"The Eucharist" — Dispute (interview) the Orthodox Christian with Baptists

The following persons participated in the dispute:

On the Orthodox side: Priest Evgeny Veselov (speaker), Alan Bedoev and others.

On the Baptist side: Pastor Sergey Antonovich Didovets, Pastor Alexander Finogenov (speaker) and others.

* Minimal literary editing of the text was carried out for ease of reading. Comments of the priest Evgeny Veselov.

Baptist report (Pastor Alexander Finogenov)

Baptist Pastor (Speaker): We have prepared definitions for the word "Participle". The following names for this institution are found in the Bible:

"The Lord's Supper," or, in plain language, " The Lord's Supper "(1 Corinthians 11: 20); "The breaking of bread" (Acts 1: 20).2: 42; Acts II.20: 7); "Communion", that is, more simply, "communion" (1 Corinthians 10: 16), and "The cup of blessing" (1 Corinthians 10:16).

In addition, in more recent times, the following names have emerged:

"Eucharist" (Greek: eὐχαριστία – thanksgiving); "Liturgy", i.e. service; "Mass", probably from the Latin word "missa", i.e. absolution, these words were used to release people from the church who did not receive holy water baptism before Communion; "Bloodless sacrifice", since some Christian churches use this word to describe people who did not receive holy water baptism before Communion. confessions believe that during Communion, when the bread is broken, the sacrifice of Christ is repeated again; the "Mystery", that is, the mystery. These are the basic concepts.

The Biblical description of Christ's Supper. It was the usual Passover meal in the Jewish tradition. At the end of the meal, Christ took bread – Jewish unleavened bread (most likely, Jewish unleavened bread), prayed a prayer of thanksgiving, and broke this bread. He gave it to the students with words of explanation and instruction: "This is my Body, which is given up for you; do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). After that, He took a cup of wine and gave it to the disciples, explaining its meaning: "This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). Most likely, Christ accompanied these actions with other words of instruction, which are mentioned in other places of Scripture, for example: "This is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many" (Mark 14: 24); "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26: 27-28); " Do this, whenever you drink, in my name. remembrance" (1 Corinthians 11: 25).

Significant elements of the Participle. The presence of one large piece (flatbread, bread), which symbolizes the unity of the Body of Christ: "There is one bread, and we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). The use of bread and wine symbolizes death Christ. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, death You proclaim the Lord's will" (1 Corinthians 11:26). When wine was poured from a pitcher into a bowl, it symbolized the shedding of blood. Compare:" it is shed for you "– it is said so, and receiving and eating – "receive, eat bread and wine", which symbolizes agreement with the sacrifice of Christ, dependence on it and trusting in the sacrifice of Christ.

What is the meaning of the Participle symbols? Bread gives life, nourishes a person and quenches the appetite. It follows that to believe in Christ is not just to accept the fact of Christ intellectually, but to enjoy it as a hungry person enjoys eating bread.

Why is faith in Christ compared to eating not just bread, but His Flesh and Blood? Because the main theme of the New Testament gospel, the main theme of the Gospel in general, is that the Body of Christ was broken for us and the Blood was shed for us. Faith in the good news is first of all faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice, in His death for our sins (John 6). Therefore, to believe in the Savior's feat of the cross means to eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood. This is also what Christ says in John 6. If you have this faith, you are eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, because your spiritual life is sustained by His sacrifice on the cross. And if you do not have this faith, then the bread and wine of Communion for you at best is just flesh, which, as it is written in the Gospel of John in chapter 6, "does not benefit in the least", that is, it does not benefit at all.

The significance of the Sacrament for believers. The significance of Communion for Christians consists of the following aspects:

First, the Sacrament is a divine institution. Like any of God's ordinances, we must fulfill them as Christians. Written: "For I have received from the Lord himself what I also delivered to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23).

Secondly, the Sacrament reminds us of Christ. In the following verses 1 Corinthians says: "that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it, and said,' Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me.' He also took the cup after supper, and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this whenever you drink, in remembrance of Me" (1 Corinthians 11:23-25).

People tend to be forgetful. Even the most important things they often forget and therefore distort. Therefore, the Lord has established something that will be a reminder of the most important thing, of Himself, of His sacrifice. Communion creates an atmosphere conducive to the worship of Jesus Christ. So that we can worship Christ for Who He is and what He has done for us, realizing the depth of what He has done.

Third, the Sacrament keeps our faith focused on the atonement. The Apostle Paul continues: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Christ knew of the impending temptation for the Church to abolish the Cross of Christ, to supplement it with something else, such as "ritualism" (Philippians 3: 2-3), "mysticism", "angel worship" (Colossians 2: 18), "philosophy" (Colossians 2:8), or " hope to your own good works" (Rom. 3: 20). What do true believers do when they take Communion? "They declare the Lord's death" (1 Corinthians 11: 26). That is, they proclaim that our salvation is not in the works of the law, rituals, or mystical experience, but in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Fourth, the Sacrament directs our gaze to the future. Verse 26 ends with these words: "you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26). The Apostle emphasizes the element of waiting for the future: "Until He comes." Just as Christ Himself said at the last Supper: "But I tell you that from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink new wine with you in my Father's Kingdom" (Mt 26:29). When we take Communion, we remember not only what Christ did in the past, but also why He did it. He gave His life for us so that we could go to heaven, to lead us to heaven. When He comes, our waiting will be over, and our hopes will be fulfilled. We will rejoice and be glad at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The last Supper will be followed by the wedding supper. It is interesting to note that the entire period of church history is as if enclosed between two brackets – "Supper", that is, dinner with the disciples, and "wedding dinner" is already there, in heaven. Between them, we repeat the symbolic Communion Supper, which connects the first and second.

Fifth, Communion is a means of sanctifying the believer. In the following verses of 1 Corinthians we read: "Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man test himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup" (1 Corinthians 11:27-28). Communion, in its own way, forces the believer to examine his heart in the most serious way, so as not to be guilty against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Sixth, Communion gives Christians strength in their spiritual struggle. As the Epistle to the Hebrews says: "Consider him who has suffered such reproach from sinners, so that you do not faint and faint in your souls" (Hebrews 12:3). These words of Scripture encourage us to strengthen ourselves through reflection. About whom? About The Victim. This is exactly what happens during Communion. We think of Him who suffered such reproach from sinners, that is, Christ. Through this, we get what? Reinforcement for our soul.

Seventh, the Sacrament gives us confidence in our deliverance from judgment. The Jewish Passover reminded the Israelites that God redeemed them by what means? Through the blood of the sacrificial lamb. As it is written in Exodus 12: 27: "It is a passover offering to the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses." As we remember, the Lord's Supper was based on the Jewish Passover supper. However, Christ added a new content to it. The sacrament reminds us of howGod has redeemed us through the Blood of Christ. And the most basic verse that speaks about this is found in 1 Corinthians 5: 7: "Our Passover, Christ, was slain for us."

Eighth, Communion reminds us of our responsibility to the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ. Written: "There is one bread, and we who are many are one body; for we all partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). By breaking the same bread with other believers, sharing it among all, we learn to recognize ourselves not as some solitary knights fighting a single battle, but as part of one common organism. We learn to be not religious individualists, but Christians of the same Church.

Why don't we accept the theory of transubstantiation? Finally, in conclusion, I want to say (and it will probably be interesting for our friends to hear) why we still do not recognize the theory of transubstantiation. I have five arguments for this.

First of all, it should be noted that when the apostle Paul quotes the words of Christ in 1 Corinthians, he writes: "This cup is the new covenant in My Blood" (1 Corinthians 11:25). In this sentence, the verb-copula "to be" is clearly not used in the sense of absolute identity. Christ does not say that the cup is the covenant itself. These words can only be understood in the sense of a symbol. The wine cup represents the covenant. In confirmation of this, let me remind you that a covenant is a contract between man and God. The first covenant is Noah's, then Abraham's, then Moses', then David's, and finally Christ's. Here is a problem from a series of children's IQ questions: "red, blue, square" - find the difference. That is, it turns out that the cup symbolizes the words of Christ. "This cup is the new testament in My blood" can only be understood in a symbolic sense. Because the words "bread is the Body" also need to be understood in a symbolic sense. If we understand the cup in a symbolic sense, then we must also understand the body in a symbolic sense. This is one context, this is one thought.

Second, the Last Supper was part of the Jewish Passover ordinance. This is an institution that the Jews have practiced for many hundreds of years. Matzah during the Jewish Passover was a reminder of the unleavened bread that the Jews ate in the week of the exodus, for they went out so quickly that they did not even have time to leaven the dough. The use of wine was not prescribed at all. It was just part of a simple festive dinner, a feast. However, over time, the Jews developed a tradition that dates back to the time of Jesus Christ. So, Christ explained the meaning of these Easter symbols. Previously, the bread and wine of the Passover supper indicated the future death of Christ. I want to point out without transubstantiating myself. And they performed their own reminder function. Now they began to point to the past death of Christ. And this will serve as a reminder. Again, without transubstantiating.

Third, the first disciples could hardly understand the words of Christ in the sense of transubstantiation when Christ spoke them. They saw the bread in His hands and looked at His Body. They knew perfectly well that the bread He held in His hands was not His Body, since the Body was complete and existed separately from the bread. Could Christ have had two bodies at that moment? One is plain and the other is in bread? The question is rhetorical.

A fourth important argument against the transubstantiation theory is found in 1 Corinthians 10: 16-20. I want this text to be read carefully: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not communion (in Greek, kainania)?" The blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break communion ("kainania") The Body of Christ? One bread, and we many are one body; for we all partake of one bread. Look at Israel according to the flesh: those who eat sacrifices, are they not participants (kainonoi) the altar? What am I saying? Is it that an idol is something, or does something sacrificed to an idol mean something? No, but that the Gentiles sacrifice to demons, and not to God. But I don't want you to be in communication (kynonus) with demons." Look, the same word is "communion" or "communion" ("kainaniya") Paul refers to three things. The first is the communion of the Blood and Body of Christ through the eating of the cup and bread. The second is communion with the altar by eating the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The third is communion with demons by eating things sacrificed to idols.

Look, it is obvious that communion to the altar takes place without transubstantiation of the sacrificial animals. Otherwise, when the Jews ate what was offered on the altar, metal and wood would have crunched in their teeth. It is equally obvious that communion with demons takes place without transubstantiation of food sacrificed to idols. Because, first of all, demons have no flesh. Second, we understand that there is no mention of transubstantiation at all. Similarly, the communion of the Blood and Body of Christ must take place without the transubstantiation of wine and bread. Paul seems to be saying that whoever eats the meat of an idolatrous sacrifice is partaking not just of material meat, but of what? To something spiritual, some spiritual component. I.e. to demons. Those who eat the meat of the Old Testament sacrifice partake not just of material meat, but of something spiritual. To the holy altar. Anyone who eats Communion bread is partaking not just of material bread, but of something spiritual. To whom? To Christ. Only the symbolic concept stands up to analogy in all three cases. The concept of transubstantiation completely violates it. It is hard to deny that the Sacrament contains the symbolism of sacrifice. Agree, it is difficult. In particular, the spilling of wine symbolizes the shedding of Blood, the breaking of bread symbolizes the torment of the Body. But note that because of the doctrine of transubstantiation, we will be forced to believe that the shedding of Christ's physical Blood and the torment of his physical Body are literally repeated. And we believe, according to the Scriptures, about what? What do we believe? As Hebrews 10 says, " We are sanctified by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once "(Hebrews 10: 10). Not by repeatedly, but by "bringing the Body of Jesus Christ once"! Just as the Old Testament sacrifices were not the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only symbolically indicated it, so Communion is not the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ, but only symbolically indicates It. A similar argument is made in the following verse: 1 Corinthians 10: 21: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of demons." Look, there is a parallel between the two bowls – "Lord's" and "demonic", as well as between the two meals – "Lord's" and "demonic". The demonic cup and meal is a meal dedicated to idols. However, if transubstantiation does not occur in the demonic chalice, then it should not occur in the Lord's chalice, respectively, according to the logic of the text. And if the demonic table is not transubstantiated in a miraculous way, then neither should the transubstantiation of the Lord's table take place. Otherwise, the analogy would lose its power and even its meaning.

Finally, the fifth argument against transubstantiation boils down to the following. When Christ became incarnate, I think all Christians, adequate Christians will agree with this, He limited Himself to the human body. The limitation of the body in space is an essential characteristic of the incarnation of Christ. After the resurrection, His body continues to be limited in space. For He said that He left the earth to send another Comforter in His stead. However, if transubstantiation occurs regularly, then the matter of His body must be simultaneously present in different places of the world. At the same time, Christ remains in Heaven, and this contradicts logic, you will agree. Even the glorified Body of the Resurrected Christ is nevertheless a fully human body. These same bodies, similar bodies, as it is written, we will have in heaven. The Scripture says so. And it's pretty obvious that our bodies won't be ubiquitous. The quality of omnipresence belongs exclusively to the Divine nature of Christ, but not to human nature and, consequently, not to His Body. I do not dispute that Christ is not limited to a place of abode. We can't say it, and we can't say it, because it's not true. And this does not mean that His Body is not limited to one place of residence, otherwise what kind of Body and what kind of human nature did He take, if it is both here and there, and at the same time everywhere? It is one thing to say that the glorified Body of the Resurrected Christ could disappear, appear, and pass through walls, but it is quite another to attribute to the body such a property as omnipresence. And this will be wrong, because omnipresence is an attribute that is not transmitted to people, it is an attribute that belongs exclusively to God. There are two other arguments, but I think we can touch on them in the course of the conversation. Thank you, my report is over.

Comment. As you can see, the Baptist limits the omnipotence of God. When the Lord multiplied the loaves, each piece of bread had the same essence as the original one. This is a miracle that Baptists do not deny. But when it comes to the Eucharist, in their opinion, God no longer has such authority.

Orthodox priest: Thank you. So, here you were talking about one bread that is for everyone. Do you have how it is accepted in general, the very procedure of communion as it goes?

Baptist Pastor: We have bread, we break it.

Orthodox priest: Do you break it directly with your hands?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: So you don't have it sliced?

Baptist Pastor: No. We do not see anything terrible if it can somehow be refracted separately in advance.

