What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism
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 Bible and Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.
302 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
38 people are currently reading
207 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 7, 2021
A Reader's Perspective: The View from Geneva
Conservative Protestant Evangelicals who are at all students of church history and consider themselves to be heir of the Reformation generally know where they stand with respect to the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings (then again, with Pope Francis, who knows what Rome now believes, but I digress…).
But what about our relationship with Eastern Orthodoxy? To what extent was the Great Schism of 1054 a theological one and relevant to issues that Protestants hold dear? Even Evangelical leaders such as James R. White, who have been at the forefront of doctrinal polemics with Rome, sigh heavily when asked these things:
“The subject of Eastern Orthodoxy is one that I have avoided going into simply because it requires so much nuance and so much background that the risk of being misunderstood is massive… Orthodoxy does not have a specific systematic theology, [but] is mystical, [such that] the liturgy and prayers of the church are the theology of the church… So if you ask an Orthodox person, ‘How are you justified?’ – that’s not a category they even think in. And that’s the problem, because the categories they do think in have been derived from tradition and they become a very thick lens that really mutes the ability of Scripture to speak to them.”
And so this brings us to this book, which has five contributing authors, three of whom are Orthodox, and two who are Evangelical. The format is such that each writes a contributing chapter, addressing the question of the compatibility of the two communions; these chapters are followed by responses by the other authors, and then a conclusion from the first author.
We get a mixed response to the compatibility question, with only one “yes” (from an Orthodox contributor), two “no’s” and two “maybe’s,” one each coming from the respective sides.
It would be one thing if Evangelicals and the Orthodox were clear and united in their own communions regarding matters of doctrine. But they are not, and this leads to confusion and straw man argumentation when Evangelicals, for example, are lumped together and characterized by one Orthodox contributor as antinomian Anabaptists who have no regard for ecclesiology. This, of course, ignores Reformed Christians, who in fact have a very high regard for the institutional church.
Another internal difference within Evangelicalism emerges from a comment made by an Orthodox contributor whose own answer to the compatibility question was “maybe.” His guarded assessment was that “an Orthodox theologian could consider a sequence of discussions – beginning with Wesleyans, with whom we have the most in common, followed by Lutherans, and then perhaps Calvinists.”
This is a very telling statement, because it illustrates one of the fundamental issues in the whole conversation – monergism versus synergism in justification. This issue is particularly complicating because it is a difference not so much between Orthodoxy and evangelicalism as a whole, but one really only between Orthodoxy and one aspect of evangelicalism, that being Calvinism. The other (and much more dominant) side of evangelicalism – Wesleyanism (or Arminianism) is in this respect actually closer to Orthodoxy than is Calvinism. I’m not saying that Arminians are synergistic in the same sense as are the Orthodox, but only Calvinists are truly and completely monergistic in justification.
This is probably part of the reason why Michael Horton, the Calvinist evangelical contributor, answers “no” to the compatibility question while Wesleyan George Hancock-Stefan concludes with a “maybe.”
The significance of the Protestant Reformation is a point of contention here, with the Orthodox contributor Edward Rommen arguing that “the distinctives of Reformation theology should be evaluated in terms of their historical context and the specific Roman doctrine they sought to redress. To universalize the Reformers’ conclusions would seem to imply that the Orthodox Church was party to the Roman doctrines criticized by the Reformation. That was (and is) not the case… The Orthodox recognize the significance of the Reformation but do not see themselves as being directly addressed by the concerns of the Reformers.”
But surely this is incorrect. The conflict with Rome revealed itself to be not merely about particular practices and theological dogmas unique to Catholicism, but over the more fundamental question of monergism versus synergism when it comes to our justification before God: do we contribute to our own salvation or does God save us entirely?
To put this another way, Horton asserts that “We are not declared righteous because we have cooperated with God’s grace; we are justified ‘freely by his grace’ (Rom.3:24) so that we can .”
If Orthodoxy finds itself on the other side of the great divide revealed by the Reformation, then this issue cannot be waved away as irrelevant.
And it does seem to find itself there. According to Hancock-Stefan, for Orthodoxy it is baptism, and not faith, that is the instrumental cause of justification. He puts it this way: “The weakness of the Orthodox concept of salvation is that the individual is lost. In the Orthodox Church, one can justifiably paraphrase the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30) from “What must I do to be saved?” to “What must the church do in order for me to be saved?”
The church has become the “deposit of grace,” and the priest dispenses saving grace through the sacraments. Thus a personal relationship with God is replaced by a personal relationship with the church.
