OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 03:27:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Believer's Baptism  (Read 47444 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,200


WWW
« Reply #135 on: January 18, 2009, 01:17:37 AM »

that the character of a person's religion is likely to be affected to some extent by the characteristics of the nation to which he also belongs... I hope not. I would hope that our membership in the One True Faith would elevate us beyond our culture

So would I - but I fear it is not so.  Sad

Culture is exactly what you and Cleopas exploit whether in Albania or the US suburbs.

May the Lord help us to worship him in spirit and in truth: or should it be in Spirit and in truth? Both, I suspect. That we may be partakers of the divine nature.

Or self-worship?   Huh
Your responses sound rather vague.  Would you care to explain what you're trying to say here and how this relates to the topic of discussion?

My non-Political posts lack insight; They offend; They insult and they make me look bad.  People think I'm a troll or an agitator and I'll respond by only providing Prayers and Political insight.

I have nothing in common with nearly all Protestants and I have nothing in common with nearly all Orthodox Christians who engage in discussion with them.  I hope I've made myself clear.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,405


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #136 on: January 18, 2009, 02:25:44 AM »

I have nothing in common with nearly all Protestants and I have nothing in common with nearly all Orthodox Christians who engage in discussion with them.  I hope I've made myself clear.
Okay. Undecided  So, you post on a thread devoted to dialogue with Protestants on a subject of importance to both sides, and this is all you have to say?  Why even derail this thread with such irrelevant talk of how you dislike dialogue with Protestants?  If you don't like the subject of a thread and don't really care to offer anything of substance, why post on it?  Nobody's holding your arm to the fire telling you you have to post here.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 04:43:58 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #137 on: January 18, 2009, 04:21:10 AM »

Father ... I keep trying to get him to join us here on OC.net so HE can post

Encourage him from me as well. It sounds as if his posts would be interesting and instructive.

No offence taken from the word "sect", for I know what you mean. But others might well misunderstand and take it as a slight. Then negative vibes would be set in motion even before attempts at mutual understanding or persuasion began.

Shortly I must away to South Wales to address the Pentecostals in Aberdare, then various other churches, and I shall not be back for some days. I am taking Lossky to read in free time - and of course, Petty on Primitive Methodism (mustn't become unbalanced!   Wink ). No posts from me therefore for a few days: but I hope for plenty to read after I return.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #138 on: January 19, 2009, 10:29:08 PM »

I just was reading Hebrews:

1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.
9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; 10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11 By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE. 13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED.” 19 He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, as he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, leaning on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he was dying, made mention of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and gave orders concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen.
28 By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that he who destroyed the firstborn would not touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.
31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace. 32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.
39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect

What stuck me is the parallelism of Πίστει "By faith": no distinction is made for baby Moses.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #139 on: January 20, 2009, 12:47:22 PM »

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

After reading this this very engaging thread it appears that there is an 'issue behind the issue' which is not being address directly.

In the Ancient Church there existed an obedience to the canon law but there is a question of inspiration of the Holy Spirit within the scope of this thread. Which has precedence. Canon Law or the Charism which inspires it? This is ultimately a discussion between Authority and Charism not unlike the undercurrents which flowed at the Second Vatican Council.
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,047


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #140 on: January 20, 2009, 11:40:27 PM »

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

After reading this this very engaging thread it appears that there is an 'issue behind the issue' which is not being address directly.

In the Ancient Church there existed an obedience to the canon law but there is a question of inspiration of the Holy Spirit within the scope of this thread. Which has precedence. Canon Law or the Charism which inspires it? This is ultimately a discussion between Authority and Charism not unlike the undercurrents which flowed at the Second Vatican Council.

I'm sorry brother...where did you get the canon law issue from all of these conversations? 

Also, I think that the underlying issue is the name of the thread.  whether or not you have to be a believer in order to be baptized - a.k.a. do you have to have cognizant understanding in order to be baptized.  this is the underlying issue...i would say. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #141 on: January 21, 2009, 12:05:53 AM »


I'm sorry brother...where did you get the canon law issue from all of these conversations?

Grace and Peace serb1389,

I'm answering your question from my proper and current account. My apologies if my previous post appeared deceptive...  Embarrassed 

The insight concerning an underlying issue of authority and charism stems from post 47 and the follow up post 51. Evangelicals believe they hold legitimate authority in the Church of Christ through their claim of charism and thus exercise that authority in opposition to what they perceive to be a claim by legality.

Quote
Also, I think that the underlying issue is the name of the thread.  whether or not you have to be a believer in order to be baptized - a.k.a. do you have to have cognizant understanding in order to be baptized.  this is the underlying issue...i would say. 

Yes, I understand your point but I also saw an underlying issue between the authoritative claims of Evangelicals and Holy Orthodoxy as the proper and legitimate barer of the Faith.

Does that make more sense?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2009, 12:06:41 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #142 on: January 21, 2009, 12:50:44 AM »


I'm sorry brother...where did you get the canon law issue from all of these conversations?

Grace and Peace serb1389,

I'm answering your question from my proper and current account. My apologies if my previous post appeared deceptive...  Embarrassed 

The insight concerning an underlying issue of authority and charism stems from post 47 and the follow up post 51. Evangelicals believe they hold legitimate authority in the Church of Christ through their claim of charism and thus exercise that authority in opposition to what they perceive to be a claim by legality.

Quote
Also, I think that the underlying issue is the name of the thread.  whether or not you have to be a believer in order to be baptized - a.k.a. do you have to have cognizant understanding in order to be baptized.  this is the underlying issue...i would say. 

Yes, I understand your point but I also saw an underlying issue between the authoritative claims of Evangelicals and Holy Orthodoxy as the proper and legitimate barer of the Faith.

Does that make more sense?

The charism does not flow from the canon: the canon codifies the charism.  As such, the bishop's charism may be regulated by the canon, but not abolished nor granted by canon.

The Evangelicals claim that they can act on the example of St. Paul without canonical links to his Church, much like Muslims claim that they can claim Jesus as one of their prophets without being members of His Church.  Again, this St. Paul is a figment of their imagination:

They imagine that the non-baptized can baptize, but St. Paul was told by Christ Himself to seek baptism from the Church He established, by ministers of that Church.

