WTJ 73 (2011): 237-54

卫敏斯特神学杂志（2011）：237-54

Quasi deificari: Deification in the Theology of John Calvin

神化我们：约翰加尔文神学中的神化

A. J. Ollerton

I. Introduction

介言

Recent discussions regarding deification in Calvin’s theology have sounded rather like a Punch and Judy show: “Oh yes there is . . . Oh no there isn’t!” Mosser and Billings have adamantly affirmed deification in Calvin’s theology, whereas Slater and Garcia deny any presence of the motif. The tug-of-war reached a fruitless impasse of yes/no responses as both sides quoted Calvin to bolster their positions. Lee’s recent article signals a fresh attempt to navigate a different route, through the distinction of divine essence and divine kind. The present article argues that Calvin has a differentiated approach to deification such that yes/no responses lie within Calvin’s corpus of writings itself. In his commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 Calvin concludes that the scriptural phrase “partakers of the divine nature” refers to a kind of deification (quasi deificari). This phrase shows Calvin’s willingness to affirm the motif of deification (through explicit use of theosis terminology) whilst also using the qualifying term (quasi) to guard against certain versions of deification. If it can be shown that Calvin himself both receives and rejects different versions of deification in a differentiated manner, the Punch and Judy show can give way to a more fruitful discussion of the nature of true deification according to Calvin. This could not only reconcile some divisions in Calvin scholarship but also contribute to bridging the gulf between East and West.

近期对于加尔文神学中的神化教义听起来就像个脱口秀：“哦，是的，他就是。。。。哦，不是，他绝对不是！”Mosser和Billings一口咬定加尔文神学中的神化教义，同时，Slater和Garcia则完全否定这个主题曾出现在加尔文的神学中。李最近的文章展现了以神的实质和神的种类间之不同着手，一种从不同路径解决问题的尝试。目前的文章主张，加尔文在其文集中，以一种超越是/否的方式来处理神化的教义。在他对于彼得后书1：4的注释中，加尔文结论到，圣经经文中的‘神性的分享者（partakers of the divine nature）’指的是某种的神化（quasi deificari）。这段话表明加尔文愿意肯定神化这个主题（借由严谨的使用theosis这个词汇）同时也使用了相关的条件（quasi）来避免某种版本的神化（教义）。它同时可以被用来表明，加尔文本身以不同的方式，既接受，又拒绝不同版本的神化（教义），脱口秀错过了对于加尔文真实神化教义的一个富有成果的讨论良机。这种讨论不但能够化解加尔文研究中的分歧，跟能够在东方和西方间搭建起一座桥梁。

II. Quasi deificari and the Patristic Background

某种的神化与教父们的时代背景

For we must consider from whence it is that God raises us up to such a height of honour. We know how abject is the condition of our nature; that God, then, should make himself ours, so that all his things should in a manner become our things, the greatness of his grace cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds. . . . 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 [quasi deificari ].

因为我们必须考虑神从何处将我们提升到那种荣耀的高度。我们知道我们的境况是如此的下贱；使得神，要让祂成为我们的；好叫祂所有的一切能够以某种方式成为我们的，祂恩典的伟大无法被我们的心思所想像。。。让我们指出，福音的终点就是，让我们最终能够被模成像神，若，我能够这样说，神化我们[quasi deificari]。

Calvin’s direct reference to deification aligns him with a trajectory reaching back to the patristic writers who frequently used the language of theosis or deification (from Justin Martyr through to Maximus the Confessor). Indeed, deification was explicitly taught and assumed in all three of the main patristic trajectories—the Alexandrian trajectory which emphasized the role of the incarnation and sacraments in deification (Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cyril), the Cappadocian trajectory which had a more intellectual, moral, and aesthetic approach to deification (Clement, Gregory Nazianzus, Maximus), and the Latin trajectory (Tertullian, Augustine). During the patristic era, the notion of deification was so established that no definition was deemed necessary until Dionysius the Areopagite in the sixth century. Deification was such a solid assumption that it could be used as a battering ram to knock down other doctrines. As Russell argues: “Deification is primarily a weapon in Athanasius’ dogmatic armoury against Arianism.” In Orationes contra Arianos Athanasius used deification to expose the Arian contradiction—the Son cannot make gods out of humanity unless he is God Himself; only deity can deify humanity. As Christology was debated, both sides assumed deification.

加尔文对于神化的直接回应，使得他与频繁使用Theosis或神化语言的古教父（从殉道者游丝丁到坚信者马克西母）处于同样的张力之中。的确，主要的三个学派都明确无误的教导神化的教义—亚历山大（Alexandrian）学派强调神化中道成肉身的角色和圣礼（爱任纽，亚他那修，区利罗），迦帕多家（Cappadocian）学派以一种更为理智，道德和美学的方式处理神化（革利免，拿先斯的贵格利，马克西母），和拉丁（Latin）学派（特土良，奥古斯丁）。在教父的时代，神化的观念一直到六世纪的迪奥尼修（Dionysius the Areopagite）都没有真正的定义。神化是那么一个坚定不移的假设，甚至可以被当作用来否定其他教义的攻城锤。就像Russell主张的：“神化是亚他那修的教义武器库中，用来对付亚流主义最主义的武器。”在《反亚流四论文（Orationes contra Arianos）》中，亚他那修用神化来曝露亚流派的矛盾—除非神的儿子就是神自己，祂就不能把人变成众神（gods）；只有神能够神化人性。争辩基督论的双方都使用了神化的教义。

It is primarily the Alexandrian trajectory that finds an echo in Calvin’s approach to deification. Irenaeus was the first to explicitly state the tantum-quantum or exchange formula; the Son of God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” Athanasius stood on Irenaeus’s shoulders and saw further. He emphasized the flesh of the incarnate Christ as the definition and dynamic of deification. Only if human nature has been deified in Christ can we be deified through our union with Christ: “For that is why the union was of this kind, that he might unite what is naturally man to what is naturally of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification be made sure.” Cyril was the first to see the sacraments as the primary means of deification—baptism initiates the unio mystico between the believer and Christ, and the Eucharist feeds the believer’s soul with nothing less than Christ himself. Thus the Eucharist “restores man wholly to incorruption” as it is endowed with the qualities of the Logos and “is filled with his energy, through which all things are given life and maintained in being.”

加尔文处理神化教义的方式主要可以在亚历山大学派中找到同样的方式。爱任纽是第一位明确宣称tantum-quantum或交换公式（exchange formula）的教父；神的儿子‘成为我们的所是，好叫我们能够成为祂的所是。’亚他那修站在爱任纽的肩膀上看的更远。他强调道成肉身的肉身乃是神化的定义和活力。只有人性在基督里被神化，我们才能够借由我们与基督的联合，而被神化：“因为，那就是为什么那个联合必须是这样的，好叫祂能够联合那些本性为人的，与那位本性属于神格的联合为一，祂的救赎和神化就能够被坚立。”区利罗是第一位看见圣礼是神化的主要手段—受浸开启了信徒和基督间的unio mystic(奥秘的联合)，圣餐就是把基督自己喂给信徒的魂。故此，圣餐“完全重建人，把不朽赐给人”，因为它乃是道之质量所赐予的，“被祂的能力所充满，借由它万有都能够得着生命，并维持其生存。”

The patristic influence on Calvin is well documented. As Calvin says himself: “We receive what was determined by the ancient councils, and we hate all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors from the time of St. Hilary and Athanasius until St. Ambrose and Cyril.” Therefore any attempt to assess the place of deification in Calvin’s theology must begin with this patristic plumb line. Consequently, the absence of this patristic background in many studies means a failure to see deification in the foreground of Calvin’s theology. Lee’s recent article largely omits the patristic background and as a result summarizes Calvin’s comments by saying: “We will experience a kind of deification, but not deification itself.” However, consistent with the patristic writers, Calvin never questions whether we will experience deification but what kind of deification it will be. Indeed, in his commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 Calvin sees deification as both the goal of the gospel and the greatest possible blessing.

