Participating with God

Participating with God: Considerations from the Orthodox East for the Theological Task of the West

Introduction

In the opening pages of his three-volume Renewal Theology, J. Rodman Williams makes an observation which merits our attention. Theology as a task of the Christian church, he explains, is an essentially participative activity: “theology cannot be an exercise in neutral observation but can be done only by those who are genuinely participants. Of course, many things might be written about God and His ways (and they could even seem to be adequate and true), but without participation there is inadequate grasp of what it is all about.”¹ Herein this fundamental point is strongly affirmed; true theology is a setting forth of all that pertains to the Church’s knowing of God, organically relational, experiential—participative.

The dilemma, of course, is not in reaching agreement on the importance of participation theoretically, but in defining appropriate epistemology—the “grounds, method, and limits of knowledge” with which the Church’s knowing takes place.² In rather cyclical fashion, as one’s epistemology goes, so goes his participation, so goes his theology. Defining not just the necessity but also the nature of participation thus becomes critical to the theological task. In the West today there is great emphasis upon individualism, the intellect, reason and word; paradigms of rationalism which focus on the frontal lobe seem to have crowded out those which require experience. Arising from this context do Western Renewal theologians, following Williams, have unique contributions to make to theology writ large? With hope for such in view, criticism below dares us to a fresh and qualified appreciation for both ecumenicity and the mystical. In particular, we might heed the charge to become better informed and enriched by theological traditions of the Orthodox East.

 

The Contemporary Context

In his chapter of Vinson Synan‘s most recent book, The Century of the Holy Spirit, researcher David Barrett posits astounding numbers: from Charles Parham’s meager flock in Topeka, Kansas in 1901, to the ends of the earth at the dawn of the 21^st century, Pentecostal/Charismatic believers have grown from 40 persons to 550 million, representing nearly 28 percent of organized Christianity worldwide.³ Though diversity and disagreements exist, all movements under this umbrella would agree on describing their faiths as experiential and participative. Many in the “Spirit-filled” church are infused into membership in powerful participative/experiential ways, and the need for a continued participative theology is often encouraged from the pulpit. Especially emphasized are the “baptism in/of the Holy Spirit” and the charismata. As the fastest growing branch of the Church world-wide, and in light of their participative ideals in relation to the Spirit, Pentecostal/Charismatic believers may be naturally looked toward to present a responsible synthesis between word and experience—a unified theology-spirituality.⁴

Unfortunately, complex historical currents, particularly within academia, are working against those most likely to offer a unified theology-spirituality today. Such candidates are, of course, Western. Most Pentecostals/Charismatics are from the Third World (66 percent), and 87 percent live in poverty. Thus, we may expect historical trends to continue; though the “Worldwide Holy Spirit Renewal” is not primarily a Western phenomenon, highly literate Western thinkers with access to means of promoting their ideas will likely give rise to the most influential theologies.⁵ Meanwhile, commentators from both inside and outside this camp are convinced that a theology-spirituality rift is a real dilemma in the West.⁶

Theology in recent years has become uneasy, and rightly so. There is a sense that it is talking only to itself, that it has lost its direction, that it refers to nothing. There is a certain truth in these charges, due, in part, to prevailing attitudes that dismiss praxis and paradigm shifts, and cling to the ‘dying bride of German rationalism’ like Linus to his blanket, to a scientism that most scientists have long abandoned. It has failed to make the transition from a Newtonian to an Einsteinian view of the Universe—a view that admits multidimensionality, and the accuracy and rigour of paradox as descriptor.⁷

Multidimensionality for Ross means the inclusions of awe, paradox, and participation with the Divine. She goes on to say that “the movement from multidimensionality to linear transmission is marked in Christian history by the shift from christophany to christology, from shared discourse unself-consciously open to experience, to the reflexive and self-conscious.”⁸ At just what point in Christian history this shift occurred she does not say. But it is clear that she understands this to be a Western ailment, the symptoms of which can be broadly sketched for this discussion.

