Deification in Sino-Christian Theology

Further Thoughts on Deification · 13 February 2027 · The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Pre-publication conference paper. Circulated for the conference Further Thoughts on Deification and forthcoming in the conference volume. © Lai Pan-chiu, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Posted as revised for the conference volume; please cite the published version when it appears.

← Back to Conferences

Deification in Sino-Christian Theology

Lai Pan-chiu
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Introduction

Deification or theosis seems to be a doctrine particularly advocated by the Orthodox churches. However, most of the Chinese studies of this doctrine are authored by Chinese academics who are not professed Orthodox Christians. This strange phenomenon reflects on the one hand the Chinese ecclesial situation in which the Orthodox Christians are far fewer than Catholics and Protestants, who might have certain reservations on the doctrine. On the other hand, it also reflects an academic context in which, due to certain historical factors, some Chinese scholars engage in academic studies of Christian theology without formal affiliation with the Christian churches. No matter whether one may call these scholars “Cultural Christians” or use the label “Sino-Christian theology” to identify their endeavors as a cultural qua theological movement,¹ their academic studies are not restricted by Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. As an observant participant or participatory observer of this movement, I published an article in Chinese introducing the renaissance of Orthodox Theology in the twentieth century and explaining its significance for Sino-Christian theology.² My aim was to urge my Chinese colleagues to pay more attention to the Orthodox theological tradition, which may benefit the future development of Chinese Christian theology in various ways. I then wrote another article in English and published it in a bilingual journal, offering a critical review of the existing Chinese explorations of Orthodox theology.³ Rather unexpectedly, this article attracted the attention of an international journal, which with the permission of the bilingual journal, invited me to submit a slightly modified version for publication.⁴ This indicates that the Chinese reception of Orthodox theology is an interesting and important topic for the international theological circle.

The doctrine of deification, which played a rather prominent role in my previous studies of Orthodox theology, particularly deserves to be further explored due to the enormous attention it has received in Chinese academia so far. This essay will start with a review of the Chinese receptions of the doctrine as well as the resistances and possible misinterpretations. It will then explore how the resistances and misinterpretations may be addressed and how the doctrine can inform the direction Chinese Christian theology takes going forward.⁵

Contemporary Chinese Explorations of Deification

In addition to the Chinese translations of theological publications originally written in other languages,⁶ there are also publications written by Chinese scholars on the doctrine of deification. Many of these Chinese publications are studies of theologians associated with the Orthodox churches, including historical figures such as Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as modern or contemporary theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae, and John Zizioulas. Moreover, there are Chinese studies of deification based primarily on Russian philosophy and literature, such as the works of Nicholas Berdyaev.⁷ Some others even focuses on theologians associated with the Latin or Western theological tradition, including Augustine, Martin Luther, and Karl Barth.⁸ Except for a few studies concerning ecumenical dialogue within Christianity,⁹ most of these Chinese studies of the doctrine of deification are related to the dialogue with Buddhism or Confucianism.

Regarding the dialogue between Christianity and Confucianism, some studies compare the doctrine of deification with Confucianism, especially the Confucian understanding of chengseng (成聖), which can be translated as sanctification.¹⁰ In fact, the relevance of the doctrine of deification is noticed by both Christian theologians and Confucian scholars. From the Confucian side, Tang Chun-I (唐君毅, 1909–1978) observes the compatibility between Nicholas Berdyaev’s understanding of theosis and Confucianism.¹¹ From the Christian side, Xie Fuya (謝扶雅, 1892–1991) briefly mentions the relevance of deification to the dialogue with Chinese culture.¹²

Lai Pan-chiu (賴品超, also known as Lai Pinchao) discusses the doctrine of deification, particularly the concept of deification in Gregory of Nyssa, in response to the Confucian criticism of Christianity based on the distinction between external transcendence and immanent transcendence. To dispute the misleading stereotype that Christianity advocates for external transcendence without immanent transcendence, Lai explains how the Christian doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates the immanence of the transcendent (or the immanence of God) and how the Christian doctrine of deification exhibits the transcendence of the immanent or the human transcendence. To illustrate the Christian understanding of human transcendence, Lai makes special reference to Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of the creation of the human being rooted in the doctrine of the image of God. This doctrine highlights the goodness, freedom, and dignity of the human being, who is endowed with the tendency to move toward goodness and the potential to share in the divine life and reach perfection through union with God.¹³ In other words, Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of the creation of the human being is closely related to his understanding of salvation mainly in terms of deification, assuming that the human being is not merely a passive recipient of divine grace but also an active agent or co-worker in salvation.¹⁴

Lai further argues that the doctrine of deification is based on the Trinitarian understanding that humanity is shaped by the Word and the Spirit as the two hands of the Father. This understanding can be found not only in the Greek theological tradition represented by Irenaeus, but also in the Latin theological tradition represented by Augustine.¹⁵ These studies aim to argue that the doctrine of deification, which is not restricted to the Orthodox theological tradition, can make a significant contribution to the Christian-Confucian dialogue on humanity. The positive role of the Orthodox doctrine of deification in Christian-Confucian dialogue is also affirmed by Alexander Chow (曹榮錦), whose book—developed from his doctoral dissertation—highlights the similarity between the Orthodox understanding of deification and the Confucian understanding of the unity between Heaven and humanity. His study further argues that Orthodox theology can inform the development of a contextual theology for contemporary China.¹⁶

Apart from the dialogue between Christianity and Confucianism, there are Chinese studies of Buddhist-Christian dialogue with implicit or explicit references to the doctrine of deification. A notable example is the comparison made by Zhang Chun-yi (張純一, 1871–1955) between the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature and the Christian doctrine of Spirit. According to Zhang, the concept of “spirit” applies to both the Holy Spirit and the human spirit and thus affirms the unity between humanity and divinity, and this affirmation is in line with the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature that both the Buddha and the sentient beings share the same Buddha-nature, with the difference that while the Buddha has fully actualized the Buddha-nature, the sentient beings have not yet done so. In other words, all the sentient beings have the potential to become Buddhas and attain full Buddhahood.¹⁷ According to Zhang, the “yang jiao” (洋教), namely the foreign Christianity imported from the Western world promulgating an inferior or restricted “Hinayana” understanding of salvation, should be replaced by the far superior understanding of salvation advanced by a Mahayana Buddhist-Christian theology, especially a pneumatology affirming the universal and perpetual presence of the Spirit in all sentient beings as Buddha-nature.¹⁸ Zhang’s Buddhist-Christian pneumatology implies that the Christian doctrine of deification, which affirms the human partaking of the divine nature, should be compatible with the Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature.