They imagine that they can found Churches, but St. Paul did not found a Church until he received, at Christ's Own command, the laying on of hands from the Church He established, by ministers of that Church.

They imagine that they can teach what they think scripture says, but St. Paul submitted his teacing for approval to the Church Christ established at Jerusalem, to the Apostles He chose and to the presbyters they ordained, "lest [he] run in vain."

They imagine that they can justify this by the Scripture canonized by the Church Christ established, without recognizing the authority that canonized it.  But that's like being a little pregnant:

I Corin. 41 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #143 on: January 21, 2009, 12:54:59 AM »


The charism does not flow from the canon: the canon codifies the charism.  As such, the bishop's charism may be regulated by the canon, but not abolished nor granted by canon.

Grace and Peace ialmisry,

I reading this but I'm thinking to myself... that I wish he could unpack this a bit more for me...?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,200


WWW
« Reply #144 on: January 21, 2009, 01:06:45 AM »

I have nothing in common with nearly all Protestants and I have nothing in common with nearly all Orthodox Christians who engage in discussion with them.  I hope I've made myself clear.
Okay. Undecided  So, you post on a thread devoted to dialogue with Protestants on a subject of importance to both sides, and this is all you have to say?  Why even derail this thread with such irrelevant talk of how you dislike dialogue with Protestants?  If you don't like the subject of a thread and don't really care to offer anything of substance, why post on it?  Nobody's holding your arm to the fire telling you you have to post here.

I thought I had something productive and useful to say.  I'll be more careful in the future about posting in threads if I conclude that I have nothing to contribute.   Smiley
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #145 on: January 21, 2009, 04:07:26 AM »


The charism does not flow from the canon: the canon codifies the charism.  As such, the bishop's charism may be regulated by the canon, but not abolished nor granted by canon.

Grace and Peace ialmisry,

I reading this but I'm thinking to myself... that I wish he could unpack this a bit more for me...?

If I may, I'll make a politcal/historical analogy (don't know how much you know of US constitutional history: feel free to ask).

The office of president was created by adoption of the present Constitution, when it created the executive branch.  The executive had not existed in the US on the national level since the sovereign gave the colonies their (plural intentional) independence.  It could, by amendment, be abolished.  Things under the executive (like the post office, and, though murky, things like the war powers act) can be taken away.

The Congressional delegations are a different matter: The Constitution did not create representation of the states, but it did regulate it.  The colonists claimed a right to representation, in fact rebelled over it.  The committtees of correspondence in the various colonies solicited (note, not summon, authorize or appoint) delegations from the legislatures to meet in the first and second Continental Congress, which set up for the states approval (and provinces: it was assumed Canada would join. Americans still haven't gotten over that) the first constitution, which provided for the United States in Congress Assembled.  Due to the fact that it did not create any right to representatives, the legislatures of all states had to approve the formation of the United States in Congress Assembled, and each state had only one vote in said Congress.  The state legislature sent, and could recall, representatives to the Congress, and each state determined for itself how the delegates would chosen.  They also could determine how many delegates to send, the only limits being no less than 2 nor more than 7. There were some other relatively straight forward restrictions.  This Congress called the Constitutinal Convention of the present constitution, which went into effect, persuant to Articles 6, 9-10 of the Confederation, and then 13.  The present Constitutional modified the requirements of the State Delegations and their composition, and standardized their selection across the states.  But the right/power of representation was not created, it was recognized: Art. I states "all legislative powers [plural], herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress..." in contrast to Art. II and III, "The executive/judicial power shall be vested..., i.e. Art. II and III create, Art. I only add to an already existing power.

Now what the evangelicals are claiming is akin to the organizers of the states of Franklin and Westsylania , who decided that they could take the idea of popular sovereignty and form themselves into states, much like the Evangelicals thinkng they can found Churches.  The States they seceeded from dissolved them on pain of prosecution for treason, and Congress ignored their petitions for recognition.

This is in contrast to Vermont, a de facto independent republic, due to the land coming from the defeat of the French and the Treaty of Paris, the overlap of the royal charters to New York and New Hampshire overlapping (and hence falling through the cracks when the King granted independence to New York and New Hamphire), and Vermont gaining independence ahead of the two colonies/states.  In this vacuum, a delegate from Connecticut represented Vermont's interest.  New York agreeded to renounce its claims.  Notes of the Constitutional Convention show that the present constituion had the clause "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"  written with Vermont in mind (which did become the 14th state).  Cf. the Evangelicals refusal to submit their "gospel" to those of reputation (i.e. the bishops), lest they run in vain), and contrast them with what happened with the Evangelical Orthodox, now just Orthodox.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #146 on: January 21, 2009, 01:24:02 PM »

If I may, I'll make a politcal/historical analogy (don't know how much you know of US constitutional history: feel free to ask).

The office of president was created by adoption of the present Constitution, when it created the executive branch.  The executive had not existed in the US on the national level since the sovereign gave the colonies their (plural intentional) independence.  It could, by amendment, be abolished.  Things under the executive (like the post office, and, though murky, things like the war powers act) can be taken away.

The Congressional delegations are a different matter: The Constitution did not create representation of the states, but it did regulate it.  The colonists claimed a right to representation, in fact rebelled over it.  The committtees of correspondence in the various colonies solicited (note, not summon, authorize or appoint) delegations from the legislatures to meet in the first and second Continental Congress, which set up for the states approval (and provinces: it was assumed Canada would join. Americans still haven't gotten over that) the first constitution, which provided for the United States in Congress Assembled.  Due to the fact that it did not create any right to representatives, the legislatures of all states had to approve the formation of the United States in Congress Assembled, and each state had only one vote in said Congress.  The state legislature sent, and could recall, representatives to the Congress, and each state determined for itself how the delegates would chosen.  They also could determine how many delegates to send, the only limits being no less than 2 nor more than 7. There were some other relatively straight forward restrictions.  This Congress called the Constitutinal Convention of the present constitution, which went into effect, persuant to Articles 6, 9-10 of the Confederation, and then 13.  The present Constitutional modified the requirements of the State Delegations and their composition, and standardized their selection across the states.  But the right/power of representation was not created, it was recognized: Art. I states "all legislative powers [plural], herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress..." in contrast to Art. II and III, "The executive/judicial power shall be vested..., i.e. Art. II and III create, Art. I only add to an already existing power.

