Honors for Introduction to Theology

---

Product Description

A fascinating look at both Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism to uncover similarities and differences in the two traditions.

---

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #522700 in Books
• Published on: 2004-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 302 pages

From the Back Cover
To some Western evangelicals, the practices of Eastern Orthodoxy seem mysterious and perhaps even unbiblical. Then again, from an Orthodox perspective, evangelicals lack the spiritual roots provided by centuries-old church traditions. Are the differences between these two branches of Christianity so sharp that to shake hands is to compromise the gospel itself? Or is there room for agreement? Are Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism at all compatible?

Yes, no, maybe—this book allows five leading authorities to present their different views, have them critiqued by their fellow authors, and respond to the critiques. Writing from an Orthodox perspective with a strong appreciation for evangelicalism, Bradley Nassif makes a case for compatibility. Michael Horton and Vladimir Berzonsky take the opposite stance from their respective evangelical and Orthodox backgrounds. And George Hancock-Stefan (evangelical) and Edward Rommen (Orthodox) each offer a qualified "perhaps."

The interactive Counterpoints forum is ideal for comparing and contrasting the different positions to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these two important branches of Christianity and to form a personal conclusion regarding their compatibility.

The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Exploring Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints

About the Author
Michael Horton teaches theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido), where he lives with his wife Lisa and four children. A prolific author, he is also the host of The White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated radio program, and editor of Modern Reformation magazine.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism Copyright © 2004 by James J. Stamoolis Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Three views on Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism / James J. Stamoolis, general editor ; contributors, Bradley Nassif . . . [et al.].—1st ed. p. cm.— (Counterpoints) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-310-23539-1 1. Evangelicalism—Relations—Orthodox Eastern Church. 2. Orthodox Eastern Church—Relations—Evangelicalism. I. Stamoolis, James J. II. Nassif, Bradley. III. Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, Mich.) BX324.5.T48 2004 280’.042—dc22 2004007130 All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from The New King James Bible Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 /? DC/10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Chapter One ARE EASTERN ORTHODOXY AND EVANGELICALISM COMPATIBLE? YES The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church Bradley Nassif ARE EASTERN ORTHODOXY AND EVANGELICALISM COMPATIBLE? YES The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church Bradley Nassif SETTING THE STAGE: A PERSONAL WORD If postmodernism has taught us anything, it has made us aware that we always interpret reality through the eyes of our own history—our family upbringing, educational background, cultural context, and religious community. My background is deeply rooted in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I am a Lebanese Christian who grew up in America in the Antiochian Orthodox Church (formally named the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, whose patriarch resides in Damascus, Syria). It is among the most ancient and revered patriarchates in the Orthodox world, dating back to the great christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries—and even back to the first century, where the New Testament reports in Acts 11:26 that “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” The late Father John Meyendorff was my doctoral mentor with whom I specialized in Greek patristic theology and exegesis. I am also deeply indebted to evangelical Christians who helped bring me into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ during my high school years. Over the past decade I have been a visiting or adjunct professor of Orthodox studies at leading evangelical schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Regent College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Much of my work has been devoted to introducing evangelical students and faculty to the riches of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, and many of these evangelicals have become friends and colleagues. In the early 1990s I founded a Pan-Orthodox, Pan-Evangelical organization named the Society for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. For the past decade we’ve held annual meetings to explore the areas of convergence and divergence between our two traditions. I share these brief biographical excerpts because readers may appreciate knowing that I have not just thought about Orthodox and evangelical compatibility, but I’ve lived it most of my life. I’m also convinced that my personal history has been a theological asset to the exposition of Orthodox theology, not a confessional liability, because it has given me firsthand knowledge of the very best and the very worst in the Orthodox and evangelical worlds. There are plenty of negative experiences one could point to on both sides, by virtue of which one could argue that the positive stance I’ve adopted here is nothing more than wishful thinking. I know as an insider how disillusioning it can be to see how deep and widespread the ignorance of Orthodox Church members can be concerning their own faith, how low their levels of personal commitment sometimes are, and how bigoted they sometimes act toward other Christians. On the other hand, I have witnessed the hubris of some evangelical Christians, which is often tied to historical amnesia and an idolatrous self-confidence in their own exegetical skills. I’ve also been a deeply wounded casualty of the broken promises and highly unethical behavior of certain evangelical leaders. But I must quickly add that the good in both communities far outweighs the bad. So I write this chapter under no romantic illusions. I bring to this essay both an intimate academic knowledge and an intimate experiential knowledge of both communities, from the top down and the bottom up. It is precisely because of—and in spite of—these many perspective-shaping experiences that I am quite certain our two traditions will never see full communion in my lifetime (barring an intervention by the Holy Spirit). I’m not sure there should even be full communion. But in order to lay a common ground for mutual exploration and to increase the level of theological communication between our two estranged communities, I accepted the invitation to participate in this volume by identifying areas of convergence and divergence through a brief overview of the evangelical theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. SETTING THE STAGE: WHAT I HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH Goals I have three goals for this chapter: (1) to define evangelical identity and use the definition to measure the common ground between Eastern Orthodox and Protestant evangelical theology;1 (2) to see how the distinctive theological themes that comprise the identity of contemporary evangelicalism were interpreted by the classical tradition of the Greek church fathers from the fourth to the fourteenth centuries; and (3) to assess the similarities and differences between the classical and contemporary versions of the evangelical faith as the basis for viewing the extent of conflict and compatibility between both the Orthodox and the Protestant evangelical communities today. Method The strength of our conclusions will depend largely on the reliability of the research method applied. My procedure will not try to address the distressing diversity of evangelicalism but to constructively set forth our common consent to the evangelical faith in a way that is faithful to the Orthodox vision of life in Christ. I will contend that there are no core disagreements between evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox over the issues that define the evangelical movement, issues that are also present in the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are major differences, however, over the The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church | 29 1The best supplementary reading to this chapter is Donald Fairbairn’s Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002). A comprehensive summary in one convenient location of all known sources, leaders, and dialogues dealing with Orthodoxy and evangelicalism between 1990 and 2003 can be found in Bradley Nassif’s “Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: The Status of an Emerging Global Dialogue” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, rev. ed., ed. Daniel Clendenin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