Tertullian (ca.155-220), of course, made lasting impact upon the theological language and structure of the West. Likely trained as a lawyer, Tertullian is also “usually credited as the first to interpret the work of Christ in judicial categories, but it is Augustine (354-430) and Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) who developed forensic concepts fully and invested them with full force.”⁹ Following precedent, Roman Catholic thought and praxis since the first quarter of the second millennium has been heavily influenced by the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). The faculties of reason and the formulations of Aristotle, et al. were accommodated in the West to the exclusion of a participative theology-spirituality; “by the later Middle Ages fewer and fewer saints, mystics and theologians still knew how to knit spirituality and theology together in their own life and work.”¹⁰ Over and against the supernatural, mystical, paradoxical dynamics of participative faith, the Enlightenment made its impact as well.¹¹ Christianity was reduced to a rational faith which focused primarily on moral conduct. God was appreciated as distant and largely unnecessary. Ultimately, systematic Protestant theologies were developed under the influences of both Protestant scholasticism and the Enlightenment, as in modern Princeton theology.¹²

Perhaps the most significant point in Christian history in which the shift from christophany to christology was facilitated, however, occurred with the separation of the Church East and West in 1054. The West journeyed the path summarized above. But the East remained with mystical/experiential/participative emphases in theology, typified in the life and writings of Symeon the New Theologian. Alexander Golitzen comments on Symeon, most remembered from his emphasis upon the necessity of personal encounter with the Holy Spirit; “his anger is never so fierce as when he is directing it against bookish theologians . . . whom he sees as pretending to a knowledge they do not have.”¹³ Orthodox theology always endorsed multidimensionality and the wisdom represented in the paradox of early church theological method and formulations. No matter how each arrived there since the Schism, both Catholics and Protestants have been considered by Orthodoxy to be stuck in the same predicament of excessive rationality:

The Orthodox have generally tended to discount the Reformation as largely a squabble within the “Christian West.” For the Orthodox the earlier schism between Rome and Constantinople was the greater tragedy. Seen in the light of what happened in the West throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Orthodox historian . . . cannot avoid considering the schism . . . as the fundamental, the basic tragedy in the history of Christianity through which the whole of the Christian West lost its theological and spiritual balance.¹⁴

This is the theological thought context in which Western Pentecostal/Charismatic theologians must labor today. It glorifies the intellect and the faculties of reason. Much is written “about God and His ways (and they could even seem to be adequate and true),” Williams reminds us, “but without participation there is inadequate grasp of what it is all about.” The lack of thoroughly participative theology in the West, while producing a climate of great need for the same, has fostered an environment which might be bankrupt to either produce or receive it. While studying in Europe I enjoyed a visit to Neues Leben Zentrum in Altenkirchen, Germany, where in 1984 the Fellowship of European Evangelical Theologians met to discuss ‘Christian Experience in Theology and Life’. One scholar concluded, “We desperately need to consider the theology of experience. Our heritage from the Reformation onwards, through the Enlightenment and into the twentieth century has led us to emphasize the word, doctrine, right belief, and cerebral aspects of the faith. Little attention has been paid to the theology of experience except by those such as Harvey Cox or Morton Kelsey who do not have an evangelical concern for Biblical truths.”¹⁵ With experiential appreciations for life in the Spirit, perhaps Renewal theologians stand to make important contributions to such a unified theology-spirituality.

But how shall this be? Lest Pentecostals/Charismatics be vulnerable to Calian’s criticism, they should not proceed haphazardly. Many Westerners, Calian observes, have produced

ad hoc theologies in a search for relevance without taking a realistic assessment of the complex market-place. As a result, theologians have become theologically bankrupt, with almost no influence beyond the halls of our theological ghettos. We no longer find ourselves articulate witnesses to the sense of transcendence; our past experiences have been depleted of all content without being replenished. When, at times, we find a colleague with a recent experience of divine encounter, we are more suspicious than grateful. As a consequence, we have created distance between ourselves and the vitality of the biblical witness to the power of the living God. We have been too preoccupied with talking about theology without experiencing the Subject of our theologizing. What we need is a new spirituality to unite with our theologizing.¹⁶

A realistic assessment of the complex market-place necessarily includes thoughtful appreciation for the rich theological heritage of the East. Anything but this is plain arrogance. Pentecostals/Charismatics are in a critical place in the development of their theologizing. They are still young enough to make fundamental distinctions that can guide them in the years to come. What is at stake is the critical need to move forward responsibly and pro-actively in relationship with the Spirit, as opposed to irresponsible theology that leads to fragmentation of thought and praxis as well as the unity of the catholic Body.  