Orthodox priest: The main thing is that one for all?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: And with wine, do you have wine or juice?

Baptist Pastor: Wine.

Orthodox priest: Where do you get your wine from?

Baptist Pastor: We buy it.

Orthodox priest: So one or ten bottles of wine are poured into one cup, right?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: Like a real bowl?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, but now, due to certain problems with covid, we try to somehow protect people and pour them into separate beakers.

Orthodox: And from what do you pour?

Baptist: From one bowl.

Orthodox: That is, one bowl and then beakers?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, such a teapot. We do not pray for the cup, but for these small glasses. They are all spilled, we lift them up, we pray.

Orthodox priest: Technically, I was interested. I also wanted to check with you. You said that the cup is not a covenant, but a symbol of the covenant. Now, if I drank the contents of the cup, well, not the cup, but the glass, then I said that I drank the whole glass. Isn't that what we say in our speech? And if it was a cup, I'd say I drank the whole cup.

Therefore, if I said that this is the cup of New Testament blood (of course, I won't say that, but I can quote someone else's words), then the context makes it clear that this is not about the form, but about the content. Isn't it obvious?

Baptist Pastor: No, there it is not even about the content of what was in the cup, but there it is about the contract between God and man. Because all the covenants... In general, what is a covenant? This is a contract.

Orthodox priest: No, I'm not arguing, I just want to clarify. I wonder if you will agree that if I say that I drank the whole glass, I drank the whole cup, or: "look, here is a full cup that needs to be drunk" - well, it is obvious that we are not talking about the shape, metal or glass, or whatever, but about the content we are talking about? Understand?" Yes or no?

Baptist Pastor: Here we are talking about the whole bowl in general?

Orthodox priest: No, I'm just saying that when we talk about dishes, we can in everyday speech mean not the dishes themselves, but the contents in the dishes, "eat the whole plate", for example.

Baptist Pastor: Not always.

Orthodox priest: Of course, but not infrequently. For example, I will say to a child:"Come on, finish the whole plate to the end." You understand..."

Baptist Pastor: Well yeah In this case, we are talking about the content.

Orthodox priest: Yeah, great. I am glad that we agree with this. You also said, again strictly according to the text, I want to understand without argument. On the Last Supper: you said that it was based on events from the Book of Exodus, and the wine later became part of the festive dinner. And Jews, accordingly, eat unleavened bread. I understand you correctly, don't I? Unleavened bread?

Baptist Pastor: They have matzo, I think.

Orthodox priest: It doesn't matter. I wonder if the apostles ate unleavened bread with Christ.

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: So they ate unleavened bread and then drank wine. There were also herbs, as you know, and so on.

Baptist Pastor: Bitter herbs, yes.

Orthodox priest: Yes. And they ate the meat of the lamb – the most important symbols.

Baptist Pastor: The most important ones!

Orthodox priest: But it is not unleavened bread or wine that is most important, but the meat of the lamb and its accompanying ingredients. There is no wine at all, as you correctly said. However, instead of using the main symbols, the Lord takes for some reason secondary and even illegal symbols, that is, the cup, which will later appear, as you said. And explains them, as you said...

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: And if I understand your point correctly – then what are you doing, basically the same as the ancient Jews do? Nothing changes significantly?

Baptist Pastor: No, why not?

Orthodox priest: What is the difference?

Baptist Pastor: The Lord has made certain distinctions, i.e., the Lord has made certain distinctions. He made a difference. That is, if the Jews put the meaning of the future of something...

Orthodox priest: No, no. I speak according to the form. That is, the Jews eat unleavened bread and drink wine, you eat unleavened bread and drink wine. Spiritual content for the Jews-it was the future, for you it concerns all time-both the past and the future. But the most important thing is that the spiritual content points both there and there to the death of Christ, so they are identical. Did I understand correctly?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: So your meal is essentially the same as a Jewish one?

Baptist Pastor: Well, basically, what points to Christ is no different.

Orthodox priest: I've heard everything. Thank you. Very good. Also, as for unleavened bread. Does it bother you that the Greek word for "bread" sounds like "artos"?

Baptist Pastor: No, it doesn't bother me.

Orthodox priest: And how does the word "artos" translate into Russian?

Baptist Pastor: "Bread".

Orthodox priest: No, I'm not. This is "leavened bread".

Baptist Pastor: You're wrong.

Orthodox priest: Look it up in the dictionary. Let's take a look. After all, there are two words in Greek – separately for leavened bread, separately for unleavened bread. A narrower meaning than in Russian and most other languages of the world. Hence, for example, we call Catholics "Asimites" because...

Baptist Pastor: Bread. Simply. These are Greek, Greek words. Without any leavened bread.

Orthodox priest: I won't argue with you now. I'll just say it.

Baptist Pastor: No, it's interesting to know what regular bread will look like.

Orthodox priest: There is no ordinary one. There is unleavened bread and leavened bread. Unleavened bread is "asimos", or so it sounds. Well, it's easy to test me.

Orthodox: "Azima".

Orthodox priest: The Septuagint shows this. When it is said about unleavened bread, there is no word "artos", there is this word" azima " – unleavened bread.

Baptist Pastor: Can you specify a place in the Septuagint?

Orthodox Priest: If you wish, when we have a discussion...

Baptist Pastor: Come on, all right... Very interesting.

Orthodox: "Azima, that's right. Exodus 29: 1-2.

Baptist Pastor: Well, one example is enough. I'll take a look."

Orthodox: The point here is that for the Greek-speaking Orthodox fathers, this was a fundamental argument in the polemic with Catholics. Catholics in ancient times switched from leavened bread to unleavened bread. And they blamed us for serving on kvass, although in theoryPassover was served in the Old Testament on unleavened bread, and therefore there could not be leavened bread. And the Greek-speaking fathers, well, it's written in Greek that the very word "artos", meaning leavened bread, can't be unleavened. Plus, you need to understand that the Lord performs Easter the day before the legal Easter. Here's the thing.

Baptist Pastor: It also says" artos", I'm sorry. In the Septuagint.

Orthodox: In translation, "azima" is unleavened bread, and "artos" is leavened bread.

Baptist Pastor: It's probably something internal. Some internal translations, because the official translation is from Greek, it does not contain this word in the Septuagint.

Orthodox priest: Well, we can't argue now. I voiced the argument of the Greek-speaking fathers, who were native speakers of Greek, not like you and me, foreigners, but native speakers. They argued that the word "artos "is strictly leavened bread, and" azima " is strictly unleavened bread. I don't enter into any further discussions, just let you know that this is common knowledge.

Comment. To check who is right, you need to look at the Greek text of Exodus.29: 2 in the subscript. Here is its version from the site https://bible.by/vin/2/29/:

As you can see, unleavened bread is called not just "artos", but "artos azima "(ρρτους ἀζύμους). Similarly, unleavened pancakes are called "lagawa azima" (λάγανα ἄζυμα). If we compare the Synodal translation, the Septuagint, and modern Modern Greek (https://azbyka.ru/biblia/?Ex.29&r~g~el), then we will see that in Modern Greek the word "artos "is omitted altogether, and only" azima " is used, and three times.

And here's another question I have. You said that there is a threefold communion (1 Corinthians 10: 21), and that the apostle speaks of three communions – to the Blood and the Body, to the altar, and to demons. And since the altar and the demons clearly have no transubstantiation, we must also understand the Blood and the Body in the same way. Do I understand that correctly?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, of course.

Orthodox priest: But here's the thing. I understand that you have said many points, 8 points even, that it reminds us, inspires confidence, makes us test our strength, sanctifies believers-in the sense that it makes our conscience check, so that we do not forget, so that our attention is focused on the atonement, directs us to the future; that is, here we are we see the human factor everywhere, even the psychological one. No more, no less. That is, this is all I have to do psychologically – remember, think about something, strive for something, look at my conscience. This is all happening in my mind.

Baptist Pastor: Can I ask you a question?

Orthodox priest: No, no, I'll finish my thought for now, then I'll be glad to hear your answer.

Baptist Pastor: Good.

Orthodox priest: Except for the first point, where it's God's decree. But we do not see God's institution, God's action, at the moment of Communion. We see only a certain order, like a commandment. Yes? And now we are doing all seven points, all that you have voiced, this is all my personal efforts. And if, where you speak about communion with demons, I understand that you understand quite realistically that this communion with demons takes place in the blood of pagans. And this communication is not just a memory of demons or an appeal to demons, but the interaction of a person and demons. So they communicate there somehow. Demons, they are disembodied beings, so, apparently, they enter a person, somehow they act in this way. How else can I join? Just like that.

Baptist Pastor: Why? This is not necessary.

Orthodox priest: Well, I do not know. How else can you join a disembodied spirit?

Baptist Pastor: They talk to people.

Orthodox priest: No, not communication, but communion. Communion with the disembodied spirit occurs only in one way – through the entry of this spirit into a person.

Baptist Pastor: Well, maybe so.

Orthodox priest: According to the text, there is nothing to argue here. That is, it turns out that a disembodied demonic spirit enters a person. This is the case with a Gentile, which the apostle warns us against, that some kind of communion takes place at the altar – both among those who offer blood sacrifices, the Old Testament, and here. But in your 8 points, I didn't see a single one about communion with Christ. I see memories, I see some good feelings again, and the interaction of the Living God and man, whenGod enters into man – I didn't see it. Or did I not notice?

Baptist Pastor: You probably haven't noticed. Because almost every point I have mentioned is directly related to Christ, to our communion with Christ.

Orthodox priest: No, no. Does God enter into man?

Baptist Pastor: Naturally. We understand that Christ lives in our hearts all the time. He doesn't go in and out – He lives in our hearts. Because of our faith in His shed Blood and crucified Body for us. Through this faith, through the Holy Spirit, Christ lives in our hearts.

Orthodox priest: Thank you.

Baptist Pastor: Through the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox priest: Thank you. Accordingly, if He still lives in our hearts, then again the Sacrament does not add anything. As he lived, so he lives. It excites your feelings and thoughts, but it doesn't add anything significant.

Baptist Pastor: It doesn't excite feelings, because feelings are secondary. Here the main thing is a decision, the main thing is a person's awareness of the sacrifice of Christ. This is awareness. Because a person really tends to forget. We constantly forget many things, especially at the age of who. And we need a constant reminder of what Christ has done for us, what sacrifice he has made. And this is necessary not just for us, but for everyone, so that people will know about it, to announce it, to proclaim it, His death. This is the meaning of the Gospel.

Comment. It turns out that sometimes Baptists claim to be saints and always remember Christ, and at other times it turns out that they often forget about Him. But when they are offered to look at His icon for the sake of remembering Christ, they again refuse, because they always remember Him.

Orthodox priest: I understand you. I mean, remembering is an important thing, of course, you need to constantly remind yourself about it. But the most important thing is that nothing changes significantly. That is, as He lived in us, so He lives. The Holy Spirit as inspired...

Baptist Pastor: Mystically, nothing changes.

Orthodox priest: Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.

Baptist Pastor: Yes, yes, yes.

Orthodox priest: Yes, very well, thank you. In other words, there is no initiation as such.

Baptist Pastor: What does it mean? What do you mean by that?

Orthodox priest: Well, since (excuse the rude expression) the amount of Christ's indwelling in us has remained as long as it was, so there is no new communion - at the moment of breaking and at the moment of eating... If He was already there, then He must have stayed there.

Baptist Pastor: Well, look at this. Let's do this. A simple example. Here we are now going to disperse and will be in different places in Kostroma. Are we going to think about each other? Communicate with each other?

Orthodox priest: I think some other concerns will hinder us.

Baptist Pastor: Yes, yes. When we get together, we will start to communicate, we will remember each other. We'll talk to each other. We will... Learn more about each other. It's the same here. We can forget about Christ and His sacrifice in the course of our lives. But when we come to church, we participate in the commandment, we remember Christ. And we do not just remember, but we have close and close communication with Him.

Orthodox priest: So He is already in us?!

Baptist Pastor: Well, just because He's already in us doesn't mean we shouldn't interact with Him. And here we have communion both with Christ, and all together in the church we have communion in unity with Christ.

Orthodox priest: But this is the church again. It's about something else. Personally, the amount of closeness to Christ in me has not decreased, has not increased, because He was still inside. Do I understand your point correctly?

Baptist Pastor: Well, maybe we'll discuss this later.

Orthodox priest: I'm not arguing. I'm trying to understand.

Baptist Pastor 2: I look forward to hearing from you. I have questions too. Maybe it's not so much Greek and Hebrew... I don't know much about them. I am more interested in the practical side of the breaking of bread, your Communion, how it happens, and what do you experience? I have questions about this.

Orthodox priest: Well, it's hard for me to say what we're going through. Such a case is somewhat mysterious. Everyone has their own way-there is nothing at all, but sometimes grace touches the heart somehow.

Orthodox: But this question, we believe, is not clarified, right?

Orthodox priest: I think it will be possible to return to this.

Baptist Pastor: We'll be back, yes. Let's talk about this again.

Orthodox priest: I roughly figured out where to go. Perhaps one last brief question in connection with what has been said, if I may?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: I know we're off topic a bit, but since you said that, I'd like to clear up your whole point. Here you say that Christ, He lives in your heart. Christ is God – He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and so on. I think that a person in whom Christ lives, in the heart, in the fullness, will undoubtedly be like Christ – omnipotent, omniscient, and so on.

Baptist Pastor: No, not really.

Orthodox priest: Why not?

Baptist Pastor: This is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Orthodox priest: So It works in you.

Baptist Pastor: What do you mean?

Orthodox priest: Well, you say that the Holy Spirit instilled Christ in you. That is, you have both Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Baptist Pastor: No, no, no. By, I said, the Holy Spirit. These are slightly different concepts. That is, He inspired Christ – this is one thing, but through the Holy Spirit-He proclaims to us that Christ is... He proclaims to us the word of Christ, to our hearts. He shows us the way of Christ to follow. He helps us. He speaks with unspeakable sighs, that is, he communicates our words to the Lord, our prayers. This is all the work of the Holy Spirit through Christ. Again, thanks to Christ. Right?

Orthodox priest: That is, it turns out that Christ is in you, but the effect is found only in the fact that you have the right prayer and the right faith. And the other Divine attributes-omnipotence, omniscience, and so on-don't work for you?

