What do Baptists eat? Many are unaware of the fact that Baptists are not Protestants.

In the practice of church life, Baptists adhere to the principle of universal priesthood, as well as the independence and independence of each individual church community. The presbyter (pastor) of the community does not have absolute power, the most important issues are resolved at church councils, general meetings of believers. → Read more.

Roy Branson. Are Baptists Protestants? ?
________________________________________ ________

Foreword : About the research of Dr. Roy Branson

First of all, it is necessary to re-emphasize the point of the article, which the biased reader, I am sure, will remain "unnoticed": Dr. Branson's research is not aimed at showing the Baptists as the "most correct" Christians. It is not necessary. This study is an attempt to satisfy our inner need to understand who we are, to more accurately and reliably determine our place in the history of Christianity. And if at the same time someone is imbued not with pride, no, but with deep respect for our predecessors, whose trace of blood leads directly to the redeeming Blood of the Savior, then believers, I think, have a right to this respect.
There are serious objections to the separation of Baptism into a separate trend in Christianity, going back to its origins. In the fundamental work "The History of Religion in Ukraine, vol. 5" (Kyiv, 2002, p. 281), in the section "The Emergence of Baptism as a Separate Religious Movement" it is said that this issue is highly controversial and debatable, and further: "... until the end of the 16th century, we can only talk about the predecessors of Baptism, and not about Baptism in the modern understanding of it as a religious phenomenon with specific views inherent in it, although the faith and principles of Baptism, according to its followers, naturally follow from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles, that is, it is the successor of the earliest forms of Christianity.”
There is no doubt that the organization of the Baptist church took shape during the Reformation. But the fact that the origins of Baptism go back to the time of Jesus Christ is also quite convincing, although very schematically shown by the author of the article presented to the reader. Baptism simply could not have existed before the Reformation as an independent movement; it is not a dotted line with large gaps, but a solid, continuous line along the entire historical path of Christianity. The spiritual affinity of modern Baptists with various groups that existed at different periods of the past two thousand years is all too obvious.

Suffice it to recall the medieval Waldensians - a current that arose in the 11th century in the south of France. The merchant Pyotr Valdo read the Gospel, which in those days was not possible for everyone, gave away his property and began to preach the Good News. His followers introduced the principle of the election of the priesthood, abandoned rites that contradicted the Bible, and strove to confess the Gospel in life. I would like to call them the Baptists of the 11th century. There are a lot of things that bring us together, but make us related to them. They were brutally persecuted and destroyed, but their groups have survived to this day. While before the beginning of the Reformation there were still more than three centuries.
And similar examples can be given in relation to different historical periods. Therefore, Baptism does not fit well into the framework of Protestantism, as it were, goes beyond them. Moreover, the Baptists were persecuted by the Protestant churches. That is why this “controversial, debatable question” arises about the special place of Baptism in the history of Christianity. Because Baptism does not lay claim to this place purely theoretically, thanks to the speculative constructions of historians, but actually occupies it. I even dare to say that it was not the Reformation that led to the emergence of Baptism as one of its trends, but vice versa: always, from the beginning, the spirit of the Evangelical faith that lived among Christians, the Spirit of Truth, eventually awakened the Reformation.
Through all the centuries, the Baptists, no matter what names history gave them and no matter how dearly they had to pay, carried the banner of the gospel faith, earning with their blood the freedom to follow Christ, and only Him. The Reformation only allowed the Baptists to take shape organizationally into an earthly, visible church, which did not become less persecuted for this.
Baptist is not a shameful nickname for a sectarian. This name represents fidelity to the Lord, the Gospel. Behind it is hidden a glorious, but to this day little studied history of persecuted Christianity. Baptists were drowned in rivers, burned at the stake, beheaded on chopping blocks, tortured and shot in Stalin's dungeons, but they could not be destroyed. Therefore, it does not befit us to shamefacedly hide behind our own various names of churches, to change signboards, where instead of the “House of Prayer of Evangelical Christian Baptists” one can often read the faceless “Church of Christians” and the like. The good name of the Baptist must be restored, not only in name, but in life. At the same time, we do not claim exclusivity, but our place, paid for by the blood of our brothers and sisters in faith, in the history of Christianity and in society.
The modern Baptist is a person who is baptized into our Lord Jesus Christ by his own personal faith. Our Lord, Savior is one for all His followers, one Lord; it is also, fundamentally, the same faith that all the Christians of the world have, one faith; one and the same baptism, one baptism - in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism" - Eph. 4:5).
But it is better to read this verse in context: “There is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all of us” (Eph. 4:4-6). If we recall that the apostle Paul explained in his letter above that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Lord Himself is the head of the Church (1:22-23), then it becomes clear: Paul reminds believers of their unity in the Lord, and does not speak about single baptism. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).
Therefore, those who say that Baptists sin by rebaptizing people are cunning. This is not a rebaptism, but the fulfillment of God's ordinance, the gospel - to be baptized by faith, to go from repentance to baptism ("Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" - Acts 2:38 ), and not vice versa.
An example of re-baptism is found in the 19th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in the first five verses, where Paul, upon arriving in Corinth, found that the baptism of local believers was not enough. They had previously received the baptism of repentance from John the Baptist, but this was before the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When Paul explained their position to them, “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5), that is, a second time. Shouldn't we consider the infant baptism practiced today to be as inadequate as the first Corinthian baptism? Undoubtedly, and even more so.
Let us return, however, to the study of Dr. Roy Branson. The author raises a legitimate question: the Lord said that He would create His Church and even the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That is, it has been continuously existing for the last two thousand years. Who is worthy to represent it in the visible world? Historical churches or those whom they persecuted as heretics and sectarians, who, by their living confession of faith in the Lord, following the Gospel, were often much closer to the Savior than their persecutors?.. The answer is obvious. After all, Jesus Christ was also persecuted, and with his handful of disciples, against the backdrop of the power and splendor of the then-existing priesthood, he looked in their eyes a fanatical sectarian.
The article makes us think about whose side we are on: the persecutors or the persecuted, do we go up to the fire or rush to it with an armful of firewood, in our simplicity thinking that by doing so we are serving God? It helps to understand that the Church, which the Lord created, does not fit into the framework of the churches existing on earth, but unites in the Body of Jesus Christ all those saved by Him for eternal life, which are in any Christian church. This also must not be forgotten when we try to trace the path of Truth on earth by the shed blood. And who knows, maybe the old woman, who put firewood on the fire of Jan Hus, will meet him in the Kingdom of a loving Father...

P. Garaja

A Brief History of the Baptist Church FROM THE TIME OF JESUS ​​CHRIST TO PRESENT

It is not my job to prove that only the Baptist churches are the most correct. There are many wonderful churches that are true to the Word of God and the Gospel that are not Baptist. Unfortunately, there are "Baptist" churches that are not worthy of the name.
We will talk about the fact that Baptism is the oldest branch of Christianity. He zealously maintained the gospel faith through centuries of persecution and intolerance.
Unfortunately, Many people are unaware of the fact that Baptists are not Protestants. especially the Catholics. They have never been part of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore do not belong to any of the groups that broke away from Catholicism in the wake of protest against it.
The beginning of the Catholic Church should be attributed to the period of the reign of Emperor Constantine, defining the initial date as 313, when Christianity became the state religion. But this church was finally formed only in 600-700 years of the new chronology. Around 1530, Luther founded the Lutheran Church.
In 1535, King Henry of England founded the Anglican Church. The Episcopal Church is the American counterpart of the English Church and differs from the latter only in that it does not enjoy the support of the state.
In 1541, John Calvin founded the Presbyterian Church. 1602 is considered the founding date of the Congregational Church. In 1785 the Wesleys founded the Methodic Church.
During the 19th century, several different currents emerged. These include: Christ Church and its offshoots founded by Alexander Campbell; Mormons (founder Joseph Smith); Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles T. Russell); Seventh-day Adventists (William Miller and Ellen J. White); Christian scientists (Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy - that's right!). As well as others that arose as a result of the split of these groups.
Here is what Christ said about His Church: “And on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). “I have opened the door before you, and no one can close it; you have not much strength” (Rev. 3:8). The promise is that Christ guarantees that His churches will exist at all times as the true churches of the New Testament.
At the same time, undeniable historical facts show that none of the churches that exist today can be traced back to the time of Jesus Christ. Can the Baptist Church do it?

Let's take a look at what historians have said over the centuries.

Sir Isaac Newton: "The Baptists are the only known Christian church that has never been associated with Rome."
Mosheim: “Before the advent of Luther and Calvin, there were secret people in almost all the countries of Europe who unwaveringly adhered to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists” (Mosheim was a Lutheran).
Catholic Cardinal Hosius, 1560: “If the truth of religion were determined by the readiness and cheerfulness which a member of any sect shows in suffering, then it must be admitted that no one but the Anabaptists had such firm and true convictions and views. No one in the last 1200 years has been subjected to such cruel and widespread punishments as these people” (the statement refers to the history of the Baptists in the 300s).
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: “Baptists can be considered the only Christian community that has existed since the time of the apostles and has preserved the gospel teaching in purity for centuries.”
Edinburgh Presbyterian Encyclopedia: “…Baptists are the same Christian sectarians who used to be called Anabaptists. ...re-baptism is their main principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day” (Tertullian was born 50 years after the death of the Apostle John).
It would be possible to continue. But even this is enough to see that it is a historically recognized, clear and undeniable fact that the Baptists go back directly to the time of Jesus Christ. Equally, it cannot be doubted that all other groups go back to certain starting dates, which are far from the day when Jesus Christ said that His Church would always exist!

