The Eastern Orthodox Church has held an allure among Evangelical Protestant Christians for some time and continues to do so to the present day. In 1990 the Evangelical world was stunned when Frank Schaeffer, the son of the well-known Christian apologist and philosopher Francis Schaeffer converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.[1] In 2017, Hank Hanegraaff of the radio program The Bible Answer Man, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.[2] A disturbing headline came out in 2024 by Rikki Schlott entitled, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves.”[3]
On a personal and pastoral level, I have been contacted by a number of people belonging to Evangelical churches who have raised concerns that members of their own families converted or were in the process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. But before we ask ourselves “why is this happening?” and “what can be done?” we first must become familiar with the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy—and why it is dangerous. This article is by no means exhaustive, but in what follows, I will deal with some of the most important points of Eastern Orthodox belief, especially as they differ from evangelicalism.[4]
Eastern Orthodoxy Claims to be the Only True Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church and others, claims to be the original and true visible church that was founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. It claims to be the “ancient church,” and the church “of the [Church] Fathers.” It claims to be the one and only true church over all the other institutional churches. Indeed, it anathematizes any and all who are not within its ecclesial communion, “That whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized.”[5] This means that Roman Catholics and Protestants are considered heretics, thrown into the same category as the Arians and Gnostics:
From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have fallen away from the One and indivisible Church of Christ [Eastern Orthodox Church], whereby they ceased to be members of the Church and parts of Her Theanthropic Body. The first to fall away thus were the Gnostics, then the Arians, then the Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on—all the members of the legion of heretics and schismatics.[6]
On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (a holy day in the East’s liturgical calendar), in many Orthodox congregations, a series of anathemas is read out by the priest to which the congregation responds with ‘anathema.’ Anathema 18 reads as follows: “To Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Henry VIII—the ungodly king, and to those assembled together with them and to all the Protestant groups: Anathema!”[7] Eastern Orthodoxy has stated in no uncertain terms how they view Protestants.
To make the claim to antiquity as the original church is one thing, to prove it is quite another. Eastern Orthodox apologists can appeal to the fact that their church is very old, but the argument from age (Latin argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a logical fallacy. Truth is not predicated on how old something is. Other groups like the Judaizers and Gnostics are very ancient, even going back to apostolic times in the first century. Indeed, both Gnostics and Judaizers have been around since the New Testament was written! Paul confronted the Judaizers in Galatians and the proto-Gnostics in Colossians, while the apostle John had to denounce the same Gnostics in his two epistles (1 and 2 John).[8] While the Judaizers and Gnostics can claim a pedigree of antiquity, even living in the time of the apostles, it does not follow that they were correct or that they were the “church of antiquity.”
The attempt to place the Church Fathers into an Eastern Orthodox mold is another feature of such claims to antiquity, even quote mining for the alleged ‘consensus of the Fathers’ to support Eastern Orthodox teaching. The same feature occurs with Roman Catholics claiming the Fathers were all Catholic Fathers, finding in them support of the Papacy or other dogma. A pattern emerges here with institutional churches vying in a historical race for first place as the original church. With Patristics, we should allow the Church Fathers to be themselves: committed Christians following their convictions to shepherd the church. Were they faithful? Yes. But perfect? No. Unfortunately, there is a profound lack of exposure on the Church Fathers and Church history among many Evangelicals. This is an area that we must reclaim.
The Basics
The Filioque
In terms of theology, Evangelical Christians join with the Eastern Orthodox Church in affirming the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, including his Incarnation, virgin birth, sinless life, death and resurrection and second advent. One of the significant differences that Eastern Orthodoxy has with Western Christianity is the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Eastern Orthodoxy claims the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Western churches affirm a dual procession, i.e., the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, also known as the filioque (meaning “and the Son” in Latin). The issue of the filioque is taken by the Eastern Orthodox as a serious theological breach and one which they have denounced as a heresy and a serious impediment to any possible reconciliation with Western Christendom.[9] This debate remains unabated between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western churches and it continues to the present day and is perceived as a dividing line. I would like to stress that despite the ongoing debate on the filioque, both Western and Eastern Christendom unequivocally affirms the Trinity, that there are three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, in the one being of God. Both affirm the ontological and economical Trinity.
