Assessing Eastern Orthodoxy

1. It's been a long time since I've discussed Eastern Orthodoxy. I used to debate Eastern Orthodox proponents, but that got to be repetitious. Recently, though, I was asked about Eastern Orthodoxy, so I'd like to take a different approach this time around. Eastern Orthodoxy is defined by what it affirms as well as what it denies. Eastern Orthodoxy is a package deal. Each and every Orthodox essential must be true. Likewise, Eastern Orthodoxy must be correct in what it denies. In what differentiates itself from the competition. Let's provide examples to illustrate both. The list isn't meant to be exhaustive:

Affirmations

• Apostolic succession

• Nicene Triadology 

• The infallibility of the first 7 ecumenical councils

• The real presence

• Auricular confession

• Chrismation

• Unction

• Iconography

• Prayer to Mary

• Perpetual virginity of Mary

• Veneration of relics

• Monasticism

• Triple immersion

• Sign of the cross

• The essence/energy distinction

Denials

• Sola scriptura 

• Sola fide

• Five-points of Calvinism

2. This means that if Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong on a single thing it affirms, that falsifies the Orthodox paradigm, because Eastern Orthodoxy is a package deal. 

Likewise, If Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong on a single thing it denies, that falsifies the Orthodox paradigm. 

3. However, it isn't even necessary to conclude that Eastern Orthodoxy is mistaken in one or more particulars. If you simply think there's insufficient evidence for one or more Orthodox essentials, then you can't be an Orthodox believer. You can't assent to something if you remain unpersuaded. 

4. Critics routinely point to Protestant diversity as a weakness or discrediting feature of the Protestant faith. But ironically, the flexibility of the Protestant faith makes it far harder to disprove than a theological paradigm like Eastern Orthodoxy that has no give. 

If paedobaptism is false, that falsifies the Presbyterian paradigm, but not the Baptist paradigm. If the real presence is false, that falsifies the Lutheran paradigm, but not the Baptist paradigm. 

5. It isn't necessary to disprove Eastern Orthodoxy point-by-point. If it's mistaken on a single affirmation or denial, you don't have to go any further. That's enough to sink it. Or if you're simply unconvinced by one of its essential claims, then you can't be an Orthodox believer. 

6. Now an Orthodox apologist might object that disproving Eastern Orthodoxy begs the question, because we don't have the authority to evaluate Eastern Orthodoxy without recourse to Tradition or the Eastern Orthodox church. However, that means no one would ever be justified in assessing Eastern Orthodoxy with a view to conversion. If he can only assess it from the inside, never the outside, he can never make the transition from an outsider to an insider.