Let's take a look at the history of the Baptists through the ages . After all, the mere fact that the history of the Baptist Church dates back to the time of Jesus Christ is not enough.

For a church in any age to be called the true church of the New Testament, it must meet important standards. Naturally, during the Middle Ages, the Baptists, who were severely persecuted, who had almost no Bibles, from time to time deviated from the Holy Scriptures in their practice. And although the knowledge of the Bible was almost entirely based on secondary sources, however, in the main they managed to remain faithful to the Gospel. Here are some of the important doctrines that Baptists have held from the time of Jesus Christ to the present day. , Lexington, 1965).

Basic Doctrines :

1. Christ is the founder, the only head and legislator of the churches.
2. Two and only two sacraments. Baptism and communion, which are symbolic and memorial and do not have the power of saving grace.
3. Impeccable democratic government.
4. The Bible as the main authoritative source.
5. Salvation is by grace only, not by works.
6. The church is made up of only born again believers who have been baptized according to the gospel.
7. Baptism follows salvation and is accomplished by immersion only.
8. Churches are absolutely self-sufficient and independent.
9. Complete separation of church and state.
10. Absolute religious freedom in everything.

Periodization of the Baptist Church

History has given many names to those who uncompromisingly followed these great doctrines during the last 1900 years. All of them together were called "Anabaptists", until 1600, after which the prefix "ana" gradually disappeared, and the name "Baptists" was assigned to them.

Until 599. Errors began to creep into the various churches almost immediately after the founding of Christianity. In the early fourth century, Constantine and Theodosius forced the Roman Empire to adopt Christianity as the state religion. Jesus Christ most definitely taught that the Church should remain independent of the state, and the New Testament churches adhered to this. Nevertheless, the empire soon gained complete control over the churches and began to appoint priests for them. Church administration grew so large that it became a parallel structure of the Roman government. The emperor was the head of the empire, and the bishop was the head of a large group of churches. That's how dad's idea came about.

Since everyone was now forced to join the state church, it is safe to say that the vast majority of church members were not saved. They brought with them from paganism the manner of worship, festivals, clothing, and much more. What was unacceptable to the gospel became acceptable in the state religion. Instead of each church deciding how to worship, the state and the growing church hierarchy dictated, and the churches were forced to obey. Here are the main deviations that have become typical of state Christianity:

1. Transition from democratic to hierarchical government.
2. Transition from salvation by grace to salvation by baptism.
3. Infant baptism has replaced believer baptism.
4. Legalized infant baptism.
5. Merging church and state.
6. Compulsory church membership.
7. Destruction of all religious freedom.
8. Severe persecution of all dissenters.

The Bible-faithful churches were scattered around the world due to persecution from the growing Catholic Church. There were many faithful churches that, despite the fact that their believers were persecuted, killed, tortured, forced to hide in forests, mountains, caves, live in constant fear for their lives and the lives of their children, refused to deviate from the Bible. The authorities took away the name “Christians” from them and called them differently: “Montanists”, “Tertullians”, “Innovationists”, “Paterians”, etc., usually after the names of prominent leaders in various localities. They strictly adhered to the great doctrines we have spoken of and rebaptized all new converts from the state churches. Thus they became known as ANABAPTISTS or REBAPTISTS. Hundreds of thousands of them died for their beliefs.

But there were still plenty of them everywhere. Nothing could and cannot destroy the Church of the Living God. Their blood-marked paths can be found throughout the world during this period, especially in England, Wales, Africa, Armenia and Bulgaria.

During this period, the Roman Church convened the first four Ecumenical Councils. On the fourth, at Cholcedon, in 451 AD. e., the worship of Mary as the queen of heaven was accepted. Encountered at first with strong resistance, this doctrine soon became and to this day remains one of the main Catholics. Mary took the place of the new mediator between man and God (see 1 Timothy 2:5).

600 - 1399 years. Through the ecumenical councils and in other ways, various errors have been introduced into the Catholic Church.

787 - the worship of icons and the veneration of saints began. Then came the doctrine that "outside the church there is no salvation." The Doctrine of Indulgences appeared. For centuries this doctrine has enriched the treasury of the Catholic Church. In short, it teaches that by paying a certain price or meeting certain requirements, one can receive the absolution of some sin or sins. This indulgence could be bought for the remission of past or future sins, as well as for the dead. This entailed the adoption of yet another non-evangelical doctrine, that of purgatory.

Purgatory is supposedly an intermediate place between heaven and hell, where everyone must stop to be cleansed of sins. In itself, the cleansing is absolutely terrible, but those who are loved by the dead can avoid it if the living go to the Catholic Church and buy indulgences for them. At the same time, it was believed that all the good deeds of Jesus Christ and all the saints go to a heavenly credit account. Only the Catholic Church has access to this loan, and can withdraw the right amount of virtue as needed to pay for someone's sin. The Church, of course, could charge as much as she liked for this compensatory virtue. Incredible?! Yes! But it is an undeniable story, and a core part of Catholic doctrine.

In 1123 priests were forbidden to marry. Around 1175 another new doctrine appeared. It says that the bread and wine of the sacrament becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Around the same time, the doctrine of confession of sins before a priest appeared. In 1229, it was decreed that only priests and high officials could have and read the Bible.

What happened during these years with the Baptists? They were constantly pursued. If manuscripts were found, then everything was burned. Therefore, we have little information about them. They were known as Paulicians, Arnoldists, Waldensians, Henricians, Albigensians, etc., and collectively as Anabaptists. They were poisoned and killed 40 thousand people a year.

Although each large group of believers had only minor portions of the Bible, they mostly faithfully followed the gospel teaching and previously established doctrines. Despite the persecution and destruction, their number grew throughout the world.

1400-1699 years. These were the days of upheavals, revolutions and the Reformation. We have already spoken of the churches that departed from Rome during this period. These are the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal or Anglican churches. However, all of them, as well as later ones, failed to fully return to New Testament purity. Here are some of the fatal errors they have kept.

1. Hierarchical church self-government.
2. Union of church and state.
3. Baptism by sprinkling or dousing.
4. Infant baptism.

Different churches have applied the last two points in different ways, but some have given baptism the power of saving grace. Moreover, they all began to persecute one another, and by common consent they all persecuted the Baptists, who had often before rendered them valuable assistance in their effort to throw off the yoke of Catholicism. Now it turned out that instead of one church that persecuted the Baptists, they were hounded and killed by four state churches. It must be remembered, however, that in spite of all this, at no time in history have the Baptists themselves persecuted anyone.

The persecution of the Baptists was terrible. This period of history is marked by grim facts: along a section of the road more than 45 kilometers long, pointed poles stood every meter, and on each was the head of a murdered Baptist. This was done by those who called themselves followers of Christ.

In 1648, the Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans made the Peace of Westphalia, determined to stop persecuting each other, because in their position as state religions, war between them meant war between peoples. The Baptists, however, were independent of the state, so all three continued to persecute them.

Here it is appropriate to ask the question: maybe the Baptists simply did not have the opportunity to give their religion the status of a state religion, and if they found themselves in such a role, they would behave in exactly the same way? Nothing happened. It turns out that they more than once had the opportunity to occupy a dominant position in the state, but did not.

Around this time, the king of the Netherlands, which was then a large and powerful country, wanted to establish a state religion. He appointed a commission to find out which of the existing Christian groups could most rightly be called New Testament. The commission concluded that the Baptist church could be considered truly New Testament. Then he proposed to make the Baptist church state, but its representatives politely but firmly refused this proposal, as contrary to their principles.

1700 - our days. It was during this period that many groups appeared, some of which we mentioned earlier. During colonial times, persecuted Christians who fled from Europe settled in different parts of America. But when they arrived across the ocean and established their churches, the Congregationalists and Presbyterians began to persecute other believers. Those who had been persecuted at home now used the same methods of persecution against Baptists in America.

Persecuted throughout Europe, the Baptists did not find peace in the New World either. Even today, when religious freedoms do exist in America, Baptists are slandered. As for other countries, in many of them Baptists are still persecuted and often killed. According to biblical prophecy, especially the book of Revelation, the day will come when Baptists will be killed, poisoned, persecuted from one end of the Earth to the other. They are promised miraculous deliverance on this day. But ... this is the subject of another conversation.

Baptists and the separation of church and state

From the time of Constantine, there was no concept of separation of church and state until the Baptists began to fight for it and made the application of this principle in the United States. As we have already seen, in almost all countries there is a religion that is supported by the state, however, the Baptists have always refused to accept state support. And we can say with confidence that there will always be those who will remain faithful to the Word of God and will rely on Christ in everything.
The New Testament churches adamantly maintained their separation from the civil government. They obeyed the laws of their state, but did not ask for or accept any support or help from the state. There is only one way for the churches of Jesus Christ to keep going, and that is biblical: tithing and offerings. All power and all wealth belongs to our Lord. His churches do not need to seek the support of the world. God's work must be supported by God's people. When we believe, God does amazing, wonderful things, pouring out the riches of His glory upon us.
Let us turn to the gospel: although many tried to involve Jesus Christ in politics and worldly affairs, He firmly refused to take part in this. He was very clear about the relationship between church and state when asked if taxes were to be paid to Rome: “Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, and what is God's to God” (Matt. 22:21).
Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists at one time or another demanded the support of the state. In different countries, they, especially Catholics, have the status of a state church and seek support from the state in any available form. To this day, Catholics insist that the Catholic Church be universally the only state church. The Baptists have always resisted this, refused such offers, and those who are truly Baptists will continue to do so until Jesus comes again.

