One of my posts raised a discussion on triablogue. My intention in the post was simply to show that EO’s claim of “Well, we offer communion with God” isn’t unique. That’s it. I pointed out how other traditions can offer the same claim. I did not intend to say that EO = Hinduism = Islam = Mooneyism. My state was simply a literary rhetorical flourish. Many simply did not see that (I’ve long suspected that Modern Reformed’s over-analyticism precludes its ability to see literary patterns. I now have proof).
One gentleman asked, “But EO believes in the Incarnation and these other traditions do not.”
To which I say, “Yeah, but…”
EO believes that the Logos instrumentalizes a generic form of human nature for the sole purpose of deifiying the flesh (all of the Eastern Fathers are very clear on this point; cf Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of his Thought, Routledge). We believe, by contrast, that the Logos assumed a human body (remember the catechism’s language on this point) within the larger narrative of redemption. So when the EO speaks of incarnation and Rho speaks of incarnation, they have two fundamentally different goals in mind.
I noticed, interestingly, that many of my challengers didn’t respond to my comments about the Instrumentalization Thesis.
Let’s ask the question another way
What’s man’s basic problem? As a good Reformed you would say something like “sin” or “rebellion against God.” That would be correct. That is covenantal, ethical religion.
Metaphysical religion will say that man’s basic problem is the fundamental slide towards nonbeing.