Baptist Pastor: This is a non-transferable attribute.

Orthodox priest: I've heard everything, thank you. Whether the attribute is passed or not is hard for me to say. Here are the prophets of the New Testament, they had omniscience when the Lord revealed something to them.

Baptist Pastor: This is not omniscience. This is only partly true.

Orthodox priest: Well, at least partially. You don't have that either. That's it, I'm ready. Thank you for your answers. Excuse me.

Baptist Pastor: Everything is fine.

Orthodox priest: It was very interesting.

Baptist Pastor: It's okay, don't worry.

Baptist: The Apostle Paul said: "You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you..." (1 Corinthians 3: 16). They did not have omniscience and omnipotence, the whole church, so that, for example, a hundred believers, and all work great miracles, a hundred "gods" there walk around Corinth, according to this logic...

Orthodox priest: I suggest you switch to another topic.

Baptist: Yes, we can close this topic.

Orthodox priest: Because this is a separate topic. If we start talking about this now, we will not be able to finish the Eucharist.

You understand that this is not an obvious question. And we can give an example when the Holy Spirit acts explicitly and there are charismatic gifts. I will ask you in response, but is there such a thing in your community? Still, if you don't have a pastor, then someone must have a miracle worker, a prophet, and so on. Well, I think it's better to go to the report.

Baptist: But it was very interesting to learn about bread. It was a revelation for me to learn about bread that it can be leavened and unleavened.

Orthodox priest: In Greek, this is true, yes. I do not know why this quote is given, it is different in the Septuagint. Well, let's get to the report, with your permission.

Report of the Orthodox (Priest Evgeny Veselov)

Orthodox priest (report): I would like to start the report with the things that I think we have in common. What kind of things? Well, first of all, it's the idea of God's omnipotence.

I think we said before the meeting, before the beginning, that we believe in the Trinity equally, and I almost agree with that. But the most important Богthing is that God, Whose Essence is invisible, is also Omnipotent. And so what is difficult for us to understand or imagine, or we can't even think about it, is not a problem for God.

I also think that none of us will argue with the fact that God is not a human being, and therefore if I need to do something, say, I want to drink tea, then first I have desires, and only then I perform a certain action: I take a cup, drink; if there is no close cup, I go somewhere, prepare. So, I have a gap between my thought and what I achieve. This is not in God. God says: "Let there be light,"and he doesn't need tools to do it – there is light. God says: "Let the earth produce a plant," and he doesn't have to wait for that to happen. There are no seeds in the ground. The earth, according to the word of Scripture, produces these plants from itself, and they are diverse, and in this form they are preserved by kind. God speaks, say, about birds or fish, and so on – we see that the Word of God instantly becomes a reality.

It is very important. The Word of God is not a symbol. The word of God is reality. In God, there is no contradiction between the will and the expression of that will. With this, I think, everyone agrees?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: It is very good. This is the key to our mutual understanding in the future. And now that this has become obvious to us, I would like to imagine together that we are at the Last Supper and we are looking at Christ and the 12 apostles.

And here's what we see? First, there are only men present. Secondly, they lie. The Last Supper, it concludes the Old Testament Passover meal. Moreover, the Old Testament meal includes different Old Testament types. Well, in particular, the lamb and so on.

What do we see on the table? Unleavened bread and bitter herbs. We also see bread and wine. I have already said that, judging by the Greek text, the word "artos" is usually used, I don't know how modern authors, but the ancient Greeks, they categorically distinguished these words – "artos" and "azima".

So, there is bread and wine, and this is not contrary to the law, because the Easter meal of Christ is celebrated the day before there should be nothing leavened in the house. Then, what do we see next in the procedure? In the beginning, of course, as the law requires, the lamb whose bones are not broken is crushed.

Then the custom of the time involved several cups of wine. How much is there? Probably up to four cups of wine. All this is accompanied by the singing of psalms of appropriate, laudatory content. We even see traces of this in the gospel when the Lord says: "Arise, let us go hence" (John 14: 31). [The Lord and His disciples probably left the Passover room after singing the final psalms of the Passover supper (Mt 26:30; Mk.14: 26)]. That is, it is a continuation of the singing of these psalms with the title "Hallelujah".

We see that everyone drinks from the same cup, and we see that the New Testament also speaks of one bread and one cup. We can see something from the Book of Acts and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which your speaker also said very well.

We see that not only men participate, but also men and women. We don't see any Old Testament elements there – we don't see the lamb, we don't see unleavened bread, we don't see the multitude of bowls that precede the Last Supper. And, interestingly, we know that in the Gospel of Luke, the evangelist saves us the last Old Testament cup. That is, as long as the apostles drink with Christ the very cup that is the New Testament of His Blood, there is another cup that He will not drink with the apostles until His Resurrection. This is said about wine, it is not said about the cup that is filled with Blood.

I do not know whether in the book of Acts, in the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians, they performed lying down or not lying down, but I understand, based on church tradition, of course, it was already standing, no longer lying down. We also see a very long service. We also see one bread, one cup for all, as the apostle insists. We see a very long service and a sermon. According to Acts 20, they started in the evening and finished in the morning. That is, it is not like a brief event, some sermons, breaking bread, then glorification or something else. No, it's not. This is a very long service, which apparently involves Old Testament psalms or other texts and spiritual songs, which the apostle speaks about elsewhere. But we assume.

We do not have any of this in reality, because in ancient times the service book was not recorded, and the prayers of the priest, which were read, as in subsequent times until the 4th century, although they were built according to some plan, and quite strict, but in many respects were arbitrary. This is how you pray roughly according to the same plan before starting our meetings, as I noticed – first you give thanks, then you voice some specific points on which we will do something, but at the same time you pray arbitrarily. In the same way, a certain plan was preserved in the sequence of prayer for the first Christians, but, however, it was not like ours – a set of texts that are mandatory for reading. It is with us, the Orthodox priests.

Why do I do this external analysis? In order to show that there was something essential and something secondary in the Last Supper. The Church abandoned the secondary aspects, but kept the essential ones, and this became the core of something very important in the divine service.

It must also be said that this Last Supper was not the first time that the apostles met with the idea of a special cup and a special bread. Because (and your speaker quoted the same thing) some time before, the Lord was talking to the apostles about the heavenly bread. This is the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John. A very long conversation, one of the biggest at Christ's. And surprisingly, the evangelist John is the only one who does not speak in the story of the Last Supper (the long story). the very moment of Communion.

Three synoptics speak about this, and we know the words of the institution from the three synoptics, but the evangelist John confines himself to the question of Communion only by talking about the heavenly bread. Apparently, considering that as He said there, so He then did. Hence, when you said that the apostles would be surprised if the essence of bread was changed into the Body of Christ, I think that you are here a little bit, I will not say that you forgot about the conversations about the heavenly bread, but you could not compare one with the other.

Baptist Pastor: We will talk about this topic.

Orthodox priest: Absolutely. But I mean, as you said in your report, I saw a gap between the first and the second.

Baptist Pastor: I'll explain.

Orthodox priest: Great, I'm telling you what I saw. I do not insist that I am right, I say what I have heard and seen.

What types do we see in the Eucharist and the Last Supper in general? We see bread and wine. This is the first time they appear on the pagesСвященного ПисанияAs something special and significant on behalf of the priest in the actions of Melchizedek, who brings bread and wine to Abraham and is called a priest of the Most High God.

So, it turns out that the priest is not only associated with blood sacrifices, but he can also bring bread and wine. We also see another type – the Passover lamb. So if Melchizedek makes a bloodless sacrifice and Christ is the High Priest, He can also make a bloodless sacrifice. If the Paschal lamb, by its blood, by its death, also represents the life, death, blood, and innocence of Christ, it is an image.

We see manna. Christ speaks much about manna in his conversation with the Jews about the heavenly bread. This is again the image of the Eucharist, no doubt. And this manna, it must be lower than the heavenly bread that we eat. This is according to the word of Christ (John 6: 49-50). We also see other types – the blood of the covenant of the Old Testament sacrifice (Ex.24); the offering of loaves (Exodus 25); the stone that springs water (Exodus 17). All this, in the words of the apostle, is "a shadow of good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1). Because "the law has not perfected anything" (Hebrews 7: 19).

Now that we've looked at these types, let's go back to John 6. And what do we see there? We see that if we read the text literally, it is written that bread is the Body, and wine is Blood. The Lord even insists on it. He says: "My flesh is truly food, my blood is truly drink" (John 6:55), that is, not figuratively. And if we read the corresponding text, which you have already quoted to us, from the Synoptic Gospels, 1 Corinthians, we will also not see that it symbolizes or means anything. If a person simply reads this text for the first time, they will certainly see that " this is My Body." The Greek-speaking saint of the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem, according to other Greek-speaking authors, i.e., experts and native speakers of Greek, see how well he said: "He did not say that this means My Body, He says – this is My Body. And so, and don't doubt it, this is definitely His Body." That is, we see that the Church in the 4th century, in the previous and subsequent centuries, does not believe that this is a symbol. She believes that as it is written, so we read.

Baptist Pastor: I have other arguments.

Orthodox priest: I'm not arguing with you, I'm reading the report. I'm still talking about the faith of the Church. I'll just come back to that later. In John 6, verse 49, it is said that the Eucharist is better than manna and gives you immortality. What's better? The taste of manna is clearly better. Everyone understands that. But manna is an image. So, if it turns out that the Eucharist is better than manna, and manna is an image, then the Eucharist is either an image, but the best? What's better? Because that one came down from the sky, and where is this from? We just break and break, bread and bread. So, it is better not in terms of the quality of food or the method of preparation, but rather in the fact that this is reality, and that was only an image.

In chapter 6, verse 51, the Lord says: "The bread that I will give." I understand that you believe that faith is bread. This was also mentioned in your report. But when did the Lord give you faith? He says: "I will give you bread." And when did He give you faith? Earlier, of course. And in the process, he also gives faith, and will continue to give faith. That is, of course, it is not about faith. We are talking about some special bread that He will give. This, again, is the bread of the Eucharist. The Lord said that this bread that He would give "is my Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world "(John 6: 51). Notice, this is not faith, it is not an image, but the Flesh itself. The words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 are very characteristic in this respect. He says that " My body, which is broken for you." You can break your arm, of course, but you can't break your flesh. It's soft, it doesn't break, it's bone breaking. And bread can be broken. So, when it is said that the "broken thing" that is given up for us, then, of course, we are talking about the fact that what we break with our hands is the Body of Christ. Similarly, "Blood poured out". On the Cross, of course, the Lord pours out Blood for us, but this Blood is shed when we take it into ourselves. So this Blood is being shed for us.

Before we talk about the Eucharist, we know that there was a miracle of the multiplication of loaves, and this chapter begins with it. Why did this happen? Clearly not by accident. This was the reason for the conversation itself. This was a reason for assuring us of the power of God and the miracle of the Eucharist, that just as ordinary bread satisfies people, as your speaker rightly said, so the bread of the Eucharist also satisfies the world.

But, of course, it saturates not physically, in the sense of strengthening the body's strength, but primarily spiritually, and the whole world at that. And how did the conversation end? This is a very important thing. Let's assume that you are right and that we are really talking about a symbol. Then the disciples (there were many of them, not just 12 apostles), they would, of course, say: "Fine, we look at the bread and think about Your Body, it's very uplifting, it strengthens our faith" (as the report said). But many of the disciples were led astray by what was said. It turns out that they literally understood that they would have to eat, bite Christ's hands or feet. And it was very tempting. But why doesn't Christ say ," I am bread, in the sense that the bread points to Me, don't worry, you don't have to bite Me." That is, if they were just symbols, then why would you be tempted? But we see that in fact the disciples and Jews were deceived, expecting that they would have to eat a real Body, and the Lord would not explain to them, would not stop them, and He says (even to the apostles): "Will ye not also depart?" (John 6: 67).

So, the Lord insists that the literal understanding of His words about eating His meat, Body, Flesh, drinking His real Blood, as we also have in our veins, in our arteries, this literal understanding is correct, and is not hindered by the fact that many, understanding literally, they leave. I.e. He confirms that you should literally understand His words.

The Apostle Paul, as we can see, insists in 1 Corinthians that the chalice needs a blessing. Well, you know – what's the use of blessing an image? No one blessed the manna. And the Passover lamb did not require a blessing, even though at first the Passover lamb was slaughtered by priests-the eldest of the family, then the temple priests were slaughtered-but there was no blessing. And if we bless, it means that there is more than an image in front of us. This is some kind of reality. Nor was the water of the rock [which Moses brings down] blessed.

Next, let's talk about communion. Everyone understands that if it is necessary to partake for the sake of faith, then the chalice is not needed, by and large. Yes, you correctly said that the Lord commanded you to do this with the cup, but this is not advisable, it has nothing to do with it. Well, at least I said: break the meat (bloody or bloodless) or something else. But at least the meat of the lamb reminds us of Christ, Who dies and offers His Own Flesh for the life of the world. And how does bread remind you? Neither the appearance, nor the taste, nor the smell, nor the color, nor the way of its origin, bread does not resemble the Body of Christ in any way.

Maybe it reminds you? You will tell me about it after my report. You will have some associations, namely, that this is the bread and the Body of Christ in its appearance. And in my opinion, the lamb is much better in this respect. Only if the reality of the Body of Christ is behind the bread, well, here, of course, we will say that it is really obvious.

The Lord goes on to say, and you have also quoted, the words of the apostle from 1 Corinthians 11: 27: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." Literally again, the text says and, of course, not against a wrong understanding, wrong memory, wrong faith or something else, but against reality, against the Body and Blood of the Lord. If you think that this is about an image, if I understand your point correctly, this is good, this is even wonderful. And then, I think it would be great if you have more of these images!

If you hung an icon of Christ the Saviour or an icon of the Virgin Mary. After all, translated into Russian, "icon" is "image", right? If these memories are useful to you. We use icons for this purpose. The icon, first of all, reminds us of Christ, encourages us to pray to Christ. That is, the same thing that you learn in your Eucharist.

Baptist Pastor: Did Christ command you to do this?

Orthodox priest: Can I continue? You write down the questions, just as I wrote them down, and then I said everything.

Baptist Pastor: I have a lot of questions.

