DISCERNING THE ORIGINAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
(copyright Jon Jacobson , last revised 7 August 2002)

1. The Importance of the Gospel

At their core, authentic Christians must be evangelical, for the Gospel (good news) of salvation in Jesus Christ is at the heart of the historic Christian message. While some people may value the Church for cultural or political reasons, the fact is that Christ established the Church for the salvation of sinners from the gates of death (Matt.16:18), to continue His mission of seeking and saving those who are lost (Luke 19:10). As C.S. Lewis once noted, we may admire a church for its majestic architecture or beautiful liturgy, but the final measure of the success of a church is: Does this institution lead to people becoming like Jesus Christ through their union with Him? At the heart of the Church’s teaching is the Good News of what the Creator of the universe has done "for us and for our salvation" (cf. the Nicene Creed), to bring us into fellowship with God the Father, through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ the Son of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 2:18).

2. The True Gospel is the Original Gospel

The original Gospel is the true Gospel--it is the "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3, NASB-U here and unless noted) that was believed from the beginning, and handed down to us through the Apostles:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:1-8)

The Apostle Paul notes here that he was not the originator or developer of the Gospel, but only its guardian, he himself having received the same tradition that was passed on before him by the first eyewitnesses of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was for this reason that he could urge the Church at Thessalonians to remain rooted in the Apostolic traditions passed along either by word of mouth or in writing:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess. 2:15)

The authority of the Gospel exceeds the personal authority of the Apostles who proclaimed it, indeed the authority of any angel or saint. St. Paul makes this point perfectly clear in his rebuke of the Galatians:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed [ anathema]! (Gal. 1:6-9)

For the Church at Galatia, the false gospel advocated by some was a distortion of the true Gospel, inasmuch as it introduced a false fear: the fear that "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) This false teaching undermined the truth that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." (Gal. 5:6) The early Church considered anyone who proclaimed a different Gospel than the original one to be anathema and would not share Communion with such people, even if they were professing Christians.

3. The Example of the Gnostic Christian Heresy

Gnosticism was the most prominent heresy faced by the Church in the 1st through 3rd Centuries, A.D. While quite diverse theologically, Gnostic teachers generally denied the reality of the Incarnation of God the Son, believing that the spiritual and physical worlds were fundamentally separate, and that the divine Logos did not become truly human and suffer and die for our salvation. Gnostics also rejected the idea of the physical resurrection, whether of Christ or of those who believe in Him. Because the Incarnation is at the heart of the Gospel, the Apostle John teaches his spiritual children to avoid common worship with Gnostics and other professing Christians who, in the name of theological "progress", departs from the Orthodox understanding of Christ:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (2 John 7-11)

The Gnostics' false teaching in one area led to false teaching in other areas. Because they considered salvation to be independent of physical things, Gnostics sometimes advocated an extreme asceticism denying the goodness of creation:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:1-5)

At other times Gnostic teachers advocated an antinomianism that viewed sexual behavior as irrelevant for salvation, because the spiritual was believed to be separate from the physical. The Apostle Paul rejects such dualism in His teaching on honoring God with one's body:

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food," but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "The two shall become one flesh" [Gen. 2:24] But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:12-20)

False teaching regarding God and Christ--that is, false theology and Christology--will usually lead to false teaching regarding man--that is, false anthropology and morality--precisely because man was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-28). This rule continues to hold today, where churches that argue against the Church’s traditional "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" language for the Trinity frequently fall into serious errors in matters of morality, rejecting the concept of masculine headship in marriage and the Church as oppressive, and insisting that the union of two persons of the same sex is equivalent to the union of a husband and wife. Likewise, it is precisely those Christian churches that refuse to confess that the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived God the Son in her womb that also refuse to condemn the killing, by means of abortion, of unborn children created in the image of God.

4. Distinguishing Between Novel Teachings and New Formulations of the True Teaching

It is important to distinguish between novel teachings that alter the substance of the one Gospel, and legitimate developments in the formulation of Christian doctrine (like the Nicene Creed’s confession that Christ is "of one essence [homousios] with the Father", or the organic development of the Church's official iconography from the catacomb art of the early Christians). New verbal or visual expressions of the Faith can express the truth of the same Gospel in different ways, but can neither add to, nor subtract from, nor otherwise alter the substance of the original Gospel. Provided they share "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5), Christians must be aware lest they "wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers" (2 Tim. 2:14). As St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote to the people of Antioch, "Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike." A major challenge of contemporary dialogue between members of various Christian confessions is to discern what differences are simply matters of different formulations and customary expressions of the same Apostolic teaching, and what differences represent novel departures from the Apostolic teaching. Differences of formulation and of custom are usually acceptable and sometimes even helpful, given the richness of God’s truth and the diversity of languages and cultures called into the Church, provided the substance of the Apostolic and Catholic Tradition confessed by Christians is the same in every place.

5. The True Gospel is the Gospel Taught by the Early Church Fathers

The original Gospel must be in accordance with both the prophetic and Apostolic writings--that is, the canonical Scriptures--and the testimony of the early Church, which preserved and gathered together the Apostolic writings into the New Testament Canon. Anyone who insists that Scripture should be interpreted apart from the guidance of the Church’s Tradition should consider the counsel Vincent of Lerins (d. A.D. 450) offered in his Commonitory, Chapter II:

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic Faith from the falsehood of heretical [de]pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic Faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law [that is, the Scriptures], and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church .

But here some one perhaps will ask, "Since the Canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?" For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters... Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, [and] by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity , [and] consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity , if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent , in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (1)

Vincent goes on to explain how General (Ecumenical, or Universal) Councils can discern and apply the consensus of all or nearly all Catholic Fathers.  These Councils, which can never contradict Scripture or each other, are especially helpful when the content of Holy Tradition is in dispute.  The Orthodox Church recognizes as Ecumenical seven Councils that were received by the Church in both the East and the West prior to the Reformation:  Nicea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), Ephesus (A.D. 431), Chalcedon (A.D. 451), Constantinople II (A.D. 553), Constantinople III (A.D. 680-681), and Nicea II (A.D. 787).  Each of these Councils anathematized a heresy or heresies that, in various ways and to various degrees, abandoned the Biblical and Patristic understanding of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, Who assumed the fullness of human nature for the sake of our salvation.  If any of these Councils were untrue, surely God would have inspired a righteous remnant to oppose the idolatry of false doctrine (Rom. 11:4-5).  The fact that all of Catholic Christendom, in both the East and the West, embraced these seven Councils as true, proves that their teaching was in accordance with the work of the Holy Spirit.

At this point the reader might wonder why the views of the early Catholic Fathers are important. Weren’t these men simply fallible humans like anyone else? There is certainly truth to this argument. Even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not consider any single Father of the Church to be infallible in his writings.  As Noah was liable to occasional sin and error (Gen. 9:20-23), so every Father is liable to occasional sin and error, and needs to be covered by his spiritual children if he ever acts or teaches erroneously.

But the consensus of the Fathers is more authoritative than the opinions of individual Christian teachers of any time or place since the Apostles, since this consensus is the basis on which the New Testament Canon was received. The Tradition upheld by the early Church Fathers as Apostolic and Catholic was the standard by which a book that purported to be Apostolic in origin was assessed before it was admitted into the Canon. While the books of the New Testament were written by A.D. 96, the time when Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians , the authority of the Old Testament, the four gospels, and the Pauline epistles was hotly contested by professing Christians during the 2^nd Century. Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed during the 3^rd and 4 ^th Centuries. The full 27 books of the New Testament were not recognized in the Eastern Church until the Paschal Epistle of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 367), and were not recognized in the Western Church until the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). Books that were finally received into the Canon were acknowledged because of their broad acceptance by the Catholic (Universal) Church, their  Apostolic authorship or sponsorship, and their consistency with the received  Apostolic traditions, both oral and written (2 Thess. 2:15, see also 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 3:6, and 2 Peter 1:19-21, 3:15-16).

Most modern Protestants think of tradition in negative terms, as referring to the flawed human traditions condemned by Jesus (Mark 7:8) and Paul (Col. 2:8). This one-sided view fails to appreciate the authority of divinely inspired traditions handed down by the Apostles. The New Testament speaks approvingly of Apostolic traditions, which encompass doctrinal beliefs (1 Cor. 15:1-8), liturgical practices (1 Cor. 11:2-34), and moral standards (2 Thess. 3:6). To transmit the Apostolic traditions regarding the Gospel, the Apostles appointed bishops, presbyters, and deacons within local churches (Acts 1:15-26, 14:23, 6:1-6), and instructed specific men to continue this ministry of ordaining leaders for the Church (1 Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9). In his instructions to Timothy, for example, Paul mentions the perpetuation of the Apostolic Gospel in the Church through four successive generations of teachers:

The things which you [the second generation of teachers] have heard from me [the first generation of teachers] in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men [the third generation of teachers] who will be able to teach others also [the fourth generation of teachers]. (2 Tim. 2:2)

As the scribes and Pharisees had sat in the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:2-3), so the bishops, presbyters, and deacons would sit in the seats of the Apostles. Rebellion against their lawful authority (Heb. 13:17) would be a sin, equivalent to Korah’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron (Jude 11, cf. Numb. 16). The only justification for disobeying these leaders of the early Church would be if they advocated "perverse things, to draw away the disciples" from the truth of Christ (Acts 20:28-30, 2 Cor. 11:1-4). However, if the Fathers of the 2nd through 4th Centuries, most of whom were bishops, were corrupt in their consensual teaching, this would call into question the very reliability of the New Testament Canon identified and transmitted by them. It is foolish to think that the early Church was careful in transmitting the authentic text of Scripture, but not the authentic, Spirit-guided interpretation of Scripture, that is, Holy Tradition.