The compatibility or comparability between the Christian doctrine of deification and the Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature is affirmed by Ernst M. Valea, an Orthodox theologian engaging in Buddhist-Christian dialogue.¹⁹ However, the doctrine of Buddha-nature was neglected by Amos Yong (楊偉明), a Malaysian Chinese Pentecostal theologian. In his study of pneumatology and Christian-Buddhist dialogue, Yong makes extensive references to the Orthodox tradition, especially its desert tradition of spirituality and its understanding of the goal of salvation in terms of becoming divine.²⁰ However, from the Buddhist side, Yong chooses the Theravada tradition of self-renunciation for comparison and neglects the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature.²¹ In contrast, inspired by his study of Zhang Chunyi, So Yuen-tai (蘇遠泰) attempts to explore the Christian doctrine of deification in the Chinese context with particular references to the Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature. In his study of deification, So Yuen-tai explains why the doctrine met strong resistance from the Chinese Christian churches and clarifies the meaning of deification and its doctrinal legitimacy. He further argues for the doctrine’s compatibility with Chinese culture by referring to the cases of Zhang Chunyi and Xu Songxi (徐松石, 1900–1999), especially how their Buddhicized Christian theology included some forms of deification under the inspiration of the Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature. So Yuen-tai further suggests that though there are certain differences between the Buddhist doctrine of Buddha-nature and the Christian doctrine of deification, the former can help the Chinese Christian churches to appreciate and further develop the doctrine of deification in the Chinese context.²²

Chinese Resistance to Deification

Although there are many Chinese explorations of the doctrine of deification, these studies are mainly within the academic circle without significant impact on the Chinese churches. The Chinese churches, especially the Protestant churches, seem to remain very resistant to the doctrine of deification. According to So Yuen-tai, there are three major difficulties preventing the Chinese churches from accepting the doctrine of deification. First, according to traditional Western hamartiology, especially the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, human nature is sinful and incapable to become sinless, holy, and perfect as God. Second, it is impossible for a human being to become God because of the unbridgeable gap between a human being as creature and God as Creator. Third, Christians should imitate Christ, who did not cling to his equality with God, and thus should not attempt to become God, which exhibits human pride and rebellion against God.²³ So Yuen-tai’s analysis is based mainly on doctrinal grounds. I would add that there may be some other deep-seated factors, including Chinese culture and Chinese interpretations of the Bible.

There are many Chinese translations of “deification” or “becoming God”, which can be translated rather liberally as chengshen (成神) or shenhua (神化).²⁴ This translation may be reminiscent of the Daoist understandings of shenxian (神仙) which can be translated as “Immortals” or “Celestial Beings.” According to this understanding, chengshen (成神) or chengxian (成仙) might mean becoming an immortal “deity” with supernatural powers to perform miracles and to wander freely by riding on clouds, etc. As this understanding of “deity” is so popular, especially at the grassroot, if Christianity interprets salvation in terms of chengshen or “becoming God or gods,” many Chinese might understand “deification” in a Daoist way, which might sound heretical or blasphemous to Chinese Christians upholding the absolute distinction, separation, or even contradiction between divinity and humanity.

This theological or pastoral concern might be reflected in the Chinese Union Version (和合本) of the Bible, which was first published in 1919 and remains the most widely used translation in the Chinese-speaking world. This version uses “xingqing” (性情) to translate the term “physis” in 2 Peter 1:4, one of the key biblical texts related to the doctrine of deification. Whereas the Greek term “physis” means primarily nature, being, substance, etc. and is usually translated as “benxing” (本性), “benzhi” (本質), etc., the Chinese term “xingqing” usually refers to the temperament, disposition, emotion, or character of a human person. It is noteworthy that many other Chinese versions of the Bible prefer to interpret “physis” in terms of “nature”. For example, the Chinese version translated by Lü Chen-chung (呂振中, 1898–1988) and published in 1970 renders the term “physis” into shenxing (神性) meaning “divine nature.” The same Chinese translation can be found in Today’s Chinese Version (現代中文譯本) published in 1979. Some other Chinese versions also translate it as “divine nature” with certain variations. For example, the Chinese Union High Wenli Version (文理和合譯本), which was completed about a century ago, translates it into “上帝之性” (shangdi zhi xing). In a similar vein, the Studium Biblicum Version (also known as 思高本, Sigao Ben) approved by the Chinese Catholic authority makes it “天主性體” (tianzhu xingti).

In radical contrast to these translations, the Chinese Union Version’s adoption of the term “xingqing” implicitly reflects a tendency to interpret “deification” in terms of sharing the divine virtue or moral character (such as benevolence, faithfulness, etc.) rather than the “physical” or “metaphysical” divine nature (such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). The translation offered by the Chinese Union Version is in line with the context of 2 Peter, which highlights “true devotion” (2 Peter 1:3) before mentioning “to share the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and the virtues of “self-control,” “patience,” and “kindness” (2 Peter 1:5–7) afterward. This translation might betray its preference for a “Confucian” rather than a “Daoist” interpretation of “to share the divine nature.” In other words, the various trends of Chinese culture might have subtly and ambivalently affected the various Chinese translations which might have influenced the Chinese receptions of deification. In any case, due to the popularity of the Chinese Union Version, ordinary Chinese Christians might have overlooked or neglected the relevance of some biblical texts to the doctrine of deification, especially a “physical” or “metaphysical” interpretation of divine nature. However, the Chinese Union Version may also provide an alternative interpretation of deification which may avoid or overcome some of the possible misinterpretations.