Orthodox priest: I am very happy. So, if you want to have images always before your eyes, then an icon is much better than this supper of remembrance that you are having. But the icon, it is always in front of us, it always encourages us to pray and to thank God, and it encourages us to do many other things. Therefore, the images of the Sacrament that you have, I think, should encourage you to accept icon worship. And it will be good.

Now, as for the mana example. Everyone ate manna. But not all were guilty against the Body of the Lord. So here, of course, we are talking about eternal excommunication from this Body. You said that Christ is in us. This is true. But there are also some other verses. In particular: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 6: 15);"for we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones" (Ephesians 5:30). Do you see how crude materialism is-flesh, bones?! And how is this co-corporeality to Christ achieved? If the Body of Christ, as you have noticed, is somewhere out there in heaven or somewhere else, we don't know for sure, then we can't be members of It, participate in Its flesh and bones. And the apostle says that we participate. And he doesn't say that we should imagine something spiritually, he says it like this, crudely and naturalistically.

Then the Lord speaks an interesting word in Matthew 28: 20: "I am with you always, even to the end of the world." But it is justly said that He has ascended and is not physically present here. And if It's here, it's not there. But how can He be with us all the time, even to the end of the world? Spiritually only? Then why ascend? But He promises to be with us physically before His Ascension. Here's the thing. Not just to remind You of Yourself, but to be with us. And this He says with His body-speech apparatus. You can't do that in your Baptist church. You can remember It. And here it is very possible. The body of the Eucharist is the Body that makes us co-corporeal with Christ. I have already spoken about the creative power of God, and you have agreed with me that in God the word does not differ from the deed, and the word is a reality, not an image. I am glad that we have a mutual understanding. Hence, if God speaks, God says (!): "This is My body," knowing the book of Genesis and other passages from the Bible.According to the Holy Scriptures, should we understand this as a reality or as an image? Six days ago we accepted it as reality, so why should we accept it as an image here? If God says "this is the Body", is He deceiving us or joking? So of course, if it's a Body, then it's a Body!

Baptist: And when He says that My word is like a hammer?

Orthodox priest: Let me continue. So, this raises a question that you quite correctly voiced. That you can't believe it. But in my opinion, Christ now has love for us. So what is it that prevents Him from being among us now, even physically? And, generally speaking, if we look at the history of Christianity (2000 years is a long time), then in the first thousand years, no one ever thought that this was a symbol. It was first mentioned in the 11th century by a certain Berengarius. He is a well-known medieval scholastic, the author of long disputes about the Eucharist. The Catholics finally decided that what he said was wrong, that he was wrong. But before Luther, before Calvin and Zwingli, this idea, it goes back into oblivion. So it turns out that for the first thousand years, all believers in all places, whoever they were, had a faith as primitive as mine, a belief that there was a transfiguration of Gifts. Although the word "transubstantiation" did not exist at that time, nothing changes significantly. Christians believed that it was a real Body, and not a symbol of the Body at all. That is, if you are right, then the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit for such a long time, and He did not guide it to all the truth, and people, out of ignorance, thought wrong in such an essential issue that we are now talking about. And from this, of course, we understand that if we misunderstood everything, then the Church ceased to be a "pillar and foundation of the truth", contrary to the word of Christ, the gates of hell Церковьovercame the Church, and everyone perished. However, the Lord says the opposite, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Then you said that eating the Body of Christ means believing in Christ. And where is it literally written? I haven't seen such a text. If you will show me, I will be very grateful to you. Of course, John 4: 34 says: "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to do hiswork." Well and good. We also read in the Gospel that baptism is suffering (Mark 10: 38, Lk 12: 50). We read that baptism is repentance (Mark 1: 4, Acts 1: 3).13:24, and so on). Hence the question: was Christ baptized in the Jordan, if baptism is repentance, if baptism is suffering? Did he go into the water?" Well, of course I did! So, the literal meaning of the word is different, and the figurative meaning is different. If sometimes we see a figurative meaning, as in the conversation with the Samaritan woman, this does not mean that always when He talks about food, about bread, He means figuratively. He said that the Body means the Body – this is how we should read it. That is, we see that baptism, suffering and repentance are not by nature, but by likeness. It is the same in John 4: 34: food is not according to its own nature, but according to its own likeness. The passage we quote that "the flesh avails nothing" (John 6: 63), if taken literally, means that the Incarnation and Crucifixion are in vain. Maybe the Lord somehow said and did something spiritually without incarnation, and it is enough-the flesh is not needed. But we also understand that this passage is literal and correct, that Christ in this verse condemns carnal understanding, i.e., gross cannibalism. The words of Christ are Spirit and Life, because through them we receive the Eucharist correctly, can be deified and saved. The flesh of Christ is the price of our redemption (Colossians 1: 22, 1 Peter 1: 18-19). So I will briefly summarize our understanding and your understanding, and conclude.

About our understanding: We believe that there is an essence of each phenomenon, and there are properties of this phenomenon that are inherent, but which form an invisible reality. And here is the essence of bread, it is transformed. We have already spoken about the Trinity and have come to the conclusion that you do not reject this teaching. The essence of bread became the essence of the Body of Christ. This can also be called the word "transubstantiation." This is not a mistake. But more often we talk about the translation. What's left? Accidents. I.e. taste, color, smell, shape, the ability to dry out, spoil, the effect on the body is appropriate. This is all saved. It is not an entity, but it is saved. Of course, this is a mystery to us. We believe that the foundation of this mystery is the uncomplicated Word of God, His desire and His omnipotence. All this is in God. What prevents you from changing the essence of bread into the essence of the Body? And by virtue of His complete deification, Christ could become invisible, pass through doors. You mentioned it. I can't do this. But it turns out that in one volume of space there were both Christ, His body, and the door at the same time. The same way? But if It turns out, contrary to the laws of physics, it can be in one place with another object that is not Its body, this means that the properties of the Body of Christ after the Resurrection are basically different from ours. So what is it that prevents Him, the Almighty, from making His Body be in bread and His Blood be in wine? Therefore, when we speak of bread, we also speak after the offering of Gifts, we are here talking about the visible image. For example, the "copper serpent" – he was not a serpent. But according to the apparent image, we say "copper serpent". Or the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. They didn't fly! However, the visible image.

Now I'll tell you what I agree with you about. Namely, that your breaking of bread is really just a symbol. Without any doubt, I'm all for it. You have no more than a symbol. What is the reason for this?

First, because the commandment to celebrate the Eucharist is not given to everyone, but only to the apostles. The Lord says in Lk.22: 19 to the apostles (there are no others at the Last Supper): "Do these things in remembrance ofMe." That is, we do not see that this right has ever been transferred to the whole community or to persons who are not disciples of the apostles, and have received this right from them, or have not received the right from them, respectively. That is, no intermediaries, outsiders, have the right to do so. the right to do this in remembrance of Christ. We have already said at a meeting that your origin is from John Smith, from the 17th century. You may not believe it, but it's a real story. If you read S. V. Sannikov ("The History of Baptism"), it is clear that Baptism originated in the 17th century, and your system of pastors, it goes back to those first Baptists. Therefore, of course, you do not have apostolic succession, in the sense of the succession of the transfer of gifts, the transfer of rights, and you agree with this. So these words are: "create in My remembrance", referring to the apostles, of course, does not apply to you, this is true.

Second, Baptists usually deny God's uncreated energies, recognizing in God only one inaccessible Entity. Hence, the real action of these energies in the body of the believer, that is, deification, the pledge of eternal life, is denied. Indeed, if God Himself, by His power, which is Divine, does not act in man in such a way that this power enters into us and acts, that it becomes a part of us, then it is impossible to talk about the transfiguration of Gifts and deification, but only about symbols. And here again I agree with you that you have symbols.

Further, even if we read the gospel literally, we would see that in the Gospel (John 6:53) the Lord says: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, he hath no life in him." You deny that you eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ. So, if you read it literally, you are under the oath of Christ. He promises that you will have no life in you and will not enter into this life for eternity.

Finally, you deny the Eucharist as a sacrifice. You know that we accept it as a sacrifice, considering not that we repeat the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, but that through the Eucharist (which we offer to God, God accepts it), we become partakers of the sacrifice of Calvary. No more, no less. Yes. Since the Blood of Christ was shed for us on the Cross, it enters us and performs its proper actions. Yes, this is such a naturalism, Eucharistic realism in our country. You have all these symbols. Therefore, of course, the denial of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the denial of the Eucharist as a priest who has to offer sacrifices, it inevitably leads you to symbolism. Here again, I agree with you that your Eucharist is nothing more or less than a symbol. On this note of agreement, let me conclude. Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions about the report, I am ready, of course, to answer.

Discussion of reports

Baptist Pastor: I wanted to clarify. You said that from the 1st to the 10th century, there were no Church fathers who claimed to be types.

Orthodox priest: No, no, not about types, but about the fact that what we partake of is not a real Body and Blood.

Baptist: This is what I am saying, that the cup of wine and bread is Blood. Irenaeus in one text (Pfaff's 2nd fragment) refers to bread and wine as "types" (Greek: αντιτυποι), although his statements on this topic are not uniform. In the so-called apostolic ordinances, bread and wine are called types. In Theodoret-images (Greek: τυποι). Tertullian says that bread and wine represent the Body and Blood; Clement of Alexandria says that the partakers partake not of the physical but of the spiritual Blood of Christ, since the blood is the soul of the body. According toAccording to Origen, the meaning of the Sacrament is to nourish the soul with the Divine word. In his opinion, bread representsThe Old Testament, and wine – the New, and the breaking of bread means the multiplication of the Divine Word.

Even if we look at all the statements that you cite as an example, we will never be able to say exactly and unambiguously from these statements what the Church fathers meant. You will not give me a single statement where it is clearly stated that this is a direct text of real Flesh and Blood.

Orthodox (from the audience): Easy. A direct disciple of John the Theologian, Ignatius the God-bearer. He explicitly says in the Epistle to the Smyrnians that we eat exactly the same Blood and the same Flesh that was crucified on the Cross.

Baptist Pastor: No, it's not. I'll tell you what he says. Wait a minute.

Baptist (from the audience): While they are looking for a quote, I have a practical question. It's been a long time since I've been to an Orthodox church, and I've almost never seen people take communion. You probably do this not at the general service, but when a person confesses, then... Tell us a little more about the Sacrament. And when you did that, you started mixing bread and wine together. As far as I know, bread and wine are mixed, a spoon is taken, and this spoon is put directly into each person's mouth. It is not as Christ has bequeathed. When did all this change?

Orthodox priest: Somewhere in the seventh century.

Baptist: And why do you do this? This is a violation of the precise definition of Christ.

Orthodox priest: What is the violation?

Baptist: Because Christ took the bread, blessed it, that is, prayed, broke it, and distributed it. The disciples ate, then some time passed, and after Supper He took the cup and said: "This cup is the new covenant in My Blood." He didn't mix one with the other.

Orthodox priest: Wait, wait. One more time.

Baptist: He didn't mix bread and wine. And this is why such a transformation has taken place in the Orthodox Church?

Orthodox priest: No, but we must understand that even from one liar, we all receive communion, as Christ said, from one Body, from one bread and from one cup. Is not it so?

Baptist: Why do you mix bread with wine?

Orthodox priest: Why-this is the second question. We do not break the word of Christ.

Baptist: I'm personally interested in finding out for myself.

Orthodox priest: I can explain. We do not break the commandment of Christ. And why, it is easy to say – in order to avoid outrage and outrage, so as not to spill. Because before that, it happened that they were spilled. To avoid this, we decided to do this. Previously, it was allowed to take Body parts with you and carry them away. And then, sometimes, some people forgot about them, or they were lost somewhere, or something. To prevent this from happening, we decided to do so. That is, a purely practical aspect.

Orthodox(from the audience): Well, yes, I wanted to answer Alexander. Concerning the Holy MartyrIgnatius the God-Bearer, Bishop of Antioch. In the Epistle to the Smyrnians, he writes that heretics withdraw from the Eucharist. "They turn away from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, but which the Father raised up in His goodness." That is, the Eucharist is the same Body that was crucified on the Cross, which suffered and which the Lord raised from the dead. That is, the body is real. Please note, I would like to repeat once again, and I would like to draw the attention of our Baptist friends to the fact that this was not said by any saint, but by a direct disciple of the evangelist John the Theologian.

Baptist Pastor: No, I'll repeat those words now. "The Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ." But the interpreter Vladimir Yurgenson...

Orthodox (from the audience): Why did you stop at this place? Go on, go on, go on.

Baptist Pastor: No, no, listen to what the interpreter says. I just want you to understand how this all plays out in a very cool way. That's how he writes it. "The very Flesh that suffered on the Cross, the very Flesh that the Father raised up." This interpretation is already attributed to Vladimir Yurgenson.

Orthodox priest: Well, he is not an authority for us.

Baptist Pastor: That is, you see, a person takes and puts his understanding into the text, which, perhaps, does not necessarily speak about specific flesh. And he brings it in and says: this is the same Flesh, this is the same Blood.

Baptist Pastor 2: So it turns out that he has now read both this disciple John himself and the interpretation, and said that the disciple allegedly said it. And this is already added by the interpreter.

Orthodox: No, the interpreter only added the word "heretics". In parentheses. And the rest, it's all just the text itselfIgnatius the God-Bearer. Listen, the interpreter added only the word "heretics" in parentheses.

Baptist Pastor: No, he added, " The very Flesh that suffered on the Cross, the very Flesh that the Father raised up." This was added by Vladimir Yurgenson. You can check the historical fact.