This sounds a lot like Rome, and, like Rome, Orthodoxy has anathemas against the Protestant faith which go back to the 16th and 17th centuries and are read aloud each year on the first Sunday in “Great Lent.”
Michael Horton points out that Orthodoxy denies original sin, the belief that Adam’s sin was imputed to the rest of mankind, and this “cannot help but lead to a denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” to sinners as the basis of their justification. If, as Reformed evangelicals believe, the Bible places imputation at the heart of the gospel, to deny this doctrine is to deny the gospel.
Horton does seek to be fair and to acknowledge common ground where it exists. For example, he has concluded that regarding the eschatological destination of Christians, “what the Orthodox call ‘apotheosis’ or ‘deification,’ and what we call ‘glorification’” [elsewhere he adds the Protestant doctrine of ‘sanctification’], “we mean essentially the same thing by our different terms once Western suspicions are set aside.”
And Hancock-Stefan, who grew up in Romania, says that “when I go to the Eastern Orthodox Church and listen to the whole liturgy, my soul is exalted, and at that moment I want to become a part of the Orthodox Church. When I go to the Easter service, I conclude that there is no other service in Christendom as powerful and demonstrative of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Eastern Orthodox service.”
So he is a bit conflicted on the question of compatibility because he cannot overlook the problems of sacramentalism and what he and Horton regard as an insufficiently serious view of sin; he answers “maybe.” “My prayer is that Orthodox and evangelicals together will find ways to work with one another so that the church of Jesus Christ will benefit and prosper and the Lord Jesus Christ will be pleased and glorified through our work.”
Michael Horton finds that he has to answer “no” to the question of compatibility between Orthodoxy and evangelicalism, with the caveat that he is speaking for the Reformed wing of evangelicalism. The bottom line for Horton is this: “The treasure that the church carries in earthen vessels is the gospel – the announcement that God has done for us in Christ that which we could never do for ourselves, even with his help. This is all we have at the end of the day, and without it our ancient pedigree and customs, liturgies and rites, ecclesiastical offices and powers, are worthless. Is it possible that Orthodoxy has, like the recipients of the epistle to the Hebrews, turned – even so soon – from the sufficiency of Christ and his eternal priesthood to return to the shadows of the law and its temporal priesthood that could never and can never take away sin?”
He continues: “We still have much to learn from each other, and I have enjoyed a deepening appreciation for the wisdom of the Christian East. As we continue the discussion, perhaps we evangelicals can also deepen our understanding of and appreciation for the clarity of the gospel of free grace.”
I have presented here the Reformed Protestant perspective of the Evangelical – Orthodox conversation, the view from Geneva, if you will. But the reader from other perspectives will find the book to be unbiased and balanced, as if we were eavesdropping on a conversation between people from both sides. It is both a challenging and a rewarding read, and I highly recommend it.
Conservative Protestant Evangelicals who are at all students of church history and consider themselves to be heir of the Reformation generally know where they stand with respect to the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings (then again, with Pope Francis, who knows what Rome now believes, but I digress…).
But what about our relationship with Eastern Orthodoxy? To what extent was the Great Schism of 1054 a theological one and relevant to issues that Protestants hold dear? Even Evangelical leaders such as James R. White, who have been at the forefront of doctrinal polemics with Rome, sigh heavily when asked these things:
“The subject of Eastern Orthodoxy is one that I have avoided going into simply because it requires so much nuance and so much background that the risk of being misunderstood is massive… Orthodoxy does not have a specific systematic theology, [but] is mystical, [such that] the liturgy and prayers of the church are the theology of the church… So if you ask an Orthodox person, ‘How are you justified?’ – that’s not a category they even think in. And that’s the problem, because the categories they do think in have been derived from tradition and they become a very thick lens that really mutes the ability of Scripture to speak to them.”
And so this brings us to this book, which has five contributing authors, three of whom are Orthodox, and two who are Evangelical. The format is such that each writes a contributing chapter, addressing the question of the compatibility of the two communions; these chapters are followed by responses by the other authors, and then a conclusion from the first author.
We get a mixed response to the compatibility question, with only one “yes” (from an Orthodox contributor), two “no’s” and two “maybe’s,” one each coming from the respective sides.
It would be one thing if Evangelicals and the Orthodox were clear and united in their own communions regarding matters of doctrine. But they are not, and this leads to confusion and straw man argumentation when Evangelicals, for example, are lumped together and characterized by one Orthodox contributor as antinomian Anabaptists who have no regard for ecclesiology. This, of course, ignores Reformed Christians, who in fact have a very high regard for the institutional church.
