I also wanted to point this out from the same article, page 402 (pg 6 in the pdf)
Because revelation is eschatological, dogma always points to a future disclosure beyond all history
If dogma is always eschatalogical then there's always going to be a way to be able to find middle ground. IMO
Haven't been able to spend much time on the forum the last couple of days, but I wanted to follow up on this. While I believe I understand Fr. akimel's reference to 1 Cor. 13, could one of you explicate what you think the actual *practical* consequences of the assertion that 'dogma is always eschatological' is?
Take for example, the basic dogma: "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."
In what way is this dogma 'eschatological'. In what way would understanding it as 'eschatalogical' lead to any different understanding than if eschatology was not even brought into the picture?
It has always been my understanding, contra Fr. serb1389's statement above, that dogmas, from an Orthodox perspective, are exactly those things about which compromise is *not* possible. Thus St. Cyril could 'compromise' with John of Antioch on the terminology by which the Divine and Human in the Incarnation is described, but could not compromise or find a middle ground with Nestorius because as far as the dogma of the Incarnation, Nestorius was simply wrong