In pointing out that creation is Incarnation, we are going far beyond the notion of Incarnation as a contingent, historical event meant to unite (or re-unite) human and divine natures in order to save mankind from death and eternal damnation. The Incarnation revealed to man who he and God is, which man had simply forgotten. Man, like Chr…
In pointing out that creation is Incarnation, we are going far beyond the notion of Incarnation as a contingent, historical event meant to unite (or re-unite) human and divine natures in order to save mankind from death and eternal damnation. The Incarnation revealed to man who he and God is, which man had simply forgotten. Man, like Christ, is both divine and human, uncreated and created, infinite and finite. Creation ex Deus demands no less, and this is what the Incarnation reveals.
Man cannot become something other than what he is by nature (at least in potential). A tree cannot become a frog. But man does have the capacity and choice as a created, finite, human being to actualize his uncreated, infinite, divine potential. Yet this transformation from the image of God as potential to likeness with Christ requires our free cooperation with the divine energies of God. In doing so, man retains his “particularity and uniqueness,” and like Christ, his human nature is not swallowed up by his inherent potential for or actualization of divinity. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example, not the exception.
Creation is the unity of multiplicity - the multitudinous manifestation, expression, and life of the One God. The Christic Creation is the transcendent, unmanifest Father made immanently manifest by the power and energies of the Holy Spirit. The essence of God is actualized by the divine energies, and there is no real (ontological) distinction between the two. Union with God is essential. Actualization of that nature (i.e., theosis) is our choice.
I again find myself agreeing with most of this, if not all (understood a certain way). This is where I think the doctrine of the logoi as the uncreated thought-wills of God might help. The logos of each thing is of course uncreated, and the eschatological actualization of each thing occurs by conformity to its logos. And of course, the logoi are all ultimately one Logos. But particular entities are nonetheless brought into being, and in that sense are not identical to God.
This is indeed a helpful point you make. I think I see where I need to be more clear.
Creation is the multitudinous actualization of distinct logoi of the One Logos. God is Existence itself. Creation is made up of existents, contingent upon God for their very being and life. An individual existent (e.g., a tree, a frog, or you or me) is substantially one with God, yet we are also not God - our very existence as a finite, created, existent is contingent.
A wave is not the ocean, but a wave is nothing other than the One water that all waves are, and each of the unique, multitudinous waves is an instantiation (or actualization) of the One ocean waving.
This is much closer to how I was thinking about it (though I'm still not entirely sure if I am able to digest the last sentence), so thanks for this formulation. I don't have much more to add to this conversation at the moment, but you've given me a lot to reflect on. As always, great conversation. Hope to talk to you again soon, friend.
In pointing out that creation is Incarnation, we are going far beyond the notion of Incarnation as a contingent, historical event meant to unite (or re-unite) human and divine natures in order to save mankind from death and eternal damnation. The Incarnation revealed to man who he and God is, which man had simply forgotten. Man, like Christ, is both divine and human, uncreated and created, infinite and finite. Creation ex Deus demands no less, and this is what the Incarnation reveals.
Man cannot become something other than what he is by nature (at least in potential). A tree cannot become a frog. But man does have the capacity and choice as a created, finite, human being to actualize his uncreated, infinite, divine potential. Yet this transformation from the image of God as potential to likeness with Christ requires our free cooperation with the divine energies of God. In doing so, man retains his “particularity and uniqueness,” and like Christ, his human nature is not swallowed up by his inherent potential for or actualization of divinity. Jesus Christ is the ultimate example, not the exception.
Creation is the unity of multiplicity - the multitudinous manifestation, expression, and life of the One God. The Christic Creation is the transcendent, unmanifest Father made immanently manifest by the power and energies of the Holy Spirit. The essence of God is actualized by the divine energies, and there is no real (ontological) distinction between the two. Union with God is essential. Actualization of that nature (i.e., theosis) is our choice.
I again find myself agreeing with most of this, if not all (understood a certain way). This is where I think the doctrine of the logoi as the uncreated thought-wills of God might help. The logos of each thing is of course uncreated, and the eschatological actualization of each thing occurs by conformity to its logos. And of course, the logoi are all ultimately one Logos. But particular entities are nonetheless brought into being, and in that sense are not identical to God.
This is indeed a helpful point you make. I think I see where I need to be more clear.
Creation is the multitudinous actualization of distinct logoi of the One Logos. God is Existence itself. Creation is made up of existents, contingent upon God for their very being and life. An individual existent (e.g., a tree, a frog, or you or me) is substantially one with God, yet we are also not God - our very existence as a finite, created, existent is contingent.
A wave is not the ocean, but a wave is nothing other than the One water that all waves are, and each of the unique, multitudinous waves is an instantiation (or actualization) of the One ocean waving.
This is much closer to how I was thinking about it (though I'm still not entirely sure if I am able to digest the last sentence), so thanks for this formulation. I don't have much more to add to this conversation at the moment, but you've given me a lot to reflect on. As always, great conversation. Hope to talk to you again soon, friend.
Thank you, Johnathon. I appreciate your articles and the insightful conversations they generate.
I likewise appreciate your comments; I always understand my own thoughts better after engaging with you.