In October of 2021, I was speaking at an industry conference in Texas and was invited to visit a charity’s headquarters I have often supported over the years. K.P. Yohannan, the founder of this organization previously known as Gospel for Asia (now, GFA World), welcomed me to this community where I stayed in one of their houses on their campus near Dallas, Texas.  

At this point, I was a bit skeptical about the organization, because of a multitude of evil reports which had circulated in the press about their financial mismanagement, and lawsuits that the charity dealt with just a few years prior to my visit. I had been so busy with running my business that I hadn’t really had the time to research whether these rumors were true, and I continued to support them because I believed that I was giving the donations to God, and that I couldn’t really judge what happened with the money after that.

So, I saw this visit to Dallas as an opportunity to speak to K.P. himself, and really see if I could understand what exactly happened, because at this time I was significantly invested in the work they were doing as a consistent supporter (which only increased as my wealth increased).  

I looked up to K.P. ever since the Spring of 2008, where I heard him speak at an East Coast Calvary Chapel Pastor’s Conference at the age of 21 (maybe it was 2009, I remember that Frank Drown, a companion of Jim Elliott also spoke at this conference). I was so intrigued by K.P’s message that I actively went searching for him after he spoke, but I couldn’t find him amongst the mass of pastors and leaders. I found another man from Asia and I asked him, “Are you with K.P?”, and he nodded but couldn’t tell me where he went. I just assumed that, like Jesus, he was probably praying in some remote location, hoping that his message wouldn’t fall on deaf ears but that it would bear fruit, and I trusted that if it was ever the Lord’s will, we might meet some day. This message was so impactful to me, that when he closed the message in prayer, I was in tears looking up to heaven (while everyone else’s heads were bowed) knowing that I had heard a different message than I was ever used to hearing in Calvary Chapel before. This was a message of pure devotion to Christ, and of seeking to know God above all other things (he quoted the Desert Fathers at certain points, and spoke about the necessity of finding and knowing God. To truly know God, because that is the chief end of humanity: to know God and Jesus Christ whom God sent (John 17:3)). 

I still listen to this message every few years because it reminds me of a time when I stopped seeking God for the praise of man, to become a pastor someday and really “do something for God”, or for my own selfish pursuits, and instead began the journey of seeking for the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and nearly 98% of my prayers since this time have been for God’s will to be done in my life, and for me to truly acquire the fullness of the Holy Spirit (and not a cheap counterfeit, or a filling that was not all-encompassing). This has been my aim (although imperfectly) for the last 15 years to the point where I don’t really pray for anything else for myself because, frankly, I don’t have a desire for anything else.

So, when I arrived at the GFA campus, I got settled into the guest house, and I saw that there was a prayer book from ‘Ancient Faith’ publishing, and two pictures hanging on a specific wall of the living room. I read some of the prayers from the Psalms, and then began to look at these two “pictures”, which I had never seen before. The one on the left was clearly Mary the mother of Jesus, holding Christ as a toddler in a very loving embrace. And then the one to the right was clearly Jesus holding a large book, but he had a facial expression which was more stern than welcoming, and after looking into Christ’s eyes, immediately the scripture came to my mind from Revelation which says, “ His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Revelation 19:12-15). I immediately began to feel emotions of compunction and awe, contemplating the future Great White Throne Judgment. After this, I finished praying through some Psalms and a sense of calm overcame me, and I found that my soul became extra vigilant and more easily resistant to sin before retiring for the evening.

So, I go to sleep, and then awake on a Sunday morning and plan to attend a church service on the mission’s campus before my scheduled meeting with K.P. before I fly home. When I arrived at the church, I didn’t really understand it, because we all took our shoes off prior to entering the sanctuary, and the service was different than anything I’d ever experienced. On the bulletin, there was a liturgical guide to the service which listed out the order of the service and of the prayers that everyone prayed in unison. The most shocking thing about this for me was that it said at the top of the bulletin, “The Divine Liturgy of St. James”. I came to find out that the apostle James, the author of the epistle of James (one of my favorite epistles of the New Testament), and relative of the Lord, performed this liturgical service in the first century AD (it was passed down orally through apostolic succession until the second or third century (I think), when it was finally written down). At first I thought that was really cool, but then after the service I later began to ask myself, “Why don’t I know that James wrote a worship service, and if his epistle is authoritative, shouldn’t his worship service be too? Why am I only hearing about this now?”

At the front of the church, the same two pictures that I saw on the wall of the guest house had larger versions at the front of the church (the Eastern Orthodox call these “icons” since the Bible says that Christ is the “icon” of the invisible God– Col. 1:15). During the sermon, the preacher explained that the holy painting, or “icon”, of the Virgin Mary and Christ was originally drawn by the Evangelist Luke (who wrote the gospel), and has been a staple in Eastern Churches ever since the early Church (before the gospels or epistles were even written). Then, he explained that the other icon was descriptive of Christ as God and as Ruler of All. Upon further research, the icon is actually entitled “Pankokrator”, which is actually one of the Greek words in the passage of Scripture from Revelation 19 which came to my mind when I first saw this image (I did not know any of this prior, or what an “icon” even was at this time). I find it especially merciful that God allowed me to first experience icons in an unexpected fashion. I came to them with an open heart of prayer (after digesting books like “The Practice of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence back in 2006), and not with a hardened heart assuming they are idols that “catholic-type” Christians bow down to. 

The early Church had icons as part of the Christian worship community, not to “worship” idols and replace the worship of God, but rather to communicate the gospel to people who were often illiterate. The icons communicated biblical truths when many people, maybe even most, could not read the Scriptures themselves. After learning this, it made sense that icons were a normative part of the Early Church. These icons are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which means that often we bow before the icon and show respect to the individual(s) the icon represents by kissing them and making the sign of the cross. Just as we might show reverence to an older brother or sister in Christ with a holy kiss of reverence (as if we are kissing our biological mother or father–2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Tim. 5:2), we are not worshiping the creation but rather showing reverence to the fact that these individuals are made in the image of God and that Christ is within them just as much as He is within us (or rather more so!). It might seem odd to reverence holy men and women in icons like the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, or the apostles or other saints, but I have believed for nearly 14 years now that there are more Christians in heaven alive and reigning with Christ (compared to those on earth) since Jesus said to Martha the sister of Lazarus: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? (John 11:25)" True Christians never die. They live and communicate with Christ and intercede for those on earth (more on that later).

At first, I must admit that venerating icons felt strange to me, but once I realized that this holy art was created under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Scriptures were, it was not difficult for me to separate in my mind the difference between veneration and worship. My 3 year old daughter often kisses my hand as a sign of reverence and love (before I’ve had the chance to kneel down and embrace her), but she is in no way worshiping me. Even Joshua, the son of Nun, bowed down before a holy object (the ark of the Covenant), and God did not rebuke him for bowing down and reverencing the holy icon which represented God to the people of Israel (in fact, the Greek word in the Septuagint for this passage is that Joshua “worshiped” the ark of the covenant–Josh. 7:6). The Orthodox venerate the Bible and Gospels too (by kissing it on various occasions), but I can honestly say I no longer worship the Bible but only worship the true and living God, who is the Word made flesh, a Person. (I used to worship the Bible as a Protestant, though–more on that later).

The homily continued about the Eucharist, and the preacher began to explain the differences between the East’s view of the Eucharist, and the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of Communion, respectively. I thought it was a unique perspective on it, and I was completely open to the concept, and made a note in my mind to further research it later. The Eastern Christian view is that the mystery of the Eucharist is for “remission” of sins (as well as vigilance of soul), which is not merely forgiveness, but just like someone who is in remission of cancer where cancer is removed from their body, in the same way there is a mysterious thing that takes place when we partake of the true Eucharist with faith unwavering and true fear of God that removes sin like a cancer from the body, for we become one with God by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. I cannot explain this anymore than that it was a unique experience and one that had lasting effects on my entire person: mind, body, and spirit.  I should mention though, that once experiencing this as a chrismated member of the Orthodox Church, the mystical experience has been deeper and more authentic. Whether that is a subjective perspective unique to me, or more fully apparent due to what I will soon describe, I will let the reader decide.

I then began the journey of researching Eastern Orthodox Christianity, because I had truly “tasted and seen” (Psa. 34:8), and “come and seen” (John 1:39) something peculiar and different than anything I had ever experienced in Christianity prior to this, and it was very much like jumping into a pool; I couldn’t help but get wet in divine grace. However, it took over two years to actually join the Orthodox Church (the level of spiritual attacks I had on various fronts leading up to this is even more proof that evil powers did not want this conversion to take place). The fact that it took two years for me to join the Orthodox Church, when many people are immediately told they are in the family of God after one altar call prayer, shows you the difference and carefulness the Orthodox Church takes in ensuring someone is sincere before joining the Church community. When you’re laying gold it takes time, but I’m sure wood hay and stubble are easy to compile (1 Cor. 3:10-15).  That is not to say that every Orthodox Christian is sincere, the Orthodox Church doesn't believe that, and fully recognizes that the tares and wheat grow together, even within its own walls (Mat. 13:24-30).

After the service, I asked K.P. the questions I wanted to ask him, and I felt like he gave adequate answers which made me realize that he was being attacked by people for all the wrong reasons, and the reason he was silent on much of the subject was because his legal counsel recommended so. He chronicles much of his story and response to the accusations in his book “Never Give Up”; in it he talks about how the rumors began and how it turned into something that ended up being an attack on his ministry from the outside, designed to stop the good work they are doing in Asia and Africa for the furtherance of the gospel. This actually confirmed to me that he is a true man of God, because even Jesus and his followers were misunderstood and often mischaracterized. It was even proven by the independent third parties involved in the lawsuits that no money was mismanaged by the charity and that all proceeds of donations were indeed used for the ministry and not for anything else. I feel it is an incredible privilege that when many denominations pulled their funding from him, it was at the same time that my business exploded in growth, and we've been able to support the work they're doing pretty significantly.

After returning home to Vegas, I began the process of reading the Scriptures more and more, and reading Eastern Orthodox materials to see if I could find legitimate reasons to continue remaining Protestant, because making this move I did not take lightly, it would bring significant disruption to pretty much every area of my life (being Eastern Orthodox is NOT easy; it is a significant life shift–it is more a lifestyle than a set of intellectual beliefs–for instance, I’ve been Vegan and eating less for the last 47 days leading up to Eastern Easter).

I did a deep dive, searching the Scriptures and Church History to see if there was any indication that the Eastern Orthodox have a proper view of concepts such as “The Church and Apostolic Succession”, “Grace”, “Justification by Faith and Salvation”, “Scripture and Tradition”, “The Intercession of the Saints”, and “The Veneration Of Mary”, and something that I had personal experience with in the past, “Demonology”.

Let me begin with (some of) my findings regarding “The Church and Apostolic Succession”.

I must admit that I was unaware of much of Church History prior to this exploration. I never thought twice about the fact that I was familiar with a portion of the first century Church, and then my knowledge of Church History went straight to the Reformation and the life story of Martin Luther, and then continued through the development of the Protestant Reformation up to the present day. It was almost as if I was blinded in some way to consider the previous 14 centuries of Church History prior to Martin Luther, since most of American Christian content on Church History willfully neglects to comment on much of what happened between the early Church and the Reformation, and almost never documents the development of the Church in the East (which is ironic, since Christianity is mostly an Eastern faith; it was born out of the Middle East). I was pretty familiar with what happened with the Protestant Reformation and how it developed in both Europe and the Americas. But to consider Christianity spreading in Greece, India, Asia Minor, the Byzantine Empire, Russia, and Africa was unknown to me.

One of the biggest blind spots for me was in regards to the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings are compiled in “The Apostolic Fathers”. My limited scope of understanding assumed that the Protestant view was accurate, but I had never actually searched out the matter like a Berean and actually read what St. Ignatius said himself (and whether it was confirmed by other writers close to the time period considered). The Protestant view is that St. Ignatius of Antioch, although being ordained as the bishop of Antioch by the apostle Peter, was the “first” (supposedly) to recommend that the Church initiate an episcopal form of governance, and that this was not the intention of the apostle Peter or the other apostles. It is believed that Ignatius, being much younger than the apostles, somehow saw an opportunity to seize power and control the Christians in his region by commanding that they all “submit to the bishop, and only do what he commands, as if they were submitting to Christ”. However, after actually reading the writings of St. Ignatius and St. Clement of Rome, St. Clement claims that the apostle Peter and all the apostles commanded them to fill the vacancies of their apostolic offices since they were fully aware that they were approaching martyrdom. See the following quote from his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ: in both cases, the process was orderly, and derived from the will of God… They [the Apostles] preached in the country and town, and appointed their first fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe. And this was no novelty… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision, that if they should fall asleep, other tested men should succeed to their ministry”. - St. Clement of Rome

After reading this, I recalled the writings in the Gospels which show a clear passing of authority to the apostles from Christ Himself:

"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also 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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:21-23

But, I thought only God has the authority to forgive sins? Not according to Jesus, the Pharisees actually were the ones who said that (Mark 2:6-7). Jesus gave complete authority to His apostles to determine who would and who would not be forgiven.

The question is, however, whether this authority (if they accept you, they accept Me, if you forgive them they’re forgiven, if you don’t forgive them they’re not forgiven etc.), continued after the apostles were martyred and went to be with Christ.

I saw this line of thinking evidenced in the Gospels themselves, where Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles to comprehend the Scriptures and where Jesus unveiled to them all that was written in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets concerning Him (Luke 24:45). Following this logic, in the book of Acts, Peter quotes the Psalms in reference to appointing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, which when harmonizing these concepts together, appears to me to be something Peter didn’t invent of his own accord, but was in line with Jesus’ expository explanation of opening the Psalms for the apostles to understand (Luk. 24:45; Acts 1:15-20; Psa. 109:8). So, Matthias replacing Judas was actually a commandment of Christ Himself, before he ascended to be with the Father.  

Since Christ was a fulfillment of Moses, Aaron, and King David (as prophet, king, and high priest), it doesn’t seem surprising to me now that Jesus actually commanded the apostles on how they should continue to worship and organize the future Church. For Moses went up to the mountain, and God commanded him exactly, down to the most minute detail, how to arrange the tabernacle for liturgical worship and what to deliver to the Israelites in the Ten Commandments, and the remainder of the Law (Heb 8:5). I began to think, why exactly would Jesus, who was much greater than Moses (Heb. 3:1-6), fail to tell the apostles every minute detail on how to arrange the Future Church and its liturgical worship, and how to continue the furtherance of the truth entrusted to them?  

Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples after His resurrection, which appears to me to be plenty of time to reveal all of these things. Yet, not wanting to run with this train of thought without considering opposing views, I realized that there was probably much that Jesus did not reveal to His disciples, since Peter was unaware that Gentiles would be welcomed into the Church until he was surprised by this fact (Acts 9-10), and the first Ecumenical Council was necessary when Judaizers began to thwart the gospel forcing Gentiles to become Jewish in order to be Christian (Acts 15). 

So, it appears that Jesus only gave them what was necessary, and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth regarding the rest. But the question remains as to whether Christ passed down a form of liturgical worship as part of that “necessary bit”, and I now think it’s probably extremely unlikely that He did not include directions regarding this. We may rightly ask why these things were not written down, but much of the Church’s worship was not written down for fear of it being exploited by the ungodly (Matt. 7:6). Also, Jesus said that the Spirit would take of what was His and provide it to them (John 16:14). And this brings to mind my belief that if Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles into all truth (John 16:13), then all of the conciliar and corporate decisions of the apostles together while they were alive would be just as good and authoritative as the Scriptures themselves. And if they intended on passing their office down to the next generation, then they would tell those remaining bishops that all the things Christ had entrusted to them, like the Spirit leading them into all truth, and the power to forgive or not forgive, would continue to the next generation as well. 

The fact that the Church existed for decades before the first epistle or gospel were even written down was something that I had to come to terms with.  The primitive Church didn't even have the New Testament officially until the 4th century. If the written New Testament is so essential to salvation, why did it take so long for the Church to officially compile it?

If St. Ignatius was operating of his own accord, outside of the will of the apostles, then the Protestant view may be correct. But after actually reading Ignatius, his humility oozes out of his words, and the fact that he died a martyr’s death, makes me believe that he was not lying but telling the truth. And since St. Paul commands us that love “believes all things” (1. Cor. 13:7), I have no footing with which to stand on to doubt that this man truly heard from the apostles what they had heard from the Spirit, and that the office of the apostles would continue on throughout the ages until Christ returns. On the account of two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16; Deut. 17:6), I must accept this as gospel truth (one only has to read the Apostolic Fathers to come to this conclusion). To follow the opinions of church historians who developed ideas out of necessity for being excommunicated from the Church prior (or separating themselves from an ungodly, corrupt Roman papacy), that don’t even match with the Scriptures themselves, to me doesn’t seem safe. I had heard from a pastor once who used to say that deacons were “all the men and women who served and volunteered at the church”, even though the Scriptures paint a completely different picture and give specific requirements for deacons, that they must be married husbands of one wife, and describe them accordingly for an apparent other role, which has remained in effect in the Orthodox Church to this day (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

If Christ revealed all that was written concerning Him in the Old Testament (Luk. 24:45), I would find it odd that he would not reference the liturgical form of worship that the Orthodox Church follows (and has followed for 2000 years), since much of the Law that Christ would have revealed to them would have included the Jewish liturgical worship rites. For those who don’t know, the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, like the one written by St. James the Apostle (the earliest known one, that was written down at a later date), is essentially a continuation of 2nd temple synagogue worship with Christian fulfillment terminology instead of Jewish terminology awaiting the Messiah. The worship service (or Divine Liturgy), was a corporate “work of all the Christian people” to join together in unison and worship the Holy Trinity and perform a bloodless sacrifice, which was not Christ dying again on the cross (for He died once for all, Heb. 9:12), but a mystical celebration (outside of time) of both the original Last Supper and crucifixion of Christ, and yet also the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The Eastern Orthodox believe, as far as I’m aware, that all true Christians are present at that mystical supper, with the body of Christ of future generations being present in Christ and the twelve apostles in the upper room at the Last Supper, and all of us being present in the final inaugurated kingdom at the end of time, and the present day Christians who celebrate each Divine Liturgy are participating in that ONE Christian celebration of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, both in 33 AD in the upper room, and concurrently at the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom after the judgment of the world (simultaneously, in a mystical sense). When thinking of us Christians as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), it is not odd that the Orthodox Church has a liturgical calendar which follows the life of Christ through the sacred writings, because we believe we are participating in those events even now in the present day, and will again in the future inaugurated kingdom of God, for Christ’s words (and I might boldly add his “actions”) will never pass away, although this world will (Matt. 24:35).  For although Christ was crucified at a specific point in human history, in a mystical sense, it also took place before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

Along this topic of the Divine Liturgy, this is not something that isn’t in the Bible, because in the book of Acts it says that Paul and Barnabas were “liturgizing” to the Lord (Many translations change this word to “ministering”, but it really means “as they performed the liturgy”), when the Holy Spirit spoke to them and said “Separate for Me Paul and Barnabas for the work that I have called them” (Acts 13:2). St. Paul said he was a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1), which is the same Greek word (and later, Latin) translated “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church from the beginning. Even the prophet Malachi predicted that the Gentiles will worship with incense from the rising to the setting of the sun (Mal. 1:11), foreseeing the Divine Liturgy within the Church.

