As follows is a free translation of New Martyr Daniel Sysoev’s most succinct missionary-training work. This work is invaluable for learning the basics and methodology of Orthodox Christian street missions. For more from Father Daniel on the subject I recommend this video which summarizes tips on how one should do missionary work and this video concerning how one is to present the Gospel if presented the opportunity.
Perhaps the most controversial section is the 22nd, which appears to teach that Roman Catholics have valid sacraments and are still in the Church (but are still heretics and outside the pale of salvation). I will avoid critiquing who I believe is a saint on this point, but for those interested I will commend them to my treatment of the Great Schism. As follows is Father Daniel:
1. Concepts of missions and missionary work
The word mission means the proclamation of the unadulterated Holy Gospel to those people who are outside the Orthodox Church. If we speak to baptized but unchurched people who consider themselves Orthodox, this is not a mission—it is catechesis.
There are only two types of people on earth: homo sapiens and homo christianus. They differ from each other as a dead man differs from a living man. The living Christian is different from non-living (ordinary) people. As the apostle Paul says, “You who are dead because of your trespasses and sins, in which you once lived, according to the custom of this world, according to [the will of] the prince who rules in the air…God…has made you alive with Christ” (Eph. 2:1-5). When the missionary goes to preach, he goes into that place which in the Acts of the Apostles is called the region of Satan, the place of darkness, the place of rejection, where the children of the wrath of God live—under the power of Satan and under the shadow of death. These people are enslaved and captured by the devil’s net.
The missionary goes into a world that lives under different laws, for the laws of Christians and the laws of the common human world are very different. When we evangelizey, we are on the border of three worlds:
1) the human world;
2) the world on the border of Heaven. Missionaries are direct messengers of Christ. The apostle Paul says, “You show by yourselves that you are the letter of Christ” (2 Cor. 3:3). We proclaim the unbroken message of revelation to people who do not know the truth and do not know salvation;
3) the world on the border of the underworld. Missionaries engage in direct battle with Lucifer because the devil strongly dislikes having his prey snatched from his mouth.
2. Traditional and non-traditional [i.e. atypical] religions [and why all people need the Gospel]
Unfortunately, thanks to the development of various non-Christian teachings in modern times, such as humanism, people have come to the strange conclusion that everyone can be saved. It does not matter if one is a Christian or not, as long as one is a good person. Such a view is contrary to Scripture and to the teachings of the Universal [Вселенской] Church. Moreover, it contradicts common sense and observable experience. No one who lives outside the Church and holds to other religious traditions [should] never expect [рассчитывает] to receive the salvation that Christians hope for.
Our main hope is that we are saved from sin, damnation, and death, receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, become children of God, and meet face to face with our heavenly Father. The Lord says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). This central hope of Christians—salvation [experienced] as divine communion, as deification, as eternal life risen in the flesh before God. [This] is unknown to all other people. That is why when Christians say that there is no salvation outside the Church, they are saying something that all religions implicitly agree upon. Interestingly, before Christianity, none of humanity’s religious traditions had any hope of a good outcome at all. Good outcomes from an encounter with the Creator were never promised by anyone [from these religions].
What happens after death to people who have not been baptized? They really go to hell—there is no other way for them. [Они реально идут в ад – другого пути для них нет.] Christ went down to hell at a particular moment, Holy Saturday, and set free those people who sought Him when they were alive before His birth. All people who do not want to come to Christ now [in this life] are lost forever.
Therefore, missionary work is a direct consequence of mercy. Is it possible to live peacefully knowing that our loved ones, relatives, acquaintances—descending from Adam and Eve—are in great masses moving downward into the valley of the shadow of death, and forever? If one keeps this in mind, would one care if their religion was traditional or non-traditional [i.e. atypical]? (Traditionally a person hung himself or non-traditionally blew himself up on a grenade—what difference does it make? [He’s] still dead [either way]!) If a person goes to hell, it doesn’t matter if they go because they adhere to Islam or because they were a member of, for example, some sect like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The relevant thing is that he dies. And that is the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Traditional denominations as a concept originated in ancient Rome during the first centuries of the common era. There is an amazing hagiography of St. Carpus the Apostle [2 Tim 4:13]. When St. Carpus was interrogated, the governor asked him why he had departed from the ancient traditional religion of his ancestors, which had strengthened the state, created the moral foundations of society, which was recognized not only by the Romans, but also by the barbarians—an ancient religion and approved by the experience of many generations? Why did he enter the new “sect” of the Christians? To this Carpus replied that we [Christians] do not respect a thing merely because it is ancient, for even evil is ancient and it deserves no respect.
For the Fathers of the Church, there was no difference between traditional and non-traditional denominations. Scripture divides religions according to only one principle: one is true and all others are false. There is one way that leads to God. God said: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). And there are many ways invented by the devil that lead to destruction. The Lord Himself said that the fate of idolaters “is in the lake burning with fire and brimstone. This is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). Representatives of all traditional denominations will go to hell, and traditionalism will not help them in any way.
So, why is there such a false approach to religion today? Because the very essence of [true] religion is to question not the traditional or non-traditional nature of a religion, but its truth. Every religion is built on this [i.e. it’s claim to being true]. Hinduism, Islam or Christianity are all built upon this, and in this way they operate [similarly]. The above approach is an attempt to describe religion as a social institution, nothing more.
It is unacceptable to do so [i.e. consider all religions viable social institutions] in the Church. We must be at peace with all people, [and] we must cooperate in peace with representatives of other religions, but it is only a question of formal peace, so that, as St. John Chrysostom says, there is no universal war of all against all. [i.e. we operate peaceably with all people.]
But by no means should we destroy [i.e. permit their damnation by not preaching to] people under this pretext. After all, if we do not preach to Tatars or Chechens, Jews or Kazakhs, because they are members of “traditional confessions,” then we will show diabolical inhumanity to them. After all, we have a terribly racist [idea]: people of Turkic blood or Caucasians appear as if they are unworthy of salvation because of their nationality. This is discrimination in the worst sense.
3. Reasons for missionary work
It is because we feel extremely sorry for people that we try to save them. But we can only save them if we know a very important thing: We are God’s chosen ones. We are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people taken as an inheritance, to proclaim the perfections of Him who called… out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). We have been given the fullness of Truth, [and] we know absolute Truth, “we know that we are of God and that the whole world lies in evil” (1 John 5:19). And that is why we do not hesitate to always remind everyone that we possess absolute Truth. But it is important to note that we have no merit in this [i.e. being chosen]: we did not achieve it—it was given to us, and we want to share this gift [with others]. We want people who are in darkness to find the Light; we want people who have been led astray to find the Truth. This is why we are in a knowingly unequal position with those to whom we go [preach to]. We are God’s messengers. We are God’s chosen ones who call all others into this election to become like us.
4. Missionary methodology
The missionary has no right to have an equal dialogue: he cannot say, “You have a right to your opinion and we have a right to our opinion.” The missionary has no right to have an opinion at all. The Orthodox Church does not have its own point of view on any problem—it always makes do with the point of view of the Lord God, and that is enough for it. We should not have our own point of view, we should make do with the point of view of the Lord God –and that is enough for us. As Maximus the Confessor said, “I and God are already the majority, and the overwhelming majority.”
Unfortunately, when people try to preach, they think that it is necessary to build some kind of parity with representatives of other religions, [and] to respect their views. But that’s only possible if the person doesn’t understand what’s happening to them [the unbelievers]. Imagine how you would respect the views of a drug addict who thinks he has a right to heroin? Would you respect his opinion? No. False religion [is] just [like that], and more than [that], for that thing [false religion] is worse than heroin. It ruins a man in the direct, real sense of the word. Christ’s love requires a ruthless intolerance of false opinions, accompanied by a ruthless – in relation to oneself – love for the lost. One must not spare himself to serve the perishing, but the lying opinions of another person cannot be spared, precisely because they destroy the soul.
The missionary works at the very depths of the human spirit. And the word that we bring reaches to the very depths of the heart, to the division of the brain and the heart, to the soul and the spirit, and judges the thoughts of the heart. If a person tries to say his word instead of God’s word – even a very good, very clever, logical word, it will remain at the level of the head. The head may even agree, but the heart will say “I don’t want to.” And what will you do about it? The missionary has laid it all out, and the person says, “I understand everything, but I won’t do it because I don’t want to.” What is the problem here? The problem is that the missionary relied on himself, and here comes what St. Gregory Palamas said: “Every word struggles with the word, but who will refute life? Our task is to sow precisely the Word of God, pure, holy, unchanged, relying on the power of the Word of God itself.”
