| 重拾神化：一個曾經被蔑視的老古董如何成為一個大公教會性的偶像 |
| 送交者: oldfish 2013年11月26日02:15:53 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話 |
|
Modern Theology 25:4 October 2009
現代神學25:4 2009十月
THE RETRIEVAL OF DEIFICATION: HOW A ONCE-DESPISED ARCHAISM BECAME AN ECUMENICAL DESIDERATUMmoth_1558 647.
重拾神化：一個曾經被蔑視的老古董如何成為一個大公教會性的偶像
PAUL L. GAVRILYUK
In the
beginning of the twentieth century the notion of deification (theosis, theopoiesis) stood for everything that was generally
considered exotic and misguided about Eastern Orthodox theology. In
his magnum opus History of
Dogma, Adolf
von Harnack, a leading Protestant historian of the time, lamented
the wrong turn that Christian theology took in the second century:
在二十世紀初，神化（theosis，theopoiesis）的觀念往往被認為是源自於東正教神學的外來思想所產生的錯誤思想。在當時抗議宗的最主要的歷史學者--哈納克（Adolf von Harnack）的巨著，教義史（History of Dogma）中，認定其為基督教神學在二世紀所犯下的錯誤：
“[W]hen the
Christian religion was represented as the belief in the incarnation of God
and as the sure hope of the deification of man, a speculation that had
originally never got beyond the fringe of religious knowledge was made the
central point of the system and the simple content of the Gospel was obscured.”[1]
當基督教宗教被視為一個以神的道成肉身作為人類得以神化之保證的信仰的時候，就不得不使人懷疑原先只是次要的宗教知識被當作了福音單純內涵的核心。
For
Harnack, the idea of deification was a symptom of a more severe
malaise, namely, Hellenization, which brought about the distortion and
obfuscation of the simple biblical message of “the Fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of men”by Greek
metaphysics. The German historian’s conclusion
was typical for his time.[2] On the
other end of the Protestant theological spectrum, Karl Barth was equally
unimpressed. To accept divinization, Barth maintained, was to encourage
very abstract talk about Christ’s human
nature, and to shift the “christological center” of soteriology to the nebulous sphere of “high-pitched anthropology.”[3] The primary targets of Barth’s meandering critique are the apotheosis projects
of Hegel and Feuerbach,[4] and what Barth saw as “the threat,
in Lutheranism, of a divinization of a human nature of Jesus
Christ and a parallel de-divinization of his
divinity.”[5] The general impression is that Barth is
all too willing to make theosis guilty by association, especially when he lists
“the deification of the
creature” among “the characteristics of ebionite Christology”[6] (a veritable pirouette of historical
imagination) and counts the (deplorable) Catholic devotion to the heart
of Jesus as an instance of deification. [7] Apparently, polemical resourcefulness at
times frees theologians from the unrewarding responsibility to check the
historical evidence.
對於哈納克而言，神化的觀念是一個更為malaise，也就是希臘化的症狀，它用希臘人的形而上學，扭曲了簡樸的聖經信息，就是“神的父親地位和人類的兄弟地位”。這位德國歷史學者的結論是當時普遍的觀點。在抗議宗神學光譜的另一段，卡爾巴特（Karl Barth）的觀點也是同樣的平淡無奇。巴特堅稱，接受“聖化（divinization）”教義就是鼓勵對基督人性的抽象性宣講，把宣講的重心從“以基督論為中心（christological center）”的救贖，論轉移到‘高度膨脹人論’的朦朧範疇之中。巴特這種天馬行空式批判的主要目標乃是黑格爾（Hegel）與費爾巴哈（Feuerbach）所展現出的apotheosis（將人尊奉為神，只將凡人神化—譯者），巴特將其視為‘這是對路得宗主義的威脅，將耶穌基督的人性神化，並將祂的神性非神化（a divinization of a human nature of Jesus
Christ and a parallel de-divinization of his
divinity）。’普遍的觀點是，巴特將‘被造之物的神化（the deification of the creature）’（歷史幻想中名副其實的皮魯艾特旋轉舞）列為他所謂‘在伊便尼派基督論之特徵（the characteristics of ebionite Christology）’，並視天主教對耶穌之心的那種糟糕頭頂之忠誠奉獻為神化的範例。看起來，當時的辯論使得參與的神學家得以免除查驗歷史中的證據的責任。
Partly
in reaction to this sort of critique, it has become common for Eastern Orthodox
theologians to insist that the doctrine of deification represents a characteristically
“Eastern” approach to the mystery of salvation and to contrast this
doctrine with (in their opinion, deficient) redemption theories that were
developed by Western theologians of the second millennium.[8] It is little recognized
that at least the initial impetus
for retrieving the doctrine of deification
in modern Orthodox theology did not come from the study of the Church
Fathers, but from another corner: the idea of divine humanity (Sophia)
developed by the nineteenth-century Russian philosopher, theologian, and poet Vladimir
Soloviev (1853–1900). It is precisely sophiology, with its
admittedly far-fetched assumption that deified humanity is an eternal aspect
of God’s being,
which gave the first impulse to the recovery of deification. Whatever
the merits or demerits of the Russian sophiology, the twentieth-century
Eastern Orthodox theologians, in a still-sounding crescendo of
voices, came to regard deification as a sort of meta-doctrine, underlying and unifying
nearly all the articles of faith, including the doctrine of God,
creation, providence, Christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and
eschatology.[9] It is remarkable that despite its exalted
status, the concept of deification is not mentioned
explicitly in the dogmatic definitions of the
first Seven Ecumenical Councils. The dearth of dogmatic precision has contributed
to the concept’s
considerable fluidity.
為了回應此類的抨擊，東正教的神學家們普遍堅稱神化的教義代表了具有‘東方’特色處理救贖之奧秘的進路，這個進路與西方神學家在第二個千年中所發展的救贖教義相對。（在他們的觀念中，這個教義是無效力的。）很少人注意到，近代東正教神學提取神化教義的起因並不是對於教會教父的研究，而是另一個源頭：由十九世紀俄羅斯哲學家，神學家和詩人Vladimir Soloviev（1853-1900）所發展出來的，關於神聖人類（智慧-sophia）的觀念。正是這種智慧論（sophiology）--被神化的人類是神的一個永恆的面貌，具有一種無法抗拒的吸引力，推進了第一波神化教義的恢復。不論俄羅斯智慧論具有什麼優點或價值，二十世紀的東正教神學家們眾口鑠金的認為神化乃是某種更高層面的教義，它幾乎將所有與信仰有關的題目聯合在一起，包括神論，創造，保守，基督論，聖靈論，救贖論，教會論與末世論。令人驚訝的是，即便它被如此的推崇，原先的七次大公會議的教義定義中卻沒有提及神化的觀念。這個觀念本身的不確定性造成它缺少教義性的精確描述。
The late
twentieth century has witnessed a dramatic change in the attitude of
Western theologians towards the concept of deification. The notion that
struck most Western observers as foreign, through the joint efforts of numerous
scholars of the last generation, is gradually being drawn into the fold of
the Western theological tradition. A growing number of Western theologians—Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury,[10] Thomas Aquinas,[11] John of the
Cross,[12] Martin Luther,[13] John Calvin,[14] Lancelot Andrewes,[15] John and
Charles Wesley,[16] Jonathan Edwards,[17] even the Radical Reformers, and so on—have now been claimed to have taught a
version of deification. This is a
formidable reversal of fortune, especially in light of the charges of obfuscation,
idolatry, and heresy leveled against deification in less ecumenical times.
While it would be premature to speak of universal acceptance—it is
unlikely that some staunch opponents will ever be convinced[18]—it bears repeating
that a growing number of Western theological minds find the doctrine
deeply appealing. This article will discuss some representative examples
of this trend and the factors that account for the doctrine’s growing
popularity.