A related but even more influential factor is probably the dominance of the interpretation identifying the doctrine of justification by faith as the theological core or summit of the Bible and neglecting other important themes and alternative interpretations. Under the influence of Martin Luther and many other biblical scholars, the Chinese Protestant churches tend to take the doctrine of justification by faith as the core message of the Christian gospel as well as the hermeneutical key for the Bible, especially the Pauline letters. This interpretation of the Christian gospel has brought forth some practical problems for the Chinese churches. First, the doctrine of justification by faith assumes an anthropocentric understanding of salvation and tends to neglect or even deny the participation of nature in salvation. This makes it difficult for the Chinese churches to integrate environmental concerns or practices with the Christian gospel.²⁵ Second, it is well known that some Protestant church leaders in mainland China propose to “dilute” (淡化danhua), meaning “soft-tone” or “downplay,” the doctrine of justification by faith in response to the criticism that the doctrine would lead to the ideas of “uselessness of morality” (道德無用 daode wuyong) and “abolition of good deeds by faith” (因信廢行yin xin fei xing), which eventually discourage good deeds toward neighbors.²⁶ To counter the proposal to “dilute” the doctrine of justification by faith, I argue that this proposal was based on a forensic interpretation of justification, which was merely one of the interpretations offered by the Reformers and did not represent Luther’s own position, which, according to the Finnish interpretation, might be compatible with the Orthodox understanding of deification.²⁷ In other words, in addition to its significance for the dialogue with Buddhism or Confucianism, the doctrine of deification may be relevant to some of the practical problems facing the Chinese churches. In fact, Paulos Huang (黃保羅, also known as Huang Baoluo) made significant efforts to promote the Finnish interpretation of Luther, especially the works of Tuomo Mannermaa (1937–2015).²⁸ However, the impact of this interpretation of Luther on the Chinese churches remains very limited. This limitation can be seen in the resistance to the “New Perspective on Paul” in the Chinese-speaking world.

In recent years, some biblical scholars have advocated for a “New Perspective on Paul,” which challenges the centrality of the doctrine of justification in Paul’s theology.²⁹ The issue at stake is not whether justification by faith is part of Paul’s theology, but whether it is the center or hermeneutical key for the interpretation of Pauline letters, especially Romans. This new perspective provoked a small yet controversial debate among the biblical scholars in the Chinese-speaking world. A special issue on the “New Perspective on Paul” in a theological journal published in Hong Kong features, in addition to its six articles under the main theme, an extra essay by Chin Ken-pa (曾慶豹, also known as Zeng Qingbao), offering a critical analysis of the Chinese interpretations of Romans. According to Chin, the Chinese churches’ strong resistance to this new perspective was influenced by their interpretation of justification by faith through the lenses of Chinese culture, especially Confucianism, which favors an individualistic interpretation of salvation highlighting a change inside human heart rather than the social or political system.³⁰ Chin’s essay might overestimate the influence of Confucianism on the Chinese churches and overlook the counter example challenging his generalization about the Chinese churches’ interpretations of Romans.³¹ However, Chin is quite right in highlighting how Chinese churches uphold the doctrine of justification by faith as a paradigm resisting any new interpretive framework. In view of this, to counter this deep-seated reigning paradigm, it is necessary to retrieve the doctrine of deification from Romans and to offer a more comprehensive paradigm to reinterpret Romans.

Retrieving Deification in Romans through Comparison

A comparative analysis of Romans and the Lotus Sutra of Mahayana Buddhism may demonstrate that Romans explicates a Mahayana salvation established through the divine economy with wisdom, passion, and justice, aiming at “glorification” rather than mere “justification.”³² In line with the New Perspective on Paul, which pays particular attention to the historical background of the church of Rome, especially the antagonism between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, this interpretation begins with the commonalities between the historical backgrounds of Romans and the Lotus Sutra. Specifically, while Romans addresses the antagonism between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the Lotus Sutra attempts to address a comparable historical situation and problem—the opposition between the adherents of the nascent Mahayana movement and the “conservative” Buddhists upholding a more traditional understanding of the Buddhist Dharma. To address this “ecumenical” problem, the Lotus Sutra proposes that there is only one ultimate salvation for all, and the Buddha employs various means, including some seemingly contrary teachings, to guide people of different orientations or levels of maturity to attain this one great salvation eventually. The implication is that the Buddha, out of wisdom and compassion, can and does make use of some sort of “skillful means” (upāya), including some unconventional measures, to help all sentient beings attain full Buddhahood.³³

In addressing comparable situation or problem, Romans proposed that according to God’s economy of salvation, both Jews and Gentiles were included in one salvation – not two different salvations, but this salvation plan is executed with different phases, involving some twists and turns as well as some extraordinary measures. The epistle suggests that through the unbelief of the Jews, the gospel is passed from the Jews to the Gentiles, but then the conversion of the Gentiles will make the Jews jealous and lead them to return to God (Romans 9–11). This one great salvation eventually includes both Jews and Gentiles—with the hope that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25–32). Furthermore, the goal of salvation is all believers becoming heirs of God by following Jesus Christ, thereby culminating in “glorification” rather than mere “justification” (Romans 8:18–30). The execution of this divine economy of salvation exhibits not only God’s power and justice (Romans 1:16–17), but also the divine mercy (Romans 8:31–39) and wisdom (Romans 11:33–36). ³⁴

Borrowing the Buddhist terminology of “Hinayana” (small vehicle) and “Mahayana” (great vehicle), the conventional interpretation of Romans focusing exclusively on the doctrine of justification by faith should be labeled “Hinayana,” whereas this reinterpretation highlighting glorification as the final goal of salvation should be called “Mahayana.” However, this distinction does not mean that the “Hinayana” is erroneous and must be rejected. Although the Mahayana interpretation is superior, according to the doctrine of “skillful means,” the “Hinayana” interpretation remains valid and useful to a certain extent and for some people. In a similar vein, the final aim of “glorification” includes, rather than excludes, “justification” as a preliminary stage.

This “Mahayana” reinterpretation of Romans is in line with the recent discussion in systematic theology that soteriology should primarily relate to the doctrine of God rather than anthropology.³⁵ This “theocentric,” rather than “anthropocentric,” approach to salvation differs in at least two respects from the “Hinayana” interpretation emphasizing exclusively the doctrine of justification by faith. First, in principle, salvation includes all creatures rather than restricted to humanity.³⁶ Second, the ultimate destiny of salvation, in accordance with the divine plan rather than human wishes, is for believers to become “heirs of God,” which, instead of being restricted to justification only, also covers deification.³⁷ This Mahayana as well as theocentric understanding of salvation further enriches the dialogue with Buddhism and the Christian theological reflection on universal salvation.³⁸

Tracing the Pre-history of Deification in Chinese Theology

The above reinterpretation of Romans, as we are going to see, is in line with the theological heritage of Jingjiao (景教, Luminous Religion), which was founded by the missionaries sent by the Assyrian Church of the East. In recent years, there have been some Chinese studies concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia (350–428), who influenced tremendously the theological tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East, and possibly also Jingjiao.³⁹ One of the possible influences might relate to his interpretation of the Nicene Creed, which might be based on a Syriac version slightly different from the conventionally received Greek version.⁴⁰ This Syriac version mentioned Jesus Christ not only as “the only-begotten Son of the Father” but also “as the firstborn of all creatures.” Whereas the former is viewed from the perspective of Jesus Christ’s divinity, the latter reflects his humanity.⁴¹ This interpretation of Jesus Christ as the “firstborn of all creatures” was then inherited by Jingjiao. ⁴²