I had a case like this. A Chechen Wahhabi came to me and told me that I was a polytheist. I laid everything out for him, and we agreed that we’d just have a logical discussion of who God was and what predestination was. At first I thought, “That’s it, I’m going to convert him.” Nothing of the sort [occurred], no conversion. And then we just began to meet, to sort things out one by one. We were parsing and parsing, and I thought, well, at least let him learn something about Christianity. Suddenly he asks a question: “Father Daniel, why don’t you ask me to be baptized?” [I replied,] “You don’t seem to want to be baptized.” And he replied, “I have long wished to be baptized.”
There are things that happen in mysterious ways, and God makes it so that a person can never boast. I haven’t converted a single person in my life. I’ve seen a bunch of conversions, but I haven’t converted anyone myself. When I tried, nothing came out, but when I spoke the Word of God, it changed the person all by itself. God did it on purpose, knowing my natural boastfulness, so that I could never boast. As the apostle Paul says, “This treasure we carry in earthen vessels, that the surpassing power may be [ascribed] to God and not to us” (2 Cor. 4:7).
5. The basic principle of the missionary
Always respect the man and never respect his beliefs. A clear distinction must be made between sin and sinner. It is the same pattern here: we love the fornicator and hate fornication, we love the drunkard and hate drunkenness—in the same way we love the heretic and hate heresy, we love the pagan and hate paganism, we love the Muslim and hate Islam. Moreover, if you want to be a missionary, you will enter into a very ancient mission. When was this mission conceived? Even before the creation of the universe, God the Father decided to create the world as a gift to His Son because “all things were created by Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16), as the Scriptures say. And He wanted the Son of God to become “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). And we men become servants of God the Father’s work in bringing new brethren to His Son. The task of the missionary is to walk through this world with a fine-toothed comb and find those people for whom the Truth is more important than they are [to] themselves.
6. The weapon of the missionary
The intact, living Word of God is the most terrible weapon there is in the universe. It is more powerful than a nuclear bomb, it undermines all the power of the devil, and it must be transmitted as purely as possible. This is why missionaries must speak with authority, but only with the authority of God. And this is also why the missionary has an internal limitation: the missionary is limited in what and how he speaks. The missionary must say, “I desire to know nothing save Jesus Christ, and, moreover, Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), which is the most important condition. The missionary has no right to speak of anything but the Holy Gospel. The missionary must be, as the world says, a narrow-minded bigot, but really a broad-minded sage. He must speak only the pure, undiluted Word of God. He should say, “God has spoken, you must obey. I warned you, okay?” That is when unthinkable power will work through the missionary.
When a person begins to be a missionary in this way, his life is changed. For the apostle James said that “he who turns a sinner from his false way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20). The missionary must call a person into personal contact with the Lord God.
7. When should one begin to be a missionary?
The Scriptures describe a man of God who was an excellent missionary, Apollos. He was instructed in the first principles of the Lord’s way, and as a catechumen, he taught about the Lord, even though he did not fully know the doctrine, knowing only John’s baptism. And what do we see? He was corrected, but he was not forbidden to be a missionary. If a man feels a calling in his heart to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom, he must do so at once.
Many say, “I am not worthy.” You are not worthy! You are a sinful man with unclean lips, living among people with unclean lips, and yet your eyes see the Lord. How can that be? You are not worthy, but you are called. So, you should say, “I am not worthy, but I go because God has called me, and because I feel pity for the lost.”
8. The missionary’s reward
The missionary is a collector. He receives rewards for the quality of life he leads:
– as a Christian – either 30-fold, 60-fold, or 100-fold, depending on whether married, widowed, or a virgin;
– as a missionary, at least 100 times, if not more;
– as one who is persecuted for the name of the Lord, a great reward in Heaven;
– as the peacemaker [an untold reward].
The missionary really gets into a very different reality of the direct kingdom. That is, he is already in the reality of the kingdom of God and begins to envision the kingdom of God already on earth, and then it carries him into eternity. Missionaries have a great number of friends in Heaven, because the more they missionize, the more they need the help of their forebears – holy missionaries, apostles, apostles, saints, great enlighteners. They become akin to him.
Is it necessary to seek glory? Of course it is. What normal person doesn’t want glory? But why do we need temporary glory? We must seek eternal glory. And who can give eternal glory? Only an eternal God. And how does that glory appear? God said: “I will glorify those who glorify Me” (1 Kings 2:30). And what better way to glorify God? Obviously, not individually. Turn [to repentance], for example, 100 people and praise God with them.
How many times more will be the reward? When a person engages in an Orthodox mission, fighting the devil, he becomes stronger and more powerful. Who knows the teaching of the Church better? The missionary or the common man? Obviously, the missionary, because he has to work in that field all the time. The missionary’s life is not very comfortable. If he wants to violate some commandment of God, and he’s just about to do it, then he needs to preach, and God is sure to arrange it so that he needs to talk about this very commandment that he’s about to violate.
The Lord makes it so that through those who are converted, the missionary learns. In this way God will lift him up higher and higher. But there is an obligatory condition: the missionary must pray. Of course, missions also teach [us] this: if a man does not pray, he becomes discouraged because he does not succeed. If a man tries to be the mouth of God the Father, but does not turn to God the Father, he will not succeed. One cannot gamble on it. That is, being a missionary forces people to pray, especially when the missionary finds himself in an extreme situation – and he always lives in such an extreme situation, because he is at the intersection of three worlds [see section 1]. That is why his life is extremely intense, exceptionally lively, and the missionary gets used to relying on the Lord God at all times.
As soon as the missionary moves away from God, immediately he is struck by the enemy. He is close by, seeing him as his main adversary. The missionary is, you might say, the Holy Trinity’s SWAT team. One writer remarked that if you want to see miracles, you have to be either a martyr or a missionary, because, indeed, they are God’s right hand. It works precisely when one is on the front lines, when one goes ahead of everything, goes on the attack against the forces of darkness. So being a missionary is the path to holiness to which we are all called.
If you are a missionary, you will at the same time be helping the unfortunate. As St. Macarius of Altaia said, “I am the lowest servant to the local people.” And St. Herman of Alaska said, “I am a caretaker for all these people.” So, if you start preaching, you’re forced to help people. By the way, the heart will soften. The heart is more softened by mission than even by works of charity, because the missionary is forced to make personal contact with the person. After all, is it possible to help another person so thoroughly by helping only outwardly, without touching their soul?
9. Requirements for the missionary
To learn Orthodox doctrine from the Scriptures and to know how to teach it properly to modern man. Be fluent in the contents of the Bible, which a missionary should have with him at all times. The first homework assignment is to learn the table of contents by heart. In terms of learning, a missionary differs from a person who simply wants to learn something, in that the former person learns the information with the intent of passing it on to someone else.
10. Basic principles of preaching: Goals and objectives
The missionary relies primarily on Scripture, not as he wants it to be, but as the consensus of the Church fathers understands it.
The missionary’s primary task is to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ of the forgiveness of sins. This is also the most important message—”the forgiveness of sins in all nations” (Lk. 24:47). That is, the most important message is that we are promised forgiveness of sins. Usually they say: with Christians everything is very easy—you repent and your sins are forgiven. And we agree: everything is easy for us! And we say: “try it, you’ll see for yourselves!” This is the inconceivable novelty of the Gospel: the forgiveness of sins means that cause-and-effect connections are severed. <y past no longer governs me, I can start with a clean slate, I get back to the first day of creation, and all my ways begin from the altar with the Cross and the Gospel. We start out with a clean slate because of God’s mercy, for which the blood of the Lord has paid very dearly. The message of forgiveness of sins is the heart of the message of Christianity.
We proclaim repentance—a change of worldview. We demand a change of worldview from all peoples. God states that it is impossible for a person in his natural [i.e. fallen] state to accept the gospel—impossible unless he changes his worldview. The gospel cannot be mechanically attached to an existing worldview. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord! Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not cast out demons in your name? Did we not do many miracles in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I have never known you; depart from Me, you who do iniquity'” (Matthew 7:21-23). This passage tells us that there is a will of God and that it is different from the opinion of man. The Lord says bluntly: It is not possible to combine the aged, “old wineskin” of the ordinary human worldview with the new, “young wineskin” of the Gospel (Matthew 9:16-17). Our task [is] to demand a change of worldview from the old pagan one to a [new] Christian one.