西方神學家在二十世紀的下半葉對神化觀念的態度產生了巨大的改變。最讓西方觀察者所驚訝的觀念是，藉由上一代許多學者間的合作，被視為異教的觀念被逐漸的被證明存在於許多西方神學傳統之中。越來越多的西方神學家—奧古斯丁，安瑟倫，多瑪士阿奎那，十字架的約翰，馬丁路得，Lancelot Andrewes，約翰與查爾斯衛斯理，約拿森愛德華茲，甚至許多激進的改革者，等等—如今都被確定教導了不同版本的神化教義。即便在一個將令人困惑，拜偶像以及異端的罪名加諸於神化身上的時代中，這也一個巨大的改變。聲稱這個教義會獲得全面性的接受仍為之過早—某些頑固的反對者看起來也不可能被說服—然而越來越多的西方神學家發現神化的教義具有深厚的說服力。本文講話討論在這個潮流中某些具有代表力的案例，以及使得該教義變得越來越普遍的因素。
The
early critics commonly construed the patristic notion of deification as making
only a negligible improvement upon the pagan apotheosis, according to the
manner of the ancient Greek heroes and Roman emperors. On this reading,
there is not much difference between the remark of the emperor Vespasian,
prematurely dying of excessive diarrhea—”Woe is me, I think I am becoming
a god”[19]—and the early exchange formula, which
appears in Irenaeus of Lyons: the Son of God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself” (Adv.
Haer. 5. Praef.). To their credit, most present-day critics
of deification recognize that pagan apotheosis and Christian theosis are not
quite the same thing.
早期的抨擊普遍認為教父們對於神化的觀念不過就是對異教中將古典希臘英雄和羅馬皇帝尊奉為神（apotheosis）無足輕重的改良。從這個角度而言，在Vespasian皇帝因着嚴重的腹瀉而早亡時所說的—“我真悲哀，我想我要成為神了（Woe is
me, I think I am becoming a god）”—與在里昂的愛任紐所訴求的：神的兒子“成為我們的所是好讓我們成為祂自己的所是”（ the Son of God “became what we are in order to make us what he
is himself”， Adv. Haer. 5. Praef.）所代表的早期的交換公式（exchange formula，指道成肉身的目的乃是為了肉身成道，是一個等同的交換—譯者）間並沒有什麼的不同。對於他們而言，最近期對於神化的抨擊承認了異教的尊奉為神與基督教的神化並不是同一個東西。
In a
ground-breaking study, La divinization du chrétien d’après les pères
grecs (1938,
English translation published in 2002), Jules Gross argued that in developing
the doctrine of deification the Greek Fathers both drew upon the philosophical
and religious resources of Hellenism and transcended their pagan
context. The notion that human happiness consists in attaining likeness to God (homoiosis theoˉ) was widely shared in late antiquity. But
Christian theology transformed this common expectation
by placing it in the context of Trinitarian
metaphysics, by making the incarnation foundational for attaining divine
likeness, and by insisting that, whatever else is meant by deification, the
notion does not imply that a created being can become uncreated.
在一篇劃時代性的研究中，La
divinization du chrétien d’après les pères grecs (1938,
English translation published in 2002)，Jules Gross論到在發展神化教義的過程中，希臘教父們從希臘主義以及他們的異教背景中汲取了哲學性與宗教性的觀念。古典時代的後期普遍相信人類的快樂乃是由達到神的像（homoiosis theo）。然而基督教神學在三位一體之形而上學的背景之中，將這個通俗的期盼轉換為，把道成肉身視為達到神聖的樣式的基礎，並藉由堅稱，不論神化意表什麼，它絕不暗示被造之物能夠成為非被造的。
Responding
to Harnack and others, Gross contended that far from being an instance
of intellectual capitulation to pagan Hellenism, deification was a legitimate
development of the biblical ideas of divine filiation and incorporation into
Christ. Deification is “partaking in divine nature” (2 Pet. 1: 4), understood
as conformity with divine perfections, particularly incorruptibility and
immortality, and becoming by grace what God is by nature. Gross concluded
that “from the
fourth century the doctrine of divinization is fundamental for the
majority of the Greek fathers. It forms a kind of center of their
soteriology.”[20]
Gross在回應哈納克以及其他的學者時，主張神化根本不是被異教希臘主義理性化的歸納，而是一個符合聖經的觀念，是一種‘父子關係（filiation）’與‘合併（incorporation）入基督’之觀念合理的發展。神化是“有份於神性（partaking in divine nature）”（彼後1：4），當被理解為模成神的完全，特別是不朽壞與不死，以及藉由恩典而在性質上成為神的所是。Gross結論到‘從四世紀開始，神聖化的教義對於大部分的希臘教父是基本的教義。並構成了他們救贖論的中心。’
Norman
Russell’s The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek
Patristic Tradition (2004)
builds upon Gross’s study,
surpassing it in scope and methodological precision.
Russell offers a careful textual analysis of the deification vocabulary and
contextualizes the contributions of individual patristic authors by considering
wider theological problems that they have had to confront. He distinguishes
between nominal (deification as a title of honor), analogical (humans
become by grace what the Son of God is by nature), ethical (imitation of the
moral attributes of God), and realistic (emphasizing transformation and
participation in God) uses of the language of deification in various sources,
showing how towards the fourth century these uses are integrated in a mature
vision.[21]With Gross, Russell sees the fourth century
as a time during which the notion of deification became a
central theme in patristic soteriology.
Norman Russell的希臘教父傳統中的神化教義（The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic
Tradition）（2004）建立在Gross的研究之上，在範圍與方法的準確性都超過了前者。Russell提出了一個仔細的，對於神化用詞的本文研究，更廣的角度考慮了教父們所面臨的神學問題，提供了個別教父作者的上下文。他根據不同的源頭對於神化語言的使用，在唯名（nominal，神化作為一個尊稱）和推理（analogical，人藉由恩典在性情上成為神兒子的所是），道德（效法神的道德屬性），與實踐（強調變化並有份神）中做出了分類，表明那些用法在四世紀的時候已經融合成為一個成熟的版本。Russell透過Gross看見四世紀乃是一個神化的觀念成為教父救贖論的核心議題的時期。
Unlike
Gross, who concludes his treatment with John of Damascus, Russell
proposes that the theology of Maximus the Confessor is a climactic point in
the development of the doctrine of deification. The British scholar also
provides a brief treatment of later Byzantine authors, such as Symeon the New
Theologian and Gregory Palamas. Being largely expository, Russell’s important
work does not explicitly address the critique of deification in modern
non-Orthodox theology. This task is undertaken in a number of historical
studies to which we now turn.
與以大馬士革的約翰作為研究基礎的Gross不同，Russell認為認信者馬克西姆的神學是神化教義發展過程中的最高點。這位英國學者也提供了對於後期拜占庭神學作者的簡述，例如新神學家西緬安，巴拿馬斯的貴格利。從大的角度來看，Russell並沒用特別強調現代非東正教神學界對於神化的抨擊。這個責任乃是有我們現在要提及的，對於歷史的研究所要承擔的。
In The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas
and Palamas (1999), Anna Williams compares two thinkers, whose
theological projects have come to symbolize
the parting of the ways between West and East. More specifically, Aquinas’s scholastic theological method is
commonly contrasted with Palamas’s greater
reliance on religious experience; Palamas’s insistence that divine
energies are uncreated seems to contradict the assumption that grace is
created; finally Aquinas’s optimism that the beatified intellect
can “see” the essence
of God is unlikely to have been shared by Palamas, who insists that the
divine essence, unlike the uncreated energies, remains unknowable even in the
eschaton.
在聯合的基礎：阿奎那與巴拿馬斯的神化教義（The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas
and Palamas）（1999）一書中，Anna Williams比較了兩位思想家，他們的神學課題代表了在西方和東方間平行的進路。阿奎那的經院神學的方式被大量的與巴拿馬斯對於宗教經驗的極度依賴進行了比較；巴拿馬斯堅稱神的能力是非受造的，似乎與恩典是被造的假設背道而馳；最後，巴拿馬斯並沒有分享阿奎拿那種對於被美化過的理性能夠‘看見’神的素質之樂觀態度，他堅稱，即便在末世，神的素質不像非受造的能力，仍是不可知的。
Williams argues that the
theological systems of Aquinas and Palamas are not so far apart as has been
previously held, and that the “ground of union” between them lies precisely in the doctrine of
deification. While Williams admits that Aquinas rarely mentioned deification by name,
she nevertheless finds the idea of deification implicit not only in Aquinas’s teaching on virtues and habits, and on
sanctification, but also in the overall exitus-reditus structure of the Summa Theologiae.[22]According to Williams, the projects of Aquinas and Palamas converge in a
common attempt to uphold the two poles of the doctrine of deification: God’s uncompromised transcendence and creaturely participation in God.
