@JordanW41069857, I've just re-read your "Creation is Incarnation" article, and wonder if you could help me clarify part of its argument. As I understand it, the thesis depends on two equations: 1) "the many logoi are the one Logos" (*Amb.* 7.15), and 2) creatures are their...

...logoi. It follows, transitively, that 3) creatures are (hypostatically identical to) the Logos. But throughout *Amb.* 7, M. seems to me to be careful to refer to the logoi as that "according to which [creatures] were created (τον καθ’ όν έκτίσθησαν λόγον)" (*Amb.* 7.15...

...cf. 7.16, 7.19-20). A crucial passage is obv. Amb. 7.22, on the Word's "incarnation in all things," but even there, the distinction between the creature and the logos which he "honors and acts in accord with" so as to be divinized and incorporated into the whole Christ...

...(perhaps inspired by Nyssen's *In Illud*?) seems to me to be preserved. Maximus's formulations strike me as notably weaker than Eriugena's, e.g., “And lest anyone should suppose that we are one thing and our reasons [rationes] are another, He did not say, In Whom our reasons

...live and move and have their being, but He said: ‘In Whom we live and move and have our being.’ For in so far as we are, we are nothing else but those reasons of ours which subsist eternally in God” (PP III.640a, cp. to the opening of *Amb.* 7.22). I welcome your correction!