Scottish Journal of Theology 55,no. 1 (2002): 36-57.

The greatest possible blessing: Calvin and Deification

我們可能獲得最大的祝福：加爾文和神化

By Carl Mosser

St Mary's College, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JU, Scotland, UK cm54@st-andrews.ac.uk

聖瑪利亞學院，聖安德魯大學，聖安德魯 KY16 9JU，蘇格蘭，聯合王國

Abstract 摘要

Many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology. Recent scholarship, however, identities deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, early Anglicanism, early Methodism and Jonathan Edwards - all fountainheads of Western theology. This article contends that deification is also present in Calvin's theology. It is not a prominent theme in its own right and some of the bolder patristic terminology is not employed. Nonetheless, the concept and imagery of deification regularly appear on stage while other doctrines are explicated. For Calvin, deification is the eschatological goal and blessing greater than which nothing can be imagined.

許多人假設教父教導的神化教義不存在於教父後的西方神學主流中。近期的研究表明，在奧古斯丁、阿奎那、路得、早期的英國國教主義、早期的遁道主義和約拿森愛德華（Jonathan Edwards）--在這些西方神學的源頭中，都能夠找到神化的教義。本文主張神化也出現在加爾文的神學之中。它不是加爾文神學的主軸，也缺少教父們所使用的詞彙。即便如此，在詮釋其他的教義之時，神化的觀念有規律的出現在（加爾文神學的）舞台之上。對於加爾文，神化乃是救贖的目標和祝福，我們無法想像出還有什麼事情會能夠比它還更偉大。

Introduction 介言

To Western ears unaccustomed to its bold terminology theosis, usually associated with patristic and Eastern Orthodox writers, can sound blasphemous. Theosis is described under a number of theological rubrics. These include adoption to divine sonship, participation in God, sharing of divine life, impartation of immortality, restoration of the imago dei, glorification, and consummation of the marriage between Christ and the Church. Succinctly, theosis is for believers to become by grace what the Son of God is by nature and to receive the blessings that are his by right as undeserved gifts. Most boldly, theosis is described as a transforming union of the believer with God and Christ usually, if inadequately, translated as `divinization' or `deifcation'. The goal of salvation is for the believer to be `in-godded' and thereby made a `god'.

西方學者的耳朵不太能夠適應神化（Theosis）這個大膽的詞彙，總是將其聯繫於古教父和東正教的作者，並覺得聽起來是褻瀆神的。神化也被描述為不同的神學題目。包括被認養而得到神兒子的名分，有份於神，有份於神聖的生命，被注入不朽（immortality），重建人裡面神的形像（imago dei），榮化（glorification），和基督與教會連理的最終結果。簡單的說，神化對於信徒而言，乃是藉由恩典成為神兒子性質之所是，並領受那些他原不配得着的恩典，作為理所當得的祝福。神化通常更被大膽的描述為，一個信徒與神和基督的，在變化中的聯合，有時候，也被不恰當的被翻譯為‘divinization（聖化）’或‘deification（即神化）。’救贖的目的乃是要信徒成為‘在神裡面的（in-godded）’，故而成為‘神（god）’。

Until recently most scholars have assumed that after the patristic period deification is foreign to Western Christianity except in medieval mysticism and unorthodox sects. It has even been claimed that deification is antithetical to the contents and methods of Western theology. There are several reasons for these widespread assumptions. One is that it has been commonplace for Orthodox polemicists to assert that deification is absent in the West because of its alleged incompatibility with Augustinian theology and scholasticism. Another is the influence Adolph von Harnack has had upon several generations of scholars. Harnack viewed deification as a prime example of the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy upon Eastern Christianity. He grudgingly admitted that Augustine had at one point taught deification. But he also claimed that it was Augustine who brought the doctrine `to an edifying end' in the West.

直到近日，大部分的學者都認為在古教父時期後，除了在中古世紀的神秘主義和某些不正統的教派中，神化對於西方神學是一種異類的教導。西方的神學甚至宣稱神化乃是具有傷害性的（教義）。這種普遍的假設是建立在幾個理由之上。其一乃是，他們都堅信對於正統的神學辯證法而言，因為神化無法與奧古斯丁神學和經院神學相容，而被排除在西方神學之外。另一個原因乃是，極具影響力的Adolp von Harnack以及幾代學者們共有的看法。Harnack視神化為希臘哲學腐蝕東方基督教的主要範例。他被迫承認奧古斯丁確實一度教導神化的教義。但是他也宣稱，也是奧古斯丁為此教義在西方畫上了終止符。

Yet as far as I am aware, no major Western theologian has ever repudiated the patristic concept of deification. More significantly, a fact increasingly recognized by recent scholarship is that Augustine did not bring deification to an end in the West. It is now clear that deification played an important role in Augustine's theology, including his mature theology. It is also found in Aquinas, the paradigmatic scholastic theologian.  Finnish Lutherans have made the most startling discovery of deification in the West, at least to Harnack's theological heirs. The Finns have discovered deification in Luther. They have proposed some controversial reinterpretations of Luther's theology. But controversy aside, the Finns have brought to our attention unambiguous statements making it incontrovertible that Luther affirmed deification. Deification is also found in early Anglicanism, early Methodism (both Arminian and Calvinistic), in the writings of Jonathan Edwards, and in the works of the eminent Baptist theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong. In the mid-twentieth century the ever popular Anglican writer C. S. Lewis affirmed the doctrine. Increasingly contemporary theologians are recovering and utilizing the ancient notion of theosis. Perhaps surprising to some, a number of evangelicals from differing confessional backgrounds are among them. Noticeably absent from the list is John Calvin. It is very difficult to find secondary literature that discusses, however brietly, Calvin's acceptance or rejection of deification. F. W. Norris's assumption is typical of the rare comments one finds: `John Calvin seems to have avoided teaching deification or not known of it.' I will argue that Calvin knew about and affirmed the deification of believers. Though not a prominent theme in its own right, deificatory language and imagery can be found at many points of Calvin's theology.

然而，根據我所知道的，沒有任何主要的西方神學家拒絕或否認教父對於神化的觀念。更重要的事實是，越來越多近代的學者發覺奧古斯丁並沒有終結西方神化的教義。明顯的，神化的教義反而在奧古斯丁的神學中占有一個凸出的地位，包括他成熟後的神學。它也能在阿奎那，這位經院神學的代表神學家的神學中被發現。Harnack的神學繼承人-芬蘭路德會提出了對於神化教義在西方神學中最令人震驚的發現。芬蘭學者在路得的神學中發現了神化的教義。他們提出了引起爭議的，對於路得神學的重新詮釋。若我們先擱置爭議的部分，芬蘭學者們把我們的注意力轉向了無可否認，路得肯定神化教義的明確教訓之上。神化也出現在英國國教和早期的衛理公會（包括亞米念和加爾文主義雙方），約拿森愛德華的作品中，以及著名的浸信會神學家斯特郎（Augustus Hopkins Strong）的著作中。在二十世紀重要，非常著名的英國國教作者魯易士（C. S. Lewis）也肯定了這個教義。越來越多的當代神學家們在重新發掘並運用古代對於神化的理解。或許，許多人士會驚訝於，他們也包括了一批從不同信仰背景而來的福音派人士。但是，最令人注目的乃是約翰加爾文並不在這個名單裡面，甚至根本找不到他接受，或肯定神化教義的文章。F. W. Norris的評論是鮮有的：‘約翰加爾文看起來在避免教導神化，或根本就不知道它。’我將強烈主張，加爾文不但知道，並肯定信徒的神化。雖然它並不是一個突出的主題，但是我們還是可以在加爾文神學中多處，看見神化的用詞和描述。

Four primary proof-texts for deification dominate patristic and Orthodox discussions: 2 Peter 1:4, Ps 82:6/John 10:34-5, 1 John 3:2 and John 17. I will begin by examining Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 since there Calvin is most explicit. I will then illustrate the presence of deification language and imagery in various parts of Calvin's soteriology, eschatology and Trinitarianism. Calvin's commentary on John 17 will be discussed in the course of this. Additional evidence for Calvin's view will then be adduced from his debates with the `half-papists' and Andreas Osiander. Calvin's explicit rejection of erroneous concepts of deification will further clarify what he believed and did not believe. Calvin's interpretation of Ps 82:6/John 10:34-5 will be reserved for last. It will be shown that Calvin diverged from the patristic interpretation of these verses. But, partly on the basis of 1 John 3:2, he would not have found the bold language patristic writers used these verses to support inappropriate - if properly understood.

