Orthodox Arguments Against Evangelical Church Claims
Orthodox Critiques of Evangelical Church Claims
The Orthodox Church has historically critiqued Evangelical churches on several grounds, including their understanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments, and authority. One key area of contention is the Evangelical rejection of certain traditional practices and doctrines that Orthodox Christians consider essential to the faith.
According to John Calvin, a foundational figure in Reformed theology, the Roman Catholic Church (from which both Orthodox and Protestant churches emerged) had become corrupt and was no longer a true Church in many respects [4]. Calvin argued that the true Church is characterized by the ministry of the Word and the proper administration of sacraments, which he believed were lacking in the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Orthodox Church, which also broke with Rome, maintained a different view, emphasizing the importance of tradition and the continuity of the Church.
The Orthodox critique of Evangelical churches often centers on the issue of apostolic succession and the validity of sacraments. Orthodox Christians believe that their churches have maintained an unbroken line of apostolic succession, which they see as essential for the validity of sacraments such as the Eucharist [2]. In contrast, Evangelical churches, which emerged from the Protestant Reformation, generally reject the idea of apostolic succession as a necessary condition for church authority.
Charles Hodge, one theologian, argued that the Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility is contradicted by historical facts, as the Church has often erred [5]. Similarly, the Orthodox Church has faced criticisms regarding its own claims to authority and infallibility. However, the Orthodox Church grounds its authority in the consensus of the early Church Fathers and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, rather than in a single institutional authority.
The early Church Fathers played a significant role in shaping the theology and practices of both the Orthodox and Protestant traditions. For example, Tertullian and Origen used prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures to argue for the truth of Christianity against Jewish and pagan critics [1]. The Fathers also emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the faith against various heresies.
One of the key differences between Orthodox and Evangelical churches lies in their understanding of sacraments. The Orthodox Church recognizes seven sacraments, including baptism and the Eucharist, which are considered essential for salvation. Thomas Aquinas, a scholastic theologian, argued that the sacraments are instrumental in conveying divine grace to believers [3]. In contrast, many Evangelical churches recognize only two or three sacraments, and often understand them in a more symbolic or memorial sense.
The issue of sacramental validity is closely tied to the question of church authority. According to Aquinas, the sacraments are valid only when administered by a properly ordained priest within the context of the Church [2]. The Orthodox Church shares this view, emphasizing the importance of apostolic succession in ensuring the validity of sacraments. Evangelical churches, on the other hand, often reject this view, arguing that the sacraments are valid when administered by a believer with the proper faith and intention.
The patristic tradition is also relevant to the discussion of church authority and sacraments. The early Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the faith and rejecting heretical teachings [6]. The Orthodox Church sees itself as continuing this tradition, while Evangelical churches often emphasize the authority of Scripture alone.
Sources
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XXVIII.: And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ's life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves, and after admitting the probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use which they make of them may be overturned.[1] For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume so”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine, Art. 8: Article: Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument? I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, i”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Way in Which Christ Is in This Sacrament, Art. 8: Article: Whether Christ's body is truly there when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament? I answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when to one person it is seen under the species o”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 84: 2304 CHAPTER 2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FALSE CHURCH AND THE TRUE. The divisions of the chapter are,—I. Description of a spurious Church, resembling the Papacy vaunting of personal succession, of which a refutation is subjoined. sec. 1-4. II. An answer, in name of the orthodox Churches, to the Popish accusations of heresy and schism. A description of the Churches existing at present under the Papacy. Sections . 1. Recapitulation of the matters treated in the previous chapter. Substance of the present chapter—viz. Where lying and fal”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 38: that she has never been penfectly holy. Christ no more promised the one than the other. F. The Doctrine contradicted by Facts. The fourth argument is that the Romish doctrine of the infallibility of the Church is contradicted by undeniable historical facts. It therefore cannot be true. The Church has often erred, and therefore it is not infallible. Protestants believe that the Church, under all dispensations, has been the same. It has always had the same God; the same Redeemer; the same rule of faith and practice (the written Word of God,”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 2: Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria — ELUCIDATIONS. (part 8): to speak of the body of Jesus as a phantasm, and the grosset blasphemies of Marcion and Valentinus, equally destructive to the Christ of the Gospel.(1) He overturns the whims of these latter deceivers, about Adam's society with his wife, and concludes that our Lord's assumption of the flesh of His mother, was a sufficient corroboration of that divine law by which the generations of mankind are continued. XVI. (See p, 402, note 8..) From all which Clement concludes that his two classes of heretic”