How is Eastern Orthodoxy different?
Dr. D. Trent Hyatt
April 20, 2020
G.D.O'Bradovich III
introduction
We serendipitously found this thought provoking article at the “Answers in Genesis” website and encourage the Gentle Reader to peruse it. Dr. Trent Hyatt has earned the following degrees:
Bachelor of Science in business administration (University of California, Berkeley)
Masters of Theology in New Testament literature and exegesis (Dallas Theological Seminary)
Doctorate in Theology in systematic theology (University of Basel)
It is of interest that the renowned scholar Erasmus went to Basel to find Greek manuscripts that he would later be published in 1516 AD as “All the New Teachings”. Subsequent editions were titled “All the New Testament”.
Dr. Hyatt provides his view on Orthodoxy and we provide our thoughts, rebuttals, and insights for the edification of the Gentle Reader. Certain sections have been edited and whole paragraphs omitted for the sake of clarity and brevity. As always, the Gentle Researcher should original sources when available.
Bachelor of Science in business administration (University of California, Berkeley)
Masters of Theology in New Testament literature and exegesis (Dallas Theological Seminary)
Doctorate in Theology in systematic theology (University of Basel)
It is of interest that the renowned scholar Erasmus went to Basel to find Greek manuscripts that he would later be published in 1516 AD as “All the New Teachings”. Subsequent editions were titled “All the New Testament”.
Dr. Hyatt provides his view on Orthodoxy and we provide our thoughts, rebuttals, and insights for the edification of the Gentle Reader. Certain sections have been edited and whole paragraphs omitted for the sake of clarity and brevity. As always, the Gentle Researcher should original sources when available.
On his [the Orthodox priest] placard was the claim that the Orthodox Church was the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” church. Now, I was raised a Protestant and had personally placed my faith in Christ as a result of an evangelistic message given by a Protestant...So, upon hearing the claim of the demonstrators, I immediately sensed a challenge in their claim. How could they claim something so exclusive?
In his formative years at Berkeley, Trent Hyatt was confronted with a statement that was in conflict with his opinions and he felt challenged by the resulting cognitive dissonance.
This essay, though written from the perspective of an evangelical Protestant, is not intended to simply discredit the faith of all Orthodox believers. Yet, in the spirit of 1 Thessalonians 5:21, I want to “examine everything carefully” and “hold fast to that which is good.”
At the beginning of the essay, Dr. Hyatt clearly states that this “essay is not intended to simply discredit the faith of all Orthodox believers”, which if it could be accomplished with the Orthodox, then one could discredit the faith of other groups. Dr. Hyatt does not attempt to discredit the faith of the members, but attempts to question the validity of the faith that relies upon the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Dr. Hyatt is admits that he wants to “examine everything carefully”, which is to be expected from a scholar and researcher, but then mentions “that which is good” and “good” is a sometimes a social convention or sometimes a convention of morality. Regardless, “good” represents a value judgment and values, unlike facts, are not always agreed upon.
Other than their exclusive claims to being the one true church, ... what are the distinctive views of the Eastern Orthodox? I will attempt to survey their most important beliefs and practices ...
Authority
The Orthodox, like Protestants and Catholics, regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God. But like the Catholics, the Orthodox Bible contains a few books not found in the Hebrew Scriptures (that is, books called the Apocrypha [Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, etc.] and written between the close of the Old Testament and the writing of the New Testament).
The “Bible” is an ambiguous word. The modern Bible, since the 1880s omits the “Apocrypha”, while the original King James Bible of 1611 included it. The first edition of “All the New Teachings” did not have the story of the woman taken in adultery in the fourth gospel, although it was added to later editions. Various versions of the Bible are found in the Orthodox world, but the Orthodox Church makes no dogmatic claim to possessing one final, inerrant, and infallible version of Scripture.
Dr. Hyatt will not find any Bible in any Orthodox Church, although the Gospels will be found on the altar oftentimes overlaid in gold. Over the course of one year, the daily epistle readings include all but a few passages of the New Testament, although the Book of Revelation is never read in an Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has no dogma on a definitive version of the Bible, as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 only agrees with the titles as found in the Council of Trent held in the mid sixteenth century by the Roman Chruch. It should be noted that the Orthodox Church waited for over a century to clarify their positions on the Protestants claims and the edict sof the Council of Trent.
The truth is that the Orthodox Church did not add the Gospels to the Epistles to create the New Testament, nor did they then combine the Law with the Prophets with the Psalms to create the Old Testament. The Orthodox Church add not add the “Old Testament” to the “New Testament” to create a new book called the “Bible”. Therefore, Dr. Hyatt presents an error of facts when he states that the Orthodox Churches “regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God”.
Dr. Hyatt will not find any Bible in any Orthodox Church, although the Gospels will be found on the altar oftentimes overlaid in gold. Over the course of one year, the daily epistle readings include all but a few passages of the New Testament, although the Book of Revelation is never read in an Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has no dogma on a definitive version of the Bible, as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 only agrees with the titles as found in the Council of Trent held in the mid sixteenth century by the Roman Chruch. It should be noted that the Orthodox Church waited for over a century to clarify their positions on the Protestants claims and the edict sof the Council of Trent.
The truth is that the Orthodox Church did not add the Gospels to the Epistles to create the New Testament, nor did they then combine the Law with the Prophets with the Psalms to create the Old Testament. The Orthodox Church add not add the “Old Testament” to the “New Testament” to create a new book called the “Bible”. Therefore, Dr. Hyatt presents an error of facts when he states that the Orthodox Churches “regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God”.
The inclusion in the canon of Scripture of some books not regarded as canonical by Jesus and the Apostles (based on their lack of reference to them) is not an unimportant matter.3 However, even more important and resulting in more serious consequences is the place of tradition in connection with the Scriptures.
The protestant standard of canonical books is determined by whether or not there are specific references to these works by either Jesus or the Apostles. Of course, the Apostles do not reference their own works, although Saint Paul does recommend reading his letter to the Laodiceans [Colossians 4:16] which is not included in the New Testament, while the Epistle of Jude relates Satan contending for the body of Moses, an incident not recorded in the Law [Jude 1:9].
In the Catholic view, Scripture and tradition are both authorities. In other words, tradition exists alongside of Scripture as another authority. In the Orthodox view, the Scriptures are a part of tradition. According to their theologians, it is a mistake to pit Scripture against tradition. They are both part of one great tradition. They affirm that Scripture may be the highest tradition, but it is still tradition.
The conditional word “may” is inappropriate, as the highest tradition, in our opinion, is that the fullness of the truth about man and God that has been divinely revealed to the Orthodox Church.
But Scripture is not, in their view, the highest and final authority for faith and practice in the way Protestants since the Reformation have seen it and confessed it to be.
Of course, there is no reason why the Orthodox Church would view Scripture as Protestants view it.
Scripture, as part of the great tradition, must be interpreted authoritatively. For the Orthodox, the church’s tradition is the authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures.
We will read many examples of Dr. Hyatt’s disdain for the authority of the Orthodox Church, generally, and her traditions, specifically.
This means … that no believer has the right to interpret Scripture on his or her own, so to speak. The proper way to read Scripture according to the Orthodox is with the writings of the church fathers 5 alongside the Bible, guiding us in our understanding of what the Bible says. Of course, in practice, there may be very few Orthodox who literally read their Bibles with the writings of the church fathers open beside them. But what they do seems (to this outside observer) to be: (1) they read the church fathers a good deal more than the Scriptures and then (2) when they do read Scripture, they come up with their understanding of what the Scriptures are supposed to mean from the church fathers and thus find in the Bible what they have already become convinced of by reading the church fathers.
Dr. Hyatt understands the Orthodox position, but he questions the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures because this interpretation is not to his liking. Of course, the statements in the writings of the Church Fathers are not mindlessly followed by the Orthodox; those passages are interpreted in view of Tradition. For example, Tertullian, in his “On the Soul”, suggests the immortal soul is located in at least five locations found either in or on the human body. The Orthodox Church does not claim that the immortal soul is found anywhere in or on the body, as the dogma of the immortal soul is an innovation of the Roman Church [Latern Council, 1513] and is “disqualified” by tradition as illegitimate.
No doubt, this may facilitate a quicker and correct understanding of some parts of the Bible.
The Orthodox Church does not have a Bible.
However, the possibility that one or more of the church fathers has misunderstood or misinterpreted Scripture does not seem to come into play.
From our research, we agree that the writings of the Church Fathers misinterpret the vast majority of the Biblical texts they expound, while offering awful allegorical exegeses. Of course, if we know it, then the Orthodox Church surely knows it. The obvious misunderstandings, in addition to other subtle issues, found in the alleged writings of the Church Fathers are the reason their ideas, thoughts, and suggestions are evaluated by the Tradition of the Orthodox Church
When the church fathers and the church’s tradition as a whole are used as a means of understanding Scripture, rather than using Scripture to correct and guide the church’s beliefs and practices, the result is often seen in putting the church’s tradition as an authority over or above the Scripture.
Using Scripture to “guide and correct beliefs and practices” has resulted in tens of thousands of “churches”. After five hundred years, it is evident that protestant churches are incapable of utilizing Scripture as the foundation for their beliefs and practices. Of course, nowhere in the Bible does it say that all beliefs and practices are to be found in the Bible. As Dr. Hyatt mentioned previously, the Tradition of the Orthodox Church is over the Scripture.
The implications of this approach to authority are clear.
Although the implications are as clear as the lucid statement that Tradition takes precedent in the Orthodox Church, this will not prevent Dr. Hyatt from laboring the issue.
Paul’s words to Timothy, his faithful disciple, in 2 Timothy 3:16–17 tell us that “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
But what exactly is Scripture in the context of the letter to Timothy? In the time of Saint Paul, recognized Scripture would perhaps consist of not even the entire Old Testament, with all the books as known today. Also, it is likely that all of the books of the future New Testament had neither been written nor collated into one book and, therefore, the New Testament could not be considered as part of Scripture. It follows from these conclusions that Christians were practicing their faith before the modern Bible came into being, and the unstated conclusion is that the Bible is not necessary for ancient Christianity, generally, or Orthodox Christianity, specifically.
This teaching, reproving, correcting, and training work of the Scripture in the lives of believers is at least partially shackled by the Orthodox approach to authority since the Scriptures can’t do that directly!
Dr. Hyatt stresses the importance of the protestant Bible for the Orthodox Church.
Any teaching or reproof that isn’t grounded in the church’s tradition must be set aside—disqualified.
Teachings that are “disqualified”, but are not limited to, the dogma of the immortal soul [1513], changing the calculations for the date of Easter [1582], Mary born without sin [1854], and Papal infallibility [1870]. The Orthodox Church also sets aside additional innovations or beliefs such as Jesus is not the Son of God, but the archangel Michael, the innovation of the Rapture of the church in the 1840s, and various revelations from the angle Moroni.
A good example of how this works can be imagined, if this had been applied to the “discoveries” made by Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers of the 16th century.
We are uncertain why “discoveries” are in quotes, unless by discoveries Dr. Hyatt means the translations of Luther and the insertion of the word “alone” in the book of Romans.
Luther found peace for his tortured conscience when he discovered that he could be justified by faith alone (apart from works) and that God credited Christ’s righteousness to him when he trusted in Christ and His work on the Cross for him. He did not find this understanding in the Roman Catholic Church’s tradition.
