Random quotes in need of synthesis...

This point is further developed by Clement: "In other words, in the human being the person is not identifiable with the body or the soul, or the spirit. It arises from another order of reality...The person, says Lossky, is 'the irreducibility of the individual to his human nature.'" (Ivana Noble, The Gift of Redemption, p. 54n14)

"While Anselm develops a theology of the expiating merit of the death of an innocent victim, Lossky turns to the notion of divine-human cooperation and what would seem from his passing comment as the destruction of nature (cosmic and human) is linked more closely to the rest of the Christian teaching." (p. 55)

"Furthermore, although this Pauline juridicial image dominated how the memory of redemption was passed on, it was never the only image of it. Lossky shows that in the Scriptures, as well as in the Fathers, we find the 'bucolic' image of a good shepherd, the military image of a strong man being overcome by an even stronger one, the biological image of triumph in nature corrupted by sin, the victory over hell, a diplomatic image, where divine wisdom deceives cunning evil, a medical image, where sickly nature is given salvation as an antidote to poison, These images co-exist. Each of them interprets a partial experience and offers a partial vision of renewed relationships with God and in them also with the rest of creation. But none of them is an exhaustive explanation of its mysterious nature." (p. 59, emphasis mine)

"Schwager goes back to Maximus the Confessor, according to whom Christ on the cross altered the 'use of death'. Instead of a punishment visited on human nature for sin, on the cross death becomes a means of salvation from sin." (p. 61)

“All these things, indeed, become clear by experience [τῇ πείρᾳ]” (Triads 2.2.9) ("Florovsky's 'Mind of the Fathers' and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Dumitru Staniloae," Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 69: 1-4 (2017) 32)

For example, Stăniloae says it “is not an apophaticism pure and simple” but “a positive vision and an experience in a reality superior to any knowledge” (SO 299, ET 350), not an ignorance “due to the absence of knowledge, but because of its superabundance” (SO 195, ET 236; commenting on Gregory Palamas, Triads 2.3.17). 

The problem was that the Basilian hypostasis, defined as the ousia with the idiomata, could not avoid two hypostases in Christ. This it had to be refined and expanded for usage in Christology: hypostasis was no longer understood only as the ousia with idiomata, but also as that which “exists by itself” (καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν). Hurtado notes that Paul’s use of κύριος for both God and Jesus is something he inherited from Aramaic speaking Christian circles, not Gentile ones. Thus Jesus’ divine status was already established before the very first New Testament writings, not later when it encountered the Gentile world, as Bousset claimed (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 108-118). 

"Just as the perichoresis of the Holy Trinity presupposes the unity of nature, so human perichoresis113 presupposes the re-establishment of the unity of human nature.114 The unity of human nature, however, necessitates asceticism, which removes the sinful inclinations (gnome) and egotism that have fragmented it.115 Once removed, human nature becomes “transparent” for interpersonal communion.116 Being consubstantial with us, the incarnate Son of God is a catalyst from within human nature itself for the reestablishment of its unity in many hypostases.117 

Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 4, 7, 2) stresses the idea that “the origins of cultic veneration of Jesus have to be pushed back into the first two decades of the Christian movement” and that the high Christology implied by this early Christian binitarianism “began amazingly early”, “astonishingly early”, “phenomenally early”. 

The later difficulty of articulating a trinitarian monotheistic doctrine was therefore not the result of Hellenization, and not the fabrication of second-century writers like Justin; it was rather “forced upon them by the earnest convictions and devotional practice of believers from the earliest observable years of the Christian movement” (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 651).

"Does this account of the deification process imply, as Florovsky believed it did, that any personal relationship with Christ is negated, since his work is limited to the deification of human nature, but has to be achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit, on a personal level?...Florovsky is wrong when he supposes that according to Lossky, our relation to Christ is only a natural one through the sacraments...But this is not the Holy Spirit's role. He makes us personal beings, not super-individuals; and the person is not the completion of the individual, but her negation. Whereas the individual exists only for himself, and separated from others, the person is but a witness to someone else...

It is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ, who allows us to be personal beings (while the Son allows us to be personal beings with a deified nature)...[According to] Lossky, being a person means precisely having a personal relationship with Christ. In other words, what the Holy Spirit adds is nothing but the personal relationship with Christ." (Anthony Feneuil, Becoming God Or Becoming Yourself: Vladimir Lossky on Deification and Personal Identity, p. 49)