But regarding the Church, it appears to me there are several passages which do not leave any room for division. Many times I’ve thought in the past of the common Protestant saying, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”. But these passages of Scripture seem to leave no room for non-essentials, and that separating from the body of Christ is something not to be done at any cost:

1 Cor. 1:10: Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

2 Cor. 13:11: Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Phil. 1:27: Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,

Phil. 2:2: fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Phil. 3:16: Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.

1 Pet. 3:8: Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;

Eph. 4:4-6: There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

St. John Chrysostom once said (and I loosely paraphrase), “There is no unity unless we all believe the same things”. And I think he’s right!

If one sees these passages above and claims that these exhortations were only written for the individual churches that were being written too, do not be surprised if everything else in these epistles do not apply to you then, for with the same measure you use, will be meted back to you (Matt. 7:1-2). At least this is the conclusion I have come to, for I no longer want to participate in works of the flesh like divisions and schisms (Gal. 5:20), even if they began centuries before. To whom much is given, much is required (Luk. 12:48).

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one I’m aware of that hasn’t separated itself from the original One Church. Everyone else has either separated themselves by not adhering to an Ecumenical Council (like the Coptic Church after the 4th Ecumenical Council), or the Roman Church which “excommunicated” the rest of the Church outside Rome (which, essentially, was an excommunicating of itself since there was no Pope prior to this in 1054).

There is power in the Church, and despite my previous belief of thinking that the Bible was the foundation of truth, St. Paul actually didn’t say that (he said that the ‘Church was the foundation of truth’):

1 Tim. 3:15: but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground [foundation] of the truth.

The question becomes, what is the Church, then? By necessity, Protestantism must believe that the Church is invisible, composed of anyone who loves and follows Jesus Christ in sincerity, despite what physical or visible body they are joined to. This is a necessity because there are over 33,000 denominations in the Protestant faith, and Protestants rightly assume that there are some true believers and some untrue believers in mostly every congregation. This, however, doesn’t mean that these congregations are in fellowship with the physical, visible Church on earth (connected to Christ and the apostles), because there must essentially be a line back to the original apostles, without a prior breaking of the Communion of the one Church. One might argue, whether from the Roman Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, that they can trace their roots back to the original apostles (which is true). But the Catholics used to reject the Anglicans because of the Anglicans breaking fellowship with Rome, and the Catholics also formerly rejected the Eastern Orthodox (although now Catholicism has recently within the last few decades accepted the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants as they’ve become more liberal), and the Eastern Orthodox churches don’t commune with the Catholics or any churches that proceeded from the West after the Roman bishop changed the Nicene creed without an Ecumenical Council, which was a requirement for any major update to doctrine, especially Trinitarian doctrine.

Now, one may assume, that after further research, I may become Catholic (because I'm sure there's a lot more I don't know about... and since I was originally baptized in St. Matthias Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey, which I am eternally grateful for, by the way, I find it unlikely. There is a passage of Scripture I read once, which I felt spoke to me in a mystical sense: 

"He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”

And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”

Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 

This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” 

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

John 21:17-23

Although this passage clearly denotes that Jesus is prophesying about Peter's martyrdom, in a mystical sense, I believe it is also a prophecy of their future apostolic offices.  Peter, establishing the see of Rome, and John, establishing the see of the East.  Peter's spiritual offspring would take the Roman office into territory he would have never wanted, but the East would remain as undivided until Christ's return.  This is pure speculation, and I cannot say it dogmatically, but it rang true with me.  Although the Eastern Orthodox Church has begun to have its own infightings, I think they have still maintained unity despite all of this, and I venture to think they will until the Second Advent.

Along this topic of various Christians with varying opinions regarding the nature of the true Church, we see a hint at God's heart in the Gospels where Christ does not condemn others who utilized His saving name, but rather saw them not as enemies, but as fellow workers, even though they currently weren't part of Christ’s closest disciples (Luke 9:49-50). Whether some of those believers remained separated from the Church post-Pentecost or not is unknown, but I would assume that they would require the laying on of hands from the true Church, since this was necessary for a group of John the Baptist’s disciples in Ephesus in Acts 19:1-7. So, it is my belief that Christ can be called upon for salvation, and the Holy Spirit can operate outside of the visible, physical Church on earth, yet the “fullness” of the Faith is found within the Eastern Orthodox’s unbreaking communion going back to the apostles without the tarnishing of false doctrine or falling away of the organized Church.

When I came in line with this reasoning, I began to play devil’s advocate and say, well clearly there must have been ungodly bishops at some point of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church (since it was definitely the Case in the Roman Church); I think that is probably an accurate assessment. But just because there were good and evil kings who rose up in both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1 and 2 Kings), did not make it that the entire nation was no longer God’s people (although it had a negative influence on the people of the kingdom). 

The office of the bishop (along with the giftings given to the individuals within the office) remained pure and connected to its source (Christ Himself), even if the individual bishops were tares or ungodly themselves. The question is not whether it’s possible for a bishop to become ungodly, but rather if an entire subset of the body of the Church falls away from the original structure set up by Christ and the apostles, and this is the case I believe for any groups excommunicated or that fell away from the original structure over the last 2000 years (including the Arians and any others who were condemned from Canon council law, and the entire Roman Church which then separated itself by initiating a papacy– and hence, any that sprung forth from Rome in the future). 

I find it ironic that the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, who thought he was making a stand for the future unity of the Church, actually set the stage for the largest schism in the history of Christianity, which is the Protestant Reformation and the consistent splinterings which have occurred since (I suppose you reap what you sow!). The splintering of the Protestant world has become so much worse even in the last 15 years. I do not claim to predict anything, but it may be possible that American Protestant Christianity will fizzle out, for if it’s not of God it will be made clear by coming to nothing (Acts 5:38-39), or doctrines and practice will continue to get stranger and stranger as we approach the end. As a Protestant, I always thought that unless I personally fell away or sinned or had a wrong understanding of the Bible, that only I would be affected. But throughout the Scriptures, God judges nations and peoples corporately. We praise a man for his godliness when he prays for the state of our country corporately and takes responsibility for the entire sins of the country, even though he may not have participated in them individually. In the same way, Protestant pastors and leaders may find they could be held accountable for other people within their camp, despite whatever brazen individuality they claim. One might see themselves as a finger in the body of Christ, but if the hand is cut off and thrown in the fire due to an infection, all the fingers on the hand suffer (Mark 9:43). This is mere speculation, but not something I feel is safe for me to be a part of. The Eastern Orthodox haven't changed their core views for centuries.  I used to think that we should just wait for God to bring another revival, because it appears that after every revival, future generations fall away.  But now being 500 years removed from the initial Reformation, much of the fruit of the Reformation is not good, while the Eastern Orthodox Church has continued to produce saints, wonderworkers, and miraculous deeds (if one is willing to research this) by maintaining the unity in the strictest sense (Matt. 7:15-20).

I came to the conclusion, for my own walk with God, that being joined to the Eastern Orthodox Church was a matter of spiritual survival for me. Others will have to decide for themselves, but I believe God will judge us based on what we know, not based on what we don’t know. The Church has been divided for over 900 years, and I believe that the Holy Spirit and Christ can operate outside the Church (Mat. 19:26; 1 Cor. 5:12), but I do not want to be outside of it any longer:

“The episcopate is one…The Church is one… So also, the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, extends her rays all over the globe, yet it is one light which is diffused everywhere and the unity of the body is not broken up.

This sacrament of unity [the Church], this bond of peace inseparable and indivisible, is indicated when in the Gospel the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ was not divided at all or rent, but they cast lots for the raiment… so the raiment was received whole and the robe was taken unspoilt and undivided.

And the Church is made up of the people united to their priest, the flock cleaving to its shepherd. Hence you should know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop, and that if anyone is not with the bishop he is not with the Church… the Church is catholic (i.e., full) and one, and may not be sundered or divided but should assuredly be kept together and united by the glue which is the mutual adherence of the priest.” 

-St. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Catholic Church

I tend to speculate that when Rome broke off from the Eastern bishops, it was the beginning of the Great Falling Away. It was the beginning of massive division within the One Church, and then the Protestant Reformation was the reaping of what Rome sowed in 1054 with the East. Martin Luther approached the Eastern Orthodox to join their ranks when he was forced out of the Roman Church, but they rejected his false doctrines inherited by St. Augustine, whose theology was later condemned by the Church, yet while St. Augustine personally was still considered a saint due to his character and life.  

Seeing the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church since 1054 is pretty clear for me to see, that it is not within the confines of the true Church. Yes, I must say, that although there are some Protestants and Catholics who have sincere faith and the Holy Spirit, the Protestant churches appear to be so splintered. Consider the fruit of Martin Luther’s life and ministry, in today’s day and age; Martin Luther wouldn’t even be accepted in most of his own churches today (because they have watered down his initial beliefs so much). It’s a shame, but it’s clear that the fruit of Rome and the Reformation has created a ripple effect of sin, division, confusion, and false doctrine.

I think most Christians in America operate in a schismatic form today probably unbeknownst to them, because it is a normative part of American culture to be radically independent, rebellious to authority, focusing on personal individual liberty, and not being yoked to any parent authority that demands its taxes or its religious conformity. When I researched the various churches or teachers that I have listened to or attended over the years, it appears that they all began with a schism of some kind, disagreeing over some matters that others deemed essential, and so the answer has always been to start a new fellowship over it!

I believe these schisms are a work of the flesh, for which I want no further part in:

Gal. 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies [or “schisms”], envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

For me, it became apparent that joining the Eastern Orthodox Church was one way to repent of this. Even Martin Luther attempted to do this and approached the Eastern Orthodox patriarch before building his church in Germany, but he was rejected because of his many false doctrines held that were developed by St. Augustine which had formerly been condemned. Luther wanted to join the Church of the East, but he was too small-minded to correct some of his own baggage which was inherited by the Roman Church he was kicked out of, and he almost succeeded in removing the epistle of James from his German bibles as well. Many other facts of Martin Luther’s life are further investigated in the book "Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings", by Fr. Josiah Trenham, including Martin Luther’s failure to rebuke the governmental leaders of Germany to repent for various misdeeds and public sins (even though he had the power to influence them). There are accounts of many Orthodox bishops and saints being excommunicated by an evil patriarch or Emperor, and then often they were either later welcomed back into the Church after the evil men dropped dead (or were recognized shortly after they themselves died as saints when Orthodoxy became the norm again). Martin Luther could have remained in exile humbly and quietly and waited on the sovereignty of God, but instead took matters into his own hands and (I believe) didn't follow God's counsel, thus beginning a progeny of rebellion which continued for centuries to come. 

The crux of the matter for me is the nature of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. St. John rightly points out that there are multiple spirits and teachers, who appear to be Christian but have a different spirit (1 John 4:1). I am not claiming that the former churches I attended are in this camp, in fact, I think out of any of the Protestant churches or teachers I could have been affiliated with, I was affiliated with some of the best (and for that I am eternally grateful). But it is interesting to me that much of the Protestant view about the invisibility of the Church proper, or the heavy emphasis on spirituality (almost to where the physical body is considered evil in and of itself, for merely being physical in nature) seems to be more in line with Gnostic thinking, than the Orthodox view that humans are not inherently evil (nor is the body or physical matter). The Gnostics shifted so far on the pendulum to the point where all physical matter was evil, and that Christ had not come in the flesh at all, but I think the Orthodox view of the body and physical matter versus spirituality is probably the most balanced, whereas I think many in the Protestant camp think that we’re all going to be floating around like ghosts for all eternity, and that the body is inherently evil (due to the Augustinian view of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects). After all, physical objects can contain the power of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced in Paul’s handkerchief (Acts 19:12) (and even Peter’s shadow–Acts 5:15), and there are scores of testimonies of Orthodox Christian saints’ bones after death emitting healing properties or remaining incorrupt or exorcisms after they died and left their body to be with Christ in Paradise (as is the case with my patron saint, St. Philaret the Merciful of Asia Minor). I am not aware of any of these things currently still happening outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church, hence why I believe the “fullness” of the Holy Spirit exists within its walls. I am simply not content with only dipping my toes or ankles in the water any longer, but I desire to be fully immersed in the living water of life, the eternal life that Christ promises to those who obey His commandments (Ezek. 47:1-12).

My previous understanding of God’s grace was that it was “undeserved favor” from God on Christians who received the gospel. God, in a sense, changed his mind towards the sinner, and instead saw Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer and showered him with undeserved favor, known as “grace”. Although it’s true that God shows favor upon his people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant, I think this definition of “grace” is lacking, after looking at the etymology of the word “charis” in Greek, and looking at the surrounding context the word is used in much of the epistles of the New Testament and the book of Acts of the Apostles.

When reviewing the word charis’ definition in Protestant concordances or Bible dictionaries, it is often defined as “undeserved favor”, even though the word simply means “gift” in Koine Greek.  

Grace is quite a broad phenomenon in the Bible, and there are some passages which make sense according to the Western definition, for instance when Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8).

But there are many passages in the New Testament which seem to expand upon what grace is, that it is not merely a change of mind from the perspective of God, or merely some abstract theological concept of ‘undeserved favor’, but rather that it is the energies of God which comes upon the Christian at conversion, baptism, and through the laying on of hands.

The Orthodox Church, as far as I understand, believes that grace is the experiential energies of God proceeding from all Three Persons of The Trinity. Similar to how we cannot experience the Sun’s essence (meaning if we were to come in contact with the Sun itself, we would be burned up), but can experience the energy of the Sun (from rays of sunlight which give our bodies Vitamin D and create the process of life within plant life)... in the same way, even though we cannot experience the essence of God or see His face and live (Exo. 33:20), we can, however, experience the energies that come forth from God, and this is His “grace”.

Before, I always thought of grace as in opposition to works, as if grace is the opposite of works. This, I now believe, was because I didn’t read certain passages carefully enough, and always thought of grace as the opposite of earning salvation by works, which was a defining tenet of the Reformers' opposition to Rome, which increasingly became more “works-oriented” in the centuries following the Great Schism. The first passage I would use to prove this would be Ephesians 2:8-9, which appears at first glance to define grace and works as opposite concepts.

However, many of the passages often used to pit “faith” or “grace” versus works, when actually read carefully, are actually contrasting faith with the works of the Torah (law), not “works” in and of themselves (see Rom. 3:27; 9:32, Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). So, Paul wasn’t speaking negatively of works in these passages, but negatively of trying to acquire the grace of God on account of following the Jewish commandments of the Torah, not saying that works (or “actions”) were meaningless to God at the end of the day. This Orthodox view actually fits the rest of Scripture better, since God does not anywhere say He will judge the world on the basis of individual faith (or on some type of supposed ‘unconditional election’), but on the basis of individual works he will judge each person (Matt. 16:27, Rev. 2:23, Rev. 20:12-13).

I know it’s odd to hear this in a Western Christian mindset, but allow me to quote some passages of Scripture which clearly represent the grace of God as God’s energies which empower us to live a holy life, moreso than just “undeserved favor” (I cannot list them all, but most in the New Testament have this same theme):

John 1:14, 17: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth… For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is not full of undeserved favor, for He is perfect and deserving of all worship–if anyone deserves favor, it is Him! To say he is full of all unmerited favor is also false, and rather it is the fact that Jesus is full of the power of the Holy Spirit, full of the energies of God, for He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The gift of God’s Holy Spirit came on account of Jesus Christ, who was full of the gift of the Holy Spirit and of truth, for he was God made flesh, and was one with the other two Persons of the Trinity, hence being ‘full of grace and truth’.

Acts 4:33 - And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

Here, great grace is synonymous with “great power”, not their great “undeservedness”, even though they may have indeed been undeserving.

Acts 11:23; 13:43: When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord…Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Grace can be “seen” and “continued in”, which is really the power of God working in their lives could be seen and continued in. To say that the apostles saw how undeserving favor was poured upon them is not completely the whole picture, and undeserved favor cannot be continued in, but the power of God can be continued in, if we remain faithful and continue to walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8:4, 12-13; 11:19-22).

Acts 14:3: Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

the word of God’s grace was aligned with signs and wonders, hence the “power of God”, not merely God’s state of mind toward the people, or an abstract theological intellectual concept.

Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Grace is contrasted with the law (Torah), and grace is what empowers us to actually obey God (it’s His power), whereas the law (Torah) was powerless to help us overcome sin. This is more than just undeserved favor.

1 Cor. 15:10 - But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Here Paul says that the grace of God which was with him worked harder than any other apostle's outpouring of grace. Here, grace “worked” which means it’s more than undeserved favor. Grace was the power that enabled him to fulfill the works God predestined for him to complete (Eph. 2:10).