It is no importance that Martin Luther had difficulties with the traditions of the Roman Church, as we have written three extensive essays on Purgatory and cannot overcome the main difficulty: The living faithful must pray and do good works to assist those in Purgatory, however, at the Final Judgment, there will be no more good works, and as those in Purgatory have not finished being purged of venial sins, it seems the souls, perhaps the vast majority of the faithful, are abandoned in Purgatory. Of course, Orthodox Christians are under no obligation to believe in Purgatory, in the purging of venial sins from immortal souls, or in the immortality of the soul.
He [Luther] found it [justified by faith alone] in the Bible, particularly in Romans.
Of course, it is well known that Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of Romans and justified this addition to inerrant Scripture by suggesting the “alone” was implied in the context. It can be stated that the entirety of the Protestantism rests on that single inserted word into sacred Scripture- Sola Fides.
If the Orthodox principle of reading the Bible only with the help of the church fathers and the church’s tradition had been applied, Luther would have had no message. Sola fides, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria,6 the slogans of the Reformation, would have never corrected the practices and beliefs of the church.
If Luther had access to the Orthodox traditions, instead of Roman traditions, then the Reformation may have developed differently. The Roman Church does not declare how many Masses, good works, or prayers are necessary for the salvation of souls, which creates uncertainty. Luther found certainty in his faith.
Of course, the slogan “Scripture only” is not found in Scripture. The Bible is clear that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but both the Roman Church and Orthodox Church have Sunday as the new Sabbath. In a word, there is no Biblical authority to change the day of the Sabbath, as the Seventh Day Advents and Jehovah Witnesses know, however, the ancient Church by her authority alone changed the day of observance.
We assume the corrected practices of the Roman Church alludes to indulgences, however, we are uncertain to the corrected beliefs of the Roman Church during the Reformation.
Of course, the slogan “Scripture only” is not found in Scripture. The Bible is clear that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but both the Roman Church and Orthodox Church have Sunday as the new Sabbath. In a word, there is no Biblical authority to change the day of the Sabbath, as the Seventh Day Advents and Jehovah Witnesses know, however, the ancient Church by her authority alone changed the day of observance.
We assume the corrected practices of the Roman Church alludes to indulgences, however, we are uncertain to the corrected beliefs of the Roman Church during the Reformation.
Though partial or basic understandings of these truths can be found here and there in some of the church fathers, no clear championing of them is to be found in the church’s tradition.7
It not surprising that there is “no clear championing” of modern Protestant ideas in the traditions of the Orthodox Church nor are we surprised that partial understandings “can be found here and there”, as the writings Church Fathers touch upon many subjects and not all pertain to Christianity.
Does that mean that the principles expressed in the slogans are wrong? According to the Orthodox understanding of authority, this would certainly be the case. But what about the fact that all of these principles that were of such life-changing significance for Luther and so many others in the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century are found explicitly and implicitly in the Bible
Many principles and personal experiences can be life changing, but this is not an indication of their validity or truth, as least as far as Orthodox Christian tradition is concerned.
If the Bible clearly teaches something, is it not valid, even if it is not found clearly in the church fathers?
We are interested to know at least one topic, besides obedience, that the Bible teaches clearly
Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and the other reformers insisted that the Bible’s teaching was over the church’s teaching, and when the church’s teaching did not correspond to the Bible’s, then it was the church’s teaching that had to be changed, not the Bible’s.
Out of necessity the reformers or heretics placed the their Bible and their opinions regarding it over the Roman Church, otherwise they would be required to follow the teachings of the Roman church. When it suited the needs of the reformers, they argued the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church against the practices and beliefs of the Roman Church.
The Bible teaches its supreme authority repeatedly. For example, Moses taught the Israelites to trust and obey God’s Word and teach it to their children (Deuteronomy 6:1–9). God told Joshua not to turn to the right or the left from following His Word (Joshua 1:6–9). Psalm 1 blessed the person who clings to God’s Word, Psalm 19 says it is far superior to any truth we learn from nature, and Psalm 119 magnifies the importance of Scripture, making the believer wiser than his teachers (119:97–104). The prophets continually called the Jews back to the Word of God (e.g., Isaiah 8:20; Jeremiah 6:16–19; Hosea 4:6).
“The Bible teaches its supreme authority repeatedly”, yet all eight Scriptural references are from the Old Testament.
Jesus condemned the Jewish religious leaders of His day for undermining the teaching of Scripture by their traditions (Mark 7:6–13).
The later Jewish traditions were not claimed as Divine Revelations, unlike the Traditions of the Orthodox Church. Of course, the Orthodox Church no longer has new revelations and Scripture is interpreted through Tradition.
And the Berean Jews were commended for evaluating the truthfulness of Paul’s teachings in the light of the Old Testament (Acts 17:11). Scripture is the only sure foundation and authority for the Christian.
“Scripture”, as understood consisting of our current New Testament, cannot be the only sure foundation and authority for Christians, because there was a time when Christians were, but Scripture was not. Dr. Hyatt must be aware that if Scripture, that is the modern Bible, is the only foundation and authority for Christians, then the implication of his statement is that Orthodox Christians are not, in fact, Christians.
Creation
[Three paragraphs omitted.]
But what about the Fall? For Louth, the fallen state of humanity is an undeniable fact. Yet he is content to argue that man’s condition is something that slowly evolved as humanity found “that the pull of more evident pleasure, or a sense of the self expressing itself in aggression towards the other, was too great to resist.” What Louth is arguing is clearly a view of sin, but not just sin as we know it, but what he refers to as “ancestral sin” (the term he prefers to “original sin”).
It seems that there are two types of sin, the “sin as we [fundamental Protestants?] know it” and sin as understood by the Orthodox Church.
Ancestral sin, he thinks, is a consequence of man’s ontology. In other words, man’s nature is such that sin is a regrettable but unavoidable reality of his being.
“Human, all too human.”
If, then, sin is more of an ontological problem than a moral or spiritual problem, a historical Adam and Eve and a historical Fall are not really necessary.
If sin is a part of the human condition, then the story of the Fall is not needed to be factual. Yet, the Orthodox Church teaches Christ’s Resurrection as factual.
These two perspectives (that is, our commonalities with the animal world and an obscure beginning for “ancestral sin” in the distant shadowy past) present no problem for Louth and those who agree with him in seeing an evolutionary beginning for life and a process of “millions” (his term) of years rather than a recently created historical pair who sinned by disobeying God’s explicit command.
The statement contains a factual error. Adam sinned by disobeying God. Since Eve was not present when the command was given to Adam. Eve knew only that Adam told her not to eat of the tree. The serpent asked Eve a question she could not answer, “Has God said…?”
When confronted with this question, Eve must have reasoned and concluded that she could not know whether God said it or if Adam said that God said it. Going further, Eve could not truthfully state that she knew God existed, she could only relate that Adam said that God existed. Eve knew of the commandment through tradition, the tradition from Adam that God spoke to him.
We suggest that the indifference of Orthodox theologians between millions of years of potential evolution and thousands of years since the Creation is due to the importance of the Incarnation and Resurrection. Most modern Christians place great emphasis and importance on belief in the factual nature the six days of Creation and place this event around six thousand years ago.
The Orthodox Church has traditionally used the dating system “Of the World” [AM], that is, the number of years since Creation. The year 6,000 AM is the year 492 AD, the year 7,000 AM is the year 1492 AD, and the current year is 7,529 AM. If Dr. Hyatt were pressed for a statement, then we are inclined to believe hat he would disagree with the Orthodox Tradition of utilizing the “Year of the World” system of dating.
When confronted with this question, Eve must have reasoned and concluded that she could not know whether God said it or if Adam said that God said it. Going further, Eve could not truthfully state that she knew God existed, she could only relate that Adam said that God existed. Eve knew of the commandment through tradition, the tradition from Adam that God spoke to him.
We suggest that the indifference of Orthodox theologians between millions of years of potential evolution and thousands of years since the Creation is due to the importance of the Incarnation and Resurrection. Most modern Christians place great emphasis and importance on belief in the factual nature the six days of Creation and place this event around six thousand years ago.
The Orthodox Church has traditionally used the dating system “Of the World” [AM], that is, the number of years since Creation. The year 6,000 AM is the year 492 AD, the year 7,000 AM is the year 1492 AD, and the current year is 7,529 AM. If Dr. Hyatt were pressed for a statement, then we are inclined to believe hat he would disagree with the Orthodox Tradition of utilizing the “Year of the World” system of dating.
Father Seraphim Rose (1934–1982), an American Orthodox monk and scholar, wrote a lengthy book surveying the teachings on Genesis 1–11 of Orthodox theologians and scholars down through the centuries. He documents with lengthy quotes from the “Holy Fathers” of Eastern Orthodoxy that up until the 19th century the Orthodox Church held to a literal six-day creation week about 6,000 years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. But, he tells us, by the 20th century a very large percentage of Eastern Orthodox believers had accepted the ideas of evolution and millions of years.9
The modern Christian obsession with the scientific theory of evolution is inexplicable.
Christ
Eastern Orthodoxy has historically maintained and defended a high view of the deity of Christ.
This is due, in no small part, to the Orthodox faithful being Christians.
The Orthodox make a great deal out of being “the Church of the seven councils” (that is, the seven ecumenical councils of the early Church). The first five of these councils dealt with challenges to the full deity or full humanity of Christ. The first of these councils was held in Nicea and the fourth was held in Chalcedon. These two councils affirmed the biblical doctrine of Christ as being one person with two natures, thus fully divine and fully human.
We question the necessity of two councils held over several centuries only to confirm what everyone could clearly read in the Bible for themselves.
From the side of His divinity, He is the second person of the Trinity and is as fully God as are the Father and the Holy Spirit. From the side of His humanity, He is the virgin-born son of Mary and the heir of David. All these things the Orthodox Church faithfully teach and affirm. Thus, there is no debate between evangelical Protestants and the Orthodox on the deity of Christ or His incarnation.
If there is no debate, then we suggest this is due entirely to the Evangelical Protestants accepting, perhaps unknowingly, Orthodox Christian teachings.
Difficulties emerge, however, when the meaning of the incarnation for redemption is considered.
Salvation and the Sacraments
What must I do to be saved?” This was the question the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30. It remains the critical question for all of mankind. Indeed, if we are given the wrong answers to this question, a catastrophic loss is the prospect we face. Strangely, in contrast to both Protestants and Catholics, the Orthodox do not seem to focus very much on this question. There are, of course, reasons for this.
The noncommittal word “seem” is utilized in regard to being the question of being “saved.” It should be stated that the Orthodox are not focused, nay indifferent, on the protestant question of “getting saved”.
Like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy places great emphasis on the “sacraments.” Like Catholicism, Orthodoxy sees baptism as bringing about the regeneration of the person receiving the sacrament.
These similarities are explained by the fact that the Roman and Orthodox Churches have the same origin.
The Orthodox typically baptize infants, but ... adult converts to Orthodoxy are baptized as well. In contrast to Roman Catholics, the Orthodox baptize by immersion. Immersion is carried out three times in succession, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The modern practice of Roman Catholic Church of sprinkling Holy Water for baptism is against her traditional practice of submersion. Of course, sprinkling Holy Water is against Orthodox Tradition and “disqualifies” it as being legitimate.