Comment. Extremely ignorant statement of the Baptist, based entirely (as well as most of the report, by the way) on the article of the Samara pastor Alexey Prokopenko from his "Live Journal" https://alex-pro-1.livejournal.com/296441.html. To see the error of the Baptist, here is a full quotation from chapters 6-7 of St. John's Epistle. Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Smyrnians [Chapter 6. Whoever does not believe in the Blood of Christ will be judged, even if it is an Angel. Heretics have no Christian virtues either]: "Don't be deceived! And the beings of heaven, and the glory of angels, and the powers visible and invisible, are all subject to judgment if they do not believe in the Blood of Christ. "He that containeth, let him contain." No one gets high in a high place! For all perfection is in faith and love, of which there is nothing higher. Look at those who teach otherwise about the grace of Jesus Christ that has come to us – how contrary they are to the will of God! They have no care for love, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the oppressed, nor for the prisoner, nor for the freed from bonds, nor for the hungry or thirsty. [Chapter 7. Heretics withdraw from the Eucharist] They withdraw from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, but whom the Father raised up in His goodness. Thus, rejecting the gift of God, they die in their debates. They would have to hold on to love in order to be resurrected. Therefore, we must withdraw from such people and not speak about them in private or in public, but listen to the prophets, and especially to the Gospel, in which the suffering of Christ is revealed to us and His Resurrection is perfectly clear. Especially avoid divisions as the beginning of evil." As can be seen from the full quotation, it is precisely heretics who, deprived of perfection and love, do not recognize that "The Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, but whom the Father raised up in His goodness."

Apparently, Vladimir Jurgenson has nothing to do with it. It's just that the Baptist didn't bother to read the original text of St. John the Baptist. Ignatius, in which he blames heretics precisely for denying the reality of the Savior's Flesh in the Eucharist – that very Flesh "which suffered for our sins, but which the Father raised up in His goodness."

Baptist Pastor 2: So, let's get everyone involved, not just two speakers asking each other questions and answering each other's questions. I'm interested in the more practical side. Do you prepare bread and wine before Communion?

Orthodox priest: Sure.

Baptist Pastor 2: Before people come to the temple, right? At this moment, when transubstantiation occurs? You take ordinary bread and ordinary wine. It doesn't already have the Body and Blood of Christ in it, does it? You take it and pray there, probably by yourself. Or how does it work for you? I'm interested in that. And when is it transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ? During your private prayer? In the altar or behind the altar? Or before the actual human participation?

Orthodox (from the audience): This happens in the liturgy during the Eucharistic Canon. That is, at a certain moment, with the blessing of the priest, the transubstantiation (transformation) of bread and wine into Body and Blood takes place.

Baptist Pastor 2: At this point, are the priests praying for God to bless, or is it God himself who blesses? Does God bless or does the priest bless?

Orthodox priest: The priest prays for the Lord's blessing and performs the blessing gesture himself.

Baptist Pastor 2: And you believe that at this very moment there is a transubstantiation?

Orthodox priest: We believe that through the sacred rites of the priest, the transfiguration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Baptist Pastor 2: From now on, it's no longer bread and wine, but Body and Blood?

Orthodox priest: And we treat that which is on the Throne as Body and Blood. If up to this time the attitude to it was as to the offered bread and wine sacrificed, then after this moment we treat it as to the true Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ.

Baptist Pastor 2: I still have to figure out what you meant by that: that the entity remains the same, but the form changes, or as you said, on the contrary, the form remains the same. You yourself admitted that after all, the taste of bread remains, the color remains white.

Orthodox priest: Taste, color, smell, and so on... Let me open the Epistle to the SmyrniansIgnatius the God-Bearer, right alongside, without interpreters or anything else. I'll just read the text, the whole chapter, okay? It is small, there is one paragraph small. I was told that he did not have it, I did not argue, I directly opened the book itself, Ignatius the God-Bearer, a translation of it, and I am ready to read it.

Baptist Pastor 2: Come on, you can read it later.

Orthodox priest: Then it will turn out that our holy father was reproached in a symbolic sense, when in fact he believed that this is the Body of Christ. Allow me? A few words.

Baptist Pastor 2: No, I don't want you to get away from my questions.

Orthodox priest: Yes, of course.

Baptist Pastor 2: And then I think we'll have a few more minutes to read. So, after the blessing, after the prayer of the priest's blessing, now the Body and Blood of the Lord are already on the altar?

Orthodox priest: On the throne, yes, we believe so.

Baptist Pastor 2: So the person who comes to receive communion, what does he take inside himself, into his body?

Orthodox priest: He takes the Body of Christ into himself and takes the Blood of Christ into himself.

Baptist Pastor 2: So he eats the Body of Jesus Christ?

Orthodox priest: That's right.

Baptist Pastor 2: This is cannibalism!

Orthodox priest: That's exactly what the Jews said!

Baptist Pastor 2: This is cannibalism!

Orthodox priest: That's exactly what the Jews said!

Baptist Pastor: This is how He responds to them. Watch Him respond. "What am I, My words, the essence of what? Spirit and life". That they are not material things that can be felt, but Spirit and life. And then He explains to them that " the flesh does not benefit in the least." What does he mean by that? He explains to them that even if you were to attack Me now and eat Me and drink My Blood, it wouldn't do you any good. Because the question is precisely in the spiritual understanding of these words, and not in the physical one. That's the point. This is what he explains at the end of this chapter.

And see, chapter 6, verse 40. "This is the will of Him who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Mark these words. "He had eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Then chapter 6, verse 47. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life." Mark this verse.

Then 6 chapter, 54 verse. "He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Exactly the same words at the end.

Orthodox: Complementary, but not exclusive. Complementary ones.

Baptist Pastor: That's right. Talking about the same thing. Here, in verse 40, "had everlasting life," by what? Through faith, right? Right.

Orthodox: In one case, yes.

Baptist Pastor: Not just one. It's all here. Everything here says the same thing. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.", и .. Flesh and drink... The blood has eternal life." The same. That is, what is eating Flesh and drinking Blood? It is to believe in Jesus Christ. It's easy to understand. This is so elementary, even a child will understand it. Believing in Jesus Christ is like eating Flesh and drinking Blood. Tell me, and He goes on to explain it at the end and says that " the flesh does not benefit in the least." It's useless. If you now start talking about the flesh, about material things, then this is useless reasoning, which does not bring any benefit to anyone.

Comment. This is how Baptists turn things around: they say, "To eat Flesh and drink Blood" means to believe in Jesus Christ. But with us, to believe in Jesus Christ means to believe Him, His words, and therefore to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

Orthodox priest: Excellent. Can I answer it?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, of course.

Orthodox priest: Does this mean that when the Lord speaks about the need to believe, He denies baptism?

Baptist Pastor: In what text?

Orthodox priest: Here in this text, you have just read a set of texts.

Baptist Pastor: There is no talk about baptism...

Orthodox priest: I understand, but denies?

Baptist Pastor: And what does this have to do with it? I don't understand.

Orthodox priest: Do you answer, denies or does not deny?

Baptist Pastor: Well, he doesn't deny it.

Orthodox priest: Yes, I also agree with you.

Baptist Pastor: Let's assume.

Orthodox priest: Does this mean that He denies the Church with these words?

Baptist Pastor: Well, probably not.

Orthodox priest: I think so too. And the need for us to belong to this Saving Church?

Baptist Pastor: Well, probably not.

Orthodox priest: I don't think he denies it either. Does this mean that through these words He denies the need for charity or alms, or patience with sorrows?

Baptist Pastor: Probably not.

Orthodox priest: I'm sure not, I'm pretty sure. Thus, when He speaks here about faith, He says only something general, but then He fills it with specifics in this conversation. And as an element of this faith in Christ, not as the whole faith, but as an element of faith, as an action that is connected with this faith, which gives us this faith, gives us life (not simply: faith gives life, but as faith gives life), He speaks of the Eucharist, he speaks of Communion. Well, in fact, in this same conversation, we see that...

Baptist Pastor: He is not doing something here, not some kind of explanation, but He is combining everything into one. I'm surprised you don't notice. Verses 40, 47, and 54 clearly say the same thing. On salvation through faith. Everything else is not given.

Orthodox priest: It won't work that way. I started to answer, and you did the same thing again.

Baptist Pastor: Excuse me.

Orthodox priest: So you say, let's start at the end.

Baptist Pastor 2: I still want to continue my questions...

Orthodox priest: It won't work that way. If we were asked a question... You didn't give us an answer to one of them, and it turns out that we don't know our own holy fathers. The second time you don't let me answer...

Baptist Pastor 2: The thing is, we don't come here to talk each other out of it.

Orthodox priest: Yes, we do not dissuade. We are discussing. You asked a question. Need to respond?

Baptist Pastor 2: No, there is already a discussion going on, which is turning into a simple argument. But I wanted to find out more about how it all works for you, what meaning you put in it, and what people get out of it.

Orthodox priest: I've been talking about this for quite some time...

Baptist Pastor 2: It's almost eight-thirty now, and my questions need to be answered, too.

Orthodox: Let's ask a question from our side, then, right?

Baptist Pastor 2: No, now, wait. I want to see the entire chain, from beginning to end. I realized that you take bread, you take wine, you mix it, you perform a blessing prayer. From this, from this moment on, you start to relate to...

Orthodox priest: We don't mix bread and wine. This is up to the point of confusion happening.

Baptist Pastor 2: Before mixing – the prayer of blessing, this is already bread and wine, then you mix and offer people communion. A person who receives communion receives the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Orthodox priest: We believe so.

Baptist Pastor 2: Do you believe that, and do they believe that?

Orthodox priest: And they believe so...

Baptist Pastor 2: What are they experiencing at this moment, what are they getting out of this Communion? I didn't understand much from your report.I want you to answer in more detail now.

Orthodox priest: I have voiced doctrinal questions, first of all, and exegetical ones. And I avoided the emotional one, of course, you understand.

Baptist Pastor 2: Well, once again. That is, a person partakes of the grace of God. That is, he receives grace.

Orthodox priest: Let him not partake of grace, but of Christ Himself, completely of Christ Himself.

Baptist Pastor 2: What does this mean? At this point, he accepts It...

Orthodox priest: Christ, according to humanity and Divinity, enters into man...

Baptist Pastor 2: So up to this point, there was no Christ in man?

Orthodox priest: Why, there was.

Baptist Pastor 2: He was, but he's still taking it?

Orthodox priest: That's right.

Baptist Pastor 2: In the body, or in the soul, in the spirit?

Orthodox priest: Well, I eat with my mouth...

Baptist Pastor 2: So it takes you into the body. My body accepts the Body of Christ...

Orthodox priest: Well, since Christ is not only Flesh, but also a God-Man, I also accept the Body of Christ into myself; and, naturally, the Divinity of Christ enters into me and acts as He knows.

Baptist Pastor 2: How does it affect the soul? If my body accepts the Body of Christ, what good does it do my soul?

Orthodox priest: An example from the Apostle Paul. We also read quite a lot about this in the report (in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11).

The Apostle Paul talks a lot about this. In particular, he says that unworthy Communion leads to illness and early death. You understand that if we are talking about symbols, then a symbol cannot lead to death. If I look at arsenic, I won't die from it. If I watch a person take arsenic in a movie and die, I won't die from it. But if I drink arsenic, I'll die of it. So it is here. Why do people die from unworthy Communion? I will read this passage, since it was asked directly. The Apostle says: "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man test himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. For he who eats and drinks unworthily eats to his own condemnation, not considering the Body of the Lord." And finally: "therefore many of you are weak and sick, and not a few are dying" (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

I do not understand that if I have behaved badly in relation to the symbol, if I have behaved unworthily in relation to the wine that symbolizes the Blood of Christ, and, say, shed it, or if I accept it so casually, without much reverence, this is certainly not good, of course, but this is not a reason for me to get sick and he died. And here we are not talking about bad faith, but about the fact that when I eat this bread and drink this Cup, then unworthy Communion gives me death or illness. This is reality – death and illness. What is in the Bowl is also a reality, not a symbol.

Baptist Pastor 2: Well, if this really happened, I think more than half of the Orthodox people would be in their graves by now, because so many sins are committed and God doesn't punish them. People take communion, believe that they eat the Body of Christ, drink the Blood, and continue to sin, and commit fornication, and smoke, and swear, and steal. And these people really do everything, take communion, and nothing happens to them.

Orthodox priest: So you think that those people who commit fornication, steal, and so on, which you have outlined, they all receive communion regularly, do I understand you correctly?

Baptist Pastor 2: Yes.

Orthodox priest: You shouldn't think so. Even according to statistical data, we have a negligible number of Orthodox people who have entered the church. Therefore, the vast majority of those who commit fornication, drink and smoke, which you mentioned, they almost do not go to church, and if they do, they do not receive communion.

Baptist Pastor 2: So a small number of people receive communion?

Orthodox priest: Very little.

Baptist Pastor 2: But I didn't know that, thank you very much.

Orthodox priest: Well, yes. Unlike you, where there is a fixed membership and careful monitoring of each person, we have more freedom, many people do not go to the temple for years. This is very bad. The Church encourages them to go to church, encourages them to strengthen their faith, and participate in divine services. But they call-they call, but "many are called, but few are chosen." People don't want to.

Baptist Pastor 2: But if a person accepts the Body of Christ into his body, how does this Body, the Body of Christ from my body, affect the soul? How does my soul benefit from it at this moment?

Orthodox priest: Well, here, you know, such a question is intimate, but I have heard many times from different people, especially about the first Communion, that... I'll give you a private example. One person, there is a record on the Internet, this is his revelation, told about himself, how he was a drunk, a drug addict and eventually died. An ambulance arrived, took him, and he was revived in the ambulance, about sixteen or eighteen minutes after his death.

And in the interval between his death and Sunday, he died, they stated not clinical death, but real death. In between, he saw Christ. I saw Christ, I was in Heaven, I was in hell, and I spoke quite extensively about my experiences.

Later, he came to life, but it didn't change his life significantly, because the first thing he did was go out and drink beer, and he was after a drink, but he began to think about what had happened. He began to search in different religions for what it could be, but he did not understand what was happening. And after some time of his tossing and turning, he got to the Orthodox Church and even realized that he should take communion.

He experienced various difficulties in life after that and almost died again, because he had to stop using, and it was difficult to do this. But nevertheless, his wife took care of him as if he were a small child. Finally, he took communion. And this is how he speaks about himself, it's not my word, but another person's. He says that he experienced such a sensation, which was similar to what it was in Paradise when he was there. Here in general, he says, almost the same, but maybe a little weaker than in Paradise, the feeling was. The second time much less, the third-even less, and then all was quiet. This is someone else's experience, not mine.

Each of us also happens when the Lord touches our hearts and makes us feel something. But you see, where there is feeling, there is no faith. So we usually walk by faith, not by vision. We receive communion, and we see that the Lord works in us not according to our feelings, but according to our proper action.