We are witnesses to communion, repentance, and forgiveness of sins; this is very important. We know for sure and absolutely that our sins are forgiven. We do not just believe it, we see it: “But you are witnesses of this” (Luke 24:48). It follows that we must say what God has told us, without addition or deletion. The most important thing in missionary work is to pass on God’s word in its pure form, “as pure wine, not mixed with anything, so that it has a healing power. Otherwise, when it is diluted with any human inferences, it will lose its power” (St. Theophan the Recluse). Imagine two versions of a sermon:
- “There is a higher conception of God – for example, that God is love. Let’s sort out which doctrine most relates to this” – this approach works quite well, but there is another.
- “God said so, and He commands us to do so.” The second way is better for preaching because with the former method all the inferences built up can be countered by the interlocutors, [i.e due to its subjectivity] and this leads [conversation] away from the main theme of the preaching.
11. The missionary’s central message
We proclaim Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead, redeeming us from sin and its curse of death. “It was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and to preach in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:46-47). Rule #1: Never say, “we think so…” or “our Church teaches so…” Always say, “God’s point of view is…”, “God said so…”. This is a fundamentally important point. If we say something is not God’s word [i.e. His teachings], it is the sin of perjury.
12. The object of evangelism
If a person is indifferent to the Truth as such, such a person is in principle closed to preaching. A mission cannot reach a person who has blocked himself from God by his evil will. If a person says that he does not care about anything you have [to say], then he is closed to God. Of such people the Lord says: “And if anyone will not receive you and listen to you, then, as you go out from there, shake off the dust from your feet, for a testimony against them. Truly I tell you, it will be more pleasant for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city” (Mark 6:11). Demonstrating the existence of God is necessary when talking about who God is. First say who God is, and then lay out the arguments that refute atheism. These are interrelated things. However, from the very beginning one must remember: if one is indifferent to Truth, then such a person is not an object of evangelism.
13. The principle of witnessing
It is very important to base conversation on the principle of witnessing. We are witnesses first and foremost. We have to put our faith in our testimony. And in order to do that, you have to witness in a way that is understood. Therefore, a missionary should use as few terms as possible, leaving only the bare essentials. Our job is to speak in as simple a language as possible, in as clear a way as possible. When our logic is exhausted and we have nothing more to say, we must not become silent, but [instead] draw a conclusion—and demand an answer from your interlocutor: “Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, why?” “If you disagree,” the conversation must be analyzed in terms of what he or she disagrees with, and only if you agree do you move on. If the person agrees with us on something, it means that in this part he has changed his worldview. Completely false worldviews do not exist in nature. They are impossible: a “chemically pure” [i.e. noble] lie is self-destructive, it annihilates, it simply cannot be formed. Therefore, in even the most complex worldview there are true elements on which it rests. But, an absolutely true worldview can exist on its own, because it comes from an absolutely true God.
14. The power of the missionary
By whose power do missionaries work? The Lord says, “And I will send the promise of My Father upon you; but you shall remain in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). Missionary work is always accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit promised by God the Father. Therefore, the beginning of missionary work is prayer, the middle of missionary work is prayer, and the end of missionary work is prayer. Without prayer nothing will work. Moreover, there is one nasty thought that robs us of all power. That thought is “and I’m good at it!” As soon as we accept it [the thought], we are guaranteed a loud failure within one minute, because God will depart from us immediately. Only God can convert another person: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. In the prophets it is written, ‘And all will be taught by God.’ Whosoever heareth from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Me. It is not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is of God; He has seen the Father” (John 6:44-46). So, without the help of God the Father, no one has ever succeeded in converting anyone. Therefore, we must always rely on the power of God. The most successful missionaries have said that they never converted a single person in their entire lives, [but] that God converted through them. And this is the plain truth!
15. The spiritual meaning of evangelism
The man who goes out on a mission really gets to the frontier of the spiritual struggle—he is on the edge of the universe in the literal sense of the word. The missionary encounters three worlds at once: the world of God, on whose behalf he acts; the world of men with their free will – and here he sees both the unthinkable evil that is hidden there and the unthinkable good; [and] the world of evil spirits that tangibly rebel against him. The missionary is therefore at the point where the three worlds intersect. It is a borderline state. Monks are the special forces [i.e. intelligence services] of Orthodoxy, while missionaries are saboteurs [i.e. sappers]; they prepare the offensive outside the Church. Missionary work is extremely dangerous, but it is also a truly great thing, because we are already talking about such realities, which are on the border of the universe.
[As follows are common apologetics used during evangelism to unbelievers, atheists, lapsed, heterodox, etcetera]
16. The proof of God’s existence
It is often difficult for a Christian to prove what is obvious. The eternal Being of the Creator is tangible to us daily: in prayers, in the forgiveness of sins, in the sacraments, and in the countless manifestations of God’s power – miracles, [such] proofs that overwhelm the Church. This is why when the average Orthodox person is asked, “How can you prove that there is a God?” he stops for a moment in bewilderment. After all, it’s obvious! The very task before us is comparable to a blind man demanding proof of the existence of the sun.
And yet, even a blind man can feel the warmth of the sun, and an unbeliever can, using his God-given mind, examine the clear features of the Primordial Cause.
Proof 1 [The Cosmological Argument]
If we consider the entire world around us, we see that everything in this world has a cause of existence outside of itself: we do not give birth to ourselves, the ship does not build itself, and even the mountain is not pushed out of the abysses of the earth by its own force. If everything in the universe is subject to the law of cause and effect, it follows that the universe itself has a cause outside of itself. This Cause of the world is, by definition, outside of space and time, and therefore one cannot ask who is the cause of Itself. This Original Cause is what is called God.
Proof 2 [The Teleological Argument and Comments Against Evolution]
An atheist Frenchman was once traveling in the desert with a believing Arab. Seeing the Arab praying to God, the Frenchman asked him how he knew there was a God at all. To this the Arab replied:
– Do you think a camel walked by the tent at night?
– Yes, replied the Frenchman.
– But how do you know that? It is dark at night, and you were asleep?
– But the camel left its footprints, answered the godless man.
So the Arab pointed to the sun and said:
– These footprints were not made by a man!
Indeed, the extreme complexity of the structure of the universe is evidence of a Great Master who created such a complex hulk of a world and filled it with such complex settings that it is simply impossible to explain it by chance. If an ordinary video camera barely approaches the level of complexity of an ocular device, how could blind chance have created our eye? If sonar cannot be explained by chance when we are talking about humans, how can it be explained by chance in bats? This is sheer nonsense! Does He who created the eye not see, does He who planted the ear not hear, does He who teaches man reason not know?
As renowned astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said, “It is more likely that a hurricane blowing over a garbage dump will pick up a brand-new Boeing than that a single cell will accidentally arise.”
This says nothing of the complex balancing of the atmosphere, the fine-tuning of the world’s laws, the optimal placement of the Earth in relation to the Sun, and other countless examples of Intelligent Design overwhelming the universe.
Clearly, the complexity, intelligence, and beauty of the world clearly demonstrate the wisdom and artistic skill of the Creator. Only a obviously biased person would reject the self-evident, even to a first-grader. If the cell phone could not have come into existence by chance, how could the one who designed it – man – have come into existence by chance. In both cases, the intervention of the mind is required. Only the level of Intelligence of the Creator of the human brain is clearly higher than that of a human!
Proof 3 [The Ontological Argument]
Another proof of God’s existence is our own mind. When we talk about something, there is a category of evaluation: good or bad, beautiful or ugly, perfect or imperfect.
But let us consider why we consider a frog less than a dog, or a stone less than a building made of stones, or, finally, a flea less perfect than a man? Where do we get such a scale from?
Let’s imagine a picture:
____________+__________________+_________________________________
Which of these pluses is closer to the mark? None, of course! After all, we don’t have that mark [at the end of the line].
It’s different if the picture is drawn like this:
_________________+________________________+________________________ <|>
Then it becomes obvious that the right plus sign is closer to the mark than the left.
This is also how our consciousness functions. If we don’t have an innate scale of values, we lose all ability to evaluate. And this scale cannot exist without the ultimate Goal, the Supreme Measure of Perfection. Here we must recall the argument of the ancient sage Anselm of Canterbury: “In God, as in a Being of the Most Perfect, such a quality as being cannot be absent.”
Simply put, if we can evaluate potatoes, people, weather, books, then there is a God who is the Supreme Judge.