Another internal difference within Evangelicalism emerges from a comment made by an Orthodox contributor whose own answer to the compatibility question was “maybe.” His guarded assessment was that “an Orthodox theologian could consider a sequence of discussions – beginning with Wesleyans, with whom we have the most in common, followed by Lutherans, and then perhaps Calvinists.”
This is a very telling statement, because it illustrates one of the fundamental issues in the whole conversation – monergism versus synergism in justification. This issue is particularly complicating because it is a difference not so much between Orthodoxy and evangelicalism as a whole, but one really only between Orthodoxy and one aspect of evangelicalism, that being Calvinism. The other (and much more dominant) side of evangelicalism – Wesleyanism (or Arminianism) is in this respect actually closer to Orthodoxy than is Calvinism. I’m not saying that Arminians are synergistic in the same sense as are the Orthodox, but only Calvinists are truly and completely monergistic in justification.
This is probably part of the reason why Michael Horton, the Calvinist evangelical contributor, answers “no” to the compatibility question while Wesleyan George Hancock-Stefan concludes with a “maybe.”
The significance of the Protestant Reformation is a point of contention here, with the Orthodox contributor Edward Rommen arguing that “the distinctives of Reformation theology should be evaluated in terms of their historical context and the specific Roman doctrine they sought to redress. To universalize the Reformers’ conclusions would seem to imply that the Orthodox Church was party to the Roman doctrines criticized by the Reformation. That was (and is) not the case… The Orthodox recognize the significance of the Reformation but do not see themselves as being directly addressed by the concerns of the Reformers.”
But surely this is incorrect. The conflict with Rome revealed itself to be not merely about particular practices and theological dogmas unique to Catholicism, but over the more fundamental question of monergism versus synergism when it comes to our justification before God: do we contribute to our own salvation or does God save us entirely?
To put this another way, Horton asserts that “We are not declared righteous because we have cooperated with God’s grace; we are justified ‘freely by his grace’ (Rom.3:24) so that we can .”
If Orthodoxy finds itself on the other side of the great divide revealed by the Reformation, then this issue cannot be waved away as irrelevant.
And it does seem to find itself there. According to Hancock-Stefan, for Orthodoxy it is baptism, and not faith, that is the instrumental cause of justification. He puts it this way: “The weakness of the Orthodox concept of salvation is that the individual is lost. In the Orthodox Church, one can justifiably paraphrase the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30) from “What must I do to be saved?” to “What must the church do in order for me to be saved?”
The church has become the “deposit of grace,” and the priest dispenses saving grace through the sacraments. Thus a personal relationship with God is replaced by a personal relationship with the church.
This sounds a lot like Rome, and, like Rome, Orthodoxy has anathemas against the Protestant faith which go back to the 16th and 17th centuries and are read aloud each year on the first Sunday in “Great Lent.”
Michael Horton points out that Orthodoxy denies original sin, the belief that Adam’s sin was imputed to the rest of mankind, and this “cannot help but lead to a denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness” to sinners as the basis of their justification. If, as Reformed evangelicals believe, the Bible places imputation at the heart of the gospel, to deny this doctrine is to deny the gospel.
Horton does seek to be fair and to acknowledge common ground where it exists. For example, he has concluded that regarding the eschatological destination of Christians, “what the Orthodox call ‘apotheosis’ or ‘deification,’ and what we call ‘glorification’” [elsewhere he adds the Protestant doctrine of ‘sanctification’], “we mean essentially the same thing by our different terms once Western suspicions are set aside.”
And Hancock-Stefan, who grew up in Romania, says that “when I go to the Eastern Orthodox Church and listen to the whole liturgy, my soul is exalted, and at that moment I want to become a part of the Orthodox Church. When I go to the Easter service, I conclude that there is no other service in Christendom as powerful and demonstrative of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the Eastern Orthodox service.”
So he is a bit conflicted on the question of compatibility because he cannot overlook the problems of sacramentalism and what he and Horton regard as an insufficiently serious view of sin; he answers “maybe.” “My prayer is that Orthodox and evangelicals together will find ways to work with one another so that the church of Jesus Christ will benefit and prosper and the Lord Jesus Christ will be pleased and glorified through our work.”
Michael Horton finds that he has to answer “no” to the question of compatibility between Orthodoxy and evangelicalism, with the caveat that he is speaking for the Reformed wing of evangelicalism. The bottom line for Horton is this: “The treasure that the church carries in earthen vessels is the gospel – the announcement that God has done for us in Christ that which we could never do for ourselves, even with his help. This is all we have at the end of the day, and without it our ancient pedigree and customs, liturgies and rites, ecclesiastical offices and powers, are worthless. Is it possible that Orthodoxy has, like the recipients of the epistle to the Hebrews, turned – even so soon – from the sufficiency of Christ and his eternal priesthood to return to the shadows of the law and its temporal priesthood that could never and can never take away sin?”
