| 重拾神化：一个曾经被蔑视的老古董如何成为一个大公教会性的偶像 |
| 送交者: oldfish 2013年11月26日02:15:53 于 [彩虹之约] 发送悄悄话 |
|
Modern Theology 25:4 October 2009
现代神学25:4 2009十月
THE RETRIEVAL OF DEIFICATION: HOW A ONCE-DESPISED ARCHAISM BECAME AN ECUMENICAL DESIDERATUMmoth_1558 647.
重拾神化：一个曾经被蔑视的老古董如何成为一个大公教会性的偶像
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:
在二十世纪初，神化（theosis，theopoiesis）的观念往往被认为是源自于东正教神学的外来思想所产生的错误思想。在当时抗议宗的最主要的历史学者--哈纳克（Adolf von Harnack）的巨著，教义史（History of Dogma）中，认定其为基督教神学在二世纪所犯下的错误：
“[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]
当基督教宗教被视为一个以神的道成肉身作为人类得以神化之保证的信仰的时候，就不得不使人怀疑原先只是次要的宗教知识被当作了福音单纯内涵的核心。
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.
对于哈纳克而言，神化的观念是一个更为malaise，也就是希腊化的症状，它用希腊人的形而上学，扭曲了简朴的圣经信息，就是“神的父亲地位和人类的兄弟地位”。这位德国历史学者的结论是当时普遍的观点。在抗议宗神学光谱的另一段，卡尔巴特（Karl Barth）的观点也是同样的平淡无奇。巴特坚称，接受“圣化（divinization）”教义就是鼓励对基督人性的抽象性宣讲，把宣讲的重心从“以基督论为中心（christological center）”的救赎，论转移到‘高度膨胀人论’的朦胧范畴之中。巴特这种天马行空式批判的主要目标乃是黑格尔（Hegel）与费尔巴哈（Feuerbach）所展现出的apotheosis（将人尊奉为神，只将凡人神化—译者），巴特将其视为‘这是对路得宗主义的威胁，将耶稣基督的人性神化，并将祂的神性非神化（a divinization of a human nature of Jesus
Christ and a parallel de-divinization of his
divinity）。’普遍的观点是，巴特将‘被造之物的神化（the deification of the creature）’（历史幻想中名副其实的皮鲁艾特旋转舞）列为他所谓‘在伊便尼派基督论之特征（the characteristics of ebionite Christology）’，并视天主教对耶稣之心的那种糟糕头顶之忠诚奉献为神化的范例。看起来，当时的辩论使得参与的神学家得以免除查验历史中的证据的责任。
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.
为了回应此类的抨击，东正教的神学家们普遍坚称神化的教义代表了具有‘东方’特色处理救赎之奥秘的进路，这个进路与西方神学家在第二个千年中所发展的救赎教义相对。（在他们的观念中，这个教义是无效力的。）很少人注意到，近代东正教神学提取神化教义的起因并不是对于教会教父的研究，而是另一个源头：由十九世纪俄罗斯哲学家，神学家和诗人Vladimir Soloviev（1853-1900）所发展出来的，关于神圣人类（智慧-sophia）的观念。正是这种智慧论（sophiology）--被神化的人类是神的一个永恒的面貌，具有一种无法抗拒的吸引力，推进了第一波神化教义的恢复。不论俄罗斯智慧论具有什么优点或价值，二十世纪的东正教神学家们众口铄金的认为神化乃是某种更高层面的教义，它几乎将所有与信仰有关的题目联合在一起，包括神论，创造，保守，基督论，圣灵论，救赎论，教会论与末世论。令人惊讶的是，即便它被如此的推崇，原先的七次大公会议的教义定义中却没有提及神化的观念。这个观念本身的不确定性造成它缺少教义性的精确描述。
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.
