Below is an English academic journal–style rewrite of your core argument, complete with Abstract, Keywords, and a tightly argued main section. The tone, structure, and claims are calibrated for systematic theology journals (e.g., Journal of Systematic Theology, International Journal of Systematic Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology), and deliberately framed to signal dialogue rather than confessional polemic.

Divine–Human Constitution as a Contemporary Articulation of Nicene Soteriology

Abstract

This article argues that so-called Divine–Human Constitution (or Divine–Human Coinherence) should not be construed as a post-Nicene innovation or an “Easternizing” deviation, but rather as a contemporary articulation of Nicene soteriology. By re-examining the soteriological implications of the Nicene confession of homoousios, the study demonstrates that Nicene orthodoxy already presupposes an ontological and participatory account of salvation. Drawing on the Cappadocian clarification of participation without essential confusion and engaging the Reformed tradition—particularly John Calvin’s doctrine of unio cum Christo—the article shows that constitutive soteriology neither collapses the Creator–creature distinction nor undermines forensic justification. Instead, it provides the ontological grounding that renders declarative and forensic categories theologically coherent. The article concludes that Divine–Human Constitution represents a faithful, structurally consistent translation of Nicene soteriology into contemporary theological discourse.

Keywords

Nicene Soteriology; Homoousios; Participation; Divine–Human Constitution; Unio cum Christo; Theosis; Justification; Ontological Salvation

1. Introduction: Reframing the Question

Critiques of Divine–Human Constitution commonly assume that such language introduces a speculative or experiential novelty into Christian soteriology. In particular, concerns are raised that “constitutive” or “participatory” accounts of salvation blur the Creator–creature distinction or revive problematic forms of deification. These concerns, however, frequently rest on an underdeveloped reading of Nicene theology itself.

The central claim of this article is that Nicene orthodoxy already entails a constitutive understanding of salvation, and that contemporary formulations of Divine–Human Constitution do not exceed, but rather explicate, the soteriological logic implicit in Nicene trinitarian confession.

2. Nicene Soteriology and the Ontological Logic of Homoousios

The confession of the Son as homoousios with the Father, formally articulated at the Council of Nicaea, is often treated primarily as a metaphysical safeguard of Christ’s deity. Yet from its inception, this confession carried decisive soteriological weight.

If salvation consists merely in moral improvement or juridical reassignment, then the ontological identity of the Savior would be secondary. However, Nicene theology insists that salvation involves the communication of divine life itself, and therefore requires that the one who saves is fully and truly God. The Nicene axiom may thus be summarized as follows: only God can give God.

Accordingly, Nicene soteriology excludes any account of salvation that remains external, instrumental, or merely relational. Salvation must be ontological—not in the sense of essential transformation into deity, but in the sense of a real participation in divine life grounded in the incarnate Son’s consubstantiality with the Father.

3. From Nicene Ontology to Constitutive Soteriology

The language of “constitution” seeks to articulate precisely this Nicene insight in contemporary conceptual terms. To speak of salvation as constitutive is to affirm that divine life enters and reconfigures the human mode of existence from within, rather than acting upon humanity solely from without.

This claim is conceptually equivalent to patristic descriptions of salvation as participation (methexis, participatio), renewal in Christ, and indwelling. Constitution does not introduce a new soteriological content but provides a systematic vocabulary for expressing the structural depth of Nicene salvation in a modern ontological idiom.

4. Participation without Confusion: The Cappadocian Boundary

A persistent objection to constitutive accounts of salvation is the fear of ontological mixture. This objection, however, misconstrues the patristic doctrine of participation as a form of essential sharing.

The Cappadocian Fathers decisively clarified that participation does not occur at the level of divine essence (ousia), but at the level of divine life, activity, and presence (energeia). This distinction preserves both the transcendence of God and the reality of salvific union.

Divine–Human Constitution therefore operates strictly within Nicene and Cappadocian boundaries:

no essential confusion,
no absorption of creaturely identity,
yet no reduction of salvation to external relation.

5. Reformed Compatibility: Unio cum Christo in Calvin

Concerns are often raised that constitutive soteriology conflicts with Reformed emphases on forensic justification. Yet a closer reading of Reformed theology—particularly in John Calvin—reveals a striking structural convergence.

Calvin repeatedly insists that Christ must not remain extra nos, for only through real union with Christ do believers receive the benefits of salvation. Justification and sanctification, while conceptually distinct, are jointly grounded in this union. Crucially, Calvin rejects the use of internal renewal as the basis of justification, but he does not deny the ontological reality of renewal itself.

From this perspective, constitutive soteriology does not undermine forensic justification; rather, it supplies the ontological condition that renders forensic declaration effective rather than fictive. The declarative word of justification is grounded in a real communicative act of divine life through union with Christ.

6. Contemporary Significance

In modern theological discourse, salvation is frequently reduced to one of three inadequate models:

(1) legal status without transformation,

(2) moral development without ontological depth, or

(3) subjective experience without objective grounding.

Divine–Human Constitution, understood as a contemporary articulation of Nicene soteriology, resists all three reductions by reaffirming that salvation is God’s self-giving in Christ, effecting a real though non-confusive participation in divine life.

7. Conclusion

Divine–Human Constitution should therefore be understood not as a speculative extension of Nicene orthodoxy, but as its faithful translation into contemporary systematic theology. Rooted in the Nicene confession of homoousios, clarified by Cappadocian participation theology, and structurally compatible with Reformed unio cum Christo, constitutive soteriology preserves both divine transcendence and salvific realism. Far from threatening orthodox boundaries, it renders explicit what Nicene soteriology has always implied: salvation is God’s self-gift, not merely God’s verdict.

If you wish, I can next:

1️⃣ Adapt this precisely to a target journal’s house style

2️⃣ Add footnotes with primary patristic and Reformation sources

3️⃣ Write a response-to-reviewers template anticipating objections

Just tell me which step you want next.