The Councils and the Canon
As we saw above, this view of the filioque was grounds for Eastern Orthodoxy to denounce Roman Catholicism and also Protestantism as heretical and under the anathema. Evangelicals also accept the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; AD 325–451), in addition to the Apostles’ Creed, while Eastern Orthodoxy affirms seven Ecumenical Councils of which they claim to be the creators and the guardians. They also believe these seven Ecumenical Councils are “infallible” in the same way Scripture is, and unable to be changed in any way.[10] What is absent in these creeds, however, is a full-orbed treatment of soteriology and the nature of the Gospel and its corollaries of justification, sanctification, and glorification. While there are differences between Evangelical Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox Church on the creeds and which ones are deemed acceptable, it is important to stress that the standard by which Evangelicals judge the Creeds and Councils are the Scriptures. While the Eastern Orthodox Church holds these Creeds and Councils to be “infallible” (like Scripture), Evangelicals deny this equivalence and view the Creeds and Councils as fallible and subject to the Scriptures. The only creeds that are infallible, are those found in Scripture. [11] While we view the historic Creeds and Councils as beneficial and helpful, they are not God-breathed or inspired texts as the Scriptures are (2 Tim. 3:16). While we agree with our Eastern Orthodox friends that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and authoritative, we deny that it is equal to the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds.
While we do agree on the Bible as God’s Word, it should be noted that we disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy on the canon of the Old Testament. Evangelical Protestants accept the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, which are the same books (although differently numbered) contained in the Hebrew Bible. While Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles, they do accept additional books as canonical and therefore Scripture, which Evangelicals view such books as part of the Apocrypha. There is a disparity in the number of books in the Old Testament among Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestants, and even Roman Catholics. In terms of the Old Testament canon, the Eastern Orthodox Church has fifty-two books, the Roman Catholic Church has forty-six books, Protestants have thirty-nine books (same canon Jews hold to), and the Ethiopian Orthodox church has fifty-four books. [12] The textual source and basis of the Old Testament in Eastern Orthodoxy is the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), whereas Protestants and Roman Catholics follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text as their textual basis. This raises an important question. If the Eastern Orthodox Church is infallible and the originator of the canon under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then the differences it has with other churches in respect to their Old Testament canons, must lead her logically to dismiss these other churches as being devoid of the Holy Spirit. While differences remain on the question of the Old Testament canon, there is unanimous agreement between Eastern Orthodoxy (and other churches), and Evangelical Christians on the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books.
Mary, the Saints, and Icon Veneration
Among some of the positions that Eastern Orthodoxy holds to that are rejected by Evangelicals are their view of Mary as the portal to heaven, her worship (they prefer to use “veneration”), and the veneration of the saints. Mary is also seen as a perpetual virgin, sinless, and indispensable in the salvation of humanity. According to the famous fourteenth-century Orthodox theologian St. Gregory Palamas:
She [Mary] alone forms the boundary between created and uncreated nature, and no one can come to God except through her and the mediator born of her, and none of God’s gifts can be bestowed on angels or men except through her…so it is beyond the reach of all to look upwards to God or be helped by Him to make progress in any direction, except through the Ever-Virgin. [13]
Some of the language in prayers rendered to Mary is so extolling that it eclipses the centrality of Christ as the sole Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and Savior of the world, “The doors of caring do now open unto us, O most blessed Theotokos, So that hoping in you we shall not fail; Through you we may be delivered from adversities, For you are the salvation of the Christian faith.”[14] Other prayers to Mary attribute titles to her that are unique to Christ alone. Mary is the “acceptable sacrifice” and “the ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish”; she had “a body that was never subject to the taint of sin,” and the Orthodox faithfully sing to her, “through you we have been reconciled with God.”[15] A cursory reading of the New Testament demonstrates that none of these exalted claims regarding Mary has any biblical support whatsoever. Christ alone is the way to the Father, and salvation is found in no one else but him (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). It is not through Mary that Christian believers are reconciled to God, but through Christ, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10).
