# Are Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy Compatible?



## Ask Mr. Religion

Modern Reformation article by Horton freely available for the next three weeks:

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/article/are-evangelicalism-and-eastern-orthodoxy-compatible/

"A cursory comparison of the indices of any primary or secondary work on Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism exposes an interesting contrast—in the Eastern Orthodox index, one will find such entries as chrismation, deification, energies of God, recapitulation, _theosis_, and the like, but notable absences will include original sin, grace, justification, sanctification, substitutionary atonement, and related terms that are familiar to confessional Protestants."​_Adapted from “Are Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism Compatible? No” by Michael Horton, taken from _Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, _Copyright © 2004 by James J. Stamoolis. _

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

That's a good book. Only Horton and Nassif (one of the EO guys) really understood the issues. Here is my review of it.

https://puritanboard.com/threads/eastern-orthodoxy-and-evangelicalism-3-views.83796/


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's a good book. Only Horton and Nassif (one of the EO guys) really understood the issues. Here is my review of it.
> 
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/eastern-orthodoxy-and-evangelicalism-3-views.83796/



Horton’s analysis was good as always, but ultimately I thought he was too soft on Eastern Orthodoxy. While EO theology is in some ways less abhorrent than RC theology, in many ways it is actually worse.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Horton’s analysis was good as always, but ultimately I thought he was too soft on Eastern Orthodoxy. While EO theology is in some ways less abhorrent than RC theology, in many ways it is actually worse.



Horton has read almost all of the scholarly literature surrounding the philosophical debates. Some Eastern thinkers are quite powerful and require more than a two-step refutation. Horton understands this. Scholars like Vladimir Lossky, John Zizioulas, and David Bradshaw are giants and quite sophisticated.

In response Horton has developed a typology of "Meeting a Stranger vs. Overcoming Embodiment."


----------



## greenbaggins

I would be willing to bet that Horton treats a lot of these issues in his forthcoming mammoth 2-volume work on justification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

See also:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also:
> http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html





> At least at St. Vladimir's, Orthodox scholars have been significantly influenced by higher-critical views of Scripture, especially as such views have developed in contemporary Roman Catholic scholarship.



That's true. I have some Orthodox friends of mine who were former Calvinists and retained the high view of Scripture. They debate liberal orthodox (what a combination!) on the topic and use the fathers as a hammer to hit them with. It's great fun to watch.

Part of the difficulty is that there isn't one single volume that offers a refutation from a Reformed perspective. Letham's doesn't count. He addresses the topic but never actually refutes it en toto.

Daniel McClendennin did the same from a broadly evangelical point of view.

Another part of the difficulty is that in reading these guys you have to enter another thought-world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> Horton has read almost all of the scholarly literature surrounding the philosophical debates. Some Eastern thinkers are quite powerful and require more than a two-step refutation. Horton understands this. Scholars like Vladimir Lossky, John Zizioulas, and David Bradshaw are giants and quite sophisticated.
> 
> In response Horton has developed a typology of "Meeting a Stranger vs. Overcoming Embodiment."



Indeed, Eastern theology can be quite complex, and Horton does a great job analyzing it. My complaint is certainly not with his understanding and analysis, but rather with his conclusions that seem to stop short of a full throated condemnation. Just because it requires more than two steps to refute something does not mean that it shouldn’t still be condemned, and by condemned I mean called out as unbiblical and dangerous.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Indeed, Eastern theology can be quite complex, and Horton does a great job analyzing it. My complaint is certainly not with his understanding and analysis, but rather with his conclusions that seem to stop short of a full throated condemnation. Just because it requires more than two steps to refute something does not mean that it shouldn’t still be condemned, and by condemned I mean called out as unbiblical and dangerous.



He was probably at the mercy of the editors on that one. Counterpoints is notorious on that point. He knows if you make a strong condemnation without a minute point-by-point analysis, you win zero arguments. 

The best thing to do in that case is offer defeaters and trust that the defeaters will create cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> He was probably at the mercy of the editors on that one. Counterpoints is notorious on that point. He knows if you make a strong condemnation without a minute point-by-point analysis, you win zero arguments.
> 
> The best thing to do in that case is offer defeaters and trust that the defeaters will create cognitive dissonance.