He continues: “We still have much to learn from each other, and I have enjoyed a deepening appreciation for the wisdom of the Christian East. As we continue the discussion, perhaps we evangelicals can also deepen our understanding of and appreciation for the clarity of the gospel of free grace.”
I have presented here the Reformed Protestant perspective of the Evangelical – Orthodox conversation, the view from Geneva, if you will. But the reader from other perspectives will find the book to be unbiased and balanced, as if we were eavesdropping on a conversation between people from both sides. It is both a challenging and a rewarding read, and I highly recommend it.
November 5, 2013
This was one of Zondervan's "Counterpoint" books, where theological issues are debated by all sides of the issue. Here the "Yes" position is taken by Bradley Nassif (Orthodox), the "No" position is taken by Michael Horton (evangelical) and Vladimir Berzonsky (Orthodox), and finally a "Maybe" position is argued by George Hancock-Stefan (evangelical) and Edward Rommen (Orthodox). Each of the participants makes an argument, is rebutted by the others, and then offers final words. As one might guess, the Orthodox argue that their churches have been "evangelical" in a sense all along and one merely needs to stress those facets of their own tradition. The Evangelical commentators argue against Orthodox from several viewpoints. For Mr Horton, Orthodox's view of justification, which he sees as nebulous, is a major problem. Mr Hancock-Stefan, though he argues "Maybe", says that the traditions aren't really compatible at all from what he sees as a tradition of church and state oppression of evangelicals, and suggests that the Orthodox should just cross to the other side.
As an Orthodox Christian, I was unhappy with the book. For one, it is simply unwise for the Orthodox to approach the evangelicals at all in debate. The inroads that evangelicals have made into Orthodox countries such as Romania have resulted in serious damage to local spiritual and cultural life, and Orthodox synods (such as those of Iasi and Jerusalem) have repeatedly condemned them in no uncertain terms. But beyond that, the biggest problem with this debate is that the editors did not set one specific definition of evangelicalism to work with. The EO commentators write in response to that non-confessional evangelicalism that has become mainstream over the last century, which doesn't even look back to the early Protestant reformers, let alone the Church Fathers. However, Michael Horton, writing from a Reformed perspective, answers every critique of this evangelicalism by proclaiming how the Reformed churches are different, how they look back to Calvin, and how Calvin looked back to the early Fathers. Mr Horton seems to have entered the discussion with the assumption that his partners in debate would be speaking to him of his own tradition. A second problem is that the evangelical commentators don't really seem to get Orthodoxy at all. That's only to be expected, since they happily remain evangelicals, but it makes their entire treatment of Orthodoxy very frustrating to read. The insistence by evangelicals that the Orthodox Church does not stress a personal relationship with Christ is pure slander, for the importance of the so-called "Jesus prayer" is known even by the least theologically educated Orthodox layman. Mr Horton seems to think that agreements in doctrine between the Reformed tradition and Orthodoxy actually amount to something, but as the Reformed tradition simply lacks the continuity back to the day of Pentecost that the Orthodox Church can claim, it's all quite meaningless to pile up similarities.
As an Orthodox Christian, I was unhappy with the book. For one, it is simply unwise for the Orthodox to approach the evangelicals at all in debate. The inroads that evangelicals have made into Orthodox countries such as Romania have resulted in serious damage to local spiritual and cultural life, and Orthodox synods (such as those of Iasi and Jerusalem) have repeatedly condemned them in no uncertain terms. But beyond that, the biggest problem with this debate is that the editors did not set one specific definition of evangelicalism to work with. The EO commentators write in response to that non-confessional evangelicalism that has become mainstream over the last century, which doesn't even look back to the early Protestant reformers, let alone the Church Fathers. However, Michael Horton, writing from a Reformed perspective, answers every critique of this evangelicalism by proclaiming how the Reformed churches are different, how they look back to Calvin, and how Calvin looked back to the early Fathers. Mr Horton seems to have entered the discussion with the assumption that his partners in debate would be speaking to him of his own tradition. A second problem is that the evangelical commentators don't really seem to get Orthodoxy at all. That's only to be expected, since they happily remain evangelicals, but it makes their entire treatment of Orthodoxy very frustrating to read. The insistence by evangelicals that the Orthodox Church does not stress a personal relationship with Christ is pure slander, for the importance of the so-called "Jesus prayer" is known even by the least theologically educated Orthodox layman. Mr Horton seems to think that agreements in doctrine between the Reformed tradition and Orthodoxy actually amount to something, but as the Reformed tradition simply lacks the continuity back to the day of Pentecost that the Orthodox Church can claim, it's all quite meaningless to pile up similarities.