四處主導教父和東正教對於神化討論的經文是：彼後1：4，彼得82：6/約翰10：34-5，約壹3：2，約翰17。我會先開始檢視加爾文對彼後1：4的注釋，因為該處代表加爾文對該教義最清晰的解釋。我接着會從加爾文的救贖論，末世論和三位一體論不同的部分，展示其神化用語和描述。加爾文對於約翰17章的注釋也會在這個過程中被討論。加爾文的其他觀點，以及他和Andreas Osiander關於‘半教皇主義（half-papists）’的辯論，也會被用來作為證據。加爾文明確拒絕錯誤的神化觀念，並進一步的澄清他相信什麼和他不相信什麼。加爾文對於詩篇82：6/約翰10：34-5的注釋會被留到最後。它將表明，加爾文偏離了教父們對於這些經文的詮釋。但是，在一定成度上，根據約壹3：2，他並不會使用教父們在這些經文上使用的大膽語言來支持不合適的教訓—若我們能夠正確的了解他。

Deification: the greatest possible blessing 神化：我們所能獲得最偉大的祝福

2 Peter 1:4 claims that because of divine promises believers `may become partakers of the divine nature'. Commenting on the first half of 2 Peter 1:4 Calvin notes that `the promises of God are to be given the highest possible value, and that they are free, because they are offered to us as gifts'. The excellency of the promises `arises from the fact that they make us partakers of the divine nature'. Calvin immediately identifies partaking of the divine nature as that `than which nothing more outstanding can be imagined' [quo nihil praestantius cogitari potest]. This phrase is a clear adaptation of Anselm's definition of God as `that than which nothing greater can be conceived' [quo nihil maius cogitari potest]. Calvin's implicit reasoning is that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, i.e. the greatest possible being. Therefore, partaking of his divine nature is that blessing than which nothing more excellent can be conceived; i.e. the greatest possible blessing.

彼後1：4宣稱，因為神的應許，信徒‘能夠成為神性的分享者（may become partakers of the divine nature）。’在注釋彼後1：4的前半節的時候，加爾文注意到，‘神的應許乃是帶着一個最高的價值被賜給我們，它們也是白白的，因為它們被當作恩典（或禮物）賜給我們。’這些應許最超絕的地方乃是‘使我們成為神性的分享者這事實。’加爾文立刻指出有份於神性乃是‘遠超我們所求所想的’ [quo nihil praestantius cogitari potest]。這句話明確的採用了安色倫對於神的定義，‘乃是遠超過我們所能想像的’[quo nihil maius cogitari potest]。加爾文未言明的理由乃是，神是我們無法想像的，例如，最偉大的存有。故此，有份於祂的神性就是一個超越我們一切想像的祝福，例如，最偉大的祝福。

With classic theosis language Calvin interprets the meaning of the phrase `partakers of the divine nature' in terms of being raised up to God and united with him. He writes: `We must take into account whence it is that God raises us to such a peak of honour. We know how worthless is the condition of our nature, and the fact that God makes Himself ours so that all His possessions become in a sense ours is a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp.'Contemplation of this `ought to give us abundant cause to renounce the world entirely and be borne aloft to heaven'. Calvin then boldly states: `We should notice that it is the purpose of the Gospel to make us sooner or later like [conformes] God; indeed it is, so to speak, a kind of deification [quasi deificari].' The older translation conveys the boldness of the thought more adequately: `Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.' In concert with the patristic writers Calvin views the believer's partaking of the divine nature as a kind of deification. 

加爾文用傳統神化的語言將‘有份於神性’詮釋為，一個人被提高到神並與神聯合。他寫到：‘我們必須考慮神把我們提升到那麼榮耀的高度。我們就知道我們的境況是如何的低賤，而神讓祂自己成為我們的，好從某種意義而言，叫祂所有的一切成為我們的，這個恩典的深廣乃是我們的思想從未能夠掌握的。’了解這個後‘就能夠給我們足夠的理由來完全拒絕世界，並把我們帶到天上。’加爾文接下來就放膽宣告：‘我們需要注意，福音的目的就是要使得我們立刻或在未來[被模成]像神；實際上，也能夠說，是某種的神化[quasi deificari]。’舊的翻譯更能夠正確的表達這個想法的大膽之處：‘讓我們指出，福音的終結就是讓我們最終能夠被模成像神，或者我們能夠說，神化我們。’加爾文於古教父們一致，將信徒有份於神性視為某種的神化。

The language and imagery of theosis throughout Calvin's theology 加爾文神學中神化的語言和描述

Imago dei 神的形像

Deification is not merely an eschatological concept for Calvin. It is rooted in the divine intentions for the creation and recreation of humanity. According to Calvin humanity was created in the image and likeness (which are synonymous for Calvin) of God that our minds might zealously be virtuous and meditate upon eternal life. Humans were endowed with reason and understanding `so that, by leading a holy and upright life, we may press on to the appointed goal of blessed immortality'. As creatures in the image of God humans `ought to be thought the reflection of God's glory'. Furthermore, being created in the image of God is in some sense `participation in God'. Humans rebelled against God, were separated from him, destitute of all glory, and spoilt by sin. The image of God became deformed. `Our happiness', then, `lies in having God's image, which was blotted out by sin, restored and reformed in us.' Christ is God's image as the eternal Word.

神化不單單是加爾文的一種末世論的觀念。它乃是根據於神創造，並重造人類的旨意之中。對加爾文而言，人性乃是根據神的形像和樣式所造的（這也是加爾文的說法），好叫我們的思想會渴望成為有道德的，並認為能夠達到永遠的生命。人類被賜予理智和理解的能力，好叫藉由神聖和向着上（天）的生命，我們能夠得着那個命定給我們的，有福的不死目標。作為根據神的形像被造之物，人類當被認為是神榮耀的返照。除此以外，根據神的形像被造從某種意義而言，就是‘有份於神。’人類背叛神，與神分離，失去了一切的榮耀，並被罪所玷污。神的形像也被分解了。‘我們的喜樂乃是在那個被罪所玷污，又在我們裡面被恢復並重新組成的那個神的形像裡面。’作為永遠的道，基督是神的形像。

But, `even on His human nature, which He has in common with us, the imprint (effigies) of the Father's glory has been engraved, that He might transform His members to it'. It follows that `none is to be reckoned among Christ's disciples unless there is seen the Glory of God impressed on him by the likeness (effigie) of Christ as by the seal of a ring'. The goal of salvation, in other words, is for believers to have the image and likeness of God restored in them as fully as it is in Christ and thus to participate in God and reflect his glory.

然而，‘甚至祂所擁有的那個與我們一樣的人性，神的榮耀被雕刻並被拓印在其上，好叫祂能夠把祂的肢體變化成為它’。其結果就是‘除非看見神的榮耀藉由基督的像（effigie），如同戒指的印一樣的，拓印在他身上，基督的門徒們不會想到這點。’換句話說，救贖的目地乃是要讓信徒擁有神的形像和樣式，並在他們裡面完全恢復這種在基督里的形像和樣式，因而在神里有份，並返照祂的榮耀。

Union with our mediator 與我們的中保聯合

In order to save humanity from the lapsed condition, the race needed Christ's intercession as mediator. To be a true mediator between God and humanity Christ had to be true God and true human. To benefit from Christ, believers must be united with him. Because of the great difference between our uncleanness and God's holiness, in the incarnation the Son had to become Immanuel `in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us.' But human sinfulness was not the only reason we needed a mediator. `Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator.'

為了把人類從失喪中拯救出來，人類需要基督作為中保介入。為了成為神和人之間的真正中保，基督必須是真神和真人。信徒若要從基督得着幫助，就必須與祂聯合。因為在我們的不潔和神的聖潔間那個巨大的差異，在子成為以馬內利的道成肉身中，‘以這樣的方式讓祂的神性和我們的人性能夠藉由互相的關係一同成長。否則，再親密的也是不夠親密，再堅固的還是不夠堅固，因為我們期盼神能夠住在我們裡面。’但是人類的罪並不是我們需要中保的唯一理由。‘即使人是完全沒有污點的，他的情況仍然是那麼的低賤，若沒有一個中保，他不可能接觸神。’

Christ's accomplishment as Mediator made it such that `all his things are ours and we have all things in him'. His task was to make children of men, children of God, to make heirs of Ghenna, heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

基督作為中保所成就的，使得‘萬有都成為我們的，我們在祂裡面擁有萬有’。祂的任務就是要把人的兒女，作成神的兒女，把地獄的繼承者，作成屬天國度的繼承者。

Who could have done this had not the self-same Son of God become the Son of man, and had not so taken what was ours as to impart what was his to us, and to make what was his by nature ours by grace? . . . we trust that we are sons of God, for God's natural Son fashioned for himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our bones, that he might be one with us. Ungrudgingly he took our nature upon himself to impart to us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us . . . the only Son of God, to whom it wholly belongs, has adopted us as his brothers.

若不是神的兒子成為人的兒子，穿上我們所有的（譯者：指人性），將祂所有的注入到我們裡面，並藉由恩典把祂的本質作成我們的本質，誰能夠成就這一切呢？。。。

我們認定我們就是神的兒子（sons of God），因為神的兒子從我們的身體為自己塑造了一個身體；從我們肉身而來的肉身，從我們骨而來的骨，叫祂能夠成為我們中的一個。祂自願披上我們的本質，並把祂的所是注入到我們裡面，成為神的兒子和與我們一樣之人的兒子。。。神的獨子，萬有都屬於祂，已經領養我們成為祂的眾弟兄。

Calvin begins Book 3 of the Institutes by asking how we receive the benefits that the Father bestowed upon his only begotten Son – benefits bestowed not for his use but to enrich poor and needy men. The answer is that Christ must become ours and dwell within us. As long as Christ is outside us his benefits do us no good: `all he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him'. Union with Christ `alone ensures that, as far as we are concerned, he has not unprofitably come with the name Savior. The same purpose is served by that sacred wedlock through which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone [Eph. 5:30], and thus one with him.' This intimate union is not merely union with Christ as human mediator, but with God. In fact, the Word `took upon himself the person and office of Mediator, that he might join us to God'. It was for the purpose of continually bringing believers into ever closer union with God that Christ was given all authority. `The Father has given all power to the Son that he may by the Son's hand govern, nourish, sustain us, keep us in his care, and help us. Thus, while for the short time we wander away from God, Christ stands in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God.'