That is probably true. Regardless, I enjoyed the book and learned much about the EO mindset.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> That is probably true. Regardless, I enjoyed the book and learned much about the EO mindset.



Here is the main difficulty, which Letham and Horton knew: what is the single most important problem in EO? This is a harder question to answer than it might seem. For example:

1. Is it the rejection of the Filioque? This determines their doctrine of God and metaphysics, yet who is ready to go into a sustained defense of the Filioque?

2. Is it their sacraments? 

3. Their soteriology, where justification is sublimated into theosis (which is a biblical category).

4. Ikons?

All of these are easily book-length topics, which is why we probably haven't seen the single-volume refutation.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is the main difficulty, which Letham and Horton knew: what is the single most important problem in EO? This is a harder question to answer than it might seem. For example:
> 
> 1. Is it the rejection of the Filioque? This determines their doctrine of God and metaphysics, yet who is ready to go into a sustained defense of the Filioque?
> 
> 2. Is it their sacraments?
> 
> 3. Their soteriology, where justification is sublimated into theosis (which is a biblical category).
> 
> 4. Ikons?
> 
> All of these are easily book-length topics, which is why we probably haven't seen the single-volume refutation.



Each of of these are significant issues and could easily take up an entire book. Sadly, there is a real shortage of literature dealing with these issues. Maybe you should write a book.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:


_The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise_:

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?​

Reactions: Informative 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:
> 
> 
> _The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise_:
> 
> Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?​



Also the anathemas from the Second Nicene Council. Read the liturgy for Sunday of Orthodoxy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Each of of these are significant issues and could easily take up an entire book. Sadly, there is a real shortage of literature dealing with these issues. Maybe you should write a book.



I looked into it. I have about 100 pages written, but I am not going to finish it for quite some time. Logistical reasons. Most people, Orthodox or Reformed, just aren't up to the metaphysical discussions. It would actually get more people interested in Orthodoxy. So I decided to hold off. Initially I wanted to write it because I thought people were joining left and right. That's the narrative at Orthodox Bridge (a completely useless site, even from an Orthodox perspective). But there aren't that many people joining EO just as there isn't a large number of people lining up to join most Reformed churches.

I disagree with EO but I don't see that as the true battle that is being fought in 'Merica today. But these links are pretty good in explaining the issues with converts and EO. They are realistic from an EO perspective. There are some 2C issues on the pages, but that really can't be helped. (PIctures aren't showing up on my browser)

http://www.oldjamestownchurch.com/b...-reclaiming-the-gospel-in-the-orthodox-c.html

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/NassifGospel.php/

Orthodox podcaster Kevin Allen has a great panel discussion on the state of the EO church in America. I can't find it but it is quite illuminating on why Orthodoxy grew in the 197os (because Greeks came to America en masse, and throughout the 20th century Russians were coming to America to escape Communism). But now that wave is over.


----------



## RamistThomist

I strongly recommend the articles at Old Jamestown Church. He was EO for quite some time and then converted back to Protestantism. He is sympathetic to some of the concerns but is quite honest about where EO is going in America. You really won't find that kind of analysis elsewhere online.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> I looked into it. I have about 100 pages written, but I am not going to finish it for quite some time. Logistical reasons. Most people, Orthodox or Reformed, just aren't up to the metaphysical discussions. It would actually get more people interested in Orthodoxy. So I decided to hold off. Initially I wanted to write it because I thought people were joining left and right. That's the narrative at Orthodox Bridge (a completely useless site, even from an Orthodox perspective). But there aren't that many people joining EO just as there isn't a large number of people lining up to join most Reformed churches.
> 
> I disagree with EO but I don't see that as the true battle that is being fought in 'Merica today. But these links are pretty good in explaining the issues with converts and EO. They are realistic from an EO perspective. There are some 2C issues on the pages, but that really can't be helped. (PIctures aren't showing up on my browser)
> 
> http://www.oldjamestownchurch.com/b...-reclaiming-the-gospel-in-the-orthodox-c.html
> 
> http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/NassifGospel.php/
> 
> Orthodox podcaster Kevin Allen has a great panel discussion on the state of the EO church in America. I can't find it but it is quite illuminating on why Orthodoxy grew in the 197os (because Greeks came to America en masse, and throughout the 20th century Russians were coming to America to escape Communism). But now that wave is over.