Theodore’s exposition of this concept is in line with his emphasis on the various roles Christ’s humanity plays in salvation, including his role (1) as the head of the “body,” which is his church; (2) as the head who recapitulates the “body” of the universe; and (3) as the perfect visible image whose “bodily” nature reveals the invisible God.⁴³ This interpretation contributes to the doctrine of Recapitulation, which offers an important alternative to the “Christ our Victim” model popular in Latin Christianity.⁴⁴ For Theodore, the divine grace and benevolence should include “the grace of the economy of the humanity of Christ” which assumes not only the human sinlessness of Christ, but also Christ’s justification and glorification.⁴⁵

Theodore’s interpretation refers primarily to “the firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15 but more importantly to “the eldest of many brothers” in Romans 8:29 (Jerusalem Bible). According to Romans 8:29–30, it was God’s plan to make Jesus Christ “the eldest of many brothers” who opened the way of becoming children of God by following him. This sonship includes not only justification but also glorification as the final goal. This divine economy, aiming toward glorification, involves the whole triune God—not only the planning and calling of God the Father, but also the work of the God the Son and the support provided by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26–27). Furthermore, this hope for glorification is shared by all creation, which groans in universal suffering (Romans 8:19–22).

Deification and the Prospect of Sino-Christian Theology

In contrast to the seemingly philosophical expression of “physis” associated with an ontological understanding of deification, this alternative understanding of deification in terms of “glorification” based on Romans enriches the discussion concerning deification and benefit the future development of Sino-Christian theology in various ways.

First, concerning the dialogue with Chinese culture, this understanding of deification can positively enrich the dialogue with Confucianism or Buddhism, and can negatively clarify its difference from the Daoist understanding of becoming “Immortals” by emphasizing that the Christian understanding of “deification” actually means “Christification” or imitatio Christi involving participation in Christ’s suffering.⁴⁶ This understanding helps Chinese churches overcome their prevalent resistance to the doctrine and to explore the positive meaning of the past and present sufferings of the Chinese churches in the perspective of the divine plan for glorification through participating in Christ’s suffering.

Second, this interpretation of deification, based on a Christological understanding of creation, supports a Christological approach to dialogue with natural sciences. In addition to its implication for a Christocentric approach to dialogue with other disciplines on anthropology,⁴⁷ this Christological approach to relate Christian theology with natural sciences, especially theology of evolution, can be found in the thought of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955),⁴⁸ whose thought has inspired Bishop K. H. Ting’s (丁光訓, also known as Ding Guangxun, 1915–2012) notion of the “Cosmic Christ,” which aimed at helping the Protestant churches in mainland China to adapt to the socialist environment.⁴⁹ A comparable Christological approach to deification can also inspire Chinese Christian theology to consider the relationship between technology and humanity.⁵⁰ In other words, if properly interpreted, the significance of deification is not necessarily restricted to personal morality or spirituality. Instead, it can be related to dialogue with other academic disciplines as well as Christian social praxis.

Third, the affirmation of Christ as the firstborn of creation implies that all creatures share the hope for liberation and they are involved in the divine economy as potential recipients of salvation rather than mere backdrop for the drama of human salvation. As Paul Tillich (1886–1965) argues, nature and humankind are together not only in creation and suffering, but also in the hope for glorification; and this may offer an approach to ecological theology and environmental ethics radically different from the approach based on the idea of stewardship.⁵¹ Furthermore, the idea of Christ’s being the firstborn of creation implies a cosmic understanding of the fatherhood or parenthood of God. A comparable concept of Heaven and Earth as cosmic parents was shared by both Confucianism and Daoism, and the Confucian idea of Heaven and Earth as the dafumu (大父母), “Great Parent,” was adopted by some Chinese Christians.⁵² One of the ethical implications is that all creatures can be regarded as fellow children of God. This ethos can be found not only in St. Francis of Assisi but also in Confucianism.⁵³ This contributes directly to the development of an eco-spirituality based on filial piety.⁵⁴ In this sense, deification or to be children of God may include the spirituality of honoring God as the cosmic parent and the ecological ethics of looking after all creatures as fellow siblings. In other words, the doctrine of deification carries profound implications for environmental ethics and eco-spirituality, and it may enrich the development of ecological theology, ethics, and spirituality in the Chinese context.⁵⁵

Concluding Remarks

Although the doctrine of deification initially appears alien to many Chinese Christian churches, which historically held reservations about its formulation, it remains possible to overcome some prevalent misunderstandings and resistances. Through comparing Romans and the Lotus Sutra, alongside retrieving the historical Jingjiao heritage, one may demonstrate the profound value of the doctrine of deification and its comprehensive soteriological framework. This synthesis of comparative studies of scriptures and historical retrieval results in an interpretation of the doctrine of deification which may enrich the dialogue with Chinese cultural and religious traditions, foster interdisciplinary engagement between theology and the natural sciences, and strengthen the churches’ social praxis as well as environmental practice.

Bibliography

“Baoluo xinguan” 保羅新觀 [“New Perspective on Paul”]. Special issue, Hill Road 山道期刊 [Shandao qikan] 25 (2010): 3–166.

Chen, Long 陳龍. “Chengshenlun de kuawenhua lüxing: Lun Tang Junyi dui Bie’ erjiayefu de chanshi” 成神論的跨文化旅行——論唐君毅對別爾嘉耶夫的闡釋 [“The Transcultural Journey of Theosis: On Tang Chun-I’s Interpretation of Nicholas Berdyaev”]. Logos & Pneuma 道風 [Daofeng] 55 (Autumn 2021): 235–89.

Chen, Qita. “Pseudo-Dionysius and Christian-Confucian Dialogue.” PhD diss., The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2024.

Chow, Alexander. Theosis, Sino-Christian Theology and the Second Chinese Enlightenment: Heaven and Humanity in Unity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Christensen, Michael J., and Jeffrey A. Wittung, eds. Yu Shen de xingqing youfen: Shenhua zai Jidujiao chuantong de lishi yu fazhan 與神的性情有分——神化在基督教傳統的歷史與發展 [Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions]. Translated by Xie Renshou 謝仁壽 and Zhou Fuchu 周復初. New Taipei City: Bible Resource Center Press 聖經資源中心, 2016.

