Evangelical Christians, Protestants and Catholics

Evangelical Christians, Orthodox and Catholics - similarities and differences

Evangelical Christians are Christians who belong to one of several independent Christian churches. Evangelical Christians, Catholics and Orthodox Christians, adhere to the fundamental principles of Christianity. For example, they all accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, adopted by the first Council of the Church in 325. They all believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in His divine essence and future coming. All three schools accept the Bible as the Word of God and agree that repentance and faith are necessary to have eternal life and escape hell. According to Operation Peace, there are about a billion evangelical Christians, more than a billion Catholics and 250 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. However, the views of Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelical Christians on some issues differ. Evangelical Christians value above all else the authority of the Bible and the right of every person to understand it without the mediation of a special caste of priests. Orthodox and Catholics value their traditions above the authority of the Bible, and also claim that only the leaders of these Churches can interpret the Bible correctly. The main differences between these three faiths are rooted in this fundamental fact. Below are answers to some questions you may have about the differences between the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Churches, but first a brief history of evangelical Christians.

One of the first reformers of Evangelical Christians was priest, professor of theology Jan Hus, a Slav who lived in the territory of modern Czech Republic and became a martyr for the faith in 1415. Hus taught that Scripture is more important than tradition. Later, starting in 1517, the Reformation spread throughout Europe when another Catholic priest and theology professor named Martin Luther called for renewal of the Catholic Church. He said that when the Bible conflicts with church traditions, the Bible must be obeyed. Luther said that the Church was doing wrong by selling the opportunity to go to heaven for money. He also believed that salvation came through faith in Christ and not through trying to “earn” eternal life through good works. For the first time, Evangelical Christians came to Russia during the time of Ivan the Terrible and by 1590 they were already in Siberia, in Tobolsk.

NOTE: "Neither Catholics, Orthodox, nor Evangelical Christians recognize Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Moonies as Christian churches."

Most Protestants are called evangelical Christians because the Apostle Paul himself calls our faith evangelical: “contending with one accord for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).

Evangelical Christians have nothing against church traditions unless those traditions contradict Scripture. They substantiate this primarily with the remarks of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (7:8): “For you, having abandoned the commandment of God, hold to the tradition of men...”, and in the Gospel of Matthew (15:3, 6): “...Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?... Thus you have made the commandment of God null and void by your tradition.”

Most evangelical Christians believe that children automatically go to heaven when they die. They also believe in the Bible's statement that baptism must follow repentance. They base this belief on the Second Book of Samuel (12:23), which describes the death of King David's infant son. David confidently says that the time will come - and he will see his son in heaven. The Bible also says that children do not know good and evil (Deut. 1:39). In the Epistle to the Romans (5:13) it is written: “...But sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Jesus said: “Let the children come and do not hinder them from coming to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). Protestants say that the Bible does not describe a single case of infant baptism, especially since even Jesus waited until he was 30 to be baptized.

Evangelical Christians believe that the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:4) prohibit the use of images for worship: “You shall not make for yourself any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Leviticus 26:1 says: “You shall not make idols or graven images for yourselves, neither shall you set up pillars for yourselves, nor shall you place gravestones with images on your land to bow down to them; for I am the Lord your God.” In Deuteronomy (4:15-16) the Lord says: “Keep it firmly in your souls that you did not see any image in the day that the Lord spoke to you at (Mount) Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest you turn aside and do yourself sculptures, images of some idol...” Therefore, evangelical Christians do not use images for worship for fear that some people may worship these images instead of God.

Evangelical Christians prefer to follow the instructions of Jesus Christ, where He taught us to pray by saying: “Pray thus: Our Father which art in heaven...” (Matt. 6:9). Evangelical Christians say there are no examples in Scripture of anyone praying to Mary or the saints. They believe that the Bible forbids praying to people who have died, even to Christians in heaven. They base this belief on the book of Deuteronomy (18:10-12), which says: “You shall not have anyone... who inquires of the dead.” God condemned Saul for contacting Saint Samuel after his death (1 Chron. 10:13-14), as well as many other places in Scripture.