Conclusion

From the time of Jesus Christ to the present day, there have always been churches that have adhered to the great doctrines discussed above. Despite the fact that millions of their adherents were killed, the number of these churches is constantly increasing. Faithful to the Word of God, standing for the separation of church and state and for religious freedom for all, to this day they adhere exclusively to New Testament forms of worship and activity.

Roy Branson.

Baptists are a sect of peculiarly lost people, which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ and the salvation of God. They, like all sectarians and heretics, study the Bible in a wrong, false and erroneous way. To turn to them and communicate with them is a sin that causes severe harm to the soul. So it is considered in Orthodoxy. Why? Let's try to answer this question.

The Baptists are a Protestant sect that appeared in 1633 in England. Initially, its representatives were called "brothers", then "baptized Christians" or "Baptists" (Baptisto from Greek means I immerse), sometimes "Catabaptists". The head of the sect, at its inception and initial formation, was John Smith, and in North America, where a significant part of the followers of this sect soon moved, was Roger William. But here and there the heretics soon divided into two, and then into several factions. The process of this division continues to this day, due to the extreme individualism of the sect, which does not tolerate either obligatory symbols and symbolic books, or administrative guardianship. The only symbol recognized by all Baptists is the apostolic symbol.

The main points of their teaching are the recognition of Holy Scripture as the only source of doctrine and the rejection of the baptism of children; instead of baptizing children, their blessing is practiced. Baptism, according to the teachings of the Baptists, is valid only after the awakening of personal faith, and without it it is unthinkable, has no power. Hence baptism, according to their teaching, is only an external sign of the confession of a person already “inwardly converted” to God, and in the action of baptism its divine side is completely removed, the participation of God in the sacrament is eliminated, and the sacrament itself is reduced to the category of simple human actions. The general character of their discipline is Calvinistic.

According to the structure and management, they are divided into separate independent communities, or congregations (hence their other name - congregationalists); moral restraint is placed above teaching. The principle of unconditional freedom of conscience is the basis of all their doctrine and structure. In addition to the sacrament of baptism, they also recognize communion. Although marriage is not recognized as a sacrament, its blessing is considered necessary and, moreover, through the presbyters or in general the officials of the community. The moral requirements of the members are strict. The model for the community as a whole is the apostolic church. Forms of disciplinary punishment: public exhortation and excommunication from church communion. The mysticism of the sect is expressed in the predominance of feeling over reason in the matter of faith; extreme liberalism prevails in matters of dogma. Baptism is internally homogeneous.

At the heart of his teaching is the teaching of Luther and Calvin about predestination. Baptism differs from pure Lutheranism in its consistent and unconditional implementation of the basic provisions of Lutheranism about the Church, on Holy Scripture and on salvation, as well as hostility towards Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church, and an even greater inclination towards Judaism and anarchy than in Lutheranism.

They lack a clear teaching about the Church. They deny the Church and the church hierarchy, making themselves guilty of this judgment of God: Mt.18:17 if he does not listen to them, tell the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you, like a pagan and a publican.

So, historians attribute the emergence of Baptism to the beginning of the 17th century. At this time, part of the radical wing of the Puritans, representatives of English Calvinism, came to the conclusion that infant baptism "does not correspond" to the New Testament and therefore it is necessary to be baptized at a conscious age. The head of this community, John Smith, baptized himself (by pouring water on his forehead), and then his supporters. It is curious that Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist community in the United States, also baptized himself (although, according to another version, he was first baptized by a member of the community who was not baptized, obviously, himself, and only then Williams baptized everyone else). These facts can be used to argue with Baptists - is it possible to justify self-baptism with the Bible? In this regard, you can also use the fact that the most popular Baptist preacher of the 20th century, the American Billy Graham, was baptized three times! First he was baptized as a child in the Presbyterian Church, then Baptist as an adult, but then he became a member of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, and according to the rules of this denomination, even those who were baptized in other Baptist groups are baptized. Ask the Baptists to clarify whether the Bible justifies baptizing the same person three times? Let's say childhood baptism is not valid for Baptists, but Graham was consciously baptized twice in different Baptist groups! At first, Baptism was not very popular, since the Protestant world was dominated by representatives of "liturgical Protestantism" - Lutherans and Calvinists. In fact, Baptism was a radical wing of Calvinism, and on most fundamental issues adhered to strict Calvinist positions. For example, they adhered to the doctrine of double predestination - the dogma that even before the creation of the world, for no reason, God decided to save some people and send others to hell. Baptists appear in our country at the end of the 19th century and are often associated with the activities of foreign missionaries.

The first surge in the popularity of Baptism falls on the years of Soviet power - 1917-1927, which the Baptists themselves call the "golden decade". At that time, the Soviet authorities did their best to destroy Orthodoxy, but Baptism was treated noticeably more liberally, since it was considered to have suffered from the "tsarist regime." However, since the end of the 1920s, persecution of the Baptists also began. The next burst of Baptist activity in our country took place in the late 80s and early 90s. The Protestant missionary expansion of the 1990s increased the number of Baptists in our country by several times.

Controversy with the Baptists

Baptists, like other neo-Protestants (Adventists and Pentecostals), like to emphasize their own religiosity and spirituality, in contrast to the Orthodox, who, in their opinion, for the most part are unbelievers and generally lost sinners. Here it is immediately necessary to make a reservation that a specific situation has developed in our country in the post-Soviet period, when the vast majority of people call themselves Orthodox, but in reality they are not, so it is completely incorrect to judge Orthodoxy by them. Any religion should be judged by the people who actually profess it. Yes, the Orthodox have many sins, and you can’t help but see this, but we don’t propose to judge Baptism by pop singers, alcoholic Britney Spears and drug addict Whitney Houston, or by presidents, adulterer Bill Clinton, who actively lobbied for gay rights, or Harry Truman, who ordered the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which immediately killed about 200,000 people. But all these people were brought up in the Baptist spirit and never (at least publicly) renounced their faith. So let's compare those who are considered a model of piety in one or another confession.

Note that Baptists, like American evangelicals in general, read several chapters of the Bible daily, and usually know at least several hundred verses by heart. Therefore, the Orthodox should not yield to them in this. Here it is worth recognizing that reading the Holy Scriptures in the Orthodox environment, alas, is often not a daily activity - although this is not prohibited by the Church, but, on the contrary, is approved by it. Of course, for the Orthodox, the interpretation of Scripture is mediated by Tradition, and the Baptists believe that they interpret the Bible directly, and in this case there is a reason to talk about the status of Scripture in Orthodoxy and neo-Protestantism. Baptists often say that one Bible is enough for salvation - in that case, ask them how this is justified by the Bible itself? The words of Christ, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,” which Baptists usually cite as evidence, do not prove anything; it is impossible to unmistakably extract the thesis “Scripture alone” from them.

After all, the Baptists did not take their interpretations directly from the Bible, Jesus did not appear face to face to each of them, and did not dictate which interpretation of Scripture is true. Baptists borrowed their interpretations from the pastor's sermons, certain books of their own tradition, as well as from their own experience and the experience of their fellow believers. If we go to any Baptist bookstore, then most of the books there will not be editions of the Holy Scriptures, but books reflecting the spiritual experience of American evangelicals, or their Russian counterparts (the latter, however, are much less numerous). Consequently, the Baptists also have their own sacred tradition, only it does not cover the experience of the Church over 2000 years, but the experience of radical Protestants of the last 400 years. Thus, the difference between Orthodoxy and Baptism is not the difference between Tradition and Scripture, but the difference between Tradition and Tradition.

As a rule, Baptists agree that they have tradition, but at the same time they say: but the Scriptures are more important than tradition. It all depends on what you mean by tradition. Of course, the Orthodox do not equate the status of the books of Scripture with, for example, the status of the works of the Fathers of the Church. The Bible, as the word of God, is infallible. However, for the Orthodox, Scripture is part of the Tradition, i.e. continuous church experience of communion with God. The Church's communion with God existed even when there were no books of Scripture. But even now, when there are books of Scripture, communion with God exists not only on the pages of the Bible, it is characteristic of the Church everywhere and always. Otherwise, where would the Scripture itself and its true interpretations come from? Baptists often say that the Church is not needed for salvation - just one Scripture is enough, which allegedly gave birth to the Church. But who created Scripture? Obviously members of the Church. Ask Baptists: How do we know to include in the Bible exactly the books that are included in it today? Why do the Orthodox include 77 books and the Baptists 66?

Did Christ or the apostles say something about this? No. We will not see any list of canonical or non-canonical books in the Bible itself. Some books of the Bible are not cited elsewhere in the Bible, or the Name of God is never mentioned (eg Song of Songs). What are the rational criteria for recognizing certain books as biblical? It is clear that there are no such criteria - the criterion here is only in the inspiration of the Church of Christ. Similarly, Baptists can be shown that all their external criteria for the correct interpretation of the Bible are easily destroyed: for example, the principle that the darker passages of the Bible are interpreted with the help of "clearer ones." But who will decide which parts of the Bible are clear and which are not? Different confessions deal with this issue in different ways: for Catholics it is obvious that the Bible speaks of purgatory, for Calvinists it is clear that salvation cannot be lost, and for Pentecostals it is beyond doubt that the Bible "permits" speaking in tongues. After all, neither the prophets, nor Christ, nor the apostles said which fragments of the Bible are "clear" and which are "dark" - it all depends on the subjective choice of one or another Protestant denomination. This means that the true interpretation of the Bible is not ensured by the observance of certain logical rules - the grace poured out by God through the Church is necessary.