There has been some movement towards Orthodoxy, but you’re right that’s it’s hardly an epidemic. In my experience, most people find the reality of Orthodoxy to be much less appealing than the concept of Orthodoxy.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> There has been some movement towards Orthodoxy, but you’re right that’s it’s hardly an epidemic. In my experience, most people find the reality of Orthodoxy to be much less appealing than the concept of Orthodoxy.



For a lot of people it depends on the Orthodoxy in their community. If you are in the OCA or the Antiochians, and there are a lot of Western converts with young families, it's a pretty compelling atmosphere. If you are in a struggling Greek community in the liberal GOARCH/EP, where no one shows up to liturgy for the first ten minutes, even if you want to believe, you won't join.

To be honest, I talk to a lot of people who consider joining. I don't really try to debate them anymore. I tell them look before and after you leap. It's when you join any community: people bring their baggage with them. For any community. Spurgeon won't be your pastor. Athanasius won't be your patriarch. Basil the Great won't be your bishop. Wesley won't be your evangelist. 

I remember when I was interested in EO. I read tens of thousands of pages of the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Maximus, Irenaeus, John of Damascus, Augustine, Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, most of the leading secondary literature, plus the current big names in Russian theology (Lossky, Bulgakov, etc).

I read Russian history, tried to learn the language (I could read newspaper headlines; I knew most of the guys that National Review gets scared about when talking about "Russian hacking"). I was so excited. 

And then I went to my first Divine Liturgy. It was everything Athanasius wasn't. I'm not attacking the parish. I've been to Reformed services that were underwhelming, too.

So I tell people that. I don't attack them or immediately try to debate them. I don't want them on the defensive. I want them to make an honest and "eyes-open" decision.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Persons of the Reformed persuation should note the following from the EO service book is required to join the EO church:
> 
> 
> _The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise_:
> 
> Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evils deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?
> 
> Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?​


They share with the Church of Rome sacramental model of salvation, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is the main difficulty, which Letham and Horton knew: what is the single most important problem in EO? This is a harder question to answer than it might seem. For example:
> 
> 1. Is it the rejection of the Filioque? This determines their doctrine of God and metaphysics, yet who is ready to go into a sustained defense of the Filioque?
> 
> 2. Is it their sacraments?
> 
> 3. Their soteriology, where justification is sublimated into theosis (which is a biblical category).
> 
> 4. Ikons?
> 
> All of these are easily book-length topics, which is why we probably haven't seen the single-volume refutation.


Their rejection of the Pauline Justification viewpoint of the Gospel of Christ.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's the narrative at Orthodox Bridge (a completely useless site, even from an Orthodox perspective).


Indeed.

Hanegraff's move feeds the narrative:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hanegraaff-to-constantinople.92569/
(a good thread with more information about EO, too)


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> They share with the Church of Rome sacramental model of salvation, correct?


That's not a very helpful way to word things, brother. The Reformed hold that the sacraments are means of salvation.

Larger Catechism 161:
Q. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

Shorter Catechism 91:
Q. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.


----------



## Dachaser

TylerRay said:


> That's not a very helpful way to word things, brother. The Reformed hold that the sacraments are means of salvation.
> 
> Larger Catechism 161:
> Q. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
> A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.
> 
> Shorter Catechism 91:
> Q. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
> A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.


Reformed do not though hold to their being salvation grace provided in and through their use, as being born again when one is water baptized, as the RCC teaches and holds with.


----------



## TylerRay

Dachaser said:


> Reformed do not though hold to their being salvation grace provided in and through their use, as being born again when one is water baptized, as the RCC teaches and holds with.