Proof 4 [The Moral Argument for God]
Each of us notices that in the heart of man lives the notion that there are actions good and there are bad.
“What is good, what is bad?,” every kid asks. Every normal person wants to do the right thing.
“But if there is no God, then everything is allowed,” as F.M. Dostoevsky rightly said. If there is no God, then there is no judge, no Source of justice. Then we cannot condemn Hitler or the Bitza Maniac [a Russian serial killer]. They are all right in their own way. They all have their own ideas about how to live.
[If the preceding is] true, then it is completely incomprehensible how conscience works to some extent in everyone’s heart. For from no natural point of view is it convenient. Darwinists say that the struggle for existence [survival of the fittest] did everything, but then conscience would have to be discarded as unnecessary junk. But it wasn’t. And the reason [this] is precisely because there is a Source of good and justice, Who has put into our hearts the concept of good and evil; for good deeds He rewards, for evil He punishes, [Rom 2:6-8] and if no such thing happens in this life, the conscience of most people is outraged. This, in turn, is the best confirmation of the Christian doctrine of the Last Judgment.
If there is no God, then no one could be outraged by a murder or even a bad referee [blowing a call] at a soccer game. After all, justice is nothing [i.e. does not exist]; conscience is last year’s snow [i.e. was discarded as evolutionarily unnecessary]. And those strange notions of “goodness,” “nobility,” “courage,” and “honor” would simply not have emerged. After all, if we are not created by God, we are just automatons, controlled by meaningless instincts.
If so, the soldier throwing himself on the grenade [to save others] is simply a biorobot. He could not have done otherwise. He was simply programmed (without a programmer, by blind chance) to do so. But it was not Hitler’s fault either. He too is a biorobot. It was blind chance that programmed him to burn people in the ovens of Auschwitz. Everything is chance and a confluence of chemical compounds and electrical signals.
Do you agree with that? So, you too are a biorobot, and even your argument with me is just a manifestation of a random combination of chemistry and physics. You probably deny God because of indigestion or some other unsatisfied instinct.
If you are human, however, it will be obvious to you that there is a Righteous Creator who has the power to both teach good and punish evil. And you too can experience His love by receiving His forgiveness of sins in Baptism and Confession.
17. The criteria for [judging] the truth of information and the correctness of its interpretation
If [any such] information is in complete agreement with the text of Scripture, then it is true. The criteria for a correct understanding of the text of Scripture are the Holy Spirit’s [apparent] verification and conformity with the understanding of the holy fathers of the Church. [i.e. the work of the Spirit in verifying a correct understanding of the Scriptures is that such an understanding is found in a consensus of the saints] When we preach the Gospel, we are not just preaching Christianity – we are preaching the faith of the holy apostles, prophets and teachers of the Church, which is called “orthodoxy. It is the same faith that God gave us – through the prophets, the apostles, and most importantly, through Christ the Savior – His Son. That is why we must draw our faith from Divine Revelation. And it has two components: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
When we explain a doctrine of the Church, we must necessarily ground it in the Word of God. This is necessary because the Word of God is the direct speech of God in the present tense: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh does not benefit at all. The words that I speak to you are spirit and life. But there are some among you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who the unbelievers were and who would betray him. And He said, ‘Therefore I said to you, no one can come to Me unless it is given to him by My Father’” (John 6:63-65). Do you hear that? The Lord says, “My words are spirit and life.” This is why there is a rule of daily scripture reading [for the Orthodox Christian]. This is also the reason [why] so many people break this rule: they are afraid of what God will say to them. Often people don’t want to hear it. A person who does not read the Scriptures has been known to drift away from the Church. It is hard for him to hear God, [because] it is hard for him when God is near.
The Word of God itself, quoted by us, has its own inner living power that really works on people. Recall the famous story of Anthony the Great’s decision to become a monk. He was on his way to his field and happened to walk into the temple, where the words of the Gospel were being read at the time: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Lk. 9:23). He left the temple, went, sold everything he had, gave to the poor, and went to a monastery. That is, the very Word of God brought the man to life. This is why we always quote the Scriptures. Here are the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “If I tell you something that is not based on Scripture, do not believe me.”
The second component of Divine Revelation is Holy Tradition. We often hear: “These are your interpretations!,” or, “This is how we understand, this is how you understand – everyone has his own truth, everyone has his own point of view. We are all entitled to our own point of view.” A fashionable theory is the “theologumen theory,” which says that there are private theological opinions and that theology is a creative science. This is actually false. The word “theologumen” was invented in the nineteenth century by Adolphus Harnack. It was first introduced into Orthodoxy by Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov. It has nothing in common with the teachings of the Holy Fathers. The holy fathers shared the opinion of the Church and [и] [sometimes] private theological opinions. For the holy fathers, a private theological opinion is an opinion not approved by the Ecumenical fullness and is most often erroneous. [i.e. Holy Tradition is the consensus point of view of the saints]
18. The truthfulness of Holy Tradition
About Sacred Tradition it is said: “Stand therefore, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you have been taught either by the word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The apostle commands us to stand and hold fast to the Tradition, which we have learned either by the word or by the epistle. “By the word” is oral Tradition, and “written” Tradition is Scripture. It [the Scripture] is the highest part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The Scriptural justification for referring to the holy fathers is this: “He decreed a statute in Jacob, and laid down a law in Israel, which commanded our fathers to proclaim to their children, that they might know the race to come, the children who would be born, and that they might proclaim to their children in due season; to put their hope in God and not forget the works of God, and keep His commandments, and not be like their fathers, a generation obstinate and rebellious, unsettled in heart and unfaithful to God in their spirit” (Ps. 77:5-8). It is a law laid down by God to pass on from fathers to children, who in turn will pass on to their children, [conveying] faithfulness to God, [and] the memory of His miracles. It is spoken of as a law in the Book of King David [i.e. the Psalms].
The vast majority of our dogmas speak of the wonderful things of God. The dogmas about God Himself are about the Holy Trinity and the attributes of God. All others are about the great miracles of God. Orthodoxy without miracles is a non-existent religion. Without miracles, it will die immediately. Without miracles, there would be nothing left of the Creed.
The dogmas of God were finally and irrevocably formulated on the day of Pentecost. Pentecost is the day of the completion of dogmatic theology, because there is no greater revelation in nature than the Incarnation of God and the descent of the Holy Spirit. This is why the Church calls Pentecost the “final feast.” Successive [Ecumenical] Councils were not held to redefine anything. Their task was to cut off false interpretations: a purely conservative task to cut off [heresies]. The formulations [made by the councils] were given to separate, to define [i.e. delineate]. To define means to put limits, to show how one should not understand. Almost all of the [Ecumenical] Councils’ definitions involved anathemas: “If anyone teaches so-and-so, so-and-so, let him be anathema!”, “If anyone does not teach so-and-so, so-and-so, let him be anathema!”
Revelation itself was given once and for all to the saints, and there will be no newer covenant [i.e. revelation after the New Testament’s New Covenant]. “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). It is said “once,” not “many times,” delivered to the saints. That the dogmatic work was completed is explicitly stated: “God, who spoke many times and in many ways to the fathers of old in the prophets, has spoken to us in these last days in the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom He also created the ages. This being the radiance of His glory and the image of his hypostasis, and holding all things by the word of His power, having accomplished by Himself the purification of our sins, He sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty on high, being so much more excellent than the angels as to inherit the most glorious name before them” (Hebr. 1:1-4). So, the greatest revelation is given by the Son – in Christ. These are the last days, the sign of the last times – the greatest Revelation [is] given through the Son of God.
The missionary has no right to use the term “last days” in a sense different from the meaning that the last days are the time when God is directly at work in the world–when eternity breaks into time. The last days are from the moment of the Incarnation of God. Therefore, on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter said: “But this is what was foretold by the prophet Joel: ‘And in the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your elders shall be instructed by dreams'” (Acts 2:16-17). And if we are asked “when will the last days come,” we should answer like this, “The last days came 2,000 years ago, the [New] Covenant has already been given!”
