How the Scriptures Led Me to Orthodoxy

I distinctly remember reading articles in 2017 when Hank Hanegraaff (also known as The Bible Answer Man), joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, and thinking... how? How does someone who knows and respects Scripture come to that conclusion? The question wasn't out of arrogance, but curiosity. For those who are sincerely asking this question, I hope this article will provide some understanding.

Let's start with Scripture, as I can already hear many asking "Where is that Orthodox practice found in the Bible?" But before we can ask "where" we have to ask "what" and "who." Until we know what letters are to be considered Scripture, we can't ask "Where do you find that in the Bible?" Without starting here, we are no different than any other religion or ideology that presumes their sacred writings to be the Word. Really we have to go back even further to the virgin birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. But since this article is aimed at Christians outside the Eastern Orthodox tradition, we can presume this to be true for the sake of brevity. If anyone not from the Christian faith finds this article, please know that I understand going over the historical proof of Jesus can not just be presumed under the environment of that conversation.

So what letters then? Who has the authority to recognize Hebrews as divinely inspired and not The Epistle of Barnabas? In short, no matter who you ask the answer in some form or fashion is - the Church. In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, he states that "Protestants have held that the church cannot make something to be Scripture, but can only recognize what God has already caused to be written as His own words" (pg 59 - emphasis mine). The early church considered qualities including apostolic authorship, personal apostolic testimony of non-apostolic letters as well as "the church simply had to decide whether it heard the voice of God... This seems to be the case with Hebrews" (pg 63). The earliest list of today's New Testament can be found in a letter from St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 367) and in the local Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) (pg 64). To try and understand the Orthodox perspective we'll consider this next question - does the church through its bishops and councils have God-given authority that extends beyond biblical recognition? Since the Bible is the only infallible rule for Protestants and we at least have a basic idea of where Protestants get their canon, we can now consider what Scripture has to say on this issue.

The first church council took place in Jerusalem and is recorded in Acts 15. It occurred due to Pharisee converts to Christianity claiming that the Jewish custom of circumcision was necessary for the Gentiles to keep for salvation (v1). So the apostles and presbyteros (priests/elders) considered this claim (v6), and if you talk to any Roman Catholic about this council they'll make sure to point out that the apostle Peter was the first to speak. Saying that salvation is a matter of faith and God's grace, not of circumcision (v9-11). While the other Christian traditions point out that it was James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, who had the final judgment on the council claiming - circumcision is not necessary for salvation but they would do well "to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood" (v19-20). A concluding letter was written from the church council in Jerusalem to the Gentiles at the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia stating "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" to declare that circumcision is not necessary for salvation (v23-28). So back to the question that sent us to Acts 15 - is there biblical proof that the church through its bishops and councils have God-given authority that extends beyond Scriptural recognition? This council spoke on matters of salvation and proper ways to live, even claiming that this "seemed good to the Holy Spirit." So there is some biblical evidence, but let's dig further.

Next, we'll consider what some of the earliest Christians had to say about the hierarchical structure of the church and its authority. All of these letters can be found in The Apostolic Fathers.

St. Clement, who is mentioned in Philippians 4:3, was the Bishop of Rome when he wrote his first letter to the church in Corinth between A.D. 70-110 (pg 10). In 1 Clement 42:4-5 he states that the Apostles appointed bishops as well as deacons "and this was no new method, for many years before had bishops (episkope) and deacons been written of." He continues in 44:1-2 that the Apostles knew "there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause... they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church". He later goes on to differentiate between bishops and presbyters in verses 47:6, 54:2, 57:1.

