A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Category: Reformed Theology (Page 5 of 19)

Honoring the Dead

Radiant Pascha!

And Other Weird Orthodox Stuff

For Protestant inquirers, Orthodoxy is more beautiful, glorious, wilder, and weirder than they would imagine.  They hear ancient prayers chanted in dark churches illuminated by candles while smelling the scent of incense drifting in the air.  If they attend the Orthodox services on special feast days, they will see other surprising rituals: the priest and congregation processing around the church building with the symbolic funeral shroud of Christ on Holy Friday, the priest flinging flowers all around the main sanctuary on Holy Saturday, and the joyous shouts of “He is Risen!” at the Easter midnight service.  They will see priests handing out bottles of holy water on the feast day of Christ’s baptism, and priests blessing baskets of fruits and jars of honey at the start of the Dormition fast in August.  They will also witness strange things like miraculous icons and people kissing the relics of dead saints.

These Orthodox practices will seem strange to most Protestants.  But before discussing these Orthodox practices below, let’s first look at some common Protestant or at least American practices regarding loved ones who are no longer with us. In other words, how does one of the premiere Protestant countries, the U.S.A., treat their departed loved ones?

Memorial Day at the National Memorial Cemetery, Honolulu HI  Source

Those who criticize Orthodoxy for the importance we give to the relics of the saints might want to take into consideration the priority the U.S. government gives to locating the remains of the fallen soldiers in far-off battle sites.  In 2015, the U.S. government allocated $80 million for the Senator Daniel K. Inouye Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency building in Hawaii.  This forensic laboratory will help identify bone fragments and return them properly to loved ones.  Would Protestant critics be willing to say that the $80 million could have been better used elsewhere?  Similarly, there is the local custom in Hawaii of placing flower leis on the graves in the National Cemetery on Memorial Day.  Would Protestant critics be willing to say that the time put into making the leis and the hours the local Boy Scouts put into placing the leis on the graves would be better used elsewhere?  If they are willing to grant that it is very much worth the time and trouble to remember and honor those who gave their lives for their country, how much more would it be worth the time and trouble for Christians to honor those who gave up their lives for Christ?

Memorial Day tradition at Ft. Snelling, Minnesota  Source

Many Protestants have the custom of visiting the graves of their loved ones – spouses, children, parents, and relatives – on the anniversaries of their death or on special occasions like Christmas, Easter, or Memorial Day.  It is a widely accepted practice to place flowers on the graves.  Many will even talk with their loved ones voicing their regret, their loss, and sometimes the hope of being reunited in the future.  What these Protestants are doing is quite similar to how Orthodox and ancient Christians remember the dead.  I urge Protestant readers not to be hasty in judging how Orthodox Christians honor the dead but to consider the Orthodox point of view.





Memorial Service

From time to time, Orthodox parishes will hold memorial services for someone who has died.  For this service a small table is placed before the icon of Christ.  On the table is a plate with a small mound of boiled wheat and two candles on the right and left.  The boiled wheat symbolizes Jesus’ remark about the grain of wheat that is buried (John 12:24).  During the Memorial Service we lament our fallen state:

I am an image of Your indescribable glory, though I bear the scars of my sins.  Master, take pity on the work of Your hands, and in Your loving-kindness cleanse me.  Grant me the home land for which I yearn, making me once again a citizen of Paradise.

And we celebrate Christ’s victory over death:

God of spirits and of all humankind, as You trampled down death, overthrowing the Evil One and granting life to Your world, will You, Lord, grant rest to Your servant(s) (N.) now asleep in death, in a place of light, a place of renewed life, a joyous place, shunned alike by pain and sorrow and sighing.

During the Memorial Service we do more than remember our loved ones, we also pray for them.  We ask God:

Every sin he (she, they) may have committed, in word or deed or thought, as our good and loving God forgive; for no one can live and not sin.

The Memorial Service culminates with the priest and the congregation singing several times: “May their memory be eternal.” [video]  The website for St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in Portland, Oregon, gives this explanation for the Memorial Service:

The Orthodox Church teaches that through our prayers, those “who have fallen asleep in the faith and the hope of the Resurrection” continue to have opportunity to grow closer to God. Therefore, the Church prays constantly for her members who have died in Christ. We place our trust in the love of God and the power of mutual love and forgiveness. We pray that God will forgive the sins of the faithful departed, and that He will receive them into the company of Saints in the heavenly Kingdom. The Orthodox Church remembers the departed in the prayers of every Divine Liturgy, but also has a special Memorial Service, said on numerous occasions.

Whereas the Memorial Service takes place as the need arises, there are in the Orthodox calendar several days designated “Saturday of the Souls.”  On these days we remember those departed and pray for them.  This is so different from my former Protestant home church, where deceased church members are pretty much forgotten after their funeral.

