“If someone in my church were converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, I’d be a lot less concerned than if they converted to Roman Catholicism. Eastern Orthodoxy never officially denied the gospel.” This is a paraphrase of multiple conversations friends and I had in college while preparing for ministry. I first heard a friend say something to this effect, and then I began echoing it in my own conversations. There’s just one problem: Eastern Orthodoxy did anathematize the gospel. In 1672, the East held a Synod to respond to the Protestant Reformation, the decisions of which were received as binding on all Eastern Orthodox churches. At Jerusalem, the East condemned the core tenets of the Reformation, canonized a false gospel, and declared that salvation was impossible outside the Orthodox church. Eastern Orthodoxy still holds this synod as authoritative teaching, yet this is rarely acknowledged in dialogue with Protestants—especially those exploring conversion to Orthodoxy. If you’re considering leaving Protestantism for Eastern Orthodoxy, there are some things you should know first. Let me introduce you to the Synod of Jerusalem and its Confession of Dositheus[1]—Orthodoxy’s Trent.[2]
1. Throughout this article, I will be linking to Robertson’s 1899 translation of the Synod, which remains the standard in English. Dositheus II, Patriarch of Jerusalem, The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672, trans. J.N.W.B. Robertson (London: Thomas Baker, 1899), here.
2. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) was a major Roman Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation where Rome anathematized (condemned to hell) anyone who believes justification by faith alone, among other major Protestant tenets. While Rome has become more inclusive in recent decades to the possibility of salvation for those who do not claim to be Roman Catholic, the Council of Trent has never been repealed, and it is still part of the official teaching of Rome.
“You Can’t Read the Bible Unless the Church Authorizes You”
The decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem waste no time getting to the point: the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is a dangerous heresy (Decree II). The teaching of the Orthodox church (called ‘Catholic’ in the Synod’s usage, but not to be confused with Roman Catholic) is just as inerrant and authoritative as Scripture: “the church “is infallible, and hath perpetual authority” (Decree XII). Functionally, the teachings of the church actually have primacy over Scripture, since it is possible for one’s interpretation of Scripture to err, but it is not possible for the church to err in its interpretation.
Because of this, the Synod forbids anyone from reading the Bible who is not explicitly authorized to do so by the church (Question I). Members of Orthodox churches may hear the Scriptures read by their priests and bishops but may only read for themselves that which their priest permits. Priests and bishops are especially exhorted to forbid their congregants from reading the Old Testament, along with difficult New Testament texts. In the synod’s own words:
[Q.] Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar [i.e., common] tongue by all Christians? [A.] No . . . they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit . . . So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation; (Rom. 10:10) but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden.[3]
3. The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Question I.
Only those whom the church identifies as “learned and divine men” may read the Bible for themselves and search out its true meaning (Question II).[4]
4. Protestant readers may also note that the Synod changes the definition of Scripture, by expanding the canon to include the Apocrypha (Question III).
“Justification Is Not by Faith Alone”
The Synod of Jerusalem also denied justification by faith alone, asserting that none could be justified who did not complete their belief by obedience to the commandments (Decrees IX, XIII). Decree XIII states this in no uncertain terms: “We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which worketh through love, that is to say, through faith and works.” Nor is this simply a misunderstanding caused by a different definition of faith, since the Synod explicitly rejects both the Reformed definition of faith and the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness: “Faith . . . does not lay “hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and appl[y] it unto us for salvation.” For Eastern Orthodoxy, if one could simply lay hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith, then any could be saved, regardless of whether they performed good works or joined the Orthodox church. Rather, faith is a belief in right doctrine which motivates love, good works, and obedience to the divine commandments, apart from which it is impossible to please God. To further demonstrate their repudiation of the Protestant understanding of faith and works, the Synod clarified that works were not “witnesses” or evidences of a believer’s genuine faith, but “fruits in themselves . . . in themselves meriting” reward. In Eastern Orthodoxy’s official teaching, the righteousness which justifies is not Christ’s imputed righteousness but one’s own works together “with Christ.” This is precisely the opposite of the evangelical gospel.