Revelation is contained within the Church, so any extra-church teaching cannot be correct. Any philosophical doctrine outside of the Church is false by the very fact of its origin. If a doctrine arises outside of the church, there is no discussion of its truth. All doctrines outside of the Church are false because the Lord has given the fullness of truth to the Church: “I write these things to you, hoping to come to you soon, that if I delay, you may know how to walk in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, a pillar and ground of truth. And without question – the great mystery of godliness: God appeared in the flesh, justified Himself in the Spirit, showed Himself to the angels, preached to the nations, received by faith in the world, ascended in glory” (1 Tim. 3: 14-16). The straightforward phrase “pillar and ground of truth” is the Church. As it is written in the Catechism [of Saint Filaret of Moscow], “We should not look for truth outside the Church, when in the rich treasury the apostles placed all that is necessary for salvation.” Thus, doctrines outside of the Church are untrue by the fact of their origin. There can only be partial truth outside of the Church, but there can be no absolute truth. Remember Pontius Pilate’s question, “What is Truth?” That question makes no sense, which is why Christ remained silent. The question only makes sense in this form: “Who is the Truth?” The Truth is a Person, and that Person’s point of view is the Truth.
19. The decision[s] of the Church’s councils
The highest expression of ecclesiastical authority is the Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the voice of the Ecumenical Council is the voice of the Holy Spirit. So, what does “the voice of the Ecumenical Council” mean? What [this] refers to [are] the decrees of the Ecumenical Council that unequivocally and clearly describe Truth. These are:
1) horos – definitions (the Creed and other definitions).
2) documents approved by the Ecumenical Councils (e.g.: Pope Leo’s Tome, St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Letter[s] to Nestorius, St. Celestine’s letter, etc.).
3) canonical rules.
Whatever is expressed in these documents [given by the councils] is non-negotiable. If there is no Ecumenical Council decree at this time, we are guided by the 19th rule of the Council of Trullo (the so-called Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council): “It is inadmissible to interpret Sacred Scripture differently than it has been interpreted by the teachers of the Church.”
How do we determine whether a particular opinion of a holy father is binding on us? After all, we know that even Scripture can be misinterpreted, however more [тем паче] the holy fathers. [i.e. the saints can be misinterpreted as well] For this there is the principle of the Monk Vincent of Lerin: “The truth is that which was taught 1) by the saints, glorified by their God-pleasing life and especially by their martyrdom, 2) by all or at least by most of them, 3) always, 4) everywhere.”
Let’s break it down in order.
1. Martyrdom is highlighted because when martyrs were led to death, the Holy Spirit spoke directly to them. [Luke 12:11-12]
2. How do we determine “all or most?” There is a very important principle: when a certain doctrine is expressed by the holy fathers over a long period of time, when all teach this way and one teaches a different way, then all are right and [the] one is wrong.
For example, the earlier doctrine of universal salvation was condemned by many of the Fathers: Sts. Ignatius the Theologian, Justin the Philosopher, Cyprian of Carthage, Methodius of Olympius, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. But there was a holy father of the Church who taught the opposite, St. Gregory of Nyssa, who taught that universal salvation is possible [возможно]. In this case, St. Gregory of Nyssa is wrong [concerning the possibility], as confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which clearly condemned the doctrine of universal salvation. One man can make mistakes, but the concordance of the Fathers will not make mistakes.
To assist us in navigating the extensive legacy of the Fathers, the Church, through the Fifth Ecumenical Council, has singled out several whose opinions have been recognized as exemplary. There are eleven of them. Later the Church further narrowed this list down to three of the Great Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom. These [fathers are] an exemplary measure of Orthodoxy. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases a disagreement between the opinions of the holy fathers is not contradictory [i.e. evidence of contradiction], but complementary. Very often the Fathers of the Church set forth something precisely for a particular time, in the sense that they highlight first what is important for that time. [i.e. an emphasis peculiar to one time can complement a different emphasis given in another time]
3. What does “always” mean? If some doctrine is not constantly maintained by the holy fathers, then that doctrine is not Orthodox. Any new teaching is synonymous with heresy for Orthodoxy. Secular science speaks enthusiastically of a new theory as an advancement, an innovation. For us, a new theory a retrogression. A new doctrine is surely a downward fall [i.e. retrogression]. [This is b]ecause Revelation does not increase: it can decrease, but it cannot increase. Absolute Revelation, given by God, cannot improve. This is why consistency of doctrine is extremely important. It [an innovative doctrine] is not a new formulation, but a new doctrine, a new teaching. It is knowingly heresy or, at best, an erroneous opinion that may come to a saint[’s mind] because he has not fully purged his mind from the influences of this world. [Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Par 70]
4. What does “everywhere” mean? Doctrine should not be a local tradition of any church. For example, can the language of worship have doctrinal significance? No, because a) it is not a doctrine, and b) its distribution is local. But in a disciplinary sense the language of worship does matter: we are obliged to follow those books which the clergy have approved and in the form they have approved. But if language is declared a dogma, the status of this ecclesial-disciplinary phenomenon begins to change.
And there are things more precarious [than liturgical languages]. For example, the Roman bishops in the late fourth and tenth centuries constructed a developed doctrine of the special mystical role of the Roman bishop in the Church, from which the idea of the Roman pope as head of the Church later grew. We must be constantly engaged in building a holistic [i.e. universal as opposed to regional] system of worldview in our minds. It is necessary for the salvation of the soul.
We have already said that beginning in Jerusalem, repentance and forgiveness of sins were proclaimed. That is, to spread the message of the change of worldview [i.e. repentance], which the Resurrection of Christ has brought and, because of this, the forgiveness of sins—this is the task which is set before us. We must change our worldview completely, taking as a basis a certain text [текст, i.e. the Creed] that is exemplary for us. Without knowing it, without confessing it, no one can be admitted to the sacraments.
This text is the Creed. It is the measure of the required [correct] faith which is the basis for one to be admitted to the sacraments. An Orthodox [Christian] is one who believes according to the Creed; one who does not believe according to the Creed is not Orthodox. If a person teaches not according to the Creed, he is not truly Orthodox. The Lord said: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you bypass the sea and the land, that you may convert even one; and when that happens, you make him a son of Gehenna, twice as bad as you” (Matthew 23:15). Therefore, it is our duty to carry the pure Word of God without addition, without diminution, without distortion – as the Lord has passed it on. We must not go along with popular ideas like, “The main thing is to preach, and what does not matter!” If the doctrine does not [accurately] convey the Revelation of God, it is not useful.
20. The inconsistency of scientific theories
Missionaries are not allowed to structure their arguments along the lines of: “Science has proved this, that, and that.” We must say, “Revelation says this, this, and this, and even science has something similar [to say].” One of the missionary’s biggest mistakes is when he tries to base his argument on scientific data, because, as Basil the Great well said, “When we see scientists trying to test revelation with something, let other scientists leave it to themselves to disprove it. For there is nothing more fluid than the theory of scholars.” [C.S.] Lewis said it well: “When one tries to build upon the latest achievements of science a system of the world, it turns out that the latest achievements are already penultimate and already losing out to subsequent discoveries.”
An example of faulty logic: In the twentieth century, a number of systems emerged that proposed to explain the origin of decay [i.e. corruptibility] in the universe due to Satan’s rebellion. This theory was proposed by [C.S.] Lewis, a Western theologian, and Kuraev, a native theologian. According to the theory, the rebellion of the devil caused corruption and death here in the universe. The Bible says differently: death arose through man, not the devil. What was the purpose of this theory? To reconcile it with the theory of Darwinism.
21. The logic of salvation
The Church is built from the top down. The Father sends the Son, the Son gathers to Himself those whom the Father has given Him, sacrifices Himself for them, gives them His own word of understanding [i.e. the Gospel truths], gives them the truth, delivers them into the hands of the Father, who preserves them, [and] makes them one. The Church is all built within the Trinity–it is the very place of the Holy Trinity’s being. Where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are active, this is the Church. Actually, that is why there is no salvation outside the Church, because one cannot be saved apart from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit–apart from God.
The logic of salvation does not come from men, but from Heaven. This is important to understand, because we often declare, “There is no salvation outside the Church, because the truth is in the Church.” And people say, “Prove it!” And rightly so, by the way. If you go from man, you can’t prove anything. Not in man is the truth, “every man is a liar” (Psalm 115:2). We can say, “the priests are tobacco addicts, fornicators, and drunkards.”
You can collect truths and untruths as much as you like. We do not come from men, and God is not a lie–God is Truth. Our reliance is not on man, but on the Holy Trinity. It is the Holy Trinity that creates the Church: by the Incarnation of God, by the sacrifice of Christ, by the truth of Christ – the apostolic faith. This is what the Church has always emphasized. We have had an emphasis for the last 30 years on the formal keeping of unity. But unity is an end in itself only in the Trinity. In everything else, unity is not an end in itself: when sacred dogmas are violated, when the faith of the Church is violated, unity is impossible. This is why the Church opposes the form of the ecumenical movement when, instead of returning to the apostolic faith, a compromise is proposed. It is a rejection of what the Lord Jesus Christ considers most important. Truth is the art of eternal life: knowing who God is, how to get to him, how to live a life pleasing to him, etc.
