Seraphim Hamilton

What is the historic doctrine of the Eucharist?  The answer to this question is of great importance.  We shall begin at the first document we have speaking of the Eucharist, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, written in approximately 56ad.  St. Paul of Tarsus says,

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is given for you.  Do this in remembrance of me.”  In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.  Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Here we see that Paul equates the bread and wine with the body and blood, for he says, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”  It is fairly clear, then, that St. Paul affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Another key element of patristic Eucharistic doctrine is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice.  It is not a re-sacrifice, however, but a return to the one sacrifice.  The Didache, an early Christian catechism many scholars date to the Apostolic Age, mentions this when it states, “And on the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.  And let no man, having his dispute with his fellow, join your assembly until they have been reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled; for this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by the Lord.”

We see several themes in here.  First, the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and it is proper to call it such.  Second, the Eucharist is to be performed every Lord’s Day.  Third, people must do confession before they receive the Eucharist, so that they may be purified.  St. Clement of Rome also refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, saying in his Letter to the Corinthians, “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the apostle John and second Patriarch of Antioch after the apostle Peter, writes in response to those who believed that Jesus did not have a physical body but was only divine, “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God….  They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.  They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

St. Justin Martyr, writing in 151ad, states regarding the Eucharist, “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined.  For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

We thus see that the second century Church clearly taught that at the words of consecration said by the presbyter, the bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, and only baptized Orthodox Christians could receive it.  St. Clement of Alexandria, commenting on John 6 in 191ad, states, “‘Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’  The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.”

Origen of Alexandria, commenting on John 3 and John 6, applies them to baptism and the Eucharist, respectively, saying, “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way … now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit.  Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Aphrahat the Persian Sage, commenting on the Last Supper in 340ad, states, “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested.  But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead.  With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink.”

Serapion, writing in 350ad, records the Eucharistic prayer said at the Divine Liturgy, “Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’  Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues.  Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, writing in the same year, states regarding the Eucharist, “Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed.  Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need.”  We thus see that by the time the Eucharistic words of consecration were recorded, they had taken essentially the same form as used today in the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

St. Gregory Nanzianzen comments on the Eucharist as well, saying in 383ad, “Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword.”  St. John Chrysostom writes regarding the Eucharist in 387ad, “When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth?  Or are you not lifted up to heaven?”

St. Ambrose of Milan, commenting on the Davidic Psalms, says, “We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us.  We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people.  Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable.  Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered.  Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered.”

Theodore of Mopsuestia says in 405ad, “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’  In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord.  We ought … not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit.”

St. Augustine of Hippo, writing in 411ad, states in a sermon to newly baptized Christians, “I promised you who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table.…  That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ.  That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.”

Fulgetius of Ruspe, writing in 524ad, states, “the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament … the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine.  In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly.  In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious.”

Thus, we see that during the patristic era, the dominant, if not the only viewpoint on the Eucharist was that it was truly the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

Seraphim Hamilton

Since the rise of Protestantism, there has been a debate on the veneration of the Virgin Mary.  Orthodox Christians argue that since Mary is the Mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, she is to be accorded proper veneration.  As Orthodox Christians, we call her the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, chief intercessor before Christ, the New Eve, and ever-virgin.  It is my intention to prove that every single one of these roles is attributed to Mary in the Bible.

Mary’s most important role is her role as Theotokos, roughly translated “Mother of God,” but more precisely translated “God-bearer.”  Is it proper to call the Virgin Mary the “Mother of God”?  Yes!  All Protestants acknowledge the biblical teaching of the deity of Christ, but, for the sake of completeness, let us review a key biblical passage.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

Within the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, the fullness of God dwells.  Thus, if Mary gives birth to the body of Jesus Christ, as all Protestants admit, what comes out of her womb is also God, because God indwells the body of Christ.  Thus, it is proper to refer to her as the “God-bearer” or Theotokos, and, as a corollary, “Mother of God.”  In fact, St. Elizabeth says to Mary:

And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)

The question before us is whether the “my Lord” here necessarily refers to the divine nature of Jesus Christ.  Could it simply refer to the human nature?  This leads directly into the discussion of Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  When Elizabeth asks how it is that the mother of the Lord should come to her, she is directly alluding to these words spoken by the Prophet King David.