The title given to Mary of Theotokos, which means God-bearer or Mother of God, was never intended to exalt Mary the way Eastern Orthodoxy does. The name was given to her at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and reaffirmed in the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553). All three of these were Christological councils intended to exalt Christ and defend the Incarnation by stressing that the person Mary gave birth to was God the Son in the flesh. In this sense Mary is called Mother of God or the God-bearer—which Protestants should happily affirm.[16]
Related to this veneration of Mary and the saints is the Orthodox Church’s insistence on icon veneration. Icons are painted representations of the Trinity, Christ, Mary, and the saints, both past and recent. The East declares that anyone who does not kiss the icons with devotion is an anathema. As the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) states: “To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine Scripture against idols, anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!”[17] Evangelicals who see these actions as idolatrous violations of the second commandment (cf. Exod. 20:4–6) are thus considered non-Christians by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Some Orthodox apologists attempt to argue that archaeological discoveries of old churches such as the third-century Christian house converted into a church in Dura-Europos in Syria that bear images on their walls including the catacombs in Rome support their position that early Christians used religious art and venerated images or icons. The problem here is that the paintings in Dura-Europos and catacombs of Rome are scenes from biblical stories, not images made to worship through. The Eastern Orthodoxy is so steeped in icon veneration that they claim that the first Christian to paint an icon of Mary was the Evangelist Luke himself! This long-standing tradition has actually been shown to be fictional. Bissera Pentcheva, a Harvard PhD specialist in Byzantium art and religion, writes:
The myth [of Luke painting the Virgin Mary] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclast controversy [eighth and ninth centuries]. By claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos [Virgin Mary] painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the perpetrators of this fiction fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images.[18]
Even if a church building contained religious art, it does not follow from this that these images or icons were “venerated.” The onus is on the Orthodox apologist to prove this. Such art was believed to be educational, especially considering that many Christians were illiterate. There was also a synagogue excavated in Dura-Europos from the same time period which also contained wall paintings of biblical scenes from the Old Testament. This did not seem problematic for the Jews of this synagogue as these paintings likewise were instructional. There is no evidence that Jews venerated these paintings. Some Protestant churches also contain religious art either on the walls or on stained glass windows. The position of these churches on this art is that they too serve as an instructional tool to those who were illiterate.
The Orthodox position that veneration of icons is justified by the example that God allowed images to be placed in the Tabernacle and Temple, like the cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant, and also the bronze serpent on a pole is not convincing. There is no evidence that the cherubim on the Ark were venerated. The High Priest in fact only saw them once a year on the Day of Atonement. In the case of the bronze serpent, we do know that hundreds of years after Moses, the Israelites did in fact turn it into an object of “veneration” or worship in the days of king Hezekiah, “He [Hezekiah] removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” (2 Kgs. 18:4). The fact that the Israelites were making “offerings” to the bronze serpent shows that this was a religious action in violation of the First Commandment. That the earliest Christians did not worship or venerate religious art but rather eschewed such a practice is evident not only in the prohibitions in Scripture against idolatry, but also in the early strata of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The rise of iconodulia (veneration/service of icons) arose late in the history of the church. The main writer who is believed to be the last of the Church Fathers and who was the primary advocate of icon veneration was John of Damascus (AD 675–749). Church historian Richard Price a Roman Catholic priest who advocates for the open use of icons and images admits:
The iconoclast claim [i.e. the claim of those opposed to icons and images] that reverence towards images did not go back to the golden age of the [early church] fathers, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view [the view of those who love icons] of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history, in favor of a myth of a religion that had been perfect from the first and needed no addition or subtraction.[19]
The veneration of Mary, the saints, and icons, were clearly later developments and accretions that evolved in church history. The absence and deafening silence of any of these practices in Scripture, especially the New Testament, cannot be ignored. When Evangelicals are told by the Eastern Orthodox that these practices are “ancient” and go back to the original church Christ founded, the textual evidence of Scripture shows such claims to be baseless. There are no indications that Mary or the saints were “venerated” in the worship setting of the New Testament church. In regards to saints, the Scripture is clear that all those who are redeemed and in Christ are saints or holy ones (Acts 9:32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 14:33; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2). The veneration of icons is never attested in the Bible, and was never part of the apostolic age, nor the period of the Earliest Fathers. We appeal to Scripture in this area and kindly agree to disagree with our Eastern Orthodox friends on this matter.
Scripture and Tradition
Eastern Orthodox churches hold that church tradition, particularly as represented by the church councils, is infallible and therefore on par with Scripture in terms of authority. Eastern Orthodoxy denies Sola Scriptura, and instead affirms rather that the Church itself is infallible and that both Scripture and Tradition are one stream of authority that flows out of the church. In essence, the Eastern Orthodox believe in Sola Ecclesia: the Church alone determines doctrine, including the creation of the biblical canon. One knows that the gospel of Mark, for instance, is part of the Bible because the Church included it in the canon. The Church is also the infallible interpreter of Scripture and is herself infallible in her teaching. At the Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, in the Confession of Dositheus, it states in Decree 2:
Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church [the Eastern Orthodox Church] is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both [the Church and Scripture], it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaks from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God—who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich — it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and has perpetual authority.”[20]
The Eastern Orthodox Church asserts that she is not “inferior” to Scripture but rather equal to it. Furthermore, the Church cannot “err” but is “infallible” like Scripture. Although Eastern Orthodox churches primarily emphasize the infallible authority of the first seven ecumenical councils, they also claim this authority for a number of other councils and church traditions (including the Council of Jerusalem cited above).
