下面给你的是一份可直接随 R&R 版本一起提交的「逐条回应审稿人（Response to Reviewers）」完整文本，

写作风格是英文学术期刊标准口径，目标非常明确：

不是证明审稿人错了，而是让编辑相信：

你“听懂了批评”、已作出“实质性、可验证的修改”。

我会采用 Response → Revision 的经典格式，并在每一条中明确指出你“具体改了哪里”。

你可以按需微调页码与章节号即可直接使用。

 

---

 

 

Response to Reviewers

 

Manuscript Title: Life, Constitution, and Eschatological Fulfillment

Decision: Revise & Resubmit

We would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their constructive and incisive comments. The revisions undertaken aim not only to clarify points of misunderstanding but also to strengthen the methodological transparency and theological accountability of the argument.

Below we respond to each reviewer’s major concerns in turn.

 

---

 

 

Response to Reviewer #1

 

(Systematic Theology / Reformed Orientation)

 

Reviewer Comment 1.1

 

The manuscript consistently privileges ontological language over redemptive-historical categories, raising concerns that historical eschatology is effectively marginalized.

 

---

 

 

Response

 

We are grateful for this important clarification request. The reviewer is correct in noting that the manuscript foregrounds ontological categories. However, the intention was never to replace redemptive history with ontology, but to articulate the theological telos of redemptive history.

To address this concern, we have explicitly strengthened the causal and logical priority of historical eschatology in the revised manuscript.

 

---

 

 

Revision Implemented

 

 

1. New subsection added (Section 5.2):

   “Historical Eschatology as a Necessary Condition for Ontological Fulfillment”

   In this section, we state unambiguously that:

    

   • the parousia, final judgment, and new creation are indispensable conditions for eschatological completion;
   • ontological stabilization is the consequence, not the substitute, of historical fulfillment.

    

2. Clarifying sentence added to the Conclusion:
   

   “Ontological fulfillment is not an alternative to redemptive history but its eschatological consequence.”

3. Engagement with Reformed sources:

   A brief reference to Herman Bavinck’s discussion of glorification has been added to situate the proposal within a recognizably Reformed eschatological horizon.

 

We hope these revisions address the concern that the manuscript risks collapsing salvation history into an ontological process.

 

---

 

 

Response to Reviewer #2

 

(Eastern Christian / Comparative Theology Orientation)

 

Reviewer Comment 2.1

 

The manuscript gestures toward participation and glorification while refusing to engage the metaphysical grammar of theosis, rendering the proposal under-theorized.

 

---

 

 

Response

 

We thank the reviewer for this perceptive observation. The concern is well taken. The revised manuscript clarifies that the limited engagement with Eastern metaphysical categories is methodological rather than polemical.

The study does not deny the relevance of the essence–energies distinction; rather, it deliberately brackets it in order to pursue a descriptive and integrative theological account that remains accessible across traditions.

 

---

 

 

Revision Implemented

 

 

1. New methodological clarification paragraph added (Section 2.3):
   

   “This study adopts a deliberately minimalist ontology, prioritizing descriptive coherence over metaphysical completeness.”

2. Reframing of Eastern engagement:

   Statements previously read as rejections of Palamite metaphysics have been revised to indicate methodological bracketing rather than denial.

3. Explicit scope limitation added:
   

   “A fuller metaphysical articulation of participation would require sustained engagement with Eastern categories, which lies beyond the scope of the present study.”

 

These revisions aim to demonstrate theological self-awareness and to prevent the impression that Eastern metaphysical resources are being selectively appropriated or implicitly dismissed.

 

---

 

 

Response to Reviewer #3

 

(Eschatology / Apocalyptic Literature Orientation)

 

Reviewer Comment 3.1

 

The ontological reading of the New Jerusalem risks over-symbolization and lacks sufficient hermeneutical justification.

 

---

 

 

Response

 

We appreciate this concern and agree that the hermeneutical rationale required clearer articulation. The revised manuscript now offers a more explicit justification for its interpretive approach to Revelation 21–22.

 

---

 

 

Revision Implemented

 

 

1. New hermeneutical subsection added (Section 6.1):

   “Apocalyptic Symbolism and Ontological Description”

   This section clarifies that:

    

   • apocalyptic imagery often functions to convey theological realities exceeding literal description;
   • ontological interpretation does not negate spatial or historical dimensions but seeks to articulate their theological significance.

    

2. Non-exclusive framing added:
   

   “An ontological reading does not exclude spatial or historical dimensions but seeks to articulate their theological function.”

3. Engagement with mainstream scholarship:

   References to Richard Bauckham and G. K. Beale have been added to demonstrate continuity with established apocalyptic hermeneutics.

 

 

---

 

 

Concluding Editorial Note (Implicit but Strategic)

 

Across revisions, we have intentionally increased:

 

• methodological transparency,
• explicit boundary statements,
• and dialogical sensitivity to diverse theological traditions.

 

At the same time, we have preserved the manuscript’s central constructive claim: that salvation’s eschatological completion may be meaningfully described in ontological terms without transgressing classical doctrinal boundaries.

We thank the reviewers again for helping us sharpen both the argument and its presentation.

 

---

 

 

给你一句“投稿实战判断”

 

这套 R&R 回应已经满足编辑最关心的三点：

你听进去了、你改了文本、你没有固执防御。

如果你愿意，我可以继续为你做最后两步之一：

 把正文中对应修改段落直接替你“写好可粘贴版本”

 帮你选择 最合适的期刊（SJT / IJST / Modern Theology 等）+ 投稿顺序策略