Using The Orthodox Way, the 1995 classic written by Bishop Kallistos Ware as our reference, we will explore

key points of agreement and disagreement that evangelical and Eastern Orthodox Christians have with each other. After each point is examined, we will conclude as to whether the two respective groups teachings are compatible.

I. CHRISTS ATONMENT AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that Christs death on the cross was vicarious? In other words, do Orthodox Christians believe Christ died in our place, as our substitute, taking our sin debt upon himself? Did he experience the curse of Gods wrath on the cross? Central to the evangelical understanding of the atonement is the concept of substitution. We are pardoned for our sins because Christ, as our substitute, paid the penalty in our stead. This is also central to the doctrine of justification because if God credited our sins to Christ on the cross, punishing them in the body of his Son, then we believe that God credits Christs righteousness to those who hope in him. Though this, which is known as the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, is not as prominent in Orthodoxy as it is among evangelicals, consider Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Wares comments: Resolving to go forward to arrest and crucifixion, Jesus experiences, in the words of William Law, the anguishing terrors of a lost soul the reality of eternal death. Full weight must be given to Christs words at Gethsemane, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death (Matt. 26:38). Jesus enters at this moment totally into the experience of spiritual death In Christs Passion there is no play-acting, nothing is done for outward show. Each word from the Cross means what it says. And if the cry, My God, my God is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, but for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God If Christ truly descended into hell, that means he descended into the depths of the absence of God. Totally, unreservedly, he identifies himself with all mans anguish and alienation. He assumed it into himself, and by assuming it, he healed it. There was no other way he could heal it, except by making it his own. Lets break Wares assessment down. In affirming that Christ experienced spiritual death, he is agreeing that Christ did experience Gods wrath on the cross. Christ wasnt saying hed been forsaken simply for dramatic effect; he was truly experiencing separation from God, the absence of God. By assuming such anguish himself, we are now healed from the curse of that anguish ourselves. All of this is quite evangelical. Ware goes onto explain that Christs suffering love is far more than just an example for us to follow, which wed be blessed by if we were to imitate it. The benefits of Christs atonement are actually shared with us: His suffering love has a creative effect on me, transforming my own heart and will, releasing me from bondage, making me whole, rendering it possible for me to love in a way that would lie altogether beyond my powers, had I not first been loved by him.

Because in love he has identified himself with me, his victory is my victory. In order to avoid the misconception that Christs vicarious suffering means that we ourselves wont have to suffer, Ware cautions: We should not say that Christ died instead of us, but rather that he has suffered on our behalf . The Son of God suffered unto death, not that we might be exempt from suffering, but that our suffering might be like his. Christ offers us, not a way round suffering, but a way through it; not substitution, but saving companionship. Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and that his righteousness is imputed to believers when they repent? Commenting on 2 Corinthians 5:21 (God made him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake), Bishop Ware said: We are not to think here solely in terms of some juridical transaction, whereby Christ, himself guiltless, somehow has our guilt imputed to him in an exterior manner. Much more is involved than this. Christ saves us by experiencing from within, as one of us, all that we suffer inwardly through living in a sinful world. Lets take a closer look at his assessment. First of all, notice that Ware warns against thinking of this passage solely in legal terms. Hes not denying that there is a legal aspect involved, nor does he seem to be repudiating the doctrine that Christ had our guilt credited to him on the cross, so that his righteousness could be credited to us. He mainly seems to be advocating the idea that the passage means more than this. Thats something evangelicals can live with. Yes, perhaps much more is in view here than imputation; but at the very least, it is in view. Evangelicals generally interpret Pauls comment as referring mostly, if not completely, to the cross. Ware seems to be saying that Christ taking our sin upon himself, experiencing it as we experience it, was a lifelong endeavor, not something strictly limited to the Passion. Again, that perspective does no damage to the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Compatibility: Yes. Both churches agree that man doesnt merit salvation. II. THE VIRGIN MARY, THE SAINTS, AND RELIGIOUS ART What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach about the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ? Orthodoxy refers to the Virgin Mary as Theotokos, which means God bearer. Bishop Kallistos Ware explains that this designation, (Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.), is an affirmation, not primarily about the Virgin, but about Christ: God was born. Though the Orthodox Church doesnt affirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Orthodox Christians do believe Mary lived her life without ever committing sin, addressing