Now what the evangelicals are claiming is akin to the organizers of the states of Franklin and Westsylania , who decided that they could take the idea of popular sovereignty and form themselves into states, much like the Evangelicals thinkng they can found Churches.  The States they seceeded from dissolved them on pain of prosecution for treason, and Congress ignored their petitions for recognition.

This is in contrast to Vermont, a de facto independent republic, due to the land coming from the defeat of the French and the Treaty of Paris, the overlap of the royal charters to New York and New Hampshire overlapping (and hence falling through the cracks when the King granted independence to New York and New Hamphire), and Vermont gaining independence ahead of the two colonies/states.  In this vacuum, a delegate from Connecticut represented Vermont's interest.  New York agreeded to renounce its claims.  Notes of the Constitutional Convention show that the present constituion had the clause "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"  written with Vermont in mind (which did become the 14th state).  Cf. the Evangelicals refusal to submit their "gospel" to those of reputation (i.e. the bishops), lest they run in vain), and contrast them with what happened with the Evangelical Orthodox, now just Orthodox.

Perhaps I'm playing Devil's Advocate with this question but when we consider the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth what ultimate authority does the Bishops have to judge lest they run in vain? St. Paul seemed to, at times, not recognize the reputation of St. Peter and the others in Jerusalem and argue with them (and win). Could the Evangelicals argue that this intransigent religious structure from a by-gone-age is no-longer valid and that the Spirit comes and goes where it will?

What is the Orthodox response to such a claim? As a Roman Catholic I know how Catholics have dealt with this issue but I'm much more interested in understanding how Orthodox address this.

Thank you for a very admirable analogy.  Smiley
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #147 on: January 21, 2009, 02:04:11 PM »

If I may, I'll make a politcal/historical analogy (don't know how much you know of US constitutional history: feel free to ask).

The office of president was created by adoption of the present Constitution, when it created the executive branch.  The executive had not existed in the US on the national level since the sovereign gave the colonies their (plural intentional) independence.  It could, by amendment, be abolished.  Things under the executive (like the post office, and, though murky, things like the war powers act) can be taken away.

The Congressional delegations are a different matter: The Constitution did not create representation of the states, but it did regulate it.  The colonists claimed a right to representation, in fact rebelled over it.  The committtees of correspondence in the various colonies solicited (note, not summon, authorize or appoint) delegations from the legislatures to meet in the first and second Continental Congress, which set up for the states approval (and provinces: it was assumed Canada would join. Americans still haven't gotten over that) the first constitution, which provided for the United States in Congress Assembled.  Due to the fact that it did not create any right to representatives, the legislatures of all states had to approve the formation of the United States in Congress Assembled, and each state had only one vote in said Congress.  The state legislature sent, and could recall, representatives to the Congress, and each state determined for itself how the delegates would chosen.  They also could determine how many delegates to send, the only limits being no less than 2 nor more than 7. There were some other relatively straight forward restrictions.  This Congress called the Constitutinal Convention of the present constitution, which went into effect, persuant to Articles 6, 9-10 of the Confederation, and then 13.  The present Constitutional modified the requirements of the State Delegations and their composition, and standardized their selection across the states.  But the right/power of representation was not created, it was recognized: Art. I states "all legislative powers [plural], herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress..." in contrast to Art. II and III, "The executive/judicial power shall be vested..., i.e. Art. II and III create, Art. I only add to an already existing power.

Now what the evangelicals are claiming is akin to the organizers of the states of Franklin and Westsylania , who decided that they could take the idea of popular sovereignty and form themselves into states, much like the Evangelicals thinkng they can found Churches.  The States they seceeded from dissolved them on pain of prosecution for treason, and Congress ignored their petitions for recognition.

This is in contrast to Vermont, a de facto independent republic, due to the land coming from the defeat of the French and the Treaty of Paris, the overlap of the royal charters to New York and New Hampshire overlapping (and hence falling through the cracks when the King granted independence to New York and New Hamphire), and Vermont gaining independence ahead of the two colonies/states.  In this vacuum, a delegate from Connecticut represented Vermont's interest.  New York agreeded to renounce its claims.  Notes of the Constitutional Convention show that the present constituion had the clause "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"  written with Vermont in mind (which did become the 14th state).  Cf. the Evangelicals refusal to submit their "gospel" to those of reputation (i.e. the bishops), lest they run in vain), and contrast them with what happened with the Evangelical Orthodox, now just Orthodox.

Perhaps I'm playing Devil's Advocate
No problem.  I've dealt with those playing Devil's disciple. Shocked

Quote
with this question but when we consider the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth what ultimate authority does the Bishops have to judge lest they run in vain?

That of Apostolic Succession, speaking in Infallible Ecumenical Council.

Quote
St. Paul seemed to, at times, not recognize the reputation of St. Peter and the others in Jerusalem and argue with them (and win).

Acts 10-11 shows that St. Peter was being inconsistent in Galatians, and St. Paul was just pointing that out.  Acts 15 ties it together.

Quote
Could the Evangelicals argue that this intransigent religious structure from a by-gone-age is no-longer valid and that the Spirit comes and goes where it will?

They theoretically could, but they insist on holding as valid that relic of this intransient religious structure, what we call the Bible, they've got a problem:  The Spirit comes and goes where it will, so why wouldn't it speak throught them if they wanted to chuck the authority that canonized Scripture?

Quote
What is the Orthodox response to such a claim?


It contradicts Titus 1:5 Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλειπον / ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην,
I left you in Crete for this reason, that you would set in order the things that were lacking, and appoint presbyters in every city, as I directed you;

Quote
As a Roman Catholic I know how Catholics have dealt with this issue but I'm much more interested in understanding how Orthodox address this.

Acts shows the hierarchy as an essential element of the Church, to which St. Paul even submits.  Hebrews 5:4 shows us that no man takes this honor upon himself, and Hebrews 7:7 the higher blesses the lower.  So the self proclaimed apostles cannot ordain one of their number as governing bishop.  The authority comes from God.

Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church: we have our ecclesiology in Clement and Ignatius, ie. less than a century after Christ, the Church fell? Then what about His parting words "I am with you always/all of the days until the end of the age?"  The Spirit goes where He will, but as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 12,  it is One Spirit, and His gifts are for the building up of the Church on the Apostles foundation, for our God, he continues in chapter 14 is not the author of confusion.  Or did the word of God come from them? (I Cor. 14:36).

Quote
Thank you for a very admirable analogy.  Smiley

Thanks, no problem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2009, 07:12:26 PM »

I just was reading Hebrews:

..."By faith": no distinction is made for baby Moses.

I think it means his parents' faith.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2009, 07:26:28 PM »

I just was reading Hebrews:

..."By faith": no distinction is made for baby Moses.

I think it means his parents' faith.

Exactly my point: Moses in the passage remains the subject, not his parents.

In faith the infants are baptized.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #150 on: January 24, 2009, 07:22:42 AM »

I am interested to learn why Orthodox insist on the triniatarian formula for baptism (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). We find this in the Gospel; in Acts we find people being baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (twice) and "in the name of Jesus Christ" (also twice).
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Theophilos78
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Yahwist-Apostolic Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 1,999



« Reply #151 on: January 24, 2009, 10:36:46 AM »

I am interested to learn why Orthodox insist on the triniatarian formula for baptism (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). We find this in the Gospel; in Acts we find people being baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (twice) and "in the name of Jesus Christ" (also twice).

I can see no discrepancy between the formula given by Matthew and the one given by Luke. When one is baptised into the NAME of Jesus, who is Christ, that person is baptised into the NAME of the Father and Holy Spirit too. This is because The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have the ONE and SAME name.

Luke emphasised the baptism in the name of Jesus in the Acts because:

1) Jesus was baptised like us as a result of His true human nature.

2) Jesus was the one who taught about and commanded baptism.

It is also most likely that Luke the Evangelist recurrently referred to the baptism in Jesus' name as a result of textual coherence within the Acts as well as between his first and second book, the Gospel and Acts, respectively. If we read the Acts, we always see the apostles preach salvation in Jesus' name:

Acts 2:32-33
This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear.

Acts 3:6
But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk.

Acts 3:19-20
Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:11-12
This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner.Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:42-43
And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.

Luke deliberately strewed some signs into his Gospel that would highlight the connection between his two books. In His last discourse before His ascension, Jesus tells His disciples that the remission of sins will be preached in HIS name to the Gentiles:

Luke 24:47
And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Consequently, those people were naturally baptised into the name of Christ, who became the savior of mankind through His death and resurrection. Nonetheless, the baptismal formula taught by Jesus Himself in Matthew is more formal and convenient for the ritual of baptism as it is in the form of a commandment (this formula appears even in the Didache).


Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #152 on: January 24, 2009, 11:26:10 AM »

I am interested to learn why Orthodox insist on the triniatarian formula for baptism (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). We find this in the Gospel; in Acts we find people being baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (twice) and "in the name of Jesus Christ" (also twice).

Actually, no.  We don't see anyone being baptized in Jesus' name instead of the Holy Trinity.  We see them baptized by Jesus' authority (compare, "in the name of the law").  It is to distinguish the Church's baptism from St. John's: Acts 19:1-7.  Note here (v. 5) how they are "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," which clearly indicates in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (vv. 2-3).  Otherwise, St. Paul's puzzlement makes no sense.

The OSB quotes St. Basil on this at Acts 8:16-7. I don't have the time to type it out now.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 11:27:09 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #153 on: January 24, 2009, 07:29:53 PM »

I have of course no objection at all to the use of the full formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and indeed it is the usual form of words among us too. But there is somewhere in the five pages of this thread a post that says baptism in another denomination must have been performed in the trinitarian formula if the convert to Orthodoxy is to move directly on to chrismation, without being re-baptised (which amusingly makes you linguistically anabaptists, albeit it without a capital A - but that is not a serious debating point  Wink). I am just wondering why.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #154 on: January 24, 2009, 11:48:06 PM »

I have of course no objection at all to the use of the full formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and indeed it is the usual form of words among us too. But there is somewhere in the five pages of this thread a post that says baptism in another denomination must have been performed in the trinitarian formula if the convert to Orthodoxy is to move directly on to chrismation, without being re-baptised (which amusingly makes you linguistically anabaptists, albeit it without a capital A - but that is not a serious debating point  Wink). I am just wondering why.

We insist on this formula because this is the formula Christ himself gave us to use. Who are we to argue with God?

Matthew 28:19 (New King James Version)
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

It should be noted that it is out of oikonomia that the Church will accept a trinitarian baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church. Let us say, for example, that a Methodist wanted to convert to Orthodoxy, and they had been baptized using the Trinitarian formula. While more than likely the priest will say, "Okay, we will accept your baptism, and you only need to be chrismated," that is up to the priest's discretion. They must inquire as to how the baptism was done, why it was done outside of the Orthodox Church, etc. We take these things very seriously.

I'm not sure why you say this makes us anabaptists? We do not mandate infant baptisms, however why would one want to deny their child the grace of God and also put their salvation at risk? Since baptism is the only sacrament that Christ states in necessary for salvation (John 3:5), and every breath is a gift (Job 12:10), why would you want to deny your child of that? Also, by denying the child of baptism, you are denying them access to all of the other sacraments. Until the child is baptized, they cannot be chrismated, receive Holy Communion, or any of the other Holy Mysteries of the Church. This is serious stuff.

Here is an excellent article on the matter from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America if you are interested in further reading: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #155 on: January 25, 2009, 06:18:16 AM »

I'm not sure why you say this makes us anabaptists?

Only with humorous irony, for "ana" which originally meant "up" (and still does, I think) has come to mean "again" as a prefix in a word. A number of words begin with ana meaning again, though I believe in Modern Greek the prefix is xana-. (GreekChef would know.)

There is a whole thread on Anabaptists (with a capital A), and it struck me as pleasantly amusing that - strictly linguistically - you too become anabaptists on occasions.

(I suppose I am too, having been christened in the Anglican Church as an infant, then dipped 'properly' at age 19.)

