By Schubert Ogden
Page History
Wiki Markup
1. Why is a relation properly "an eschatological relation"?
A relation is properly "an eschatological relation" because one of its two terms is a self that as such must decide, in every moment, to understand its own unique existence either authentically or inauthentically, and its other term is ultimate reality in its meaning for us -– whether implicitly presented or explicitly re-presented as well.
2. By what is one placed in an eschatological relation so understood?
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
One is placed in an eschatological relation so understood by ultimate reality itself in its meaning for us -- whether implicitly presented or explicitly re-presented as well. Because ultimate reality is universal and ever-present, a selfisself is always already, and therefore originally, placed in an eschatological relation at least implicitly, the meaning of ultimate reality for us being implicitly presented to any self simply as a self through, as Paul says, "the things \[God\] has made" (Rom 1 :20). But because the meaning ofultimate reality for us can also be re-presented explicitly, a self can be specially, and even decisively, placed in an eschatological relation (not by, but) _through_ whatever, or whoever, re-presents this meaning, whether primally, primarily, or secondarily. In this case, the self is still placed in an eschatological relation only _by_ ultimate reality itself, even if also @J _through_ its re-presentation(s), whether merely special or also decisive. |
N. B. : These answers to the questions assume: (1) that a self as such exists understandingly, understanding itself and ultimate reality generally and leading its life accordingly, freely and responsibly; (2) that the meaning of ultimate reality for us is determined by the structure of ultimate reality in itself -– by a relation, in John Post's term, of "nonreductive determination"; and (3) that being placed in an eschatological relation is not 2 the same as existing eschatologically, or authentically. Roughly speaking, being placed in an eschatological relation is the same as being called- – implicitly or explicitly -– to eschatological, or authentic, existence. But since a self is chosen only through its own choosing, actually existing eschatologically, or authentically, is a function of its freely and responsibly accepting the call so to exist.
12 May 2008
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
2008 In Inymy _Auseinandersetzung_ with Schussler Fiorenza (in the Appendix to "The Authority of Scripture for Preaching"), I remark that "it is not accidental that the term 'faith' plays practically no role at all in \[her\] lexicon." The reason for this, I explain, is that she "shows not the least awareness that the possibility of existing and acting \[morally and politically as Jesus acted, or calls us to act\] is not just a human possibility, or even the most radical form of such a possibility, but is rather an _eschatological_ possibility for which one Inustmust first be set free by the prevenient action of God's love accepted through obedient faith." |
The question I need to pursue is just how the distinction Inade made in this explanation between "just a human possibility" and "an eschatological possibility" is related to other, ostensibly similar or parallel distinctions I've been wont to Inakemake. I refer to such different distinctions as those between God's commandinents and God's command; God's specific gifts and demands through destiny and relation to neighbors and God's integral gift and demand of authentic existence; penultimate transformations and ultimate transformation; life-praxis and self-understanding as respectively the categorial and the transcendental levels of action or of living understandingly and so on.
(An early such distinction occurs in my sermon, '''And This Will Be a Sign for You . . . . /' " where I argue that, although the event of Jesus Christ and the event of John Kennedy's assassination are, in important respects, exactly alike, in that the deeper meaning of both "depends on us/' ," on "how we choose to live/' ," the two events are, in another respect, "radically different."
| Panel |
|---|
To |
...
begin |
...
with, |
...
the |
...
event |
...
of |
...
Jesus |
...
is |
...
attested |
...
by |
...
Christian |
...
faith |
...
and |
...
witness |
...
as |
...
having |
...
a |
...
kind |
...
of |
...
significance |
...
that |
...
the |
...
other |
...
event |
...
neither |
...
has |
...
nor |
...
should |
...
be |
...
supposed |
...
to |
...
have. |
...
The |
...
question |
...
Jesus |
...
Christ |
...
poses |
...
for |
...
us |
...
is |
...
not |
...
the |
...
question |
...
of |
...
our |
...
responsibility |
...
for |
...
some |
...
particular |
...
sphere |
...
of |
...
life |
...
– say |
...
for |
...
the |
...
social |
...
and |
...
political |
...
order |
...
that |
...
is |
...
so |
...
important |
...
for |
...
our |
...
welfare |
...
in |
...
this |
...
world. |
...
No, |
...
the |
...
question |
...
he |
...
raises |
...
is |
...
the |
...
infinitely |
...
more |
...
momentous |
...
question |
...
of |
...
our |
...
total |
...
understanding |
...
of |
...
ourselves |
...
as |
...
persons; |
...
it |
...
is |
...
the |
...
existential |
...
or |
...
religious |
...
question |
...
of |
...
whether |
...
we |
...
are |
...
to |
...
seek |
...
the |
...
final |
...
meaning |
...
of |
...
our |
...
life |
...
in |
...
what |
...
we |
...
ourselves |
...
are |
...
and |
...
have |
...
and |
...
do, |
...
or |
...
are |
...
to |
...
receive |
...
that |
...
meaning |
...
utterly |
...
and |
...
completely |
...
as |
...
a |
...
gift. |
...
In |
...
other |
...
words, |
...
the |
...
significance |
...
of |
...
Jesus |
...
Christ |
...
is |
...
to |
...
present |
...
us |
...
with |
...
the |
...
possibility |
...
of |
...
faith |
...
in |
...
God's |
...
love |
...
– in |
...
fact, |
...
he |
...
himself |
...
actually |
...
is |
...
that |
...
love, |
...
happening |
...
in |
...
our |
...
midst |
...
as |
...
an |
...
event |
...
and |
...
demanding |
...
our |
...
decision. |
...
Corresponding, |
...
then, |
...
to |
...
this |
...
difference |
...
in |
...
the |
...
events |
...
themselves, |
...
there |
...
is |
...
also |
...
a |
...
difference |
...
in |
...
the |
...
possible |
...
responses |
...
to |
...
them. |
...
We |
...
give |
...
the |
...
event |
...
of |
...
Jesus |
...
Christ |
...
a |
...
future |
...
in |
...
our |
...
lives |
...
not |
...
by |
...
performing |
...
some |
...
particular |
...
act |
...
– say, |
...
by |
...
overcoming |
...
our |
...
apathy |
...
and |
...
indifference |
...
and |
...
accepting |
...
our |
...
responsibility |
...
to |
...
vote. |
...
No, |
...
Jesus |
...
Christ |
...
comes |
...
to |
...
dwell |
...
in |
...
us |
...
only when |
...
we |
...
so |
...
respond |
...
to |
...
his |
...
total |
...
gift |
...
and |
...
demand |
...
that |
...
not |
...
only |
...
our |
...
acts, |
...
but our very persons are totally transformed. 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'; and 'this is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you' (In 14:15, 15:12). |
...
Because |
...
what |
...
encounters |
...
us |
...
in |
...
Jesus |
...
Christ |
...
is |
...
the |
...
very |
...
love |
...
of |
...
God |
...
himself, |
...
we |
...
realize |
...
the |
...
significance |
...
of |
...
that |
...
event |
...
only |
...
when |
...
we |
...
ourselves |
...
become |
...
free |
...
to |
...
love. |
r24 February 2008
Overview
Content Tools