her in the liturgy as spotless, all-holy, and altogether without stain. The Liturgy of St. Basil refers to her as the joy of all creation. In other revered writings she is called the flower of the human race and gate of heaven and the precious treasure of the whole world. Evangelical Christians agree that Mary gave birth to the God-Man, but we refrain from bestowing the above-mentioned honors on her because they are, in our view, unwarranted from Scripture. When St. Paul says that all have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory (Romans 3:23), its clear that he envisions this as referring to all humans, Christ being the sole exception. Also, the practice of praying to Mary and other saints is dangerous as it imperils the distinction we should ever keep in mind between Creator and creature. Consider also the following quote from Bishop Ware: The Incarnation is not only the work of the Trinity, but also the work of Marys freewill. God waited for her voluntary consent, expressed in the words, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word (Luke 1:38); had this consent been withheld, Mary would not have become Gods Mother. Divine grace does not destroy human freedom, but reaffirms it. Though not calling Mary a co-redeemer, this sort of argument does seem to give an unwarranted degree of credit to the Virgin Mary, as Gods providence certainly cant be frustrated by human free will. Its also common to see icons (sacred images, always two-dimensional in Orthodox churches) depicting Mary and other saints, as well as icons of Christ. These are said to be not merely the gospel in pictures (books for the unlearned), but actual means of contact, in a mystical way, with that which is represented. Hence, icons are not merely looked at, but venerated. Its customary for Orthodox Christians to kiss the icons when entering the sanctuary. What about the second commandment, prohibiting images? The Orthodox defense is that God the Son became Incarnate, and because he became flesh and blood, a Man that could be seen and touched, its appropriate to depict him. In fact, those who opposed icons in the 8th century were accused of disbelieving in the Incarnation. The second commandment isnt violated by the use of icons, Orthodox say, so long as the icons are not worshipped as idols. Incidentally, Orthodox Christians do oppose sculpted images, and allow only two-dimensional depictions. Some evangelicals allow religious art, while others do not, but practically all would agree in opposing the veneration of religious art as, again, blurring the Creature/creator distinction. Worshipping art and worshipping God through art is a fine line to walk. Compatibility: No. Though some Anglo-Catholics within the Anglican Communion might sympathize with invocation to saints and veneration of icons, evangelical Christianity, as a whole, would reject the practice as being contrary to Scripture.

III. THE SACRAMENTS What does the Eastern Orthodox Church teach concerning baptism? More specifically, do Orthodox Christians believe in baptismal regeneration, that salvation is conferred through the act of being baptized? What about infant baptism? By way of custom, Orthodoxy practices baptism by immersiontriune immersion to be exact, being dunked in the water once, after each person of the Trinity is invoked. Even infants are immersed. The Orthodox Church teaches that when a person is baptized and chrismated (chrismation being the Eastern equivalent of confirmation in Western Christianity), the Holy Spirit regenerates that individual. Consider Bishop Wares comments: All the baptized, without exception, are Spirit-bearers What happened to the first Christians on the day of Pentecost happens also to each of us when, immediately following our Baptism, we are in the Orthodox practice anointed with Chrism or myron The newly baptized, whether infant or adult, is marked by the priest on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands and feet with the words, The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is for each one a personal Pentecost: the Spirit, who descended visibly upon the Apostles in tongues of fire, descends upon every one of us invisibly, yet with no less reality and power From the moment of our Baptism and Chrismation the Holy Spirit, together with Christ, comes to dwell in the innermost shrine of our heart. Its unclear whether Orthodoxy holds that the Spirit descends as a result of Baptism, or only as a result of Baptism when its combined with Chrismation. In the Orthodox Church, the two are never separated, so the question would likely not come up. At any rate, Orthodoxy holds that baptism and chrismation confer the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the recipient, and this holds whether the individual is adult or infant. It appears that the belief that water baptism and Spirit baptism were essentially the same thing led the church very early on (late first century, early second century are our earliest records) to begin baptizing infants. The idea was that infants need to be redeemed by Gods grace no less than adults and they can receive redemption through baptism. Doesnt this mean, though, that baptized persons, when they come of age, would have no incentive to personally profess faith in Christ, if they believe that all that needs to happen, by way of regeneration, has already happened? Ware addresses this concern: However careless and indifferent the baptized may be in their subsequent life, this indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is never totally withdrawn. But unless we cooperate with Gods grace it is likely that the Spirits presence within us will remain hidden and unconscious.