And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)

Ancient Jews memorized the Hebrew Bible.  Similarities in wording would jump out at them.  It is clear: when St. Elizabeth asks how the mother of the Lord should come to her, she is intentionally alluding to the Prophet’s words.  It is important to note that in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, YHWH would be replaced by “the Lord.”

Thus, when Elizabeth calls Mary the “mother of my Lord,” in reference to David’s words, she is calling Mary the “Mother of YHWH.”  Thus, it is absolutely proper to call Mary the Mother of God!

Furthermore, Elizabeth equates the Ark of the Covenant with the Blessed Virgin Mary.  As the Old Ark was the dwelling place of God in the days of the Old Covenant, so the New Ark, the Virgin Mary, is the dwelling place of God the Word in our days, the days of the New Covenant.  Let us look at some additional biblical passages which demonstrate her status as Ark of the New Covenant.

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:34)

The power of the Lord comes over the Ark of the Covenant.  Similarly, it is written in St. Luke’s Gospel:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

The power of the Most High God overshadows the Blessed Virgin, just as it overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant.  Listen to what happens when the Ark of the Covenant is brought before David:

And David danced before the Lord with all his might.  And David was wearing a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14)

This linen ephod is a priestly vestment.  Likewise, John the Baptist is part of the priestly line of Aaron, and just as David danced when he saw the Ark of the Covenant, so does John the Baptist:

And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.  And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit… (Luke 1:41)

The child John the Baptist leaps in her womb at hearing the Ark of the Covenant.  After David dances before the Ark of the Covenant, it remains three months:

And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household. (2 Samuel 6:11)

And after John the Baptist dances at hearing Mary, she remains three months:

And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home. (Luke 1:56)

Is it possible that all of this is a coincidence?  As passage after passage is piled up, it becomes nearly impossible that it is.  The evidence is clear that Luke is presenting Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

In addition, we hear of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant in the Revelation of John:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.  There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19)

We see the Heavenly Temple, and we see the Ark of the Covenant.  Would the Ark of the Old Covenant be of any significance?  No.  The Old Covenant is done away with, and the glory of God has left it.  But the New Covenant of Grace is in effect, and its Ark is something glorious.  What is this Ark?  St. John tells us in the very next passage:

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)

Who is this woman?

She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne… (Revelation 12:5)

And who rules the nations with a rod of iron?  God the Word, Jesus Christ.

He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.  And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.  From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. (Revelation 19:13-15)

Hence, the woman of Revelation 12 is the mother of Jesus Christ.  Who is Christ’s mother?  It is, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary.  We see, therefore, that the Ark of the New Covenant is identified clearly as the Virgin Mary in the Apocalypse of John.  Some Protestants, however, like to argue that the Woman is not Mary, but Israel, basing their exegesis here:

Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream.  Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” (Genesis 37:9)

This refers to Israel.  So, is Israel a referent in John’s prophecy?  Yes!  In biblical prophecy it is not uncommon for a prophecy to have multiple referents.  Let me give you an example from the famous prophecy of Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

All Christians know that this is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  However, there is a temporary fulfillment, where an almah who is not a virgin gives birth to a child who is named Immanuel as a sign that God is with them.

“…and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” (Isaiah 8:8)

There are some parts where Isaiah refers to both referents, and some parts where he refers to only one.  Consider this passage:

For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7:16)

Was there ever a time when the Lord Jesus Christ did not know good and evil?  Never.  Thus, verse sixteen refers only to the first referent, and not the messianic referent.  Likewise, in Revelation 12, there are portions where John refers to Mary, portions where he refers to Eve, portions where he refers to the Church, and portions where he refers to Israel.  Mostly, however, he refers to all four.  So, with that said, let us look at the further implications of Revelation 12.

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)

Mary here is wearing a Crown of Twelve Stars.  As we saw in Joseph’s dream, the stars are a symbol of Israel.  Mary is wearing the Crown of Israel.  However, the New Israel is the people of the Church, the Kingdom of Heaven.  Christ says:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.  But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

The kingdom of New Israel is the kingdom of Heaven.  Thus, Mary is here presented as wearing the Crown of New Israel — she is the Queen of Heaven.

Another important fact is that Jesus is a king after the order of David — he is a Davidic king.  Who were the queens of Davidic kings?  Interestingly, it was not their wives.  It was their mothers.  Consider this passage:

Say to the king and the queen mother: “Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head.” (Jeremiah 13:18)

So, Jesus, being the Davidic King of Heaven, has His Davidic queen, His Mother, Mary.  What were the functions of the Queen Mother?  Intercession before the King.