From the Biblical Record

His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. – 2 Peter 1:3-4 (NASB)

These verses from the introduction of Peter’s second epistle speak most directly and profoundly to the issues under consideration. The apostle reminds his audience of the gracious privilege and power attending “true knowledge” of God, and the phenomenal reality of being “partakers of the divine nature.” These are absolutely incredible statements, unique in all the New Testament, which unmistakably refer to the “basic realities of the Christian life”; knowing God in Christ by the Spirit (organically experiential, relational)—participating in the Divine nature.¹⁷ This is dynamically powerful (tes theias dunameos autou), gracious (dedoremenes), and exceedingly glorious (idia doxe kai arete) union with “God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:2). The soteriological, ethical and eschatological are intimately related. Soteriological. “Through” (dia) in v.3b introduces the instrumentality by which Christian life, regenerated life, is initiated—through “personal knowledge of the Caller.”¹⁸ Compare Jesus’ own words as recorded in John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Ethical. This knowing is also meaningful for holy living. “Having escaped [aorist participle] the corruption that is in the world,” the Christian has decidedly turned away from the ungodly to God, who so powerfully enables one to live in godliness. This is the sanctified life. Eschatological. This knowing is then forward-looking. “Precious and magnificent promises” are afforded the Christian, providing the grounds by which the believer may press onward and partake in the very nature of God. D.M. Lloyd-Jones rightly characterizes Peter’s statements as “utterly staggering and amazing”; “Peter does not stop at our knowledge of God—he adds that we are to become like God.”¹⁹

In reference to knowledge of God and participating in the Divine nature, 2 Peter 1:3-4 obviously highlights important issues related to the theological task. This text speaks of the knowing of God which Williams demonstrates concern for as essential to genuine theology.²⁰ In a graduated sense, this knowing is referred to as “partaking of the divine nature.” The only reference Williams makes to this text is in discussion of the Christian life as analogous to “the continuing paradox” of the Incarnation, the significance of which is addressed below.²¹

Theological Commentary

This section is intended to highlight both continuity and disconnects between Williams’ theology and Eastern Orthodox emphases concerning man’s participation in God and the theological task.

It is significant that Williams mentions 2 Pet. 1:3-4 in underscoring the importance of embracing the continuing paradox of the Incarnation, which he admits is “ultimately beyond all human comprehension.”²² It follows that human language is necessarily incapable of describing this reality, Williams concludes, “as human beings this is too high for us: it is finally a paradox of mystery. ” Concerning the Church’s teaching of the two natures in the one person of Christ, Williams footnotes a reference to the Chalcedonian formula: it “does not really express who Christ is in His nature and person, but what He is not. However, these four negative words remain important as protections and guidelines for the church through the ages.”²³ Williams, following Berkouwer, rightly concedes to the wisdom of the negatives employed in Chalcedon. This is the apophatic way of ancient and contemporary Eastern theology, and a point of apparent continuity for Williams. Since the Incarnation is ultimately an ineffable reality, it is more appropriate and accurate for man to speak by way of negation.

But, also like Berkouwer, Williams does not prefer to remain with the negative way for long. In emphasis upon human intelligence and word, his theology is characteristically Western.²⁴ Contemporary Orthodox leaders still promote the integrity of the negative: “Negative theology by no means ignored learning . . . As an ascetical tool the negative theology of these great pastors [Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostrom] recognized the limitations of the senses, of human reason, and of experience itself. Apophatic theology was and must continue to be a way which guides the faithful into the realm of the unutterable.”²⁵ Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky expresses the enduring value of the negative as

an expression of that fundamental attitude which transforms the whole of theology into a contemplation of the mysteries of revelation. It is not a branch of theology, a chapter, or an inevitable introduction on the incomprehensibility of God from which one passes unruffled to a doctrinal exposition in the usual terminology of human reason and philosophy in general . . . For Christianity is not a philosophical school for speculating about abstract concepts, but is essentially a communion with the living God. That is why, despite all their philosophical learning and natural bent towards speculation, the Fathers in the eastern tradition in remaining faithful to the apophatic principle of theology, never allowed their thought to cross the threshold of the mystery.²⁶

It is here that Williams departs from endorsing participation with God of the kind that Orthodoxy embraces. For Williams, revelation must be verbal.²⁷ He derides any mystical experience that does not produce declaration.²⁸ Revelation must be disclosure of divine truth that is communicable through human language. Williams does not make clear any methodology for reconciling this conviction with the abiding mysteries of the Christian faith. Perhaps the apophaticism of Eastern Orthodox theology merits some serious and sustained consideration.