June 23, 2014
As far as the Zondervan Counterpoints go, this is a better volume. I will forgo a thorough review, since expositing some essays would take many, many pages (and I plan to do that in my book on EO). So here is a short overview, with strengths and weaknesses:
Thesis: Are Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy compatible? Notice that the thesis is not whether one position is true or not (though that inevitably comes up). The answers:
Yes: Bradley Nassif. My favorite of the EO writers today. While I enjoyed his essay, sadly he does not represent most Orthodox. He criteria of compatibility, as dissenter Berzonsky noted, were drawn from Evangelical, not Orthodox sources.
No: Michael Horton and Vladimir Berzonsky. Horton notes that Orthodoxy's own criteria precludes any real "compatibility." He then does explicates the NT teaching on justification and compares it with EO sources. If Evangelicals cannot budge on this point--and they cannot--and if EO cannot incorporate it into their own theology, instead of making sublating everything into theosis, then there isn't much possibility of compatibility, much less union.
Berzonsky's essay does little more than offer numerous assertions on why Evangelicals should reject their sinful identity and become Orthodox. At least he is honest. He thinks everyone is a radical Anabaptist and doesn't make any attempt to interact with Horton's arguments. In the final reflections, he is quite silent on Horton's specific rebuttals.
Maybe: George Hancock-Stefan and Edward Rommel, Romanian Baptist and American orthodox respectively. Stefan gives a very interesting, but anecdotal essay of his life as a convert in Romania. He explains how the Romanian Orthodox elite silenced and stifled evangelical voices. I sympathized with his essay but it isn't much in the way of logical argument. However, he did point out that in Orthodoxy the church mediates everything through the priest. This is the theology of False Dionysius.
Conclusion: Horton and Berzonsky are correct. Per the latter, if Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith, then what precisely does Evangelicalism have to offer? On the other hand, if Orthodoxy is indeed the fulfillment, then please deal with Horton's arguments.
Thesis: Are Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy compatible? Notice that the thesis is not whether one position is true or not (though that inevitably comes up). The answers:
Yes: Bradley Nassif. My favorite of the EO writers today. While I enjoyed his essay, sadly he does not represent most Orthodox. He criteria of compatibility, as dissenter Berzonsky noted, were drawn from Evangelical, not Orthodox sources.
No: Michael Horton and Vladimir Berzonsky. Horton notes that Orthodoxy's own criteria precludes any real "compatibility." He then does explicates the NT teaching on justification and compares it with EO sources. If Evangelicals cannot budge on this point--and they cannot--and if EO cannot incorporate it into their own theology, instead of making sublating everything into theosis, then there isn't much possibility of compatibility, much less union.
Berzonsky's essay does little more than offer numerous assertions on why Evangelicals should reject their sinful identity and become Orthodox. At least he is honest. He thinks everyone is a radical Anabaptist and doesn't make any attempt to interact with Horton's arguments. In the final reflections, he is quite silent on Horton's specific rebuttals.
Maybe: George Hancock-Stefan and Edward Rommel, Romanian Baptist and American orthodox respectively. Stefan gives a very interesting, but anecdotal essay of his life as a convert in Romania. He explains how the Romanian Orthodox elite silenced and stifled evangelical voices. I sympathized with his essay but it isn't much in the way of logical argument. However, he did point out that in Orthodoxy the church mediates everything through the priest. This is the theology of False Dionysius.
Conclusion: Horton and Berzonsky are correct. Per the latter, if Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith, then what precisely does Evangelicalism have to offer? On the other hand, if Orthodoxy is indeed the fulfillment, then please deal with Horton's arguments.
May 31, 2014
This book varied widely in the usefulness of its chapters. I would not recommend it highly for someone seeking to deeply understand where Evangelicalism and Eastern Orthodoxy converge & diverge, but parts made good starting points. The structure is: each position makes an argument, the others respond and then the original author gets the final word.
A quick summary:
Nassif is Orthodox, but was saved because of Evangelicals. His chapter is by far the longest and he presents an enthusiastic vision of how both sides of this can learn from each other but ultimately claims everything within the circle of evangelicalism can be subsumed within a bigger richer circle of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Horton is 'magisterial' reformed evangelical, the view I assumed I'd be most sympathetic to - however his contribution throughout the book is the weakest. He argues from the NO position, but he really sounds like he should be the MAYBE guy.
