很好。这一步非常关键——四位同时加入，意味着论文从“
下面我将连续写作完成：
- 第 3 节：Constitution without Ontological Fusion
- 第 4 节：Ecclesial Embodiment and Salvific Teleology
并在每一节中同时嵌入四条对话线：
- Barth（参与但拒绝内在化）
- Rahner（超性存在论，但受控）
- theosis / Palamas（真实参与，但非模板）
- 改革宗主流关切（称义、区分、法理优先）
语气将保持：克制、可投、但不软弱。
3. Constitution without Ontological Fusion
Reframing Transformation in Protestant Soteriology
If participation names the relational orientation of salvation, the concept of constitution seeks to account for its transformative effects. Yet it is precisely here that Protestant theology exhibits its greatest anxiety. Any claim that salvation “constitutes” the human subject risks being interpreted as a change in ontological kind, thereby undermining the Creator–creature distinction or absorbing justification into a process of moral or metaphysical improvement.
This anxiety is not without historical warrant. Protestant theology has long defined itself in opposition to accounts of salvation that appear to ground divine acceptance in intrinsic transformation. As a result, transformation has often been relegated to the realm of ethical consequence rather than theological necessity. Constitution, however, need not function in this way. When carefully specified, it describes not a change in substance but a reconfiguration of existential orientation.
Constitution, as employed in this article, refers to the manner in which the human subject is formed by participation in Christ without becoming something other than a creature. It concerns the shaping of dispositions, practices, and telos rather than the alteration of metaphysical essence. In this respect, constitution operates at the level of mode of existence rather than order of being. Salvation does not introduce a new ontological species but reorients an existing one toward its intended end.
This distinction resonates, albeit with different emphases, across multiple theological traditions. Karl Barth, for instance, resists any account of salvation that would locate transformation within an immanent structure of the human subject. For Barth, participation is strictly Christological and actualistic: the believer participates in Christ’s history rather than acquiring a new ontological capacity. Yet Barth does not deny transformation as such. Instead, he insists that transformation must be understood as derivative and relational—grounded in Christ’s being-for-us rather than in a change of human essence. Constitution, when framed relationally, aligns with this insistence by refusing to posit an autonomous ontological upgrade while still affirming that the human subject is genuinely determined by its relation to Christ.
Rahner’s transcendental theology offers a contrasting but complementary perspective. His notion of the supernatural existential seeks to articulate how grace is always already operative within the conditions of human existence. While Rahner’s framework has been criticized for blurring the distinction between nature and grace, its underlying concern is instructive: salvation must be intelligible as something that actually affects human subjectivity. Constitution, as proposed here, shares Rahner’s attentiveness to the subject without adopting his transcendental metaphysics wholesale. Rather than locating grace as an a priori structure, constitution is understood historically and ecclesially—as the ongoing formation of the subject within the economy of salvation.
Eastern Orthodox accounts of theosis further illuminate the issue by demonstrating that transformation need not entail ontological fusion. Patristic theology consistently distinguishes between participation in divine energies and the incommunicability of divine essence. While Protestant theology need not adopt this metaphysical grammar, the distinction itself is instructive. It shows that robust accounts of transformation can coexist with uncompromised divine transcendence. In this light, constitution may be understood as an analogue to energetic participation—real, transformative, and asymmetrical—without importing the full ontological apparatus of theosis.
From a Reformed perspective, the critical question remains whether such language preserves the logical priority of justification. The account offered here does so by maintaining a clear distinction between ground and effect. Justification establishes the believer’s standing before God; constitution describes the form of life that follows from and corresponds to that standing. The two are inseparable but not interchangeable. Constitution neither completes justification nor competes with it; it articulates the shape of redeemed existence that justification makes possible.
Properly construed, then, constitution offers Protestant theology a way of speaking about transformation that is neither merely moralistic nor metaphysically inflated. It names the real effects of salvation on the human subject while remaining accountable to the doctrinal boundaries that have historically safeguarded Protestant identity.
4. Ecclesial Embodiment and Salvific Teleology
The Church as the Testable Site of Participation
If participation and constitution describe the relational and formative dimensions of salvation, they must ultimately be rendered visible. Without a concrete locus of embodiment, participatory soteriology risks collapsing into abstraction or interiority. Ecclesial embodiment provides this locus, situating salvation within a communal and historical form of life.
The church, in this account, is not merely the recipient of salvation but its ongoing mode of manifestation. Salvation is embodied where participation in Christ takes communal shape—through practices, disciplines, and shared patterns of life that orient believers toward God and one another. This emphasis guards against subjectivism by relocating transformation from the private sphere to a publicly observable context.
Barth’s ecclesiology offers an important corrective here. While Barth is wary of identifying the church too closely with salvific reality, he nevertheless insists that reconciliation must take visible form in the community gathered around Word and sacrament. The church is not the continuation of Christ’s incarnation, but it is the sphere in which Christ’s reconciling work becomes attested and effective. Ecclesial embodiment, understood in this way, avoids triumphalism while affirming that salvation is not merely an invisible transaction.
Rahner’s emphasis on the church as the sacrament of salvation similarly underscores embodiment, though from a different angle. For Rahner, the church mediates God’s grace historically and socially, making salvation accessible within the structures of human existence. While Protestant theology may resist sacramental formulations that appear to objectify grace, Rahner’s insistence on historical mediation highlights a shared concern: salvation must be more than an inward disposition; it must take communal form.
Orthodox theology, with its strong emphasis on liturgical and ascetical life, further reinforces the ecclesial dimension of participation. Theosis is never an individual achievement but a communal journey enacted within the life of the church. Even when Protestant theology refrains from adopting the language of deification, it can nonetheless learn from the Orthodox insistence that salvation is practiced before it is analyzed.
For Reformed theology, ecclesial embodiment raises the question of normativity. If salvation takes visible form, how is that form evaluated without reintroducing works-righteousness? The answer lies in teleology rather than measurement. Ecclesial practices do not ground salvation; they orient believers toward its end. The church becomes the site where the direction of salvation is discerned, not the mechanism by which it is secured.
In this way, ecclesial embodiment functions as a testable criterion for participatory soteriology. Claims about transformation are not assessed by introspection but by their capacity to generate forms of life that correspond to the gospel’s declared reality. Where participation yields humility rather than self-assertion, communion rather than hierarchy, and perseverance rather than perfectionism, it demonstrates its coherence with the logic of grace.
5. Methodological Implications (过渡说明)
下一节将把上述四重对话明确收束为方法论结论，
- 参与是否必然削弱称义？
- 转化是否必然导向形上学膨胀？
- 教会是否必然成为救恩机制？
并给出一个清晰的、可复制的方法论模型，
接下来我将继续完成
第 5 节 + 结论（约 2,000 字）
，
并把整篇文章自动对齐到 Modern Theology / IJST 的审稿口味。
如果你希望在下一节里稍微强化某一位（例如 Barth 再多一点，或改革宗防线再硬一点），只需说一句：
“下一节：×× 优先。”
否则，我将按当前平衡度直接写完。