2 Cor. 6:1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Paul pleads that the Corinthians not receive the grace of God ‘in vain’. This would make no sense if grace was merely undeserved favor, for it wouldn’t be dependent on their ability to squander it. Here, receiving the grace of God means to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and one can grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), or even have the Holy Spirit removed from them by disobedience (Psa. 50:11)…hence Paul’s warning.

2 Cor. 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

Grace empowers believers to complete every good work, not merely give them a standing before God of favor.

2 Cor. 12:9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 

Here, grace is synonymous with God’s strength and power (His energies), not with undeserved favor.

1 Pet 5:10-12: But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.

The true grace of God, according to St. Peter, is one that perfects, establishes, strengthens, and settles us, on account of our suffering. This grace is power. Any other version of grace is a counterfeit.

In the respect of time, I will quote a passage from Fr. Michael Shanbour’s book, “Know The Faith” to illustrate this concept further:

“That grace is a real and substantial thing given by God to His creation is verified by several important passages of Scripture. First, Acts of the Apostles relate how many miraculous healings occurred through St. Paul, “so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them” (Acts 19:12). Notice the passage is careful to specify that these personal items had been in contact with St. Paul’s body. This is significant. If grace were a mere theological concept, there would be no organic connection between the apostle himself and the grace of God that worked the miracle. But since grace is indeed the real outpouring of God’s divine energies, we can understand that the uncreated grace of God abiding in the holy apostle’s body was literally transmitted to his garments by physical proximity. 

Something similar is recorded in the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. In 1920, after he reposed in a hospital in Athens, some medical staff began removing his clothes to clean his body, as was customary. In the process, they tossed his sweater onto the bed of the paralyzed man lying next to him. The man was instantly healed, got out of his bed, and began to walk. As in the example from the Book of Acts, the uncreated and immaterial grace of God abiding in the soul and body of St. Nectarios healed the sick, in this case through the means of a garment. 

This understanding of grace is the basis for the Orthodox veneration of the relics (bodies) of the saints. The body, being “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19), participates in the holiness of the soul and becomes a vessel of divine grace. We see an example of this even in the Old Testament. Shortly after the Prophet Elisha’s death, his grace-bearing relics raised a man from the dead (2 Kings 13:21).”

This phenomenon was also present when the woman with a flow of blood touched the Lord Jesus’ clothing and healing power went out of Him without His choice (Mark 5:30).

For these reasons, I think it is a settled matter by Scripture that grace is the uncreated energy of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit (as well as the Father and the Son) which empowers a Christian to live a godly life, not merely a state of favor or abstract theological concept that is contrary to “works”. It is the uncreated energy of God which can be transmitted physically, which gives a hint as to why physical "mysteries" or "sacraments" contain the power of God (1 Cor. 4:1).

Some may find it odd, that being so familiar with the Scriptures as I am, that I would consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church, which resembles so similarly the Roman Catholic’s view of Holy Tradition. I must clarify, though, that my strong commitment to “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) as a Protestant is what ultimately led me to the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is because, by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves, they clearly command believers to follow not only the written Scriptures, but also the oral teachings of the apostles as well:

1 Corinthians 11:2: Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

In listening to a debate between a Protestant and Catholic about 15 years ago, this passage from 2 Thessalonians came up in the debate. 

The Catholic said, “See? We must not only follow the written tradition, but also the oral tradition of the apostles”.

The Protestant rightly did not quote passages where Christ said not to follow the traditions of men (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7), because the apostles were not ordinary men by any means, they were commissioned by Christ and given authority to not only receive guidance into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), but also to forgive or not forgive sins (Jn. 20:23). So, this line of reasoning wouldn’t stand the test.

Knowing this, the Protestant said, “If I knew what those oral traditions were, if they were written down, I would happily obey them”.

And this is where the Catholic responded cheerfully, “Well, you should read my new book then… because I chronicle all of the writings of the Church Fathers which describe them!”

This exchange troubled me, because it seemed as though the Catholic was obeying the Scripture better than the Protestant!

After I have researched this matter further, it appears that many of the Traditions of the apostles were passed down in writing by future bishops, but many were not. Many were only passed down orally, as to keep the secrets of the kingdom of God within the Church community, to not be exploited by swine (Matt. 7:6). Some traditions which were not passed down in writing were things like making the sign of the cross (as a physical sign of combating sin and demons), praying facing towards the East (since Christ will most likely return from the East–Matt. 24:27), and the various liturgical rites of the Eucharist. One that was written down, although in an apocryphal writing known as The Didache, was the fasting schedule which has been in effect since the early days of the Church, which is to fast from meat, fish, dairy, and even oil, on most Wednesdays (as a remembrance of Christ’s betrayal), and most Fridays (as a remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion) throughout the year.

This actually appears to be the wisest course of action now looking back from the future, since many atheists and ungodly mock the Bible and try to find inconsistencies within it and propagate their misunderstandings and lead many astray now that the printing press and internet have been developed. The very heart of the worship of the Church, and the mysteries within it, should never have been written down for fear of the enemies of Christ exploiting it. This is why St. Paul never wrote these traditions down, for fear that the powers that existed at that time might infiltrate the Church and cause it to be destroyed before it could expand to the whole world.

2 Thess. 3:6: But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

Frankly, I could not find a simpler passage which commands me to find a Church Body that is connected to the original apostles, through apostolic succession, and that commands me to depart from joining with any who do not follow the Tradition of the Apostles.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church truly follows the tradition of the apostles, then the Bible commands me through this passage to leave and withdraw from every Christian or group of Christians who do not follow the apostolic tradition.

I am not aware of how I can be faithful to the following passages listed above, and still remain a Protestant.  

Through my research, the Roman Catholic Church has also departed from the tradition, by adding new innovative doctrines and practices which the Church never corporately agreed upon, but have begun a slippery slope ever since the 11th century (although the seeds of this apostasy began much earlier than that). Much of the unique doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants reject today, were initiated after the 11th century, and are not found in the Eastern Orthodox Church, for they have fought hard every generation to preserve the faith passed down which was once for all delivered to the the saints (Jude 3).

Being amillenial for the last 14 years, I had already believed that Christians who died physically lived on with Christ and continued to reign with him for the entire church age. This is because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8), and because Christ’s kingdom, the kingdom of God, began when Christ was on earth and cast out demons (Matt. 12:28, Luk. 11:20). Jesus said all authority was given to him in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18-20), which is a clear declaration of kingship, and it is written that His kingdom has no end (Dan 7:14, Luke 1:32-33). Paul said that we believers would reign with Christ (Rom. 8:17), as did the Revelator John (Rev. 20:6--this passage states that the saints will reign with Christ for "a thousand years", which, due to the apocalyptic and nonliteral nature of the book of Revelation, when taking into consideration other passages that reference "a thousand" [Psa. 50:10], appears to be a nonliteral way of saying "a long time"). To be absent from the body and be present with the Lord now, means they are participating in the authoritative reign of Christ today until he returns to inaugurate His kingdom when all things are made new (Rev. 21:5).

The big sticking point on whether believers who have passed on to be with Christ could intercede and pray for us was then something I had to overcome if I were to be grafted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The concept of having the saints (including the Virgin Mary, St. John The Baptist, the apostles, as well as other future saints) to intercede and pray for us seemed superfluous to me when Jesus said that we could have direct access to the Father. Why, exactly, would I need the saints to pray for me when I could directly send my requests and petitions to the Father?

Jesus said, “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God (John 16:23-27).

My understanding up to this point was that if Christ Himself said he wouldn’t need to or desire to pray for us, since when the Spirit comes, we will have direct access to the Father, then why would the Church have believed since the beginning that the intercessions of the saints in heaven were effectual? This appears to prove that other’s prayers, including even those of Jesus, would not be necessary since we now have direct access to the Father, right?

Wrong.

This was a major issue I had to search the Scriptures regarding, and here are probably my strongest findings in opposition to the Protestant view:

Firstly, Jesus does continue to pray for us. Hebrews 7:25 states: “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Not only does this passage say that Christ intercedes for us, but it says he ALWAYS lives to intercede for us.  

So, how do we reconcile where Jesus says “I do not say that I shall pray to the Father for you”, and the epistle of Hebrews where it says He does intercede at all times? This is because of a common writing mechanism in the New Testament known as a “limited negative” (I’m not sure of who first coined this term, but I learned this from Protestant Bible teacher Steve Gregg when I studied under him in 2010).

A limited negative defined is when a writer of the New Testament makes a negative claim, but then clarifies it with more information which shows that the negative claim is limited in scope.

In other words, what Jesus is really saying is: “I do not say that I shall [ONLY] pray to the Father for you, but that [ALSO] you will have direct access to the Father”.

Now, before you quickly claim that I have added to the word of God, allow me to show you another example from John’s writings where he uses this writing style:

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13

When considering the concept of a limited negative, we see that this passage really means:

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not [ONLY] of blood, nor [ONLY] of the will of the flesh, nor [ONLY] of the will of man, but [ALSO OF] of God.” 

This is true because all of us, before we are born from above, we ARE first born of blood (we are born of our mother), we ARE born of the will of flesh (our parents’ decision to have sex), and we are born of the will of man (our parents desire to conceive for the purpose of procreation), and then we are ALSO then born of God at a later time. John is not saying we were never born of the flesh, for that would be nonsensical, even though a strict literal reading of the text would warrant that interpretation.

So, the question becomes, are Jesus’ prayers more effective than my own to the Father? Certainly! Jesus is God made flesh, so His will is perfectly divine and in line with the Father’s will, so His prayers are more likely to be answered by the Father than my own, which can be tarnished by my own selfish desires (James 4:1-3), or sin, which if held in my heart, will cause the Lord to not hear my prayers (Psalm 66:18:, 1 Peter 3:7).

And if Christians who have died physically have never really died at all (John 11:25), then those who are no longer bound by the body or the physical limitations of sin, and are perfectly within the presence of Christ pray for me as well, then the logic follows that THEIR prayers would also be more effectual than my own.

I must admit, that this was a difficult thing to first accept, because the concept of praying to someone I never met (like the Virgin Mary, or my patron saint, or even an angel of God) is abnormal at first. Why would I need to ask them to pray for me, when I can pray directly to God myself? Because my prayers are not always pure (James 4:1-3), and my sin sometimes withholds the answer or the ability for God to hear me (Psalm 66:18, 1 Peter 3:7). Do not ask me why God designed it this way, but I think one of the key tenets of Orthodoxy is that humility is the most desired virtue, and by humbling ourselves and asking someone else who is now glorified with Christ for their intercessions is a matter of humility, whereas before I proudly assumed that God alone deserved my prayers (or requests for prayers, for that matter), and we know that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5).

I have personally found more answers to prayer when requesting the saints to pray for me, then when I have prayed directly to God. Why is this? Because they are not withheld by sin, and by humbling myself to approach their glorified state, God blesses it, because He is always looking to use others to accomplish His will. Why have prayers gone unanswered for so long in my past? Maybe because I was not approaching God according to His design, for Christ is the king, and he has generals underneath Him, who do his bidding, and sometimes without Him having to be consulted directly at all (Luk. 7:8-9: For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard these things, He marveled at him, and turned around and said to the crowd that followed Him, “I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”).

We ask fellow believers to pray for us all the time. What is any different about praying to saints who were much more faithful to God, resisted sin more completely, and have been received up in glory and are serving Christ as soldiers in His army? They are no longer held back by sin, and they are in the presence of Christ directly, whereas I am often in and out of the Presence of Christ, continually searching for the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and my motives are not always pure (Jam. 4:1-3). If you believe this is communication with the dead, then you do not believe Christ's words, who said that "those who live and believe in me shall never die" (Jn. 11:25). Even Jesus Himself, as well as Peter, James and John, communicated with Old Testament saints like Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor (Mt. 17:3). This seems to me to be the best kept secret in Christendom, and I am very humbled upon discovering it, that I would be counted worthy to fit into God’s design, for I am very far behind where I should be, and I have often delayed the Lord’s coming (instead of hastening it) by my obstinance and unfaithfulness (2 Pet. 3:12).

Speaking of that, I would be remiss to mention that there was a period of time in my life recently, when first building my business, that I became entwined with a lot of liberal Protestant teachers and theology. There is a movement of apostasy happening within the Protestant Church right now, where losing your faith is praised as spiritual, and questioning the Bible’s miraculous nature or historicity is deemed scholarly. Many teachers are pioneering this movement right now, and for a time I became entrapped in their web.

During the year of 2019, I chose not to read my Bible at all (and gradually drifted from praying consistently). During this time, I had a very vivid dream where I was walking down a street outdoors, limping because my right leg had a sore of some kind, and there was a strong pain in my thigh above my right knee. Immediately I ascended into the sky (it was extremely frightening, because it wasn't as if I just appeared in the sky, it took about 10 seconds to travel there), where I saw a number of people who looked full of joy and happy in the clouds. Some were distant and far away, and some were nearer. They were worshiping God, but I could not hear them. They all looked like normal people in modern clothes that I may have seen in the normal course of life, men who I might have met at the grocery store or at church, for instance. Then, two men were right next to me, and one said, quite sternly, “The Lord Jesus Christ is coming back to reward His servants, and punish His enemies”... and immediately I woke up. This dream was fulfilled in my life, 3 years later, when I attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and the Parable of the Ten Virgins was read (Matt. 25:1-13). This is a passage very clearly speaking about the unexpected return of Christ. This was one of the most powerful services I have ever attended, where I literally felt like Christ was physically in the room. Up till this point, after attending the Divine Liturgy for a number of months, I couldn’t seem to get into the groove of it… it was so Ancient and so Eastern that I couldn’t really understand it, but I persevered nonetheless. But THIS night was a special night, and it seemed like all of the pressing in and perseverance and violently searching for the kingdom of God had paid off, and I was in a state of shock and awe when the service ended; I wasn’t sure if I had been there for hours or 5 minutes. But as I began to exit the pew, my right leg began to feel extremely sore, in the exact same spot it did in my dream, almost to the point where I had to limp. Immediately I remembered the dream (for how could I forget it?), and realized that I was right where I was supposed to be.

When I said that I had experienced more speedy answers to prayers when asking the saints to intercede for me, it was specifically when requesting the Theotokos (or, Mother of God), to pray for me.

This probably sounds strange to any Protestant, but I cannot deny the reality of what I’ve experienced. Also, in the beginning, when I first began to request her intercessions, I admit it was awkward for me, and I often had feelings of guilt, condemnation, and that I was somehow dishonoring God. As I continued, these emotions felt more like the spiritual arrows shot at me from Satan when being spiritually attacked, and it was not that when I ceased praying to the Virgin Mary that God’s peace came, but rather when I ascetically persevered in my prayers to Mary that the devils were cast away, and a sense of peace and calm came instead. I do not expect everyone reading to believe this, but this was my experience. You can’t really knock it if you haven’t tried it.

Much has been written about the Virgin Mary, and one of the best books I read was called “Mary as The Early Christians Knew Her” by Fredericka Mathews-Green. Much of what we know about the Virgin Mary, and accept as authentic tradition in the East, is from the apocryphal book “The Protoevangelium of James”. Now that we are on this topic, I recommend the book “APOCRYPHA: An Introduction to Extra-Biblical Literature” by Stephen De Young. I believe it is an even-handed treatment of the Apocrypha from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, which keeps the balance between how the Apocrypha influenced the New Testament, but yet was not considered as authoritative by the Early Church. There’s a delicate balance of what is considered authentic and true from the Apocrypha, and what is not, and why those books did not ultimately make the cut at the Council of Nicea. A full analysis of the Protoevangelium of James is included in his book.

In this writing, believed to be the oral teaching of the Apostle James (a not-blood relative of Jesus) later written down, he describes an incredible story of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna. They were much advanced in age, and promised offspring but were not blessed with that privilege yet (as many other historical accounts in the Bible, such as Abraham and Sarah, or Hannah). When they finally gave birth to Mary, they dedicated her to God. She was dedicated in the Temple as a toddler, and it was passed down that she lived in the Holy of Holies and was sustained by bread from heaven given by angels. I know this sounds wild, but the tradition holds that Mary specifically asked the apostles, when beginning to write the New Testament, to NOT write about her life, wonderworkings, or mighty deeds because she didn’t want to take the focus off of her Son. Mary was the first person in the world to receive Christ, and to receive Him in a very unique way as we all know, and really only SHE knows how unique that was. The testimony continues that after Christ ascended, she continued to give away all her money to the poor, served God in miraculous ways, and when she reposed nearly all the apostles were translated to her deathbed (much like how Phillip was caught away in the Spirit, and arrived in a different location 60 miles away in Acts 8:39). She then told them to continue to fight the good fight, and to consistently resist sin and be faithful unto death, for with the same ascetic effort they refused the things of this world and served their King, they would receive the same proportion as their reward in the kingdom of God. She then ascended into heaven, and was not buried, leaving behind a belt sash which healed people for centuries to come.

Now, I know this seems strange to most American Christian ears, and since it’s not in the Bible, it is often dismissed as inauthentic. However, when actually reviewing all of the data, it appears that Mary preferred this information to be withheld, and it was only written down from oral tradition a couple centuries later in hopes that the testimony wouldn’t be lost to history or persecution. Although I don’t know this for sure, I would venture to guess that many of the bishops involved in the council of Nicea believed this oral tradition to be accurate, even though they realized collectively the Protoevangelium of James was not written by James himself (but was a second-hand account), thus not included in the Canon of Scripture.

I don’t think the idea that somehow Mary was idolized later when the Church “fell away” and became entwined with the Roman Empire is a fair assessment. A series of true events must have happened that started all this, and I think that probably Christian generations continued to pass this history on because it was consistently celebrated in the Divine Liturgy at certain periods of time when Christians met for worship. The data just doesn’t seem to point to some period of time where the Church fell away and got distracted, but rather that these events were always part of the history of the early Church. At least that’s what seems good to me, and the Holy Spirit from my limited scope. And I think I have the Holy Spirit (Lord willing).  