Evangelical Christians believe that Mary was a perfect example of Christian obedience to God and that she remained a virgin until Jesus was born. The basis for this is the Gospel of Matthew (1:25), which says that Joseph, her husband, “knew her not before she gave birth to her firstborn Son,” and other passages from the Bible that talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus ( Matthew 12:46, 13:55-56, Mark 3:31, John 2:12, 7:3). Evangelical Christians do not believe that Mary was sinless because in Luke 1:47 she named God as her Savior; but she would not need a Savior if she were without sin.

Evangelical Christians believe that there is only one true Church, but do not believe that it is part of any man-made organization. This true Church consists of all Christians and local churches who love and serve God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ said that “not everyone who says to Me, “Lord!” Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:15,16,21).

Evangelical Christians accept most of the decisions of historical church councils, but do not consider them infallible. This attitude is based on the fact that some decrees, in particular those adopted at the last two Councils of Nicaea, contradict each other on the issue of icons. At the first of them, held in 754, the use of icons was completely prohibited in the church, while at the second, in 787, it was decided that icons should be used. Evangelical Christians accept the decisions of Councils only when they are consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

Evangelical Christians respect and value the teachings of the Church Fathers (church leaders who lived after the apostles) when those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. This is based on the fact that often the Church Fathers do not agree with each other.

Evangelical Christians do not believe that the relics of saints contain any special power because the Bible does not teach this. Evangelical Christians believe that the incident with the bones of Elisha, which resurrected the dead (2 Kings 13:21), was nothing more than the fulfillment of God’s promise to give Elisha double the spirit that was on Elijah (2 Kings 2:9). The miracle that occurred after Elisha's death was just twice the number of miracles performed by Elijah. Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible does not indicate that Christians should honor the bodies of the dead.

Ministers of Evangelical Christians do not wear cassocks because neither Jesus nor the apostles wore any special clothing; there is also no indication in this regard in the New Testament. They are not usually called “father” because Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew (23:9): “And call no one on earth your father...”.

Evangelical Christians do not object to the sign of the cross, but since Scripture does not teach it, they do not teach it either.

Evangelical Christians and Catholics believe that the iconostasis symbolizes the veil separating people from the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple. They believe that when God tore it in two at the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:51), He was saying that we are no longer separated from Him because of the blood He shed so that we would be forgiven if we repented. and let us believe in Christ for our salvation.

Jesus said in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Evangelical Christians believe that worship is sanctified not by the location of the service or the building, but by the presence of Christ among the believers. The Bible also says that Christians are the temple of God, not buildings: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” states the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 3:16). The Bible shows that the early Christians held services in many different places: in the school (Acts 19:9), in the Jewish synagogues (Acts 18:4, 26; 19:8), in the Jewish temple (Acts 3:1), and in private homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 18:7; Phil. 1:2; 18:7; Col. 4:15; Rom. 16:5 and 1 Cor. 16:19) . Evangelism services, according to the Bible, took place near the river (Acts 16:13), in the street crowd (Acts 2:14), and in the public square (Acts 17:17).

The Apostle Peter, when asked a similar question (Acts 2:37-38), responded this way: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.” In the Gospel of Mark (16:16), the Lord Jesus said: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; and whoever does not believe will be condemned.” The Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians (2:8-9): “For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast.”

News

To many evangelical Christians (not theologians, but simple believers), Orthodoxy seems so incomprehensible and distant that it is not even taken seriously as Christianity. The veneration of icons, saints, and the Mother of God is perceived by evangelical Christians as paganism, and the performance of incomprehensible rituals and the observance of forgotten holidays make Orthodoxy an incomprehensible, confused religion from the distant dark past. However, if you try to get to know it a little more carefully, you quickly become convinced that there is no paganism in Orthodox teaching, and that ancient rituals and sacraments have a deep spiritual meaning. But I would like to talk not about the external, but about the internal, and not just about the admissibility of the “Orthodox version of Christianity” on an equal basis with other versions, but about the actual correctness of Orthodoxy on many issues. Therefore, I will not dwell on the meaning of Orthodoxy in the veneration of icons, prayers to saints and Mary - entire books have been written about this, they are easy to find on the Internet.

