The Eastern Orthodox church began in 1054 with the dissolution of the “catholic” church by the actions of the bishop of Rome. Eastern Orthodoxy is a denomination highly fractured by nationalism, prevalent in the Balkan peninsula of Europe, Russia, and also having small numbers in the Near East. Although very similar to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy has grown apart from the other portion of the “catholic” church, having faced severe persecution from both Muslims and Communists since the fourteenth century. The belief system of the Eastern Orthodox can be summed up in the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that were called in the first millennium CE.

Sections on this Page


The Eastern Orthodox church is a confederation of many national churches, all having the same doctrinal positions yet governed separately. Nominally, the lands in Eastern Orthodoxy are divided amongst the four historic Patriarchates (the main heads of the Eastern Orthodox church): in Constantinople (now Istanbul), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. There are nine other “autocephalous,” or self-governing, churches, in Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Albania. There are also five churches which are deemed “autonomous,” as mostly independent and mostly self-governed, but do not yet have full independence, in the Czech Republic/Slovakia, Sinai, Finland, and China1. There are also many Orthodox living in America and in western Europe, and at this time, they tend to still hold to the specific church of their nationality.

General Considerations

Part I

Lutheranism: The Lord’s Prayer

Part II


Part III

Baptism: Infant Baptism and “Original Sin”; Baptism is Immersion; Tripartite Baptism

The Church Treasury, I: Benevolence: Church Benevolence to Non-Saints; The Missionary Society

The Church Treasury, II: Other Considerations: Hospitals; Centers of Education; Kitchens/Fellowship Halls; Business Enterprises

Concerning Observances:
Observances Concerning the Lord’s Birth: Advent; Christmas
Observances Concerning the Lord’s Death: Ash Wednesday; Lent; Holy Thursday; Good Friday; Easter
Other Observances: Ascension/Pentecost; Epiphany; Annunciation; Days Concerning Saints

Creeds: The Apostles’ Creed; The Nicene Creed; The Athanasian Creed

Judaic Practices: The Ten Commandments and the “Moral Law”; Tithing

The Lord’s Supper: The Nature of the Emblems; The Bread and the Fruit of the Vine

Positions of Authority: A Hierarchy of Bishops; Priests; Ordination; Synods, Councils, Conventions, and Other Meetings

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

The Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church share many views and doctrines on account of their shared heritage in the “catholic” church; nevertheless, many differences also exist. Let us now examine briefly the various traditions discussed concerning Roman Catholicism and their similarities and differences with the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Traditions Concerning the Scriptures: The Eastern Orthodox use a translation of the Septuagint for their Old Testament, and all the works included in the original. Some, however, do not accept 4 Maccabees2. The church is still considered the ultimate interpreter of the Scriptures3.

Traditions Concerning Sacraments: The Eastern Orthodox church has essentially the same seven sacraments (although the terminology is different) as the Roman Catholic church, except the Roman Catholic confirmation is chrismation in the Eastern Orthodox church, and it is always performed immediately after baptism (unless one converts to Eastern Orthodoxy and was already baptized; then they are simply chrismated when they join)4.

Traditions Concerning the Church: The Eastern Orthodox church has not gone so far as to say that the church is their “mother,” but do regard highly their church as an institution5.

Traditions Concerning History: The Eastern Orthodox church has not made any claim to a pure history, and many in it recognize the abuses that some of its members have committed in times past.

Traditions Concerning Mary: The Eastern Orthodox also regard Mary very highly, holding to the same traditions as the Roman Catholic church6.

Traditions Concerning Saints: “Saints” are held in high esteem within Eastern Orthodoxy as in Roman Catholicism, although in Eastern Orthodoxy saints are chosen by popular opinion and the council of each autocephalous church. Prayer to these “saints” and relics concerning them are likewise accepted7.

Traditions Concerning Sin: The Eastern Orthodox church does not bind penance as necessary, yet urges its members strongly to do so. The confession is done face to face, and there is more humility on the role of the priest than in Roman Catholicism, but it still places a man in the wrong position (1 John 1:9)8.

Traditions Concerning Prayer: The Eastern Orthodox have a “Jesus Prayer,” a prayer said constantly like a meditative chant, which is an attempt to reach higher spiritual levels9. This is likewise not seen in the Scriptures, and is inconsistent with Matthew 6:7.

