Eastern Orthodoxy: The Only Rational Choice for Christ's True Church
My Rabbit Hole into the Heart of Christianity
Friends, if you’ve been following my journey from Latter-day Saint to Orthodox Christian, you know that deep dives are my thing. Late-night Bible studies turning into philosophical marathons? That’s my wheelhouse. Like in my “Bible Bombshells” where I unpacked scribal edits in the KJV and Septuagint, or the “War Unseen” spiritual warfare saga exploring how Satan sows division in the Church—it’s all about peeling back layers to find the unvarnished truth. Today, we’re tackling something even bigger: Why Eastern Orthodoxy isn’t just a church—it’s the Church, the one founded by Christ Himself. If you’re not Orthodox, stick with me. This isn’t an attack; it’s a logical plea. We’ll explore objections head-on, but by the end, I hope you’ll see Orthodoxy as the only reasonable path if you want to be in Christ’s actual Body, not a man-made echo.
Warning: If you’re sensitive to critiques of Protestantism, pause here. This is primarily an intellectual exercise rooted in history, patristics, and Scripture. No emotions involved—just cold, hard reasoning, and I don’t take the time to pull punches or attempt to soften the blow by dancing around the facts.
Ready? Let’s go down the Autistic ADHD rabbit hole.
The Founder Test – Whose Church Are You In?
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, that second-century powerhouse against heresies, nailed it: “Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.” Think about it rationally. If the founder of your church isn’t Christ or one of His apostles, you’re not in Christ’s Church—you’re in someone else’s church.
Eastern Orthodoxy passes this test with flying colors. Founded by Jesus in 33 AD, it traces unbroken apostolic succession back to the Twelve. St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Andrew, St. James—these aren’t legends; they’re the roots of our bishops today.
Contrast that with Protestantism. Martin Luther? A 16th-century monk turned lawyer with grievances. John Calvin? A lawyer-turned-theologian in Geneva. Ulrich Zwingli? A Swiss reformer turned tyrant who drowned any dissenters. These men started new religious movements largely divorced from historic Christianity, often aligning with local secular powers for preeminence and survival—Luther with German princes, Calvin empowered by the city council in Geneva, where he ran a theocracy that executed anyone who disagreed with him, and Zwingli, who was selected, empowered, and supported by the city council of Zürich, Switzerland. These were men with their own egos and ideas. Not prophets, not apostles, not even bishops.
“God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one... Whosoever is separated from the Church... is separated from the promises of the Church.”
- St. Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church”
If your founder is a reformer (or restorationist) from 1500+ years after Pentecost, you’re in that person's church, not Christ’s.
Protestant Objection
“We follow Christ alone, not men! Our churches are based on Scripture, restoring the primitive faith lost in corruption.”
Rebuttal
That’s a noble sentiment, but it crumbles under scrutiny. If “Christ alone” means ignoring the Church He founded, you’re reinventing the wheel and trying to replace the apostles with the hubris that other men could do better. St. Irenaeus demolished this in “Against Heresies”: The true Church preserves the apostles’ teaching through succession, while heretics “falsify the oracles of God.” Protestants and restorationists claim a “great apostasy” swallowed the early Church, but where’s the evidence? No patristic father describes a total fallout—St. Ignatius of Antioch (~110 AD) already speaks of bishops preserving unity. Your “restoration” starts in the 18th century because that’s when your founders lived. The rational choice? Stick with the original.
The History Test – Does Your Church Start in the First Century?
Eastern Orthodoxy’s timeline is seamless: Pentecost (Acts 2), apostles planting churches, ecumenical councils (Nicaea 325, Chalcedon 451) defining doctrine, all without break. St. Cyprian thunders: “The Church is one... though she be spread abroad far and wide into a multitude of churches, yet she is one.” We’re the same Church that battled Arianism, preserved the Creed, and evangelized the world before Rome split in 1054 or Protestants fractured in 1517.
Protestant history? Starts with the Reformation—Luther’s 95 Theses (1517), Calvin’s Institutes (1536), Zwingli’s Sixty-Seven Articles (1523). Before that? You’re borrowing from Catholicism, which itself deviated from Orthodoxy with papal supremacy and the filioque. As St. Irenaeus notes, true doctrine traces to apostles through bishops: “It is within the power of all... to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles.” If your denomination’s roots are in Wittenberg, Geneva, or Zürich, rather than Jerusalem or Antioch, it’s a branch off a schism from the original.
Protestant Objection
“The early Church was Protestant-like—simple, Bible-based, no hierarchies or rituals. Orthodoxy added extras over time.”
Rebuttal
That’s ahistorical revisionism. St. Ignatius (d. 107 AD) urges: “Be subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ.” Hierarchies? Apostolic. Rituals? The Didache (~90 AD) outlines the Eucharist and baptism—structured worship from the very beginning. Protestants strip it down with sola scriptura, but as Orthodox rebuttals note, that’s man-made: Nowhere does Scripture teach “Bible alone.” St. Basil the Great (4th century) writes about unwritten traditions like signing the cross, amongst oral apostolic hand-downs. The Apostle Paul admonishes the church to hold to things handed down to them both orally and in writing.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” - 2 Thess 2:15
Are we to believe that as soon as Paul died, the church should have automatically thrown out everything Paul taught them orally but didn’t write down? Do we really believe that the Apostles didn't set up a system of worship when they planted churches?