There is in our modern culture a deep-seated fear of death.  We don’t like to contemplate our mortality.  We avoid talking about death and dying.  Evangelical worship services, on the other hand, tend to focus on spiritual uplift or on how being a Christian can result in a happy, fulfilling life.  In Orthodoxy there is a more frank acknowledgment of our mortality.  In every Sunday Liturgy we pray for a good Christian death and a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ several times.  Every year on the Sunday of the Final Judgment we are reminded that we will have to give a reckoning for how we lived our lives.  All this is spiritually healthy.  In the early Christian classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, one important step is “Step 6 – Remembrance of Death.”  The Orthodox remembrance of death can lead to practices that Protestants may regard as weird, unseemly, or even grotesque.  But it should be kept in mind that the cross which at one time was a means of inhumane punishment and an agonizing death was transformed into a symbol of hope and Good News by Christ’s resurrection.  Each bedside death becomes a battle field where we come face-to-face with our final enemy Death and those who are faithful to the end become more than conquerors (1 Corinthians 15:28; Romans 8:37).


Orthodox Monasteries

Monasteries are very rare or non-existent in many Protestant denominations.  Many Protestant inquirers are not sure what to make of monasteries. One very important thing to keep in mind is that monasteries are not places of normal Orthodoxy.  Monasteries are places where certain people devote their entire lives to prayer and spiritual growth. [video] To visit a monastery is like visiting a training camp for professional athletes with high-tech equipment and strict training regimens.  Not everyone is called to be a full-time athlete, but we are all called to live a healthy, active lifestyle.

Orthodox nuns sing in the ossuary at the Pasarea monastery, Bucharest, Romania Source

Part of the monastic calling is preparing for death.  In some monasteries monks will actually sleep in coffins in order to prepare themselves for death.  In ancient monasteries monks will go into the ossuary, the place where the bones of earlier monks are kept, and rearrange the bones to make room for those who will die in due time. [video – see 34:27]  To modern Americans fearful of death such practices are gruesome.  However, the monastic discipline of preparing for the moment of death is an act of realism and courage.  We are all going to die sooner or later.  Many modern Americans have become obsessed with getting the most out of this life.  They make bucket lists of all the fun and exciting things they want to do before they die, but they do so with little heed or preparation for the account they will have give to God after they die (Matthew 12:36; Luke 12:13-21).

Ordinary Orthodox laity will from time to time visit a monastery for spiritual renewal.  They take part in the prayer routines of the monastery in order to deepen their prayer life.  A Protestant visitor who lacks an empathetic understanding of Orthodoxy will often see monastic practices thru the lens of the original Reformers who reacted against medieval Roman Catholicism’s works righteousness.  One should not be surprised if Protestants visiting an Orthodox monastery are offended, even shocked, by what they see there.  Protestantism and Orthodoxy represent two different cultures.  Visitors need to be respectful of these differences and not seek to judge the other by arbitrary standards.  The best way to navigate the differences is through Scripture and church history.  Late innovations should be regarded with suspicion while practices marked by antiquity and ubiquity can be considered worthy of respect by all Christians.



Venerating Relics

One common stumbling block for Protestants is the Orthodox veneration of icons.  Often upon entering an Orthodox Church one will see people crossing themselves then kissing an icon of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or one of the saints.  Another potential stumbling block is the Orthodox tradition of venerating the relics of saints.  An inquirer might regard relics as something weird and out there, but there are relics in every Orthodox Church.  Every altar contains bits of relics placed there during the consecration of the church.  Canon 7 of the Council of Nicea II (787) mandates the placement of relics of saints, particularly martyrs, at the consecration of a church.  This means relics are not something out there but right before us at every Eucharist!  This practice follows Revelation 6:9, which tells of the martyrs under the altar.  The Orthodox belief is that the martyrs are not far away, but interceding for us before the throne of God.


Making Church History Real

For many Protestants, church history has an abstract quality.  Oftentimes, church history is viewed as a source of intellectual data, dates and remote historical figures, not as personal fellowship.  In Orthodoxy, the saints are not far away, but very much with us, even if we cannot see them.  Orthodoxy honors the saints through icons and feast days.  It is one thing to admire the saints after reading about their lives, but it is something quite different to kiss their icons.  Kissing an icon of a saint is an expression of Christian honor, respect and fellowship.  In Hawaii there is the widespread custom of kissing people on the cheek when greeting them.  Among Orthodox Christians it’s a common practice to kiss the hand of the priest as a sign of honor, respect and affection. In light of the American emphasis on egalitarianism, where one person is rarely if ever honored above another, and the stress on individualism, such Orthodox practices often seem not just weird, but offensive. Thankfully, the ancient Church was not so infected by the habits of modernity.

Venerating Saint Nichols’ relics in Moscow 2017 Source

Many Protestants think of Santa Claus as a mythical figure little knowing that there was a real historical Santa Claus – Saint Nicholas, bishop of Myra, who was present at the Council of Nicea (325).  In June 2017, the relics of Saint Nicholas were brought to Russia and some 300,000 people showed up to venerate them.  The Voice of America article quoted a young Russian economist who was among those who venerated the relics:

“It was tough, but you got a chance to think about your life, all the problems and the sins you have committed,” economist Svetlana Dzhuma, 24, said after exiting the cathedral in a state of elation.