“Election Is Based on Your Foreseen Good Works”
Eastern Orthodoxy’s official teaching on election follows from their doctrine of justification. Just as justification is based on good works alongside faith, so election is based on foreseen faith and good works (Decree III). God, looking down the corridors of time, foresaw who would “make a right use of their free-will” and who “a wrong [use];” that is, who would cooperate with divine grace and do the things necessary for salvation, and who would not cooperate. Predestination is thus God’s choice to cooperate with those who cooperate with him, teaching them which good works are required for salvation, and enabling them to perform them.
Men are therefore not totally fallen due to sin, but by nature are able to “choose and do what is good, and to avoid and hate what is evil” (Decree XIV). God’s grace, however, is necessary for them to do the higher “spiritual good,” that is, those works which are meritorious of salvation. It is thus up to men to exercise their own natural goodness to cooperate with God, who teaches and enables them to do better and more perfect works, those meriting salvation.
The synod condemns as heretical all those who teach that God’s election is based purely on his choice and grace, rather than foreseen merit in the elect. In so doing, they declare that all who teach such things are hell-bound, and “worse than any infidels.” The list of those Eastern Orthodoxy would condemn to hell includes many of history’s most devoted missionaries, preachers, and churchmen: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Baxter, John Newton, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, John Piper, and most likely, your pastor (if you’re an evangelical)—just to name a few.
“No One Is Born a Sinner: You Can Be Perfect”
If man has a natural capacity for goodness and cooperation with divine grace, what does this mean about the fall? Though Eastern Orthodoxy affirms that Adam fell into sin, they argue that the sin inherited from Adam is only the curses of living in a fallen creation, “such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, . . . and lastly, bodily death.” There is no fallenness inherent in man’s will or nature by which he will be inclined against God and towards sin, nor could there be, “for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others . . . and especially the Mother of God” were sinless and “experienced not these, or such like faults.” In other words, Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that sinless perfection is possible, and that many of their saints have achieved it (Decree VI).
“Bishops and Sacraments Are Necessary for Salvation”
What works does God require for salvation? Primarily the rites of the Eastern Orthodox church. First, baptism is absolutely necessary, even for infants, as “without it none is able to be saved” (Decree XVI). This baptism washes away the punishment for Adam’s sin (i.e., hell) and must be performed by an Orthodox priest or congregant or it is illegitimate and not salvific.[5] Likewise, one must receive the Eucharist, understood as the real body and blood of Christ, from an Orthodox priest (Decree XVII). Those who reject or distort the Orthodox Eucharist—this would include anyone who sees the Lord’s Supper as a memorial or as involving the spiritual presence of Christ—are anathematized. One who is anathema is cut off from the means of salvation, and therefore logically condemned to hell.[6]
5. Modern Orthodox theologians debate whether the unbaptized will go to hell. However, the Jerusalem Synod is unambiguous: all those who have not received baptism are not regenerated and are subject to “eternal torment,” including infants.
6. Baptized infants excepted, see Decree XVI.
The Jerusalem Synod likewise claims that the Eastern church hierarchy is necessary, since “the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of” (Decree X). This is because the bishop, as the successor to the apostles, “is a living image of God upon the earth,” who by the Holy Spirit is made “a fountain of all the [Sacraments] . . . through which we obtain salvation.”[7] Thus, apart from the episcopate of the Orthodox church, the sacraments lose their efficacy for salvation. While this does not mean that every sacrament must be performed directly by a bishop, it must be performed with some connection to the bishop (i.e., within a church under the bishop’s authority). The bishop is thus able to perform baptism and the Eucharist (described above), as well as the rest of the seven sacraments as an “efficient means of grace to the receivers” which does not depend on the faith of the recipient (Decree XV).
7. This quote uses the word “mysteries,” but in the decrees of the synod “mystery” and “sacrament” are synonyms.
The fact that the sacraments do not require faith seems to contradict the synod’s earlier teaching that good works are necessary for salvation—but a solution is provided in Decree XVIII. Those who did not show fruits of repentance in their lives, but were members of the Orthodox church and received the sacraments, will go to hades (neither heaven nor hell), but can and will be delivered by the prayers of the priests, the good works of their relatives, and especially the sacrament of the Eucharist, which can be taken on their behalf. Thus, even in death, the sacrament works ex opere operato, independent of faith.