When we are before this, well, how you accuse us of various sins, and then we lag behind these sins. Well, let's say he used to swear, but now less and less, and stopped. I used to smoke, but now I'm smoking less and less, and I've stopped. I used to drink, but now, in general, it's been years, and I don't even drink. We see the same action of God in ourselves. So we learn it all. To God, who works in us, not only mentally, but also physically.

You once told us that you perceive your body as a part of yourself that is not redeemed by Christ, in which sin operates, and sin dominates in the body, if I understand your point correctly. If it's wrong, please correct it, I don't mind. Well, that's how I took it.

But for an Orthodox Christian, this is certainly not the case. Because our body is redeemed by Christ, and the Lord dwells in us and acts. If we are submissive to Christ, He works in us. If we do not submit to Christ, resist Him, then it will be in the very condemnation that at the extreme point leads to illness and death. The symbol does not grant death. I already said without you, I look at the TV, I look at the poison, I won't die, I won't get sick.

Baptist Pastor: And the teaching that your bodies are redeemed, where do you get that from?

Orthodox priest: Well, from the New Testament, isn't it?

Baptist Pastor: Can we give you a text? In Romans 8, on the contrary, it is written that we are still waiting for adoption and the redemption of our body. And the residual appearance of sin...

Orthodox: «...that you were not redeemed from a life of vanity with corruptible silver or gold... " (1 Peter 1: 18).

Baptist Pastor: And why is it about bodies, in the context of the body?

Orthodox: And "you", what is meant – about the soul?

Baptist Pastor: Sure.

Orthodox priest: Is a person only a soul? Here's more: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 6: 15). Isn't that enough? Bodies, bodies-members of Christ!

Baptist Pastor: What's the point of redemption here?

Orthodox priest: And Christ didn't redeem us, excuse me?

Baptist Pastor: But it doesn't say that bodies are redeemed.

Orthodox priest: Bodies are members of Christ. Christ has redeemed us.

Baptist Pastor: Stop, stop. "Offer your bodies as a holy sacrifice" (Rom.12:1). It's written, yes. In other words, you must provide them.

Orthodox priest: This is a different quote. This is Romans 12: 1

Baptist Pastor: I know. I connect them together.

Orthodox priest: Don't connect them, they are different places.

Baptist Pastor: I understand, but it's all about the same thing.

Orthodox priest: No, I'm not.

Baptist Pastor: Yes, yes...

Orthodox priest: Let's do it again. 1 Corinthians 6: 15: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" Four verses later, 6: 19: "Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not yourown?" Or else, same chapter, next verse: "Glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which are God's."

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: But isn't it obvious that here...

Baptist Pastor: Not obvious.

Orthodox priest: I heard it. It's not obvious to you, it's obvious to us. Well, I won't argue with you.

Baptist Pastor: Not obvious.

Orthodox: We're off topic, let's go back again.

Baptist Pastor 2: Our theme is the Eucharist. I am very interested in what an Orthodox person receives from Communion, from participation in the Eucharist. Does he receive Christ Himself? If Christ lives in a person's heart before, yes, there was Christ, and now I have received more than Christ?

Orthodox priest: May I clarify? Does this mean that if you ate yesterday, you won't eat today?

Baptist Pastor 2: So it's just spiritual food?

Orthodox priest: No, this is not spiritual food. This food is both spiritual and physical. That is, we strengthen not only our souls with memories, prayers or something else good, but we also strengthen the whole human nature. God created Adam not only from the soul. He also created it physically. Is that why the Lord redeemed me only with my soul? I believe that I have redeemed the whole person, including the body. Therefore, the Lord, by offering me His Body, wants my body to be obedient to the Spirit and obedient to God. Isn't it obvious?

Baptist Pastor: It is obvious, yes, that our body must be obedient. But it's the same... in it, the confrontation is going on. In the same place, as the Apostle Paul says, I want to do one thing, but I don't do what I want, I don't do it, it doesn't work out for me. That is, all lusts come from there, all from there, from the flesh. James writes:: "you are deceived by your lusts, by your desires that you have." That is, we must understand that the body is sinful, but it is precisely this body that is waiting for redemption. When Christ comes for His Church, then there will be the redemption of the body, then our bodies will change in the twinkling of an eye and become like Him, so it is written. This is the process of redemption. Then sin will no longer work in our bodies.

Orthodox priest: So the atonement will be at the Second Coming?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: What do you say?

Comment. It turns out that Baptists are only waiting for redemption, but they are already saved! Everything was reversed. When a slave was bought in ancient times, first they paid for it, and then it was transferred to the house of a new master. The Son of God bought us with His Blood: "You have been bought with a high price" (1 Corinthians 7: 23). Why don't we also belong to Him in our bodies?

Baptist Pastor 2: Yes. Romans 8. "Waiting... redemption, "as it is written," the redemption of our body "(Rom. 8: 23). That's exactly where it says " waiting... atonement", but what you cite, there is nothing written there.

Comment. It is worth putting this passage in context: "For we know that the whole creation groans together and is tormented to this day; and not only it, but we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, also groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption as sons, for the redemption of our body. For we are saved in hope. But hope, when it sees, is not hope; for if a man sees, why should he hope? But when we hope for what we do not see, then we wait patiently" (Rom. 8: 22-25). As you can see, we expect and hope: 1) adoption; 2) redemption of our body; 3) salvation. However, elsewhere we are already called adopted (Galatians 4: 7), redeemed (1 Peter 1: 18-19; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1: 7), and Baptists believe that we are also saved. As can be seen, we are talking about the fullness of redemption and salvation, that is, about future glory.

For comparison, here are three interpretations. Svt. Grigory Palama: "The Firstfruits of the Spirit" If we call the sanctification and grace of the Spirit, which we receive in divine baptism when we are freed from our sins and renewed, we are also justified (without any merit on our part) by the grace of Christ: for this is the firstfruits of these future goods. But when he says, "expecting adoption,"he shows that he is not speaking of adoption on the basis of baptism, but of a future and perfect and lasting adoption, and adds to what he has said: "deliverance (chayushchee) our body" (ibid.), that is, deliverance from the passions (or "ease of pain and passion") and its destruction (corruptibility); for here adoption often fails; while it-which is in the non-existence and resurrection from the dead-is perfect and truly lasting." Blj. Theodoret: The apostle said that we have received the "spirit of the disposition of the son" (Rom. 8: 15), but he teaches more clearly that if we have now received the name, we will have the very thing when our bodies are freed from corruption and put on immortality. And the word "firstfruits" meant that in the next age we will receive many times greater grace of the Spirit, for if what is now bestowed is called the firstfruits and the pledge, then it is clear that the future is many times greater than this". St. Theophan the Recluse: "When it was said about the restoration of our nature in glory through the resurrection, then, beginning to point out the restoration of the whole creation, the apostle said in the course of speech: not only will we be restored and delivered from corruption, but also the whole creation. But now, when he speaks of the creature sighing for this deliverance, he must go back to that: not only does the creature sigh for this, a creature that has no visible or tangible makings of it yet, but we, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, as a pledge of future renewal, and we sigh for getting rid of it as soon as possible from corruption and enter into the full light of sonship with God in an incorruptible body. Starting from this sighing for our hoped-for deliverance, the apostle begins to speak of hope, explaining its properties and the firm foundations of its steadfastness. These foundations are: (a) the firstfruits of the Spirit (see: 8, 23-27); (b) the eternal decree concerning the saved (see: 8, 28-30); and (g) the price of the incarnate economy (see: 8, 31-34). All these foundations are based on: (d)unremitting love (see: 8, 35-39)."

Orthodox: No, but this text, which is the previous one, let's open the first epistle of Peter: "life is not redeemed with corruptible gold or silver..." And what is redeemed then?

Baptist Pastor 2: A person is a person, a person is a soul and spirit, and a body is one of the three components of a person. But these are the clothes that a person is wearing. And when a person dies, the person leaves this earth. We don't believe, like Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, that a person falls apart and is gone until the resurrection. The soul and spirit are man.

Orthodox priest: Is the body not a human being?

Baptist Pastor 2: And the body is a garment or tool that a person uses to live on this earth, do things, and so on.

Orthodox: That is, when a person dies, it is no longer possible to call him a person?

Baptist Pastor 2: On the contrary. A person dies, and he remains a full-fledged person without a body. The body rots in the ground, "for you are dust, and to dust you will return."

Orthodox (from the audience): What about the resurrection? What is the essence of resurrection, then?

Baptist Pastor 2: The Essence of Resurrection to get...

Orthodox: Get those clothes back? So she's in the way...

Baptist Pastor 2: A new body, glorified. Another body...

Orthodox: Not the one that was there... Lord, have mercy!

Baptist Pastor 2: We'll get another body. We were wearing the same clothes, and then we'll get different clothes. Like Christ's, which will transform...

Orthodox: We're off topic again. Let's go back to the Sacrament. We have a question.

Orthodox priest: And let's give you a quote, otherwise you didn't give it to us, but we would like to. I'll quote it. So, I repeat once again that you have accused us of not knowing our holy fathers, of what they actually said about the symbolism of the Eucharist.

Here's a saintIgnatius the God-Bearer, in his Epistle to the Smyrnians, Chapter 7, speaks of heretics. I quote it. "They turn away from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, but whom the Father raised up in His goodness. Thus, rejecting the gift of God, they die in their debates." And so on.

That is, we see that heretics deny that the Eucharist is the Flesh of the Savior, who suffered for his sins and rose again. That is, the Body.

Orthodox: That is, the real Body.

Orthodox priest: Here, this is your point of view. To him, they are heretics!

Baptist Pastor: Look, how can you be sure that Ignatius ' words have a meaning in them, that they are literally Flesh?

Orthodox priest: "Who suffered and rose again"! And what was affected?! And resurrected something?!

Baptist Pastor: No, look here, why are you sure that this is not a figurative understanding?

Orthodox: So WHAT did the Lord raise up? Just respond. WHAT did the Father resurrect?

Orthodox: This is a literal understanding of the text.

Orthodox: Just answer, what did the Father raise up? From the Gospel... The body?

Baptist Pastor: The body, yes. Why do you say that this Body is a Cup, based on this?

Orthodox priest: This is about the Flesh. The Body is the Flesh. Well, like, literally in the text, or not? It doesn't say anything about the Cup... It's about the Body.

Baptist Pastor 2: Even if some holy father said it, it's not inspired by God, it's not true.The Holy Scriptures.

Orthodox: So that's not the point, you just told us that the fathers didn't talk about the reality of the Body of Christ.

Orthodox priest: Once again: each author that you have identified (just need to type quotes, I did not prepare quotes specifically, I did not expect such a question, but it is not difficult, take onlyIgnatius the God-Bearer), each author in other places says in detail that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ. Especially when you hit me, it's a saintIrenaeus of Lyon, he has a set of such quotes. You put some things forward without context, but this is not true, the saint spoke in detail about the fact that this is the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, and that we chew the Body of Christ with our teeth.

Baptist Pastor: Wait, wait, they didn't say that we chew the Body with our teeth.

Orthodox: John Chrysostom literally said that we chew the Body.

Baptist: So he was wrong.

Orthodox priest: Let'sIrenaeus of Lyons is honored with a quote, one of which he has many: "Those who despise the dispensation of God and deny the salvation of the flesh, and reject its regeneration, saying that it does not participate in incorruption, are completely foolhardy. But if it is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with His Own Blood, and the Cup of the Eucharist is not the communion of His Blood, and the bread that we break is not the communion of His Body. For blood can proceed only from the veins and the flesh, and all the other things that make up the essence of man, which the Word of God truly became and redeemed us with His own Blood, as His apostle says: "In Him we have redemption through His blood and the remission of sins" (Colossians 1:14), " and so on.

Baptist Pastor: So how can we come up with a theory about transubstantiation?

Orthodox priest: So this is not a theory. He says that when we partake of the Chalice, we partake of the true Blood that was in the Body of Christ. In His veins.

Baptist Pastor: So this is an image.

Orthodox priest: What is the image? Blood can only come from veins and other things.

Baptist Pastor: Why can't we think of it as an image, these words? I don't understand your logic. That is, you can draw everything you want with your understanding to the text, so it turns out?

Comment. He shouldn't think so. Only Baptists can "attract", and we are not based on our own opinion, but on the teachings of the Church.

Orthodox priest: You're scaring me a little. I look at you and see that you are a human being. But what prevents me from thinking that you are not a person, but an image of a person? Basically, nothing. If I lose my mind, I'll say so.

Baptist Pastor: That's what I'm talking about. What we are talking about now does not mean that it is a fact, what exactly is said about a particular Body...

Orthodox: Like Ignatius the God-Bearer in the previous text?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, of course.

Orthodox: There, too, absolutely everything is far-fetched?

Baptist Pastor: He doesn't say it exactly, one hundred percent doesn't say it. And with regard to the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, I will say that Christ uses this verb ἐγώ εἰμι very often"I am,"look, He says: "I am the door." So what? This means that Christ is a wooden object, so we should understand this? Here you say, the students should have understood literally.

Christ says: "I am the door of the sheep." This means a wooden object, and we should look at Christ as a wooden object? "I am the vine, and you are the branches." That is, we should understand that Christ is a tree of some kind, and in the literal sense we should have such a concept, right? From your point of view, as you said, there is only one way and nothing else. Here. Well, it turns out so. Where the verb "aimee" is used, this is how we should understand it!

Because Christ speaks... Because it's the AlmightyGod, He can make Himself a door! Why not? Please forgive me, I am an emotional person. I'm gesturing, talking, maybe it feels like I'm proving something to someone. Not like that. I just have emotions. So, then, what's in there? "The field is the world." Are we supposed to understand that the field is the world? Is it the same thing? When does Christ make a comparison in parables? I.e., these are all images. And here we can also say-these are images, and this will be correct.

Orthodox priest: That is, when He says of Himself that "I am the Son of God,"it is again an image? Do I understand your point correctly?

Baptist Pastor: No.

Orthodox priest: Why not? If Aimee's ego is an image...

Baptist: We don't take all texts literally. We don't literally understand the Book of Revelation... It's not about what we have to...

Orthodox priest: That is, when in the book of Revelation He says that "I sat down with the Father... on the throne", you don't literally understand it?

