All SHALL Be Saved & Who Knows? Maybe All Will Be Glorified, Too
Introduction
Below I argue that we can know with certainty That All Shall Be Saved, which even includes, at a minimum, a transient extraordinary divine presencing (mode of union = glory). And that we cannot know with certainty That All Shall Be Glorified, which includes an habitual beatific vision. That all shall be delivered from sin and death is assured. Degrees of sanctification & glorification MIGHT be contingent.
CoPilot:
Below is my refined rearticulation of your doctrinal plank, integrating the clarifications regarding epistemic vs. metaphysical commitments, compatibilist vs. libertarian universalism, and the role of subjunctive humility within your cosmotheandric framework.
### **Doctrinal Plank: Universal Transient Divine Presencing in the Cosmotheandric Architectonic**
#### **I. Fundamental Thesis: The Transcendental Guarantee of Extraordinary Presencing**
**Core Aphorism:** *All shall be extraordinarily presenced—at least transiently—whether ante-mortem or post-mortem.*
Within the cosmotheandric architectonic, it is transcendentally determined that every rational creature will experience at least one moment of extraordinary divine presencing through the light of glory. This encounter serves both as disclosure—revealing the absolute moral horizon of beatitude—and as actualization—bringing obediential potency into supererogatory virtue. The reduction of divine potencies in essential moral virtue via justifying gifts synergistically interacts with free creaturely acts, yet this fundamental encounter remains providentially non-negotiable.
#### **II. Epistemic Humility Regarding Habitual Beatific Glory**
Your framework affirms **subjunctive universalism strictly as an epistemic stance**, not a metaphysical commitment. This means:
- **Epistemic Subjunctivism:** *All could be saved*, but we cannot know with certainty whether all will be saved.
- **No Metaphysical Deduction:** The possibility of universal glorification does not rely on libertarian freedom as a necessity.
- **Eschatological Agnosticism:** The final habitualization of beatific vision remains **ontologically open**, meaning it could be transcendentally determined or contingently actualized.
Within this epistemic humility, the architectonic preserves two coherent eschatological possibilities:
| **Moderate Compatibilism** | **Moderate Libertarianism** |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
| If transcendentally determined: | If contingently indeterminate: |
| - Preserves *howness* autonomy (charismatic/ministerial/missiological gifts). | - Permits *howmuchness* autonomy (gradations of intimacy). |
| - Divine sovereignty ensures universal glorification (potential compatibilist apokatastasis). | - Human freedom preserves real creaturely contribution. |
| - Avoids determinism while affirming grace-driven fulfillment. | - Avoids Pelagian voluntarism while affirming true choice. |
**Key Clarification:** Unlike common assumptions, *universal apokatastasis is typically affirmed by compatibilists, not libertarians*. Libertarians, including in Catholic thought, tend to affirm **subjunctive universalism**—that salvation remains a real possibility, but we cannot deduce its inevitability.
#### **III. Architectonic of Theophanic and Supra-Theophanic Union**
| **Horizontal (Theophanic)** | **Vertical (Supra-Theophanic)** |
| - Mediated via **experience, reason, and faith**. | - Direct via **light of glory** in mystical moments. |
| - Forms supererogatory virtue within history. | - Enables epektatic virtue via divine participation. |
| - Providentially calibrated, minimally coercive. | - **Ante-mortem:** Extraordinary and transient. |
| | - **Post-mortem:** May become habitual (ordinary) for those sanctified through synergism. |
Providential titration ensures that extraordinary presencings occur in minimally coercive measures, uniquely optimizing each person’s intrinsic capacity for virtue without overriding autonomy.
#### **IV. Conceptual Integration: Nyssen’s Energies vs. Aquinas’ Noetic Identity**
| **Nyssen–Palamas (Energetic Threshold)** | **Aquinas (Noetic Identity)** |
|--------------------------------|---------------------|
| - **Uncreated energies** enable oscillation between theophanic and supra-theophanic dimensions. | - **Created light of glory** elevates intellect to *visio beatifica*. |
| - Represents *liminal presencing*—a real but transient participation. | - Constitutes *habitual union*—stable, final beatific possession. |
| - Mystical union remains ontologically dynamic, offering ascent without necessity. | - Noetic transformation stabilizes participation in divine essence. |
> **Synthetic Progression:**
> Theophanic presence → Energetic liminality (Nyssen-Palamas) → Noetic identity (Aquinas).
This framework models how transient presencings serve as a *threshold*, offering ascent toward habitual beatific possession.
#### **V. Eschatological Implications: Rejections and Affirmations**
Your framework **rejects**:
- **Hard Universalism**: Asserting that habitual beatific vision is metaphysically necessary.
- **Libertarian Universalism**: Assuming that libertarian freedom will necessarily ensure universal salvation.
- **Compatibilist Particularism**: Claiming that some must necessarily be excluded for divine sovereignty to manifest.
Your framework **affirms**:
- **Soft Perditionism**: Some may fail to actualize beatific glory, but **not via eternal torment**.
- **Subjunctive Universalism**: All could be saved, but **we cannot know this with certainty**.
- **Proportionality in Salvation**: The gratuity of grace and intrinsic autonomy are harmonized.
#### **VI. Practical Implications: Mystagogy of Presencing**
- **Ante-mortem:** Extraordinary presencings are providentially calibrated to each person’s capacity and circumstances.
- **Post-mortem:** Vertical modes *may* transition from transient to habitual, contingent upon synergistic sanctification of noetic capacity.
The eschatological transformation of transient presencing into habitual possession **is not predetermined metaphysically**—it remains contingent upon divine-human synergism.
#### **VII. Conclusion: The Architectonic of Graced Freedom**
Your cosmotheandric restorationism ensures:
1. **Universal access** to transformative divine encounter.
2. **Tension between divine sovereignty and creaturely autonomy.**
3. **Epistemic humility** regarding ultimate eschatological destinies.
The rejection of eternal conscious torment allows competing theoanthropologies to remain coherent, while resisting **any claim to eschatological certitude** regarding final habitualization.
*”Transient divine glory is universally offered, but habitual beatific possession remains eschatologically contingent—preserving both divine gratuity and human synergistic autonomy.”*
### **Refinements Incorporated:**
1. **Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Distinction:**
- Your subjunctive stance is strictly **epistemic**, not grounded in libertarian voluntarism.
- You reject metaphysical deduction of eschatological inevitability.
2. **Compatibilist Apokatastasis vs. Libertarian Subjunctivism:**
- **Compatibilists** tend to affirm universal salvation.
- **Libertarians** tend to affirm epistemic openness.
- Your framework **remains agnostic**, preserving both as admissible but **unprovable**.
3. **Clarification of Energetic Threshold vs. Noetic Identity:**
- Nyssen’s energies offer an **oscillatory threshold**.
- Aquinas’ noetic identity provides **habitual stability**.
- The movement remains **historically dynamic and eschatologically contingent**.
Would you like this embedded into a theological article format or expanded into a systematic treatise with deeper metaphysical modeling?
