Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?

70 Pages·2007·0.571 MB·English

by  Robert A. Morey

IS EASTERN ORTHODOXY CHRISTIAN?
By Dr. Robert A. Morey
Copyright © 2007 by Dr. Robert A. Morey.

All rights reserved.
13 Digit ISBN: 978-1-931230-35-3
10 Digit ISBN: 1-931230-35-8
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise,
except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 or the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without
the prior written permission of the Publisher and the author. Send all requests to the publisher
address below.
Published by Christian Scholars Press,
1350 East Flamingo Rd., Suite #97,
Las Vegas, NV, 89119
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
CHAPTER ONE
In the Beginning
CHAPTER TWO
What is Orthodoxy?
I. Protestant Converts To Orthodoxy
II. Varieties of Orthodoxy
A. Liberal Orthodoxy
B. Conservative Orthodoxy
C. Fundamentalist Orthodoxy
CHAPTER THREE
The Hellenization of Eastern Orthodoxy
I. The Rotten Pillars of Orthodoxy
A. Illustration #1 The Septuagint Myth
B. Illustration #2 The Orthodox Canon of Scripture
C. Illustration #3 Fraudulent Orthodox Fathers
CHAPTER FOUR
The Deification of Man
I. Go East Young Man, Go East
A. West Meets East
B. The East Goes West

II. The Divine Essence/Energy Dichotomy

III. Where Is the Bible in All This?
A. The Encyclopedia Britannica:
B. The Columbia Encyclopedia:
C. The Catholic Encyclopedia:
D. Encarta Encyclopedia:
CHAPTER FIVE
Iconolatry
CHAPTER SIX
Final Summary
APPENDIX A
Exposition of Genesis 3:5
APPENDIX B
The “Fathers” on Apotheosis (Deification)
I. The Apostolic Fathers
A. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165)
B. Irenaeus (A.D. 130–202)
C. Hippolytus (died A.D. 235)
II. Philosophic Fathers
A. Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 300–336)
B. Athanasius (A. D. 293–373)
C. Basil the Great (A. D. 330–379)
D. Gregory Nazianzen (A.D. 335–394)
E. Augustine, (354–430) Bishop of Hippo
F. John of Damascus (A.D. 676–749)
APPENDIX C
Early Confession of the Christian Faith
Bibliography

