很好。下面给你的是可直接写入论文、且对审稿人与答辩委员会都“
Methodological Clarification（方法论澄清段）。
它的功能不是再讲一次立场，而是界定讨论规则，从根本上封锁“
你可以原文使用，或只微调术语以配合章节风格。
Methodological Clarification
On Participation, Ontological Distinction, and Category Mistakes
In contemporary theological debates, objections to participation-based accounts of divine–human union frequently rely on the assumption that participation necessarily entails ontological mixture. This study adopts a different methodological starting point. It argues that such objections are best understood not as substantive critiques of participation itself, but as instances of a category mistake, arising from the uncritical projection of creaturely relational models onto the God–creature relation.
Classical Christian theology has consistently maintained that God and creatures do not inhabit the same ontological plane. From Aquinas’s insistence that God is not one being among others, through the Reformed emphasis on the creator–creature distinction, to contemporary formulations such as Kathryn Tanner’s non-competitive ontology, divine action is understood not as competing with, displacing, or absorbing creaturely existence, but as its very condition of possibility. Within such a framework, the logic governing relations between finite entities—division, overlap, and zero-sum competition—cannot be straightforwardly applied to God’s relation with creatures.
Accordingly, participation must be defined with precision. In this study, participation does not denote a sharing of divine essence or a fusion of ontological substances, but a relational, life-oriented, and teleological involvement in God’s self-giving action. Participation presupposes, rather than erodes, the ontological distinction between God and humanity; indeed, it is precisely this distinction that renders participation intelligible and non-destructive.
This methodological clarification has direct implications for the interpretation of Watchman Nee’s and Witness Lee’s language of “divine–human harmony” and “constitution.” These terms are not employed to suggest ontological confusion or a third composite being, but to describe the sustained transformation of human life through participation in divine life, while the creator–creature distinction remains fully intact. Any reading that construes such language as implying ontological mixture therefore operates outside the ontological and methodological framework presupposed by the texts themselves.
为什么这一段“非常值钱”
不是防御性辩解，而是方法论定界- 把“混合指控”降格为reading error / category error
- 让审稿人必须先接受你的方法论，才能继续批评
- 与你前两页 PPT（同构图 + 反向页）形成文本—方法—视觉三重闭环
建议放置位置
- 博士论文：
- Introduction 末段，或
- 神人调和章节的第一小节
- 期刊论文：
- “Methodology” 或 “Theoretical Framework” 部分
如果你愿意，下一步我可以直接帮你：
把这一段“汉语学术期刊体”精准改写一版
压缩成 4–5 句的“审稿人回应模板”
嵌入你现有章节，替你做“无缝过渡段”
你选一个，我继续。