“May they all be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, [so] may they also be one in us – that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and you in me; that they may be made one, that the world may know that you sent me and loved them as you loved me” (John 17:21-23). Apostolic revelation is the condition for unity, and it is this unity that the Lord requires. The unity of Christians in truth is a condition of their unity. When Christians are in a unity of love and unity of faith, when unbroken truth is proclaimed and when there is love among Christians, then the world is converted–this is the best missionary technique. When missionaries fight among themselves in the Muslim community, it is not a demonstration of Christ’s love, and no one is converted that way. “Let them be made one” means “become one,” the body of Christ of which Scripture speaks here. “And let the world know that you sent me and loved them as you loved me;” that is, those who believe in the Apostolic [teaching] are united to one another, united to Christ and to his Father as one, “made whole;” it is they who are loved by the Father because they are His children.
“Father, whom you have given Me, I desire that where I am, they also be with Me, that they may see My glory, which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). The destination for them is the kingdom of heaven, they will be where Christ is. In the kingdom of heaven. Every gathering has a purpose. The purpose of the Church is to get to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our “tabor goes to Heaven” is about the Church…the caravan that sets off for Heaven. You could say that the Church is the secret society of the Great Exodus [from the tyranny of Satan to Heaven]. We are going out of the prison of death into eternal life. Therefore, we offer [others] to join this Exodus.
We do not forcibly corral [others to join us], because forcibly corralling will “surrender” the secret, after all. “Righteous Father, even the world has not known you; but I have known you, and these have known that you have sent me. And I have revealed Your name to them, and I will reveal it, that the love wherewith You have loved Me may be in them, and I in them” (John 17:25-26). This prayer describes everything. It is not without reason that this prayer for the Church is called the High Priestly Prayer. In this prayer the whole Church is encapsulated. The concept of the Church is revealed here as much as possible–it is the unity of the Trinity.
22. The Orthodox Church is the only place of salvation
How does one determine whether one belongs to the redeemed? Very simply. Briefly list verses that include the biblical requirements for salvation. And [as a result] you will have the Orthodox Church as the only place of salvation. Why does a Roman Catholic perish? Because he is a heretic, his apostolic faith is broken.
Let us consider an example. Here before us is a member of the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. And [contrarily] here [is] he [who] says that Christ is a man in whom God lives, i.e. he confesses the heresy of Nestorius. They say to him, “Child, you are wrong!” And he says, “No, I think so [i.e. Nestorius is correct]!” He is [nominally] a member of the Church, a member of the body of Christ. But the question is, will he be saved?
Open the Bible: “The works of the flesh are known…fornication…heresies…murder…those who so do not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21). All. Will an Orthodox fornicator be saved if he dies in a state of fornication? Will an Orthodox murderer be saved if he dies unrepentant? No. It is the same here.
It is clear in the words of Theophan the Recluse: “I don’t know if the Catholics will be saved, but if I become a Catholic, I will not be saved.” Why not? Because he does not know how infected with Catholicism this child of God is. This goes to the question of the salvation of those who are baptized. But if, as we remember, Blessed Theodora was saved with unrepentant adultery, [i.e. in the story from Saint Basil the New] then we cannot judge categorically about the non-salvation of [individual] Catholics. We do not know the extent to which each particular person professed heresy. Why do we have worse attitude towards Old Believers than we do of Catholics? Or a worse attitude towards the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church or the Kiev Patriarchate than to Catholics? Because Orthodoxy is a fully biblical religion, there is no automatic [механического] excommunication from the Church, [and] no automatic [механического] expulsion from the ministry. [Потому что православие полностью библейская религия, в ней нет механического отлучения от Церкви, механического извержения из сана.]
Let’s say a man has committed a mortal sin, for which he must be excommunicated from the Church. He does not fall out of the number of God’s children, but he falls out of the number of those who are saved. The life-giving power of God diminishes in him, but he does not cease to be a child of God. That is why it is said, “Return, you rebellious children… I will heal your disobedience” (Ezekiel 3:14, 22).
It is one thing to have a rebellious son who has gone “to the far side” (but remains a son), but it is another to have a hireling. A son cannot be called a hireling. Theologically, this is called “the indelible seal of baptism.” Baptism is indelible. Why is it possible [чиноприем] to be admitted to the Church by Chrismation alone? [Почему возможен чиноприем по третьему чину?; lit. “Why is the third rite (its rank as a sacrament) of Chrismation possible (in this situation)?] There can be no economy if the cup is empty. An empty cup cannot be counted as full. The empty water of bathing in a river cannot be taken for baptism under any condition. Baptist bathing, even performed in the name of the Trinity, in their unbelief that it is a sacrament, cannot, by any economy, under any condition, be counted as a sacrament. An empty sacrament is an empty sacrament. The Church has the power to recognize a sacrament or not, but it cannot recognize something that does not exist as existing. [i.e. baptisms require proper form]
Even the anti-Catholic polemic of the holy Fathers admits that the Catholics have a [valid*] Eucharist. [Противокатолическая аргументация святых отцов говорит, что у католиков есть Евхаристия.*The word “valid” is not in Russian, but implied.] Mark of Ephesus refers to the Pope as a beloved Patriarch who decided round up the divided members [i.e. the disunited Latin Christians] of the body of Christ. [Марк Эфесский обращается к папе Римскому, как к возлюбленнейшему патриарху, который решил собрать разделившиеся члены Тела Христова.] At any rate, to call a non-member of the Body of Christ a member would be blasphemy. There are biblical [библейских] norms. They are well and accurately expressed in the biblical [библейских] canons. Here is a certain community [i.e. the Roman Catholics] that has been baptized, has the gift of the Spirit, but is outside the realm of salvation because of a loss of faith. They are infected with a most grievous disease. As Theophanes the Hermit well said, “Catholicism is a body with tubercular lungs.” It is rotting.
But there has not yet been an ecclesiastical trial [i.e. excommunication of the Pope of Rome and his sectarians]. There will be an ecclesiastical trial, a standard ecumenical council—the ninth (the Eighth was [under] Photius, a great anti-Catholic council which condemned the “Filioque”). The pope will be summoned to it, [and] three official summonses will be made. He will come, [and] they will say to him, “Here is the teaching of the fathers, are you ready to agree with it?” He will either agree or not. If he agrees, “you have gained your brother” (Matthew 18:15). If he refuses, what will the council do? “…For spewing unholy blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, let him be deprived of his priestly ministry and all the degrees due…” That’s it, out of the portion of the saved. We have before our eyes a similar example happened with our Denisenko (the schismatic Filaret). Those who profess heresy, stomp in unison into hell because of nothing less than the mortal sin of heresy. Who is a Catholic? It is completely analogous to a man who dies of drunkenness.
There was a ruling that, as a last resort, we could go to a Catholic church and receive communion. But it must be understood that for us, Catholic communion would be an endorsement of a false doctrine. Because by coming to the liturgy, we will be forced to confess the filioque, that is, to participate in the mortal sin of heresy.
The [Eighth] Council condemned heresy, but not Catholics. There is a presumption of innocence in the Church. Let us remember the Ecumenical Councils led by the Holy Spirit. Who participated, for example, in the 7th Ecumenical Council? The bishops ordained by the iconoclasts. By this time iconoclasm had been condemned by a local council in Rome. Nevertheless, ordinations were taking place. The first act of the Seventh Ecumenical Council was specifically dedicated to heretical ordinations. The monks asked Saint Tarasius, how could he who blasphemed Him in heresies pass on the Holy Spirit? St. Tarasius replied that it is not man who performs the ordination, but God. And the son is not responsible for the father. [Ezek 18:20]
The Sixth Council is similar. The Monothelite heresy had already been condemned by the great Council of Lateran ([in 649 containing] 149 Fathers). The Council was composed of bishops of Monothelite ordination. In particular, there were heretic Monothelite bishops at the council. But when the anathematisms of heretics were proclaimed, only those who had direct confessions of heresy were anathematized: Pyrrhus, Paul, Cyrus, Peter, Patriarch Sergius, Pope Honorius. That’s it, no one else. Those who did not oppose heresy, but also did not publicly address the question of how many wills there are in Christ, the council considered orthodox.