INTRODUCTION
The task before us is to define and to document the nature, origin, and history of the
doctrines and rituals of Eastern Orthodoxy. This has not been an easy task. It has taken
several years of intense academic research and numerous trips to Orthodox churches,
conferences, and schools. Along the way, we have developed friendships and
acquaintances within the Orthodox community that we will always cherish.
A magnanimous spirit in which you give and receive religious criticisms without
taking personal offense is very rare today. It is not my purpose in this work to offend the
feelings of Orthodox people. Our focus is on the theology and history of Orthodoxy, not
Orthodox people. My critical analysis of Orthodox doctrines and rituals is in obedience
to the biblical mandate to “defend the faith” (Jude 3). Our purpose is to inform, not to
offend.
“Political correctness” has today reduced religion to personal taste and subjective
preference. Religion has been reduced to the level of one’s favorite flavor of ice cream. If
you prefer vanilla and I prefer chocolate, our personal preferences do not have anything
to do with truth or morals.
With PC’s reductionistic approach, no religion should be condemned as “false” or
“evil”, not even Islam. This is the constant drumbeat of the humanists who control public
education, the mass media, and politics today. All religions should be viewed as “true”
and “good.”
In the end, it does not really matter what religion you prefer. Your personal choice
cannot be “judged,” i.e. criticized or condemned by others. If you have the audacity to
claim that your religion is “true” and that other religions are “false,” you will be called a
racist, a hatemonger, a Nazi, and be accused of being intolerant, bigoted, unloving, and
unkind.
The self-contradictory nature of Political Correctness is obvious. It is intolerant of
those who do not buy into its universalistic beliefs. It condemns anyone who denies its
core beliefs. It claims to be non-judgmental and yet judges those who do not accept its
truth claims. But you cannot have it both ways.
If you believe that your religion is true, then you have logically admitted it could also
be false! Verification and falsification go hand in hand. A two-edged sword cuts both
ways.
Some people use PC as a way to deflect any doctrinal criticism of Orthodoxy. They
feel it is mean and unchristian when an Evangelical theologian disagrees with Orthodox
teaching. However, they seem to have no problem with Orthodox condemnations of
Evangelical beliefs!
The lecture series that forms the basis of this book was originally delivered at Faith
Community Church in Irvine, CA. One night, a local Orthodox priest attempted to
interrupt the service to protest the lectures. He never attempted to meet with the pastor
personally or to discuss any issues that bothered him. He chose to disrupt our service
instead.
As a matter of ministerial ethics, it is inappropriate to interrupt other people’s
religious services. One wonders how this “mad” priest would react if Evangelicals
showed up at his church and interrupted his service?
In countries dominated by Orthodoxy, such as Greece, Russia, etc., Evangelicals have
been beaten, raped, and even murdered. Numerous churches have been burned to the
ground by mobs led by Orthodox priests. This has been so well documented that no one
dare deny it.
Since Evangelicals in the past and even today are subject to persecution by Orthodox
priests and politicians, it would decrease hard feelings on all sides if Orthodox leaders
would issue a public apology for their persecution of Evangelical Christians. If
Evangelicals and their churches are viewed and treated by Orthodoxy as non-Christian,
why should the Orthodox expect Evangelicals to view them as Christian?
In contrast, in countries influenced by the Reformation, people are free to choose
whatever religion they want, including Orthodoxy. The Orthodox are not killed nor their
churches burned to the ground in America. They have the freedom to worship as they
choose.
One last word: The religious situation today is very confused. The “brand” (Baptist,
Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) on your hide does not indicate your theology. Some Baptists in
name are Unitarians in heart. Some Roman Catholics are actually Pentecostals, and some
Pentecostals are actually Catholics. Some Orthodox are actually Evangelical in their
hearts. Today, the religious brand on your hide is no true indicator of what you actually
believe.
This means that we do not believe that all Orthodox people are automatically going
to hell just because they are Orthodox. We have met some wonderful Orthodox people
who trust in the merits of Christ alone and who do not venerate icons, relics, Mary or the
saints. We fully expect to meet them in heaven one day.
Evangelicals view anyone who believes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, as a fellow Christian.
With these brief introductory words, let us begin our analysis of whether Eastern
Orthodoxy is a false and apostate church like the Roman Catholic Church.
CHAPTER 1
IN THE BEGINNING
Eastern Orthodoxy started out well. Jews from Egypt were converted on the Day of
Pentecost and returned to Egypt with the gospel of Messiah (Acts 2:10). They shared their
faith in Jesus with their fellow Jews and a church was born on Egyptian soil. It was a