Williams maintains that the differences between Aquinas and Palamas stem from
the fact that in the process of working out their respective views one
theologian leans too much on the one pole, while neglecting the other.[23] In most
cases, as she argues, the differences amount to matters of emphasis and
semantics, rather than to substantial disagreement.
Williams認為阿奎那和巴拿馬斯的神學系統並不是如同原先所認為的具有那麼大的差異，而它們間‘聯合的基礎’就是神化的教義。Williams同時承認阿奎那鮮少直接提及神化，她仍然發現神化的觀念不單單出現在阿奎那對於道德與習慣，和聖別的教訓中，而也出現在神學總綱（Summa Theologiae）整個exitus-reditus（exit and return，直譯為“出與進”—譯者）的架構中。根據Williams，阿奎那與巴拿馬斯的課題涵蓋如何維持對於神化教義的兩極的看法：神不可理解的超越性，以及被造之物有份於神。Williams認為阿奎那與巴拿馬斯的分別乃是在於他們在發展各自神學觀點的過程中，往往過於傾向與一邊，而忽略了另一邊。如同她所論及的，整體而言，他們的分別乃是在於各自所強調觀點的不同，而不是根本上的歧見。
Introducing her study, Williams acknowledges that
her historical approach is driven by an ecumenical concern to reverse the
tendency of pitting Aquinas against Palamas.[24] Williams’ project looks more like a systematic theologian’s attempt to improve on the theologies of both Aquinas
and Palamas by creating a higher domain in which their
differences could be reconciled. This domain, as Williams argues convincingly,
is participatory metaphysics. It is difficult to see, however, how
substantive differences in Aquinas’s and Palamas’s projects could
thereby be reduced to matters of semantics.
Williams在她的亞研究中承認了她的歷史進路乃是被一個跨大公教會的，反轉以阿奎那抨擊巴拿馬斯的張力的顧慮所驅動。Williams所展現出來的論點看起來更像是，一位系統神學家藉由創造一個更寬廣的神學範疇，以改良阿奎那與巴拿馬斯的神學，並調和兩者間的不同。Williams為這個範疇提出了令人心服的論點，就是它乃是雙方都能夠接受的形而上學。不論如何，我們還是很難看見在阿奎納與巴拿馬斯間的不同能夠被簡化為用詞的不同。
For example, Palamas’s remarks concerning the nature of theological knowledge come nowhere near
the speculative rigor of Aquinas’s Aristotelian scientia. It is equally unconvincing that Palamas’s essence/energies distinction is purely notional and not
real: after all, deified persons, even in the eschaton, participate in the
reality of divine energies, but not in the reality of divine essence. It might be
entirely legitimate to interpret Aquinas’s account of virtues and habits as
analogies of divine perfection in light of deification— but Aquinas himself does not make this connection.
Reading Aquinas, Williams deploys the broadest definition of deification possible—participation in God—and then finds various instances of this idea in Thomas’s theology. As the reader will see, such a
stretching of the concept of deification is characteristic not only of Williams’s study, but also of other works seeking to discover the points of
contact between the Eastern Fathers and the Western theologians of the second
millennium.
例如，巴拿馬斯對於神學知識的評論與阿奎那的亞里斯多德式的科學方式（scientia）是風牛馬不相及的。我們同樣也無法相信巴拿馬斯的素質/能量的分別完全是觀念上的，而不是實質上的：被神化的位格，甚至在末世，有份與神聖能力的實際，卻不在神聖素質的實際裡面。我們也可以完全合理的詮釋阿奎那對於道德與習慣的教導為一種在神化亮光中對神聖完美的類比—然而阿奎那本身卻從未建立起這樣的聯繫。在閱讀阿奎那後，Williams盡其所能的建立一種最為寬廣的神化定義—有份神—再在阿奎那的神學中尋找能夠與其相配的例證。就像讀者們可以看見的，這種對於神化的素描不單單是Williams的研究風格，也是許多嘗試在東方教父和第二個千年中的西方神學家間建立連接點的其他研究工作所具有的風格。
Is such a conceptual
stretching legitimate, or should deification be defined more restrictively? How much
of the context of concrete beliefs and practices associated with deification
in the Greek Fathers should be retained? Most early patristic authors leave
us only with scattered hints regarding the meaning of deification. Only
towards the beginning of the sixth century, Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite gives what appears to be the earliest explicit definition in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1. 3: “deification is the attaining of likeness to God and union
with him so far as is possible.”[25] Here the
author of Corpus
Dionysiacum identifies deification with the height of the divine ascent, mystical union. But
other authors (and Pseudo-Dionysius elsewhere) treat deification more
expansively, and include not only the mystical union, but all stages of the process
leading to such a union as a part of theosis.
或者，神化乃是一種在觀念中被勾勒出來的合法教義？或者神化教義應當被更為準確的定義？我們到底需要保留多少希臘教父們關於神化的純正信仰與實踐的本文？大部分的早期教父作者們只為我們留下了分散四處，關於神化意義的線索。只有到了六世紀，偽丟尼修（Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite）提供了一處看起來是最早對於神化教義的準確定義，在教會的等級（Ecclesiastical Hierarchy）1.3中他說道：“神化乃是盡我們可能的達到神的樣式並與祂聯合。”Corpus Dionysiacum的作者在此指出神化與神聖的高升與奧秘之聯合的關係。然而另一位作者（和另一處的偽丟尼修）以一種更為廣義的方式處理神化，不只包括了奧秘的聯合，還把達到該聯合的所有步奏都當作神化的一部分。
It would appear to be
relatively uncontroversial that the ontological concepts of participation, divine
likeness, and union with God are constitutive of the notion of deification. A
minimalist definition, assumed by Williams and others, holds that
deification is participation in God.[26] One
corollary of this definition, on the assumption of participatory
metaphysics, is that all things are deified to unspecified
degree: by participating in being, all existing things participate in God. As
central as the notion of participation is for understanding deification, greater
precision in using the term is in order.
這使得較不引起爭議的，有份，神聖的樣式與與基督聯合這類本體論的觀念看起來都成為神化觀念的構成部分。Williams與其他學者對於神化的最基本定義堅稱神化就是有份於神。這個定義產生的一個結果就是，在形而上學假設的基礎上，宇宙萬物的神化乃是沒有特定等級的：藉由有份於（神的）存有，萬有都能有份於神。就像有份的觀念是理解神化的核心觀念一樣，我們也需要更為精確的使用這個詞。
My discussion of a workable
definition of deification has thus far lacked an explicit Christological
reference. It is generally agreed that the exchange formula “God became human so that humans could become god” (and its numerous versions) grounds deification in the
incarnation. It should be noted that the meaning of the exchange formula, whatever
its rhetorical merits, is far from being self-evident. In the context of
the Arian controversy, the exchange formula was intended to express a belief
that in the incarnation the Son of God, remaining fully God, assumed human
nature; consequently, this divine act has enabled humans, remaining created
beings, to become like God by grace. There is also a cluster of
notions and practices that shed light upon various dimensions of deification.