The Second Ecumenical Council consisted of 80% of the people ordained by the Arian bishops, and the Arians had already been condemned by the First Ecumenical Council by that point. The bishop may not be in the part of the saved, but his action does not come from him, but from God–from the realm of salvation. For him [the individual bishop] heresy is ruin. But as long as he is not excommunicated from the Church, grace works through him. Otherwise none of us will have a guarantee of the faithfulness of our baptism. But, fortunately, it is not man but God who administers the Sacrament of Baptism, and it is enough [for a baptism] that a person not be deprived of his ministry. Here [the deprivation of one’s ministry] is a clear canonical boundary.
The Holy Fathers (Theodosius, Emperor Justinian, Emperor Constantine) perceived heresies (Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Arianism) as diseases within the Church–up to the point of excommunication. That said, notice that there is not a single hierarchy left in worldwide Christianity that traces its origins to the defrocked bishops. Many disobeyed and ordained many successors. But for some reason in the third or fourth generation it all comes to a halt. For example, Dioscorus did not obey the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and ordained successors. But in the second generation, that’s it, Dioscorians are gone. Nestorius is the same. Because “empty” [i.e. a lack of a capacity to transfer grace]. That is, it turns out that there is grace, but you can not use it. [This is] because you are opposing the will of God. [This is] because converting to a heretical community becomes a choice. It is important to remember this.
[Saint] Hilarion Troitsky has a position that is not grounded in Scripture or in the Fathers of the Church. He believes that in the sacraments of the heretics, the graceless form is transmitted and filled with gracious content upon entry into the Church. The Church Fathers have no such teaching. Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) has analyzed in detail the First Rule of St. Basil the Great. What is the effect of grace in heretical communities? Let us ask an interesting question–why in the West have come to believe that witchcraft and the evil eye are all fabrications? The answer is simple – they are too stuffy. In the Islamic world no one will think so. Witchcraft and the evil eye are on every corner. The reality of the demonic world is obvious there.
Why do they think there is no such thing in the West? It is because grace was holding it [wickedness] back. In the 19th century in Russia the same thing began to appear. People became so relaxed under the protection of the Church that they decided that there was nothing to protect them from. And as soon as the unbaptized generation came, that’s when it all came out. That is, God protects His children, even the unfaithful and rebellious. Yes, there is protection, but the question of salvation is another matter. That protection can also be in condemnation. People grew up who were not protected by grace, and we got a “wolf” generation: these are the “hippies” of the 60s and our thugs of the 90s.
When they say that all Russia is baptized, it’s a mistake. How many people do you know who aren’t baptized? About a third.
As for Christians, this is not about words, but about strength and truth. People simply do not have the basic strength to resist demons. There was a study in the West about depravity [i.e. molestation] in the Church. The ratio was as follows: for one Catholic case [there are] three Protestant cases. And why? Because the unbaptized have no power to resist sin. [Even] Non-Christians, [such as the] Bible study group [i.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses]. Even the Bible study group provides a lot [of protection from the demonic] compared to the outside world! It is already [indirectly] in touch with the truth, in contact with the sacred.
How do we explain the phenomenon of the Protestant revival? “We are born again people. We used to be fornicators, drunkards, alcoholics, drug addicts, slackers, etc., and we have become good and wonderful…” Everyone has heard such stories from Protestants. The man was in a realm of total darkness, was an ignorant child of the wrath of God. [Eph 2:3] Here he sees the light, he sees that there is a God, there are His commandments, there is the Lord God, there is Jesus Christ. He gives up his evil deeds and begins to do good deeds, and for the first time in his life he feels the approval of his conscience–the approval of God. [cf Rom 2:13-16] And this is really a true rebirth, but it is not that rebirth which Baptism gives, which makes a person a child of God. It is simply a person who finds out there is Light. Next, a normal person should say, “Now what does the Bible require me to do to be saved? Do I have to be baptized? Where is the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against? I should go and find it! Wouldn’t it be good to receive their communion?” And then the devil comes and says, “You were so bad, and now you’re so good; you’ve had enough. Why do you need the Church, why do you need some mediators [i.e. the saints]? Why do you need anything else? This is all you need.”
Like that, just another Bible study group has been made. [There] man is not born into a new life—he is a child of wrath, as it were. He forgot one little thing: It’s good to stop getting dirty, but it wouldn’t hurt to wash up. Why would such a man be guilty before God? He stopped himself on the way to the Truth by refusing to find the fullness of the Truth. He got to the second step and said “enough!” He believed in Christ, but he did not take what Christ gives. That is the boundary. This is how modern Protestantism emerges.
This is the explanation why many people, not only from Protestantism, but also “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and even Mormons feel the same revival. For Protestants, this question is not solvable at all. And why do the “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” obvious non-Christians, talk about the same spiritual revival? They reached the second step, their conscience approved of them – and they went no further, still floundering in the outside world, God has not forgiven or adopted them. Chesterton wrote about this: “Many have guessed the benefit of confession, but few have guessed the benefit of absolution. This is the crucial point: God’s children are forgiven their sins. Here is the boundary.
How do we explain the phenomenon of the Protestant revival? “We are born again people. We used to be fornicators, drunkards, alcoholics, drug addicts, slackers, etc., and we have become good and wonderful,” everyone has heard such stories from Protestants. The man was in a realm of total darkness, was an ignorant child of the wrath of God. Here he sees the light, he sees that there is God, there are his commandments, there is the Lord God, there is Jesus Christ. He gives up his evil deeds and begins to do good deeds, and for the first time in his life he feels the approval of his conscience, the approval of God. And this is really a real rebirth, but it is not that rebirth which Baptism gives, which makes a person a child of God. Just a person finds out where there is light. Next, a normal person should say, “Now what does the Bible require me to do to be saved? Do I have to be baptized? Where is the Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against? I should go and find it! Wouldn’t hurt to take communion. And then the devil comes and says, “You were so bad, and now you’re so good; you’ve had enough. Why do you need the Church, why do you need some mediators? Why do you need anything else? And that’s enough.” That’s it, another Bible study circle has sprung up. Man is not born into a new life, he is a child of wrath, as it were. He forgot one little thing: It’s good to stop getting dirty, but it wouldn’t hurt to wash up. Why would such a man be guilty before God? He stopped himself on the way to the Truth, refused to find the fullness of the Truth, got to the second step and said “enough!” He believed in Christ, but he did not take what Christ gives. That is the boundary. This is how modern Protestantism emerges.
This is the explanation for why many people, not only from Protestantism, but also “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and even Mormons, feel the same revival. For Protestants, this question is not solvable at all. And why do the “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” obvious non-Christians, talk about the same spiritual revival? They reached the second step–their conscience approved of them. But, they went no further [and] still floundering in the outside world [i.e. outside the Church], God has not forgiven or adopted them. Chesterton wrote about this: “Many understand the benefit of confession, but few understand the benefit of absolution.” This is the crucial point: God’s children are forgiven their sins. Here is the boundary.
Is it possible to stop being a child of God? You can, through renunciation. Like Judas, like Arius, like Filaret Denisenko. There are cases in which the Church may invalidate the ordination of a canonical bishop, as was the case, for example, with Maximus the Cynic. That is, a particular liturgical action may be invalidated by a Church court. The Church has the power to take away the gift of God, but cannot give it. That is, the Church cannot give to an organism outside of it anything, but she can take from it that which belongs to her. “For if we, having received the knowledge of the truth, sin arbitrarily, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and the fury of fire ready to devour the adversaries. If he who rejects the law of Moses, with two or three witnesses, without mercy, is punished with death, how much heavier is the punishment, do you think, will be upon he who tramples on the Son of God and does not regard the blood of the covenant, by which he is sanctified, as sacred, and offends the Spirit of grace? We know Him who said, ‘I have vengeance, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘the Lord will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!” (Hebrews 10:26-31).
23. The royal priesthood
On Mount Sinai, when God appeared in fire and smoke, the Lord said: “You shall be for Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; these are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:6) Now a kingdom of priests appears, a kingdom of special people who must offer sacrifices. Before the worship of the golden calf, all Jews could partake of sacrifices. Now all Orthodox can partake of the Lord’s Sacrifice. You and I are all priests because we participate in the sacrifice (Body and Blood of the Lord).