Cooper, Jordon. Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.

Creegan, Nicola Hoggard. “The Salvation of Creatures.” In God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, edited by Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae, 77–88. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011.

Davidson, Ivor J. “Salvation’s Destiny: Heirs of God.” In God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, edited by Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae, 155–75. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011.

Davidson, Ivor J., and Murray A. Rae, eds. God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011.

Dewart, Joanne McWilliam. The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1971.

Gortez, Marc. “The Madness in Our Method: Christology as the Necessary Starting Point for Theological Anthropology.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology, edited by Joshua R. Farris and Charles Taliaferro, 15–26. London: Routledge, 2017.

King, Ursula. Christ in All Things: Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin. London: SCM, 1997.

Lai, Pan-chiu 賴品超. “Chaoyuezhe zhi neizaixing yu neizaizhe zhi chaoyuexing: Ping Mou Zongsan dui Ru-Ye zhi fenpan” 超越者的內在性與內在者的超越性：評牟宗三對儒耶之分判 [“Immanence of the Transcendent and the Transcendence of the Immanent: On Mou Zongsan’s Differentiation of Christianity and Confucianism”]. In Dangdai Ruxue yu Xifang wenhua: Zongjiao pian 當代儒學與西方文化：宗教篇 [Modern Confucianism and Western Culture: Religious Perspective], edited by Liu Shu-hsien 劉述先 and Lin Yueh-hui 林月惠, 43–89. Taipei: Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy, Academia Sinica 中央研究院中國文哲研究所, 2005.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Artificial Intelligence and Human Person: A Chinese Christian Perspective.” In Social and Ethical Considerations of AI in East Asia and Beyond, edited by Levi Checketts and Benedict S. B. Chan, 111–25. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2025.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Chinese Explorations of Orthodox Theology: A Critical Review.” International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 14 (June 2018): 27–41.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Chinese Exploration of Orthodox Theology: A Critical Review.” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 18, no. 4 (December 2018): 315–31.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Chinese Spirituality in Ecological Perspective.” Theology and Science 25 (forthcoming 2027).

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Christian Transformation of Greek Humanism and Its Implications for Christian-Confucian Dialogue.” Korea Journal of Systematic Theology 22 (December 2008): 245–69.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Ecological Theology as Public Theology: A Chinese Perspective.” International Journal of Public Theology 11, no. 4 (2017): 477–500.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “God of Life and Ecological Theology: A Chinese Christian Perspective.” The Ecumenical Review 65, no. 1 (March 2013): 67–82.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Integral Ecology in Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’: A Confucian Response.” In Asian Interreligious Diplomacies: Catholic & Other Perspectives, edited by Michel Chambon and Paul M. Hedges. Singapore: ISEAS, forthcoming 2026.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Justification by Faith and Protestant Christianity in China: With Special Reference to the Finnish Interpretation of Luther.” International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 16 (June 2019): 21–33.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Karl Barth and Universal Salvation: A Mahayana Buddhist Perspective.” In Karl Barth and Comparative Theology, edited by Christian T. Collins Winn and Martha Moore-Keish, 85–104. New York: Fordham University Press, 2019.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Reconsidering the Christian Understanding of Universal Salvation in Mahayana Buddhist Perspective.” Ching Feng (New Series) 12 (2013): 19–42.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Shaping Humanity with Word and Spirit: Perspectives East, West and Neither-East-Nor-West.” In Word and Spirit: Renewing Christology and Pneumatology in a Globalizing World, edited by Anselm K. Min and Christoph Schwöbel, 131–49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “The Ecological Heritage of Protestantism from a Chinese Christian Perspective.” Ching Feng (New Series) 19, nos. 1–2 (2020): 21–47.

Lai, Pan-chiu. Dacheng Jidujiao shenxue: Hanyu shenxue de sixiang shiyan 大乘基督教神學：漢語神學的思想實驗 [Mahayana Christian Theology: Thought Experiments of Sino-Christian Theology] (Expanded edition). Hong Kong: Logos & Pneuma Press, 2026.

Lai, Pan-chiu. “Yutairen de buxin: Luomashu zhong de chujing shenxue fanxing” 猶太人的不信：《羅馬書》中的處境神學反省 [“Unbelief of the Jews: Contextual Theological Reflection in Romans”]. In Jidujiao xueshu 基督教學術 [Christian Scholarship], vol. 4, edited by Xu Yihua 徐以驊 and Zhang Qingxiong 張慶熊, 39–57. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Publishing House 上海古籍出版社, 2006.

Lai, Pan-chiu, and Chong Chun-ming. “Technology and Humanity in Chinese Christian Perspective: With Special References to Anthropocene and Transhumanism.” Journal of Chinese Theology 10, no. 2 (December 2024): 1–22.

Lai, Pan-chiu, and Jason Lam, eds. Sino-Christian Theology: A Theological qua Cultural Movement in Contemporary China. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 2010.

Lai, Pan-chiu, and So Yuen-tai. “Mahayana Interpretation of Christianity: A Case Study of Zhang Chunyi (1871–1955).” Buddhist-Christian Studies 27 (2007): 67–87.

Lai, Pan-chiu, and So Yuen-tai. “Zhang Chun-yi’s Buddhist-Christian Pneumatology.” Ching Feng (New Series) 4, no. 1 (2003): 51–77.

Lee, Yen-Yi 李彥儀. “Renxing zhi jing: Xian-Qin Rujia he Dongzhengjiao shenxue shiye xia de zhexue renxue” 人性之鏡：先秦儒家和東正教神學視野下的哲學人學 [“Mirrors of Human Nature: The Philosophical Anthropologies of Classical Confucianism and the Theology of Orthodox Christianity”]. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 國學與西學國際學刊 [Guoxue yu Xixue guoji xuekan] 28 (June 2025): 39–49.

Lo, Lung-kwong 盧龍光. Baoluo xinguan: Luomashu de zhuti yu mude 保羅新觀：羅馬書的主題與目的 [New Perspective on Paul: Main Theme and Aim of Romans]. Taipei: Tunghai University Chaplain’s Office 東海大學校牧室, 2007.

Mannermaa, Tuomo 曼多馬. Manduoma zhuzhaoji: Fenlan xuepai Mading Lude xin quanshi 曼多馬著作集：芬蘭學派馬丁·路德新詮釋 [Anthology of Tuomo Mannermaa: New Interpretation of Martin Luther by the Finnish School]. Translated by Paulos Huang 黃保羅. Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian Publishing House 上海三聯書店, 2018.