加爾文以詢問我們如何領受父所傾倒在祂的獨生子身上的益處來開始《要義》第三部-這些益處並不是為了祂自己，乃是為了那些貧窮，有需要的人。答案乃是基督必須成為我們的，並著作我們裡面。只要基督一直在我們的外面，祂的益處對我們是毫無用處的：‘直到我們與祂一同成長為一個身體，祂所有的一切對我們都是虛空的。’與基督聯合，‘就能夠保證，就我們所顧慮的，祂就不會帶着救主的空名而來。我們藉由神聖的結合（婚姻）而成為祂肉中的肉，骨中的骨[以弗所5：30]，並與祂是一，也是基於同樣的目的而提供給我們。’這種親密的聯合不只是把基督當作一個人類中保而與祂合一，而是與神合一。事實上，道‘為自己取了中保的地位和職分，讓祂能夠把我們跟神聯結在一起。’基督被賜予所有的權柄，也是為了不斷的把信徒帶入於神更親密的聯合。‘父已經將一起的權柄賜予子，好叫祂能夠藉由子之手的管制，餵養並維繫我們，把我們保守在祂的看護之下，並幫助我們。這樣，當我們在遠離神的那個短暫的時間中，基督站在我們中間，一點一點的引導我們進入與神更堅固的聯合之中。’

Baptism and ingrafting 受浸和接枝

Christ was baptized `in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us'. Our baptism testifies to us that we are engrafted not only into the death and life of Christ, `but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings'. Commenting on Paul's phrase `if we have been united' (with Christ) in Romans 6:5, Calvin notes that our

基督受浸乃是‘為了讓祂與我們一樣，好成為祂為我們屈尊而建立的聯合與交通最堅固的聯繫。’我們的受浸向我們見證我們不單單被接枝入基督的死和生命中，‘也與基督自己聯合好叫我們成為祂一切祝福的分享者。’加爾文在注釋保羅在羅馬6：5的‘若我們（與基督）聯合’這句話的時候，他指出我們

ingrafting signifies not only our conformity to the example of Christ, but also the secret union (arcanam coniunctionem) by which we grow together with Him, in such a way that He revives us by His Spirit, and transfers His power to us. Therefore, as the graft has the same life or death as the tree into which it is ingrafted, so it is reasonable that we should be as much partakers of the life as of the death of Christ.

被接枝不單單意表以基督為榜樣被模成，這也是一個奧秘的聯合(arcanam coniunctionem)，藉由這個聯合我們與祂一同生長，祂以這種方式，藉由聖靈點活我們，並把祂的能力傳輸給我們。故此，作為枝子，我們擁有被接入之樹同樣的生命或死亡之中，所以我們能夠合理的成為基督之生命和死亡的有份者。

Nothing `right or sincere is found in men so long as they remain in their own nature'. Therefore there must be a disparity between the ingrafting of trees and our spiritual ingrafting into Christ. `In the grafting of trees the graft draws its nourishment from the root, but retains its own natural quality in the fruit which is eaten.' The same is not true of spiritual ingrafting. Echoing 2 Peter 1:4, Calvin says that in spiritual ingrafting `we not only derive the strength and sap of the life which flows from Christ, but we also pass from our own nature into His'.

‘只要人一直留在他們的本性中，在他們裡面就沒有公義和真誠。’故此，被接枝到（物質的）樹木和我們屬靈的被接枝入基督是不同的。‘在接枝的樹身上，枝子從根汲取養分，但是被吃的果子仍然保留其原來的特質。’屬靈的接枝卻不是一樣。加爾文回應彼前1：4說，在屬靈的接枝中，‘我們不單單得到從基督流出生命之大能和肥汁，我們也把我們的本性帶入祂的裡面。’

Lord's Supper 主的晚餐

In one particularly beautiful passage on the Lord's Supper Calvin brings together many of the terms and images of deification. Godly souls can gather great assurance and delight from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper because in it they have a witness of our growth into one body with Christ such that whatever is his may be called ours. As a consequence, we may dare assure ourselves that eternal life, of which he is the heir, is ours; and that the Kingdom of Heaven, into which he has already entered, can no more be cut off from us than from him; again, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from whose guilt he has absolved us, since he willed to take them upon himself as if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.

在一段關於主的晚餐，非常優美的段落中，加爾文把許多關於神化的名詞和描述合併在一起。屬神的魂能夠從主的晚餐之禮得到（對救恩）偉大的保證和喜悅，因為在其中他們有一個我們與基督一同成長入一個身體的見證，並叫祂所有的一切成為我們所有的。其結果就是，我們能夠肯定我們自己擁有永遠的生命，祂這位後嗣也是我們的；祂已經進入的屬天的國度也不會再與我們隔絕的；另外，我們也不會在因我們的罪行被定罪，因為祂已經為我們承擔了一切的罪行，祂也願意親自背負他們，好像他們就是自己的（羊）一樣。這個美妙的互相交換（wonderful exchange）是從祂那個無限的仁慈（benevolence）而來的；祂成為與我們一樣的人的兒子，並把我們與祂一同作成神的眾子；藉由祂的降世，祂也為我們預備了升天；藉由取了我們的必死，祂也將祂的不死傾倒在我們身上；祂接受了我們的軟弱，好用祂的大能加力給我們；祂親自接受了我們的貧窮，好把他的豐富轉賜給我們；祂將（壓迫）我們罪惡的重負背在自己的身上，好讓我們穿上祂的公義。

In the same context of the Lord's Supper Calvin says that Christ is called the `bread of life' not because of the sacrament but because he showed himself as such when `being made a sharer in our human mortality, he made us partakers in his divine immortality'.

在同一段關於主的晚餐的段落中，加爾文說基督並不是因為聖禮而被稱作‘生命的糧’，而是因為祂在‘成為我們人性之有限的分享者，並讓我們成為祂神性的不朽的有份者的時候，’顯明祂自己就是‘生命的糧’。

Glorification 得榮

The glorification of believers is an important theme in patristic and Orthodox discussions of deification. Theosis is a union with God such that the divine glory shines through and is reflected by the redeemed. Calvin understands the glorification mentioned in 2 Thess 1:10 not as God's being honoured and praised but as God's luminescent glory shining through the saints in virtue of their union with him. When Christ returns, says Calvin, he will `shine upon [the godly] with His glory' that `they may partake of it'. It is as if Paul were saying that Christ `will not possess this glory for Himself alone, but it will be shared among all the saints'. Furthermore, `It is the chief and unique consolation of the godly that when the Son of God will be manifested in the glory of His kingdom, He will gather them together into the same fellowship with Himself ' and `will pour His glory upon them'. Calvin continues this theme in his comments on verse 12 of the same chapter:

信徒的得榮在古教父和東正教對於神化的討論中，是一個主要的題目。神化是與基督聯合到一個程度，神的榮耀從被救贖的人中照出，並被他們返照。加爾文並沒用將帖後1：10提到的得榮理解為神得着尊敬並被讚美，而是信徒在與祂聯合的時候，神光輝的榮耀從他們的美德中照耀出來。加爾文說，當基督回來的時候，祂將會‘以祂那個神的榮耀照耀[一切敬虔的人]’好叫‘他們能夠有份與祂。’這就好像保羅在說，基督‘並不會為自己擁有榮耀，這個榮耀乃會被所有的聖徒所分享’。除此以外，‘這就是當神的兒子在祂國度的榮耀中顯現的時候，敬虔者的主要和唯一的安慰，祂將聚集他們到與祂的同一個交通之中’並‘將自己的榮耀傾倒在他們身上。’加爾文在他對於同一章的12節之注釋中，繼續這個主題：

Particularly worthy of notice is the remark which [Paul] adds that those who have extolled the glory of Christ are to be glorified in their turn in Him. The amazing goodness of God is especially seen in the fact that He desires His glory to be conspicuously displayed in us who are entirely covered with dishonour. It is, however, a double miracle, that He afterwards shines upon us with His glory, as though He would do the same for us in return.

我們特別應該主義[保羅]所加上的提醒，就是那些高舉基督榮耀的人，將會在他們與祂一同回來的時候得榮。神那令人驚嘆的良善能夠在祂所期盼的，就是祂的榮耀能夠毫無阻攔，從我們這些完全被羞辱所覆蓋的人身上被表明出來的這件事實上，被清楚的看見。這乃是一件雙重的神跡，祂能夠用祂的榮耀照耀在我們身上，即使祂願意為我們這樣做，當作對我們的回報。

Commenting on Rom 5:2, Calvin links glorification and partaking of the divine nature: `The hope of the glory of God has shone upon us by the Gospel.' The gospel in turn `testifies that we shall be partakers of the divine nature, for when we shall see God face to face, we shall be like him (II Pet. 1.4; I John 3.2)'. In the Institutes Calvin directly associates the partaking of the divine nature, glorification, and union with Christ: `Indeed, Peter declares that believers are called in this to become partakers of the divine nature [II Peter 1:4]. How is this? Because ``he will be . . . glorified in all his saints, and will be marveled at in all who have believed'' [II Thess. 1:10]'. In the very next sentence Calvin writes: `If the Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness with the elect - nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them and, what is more excellent, will somehow make them to become one with himself, let us remember that every sort of happiness is included under this benefit.'