1. We are the royal priesthood (the world exists for our sake as Christians).
2. We are participants in the Sacrifice (we are united with God).
3 We, too, are to make some kind of sacrifice to God.
For the apostle Paul, the ministry of the liturgy is not only a sacrifice, but also the preaching of God’s word (missionary work): “To be a minister of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles and [to] make the priesthood of the gospel of God…” (Rom. 15:16) The missionary preaches, and as a result an offering is made to God in the form of converted men: “…that this offering of the Gentiles, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, may be acceptable to [God]” (Rom. 15:16).
The apostle Peter writes that all Christians should make of themselves a spiritual priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God: “And you yourselves, as living stones, make of yourselves a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people taken as an inheritance, that you may proclaim the perfections of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; once not a people, but now the people of God; [once] unpardoned, but now pardoned” (1 Peter 2:9-10).
The concept of the “spiritual sacrifice” spoken of here by the Apostle Peter is interpreted by the Apostle Paul: “Therefore I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [for] your reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1). We must give our whole life (both body and soul) in service to God, [and] this will be our priesthood–we sacrifice ourselves. And the result of the sacrifice is described: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). The sacrifice of man causes Christ to dwell in him, and the (willful) life of man ceases. This is the royal ministry of the laity.
In the Apocalypse: “And of Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him, who loved us and washed us from our sins by his blood, and made us kings and priests to his God and Father, glory and dominion forever and ever, amen” (Rev. 1:5-6). In the original Greek it is “kingdom” instead of “kings”. Here it says that the kingdom of priests offers an unceasing plea to God. “And He made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on earth” (Rev. 5:10).
The last mention of the royal priesthood in the New Testament: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection: over them the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:6). The first resurrection is [in] baptism, [where] such a person becomes a priest. Here we see an indication that the royal priesthood does not cease with the death of Christians, [but] they continue to act as priests even after death.
Questions: [Summary]
1. What does the word “mission” mean?
Mission is the proclamation of the unadulterated Holy Gospel to those outside the Orthodox Church.
2. How is missionary work different from catechesis?
Missionary work is done among unbaptized people (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.), while catechesis is done among baptized but unchurched people who consider themselves Orthodox.
3. Does the humanistic view that people of other faiths can be saved contradict Scripture?
Yes, it does contradict it. Only Orthodox Christians can be saved. The main hope of Christians is that we are saved from the curse of death, receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, become children of God, and meet face to face with our Heavenly Father. As the Lord says, “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). No religion, except Orthodoxy, promises such a personal contact between man and God, and is therefore incapable of saving man.
4. What happens after death to people who have not received baptism?
They go to hell, there is no other way for them.
5. Why is missionary work necessary?
To save those around us. We want people who are in darkness to find the Light, so that people who have been led astray will find the truth. For those of us given the fullness of truth, we know absolute truth, [because] we know that “we are of God and…the whole world lies in evil” (1 John 5:19).
6. Does the missionary have the right to his or her own personal opinion?
No, he does not. The Orthodox Church does not have her own point of view on any problem; she always makes do with God’s point of view and this is enough for her.
7. What is the basic principle of a missionary?
Always respect the man and never respect his [false] convictions. Separate sin from the sinner. Christ’s love requires a ruthless intolerance for false opinions and a selfless love for the lost.
8. What weapons does the missionary have?
The unadulterated Word of God [the Bible] is the most awesome weapon a missionary possesses.
9. When should one begin to be a missionary?
If a person feels a calling in his heart to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom, he should do so immediately.
10. What are the rewards of being a missionary?
The missionary is a collector, [and] he receives rewards for the lifestyle he leads: 30-fold, 60-fold, or 100-fold, depending on whether he is a family man, a widow, or a virgin; the missionary’s reward is no less than 100-fold, or even more if one who is persecuted for the name of the Lord. God said: “I will glorify those who glorify Me” (1 Kings 2:30).
11. What is the purpose of this course?
To study the Orthodox doctrine on the basis of Scripture and learn how to teach it correctly to the modern man.
12. What are the basic principles of preaching?
The missionary relies first and foremost on Scripture, not as he wants it, but as it is understood by the concordance of the fathers of the Church. The missionary must carry the message of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The missionary’s most important message is “the forgiveness of sins in all nations” (Luke 24:47). We proclaim repentance, a change of worldview (see Matt. 7:21-23). We demand from all peoples a change of worldview. God affirms that it is impossible for man in his natural state to accept the gospel–impossible unless he changes his worldview.
13. Which people are closed off to evangelism?
No one is initially closed; everyone needs to be evangelized. But if a person is indifferent to the Truth as such, if he is not interested in what is real, then such a person is closed to preaching. The mission cannot reach the man who has blocked himself from God by his evil will.
14.By whose power is missionary work done?
Missionary work is always done by the power of the Holy Spirit promised by God the Father. Therefore, the beginning of missionary work is prayer, the middle of missionary work is prayer, and the end of missionary work is prayer. Without prayer nothing will work. The Lord says, “And I will send the promise of My Father upon you; but you shall remain in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).
15. What is the spiritual significance of evangelism?
The missionary encounters three worlds at once: the world of God, in whose name he acts; the world of men with their free will – and here he sees both the unthinkable evil that is hidden there and the unthinkable good; and the world of evil spirits that tangibly rebel against him. The missionary is therefore at the point where the three worlds intersect. It is a borderline state. Monks are the special forces [i.e. intelligence services] of Orthodoxy, while missionaries are saboteurs [i.e. sappers]; they prepare the offensive outside the Church. Missionary work is an extremely dangerous thing, but also a truly great thing, because we are already talking about such realities that are at the border of the universe.
16. What is the criterion for the truthfulness of information?
If the information is fully consistent with the text of Scripture, then it is true. The criteria for a correct understanding of the text of Scripture meets the requirements of the Holy Spirit’s is its consistency with the understanding of the holy Fathers of the Church. When we preach the Gospel, we preach not just Christianity – we preach the faith of the holy apostles, prophets and teachers of the Church, which is called “orthodoxy.”
17. What are the proofs of God’s existence?
1. Every thing has a prime cause.
2. By looking at the beauty and perfection of visible creations.
3. An innate scale of values. [i.e. the Ontological Argument]
4. Conscience and judgment. “If there is no God, all things are permitted.”
18. How does one prove the truth of the Sacred Tradition of the Church?
It [the Scripture] says about Sacred Tradition: “Stand therefore, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you have been taught either by the word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). The apostle commands us to stand and hold fast to the Tradition, which you have been taught either by the word or by the epistle. “By word” is oral Tradition, but written Tradition is Scripture, which is the highest part of the Holy Tradition of the Church.
19. What is the logic of salvation in the Church?
Unity [exists] in truth. Apostolic revelation exists [in] the condition of unity, and it is this unity that the Lord requires. The unity of Christians in truth is a condition for their unity. When Christians are in unity of love and unity of faith, then the world converts–it is the best missionary method. “May they all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, [so] may they also be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as We are one. I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made one, that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them as You loved Me” (John 17:21-23).
Orthodox Christian Theology 
My comment on section 22 is not to emphasize any alleged contradiction in the saints, but to recognize how the differing view of saints complement one another. The Church canons recognize that Novatians, for example, can be received by the Church via right confession. Hence, some *measure* of grace, even if it is merely that they were graced to have correct form in their sacraments, is recognized in that to be received it is not necessary that the sacraments be repeated. Here, Father Daniel applies such canonical thinking to Roman Catholics and Orthodox schismatics (Old Believers, Ukrainian sects).
However, the view of Saint Hilarion Troitsky similarly accepts that as long as there is right form, there is some way the full measure of grace is given upon reception in the Church. THe argument therefore is not over diametrically opposed positions, but rather, what is the measure of grace outside the Church (if at all). Father Daniel was making the argument that even bible study groups (Protestant sectarians) with no sacraments at least have some contact with the divine and some measure of protection from the demonic, and thereby some grace.
Hence, what we see is that Father Daniel and Saint Hilarion would appear to be contradicting one another, but that is only if one presumes the same application of their thought, which is not the case. In fact, both uphold the necessity of correct form for baptism, for example. Even, Saint Augustine in affirming baptism outside the Church did not affirm the Holy Spirit’s participation in a baptism. Then…how is it fully a baptism? And if the Holy SPirit is not there in baptism, how is He there during the epiclesis? And if so, how is the Eucharist *actually* transubstantitated without the Spirit?
So, I think that though both saints represent different emphases which both find expression in the canons. What appears to be contradiction exists in what is in making an application to a very specific situation. Perhaps the most extreme statement is Fr Daniel’s statement on the RC eucharist, but even then very little is said and one must be careful to conclude too much from the statement.