Is Eastern Orthodoxy the One True Church?
A Letter to the Greek Orthodox Converts
by Ed Enochs
"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."
(Romans 16:17).
I was recently forwarded an e-mail and subsequent attachment of an article on the subject of how the Eastern Orthodox are to view professing Christians outside of the Church by Peter Barnes entitled, "The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church."
I am well aware that my Eastern Orthodox opponents view me as a Fundamentalist extremist, filled with hatred and with little knowledge of what Eastern Orthodoxy really is. I have heard these criticisms over the years and regret some of the violent reaction I have had over the Eastern Orthodox issue at Biola and at my former church Calvary Chapel Saving Grace.
I personally want to apologize to my Eastern Orthodox opponents for my conduct at times. Like Martin Luther, my hero, I can often display obnoxious behavior and I readily admit this and ask your forgiveness. If I had to do it all over again, I would have taken more of a serious approach to this matter, instead of a tongue in cheek, Rush Limbaugh style. Having said this, I do not apologize or repent of the fact that I still believe with every fabric of my being that the Eastern Orthodox Church is unbiblical and is to be rejected as a viable ecclesiastical entity.
I actually want to thank my Eastern Orthodox opponents for helping me return to the Reformed Faith and for helping me leave the Calvary Chapel movement. I recently had a startling theological Epiphany, that has brought me to the conclusion that I have no business rebuffing the advance of Eastern Orthodoxy in Southern California if I attend and align myself with a Church that is semi Pelagian like the Calvary Chapel Movement.
I have known for a long time that I probably should not attend a Calvary Chapel and defend the Augustinian and Reformation- Calvinist soteriological position against Eastern Orthodoxy. I have attended a Calvary Chapel out of comfort and familiarity and not because of fidelity to the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.
I love the Calvary Chapel Movement with all of my heart, but I am a Calvinist and there is no room right now in the Calvary movement for Calvinism, so I have returned to the Reformed Faith.
So, I want to thank you Eastern Orthodox Converts from Biola and Calvary Chapel for forcing my hand, and compelling my conscience for me to align myself with the historic Reformed Faith.
But, for the present time, my beef is not with Calvary Chapel, but with this subject of the advancement and proliferation of Eastern Orthodoxy in certain segments of Evangelicalism here in Southern California.
While it is not a huge problem through the Evangelical Church here in the Southland, it has made enough converts from Calvary Chapel , the Vineyard, and Biola for some Evangelicals to take notice.
I am well aware that many of the Eastern Orthodox members in this area, regard us Evangelicals of incapable of understanding the true nature of what Eastern Orthodoxy is. I have often heard these types of slogans made to Evangelicals by the Eastern Orthodox, "You are from the West, you just don't understand the Eastern mindset" and, "The Eastern Orthodox Church has existed for 4,000 years, so we are the true Church."
In reviewing these criticisms leveled against Evangelicals made by Eastern Orthodox converts in the Southern California area, I want to remind these converts that Eastern Orthodoxy that they do find themselves in the West, yet Eastern Orthodoxy itself does not claim to be a Gnostic religion whose teachings are unobtainable to the non-initiated and enlightened. The issues that Eastern Orthodoxy brings to the table are pretty straight forward and clearly understandable.
Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the one true apostolic Church that Christ instituted. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims that it has existed unbroken for 4,000 years. Eastern Orthodoxy makes the claim that it is the Church that Christ vested His authority in. As I told an Eastern Orthodox friend recently,'
Time after time over the years in dealing with this Old World, Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition, I have heard adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy say without any shred of Biblical and exegetical evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “true church” since it was the original church founded by the Apostles. Earnest adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy often get worked up in making this point that since in their own minds, Eastern Orthodoxy has existed the longest and has directly descended from Christ and His Apostles
Ultimately this is a Chronological Fallacy in that you postulate that since your church has existed the longest (a point that I would argue against) this, then necessarily makes it the true church. This is reverse chronological snobbery in that you are arguing that any ecclesiastical entity of a more recent vintage is somehow inherently inferior to your romanticized understanding of the pristine origins of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Roman Catholics and Mormons, it must be noted, make this same appeal to historical authenticity and succession in that Roman Catholicism and Mormonism both argue that they are the true church since they descend from Apostolic times (Romans Catholics say there has been unbroken apostolic authority vested in Papal succession and Mormons say they are the restored Church of Christ that fell away, but whose divinely mandated practices were those practiced by Christ and His Apostles). The point being, innumerable groups, sects and cults have made this same claim to apostolic succession and being the original church of Christ with dubious Biblical authenticity.