Aside. In Greek 2 Thess 2:15 reads
στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις (stēkete, kai krateite tas paradoseis) – “stand firm and hold fast the traditions.”
The Greek word: paradoseis (“which is translated as traditions”) refers both to oral teaching (by word of mouth) and written teaching (by epistle). The early church Fathers consistently pointed to this passage as proof that Sacred Tradition (i.e. the oral teachings) and Scripture are both authoritative.
If the early Church looked Protestant, why did no father teach sola scriptura, or sola fide? These are 16th-century inventions created to justify breaking away from the Roman Church. Rational minds who are familiar with history view Orthodoxy’s continuity as the genuine article.
The Guardian of Truth – Holy Tradition and Why It Must Be Trusted
Holy Tradition—the lifeblood of Orthodoxy, the unbroken thread weaving from the apostles straight to us. St. Basil the Great spells it out in his “On the Holy Spirit”: “Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written teaching, others we received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed down to us in mystery.”
Holy Tradition isn’t man’s invention; it’s the living deposit of faith, the oral and written teachings Paul commanded us to hold fast (2 Thess 2:15).
Why trust it? Because the Holy Spirit guards it through the Church Christ promised would prevail (Mt 16:18). St. Irenaeus thunders in “Against Heresies”: “The tradition of the apostles... is manifest in the whole world,” preserved by bishops in succession. History also vindicates it time and time again. When scholarly consensus contradicts holy tradition, holy tradition ultimately prevails over time. For example, Orthodox traditions’ claims regarding the location of Bethesda’s pool, belief in Christ as God before the Council of Nicaea, or even Pilate’s existence were, not long ago, mocked by scholars, only to be substantiated by archaeological finds. St. Vincent of Lérins’ “Commonitory” gives the rule: Hold what was believed “everywhere, always, by all.” Sola scriptura? A Protestant fiction with no patristic backing. St. John Chrysostom warns: “Not everything is contained in Scripture; the apostles handed down much unwritten.”1
Protestant Objection
“Tradition is human corruption—the Bible alone suffices (2 Tim 3:16). Oral stuff gets twisted like the telephone game (aka Chinese telephone).”
Rebuttal
That’s been debunked. Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” demonstrates that early oral tradition was controlled and community-preserved—much like rabbinic memorization—not a game played by preschoolers. St. Basil lists traditions like facing east in prayer as Apostolic, unwritten, and trustworthy. Protestants’ Bible-alone approach led to 40,000 church splits with hundreds of different theologies—proof it fails.
Trust Holy Tradition: It’s the Spirit’s safeguard, vindicated by time.
Shutting Down the “Invisible Church” Myth
Protestants often claim that the true Church is invisible—a spiritual body comprising all believers, regardless of denomination, not tied to physical institutions. Sounds inclusive, but it’s a cop-out.
Rebuttal
St. Cyprian crushes this: “He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother.” The Church is visible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic (Nicene Creed)—not a loose confederation of different denominations. If the church is invisible, why did apostles ordain bishops (Acts 14:23)? Why councils against heresies? Orthodoxy embodies this: Unified doctrine, sacraments, succession. Protestant fragmentation (over 40,000 denominations) demonstrates that the invisible model fails, resulting in endless splits over personal interpretations. As St. Irenaeus (a direct disciple of the Apostle John, who was personally ordained a bishop by Peter, Paul, and John) warns, "heretics neither receive the Scriptures in purity... nor do they consent to the tradition.”
Want Christ’s Church? Join the visible one He built on the Apostles.
Personal Faith Over Institution
Modern evangelicals emphasize a personal “relationship with Jesus,” downplaying organized religion as corrupt.
Rebuttal
Christ founded a Church (Mt 16:18), not some woo-woo solo spirituality. As St. Cyprian stated, “Unity cannot be severed... the Church is one.” Orthodoxy offers personal theosis (union with God) within the Body—Eucharist, prayer, saints’ intercession. Protestant individualism leads to relativistic subjective truth. History shows: Early Christians were communal, not lone rangers.
Want certainty you are in the right church? Embrace the institution Christ established.
The Only Rational Path Forward
If you want Christ’s true Church—the one founded by Him and the apostles, with 1st-century roots—Eastern Orthodoxy stands alone.
I understand the appeal of reform, but logic dictates continuity, not the reform of a schismatic breakaway (the Roman Catholic Church) from Christ’s original church. Dive into the fathers: Irenaeus, Cyprian—they point here. Visit an Orthodox liturgy and feel the ancient faith come alive. Find success in your search for truth.
Join us in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The rabbit hole ends here.
“‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.’
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore, let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition [handed down from the apostles], seek no farther.”
— St. John Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (PG 62, 485)