Otherwise, you will end up with a “chaos of interpretations” that we observe in Protestant confessions. Ask your interlocutor - where does this chaos of opinion come from, and often on very important issues? This only demonstrates that quotations from the Bible by themselves do not prove anything - in support of many, even completely opposite positions, fragments from the books of Holy Scripture can be cited. And vice versa, the same verse can be interpreted in the exact opposite way, for example, the words of Christ “let the children come to me” for the Orthodox serve as an argument in favor of child baptism, i.e. children are not strangers to the work of grace, and for Baptists it is an argument that children without baptism are not strangers to God, because they have a different view of the meaning of baptism. Of course, the Orthodox should know those quotations from the Bible that are cited in defense of the Orthodox teaching (they can easily be learned from books like the "Anti-Sectarian Catechism" by Priest Nikolai Varzhansky), but it should be remembered that these quotations as such will not be so conclusive for Baptists. At best, they will convince your opponent that you are as familiar with the Bible as he is.

It must be borne in mind that, despite a good knowledge of the biblical text, the vast majority of Baptists have a poor idea of ​​the history of the Church, or even, for example, the history of the Reformation. That is why among Baptists they want such fakes as, for example, the film “Orthodox about Orthodoxy”, which in terms of lies is quite comparable to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, and with its intellectual narrowness is somewhat reminiscent of Soviet atheistic propaganda. In this situation, it is necessary to remind the Baptists that Christ promised that His Church will always exist, its existence in history is uninterrupted (see Matt. 16, 18). However, Baptism appeared only in the 17th century, and many of its doctrines were not known during the first 15 centuries of Christian history - what, contrary to the words of Christ, was the Church wrong in fundamental matters of faith for 1500 years?! Your interlocutor will most likely say that the Church was not mistaken in the dogmas of the Trinity and the God-manhood of Christ, and the rest, they say, is unimportant. But how does it matter when Baptists accuse the Orthodox of idolatry and paganism? If they are "serious" then how can such a Church be believed at all? But it was the Church that approved the New Testament canon, it was she who defended the truth of the Trinity of God and the doctrine of the Incarnation in the fight against heretics. How could the “pagans and idolaters” do this?! The conclusion is that the Church has remained the Body of Christ all this time.

Finally, Baptists profess the dogma of salvation by faith alone, but it was not known to Christians until Martin Luther, i.e. until the 16th century. Luther himself considered it the most important dogma of Christianity. It turns out that the Church of the 15 centuries did not understand at all how a person is saved? So the gates of hell overpowered her? And here you can draw the attention of your interlocutor to the person who first began to talk about salvation by faith. As you know, Martin Luther was far from being a saint - he constantly cursed his opponents in the most obscene terms, offered to destroy Jews and kill German peasants. Can we believe that it was this man who, for the first time in 15 centuries, correctly understood the doctrine of salvation? Another Reformation leader, Calvin (and Baptism grew out of his teachings and still adheres to many doctrines associated specifically with Calvin), persecuted dissidents in Geneva as best he could, not stopping even before the death penalty. Of course, many crimes could also be committed in the name of Orthodoxy. But here we are talking about people who laid the fundamental foundations of Protestant dogma - after all, until now, all Protestants, despite many disagreements, believe in salvation by faith. And if the people who “discovered” this dogma are such, then how can one continue to listen to their opinion, passing it off as evidence of Scripture?

The defense of the Orthodox doctrine of salvation in a dispute with the Baptists can be built as follows:

1. Emphasize that the words of ap. Paul about "justification by faith" (Rom. 3:28) mean that a person is saved independently of "the works of the law", i.e. Old Testament law. The apostle only opposes "earning salvation", relying on works, but nowhere does he state that a person does not participate in his salvation. Ap. James, on the contrary, emphasizes that faith without works is dead.

2. The parable of Christ about the sower insists that although people may believe Christ, they regularly fall away from the faith and do not bear fruit, i.e. salvation depends on man, and he can either accept it or reject it. But even accepting this gift, he then often rejects it, therefore, there can be no question of guaranteed salvation.

3. The words of Christ that the believer is saved are uttered by him either after healing, and therefore do not have the meaning of eternal salvation, or it is implied that the believer is a person who lives by Christ, and not just mentally accepting Him, i.e. salvation depends on works.

4. The Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is full of calls to constantly repent, consider yourself a sinner and keep the commandments. What would it make sense if salvation were immediately guaranteed without the possibility of losing it?

5. Russian Baptists admit that salvation can still be lost, but ask them - are you sure that you are saved? They will say, “yes, let’s go to heaven right now.” This means that they are sure that, despite their sins, they will still be in paradise, i.e. it is possible to sin, but this does not affect the guaranteed salvation, and does not lead to falling away?

6. Baptists claim that at the very first moment of turning to God, when they accepted Christ as a “personal Savior” (pay attention to this expression - the Church has nothing to do with it, God saves everyone one by one), God forgave them all their sins, and therefore, though they sin, yet their sins are not so to God. The question arises: first, how can all sins be forgiven in advance? Of course, nothing is impossible for God, but the doctrine looks very strange, according to which you are forgiven for sins that you have not yet committed, for which you have not repented! It turns out that God forgives in advance imperfect murders, thefts, adulteries? But then you can safely sin! Of course, the Baptists would not be able to draw such an absurd conclusion, but does this not mean that their original doctrine is wrong? If a student is told even before the start of studies that he is guaranteed a red diploma, and his studies will practically not affect this in any way, will he study with full zeal?

7. If salvation does not depend on man (namely, this is what the doctrine of salvation by faith propagates), then Baptists, like other Protestants, have only one way out - the doctrine of rigid predestination. This means that God does not want to save everyone for reasons that are incomprehensible to us. Can Baptists believe in such a God who is love, but not for everyone, but only for the elect?

It is important for the Orthodox to clarify that the Church has never believed that salvation can be "earned". Orthodoxy has never believed that a person can have "merit" before God. It was the Roman Catholic Church that leaned towards this, but in Orthodoxy, for example, there were no indulgences. Orthodox believe not in merit, but in the fact that a person interacts with God in the process of salvation, freely participates in his salvation. And therefore, you cannot be sure in advance that you will be in paradise - a person can fall away from God at any moment. Yes, salvation is by grace - here Orthodox and Baptists agree, but mercy is always unobtrusive and non-violent, and it does not save if you do not want it. And in order to dispose a person to grace, to exorcise sin, certain “exercises” are necessary, which in themselves do not save, but with the help of God they turn out to be useful (hence fasting in Orthodoxy and other “asceticism”). The Baptist does not need this, because the doctrine of instant salvation believes that sin has already been cast out and will no longer annoy you. The Orthodox, however, remember the words of the Apostle: "If we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us."

Baptists often raise the issue of the veneration of saints and icons, accusing the Orthodox of paganism and idolatry. In this case, the Orthodox should immediately ask: has the Baptist read in at least one Orthodox book calls to worship a tree and pray to colors? Does he really think the Orthodox are so stupid? Make a reservation that we are arguing about the real position of Orthodoxy, and not about the "opinions of grandmothers." It is also necessary to clarify that the commandment “do not make for yourself an idol” also implies that “no images” can be made, but for some reason Baptists easily violate this clause and depict Christ or biblical events.

What needs to be clarified here is how the Orthodox make a distinction between the veneration that belongs to the icon (image) and the worship that is due only to God (the archetype). Salvation we wait only for God, but He gives it to us through the Church, through His saints and His shrines. He doesn't need this type of salvation—we need Him. In the Bible we see that people are saved through people. Don't Baptists read the Scriptures that have come down to us through His saints—God didn't dictate the Gospel directly to them. In the same way, we see that God saves people through material shrines, such as the ark and the temple, as was the case in the Old Testament. Baptists say: “But there are no direct commands to paint icons in the New Testament!” Not really. But after all, there are no direct commands to celebrate Easter and Christmas, and there are no hymns from the Baptist collection to sing either. It's just that all Christians understand: what is acceptable is that which is not prescribed by the letter, but corresponds to the spirit. So the veneration of shrines corresponds to the Christian spirit. A person consists of a soul and a body, therefore it is natural for him to be sanctified through material shrines. Hence the temple, icons, water in baptism, bread and wine in communion, hence the rites - through the material we show the beauty of the Kingdom of Heaven. Where ritualism has been abandoned, the service is simply boring. It's like the New Year without a Christmas tree, sparklers and gifts - in black suits and with gloomy faces.

In the Old Testament, believers knelt before the ark and the temple; today, Christians kneel before icons. When Baptists ask, isn't this idolatry? - ask them, if a young man knelt before a girl, confessing his love to her, is this idolatry? Do American Protestants who kneel and kiss the flag of their country sin with idolatry? Or do they just love their homeland? Why is it possible to kneel before the US flag, but not before the icon of Christ?

As for the prayers to the saints, here we must immediately tell the Baptists that the Orthodox do not believe in some “merits” of the saints, they do not deify them, and do not put them on the same level with Christ. Any prayer to the saints is a prayer to Christ. We ask the saints to pray to our Lord to help us with His grace, and not the saints to help us with some of their own magical powers. Let's ask the Baptists - do you ask your fellow believers to pray for you, realizing that your prayers alone are not enough, because you are far from being as holy as Christ? In the Church, everyone prays for each other, and everyone asks each other for prayers. The Orthodox simply assert that this prayer connection between members of the Church is not interrupted even when the saints are in heaven - thanks to Christ, thanks to the fact that we are one body in Christ, the saints pray for us in heaven, and can hear our prayers addressed to him on earth, which is confirmed by the whole history of the Church. If Baptists are sure that a mother's prayer for children has great power before God, and they ask their mothers to pray for them, then why do they refuse this to the Mother of Christ Himself? That's really whose prayers are strong before God, stronger than any mother on earth.