Venerating the relics of saints represents one way of connecting with the ancient Church.  It also represents a way of affirming that the final word for humanity is not death, but Jesus Christ who will resurrect our bodies at the Second Coming.


Icon – Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp

The Antiquity of Venerating Relics

The practice of venerating the relics of martyrs is an ancient one.  It was mentioned in the early letter The Martyrdom of Polycarp, which has been dated to mid second century (c. 155 or 166).  Here we see the early Christians drawing a distinction between the worship (προσκυνουμεν) given to Christ and the honor (αγαπωμεν αξιως) given to the saints.

For Him [Jesus Christ] indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples! (Chapter 17)

In the following chapter we have one of the earliest accounts of the veneration of relics.  Bishop Polycarp was sentenced to be burned at the stake by Roman authorities.  Afterwards, the Christians gathered up his remains.

Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps. (Chapter 18)

From this passage we learn also of the early Christian practice of commemoration of the anniversary of a martyr’s death.  What is significant about Polycarp’s martyrdom was how early it was.  The veneration of Polycarp’s relics was not some later addition but part of early Christianity.  The Martyrdom of Polycarp consisted of a letter by one church to another.  This means it was not the personal opinion of one individual but reflects the collective thinking of the early Christians.

It is important to understand that the honoring of the saints and the venerating of their relics, while an integral part of Orthodox Tradition, do not comprise the core of Holy Tradition.  They can be seen as out-workings of the core dogmas of the Christian Faith: the Incarnation, Christ’s saving death on the Cross, and his triumphal third day Resurrection.  The Orthodox understanding is that, because the Son of God took on a human body, our fallen bodies can become redeemed vessels filled with divine life.  Christ’s descent into Hades and his triumphal resurrection means that the faithful departed now stand before the throne of God.  This belief in the unbroken fellowship between the Christians here on earth and those who have passed on is found in the Apostles’ Creed: “communion of the saints.”  What may seem to be foolish superstition or arbitrary tradition to skeptical Protestants have their basis in the deep truths of the Gospel.


Calvin’s Argument Against Relics

John Calvin

Calvin’s critique of relics is found, not in his Institutes, but in an essay: “On the Advantages of an Inventory of Relics.” This essay is a fifty-page rant filled with lurid examples.  It is not the coherent theological argument one would expect from a well-respected theologian of his stature.  There is no denying the rampant corruption, frauds, and abuses in medieval Roman Catholicism. But that still begs the important question about the theological basis for rejecting the veneration of relics.  Calvin’s argument consists of unsupported assertions. He writes:

But the first abuse, and, as it were, beginning of the evil, was, that when Christ ought to have been sought in his Word, sacraments, and spiritual influences, the world, after its wont, clung to his garments, vests, and swaddling-clothes; and thus overlooking the principal matter, followed only its accessory. (p. 289)

He goes on to explain his rejection of venerating relics:

In short, a longing for relics is never free from superstition, nay, what is worse, it is the parent of idolatry, with which it is very generally conjoined. (p. 290)

A more theologically coherent argument against relics can be found in Peter Leithart’s article “Why Protestants Still Protest.”  Leithart, echoing Calvin, argues that icons and relics have no basis in Scripture and that they comprise a veil that distracts people from an encounter with Christ.  What we have here is a succinct summary of Calvin’s position, but what is still lacking is a sustained theological argument.


An Orthodox Response to Calvin

One important difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is Orthodoxy’s belief that physical matter is capable of conveying divine grace.  We believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.  We believe that in the water of baptism our sins are washed away and we are united to Christ’s death and resurrection.  During the sacrament of baptism the priest blesses the water that will be used for the sacrament.  What starts off as ordinary water becomes blessed and sacred means of grace.  A painted image (icon) through prayer becomes a window allowing us to perceive the kingdom of God.

Underlying the Protestant rejection of relics is a metaphysical dualism that assumes a separation between physical matter and divine grace.  The early Gnostic heretics viewed physical matter as inferior and corrupt in comparison to the spiritual.  While not the same, there is within Protestantism a secular worldview that confines God’s grace to the interior world of thought (doctrine) or feeling (spiritual experience) while viewing external ritual as optional and physical matter as neutral or unspiritual.  This secular approach to religion has resulted in a disembodied, intellectualized Christianity.  The experience of personal conversion to Christ has been elevated as the core of Christianity while other elements like Church, the sacraments, the Creed, the Liturgy, and the ordained priesthood are relegated to the status of optional, non-essential aspects of Christianity.  What for the early Christians was an integral package that comprised life in the Church have become in Protestantism broken fragments scattered all over the ground.

The early Christians, on the other hand, in light of the Incarnation and the Resurrection saw physical matter as capable of being sanctified and transformed into means of divine grace.  This Christianized worldview would give rise to the sacraments of the Church, which took the stuff of creation and transformed them into entry ways into the kingdom of God.  This sacramental worldview was the historic Christian worldview shared by all Christians until the Protestant Reformation.