Here are seven reasons that made me, after thirteen years in the Baptist-evangelical faith, take a serious look at Orthodoxy. 1. Authority in the field of biblical interpretation.

Among evangelicals, the Bible is interpreted by scholars or “revolutionaries”; among the Orthodox - the holy fathers of the Church.

2. The doctrinal heritage of the Church.

Evangelicals are selective in their approach to the Church's heritage, accepting only certain dogmas; Orthodoxy clings to the entire Tradition.

3. Which is older - the Bible or the Church?

In the view of evangelical Christians, the Church is based on the Bible, in the Orthodox view it is the other way around.

4. History of the Church

Evangelical Christians turn a blind eye to the huge period of church history, from the 4th to the 14th centuries.

5. Self-esteem and personal sanctification

Evangelicals have assurance of salvation. The Orthodox have a desire for it.

6. Forgotten Biblical Customs

Confession, discipleship and mentoring, special respect for church ministers - all this is in the New Testament and in Orthodoxy, but is absent in the life of Evangelical Christians.

7. Eucharist

What is called a sacrament in Orthodoxy, Evangelicals consider just a symbol.

1. Authority in the field of biblical interpretation.

One of the fundamental ideas in evangelical Christianity is that the Bible can be interpreted by anyone, and the correct interpretation is the one that seems correct to you. Of course, in practice, evangelicals rely on the interpretations of authoritative, educated people, and not just on their own strengths. Professors, people who have received special education in the field of theology and biblical studies, compose biblical commentaries and write books explaining this or that aspect of the faith. What's wrong with this? This is so commonplace that it does not cause any surprise - of course, to explain the Bible, you need appropriate education. But in the ancient Church, it was not education, but the holiness of a person’s life, his closeness to God that made him an authority on biblical issues! In Orthodoxy this remains the case - for explanations of the Bible, Orthodox Christians turn to the works of saints and monks. And Protestantism, in the apt expression of S. N. Bulgakov, is a “professor’s religion.” When scientists, and not saints, took up the development of Christian doctrine, a substitution of authorities occurred, which can be compared to a time bomb. The fact is that God gave us a model of the “correct” saint - a saint should be like Jesus Christ, but did not give us a model of the “correct” scientist-theologian. Christ does not change, and saints should be equally holy at all times, but scientific methods, the prevailing ideas in the academic environment, are changeable. Thus, the emergence of a modified, liberal “Christianity” among scientific theologians was only a matter of time. That “lite” religion that can be found in many churches in the former USSR, and especially in the West, is the product of the substitution of Bible interpreters. Shocking innovations, such as openly homosexual priests, communities where only fun and pleasant things are preached - all this did not suddenly appear among Protestants and Evangelicals, but gradually matured and grew, based on their view of authorities.

2. The doctrinal heritage of the Church.

The principle of “Sola Scriptura” (“Scripture Alone”) means that in matters of doctrine there is only one authority: the Bible. In practice, the Bible alone is not enough for the life and teaching of the church. For example, all Christians believe in the Trinity, but the dogma of the Trinity does not clearly follow from Scripture. This dogma was adopted by resolution of the Ecumenical Council. It turns out that Protestants and Evangelical Christians accept as authority not only the Bible, but also the decrees of church councils. However, here they are inconsistent: they do not accept all the decisions of all Ecumenical Councils, but only some. A selective approach in religious matters is very characteristic of our time. People often say: “I don’t believe in a God who destroyed people with a flood, burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, brought a bear to the children who teased Elisha, etc.” The same people say: “A God who gives all people equal chances, who wishes people only joy, who loves us as we are, who does not require any extra effort from us - this is the kind of God I believe in.” It turns out that many people invent a “God” in whom it is convenient for them to believe. Choose what qualities your god will have and believe in him. Unfortunately, this fictional god has nothing in common with the One who created the heavens and the earth, who holds everything in the universe in His hand. The approach of the evangelicals to doctrine has a similar feature: we choose something, and reject the rest, and believe in the “church teaching” that we ourselves have compiled from fragments of the heritage of the historical Church. Thus, evangelical movements not only do not follow the principle of “Sola Scriptura”, but they exhibit worldly selectivity in what to believe. If we admit that “Scripture alone” is not enough, then we need to take a much more careful look at the heritage of that Church, which defined the dogma of the Trinity, the canon of Scripture, and other aspects of the doctrine that we are accustomed to ignoring.