Along the lines of the Roman Empire becoming Christian, I suggest you read Romans 13:1-2 again. America was founded on a revolution and in direct disobedience to Romans 13:1-2 (as well as other passages which command us to pay taxes), yet for some reason we praise the Founding Fathers, and condemn the Roman Empire, which made Christianity the official religion. Romans 13:1 seems to point out that God ordained the Roman Empire to become Christian, and when considering that, we should probably actually research whether maybe those Christians were more authentic than us, and that maybe it is true that evil men have grown worse and worse (2 Tim. 3:13), and our ears have grown dull to sound teaching (2 Tim. 4:3), and it appears that the Great Falling Away has already begun (2 Thess. 2:3). Perhaps this is all speaking of OUR generations (post-Great Schism), not the Early Church who fell away. Only time will tell. I feel it is much safer to agree with the Early Church than to be unaware I may be contributing to part of the future problem and apostasy predicted in Scripture! 

Now, the idea that Mary was born without sin, is not an Eastern Orthodox view. The Roman Catholics have been creating their own dogmas from their own councils (since departing from all the other Christian bishops in the East in 1054), and they created the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 (ironically which is around the same time period that the theory of evolution was developed, the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses cults began, and technology began to develop faster than ever before. I think this is interesting, but is merely speculation that perhaps evil is becoming worse and worse in anticipation of the glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to judge the world in righteousness and truth (Rev. 20:3).

Now, the passages that often come up that I had to wrestle with regarding Mary are the following:

Luke 1:48 “For he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;”

This prophecy would not be fulfilled without the continuation of the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church (the Catholics have now divinized her; that’s more than calling her “blessed”, that is essentially calling her sinless).

Matt. 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

This appears to prove the fact that Mary, the mother of God, remained a virgin after Christ was born. For if Jesus had half-brothers (as Matthew appears at first glance to suggest), then the Jewish custom would have followed that Mary would have went to live with the next of kin (one of Jesus’ half-brothers), NOT with the Apostle John. Since Mary had no other offspring, and it is likely that all of the other “brothers” (or relatives) previously mentioned were the children of Joseph from a prior marriage (or cousins), this leaves that only Christ could remain to look after His mother, and He decided to give that important role to His most beloved disciple upon His temporary departure (John 19:27).

Two passages which I thought would be extremely difficult to explain any other way than how I viewed it as a Protestant were actually some of the simplest ones to correct:

Luke 8:19-21 - “Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You. But He answered and said to them, “My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it”. 

When following the chronology of the life of Christ, at this point, Jesus was not yet revealed as the Christ to His family as of yet. The word “brother” is often used in other passages of Scripture referring to relatives other than brothers, as is the case with Abram and Lot (Gen. 14:14), Boaz and his cousin (Ruth 4:3), and Joab’s cousin (2 Kin. 20:9).

St. John Chrysostom wrote, “It was not Christ’s will to deny His mothers and brothers. Rather, Jesus is correcting both them and His hearers to the right idea concerning Himself, that the family of His kingdom is not by nature, but by virtue.”

And here’s another similar passage (Luk. 11:27-28):

“And it happened, as [Jesus] spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which nursed You! But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

The Greek word translated as “more than that”, “menounge”, is translated “Yes indeed!” in Romans 10:18.

So, in essence Jesus is not disagreeing or belittling the role of His mother, but rather agreeing wholeheartedly (that her body is blessed), and then describing her most faithful characteristic: the fact that she heard the word of God and kept it by saying, “Let it be to me according to your word!” (Luk. 1:38). So Christ is not saying that there is some “other group” other than His mother that He prefers because they hear and obey the word of God, but rather stating that His mother is the very prime example of this group, which agrees with the nativity narrative in the gospel of Luke.  

As mentioned earlier, the Evangelist Luke drew the first holy icon of the Theotokos, and he dedicates two lengthy chapters at the beginning of his gospel honoring the Virgin Mary for her complete faith and obedience to God, in direct contrast to Zacharias’ unbelief, who was a religious leader. I find it extremely odd that the author would spend the first two chapters praising and showing Mary as an obedient follower of God, and then 9 chapters later transcribe a saying of Jesus that completely ignores His affection for His mother, and somehow pits her calling as less substantial than any of His other followers. 

Yes, Jesus once called His mother “Woman” (John 2:4), which sounds demeaning, but in actuality was just a common word of affection in first century Jewish culture. After all, God chose His own mother! Would He have chosen someone who would be less ready to hear and keep the word of God? Certainly not! The first two chapters of this gospel tell the exact opposite story: that Mary’s humility and willingness to obey God is her most glowing characteristic, which I believe makes the Orthodox interpretation fit more in line with the entire context of the book than the Protestant view, which is essentially nothing better than a misinterpreted proof text.

Now, probably the strongest proof text against the role of Mary and the effectual nature of her intercessions (although not strong enough), is 1 Timothy 2:5:

“For there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus…”

Now, as I have mentioned before, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t believe that the Virgin Mary is a Mediator in this same sense described here, and that only Christ is (the Roman Catholic Church may say otherwise since 1854).

Since this verse begins with the word “For”... we must look at what came before and at the immediate context, which reads:

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” (1 Tim. 2:3-6)

Here, Paul is expounding upon concepts that would later come to light in the Gospel of John, such as “No one can come to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6) or “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.” (John 12:47-50)

In one sense, only Christ can mediate between the Father and humanity, and Jesus is, in a sense, predisposed to saving the world more than judging the world (although he will still judge the world on the Last Day). Whenever the Orthodox approach Mary, it is always with the basic understanding that we are requesting her to intercede on our behalf to Christ, who then, as we covered before, intercedes on our behalf to the Father (Heb. 7:25). We simply accept that there is an order to the kingdom of God, for one cannot just approach the President of the United States and gain his ear by writing a letter. It would help if you knew someone in his cabinet, or a friend of a friend, or his mother (if our Presidents weren’t so advanced in age!). In the same way, we do not approach Mary as asking her to perform what only the Man Christ Jesus can perform as Mediator, but we recognize that without her obedience, Jesus Christ would have never become a man. And since she faithfully resisted the delights of this world and walked in the power of the Spirit (arguably more than anyone else in the early Church, as tradition would have it), she CAN influence the will of God. I will let you sit with that, it seems preposterous to someone who has a strictly deterministic view of the sovereignty of God, but it would appear to me that the Bible and common sense would have it that God is a humble God (despite being all-powerful), and He CAN be influenced by faithful men and women who please Him. I will let the Scriptures themselves point to that fact (I’d venture to say I could find at least 10 examples of it in every historical book of the Old and New Testaments, at a minimum–some that come to mind are Abraham and his prayer for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33), Moses and his intercession for Israel before their pending doom and God choosing a different people (Num. 14:11-25), the prayer of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:10-13), just to name a few).

But for those who won't believe this without a slam dunk proof text, ask yourself the following questions: Is Jesus God? Yes (John 1:1;14). Is Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. (John 2:1) When the mother of God implied that they needed wine...Did Jesus, God, want to turn the water into wine? No. (John 2:3-4) - I tend to speculate there was a pause, or a look from His mother (like I've received from my own mother when she requests something of me), or just an assumptive close when she said "Do whatever he tells you!" (John 2:5). Prime example that God will honor His own mother against His own will, for it is written: "Honor thy father and mother" (Exo. 20:12).

My Orthodox Study Bible says the following in the margins of this passage: “Some who are opposed to the established Church use this verse to claim that “all you need is Jesus–not the Church, her clergy, and her sacraments”. But the Son became the One Mediator by becoming Man through the Holy Spirit and a virgin–that is, through God and men. He “built” His humanity not from Himself alone, but from another, the Virgin Mary. Likewise, as the Mediator, He says, “I will build My Church” (Mt. 16:18); He establishes her leaders and her worship. As Mary gives us Christ in His humanity, the Church introduces us to Him, who alone is our Mediator”.

If I ask a dear friend to pray for me that I might be conformed to the image of Christ, I think that it follows if Mary, the Theotokos, is truly alive in Christ (Jn. 11:25), having faithfully partaken of God's divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and if she now sees Christ revealed (having not been buried but ascended to Him), she would be "like Him", and partake in His resurrection and have similar power (by being in multiple places at once) to effectively intercede on behalf of the Church (1 Jn. 3:2, 1 Cor. 15:6). Although she is not Divine or without sin in her earthly life, her glorified intercessions can be effectual to help me in my present day to day battle, because she shares and participates in God's resurrection life, being in Heaven with Christ. In this view, we are not worshipping Mary nor believing she is God-like apart from the grace and mercy of God.

If this train of thought or these passages of Scripture do not pique your interest, then perhaps you should consider the words of the Apostle Paul who said, "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor. 8:2)

When I was in college, I approached God one evening sincerely for the first time as an adult, kneeling in prayer and asking if God was real, and if so, to change my life. This was the summer of 2006 when I was home after summer break of my freshman year in college. Before this time, I was doing a lot of drugs throughout high school.

Immediately, I heard a voice in my right ear (not audible, but clear enough in my mind that it was not my own thought) say “Come to Me”. I felt a force pull me to the left and in my left ear say “No not yet”. The next two days I did not eat any food and started reading the Catholic Bible which was given to me in 8th grade by my confirmation sponsor (who was my stepfather). I did not understand anything I read, but I was in a very troubled state of mind, yet at the same time, extremely joyful.

I then attended Calvary Chapel in Old Bridge, NJ, being invited by my barber (strange I know, because I didn't cut my hair very often), and showed up to an evening service in my tie-dyed Led Zeppelin T-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops, which I had probably been wearing for several days at this point (I used to follow around a band called Phish, as well as other jam bands, which continued the lifestyle and free-spirited cult-like following of the Grateful Dead from the 1960s and 70s). This church was tucked away, down a random street of only warehouses, not visible from one of the main streets I drove every day to Old Bridge High School, my hometown. I never even knew it existed. Many of the Christians there were welcoming, knowing that their first pastor of their denomination, Chuck Smith, often welcomed hippies into his small country church in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I enjoyed the contemporary music at this church, being a musician studying music in college at this time, and I went through the motions of listening to the teaching, going to an altar call, and then went back to Boston for college a few weeks later. I then met a woman in an elevator of my apartment building which was a lease I signed six months prior (who lived on the floor above me) who told me she attended a small Calvary Chapel in the heart of the city of Boston. It was a wonderful small community of very dedicated Christians, and I continued attending and serving in various capacities, such as playing in the worship band. I cannot stress enough how providential this was, because this church was only comprised of about 100 people at this time, and there were over 600,000 people living in the city of Boston. This denomination, although having some significant challenges over the years, nonetheless inspired me to take seriously the Bible and I began to read it 4 hours in the early mornings before college classes, and 4-6 hours every night, often falling asleep with my Bible open.

In 2007, during my sophomore year of college, I was sleeping over at some of the other Christians’ homes from this church, because 3 or 4 of them all stayed in this one house as roommates, down the road from the pastor.

In the middle of the night, I awoke (from a dream I don’t remember) screaming saying, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me! - Lord Jesus, have mercy on me!” I had never heard of what the Jesus prayer was before this time, but I was praying it at the top of my lungs (The Jesus Prayer, often prayed by the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries, is the prayer of the heart developed from the prayer of the publican which states: Lord Jesus, son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner”). The other roommates awoke, in a state of shock, but one of them placed their hands upon my chest and said, “Rich, God is here”, some of the fear subsided, but not completely (and my sight went completely white for a moment, and I had a deep exhale). This was only the beginning of a period of a number of days, for which I do not fully remember, but I was clearly not in the right state of mind, nor a stable one at that. My pastors, unsure what to do with me, called my parents and asked them to pick me up (they drove from NJ to Boston, and drove me home). My memories from these events were some of the scariest of my life… the intense fear, the torment of soul, the full-blown insanity, the confusion… like nothing I had ever experienced before, and have only experienced a few other times over the course of the next few years, but never at the same level of intensity. I had not taken psychedelic drugs like LSD, mushrooms, or any other drugs that I was accustomed to in the past since probably a year prior to the night I prayed in 2006 (my freshman year of college was at a very prestigious music conservatory, and I didn’t have time for partying anymore). But this event, nearly 18 months later, and the days that followed were some of the darkest and scariest I have ever experienced, for I had no control over my state of mind. It was at this time that I was committed to a state facility, and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Since then, it had been a constant battle to maintain a sound mind, until about the last 12 years after initially meeting my wife and starting my business.

I do not hold my former pastors accountable for not being able to cast these demons out, for even the apostles did not know how to on some initial occasions (Matt. 17:19-21), and I am in great debt to them for their consistent prayers for my soul. But this denomination I attended believed that Christians could not be possessed by demons after expressing true faith in Christ. This is not anywhere stated in Scripture, and the proof text they often use is “Greater is He who is in you (God’s Spirit), than he who is in the world (Satan)” (1 John 4:4). This is a generic statement, and doesn’t specify an entire systematic demonology, and in my mind looking back on it, is a very small-minded approach to the spiritual realm. This is speaking of the fact that the Spirit of God is within the Church corporately, not any way in reference to an individual basis (check the Greek lexicon). Even Jesus Himself stated that it is possible for demons to re-enter a body that has swept itself clean (Matt. 12:43-45). St. Paul says a messenger of Satan was sent to pummel him, because he received so many revelations (did this happen within his own mind, because that is where revelations occur? 2 Cor. 12:7). Job was a faithful follower of God, and yet God allowed Satan to completely ruin every aspect of his life, almost to the point of ruining his faith, but he did not give in (and nor did I–Job 1-3). 

To assume that the devil cannot ruin people’s lives after conversion is also not supported by Scripture, because St. Peter warns that the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8-9-he would have no reason to warn against this if there was some forcefield around believers once they begin the journey of following Christ–this is more superstitious than any of the things I have encountered within the Eastern Orthodox Church! The battle is not over, and the unseen realm is a reality we must come to terms with). He also says to ‘resist him, steadfast in the faith’, but I don’t believe I even had the opportunity to do so, for this attack happened in my sleep (even though our invisible enemies do not sleep). 

It really makes me feel like this attack was a mercy of God to get me to eventually join the Eastern Orthodox Church, for even in my sleep, I was praying the heart of the Jesus Prayer when the attack began. I do not take credit for this, this is purely the mercy of God who equipped me to suffer these things. I do not fully understand how or why it happened, but looking back on it, it’s probably the single greatest event of my life. God has a way of taking the worst things in the world (like the crucifixion of the only-begotten Son of God) and turning them into the best things in the world (the salvation of humanity).

This experience, upon looking back on it, was simply one part of my journey which led me to this point in my life, where I am now a full-fledged member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has its roots back to the twelve apostles, and for that I am joyfully, and tearfully, thankful to the ever-abounding mercies of our great God and Father, on account of His only-begotten Son who is true God, together with His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit which leads into all truth, to whom be glory forever and ever, and unto ages of ages.

Amen.

Being fully aware of the digital, online attention span of most readers, I should begin by stating that this is a long discourse. Here’s a short summary (for those who do not have the time or interest to read this until the end, and may not want to seek a deeper walk with God): After experiencing an “Eastern Orthodox”-esque church service in 2021 (although it was technically an Anglican Protestant Church that carbon copied all aspects of the Eastern Orthodox faith and practice), and through much study of the Bible, wrestling with many passages I have struggled with for years, and then actively participating in the spiritual life of the Orthodox tradition, I began to more fully understand what the Eastern Orthodox Church believed and found that many of the views I currently held through my own personal study of Scripture lined up with the Eastern Orthodox tradition more so than any Protestant Church I attended in previous years (they are both amillennial but not Calvinist, believe in the primacy of the "Christus Victor" view rather than the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement, focused on the kingdom of God, holiness, and the life and gifts of the Spirit without charismania, for instance) .There were certain passages of Scripture I could no longer honestly “explain away” as a Protestant, and after two years of attending an Eastern Orthodox Church, I finally became chrismated in October of 2023 (chrismation is similar to Roman Catholic “confirmation”... the Orthodox parish I go to does not re-baptize Trinitarian Christians).

Those who influenced this decision, other than the Holy Trinity, were Christians I either became acquainted with as mentors or looked up to, including K.P. Yohannan, Hank Hanegraaf, and Michael Hyatt (a business coach I admire who is also an Eastern Orthodox deacon, and former CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers–the big Bible distributor) and my own personal study of Scripture and Church History. Even though I technically no longer adhere to the mantra of “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone), I can confidently say that although personal, subjective experiences influenced this journey of mine, it was primarily confirmation from the Scriptures themselves that solidified my conversion to Orthodoxy, and the study of the continuation of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, which I believe continues beyond chapter 28 in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Ante-Nicene Fathers, as well as various other works which document the lives of many Christians, miracles, and the proof of the power of the kingdom of God amongst the Eastern Orthodox Church (not merely words, but power–1 Cor. 4:20). Much of this is documented in other works (the Synaxarion, for example). 

Today marks my first Eastern Easter as an Orthodox Christian, and this journey has come with a number of challenges, the most significant being the fact that my wife Shawna has continued to remain Protestant and attend Calvary Chapel, as I participate in the life and community of an Eastern Orthodox parish. Even though this has been challenging, my wife has been gracious and understanding despite our differences, and even though we only attend church together on major holidays, my hope is that I can continue to guide my family in many of the core tenets of the faith that we still both agree on despite many significant differences, which I will describe below. My hope is that my testimony will be encouraging, and bring clarity to my views and beliefs (and those of 350 million other Orthodox Christians worldwide), while still inspiring us all to watch and await the blessed coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming to initiate His righteous and dread judgment of the living and the dead, including all the former secrets of each human person, whether good or bad (Eccl. 12:14; 2 Cor. 5:10). 