There is within some modern Protestant circles an attempt to return to the sacramental worldview.  Ted Olsen described how N.T. Wright, the widely-respected Anglican theologian, changed his thinking.  In The Way of the Lord (1999) Wright wrote about:

… his slowly turning away from various forms of dualism, to which evangelicalism is particularly prone, and towards a recognition of the sacramental quality of God’s whole created world. … With the incarnation itself being the obvious and supreme example, and the gospel sacraments of baptism and eucharist not far behind, one can learn to discover the presence of God not only in the world, as though by a fortunate accident, but through the world: particularly through those things that speak of Jesus himself, as baptism and the eucharist so clearly do, and as the lives of holy men and women have done. (Emphasis added.)

Apparently, N.T. Wright still holds to the Protestant understanding of the sacraments in which God’s grace is conveyed principally through the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.  However, his insight into the sacramental potential of creation provides a bridge to the Orthodox sacramental worldview in which icons, relics, and other physical stuff sanctified by the name of Christ can become channels of divine grace.  This has biblical support.  We read in the book of Acts how the Apostle Paul’s body became a vessel of divine efficacy.

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them (Acts 19:11-12).

The Apostle Peter’s body likewise demonstrated a similar sacramental grace.

As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. (Acts 5:15)

The notion of miraculous relics and icons might seem farfetched to Protestants, but there is ample support for these supernatural phenomena in Holy Scripture.  There is the account of the woman with the issue of blood who was healed upon touching Jesus’ clothes (Mark 5:28-30).  Her personal faith made her receptive to the divine grace emanating from Jesus’ person while the others who were jostling Jesus were left unaffected.  That Jesus’ clothes conveyed some spiritual power can be seen in Mark’s writing: “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him.” (Mark 5:30)  In the Old Testament, we read how Elijah’s cloak had the power to divide the Jordan River upon contact (2 Kings 2:8).  In 2 Kings 13, we read about how Elisha’s bones had the power to bring a dead man back to life (2 Kings 13:21).  Normally, the bones of a dead person are unclean, but under some circumstances they can become holy objects capable of effecting miracles. Modern Protestants might not be comfortable with such a world, but this is the world of the New Testament, as well as the world Christians inhabited before the Reformation.

A modern-day Protestant might find the notion of a dead person’s bones being holy and grace-filled ludicrous, but Scripture clearly supports it.  Thus, what is puzzling is not the Orthodox veneration of the relics, but rather the Protestant aversion to this practice.  Protestants who reject the Orthodox veneration of relics need to put forward a theologically-coherent and biblically-based argument.  To sum up, where the Orthodox veneration of relics has biblical support and is consistent with the witness of church history, Calvin’s polemical essay comes across as an unhinged, emotional harangue that soon wears on the inquirer looking for solid theological reasoning.  More recent Protestant objections have failed to do any better than Calvin.

The Orthodox practice of praying for the departed and venerating relics of the saints is grounded in the sacredness of our whole humanity (body, soul, and spirit), the power of Christ’s resurrection, and the sacramental understanding of creation, that is, material matter is capable of conveying divine grace.  It reflects an ancient worldview that challenges the secular metaphysics of modernity.  The discomfort felt by Protestants towards the veneration of relics is a sign of the cultural gap between Protestantism and the early Church.  Ted Olsen, in his Christianity Today article “Wrestling With Relics,” wrote: “My own views would have been terribly out of step in the church’s earliest centuries.”  This forces Protestants to choose between Protestantism’s modernity and Orthodoxy’s roots in ancient Christianity,


A Protestant Relic?

Probably the closest thing to a relic in Protestantism is the printed text of the Bible.  There is something neat and soothing about the black ink on thin paper encased in black leather and embellished with gold leaf.  Evangelicals are proud to carry their bibles under their arms into neat church buildings with four bare walls on Sunday mornings and listening to didactic lectures (sermons) about the biblical text.  There is a certain Muggle-like neatness to this worldview.  So it comes as no little surprise when a Protestant stumbles into the enchanted world of Orthodoxy with weird, wild stuff like icons, relics, incense, holy virgins and victorious martyrs they experience feelings of surprise, shock, discomfort, or the joy of having come home at last to the ancient Church.

Robert Arakaki


References and Recommendations

Robert Arakaki.  “Early Evidence for the Veneration of the Saints.” OrthodoxBridge

Robert Arakaki.  “Calvin Versus the Icon.”  OrthodoxBridge

John Calvin.  “On the Advantages of an Inventory of Relics” In Tracts and Treatises of John Calvin (vol. 1 of 3) pp. 289-341 and “Inventory of Relics” www.mongergism .com

Fr. Stephen Freeman.  “Soul Saturday — And Forty Days PlusGlory to God For All Things

Vincent Gabriel.  “Early Christian Worship and the Bones of the Martyrs.” OrthodoChristian.com

Peter Gillquist.  The Physical Side of Being Spiritual.

Peter Leithart.  “Why Protestants Still Protest.” First Things (August 1995)

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Ted Olsen. “Wrestling With Relics.” Christianity Today (February 2009)

Fr. John Whiteford.  “What is the Basis for Venerating Saints’ Relics?OrthoChristian

N.T. Wright.  The Way of the Lord

Video: “A Thousand Years are as One Day.”


Response to James White (1 of 4)

James White – Alpha and Omega Ministries  source


As I listened to James White’s 13 April 2017 podcast “Can a Consistent Eastern Orthodox Christian Be the Bible Answer Man?,” I was struck by the numerous fallacies that so often mar Protestant critiques of Orthodoxy.  The quotes below are organized topically, not chronologically.  The intent here is to promote good reasoning and courteous interaction in Protestant-Orthodox dialogue. Please see my earlier posting: “How NOT to Do Anti-Orthodox Apologetics” for a description of fallacies and faulty reasoning.


Sola Fide and the False Dilemma Fallacy

At the 3:39 mark, James White brings up one of Protestantism’s core doctrines sola fide – justification by grace alone through faith alone.  He insists that the omission of that one word “alone” opens the door to the legalism and works righteousness of Roman Catholicism.  Here we see the conflating of two fallacies: hasty generalization and false equivalence.  Just because Orthodoxy refrains from using “alone,” that does not mean that their reasons are the same as or identical to Roman Catholicism.  First, it must be shown what the Orthodox understanding of salvation actually is.  Second, that doctrine must be compared with the Roman Catholic understanding to see if they are identical. They are not — as any historic theological investigator without an axe to grind will quickly see.  By casting the question in terms of Protestantism versus Roman Catholicism, Mr. White presents the listener with a false dilemma.  This is the fallacy where something is presented as an either-or situation, when in fact there is one additional option.

At the 33:42 mark, we hear the recording of Hank Hanegraaff reciting the Nicene Creed.  At the 35:15 mark we hear the line: “Who for us and our salvation descended from heaven. . . .”  At that point, Mr. White interjects:

Flesh it out!  They didn’t at that point.  That’s why it isn’t sufficient.  If you say that’s the basis for mere Christianity then there’s no place for the Gospel.

For James White, because the Fathers at the Council of Nicea failed to articulate sola fide the Nicene Creed is theologically insufficient. Here he passes judgment on the universal confession of the Early Church! By what standards? By that of the sixteenth century Reformation?!?!

At the 1:10:05 mark, Hank Hanegraaff is heard saying that he has been saved “by grace alone through faith.”  Here James White leans eagerly on the edge of his chair then theatrically slumps in disappointment when he does not hear the word “alone.” He notes:

This is purposeful folks.  This is not “through grace alone by faith alone.”  “Through grace alone by faith” that is . . . that’s not even . . . he’s accurately dealt with James 2 in the past.  This is Eastern Orthodoxy speaking.  This is a knowing, unwillingness to affirm the language of sola fide (1:10:35).

False Dilemma Fallacy   Source

When James White (or anyone else) asserts: “there’s no place for the Gospel,” he commits the false dilemma fallacy presenting the listener with a stark black-and-white choice between salvation and damnation. When Mr. White insists that the Gospel be understood in terms of “justification by faith alone,” he makes the false equivalence fallacy.  Sola fide here is presented as the untouchable touchstone for true Christianity.  It may be for Protestants, but did any of the Church Fathers make a similar assertion? Was sola fide part of the historic Christian Faith?

In Protestant-Orthodox dialogue sola fide must be proven from Scripture, not just from the biblical text but from the way the text has been understood historically.  It should be kept in mind that Protestant Reformer John Calvin had no qualms about citing the Church Fathers.  Calvin was not a simple-minded Fundamentalist.  It must be shown how the doctrine “salvation through grace alone by faith alone” is the core meaning of what Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6-9.  At 1:45:48-1:46:01, James White interjects:

And wouldn’t you say that in light of Galatians chapter 1 that justification is one of those dividing lines? . . . . It’s right there: “Let him be anathema.”  False brethren.  You can actually make an argument. ??  There’s stronger evidence that that was an apostolic dividing line.

False Analogy – Apple vs. Orange

Protestants often fall into the false analogy fallacy when they assume that Paul’s argument with the Judaizers about the Jewish Torah in first century Asia Minor is the same as the Protestant-Catholic controversy over earning merits in sixteenth-century Europe.  While there are overlaps in terminology, the issues and contents of the two debates are significantly different.

Noted Anglican biblical scholar NT Wright has written and spoken about how the Protestant Reformers have misread or misunderstood Paul.  See R. Alan Strett’s interview with NT Wright in Criswell Theological Review.

See Seraphim Hamilton’s “Those Whom He Justified He Glorified: Paul’s Argument in Romans 1:17-3:31.” On Behalf of All.

