THE GREATEST POSSIBLE BLESSING: CALVIN AND DEIFICATION
BY CARL MOSSER
St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9JU, Scotland, UK email@example.com
圣玛利亚学院，圣安德鲁大学，圣安德鲁 KY16 9JU，苏格兰，联合王国
Many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology. Recent scholarship, however, identifies deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, early Anglicanism, early Methodism and Jonathan Edwards – all fountainheads of Western theology. This article contends that deification is also present in Calvin’s theology. It is not a prominent theme in its own right and some of the bolder patristic terminology is not employed. Nonetheless, the concept and imagery of deification regularly appear on stage while other doctrines are explicated. For Calvin, deification is the eschatological goal and blessing greater than which nothing can be imagined.
To Western ears unaccustomed to its bold terminology theosis, usually associated with patristic and Eastern Orthodox writers, can sound blasphemous. Theosis is described under a number of theological rubrics. These include adoption to divine sonship, participation in God, sharing of divine life, impartation of immortality, restoration of the imago dei, glorification, and consummation of the marriage between Christ and the Church. Succinctly, theosis is for believers to become by grace what the Son of God is by nature and to receive the blessings that are his by right as undeserved gifts. Most boldly, theosis is described as a transforming union of the believer with God and Christ usually, if inadequately, translated as ‘divinization’ or ‘deification’.The goal of salvation is for the believer to be ‘in-godded’ and thereby made a ‘god’.
Until recently most scholars have assumed that after the patristic period deification is foreign to Western Christianity except in medieval mysticism and unorthodox sects. It has even been claimed that deification is antithetical to the contents and methods of Western theology. There are several reasons for these widespread assumptions. One is that it has been commonplace for Orthodox polemicists to assert that deification is absent in the West because of its alleged incompatibility with Augustinian theology and scholasticism. Another is the influence Adolph von Harnack has had upon several generations of scholars. Harnack viewed deification as a prime example of the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy upon Eastern Christianity. He grudgingly admitted that Augustine had at one point taught deification. But he also claimed that it was Augustine who brought the doctrine ‘to an edifying end’ in the West.
直到近日，大部分的学者都认为在古教父时期后，除了在中古世纪的神秘主义和某些不正统的教派中，神化对于西方神学是一种异类的教导。西方的神学甚至宣称神化乃是具有伤害性的（教义）。这种普遍的假设是建立在几个理由之上。其一乃是，他们都坚信对于正统的神学辩证法而言，因为神化无法与奥古斯丁神学和经院神学相容，而被排除在西方神学之外。另一个原因乃是，极具影响力的阿道夫冯哈拿克（Adolp von Harnack）以及几代学者们共有的看法。哈拿克视神化为希腊哲学腐蚀东方基督教的主要范例。他被迫承认奥古斯丁确实一度教导神化的教义。但是他也宣称，也是奥古斯丁为此教义在西方画上了终止符。
Yet as far as I am aware, no major Western theologian has ever repudiated the patristic concept of deification. More significantly, a fact increasingly recognized by recent scholarship is that Augustine did not bring deification to an end in the West. It is now clear that deification played an important role in Augustine’s theology, including his mature theology. It is also found in Aquinas, the paradigmatic scholastic theologian. Finnish Lutherans have made the most startling discovery of deification in the West, at least to Harnack’s theological heirs. The Finns have discovered deification in Luther. They have proposed some controversial reinterpretations of Luther’s theology. But controversy aside, the Finns have brought to our attention unambiguous statements making it incontrovertible that Luther affirmed deification. Deification is also found in early Anglicanism, early Methodism (both Arminian and Calvinistic), in the writings of Jonathan Edwards, and in the works of the eminent Baptist theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong. In the mid-twentieth century the ever popular Anglican writer C. S. Lewis affirmed the doctrine. Increasingly contemporary theologians are recovering and utilizing the ancient notion of theosis. Perhaps surprising to some, a number of evangelicals from differing confessional backgrounds are among them. Noticeably absent from the list is John Calvin. It is very difficult to find secondary literature that discusses, however briefly, Calvin’s acceptance or rejection of deification. F. W. Norris’s assumption is typical of the rare comments one finds: ‘John Calvin seems to have avoided teaching deification or not known of it.’ I will argue that Calvin knew about and affirmed the deification of believers. Though not a prominent theme in its own right, deificatory language and imagery can be found at many points of Calvin’s theology.
然而，根据我所知道的，没有任何主要的西方神学家拒绝或否认教父对于神化的观念。更重要的事实是，越来越多近代的学者发觉奥古斯丁并没有终结西方神化的教义。明显的，神化的教义反而在奥古斯丁的神学中占有一个凸出的地位，包括他成熟后的神学。它也能在阿奎那，这位经院神学的代表神学家的神学中被发现。Harnack的神学继承人————芬兰路德会提出了对于神化教义在西方神学中最令人震惊的发现。芬兰学者在路得的神学中发现了神化的教义。他们提出了引起争议的，对于路得神学的重新诠释。若我们先搁置争议的部分，芬兰学者们把我们的注意力转向了无可否认，路得肯定神化教义的明确教训之上。神化也出现在英国国教和早期的卫理公会（包括亚米念和加尔文主义双方），约拿森爱德华的作品中，以及著名的浸信会神学家斯特郎（Augustus Hopkins Strong）的著作中。在二十世纪重要，非常著名的英国国教作者鲁易士（C. S. Lewis）也肯定了这个教义。越来越多的当代神学家们在重新发掘并运用古代对于神化的理解。或许，许多人士会惊讶于，他们也包括了一批从不同信仰背景而来的福音派人士。但是，最令人注目的乃是约翰加尔文并不在这个名单里面，甚至根本找不到他接受，或肯定神化教义的文章。F. W. Norris的评论是鲜有的：‘约翰加尔文看起来在避免教导神化，或根本就不知道它。’我将强烈主张，加尔文不但知道，并肯定信徒的神化。虽然它并不是一个突出的主题，但是我们还是可以在加尔文神学中多处，看见神化的用词和描述。
Four primary proof-texts for deification dominate patristic and Orthodox discussions: 2 Peter 1:4, Ps 82:6/John 10:34-5, 1 John 3:2 and John 17. I will begin by examining Calvin’s commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 since there Calvin is most explicit. I will then illustrate the presence of deification language and imagery in various parts of Calvin’s soteriology, eschatology and Trinitarianism. Calvin’s commentary on John 17 will be discussed in the course of this. Additional evidence for Calvin’s view will then be adduced from his debates with the ‘half-papists’ and Andreas Osiander. Calvin’s explicit rejection of erroneous concepts of deification will further clarify what he believed and did not believe. Calvin’s interpretation of Ps 82:6/John 10:34—5 will be reserved for last. It will be shown that Calvin diverged from the patristic interpretation of these verses. But, partly on the basis of 1 John 3:2, he would not have found the bold language patristic writers used these verses to support inappropriate — if properly understood.
Deification: the greatest possible blessing
2 Peter 1:4 claims that because of divine promises believers ‘may become partakers of the divine nature’. Commenting on the first half of 2 Peter 1:4 Calvin notes that ‘the promises of God are to be given the highest possible value, and that they are free, because they are offered to us as gifts’. The excellency of the promises ‘arises from the fact that they make us partakers of the divine nature’. Calvin immediately identifies partaking of the divine nature as that ‘than which nothing more outstanding can be imagined’ [quo nihil praestantius cogitari potest]. This phrase is a clear adaptation of Anselm’s definition of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ [quo nihil maius cogitari potest]. Calvin’s implicit reasoning is that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, i.e. the greatest possible being. Therefore, partaking of his divine nature is that blessing than which nothing more excellent can be conceived; i.e. the greatest possible blessing.
彼后1：4宣称，因为神的应许，信徒‘能够成为神性的分享者（may become partakers of the divine nature）。’在注释彼后1：4的前半节的时候，加尔文注意到，‘神的应许乃是带着一个最高的价值被赐给我们，它们也是白白的，因为它们被当作恩典（或礼物）赐给我们。’这些应许最超绝的地方乃是‘使我们成为神性的分享者这事实。’加尔文立刻指出有份于神性乃是‘远超我们所求所想的’ [quo nihil praestantius cogitari potest]。这句话明确的采用了安色伦对于神的定义，‘乃是远超过我们所能想像的’[quo nihil maius cogitari potest]。加尔文未言明的理由乃是，神是我们无法想像的，例如，最伟大的存有。故此，有份于祂的神性就是一个超越我们一切想像的祝福，例如，最伟大的祝福。
With classic theosis language Calvin interprets the meaning of the phrase ‘partakers of the divine nature’ in terms of being raised up to God and united with him. He writes: ‘We must take into account whence it is that God raises us to such a peak of honour. We know how worthless is the condition of our nature, and the fact that God makes Himself ours so that all His possessions become in a sense ours is a grace the magnitude of which our minds can never fully grasp.’ Contemplation of this ‘ought to give us abundant cause to renounce the world entirely and be borne aloft to heaven’. Calvin then boldly states: ‘We should notice that it is the purpose of the Gospel to make us sooner or later like [conformes] God; indeed it is, so to speak, a kind of deification [quasi deificari]. ’ The older translation conveys the boldness of the thought more adequately: ‘Let us then mark, that the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.’ In concert with the patristic writers Calvin views the believer’s partaking of the divine nature as a kind of deification.