As noted, for Williams the believer’s own experience as stated in 2 Pet. 1:3-4 (also Gal. 2:20) intimates some understanding of the paradox of the Incarnation. For Orthodoxy, the converse is true; it is the Incarnation which explains the believer’s experience. Athanasius clearly had 2 Pet 1:3-4 in view when he wrote “God became man so that men might become gods.”²⁹ This is the doctrine of theosis, or, deification. For the most part ignored in the West, it is the chief theological motif of Eastern theology: “it is not too much to say that the divination of humanity is the central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, or primary religious ideal of Orthodoxy.”³⁰ Western believers likely cringe at the thought of “becoming god.” Pentecostal/Charismatic believers emphasize the experiential, and theosis is a quintessentially participative ideal. But they do not have such a unifying theological motif.

Before Athanasius the same concept was taught by Origen, Clement, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Justin Martyr.³¹ Basil the Great posited that “from the Holy Spirit there is the likeness of God, and the highest of all things to be desired, to become God.”³² Today the Orthodox continue to maintain the primacy of theosis:

For the Three Hierarchs theology, or knowledge of God, was a dynamic of love which culminated in union and communion with the tripersonal God.³³

Emphasizing word but maintaining a healthy appreciation for the limits of man, Williams does offer some commentary that is essentially sympathetic to a theology of theosis. He concedes that “the content of special revelation finally, is the declaration of God’s ultimate purpose:

God wants people to know His plan for the world—the end toward which everything moves. There are limits, of course, both because of man’s finite comprehension and capacities and God’s own ways that are beyond human comprehension . . . The revelation of God through the language of Paul in Ephesians contains a splendid declaration of God’s ultimate purpose. According to Paul, “The mystery of his [God’s] will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ” is “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth”(1:9-10) . . . God is moving all things toward that ultimate goal, and He wants His people to know what is intended.³⁴

For the Orthodox Church, theosis is God’s ultimate purpose.³⁵ It is certainly important to qualify this doctrine of deification for, as Calvin admonishes, “nothing more outstanding can be imagined [!]. We must take account whence it is that God raises us to such a peak of honor . . . We should notice that it is the purpose of the Gospel to make us sooner or later like God; indeed it is, so to speak, a kind of deification.”³⁶ Ware informs us that theosis does not mean to become God Himself; “the mystical union between God and man is a true union, yet in this union Creator and creature do not become fused into single being . . . man, however closely linked with God, retains his full personal integrity. Man, when deified, remains distinct (though not separate) from God.”³⁷ Thus, deification is not some kind of pantheism:

Eastern theologians, both ancient and modern, uniformly and categorically repudiate any hint of pantheism. Whatever it means to ‘become god,’ the essence of human nature is not lost . . . There is a real and genuine union of the believer with God, but it is not a literal fusion or confusion [or] . . . the idea that humans participate in the essence or nature of God . . . Maximos writes, ‘all that God is, except for an identity in ousia’, one becomes when one is deified by grace.³⁸

As with negative theology, perhaps the Orthodox doctrine of theosis merits more serious consideration in the West. With emphasis on Spirit baptism and the charismata, Pentecostal/Charismatics already highlight experiential/participative, dare I say mystical aspects of the faith. As deification is the highest aim of man unto God in these regards, these aspects of existing Pentecostal/Charismatic theology could be reinforced and unified. The conversations which some Pentecostal scholars have initiated concerning the value of Eastern Orthodox theology vis-à-vis classical Pentecostal and Charismatic theology stands to be developed further.³⁹

Conclusion

Pentecostals/Charismatics have come a long way since the days of outright anti-intellectualism. I do not advocate a regression into that way. The faculties of logic and reason are invaluable and necessary in theological processes of any substantive integrity. The issue at hand is theologizing in a way by which these faculties do not go unbridled, but serve the highest end of man in glorification of God. An applied appreciation for Eastern Orthodox theological heritage might serve to help Renewal theologians foster better methods. In particular, the apophatic approach and the doctrine of theosis are of abiding significance. The appropriation of such emphases in the West could go a long way toward helping recapture a unified spirituality-theology, as well as promote the unity of the world-wide Christian Church and its subsequent witness to the world.

PR

 

Notes

1 Williams, J. Rodman, Renewal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 18-19.

2 Ibid., 29. Consider the historically controversial doctrines (thought/creed) and practices (experience) regarding the Eucharist. Perhaps even more challenging than deciding which epistemological road to travel, is fully embarking on the journey.

