When we Orthodox speak about faith with a Protestant, we often hear many questions from their side—about icons, infant baptism, the veneration of saints, and so on. Yet there is one question they never raise themselves. And yet it is the most crucial one, for in it lies the fundamental difference between us: the doctrine of the Church.
What is the Church of Christ? Any Protestant will immediately reply that the denomination to which he currently belongs *is* the Church of Christ. Then the question arises: when did your denomination appear? Answers range from last year to the beginning of the Reformation. Very well—but where was the Church of Christ before that time?
Many Protestants view church history as follows: there were the apostolic times, and then the apostolic Church existed. But supposedly, already from the second century onward, distortions crept into the Church’s teaching. Many openly claim that the Church lost apostolic doctrine by introducing various false practices and ideas into its purity. Some even say that “the true Church was destroyed by paganism.”[1] And then, beginning in the 16th century—with the Reformation—they, the Protestants, allegedly restored this pure apostolic teaching. Of course, this applies to “older” Protestants like Lutherans and Calvinists. “Newer” Protestants—such as Baptists, Adventists, or Pentecostals—emerged even later.
Since Protestants famously insist that they alone, in their denomination, faithfully follow the Bible, we shall examine their conception of the Church precisely through the lens of Holy Scripture. Let us see whether this Protestant idea of a “vanished Church” aligns with the Bible.
The Lord Jesus Christ said: “I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). That is, the Lord promises that the powers of evil—including doctrinal corruption—will never overcome the Church. She will always remain that “glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but… holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27), the “household of God… the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), as the Apostles describe her in Scripture.
If we accept the Protestant claim that the Church founded by Christ became defiled by pagan practices, lost the truth, and fell into error, then we are declaring that the gates of Hades did prevail against the Church—and thereby calling the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, showing that He promised but failed to keep His promise.
The Lord gave another promise: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). The Lord not only promises that the Church herself will endure; He promises that He Himself will be with His Church all the days until the end of the age. Nowhere does Scripture suggest that the Lord intended to take a pause—from the 2nd to the 16th century, or even to the 19th.
Protestant assertions that the Church supposedly disappeared for fifteen hundred years directly contradict the words of Scripture.
The Apostle Paul likewise writes that glory will be given to God “in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever” (Eph. 3:21). That is, the Church founded by Christ and spread through the Apostles will exist throughout all succeeding generations and glorify God. Protestant claims that this Church vanished for fifteen centuries stand in direct opposition to these biblical words.
We must also recall that Christ promised the Apostles the Holy Spirit, saying: “When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), and “He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). We know when the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles—in the day of Pentecost, which is regarded as the birthday of the Church. Thus, the Lord gives the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit preserves the Church—preserving her from distortion, from straying from the truth. Therefore, the Apostle Paul calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), because the Spirit of Truth guides her, and Christ Himself—the Truth (John 14:6)—dwells invisibly within her.
An individual, or even a group, may fall into error—that has always happened, and the Apostles themselves warned of it (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1; Gal. 1:6–9). But for the entire Church to fall into error is impossible, for that would mean she ceased to exist.
If there was no True Church by the 4th century, then the Bible itself loses its authority—for it was compiled and preserved by that very historical Church.
This raises another pertinent question for Protestants: You say that only the Bible is holy for you, and that based solely on the Bible you concluded that the true Church disappeared from the 2nd century onward, corrupted by paganism. But who, and when, established the canon of the New Testament? Who determined that, among the many writings of early Christianity, these particular books are Sacred Scripture, part of the Bible? The answer: this occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD—the very Church you consider to have fallen into paganism, whose historical continuation is the Orthodox Church. No earlier date for the establishment of the New Testament canon, as we know it today, can be cited. But if the True Church no longer existed at that time, then the Bible itself—written, compiled, and preserved by that historical Church, and later received by Protestants through Catholic mediation—loses its authority.
These Protestant notions not only contradict Scripture, as shown above, but also lack historical confirmation.
I myself, when coming to faith, personally verified this. I first read the New Testament. Then I began reading other Christian documents preserved from the end of the 1st century—such as the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, a disciple of the Apostles. Then I moved to documents from the 2nd century, including those written by direct disciples of the Apostles, such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius the God-bearer—men who personally knew the Apostles and received Christian teaching from them.
After that, I proceeded to the 3rd century, reading all available Christian texts, then the 4th, and so on. I became convinced that throughout all these centuries, the Church’s teaching remained unchanged. While formulations of doctrine may have developed, the doctrine itself remains in the Orthodox Church exactly as it was in the times of the Apostles and their disciples.