3. Which is older - the Bible or the Church?

It is difficult to understand why, while accepting the Bible as a doctrinal authority, evangelical Christians do not accept the teachings of the Church that formed the Bible. After all, historically, the authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church (and not vice versa). For the first few centuries, Christianity lived, developed and spread without a canonized collection of books, relying only on oral and practical traditions. Later, in the 4th century, the Church established which New Testament books were considered divinely inspired. But Protestants and evangelicals “took out” the foundation of the church from under the Bible and declared that it was an authority in itself. In the minds of an evangelical Christian, the idea of the Bible as a book on which the Church is built (and not of the Church as a Body through which and for which the Lord created the Bible) is very common. In fact, the Church was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ without a single book at all. By the way, if you look at the history of the Old Testament, a similar phenomenon also happened there - first God made a covenant with Abraham, led his descendants through many trials, and then, several centuries later, gave through Moses the Pentateuch, and even later - the rest of the books of the Old Testament. It turns out, both from a purely practical point of view and from a historical one, it is not entirely fair to declare the Bible as the only authority, rejecting the authority of church tradition. If we reject church authority, there remains an empty space that needs to be filled with something, questions remain for which there are no clear answers in the Bible. Historically, evangelical movements have filled this empty space with their own theological traditions, very disparate ones. In today's society, when it is no longer acceptable to do and think “as is customary,” these theological traditions have become even less authoritative than before. Even in those churches where the Bible is still taken seriously, the attitude towards the interpretation of Scripture is becoming increasingly free, with arbitrary “symbolic” interpretation of any “inconvenient” passages. Orthodoxy, with its established, unified view of doctrine, with the enormous heritage of saints, looks very contrasting against this background.

4. History of the Church

I am not a historian, and in this case this is my advantage: I could truly naively, like most ordinary believers, perceive the “popular history of the Church” as presented by Evangelical Baptist pastors. I don’t know what they teach in Bible colleges and seminaries, but this is the impression I got about the history of Christianity during my first years in the evangelical church. In the first centuries, thanks first to the Apostles, then to persecution, the Church was preserved in a living, pristine state. But as soon as the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the rapid degradation of the Church began. From about the 4th century. and even before the beginning of the Reformation, the living Christian Church, in fact, did not exist - there were only individual true believers who managed to maintain faith in Christ rather in spite of than thanks to the official Church. Luther, and after him Calvin, Zwingli and other reformers revived original Christianity, which was most fully revived in ___________ (insert the name of your denomination). This, of course, is exaggerated and very schematic, but, quite possibly, this is approximately how the average ordinary Baptist or Pentecostal sees the history of the Church. In fact, outstanding Orthodox and Catholic saints lived during this “historical gap”; during this time, so many important events for Christian history took place - the translation of the Bible into many languages, the conversion of European countries to Christianity; During this time, so many works of art were created for the glory of Christ. All this somehow does not fit into the idea of a “historical hole.” It is even more difficult to reconcile Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against His Church with such a view of history. If the Church as a single entity really ceased to exist in the 4th century, and after 11 centuries it seemed to be reborn, but not in the form of a single Body, but in the form of disparate, warring currents, then how should we understand His words about the invincibility of His Church? Something is wrong: either Christ did not actually speak such bold words, or this popular view of Church history is incorrect.

