中，導致他或她不再成為一個獨立存在的個體。建構一個改革宗對於theosis的理解，我們就能夠說人類能夠在神性中有份，但是這完全是一個對於三位一體之關係的位格和關係上的經歷。所以，在三位一體的經綸（economic）和本體（ontological）這兩面間的不同，比起東正教使用的神學（theologia）和經綸（oikonomia）有着不同的精妙之處。我們就能夠堅信在子和聖靈裡面，人可以近前來看、聽、並認識神在自己裡面的所是，但人以被造之物的方式，來看見，聽見並認識對於神之奧秘的啟示。這就應驗了古代諺語，Deus simper maior (“神總是更偉大的”)。拒絕東正教素質--能力（essence-energies）的分別，而採用改革宗的經綸--內在（economic-immanent）的分別，能夠允許我們同時確認在聖靈中、藉由道成肉身的子中對神的可知性，以及在靜默中跪下，以敬拜並崇拜那位永遠超過我們理會的那位。

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.

第二個分歧點乃是在於theosis的正確上下文必須在救贖的順序（ordo salutis—order of salvation）中占有一席之地。西方的神學家們總是希望從成聖的方面為theosis的教義尋找界限，並希望以此捍衛稱義的教義。當Murphy看見theosis乃是一個全人的變化，他對於—重生（起始的theosis），神聖化（漸進的theosis）和榮化（終極的theosis）--主觀方面的表面限制看起來也像在遵循Ordo同樣的模式。從theosis在各神學傳統中的歷史發展來看，theosis已經被視為完全被ordo salutis所涵蓋，以至於它成為完整描述救贖的一種方式。將theosis限制在ordo的主觀的方面，就會消弱了聖經對於救贖完整的觀念，它同時包含稱義和成聖。它也會造成分割基督位格和工作的危險，並落入一種我們非常熟悉的改革宗觀念，就是稱義乃是從全能的父而來的一種法律宣告，並促成一種法律上的行動。甚至像加爾文這樣改革宗的神學家也不會將稱義從成聖分割出來，而使得前者成為外在和法理的，後者正常內在與漸進的。這並不是建議這個觀念就是Murphy的動機，而是要指出這種方式可能造成的潛在風險。

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.

為了更於我們前面論及關於unio mystica的段落一致，我們就需要不在把赦免當作一個饒恕的用詞，而是藉由釘十字架和復活，藉由審判和重造（re-creation），（神的）道被轉化到我們存有中。這就是說，一個罪人如今被賜予站在神面前的權利，並成為聖潔的--也就是說，被稱義了。這個信徒在基督里，甚至就是聖潔的。赦免與稱義緊緊相關，能夠被我們這些信徒，以互相滲透之與基督聯合的方式所經歷，在其中我們因為有份於基督，能夠有份於基督救贖一切的益處。稱義是在基督中一個持續不斷的動作，我們在其中不斷的被潔淨，赦免，聖別，更新，並成為公義。這並不是暗示這個過程在此生中會完成。乃是否認人的身體會在末世（eschaton）、在國度（parousia）中復活。根據上下文，在基督--身體的頭之復活，和祂身體之肢體的復活間，有一個時間的落差。然而在聖靈的能力裡面，我們能夠擁有與神真實的交通。這是藉由在今日復活的基督，嘗到來世。當theosis與稱義有個的時候，它就是稱義那個有效或漸進的方面。這允許我們在稱義上，根據法理將罪歸於基督。這在改革宗對於稱義的理解上，以及在聖經中對於稱義教義的涵蓋面，是極其重要的。將theosis引入改革宗的救贖論（soteriology）能夠將稱義（articulus iustificationis）的教義從改革宗的中心位置上挪開，並以與基督聯合的教義代替其位置。藉由與基督聯合的教義涌流出救贖一切的祝福，包括稱義和成聖。

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.

改革宗救贖論吸收theosis的結果就是，救贖不再會被認為只是從罪，遠離神，和神的敵意中得到拯救，雖然它們明顯都是聖經救贖論的組成部分。反而，聯合，交通和有份就能夠以一種更有意義的方式被結合成為一個整體。一個對於律法追朔效力的中心（retrospective focus），被另一個具有盼望的中心（prospective focus）所代替，但卻不會失去前者的優點。就是最終的目標不再只是為了平息憤怒之神的怒氣，而是經由子，借着聖靈而能夠在神的生命中有份。審判罪和罪人的稱義仍然是需要的，但是它並不會停止在此處。在以theosis為中心的救贖論是在位格聯合中的道成肉身所完成的。也是從這個角度而言，應當成為改革宗的救贖論所強調的重點。

Widening the Dialogue 促進對話

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. 

好幾位傑出的改革宗思想家已經公開的表態拒絕theosis的教義。在他的屬靈回憶錄中，Lewis Smedes宣稱，“[亞他那修]以不斷的強調同一個論點來支持他的看法：基督必然是神才能使我們成為神（Jesus had to be God in order to make us gods）。把這句話告訴加爾文主義者！沒有什麼比告訴一位加爾文主義者我們會成為神，更使得他憤慨的。”相反的，有些思想家卻更傾向於採用theosis的教義，並將其融入改革宗的架構中。但是，使得改革宗對於theosis的使用與希臘哲學家和東正教的使用不同的，乃是在於改革宗結合了聖禮基督論中素質的特定和基督論中（神與人）的互動，這個特色可以在加爾文和巴刻的著作中看見。凡將聖禮基督論（sacramental christology）和互動的基督論（transactional christology）分割的做法，都會使得theosis被錯誤的詮釋，並被堅持改革宗傳統的人士所拒絕。不論如何，這兩種基督論被結合成為一個條理分明的完整架構，闡明theosis的真諦，就成為一個具有不可忽視的神學分量和可操作性，並被聖經用來展示福音的觀點。若我們能夠將改革宗神學重新引導為，教導人在基督的人性中，與基督聯合併交流，以有份於神的性情，而有份與祂道成肉身的兒子名分，並在祂裡面有份於神的生命和愛，錯誤的theosis觀念就能夠被消除。

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.

改革宗神學根深蒂固的總則仍然是改革，不斷的改革（reformata sed simper reformanda）。Murphy已經以一種重新宣告歷史中的正統來擁抱傳統，卻在theosis的教義上面被忽視或誤解。我與Murphy都希望看見這個值得尊重的教義被融合入改革宗神學，而導致基督益處之壯麗的設計能夠被更清楚的思考並宣告。