It is very important to discuss the sacraments with Baptists. You can limit yourself to baptism and communion. The main disagreement is this: Baptists do not need the sacraments for salvation. This is their delusion. After all, if baptism and communion are not necessary for our salvation, then why should we be baptized and receive communion at all? Christ commanded us to baptize all peoples and to give communion to all, but according to Baptism, one can easily do without this. So Christ commanded nonsense? Baptists say that the main thing is faith. Yes, faith, but faith presupposes that we believe that Christ commanded us to perform baptism and communion for our sanctification and salvation, otherwise it turns out that our faith is absurd. Believe that baptism and the sacrament will not affect your salvation in any way, believe that they are only signs - such is the Baptist creed! Because of this understanding, it is difficult for Baptists to understand why we baptize children, because a child cannot "signify" that he has already been saved. But the Orthodox have a different meaning - in baptism, a person is given grace for liberation from sin, giving birth to eternal life. Baptists will not long argue that children are not strangers to God's grace and need to be saved, but then why not baptize them with grace baptism? For the Orthodox, baptism is a healing medicine. Would Baptists be willing to give their child medicine when he is sick, even though the child does not know what the disease is and how the medicine works? That is why the Orthodox are in favor of infant baptism.

Likewise with the sacrament. Just eating bread and drinking wine, remembering the sufferings of Christ - this is important, of course. Only then is it better to read the Gospel. But to partake of Christ Himself is necessary for salvation, because if we are not one with Christ, then how will we enter Paradise with Him? Simple bread and wine will not save anyone - only the Body and Blood of the Lord Himself. So communion is appropriate only if it is a saving sacrament, and not just a "rite of communion", in which Christ, in fact, is not present. Where the saving sacraments have disappeared, we see a dull service, pop music and very bad poetry. Has the Lord really come down to earth to give birth only to this?

1. Prot. Nikolay Varzhansky. Anti-sectarian catechism. - M., 2001.
2. Spiritual sword. – Krasnodar, 1995.
3. Deacon Andrei Kuraev. Protestants about Orthodoxy. Legacy of Christ. 10th edition. - Klin, 2009.
4. Holy Daniil Sysoev. Protestant walk through an Orthodox church. - M., 2003.
5. Deacon Sergius Kobzar. Why can't I remain a Baptist and a Protestant in general. - Slavyansk, 2002.
6. Deacon John Whiteford. Only Scripture? - Nizhny Novgorod, 2000.

The winners of the All-Russian competition "Parental record - 2014" of the "Generation" fund of Andrey Skoch were honored on June 28 at the Cathedral Square of the city. This year, the bonus fund, increased from 10 to 15 million rubles, was equally divided between four record-breaking families: the Nikolaevs (Chelyabinsk Region), the Shishkins (Voronezh Region), the Kuznetsovs (Leningrad Region) and the Skorovs (Belgorod Region).

Elena Shishkina from the Maslovsky state farm in the Novousmansky district of the Voronezh region was awarded the prize in the nomination “The Largest Mother of Many Children”. Together with her husband Alexander in 2004, they entered the Russian Book of Records as the largest family in the country. The record holders have been together for almost 38 years. Over the years of their life together, 20 children were born in their family.

This is, so to speak, official information.

The winners were awarded by Governor Savchenko and Skoch.

This is how I see an aunt in a gas scarf, so one hundred percent - this is a Baptist. So it turned out with Shishkina.

I decided to read about the family, I found a not very rosy article - http://slavyanskaya-kultura.ru/news/ruskoe-delo/semja-shishkinyh.html. Not everything is as beautiful and joyful as in the video. I don’t even know if it’s right: to give birth all my life. Is it good or bad? Who is good and who is not?

On occasion, I remembered one story.
Back in 1997, I was in a postpartum ward with a woman who had already given birth to her third child. Nadia looked, to be honest, tired, even exhausted. Almost immediately, I determined her belonging to the Baptists (hairstyle, headscarf - they are peculiar). We got talking. She asked her: "Nadya, will you still give birth?" Answer: "Yes, as much as God will give. Our mother has 11 of us." She spoke with such faith about her family, about brothers and sisters in faith, that all of us (and there were seven of us in the ward) already listened. Well, they are all so correct and decent. They don't drink, they don't smoke, they don't go for walks - this is incompatible with faith. Nadya was actively visited by guests (at first we thought that it was all relatives. No, fellow believers), parcels almost every hour - any desire was satisfied. Do you need kefir? We're running away right now. My husband, of course, also celebrated every day.

But the post is not about that. Nadia (she turned out to be a strong aunt) was the first to leave. And just behind her the door of the ward closed, as the girl from the last bed "broke through". She, as it turned out, knows Nadia's husband very well. He and his friend repeatedly went on a spree with her and her friend, not denying himself any pleasures, incl. and alcohol.

Such is their faith and truth.

By the way, sects are flourishing for some reason. Temple-palaces were not built in the worst parts of the city. Periodically, preachers (tsy) roaming the porches get out. Where is the official church looking, I wonder?

About human and apostolic Tradition, about what texts of Holy Scripture speak of the need to follow Tradition, why the doctrine of the “invisible Church” contradicts what Christ commanded, and what the Church of Christ is, and also about how to debate with sectarians On these topics, in the next lecture-conversation, sectologist Andrei Ivanovich Solodkov talks.

Apostates from the Orthodox faith and blinded by fatal heresies, enlighten with the light of Your knowledge and honor Your Holy Apostles of the Cathedral Church.

From morning prayers

In the last two conversations-lectures of the cycle "Mission of the Church in a non-Orthodox environment" we spoke and. In the first lecture, we considered the rise of Protestantism in Europe and the necessary conditions for the gospel of the uncorrupted Gospel to people who found themselves in sects. In the second, I shared my experience in organizing and operating a rehabilitation center and the methodology for returning those who have fallen away to the bosom of the Church. Today, as part of our conversation, we will briefly review the history of Baptism, and also touch on some practical aspects of the methodology for disputing about Holy Tradition and the Church.

Baptism

Baptism originated in England in 1609 and was promoted as a religious movement by a party of Puritans and Congregationalists. The founder of Baptism was John Smith, who organized a small congregation in Holland. First, he himself baptized himself through dousing, and then, having met the Mennonites, he received baptism from them. In 1612, Smith and his follower Thomas Helwys organized small communities in England and baptized all members of the community. These were general, or general, Baptists. Later came particular, or private, Baptists.

General Baptists on the issue of predestination to salvation adhered to the teachings of one of the leaders of the Reformation, Jacob Arminius, who believed that God determined all people to salvation, but whether to accept it or not depends on the free will of a person. Particular Baptists relied on the teachings of Calvin, according to which God from eternity predestined some people to salvation, and others to condemnation and death.

By about 1641 the doctrine characteristic of modern Baptism had already taken shape. Baptism among both private and general Baptists began to be performed by immersion.

At first, Baptists were persecuted in England by the Episcopal Church, and they were also persecuted by the civil authorities, subjected to cruel punishments as participants in the liberation movement, because they were associated with the Anabaptists who committed violence and pogroms (this was discussed in the first lecture of our cycle). The famous Baptist John Bunyan spent twelve years in prison, where he wrote his books Pilgrim's Progress to Heavenly Country and Spiritual Warfare, which are popular with modern Baptists.

In 1869, the "Toleration Act" was passed in England, thanks to which the Baptists began to enjoy the protection of the government along with other non-Orthodox. In 1905, the "Baptist World Union" was founded in London, with its headquarters in Washington. His goal was to spread Baptism throughout the globe. There are currently over 30 million Baptists worldwide, 25 million of whom live in the United States.

After the Russo-Turkish wars of the 18th century, Baptism also appeared in Russia. Then the southern regions, including the Crimea, were annexed to the Russian Empire, forming the Kherson, Tauride, Yekaterinoslav provinces. To develop new lands, the government of Catherine II decided to populate the outskirts of the country with foreign settlers - Protestant colonists. By the middle of the 19th century, Baptist communities proper were already widespread in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and St. Petersburg.

The entire creed of modern Baptism is based only on Holy Scripture, which they interpret and understand in the spirit of heresy, relying on their own reason, not accepting the vast spiritual experience of the Holy Orthodox Church. They reject Sacred Tradition, calling it "false teaching and the work of human hands."

What is the Tradition of the Church

Does Scripture explain itself?

We have already said that all non-Orthodox, including Baptists, believe that the Bible explains itself and does not need Tradition. The reformist principle put forward by M. Luther is known: "Sola Scriptura" - "The Bible and only the Bible." But if you carefully read the texts of the Bible and do not resort to Luther's "methodology" (let me remind you that Luther excluded the Epistle of the Apostle James from the canon of the Bible, since it contradicted his idea of ​​justification by faith), then we will see that the principle "The Bible is sufficient for understanding biblical texts,” the Bible itself refutes. In the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter we find the following words:

“And regard the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as he says about this and in all the epistles, in which there is something unintelligible, which the ignorant and unestablished, to their own destruction, turn like the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

From these words, we see that in the epistles of the Apostle Paul there is something incomprehensible - incomprehensible - that the ignorant and unestablished turn to their own destruction. Ignorant people are those who have not heard the word of the Gospel at all, and those who have heard the word about Christ, but received it not from the lips of the Church, but in a damaged state, and thus fell away from unity with the Church and were not established in the purity of truth, are called unestablished. . It is said: The Church is the house of the living God, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). We will return to the question of the Church later.

So, we see from this text that it is possible to read the Bible and distort the understanding of its text, as the apostle Peter states, "to your own destruction."

A correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures is the work of our salvation

A correct understanding of Holy Scripture is one of the important conditions for the work of our salvation. “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; but they testify of Me” (John 5:39). The Apostle Peter, beginning his exhortation on this subject, pays special attention to this. Let us return once again to the beginning of the text read above: “Count the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation” (2 Pet. 3:15). The criterion for understanding the texts of the Bible is not an abstract or philosophical question, but the most serious one concerning our salvation!

Hold on Tradition!

The criterion for a correct understanding of Holy Scripture is Holy Tradition. Without exception, all sectarians reject the Tradition and confirm their rejection by some texts of the Bible - and such texts really exist.

The Gospel of Mark, chapter 7, speaks of a tradition that Christ rejects.

“The Pharisees and some of the scribes who came from Jerusalem gathered to Him, and, seeing some of His disciples eating bread with unclean, that is, unwashed hands (the Jews had a whole ritual of washing their hands. - A.S.), they reproached. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding on to the tradition of the elders, do not eat without thoroughly washing their hands... There are many other things that they accepted to hold on to...” (Mark 7:1-4).

And Christ condemns them for this, saying:

“In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines, the commandments of men. For having left the commandment of God, you hold on to the tradition of men…” (Mark 7:7-8)

“And he said to them: Is it good that you revoke the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition? For Moses said: honor your father and your mother (this is the fifth commandment. - A.S.); and: whoever speaks evil of his father or mother, let him die by death. But you say: whoever says to his father or mother: Korvan, that is, a gift to God, what you would use from me, you already allow him to do nothing for his father or mother, eliminating the word of God by your tradition, which you established; and you do many things like this” (Mark 7:9-13).

There is a parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew, in chapter 15.

In a dispute about Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, the opponent will cite precisely these texts of the Bible and, relying on them, will assert the uselessness of Tradition.

But let us recall the saying of St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “It is impossible to treat sick people without knowing the cause of their illness, therefore some were much more skillful than me, but could not overcome the heresy of Valentine, because they did not know their teachings exactly.” What is the reason for the ill health in this matter among the Baptists? They take only a part of the biblical revelation and pass it off as the fullness of the truth. But there are texts in the Bible that speak of the need for Sacred Tradition.

In the Apostle Paul we find the following words:

“I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The apostle praises the Christians who hold on to Tradition. And in 2 Thessalonians he writes:

“Therefore, brethren, stand and hold lore, whom you taught or a word or our message(2 Thess. 2:15).

The necessity of Tradition is evident from this text. It is said: firstly, "keep the Traditions which you have been taught"; secondly, "by the word"; thirdly, the "message".

It must be said that Tradition is always primary. How did Moses know how God created this world? God revealed to him and he wrote it down. How did Noah know which animals were clean and which were not, since this was discussed much later, after the Flood? Both Moses and Noah knew about this not from what was written in the Bible, but from oral Tradition.

Often the opponent says that Tradition is the canon of the Bible: 39 books of the Old and 27 books of the New Testaments. No. It must be repeated again: the Apostle Paul details and clarifies: they were taught by tradition (παραδόσεις), by the word (λόγου - the Bible, the word of God), by the epistle (ἐπιστολη̃ς - which we read). That is, there are three components in the teaching of the truth, and the apostle Paul insists that it is necessary to adhere to them: this is "tradition, word, epistle."

And here it is appropriate to ask the question: how do you Protestants, saying that you live according to the Bible, keep the Tradition? The Apostle Paul warns:

“We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother who walks disorderly, and not according to tradition (παραδόσεις), which they received from us(2 Thess. 3:6).

Thus, Tradition is not what the Church invented, but what it accepted from apostolic times and preserved.

In Holy Scripture there is the concept of apostolic Tradition and human tradition. Human Tradition Rejected by Christ

We emphasize that the Orthodox also do not accept human tradition. And the heterodox human traditions are many. These include the fabrications and writings of their "teachers", on which all sectarian dogma is built; relying on their authority, the interpretation of the Bible is also given. For Adventists, for example, these are the books of Ellen White, for Jehovah's Witnesses, the magazines The Watchtower and Awake! The Baptists have their own writers: John Bunyan and other authors and interpreters.

The tradition that the Orthodox Church adheres to - and this must be repeated again and again - is not limited to a set of books and creations. The non-Orthodox have a false idea of ​​the Orthodox Tradition. They think that we want to attach some more books and apocrypha to the Bible.

And here it would be opportune to recall the canon of Holy Scripture. And you can ask such questions: “How do you know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? How do you know that John wrote the Gospel of John? Why are the four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - considered canonical, while the Gospel of Thomas, for example, is a non-canonical book? Or the Gospel of Andrew? After all, you do not read these Gospels and do not recognize them. Why? Because they are not canon. And who said which books are canonical and which are not? The Church said on the basis of Holy Tradition and Cathedral Reason! The Church approved this canon, determining what is false and what is true. On what basis did the Church approve this canon? Based on Tradition.

Hear, accept and know the Truth

The non-Orthodox, having fallen away from unity with the Church, have lost the ability to perceive the biblical teaching in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, Who, since the time of Pentecost, has unceasingly instructed the Church, created by Christ on earth. The backsliders have lost the ability to perceive the fullness of revelation and Christ Himself in His own light.

Vladimir Lossky, a Russian theologian, writes the following about the inseparability of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: “If Scripture and everything that can be said by written or other symbols are different ways of expressing the Truth, then Holy Tradition is the only way to perceive the Truth: no one can to call (know) Jesus Lord, as soon as by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12: 3) ... So, we can give an exact definition of Tradition, saying that it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, the life that imparts to each believer the ability to hear, receive, know the Truth in its inherent Light, and not in the natural light of the human mind.

Any person or society, having broken the connection with the Church, loses the ability to hear, accept and cognize the Truth. These abilities are returned to a person only when he is reunited with Christ in the Sacraments.

We will consider the topic of the Sacraments of the Church later, in the following conversations, now I will only recall the gospel story about Luke and Cleopas on their way to Emmaus:

“On the same day, two of them went to a village, sixty stages from Jerusalem, called Emmaus; and talked among themselves about all these events. And while they were talking and reasoning among themselves, Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not recognize Him.

And he said to them, What are you discussing among yourselves as you walk, and why are you sad? One of them, by the name of Cleopas, said to Him in answer: Are you one of those who came to Jerusalem not aware of what has happened in it these days? And he said to them: about what? They said to him: what happened to Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers betrayed him to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped that it was He who should redeem Israel; but with all that, it is already the third day since this happened.

But even some of our women amazed us: they were early at the tomb and did not find His body and, having come, they said that they also saw the appearance of angels, who say that He is alive. And some of our people went to the sepulcher and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Him.

Then He said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe everything that the prophets foretold! Was it not necessary for Christ to suffer and enter into His glory? And beginning with Moses, out of all the prophets, He explained to them what was said about Him in all the Scriptures.

And they drew near to the village into which they were going; and He showed them the appearance of wanting to go on. But they held him back, saying, stay with us, for the day has already turned towards evening. And He entered and stayed with them.

And as he was reclining with them, he took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him” (Luke 24:13-31).

We see that the Lord Jesus Christ explained to them the prophecies from the Old Testament Scriptures about Himself, but they remained “foolish and slow of heart”, and only after Christ Himself gave them Communion and They were reunited with Him, “their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."

About some translations of the Bible

I will say a few more words about confessional translations of the Bible. Here, for example, is the translation of the Bible made in Zaoksky by Adventists. (We will talk about Seventh-day Adventists, the history of their error in one of the subsequent lectures-conversations, now we will only touch on the issue of Tradition.) The translators of the Bible Institute in the Adventist seminary went by editing the texts of the Bible according to their teaching-error. If we look at the texts about Tradition in their translation, we will see the following. The word "Tradition" in Greek, as we saw above, is παραδόσεις ( paradosis). Adventists, as you know, reject Tradition in their doctrine just as much as Baptists. In making their translation, they apparently decided to remove once and for all the concept of apostolic Tradition, since it would not interfere with their dogmatic error.

A similar precedent, in general, has already been. We saw it in the history of the Reformation: Luther threw out the whole Epistle of the Apostle James from the canon of the Bible, declaring it apocryphal, because it did not coincide with his idea of ​​"justification by faith alone", and there are verses in the epistle that say: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26).

Adventists in their wording are not so decisive, but, nevertheless, in the texts, which speak positively about the need for Holy Tradition - 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6 - they replaced the word παραδόσεις, translating with the words "teaching", "truth"; and where tradition is spoken of negatively as human tradition, the word παραδόσεις is left out. If we open the Greek text, we will see that in all the above texts about Tradition there is the word παραδόσεις - without any alternative to any other reading or absence of this word, which would give the right to replace it in meaning according to certain rules of translation.

An attempt to perceive the Divine Revelation with rational thinking and not containing the truth about the human tradition and the Apostolic Tradition leads, to put it mildly, to such uncleanliness in the translation of the Bible. And so it is in many matters in which sectarian communities have gone astray.

So, one more time. In the Bible there are such concepts as: human tradition and apostolic tradition; the church is the Whore of Babylon and the Bride of Christ; idols of other gods and holy images; the chalice of demons and the Holy Eucharist.

The principle of "consent of the fathers"

There is another protestant objection to the question of contra traditia. They say: “How do you, Orthodox, determine what is true and what is false with your Church fathers? After all, in their writings one can meet contradictions on certain issues. To reproach the Orthodox Ecumenical Church for this is not entirely correct. Roman Catholics, yes, quite appropriately. There are jugglings in Catholic traditions as a result of the deviation of the Bishop of Rome from the Ecumenical confession, in connection with which, in general, such a phenomenon as the reform movement in Europe arose. It has already been said in previous lectures that Protestants and their followers protest against Catholic dogma, transferring this protest automatically to Orthodoxy as well. Here is one piece of advice for Protestants - to get acquainted first with Orthodoxy, and then put forward a protest.