Berzonsky is the Eastern Orthodox NO, and is quite emphatic and helpful in seeing that. Frankly, he's kind of a prick and I'm not going to repent of the entire Reformation thank you very much.
Hancock-Stefan offers the Evangelical MAYBE position, being a Romanian Baptist whose parents moved out of Orthodoxy when he was a child. His contribution is by far the best in the book, if you get this from the library and are short on time I'd read this chapter and the closing remarks.
Rommen is the Eastern Orthodox MAYBE but ultimately seems more inclined to the NO position especially as he declares any communion not performed by an Orthodox priest invalid. His section was not terribly clear and Horton's response was overlong and equally unhelpful.
If you want to get the most of this book for the least effort, read Hancock-Stefan & the closing remarks.
A quick summary:
Nassif is Orthodox, but was saved because of Evangelicals. His chapter is by far the longest and he presents an enthusiastic vision of how both sides of this can learn from each other but ultimately claims everything within the circle of evangelicalism can be subsumed within a bigger richer circle of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Horton is 'magisterial' reformed evangelical, the view I assumed I'd be most sympathetic to - however his contribution throughout the book is the weakest. He argues from the NO position, but he really sounds like he should be the MAYBE guy.
Berzonsky is the Eastern Orthodox NO, and is quite emphatic and helpful in seeing that. Frankly, he's kind of a prick and I'm not going to repent of the entire Reformation thank you very much.
Hancock-Stefan offers the Evangelical MAYBE position, being a Romanian Baptist whose parents moved out of Orthodoxy when he was a child. His contribution is by far the best in the book, if you get this from the library and are short on time I'd read this chapter and the closing remarks.
Rommen is the Eastern Orthodox MAYBE but ultimately seems more inclined to the NO position especially as he declares any communion not performed by an Orthodox priest invalid. His section was not terribly clear and Horton's response was overlong and equally unhelpful.
If you want to get the most of this book for the least effort, read Hancock-Stefan & the closing remarks.
January 21, 2016
First off, if you've never read from the Counterpoints series, please check it out. Always a great presentation of multiple perspectives; I always come away both with more questions and better clarity.
As a caveat, I will say that I was raised evangelical, though some under that umbrella would argue I'm no longer part of that belief system (I don't, for example, take much of the Old Testament literally, putting as much stock in the *context* of the writings as the documents themselves). But, I do consider myself aligned, theologically, closest to this group. I have limited experience with Orthodoxy.
I've walked away with a much clearer understanding of the issues presented here. For once, I felt the authors were very respectful of one another's views (if you wanna see a fight, read the evolution counterpoint--feisty). My main disappointment is that I felt some of the focus was on the history of the church's theology rather than the theology itself.
Though I don't agree with some of the conclusions of all sides, I at least understand how they were reached. And while I love studying theology, I often step back and wish that more emphasis was put on just loving people instead of delving into the details of complex opinions. Overall, though, a great read.
As a caveat, I will say that I was raised evangelical, though some under that umbrella would argue I'm no longer part of that belief system (I don't, for example, take much of the Old Testament literally, putting as much stock in the *context* of the writings as the documents themselves). But, I do consider myself aligned, theologically, closest to this group. I have limited experience with Orthodoxy.
I've walked away with a much clearer understanding of the issues presented here. For once, I felt the authors were very respectful of one another's views (if you wanna see a fight, read the evolution counterpoint--feisty). My main disappointment is that I felt some of the focus was on the history of the church's theology rather than the theology itself.
Though I don't agree with some of the conclusions of all sides, I at least understand how they were reached. And while I love studying theology, I often step back and wish that more emphasis was put on just loving people instead of delving into the details of complex opinions. Overall, though, a great read.
August 30, 2013
Първата статия на Брадли Насиф (както и следващите му отговори в хода на дискусията) са много добри и показват изключителна информираност по темата. Това не е чудно като се има в предвид, че той е създател и ръководител на група за диалог между православни и протестанти. Може и да не съм съгласен с всичко, но авторът много добре знае за какво говори, стреми се да бъде обективен и е напълно лишен от враждебност (което, за съжаление, не може да се каже за някои от другите автори)
Останалите есета са като цяло слаби (някои много слаби). Майкъл Хортън показва известно разбиране на тематиката, но тя е толкова преплетена с реформиран и калвинистки уклон, че на практика е невъзможно да се вижда като представителна за евангелското движение, което богословски е много по-широко и нюансирано.