教父对于加尔文的影响都被清楚的记载下来。就像加尔文自己所说的：“我们领受了古代教会会议所定规的，我们也憎恶所有从希拉里和亚他那修到安波罗修和区利罗这些圣博士所拒绝的教派和异端。”故此，任何讲神化教义置于加尔文神学中的尝试，必须从这条教父的中轴线开始。其结果就是，因为许多研究都忽略了这个教父的背景，导致他们看不见加尔文神学中神化教义的前提。李最近的论文基本上跳过了教父的背景，所以他对于加尔文的结论就是，“我们会经历某种的神化，但是不是神化的本身。（We will experience a kind of deification, but not deification itself.）”不论如何，与古代教父作者们一致，加尔文从未质疑我们是否会经纶神化，而质疑经历的是那种的神化。实际上，在他的彼后1：4注释中，加尔文视神化为福音的目的和我们能获得最大的祝福。

In line with the patristic trajectory, Calvin also highlights the apophatic nature of deification, such that it “cannot be sufficiently conceived by our minds.” Calvin often turns to the patristic and mediaeval language of mystery when approaching the motif of deification. This signals both an awareness of approaching an unfathomable subject and a concern not to move beyond biblical revelation into speculation. In Book 3 of the Institutes, having commented further on 2 Pet 1:4, he then pulls back from any attempt to inquire further into the depths of this promise:

加尔文与教父们一样，他也用否定的方式指出神化的本质，就像，它“无法被我们的理智所完全理解。”加尔文在处理神化这个题目的时候，往往诉诸于古教父和中古世纪神秘主义的语言。这表示在出来这个高深莫测题目时的小心翼翼，和避免脱离圣经的启示而落入臆测的谨慎。在《教义》卷三中，当他进一步注释彼后1：4的时候，他立刻从对于这个应许深入的进一步讨论中，抽身而出：

But when we have made great progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the mystery, we are still halting at the entrance. . . . We feel how much we are stimulated by an excessive desire of knowing more than is given us to know, and hence frivolous and noxious questions are ever anon springing forth.

然而，当我们在基督中保的服侍中进发的时候，让我们认识清楚，若我们心思中的观念于奥秘的庄严相冲突的时候，我们就必须止于入口。。。我们感到我们是如何因想要理解那远超我们所能理解之事物的迫切所刺激，因此，发出轻率并有害的质疑。

A crucial point arises from Calvin’s caution; when a subject tends towards being more apophatic in nature, Calvin will say less about it. This inversely proportional relationship between mystery and commentary should not be (mis)interpreted to mean that Calvin has a small place in his theology for the deification motif. Percentages and proportions are not a fair test of the significance of deification in Calvin’s writings. The patristic writers may have approached deification directly as a topic for discussion. However, Calvin approaches deification obliquely and glances at it from other loci of inquiry. Therefore, “halting at the entrance” of that which Calvin deems the goal of the gospel is not a reluctance to enter but a caution not to do so presumptuously or prematurely.

加尔文的谨慎引发了一个重点：当一个题目的本质是负面的，加尔文就不太会提及它。这个在奥秘和圣经注释间的反比，不能被错误的诠释为，神化这个题目在加尔文的神学中只占有微不足道的地位。百分比和比率不能作为测量神化在加尔文作品中分量的标准。教父们可能直接把神化当作讨论的题目。不论如何，加尔文以简介的方式出来神化，并以其他的方式来审视它。故此，在被加尔文视为福音的目标前“止于入口”，并不代表我们拒绝进入该议题，而是我们避免自以为是并贸然推测的谨慎。

II. Falsa apotheosis—Versions of Deification Calvin Rejects

伪神化—加尔文拒绝的神化

Calvin’s commentary on 2 Pet 1:4 illustrates his differentiated approach. On the very same page he both receives and rejects deification. No sooner has Calvin affirmed quasi deificari than he opposes a different version of deification:

加尔文对于彼后1：4的注释描述了他与众不同的处理方式。就在那页之中，他既拒绝又接受了神化。一但加尔文肯定了神化我们（quasi deificari），他就立刻反对其他不同版本的神化教义。

But the word nature is not here essence but quality. The Manicheans formerly dreamt that we are a part of God, and that, after having run the race of life we shall at length revert to our original. There are also at this day fanatics who imagine that we thus pass over into the nature of God, so that his swallows up our nature. . . . But such a delirium as this never entered the minds of the holy Apostles.

但是此处性质这个字不是实质而是质量。摩尼教先梦想我们是神的一部分，然后在一生的旅程中，我们至终就能够反转回答我们起初的状态。在今日，那些做白日梦的人幻想我们就能够进入神的性质，好叫祂能吞没我们的性质。。。然而，使徒们绝对不会有这种神志不清的想法。

Here Calvin rejects the Manichees’ attempts to posit deification as a form of trans-substantiation whereby humanity is mixed into the divine substance “so that his swallows up our nature.” Calvin also clashes with Servetus on a similar issue and concludes it is a “delusion to imagine deity in believers.” In both instances, Calvin is objecting to the unqualified and unmediated notion of deity in humanity such that deity can be considered a deposit that humans possess. Elsewhere Calvin also rejects what he terms falsa apotheosis, meaning pagan notions of deification that attribute the title and status of gods to outstanding military heroes and kings. Calvin’s objections to falsa apotheosis are gathered up and brought into focus through his debate with Osiander.

加尔文在此拒绝了摩尼教将神化定为性质的改变（trans-substantiation）之尝试，借以把人性和神的性质混合，“以至于祂吞没了我们的性质。”加尔文也与Servetus在类似的题目上对垒，并结论说，它是一个‘被炮制出来，在信徒中神性的谎言。’在这两个场合中，加尔文都坚决抵制对于人性中，毫无限制和无中保的神化，导致神格被认为是人所拥有的积蓄。在别处，加尔文也拒绝他所谓的falsa apotheosis（伪神化），意思就是异教对于神化的观念，将众神（gods）的称号和地位赋予杰出的军事领袖和国王。加尔文借由他与Osiander的辩论，将其反对伪神化的观点整合并摊在阳光下。

Calvin introduces Osiander’s error by connecting it with that of the Manichees; “he had formed some idea akin to the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men.” Though the debate will narrow down to the issue of essential righteousness compared to imputed righteousness in the arena of justification, Calvin starts with the broader issue of the impartation of divine substance. This relates directly to the deification motif. Most of the literature bypasses this broader context and only begins the debate at the narrow point of imputed versus essential righteousness. Consequently, the differences between Calvin and Osiander can be exaggerated and the more nuanced objections of Calvin missed. Indeed, “Calvin does not start writing against Osiander, until he is accused of being Osiandrian in his theology by his Lutheran opponents.” Calvin’s broader objections to Osiander can be summarized as follows.

加尔文以将Osiander和摩尼教相比较，指出他的错误：“他形成了某些类似摩尼教的想法，想要把神的实质灌输到人里面。”虽然这个争辩将会缩小在比较实质的公义（essential righteousness）和归咎的公义（imputed righteousness）的范围内。在称义教义的竞技场上，加尔文以神实质被赐予给信条作为一个广泛的议题，它直接联于神化这个题目。大部分的相关文章都漏掉了这个大前提，只从一个狭窄的，关于归咎公义(imputed righteousness)对抗实质公义(essential righteousness)的视角作为辩论的起点。这导致加尔文和Osiander间的分歧被过分夸大，错失了加尔文真正的目的。的确，“加尔文直到被路得派的对手攻击他的神学乃是Osiander派之前，加尔文从未提笔撰写反对Osiander的文章。”加尔文的反对Osiander的重点如下：

1. Unmediated Deification

无中保的神化

Osiander posits a direct reception of divine essence (righteousness), which bypasses the incarnation and the work accomplished by Christ in the flesh. Thus, the integrity of both divinity and humanity is lost and the Creator/creature distinction is dissolved. Calvin therefore states, “We deny the essence of Christ is confounded with ours.” To refute this direct infusion of divine righteousness Calvin repeatedly uses the language of mediator. He claims Osiander teaches that “we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator.” By contrast, Calvin affirms his own position on mediated righteousness: “We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. . . . [Paul] places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ.”

Osiander认为人能够直接接受神的实质（公义），越过了道成肉身和基督在肉身中所成就的工作。故此，失去了神性和人性的完整，造物主/被造之物的分别被抹去。所以加尔文宣称，“我们否定基督的实质被模成到我们里面。”为了否定这种神公义的直接融合到人性中，加尔文不但的使用中保的语言。他宣称Osiander教导，“我们不单单只能借由中保的恩典得称义。”在另一方面，加尔文肯定他自己对于中保之公义的立场：“故此，我们推断，公义在祂的肉身中被显现给我们看。。。[保罗]将公义的根基完全置于基督的道成肉身之中。”

The vital distinction here is not regarding the real reception of divinity in humanity (deification) but the modus of that reception (mediated or unmediated). Our reception of the divine nature is enabled only through the incarnate flesh of the Mediator. Therefore, all that Osiander wishes to affirm about the reception of the divine nature, Calvin can affirm but not in the same way. Osiander posits an unmediated infusion; Calvin posits a mediated incarnation.