西方神学家在二十世纪的下半叶对神化观念的态度产生了巨大的改变。最让西方观察者所惊讶的观念是，借由上一代许多学者间的合作，被视为异教的观念被逐渐的被证明存在于许多西方神学传统之中。越来越多的西方神学家—奥古斯丁，安瑟伦，多玛士阿奎那，十字架的约翰，马丁路得，Lancelot Andrewes，约翰与查尔斯卫斯理，约拿森爱德华兹，甚至许多激进的改革者，等等—如今都被确定教导了不同版本的神化教义。即便在一个将令人困惑，拜偶像以及异端的罪名加诸于神化身上的时代中，这也一个巨大的改变。声称这个教义会获得全面性的接受仍为之过早—某些顽固的反对者看起来也不可能被说服—然而越来越多的西方神学家发现神化的教义具有深厚的说服力。本文讲话讨论在这个潮流中某些具有代表力的案例，以及使得该教义变得越来越普遍的因素。
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.
早期的抨击普遍认为教父们对于神化的观念不过就是对异教中将古典希腊英雄和罗马皇帝尊奉为神（apotheosis）无足轻重的改良。从这个角度而言，在Vespasian皇帝因着严重的腹泻而早亡时所说的—“我真悲哀，我想我要成为神了（Woe is
me, I think I am becoming a god）”—与在里昂的爱任纽所诉求的：神的儿子“成为我们的所是好让我们成为祂自己的所是”（ the Son of God “became what we are in order to make us what he
is himself”， Adv. Haer. 5. Praef.）所代表的早期的交换公式（exchange formula，指道成肉身的目的乃是为了肉身成道，是一个等同的交换—译者）间并没有什么的不同。对于他们而言，最近期对于神化的抨击承认了异教的尊奉为神与基督教的神化并不是同一个东西。
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.
在一篇划时代性的研究中，La
divinization du chrétien d’après les pères grecs (1938,
English translation published in 2002)，Jules Gross论到在发展神化教义的过程中，希腊教父们从希腊主义以及他们的异教背景中汲取了哲学性与宗教性的观念。古典时代的后期普遍相信人类的快乐乃是由达到神的像（homoiosis theo）。然而基督教神学在三位一体之形而上学的背景之中，将这个通俗的期盼转换为，把道成肉身视为达到神圣的样式的基础，并借由坚称，不论神化意表什么，它绝不暗示被造之物能够成为非被造的。
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在回应哈纳克以及其他的学者时，主张神化根本不是被异教希腊主义理性化的归纳，而是一个符合圣经的观念，是一种‘父子关系（filiation）’与‘合并（incorporation）入基督’之观念合理的发展。神化是“有份于神性（partaking in divine nature）”（彼后1：4），当被理解为模成神的完全，特别是不朽坏与不死，以及借由恩典而在性质上成为神的所是。Gross结论到‘从四世纪开始，神圣化的教义对于大部分的希腊教父是基本的教义。并构成了他们救赎论的中心。’
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的希腊教父传统中的神化教义（The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic
Tradition）（2004）建立在Gross的研究之上，在范围与方法的准确性都超过了前者。Russell提出了一个仔细的，对于神化用词的本文研究，更广的角度考虑了教父们所面临的神学问题，提供了个别教父作者的上下文。他根据不同的源头对于神化语言的使用，在唯名（nominal，神化作为一个尊称）和推理（analogical，人借由恩典在性情上成为神儿子的所是），道德（效法神的道德属性），与实践（强调变化并有份神）中做出了分类，表明那些用法在四世纪的时候已经融合成为一个成熟的版本。Russell透过Gross看见四世纪乃是一个神化的观念成为教父救赎论的核心议题的时期。
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.
与以大马士革的约翰作为研究基础的Gross不同，Russell认为认信者马克西姆的神学是神化教义发展过程中的最高点。这位英国学者也提供了对于后期拜占庭神学作者的简述，例如新神学家西缅安，巴拿马斯的贵格利。从大的角度来看，Russell并没用特别强调现代非东正教神学界对于神化的抨击。这个责任乃是有我们现在要提及的，对于历史的研究所要承担的。
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.