The language and imagery of theosis throughout Calvin’s theology
Deification is not merely an eschatological concept for Calvin. It is rooted in the divine intentions for the creation and recreation of humanity. According to Calvin humanity was created in the image and likeness (which are synonymous for Calvin) of God that our minds might zealously be virtuous and meditate upon eternal life. Humans were endowed with reason and understanding ‘so that, by leading a holy and upright life, we may press on to the appointed goal of blessed immortality’. As creatures in the image of God humans ‘ought to be thought the reflection of God’s glory’. Furthermore, being created in the image of God is in some sense ‘participation in God’. Humans rebelled against God, were separated from him, destitute of all glory, and spoilt by sin. The image of God became deformed. ‘Our happiness’, then, Ties in having God’s image, which was blotted out by sin, restored and reformed in us.’ Christ is God’s image as the eternal Word.
But, ‘even on His human nature, which He has in common with us, the imprint (effigies) of the Father’s glory has been engraved, that He might transform His members to it’. It follows that ‘none is to be reckoned among Christ’s disciples unless there is seen the Glory of God impressed on him by the likeness (effigie) of Christ as by the seal of a ring’. The goal of salvation, in other words, is for believers to have the image and likeness of God restored in them as fully as it is in Christ and thus to participate in God and reflect his glory.
Union with our mediator
In order to save humanity from the lapsed condition, the race needed Christ’s intercession as mediator. To be a true mediator between God and humanity Christ had to be true God and true human. To benefit from Christ, believers must be united with him. Because of the great difference between our uncleanness and God’s holiness, in the incarnation the Son had to become Immanuel ‘in such a way that his divinity and our human nature might by mutual connection grow together. Otherwise the nearness would not have been near enough, nor the affinity sufficiently firm, for us to hope that God might dwell with us.’25 But human sinfulness was not the only reason we needed a mediator. ‘Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator.’
Christ’s accomplishment as Mediator made it such that ‘all his things are ours and we have all things in him’. His task was to make children of men, children of God, to make heirs of Ghenna, heirs of the kingdom of heaven.
Who could have done this had not the self-same Son of God become the Son of man, and had not so taken what was ours as to impart what was his to us, and to make what was his by nature ours by grace? . . . we trust that we are sons of God, for God’s natural Son fashioned for himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our bones, that he might be one with us. Ungrudgingly he took our nature upon himself to impart to us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us . . . the only Son of God, to whom it wholly belongs, has adopted us as his brothers.
若不是神的儿子成为人的儿子，穿上我们所有的（译者：指人性），将祂所有的注入到我们里面，并借由恩典把祂的本质作成我们的本质，谁能够成就这一切呢？。。我们认定我们就是神的儿子（sons of God），因为神的儿子从我们的身体为自己塑造了一个身体；从我们肉身而来的肉身，从我们骨而来的骨，叫祂能够成为我们中的一个。祂自愿披上我们的本质，并把祂的所是注入到我们里面，成为神的儿子和与我们一样之人的儿子。。。神的独子，万有都属于祂，已经领养我们成为祂的众弟兄。
Calvin begins Book 3 of the Institutes by asking how we receive the benefits that the Father bestowed upon his only begotten Son — benefits bestowed not for his use but to enrich poor and needy men. The answer is that Christ must become ours and dwell within us. As long as Christ is outside us his benefits do us no good: ‘all he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him’. Union with Christ ‘alone ensures that, as far as we are concerned, he has not unprofitably come with the name Savior. The same purpose is served by that sacred wedlock through which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone [Eph. 5:30], and thus one with him.’ This intimate union is not merely union with Christ as human mediator, but with God. In fact, the Word ‘took upon himself the person and office of Mediator, that he might join us to God’. It was for the purpose of continually bringing believers into ever closer union with God that Christ was given all authority. ‘The Father has given all power to the Son that he may by the Son’s hand govern, nourish, sustain us, keep us in his care, and help us. Thus, while for the short time we wander away from God, Christ stands in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God.’
Baptism and ingrafting
Christ was baptized ‘in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us’. Our baptism testifies to us that we are engrafted not only into the death and life of Christ, ‘but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings’. Commenting on Paul’s phrase ‘if we have been united’ (with Christ) in Romans 6:5, Calvin notes that
our ingrafting signifies not only our conformity to the example of Christ, but also the secret union (arcanam coniunctionem) by which we grow together with Him, in such a way that He revives us by His Spirit, and transfers His power to us. Therefore, as the graft has the same life or death as the tree into which it is ingrafted, so it is reasonable that we should be as much partakers of the life as of the death of Christ.
Nothing ‘right or sincere is found in men so long as they remain in their own nature’. Therefore there must be a disparity between the ingrafting of trees and our spiritual ingrafting into Christ. ‘In the grafting of trees the graft draws its nourishment from the root, but retains its own natural quality in the fruit which is eaten.’ The same is not true of spiritual ingrafting. Echoing 2 Peter 1:4, Calvin says that in spiritual ingrafting ‘we not only derive the strength and sap of the life which flows from Christ, but we also pass from our own nature into His’.
In one particularly beautiful passage on the Lord’s Supper Calvin brings together many of the terms and images of deification. Godly souls can gather great assurance and delight from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper because
in it they have a witness of our growth into one body with Christ such that whatever is his may be called ours. As a consequence, we may dare assure ourselves that eternal life, of which he is the heir, is ours; and that the Kingdom of Heaven, into which he has already entered, can no more be cut off from us than from him; again, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from whose guilt he has absolved us, since he willed to take them upon himself as if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.
In the same context of the Lord’s Supper Calvin says that Christ is called the ‘bread of life’ not because of the sacrament but because he showed himself as such when ‘being made a sharer in our human mortality, he made us partakers in his divine immortality’.
The glorification of believers is an important theme in patristic and Orthodox discussions of deification. Theosis is a union with God such that the divine glory shines through and is reflected by the redeemed. Calvin understands the glorification mentioned in 2 Thess 1:10 not as God’s being honoured and praised but as God’s luminescent glory shining through the saints in virtue of their union with him. When Christ returns, says Calvin, he will ‘shine upon [the godly] with His glory’ that ‘they may partake of it’. It is as if Paul were saying that Christ ‘will not possess this glory for Himself alone, but it will be shared among all the saints’. Furthermore, ‘It is the chief and unique consolation of the godly that when the Son of God will be manifested in the glory of His kingdom, He will gather them together into the same fellowship with Himself’ and ‘will pour His glory upon them’.39 Calvin continues this theme in his comments on verse 12 of the same chapter:
Particularly worthy of notice is the remark which [Paul] adds that those who have extolled the glory of Christ are to be glorified in their turn in Him. The amazing goodness of God is especially seen in the fact that He desires His glory to be conspicuously displayed in us who are entirely covered with dishonour. It is, however, a double miracle, that He afterwards shines upon us with His glory, as though He would do the same for us in return.
Commenting on Rom 5:2, Calvin links glorification and partaking of the divine nature: ‘The hope of the glory of God has shone upon us by the Gospel.’ The gospel in turn ‘testifies that we shall be partakers of the divine nature, for when we shall see God face to face, we shall be like him (II Pet. 1.4; I John 3.2)’. In the Institutes Calvin directly associates the partaking of the divine nature, glorification, and union with Christ: ‘Indeed, Peter declares that believers are called in this to become partakers of the divine nature [II Peter 1:4]. How is this? Because “he will be . . . glorified in all his saints, and will be marveled at in all who have believed” [II Thess. 1:10]’. In the very next sentence Calvin writes: ‘If the Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness with the elect — nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them and, what is more excellent, will somehow make them to become one with himself, let us remember that every sort of happiness is included under this benefit.’
For Calvin the union of the believer with God is fundamentally Trinitarian and involves all three members of the Godhead. As we have seen, according to Calvin Christ was given all authority and power in order to bring believers into union with God. He can do this because believers are in union with him as mediator. What has not yet been noted is the implicit structure of Calvin’s thought here. It follows the two distinct levels of union with Christ found in his writings. The fundamental level is the hypostatic union of the eternal Word with the humanity believers share with every other person. At this level there is a communication of properties between Christ’s divinity and his humanity. The consequent level is the particular union of Christ with individual believers. Christ unites believers to God because in his person God and humanity are already united. Significantly, this distinction is the very heart of patristic and Orthodox notions of deification. In patristic terms, individual believers can be deified because the incarnation of Christ deified human nature.