Using St. Vincent's rule of "catholicity, antiquity, and consent," we will explore several dimensions of the early Church’s teaching on Holy Tradition, including the doctrine of God, of man, of Christ and His saving work, and of the Church. We will contrast these teachings, which we will describe as the "Orthodox Catholic" Tradition, with beliefs that developed later in history and are held by Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians today. Since many critics of the Orthodox Catholic Church claim that she became corrupt after the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, we will include numerous quotations of Fathers from the time before the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), such as Sts. Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 101), Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 110), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D. 156), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165), Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202), and Cyprian of Carthage (d. A.D. 258). St. Clement was instructed by the Apostles Peter and Paul, while Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp were instructed by the Apostle John, and St. Polycarp in turn instructed St. Irenaeus. We will also refer to the writings of several Nicene or Post-Nicene Orthodox Fathers, including Sts. Hilary of Poitiers (d. A.D. 367), Athanasius of Alexandria (d. A.D. 373), Basil the Great (d. A.D. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 386), Gregory of Nazianzus (d. A.D. 389), John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), Augustine of Hippo (d. A.D. 430), Maximus the Confessor (d. A.D. 662), John of Damascus (d. A.D. 750), and Gregory Palamas (d. A.D. 1359). St. Augustine of Hippo has been held in especially high regard in the Western Church, and is respected not only by Roman Catholics but also by many Lutheran and Reformed Protestants today.

6. The Holy Trinity

The Fathers’ Faith in God began with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the one divine essence (ousia) subsisting in three distinct Persons (hypostases). While the word, "Trinity", does not appear in Christian literature before Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 181), the concept is affirmed both by the Apostles (Matt. 3:16-17, 28:18-19, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 Peter 1:1-2), and by their immediate disciples, the men known as the Apostolic Fathers.  One such disciple, Clement of Rome, wrote about A.D. 96, "Do we not have one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?" (2) Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle John, testified to his faith in the Holy Trinity in this prayer he offered at his martyrdom (A.D. 156):

O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before You... I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to the ages of ages. Amen . (3)

Irenaeus of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, described the Church’s Trinitarian Faith as follows:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the Apostles and their disciples this Faith: [We believe] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things that are in them. And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation. And in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets, the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a Virgin, and the Passion, and the Resurrection from the dead, and the Ascension into Heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord. (4)

Irenaeus’ language is strikingly similar to the Creed of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), confessed in the first person singular at Orthodox liturgies today:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen. (5)

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)--accepted by Orthodox, and also claimed by Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformers--decreed that the Creed of Constantinople should be preserved "inviolate", and that anyone who confessed a "different creed" should be deposed from his ecclesiastical office (if applicable) and excommunicated (anathematized) by the Church.

A generation before Chalcedon, St. Augustine of Hippo taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, (6) not distinguishing (as most Orthodox do) the Spirit's economic (or energetic) procession from the Father through the Son (Titus 3:5-7) from His eternal (or essential) procession from the Father alone (John 15:26).  By the 6th Century, out of respect for Augustine's authority (and in ignorance of the Greek Fathers and in defiance of Chalcedon), some churches in Spain began to recite the Creed with the words "and the Son" (Filioque ) added to the Creed's confession "I believe in the Holy Spirit...Who proceedeth from the Father..."   In A.D. 1439, the Roman Catholic Council of Florence declared that the addition of the Filioque to the Creed was lawful:

...we define...that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need. (7)

The Filioque is also contained in numerous Protestant confessions, including the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Anglican Articles of Religion, (8) and Reformed Westminster Confession. (9) The Orthodox Church has never understood the procession of the Holy Spirit in this manner, but has abided by the original teaching of the Council of Constantinople as affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon. The Greek Fathers John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas explained why the Orthodox Church does not confess the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Son in the same manner that He proceeds from the Father:

...we do not speak of the Father as derived from anyone, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son; but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. "For if anyone hat not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Rom. 8:9], saith the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. "For He breathed upon His Disciples, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." [John 20:29] ...And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is Cause. (John of Damascus (10) )

...the Spirit who proceeds from the Father [John 15:26]...belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father...which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. (Gregory Palamas (11) )

At first, the Popes of Rome (including both Leo III, d. A.D. 816, and John VIII, d. A.D. 882), agreed with the Orthodox teaching, and refused to embrace the "blasphemy" (in John VIII’s words) of inserting the Filioque into the Creed. Leo III even inscribed the unaltered Creed in both Greek and Latin on silver plates, and displayed these in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome for (in his words) "the preservation of the Orthodox Faith." (12) But, by A.D. 1014, a different Pope added the Filioque to the Creed, setting the stage for the schism between Orthodoxy and the Western Church that began officially in A.D. 1054 and has continued to the present day.

The Filioque might seem like a small matter, but its adoption in the West led to even greater divergence between the Orthodox and Roman churches on matters such as mandatory celibacy for priests, communion in one kind only for the laity, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope.  By subordinating the Spirit, not only to the Father, but also to the Son, the Church of Rome deemphasized the role of the Spirit in preserving the true Faith among the People of God throughout the world.  While the early Christians described the Person of the Spirit as the "Vicar of Christ", the Roman Church began to apply this description to the Pope himself, and thereby justified the introduction of both novel doctrines and novel customs, foreign to the faith and practice of the early Church.   In the Christian West during the late Middle Ages, unity in one faith was promoted by submission to the supreme authority of the Pope, but continuity of faith and practice and lost.  In the Christian East, unity in one faith was promoted--and is promoted today--by abiding in the faith and practice of the Church of the ancient Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

7. God’s Essence and Energies

Behind the Filioque controversy is a more profound difference in the Trinitarian theology of the Orthodox and Western churches, one that St. Augustine of Hippo failed to appreciate in his equating of the economic and eternal procession of the Spirit.  Both Orthodox and Western theologians distinguish God's one essence (ousia ) from the three Persons (hypostases) of the Trinity. Orthodox, however, recognize a further distinction between God's essence and His divine energies or activities (energeia)--the light and life, grace and love that He has in Himself from the beginning. The Orthodox Catholic Fathers would agree that God desires man to know Him (John 17:3), but they would qualify what this means. For the finite creature to comprehend the infinite and transcendent Creator is impossible:

He cannot be seen--He is too bright for vision. He cannot be comprehended, for He is too pure for our discernment. He cannot be estimated, for He is too great for our perception. And therefore, we are only worthily estimating Him when we say that He is inconceivable. (Cyprian of Carthage (13) )

The Apostle Paul taught (1 Tim. 6:16) that God is incomprehensible in His essence, while Christ (Matt. 5:8) taught that the pure in heart will "see God", so it must be that God can be "seen" and "comprehended" in some sense, yet not in another. Medieval Scholastic theologians believe the "beatific vision" referred to the saints in Heaven only, but Exodus 33:18-23 and John 1:14 indicate that God’s uncreated Glory has already been seen by saints on earth. We "see" and "know" God, Irenaeus and the other early Fathers would argue, not by comprehending His essence (His "face" in Exodus 33:20), but because He condescends to reveal Himself in His energies (His "back side" in Exodus 33:23) and allows us to share in His life, light, and love:

The prophets, then, indicated beforehand that God should be seen by men; as the Lord also says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." [Matt. 5:8] But in respect to His greatness, and His wonderful glory, "no man shall see God and live," [Exod. 33:20] for the Father is incomprehensible; but in regard to His love, and kindness, and as to His infinite power, even this He grants to those who love Him, that is, to see God, which thing the prophets did also predict. "For those things that are impossible with men, are possible with God." [Luke 18:27] For man does not see God by his own powers; but when He pleases He is seen by men, by whom He wills, and when He wills, and as He wills. For God is powerful in all things, having been seen at that time indeed, prophetically through the Spirit, and seen, too, adoptively through the Son; and He shall also be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven, the Spirit truly preparing man in the Son of God, and the Son leading him to the Father, while the Father, too, confers [upon him] incorruption for eternal life, which comes to every one from the fact of his seeing God. For as those who see the light are within the light, and partake of its brilliancy; even so, those who see God are in God, and receive of His splendor. But [His] splendor vivifies them; those, therefore, who see God, do receive life. And for this reason, He, [although] beyond comprehension, and boundless and invisible, rendered Himself visible, and comprehensible, and within the capacity of those who believe, that He might vivify those who receive and behold Him through faith. For as His greatness is past finding out, so also His goodness is beyond expression; by which having been seen, He bestows life upon those who see Him. It is not possible to live apart from life, and the means of life is found in fellowship with God; but fellowship with God is to know God, and to enjoy His goodness. (Irenaeus of Lyons (14) )

This distinction between the unknowable essence of God, and the uncreated and divine energies that the saints can perceive and partake of, is key to the theology of the Orthodox Church, as confessed by these Greek Fathers:

[God] is outside all things according to His essence, but He is in things through His acts of power. (Athanasisus of Alexandria (15) )