Of course, I do not ask anyone to take my word for it. When conversing with Protestants, I invite them to verify this themselves. Take the texts and examine them—all are publicly accessible. Generally, almost all Protestants have extremely limited knowledge of Church history; for them, the period between the Acts of the Apostles and the founding of their own denomination is *terra incognita*—though it comprises a vast expanse of ecclesiastical, Christian, and human history.
If Protestants find the courage to examine this question without prejudice, they will surely see the truth. It is evident that the Church described in 1st- and 2nd-century documents bears no resemblance to what we see today in Protestant gatherings or in modern Protestantism as a whole. That apostolic Church objectively resembles the Orthodox Church. This is not merely my impression.
Consider an example from the 1960s in the American cities of Ben Lomond and Santa Barbara. A group of young Protestants concluded that none of the Protestant churches they knew could be the true Church. So they decided to trace the history of the Church from apostolic times to the present, seeking to discover what had become of the Church described in the Book of Acts. They followed the same path I later took—studying historical documents sequentially. Church history includes many divisions, and ancient heresies separated from Orthodoxy. At each juncture, these Protestants impartially compared: which teaching—Orthodox or that of the separatists—most closely aligned with prior apostolic belief? Who truly preserved apostolic faith, and who introduced novelties?
After a long and meticulous investigation—conducted entirely independently of Orthodox influence—the community became convinced that it was the Orthodox Church that produced the Bible, preserved it for the world, and whose earliest steps are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. In 1974, this entire Protestant community—over 2,000 people—requested reception into the Orthodox Church and was accepted. They have written accounts of their journey to Orthodoxy; those interested may consult them, such as Fr. Peter Gillquist’s excellent book Becoming Orthodox. Allow me to quote a passage:
> “In our journey through history, we carefully traced a millennium of unbroken continuity in the Church. Needless to say, we confirmed the New Testament’s portrayal of the Church. We found the same Church in the second and third centuries—persecuted fiercely, celebrating the Liturgy in homes, catacombs, and even cemeteries, led by bishops who often ended their lives as martyrs. We found her in the fourth century defending the faith at Nicaea, and in the fifth at Chalcedon.
>
> We followed her into the eighth century, studied her great Councils, grew to love her apologists, saints, and teachers—their Gospel preaching, their struggle against heretics, their affirmation of the veneration of holy icons. We were struck by how boldly the Church confronted ethical and dogmatic distortions, and how consistently she avoided destruction. God was with the Church in the ninth and tenth centuries…
>
> But then came 1054, and we faced a choice. A schism occurred. I still remember the physical sensation I had when I told my fellow seekers: ‘The East is right in resisting the papacy and rejecting the filioque addition.’ After that, I took a deep breath and said, ‘I think that makes us… Orthodox.’”[2]
I know of other such examples—though smaller in scale—where individuals, through studying Christian history, became convinced of Orthodoxy’s truth.
Not everyone is prepared or able to undertake such serious historical research. But in that case, it suffices to heed what the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles say about the Church—to understand that the true Church could not have disappeared. Consequently, all Protestant churches that explicitly position themselves as breaking from prior Christian tradition and date their origins to mortal founders cannot possibly be the Church that exists continuously from apostolic times until Christ’s Second Coming.
Some Protestants recognize this problem. To defend themselves, they propose an alternative: “Of course, the Church existed in every age—but it was invisible. It consisted of scattered righteous individuals who might formally belong to various Christian denominations—Orthodox, Nestorian, Monophysite, Catholic, etc.—but inwardly believed correctly (i.e., as modern Protestants do). From all these individuals, the invisible Church of Christ was formed. And after a certain date, it became visible in our denomination.” Many Protestants even claim the Church remains invisible today, and that all “correct” believers from other confessions somehow belong to it. They assert that Christ referred to this “invisible Church” when He said the gates of Hades would not prevail against it and that He would be with it.
The “invisible Church” theory was invented to explain Protestantism’s crisis of endless fragmentation into new denominations.
I would suggest that the “invisible Church” theory was also devised to reconcile the stark contrast between today’s fragmented Protestant world and the Church described in the Acts of the Apostles—as a single organism, a unified reality with a clear structure, capable of convening the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem and implementing its decisions (cf. Acts 15:6–31). Such unity is utterly inconceivable among modern Protestant denominations—a fact even Protestants themselves admit.
Does the concept of an “invisible Church” align with Scripture? Recall the Lord Jesus Christ’s instruction for dealing with a brother who sins: bring witnesses, and “if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). This counsel, given to all Christians, presupposes that the Church is always identifiable. The Church is not something amorphous, abstract, undefined, or invisible. No—it is concrete, visible, and clearly distinguishable from other communities. It is a community with order, to which one may appeal for resolution of disputes. This has always been the case in the Church: just as the first Apostolic Council convened in ancient times, so subsequent councils resolved all contentious matters. Ecclesiastical courts also existed, exercising the Church’s authority to “bind and loose” (cf. Matt. 18:18). Only such a visible Church can adjudicate disputes. How can one appeal to an “invisible Church”? It would be like sending a robbery victim to an “invisible court” whose location and members no one knows.