此处生死攸关的分别并不是是否在人性中真实的接受神性（神化），而是所领受的媒介（modus）（不论它是有中保的，还是无中保的）。我们只能借由中保道成的肉身才能够领受神的性情。故此，Osiander想要的不过就是肯定领受神的性情，加尔文则以另一种方式肯定这点。Osiander定义了一个不需要中保的注入；加尔文定义了一个中保的道成肉身。

We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us,—a matter as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. (emphasis added)

我们只需要公义的神临及我们并被我们享受的方式做出一个分别，--这是Osiander无耻犯错的地方。我们不否认在基督中从奥秘的恩典和神的能力流向我们，并公开显示给我们看见的任何事物；我也不会争辩基督授予我们的公义就是神的公义，也是从神而来的。我们一直所坚信的是，我们的公义和生命乃是在基督的死和复活之中。

This explains why Calvin and Osiander have been considered by some to be polar opposites and by others to be kindred spirits (the Lutheran critique). It is also the reason why this debate with Osiander has been wrongly used to argue against deification in Calvin. Garcia makes this error when he argues that deification can only be posited in Calvin’s theology “if one overlooks all Calvin has to say in criticism of Osiander’s essentialist, divinizing conception.” This confuses different issues. Calvin does vehemently reject Osiander’s notion of unmediated substance infusion, but that does not mean he has rejected a quasi deificari when mediated by the incarnate flesh of Christ. Again the need for a differentiated doctrine of deification is highlighted.

这也就解释了加尔文和Osiander往往被一些两极化的反对者和刚硬的灵（路得派的批判）所关注。这也是为什么这个与Osiander的争论会被错误的用来否定在加尔文神学中的神化教义。Garcia在争论，神化只能在“我们忽视了加尔文在批判Osiander的实质主义，神化的观念时所要说的”，才能够被置于加尔文的神学中时，犯了错误。这把不同的问题搅浑在一起。加尔文并没有粗暴的拒绝Osiander对于缺少中保的性质上之注入的观念，但是，这不代表他已经拒绝了一个由基督道成的肉身为中保的神化（quasi deificari）。

2. Disconnected Deification

孤立的神化

Osiander’s failure to attribute righteousness to the flesh of the Mediator also causes him to neglect the work of the Spirit. The result is that instead of deification being derived from personal union with Christ, Osiander focuses on the transference of divine essence. For Osiander our union with Christ is through substance exchange, whereas for Calvin it is through the agency of the Spirit:

Osiander错误的没将公义归于中保的肉身，也会造成他忽略了圣灵的工作。Osiander着重与神实质的传输，而顶替了源于个人与基督的联合，所产生的神化。对于Osiander，我们与基督的联合乃是经由实质的交换，同时，对于加尔文，是经由圣灵的中介。

He, indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit.

他，不过就是把许多论及基督与我们是一，和我们也与祂是一的，那些根本不需要证明的经文拼凑在一起；但是，他因为没有注意这个联合的联结而陷入自我矛盾。这也解释了，为什么那些问题对我们是简单的，我们坚信我们乃是借由基督的灵之奥秘的介入，而与基督联合为一。

Calvin’s response to Osiander’s substance language is to affirm the role of the Spirit as the bond of the unio mystico relationship between Christ and the believer: “Therefore, 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.”

加尔文以肯定圣灵作为基督和信徒间奥秘联合（unio mystic）的角色，来回应Osiander的那些实质的语言：“故此，对于那个头和肢体间的联合，基督以一种细腻，奥秘的联合，住在我们的心里面。当基督成为我们的，并使得我们成为在那赋予祂之恩典的同伴时，我们将最高的地位归于基督。”

3. Over-Realized Deification

被过分诠释的神化

Finally, Calvin accuses Osiander of “hurrying us into the clouds” by an overrealized eschatology. Osiander teaches the reception of perfect righteousness and the partaking of the divine nature at the point of regeneration. Calvin argues against this by highlighting a vital distinction: “The gift of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct.” Imputed righteousness is perfect now. However, the process which began at regeneration continues “through the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly.” Thus, according to their state of sanctification, any believer would be condemned before the judgment-seat in this life but according to justification “they appear in the heavens as if clothed with the purity of Christ.”

最后，加尔文批判Osiander以一个过分被诠释的末世论教导“我们要赶紧进到云里面（hurrying us into the clouds）。”Osiander教导在重生的时刻，我们领受完全的公义，并有份于神性。加尔文则以一个生死攸关的分别来争辩：“称义的恩典不能与重生分开，虽然它们是不同的。”归咎的公义如今是完美的。不论如何，从重生开始的过程，会“在人的一生中，逐渐，和有时候是缓慢的”继续往前。故此，根据他们圣别的程度，任何信徒在此生中，在审判的宝座前都会被定罪，然而根据称义，“他们在天上如同披上了基督的纯洁。”

Calvin’s twofold distinction between justification and sanctification gives an eschatological structure—at the point of regeneration, justification is perfected whereas sanctification is partial. The result is that the believer can experience peace with God now in the heavenly realm, whilst still remaining a pilgrim in the earthly realm en route to deified perfection. Osiander’s infusion of a “portion of righteousness” has no distinction of imputed and imparted. Instead it collapses them both into the immediate, leaving his theology devoid of an eschatological framework. The result is that “salvation is shaken.”

加尔文在称义和成圣间的双重分别建构了一个末世论的架构—在重生的时候，称义是完全的，成圣则是部分的。其结果就是，信徒如今就能够在属天的范畴中，经历与神的和平，同时，仍然是留在属地的范畴中，朝着神化而去的天路客。Osiander的‘部分公义’的注入并没有清楚的分辨归咎和注入。它反而将它们坍塌，而成为一个直接的（手段），使得他的神学缺乏末世论的架构。其结果就是，“救赎被动摇了。”

Therefore, Calvin criticizes Osiander for abusing Scriptures “used in reference to the heavenly life,” because he then “wrests [them] to our present state . . . as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ.” The two texts that Calvin cites (2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 3:3) are “standard patristic proof-texts for deification.” Thus Calvin overtly draws the deification motif into this debate with Osiander on the grounds that he fails to give a future tense to the realization of these promises. Again, Calvin’s objection is not that Osiander is going too far in asserting the union of humanity and divinity but rather that he envisages that union in the wrong way and at the wrong time.

故此，加尔文批判Osiander滥用圣经，“将其用于属天的生命，”因为他接下来“将其扭曲为我们现今的状态。。。就好像，我们现在就在，原本要在基督末次再来才成就的，福音的应许中。”加尔文所引用的两处经文（彼后1：4；约壹3：3）都是‘教父用来支持神化的标准经文。’故此，加尔文蓄意将神化这个题目拖入与Osiander的辩论中，因为Osiander无法提供这些应许如何在将来中被成就。再者，加尔文所反对的，并不是Osiander过分坚持人性和神性的联合，而是他以一种错误的方式，在错误的时间中，揣测那个联合。

III. The Threefold Nature of Deification According to Calvin

神化根据加尔文的三重本性

Unsurprisingly, the quasi deificari that Calvin affirms is symmetrical to Osiander’s falsa apotheosis, which he rejects. In the same three areas that he opposes Osiander’s version of deification, Calvin also formulates a positive version of deification that is in line with the Alexandrian trajectory from the patristic era.

加尔文所坚信的神化我们（quasi deificari）与他所反对的Osiander之伪神化（falsa apotheosis）是相似的，这并不令人惊讶。在他所反对Osiander版本的神化之三个方面，加尔文都建构了一种正面的神化，与教父时期的亚历山大学派一致。

1. Mediation Through the Hypostatic Union

借由位格联合之中保

For Calvin, deification is the closest possible connection between God and man such that through the unio mystico there is “a sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him.” However, Calvin turns his back on any attempt to bring about this union apart from the incarnate flesh of the Son of God. Instead, Calvin sees the flesh of Christ as the only bridge over the otherwise infinite chasm between God and man. The hypostatic union is the interface that joins humanity and divinity, Creator and creature, Deus facit and homo fit. Consequently, the person of Jesus Christ is deification and as such becomes the only appropriate definition and dynamic of deification. As Mosser states regarding Calvin, “Christ unites believers to God because in his person God and humanity are already united.”

对于加尔文，神化乃是借由奥秘联合而有的，在神和人间的关系最紧密的关系。有一个“神圣的联姻，借由它我们成为他骨中的骨，肉中的肉，如此与他为一。”不论如何，加尔文否认任何尝试将这个联合分割在神儿子成为的肉身之外。加尔文反而视基督的肉身为神和人间那个不可跨越鸿沟上面唯一的桥梁。位格的联合就是联结人性和神性，造物主和被造物的界面，Deus facit and homo fit(God makes and man is made—神创造而人被造)。其结果就是，基督这个人就是神化，也就成为神化唯一的定义和活力。如同Mosser论及加尔文所说的，“基督将信徒联于神，因为在祂的位格中，神和人类已经联合了。”

Firstly, Christ is the definition of deification as the two natures are joined in full union—indivisibly and inseparably. This union preserves the distinctive properties of each nature—inconfusedly and unchangeably. With Chalcedonian precision Calvin states; “He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.” Thus, the incarnation unites God and man in perfect union whilst safeguarding the Creator/creature distinction. For Calvin, this is the only definition of deification because Christ himself is the definition. This aligns Calvin with the patristic definition of deification: “Calvin’s doctrine of theosis, like its classical antecedents, is built around the hypostatic union. Theosis is only possible because human nature has been deified in the theandric person of the Mediator. As men and women are united to Christ, his divinity deifies them.”

