Seeking the Church Christ Founded: A Personal Reflection and Research Framework
For the past three years, mostly in quiet, I’ve been studying and experiencing Eastern Orthodoxy from the outside. I've immersed myself in its ascetic practices, prayers, theology, history, the lives of the saints, and its apologetics. This journey grew out of multiple seasons of wrestling with Protestant positions (times of conviction and reconsideration) as I felt myself “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine,” lacking a normative interpretational authority.
While this lack of anchor has been frustrating, it has also given me empathy for those with different theological views. Often, I remember believing those very same positions, and I know that even then, I genuinely loved Jesus.
The Problem of Authority in Protestantism
One pattern I've observed in Protestantism is that for every conviction, there is always someone smarter with a different point of view. Due to my interest in theology and , by God’s grace, my capacity for deep immersion and retention has led me to not just understand, but at times believe opposing positions, often sincerely and for extended periods. This has been fantastic for steelmanning, however, his repeated shifting, paired with my conviction that truth cannot be relative, has led me to conclude that I may be the problem: my interpretive lens is fallible and incomplete.
A recent experience reinforced this. After attending a conference with my family, I felt a nudge from the Lord. I had made three offhanded, critical comments about Catholicism to three different people. While I had given Orthodoxy the benefit of the doubt, I had never extended the same charity to Catholicism. Convicted, I began deliberately subjecting myself to Catholic arguments and perspectives, especially in the ongoing dialogue between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Evaluating the Three Traditions
Protestantism: Fragmentation Through Sola Scriptura
The Protestant principle of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority) poses a practical dilemma: when two sincere believers interpret Scripture differently, who has the authority to decide? The response “Scripture interprets itself” sounds pious but fails in practice. The proliferation of denominations (from Baptists to Pentecostals to Reformed to non-denominational) proves that Scripture, when severed from authoritative tradition, leads to division, not unity. Without a normative authority and ability to interpret, we are left to private interpretation outside of the church.
Practically speaking, the question is, "Should I believe either a teacher or myself who holds to a "new teaching" that the church has never seen before (progressive evolution of theology) or has come together and defined as heresy? Do I believe it's possible that the Holy Spirit spoke to me outside the means of His defined church, and given me truth privately in which the universal church has either never heard, or purposely fought against?
Catholicism: Hierarchical Clarity, but Developmental Complexity
Catholicism presents a solution: an infallible magisterium led by the pope as the final interpreter of doctrine. However, this raises concerns about internal consistency. If popes or councils appear to contradict one another (e.g., The Council of Trent’s damnation of protestants vs. Vatican II’s pastoral tone as accepting protestants as "separated brethren"), then interpretive relativism is only postponed, not resolved. It's kinda like when a famous atheist was pressed by a creationist to explain where life came from if there was no intellegent design, and he famously responded, "Aliens!". This only pushes the problem back a step and forces one to ask the obvious question, "Where did THOSE come from?" Can a magisterium that changes its "truth" formulations still be an objective arbiter?
Eastern Orthodoxy: Historical Continuity and Conciliarity
Orthodoxy offers a conciliar approach: authority lies in the continuous, unbroken witness of the Church — especially the ecumenical councils, the Church Fathers, and the liturgical life of the Church. Scripture, while fully authoritative, is interpreted within this communal tradition. The Vincentian Canon (“what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”) serves as a guide. This preserves doctrinal continuity and guards against innovation.
That said, this model faces practical weaknesses. The current schism between Moscow and Constantinople raises questions: What mechanism exist to resolve intra-Orthodox disputes? How should Orthodoxy address pressing moral questions like remarriage or 21st century issues of contraception? While Catholicism has often acted strongly on such matters, having a built in ability to deal with tensions outright, Orthodoxy seems hesitant to confront anything clearly, possibly out of a desire to preserve tradition.
My Framework for Study
I’m now narrowing my focus to the controversies leading to the Great Schism, as I believe the question of which Church “embodies the fullness of truth” must be answered by determining "who left who". Which side schismed from the other, or decided that they would leave the true church and proceed regardless. Up to the events of the Great Schism, East and West lived together whether in unity or tension, but we had a clearly defined church of Christ that lead the world towards God through the means He established. After the schism, we have two groups that claim that they are the true church and that the other left the truth. Who is right?
To proceed with clarity, I am assuming the following core theological convictions:
- God cannot lie. (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18)
- Jesus Christ is God. (John 1:1; 10:30–31; 20:28; Isa 9:6)
- Christ promised His Church wouldn't fall into heresy. (Matt 16:17–19)
- Scripture teaches the reality of objective heresy, though scripture does not define every aspect of orthodoxy. (2 Pet 2; 1 John 4:1; Gal 5:19–21)
- No private interpretation of Scripture is authoritative apart from the Church. (2 Pet 1:20)
- Therefore, Christ’s true Church must exist today, maintaining an authoritative and objective standard for faith and practice.
Methodology and Sources
Given the above, I will limit my study to groups that:
- Accept the first seven ecumenical councils (Nicaea to Nicaea II),
- Affirm the apostolic deposit handed down through the visible Church,
- Believe the Holy Spirit actively guided the Church throughout her first millennium.
This means I will not focus on Protestant groups, who often accept only the first four councils.
This also excludes the Oriental Orthodox, who rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) due to disputes over Christology.
However, I remain open to revisiting either of their claims should the evidence warrant it.
I will engage with:
- Scripture, rightly interpreted within the mind of the Church before the Great Schism,
- The writings of the Church Fathers,
- Widespread early Church documents (e.g., The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas),
- And the ecumenical councils themselves, which represent the clearest expression of the Church’s self-understanding.
Final Thoughts
While I do not claim to have reached a definitive conclusion yet, I believe this framework offers a faithful and historically grounded path forward. I am seeking not what is comfortable, but what is true, the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). My hope is that this study will lead to conviction and clarity, not just for myself, but for others walking a similar path.
If you’ve read this far, I invite you to pray with me, wrestle with the same questions, and pursue Christ’s truth — wherever it may lead.