Evangelicals, however, reject Holy Tradition as equal to Scripture in authority, and they do not believe the church is infallible like the Scriptures. It should be stressed, however, that Evangelical Protestants are not entirely against tradition in the church. That is, on the condition that tradition does not contradict Scripture. Jesus denounced man-made traditions that claimed divine authorization while violating the clear Word of God (Mark 7:1–13). Judaism would later come to codify such traditions as part of the “oral law” in the Mishnah. They would maintain that the Torah was given to Moses in two forms, the written form (the written Torah), and the oral form (the oral Torah). The recipients, transmitters, and guardians of this oral Torah were the Pharisees and the Scribes of Jesus’s day. They would later be followed by the rabbis.[21] Similarly, we see a parallel with the reception of Tradition with the Eastern Orthodox Church. They claim to have access to Tradition not mentioned in Scripture which they assert is equal in infallibility and authority with the Scriptures, some of which they claim to be apostolic in origin and therefore binding on its members.[22]
As a consequence of their rejection of the equality of Scripture and Holy Tradition, Evangelicals also reject the belief that the first seven Ecumenical Councils are infallible. We do not deny that there are many statements in the Creeds that are supported by Scripture. Rather, they must be understood as subject to the Scriptures.
The Seven Sacraments
Eastern Orthodoxy affirms seven sacraments, which they call the Mysteries, just like the Roman Catholic Church. However, this number of seven was not formally enunciated until the Council of Jerusalem in 1672.[23] This shows that the history of Eastern Orthodoxy has not always remained static and unchanged as they so often claim. There have been different numbers of sacraments / mysteries among the early church Patristic writers, and there was no consensus on a definite number until 1672. One of the foremost Eastern Orthodox theologians of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Timothy Ware comments that,
Only in the seventeenth century, when Latin [Roman Catholic] influence was at its height, did this list become fixed and definite. Before that date Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments: John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten.[24]
While the Eastern Orthodox Church claims that it has always remained unchanged, unlike Western churches, this is simply not the case. The number of sacraments (mysteries) changed as noted above and was formally finalized at the Council of Jerusalem (1672). Another change and development is seen in the use of the Iconostasis: the barrier wall seen in all Eastern Orthodox churches, adorned with icons that separates the laity from the clergy. This barrier developed centuries later, “the iconostasis [is] comparatively modern, not older than the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. It…was unknown to the early Church…None of the historians or liturgical writers of the early or middle Greek Church ever mention the iconostasis.” [25] This view is also corroborated by Eastern Orthodox priest, Father Patrick Henry Reardon who in a lecture series entitled ‘What is Salvation?’ stated:
The iconostasis is a very late development by Orthodox standards. St. John Chrysostom [AD 347–407] never saw an iconostasis. Heavens no, heavens no, [the iconostasis comes] centuries after St. John Chrysostom. The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom does not even presume an iconostasis. That’s a very late development. [26]
The view on the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper is very close to the Roman Catholic view. They believe in transubstantiation—that the bread and cup become the body and blood of Jesus Christ—a view rejected by Evangelical Protestants. Contrary to the often claimed assertion that the Eastern Orthodox Church has remained unchanged (unlike other churches), the term “transubstantiation” was adopted in the seventeenth century at the Council of Jerusalem (1672) with its Greek equivalent metousiosis.[27] How the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is held to be a “mystery”. An important component regarding the Eucharist is that Eastern Orthodoxy affirms that it is the sacrifice of Christ. However, as Ware notes that the Eucharist, “is not a bare commemoration nor an imaginary representation of Christ’s sacrifice, but the true sacrifice itself; yet on the other hand is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary, since the Lamb was sacrificed ‘once only, for all time.’ The events of Christ’s sacrifice…are made present [in the Eucharist].”[28] In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is also “a propitiatory sacrifice…offered on behalf of both the living and the dead.”[29]
Among Protestants such as the Lutherans, they hold to what is commonly called consubstantiation (that Jesus’s presence is “in, with, and under” the bread and cup) but still reject transubstantiation. Reformed Christians (including Reformed Baptists) following John Calvin, hold to the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist but hold that believers receive Christ spiritually, not physically. Other Baptists take the memorial view that the Eucharist is commemorative of Christ’s sacrifice and that the bread and wine function as symbols of the body and blood of Christ.