McLeod, Frederick G. The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation: Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005.

Mok, Bryan K. M. 莫介民. Toward a Public Theology of Climate Change: A Chinese Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2026.

Nella, Panayiotis. Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person. Translated by Norman Russell. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987.

Russell, Norman 諾門·拉索. Xila jiaofu chuantong zhong de shenhua jiaoyi 希臘教父傳統中的神化教義 [The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition]. Translated by Xie Renshou 謝仁壽 and Zhou Fuchu 周復初. New Taipei City: Olive Publishing 橄欖出版, 2014.

So, Yuen-tai 蘇遠泰. “Ren keyi chengshen? Shilun Jidujiao yiyi xia de chengshenguan” 人可以成神？——試論基督宗教意義下的成神觀 [“Can Human Become God? On Christian Deification”]. Logos & Pneuma 道風 [Daofeng] 22 (Spring 2005): 201–29.

Tang, Edmond. “The Cosmic Christ: The Search for a Chinese Theology.” Studies in World Christianity 1, no. 2 (1995): 131–42.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. Science and Christ. Translated by René Hague. London: Collins, 1968.

Tsang, Sam 曾思瀚. Shei de Baoluo, nage fuyin? Baoluo quanshi xianxiang de fansi 誰的保羅，哪個福音？保羅詮釋現象的反思 [Renewed Perspectives on Paul?]. Translated by Tsang King-hang 曾景恒. Hong Kong: Logos Publishers 基道出版社, 2012.

Turner, H. E. W. The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1952.

Valea, Ernst M. Buddhist-Christian Dialogue as Theological Exchange. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015.

Wang, Shenyuan 王慎遠, and Siyuan Dong 董思遠. “Xietong renxue yu Rujia xiushen: Lun yi zhong ‘Dongzhengjiao Ruxue’ de renxue fanshi heyi keneng” 協同人學與儒家修身：論一種「東正教儒學」的人學範式何以可能 [“Synergetic Anthropology and Confucian Self-Cultivation: On the Possibility of an Anthropological Paradigm in ‘Orthodox Confucianism’”]. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 國學與西學國際學刊 [Guoxue yu Xixue guoji xuekan] 30 (June 2026): 159–71.

Wickeri, Philip. Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2007.

Xie, Fuya 謝扶雅. Jidujiao yu Zhongguo Sixiang 基督教與中國思想 [Christianity and Chinese Thought]. Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council 基督教文藝出版社, 1980.

Xu, Fenglin 徐鳳林. “Dongzhengjiao de ‘chengshen’ yu Zhongguo zhexue de ‘chengsheng’” 東正教的「成神」與中國哲學的「成聖」 [“The Concept of Theosis in Orthodox Christianity and the Concept of Sanctification in Chinese Philosophy”]. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 國學與西學國際學刊 [Guoxue yu Xixue guoji xuekan] 8 (June 2015): 75–84.

Yong, Amos. Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the Middle Way? Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Zeng, Qingbao 曾慶豹 [Chin Ken-Pa]. “Hanyu jiaohui shijing xianxiang de fansixing fenxi: Yi Luomashu wei li” 漢語教會釋經現象的反思性分析：以羅馬書為例 [“An Analysis of Chinese Hermeneutics: The Book of Romans”]. Hill Road 山道期刊 [Shandao qikan] 25 (2010): 169–83.

Zhang, Shaobo 張少博. “Union in Christ: Rethinking Barth’s Christology” [“Jidu zhong de heyi: Zaisi Bate de jidulun” 基督中的合一：再思巴特的基督論]. Journal of Christian Culture 基督教文化學刊 [Jidujiao wenhua xuekan] 41 (May 2019): 50–69.

Zhang, Shaobo 張少博. “Zhengjiao de chengshen jiaoyi yu Bate shenxue” 正教的成神教義與巴特神學 [ “Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis and Barth’s Theology”]. PhD diss., The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015.

Zhu, Donghua 朱東華. “Nixiya xinjing yu Jingjiao shenxue” 尼西亞信經與景教神學 [“The Nicene Creed and Jingjiao Theology”]. Logos & Pneuma 道風 [Daofeng] 47 (Autumn 2017): 27–48.

