In conclusion of this chapter, we will say a few words about the phenomenon that can be called the "Protestant tradition." Justice requires recognition of the fact of its existence. Each Protestant trend has its own books, which are, in fact, second only to the Holy Scriptures. The main source of doctrine, which contradicts the original principle of the Reformation – sola Scriptura (Scripture only). However, there is an attempt to "disown" this fact. However, as M. Erikson admits in his book "Christian Theology": "... Even those who reject tradition are often influenced by it, albeit in a slightly different form. The rector of a Baptist seminary once proudly declared, 'We Baptists do not adhere to tradition, but we preserve our historical Baptist views!'" 40. M. Erikson continues: "A tradition or tradition may not necessarily be ancient, although it must be old enough to be preserved and transmitted. The legend may be of recent origin. After all, any legend was once young. Some popular preachers and leaders in Christian circles create their own tradition. In fact, some of their key postulates are actually canonized by their followers."41 But which leaders of various Protestant movements, who lived a few centuries ago or are more modern to us, have not created their own tradition? For example, of the Baptist Confession of 1689, Samuel Waldron in A Modern Interpretation of the Baptist Confession of 1689, on the one hand, says that it is not an authority in itself,42 but at the same time, the author's meticulous approach to commenting on the text of the Confession of Faith testifies to the significance of its content. For example, commenting on the provision of the Confession of Faith on infant baptism, which states that "infants who die at an early age are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit..."43 Waldron writes: "... The Bible says nothing on this issue. Therefore, it would be much better if the Confession of Faith did not say anything about him at all (emphasis added. – M.O.)" 44. Is this not a recognition of the significance of the words of the Confession? By the way, it should be noted that this honest confession of Waldron reveals the inconsistency of the preliminary words of his book: "... confession of faith contains a clear formulation of pure biblical teaching."45 If the Bible, in Waldron's opinion, does not say anything about the salvation of infants, but the Confession of Faith does about it, then, according to Protestant logic, it cannot be called "the formulation of pure biblical teaching." Moreover, the clarity of the Confession of Faith stated in the preliminary remark is actually canceled by the following phrase: "It (i.e. Confession. – M.O.) is written in a concise and concise form and does not always allow you to easily comprehend the depth of the truths presented (emphasis added. – M.O.)" 46. The question inevitably arises: what, then, is its clarity? It is also incomprehensible how the Confession of Faith, not being an authority (but at the same time stating truths!), can serve as the official creed of "many churches": "many churches continue to regard this creed as their official creed".47 Similarly, the phrase "the commentaries (of S. Waldron. – M.O.) make it possible to deal in detail with the whole variety of questions relating to the exposition of the Christian faith, revealing them in a modern light."48 It is easy to see the recognition that biblical teaching needs to be expounded, which in this case is understood to be the text of the Confession. If one adheres to the original Protestant principle of solo Scriptura (Scripture alone), expositions, creeds, and creeds are logically excluded, and some Protestant groups are anxious to dispense with them.49 But the fact that the Bible itself is the object of a wide variety of interpretations and interpretations prompts Protestants to use in religious life not only the Bible, but also those statements of its content, the formulations of its teaching, which are recognized as true by a particular confession. In the same book by Waldron we read: "The author of one of the books declares: 'In order to reach the truth, we must get rid of religious prejudices. We must let God speak for Himself... We cry out to the Bible to reveal the truth to us." But it should be remembered that this statement is borrowed from the book Let God Be True, which was published by Jehovah's Witnesses."50 Thus, Protestants' awareness of the real threat of blurring the concept of "biblical teaching" leads to the formulation of their own faith, to the exposition of their own understanding of the Bible, which results in an inevitable interpretation of its text. But here it turns out that the expositions of faith themselves need to be interpreted, in their turn, in commentaries, the purpose of which is to help "to deal with all the variety of questions (sic. – M.O.) concerning the exposition of the Christian faith."51 Thus, the commentaries turn out to be an interpretation of the earlier texts of doctrinal formulas, which are themselves texts that interpret the Bible. Both the first and the second are not formally recognized as authority, but turn out to be one in reality. But all that we have said above does not prevent some Evangelical Christians from throwing "stones" at the Orthodox (and Catholics) like the following: "For a true Christian (emphasis added. – M.O.) the authority of faith and life is not the Church and its symbol of faith, but the Holy Scriptures. In all these cases, guided only by the Scriptures (?!!! - M.O.), a Christian can reject human institutions and courageously say: "Judge, is it right to listen to you more than to God? (Acts 4:19)"52. And this despite the fact that Pavel Rogozin writes about the existence of the "fundamental dogmas of the Christian faith,"53 although he does not take into account the fact that the term "dogma" in the sense in which he uses it here – namely, the basic Christian doctrinal truths – finally entered the life of the Church in the fourth century,54 that is, the modern meaning of the concept of "dogma" was not fixed by the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, and St. Tradition of the Church. Rejecting Tradition, Rogozin, at the same time, does not bother to specify in which specific book of the Bible and in which chapter of it (if not in the Symbol of Faith) the dogmas of the Christian faith are formulated, just as the following questions remain unanswered: having rejected Tradition, what exactly and on what basis in the text of Holy Scripture are we invited to consider dogmas, and also by what criterion and by whom should we separate the "basic" dogmas from the "secondary" ones? Moreover, in Rogozin's book we are amazed to find a strange statement, to say the least, about the reading of the Gospel in church: Rogozin calls it a "stencil." From a person who declares his exceptional respect for the Bible, in our opinion, one could expect a more respectful attitude to reading its text.