Traditions Concerning Consecration: The Eastern Orthodox bishops need to be celibate in order to obtain their position, but priests are not bound to celibacy as in the Roman Catholic church (unless they desire the priesthood while single; in that situation, they must remain celibate)10. The emphasis on monasticism and asceticism is also present11.

Traditions Concerning the Afterlife: The Eastern Orthodox deny the concept of Purgatory.


The Eastern Orthodox church has formulated the idea of theosis, or “becoming god.” The belief is that through spiritual maturation, humans can actually become divinities, and they use Psalm 82:6, quoted in part by Jesus in John 10:34-36, as justification12:

I said, “Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, ye are gods?’ If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?'”

Do the Scriptures truly teach that we can become gods through spiritual maturity? By no means! The Psalmist uses the present tense; if such people are to “be” gods, they must be this way already! The Psalmist is perhaps best understood as making a more sarcastic form of comment, especially when we see that he continues in Psalm 82:7 by saying that these “gods” will “die like men.” Jesus’ use of the passage serves as a demonstration that it is possible for God to come in the form of a man, as He Himself does, and should not be extended to indicate the divinity of the persons to whom the Psalm was addressed. The very “oddity” of the idea that Jesus was God in the flesh should indicate to us that the idea of man becoming as a god was not a common view in Jesus’ day.

We also have the witness of Isaiah in Isaiah 55:9:

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God is much, much higher than man is, and we cannot attain to His level of maturity or anything near it. Does man obtain maturity similar to that which God has? Surely, for through God we receive the fruit of the Spirit and chiefly love (Galatians 5:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13). To say, however, that we can become gods takes the Biblical doctrine of spiritual maturity too far. We have the opportunity to share in attributes of God, but never can it be said that by them we can become as God.


The Eastern Orthodox believe highly in icons, religious art painted on wood displaying a spiritual message. They give great reverence to these icons, similar to the Roman Catholic church and its relics, going so far as to kiss these icons and bow in front of them13. They even treat Bibles in the same manner, kissing them also14. This all comes out of the belief that we must remember the humanity of Christ somehow, and therefore there are these icons, and they must be used15. Is this an idea present in Scripture?

The Lord, before His death, did give us a memorial of His physical life in His Supper (cf. Matthew 26:26-29, the other Gospel accounts). Paul goes so far to call it the proclamation of His death in 1 Corinthians 11:26. There is within the Scriptures therefore a fitting memorial for the life of our Lord in the bread and the fruit of the vine.

Concerning icons, it is, along with the Roman Catholic church’s practices concerning relics, too close to idolatry to be fit for Christian worship, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. It would be too easy for many to forget that the icon is just a tool to be used in prayer and service, and to begin praying to and bowing before the icon itself. We could also see the examples given in the Old Testament concerning the Jews making shapes of wood and stone and His reaction against them (cf. especially the deeds of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12:25-13:5).

Especially in some of the eastern European countries in which Eastern Orthodoxy is prevalent, the argument is often made that the icon is only two-dimensional and therefore cannot be an idol. On the other hand, God never mentions how many dimensions a figure must have before it becomes an idol, for God even calls things which technically have no form idols, as seen in Colossians 3:5:

Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

An idol, then, is not defined by its dimensions; an idol is defined as anything that takes the full attention of an individual away from God. If the icon is placed before God, then it is an idol in His sight.

The Problem with Petrine Authority

The Eastern Orthodox church is governed nominally by five Patriarchs, sitting in seats in Constantinople (Istanbul), Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Moscow. Their desire is to have the bishop in Rome (i.e., the Pope) restored to that association, if he would recognize that “first among equals” means primacy, not supremacy16. This is not the supremacy that the bishop in Rome now believes he has17. The Eastern Orthodox church believes that all bishops are collectively the successors of Peter, not just the one in Rome, although he has a “special claim” to being such18. Where the papacy claims infallibility, the Eastern Orthodox says the church has infallibility when met in a council19, and there is a much greater emphasis on a more oligarchical system of governing (many bishops meeting in councils to determine doctrine) over the more monarchical system in Roman Catholicism (the pope determining doctrine with the assent of some bishops)20. Finally, both churches claim to be the “true church,” founded on Peter, the “rock.21

The implications of the schism between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches show most clearly how Peter is not the true source of authority. It should be said first that members of both churches will often appeal to all of the disagreement over what the Bible says about various issues of faith, and point to the vast number of denominations in the world today. This certainly is tragic, however, no one denies the source of faith, the Word of God. The Word is fairly objective, because all can appeal to it as an authority for issues of doctrine. This is not so for those holding to a system of Petrine authority, especially since there are two groups claiming this authority.

