The Gospel transcends denominational boundaries. God saves them in spite of what we have articulated are errors in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have personally witnessed this even among Roman Catholics. I personally know this because I was one of them.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has held an allure among Evangelical Protestant Christians for some time and continues to do so to the present day. In 1990 the Evangelical world was stunned when Frank Schaeffer, the son of the well-known Christian apologist and philosopher Francis Schaeffer converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.^[1] In 2017, Hank Hanegraaff of the radio program The Bible Answer Man, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.^[2] A disturbing headline came out in 2024 by Rikki Schlott entitled, “Young men leaving traditional churches for ‘masculine’ Orthodox Christianity in droves.”^[3]

On a personal and pastoral level, I have been contacted by a number of people belonging to Evangelical churches who have raised concerns that members of their own families converted or were in the process of converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. But before we ask ourselves “why is this happening?” and “what can be done?” we first must become familiar with the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy—and why it is dangerous. This article is by no means exhaustive, but in what follows, I will deal with some of the most important points of Eastern Orthodox belief, especially as they differ from evangelicalism.^[4]

Eastern Orthodoxy Claims to be the Only True Church

The Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church and others, claims to be the original and true visible church that was founded by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. It claims to be the “ancient church,” and the church “of the [Church] Fathers.” It claims to be the one and only true church over all the other institutional churches. Indeed, it anathematizes any and all who are not within its ecclesial communion, “That whoever does not confess with heart and mouth that he is a child of the Eastern Church baptized in Orthodox style, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds out of only the Father, essentially and hypostatically, as Christ says in the Gospel, shall be outside of our Church and shall be anathematized.”^[5] This means that Roman Catholics and Protestants are considered heretics, thrown into the same category as the Arians and Gnostics. This is what Justin Popović, one of the most respected Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, writes:

From time to time, heretics and schismatics have cut themselves off and have fallen away from the One and indivisible Church of Christ [Eastern Orthodox Church], whereby they ceased to be members of the Church and parts of Her Theanthropic Body. The first to fall away thus were the Gnostics, then the Arians, then the Macedonians, then the Monophysites, then the Iconoclasts, then the Roman Catholics, then the Protestants, then the Uniates, and so on—all the members of the legion of heretics and schismatics.^[6]

On the Sunday of Orthodoxy (a holy day in the East’s liturgical calendar), in many Orthodox congregations, a series of anathemas is read out by the priest to which the congregation responds with ‘anathema.’ Anathema 18 reads as follows: “To Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Henry VIII—the ungodly king, and to those assembled together with them and to all the Protestant groups: Anathema!”^[7] Eastern Orthodoxy has stated in no uncertain terms how they view Protestants.

To make the claim to antiquity as the original church is one thing, to prove it is quite another. Eastern Orthodox apologists can appeal to the fact that their church is very old, but the argument from age (Latin argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a logical fallacy. Truth is not predicated on how old something is. Other groups like the Judaizers and Gnostics are very ancient, even going back to apostolic times in the first century. Indeed, both Gnostics and Judaizers have been around since the New Testament was written! Paul confronted the Judaizers in Galatians and the proto-Gnostics in Colossians, while the apostle John had to denounce the same Gnostics in his two epistles (1 and 2 John).^[8] While the Judaizers and Gnostics can claim a pedigree of antiquity, even living in the time of the apostles, it does not follow that they were correct or that they were the “church of antiquity.”

The attempt to place the Church Fathers into an Eastern Orthodox mold is another feature of such claims to antiquity, even quote mining for the alleged ‘consensus of the Fathers’ to support Eastern Orthodox teaching. The same feature occurs with Roman Catholics claiming the Fathers were all Catholic Fathers, finding in them support of the Papacy or other dogma. A pattern emerges here with institutional churches vying in a historical race for first place as the original church. With Patristics, we should allow the Church Fathers to be themselves: committed Christians following their convictions to shepherd the church. Were they faithful? Yes. But perfect? No. Unfortunately, there is a profound lack of exposure on the Church Fathers and Church history among many Evangelicals. This is an area that we must reclaim.