I must say, however, as a disclaimer, that I am merely a layperson, and not educated very much in regards to Orthodoxy (I’m essentially a baby Christian in the faith, as I see it now). Take the following discourse with a grain of salt, and search out these matters for yourself. I do not claim to be speaking authoritatively, for that is not my calling. I can only speak about my personal experience and how I’ve begun this journey of faith, and I recommend that you search out these matters from those who are more knowledgeable than I, and who have the authority to speak on these matters. It is my limited understanding that a large percentage of believers are flocking to the Eastern Orthodox Church, including many younger people (I’ve heard this from multiple sources, and it is evidenced in my own local parish as well). The things I’m about to describe about my journey somewhat happened in a vacuum, as I have been very occupied with building my business, and it’s essentially just been me and my Bible, and attending Calvary Chapel with my family (where I have admittedly not really been plugged in very much–many will probably use this as evidence to say that I have fallen away [or never was saved to begin with], and if you carefully read this discourse and believe that, then I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. I suppose the truth is always polarizing!). 

My last thing to say before you potentially stop reading this, is that the secrets of God are meant to be searched out (Prov. 25:2). My understanding now is that the apostles purposefully left out certain details about the life of the Church, and wrote the Gospels, Acts, and epistles with the specific purpose of not revealing certain things, because they were aware of many things which would come in the future within the Christian world. I think anyone who reads the Scriptures carefully can see this is the case.

God bless,

Rich (+philaret) Feola

In October of 2021, I was speaking at an industry conference in Texas and was invited to visit a charity’s headquarters I have often supported over the years. K.P. Yohannan, the founder of this organization previously known as Gospel for Asia (now, GFA World), welcomed me to this community where I stayed in one of their houses on their campus near Dallas, Texas.  

At this point, I was a bit skeptical about the organization, because of a multitude of evil reports which had circulated in the press about their financial mismanagement, and lawsuits that the charity dealt with just a few years prior to my visit. I had been so busy with running my business that I hadn’t really had the time to research whether these rumors were true, and I continued to support them because I believed that I was giving the donations to God, and that I couldn’t really judge what happened with the money after that.

So, I saw this visit to Dallas as an opportunity to speak to K.P. himself, and really see if I could understand what exactly happened, because at this time I was significantly invested in the work they were doing as a consistent supporter (which only increased as my wealth increased).  

I looked up to K.P. ever since the Spring of 2008, where I heard him speak at an East Coast Calvary Chapel Pastor’s Conference at the age of 21 (maybe it was 2009, I remember that Frank Drown, a companion of Jim Elliott also spoke at this conference). I was so intrigued by K.P’s message that I actively went searching for him after he spoke, but I couldn’t find him amongst the mass of pastors and leaders. I found another man from Asia and I asked him, “Are you with K.P?”, and he nodded but couldn’t tell me where he went. I just assumed that, like Jesus, he was probably praying in some remote location, hoping that his message wouldn’t fall on deaf ears but that it would bear fruit, and I trusted that if it was ever the Lord’s will, we might meet some day. This message was so impactful to me, that when he closed the message in prayer, I was in tears looking up to heaven (while everyone else’s heads were bowed) knowing that I had heard a different message than I was ever used to hearing in Calvary Chapel before. This was a message of pure devotion to Christ, and of seeking to know God above all other things (he quoted the Desert Fathers at certain points, and spoke about the necessity of finding and knowing God. To truly know God, because that is the chief end of humanity: to know God and Jesus Christ whom God sent (John 17:3)). 

I still listen to this message every few years because it reminds me of a time when I stopped seeking God for the praise of man, to become a pastor someday and really “do something for God”, or for my own selfish pursuits, and instead began the journey of seeking for the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and nearly 98% of my prayers since this time have been for God’s will to be done in my life, and for me to truly acquire the fullness of the Holy Spirit (and not a cheap counterfeit, or a filling that was not all-encompassing). This has been my aim (although imperfectly) for the last 15 years to the point where I don’t really pray for anything else for myself because, frankly, I don’t have a desire for anything else.

So, when I arrived at the GFA campus, I got settled into the guest house, and I saw that there was a prayer book from ‘Ancient Faith’ publishing, and two pictures hanging on a specific wall of the living room. I read some of the prayers from the Psalms, and then began to look at these two “pictures”, which I had never seen before. The one on the left was clearly Mary the mother of Jesus, holding Christ as a toddler in a very loving embrace. And then the one to the right was clearly Jesus holding a large book, but he had a facial expression which was more stern than welcoming, and after looking into Christ’s eyes, immediately the scripture came to my mind from Revelation which says, “ His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Revelation 19:12-15). I immediately began to feel emotions of compunction and awe, contemplating the future Great White Throne Judgment. After this, I finished praying through some Psalms and a sense of calm overcame me, and I found that my soul became extra vigilant and more easily resistant to sin before retiring for the evening.

At the front of the church, the same two pictures that I saw on the wall of the guest house had larger versions at the front of the church (the Eastern Orthodox call these “icons” since the Bible says that Christ is the “icon” of the invisible God– Col. 1:15). During the sermon, the preacher explained that the holy painting, or “icon”, of the Virgin Mary and Christ was originally drawn by the Evangelist Luke (who wrote the gospel), and has been a staple in Eastern Churches ever since the early Church (before the gospels or epistles were even written). Then, he explained that the other icon was descriptive of Christ as God and as Ruler of All. Upon further research, the icon is actually entitled “Pankokrator”, which is actually one of the Greek words in the passage of Scripture from Revelation 19 which came to my mind when I first saw this image (I did not know any of this prior, or what an “icon” even was at this time). I find it especially merciful that God allowed me to first experience icons in an unexpected fashion. I came to them with an open heart of prayer (after digesting books like “The Practice of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence back in 2006), and not with a hardened heart assuming they are idols that “catholic-type” Christians bow down to. 

The early Church had icons as part of the Christian worship community, not to “worship” idols and replace the worship of God, but rather to communicate the gospel to people who were often illiterate. The icons communicated biblical truths when many people, maybe even most, could not read the Scriptures themselves. After learning this, it made sense that icons were a normative part of the Early Church. These icons are venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, which means that often we bow before the icon and show respect to the individual(s) the icon represents by kissing them and making the sign of the cross. Just as we might show reverence to an older brother or sister in Christ with a holy kiss of reverence (as if we are kissing our biological mother or father–2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Tim. 5:2), we are not worshiping the creation but rather showing reverence to the fact that these individuals are made in the image of God and that Christ is within them just as much as He is within us (or rather more so!). It might seem odd to reverence holy men and women in icons like the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, or the apostles or other saints, but I have believed for nearly 14 years now that there are more Christians in heaven alive and reigning with Christ (compared to those on earth) since Jesus said to Martha the sister of Lazarus: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this? (John 11:25)" True Christians never die. They live and communicate with Christ and intercede for those on earth (more on that later).

At first, I must admit that venerating icons felt strange to me, but once I realized that this holy art was created under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Scriptures were, it was not difficult for me to separate in my mind the difference between veneration and worship. My 3 year old daughter often kisses my hand as a sign of reverence and love (before I’ve had the chance to kneel down and embrace her), but she is in no way worshiping me. Even Joshua, the son of Nun, bowed down before a holy object (the ark of the Covenant), and God did not rebuke him for bowing down and reverencing the holy icon which represented God to the people of Israel (in fact, the Greek word in the Septuagint for this passage is that Joshua “worshiped” the ark of the covenant–Josh. 7:6). The Orthodox venerate the Bible and Gospels too (by kissing it on various occasions), but I can honestly say I no longer worship the Bible but only worship the true and living God, who is the Word made flesh, a Person. (I used to worship the Bible as a Protestant, though–more on that later).

The homily continued about the Eucharist, and the preacher began to explain the differences between the East’s view of the Eucharist, and the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of Communion, respectively. I thought it was a unique perspective on it, and I was completely open to the concept, and made a note in my mind to further research it later. The Eastern Christian view is that the mystery of the Eucharist is for “remission” of sins (as well as vigilance of soul), which is not merely forgiveness, but just like someone who is in remission of cancer where cancer is removed from their body, in the same way there is a mysterious thing that takes place when we partake of the true Eucharist with faith unwavering and true fear of God that removes sin like a cancer from the body, for we become one with God by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. I cannot explain this anymore than that it was a unique experience and one that had lasting effects on my entire person: mind, body, and spirit. I should mention though, that once experiencing this as a chrismated member of the Orthodox Church, the mystical experience has been deeper and more authentic. Whether that is a subjective perspective unique to me, or more fully apparent due to what I will soon describe, I will let the reader decide.

I then began the journey of researching Eastern Orthodox Christianity, because I had truly “tasted and seen” (Psa. 34:8), and “come and seen” (John 1:39) something peculiar and different than anything I had ever experienced in Christianity prior to this, and it was very much like jumping into a pool; I couldn’t help but get wet in divine grace. However, it took over two years to actually join the Orthodox Church (the level of spiritual attacks I had on various fronts leading up to this is even more proof that evil powers did not want this conversion to take place). The fact that it took two years for me to join the Orthodox Church, when many people are immediately told they are in the family of God after one altar call prayer, shows you the difference and carefulness the Orthodox Church takes in ensuring someone is sincere before joining the Church community. When you’re laying gold it takes time, but I’m sure wood hay and stubble are easy to compile (1 Cor. 3:10-15). That is not to say that every Orthodox Christian is sincere, the Orthodox Church doesn't believe that, and fully recognizes that the tares and wheat grow together, even within its own walls (Mat. 13:24-30).

After the service, I asked K.P. the questions I wanted to ask him, and I felt like he gave adequate answers which made me realize that he was being attacked by people for all the wrong reasons, and the reason he was silent on much of the subject was because his legal counsel recommended so. He chronicles much of his story and response to the accusations in his book “Never Give Up”; in it he talks about how the rumors began and how it turned into something that ended up being an attack on his ministry from the outside, designed to stop the good work they are doing in Asia and Africa for the furtherance of the gospel. This actually confirmed to me that he is a true man of God, because even Jesus and his followers were misunderstood and often mischaracterized. It was even proven by the independent third parties involved in the lawsuits that no money was mismanaged by the charity and that all proceeds of donations were indeed used for the ministry and not for anything else. I feel it is an incredible privilege that when many denominations pulled their funding from him, it was at the same time that my business exploded in growth, and we've been able to support the work they're doing pretty significantly.

After returning home to Vegas, I began the process of reading the Scriptures more and more, and reading Eastern Orthodox materials to see if I could find legitimate reasons to continue remaining Protestant, because making this move I did not take lightly, it would bring significant disruption to pretty much every area of my life (being Eastern Orthodox is NOT easy; it is a significant life shift–it is more a lifestyle than a set of intellectual beliefs–for instance, I’ve been Vegan and eating less for the last 47 days leading up to Eastern Easter).

I did a deep dive, searching the Scriptures and Church History to see if there was any indication that the Eastern Orthodox have a proper view of concepts such as “The Church and Apostolic Succession”, “Grace”, “Justification by Faith and Salvation”, “Scripture and Tradition”, “The Intercession of the Saints”, and “The Veneration Of Mary”, and something that I had personal experience with in the past, “Demonology”.

Let me begin with (some of) my findings regarding “The Church and Apostolic Succession”.

I must admit that I was unaware of much of Church History prior to this exploration. I never thought twice about the fact that I was familiar with a portion of the first century Church, and then my knowledge of Church History went straight to the Reformation and the life story of Martin Luther, and then continued through the development of the Protestant Reformation up to the present day. It was almost as if I was blinded in some way to consider the previous 14 centuries of Church History prior to Martin Luther, since most of American Christian content on Church History willfully neglects to comment on much of what happened between the early Church and the Reformation, and almost never documents the development of the Church in the East (which is ironic, since Christianity is mostly an Eastern faith; it was born out of the Middle East). I was pretty familiar with what happened with the Protestant Reformation and how it developed in both Europe and the Americas. But to consider Christianity spreading in Greece, India, Asia Minor, the Byzantine Empire, Russia, and Africa was unknown to me.

One of the biggest blind spots for me was in regards to the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings are compiled in “The Apostolic Fathers”. My limited scope of understanding assumed that the Protestant view was accurate, but I had never actually searched out the matter like a Berean and actually read what St. Ignatius said himself (and whether it was confirmed by other writers close to the time period considered). The Protestant view is that St. Ignatius of Antioch, although being ordained as the bishop of Antioch by the apostle Peter, was the “first” (supposedly) to recommend that the Church initiate an episcopal form of governance, and that this was not the intention of the apostle Peter or the other apostles. It is believed that Ignatius, being much younger than the apostles, somehow saw an opportunity to seize power and control the Christians in his region by commanding that they all “submit to the bishop, and only do what he commands, as if they were submitting to Christ”. However, after actually reading the writings of St. Ignatius and St. Clement of Rome, St. Clement claims that the apostle Peter and all the apostles commanded them to fill the vacancies of their apostolic offices since they were fully aware that they were approaching martyrdom. See the following quote from his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ: in both cases, the process was orderly, and derived from the will of God… They [the Apostles] preached in the country and town, and appointed their first fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe. And this was no novelty… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision, that if they should fall asleep, other tested men should succeed to their ministry”. - St. Clement of Rome

After reading this, I recalled the writings in the Gospels which show a clear passing of authority to the apostles from Christ Himself:

"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also 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 them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:21-23

But, I thought only God has the authority to forgive sins? Not according to Jesus, the Pharisees actually were the ones who said that (Mark 2:6-7). Jesus gave complete authority to His apostles to determine who would and who would not be forgiven.

The question is, however, whether this authority (if they accept you, they accept Me, if you forgive them they’re forgiven, if you don’t forgive them they’re not forgiven etc.), continued after the apostles were martyred and went to be with Christ.

I saw this line of thinking evidenced in the Gospels themselves, where Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles to comprehend the Scriptures and where Jesus unveiled to them all that was written in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets concerning Him (Luke 24:45). Following this logic, in the book of Acts, Peter quotes the Psalms in reference to appointing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, which when harmonizing these concepts together, appears to me to be something Peter didn’t invent of his own accord, but was in line with Jesus’ expository explanation of opening the Psalms for the apostles to understand (Luk. 24:45; Acts 1:15-20; Psa. 109:8). So, Matthias replacing Judas was actually a commandment of Christ Himself, before he ascended to be with the Father.  

Since Christ was a fulfillment of Moses, Aaron, and King David (as prophet, king, and high priest), it doesn’t seem surprising to me now that Jesus actually commanded the apostles on how they should continue to worship and organize the future Church. For Moses went up to the mountain, and God commanded him exactly, down to the most minute detail, how to arrange the tabernacle for liturgical worship and what to deliver to the Israelites in the Ten Commandments, and the remainder of the Law (Heb 8:5). I began to think, why exactly would Jesus, who was much greater than Moses (Heb. 3:1-6), fail to tell the apostles every minute detail on how to arrange the Future Church and its liturgical worship, and how to continue the furtherance of the truth entrusted to them?  

Jesus spent 40 days with his disciples after His resurrection, which appears to me to be plenty of time to reveal all of these things. Yet, not wanting to run with this train of thought without considering opposing views, I realized that there was probably much that Jesus did not reveal to His disciples, since Peter was unaware that Gentiles would be welcomed into the Church until he was surprised by this fact (Acts 9-10), and the first Ecumenical Council was necessary when Judaizers began to thwart the gospel forcing Gentiles to become Jewish in order to be Christian (Acts 15). 

So, it appears that Jesus only gave them what was necessary, and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth regarding the rest. But the question remains as to whether Christ passed down a form of liturgical worship as part of that “necessary bit”, and I now think it’s probably extremely unlikely that He did not include directions regarding this. We may rightly ask why these things were not written down, but much of the Church’s worship was not written down for fear of it being exploited by the ungodly (Matt. 7:6). Also, Jesus said that the Spirit would take of what was His and provide it to them (John 16:14). And this brings to mind my belief that if Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead the apostles into all truth (John 16:13), then all of the conciliar and corporate decisions of the apostles together while they were alive would be just as good and authoritative as the Scriptures themselves. And if they intended on passing their office down to the next generation, then they would tell those remaining bishops that all the things Christ had entrusted to them, like the Spirit leading them into all truth, and the power to forgive or not forgive, would continue to the next generation as well. 

The fact that the Church existed for decades before the first epistle or gospel were even written down was something that I had to come to terms with. The primitive Church didn't even have the New Testament officially until the 4th century. If the written New Testament is so essential to salvation, why did it take so long for the Church to officially compile it?

If St. Ignatius was operating of his own accord, outside of the will of the apostles, then the Protestant view may be correct. But after actually reading Ignatius, his humility oozes out of his words, and the fact that he died a martyr’s death, makes me believe that he was not lying but telling the truth. And since St. Paul commands us that love “believes all things” (1. Cor. 13:7), I have no footing with which to stand on to doubt that this man truly heard from the apostles what they had heard from the Spirit, and that the office of the apostles would continue on throughout the ages until Christ returns. On the account of two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16; Deut. 17:6), I must accept this as gospel truth (one only has to read the Apostolic Fathers to come to this conclusion). To follow the opinions of church historians who developed ideas out of necessity for being excommunicated from the Church prior (or separating themselves from an ungodly, corrupt Roman papacy), that don’t even match with the Scriptures themselves, to me doesn’t seem safe. I had heard from a pastor once who used to say that deacons were “all the men and women who served and volunteered at the church”, even though the Scriptures paint a completely different picture and give specific requirements for deacons, that they must be married husbands of one wife, and describe them accordingly for an apparent other role, which has remained in effect in the Orthodox Church to this day (1 Tim. 3:8-13).