St. Ignatius was a disciple of John, and as the 3rd Bishop of Antioch he wrote many letters on his way to martyrdom around A.D. 100 (pg 48). In his letter to the Ephesians he says it glorifies God to be "subject to the bishop (episkope) and to the presbytery" (2:2), that bishops have been appointed throughout the world by God's will (3:2), and to live in harmony with the will of the bishop who is attuned to the presbytery as strings to a harp (4:1). In his letter to the Trallians he says "Likewise let all respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as the bishop is also a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of Apostles. Without these the name of "Church" is not given" (3:1). Later on in the same letter he says that "whoever does anything apart from the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons is not pure in his conscience" (7:2). In his letter to the Philadelphians he says that "For as many as belong to God and Jesus Christ, - these are with the bishop" (3:2). In his letter to the Smyrnaeans he says to "follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as if it were the Apostles" (8:1). He continues on repeating these points throughout his letters.

Let us go back to Scripture to evaluate these claims further. Since these letters are not considered Scripture in any Christian tradition, maybe they are misguided. Is there biblical evidence to take the words of the disciples of the Apostles seriously? In 1 Timothy 3, Paul goes over the qualifications for bishops (episkope = overseer) and deacons (helper). And at the end of the chapter he calls the church, with bishops and deacons, the "ground and pillar of truth" (v15). In Mathew 16:17-19 Jesus tells Peter that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church, and then gives him the authority to bind and loosen on earth and it will be done in heaven. Jesus later gives this authority to all of the apostles in the church and tells them where 2-3 are gathered in His name, that He will be in their midst (Matthew 18:15-20). In John 20:22-23 Jesus gives the apostles the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive and retain sins. In Acts 1:12-26 the apostles chose Matthias to take Judas's office (episkope/bishoprick) (v20) and was numbered with the 11 apostles (v25-26) showing a direct link from apostles to the position of bishop/episkope. We see the apostles act as bishops in their biblical letters, overseeing the local churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, Thessaloniki, Crete, Cappadocia, etc. In Acts 14:23 the apostles appointed presbyteros (elders/priests) in every church. Paul also gave authority to Titus to appoint presbyteros in every city (Titus 1:5). In 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 Paul says - "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (emphasis mine).

So what is seen in the earliest of church history is a hierarchical structure with apostles being the first bishops/episkope of the church by overseeing every local congregation and appointing presbyteros. You see apostles being replaced by others like Matthias, so this "office" of bishop continues. We read St. Clement, who knew Paul personally, tell us that the apostles planned for a succession of bishops and the Scriptures tell us to listen to apostolic tradition whether by word or epistle. We see in Scripture this church structure including bishops being called the "ground and pillar of truth" and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. We see St. Ignatius, who knew the apostle John, say that the word "Church" should not be used outside of the context of bishops and presbyters. We read in Acts about the Holy Spirit working through the Council of Jerusalem to speak authoritatively in the church on matters of salvation. So is there biblical evidence that the church through its bishops and councils have God-given authority that extends beyond Scriptural recognition? I do believe so.

To move on from the 1st century and to see how the church functioned through the first millennia, we'll briefly run through some of the decisions of the church's 7 ecumenical councils by referring to "Ecumenical Councils" Volume 13 by Saint Nektarios Kefalas.

• Christ is called divine and "of the essence of the Father" as well as "consubstantial with the Father" (pg 51)

• Christ's hypostatic union: meaning He has two natures—divine and human—, "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation"

• Christ has two wills—divine and human—in perfect harmony and without conflict (pg 128).

• The Holy Spirit is divine and "proceeds from the Father, is worshiped with the Father and the Son" (pg 73)

• The Nicene Creed is finalized A.D. 381 (pg 72), part of which states that Christians believe in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." This Creed is still read every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy at Eastern Orthodox churches (pg 74)

• The Nicene Creed teaches that God's "Kingdom shall have no end" to denounce the Chiliastic teaching of a literal 1,000-year reign (pgs 73-74)

• The day of Easter/Pascha (pg 52)

• The honor of the Bishop of Constantinople after Rome (pg 99)

• The title of "Theotokos" (Mother of God) for the Virgin Mary (pg 84) instead of "Christotokos" (Mother of Christ) which taught that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus and not the divine Logos (pg 78)