The list of such notions includes filial adoption, deliverance, spiritual
battle, liberation from the power of the demonic, purification, forgiveness,
justification, reconciliation, illumination, perfection,
healing, sanctification, transfiguration, glorification, regeneration,
imitation of Christ, incorporation into Christ, communion, second creation,
election, eschatological consummation, recapitulation, deiformity, appropriation,
sophianization, mystical union, and so on. In some contexts
deification functions as an umbrella term covering most of these notions, while
in other contexts deification is placed side by side with these notions as
something altogether distinct from them. Yet it is common for contemporary
non-Orthodox theologians to simply collapse deification into one of these
categories. In a recent article Roger Olson questions this move: “t is confusing to find ‘deification’ being used of something that has for a very
long time been called ‘sanctification,’ or ‘union with
Christ,’ or ‘communion with
God,’ or even ‘being filled
with God.’ Why now adopt the terminology of deification if one is unwilling to take on the older meaning of
elevation above humanity into created goodness through divine energies?”[27] Olson
follows Vladimir Lossky and Georgios Mantzaridis in the assumption
that a proper doctrine
of deification must include the Palamite essence/energies
distinction as its constitutive element.[28]
因此，我對於神化定義的討論缺乏一種明確的基督論基礎。眾人都認可交換公式“神成為人為要使人成為神（God became human so that humans could become god）”（以及它的其他不同敘述方式）立足於道成肉身中的神化。讀者當注意，交換公式的意義，即便是其修辭上的優點，都遠遠不足以證明其自身的正確性。在亞流爭議的背景中，交換公式被用來表達神兒子道成肉身，卻仍然是完全之神取了人性的信仰；它所產生的結果乃是，神的行為使得雖然身為被造之物的人類，得以藉由恩典成為像神。在神化教義的不同相面中，也有許多不同的觀點與實踐方式。這些觀念包括認養、拯救、屬靈爭戰、從惡魔的勢力中得到自由、潔淨、赦免、稱義、和好、光照、完全、醫治、聖別、變化、得榮、重生、效法基督、與基督合併（incorporation into Christ）、交通、第二創造、揀選、末世的完成、萬有歸一（recapitulation）、模成神的形像（deiformity）、同化（appropriation）、智慧化（sophianization）、奧秘的聯合，等等。在某些背景下，神化乃是被當作那些概念的雨傘，在另一些背景下，神化被平行的至於那些觀念旁，如同一個與它們完全不同的觀念。然而，近代的非東正教神學家們往往簡略的把神化教義塞入這些觀念中的其中一個。奧爾森（Roger Olson）在近期的一篇論文中質疑這樣的做法：“在非常長的一段日子中，我看見將‘神化’當作‘聖潔，’或‘與基督聯合，’或‘與神交通，’甚至‘被神所充滿’的時候，往往覺得很困惑。若你連那些跟為古老的，人藉由神聖能力被提升而進入一種被造的良善之中的意義都無法接受，你又為什麼要採用神化的術語呢？”奧爾森跟認可斯基（Vladimir Lossky）與Georgios Mantzaridis對於神化教義整全的定義必須包括巴拿馬斯對於素質/能力（essence/energies）的分別作為以組成部分的假設。
To complicate things further, the broader patristic context
of theosis also presupposes certain anthropological assumptions and
practices conducive to deification. Patristic authors commonly assume that
ascetic struggle and participation in the sacramental life of
the Church are prerequisites of deification. Such an assumption in turn
depends upon the synergistic understanding of the operation of grace and
free will, as well as a “high” view of the sacraments. In most discussions of
deification in the Western authors these anthropological and sacramental assumptions
are conveniently ignored.
為了將議題進一步複雜化，大量教父們論及theosis的文獻被認定為某種人論的假設與實踐方式，以支持神化教義。教父作家們普遍認為禁慾以及在教會中有份與聖禮的生活都是神化的預設條件。這種基於神人合作說的假設，同時也是對於聖禮的‘高等(high)’觀點。在西方作者們對神化的討論中，基本上都忽略了那方面的人論與聖禮論的假設。
Consider, for example, the
sensational reinterpretation of Luther’s doctrine of justification in light of
deification proposed by a group of Finnish scholars headed by Tuomo Mannermaa.[29] It is
telling that this line of interpretation first emerged as a result of
Mannermaa’s
participation in the ecumenical dialogue between the
representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian
Orthodox Church.[30]According to Mannermaa, theosis “as an expression of a foundational structure in the
theology of Martin Luther”was “improbable even as a line of
questioning” a generation ago, and “is indeed
an extreme sort of formulation.”[31] It
should be observed that Mannermaa somewhat exaggerates the revolutionary
character of his discovery, since, as the reader might recall, the presence of the
notion in the vocabulary of Lutheran theology caused Karl Barth’s ire earlier in the century.
例如，由Tuomo Mannermaa領導的一群芬蘭學者以神化的教導重新詮釋路得的稱義教義。這條詮釋的路線乃是從Mannermaa所參與的，在芬蘭福音派路得教會與俄羅斯東正教會代表間的對話衍生出來的產物。根據Mannermaa，theosis“乃是馬丁路得神學之基本架構的一種表現方式”，在一個世代前它還是“完全不可質疑的”，並且是“非常極端的一種公式。”當注意，從某種程度而言，Mannermaa過分的渲染他的發現是革命性的，因此，讀者當記得，在這個世紀初期，路得神學中的某些用語就已經觸發了卡爾巴特的怒氣。
The Finnish scholars—most notably, Mannermaa, Risto Saarinen, and Simo Peura—argue that Luther advocated a version of participatory
metaphysics and that justification for him involved an ontological
transformation of the believer as a result of the union with Christ in faith.
It is relatively uncontested that, especially in his early writings, Luther had
recourse to the concept of deification. However, later Lutheran confessions found
very little place for this notion. It is still a subject of debate in Luther
scholarship just how essential these notions are for Luther’s account of justification and whether Luther’s philosophical stance was consistently realist.
芬蘭學派—特別是Mannermaa，Risto Saarinee與Simo Peura—都論及路得提倡某種有份與神的形而上學，對路得而言，稱義還包括了信徒在信心中與基督聯合所產生本體上的改變。相對的在路得早期的著作中，這點是毫無爭議的，路得也引用了神化的觀念。然而，後期的路德會信仰宣言幾乎沒有為這個觀念留下任何的空間。使得這個題目繼續成為路得會學者間辯論的題目，就是，從始至終，那些觀念對於路得稱義的教訓和路得的這些立場而言，是不是那麼的重要。
It is beyond the scope of
this article to argue either for or against the Finnish interpretation.
Instead, I would like to return to the methodological question of how the meaning
of deification is both stretched and shifted in this discussion. Consistent
with patristic sources, two ideas are taken to be constitutive of theosis: participation in God and the indwelling of Christ.[32] The extension of the notion of
deification leads to two problems.
進一步討論芬蘭學派對路得的詮釋已經超過了本文的範圍。然而，我願意回到用來描繪並修改神化之內涵的方法。當我們思考教父們的作品，有兩個構成Theosis的基本觀念，有份於神與住在基督里。神化觀念的延伸會產生兩個問題。
First, deification is
subsumed under a more general concept of justification— a move that is not made by any of the patristic authors.
In fact, in most patristic treatments of theosis justification plays next to no role at all. In light of the definition of theosis as the participation in God, the second point appears to be a puzzling
category mistake: all things participate in God, but only rational beings can be
justified. It seems, therefore, that the notion of justification cannot
encompass deification (as defined earlier).
首先，神化乃是被包括在更為普遍之稱義的觀念之下—這不是任何教父作家的做法。事實上，在教父們處理神化這個題目的時候，稱義基本上沒有任何的地位。在有份於神作為theosis的定義這方面，第二個點看起來使得目前對於神化的歸類更顯為是錯誤的：萬有都有份於神，但是只有理性的存有得以被稱義。因此，（根據我們先前的定義）這使得稱義的觀念看起來無法包含神化。
Second, “deification by grace alone through faith alone” has very little purchase in Eastern
Orthodoxy. Most patristic authors simply refused to construe “works” as engaged in causal
competition with grace. The soteriological primacy and necessity of
grace are not undermined by the fact that human acceptance of divine
help involves much struggle and ascetic effort. But Luther’s insistence on the passive acceptance of grace does not
leave much space for the patristic paradox of human passivity
and active cooperation of the free will with grace—a point at which Greek patristic and Lutheran anthropologies sharply
partways. Similarly, the emphasis on faith, while present in some patristic
treatments of deification, is never meant to exclude the importance of other
virtues. For the Greek Fathers, deification involves a life-long spiritual battle,
the overcoming of vices and the climbing of the ladder of virtues (commonly
cast in the language allowing both an Augustinian and a Pelagian reading). The
anthropological assumptions and practices associated with deification
in Luther are in a category of their own. As ecumenically fruitful as the
discussion of theosis in Luther’s version of participatory metaphysics might be, the
profound shift in the meaning of deification should not be ignored.