---

Notes

1. Lai Pan-chiu and Jason Lam, eds., Sino-Christian Theology: A Theological qua Cultural Movement in Contemporary China (Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 2010). ↩︎
2. Lai Pan-chiu 賴品超, “Ershishi ji Dongzhengjiao shexue de fuxing jiqi dui Hanyu shexue de qishi” 基督正教之神學復興及其對漢語神學的意義 [Renaissance of Orthodox Theology and its Significance for Sino-Christian Theology], Logos & Pneuma 道風 32 (Spring 2010): 247–72. ↩︎
3. Lai Pan-chiu, “Chinese Explorations of Orthodox Theology: A Critical Review,” International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 14 (June 2018): 27–41. ↩︎
4. Lai Pan-chiu, “Chinese Exploration of Orthodox Theology: A Critical Review,” International Journal for the Study of Christian Church 18, no. 4 (December 2018): 315–31. ↩︎
5. The last two sections of this chapter are derived from: Lai Pan-chiu, “Significance of the Reception of the Nicene Creed in the Assyrian Church of the East for Sino-Christian Theology,” a response to the lecture “The Council of Nicaea and Its Transmission to the Assyrian Church of the East” delivered by Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, October 17, 2025. ↩︎
6. For examples, Michael J. Christensen 克里斯登森 and Jeffrey A. Wittung 威頓, eds., Yu Shen de xingqing youfen: Shenhua zai Jidujiao chuantong de lishi yu fazhan 與神的性情有分–神化在基督教傳統的歷史與發展 [Partakers of The Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in The Christian Traditions], trans. Xie Renshou 謝仁壽 and Zhou Fuchu 周復初 (New Taipei City: Bible Resource Center Press 聖經資源中心, 2016); Norman Russell 諾門．拉索, Xila jiaofu chuantong zhong de shenhua jiaoyi 希臘教父傳統中的神化教義 [The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition], trans. Xie Renshou and Zhou Fuchu (New Taipei City: Olive Publishing 橄欖出版, 2014). ↩︎
7. Chen Long 陳龍, “Chengshenlun de kuawenhua lüxing: Lun Tang Junyi dui Bie’erjiayefu de chanshi” 成神論的跨文化旅行 —論唐君毅對別爾嘉耶夫的闡釋 [The Transcultural Journey of Theosis: On Tang Chun-I’s Interpretation of Nicholas Berdyaev], Logos & Pneuma 道風 55 (Autumn 2021): 235–89. ↩︎
8. For a survey of these studies, see: Lai Pan-chiu, “Chinese Explorations of Orthodox Theology: A Critical Review,” International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 14 (June 2018): 27–41. For the study of deification in Pseudo-Dionysius, see: Chen Qita, “Pseudo-Dionysius and Christian-Confucian Dialogue” (Ph.D. diss., The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2024). ↩︎
9. For example, there is a comparative study of Barth and the concepts of deification in Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae, and John Zizioulas, see: Zhang Shaobo 張少博, “Zhengjiao de chengshen jiaoyi yu Bate shenxue” 正教的成神教義與巴特神學 [Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis and Barth’s Theology] (Ph.D. diss., The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015); also, Zhang Shaobo張少博, “Jidu zhong de heyi: Zaisi Bate de jidulun” 基督中的合一: 再思巴特的基督論 [Union in Christ: Rethinking Barth’s Christology], Journal of Christian Culture 基督教文化學刊 41 (May 2019): 50–69. ↩︎
10. In International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 國學與西學國際學刊 alone, there are a few articles comparing Orthodox theology with Confucianism in the last few years. For example: Xu Fenglin 徐鳳林, “Dongzhengjiao de ‘chengshen’ yu Zhongguo zhexue de ‘chengsheng’” 東正教的「成神」與中國哲學的「成聖」 [The Concept of Theosis in Orthodox Christianity and the Concept of Sanctification in Chinese Philosophy], International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 8 (June 2015): 75–84; Yen-Yi Lee 李彥儀, “Renxing zhi jing: Xian-Qin Rujia he Dongzhengjiao shenxue shiye xia de zhexue renxue” 人性之鏡：先秦儒家和東正教神學視野下的哲學人學 [Mirrors of Human Nature: The Philosophical Anthropologies of Classical Confucianism and the Theology of Orthodox Christianity], International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 28 (June 2025): 39–49; Shenyuan Wang 王慎遠 and Siyuan Dong 董思遠, “Xietong renxue yu Rujia xiushen: Lun yi zhong ‘Dongzhengjiao Ruxue’ de renxue fanshi heyi keneng” 協同人學與儒家修身：論一種「東正教儒學」的人學範式何以可能 [Synergetic Anthropology and Confucian self-cultivation: On the Possibility of an Anthropological Paradigm in‘ Orthodox Confucianism’], International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 30 (June 2026): 159–71. ↩︎
11. Chen, “Chengshenlun de kuawenhua lüxing,” 235–89. ↩︎
12. Xie Fuya 謝扶雅, Jidujiao yu Zhongguo Sixiang 基督教與中國思想 [Christianity and Chinese Thought] (Hong Kong: Chinese Christian Literature Council 基督教文藝出版社, 1980), 68. ↩︎
13. Lai Pan-chiu, “Chaoyuezhe zhi neizaixing yu neizaizhe zhi chaoyuexing: Ping Mou Zongsan dui Ru-Ye zhi fenpan” 超越者的內在性與內在者的超越性：評牟宗三對儒耶之分判 [Immanence of the Transcendent and the Transcendence of the Immanent: On Mou Zongsan's Differentiation of Christianity and Confucianism], in Dangdai Ruxue yu Xifang wenhua: Zongjiao pian 當代儒學與西方文化：宗教篇 [Modern Confucianism and Western Culture: Religious Perspective], ed. Liu Shu-hsien 劉述先 and Lin Yueh-hui 林月惠 (Taipei: Institute of Chinese Literature and Philosophy, Academic Sinica 中央研究院中國文哲研究所, 2005), 43–89. ↩︎
14. Lai Pan-chiu, “Christian Transformation of Greek Humanism and its Implications for Christian-Confucian Dialogue,” Korea Journal of Systematic Theology 22 (December 2008): 245–69. ↩︎
15. Lai Pan-chiu, “Shaping Humanity with Word and Spirit: Perspectives East, West and Neither-East-Nor-West,” in Word and Spirit: Renewing Christology and Pneumatology in a Globalizing World, ed. Anselm K. Min and Christoph Schwöbel (Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), 131–49. ↩︎
16. Alexander Chow, Theosis, Sino-Christian Theology and the Second Chinese Enlightenment: Heaven and Humanity in Unity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). ↩︎
17. Lai Pan-chiu and So Yuen-tai, “Zhang Chun-yi’s Buddhist-Christian Pneumatology,” Ching Feng (New Series) 4, no. 1 (2003): 51–77. ↩︎
18. Lai Pan-chiu and So Yuen-tai, “Mahayana Interpretation of Christianity: A Case Study of Zhang Chunyi (1871–1955),” Buddhist-Christian Studies 27 (2007): 67–87. ↩︎
19. Ernst M. Valea, Buddhist-Christian Dialogue as Theological Exchange (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015), 26–79. ↩︎
20. Amos Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the Middle Way? (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 107–30. ↩︎
21. Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 131–58. ↩︎
22. So Yuen Tai 蘇遠泰, “Ren keyi chengshen? Shilun Jidujiao yiyi xia de chengshenguan” 人可以成神？──試論基督宗教意義下的成神觀 [Can Human become God? On Christian Deification], Logos & Pneuma 道風 22 (Spring 2005): 201–29. ↩︎
23. So, 203–4. ↩︎