Thanks for the link for further reading.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #156 on: January 25, 2009, 07:26:39 AM »

I have of course no objection at all to the use of the full formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and indeed it is the usual form of words among us too. But there is somewhere in the five pages of this thread a post that says baptism in another denomination must have been performed in the trinitarian formula if the convert to Orthodoxy is to move directly on to chrismation, without being re-baptised (which amusingly makes you linguistically anabaptists, albeit it without a capital A - but that is not a serious debating point  Wink). I am just wondering why.

Because, and HoG pointed out, that was God's specific instruction.

The Jews still have a form of baptism, in mikvahs.  Why don't we accept that?

The Mandeans, a sect which in part comes out of the disciples of St. John who did not acknowledge Christ.  They have lots of baptisms.  Why don't we accept any of those?

The Church does not say that any Trinitarian baptism is valid, just for her to apply economy, the Trinitarian formula must have been used.  Water is also another necessary elements: a bishop told me that he specifically denied a Methodist "baptism" done with rose petals.

Those who say that "in the name of Jesus" suffices also see baptism as an ordinance, another issue which calls their baptism into doubt.  Since they don't intend to introduce the candidate into the life of the Most Holy Trinity by baptism, why or how should we assume it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #157 on: January 25, 2009, 02:40:45 PM »

Only with humorous irony, for "ana" which originally meant "up" (and still does, I think) has come to mean "again" as a prefix in a word. A number of words begin with ana meaning again, though I believe in Modern Greek the prefix is xana-. (GreekChef would know.)

There is a whole thread on Anabaptists (with a capital A), and it struck me as pleasantly amusing that - strictly linguistically - you too become anabaptists on occasions.

(I suppose I am too, having been christened in the Anglican Church as an infant, then dipped 'properly' at age 19.)

Thanks for the link for further reading.

This is where you are mistaken, for when we are baptizing a convert who may have been "baptized" in another faith, we are baptizing them because we do not consider their first "baptism" valid. I put it in quotes because if the Church doesn't consider it valid, it wasn't a true baptism. Therefore it's like they weren't baptized at all.

As I stated before, it is only out of oikonomia that the Church will consider a baptism performed in another faith acceptable. It is through the prayers and through the sacrament of holy Chrism that the baptism that was performed in another faith is made whole and "valid."

Where I see you and a lot of Protestants tripping up is that you are taking out particular points and examining them without looking at the whole. This goes back to my analogy with Sola Scriptura of the house and the furniture. We do not see elements of the faith singularly and as one piece, but as one part of a whole. If you take anything out of context of the life of the church, it lacks meaning.

It's almost like looking at an oil filter for a car and saying "well this means nothing to me." If you don't understand how it is critical to the operation of the vehicle, of course it would mean nothing to you.

Baptism is the gate that opens us to receiving not only salvation, but the other sacraments within the Church that are healing and life giving. A parent does not have their infant baptized just for the sake of baptism alone. They have their child baptized so that they may receive salvation and be able to participate in the full life of the Church.

Life of the Church is Life itself.

One is not just Orthodox for an hour and a half on Sunday morning.

They are Orthodox 365 days a year.

Every day of the week has meaning; every day of the week has an element to it that makes up the entire life of the Church.

To scrutinize and analyze these elements without understanding how they fit into the bigger picture loses value.

It's the same thing with the Bible. When we take the scriptures, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and Holy Tradition out of context, they all lose meaning. You have to understand them as a whole in order to understand how they work as individual parts.

I hope this helps.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #158 on: January 25, 2009, 05:59:34 PM »

Here is an excellent article on the matter from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America

This is a very good article, and I have read Bajis on other matters too. I think my own position has softened over the years, recently perhaps partly because some replies on this thread give well-reasoned, articulate arguments for the practice of infant baptism, showing that it is both sincere and reasonable, and not mere superstition or magic as has, no doubt, been said.

Interestingly (unless I missed it) Bajis does not give another cogent argument - so here I am offering 'ammunition' to the 'other side' (not that I view you as such). I and others have often noticed that over the time we Protestants are involved in, namely, say, the past 500 years, it is mainly pædobaptists whom God has signally used when he has worked in power to the honour of his name. Back to the Latter Rain analogy of another thread: in Britain and Germany, all the great revivals and the Reformation itself before them have been through the instrumentality of pædobaptists (the Calvinistic Methodists and Primitive Methodists in the 19th century; the Wesleyans and other Anglicans in the 18th; Lutheran Pietists in 18th century Germany; Luther &c). This is not in itself an argument for infant baptism; but it most certainly (to a Protestant) shows that the practice is not one which is an obstacle to God's deepest and most powerful and sustained involvement.

I do not think you have established that our normal practice of baptising only believers I (not necessarily adults) "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is wrong, and unacceptable to God - and indeed, using the argument of the previous paragraph, there is no doubt in my mind that God has also been pleased to use certain Baptists, Brethren and Pentecostals in the course of his work. But His favour resting so publicly on so many pædobaptists must count for something in the debate.

There! I have added a paragraph to Bajis's excellent piece of writing.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #159 on: January 27, 2009, 10:33:39 PM »

This is a very good article, and I have read Bajis on other matters too. I think my own position has softened over the years, recently perhaps partly because some replies on this thread give well-reasoned, articulate arguments for the practice of infant baptism, showing that it is both sincere and reasonable, and not mere superstition or magic as has, no doubt, been said.

Interestingly (unless I missed it) Bajis does not give another cogent argument - so here I am offering 'ammunition' to the 'other side' (not that I view you as such). I and others have often noticed that over the time we Protestants are involved in, namely, say, the past 500 years, it is mainly pædobaptists whom God has signally used when he has worked in power to the honour of his name. Back to the Latter Rain analogy of another thread: in Britain and Germany, all the great revivals and the Reformation itself before them have been through the instrumentality of pædobaptists (the Calvinistic Methodists and Primitive Methodists in the 19th century; the Wesleyans and other Anglicans in the 18th; Lutheran Pietists in 18th century Germany; Luther &c). This is not in itself an argument for infant baptism; but it most certainly (to a Protestant) shows that the practice is not one which is an obstacle to God's deepest and most powerful and sustained involvement.

I do not think you have established that our normal practice of baptising only believers I (not necessarily adults) "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is wrong, and unacceptable to God - and indeed, using the argument of the previous paragraph, there is no doubt in my mind that God has also been pleased to use certain Baptists, Brethren and Pentecostals in the course of his work. But His favour resting so publicly on so many pædobaptists must count for something in the debate.

