On Twitter @andrewtucker.bsky.social suggested Isho’yahb IV’s questions on Eucharist 46, which addresses what to do when there’s no wine available, but makes no reference to inner Asia

The situation with the Greeks in the Achaemenid period seems pretty closely parallel

Yes, and his move to the sacrificial is mainly prompted by Paul’s mention of blood, if I recall. He does connect Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2 here and in other passages.

Ah, I see. Yes he definitely spends more time on the Christological reading of the Ark.

…this claim has come to be seen as an obvious and natural reading of these texts is a classic example of the common phenomenon of academic biblical exegesis forgetting the theological basis of its inherited positions and thus reading its texts poorly and carelessly. 2/2

Which passage are you looking at? His exegesis of Rom 3:24-25 in the Commentary on Romans is very much connected with sacrifice and atonement even though he interprets the hilasterion itself more strictly Christologically

I played with splitting it up in earlier iterations, but the argument resists it. Definitely something I’ll return to though.

Should’ve thought of Adamantius! Surely they would be willing to offer refuge to this Origenian monster if no one else will…

Not based on the length—in fact, most of the reviewer’s comments would require adding to the length!

I have not read it closely and am not enough of an expert on Gregory to judge. It seems to be well regarded though

Thanks—I’d love to. I haven’t written any version of it for popular consumption yet.

This is one of my major points in the work I’m doing on grace in Origen and Ephrem: they don’t just offer alternate answers to the classic “western” questions, but offer different definitions of terms and different sets of questions.

As Andy says in his comments, this is a very “western” framing of the question. The term “grace” itself is also a bit slippery even in western theology. Trying to make “Eastern Fathers” answer this makes it appear the categories and questions are universal when they aren’t.

I’d also add that “Augustine vs the East” is not as helpful an opposition as people think. What they often actually mean is “a few select streams of Latin Scholasticism vs a few select streams of Byzantine monasticism”

The account of Augustine also seems to do the thing where it reduces grace to simply the divine concursus that applies to all creaturely action. Lots of contemporary folks seem to miss that the point of classic accounts of saving grace is that it’s something beyond that.

I’m not sure I understand the analogy. Is the idea that the eastern bike can operate without grace but operates way better with the extra engine? If so, I think it’s not particularly helpful. In fact, it’d be closer to some western views (e.g. Scotus).

I’d echo Lewis in this respect: Barth is very Calvinist. The less sympathetic I’ve become to classic Calvinism, the less sympathetic I’ve become to Barth.