Really great read! I love to see the Mystery get some air-time, especially with human freedom as a point of focus! The idea of fate/destiny/lifecourses as eternally realized also strikes a chord. By the way, did you know Danish citizens all have that Jelling-Jesus on our passports? There's actually quite a lot of fun/spacy syncretistic stuff going on in late-viking age Scandinavian Jesus-imagery and mythology of gods like Odin or Thor!
So leaving Vespers now and I think you might think that I missed the whole point of your article being that in the Incarnation which for us took place at a certain time in history, but in reality was and is the beginning and the end as it was as well as everything to do with Christ, is our being and becoming. So sort of as an acorn is always going to grow into an Oak tree no matter what it does it was made to be an Oak tree so too we being made in the Image and Likeness of God that is our destiny……
Hi Noah, thank you for this series, it's certainly thought provoking (not that I understood it all)! I'm curious, how would you respond to the claim that universalism has been condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council, or at the very least, represents a minority position within Orthodox tradition? If we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, how has the Church gotten this wrong for so long? In Christ!
Thanks for commenting! I do not believe Universalism as such was condemned by the 5th Council, rather the condemnation (of a specific kind of Universalism) was added to the texts of the Council afterwards and mistakenly given conciliar authority ever since. And if we understand tradition as a continual reception of the past engaging and synthesizing with the future, then we have to believe the Councils are only authoritative in their continual reinterpretation (e.g., development on hypostasis and the holy spirit from Nicaea to Constantinople 1 and beyond) and that historical mistakes are not binding when discovered.
As for Universalism being a minority position, theology and tradition are never actually based on consensus. Theology engages with tradition as a milieu of dialogue in which continuity is important in forming identity but truth itself is always the goal, and so is found through previous tradition and in reinterpretation of tradition. Again to the history of the Councils, Nicene metaphysics was not held in its entirety by anyone prior to the constructon of it within the Nicene-Arian controversy, and the majority of 1st-3rd century Christians were ontological subordinationists of one kind or another. Putting aside the issue of political power, the reason Nicaea triumphed was that when God was understood as the transcendent uncreated (developing up to the 4th century) the Nicene view articulated a greater conception of the truth of deification (man becoming God through God becoming man), than was possible with earlier models in which divinity was more understood as on a continuum with creation and so allowing a lesser mediator (the Great Angel, bridging Logos, etc). If minority positions were not acceptable then the Church would never have become Nicene.
I would recommend David Bentley Hart's book "Tradition and Apocalypse" for an understanding of tradition that is capable of dealing with the facts of history's breaks and links, because a conception of tradition in which the "majority" view is always right just does not hold up to scrutiny (remember, St. Gregory of Nyssa's condemnation of slavery was a minority position up until the enlightenment).
Thank you for this Part Three Noah! I will be rereading and rereading !! 😊 I think way over my head with the language and the metaphysics but let me sort of try to say what I sort of thought you were saying and you can correct me. Because Christ is One in Essence and Undivided with the Father and the Holy Spirit and because all that is and ever will be is created by Him, in whom mankind and God are reconciled and made One, we - all of humanity, are One begotten and created but in Christ still One with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So for example as I myself first think of something then do it my thoughts and actions are separate from me and yet not separate from me. Each of us existed first as a thought in the mind of God and could only come into being from non- existence thru Christ so while we have free will and are limited by time we are sort of already eternally existing in Christ One with God…? Awesome that I am reading this and pondering all this at the Mid Feast between Pascha and Pentecost when our Troparion for the Divine Liturgy reads, “ In the middle of the feast, O Saviour ‘ fill mentoring soul with the water of godliness’ as Thou didn’t cry out to all, “ If anyone thirst; let him come to me and drink “ O Christ God, fountain of our life Glory to Thee.” Father Basil’s homily talked about how the Church redeems time and how we thirsting in this waterless, impassable land can come to Him
Looking forward to your supplement to this essay, following DBH's Stanton Lectures. After listening to these, I've come to the conclusion that I side with DJWood and others such as John Zizioulas, who insist upon the absolute primacy of divine (and human) Personhood. DBH poo-hoos this approach as so much affective hyperbole, but something of the same, it seems to me, could be alleged about DBH's and Bulgakov's insistence on divine 'nature' as somehow more transcendentally fundamental than Trinitarian or human transcendenal subjectivity. I look forward to your upcoming articles. Great work you are doing!!