Unique to the Orthodox is a second sacrament applied immediately following baptism, called “chrismation.”
Dr. Hyatt must know that the Roman Church also uses chrism.
Chrismation is performed by the priest on the newly baptized individual by anointing him or her with oil and making the sign of the cross over the various parts of the body … of the newly baptized and saying, “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”
The original meaning and long understanding of word “Christian” derived from the word “chrism”, as the word “Christ” simply means “anointed”. In the modern age, belief in Christ, and little else, is sufficient to be called a Christian. However, the most opportune time to become a Christian is after baptism, when one is free of original sin.
According to Orthodox teaching, this sacrament brings about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the newly baptized individual. In the Orthodox view ..., even if the individual being baptized is an infant, he or she is consequently a full member of the church from that point on.
The individual is “a full member of the church” or, in other words, a Christian. This fact is the reason we do not deny that we are Christians. It can be stated that our being Christian, American, and Hauten are all accidents of time and place.
The oil used in the anointing of the person being baptized is called the “chrism.” According to Orthodox belief, the chrism may be administered by a priest but the chrism must have first been blessed by a bishop. The Orthodox do not believe that faith on the part of the person being baptized is necessary in order for these sacraments to be effective.
Once again, the attempt to apply the protestant idea of what faith should be is reiterated. There are no sacraments in protestant churches, other than the symbolic baptism and symbolic Lord’s Supper, where there is no question of their effectiveness. We are uncertain why so much effort is put forth to link one’s faith with the effectiveness of the sacraments when the two protestant ordinances are acknowledged by all as ineffectual.
Indeed, Orthodox theologians take great pains to clarify and emphasize that the effectiveness of the sacraments is entirely independent of any faith or particular desires for God or sanctity. To quote a prominent Orthodox theologian: “In no way is the efficacy of the sacrament contingent upon the faith or moral qualifications of either celebrant [i.e., priest or bishop] or recipient.”10 How is such a thing possible? The answer becomes clearer when we read Karmiris’ explanation of what happens when the sacraments are dispensed: “Baptism and chrismation transmit justifying and regenerating grace.”11 Quite explicitly then, these two sacraments, according to Orthodox teaching, automatically transmit God’s saving and regenerating grace.
In our youth, we learned in “Sunday School” that, should the dire situation arise, the Orthodox laity can perform a valid baptist in the circumstance of an inevitable death. We state that is not ironic that the efficacy of the sacrament is not contingent upon neither our conformity to the Orthodox faith nor the expected morality of the Orthodox Church for Yours Truly to perform a valid baptism in the circumstance of an inevitable death- it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
How is it possible that a person can be baptized without any faith or spiritual hunger, by a priest of whom no moral qualifications are required, and yet that baptism be effective without fail? The answer to this question is that the sacrament itself, by virtue of being a genuine sacrament of the Orthodox Church, is certainly effective.
In other words, all that is necessary is that the priest or bishop celebrating the sacraments must be a duly ordained minister of the Orthodox Church. The baptisms that take place in the Protestant Church or even the Roman Catholic Church are not regarded as valid baptisms. Why not? Karmiris explains this quite clearly:
Furthermore, the Orthodox Catholic Church believes that divine grace is not dispensed outside of the true church, and thus the church does not recognize in their fullness sacramental acts which are performed outside of her, except in extraordinary cases.12
A baptism outside of the teachings of the Orthodox Church is against Orthodox Tradition and “disqualifies” it as being legitimate.
Thus, it is because of the belief of the Orthodox that the ancient maxim of Cyprian (3rd century) is true, that is, “outside of the church there is no salvation.” Since only the Orthodox Church is the true church, then only the ministers of the Orthodox Church are genuinely in the apostolic succession.13 Thus these ministers play the role of transmitting God’s grace when they administer the sacraments.
It is ironic that the Orthodox regard the faith of the one being baptized as inconsequential while they at the same time believe that all baptisms administered by legitimate Orthodox ministers are effective. From the perspective of an outside observer, their faith is great, but it is in the wrong thing.
The perceived irony of Orthodox baptisms is only from a protestant worldview, where faith is paramount and a prerequisite of baptism. The irony is that he protestant mindset rejects the Orthodox claim that it is the one true church as being absurd, yet protestants proclaim that all one needs is belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. Once again, Dr. Hyatt marginalizes the Orthodox practices: “their faith is great, but it is in the wrong thing.”
The Bible makes the faith of the believer the decisive thing.
The Orthodox Church does not have a Bible.
Notice Paul’s response to the question of the Philippian jailor: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). As a result of his faith, the Philippian jailor was then baptized (Acts 16:33). What a perfect situation for Paul to have clarified the effectiveness of baptism to bring salvation!
Saint Paul is all things to all men so that some might be saved [1 Corinthians 9:19-23], therefore, it was not necessary for Saint Paul to explain all aspects of the faith at that time
All he would have had to say was “Receive baptism from us and you will be saved!” But, … he did not say that. He placed the emphasis squarely on the faith of the individual sinner as the essential thing to receive salvation.
The Scriptural passage is clear on this point, yet it was overlooked or misunderstood for centuries by both the Roman and Orthodox Churches until Luther could accurately explain the meaning. Of course, the good thief was not baptized, but had faith that Jesus was the Christ.
Two things must be said to clarify the picture further. It is quite true that Eastern Orthodoxy is a very sacramental tradition. The portal to enter the Orthodox Church is through the sacraments. Great emphasis is placed on these sacraments. There is a deeply rooted belief that the visible acts of the church’s priests and bishops signify the invisible works of God. Because of the authority of the church to perform these acts and transmit the grace pertinent to the particular purpose, grace is transmitted to the recipient by virtue of the work of God through the church’s ministers. Thus the members are taught that these sacraments are the means of salvation and becoming “deified.”
From our personal experience, there was no explicit teaching that the purpose of the church was for the attainment of godhood. We only learned of theosis in our private studies. However, this teaching is likely represented during the Divine Liturgy in symbolic form. We suggest a parallel exists between the bread and wine transforming into the body and blood of Christ as the transformation of the faithful into gods.
The point I want to make is this: the members of the Orthodox Church naturally assume that they can depend on the sacraments and that they will be effective.
The members of the protestant churches have been told that they can depend on their faith and that faith alone will be effective.
Consequently, the great majority of those within the Orthodox Church rely on the sacraments to “get them through” (that is, to gain their salvation for them).
The second thing that needs to be said here is to clarify to people outside of the tradition that the salvation believed to have been imparted at one’s baptism and chrismation is not viewed within Orthodoxy as a permanent possession. In fact, it is viewed merely as a beginning.
Whether or not one will end up actually saved depends on a number of other things.
One of those things is the mercy of God.
Thus, it would be a misrepresentation of Orthodox teaching to leave people with the understanding that all that was needed was to be baptized and chrismated.
It would be a misrepresentation, as chrismation only makes one a Christian.
Though it is true that the Orthodox believe that baptism and chrismation bring regeneration and justification, it is not true that they regard the new member of the church as having a “free pass to heaven,” so to speak.
We are uncertain why the phrase “a free pass to heaven” is in quotes. “Free passes to heaven” are against the tradition of the Orthodox Church and are “disqualified”.
The spiritual life in this newly baptized and chrismated individual must be nurtured. This is especially done through participation in “the Eucharist” (i.e., the Lord’s Supper). But other matters are important as well. The main thing I wish to make clear at this point is that salvation in Orthodoxy is regarded as a process, indeed a life-long process. The sacraments play a very great role, but other things matter as well.
Salvation is a life long process in Orthodoxy, unlike the protestant churches where faith allows one to be “saved” through a change of mind and nothing else. It seems that “once saved, always saved” is a “free pass to heaven” or, as it is described in “The Purpose Driven Life”, “cheap grace”.
Salvation and Deification
One of the great points of confusion among outsiders trying to understand Orthodoxy is the concept of “deification” or “theosis.”
The confusion rests on the outsider who brings certain presumptions and associated prejudices regarding what Christianity is and, is not. The outside may not make a sincere attempt to understand Orthodox Church as it sees itself.
Translated, the thought is “becoming god.” To most Westerners this concept is totally alien. Paul does, of course, speak of being “conformed to the image of Christ” (Romans 8:29). Is that all the Orthodox mean by theosis? No, it is not. In fact, the Orthodox have a major and complex theology built around the idea of deification.
Most frequently quoted by the Orthodox is a statement by Athanasius: “God became man that we might become gods.”14 Athanasius was by no means the only church father to speak of deification in similar terms.15 Outsiders might be tempted to think that the Orthodox have similar views to the Mormons, believing that humans can become divine, “gods” in an ontological sense. This would be quite mistaken.
The Orthodox faithful will not becomes gods of their own planet, as the message of the angel Moroni is against Orthodox tradition and is “disqualified”.
The Orthodox are quite clear in their Trinitarian belief that the divine essence resides only in the triune God. Man cannot by any means cross over the divide between the divine essence (the one true God) and human nature. But they do indeed mean more than what Protestants mean with their doctrine of sanctification. Where then does the Orthodox doctrine of theosis (deification) fit in their doctrine of salvation?
If, in fact, the Orthodox thought of deification only in terms of sanctification (i.e., the process of becoming more and more like Christ through faith and obedience and the work of the Holy Spirit), there wouldn’t be a real problem with their doctrine other than the natural confusion that arises from the use of the term.
Evidently, there is “a real problem” with the constant teachings of the Orthodox Church and, then again, it may just be a problem of perception or of prejudice.
But a careful survey of the writings of Orthodox theologians leads one to the conclusion that theosis is much more important than that. Indeed, it becomes clear that the Orthodox think of theosis as the process of salvation. In other words, one is saved by becoming “deified.”
It is reasonable to assume that when one is in Heaven and in the process of becoming a god that this should also be considered the process of salvation.
The basic perspective of the Orthodox on theosis is that it is a life-long process of becoming more and more holy, more and more like God, or as they often express it, more and more “a god.” This transformation can also be spoken of as “union with God” or “sharing the divine nature.”16
The ambiguous wording of the “union with God” is not to be confused with our individual essence merging into the essence of God. If that were to happen, then the individual identity would no longer exist and this process would be akin to the Buddhist reaching Nirvana.
The ultimate goal is not even reachable in this life
The ultimate goal of Protestantism, existing in Heaven, is not even reachable in this life.
However, significant progress toward it can and must be made. How is progress toward theosis made? First of all, through active participation in the sacraments. According to one theologian,
The road toward our theosis, our union with God, can be formulated in the following short statement: divine grace and human freedom... We are able to walk that road. We will be accompanied and strengthened by divine grace. The holy mysteries (sacraments) are what transmit this grace of the All-Holy Spirit. His sanctifying and deifying energy is actualized in the holy services of the church, especially in holy baptism, repentance, and the divine Eucharist.17
The Roman Church and protestants only know of the essence of God, not the energies of God. The “sanctifying and deifying energy” is what allows the deification of the faithful in the next world.
Two things emerge from this claim: theosis requires both divine grace and human action and the critical role played by the sacraments. The interaction of divine grace and human action is referred to often by Orthodox theologians and is called synergy. Of course, in the sacraments, according to the Orthodox view, grace is transmitted from God to man. However, in synergy, man must bring his part. Man’s part is essential to the success of the venture.