24. For an extended survey of the prevalent Chinese translations of the term theosis or deification in Chinese, see Chen, “Chengshenlun de kuawenhua lüxing,” 237–38. ↩︎
25. Lai Pan-chiu, “The Ecological Heritage of Protestantism from a Chinese Christian Perspective,” Ching Feng (New Series) 19, nos. 1–2 (2020): 21–47. ↩︎
26. See Philip Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China: K. H. Ting and the Chinese Church (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007), esp. 349–50. ↩︎
27. Lai Pan-chiu, “Justification by Faith and Protestant Christianity in China: With Special Reference to the Finnish Interpretation of Luther,” International Journal of Sino-Western Studies 16 (June 2019): 21–33. ↩︎
28. See Tuomo Mannermaa曼多馬, Manduoma zhuzhaoji: Fenlan xuepai Mading Lude xin quanshi 曼多馬著作集: 芬蘭學派馬丁．路德新詮釋 [Anthology of Tuomo Mannermaa: New Interpretation of Martin Luther by the Finnish School], trans. Paulos Huang 黃保羅 (Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian 上海三聯, 2018). ↩︎
29. For a brief introduction, see Lo Lung-kwong 盧龍光, Baoluo xinguan: Luomashu de zhuti yu mude 保羅新觀：羅馬書的主題與目的 [New Perspective on Paul: Main Theme and Aim of Romans] (Taipei: Tunghai University Chaplain’s Office東海大學校牧室, 2007). For a more critical discussion, see Sam Tsang 曾思瀚, Shei de Baoluo, nage fuyin? Baoluo quanshi xianxiang de fansi 誰的保羅，哪個福音？保羅詮釋現象的反思 [Renewed Perspectives on Paul?], trans. Tsang King-hang 曾景恒 (Hong Kong: Logos 基道, 2012). ↩︎
30. See “Baoluo xinguan” 保羅新觀 [New perspective on Paul], special issue of Hill Road 山道期刊 25 (2010), 3–166; Chin Ken-Pa 曾慶豹, “Hanyu jiaohui shijing xianxiang de fansixing fenxi: Yi Luomashu wei li” 漢語教會釋經現象的反思性分析：以羅馬書為例 [An Analysis of Chinese Hermeneutics: The Book of Romans], Shandao 山道 [Hill Road] 25 (2010): 169–83. ↩︎
31. For example, there was Chinese interpretation challenging the centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith in Romans. See Lai Pan-chiu, “Yutairen de buxin: Luomashu zhong de chujing shenxue fanxing” 猶太人的不信：《羅馬書》中的處境神學反省, [Unbelief of the Jews: Contextual Theological Reflection in Romans], in Jidujiao xueshu 基督教學術 [Christian Scholarship], vol. 4, ed. Xu Yihua 徐以驊 and Zhang Qingxiong 張慶熊 (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe上海古籍出版社, 2006), 39–57. ↩︎
32. See Lai Pan-chiu, “Yi cibei yu zhihui jingying hongda de zhengjiu” 以慈悲與智慧經營宏大的拯救 [Wisdom and Compassion in Divine Economy: A Comparative Reading of the Lotus Sutra and the Epistle to the Romans], in Dacheng Jidujiao shenxue: Hanyu shenxue de sixiang shiyan 大乘基督教神學：漢語神學的思想實驗 [Mahayana Christian Theology: Thought Experiments of Sino-Christian Theology], expanded edition（增訂版）(Hong Kong: Logos & Pneuma Press, 2026), 305–24. ↩︎
33. Lai, 309–13. ↩︎
34. Lai, 314–21. ↩︎
35. Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae, eds., God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011). ↩︎
36. Nicola Hoggard Creegan, “The Salvation of Creatures,” in God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, ed. Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011), 77-88. ↩︎
37. Ivor J. Davidson, “Salvation’s Destiny: Heirs of God,” in God of Salvation: Soteriology in Theological Perspective, ed. Ivor J. Davidson and Murray A. Rae (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2011), 155–75. ↩︎
38. Lai Pan-chiu, “Reconsidering the Christian Understanding of Universal Salvation in Mahayana Buddhist Perspective,” Ching Feng (New Series) 12 (2013): 19–42; Lai Pan-chiu, “Karl Barth and Universal Salvation: A Mahayana Buddhist Perspective,” in Karl Barth and Comparative Theology, ed. Christian T. Collins Winn and Martha Moore-Keish (New York: Fordham University Press, 2019), 85–104. ↩︎
39. Zhu Donghua 朱東華, “Nixiya xinjing yu Jingjiao shenxue” 尼西亞信經與景教神學 [The Nicene Creed and Jingjiao Theology], Logos & Pneuma 47 (Autumn 2017): 27–48. ↩︎
40. Zhu, 27–28. ↩︎
41. Zhu, 32–34. ↩︎
42. Zhu, 40–41. ↩︎
43. Frederick G. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation: Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 9. ↩︎
44. See further H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1952). ↩︎
45. Joanne McWilliam Dewart, The Theology of Grace of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1971), 74, 90. ↩︎
46. This understanding of deification in terms of “Christification” can be found in the Orthodox and Lutheran traditions. See: Panayiotis Nella, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, trans. Norman Russell (Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987); Jordon Cooper, Christification: A Lutheran Approach to Theosis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014). ↩︎
47. Marc Gortez, “The Madness in Our Method: Christology as the Necessary Starting Point for Theological Anthropology,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology, ed. Joshua R. Farris and Charles Taliaferro (London: Routledge, 2017), 15–26. ↩︎
48. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Science and Christ, trans. René Hague (London: Collins, 1968); Ursula King, Christ in All Things: Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin (London: SCM, 1997). ↩︎
49. See Edmond Tang, “The Cosmic Christ: The Search for a Chinese Theology,” Studies in World Christianity 1, no. 2 (1995): 131–42; Alexander Chow, Theosis, 89–111. ↩︎
50. See Lai Pan-chiu and Chong Chun-ming, “Technology and Humanity in Chinese Christian Perspective: With Special References to Anthropocene and Transhumanism,” Journal of Chinese Theology 10, no. 2 (December 2024): 1–22; Lai Pan-chiu, “Artificial Intelligence and Human Person: A Chinese Christian Perspective,” in Social and Ethical Considerations of AI in East Asia and Beyond, ed. Levi Checketts and Benedict S. B. Chan (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2025), 111–25. ↩︎
51. Lai Pan-chiu, “Paul Tillich and Ecological Theology,” The Journal of Religion 79, no. 2 (April 1999): 233–49. ↩︎
52. Lai Pan-chiu, “God of Life and Ecological Theology: A Chinese Christian Perspective,” The Ecumenical Review 65, no. 1 (March 2013): 67–82, esp. 74. ↩︎
53. Lai Pan-chiu, “Integral Ecology in Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’: A Confucian Response,” in Asian Interreligious Diplomacies: Catholic & Other Perspectives, ed. Michel Chambon and Paul M. Hedges (Singapore: ISEAS, forthcoming 2026). ↩︎
54. Lai Pan-chiu, “Chinese Spirituality in Ecological Perspective,” Theology and Science 25 (forthcoming 2027). ↩︎
55. See further Lai Pan-chiu, “Ecological theology as Public Theology: A Chinese Perspective,” International Journal of Public Theology 11, no. 4 (2017): 477–500; Bryan K. M. Mok, Toward a Public Theology of Climate Change: A Chinese Perspective (Leiden: Brill, 2026). ↩︎