---

Customer Reviews

Informative and enlightening
The book is composed of essays that examine the differences and similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism. As one who works in both the Evangelcal and Orthodox worlds I found this format to be benefical.

In addition to this topic being a difficult topic in and of itself the generalities are often broad. Eastern Orthodoxy has a variety of expressions that range from Ethiopian to Russian. Evangelicalism is all over the map from Pentecostal to Reformed, and everything in between. For the most part (I speak in broad terms) the Orthodox view in this book is Eastern European, while the Evangelical views are mostly American Reformed.

The book is written in a format that allows free expression of ideas in the form of essays and an opportunity for agreement and rebutal by the other essay writers. It is an easy read and very informative.

There is common ground on the Gospel and I believe both Orthodox and Evangelical readers will find the book to be encouraging to our common faith. The most striking difference between Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism is the view of the atonement and the doctrine of salvation. Orthodoxy can learn from Evangelcialism in their zeal for the Gospel and salvation by faith apart from works. Evangelicals can learn from Orthodoxy concerning the doctrines of Christ and His incarnation. Far from being enemies the reader will find that we are brothers in Christ.

Insightful and Well Educated Scholars.......Well, Almost
This book gets four stars because of both the great idea of comparing the two Christian traditions and Bradley Nassif. The other authors were very unprepared for the book. Michael Horton does the best job of the evangelicals but still gets some aspects of Orthodox theology wrong. Vladimir Berzonsky was the worst writer by far because he equated all evangelicals with Anabaptists in their theological views (particularly with the Sacraments). This is not his fault though, because the book itself does a horrible job explaining what evangelicalism is.

The two evangelicals are (I think) Baptist and Presbyterian (or Reformed), but there are huge differences in these traditions, and I am truly shocked that none of the writers were Confessional Lutherans even thought the historical meeting between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Lutheran scholars of Tubingen is brought up in nearly every chapter. This means no writer defends the view of Lutherans that the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper have the real presence in them after they are blessed (with the exception of Dr. Nassif who also understands that the term usually applied for this which is Consubstantiation is a very poor term nearly no competant Lutheran and/or Episcopal scholar uses)!

Nassif also used the best methodology in his analysis of doctrine (that of Christological Maximalism) thus showing many views, particularly of the Sacraments (if I may dare call them that) in the evangelical churches were argued over in the past by councils who found such views contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation which all branches of non-heretical Christianity accept.

My review should not be seen as a praise of just the Orthodox. Nassif happens to be an Orthodox writer who was at one time an evangelical and it shows in the quality of his presentation (even though I would say he should have made his position a maybe). The worst writer, Berzonsky both commits the aforementioned oversimplification but he also made it seem as if all the differences between the two were the lack of tradition (which in some ways I agree with), but also the denial of the council in which the iconodules won over the iconoclasts, which not all evangelicals would disagree with (i.e., not all evangelicals are iconoclasts.....i.e. me).