Elsewhere in Scripture, we see the same reality: “The Lord added to the Church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). This is a concrete, visible Church. People knew that to become a Christian, one had to join this community and be baptized, to be together with all the faithful. As Scripture describes, all Christians “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). Precisely because the apostolic Church was visible, she could be persecuted: “At that time a great persecution arose against the Church” (Acts 8:1), and Saul—who had not yet converted—“persecuted the Church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it” (Gal. 1:13). How can one persecute an invisible Church?
We must also recall Scripture’s words on partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Thus, the Eucharist will be celebrated in the Church from apostolic times until Christ’s Second Coming. The “breaking of bread”—as the Eucharist is called in Scripture—is performed visibly. The chalice, the wine, the bread offered for consecration, and the very act of partaking of Christ’s Body and Blood occur in a visible, tangible manner. This is simply impossible in an “invisible Church.”
—
The “Branch Theory” Contradicts the Lord’s Words that He Would Have “One Flock” (John 10:16)
Another theory exists in the Protestant world attempting to resolve this issue: the “branch theory.” Unlike the “invisible Church” theory—which posits a mystical unity of individuals despite denominational divisions—the “branch theory” declares the divisions among Christian confessions unimportant, claiming that all who call themselves Christians—Protestants of various stripes, Catholics, Orthodox, Monophysites—altogether constitute the one Church of Christ as branches of a single tree.
But this concept also fails, for the Lord Himself said He would have “one flock” (John 10:16). However much one might wish otherwise, it is impossible to call all the aforementioned communities a single flock. In reality—and this is no secret—they share no unity: neither in faith, nor in sacraments, nor in ecclesiastical-canonical matters, nor in moral teachings. Even among Protestants themselves, directly opposing views often prevail.
For example, some Protestants declare homosexuality a sin, while others say it is not sinful at all—even ordaining openly homosexual pastors and performing so-called “same-sex marriages.” This is merely one example; many other serious differences exist, including dogmatic ones. Where is the unity? Yet adherents of this idea stubbornly insist: “These differences aren’t essential. Of course, there are distinctions, but are they really important? What matters is what unites us.”
But as St. John Chrysostom said, we can find something in common with any person—even an unbeliever; only with the devil do we share nothing. Yet this does not mean we belong to one Church with every person. The Apostles nowhere endorse the notion that beliefs don’t matter as long as one calls oneself a Christian. On the contrary, they express the opposite.
The Apostle Paul warns: “After my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29–30). Elsewhere he writes: “I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17–18). And again: “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9).
Thus, doctrinal differences are so grave that the Apostle commands such individuals be anathematized—cut off from the Church’s body. He describes division itself as a consequence of sin. Elsewhere, he states that one who adheres to heresy will not inherit the Kingdom of God (cf. Gal. 5:21).
Therefore, we cannot say it doesn’t matter what we believe, or that all who call themselves Christians constitute one Church. We are not united in faith, moral teaching, or the Eucharist. Scripture declares that Christians must have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). Yet existing confessions and denominations do not share one faith—they hold different beliefs, which is precisely why divisions occurred: one teaches this, another that, and a third something else entirely.
Protestants will not dispute that these so-called “branches” lack one faith—it is self-evident. But the unity of the Eucharist requires further discussion. Unfortunately, our Protestant interlocutors completely misunderstand this vital point, because they do not believe that the rite they perform—calling it “communion”—actually gives them the true Body and Blood of Christ. They say it is merely symbolic. They are correct that for them it is not Christ’s Body and Blood—it is indeed only bread and wine. But they are wrong to assume that it is impossible to truly partake of Christ’s Body and Blood in communion.
Our Savior spoke of this not merely as possible, but as necessary: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life… [he] abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:53–54, 56). The Lord declared that without partaking of His Body and Blood, one cannot have eternal life—that is, cannot be saved. Later, He showed how to fulfill these words—at the Last Supper, when, as the Gospel recounts, *“Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’”* (Matt. 26:26–28). Christ did not say, “Take, eat; this is a symbol of My body,” or “a symbol of My blood.” He said clearly: *“This is My body… This is My blood.”* Though the Apostles still saw bread and wine, by divine power they became what the Almighty Lord named them—of Whom Scripture says: “He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Ps. 33:9).