Ware then says that its crucial for believers to come to a place of conscious awareness of the Spirits presence: The Pentecostal spark of the Spirit, existing in each one of us from Baptism, is to be kindled into a living flame. We are to become what we are. Thats a very concise way to explain the Orthodox understanding of how baptism is to be played out in everyday lifewe are to become what we are. This idea that Gods grace is given to us at baptism, and is never totally withdrawn, is actually very similar to the evangelical doctrine of perseverance of the saints, which teaches that true believers, no matter how severely they may stumble, will never permanently fall away, but will be drawn back by the spark of Gods grace which remains in them. St. Mark the Monk explains this in even more detail: Everyone who has been baptized in an orthodox manner has received secretly the fullness of grace; and if he then goes on to perform the commandments, he will become consciously aware of this grace within him. However far a man may advance in faith, however great the blessings he attains, he never discovers, nor can he ever discover, anything more than what he has already received secretly through Baptism. Christ, being a perfect God, bestows upon the baptized the perfect grace of the Spirit. We, for our part, cannot possibly add to that grace, but it is revealed and manifests itself to us increasingly, in proportion to our fulfillment of the commandments. Whatever, then, we offer to him after our regeneration, was already within us and came originally from him. Though such an explanation is repugnant to some evangelicals, its important to remember that this is, in itself, certainly compatible with evangelical Christianity. Indeed, Lutherans and Anglicanstwo Protestant groups birthed out of the 16th century Reformationcould affirm everything said above. Orthodoxy isnt saying that baptism is a work we do for God and can therefore merit favor because of; to the contrary, baptism is Gods work for us. We bring nothing to the table but a need for forgiveness. What about the unbaptized? It is possible for someone to go to heaven without being baptized? Bishop Ware address this: None can be truly a Christian without sharing in the sacraments, just as none can be truly a Christian if he treats the sacraments merely as a mechanical ritualCertainly God is able to save those who have never been baptized. But while God is not bound to these sacraments, we are bound to them. On the one hand, Ware says that baptism is necessary, but on the other hand he warns against viewing baptism mechanically, as if the act itself ensured salvation, with or without faith. Orthodoxy does not teach that unbaptized babies perish. We are bound to use the ordinary means of grace that God has given us. That being said, God is not bound to any specific means, and can save people in whatever way he chooses to. Bishop Ware said: God is able to save those who in this life never belonged to his Church. But looking at the matter from ourside, this does not entitle any of us to say, The Church is unnecessary for

me. Believing that God can save those outside of the Church, Orthodoxy tends to leave somewhat of a door open for the possibility of universal redemption in the end. Bishop Ware at one point implies that even fallen angels may be redeemed, saying, We are not told what plans God has for a possible reconciliation with the noetic realm, or how (if at all) the devil may eventually be redeemed. When put up against Scripture, this is a very unorthodox to say. We are told in Revelation 20, which makes it quite clear that there will be no redemption for the devil; instead the passage says that he will be tormented day and night forever and ever. This comment demonstrates the universalistic tendencies that have long been present in Orthodoxy. Again, while not dogmatically teaching that all will eventually be redeemed, Orthodoxy seems to at least leave the door open to the possibility. This also helps to explain the paradox of Orthodoxy: on one hand the Orthodox Church regards itself as the true Body of Christ and all non-Orthodox Christians as, in some sense, cut off from that Body, yet on the other hand, Orthodoxy never presumes to say who is or isnt a Christian or who will or wont ultimately enjoy heaven. Why the disparity? It seems that Orthodoxy holds onto hope that all people, Christians who are in error as well as people who arent following Christ at all, will (or may) be eventually redeemed. Compatibility: Overall, yes. Of course, many evangelicals reject baptismal regeneration, but that doesnt mean the doctrine, in itself, is un-evangelical. As was said, both Lutherans and Anglicans would have very little, if any, disagreement regarding Orthodoxys view of baptism. Evangelicals from Baptist, Pentecostal, or non-denominational backgrounds would be more likely to object. What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach concerning the Lords Supper? Do Orthodox churches believe the elements of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ? Is an open communion practiced, where all believers, not just members, are invited? Commenting on words of institution (This is my body, This is my blood) spoken by the priest over the Lords Supper, St. Philaret said in the Russian Orthodox Catechism: At the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed into the very Body of Christ and into the very Blood of Christ. The bread and wine is given to all members of the Orthodox Church, including infants, but non-Orthodox Christians arent permitted to participate, as the meal is considered a symbol of complete unity in all matters of the faith. Today the overwhelming majority of evangelicals affirm an open table, meaning all Christians should have freedom to commune together, notwithstanding non-essential doctrinal differences, so closed communion is an anamoly for mostcertainly not allevangelical churches. The Orthodox Church is unique in its insistence that Communion bread be leavened, unlike the