glorious church with many wonderful works and great pastors.
The early Egyptian Church was as hostile to pagan philosophy as the authors of the
Old and New Testament. Dr. Frend, professor of church history at University of Glasgow,
comments,
In New Testament times, Jews and Christians had linked pagan philosophy with pagan
morality. Both were given a bad name. In Colossians (2:8) Paul associated philosophy with
“empty deceit, according to human tradition,” to be contrasted with the way of Christ.
Luke-Acts had nothing complimentary to say about the Stoics and Epicureans whom Paul
met in Athens. The Athenians’ spirit of inquiry was not a pint in their favor (Acts 17:18–
21). The later books of the New Testament and the apostolic fathers show no change in
this attitude, First Clement quotes no Stoic writer to support his conviction regarding the
harmony and stability of the universe (1 Clement 20). His source is the book of Job. That
Christians could have anything in common with pagans and their ideas was abhorrent to
Polycarp. His pupil Irenaeus was not alone in believing that the heretics who he
abominated derived many of their notions from philosophy. It was in this negative spirit
that the theologians of the great church approached their task of living in the world.
The Egyptian church began to attract the attention of pagan Gentiles in the
community. The Jewish pastors were thrilled at first, but, over time, the Gentiles took
over the leadership of the church. The Jewish Christians were eventually driven out of
the very churches they had originally founded.
The pagan Gentile takeover of the Eastern Church was complete when Jewish
Christians were persecuted as a “sect,” i.e. a cult! Frend explains,
At the beginning of this period, many Christians were still nonconformist Jews. In
asserting that Jesus was Messiah and that the prophecies of the Old Testament referred to
him alone, they might incur the enmity of orthodox Jews, but their tenacity of purpose
and total rejection of idolatry, including the imperial cult, would have done credit to the
Essenes. In 190 there was still an active Jewish Christianity … but it had been reduced to
the level of a sect.
Frend is not alone in his analysis of why the Early Jewish Church disappeared in
Egypt. Bauer in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, argues that it was eradicated
by Gentile church leaders because the Messianic Jews protested the importation of pagan
religious ideas and rituals into the church.
As the Egyptian church became increasingly popular, it began to attract the rich and
the powerful. Those who “follow the money” began to notice the church. This resulted in
pagan religious leaders and pagan philosophers joining the church.
Once the pagan philosophers joined the church, the politicians could not sit idly by
and let a new power base develop that was not under their control.
Pagan emperors claimed to convert to Christianity in order to assert their divine right
to rule over the church as well as the state. They viewed doctrine, rituals, councils, and
ecclesiastical offices as tools to advance their own power. Church doctrine and rituals
took on political significance.
The political control of the Eastern Church by the Emperors was total. Church offices
were bought and sold like commodities. Church councils were rigged before they were
held. If an Emperor did not like a certain theologian, he was framed for crimes he did not
commit, exiled or even murdered. For example, Athanasius (c. 295–373) was subjected to
political pressure for most of his ministry. Blackwell’s Dictionary of Eastern Christianity
states,
From the beginning, the Christian emperors sought to use the Christian church for their
own ends, and Byzantine Christianity tended to concede a great deal to the emperor.
The pagan priests, who swarmed like locusts into the early Jewish “Church”, were
still pagan in their hearts and minds. Their pagan beliefs and rituals remained unchanged
because their conversion was in name only.
With the assistance of the politicians, they took over the Orthodox Church and their
pagan doctrines, rituals, attire, icons, and art became the “holy traditions” of Eastern
Christianity.
Under the leadership of the emperor and his pagan priests, Eastern Christianity
adopted the core beliefs and rituals of the paganism around them. This made it even more
popular.
The “Babylonian Captivity” of Eastern Christianity took place between A.D. 130 and
A.D. 200. It climaxed with the rise of the “Christian Apologists.” Frend comments,
The Apologists represented a movement contemporary with and parallel to Gnosticism
and Marcionism. Like them, the Apologists were concerned with evolving a Gentile
Christianity, and working out its relationship with the old Israel, with Greek philosophy,
and the Roman authorities.
Gradually, orthodox Christianity was moving toward more open attitudes to pagan
society and pagan thought, though even now terms such as “authentic Gentile
Christianity” or “Hellenization” are relative … Between 145 and 170 a shift of emphasis
had taken place. The church now had a place for Athenagoras as well as for Theophilus
of Antioch and Irenaeus. Christianity was making good its claim to be a “third race”
independent of both Judaism and paganism.
Dr. Gordon Clark, head of the philosophy department at Butler University, concludes
his survey of the infiltration of Greek philosophy into the Eastern Church by pointing
