给因为政治因素攻击敌方召会的人士
→ NewCop: 还是依照李的说法，人可以变化为神，所以生命读经是成神 09/03 16:50
→ NewCop: 的李写的？ 09/03 16:50
newcup的政治色彩就不用我说了。
台湾基督教长老教会无疑是【改革宗神学】背景，而其祖宗是约翰加尔文。在此，本人呼
吁相关人等，切莫为了因为政治因素而【不择手段】打压地方召会的时候，把自己的祖宗
也给干掉了！:)
无可否认的,被自己攻击的人用自己的祖宗反击自己,真是一件丢脸的事情.
==========================================
REFORMED THEOSIS? 改革宗的神化教义？
GANNON MURPHY
Theology Today 今日神学
http://ttj.sagepub.com/content/65/2/191
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/004057360806500206
REFORMED THEOSIS?
改革宗的神化教义?
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是美国神学研究（American Theological Inquiry）的主编，威尔斯大学
信仰，理智和道德中心的辅导员。他是《最终的荣耀：一个针对开放神学神-人关系的经
典辩护》一书的作者。
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:传统改革宗的神学家们常常忽视，事实上，改革宗神学中的许多成分与主要由希腊
教父和拜占庭神学所宣导的神化教义有着令人惊讶的相似之处，这个教义被历史上和当代
的东正教思想继续保持一致。在简略的回顾传统改革宗Christus in nobis（“基督住在
我们里面”）的教义后，我提议在传统改革宗神学的范畴中重新思考并重新架构神化教义
，我们不能单单假设它乃是忠实的建立在改革宗神学所要捍卫的圣经救赎论之上，它符合
改革宗的神学和教会文献。事实上，从对于东正教前辈神学家们对于神化教义结构式的调
整，我们可以构思出一个‘改革宗的Theosis’教义。
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.
改革宗学者们因提倡并架构Christus in nobis（“基督住在我们里面”）的神学规范而
扬名于世，这个规范极其丰富地论及奥秘的联合（unio mystica），在其中所有的信徒能
够被诠释为一个仅从圣灵才能获得（unilateral pneumatological）的重生。出乎意料的
，从古至今的改革宗神学家往往忽略了在已经发展完备的改革宗神学架构中，也涵盖主要
在希腊教父和拜占庭神学以及，当然，历史上和今日的东正教所提出的，与神化观念的相
似性。在简要地回顾传统改革宗Christus in nobis的教义后，我提议我们该对圣经所支
持的theosis教义进行重新的评估，且最好将其置于在改革宗的神学架构之内。
Christ in Us 在我们里面的基督
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]
在我们里面的基督（Christus in nobis）和奥秘的联合（unio mystica）是两个唇齿相
依的词。虽然我更倾向于前者，但我会根据情况使用合适的词，它看起来更能够合适的阐
明后者所基于的在（基督）工作中运行的原则。大多数的时候，我交替的使用他们，然而
，我也会特别倾向于选择其中的一个词好明确的在‘机制（mechanism）’和‘结果（
fruit）’间划分出清楚的分界线。与基督联合（Union with Christ）是神-人关系（
divine-human relationality）的真正基础；在我们里面的基督（Christus in nobis）
是以神学为中心。在改革宗神学的历史中，它乃是根据神一丝不苟的护理被提出的单方面
标准。改革宗非常清楚，与基督真实联合的事实对新约的作者们，绝对不是一个次要的观
念。反而，它的重要性绝不低于称义的教义。约翰慕理（John Murry）写到奥秘的联合实
际上就是‘救赎教义的核心真理，不单单是在应用上，也是基督一次完全有功效所完成的
事实。’他还加上，‘救赎的整个过程都起源与与基督联合这句话中，救赎乃是与基督联
合的其他相关教训之完成。。。与基督联合是正救赎论的核心真理。’
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的观念无疑是奥秘的，极其难以被系统化。加尔文确实写到，“这个
与基督与信徒联合的奥秘是人性所无法理会的。”有鉴於哲学化人论本身具有争议的本质
，人很容易根据自己的本性产生误解，并错误地架构其观念，这是今日我们面临的，最根
本的危险。然而近代福音派的改革宗的先行者们，特别是路得和加尔文，花了极大的力气
来确认基督在奥秘联合中，与其位格活动的重要性。路得强调这个联合的活力到一个地步