• The use and veneration of icons, declaring that they are not to be used as objects of worship but rather aids to piety and means of representing the holy figures and events of Christianity serving as windows to the divine (pgs 155-156)

Two significant splits occurred from these ecumenical councils based on disagreements about Christ's nature that are still noticeable to this day. One around A.D. 435 (pg 84) created the Assyrian Church of the East, and the other in A.D. 451 (pg 95) created the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

One of the great defenders of the church around the time of the second ecumenical council was St. Basil (pg 67), bishop of Caesarea. He is recognized as a saint in the Orthodox, Catholic and some Protestant (ex: Anglican and Lutheran) traditions. He wrote a book "On the Holy Spirit" by A.D. 375 and a few pages really stood out that I believe add clarity for someone trying to understand the perspective of an Orthodox Christian, so I'll add them here:

"Of the dogmas and proclamations that are guarded in the Church, we hold some from the teaching of the Scriptures, and others we have received in mystery as the teachings of the tradition of the apostles. Both hold the same power with respect to true religion. No one would deny these points, at least no one who has even a little experience of ecclesiastical institutions. For if we attempt to reject *non-scriptural customs as insignificant, we would... lose the very vital parts of the Gospel... For instance - I will mention the first and most common - who has learned through the Scriptures that those who hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ are marked with the sign of the cross? What sort of scriptural text teaches us to turn to the East for prayer? Which saint has left us a scriptural account of the words of the epiclesis at the manifestation of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?... We bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism in addition to the very one who is being baptized. By what Scriptures? Is it not by the secret and mystical tradition?... Where does a man being immersed three times come from? How much of the baptismal ritual is for the renunciation of Satan and his angels, and what scriptural text does it come from? Does it not come from the secret and unspoken teaching, which our fathers guarded with a simple and unprying silence, since they were well taught that the solemnity of the mysteries is preserved by silence? Such matters must not be seen by the uninitiated... we all look to the East for prayers, but few of us know that our ancient fatherland, the paradise that God planted in Eden, was in the East. We say our prayers standing on the first day of the week, but not all know the reason why. By standing for prayer we remind ourselves of the grace given to us on the day of resurrection... The day will pass with me still explaining the non-scriptural mysteries of the Church. I leave the others, but by what Scriptures do we hold the very confession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?... But they do not stop babbling up and down that to give glory with the Holy Spirit is unattested and non-scriptural, and the like... In response... Standing fast in non-scriptural tradition is, I think, apostolic... "Keep the traditions that you have received, either by word or letter" (2 Thess 2.15). One of these traditions is the one now under discussion, which those, who arranged it from the beginning and handed it over to their successors... implanted in the churches by long custom..." (pgs 104-107, 111)

*In the translation to English, Stephen Hildebrand clarifies on page 52 that "non-scriptural" means "oral" or "unwritten," and that "it should be clear that "non-scriptural," certainly for St. Basil, does not mean "unscriptural.""

We'll continue taking an oversimplified look at church history from A.D. 1,000 - present time. Around 1054 there was a major split that occurred called the "Great Schism" where those under the bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope) divided with the rest of the church creating what is now called the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. One of the main reasons for the schism was that the Roman church added the "Filioque," meaning - "and the son," to the Nicene Creed without the authority of an ecumenical council. And it is this creed that is currently read in most Roman Catholic churches today, although Eastern Catholics will still recite the Nicene Creed from the second ecumenical council in A.D. 381. Then in 1517, there was a major split within the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation, again largely due to Papal authority. This eventually produced the Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Pentecostal, Episcopalians, as well as Non-denominational churches and others.