...the essence of God is not perceivable by any except the Only-begotten and the Holy Spirit. From such energies of God, however, as fall under our gaze, and from created things, we recognize a Creator, and in this way too we perceive His goodness and His wisdom. (Basil the Great (16) )

Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy... Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one anti simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity . For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures, and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence. (John of Damascus (17) )

For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly, things that have the same essence have also the same energy, and things that have different natures have also different energies. For no essence can be devoid of natural energy. Natural energy again is the force in each essence by which its nature is made manifest. And again: natural energy is the primal, eternally-moving force of the intelligent soul: that is, the eternally-moving word of the soul, which ever springs naturally from it. (John of Damascus (18) )

But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say "all creation," meaning creatures. (John of Damascus (19) )

...St. Gregory [of Nazianzus] shows that he regarded [the divine energy] as uncreated. For he says [Oration 31, 5] "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have supposed the Spirit to be an energy, others a created things, and still others God." By "God" he means the actual hypostasis; and by distinguishing the energy from what is created he clearly demonstrates that it is not created. (Gregory Palamas (20) )

Unlike the Orthodox Church, the Western Church followed the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine of Hippo, who was largely ignorant of Greek, and made no distinction between the essence and energies of God. Because Augustine (rightly) understood God’s essence to be beyond human comprehension, he assumed that the only way God could communicate with men was through the agency of creatures. This teaching reflected the Platonic belief, common in Augustine’s day, that the Divinity was entirely unknowable to humanity. Before Augustine, the consensus of the Church was that the manifestations of the "glory of God" to Israel and of the "angel of God" to the Patriarchs and Prophets were the uncreated energies of God the Logos Himself:

...the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Logos of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now...having...become Man by a Virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. (Justin Martyr (21) )

Departing from this teaching, Augustine viewed the Old Testament events not as true theophanies but as the work of created angels:

...the essence of God, where we understand, in proportion to our measure...the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since it is in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self be visible. It is manifest, accordingly, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God was presented to them according to His own dispensation, suitable to the times, were wrought through the creature. And if we cannot discern in what manner He wrought them by ministry of angels, yet we say that they were wrought by angels. (22)

By making God’s revelation of Himself to humanity less direct, mediated by angels and other creatures, Augustine unintentionally laid the foundation for medieval Scholastic theology, in which God was often conceived more as an abstract idea than the Lover of Man active in human history. The French philosopher Pascal (d. A.D. 1662), while himself a devoted follower of Augustine’s doctrine of salvation, criticized Scholastic theology as presenting the "God of the philosophers" rather than the true God of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Pascal was drawn, not to Scholastic conceptions of the divine essence knowable only through reflection on created things, but to the God who revealed Himself directly and supernaturally to Moses in the Fire of the burning bush (Exodus 3) and in the cloud on Mount Sinai (Exodus 33), and to the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17) and in the resurrection of Christ (Matthew 28). While Evangelicalism, with its emphasis on developing a "personal relationship with Jesus", has sought to recover the Biblical understanding of a God who relates directly to His creatures, it has unfortunately done so in an individualistic manner. God’s covenants with Israel and the Church were with a Body of people, not isolated individuals. As the Roman Catholic author Peter Kreeft has noted, in the Church Christ has a Bride, not a harem.

8. The Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God

For the Fathers, the key to understanding the human condition is to recognize that we were created in the image of the Trinity, in order to share (partake of), by the Spirit, God’s likeness, that is, His moral goodness:

With [God the Father] were always present the Logos and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness." [Gen. 1:26] (Irenaeus of Lyons (23) )

For the phrase "after His image" [Gen. 1:26] clearly refers to the side of his nature which consists of mind and free will, whereas "after His likeness" [Gen. 1:26] means likeness in virtue so far as that is possible. (John of Damascus (24) )

While the likeness of God was lost in the Fall, the image of God remains, even if one is deprived of the energies of the Holy Spirit. Wrote Irenaeus in the 2^nd Century and Gregory Palamas in the 14 ^th:

When the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God's] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation, but not receiving the likeness through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect. Thus also, if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man. (Irenaeus of Lyons (25) )

Since the noetic and intelligent nature of the human soul alone possess intellect, thought-form and life-generating spirit, it alone--more so than the bodiless angels--is created by God in His image. This image the soul possesses inalienably, even if it does not recognize its own dignity, or think and live in a manner worthy of the Creator’s image within it. After our forefather’s transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul--which is the separation of the soul from God--prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image. (Gregory Palamas (26) )

The image of God includes free will, which the Fathers insisted was not lost by Adam and Eve in the Fall:

The expression, "How often would I have gathered your children together, and you were not willing," [Matt. 23:37] set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God man free from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore He gives good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice... so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. (Irenaeus of Lyons (27) )

The early Fathers’ emphasis on the image of God persisting after the Fall of Adam and Eve challenges the Reformed teaching that fallen man is "totally depraved", as the Westminster Confession (IX, 3-4) affirms:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good... (28)

The Fathers, besides affirming free will, rejected as heretical the idea that some are by nature incapable of receiving salvation:

[These heretics] say that some are by nature good, and others by nature evil. The good are those who become capable of receiving the [spiritual] seed; the evil by nature are those who are never able to receive that seed. (Irenaeus of Lyons (29) )

Yet is precisely this inability of some to be saved that is affirmed by the Reformed Westminster Confession (III, 3-4):

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (30)

The great Reformed theologian, John Calvin, taught (A.D. 1559) that, after the Fall, human nature became inherently evil:

...the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt... Hence, those who have defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added... that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence. (31)

In contrast to Calvin, Augustine rejected as heresy the teaching that human nature became intrinsically evil after the Fall:

[T]he consideration we wish most to urge is the truth of the Catholic doctrine, if they can understand it, that God is the author of all natures... From this every one sees, who can see, that every nature, as far as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in which I found something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the good things are taken away, no nature will remain; but if the disagreeable things are taken away, the nature will remain unimpaired... who can doubt that the whole of that which is called evil is nothing else than corruption? ... corruption does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature, no nature is evil. (32)

The Augustinean teaching on the intrinsic goodness of human nature, created by God (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4) and infected but not destroyed by sin, was affirmed, not necessarily by Luther, but by the Lutheran Formula of Concord:

Now, if there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin; both of which ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. But inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one [and the same] thing, but must be distinguished. (33)

In adopting a more dismal view of human nature than even the Lutherans, Reformed theologians undermined the true doctrine of the Incarnation. The Patristic doctrine affirms that Christ our Savior assumed into His Person all of our fallen nature--body, soul, and spirit (Heb. 2:17). As St. Maximus the Confessor taught, "God became perfect man, taking on everything that belongs to human nature except sin [Heb. 4:15]; and indeed sin is not part of human nature." (34) For if our fallen nature has not been assumed by Christ, the Fathers would say, we have not been healed of the disease of sin.  Sin, in the Orthodox Patristic understanding, is not an essential part of human nature (what man is), but is rather a human energy or activity (what man does), an abuse of free will, the effects of which include corruption of the body, soul, and spirit through bondage to death and the devil. We are therefore "by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3) not because our nature is essentially evil, but because our nature is enslaved to corruption, "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is not working [literally, energizing] in the sons of disobedience." (Eph. 2:2)

9. Death--Physical and Spiritual

Because Adam and Eve sinned, they experienced, not only spiritual alienation from God, but the effect and penalty of physical death. But this physical judgment should be seen, not so much as act of divine vengeance, as an act of divine mercy. Wrote Irenaeus and Chrysostom:

God set a limit to man’s sin, by interposing death. For death causes sin to cease. It puts an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh... so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God. (Irenaeus of Lyons (35) )

Partaking of the tree, the man and woman became liable to death and subject to the future needs of the body. Adam was no longer permitted to remain in the Garden, and was bidden to leave, a move by which God showed His love for him... he had become mortal, and lest he presume to eat further from the tree which promised an endless life of continuous sinning, he was expelled from the Garden as a mark of divine solicitude, not of necessity." (John Chrysostom (36) )

Far more serious than the physical death experienced by almost all humans since the Fall is the spiritual death experienced by those who do not repent of their sins, but who instead follow the rebellion of Satan and the other fallen angels and remain forever deprived of the life-giving energies of God. Noted Polycarp to those threatening him with death by fire:

You are threatening me with fire which burns for an hour, and after a little while is extinguished, but you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. (37)

Irenaeus passed on the same teaching as his mentor:

[God] has prepared darkness suitable to persons who oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him... He has prepared the eternal fire for the ringleader of the apostasy, the devil, and for those who revolted with him. The Lord has declared those who have been set apart by themselves on His left hand will be sent into this fire [Matt. 25:41]. (38)

Cyprian also had received the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked:

Believe Him who will give to all believers the reward of eternal life. Believe Him who will call down on unbelievers eternal punishments in the fires of Gehenna... Nor will there be any means by which at any time they can have either rest or an end to their torments... This is in accord with the truth of Holy Scripture, which says, "Their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched." [Mark 9:47-48] (39)

The consensus of the early Church Fathers, together with the teaching of Scripture (for example, Rev. 14:11 and 20:10), provides support for neither universalists, who expect the salvation of all people without exception and perhaps even Satan himself, nor for annihilationists, who teach the doctrine of the eternal annihilation of the wicked, rather than their eternal conscious punishment. While it is right to desire the salvation of all who can be saved, just as God Himself does (1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9), Christians should not live under the assumption that the population of Hell will be zero.