To the contrary, we do believe that saving grace is communicated through the sacraments to the elect by the power of the Holy Ghost when they are received with faith. But no, we do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> They share with the Church of Rome sacramental model of salvation, correct?


Given the fluidity of their views, it would be best to see what one of them actually teaches:

https://www.goarch.org/-/how-are-we-saved-

Per EO, Holy Confession and Communion are part of an ongoing process. One can lose that which one once had, too.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Given the fluidity of their views, it would be best to see what one of them actually teaches:
> 
> https://www.goarch.org/-/how-are-we-saved-
> 
> Per EO, Holy Confession and Communion are part of an ongoing process. One can lose that which one once had, too.


They would then see us needing to co operate with the various means of Grace provided by Goid unto us in order to get saved, and then keeping salvation?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> They would then see us needing to co operate with the various means of Grace provided by Goid unto us in order to get saved, and then keeping salvation?


Yes.

I want you to also make the distinction between _salvation_ and things like "born-again", as in what we would call _regeneration_. Often when reading Reformed materials, _salvation_ refers to the entire _golden chain_ of redemption.

Not making this distinction leads to confusion when confronted with the Reformed view that outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (_extra ecclesiam nulla salus_). Not a few when reading this recoil and assume immediate thoughts of Romanism.

But see Rev. Buchanan's excellent discussion of the topic:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/no-salvation-outside-the-church.23367/#post-288204

Calvin sums it up nicely:
But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30].

Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9].

On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.​Src: _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.I.4, page 1016.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Hanegraff's move feeds the narrative:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/hanegraaff-to-constantinople.92569/
> (a good thread with more information about EO, too)



the "pop star" Orthodox outlets are celebrating Hank. The hard-core guys are picking him apart. But yeah, his conversion made a bigger noise than perhaps the situation warrants.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Their rejection of the Pauline Justification viewpoint of the Gospel of Christ.



That's more important than the doctrine of God?


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I want you to also make the distinction between _salvation_ and things like "born-again", as in what we would call _regeneration_. Often when reading Reformed materials, _salvation_ refers to the entire _golden chain_ of redemption



Thank you. This point is often lost in debates with synergistic systems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

greenbaggins said:


> I would be willing to bet that Horton treats a lot of these issues in his forthcoming mammoth 2-volume work on justification.



Following the Amazon link, I notice that it lists two editors along with Horton's name. Is he the sole author of both volumes or is it a collection of essays by various and sundry, edited by Horton and the two others? Or is it something else?


----------



## bookslover

TylerRay said:


> To the contrary, we do believe that saving grace is communicated through the sacraments to the elect by the power of the Holy Ghost when they are received with faith. But no, we do not believe in baptismal regeneration.



Or in presumptive regeneration.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's more important than the doctrine of God?


They deny the Trinity then?


----------



## Dachaser

bookslover said:


> Or in presumptive regeneration.


All christians should be able to agree with the truth that only those who have received Jesus through faith and now have the Holy Spirit are really Christian.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes.
> 
> I want you to also make the distinction between _salvation_ and things like "born-again", as in what we would call _regeneration_. Often when reading Reformed materials, _salvation_ refers to the entire _golden chain_ of redemption.
> 
> Not making this distinction leads to confusion when confronted with the Reformed view that outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (_extra ecclesiam nulla salus_). Not a few when reading this recoil and assume immediate thoughts of Romanism.
> 
> But see Rev. Buchanan's excellent discussion of the topic:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/no-salvation-outside-the-church.23367/#post-288204
> 
> Calvin sums it up nicely:
> But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30].
> 
> Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9].
> 
> On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.​Src: _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.I.4, page 1016.


Regeneration and salvation would occur at the same time though., correct? At least as we would be able to see that happening?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They deny the Trinity then?



Um...no. But they reject the Augustinian view of divine simplicity. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, which for them means that God is Essence and Energies. Which means that salvation will necessarily consist of being deified by those divine energies.

They link everything to Christology and Triadology. I tip my hat to them on that. It's a consistent system.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Regeneration and salvation would occur at the same time though., correct? At least as we would be able to see that happening?