首先，基督是神化的定义，两性在完全联合为一—不可分割（indivisibly）也不可分离（inseparably）。这个联合保留了每一个性质独特的属性—不可混合（inconfusedly）也不可改变（unchangeably）。加尔文以迦克顿的精确论到；“那位是神儿子的，并没有任何性质上的混乱，而是借由位格的联合，成为人的儿子。（He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.）”故此，道成肉身在一个完美的联合中，将神和人联合为一，同时保证了造物主/被造之物的分别。对于加尔文，这就是神化的唯一定义，因为基督自己就是定义。这也将加尔文与教父们对于神化的定义一致：“加尔文的神化教义，就如同它古典的先行者一样，都是建立在位格联合之上。神化乃是因为在中保神人二性联合之位格中，人性被神化，才成为可能。当人们被联于基督的时候，祂的神性就神化了他们。”

Secondly, Christ is the dynamic of deification, as his deified flesh becomes the source of vivifying life. In one of his tracts Calvin describes the flesh of Christ as a fountain:

其次，基督是神化的动力，祂那个被神化的人性成为活泼生命的源头。加尔文在他的一个小册子上描述基督的肉身为泉源，说：

The flesh of Christ gives life, not only because he once obtained salvation by it, but because now, while we are made one with Christ by a sacred union, the same flesh breathes life into us. . . . For from the hidden fountain of the Godhead life was miraculously infused into the body of Christ that it might flow from thence to us.

基督的肉身赐给我们生命，不单单是因为祂曾经借由它得到了就是，而是因为如今，当我们借由神圣的联合与基督成为一的时候，那个肉身把生命吹到我们里面。。。因着，从隐藏在神格中的泉源，生命以一种神迹的方式注入基督的身体之中，好从基督的身体再流向我们。

Commenting on John 6:51-59, Calvin describes the internal dynamic that enables the flesh of Christ to be a fountain of divine life:

在约翰6：51-59的释经中，加尔文描述那个让基督的肉身成为神生命之源头的内在活力为：

As this secret power to bestow life, of which he has spoken, might be referred to his Divine essence, he now comes down to the second step, and shows that this life is placed in his flesh, that it may be drawn out of it. . . . But an objection is brought, that the flesh of Christ cannot give life, because it was liable to death, and because even now it is not immortal in itself; and next, that it does not at all belong to the nature of flesh to quicken souls. I reply, though this power comes from another source than from the flesh . . . for as the eternal Word of God is the fountain of life, (John 1:4,) so his flesh, as a channel, conveys to us that life which dwells intrinsically, as we say, in his Divinity. And in this sense it is called life-giving, because it conveys to us that life which it borrows for us from another quarter (emphasis added)

作为奥秘赐生命的能力，就是祂自己说过的，就是跟祂神圣的实质有关，祂如今在第二个步奏之中，显明这个生命就是在祂的肉身之中，好叫生命能从祂的肉身中流出来。。。但有人也反对这个说法，认为基督的肉身无法赐给我们生命，因为它会死亡，也因为它如今也不是不朽的；其次，属于肉身本质的不一定能够点活魂(quicken souls)。我回答他们，虽然这个能力是从另一个源头，而不是肉身而来。。。如同神永远的道是生命的源头一样（约翰1：4），祂的肉身也是如此，如同一个管道，将从本质上住在神格中的生命传输给我们，如同我们所说过的一样。从这个角度而言，它被称作是赐生命的（life-giving），因为它将那个生命传输给我们，这个生命乃是从他处借来给我们的。

Calvin himself raises the very objection Slater makes: “Calvin’s position is that believers share in what is Christ’s according to his human nature.” This is the exact reasoning that Calvin refutes—the human nature alone cannot “quicken souls,” thus the power must “come from another source than from the flesh.” Slater’s blinkered reading of Calvin cannot accommodate his patristic interpretation of these verses from John. For Slater, the incarnation is only the redemptive platform from which Christ can expiate sins. However, for Calvin the incarnate flesh is also a fountain that vivifies and deifies as the divine life of God is “drawn out” of the human flesh.

加尔文自己提出了Slater的反对理由：“加尔文的立场乃是信徒根据基督的人性，分享基督所有的。”这就是加尔文否定—人性自己不能“点活魂（quicken souls）”—的理由，故此能力必须“从肉身之外的另一个源头而来”。Slater对加尔文狭隘的理解不能被当作约翰对于教父们诠释这些经文的认知。对于Slater，道成肉身不过就是一个救赎的平台，基督借由它为罪受罚。不列入，对于加尔文，道成的肉身也是一个赐生命和神化的泉源，神的神圣生命从人的肉身中被“汲取而出”。

In this same section of commentary on John 6:51-58 Calvin concludes that Jesus teaches “three degrees of life”:

在约翰6：51-58注释的同一个段落中，加尔文结论到，耶稣教导“三等的生命”：

The first rank is the living Father, who is the source but remote and hidden. Next follows the Son, who is exhibited to us as an open fountain, and by whom life flows to us. The third is the life which we draw from him. We now perceive what is stated to amount to this, that God the Father, in whom life dwells, is at a great distance from us, and that Christ, placed between us, is the second cause of life, in order that what would otherwise be concealed in God may proceed from him to us.

第一等是活的父，祂是源头，但是是我们不可及的，也是隐藏的。其次是子，祂被当作敞开的泉源显现给我们看，生命借由祂流给我们。第三等是我们从祂汲取的生命。我们如今发现，生命住在其中的父神，乃是遥不可及的，而基督被置于两者之间，是生命的次因，好叫凡隐藏在神里面的，都能够从祂流向我们。

Contra Slater and every denial of deification, Calvin clearly argues that divine life does enter human life—third degree life receives first degree life. However, contra Osiander and all who present unmediated forms of deification, first degree life can only flow to third degree life through the incarnate fountain of second degree life: “So the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself.”

与Slater反对神化的每一个论点相对，加尔文明确的论及神的生命并不会进入人的生命中—第三等的生命接受了第一等的生命。不论如何，与Osiander和那些教导不需要中保之神化的人士相对，第一层的生命只能借由第二层生命所成为的肉身为泉源，才能够流到第三层的生：“所以，基督的肉身就像丰富和不会干涸的泉源，将从神格流出的生命传输到我们里面。”

When deification receives its definition and dynamic from the incarnation, the dangers of falsa apotheosis are avoided. Mediated deification renounces both competition between God and man (pagan deification) and the conflation of God and man (the Manichees and Osiander). Instead, the incarnation preserves the eternal distinction between Creator and creature whilst uniting them in full communion.

当神化从道成肉身领受了它的定义和动力之时，就能够避免伪神化的危险。具有中保的神化否定了神人之间的竞争（异教的神化）和神人之间的异种合并（摩尼教和Osiander）。反而，道成肉身保守了创造者和被造之物间，那种永恒的分别，同时在一个完整的交通中，将它们联合为一。

Calvin’s doctrine of the incarnation enables him to hold in tension the depravity of humanity by nature and the deification of that same humanity by grace. The result is Calvin’s sublime ability to argue both for and against humanity on the same page. The influence of Bernard is noteworthy at this point. Calvin quotes him at length as an example of how to hold the seeming contradiction of humanity in tension:

加尔文道成肉身的教义使得他能够维持在人性本质的败坏和借由恩典神化败坏人性间的张力。其结果就是能够以庄严的能力，在同一页中，全力支持又反对人性。Bernard的影响在此处就变的非常显著。加尔文大篇幅的引用他的话，作为如何在那种表面上的张力里，掌握人性中的张力之范例：

By the blessing of God, sometimes meditating on the soul, methinks, I find in it as it were two contraries. When I look at it as it is in itself and of itself, the truest thing I can say of it is, that it has been reduced to nothing. . . . What then? Man doubtless has been made subject to vanity—man here been reduced to nothing—man is nothing. And yet how is he whom God exalts utterly nothing? How is he nothing to whom a divine heart has been given? (emphasis added)

借由神的祝福，有时候作为魂的中保，我发现有两个矛盾。当我在其中看见它的本质之时，我所能说的就是，它们就变得毫无价值。。。然后呢？人能够毫不犹疑的顺服虚空—人在此处变得毫无价值—人本就是毫无价值的。然而，那被神所高举的人怎么可能完全是没有价值的呢？神的心怎么可能被赐给那些毫无价值的人呢？

The nothingness, even “obliteration” of humanity apart from God is rigorously affirmed by Calvin (contra Pighius). However, he also affirms humanity as destined for deifying union with God. What reconciles these polarized realities is the role of the Mediator. The fact that Christ had to “make himself nothing”even to the point of death on a cross, affirms the utter sinfulness of humanity. However, that God “put on our flesh” and brought us union with him affirms the exalted nature of humanity.