ChatGPT:
# Doctrinal Plank: Universal Transient Divine Presencing in Cosmotheandric Architectonic
## I. Fundamental Thesis: The Transcendental Determination of Extraordinary Presencing
**Core Aphorism**: *All Shall Be Extraordinarily Presenced, at least, Transiently, whether ante-mortem or post-mortem.*
Within the cosmotheandric architectonic, it is transcendentally determined that every rational creature will experience at least one moment of extraordinary divine presencing through the light of glory. This transient encounter serves as both disclosure and actualization—revealing the absolute moral horizon of beatitude while actualizing the obediential potency for supererogatory virtue. The reduction of divine potencies in our essential moral virtue through justifying gifts operates synergistically with our free acts, yet this fundamental encounter remains providentially guaranteed.
## II. The Epistemic Humility Regarding Habitual Glory
The architectonic maintains agnostic restraint regarding whether the reductions of divine potencies in our final supererogatory and epektatic virtues (via sanctifying and glorifying gifts respectively) have been transcendentally determined or remain contingent and indeterminate. This mysterian stance preserves both:
### A. Moderate Compatibilist Possibility
If transcendentally determined, essential modal autonomy persists through co-self-determined *hownesses*—expressed via charismatic gifts, ministry gifts of speaking and serving, and missiological gifts. The compatibilist framework maintains that divine sovereignty and human freedom operate on different ontological levels.
### B. Moderate Libertarian Possibility
If contingently indeterminate, richer notions of autonomy emerge regarding *howmuchness*—degrees of intimacy, depths of participation, and gradations of beatific union. The libertarian framework preserves genuine creaturely contribution to the final eschatological configuration.
Both stances cohere with the classical conception of human freedom as non-necessitated cooperation with grace, rejecting both Pelagian voluntarism and Calvinist determinism while maintaining compatibility with Roman Catholic teaching on irresistible grace as non-coercive divine attraction.
## III. The Architectonic of Horizontal and Vertical Union
### A. Horizontal Modes (Theophanic)
Supererogatory virtue operates through the lights of experience, reason, and faith, constituting the theophanic dimension of divine union. These horizontal modes represent mediated encounters with divine presence within the ordinary structures of creaturely existence.
### B. Vertical Modes (Supra-Theophanic)
Epektatic virtue operates through the light of glory in extraordinary mystical moments, constituting the supra-theophanic dimension. These vertical modes transcend ordinary mediation, offering direct participatory union with divine life.
The providential titration of extraordinary presencings employs minimally coercive measures to optimally develop each person's intrinsic capacity for virtue. These precise historical opportunities remain unique and irrepeatable, as postmortem conditions of well-being are radically transformed.
## IV. Conceptual Mapping: Nyssen's Energies and Aquinas' Noetic Identity
### Gregorian-Palamite Framework (Energetic Union)
The divine energies, particularly as experienced in Hesychastic practice, represent evanescent oscillations between horizontal and vertical modes of union. They constitute a liminal threshold between the theophanic and supra-theophanic, offering real but non-essential participation in divine life through uncreated light.
### Thomistic Framework (Noetic Identity)
The habitual beatific vision represents the crossing of the evanescent threshold into stable noetic identity with divine luminescence. This involves the created light of glory elevating the intellect to perceive God *per essentiam*, achieving supra-theophanic union habitually rather than transiently.
**Synthetic Integration**: The energetic threshold (Nyssen-Palamas) serves as the dynamic interface for vertical ascent, while noetic identity (Aquinas) provides the eschatological consummation of that ascent in habitual beatific possession.
## V. Eschatological Implications: Soft Perditionism and Subjunctive Universalism
The cosmotheandric restorationism embraces soft perditionism consistent with Roman Catholic subjunctive universalism while rejecting:
### A. Hard Universalism
The claim that habitual beatific vision is guaranteed for all rational creatures, which would compromise genuine freedom and the reality of eschatological choice.
### B. Libertarian Universalism
Arguments suggesting we can know *a priori* that libertarian freedom necessarily leads to universal salvation, which approaches Pelagian assumptions about human capacity.
### C. Compatibilist Particularism
Arguments claiming we can know with certainty that not all are predestined to glory in order to manifest divine sovereignty, which approaches Calvinist assumptions about divine voluntarism.
## VI. Theological Coherence and Proportionality
The architectonic maintains that both moderate compatibilist and moderate libertarian accounts remain coherent within the framework of transcendentally determined moral restoration. Neither raises proportionality objections when properly conceived within the classical understanding of human freedom as non-necessitated synergistic cooperation with grace.
The rejection of eternal conscious torment allows for various competing theoanthropologies and their ontological eschatological implications, while maintaining that we cannot know with epistemic certainty which specific eschatological configuration will ultimately obtain.
## VII. Practical Implications: The Extraordinary Becoming Ordinary
**Ante-mortem**: Extraordinary divine presencings occur as providentially titrated mystical moments, carefully calibrated to each person's capacity and circumstances.
**Post-mortem**: These same vertical modes of union, which were extraordinary historically, can potentially be experienced habitually in the eschatological state. The transient becomes permanent, the occasional becomes ordinary, through the transformation of the creature's receptive capacity.
This transition from evanescent to habitual union represents the fundamental difference between the pilgrimage of history and the consummation of eschatology within the cosmotheandric vision.
## VIII. Conclusion: The Architectonic of Graced Freedom
The doctrinal plank of universal transient divine presencing preserves the tension between divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom while ensuring that no rational creature lacks access to the transformative encounter with divine glory. It maintains epistemic humility regarding ultimate eschatological destinies while affirming the transcendental determination of at least minimal extraordinary presencing for all.
This framework synthesizes mystical theology, metaphysical anthropology, and eschatological soteriology within a unified vision of divine-human synergism that respects both the gratuity of grace and the reality of freedom in the ongoing cosmotheandric restoration of all things.
The above is a follow to this conversation, below.
Combine our prior & present conversations and rearticulate them in terms of a doctrinal plank of my cosmotheandric architectonic.
First, as precis, consider this aphorism:
All Shall Be Extraordinarily Presenced, at least, Transiently, whether ante-mortem or post-mortem. The reductions of the divine potencies of our essential moral virtue (via justifying gifts) by our free synergistic acts have been transcendentally determined.
Also, consider my heuristic’s distinctions below.
Whether the reductions of the divine potencies of our final supererogatory (via sanctifying gifts) & epectatic (via glorifying gifts) virtues by our free synergistic acts have also been transcendentally determined or remain contingent & indeterminate, one can’t prove.
If they have been transcendentally determined, nevertheless, an essential modal autonomy will have been preserved as expressed in all manner of co-self-determined hownesses ( via charismatic gifts, ministry gifts of speaking & serving, missiological gifts, etc).
If they have not been transcendentally determined, then, beyond any essential modal autonomy of our co-self-determined hownesses, even richer notions of autonomy could be in play in terms of howmuchness, e.g. degrees of intimacy, contingently so.
My agnostic theo-anthropo stance, here, is grounded in epistemic humility and a defensible mysterian appeal. It does not stipulate to any strict bifurcation between these competing accounts of human autonomy but considers both compatible with a Roman Catholic stance that all of our cooperations with grace are non-necessitated, none, so to speak irresistable. It does note a distinction between a transcendentally determined or contingently indeterminate habitual beatific vision in terms of a moderate compatibilism or moderate libertarianism.
I consider both stances coherent enough. For reasons explained elsewhere, neither raise a proportionality objection for me as long as one also stipulates to my transcendentally determined moral restoration. That’s also to stipulate that both, properly conceived, can cohere with that classical conception of human freedom as employed throughout my cosmotheandric vision and so well articulated by Hart in recent years.