Let us use an example to illustrate: the main doctrinal issue that divided these two churches, the presence of the filioque in the Nicene Creed22. If one were to ask the pope in Rome if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, he would say that it does, and that his judgment is true because he sits on Peter’s chair in Rome. Now, if one would go before a council of the patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church and ask if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, they will say that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and that their judgment is true because it was the doctrine promoted within the original Nicene Creed as agreed upon by that particular ecumenical council, and that council’s determination is inspired by the Holy Spirit through apostolic succession. Who is right? They both claim the same authority and yet have come to completely different answers; to what should one turn?

The Roman Catholic church answers that since Peter is one man, only one man can have his authority. This is all well and good if they wish to say that they have only had Peter’s authority since 1054, since before then the bishop in Rome had at least nominally accepted the existence of the bishops in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and there was much communication and work done between them, especially in the earlier centuries. The implications of this argument are vast: the Roman Catholic church would be forced to admit that they had communion with heretics between 150-1054, and that they have esteemed some heretics as their “church fathers,” such as Athanasius, Origen, and many others, who were members of the eastern churches. The Roman Catholic church has not made any such move; therefore, they contradict their own argumentation. The system of authority grounded in Peter is still divided.

There would be only one place that one could turn to in order to answer the question above or any question similar to it. It cannot be tradition, nor the pope, nor the councils of the Eastern Orthodox, but the Word of God as seen in the Holy Scriptures. No one within “Christendom” questions the authority of its authors, nor can anyone claim that its authority can be compromised by division. Authority vested within men has proven itself to avail nothing, and has been compromised by division. Authority for the Christian’s deeds and beliefs, therefore, can only be found in the Scriptures.


1: From Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 5
2: Ibid., p. 200
3: Ibid., p. 201
4: Ibid., pp. 278-279
5: Ibid., pp. 199, 239
6: Ibid., pp. 257, 260
7: Ibid., p. 256
8: Ibid., pp. 288-289
9: Ibid., p. 65
10: Ibid., p. 291
11: Ibid., pp. 36-37
12: Ibid., p. 219
13: Ibid., p. 32
14: Ibid., p. 201
15: Ibid., p. 33
16: Ibid., p. 27
17: Ibid., p. 27
18: Ibid., p. 28
19: Ibid., p. 239
20: Ibid., p. 15
21: Ibid.
22: Filioque is a Latin term meaning “and the son.” In around the eighth century CE, the “catholic” churches in the west began to add this phrase in the Nicene Creed in the article concerning the Holy Spirit, signifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The eastern churches considered this as heretical, believing that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and through the Son. There is still great dissension over this word in the creed. For more, please see Creeds: The Nicene Creed.

Return to Denominations

Return to A Study of Denominations

13 Responses

  1. Ian Buckmaster

    This article on Eastern Orthodoxy is garbage. I would know. I am one. I personally used to be an evangelical and am even a student at Liberty University (an evangelical school). You have seriously misrepresented my faith, especially in regards to theosis and iconography. You cannot just read a wikipedia page and judge my religion without having truly listened to what an actual Orthodox christian has to say. It is obvious that the article is meant to do nothing but attempt to “debunk” my religion without giving it any true form of credibility.

    Ian Buckmaster

    • deusvitae

      No Wikipedia pages were consulted in the creation of the study. If you would like to challenge the representations with appropriate textual citations that would always be most welcome.

      Perhaps the problem is that the justifications given for the doctrines are Scripturally insufficient?

    • Rupert

      I agree with Ian, and I am not even Orthodox. This site is so full of errors as to be entirely useless, except as a case study of how bias so thoroughly influences some religious believers as to make them fundamentally unable to understand religious history.