Thank you for this praise. I appreciate it and hope my future work does not disappoint :D
To your conclusions on the disagreement between DBH and JDW, I think your sentiment is probably a common one, namely that both sides are appealing to a conceptual tertium quid to justify divine and created unity. I do not agree, firstly, because DBH is not arguing for a concept or something that is neither/nor and so can be either or, he is instead arguing that person/hypostasis is the subsistence and actualization of nature which is fundament and all that is actualizable, and therefore, nature is the ground of personhood just as much as person is its actualization. I think this is a proper metaphysics of person/nature as one reality with two mutually defining "moments," and that its the only coherent way to speak of being in general and the union of divine-human in Christ in particular (as properly a divine and human person, rather than a personhood ontologically indifferent to divinity and humanity).
Secondly, I disagree because I dont think that DBH's logic makes transcendental subjectivity less fundamental than divine-humanity. In writing the above article I was referencing his essay "Masks, Chimaeras and Portmanteaux" (which he quotes verbatim in the lectures) and his ultimate conclusion was that Bulgakov's theology leads to an affirmation that the ground and content of all being is the Person of Christ, the I Am. I dont see this as contradicting JDW's argument that the logoi are all the Person of the Logos, i simply think DBH is more metaphysically sound in making the metaphysics of person include and be one with the metaphysics of nature.
So those are my current thoughts. I greatly appreciate JDW's work of course, and I really hope he responds in-depth to DBH's lectures. The more dialogue the better.
Really great read! I love to see the Mystery get some air-time, especially with human freedom as a point of focus! The idea of fate/destiny/lifecourses as eternally realized also strikes a chord. By the way, did you know Danish citizens all have that Jelling-Jesus on our passports? There's actually quite a lot of fun/spacy syncretistic stuff going on in late-viking age Scandinavian Jesus-imagery and mythology of gods like Odin or Thor!
So leaving Vespers now and I think you might think that I missed the whole point of your article being that in the Incarnation which for us took place at a certain time in history, but in reality was and is the beginning and the end as it was as well as everything to do with Christ, is our being and becoming. So sort of as an acorn is always going to grow into an Oak tree no matter what it does it was made to be an Oak tree so too we being made in the Image and Likeness of God that is our destiny……
Hi Noah, thank you for this series, it's certainly thought provoking (not that I understood it all)! I'm curious, how would you respond to the claim that universalism has been condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council, or at the very least, represents a minority position within Orthodox tradition? If we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, how has the Church gotten this wrong for so long? In Christ!
Thanks for commenting! I do not believe Universalism as such was condemned by the 5th Council, rather the condemnation (of a specific kind of Universalism) was added to the texts of the Council afterwards and mistakenly given conciliar authority ever since. And if we understand tradition as a continual reception of the past engaging and synthesizing with the future, then we have to believe the Councils are only authoritative in their continual reinterpretation (e.g., development on hypostasis and the holy spirit from Nicaea to Constantinople 1 and beyond) and that historical mistakes are not binding when discovered.
As for Universalism being a minority position, theology and tradition are never actually based on consensus. Theology engages with tradition as a milieu of dialogue in which continuity is important in forming identity but truth itself is always the goal, and so is found through previous tradition and in reinterpretation of tradition. Again to the history of the Councils, Nicene metaphysics was not held in its entirety by anyone prior to the constructon of it within the Nicene-Arian controversy, and the majority of 1st-3rd century Christians were ontological subordinationists of one kind or another. Putting aside the issue of political power, the reason Nicaea triumphed was that when God was understood as the transcendent uncreated (developing up to the 4th century) the Nicene view articulated a greater conception of the truth of deification (man becoming God through God becoming man), than was possible with earlier models in which divinity was more understood as on a continuum with creation and so allowing a lesser mediator (the Great Angel, bridging Logos, etc). If minority positions were not acceptable then the Church would never have become Nicene.
