The Full Maximian Apokatastases Monty: immortality, theotic realization & apokatastenai

Setting aside competing compatabilist – libertarianist interpretations and how soft or hard one’s theo-determinism may be, and just stipulating, for argument’s sake, to this putative post-mortem eschatology in the most robustly libertarian sense available, i.e. w/a soft determinism —

What might it entail to properly go the Full Maximian Apokatastases Monty?

We’d affirm 3 apokatastases: that of immortality, that of theotic realization, & that of apokatastenai (cf both Maritain & Maximus in Questiones et Dubia 13, PG 90:796AC as translated by HuvB in Dare We Hope, Ignatius Press, 2nd Ed, 2014).

At least in my case, that 3rd apokatastasis maps – not facilely, is my hope – to our original beatitude, which includes our erotic love of God for sake of self & imperfect contrition (or attrition). It corresponds also to my distinction of it being a mediated not immediate presence. It further entails that a wholly synergistic movement (free assent) remains necessary to realize further degrees of theotic realization.

It may beg the question of – if that indeed constituted our original sub-eschatological state, then, why not, from the cosmic get-go, limit our freedom to choices between good courses of action & objects of similar moral worth?

That’s to ask: What was there to be gained by not creating rational creatures that enjoyed impeccability, especially if they could still pursue theotic realization post-mortem?

To defend this take, logically, one could retreat into a theo-skepticism, here, with a mysterian appeal to an undefined but putative greater good.

To make it more plausible, evidentially, I think we’d need to develop a theoanthropo- response that includes
an ever-expanding breadth of theophanic expression,

an ever-increasing range of divine intimacies and

an infinite scope of eternal beatitudes in terms of both kinds & degrees.

This would all imply a divine balancing act that’s eternally ordered toward the optimization of humankind’s overall breadths of theophanic expression, co – self – determined ranges of intimacy & scope of participation in divine relative perfections.

This is all to suggest that, to the extent Maximus lends himself to alternate, relatively defensible interpretations, the most defensible Maximian interpretation, as we try to maintain the internal coherence & logical consistency of his entire ouvré, would not define apokatastenai in either limboic terms or as everlasting ill-being or including a theotic foreclosure.

This is how I aspire to situate my own Indicative Universal Sanctification & Subjunctive Universal Intimacization and what I mean when I describe my Putative Minimalist Universalism in Why Beatific Contingency is an Oxymoron – about our divine indwelling.

It does seem to me that, at least, libertarian + logoi = predestination-lite w/a soft (but hard enough) determinism? And that, per some open takes, God eternally knows what might or mightn’t happen, just not specifics. He risks – never the that, but – only the how of our ends? That’s cool.

My determinism’s much harder. I need it for the Immaculate Conception, infused contemplation, divine predilection, etc Per my quasi-open takes, God eternally knows – not only what might or mightn’t happen, just not specifics, especially vis a vis our autonomous soul-crafting choices among realities of similar moral worth & equally good courses of action, but – what would or wouldn’t happen, generally, especially regarding our free choices between real & apparent goods and how we would infallibly follow our free natural inclinations given any specific manner & degree of divine presencing. In all cases, He risks – never the that, but – only the hows of our ends?


I would acknowledge that such extraordinary modes of divine movement or sending of grace do, indeed, reduce – but do not cancel – a given person’s autonomy. However, those extraordinary modes are in no way repugnant to anyone’s essential freedom.

Any sacrifices of a given individual’s autonomy are, therefore, part of a divine balancing act that’s otherwise eternally ordered toward the divine maximization of humankind’s overall autonomy as ordered toward intimacy. Those sacrifices thereby serve to optimize the breadths of humankind’s theophanic expression, the ranges of our co – self – determined divine intimacy & the scope of our participations in divine relative perfections.