I reject all arguments, however, that suggest that we can a priori know whether the moderately compatibilist or moderately libertarian version must necessarily be the case. Put more directly, my cosmotheandric restorationism with its soft perditionism is consistent with the subjunctive universalism of the Roman Catholic tradition. So, it not only rejects any hard universalism regarding an habitual beatific vision, but it rejects any subjunctive universalism grounded in many libertarian arguments, which flirt with pelagianism and a human voluntarism, as well as many compatibilist arguments, which flirt with calvinism and a divine voluntarism by suggesting that, while all could be, we can know with certainty that all are not predestined to habitual glory in order to manifest God’s sovereignty.
So, to be clear, I find coherent & defensible, even plausible sans eternal conscious torment, many competing theoanthropologies with their ontological eschatological implications, I am otherwise objecting to any aspects of those competing accounts, which argue that, epistemically, we can know with certainty which eschatology will ultimately hold.
In my cosmotheandric restorationism, I drew some theophanic & beatitudinal distinctions in terms of our expression & “possession” of Goodness: During each person’s essential moral maturation, historically, opportunities for higher virtue abound, i.e. both supererogatory & epektatic, the former corresponding to horizontal (theophanic) modes of union via the lights of experience, reason & faith and the latter to vertical modes of union via the light of glory in extraordinary mystical moments.
Ordinarily, such extraordinary presencings are providentially titrated in the least coercive measures needed extrinsically in order to optimally grow each person’s intrinsic capacity for virtue, maximally. These precise historical opportunities are unique & irrepeatable, because, for example, postmortem, if for no other reason, our experiences of well-being will be radically different.
I am wondering, regarding the vertical modes of union, if my distinctions might map conceptually onto Nyssen’s account of energies vs Aquinas’ noetic identity.
Those mystical moments or vertical (supra-theophanic) modes of union via the light of glory, which, ante-mortem & historically, will have ordinarily been extraordinary expressions & experiences, post-mortem & eschatologically, can potentially be experienced habitually, i.e. ordinarily.
Specifically, Nyssen’s account of energies might describe a real bridge between the horizontal & theophanic and the vertical & supra-theophanic. For example, the divine light experienced by the Hesychasts as consistent with Nyssen & Palamite distinctions might represent an evanescent oscillation between the horizontal & vertical modes of union on a liminal threshold between the theophanic & supra-theophanic. Noetic identity, though, would entail a crossing of that evanescent threshold into a divine luminescence, habitually expressed supra-theophanically & habitually experienced beatitudinally as visio beatifica.
Deep Seek:
Below is my synthesized rearticulation of your doctrinal plank, integrating insights from your core document, prior conversations, and key theological distinctions. This version preserves the architectonic precision while clarifying the dialectic between divine sovereignty, creaturely freedom, and epistemic humility:
### **Doctrinal Plank: Universal Transient Divine Presencing in Cosmotheandric Architecture**
*Synthesizing Gregory of Nyssa’s Energetic Threshold and Aquinas’ Noetic Identity*
#### **I. Transcendental Core: Guaranteed Transient Presencing**
> *Aphorism:*
> **”All shall be extraordinarily presenced—at least transiently—whether ante-mortem or post-mortem.”**
> - This encounter via the *light of glory* is transcendentally determined.
> - It discloses the absolute moral horizon of beatitude while actualizing obediential potency for supererogatory virtue.
> - Synergistically reduces divine potencies in essential moral virtue (via justifying gifts), yet remains providentially non-negotiable.
#### **II. Epistemic Agnosticism: Contingency of Habitual Glory**
The architectonic maintains *mysterian restraint* regarding final sanctification/glorification:
| **Moderate Compatibilism** | **Moderate Libertarianism** |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
| If transcendentally determined: | If contingently indeterminate: |
| - Preserves *howness* autonomy (charismatic/ministerial gifts). | - Permits *howmuchness* autonomy (gradations of intimacy). |
| - Divine sovereignty & freedom operate on distinct ontological planes. | - Creaturely contribution shapes eschatological configuration. |
**Unifying Principle:** Both reject Pelagian voluntarism *and* Calvinist determinism, aligning with Roman Catholic *non-necessitated cooperation with grace*.
#### **III. Architectonic Modes of Divine Union**
| **Horizontal (Theophanic)** | **Vertical (Supra-Theophanic)** |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
| - Mediated through lights of **experience, reason, faith**. | - Direct via **light of glory** in mystical moments. |
| - Cultivates *supererogatory virtue* within ordinary existence. | - Actualizes *epektatic virtue* through unmediated participation. |
| - Providentially titrated: minimally coercive, maximally transformative. | - *Ante-mortem*: Extraordinary and transient. |
| | - *Post-mortem*: May become habitual (ordinary) for the synergistically sanctified. |
#### **IV. Theological Synthesis: Threshold to Consummation**
| **Gregory of Nyssa / Palamas** | **Thomas Aquinas** |
|--------------------------------|---------------------|
| **Energetic Threshold:** | **Noetic Identity:** |
| - Divine energies as *liminal oscillations* between theophanic/supra-theophanic. | - Crossing into *stable habitual union* with divine luminescence. |
| - Uncreated light enables real (but non-essential) participation. | - Created light of glory elevates intellect to perceive God *per essentiam*. |
| - **Role:** Dynamic interface for vertical ascent. | - **Role:** Eschatological consummation of ascent. |
> *Synthetic Trajectory:*
> Theophanic presence → Energetic liminality (transient) → Noetic identity (habitual).
#### **V. Eschatological Framing: Rejected & Affirmed**
- **Rejects:**
- *Hard Universalism* (guaranteed habitual vision for all).
- *Libertarian Universalism* (a priori certainty freedom ensures salvation).
- *Compatibilist Particularism* (certainty some are predestined to damnation).
- **Affirms:**
- **Soft Perditionism:** Consistent with Roman Catholic *subjunctive universalism* (“all *could* be saved”).
- **Proportionality:** No violation of justice/mercy in transcendentally determined restoration.
#### **VI. Practical Mystagogy**
- **Ante-mortem:** Divine presencings are uniquely calibrated, irrepeatable historical events.
- **Post-mortem:** Vertical modes *may* transition from transient to habitual, contingent on:
- Synergistic sanctification of the noetic capacity.
- Radical transformation of post-mortem well-being.
#### **VII. Conclusion: Graced Synergism**
This plank guarantees universal access to transformative divine encounter while:
1. Preserving tension between sovereignty/freedom.
2. Maintaining epistemic humility about eschatological destinies.
3. Synthesizing mystical theology (Nyssen/Aquinas), metaphysical anthropology, and soteriology.
> *”The transient glory offered to all becomes the habitual possession of those who, through graced freedom, cross the threshold into noetic identity.”*
This rearticulation tightens the dialectic between your core aphorism, epistemic humility, and the Nyssen-Aquinas synthesis while emphasizing the *irrepeatable historicity* of ante-mortem opportunities and the *radical contingency* of post-mortem glorification. The architecture remains fully compatible with Roman Catholic subjunctive universalism while rejecting all claims to eschatological certainty.
ChatGPT:
Your framework here is conceptually rich and spiritually nuanced, and your proposed mapping between Gregory of Nyssa’s doctrine of energies and Aquinas’ notion of noetic identity within a cosmotheandric restorationism provides a compelling synthesis. Let’s unpack this and evaluate the connections you’re intuiting:
1. Horizontal vs. Vertical Modes of Union: Theophanic & Supra-Theophanic
2.