，他论到那些被认养为神家的人为存有（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）与基督是那么的亲密，以至于祂和你成为就像一个人一样（as it were one
person）。使得你能够因此放胆的说：“我如今与基督是一。故此，基督的公义，得胜和
生命都是我的。”在另一方面，基督也能够说：“我是个大罪人。因为他与我联合，我与
他联合，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:
加尔文，或许比路得还更为激进的强调信徒与基督的联合为一（oneness）。我发现，很
不幸的，甚至连那些精通他神学的人往往也都会忽视这件事。亚伯兰肯普（Abraham
Kuyper）感叹，“虽然加尔文在改教者中可能是最死板的，但是改教者中并没有任何人提
及unio mystica。这个属灵与基督的联合如同祂是如此绵延不绝，那么的柔细，并带着圣
别的火焰。”。加尔文写到，“对于那个头和肢体的联合，就是基督在那个美好和奥秘的
联合中，内住在我们心中。当基督成为我们的时候，我们得到至高无上的地位（we
assigen the highest rank），使我们在祂所曾经忍受的恩典中，成为祂的同伴。因此，
我们不再把祂当作遥远并缺少我们的，我们反披上祂，被接枝到祂的身体里面，祂的俯就
使我们与祂成为一。因此，我们因与祂有公义的交通而得荣。”加尔文进一步发展这个一
（oneness）的说法，说，‘基督的来临，并不是要拖累我们的本性，而是要让我们与祂
合一。’他从基督内住（在我们里面）的联合和法理的两个不同方面，详述这个题目：
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]
我倾向于使用In ipso (在祂里面)这句话，而不是per ipsum（借由祂），因为我认为这
句话更清楚也更有力。我们因在基督里变得富足，就像我们是祂身体的肢体一样；我们也
被接枝到他里面：更有甚者，与祂成为一，祂使我们有份与祂从父领受的一切。
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.
从十六世纪以来，福音派人士和他们的先祖就尝试将圣经的教义系统化，这造成从神学的
角度而言，Christus in nobis这个神学原理在Christus pro nobis(“基督为了我们”)
这个能够起到辩护作用的原理面前，显得黯然失色。Christus pro nobis更明确的描述了
成圣，代死，和称义的教义。这些对于宗教改革宗（Reformation）和宗教改革宗前（
post-Reformation），都是必不可少的，然而在诠释它们的时候，救赎论中联合（
unitive）的层面并没有受到该有的注意力。只不过（总是在讲道中）零碎的被提及，完
全缺乏学术上的处理。这个缺陷也为今日的“开放神论（open theists）”和某些‘准泛
神论（quasi-immanentist）’。近期开放神论的神学家们（open-theistic-sounding
theologians）在一种对于神属性的极端特异的架构中寻找资源，，以拯救神-人关系。他
们并没有察觉到，一个对于奥秘联合更为全面理解，就像神化（theosis）的成分，在没
有牺牲Vincentian对于不可交流之神性理解（包括完全的预知）的前提下，已经存在了许
多世纪。很讽刺的是，他们想要重新塑造整个神论来拯救从未陷入危机的（神论）。
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).
那些用来证明基督与信徒联合教义的经文都提到信徒‘在’基督‘里面’和基督‘在’信
徒‘里面’。我们‘在基督里’（en Christo），‘在祂里面’（en autos）（与‘在祂
里面’相对的，就是，基督在信徒里面（Christ in the believer）），‘进入基督（
into Christ）’（eis Christon），“在主里面”（en kurio），和“在我里面”（en
emoi）。例如，“若有人在基督里[en Christô]，他就是新造的人，旧事已过，都变成
新的了”（林后5:17） 。耶稣宣告，‘吃我肉、喝我血的人常在我里面[en emoi]，我也
常在他里面[en autos]”’（约6:56）。以弗所书宣称，“愿颂赞归与我们主耶稣基督的
父神！他在基督里曾赐给我们天上各样属灵的福气：就如神从创立世界以前，在祂里[en
autos]拣选了我们，使我们在他面前成为圣洁，无有瑕疵”（弗1:3-4）。和，“我们原
是他的工作，在基督耶稣里[en Christos Iesous]造成的，为要叫我们行善，就是神所预
备叫我们行的。”（弗2:10）。歌罗西书说，“这道理就是历世历代所隐藏的奥秘；但如
今向他的圣徒显明了。神愿意叫他们知道，这奥秘在外邦人中有何等丰盛的荣耀，就是基
督在你们心里成了有荣耀的盼望”（歌1:26）。这个奥秘（musterions；直译，“秘密”
）乃是在Chritus in nobis（基督在我们里面）这个原则中，被启示出来。保罗写给加拉
太人，“我已经与基督同钉十字架，现在活着的不再是我，乃是基督在我里面活着”（加