out,
While Christianity and the Greek philosophies, as systems, have no elements in common,
the Christians, as people often held pagan ideas. They had been converted from paganism
and could not divest themselves of familiar modes of thought all at once, Therefore when
they came to expound and defend Christianity, they inconsistently made use of Platonism
or Stoicism … as time went on, the attempts to escape pagan ideas and to preserve the
purity of New Testament thought grew weakened and, one might say, almost ceased.
Eastern Orthodoxy was in many ways the first “seeker church” because it looked to
the pagan community to dictate ways of worship that would attract them. For example,
the pagans liked the icon processions in their pagan temples. They also enjoyed
venerating icons. So, these things were added to the worship of the Egyptian Church to
make it more relevant and contemporary.
If the pagan community did not like an aspect of biblical worship or practice, the
emperors and the priests threw it out. The Eastern Church was now “of” the world and
not just “in” it.
Eastern Christianity was also the first “emerging church” because it looked to the
pagans to dictate what should be preached. The Orthodox Church tailored its message to
what the pagans wanted to hear. Frend comments,
In all these developments, the Christian Platonists of Alexandria played a crucial role. For
two centuries the relations between Platonism and Christianity oscillated between
attraction and repulsion. Basically, nothing could be more opposed that the Jewish and
Greek views of God, of creation, to time and history and of the role of humanity in the
universe, Celsus was at this best pouring scorn on Jewish-Christian claims to monopolize
divine favor. Philo and his school, however, had already attempted a synthesis between
Platonism and Judaism in Alexandria. The same work was taken up by the Gnostics,
especially Basilides and Valentinus and their followers in the second century. It was to be
brought to fruition in the interests of orthodoxy by Clement and Origin.
To succeed in Alexandria and indeed in much of the Greek-speaking world, Christianity
would have to be articulated in Platonic terms.
When the Orthodox boast that what they believe and practice reflects the Early
Church, they do not mean the original early Apostolic Jewish Church, which was hostile
to pagan philosophy, but to a much later Gentile Egyptian Church which had become
more pagan than Christian.
The historical reality is that Eastern Orthodoxy does not represent the Early Church
that came into existence from the preaching of the Apostles. The first generation of
Christians and their churches were Jewish in origin and nature. No one has ever been
able to find even the slightest hint of angel, saint, Patriarch or icon veneration in the early
Jewish Church.
The Apostles had warned the Church that apostasy would result if it pandered to the
crowd.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have
their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own
desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3–4, emphasis added.)
When Eastern Orthodoxy chose Socrates over Christ, Plato over Paul, and the
Dialogues over the Bible, the biblical gospel was lost. With the death of the gospel,
Orthodoxy became a false and apostate church.
CHAPTER 2
WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?
Where did Eastern Orthodoxy derive its distinctive doctrines and rituals? In
discussions with Orthodox priests and theologians, I have heard many different answers.
I. Protestant Converts To Orthodoxy
If they were converts from Protestantism, especially from Evangelicalism, they would
smile at me and say that Eastern Orthodoxy derived its doctrines and rituals from the
Bible.
However, when I pressed them as to exactly where in the Bible could I specifically
find such things as the veneration of icons, they would switch tactics and state that such
things came from the “holy traditions” and the “Fathers.” I persisted by asking them,
• Can you give me a concise definition of what constitutes a “holy tradition”?
• Is the issue age, i.e. is something a “tradition”, if it can be traced back to the days of
the apostles or the early Church?
• Is the issue authority, i.e. was it believed by all “the Fathers” or all great theologians
in the past?
• Is the issue catholicity, i.e. was it something that all Christians at one time believed?
• Is the issue creedal, i.e. was it something confirmed in some creed or by some church
council?
• Is the issue status, i.e. did a metropolitan patriarch teach it or did he write a creed or
confession that teaches it?
• What do we do when one patriarch condemns another patriarch?
• By what standard do we judge which patriarch is right?
• Is the issue force, i.e. if a patriarch was murdered, does this mean those who murdered
him were right?
• By what objective standard can we tell if a “tradition” is valid or invalid?
• By what standard is someone called a “Father”?
• What if a supposed “Father” was later condemned as a heretic for false teachings?
• Can someone be called a “Father” and then later have that title removed?
• What if a “Father” believed and taught erroneous doctrines and silly superstitions?
• Are we to accept everything a “Father” taught as true or do we pick and choose from
his writings what we want at this time?