This concept is similar to the protestant idea that individuals must bring their part, or their personal faith, and this personal faith is essential for the success of the venture.
The prominent and highly regarded Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky refers to what the Orthodox Church calls the “synergy of divine grace and human freedom.” On this point Lossky quotes St. Macarius of Egypt as saying: “The will of man is an essential condition, for without it God does nothing”18 ... This logically would mean that man is a participant in his own salvation. This is indeed what the Orthodox Church teaches. Lossky goes on to quote a 19th-century Russian ascetic writer to this effect: “ ‘the Holy Ghost, acting within us, accomplishes with us our salvation,’ but he says at the same time that ‘being assisted by grace, man accomplishes the work of his salvation’ .”19
When one surveys the vast literature from Orthodox asceticism ..., one finds this viewpoint that man participates in his own salvation in many places. Theosis is a synergistic process in which the believer pursues the goal of union with God by means of … denial of the flesh and pursuit of holiness. We are told that this involves struggle and striving: “Fastings, vigils, prayers, alms, and other good works which are done in the name of Christ are means which help us reach that goal which always remains the same: the reception of the Holy Spirit and the making him our own, that is theosis.”20
Human effort, then, is an essential part of theosis; it is the means of pursuing union with God. Since theosis is accomplished by the synergy of God’s grace and man’s effort, then salvation depends not on God’s grace alone—it is not a gift, but is a reward for man’s effort. The seriousness of the Orthodox pursuit of holiness … is indeed impressive.
But is this explanation of how one is saved reconcilable with Ephesians 2:8–9? “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” In fact, Paul’s central thrust in the Book of Romans is to establish that “apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested. .. even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe ... being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:21–24).
The modern Bible is quoted in attempt to create doubt concerning the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Saint James writes that show both his faith and his works [James 2:18 ]. As always, Scripture is interpreted by the Orthodox Church through Tradition.
Romans and Galatians both speak eloquently of justification by faith and of the substitutionary atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ’s completed work on the Cross. Strangely, these themes are scarcely, if ever, addressed by Orthodox theologians.
The crucifixion is less emphasized in Orthodox thought than than is the resurrection. At times, it seems that the Orthodox Church did not have access to the extant writings of Saint Paul when the doctrine of theosis was formulated and promulgated.
When questioned about this deficit, the reply is that there are many metaphors for salvation in the Bible and that the Orthodox preference is to think in terms of union with God rather than in the legal terms so favored in the West.
The Orthodox are mystics, the Romans are lawyers, and the Protestants are believers. One of these is not like the other two, one of these is objective, two are subjective.
Is it not rather an error of perception to think in terms of preferences when discussing the great biblical theme of salvation?
Of course, “an error of perception” is not synonymous with “a factual error”.
What does the Scripture itself emphasize? Is not the Book of Romans the longest and most systematic treatment of the doctrine of salvation in the New Testament? How can we ignore its clear teaching on grace, faith, the substitutionary atonement, and justification, and hope to have a truly biblical understanding of God’s plan of salvation?
The scriptures are interpreted by the traditions of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot have a “truly biblical understanding” of anything, as there is no one Bible in the Orthodox tradition, and everything is understood through Tradition.
salvation and the Atonement
A final point on the Orthodox teaching on salvation should be added before leaving this topic. There is comparatively little focus in Orthodoxy on the atonement or the Cross but a significantly greater focus on the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
“God became man” is the Incarnation, “so that men can become gods”, is the Resurrection.
Protestants and Catholics are accustomed to thinking of the Incarnation as part of the process ending in the death of Christ on the Cross for our sins.
We agree that the protestants and Roman Catholics have strange ideas, beliefs, and teachings and most, but not all, are of a religious nature
Of course, the doctrine of Incarnation is a rich vein that bears many treasures for Christian theology, not the least of which is an affirmation by God of the inherent goodness of the material creation.21
At times, it seems that man is not part of the inherent goodness of the material creation.
But in Scripture, the Incarnation of Jesus is seen first and foremost as a revelation of God to man of His goodness and character (Hebrews 1:1–3) to redeem man by means of the atonement.
This is an interesting opinion and must verified through Orthodox Tradition.
This is seen with great clarity in Jesus’ own statement of the purpose of His coming: “to give His life a ransom for many” (e.g., Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). It comes as a surprise, then, to find the Orthodox perspective on the incarnation, which is captured well in this statement from Bulgakov:
For God so loved the world that He spared not His Son to save and deify it. The Incarnation, first decreed to ransom fallen humanity and reconcile it with God, is understood by Orthodoxy as, above all, the deification of man, as the communication of the divine life to him. To fallen man the Incarnation became the supreme way for his reconciliation with God, the way of redemption. This produces the concept of salvation as deification.22
The incarnation is then said to be the effective “deification” of man. This deification is, according to Bulgakov, the Orthodox view of salvation. From a biblical point of view, it seems strange to gloss over the atonement and attribute to the Incarnation things never declared in Scripture and then end up calling it salvation.
From a biblical point of view, it does seem strange that not everything concerning Christian teachings are traditions are found in the Bible.
Within the doctrine of redemption as set forth by Orthodoxy, there is also the surprising role attributed to the Resurrection.
Orthodoxy is full of suprises.
The Orthodox theologian and priest Andrew Louth makes the following assertions about the Resurrection and redemption:
Orthodox theology … considers the question of Adam’s sin and its consequences from the perspective of the resurrection of Christ. The icon, called ‘The Resurrection’ ... is a depiction of Christ destroying the gates of hell and bringing out from hell ... Adam and Eve, as the first of a crowd of people ...who are being brought out of hell by Christ’s victory over death in the resurrection. ...Adam is commemorated as he is now: one whose penitence made it possible for him to be redeemed from hell by Christ at his resurrection.23
This is a remarkable presentation of the Fall and redemption! Though the reality of the Fall and the redemption are affirmed, notice that the Fall is the departure from the path of deification, and that redemption is accomplished by the Resurrection.
Our understanding of Orthodox teaching is that the intention of God was to deify man, to have closer communion with him and the Fall is understood as a “departure” from this plan.
And man’s inclusion in the redemption is on the basis of his “penitence”! What is missing here? Absolutely no mention is made of the atonement or the Cross. No mention is made of the payment for sin or satisfying the wrath of God. For the Orthodox, Christ’s victory over death and not the Cross or atonement is what saves from sin, death, and hell.
It might be said that no mention is made of the payment of sin as this is a view of western Christianity. Hell, like the Bible, is an ambiguous term. The Orthodox do not understand Hell as being separate from Heaven. This physical separation is the result of the Roman Church and their creation of purgatory, the clear teaching of the Bible on the subject of Hell notwithstanding.
But Scripture is clear. Peter tells us, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Luke 24:45–47 records Jesus’ charge to His disciples before He ascended to Heaven:
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
Jesus makes this statement before the Ascension, so the Scripture could only be the Old Testament. Scripture is a vague term that requires clarification. Of course, Scripture is interpreted through Tradition.
In Romans 3:23–26, Paul instructs us:
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
And in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 he says, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” And in 2 Corinthians 5:21 we read, “He [God] made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
We cannot bypass the Cross. It is at the heart of the gospel, as Paul makes clear:
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Galatians 2:20–21).
But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).
Dr. Hyatt quotes from the letters to the Roman, Corinthians, and Galatians are on point. For some reason, perhaps Tradition, the Orthodox Church does not emphasize these aspects of the cross.
Worship and Icons in orthodoxy
Worship
Christians from the West tend to be confused or even shocked when they first attend an Orthodox service. In Eastern Europe and Russia, Orthodox Churches generally do not have seating. The inside of an Orthodox Church is typically richly adorned with icons. The word “icon” is simply the Greek word for “image.” At the front of the sanctuary is a wall of icons with a door (or doors) in it. This wall is called an “iconostasis” (“icon stand”). It plays an important part in Orthodox worship. The icons on the iconostasis only display the most important icons adorning a particular church. There are often many, many more icons distributed throughout the church. Westerners from the Catholic tradition, or who are familiar with Catholic Churches, are accustomed to religious art being featured prominently in the church. However, in an Orthodox Church, one is immediately struck with the number of pictures and the obvious importance they play in Orthodox worship. Why are icons so important to the Orthodox?
Worship and Icons in Orthodoxy
The place of icons in Orthodox worship is the result of a centuries-long development and some bloody battles. In the year 726, the Byzantine Emperor Leo III decreed that icons should not be used in Orthodox worship. Not until 843 did the last iconoclastic emperor die. His wife had another synod called to confirm the decrees of the Seventh Council. This victory for the advocates of icon usage is celebrated every year as the Feast of Orthodoxy.
This bitter controversy and its final resolution in favor of those advocating the use of icons in worship has left a deep impression on Eastern Orthodoxy. The love for and religious use of icons is a distinguishing mark of Orthodoxy. This raises the question: what justification is given for this practice? There is, after all, no mention of using icons in the New Testament.
When searching for “justification” for a given practice in the Orthodox Church, the safest, if not the surest, assumption is that the answer is Tradition. The reason no mention of using icons is found in the New Testament is that it covers a few decades, not several centuries, of Church history.
Not only that, there is the second commandment (Exodus 20:4) against making idols to worship and serve as well as the prohibition in Deuteronomy 4:23–27 against making any “graven images.”
Another appeal to the authority of the New Testament and Old Testament. As Dr. Hyatt would know, Solomon’s temple had “graven images” of angels, cherubs, and flowers throughout the building, the Holy of Holies being the exception, where only two statues of cherubs and the two angels on the Ark of the Covenant were present.
Those advocating the use of icons countered with the argument that the Apostles affirmed the use of icons even though they did not say anything about them in their surviving writings. We can, they claim, know this through oral tradition. This is, of course, a claim that can neither be proved nor disproved.
We agree that this claim that the Apostles affirmed the use of icons cannot be proved and there is no substantial evidence in favor of this position. However, according to Tradition,Saint Luke did paint the first icon.
But the most important argument brought in support of the validity of icons was that the Incarnation made them acceptable. Since God chose to take on flesh when Christ was born, He made Himself visible. He took on a physical body (that is, made up of matter; Romans 8:3). Thus, the rejection of icons was arbitrarily said to be the denial of a genuine incarnation.24 To believe that God became man meant that man could represent Him with material elements.
Dr. Hyatt must know that Jesus, the Son, can be represented with “material elements”, not God, the Father.
The fact that God was able ... to become man, is clearly a miracle of which only He is capable. It is a great leap to get from the historical Incarnation of God in Jesus to say that that means people are, therefore, competent to create holy images to be venerated in worship.
In fairness, it must also be said that the Seventh Council declared that it is wrong to worship icons but that it was acceptable to venerate (strong form of the word “to honor”) them because they represented holy personages: Jesus, Mary,25 and the saints.
Although the nuance between worship and veneration is found in the respective Greek words, a long but indeterminate time must have passed before the understanding that only God is to be worshiped and that the saints are to be venerated. In the minds without nuance, both God and the saints are in Heaven, understood as in the sky, both God and the saints ican ntervene in human affairs, and both are concerned about certain segments of humanity. To add to the possible confusion regarding the veneration of the Saints, the Saints can be thought of as “gods” in Orthodox thought, as some have such titles as “miracle worker” and “wonder worker” attached to their names.
