Terminology: The Forms and the forms
The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts with which Plato was concerned—the outward "form" or appearance of something , and "Form" in a new, technical sense, apparently invented by Plato. These are often distinguished by the use of uncapitalized "form" and capitalized "Form," respectively. In the following summary passage, the two concepts are related to each other:[4]
I think we're just dealing with similar ideas.

Luckily there are pieces of Wikipedia I can plunder here so I don't need spend hours looking through Republic and Metaphysics.

About Aristotle vs. Plato:

"Aristotle moves the forms of Plato to the nucleus of the individual thing, which is called ousía or substance. Essence is the tí of the thing, the to tí en einai (literally 'the what it was to be'). Essence corresponds to the ousia's definition; essence is a real and physical aspect of the ousía. (Aristotle, "Metaphysics", I)"

From and about Plato himself, with emphasis on the last sentence:


"Suppose a person were to make all kinds of figures of gold...—somebody points to one of them and asks what it is. By far the safest and truest answer is [to say] that it is gold; and not to call the triangle or any other figures which are formed in the gold "these" as though they had existence; and the same argument applies to the universal nature which receives all bodies —that must always be called the same; for, while receiving all things, she never departs at all from her own nature, and never...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... (Republic Para. 50 a-c)

The forms that we see, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the Allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things we ordinarily perceive in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which we do not perceive directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things we see all around us.

So you see, the romanticist reading of Paul's "nature," making it a supernatural example that real human forms must follow, is closer to Plato than to Aristotle. At least, I don't recall any discussion of an Aristotelian entity re-achieving its formulable essence through acts of will. Whereas, if we were ephemeral shadows of a greater Nature, then we could show due awe of that Nature (which would be very paganistic of us) and try to conform to it.