There! I have added a paragraph to Bajis's excellent piece of writing.


I am glad that you enjoyed the article. I would be hesitant to use the arguement that "since lots of people were blessed, the practice must be right." Just because something has a following doesn't make it right. This can be used for both sides of the arguement.

Black Sabbath has a huge following, and has influenced many bands. I would hardly call that the work of God though.

Again you are missing the importance of infant baptism because you are taking it out of context. If we were to delay the baptism of our children, we would also be delaying their ability to receive all of the other sacraments. Furthermore, we are jeopardizing their salvation. God forbid the child dies before he is baptized!

I know many in the Protestant faith who are not baptized until they are well into their teens or twenties. What would happen if they were ill, or killed in a car accident, or worse?!

You have to keep things in context in order to truly understand their importance. To knowingly jeoparize someone's salvation, that's a horrible sin. To knowingly prevent them from receiving the other sacraments is also horrible.

How can you justify that?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #160 on: January 28, 2009, 06:27:16 PM »

I would be hesitant to use the arguement that "since lots of people were blessed, the practice must be right."

I would never use such an argument either! What I meant was that God's blessing has been so manifest among pædobaptists for so many centuries that it cannot be so wrong as to move him to withhold his blessing. I am not for a moment saying it doesn't matter whether we get it right or wrong; it matters very much that each of us strive to know and fulfil the will of God. But pædo- or infant doesn't seem to matter so much to God that he won't move and work among us both.

Quote
you are missing the importance of infant baptism ... If we were to delay the baptism of our children, ... we are jeopardizing their salvation.

No no: I don't agree with you (otherwise I wouldn't remain a Baptist), but I do understand your motivation and the theology behind it, and respect you for doing what you believe is right.

Quote
I know many in the Protestant faith who are not baptized until they are well into their teens or twenties.

...or sometimes 80s or 90s (but I suspect then we might pour rather than immerse).

By the way, as you know I was baptised in 1966, when I was 19. I phoned an elderly man - even older than me! - at the Brethren hall where I was dipped, and I inquired what formula they use. He was attending the same hall back in '66 and he assures me they have always used only the trinitarian formula which you use. So at least you should be able to view me as a baptised person, having been 'done' twice (first as an infant in the Anglican church) with the formula you insist on. That's not a debating point - just a matter of interest.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #161 on: January 28, 2009, 09:52:13 PM »

I understand that you don't agree with me, but you haven't provided proof as to how what I stated was un-Biblical or wrong.

As the Gospel of John tells us, Christ clearly stated to his followers "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:5-6

Christ found Baptism to be so important, that the one commandment he gave to his Disciples when telling them to go out and evangelize was to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19) So obviously belief in Christ alone wasn't enough; baptism was also a requirement.

Having said that, how can you justify risking a person's salvation by postponing their baptism?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #162 on: January 29, 2009, 06:52:32 AM »

you haven't provided proof as to how what I stated was un-Biblical or wrong.

There are two matters:

- who should be baptised?
- what is the meaning of baptism?

I have tried to address both matters, but let me try again. We believe that only believers should be baptised because those are the only people who are specifically recorded in scripture as being baptised. I have read the excellent article by Jordan Bajis, plus these posts, and I appreciate your arguments for infant baptism; indeed, I have even added a further pointer to Bajis' article, albeit qualified. But all your arguments fail to get quite as far as we need, which is an actual example of an infant being baptised in the biblical record. Therefore we do not do it.

I also wrote that I think we have both got it a bit wrong, because we both separate what should be joined, namely baptism and belief. You baptise probably at least seven years or so before faith dawns; we delay baptism till some time after faith has dawned in the heart. Now we can both adduce reasons for what we do. You have pointed me to your reasons. In re ours, an example would be what happened in Albania in 1991. Here was a population which had been 20% Orthodox 50 years previously and retained only the dimmest idea of what Christianity and baptism were all about. When preachers went, masses of people wanted to be baptised, and I have a photo of it being done in a lake in the capital, Tirana. It has been computed that there have been so many "conversions" that everyone in Albania has become a Christian three times! It is obvious that the people responding had had too little teaching before being dipped, and little understanding of what becoming a Christian involves. Our missionary and I took no part, but deliberately went south to Korcha where there was a pre-War Evangelical church with whom we work.

So we delay, to try to ensure people are understanding the significance of the step they are taking. A commendable motive (as is yours of not risking an infant's salvation).

But the fact remains that in scripture conversion and baptism were, as far as possible, simultaneous parts of the same event. In their meaning they belong together: you and we both separate them, and it seems to me that we both have part of the truth (don't tell me you disagree: I know  you do!). The challenge is to reunite what God joined.

Quote
how can you justify risking a person's salvation by postponing their baptism?

Look at it rather like this: would you want us to baptise people just in case your doctrine of baptism is the correct one - without really believing it? We don't hold baptismal regeneration - though, as I just said, baptism and regeneration do belong together. But regeneration (or, if you like, salvation) comes by faith (we believe), not ex opere operato.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,200


WWW
« Reply #163 on: January 29, 2009, 06:41:37 PM »

But all your arguments fail to get quite as far as we need, which is an actual example of an infant being baptised in the biblical record. Therefore we do not do it.

The Kings of Israel were anointed by Prophets and Priests with Holy Oil and you surely do not anoint anyone with Holy Oil - there's a record of something in Scripture where your founders deliberately chose to exclude.  How convenient to say that infants are not baptized because there is no instance of infant baptism in the Bible, so say your founders.   Huh

I also wrote that I think we have both got it a bit wrong, because we both separate what should be joined, namely baptism and belief. You baptise probably at least seven years or so before faith dawns; we delay baptism till some time after faith has dawned in the heart.

Some of the Kings of Israel were anointed as small children - was this the precedence your founders used?

Now we can both adduce reasons for what we do. You have pointed me to your reasons. In re ours, an example would be what happened in Albania in 1991. Here was a population which had been 20% Orthodox 50 years previously and retained only the dimmest idea of what Christianity and baptism were all about. When preachers went, masses of people wanted to be baptised, and I have a photo of it being done in a lake in the capital, Tirana. It has been computed that there have been so many "conversions" that everyone in Albania has become a Christian three times! It is obvious that the people responding had had too little teaching before being dipped, and little understanding of what becoming a Christian involves. Our missionary and I took no part, but deliberately went south to Korcha where there was a pre-War Evangelical church with whom we work.