In venerating an icon of the Apostle Paul, for example, one is said to be recognizing and honoring his holiness, which he achieved during his life. This is even said to result in making the venerator more holy. All of this became standard justification for the use of icons and remains so today.
Is it possible to use icons and not violate the second commandment? Is it possible to venerate icons and not slip over the line into worshiping them? Even the highly respected and prominent Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann admitted that the line dividing veneration and worship is a fine line that is easy to cross over. In his own words: the line “dividing the Chalcedoninan essence of icons from real idol-worship is [an] exceedingly fine line.”26 But, even if the worshipers are sufficiently schooled in theology and philosophy to stay on the right side of this fine line, is it an appropriate thing to do in a religious service of a faith that is “word-” and not image-based?
Unlike western religious art that seeks to portray realistic proportions and perspective, Orthodox icons, in our opinion, are highly unlikely to worshiped by practitioners of Orthodoxy as icons are not portraits. We are uncertain as to the meaning of ‘a religious service of a faith” that is “word” based, since the Orthodox Liturgy is spoken. As always, the appropriateness of something is to be judged by Orthodox Traditions, not private interpretation.
It is the gospel that is the power of God for salvation. Christ is said, in John 1, to be the Word which became flesh. All of this and much more in the rest of the New Testament emphasizes God’s speaking.
Once again, there is an appeal to what is to be emphasized in the Bible. So many topics are emphasized by the Bible that it is become all things to all men so that some might be saved.
It seems at the least that the great emphasis on icons works counter to this biblical emphasis on the Word of God, what God says to us, and to which we must respond.
Thus, with as much good will as we can muster, we still have to say that the particular form of icon veneration now practiced (bowing before, kissing) is rather far removed from speaking and hearing the Word of God, which is precisely what we all need much more than focusing on the image of a “saint.”
The thoughtful reader will realize the fact that act of venerating icons is “far removed” from he act of “speaking and hearing the Word of God”. The author himself stresses the different nature of these two unrelated actions- “far removed”. The Gentle Reader will reach his own informed conclusions as to why a writer would feel the need to indicate what is obvious to even the most careless reader: that one action and a different second action are not the same action, that they are “far removed”. Our interpretation of this infelicity of style: It seems that Dr. Hyatt has great difficulty with mustering “good will” toward Orthodoxy, but it is in his nature to present his dislike and disdain for all things Orthodox, as Dr. Hyatt knows, or wishes the reader to belief that he knows, what “we all need”, generally, and what the Orthodox Church desperately needs, specifically.
THe importance of Icons in Orthodox WOrship
The Importance of Icons in Orthodox Worship
Perhaps one of the most unfortunate consequences of the tragic iconoclastic controversy was that it actually ended up elevating icons in importance.
From one perspective, the importance of icons is an “unfortunate” consequence, from another perceptive, it is the revealed will of God.
Before it began, it was entirely possible to be an Orthodox believer and participate in Orthodox worship without venerating icons. Icon veneration, or worship in many cases, was widespread, but it was not a dogmatically defined practice and was not integrated into Orthodox liturgy.
After the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 [AD], veneration of icons was made an integral part of Orthodox worship and the meaning of icons was dogmatically defined by the council’s decrees. This results in a role for icons within the Orthodox Church that is clearly far beyond anything that can be justified by Scripture.
Once again, Dr. Hyatt demands that Scripture justify Orthodox practices
Though linking the making of icons with an affirmation of the Incarnation makes sense to many, just as many see the argument as far from compelling.
Compelling arguments are aspects of the legal profession and of philosophy, as these occupations do not require faith.
And, if that argument is not compelling and not based on any explicit Scripture, why should icon veneration have such an important place in the life of the church?
It is safe to assume the answer is Tradition.
Further, the prohibition against the making of “idols” or “graven images” from Exodus and Deuteronomy, though a part of the law, should still be taken as representing God’s revealed will.
The revealed will of God also prohibits eating pork and cheeseburgers.
We did have a supernatural intervention in Peter’s life when the Lord wanted to make it clear that eating certain meats prohibited by the law was no longer prohibited (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9–16).
Dr. Hyatt suggests that there are two types of God’s revealed will. The first type of revealed will is constant, such as the prohibition of graven images; whereas the other type of revealed will can be overturned with another revelation, dietary prohibitions, for example. If Dr. Hyatt is enthralled by regular revelations from God that contradict previous revelations, then he would be delighted with either the Roman Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
We have no such revelation regarding the making of graven images.
It is presumed that “we protestants” have no such revelation concerning graven images, however, the Orthodox Church does have a divine revelation concerning images, as Dr. Hyatt must know.
It certainly does seem quite unjustified to claim that those of us who reject the use of icons in Christian worship deny the Incarnation.
We agree that the rejection of icons has no bearing on the denial of the Incarnation. We are uncertain as to the purpose of this sentence, as there is no quote or indication that the Orthodox Church holds to the view that those who “reject” icons also deny the Incarnation. However, it seems likely, although we are not certain on this point, that the Orthodox Church holds to the opinion that Christians only found in the Orthodox Church and only said Christians can believe in the Incarnation.
[Two paragraphs omitted.]
It would, in my judgment, be an error to think that the great devotion to icons demonstrated by many Orthodox believers really betokens a great love for the one represented in the icon.
Once again, according to the judgment of Dr. Hyatt, the Orthodox believers are in “error”.
And, even if it does indicate a great love for the one portrayed in the icon, is it fitting to develop such devotion to John Chrysostom or Basil the Great or even Mary?
The question of whether something is “fitting” or appropriate is, of course, a moral question, and should be answered though the Traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Should not our devotion be directed toward our Lord and Savior rather than His servants?
Fortunately, there are icons of Jesus by himself and throughout his mission.
That is the message the angel in Revelation gave to John when he prostrated himself at the angel’s feet (Revelation 22:8–9). The angel’s words make it abundantly clear that worship should not be given to fellow servants but only to God.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ is never read in an Orthodox Church. Of course, to worship an angel after being told not to it is foolish [Revelation xx].
THe Pattern of orthodox Worship
The Pattern of Orthodox Worship
A brief word about the conduct of Orthodox services should be added to this topic. The priest(s) perform the rituals of the Eucharistic service behind the iconostasis, out of sight of the worshipers.
This may be a factual error, as it is dependent on the understanding of the “Eucharistic service”. Through the main doorway of the wall of the icons, many of the faithful can see the priest standing before the altar, depending on the configuration of the pews.
The liturgy is sung or chanted and is quite consistent. In other words, the worshipers who attend regularly know the liturgy and know how to enter into the process.
If the liturgy is “quite consistent” is taken to be synonymous with the liturgy” has not changed in many centuries”, then we agree.
The participation of the worshipers is seen in their responding at appropriate points in the liturgy and in much bowing, kneeling, and kissing of the icons.
And there is “much more making” the sign of the Cross: at each mention of the Trinity, of the Theotokos, of every saint, when the Gospel or Cross passes by one’s pew, and after the Gospel is read.
Some worshipers will stay through an entire service, but many will come in at some later point and many will leave before the service is over.
In our experience, we do not recall “some” staying for the entire Divine Liturgy nor “many” coming late nor “many leaving early”. As always, price and participation vary.
In fact, there are at least two services that take place each Sunday, the first being “Matins,” which lasts about an hour. The Eucharistic service lasts another hour and a half. Thus, many come and partake of whatever portion of the service they wish to be present for and participate in. As strange as it seems to Westerners, it is not considered inappropriate for people to come late or leave early during a service.
Unlike the Roman Church which can have multiple masses a day, there can only be on Divine Liturgy per day in the Orthodox Church. In our experience, it is inappropriate to arrive late or leave early. Of course, to arrive late to the service means that one has missed confession and, without confession, one cannot have communion.
There is a sense that entering into the liturgy when one arrives and praying and kissing the icons is enough.
In our experience, there is icon of the patron saint at the inner door the church that is kissed by the faithful on entering the church. Dr. Hyatt seems to create the impression that the kissing of icons is contentious for the entire service, which is not true.
The liturgy is, after all, for God.
In our opinion, the liturgy is for the faithful, to assist them in the process of becoming gods and, of course, we could be mistaken.
Of course, participation in the Eucharist requires that one stay until the priest comes out from behind the iconostasis and distributes the bread and wine.
Dr. Hyatt gives the impression that the priest leaves the iconostas once during the entire service, which is not true, as there are several processions, around the church, the Gospel and Epistle readings, and other times the priest addresses the faithful.
The bread and wine are known as the body and blood of Christ and called the Eucharist in Orthodox Tradition. To clarify, the distribution of the bread and wine is from one cup, small pieces of bread are in the wine, and one spoon is used for communion.
This is the high point of the service. A sermon, generally called a “homily,” is typically short and not many seem to wait to hear it. The important thing in the service is the liturgy and the Eucharist. Preaching does not tend to be valued very highly.
The wording “tend to be” can be omitted: “Preaching is not valued very highly.” This lack of emphasis on the homily is, no doubt, Traditional.
Curious to many, it is precisely this liturgy and the artwork (i.e., the icons) that have attracted many Westerners to Orthodoxy.
In deference to the learned opinion of Dr. Hyatt, we suggest that Westerners are attracted both to the stability of Orthodox teachings and to their “exalted” claim of being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
There is, in the eyes of many, something worshipful about the solemn atmosphere and the ancient liturgy that gives a sense of connection with the past. However, the question that begs for attention is whether or not the exposition of the Scriptures should not play a central role in Christian worship.
The “exposition of the Scriptures” during the Divine Liturgy would a modern innovation that would be against Orthodox Tradition and be duly “disqualified”. Of course, it is not surprising that both as a Doctor of Theology and as a protestant, Dr. Hyatt would seek more time to expound Scripture.
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in his last epistle before martyrdom was “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). Further, he tells him that it is the Scriptures that are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and that he should “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2, emphasis added).
Liturgy, per se, is certainly not a bad thing. The Greek word from which it comes simply means “service of worship.” Thus, it is not the use of liturgy as such that I find questionable but rather the very limited place the exposition of the Scriptures have in Orthodox worship.
Dr. Hyatt must surely know that the Orthodox Church services, the Divine Liturgy, is not the place for expositions of Scripture. Protestants expound on their Scripture for hours during their services and it creates confusion and divisiveness, not understanding or unity. The modern Bible is written at an elementary school level of reading [ranging from grade 6 to grade 8 depending on the program] and should not require explanations to the vast majority of people.
Of course, expositions are typically upon topics that are difficult to understand- there are no expositions on “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” precisely due to the fact it is easily understood. Yet, Dr. Hyatt maintains, on one hand, that the Bible is clear on many, if not all, of the most important subjects and, on the other hand, he demands more time for exposition of Scripture. Saint James wrote that a dual minded man is unstable in all his ways [xxx].
Hearing Scripture read and expounded are clearly primary concerns of Paul in his pastoral letters. This should tell us something very important.