unleavened bread more commonly used in the West. Compatibility: No. The only evangelical church that affirms a physical presence of Christ in the Lords Supper is the Lutheran, and even they have a nuanced view. Overall, evangelical Christianity is known for affirming a spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion, rather than a physical presence. IV. THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Does Orthodoxy teach that the gift of tongues is still available in the church today? If so, is tongues the indispensible sign of having received or been baptized into the Spirit? Orthodoxy is very open to the gifts of the Spirit and doesnt teach that 1st century gifts have ceased. As Orthodoxy historically has been very mystical, in that sense Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism have much in common. That being said, Bishop Ware explains: Most contemporary Orthodox view with deep reserve that part of the Pentecostal Movement which treats tongues as the decisive and indispensible proof that someone is truly a Spirit-bearer. The gift of tongues was, of course, frequently in the Apostolic age; but since the middle of the second century it has been far less common, although it has never entirely disappeared. In any event, St. Paul insists that this is one of the less important of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:5). Unlike historic Pentecostalism, Orthodoxy views tongues as one among many spiritual gifts, and by no means the most important one. On the other hand, Orthodoxy, unlike historic Protestantism, does clearly affirm that the gift of tongues has never entirely ceased, and its still for today. What purposes does the gift serve? Bishop Ware said: When it is genuinely spiritual, speaking with tongues seems to represent an act of letting gothe crucial moment in the breaking down of our sinful self-trust and its replacement by a willingness to allow God to act within us. As with any spiritual gift, Ware warns the gift of tongues could be fraudulently claimed, and so discernment is needed: Often it is not the Spirit of God that is speaking through the tongues, but the all-too-human spirit of auto-suggestion and mass hysteria. There are even occasions when speaking with tongues is a form of demonic possession. Beloved, trust not every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). What is the test that can be used to determine if a spiritual gift is, in fact, from God? One red flag warning is when gifts are sought for their own sake, to bestow a higher spiritual status on the gifted person, or whenever flesh or pride is involved. Ware gives the following advice:

Our participation in the gifts of the Spirit need to be purged of all fantasy and emotional excitement. Gifts that are genuinely spiritual are not to be rejected, but we should never pursue such gifts as an end in themselves. Our aim in the life of prayer is not to gain feelings or sensible experiences, but simply and solely to conform our will to Gods We seek not the gift, but the Giver. Compatibility: Yes and no. This evasive answer is simply a result of the fact that evangelical Christians themselves are by no means agreed on the gifts of the Spirit, regarding it, usually, as a secondary issue. Within evangelical Christianity, one finds Pentecostals who heavily emphasize modern-day speaking in tongues, as well as cessasionists who believe the supernatural gifts ceased after the apostolic age. V. THE CHURCH What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach concerning church government? The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the rule of bishops is the divinely ordained form of church government. The doctrine is that the apostles appointed bishops who would serve as their successors, having to a lesser degree, their authority. They would, in turn, appoint successors, and so on. During the 2nd century, as heresies such as Gnosticism began to pick up momentum, apostolic succession was hailed a crucial litmus test of authenticity for a church. It was in being able to point to the unbroken chain of succession, dating back to the apostles, that a churchs bishop could be considered legitimate, and hence the congregation could be distinguished as orthodox. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that Orthodox bishops trace their bishoprics back to the apostlesthe Patriarch of Constantinople, the most prominent bishop within Orthodoxy, traces his office back to the apostle Andrew, Peters brother. Orthodoxy regards the Episcopal (rule of bishops) form of church government to be the correct form. In order for Holy Communion to be valid, it must be administered by a priest, who was properly ordained by a bishop who can claim apostolic succession. Similarly to Anglicanism, Orthodoxy regards all bishops as possessing equal authority. The Orthodox Church, like the most conservative evangelical churches, does not ordain women to the ministry. Besides the Episcopal form, the two other most prominent forms of church government are Presbyterianism (rule by elders) and Congregationalism (where each congregation rules itself). There is some debate over the differing conceptions of the Greek word presbyter or elder, and the word episcopas, which means Bishop. Whereas Episcopal churches have one bishop presiding over multiple churches, Presbyterian churches have multiple elders presiding over one congregation. In the New Testament, the words are sometimes used interchangeably. Compatibility: Overall, no. With the exception of Anglicanism, evangelicals generally advocate that church government is a secondary issue, having no bearing on the essential being of a church. Evangelicals generally reject the necessity of apostolic

