In this article I engage with the notion that Christ ought to be understood to have a fallen human nature because Christ sanctifies human nature, and it is fallen humanity that needs sanctifying. In opposition to this line of thought, I argue that the Son of God assumed an unfallen nature, but with the powers of fallenness operative within it, and that this notion is consistent with a distinct account of sanctification. In support of these claims, I develop distinctions between a conjoining union and a transferring union, and between the Chalcedonian union at the incarnation and the extension of that union on the cross. At the assumption a conjoining union occurred, not a transferring union. Christ sanctified his own nature, prior to a transferring union.

中文翻译：

---

假设、联合和成圣：一些澄清的区别

在这篇文章中，我谈到了这样一个概念，即基督应该被理解为具有堕落的人性，因为基督使人性成圣，而堕落的人性需要成圣。与这种思路相反，我认为上帝的儿子具有未堕落的本性，但在其内具有堕落的力量，并且这个概念与成圣的独特描述是一致的。为了支持这些主张，我区分了联合联合和转移联合，以及化身时的迦克顿联合与十字架上该联合的延伸之间的区别。假设发生了联合工会，而不是转移工会。在转移联合之前，基督圣化了自己的本性。