As for some disagreements in the teachings of the fathers, the last word on the question of what is truth and what is heresy does not belong to the pope - the bishop of Rome, against which the Protestants protested and are still protesting. This issue is resolved in the Church conciliarly and through the principle of "consent of the fathers" (consensus patrum). Sobornost is not an invention of subsequent centuries of Christianity. The basis for the conciliar resolution of issues was laid back in the apostolic period. When disagreements arose in the Church, in particular about how to receive the Gentiles and what they should observe after baptism, the Council decided: “For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and us not to place on you any burden more than this necessary: ​​to abstain from idolatry and blood, and strangled, and fornication, and not to do to others what you do not want for yourself. By following this, you will do well. Be healthy” (Acts 15:28). As we can see, the Council and its definition is the voice of the Holy Spirit: "For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us."

Also, by the decision of the V-VI Ecumenical Council, it was established that if there are any discrepancies in the judgment on a particular issue among the fathers, not set out in the council's definitions (oros and canons), then it is necessary to be guided by the opinion of 12 fathers. Subsequently, the Council decided to be guided by the three fathers and consider their teaching on a particular issue to be exemplary. These are Saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian. All other opinions that go against the conciliar definitions and the teachings of the three saints are not the teachings of the Church, but only private judgments.

The principle of “the consent of the fathers” (consensus patrum) was formulated in the 5th century by the Monk Vincent of Lyrins: “The judgments of only those fathers who, while living, teaching and remaining in the faith and in catholic communion, holy, wise, constantly, were honored or with faith to rest in Christ, or to die blessedly for Christ. And they should be believed according to this rule: that only or all of them, or most of them unanimously accepted, maintained, transmitted openly, often unshakably, as if by some prior agreement among the teachers, then consider it undoubted, faithful and indisputable; and what anyone thought, whether he was a saint or a scientist, whether a confessor and a martyr, did not agree with everyone or even contrary to everyone, then refer to personal, secret, private opinions, different (secretum) from the authority of a general, open and popular belief; so that, leaving the ancient truth of the universal dogma, according to the impious custom of heretics and schismatics, with the greatest danger regarding eternal salvation, we should not follow the new error of one person.

From all that has been said, it is clear that Tradition is the Holy Spirit living in the Church. The rejection of Church Tradition is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which, according to the Savior, "will not be forgiven either in this age or in the future" (Matthew 12:32). There is something to think about.

What is the Church

Usually, the heterodox, including Baptists, to confirm their understanding of the Church, refer to the text from the Gospel of Matthew, 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them.” Like, here are the grounds for the organization of the Church. Let's take a closer look at the context and find out what this is about, and for this we turn to the previous verses of this chapter, because verse 20 is the completion of Christ's instruction to His disciples.

So, we read from the 15th verse:

“If your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone; if he listens to you, then you have gained your brother; but if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses; if he does not listen to them, tell the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you, like a pagan and a publican. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Truly I also say to you that if two of you agree on earth to ask for any matter, then whatever they ask, it will be for them from My Father in Heaven, for where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them ”(Matt. 18:15-20).

This whole passage is about how to act in the Church. First, the Savior says how to deal with a sinning brother in the Church: verses 15-17. Then - how to pray in the Church: verses 18-20; in MF. 18:20 - about congregational prayer. Christ did not teach us to pray: "My Father" - but: "Our Father." It says nothing about the creation of the Church. It is about the power of congregational prayer.

Baptists teach about the invisible Church. They say that in every denomination there are sincerely believing people whom the Lord will gather during the Last Judgment. That is, sincerity is the criterion of truth. But you can be sincere and wrong. If we sincerely believe a lie, our sincerity will not make it true.

If the invisible Church is made up of sincere believers in all Christian denominations, then how can I fulfill the commandment of Christ: "If he does not listen, tell the church"? What, I have to run around all denominations and look for sincere believers in order to fulfill the words of Christ: “tell the church”? How to tell if she is invisible? And where is the indicator and the principle of checking sincerity? I won't be surprised if a lie indicator is proposed for this procedure.

An Orthodox person does not conceive of salvation outside the Church, and therefore outside of Christ. It is different with the Baptists, and one must know this when arguing with them. For salvation, according to the Baptist doctrine, it is not necessary to belong to any Church. They teach this, based on the verse from Ephesians 2:5, thus: “A man who is dead in trespasses and sins receives salvation through Jesus Christ” - and add from themselves: “being outside the church.” Elsewhere: "We must not forget the greatest and most precious truth, that it is not the Church (whatever it may be) that saves us, but Christ, who died for our sins on Calvary."

In the Baptist mind, the Church is separated from Christ. The church simply does not exist if we do not meet in another bible study circle on the principle of "two-three". They went home - and there is no Church; gathered - and eat again. Some folklore. Play, accordion, it turns out. The assembly of faith in the name of Christ unites us - this is the principle and foundation of the Church in the non-Orthodox understanding.

Knowing their error in this matter, let us consider, relying on Holy Scripture, whether such an interpretation of biblical texts corresponds to the teaching about the Church.

So, in a dispute about the Church, we will cite the following text: The Gospel of Matthew, 16: 18. When the Apostle Peter, on behalf of all the apostles, confessed Christ: “You are the Son of the Living God,” Christ said to him:

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Very important words that need to be explained: firstly, the words "I will build the Church", and secondly - "the gates of hell will not prevail against her." What does “I will build the Church” mean? Christ says: "I will build the Church my", and not: "I will create churches My". It is said in the singular: οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν - “I will create the Church my". We also find the following words in the Apostle Paul:

“One body and one spirit, just as you are called to one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all of us” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Sometimes an opponent may agree with us that, they say, Christ really created the Church in apostolic times, but it was damaged, retreating from the purity of the Gospel for the sake of paganism. It is not true. Such a false statement about possible damage to the Church is born as a result of a false understanding of the nature of the Church. The Church, according to Christ, is invincible, and therefore not damaged.

Let's ask the question: "Do you believe Christ and the words of Christ?" They will answer: "Of course." So, Christ says, "I will build My [one] Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Church, by definition of Christ, is one and invincible. The Church is not only ἐκκλησίαν, that is, a gathering of people, as the sectarians teach. The Church was brought together by Christ Himself. And it is not enough to believe in Christ, as the Baptists reason, and gather together to become Christ's Church. The Gospel of John says: “And when He was in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, many, seeing the wonders which He did, believed in His name. But Jesus Himself did not commit Himself to them” (John 2:23-24). To whom did Christ entrust Himself, and to whom was He chosen to serve? - Apostles. “Having been established on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, having Jesus Christ Himself as the cornerstone, on which the whole building, being built in harmony, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, on which you also are built into a habitation of God by the Spirit” (Eph. 2: 20-22) writes the Apostle Paul. Like this: "being established on the basis of the apostles and prophets." In the following lectures, we will consider the issues of choosing the lawful priesthood, ordination and grace, now I will only say that the foundation of the Church is not faith, not the Bible, but Christ Himself: “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” ( 1 Corinthians 3:11).

To found a new Church, it is necessary that Christ be born again, choose His disciples, suffer on the cross, die and rise again, and on the fiftieth day the Holy Spirit would descend on the Church. The dispensation of the Church according to self-will is impossible. There is no repetition of these events, there is no other Church. The Church is not interrupted in the history of mankind, but through the apostolic ordination exists to this day. “I am with you all the days until the end of time. Amen” (Matt. 28:20), says Christ. And again: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you” (John 15:16). Christ chooses and appoints Himself to the ministry. And the grace of chosenness is transmitted through ordination. The Apostle Paul writes to his successor Timothy: "Keep the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands aflame" (2 Tim. 1:6).

The gift of succession The Russian Orthodox Church can show from the Apostle Andrew to Patriarch Kirill. His Holiness Patriarch 179th in succession. “I know whom I have chosen” (John 13:18), says the Savior.

There is an objection to this: they say, just as the Apostle Paul was chosen by Christ on the road to Damascus (see: Acts 9), so Christ has chosen us. But if we carefully read this chapter of the Acts of the Apostles - not selectively, but completely - we will see that a disciple of Christ from the 70 - Ananias - is sent to the Apostle Paul, blinded after meeting with Christ, to join him to the Church through baptism and laying on hands of the apostolate:

“Ananias went and entered the house, and laying his hands on him, he said, Brother Saul! The Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the path you were on, sent me so that you could receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately, as if the scales fell from his eyes, and suddenly he received his sight; and getting up, he was baptized” (Acts 9:17-18).

Despite the fact that Christ appeared to him personally, the apostle Paul needs to be united with the Church through the successor chosen by Christ, through baptism and the laying on of the hands of the apostolate by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is not only an ekklesia, that is, a gathering of people, as the sectarians teach. The Church is also the body of Christ

Christ and the Foundation, He is also the Founder of the Church. The Church is not just a collection of like-minded people, the Church is the body of Christ, as the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Colossians: “And He is the head of the body of the Church” (Col. 1:18).

The Church is the body of Christ, Christ is the Head of the Church. The separation of the Head from the body is, to put it mildly, blasphemous theology. Can Christ be conquered? No!