The whole of salvation wouldn't occur at that moment, as salvation also includes final glorification.


----------



## greenbaggins

bookslover said:


> Following the Amazon link, I notice that it lists two editors along with Horton's name. Is he the sole author of both volumes or is it a collection of essays by various and sundry, edited by Horton and the two others? Or is it something else?



He is the sole author. The series, though, has multiple editors.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> The whole of salvation wouldn't occur at that moment, as salvation also includes final glorification.


This makes sense, as the sinner gets saved as in the meaning of now forgiven and a Christian, but the glorification of the body has yet to happen to them.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Um...no. But they reject the Augustinian view of divine simplicity. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, which for them means that God is Essence and Energies. Which means that salvation will necessarily consist of being deified by those divine energies.
> 
> They link everything to Christology and Triadology. I tip my hat to them on that. It's a consistent system.


Their distinction between the father and Jesus in regards to the Holy Spirit is not wrong as in not orthodox though.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Their distinction between the father and Jesus in regards to the Holy Spirit is not wrong as in not orthodox though.



I disagree with them, but that was the original wording of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I don't want to say they are wrong or unorthodox on that, but more that it is inadequate.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I disagree with them, but that was the original wording of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. I don't want to say they are wrong or unorthodox on that, but more that it is inadequate.


Their viewpoint is not correct, but their denial of Pauline Justification as seen by Reformed/Baptists would be far bigger of an issue to myself.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Their viewpoint is not correct, but their denial of Pauline Justification as seen by Reformed/Baptists would be far bigger of an issue to myself.



Pauline Justification is important, but the Trinity is more important. But I do understand that most people aren't interested in these metaphysical discussions. When is the last time a Reformed celebrity conference had a conference on the metaphysics of Triadology or the two energies of Christ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Pauline Justification is important, but the Trinity is more important. But I do understand that most people aren't interested in these metaphysical discussions. When is the last time a Reformed celebrity conference had a conference on the metaphysics of Triadology or the two energies of Christ?


They have a different understanding of the trinity, but still see 3 Persons who are akk the one God, correct?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> Pauline Justification is important, but the Trinity is more important. But I do understand that most people aren't interested in these metaphysical discussions. When is the last time a Reformed celebrity conference had a conference on the metaphysics of Triadology or the two energies of Christ?



I’m not sure I would agree with this completely. Perhaps the trinity is more important in the grand scheme of things, but as for us mortals, I don’t think anything could be more important than justification. It is literally a matter of life and death. 

P. S. I would love to see such a conference as well.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They have a different understanding of the trinity, but still see 3 Persons who are akk the one God, correct?



Correct. They view the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father alone. They are strongly Trinitarian and have written much good on the Fathers' Trinitarianism. They would say that the Spirit exists from the Father but has existence through the Son. The former denotes mode of origin. The latter denotes the eternal manifestation. The former is the internal life of the Trinity. The latter is the external self-revelation of God. Thus, God exists not only in his essence but outside his essence. It is not the internal essence that is revealed but rather the divine life. Further, the Spirit goes forth and shines in the Son independent of mode of origin.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> I’m not sure I would agree with this completely. Perhaps the trinity is more important in the grand scheme of things, but as for us mortals, I don’t think anything could be more important than justification. It is literally a matter of life and death.
> 
> P. S. I would love to see such a conference as well.



I know a former Covenanter that would agree with everything the Puritans said about justification, but he is an open Semi-Arian. Many on this board know of whom I speak.


----------



## ZackF

BayouHuguenot said:


> the "pop star" Orthodox outlets are celebrating Hank. The hard-core guys are picking him apart. But yeah, his conversion made a bigger noise than perhaps the situation warrants.



Sad. Hanks’s ‘journey’ seems closer to Franky Schaeffer than Rod Dreher.


----------



## RamistThomist

ZackF said:


> Sad. Hanks’s ‘journey’ seems closer to Franky Schaeffer than Rod Dreher.