These articles show how Mr. White’s false dilemma of Protestant versus Roman Catholic understanding of justification by faith oversimplifies the theological issues within Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians.  He compounds the confusion through the false equivalence fallacy: Orthodoxy = Roman Catholicism.

In closing, Orthodoxy must be treated by Protestants as a faith tradition distinct and separate from Roman Catholicism.  While they have much in common, they also diverge significantly. Furthermore, Protestants cannot take sola fide (justification by faith alone) for granted in Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. Does the phrase “faith alone” appear in the Bible?  Where?  Did the early Church Fathers universally teach justification by faith alone? One cannot cherry pick the Church Fathers. To persuade the Orthodox, Protestant apologists need to show that justification by faith alone was part of early Christianity, not a sixteenth century doctrinal innovation.  As they dialogue with the Orthodox, Reformed Christians and other Protestants need to be open to the historic Christian Faith as understood by the Orthodox.  Let’s have a frank and friendly dialogue!

Robert Arakaki



How NOT to Do Anti-Orthodox Apologetics


Towards Better Protestant-Orthodox Dialogue

Hank Hanegraaff’s recent conversion to Orthodoxy has stirred up quite a reaction, most notably among Protestants.  It is not surprising that Protestants would criticize Orthodoxy.  However, what is dismaying is the poor logic employed in their critique of Orthodoxy.  Below are some examples of the poor reasoning often found in Protestant critiques of Orthodoxy.  The aim here is not to defend Mr. Hanegraaff, but rather to point out some clumsy attempts at anti-Orthodox apologia in hopes of promoting better Protestant-Orthodox dialogue.

1.  Hasty Generalizations – Oftentimes general conclusions are made based on insufficient or biased evidence.  A good example is this comment: “Oh, you Orthodox light candles!  Roman Catholics light candles too.  That means Orthodoxy is like Roman Catholicism.”  She took one little act of devotion and expanded it into a whole religious system!

2.  False Equivalence or Faulty Analogy — One mistake Protestants often make is equating Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, for example: “Orthodoxy is Roman Catholicism without the Pope.”  Protestants seeing similarities between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, assume both to have identical doctrines, so they apply the standard Protestant arguments against Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.  There are differences in the way Orthodoxy does theology, approach worship, understands salvation in Christ, and understands the Virgin Mary, compared to Roman Catholicism.  Arguments that apply to Roman Catholicism may not necessarily be appropriate for Orthodoxy.

3.  External Expectations – Many Protestants complain: “Where’s the sermon?  Why do we have to stand? Why does the priest have to go behind that wall of pictures?  Why do they have incense and candles?”  Behind the complaints that Orthodoxy is not like Protestantism, is the assumption that it ought to do things like Protestants.  But why should Orthodoxy conform to Protestantism?  What makes Protestantism the benchmark?  Shouldn’t Scripture be the benchmark?  Visiting an Orthodox church service is like visiting a foreign land.  Protestant visitors should have the mindset of a tourist open to learning something new, and not expecting things to be like back home.

A more subtle form of the external expectations fallacy is for the apologist to compare Orthodoxy’s beliefs and practices with that of Protestantism.  They will bring up things that will disconcert their Protestant audience like the veneration of icons, Holy Tradition, Mary as the Theotokos, theosis, etc.  The unspoken assumption is that the benchmark for evaluating Orthodoxy is Protestantism.  But shouldn’t Scripture be the benchmark for both Orthodoxy and Protestantism?  Is it not possible that Orthodoxy has a better reading of Scripture?  There needs to be a discussion about the biblical basis for both traditions.

Another unrealistic expectation is that Orthodox theology ought to have an elaborate articulation like the Reformed tradition’s Westminster Confession.  This desire for theological precision reflects Protestantism’s roots in Medieval Scholasticism.

4.    Critiques Based on Emotions – A Protestant visitor to an Orthodox service might complain about how the chanting sounds weird or that the smell of incense makes their nose itch.  It’s okay to voice one’s personal discomfort but more important is an assessment based on Scripture.  The Protestant visitor might ask himself: “What does the Bible say about sitting down in pews for Sunday worship, or giving a sermon at every Sunday service, or about the use of incense in worship?”

5.    False Dichotomy/Excluded Middle – When it comes to Protestantism’s core doctrine sola fide (justification by faith alone), Protestant apologists frequently take the stance: “If you don’t believe in sola fide, then that means you believe in salvation by works like the Roman Catholics do.” On that basis, they then apply the standard Protestant polemic against Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.  However, Orthodoxy’s understanding of salvation differs from both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  For example, Orthodoxy believes faith without works is dead faith, and that our salvation in Christ demands synergy between God and humans. Yet Orthodox do not believe good works merit salvation in any way. The Bible presents salvation in a number of different ways.  The Protestant tradition tends to restrict salvation almost exclusively to forensic justification.  Besides justification, Orthodoxy teaches union with Christ, imitating Christ, the healing of the soul, enlightenment, our transformation into the likeness of Christ.