I wouldn't say that each Albanian has been Baptized 3 times by all kinds of missionaries - some knew better.   Roll Eyes

Look at it rather like this: would you want us to baptise people just in case your doctrine of baptism is the correct one - without really believing it? We don't hold baptismal regeneration - though, as I just said, baptism and regeneration do belong together. But regeneration (or, if you like, salvation) comes by faith (we believe), not ex opere operato.

Why did John the Baptist baptize and think back to what I said earlier about the Kings of Israel being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #164 on: January 29, 2009, 10:06:00 PM »

I would be hesitant to use the arguement that "since lots of people were blessed, the practice must be right."

I would never use such an argument either! What I meant was that God's blessing has been so manifest among pædobaptists for so many centuries that it cannot be so wrong as to move him to withhold his blessing. I am not for a moment saying it doesn't matter whether we get it right or wrong; it matters very much that each of us strive to know and fulfil the will of God. But pædo- or infant doesn't seem to matter so much to God that he won't move and work among us both.

Quote
you are missing the importance of infant baptism ... If we were to delay the baptism of our children, ... we are jeopardizing their salvation.

No no: I don't agree with you (otherwise I wouldn't remain a Baptist), but I do understand your motivation and the theology behind it, and respect you for doing what you believe is right.

Quote
I know many in the Protestant faith who are not baptized until they are well into their teens or twenties.

...or sometimes 80s or 90s (but I suspect then we might pour rather than immerse).

By the way, as you know I was baptised in 1966, when I was 19. I phoned an elderly man - even older than me! - at the Brethren hall where I was dipped, and I inquired what formula they use. He was attending the same hall back in '66 and he assures me they have always used only the trinitarian formula which you use. So at least you should be able to view me as a baptised person, having been 'done' twice (first as an infant in the Anglican church) with the formula you insist on. That's not a debating point - just a matter of interest.
You could be dipped a million times, with the same formula, but that doesn't make it bonified.  The JW's baptize with the right formula, but all you get is wet.

That's the same mentality with vagrantis collecting "lines" of succession.  A million bad ones doesn't make it apostolic.  Either one good one (or rather three, you need three bishops to ordain) suffices, or a million doesn't.

Look at it rather like this: would you want us to baptise people just in case your doctrine of baptism is the correct one - without really believing it? We don't hold baptismal regeneration - though, as I just said, baptism and regeneration do belong together. But regeneration (or, if you like, salvation) comes by faith (we believe), not ex opere operato.

Why did John the Baptist baptize and think back to what I said earlier about the Kings of Israel being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?...

More to the point: what difference is between the baptist's "baptism" and John the Baptist's baptism?  Because the Bible is quite clear that there was a difference between the Church's baptism and St. John's.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 10:09:06 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #165 on: January 30, 2009, 06:02:20 AM »

The JW's baptize with the right formula,

I don't know much about them, but are you sure they baptise people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?

Quote
what difference is between the baptist's "baptism" and John the Baptist's baptism? 

I suspect you mean, not what is the difference, but what do we unenlightened Baptists fondly imagine is the difference? Of course, I would hope the two are the same!  Wink

I think Acts 19.3-5 points us in the right direction: John's was a baptism only of repentance, vastly significant though that was in their lives, whereas Paul baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (note the formula, by the way), because they now "believe in the one who was to come after John, that is, Jesus."
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 06:03:16 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #166 on: January 30, 2009, 08:37:47 AM »

The JW's baptize with the right formula,

I don't know much about them, but are you sure they baptise people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?

Up to 1985: you could ask them why they baptised in the name of God, an angel and an "impersonal force" (refering to their teachings on the Persons of the Trinity).  I've heard that they've instituted some changes since then, but I'm not sure of the specifics.

Quote
what difference is between the baptist's "baptism" and John the Baptist's baptism? 

Quote
I suspect you mean, not what is the difference, but what do we unenlightened Baptists fondly imagine is the difference? Of course, I would hope the two are the same!  Wink

Now, why would you wish that, as St. John himself noted the deficiency of a baptism of repentance? Matthew 3:11.

Quote
I think Acts 19.3-5 points us in the right direction: John's was a baptism only of repentance, vastly significant though that was in their lives, whereas Paul baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (note the formula, by the way)

Verses 1-2 give the formula: St. Paul makes it clear that the formula includes mention of the Holy Spirit, as indeed it does Matthew 28:19.  Verse 5 is a citation to authority.  Note also the distinction between the Spirit in baptism and the grace of the Spirit given in chrismation in verse 6.

,
Quote
because they now "believe in the one who was to come after John, that is, Jesus."

Problem is that St. Paul found them Christians, v. 1, Acts 11:26.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #167 on: January 31, 2009, 02:40:24 PM »

Quote
what difference is between the baptist's "baptism" and John the Baptist's baptism? 

Quote
I suspect you mean, not what is the difference, but what do we unenlightened Baptists fondly imagine is the difference? Of course, I would hope the two are the same!  Wink

Now, why would you wish that, as St. John himself noted the deficiency of a baptism of repentance? Matthew 3:11.

 Embarrassed No no! Not the two baptisms, the two differences! Now you really will think I'm a heretic!

(I meant the real difference between the two baptisms, and the Baptist-imagined difference between them are, I hope, the same difference: i.e. we've correctly understood the difference between them. But to use GreekChef's phrase, I fear I am becoming as clear as mud now.)
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,200


WWW
« Reply #168 on: January 31, 2009, 02:48:34 PM »

Quote
what difference is between the baptist's "baptism" and John the Baptist's baptism? 

Quote
I suspect you mean, not what is the difference, but what do we unenlightened Baptists fondly imagine is the difference? Of course, I would hope the two are the same!  Wink

Now, why would you wish that, as St. John himself noted the deficiency of a baptism of repentance? Matthew 3:11.

 Embarrassed No no! Not the two baptisms, the two differences! Now you really will think I'm a heretic!