那种毫无价值，甚至在神之外，对于人性的“被涂抹（obliteration）”被加尔文严酷的肯定（contra Piguius）。不论如何，他也肯定人性有一个与神、被神化的联合。中保的角色就是这些两极化教训的调和剂。基督“倒空自己”甚至死在十字架上的事实，证实了人类的罪。而神‘披上了我们的肉身’并将我们带入与祂的联合中，也证实了人性被高举的本质。

Calvin’s doctrine of the incarnation enables him to stand firmly in the Augustinian tradition emphasizing the sinfulness of humanity whilst also affirming, with more Eastern emphasis, deification for that same humanity. It is vital to recover Calvin’s unification of these themes. Otherwise, the split between East and West gives the impression that these two emphases are incompatible, resulting in Western theology’s suppression of the creation-deification trajectory. Calvin offers a bridge between East and West because of the breadth of his doctrine of the incarnation. For Calvin, the incarnation is both a platform for the redemptive recovery of post-Lapsarian humanity and a progression for humanity beyond the pre-Lapsarian state as the hypostatic union inaugurates the deification of humanity in Christ.

加尔文道成肉身的教义让他能坚定不移的站在奥古斯丁强调人的罪孽的同时，也肯定东方更为强调的神化。如此重现加尔文如何把这些主题连成一气乃是至关重要的。否则，分割东西方会让人认为这它们所各自所强调的是互不相容，导致西方的神学压制了被造之物能被神化的张力。加尔文以其道成肉身教义的宽广内涵，在东方和西方中间搭建了一座桥梁。对于加尔文，道成肉身同时是恢复post-Lapsarian人性的救赎平台，也是一个人性超越post-Lapsarian的渐进过程，如同位格的联合开启了基督人性的神化一样。

The incarnation as the definition and dynamic of deification enables Calvin to make frequent use of the patristic exchange formula. Calvin shies away from the boldest exchange formula, that God became man that men might become gods. For Calvin God did not become man in that bald, unqualified sense. Rather, through the incarnation the Son of God became Son of man. Consequently, sons of men do not become gods but rather sons of God. This gives a careful symmetry to the incarnation such that the descent of the Son into our nature (kenosis) is reversed by our ascent into his nature (theosis):

以道成肉身作为神化的定义和活力使得加尔文能够不断的使用教父（属性）交换的公式（exchange formula）。加尔文避免了最为大胆的公式，就是神成为人为了使人成为众神（God became man that men might become gods）。对于加尔文，神并没有在那种赤裸裸和没有定义的意义上成为人。反而，神的儿子借由道成肉身成为人的儿子。其结果就是，人的儿子们并不成为众神（gods），而成为神的众子（sons of God）。这提供了一个对于道成肉身教义更为谨慎、平衡的说法，就是神的儿子降世，今日我们的本性中（kenosis），使得我们能够被升高，进入祂的本性中（theosis）。

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven.

这是祂无限量的美善所成功的美妙的交换（wondrous exchange）。成为与我们一样的人子，祂使我们与祂一样，成为神的儿子，借由祂的降世，祂为我们预备了升天的道路。

Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? 

除了神的儿子也成为人的儿子，并领受我们所是的一切，并把我们变化成为祂所是的，让祂本质上所是的，借由恩典成为我们的，谁能够成就这件事呢？

2. Adoption Through the Spirit-Union

借由与圣灵的联合（Spirit-Union）被认养

For Calvin, it is adoption through the Spirit-union that binds us to Christ, without which the incarnation is of no benefit. To convey the extent of this union Calvin echoes Cyril of Alexandria in using the phrase unio mystico and also develops the “sacred marriage” metaphor. As Billings notes, Calvin’s otherwise cautious language takes on a “quite daring” approach as he comes to speak of our unio mystico and the participatio substantia which it entails.

对于加尔文，乃是借由与圣灵的联合被认养，将我们与基督联结为一，否则道成肉身就成为毫无意义的。为了阐明这个联合的深广，加尔文呼应亚历山大的区利罗（Cyril of Alexandria），而使用了奥秘的联合（unio mystico）这个词，并发展了‘神圣联姻（sacred marriage）’的比喻。就像Billings所注意到的，加尔文使用谨慎语言以采取一种“蛮大胆”的处理方式，他总是适时的论及我们奥秘的联合（unio mystico）和分享性质（participatio substantia）。

Adoption by the Spirit enables the second movement of the exchange formula and connects the incarnation of the Son of God with the deification of sons of men as sons of God:

被圣灵认养使得交换公式的第二个步奏成为可能，并将神儿子的道成肉身和人类众子的神化，成为神的众子联系起来。

Relying on this, earnest we trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own.

为了回应这个，我们必须衷心相信我们就是神的众子，因为本质是神儿子的那位为自己取了我们的身体，我们的骨肉，好叫祂能够与我们成为一；祂并没有取了一个与我们不同的人性，让祂能够在祂那一面，把祂所独有的延伸到我们里面。

For Calvin, the Son-ship of Christ is the gift of salvation and the goal of deification. Calvin makes only two distinctions between our son-ship and Christ’s in order to preserve both the Creator/creature distinction and the grace-gratitude nexus. The distinctions are that of origins (eternal vs. adopted) and rights (nature vs. grace). Otherwise, Calvin will press for symmetry between Christ’s Son-ship and ours, because “being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent father” (emphasis added). In his Hebrews commentary Calvin depicts the solidarity of son-ship between Christ and believers such that “[Christ] presents himself and us together to God the Father: for they form but one body who obey God under the same rule of faith.” Adoption escorts believers beyond the otherwise impassable boundary of the Creator-creature divide. The I-Thou of otherness and remoteness becomes the “Abba, Father” of union and participation. Whilst remaining a creature, through adoption the believer is escorted into the inner life of the triune God. This Trinitarian invitation is derived from the ad intra love that the Father has for the Son but is directed ad extra to those adopted sons that they may be loved as he is. “It is an invaluable privilege of faith, that we know that Christ was loved by the Father on our account, that we might be made partakers of the same love, and might enjoy it for ever” (emphasis added).

对于加尔文，基督儿子的名分乃是救恩的恩典和神化的目标。加尔文在我们的儿子名分和基督的儿子名分间做出了两个分别，好保守造物主/被造之物的分别，和恩典-恩赐的关系。这些关于起源（origins）(永恒与认养相对)和权利（rights）（本质和恩典相对）。另外，加尔文尝试要等同基督的儿子名分和我们的儿子名分，因为“我们被基督的公义与神和好，神不再是审判官，而成为慈爱的父”。在他的希伯来书释经中，加尔文将基督和信徒儿子名分描述为一个整体，说“[基督]将祂自己和我们一同献给父神：因为他们构成一个在同样的信仰规范下顺从神的身体。”认养护送信徒，使他们远超原不可逾越造物主-被造之物的分界线。那为与众不同和遥不可及的我-你（I-Thou，译者：圣经中对神的称呼，在此指神的超越性）成为联合和有份的“阿爸，父！”同时，人仍然是一个被造之物，信徒借由认养被领往三一神内里的生命。这种三位一体对人的邀请乃是源自于父对于子，在自己里面（ad intra）的爱，并以外在的方式（adextra）转移到那些被祂认养的信徒身上，好叫他们也能够为父所爱。“这就是信仰无价的权利，就是我们知道基督为了我们的缘故被父所爱，好叫我们能够成为同样之爱的分享者（partakers），并能够永远的享受它。”

The adoption motif safeguards deification from being misconstrued as the acquisition of certain attributes or gifts. If deification is divorced from union with God himself to becoming god-like ourselves, then the serpent returns with his subtle but sinful temptation: “You could be like God.” Calvin’s differentiated approach only allows deification that makes union with God himself the goal. Accordingly, the divine nature we partake of is adoption into the Son-ship of Christ and the derived relationship with the Father. Deification is to be incorporated in the eternal and inestimable love that the Father has for the Son.

认养这个题目保证了神化不会被错误的构建为获得（神的）某些属性或属性。若神化脱离了与神自己的联合而成为我们自己成为某种类似神的个体，那么蛇就会狡猾的回来，用罪恶的方式试探我们：“你们便如神。”加尔文独特的处理方式让神化只能够把与神自己联合当作最终的目标。有鉴于此，我们所有份的神性在是被认养到基督的儿子名分之中，并源自与父的关系。神化就是成为父对于子那个无限量的爱之一部分。

In his comments on the biblical metaphor of sacred marriage, Calvin goes further than personal union to argue for a substantial union. The substantial nature of this union is a controversial affirmation of an ontological exchange. Thus Calvin’s version of deification is realist, even if the substance is spiritually qualified. The unio mystico involves a paticipatio substantia—indeed that is what makes it mystical.