对于加尔文，信徒与神的联合乃是基于三位一体论，并且与神格的三位都有关。如同我们已经看见的，根据加尔文，基督被赐予所有的权柄和能力好把信徒们带入与基督的联合里面。因为信徒在祂这位中保的里面，祂就能够完成这件事。加尔文在此未明言的思想还没有被点出来。在他的作品中，与基督的联合有两种不同的层次。基本的层次是永远的道与信徒们彼此共享的人性所产生的位格的联合。在这个层次上，在基督的神性和人性之间，有属性的相通（communication of properties）。接下来的层次乃是基督与信徒个人的那个特别的联合。基督将信徒联于神，因为在祂的位格中，神和人类已经联合为一了。值得我们注意的是，这个分别就是教父和东正教神化思想背后的核心。在古教父的用词中，信徒各人因为基督的道成肉身神化了（祂的）人性，而得以被神化。
Calvin is keen to emphasize that all that Christ did was for our sake and all that he has is his only for him to give it to us. This includes the love of God the Father, the life and blessings of Christ, the Holy Spirit and even his unity with the Father. Christ unites believers with himself in order that they may participate, as members of his body, in the inner life and love of the Trinity which he has eternally known. Thus, the deification of the believer not only has a Trinitarian basis, but a Trinitarian goal. This is most clearly seen in comments Calvin makes on John 15:9 and 17:21—6.
The fullness of blessings and what was hidden in God are now made plain in Christ ‘that He may pass it on to His people; as the water flowing from the fountain through various channels waters the fields everywhere’. If the unity of the Son with the Father is not to be fruitless and useless, ‘its power must be diffused through the whole body of believers’. From this ‘we infer that we are one with Christ; not because He transfuses his substance into us, but because by the power of His Spirit He communicates to us His life and all the blessings He has received from the Father’. In short, Christ had nothing for himself alone but was rich to enrich his believers.
Strictly speaking, Calvin writes, Christ was not loved by the Father for his own sake. Rather, God’s love was completely poured out on Christ ‘that it might flow from Him to His members’. The love with which God loves us ‘is none other than that with which He loved His Son from the beginning . . .. It is an inestimable privilege of faith that we know that Christ was loved by the Father for our sake, that we might be made partakers of the same love and that forever.’ Furthermore, Christ was loved ‘that He may unite us along with himself to the Father’.
The role of the Holy Spirit should not be forgotten as he also plays an important role. It is the Spirit who ‘breathes divine life into us’. The goal of this regeneration ‘is that Christ should reform us to God’s image’. In the meantime the gifts of the Spirit (which we lack by nature) allow us to ‘perceive that we are truly joined to God in perfect blessedness’. In sum, the Holy Spirit is the ‘bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself’.
Debates with half papists and Osiander
Deification as such was never a major point of dispute between Calvin and his opponents. Nonetheless, the language and imagery of theosis are prominent in disputes on tangentially related topics. It is instructive to observe how deeply ingrained this is in Calvin’s thought by the way it comes out in his rebuttals of the ‘half papists’ and Andreas Osiander. One also finds in these discussions additional important evidence for the thesis of this article.
Certain ‘half papists’ taught a doctrine of justification that, Calvin says, put Christ outside the believer. In response Calvin emphasizes that the salvific benefits which the believer receives are the effect of the union between Christ and the believer. Calvin stresses the nature and degree of this union — it is union with Christ himself growing by degrees until he and the believer are completely one.
某些‘半教皇主义者’教导一种称义的教义，加尔文称之为，他们把基督扔在了信徒的外面。为了回应他们，加尔文强调信徒所领受救恩的益处就是基督和信徒联合的结果。加尔文强调这个联合的本质和程度 – 它乃是与基督本身的联合，并会随着联合的程度而增长，直到信徒和基督完全成为一。
For we await salvation from him not because he appears to us afar off, but because he makes us, ingrafted into his body, participants not only in all his benefits but also in himself…. Christ has been so imparted to you with all his benefits that all his things are made yours, that you are made a member of him, indeed one with him …. Not only does he cleave to us by an invisible bond of fellowship, but with a wonderful communion day by day, he grows more and more into one body with us, until he becomes completely one with us.
In the 1545 edition of the Institutes these statements about believers being made one with Christ are even bolder when Calvin says that we are ‘made of one substance with him’ and ‘daily he more and more unites himself to us in one, same substance’.55 References to a unity of substance were likely removed in the 1559 edition to avoid the appearance of contradicting the rebuttals of Osiander he had inserted.
Osiander taught that Christ as a man was foreknown by God and therefore the pattern after which humanity was formed. As a consequence he had to argue that Christ would have been incarnated even if Adam had not fallen. One of his inventive arguments was based upon Jesus’ quotation of Gen 2:23—4 (the description of the first marriage) in Matt 19:4—6. Osiander took Jesus’ quotation to imply that these words were a prophecy related to the union of Christ and the Church. Pre-lapsarian, the ‘prophecy’ implied that it was necessary for Christ to be incarnated even if Adam had not fallen. Calvin responds that in this passage Jesus ‘is not discussing the mystical union with which he graced the church, but only fidelity in marriage’. Neither, says Calvin, will Paul’s similar quotations help Osian- der’s view (1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31). For, though Paul ‘set forth under the figure and likeness of marriage the holy union that makes us one with Christ’, neither did he intend to indicate that the words of Genesis were a prophecy.
More problematic was Osiander’s view that justification was an inpouring or infusion of Christ’s divine essence into the believer which rendered the believer righteous. Osiander supported his position by citing biblical passages indicating believers are one with Christ. Calvin agrees that believers are one with Christ. He denies that this means ‘Christ’s essence is mixed with our own’. Osiander is mistaken in the claim that ‘we are substantially righteous in God by the infusion both of his essence and of his quality’. If God’s essence were united with that of believers, Calvin contends, that would make believers part of God — an implication Calvin cannot accept. According to Calvin, Osiander’s mistake was that he had not observed that scripture indicates that believers are united with Christ ‘by the secret power of his Spirit’, not by an infusion of the divine essence.
Osiander的观点中，更严重的问题乃是，称义是基督神性融合到信徒之中，使得信徒成为公义，而被悦纳。Osiander认为他引用经文的立场表明信徒乃是与基督是一。加尔文同意信徒与基督是一。但是否认这代表‘基督的素质与我们混合（mixed）’。Osiander错误的宣称‘借由把祂的素质和祂的质量融合到我们里面，我们的本质在神里成为公义的。’如神的素质与信徒联合，加尔文坚持，这也不会把信徒变成神的一部分 – 这是加尔文无法接受的意思。根据加尔文，Osiander的错误乃是在于他忽视了圣经乃是指出信徒与基督的联合是‘借由祂的圣灵之奥秘的大能’，而不是借由神的素质之融合。
Osiander’s notion of ‘essential righteousness’ soon comes under two further criticisms that touch upon our topic. First, Calvin attributes to Osiander the view ‘that God pours himself into us as a gross mixture’. This parallels Osiander’s error in thinking that Christ is physically present and eaten in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. Calvin’s view is that Christ is really present but not physically present. His understanding of the union between Christ and the believer is parallel. There is a real union, but not an essential or ‘physical’ union.
Second, Osiander is criticized for applying to the present what is proper only to the future state. Calvin has no intention of refuting Osiander’s proof-texts on the union of Christ and believers. Instead he cites two additional passages that show that the kind of thing Osiander is postulating for the present in justification is reserved for the eschaton. The two passages are 2 Pet 1:4 and 1 John 3:2, standard patristic proof-texts for deification. Calvin denies that believers will ever be united to the divine essence, but they will partake of the divine nature and be changed to be like Jesus. Calvin aptly says of this union:
That joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts — in short, that mystical union — are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body — in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.
基督在我们心中内住的基督（that indwelling of Christ in our hearts）将身体和头联结为一 – 简单的说，就是那个奥秘的联合 – 对于我们，没有什么比这个更重要了，好叫基督成为我们的，也让我们与祂一同分享倾注于祂身上的恩典。故此，我们无法在我们之外从远方注视祂，好叫祂的公义能够被注入我们里面，而是因为我们披上了基督，并被接枝入祂的身体里面 – 简单的说，祂屈就我们，为了使我们与祂是一。
Calvin’s two uses of the term ‘mystical union’ (mystica unio) in the course of rebutting Osiander is further evidence in favour of the thesis that Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is substantially the same as the patristic notion of theosis. ‘Mystical union’ is very often a technical phrase for deification from at least the time of Pseudo-Dionysius. It was commonly used as such by medieval mystics, including Bernard of Clairvaux. Scholars have not failed to associate Calvin’s mentions of mystica unio to Bernard’s influence. Etienne Gilson’s classic study of Bernard did not fail to make the connection between Bernard’s mystical union and the patristic doctrine of deification. Gilson especially noted the influence of Maximus Confessor on Bernard and cites passages in which Bernard unhesitatingly speaks of deification. On this basis it is reasonable to infer that Calvin too is referring to deification. Oddly, however, the obvious connection between mystical union and deification is not made in recent comparisons of Bernard’s and Calvin’s understanding of mystical union.