Baptist: Well, when we look at the wife standing there on the moon, we certainly don't realize that she's literally standing on our moon. A huge wife.

Orthodox priest: I heard it... Thank you.

Baptist: That's not all, yes. And some things in Revelation are understood literally...

Orthodox priest: It turns out that you do not consider Scripture to be the Word of God, because you arbitrarily interpret one "this way" and the other "that way". What is the criterion? That's my opinion. Do you have such an opinion?

Baptist: The words of Satan from the Book of Job we also don't think they came from God's Scripture, because they came from... They were spoken by Satan himself.

Orthodox priest: Well, there are also words of Satan in the Gospel...

Baptist: The Scripture also contains the direct speech of God, written down, but there are also the words of others...

Orthodox priest: No, it is not the words of Satan, but the words of the apostles, of Christ Himself. And, yes, I think it is in vain to compare them in this respect. But what you just told me is that you can interpret the Scriptures in your own way, one way, the other way...

Baptist: We don't take everything so literally...

Orthodox priest: Well, in that case, if you don't take it literally, you need criteria for interpreting Scripture.

Comment. A very important unanswered passage. As it turned out, Baptists quite arbitrarily understand some passages literally, while others, often next to the first, are allegorical. This means that the Scriptures are not self-evident; they require criteria for understanding them correctly, which are not contained in the Scriptures themselves. It turns out that the actual practice of Baptist interpretationThe Bible refutes their false thesis" Only Scripture", which supposedly assumes its self-evidence.

Orthodox: Let's ask a question from our side. Quick question. From the report, I understood that communion in your community and in the Baptist church as a whole is the essence of faith in the sufferings of Jesus Christ on the cross and remembering these sufferings.

Baptist Pastor 2: Amen.

Orthodox: Question: Do you allow sinners to receive communion in your community?

Baptist Pastor: Well, no... And what sinners?

Orthodox priest: Oh, that's a good answer... Well, for example, those who sometimes judge other people. For example, judging other people. Here I sometimes condemn other people, I came to you and want to take communion, will you allow it or not?

Baptist Pastor: If I know that there really was such a fact, that you suffer from this, then I will, of course, communicate with you before allowing you to receive communion. And confession, it is quite acceptable in this case. If a person has confessed, they can participate.

Orthodox priest: But you don't have the right to allow sins.

Baptist Pastor: What does it mean to allow sins?

Orthodox priest: How the Lord breathed on the apostles and gave them the power to forgive sins.

Baptist Pastor: Oh, we'll talk about that now...

Baptist Pastor 2: That's a different topic.

Orthodox: In general, do you not allow all members of the church to receive communion?

Baptist Pastor 2: Before communion, we announce that if you are at peace with the Lord, with each other, if you are not under church discipline, excommunicated, or remarked upon, you can participate. But if there is an unacknowledged sin, it is better to abstain, because you will eat and drink not in blessing yourself, but in condemnation.

Orthodox: Yes. And now the question...

Baptist Pastor 2: And we're not in control. If they are our church members, we don't know what is in their hearts.

Orthodox: Ah, look... If communion is just a memory and faith, then don't you think it is absurd to forbid a sinner to believe in Christ and remember his sufferings on the cross?

Baptist Pastor: Why should it be ridiculous? I have a question.

Orthodox: Well, you forbid the sinner... It seems that you go out on the street, preach...

Baptist Pastor 2: We warn people to refrain...

Orthodox: So why? On what grounds do you forbid a sinner to remember Christ?

Baptist Pastor: Based on God's Word.

Orthodox: So sinners, according to the Baptists, have no right to think about Christ? Direct question.

Baptist Pastor: Stop, stop... As it is written in Corinthians, how?

Orthodox: Again, you pulled out a separate quote about the memory. For us, for example, this is remembrance plus transubstantiation, Communion, and so on. You just took a memory. See, a specific question and answer, that is, according to the teaching of Baptism, sinners do not have the right to remember Christ and believe in him. Because the Sacrament is faith.

Baptist Pastor: Forgiven sinners have the right to...

Orthodox priest: Don't the unforgiven have any?

Baptist Pastor 2: They don't.

Orthodox: So they don't have the right to remember Christ?

Baptist Pastor 2: Not eligible for communion. They can always remember.

Orthodox: So this is a memory for you, you said just now. Look, you say (the essence of the report) that communion is a remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross and faith in it (that it happened). But you do not allow sinners to do these things, that is, to believe in Christ and to remember Him. So?

Baptist Pastor: Naturally.

Baptist Pastor 2: No, we call for every sinner to believe, repent, and receive communion with Christ... We do not prohibit faith in Jesus Christ.

Orthodox: So you say that communion is faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ...

Baptist Pastor: It's a memory.

Orthodox: Well, a memory. How will he believe without remembering Jesus, without imagining, and so on? How will he believe?

Baptist Pastor: According to the Word.

Orthodox: So he should believe, but not remember Christ in any case? And about His sufferings on the cross.

Baptist Pastor 2: What do you mean by "remembrance"? It turns out that your memory is to take a spoon with bread and wine in your mouth. That's a memory. At the same time that this communion service arrives, the Word is preached. We call on all people to look with the eyes of faith at Christ Crucified.

And the person sits, thinks, realizes, feels everything. And he believes, even if he doesn't have the right to participate yet, because he hasn't repented yet, or he has repented but hasn't been baptized. We don't even allow them. Because you still have to make a covenant with the Lord through baptism, and only then will you be...

Orthodox priest: And why? The apostles at the Last Supper were unbaptized...

Baptist Pastor 2: Who?

Orthodox priest: The apostles at the Last Supper were unbaptized.

Baptist Pastor 2: How are the unbaptized? They were baptized by John the Baptist even earlier. The second time they didn't cross.

Orthodox priest: But this is not the baptism of Christ. Christ did not baptize...

Baptist Pastor: It says that Christ also baptizes His disciples.

Orthodox priest: But the disciples are unbaptized, because Christ does not baptize. That's right. The disciples themselves are unbaptized. The Lord requires us to be baptized in a different way. In the book of Acts, we see those who were baptized by John and those who were baptized by Paul.

Baptist Pastor 2: Apostles, the second time is not written anywhere for them to be baptized. Therefore, Christ recognized this baptism of John.

Orthodox priest: Well, all right. And why did you decide (even forget about the apostles), decided that it is impossible for the unbaptized to receive communion at all? Prove it from the Scriptures.

Baptist Pastor: You know, this issue is a matter of principle – the participation of the baptized or the unbaptized, it somehow affects... Suppose we taught communion to the unbaptized? Such, by the way, are among Baptists, Evangelical Christians... Is this a fundamental question for you?

Orthodox priest: I was surprised and I want to know the answer, how can you prove this from the Scriptures.

Baptist Pastor: No, there is circumstantial evidence. The fact is that some questions in our faith are indirect in nature.

Orthodox priest: So this is your custom?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: And now you will say that you have no tradition?

Baptist Pastor: There is.

Orthodox priest: So you have it?

Baptist Pastor: And who says we don't have a tradition? You what!? We, on the contrary, say that tradition, it defines mainly the doctrine of faith. Because this is a very important point in the doctrine of faith.

Orthodox priest: Excellent. So, it turns out that there are Baptist traditions?

Baptist Pastor: There is. And the teaching is Baptismal.

Orthodox priest: And you deny the Orthodox Tradition?

Baptist Pastor: Because it's not based on the Word of God, that's all.

Orthodox priest: And yours are strictly based on the Word of God! Although some of your unbaptized people do take communion. Some of your unbaptized do not receive communion. Are both correct traditions? Some of you believe that it is possible to lose salvation, some believe that it is impossible to lose salvation, an essential question of salvation... And still – both are equally good...

Baptist Pastor: Do you have any differences in Orthodoxy, just everything is clear, straight in one line?

Orthodox priest: The doctrine of the faith is strictly in one line, correctly said...

Baptist Pastor: Yes, of course!

Orthodox priest: If not, please give an example.

Baptist: Do you give communion to the unbaptized?

Orthodox priest: No, you can't, of course.

Baptist Pastor 2: Why not?

Orthodox priest: The tradition of the Church is that it comes from the apostles. All Sacraments are performed only after baptism. Baptism is the door to the Church. Now, you don't know of a single instance where our creed differs in essential matters.

There are some modern teachers who, contrary to church teaching, teach in their own way. This is true, but it is their personal opinion. The Church's teaching, based on the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers, is unchangeable, identical and correct.

Baptist Pastor: After ten centuries, we will also come to a common unity.

Orthodox priest: You've measured out a lot for yourself. More than Adam.

Baptist Pastor: You just have such a rich historical experience.

Orthodox: So we didn't come for a while, we believed all the time so...

Orthodox priest: I suggest that we take the topic of Tradition for the next meeting. I think it will be good. Tradition, interpretation of Scripture.

Baptist Pastor: I suggest that the next topic should be deification.

Orthodox priest: This topic is very high.

Baptist Pastor: This is a high topic, but it has nothing to do with the Bible. And I am very concerned about this issue. I want to know...

Orthodox: This is how your deacons convinced us at our last meeting that they profess deification. We were surprised ourselves.

Baptist Pastor 2: I've never heard them say that.

Orthodox priest: And also we have a record that yours are the same... I won't point fingers, but I know this man. He is present here. He insisted that Baptism recognizes the uncreated energies of the Deity.

Baptist Pastor: We just didn't do well with them.

Orthodox: No, this is no longer a deacon. This is a different person. He's sitting next to us, but I won't point at him...

Baptist Pastor: I really want to hear this topic – deification.

Orthodox priest: No, let's still talk about leaves, we must first decide what to do with the trunk and roots. The root and root, of course, is the question of Scripture and Tradition. Therefore, if we solve this question for ourselves in a fundamental way, then we can talk about the interpretation of Scripture. So far, we can't even talk about the interpretation of Scripture. You see, we say the same texts, but we see reality in them, and you see symbolism.

Baptist Pastor: Not always, not in all cases. In other texts, we see reality. Where you see symbolism, by the way, we see reality in reverse.

Orthodox priest: You must understand that we do not deny that the Lord often speaks in parables. But what parables, excuse me, were there before his death? The apostles say that He no longer speaks to them in parables. And now He does not say in parables that this is My Body. And you say the door is there and so on. The door was opened to whom? The door was opened to the people, who had to speak in parables. And in private, He explained everything correctly. We remember that: "the field is the world," the Lord explains the symbolism to the apostles.

Baptist Pastor: You are confusing a little bit of a parable with an image. This is a slightly different direction. Slightly different direction. Parables and figurative utterances are slightly different.

Orthodox priest: That is, you consider that when He says: Is "I am the door" a parable or an image?

Baptist Pastor: This is an image.

Orthodox priest: That's right. But when It says: "the field is the world", He then explains this parable, so according to the text.

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: So is this a parable or an image?

Baptist Pastor: No, in that case it is a parable, a figurative statement. But in general, this is a parable. That is, the statement that is contained in the parable is an image. And in general – a parable.

Orthodox priest: Well, that's good.

Orthodox (from the audience): I have a short question. Do you give communion to children?

Baptist Pastor 2: No.

Orthodox (from the audience): They are not baptized, and therefore do not participate in communion?

Baptist Pastor 2: Yes.

Orthodox (from the audience): All right, then. The sacrament is reasoning, as we have heard, and remembering. If a person, for example, has always been a member of a Baptist congregation, but has lost the ability to reason, is ill, has dementia, or something else, they cannot reason, they are physically incapable. Or is a person born with a disease, down, autistic, he does not reason, he is not involved, but he is already an adult, not a child, he has the right to be baptized and receive communion? Or it was a Baptist, but became ill, and no longer has the ability to physically reason.

Baptist Pastor 2: We have elderly believers who, yes, have almost forgotten everything, and we have to remind them, we give them communion. If they repent and are baptized, they remain members of the church, even if they lose their memory. There have never been any downs in our church before, where there was such a person that we would baptize. So it's hard to say.

Orthodox: So you don't baptize sick people?

Baptist Pastor 2: No, it's just that there was no such practice in our church.

Orthodox: Do you have a Sunday school?

Baptist Pastor: Children's room? Yes.

Orthodox: And what do you teach children there?

Baptist Pastor: Complete Bibles.

Orthodox: Including the memory of Christ?

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox: But you don't give them communion? Although the sacrament has memories of Christ?

Baptist Pastor: Not just memories, I say again.

Orthodox: Well, and faith in him.

Baptist Pastor: There are a lot of them, but I have already listed them, and I can list them again if you want. For some reason, you have caught on to a memory, and now you are hammering there.

Orthodox priest: Let's go straight to the text, I wrote it down after all. Check your heart... Need children? Need a heart check? Test your strength in the spiritual struggle... Need children? It seems to be also necessary. Confidence in the spiritual struggle...

Baptist Pastor: In the spiritual struggle of children to check, what are you? As a child can... what is the spiritual struggle in his life?

Orthodox priest: I heard it.

Baptist Pastor: He's not a reborn person. He is dead in his sins. He is dead in his sins and trespasses. What are you talking about? He needs to be born again.

Orthodox: And what about your teaching, I'm just wondering, if a child dies, six years old, for example, what will happen...

Baptist Pastor 2: We believe the words of Christ: "for such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Even if he did not repent and was not baptized, until the period when he himself already feels responsible for his life, for his sins... We believe that Christ takes them all to Himself. And I even have an idea that all these babies are in the same state in Heaven, and they will be given the opportunity to grow up in the millennium. God will give them bodies again, there will be a resurrection, and they will grow up in the millennial kingdom. This is my personal guess. Well, I don't believe that the baby who died here as an infant...

Orthodox priest: So there will be a reincarnation of the baby, right? The reincarnation of the infant in this resurrection? Transmigration of a baby's soul from one body to another?

Baptist Pastor 2: No...

Orthodox priest: How so? About the same speech...

Baptist Pastor 2: This baby here, it's a man, it's a soul, but it's an undeveloped soul.

Orthodox priest: That is, the transmigration of the soul from one body to another...

Baptist Pastor 2: This undeveloped soul, it goes to God, and remains in the same state.

Orthodox priest: And then it becomes incarnate...

Baptist Pastor 2: And then there will be the Sunday of the dead, these souls will return to their bodies...