在他对于神圣婚姻的这个圣经的预表之诠释中，加尔文位格（personal）的联合的基础上，进一步讨论实质（substantial）的联合。这个联合实质方面的本质是一个有争议的，对于本体交换（ontological exchange）的肯定。故此加尔文版本的神化是唯实论大热，即使实质是从属灵上被定义的。奥秘的联合（unio mystico）需要有份于实质（paticipatio substantia）--确实，那就是让其成为奥秘的原因。

In the Institutes Calvin applies a two-way and symmetrical use of the phrase in Eph 5:32, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The first application of this phrase is rooted in the incarnation: “The natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bones, that he might be one with us.” However, Calvin then dares to reverse the application: “To this is to be referred that sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him (Eph 5:30), for it is by the Spirit alone that he unites us to himself.”

在《要义》中，加尔文以双重和系统性方式使用以弗所5：32的段落，“骨中的骨，肉中的肉。”这段话的第一种使用方式基于道成肉身：“本质上是神儿子的那位披上了我们的身体，是我们骨中的骨，肉中的肉。”然而，加尔文也敢倒着应用它：“这指的就是那个神圣的联姻，借由它，我们成为祂骨中的骨，肉中的肉，与祂完全是一（弗5：30），因为祂乃是借由圣灵将自己与我们联合为一。”

Again, commenting on the phrase “flesh of his flesh,” Calvin asserts, “This is no exaggeration, but the simple truth.” Calvin interprets this simple truth as Christ being a partaker of our nature (incarnation) and we being partakers of his nature (deification):

再者，加尔文在诠释“肉中的肉”这句话的时候宣称，“这并不夸大的说法，而是简单的真理（simple truth）。”加尔文将这个简单的真理诠释为基督成为我们的本性的分享者（道成肉身）而我们成为他本性的分享者（神化）：

As Eve was formed out of the substance of her husband, and thus was a part of himself; so, if we are the true members of Christ, we share his substance, and by this intercourse unite into one body. . . . All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance.

如同夏娃乃是从她丈夫的实质被塑造（formed），就成为他自己的一部分；同样的，我们也是基督真正的肢体，我们有份于他的实质，并借由这个互动联合成为一个身体。。。所有的信徒都如同妻子是由她丈夫的骨血而塑造的。这就是我们与基督的联合，祂以某种方式使我们成为祂实质的分享者。

Calvin is at pains to show that his use of substance language goes beyond the “human nature” of Christ to a reception of divine life by a participatio substantia. To do so, he applies a very literal interpretation of the Genesis quotation, what he refers to as “the simple truth.” Just as Eve was made from the substance of Adam, if we are Christ’s we must “share his substance.” Calvin seems to take this further than the text itself demands. Indeed, in his commentary on Rom 6:5 he confesses that he has pushed the boundaries of the engrafting metaphor in order to posit the exchange of substance. Calvin argues that the metaphor is inadequate because it does not express fully the reception not just of life (sap) but of actual nature:

加尔文在超越基督的‘人性’的层次使用实质的语言，来描述人借由有份（神的）实质（participation substantia）而接受神的生命，而显得煞费苦心。为了达成这个目的，他只稍微解释了所引用的创世纪经文，就是他所谓的“简单的真理。”就如同夏娃从亚当的本质而被造，若我们是属于基督的，我们就必然“有份祂的实质。”加尔文看起来超过了经文本身所要求的范围。他确实在他的罗马书6：5注释中承认，他刻意推进了接枝这个比喻的边界以安置实质交换的教义。加尔文主张那个比喻仍然是不足够的，因为它无法完全表达接受的不单单是生命（sap）而包括性质本身：

“Not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature.” Calvin is willing to transgress his own rule of the sensus literalis in order to affirm that the life flowing from Christ does not merely sustain the believer but transforms him into the divine nature of Christ.

“我们不单单从基督得到生命的动力和养分，我们也从自己被迁移到祂的本性中。”加尔文甚至愿意触犯他自己对于字义（sensus literalis）的规范，好肯定从基督流出的生命不单单维持信徒，并把信徒转移到基督的神性中。

The notion of participatio substantia is the reason Calvin uses the phrase unio mystico. In so doing, he is connecting union with Christ with the deification motif. Though they are not identical, they are closely related and it “is further evidence in favour of the theosis that Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis.” However, instead of trying to explain the inner dynamic of deification, Calvin draws on the language of apophatic mystery to signal his arrival at the boundary of human understanding:

有份于实质（participatio substantia）的观念就是加尔文使用奥秘的联合（unio mystico）的理由。他借由这个方法把与基督的联合与神化联系起来。虽然它们是不同的，它们仍然是紧紧相关的，它“乃是加尔文与基督联合的教义更倾向于神化的进一步证据，并与教父对于神化的观念一致。”然而，加尔文并没有进一步解释神化的内在活力，而用否定的语言来暗示他已经达到了人类理智所能及的边界。

“For my own part, I am overwhelmed by the depth of this mystery, and am not ashamed to join Paul in acknowledging at once my ignorance and my admiration. . . . Let us therefore labour more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.”

“在我这部分，我承受不了这个奥秘的深广，也毫不羞愧的立即与保罗一同肯定我的无知和钦佩。。。故此，让我们更努力的去感觉基督住在我们里面，而不要去探究那个互动的本质。”

3. Glorification Through Eschatological-Union

经由末世的联合得荣耀

For Calvin, “complete union” only occurs when mortal flesh is transferred into the immediate presence of God and there transfigured to be like him. The consummation of deification is through the beatific vision, and the beatific vision is God himself. The nature of this unhindered vision and full communion with God means Calvin’s general principle of brevity is tightly applied. However, a few comments seem to transgress his own boundaries and leave an enigma within Calvin’s eschatology. Calvin affirms the recovery of humanity in Christ and then seems to suggest the relinquishing of humanity by Christ. Commenting on 1 Cor 15:27-28 he implies that instead of resigning the kingdom, Christ will “transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity.”

对于加尔文，“完全的联合（complete union）”只在必死的肉身被带入神直接的显现中，才会发生，人会被变化形像而像神。神化的终结是借由极乐的异像，和神自己的极乐的看见。这种毫不隐藏和完全与神交流（full communion with God）的本质意味着加尔文严谨的应用了他简洁的原则。不论如何，他的几个评论都超越了他自己划定的边界，并使得他的末世论留下了一个谜团。加尔文肯定人类在基督里被恢复（recovery）到一个地步，让他看起来好像在暗示基督离开了（relingquishing）祂的人性。他在注释哥林多前书15：27-28的时候，他暗示基督并没有在国度中掌权，而要“将它从自己的人性传输到祂荣耀的神性中。”

The implication is that Christ’s humanity only mediates the Father’s divinity this side of the eschaton. Christ will then relinquish his humanity and the result will be a fuller revelation of the Godhead: “Christ’s humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God.” In the Institutes he puts it emphatically: “God will then cease to be the head of Christ, and Christ’s own Godhead will then shine forth of itself, whereas it is now in a manner veiled.”

那暗示基督的人性只从末世论的这方面为神的神性为中保。基督就会离开祂的人性，并产生对于神格更完全的启示：“基督的人性就不再介入，是的我们无法就近观看神。”在《教义》中，他特别强调说：“那么神就不再是基督的头，基督的神格就自己发出荣光，然而这个荣光如今是被遮盖的。”

Little attention has been given to these mysterious comments. Letham refers to the Nestorian problem in Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor 15:27-28. However, he does not refer to the comments in the Institutes, which are even more emphatic. The conclusion that Calvin “momentarily lost his grasp of the union of the two natures” (emphasis added) seems rather generous. Calvin’s comments leave us with awkward questions—is Christ’s humanity and role as mediator only temporary or eternal? What does that mean for our humanity, which is contingent upon his? Calvin leaves the enigma hanging in the air, awaiting the eschaton to unravel it. In summary, for Calvin there are three vital unions that form any true understanding of deification: mediation by the hypostatic union, adoption through the mystical union, and completion by the eschatological union.

一般人都不注意这些奥秘的注释。Letham把加尔文的哥林多对于15：27-28的注释当作涅斯拖流的问题。然而，他并不是指《要义》中那些语气更为强硬的注释。此处的结论乃是，加尔“顷刻间失去了他对于二性联合（union of the two natures）的理解力”，看起来好像有点大方了。加尔文的注释也留下了一个棘手的问题—基督作为中保的人性和角色只是暂时的？亦或是永恒的？那对于我们本性上是偶然的人性又意味着什么？加尔文将这个谜团吊在半空中，等到末世再揭开他/她。总之，对于加尔文而言，若要真正的了解神化，必须先了解三个关键的联合：借由位格联合而有的中保职分，借由奥秘联合而有的认养，以及在末世的联合。

IV. The Eucharist—The Means of Deification

圣餐—神化的手段

It is no coincidence that Calvin’s most explicit use of the deification exchange formula is found within his discussion of the sacraments. In explaining the sacraments, Calvin further develops and clarifies his understanding of the deifying nature of the incarnation and presents the sacraments as the means by which the Spirit mediates the vivifying flesh of Christ to the believer. Therefore, the sacraments must not be treated as an isolated doctrine in Calvin’s theology. Rather, they are the logical outworking of his whole soteriology. If we have rightly understood Calvin’s differentiated notion of deification, there should be no surprises regarding his theology of the sacraments.