Mormons, Catholics and many other religious groups argue that they are the true and original church of Christ, adhering to the traditions of the Apostles. Yet mere antiquity of an organization and mere assertion does not necessitate the Biblical legitimacy and authenticity of ones religious truth claims.
The claims of Apostolic authority and unbroken succession made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox breaks down for example, in the case of Honorius I (died October 12, 638) was pope from 625 to 638.
Honorius in his lifetime favored the formula on the nature of Christ proposed by the emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Catholics, which bore that Christ had accomplished His work of redemption by one manifestation of his will as the God-man. For this he was, more than forty years after his death, anathematized by name along with the Monothelite heretics by the Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”. This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Baronius and Bellarmine, but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”
Pope Honorious’ Apostasy demonstrates that there was not an unbroken succession of truth in the Catholic Church of which the Eastern Orthodox existed in until 1054. How can I trust a church that had an apostate leader? Did apostolic succession stop with Honorious?
What matters is if ones claims to apostolic succession and overall ecclesiastical veracity can be proven from an infallible and unchanging authoritative source, namely the Bible which is the inspired and inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Following the line of argumentation made by Calvin, Luther and the other magisterial Reformers, the ultimate authority of a believer in Christ is not vested in the often contradictory teachings of ecclesiastical tradition and the writings of the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Patristic Fathers, but rather in the self authenticating nature and perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Ultimately a Christian’s authority comes from the Bible and the illuminating light of the Holy Spirit in understanding Scripture accurately and not in the fallible counsel of contradictory ecclesiastical tradition, irrespective of antiquity of these traditions.
I am well aware that the Eastern Orthodox Church argues for the seven ecumenical counsels and some canons of Church tradition as being on the same authoritative level as the Bible, yet it can be conclusively demonstrated that Church tradition and the Patristic Fathers often contradict each other and are by no means a sure source of legitimate apostolic authority and Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim of historical antiquity and apostolic succession does not preclude the possibility that the Orthodoxy has absorbed over the passage of time, unbiblical teachings and traditions that are in diametrical opposition to Biblical teaching.
Ultimately it comes down to this, Eastern Orthodoxy argues for the authoritative nature of extra Biblical Church tradition and Protestants believe that God has vested His authority in the Bible alone and has given us the ability to understand the Scriptures in the way He intended with the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26 and 1 Corinthians 2).
While it is true that there are many different Protestant Churches with differing theological perspectives, this does not preclude them from agreeing on the essentials of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity and Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Eastern Orthodoxy is old, this is a given, but I want to go back to an even older and sure guide of Biblical authority, namely the Bible itself, therein rests the Authority of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
The arguments made by the Greek Orthodox that is the true Church that has existed for thousands of years is unconvincing. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5-6), Eastern Orthodoxy denies this, thus, irrespective of its antiquity, it does not possess the Gospel of Christ and thus cannot be considered a true Church at all. Church tradition and longevity does not constitute Scriptural authenticity. Thus, for me, I will side with the Evangelicals and the Bible alone. Church tradition often contradicts itself and I need a more sure foundation to base my faith.
Sincerely in Jesus Christ,
Lee Edward Enochs
A Letter to the Greek Orthodox Converts
by Ed Enochs
"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."
(Romans 16:17).