Historically, terms like “Christian” and “Christianity” were defined along the lines of Christology. Then in the 1500s being a Christian was fused with Luther’s sola fide and the terms underwent a distinctive Protestant re-definition. The premise here is that unless your church group holds to the doctrine of salvation “by grace alone through faith alone” you are not a true Christian and that you are part of a heretical sect. The problem with this Protestant dichotomy is Orthodoxy’s ancient and historic understanding of faith, works, and salvation, predates and differs significantly from both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.

6.    Loaded or Pejorative Terms – This is using words that are loaded with emotions.  They can be scare words like “heresy,” “idolatry,” or “dead religion,” or comfort words like “common sense,” or feel good words like “powerful truths” or “bible-based.”   Much of Orthodoxy will be foreign to Protestants so it is important that they define terms like: “dead worship” or “institutional religion” to their Orthodox friends and ask if they agree with their impression.  The definition should allow for empirical verification and be applicable to both sides.

When Protestants refer to sola fide as a “fundamental belief,” they are using power words, words loaded with positive emotions.  However, what may be fundamental for you may not be fundamental for the historic Church.   A historical analysis of a doctrine’s importance and how widely it was embraced can help us determine whether it is a universally held dogma or a deviant, minority opinion.

On the reverse side, Protestants often have strong emotional reactions to words commonly used among Orthodox.  They bristle at Orthodoxy’s claim to being the “true Church” and conclude that this is a sign of arrogance or it being a cult.  Other words that may provoke strong reactions are: “synergy,” “Tradition,” “theosis,” “Eucharist,” etc.  The key here is being aware of strong emotions that can derail Protestant-Orthodox dialogue.  One can give voice to one’s emotion by saying: “I get very concerned or I feel alarmed when I hear Orthodox say this ‘word.’”  Putting one’s feelings out on the table help clear the air contributing to friendly and frank Reformed-Orthodox dialogue.

Talking Past Each Other

7.    Semantic equivalent fallacy – This frequently occurs when two parties understand the same term in quite different ways resulting in their talking past each other.  The term sola scriptura has often been understood in more ways than one.  Keith Mathison in The Shape of Sola Scriptura has done a tremendous service with the distinguishing between the classic Reformation sola scriptura which allows for creeds, church fathers, and reason to inform our reading of Scripture, and the later solo scriptura which eschews them.  Many Evangelicals, not knowing classical Reformation theology, think they are defending sola scriptura when they are actually defending solo scriptura which emerged in the 1800s. Some Protestants will introduce the phrase “prima scriptura” (scripture first). While it sounds like a kinder and gentler version of sola scriptura, it can lead to considerable ambiguity and confusion.  Unless it can be differentiated from the classic Protestant sola scriptura, it is best avoided.

The semantic equivalent fallacy often occurs when Protestants hear Orthodox Christians speak of Tradition and assume it refers to Roman Catholic practices like: indulgences, statues of Mary, Christmas trees, or rosaries.  A similar problem occurs when Protestants read Jesus’ criticism of the tradition of the Jews in Matthew 15 and apply it to Tradition held by Orthodoxy.  Just because the word “tradition” occurs in two different contexts does not necessarily mean they refer to the same thing. Sadly, many Protestants don’t understand Holy Scripture uses the word Tradition in several very different ways — or that Protestant bible translators often don’t make this clear.

Sometimes Protestant apologists will point out the Orthodox belief in deification (theosis) and mention that Mormons likewise believe in theosis.  What we have here is the conflating of the semantic equivalent fallacy with the red herring fallacy.  While they may both use the same word, the two groups have very different meanings for the word.  In the red herring fallacy, one “wins” a debate or scores points by leading attention away from the argument to another topic.

Terminological Illiteracy — A related problem is Protestant ignorance of Orthodox terms.  Some will give you a blank look if you say: “Eucharist,” “Liturgy,” “Creed,” or “Ecumenical Council.”  Before a serious dialogue can begin, both sides must be aware of each other’s terminology and reference points. Thankfully, the recent influx of Protestant converts means that Orthodoxy has “bi-lingual” members who can present Orthodoxy knowledgably to Protestants.

8.    Anachronism – This fallacy usually refers to an idea, event, or person being misplaced in time.  One example is the assumption that sola fide and sola scriptura were part of the early Church, instead of Protestant doctrines that emerged in the 1500s.  Another example is the assumption that the meaning of theological terms remains static over time.  For example, the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura have shifted over time.  Therefore, in a dialogue it is often important to mark whether one is using the original meaning or a later understanding of the term.

A related historical error is to assume that the Orthodox Church’s claim to be the same Church as the early Church means that there have been no change in its worship, structure, or theology, and that historical change would invalidate its claims.  Here the outward forms are confused with internal meaning.  For example, while the Liturgy underwent development in the early centuries the Church held fast to the real presence in the Eucharist. Orthodoxy has held steadfastly to this understanding, while much of Protestantism has jettisoned this fundamental belief.

