the phrase - Theology of Ascent - is a redundancy

my universalist journey

It's remains very, very difficult for me to descriptively & historically sort out various eschatologies, whether of Origen, Nyssen, Maximus, Medieval Scholastics, Reformers, Maritain, Balthasar, Jordan Daniel Wood, David Bentley Hart or anyone else.

I sure could use a spreadsheet of the types & modes of restoration &/or apocatastasis each addresses:

1) who: for some or all?
2) what: of tropoi &/or logoi ?
3) when: proleptic &/or eschatological?
4) where: to original or secondary beatitude or none?
5) how: per ascent or passive?
6) why: accounts of divine mercy & human freedom?

What's getting easier for me over time, though, is for me to articulate normatively what I already implicitly believe, myself, based on my most deeply felt aesthetic sensibilities & moral intuitions, grounded "only" in my quotidian experiences of being a Daddy and my liturgical experiences of how Jesus related to His Daddy.

As to how coherent my stance might be theologically or anthropologically, I'm still not yet armed with much more than my reductiones ad absurdum.

Still, I'm inchoately beginning to grasp the coherence of ideas like:

eschatology = protology,

game theoretic dismissals of antecedent - consequent will distinctions,

the nature of authentic freedom,

mutually constituted particulars & social absolutes,

beauty judging us,

creation as incarnation, etc

mostly from sources like DBH & JDW.

So far, though, from what I've gathered, whether talking incarnationally, cosmologically, anthropologically, liturgically, sacramentally, ascetically, mystagogically, soteriologically, sophiologically, ecclesiologically or eschatologically, the phrase "Theology of ASCENT" is a redundancy.