Is the Jerusalem Synod Really Binding?
At this point, many Eastern Orthodox apologists will object: The Jerusalem Synod isn’t binding! Only the seven ecumenical councils are. However, that’s not technically true. The Synod’s decisions have been received as authoritative by all Eastern patriarchs and each autocephalous church since 1723.[8] While each self-governing Eastern Orthodox church (e.g., Greek, Russian, Serbian) can choose to accept or reject the Jerusalem Synod, all of them already have.[9] This means that the Jerusalem Synod is authoritative doctrine for every Eastern church an individual might join.
8. Though there were fewer autocephalous (i.e., independent and self-governing) Eastern Orthodox churches in 1723 than there are today, all those that exist today received their self-governance from Orthodox churches who had already received these councils and thereby inherited their decisions. The Georgian church may be an exception, as they were sporadically independent from Russia, and there are not formal records of their reception of the Jerusalem Synod (likely due to their division and subjection to various Muslim empires at the time). However, they did belong to the Russian Patriarchate from 1811–1917, and Georgia has not distanced itself from Russia’s reception of the Jerusalem Synod since regaining autocephaly.
9. The difference between the seven ecumenical councils and later councils and synods is that churches are not free to reject the seven ecumenical councils and remain Eastern Orthodox. Some Orthodox churches do not accept all seven ecumenical councils, but they have been cut out of communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches for this. This is why the Oriental Orthodox churches (e.g., Coptic, Armenian, Syrian) and the Assyrian Church of the East are not in communion with Eastern Orthodox churches. The Oriental Orthodox accepts only the first three ecumenical councils, while the Assyrians accept only the first two. In order, the seven ecumenical councils are: Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), and Nicaea II (787).
No Eastern Orthodox church has ever reversed their submission to the authority of the Jerusalem Synod, and the vast majority of Eastern churches re-affirmed the “universal authority” of this Synod at the Council of Crete in 2016. The only churches that did not do so in 2016 were the Russian, Georgian, Bulgarian, and Antiochian churches, who did not attend the council due to Russia’s political conflict with Ukraine.
Thus, while some modern Eastern Orthodox theologians and apologists may claim that the Jerusalem Synod is not binding, their church’s official doctrine tells a different story. At a minimum, those Orthodox priests who desire to attract Protestants by denying the Jerusalem Synod must admit that they are breaking with their church’s official doctrine and cannot therefore claim that their church has maintained an unbroken tradition from the early church until the present day.
Conclusion: “You Can Only Be Saved If You Join an Orthodox Church”
Ultimately, the teaching of the Jerusalem Synod is that you must be a member of an Eastern Orthodox church to be saved. Not only that, but if you are a member of an Eastern Orthodox church, you necessarily will be saved (Decree XI). The membership of the Eastern Orthodox church is “all the faithful”—meaning none are saved outside it—and “only the faithful”—meaning all inside it are saved. No matter the number of their sins, all those who remain connected to the Orthodox church through her sacraments are regarded as her members and will be saved with her. Whatever contemporary Orthodox apologists say about the possibility of salvation for Protestants, their own authoritatively received doctrine denies it. Their canons are clear: you cannot be saved by faith alone. You must deny the gospel, join the Orthodox church, and receive salvation only from her.
As Protestant evangelicals, we bear a responsibility to steward the gospel. Christ’s righteousness for us—given and imputed to us—is the foundation of the Christian faith. This righteousness is necessary, because we are all born enslaved to sin. It is only knowable because it is proclaimed by authoritative Scripture. It is precisely these things which the Eastern Orthodox church officially denies. Though there is a groundswell both in the church and academy to reengage Orthodoxy, we cannot do so blindly. We must hold fast to the gospel we affirm.
Pastors, if a young man in your church is considering Eastern Orthodoxy, show him the Jerusalem Synod. Walk through it together, decree-by-decree. Help him see that the Eastern church isn’t simply offering a historic liturgy, an artistic window into heaven, a masculine Christianity, or a simplified authority structure. It’s promoting a false gospel and requiring you to forsake the true one. There may be nothing better you can do for that young man’s soul than expose him to the true teaching of the church he is considering.