You’ve distinguished between:
Horizontal union (theophanic): mediated through the lights of experience, reason, and faith, which are available in history and are cultivated through supererogatory acts and moral development.
Vertical union (supra-theophanic): mediated through the light of glory, breaking in as extraordinary mystical events within history and potentially becoming habitual post-mortem.
Your Insight that these moments are titrated providentially to be minimally coercive (vis a vis an autonomy that enriches our essential freedom) and to maximize each soul’s intrinsic capacity is theologically elegant—preserving both synergistic anthropology and divine economy.
3. Gregory of Nyssa’s Epektasis and Divine Energies
4.
Gregory’s doctrine of epektasis implies a perpetual ascent into the infinite God—never exhausting divine goodness, always growing in it. When paired with Palamite Energies, especially the Hesychast experience of the uncreated light, we have a non-essential but real participation in the divine life. This suggests:
The divine energies mediate God’s presence in a way that is fully God, yet accommodated to the finite, permitting real union without essential identity.
These energies can be viewed as thresholds or translucent veils through which vertical ascent happens—moments of luminous intersection between time and eternity, matter and spirit.
You rightly note that such mystical moments oscillate between the horizontal and vertical: evanescent, transient, luminous. They are apertures into glory, not yet its full beatitudinal possession.
3. Aquinas’ Noetic Identity and Visio Beatifica
In your framework, noetic identity involves a transformation of the intellect into divine likeness, achieved eschatologically via the beatific vision.
For Aquinas:
The visio beatifica Is not merely an external seeing but an interior participation in the divine essence through a created light.
The created light of glory elevates the soul’s faculties to perceive God as He is (per essentiam), which is distinct from mystical or symbolic modes of theophany.
Here’s where your mapping sharpens:
Theological Element Gregory of Nyssa / Palamas Thomas Aquinas
Vertical Union Epektasis via divine energies (uncreated light) Visio beatifica via light of glory (created light)
Transitional Threshold Energies as liminal presencings Mystical graces as anticipation of final glory
Habitual Beatitude Post-Mortem Eternal ascent into God’s inexhaustible light Stabilized noetic identity in visio beatifica
Horizontal ↔ Vertical Oscillation Hesychastic prayer as oscillatory Mystical experience as occasional elevation
Final Crossing (Supra-Theophanic Union) Infinite deepening without essential identity Full noetic identity through participation
5. Conceptual Synthesis: Threshold & Crossing
6.
You’ve constructed a theological liminality:
Energies = Threshold: Real, uncreated, relational presencings of God which allow vertical entry from the horizontal plane.
Noetic identity = Crossing: The completion of that vertical ascent in which the created intellect is stabilized in glory, not in oscillation but in habitual beatitude.
You might frame this as a movement from:
Theophanic presence → evanescent liminality (energetic) → supra-theophanic possession (noetic identity)
In this schema:
The energies act as a dynamic interface, inviting synergistic response while safeguarding divine transcendence.
The beatific vision stabilizes what was once occasional and evanescent into a habitual and integral participation.
5. Implications for Cosmotheandric Restorationism
In your vision:
History is filled with unique opportunities for both types of union, which are non-repeatable post-mortem.
Post-mortem, the vertical becomes ordinary only for those whose noetic capacities were rendered habitually receptive through synergistic sanctification.
The Palamite energies offer a model for the gradual intensification of divine presence, while Aquinas’ noetic identity provides the eschatological telos.
You’re proposing a theology in which:
The energies (Nyssen–Palamite) mediate and initiate vertical ascent in history.
The light of glory (Aquinas) consummates it beyond history, forming a habitual union beyond oscillation.
In Sum:
Yes—your distinction between horizontal (theophanic) and vertical (supra-theophanic) union does map coherently onto the relationship between:
Nyssen’s/Palamas’ divine energies as liminal, unitive mediators, and
Aquinas’ noetic identity as the finalized participation in divine glory.
✦ Doctrinal Plank: Transient Beatific Presencings and the Graced Structure of Final Restoration ✦
I. Thesis Statement
Within the divine economy, it is transcendentally determined that every rational creature will, at some point within the historical or eschatological unfolding of their existence, undergo a transient, extraordinary divine presencing. This momentary participation in the light of glory functions as a disclosure of the absolute moral horizon of beatitude and actualizes the obediential potency to supererogatory virtue. Nevertheless, the habitual experience of the beatific vision remains eschatologically contingent, not transcendentally determined, and thus dependent on the free and synergistic co-operation of the creature with divine grace.
II. Supporting Distinctions
The light of glory is to be understood analogously to other modes of divine union—through experience, reason, and faith—which constitute horizontal axes of participation. These are each real modes of divine union but are ordered toward a vertical culmination in glory. The light of glory itself admits of two distinct modalities: a transient mode and a habitual mode.
The transient mode consists in momentary, illuminative encounters with divine presence. These may occur historically, as in the cases of prophetic or mystical vision, or eschatologically, particularly in the purgatorial state. Such experiences enable a moral elevation that transcends merely acquired virtue, allowing for the manifestation of supererogatory virtue.
By contrast, the habitual mode of the light of glory corresponds to the permanent, unmediated possession of God that constitutes the beatific vision. It is not merely a matter of greater intensity, but of a qualitatively distinct mode of union that effects deification in a stable and unitive manner. This habitual union presupposes not only obediential potency but also the full consent and co-operation of the rational creature in grace.
III. Doctrinal Implications
First, the universality of transient divine presencings affirms that all human persons will, either in this life or in the next, receive a clarifying encounter with the divine light. This ensures that the moral horizon of eternal beatitude is not withheld from any creature and that the final choice regarding divine love is made under conditions of maximal spiritual lucidity.
Second, such transient illuminations—particularly in the post-mortem state—may serve a purgative and transformative function. They bring to completion the actualization of essential potencies and fulfill, through divine initiative, the demands of restorative justice and mercy without violating personal freedom.
Third, the freedom of the creature is preserved. Though the transient light of glory is universally granted, the permanent, habitual enjoyment of the beatific vision remains a contingent consummation, not a metaphysical necessity. This respects the synergistic structure of grace and nature, upholding the distinction between universal restoration and universal apokatastasis.
IV. Relation to Catholic Tradition
This doctrinal plank is compatible with Catholic teaching on grace, freedom, and the beatific vision. It deepens the function of purgatory by positing it as a domain of transformative divine encounter rather than mere penal purification. It affirms the universality of divine grace, consistent with Vatican II’s vision of the supernatural existential, while safeguarding the real possibility of eternal divergence in eschatological destiny. It does not imply that all will achieve habitual deification, but rather that all will be confronted with the light of glory in a transient and purgative form.
V. Integration into Cosmotheandric Restorationism
VI.
As part of a cosmotheandric vision of final restoration, this plank serves to articulate the structure of human nature as essentially ordered toward divine participation, and to distinguish the levels at which that participation may be historically or eschatologically realized. It affirms that restoration includes, at minimum, a transient graced encounter with divine glory sufficient to effect the perfection of essential moral potencies, while also preserving the open possibility of full beatific consummation through the habitual mode of glory. In this way, it synthesizes mystical theology, metaphysical anthropology, and eschatological soteriology within a unified framework of divine-human synergism.