在联合的基础：阿奎那与巴拿马斯的神化教义（The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas
and Palamas）（1999）一书中，Anna Williams比较了两位思想家，他们的神学课题代表了在西方和东方间平行的进路。阿奎那的经院神学的方式被大量的与巴拿马斯对于宗教经验的极度依赖进行了比较；巴拿马斯坚称神的能力是非受造的，似乎与恩典是被造的假设背道而驰；最后，巴拿马斯并没有分享阿奎拿那种对于被美化过的理性能够‘看见’神的素质之乐观态度，他坚称，即便在末世，神的素质不像非受造的能力，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认为阿奎那和巴拿马斯的神学系统并不是如同原先所认为的具有那么大的差异，而它们间‘联合的基础’就是神化的教义。Williams同时承认阿奎那鲜少直接提及神化，她仍然发现神化的观念不单单出现在阿奎那对于道德与习惯，和圣别的教训中，而也出现在神学总纲（Summa Theologiae）整个exitus-reditus（exit and return，直译为“出与进”—译者）的架构中。根据Williams，阿奎那与巴拿马斯的课题涵盖如何维持对于神化教义的两极的看法：神不可理解的超越性，以及被造之物有份于神。Williams认为阿奎那与巴拿马斯的分别乃是在于他们在发展各自神学观点的过程中，往往过于倾向与一边，而忽略了另一边。如同她所论及的，整体而言，他们的分别乃是在于各自所强调观点的不同，而不是根本上的歧见。
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在她的亚研究中承认了她的历史进路乃是被一个跨大公教会的，反转以阿奎那抨击巴拿马斯的张力的顾虑所驱动。Williams所展现出来的论点看起来更像是，一位系统神学家借由创造一个更宽广的神学范畴，以改良阿奎那与巴拿马斯的神学，并调和两者间的不同。Williams为这个范畴提出了令人心服的论点，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，巴拿马斯对于神学知识的评论与阿奎那的亚里斯多德式的科学方式（scientia）是风牛马不相及的。我们同样也无法相信巴拿马斯的素质/能量的分别完全是观念上的，而不是实质上的：被神化的位格，甚至在末世，有份与神圣能力的实际，却不在神圣素质的实际里面。我们也可以完全合理的诠释阿奎那对于道德与习惯的教导为一种在神化亮光中对神圣完美的类比—然而阿奎那本身却从未建立起这样的联系。在阅读阿奎那后，Williams尽其所能的建立一种最为宽广的神化定义—有份神—再在阿奎那的神学中寻找能够与其相配的例证。就像读者们可以看见的，这种对于神化的素描不单单是Williams的研究风格，也是许多尝试在东方教父和第二个千年中的西方神学家间建立连接点的其他研究工作所具有的风格。
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，神化乃是一种在观念中被勾勒出来的合法教义？或者神化教义应当被更为准确的定义？我们到底需要保留多少希腊教父们关于神化的纯正信仰与实践的本文？大部分的早期教父作者们只为我们留下了分散四处，关于神化意义的线索。只有到了六世纪，伪丢尼修（Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite）提供了一处看起来是最早对于神化教义的准确定义，在教会的等级（Ecclesiastical Hierarchy）1.3中他说道：“神化乃是尽我们可能的达到神的样式并与祂联合。”Corpus Dionysiacum的作者在此指出神化与神圣的高升与奥秘之联合的关系。然而另一位作者（和另一处的伪丢尼修）以一种更为广义的方式处理神化，不只包括了奥秘的联合，还把达到该联合的所有步奏都当作神化的一部分。
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.