2:20）。在另一处，我们读到基督和教会乃是互为头和身体（弗1：22-23；4：12-16；5
：23-32）。这个‘在。。里面’这个词被大量的用来暗示信徒在其中作神的工。保罗说
，“这样看来，我亲爱的弟兄，你们既是常顺服的，不但我在你们那里，就是我如今不在
你们那里，更是顺服的，就当恐惧战兢做成你们得救的工夫。因为你们立志行事都是神在
你们里面运行，为要成就他的美意。”（腓2:12-13）。耶稣用了一个园艺的图画，就是
葡萄树和枝子，来描述这个奥秘的联合：“你们要常在我里面，我也常在你们里面。枝子
若不常在葡萄树上，自己就不能结果子；你们若不常在我里面，也是这样。我是葡萄树，
你们是枝子。常在我里面的，我也常在他里面，这人就多结果子；因为离了我，你们就不
能做什么”（约翰15:4-5）。耶稣也论到住在信徒之中：“人若爱我，就必遵守我的道；
我父也必爱他，并且我们要到他那里去，与他同住。”（约翰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，即使很难掌握Christus in nobis的原则，它仍完全符合圣经的神学。它是如此的
奥秘，以至于理智的限制保证无法以类推法，甚至否定法的方式（来理解它）。到底什么
事与神是一？肯普（Kuyper）认为，奥秘的联合乃是借由住在我们里面的基督
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]
（这个奥秘的联合）有自己的特性；我们可以将它和其他的联合做比较，却又绝对无法被
它们完全解释。身体和魂的联系已经是够奇妙的了；而圣洗礼和主的晚餐间的联系还要更
奇妙；母亲和儿女的血缘关系也是同样奇妙的，就像葡萄树和它在生长中的枝子；婚姻的
生活也是奇妙的；借由圣灵内住而建立与圣灵的联合远远还要更奇妙。与以马内利联合，
乃是与众不同的。。。这是一个看不见、无法捉摸的联合；耳朵听不到，人的感官也无法
察觉；然而，那个联合和交通是如此的真实，借由主耶稣的生命直接影响并控制我们。如
同还未出生的婴孩依赖母亲的血液而存活，母亲的心跳乃是在婴儿之外，我们同样也依赖
基督—生命（Christ-life），祂的心跳也不在我们的魂里面，而是在我们之外，在上面
的天里面，在耶稣基督里面。
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.
肯普的比较是非常有用的。母亲和婴儿的图画特别能够打动人心。当一个小孩，或一个婴
儿，独自嚎嚎大哭的时候，它是没有人管的，从某个角度而言，可以用海得格尔（
Heideggerian）的话，称作不真实的（inauthentic）。这不代表这个婴儿就不存在了，
或它没有自己独立的位格。而是，它在不和谐（ungrounded in estrangement）中，没有
安全感。它的世界是一个封闭的孤独。然而当母亲来临，婴儿看见她的脸，婴儿的世界就
改变了。婴儿被母亲的世界所包围，在这个意义上，它的世界因为安全感和母亲的安慰而
成了‘真实、有依靠的（authenticated）’，婴儿在它生命的源头或支持者（sustainer
）里面‘生活（subsisit）’。同样的，我们与基督的联系把我们孤独孤立的世界变化成
为一个主是我的世界（Lord is our world）的世界。这个联合虽然借由我们的成圣逐渐
增长（它的属性乃是神，我接下来就会讲到这点）,它无法在此生完成。神的选民被困在
两个世界之间：由无止尽的不和，所代表人的世界，和主的世界，我们的真家乡。
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.
比喻和类比能够丰富的描述union mystica。清教徒的多马士沃森（Thomas Watson）把奥
秘的联合比喻为“基督和信徒的婚姻联合”并建议它的组成乃是双方面的。首先，它构成
了一个所有人类所共用的本性联合（natural union），信徒和非信徒并没有分别。这个
本性的联合基于基督取了我们的人性，这个本性并不是属于天使的范畴（希伯来2:16）。
不论如何，对于沃森（Watson），这个联合不过是一个随机性的事件，不含有任何与基督
产生关系上的联合之意。
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，沃森称之为‘神圣的联合。’沃森相信，借由它，我们被奥秘的联于基督。他承认
‘我们无法描述它是如何做到的。。。我们也无法表明魂如何与身体联合，和基督如何与
魂联合。虽然这个联合时属灵的，它仍是真实的。’很奇妙的是，沃森还加上了这句话，
‘与基督的联合不是位格的（personal）。’看起来，沃森担心若基督在其位格上与我们
联合，这就等同于基督的素质渗透入信徒的位格而导致所有的人都会成为配得敬拜的。沃
森宁愿认为奥秘的联合乃是一个更为客观的名词。首先，这个联合乃是联邦式的（
federal），而不是基于约，就这个意义而言，信徒乃是被基督献上（给神的）。第二，
它也是有效的（effectual），就这个意义而言，基督与相信祂的人有婚姻之约的联合。
从这个角度而言，信徒与祂成为“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.