5. Self-esteem and personal sanctification

Self-esteem is now given great importance. Modern psychologists see low self-esteem as the root of almost all problems in human life. And it is in this area that one of the most glaring differences between the Protestant/Evangelical and Orthodox worldviews lies. The "assurance of one's own salvation" to which the evangelist must firmly adhere is based on a simple assumption: whoever has once prayed to Christ to forgive his sins and come into his heart is already born again and filled with the Holy Spirit, already has a new nature like the nature of Christ. How can such a person not be confident of salvation! The fact that this person may still be irritable, envious, touchy or deceitful, and his “love” extends only to nice and pleasant people, should not, according to the beliefs of many evangelical Christians, affect personal assurance of salvation. A person who is confident that he is the chosen one, on a par with the Apostles and the Mother of Jesus, cannot have problems with low self-esteem. On the contrary, from an Orthodox Christian you can often hear sighs about his sinfulness, complaints about weakness of will, and the conclusion - “I still cannot call myself either born again or filled with the Holy Spirit.” Which view is more correct? Which of them is skewed - among the Orthodox, towards modesty, or among the Evangelicals, towards self-confidence? There are quite a few passages in the New Testament that offer the same criterion for testing the authenticity of our faith: true faith is that which is reflected in the practical sanctification of a person's entire life, and this faith is maintained to the end. The Bible has a pragmatic approach to the matter in this regard: “by their fruits you will know them.” In relation to self-esteem, we can paraphrase this: “we recognize ourselves by our fruits.” In other words, to know for sure whether you are saved, you need to live your life to the end. It turns out that from a purely biblical perspective we have every reason to be “modest” regarding the confidence in our salvation. What are the practical consequences of the self-esteem of “saved” and “saved”? If I already consider myself saved, already resemble Christ in all traits of character (though this similarity is hidden somewhere deep inside, so that my neighbors would never confuse me with Christ), then what sense does practical sanctification have for me? The only point is to simply fulfill what Christ and the Apostles command in the Bible - despite the fact that fulfilling or not fulfilling these commands will no longer affect anything, I am already saved. In general, the meaning of obeying is, one might say, ritual. For those “being saved,” practical actions are a matter of life and death. No, they do not hope to be justified by works; their hope is only in grace. But the only way to be sure that grace has truly touched me is to see my practical deeds, my practical obedience to God. Just as, in the words of the Apostle John, “no one has ever seen God,” but the Son of God, having become incarnate, showed God to people, so invisible grace, the action of the invisible Holy Spirit, becomes apparent only through human actions.

6. Forgotten Biblical Customs

Some customs, which were something completely natural and necessary for the early Church (judging by how they are spoken of in the New Testament), for some reason were “overboard” by Protestants and Evangelicals. One of these customs is regular confession. This is how the Apostle James writes about it: “Confess your faults to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed; the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). According to James, it is absolutely necessary for a Christian to go to confession for spiritual and even physical health. However, among evangelicals, especially in the West, this is not only not accepted, but completely forgotten. Who should a Baptist believer go to to confess? To the pastor? Perhaps the pastor will be able to pay enough attention to him once, but he does not have time for regular confession. Maybe to his brothers and sisters in the Bible group (if he is lucky and goes to such a group)? But they hardly have enough spiritual experience not to be embarrassed by the sins of others. In addition, a whole bunch of problems are revealed - the secret of confession (the evangelical pastors did not promise anything to anyone in this regard), assistance in preparing for confession, etc. It seems that Evangelical Christians do not have confession, and it would even be difficult to “build it in.” However, if you look more closely, it turns out that in Protestant-Evangelical society there is still something similar to confession, only this phenomenon exists in a form that completely changes the meaning of confession in relation to the life of a Christian. The closest analogue to confession in the Protestant world is Christian psychological counseling. Indeed, a person comes to a consultant to have the opportunity to pour out his soul, understand himself, receive support and advice, pray together, and leave with renewed confidence that Christ has forgiven him and “everything is not so bad.” It seems to be very similar to confession in Orthodoxy. However, since this is called “psychological consultation,” it is immediately clear that not everyone needs it, but only people with serious psychological problems. Have you ever gone to such a consultation? Me not. And from my acquaintances I have never heard delight like: “You know, I went to a psychological consultation yesterday - such a relief!” In contrast to this “analogue,” Orthodox confession is due to all believers. In the Orthodox view, we are all equally sick and equally in need of treatment. And confession is one of the means of treatment, as Jacob wrote. Another forgotten custom is for the believer to have a confessor, i.e. spiritual mentor. The Apostle Paul mentions disciples and teachers in his epistles (“If you are taught by the word, share every good thing with him who teaches,” Gal. 6:6), and it seems that for Paul discipleship is part of the normal process of Christian spiritual growth. It should be noted that in the evangelical environment there are individual initiatives to revive discipleship (Navigators, cell groups), but these are disparate movements, and there is no single idea of what discipleship should be. For the most part, ordinary evangelical believers simply go to meetings on Sundays, and at home they read the Bible and pray more or less regularly. In Orthodoxy, the practice of spiritual mentoring has been preserved, as in New Testament times: many Orthodox believers have confessors. Mentoring, discipleship, and continuity are closely related to another topic - respect for church ministers. Paul writes that ministers are to be “showed special honor,” i.e. extreme honor. Evangelical movements, which historically began with the denial of church authority, fundamentally disagree with the reverence of any human authorities. This seems to be one of the reasons why evangelical churches continually fragment and divide, and why most young congregations arise from schisms and rebellions in older churches. After all, young believers in these churches know, from the example of their spiritual fathers, only one way to resolve conflicts among church leaders: schism. Schism is a hereditary disease of Protestant movements.