3 Synan, Vinson, The Century of the Holy Spirit (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 383.

4 Steven Land pleads that “doctrinally Pentecostals need to show how they display their theology in a systematic way and with a comprehensiveness that has been heretofore lacking. The missionary movement is only about a hundred years old—in terms of its intensive and extensive impact. But it is time to do more than write an evangelical theology with special added sections on Spirit baptism and gifts.” Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, Dupre, Louis and Don E. Saliers, eds. (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1989), 493.

5 Synan, 383. “The Worldwide Holy Spirit Renewal” is the name of Barrett’s chapter.

6 Jon Ruthven demonstrates concern for such a rift as manifest in Christian higher education; “Between Two Worlds: Theological Education vs. Christian Discipleship,” paper presented at Society of Pentecostal Studies Meeting, Lakeland, Florida (March 2002).

7 Maggie Ross, “Apophatic Prayer as a Theological Model: Seeking Coordinates In the Ineffable Notes For a Quantum Theology,” Journal of Literature and Theology 7, no.4, (December 1993): 325.

8 Ibid., 327.

9 Clendenin, Daniel B., “Partakers of Divinity: The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis” JETS 37/3 (September 1994) 367; “Orthodox theologians contend that in the west the doctrines of sin and salvation have been unduly dominated by legal, juridicial and forensic categories.”

10 McIntosh, Mark A., Mystical Theology (Cornwall, UK: MPG Books, 1998), 63.

11 Brown, Colin, “The Enlightenment,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Elwell, Walter A. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 355.

12 VanderMolen, R.J., “Protestant Scholasticism,” EDT, 985. Thus, Benjamin Warfield finds case to blast the mystical in absolute terms; “We hear much of the revolt of mysticism against the forensic theory of the atonement and imputed righteousness. This is a mere euphemism for its revolt against all ‘atonement’ and all ‘justification.’ The whole external side of the Christian salvation simply falls away . . . We may be mystics, or we may be Christians. We cannot be both. And the pretension of being both usually merely veils defection from Christianity.” Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968), 459, 462. Warfield’s extreme characterization and critique cannot be supported by review of serious Eastern Orthodox theologians who indeed affirm mystical, participative ideals.

13 On the Mystical life: The Ethical Discourses, vol.1, St Symeon the New Theologian, A. Golitzen, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimer’s Press, 1995), 10.

14 John Meyenorff, “Councils and the Ecumenical Movement”, World Council Studies No.5, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1968), 15; cited by Calian, Theology Without Boundaries, 21. The West has not gone entirely without sympathizers, “but mainstream Protestantism has generally mistrusted or been openly hostile toward a mystical dimension of the spiritual life. In Catholic circles mystical theology was virtually submerged under the tide of enlightenment rationalism . . . Protestant evangelicals have responded with a generally rational theology of the letter of Scripture”, Martin, DD., “Mysticism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Elwell, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 745.

15 Derek J. Tidball, “Christian Theology in a World Crying Out for Experience,” Christian Experience in Theology and Life, I. Howard Marshall, ed. (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1988), 12.

16 Calian, Carnegie Samuel, Theology Without Boundaries (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 52.

17 Hiebert, D. Edmond, Second Peter and Jude (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1989), 43.

18 Ibid., 45.

19 Lloyd-Jones, D.M., Expository Sermons on 2 Peter (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), 14.

20 Pentecostal/Charismatic theologians might take note of Calvin’s commentary on 2 Peter 1:4; “Knowledge of God is the basis of life and the first doorway to godliness. None of the spiritual gifts can be of any use for salvation until we are enlightened with the knowledge of God by the teaching of the Gospel.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Johnston, William B., trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 329.

21 Renewal Theology, 344.

22 Ibid. Italics added.

23 Ibid.

24 In reference to the negatives of the Chalcedonian formula, Williams follows Berkouwer; “The four negatives of Chalcedon are the riches—and not the poverty—of a modest, believing church” (The Person of Christ, 85). What he does not cite is Berkouwer’s conclusion, that the negatives which encapsulate paradox in Chalcedon actually serve as a sort of theological springboard, qualified by sound exegesis, for what can be positively said about Christ in every generation: “The limits of dogmatic reflection on Christology lie, not in a given historical decision of the church, but in exegesis or rather in Scripture itself. In this activity the church and theology with it, warned by many deviations and speculations, must certainly be on its guard. But it may try to maintain in human formulations, amid all Christological heresy, that the core of this mystery is not paradox, capable of being seen only in an irrational intuition of faith, but an act of God, of him who is and remains truly God, in this assumption of human nature also”; 96. The real value of negative theology is only to be found in reaching positive understandings, according to Williams; “Operating within these negatives there is much ‘navigable water’ for the church to reflect again and again on the reality of Jesus Christ”; Renewal Theology, 344.

