Orthodox Christianity is made up of two main branches: Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. The two branches split in the year 451, when at the Council of Chalcedon, there was a disagreement over the nature of Christ.

The Eastern Orthodox Church includes groups such as the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, and about a dozen other self-governing churches throughout the world.

Oriental Orthodoxy is comprised of six groups, the main one being Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The other five churches are based in India, Armenia, Syria, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.

Father Andrew Louth

In recent years, leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy have sought to find commonality between their beliefs. Some of the churches, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, have even agreed to recognize baptisms and marriages that were performed by the other group.

Some Evangelicals believe that Orthodoxy keeps its focus on icons and rituals rather than on having faith in God. I grew up with a clear delineation between “our church” and “their church.” However as an adult, I wanted to see what Orthodox spirituality represented beyond the icons and rituals. I wanted to truly understand how the Orthodox people viewed God.

In order to learn more about the Eastern Orthodox perspective, I contacted Father Andrew Louth, a Russian Orthodox Priest in Durham, England. Until retiring recently, he was also the Professor of Patristic and Byzantine Studies at Durham University. And before that, he taught early Christian theology at Oxford University. Father Andrew graciously agreed to answer my questions for the following interview.

Rachel Mock: I read on the Durham University website that you teach a course on the understanding of what it is to be human in early Christian theology. Could you tell me about some of the key concepts that you teach in that course?

Father Andrew: I used to teach such a course (I am retired now).  It was an MA course, with texts, the texts being Gregory of Nyssa’s On the Making of Human kind and Nemesios of Emesa’s On the Nature of Human kind.  Central concepts were: the human in the image of God, as bond of creation, as microcosm of the cosmos; quite a lot about psychology, a good deal about providence.

Chad Owen Brand, ed., Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2004), 338 pages.

Perspectives on Spirit Baptism is a collection of five scholarly essays that define Spirit Baptism from five traditions: Reformed (Walter C. Kaiser), Pentecostal (Stanley M. Horton), Charismatic (Larry Hart), Wesleyan (H. Ray Dunning), and Catholic (Ralph Del Colle). Each view is formatted as a chapter, which concludes with responses from the remaining four scholars. The space afforded each view differs widely in some cases. For example, the Reformed view is only 22 pages, whereas the Charismatic view is 64 pages long; the difference (42 pages) is longer than the Catholic view (39 pages). The Pentecostal and Wesleyan views are 48 and 49 pages, respectively. Regarding the responses, there is again a disparity. Horton’s responses total only six pages, while Del Colle amasses just over 14 pages (the average was 10 pages).

All of the contributors to this volume are terminal-degreed scholars, but were they the most qualified? What brings this question to mind are the credentials of Kaiser and Horton. These are highly distinguished scholars, but their forte is the Old Testament, whereas Spirit Baptism is a New Testament phenomenon. Both men are venerable patriarchs (Horton will soon be 90) of their denominations and have high degrees of name-recognition (which publishers desire), but I sensed a lack of edge and freshness in their presentations and responses.

Kaiser starts things off with a historical summary of the responses to Pentecostal theology by John Stott (1964) and James Dunn (1970). Mysteriously, forty years after Stott’s dividing of Scripture into didactic and historical, Kaiser makes the same mistake, favoring Paul’s “didactic” passages over Luke’s “narrative.” Kaiser ignores three and a half decades of scholarship, beginning with I. Howard Marshall (1970) and continuing to this day, that corrects the misguided notion that Luke was merely a historian.