To be fair, Franky is a pagan. Dreher is just goofy. I think Hank "wanted something more." All I am going by is what one of his former employees, Perry Robinson (the most articulate EO apologist today), said about him.
https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/a-table-in-the-presence-of-my-enemies/

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/how-not-to-answer-a-question-hankadox-style/

https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/matt-18-my-meeting-with-hank-hanegraaff/


----------



## py3ak

BayouHuguenot said:


> They would say that the Spirit exists from the Father but has existence through the Son. The former denotes mode of origin. The latter denotes the *eternal* manifestation. The former is the internal life of the Trinity. The latter is the external self-revelation of God. Thus, God exists not only in his essence but outside his essence. It is not the internal essence that is revealed but rather the divine life. Further, the Spirit goes forth and shines in the Son independent of mode of origin.



That's very informative, Jacob, thank you, if a little bewildering on the conception of existing outside the essence. Question: should the bolded "eternal" above be "external"?


----------



## RamistThomist

py3ak said:


> That's very informative, Jacob, thank you, if a little bewildering on the conception of existing outside the essence. Question: should the bolded "eternal" above be "external"?



I could have mistyped. I was using my note from Papadakis's _Crisis in Byzantium_. I want to say it is eternal, not external. I think the idea is that the Spirit is always shining forth in the Son, or so they would say.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

BayouHuguenot said:


> I could have mistyped. I was using my note from Papadakis's _Crisis in Byzantium_. I want to say it is eternal, not external. I think the idea is that the Spirit is always shining forth in the Son, or so they would say.



Here is the logic and the history of it. The post-800 AD Byzantine theologians faced a dilemma. On one hand they knew that the ancient holy fathers were not teaching the Filioque the way Rome does: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Pope. 

The traditional EO gloss was that the texts from the fathers that said the Spirit comes "from" the Son were meant economically, not ontologically. The problem was that was too easy an answer and not all of the texts read that way. 

So the way around it, ala Gregory II of Cyprus, was that the Spirit eternally shines forth from the Son; the Son eternally (and perhaps energetically) manifests the Spirit.

This is the best book on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Byzan...516643068&sr=8-1&keywords=crisis+in+byzantium

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> To be fair, Franky is a pagan. Dreher is just goofy. I think Hank "wanted something more." All I am going by is what one of his former employees, Perry Robinson (the most articulate EO apologist today), said about him.
> https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/a-table-in-the-presence-of-my-enemies/
> 
> https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/how-not-to-answer-a-question-hankadox-style/
> 
> https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/matt-18-my-meeting-with-hank-hanegraaff/


Some who become now EOC seem to want to have the more complex metaphysical aspect to goes along with their theology.


----------



## py3ak

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is the logic and the history of it.



Thanks, Jacob, that's very helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Some who become now EOC seem to want to have the more complex metaphysical aspect to goes along with their theology.



It's all for different reasons. For those metaphysically inclined, they will go for that reason. Most go for liturgy and apostolic succession.

And every system has metaphysics. You can't read Athanasius without coming away with a robust metaphysics. Roman Catholicism and Post-Reformation Scholasticism are just as metaphysical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Some who become now EOC seem to want to have the more complex metaphysical aspect to goes along with their theology.


I doubt that is the case at all. While there may be a very narrow few that meet this criteria, the majority jumping to Constantinople—if I have read their own conversion stores aright—seem to be confused with _Sola Scriptura_, _Sola Fide_, the self-attestation of Scripture (versus a canon defined by a church), and having one authority to speak to all matters of the faith. In other words, they have bought into Rome's apologetic, but see Rome's fluid modernity something not overrunning the Orthodox church (phyletism notwithstanding, of course).

As Jacob has been saying often, most have no taste, ability, nor interest, in the metaphysics that folks like Perry Robinson, et al., do.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's all for different reasons. For those metaphysically inclined, they will go for that reason. Most go for liturgy and apostolic succession.
> 
> And every system has metaphysics. You can't read Athanasius without coming away with a robust metaphysics. Roman Catholicism and Post-Reformation Scholasticism are just as metaphysical.


