In recent years, there has been a notable surge in conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy. This trend may be attributed to its alleged guardianship of the original apostolic teachings and sacred traditions; an appealing alternative for Protestants who are frustrated with the fragmentation and pop-culture orientation prevailing in the protestant ecosystem. However, an evaluation of these traditions challenges the perception of unbroken and untouched continuity.
The Apostolic Origins of Traditions
The Apostles originally taught traditions through both their spoken word and written letters (2 Thess 2:15), instructing churches to uphold them (1 Cor 11:2). However, no authoritative claims could extend beyond “what is written” (1 Cor 4:6), suggesting that their “word” and “epistle” generally matched. With this in mind, we must distinguish between Orthodoxy’s scriptural practices that carry the weight of unanimous early adoption, and their unscriptural, semi-scriptural, or pseudo-scriptural practices that evolved over time. Doing this likens us to the Bereans, who evaluated Paul’s teachings solely based on the scriptural revelation they already had (Acts 17:11).
The Earliest and Most Consistent Traditions: The Sacraments
The sacraments of baptism and Eucharist have held a central place in Christian tradition across all eras, viewed as gracious means of receiving divine grace and consistently performed within the Christian community. In the New Testament era, baptism and Eucharist were established by Jesus Himself. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, signifying His identification with humanity and the start of His public ministry (Mt 3:13-17). The Great Commission commanded His disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, making baptism a central rite of initiation (Mt 28:19-20). On the day of Pentecost, Peter called the crowd to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, resulting in about three thousand baptisms (Acts 2:38-41). The Eucharist was instituted during the Last Supper, with Jesus breaking bread and sharing the cup with His disciples, saying, “This is my body… This is my blood” (Mt 26:26-28). Early Christians devoted themselves to “the breaking of bread” as part of their regular worship (Acts 2:42).
In the Pre-Nicene era (c. 100-325 AD), the sacraments continued to hold major significance. The Didache, an early Christian manual, provided instructions for baptism, emphasizing the use of living (flowing) water and the Trinitarian formula (Didache 7). Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, described the process of baptism, including catechesis, prayer, and the use of water, highlighting its regenerative and cleansing effects (First Apology 61). Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality” and emphasized its role in uniting believers with Christ (Letter to the Ephesians 20). Justin Martyr also detailed the Eucharistic celebration, explaining that the bread and wine are consecrated and received as the body and blood of Christ (First Apology 65-67).
In the Post-Nicene era (c. 325 AD onwards), the significance of the sacraments was further solidified. Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively on the sacrament of baptism, emphasizing its role in the forgiveness of original sin and the incorporation of believers into the body of Christ (Confessions, Book I). The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, included a confession of “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” underscoring its importance in Christian doctrine. Cyril of Jerusalem provided catechetical lectures on the Eucharist, describing it as a participation in the body and blood of Christ and emphasizing the transformative power of the sacrament (Mystagogic Catecheses). John Chrysostom delivered homilies on the Eucharist, highlighting its role in the sanctification of believers and the unity of the Church (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 82).
Across these eras, baptism and the Eucharist were viewed as gracious acts through which believers received divine grace, were incorporated into the Christian community, and participated in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Their consistent practice and theological significance underscore their foundational role in Christian faith and worship. To dig deeper into the sacraments, check out my articles on baptism (Part1 and Part2) and communion (here).
The Evolving Traditions of Orthodoxy
In the New Testament era, liturgy was not fully clear, though 1 Corinthians 14 offers some general guidance. There is no scriptural institution of icon usage, saints’ intercession, or veneration of Mary, although Mary was highly regarded in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 1:28, 30, 42-43).
Moving into the Pre-Nicene period, liturgy existed in varied forms, as seen in documents like the Didache, the Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus, and writings from Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Most liturgical practices included prayer, scripture reading, sermons, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Prayer, and singing. The Apostle’s Creed, used as a baptismal confession, showed regional differences without significant controversies. Icons were still not prominent; early Christian art included symbols like anchors, fish, and shepherds, and the early writings often condemned contemporary forms of icon veneration. There was little to no practice of saints’ intercession. While some early prayers like “Sub Tuum Praesidium” hinted at Mary’s intercession, it was not widespread. Mary’s veneration and her perpetual virginity were debated but generally accepted by some, including Origen, Jerome, and Ambrose.
In the Post-Nicene period, liturgy became more uniform, often involving the recitation of creeds. This period also saw significant controversy over icons. Icon supporter St. John of Damascus was initially condemned by the Council of Hieria in the 750s but later reinstated by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which claimed the earlier council was not sufficiently ecumenical. However, many of St. John’s sources were discredited. The role of saints’ intercession and Mary’s veneration expanded during this time, solidifying practices that were less evident in earlier periods.
What’s my evaluation of all of this? While the sacraments have strong biblical foundations and have remained central to Christian practice from the beginning, most of these other Orthodox traditions evolved over time and were shrouded in controversy. The claims of Eastern Orthodoxy about the early origins of all their modern traditions may not be fully sustainable.
Can’t the Church Simply Add New Traditions Later?
I would argue that traditions were never commissioned by the “church” as a whole, but by Christ, specifically through the Apostles. These apostolic traditions were then propagated by the church. The only way to advocate new tradition formation is to assume the continuity of the office of Apostle (with a Capital “A”); a notion that is debunked in my article on church government (here).
What About the Canon of Scripture?
Some suggest that if the church had the authority to declare the foundational texts of the Christian faith, they have the ongoing authority to introduce extra-Biblical traditions. However, while the canon is an extra-biblical tradition in the sense that it was not explicitly outlined within the Bible itself, it is fundamentally different than other extra-biblical traditions. The canon is a discovery, not a creation, of the church. It comprises writings universally recognized as authentic, inspired, apostolic witness. Jesus promised such writings would be given:
“… the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (Jn 14:26)
The original apostles also validated the later apostle Paul’s writings as canonical, referring to them as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16). This rigorous identification of apostolic writings distinguishes the canon of Scripture from other extra-biblical traditions, which may not have the same foundation in apostolic authority or the same level of scrutiny.