加尔文在他对于圣餐的讨论中，毫不隐瞒使用神化的交换公式并不是一个偶然。加尔文在对于圣餐的解释中，他进一步发展并澄清他对于道成肉身的神化本质，和圣灵作为将基督赐生命（vivifying）的肉身服侍给信徒之手段的理解。故此，圣灵必然不能被当作在加尔文神学中一个独立的教义。反而，它们他整个救赎论所发展出来的逻辑结果。若我们正确的理解加尔文对于神化教义的独特理解，就不会惊讶与他的圣餐论。

However, as McClean argues, “Calvin’s claims about the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper have been a puzzle and provocation to many of his theological heirs.” Many in the Reformed tradition side with Zwingli as if Calvin were always radical and inconsistent on the sacraments. However, the idea that Calvin’s view of the sacraments is an awkward surprise is a serious warning that indicates a failure to grasp the core of his theology.

然而，就像McClean说的，“加尔文对于基督在圣餐中的显现之宣称，对于他的神学后裔而言，往往是令人困惑，和激怒人的。”许多在改革宗传统中站在慈运理一方的人，往往视加尔文的生出来是激进的，和前后矛盾的。不论如何，加尔文对于圣餐的观点是一个棘手的问题，也是一个对于那些尚未掌握他神学的核心思想之人的警告。

If for Calvin, the incarnation of Christ is the nature of deification, then the sacred supper is the primary means of participation in this deification. Thus Calvin follows the same progression from Athanasius to Cyril. Athanasius posited the incarnation as a fountain of vivifying life; Cyril presented the sacraments as the primary means by which we drink from that fountain.

若对于加尔文，基督的道成肉身是神化的本质，那么圣餐就是有份于这个神化的主要手段。故此，加尔文追从从亚他那修到区利罗的神学发展。亚他那修将道成肉身定位为赐生命（vivifying）人之生命的泉眼；区利罗宣称圣礼是我们饮于那个泉源的主要方式。

Consequently, Calvin’s theology of the Eucharist necessitates a direct and substantial reception of the flesh of Christ if it is truly to be the means of deification. For Calvin, the flesh of Christ is the center of all soteriology. It is the body of Christ through which atonement is made, it is the body of Christ into which we are ingrafted by baptism, and it is the body of Christ from which we receive deifying life in the sacred supper. Therefore, to deny that “true communication of Jesus Christ is offered to us in the Supper is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless.” The bread and wine must be more than symbolic or spiritually realized; they must convey the actual vivifying flesh of Christ:

这就造成，加尔文的圣餐论需要一个对于基督肉身直接和本质上的领受，若它真的是神化的手段。对于加尔文，基督的肉身是救赎论的中心。借由基督的肉身，代赎才得以完成，我们也是借由浸礼被接枝进入基督的身体，我们也是从基督的身体中，在圣餐里，领受了神化的生命。故此，否定“在圣餐中耶稣基督提供给我们的交通就是放弃了这个圣灵，使其变得毫无价值和毫无用处。”饼和酒必须超越表号或属灵的实际；它们必须传递基督那个赐生命（vivifying）人的肉身。

Moreover, if the reason for communicating with Jesus Christ is to have part and portion in all the graces which he purchased for us by his death, the thing requisite must be not only to be partakers of his Spirit, but also to participate in his humanity. . . . It follows that in order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his body and blood as their proper food.

除此以外，若与基督交通的原因是为了获得祂以祂的死为我们所赎回之恩典的一部分，我们就不单单只成为圣灵的分享者，也需要有份与祂整个的人性。。。这就导致，为了在基督里得到我们的生命，我们的魂必须吃祂的身体和血，作为它们应有的食物。

Reformed theology has struggled with Calvin’s view of the sacraments because it fails to see Calvin’s orientation of the incarnation towards deification. However, his approach to the incarnation is entirely consistent with the patristic trajectory stretching back to Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril. Calvin occupies the middle ground between what he perceives to be errors either side of him. The Zwinglians at best posit a communion with Christ at a mental level (calling to mind) and spiritual level (the presence of Christ mediated by the Spirit) through the bread and wine. However, this allows no real connection between the bread given by Christ (signa) and that which it signifies, the actual body of Christ (res). Instead, Calvin argues that “the bread is called the body, since it not only represents but also presents it to us” (emphasis added). On the other side, Calvin opposed the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ’s body in, with, and under the bread. For Calvin, any local presence of Christ in the elements requires a change of geography and geometry that violates the humanity of Christ.

改革宗神学总是在加尔文对于圣餐的看法中挣扎，因为它无法看见加尔文从道成肉身向着神化的取向。然而，他处理道成肉身的方式完全符合追朔到爱任纽，亚他那修和区利罗的教父传统。加尔文在他所预见的错误中，采取了中间的立场。慈运理只能经由饼和酒，将与基督的交通安置在理性的层面（心思），和属灵的层面（基督经由圣灵的临在）。然而，这无法在基督（signa）所赐下的饼，以及其预表基督真实的身体（res）间建立关系。加尔文在另一方面宣称，“饼被称为身体，因为它不单单代表，而是临及我们”。在一方面，加尔文反对路德会方面对于在饼内基督身体无处不在的观点。对于加尔文，任何基督的临及都要求地理上和几何上的改变，侵犯了基督的人性。

Instead, Calvin argues that the flesh of Christ is present at the Supper, but the issue is the modus of that presence. Whereas Luther posited an unqualified substantial relationship between the bread (signa) and body (res), Calvin sees a qualified spiritual relationship. This enables a real but non-local presence of the body of Christ at the table. The agent that unites what is otherwise separated by both distance (heaven to earth) and essence (bread to body) is the bond of the Spirit: “That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit.”

加尔文确实争辩到，基督的肉身临及在圣餐中，但那是一种临及的状态。同时，路得将一种未清楚定义的关系置于饼（signa）和基督的身体之间，继而我则看见一个被清楚定义的关系。这使得基督的身体能够以一个真实，却又不是局部的方式，显现在桌子上面。圣灵的联系成为那个超越距离（天到地）和实质（饼到身体）的联合媒介：“基督借由那个肉身和血的交通将祂的生命传输到我们里面，就好像它能够切开我们的骨头和骨髓，他见证饼在圣餐中印了我们，并不是借由摆出一个空泛或虚空的表号，而是借由圣灵的运行和果效。”

The role of the Spirit in the sacrament removes the need for the body of Christ to be in the element. The Spirit bond detaches the signa from the res without ever divorcing them. As believers eat the signa the Spirit conveys the res to them such that they feed on Christ not in the bread but in the Spirit. The bread can remain only a sign; it is the Spirit’s role to perform the sacrament. This safeguards the bread from being the unmediated presence of Christ’s flesh, such that Christ and his benefits are laid bare on the table.

圣灵在圣餐中的角色去除了需要在其中有基督身体的需要。圣灵的联系在不必分割signa和res的前提下，将它们拆开了。当信徒们在吃signa的是，圣灵将res传输给它们，好叫他们不单单在饼中，而是在圣灵中吃基督。饼仍然是一种表号；事实上乃是圣灵在那里施行圣餐。这保证饼不会缺少基督的肉身在其中为中保，使得基督和祂的益处毫无间隔的被摆在桌上。

Therefore, Calvin posits a spiritually qualified substance, which is conveyed in the sacrament. This is less about the physical molecules of Christ’s flesh and more about the divine life that animates and glorifies those molecules—Christ himself. The physical flesh is not endowed with magical properties but with Christ and all his saving benefits. It is the spiritual substance of Christ, which the believer alone can receive through the Spirit and by faith. Calvin summarizes the matter clearly in his letter to Westphal:

估计，加尔文定义了一个属灵的实质，在圣餐中被传输给信徒。这就不强调基督肉身的物质分子，而更着重于驱动并荣耀那些分子的神圣生命—基督自己。物质的肉身并不会被赋予魔幻般的属性，而带着基督和祂一切救赎的益处。它就是基督属灵的实质，信徒能够借由信经由圣灵来领受它。加尔文在他写给Westphal的信中清楚的总结到：

The whole reality of the sacred supper consists in this—Christ by engrafting us into his body, not only makes us partakers of his body and blood, but infuses into us the life whose fullness resides in himself: for his flesh is not eaten for any other end than to give us life.

