What is the Gospel According to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

What is the Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox Church? What is the Good News? What is it that the Eastern Orthodox Church proclaims to people struggling under the burden of sin and the reign of death?

In order to answer this question, we will look at what their factual canonical position is. This will move the discussion past the mystical, impressionistic musings of the modern Eastern Orthodox reconstructions. The contemporary, quasi-conservative reimaginations of Orthodoxy, whether as the Neo-Patristic synthesis, or as a kind of theological-liturgical aesthetics, or as an Orthobro manosphere, or as Christian-flavored universalism and Perenialism, or as hesychastic pietism (the Philokalia was first published in 1782), are really just subtle, imitative departures from Biblical Christianity that are particularly pernicious, because they play to the prejudices of the sophisticated religionist, erecting castles in the sky that each would-be theologian climbs ropes of sand up to. It becomes the theological and ecclesiological equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot.

So, what then is the formal Eastern Orthodox doctrine of salvation? In order to answer this, it will be necessary to look at the formal, canonical position of the Eastern Orthodox Church as authoritatively established in their own universally accepted councils. 

One myth must be busted on this point, however, because it is simply not true that only the Seven Ecumenical Councils are universally binding in the Eastern Orthodox Church. (This is unfortunately something many Anglicans Romantically assume, for) It is in fact all of the universally received Councils that are held as bindingly authoritative, not merely whether or not they were technically “Ecumenical.” This means that a local council that is universally received is universally binding, a fact that many apologists and evangelists of Eastern Orthodoxy gloss over and do not advertise or perhaps even know. In other words, even though the councils that decided in favor of Gregory Palamas were not technically ecumenical, they were received by all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and are therefore universally binding. The same is true of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, presided over by the Patriarch Dositheus. This council, like the Palamite councils, was universally received, was never seriously questioned for three centuries, and is universally binding upon the conscience of all Eastern Orthodox Christians (even if Western converts want to pretend it is not so).

In regards to their own beliefs about the authority of their councils, the EO affirm in Decree 2 of the Jerusalem Council of 1672: 

“Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. … the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God — who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich — it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and has perpetual authority."

In other words, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that its councils are equal to Scripture. Thus, as we hear from the Council of 1672, conciliar decisions, decrees, and anathemas must be understood to carry the same authority as Scripture. Thus, it is a binding truth for them to deny that anyone but them is even a Christian, as they affirm in Decree 10: “That the dignity of the Bishop is so necessary in the Church, that without him, neither Church nor Christian could either be or be spoken of.” And they specify that it is they alone who have this succession of bishops which grants them the authority to claim that they alone are the Church, as Decree 10 also states: “It is obvious that this great mystery and dignity of the Episcopate has come down to us by a continued succession.” And so the Eastern Orthodox Church formally and officially denies the status of even being a Christian to every single non-Eastern Orthodox believer, whether that person is Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malankara, or otherwise.

Moreover, according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, they cannot have erred in this statement, for not only do they have a functionally open canon (and so inexorably end up affirming ongoing revelation), they also affirm in Decree 12: “not only are we persuaded, but do profess as true and undoubtedly certain, that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err, or at all be deceived, or ever to choose falsehood instead of truth. For the All-holy Spirit continually operating through the holy Fathers and Leaders faithfully ministering, delivers the Church from error of every kind.” Thus according to them they are inerrant in denying all other people even the possibility of being a Christian at all. 

Now, regarding their doctrine of salvation, many will point out that they affirm theosis, that salvation is theosis. But what is theosis? Theosis refers to the transformation a person undergoes through their life in the Church. This can be made to sound mystical and deep until one realizes that it is basically a repackaged version of the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness. In other words, the righteousness you possess and maintain by virtue of your works justifies you before Christ. As they say in:

Decree 9 of the Jerusalem Council of 1672

“We believe that no one can be saved without faith. By faith we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which, working by love, that is to say, by [keeping] the Divine commandments, justifies us with Christ; and without this [faith] it is impossible to please God.”

Note here that faith is reductively conceived of as merely a right notion. Faith is not conceived of as trust, and so it removes the notion of trusting in Christ and His work on our behalf as essential to the notion of faith. It is simply having the right information. After that, it adds works, so right information plus works justifies a person according to Eastern Orthodox canonical theology. Now, this is not the made-up theology of some popular bishop or priest or academic; this is their own official position in their own words. And it continues, stating in:

Decree 13 of the Jerusalem Council of 1672

“We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad.”