Neither does Kaiser fare well in the department of fairness. In his attempt to connect Spirit baptism with conversion, he quotes Pentecostal scholar R. P. Menzies in order to counter him with a quote from J. B. Shelton (also a Pentecostal), but he unfairly ends the Shelton quote at a point that serves his purpose. Had he continued with the same sentence, it would have destroyed his point. Here is Kaiser’s quotation from Shelton: “[Although] Luke is not averse to associating the Holy Spirit with conversion. [Kaiser even omits the ellipsis that indicates an omission.]” Here is the omitted clause and next clause: “…this is not his major pneumatological thrust. Some misunderstanding has arisen when the role of the Holy Spirit in empowering for witness is confused with conversion.” But as serious as this violation of scholarship is, it pales in significance to Kaiser’s later mischaracterization of Larry Hurtado’s position on tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. He quotes Hurtado approvingly when the latter confirms that the NT does not raise the question of the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Then he chastises Hurtado for not thinking that this renders the doctrine invalid and for thinking that experience “can fill in the needed evidence here!” (30). Kaiser has grossly misread Hurtado, whose last clause of the quoted essay reads, “…the doctrine of initial evidence, whatever its historic significance for institutionalized Pentecostalism, should be set aside as a sincere but misguided understanding of Scripture.” Was Kaiser so desperate to compare the supposed experience-based Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism to Evangelical rationalism that he totally misread Hurtado? Whatever the case, Kaiser turns Hurtado into a tremendous strawman, and he owes Hurtado an apology, since Hurtado seems to be on Kaiser’s side. Hurtado is not a Pentecostal but appears more like a Lukan cessationist who does not believe Luke intended to teach Theophilus anything about the relationship between tongues and Spirit baptism even though Luke, following contemporary Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, strategically linked them in pivotal scenes that demonstrate the programmatic Christ sayings of Luke 24:45-47 and Acts 1:4-8.

The concept of justification carries eternity on its shoulders as many endeavor to understand, explain and experience the nature of salvation and how we need it. Justification is a term one would assume that scholars and theologians would strive to agree upon for the good of the global community. However, in spite of ecumenical efforts that include The Joint Declaration, the concept of justification remains unsettled in scholarship. In an attempt to examine justification, James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, editors of Justification: Five Views, serve the Christian community by wisely drawing on six scholars to present and analyze the five primary justification views. The list of scholars and views includes Michael F. Bird, the Progressive Reformed View; James D.G. Dunn, the New Perspective View; Michael S. Horton, the Traditional Reformed View; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, the Deification View; and Gerald O’Collins and Oliver Rafferty, the Roman Catholic View. Each scholar offers their position on justification and provides summary responses to each of the other views. While ecumenical resolution on justification may not have been the end goal, this book can serve as another conversation piece in the grand ecumenical dialogue. A well-organized text featuring a scholarly and respectful tone, Justification offers thought-provoking debate to an issue that is made possible by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ so that we may discuss the nature and need for salvation.

Setting the context for a debate to understand what is at stake and how this debate came about can either intensify or diminish the reader’s interest in the topic. Thankfully, Beilby and Eddy heighten the reader’s awareness of not only the history and contemporary components of the justification debate but also their significance. The first two chapters set the tone for the weighty conversation that is to come. Some of the topics discussed include justification and imputation, the teaching of final judgment in light of justification, pistis Christou (i.e. faith in Christ vs. faith/faithfulness of Christ), and the forensic nature of justification. For The Pneuma Review reader, it is noteworthy that while the role of the Spirit is initially highlighted by Beilby and Eddy, the significance of the Holy Spirit in the justification conversation warranted more attention.

As I read the text, a few thoughts consistently came to mind that may have enriched Justification. The first thought asks, what do these five views actually agree upon in the grand understanding of justification? A final, concluding chapter that brings the five authors together to produce the three or four tenets and/or terms that each of the five agree upon might have assisted in the ecumenical component for the reader. The extensive debate causes one to wonder whether a resolution is possible, and Horton quotes N.T. Wright stating, “If Christians could only get this [doctrine of justification] right, they would find that not only would they be believing the gospel, they would be practicing it; and this is the best basis for proclaiming it” (p. 106). Being able to read a final chapter that indicates there are some components the five views agree are “right” could have been beneficial. Speaking of N.T. Wright, the second thought involves the ghost-like involvement of this prominent scholar. His presence seems to permeate the text and direct contribution by Wright might have enhanced the conversation. The concluding thought asks whether an agreed upon definition of justification could have occurred. For the pastoral side of me, it is very difficult to walk away from an important text like this without having a definition for justification that all five authors could agree on.

Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 480 pages, ISBN 9780825421327.

Probably every Christian has read one of the warning passages in Hebrews and wondered whether they have rejected God’s grace to the point of no return. The confusion that results partly explains the wide variety of views held by theologians on these Scriptures.

In response to the dual concerns of theological and pastoral praxis, the authors wrote this volume. The preface explains its formal origin, “This book is a collection of papers initially presented to the Hebrews Study Group during the fifty-sixth annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 17-19, 2004).” Each of the four authors is a recognized scholar on the Book of Hebrews. Two are Arminians and two are Calvinists.

This work is another in a spate of books on a range of subjects looked at from three to four different points of views. Various publishers have ventured into this area of publishing.¹ Of course, these books are all co-authored by respected scholars in their fields. For the average reader who is theologically untrained, however, they may be left in a state of confusion. Even for scholars, it is sometimes difficult to reach a conclusion on these matters. One difference in this book, as a friend pointed out to me, is its narrow focus. Most of the books that constitute this genre address major subjects like predestination, the Lord’s Supper, or the relationship of the Old Testament law to the New Testament believer, etc. This manuscript specifically examines a few debated passages from the Book of Hebrews.

Herbert W. Bateman IV, the general editor, opens with a lengthy introduction to these warning passages. In his essay, he claims that all the presenters in the book believe those warned in Hebrews were genuine Christians.² To this reviewer, his chapter seems superfluous. For example while filled with information including copious footnotes, it contains little the actual authors do not cover themselves in their respective chapters.

Grant R. Osborne (representing the classical Arminian view) believes the warning passages teach that apostasy can occur and when it does it is unpardonable.³ Calvinists view the threatened discipline as the loss of rewards (or loss of fellowship with God according to others of their camp), but not in any case the loss of salvation. While Arminians view the threatened discipline as the lost of salvation, most of them believe Christians who backslide can still repent in this life and renew their salvation by the grace of God. Other Arminians believe Christians cannot only backslide but apostatize to the point of not being able (or desirous) ever to repent. Osborne adopts this latter position. He does not believe one can repent if he or she commits apostasy.

James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 208 pages.

The appropriately titled The Nature of the Atonement attempts to shed light on the complicated character of this biblical principle by presenting and critiquing four dominant theological constructions that have attempted to encapsulate the particularities of the atonement. The book successfully explicates the complexities of atonement theory by exploring a number of different views and intentionally clarifying that the Church has not recognized any atonement model as the official or dominant perspective. This unsettled doctrine has consistently generated clashes of disagreements among theologians, perhaps more than any other theological proposition, and this book adequately expresses this dilemma. Without glossing over the messiness of atonement theory, Beilby and Eddy invite the reader to become spectators and perhaps participants to this dialogue, if one is daring enough to engage the issues.

James Beilby

In the introduction the editors set the stage for the reader and the scheme for the rest of the book by giving a general overview of the historical development of the atonement. Scanning from the early church into the contemporary scene, a number of atonement theories are given attention in this section with a brief summary, thus calling to attention the theological implications of each perspective. Unfortunately not every strand of thought can be given adequate consideration in this work, but it does offer individuals a starting point for a more substantive survey, if one desires to do so.