这使得较不引起争议的，有份，神圣的样式与与基督联合这类本体论的观念看起来都成为神化观念的构成部分。Williams与其他学者对于神化的最基本定义坚称神化就是有份于神。这个定义产生的一个结果就是，在形而上学假设的基础上，宇宙万物的神化乃是没有特定等级的：借由有份于（神的）存有，万有都能有份于神。就像有份的观念是理解神化的核心观念一样，我们也需要更为精确的使用这个词。
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，我对于神化定义的讨论缺乏一种明确的基督论基础。众人都认可交换公式“神成为人为要使人成为神（God became human so that humans could become god）”（以及它的其他不同叙述方式）立足于道成肉身中的神化。读者当注意，交换公式的意义，即便是其修辞上的优点，都远远不足以证明其自身的正确性。在亚流争议的背景中，交换公式被用来表达神儿子道成肉身，却仍然是完全之神取了人性的信仰；它所产生的结果乃是，神的行为使得虽然身为被造之物的人类，得以借由恩典成为像神。在神化教义的不同相面中，也有许多不同的观点与实践方式。这些观念包括认养、拯救、属灵争战、从恶魔的势力中得到自由、洁净、赦免、称义、和好、光照、完全、医治、圣别、变化、得荣、重生、效法基督、与基督合并（incorporation into Christ）、交通、第二创造、拣选、末世的完成、万有归一（recapitulation）、模成神的形像（deiformity）、同化（appropriation）、智慧化（sophianization）、奥秘的联合，等等。在某些背景下，神化乃是被当作那些概念的雨伞，在另一些背景下，神化被平行的至于那些观念旁，如同一个与它们完全不同的观念。然而，近代的非东正教神学家们往往简略的把神化教义塞入这些观念中的其中一个。奥尔森（Roger Olson）在近期的一篇论文中质疑这样的做法：“在非常长的一段日子中，我看见将‘神化’当作‘圣洁，’或‘与基督联合，’或‘与神交通，’甚至‘被神所充满’的时候，往往觉得很困惑。若你连那些跟为古老的，人借由神圣能力被提升而进入一种被造的良善之中的意义都无法接受，你又为什么要采用神化的术语呢？”奥尔森跟认可斯基（Vladimir Lossky）与Georgios Mantzaridis对于神化教义整全的定义必须包括巴拿马斯对于素质/能力（essence/energies）的分别作为以组成部分的假设。
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.
为了将议题进一步复杂化，大量教父们论及theosis的文献被认定为某种人论的假设与实践方式，以支持神化教义。教父作家们普遍认为禁欲以及在教会中有份与圣礼的生活都是神化的预设条件。这种基于神人合作说的假设，同时也是对于圣礼的‘高等(high)’观点。在西方作者们对神化的讨论中，基本上都忽略了那方面的人论与圣礼论的假设。
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领导的一群芬兰学者以神化的教导重新诠释路得的称义教义。这条诠释的路线乃是从Mannermaa所参与的，在芬兰福音派路得教会与俄罗斯东正教会代表间的对话衍生出来的产物。根据Mannermaa，theosis“乃是马丁路得神学之基本架构的一种表现方式”，在一个世代前它还是“完全不可质疑的”，并且是“非常极端的一种公式。”当注意，从某种程度而言，Mannermaa过分的渲染他的发现是革命性的，因此，读者当记得，在这个世纪初期，路得神学中的某些用语就已经触发了卡尔巴特的怒气。
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.
芬兰学派—特别是Mannermaa，Risto Saarinee与Simo Peura—都论及路得提倡某种有份与神的形而上学，对路得而言，称义还包括了信徒在信心中与基督联合所产生本体上的改变。相对的在路得早期的著作中，这点是毫无争议的，路得也引用了神化的观念。然而，后期的路德会信仰宣言几乎没有为这个观念留下任何的空间。使得这个题目继续成为路得会学者间辩论的题目，就是，从始至终，那些观念对于路得称义的教训和路得的这些立场而言，是不是那么的重要。
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.
进一步讨论芬兰学派对路得的诠释已经超过了本文的范围。然而，我愿意回到用来描绘并修改神化之内涵的方法。当我们思考教父们的作品，有两个构成Theosis的基本观念，有份于神与住在基督里。神化观念的延伸会产生两个问题。
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为普遍之称义的观念之下—这不是任何教父作家的做法。事实上，在教父们处理神化这个题目的时候，称义基本上没有任何的地位。在有份于神作为theosis的定义这方面，第二个点看起来使得目前对于神化的归类更显为是错误的：万有都有份于神，但是只有理性的存有得以被称义。因此，（根据我们先前的定义）这使得称义的观念看起来无法包含神化。
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，‘单单经由信心借着恩典而神化’在东正教方面根本没有什么说服力。几乎所有的教父作家根本都拒绝解释‘善工’与恩典间有任何因果关系。救赎论的优先性与恩典的需要性都不能贬低人论接受神帮助的过程需要努力与禁欲的事实。然而，路得所坚称的，被动性的领受恩典并没有为教父对于人类被动的和主动的以自由意志配合恩典这个矛盾留下任何的空间—这乃是造成希腊教父与路德会间的人论分道扬镳的重点。同样的，在某些教父对神化教义的处理方式中，对恩典的强调并不代表排除了其他美德的重要性。对于希腊教父们，神化代表一生的属灵争战，胜过一切的恶习并随着美德的梯子向上爬升（这个观点往往被以一种奥古斯丁主义与伯拉鸠主义都能够解读的语言描绘）。在路得的思想中，基于人论的，与神化有关的预设立场和实行具有自己的分类。就像在教会层面上对路得有份于神之形而上学的研讨一样，路得对神化意义的深层次转变是不能被忽视的。
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.