If Christ revealed all that was written concerning Him in the Old Testament (Luk. 24:45), I would find it odd that he would not reference the liturgical form of worship that the Orthodox Church follows (and has followed for 2000 years), since much of the Law that Christ would have revealed to them would have included the Jewish liturgical worship rites. For those who don’t know, the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, like the one written by St. James the Apostle (the earliest known one, that was written down at a later date), is essentially a continuation of 2nd temple synagogue worship with Christian fulfillment terminology instead of Jewish terminology awaiting the Messiah. The worship service (or Divine Liturgy), was a corporate “work of all the Christian people” to join together in unison and worship the Holy Trinity and perform a bloodless sacrifice, which was not Christ dying again on the cross (for He died once for all, Heb. 9:12), but a mystical celebration (outside of time) of both the original Last Supper and crucifixion of Christ, and yet also the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The Eastern Orthodox believe, as far as I’m aware, that all true Christians are present at that mystical supper, with the body of Christ of future generations being present in Christ and the twelve apostles in the upper room at the Last Supper, and all of us being present in the final inaugurated kingdom at the end of time, and the present day Christians who celebrate each Divine Liturgy are participating in that ONE Christian celebration of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, both in 33 AD in the upper room, and concurrently at the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom after the judgment of the world (simultaneously, in a mystical sense). When thinking of us Christians as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), it is not odd that the Orthodox Church has a liturgical calendar which follows the life of Christ through the sacred writings, because we believe we are participating in those events even now in the present day, and will again in the future inaugurated kingdom of God, for Christ’s words (and I might boldly add his “actions”) will never pass away, although this world will (Matt. 24:35). For although Christ was crucified at a specific point in human history, in a mystical sense, it also took place before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).

Along this topic of the Divine Liturgy, this is not something that isn’t in the Bible, because in the book of Acts it says that Paul and Barnabas were “liturgizing” to the Lord (Many translations change this word to “ministering”, but it really means “as they performed the liturgy”), when the Holy Spirit spoke to them and said “Separate for Me Paul and Barnabas for the work that I have called them” (Acts 13:2). St. Paul said he was a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1), which is the same Greek word (and later, Latin) translated “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church from the beginning. Even the prophet Malachi predicted that the Gentiles will worship with incense from the rising to the setting of the sun (Mal. 1:11), foreseeing the Divine Liturgy within the Church.

But regarding the Church, it appears to me there are several passages which do not leave any room for division. Many times I’ve thought in the past of the common Protestant saying, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”. But these passages of Scripture seem to leave no room for non-essentials, and that separating from the body of Christ is something not to be done at any cost:

1 Cor. 1:10: Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

2 Cor. 13:11: Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Phil. 1:27: Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,

Phil. 2:2: fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Phil. 3:16: Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind.

1 Pet. 3:8: Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;

Eph. 4:4-6: There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

St. John Chrysostom once said (and I loosely paraphrase), “There is no unity unless we all believe the same things”. And I think he’s right!

If one sees these passages above and claims that these exhortations were only written for the individual churches that were being written too, do not be surprised if everything else in these epistles do not apply to you then, for with the same measure you use, will be meted back to you (Matt. 7:1-2). At least this is the conclusion I have come to, for I no longer want to participate in works of the flesh like divisions and schisms (Gal. 5:20), even if they began centuries before. To whom much is given, much is required (Luk. 12:48).

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only one I’m aware of that hasn’t separated itself from the original One Church. Everyone else has either separated themselves by not adhering to an Ecumenical Council (like the Coptic Church after the 4th Ecumenical Council), or the Roman Church which “excommunicated” the rest of the Church outside Rome (which, essentially, was an excommunicating of itself since there was no Pope prior to this in 1054).

There is power in the Church, and despite my previous belief of thinking that the Bible was the foundation of truth, St. Paul actually didn’t say that (he said that the ‘Church was the foundation of truth’):

1 Tim. 3:15: but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground [foundation] of the truth.

The question becomes, what is the Church, then? By necessity, Protestantism must believe that the Church is invisible, composed of anyone who loves and follows Jesus Christ in sincerity, despite what physical or visible body they are joined to. This is a necessity because there are over 33,000 denominations in the Protestant faith, and Protestants rightly assume that there are some true believers and some untrue believers in mostly every congregation. This, however, doesn’t mean that these congregations are in fellowship with the physical, visible Church on earth (connected to Christ and the apostles), because there must essentially be a line back to the original apostles, without a prior breaking of the Communion of the one Church. One might argue, whether from the Roman Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church, that they can trace their roots back to the original apostles (which is true). But the Catholics used to reject the Anglicans because of the Anglicans breaking fellowship with Rome, and the Catholics also formerly rejected the Eastern Orthodox (although now Catholicism has recently within the last few decades accepted the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants as they’ve become more liberal), and the Eastern Orthodox churches don’t commune with the Catholics or any churches that proceeded from the West after the Roman bishop changed the Nicene creed without an Ecumenical Council, which was a requirement for any major update to doctrine, especially Trinitarian doctrine.

Now, one may assume, that after further research, I may become Catholic (because I'm sure there's a lot more I don't know about... and since I was originally baptized in St. Matthias Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey, which I am eternally grateful for, by the way, I find it unlikely. There is a passage of Scripture I read once, which I felt spoke to me in a mystical sense: 

"He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”

And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”

Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 

This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” 

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

John 21:17-23

Although this passage clearly denotes that Jesus is prophesying about Peter's martyrdom, in a mystical sense, I believe it is also a prophecy of their future apostolic offices. Peter, establishing the see of Rome, and John, establishing the see of the East. Peter's spiritual offspring would take the Roman office into territory he would have never wanted, but the East would remain as undivided until Christ's return. This is pure speculation, and I cannot say it dogmatically, but it rang true with me. Although the Eastern Orthodox Church has begun to have its own infightings, I think they have still maintained unity despite all of this, and I venture to think they will until the Second Advent.

Along this topic of various Christians with varying opinions regarding the nature of the true Church, we see a hint at God's heart in the Gospels where Christ does not condemn others who utilized His saving name, but rather saw them not as enemies, but as fellow workers, even though they currently weren't part of Christ’s closest disciples (Luke 9:49-50). Whether some of those believers remained separated from the Church post-Pentecost or not is unknown, but I would assume that they would require the laying on of hands from the true Church, since this was necessary for a group of John the Baptist’s disciples in Ephesus in Acts 19:1-7. So, it is my belief that Christ can be called upon for salvation, and the Holy Spirit can operate outside of the visible, physical Church on earth, yet the “fullness” of the Faith is found within the Eastern Orthodox’s unbreaking communion going back to the apostles without the tarnishing of false doctrine or falling away of the organized Church.

When I came in line with this reasoning, I began to play devil’s advocate and say, well clearly there must have been ungodly bishops at some point of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church (since it was definitely the Case in the Roman Church); I think that is probably an accurate assessment. But just because there were good and evil kings who rose up in both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah (1 and 2 Kings), did not make it that the entire nation was no longer God’s people (although it had a negative influence on the people of the kingdom). 

The office of the bishop (along with the giftings given to the individuals within the office) remained pure and connected to its source (Christ Himself), even if the individual bishops were tares or ungodly themselves. The question is not whether it’s possible for a bishop to become ungodly, but rather if an entire subset of the body of the Church falls away from the original structure set up by Christ and the apostles, and this is the case I believe for any groups excommunicated or that fell away from the original structure over the last 2000 years (including the Arians and any others who were condemned from Canon council law, and the entire Roman Church which then separated itself by initiating a papacy– and hence, any that sprung forth from Rome in the future). 

I find it ironic that the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, who thought he was making a stand for the future unity of the Church, actually set the stage for the largest schism in the history of Christianity, which is the Protestant Reformation and the consistent splinterings which have occurred since (I suppose you reap what you sow!). The splintering of the Protestant world has become so much worse even in the last 15 years. I do not claim to predict anything, but it may be possible that American Protestant Christianity will fizzle out, for if it’s not of God it will be made clear by coming to nothing (Acts 5:38-39), or doctrines and practice will continue to get stranger and stranger as we approach the end. As a Protestant, I always thought that unless I personally fell away or sinned or had a wrong understanding of the Bible, that only I would be affected. But throughout the Scriptures, God judges nations and peoples corporately. We praise a man for his godliness when he prays for the state of our country corporately and takes responsibility for the entire sins of the country, even though he may not have participated in them individually. In the same way, Protestant pastors and leaders may find they could be held accountable for other people within their camp, despite whatever brazen individuality they claim. One might see themselves as a finger in the body of Christ, but if the hand is cut off and thrown in the fire due to an infection, all the fingers on the hand suffer (Mark 9:43). This is mere speculation, but not something I feel is safe for me to be a part of. The Eastern Orthodox haven't changed their core views for centuries. I used to think that we should just wait for God to bring another revival, because it appears that after every revival, future generations fall away. But now being 500 years removed from the initial Reformation, much of the fruit of the Reformation is not good, while the Eastern Orthodox Church has continued to produce saints, wonderworkers, and miraculous deeds (if one is willing to research this) by maintaining the unity in the strictest sense (Matt. 7:15-20).

I came to the conclusion, for my own walk with God, that being joined to the Eastern Orthodox Church was a matter of spiritual survival for me. Others will have to decide for themselves, but I believe God will judge us based on what we know, not based on what we don’t know. The Church has been divided for over 900 years, and I believe that the Holy Spirit and Christ can operate outside the Church (Mat. 19:26; 1 Cor. 5:12), but I do not want to be outside of it any longer:

“The episcopate is one…The Church is one… So also, the Church, flooded with the light of the Lord, extends her rays all over the globe, yet it is one light which is diffused everywhere and the unity of the body is not broken up.

This sacrament of unity [the Church], this bond of peace inseparable and indivisible, is indicated when in the Gospel the robe of the Lord Jesus Christ was not divided at all or rent, but they cast lots for the raiment… so the raiment was received whole and the robe was taken unspoilt and undivided.

And the Church is made up of the people united to their priest, the flock cleaving to its shepherd. Hence you should know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop, and that if anyone is not with the bishop he is not with the Church… the Church is catholic (i.e., full) and one, and may not be sundered or divided but should assuredly be kept together and united by the glue which is the mutual adherence of the priest.” 

-St. Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Catholic Church

I tend to speculate that when Rome broke off from the Eastern bishops, it was the beginning of the Great Falling Away. It was the beginning of massive division within the One Church, and then the Protestant Reformation was the reaping of what Rome sowed in 1054 with the East. Martin Luther approached the Eastern Orthodox to join their ranks when he was forced out of the Roman Church, but they rejected his false doctrines inherited by St. Augustine, whose theology was later condemned by the Church, yet while St. Augustine personally was still considered a saint due to his character and life.  

Seeing the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church since 1054 is pretty clear for me to see, that it is not within the confines of the true Church. Yes, I must say, that although there are some Protestants and Catholics who have sincere faith and the Holy Spirit, the Protestant churches appear to be so splintered. Consider the fruit of Martin Luther’s life and ministry, in today’s day and age; Martin Luther wouldn’t even be accepted in most of his own churches today (because they have watered down his initial beliefs so much). It’s a shame, but it’s clear that the fruit of Rome and the Reformation has created a ripple effect of sin, division, confusion, and false doctrine.

I think most Christians in America operate in a schismatic form today probably unbeknownst to them, because it is a normative part of American culture to be radically independent, rebellious to authority, focusing on personal individual liberty, and not being yoked to any parent authority that demands its taxes or its religious conformity. When I researched the various churches or teachers that I have listened to or attended over the years, it appears that they all began with a schism of some kind, disagreeing over some matters that others deemed essential, and so the answer has always been to start a new fellowship over it!

I believe these schisms are a work of the flesh, for which I want no further part in:

Gal. 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies [or “schisms”], envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

For me, it became apparent that joining the Eastern Orthodox Church was one way to repent of this. Even Martin Luther attempted to do this and approached the Eastern Orthodox patriarch before building his church in Germany, but he was rejected because of his many false doctrines held that were developed by St. Augustine which had formerly been condemned. Luther wanted to join the Church of the East, but he was too small-minded to correct some of his own baggage which was inherited by the Roman Church he was kicked out of, and he almost succeeded in removing the epistle of James from his German bibles as well. Many other facts of Martin Luther’s life are further investigated in the book "Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teachings", by Fr. Josiah Trenham, including Martin Luther’s failure to rebuke the governmental leaders of Germany to repent for various misdeeds and public sins (even though he had the power to influence them). There are accounts of many Orthodox bishops or saints being excommunicated by an evil patriarch or Emperor, and then often they were either later welcomed back into the Church after the evil men dropped dead (or were recognized shortly after they themselves died as saints when Orthodoxy became the norm again). Martin Luther could have remained in exile humbly and quietly and waited on the sovereignty of God, but instead took matters into his own hands and (I believe) didn't follow God's counsel, thus beginning a progeny of rebellion which continued for centuries to come. 

The crux of the matter for me is the nature of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. St. John rightly points out that there are multiple spirits and teachers, who appear to be Christian but have a different spirit (1 John 4:1). I am not claiming that the former churches I attended are in this camp, in fact, I think out of any of the Protestant churches or teachers I could have been affiliated with, I was affiliated with some of the best (and for that I am eternally grateful). But it is interesting to me that much of the Protestant view about the invisibility of the Church proper, or the heavy emphasis on spirituality (almost to where the physical body is considered evil in and of itself, for merely being physical in nature) seems to be more in line with Gnostic thinking, than the Orthodox view that humans are not inherently evil (nor is the body or physical matter). The Gnostics shifted so far on the pendulum to the point where all physical matter was evil, and that Christ had not come in the flesh at all, but I think the Orthodox view of the body and physical matter versus spirituality is probably the most balanced, whereas I think many in the Protestant camp think that we’re all going to be floating around like ghosts for all eternity, and that the body is inherently evil (due to the Augustinian view of original sin, which the Orthodox Church rejects). After all, physical objects can contain the power of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced in Paul’s handkerchief (Acts 19:12) (and even Peter’s shadow–Acts 5:15), and there are scores of testimonies of Orthodox Christian saints’ bones after death emitting healing properties or remaining incorrupt or exorcisms after they died and left their body to be with Christ in Paradise (as is the case with my patron saint, St. Philaret the Merciful of Asia Minor). I am not aware of any of these things currently still happening outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church, hence why I believe the “fullness” of the Holy Spirit exists within its walls. I am simply not content with only dipping my toes or ankles in the water any longer, but I desire to be fully immersed in the living water of life, the eternal life that Christ promises to those who obey His commandments (Ezek. 47:1-12).

My previous understanding of God’s grace was that it was “undeserved favor” from God on Christians who received the gospel. God, in a sense, changed his mind towards the sinner, and instead saw Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer and showered him with undeserved favor, known as “grace”. Although it’s true that God shows favor upon his people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant, I think this definition of “grace” is lacking, after looking at the etymology of the word “charis” in Greek, and looking at the surrounding context the word is used in much of the epistles of the New Testament and the book of Acts of the Apostles.

When reviewing the word charis’ definition in Protestant concordances or Bible dictionaries, it is often defined as “undeserved favor”, even though the word simply means “gift” in Koine Greek.  

Grace is quite a broad phenomenon in the Bible, and there are some passages which make sense according to the Western definition, for instance when Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8).

But there are many passages in the New Testament which seem to expand upon what grace is, that it is not merely a change of mind from the perspective of God, or merely some abstract theological concept of ‘undeserved favor’, but rather that it is the energies of God which comes upon the Christian at conversion, baptism, and through the laying on of hands.

The Orthodox Church, as far as I understand, believes that grace is the experiential energies of God proceeding from all Three Persons of The Trinity. Similar to how we cannot experience the Sun’s essence (meaning if we were to come in contact with the Sun itself, we would be burned up), but can experience the energy of the Sun (from rays of sunlight which give our bodies Vitamin D and create the process of life within plant life)... in the same way, even though we cannot experience the essence of God or see His face and live (Exo. 33:20), we can, however, experience the energies that come forth from God, and this is His “grace”.

Before, I always thought of grace as in opposition to works, as if grace is the opposite of works. This, I now believe, was because I didn’t read certain passages carefully enough, and always thought of grace as the opposite of earning salvation by works, which was a defining tenet of the Reformers' opposition to Rome, which increasingly became more “works-oriented” in the centuries following the Great Schism. The first passage I would use to prove this would be Ephesians 2:8-9, which appears at first glance to define grace and works as opposite concepts.

However, many of the passages often used to pit “faith” or “grace” versus works, when actually read carefully, are actually contrasting faith with the works of the Torah (law), not “works” in and of themselves (see Rom. 3:27; 9:32, Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). So, Paul wasn’t speaking negatively of works in these passages, but negatively of trying to acquire the grace of God on account of following the Jewish commandments of the Torah, not saying that works (or “actions”) were meaningless to God at the end of the day. This Orthodox view actually fits the rest of Scripture better, since God does not anywhere say He will judge the world on the basis of individual faith (or on some type of supposed ‘unconditional election’), but on the basis of individual works he will judge each person (Matt. 16:27, Rev. 2:23, Rev. 20:12-13).

I know it’s odd to hear this in a Western Christian mindset, but allow me to quote some passages of Scripture which clearly represent the grace of God as God’s energies which empower us to live a holy life, moreso than just “undeserved favor” (I cannot list them all, but most in the New Testament have this same theme):

John 1:14, 17: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth… For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is not full of undeserved favor, for He is perfect and deserving of all worship–if anyone deserves favor, it is Him! To say he is full of all unmerited favor is also false, and rather it is the fact that Jesus is full of the power of the Holy Spirit, full of the energies of God, for He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The gift of God’s Holy Spirit came on account of Jesus Christ, who was full of the gift of the Holy Spirit and of truth, for he was God made flesh, and was one with the other two Persons of the Trinity, hence being ‘full of grace and truth’.

Acts 4:33 - And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.

Here, great grace is synonymous with “great power”, not their great “undeservedness”, even though they may have indeed been undeserving.

Acts 11:23; 13:43: When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord…Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Grace can be “seen” and “continued in”, which is really the power of God working in their lives could be seen and continued in. To say that the apostles saw how undeserving favor was poured upon them is not completely the whole picture, and undeserved favor cannot be continued in, but the power of God can be continued in, if we remain faithful and continue to walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8:4, 12-13; 11:19-22).

Acts 14:3: Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who was bearing witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

the word of God’s grace was aligned with signs and wonders, hence the “power of God”, not merely God’s state of mind toward the people, or an abstract theological intellectual concept.

Romans 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Grace is contrasted with the law (Torah), and grace is what empowers us to actually obey God (it’s His power), whereas the law (Torah) was powerless to help us overcome sin. This is more than just undeserved favor.