加尔文在驳斥Osiander的过程中两次使用‘奥秘的联合（mystica unio）’，是对于加尔文在与基督联合的教义上，与古教父神化概念完全一致，更进一步的证据。最起码，‘奥秘的联合’是在伪迪奥尼修（Pseudo-Dionysius）时代常常用来描述神化的专业术语。在中古世纪奥秘派中也是常用的词汇，包括Bernard of Clairvaux。学者们常常忽视Bernard对于加尔文提及奥秘的联合之影响。Etienne Gilson对于Bernard的那个经典的研究并没用忽视Bernard的奥秘的联合和古教父神化的教义间的关联。Gilson特别提到坚信者马克西姆（Maximus Confessor）对于Bernard的影响，并摘录了Bernard毫不掩饰教导神化的材料。在这个基础上，我们可以合理的推断，加尔文讲的就是神化。但是，很奇怪的是，近代对于Bernard和加尔文对于奥秘的联合之了解的比较中，并没将奥秘的联合与神化联系起来。
‘You are gods’?
Patristic writers commonly refer to deified or glorified believers as ‘gods’. The biblical text cited to justify this language is Ps 82:6. The relevant statement reads: ‘I say, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.” ’ In his commentary on Psalm 82 Calvin writes: ‘I indeed grant that it is quite common for the Hebrews to adorn with the title of God whatever is rare and excellent.’ Here it appears ‘that this name of the Divine Being is applied to those who occupy the exalted station of princes, in which there is afforded a peculiar manifestation of the majesty of God’. Therefore, the name ‘gods’ in this psalm is to be understood as referring to judges ‘on whom God has impressed special marks of his glory’. Commenting directly on v. 6, Calvin says that ‘God has invested judges with a sacred character and title’ and that ‘This verse may also be viewed as addressed by God himself to rulers, and as intimating, that, in addition to his clothing them with authority, he has bestowed upon them his name.’ This exegesis is consistently maintained in the Institutes as well as in his commentary on John 10:34-5.
This interpretation clearly diverges from patristic interpretations. But Calvin does not contradict the doctrine or the language the fathers used these passages to support. In fact, he says nothing whatsoever about the patristic interpretation. Should we infer from Calvin’s divergence that he would have viewed the bold language of the fathers as inappropriate? No. On the contrary, the logic of several of Calvin’s statements, including comments on Psalm 82, leads to the conclusion that Calvin would have had no difficulty with the application of the term ‘gods’ to glorified human beings so long as the term is properly understood.
In the discussion about angels in Book 1 of the Institutes Calvin notes that when scripture mentions all the angels very often the designation ‘gods’ is applied to them. This ‘ought not to seem anything marvelous; for if the honor is given to princes and governors [Ps. 82:6] because they are viceregents of God, who is the highest King and Judge, there is far greater reason why it should be conferred upon the angels, in whom the brightness of the divine glory shines forth much more richly’. Calvin’s argument is that the term ‘gods’ can be properly applied to persons who imitate God in ruling and judging since he is the paradigmatic king and judge whose power they are entrusted with. It can be applied to angels even more appropriately because they do not merely imitate God’s functions, they reflect the divine glory itself.
In his commentary on 1 John 3:2 (‘when he appears we shall be like him’), an important patristic deification proof-text, Calvin describes the eschatological transformation of believers in such a way as to intimate that they will reflect the divine glory even more than angels do. When Christ returns ‘we shall be like Him in that He will conform our lowly body to His glorious body …. For the apostle wanted to show us briefly that the ultimate aim of our adoption is that what has, in order, come first in Christ, shall at last be completed in us.’ What is Christ’s glorious body like to which believers will be conformed? This glory is so great that ‘it will fill the ungodly with fear’ and ‘they will flee from the sight in terror. His glory will so dazzle their eyes that they will be confounded and stupefied.’ We ‘shall be partakers of the divine glory’, Calvin says, and God already ‘begins to restore His image in us; but in what a small measure!’ When glorified, believers will then be prepared to see God to the degree that ‘our little capacity can grasp’. It is not the vision of God that affects the transformation but the transformation that will permit the vision of God. For, unless ‘our nature were spiritual and endued with a heavenly and blessed immortality, it could never come so near to God’. Once transformed and fitted for the vision of God we will then be like Christ — dazzlingly radiant, glorious, immortal beings whose sight will strike fear into the hearts of the ungodly.
在他对约壹3：2的注释中（‘当祂显现的时候，我们必要像祂’），一处教父用来支持神化的重要经文，加尔文描述在末世信徒的变化，他们乃是以一种亲密的方式，比天使更能返照出神的荣耀。当基督回来的时候，‘我们将会像祂，祂会将我们低贱的身体模成祂荣耀的身体。。。因为使徒想要简要的告诉我们，我们被认养最终的目的是什么，好叫这个目的先在基督里来临，至终在我们里面得以完成。’信徒要被模成的那个基督荣耀的身体是什么呢？这个荣耀是那么的伟大，以至于‘它将使得不敬虔的人充满恐惧’和‘他们将在各种的异像中恐惧奔逃。祂的荣耀将要使得他们无法睁眼，让他们觉得诅丧，和觉得自己蠢笨无比。’我们‘则要成为神荣耀的分享者，’加尔文说，神已经‘开始恢复祂在我们里面的形像；在我们里面这个像是何等的微小啊！’当我们得荣时，信徒将被预备好见神，到一个程度‘我们都能够掌握这个微小的能力’。它不是神那个影响我们变化过程的异象，而是变化会让我们看见对于神的异象。因为，除非‘我们的本质是属灵的，并能够承受属天和有福的不死，我们就无法接近神’。等我们变化完成，配得上神的异象，我们就会成为像基督（be like Christ） 夺目的光辉，荣耀，不死的存在，他们的目光将会将恐惧打入不敬虔人的心里。
The appropriateness of angels being designated gods due to their reflection of the divine glory combined with statements about believers’ glorification leads to the conclusion that glorified believers can appropriately be designated gods. Further, believers are in union with God and share not only his glory but his power, life and love. It follows that they could be referred to as gods in an even stronger sense than when the term is applied to angels. Though Calvin does not explicitly draw this conclusion, his reasoning inescapably leads to it. For broad theological reasons rather than a single proof-text he would have found the designation of glorified believers as ‘gods’ acceptable and even appropriate if one properly understood what was and was not meant by it.
There is one passage in the Institutes that prima fade looks like a clear counterexample to the thesis of this essay. In rebutting Servetus’s arguments against infant baptism Calvin comes to one argument that he deems more absurd than the rest. According to Calvin, Servetus had offered something like the following argument: (1) ‘we become gods by regeneration’; (2) gods are those ‘to whom the Word of God came’ (quoting John 10:34 in reference to Ps 82:6); but (3) it is impossible for infants to have received the word.69 The unstated conclusion is that (4) since infants cannot receive the word, be regenerated and thus be gods it is inappropriate for them to be baptized. Calvin mentions that it is one of Servetus’s ‘delusions [ddiriis] to imagine deity in believers [deitatem affingit fidelibus]’ and that to ‘twist a verse of a psalm into such an alien meaning is an act of abandoned shamelessness’. Clearly, Calvin strongly disagrees with this view but says ‘this is not the place to examine it’. Rather, he merely repeats the interpretation of Psalm 82 we examined earlier.
在《教义》中有一段话，它的主要论点看起来就像是一个针对这篇文章命题的反例。在驳斥Servetus反对婴儿受浸的论点时，加尔文提出一个他认为这是最荒谬的论点。根据加尔文，Servetus提出类似下面的论点：（1）‘我们乃是借由重生成为众神（gods）’；（2）众神（gods）乃是那些‘神的道所临及的人’（引用约翰10：34来解释诗篇82：6）；但是（3）婴儿无法领受道。其粗制滥造的结论乃是（4）因为婴儿无法领受道，并被重生，所以，即使他们受浸了，也没办法成为众神（gods）。加尔文提到，这是Servetus的‘编造在信徒里面的神性[deitatem affingit fidelibus]之幻觉[deliriis]’之一，并‘把诗篇的一处经文扭曲成为完全不同的意义，是一种毫无羞耻的行为。’很明显的，加尔文强烈的反对这个观点，但是他说‘这并不是检视它的地方。’他只是重复了我们已经检视过的，对于诗篇82篇的诠释。
It is unfortunate that Calvin chose not to comment further. Does this passage undermine the argument of this essay? By no means. The evidence adduced in favour is remarkably strong, varied and pervasive; it can hardly be overturned by a couple of very brief comments. Further, Calvin’s comments are directed against Servetus’s teaching, not against the patristic doctrine. It has already been shown that Calvin would have disagreed with the patristic interpretation of Ps 82:6 just as much as he disagreed with Servetus’s. But there is no reason to suppose that the two doctrines the verse was cited to prove would have been viewed as the same by Calvin. Thus, it would be inappropriate to assume that the same opinions would have been applied to the patristic fathers who cited the passage in support of theosis.
