One of the central claims of Eastern Orthodoxy is that it represents original or authentic Christianity, in harmony with the faith taught by Jesus and the apostles. Many groups make such claims, but to evaluate this assertion requires us to identify the continuity, or lack of, with the faith in its nascent stage as described in the Scriptures. Even any claims to legitimate doctrinal developments would need to align with the teachings of the Bible in a way permitting such development. For disciples interested in practicing the ancient faith in our own era, this remains a topic of great significance.
Closely linked is the issue of the sources of authority recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy and whether these sources align with Scripture. The church of the first century was called to accept Scripture as the guide for all matters spiritual. So what is considered normative or authoritative for belief, doctrine, and practice in Eastern Orthodoxy?
Both the first-century church and Orthodoxy affirm that the Scriptures are authoritative (though they differ in how they are interpreted and regarded as normative), but Orthodoxy claims six more sources: (1) the decrees of the first seven so-called ecumenical councils; (2) the teachings of church fathers and later figures, especially those of the fourth century; (3) the “living voice” of the bishops who are said to be “inspired” by the grace and help of God; (4) church history itself and how heresy was refuted; (5) the prayers of key church figures; and (6) the lives of monks and ascetics as pious examples (Andrew Louth, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013], 5-6). These last six are collectively referred to as Church Tradition, and for Eastern Orthodoxy the Bible and Church Tradition form the two sources of authoritative teaching and guidance. But is there continuity between them so that Orthodoxy’s teaching is original? A few comparisons on major teachings can help answer this question.
Orthodoxy has three clerical ranks: bishops, presbyters/elders, and deacons. Though these are the same terms used for church leadership in the Bible, specific details are very different. For example, Orthodox bishops must be unmarried and un-widowed, in direct contradiction with 1 Timothy 3:2, which says a bishop must be married. Additionally, where the New Testament teaches that bishops, presbyters, and elders are terms used synonymously designating the same persons and office, in Orthodoxy the bishop stands above the elders, deacons, and members in a given congregation. This is not original. Instead, this structure owes its rise to Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 108-112), who advocated elevating one of the elders in a congregation to a leading role and becoming the “bishop.” This leadership of one person in a congregation, called the “monarchical episcopacy,” represents a deviation from the Bible’s simple structure, and over time, this structure becomes even more complicated. It is impossible to conclude this later development is in harmony with what the apostles and early Christians taught and promoted.
Another point of comparison concerns infants and their spiritual state. Orthodoxy teaches ancestral sin, which is different than original sin. Original sin says that people, including babies, share in the guilt of Adam and Eve. Ancestral sin is different; the person does not share the guilt, but he is said to be inherently corrupt because of being born into a depraved world. “[S]omething of the sinful condition in which we find ourselves is inherited from our forefathers and foremothers, who are in some way represented by Adam and Eve. It is not claimed that we are responsible for ancestral sin, simply that we are affected by it” (Louth, 78 emphasis in original). The infant is then baptized to remove the corruption.
While the Bible does speak about the world being corrupted through sin (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1-2), nowhere does it teach that each person is depraved due to being born into our world. Otherwise even Jesus would have been depraved! Consequently, the Bible does not teach the baptism of infants—ever. Every time someone is shown responding to the Gospel, they are always persons of sufficient maturity to make the personal decision to become a disciple of Jesus. This is why there is no instance in the Bible of an infant being baptized. This becomes another occasion in which the teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy do not align with the teachings of the Bible and the first-century church.
While other teachings merit similar examination, these examples provide clear evidence of a distinction between the teachings of Orthodoxy and those of the Bible on these doctrines. Continuity of views is simply not there, leading us to recognize that on the whole Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent the authentic faith as presented in the Bible and attested in the beginning days of Christianity.
-Rick Brumback