  2. James

    As a fellow Orthodox Christian, I must say that Ian Buckmaster is absolutely correct: This article is (mostly) nonsense, and the sections on theosis and iconography are particularly outrageous.

    To be clear, it’s not a question of Scriptural justifications or the lack thereof. That’s not the problem with the article. Even if the article were entirely accurate in everything it says regarding Scripture, it would still be mostly nonsense.

    Why? Because it aims to describe Orthodox beliefs, but, on many important points, we Orthodox simply do not believe what the article claims we believe.

    If I wrote an article claiming that Calvinists believe in reincarnation, and proceeded to demonstrate that reincarnation is not Biblical, I may be entirely right about Scripture, but my article would be nonsense because Calvinists do not, in fact, believe in reincarnation. That is the sort of problem we have here.

    For example, we Orthodox absolutely do NOT, in any way, shape or form, believe that humans can “become gods”. That is not what theosis means, and anyone who believes that he can literally “become (a) god” cannot be Orthodox. He would be excommunicated faster than you can say “outrageous heresy”. Theosis means acquiring the divine likeness (we already have the image of God, but we do not have the likeness of God until we are in communion with Him, which can only be achieved through repentance and accepting the saving grace of Christ). Theosis is basically the Orthodox concept of salvation, which is different from the Protestant concept only in that it emphasizes a concept of “oneness with God” or “uniting with God” or “communing with God”, as opposed to merely being placed in the presence of God (i.e. Heaven).

    Now, you may agree with this or not, you may think there are Scriptural justifications for this or not. But the point is that this is what we believe, not what the article claims.

    I also need to point out that only one source (Timothy Ware’s “The Orthodox Church”) is used for this article, which leads me to believe that the author did not read anything else about Orthodoxy. “The Orthodox Church” is actually a good introductory book, but if that is the only thing you’ve ever read concerning Orthodoxy, you cannot really write a good article about it. “The Orthodox Church” is certainly not any kind of comprehensive final word on Orthodox theology. It does not attempt to describe Orthodox belief in precise terms – it only tries to give you a general feel for it. For an ACTUAL compendium on Orthodox theology, I recommend the book “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Michael Pomazansky (it’s available on Amazon).

  3. Steve

    I agree with the comments here. Eastern Orthodoxy is so horribly misrepresented here that I will explore this site no further.

  4. Mario

    This article has obviously been written by someone who has not educated himself in Church history. I certainly wouldn’t recommend any literature he may have written, for it is a gross and possibly deliberate misrepresentation of the Truth.

    Do you not know that the Orthodox Church is not a denomination! A denomination is any other group which has deviated or left the original Orthodox Church which came into being at pentecost.

    We have a historical family tree, an unbroken link through baptism and the laying on of hands or Chrismation which goes straight back to the Apostles and Christ Himself.

    In fact the ancient 5 Patriarchates were together for the first 1000 years, and it was the Roman Catholics who broke off in 1054. The remaining Patriarchates all of which are Orthodox are still intact and have through their juristictions gone on to create many new Patriarchates, all of which are united in the faith.

    The original ancient Church remains intact to this day, and whoever wishes to depart can depart, likewise whoever wishes to stay can stay.

    Regarding Icons, well, many false assumptions have been made. Where do we begin with this? Firstly, the word ICON itself should not used with idolatrous connotations. This word is used with the same meaning and context as the Genesis account of the creation of Mankind “Let Us make man in our image (ikona) after our likeness”.

    Therefore, Icons are a reflection of the world and mankind transfigured by our Lord Jesus Christ.

    This is but a snippet of truth about icons and I have by no means exhausted this theology

    If you want to know more about Orthodox Christianity, you are more than welcome to question me.

  5. jane


    If you want to give a fair account you should include not just one view (your view alone) and the view of the other denomination but also their view as taught by them (in context, and not cheer picked) and then let you reader decide. Your thesis is not professional enough. It is only your view here. And mostly inaccurate of the other denomination as you don’t seem to understand or even know enough.

  6. Sara

    I heartily concur with the above responses. I arrived at this religion through in-depth study of genealogy and history, and decided to stay. I am in the process of conversion to Orthodoxy. This requires a great deal of education before even being considered for membership – and even I know that most of what he has said is entirely inconsistent with everything I know to date. In fact, my sincere hope is that the controversy here will encourage others to read, learn, listen and follow a path to wisdom.