其次，‘單單經由信心借着恩典而神化’在東正教方面根本沒有什麼說服力。幾乎所有的教父作家根本都拒絕解釋‘善工’與恩典間有任何因果關係。救贖論的優先性與恩典的需要性都不能貶低人論接受神幫助的過程需要努力與禁慾的事實。然而，路得所堅稱的，被動性的領受恩典並沒有為教父對於人類被動的和主動的以自由意志配合恩典這個矛盾留下任何的空間—這乃是造成希臘教父與路德會間的人論分道揚鑣的重點。同樣的，在某些教父對神化教義的處理方式中，對恩典的強調並不代表排除了其他美德的重要性。對於希臘教父們，神化代表一生的屬靈爭戰，勝過一切的惡習並隨着美德的梯子向上爬升（這個觀點往往被以一種奧古斯丁主義與伯拉鳩主義都能夠解讀的語言描繪）。在路得的思想中，基於人論的，與神化有關的預設立場和實行具有自己的分類。就像在教會層面上對路得有份於神之形而上學的研討一樣，路得對神化意義的深層次轉變是不能被忽視的。
In Calvin, Participation and the Gift (2007), Todd Billings explores the possibility that Calvin’s theology may also contain a theme of deification.
Billings’ central move is similar to that of Williams and
Mannermaa, since he also focuses on Calvin’s understanding of human participation in God. However, unlike Williams and
Mannermaa, Billings argues that there could be a distinct, yet legitimate
way of speaking about deification in the West, which does not follow the
Byzantine East in details.[33] Billings
correctly cautions that the presence of the themes of union, participation
and adoption in a given Reformation author is not enough to attribute to
the author a doctrine of theosis similar to that found among
the Greek Fathers.[34] Billings
recognizes that Calvin’s rejection of the synergism of grace and free will, as
well as
Calvin’s insistence on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, makes the Reformer’s account of deification quite distinct from that of the Greek Fathers. I would
also add that Calvin’s
sacramental theology, for all of its complexities and
ambiguities, lacks the distinctive emphasis of patristic theology upon the
Eucharist as the main vehicle of deification.
在加爾文，有份與恩典（2007）一書中，Tood Billings探索了加爾文神學是否包含神化議題的可能性。Billing的核心研究與Williams和Mannermass的研究相近，他也着重在加爾文對於人有份於神的理解。然而，Bilings與Williams和Mannermass的不同之處在於，他討論了在西方可能存在着一種與拜占庭東方不同，卻又是合乎聖經的，論述神化的方式。Billings正確的注意到，改革宗作者所提出的聯合，有份與認養的議題仍不足以讓作者如同希臘教父一樣，建構一個Theosis的教義。Billings承認加爾文拒絕了恩典與自由意志的神人合作說，以及加爾文堅信基督的公義擔負了信徒的罪孽，這使得改革宗的神化與希臘教父們的神化間有着明顯的不同。我還要加上，加爾文的聖餐論所具有的複雜性與模糊性，也缺乏教父神學所強調的，聖餐乃是神化的主要載具之觀念。
An important collection of
essays, co-edited by Michael Christensen and Jeffrey Wittung under the
title Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History
and Development of Deification in
the Christian Tradition (2007) is based on the papers delivered at a
conference held at Drew University in May 2004.[35] This historically-structured
volume, jointly authored by eighteen contributors, covers select biblical
sources (Pauline and Petrine epistles), patristic material (including Ephrem
the Syrian and Coptic-Arabic author Bulus al Bushi), as well as Anselm,
Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, Sergius Bulgakov, and Karl Rahner. Although
various periods receive uneven coverage—for example, the discussion of
the Western medieval theologians is limited mostly to Anselm—the volume surpasses all previously published works on deification in historical
scope. The contributors to the volume build on the studies discussed earlier
and also venture into previously unexplored fields.
有一本很重要的論文集，由Michael Christernsen與Jeffrey Wittung共同編輯的，名為有份於神性：神化在基督教傳統中的歷史與發展（Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History
and Development of Deification in the Christian
Tradition (2007)）乃是根據在2004年5月於Drew大學的討論會論文。這卷以歷史為架構，由18位作者提供論文，涵蓋了特定的聖經本文（保羅和彼得的書信），教父文學（包括敘利亞的以法蓮，科普教派的阿拉伯文作者Bulus al Bushei），以及安瑟倫，路得，加爾文約翰衛斯理，Sergius Bulgakov，與卡爾拉那。雖然某些歷史時段並沒有被均衡的涵蓋—例如，對於西方中古世紀的討論基本上都被限制在安瑟倫身上—然而額，在歷史的範疇上，這個論文集超越了以往所有的出版物。本文集的作者們在原先討論的基礎上建構自己的論點，並進入了以往尚未探索的領域。
Unfortunately, considerations of space permit me to
discuss only two contributions to this important volume. Reflecting
on the place of deification in Orthodox theology, Andrew Louth proposes that for the Orthodox theosis is not an isolated theologoumenon (i.e. authoritative
theological opinion), but a theme of structural significance, a thread running
through the doctrines of incarnation, cosmology, eschatology, anthropology, and
soteriology. In light of deification as the telos of creation, incarnation becomes more than a divine rescue operation aimed at
reversing the consequences of the Fall. Deification provides the context for
recovering the cosmic significance of the incarnation: the union of divine and
human natures in Christ becomes the foundation of the eschatological union of
all created beings in God.[36]
不幸的是，由於篇幅的關係，我只能討論本文集中的兩位作者。Andrew Louth在神化在東正教神學重點的地位（Reflecting on the place of
deification in Orthodox theology）一文中，建議神化對於東正教而言並不是一個獨立的神學觀點（例如：有權威的神學觀點），而是具有結構性的含義，乃是一條穿越道成肉身的教義，宇宙論，末世論，人論和救贖論的思路。在神化作為被造之物的telos（最終目的—譯者）的亮光之下，道成肉身不再單單是神用來拯救並翻轉墮落的行動。神化提供了一個重新恢復道成肉身的宇宙性含義的背景：神性與人性在基督里的聯合成為萬有在神里，於末世聯合之基礎。
Surveying the state of current research on deification in
the Western authors, Gosta Hallonsten offers a long-overdue note of caution. The
author notes that there is a lack of clear definition of theosis in Williams’ work on Aquinas. Deification is
variously identified with participation in God, union with God, and sanctification.
Yet, as Hallonsten rightly notes, the presence of the doctrine of
sanctification in Aquinas, even if compatible with some aspects of the Eastern
doctrine of theosis, does not entail that Aquinas has a doctrine of deification.[37] Hallonsten
expresses similar reservations in the case of Luther’s understanding of incorporation into Christ. Hallonsten
proposes a helpful distinction between a theme and a doctrine of theosis. Deification as a theme may involve such
notions as participation in divine nature, filial adoption, union with God and
so on. The doctrine of theosis, Hallonsten insists, needs to be defined
more precisely. The doctrine proper must include certain anthropological
assumptions and a comprehensive soteriological vision.[38] Hallonsten’s valuable distinction between a theme and a doctrine has been adopted by Billings
in his work on Calvin.
放眼現今西方作者對於神化的研究，Gosta Hallonsten列出了一篇頗長的注意事項清單。作者注意到在Williams對於阿奎那（Aquinas）的研究中缺少對於Theosis的明確定義。神化可以被當作有份於神，與神聯合，與成聖。然而，就像Hallonsten正確指出的，即便阿奎那聖化的教義可以從某個角度而言與東方的神化教義相合，這並不代表阿奎那有神化的教義。Hallonsten在路得對於與基督合併（incorporation into Christ）的理解上也表達了同樣保守的態度。Hallonsten對theosis的議題（theme）與教義（doctrine）間提供了一個有幫助的建議。神化作為一個議題，包括有份於神性的觀念，父子的認養，與神聯合等等。Hallonsten堅稱theosis的教義需要被更明確的定義。教義必須包括某種人論的假設和一種完整的救贖論觀點。Hallonsten對於議題和教義間的區別已經被Billings應用於他對於Calvin的研究中。
The retrieval of deification
in Western authors undertaken by contemporary scholars proceeds along two
lines: some emphasize that the meaning of deification in a given
Western author is fundamentally identical or continuous with the patristic use of the
concept (Williams, Mannermaa); while others more cautiously speak
of a distinctive Western re-interpretation of the theme of deification
(Hallonsten, Billings, Olson). The second interpretation is more plausible
historically, although perhaps less ecumenically appealing.