So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah.  And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her.  Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.  Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.”  And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” (1 Kings 2:19-20)

The Davidic queen, Bathsheba, intercedes on behalf of Adonijah at his request, before the Davidic king, her son Solomon, and Solomon listens with special attention to the request of the queen.  This is exactly parallel to the situation today with Orthodox Christians.  Orthodox Christians ask for the intercession of our Queen, Mary.  She intercedes before her son, Jesus Christ, the King, at our request and He listens with special attention.  Let us now demonstrate Mary’s status as New Eve, that is, the antitype of Eve.

St. John writes:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

He opens by discussing the beginning of the world, opening with “in the beginning.”  Remember that ancient Jews knew the Hebrew Bible from memory.  They would immediately think of:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Further parallels are drawn:

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:4-5)

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good.  And God separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4)

Thus, John is writing to parallel the opening chapters of Genesis.  He counts the days.  Start with one in John’s opening.

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)

Two.

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples… (John 1:35)

Three.

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee.  He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” (John 1:43)

Four.

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. (John 2:1)

The wedding at Cana occurs on the seventh day.  On the seventh day, Mary asks Him to do something:

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” (John 2:3)

Jesus does a miracle:

When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom… (John 2:9)

We know from the Scripture that Jesus is the New Adam:

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

What does Eve do to Adam on the seventh day?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

On the seventh day after the opening of Genesis, Eve entices Adam to commit his first sin.  On the seventh day after the opening of John, who is drawing our minds back to Genesis, Mary entices the New Adam to perform His first miracle.  The conclusion is clear: Mary is the New Eve.  One can consider also Mary’s obedience to Gabriel vs. Eve’s obedience to Satan:

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

Thus, Eve obeys the evil angel Satan, who entices her to bring death into the world.

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:30-31)

Who is Jesus?

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

Jesus is the Life.  Mary consents to the message of the good angel, Gabriel, in bringing Life into the world.  Eve consents to the message of the evil angel, Satan, in bringing death into the world.  It is clear what the Bible is doing.  Mary is clearly the New Eve.

Finally, Orthodox Christians believe that Mary remained a virgin all of her life.  The traditional Orthodox position is that the “brothers of Jesus” were actually step-brothers from Joseph’s earlier marriage (he was a widower).  Does this position find any support in Scripture?  Yes!  Let us first address the two indications put forward by Protestants that Mary did not remain a virgin.  First:

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.  And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)

The key word put forward by Protestants is “until.”  The Greek is heōs.  Where else do we find this Greek word?  Matthew 28:20:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until (heōs) the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

If heōs implies an eventual change in action, it means that Jesus will eventually leave us.  Next, Protestants propose that the record of Christ’s siblings demonstrates that Mary consummated her marriage with St. Joseph after giving birth to Christ.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?   And are not his sisters here with us?”  And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

Does it ever say that these other children are the children of Mary?  No, it says that they are the “brothers of Jesus.”  Could this mean stepbrothers?  Yes, it could, unless you want to argue that Joseph was actually Jesus’ blood father.

And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about [Jesus]. (Luke 2:33)

What does Mark 6 actually teach?  Why was Jesus called the son of Mary rather than the son of Joseph?  As we have seen, it was perfectly acceptable to call Jesus the son of Joseph, so it’s not referring to the virginal conception.  Why then? Protestant scholar Richard Bauckham answers: “…in Nazareth Jesus would have been known as ‘the son of Mary’ because this distinguished him from the children of Joseph by his first wife.”

Mark 6:3, therefore, far from being evidence against the traditional doctrine, actually is evidence for it!  Finally, consider the words of Jesus to the Apostle John:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26)

Jesus commits the care of the Virgin Mary to the Apostle John.  This would have been absolutely unacceptable if she had other children.  If the oldest child dies, the care of the mother falls to the next oldest child.  If the oldest child is the only child, it is his responsibility to appoint someone to care for his mother in the case that he dies.  We can see that Jesus acts as if He is the only child of Mary.

As we can see, there is no indication from the Bible that Mary had other children than Jesus, and there are at least two strong indicators against it.  From the Bible alone, we can conclude fairly safely that she is a perpetual virgin.