What About the Alleged Succession of Leadership
Orthodox believers hold a strong belief in apostolic succession, which means that the authority and teachings of the Church have been passed down through an unbroken line of bishops (and their appointed leadership) from the Apostles themselves. However, as mentioned above, the evidence for the continuation of the office of Apostle is lacking. But what about the succession of the Elders? Is it confined solely to those ordained by the original Apostles and subsequently those whom they ordained, continuing this lineage down to the present day?
While the laying on of hands by Jesus, or an original Apostle, or a subsequent apostolically appointed elder was a normative practice for appointing leadership in the early church, it was not the exclusive means. In Mark 9:38-41, John tells Jesus about someone driving out demons in Jesus’ name who was not one of their group:
“‘Teacher,’ said John, ‘we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop because he was not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said. ‘For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.'”
This incident shows that the authority to perform miracles was not limited to those directly called by Jesus or His Apostles. Even Paul, who would become one of the most notable Apostles and write two thirds of the New Testament, was baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit (through the laying on of hands) by Ananias, an obscure disciple who was not an Apostle (Acts 9:17-18). This informal ordination apparently sanctioned Paul to begin preaching in the synagogues before ever meeting with the other Apostles to receive their approval (Acts 9:19-20, Gal 1:15-20). This new Apostle, who came from the “outside in”, was not deemed inferior to the other Apostles (2 Cor 11:5-6). In fact, he had the power to challenge an existing Apostle, Peter, for contradictory Christian practice (Gal 2:11-14).
These examples illustrate that, even if Eastern Orthodox bishops are legitimate successors of the original Apostles, other valid leaders (such as Elders) and groups of leaders (like Presbyteries) can emerge from outside that circle. Orthodox leaders should be willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to these leaders and also be open to receiving correction from them, as Peter did from Paul.
What About The Ecumenical Councils?
The Eastern Orthodox Church’s claim of an unbroken chain of seven ecumenical councils is problematic for several reasons. The definition of “ecumenical” differs between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, leading to disagreements over which councils are truly ecumenical. Historical discrepancies, such as the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) being accepted by the Orthodox but rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, challenge the notion of an unbroken chain. Additionally, the Council of Florence (1438-1445 AD), which aimed to reunite Eastern and Western Churches, faced significant resistance from Orthodox leaders like St. Mark of Ephesus, further complicating the claim. Numerous significant councils, especially in the Western Church, could be considered ecumenical by Eastern Orthodox definition, but there is no universal agreement on these councils. Finally, instances of dissent within the councils themselves, such as St. Mark of Ephesus’ rejection of the union at the Council of Florence, highlight internal conflicts and challenge the idea of unified acceptance.
What About Pure and Unaltered Doctrine?
Due to the aforementioned claims of Apostolic succession and conciliar authority, the Orthodox Church essentially believes it holds the same teachings as the early Church. However, a brief journey through doctrinal history will demonstrate that such a claim is unwarranted.
Early and Persistent Doctrines:
Some teachings, such as the Trinity, enjoyed early and persistent acceptance within the Christian community. While the formal definition of the Trinity evolved over time, the core belief in the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was a foundational aspect of Christian doctrine from the earliest centuries, solidified in key ecumenical councils like Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD).
Doctrines with Varied Acceptance:
Other doctrines saw more varied acceptance. For instance, beliefs about the millennium were diverse, with early millenarians holding one view that was later criticized by Augustine. Augustine himself transitioned from a pre-millennialist to an amillennialist, and he ultimately considered millennialism an opinion-based matter. Similarly, the concept of one exclusive visible Church was not universally held, with figures like Justin Martyr suggesting that even pagans could find salvation through nature.
Progressive Doctrines:
Certain doctrines developed progressively over time, reflecting ongoing theological refinement. Theories of atonement are a prime example, showcasing a range of perspectives from the early church. These include Irenaeus’ recapitulation theory, Origen’s ransom theory, Clement’s moral influence theory, Tertullian and Cyprian’s satisfaction theory, and later, aspects of penal substitution seen in some Eastern Orthodox hymns and the homily by Symeon. The diverse and evolving nature of atonement theories highlights the progressive revelation and theological development within the church.
Sadly, In the Post-Schism era, both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches claimed rigid institutional (and soteriological) boundaries based on unity with their respective beliefs, particularly regarding the filioque – The Roman addition of “and from the Son” regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. However, by the 19th century, both traditions began to soften their views, recognizing the possibility of salvation outside their strict boundaries. This shift reflects a more hierarchical view, aligning more closely with Protestant perspectives.
Conclusion
Although Protestants can value Eastern Orthodoxy’s profound sense of tradition, its beautiful and reverent liturgical practices, and its deep historical connections, those who research it thoroughly will uncover flaws in its claims of unbroken historical continuity. The bottom line is this: a pure, singular, exclusive visible church throughout all ages just doesn’t exist. God has preserved the canon, the sacraments, and the core “faith” of Christianity through a universal and invisible church, despite its disparate representation as the visible church. This reminds me of the perfect Christ who united with an imperfect mortal body. God accomplishes great things with that which is weak and broken.
While it is far from perfect, Protestantism offers a framework in which ecclesiastical institutions and their traditions can be validated through scripture, providing a safer alternative to the blind acceptance of their self-proclaimed authority. Nevertheless, all churches should celebrate their common ground in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, collaborate for the sake of the Gospel, and pursue brotherly love in all things.
The Middle Ground 