The Basics

The Filioque

In terms of theology, Evangelical Christians join with the Eastern Orthodox Church in affirming the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, including his Incarnation, virgin birth, sinless life, death and resurrection and second advent. One of the significant differences that Eastern Orthodoxy has with Western Christianity is the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Eastern Orthodoxy claims the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. The Western churches affirm a dual procession, i.e., the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, also known as the filioque (meaning “and the Son” in Latin). The issue of the filioque is taken by the Eastern Orthodox as a serious theological breach and one which they have denounced as a heresy and a serious impediment to any possible reconciliation with Western Christendom.^[9] This debate remains unabated between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Western churches and it continues to the present day and is perceived as a dividing line. I would like to stress that despite the ongoing debate on the filioque, both Western and Eastern Christendom unequivocally affirms the Trinity, that there are three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-substantial, in the one being of God. Both affirm the ontological and economical Trinity.

The Councils and the Canon

As we saw above, this view of the filioque was grounds for Eastern Orthodoxy to denounce Roman Catholicism and also Protestantism as heretical and under the anathema. Evangelicals also accept the first four Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; AD 325–451), in addition to the Apostles’ Creed, while Eastern Orthodoxy affirms seven Ecumenical Councils of which they claim to be the creators and the guardians. They also believe these seven Ecumenical Councils are “infallible” in the same way Scripture is, and unable to be changed in any way.^[10] What is absent in these creeds, however, is a full-orbed treatment of soteriology and the nature of the Gospel and its corollaries of justification, sanctification, and glorification. While there are differences between Evangelical Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox Church on the creeds and which ones are deemed acceptable, it is important to stress that the standard by which Evangelicals judge the Creeds and Councils are the Scriptures. While the Eastern Orthodox Church holds these Creeds and Councils to be “infallible” (like Scripture), Evangelicals deny this equivalence and view the Creeds and Councils as fallible and subject to the Scriptures. The only creeds that are infallible, are those found in Scripture. ^[11] While we view the historic Creeds and Councils as beneficial and helpful, they are not God-breathed or inspired texts as the Scriptures are (2 Tim. 3:16). While we agree with our Eastern Orthodox friends that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and authoritative, we deny that it is equal to the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds.

While we do agree on the Bible as God’s Word, it should be noted that we disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy on the canon of the Old Testament. Evangelical Protestants accept the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament, which are the same books (although differently numbered) contained in the Hebrew Bible. While Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament found in Protestant Bibles, they do accept additional books as canonical and therefore Scripture, which Evangelicals view such books as part of the Apocrypha. There is a disparity in the number of books in the Old Testament among Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestants, and even Roman Catholics. In terms of the Old Testament canon, the Eastern Orthodox Church has fifty-two books, the Roman Catholic Church has forty-six books, Protestants have thirty-nine books (same canon Jews hold to), and the Ethiopian Orthodox church has fifty-four books. ^[12] The textual source and basis of the Old Testament in Eastern Orthodoxy is the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), whereas Protestants and Roman Catholics follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text as their textual basis. This raises an important question. If the Eastern Orthodox Church is infallible and the originator of the canon under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then the differences it has with other churches in respect to their Old Testament canons, must lead her logically to dismiss these other churches as being devoid of the Holy Spirit. While differences remain on the question of the Old Testament canon, there is unanimous agreement between Eastern Orthodoxy (and other churches), and Evangelical Christians on the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books.

Mary, the Saints, and Icon Veneration

Among some of the positions that Eastern Orthodoxy holds to that are rejected by Evangelicals are their view of Mary as the portal to heaven, her worship (they prefer to use “veneration”), and the veneration of the saints. Mary is also seen as a perpetual virgin, sinless, and indispensable in the salvation of humanity. According to the famous fourteenth-century Orthodox theologian St. Gregory Palamas:

She [Mary] alone forms the boundary between created and uncreated nature, and no one can come to God except through her and the mediator born of her, and none of God’s gifts can be bestowed on angels or men except through her…so it is beyond the reach of all to look upwards to God or be helped by Him to make progress in any direction, except through the Ever-Virgin. ^[13]