7. Eucharist

In the understanding of evangelical Christians, the Eucharist, or Communion, is a symbol, a reminder of the events of 2000 years ago. For Orthodox Christians, communion is not a symbol, but a real touch of the Blood and Body of the Lord, i.e. the bodily presence of Christ Himself in the Church. Which view is more correct? The symbolic one is clearer, especially for modern people. But did Christ have only symbols and images in mind when he commanded his disciples to drink His Blood and eat His Body? In the Gospel of John, when Jesus shocked the crowd by demanding that they eat and drink His Body and Blood for salvation, people began to desert Him. If He meant only symbols, and not a mysterious literal reality, why didn’t He immediately say so, explain? But He sharpens the conflict even more, inviting even the Apostles to leave Him. The seriousness with which Christ leaves the commandment about Communion, the seriousness with which the Apostle Paul writes about this, makes us think that the Eucharist is not a symbol, but an incomprehensible, mysterious reality. Orthodoxy turns out to be to the right of evangelical Christians on this issue. Judging by the words of Jesus Christ (“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” John 6:53), and later Paul (“whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord is unworthy , will be guilty against the Body and Blood of the Lord,” 1 Cor. 11:27), our Christian life depends on our perception of the Eucharist. But it is enough to compare the focus of attention in the Orthodox liturgy and in the Baptist meeting to see a very serious difference in attitude towards this central issue. In the Orthodox liturgy, everything is centered around one event: the physical, real presence of Christ, real contact with Him; among evangelicals, the meeting consists mainly of songs and sermons, and Communion is an incomprehensible symbol that must be observed, but which does not directly affect our lives. The meaning that Christians attach to the Eucharist is reflected not only in the form of worship, but also in the entire life of believers. It’s one thing to live in memories of the events of the distant past, it’s completely different to experience a real “invasion” into your life of the Blood and Body of that very Christ, Who once shocked his listeners with the words: “if you do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man...”

(*) Although Evangelical Baptist and Charismatic believers are often called Protestants, they are not, strictly speaking, followers of the ideas of Luther and Calvin. Therefore, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I will call here Baptists, Pentecostals and the young movements that descended from them “evangelical Christians” or “evangelicals”, but not “Protestants”.

Source: https://orlenko.blogspot.de/2004/11/blog-post.html

“Shameful questions” about evangelical Christianity

In the modern world there are 920 million Protestants, or evangelical Christians - this is the second largest denomination of Christianity. By comparison, this is almost four times the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide.

