Proceeding to a more detailed consideration of the topic of Holy Tradition, first of all, let us immediately make a reservation: the Orthodox Church does not oppose Holy Scripture to Holy Tradition. For the Church, Holy Scripture is a part, or more precisely, a qualitatively different form of church life23: "... Tradition embraces the entire life of the Church to such an extent that Holy Scripture itself is only one of its forms."24 The content of the Holy Scriptures. Tradition cannot and does not contradict the Holy Scriptures. Scripture by virtue of the unity of their Source. The basis of Orthodox faithfulness to Tradition is the divine promise of the Savior: "When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). The truth has been revealed to us once and for all by Christ: "... I... I have told you all that I have heard from My Father" (John 15:15), – in Christ we have the fullness of Divine Revelation, at least that which we are able to contain. At the same time, the Church is a living organism, since the Holy Spirit dwells in her until the end of time: "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16). Therefore, for the Eastern Church, Tradition is "... it is not only knowledge, not so much information, as a living experience of the knowledge of God, the experience of a three-dimensional vision of the divinely revealed truth, without which true knowledge turns out to be impossible."25 According to the teaching of the Church, Christ and His Apostles taught everything that was necessary for salvation, but the full, correct understanding by the Church of what was given was conditioned by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, Who guides the Church into all truth. The content of the Orthodox faith has not been reduced or changed over time, however, depending on historical conditions, the Church at different times of Her existence expresses Her faith in different terms, using different formulations, which is caused by the need to protect the doctrine from false teachings that arise from time to time. At the same time, the dogma is not a new revelation, it is only a testimony to the eternal truth revealed in Revelation. The theological thought of the Church only clarifies the expression of the Truth in verbal formulations. Thus, if the Church does not speak out about this or that subject of doctrine in a certain epoch, it is not because She did not know this teaching and did not confess it, but because, in view of the absence of perplexities and disagreements, there was no need to speak about it. For example, the key term that made it possible to formulate the Church's belief that God is one in essence and triune in Persons – the term "consubstantial" – was adopted by the Church only in the fourth century, although the Church had not previously doubted this. However, the fact that this concept was developed within the framework of the Holy Scriptures. Tradition entered the life of the Church only in the fourth century. does not prevent Protestants from using it as well.26

Holy Scripture, as noted above, is one of the forms of Holy Tradition, but Tradition is not exhausted by Holy Scripture: not being a collection of any specific monuments, the Holy Tradition of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, and it is natural to it by virtue of the unity of their source. Sizing is Go and Included =Meets the Requirements of Cutting

includes other forms, such as: ancient creeds, ancient rules, definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, liturgical practice of the Church, lives of saints, works of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, etc. "Holy Scripture is not deeper or more important than Holy Tradition, ... and one of its forms, ... withdrawn from the stream of Holy Tradition, Scripture cannot be understood as it should by any scientific research."27

Returning to the text of Pavel Rogozin's book, let us consider some of the arguments that the author tries to use as arguments against Holy Tradition. Pavel Rogozin writes: "... we learn (Rev. 22:18-19) that the Holy Scriptures contain within themselves a completely complete revelation of God, to which it is strictly and forever forbidden by God to add."28 This passage from the Book of Revelation reads as follows: "And I also testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will put on him the plagues of which it is written in this book; and if anyone takes away anything from the words of the book of this prophecy (emphasis added. - M.O.), God will take away from him a part in the book of life, and in the holy city, and in the things that are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18-19). As we can see, Ap. John speaks of "this book," emphasizing "this" and not any other, "the book of this prophecy," meaning the Apocalypse. At present, the overwhelming majority of researchers believe that the Apocalypse was written at the end of the reign of Domitian, when Ap. John was in exile on the island of Patmos (i.e. about 95 AD). 29, and the Apocalypse was the first book written by the Apostle John: the Gospel and the three Epistles of Ap. Researchers attribute John to the year 104, by the way, it should be noted that of all the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, the Gospel of John and his three epistles are the latest in writing.30 Rogozin further writes: "Our Savior

… not only did he not place tradition on a par with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, but always called them "human." Christ repeatedly says (Matt. 15:2-6) that it is impossible to remove the Holy Spirit. Scripture for the sake of traditions, which, by the way, were not lacking in His day."31

The New Testament repeatedly uses the concept of "tradition": "We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to depart from every brother who walks disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6), "I praise you, brethren, that you remember all my things, and keep the traditions as I have handed down to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). If the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16), then it is impossible not to trust the words of St. Paul. Paul, who calls to "hold" the Tradition preserved by the Church and to distance oneself from those who do not act in accordance with the tradition received from the Apostles. As for the "tradition of the elders" (Matt. 15:2), this passage to which Rogozin refers refers is about the ritual washing of hands: the prescription for external cleanliness was more important for rabbinical legislation than the instructions for internal cleanliness. Similar passages in the Gospel (Mark 7:1-16; Matt. 23:1-36; Luke 11:37-41) also refer to the condemnation of hypocrisy, to the warning that the observance of form should not become an end in itself. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for "forsaking the most important things (emphasis added). – M.O.) in the law: judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23). But even in these severe rebukes, Christ does not forbid the outward manifestation of piety: "This ought to be done, and not to be forsaken" (emphasis added. – M.O.)," says the same Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 23-23),32 to which Rogozin refers, unfortunately without specifying what the "tradition of the elders" of the time of Christ and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church have in common, except for the very concept of "tradition," which, as we have found out, has many meanings. Nevertheless, the author considers it possible to draw an analogy between the "tradition of the elders" of the times of Christ's earthly life and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, without substantiating the regularity of such an analogy.

Further, on the pages of the chapter "Legends", the reader is confronted with the most amazing discoveries. In an attempt to reject the tradition of the sojourn of St. Paul. Peter in Rome, Rogozin writes: "Having left Jerusalem on the eve of its siege, Ap. Peter, along with other apostles and believers, settled in Babylon (!! – M.O.), where a small Christian community was formed. From Babylon Ap. Peter wrote two of his conciliar epistles, and there he died (1 Pet. 5:13 and 2 Pet. 1:14)."33 No explanation is provided for this impressive statement, nor is there a single reference to the source of the information. Pavel Rogozin is not at all embarrassed by the fact that the ancient capital of Mesopotamia, an ardent enemy of the Israeli people in the Old Testament, Babylon, once located on the Euphrates River, was lying in ruins at the time of the writing of the Epistles by the Apostle Peter.34 No monuments of antiquity have come down to us that would connect the ministry of St. Paul. Petra with the region of Mesopotamia. By Babylon, however, the New Testament tradition often refers to Rome (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).35 Church tradition about the sojourn of Apostle Peter in Rome and about his martyrdom in this city is attested to by ancient sources: this is stated in the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (con. I century), in the Epistle of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Romans (beginning of the second century), moreover, all Christian writers of the second century speak of the death of Ap. Peter in Rome.36 Finally, the remains of the funerary monument of Ap. Peter, a "trophy" erected in Rome in the cemetery of the Vatican Hill around 160-170, which is mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea in the Church History (II, 25, 7) (IV century), were discovered by archaeologists under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in the middle of the 19th century. 37 Therefore, Rogozin's statement: "It has been historically proven that Ap. Peter was never in Rome,"38 we can only qualify as the so-called argument to ignorance (ad ignorantium) in logic.39 The author most obviously abuses the ignorance of his readers.

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.