D, what if I told you that I was considering a thesis that explored Gregory of Nyssa’s (GN) doctrine of ‘epektasis’ ('stretching out' or the ‘constant progress’ into the Divine) and, in conversation with Origen’s eschatology (and emphasis upon human freedom), used it to inform/construct an indeterminist model of theosis, in which the creature's 'freely determined creative expression of love' is the 'participation in God' (metousia theou) we are intended for? 

Gotta get my Greek in shape. But I wanna swim a bit in GN’s works. We'll see. But every time I run into discussions of this Gregory I find myself responding positively, more so than others.

Cool?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/1/2008 3:17:28 PM (GMT-5)

From a Reformed writer: 

http://members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/Ecumenism.pdf

Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and the Quest for an Ecumenical Orthodoxy, by Dr. J. Glenn Friesen, Lecture at Redeemer University College, Ancaster Ontario, November 15, 2005

(Note--Payton teaches at Redeemer!)

XVI Epektasis

Epektasis is a term used by Gregory of Nyssa to refer to the drawing of the soul ever onwards (Phil. 3:13). Dooyeweerd does not use this word, but he does refer to the supratemporal as dynamic, and to the idea of supratemporal fulfillment. See notes at

[http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Epektasis.html].

Gregory of Nyssa's 5 Homilies on the Lord's Prayer

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/1/2008 4:36:27 PM (GMT-5)

I was attempting to poke you a little in the side with the “nonsense” statement. I know how you like timelessness. ;o)

Hopefully I’ll find out along the way just what “timeless” in your “timeless God makes an incision into time” really means and how that differs from “timeless” in the “timeless God” I want to discard centuries after GN did. Hmmm. For me, temporal and atemporal are opposites that don’t admit a third member. I want to say God is eternally temporal (i.e., has a past, present, and future). You say this locks God inside of time. I say (with Jensen) that it doesn’t lock God inside of anything. I say, What then if not temporal? Timeless? You say, ‘Well, no, not timeless. But not temporal either.’ What then? You don’t want to lock God inside of time and you don’t want to lock him outside of time. You want the benefits of both but refuse to embrace the consequences of either.

GN’s idea of epektasis (the notion that our destined perfection is a dynamic and endless exploration and unfolding of the divine life) requires a God who makes an unprecedented incision into creation, yes. But I don’t see that it has to be the case that this God be anything other than temporal. But that’s beside the point that I’m interested in. I don’t plan on debating the question of time.

Tom

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/3/2008 8:59:33 AM (GMT-5)