Now, since faith is not trust according to the Eastern Orthodox, but merely affirming the right information, they therefore then shift all of one’s justification to their works. It is not even faith plus works, but is essentially just information plus works. It is one’s intellectual affirmation plus one’s works that justifies them. Recall that in Nicaea 2 they accurse to hell all those who refuse to bow down to icons and kiss them with affection, so we even see what kinds of works they consider necessary.

Frankly, Islam promises more grace than Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Judaism, Sikhism, Pure Land Buddhism, and Gaudiya Vaishnavism promise more grace than Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Eastern Orthodox Christianity is mystical Christian yoga, sacramental yoga. According to Eastern Orthodox canonical dogma, Christ essentially died just to give you a chance to work your way into heaven… if you can get past the demons in the Toll Houses, that is, through the intercession of Mary. 

Recall that from Decree 9 faith itself is reduced to being notional, informational, and so what is notionally affirmed must merely motivate one to act obediently such that one’s obedience serves as a ground of right standing with God. Works are then seen as standing alongside Christ as justifying. Christ’s death is insufficient to save anyone. In this way the Eastern Orthodox Church preaches the insufficiency of Christ. Moreover, works are not the organic witnesses of an internal faith, but meritorious in and of themselves.

This attitude is reinforced and developed when Decree 13 explicitly states that it is “not the correlative of faith” which justifies. Now, what is the correlative of faith? Jesus Christ and His righteousness. This is confirmed when we note that Dositheus is responding to Cyril Lucaris’ claim that the correlative of faith is precisely the righteousness of Christ. As the Confession attributed to Lucaris states: “But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ.” According to Lucaris it is the righteousness of Christ which justifies, a righteousness which is received by faith as faith’s correlative. 

The import of this is that the Eastern Orthodox Church formally rejects and expressly denies that Christ’s righteousness justifies a person. The righteousness of Christ and even Christ Himself are not sufficient to justify according to Eastern Orthodox canonical theology, but are insufficient, and must be added to because faith justifies “through works, with Christ.” In other words, works are meritorious, and “in themselves meriting” right standing with God. It is the faith one possesses as a personal virtue, as when a person is loyal. And so it is a kind of loyalty to the information about Jesus plus one’s works that justifies a person with Christ. Anyone who understands even the basics of the Gospel can understand clearly how the Eastern Orthodox Church has radically departed from the Gospel.

Note especially that this is more than merely affirming that works are necessary. Confessional Protestantism also affirms the necessity of works as an organic consequence of living faith. For it is the good tree that produces good fruit, and not that a tree becomes good by producing good fruit. The living faith that justifies works because of an internal, organic necessity, like an apple seed that necessarily produces apples rather than, say, lemons. The Eastern Orthodox have departed from the Gospel by inverting justification, saying that works are in themselves meritorious, as if an apple tree could come from a lemon seed. 

This is far different from the Patristic understanding of justification, as given by John Chrysostom in his comments on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“For Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our account”), when he preaches: 

“And that you may learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation.”

That is clearly the doctrine of Vicarious Atonement, or Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is rooted in the reality of the transfer of death and guilt from man to Christ so that Christ might both save the condemned man and clear him from his guilt. The Eastern Orthodox Church has falsified itself in claiming to be the unchanged Church. In a universally accepted council it has even denied justification by faith apart from works, and substituted in its place a denial of Christ’s saving work, playing their misunderstanding of James against their misunderstanding of Paul, attributing justification to man’s own meritorious works in combination with his affirmation of “the right notion… concerning God and divine things.”

To conclude, we ask again the question that was posed at the beginning: What is the Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox Church? What is the Good News? What is it that the Eastern Orthodox Church proclaims to people struggling under the burden of sin and the reign of death?

It proclaims that you are saved by your meritorious works. Your trust in Christ is useless, and you cannot be confident of Christ’s mercy, for Christ doesn’t save you according to Eastern Orthodoxy’s canonically binding testimony. Rather, your works merit your salvation by justifying you together with your notional assent. For their Gospel, according to their own conciliar decree, universally accepted for three centuries, is that Christ is only giving you a chance to work to be good enough to earn your way.