Because the Incarnation eternally proceeds from – not the divine nature as an essential necessity, but – the divine will as a volitional inevitability, therefore
occasioned – not by some felix culpa, but – from the cosmotheandric get-go,
apocatastasis less so seems intended as some “restitutio in pristinum statum” and moreso seems to me
an indefeasible proto-logical entailment, hence eschato-logical inevitability.
Finite persons are constituted via acts in potency, divine persons by pure act. As such, Jesus eternally humanizes the Logos and deifies human nature via the cosmotheandric incarnation, thereby implicating several types of participation per distinct but analogous forms of dynamical perichoreses:
1) trinitological between the divine persons;
2) Christological in the hypostatic union;
3) cosmological in vestigia Dei;
4) anthropological in imagoes Dei; &
5) theotic in similitudines Dei.
Through those Trinitological & Christological perichoreses, divine persons “exemplify” the divine nature.
Through those cosmological, anthropological and theotic perichoreses, human persons “signify” the divine nature.
These eternal cosmotheandric realities thus constitute the proto-logical contours of all paterology, Christology, pneumatology, Trinitology, anthropology, ecclesiology, soteriology, sacramentology, sophiology, missiology and eschatology.
These proto-logical contours logically advert to no such reality as “evil.”
While, temporally & ephemerally, privations of goodness can obtain ontologically via a “parasitic existence,” eternally, no coherent accounts of oikonomic condescension or kenotic tzimtzum could abide same and remain logically consistent and existentially congruent with the integrally related & inherently consonant divine logics as are revealed in our Scriptures, celebrated in our Liturgies & Devotions and realized in our Theoses.
Eternally perduring parasitic existences would render unintelligible every divine logic: proto-, Christo-, anthropo-, soterio-, ecclesio-, sophio- and eschato-
This is all developed systematically in:
By existentialist & personalist, I mean that the predicate of existence (entitative existential quantification) will precede any of essence & energy & that any theory of triadic naming (semiotic-like) will be more fundamental than any emergentist theory of triadic terms.
So, any entity, person or hypostasis is more fundamental than essences or energeia (relations).
Absolute and nonstrict identities re determinate realities will have derived from a more fundamental relative identity re nondeterminate & self-determinate realities in our realist metaphysic.
Similarity & difference must be dynamically related via constitutive functional relations of formal identity, which is quidditative for determinate realities but not nondeterminate.
Three name theory will employ both existential & universal quantification but no universal qualification for nondeterminate & self-determinate realities.
Three term theory employs existential & universal quantification; also – the universal qualification of our irreducibly triadic propositional modal ontology; as well as propositional object in/determinacy for determinate realities.
ERGO, per our emergentist (participatory) dynamic, neither essences nor relations will infinitely regress for they will have ultimately derived from, participated with and been formally identified in relation to primal energeia or primal relations or primal logoi of a primal Logos.
This avoids both a pantheism and theopanism because the determinate realities of this emergentist account will have derived – neither from primal entities, themselves, nor a primal essence, but – the primal will of Persons, Whose divine haecceity refers (indexically) to hypostases in their otherwise indescribable, unqualitative, indefinite hereness & nowness.
What, then, of the “stuff” we’re made of, much less the stuff of which divine persons were begotten (& not)?
Well, it’s not as if our account has no antinomial residue. It’s consistent but incomplete, which is an architectonic feature not a positivistic bug.
While for material determinate realities, matter, alone, suffices to individuate hypostases, even when only metaphorically & analogically, the taxonomy of immaterial determinate realities (human persons, because we are analogical images of the divine persons), can only employ a naming strategy that recognizes “that, when & where” each of us, ultimately, came to be in our thisness, hereness, nowness (even in some form of eternal simultaneity).
Who each person is remains, ultimately & ineluctably, indescribable, unqualitative and indefinite!
A contemplative pause, then gaze, then stance with respect to any beloved accesses this truth.
What we do profess is that we know from Whom and Why we emerged.
And our participatory metaphysic suggests, with its inescapably vague (in/definite) and inescapably general (not specific) terms and modal ontology, How.
Some of us learned this in our catechisms when we reached the “age of reason” prior to our Holy Communion:
“Who made us?” and “Why?”.
Only a participatory process of Anamnesis (concelebration), which facilitates forgetting, at least, some of what we learned in our Age of Enlightenment, will get us back in touch with those fundamental truths, which are more so Christological, much less so philosophical.
I’ll now turn to making a list of things to forget.
Feel free to submit. For starters:
God Out the Dock
All the talk of defenses & theodicies vis a vis the problem of evil, which are more vs less on point (though not reckoning in my universalist logic), bring to mind an analogous criminal paradigm.
A general theory of crime, classically,
must involve a rational will. A given crime involves a set of facts, evidentially. A
particular case theory interprets those facts.
Logical defenses can represent interpretive case theory arguments, including whether or not there was a crime.
Theodicies represent evidential arguments
for specific facts, which might beg explanations.
An incredibly weighty form of substantive, positive evidence is good character. It needn’t be weighted in the context of other matters. That is to say that it needn’t be considered in the context of other evidence but is an independent factor that can, by itself, engender reasonable
doubt or produce a conclusion of innocence.
Jury instructions make clear that the law recognizes that a person of good character is not likely to commit a crime contrary to that person’s nature, so, that person’s character or nature can
require a verdict of not guilty.
So, while theodicies are repugnant & defenses can be merely adequate
(understandably, nevertheless, important to many), neither are necessary to take God out of the dock, if He can assemble great cloud of (character) witnesses.
I suspect that’s how many of us roll.