在對羅馬5：2的注釋中，加爾文把得榮和有份與神性串聯起來：‘神已經藉由福音把榮耀的盼望顯明給我們。’福音就是‘見證我們要成為神性的分享者，當我們面對面見神的時候，我們就會像祂（彼後1：4；約壹3：2）。在《教義》中加爾文直接將有份神性，得榮和與基督聯合串聯起來：‘彼得反而宣告信徒們被稱作並成為神性的分享者[彼後1：4]。這是怎麼一回事呢？因為“祂將會。。在祂所有的聖徒裡面得榮耀，並被那些相信祂的人們所讚嘆”[帖後1：10]。’在緊接着的下一句話裡面，加爾文寫到：‘若主願意與選民分享祂的榮耀，能力和公義--唉，祂自己也會成為他們的享受，更超越的事乃是，祂將以某種方式使他們與自己成為一，讓我們基督所有一切的喜樂都被包括在這個福氣的下面。’

Trinitarianism 三位一體

For Calvin the union of the believer with God is fundamentally Trinitarian and involves all three members of the Godhead. As we have seen, according to Calvin Christ was given all authority and power in order to bring believers into union with God. He can do this because believers are in union with him as mediator. What has not yet been noted is the implicit structure of Calvin's thought here. It follows the two distinct levels of union with Christ found in his writings. The fundamental level is the hypostatic union of the eternal Word with the humanity believers share with every other person. At this level there is a communication of properties between Christ's divinity and his humanity. The consequent level is the particular union of Christ with individual believers. Christ unites believers to God because in his person God and humanity are already united. Significantly, this distinction is the very heart of patristic and Orthodox notions of deification. In patristic terms, individual believers can be deified because the incarnation of Christ deified human nature.

對於加爾文，信徒與神的聯合乃是基於三位一體論，並且與神格的三位都有關。如同我們已經看見的，根據加爾文，基督被賜予所有的權柄和能力好把信徒們帶入與基督的聯合裡面。因為信徒在祂這位中保的裡面，祂就能夠完成這件事。加爾文在此未明言的思想還沒有被點出來。在他的作品中，與基督的聯合有兩種不同的層次。基本的層次是永遠的道與信徒們彼此共享的人性所產生的位格的聯合。在這個層次上，在基督的神性和人性之間，有屬性的相通（communication of properties）。接下來的層次乃是基督與信徒個人的那個特別的聯合。基督將信徒聯於神，因為在祂的位格中，神和人類已經聯合為一了。值得我們注意的是，這個分別就是教父和東正教神化思想背後的核心。在古教父的用詞中，信徒各人因為基督的道成肉身神化了（祂的）人性，而得以被神化。

Calvin is keen to emphasize that all that Christ did was for our sake and all that he has is his only for him to give it to us. This includes the love of God the Father, the life and blessings of Christ, the Holy Spirit and even his unity with the Father. Christ unites believers with himself in order that they may participate, as members of his body, in the inner life and love of the Trinity which he has eternally known. Thus, the deification of the believer not only has a Trinitarian basis, but a Trinitarian goal. This is most clearly seen in comments Calvin makes on John 15:9 and 17:21-6.

加爾文敏銳的強調，基督所成就的一起都是為了我們，祂所擁有的一切都只是祂的，也都是為了祂能夠將其賜給我們。這包括父神的愛，基督的生命和祝福，聖靈，以及祂與父的合一。基督將信徒與自己聯合為一，成為自己身體的許多肢體，並他在永遠中已經知道，這是在三位一體裡的生命和愛裡面的。故此，信徒的神化不單單只是基於三位一體而言，而是三位一體的目標。我們可以從加爾文對約翰15：9和17：21-6的注釋中可以清楚的看見這點。

The fullness of blessings and what was hidden in God are now made plain in Christ `that He may pass it on to His people; as the water flowing from the fountain through various channels waters the fields everywhere'. If the unity of the Son with the Father is not to be fruitless and useless, `its power must be diffused through the whole body of believers'. From this `we infer that we are one with Christ; not because He transfuses his substance into us, but because by the power of His Spirit He communicates to us His life and all the blessings He has received from the Father'. In short, Christ had nothing for himself alone but was rich to enrich his believers.

在基督裡面，原來隱藏在神裡面豐滿的祝福已經被顯明了‘好叫祂能夠將其賜給祂的子民；就好像水從泉源經過許多的溪流灌溉各處的土地一樣。’如果子和父的合一不是無效果和無用的，‘它的大能必然能夠遍及信徒身體的每個角落’。從此，‘我們就能夠總結，我們乃是與基督是一；不是因為祂把祂的性質滲透到我們裡面，而是因着祂聖靈的大能把祂的生命和祂從父所領受的一切祝福交流給我們’。總而言之，基督在祂裡面沒有別的，只有將賜予信徒們的豐富。

Strictly speaking, Calvin writes, Christ was not loved by the Father for his own sake. Rather, God's love was completely poured out on Christ `that it might flow from Him to His members'. The love with which God loves us `is none other than that with which He loved His Son from the beginning . . .. It is an inestimable privilege of faith that we know that Christ was loved by the Father for our sake, that we might be made partakers of the same love and that forever.' Furthermore, Christ was loved `that He may unite us along with himself to the Father'.

嚴格的說，加爾文寫到，基督並不是因自己的緣故為父所愛。反而，神的愛完全傾倒在基督身上‘好叫它能夠從祂流向祂的肢體’。這個神愛我們的愛‘就是祂在太初就愛祂兒子的那個愛。。。知道基督為了我們的緣故為神所愛是信仰中一個無可估量的特權，叫我們能夠成為這個同樣永恆之愛的分享者。’更進一步，基督被愛‘好叫祂能夠將我們向着父，聯於祂自己。’

The role of the Holy Spirit should not be forgotten as he also plays an important role. It is the Spirit who `breathes divine life into us'. The goal of this regeneration `is that Christ should reform us to God's image'. In the meantime the gifts of the Spirit (which we lack by nature) allow us to `perceive that we are truly joined to God in perfect blessedness'. In sum, the Holy Spirit is the `bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself '.

我們不能忘記聖靈的角色，祂也具有非常重要的地位。聖靈將‘神的生命吹到我們裡面。’重生的目的乃是要‘基督能夠把我們被歸正為神的像。’同時，聖靈的恩賜（是我們的本性中所沒有的）讓我們能夠‘領會我們乃是在那個完美的祝福中，與神聯合為一。’總而言之，聖靈是‘基督將我們有效的與自己聯合的聯繫。’

Debates with half papists and Osiander 與半教皇主義者和Osiander的辯論

Deification as such was never a major point of dispute between Calvin and his opponents. Nonetheless, the language and imagery of theosis are prominent in disputes on tangentially related topics. It is instructive to observe how deeply ingrained this is in Calvin's thought by the way it comes out in his rebuttals of the `half papists' and Andreas Osiander. One also finds in these discussions additional important evidence for the thesis of this article.

神化從來不是加爾文和他的對手在辯論中的重點。即使如此，神化的用詞和描述在與爭辯有關的間接題目中，都是顯著的。我們從加爾文和半教皇主義者和Osiander的激辯中發現，這個教義在加爾文的思想中是何等的根深蒂固。讀者也會在這些討論中發現與這篇文章之主題有關的其他重要線索。

Certain `half papists' taught a doctrine of justification that, Calvin says, put Christ outside the believer. In response Calvin emphasizes that the salvific benefits which the believer receives are the effect of the union between Christ and the believer. Calvin stresses the nature and degree of this union - it is union with Christ himself growing by degrees until he and the believer are completely one.

某些‘半教皇主義者’教導一種稱義的教義，加爾文稱之為，他們把基督扔在了信徒的外面。為了回應他們，加爾文強調信徒所領受救恩的益處就是基督和信徒聯合的結果。加爾文強調這個聯合的本質和程度 – 它乃是與基督本身的聯合，並會隨着聯合的程度而增長，直到信徒和基督完全成為一。

For we await salvation from him not because he appears to us afar off, but because he makes us, ingrafted into his body, participants not only in all his benefits but also in himself . . .. Christ has been so imparted to you with all his benefits that all his things are made yours, that you are made a member of him, indeed one with him . . .. Not only does he cleave to us by an invisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us.