Since Calvin chose not to comment further we cannot know what precisely his main difficulties with Servetus’s view were. It seems quite likely, however, that his chief objections would have been similar to those cited earlier against Osiander: (1) Servetus was inappropriately applying to the present life unfulfilled eschatological promises, thus making believers out to be more than what they actually are; (2) Servetus’s teaching that ‘deity’ was in believers failed to make the all-important distinction between sharing in God’s nature and possessing his essence. He might have also objected to the unqualified use of such bold language, though, as was shown, Calvin could have affirmed the use of such language in certain contexts if it were clear what was meant and what was not meant by it. That Calvin’s rejection of Servetus’s unorthodox teaching does not in any way undermine the thesis of this essay is confirmed by Calvin’s affirmation of theosis in other contexts where he addresses erroneous deification concepts.
因为加尔文选择了不再进一步的注释，我们就不知道他对于Servetus的观点有什么主要的困难。不论如何，这看起来比较像他主要的反对点，应该与前面用来反对Osiander的论点很相似：（1）Servetus错误的将今日的生活应用在末世才会应验的应许，导致信徒们脱离现实；（2）Servetus的教义教导在信徒中的‘神化’并没用清楚的区分在神的性情中有份（sharing in God’s nature）和拥有祂的素质（possessing his essence）间的不同。他可能也反对在毫无限制的情况下，使用那样大胆的用词。虽然，如同我们已经指出的，如果它代表什么，并不代表什么是清楚明确的，加尔文会在某些段落中使用那些用词。加尔文对Servetus非正统教训的反对毫不能减损这篇文章的题目，加尔文在别的段落中肯定了神化，并指出错误的神化观念。
Erroneous concepts of deification and important distinctions
Calvin did not employ the boldest language of the Church fathers probably to prevent misunderstanding rather than because of questions about its legitimacy. For Calvin was aware of pagan and heretical notions of deification that used similar language with very different intent. For example, Calvin knew of the ancient pagan practice of exalting outstanding heroes, kings and inventors to the status of gods. He referred to this practice as ‘invented deification’ (apotheosis inventorum) and ‘false deification’ (falsa apotheosis). He traced the rise of polytheism and idolatry to this practice and considered it one of the worst forms of rebellion against the one true God.
加尔文可能是为了避免误解而没有使用教会教父们使用的那些大胆的用词，但不是因为这些用词的合法性所产生的问题。因为加尔文警觉到异教和异端对于神化的观念，乃是将不同的目的赋予在类似的用词之上。例如，加尔文知道古代异端高举某些凸出的英雄，国外和神像的发明者。他把这种实行当作‘（人类）发明的神化’（aptheosis inventorum）和‘伪神化’（falsa apotheosis）。他将多神论和崇拜偶像追朔到这个实行之上，并认为它乃是对于真神最严重的背叛之一。
In answering more subtle pagan and heretical notions of deification Calvin always (except in the case of Servetus mentioned above) set the substance of the Christian notion against them. The Manicheans ‘used to dream that we took our roots from the stem of God and that when we have finished the course of our life we shall revert back to our original state’. Similarly, in Calvin’s day there were ‘fanatics who imagine that we cross over into God’s nature so that His nature absorbs ours. This is how they explain Paul’s words in I Cor. 15.28 — “that God may be all in all”. They take this passage in the same sense. This kind of madness never occurred to the minds of the holy apostles.’ Against these views Calvin set the true meaning of the apostles’ words: ‘They were simply concerned to say that when we have put off all the vices of the flesh we shall be partakers of divine immortality and the glory of blessedness, and thus we shall be in a way one with God so far as our capacity allows.’
为回应那些顽固异教和异端对于神化的观念，加尔文总是（除了上面提到Servetus的案例以外）用基督教信仰的内涵来对付他们。摩尼教‘做梦幻想我们的根源乃是神的精子，当我们走完我们人生的路程后，我们就会反转回到我们原始的状态’。在加尔文的时代，还有许多‘幻想我们会进入神的本质，好让祂的本质完全吸收我们本质的幻想者。这就是他们如何解释在林前15：28里面所说的话 – “神是一切，又在一切之内”。他们以同样的意思诠释这句话。这种疯狂的想法绝对不会出现在使徒们的脑海中。’为了反对这种观点，加尔文为使徒的话下了正确的定义：‘他们只想要教导，当我们脱下肉身所有的一切，我们就成为神的不死，祝福之荣耀的分享者，所以，只要我们能够，我们就会以某种方式与神成为一。’
Plato is commended for being the only ancient philosopher who ‘recognized man’s highest good as union with God’ and for everywhere defining ‘the chief good of man to be an entire conformity to God’. But because Plato ‘had learned nothing of the sacred bond of that union’, he ‘could not even dimly sense its nature’. Plato’s conception of deification began right, insofar as it went. However, because ‘he was in the midst of errors, he afterwards glided off to his own inventions’. Christians should disregard ‘empty speculations’ and be satisfied ‘that the image of God in holiness and righteousness is restored to us for this end, that we may at length be partakers of eternal life and glory as far as it will be necessary for our complete felicity’. The source of this life and glory, the sacred bond of union of which Plato was ignorant, is Christ himself, the head of the church. He ‘is clothed in heavenly immortality and glory so that the whole body may be conformed to the Head’. What was begun in the head must be completed in all the members because ‘to separate him from ourselves is not permissible and not even possible, without tearing him apart’.
柏拉图是唯一被提及的古代哲学家，他‘认为人最高的益处乃是与神联合’，他作品无处不定义“人最主要的目标是完全模成像神。”但是因为柏拉图‘完全没有学习过那个联合的神圣连接（the sacred bond of that union）’，他‘根本无法认清它的本质’。柏拉图对于神化的观念有一个正确的开始。不论如何，因为‘他乃是在错误中，他随后就从自己的发明中滑落出去了。’基督徒应该蔑视‘虚空的猜测’并满足约‘神在圣洁和公义中的形像为了这目地而在我们里面被重建，好叫我们一生都能够成为永远生命和荣耀的分享者，把它当做我们完美幸福的必须条件。’这个生命和荣耀的源头，就是柏拉图所忽略的神圣的连接，就是基督自己，祂是教会的头。祂‘披上了属天的不朽和荣耀好叫整个身体都能够被模成像头。’头所开始的，必须在全部的肢体中被完成，因为‘离开了祂，我们自己就不被允许，甚至不可能，不把祂拆散得四分五裂。’
Some of Calvin’s bolder statements could be misunderstood as saying the same things as the views he rejects. Thus, he very often qualifies them or makes important distinctions. For example, deification is not the result of human work or merit. All of God’s promises ‘ought to be properly and justly deemed to be the effects of his power and glory’, especially the promise of partaking of the divine nature. Peter’s word ‘nature’ does not refer to God’s essence but to ‘kind’ or ‘quality’ (note the functional similarity with the Orthodox essence/energies distinction). Thus, ‘it is clear . . . that man is made to conform to God, not by an inflowing of substance, but by the grace and power of the Spirit . . . who surely works in us without rendering us consubstantial with God’. Though believers will be made like Christ, John does not mean that we shall be equal to Christ: ‘For there must be a difference between the Head and the Members.’
There is a final important point which Calvin does not explicitly make but which is latent in his comments on a related topic. A deified being can never be considered the same kind of being as the uncreated God. Servetus held that the Father was essentially God from whom the Son and Spirit derived their deity. Calvin responded that the Father would then be the deifier and ‘nothing would be left in the Son but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing else but the conjunction of the one God with two created things’. In other words, if Christ was in some sense a ‘god’ by deification he would be a created being and not the uncreated Creator described in scripture. Mutatis mutandis, deified believers, even if properly designated ‘gods’, remain created beings and therefore different kinds of beings than the one God.
The believer’s union with Christ and the Father, the indwelling presence of the Spirit in our hearts, restoration of the divine image, being made like Jesus and our eventual glorification are each important themes in Calvin’s soteriology and eschatology. They are all pervaded by the language and imagery of theosis. There is a risk that readers unfamiliar with the patristic writings may fail to see this since I purposely refrained from quoting patristic parallels to focus attention directly upon Calvin’s own statements (as well as save space). Insufficient familiarity with the patristic writings is precisely why many of Calvin’s interpreters have not recognized the presence of deification in Calvin even when it has stared them in the face. That and the uncritical acceptance of Harnack’s claims have caused many to assume its absence rather than engage in empirical investigation.
One should not overstate the significance of deification’s presence in Calvin, as the Finns have done with regard to Luther. It would be wrong to say that deification per se is a major element of Calvin’s theology or that its presence warrants a radical reinterpretation of Calvin’s theology. It must be remembered that deification is a part of the catholic tradition that Calvin and the other Reformers inherited, affirmed and defended. One should never be surprised to find elements of this tradition in the writings of the Reformers.
More often than not deification in Calvin is presupposed as background rather than explicitly in the foreground. It has the habit of finding its way onto the stage of other issues for brief appearances but never headlines. Therein lies its significance. The largely presuppositional role of deification in Calvin’s thought is strong evidence that by the end of his life Calvin had developed something like what the Eastern Orthodox term the patristic phronema or mindset. The fact that the patristic notion of theosis is present in Calvin’s theology, yet he never once (so far as I know) cites a patristic authority in support, strengthens this claim. It is both implausible and unnecessary to insist that Calvin reinvented a doctrine that was found in many of the writers we know Calvin had read at length (not the least of which are Irenaeus, Augustine and Bernard if not Athanasius and the Cappadocians). But we should not expect Calvin to have appealed to patristic authority on the matter since it was not a major point of dispute in the sixteenth century. The pervasive but largely presuppositional presence of deification in Calvin’s theology is best explained by patristic influence on his biblical exegesis at a level deeper than what can be detected by merely counting and classifying patristic quotations.