The Gospels and the Epistles, but not Revelation, are read daily during Divine Liturgy. If one were to attend daily church services for a year, not only Sunday services, then one would hear almost all of the New Testament. Clearly, there is enough Scripture readings for the expectations of most people.
the claim to be the one true church
The Claim to Be the One True Church
As was pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, the Eastern Orthodox have a very exalted view of their church. Of course, the same could be said of Roman Catholics. In fact, from the fourth century until Vatican II (1962–1965), the claims made by Roman Catholics were just as great as those made by the Orthodox.
The word “exalted” could be exchanged with “exclusive”. Of course, “true opinion” is in the name “Orthodox” and this, by default, implies others have different, and false, opinions; they are heterodox. The claims made by the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church are due to sharing the same tradition.
However, with Vatican II it began to be possible for Catholics to see Protestants as “separated brethren”.
The modern innovations of the Roman Church are judged against the Traditions of the Orthodox Church and are “disqualified”. As Dr. Hyatt surely knows, Vatican II was not a doctrinal council, but a pastoral council, as no new doctrines were established. Therefore, although the Roman Church now expresses itself differently, the protestants are still “heretics” and the Orthodox remain “schismatics” and both groups need to simply repent [to literally “change one’s mind”] and submit to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.
This was a great advance over just seeing Protestants as heretics.
Even today, the Roman Church does not use the term “Protestant churches” in official publications, but “protestant communities” or “Christian communities”, as they are not “churches” in the historical understanding of the Roman Church.
From a Protestant perspective, it is possible to think in terms of different “denominations.” Each denomination may be more or less close to what one sees as “fully biblical.”
How each individual understands the vague phrase of “fully biblical” is subjective, problematic, and ultimately, divisive.
The differences that Baptists have with Presbyterians need not lead to rejecting one another as “heretics.”
These various groups are “heretics”, as Dr. Hyatt surely knows, as they have different “opinions”.
In fact, they may engage in various activities cooperatively to get the gospel out to an unbelieving world. From an Orthodox perspective, this notion of ... different churches that have a valid justification for thinking of themselves as the people of the body of Christ, is not possible.
This innovative view, sometimes called ecumenicalism is not possible as it is not in Orthodox tradition and must be “disqualified”. As the Bulgarian Patriarch recently said [we paraphrase]: there is no need to dialogue with the protestants, they need to convert to Orthodoxy. xxx
In their view, there can only be one true church and they are quite confident that they are it! Why? The reason is actually quite simple. The claim to be the one true church is connected to their claim to be “apostolic.” By “apostolic,” the Orthodox do not just mean that they believe and teach the message and doctrines of the Apostles.
The word “apostolic” is ambiguous.
What they are ultimately claiming is that their bishops and priests are the actual heirs of the Apostles, the “successors” of the Apostles. In other words, the claim is based on what theologians call “apostolic succession.”
Along with the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church also has the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and this due to the common origin of both churches. The main difference between the Orthodox and Roman Churches is that innovative dogmas have been introduced in the Roman Church since the formal separation in the year 1054 AD and these modifications of ancient teachings conflict with Orthodox Tradition and are “disqualified”.
The way this is claimed to have worked is simple.
Dr. Hyatt knows that the wording should be in the present tense, not in the past tense, as it is ongoing until the Second Coming: The way Apostolic Succession “claims to work is simple.”
The Apostles appointed their successors before they died. These successors ordained priests and bishops in their years of ministry and, then, when they died, the ones they had appointed in turn appointed their successors. That means, they say, that there is an unbroken succession of appointees that goes right back to the Apostles, who started the succession. The implication for the Orthodox is also that anyone not in that succession is not regarded as a legitimate minister of the true Church, the one founded by Jesus and the Apostles. Even at this point in history, the Orthodox believe that all of their bishops stand in a direct line of succession, an unbroken chain, going all the way back to the Apostles and thus have been ordained to lead the true Church and to appoint (i.e., ordain) future ministers for that Church.
If we stop and reflect for a moment on the logic employed in this justification for the claim to be the one true Church, it should become obvious that there is a logical fallacy involved. xxxx
Apostolic succession not a “logical fallacy”, as Dr. Hyatt must certainly know. Dr. Hyatt leads the unsuspecting reader down the path that leads to accepting the obvious inference- that the best minds of both the Orthodox and Roman Churches have, for many centuries, been oblivious to a “logical fallacy”.
Just for the sake of illustration, let us say John ordains Bill, who in turn ordains Jim, who ordains Carl. Now let’s say that Jim begins to be influenced by a number of his friends and begins to add things to his teaching that did not come out of the Bible. Let’s say further that in his teaching he also leaves out a few of the important points from the Bible.
Just for the sake of repetition, the Orthodox Church does not have a Bible.
When Jim then appoints and ordains Carl to be his successor, he makes sure that Carl shares his values and viewpoints. As the process continues, we may find that by the time we get to Andy a few centuries later, he is teaching many things that the Apostles didn’t teach and not teaching a number of things that they did teach.
The illustration from Dr. Hyatt is more appropriate for the singular Roman Pope [John to Jim to Bill to Carl], who does, at times, add new dogmas. Bishops in full communion with the Papacy are part of the Apostolic Succession as taught by the Roman Church.
We note that since the year 787 AD, xxx the accepted year of the last Ecumenical Council, the Orthodox Churches have remained very conservative, as they have not altered any dogmas or added any new dogmas. It is true that here is no possibility to know if the Orthodox Church teaches things the apostles did not teach or that it does not teach what the Apostles did teach.
Is he in the “succession” beginning with the Apostles? Perhaps so, but this would be in a relational sense.
Dr. Hyatt uses the noncommittal phrasing “Perhaps so”.
But if he is not a theological successor in terms of holding to the teaching of the Apostles, how important is it that he has a formal link back to the Apostles?
Once can imagine the “theological” successors to the Apostles: The successor to Saint Peter misunderstands Jesus’ words, his mission, and will deny knowing Jesus in difficult situations. The successor to Saint Philip only wants to see the Father, and then he will believe Jesus. The successor to Saint Thomas will not believe the Resurrection until he sees and touches the wounds of Jesus. Although not an Apostle, Simon Magus was baptized and, as Scripture does not state that he stopped believing in Christ, it must be concluded that he continued believing- how would the “theological” successors of Simon Magus be described?
From a New Testament perspective, we ask, “What are the teachings of the Apostles?” This question is similar to question the serpent asked of Eve, “Has God said that ye shall eat of every fruit of the garden?”, in the fact that it cannot be answered. The “Acts of the Apostles” does not relate the activities of all twelve Apostles, and most the teachings of the New Testament, as judged by the amount of words, are from Saint Paul, although there are Epistles from Saint James, Saint Jude, and Saint John.
Can we doubt that the message, the teaching of the Apostles, is far more important ... for the role of leading and serving the Church of Jesus Christ?
Apostolic succession is questioned precisely because it is the main hindrance to believing that all churches are more or less equal in the modern age, where self professed belief is the standard. Dr. Hyatt emphasizes the importance of the “message and teachings” of the Apostles and marginalizes Apostolic Succession.
We see exactly this kind of problem in the Gospels. Jesus pointed out that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in the chair of Moses (being Jews, they had a relational link to him) but that their example should not be followed (Matthew 23:2ff) because their traditions undermined the truth of the Scriptures (Mark 7:6–13).
It seems that the hierarchical roles of the Church are questioned by appealing to a supporting episode in the Bible. The parallel with between the then ancient pharisees and the now current Orthodox bishops is not exact. Everyone from the tribes of Israel and the Roman occupiers, albeit begrudgingly, accepted the traditional position of the Temple and the roles of the priests. The exception to this general acceptance were, and are, the Samaritans, who, owing to a variant from the generally accepted Old Testament, believe God is to be worshiped on a mountain xxx, not in Jerusalem. Like the Samaritans, the fundamental protestants do not accept the traditional the purpose of the Church or the idea of Apostolic Succession.
As the 16th-century reformers pointed out in their conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church of the time, where the gospel is truly proclaimed and the ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s supper) are administered, there is the Church.
Dr. Hyatt writes “where the gospel is truly proclaimed” and we do not doubt the inference from this statement regarding the Orthodox Church: the gospel is not “truly” proclaimed in the Orthodox Church.
In the Protestant view, both baptism and the Lord’s supper are promoted, since Jesus was baptized and instituted the Lord’ Supper. Yet, Jesus was anointed in all canonical gospels, either by Mary [John 11:2], a sinner [Luke 7:37-38], or an unnamed women [Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3]. Even if the episodes were not recounted in any of the gospels, we would be correct to state that Jesus was anointed, as the appellation of “Christ” simply means anointed.
Of course, protestant “ordinances” do not convey grace and are only symbolic. The historical church has been replaced by a church that only offers baptism, the Lord’s supper, and expositions of Scripture. Dr. Hyatt does not use the word “communion” and this is possibility due to the fact that communion is a sacrament, while the symbolic Lord’s supper is not, as it conveys no grace. One wonders where symbols and symbolic acts abound, if grace and salvation are only symbolic.
Of course, they [the 16th century reformers] made it very clear that the Bible was the final authority for all things in the faith and practice of the Church, but they decisively rejected the notion of apostolic succession based on formal descent from the Apostles.
It was of necessity that sixteenth century reformers rejected Apostolic succession, otherwise they would be subject to either the authority of Roman Pope or Orthodox bishops.
It was the message and teaching of the Apostles, which is found in the written Scriptures, that give us the message and teaching that the Church must proclaim.
Once again, Dr. Hyatt knows that Scriptures must be proclaimed by the Church. We reiterate that the modern acceptance of the Scriptures as the final authority for the true believer results in differences of opinions and decisiveness.
Where Christ and His atoning death on the Cross and His Resurrection make up the central content of a community’s faith, and the written Word of God found in the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice, the Church is present, whatever denomination or tradition it belongs to.
The idea that the Church is where both the message of the atoning death and the Bible as the final authority is found is a modern belief. In the opinion of Dr. Hyatt, there is not enough emphasis on the atoning death in the Orthodox Church and the fact remains the Bible is not the final authority of the Orthodox Church. We notice that the standard of being a Christian has been lowered from an objective state, chrismation, to a subjective belief in two professions: the atoning death and the Bible. Under ths new definition, almost any group could qualify to be a church, any group, but the Orthodox Church.
This is a far more important measure of the true Church than the formal descent referred to as “apostolic succession.”
To state that something is more important that something else, suggests a system of morals and a manner of deciding values. Dr. Hyatt marginalizes “apostolic succession”, since protestant communities were not on the historical scene for 1,500 years. Therefore, it is of vital necessary to disqualify the ancient churches in favor of the new churches that only need Scripture, or Grace, or Faith or any slogan of the moment to fit their needs.
As was pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, the Eastern Orthodox have a very exalted view of their church. Of course, the same could be said of Roman Catholics. In fact, from the fourth century until Vatican II (1962–1965), the claims made by Roman Catholics were just as great as those made by the Orthodox.
The word “exalted” could be exchanged with “exclusive”. Of course, “true opinion” is in the name “Orthodox” and this, by default, implies others have different, and false, opinions; they are heterodox. The claims made by the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church are due to sharing the same tradition.
However, with Vatican II it began to be possible for Catholics to see Protestants as “separated brethren”.