Baptism by threefold immersion is administered to all infant and adult converts. Eastern Orthodoxy also believes in baptismal regeneration, that baptism is necessary for salvation. One is truly born again in baptism. While Evangelical Christians see baptism as very important, they do not see it as a necessary contingent to be saved. A Christian is baptized not to be saved, but precisely because they are saved. Thus in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, the order is to make disciples, then baptize them, and teach them all that Jesus has commanded. Those who heard the Gospel preached in Acts, responded by faith, followed by baptism (see Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36; 10:44–48; 16:14–15, 30–34; 18:8). Faith always precedes baptism. The centrality of faith alone for salvation without sacraments is vividly seen in the story of the dying thief crucified alongside Jesus. He was saved by surrendering himself by faith to Jesus. He acknowledged his sinfulness, recognized Jesus as the messianic king. Jesus assured him that that very day, that dying thief (without baptism or any other sacrament) would be with him in paradise (Luke 23:39–43).
Theosis and Deification
One of Eastern Orthodoxy’s strongest contrasts with Protestantism is her belief that humans can achieve theosis (also called deification), a dynamic process of becoming more like God through grace, good works, the Mysteries, and communion with the Church. All Christians agree that believers become like God by reflecting His character (2 Pet. 1:4), but the East goes a step further by claiming that human beings become divine energies. The distinction between God’s essence and energies is a complicated doctrine that is explained in more detail elsewhere.[30] But as it pertains to deification, this means that the East both vehemently denies that human beings become God in essence while insisting that they do become God in energies. Commenting on this important distinction, Timothy Ware writes:
The idea of deification must always be understood in the light of the distinction between God’s essence and His energies. Union with God means union with the divine energies, not the divine essence: the Orthodox Church, while speaking of deification and union, rejects all forms of pantheism.[31]
God’s “energies” is described as his relationship to the world. His essence is unique to him alone. Some of the language associated with theosis or deification by Orthodox theologians does sound strange to Western ears when terms such as “Man does not become God by nature, but is merely a ‘created god,’ a god by grace or by status.”[32] These terms are nuanced and do not imply in any way polytheism. The doctrine of theosis appears to be the Eastern description to what Evangelicals call glorification, when we will be like Christ in resurrection and share in his glory (1 John 3:1–2).
The Gospel, Justification, and the Reformation
This leads us to the major difference and most significant point of disagreement that Evangelicals have with the Eastern Orthodox, namely, justification before God and the Gospel.
Herein, I believe, is the Achilles’ heel of Eastern Orthodoxy: its claim to be the original church that Christ established, but it denies the gospel. In Galatians, the apostle Paul refers to “the truth of the gospel” two times (Gal. 2:5, 14). This Gospel is defined by Paul as justification by faith without the works of the law (Gal. 2:16), which is another way to describe justification by faith alone. [33] But Eastern Orthodoxy rejects salvation by faith alone without works. The Confession of Dositheus, Decree 13 explicitly states:
We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy… we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises.[34]
For the Orthodox, faith justifies through works “with Christ.” Twentieth-century Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky concurs with this emphasis on synergism when he notes that “God has freely willed a synergistic path of redemption in which man must spiritually participate.” [35] The rejection of faith alone is denied and dismissed. The above idea that one “lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy” settles this question in no uncertain terms. Indeed, righteousness is in Christ, and it is precisely that righteousness that is imputed to the unrighteous by faith. The apostle Paul clearly stated this point in Philippians 3:9, that he wanted to “be found in him [Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”[36] Christ the righteous one, dies for the unrighteous (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:1). This is very different than the Confession of Dositheus above. It is very clear that when it comes to the Gospel and justification by faith alone that Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodoxy are at polar opposites of the theological spectrum.