And the Lord did not perform this miracle only once for the Apostles. He commanded: “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). In obedience to these words, Christians began celebrating the Eucharist from the Church’s earliest days. In the same chapter describing the Apostles’ Pentecost preaching and the conversion of three thousand souls, we read that they “continued steadfastly… in the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42)—that is, in celebrating the Eucharist.
Protestants say: “Yes, we break bread and drink wine, but for us it is merely a remembrance of Christ’s sufferings.” But then why perform the ritual at all? One can remember Christ without bread and wine. Was the Eucharist merely a remembrance for the Apostles themselves? The Apostle Paul writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Note: the Apostle does not say, “Is it not a symbol of Christ’s blood?” or “a remembrance of Christ?” For the Apostle, it is participation in the true Body and Blood of Christ.
Thus, communion acquires profound meaning, as the Apostle explains: “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17), and “so we, being many, are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5). The Church herself is Christ’s Body (cf. Eph. 1:22–23). For the Apostle, this was reality: the Church is Christ’s Body, and communion is Christ’s Body. Through communion—through the Eucharist—we become part of this Body, part of the one Church of Christ.
In Orthodoxy, this unbroken connection through the Eucharist has been preserved for two thousand years. For example, a year and a half ago, during festivities in Hong Kong, I communed from the same chalice as Father Michael Li—a 90-year-old Chinese Orthodox priest. In his youth, Fr. Michael communed from the same chalice as St. John of Shanghai. And St. John of Shanghai, in his childhood, communed from the same chalice as St. John of Kronstadt. Thus, generation after generation, this living link extends back through the centuries to the Apostles themselves, who communed from the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the Eucharist, the Church is a single God-man organism, living without interruption for two thousand years since apostolic times.
The boundaries of the Church are the boundaries of the Eucharist. Whoever does not commune in the Church is outside the Church of Christ.
Thus, it is no surprise that our Saints teach: the boundaries of the Church are the boundaries of the Eucharist. Whoever does not commune in the Orthodox Church, whoever is not in communion with the Orthodox Church and does not partake within her, is outside the Church of Christ.[3]
Returning to the “branch theory,” we see its inadequacy from this perspective as well—for it is impossible that completely separate communities, all calling themselves churches, equally possess the true sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. As the Apostle asks: “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13). Christ is one, and His Body is one. Therefore, the Eucharist is one, celebrated continuously for two thousand years in the one true Church of Christ. Our task is to find this Church—founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, preserving apostolic faith and sacraments, including the Eucharist, without interruption since apostolic times.
This Church is the true one. Other communities calling themselves churches, if separated from her, are not true. We cannot say all churches were created by Christ, for the Lord said: “I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18)—not “My churches.” And the Apostle wrote: “The Church is the pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)—not “churches are pillars of truth.” The Church is one, preserving her unity throughout the ages in fulfillment of the Savior’s words: “That they all may be one” (John 17:21), “and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition repeatedly affirm the uniqueness, unity, and indestructibility of the true Church of Christ. This is not mere assertion—it is a historical fact. Any Protestant can consult the testimony of history to see where the truth lies.
It is precisely this sense of the Church that our Protestant interlocutors sadly lack. They do not grasp the reality of the Church—what it actually is. They imagine it as merely a human gathering: “I arrived in a city, found like-minded people, we began meeting, reading the Bible, praying—this is the church.” But this is not the Church; it is an interest group you created yourself. Where is the Church that Christ founded? Come and see—it is the Church now known as Orthodox, that is, the one that rightly glorifies God.
*Deacon George Maximov*
August 4, 2014
[1] Baptists, Their Tasks and Goals, Rostov-on-Don, 1909, p. 8. Similar ideas are expressed by contemporary Protestant authors.
[2] http://waytohome.narod.ru/texts/witness/tohome/
[3] Two patristic testimonies: St. Justin Popović writes of this as “all-truth”: “The Holy Eucharist is the fullness of the Church; it is the living, all-perfect God-man, the Lord Christ, Who in His God-man fullness dwells wholly in the Church throughout all ages… He is always such as He is in the Holy Eucharist; always such for every communicant and in every communicant… And through all this He is our sanctification, our transfiguration, our salvation… and all this is found in the God-man body of the Church through partaking of the Holy Eucharistic Body and Blood of the Savior. As the Body of Christ—the Eucharist—is the Church, so the Church is the Eucharist, for in her and through her we are in conciliar oneness with all the saints.” (St. Justin Popović, Collected Works, vol. 3, Moscow, 2006, p. 519). Likewise, St. Hilarion (Troitsky): “The meaning of the mystery of Communion lies in its ecclesial nature. Outside the unity of the Church, there is no Communion. It is highly significant that in patristic literature, ecclesial unity is inseparably linked with the mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood.” (St. Hilarion (Troitsky), There Is No Christianity Without the Church).
No comments:
Post a Comment