Death! Where is Thy Victory? Thy Sting? Thy Origin?
competing proto-eschatologies
re competing proto-eschatologies
If one stipulates to Fr Behr’s take as the most coherent vis a vis all the implications that would follow, incl the nature of free will, the nature of God as defended in theodicies, etc, it would seem to follow, proto-eschatologically, that
1) Origen got it right?
2) Behr gets Origen right?
3) Many get Origen wrong?
4) DBH gets Behr & Origen right?
5) Maximus got Origen right?
6) JDW gets Maximus right?
7) Bulgakov got Origen & Maximus right?
8) The Christology that’s implicated needn’t be considered a violent ontology, which reconciles being & nonbeing, e.g. death has nothing to do with nonbeing & everything to do with true being?
9) Creation as Incarnation, rather, is a harmonizing ontology, which relates Absolute & relative perfections. It’s personal ex-nihilating dynamic would generate opposites as mutually constituted I – Thous. Its natural ex Deo dynamic would emanate the divine potencies, incl the essential, volitional & final, of all human acts, incl the existential, efficient (free), formal (theotic) & eternal (epectatic)?
10) The Cosmotheandric account would be intrinsically dynamical, speaking to divine gratuities of both created being & graced becoming, where being refers, participatorily, to natures & logoi, and becoming refers, perichoretically, to persons & tropoi?
11) If we introduce an aspect of divine willing that’s meta-historically “anticipatorily concessive” into the context of the Maximian good, dispensatory & concessive wills, the latter categories would refer to a distinction without a difference, e.g. death would then be a primordially dispensatory means?
12) Death would have roles in divine pedagogy & personal kenosis?
13) While Fr Behr might inquire of JDW – “what work is done by natures in your account?” and DBH might inquire of the Neo-Chalcedonians – “what happened to the analogia?” – it’s not like the natures & analogia & being went away, either conceptually or systematically, it’s just that the logics of persons & grace & becoming have so much to add? And are way more interesting because that’s where all the actus is!
14) A robustly Christogonic Cosmotheandrism needn’t implicate a theo-repugnant theogony nor ignore any analogical interval. The Neo-Chalcedonians are just saying more than DBH & nothing terribly different.
15) This whole conversation reminds me of Aurobindo’s Vedantic Integral Advaita.
In my view, per manifestation-talk:
It’s not that we’ll enjoy onto-equality with the Trinity’s nondeterminate nature, which we’ll only ever “signify.”
It’s just that such an equality with God is truly nothing to be grasped after, even by Jesus!
It’s the Son’s self-determined nature (humanized divinity) that we (divinized humanity) will progressively “exemplify,” together with Him, as that immanent universal-like Totus Christus.
Through Him, With Him & In Him, we’ll thereby enjoy, with the Trinity, the identical
perichoretic communal delights they’ve shared eternally!
Related: