Is Eastern Orthodoxy Orthodox? A Theological Examination from a Protestant Perspective

Is Eastern Orthodoxy Orthodox? A Theological Examination from a Protestant Perspective

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction 

The question of whether Eastern Orthodoxy represents a truly orthodox form of the Christian faith is not merely terminological but doctrinally decisive. For evangelicals committed to sola scriptura and the gospel of sola fide, the matter turns on whether Orthodoxy faithfully preserves the apostolic message or, like Roman Catholicism, introduces ecclesiastical traditions that obscure or distort it. While Protestants have long critiqued Rome for its dogmas concerning the papacy, indulgences, and sacramental theology, Eastern Orthodoxy often escapes similar scrutiny due to its historical mystique and liturgical reverence. However, its rise in popularity—especially among disenchanted evangelicals seeking an ancient and contemplative expression of faith—necessitates a careful theological evaluation. This essay contends that Eastern Orthodoxy, for all its antiquity and external beauty, deviates from the gospel by subordinating Scripture to tradition, redefining justification and atonement, and embracing anthropological and soteriological doctrines that are incompatible with biblical revelation.

The Authority of Scripture Versus the Authority of Tradition

The foremost point of divergence is the locus of authority. Protestantism holds unequivocally to the sufficiency and finality of Scripture: “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, LSB). The Reformers maintained that Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) is the ultimate norm for faith and practice—norma normans non normata. Eastern Orthodoxy, however, affirms a co-authority between Scripture and Tradition, the latter encompassing patristic writings, conciliar decrees, liturgical texts, and ecclesial customs.

This position stands in tension with Christ’s own rebuke of religious traditionalism: “You invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt 15:6). While Orthodox theologians argue that Tradition is the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching, the Protestant concern lies in the functional eclipse of Scripture’s clarity and sufficiency. As a result, biblical interpretation becomes dependent upon ecclesial mediation rather than the Spirit-enabled reading of the Word (1 Cor 2:12–13). The elevation of tradition to an authoritative status introduces an epistemological dualism foreign to the apostolic pattern, thus eroding the perspicuity and normativity of Scripture.

The Canon of Scripture and the Expansion of Revelation

Closely tied to the question of authority is the canon of Scripture. The Orthodox Church recognizes a broader Old Testament canon than that affirmed by Protestants, incorporating additional books such as 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, and Psalm 151. These writings, though valuable as historical or devotional texts, were never recognized in the Hebrew Bible, which Jesus referred to in Luke 24:44: “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms,” the threefold division of the Jewish canon. The expansion of the canon undermines the self-contained unity of divine revelation and introduces teachings that may obscure, rather than illuminate, the gospel message.

Justification by Faith: The Heart of the Gospel

Perhaps the most significant soteriological divide concerns the doctrine of justification. The Apostle Paul declares unequivocally, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Rom 3:28). Protestant theology, in continuity with the Reformers, affirms that justification is a forensic declaration of righteousness received through faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Eastern Orthodoxy, however, rejects the legal framework of justification and embraces a synergistic model in which divine grace and human effort cooperate in salvation. This view resonates more with semi-Pelagianism than with Pauline soteriology.

Ephesians 2:8–9 likewise states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast." Orthodoxy’s rejection of imputed righteousness—replacing it with an ontological participation in divine life—blurs the distinction between justification and sanctification, resulting in a gradualist view that lacks assurance and shifts the focus from Christ’s sufficiency to human performance. Such a view stands condemned by Paul’s argument in Romans 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

Atonement and the Rejection of Penal Substitution

The doctrine of the atonement is another critical locus of theological divergence. Protestantism, drawing from passages such as Isaiah 53:5–6, Romans 3:25, and 2 Corinthians 5:21, affirms penal substitutionary atonement—that Christ bore the penalty for sin, satisfying divine justice. “But Yahweh was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief… if You would place His soul as a guilt offering…” (Isa 53:10). Orthodoxy, by contrast, generally denies penal substitution, preferring a Christus Victor or therapeutic model, in which Christ’s death is seen as overcoming death and corruption rather than satisfying justice.