我們並不是因為祂遠遠的向我們顯現，才等待從祂而來的救恩，而是因為祂把我們接枝到祂的身體裡面，不只是有份於祂所有的益處，而是祂的自己。。。基督將祂一切的益處都給了你們，好叫祂所有的一切都成為你的。你成為祂的一個肢體，與祂成為一。。。祂不單單用一個看不見交通之聯結黏住了我們，一天又一天，在一個奇妙的交通中，祂與我們一同逐漸成長進入一個身體裡面，直到祂完全與我們是一。

In the 1545 edition of the Institutes these statements about believers being made one with Christ are even bolder when Calvin says that we are `made of one substance with him' and `daily he more and more unites himself to us in one, same substance'. References to a unity of substance were likely removed in the 1559 edition to avoid the appearance of contradicting the rebuttals of Osiander he had inserted.

在1545年版的《教義》中，這些關於信徒與基督成為一的教訓，在加爾文說我們‘成為與祂同一性質’和‘祂天天在一個，同樣的性質裡面，更緊密的把祂自己與我們聯合為一’的時候，顯的更為大膽。在1559年版裡面，這些關於性質聯合的化被刪除，以避免與他插入的，反駁Osiander的段落相互衝突。

Osiander taught that Christ as a man was foreknown by God and therefore the pattern after which humanity was formed. As a consequence he had to argue that Christ would have been incarnated even if Adam had not fallen. One of his inventive arguments was based upon Jesus' quotation of Gen 2:23-4 (the description of the first marriage) in Matt 19:4-6. Osiander took Jesus' quotation to imply that these words were a prophecy related to the union of Christ and the Church. Pre-lapsarian, the `prophecy' implied that it was necessary for Christ to be incarnated even if Adam had not fallen. Calvin responds that in this passage Jesus `is not discussing the mystical union with which he graced the church, but only fidelity in marriage'. Neither, says Calvin, will Paul's similar quotations help Osiander's view (1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31). For, though Paul `set forth under the figure and likeness of marriage the holy union that makes us one with Christ', neither did he intend to indicate that the words of Genesis were a prophecy.

Osiander教導，基督作為一個人，乃是被神所預知的，並以祂為範本造人。這造成他必須爭辯，即使亞當沒有墮落，基督仍然必須道成肉身。他所發明的一個論點乃是基於耶穌在馬太19：4-6中對創世紀2：23-4的引用（對於第一個婚姻的描述）。Osiander採用了耶穌引用的經文來暗示這些話是對於基督和教會之聯合的預言。這個‘預言’暗示即使亞當沒有墮落，基督也必須道成肉身。加爾文回應說，在耶穌說的這段話‘並不是在討論祂賜給教會的那個奧秘的聯合之恩典，而只是婚姻的忠貞。’加爾文說，保羅也沒有用類似的經文來支持Osiander的看法（哥林多前書6：16；以弗所5：31）。因為，即使保羅‘把婚姻作為預表，詳細的解釋那個使我們與基督成為一的奧秘聯合。’他也沒有任何把創世紀的經文當作預言的意思。

More problematic was Osiander's view that justification was an in- pouring or infusion of Christ's divine essence into the believer which rendered the believer righteous. Osiander supported his position by citing biblical passages indicating believers are one with Christ. Calvin agrees that believers are one with Christ. He denies that this means `Christ's essence is mixed with our own'. Osiander is mistaken in the claim that `we are substantially righteous in God by the infusion both of his essence and of his quality'. If God's essence were united with that of believers, Calvin contends, that would make believers part of God - an implication Calvin cannot accept. According to Calvin, Osiander's mistake was that he had not observed that scripture indicates that believers are united with Christ `by the secret power of his Spirit', not by an infusion of the divine essence.

Osiander的觀點中，更嚴重的問題乃是，稱義是基督神性融合到信徒之中，使得信徒成為公義，而被悅納。Osiander認為他引用經文的立場表明信徒乃是與基督是一。加爾文同意信徒與基督是一。但是否認這代表‘基督的素質與我們混合（mixed）’。Osiander錯誤的宣稱‘藉由把祂的素質和祂的質量融合到我們裡面，我們的本質在神里成為公義的。’如神的素質與信徒聯合，加爾文堅持，這也不會把信徒變成神的一部分 – 這是加爾文無法接受的意思。根據加爾文，Osiander的錯誤乃是在於他忽視了聖經乃是指出信徒與基督的聯合是‘藉由祂的聖靈之奧秘的大能’，而不是藉由神的素質之融合。

Osiander's notion of `essential righteousness' soon comes under two further criticisms that touch upon our topic. First, Calvin attributes to Osiander the view `that God pours himself into us as a gross mixture'. This parallels Osiander's error in thinking that Christ is physically present and eaten in the bread of the Lord's Supper. Calvin's view is that Christ is really present but not physically present. His understanding of the union between Christ and the believer is parallel. There is a real union, but not an essential or `physical' union.

Osiander對於人的素質變成公義的想法立刻遭到從兩方面來的批判。這兩個批判都觸及了我們的題目。首先，加爾文將Oisiander的觀點歸納為‘神把自己當作一個粗俗的混合物傾倒在我們身上。’這符合Osiander誤認為基督乃是以物質的方式顯現於主的晚餐中的餅裡面。加爾文的看法乃是，基督確實顯現了，但是不是一個物質的顯現。他認為基督和信徒間的聯合是平行的。那是一個真實的聯合，但不是素質的，也不是‘物質的（physical）’聯合。

Second, Osiander is criticized for applying to the present what is proper only to the future state. Calvin has no intention of refuting Osiander's proof-texts on the union of Christ and believers. Instead he cites two additional passages that show that the kind of thing Osiander is postulating for the present in justification is reserved for the eschaton. The two passages are 2 Pet 1:4 and 1 John 3:2, standard patristic proof-texts for deification. Calvin denies that believers will ever be united to the divine essence, but they will partake of the divine nature and be changed to be like Jesus. Calvin aptly says of this union:

其次，Osiander被批判應用了基督本該屬於未來的狀態。加爾文並沒用駁斥Osiander用來證明基督和信徒聯合之經文的意思。反而，他還加上了另外兩處經文，以表明Osiander宣稱的，所謂（基督）在稱義中的顯現乃是被保留給末世（eschaton）的。加爾文使用的兩處經文是彼後1：4和約壹3：2，教父們用來證明神化教義的標準經文。加爾文否認信徒有任何與神聖素質聯合的可能性，但是他們能夠有份於神性，並變化成為像也是。加爾文確切的描述這個聯合：

That joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts - in short, that mystical union - are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body - in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.

基督在我們心中內住的基督（that indwelling of Christ in our hearts）將身體和頭聯結為一 – 簡單的說，就是那個奧秘的聯合 – 對於我們，沒有什麼比這個更重要了，好叫基督成為我們的，也讓我們與祂一同分享傾注於祂身上的恩典。故此，我們無法在我們之外從遠方注視祂，好叫祂的公義能夠被注入我們裡面，而是因為我們披上了基督，並被接枝入祂的身體裡面 – 簡單的說，祂屈就我們，為了使我們與祂是一。

Calvin's two uses of the term `mystical union' (mystica unio) in the course of rebutting Osiander is further evidence in favour of the thesis that Calvin's doctrine of union with Christ is substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis. `Mystical union' is very often a technical phrase for deification from at least the time of Pseudo-Dionysius. It was commonly used as such by medieval mystics, including Bernard of Clairvaux. Scholars have not failed to associate Calvin's mentions of mystica unio to Bernard's influence. Etienne Gilson's classic study of Bernard did not fail to make the connection between Bernard's mystical union and the patristic doctrine of deification. Gilson especially noted the influence of Maximus Confessor on Bernard and cites passages in which Bernard unhesitatingly speaks of deification. On this basis it is reasonable to infer that Calvin too is referring to deification. Oddly, however, the obvious connection between mystical union and deification is not made in recent comparisons of Bernard's and Calvin's understanding of mystical union.

加爾文在駁斥Osiander的過程中兩次使用‘奧秘的聯合（mystica unio）’，是對於加爾文在與基督聯合的教義上，與古教父神化概念完全一致，更進一步的證據。最起碼，‘奧秘的聯合’是在偽迪奧尼修（Pseudo-Dionysius）時代常常用來描述神化的專業術語。在中古世紀奧秘派中也是常用的詞彙，包括Bernard of Clairvaux。學者們常常忽視Bernard對於加爾文提及奧秘的聯合之影響。Etienne Gilson對於Bernard的那個經典的研究並沒用忽視Bernard的奧秘的聯合和古教父神化的教義間的關聯。Gilson特別提到堅信者馬克西姆（Maximus Confessor）對於Bernard的影響，並摘錄了Bernard毫不掩飾教導神化的材料。在這個基礎上，我們可以合理的推斷，加爾文講的就是神化。但是，很奇怪的是，近代對於Bernard和加爾文對於奧秘的聯合之了解的比較中，並沒將奧秘的聯合與神化聯繫起來。

`You are gods' ‘你們是神’

Patristic writers commonly refer to deified or glorified believers as `gods'. The biblical text cited to justify this language is Ps 82:6. The relevant statement reads: `I say, ``You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.'' ' In his commentary on Psalm 82 Calvin writes: `I indeed grant that it is quite common for the Hebrews to adorn with the title of God whatever is rare and excellent.' Here it appears `that this name of the Divine Being is applied to those who occupy the exalted station of princes, in which there is afforded a peculiar manifestation of the majesty of God'. Therefore, the name `gods' in this psalm is to be understood as referring to judges `on whom God has impressed special marks of his glory'.Commenting directly on v. 6, Calvin says that `God has invested judges with a sacred character and title' and that `This verse may also be viewed as addressed by God himself to rulers, and as intimating, that, in addition to his clothing them with authority, he has bestowed upon them his name.' This exegesis is consistently maintained in the Institutes as well as in his commentary on John 10:34-5.

