Are Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy Compatible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top