Chapter III The Non-Canonical Books of the Old Testament

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching;

for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

2 Tim. 3:16.

On the pages of the book "Where Did All This Come From?", Pavel Rogozin speaks of the non-canonical books of the Bible, calling them, in accordance with the Protestant tradition, apocrypha. The author does not distinguish between the attitude of the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church to these books, although they are different. In particular, Rogozin writes: "... Apocrypha... were included in the canon of the Bible only in 1546."56 In 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church included non-canonical books in the canon of the Bible. The Catholic Church calls these books de-deuterocanonical (deuterocanonical), but considers them part of the canon of St. John. Hagiographa. As for the Orthodox Church, She did not include these books in the biblical canon (which, in fact, is evident from their name – "non-canonical" books), but considered and still considers their content useful and edifying.57 The Church has very good reasons for this: Christ and the New Testament writers used the Translation of the Seventy,58 the Septuagint was accepted by the early Christian Church59: of the 238 Old Testament passages cited by the apostles in the New Testament, 234 are quoted from the text of the Septuagint. If "during the first and half of the second centuries the teaching of Christ was preserved by the Church in all its fullness and purity,"60 if a Christian must be guided "in all cases by the Scriptures alone",61 is it not natural and logical to use the version of the translation of the Old Testament used by those who set forth the teaching of Christ for us, thanks to whom we have that part of the Scriptures? which we call the New Testament? Moreover, the Hebrew text has deliberate tendentious distortions, as evidenced by both ancient sources and Qumran manuscripts discovered in the 20th century. St. Justin the Philosopher (II century) in his "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew" writes: "... they [the Jews – M.O.] completely excluded from the translation made by the elders under Ptolemy many passages of Scripture that clearly testify to what was foretold about God-manhood, humanity, and the death on the cross of this Crucified One."62 Similar thoughts are expressed by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in his work "Against Heresies" (Book II). III, ch.21, § 1-3). Study of the Pre-Zoretic manuscripts of the first century B.C., discovered in the middle of the XX century. in the famous caves of Qumran, it was shown that they correspond to the text of the Septuagint, that changes were indeed made in the Masoretic texts formed between the fifth and tenth centuries A.D. All this gives serious grounds for the Orthodox Church to trust the text of the Septuagint. As for the concept of "apocrypha," the Church calls apocrypha texts rejected by Her as fake, false, and not corresponding to the teaching already accepted by the Church. The meaning that the Orthodox Church attaches to the concept of "apocrypha" is synonymous in the Protestant tradition with the concept of "pseudepigrapha".63

Chapter IV Veneration of the Holy Relics