Orthodox Converts: Tradition over Innovation

In American Orthodoxy over the last several decades, a contentious issue has emerged regarding the reception of converts from other Christian communions into the Orthodox Church.

Some individuals advocate for the baptism of virtually every Christian, while the majority of Orthodox Christians in America adhere to the traditional belief and practice upheld by nearly all Orthodox jurisdictions worldwide. This practice has deep historical roots, dating back to the earliest centuries of the Church. The issue was notably settled in the third century during the debates between Sts. Stephen and Cyprian. It was further solidified when the phrase “I believe in one baptism” was added to the Creed in the fourth century and confirmed as a settled issue by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century in his Commonotorium.

The theological innovation advocating for the baptism of nearly all Christians entering Orthodoxy is a revival of St. Cyprian’s error, which the Church had previously rejected. Although this error faded for a time, it was later revived by the Donatists. In early modern times, it resurfaced within the Orthodox Catholic Church, particularly through the Greek Church during the 1756 Council of Constantinople, and was unfortunately popularized in The Rudder. However, this new practice within the Greek Church did not endure for long; it lasted less than a century and is now followed only by some of the monasteries on Mount Athos and, since the early 1970s, by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).

The Church’s established guidelines for the reception of converts, as prescribed in the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, outline a threefold manner of reception:

1. For non-Christians and those who claim to be Christians but reject the doctrine of the Trinity (such as the Gnostics and Eunomians), the proper mode of reception is through baptism, regardless of any prior “baptism” they may have received.

2. For non-Orthodox Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (even if their understanding of the Trinity contains some errors, like that of the Arians), the appropriate mode of reception is chrismation. Their baptism is accepted as valid.

3. For non-Orthodox Christians who were baptized in the name of the Trinity but whose primary error lies in Christology (such as the Non-Chalcedonians and Nestorians), and who have been chrismated within their own confession, the proper mode of reception involves a renunciation of their error and the reception of Holy Communion. No re-baptism, no re-chrismation.

While there is substantial information supporting the Church’s traditional position on the reception of converts, the online voices promoting a new theology of sacramental rigorism—believing it to be the historical position—are disproportionately represented compared to their actual numbers within the Orthodox Church.

For further reading, I recommend the post from Ancient Insights entitled “Why I Don’t Support Re-Baptism.”

https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2021/02/04/why-i-dont-support-re-baptism/

Comments

comments