The key moment that led to the emergence of this movement was the call of the Catholic monk Martin Luther to return to the Bible as the main authority in human life. Today this is the motto of life for more than 4 million residents of the CIS countries and Ukraine who consider themselves to be Evangelical Christianity (from the word “Gospel”, that is, the good news of Jesus Christ).

In 2021, Evangelical Christianity turns 501 years old. In honor of this event, we have prepared a list of “shameful” questions that many have asked themselves (including us). Pavel Togobitsky, Master of Theology, teacher at the Novosibirsk Biblical Theological Seminary, helps us answer them.

I'm not a religious person. Why do I need all this?

Your formulation suggests that faith is some kind of addition to everyday life: some like it, some don’t. But the questions of the existence of God, His plan and our position before Him are not secondary, and cannot be so.

For example: when a person is urged not to grab a bare wire, the answer “I'm not very interested in the laws of physics” is inappropriate. When your appendix bursts and you are dying from peritonitis, it is stupid to refuse surgery, explaining your choice by the fact that you are not a supporter of a healthy lifestyle. The true essence of what is happening in the world is determined by God's laws. According to the Bible, we can only be delivered from eternal death in sins by His saving intervention. You need to look not for religiosity, but for meaning, holiness and eternity. For this we have the Bible and the Church.

Why are you called Evangelical Christians?

Representatives of different faiths call themselves Evangelical Christians when they want to emphasize the importance of faith in the Gospel and its preaching.

“Gospel” is translated from Greek as “good news.” The essence of the good news of the New Testament is that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, “died for our sins and rose again for our justification.” All people are corrupted by sin, guilty and, in the face of a holy God, doomed to eternal torment. We have nothing to offer for our salvation, and we have neither the strength nor the means to truly change ourselves. But God, not wanting our destruction, Himself solved this problem: the Son of God became man in order to die for our sins and, having been resurrected, to give us eternal life with Him. The only condition for this connection is faith. He calls us to believe and trust in Him.

All who have believed in God through this message agree that the message of God is indeed precious. Therefore, church communities consisting of people who have experienced salvation like to call themselves evangelical.

Why not just go to a regular church like everyone else?

Just going to church would be enough if we were generally good people, and God just needed to tweak things a little. But according to the Bible, each of us must change radically. So much so that the Bible describes the believer as having died to the old life and being born again to the new.

In that life you could be “like everyone else.” But the new life is not ours. It is given by God and belongs to Him. And God intended it to take place in a community of believers who do His work together, love each other, and are united in such a way that they are rightfully called brothers and sisters. A real church is not a place where people go, it is a family in which they live. It is important to be a living part of God's community.

What is the difference between Orthodox and non-Orthodox?

Both Orthodox and Protestants believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the incarnation, death on the cross and resurrection of the Son of God Jesus Christ and that through Him we are saved.

There are different ideas about accepting salvation. For an Orthodox Christian, this is, first of all, the path along which God leads him to perfection. For a Protestant, this is the gift of rebirth, adoption and new life, accepted by a helpless person. For an Orthodox, life by faith is a way to receive salvation; for a Protestant, it is a response of love to love. In addition to this, Protestants insist on the absolute authority of the Bible alone. And, finally, professing salvation by faith, they do not believe that those who are saved are only in their church, but that everyone who truly believes is saved.

It's not all ours. We are Russians/Ukrainians/Belarusians/Kazakhs. How is this better than the faith of our ancestors?

Speaking about the faith of our ancestors, we can, of course, recall the pantheons of pagan gods associated with one or another tribe or place. Modern attempts to revive them are fantasies and remakes. Nobody needs genuine ancient cults.

If the faith of the ancestors is understood as the Orthodox version of Christianity, then it is worth noting that the one God is not limited to a nation or territory. He is God for all peoples, so the attempt to insist on the priority of national tradition is an attempt to extend ridiculous paganism where it has no place. Nationalism is alien to genuine faith. Therefore, if the best way for me to worship God is different from the tradition of my ancestors, I will prefer that way. This does not mean that you should despise the culture of those around you, but it is important to allow Christ to transform your culture.

Protestants, is this some kind of sect?

