Dialoguing with Greek Orthodox believers
“Growing up in the Greek Orthodox Church, my family would often say that it is the true church. Meaning, if you don’t practice being Greek Orthodox, you are missing what it actually means to follow the true church of Jesus. I know biblically this isn’t true, because Jesus doesn’t specify denominations. But my question is - what are some key differences of the Greek Orthodox Church vs Biblical Christianity in the Reformed Anglican sense? Were I to dialogue about what makes one more sound than the other in a biblical sense, what could be some key specifics to address to those who practice not just being Greek Orthodox, but any type of Orthodox? The heart of this, is how do I bring biblical clarity to my family & friends who are sunk in tradition over the authority of Scripture alone?”
Hey Marios, thanks for this question. It's a brave one to ask, because it's not just about church history or theology - it's about your family. So I’ll attempt to give you some theological clarity along with some counsel on how to engage lovingly with the people you’re talking to.
First, some honesty about what Orthodoxy gets right
Before we get to the differences, here’s some commitments we share: The Orthodox Church confesses the Trinity. It holds to the Nicene Creed. It defended the full deity and full humanity of Christ when those things were under attack in the early centuries. Anglicans applaud these things. The Anglican Church’s Thirty-Nine Articles happily receive the ancient creeds, and we stand with the Orthodox on the great councils that defined who Jesus is against false teaching and error.
Many Orthodox believers love the Lord Jesus sincerely. The question isn't whether there's truth in Orthodoxy. The question is where final authority lies, and what the gospel actually is. That's where the real differences lie - and they really matter.
Four major differences between the Orthodox Church and Reformed Anglican tradition
Difference 1: What sits above what?
Here's the deepest divide, and it's the one you highlighted in your question: authority.
Orthodoxy holds that Scripture and Holy Tradition together form one deposit of faith, with the Church as its infallible interpreter. In practice, this means the Bible is read through Tradition: the Fathers, the seven ecumenical councils, the liturgy - and the Church's consensus can't be questioned from Scripture, because the Church is the one doing the interpreting.
The Reformed Anglican position isn't "Scripture versus tradition." We value tradition. We recognise creeds, we use a liturgy, we read the Fathers gladly. But tradition is a servant, not a master. Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles puts it plainly: Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that nothing may be required of anyone as an article of faith that can't be read in it or proved by it.
Why? Because that's how Jesus himself operated. In Mark 7:8, he confronts religious leaders who had layered tradition on top of God's Word until the tradition was most prominent: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Notice - Jesus doesn't say tradition is worthless. He says it must never sit in judgment over Scripture. The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were commended precisely because they examined the Scriptures daily to test what even an apostle told them.
A useful question to ask your family: if the Church taught something that contradicted Scripture, how would you ever know? Under the Orthodox model, you couldn't - the Church's reading is by definition correct. That's a problem.
You'll sometimes hear: "But the Church gave you the Bible - the canon came from the councils." You can gently push back on that. The Church didn't create the canon; it recognised it. A council recognising which books carry God's authority is like a jeweller recognising a diamond - the jeweller doesn't make the stone precious. God's Word carried authority the moment God breathed it (2 Timothy 3:16), not the moment a committee recognised it.
Difference 2: How is a sinner made right with God?
This is the difference I'd spend the most time on, because it's the one with the most at stake.
Orthodoxy frames salvation primarily as theosis — a lifelong process of being progressively united to God, sustained through the sacraments, fasting, prayer, and participation in the Church's life. It's a synergy: God's grace and human effort cooperating over a lifetime, with no assurance of the outcome this side of death.
The New Testament says something more startling. "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28). "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Notice the tense: have been justified. Have peace. Not "are hoping to be, if we persevere in the process." Article XI calls justification by faith alone "a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort" - and comfort (assurance) is exactly the point. When Jesus said "It is finished" (John 19:30), he meant it.
Of course, this doesn't make holiness optional - genuine faith always produces a changed life. But the changed life is the fruit of being accepted, never the basis of it. That order matters. Get it backwards and you've lost the gospel.
Here's a question worth asking someone you love: "If you died tonight, are you sure you'd be with Christ?" The honest Orthodox answer is something like "I hope so, but I can't presume." But John wrote his letter "that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). Assurance isn't arrogance. It's confidence in Christ's finished work.
Difference 3: Who stands between you and God?
Orthodox piety involves the veneration of icons and prayers directed to Mary and the saints. The official theology distinguishes veneration from worship, and honouring saints from praying to God. But Scripture doesn't leave room for the distinction: "there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). The central argument of the Book of Hebrews is that Jesus is the great high priest who gives us direct, confident access to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:14–16). Why would you queue on the footpath when the front door has been thrown open?
On icons specifically: the second commandment forbids not just worshipping false gods but making images as vehicles of worship of the true God (Exodus 20:4–5) — that's precisely what Israel did with the golden calf, which they called a feast "to the LORD" (Exodus 32:5). Jesus told the Samaritan woman that true worshippers worship "in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). God has given us his appointed picture of himself (the true icon so to speak): his Son, revealed in his Word.
Difference 4: What makes a church "the true church"?
Now to the heart of your family's claim. Orthodoxy locates the true church in unbroken institutional and sacramental succession - an organisational lineage running back to the apostles.
Article XIX gives a different answer, and I think it's far better: the visible church of Christ is a congregation of believers where the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance. In other words, what makes a church apostolic isn't an unbroken chain of hands on heads from the apostles to your local priest - it's unbroken faithfulness to the apostles' message.
So the question to put to your family isn't "which institution is oldest?" It's "where is the apostles' gospel preached?" That reframes everything. The true church isn't a denomination at all - it's the whole company (the catholic/universal church) of those who trust in Christ alone, gathered wherever his Word is faithfully proclaimed and his sacraments are faithfully celebrated.
How to actually have the conversation
Play the long game.
As you know, your family's Orthodoxy is woven into their identity, culture, and love for their parents and family. When you challenge the church, they'll hear you challenging them. So go slowly, warmly, and repeatedly - over years, not in one showdown.
Ask questions rather than lobbing statements.
My dear friend and mentor, Peter Adam, told me as a combustable, twenty-something that the goal in theological disagreement was to “win people, not arguments”. This is wisdom.
For example, asking "What do you think Paul means when he says we have been justified?" opens a door to conversation. Conversely, stating"You're wrong about tradition and authority" closes one. Peter tells us to give an answer "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15) — the manner is part of the message.
Keep dragging the conversation back to Jesus and his finished work.
Don't get stuck arguing about icons or incense. Those are symptoms. The central question is, has Christ done enough, or hasn't he? Everything else flows from there.
Honour what's honourable.
Let your loved ones know how much you value their reverence, their commitment to the creeds, their seriousness about worship. People listen to critics who have shown they’re not just myopic ‘haters’.
And pray!
Nobody was ever argued into the kingdom. The same Spirit who opened your eyes to the sufficiency of Scripture and the sufficiency of Christ can open theirs. Ask him to!
You're not trying to win your family from something so much as to Someone. Christ has finished the work, he needs no supplementing, his Word is enough. Hold that out to them, patiently and lovingly, and trust God with the rest.
Love, Jonathan
