Modern Theology 25:4 October 2009
THE RETRIEVAL OF DEIFICATION: HOW A ONCE-DESPISED ARCHAISM BECAME AN ECUMENICAL DESIDERATUMmoth_1558 647.
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.”
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. 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.” The primary targets of Barth’s meandering critique are the apotheosis projects of Hegel and Feuerbach, 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.” 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” (a veritable pirouette of historical imagination) and counts the (deplorable) Catholic devotion to the heart of Jesus as an instance of deification.  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. 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. 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.
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, Thomas Aquinas, John of the Cross, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Lancelot Andrewes, John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, 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—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.
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”—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.”
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.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.
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.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. 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. 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.
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.
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.” 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. 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.
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: “[I]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?” 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.
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.
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. 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.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.” 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.
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. The extension of the notion of deification leads to two problems.
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).
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.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.
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. 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.
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.
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.” 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.
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.
 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.
 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。
 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。.
 Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §22, p. 759.
卡尔巴特，教会教义, I. 2. §22, p. 759.
 Karl Barth, CD, IV. 2. §64, p. 68; IV. 1. §59, 181.
卡尔巴特，教会教义, IV. 2. §64, p. 68; IV. 1. §59, 181.
 Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §1, p. 19.
卡尔巴特，教会教义CD, I. 2. §1, p. 19.
 Karl Barth, CD, I. 2. §15, p. 138.
卡尔巴特，教会教义, I. 2. §15, p. 138.
 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。
 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)。
 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)。
 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)。
 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.
 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).
 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)。
 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).
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 23. 4.
 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.
 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, p. 9.
 Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 158–159.
 Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 173–174.
 Williams, The Ground of Union, pp. 8–27.
 Russell, The Doctrine of Deification, p. 1.
 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。”
 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.
 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.
 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）。
 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.
 Tuomo Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4/1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 37–47; at p. 37.
 Tuomo Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research”, p. 42.
 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.
 J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation and the Gift, p. 55.
 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。
 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。
 Gosta Hallonsten, “Theosis in Recent Research: a renewal of interest and a need for clarity,”pp. 282–283.
 Ibid., p. 287.
 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。
 Daniel A. Keating, Deification and Grace (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2007).
Daniel A. Keating,，神化与恩典(Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2007).
 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.
 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.