10. The Person of Christ

Christ was at the heart of the Faith of the early Fathers, who viewed our Lord’s divine-human identity as of equal importance as His saving mission. As Ignatius wrote at the beginning of the 2 ^nd Century:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit. He is both made and not made. He is God existing in flesh, true Life in death. He is both of Mary and of God. (40)

That Christ is truly God, and the Logos ("Reason" or "Word") of the Father who shares fully in our human nature, is what makes our salvation possible. Wrote Irenaeus, "He received testimony from everyone that He was very man and He was very God" (41) , and Cyprian added, "Christ is both man and God, compounded of both natures, so that He could be a Mediator between us and the Father." (42)

Because God the Son is the single subject of the Incarnation, the Mother of Jesus is rightly recognized and honored as the God-bearer and the Mother of God (Greek, Theotokos, cf. Luke 1:43). On this issue, the teaching of Irenaeus was followed by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451):

Just as the former [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fell from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she would bear God... (Irenaeus of Lyons (43) )

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that He is perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man, having a rational soul and [human] body, consubstantial [of one essence] with the Father as concerns His Deity, and consubstantial with us as concerns His humanity; made like us in all ways except sin; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His Deity; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God [Theotokos ] according to His humanity. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures not being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God the Logos, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers has delivered to us. (Fourth Ecumenical Council, at Chalcedon, A.D. 451 (44) )

While not taught clearly in most Protestant churches today, the Christology of Chalcedon, including the affirmation of the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos, was affirmed by all of the original Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed theologians, including both Luther and Calvin.

11. The Purpose of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ

The Fathers were unanimous in declaring that the reason the eternal Son of God became a man was to allow the mortal sons of men to become sons of God. "Our Lord Jesus Christ," wrote Irenaeus, "through His infinite love, became what we are, so that He might bring us to be even what He Himself is." (45)   This same summary of the Gospel as the Incarnation of God the Son leading to the deification (or divinization--Greek, theosis ) of man by grace (2 Peter 1:4, described as sharing in God's glory in John 17:22, Rom. 5:1-2, 8:29-30, 2 Cor. 3:18, and 2 Thess. 2:13-14) was repeated by both Athanasius and Augustine:

...by death immortality has reached to all, and... by the Logos becoming man, the universal Providence has been known, and its Giver and Artificer the very Logos of God. For He was made man that we might be divinized; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. (Athanasius of Alexandria (46) )

The Mediator between the Trinity and the weakness and wickedness of men was made man, not wicked, but nevertheless weak. This was done so that by what was not wicked, He might join you to God.... He justifies, being just of Himself and not from another; and He deifies, being God of Himself and not by participation in another. But He that justifies does also deify, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For, "He has given them the power to become sons of God." [John 1:12] If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace adopting, and not by nature begetting. (Augustine of Hippo (47) )

For the Fathers, God the Son’s death and resurrection were the key events of the Incarnation that made our divinization possible through Christ’s rectification of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Wrote Irenaeus:

To do away with the disobedience of man that had taken place at the beginning by means of a tree, "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." [Phil. 2:8] He thereby rectified that disobedience that had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience that was upon the tree [the Cross]... In the first Adam, we had offended God Himself. For Adam did not perform God’s commandment. However, in the second Adam, we are reconciled to God, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to no one else but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning... By transgressing [God’s] commandment, we became His enemies. Therefore, in the last times, the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation. He has become "the Mediator between God and men," [1 Tim. 2:5] propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned. He has canceled our disobedience by His own obedience. He also confers upon us the gifts of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. (Irenaeus of Lyons (48) )

Cyprian emphasized the saving work of Christ to free humanity from bondage to sin, death, and the devil:

The Son was willing to be sent and to become the Son of Man, so that He could make us sons of God... He underwent death so that He could present immortality to mortals... At His coming, the Lord cured those wounds that Adam had borne. He healed the old poisons of the serpent.... Those sins that had previously [been] committed are purged by the blood and sanctification of Christ. (49)

Athanasius and Augustine repeated the teaching that Christ’s saving work delivered us from death and the devil:

For the Logos, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Logos to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Logos Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the place of all, and might, because of the Logos which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto Death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. For being over all, the Logos of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all fulfilled the obligation by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Logos, which by His one body has come to dwell among them. And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honor, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king’s having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death (Athanasius of Alexandria (50) )

For it was brought to pass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed, through the one death of One which no sin had preceded. Which death, though not due, the Lord therefore rendered for us, that the death which was due might work us no hurt. For He was not stripped of the flesh by obligation of any authority, but He stripped Himself. For doubtless He who was able not to die, if He would not, did die because He would: and so He made a show of principalities and powers, openly triumphing over them in Himself [Col. 2:15]. For whereas by His death the one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whatever fault there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as of right to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extinguished; and by His own resurrection He also called us whom He predestinated to a new life; and whom He called, them He justified; and whom He justified, them He glorified [Rom. 8:30]. And so the devil, in that very death of the flesh, lost man... the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, "For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels" [Psalm 8:5], so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin, [Eph. 4:8] and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out. (Augustine of Hippo (51) )

The early Church Fathers emphasized the Atonement as an act of deliverance from death and the devil, rather than as an act of penal substitution to appease or "satisfy" the just wrath of God the Father against man’s sin. The latter view, first articulated formally by Anselm of Canterbury (d. A.D. 1109), is affirmed in both Roman and Reformed confessions:

...our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, "for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us," [Eph. 2:4] merited Justification for us by his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross...made satisfaction for us unto God the Father. (Council of Trent, Session Six, 7, A.D. 1547 (52) )

The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him... Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners. (Westminster Confession VIII, 5, XI, 3 (53) )

The early Fathers, in contrast, rejected the idea that Christ’s Sacrifice was either a deal with Satan, or the satisfaction of a demand by the Father that Someone be punished to appease His wrath against man’s sin. Wrote Gregory of Nazianzus:

To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One , fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father , I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim [Gen. 22]? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things. (54)

As St. Gregory indicates, the offering of Christ’s pure life was necessary for us, not for God. God cannot change (Num. 23:19, Psa. 102:27, Lam. 3:22, Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8), and He from eternity has loved both those whom He knew would be His friends, and those whom He knew would be His enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). It is humanity that needs to change on account of our sin, not God. While the logic of satisfaction and appeasement implies that God is reconciled to us by Christ’s death, Scripture clearly teaches that the purpose of Christ’s death is to reconcile us to God by defeating the devil and releasing us from bondage to sin and death (John 12:20-36, Rom. 3:21-26, 2 Cor. 5:17-21, Col. 1:11-23, 2:13-15, 2 Tim. 1:8-11, Heb. 2:10-18, 1 John 1:5-2:6, 2:28-3:10). Thus the Orthodox understanding of the Atonement, rather than affirming the novel Anselmian theory of satisfaction through substitution , views Christ’s death and resurrection as an act of sanctification through divine sharing in human suffering and mortality. Writes Bishop Kallistos Ware:

…we should not say that Christ has suffered "instead of us", but rather that he has suffered on our behalf. The Son of God suffered "unto death", not that we might be exempt from suffering, but that our suffering might be like his. Christ offers us, not a way round suffering, but a way throug h it; not substitution, but saving companionship. (55)

Salvation involves the healing of the wounds of sin as they have affected the whole human person—body, soul, and spirit:

For that flesh which has been molded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man. And for this cause does the Apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians [5:23], "Now the God of peace sanctify you completely; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Irenaeus of Lyons (56) )

Since salvation involves the body as well as the soul and spirit, the Fathers saw the physical resurrection of Christ as a necessary part of the Gospel of redemption, and not merely an appendix to the message of the Cross. Wrote Clement, "God has made the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits by raising Him from the dead [1 Cor. 15:20]." (57) Ignatius insisted, "For I know that after His resurrection He was still possessed of flesh. And I believe that He is so now." (58) Cyprian added, "On the third day, He freely rose again form the dead. He appeared to His disciples... Then, in a cloud spread around Him, He was lifted up into Heaven, so that, as a conqueror, He might bring man to the Father. For Christ loved man, He became man, and He shielded man from death." (59) The identity of Christ as the "lover of mankind" Who became man and rose from the dead is affirmed today every time the Orthodox Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is celebrated.

12. The Veneration of Christian Martyrs

The Fathers' view of the resurrection of the body as an integral part of the Gospel explains why they held the remains of the martyrs in high regard, since these would share in the resurrection to eternal life:

We [Irenaeus and Polycarp’s other disciples], after [Polycarp’s death], 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, where, 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 exercise and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps. (60)

On a similar note, St. John Chrysostom, noting how Elisha’s bones raised the dead (2 Kings 13:20-21), argued that similar miracles had performed since the early 2^nd Century, A.D., by the relics of Ignatius of Antioch. (61)

In response to charges that her veneration of martyrs was idolatry, the early Church distinguished the honor shown the saints and their relics (Acts 5:14-16, 19:11-12) from the worship shown the Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

It is neither possible for us to ever forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him 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! (62)

Worship as God only Him who is God by nature. Whatever is reckoned to be due all the rest is to given for the Lord’s sake. (John of Damascus (63) )

...to these [icons] should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith [latria] which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents... (Seventh Ecumenical Council, A.D. 787 (64) )

While the Fathers recognized abuses in devotion to the saints and their relics and icons, they did not appeal to the fact of these abuses to reject the invocation of the saints in Heaven, or the legitimate veneration of their relics and icons. At the same time, one will search in vain among the early Church Fathers for any doctrine of a "treasury of merits of the Saints" ( CCC 1471-1479) that is a source of indulgences applied to those supposedly suffering in Purgatory. From the Orthodox standpoint as well as the standpoint of the Reformers, this teaching is in conflict with Scripture (see Luke 17:10). (65)

The Orthodox pray for the dead, as did the Jews (2 Macc. 12:45) and the Apostle Paul (2 Tim. 1:16-18), but they do not pretend that the reward due to any Saint is imputed to others among the faithful departed, any more than the guilt of Adam and Eve is imputed to others among the human race.

13. The Role of Baptism in Receiving Christ

Like the classical Reformers and modern Evangelical Protestants, the Fathers would agree that salvation is only through faith in Christ and in His saving work. Wrote Irenaeus, "No one can know God without both the goodwill of the Father and the agency of the Son." (66) Cyprian agreed, "It is impossible to reach the Father except by His Son Jesus Christ [cf. John 14:6]." (67) But these Fathers would view receiving Christ as having a physical as well as a spiritual dimension. To receive Christ is to entrust one’s entire person to Him--one’s spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:23). Moreover, in order to receive Christ and have Him enter fully into one's own life, one needs to be received by Christ, through His ordained ministers (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16), and enter into the fullness of His life (Eph. 1:23, 3:19), that is, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in true faith and authentic love.

For the Fathers, entry into the Church was through Baptism, which was usually performed by triple immersion in the Name of the Trinity, or, if necessary, by triple affusion. Ignatius wrote, "[Christ] was born and baptized so that by His Passion He could purify the water." (68) Wrote Irenaeus:

It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized [2 Kings 5:14], but [it serves] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." [John 3:5] (69)

Irenaeus taught that those who--like many modern Protestants--deny the regeneration accomplished through the Church’s Baptism are heretics:

When we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that Baptism which is regeneration unto God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] Faith. (70)

Cyprian describes the role Baptism played in his own conversion:

I used to indulge my sins as if they were actually part of me and native to me. But after that, by the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart. Then, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from Heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man. (71)

Note that Cyprian says it is a delusion to think of sin as "native" to human nature. If that were the case, then it would have been impossible for Christ to become fully human in the Incarnation. Rather, sin is a foreign invader that needs to be defeated by Christ (Col. 1:13-14), and an illness that needs to be healed by Him (Mark 2:17).

Because sin infects everyone from infancy, Irenaeus and Cyprian both defended the practice of infant baptism:

[Christ] came to save all persons by means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God: infants, children, boys, youth, and old men. (Irenaeus of Lyons (72) )

Even to the greatest sinners and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe, remission of sins is granted. Nobody is hindered from Baptism and from grace. How much more should we shrink for hindering an infant. For he, being lately born, has not sinned, other than, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth. For this reason, he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins. For to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. (Cyprian of Carthage (73) )

St. Cyprian’s teaching on original sin does not imply that the guilt of Adam and Eve is inherited by their descendants. While St. Augustine of Hippo understood Rom. 5:12 to mean that all have sinned in Adam, Cyprian and the Greek Fathers understood this verse to mean that all have sinned because (on account of) the mortality and corruption they inherit from Adam, which leads to indulging the passions. The Roman Council of Trent (Session 5, parts 3 and 5, A.D. 1546), however, embraced the view of Augustine and argued that original sin is "transfused into all [men] by propagation [and] is in each one as his own", and imparts guilt that is remitted in Baptism. The Westminster Confession (VI) also taught the inheritance of guilt:

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit... They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation... This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal. (74)

The Greek Fathers would disagree with this reasoning, arguing that we sin because of our bondage to death and the devil (Heb. 2:14-17), not because of inherited guilt. God does not punish the innocent with the wicked (Gen. 18:25). While He allows the effects of parents’ sins to fall on children (Exodus 20:5-6) as a form of loving discipline (Heb. 12:5-11), He does not impute the guilt of parents’ sins to children (cf. Deut. 24:16). As Scripture testifies, God punishes people for their own sins, and rewards them for their own righteousness (Eze. 18:19-20). In His mercy, God often punishes us less than we deserve (Psalm 103:10), and whatever just punishment He does offer is intended for our instruction, since He takes no satisfaction in the death of anyone (Eze. 18:32), and desires to lead all to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Because of inherited guilt, Augustine argued, infants dying without the Sacraments of Christ could not be saved:

From an ancient and, as I suppose, Apostolic tradition...the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the Table of the Lord it is impossible for anyone to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and eternal life. This is the witness of Scripture too. [John 3:5, 6:53] (75)

The Orthodox Church does not claim, as St. Augustine did, that infants who die unbaptized go to Hell. She, like the contemporary Roman Church ( CCC 1261), leaves the salvation of such children to the mercy of God. Unlike the Roman Church, however, the Orthodox Church rejects the idea of collective guilt; she does not believe that God ever punishes infants for the sins of their fathers.  In contrast to most Roman Catholic and Protestant churches today, the Orthodox Church continues the ancient Christian custom of giving all 3 sacraments of initiation--Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and the Eucharist--to infants as well as adults.

Baptism is only given to those who confess the Apostolic Faith, either for themselves or (if they are unable to speak) through their sponsors. This initial confession of faith at Baptism marks the new Christian’s justification by faith. The Apostle Paul, while clearly teaching that justification was independent of the Jewish rite of circumcision, closely linked justification with the Christian rite of Baptism (see Acts 22:16, Rom. 6:3-11, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 3:26-28, Titus 3:5), and the Apostle Peter wrote, "Baptism saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)

14. The Doctrine of Justification

While Baptism begins the Christian’s justification, it does not complete it. Justification involves not simply being declared righteous by faith (Rom. 4:5), but it involves being made righteous by the Spirit (Rom. 5:19) through our obedient cooperation with God’s grace (Rom. 6:16, Phil. 2:12-13), that we, in union with Christ to the end of our lives (Rom. 8:13, Phil. 3:8-11), may be found righteous and doers of the law on the day of judgment (Rom. 2:13, 1 Cor. 4:2-5). Because justification was viewed by the Fathers as both being declared righteousness through faith prior to good works, and as being made righteous by faith plus good works, it was possible for Clement, a hearer and disciple of Peter and Paul, to write in the same letter:

We... being called by [God’s] will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves. Nor are we justified by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works that we have done in holiness of heart. Rather, we are justified by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men. (76)

We are justified by our works, and not our words. (77)

For the Fathers, it was obvious that the teaching that one is justified "apart from the works of the law" (Rom. 3:28) does not mean that the "righteous requirements of the law" (Rom. 8:4) are optional for one’s final justification (which would contradict Rom. 2:13). The Fathers did not view justification as merely a forensic declaration, an unconditional certificate of salvation divorced from the moral commandments of God. Rather, they saw justification as a gift of new life in Christ that carries with it certain conditions and obligations. Wrote Irenaeus:

The Lord did not abrogate the natural teachings of the Law, by which man is justified. For those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, observed those [moral] teachings previous to the giving of the Law. (78)

Cyprian repeated the same teaching:

How can a man say that he believes in Christ, if he does not do what Christ commanded him to do? From where will he retain the reward of faith, if he will not keep the faith of the commandment? ...He will make not advancement in his walk toward salvation, for he does not keep the truth of the way of salvation. (79)

Augustine emphasized justification as the initial grace bestowed in Baptism, but warned his readers that good works are necessary for salvation and that a gospel of salvation by faith alone offers believers a false assurance:

We feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved... When St. Paul says... that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28, Gal. 2:16], he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and profess the faith and no more. Wheat he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification. (80)

The Protestant Reformers, despite their admiration for St. Augustine, viewed justification as consisting only of the remission of sins and the declaration of imputed righteousness by grace alone through faith alone. As the Westminster Confession (XI, 1) states:

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. (81)

The view of the early Fathers, including Augustine, was quite different. To those who would deny that justification also includes the cooperation (synergy) of the will with God’s grace, and the "not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man," (cf. the Council of Trent, CCC 1989), the Bishop of Hippo would respond:

...what is believing but consenting to the truth of what is said? And this consent is certainly voluntary; faith, therefore, is in our own power. But, as the apostle says... "What hast thou which thou hast not received?" [1 Cor. 4:7]--for it is God who gave us even to believe. Nowhere, however, in Holy Scripture do we find such an assertion as, There is no volition but comes from God. And rightly is it not so written, because it is not true: otherwise God would be the author even of sins--which Heaven forbid! (82)

You are the only authorities who suppose that justification is conferred by the remission alone of sins. Certainly God justifies the impious man not only by remitting the evil deeds which that man does, but also by granting love, so that the man may turn away from evil and may do good through the Holy Spirit. (83)

Comparing the Reformers' doctrine of justification with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Evangelical Anglican scholar Alister McGrath points out that Luther, his associate Philip Melancthon, and Calvin departed from the consensus of the Church on this issue:

Where Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melancthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous . For Augustine, "justifying righteousness" is imparted; for Melancthon, it is imputed . Melancthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former "justification" and the latter "sanctification" or "regeneration." For Augustine, both were simply different aspects of the same thing... [Melancthon’s teaching] marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point... the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic church’s definitive response to the Protestant challenge, reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification, and censured the views of Melancthon as woefully inadequate. (84)

The Orthodox Church would agree that the Reformers’ understanding of justification is inadequate, ignoring how Christ not only calls us righteous, but makes us righteous through our union with Himself. To embrace the Protestant understanding of justification as the "doctrine on which the Church stands or falls" is to argue that the Church fell into serious error from the death of the Apostles until the 16 ^th Century, which contradicts Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit to be with the Church forever and lead her into all truth (John 14:16, 16:13). Yet the Orthodox view of justification departs from the Roman view in at least two important respects. First, because the Orthodox view Grace as an uncreated and divine energy, that is, as God Himself freely sharing His life with His creatures, they reject the Roman idea ( CCC 2000) that sanctifying grace is a created disposition infused into the soul by the Holy Spirit. God saves us, not by imparting sanctifying creatures to us, the Orthodox would argue, but by uniting us directly to Himself in His uncreated energies through the Person and work of Christ.

Second, most Orthodox would agree with the Reformers in rejecting the Roman view that someone who is justified in Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit can be said to "merit" eternal life. This concept of merit was the teaching of the Council of Trent (Session Six, Canon 32, also CCC 2010), but it has been rejected unequivocally by Orthodox Saints such as Theophan the Recluse (d. A.D. 1894):

Work, exert yourself, seek and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you [Matthew 7:7]. Do not relax and do not despair. But at the same time remember that these efforts are no more than attempts on our part to attract grace; they are not grace itself, which we still have to go on seeking... Therefore do not be content with these efforts alone; do not rest on them as if they were what you have to find. This is a dangerous illusion. It is equally dangerous to think that in these labors there is merit, which grace is bound to reward. Not at all; these efforts are only the preparation for receiving grace; but the gift itself depends entirely on the will of the Giver...

It must be understood that a man struggling towards perfection is not himself aware of the progress which he makes on his path. He toils with the sweat of his brow, but (so far as he can see) his labor bears no fruit. This is because grace works secretly. The eye of human vision does not discern the good which he is doing. The only thing that the man himself can see is his own worthlessness. The way to perfection is through the realization that we are blind, poor, and naked. This sense of nakedness is closely linked with contrition of the spirit, when in unceasing repentance we pour out before God our grief and sorrow at our impurity. Penitent feelings are an essential element of true spiritual progress, and whoever evades them is deviating from the right way. Repentance is the starting point and foundation of our new life in Christ; and it must be present not only at the beginning but throughout our growth in this life, increasing as we advance. On reaching spiritual maturity man becomes acutely conscious of his sinfulness and corruption, and his sense of contrition and repentance grows ever more profound. (85)

From the perspective of Orthodox spirituality, Martin Luther was entirely correct in the first of his 95 theses: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, in saying "Repent ye etc.’ [Mark 1:14-16], intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence." (86) Through the use of devotions such as the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me the sinner"), Orthodoxy promotes that perpetual repentance and unceasing prayer of which Christ’s followers are always in need (see Luke 18:1-14, Rom. 12:12, 1 Thess. 5:16-18).

15. The Perseverance of Believers

Because justification involves a synergy (working together, Phil. 2:12-13, 2 Cor. 6:1) of God’s grace and our free will, it introduces the possibility of us failing to cooperate with God, and thereby forfeiting God’s gift of salvation (1 Cor. 9:24-27, Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31, 2 Peter 2:20-22). The early Fathers recognized this danger:

With respect to obedience and doctrine, we are not all the sons of God. Rather, it is only those who truly believe in Him and do His will. Now, those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil... Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. (Irenaeus of Lyons (87) )

We are still in the world. We are still in the battlefield. We daily fight for our lives. So you must be careful, that... what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement will be consummated in you. It is a small thing to have first received something. It is a greater thing to be able to keep what you have attained. Faith itself and the saving birth do not make alive by merely being received. Rather, they must be preserved . It is not the actual attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, "Look! You have been made whole. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." [John 5:14] ...Solomon, Saul, and may others were able to keep the grace giving to them so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways. However, when the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them. (Cyprian of Carthage (88) )

...if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say, "I have not received"; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own choice went to evil (Augustine of Hippo (89) )

The Westminster Confession (XVIII, 1-2), in contrast, taught that true believers can be assured infallibly of their election:

...such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. (90)

The Fathers, in contrast, viewed as heretical the idea that the salvation of believers is necessarily guaranteed:

[These heretics] hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the "most perfect" among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." [Gal. 5:21] (Irenaeus of Lyons (91) )

For eternal life, the Fathers taught, we must not only trust in Christ as Lord and Savior; we must also repent of all sins (especially those "deadly sins" mentioned in Mark 3:28-30, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Gal 5:19-21, and 1 John 5:16-17), and love both God and neighbor. Only by growing in Christian virtue will believers make their "calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:3-11). Wrote Polycarp:

He who raised [Christ] up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil-speaking, [and] false witness... since "every lust wars against the Spirit", and "neither fornicators nor those who practice homosexuality shall inherit the Kingdom of God" [1 Cor. 6:9-10], nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. (92)

Ignatius emphasized that unity, faith, and love are the keys to overcoming the world, the flesh, and the devil:

For when you assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith... None of these things is hid from you, if you perfectly possess that faith and love towards Jesus Christ, which are the beginning and the end of life. For the beginning is faith, and the end is love. Now these two, being inseparably connected together, are of God, while all other things which are requisite for a holy life follow after them. No man [truly] making a profession of faith sins; nor does he that possesses love hate any one. The tree is made manifest by its fruit; so those that profess themselves to be Christians shall be recognized by their conduct. For there is not now a demand for a mere profession, but that a man be found continuing in the power of faith to the end. (93)

16. The Church and Salvation

For the early Fathers, salvation was only in the Church, because the Church is the fullness of the People of God united in one Body to Christ their Head. To sin against the unity of the Church by willfully joining or knowingly abiding in a schism is to imperil one’s own salvation (Luke 11:23, 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 11:18-19, Gal. 5:19-24, Titus 3:10-11, 1 John 2:19).

Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [bishops and deacons] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry... For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and with holiness presented the sacrifices. (Clement of Rome (94) )

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any one follows one who makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the Passion. Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. (Ignatius of Antioch (95) )

It is said, "In the Church, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers," [Eph. 4:11] and all the other means through which the Spirit works. Those who do not join themselves to the Church are not partaking of these things. Rather, they defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behavior. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God. And where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace. (Irenaeus of Lyons (96) )

It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. These are those who, together with the succession of the Episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is incumbent to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting in such a manner for the sake of money and vainglory... But those who cut asunder and separate the unity of the Church will receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. [1 Kings 13:33-14:20]... For no reformation of so great importance can be affected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. (Irenaeus of Lyons (97) )

Break a branch from a tree, and when broken it will not be able to bud... A person can no longer have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother. If anyone could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who will be outside of the Church... A person cannot possess the garment of Christ if he parts and divides the Church of Christ. [cf. John 19:23-24, contrast with 1 Kings 11:29-36] (Cyprian of Carthage (98) )

You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another. (Cyprian of Carthage (99) )

We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the Faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor. (Augustine of Hippo (100) )

A man cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church he can everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing "Alleluia", he can answer "Amen", he can possess the Gospel, he can have and preach faith in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation. (Augustine of Hippo (101) )

The last statement of St. Augustine is especially revealing, for it contradicts flatly the Protestant definition of the authentic, visible Church. The Reformers, such as John Calvin, agreed that the visible Church was necessary for salvation:

But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Mt. 22:30). For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify (Isa. 37:32; Joel 2:32). (102)

Unlike the Fathers, however, the Reformers defined the Church as simply "the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered." (Augsburg Confession VII (103) ) While the Gospel and Sacraments are holy, Augustine argued they do not bestow salvation apart from the visible unity of the Catholic Church.

17. The Unity and Continuity of the True Church

Rather than suggesting, as an afterthought, that one seeking to follow Christ find "fellowship in a good church", the Fathers would urge seekers to enter into communion with Christ in the good Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Not any Christian congregation will do; it must be a local manifestation of the "household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15, NIV). For the early Fathers, the unity of the Church was visible, and would continue throughout human history:

The Church is the salt of the earth. [Matt. 5:13] It has been left behind within the confines of the earth, and it is subject to human suffering. And even though entire members are often taken away from it, the pillar of salt still endures [cf. Gen. 19:26]. (Irenaeus of Lyons (104) )

...since the word "Church" is applied to different things... and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, ...for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church", that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. (Cyril of Jerusalem (105) )

The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all. Each heresy wields against its adversary some weapon already shattered, in another instance, by the Church's condemnation. There is no point of union between them, and the outcome of their internecine struggles is the confirmation of the faith. (Hilary of Poitiers (106) )

The Patristic teaching on the indefectibility (ongoing existence) of the true Church was taught originally in both the Lutheran and Reformed confessions, although it is not as widely believed among Protestants today:

[The] one holy Church is to continue forever. (Augsburg Confession VII (107) )

[T]here shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will. (Westminster Confession XXV, 5 (108) )

From the fact that the Church, the visible sign, herald, and presence of God's Kingdom on earth, will continue forever (Matt. 16:18, 28:18-20), it follows that the Church is undivided, for "any kingdom divided against itself...will not stand." (Matt. 12:25) Just as Christ Himself is one Lord (Eph. 4:5) and cannot be divided (1 Cor. 1:13), so the Church is one Body united in one Faith (Eph. 4:4-5) and cannot be divided or broken (John 21:11). Divisions from the one Church do not divide Christ or His Body (1 Cor. 12:12-13); they only show who does or does not have God's approval (1 Cor. 3:3-4, 11:18-19, 1 John 2:19, Jude 19).  

It cannot be the case, therefore, that the divisions between Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants are divisions between Christians who are equally members of the one Church.  As the Body of Christ, the authentic Church is always undivided (although the sharing of the Eucharist between some members of the Church may be impaired from time to time, as when two nations are at war).  As the pillar and foundation of the truth, the authentic Church always teaches in accordance with true doctrine (although her individual members, including individual bishops, are subject to error).  Whichever Christian body has the fullness of true doctrine in continuity with that which has always been believed by the Church, and seeks full communion with other churches on the basis of the same, is herself the authentic Church.  All other churches are either heterodox (teaching false doctrine or failing to uphold true doctrine), or schismatical (refusing communion with other orthodox churches).

From the standpoint of the Fathers, the authentic Church is characterized by an authentic leadership and an authentic Eucharist, and by a continuity and unity of both doctrine and communion across time and space. The government of the Church is episcopal in nature, consisting of bishops who are in succession from the apostles, and teach the same doctrine as their predecessors and their contemporaries throughout the world:

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which surpasses all the other gifts [of God]. (Irenaeus of Lyons (109) )

St. Irenaeus viewed the Historic Episcopate as of the essence of the Church, thereby contradicting the ecclesiology of the Protestant Reformers, even those who, like the Anglicans, preserved the office of bishop.

18. The Centrality of the Eucharist

The Fathers taught that authentic worship of the Church is centered on the Eucharist, which is celebrated under the presidency of the local bishop and with a recognition that the consecrated elements are not ordinary bread and wine, but the true Body and Blood of Christ under the earthly forms of bread and wine:

Consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come to us, how opposed they are to the will of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again... keep aloof from such persons... Avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbyters as you would the Apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid... Whoever honors the bishop has been honored by God; whoever does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. (Ignatius of Antioch (110) )

And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Justin Martyr (111) )

Our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and in turn, the Eucharist establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and spirit. For the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity. (Irenaeus of Lyons (112) )

He says that whoever will eat of His bread will live forever. So it is clear that those who partake of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living. On the other hand, we must fear and pray lest anyone who is separate from Christ’s Body, being barred from communion, should remain at a distance from salvation. For He Himself warns and says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." [John 6:53] (Cyprian of Carthage (113) )

Among the various Western confessions at the time of the Reformation, only the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches upheld teachings resembling the Orthodox Fathers’ doctrine of the Real Presence. The Roman Catholic Church, however, denied the Cup of the Eucharist to the laity, contrary to the universal custom of the ancient Catholic Church, while the Lutheran Church frequently administered the Sacrament apart from bishops in succession from the Apostles, violating St. Ignatius of Antioch’s rule for a valid Eucharist.

19. The Claims of the Roman Catholicism

Where would the early Church Fathers consider the Catholic Church to exist today? Since the Fathers believed the Church to be one and undivided, and believed in both Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, they almost certainly would be drawn to either the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church, each of which has upheld these teachings consistently, and each of which claims to be the fullness of the one Church on earth. But which of these churches is the true Church?

It is generally agreed that, notwithstanding disputes over the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Purgatory, the major issue dividing the Orthodox and Catholic churches is the issue of the authority of the Bishop of Rome in defining doctrine and governing the Church. Are the doctrinal definitions of the Pope of Rome authoritative and binding in themselves, as Roman Catholics teach, or must they first be examined and then received by the other bishops and laity of the Church? Does the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, have supreme and immediate disciplinary authority over all of the Church on earth, or is he first among equals, as Eastern Orthodox insist?  While the Western Orthodox Fathers Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine had high regard for the Bishop of Rome, their writings indicate that their understanding of episcopal authority was much more in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox position. According to this view, the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Pope of Rome is no greater than that of any other bishop, and every bishop is subordinate to the authority of Scripture as understood according to Apostolic Tradition and the definitions of Ecumenical Councils:

When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome in the time of [bishop] Anictetus, ... they were at once well inclined towards each other. They were not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this matters. Anictetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [of his Easter customs]. For these things had always been observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other Apostles with whom Polycarp had been conversant. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anictetus to keep [Easter in his way]. For Anictetus maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs, they held fellowship with each other. (Irenaeus of Lyons (114) )

For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging our acts therein. (Cyprian of Carthage (115) )

The Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle Paul, when he adopted a custom in the matter of circumcision at variance with the demands of truth [Gal. 2:11-16]... Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and yet is preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the rule of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statues of the universal Church? ...Who can fail to be aware that the sacred Canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true? All the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the Canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of someone who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, or by the authority of Councils. Further, the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world. Even in the case of the plenary Councils, the earlier ones are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this with... holy humility, Catholic peace, and Christian charity. (Augustine of Hippo (116) )

Like St. Augustine, the Orthodox Church considers the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, received by the whole Church in both the East and the West, as superior to any definition proclaimed by the Bishop of Rome only. When Pope Leo I submitted his Tome to the Fathers of the Four Ecumenical Council (at Chalcedon, A.D. 451), rather than submitting to it without question, they first examined it in the light of the Christological doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria affirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).  It was only after finding Leo’s teaching to be in agreement with Cyril’s that the Eastern Fathers declared, "Peter has spoken through Leo!"  The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (at Constantinople, A.D. 680-681) examined the teachings of another pope, Honorius I, and anathematized him posthumously as a heretic:

The holy Council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the Apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine… And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. (117)

This anathema was confirmed by Pope Leo II, who also declared his predecessor anathema. If a Pope can teach heresy, then it follows that he should not always receive the "loyal submission of the will and intellect" that Vatican II claimed should be given to him regardless of whether he teaches ex cathedra (Lumen Gentium 25 (118) ).

Based on these testimonies, I conclude that these Fathers of the early Church would identify more with the Orthodox than with the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy. The Roman Catholic dogma of papal supremacy and infallibility is contrary to the consensus of the ancient Catholic Church in both the East and the West. While St. Augustine would recognize much of his own theology in the doctrinal formulations of the Roman Catholic Church, he would not agree with her current form of government. I have no doubt, however, that St. Augustine would work for the visible unity and full communion of the Orthodox and Roman churches, and for the restoration of Protestant Christians to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

20. Implications for Those Seeking to be Faithful to the Original Gospel

I have sought to demonstrate that the Gospel proclaimed by the early Church Fathers, including them who knew the Apostles personally, was substantively the same as the Gospel proclaimed by the Orthodox Church today. The teachings of Roman and Protestant Christianity, in contrast, diverge substantively (and not merely in form) from how the early Church understood God, man, Christ, salvation, and the Church. Because the purity of the Apostolic Gospel is not something on which the Orthodox Catholic Fathers would wish to compromise, it should be clear that they would view both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as heterodox, albeit in varying degrees. A formulation of the Gospel does not have to be 100 percent false in order to be heterodox, but it must be 100 percent true in order to be orthodox, and, according to Patristic teaching, both Roman Catholic and Protestant formulations of the Gospel fail to meet that high standard. This is not to say that a Christ-loving Roman Catholic or Protestant Christian cannot be saved, but it is to say that a non-Orthodox believer’s doctrine and practice includes at least some deviations from the norms God intends for His people.

Assuming a Roman Catholic or Protestant Christian recognizes the divergence of his own tradition from the original Gospel proclaimed by the Church, he should act on this conviction. Apart from participation in the worship life of the Orthodox Church, it is not possible for a Christian to identify fully with Orthodox Tradition, since Tradition is "the life of the Spirit in the Church." As Kallistos Ware and other Orthodox authors have noted, to be fully Orthodox means to be in communion with Orthodox bishops in both body and spirit.  To be convinced that Orthodoxy is true, but to fail to act on that truth, is dangerous for both one's own salvation and for the salvation of one's family and friends.

Irenaeus offered a vivid metaphor explaining the perils of those who, abiding in heterodox Christian communions, interpret Holy Scripture for themselves:

By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, [the heterodox] succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that ...the miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. (119)

No 21^st Century Christian can claim to understand the meaning of Scripture more accurately than the men taught directly by the Apostles or by their immediate successors.  For guidance in understanding the Scriptures (cf. Acts 8:30-31), we must turn to the Church that has preserved the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition, without either Roman additions or Protestant subtractions. As Irenaeus wrote:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the Tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (120)

While Tradition is the "life of the Spirit in the Church", the Holy Spirit's work is not confined to the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church.  We should not doubt that the Spirit of Truth, Who "is everywhere and fills all things" (according to an Orthodox prayer) and "blows where He wishes" (John 3:8), has been at work among many committed Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians.  In the same way, God was at work among God-fearing Gentiles outside of Israel (Matt. 8:5-13, John 4:5-32, Acts 10, Heb. 11:31), and in the life of Apollos before he was instructed more fully by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24-28). Throughout the history of Christianity, heterodox missionaries were often the first to spread word of Christ among previously unevangelized ethnic groups, and so they have served as part of God's plan for the salvation of the nations. But, while many "separated brethren" of the Orthodox are already converted to the Person of Jesus Christ, they also, if they are to be all God wants them to be, need to be converted to the visible fullness of His Body (Eph. 1:18), the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), the Orthodox Church. Such a conversion to the authentic Church and original Christian Faith may require those of us from Protestant backgrounds in particular to sacrifice notions and customs that have become dear to us, and to embrace some practices with which we may be uncomfortable, but "we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth." (2 Cor. 13:8)  By abandoning the hay and stubble that well-meaning forefathers sought to lay on the foundation of Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-15), we can free ourselves to embrace the gold and silver of the Apostolic and Catholic Tradition. In so doing, we will draw closer to brothers and sisters of diverse religious backgrounds who are being led by the Holy Spirit into visible unity with the Orthodox Church, that the world may believe in the truth of God’s only-begotten Son (John 17:20-23).