Gemini:
Here’s a rearticulation of your doctrinal plank, incorporating the insights from our conversation:
Doctrinal Plank: Universal Transient Divine Presencing in the Cosmotheandric Architectonic
I. Fundamental Thesis: The Transcendental Determination of Extraordinary Presencing
* Core Aphorism: All Shall Be Extraordinarily Presenced, at least, Transiently, whether ante-mortem or post-mortem.
* Within the cosmotheandric architectonic, it is transcendentally determined that every rational creature will experience at least one moment of extraordinary divine presencing through the light of glory. This transient encounter serves as both disclosure and actualization—revealing the absolute moral horizon of beatitude while actualizing the obediential potency for supererogatory virtue. The reduction of divine potencies in our essential moral virtue through justifying gifts operates synergistically with our free acts, yet this fundamental encounter remains providentially guaranteed.
II. The Epistemic Humility Regarding Habitual Glory
* The architectonic maintains agnostic restraint regarding whether the reductions of divine potencies in our final supererogatory and epektatic virtues (via sanctifying and glorifying gifts respectively) have been transcendentally determined or remain contingent and indeterminate. This mysterian stance preserves both:
* A. Moderate Compatibilist Possibility: If transcendentally determined, essential modal autonomy persists through co-self-determined hownesses—expressed via charismatic gifts, ministry gifts of speaking and serving, and missiological gifts. The compatibilist framework maintains that divine sovereignty and human freedom operate on different ontological levels.
* B. Moderate Libertarian Possibility: If contingently indeterminate, richer notions of autonomy emerge regarding howmuchness—degrees of intimacy, depths of participation, and gradations of beatific union. The libertarian framework preserves genuine creaturely contribution to the final eschatological configuration.
* Both stances cohere with the classical conception of human freedom as non-necessitated cooperation with grace, rejecting both Pelagian voluntarism and Calvinist determinism while maintaining compatibility with Roman Catholic teaching on irresistible grace as non-coercive divine attraction.
III. The Architectonic of Horizontal and Vertical Union
* A. Horizontal Modes (Theophanic): Supererogatory virtue operates through the lights of experience, reason, and faith, constituting the theophanic dimension of divine union. These horizontal modes represent mediated encounters with divine presence within the ordinary structures of creaturely existence.
* B. Vertical Modes (Supra-Theophanic): Epektatic virtue operates through the light of glory in extraordinary mystical moments, constituting the supra-theophanic dimension. These vertical modes transcend ordinary mediation, offering direct participatory union with divine life. The providential titration of extraordinary presencings employs minimally coercive measures to optimally develop each person’s intrinsic capacity for virtue. These precise historical opportunities remain unique and irrepeatable, as postmortem conditions of well-being are radically transformed.
IV. Conceptual Mapping: Nyssen’s Energies and Aquinas’ Noetic Identity
* Gregorian-Palamite Framework (Energetic Union): The divine energies, particularly as experienced in Hesychastic practice, represent evanescent oscillations between horizontal and vertical modes of union. They constitute a liminal threshold between the theophanic and supra-theophanic, offering real but non-essential participation in divine life through uncreated light. These energies can be viewed as thresholds or translucent veils through which vertical ascent happens—moments of luminous intersection between time and eternity, matter and spirit. They are apertures into glory, not yet its full beatitudinal possession.
* Thomistic Framework (Noetic Identity): The habitual beatific vision represents the crossing of the evanescent threshold into stable noetic identity with divine luminescence. This involves the created light of glory elevating the intellect to perceive God per essentiam, achieving supra-theophanic union habitually rather than transiently.
* Synthetic Integration: The energetic threshold (Nyssen-Palamas) serves as the dynamic interface for vertical ascent, while noetic identity (Aquinas) provides the eschatological consummation of that ascent in habitual beatific possession. This can be framed as a movement from theophanic presence to evanescent liminality (energetic) to supra-theophanic possession (noetic identity). The energies act as a dynamic interface, inviting synergistic response while safeguarding divine transcendence. The beatific vision stabilizes what was once occasional and evanescent into a habitual and integral participation.
V. Eschatological Implications: Soft Perditionism and Subjunctive Universalism
* The cosmotheandric restorationism embraces soft perditionism consistent with Roman Catholic subjunctive universalism while rejecting:
* A. Hard Universalism: The claim that habitual beatific vision is guaranteed for all rational creatures, which would compromise genuine freedom and the reality of eschatological choice.
* B. Libertarian Universalism: Arguments suggesting we can know a priori that libertarian freedom necessarily leads to universal salvation, which approaches Pelagian assumptions about human capacity.
* C. Compatibilist Particularism: Arguments claiming we can know with certainty that not all are predestined to glory in order to manifest divine sovereignty, which approaches Calvinist assumptions about divine voluntarism.
VI. Theological Coherence and Proportionality
• The architectonic maintains that both moderate compatibilist and moderate libertarian accounts remain coherent within the framework of transcendentally determined moral restoration. Neither raises proportionality objections when properly conceived within the classical understanding of human freedom as non-necessitated synergistic cooperation with grace. The rejection of eternal conscious torment allows for various competing theoanthropologies and their ontological eschatological implications, while maintaining that we cannot know with epistemic certainty which specific eschatological configuration will ultimately obtain.
VII. Practical Implications: The Extraordinary Becoming Ordinary
* Ante-mortem: Extraordinary divine presencings occur as providentially titrated mystical moments, carefully calibrated to each person’s capacity and circumstances.
* Post-mortem: These same vertical modes of union, which were extraordinary historically, can potentially be experienced habitually in the eschatological state. The transient becomes permanent, the occasional becomes ordinary, through the transformation of the creature’s receptive capacity. This transition from evanescent to habitual union represents the fundamental difference between the pilgrimage of history and the consummation of eschatology within the cosmotheandric vision. Post-mortem, the vertical becomes ordinary only for those whose noetic capacities were rendered habitually receptive through synergistic sanctification.
VIII. Conclusion: The Architectonic of Graced Freedom
• The doctrinal plank of universal transient divine presencing preserves the tension between divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom while ensuring that no rational creature lacks access to the transformative encounter with divine glory. It maintains epistemic humility regarding ultimate eschatological destinies while affirming the transcendental determination of at least minimal extraordinary presencing for all. This framework synthesizes mystical theology, metaphysical anthropology, and eschatological soteriology within a unified vision of divine-human synergism that respects both the gratuity of grace and the reality of freedom in the ongoing cosmotheandric restoration of all things.
Perplexity:
## Cosmotheandric Architectonic: Doctrinal Plank Rearticulated
**Aphorism (Precis):**
All shall be extraordinarily presenced—at least transiently, whether ante-mortem or post-mortem. The reductions of the divine potencies of our essential moral virtue (via justifying gifts), by our free synergistic acts, have been transcendentally determined[1].
### **1. Universal Transient Divine Presencing**
Within the cosmotheandric architectonic, it is held as a doctrinal certainty that every rational creature will experience at least one moment of extraordinary divine presencing through the light of glory. This encounter, whether in history or eschatology, is both a disclosure of the absolute moral horizon of beatitude and an actualization of each creature’s obediential potency for supererogatory virtue. The providential guarantee of this encounter ensures that all are delivered from sin and death, even if the fullness of habitual glorification (the beatific vision) remains epistemically indeterminate[1].