Today, “sect” is an offensive word designed to emphasize the alienation and depravity of a certain religious movement. Although there are more Protestants in the world than Orthodox Christians, here in Russia there are really few of us. Moreover, the Orthodox insist that they are the only true Church in the universe. So we are doomed to be called a “sect”.

It’s just not about nicknames, but about people’s loyalty to God. Historical merit, number of followers, wealth or political influence - or the absence of any of these - does not indicate God's evaluation of a particular community of believers. We simply try to be pleasing to Him, despite the insults and ridicule. And it’s worth assessing “sects” and “non-sects” from the point of view of God’s will, revealed to all of us in the Bible.

Where did Protestantism begin?

Typically, all churches whose origins and views are associated with the Reformation of the 16th century are called Protestant. The reformers tried to cleanse the church of the husks of human inventions.

Their views are often summed up as follows: “Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, glory to God alone.” A significant figure in this process was the Catholic monk and teacher Martin Luther. He was not the first and not the only one, but, thanks to a confluence of many circumstances, it was his activity that became the impetus for a massive change in church life.

The day of his speech against indulgences, October 31, 1517, is celebrated as the day of the Reformation. However, the main object of his attention was not indulgences, but the cross of Christ and our salvation by the grace of God through faith.

What significance does some medieval monk have for us?

Christians of all times believe in one God, meditate on the same Bible, and struggle with similar temptations. Therefore, other believers can become good interlocutors, mentors and examples for us, regardless of the time of their life.

Sometimes Martin Luther is presented as the founder of some new church. He himself would be quite surprised by this. During the Reformation, the Church was not created anew, but local churches, that is, various communities of believers, learned to please God through the careful execution of His Scripture. Luther actively participated in this. Their efforts bore theological and practical fruits that we still benefit from 500 years later.

So Martin Luther is one of our God-blessed brothers and interlocutors in thinking about matters of faith and godly life.

Maybe it's just a new fashion? After the collapse of the USSR, everyone turned to esotericism.

Indeed, back then people grabbed everything that became available. Years of prohibitions created a strong hunger, which was sometimes satisfied very thoughtlessly. But the very fact of this famine is worthy of attention.

We are not created for a godless life. Man becomes fully human only in communication with his Creator. The fact that spiritual life has been replaced by surrogates does not make it fake. A Christian sees how amazingly God changes a person, comes to know God himself, feels the joy of love, and understands the value of holiness. Against the background of life with Christ, all esotericism fades.

In addition, we should not forget that there were Christians in the USSR. And for those who sacrificed their lives for God, faith was certainly not fashionable.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Scientologists also Protestants?

Unfortunately, false faith is possible. “Teachers” appear periodically, bringing new “revelations”, and they have followers.

Jehovah's Witnesses, indeed, came from a Protestant environment, but their refusal to believe in God the Trinity and, in particular, that Jesus, the Son of God, is “Jehovah” took them beyond the boundaries of Christianity altogether. Mormons have a whole book of false revelations. Scientologists have never had anything to do with the church. There are many like them.

Classical Protestantism has always insisted on the authority of the Bible alone and paid attention to the experience of its interpretation by previous generations of Christians. He shares the original faith and trust of all Christians in God the Son, who became man, died and rose again for our salvation. “Faith” that does not lead to a relationship with Him is meaningless.

No one would do this if it were unprofitable. Where is the “booat”?

Because religion deals with issues of utmost importance, it can become a powerful and dangerous tool. Therefore, it is often used for “gain”.

In part, this can be compared to love. Is it possible to manipulate it or profit from it? Yes. But only very unhappy people are ready to say that all human relationships exist for the sake of money. In the spiritual realm the number of unfortunates is greater and suspicion is stronger.

But just as you can sincerely rejoice in another person, so, and even to a greater extent, you can rejoice in God. He first loved us, came to us, took our sin upon Himself and died for us. When such a price is paid, any other “gain” becomes worthless. You just don’t need to give in to religious deceivers. It is important to know the God who revealed Himself in the Bible and to trust Him.