Let me begin to wrap up this article by speaking a familiar language of those within the Protestant tradition by addressing Sola Scriptura, one of the five basic tenants of this Christian tradition. If you want to listen to a Protestant discuss these issues I recommend Dr. Gavin Ortlund's channel called Truth Unites. In his debate with Trent Horn (a Roman Catholic apologist) on Sola Scriptura in his opening statement around the 7:55 minute mark, he clarifies that Sola Scriptura does not mean Solo Scriptura, as there are other authorities within the church but the Bible is the only infallible authority for Protestants. Allow me to make the provocative claim that I believe the Orthodox practice this definition of Sola Scriptura better than any Protestant tradition, and to be clear, the Orthodox deny Sola Scriptura. I mean... it's Latin. If it was Greek, they would at least deny it less adamantly. Sola Scriptura does recognize authorities outside of the Scriptures which coincides with the Normative Principle that is held within some Protestant circles. It states that "we should retain traditions that have a long history, wide use and are not forbidden or contradicted by Holy Scripture." This principle is consistent with Paul's teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2-3. So when I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church and I see the congregation making the sign of the cross, praying to the East, practicing Chrismation, and triple immersion baptism. They have presbyters, deacons, and a lineage of bishops connected to the apostles. They confess their sins in the church and fast on Wednesday and Fridays (The Didache 4:14, 8:1 which was written as early as A.D. 50). These are just a few of the practices within Orthodoxy in connection with the early church, and my appeal is to say this is found within the Orthodox Church but not all within any one Protestant tradition. I could keep going making connections between the two showing the authority within the church without contradicting the infallible authority of Scripture, which is defined by some Protestants as "Sola Scriptura."

Other Protestants deny the Normative Principle in favor of the Regulative Principle which "maintains that Scripture gives specific guidelines for conducting corporate worship services and that churches must not add anything to those guidelines" (emphasis mine). I do not see how Dr. Ortlund's definition of Sola Scriptura can be practiced within the Regulative Principle as it negates all authority outside of the Bible leading directly to Solo Scriptura, and even then it does not follow Paul's teachings in 2 Thessalonians 2-3.

With all of this, I can still hear my Protestant mind take some of this information in and ask sincerely, "Why? I have faith in Christ. What are these other works for? I can't work my way to heaven." And no, I can't. There's nothing I can do to earn eternity in heaven. But the good news of the Gospel is more than going to heaven when we pass away. Please consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 again:

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (emphasis mine).

So one of the reasons why is because an aspect of biblical salvation is through sanctification, therefore, hold to apostolic tradition. God became incarnate so that we "may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire" 2 Peter 1:4. This is yet another aspect of the insurmountable good news of the Gospel.

2 Peter 1:3-10:

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (emphasis mine).

So yet another reason why is that Christians can begin to partake in the divine nature and escape corruption, for this very reason, we should make every effort to supplement our faith and be virtuous, have self-control, and be loving. And when the apostolic traditions like fasting, confession and making the sign of the cross are done in faith, it can begin to produce and increase the qualities described in 2 Peter 1.

I'll attempt to bring this all home with G.K. Chesterton's Fence Principle. A fence exists across the road and a modern reformer goes up to it and says "I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." I believe the Orthodox would have assisted the Protestants in taking down many fences during the Reformation (indulgences, immaculate conception, and Papal overreach to name a few), but so many have been removed that there are Protestant churches within the Lutheran tradition reciting the "Sparkle Creed" without any oversight. This is not to say there is nothing ever heretically taught within an Orthodox church, but when that happens, there is a bishop overseeing the presbyter with the authority to correct them. And if/when that bishop fails in his office and it becomes a larger issue within the Church, a council of bishops can be brought together for God to work through to correct that error as in Acts 15. The point is to say that so many fences have been taken down in the Protestant church that the fear of St. Basil has become a reality - that if we attempt to reject unwritten apostolic traditions as insignificant, we would lose the very vital parts of the confession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. See "Sparkle Creed" as example #1. I know Protestants unceasingly guard one of their only fences left standing to recognize the heart of apostolic tradition, the Scriptures. And the honor given to God's word within the Protestant tradition is truly admirable. But "Sola Fence" is not enough to contain all that makes up apostolic tradition. Once this perspective can be grasped, you can begin to understand the life of an Eastern Orthodox Christian.