Общото ми впечатление е, че тази книга от поредицата е по-скоро неуспешна. Човек, който се интересува от темата може да намери полезни неща, но единствено при положение, че има добра предварителна представа по въпроса - в противен случай опасността да си създаде погрешни впечатления е значителна.
Останалите есета са като цяло слаби (някои много слаби). Майкъл Хортън показва известно разбиране на тематиката, но тя е толкова преплетена с реформиран и калвинистки уклон, че на практика е невъзможно да се вижда като представителна за евангелското движение, което богословски е много по-широко и нюансирано.
Общото ми впечатление е, че тази книга от поредицата е по-скоро неуспешна. Човек, който се интересува от темата може да намери полезни неща, но единствено при положение, че има добра предварителна представа по въпроса - в противен случай опасността да си създаде погрешни впечатления е значителна.
January 5, 2016
Un „must read” mai ales pentru lideri şi oameni care vor, în mod onest, să descopere ce crede cealaltă tabără. În context românesc, ar merita să devină – alături de alte câteva titluri, destul de puţine, totuşi – lectură obligatorie atât în şcolile teologice evanghelice, cât şi în cele ortodoxe.
Cartea e un model de dialog interconfesional. Chiar dacă tăios şi contondent pe alocuri, acest dialog este purtat în spiritul respectului reciproc şi al unei frăţietăţi creştine subînţelese.
Felul în care a fost concepută, o face utilă şi celor care, fără să împărtăşească neapărat convingeri creştine, vor totuşi să înţeleagă câte ceva despre tradiţiile care au configurat cultura şi civilizaţia europeană.
Cartea e un model de dialog interconfesional. Chiar dacă tăios şi contondent pe alocuri, acest dialog este purtat în spiritul respectului reciproc şi al unei frăţietăţi creştine subînţelese.
Felul în care a fost concepută, o face utilă şi celor care, fără să împărtăşească neapărat convingeri creştine, vor totuşi să înţeleagă câte ceva despre tradiţiile care au configurat cultura şi civilizaţia europeană.
November 23, 2024
While it is obvious to many that evangelicalism stands at odds with Catholicism, the question of how the former relates to Eastern Orthodoxy is not always as clear, especially since many in the West are not nearly as familiar with this branch of Christianity as they are either Protestantism and Catholicism. The question of compatibility is one governs this book. With five contributions, one arguing that East and evangelical West are compatible, two that they are not, and two they taking a 'maybe' position, we get clear sense of what stands at the heart of the issue. In sum, for the two evangelical contributors, EO is theological deficient and schismatic; and for the three EO the assessment is the same. The doctrine of justification by faith and the assurance of the believer entailed by this doctrine, original sin, and penal substitutionary atonement are three theological areas in which EO and evangelicals find the greatest areas of disagreement.
Given the assessment of these five contributors, I am left with the sense that, in the end, the issue of soteriology and the question of what constitutes the church are insurmountable barriers between EO and evangelical proponents. While both affirm the importance of the Trinity and the person of Christ, the differences as to how salvation occurs and is applied and how to walk a faithful Christian life is so dramatic that many more conversations would have to take place before anything like a bridge could truly be formed. Highly recommended for anyone concerned with the unity of the church, the relationship between two of the three major branches of Christianty (EO, Catholic, and Protestant [with the recognition that evangelical is not identical to but a species of Protestantism]. Though some may add Pentecostalism as a fourth branch, I would see it as a species of Protestantism) and the issues that separate these two major branches.
Given the assessment of these five contributors, I am left with the sense that, in the end, the issue of soteriology and the question of what constitutes the church are insurmountable barriers between EO and evangelical proponents. While both affirm the importance of the Trinity and the person of Christ, the differences as to how salvation occurs and is applied and how to walk a faithful Christian life is so dramatic that many more conversations would have to take place before anything like a bridge could truly be formed. Highly recommended for anyone concerned with the unity of the church, the relationship between two of the three major branches of Christianty (EO, Catholic, and Protestant [with the recognition that evangelical is not identical to but a species of Protestantism]. Though some may add Pentecostalism as a fourth branch, I would see it as a species of Protestantism) and the issues that separate these two major branches.
December 28, 2017
A reasonably good interaction between Evangelical and Orthodox theologians. On the Orthodox side, Bradley Nassif was my favourite and on the Evangelical, George Hancock-Stefan. Hancock-Stefan presented his case clearly and defended his side well. Michael Horton could be frustrating, in that while he says that the two belief systems are not compatible, he is not always clear as to why, and occasionally seems to side with the Orthodox against those from the "radical Anabaptist" tradition. Appreciated the book more when I read it the second time around. However, it is a bit of a disappointment if you are an Evangelical looking for a simple synopsis of Orthodox beliefs and where they are similar and where they differ. If you are a newcomer to either Evangelicalism or Orthodoxy, I would recommend reading other resources first and then reading this book as a follow-up.
