On the Baptists: A Brief Guide for Engaging in Conversation with Baptist Sectarians #
T.S. Tulupov
When engaging in conversations with Baptists, it is best to begin from a historical perspective—that is, by indicating the time when the sect under discussion appeared and identifying its founder. After this, one should move on to clarifying the dogma of Holy Tradition, with the goal of firmly establishing the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church concerning the sources of doctrine. This is necessary so that in subsequent discussions, one may refer back to Holy Tradition when explaining the Orthodox teaching on other matters of faith contested by the Baptist sectarians—teachings that are firmly grounded in Divine Revelation, though not recorded in the books of Holy Scripture, but preserved by the Church since the time of Christ and the Apostles.
Alternatively, the conversation can begin by addressing the question of the Church, as a foundational point of Christian doctrine, and the matter of man’s salvation.
One may also begin directly with a particular “controversial” issue.
In discussion with Baptists, one must bear in mind that their understanding of matters of faith and their rejection of Orthodox truths is based solely on the text of Holy Scripture. They do not accept any other forms of evidence, such as the writings of the Holy Fathers. Moreover, Baptists:
-
Often quote Scripture in isolated fragments, without connection to the preceding context;
-
Frequently interpret a given passage with a crude literalism, without penetrating into its deeper meaning;
-
Quite often extract an allegorical or figurative meaning from the text without any basis.
For them, mere external correspondence to the letter of the sacred text is sufficient to support their own views. For example, in the words of the Apostle Paul: “God is not served by human hands” (Acts 17:25), Baptists conclude that making the sign of the Cross with one’s hand is forbidden.
In dealing with sectarian references to the Holy Scripture, it is essential first to:
-
Interpret the passage in question in connection with the verses that precede and follow it;
-
Clarify the passage by comparing it with other sayings that are similar or contrary in meaning (i.e., using parallel passages). It is often helpful to counter a Baptist citation with one that directly opposes it in meaning. Then one must present a whole series of passages that express or support the Orthodox truth denied by the Baptists.
When selecting passages, preference should be given to texts from the New Testament over those of the Old.
It is also important to demand a clear account from the Baptist sectarians of their doctrinal beliefs. One must emphasize—perhaps even more than once—that their tradition comes not from the Church and the Apostles but from German Baptists and other hostile persons. Their prayer practices and rites are self-invented and incorrect. They possess no sanctity and no grace of God.
At the end of one’s address, it is crucial to pose a clear and direct question to the Baptist sectarians: Why do they reject the Orthodox teaching? Or, how and why do they understand this or that specific subject differently? One must insist that the Baptists answer directly and without evasion.
The central dogmatic foundation of the Baptist sect is their doctrine of faith alone—the belief that Christ redeemed all once and for all, and that for personal salvation it is sufficient merely to acknowledge this, with no further action required.
Thus, ritual prayer, asceticism in the form of monasticism, fasting, and all church services and similar practices are deemed unnecessary by the Baptists and are categorically rejected. Yet, in practice, we observe the exact opposite when it comes to ritual. Though Baptists fundamentally reject the Church’s rites and condemn outward worship of God and His holy saints as idolatry, they have nonetheless created their own rites: water baptism, the breaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper, marriage ceremonies, kneeling prayers, and public worship with its own distinctive order and customs. They build prayer houses, elect “presbyters,” and so on.
If this is the case, then their battle against visible Christian worship is entirely without justification.
These sectarians are truly astonishing people. How is it that they cannot grasp the simple truth that no person in this world, while still living in the body, is capable of expressing his inner feelings without some outward manifestation? This must be clearly pointed out to the Baptists.
Having rejected the rites and traditions of the Christian Church—traditions sanctified by its thousand-year existence and inherited from apostolic times—the Baptist sectarians have invented their own rites: senseless rites, founded upon nothing.
According to the beliefs of the Baptist sectarians, worship must be entirely inward, taking place only in the soul of the one who prays. In such worship, there should be nothing external or visible. The essence of prayer, then, must be deep silence, complete interior concentration, no movement, no utterance—not even a whisper. Such, in principle, must be the prayer of the Baptist sectarians, if they truly reject all ritual and regard the outward appearance of worship as idolatry. Exclamations during prayer, reading, singing, standing, kneeling, and the like—all visible and audible acts—are nothing other than rites, forms, outward expressions of inner feeling.
According to Baptist belief, all of this should be alien to them, and must be rejected as a transgression. Yet in practice, we see that the Baptists do not refrain from visible prayer clothed in definite forms. It becomes evident that they have realized public prayer is inconceivable without some kind of ritual. And so, having rejected the Church’s rites—rites that express the spirit of Christianity formed over the course of a thousand years—they have devised their own rites and prayers. At their prayer gatherings, they sing verses and psalms of their own composition. They have also instituted the reading of passages from Holy Scripture.
Since the Baptist sectarians, for all their desire, cannot show a history of their existence going back to apostolic times—since they cannot trace an unbroken line of succession to the divine Founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ—how then, lacking this continuous connection, do they presume to believe in the Gospel? Before them stands a question they cannot resolve: From where, in fact, did they (the Baptists) receive the Gospel? Who preserved and passed it down to them from the depths of history in a pure and uncorrupted form?
The Baptists are unable to testify to the authenticity of Christ’s covenant, for they lack unbroken succession to Christ. And yet, they do not believe in the Church which preserved this most holy book. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Baptist sectarians must inevitably reach the following conclusion: If one is to believe the Gospel, one must also believe in the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church. In rejecting the latter, they must also reject the Gospel itself as something of doubtful origin. If the Baptist sectarians consider everything that is done in the Orthodox Church to be unnecessary, superfluous, and not of Christ’s or the Apostles’ teaching, then they must logically also reject the Gospel itself as a thing of questionable provenance. Otherwise, there is a clear inconsistency in their position.
The Baptists call themselves “Evangelical Christians.” But what kind of evangelicals are they really, when the Gospel came to them by chance, from foreign hands—that is, from the Church—hands which, according to their own convictions, are unclean?
All of this must be firmly pointed out to the Baptist sectarians, especially when the situation calls for it.