給因為政治因素攻擊敵方召會的人士
→ NewCop: 還是依照李的說法，人可以變化為神，所以生命讀經是成神 09/03 16:50
→ NewCop: 的李寫的？ 09/03 16:50
newcup的政治色彩就不用我說了。
臺灣基督教長老教會無疑是【改革宗神學】背景，而其祖宗是約翰加爾文。在此，本人呼
籲相關人等，切莫為了因為政治因素而【不擇手段】打壓地方召會的時候，把自己的祖宗
也給幹掉了！:)
無可否認的,被自己攻擊的人用自己的祖宗反擊自己,真是一件丟臉的事情.
==========================================
REFORMED THEOSIS? 改革宗的神化教義？
GANNON MURPHY
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
REFORMED THEOSIS?
改革宗的神化教義?
Gannon Murphy is general editor of American Theological Inquiry and tutor in
the Centre for Faith, Reason, and Ethics at the University of Wales. He is
author of Consuming Glory: A Classical Defense of Divine-Human Relationality
Against Open Theism.
Gannon Murphy是美國神學研究（American Theological Inquiry）的主編，威爾斯大學
信仰，理智和道德中心的輔導員。他是《最終的榮耀：一個針對開放神學神-人關係的經
典辯護》一書的作者。
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宣導的神化教義有著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
我們裏面”）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.[1] 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（“基督住在我們裏面”）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 在我們裏面的基督
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.”[2] 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.” [3]
在我們裏面的基督（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；在我們裏面的基督（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.”[4] 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。”有鑒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.”[5]
（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.[6] 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.”[7] 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.”[8] 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.”[9] 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）感歎，“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，並帶著聖
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，被接枝到祂的身體裏面，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（在我們裏面）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.[10]
我傾向於使用In ipso (在祂裏面)這句話，而不是per ipsum（借由祂），因為我認為這
句話更清楚也更有力。我們因在基督裏變得富足，就像我們是祂身體的肢體一樣；我們也
被接枝到他裏面：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.[11] 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).[12] 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‘裏面’和基督‘在’信
徒‘裏面’。我們‘在基督裏’（en Christo），‘在祂裏面’（en autos）（與‘在祂
裏面’相對的，就是，基督在信徒裏面（Christ in the believer）），‘進入基督（
into Christ）’（eis Christon），“在主裏面”（en kurio），和“在我裏面”（en
emoi）。例如，“若有人在基督裏[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、喝我血的人常在我裏面[en emoi]，我也
常在他裏面[en autos]”’（約6:56）。以弗所書宣稱，“願頌贊歸與我們主耶穌基督的
父神！他在基督裏曾賜給我們天上各樣屬靈的福氣：就如神從創立世界以前，在祂裏[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，在基督耶穌裏[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，“這道理就是曆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
督在你們心裏成了有榮耀的盼望”（歌1:26）。這個奧秘（musterions；直譯，“秘密”
）乃是在Chritus in nobis（基督在我們裏面）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，乃是基督在我裏面活著”（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。。裏面’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，不但我在你們那裏，就是我如今不在
你們那裏，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
你們裏面運行，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：“你們要常在我裏面，我也常在你們裏面。枝子
若不常在葡萄樹上，自己就不能結果子；你們若不常在我裏面，也是這樣。我是葡萄樹，
你們是枝子。常在我裏面的，我也常在他裏面，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，並且我們要到他那裏去，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，奧秘的聯合乃是借由住在我們裏面的基督
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.[13]
（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；借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，借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裏面，而是在我們之外，在上面
的天裏面，在耶穌基督裏面。
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.[14] 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
）裏面‘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。這個聯合雖然借由我們的成聖逐漸
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.[15] 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用的本性聯合（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.”[16] Oddly, Watson adds the statement that
this “union with Christ is not personal.”[17] 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.[18] 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，借由它，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，嘗試瞭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.”[19] 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。
只有借由聖靈，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.[20]
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.”[21] 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裏面（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借由一個外面的仲介執行，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.”[22] The other
is to
路易斯伯克富（Louis Berkhof）察覺，就著客觀的聯合而論，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.[23]
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裏面。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資訊。
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