明白。进入连续写作模式。
下面不是提纲，而是可直接作为论文正文的连续文本。
From Ecclesial Language to Public Theology
Translating Participatory Soteriology into Systematic Discourse
Introduction
Contemporary Protestant systematic theology continues to exhibit a marked ambivalence toward participatory accounts of salvation. On the one hand, themes such as union with Christ, sanctification, and ecclesial formation remain central to theological discourse. On the other hand, attempts to articulate salvation as genuinely transformative of the human subject—beyond juridical declaration—are frequently met with suspicion. Such accounts are often dismissed as insufficiently disciplined, conceptually unstable, or dangerously proximate to ontological fusion between God and the human creature.
This suspicion is commonly framed as a doctrinal concern. Participatory soteriology, it is argued, risks collapsing the Creator–creature distinction, obscuring the logical priority of justification, or reintroducing metaphysical speculation under the guise of spiritual experience. Yet this article contends that the primary obstacle faced by participatory accounts of salvation is not doctrinal incompatibility but methodological intranslatability. What is at stake is less what is being claimed than how those claims are articulated within the public grammar of systematic theology.
Many participatory soteriologies emerge from ecclesial contexts in which theological language functions performatively and pedagogically rather than analytically. Within such contexts, theological claims are sustained by shared practices, narratives, and forms of life. When extracted from these contexts and presented within academic discourse, however, the same claims often appear imprecise, excessive, or conceptually unregulated. The result is a persistent asymmetry: ecclesial theology is judged by academic standards it was never designed to meet, while academic theology remains insulated from questions of lived transformation.
This article argues that this impasse can be addressed through a deliberate act of theological translation. By rearticulating participatory soteriology in publicly recognizable systematic categories—specifically participation, constitution, and ecclesial embodiment—it becomes possible to preserve its theological intent while rendering it accessible to critical evaluation across traditions. Such translation does not aim to domesticate participatory theology into existing paradigms, but to demonstrate that its central claims can be expressed without recourse to ontological fusion, subjectivism, or doctrinal ambiguity.
The argument proceeds in five stages. The first section diagnoses the problem of intranslatability that often marginalizes ecclesial theologies within academic discourse. The second proposes participation as a public theological category, distinguished from substance metaphysics and grounded in relational and teleological reasoning. The third clarifies the notion of constitution in order to articulate transformation without positing a change in ontological kind. The fourth examines ecclesial embodiment as the site where participatory salvation becomes visible and testable. The final section reflects on the methodological implications of this translation for contemporary Protestant soteriology.
1. The Problem of Intranslatability in Ecclesial Theology
The marginalization of participatory soteriology within Protestant systematic theology is frequently attributed to doctrinal excess. Yet a closer examination reveals that many of the perceived doctrinal problems arise only after ecclesial language is transposed into academic settings without adequate methodological mediation. What is often labeled “ontological confusion” may in fact be a failure of translation.
Ecclesial theological language is typically oriented toward formation rather than classification. Its primary function is not to delineate metaphysical boundaries but to shape the self-understanding and practices of a worshiping community. As such, ecclesial discourse often employs dense metaphors, compressed narratives, and teleological assertions whose meaning is sustained by communal participation rather than analytical precision. Within its native context, such language is rarely ambiguous; its limits are tacitly policed by shared doctrinal commitments and liturgical rhythms.
Academic theology, by contrast, operates under different conditions. Claims must be detachable from their formative contexts, capable of comparison, and open to falsification or revision. When ecclesial claims are introduced into this arena without translation, they can appear to overreach. Assertions intended to describe relational proximity may be misread as ontological identity; teleological statements may be mistaken for causal explanations.
The resulting critiques often conflate semantic density with conceptual incoherence. Participatory language is accused of obscuring distinctions not because those distinctions are denied, but because they are presupposed rather than explicitly articulated. This is particularly evident in Protestant anxieties surrounding participation, where any suggestion of transformation beyond forensic justification is quickly associated with metaphysical intrusion.
Such reactions reveal an implicit methodological assumption: that legitimate theological claims must be articulated within a narrowly defined analytic framework in order to be intelligible. While this assumption has the advantage of conceptual clarity, it risks excluding entire modes of theological reasoning that do not originate within academic discourse. The question, then, is not whether ecclesial theologies should abandon their native language, but whether systematic theology can develop translational strategies capable of rendering such language publicly intelligible without distortion.
Translation, in this sense, is neither reduction nor expansion. It is an act of re-description that seeks functional equivalence rather than verbal correspondence. The goal is to identify the operative theological claims embedded in ecclesial discourse and to restate them in categories that permit critical engagement. When successful, translation exposes rather than conceals theological commitments, making them available for comparison and evaluation across traditions.
2. Participation as a Public Theological Category
Among the most contested terms in participatory soteriology is participation itself. Within Protestant theology, participation is often treated with suspicion due to its association with substance metaphysics and ontological continuity between God and the creature. This suspicion, however, rests on a construal of participation that is neither necessary nor historically exhaustive.
Participation need not be understood as the sharing of substance or essence. When reconceived as a relational and teleological category, participation describes the manner in which a subject is oriented toward and incorporated into an activity or purpose without implying identity of being. In this sense, participation concerns how one relates to an act or reality, not what one becomes at the level of ontological kind.
Such a reconstrual aligns participation with widely accepted theological commitments. Union with Christ, for example, is routinely affirmed within Protestant theology without implying ontological fusion. The believer’s relation to Christ is mediated, covenantal, and eschatologically oriented. Participation, when framed in this way, names the structure of that relation rather than its metaphysical substrate.
Moreover, participation functions teleologically rather than causally. It does not explain how salvation is effected but describes the end toward which salvation is ordered. Justification remains the juridical ground of salvation, while participation articulates its intended orientation: communion with God expressed in transformed life. This distinction preserves the logical priority of justification while resisting its reduction to a merely external declaration.
By treating participation as a public theological category, systematic theology gains a means of addressing questions it has often deferred. If salvation does not meaningfully affect the human subject beyond legal status, it becomes difficult to account for the pervasive biblical emphasis on renewal, conformity to Christ, and communal embodiment. Participation provides a conceptual bridge between declarative and transformative dimensions of salvation without collapsing one into the other.
Importantly, this account of participation is structurally modest. It does not claim to resolve longstanding metaphysical debates, nor does it prescribe a single ontological framework. Its function is explanatory rather than foundational. Participation names a relation that must be theologically accounted for if salvation is to be understood as more than acquittal, while leaving open the precise metaphysical grammar by which that relation is articulated.
下一步（我将直接继续，不再重复说明）：
- 第 3 节：Constitution without Ontological Fusion（存在被塑造，但不改变本体种类）
- 第 4 节：Ecclesial Embodiment and Salvific Teleology（教会作为可检验场域）
- 第 5 节：Methodological Implications（直接对话改革宗关切）
你不需要再指示。
如果你愿意在任何一节加强某位对话对象（Barth / Rahner / theosis / 改革宗），只需说名字。