Orthodox priest: Yes, to new bodies.

Baptist Pastor 2: And they will be given the opportunity in the millennium to grow up and make a choice...

Orthodox priest: I love it! Baptists believe in reincarnation! It's so good!

Baptist Pastor 2: That's a guess. Just don't tell me that's what the Baptists teach...

Orthodox priest: I heard it. This is your personal opinion.

Baptist Pastor 2: That's a guess. My personal opinion.

Orthodox priest: Fine. Fine. I'm absolutely thrilled! I am very happy to meet you today.

Orthodox: And also on your report. Communion also reminds you of your responsibility for the Church of Christ, since you are one and the same. You are one Body – the Church of Christ, right? And, accordingly, when you receive communion, do you feel united between the Church?

Baptist Pastor: Yes, of course.

Orthodox: Good. Which Church do you feel united with?

Baptist pastor: Your local one. This community.

Orthodox: And the other Baptists are a different body?

Baptist pastor: No, well, there is a Universal Church, there is a local one. The local one is a part of the Universal One.

Orthodox: Universal – what is it?

Baptist Pastor 2: Across the land. All the reborn...

Baptist Pastor: Not only Baptists, but we are more tolerant than you.

Orthodox: Are Pentecostals regenerated?

Baptist Pastor 2: And there are the regenerated ones... They tell me that even the Orthodox have been reborn from above, but I still...

Orthodox priest: But you haven't seen one yet in your entire life...

Baptist Pastor 2: I would like to see and worship the Triune God, without any worship of the Virgin Mary and all the saints. That's right, with Orthodox people, but so far I haven't met such people.

Orthodox: I see, so we're not reborn...

Baptist: Just like you think we won't be in Paradise...

Orthodox priest: We believe that you are strangers to the Body of Christ – the Church, the True Church, that you were not born in baptism, that you deny being born in baptism...

We believe that you are strangers to the Body of Christ in the sense of the Eucharist, and you also believe that you are strangers to the true Body of Christ, you do not receive communion, you do not receive into yourself... You don't take It in. You think so, don't you?

Baptist Pastor: These are different definitions.

Orthodox priest: You are a stranger to the literal Body of Christ that we accept into ourselves.

Baptist: We don't believe that bread becomes a literal physical Body...

Orthodox priest: I heard you, I understand. Accordingly, you do not believe that you accept It in yourself, and you are under anathema...

Baptist: We understand it as a spiritual body...

Orthodox priest: And here is the anathema of Christ, that whoever does not eat the Body and drink Blood, literally sounding, it is fully fulfilled on you. Literally. If you literally read the text. Not exactly, but literally. "Whoever does not eat my body and drink my Blood will not have eternal life" (John 6:53).

That's literally, if you read it, then you have it. You don't eat the Body, the literal Body, you don't drink Its, literally, Blood. Accordingly, literally, if you read the conclusion, you do not have eternal life in you. And we agree on this. Both with Christ and with you.

Baptist Pastor: We believe, and I say again, "to eat and drink "means" to believe." So defines chapter 6, clearly straight, if you follow the thought. We believe that Christ died for us, for the forgiveness of our sins. And this faith is eating and drinking. This is the faith.

Not that you take a vessel there and use something material. But we have faith. We have faith, communion on a spiritual level.

Orthodox priest: Yes, I got it, that's enough. You are not redeemed physically, you are deprived of receiving into yourself the deifying Body of Christ. You symbolically believe, symbolically accept all this, in the spirit only. And it is the spirit that you believe he is saved. And in the body there are various passions, and this is normal. You fight them, but you can't beat them.

Baptist: Yes, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15: 50)

Orthodox priest: Even better, yes.

Baptist Pastor 2: Can I tell you my confession? Look, how would it be, let's say, we...

Orthodox priest: Does the Flesh of Christ inherit the Kingdom of God?

Baptist Pastor: Listen to me...

Orthodox priest: I answer your words, finish your thought... The flesh of Christ inherits the Kingdom of God?

Baptist: The Flesh of Christ, Sinless Flesh, yes... And our sinful flesh as near the Holy God?

Orthodox priest: That's all, I've heard... that is, you selectively interpret the same passages. Christ's inherits, ours doesn't...

Baptist Pastor: Argue, you always say: you interpret selectively. I want to hear your conclusions. Arguments... Context...

Orthodox priest: I suggest we say kind words to each other.

Baptist Pastor 2: Can you really arrange to meet separately and discuss things?

Orthodox priest: I think it's a good idea, yes. This will enrich each other.

Baptist Pastor 2: You know more about the ancient Greek and Hebrew traditions of the holy Fathers... You have a lot of questions for each other. Maybe there is another general question?

Orthodox (from the audience): You argue that sin is in the body. We saw that you clearly separate the soul and the body. You say that sin is in the body, but the soul is good and strives for God.

Baptist Pastor: No, we don't separate like that. The influence of the flesh on the soul occurs in any case, but the soul...

Orthodox (from the audience): But the body sins...

Baptist: Why? The individual is sinning. What is a person? What is a person?

Orthodox: I understand that from your conversation, it seemed to me that you share...

Baptist Pastor: Here we understand the same thing. With regard to sin, we have the same understanding.

Baptist Pastor 2: Since the body is an instrument, so a person who wants to sin anyway, usually uses the body. We don't separate.

I would like to express my hope and share it with you in just a minute.

Look, I was once spiritually dead and indifferent to God. Then there came a time when I went to church with my parents, and I began to listen to God's Word. It penetrated my heart, my mind, and I began to wonder. I realized that Jesus Christ died for me on the Cross.

And there came a time (I remember that night very well) when, through a conversation with a preacher, I saw Christ Crucified with spiritual eyes. That is, as Paul says, " I judged that I should know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and that he was crucified." The crucified Christ appeared before my spiritual vision. And I said, "Jesus, I believe that You died for me personally. You sacrificed Yourself for my sins to save me. So I dedicate myself to You."

That was when I was 16, and I've been following Christ ever since. After this initiation, which can be called repentance and being born again, I was baptized 4 years later. Previously, I could not be baptized, because under the Soviet regime they were baptized only at the age of 18. So then I joined the army, and after the army I was baptized. From the moment of my baptism, I participate in the breaking of bread. When I am at a divine service where the breaking of bread is celebrated, every time I take this piece of bread, I send my spiritual gaze to Calvary. And I look with the eyes of faith, as Paul says, " The Lord enlighten the eyes of your heart,"and with the eyes of my heart I look at Christ Crucified, at His wounds. And as I watch Him suffer, I once again know the depth of His love. Here it is, the proof of Christ's torment – the shed Holy Blood.

And I thank the Lord at this moment: "Thank You for being my personal Savior. You died for me personally. I believe that with all my heart. So all my sins are forgiven. I confessed them once and for all... And I confess my current sins every day. My sins are all forgiven. And my heart is cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Your Holy Spirit lives in my heart. I am born again, I am Your child." And at this moment of communion from bread and wine, I receive communion of Christ Crucified. And as I stand firm in my faith, I am sure at this moment that I have eternal life.

So you can say that I don't belong to the Orthodox Church, but I know that the Holy Spirit lives in me. He actually lives. I know that my name is written in the book of life. I know that if I believe in the Word of God, I can never doubt, never hesitate. Now, if I sin, immediately my conscience condemns me, the Holy Spirit condemns me. And I realize my sin, and I repent.

But I do not doubt my salvation. I have eternal life right now. I would like to wish you to have such a living faith in the Crucified, Risen Christ, Who gives the Holy Spirit. And this Holy Spirit must live in the human heart.

Orthodox (from the audience): And why do you think that we have a different faith...

Baptist Pastor 2: But because you doubt that you will go to Heaven.

Orthodox (from the audience): Why? We have no doubt, we have hope for it...

Baptist Pastor 2: You have hope, but no confidence. And the breaking of bread helps to establish this faith to the end.

Orthodox (from the audience): They preach the same way here, and everyone believes the same way. Our entire Divine Liturgy is a commemoration not only of the Crucified Christ, but of the entire economy of God, of the whole of history.

Baptist Pastor 2: You pray like that: "Lord, I thank You that You are my Savior, and I have eternal life."? Can you say that?

Orthodox (from the audience): If you could watch our entire service...

Baptist Pastor 2: Do you personally, really, pray like this: "Thank You for the eternal life that I already have"?

Orthodox (from the audience): No.

Baptist Pastor 2: Why not?

Orthodox (from the audience): Well, I don't think so.

Baptist Pastor 2: Well, what does it say: "This is the testimony that God has given us eternal life. And this life is in His Son." Here: "He that hath the Son of God hath everlasting life." It is written in the present tense. "He that hath not the Son of God hath no life."

Orthodox (from the audience): For us, this uncertainty is more related to the fact (in fact, as you have) that we can stumble and sin, and while we are not dead, we have the opportunity to go both in one direction and in the other.

Orthodox priest: Let's do this. The Son of God, working in man, works omnipotently and flawlessly.

Orthodox (from the audience): Yes.

Orthodox priest: Since we do not see the perfect and complete work of the Son of God in you or in ourselves, we can, of course, deceive ourselves with the fact that He is in us and works in us in fullness; but we understand that this will be a deception of ourselves. And we are human beings... we try to be spiritually sober, and therefore we see His actions in ourselves, but only in part, insofar as we do not hinder Him. Therefore, we do not say that He works in us as He should in eternity, but simply that we strive for Him. And He loves us, tolerates us, helps us, strengthens us, and so on...

Baptist Pastor: These are very harsh words, as you are now saying.

Orthodox priest: In relation to yourself or to whom?

Baptist Pastor: For me and all of us... Why? Because you said: we do not see the work of God in you...

Orthodox priest: In fullness... I mean what? I told you already... You are not miracle workers, you do not reveal the secrets of another person in the spirit... this is not the case. That's what I'm talking about.

Baptist Pastor: See, what is the most important thing in a person's life? Perform miracles, discover some secrets, prophesy? What does the Epistle to the Corinthians tell us? What is the main thing in life, what is the main manifestation of the Spirit of God? Love, right? Love, it is above everything, absolutely.

That is, you are now saying just minor things, but you are missing the main thing. When I met Christ in my life, you know, I was a man who drank alcohol without restriction. I smoked in a terrible way, I couldn't stop this habit. I've had a lot of vices in my life. I was a whoremonger. And when I met Christ, I heard the gospel. I heard a simple gospel. I have heard the message of Christ. I turned to Him: "God, I'm sorry." And you know, I didn't have the strength.

I tried to quit smoking, but I couldn't. I tried to stop drinking, but I couldn't. I went to the Orthodox Church, confessed, celebrated liturgies, did everything I wanted, almost crawled on my knees, beat bows, kissed all the icons in the world and crosses, and everything in the world, and nothing changed in my life.

But it was only when I heard the gospel that it changed my heart once and for all. And I've been a Christian now for as long as I can remember, since I was 92. Just count how many times I've been following Christ. And you say that nothing is visible in me, no manifestation of Christ.

Orthodox priest: God's gifts are not limited to love alone. You know that. Love is the highest gift, but not the only one. So when you tell me about love, I won't argue with you, it's the right thing to do. But if it's only love, then I don't agree with you here. You don't have to prove to me what I didn't say. I didn't say that you are a bad person, an unworthy person. I didn't say that. Why should I impose this on you?

Baptist Pastor: No, you're just saying that...

Orthodox: And take even love... See, do you feel the perfection of love in you? Do you feel the fullness of love? Not just a piece...

Baptist Pastor: No, friends. Here you are, I see, focusing on the sensations. You have your whole life, it is based on feelings. You feel, you don't feel. Guys, where is Vera?

Orthodox: Are you sure?

Orthodox priest: When you reproach us for not talking about feelings at the Eucharist, but about faith, you say to us: why don't you talk about feelings? That we don't talk about what we're experiencing. And one of you wanted to hear it. Now you reproach us for talking about feelings, but only about faith. I'm confused.

Baptist Pastor 2: If we reproached you, we apologize.

Orthodox priest: I believe in this, and even more than that, I want to say that we do not blame you either; we are very happy to communicate with people who love you.The Holy Scriptures. You read it in a different way, you believe in a different way, and you are looking for a different way of salvation, different from ours, of course. But the fact that you love the Scriptures cannot be taken away from you! And this is very good.

Baptist Pastor 2: We love both the Scriptures and the Lord, Who lives in our hearts.

Orthodox priest: In your own way. Not in our way.

Baptist Pastor: Not in my own way. We love Christ because God's Word says so. Exclusively.

Baptist Pastor 2: 10... We try according to the Word of God...

Orthodox priest: That's better... I suggest that we end our meeting on this positive note.

Baptist Pastor 2: What's the next topic we're going to [discuss]?

Orthodox priest: Give us Scripture and Tradition, because we can't agree on basic issues.

Baptist Pastor: Let's.

Orthodox priest: If we can find some common ground, especially if you have a Baptist tradition, don't you agree? I'm glad... Few people accept it.

Baptist Pastor 2: I won't be interested... I don't know much about legends, and I don't even want to understand them.

Orthodox priest: No... The question of interpretation of Scripture is also here.

Baptist Pastor 2: When we first met, we agreed that we would not talk about the Holy Tradition at our meetings. We will only talk about the Holy Scriptures. And let's stick to that.

Orthodox priest: Yes, it's about the Scriptures, how to understand them. Interpretation of Scripture. That's what I'm talking about.

Baptist Pastor: No, no, wait, I'll explain what it's all about. It will be about the inspiration of Scripture in the first place. This is bibliology, I take it, yes, a section of theology? That is, where we will talk about the basics of the faith and traditions, how important they are.

Orthodox priest: On the criteria for understanding Scripture. The word "Tradition" is secondary here. On the criteria for understanding Scripture.

Baptist Pastor: You can prepare a report on the inspiration of Scripture.

Orthodox priest: Let's talk about this, because the criteria for understanding Scripture in itself are not obvious, I think. We understand even clear texts differently. You speak, we understand symbolically, we speak, we understand literally. A different text. I say we understand literally, you don't, symbolically. Well, and vice versa. You can see that there are no general criteria. And this is an important thing. We can't agree on the concepts.

Baptist Pastor: Yes.

Orthodox priest: Fine, we're finishing up.