[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

OP: "...we Calvinists are more Augustinian than even Augustine himself. This is a difference between our Tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy. I do not deny these differences, nor do I apologize for them." Good for you! :) As you know, because you have participated in discussions on other threads which in passing have mentioned the doctrine of Original Sin, there are probably four or five different interpretations of the Sin of Adam ranging from Pelangianism at one end to Calvinism at the other. Your posted article gives us an opportunity to discuss these various positions and thus arrive at a better understanding of the varying theologies existing within Christianity. This issue is fundamental to understanding the several Christian positions on sotierology, theosis and its Western variant salvation, the Incarnation and Mariology.

Thank you for your post, Kolokotronis.

I continue to enjoy and appreciate my correspondences with the FR Eastern Orthodox contingent.

In my studies, it has been very educational to me to compare the Ecumenical Agreements between the Lutheranism and Orthodoxy on the one hand (admittedly, as a Calvinist, I am not a direct party to these discussions; Lutheranism is certainly closer to Orthodoxy than is Calvinism), and the Ecumenical Agreements between the Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism on the other hand.

An important difference which I have noticed (and here, I fully admit my own personal biases ), is that it appears to me that in the Lutheran/Orthodox discussions, there is a genuine desire to find mutual areas of agreement satisfactory to both groups. For example, in the Lutheran/Orthodox discussions, it is clear that the Orthodox are willing to entertain agreement with the Lutherans on such matters as Justification being "by Faith, Not of Works", albeit admitting of differences between traditions (while the Orthodox wholly reject Good Works as a "means of salvation", they are more apt to see "Salvation by Grace through Faith" as being a progressive matter of "Continuing in Faith" rather than a single, salvific Point of Salvation ala Martin Luther). This is in contrast, to my admittedly-biased observation, with the Lutheran/Roman-Catholic discussions -- where it seems to me that, from the Roman-Catholic side, "ecumenicism" is simply a Means towards the End of ultimately bringing all professing Christians into subservience to the Papal Claims of the Bishop of Rome.

In short, for the Lutherans and the Orthodox, ecumenical agreements -- where they can be reached, without doing injustice to either Tradition -- are a desirable End in themselves, towards the inculcation of greater fraternity between the Faiths. Whereas, to the Romans, ecumenical agreements are simply a Means to an End -- that ultimately every knee should bow, and every tongue confess, the absolute Papacy of the Bishop of Rome.

My prejudice is admitted up front, and should be taken as such -- but that's how I see it.

Thanks again for your Post.

Best, OP

[redgolum]

Traditional Lutherans have always had a lot of respect for Eastern Orthodoxy, that is why some overtures were made to the patriarch of Constantinople at one time. Both sides soon realized that while there was much in similarity, there was to much that was different to facilitate a true union.

Also, in America there have been a good number of Lutherans who have swam the Bosporus when their synod went nuts.