April 14, 2024
Ok I loved this. I had to take notes. I'm glad they all contributed and even more than that, I'm really glad they were snarky and emotional, filled with convictions and personal points of view. Of course, if you don't read between the lines or you get stuck on the big fancy words you might not notice it but they all care much MUCH more than they could ever say in one little essay + rebuttal.
I think Don Dent's The Ongoing Role of Apostles in Missions might be of incredible interest to all of the contributors.
I think Don Dent's The Ongoing Role of Apostles in Missions might be of incredible interest to all of the contributors.
July 24, 2023
Never been disappointed by a book in this series. Almost never do I find myself comfortable with my position at the end but rather challenged by the difficulty of understanding the fullness of God but also grateful for the diversity of his followers and the commitment of SOME to engage in brotherly and/or sisterly dialogue. This book was no exception though some of them got a bit more lippy with each other than has been true in the other books I’ve read in the series.
May 9, 2024
I didn't read every essay; I focused on Horton's, but read parts of others. I just wanted to gain a better understanding of what my tradition has in common with the Orthodox, and where we differ. This helped.
January 22, 2020
Great book on the perspective of Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism.
May 25, 2012
I thought this book was great if you are seeking to better understand the issues that unite and divide the Orthodox Church and Evangelicals. The rebuttals are lengthy with explanations which can become repetitive after a while (I believe this would be more compelling in spoken form), but that does not detract from the value of the knowledge. The book certainly contains an Evangelical bias, but if you keep that in mind while you are reading it, it can serve as a good intro to the ecumenical dialogue between both groups.
June 3, 2013
I have mixed feelings about this one... in the end though, honestly, it felt like the authors weren't talking about the same thing(s). If you want a better snap shot of Orthodoxy read Ware or Schmemann, if you want some reformed analysis read Letham or Payton. This felt more like sport despite the spirit of "ecumenism" in which it was allegedly written. Horton was true to typical form - missing only one thing - the point... Ugggggg I gave it two stars ONLY because at some level it at least introduces people to a Christendom bigger than they are probably aware of.
February 21, 2018
A worthwhile read
I found this volume to be excellent on the whole, particularly contributions by Nassif, Horton and Rommen, with Stefan-Hancock's more visceral challenge from experience on the differences between Orthodox treatment of Evangelicals in the West vis-à-vis in lands in which the Orthodox are more dominant. A significant omission was the absence of any voice from the Pietist/Holiness/Methodist/Wesleyan side of the Evangelical spectrum, with which the are some further parallels with Orthodox theology, in not ecclesiology.
I found this volume to be excellent on the whole, particularly contributions by Nassif, Horton and Rommen, with Stefan-Hancock's more visceral challenge from experience on the differences between Orthodox treatment of Evangelicals in the West vis-à-vis in lands in which the Orthodox are more dominant. A significant omission was the absence of any voice from the Pietist/Holiness/Methodist/Wesleyan side of the Evangelical spectrum, with which the are some further parallels with Orthodox theology, in not ecclesiology.
May 19, 2010
This is a really helpful volume. Each author presents their views well, and the interaction between them is enlightening. Required reading for anyone who is considering joining the Orthodox church, or desires greater unity with our Orthodox brethren. Michael Horton did a great job of showing how classical Reformed theology can agree with many of Orthodoxy's distinctives, while still having significant concerns.
September 5, 2015
I now have an in-law connection/interest in the Greek Orthodox Church. I found this book to be helpful in understanding the shared and unshared beliefs with traditional Evangelicalism.
Finished quite awhile ago and am still pondering some things.
Finished quite awhile ago and am still pondering some things.
April 24, 2016
This was a good introduction to the issues between evangelicalism and eastern orthodoxy, but it suffers from the typical problems of these counterpoint type books. The authors tend to talk past each other and a good deal of material is repeated.
Want to read
January 22, 2008Seems like a good read.
Page 39 references "Luther Reexamined"from Affirmation & Critique (January 1999)
Page 39 references "Luther Reexamined"from Affirmation & Critique (January 1999)
Read
April 19, 2012A good book. Michael Horton is especially un-compelling (as usual), but the essays by Nassif and Rommen are quite worthwhile.
May 8, 2014
This was a very helpful analysis by extremely capable experts.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews