In our last newsletter, we considered some of the reasons why evangelical Christians find Orthodoxy appealing. We noted that Orthodoxy’s sense of antiquity, catholicity and liturgical richness are prime motivations for many who have converted to Orthodoxy. In this edition, we will consider important differences in doctrinal understanding between the Orthodox and the Reformed.
From the perspective of the Reformation, the first issue that needs to be considered is that of justification. At the heart of the Reformation was the rediscovery of Paul’s doctrine of justification. This truth is that through faith in Jesus Christ our sins are forgiven and we are judged by God to be righteous, not because of any moral perfection in our behavior, but because of the righteousness of Christ given to us. In my experience, the Orthodox do not understand Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. As formulated by Protestants, some within Orthodoxy reject it. Others tolerate it. I have even heard one Orthodox theologian affirm it. But no one I met or read seemed to understand it. Just as Protestants can make justification the whole (rather than the beginning) of the gospel so the Orthodox tend to make sanctification (which they call "theosis" or deification) the whole gospel. In my estimation this is a serious defect. It weakens the Orthodox understanding of the nature of faith.
Orthodoxy has a serious problem with nominal members. Many Orthodox Christians have a very inadequate understanding of the gospel as Orthodoxy teaches it. Their religiosity is often so intertwined with their ethnicity that being Russian or Greek becomes almost synonymous with being Orthodox. This is, by the way, a critique I heard from the lips of Orthodox leaders. This is not nearly as significant a problem in the Reformed churches because our preaching of justification by faith continually stresses the necessity for a personal, intimate trusting, receiving and resting upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Such an emphasis is blurred among the Orthodox. This is not to say that members of the Orthodox churches cannot have justifying faith. Many whom I met seemed to have a true justifying faith. That is, they did not boast before God of their own righteousness, but confessed they were sinners whose only salvation was in Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection.
Unlike Rome, Orthodoxy does not have a developed doctrinal substitute for justification by faith. There is nothing in Orthodoxy like the Tridentine doctrine of justification. On a positive note, there are statements in the Fathers that anticipate the fuller development of the doctrine of justification by the Reformers. Chrysostom, for example, states the matter in a way that indicates he had some understanding of the truth. In his first homily on Romans, Chrysostom writes of the righteousness of God that is from faith to faith, "For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, ‘believing.’" In his seventh homily on Romans, he says, "For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified." Regarding the relation of faith to good works, he says, "But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy of the gift." These quotations indicate that Chrysostom understood justification as based on a gift of righteousness, and as received by faith prior to the good works of the Christian life. This is not to say that we find in Chrysostom the fully developed Reformation doctrine of justification. Yet there is a beginning in his writings worthy of further reflection.
On the other hand, the emphasis in Chrysostom is not on justifying faith, but on the need for a life of obedience. Even as he expounds Romans chapters three and four, his thought continually returns to the need for a life of obedience. Given the times in which he lived, this is not surprising. Chrysostom was confronted with the masses who submitted to baptism, but whose lives showed little evidence of the grace of God. It is not surprising that he dwelt often on the need for a consecrated and obedient life. In Orthodoxy today there is even less emphasis on justification than in Chrysostom. The emphasis is on theosis, not justification. Yet there is a basis in the Fathers for a fuller development of this truth among the Orthodox. We are not at a dead end here as we are with Trent’s doctrine. Rome teaches a distorted gospel that, consistently embraced, excludes justifying faith. Orthodoxy is fuzzy on the matter of justification.
This matter is complicated by two other things. For the Orthodox today, the need of the hour is to define themselves over against evangelicalism. Most of those who have left Orthodoxy for another form of Christian faith, have left it for evangelical Christianity. In Russia and Eastern Europe there is considerable hostility to evangelicals because of evangelical efforts to win converts from Orthodoxy. So there is little openness to consider the continuity between Chrysostom and Calvin on justification. From the perspective of history, the initial interaction of Orthodox with the Reformation was not very positive. Cyril Lucaris, who was elected the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1621, showed a decided openness to the Reformation. He corresponded with Protestant theologians and embraced Reformation ideas. This led to opposition by his priests and by Jesuits living in Constantinople. On an apparently trumped up charge of treason, the Turks assassinated Cyril in 1638. A council in Jerusalem was called by Patriarch Dositheus in 1672 that explicitly condemned the Reformation and its doctrine of justification by faith. This council, however, does not have the authority of the early ecumenical councils for the Orthodox. So the matter remains clouded.
Second, the Orthodox have a very inadequate understanding of human sin and sovereign grace. It is not fair to say they are pelagians. (Pelagius was a western Christian who wrote in Latin.) But they definitely are not of one mind with Augustine on sin and grace. Bishop Kallistos Ware in The Orthodox Way writes, "The Orthodox tradition, without minimizing the effects of the fall, does not however believe that it resulted in a ‘total depravity’, such as the Calvinists assert in their more pessimistic moments. The divine image in man is obscured but not obliterated. His free choice has been restricted in its exercise but not destroyed." (p. 80) A little further he writes, "The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good…" (p. 81) Such an understanding reflects a substantial failure to interact with the very strong and pointed language of Scripture on the topic of human sinfulness. Such a weak view of human sin can only produce a correspondingly weak view of divine grace. In a conversation about the nature of salvation that included only professors and doctoral students, I quoted Ezekiel 36:26-27 as showing that there is a grace of God that precedes faith and enables that human response. One professor said in response, "I never thought of that verse in that way before." The Orthodox have not thought a lot about sin, regeneration, election, and so forth. Their view of original sin (they usually avoid the term) falls far short of the teaching of Paul. Correspondingly, their understanding of God’s calling is weak. Their opinions are best described as "undeveloped."
Chrysostom’s comments on John 6:44 (no one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him) are entirely concerned to establish the truth of free will over against the Manicheans. The idea of a will enslaved to sin is not part of his conception of the matter. Yet on the other hand, Chrysostom’s comments on Ephesians 1:4 indicate some grasp of the point of divine election. " But besides, His vouchsafing us so great privileges, was the effect of His love, not of our virtue. Because our being rendered virtuous, and believing, and coming nigh unto Him, even this again was the work of Him that called us Himself, and yet, notwithstanding, it is ours also." In contemporary Orthodoxy, the emphasis seems to fall entirely on the "it is ours also" aspect of Chrysostom’s thought.
On such central matters as justification, sin and grace, Orthodoxy falls short of the clarity of the Reformation. Yet, the door is not closed for the Orthodox on these matter because there are glimmers of insight in the Fathers that anticipate the fuller light of the Reformation. As I see it, the Reformation faith is the perfection of the faith of the Fathers, not its rejection. The Orthodox Church is greatly in need of such a perfection.
Dr. Jack D. Kinneer