I have heard some state that they have rejoined the Church of Rome due to them feeling that they were not apart of the true Church again, as the Church had to them now real authority and were teaching the real doctrines of the faith.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I doubt that is the case at all. While there may be a very narrow few that meet this criteria, the majority jumping to Constantinople—if I have read their own conversion stores aright—seem to be confused with _Sola Scriptura_, _Sola Fide_, the self-attestation of Scripture (versus a canon defined by a church), and having one authority to speak to all matters of the faith. In other words, they have bought into Rome's apologetic, but see Rome's fluid modernity something not overrunning the Orthodox church (phyletism notwithstanding, of course).
> 
> As Jacob has been saying often, most have no taste, ability, nor interest, in the metaphysics that folks like Perry Robinson, et al., do.


So they would be feeling that somehow their spiritual experience being a Christian is not fulfilled until back into the Roman or eastern Church?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I have heard some state that they have rejoined the Church of Rome due to them feeling that they were not apart of the true Church again, as the Church had to them now real authority and were teaching the real doctrines of the faith.


Yes. Some say that.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I doubt that is the case at all. While there may be a very narrow few that meet this criteria, the majority jumping to Constantinople—if I have read their own conversion stores aright—seem to be confused with _Sola Scriptura_, _Sola Fide_, the self-attestation of Scripture (versus a canon defined by a church), and having one authority to speak to all matters of the faith. In other words, they have bought into Rome's apologetic, but see Rome's fluid modernity something not overrunning the Orthodox church (phyletism notwithstanding, of course).
> 
> As Jacob has been saying often, most have no taste, ability, nor interest, in the metaphysics that folks like Perry Robinson, et al., do.



Most converts, like most people in general, don't care for metaphysical discussions (on one level, anyway). Most are overwhelmed by the liturgy (but only if you go to a robust church).

Perry was in an analytic philosophy PhD progarm. Most converts aren't.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> So they would be feeling that somehow their spiritual experience being a Christian is not fulfilled until back into the Roman or eastern Church?



Sort of, but it goes deeper than that. You do not get grace unless you are in communion with an apostolic-succession bishop (at the very least; that's a necessary, though not sufficient condition). The grace faucet is turned off until then.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> Most converts, like most people in general, don't care for metaphysical discussions (on one level, anyway). Most are overwhelmed by the liturgy (but only if you go to a robust church).
> 
> Perry was in an analytic philosophy PhD progarm. Most converts aren't.



I think for many of them, they are reacting to the shallowness that defines much of modern evangelicalism. For some, it seems the best way to counter a culture that is obsessed with the latest fads is to run to something that decidedly not modern. I can certainly sympathize, but ultimately they are merely exchanging modern ecclesiastical excess for ancient ecclesiastical excess.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think for many of them, they are reacting to the shallowness that defines much of modern evangelicalism. For some, it seems the best way to counter a culture that is obsessed with the latest fads is to run to something that decidedly not modern. I can certainly sympathize, but ultimately they are merely exchanging modern ecclesiastical excess for ancient ecclesiastical excess.



That could be some of it. They are often asked, after looking at the silliness of evangelicalism, if that's how the ancient church worshiped. Of course it isn't. Combine that with some slick arguments against sola Scriptura, and cognitive dissonance builds.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That could be some of it. They are often asked, after looking at the silliness of evangelicalism, if that's how the ancient church worshiped. Of course it isn't. Combine that with some slick arguments against sola Scriptura, and cognitive dissonance builds.


Then they start attacking on just how many separate christian groups there are, how many different theological views, how many different ways to salvation, that the person gets into the mindset that God surely wanted order and structure and one clear voice, so go with the true Church, Apostolic authority, one valid understanding of the scriptures etc.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Then they start attacking on just how many separate christian groups there are, how many different theological views, how many different ways to salvation, that the person gets into the mindset that God surely wanted order and structure and one clear voice, so go with the true Church, Apostolic authority, one valid understanding of the scriptures etc.



And in many cases the attacks are probably warranted. Low-church evangelicalism is in almost complete disarray.

But once you start looking past the surface level, ancient faith groups (for lack of a better term) are often divided on many issues; they just maintain an outward unity to the bishop(s).


----------