  7. Anastasia

    I see this post is several years old, and I just saw it today because it is still being used to dispute against Orthodox Christians. I will simply agree with the others here and say that it is a serious a misrepresentation on some counts.

  8. Matthew Umbarger

    What do you mean by “there is more humility on the role of the priest than in Roman Catholicism”?

    You state that Orthodoxy and Catholicism place man “in the wrong position” regarding sacramental confession of sins. But it seems to us that it was Our Lord who placed these men in that position:

    John 20:21-23:
    Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

    A parallel passage in Matthew 18:18 says this: Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    Likewise, James 5 instructs us to confess our sins to one another, but in a context that specifically references the presbyters, (what we call “priests” in English today):

    James 5:14-17:
    Is any one among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

    I realize that you have alternate interpretations of these passages, as I did when I was a preacher in the Restoration Movement, but it is simply not fair to carry on as though Orthodox and Catholic Christians have completely dismissed the authority of Scripture to follow their “man-made” traditions. We have meditated on the above Scriptures for two millenia, and are convinced that sacramental Confession is biblical. We are doing our best to be faithful to the Bible as we understand it, even as you are. Please extend to us the charity in Christ that we wish to extend to you.

    • Ethan Longhenry

      John 21 and Matthew 18 are specifically spoken to the Apostles. That any such authority could be transferred would need to be demonstrated, not presumed.

      Biblical elders are not parallel to priests, which you know; Biblical elders are parallel to, well, elders. Furthermore, James 5:16 does not declare that elders are to hear the confession of sin, but to “one another,” and manifestly not all Christians are elders.

      Your entire last paragraph is something an Israelite could have said (in a modified form) to someone of Judah regarding their service in the tamples in Dan and Bethel. The Bible can always be used to justify whatever a person wants to justify. What is telling is that the first century Christians weren’t using it to justify these things. Second century Christians wouldn’t justify most of these things. This is a developed tradition, not one that sprang fully formed, according to Catholic presumption.

  9. Matthew Umbarger

    Brother Ethan, where is it biblically demonstrated that all doctrine has to be explicitly demonstrated in Scripture? If you can show me that, it would do a whole lot towards compelling me to give your arguments more consideration.

    That said, I do think that there is substantial demonstration of Apostolic Succession in passages like Acts 1:15-26 (where Matthias succeeds Judas, and the Greek word for “office” is “episkope”) and the Pastoral Epistles that describe how St. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus to govern over the churches in Ephesus and Crete. Early Church writings like 1 Clement and Against Heresies by Irenaeus show that this is how those early Christians understood these texts.

    Biblical elders are not *parallel* to priests; they are priests. In fact, our English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word “presbyteros,” elder.

    No argument that James 5:16 commands us to confess our sins to “one another.” I was just pointing out that the greater context (“context is king!” as my Bible college profs taught me) specifically refers to elders praying for healing, and then returns to the subject of healing after the discursus on confession of sin. This, to me, implies that the elders represent the Church in a particular manner, and are especially well suited to receive the confession of sin that we are commanded to offer.

    I do not understand your reference to Northern Israel. If you mean to imply that we Catholics are the ones who have abandoned the authentic place of worship, then surely this can just as easily be turned around on you, (and with more effect). But perhaps you mean something else? I’m confused.

    As for first and second century witnesses to sacramental confession, there ARE a handful that DO refer to it!

    The Letter of Barnabas 19:12 – AD 74
    You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by
    bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience.
    This is the way of light.

    The Didache, c. AD 70:
    “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life” (4:14).

    “On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (14:1).

    Ignatius of Antioch, martyred c. 107 AD
    Epistle to the Philippians
    CHAP. III.
    Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as 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 man follows him that 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 [of Christ.].

    “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]; witnesses to apparent fact that originally the confession of sin was not done privately, but in public! But it was still sacramental, and done in church before the reception of Communion).

  10. Matthew Umbarger

    I do not think that you understand the difference between heresy and schism. The Eastern Orthodox churches are not deemed heretical by Catholics; they are in schism from the Catholic Church.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.