由西方近代學者們對於神化的重新探索遵隨着兩條路線：有些人強調某位西方作者的神化意義與教父的一致性，或是教父延伸（Williams，Mannermaa）；同時，另一些更為謹慎的作者論及某位西方作者對於神化議題的重新詮釋（Hallonsten，Billings，Olson）。第二種的詮釋更能夠符合歷史，雖然在教會的層面可能是更不被接受的。
To Hallonsten’s distinction between the theme and the doctrine of
deification one should also add Norman Russell’s helpful typology of nominal, analogical, ethical, and
realistic uses of deification language. The broadest definition of deification
includes such ideas as participation in God, likeness of God, and union with
Christ, along with the exchange formula. A considerably more developed understanding
of deification includes synergistic anthropology, sacramental
realism, and essence/energies distinction.
對於Hallonsten在神化議論與教義間做出的分別應當再加上Norman Russell對於神化語言中所提出的，在名義上的（nominal），邏輯上的（analogical），道德性（ethical）與真實性（realistic）間的分別。最為寬鬆的神化定義包括了有份於神，與神相似，與神聯合，以及交換公式的觀念。我們當注意神化教義還當包括神人合作的人論，聖禮論的真實臨在，素質/能力的分別。
According to the historical
scholarship surveyed earlier, the consensus on deification between Palamas,
Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, amounts to the proposition that each
theologian espoused a version of participatory metaphysics.[39]Thus the consensus obtains only for the broadest possible
definition of deification, not for the more developed one. Sometimes
these four theologians draw upon the same biblical images in their
respective soteriologies. It should be emphasized, however, that the differences in
their anthropological assumptions, in their understandings of the operation of
grace, and in their sacramental theologies cannot be reduced to
semantics.
根據先前歷史性的研究，在巴拿馬斯，阿奎那，路得和加爾文間對於神化具有一致性，這些神學家間的不同主張曝露出一種有份與神的形而上學。因此，我們只能在最為寬鬆的神化定義中，而不是在更為完善的定義中，獲得這種一致性。有時候，那四位神學家們都在他們各自的救贖論中勾勒了同樣的，符合聖經的圖畫。不論如何，我們當強調，在他們人論的預設立場與他們對於恩典之運作的理解，以及在他們的聖禮神學間的不同不能被簡化為語義學上的分別而已。
The present retrieval of the deification
theme in an impressive number of Western theological
authorities cannot be attributed simply to diligent historical excavation work. It is
probably more accurate to describe the retrieval of deification as a theological achievement thinly disguised as historical theology. For example, Mannermaa’s insistence that theosis is a “foundational structure” in Luther’s theology, whatever
the historical merits of such a claim, has had the impact of
casting in a very different light, perhaps even rendering incoherent, the
Lutheran doctrine of forensic justification. Therefore, the uncovering of theosis in Luther should not be misread as a benign ecumenical exercise. It is a
courageous attempt to revise the doctrine “upon which the church stands or falls.” Two things happen in the process: the standard account of Luther’s soteriology undergoes an alteration and the meaning of deification shifts
considerably. Justification is no longer a “legal fiction;” theosis is now a species of justification. Such moves involve a
constant going back and forth between the historical exposition of
Luther’s writings and constructive
theology. Although the consequences of talking of theosis in Aquinas, or in some Anglican theologians and in the
Wesleys, are less seismic, the amount of conceptual stretching that
such a move requires places the recent studies in a mixed category of
historical-expositions-turned ecumenical-overtures.
目前從好幾位令人印象深刻的西方神學權威間汲取的神化議題不能被單單的歸功於對歷史文學孜孜不倦的發掘工作。我們可能可以更為準確的視這種汲取為一種稍微被歷史神學所包裝的神學成就。例如，Mannermaa堅決的認定theosis是路得神學的一種‘基本架構’，不論這種宣告是否能夠獲得歷史的支持，都會產生非常不同的亮光，使得路得的法理性稱義的教義變得支離破碎。故此，在路得思想中重新發掘theosis不能被誤解為一種大公教會性運動的起始。然而，嘗試重新調整“使得教會堅立或傾倒”的教義是值得鼓勵的。在這個過程中發生了兩件事情：路得的救贖論經受了變化，使得神化的意義產生了想當大的改變。稱義不再是一種“合乎聖經的虛構之物”，神化如今成為稱義的一個分類。這個改變是一種在對路得作品的歷史性闡述，與有建設性的神學間的搖擺。雖然論及在阿奎那，或在某些安立甘會神學家和在衛斯理神學中的theosis，比較不會那麼震撼，在概念中勾勒那樣的圖畫要求近期對於從歷史的新闡述轉為大公教會性的前奏曲（historical-exposition turned
ecumenical-overtures）的過程中，具有某種地位的行動。
A question arises: what would
account for such a trans-confessional appeal of the idea of deification
today? My answers to this question will be admittedly partial and tentative.
Obviously, there is now more systematic interest among Western theologians in
the heritage of the Christian East. Facile dismissals of the distinctive
theological claims of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, so common in Harnack’s time, are rare today. The rhetorical charges that the doctrine of deification
is a heresy or poetic nonsense are absent from contemporary discussions. There are strong indications
that we are living through a new wave of ressourcement. Unlike the first wave, which produced la nouvelle théologie in Roman Catholicism, this new wave is trans-confessional,
involving Roman Catholic, Evangelical, main-line Protestant and Anglican
scholars. The result is a reshaping of the field of systematic
theology, informed by a deeper engagement with patristic resources and greater
ecumenical sensitivity.
這樣就會產生一個問題：那種跨宗派信仰的訴諸於神化的觀念，在今日會產生什麼結果？我承認我的回答是片面和試探性的。明顯的，現今西方神學界對於東方基督教的遺產有一種更為系統化的興趣。今日我們也很難見到如同哈納克時期，輕易的從神學的角度拒絕東正教傳統的做法。近代的討論中也看不見從語言學的角度，將神化教義批判為異端或胡言亂語的攻擊。我們看見我們乃是處於新一波重新評估（神化教義）的浪潮之中。與羅馬天主教主義的新神學（la nouvelle theologie）中所產生的第一波不同，這個新的浪潮乃是跨宗派的，包括了羅馬天主教，福音派，主流抗議宗以及安利甘會學者。其結果將會以對教父文獻更為深入的研究，與大公教會範圍內更大的敏銳度，重新塑造系統神學的範疇。
In this regard, Daniel
Keating’s Deification and Grace (2007) published as a part of the series “Introductions to Catholic Doctrine” is a well informed and lucid exposition of the
riches of patristic notion of deification, which, as Keating argues,
should be fully owned by the West.[40] In Roman Catholic theology, Keating’s predecessors who also sought to recover the notion of deification include
Teilhard de Chardin, Hans urs von Balthasar, and Catherine Mowry LaCugna.
Among the Lutherans, the controversial results of the finnish
research have been embraced by Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson. In other
Christian communions the interest in our theme is equally strong.[41]
有鑑於此，Keating的神化與恩典（Deification and Grace（2007））一書涵蓋了“介紹大公教會教義（Introductions to Catholic Doctrine）”系列的一部分，是一個對於教父神化觀念豐富和透徹的闡述，就像Keating所論及的，神化教義當被西方完全承認。在羅馬天主教的神學中，Keating的前輩都嘗試重新發覺神化的觀念，包括Teilhard de Chardin， Hans urs von Balthasar和Cathrine Mowry LaCugna。在路德會的學者中，具有爭議的芬蘭派研究結果已經完全被Carl Braaten和Robert Jenson接納。在其他基督教中，對於我們的題目的熱情也是同樣的強烈。
Deification offers a vision
of redemption that moves the discussion beyond the traditional opposites of,
say, penal substitution and moral influence theories of atonement. Certainly, the
emphasis upon the transforming character of the gifts of grace,
characteristic of the charismatic movement, can be best captured in therapeutic
categories akin to deification, rather than in juridical categories. In addition,
deification language tends to promote the use of more comprehensive ontological
categories in soteriology, rather than solely juridical and moral categories. When
the notion of creaturely participation in God is placed at the heart of
theology—whether as
a presupposition, or as a goal, or both—the relationship between the natural and supernatural
orders, natural and revealed theology, freedom and grace, secular
and sacred spheres, is reconceived.