古教父們常常把神化或榮化了的信徒比喻為‘神（gods）’。被引用來支持這個說法的經文是詩篇82：6。其經文說：‘我說，“你們是神，都是至高者的兒子。”’加爾文在他對詩篇82篇的注釋中寫到：‘我必須承認，對於希伯來人，他們常常稱那些稀有和超絕的東西為神（God）。’又說到‘這個神聖者的名字乃是被用在那些占有君王崇高地位（的人），他們能夠以一種特殊的方式彰顯出神的尊榮。’故此，在這首詩歌中，‘神（gods）’這個名字應該被當作指那些被神以祂的榮耀印拓了特別記號的人。加爾文對於6節的注釋說，‘神已經將神聖的特性和稱號賜予那些審判者，’‘這節也能夠被當作是神自己對於掌權者說的話，再暗示，除了祂將使他們披上權柄外，祂還要將自己的名澆灌於他們身上。’這樣的解經不斷的出現在《教義》中，以及他對於約翰10：34-5的注釋之中。

This interpretation clearly diverges from patristic interpretations. But Calvin does not contradict the doctrine or the language the fathers used these passages to support. In fact, he says nothing whatsoever about the patristic interpretation. Should we infer from Calvin's divergence that he would have viewed the bold language of the fathers as inappropriate? No. On the contrary, the logic of several of Calvin's statements, including comments on Psalm 82, leads to the conclusion that Calvin would have had no difficulty with the application of the term `gods' to glorified human beings so long as the term is properly understood.

這個詮釋明顯的和教父們的詮釋不同。但是加爾文並沒有違反教父們用這些經文所要支持的教義或用詞。事實上，他完全沒有提及教父們的詮釋。我們是否該因加爾文（與教父們）的不同推斷，而推論出他認為教父們那些大膽的用詞是不合適的？不。相反的，好幾處加爾文教訓背後的邏輯，包括詩篇82篇的注釋，都讓人相信加爾文對於使用‘神（gods）’這個詞來榮耀人類，不會有任何的問題，只要這個詞能夠被正確的理會。

In the discussion about angels in Book 1 of the Institutes Calvin notes that when scripture mentions all the angels very often the designation `gods' is applied to them. This `ought not to seem anything marvelous; for if the honor is given to princes and governors [Ps. 82:6] because they are viceregents of God, who is the highest King and Judge, there is far greater reason why it should be conferred upon the angels, in whom the brightness of the divine glory shines forth much more richly'. Calvin's argument is that the term `gods' can be properly applied to persons who imitate God in ruling and judging since he is the paradigmatic king and judge whose power they are entrusted with. It can be applied to angels even more appropriately because they do not merely imitate God's functions, they reflect the divine glory itself.

在《教義》卷一中對於天使的討論中，加爾文指出，凡聖經提到天使的是，常常將‘神（gods）’這個字用在他們身上。這‘不應該被當作一件很奇怪的事情；就像尊敬他們是君王和執政者[詩篇82：6]，因為他們是至高王和審判者之神的副執政者，神聖的榮耀能夠從他們裡面以一種更為豐盛的方式照耀出來。’加爾文的論點乃是，‘神（gods）’這個詞能夠合理的被用在那些如同神管理和審判的人身上，因為祂是真正的王和審判者，並將祂的權能託付給他們。它也能更合適的被用在天使身上，因為他們不單單模仿神的功用，他們也返照出神的榮耀。

In his commentary on 1 John 3:2 (`when he appears we shall be like him'), an important patristic deification proof-text, Calvin describes the eschatological transformation of believers in such a way as to intimate that they will reflect the divine glory even more than angels do. When Christ returns `we shall be like Him in that He will conform our lowly body to His glorious body . . .. For the apostle wanted to show us briefly that the ultimate aim of our adoption is that what has, in order, come first in Christ, shall at last be completed in us.' What is Christ's glorious body like to which believers will be conformed? This glory is so great that `it will fill the ungodly with fear' and `they will flee from the sight in terror. His glory will so dazzle their eyes that they will be confounded and stupefied.' We `shall be partakers of the divine glory', Calvin says, and God already `begins to restore His image in us; but in what a small measure!' When glorified, believers will then be prepared to see God to the degree that `our little capacity can grasp'. It is not the vision of God that affects the transformation but the transformation that will permit the vision of God. For, unless `our nature were spiritual and endued with a heavenly and blessed immortality, it could never come so near to God'. Once transformed and fitted for the vision of God we will then be like Christ - dazzlingly radiant, glorious, immortal beings whose sight will strike fear into the hearts of the ungodly.

在他對約壹3：2的注釋中（‘當祂顯現的時候，我們必要像祂’），引用了一處教父用來支持神化的重要經文，加爾文描述在末世信徒的變化，他們乃是以一種親密的方式，比天使更能夠返照出神的榮耀。當基督回來的時候，‘我們將會像祂，在其中，祂會將我們低賤的身體模成祂榮耀的身體。。。因為使徒想要簡要的告訴我們，我們被認養最終的目的是什麼，好叫這個目的先在基督里來臨，至終在我們裡面得以完成。’信徒要被模成的那個基督榮耀的身體是什麼呢？這個榮耀是那麼的偉大，以至於‘它將使得不敬虔的人充滿恐懼’和‘他們將在各種的異像中恐懼奔逃。祂的榮耀將要使得他們無法睜眼，讓他們覺得詛喪，和呆若木雞。’我們‘則要成為神榮耀的有份者，’加爾文說，神已經‘開始恢復祂在我們裡面的形像；在我們裡面這個像是何等的微小啊！’當我們得榮時，信徒將被預備好見神，直到一個程度‘我們這個微小的能力都能夠掌握’。它不是神那個影響我們變化過程的異象，而是變化會讓我們看見對於神的異象。因為，除非‘我們的本質是屬靈的，並能夠承受屬天和有福的不死，我們就無法接近神’。等我們一變化完成，配的上神的異象，我們就會成為像基督（be like Christ）-- 奪目的光輝，榮耀，不死的存有，這些景象將會將恐懼打入不敬虔人的心裡。

The appropriateness of angels being designated gods due to their reflection of the divine glory combined with statements about believers' glorification leads to the conclusion that glorified believers can appropriately be designated gods. Further, believers are in union with God and share not only his glory but his power, life and love. It follows that they could be referred to as gods in an even stronger sense than when the term is applied to angels. Though Calvin does not explicitly draw this conclusion, his reasoning inescapably leads to it. For broad theological reasons rather than a single proof-text he would have found the designation of glorified believers as `gods' acceptable and even appropriate if one properly understood what was and was not meant by it.

天使之配被稱作神（gods）乃是因為他們返照了神的榮耀，加上那些關於信徒榮化的宣告，是的被榮化的信徒能夠被合適的稱作神（gods）。除此以外，信徒在與神的聯合中，不單單有份於祂的榮耀，也有份於祂的能力，生命和愛。其結果就是，他們能夠以一個比天使被稱作神（gods）還更合適的意義上，被稱作神（gods）。雖然加爾文並沒有特別歸結出這個結論，他的論證毫無疑問就是指向它。從一個更全面的神學論證，而不是從個別單個的經文，他將會發現把得榮的信徒稱作‘神（gods）’是可以被接受的，甚至，若人能夠合適的理會它意表什麼，不意表什麼，就會覺得這個稱呼甚至是合適的。

A counter-example 反例

There is one passage in the Institutes that prima facie looks like a clear counterexample to the thesis of this essay. In rebutting Servetus's arguments against infant baptism Calvin comes to one argument that he deems more absurd than the rest. According to Calvin, Servetus had offered something like the following argument: (1) `we become gods by regeneration'; (2) gods are those `to whom the Word of God came' (quoting John 10:34 in reference to Ps 82:6); but (3) it is impossible for infants to have received the word. The unstated conclusion is that (4) since infants cannot receive the word, be regenerated and thus be gods it is inappropriate for them to be baptized. Calvin mentions that it is one of Servetus's `delusions [deliriis] to imagine deity in believers [deitatem affingit fidelibus]' and that to `twist a verse of a psalm into such an alien meaning is an act of abandoned shamelessness'. Clearly, Calvin strongly disagrees with this view but says `this is not the place to examine it'. Rather, he merely repeats the interpretation of Psalm 82 we examined earlier.