I was recently forwarded an e-mail and subsequent attachment of an article on the subject of how the Eastern Orthodox are to view professing Christians outside of the Church by Peter Barnes entitled, "The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church."
I am well aware that my Eastern Orthodox opponents view me as a Fundamentalist extremist, filled with hatred and with little knowledge of what Eastern Orthodoxy really is. I have heard these criticisms over the years and regret some of the violent reaction I have had over the Eastern Orthodox issue at Biola and at my former church Calvary Chapel Saving Grace.
I personally want to apologize to my Eastern Orthodox opponents for my conduct at times. Like Martin Luther, my hero, I can often display obnoxious behavior and I readily admit this and ask your forgiveness. If I had to do it all over again, I would have taken more of a serious approach to this matter, instead of a tongue in cheek, Rush Limbaugh style. Having said this, I do not apologize or repent of the fact that I still believe with every fabric of my being that the Eastern Orthodox Church is unbiblical and is to be rejected as a viable ecclesiastical entity.
I actually want to thank my Eastern Orthodox opponents for helping me return to the Reformed Faith and for helping me leave the Calvary Chapel movement. I recently had a startling theological Epiphany, that has brought me to the conclusion that I have no business rebuffing the advance of Eastern Orthodoxy in Southern California if I attend and align myself with a Church that is semi Pelagian like the Calvary Chapel Movement.
I have known for a long time that I probably should not attend a Calvary Chapel and defend the Augustinian and Reformation- Calvinist soteriological position against Eastern Orthodoxy. I have attended a Calvary Chapel out of comfort and familiarity and not because of fidelity to the truth as revealed in Holy Scripture.
I love the Calvary Chapel Movement with all of my heart, but I am a Calvinist and there is no room right now in the Calvary movement for Calvinism, so I have returned to the Reformed Faith.
So, I want to thank you Eastern Orthodox Converts from Biola and Calvary Chapel for forcing my hand, and compelling my conscience for me to align myself with the historic Reformed Faith.
But, for the present time, my beef is not with Calvary Chapel, but with this subject of the advancement and proliferation of Eastern Orthodoxy in certain segments of Evangelicalism here in Southern California.
While it is not a huge problem through the Evangelical Church here in the Southland, it has made enough converts from Calvary Chapel , the Vineyard, and Biola for some Evangelicals to take notice.
I am well aware that many of the Eastern Orthodox members in this area, regard us Evangelicals of incapable of understanding the true nature of what Eastern Orthodoxy is. I have often heard these types of slogans made to Evangelicals by the Eastern Orthodox, "You are from the West, you just don't understand the Eastern mindset" and, "The Eastern Orthodox Church has existed for 4,000 years, so we are the true Church."
In reviewing these criticisms leveled against Evangelicals made by Eastern Orthodox converts in the Southern California area, I want to remind these converts that Eastern Orthodoxy that they do find themselves in the West, yet Eastern Orthodoxy itself does not claim to be a Gnostic religion whose teachings are unobtainable to the non-initiated and enlightened. The issues that Eastern Orthodoxy brings to the table are pretty straight forward and clearly understandable.
Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the one true apostolic Church that Christ instituted. The Eastern Orthodox Church claims that it has existed unbroken for 4,000 years. Eastern Orthodoxy makes the claim that it is the Church that Christ vested His authority in. As I told an Eastern Orthodox friend recently,'
Time after time over the years in dealing with this Old World, Byzantine ecclesiastical tradition, I have heard adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy say without any shred of Biblical and exegetical evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “true church” since it was the original church founded by the Apostles. Earnest adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy often get worked up in making this point that since in their own minds, Eastern Orthodoxy has existed the longest and has directly descended from Christ and His Apostles
Ultimately this is a Chronological Fallacy in that you postulate that since your church has existed the longest (a point that I would argue against) this, then necessarily makes it the true church. This is reverse chronological snobbery in that you are arguing that any ecclesiastical entity of a more recent vintage is somehow inherently inferior to your romanticized understanding of the pristine origins of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Roman Catholics and Mormons, it must be noted, make this same appeal to historical authenticity and succession in that Roman Catholicism and Mormonism both argue that they are the true church since they descend from Apostolic times (Romans Catholics say there has been unbroken apostolic authority vested in Papal succession and Mormons say they are the restored Church of Christ that fell away, but whose divinely mandated practices were those practiced by Christ and His Apostles). The point being, innumerable groups, sects and cults have made this same claim to apostolic succession and being the original church of Christ with dubious Biblical authenticity.