It is important to note that the apostle Paul is not only addressing the works of the Mosaic law, but rather, no “works” at all are necessary or meritorious for salvation. We see in Ephesians 2:8–9 and Titus 3:4–5 that salvation is “not your own doing . . . not a result of works,” and it is “not because of works done by us in righteousness.” The distinction between grace and works as a means of salvation is noted by Paul in Romans 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
This is the Gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached: Christ died “in accordance with the Scriptures,” was buried, and was raised again the third day “in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). It was the Scriptures, not man-made or “holy” tradition that was the background to the death and resurrection of Christ. This constitutes the earliest creed in the Christian church, and it demonstrates the heart of the Gospel to be the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.[37] Paul states that this Gospel message is of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). It is the Gospel “by which you are being saved” (1 Cor. 15:2). This is the gospel that Paul and the apostles preached (note the first-person plural “our preaching”; 1 Cor. 15:14; italics mine). It is our faith in Christ alone, by grace alone, that is the ground of our justification (Rom. 5:1). “There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ” (Rom. 8:1). The ‘chain of redemption’ in Romans 8:29–30 is an unbroken chain. This chain is organized in a logical form of a hypothetical syllogism where we have A 🡪 B 🡪 C 🡪 D 🡪 E, therefore A 🡪 E. Those whom God foreknows (A) and predestines (B) are called (C) and justified (D) and will ultimately be glorified (E). Eastern Orthodoxy, however, denies the perseverance of the saints, and thus the chain of redemption is broken in their system. According to Eastern Orthodoxy, those whom God foreknows will not all be glorified. This is why they emphasize works alongside of faith. Sadly, it is not Christ alone that saves. How different this is from the thrilling truth of Hebrews 10:14: “For by a single offering he [Jesus] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
The doctrine of election and its relationship to predestination while a central feature of Reformed Christianity is usually downplayed in Eastern Orthodoxy. This is due to the synergistic view that man cooperates with God in salvation, which is the opposite of monergism. The Eastern Orthodox view maintains that,
God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all. For God is free and man is free. God freely offers salvation to all, and man freely responds to it. All are called, but all do not respond. . . . Based on his foreknowledge, God assures or predestines that those who choose to love and obey him will be fulfilled.[38]
The opposition to election and predestination in a Reformed context is evident in Eastern Orthodoxy so much so that new converts are called to repudiate and renounce it. Robert Letham writes:
Converts to Orthodoxy from Reformed Churches are required, before chrismation, to renounce the doctrine of predestination taught by those churches. This became a source of contention during the ministry of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1623 to his death in 1638 . . . He came into contact with Protestants, especially of Reformed persuasion. He wrote his Confessions in 1629, clearly a Calvinist document. . . . Shortly after his demise, the Reformed doctrine of predestination was condemned.[39]
Eastern Orthodoxy misrepresents the Reformed doctrine of election and predestination by creating a strawman argument that makes God’s election of his people arbitrary. It also states that this view makes God the pernicious author of unrepentant sinners.[40] Nothing could be further from the truth. God’s elective purposes in history and redemption are not arbitrary. God is good, holy, and always just in all that he does. He is a God of purpose (Rom. 8:28). He does all things according to the counsel of his will which includes election and predestination (Eph. 1:4–11). There is no injustice with God. Contrary to the Eastern Orthodox claim, God is the active subject in biblical passages dealing with election and predestination. It is God’s work. Human inability is seen in the fact that Jesus taught that no one can come to him, unless the Father draws or enables one to come to him (John 6:44). The idea that unregenerate sinners can please God in any way is clearly rejected in Romans 8:7–8, “ For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” It should be noted here that Paul states that the mind set on the flesh is not only hostile to God, but that it does not submit to God’s law because it cannot. Those who are “in the flesh” cannot please God. It takes the work of God through the Holy Spirit to make us alive and raise us up from spiritual death (Eph. 2:1–4). Paul reaffirms this later in Romans 8 with the chain of redemption mentioned above, that it is God from start to finish who calls, predestines, and ultimately glorifies his people.
The centrality of the Gospel in God’s redemptive purposes is so vital that Paul argued in Galatians 1:6–9 that anyone who would preach “another gospel” would be “accursed” or under the anathema of God. This also applies to alleged angelic apparitions that deliver “another gospel.” What must not be missed in this passage is that Paul also places himself and the apostles under the anathema if they were to come back and preach another Gospel, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis mine). This means that even if Eastern Orthodoxy were right about its apostolic founding, its proclamation of a contrary gospel would still make it a false church. This was the case with the Judaizers. They were in the church founded by Christ and the apostles, and yet, when they departed from the gospel of grace, they were denounced by Paul as deserting Christ, having fallen from Christ and placing themselves under the anathema of God. The gospel is the dividing line, and on this point, Evangelical Christians will not, and must never compromise.
Conclusion
While there are serious disagreements with our Eastern Orthodox friends, there are things we agree on such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and so forth. However, one can have a robust orthodox belief in the fundamentals of the Christian faith and still be lost. If one does not have the biblical Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), it can prove detrimental to one’s salvation. This treatment on Eastern Orthodoxy as an ideology in no way obfuscates us from our call to love our Eastern Orthodox friends, some of whom may be family members as well. Protestants are by no means perfect. We have serious flaws as well. I am not suggesting in the least that one needs to be part of a particular Protestant church in order to be saved. We are not saved by an institution, but by a person, the Lord Jesus Christ himself (Acts 4:12).
Notwithstanding the serious differences that remain between us, I believe that there are those among the Eastern Orthodox Church who have come to a saving faith in Christ and trusting in him for their salvation and are regenerated. As new spiritual babes in Christ, they may lack discernment as they are still in a condition where they rely on the milk of God’s Word (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12–13; 1 Pet. 2:2). After all, God can save anyone, anywhere, as he sees fit. The Gospel transcends denominational boundaries. God saves them in spite of what we have articulated are errors in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have personally witnessed even among Roman Catholics. I personally know this because I was one of them.
Unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church and other like-minded institutional churches, Protestants hold to the invisible / visible church dichotomy. We don’t demand allegiance or membership to one or another Protestant church in order to be saved. The invisible church constitutes all those who have been saved, are saved, and will be saved by God. They are all known to God as Scripture says, “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his,’” (2 Tim. 2:19). There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). They have passed from death to life (John 5:24), and they know that they now have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Christ gives his sheep eternal life, and they will never perish. We are to love our Eastern Orthodox friends and desire them to share in the blessed assurance that can be theirs through the Gospel.
See Frank Schaeffer, Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994; Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002). Frank Schaeffer also published a paper entitled Christian Activist wherein he published various articles providing answers from an Orthodox Christian perspective on Western issues and problems. Frank Schaeffer later disclosed that he was in effect an atheist who ironically still believes in God. See Kimberly Winston, “Frank Schaeffer, Former Evangelical Leader, Is A Self-Declared Atheist Who Believes In God,” Huffington Post (June 13, 2014). ↑
Erwin W. Lutzer, “‘The Bible Answer Man’ Turns East: An Unlikely Conversion,” (April 20, 2017). Accessed https://www.moodymedia.org/blog/2017/04/bible-answer-man-turns-east-unlikely-conversion/ ↑
Rikki Schlott, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves,” New York Post (December 3, 2024). Accessed https://nypost.com/2024/12/03/us-news/young-men-are-converting-to-orthodox-christianity-in-droves/ ↑
For a more detailed examination of Eastern Orthodoxy the reader is referred to the following references: Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (London / New York: Penguin Books, 1964); Robert Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy, A Reformed Perspective (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007); James J. Stamoolis, ed., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); Joshua Schooping, Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church (2nd ed.; Amazon Digital Services, 2022). See also the recently published work by Samuel S. Farag, Eastern Orthodoxy: Through the Lens of Sola Scriptura (Greenbrier: Free Grace Press, 2026). For a helpful online article on the subject see Scott Hurst and Christian Clement-Schlimm, “Evangelical Pastors and the Challenge of Eastern Orthodoxy,” in The Gospel Coalition (February 2026). Accessed https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/evangelical-pastors-and-the-challenge-of-eastern-orthodoxy/ ↑
Joshua Schooping, ed., The Holy Standards: The Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Olyphant, PA: St. Theophan the Recluse Press, 2020), 549. The passage comes from the Sigillion of 1583. Some scholars have argued that this text is a forgery, while others believe it to be authentic. See Joshua Schooping, “Reality: Questions Regarding the Authenticity of the Sigillion of 1583,” in The Reformed Ninja (Nov. 7, 2022). Accessed at https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2022/11/reality-questions-regarding.html?m=1 ↑
Justin Popovich, “Attributes of the Church.” in Orthodox Life. Vol. XXXI, No. 1 [Jan.–Feb. 1981], 29. ↑
The Sunday of Orthodoxy 2024. Accessed https://orthodoxchurchliverpool.co.uk/2024/03/26/the-sunday-of-orthodoxy-2024/ ↑
In John’s gospel there are clearly anti-Gnostic polemics at play as well (e.g., John 1:1–3, 10, 14). ↑
On the filioque see A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: A Brief History (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2012); A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); Thomas Crean, O.P., Vindicating the Filioque: The Church Fathers at the Council of Florence (Steubenville: Emmaus Academic, 2023); Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004). ↑
The immutability of the Councils / Creeds was the reason why the Eastern Orthodox Church accused and indicted the Western Church / Roman Catholic Church with innovation by introducing the filioque into the Nicaea Creed. This charge overstates the case. The original Creed of Nicaea it is true did not have the filioque, but the same Creed said nothing substantial about the Holy Spirit. In fact Nicaea ended with the sentence Et in Spiritum sanctum (“And in the Holy Spirit”). It would take 56 years until in AD 381 at the Council of Constantinople that a fuller statement was added to the original Creed in describing the person and work of the Holy Spirit in redemptive history. In other words, the original Creed was changed in that it was expanded. ↑
On creeds that are contained and embedded in Scripture, see Tony Costa, Early Christian Creed and Hymns, What the Earliest Christians Believed in Word and Song: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peterborough: H&E Academic, 2021). ↑
On the biblical canon and debates around it see Lee Martin MacDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (3rd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007); Lee Martin MacDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002); Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). On an Eastern Orthodox perspective see Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). ↑
Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, “On the Entrance into the Temple,” 53.37, p. 431; cf. Homily 37.15, 17, 18, pp. 296–297. ↑
Theotokion from the Service of the Small Paraklesis. Italics mine. For full text see https://www.goarch.org/-/small-paraklesis ↑