ENDNOTES:

1.  Source : http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-11/Npnf2-11-27.htm#P1466_641557 .

2.  First Epistle to the Corinthians 46, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841 .

3.  The Martyrdom of Polycarp 14, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#P911_166347 .

4.  Against Heresies I, 10, 1, http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364 .

5.  Source: http://yourpage.blazenet.net/chrysostom/liturgy.html .

6.   See, for example, On the Trinity V 14, 15, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-11.htm#P1082_437057 .

7.  Source:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM .

8.  Article V, at http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/39articles.html .

9.  Chapter II, 3, at http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

10.  John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I, 8, 12, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-28.htm#P2572_1620805 .

11.  "Topics of Natural and Theological Science" 36, in The Philokalia , Vol. 4 (London, Faber and Faber, 1995), pp. 361-362.

12.  For more information on Popes Leo III and John VIII, refer to the Abbe Guettee’s book, The Papacy, on-line at http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/papacy.html .

13.  Treatise VI, On the Vanity of Idols 9, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-116.htm#P7351_2431968 .

14.    Against Heresies, IV, 20, 5, ANF 1, p. 489, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

15.    Quoted by Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way , Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995, p. 22.

16.    "Against Eunomius" I, 14, in William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. II (Collegeville, MN, The Liturgical Press, 1979), p. 12.

17.    An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I, 9, 14, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-28.htm#P2572_1620805 .

18.  Ibid., II, 23, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-29.htm#P2930_1712146 .

19.  Ibid., III, 15, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-30.htm#P3511_1843209 .

20.   "Topics of Natural and Theological Science" 129, in The Philokalia , Vol. 4, op. cit., p. 407.

21.  First Apology 63, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967 .

22.   On the Trinity III 11, 21-22, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-09.htm#P764_292508 .

23.   Against Heresies IV, 20, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

24.    An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II, 12, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-29.htm#P3223_1774637 .

25.    Against Heresies V, 6, 1,  at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .

26.    "Topics of Natural and Theological Science" 39, in The Philokalia , Vol. 4, op. cit., p. 363.

27.    Against Heresies IV, 37, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

28.    Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

29.    Against Heresies I, 7, 5, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364 .

30.   Source : http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

31.    Institutes of the Christian Religion II, I, 8, at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookii/bookii03.htm .

32.   Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental 33, 36 and 35, 39, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-12.htm#P1084_569980 .

33.   Solid Declaration on Original Sin , 44, at http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/originalsin.html .

34.   "Various Texts on Theology", First Century, Text 11, The Philokalia , Vol. 2 (London, Faber and Faber, 1980).

35.   Against Heresies III, 23, 6, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859 .

36.  Homilies on Genesis XVIII, 3 PG 53 151, quoted at http://www.orthodox.clara.net/ancestral_sin.htm .

37.  The Martyrdom of Polycarp 11, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#P911_166347 .

38.    Against Heresies IV, 40, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

39.    Treatise V, An Address to Demetrianus 23-24, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-115.htm#P7273_2388656 .

40.  Epistle to the Ephesians 7, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499 .

41.  Against Heresies IV 6, 7, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

42.    Treatise XII, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews Book 2, 10, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm#P7907_2659601 . 

43.   Against Heresies V, 19, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .

44.   Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm .

45.    Against Heresies V, Preface, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .  

46.    On the Incarnation of the Logos 54, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-16.htm#P1830_678055 .

47.    "Explanations of the Psalms", 29, 2, 1 and 49, 2, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 17.

48.    Against Heresies V 16, 3 to 17, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .

49.    Treatise VIII, On Works and Alms 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-118.htm#P7475_2488788 .

50.    On the Incarnation of the Logos 9, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-16.htm#P1830_678055 .

51.    On the Trinity IV, 13, 17, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-10.htm#P934_360132 .

52.    On-line at http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm .

53.    Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

54.   Oration 25, 22, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-56.htm .

55.   The Orthodox Way, op. cit., p. 82.

56.   Against Heresies V, 6, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P8900_2545577 .

57.    First Epistle to the Corinthians 24, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841 . 

58.    Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530 .

59.    Treatise VI On the Vanity of Idols 14, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-116.htm#P7351_2431968 .

60.    The Martyrdom of Polycarp 18, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#P911_166347 .

61.  Homily on the Holy Martyr Ignatius, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-17.htm#P751_494817 .

62.   The Martyrdom of Polycarp 17, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-13.htm#P911_166347 . 

63.  On the Divine Images III, 40, David Anderson, translator (Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), p. 88.

64.   Source:  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-165.htm#P10287_1959698 .

65.   See http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9610a.htm .

66.   Against Heresies IV, 7, 3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

67.    Treatise XII, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews Book 3, 24, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm#P7907_2659601 .

68.  Epistle to the Ephesians 18, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499 .

69.  Fragments from Lost Writings 34, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-64.htm#P9437_2768575 .

70.  Against Heresies I, 21, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364 .

71.  Epistle I, 4, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-26.htm#P4717_1413363 .

72. Against Heresies II, 22, 4, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-59.htm#P6719_1628705 .

73.  Epistle LVIII 5, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-83.htm#P5868_1840497 .

74.   Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

75.  "Forgiveness and the Just Desert of Sins, and  the Baptism of Infants" 1, 24, 34, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 91.

76.   First Epistle to the Corinthians 33, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841 . 

77.  Ibid., 30, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841 .

78. Against Heresies IV, 13, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

79.  Treatise I, On the Unity of the Catholic Church , 2, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664 .

80.  On Faith and Works, 14:21, translated by Gregory J. Lombardo, (New York, Newman Press, 1988), pp. 28-29.

81.  Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

82.   On the Spirit and the Letter 54, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-05/npnf1-05-14.htm#P1256_643410 .

83.   "The Unfinished Work Against Julian’s Second Reply", 2:165, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 177.

84.  Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd Edition (London, Basil Blackwell, 1997), pp. 442-443.

85.  From The Art of Prayer:  An Orthodox Anthology , compiled by Igumen Chariton of Valamo (London, Faber and Faber, 1997), pp. 144-145, 225-226.

86.   Source: http://www.bartleby.com/36/4/1.html .

87.   Against Heresies IV 41, 2-3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

88.   Epistle VI, 2,  at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-31.htm#P4823_1461138 .

89.  "Admonition and Grace" 6, 9, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 157.

90.  Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

91.  Against Heresies I, 6, 2-3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364 .

92.  Epistle to the Phillippians, 2, 5, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-11.htm#P770_145457 .

93.   Epistle to the Ephesians, 13, 14, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499 .

94.  First Epistle to the Corinthians 44, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841 .

95.  Epistle to the Philadelphians 3-4, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407 .

96.  Against Heresies III, 24, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859 .

97.  Ibid., IV, 26, 2 and 33, 7, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

98.   Treatise I, On the Unity of the Catholic Church 5-7, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664 .

99.   Epistle to Florentius Pupianus, 66[69], 8, in Jurgens, Vol. I, p. 234.

100.  "Faith and the Creed" 10, 21, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 44.

101.   "Discourse to the People of the [Donatist] Church at Caesarea", 6, in Jurgens, Vol. III, p. 130.

102.   Institutes of the Christian Religion IV, I, 4, at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/bookiv/bookiv03.htm .

103.   Source: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augs-007.html .

104.   Against Heresies IV, 31, 3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

105.   Catechetical Lectures XVIII, 26, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-23.htm#P2556_721316 .

106.  On the Trinity VII, 4, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-14.htm#P1515_958747 .

107.  Source: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augs-007.html .

108.  Source: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html .

109.  Against Heresies IV, 33, 8,  at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

110.   Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6-9,  at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530 .

111.  First Apology 66, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3593_620967 .

112.   Against Heresies IV, 18, 5, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P7979_2198226 .

113.   Treatise IV, On the Lord’s Prayer , 18, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-114.htm#P7129_2334049 .

114.   Fragments from Lost Writings 3, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-64.htm#P9437_2768575 .

115.  Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian , at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm#P9402_2932994 .

116.  On Baptism Against the Donatists II 1-1, 3-4, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-53.htm#P3163_1843900 .

117.    Source:  http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-126.htm#P5872_1297340 ; see also http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-131.htm#P5927_1323872 .

118.  On-line at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v3.html .

119.  Against Heresies I, 8, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-58.htm#P6155_1380364 .


120.  Ibid., III, 4, 1, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7328_1952979 .

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws