I just finished listening to this hour and a half long “dialogue” between the Evangelical theologian Dr. George Kalantzis and Orthodox scholar Dr. Bradley Nassif. The discussion – which they continually emphasized was not a debate – recently took place at Wheaton College. There’s a great deal to be said about the discussion; not only the merits of the arguments, but also about the style of the discussion and the way Evangelical and Orthodox dialogue should be undertaken. I want to hear from you (if you have time to listen to the discussion) and hear what you think about how the discussion should go, and how this one fits into that criteria. What should be the primary topics? What should be conceded, or consigned to scholarly disagreement?
I will make one comment up front however: I think Dr. Kalantzis explanation of the essence/ energies distinction is suspect. It strikes me that this is another example of the problems that East/West distinction is prone to, and consequently his attempt to explain the difference between conceptions of salvation falls short. However, this just yields another question: how should the distinction be approached? To what extent is the distinction Eastern vs. Western?
(You can go here to download to hard drive.)