The modern innovations of the Roman Church are judged against the Traditions of the Orthodox Church and are “disqualified”. As Dr. Hyatt surely knows, Vatican II was not a doctrinal council, but a pastoral council, as no new doctrines were established. Therefore, although the Roman Church now expresses itself differently, the protestants are still “heretics” and the Orthodox remain “schismatics” and both groups need to simply repent [to literally “change one’s mind”] and submit to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.
This was a great advance over just seeing Protestants as heretics.
Even today, the Roman Church does not use the term “Protestant churches” in official publications, but “protestant communities” or “Christian communities”, as they are not “churches” in the historical understanding of the Roman Church.
From a Protestant perspective, it is possible to think in terms of different “denominations.” Each denomination may be more or less close to what one sees as “fully biblical.”
How each individual understands the vague phrase of “fully biblical” is subjective, problematic, and ultimately, divisive.
The differences that Baptists have with Presbyterians need not lead to rejecting one another as “heretics.”
These various groups are “heretics”, as Dr. Hyatt surely knows, as they have different “opinions”.
In fact, they may engage in various activities cooperatively to get the gospel out to an unbelieving world. From an Orthodox perspective, this notion of ... different churches that have a valid justification for thinking of themselves as the people of the body of Christ, is not possible.
This innovative view, sometimes called ecumenicalism is not possible as it is not in Orthodox tradition and must be “disqualified”. As the Bulgarian Patriarch recently said [we paraphrase]: there is no need to dialogue with the protestants, they need to convert to Orthodoxy. xxx
In their view, there can only be one true church and they are quite confident that they are it! Why? The reason is actually quite simple. The claim to be the one true church is connected to their claim to be “apostolic.” By “apostolic,” the Orthodox do not just mean that they believe and teach the message and doctrines of the Apostles.
The word “apostolic” is ambiguous.
What they are ultimately claiming is that their bishops and priests are the actual heirs of the Apostles, the “successors” of the Apostles. In other words, the claim is based on what theologians call “apostolic succession.”
Along with the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church also has the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and this due to the common origin of both churches. The main difference between the Orthodox and Roman Churches is that innovative dogmas have been introduced in the Roman Church since the formal separation in the year 1054 AD and these modifications of ancient teachings conflict with Orthodox Tradition and are “disqualified”.
The way this is claimed to have worked is simple.
Dr. Hyatt knows that the wording should be in the present tense, not in the past tense, as it is ongoing until the Second Coming: The way Apostolic Succession “claims to work is simple.”
The Apostles appointed their successors before they died. These successors ordained priests and bishops in their years of ministry and, then, when they died, the ones they had appointed in turn appointed their successors. That means, they say, that there is an unbroken succession of appointees that goes right back to the Apostles, who started the succession. The implication for the Orthodox is also that anyone not in that succession is not regarded as a legitimate minister of the true Church, the one founded by Jesus and the Apostles. Even at this point in history, the Orthodox believe that all of their bishops stand in a direct line of succession, an unbroken chain, going all the way back to the Apostles and thus have been ordained to lead the true Church and to appoint (i.e., ordain) future ministers for that Church.
If we stop and reflect for a moment on the logic employed in this justification for the claim to be the one true Church, it should become obvious that there is a logical fallacy involved. xxxx
Apostolic succession not a “logical fallacy”, as Dr. Hyatt must certainly know. Dr. Hyatt leads the unsuspecting reader down the path that leads to accepting the obvious inference- that the best minds of both the Orthodox and Roman Churches have, for many centuries, been oblivious to a “logical fallacy”.
Just for the sake of illustration, let us say John ordains Bill, who in turn ordains Jim, who ordains Carl. Now let’s say that Jim begins to be influenced by a number of his friends and begins to add things to his teaching that did not come out of the Bible. Let’s say further that in his teaching he also leaves out a few of the important points from the Bible.
Just for the sake of repetition, the Orthodox Church does not have a Bible.
When Jim then appoints and ordains Carl to be his successor, he makes sure that Carl shares his values and viewpoints. As the process continues, we may find that by the time we get to Andy a few centuries later, he is teaching many things that the Apostles didn’t teach and not teaching a number of things that they did teach.
The illustration from Dr. Hyatt is more appropriate for the singular Roman Pope [John to Jim to Bill to Carl], who does, at times, add new dogmas. Bishops in full communion with the Papacy are part of the Apostolic Succession as taught by the Roman Church.
We note that since the year 787 AD, xxx the accepted year of the last Ecumenical Council, the Orthodox Churches have remained very conservative, as they have not altered any dogmas or added any new dogmas. It is true that here is no possibility to know if the Orthodox Church teaches things the apostles did not teach or that it does not teach what the Apostles did teach.
Is he in the “succession” beginning with the Apostles? Perhaps so, but this would be in a relational sense.
Dr. Hyatt uses the noncommittal phrasing “Perhaps so”.
But if he is not a theological successor in terms of holding to the teaching of the Apostles, how important is it that he has a formal link back to the Apostles?
Once can imagine the “theological” successors to the Apostles: The successor to Saint Peter misunderstands Jesus’ words, his mission, and will deny knowing Jesus in difficult situations. The successor to Saint Philip only wants to see the Father, and then he will believe Jesus. The successor to Saint Thomas will not believe the Resurrection until he sees and touches the wounds of Jesus. Although not an Apostle, Simon Magus was baptized and, as Scripture does not state that he stopped believing in Christ, it must be concluded that he continued believing- how would the “theological” successors of Simon Magus be described?
From a New Testament perspective, we ask, “What are the teachings of the Apostles?” This question is similar to question the serpent asked of Eve, “Has God said that ye shall eat of every fruit of the garden?”, in the fact that it cannot be answered. The “Acts of the Apostles” does not relate the activities of all twelve Apostles, and most the teachings of the New Testament, as judged by the amount of words, are from Saint Paul, although there are Epistles from Saint James, Saint Jude, and Saint John.
Can we doubt that the message, the teaching of the Apostles, is far more important ... for the role of leading and serving the Church of Jesus Christ?
Apostolic succession is questioned precisely because it is the main hindrance to believing that all churches are more or less equal in the modern age, where self professed belief is the standard. Dr. Hyatt emphasizes the importance of the “message and teachings” of the Apostles and marginalizes Apostolic Succession.
We see exactly this kind of problem in the Gospels. Jesus pointed out that the scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves in the chair of Moses (being Jews, they had a relational link to him) but that their example should not be followed (Matthew 23:2ff) because their traditions undermined the truth of the Scriptures (Mark 7:6–13).
It seems that the hierarchical roles of the Church are questioned by appealing to a supporting episode in the Bible. The parallel with between the then ancient pharisees and the now current Orthodox bishops is not exact. Everyone from the tribes of Israel and the Roman occupiers, albeit begrudgingly, accepted the traditional position of the Temple and the roles of the priests. The exception to this general acceptance were, and are, the Samaritans, who, owing to a variant from the generally accepted Old Testament, believe God is to be worshiped on a mountain xxx, not in Jerusalem. Like the Samaritans, the fundamental protestants do not accept the traditional the purpose of the Church or the idea of Apostolic Succession.
As the 16th-century reformers pointed out in their conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church of the time, where the gospel is truly proclaimed and the ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s supper) are administered, there is the Church.
Dr. Hyatt writes “where the gospel is truly proclaimed” and we do not doubt the inference from this statement regarding the Orthodox Church: the gospel is not “truly” proclaimed in the Orthodox Church.
In the Protestant view, both baptism and the Lord’s supper are promoted, since Jesus was baptized and instituted the Lord’ Supper. Yet, Jesus was anointed in all canonical gospels, either by Mary [John 11:2], a sinner [Luke 7:37-38], or an unnamed women [Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3]. Even if the episodes were not recounted in any of the gospels, we would be correct to state that Jesus was anointed, as the appellation of “Christ” simply means anointed.
Of course, protestant “ordinances” do not convey grace and are only symbolic. The historical church has been replaced by a church that only offers baptism, the Lord’s supper, and expositions of Scripture. Dr. Hyatt does not use the word “communion” and this is possibility due to the fact that communion is a sacrament, while the symbolic Lord’s supper is not, as it conveys no grace. One wonders where symbols and symbolic acts abound, if grace and salvation are only symbolic.
Of course, they [the 16th century reformers] made it very clear that the Bible was the final authority for all things in the faith and practice of the Church, but they decisively rejected the notion of apostolic succession based on formal descent from the Apostles.
It was of necessity that sixteenth century reformers rejected Apostolic succession, otherwise they would be subject to either the authority of Roman Pope or Orthodox bishops.
It was the message and teaching of the Apostles, which is found in the written Scriptures, that give us the message and teaching that the Church must proclaim.
Once again, Dr. Hyatt knows that Scriptures must be proclaimed by the Church. We reiterate that the modern acceptance of the Scriptures as the final authority for the true believer results in differences of opinions and decisiveness.
Where Christ and His atoning death on the Cross and His Resurrection make up the central content of a community’s faith, and the written Word of God found in the Bible is the final authority for faith and practice, the Church is present, whatever denomination or tradition it belongs to.
The idea that the Church is where both the message of the atoning death and the Bible as the final authority is found is a modern belief. In the opinion of Dr. Hyatt, there is not enough emphasis on the atoning death in the Orthodox Church and the fact remains the Bible is not the final authority of the Orthodox Church. We notice that the standard of being a Christian has been lowered from an objective state, chrismation, to a subjective belief in two professions: the atoning death and the Bible. Under ths new definition, almost any group could qualify to be a church, any group, but the Orthodox Church.
This is a far more important measure of the true Church than the formal descent referred to as “apostolic succession.”
To state that something is more important that something else, suggests a system of morals and a manner of deciding values. Dr. Hyatt marginalizes “apostolic succession”, since protestant communities were not on the historical scene for 1,500 years. Therefore, it is of vital necessary to disqualify the ancient churches in favor of the new churches that only need Scripture, or Grace, or Faith or any slogan of the moment to fit their needs.
a concluding question
A Concluding Question
One last question might trouble some. Is it possible for a born-again believer to be a practicing member of the Orthodox Church? Of course it is as long as they repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and Resurrection!
To be a born again believer and be a member of the Orthodox Church is acceptable to Dr. Hyatt, provided the members adhere to various fundamental protestant ideas. The corollary is that being Orthodox without the accompanying protestant ideas is not acceptable. After all that he has studied and written, does Dr. Hyatt truly believe that the Orthodox faithful do not believe in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection? Or is he primarily posturing to promote protestant expositions from the pulpit?
As Jesus told Nicodemus, the Spirit blows where He wills (John 3:8). There are without doubt born-again believers in all kinds of places and churches.
To the best of our knowledge, neither the Roman Church nor the Orthodox Church have claimed or have suggested “that all... are saved just because they are members of that church”, in fact, the position of both churches is antagonistic tot his view- they admit that they do not know who is to be “saved”. The claim is that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” remains valid, even if not all adherents of Orthodoxy become deified, provided non Orthodox are never saved.
We offer our own private opinion: One can speculate that if certain protestants, Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists are to be justly rewarded on That Terrible Day, then they were somehow, as it would be a Mystery to the mortal mind, included in the Church.
What is not possible is to claim that all in any particular church or denomination are saved just because they are members of that church or denomination.
This certainly applies to the Orthodox Church, but it also applies to Protestant churches.
Do not the protestant churches guarantee salvation, a “free pass to Heaven”, provided the member believes?