神化所提供的救贖觀點在遠超傳統反對聲音之才層面上，引發了討論，例如說，代罰和代贖的道德性影響。當然，強調對於恩典之恩賜改變人的特性，靈恩運動的特徵，也可以被包括在類似於神化的治療法類別中，而不是在法理的類別中。除此以外，神化的語言傾向鼓吹在救贖論中，使用更為易於理解的本體論類別，而不是單純的法理和道德的類別。當‘被造之物有份於神’的觀念被置於神學的中心—不論是作為假設，或作為目標，或兩者—在自然和超自然間，在自然和被啟示的神學間，在自由和恩典間，在世俗與神聖間的關係都要被重新考慮。
As one example of such a
re-conceptualization, consider the following theological manifesto: “The central theological framework of radical orthodoxy is ‘participation’ as developed by
Plato and reworked in Christianity, because any alternative
configuration perforce reserves a territory independent of God. The latter can lead
only to nihilism (though in different ). Participation, however,
refuses any reserve of created territory, while allowing finite things their own
integrity.”[42] While it
is dubious whether participatory metaphysics is the only
ontology that avoids the pitfalls of nihilism, it cannot be doubted that this
ontology is incompatible with the modern presupposition of the self-enclosed,
self-explanatory, and self-perpetuating sphere of the secular.
以下是一個需被從新概念化的例子，考慮以下的神學陳述：“激進正統派的神學架構乃是由柏拉圖所發展，並在基督教中被重新建構之‘有份’的觀念，因為任何其他的必然性都會保留一塊對神獨立的領域。後者只會引向虛無主義（nihilism）（雖然以另一種面貌出現）。不論如何，有份的觀念杜絕了任何被造的領域，同時讓有限之物保留他們的完整性。”不論有份的形而上學是不是單單是一個為了避免虛無主義錯誤的本體論，它都不能被懷疑與現代世俗那種自我封閉，自我接受和自我永久存在的範圍無法相容。
The renaissance of the theosis theme in contemporary systematic theology is a measure of the Western theologians’ willingness to engage constructively with a typically “Eastern” idea. Clearly, the
notion of theosis is no longer “owned” by the Christian East, if such one-sided ownership was ever a historical possibility. As I
have emphasized in this review article, in the ecumenical discussions the
meaning of deification is often stretched indefinitely. If I may venture a conditional
forecast, deification, provided that its full implications are realized,
will work like a time-bomb in due course producing a “creative destruction” of the
soteriological visions developed by the Churches of the Reformation.
Whether the idea will have the power to move these churches closer to the
Christian East in other respects, say by developing a sacramental understanding
of the world or synergistic anthropology, time will show.
近代系統神學中Theosis議題的復興代表西方神學家願意以具有建設性的方式與傳統的“東方”觀念接觸的嘗試。含明顯的，theosis的觀念不在是東方基督教的“專利”，即便這樣一邊倒的所有權在歷史中是不可能的。如同我在本文中已經強調的，在跨宗派的討論中，神化的意義具有一種不明確的輪廓。若我敢提出一個有條件的預測，神化，當它的含義完全被證明後，將會像一個定時炸彈一樣，對於改革宗教會所發展出來的救恩論產生一種“具有創造性的毀滅（creative destruction）”。同時，其觀念將會有能力在另一方面推動與東方基督教相近的教會，去發展一種基於聖靈論，對於世界或神人合作之人論的新理解，時間會證明一切。
[1] Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neil Buchanan
(Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1901), Vol. 2, p. 318. As Fergus Kerr
notes, “One need only track the references to deification in the index to
Harnack’s great work to see how angry the theme makes him.” See Fergus Kerr, After Aquinas: Versions of
Thomism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), p. 155.
哈納克，教義史，Neil Buchanan譯(Boston, MA: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1901), Vol. 2, p. 318。就像Fergus Kerr在註解中指出的，‘讀者只要追蹤哈納克的大作中對於神化作品的目錄，就會看見這個題目讓他多麼憤怒）。參考Fergus Kerr，阿奎那之後：多瑪主義的異象(Oxford: Blackwell,
2002), p. 155.
[2] See Stephen Finlan and Vladimir
Kharlamov, eds. Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Publications, 2006), p. 8 n. 20, 21.
參考Stephen Finlan和Vladimir Kharlamov編輯。神化：基督教神學中的神化(Eugene,
OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006), p. 8 n. 20, 21。
[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV. 2. The Doctrine of
Reconciliation, edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1958), §64, pp. 81–82. Hereafter cited as CD.
卡爾巴特，教會教義，IV.2．和好的教義，Ｇ. W. Bromiley與托倫斯編輯(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), §64,
pp. 81–82. 隨後作教會教義。.
[4] Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §22, p. 759.
卡爾巴特，教會教義, I. 2. §22, p. 759.
[5] Karl Barth, CD, IV. 2. §64, p. 68;
IV. 1. §59, 181.
[6] Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §1, p. 19.
卡爾巴特，教會教義CD, I. 2. §1, p. 19.
[7] Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §15, p. 138.
卡爾巴特，教會教義, I. 2. §15, p. 138.
[8] See Vladimir Lossky, “Redemption
and Deification,” in In the Image and Likeness of
God, edited
by John H. Erickson and Thomas E. Bird,(Crestwood, NY: St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974/2001), p. 99, where deification is
sharply contrasted with Anselm’s satisfaction theory. More recently, see Robert G.
Stephanopoulos, “The Doctrine of Theosis,” in The New Man: an Orthodox and
Reformed Dialogue (New Brunswick, NJ: Agora
Books, 1973), pp. 149–161; Daniel B. Clendenin, “Partakers
of Divinity: The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis,”Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 37/3 (September, 1994), pp. 365–379; at p.365.
參考Vladimir Lossky，在在神的形像與樣式（In the Image and Likeness of God）一書中“救贖與神化（Redemption and Deification）”，John H Erickson與Thomas E Bird編，(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974/2001), p. 99，神化在該處被尖銳的與安瑟倫的滿足論比較。跟為近期的材料參考Robert G Stephanopoulos，在新人：東正教與改革宗的對話（New Man：an Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue）一書中“神化教義（The Doctrine of Theosis）”(New Brunswick, NJ:
Agora Books, 1973), pp. 149–161，福音派神學協和雜誌（Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Socitye 37/3中的“有份與神格：東正教的神化教義（Partakers of Divinity：The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis）”(September,
1994), pp. 365–379; at p.365。
[9] See, e.g., Emil Bartos, Deification in Eastern
Orthodox Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 1999); Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1984).
參考，例如Emil Bartos，在東正教神學中的神化（Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology）(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999)；Georgios
I Mantzaridis，人的神化（The Deification of Man）(Crestwood, NY:
St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984)。
[10] N. R. Kerr, “St
Anselm: Theoria and the Doctrinal Logic of Perfection,” in M. J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature: The
History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).
N
R Kerr，在M
J Christensen與Jeffrey A Wittung編輯有份與神性：基督教傳統中神化的歷史與發展（Partakers of the Divine Nature: The
History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions）中“聖安瑟倫：Theoris與完全教義的邏輯（St Anselm: Theoria and the Doctrinal Logic of Perfection）”(Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2007)。
[11] A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
A N Williams，聯合的基礎（The Ground of Union）(Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999)。
[12] David B. Hart, “The Bright
Morning of the Soul: John of the Cross on Theosis,” Pro Ecclesia 12/3 (Summer, 2003), pp. 324–344.
David B. Hart, “魂明亮的造成：十字架的約翰之神化教義（The Bright Morning of the Soul: John of the Cross on Theosis）”， Pro Ecclesia 12/3 (Summer, 2003), pp. 324–344.
[13] Carl E. Braaten and Robert W.
Jenson,eds., Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of
Luther (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).
Carl E. Braaten與Robert W. Jenson，編輯，與基督聯合：芬蘭學派對路得的新詮釋（Union With Christ: The New
Finnish Interpretation of Luther）(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).
[14] J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and
the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008).
J. Todd Billings, 加爾文，有份與恩典：信徒在與基督聯合中的活動（Calvin, Participation, and
the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ） (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008)。
[15] A. M. Allchin, Participation in God: A
Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow,
1984).
A. M. Allchin, 在神中有份：安利甘傳統中被遺忘的環節（Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in
Anglican Tradition）(Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow,
1984).
[16] S. T. Kimbrough, “Theosis in
the Writings of Charles Wesley”, St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 52 (2008), pp. 199–212.
S. T. Kimbrough, “查爾斯衛斯理作品中的神化（Theosis in the Writings of Charles Wesley）”, St
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 52 (2008), pp. 199–212.
