<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.</p>
</abstract>

This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.

Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue

Perichoresis

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue"}

This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in...

Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue

Publicado en línea: 04 mar 2024

Páginas: 96 - 113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0006

Palabras clave
Dumitru Staniloae, Herman Bavinck, Palamism, justification, sanctification

© 2024 Robert Simpson, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue

Publicado en línea: 04 mar 2024

Páginas: 96 - 113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0006

Palabras claveDumitru Staniloae, Herman Bavinck, Palamism, justification, sanctification

© 2024 Robert Simpson, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Palabras clave
Dumitru Staniloae, Herman Bavinck, Palamism, justification, sanctification