Can we then speak of ‘Calvin’s doctrine of deification’? No and yes. Richard Muller rightly remarks that Calvin himself ‘might well object to the notion of “Calvin’s doctrine” of anything, inasmuch as the doctrines that Calvin held and taught were, in large part, not his own! . . . What Calvin intended to teach was the church’s doctrine, not his own doctrine.’ Though not as bold as the Church fathers sometimes are, Calvin’s understanding of deification is simply the patristic notion of theosis. In this sense we should not speak of ‘Calvin’s doctrine of deification’; he was simply teaching and, more often, presupposing the Church’s doctrine. Nor should we speak of ‘Calvin’s doctrine of deification’ as if he had substantively developed or systematized the doctrine beyond what the patristic writers wrote; on this subject Calvin was quite unoriginal. In another sense, however, we can. The role deification plays in Calvin’s theology, its relation to other doctrines, and the minor developments one finds warrant comparative study of ‘Calvin’s doctrine of deification’ with that of individual Church fathers, medieval mystics, Eastern theologians, Aquinas, Luther and other sixteenth-century figures.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that although the search for common ground was not a motivation for my study, Calvin’s doctrine of deification does have value for intra-religious and inter-religious dialogue. Calvin’s doctrine is not a bridge of common ground that reconciles Reformed thought with Eastern Orthodoxy or any other religious movement that espouses a notion of deification (e.g. Mormonism). But it can be a point of departure, especially for dialogue between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. At the least, ‘Calvin’s doctrine of deification’ is something interesting for the Reformed to talk about among themselves.
1 Throughout I will assume readers have a basic knowledge of the theosis concept found in the patristic fathers and Eastern Orthodoxy. Those who do not should consult from the following selection. In general: ‘Deification’, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd edn; ed. F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 465, and Rowan Williams, ‘Deification’, A Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (ed. Gordon S. Wakefield; London: SCM, 1983), pp. 106-8. The patristic fathers: David Balas, ‘Divinization’, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (2nd edn; ed. Everett Ferguson; New York: Garland, 1997), pp. 338-9; G. W. H. Lampe, ‘Theology in the Patristic Period’, A History of Christian Doctrine (ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978), pp. 149—55; B. Studer, ‘Divinization’, Encyclopedia of the Early Church (ed. Angelo Di Berardina; 2 vols; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), vol. 1, pp. 242—3. Eastern Orthodoxy (many with discussion of the patristic fathers): Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), pp. 117—37; Don Fairbairn, ‘Salvation as Theosis: The Teaching of Eastern Orthodoxy’, Themelios 23/3 (1999), pp. 42—54; Georges Florovsky, Creation and Redemption (vol. 3 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky; Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1976), pp. 74-8, 240; Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), pp. 97 — 110; John Meyendorff, ‘Theosis in the Eastern Christian Tradition’, in Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modem (ed. Louis Dupre and Don E. Saliers; New York: Crossroad, 1989), pp. 470 — 6; Robert G. Stephanopoulos, ‘The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis’, The New Man: An Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue (ed. J. Meyendorff and Joseph McLelland; New Brunswick, NJ: Agora Books, 1973), pp. 149 — 61; Kenneth Paul Wesche, ‘Eastern Orthodox Spirituality: Union with God in Theosis’, Theology Today 56/1 (1999), pp. 29-43. For greater detail: Jules Gross, La Divinisation du chretien d’apres les peres grecs (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1938); Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (trans. by the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius; Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976); and Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St Gregory Palamas and the Orthodox Tradition (trans. Liadain Sherrard; Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984).
在这篇文章中，我期盼读者们已经对古教父和东正教的theosis观念有基本的认识。对于没有此观念的读者，他们应该阅读下列的书籍。包括：‘神化’，牛津基督教会字典（3版；FL Cross和EA Livingstone主编；牛津：牛津大学出版社，1997），465页，和Rowan Williams，‘神化’，基督教属灵神学字典（Gordon S. Wakefield主编，伦敦：SMC），1983）106-108页。古教父：David Balas，‘神化’，早期基督教百科全书（2版；Everett Ferguson主编；纽约：Garland，1997），338-9；G. W. H. Lampe,‘教父时期神学，’基督教义史（Hubert Cunliffe-Jones；爱丁堡：T. & T. Clark，1978），149-55页；B. Studer，‘神化，’早期教会百科全书（Angelo Di Berardina主编；纽约：牛津大学出版社，1992），第一部，242-3页。东正教（有许多对于古教父的讨论）：Daniel B. Clendenin，东正教：西方的观点（Grand Rapids, MI:Baker，1994），117-37页；Don Fairbairn，‘神化的救赎：东正教的教训’，Themelios 23/3 (1999)，42-54页；Georges Florovsky，创造和救赎（Georges Florovsky文集第三卷；Belmont, MA:Nordland，1976）74-8，240页；Vladimir Lossky，在神的形像和样式中（Crestwood, NY:St. Vladimir神学出版社，1974），97-110页；John Meyendorff，‘东正教传统中的神化’，基督教属灵神学：改教后及现代（Louis Dupre和Don E. Saliers主编；纽约：Crossroad，1989），470-6页；Robert G. Stephanopoulos，‘东正教的神化教义’，新人：东正教和改革宗的对话（J. Meyendorff和Joseph McLelland主编；New Brunswick，新泽西：Agora Books，1973），149-61页；Kenneth Paul Wesche，‘东正教属灵神学：在神化中与神联合，’今日神学56/1（1999），29-43页。更详细的资料：Jules Gross, La Divinisation du chretien d’apres les peres grecs （巴黎：J. Gabalda，1938）；Vladimir Lossky，东正教的奥秘神学（St Alban和St Sergius团契译；Crestwood，纽约：St Vladimir神学出版社，1976）；Georgios I. Mantzaridis，人的神化：帕拉马斯的St Gregory和东正教传统（Liadain Sherrard译；Crestwood，纽约：St Vladimir神学出版社，1984）。
2 In the ancient world generally, and the Greco-Roman world especially, the word ‘god’ was used more plastically than by most moderns. The patristic writers did not intend to teach that believers become the sort of being that the one true God is. Rather, their view was that believers, through union with the one true God, come to possess certain attributes that are natural only to deity, not humanity. Primary among these are immortality and incorruptibility. There are, however, limits. Creatures can never become the kind of being the uncreated Creator is, no matter how many divine qualities they are allowed to partake of See further the comments of George M. Schurr, ‘On the Logic of Ante-Nicene Affirmations of the “Deification” of the Christian’, Anglican Theological Review 51/2 (April 1969), pp. 99, 103-5, and Michael Frede, ‘Monotheism and Pagan Antiquity’, Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (ed. Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), pp. 58 — 62.
古代世界，特别是希腊-罗马世界，总是以一种人造的方式使用‘神’这个词，这与今日不同。古教父并没有意思要教导信徒会成为某个如同真神一样的东西。反而，他们的观点乃是，信徒借由与真神的联合，得到某些神性，而不是人性的属性。这些属性主义包括不死和不朽坏。它们都是有限度的。被造之物绝不可能成为非被造的造物主，不论他们能够得到多少神性的质量。参考George M. Schurr在‘关于尼西亚前对于基督徒“神化”肯定的逻辑’中进一步的解释，英国国教神学回顾期刊51/2（1969 4月），99，103-5页，已经Michael Frede，‘一神论和异教徒的渊源，’异教一神论的渊源（Polymnia Athanassiadi和Michael Frede主编；牛津：Clarendon,1999）58-62页。
3 E.g. What is Christianity? (trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders; London: Williams & Norgate, 1904), pp. 238—9. In basic agreement is Ben Drewery, ‘Deification’, Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp (ed. Peter Brooks; London: SCM, 1975), pp. 35 — 62. For contrast see the detailed evaluation of Harnack’s thesis by Martin George, ‘Vergot- tlichung des Menschen. Von der platonischen Philosophie zur Soteriologie der griechischen Kirchenvater’, Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alter Kirche (ed. Dietmar Wyrwa; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), pp. 115-55.
例如：什么是基督教？（Thomas Bailey Saunder译：伦敦：Williams & Norgate，1904），238-9页。在最基本的认同上，有Ben Drewery，‘神化，’基督教属灵神学：纪念Gordon Rupp论文（Peter Brooks编辑；论点：SCM，1975），35-62页。反面的论点请参考Martin George对于哈拿克论点的详细分析，‘VergoÈttlichung des Menschen. Von der platonischen Philosophie zur Soteriologie der griechischen KirchenvaÈter’， Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alter Kirche（Dietmar Wyrwa编辑；柏林：Walter de Gruyter，1997），115-55页。
4 Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma (trans. James Millar; 7 vols; London: Williams & Norgate, 1897), vol. 3, p. 165.