The next four chapters of the book provide the reader with an in depth summary of four popular views on the atonement: Christus Victor, Penal Substitution, Healing view, and Kaleidoscope view. One of the strengths of this book is that each chapter is written by an individual who personally holds to that theory, whereby the reader gleans the benefits of having an insider perspective, as each author’s theological investment shines through. Some may criticize the demeanor of some contributors as being arrogant, especially those who maintain that their view is the dominant model, but modest approaches would defeat the purpose of the book in bringing out the specific issues at stake and their implications for theological reflection. The writers uphold a level of persuasive writing that reveals the historical and contemporary nature of atonement thought as multifaceted and spirited. Additionally, each contributor is given an opportunity to respond to the other perspectives, and they do so in a critical, yet respectful manner. The various responses at the end of each chapter further elucidates this theological jockeying, and is also valuable in pointing out the weaknesses of each position that only a dissenting voice can adequately address. The inclusion of the Kaleidoscope view is questionable in that it can essentially make a single unique claim–it gives equal validation to all the other views. Consequently, the only legitimate criticism it can offer is to the arrogance of other views who parade as the dominant theory. In its place this book would have benefited greatly from including a subjective view of the atonement, such as the moral influence theory. In leaving this out, the volume lacks one of the most dominant perspectives that has continuously arisen within the Church. With this exception, Beilby and Eddy’s book successfully navigates the multivalent field of atonement theory.

Stanley N. Gundry and James Stamoolis, eds., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 294 pages.

This book is a fine addition to Zondervan’s Counterpoint series, in which controversial theological issues are examined from a variety of stances by reputable scholars and/or denominational leaders. This particular book offers a variety of perspectives on the relationship between the evangelical movement and the oldest Christian community, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Respected evangelical scholar J. I. Packer writes the forward and five pastors and theologians, some evangelical and some Orthodox, offer answers to the question of whether Eastern Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible. All five present their answers (yes, no and maybe) and the other four are given the opportunity to respond to the presenter. The presenting writer is then allowed to respond to the respondents.

Bradley Nassif, an Orthodox theologian with an extensive background in evangelical higher education and ecumenical activity offers the sole affirmative response for the compatibility of these two Christian traditions. Nassif demonstrates not only a thorough grasp of his own tradition but an impressive comprehension and positive assessment of evangelicalism. His primary thesis is that Orthodoxy and evangelicalism are compatible because Orthodox theology is evangelical, whether or not Orthodox adherents and church leadership care to identify it as such. Nassif uses David Bebbington’s fourfold definition of evangelicalism to show Orthodox and evangelical compatibility. First, both groups emphasize “crucicentrism” (centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Christ), “biblicism” (commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture), “conversionism” (personal commitment of one’s life to Christ) and “activism” (witness and holy living). Nassif grants that both Orthodoxy and evangelicalism do not often emphasize specific doctrinal elements contained in these basic agreements to the satisfaction of each group, but the agreement is nonetheless there in principle.

Michael Horton, a Reformed evangelical theologian, writes next, denying the compatibility of the two traditions. Horton begins by appreciating the areas of commonality between the two, such as a high view of Scripture and conservative Christology (doctrine of Christ’s person and work). He finds problems, however, with the high view of church tradition espoused by Orthodoxy in relation to Scripture, finding there the same problem he perceives with the Roman Catholic view. Even more fundamentally, however, Horton alleges that Orthodoxy does not possess an adequate view on issues of sin, free will and salvation, particularly with regard to justification and sanctification. He contends that, due to Orthodoxy’s stress on sanctification, it promotes a salvation by works that fundamentally denies justification by faith alone. He claims that the evangelical view denies any role of the human in salvation and that this, in contrast to the Orthodox view, is the true Gospel message.

James Beck and Craig Blomberg, eds., Two Views On Women in Ministry (Zondervan, 2001), 383 pages.

In the first century the apostles had to struggle with the Gentiles. Can they be accepted as equals in the faith? Can they be raised to positions of deacons, overseers, and elders? Can a Gentile actually be ordained to lead a congregation?

Before Christ, these questions would have been considered absurd and not given a second thought. Yet through the blood of the Lamb, the absurd was becoming commonplace.

Now we find ourselves in an era that has its own questions and challenges. What about women in ministry? Zondervan Publishing House has taken on the task of examining that question in Two Views On Women in Ministry by editors James Beck and Craig Blomberg.