在加尔文，有份与恩典（2007）一书中，Tood Billings探索了加尔文神学是否包含神化议题的可能性。Billing的核心研究与Williams和Mannermass的研究相近，他也着重在加尔文对于人有份于神的理解。然而，Bilings与Williams和Mannermass的不同之处在于，他讨论了在西方可能存在着一种与拜占庭东方不同，却又是合乎圣经的，论述神化的方式。Billings正确的注意到，改革宗作者所提出的联合，有份与认养的议题仍不足以让作者如同希腊教父一样，建构一个Theosis的教义。Billings承认加尔文拒绝了恩典与自由意志的神人合作说，以及加尔文坚信基督的公义担负了信徒的罪孽，这使得改革宗的神化与希腊教父们的神化间有着明显的不同。我还要加上，加尔文的圣餐论所具有的复杂性与模糊性，也缺乏教父神学所强调的，圣餐乃是神化的主要载具之观念。
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.
有一本很重要的论文集，由Michael Christernsen与Jeffrey Wittung共同编辑的，名为有份于神性：神化在基督教传统中的历史与发展（Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History
and Development of Deification in the Christian
Tradition (2007)）乃是根据在2004年5月于Drew大学的讨论会论文。这卷以历史为架构，由18位作者提供论文，涵盖了特定的圣经本文（保罗和彼得的书信），教父文学（包括叙利亚的以法莲，科普教派的阿拉伯文作者Bulus al Bushei），以及安瑟伦，路得，加尔文约翰卫斯理，Sergius Bulgakov，与卡尔拉那。虽然某些历史时段并没有被均衡的涵盖—例如，对于西方中古世纪的讨论基本上都被限制在安瑟伦身上—然而额，在历史的范畴上，这个论文集超越了以往所有的出版物。本文集的作者们在原先讨论的基础上建构自己的论点，并进入了以往尚未探索的领域。
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，由于篇幅的关系，我只能讨论本文集中的两位作者。Andrew Louth在神化在东正教神学重点的地位（Reflecting on the place of
deification in Orthodox theology）一文中，建议神化对于东正教而言并不是一个独立的神学观点（例如：有权威的神学观点），而是具有结构性的含义，乃是一条穿越道成肉身的教义，宇宙论，末世论，人论和救赎论的思路。在神化作为被造之物的telos（最终目的—译者）的亮光之下，道成肉身不再单单是神用来拯救并翻转堕落的行动。神化提供了一个重新恢复道成肉身的宇宙性含义的背景：神性与人性在基督里的联合成为万有在神里，于末世联合之基础。
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.
放眼现今西方作者对于神化的研究，Gosta Hallonsten列出了一篇颇长的注意事项清单。作者注意到在Williams对于阿奎那（Aquinas）的研究中缺少对于Theosis的明确定义。神化可以被当作有份于神，与神联合，与成圣。然而，就像Hallonsten正确指出的，即便阿奎那圣化的教义可以从某个角度而言与东方的神化教义相合，这并不代表阿奎那有神化的教义。Hallonsten在路得对于与基督合并（incorporation into Christ）的理解上也表达了同样保守的态度。Hallonsten对theosis的议题（theme）与教义（doctrine）间提供了一个有帮助的建议。神化作为一个议题，包括有份于神性的观念，父子的认养，与神联合等等。Hallonsten坚称theosis的教义需要被更明确的定义。教义必须包括某种人论的假设和一种完整的救赎论观点。Hallonsten对于议题和教义间的区别已经被Billings应用于他对于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.