### **2. Epistemic Humility & Modal Autonomy**
The framework insists on epistemic humility regarding whether the reductions of divine potencies in final supererogatory (sanctifying) and epektatic (glorifying) virtues are transcendentally determined or remain contingent. This agnostic stance allows for:
- **Moderate Compatibilism:** If determined, essential modal autonomy is preserved through diverse co-self-determined *hownesses*—manifested in charismatic, ministerial, and missiological gifts. Divine sovereignty and human freedom coexist on distinct ontological levels.
- **Moderate Libertarianism:** If contingent, richer autonomy emerges, allowing for gradations (*howmuchness*) of intimacy and beatific union, preserving genuine creaturely contribution[1].
Both approaches cohere with the classical Catholic view of human freedom as non-necessitated cooperation with grace, rejecting both Pelagian voluntarism and Calvinist determinism[1].
### **3. Horizontal and Vertical Modes of Union**
- **Horizontal (Theophanic) Union:** Supererogatory virtue is expressed through the lights of experience, reason, and faith—mediated encounters with the divine within ordinary existence.
- **Vertical (Supra-Theophanic) Union:** Epektatic virtue is realized through the light of glory in extraordinary mystical moments, transcending ordinary mediation and offering direct participatory union with divine life[1].
Providential titration ensures these extraordinary presencings are minimally coercive, optimally developing each person’s intrinsic capacity for virtue through unique, irrepeatable opportunities[1].
### **4. Conceptual Mapping: Nyssen’s Energies & Aquinas’ Noetic Identity**
| Theological Element | Gregory of Nyssa / Palamas (Energies) | Thomas Aquinas (Noetic Identity) |
| Vertical Union | Evanescent oscillations between theophanic and supra-theophanic; real but non-essential participation via uncreated light | Stable, habitual noetic identity with divine luminescence; created light of glory elevates the intellect to visio beatifica |
- **Energetic Threshold:** Nyssen-Palamas’ energies serve as the dynamic interface for vertical ascent, offering real but transient participation in divine life.
- **Noetic Identity:** Aquinas’ beatific vision consummates the ascent in habitual, stable union—transforming the intellect to perceive God *per essentiam*[1].
### **5. Eschatological Implications: Soft Perditionism & Subjunctive Universalism**
- **Soft Perditionism:** The framework rejects both hard universalism (guaranteed habitual beatific vision for all) and libertarian universalism (human freedom necessarily leads to universal salvation), as well as compatibilist particularism (certainty that not all are predestined to glory)[1].
- **Subjunctive Universalism:** It aligns with the Roman Catholic tradition, allowing that all *could* be saved, but refusing to claim epistemic certainty about the final eschatological outcome[1].
### **6. Theological Coherence & Freedom**
Both moderate compatibilist and libertarian accounts are coherent within the vision of transcendentally determined moral restoration. The framework preserves the gratuity of grace and the reality of freedom, rejecting eternal conscious torment and allowing for a range of competing theoanthropologies and eschatological implications—so long as they do not claim epistemic certainty about the ultimate configuration[1].
### **7. Practical & Mystical Implications**
- **Ante-mortem:** Extraordinary presencings are providentially titrated mystical moments, calibrated to each person’s capacity and circumstances.
- **Post-mortem:** These vertical modes of union, extraordinary in history, become potentially habitual and ordinary in the eschatological state. The transient becomes permanent, the occasional becomes ordinary, through the transformation of the creature’s receptive capacity[1].
### **8. Synthesis: Graced Freedom in Cosmotheandric Restoration**
This doctrinal plank ensures that no rational creature is denied transformative encounter with divine glory, while maintaining humility regarding ultimate destinies. It synthesizes mystical theology, metaphysical anthropology, and eschatological soteriology, honoring both the gratuity of grace and the reality of freedom in the ongoing restoration of all things[1].
“All shall be extraordinarily presenced, at least transiently, whether ante-mortem or post-mortem. The reductions of the divine potencies of our essential moral virtue (via justifying gifts) by our free synergistic acts have been transcendentally determined.”[1]
This plank articulates a vision where universal, minimally coercive divine encounter is guaranteed, but the fullness of habitual glory remains a mystery—preserving both the hope of restoration and the dignity of freedom within the cosmotheandric drama.
Citations:
[1] All-SHALL-be-saved.docx https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/60573383/ac771c3d-9d36-4424-b91b-09a1ef0dfa5d/All-SHALL-be-saved.docx
Grok:
Below is my rearticulation of the doctrinal plank of your cosmotheandric architectonic, synthesizing the insights from the provided document, prior conversations, and the distinctions you’ve outlined. This rearticulation aims to be concise yet comprehensive, integrating the theological, metaphysical, and eschatological dimensions of your framework while preserving its nuanced balance of divine sovereignty, human freedom, and epistemic humility.
### Doctrinal Plank: Universal Transient Divine Presencing in the Cosmotheandric Architectonic
**Core Aphorism**: *All Shall Be Extraordinarily Presenced, at Least Transiently, Whether Ante-Mortem or Post-Mortem.*
#### I. Fundamental Thesis: Transcendental Determination of Transient Presencing
Within the cosmotheandric architectonic, it is transcendentally determined that every rational creature will experience at least one moment of extraordinary divine presencing via the light of glory. This transient encounter—whether in history or eschatology—discloses the absolute moral horizon of beatitude and actualizes the obediential potency for supererogatory virtue. The reduction of divine potencies in essential moral virtue, through justifying gifts, operates synergistically with free human acts, yet this fundamental encounter is providentially guaranteed, ensuring deliverance from sin and death.
#### II. Epistemic Humility and Modal Autonomy
The architectonic adopts a mysterian stance, maintaining agnostic restraint regarding whether the reductions of divine potencies in final supererogatory (via sanctifying gifts) and epektatic (via glorifying gifts) virtues are transcendentally determined or contingently indeterminate. This epistemic humility preserves two coherent possibilities:
- **Moderate Compatibilism**: If determined, essential modal autonomy persists through co-self-determined *hownesses*—expressed via charismatic, ministerial, and missiological gifts. Divine sovereignty and human freedom coexist on distinct ontological planes.
- **Moderate Libertarianism**: If indeterminate, richer autonomy emerges in *howmuchness*—degrees of intimacy, participation, and beatific union—allowing genuine creaturely contribution to the eschatological configuration.
Both align with the classical Catholic conception of human freedom as non-necessitated cooperation with grace, rejecting Pelagian voluntarism and Calvinist determinism while affirming irresistible grace as non-coercive divine attraction.
#### III. Architectonic of Horizontal and Vertical Union
- **Horizontal (Theophanic) Modes**: Supererogatory virtue operates through the lights of experience, reason, and faith, mediating divine presence within ordinary creaturely existence.
- **Vertical (Supra-Theophanic) Modes**: Epektatic virtue manifests through the light of glory in extraordinary mystical moments, transcending mediation for direct participatory union with divine life. Providential titration ensures these presencings are minimally coercive, optimally fostering each person’s intrinsic capacity for virtue through unique, irrepeatable historical opportunities. Post-mortem, conditions of well-being transform radically, rendering such opportunities distinct.