Adolph von Harnac，教义史（James Millar译；7卷；伦敦：Williams & Norgate，1897），三卷165页。
5 Balas, ‘Divinization’, vol. 1, p. 339; Gerald Bonner, ‘Augustine’s Conception of Deification’, Journal of Theological Studies NS 37/2 (1986), pp. 369 — 86; idem, ‘Deificare’, Augustinus-Lexikon (ed. Cornelius Mayer; Basel: Schwabe & Co., 1996), vol. 2, pp. 265 — 7; idem, ‘Deification, Divinization’, Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 265 — 6; Henry Chadwick, Augustine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 54; John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 259 — 60.
Balas，‘圣化’，卷一339页；Gerald Bonner，‘奥古斯丁对于神化的概念’，神学研究杂志 NS 37/2（1986），369-86页；Balas，‘Deificare’，Augustinus-Lexikon（Cornelius Mayer编辑；巴塞尔：Schwabe & Co.，1996），二卷265-7页；Balas，‘神化，圣化’，历史历代中的奥古斯丁：百科全书（Allan D. Fitzgerald编辑；Grand Rapids，MI：Eerdmans，1999），26-56页；Henry Chadwick，奥古斯丁（牛津：牛津大学出版社，1986），54页；John M. Rist，奥古斯丁：受浸的古代观点（剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，1994），259-60页。
6 A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
A. N. Williams，联合的基础：阿奎那和帕拉玛斯的贵格利神化（纽约：牛津大学出版社，1999）。
7 For discussions of the thesis in English as well as quotations of some of the relevant Luther texts, see the essays in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds, Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), and Tuomo Mannermaa, ‘Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research’, Pro Ecclesia 4 (1995), pp. 37—47. Two works central to the controversy about reinterpreting Luther’s thought are Tuomo Mannermaa, Der im Glauben gegenwartige Christus: Rechtfertigung und Yergottung. Zum okumenischen Dialog (Hannover: Lutherisches Verlaghaus, 1989), and Simo Peura, Mehr als ein Mensch? (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994). A helpful summary of the main claims the Finns make is Dennis Bielfeldt, ‘The Ontology of Deification’, Caritas Dei (ed. Oswald Bayer, Robert W. Jenson and Simo Knuuttila; Helsinki: Luther – Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1997), pp. 92—4. Elsewhere Bielfeldt criticizes the Finns for overstating how prominent deification is in Luther but agrees that it is to be found. See his ‘Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super Psalterium’, Sixteenth Century Journal 28 (1997), pp. 401—20, and idem, review of Mehr als ein Mensch? in Sixteenth Century Journal 2 6 (1995), pp. 413 — 15. Reinhard Flogaus, Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997) acknowledges the presence of deification in Luther but finds significant differences between Luther’s understanding and that of Gregory Palamas.
关于这个题目在英语世界中的讨论和引用的某些路德的材料，参考Carl E. Braaten和Robert W. Jenson的文章，与基督联合：芬兰对于路德的新诠释（Grand Rapids，MI: Eerdmans，1998），和Tuomo Mannermaa，‘神化-芬兰路德会的研究题目’，Pro Ecclessia 4 （1995）， 37-47页。两篇关注于对于路德思想的重新诠释的文章是Tuomo Mannermaa, Der im Glauben gegenwaÈrtige Christus: Rechtfertigung und Vergottung. Zum oÈkumenischen Dialog（Hannover:Lutherisches Verlaghaus，1989），和Simo Peura，Mehr als ein Mensch?（Mainz: Philipp von Zabern，1994）。对于芬兰学者主要论点的总结是Dannis Bielfeldt，‘神化的本体论，’Caritas Dei（Oswald Bayer, Robert W. Jenson和Simon Knuuttila编辑；Helsinki：路德-Agricola-Gesellschaft，1997）92-4页。Bielfeldt在别处批判芬兰学者过分强调神化在路德神学中的地位，但是承认确实找得到其教训。参考他的‘Deification as a Motif in Luther’s Dictata super Psalterium’，十六世纪杂志 28（1997），401-420页，以及Bielfeldt，十六世纪杂志对于Mehr als ein Mensch?的评论，26（1995），413-415页。Reinhard Flogaus，Theosis bei Palamas und Luther (GoÈttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997)承认在路德神学中神化教义的存在，但是发现路德的理解和帕拉马斯的贵格利间存在着明显的差距。
8 A. M. Allchin, Participation in God: A Forgotten Strand in Anglican Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1988), and Dan Edwards, ‘Deification and the Anglican Doctrine of Human Nature: A Reassessment of the Historical Significance of William Porcher DuBose’, Anglican and Episcopal History 58/2 (1989), pp. 196-212.
A. M. Allchin，在神中有份：一个在英国国教中被遗忘的传统（伦敦：Darton，Longman and Todd，1988），和Dan Edwards，‘神化和英国国教对于人本质的教义：对于William Porcher DuBose在历史中地位的再度肯定’，英国国教和圣公会历史 58/2（1989），196-212页。
9 Allchin, Participation in God, pp. 24—44; Steve K. McCormick, ‘Theosis in Chrysostom and Wesley: An Eastern Paradigm on Faith and Love’, Wesleyan Theological Journal 26/1 (1991), pp. 38—103; Michael J. Christensen, ‘Theosis and Sanctification: John Wesley’s Reformulation of a Patristic Doctrine’, Wesleyan Theological Journal 31/2 (Fall 1996), pp. 71-94.。
A. M. Allchin，在神中有份，24-44页；Steve K. McCormick，‘在屈梭多模和卫斯理神学中的神化：东方对于信仰和爱的范例’，卫理公会神学期刊 26/1（1991），381-03页；Michael J. Christensen，‘神化和成圣：约翰卫斯理对于教父教义的重新公式化’，卫理公会神学期刊 31/2（1996秋季），71-94页。
10 As with many, though not named as such, deification is an overflow from Edwards’s contemplation of the Trinity and the incarnation. See the brief discussion in Robert W. Jenson, ‘Theosis’, Dialog 32/2 (1993), p. 111.
不必指名道姓，但是很多人的都认为神化是爱德华对于三位一体和道成肉身深思熟虑后的副产品。参考Robert W. Jenson在‘神化，’对话32/2（1993）111页中简要的讨论。
11 Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (3 vols; Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907-9), pp. 793-809; idem, Union With Christ: A Chapter of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1913). Strong cites several other Protestants who appear to teach similarly.
Augustus Hopkins Strong，系统神学（3卷；费城，PA：美国浸信会出版协会，1907-1909），793-809；Augustus Hopkins Strong，与基督联合：系统神学的新篇章（费城，PA：美国浸信会出版协会，1913）。Strong引用了许多其他抗议宗的作者，他们看起来都有同样的教导。
12 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (rev. edn; New York: Macmillan, 1952), throughout book IV (most explicit on pp. 174—5); idem, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (rev. edn; New York: Macmillan, 1965), p. 18. The notion continues to find expression in contemporary Anglicanism. See the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England’s The Mystery of Salvation: The Story of God’s Gift (London: Church House Publishing, 1995), pp. 29, 189, 206.
鲁易士， 返璞归真（再版；纽约：Macmilla，1952），在整个第四章（特别是174-175页）；鲁易士，荣耀的分量以及讲章集（再版；纽约：Macmilla，1965），18页。这样的描述不断的出现在近代英国国教之中。参考英国教会教义委员会（Doctrine Commission of the Church of England）的救赎的奥秘：神恩典的故事（伦敦：Church House Publishing，1995），29，189，206页。
13 E.g. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes [Episcopalian], The True Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 281—6; Thomas C. Oden [Wesleyan], Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology: Volume Three (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), pp. 207-12; T. F. Torrance [Reformed], Theology in Reconstruction (London: SCM, 1965), pp. 243—4; Robert V. Rakestraw [Baptist], ‘Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40/2 (1997), pp. 257 — 69.
例如：Phillip Edgecube Hughes [Episcopalian]，神的真形像（Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans，1989），281-6页；Thomas C. Oden [卫理公会]，圣灵中的生命：系统神学：卷三（纽约：Happer Collins，1992），207-212页；托伦斯[改革宗]，重建中的神学（伦敦：SCM、，1965），243-4页；Robert V. Rakestraw[浸信会]，‘成为像神：福音派的神化教义’，福音派神学学会期刊40/2（1997），257-69页。
14 F. W. Norris, ‘Deification: Consensual and Cogent’, Scottish Journal of Theology 49/4 (1996), p. 420. Less typical, deification in Calvin is briefly mentioned by David J. C. Copper, ‘The Theology of Image in Eastern Orthodoxy and John Calvin’, Scottish Journal of Theology 35/3 (1982), pp. 233-4.
F. W. Norris，‘神化：肯定与信服’，苏格兰神学期刊 49/4（1996），420页。很特别的，加尔文神学中的神化教义被David J. C. Copper简略的提到过，‘东正教中神的像之神学和约翰加尔文’，苏格兰神学期刊 35/3（1982），233-234页。期刊 35/3（1982），233-234页。
15 John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and The First and Second Epistles of St Peter (trans. William B. Johnston; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 330.