由西方近代学者们对于神化的重新探索遵随着两条路线：有些人强调某位西方作者的神化意义与教父的一致性，或是教父延伸（Williams，Mannermaa）；同时，另一些更为谨慎的作者论及某位西方作者对于神化议题的重新诠释（Hallonsten，Billings，Olson）。第二种的诠释更能够符合历史，虽然在教会的层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.
对于Hallonsten在神化议论与教义间做出的分别应当再加上Norman Russell对于神化语言中所提出的，在名义上的（nominal），逻辑上的（analogical），道德性（ethical）与真实性（realistic）间的分别。最为宽松的神化定义包括了有份于神，与神相似，与神联合，以及交换公式的观念。我们当注意神化教义还当包括神人合作的人论，圣礼论的真实临在，素质/能力的分别。
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.
根据先前历史性的研究，在巴拿马斯，阿奎那，路得和加尔文间对于神化具有一致性，这些神学家间的不同主张曝露出一种有份与神的形而上学。因此，我们只能在最为宽松的神化定义中，而不是在更为完善的定义中，获得这种一致性。有时候，那四位神学家们都在他们各自的救赎论中勾勒了同样的，符合圣经的图画。不论如何，我们当强调，在他们人论的预设立场与他们对于恩典之运作的理解，以及在他们的圣礼神学间的不同不能被简化为语义学上的分别而已。
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.
目前从好几位令人印象深刻的西方神学权威间汲取的神化议题不能被单单的归功于对历史文学孜孜不倦的发掘工作。我们可能可以更为准确的视这种汲取为一种稍微被历史神学所包装的神学成就。例如，Mannermaa坚决的认定theosis是路得神学的一种‘基本架构’，不論這種宣告是否能夠獲得歷史的支持，都会产生非常不同的亮光，使得路得的法理性称义的教义变得支离破碎。故此，在路得思想中重新发掘theosis不能被误解为一种大公教会性运动的起始。然而，尝试重新调整“使得教会坚立或倾倒”的教义是值得鼓励的。在这个过程中发生了两件事情：路得的救赎论经受了变化，使得神化的意义产生了想当大的改变。称义不再是一种“合乎圣经的虚构之物”，神化如今成为称义的一个分类。这个改变是一种在对路得作品的历史性阐述，与有建设性的神学间的摇摆。虽然论及在阿奎那，或在某些安立甘会神学家和在卫斯理神学中的theosis，比较不会那么震撼，在概念中勾勒那样的图画要求近期对于从历史的新阐述转为大公教会性的前奏曲（historical-exposition turned
ecumenical-overtures）的过程中，具有某种地位的行动。
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.
这样就会产生一个问题：那种跨宗派信仰的诉诸于神化的观念，在今日会产生什么结果？我承认我的回答是片面和试探性的。明显的，现今西方神学界对于东方基督教的遗产有一种更为系统化的兴趣。今日我们也很难见到如同哈纳克时期，轻易的从神学的角度拒绝东正教传统的做法。近代的讨论中也看不见从语言学的角度，将神化教义批判为异端或胡言乱语的攻击。我们看见我们乃是处于新一波重新评估（神化教义）的浪潮之中。与罗马天主教主义的新神学（la nouvelle theologie）中所产生的第一波不同，这个新的浪潮乃是跨宗派的，包括了罗马天主教，福音派，主流抗议宗以及安利甘会学者。其结果将会以对教父文献更为深入的研究，与大公教会范围内更大的敏锐度，重新塑造系统神学的范畴。
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]
有鉴于此，Keating的神化与恩典（Deification and Grace（2007））一书涵盖了“介绍大公教会教义（Introductions to Catholic Doctrine）”系列的一部分，是一个对于教父神化观念丰富和透彻的阐述，就像Keating所论及的，神化教义当被西方完全承认。在罗马天主教的神学中，Keating的前辈都尝试重新发觉神化的观念，包括Teilhard de Chardin， Hans urs von Balthasar和Cathrine Mowry LaCugna。在路德会的学者中，具有争议的芬兰派研究结果已经完全被Carl Braaten和Robert Jenson接纳。在其他基督教中，对于我们的题目的热情也是同样的强烈。
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.