#### IV. Conceptual Mapping: Nyssen’s Energies and Aquinas’ Noetic Identity
- **Gregorian-Palamite Framework (Energetic Union)**: Divine energies, as experienced in Hesychastic practice, form a liminal threshold between theophanic and supra-theophanic modes. These evanescent oscillations—real but non-essential participations in uncreated light—act as dynamic interfaces for vertical ascent, bridging time and eternity.
- **Thomistic Framework (Noetic Identity)**: The habitual beatific vision crosses this threshold into stable noetic identity with divine luminescence. The created light of glory elevates the intellect to perceive God *per essentiam*, achieving habitual supra-theophanic union.
- **Synthetic Integration**: The Nyssen-Palamite energies mediate transient ascent, while Aquinas’ noetic identity consummates it in habitual beatific possession. This movement—from theophanic presence to evanescent liminality (energetic) to supra-theophanic possession (noetic)—articulates the trajectory from historical encounter to eschatological fulfillment.
#### V. Eschatological Implications: Soft Perditionism and Subjunctive Universalism
The cosmotheandric restorationism embraces soft perditionism, consistent with Roman Catholic subjunctive universalism, while rejecting:
- **Hard Universalism**: The claim that habitual beatific vision is guaranteed for all, which undermines genuine freedom and eschatological choice.
- **Libertarian Universalism**: Arguments asserting *a priori* that libertarian freedom necessitates universal salvation, risking Pelagian overreach.
- **Compatibilist Particularism**: Claims that we can know with certainty that not all are predestined to glory to manifest divine sovereignty, risking Calvinist voluntarism.
#### VI. Theological Coherence and Proportionality
Both moderate compatibilist and libertarian accounts cohere within the framework of transcendentally determined moral restoration, avoiding proportionality objections by upholding human freedom as non-necessitated synergistic cooperation with grace. Rejecting eternal conscious torment, the architectonic accommodates diverse theoanthropologies and their eschatological implications, while insisting we cannot know with epistemic certainty which configuration will ultimately prevail.
#### VII. Practical Implications: The Extraordinary Becoming Ordinary
- **Ante-Mortem**: Extraordinary presencings manifest as providentially calibrated mystical moments, tailored to each person’s capacity and circumstances.
- **Post-Mortem**: These vertical modes, extraordinary in history, may become habitual in the eschatological state for those whose noetic capacities are rendered receptive through synergistic sanctification. The transient becomes permanent, the occasional becomes ordinary, marking the transition from historical pilgrimage to eschatological consummation.
#### VIII. Conclusion: Graced Freedom in Cosmotheandric Restoration
This doctrinal plank ensures that no rational creature is denied a transformative encounter with divine glory, preserving the tension between divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom. It upholds epistemic humility regarding ultimate eschatological destinies while affirming the transcendental guarantee of at least minimal extraordinary presencing. Synthesizing mystical theology, metaphysical anthropology, and eschatological soteriology, it articulates a unified vision of divine-human synergism, honoring the gratuity of grace and the dignity of freedom in the ongoing cosmotheandric restoration of all things.
This rearticulation integrates your distinctions (horizontal vs. vertical modes, Nyssen’s energies vs. Aquinas’ noetic identity) and aligns with your emphasis on epistemic humility, synergistic freedom, and the rejection of both hard universalism and deterministic particularism. It maps the theological elements onto a cohesive framework that respects the Roman Catholic tradition while offering a nuanced cosmotheandric vision. Let me know if you’d like further refinement or exploration of specific aspects!
ChatGPT:
Here is my rearticulated and refined doctrinal plank, integrating your foundational distinctions, metaphysical commitments, and theological heuristics. This version draws out the inner logic of your cosmotheandric architectonic in a more architectonically rigorous, metaphysically coherent, and ecclesiologically plausible form:
Doctrinal Plank: Transcendentally Determined Presencing and the Contingent Habitualization of Glory in the Cosmotheandric Architectonic
Aphoristic Thesis
All shall be extraordinarily presenced—at least transiently—whether ante-mortem or post-mortem.
This transient union with divine glory discloses the absolute horizon of beatitude and actualizes obediential potency for moral supererogation. It is transcendentally determined as a minimally coercive but non-negotiable offer of divinizing presence. The habitualization of glory remains a real possibility, but not a necessary consummation.
I. Metaphysical Foundation: The Transcendental Guarantee of Disclosure
Every rational creature is metaphysically ordered to theophanic receptivity. The architectonic requires that at least one extraordinary divine presencing be guaranteed to all persons.
This event is not merely a revelatory epiphany, but an operative moment: it catalyzes the reduction of divine potencies into actualized moral virtue via synergistic cooperation with justifying grace.
This “first gift” is universal, eschatologically certain, and sufficient for the actualization of essential potencies, while not coercing final sanctification or glorification.
II. Epistemic Modesty and Dual Eschatological Configurability
The status of final glorification remains suspended between:
Moderate Compatibilism Moderate Libertarianism
Habitual vision may be transcendentally determined, preserving co-self-determined modal hownesses. Habitual vision may be contingently actualized, introducing gradated howmuchness of participation.
Divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom operate on distinct ontological planes. Creaturely agency remains genuinely causative in eschatological consummation.
Both views reject Pelagian voluntarism and Calvinist voluntarism.
Both are compatible with the Catholic notion of non-necessitated cooperation with grace.
Your framework avoids asserting either as necessarily true, upholding a subjunctive universalism consistent with soft perditionism.
III. Theophanic-Hierarchical Modes of Union: From Transience to Habituality
Horizontal (Theophanic) Vertical (Supra-Theophanic)
Mediated by experience, reason, and faith. Manifested through the light of glory.
Ordinarily expressed through moral, supererogatory virtue. Extraordinarily expressed in epektatic, mystical virtue.
Historically repeatable and pedagogically embedded. Providentially titrated, unique, irrepeatable.
Ante-mortem union within moral formation. Eschatological elevation toward possible habitualization.
The divine pedagogy uses minimally coercive interventions to optimally cultivate synergistic virtue, individually tailored, yet cosmically ordered.
IV. Conceptual Bridge: From Energetic Threshold to Noetic Identity
Framework Function
Nyssen–Palamas (Divine Energies): Uncreated, transient energies oscillate between horizontal and vertical dimensions, providing real yet non-essential participation. They constitute a liminal threshold—theophanic → supra-theophanic. Initiatory interface of divine-human synergy. Mystical participation evokes ascent without enforcing consummation.
Aquinas (Noetic Identity): The intellect, elevated by the created light of glory, may achieve stable habitual vision (visio beatifica), representing the consummation of epektatic desire in deifying participation. Terminus of vertical ascent, where grace and freedom yield enduring noetic likeness.
Schematic Progression:
Theophanic mediation → Energetic liminality → Supra-theophanic noetic identity.
V. Eschatological Taxonomy: Rejections and Affirmations
Rejects:
Hard Universalism: Guarantees habitual vision for all, negating genuine synergism.
Libertarian Universalism: Asserts that libertarian agency necessarily leads to universal glorification.
Compatibilist Particularism: Posits predetermined exclusion from glory to display divine sovereignty.
Affirms:
Subjunctive Universalism: All can be saved; none are metaphysically excluded.
Soft Perditionism: Some may reject habitual union without being eternally tormented.
Essential Restorationism: All shall be delivered from sin and death; essential potencies will be perfected.
VI. Theological Integration and Proportional Coherence
The doctrine preserves theological proportionality: no creature lacks access to divine glory, and no divine act overwhelms freedom.