While victory over death is undoubtedly a biblical motif (cf. 1 Cor 15:55–57), the neglect of penal substitution marginalizes the cross as a judicial satisfaction for sin. Hebrews 10:14 declares, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." Without substitution, the gravity of sin and the necessity of propitiation are diminished, and the gospel is reduced to a moral or metaphysical process rather than a declarative act of divine mercy.

Anthropology and Hamartiology: Original Sin and Theosis

Orthodox anthropology diverges sharply from the Augustinian tradition embraced by the majority of Protestantism. The Eastern conception of original sin denies the imputation of Adamic guilt, viewing sin primarily as mortality and corruption rather than guilt and total depravity. This position undermines Paul’s teaching: “Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men” (Rom 5:18). The denial of inherited guilt implicitly affirms the capacity of human will to cooperate with grace, which synergism the Reformers rightly identified as semi-Pelagianism.

Moreover, the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, understood as participation in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), while having a biblical warrant in its proper context, is often articulated in ways that blur the Creator-creature distinction. While Protestants affirm sanctification and glorification as the telos of salvation, the assertion that believers become “gods by grace” can easily slip into ontological confusion unless guarded by careful Trinitarian and Christological boundaries.

Veneration of Icons, Mary, and the Saints

Eastern Orthodoxy maintains the veneration (proskynesis) of icons, relics, and saints, including fervent Marian devotion. Although defenders of the practice argue that veneration is distinct from worship (latreia), the practical expressions often mirror acts of religious devotion that Scripture reserves for God alone. The second commandment remains a perennial concern: “You shall not make for yourself an idol… You shall not worship them or serve them…” (Ex 20:4–5). Moreover, prayers directed to Mary and the saints functionally undermine the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul asserts unequivocally: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5, emphasis added).

Orthodoxy affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity, venerating her as Theotokos and Panagia (“All-Holy”), yet it does not dogmatize her sinlessness as Roman Catholicism does. Orthodox theology, rejecting the doctrine of original guilt, holds that Mary inherited mortality but does not formally declare her to be without personal sin. While highly exalted in liturgical language, she is not placed above humanity ontologically in the way Catholic Marian dogmas do. Nevertheless, Protestant theology maintains that any form of devotional practice that assigns mediatorial functions or spiritual intercession to Mary or the saints lacks explicit biblical warrant and detracts from the unique priesthood of Christ.

Sacraments, Priesthood, and Ecclesial Hierarchy

Orthodoxy’s sacramental theology conceives of the sacraments not merely as signs but as instruments of grace. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, particularly in infants, and the understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering perpetuate sacerdotalist notions that contradict the once-for-all nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Hebrews 10:14 declares, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."

Additionally, the Orthodox maintenance of a distinct ministerial priesthood reflects an Old Covenant model that the New Covenant transcends. The New Testament teaches that all believers share in a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9), with no sacerdotal class mediating grace through ritual. The perpetuation of a sacramental priesthood undermines the priesthood of all believers and reintroduces ecclesiastical mediation that the gospel has abolished.

Eschatological Ambiguities: Universalism and the Toll-House Doctrine

A further concern arises in Eastern Orthodox eschatology. Some Orthodox theologians, such as Sergius Bulgakov and Kallistos Ware, have speculated about the possibility of universal salvation. While not dogmatically affirmed, such views are often tolerated, creating ambiguity regarding the final state of the wicked. Yet Scripture teaches plainly: “He who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). “It is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). Doctrinal tolerance of universalism undermines the urgency of repentance, the exclusivity of saving faith, and the reality of eternal conscious punishment for the impenitent.

Additionally, the Orthodox Toll-House doctrine posits that the soul undergoes a postmortem journey through a series of aerial checkpoints where demons accuse it of sins. Although not universally affirmed within Orthodoxy, this teaching is prominent in certain traditions and hagiographies. It lacks any exegetical foundation and introduces a form of post-death purgation inconsistent with biblical teaching. The Apostle Paul assures believers that “to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8) is the immediate hope of the redeemed, not a prolonged ordeal. The toll-house theory thus reflects the dangers of extrabiblical speculation in eschatology and fosters fear rather than gospel assurance.