神化所提供的救赎观点在远超传统反对声音之才层面上，引发了讨论，例如说，代罚和代赎的道德性影响。当然，强调对于恩典之恩赐改变人的特性，灵恩运动的特征，也可以被包括在类似于神化的治疗法类别中，而不是在法理的类别中。除此以外，神化的语言倾向鼓吹在救赎论中，使用更为易于理解的本体论类别，而不是单纯的法理和道德的类别。当‘被造之物有份于神’的观念被置于神学的中心—不论是作为假设，或作为目标，或两者—在自然和超自然间，在自然和被启示的神学间，在自由和恩典间，在世俗与神圣间的关系都要被重新考虑。
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.
以下是一个需被从新概念化的例子，考虑以下的神学陈述：“激进正统派的神学架构乃是由柏拉图所发展，并在基督教中被重新建构之‘有份’的观念，因为任何其他的必然性都会保留一块对神独立的领域。后者只会引向虚无主义（nihilism）（虽然以另一种面貌出现）。不论如何，有份的观念杜绝了任何被造的领域，同时让有限之物保留他们的完整性。”不论有份的形而上学是不是单单是一个为了避免虚无主义错误的本体论，它都不能被怀疑与现代世俗那种自我封闭，自我接受和自我永久存在的范围无法相容。
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.
近代系统神学中Theosis议题的复兴代表西方神学家愿意以具有建设性的方式与传统的“东方”观念接触的尝试。含明显的，theosis的观念不在是东方基督教的“专利”，即便这样一边倒的所有权在历史中是不可能的。如同我在本文中已经强调的，在跨宗派的讨论中，神化的意义具有一种不明确的轮廓。若我敢提出一个有条件的预测，神化，当它的含义完全被证明后，将会像一个定时炸弹一样，对于改革宗教会所发展出来的救恩论产生一种“具有创造性的毁灭（creative destruction）”。同时，其观念将会有能力在另一方面推动与东方基督教相近的教会，去发展一种基于圣灵论，对于世界或神人合作之人论的新理解，时间会证明一切。
[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.
哈纳克，教义史，Neil Buchanan译(Boston, MA: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1901), Vol. 2, p. 318。就像Fergus Kerr在注解中指出的，‘读者只要追踪哈纳克的大作中对于神化作品的目录，就会看见这个题目让他多么愤怒）。参考Fergus Kerr，阿奎那之后：多玛主义的异象(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.
参考Stephen Finlan和Vladimir Kharlamov编辑。神化：基督教神学中的神化(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.
卡尔巴特，教会教义，IV.2．和好的教义，Ｇ. W. Bromiley与托伦斯编辑(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), §64,
pp. 81–82. 随后作教会教义。.
[4] Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §22, p. 759.
卡尔巴特，教会教义, 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.
卡尔巴特，教会教义CD, I. 2. §1, p. 19.
[7] Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §15, p. 138.
卡尔巴特，教会教义, 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.
参考Vladimir Lossky，在在神的形像与样式（In the Image and Likeness of God）一书中“救赎与神化（Redemption and Deification）”，John H Erickson与Thomas E Bird编，(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974/2001), p. 99，神化在该处被尖锐的与安瑟伦的满足论比较。跟为近期的材料参考Robert G Stephanopoulos，在新人：东正教与改革宗的对话（New Man：an Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue）一书中“神化教义（The Doctrine of Theosis）”(New Brunswick, NJ:
Agora Books, 1973), pp. 149–161，福音派神学协和杂志（Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Socitye 37/3中的“有份与神格：东正教的神化教义（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).