Personal Attack

9.    Focusing on moral failings is a form of ad hominem fallacy where one attacks the person, not their argument.  A more subtle form is to infer shady motives or emotional disorder in someone’s conversion to Orthodoxy.  Related to this is the poisoning the well fallacy.  Here irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience for the purpose of discrediting anything they might say.  These tactics detract from the important task of discussing beliefs and practices in a respectful manner, and for both sides to present evidence for their positions.

Mishandling Sources

10.    Cherry picking Orthodox sources – In every religious tradition are nominal members who know very little about their faith.  And, there are people who left the faith, became enmeshed in scandal, or tragically took their lives.  Using them as sources or examples is not appropriate.  It is better to focus on what the Protestant and Orthodox traditions teach than to focus on the dirty laundry.

11.    Cherry picking the early Church Fathers – Oftentimes Protestant apologists will mention idiosyncratic opinions like Irenaeus of Lyons’ belief that Jesus lived to be 50, Epiphanius of Salamis ripping down the curtain with the image of Christ, or the Synod of Elvira with its supposedly iconoclastic ruling. Important to Orthodoxy is the patristic consensus.  It is this consensus that helps us understand what constitutes the historic Christian Faith or capital “T” Tradition.  For example, the Church Fathers universally affirmed the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, Mary as the Theotokos, the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and the Christian Faith as something “handed down” from the Apostles.

12.    Proof texting the Church Fathers – Oftentimes a Protestant apologist will present a quote from an early Church Father that appears to support Protestantism’s doctrine of sola scriptura or sola fide. Many times they fail to give important information about the source like title, chapter and section number, or page number.  This leaves the inquirer at a disadvantage unable to independently verify the citation. Oftentimes an examination of the citation will show that the passage was taken out of context or an idiosyncratic opinion of that one person.

Protestant Premises

13.    Protestantism is Infallible – Oftentimes the apologist has the attitude that core Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura or sola fide must not be questioned.  Furthermore, they insist these must be used as the starting point for dialogue.  This inflexible, unquestioning attitude brings a chill to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue.  Treating sola scriptura and sola fide as axioms or unquestioned premises can work within Protestant circles, but not in Protestant-Orthodox dialogue.  In such dialogues, the starting point must be Scripture.  The discussion of Scripture needs to be flexible, allowing for diverse approaches to reading Scripture.  Doctrines like sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia are all end points, that is, the result after studying Scripture.  To impose axiomatic premises like sola scriptura is a form of rigging the game in favor of Protestantism.  A subtle form of rigging the game takes place when the Protestant asks: “Where does it say that in the Bible?”  The Orthodox believer needs to keep in mind that while much of what Orthodoxy comes from the Bible; a lot of it is based on oral Apostolic Tradition.  In a Protestant-Orthodox dialogue it is important that the Orthodox Christians be knowledgeable about the Bible and the teachings of the Church.

14.    Protestantism has no tradition – Many Protestants are unaware that they interpret the Bible within a particular theological tradition.  Each and every religious group has a history, and this history gives the group a shared identity which informs the way they understand the Bible.  A Presbyterian might hold to infant baptism while his Baptist counterpart would vehemently disagree insisting that the Bible teaches adult baptism by total immersion.  W. Bradford Littlejohn’s The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity describes two competing understandings of the Lord’s Supper within the Reformed tradition.  It is important that both sides be able to discuss the history of their respective beliefs and practices.

Last Words of Advice

The differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy are not minor or trivial.  This fact cannot be glossed over, but neither should it be exacerbated.  We have much in common: the Bible as the divinely inspired and authoritative word of God, belief in Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man, his saving death on the Cross and his third day Resurrection, the Trinity, and Christ’s Second Coming. All these provide common ground for fruitful and mutually edifying discussions.  Protestant-Orthodox dialogue will not be easy, but it can be deeply rewarding.

My advice to Protestant apologists is: “Do your homework.  One common failing I’ve noticed in Protestant anti-Orthodox apologetics is they don’t do their homework. Another common failing is not being aware of how their anti-Catholic prejudices have shaped their theology.  A third failing is not being aware that new apologias have emerged on the Orthodox side.  This means that old arguments against Orthodoxy may no longer be valid.  It is all the more imperative that Protestant apologists do their homework. If one does not have the time or inclination to do the homework, then one should maintain a respectful silence.”

Let us be mindful of Apostle Paul’s words:

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians4:6)

Robert Arakaki



Drake’s List of the Most Common Logical Fallacies
List of Fallacies” Wikipedia
Peter E. Gillquist.  1989.  Becoming Orthodox.  Rev. 1992.
Robert Letham.  2010.  Through Western Eyes.
W. Bradford Littlejohn.  2009.  The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity.
Robert Arakaki. 2011.  “Book Review: The Shape of Sola Sctriptura.” OrthodoxBridge.
Keith A. Mathison.  2001.  The Shape of Sola Scriptura.
James R. Payton.  2007.  Light from the Christian East.
Kallistos (Timothy) Ware.  1963.  The Orthodox Church.  2nd ed.


« Older posts Newer posts »