Go to the Acts420.com homepage
Orthodox Christianity, also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is not very well known in the United States. The United States is mostly Protestant and Western or Roman Catholic by far. However, Orthodox Christianity is actually as large or larger than Protestantism world-wide. It also pre-dates Protestantism by between 500 and 1500 years (I'd say 1500 or so). It is no coincidence that it is mainly centered in the places where Jesus Christ's Apostles planted their churches (for instance the Church at Jerusalem in Israel, The Church at Athens in Greece, the Church at Constantinople in Turkey, the Church at Alexandria in Egypt). If you ask me, it is basically the continuation of the majority of the churches Jesus Christ's Apostles planted.
The Church at Rome was one of the original churches also. However, it left the rest of them around 1000 A.D. and slowly evolved into what we now refer to as Roman Catholicism or even just "Catholicism." The Christian Church was one in communion until Rome declared itself to be the the judge and king of the other churches in the 11th century. The Protestants then left Roman Catholicism about 500 years later, and themselves have splintered into hundreds of separate communities. Protestantism did not come onto the historical scene until around 1500 A.D when a few Roman Catholic's tried to fix problems they saw in Roman Catholicism. Their churches soon migrated to the "New World," America, and eventually splintered further into more church split-offs variously known as "Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Non-denominational, and many more sub-communities under each of those. All of these groups can historically be thought of as "recovering Roman Catholics." And many of their members today have no idea that the Orthodox Church even exists.
Orthodox Christians have tremendous unity and communion. They claim to be the continuation of the historical Church of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Church makes a similar claim. Therefore, many Protestants assume Orthodoxy is like Catholicism when they first see it. However, to lump Crthodoxy in with Catholicism makes no sense from a historical perspective.
My desire is to see unity in the Christian Church. As a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy I'm rather unique as an American. I've written this article in order to help former Protestants like myself better understand Orthodox Christianity as it relates to common Protestant mis-conceptions.
One of the battle cries of the Protestant Reformation was "Scripture alone." In response to Roman Catholic abuses that had become part of the Catholic tradition, Scripture came to be seen as the only authoritative source for doctrine. However, we should realize the the Protestants were responding to Catholic tradition. If they had been aware of the Orthodox Church they may never have left. Therefore, we should their "Scripture Alone" idea. It may be wrong; it may just be an over-reaction to Catholic abuse.
First, note that the early Christian churches, without complete Scriptures and sometimes without any Scriptures at all, still taught the Word’s Resurrection, His Divinity, the Trinity, the holy Apostles’ teachings, and many critical Christian theological truths. This went on for many years, sometimes many hundreds of years, before the Bible was finalized and became more widespread. Had you and I communed with them, we would have seen them proclaim the Word just fine without "Scriptural support;" they had no Scripture! This was possible because the holy Apostles taught followers of the Way to hold to the traditions they had taught them, both by written word and by word of mouth. (2 Thess 2:15, 1 Cor 11:2) The right churches had the right teachings, some by the holy traditions and others by the holy scriptures. Most had a mix of both. One job of the early christian church was to guard those right teachings, both the right traditions and the right written words.
Therefore, if a doctrine doesn't have tremendous support in Scripture that doesn't mean the doctrine is false. Truth exists outside Scripture. Jesus is "the Truth." The Truth exists in a sun beam and in the early church traditions too. The last thing we should actually want is a church that relies *only* on Scripture. Scripture is notoriously hard to understand at certain parts, as the many divisions in Protestantism show. The holy Apostle Peter also warned us about this in 2 Peter 3:16. He noted that Scripture can be twisted easily at many points and can become incredibly destructive. Therefore, a Church based on early Christian tradition and early Christian scripture should be ideal.
Protestant friends who I have said this to usually then ask about passages like Acts 17:11-12, 1 Timothy 3:16,17, 2 Timothy 2:15, and 2 Peter 1:16-21. These are key passages Protestants and Reformers rely on for their belief in "Scripture alone." Here are my answers.
Regarding Acts 17:11-12, the Bereans are praised there for receiving God's Word eagerly. They examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Remember that for the Bereans 'the Scriptures' were the Old Testament. That is what they had. Therefore, this probably means they looked to see if the passages Paul cited to show that Christ is the Messiah were really in the Scriptures. Keep in mind that certain parts of the message Paul brought were not in the Scriptures they had, for instance the new practice of the Eucharist (or Lord's supper). So if we want to be like the Bereans, this passage is not saying we must examine the Scriptures to make sure every single thing that is taught to us is also in the Bible. It simply praises those who read and know the Scriptures, those who use them as an aid while they are guided by the Spirit and Apostolic teaching. The passage certainly doesn't teach the sole sufficiency of Scripture.
Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16,17, the first thing to note again is that Paul is referring to the Old Testament primarily. That is primarily what Timothy had. The New Testament had not been completed at the time this was written, its letters were not very widespread yet, and it would not be completed, canonized, and spread throughout all the churches for hundreds of years. Many Protestants use this passage to claim the sole sufficiency of the Scriptures. However, it then follows that Paul was basically saying the Old Testament alone is sufficient, perhaps with a couple of his own letters. In this passage, Paul is mainly affirming the usefulness and authority of the old testament to Timothy. By extension we can also apply it, now, to the New Testament. However, it is certainly not saying Scripture is the sole authority in Christianity as many different Protestant groups have claimed for the last 500 years or so. It says Scripture is useful for teaching and training the man of God. The result of teaching and training is that the man of God may be prepared for every good work. However, Scripture is not the only tool to be used to teach and train the man of God. The Spirit, for instance guides and trains. Also, the oral traditions Paul encouraged people like Timothy to remember in addition to his letters will guide and train.
Regarding 2 Timothy 2:15, Timothy is encouraged to "rightly divide the word of truth." I take this to mean "teach the Word of God correctly." (Or you could say, to teach according to orthodoxy since "orthodox" is actually just an old world that means "correct" or "right.") This is actually one of the verses orthodox Christians have been praying every Sunday as part of the divine liturgy for at least 1600 years, and probably much longer. They pray that God would grant their Bishops and Priests the continuing ability to rightly divide the word of truth.
The point of 2 Peter 1:16-21 is that Scripture originated with God. The prophets of old spoke and wrote the words of God. The writings and traditions the Apostles passed down originated from sitting at the feet of Christ.
Protestant friends have asked, "How can you determine if something/tradition/a teaching is from God or of man?" It is a process of learning and study. The church had to determine the canon of Scripture, for instance. It took a great deal of time and effort to finalize and agree on the New Testament throughout all the churches. Similar efforts were undertaken to establish true Apostolic tradition, and that is mainly expressed in the orthodox services like the divine liturgy and the creeds that are part of those services.
There are definitely multiple sources of truth. Even the Spirit of God is a source of Truth; He can and does reveal himself to people without anyone's help. That is even "in scripture." The Apostles passed along traditions as well as writings, two sources of truth. There is tremendous unity in the orthodox church regarding both of those sources. Protestants only ultimately rely on one of those sources, and the result has been confusion and a wide smattering of communions.
A book I found helpful is The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton.
First, the word orthodox is a Greek word itself, and it simply means "having the right opinion". So "orthodox church" simply means "church that avoids false doctrines." Most churches believe they have correct doctrine, otherwise they would not be teaching anyone. When is the last time you heard any pastor say, "I am teaching you false doctrines about how to be saved"? The Orthodox simply claim their beliefs about salvation are correct. Therefore, they are also claiming that anyone who teaches against their beliefs regarding salvation is incorrect. Most churches that teach of God's salvation claim to be the correct church, only perhaps they use different language.
Some Protestant churches have a big problem with baptizing babies. They see adult Baptism in holy scripture, so when Orthodox Christians baptize their children this bothers them. However, the first thing to remember is that Orthodox Churches baptize adults also. And we can plainly see "household baptism" right along side "individual baptism" in holy scripture. It seems that when individuals were baptized in Scripture, after coming to faith, then their entire households were baptized also, if they were over a household. See for example:
1. • The Household of Cornelius: Acts 11:14
2. • The Household of Lydia: Acts 16:15
3. • The Philippian Jailor's Household: Acts 16:33
4. • The Household of Crispus: Acts 18:8
5. • The Household of Stephanas: I Corinthians 1:16
Whether or not there were children in the households is not made clear in each instance, and it doesn't seem to matter to the author either way. It very well may be biblical to baptize households under the headship of a believer. So then, it may be right to baptize children born or by adopted into that home. The historical tradition of Christ's churches certainly says it is the right thing to do, and if you ask me the safest bet is to humbly agree.
From the list above, we can see that every person named in the apostolic New Testament baptism narratives had their household baptized if we have any reasonable basis for believing the individual had a household. There is no reason to expect the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul, and Simon the Sorcerer to had familial households. (Sorcerers are not generally considered family men... and the eunuch and Saul didn't have families.) All of the remaining individuals baptized in Scripture (the five listed above who had families) had their households baptized.
This does leave out Gaius (1 Corinthians 1:14) who is mentioned along with Crispus. However, what is interesting here is that Crispus' household was undoubtedly baptized with him (Acts 18:8), yet in 1 Corinthians 1:14 Paul said in no uncertain terms, "I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius." How can Paul say he baptized 'none but Crispus' if elsewhere it says Paul baptized Crispus' entire family? The answer is simple. It would be perfectly intelligible to any covenantly-minded Jew that Paul was simply speaking of Crispus as representing the household in the administration of baptism. That is how the Jews operated. That very well may be how the first church operated also. So it is quite reasonable to assume that if Gaius had a household, it was baptized just like Crispus' household, whom we know was baptized.
May God's peace guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus,
Jason
Go to the Acts420.com homepage