Mary needs to be given her due.  Christ’s Church, that is, the Orthodox Church, has done that for two-thousand years.  It has remained faithful to the biblical, apostolic, and patristic teaching concerning the position and status of the Virgin.  Protestants, through a careless reading of the Bible and a hatred for the tradition of the Church, have degraded her.  It’s time for them to reject the traditions of men and get in line with the Bible.

Seraphim Hamilton

My intention in this article is to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are three fundamentally different religions and cannot be understood as merely three parts of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.  In order to do this, I will explain and contrast the soteriologies of each Christian group.

Roman Catholicism teaches that one is saved by the merits of Jesus Christ applied by grace, which subdue the wrath of God and allow one into Heaven.  In addition, there is temporal wrath which one may be saved from.  As for the eternal wrath, in Roman soteriology, God the Father has wrath towards each individual person, for both their original sin imputed to them by Adam, and also for their personal sins.  Their personal sins are divided into mortal and venial sins.  Before baptism, both sins are sufficient to condemn one to eternal damnation.

In baptism, the merits of Christ are applied to the individual, thus eliminating the Father’s wrath towards any sins committed before baptism.  However, after baptism, if one commits a mortal sin, wrath is applied so that one would be damned if they died in that state.  To solve this, one confesses to an ordained priest.  The priest provides the penitent with certain works to do, and after they perform these prescribed works of penance, the merits of Christ are applied to them and they are forgiven.

Temporal wrath is satisfied in a particular time in purgatory.  If one wishes to expunge this, one must perform set good works to have a certain amount of days removed from their term in purgatory.  The removal of eternal punishment is distinct from the removal of temporal punishment.  While mortal sins incur both eternal and temporal punishment, confession only eliminates the eternal punishment, leaving the temporal punishment undealt with.  Venial sins committed after baptism accumulate temporal wrath, without eternal wrath.

Through prayer, fasting, reception of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, and other good works, Christ applies His grace to an individual so that they accumulate grace over time.  This grace leads them to higher and higher states of salvation.  After death, any leftover grace is received into a treasury of merit, where it may be appropriated by individual Roman Catholics through indulgences.

In short, the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation deals with the accumulation of divine wrath through sin and the reduction of divine wrath by the appropriation of the merits generated by Christ’s work on the Cross.

Protestantism teaches that all men are totally depraved, because the depravity of Adam is inherited by all men.  Therefore, according to Protestantism, all men are utterly unable to do any good in the eyes of God.  God can only receive perfect righteousness and sinlessness into His Heavenly Kingdom.

Therefore, God sent Jesus Christ into the world.  Christ, through His death, suffered the penalty for the sins of the world and provided a righteousness to be imputed to believing Christians.  When one places personal trust in Jesus Christ’s atoning work, one attains a faith-union with Christ.  One’s sins are recognized as punished in His person, and thus all sins, past, present, and future, are immediately forgiven.  Through this faith-union, Christ’s righteousness is immediately imputed to the believing Christian.  Therefore, God receives them into heaven, because they have been counted as righteous by virtue of their union with Jesus Christ.

The Protestant faith includes the doctrine that God’s divine wrath is satisfied on the Cross.  However, it disagrees with Roman Catholicism in that there is no temporal element to salvation.  It also disagrees on the means of the application of the substitution.  Roman Catholics believe that ones sins are continually forgiven through the application of merit through the sacraments and good works.  Protestants teach that all sins are immediately forgiven because of faith alone.  Roman Catholics teach that justification is infused righteousness which develops and grows over time.  Protestants teach that justification is imputed righteousness which is imputed once and does not change.

Orthodoxy is radically different from both of these soteriologies.  Like Protestantism, Orthodoxy teaches that there is no such thing as purgatory, and thus, there is no such thing as temporal salvation.  However, the similarities essentially end there.  Salvation is defined in three words as “life in Christ.”  It is attained by a lifelong journey to union with God through His incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

The salvation process begins with the mystery of Holy Baptism.  Baptism unites one with the death and resurrection of Christ.  Thus, all of ones sins are united to His person, and are annihilated, not punished, by His death.  This union washes away all sins committed prior to Baptism.  The mystery of Chrismation endows one with the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit of God indwells the Orthodox Christian, empowering him on his journey to salvation.