圣餐所包括的实际乃是—基督借由将我们接枝到祂的身体中，不单单让我们成为祂身体和血的分享者，而也把完全住在祂里面的生命传输给我们：因为祂的肉身乃是为了赐我们生命，而被我们所吃下。

Calvin has a differentiated theology of the sacrament that reflects the broader motif of deification. Echoing the Osiander debate, Calvin opposes the Lutheran notion that the believer receives the unmediated and unqualified substance of Christ in the bread itself. However, he still affirms the spiritually substantive nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper. Calvin uses the language of substance, but only when qualified within his own theological framework. The substance Calvin refers to is not the Scholastic and Aristotelian idea of a union of form and matter. It is a spiritually qualified substance that is nothing less than Christ himself.

加尔文对于圣礼这种不同的教义反映了神化是一个更为广泛的主题。为了应付与Osiander的辩论，加尔文反对路德会相信在饼中，接受了非中保和未清楚定义之基督的实质。不论如何，他仍然肯定基督的实质以一种属灵的方式，临及在圣餐之中。加尔文使用实质（substance）的语言，但将这个语言定义在他自己的神学框架之内。加尔文所谓的实质饼不是经院神学派和亚里斯多德派的那种样式和物质的联合。它乃是一种属灵的实质，并不比基督小。

It is the theological rather than philosophical nature of our substantial union with Christ (in deification generally and the sacrament in particular) that enables Calvin without any embarrassment to confess that the whole matter remains a mystery: “Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it.”

我们与基督的联合（广义的说是神化，准确的说是圣餐）的本质是神学的，而不是哲学的，这让加尔文能够放胆的承认这整件事情仍然是一个奥秘：“如今，若有人问我，我会放胆承认这个奥秘是如此高超，以至于我无法理会它，也无法描述他；更简单的说，我宁愿感觉它，而不愿意去了解它。”

Finally, the Supper, by enabling real and substantial participation with Christ, prefigures our full and final communion with Him. To convey the eschatological orientation of the Supper, Calvin employs the language of ascension:

最后，关于圣餐，因容许真实的在实质上有份于基督，这就预示了我们终极与祂完全的交通。为了将末世论导入圣餐中，加尔文使用了基督升天的语言：

But if we are carried to heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body, and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and thereby have the full enjoyment of him.

若我们的眼目和心思被带到天使，我们就能够在那里看见在祂国度荣耀中的基督，如同祂用来邀请我们的表号，在饼的表号之下，我们必须吃他的身体，在酒的表号之下，我们要分开喝祂的血，借此完全的享受祂。

Calvin employs a rare allegorical interpretation of Gen 28:10-22 to illustrate this sacramental ascension. Having identified Jacob’s ladder as Christ—who unites heaven and earth, God and man—Calvin interprets the Eucharist as the gateway: “In this sense . . . the sacraments may be called the gate of heaven, because they admit us into the presence of God. . . . Those helps to faith only, (as I have before taught,) by which God raises us to himself, can be called the gates of heaven.”

加尔文在诠释创世纪28：10-22的时候，用了一个罕见的寓意解经，来描述圣礼中的升天。在指出雅各的梯子就是基督后—祂联结了天和地，神和人—加尔文如此诠释圣餐：“从这个意义而言。。。圣礼就能够被称为通往天的大门（the gate of heaven），因为它们将我们带入神的同在中。。。它们就是为了帮助我们的信仰，（如同我已经教导过的，）借由它们，神将我们升高到自己那里，所以它们能够被称作通往天的大门。”

The elements enable a Eucharistic ascent of the soul for spiritual communion with Christ in heaven that prefigures the full communion to come. Christ descends by his Spirit into the bread and wine to convey through them that which they symbolize—his body and blood. As believers receive this by faith, they in turn ascend to Christ in their hearts to commune with him.

那些元素使得圣灵能够将魂提升到在天上，与基督属灵的交通中，这预示了要来的那个完全的交通。基督将祂的灵赐个饼和酒中，是为了借由它们所表征的，传输祂自己的身体和血。所有的信徒都能够借由信心领受这一切，他们接着就能够在他们的心中升到基督那里，与祂交通。

The descent of Christ to the believer (kenosis) and the ascent of the believer to Christ (theosis) is a sacramental summary of all that is meant by deification. Equally, the eschatological goal of deification is pre-figured and experienced in the sacrament. The “sacred supper” is therefore both esoteric—an experience of being fed by Christ—and eschatological—a foretaste of the full deification that awaits the believer. The sacred supper is the means by which Calvin’s exhortation can be partially realized in this life: “Let us therefore labour more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.”

基督降临到信徒里面（kenosis），并将信徒提升到基督那里（theosis）就是从圣礼的教导，为神化的含义所做的总结。同样的，神化的最终目的（eschatological goal）乃是在圣灵中被预表，并被我们经历。故此，“圣餐”同时是奥秘的（esoteric）—被基督所喂养的经验—和末世的（eschatological）—对于等候信徒那个完全的神化之预尝。加尔文极力敦促圣礼乃是我们在此生能够部分完成（神化）的手段：“故此，让我们努力去感受基督或者我们里面，而不要去发掘那个互动的本质。”

The parallels between the nature of deification and the sacraments are striking—both derive their definition and dynamic from the incarnation, both are made efficacious by the mystical agency of the Spirit, and both have an eschatological orientation.

神化的本质与圣礼的相同性让人觉得不可思议—两者都从道成肉身获得其定义和活力，两者都是借由圣灵奥秘的中介而成为有果效的，两者也都有末世论的倾向。

V. Conclusion

结论

Calvin’s use of the phrase quasi deificari carefully conveys his differentiated approach to deification. It positively aligns Calvin with the patristic trajectory and makes the incarnation the definition, the Spirit the dynamic, and eschatological communion the destiny of deification. It also distances Calvin from false versions of deification that are unmediated, disconnected, and over-realized.

加尔文谨慎的使用quasi deificari，表达了他特殊处理神化的方式。它积极的将加尔文联于教父的传统，并让道成肉身成为quasi deificari的定义，圣灵成为其活力，末世的交通则成为神化的目标。它也将加尔文从其他的那些没有中保，断裂的，和过分无纸化的伪版本神化教义中分割出来。

The Reformed tradition has struggled to preserve Calvin’s notion of quasi deificari. As Habets says, “For much of Western theology the concept of theōsis creates unease and often hostile rejection.” I would suggest this reaction is a result of both fear and pride. The fear is of embracing what has been falsely labelled “Eastern.” The antidote to this must be to trace deification back beyond the East-West divide to the patristic era and the Scriptures themselves. As John Calvin holds Scripture in one hand and the patristic writings in the other, he formulates a notion of quasi deificari that is thoroughly consistent with both. Calvin should be commended for this breadth of vision and theological openness that makes him truly a “breath of fresh air.”

改革宗的传统已经保留了加尔文quasi deificari的观念。就如同Habets所说的，“对于大部分的西方神学界，Theosis的观念造成了不安，甚至往往带有敌意的拒绝态度。”我认为这种态度乃是基于恐惧和骄傲。恐惧拥抱那被错误标签为“东方”的观念。将神化追朔回到东方-西方分道扬镳前的教父时代，和圣经本身，就是最好的解药。就像加尔文用一只手高举圣经，用另一只手高举教父著作，他架构了一个完全符合两者的quasi deificari观念。加尔文真应该为其在神学上的包容性和开放性被赞扬，让他真的成为“一股清新的气息。”

The issue of pride is more subtle. Torrance alludes to the “danger of vertigo” when considering the dizzying heights of deification. The emphasis on sin within the Reformed tradition can lead to an uneasy feeling when contemplating exaltation with Christ in partaking of his Son-ship and divine nature. However, Calvin exposes this for what it is—pride disguised as (false) humility. Calvin acknowledges “how abject is the condition of our nature.” However, the depth of our nature when contrasted with the “height of honour” to which we are raised in Christ, only serves to display the “greatness of [God’s] grace.” It is pride that limits what can be received according to our nature. It is faith that receives what is ours only according to God’s grace, namely, quasi deificari. So with hushed tones and apophatic awe, “Let us mark that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us [quasi deificari].”

骄傲的问题更为微妙。托伦斯在思考棘手的神化议题时暗示了“晕头转向的危险（danger of vertigo）。”在改革宗传统中对于罪的强调，在思考因有份基督儿子的名分和其神性而与基督一同高升的时候，会产生不安的感觉。然而，加尔文直接了当的说—假冒伪善。加尔文承认“我们的本性是如此的粗鄙。”当我们将我们本质的深处与我们在基督中被高升而得到“尊容的高度（height of honour）”互相比较时，只能展现出“[神]恩典的伟大。”就是我们本性中的骄傲限制了我们所能领受的。只有信仰能够根据神的恩典领受我们的所当有的，就是，quasi deificari。我们当以安静的语气和apophatic的敬畏说，“让我们将福音的目标标记为，至终使我们得以被模成像神，若我们能够说，神化我们[quasi deificari]。”