Salvation and membership in the Body of Christ, the Church universal, is dependent on a personal relationship with the Christ of Scripture that comes about by personal repentance and faith in Him, not through belonging to any particular local church, denomination, or tradition.
Dr. Hyatt has modified the concept of the Catholic [or universal] Church from one whose members profess the same faith to one where protestant concepts of a “personal relationship with Christ” is paramount. Dr. Hyatt marginalizes any local church, denomination, or tradition that does not accept, foster, and promote the protestant view. Dr. Hyatt wants to water the garden of Orthodoxy with modernism of equality and Ecumenicalism of openness. The experienced and conservative gardeners who wish to preserve the garden for the use of future generations are rightly opposed to this.
We read an example of application of the modern idea of the proposed equality of the churches. This innovation is against the tradition of the Orthodox Church and is “disqualified”.
The Lord knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19)!
The Lord knows those who claim to be His.
Many years of missionary work in Eastern Europe and Russia have led me to conclude that the gospel is not often proclaimed in the Orthodox Church.
Dr. Hyatt expects the unwary reader to accept the contradiction that the gospel is not often proclaimed in the Church that claims it is the one true Church. Dr. Hyatt must know that this a false statement, as it is tradition that the Gospel is proclaimed daily in every Orthodox Church. What is not proclaimed in the Orthodox Church is the gospel according to the innovative opinions of Protestantism, generally, and of Dr. Hyatt, specifically.
Church services are ritualistic exercises that focus on the icons and the sacraments.
The only sacrament present during the typical Orthodox Church services, the Divine Liturgy, is the Eucharist, as confession is before the start of Divine Liturgy. The sacraments of baptism, marriage, last rites, and holy orders do not occur in the same service, as these are different services.
It is all too easy to trust in those sacraments to save one and on the icons to sanctify one rather than in the finished work of Christ on the Cross in our behalf.
Once again, the emphasis is on saving oneself. We doubt, although we could be mistaken, that a significant number of Orthodox faithful think that baptism, christmation, marriage, last rites, confession, communion, and holy orders are elements of “saving oneself”, as this technical wording is not typically found in Orthodoxy,
The protestant obsession with the imagery of the Crucifixion, and the associated suffering and death of Jesus, must originate from the Roman Church. Although images of Christ crucified are found in Orthodox icons, he is not represented suffering, as He is the King of Glory, and unlike certain Roman Catholic crucifixes, where the portrayal of Jesus could be understood as being dead, Jesus is not represented as dead on the Cross in Orthodox Tradition. In conclusion to this part, some elements of depictions of Orthodox icons depicting the Crucifixion are not Biblical.
Though we cannot judge what is in the heart of another, we can certainly assume that most people in the Orthodox Church need to hear and respond to the good news of Jesus Christ and need to turn to Him for forgiveness of sins and to trust in His work on the Cross for their salvation.
Dr. Hyatt can no longer hide his true thoughts on Orthodoxy: most Orthodox Christians need to hear the protestant good news and he wants the Orthodox faithful to abandon the Orthodox Church and to “trust in His work on the Cross for their salvation.”
The Gentle Reader knows that there is not another gospel, even if a new gospel has been proclaimed by an angel of Heaven, whether named Moroni or not [ xxx].
This is, indeed, the message that all people need to hear.
Dr. Hyatt presumes that most Orthodox Christians, and all people, need to accept protestant ideas for the salvation of their immortal souls.
conclusion
Due to the unexpected extent of this essay, we leave the Gentle Researcher with a flow chart that encapsulates Protestantism vis a vis Orthodoxy.xxx
If the Bible/Scripture/New Testament brought into the conversation, then the response is:
“The Orthodox Church has no dogma defining one official Book that contains all the teachings of the church, nor does the Church posses one final, inerrant, and infallible version of Scripture. The Bible is a product of the Western Church.”
If modern Protestant or Roman Catholic ideas are discussed, then the response is:
“All new ideas are judged by the Traditions of the Orthodox Church and if they are found to be “disqualified”, then these ideas will be designated as illegitimate.”
The best course of action regarding those of differing opinions is not to discuss a book with one is unfamiliar and, failing that, reiterating the supremacy of Tradition in Orthodoxy.
footnotes
When capitalized, “Orthodox” refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church in its various forms rather than an assent to orthodox biblical doctrine.
All Scripture quotations in this chapter are from the New American Standard Bible.
Jesus also affirmed the three divisions of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44 being “the Law, the Prophets, and the writings (Psalms),” which excluded the apocryphal writings.
The “magisterium” is defined as the official teaching authority of the church. This authority is “uniquely vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Further, the Scriptures and Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church,” and the magisterium is not independent of this, since “all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith.” Definitions found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This source can also be accessed on Wikipedia.
The “church fathers” refers to the theologians, bishops, or scholars from the first few centuries of the history of Christianity, whose writings played a significant role in shaping the church’s doctrine and practice in the following centuries. These are also referred to as the patristics from the Latin form of “father.” A few examples: Tertullian, Augustine, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, etc.
The Latin phrases mean: by faith alone, by grace alone, by the Scripture alone, by Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory.
This is true of both Western (Roman) and Eastern traditions. Of course, the Reformation was an affair that took place only in the West. Eastern Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation-type movement and insists that it does not need one!
Reformations are against Tradition and are “disqualified” as legitimate.
8. Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), p. 74.
See Terry Mortenson’s helpful review of Fr. Rose’s book Genesis, Creation and Early Man on the Answers in Genesis website, December 1, 2002. For an in-depth biblical and historical defense of young-earth creation, see Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008). For a layman’s treatment see Ken Ham, Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013). Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011, second ed.) thoroughly, biblically, and scientifically refutes the progressive creationism of Hugh Ross. The New Answers Book, Volumes 1–4, edited by Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), answer the 130 most-asked biblical and scientific questions related to origins.
John Karmiris, “Concerning the Sacraments,” Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, ed. by Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 22.
Ibid., 22.
Ibid., 23.
The concept of apostolic succession is that the authority of the church has been passed on from the apostles in a direct line through the ministers of the church. Roman Catholics and Orthodox generally point to Matthew 16:13–20 as a justification of this belief.
Concerning the Incarnation of the Word, De Inc 54.3; http://www.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature.
The concept is addressed by Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and Irenaeus among others!
Frequent reference is made to 2 Peter 1:4 where Peter uses the metaphor of “sharing in the divine nature” to refer to process of sanctification.
Christoforos Stavropoulos, “Partakers of Divine Nature” from Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, p.192.
Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), p. 199.
Ibid., p. 199.
Ibid. p. 190, Stavropoulos, “Partakers of Divine Nature.”
The creation is fallen and cursed because of sin (Genesis 3:14–19) and will be one day set free from its corruption (Romans 8:19–23; Revelation 21:3–5, 22:3), but it is not inherently evil. In fact, at the end of each day of creation, we are told that God saw what He had made and it was good, on the sixth day following the creation of man, “very good.” Thus a doctrine of the goodness of the material world as created by God is explicitly present in the creation account in the Bible.
Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 108.
Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology, p. 70.
This argument was set forth by the greatly admired (by the Eastern Church) church father from Syria, John of Damascus.
Orthodoxy has a very exalted view of Mary. “The Orthodox church venerates the Virgin Mary as ‘more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,’ as superior to all created beings. The church sees in her the Mother of God, who without being a substitute for the one Mediator, intercedes before her Son for all humanity. We ceaselessly pray to her to intercede for us. Love and veneration of the Virgin is the soul of Orthodox piety, its heart, that which warms and animates its entire body. A faith in Christ which does not include his virgin birth and the veneration of his mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox Church.” Sergius Bulgakov, “The Virgin and the Saints in Orthodoxy” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, ed. by Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 66.
Alexander Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), p. 203.
All Scripture quotations in this chapter are from the New American Standard Bible.
Jesus also affirmed the three divisions of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44 being “the Law, the Prophets, and the writings (Psalms),” which excluded the apocryphal writings.
The “magisterium” is defined as the official teaching authority of the church. This authority is “uniquely vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Further, the Scriptures and Tradition make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church,” and the magisterium is not independent of this, since “all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith.” Definitions found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This source can also be accessed on Wikipedia.
The “church fathers” refers to the theologians, bishops, or scholars from the first few centuries of the history of Christianity, whose writings played a significant role in shaping the church’s doctrine and practice in the following centuries. These are also referred to as the patristics from the Latin form of “father.” A few examples: Tertullian, Augustine, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, etc.
The Latin phrases mean: by faith alone, by grace alone, by the Scripture alone, by Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory.
This is true of both Western (Roman) and Eastern traditions. Of course, the Reformation was an affair that took place only in the West. Eastern Orthodoxy has never had a Reformation-type movement and insists that it does not need one!
Reformations are against Tradition and are “disqualified” as legitimate.
8. Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), p. 74.
See Terry Mortenson’s helpful review of Fr. Rose’s book Genesis, Creation and Early Man on the Answers in Genesis website, December 1, 2002. For an in-depth biblical and historical defense of young-earth creation, see Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, eds., Coming to Grips with Genesis (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008). For a layman’s treatment see Ken Ham, Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013). Jonathan Sarfati, in Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2011, second ed.) thoroughly, biblically, and scientifically refutes the progressive creationism of Hugh Ross. The New Answers Book, Volumes 1–4, edited by Ken Ham (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), answer the 130 most-asked biblical and scientific questions related to origins.
John Karmiris, “Concerning the Sacraments,” Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, ed. by Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 22.
Ibid., 22.
Ibid., 23.
The concept of apostolic succession is that the authority of the church has been passed on from the apostles in a direct line through the ministers of the church. Roman Catholics and Orthodox generally point to Matthew 16:13–20 as a justification of this belief.
Concerning the Incarnation of the Word, De Inc 54.3; http://www.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature.
The concept is addressed by Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, and Irenaeus among others!
Frequent reference is made to 2 Peter 1:4 where Peter uses the metaphor of “sharing in the divine nature” to refer to process of sanctification.
Christoforos Stavropoulos, “Partakers of Divine Nature” from Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, p.192.
Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), p. 199.
Ibid., p. 199.
Ibid. p. 190, Stavropoulos, “Partakers of Divine Nature.”
The creation is fallen and cursed because of sin (Genesis 3:14–19) and will be one day set free from its corruption (Romans 8:19–23; Revelation 21:3–5, 22:3), but it is not inherently evil. In fact, at the end of each day of creation, we are told that God saw what He had made and it was good, on the sixth day following the creation of man, “very good.” Thus a doctrine of the goodness of the material world as created by God is explicitly present in the creation account in the Bible.
Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 108.
Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology, p. 70.
This argument was set forth by the greatly admired (by the Eastern Church) church father from Syria, John of Damascus.
Orthodoxy has a very exalted view of Mary. “The Orthodox church venerates the Virgin Mary as ‘more honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,’ as superior to all created beings. The church sees in her the Mother of God, who without being a substitute for the one Mediator, intercedes before her Son for all humanity. We ceaselessly pray to her to intercede for us. Love and veneration of the Virgin is the soul of Orthodox piety, its heart, that which warms and animates its entire body. A faith in Christ which does not include his virgin birth and the veneration of his mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox Church.” Sergius Bulgakov, “The Virgin and the Saints in Orthodoxy” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, ed. by Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 66.
Alexander Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), p. 203.