succession, appealing to the fact that no mention is made in Scripture of the apostles appointing successors. Evangelicals emphasize the importance of preaching the same gospel as the apostles preached. Ecclesiological questions aside, those who preach the same gospel are, in the most important sense, the successors of the apostles. What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach about the Church? Specifically, is the church infallible? Which takes precedencethe authority of Scripture or the authority of the church? Are individuals to interpret Scripture themselves, or is this a responsibility belonging only to the Church? What is the role of sacred tradition in the Church? Bishop Ware quotes The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: God demands nothing from Christians except that they shall hearken to the Holy Scriptures, and carry into effect the things that are said in them. Bishop Ware is quick to remind readers, though, that the Desert Father elsewhere insist on the importance spiritual fathers guiding us, lest we misunderstand Scripture. Though Orthodoxy, like evangelical Christianity, agrees that the Scriptures are Gods Word and, as such, contain all things necessary for life and godliness, there is caution given to the individual that Scripture must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Church tradition. Bishop Ware adds: We read [Scripture] as members of the Church, in communion with all the other members throughout the ages. The final criterion for our interpretation of Scripture is the mind of the Church. And this means keeping constantly in view how the meaning of Scripture is explained and applied in Holy Tradition. As much as some evangelical churches emphasize church tradition, they would always regard tradition as fallible, a helpful guide, but not something on par with Scripture, which alone is infallible. In other words, whereas Orthodoxy believes in Tradition (with a capitol T) evangelicals believe in tradition (lowercase t). Orthodoxy affirms that Christians can read Scripture on their own, but they must never feel liberty to interpret it privately, if their conclusions arent sanctioned by the historic reading of the Church. St. Philaret, in the Russian Orthodox Catechism, said that the Church shall never apostasize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error. The Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith is more explicit: We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the church, preserves her from all error. But havent high-ranking bishops within Orthodoxy been deposed for preaching heresy? Wasnt Nestorius, the famous heretic, himself Patriarch of Constantinople (the most

prestigious position within the Orthodox hierarchy)? Yes, but the Orthodox Church points out that whenever heresy arises, the Church as a whole rises up and addresses it. The means by which this is done is through an ecumenical council. The Orthodox Church recognizes as having been truly ecumenical the seven councils held from 325 A.D to 787 A.D., and they regard these councils to have been infallible. Compatibility: Overall, no. The importance of tradition is greater in some evangelical churches, lesser in others. All would agree thougheven the most confessionalin assigning less prominence and authority to tradition than Orthodoxy does. All evangelical Christians agree, with varying degrees of emphasis, on the sufficiency and intelligibility of Scripture, such that the average reader could understand the main message of Scripture without the need of assistance from any outside source (other than the Holy Spirit). VI. HUMAN FREEDOM AND GODS SOVEREIGNTY What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach about the Fall of Man into sin? Does man contribute anything toward his conversion, or has the Fall rendered this impossible? The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine of Original Sin, as it was popularly expounded by St. Augustine, arguing that this teaching was based on Jeromes mistranslation of the Greek of Romans 5 into Latin. Whereas we are born effected by the sin of the world and the overall consequences of entering into a fallen world, we are not born with Adams sin charged to us. Though Gods image in us has been damaged because of the Fall, it hasnt impaired us nearly to the extent that Reformed Christians would argue for. Man retains a free will and is capable of cooperating with or rejecting Gods grace. Consider Bishop Wares comment: Without Gods grace, we can do nothing; but without our voluntary cooperation God will do nothing Our salvation results from the convergence of two factors, unequal in value, yet both indispensible: divine initiative and human response. What God does is incomparably more important but mans participation is also required. Compatibility: No. Orthodoxy uses the term synergism to describe salvationa word which implies that God and man are working together. Evangelical Christianity generally prefers the term monergism, which implies that God is solely responsible. Some evangelicals, such asWesleyans, emphasize cooperation more than other evangelicals, but there remains a disconnect between evangelicals and Orthodoxy. What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach about the doctrine of predestination and election? Regarding predestination, Orthodoxy believes that God has made a general decree that all who believe in Christ should be elected to salvation, but this doesnt mean that some are