Conclusion: The Standard of Orthodoxy is the Gospel

Evangelical Protestants must evaluate all theological systems by the norm of Scripture. Though Eastern Orthodoxy preserves elements of the early church and offers a rich liturgical heritage, its theological departures—particularly in matters of authority, justification, atonement, and anthropology—constitute serious deviations from the biblical gospel. The gospel proclaims that sinners are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. Any system that obscures or displaces these truths must be rejected.

Thus, while Christians may respect the historical witness of Eastern Orthodoxy, we cannot regard it as fully orthodox in the biblical and evangelical sense. “The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments is everlasting” (Ps 119:160). True orthodoxy is not defined by antiquity, continuity, or aesthetics, but by fidelity to the Word of God. As such, the church must remain semper reformanda, always reforming according to Scripture.

Further Study

Print Resources 

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Bradshaw, David. “The Concept of the Divine Energies.” Philosophy and Theology 18.1 (2006): 111–128.

Breck, John. Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and Its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2001.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960.

Clendenin, Daniel B. Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Fairbairn, Donald. Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Florovsky, Georges. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing, 1972.

Geisler, Norman L., and Joshua M. Betancourt. Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.

Gillquist, Peter E. Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1992.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Hall, Christopher A. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002.

Horton, Michael S. “An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern Orthodoxy.” In Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, edited by James J. Stamoolis, 101–34. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Khomiakov, Aleksei S. The Church Is One. Translated by W. J. Birkbeck. London: Rivingtons, 1898.

Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Letham, Robert. Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy; A Reformed Perspective. Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2007.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1976.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.

Payton, James R., Jr. Light from the Christian East: A Critical Engagement with Orthodox Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974.

Schooping, Joshua. Disillusioned: Why I Left the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood and Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020.

Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992.

Ware, Kallistos (Timothy). The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 1993.

White, James R. The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.

Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

On-line Resources 

Carpenter, John B. “Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists Regarding Icons.” Themelios 42.2 (July 2017). The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/.

Clendenin, Daniel B. “Why I’m Not Orthodox.” Christianity Today, May 31, 1997. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/may/why-im-not-orthodox.html.

“CEO, Shrink, or Man of God? Part 2.” Desiring God, October 6, 1991. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/ceo-shrink-or-man-of-god-part-2.

“Critiquing Christian Universalism as Presented by David Bentley Hart.” Themelios 49.1 (April 2024). The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-devil-is-not-a-christian-critiquing-christian-universalism-as-presented-by-david-bentley-hart/.

“Encounters with Orthodoxy: How Protestant Churches Can Reform Themselves.” Themelios 39.3 (October 2014). The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/encounters-with-orthodoxy-how-protestant-churches-can-reform-themselves/.

“Father, Son, and Controversy.” Desiring God, March 12, 2019. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/father-son-and-controversy.

Short, Jeff. “A Friendly Critique of Eastern Orthodoxy – Three Erroneous Beliefs.” Jeff Short’s Weblog, September 19, 2012. https://jeffshort.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/a-friendly-critique-of-eastern-orthodoxy-three-erroneous-beliefs/.

Taylor, Justin. “The Heresy of Orthodoxy.” The Gospel Coalition, January 11, 2010. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy/.

“What Is Eastern Orthodoxy? A Reformed Perspective and Response.” Desiring God, December 6, 2022. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-eastern-orthodoxy.

Wax, Trevin. “John’s Story: Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism.” The Gospel Coalition, March 3, 2007. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/johns-story-why-i-left-eastern-orthodoxy-for-evangelicalism/.

“Why Evangelicals Need Theological Retrieval.” The Gospel Coalition, October 28, 2019. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/evangelicals-theological-retrieval/.

“A Biblical Theologian Reviews Gerald Bray’s Systematic Theology.” Themelios 38.2 (July 2013). The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/a-biblical-theologian-reviews-gerald-brays-systematic-theology/.