Soteriology Diablog between Various Interblogolocutors

The list has been updated: 13 January 07 at 13:10 CST. And the date/time stamp has been changed to move it up the main page.

Update: Kevin has responded to my previous post.

See the last link in the list below (by clicking on “Continue reading ‘Soteriology Diablog between Various Interblogolocutors'”).

Note: I am still slowly composing further replies to Kevin’s comments.

Here’s all the posts (so far as I know) in the diablog on soteriology and free will:

16 thoughts on “Soteriology Diablog between Various Interblogolocutors

  1. Perry’s right – the Farrell book absolutely rocks. Nothing could do more to heal the theological divisions among western Christians (and bring all of them closer together with the Christian East) than for the thought of St Maximos Confessor to be better known in the West and for her theologians to engage him. Farrell makes a good start in this direction.

  2. I whole-heartedly agree with Chris and Perry about Ferrell’s book. It not only gives Maximus’ theology of the will, but also contrasts it with that of Augustine and the west. As an added bonus, it provides the best explanation I have ever seen as to why the filioque is so vehemently argued against. Unfortunately, it is out of print so it is difficult to find. For a brief outline of Maximus view of free will, check out
    http://www.monachos.net/patristics/maximus_freewill.shtml

  3. I was fortunate to have professor Farrell as a philosophy professor in college. Another of his works is his translation of the “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit” by St. Photious the Great. His long introduction to the problem of the filioque and it’s neoplatonic roots in Blessed Augustines thought is itself worth the price of the book. Someone who reminds me of professor Farrell in several ways is David Hart (of “Beauty of the Infinite”, First Things). They both have the ability to drill down into the heart of subtle metaphysical questions…

  4. Okay! Okay! I hear you all! 😉

    I’ve finally acquired, through the power of my university connections and a library card, a loaned copy of Farrell’s book. I’ll be devouring it greedily!

    Thanks one and all.

  5. If I may add my 2 cents-

    Soteriology is important, but it has little redeeming value 🙂

    Eschatology is extremely important…but its not the end of the world 🙂

  6. Wow. I feel like a witness to one of those great debates in the middle ages. Perry, Clifton and John have done tremendous work here; not to
    dismiss others who’ve added to this book-length debate!

    I was a Calvinist for 15 years before becoming EO. In the last few of those 15 years into Reformed theology I concluded that some of the
    darkest and brightest contributions to Calvinism were Dutch. On the positive side they understood that God’s law applies equally to all created things and went on to develop an impressive ontology. Abraham Kuyper’s “Lectures on Calvinism” and Herman Dooyeweerd’s “New Critique
    of Theoretical Thought” are milestones in that tradition. And they aren’t alone. John Murray of Westminster seminary, for example, had the wisdom to avoid arbitrary moralism, and seeing moral principles derived from ontological givens he gave lectures that were eventually bound into book form, his “Principles of Conduct”.

    Unfortunately, Calvinism was forged in an oven fueled by epistemological skepticism, biblicism, Scottish Common Sense Realism, an anthropology of depravity (Augustine), and a feudal moral theory
    centering on honor and retribution (Anselm). It’s hard to say how much Jerome’s faulty translation of Romans 5:12 contributed, but we still hear in many of John’s arguments faithful refrains of a very old song. William J. Abraham thoroughly documents the pathology of this uniquely
    western problem in “Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology”.

    Unfortunately, there’s no way we can avoid talking past one another when we’re working on entirely different problems but using the same
    terms. Either Calvinists have to spend more time in the fathers of the east or the EO types have to steep long enough in Reformed dogmatics
    to get infected with their passion for God’s sovereignty.

    To be perfectly candid, I think most Calvinists idolize God’s law and are dreadfully fuzzy about God’s grace.

  7. Ryan:

    Hey, in this case, that’s great! 😉 I don’t want him to give up. The conversation’s just getting good.

    Don’t worry. As I’ve demonstrated, I can simply stop the conversation if I want to by not conversing anymore.

  8. It’s great to see all these links here — thanks for the compilation! I regret that circumstances conspired to yank me out of the conversation, but I’m glad it has continued. Maybe I will drop in again.

  9. I left this comment under his most recent post:

    “What is the revelatory basis of the assertion that necessary existence is a defining feature of divinity? Is the Son divine because his existence is necessary or because he participates in the divine essence and is consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit? How do you avoid making a defining feature of the divine essence (ingeneracy) out of the hypostatic property of the Father? If God is both pure act with no unrealized potentiality and absolutely simple, then how is there divine freedom with respect to creation?

    This methodology is flawed, it begins with God as a *being*, attempting to pick out essential attributes and properties of the divine essence, before starting with the revelation of Christ and Trinitarian God. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s