I would recommend David Bentley Hart's book "Tradition and Apocalypse" for an understanding of tradition that is capable of dealing with the facts of history's breaks and links, because a conception of tradition in which the "majority" view is always right just does not hold up to scrutiny (remember, St. Gregory of Nyssa's condemnation of slavery was a minority position up until the enlightenment).
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed reply, much to chew on 😅 God bless!
Thank you for this Part Three Noah! I will be rereading and rereading !! 😊 I think way over my head with the language and the metaphysics but let me sort of try to say what I sort of thought you were saying and you can correct me. Because Christ is One in Essence and Undivided with the Father and the Holy Spirit and because all that is and ever will be is created by Him, in whom mankind and God are reconciled and made One, we - all of humanity, are One begotten and created but in Christ still One with the Father and the Holy Spirit. So for example as I myself first think of something then do it my thoughts and actions are separate from me and yet not separate from me. Each of us existed first as a thought in the mind of God and could only come into being from non- existence thru Christ so while we have free will and are limited by time we are sort of already eternally existing in Christ One with God…? Awesome that I am reading this and pondering all this at the Mid Feast between Pascha and Pentecost when our Troparion for the Divine Liturgy reads, “ In the middle of the feast, O Saviour ‘ fill mentoring soul with the water of godliness’ as Thou didn’t cry out to all, “ If anyone thirst; let him come to me and drink “ O Christ God, fountain of our life Glory to Thee.” Father Basil’s homily talked about how the Church redeems time and how we thirsting in this waterless, impassable land can come to Him
Looking forward to your supplement to this essay, following DBH's Stanton Lectures. After listening to these, I've come to the conclusion that I side with DJWood and others such as John Zizioulas, who insist upon the absolute primacy of divine (and human) Personhood. DBH poo-hoos this approach as so much affective hyperbole, but something of the same, it seems to me, could be alleged about DBH's and Bulgakov's insistence on divine 'nature' as somehow more transcendentally fundamental than Trinitarian or human transcendenal subjectivity. I look forward to your upcoming articles. Great work you are doing!!
Thank you for this praise. I appreciate it and hope my future work does not disappoint :D
To your conclusions on the disagreement between DBH and JDW, I think your sentiment is probably a common one, namely that both sides are appealing to a conceptual tertium quid to justify divine and created unity. I do not agree, firstly, because DBH is not arguing for a concept or something that is neither/nor and so can be either or, he is instead arguing that person/hypostasis is the subsistence and actualization of nature which is fundament and all that is actualizable, and therefore, nature is the ground of personhood just as much as person is its actualization. I think this is a proper metaphysics of person/nature as one reality with two mutually defining "moments," and that its the only coherent way to speak of being in general and the union of divine-human in Christ in particular (as properly a divine and human person, rather than a personhood ontologically indifferent to divinity and humanity).
Secondly, I disagree because I dont think that DBH's logic makes transcendental subjectivity less fundamental than divine-humanity. In writing the above article I was referencing his essay "Masks, Chimaeras and Portmanteaux" (which he quotes verbatim in the lectures) and his ultimate conclusion was that Bulgakov's theology leads to an affirmation that the ground and content of all being is the Person of Christ, the I Am. I dont see this as contradicting JDW's argument that the logoi are all the Person of the Logos, i simply think DBH is more metaphysically sound in making the metaphysics of person include and be one with the metaphysics of nature.
So those are my current thoughts. I greatly appreciate JDW's work of course, and I really hope he responds in-depth to DBH's lectures. The more dialogue the better.