Vladimir Lossky's chapter on Original Sin in 'Orthodox Theology,' does a great job of explaining the Orthodox position. Namely, how our doctrine is tied into correct Christology. We do not accept the Latin view because they reject the distinction between essence & energy. 🧵
Correct Christology leads naturally into why there is only a Divine person in Jesus Christ. He has two unique natures, of course, but there is only one divine subject.
Correct Christology helps us battle the errors of Monothelites, Monoenergism, etc...
Correct Christology explains the two wills in Christ and sheds light on our own will as man. All this informs our doctrine of the fall of man.
Correct Christology then helps explain redemption in Orthodox theology. All this shows why we don't share our theology with the Reformed, Calvinists or Rome.
Lossky dos well to explain why there is legal language in Soteriology, but correct Christology removes any need for us as Orthodox Christians to include other heretical beliefs like Calvinist atonement theories.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you’re a Protestant who thinks it odd that Orthodox apologists always bring up the canon of scripture in response to the modern doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I’d encourage you to read this chapter from Lee Martin McDonald.
Learn where our Holy Scriptures came from. 🧵
The Holy Scriptures emerged out of the oral tradition that was handed down via Apostolic Succession.
There was no set canon of scripture for several centuries after Christ set up His Church… yet Christianity survived & flourished.
It was the Church’s authority that decided which books were authentic, and thus authoritative. It wasn’t until the 4th century that the notion of a fixed canon even became of any interest. Prior to any fixed canon, it was the creeds & oral tradition that were the rule of faith.
One reason Western Christians have a hard time grasping the essence energies distinction, is that English translations of the Greek word “energeia” get chopped up in our Bibles, and in particular, the teaching of St. Paul.
Dr. Bradshaw’s chapter on Divine Energies in the NT:
Dr. Barnes’ chapter on the Nicene & Pro-Nicene fathers starts with Eusebius of Caesarea but I really enjoyed the section on St. Athanasius’ understanding of power theology: God’s existence includes a wisdom, word & power which is identified with the Second Person. 🧵
St. Hilary of Poitier’s power theology is based in the Son having an independent & substantial existence… which he was probably building in a reaction to Tertullian’s own power theology.
St. Ambrose’s power theology, which is developed significantly over time, is examined through his works ‘On Virginity,’ & ‘On the Faith.’ He, like other Nicene’s was responding to the argument: “if Christ is the power of God, how could God ever have been without his power?”
St. Symeon the New Theologian's book 'The Divine Eros' contains a multitude of hymns that teach Orthodox theology. Here are a few examples of hymns that teach the Orthodox essence energies distinction doctrine. 🧵
Volume three of Dumitru Stăniloae’s ‘Orthodox Dogmatic Theology’ centers on our Soteriology. I am just posting one chapter here, in the hopes it whets some appetites.
He explains in minute detail, why we do not hold to the Reformed or Papal doctrines of justification. 🧵
Again, this is merely one of seven chapters in his six volume dogmatic theology series. There are very important reasons why our Christology & Triadology prevent us from holding to Western Atonement doctrines.
Our energies doctrine refutes every other false form of “Christianity.” Stăniloae paved the way with Frs. Meyendorff & Lossky, and is affirmed by St. Justin Popovich. He’s foundational for Drs. Tikhon Pino, David Bradshaw, Jean Claude Larchet, Giorgios Mantzaridis & many more.
Dr. Christopher Veniamin tracks the Transfiguration of Christ from Sts. Irenaeus & other pre-Nicene sources, to Sts. Athanasius & the Cappadocian’s, to post-Nicene’s like St. Cyril of Alexandria & Maximus Confessor. He wraps up his study on Sts. Gregory Sinai & Gregory Palamas.🧵
For Origen, the Transfiguration of Christ was a revelation of Christ, prefiguring His resurrection & second coming. For St. Irenaeus it was a Christological fulfillment of Mt. Sinai. For Clement of Alexandria, it was Christ’s pre-eternal light that man could partake in.
St. Athanasius speaks of the theophany as a defense of the consubstantiality of the Father & hypostatic Logos. For Eusebius of Caesarea, the light was uncreated Divinity of Christ. St. Cyril of Jerusalem says this was proof that Christ was worshipped by the OT patriarchs.