Overall I think that the book should have been much longer and should have been much more thought out by the last four writers. Nassif gets the gold medal....everyone else needs to repeat Seminary, or really read and try to understand either "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kalistos Ware (and the Philokalia for the mystically minded) or Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (and Luther's Large Catechism and the Book of Concord).

This book is worth it for the first chapter. The responses are just kissing up to each other....usually :-).

Pretty Much Useless
Books comparing rival theological systems should primarily be about translating across schemes. This is what people want in reading these kinds of books. They are in one view and they want to understand the other view. To effectively meet this end, one has to be familiar with both sides, that is, one has to know how to speak the language of the other guy.

Unfortunately this isn't accomplished. While the two Orthodox writers give a basic overview of Orthodox teaching, they fail in two basic ways. First, they fail to grasp the language and system of their Protestant interlocutors and therefore do not adequately address their objections. They show a very superficial understanding of Reformation theology. Second, they fail to get to the heart of the differences which lie in Trintarian theology, Christology and theological method. A much more effective exposition and hence argument could have been made.

The Protestant participants suffer from the same kinds of problems plus others. The baptist contributor forcuses on abuses mainly in the Russian jurisdiction. This is hardly a fair tactic, for the abuses, theological, moral or administrative are anecdotal, that is, they are limited to his experience. Second, considering that the Russian Church was practically exterminated by the Soviets, it is understandable if its laity/clergy who were prohibited from learning the Bible or going to seminary are ignorant of basic Christian teaching and moral praxis. In fact the baptist contributor ultimately confesses ignorance as to what the real issues are between Reformation and Orthodox soteriology, indicating that he shouldn't even be a participant.

Horton's contribution is better but suffers from the same general failure to grasp the theological system and langauge of the people on the other side, and thereby mount and effective critique. Granted that the Orthodox representatives failed to give an adequate articulation of the Orthodox view of justifiction, it certainly wouldn't have been hard to find one. There are a number of such articles readily available in Orthodox scholarly journals. (See for example, Church and Justification. An Orthodox Approach to the Issue of Justification and Collective Faith, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 28 (1983)). And Horton follows his usual modus operandi of tarring people with positions that they do not affirm. For example because he isn't familiar with understand the Orthodox teaching on faith, he simply denotes it as the same teaching as Roman Catholicism, specifically the idea of "implicit faith." Horton makes this kind of move on a number of occasions, reducing Orthodox teaching to Catholic teaching to make it easier to criticize. In point of fact though, the Orthodox while having some superficial similarities to Catholicism, understand things differently because they have a different Trinitarian theology, Christology, soteriology and anthropology. Horton shows nothing more than a superficial understanding of Orthodox theology because he simply hasn't done any substantial reading in it, as is evidenced in his use of only a few fairly popular sources and his constant inability to draw the appropriate conclusions.

If you are coming from an Evangelical/Reformation background and you want to understand Orthodox teaching from the inside out, below are some works that will save you time and money in the long run.

An abosolute must is Joseph Farrell's Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor, which is an analysis of Maximus' theology and ends with a comparison with Augustinianism. Hard to find, but well worth it. Maximus is a central theological figure for Orthodox theology. Just as it is not possible to understand western theology apart from Augustine, so it is not possible to understand Eastern theology apart from Maximus.

Farrell's translations of the Disputation with Pyrrus and Photius' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit are short, inexpensive and packed with information. Farrell knows how to translate ideas and spell out the conceptual connections.

John Romanides, Ancestral Sin, is a helpful exposition of the Orthodox teaching on anthropology, and the Fall and a critique of western conceptions.

John Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, is also a must to understand the centrality of Christology to Orthodox theology and how the Orthodox understand Christology.

Meyendoff's, Salvation in Christ: Lutheran-Orthodox dialog, is also helpful, though somewhat overly optomistic.

Michel Barnes, The Power of God, and David Bradshaw's, Aristotle East and West are both vergy good works and should be read together-Barnes first, then Bradshaw.

Richard Haugh's Photios and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Contoversy, is short but very helpful.

Henri Crouzel's Origen. Origen is one of the most important figures in Christian theology, for he is the source of most of the debates in Christology and Trinitarian theology in the first millenium of the church.

While not Orthodox, other helpful works are, Arvin Vos, Aquinas, Calvin and Contemporary Protestant Thought, and, Harry McSorely's Luther: Right or Wrong, Rupert Davies, The Problem of Authority in the Continental Reformers.