To the book’s great credit, efforts have been made to avoid vocabulary that inflames many such debates and belittles other brothers and sisters of the faith. As a result, even though the reader may not agree on every point (after all, the book presents two views), when “cooler heads prevail” it is far easier to hear and consider both sides of the issue.

The 2005 Revised Edition.

Another appreciable quality to Two Views On Women in Ministry is a general avoidance to compare modern secular feminism to any claim the Bible does or does not make regarding women in ministry. This keeps the reader engaged in God’s Word and its culture, rather than allowing the subject matter to be influenced by contemporary societal forces.

The debate is not always centered specifically on Paul’s epistles, but—on the whole—takes a “complete Bible” approach, allowing the reader to reach his or her conclusions on a much wider field of vision and biblical scholarship.

Each of the four units, two on egalitarianism and two on complementarianism, conclude with poignant questions from the book’s editors—giving readers a more intimate glimpse into each writer’s position.

Craig S. Keener aptly espouses various doctrinal issues from an egalitarian position—with a fair amount of time spent in the Old Testament. At the very least, he poses questions the complementarian side does not answer in this book. Linda L. Belleville tackles the tedious topics of Greek translation, likewise challenging some of the more traditional arguments of women in leadership. If you’re not up on your Greek, this section may prove trying, but is worth the investment. Both professors were amply published in the 1990s, but Two Views presents materials and scholarship new for this century.

On the complementarian side (also known as traditional or hierarchic) we have authors Thomas R. Schreiner and Ann L. Bowman.

Wayne Grudem, ed., Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 368 pages, ISBN 9780310201557.

Are the supernatural gifts for today? In this book, four different authors from four different viewpoints have sought to answer that question.

Could it be better? The four views represented are Pentecostal/charismatic, Third Wave, Open but Cautious, and Cessationist. Giving the Pentecostal/charismatic viewpoint is Douglas A. Oss. Dr. Oss is professor of hermeneutics and New Testament and chairman of Bible and theology at the Assemblies of God’s Central Bible College in Springfield, Missouri. Dr. C. Samuel Storms represents the Third Wave view, president of Grace Training Center that is connected with the Metro Vineyard Fellowship of Kansas City. Representing the broad center of evangelicals in what this books calls “Open but Cautious” is Robert L. Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology in California. The Cessationist viewpoint is presented by Dr. Richard B. Gaffin. Gaffin is professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. His book, Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979) has already had a significant influence upon cessationist perspectives.

Although it is beyond the scope of this review to summarize the four viewpoints presented in this book, there are some points of interest that merit mention. First, one of the reasons this book makes such a considerable contribution to the discussion about the contemporary gifts of the Holy Spirit is that the authors have carefully chosen to avoid emotionally charged arguments. There is no name-calling or anyone taking cheapshots here. Defamatory generalizations are avoided and no one uses anecdotes about what an untrained popularizer in another viewpoint has said or done to demonstrate the author’s point.

Secondly, the balance that comes from approaching this subject on a theological and philosophical basis instead of an emotional one opens the way for real dialogue. As the authors express, there are things that each viewpoint can learn from the others. Third Wavers and Cessationists can still agree to disagree without losing respect for the other’s position. Both Pentecostal/charismatic and Open but cautious Evangelicals can admonish one another to pursue the truth of God’s Word by living it out in today’s world without demeaning or, worse yet, demonizing one another. Pentecostals, charismatics, and Third Wavers really do have much to learn from the rest of Evangelicals about the Word being our one rule of faith and practice. Likewise, non-charismatic Evangelicals truly need the power of the Holy Spirit empowering them for service.

The way that this book has come together certainly fosters on-going discussion. Each author presents their position and then the other three authors respond. As the General editor Wayne Grudem expresses in his introduction, it is also this editor’s hope that the discussion on this subject will continue. Since teaching on the Biblical use of spiritual gifts is much of the emphasis found within the Pneuma Review, it is our hope to in some way fill the call that Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? makes for continued contributions to this field of study.

Reviewed by Raul Mock

Preview Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? online: books.google.com/books?id=-65AMieVZ0kC