All of these descriptions of Mary come from “Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple,” Orthodox Christianity, https://orthochristian.com/66118.html. This is one of the Twelve Great Feasts of the Eastern Orthodox calendar, and it is celebrated across Eastern Orthodoxy. ↑
The title Theotokos has unfortunately has been misunderstood by most Evangelical Christians, who think it is Mariolatry and an attempt to deify Mary. That is not the case. It was given to her to safeguard the Incarnation. The Reformers had no issue with this Marian title as they understood its theological significance vis-à-vis the Creeds. For more, see Michael Pereira, “Debatable, Unnecessary, or Essential? The Virgin Birth and Mary as the Mother of God,” Christ Over All, July 23, 2025, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/debatable-unnecessary-or-essential-the-virgin-birth-and-mary-as-the-mother-of-god/. ↑
Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020), 111–112. Evangelicals reject the Second Council of Nicaea—which was the seventh of the ecumenical councils of the early church—but accept the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Italics mine. ↑
Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power: the Mother of God in Byzantium (Pennsylvania State University, 2006), 124. ↑
Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 43. Italics mine. ↑
Schooping, ed., The Holy Standards, 27–28. Italics mine. ↑
The chain of transmission is set out in the Mishnah as follows: “Moses received the [oral] Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] would always say these three things: Be cautious in judgement. Establish many pupils. And make a safety fence around the Torah.” Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 1:1. ↑
The Roman Catholic Church also shares the same view. They view Sacred Tradition and Scripture as the one deposit of faith that has been entrusted to the faith: “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.” Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Vatican II, Dei Verbum 10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same divine wellspring and merge into a unity: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.” Dei Verbum 9. The Catechism of the Catholic Church §97 similarly states: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God.” The infallible interpreter of Scripture and Sacred Tradition is the Magisterium composed of the Pope in communion with the bishops: “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Sacred Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church [Magisterium], whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” Dei Verbum 10.
In Islam there is also an interesting parallel. While the Qur’an is believed to be the direct speech of Allah, there are also oral transmissions that allegedly came from Muhammad in the Hadith collection. Both these, the Qur’an and Hadith, are binding on Muslims. Protestant Christian take the view of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as their ultimate and final authority. It is interesting that there are both in Judaism and Islam what I term sola Scriptura movements. The Karaite Jews only follow the Torah and reject the rabbinic writings such as the Talmud. In Islam there are Quranist Muslims who follow only the Qur’an and reject the Hadith as binding on them. ↑
Confession of Dositheus, Decree 15 states: “We believe that there are in the Church Evangelical [Eastern Orthodox Church] Mysteries, and that they are seven.” On the list of the seven sacraments, see Ware, The Orthodox Church, 282. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 282. ↑
A. Shipman, “Iconostasis,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910). Italics mine. ↑
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, “What is Salvation?” Lecture accessed from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2LzFp7cFPQ Time stamps 1:00:44–1:01:00. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 290–291. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 293–294. Italics in original. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 293. ↑
Knox Brown, “Divine Energies: Eastern Orthodoxy’s Strangest and Most Important Doctrine,” Christ Over All, May 6, 2026, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/divine-energies-eastern-orthodoxys-strangest-and-most-important-doctrine/. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 237. The concept of deification can be traced back to some significant Fathers such as Athanasius and Basil the Great. See Letham, Through Western Eyes, 253–265. ↑
Ware, The Orthodox Church, 237. Italics in original text. ↑
A number of the Early Church Fathers such as John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria taught justification by faith alone without works. A number of them inspired and influenced the Reformers. See Letham, Through Western Eyes, 248–252. Italics mine. ↑
Schooping, ed., Holy Standards, 48–49. Italics mine. ↑
Georges Florovsky, Collected Works, Vol. X: The Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers (Vaduz, Germany: Buechervertriebanstalt, 1987), 31. Italics mine. ↑
Philippians 3:9, italics mine. ↑
See my discussion on this earliest creed in Tony Costa, Early Christian Creed and Hymns, What the Earliest Christians Believed in Word and Song: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peterborough: H&E Academic, 2021), 29–43. ↑
Joseph Allen and Michel Najim, eds., The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 358. ↑
Robert Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy, A Reformed Perspective (Geanies House, Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2007), 264. A translation of Cyril Lucaris’ Confessions is available in G. A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch: The Life of Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638) Patriarch of Constantinople (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961), 141–145. ↑
Letham, Through Western Eyes, 245, 264–265. ↑