Prayer is an essential part of the Orthodox life.  Rather than being a means to appropriate merit, prayer dulls the passions and brings one into communion with God.  Prayer, when done in true repentance, washes one of sin.  It prepares one for the central mystery of the Church of Christ — the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is the true body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.  By partaking of it in a spirit of faith and repentance, one is united to Jesus Christ, and thus it is effective unto eternal life and salvation.

Before reception of the Eucharist, one often repents in the presence of an ordained priest.  This mystery, called the mystery of confession, is a healing sacrament rather than a legal process.  Through confession, one is washed and forgiven of confessed sins.  Certain serious sins, called mortal sins by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, require confession to receive the Eucharist in purity.  Fasting does not apply the merit of Christ to balance the wrath of God, but rather subdues the body to the soul.

The soul is purified of its sin and sickness through prayer, fasting, ascetism, and reception of the Eucharist.  The soul radiates the grace of God the Holy Spirit, and when the body is subdued to the soul, the soul radiates that grace through the body as well.  This is why the bodies of Orthodox saints (as did the body of the Prophet Elijah) are known to have healing powers.  This is why, when living, devout Orthodox ascetics are known to radiate the uncreated light.  This union with Christ is salvation.

Seraphim Hamilton

This text is one of the most critical texts for defending the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, that is, salvation by grace through faith alone. It reads as follows:

(Ephesians 2:8-10) For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (ESV).

Thus, let us take this passage one piece at a time. The Orthodox Catholic doctrine of salvation is that salvation comes by grace alone, but this grace is appropriated by both lifelong faith (initiated in the mystery of Baptism, see Galatians 3:27), and also works done by the grace of God. Works done apart from the grace of God (often called works of the law), are absolutely worthless and are a “filthy rag” as Isaiah the prophet says.

 For by grace you have been saved

Our salvation comes by grace. Many protestant commentators focus on the faith in Ephesians 2 to demonstrate Sola Fide. St. Paul is focusing on the grace, and that is where our focus should be as well.

through faith.

What is the meaning of “through faith”? Most lay readers see the faith here as our faith, which we exercise to appropriate the saving grace of God. Actually, this is likely not the intended meaning. We must view Paul’s doctrine of salvation as a client-patron relationship. In such a relationship, the patron would exercise an act of favor toward the client, and the client would be expected to respond positively. Upon positive response, the patron would exercise greater favor toward the client, and the client would again be expected to respond positively. Contingent upon this relationship was the pistis of the patron. That is, the patron must be trustworthy. Thus, St. Paul is saying that we have been saved by grace, through God’s faithfulness. While faith is certainly one of the positive responses we give to God our patron, this is not what is in view here.

And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The client could not take or demand anything from the patron. It was given freely, out of the goodness and mercy of the patron. It was completely and totally his gift. This does not exclude works (or positive feedback in a patronal context), but necessarily includes them, for a client-patron relationship is unquestionably synergistic, to the chagrin of Calvinists everywhere.

not a result of works

How then can I say that works are a part of salvation? It is important to understand what type of works Paul is discussing here. Note the contrast:

The works of Ephesians 2:9 are specifically contrasted with the grace of Ephesians 2:8. That is, St. Paul is teaching that works done apart from the grace of God are absolutely non-salvific. In the context of a client-patron relationship, doing works apart from grace would be akin to responding positively to the patron and saying “See? Look how positively I responded! More favor please!” A work must be done by and in view of God’s grace.

so that no one may boast.

Because it is only out of the goodness and mercy of God that He responds to our works done by grace with favor, no boasting may be made, because all salvation is the work of God.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works

Note the subtle contrast between this and verse 9.  Why does Paul refute works and then say “for we are…”  The “for” here suggests that this is the logical conclusion.  This is because we are not saved by works done apart from grace, but by good works.  The good works of Ephesians 2:10 are specifically contrasted with the works done apart from grace of Ephesians 2:9.  Again, the flow of the argument:

The patron, in providing us with grace, prepares us for a response of gratitude and good works. Thus, if we choose to walk in them, by the power of the grace provided, the Lord provides more grace.

Thus, Ephesians 2:8-10 is far from an exposition on Sola Fide. Rather, it teaches the great and transformative power of God’s grace, which takes us and transforms us into His likeness throughout our lives, but only if we respond to His grace with works done by grace.