(I meant the real difference between the two baptisms, and the Baptist-imagined difference between them are, I hope, the same difference: i.e. we've correctly understood the difference between them. But to use GreekChef's phrase, I fear I am becoming as clear as mud now.)

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question that I asked in Reply #163 (taps thumbs in anticipation of answer).   Wink
Logged
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,768


2012


« Reply #169 on: February 01, 2009, 04:57:22 AM »

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question that I asked in Reply #163 (taps thumbs in anticipation of answer).   

You must mean this question: Why did John the Baptist baptize and think back to what I said earlier about the Kings of Israel being anointed by Holy Oil regardless of age?

I can't quite grasp your line of thought. Sorry. Anointing people for kingship within the people of Israel, and John the Baptist baptising them with a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, doesn't seem very closely connected. But maybe I am failing to understand your question. Please be patient with me and try again.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,405


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #170 on: February 02, 2009, 12:54:57 PM »

Is every Baptism in the Protestant world a Believer's Baptism?
You think the Protestant world is that monolithic?  Lutherans baptize infants, as do some Calvinists, I believe.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 12:57:04 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #171 on: February 02, 2009, 01:04:29 PM »

Is every Baptism in the Protestant world a Believer's Baptism?
You think the Protestant world is that monolithic?  Lutherans baptize infants, as do some Calvinists, I believe.

Would to God that it were.  Grin

and those paseo-Calvinists you speak of are probably the Presbyterians.


Personally, I accept no other "baptism" as valid that is not immersion and is not a believer's baptism.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #172 on: February 02, 2009, 05:33:00 PM »

The discussion about anointing oil, Chrismation, and the Holy Spirit has been given its own thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19518.0.html
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #173 on: February 02, 2009, 10:40:38 PM »

Is every Baptism in the Protestant world a Believer's Baptism?
You think the Protestant world is that monolithic?  Lutherans baptize infants, as do some Calvinists, I believe.

Would to God that it were.  Grin

and those paseo-Calvinists you speak of are probably the Presbyterians.


Personally, I accept no other "baptism" as valid that is not immersion and is not a believer's baptism.

LOL.

Is anyone baptized in your name?

How does your personal opinion account for anything? no offense intended
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #174 on: February 02, 2009, 10:59:16 PM »

Is every Baptism in the Protestant world a Believer's Baptism?
You think the Protestant world is that monolithic?  Lutherans baptize infants, as do some Calvinists, I believe.

Would to God that it were.  Grin

and those paseo-Calvinists you speak of are probably the Presbyterians.


Personally, I accept no other "baptism" as valid that is not immersion and is not a believer's baptism.

Cleopas,  many Church Fathers speak in great depth about the dangers of the use of  the " 'I' and 'me'" and the soul destroying pride attached to it. Its a reoccurring theme amongst your posts.

Please don't be offended by my post but your soul is in some serious danger and its not too late to rectify the situation

Maybe you should do some research into it. You have nothing to lose but everything to gain.  Smiley

In Christ



 

Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #175 on: February 02, 2009, 11:07:42 PM »

Dear ones,

Thank you for the concern. I am fully aware of the dangers of pride and self importance. I do not believe that I think more highly of myself than I ought. I understand that I am to take heed when I think I stand, lest I should fall. I examine myself from time to time to make sure I am in the faith.

My reference to myself here is not one of pride, but rather of distinction. For instance, other protestants may not agree with me, particualrly here at OC.net that would most likely refer to David Young. By saying what I believe, understand, accept, or think I am trying not to lump other fellow protestants in with me by default. I can't speak for them. I can only speak for me.

Also, often it is an attempt to not appear overly authoritative -- a way to acknoweldge I believe something but I, as a mere man, am certainly suseptible to error. That is to say, I don't want to come across as a know it all, or as saying "you must conform to my understading." Why? because in the final analysis God it true, and all men are liars.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 11:09:00 PM by Cleopas » Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #176 on: February 02, 2009, 11:11:36 PM »


LOL.

Is anyone baptized in your name?

How does your personal opinion account for anything? no offense intended

 laugh Tongue  Well, what I was trying to convey was that from an typical evangelical perspective only believer's immersion is biblically a valid baptism. All else, as we understand it (and thus as I understand it) is falsely so called.
Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #177 on: February 02, 2009, 11:31:56 PM »


LOL.

Is anyone baptized in your name?

How does your personal opinion account for anything? no offense intended

 laugh Tongue  Well, what I was trying to convey was that from an typical evangelical perspective only believer's immersion is biblically a valid baptism. All else, as we understand it (and thus as I understand it) is falsely so called.

Speaking of biblically valid baptism, besides St. Ananias (we can talk about his case), can you point to someone baptisizing in the Bible without receiving authority from the Church from the laying on of hands?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 11:32:43 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cleopas
Bible Thumping, Tongue Talking, Faith Walking Christian
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Charismatic Evangelical
Posts: 445


If I'm my own Pope then I claim infalliablity. Ha!

perfecthart
WWW
« Reply #178 on: February 03, 2009, 12:14:35 AM »

Speaking of biblically valid baptism, besides St. Ananias (we can talk about his case), can you point to someone baptisizing in the Bible without receiving authority from the Church from the laying on of hands?

Well, I shall have to give it a look, but nothing comes to mind for or against really (other than Ananias).

That said, I'm not sure such an insistance on "laying of hands" is as pertinent as it may seem when one considers the words of the Apostle Paul...

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


Logged

Cleopas
Christopher Hart

"Every one, though born of God in an instant, yet undoubtedly grows by slow degrees” -- John Wesley
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #179 on: February 03, 2009, 12:28:04 AM »

Speaking of biblically valid baptism, besides St. Ananias (we can talk about his case), can you point to someone baptisizing in the Bible without receiving authority from the Church from the laying on of hands?

Well, I shall have to give it a look, but nothing comes to mind for or against really (other than Ananias).

That said, I'm not sure such an insistance on "laying of hands" is as pertinent as it may seem when one considers the words of the Apostle Paul...

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.




But we do know he baptized, e.g. I Cor. 1:14,16, and he had received his authority from the Church Acts 13:3. Bishops can baptize, must mostly he delegates that.  As St. Ignatius writes, no baptism is valid without the bishop, or his delegate.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: baptism ecclesiology infant baptism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 73 queries.