约翰加尔文，希伯来书和彼得前后书（William B. Johnston译；Grand Rapids，MI：Eerdmans，1963），330页。
16 CO 55.446. CO = G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss, eds, Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (59 vols; Brunswick & Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863 — 1900). Bracketed Latin insertions and quotations are from CO, those in parentheses are found in the translations being quoted.
CO 55.446. CO = G 。Baum, E. Cunitz和E. Reuss编，Ioannis Calvini Opera quae spesunt omnia (59卷，Brunswick & Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863-1900)。Brac keted插入的拉丁材料是从CO，那些括号可以在被引用的翻译中看见。
17 Anselm, Proslogion, ch. 2, in M. J. Charlesworth, trans. and ed., St. Anselm’s Proslogion (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), p. 116. Cf. Owen’s earlier rendering of Calvin’s phrase as ‘than which nothing can be conceived better’ in John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (trans. John Owen; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 370.
安色伦，Proslogion，第二章，M.J. Charlesworth翻译和编辑，安色伦的Proslogion（Notre Dame：Notre Dame大学出版社，1979），116页。参考欧文早期所翻译的加尔文的话，就像‘无法想像出比那个还好的’，大公教会书信注释（约翰欧文译：Grand Rapids，MI：Eerdmans，1948），370页。
18 Second Peter, p. 330.
19 Ibid. (CO 55.446).
20 Catholic Epistles, p. 371.
21 Institutes 2.1.1. All quotations from the Institutes are from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960).
《基督教要义》2.1.1。所有从《要义》中引用的话都从约翰加尔文的基督教要义引用的（John T. McNeill编辑；Ford Lewis Battles译；费城，PA：卫敏斯特，1960）。
22 Institutes 1.15.4.
23 Institutes 2.2.1.
24 John Calvin, The Gospel According to St John 11-21 and the First Epistle of John (trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961), p. 149.
约翰加尔文，约翰福音11-21和约翰书信（T. H. L. Parker译；Grand Rapids, MI：Eerdmans，1961），149页。
25 Institutes 2.12.1. ‘By mutual connection grow together’ [mutual coniunctione . . . inter se colescerent] is a reference to the hypostatic union and can be translated, perhaps more clearly, as ‘by being brought into mutual connection unite’. Cf. the pointed criticism of Reist’s incredible interpretation in Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 8.
《要义》2.12.1。‘借由彼此一同成长[mutual coniunctione . . . inter se colescerent]’是一个对于位格联合的说法，或许还能够被更清楚的翻译为，‘被带入彼此联合的联系中。’参考针对Reist对Richard A. Muller那个出乎人意料之诠释的批判，令人无法接受的加尔文（纽约：牛津大学出版社，2000），8页。
26 Ibid. Calvin rejects that Christ would have been incarnated even if Adam and Eve had not fallen (Institutes 2.12.6—7).
27 Institutes 3.15.5.
28 Institutes 2.12.2.
29 Institutes 3.1.1.
30 Institutes 3.1.3. Cf. Calvin, ‘First Sermon on Deuteronomy 24:1— 6’ (January 1556) (CO 28.152).
31 Institutes 1.13.24.
32 Institutes 2.15.5.
33 Institutes 4.15.6.
34 John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Tliessalonians (trans. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 124.
约翰加尔文，罗马书和贴撒罗尼加书信（Ross Mackenzie译；Grand Rapids，MI：Eedmans，1960），124页。
35 John 11-21 and First John, p. 137.
36 Romans and Tliessalonians, p. 124.
37 Institutes 4.17.2.
38 Institutes 4.17.4.
39 Romans and Tliessalonians, pp. 392, 393.
40 Ibid., p. 394.
41 Romans and Tliessalonians, p. 105.
42 Institutes 3.25.10.
43 Cf. esp. Institutes 2.13-14.
44 See further D. Willis-Watkins, ‘The Unio Mystica and the Assurance of Faith According to Calvin’, Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag (ed. Willem van’t Spijker; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991), p. 78.
进一步参考D. Willis-Watkins，‘加尔文的奥秘联合和对信仰的肯定’，加尔文：Erbe und Auftrag （Willem Van’t Spijker编辑；Kampen: Kok Pharos，1991），78页。
45 Jolin 11—21 and First John, p. 149.
46 Ibid., p. 148.
47 Ibid., p. 97.
48 Ibid., p. 152.
49 Ibid., p. 97.
50 Institutes 3.1.3.
51 Institutes 1.15.4.
52 Institutes 2.15.4.
53 Institutes 3.1.1; 3.1.3.
54 Institutes 3.2.24.
55 See Willis-Watkins, ‘Unio Mystica’, p. 80. N.B. Calvin does not always use substantia consistently.
56 For the background of the debate with Osiander see James Weis, ‘Calvin Versus Osiander on Justification’, The Springfielder 30 (1965), pp. 31—47, repr. in Calvin’s Opponents, vol. 5 of Articles on Calvin and Calvinism (ed. Richard C. Gamble; New York: Garland, 1992), pp. 353-69.
对于与Osiander辩论的背景，参考James Weis，‘加尔文与Osiander在称义上的对垒’, The Springfielder 30(1965)，31-47页，被加尔文的对手重印，加尔文和加尔文主义卷五（Richard C. Gamble编辑；纽约：Garland，1992），35-69页。
57 Institutes 2.12.7.
58 Institutes 3.11.5.
59 Institutes 3.11.10.
61 In several other passages Calvin uses similar terminology, e.g. in Institutes 4.17.1 he speaks of the ‘mystery of Christ’s secret union with the devout’ which is ‘by nature incomprehensible’.
62 See E. Gilson, The Mystical Theology of Saint Bernard (trans. A. H. C. Downes; London: Sheed & Ward, 1940), pp. 25-8, 123, 132, 211.
参考E. Gilson，Saint Bernard的奥秘派神学（A. H. C. Downes译；伦敦：Sheed & Ward，1940），25-8，123，132，221页。
63 E.g. Dennis E. Tramburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994). Tramburello focused so narrowly on comparing Calvin’s thought with late medieval mysticism that he neglected the common stream upon which Calvin and the mystics drew, the patristic writers.
例如Dennis E. Tramburello，与基督的联合：约翰加尔文和St. Bernard的神秘主义（路易斯维尔，肯塔基：卫敏斯特约翰诺克斯，1994）。Tramburello只着重于比较加尔文的思想和后中世纪的神秘主义，他忽略了加尔文和神秘主义与，古教父作者的共同方向。
64 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (vol. 3; trans. James Anderson; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 330.
约翰加尔文，诗篇注释（卷三；James Anderson译；Grand Rapids，MI：Eerdmans，1949），330页。
66 Ibid., p. 334.
67 Institutes 1.14.5.
68 John 11-21 and First John, p. 267.
69 Institutes 4.16. 15
70 Ibid. (CO 2.1000).
71 Calvin, Comm. Isaiah 28:29 (CO 36.483).
72 Institutes 2.8.26 (CO 2.286).
73 Second Peter, p. 330. Cf. Institutes 1.15.5.
74 Institutes 3.25.2. Cf. Plato, Tlieuetetus, 176b; Republic, 10.613a; Laws, 4.716c-d.
75 Catholic Epistles, p. 371.
76 Institutes 3.25.2.
77 Catholic Epistles, p. 371.
78 Institutes 3.25.3.
79 Catholic Epistles, p. 370.
80 Institutes 1.15.5.
81 John 11-21 and First John, p. 267.
82 Institutes 1.13.25.
83 According to Lane’s criteria one should not claim that Calvin’s thought had been influenced by the Church fathers without citing where Calvin directly quotes the fathers. The quotations, in turn, must do more than show precedence for Calvin’s views or lend authority to Calvin’s positions. Further, one cannot argue that Calvin knows more of a writer than he quotes. See Anthony N. S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), chs 1—3. Lane’s criteria rightly temper exaggerated or uncritical claims of influence, but they are at times unduly restrictive and open to criticism.
根据Lane的标准，若我们无法支持加尔文所引用的教父，我们就不应该宣称加尔文的思想被教会教父们所影响。也就是说，那些被引用的话出了要能够证明加尔文观点的优越性外，还要使加尔文的立场变得更有权威。除此以外，我们不能争辩加尔文除了他所引用的作者外，就不知道别的作者。参考Anthony N. S. Lane，约翰加尔文：教父们的学生（爱丁堡：T&T Clark，1999），1-3章。Lane的标准产生了一个夸大或盲目的影响，但是，它们都是诞生于惯于将批判无限上纲的时代。
84 Calvin’s exegesis was influenced but not determined; his independence as an exegete is obvious.
85 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, p. 7.
86 N.B. the traditional Latter-Day Saint (i.e. Mormon) concept of deification (‘eternal progression’ or ‘exaltation’ in LDS parlance) is very different from anything found in the orthodox Christian tradition.