参考，例如Emil Bartos，在东正教神学中的神化（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与Jeffrey A Wittung编辑有份与神性：基督教传统中神化的历史与发展（Partakers of the Divine Nature: The
History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions）中“圣安瑟伦：Theoris与完全教义的逻辑（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，联合的基础（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：十字架的约翰之神化教义（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与Robert W. Jenson，编辑，与基督联合：芬兰学派对路得的新诠释（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, 加尔文，有份与恩典：信徒在与基督联合中的活动（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：安利甘传统中被遗忘的环节（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, “查尔斯卫斯理作品中的神化（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, “变化之光：根据巴拿马斯的贵格利已经约拿森爱德华兹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，普林斯顿神学院的Bruce McCormack博士曾在2007年三月30-31举办的‘神的不受感已经人类受苦之奥秘’的研讨会中，在Providence大学的公开课程中称神化的观念为‘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, 根据希腊教父之基督徒的圣化（The Divinization of the
Christian According to the Greek Fathers）, Paul A. Onica译(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.”
参考Williams，联合的基础（The Ground of Union）, p. 32:“首先，我们可以肯定的说那就是我们找到路加人类有份于神的生命的地方，我们可以肯定的宣布该处特别论及了神化。”
[27] Roger E. Olson, “Deification
in Contemporary Theology,” Theology Today 64/2 (July, 2007), pp. 186–200; at p. 193.
Roger E. Olson, “近代神学中的神化教义（Deification in
Contemporary Theology）,”今日神学（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, 东方教会的神秘神学（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, “近代神学中的神化教义（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).
这个从1970年代开始之研究的结果不断的被许多主要的作者所总结，Carl E. Braaten与Robert W. Jenson编辑，与基督联合（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：称义与神化；对大公教会对话的工作（The Christ Present in Faith:
Justification and Deification; [a contribution to] the Ecumenical Dialog），(Hannover,
1989) [英文译本信心中的基督：路得对于称义的看法（The Christ Present in Faith:
Luther’s View of Justification）, Thomas S. Obersat 译(Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2005.]; “路得为何如此让人难以忘怀？现代芬兰学派对路得的研究（Why
is Luther So Fascinating? Modern Finnish Luther Research）,”与基督联合：芬兰学派对路得的新诠释（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.
该文集的两位作者，Stephen Finlan和Vladimir Khralamove已经在近期以编辑了他们自己的文集：Theosis：基督教神学中的神化(Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Publications, 2006)。这个文集包括了从七位学者撰写的论文，具有较为狭窄的范畴，在质量上略低于神性的分享者。文集也包括了一篇编辑的很好的介言，有一篇完全讨论旧约，一篇讨论彼得后书，接下来的六章论及教父作者，做好两章论及托伦斯和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，“神化在东正教神学中的立场”，在神性的分享者一书中，Micheal J. Christensen和Jeffery A Wittung编辑（Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008），43页。
[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：重生的兴趣与需要澄清的要点”，282-283页。
[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.
我的结论乃是采自在William T. Cavanaugh 的“一份联合宣言？在阿奎那和路得思想中称义就是神化”中一段非常有价值的讨论，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,，神化与恩典(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.
参考奥尔森，“近代神学中的神化”， pp. 188–189.奥尔森所提供的清单包括了安利甘会神学家A. M. Allchin，改革宗神学家莫特曼（Jurgen Moltmann），和福音派神学家Clark Pinnock,
Stanly Grenz, Robert Rakestraw, Daniel Clendenin, 与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与Catherine Pickstock, “介言”, J.
Milbank等 (编) 极端的正统 (London: Routledge, 1999), p.
3. |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
| 实用资讯 | |
|
|
|
|
| 一周点击热帖 | 更多>> |
|
|
|
| 一周回复热帖 |
|
|
|
|
| 历史上的今天：回复热帖 |
| 2012: | adajo： 陈希曾：从便亚悯学教训（上 & | |
| 2012: | 天婴: 邻居家的事儿 | |
| 2011: | nngzh【圣经背诵】【哥林多后书】第1章 | |
| 2011: | xinmin：松鼠啊松鼠 | |
| 2010: | 请问版主，我说错了什么话，你们要删我 | |
| 2010: | 不以为耻反以为荣的关心 | |
| 2009: | 海兰兰:感恩赞美 | |
| 2009: | 慕容青草: 圣经研讨---巴别塔 | |
| 2008: | 不知果、焉知树？(+3) | |
| 2008: | 飞翔的鱼:给道奇的信 | |