1 Cor. 15:10 - But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

here Paul says that the grace of God which was with him worked harder than any other apostle's outpouring of grace. Here, grace “worked” which means it’s more than undeserved favor. Grace was the power that enabled him to fulfill the works God predestined for him to complete (Eph. 2:10).

2 Cor. 6:1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

Paul pleads that the Corinthians not receive the grace of God ‘in vain’. This would make no sense if grace was merely undeserved favor, for it wouldn’t be dependent on their ability to squander it. Here, receiving the grace of God means to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and one can grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), or even have the Holy Spirit removed from them by disobedience (Psa. 50:11)…hence Paul’s warning.

2 Cor. 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

Grace empowers believers to complete every good work, not merely give them a standing before God of favor.

2 Cor. 12:9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 

Here, grace is synonymous with God’s strength and power (His energies), not with undeserved favor.

1 Pet 5:10-12: But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.

The true grace of God, according to St. Peter, is one that perfects, establishes, strengthens, and settles us, on account of our suffering. This grace is power. Any other version of grace is a counterfeit.

In the respect of time, I will quote a passage from Fr. Michael Shanbour’s book, “Know The Faith” to illustrate this concept further:

“That grace is a real and substantial thing given by God to His creation is verified by several important passages of Scripture. First, Acts of the Apostles relate how many miraculous healings occurred through St. Paul, “so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them” (Acts 19:12). Notice the passage is careful to specify that these personal items had been in contact with St. Paul’s body. This is significant. If grace were a mere theological concept, there would be no organic connection between the apostle himself and the grace of God that worked the miracle. But since grace is indeed the real outpouring of God’s divine energies, we can understand that the uncreated grace of God abiding in the holy apostle’s body was literally transmitted to his garments by physical proximity. 

Something similar is recorded in the life of St. Nectarios of Aegina. In 1920, after he reposed in a hospital in Athens, some medical staff began removing his clothes to clean his body, as was customary. In the process, they tossed his sweater onto the bed of the paralyzed man lying next to him. The man was instantly healed, got out of his bed, and began to walk. As in the example from the Book of Acts, the uncreated and immaterial grace of God abiding in the soul and body of St. Nectarios healed the sick, in this case through the means of a garment. 

This understanding of grace is the basis for the Orthodox veneration of the relics (bodies) of the saints. The body, being “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19), participates in the holiness of the soul and becomes a vessel of divine grace. We see an example of this even in the Old Testament. Shortly after the Prophet Elisha’s death, his grace-bearing relics raised a man from the dead (2 Kings 13:21).”

This phenomenon was also present when the woman with a flow of blood touched the Lord Jesus’ clothing and healing power went out of Him without His choice (Mark 5:30).

For these reasons, I think it is a settled matter by Scripture that grace is the uncreated energy of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit (as well as the Father and the Son) which empowers a Christian to live a godly life, not merely a state of favor or abstract theological concept that is contrary to “works”. It is the uncreated energy of God which can be transmitted physically, which gives a hint as to why physical "mysteries" or "sacraments" contain the power of God (1 Cor. 4:1).

The matter of justification by faith is complex and I’ve done much study of this. According to the Reformers, one of their main arguments in their rejection of Rome was a pendulum swing stating that believers are saved by grace through faith, and it is by faith alone that one is justified, even though the Scriptures nowhere say this, but actually say the opposite. I can confidently say that the Orthodox Church believes we are saved by grace, and not because of works of righteousness we have done (Eph. 2:8, Tit. 3:5), but there are more Scripture passages referring to the period of time after our initial conversion which clarifies these matters, and only those who endure to the end will be saved (Matt. 24:13).

In respect of time, I will merely quote a passage of Scripture that I believe settles the matter in James chapter 2:17-24:

“Thus also faith by itself [or “alone”], if it does not have works, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only [or “alone”]."

It is true that by the works of the law (Torah) no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16). But the works of the law are restricted merely to the first 5 books of the Bible, not inclusive of all works of righteousness, which apparently comprises the wedding garment of the Bride of Christ, which makes me understand one of Jesus’ parables a more accurate way (Rev. 19:8: "And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.” See parable in Matt. 22:1-14).

Even though we are not saved by faith alone, but rather by faith working together (synergizing) with our works (that's what St. James says), at first I wanted to ensure that I wasn’t joining a Church that heavily emphasized human effort over participating in God’s grace, since without Christ “we can do nothing” (John 15:5).

After reading many Orthodox prayers and theology, it is clear to me that the Orthodox have a very balanced view of human participation and the power, strength, and sufficiency of God in the life of the believer. They do not heavily rely on their own strength, as might be assumed (by Protestants), but rather realize that every good work a Christian performs is first originated by God and also brings glory to God alone, and not to the individual. There is certain language used in Orthodox prayers that request for God to consider us ‘worthy to receive His grace’, which is merely a humble realization that God will not pour out His grace on the proud (Jam. 4:6, 1 Pet. 5:5), but solely on the humble. I have not yet read or recited a prayer from an Orthodox prayer book which did not 1) give glory to God above all, 2) maintain a deep sense of humility, and 3) realize that only through God can we achieve sanctification and holiness.

In regards to the study of salvation, the Eastern Orthodox are not Calvinist, so rather than a deep exploration of this subject, in the respect of time, I will only mention that my views on salvation as Non-Calvinist (on all 5 points) have not had to be altered in joining the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Orthodox do not see salvation as occurring at one point in time (whereas Protestantism often emphasizes a "decision which saves us at a specific point in time"), but rather that the process of being saved is a lifelong endeavor. The Orthodox believe that since God is ineffable, we will continue to be conformed into the image of Christ even after death, despite no longer being bound by sin.

There are several passages in Paul's writing that say that certain works, if continued in, can disqualify one from entering the kingdom of God. Although we aren't saved by works, it is clear that certain actionable habits ("works") without repentance can cause us to lose our salvation (see 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21). One of the greatest tools of the devil is to convince us that "everything's fine", until it is too late. Lord Jesus, have mercy on us.

Some may find it odd, that being so familiar with the Scriptures as I am, that I would consider joining the Eastern Orthodox Church, which resembles so similarly the Roman Catholic’s view of Holy Tradition. I must clarify, though, that my strong commitment to “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) as a Protestant is what ultimately led me to the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is because, by the testimony of the Scriptures themselves, they clearly command believers to follow not only the written Scriptures, but also the oral teachings of the apostles as well:

1 Corinthians 11:2: Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

In listening to a debate between a Protestant and Catholic about 15 years ago, this passage from 2 Thessalonians came up in the debate. 

The Catholic said, “See? We must not only follow the written tradition, but also the oral tradition of the apostles”.

The Protestant rightly did not quote passages where Christ said not to follow the traditions of men (Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7), because the apostles were not ordinary men by any means, they were commissioned by Christ and given authority to not only receive guidance into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13), but also to forgive or not forgive sins (Jn. 20:23). So, this line of reasoning wouldn’t stand the test.

Knowing this, the Protestant said, “If I knew what those oral traditions were, if they were written down, I would happily obey them”.

And this is where the Catholic responded cheerfully, “Well, you should read my new book then… because I chronicle all of the writings of the Church Fathers which describe them!”

This exchange troubled me, because it seemed as though the Catholic was obeying the Scripture better than the Protestant!

After I have researched this matter further, it appears that many of the Traditions of the apostles were passed down in writing by future bishops, but many were not. Many were only passed down orally, as to keep the secrets of the kingdom of God within the Church community, to not be exploited by swine (Matt. 7:6). Some traditions which were not passed down in writing were things like making the sign of the cross (as a physical sign of combating sin and demons), praying facing towards the East (since Christ will most likely return from the East–Matt. 24:27), and the various liturgical rites of the Eucharist. One that was written down, although in an apocryphal writing known as The Didache, was the fasting schedule which has been in effect since the early days of the Church, which is to fast from meat, fish, dairy, and even oil, on most Wednesdays (as a remembrance of Christ’s betrayal), and most Fridays (as a remembrance of Christ’s crucifixion) throughout the year.

This actually appears to be the wisest course of action now looking back from the future, since many atheists and ungodly mock the Bible and try to find inconsistencies within it and propagate their misunderstandings and lead many astray now that the printing press and internet have been developed. The very heart of the worship of the Church, and the mysteries within it, should never have been written down for fear of the enemies of Christ exploiting it. This is why St. Paul never wrote these traditions down, for fear that the powers that existed at that time might infiltrate the Church and cause it to be destroyed before it could expand to the whole world.

2 Thess. 3:6: But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

Frankly, I could not find a simpler passage which commands me to find a Church Body that is connected to the original apostles, through apostolic succession, and that commands me to depart from joining with any who do not follow the Tradition of the Apostles.

If the Eastern Orthodox Church truly follows the tradition of the apostles, then the Bible commands me through this passage to leave and withdraw from every Christian or group of Christians who do not follow the apostolic tradition.

I am not aware of how I can be faithful to the following passages listed above, and still remain a Protestant.  

Through my research, the Roman Catholic Church has also departed from the tradition, by adding new innovative doctrines and practices which the Church never corporately agreed upon, but have begun a slippery slope ever since the 11th century (although the seeds of this apostasy began much earlier than that). Much of the unique doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that Protestants reject today, were initiated after the 11th century, and are not found in the Eastern Orthodox Church, for they have fought hard every generation to preserve the faith passed down which was once for all delivered to the the saints (Jude 3).

Being amillenial for the last 14 years, I had already believed that Christians who died physically lived on with Christ and continued to reign with him for the entire church age. This is because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6,8), and because Christ’s kingdom, the kingdom of God, began when Christ was on earth and cast out demons (Matt. 12:28, Luk. 11:20). Jesus said all authority was given to him in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18-20), which is a clear declaration of kingship, and it is written that His kingdom has no end (Dan 7:14, Luke 1:32-33). Paul said that we believers would reign with Christ (Rom. 8:17), as did the Revelator John (Rev. 20:6--this passage states that the saints will reign with Christ for "a thousand years", which, due to the apocalyptic and nonliteral nature of the book of Revelation, when taking into consideration other passages that reference "a thousand" [Psa. 50:10], appears to be a nonliteral way of saying "a long time"). To be absent from the body and be present with the Lord now, means they are participating in the authoritative reign of Christ today until he returns to inaugurate His kingdom when all things are made new (Rev. 21:5).

The big sticking point on whether believers who have passed on to be with Christ could intercede and pray for us was then something I had to overcome if I were to be grafted into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The concept of having the saints (including the Virgin Mary, St. John The Baptist, the apostles, as well as other future saints) to intercede and pray for us seemed superfluous to me when Jesus said that we could have direct access to the Father. Why, exactly, would I need the saints to pray for me when I could directly send my requests and petitions to the Father?

Jesus said, “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God (John 16:23-27).

My understanding up to this point was that if Christ Himself said he wouldn’t need to or desire to pray for us, since when the Spirit comes, we will have direct access to the Father, then why would the Church have believed since the beginning that the intercessions of the saints in heaven were effectual? This appears to prove that other’s prayers, including even those of Jesus, would not be necessary since we now have direct access to the Father, right?

Wrong.

This was a major issue I had to search the Scriptures regarding, and here are probably my strongest findings in opposition to the Protestant view:

Firstly, Jesus does continue to pray for us. Hebrews 7:25 states: “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Not only does this passage say that Christ intercedes for us, but it says he ALWAYS lives to intercede for us.  

So, how do we reconcile where Jesus says “I do not say that I shall pray to the Father for you”, and the epistle of Hebrews where it says He does intercede at all times? This is because of a common writing mechanism in the New Testament known as a “limited negative” (I’m not sure of who first coined this term, but I learned this from Protestant Bible teacher Steve Gregg when I studied under him in 2010).

A limited negative defined is when a writer of the New Testament makes a negative claim, but then clarifies it with more information which shows that the negative claim is limited in scope.

In other words, what Jesus is really saying is: “I do not say that I shall [ONLY] pray to the Father for you, but that [ALSO] you will have direct access to the Father”.

Now, before you quickly claim that I have added to the word of God, allow me to show you another example from John’s writings where he uses this writing style:

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13

When considering the concept of a limited negative, we see that this passage really means:

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not [ONLY] of blood, nor [ONLY] of the will of the flesh, nor [ONLY] of the will of man, but [ALSO OF] of God.” 

This is true because all of us, before we are born from above, we ARE first born of blood (we are born of our mother), we ARE born of the will of flesh (our parents’ decision to have sex), and we are born of the will of man (our parents desire to conceive for the purpose of procreation), and then we are ALSO then born of God at a later time. John is not saying we were never born of the flesh, for that would be nonsensical, even though a strict literal reading of the text would warrant that interpretation.

So, the question becomes, are Jesus’ prayers more effective than my own to the Father? Certainly! Jesus is God made flesh, so His will is perfectly divine and in line with the Father’s will, so His prayers are more likely to be answered by the Father than my own, which can be tarnished by my own selfish desires (James 4:1-3), or sin, which if held in my heart, will cause the Lord to not hear my prayers (Psalm 66:18:, 1 Peter 3:7).

And if Christians who have died physically have never really died at all (John 11:25), then those who are no longer bound by the body or the physical limitations of sin, and are perfectly within the presence of Christ pray for me as well, then the logic follows that THEIR prayers would also be more effectual than my own.

I must admit, that this was a difficult thing to first accept, because the concept of praying to someone I never met (like the Virgin Mary, or my patron saint, or even an angel of God) is abnormal at first. Why would I need to ask them to pray for me, when I can pray directly to God myself? Because my prayers are not always pure (James 4:1-3), and my sin sometimes withholds the answer or the ability for God to hear me (Psalm 66:18, 1 Peter 3:7). Do not ask me why God designed it this way, but I think one of the key tenets of Orthodoxy is that humility is the most desired virtue, and by humbling ourselves and asking someone else who is now glorified with Christ for their intercessions is a matter of humility, whereas before I proudly assumed that God alone deserved my prayers (or requests for prayers, for that matter), and we know that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (1 Peter 5:5).

I have personally found more answers to prayer when requesting the saints to pray for me, then when I have prayed directly to God. Why is this? Because they are not withheld by sin, and by humbling myself to approach their glorified state, God blesses it, because He is always looking to use others to accomplish His will. Why have prayers gone unanswered for so long in my past? Maybe because I was not approaching God according to His design, for Christ is the king, and he has generals underneath Him, who do his bidding, and sometimes without Him having to be consulted directly at all (Luk. 7:8-9: For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard these things, He marveled at him, and turned around and said to the crowd that followed Him, “I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”).

We ask fellow believers to pray for us all the time. What is any different about praying to saints who were much more faithful to God, resisted sin more completely, and have been received up in glory and are serving Christ as soldiers in His army? They are no longer held back by sin, and they are in the presence of Christ directly, whereas I am often in and out of the Presence of Christ, continually searching for the fullness of the Holy Spirit, and my motives are not always pure (Jam. 4:1-3). If you believe this is communication with the dead, then you do not believe Christ's words, who said that "those who live and believe in me shall never die" (Jn. 11:25). Even Jesus Himself, as well as Peter, James and John, communicated with Old Testament saints like Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor (Mt. 17:3). This seems to me to be the best kept secret in Christendom, and I am very humbled upon discovering it, that I would be counted worthy to fit into God’s design, for I am very far behind where I should be, and I have often delayed the Lord’s coming (instead of hastening it) by my obstinance and unfaithfulness (2 Pet. 3:12).

Speaking of that, I would be remiss to mention that there was a period of time in my life recently, when first building my business, that I became entwined with a lot of liberal Protestant teachers and theology. There is a movement of apostasy happening within the Protestant Church right now, where losing your faith is praised as spiritual, and questioning the Bible’s miraculous nature or historicity is deemed scholarly. Many teachers are pioneering this movement right now, and for a time I became entrapped in their web.

During the year of 2019, I chose not to read my Bible at all (and gradually drifted from praying consistently). During this time, I had a very vivid dream where I was walking down a street outdoors, limping because my right leg had a sore of some kind, and there was a strong pain in my thigh above my right knee. Immediately I ascended into the sky (it was extremely frightening, because it wasn't as if I just appeared in the sky, it took about 10 seconds to travel there), where I saw a number of people who looked full of joy and happy in the clouds. Some were distant and far away, and some were nearer. They were worshiping God, but I could not hear them. They all looked like normal people in modern clothes that I may have seen in the normal course of life, men who I might have met at the grocery store or at church, for instance. Then, two men were right next to me, and one said, quite sternly, “The Lord Jesus Christ is coming back to reward His servants, and punish His enemies”... and immediately I woke up. This dream was fulfilled in my life, 3 years later, when I attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and the Parable of the Ten Virgins was read (Matt. 25:1-13). This is a passage very clearly speaking about the unexpected return of Christ. This was one of the most powerful services I have ever attended, where I literally felt like Christ was physically in the room. Up till this point, after attending the Divine Liturgy for a number of months, I couldn’t seem to get into the groove of it… it was so Ancient and so Eastern that I couldn’t really understand it, but I persevered nonetheless. But THIS night was a special night, and it seemed like all of the pressing in and perseverance and violently searching for the kingdom of God had paid off, and I was in a state of shock and awe when the service ended; I wasn’t sure if I had been there for hours or 5 minutes. But as I began to exit the pew, my right leg began to feel extremely sore, in the exact same spot it did in my dream, almost to the point where I had to limp. Immediately I remembered the dream (for how could I forget it?), and realized that I was right where I was supposed to be.

When I said that I had experienced more speedy answers to prayers when asking the saints to intercede for me, it was specifically when requesting the Theotokos (or, Mother of God), to pray for me.

This probably sounds strange to any Protestant, but I cannot deny the reality of what I’ve experienced. Also, in the beginning, when I first began to request her intercessions, I admit it was awkward for me, and I often had feelings of guilt, condemnation, and that I was somehow dishonoring God. As I continued, these emotions felt more like the spiritual arrows shot at me from Satan when being spiritually attacked, and it was not that when I ceased praying to the Virgin Mary that God’s peace came, but rather when I ascetically persevered in my prayers to Mary that the devils were cast away, and a sense of peace and calm came instead. I do not expect everyone reading to believe this, but this was my experience. You can’t really knock it if you haven’t tried it.