沃森对于联合的论述大部分都是有帮助的。婚姻之约的比喻当然是属灵的（例如：马太
9:15；路加5:35；约翰3:29；启示21:2），他也恰当的描述了联合中地位（positional）
的性质。我仍担心，沃森对于奥秘联合的处理方式会将其贬低为一个客观的成分（甚至是
法理的（forensic））而缺少了客观和主观的两个方面。沃森称这联合为属灵的，却否认
它是位格的（personal）。当我们思考这个联合的时候，我们无法看见在属灵和位格间的
运作有什么不同，或沃森那个宣告的真实目的。难道基督的灵是非位格的（nonpersonal
）？甚至对于婚姻之约的理解上，为什么这个联合仍然不能被当作是位格的联合，甚至是
深度的（deeply）位格联合？沃森可能只是为了避免这句话中的泛神论，导致基督的位格
和人的位格融合到一个地步，以至于几乎无法分辨。
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.
沃森可能对于基督徒从奥秘联合所行的善工这个观念所产生的后果，缺乏深刻的认识。例
如，那些善工实际上是由神赐给信徒的（弗2:10），也是神在信徒中所行出来的（腓
2:12-13），那么，它们就是三位一体在信徒生命中彰显的结果，而不是起因。除此以外
，这样的善工也能被认为是神给人的奖赏，而这个奖赏和它们的基础乃是从神赐下的恩典
。我坚信沃森是一位真实的基督教信仰诠释者，但是在以法理为主导力量的西方神学环境
之下，尝试了解奥秘的联合是一件困难的工作。
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”:
奥古斯塔斯斯特朗在他的宣告“如同圣灵是父和子联合的基础，祂也神与人联合的基础。
只有借由圣灵，基督才能够将那些爱他，与自己不同（性质）和自由的位格紧紧的联于自
己，”这句话中，令人惊讶的对于我们与基督联合的基础提出了一个在主观和客观并重的
平衡。他进一步用“彼此互相渗透（mutual interpenetration）”将主观的部分串联起
来：
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]
圣经宣告，神的运行形成了一个灵魂与基督的联合，它与神的本质以及神对于所有灵魂的
护理不同。这个联合也不同于以往单单基于结合，怜悯，道德的模仿，或道德影响的联合
。它乃是一个生命的联合，具有最真实的独立性和位格之分别（personal distinctness
），人的灵在其中被基督的灵渗透（interpenetrated）并加力（energized）。这个联合
是无法被理解的，也是不可分解的与祂是一，叫人成为那个以祂为头，被重生，相信祂并
被祂称义之人性的肢体和有份者。
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.
对于斯特朗，作基督徒就是住在基督里面（indwelt by Christ）。其意义远超过“单单
与祂并列或外界的影响。”基督的工作不单单是借由一个外面的仲介执行，而是在被救赎
者的本质之内（within），于他联合。爱神并遵行祂的命令乃是神的灵亲自赐给我们的，
使得领受者倾向于，并被驱动爱神并遵行祂的命令。
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）察觉，就著客观的联合而论，有两个对立的危险。其一
是把这个联合理解为“素质的联合，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。”另一个危险乃是
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]
把奥秘的联合只当做道德的联合或爱与怜悯的联合，就好像老师和学生间的联合是朋友和
朋友间（的关系）。这个联合不是基督生命渗透到信徒里面。不过就是对基督坚定的爱，
对他有一种白白的，朋友间的服务，并预备好接受神国度的资讯。
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.
后者的错误乃是在哲学和自由主义的基础上，无可避免的降低了奥秘的联合的概念。故此
，大部分的亚米念-卫斯理派（Arminian-Wesleyan）的人士就是根据开放神论来思考人对
神的爱，人的意志根据周围环境的变化，自主和自愿的选择是否爱神。这样的爱根本无法
根据正统的神学立场加以解释，事实上，它成为完全以人为中心，也是标准的自然神论（
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.
从改革宗的立场而言，作为彼此不同个体的选民无疑会‘邀请’基督进入与他们的联合中
，这个意志的行为乃是以神的看护和旨意作为主因，使得整个位格倾向于最符合他们起因
的结果。人的介入不论在启动或继续发展的过程中，都不足以构成起因，它不过就是表明
基督起初重生他们的工作乃是一个神迹和起因，并继续于他们成圣的过程中。意志本身从
原先软弱的倾向中被释放出来，并被赐予一个全新的方向。
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