The Church is a God-human organism. Christ the Head is present in the Church in her Sacraments, through which we, like living cells, are united with Him by grace into His God-manhood. “Abide in Me and I in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it is in the vine, so neither can you unless you are in Me. I am the Vine and you are the branches; whoever abides in Me and I in him bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in Me will be cast out like a branch and wither; but such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, and they are burned up” (John 15:4-6).

It often sounds like an argument against the Church to accuse the Orthodox of sinning. Yes, no one is immune from falling into sins, it is said: “Therefore, whoever thinks that he is standing, beware lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). But if there is sin in the Church, then it is not a sin of the Church, but a sin against the Church. Did Christ say: “I will create My Church, and if you behave badly, then create another one”? No! Nothing of the kind has been said. Falling into the sins of individual members cannot harm the Church; such a member comes to confession for correction. More than once I heard from sectarians that, having believed in Christ, they no longer fall into sin. The Apostle John writes that anyone who claims such a thing is a deceiver: “Whoever says that he is without sin is a liar and there is no truth in him” (1 John 1:8). If, however, we are talking about the heretical error of the Orthodox, then he himself breaks communion with the Church, if he does not repent of his error and persists.

The Church is not defeated or damaged, since neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit, who governs the Church and dwells in the Church, can be damaged. Anyone who claims otherwise is more likely to be damaged himself.

In the following lecture-conversations, speaking about the dispute with the sectarians on the issues of salvation, infant baptism, icon veneration, we will return to the question of the Church.

I would like to conclude today's conversation with the words of the Hieromartyr Cyprian of Carthage: "To whom the Church is not the Mother, God is not the Father."

And all the baptized, but who have fallen away from the Mother Church, often due to a misunderstanding, and who have fallen into error, we will call to repentance and return home - to the “Church of the Living God, (which is) the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15), especially at this auspicious time - during the days of Great Lent.

Sources and literature:

1. Bible: Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. M.: Ros. bibl. about-in, 2002.
2. Aleksandrova L. History of Baptism in Russia. M., 2010.
3. Horse R.M. Introduction to sectarianism. N. Novgorod, 2008.
4. Lossky V.N. dogmatic theology. Edition of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2001.
5. Irenaeus of Lyon, holy martyr. Five books of denunciation and refutation of false knowledge. M., 1996.
6. Cyprian of Carthage, saint. Creations: At 6 h. Part 2. M., 1999.
7. Rules V-VI of the Ecumenical Council // http://www.krotov.info/acts/canons/0787cano.html.
8. Baptists answer / Comp. M. Ivanov. SPb., 2008.
9. ECB creed // http://rus-baptist.narod.ru/verouc.html.
10. Vince I. Our Baptist Principles //

They are called Baptists. This name comes from the word baptize, which is translated from Greek as “to dip”, “to baptize by immersing in water”. According to this teaching, it is necessary to be baptized not in infancy, but at a conscious age by immersion in consecrated water. In a word, a Baptist is a Christian who consciously embraces his faith. He believes that man's salvation lies in wholehearted faith in Christ.

History of occurrence

Baptist communities began to form in the early seventeenth century in Holland, but their founders were not Dutch, but English Congregationalists who were forced to flee to the mainland to avoid persecution by the Anglican Church. And so, in the second decade of the 17th century, namely in 1611, a new Christian doctrine was formulated for the British, who, by the will of fate, lived in the capital of the Netherlands - Amsterdam. A year later, a Baptist church was established in England as well. At the same time, the first community professing this faith arose. Later, in 1639, the first Baptists appeared in North America. This sect has become widespread in the New World, especially in the USA. Every year the number of its adherents grew with incredible speed. Over time, Baptist evangelicals have also spread throughout the world: to Asia and Europe, Africa and Australia, and, well, the Americas. By the way, during the American Civil War, most black slaves accepted this faith and became its ardent followers.

Spread of Baptism in Russia

Until the 70s of the 19th century in Russia, they practically did not know who the Baptists were. What kind of faith unites people who call themselves in this way? The first community of adherents of this faith appeared in St. Petersburg, its members called themselves evangelical Christians. Baptism came here from Germany along with foreign masters, architects and scientists invited by the Russian tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter Alekseevich. This current found the greatest distribution in the Taurida, Kherson, Kyiv, Yekaterinoslav provinces. Later it reached the Kuban and Transcaucasia.

The first Baptist in Russia was Nikita Isaevich Voronin. He was baptized in 1867. Baptism and evangelism are very close to each other, but they are nevertheless considered two separate directions in Protestantism, and in 1905 their adherents created the Union of Evangelists and the Baptist Union in the Northern capital. In the early years of Soviet power, attitudes towards any religious movement became biased, and the Baptists had to go underground. However, during the Patriotic War, both Baptists and Evangelicals became active again and united, creating the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists of the USSR. The Pentecostal sect joined them after the war.

Baptist Ideas

The main aspiration in life for adherents of this faith is service to Christ. The Baptist Church teaches that one must live in harmony with the world, but be not of this world, that is, obey earthly laws, but honor only Jesus Christ with one's heart. Baptism, which arose as a radical Protestant bourgeois movement, is based on the principle of individualism. Baptists believe that the salvation of a person depends only on the person himself, and that the church cannot be an intermediary between him and God. The only true source of faith is the Gospel - Holy Scripture, only in it you can find answers to all questions and, by fulfilling all the commandments, all the rules contained in this holy book, you can save your soul. Every Baptist is sure of this. This is the undeniable truth for him. All of them do not recognize the sacrament of the Church and holidays, do not believe in the miraculous power of icons.

Baptism in Baptism

Adherents of this faith go through the rite of baptism not in infancy, but at a conscious age, since a Baptist is a believer who fully understands what he needs baptism for, and regards this as a spiritual rebirth. In order to become a member of the congregation and be baptized, candidates need to go through Later they go through penance at a prayer meeting. The process of baptism includes dipping into water, followed by the rite of the breaking of bread.

These two rituals symbolize faith in spiritual union with the Savior. Unlike the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which consider baptism a sacrament, that is, a means of salvation, for Baptists, this step demonstrates the conviction that their religious views are right. Only after a person fully realizes the full depth of faith, only then will he have the right to go through the rite of baptism and become one of the members of the Baptist community. The spiritual leader performs this rite, helping his ward to plunge into the water, only after he was able to go through all the trials and convince the community members of the inviolability of his faith.

Baptism installations

According to this teaching, the sinfulness of the world outside the community is inevitable. Therefore, they stand up for strict observance of moral standards. An evangelical Christian Baptist should completely refrain from drinking alcohol, using swear words, and so on. Mutual support, modesty, and responsiveness are encouraged. All members of the community should take care of each other and help those in need. One of the main responsibilities of each of the Baptists is the conversion of dissidents to their faith.

Baptist creed

In 1905, the First World Baptist Christian Convention was held in London. On it, the Creed of the Apostolic Faith was approved as the basis of the doctrine. The following principles were also adopted:

1. Adherents of the Church can only be people who have gone through baptism, that is, an evangelical Christian Baptist is a spiritually reborn person.

2. The Bible is the only truth, in it you can find answers to any questions, it is an infallible and unshakable authority both in matters of faith and in practical life.

3. The universal (invisible) church is one for all Protestants.

4. Knowledge about Baptism and the Lord's Vespers are taught only to baptized, that is, reborn people.

5. Local communities are independent in practical and spiritual matters.

6. All members of the local community are equal. This means that even an ordinary Baptist is a member of the community who has the same rights as a preacher or spiritual leader. By the way, the early Baptists were against it, but today they themselves create something like ranks within their church.

7. For everyone - both believers and non-believers - there is freedom of conscience.

8. Church and state must be separated from each other.

Members of evangelical communities gather several times a week to listen to a sermon on a particular topic. Here are some of them:

• About suffering.
• Heavenly mess.
• What is holiness.
• Life in victory and abundance.
• Can you listen?
• Proof of the Resurrection.
• Secret of family happiness.
• The first bread-breaking in life, etc.

Listening to the sermon, adherents of the faith are trying to find answers to the questions that tormented them. Everyone can read a sermon, but only after special training, obtaining sufficient knowledge and skills in order to publicly speak to a large detachment of fellow believers. The main service of the Baptists is held weekly, on Sunday. Sometimes the congregation also meets on weekdays to pray, study and discuss information found in the Bible. The service takes place in several stages: sermon, singing, instrumental music, reading poems and poems on spiritual topics, as well as retelling of biblical stories.

Baptist holidays

The followers of this church movement or sect, as it is customary to call it in our country, have their own special calendar of holidays. Every Baptist reveres them sacredly. This is a list that consists of both common Christian holidays and solemn days inherent only in this church. Below is a complete list of them.

• Every Sunday is the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• The first Sunday of each month according to the calendar is the day of the breaking of bread.
• Christmas.
• Baptism.
• Meeting of the Lord.
• Annunciation.
• Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem.
• Holy Thursday.
• Sunday (Easter).
• Ascension.
• Pentecost (descent on the apostles of the Holy Spirit).
• Transfiguration.
• Harvest Feast (exclusively a Baptist holiday).
• Unity Day (celebrated since 1945 in memory of the unification of Evangelicals and Baptists).
• New Year.

World Famous Baptists

The followers of this religious trend, which has found distribution in more than 100 countries of the world, and not only in Christian, but also Muslim, and even Buddhist, are also world-famous writers, poets, public figures, etc.

For example, the Baptists were the English writer (Bunyan), who is the author of The Pilgrim's Progress; the great human rights activist, John Milton; Daniel Defoe - the author of one of the most famous works of world literature - the adventure novel "Robinson Crusoe"; Martin Luther King, who was an ardent campaigner for the rights of black slaves in the United States. In addition, big businessmen, the Rockefeller brothers, were Baptists.