在《教義》中有一段話，其主要論點看起來就像是一個針對這篇文章命題的反例。在駁斥Servetus反對嬰兒受浸的論點時，加爾文有一個他認為最荒謬的論點。根據加爾文，Servetus提出類似下面的論點：（1）‘我們乃是藉由重生成為神（gods）’；（2）神（gods）乃是那些‘神的道所臨及的人’（引用約翰10：34來解釋詩篇82：6）；但是（3）嬰兒無法領受道。其粗製濫造的結論乃是（4）因為嬰兒無法領受道，並被重生，所以，即使他們受浸了，也沒辦法成為神（gods）。加爾文提到，這是Servetus‘在信徒裡面編造關於神性[deitatem affingit fidelibus]的幻覺[deliriis]’之一，並‘把詩篇的一處經文扭曲成為完全不同的意義，是一個毫無羞恥的行為。’很明顯的，加爾文強烈的反對這個觀點，但是他說‘這還不是重點。’他只是重複了我們已經檢視過的，對於詩篇82篇的詮釋。

It is unfortunate that Calvin chose not to comment further. Does this passage undermine the argument of this essay? By no means. The evidence adduced in favour is remarkably strong, varied and pervasive; it can hardly be overturned by a couple of very brief comments. Further, Calvin's comments are directed against Servetus's teaching, not against the patristic doctrine. It has already been shown that Calvin would have disagreed with the patristic interpretation of Ps 82:6 just as much as he disagreed with Servetus's. But there is no reason to suppose that the two doctrines the verse was cited to prove would have been viewed as the same by Calvin. Thus, it would be inappropriate to assume that the same opinions would have been applied to the patristic fathers who cited the passage in support of theosis.

很可惜的，加爾文選擇不進一步的解釋這個問題。那麼，這段話是否減低了這篇文章論點的分量呢？絕對沒有。支持它的證據是強而有力，眾多和無處不在的；它無法被（加爾文）一兩段簡略的注釋就推翻掉了。除此以外，加爾文的注釋直接反對Servetus的教訓，而不是反對教父的教義。我們已經指出，加爾文也會如同反對Servetus一樣，來反對教父們對於詩篇82：6的詮釋。但是我們沒有證據證明加爾文對那兩節有同樣的詮釋。故此，我們不能假設（加爾文）同樣的看法也被用在使用同段話來支持神化教義的教父們。

Since Calvin chose not to comment further we cannot know what precisely his main difficulties with Servetus's view were. It seems quite likely, however, that his chief objections would have been similar to those cited earlier against Osiander: (1) Servetus was inappropriately applying to the present life unfulfilled eschatological promises, thus making believers out to be more than what they actually are; (2) Servetus's teaching that `deity' was in believers failed to make the all-important distinction between sharing in God's nature and possessing his essence. He might have also objected to the unqualified use of such bold language, though, as was shown, Calvin could have affirmed the use of such language in certain contexts if it were clear what was meant and what was not meant by it. That Calvin's rejection of Servetus's unorthodox teaching does not in any way undermine the thesis of this essay is confirmed by Calvin's affirmation of theosis in other contexts where he addresses erroneous deification concepts.

因為加爾文不再進一步的注釋，我們就不知道他到底為什麼不認可Servetus的觀點。不論如何，這看起來比較像他主要反對的觀點，應該與前面用來反對Osiander的論點很相似：（1）Servetus錯誤的將今日的生活應用在還未應驗的，在末世才應驗的應許，使得信徒們脫離了現實；（2）Servetus的教義教導在信徒中的‘神化’並沒用清楚的區分在神的性情中有份和擁有祂的素質間的不同。加爾文也反對在沒有前提的情況下，使用那樣大膽的用詞。如同我們已經指出的，加爾文肯定在某些段落中使用那些用詞，若它們的意思是清楚明確的。加爾文對Servetus非正統教訓的反對毫不能減損這篇文章的題目，加爾文在其他的段落中肯定了神化，並指出錯誤的神化觀念。

Erroneous concepts of deification and important distinctions 錯誤的神化教義和重要的分別

Calvin did not employ the boldest language of the Church fathers probably to prevent misunderstanding rather than because of questions about its legitimacy. For Calvin was aware of pagan and heretical notions of deification that used similar language with very different intent. For example, Calvin knew of the ancient pagan practice of exalting outstanding heroes, kings and inventors to the status of gods. He referred to this practice as `invented deification' (apotheosis inventorum) and `false deification' (falsa apotheosis).  He traced the rise of polytheism and idolatry to this practice and considered it one of the worst forms of rebellion against the one true God.

加爾文沒有使用教會教父們使用的那些大膽的用詞，可能是為了避免誤解，而不是質疑它們的合法性。因為加爾文警覺到異教和異端將不同的目的賦予神化的觀念。例如，加爾文曉得古代異端的異教往往高舉某些凸出的英雄，國王和神像的發明者。他把這種實行當作‘（人類）發明的神化’（aptheosis inventorum）和‘假神化’（falsa apotheosis）。他將多神論和崇拜偶像追朔到這個實行，並認為它乃是對於真神最嚴重的背叛方式之一。

In answering more subtle pagan and heretical notions of deification Calvin always (except in the case of Servetus mentioned above) set the substance of the Christian notion against them. The Manicheans `used to dream that we took our roots from the stem of God and that when we have finished the course of our life we shall revert back to our original state'. Similarly, in Calvin's day there were `fanatics who imagine that we cross over into God's nature so that His nature absorbs ours. This is how they explain Paul's words in I Cor. 15.28 - ``that God may be all in all''. They take this passage in the same sense. This kind of madness never occurred to the minds of the holy apostles.' Against these views Calvin set the true meaning of the apostles' words: `They were simply concerned to say that when we have put off all the vices of the flesh we shall be partakers of divine immortality and the glory of blessedness, and thus we shall be in a way one with God so far as our capacity allows.'

為回應那些頑固的異教和異端的神化觀念，加爾文總是（除了上面提到Servetus的案例以外）用基督教信仰的內涵來對付他們。摩尼教‘曾經做夢、幻想我們的根源乃是神的精子，當我們走完我們人生的路程後，我們就會迴轉到我們原始的狀態’。類似的，在加爾文的時代有許多‘幻想我們會進入神的本質，好讓祂的本質完全被吸收到我們本質裡面的幻想者。這就是他們如何解釋林前15：28 – “神是一切，又在一切之內”。他們把這句話當作同樣的意思。這種瘋狂的想法絕對不會出現在使徒們的腦海中。’為了抵擋這種觀點，加爾文為使徒的話下了正確的定義：‘他們只想要教導，當我們脫下肉身所有的一切，我們就會成為神的不死，祝福之榮耀的分享者。所以，只要我們能夠脫下一切，我們就會以某種方式與神成為一。’

Plato is commended for being the only ancient philosopher who `recognized man's highest good as union with God' and for everywhere defining `the chief good of man to be an entire conformity to God'. But because Plato `had learned nothing of the sacred bond of that union', he

`could not even dimly sense its nature'. Plato's conception of deification began right, insofar as it went. However, because `he was in the midst of errors, he afterwards glided off to his own inventions'. Christians should disregard `empty speculations' and be satisfied `that the image of God in holiness and righteousness is restored to us for this end, that we may at length be partakers of eternal life and glory as far as it will be necessary for our complete felicity'. The source of this life and glory, the sacred bond of union of which Plato was ignorant, is Christ himself, the head of the church. He `is clothed in heavenly immortality and glory so that the whole body may be conformed to the Head'. What was begun in the head must be completed in all the members because `to separate him from ourselves is not permissible and not even possible, without tearing him apart'.

柏拉圖是唯一一個被提到的古代哲學家，他‘認為人最高的好處乃是與神聯合’，他作品無處不定義“人最主要的目標是完全模成像神。”但是因為柏拉圖‘完全不了解那個聯合的神聖連接’，他‘根本無法認清它的本質’。柏拉圖對於神化的觀念有一個正確的開始。然而，因為‘他乃是在錯誤中，他隨後就從自己的發明（的錯誤觀念）中滑落出去了。’基督徒應該蔑視‘虛空的猜測’並滿足於‘神為了這目的在我們裡面被重建聖潔和公義中的形像，好叫我們在一生中，都是永遠生命和榮耀的分享者，並將其視為我們完美幸福的必要條件。’這個生命和榮耀的源頭，就是柏拉圖所忽略的神聖的連接，就是基督自己。祂是教會的頭。‘披上了屬天的不朽和榮耀好叫整個身體都能夠被模成像頭。’頭所開始的，必須在全部的肢體中被完全，因為‘離開了祂，我們自己就不可能不把祂拆散得四分五裂。’

Some of Calvin's bolder statements could be misunderstood as saying the same things as the views he rejects. Thus, he very often qualifies them or makes important distinctions. For example, deification is not the result of human work or merit. All of God's promises `ought to be properly and justly deemed to be the effects of his power and glory', especially the promise of partaking of the divine nature. Peter's word `nature' does not refer to God's essence but to `kind' or `quality' (note the functional similarity with the Orthodox essence/energies distinction). Thus, `it is clear . . . that man is made to conform to God, not by an inflowing of substance, but by the grace and power of the Spirit . . . who surely works in us without rendering us consubstantial with God'. Though believers will be made like Christ, John does not mean that we shall be equal to Christ: `For there must be a difference between the Head and the Members.'