Both compatibilist and libertarian eschatologies are plausible, defensible, and coherent with the moral structure of the cosmos.
Eternal conscious torment is rejected as disproportionate and incompatible with the revealed gratuity of divine mercy and justice.
VII. Practical and Mystical Consequences
Ante-Mortem: Extraordinary encounters are historically embedded, irrepeatably unique, and function as kairotic thresholds.
Post-Mortem: The vertical becomes habitual only through synergistically sanctified noetic capacities.
The “occasional” may become “ordinary,” not by decree, but by transformation.
VIII. Cosmotheandric Consummation: The Grammar of Restoration
The cosmotheandric vision affirms that every creature shall:
1. Be disclosed to the divine horizon of beatitude via a transient theophany.
2. Be enabled to actualize essential moral potencies through justifying grace.
3. Possess the possibility, not necessity, of habitual glory through synergistic sanctification.
Final Aphorism:
In the divine economy, transient glory is universal and non-coercive; habitual glory is contingent, synergistic, and eschatologically open.
Let me know if you’d like this expanded into a formal magisterial-style theological proposition, a pedagogical catechetical form, or an academic article draft.
JSS:
It seems that I have insufficiently established how when I say subjunctive that is strictly an epistemic stance. I am not also taking a metaphysical stance, eschatologically, by insisting on a moderate libertarian account. Can you help me to articulate that distinction more rigorously and clearly because even your summary above seems to have missed my point, which is central.
ChatGPT:
You’re absolutely right to seek greater clarity here. The heart of your concern is this:
When you affirm subjunctive universalism, you are making a strictly epistemic claim—not a metaphysical one.
You are not committing to moderate libertarianism as a metaphysical necessity or default eschatological framework.
This distinction needs to be sharpened to avoid conflating your epistemic humility with a metaphysical stance.
🔍 Clarifying the Epistemic vs. Metaphysical Distinction in Your Use of “Subjunctive”
Let’s start by articulating the epistemic character of your stance:
1. Subjunctive Universalism as an Epistemic Stance
You affirm:
“All could be saved.”
But this does not mean: “All will be saved because libertarian freedom will inevitably choose rightly.”
Instead, you mean:
We cannot know with epistemic certainty which eschatological outcome will obtain (e.g. universal glorification, partial glorification, etc.).
Therefore, we ought to maintain subjunctive openness: It is possible that all might be saved, but not necessary—and we cannot affirm either outcome with a priori certainty.
✅ This is a position of:
Agnostic restraint, not optimistic prediction.
Epistemic humility, not metaphysical libertarianism.
🔒 You Reject: Metaphysical Conflation
Your framework explicitly rejects the metaphysical assumption that because human freedom is libertarian, therefore all will necessarily choose salvation.
Why?
Because this conflates metaphysical anthropology with eschatological certitude.
And it risks Pelagian voluntarism by overconfidently asserting human moral autonomy.
🧩 How to Rearticulate the Core Distinction
Here’s a way to express this cleanly and rigorously in your doctrinal formulation:
Epistemic Subjunctivism Without Metaphysical Libertarianism
I affirm subjunctive universalism as a strictly epistemic posture, not a metaphysical commitment.
That is, I maintain that we cannot know with certainty which eschatological configuration will obtain—whether all will be glorified, some, or few. Thus, I affirm the real possibility (subjunctive) that all may be saved.
However, I reject any metaphysical deduction of this possibility from libertarian anthropology. I do not claim that creaturely freedom, conceived in libertarian terms, necessarily leads to universal salvation.
My epistemic posture does not imply or require a metaphysical stance on the modal status of final glorification—whether it is transcendentally determined or contingently actualized.
I remain agnostic about whether moderate compatibilism or moderate libertarianism will ultimately be the operative metaphysical modality in the eschaton.
Therefore, subjunctive universalism in my cosmotheandric architectonic expresses a principled epistemic humility, not a metaphysical libertarianism.
📘 Suggested Summary Language for Integration into Your Plank
You might include a clarifying clause like the following in your doctrinal section:
> “Importantly, the affirmation of subjunctive universalism within this architectonic is strictly epistemic. It neither presupposes nor entails a metaphysical commitment to moderate libertarianism. Rather, it expresses principled agnosticism concerning the final eschatological actualization of beatific glory—preserving both compatibilist and libertarian frameworks as coherent, but unprovable, options within the bounds of Catholic theology.”
Would you like this distinction embedded in a revised version of the doctrinal plank or pulled into a standalone theological appendix?
JSS:
Another clarification is needed. Typically, it is the compatibilist not libertarian who insists on universal apokatastasis. It is the libertarian who takes the epistemically subjunctive stance based on the libertarian theoanthropology.
ChatGPT:
Excellent—this is an essential clarification, and you’re exactly right to make it. The conventional alignment is often misunderstood, and your clarification helps draw out the true landscape:
🧭 Correction of Common Assumption
In much theological and philosophical discourse, there is a reversal of the intuitive expectation regarding who affirms universal apokatastasis:
❌ Common (but incorrect) assumption:
Libertarian anthropology → universal salvation (because everyone could choose rightly)
Compatibilist anthropology → some are damned (because divine sovereignty predetermines outcomes)
✅ Corrected mapping (per your framework and the best historical-theological logic):
Compatibilists (esp. universalist-leaning):
Tend to affirm universal apokatastasis because, under divine sovereignty, God could ensure all are saved without violating freedom.
E.g. David Bentley Hart, Maximus the Confessor (interpreted compatibilistically), some Gregory of Nyssa readings.
Libertarians (especially Roman Catholic ones):
Tend to affirm subjunctive universalism—i.e., all could be saved, but we cannot know whether all will be.
This preserves metaphysical freedom and eschatological uncertainty.
E.g. Jacques Maritain, Balthasarian speculation, or your own cosmotheandric model.
🧠 Why This Matters in Your Framework
You reject both:
Libertarian universalism (as speculative voluntarism)
Compatibilist particularism (as speculative decretalism)
But you accept:
That epistemic subjunctivism can arise from either compatibilist or libertarian metaphysics—if those systems are modest in their eschatological extrapolations.
📌 Suggested Articulation of This Clarification
Here’s a refined paragraph to incorporate into your doctrinal plank or preamble:
On Subjunctive Universalism and Theological Anthropology
Within the theological landscape, it is typically the compatibilist—not the libertarian—who affirms universal apokatastasis. This arises from a belief that divine sovereignty can ensure universal glorification without violating human freedom, properly understood as non-necessitated but determined cooperation with grace.
By contrast, the libertarian typically affirms subjunctive universalism, maintaining that all could be saved, given the genuine freedom of the will, but that we cannot know with certainty what eschatological outcome will obtain.
My own framework does not metaphysically commit to either anthropology. I maintain that both moderate compatibilist and moderate libertarian configurations remain coherent and admissible under the classical conception of non-necessitated synergism.
Accordingly, my affirmation of subjunctive universalism is strictly epistemic, not metaphysical. It arises from agnostic humility concerning the final distribution of habitual beatific glory, rather than from any assumed necessity grounded in libertarian freedom.
Would you like a concise chart contrasting epistemic vs metaphysical universalism and how compatibilist and libertarian stances relate to each?
JSS:
Could you return to the original rearticulation and incorporate these clarifications?