[17] Richard B. Steele, “Transfiguring
Light: The Moral Beauty of the Christian Life According to Gregory Palamas and
Jonathan Edwards,” St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 52 (2008), pp.403–439.
Richard B. Steele, “變化之光：根據巴拿馬斯的貴格利已經約拿森愛德華茲基督徒生活的道德之美（Transfiguring Light: The Moral Beauty of the Christian Life According
to Gregory Palamas and Jonathan Edwards,” St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 52 (2008), pp.403–439.
[18] For example, Professor Bruce
McCormack of Princeton Theological Seminary has called the idea of deification “idolatrous” in a public lecture given at Providence College as a part of “Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering” Symposium held on March 30–31, 2007.
例如，普林斯頓神學院的Bruce McCormack博士曾在2007年三月30-31舉辦的‘神的不受感已經人類受苦之奧秘’的研討會中，在Providence大學的公開課程中稱神化的觀念為‘拜偶像的’。
[19] Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 23. 4.
[20] Jules Gross, The Divinization of the
Christian According to the Greek Fathers, trans. Paul A. Onica (Anaheim,
CA: A & C Press, 2002), p. 271.
Jules Gross, 根據希臘教父之基督徒的聖化（The Divinization of the
Christian According to the Greek Fathers）, Paul A. Onica譯(Anaheim, CA: A & C
Press, 2002), p. 271.
[21] Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, p. 9.
[22] Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 158–159.
[23] Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 173–174.
[24] Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 8–27.
[25] Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, p. 1.
[26] Cf. Williams, The Ground of Union, p. 32: “First, we
can safely say that where we find references to human participation in divine
life, there we assuredly have a claim specifically of theosis.”
參考Williams，聯合的基礎（The Ground of Union）, p. 32:“首先，我們可以肯定的說那就是我們找到路加人類有份於神的生命的地方，我們可以肯定的宣布該處特別論及了神化。”
[27] Roger E. Olson, “Deification
in Contemporary Theology,” Theology Today 64/2 (July, 2007), pp. 186–200; at p. 193.
Roger E. Olson, “近代神學中的神化教義（Deification in
Contemporary Theology）,”今日神學（Theology Today） 64/2 (July, 2007), pp. 186–200; at p. 193.
[28] Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976/1998); Georgios
I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man (Crestwood,NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1984); Olson, “Deification in Contemporary Theology,” p.199.
Vladimir Lossky, 東方教會的神秘神學（Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church） (Crestwood, NY: Saint
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976/1998); Georgios I. Mantzaridis, 人的神化（The Deification of Man） (Crestwood,NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1984); Olson, “近代神學中的神化教義（Deification in
Contemporary Theology）,” p.199.
[29] The results of this research,
which has been carried out since 1970’s, are conveniently summarized by the
main contributors themselves in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson,
eds., Union With Christ (1998).
這個從1970年代開始之研究的結果不斷的被許多主要的作者所總結，Carl E. Braaten與Robert W. Jenson編輯，與基督聯合（Union With Christ）（1998）。
[30] Tuomo Mannermaa, The Christ Present in Faith:
Justification and Deification; [a contribution to] the Ecumenical Dialog, (Hannover, 1989) [English trans. The Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification, trans. Thomas S. Obersat (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2005.]; “Why is
Luther So Fascinating? Modern Finnish Luther Research,” in Union with Christ: The New
Finnish Interpretation of Luther, p. 1.
Tuomo Mannermaa，信心中的基督：稱義與神化；對大公教會對話的工作（The Christ Present in Faith:
Justification and Deification; [a contribution to] the Ecumenical Dialog），(Hannover,
1989) [英文譯本信心中的基督：路得對於稱義的看法（The Christ Present in Faith:
Luther’s View of Justification）, Thomas S. Obersat 譯(Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2005.]; “路得為何如此讓人難以忘懷？現代芬蘭學派對路得的研究（Why
is Luther So Fascinating? Modern Finnish Luther Research）,”與基督聯合：芬蘭學派對路得的新詮釋（Union with Christ: The New
Finnish Interpretation of Luther）, p. 1.
[31] Tuomo Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish
Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4/1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 37–47; at p. 37.
[32] Tuomo Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish
Luther Research”, p. 42.
[33] J. Todd Billings, “John
Calvin: United to God through Christ,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature:
The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Tradition, p. 201.
[34] J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation and
the Gift, p. 55.
[35] Two contributors to the
volume, Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, have concurrently co-edited
their own collection: Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Publications, 2006). This collection, containing contributions from seven
scholars, is more modest in scope and less even in quality than Partakers of the Divine
Nature. The volume
includes a well-documented introduction, one chapter dedicated to the Old
Testament, one chapter on 2 Peter, the next six chapters on patristic authors,
and the last two chapters dedicated to T. F. Torrance and Vladimir Soloviev.
該文集的兩位作者，Stephen Finlan和Vladimir Khralamove已經在近期以編輯了他們自己的文集：Theosis：基督教神學中的神化(Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Publications, 2006)。這個文集包括了從七位學者撰寫的論文，具有較為狹窄的範疇，在質量上略低於神性的分享者。文集也包括了一篇編輯的很好的介言，有一篇完全討論舊約，一篇討論彼得後書，接下來的六章論及教父作者，做好兩章論及托倫斯和Vladimir Soloviev。
[36] Andrew Louth, “The Place
of Theosis in
Orthodox Theology,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature, edited by Michael J.
Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2008), p. 43.
Andrew
Louth，“神化在東正教神學中的立場”，在神性的分享者一書中，Micheal J. Christensen和Jeffery A Wittung編輯（Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008），43頁。
[37] Gosta Hallonsten, “Theosis in Recent Research: a renewal
of interest and a need for clarity,”pp. 282–283.
Gosta
Hallosten，“在近期研究中的Theosis：重生的興趣與需要澄清的要點”，282-283頁。
[38] Ibid., p. 287.
[39] My conclusion draws upon the
valuable discussion in William T. Cavanaugh, “A Joint Declaration?
Justification as Theosis in Aquinas and Luther,” The Heythrop Journal 41/3 (July, 2000), pp. 265–280.
我的結論乃是采自在William T. Cavanaugh 的“一份聯合宣言？在阿奎那和路得思想中稱義就是神化”中一段非常有價值的討論，The Heythrop Journal 41/3 (July, 2000), pp. 265–280。
[40] Daniel A. Keating, Deification and Grace (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press,
2007).
Daniel A. Keating,，神化與恩典(Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2007).
[41] See Olson, “Deification
in Contemporary Theology,” pp. 188–189. Olson’s comprehensive lists also includes an
Anglican theologian A. M. Allchin, Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann, and evangelical theologians such as Clark Pinnock,
Stanley Grenz, Robert Rakestraw, Daniel Clendenin, and Veli-Matti Karkkainnen.
參考奧爾森，“近代神學中的神化”， pp. 188–189.奧爾森所提供的清單包括了安利甘會神學家A. M. Allchin，改革宗神學家莫特曼（Jurgen Moltmann），和福音派神學家Clark Pinnock,
Stanly Grenz, Robert Rakestraw, Daniel Clendenin, 與Veli-Matti
Karkkainnen.
[42] John Milbank, Graham Ward and
Catherine Pickstock, “Introduction”, in J. Milbank et al. (eds.) Radical Orthodoxy (London: Routledge, 1999), p.
3.
John Milbank, Graham Ward與Catherine Pickstock, “介言”, J.
Milbank等 (編) 極端的正統 (London: Routledge, 1999), p.
3. |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
| 實用資訊 | |
|
|
|
|
| 一周點擊熱帖 | 更多>> |
|
|
|
| 一周回復熱帖 |
|
|
|
|
| 歷史上的今天：回復熱帖 |
| 2012: | adajo： 陳希曾：從便亞憫學教訓（上 & | |
| 2012: | 天嬰: 鄰居家的事兒 | |
| 2011: | nngzh【聖經背誦】【哥林多後書】第1章 | |
| 2011: | xinmin：松鼠啊松鼠 | |
| 2010: | 請問版主，我說錯了什麼話，你們要刪我 | |
| 2010: | 不以為恥反以為榮的關心 | |
| 2009: | 海蘭蘭:感恩讚美 | |
| 2009: | 慕容青草: 聖經研討---巴別塔 | |
| 2008: | 不知果、焉知樹？(+3) | |
| 2008: | 飛翔的魚:給道奇的信 | |