某些加爾文大膽的用詞會導致誤解，好像加爾文在自打嘴巴。所以，他常常為它們加上條件，或指出重要的不同。例如，神化並不是人工作或善工的結果。神所有的應許‘都該被合適並正確的被視為能力和榮耀的結果，’特別是有份與神的生命之應許。彼得的‘性質’這個字並不是指神的素質，而是達到‘種類（kind）’或‘質量（quality）’（當注意與東正教中素質（essence）/能力（energy）間的不同的相似之處）。所以，‘很清楚的。。。人的被造就是為了被模成像神，並不是藉由素質的流入，乃是借着聖靈的恩典和能力。。。祂必然在我們裡面作工，但不會使我們與神同質（consubstantial）。’雖然信徒們會成為像神，約翰的意思並不是我們會與基督相同：‘因為頭和肢體們必然是不同的。’

There is a final important point which Calvin does not explicitly make but which is latent in his comments on a related topic. A deified being can never be considered the same kind of being as the uncreated God. Servetus held that the Father was essentially God from whom the Son and Spirit derived their deity. Calvin responded that the Father would then be the deifier and `nothing would be left in the Son but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing else but the conjunction of the one God with two created things'. In other words, if Christ was in some sense a `god' by deification he would be a created being and not the uncreated Creator described in scripture. Mutatis mutandis, deified believers, even if properly designated `gods', remain created beings and therefore different kinds of beings than the one God.

最後有一個加爾文並沒有特別凸顯，卻隱藏在相關注釋背後的重點。一個被神化的人絕對不能被當作是與非受造之神一樣的存有。Servetus堅持父從本質而言是神，子和聖靈從祂分得到他們的神性。加爾文回應說，那麼父就成了神化者（deifier），‘子除了一個影子外，就成了一無所有的了；而三位一體不過就是一位神和兩個受造之物的交匯點（conjunction）罷了’。換句話說，若基督從某種意義而言，因神化是一位‘神（god）’，祂就是一個被造之物，而不是聖經所描述之非受造的造物主。正確的修正乃是（Mutatis mutandis），神化的信徒，即使能夠合適的被稱作‘神（gods）’，仍然是一個被造之物，故此跟那一位神完全是不同的存有。

Conclusion 結論

The believer's union with Christ and the Father, the indwelling presence of the Spirit in our hearts, restoration of the divine image, being made like Jesus and our eventual glorification are each important themes in Calvin's soteriology and eschatology. They are all pervaded by the language and imagery of theosis. There is a risk that readers unfamiliar with the patristic writings may fail to see this since I purposely refrained from quoting patristic parallels to focus attention directly upon Calvin's own statements (as well as save space). Insufficient familiarity with the patristic writings is precisely why many of Calvin's interpreters have not recognized the presence of deification in Calvin even when it has stared them in the face. That and the uncritical acceptance of Harnack's claims have caused many to assume its absence rather than engage in empirical investigation.

信徒與基督和父的聯合，聖靈在我們心中內住的同在，神形像的重建，成為與基督相像，以及我們最終的得榮，這每一項都是加爾文的救贖論（soteriology）和末世論（eschatology）中重要的主題。它們都瀰漫着神化的用詞和描述。不熟悉教父作品的讀者們可能會因為看不見這點，而面臨一個危險。因為我刻意避免引用教父們同樣的教訓，好直接着重在加爾文自己的教訓上面（也是為了節省篇幅的緣故。）對於教父作品的陌生就是為什麼許多加爾文的詮釋者無法發現加爾文教訓中的神化教義的緣故，即使他們正面對面的在注釋它們。Harnakc未經檢驗的宣告被廣為接受，導致讀者普遍認為加爾文沒有教導神化教義，而不去仔細研究考察。

One should not overstate the significance of deification's presence in Calvin, as the Finns have done with regard to Luther. It would be wrong to say that deification per se is a major element of Calvin's theology or that its presence warrants a radical reinterpretation of Calvin's theology. It must be remembered that deification is a part of the catholic tradition that Calvin and the other Reformers inherited, affirmed and defended. One should never be surprised to find elements of this tradition in the writings of the Reformers.

讀者不能低估神化在加爾文神學中的重要性，如同芬蘭學者對路得神學的態度一樣。同樣的，說神化是加爾文神學中的一個重要成分，或神化的出現導致對於加爾文神學的極端重新詮釋，也是同樣錯誤的。我們必須記得，神化是加爾文和其他改革者都繼承大公教會教義的一部分，他們也肯定，並捍了它。讀者不應當驚訝於在改革者的作品中找到這個傳統的成分。

More often than not deification in Calvin is presupposed as background rather than explicitly in the foreground. It has the habit of finding its way onto the stage of other issues for brief appearances but never headlines. Therein lies its significance. The largely presuppositional role of deification in Calvin's thought is strong evidence that by the end of his life Calvin had developed something like what the Eastern Orthodox term the patristic phronema or mindset. The fact that the patristic notion of theosis is present in Calvin's theology, yet he never once (so far as I know) cites a patristic authority in support, strengthens this claim. It is both implausible and unnecessary to insist that Calvin reinvented a doctrine that was found in many of the writers we know Calvin had read at length (not the least of which are Irenaeus, Augustine and Bernard if not Athanasius and the Cappadocians). But we should not expect Calvin to have appealed to patristic authority on the matter since it was not a major point of dispute in the sixteenth century. The pervasive but largely presuppositional presence of deification in Calvin's theology is best explained by patristic influence on his biblical exegesis at a level deeper than what can be detected by merely counting and classifying patristic quotations.

在更多的情況下，甚至在加爾文的神學中總是被假設隱藏在背後，而不是明確的被顯示在台前。我們總是發現它短暫的出現在其他不相干問題的舞台上，但從來不是主義的標題。假設神化在加爾文思想中地位是一個強而有力的證據，就是在加爾文晚年的時候，已經發展出某種類似東正教和教父思維模式的詞彙。事實上，教父對於神化的觀念確實出現在加爾文的神學中，然而他從沒有（就我所知的）引用過教父的權威作為支持，以加強這個宣告。堅持加爾文重新發明一個在許多其他作者作品中出現的教義是令人難以置信，也是不需要的。我們也知道加爾文大量的閱讀了這些資料（即使不包括亞他那修和加帕多加，也包括愛任紐，奧古斯丁和Bernard）。然而我們不應當期盼加爾文將這件事情訴諸於教父權威，因為在十六世紀，它並不是一個主要的爭議點。神化教義以無處不在的方式出現在加爾文神學中的假設，最好被解釋為教父對他的解經有一種深層的影響，這個影響只能使用教父的語錄才能夠被發現。

Can we then speak of `Calvin's doctrine of deification'? No and yes. Richard Muller rightly remarks that Calvin himself `might well object to the notion of ``Calvin's doctrine'' of anything, inasmuch as the doctrines that Calvin held and taught were, in large part, not his own! . . . What Calvin intended to teach was the church's doctrine, not his own doctrine.' Though not as bold as the Church fathers sometimes are, Calvin's understanding of deification is simply the patristic notion of theosis. In this sense we should not speak of `Calvin's doctrine of deification'; he was simply teaching and, more often, presupposing the Church's doctrine. Nor should we speak of `Calvin's doctrine of deification' as if he had substantively developed or systematized the doctrine beyond what the patristic writers wrote; on this subject Calvin was quite unoriginal. In another sense, however, we can. The role deification plays in Calvin's theology, its relation to other doctrines, and the minor developments one finds warrant comparative study of `Calvin's doctrine of deification' with that of individual Church fathers, medieval mystics, Eastern theologians, Aquinas, Luther and other sixteenth-century figures.

那麼，我們能不能說‘加爾文的神化教義’呢？不可以，也可以。Richard Muller正確的指出，加爾文本人‘可能會反對“加爾文的教義”這樣的想法，就像加爾文所堅持並教導的教義，絕大部分都不是他自己的！。。。加爾文所想要教導的是大公教會的教義，而不是他自己的教義。’所以有時候他不像教父們那麼大膽，加爾文對於神化的認識就是教父們對於神化的觀念。在這個意義上，我們不該說‘加爾文的神化教義’；他不過就是教導，更多的時候，是在支持教會的教義。我們也不該說‘加爾文的神化教義’好像他在教父作者們的作品之上，又發展或組織化了這個教義；在這個題目上，加爾文並不是源頭。從另一個意義而言，我們仍可以說‘加爾文的神化教義’。讀者在比較‘加爾文的神化教義’和個別教會教父、中古世紀的神秘主義，東正教神學家，阿奎那，路得和其他十六世紀的領袖的教導後，就能發現神化在加爾文神學中的角色的細微發展。

Finally, it is worth pointing out that although the search for common ground was not a motivation for my study, Calvin's doctrine of deification does have value for intra-religious and inter-religious dialogue. Calvin's doctrine is not a bridge of common ground that reconciles Reformed thought with Eastern Orthodoxy or any other religious movement that espouses a notion of deification (e.g. Mormonism). But it can be a point of departure, especially for dialogue between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. At the least, `Calvin's doctrine of deification' is something interesting for the Reformed to talk about among themselves.

最後，還需要指出，我在此並不是為我的研究尋求某種的共同立場，加爾文的神化教義對於信仰內部和信仰間的對話毫無價值。加爾文的教義也不是用來調解改革宗思想和東正教，或其他吸收了神化觀念宗教運動（例如摩門教）之橋梁。但是，它確實可以被當作一個起點，特別是為了在改革宗和東正教間的對話。最起碼，‘加爾文神化的教訓’是改革宗內部值得討論的，一個非常值得探討的題目。