Mormons, Catholics and many other religious groups argue that they are the true and original church of Christ, adhering to the traditions of the Apostles. Yet mere antiquity of an organization and mere assertion does not necessitate the Biblical legitimacy and authenticity of ones religious truth claims.
The claims of Apostolic authority and unbroken succession made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox breaks down for example, in the case of Honorius I (died October 12, 638) was pope from 625 to 638.
Honorius in his lifetime favored the formula on the nature of Christ proposed by the emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Catholics, which bore that Christ had accomplished His work of redemption by one manifestation of his will as the God-man. For this he was, more than forty years after his death, anathematized by name along with the Monothelite heretics by the Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”. This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Baronius and Bellarmine, but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”
Pope Honorious’ Apostasy demonstrates that there was not an unbroken succession of truth in the Catholic Church of which the Eastern Orthodox existed in until 1054. How can I trust a church that had an apostate leader? Did apostolic succession stop with Honorious?
What matters is if ones claims to apostolic succession and overall ecclesiastical veracity can be proven from an infallible and unchanging authoritative source, namely the Bible which is the inspired and inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Following the line of argumentation made by Calvin, Luther and the other magisterial Reformers, the ultimate authority of a believer in Christ is not vested in the often contradictory teachings of ecclesiastical tradition and the writings of the Ante Nicene and Post Nicene Patristic Fathers, but rather in the self authenticating nature and perspicuity of Holy Scripture. Ultimately a Christian’s authority comes from the Bible and the illuminating light of the Holy Spirit in understanding Scripture accurately and not in the fallible counsel of contradictory ecclesiastical tradition, irrespective of antiquity of these traditions.
I am well aware that the Eastern Orthodox Church argues for the seven ecumenical counsels and some canons of Church tradition as being on the same authoritative level as the Bible, yet it can be conclusively demonstrated that Church tradition and the Patristic Fathers often contradict each other and are by no means a sure source of legitimate apostolic authority and Eastern Orthodoxy’s claim of historical antiquity and apostolic succession does not preclude the possibility that the Orthodoxy has absorbed over the passage of time, unbiblical teachings and traditions that are in diametrical opposition to Biblical teaching.
Ultimately it comes down to this, Eastern Orthodoxy argues for the authoritative nature of extra Biblical Church tradition and Protestants believe that God has vested His authority in the Bible alone and has given us the ability to understand the Scriptures in the way He intended with the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26 and 1 Corinthians 2).
While it is true that there are many different Protestant Churches with differing theological perspectives, this does not preclude them from agreeing on the essentials of the Christian faith, namely the Trinity and Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Eastern Orthodoxy is old, this is a given, but I want to go back to an even older and sure guide of Biblical authority, namely the Bible itself, therein rests the Authority of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God endures forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
The arguments made by the Greek Orthodox that is the true Church that has existed for thousands of years is unconvincing. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5-6), Eastern Orthodoxy denies this, thus, irrespective of its antiquity, it does not possess the Gospel of Christ and thus cannot be considered a true Church at all. Church tradition and longevity does not constitute Scriptural authenticity. Thus, for me, I will side with the Evangelicals and the Bible alone. Church tradition often contradicts itself and I need a more sure foundation to base my faith.
Sincerely in Jesus Christ,
Lee Edward Enochs
posted by Ed Enochs at 1:13 PM
<< Home