25 Theodosius, Archbishop of Washington, DC. Speech. Feast of the Three Hierarchs, St. Vladimir’s Seminary (30 January 1999); available from http://www.oca.org/OCA/sermons; Internet. Italics added.

26 Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 25.

27 Ibid., 38.

28 Ibid., 42, n37.

29 On the Incarnation, 54.

30 Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 120,121; “Western theologians in general and Protestants in particular have given only scant attention to the central importance of theosis in Orthodox thought. Nor do they address the doctrine as an important biblical category in its own right.”

31 Hughes, Philip E., The True Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 282.

32 Clendenin, Eastern, 121.

33 Theodosius, The Feast.

34 Renewal Theology, 43 (cf.125).

35 Theosis “is the final goal at which every Christian must aim: to become god, to attain theosis, ‘deification’ or ‘divination.’ For Orthodoxy man’s salvation and redemption mean his deification.” Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1964), 236.

36 Hebrews and I and II Peter, Calvin’s Commentaries, Johnston, William B., trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 330.

37 The Orthodox, 237.

38 Clendenin, “Partakers of Divinity: The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis,” JETS 37:3 (September 1994): 373.

39 See Stanley Burgess’ “Implications of Eastern Christian Pneumatology for Western Pentecostal Doctrine and Practice” in Experiences of the Spirit, Jongeneel, Jan A.B., ed. (New York: Peter Lang, 1989). Most recently, Rybarczyk, Edmund J., “Spiritualities Old and New: Similarities Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism,” Pneuma 24:1 (Spring 2002), 7-25.

 

Bibliography

Berkouwer, G.C., The Person of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

Brown, Colin, “The Enlightenment,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDT), Elwell, Walter A., ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 355.

Calian, Carnegie Samuel, Theology Without Boundaries (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992).

Calvin, John, Hebrews and I and II Peter; Calvin’s Commentaries, Johnston, William B., trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

Clendenin, Daniel B., Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994).

____________. “Partakers of Divinity: The Orthodox Doctrine of Theosis” JETS 37:3 (September 1994): 365-379.

Dupre, Louis and Don E. Saliers, eds., Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1989).

Hiebert, D. Edmond, Second Peter and Jude (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1989).

Hughes, Philip E., True Image: Christ as the Origin and Destiny of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).

Jongeneel, Jan A.B., ed., Experiences of the Spirit (New York: Peter Lang, 1989).

Lloyd-Jones, D.M., Expository Sermons on 2 Peter (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983).

Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976).

Martin, DD., “Mysticism,” EDT, 745.

McIntosh, Mark A., Mystical Theology (Cornwall, UK: MPG Books, 1998).

Meyenorff, John, “Councils and the Ecumenical Movement”, World Council Studies No.5, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1968).

Ross, Maggie, “Apophatic Prayer as a Theological Model: Seeking Coordinates In the Ineffable Notes For a Quantum Theology,” Journal of Literature and Theology 7:4 (December 1993): 323-353.

Ruthven, Jon, “Between Two Worlds: Theological Education vs. Christian Discipleship,” paper presented at Society of Pentecostal Studies Meeting, Lakeland, Florida (March 2002).

Rybarczyk, Edmund J., “Spiritualities Old and New: Similarities Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism,” Pneuma 24:1 (Spring 2002): 7-25.

Symeon the New Theologian, On the Mystical life: The Ethical Discourses, vol.1 Alexander Golitzen, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimer’s Press, 1995).

Synan, Vinson, The Century of the Holy Spirit (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001).

Theodosius, Archbishop of Washington, DC. Feast of the Three Hierarchs, Speech. St. Vladimir’s Seminary (30 January 1999); available from http://www.oca.org/OCA/sermons; Internet.

Tidball, Derek J., “Christian Theology in a World Crying Out for Experience,” Christian Experience in Theology and Life, I. Howard Marshall, ed. (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1988).

VanderMolen, R.J., “Protestant Scholasticism,” EDT, 985.

Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1964).

Warfield, Benjamin, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968).

Williams, J. Rodman, Renewal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).

 

This article originally appeared on the In Depth Resources index at the Pneuma Foundation website on December 19, 2004. The Pneuma Foundation is the parent organization of PneumaReview.com. © Brian C. Smith, used with permission.