chosen for life, while others are not. The focus of predestination is on Christ, not on individualsGod predestined and foreordained from all eternity that Christ would die on the cross. All who believe this are saved. St. Philaret, in the Russian Orthodox Catechism, quotes the Eastern Patriarchs as saying: As God foresaw that some would use well their free will, but others ill, he accordingly predestined the former to glory, while the latter he condemned. The difference, then, between the elect and the non-elect is the human decision, which God doesnt decree, but simply foreknows. Cooperation is required throughout, and even true believers today may fall away and not enjoy heaven. Compatibility: Yes and no. Again, the evasiveness of the answer is simply due to the fact that evangelical Christians have varying views on these issues. Many evangelicals today would heartily affirm the foreknowledge view, though others wouldnt. VII. PROPHECY AND THE END-TIMES What does Eastern Orthodoxy teach about the second coming of Christ? Do Orthodox Christians believe in the rapture? What does Orthodoxy teach regarding the Millennium? What about the nation of Israel, and the relationship between Israel and the Church? Orthodox Christians, along with all other believers, affirm that Christ will visibly, physically return to this earth. Bishop Ware summarized the Orthodox doctrine as consisting of the following points: A. We are taught to expect disasters in the world of nature, increasingly destructive warfare between men, bewilderment and apostasy among those who call themselves Christians. B. This period of tribulation will culminate with the appearance of the man of sin or Antichrist, who will be a genuine man, in whom all the forces of evil will be concentrated and who, for a time, will hold all the world under his sway. C. The brief reign of Antichrist will be abruptly terminated by the Second Coming of the Lord, this time not in a hidden way, as at his birth in Bethlehem, but sitting on the right hand of power, and drawing near upon the clouds of heaven. So the course of history will be brought to a sudden and dramatic end, through a direct intervention from the divine realm. Unlike post-millennialism, which believes that the world will become more and more Christianized before the end, Orthodoxy expects increasing evil both in the world and in the church before the end. Also, unlike some churches, which interpret Revelation as having been mostly if not totally fulfilled already, Orthodoxy expects a yet future antichrist

to arrive on the scene shortly before the end (some have argued that the beast was likely a first century Roman emperor). Orthodoxy also believes antichrist will be an actual person, not an institution (some have thought it would be a political system or even a false religious system). Along with all Scripture-affirming churches throughout the ages, Orthodoxy believes the timing of Christs coming is a complete secret that cannot be known. Orthodox catechisms appear to take no particular stance one way or the other regarding whether or not Israel (the Jewish people) will be converted to Jesus before the end. It should be noted that the sharp distinction made between the church and Israel, which is so prevalent in churches that teach a pre-tribulation rapture of the church years before the Second Coming, is largely a modern innovation and, as such, has no precedent in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy does not regard the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4) as an even distinct from the Second Comingthey are considered to be one and the same event. Furthermore, Orthodoxys view of the millennium may be best described as A-millennial. Theres no doctrine that the Second Coming will usher in an earthly, 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth, after which the end will come (pre-millennialism). Instead, the Second Coming is believed to be the final event which will usher in the end itself. Compatibility: Yes and no. In some evangelical circles, affirming a particular view of the end-times is of paramount importance and those who questioned the Scriptural legitimacy of the pre-tribulation rapture and 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth would be viewed with suspicion. However, historically, evangelical Christianity wouldve affirmed roughly the same view as Orthodoxy. The most important thing believing in a physical return of Christ to earth, which will ultimately usher in new heavens and a new earthis shared in common by both churches.