Some of the language in prayers rendered to Mary is so extolling that it eclipses the centrality of Christ as the sole Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and Savior of the world; here’s an example from an eastern orthodox liturgical prayer to Mary, “The doors of caring do now open unto us, O most blessed Theotokos, So that hoping in you we shall not fail; Through you we may be delivered from adversities, For you are the salvation of the Christian faith.”^[14] Other prayers to Mary attribute titles to her that are unique to Christ alone. Mary is the “acceptable sacrifice” and “the ewe-lamb of God without spot, the dove without blemish”; she had “a body that was never subject to the taint of sin,” and the Orthodox faithfully sing to her, “through you we have been reconciled with God.”^[15] A cursory reading of the New Testament demonstrates that none of these exalted claims regarding Mary has any biblical support whatsoever. Christ alone is the way to the Father, and salvation is found in no one else but him (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). It is not through Mary that Christian believers are reconciled to God, but through Christ, “We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom. 5:10).

The title given to Mary of Theotokos, which means God-bearer or Mother of God, was never intended to exalt Mary the way Eastern Orthodoxy does. The name was given to her at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and reaffirmed in the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) and the Second Council of Constantinople (AD 553). All three of these were Christological councils intended to exalt Christ and defend the Incarnation by stressing that the person Mary gave birth to was God the Son in the flesh. In this sense Mary is called Mother of God or the God-bearer—which Protestants should happily affirm.^[16]

Related to this veneration of Mary and the saints is the Orthodox Church’s insistence on icon veneration. Icons are painted representations of the Trinity, Christ, Mary, and the saints, both past and recent. The East declares that anyone who does not kiss the icons with devotion is an anathema. As the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) states: “To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine Scripture against idols, anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images, anathema!”^[17] Evangelicals who see these actions as idolatrous violations of the second commandment (cf. Exod. 20:4–6) are thus considered non-Christians by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Some Orthodox apologists attempt to argue that archaeological discoveries of old churches such as the third-century Christian house converted into a church in Dura-Europos in Syria that bear images on their walls including the catacombs in Rome support their position that early Christians used religious art and venerated images or icons. The problem here is that the paintings in Dura-Europos and catacombs of Rome are scenes from biblical stories, not images made to worship through. Eastern Orthodoxy is so steeped in icon veneration that they claim that the first Christian to paint an icon of Mary was the Evangelist Luke himself! This long-standing tradition has actually been shown to be fictional. Bissera Pentcheva, a Harvard PhD specialist in Byzantium art and religion, writes:

The myth [of Luke painting the Virgin Mary] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclast controversy [eighth and ninth centuries].  By claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos [Virgin Mary] painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the perpetrators of this fiction fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images.^[18]

Even if a church building contained religious art, it does not follow from this that these images or icons were “venerated.” The onus is on the Orthodox apologist to prove this. Such art was believed to be educational, especially considering that many Christians were illiterate. There was also a synagogue excavated in Dura-Europos from the same time period which also contained wall paintings of biblical scenes from the Old Testament. This did not seem problematic for the Jews of this synagogue as these paintings likewise were instructional. There is no evidence that Jews venerated these paintings. Some Protestant churches also contain religious art either on the walls or on stained glass windows. The position of these churches on this art is that they too serve as an instructional tool to those who were illiterate.

The Orthodox position that veneration of icons is justified by the example that God allowed images to be placed in the Tabernacle and Temple, like the cherubim on top of the Ark of the Covenant, and also the bronze serpent on a pole is not convincing. There is no biblical or archeological evidence that the cherubim on the Ark were venerated. The High Priest in fact only saw them once a year on the Day of Atonement. In the case of the bronze serpent, we do know that hundreds of years after Moses, the Israelites did in fact turn it into an object of “veneration” or worship in the days of king Hezekiah, “He [Hezekiah] removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” (2 Kgs. 18:4). The fact that the Israelites were making “offerings” to the bronze serpent shows that this was a religious action in violation of the First Commandment. That the earliest Christians did not worship or venerate religious art but rather eschewed such a practice is evident not only in the prohibitions in Scripture against idolatry, but also in the early strata of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The rise of iconodulia (veneration/service of icons) arose late in the history of the church. The main writer who is believed to be the last of the Church Fathers and who was the primary advocate of icon veneration was John of Damascus (AD 675–749). Church historian Richard Price, a Roman Catholic priest who advocates for the open use of icons and images admits:

Read More