Much has been written about the Virgin Mary, and one of the best books I read was called “Mary as The Early Christians Knew Her” by Fredericka Mathews-Green. Much of what we know about the Virgin Mary, and accept as authentic tradition in the East, is from the apocryphal book “The Protoevangelium of James”. Now that we are on this topic, I recommend the book “APOCRYPHA: An Introduction to Extra-Biblical Literature” by Stephen De Young. I believe it is an even-handed treatment of the Apocrypha from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, which keeps the balance between how the Apocrypha influenced the New Testament, but yet was not considered as authoritative by the Early Church. There’s a delicate balance of what is considered authentic and true from the Apocrypha, and what is not, and why those books did not ultimately make the cut at the Council of Nicea. A full analysis of the Protoevangelium of James is included in his book. 

In this writing, believed to be the oral teaching of the Apostle James (a not-blood relative of Jesus) later written down, he describes an incredible story of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna. They were much advanced in age, and promised offspring but were not blessed with that privilege yet (as many other historical accounts in the Bible, such as Abraham and Sarah, or Hannah). When they finally gave birth to Mary, they dedicated her to God. She was dedicated in the Temple as a toddler, and it was passed down that she lived in the Holy of Holies and was sustained by bread from heaven given by angels. I know this sounds wild, but the tradition holds that Mary specifically asked the apostles, when beginning to write the New Testament, to NOT write about her life, wonderworkings, or mighty deeds because she didn’t want to take the focus off of her Son. Mary was the first person in the world to receive Christ, and to receive Him in a very unique way as we all know, and really only SHE knows how unique that was. The testimony continues that after Christ ascended, she continued to give away all her money to the poor, served God in miraculous ways, and when she reposed nearly all the apostles were translated to her deathbed (much like how Phillip was caught away in the Spirit, and arrived in a different location 60 miles away in Acts 8:39). She then told them to continue to fight the good fight, and to consistently resist sin and be faithful unto death, for with the same ascetic effort they refused the things of this world and served their King, they would receive the same proportion as their reward in the kingdom of God. She then ascended into heaven, and was not buried, leaving behind a belt sash which healed people for centuries to come.

Now, I know this seems strange to most American Christian ears, and since it’s not in the Bible, it is often dismissed as inauthentic. However, when actually reviewing all of the data, it appears that Mary preferred this information to be withheld, and it was only written down from oral tradition a couple centuries later in hopes that the testimony wouldn’t be lost to history or persecution. Although I don’t know this for sure, I would venture to guess that many of the bishops involved in the council of Nicea believed this oral tradition to be accurate, even though they realized collectively the Protoevangelium of James was not written by James himself (but was a second-hand account), thus not included in the Canon of Scripture.

I don’t think the idea that somehow Mary was idolized later when the Church “fell away” and became entwined with the Roman Empire is a fair assessment. A series of true events must have happened that started all this, and I think that probably Christian generations continued to pass this history on because it was consistently celebrated in the Divine Liturgy at certain periods of time when Christians met for worship. The data just doesn’t seem to point to some period of time where the Church fell away and got distracted, but rather that these events were always part of the history of the early Church. At least that’s what seems good to me, and the Holy Spirit from my limited scope. And I think I have the Holy Spirit (Lord willing).  

Along the lines of the Roman Empire becoming Christian, I suggest you read Romans 13:1-2 again. America was founded on a revolution and in direct disobedience to Romans 13:1-2 (as well as other passages which command us to pay taxes), yet for some reason we praise the Founding Fathers, and condemn the Roman Empire, which made Christianity the official religion. Romans 13:1 seems to point out that God ordained the Roman Empire to become Christian, and when considering that, we should probably actually research whether maybe those Christians were more authentic than us, and that maybe it is true that evil men have grown worse and worse (2 Tim. 3:13), and our ears have grown dull to sound teaching (2 Tim. 4:3), and it appears that the Great Falling Away has already begun (2 Thess. 2:3). Perhaps this is all speaking of OUR generations (post-Great Schism), not the Early Church who fell away. Only time will tell. I feel it is much safer to agree with the Early Church than to be unaware I may be contributing to part of the future problem and apostasy predicted in Scripture!

Now, the idea that Mary was born without sin, is not an Eastern Orthodox view. The Roman Catholics have been creating their own dogmas from their own councils (since departing from all the other Christian bishops in the East in 1054), and they created the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1854 (ironically which is around the same time period that the theory of evolution was developed, the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses cults began, and technology began to develop faster than ever before. I think this is interesting, but is merely speculation that perhaps evil is becoming worse and worse in anticipation of the glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to judge the world in righteousness and truth (Rev. 20:3).

Now, the passages that often come up that I had to wrestle with regarding Mary are the following:

Luke 1:48 “For he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;”

This prophecy would not be fulfilled without the continuation of the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church (the Catholics have now divinized her; that’s more than calling her “blessed”, that is essentially calling her sinless).

Matt. 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

This appears to prove the fact that Mary, the mother of God, remained a virgin after Christ was born. For if Jesus had half-brothers (as Matthew appears at first glance to suggest), then the Jewish custom would have followed that Mary would have went to live with the next of kin (one of Jesus’ half-brothers), NOT with the Apostle John. Since Mary had no other offspring, and it is likely that all of the other “brothers” (or relatives) previously mentioned were the children of Joseph from a prior marriage (or cousins), this leaves that only Christ could remain to look after His mother, and He decided to give that important role to His most beloved disciple upon His temporary departure (John 19:27).

Two passages which I thought would be extremely difficult to explain any other way than how I viewed it as a Protestant were actually some of the simplest ones to correct:

Luke 8:19-21 - “Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You. But He answered and said to them, “My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it”. 

When following the chronology of the life of Christ, at this point, Jesus was not yet revealed as the Christ to His family as of yet. The word “brother” is often used in other passages of Scripture referring to relatives other than brothers, as is the case with Abram and Lot (Gen. 14:14), Boaz and his cousin (Ruth 4:3), and Joab’s cousin (2 Kin. 20:9).

St. John Chrysostom wrote, “It was not Christ’s will to deny His mothers and brothers. Rather, Jesus is correcting both them and His hearers to the right idea concerning Himself, that the family of His kingdom is not by nature, but by virtue.”

And here’s another similar passage (Luk. 11:27-28):

“And it happened, as [Jesus] spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which nursed You! But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

The Greek word translated as “more than that”, “menounge”, is translated “Yes indeed!” in Romans 10:18.

So, in essence Jesus is not disagreeing or belittling the role of His mother, but rather agreeing wholeheartedly (that her body is blessed), and then describing her most faithful characteristic: the fact that she heard the word of God and kept it by saying, “Let it be to me according to your word!” (Luk. 1:38). So Christ is not saying that there is some “other group” other than His mother that He prefers because they hear and obey the word of God, but rather stating that His mother is the very prime example of this group, which agrees with the nativity narrative in the gospel of Luke.  

As mentioned earlier, the Evangelist Luke drew the first holy icon of the Theotokos, and he dedicates two lengthy chapters at the beginning of his gospel honoring the Virgin Mary for her complete faith and obedience to God, in direct contrast to Zacharias’ unbelief, who was a religious leader. I find it extremely odd that the author would spend the first two chapters praising and showing Mary as an obedient follower of God, and then 9 chapters later transcribe a saying of Jesus that completely ignores His affection for His mother, and somehow pits her calling as less substantial than any of His other followers. 

Yes, Jesus once called His mother “Woman” (John 2:4), which sounds demeaning, but in actuality was just a common word of affection in first century Jewish culture. After all, God chose His own mother! Would He have chosen someone who would be less ready to hear and keep the word of God? Certainly not! The first two chapters of this gospel tell the exact opposite story: that Mary’s humility and willingness to obey God is her most glowing characteristic, which I believe makes the Orthodox interpretation fit more in line with the entire context of the book than the Protestant view, which is essentially nothing better than a misinterpreted proof text.

Now, probably the strongest proof text against the role of Mary and the effectual nature of her intercessions (although not strong enough), is 1 Timothy 2:5:

“For there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus…”

Now, as I have mentioned before, the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t believe that the Virgin Mary is a Mediator in this same sense described here, and that only Christ is (the Roman Catholic Church may say otherwise since 1854).

Since this verse begins with the word “For”... we must look at what came before and at the immediate context, which reads:

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” (1 Tim. 2:3-6)

Here, Paul is expounding upon concepts that would later come to light in the Gospel of John, such as “No one can come to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6) or “And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.” (John 12:47-50)

In one sense, only Christ can mediate between the Father and humanity, and Jesus is, in a sense, predisposed to saving the world more than judging the world (although he will still judge the world on the Last Day). Whenever the Orthodox approach Mary, it is always with the basic understanding that we are requesting her to intercede on our behalf to Christ, who then, as we covered before, intercedes on our behalf to the Father (Heb. 7:25). We simply accept that there is an order to the kingdom of God, for one cannot just approach the President of the United States and gain his ear by writing a letter. It would help if you knew someone in his cabinet, or a friend of a friend, or his mother (if our Presidents weren’t so advanced in age!). In the same way, we do not approach Mary as asking her to perform what only the Man Christ Jesus can perform as Mediator, but we recognize that without her obedience, Jesus Christ would have never become a man. And since she faithfully resisted the delights of this world and walked in the power of the Spirit (arguably more than anyone else in the early Church, as tradition would have it), she CAN influence the will of God. I will let you sit with that, it seems preposterous to someone who has a strictly deterministic view of the sovereignty of God, but it would appear to me that the Bible and common sense would have it that God is a humble God (despite being all-powerful), and He CAN be influenced by faithful men and women who please Him. I will let the Scriptures themselves point to that fact (I’d venture to say I could find at least 10 examples of it in every historical book of the Old and New Testaments, at a minimum–some that come to mind are Abraham and his prayer for Sodom (Gen. 18:16-33), Moses and his intercession for Israel before their pending doom and God choosing a different people (Num. 14:11-25), the prayer of Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:10-13), just to name a few).  But for those who won't believe this without a slam dunk proof text, ask yourself the following questions: Is Jesus God? Yes (John 1:1;14). Is Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes. (John 2:1) When the mother of God implied that they needed wine...Did Jesus, God, want to turn the water into wine? No. (John 2:3-4) - I tend to speculate there was a pause, or a look from His mother (like I've received from my own mother when she requests something of me), or just an assumptive close when she said "Do whatever he tells you!" (John 2:5). Prime example that God will honor His own mother against His own will, for it is written: "Honor thy father and mother" (Exo. 20:12).

My Orthodox Study Bible says the following in the margins of this passage: “Some who are opposed to the established Church use this verse to claim that “all you need is Jesus–not the Church, her clergy, and her sacraments”. But the Son became the One Mediator by becoming Man through the Holy Spirit and a virgin–that is, through God and men. He “built” His humanity not from Himself alone, but from another, the Virgin Mary. Likewise, as the Mediator, He says, “I will build My Church” (Mt. 16:18); He establishes her leaders and her worship. As Mary gives us Christ in His humanity, the Church introduces us to Him, who alone is our Mediator”.

If I ask a dear friend to pray for me that I might be conformed to the image of Christ, I think that it follows if Mary, the Theotokos, is truly alive in Christ (Jn. 11:25), having faithfully partaken of God's divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and if she now sees Christ revealed (having not been buried but ascended to Him), she would be "like Him", and partake in His resurrection and have similar power (by being in multiple places at once) to effectively intercede on behalf of the Church (1 Jn. 3:2, 1 Cor. 15:6). Although she is not Divine or without sin in her earthly life, her glorified intercessions can be effectual to help me in my present day to day battle, because she shares and participates in God's resurrection life, being in Heaven with Christ. In this view, we are not worshipping Mary nor believing she is God-like apart from the grace and mercy of God.

If this train of thought or these passages of Scripture do not pique your interest, then perhaps you should consider the words of the Apostle Paul who said, "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor. 8:2)

Immediately, I heard a voice in my right ear (not audible, but clear enough in my mind that it was not my own thought) say “Come to Me”. I felt a force pull me to the left and in my left ear say “No not yet”. The next two days I did not eat any food and started reading the Catholic Bible which was given to me in 8th grade by my confirmation sponsor (who was my stepfather). I did not understand anything I read, but I was in a very troubled state of mind, yet at the same time, extremely joyful.

I then attended Calvary Chapel in Old Bridge, NJ, being invited by my barber (strange I know, because I didn't cut my hair very often), and showed up to an evening service in my tie-dyed Led Zeppelin T-shirt, cargo shorts, and flip-flops, which I had probably been wearing for several days at this point (I used to follow around a band called Phish, as well as other jam bands, which continued the lifestyle and free-spirited cult-like following of the Grateful Dead from the 1960s and 70s). This church was tucked away, down a random street of only warehouses, not visible from one of the main streets I drove every day to Old Bridge High School, my hometown. I never even knew it existed. Many of the Christians there were welcoming, knowing that their first pastor of their denomination, Chuck Smith, often welcomed hippies into his small country church in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I enjoyed the contemporary music at this church, being a musician studying music in college at this time, and I went through the motions of listening to the teaching, going to an altar call, and then went back to Boston for college a few weeks later. I then met a woman in an elevator of my apartment building which was a lease I signed six months prior (who lived on the floor above me) who told me she attended a small Calvary Chapel in the heart of the city of Boston. It was a wonderful small community of very dedicated Christians, and I continued attending and serving in various capacities, such as playing in the worship band. I cannot stress enough how providential this was, because this church was only comprised of about 100 people at this time, and there were over 600,000 people living in the city of Boston. This denomination, although having some significant challenges over the years, nonetheless inspired me to take seriously the Bible and I began to read it 4 hours in the early mornings before college classes, and 4-6 hours every night, often falling asleep with my Bible open.

In 2007, during my sophomore year of college, I was sleeping over at some of the other Christians’ homes from this church, because 3 or 4 of them all stayed in this one house as roommates, down the road from the pastor.

In the middle of the night, I awoke (from a dream I don’t remember) screaming saying, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me! - Lord Jesus, have mercy on me!” I had never heard of what the Jesus prayer was before this time, but I was praying it at the top of my lungs (The Jesus Prayer, often prayed by the Eastern Orthodox Church for centuries, is the prayer of the heart developed from the prayer of the publican which states: Lord Jesus, son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner”). The other roommates awoke, in a state of shock, but one of them placed their hands upon my chest and said, “Rich, God is here”, some of the fear subsided, but not completely (and my sight went completely white for a moment, and I had a deep exhale). This was only the beginning of a period of a number of days, for which I do not fully remember, but I was clearly not in the right state of mind, nor a stable one at that. My pastors, unsure what to do with me, called my parents and asked them to pick me up (they drove from NJ to Boston, and drove me home). My memories from these events were some of the scariest of my life… the intense fear, the torment of soul, the full-blown insanity, the confusion… like nothing I had ever experienced before, and have only experienced a few other times over the course of the next few years, but never at the same level of intensity. I had not taken psychedelic drugs like LSD, mushrooms, or any other drugs that I was accustomed to in the past since probably a year prior to the night I prayed in 2006 (my freshman year of college was at a very prestigious music conservatory, and I didn’t have time for partying anymore). But this event, nearly 18 months later, and the days that followed were some of the darkest and scariest I have ever experienced, for I had no control over my state of mind. It was at this time that I was committed to a state facility, and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Since then, it had been a constant battle to maintain a sound mind, until about the last 12 years after initially meeting my wife and starting my business.

I do not hold my former pastors accountable for not being able to cast these demons out, for even the apostles did not know how to on some initial occasions (Matt. 17:19-21), and I am in great debt to them for their consistent prayers for my soul. But this denomination I attended believed that Christians could not be possessed by demons after expressing true faith in Christ. This is not anywhere stated in Scripture, and the proof text they often use is “Greater is He who is in you (God’s Spirit), than he who is in the world (Satan)” (1 John 4:4). This is a generic statement, and doesn’t specify an entire systematic demonology, and in my mind looking back on it, is a very small-minded approach to the spiritual realm. This is speaking of the fact that the Spirit of God is within the Church corporately, not any way in reference to an individual basis (check the Greek lexicon). Even Jesus Himself stated that it is possible for demons to re-enter a body that has swept itself clean (Matt. 12:43-45). St. Paul says a messenger of Satan was sent to pummel him, because he received so many revelations (did this happen within his own mind, because that is where revelations occur? 2 Cor. 12:7). Job was a faithful follower of God, and yet God allowed Satan to completely ruin every aspect of his life, almost to the point of ruining his faith, but he did not give in (and nor did I–Job 1-3). 

To assume that the devil cannot ruin people’s lives after conversion is also not supported by Scripture, because St. Peter warns that the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8-9-he would have no reason to warn against this if there was some forcefield around believers once they begin the journey of following Christ–this is more superstitious than any of the things I have encountered within the Eastern Orthodox Church! The battle is not over, and the unseen realm is a reality we must come to terms with). He also says to ‘resist him, steadfast in the faith’, but I don’t believe I even had the opportunity to do so, for this attack happened in my sleep (even though our invisible enemies do not sleep). 

It really makes me feel like this attack was a mercy of God to get me to eventually join the Eastern Orthodox Church, for even in my sleep, I was praying the heart of the Jesus Prayer when the attack began. I do not take credit for this, this is purely the mercy of God who equipped me to suffer these things. I do not fully understand how or why it happened, but looking back on it, it’s probably the single greatest event of my life. God has a way of taking the worst things in the world (like the crucifixion of the only-begotten Son of God) and turning them into the best things in the world (the salvation of humanity).

This experience, upon looking back on it, was simply one part of my journey which led me to this point in my life, where I am now a full-fledged member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has its roots back to the twelve apostles, and for that I am joyfully, and tearfully, thankful to the ever-abounding mercies of our great God and Father, on account of His only-begotten Son who is true God, together with His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit which leads into all truth, to whom be glory forever and ever, and unto ages of ages.

Amen.