Topic: Christian Unity

[ialmisry]

What's nonsense is that you choose to ignore the "huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists...

I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying there is mystery here. Is not the savouring of, and space for, mystery one of the strong points of Orthodoxy, in contrast with western Christianity which likes all questions answered and no loose ends? Do you not make a point of delighting in apophatic theology?  So why is it nonsense when I say that there is a mystery, a riddle, an unanswered paradox, in my faith? Would you really prefer me to say I have all the answers, and have no questions left?

God can most certainly, and does, work outside our parameters. But He is God - and we are not.

Which is what I am saying.

We cannot say ... whether or not Christ is present in your memorial service but as I understand Baptist theology, you are the ones who believe that it is merely a memorial service

There are Protestants who hold that view. It is usually ascribed to Zwingli rather than to Baptists, though many Baptists hold it too. The Baptist Confession of Faith states:

The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine...  Worthy receivers ... also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon Christ curcified and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance.

Now I realise this is short of what you believe: but it is also a good deal more than "merely a memorial service".

Gnostic communion. Not much of an improvement from our POV.

He may be in some sense present but certainly not His Body and Blood.

Now I think you are going beyond what is possible. You are saying that Christ is present in his body and blood only if people have the correct dogma regarding the Supper, regardless of their true repentance for sin, and their true faith in the ransom paid at Calvary on which they meditate at the Supper. Can you really be sure that Christ would withhold his presence, simply because it was mistakenly understood? It is you who call the Supper the Holy Mysteries; if your view of his presence is the correct one, then you should allow space for this mystery, that he deigns to be present even where things are imperfectly understood.

The problem is that even allowing the possibility, we must err on the side of caution.

[David Young]

Blessed in what sense? 

A good question. I have in mind the gift of salvation, repentance for sin wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost, the new birth by faith, a sustained desire for growth in holiness and conformity to Christ - and all of this centred on the Person and work of Christ. But more - when I wrote of men being mightily used or blessed by God, I had in mind those to whom he has given the privilege of being used in bringing many people to such faith and experience

[David Young]

we must err on the side of caution.

Of course you must. Again you are saying the same as I am. We believe that baptism should be performed only on profession of faith, and must 'err on the side of caution' even though we see the abundant grace of God working so wonderfully among pædobaptists. It would be an act of grave folly or indeed presumption for either you or us to do other than to 'err on the side of caution'. We must all practise what we sincerely believe, for it is somewhere written that whatever is not of faith (or conviction) is sin. But we must also be like Barnabas of whom it is written that "when he saw the grace of God, he was glad." Similarly I am glad that God has used, and continues to use, the words of women preachers; but I cannot set aside the biblical prohibition of women preaching and exercising authority in the church, and thus admit a woman preacher to my church (that is, should I again move into pastoral oversight).

And now it's bedtime in Wales, and I must wish y'all sweet and refreshing rest.

[katherineofdixie]

What's nonsense is that you choose to ignore the "huge majority of men God has mightily used in the past have been pædobaptists...

I'm not ignoring them, I'm saying there is mystery here. Is not the savouring of, and space for, mystery one of the strong points of Orthodoxy, in contrast with western Christianity which likes all questions answered and no loose ends? Do you not make a point of delighting in apophatic theology?  So why is it nonsense when I say that there is a mystery, a riddle, an unanswered paradox, in my faith?

David, honey, it's not a mystery, a riddle or an unanswered paradox - it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism. It's only a mystery, riddle, paradox to folks of the Anabaptist tradition because they cling so tenaciously to the concept of only "believer's baptism."

[katherineofdixie]

Now I think you are going beyond what is possible. You are saying that Christ is present in his body and blood only if people have the correct dogma regarding the Supper, regardless of their true repentance for sin, and their true faith in the ransom paid at Calvary on which they meditate at the Supper. Can you really be sure that Christ would withhold his presence, simply because it was mistakenly understood? It is you who call the Supper the Holy Mysteries; if your view of his presence is the correct one, then you should allow space for this mystery, that he deigns to be present even where things are imperfectly understood.

No that's not what I'm saying - I'm saying that's what Baptists believe. They do not believe that the Lord's Supper is His Body and Blood. They do not believe that they receive grace or anything really by participating.

According to my understanding, though I'm certainly no expert, Baptists do not recognize the Lord's Supper as a sacrament because it is symbolic and there is no grace to those who receive it. In the Lord's Supper, Baptists believe that they are remembering Christ and all that He has done for us in his life, death and resurrection.

[Ortho_cat]

Now I think you are going beyond what is possible. You are saying that Christ is present in his body and blood only if people have the correct dogma regarding the Supper, regardless of their true repentance for sin, and their true faith in the ransom paid at Calvary on which they meditate at the Supper. Can you really be sure that Christ would withhold his presence, simply because it was mistakenly understood? It is you who call the Supper the Holy Mysteries; if your view of his presence is the correct one, then you should allow space for this mystery, that he deigns to be present even where things are imperfectly understood.

Here I think we can apply the standard Orthodox rule: we can say where the body of Christ is, but we cannot say where He is not. I would like to draw attention to one particular verse regarding the matter, however:

1 Cor. 11:29-30

"For the one who is eating and drinking unworthily (or, in a careless manner), eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning (or, correctly judging) the body of the Lord. For this reason, many among you are sick and ill, and many have fallen asleep (have died). For if we had discerned ourselves, we would not have been judged.

This verse seems to demonstrate that not discerning the body of the Lord within the eucharist while partaking thereof could actually be dangerous! This is one of the reasons why Orthodox practice closed communion. We know what we have, and we safeguard it.

[David Young]

it's not a mystery ... it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism.

If what you say is true, then you are only creating the opposite mystery. The enormous surge in Christianity currently taking place in the world, especially in the southern hemisphere, is largely being experienced by Pentecostals, Baptists and Evangelicals holding believers' baptism. To such an extent that one hears of articles with titles like, "Is Brazil turning Protestant?"

One can only say (I think) that for reasons hidden in the mind of God, he is more than willing to bless both. We must (both you and we) practise only what we believe to be right, for if we do something believing it is wrong, then if I understand Corinthians aright, for us it is wrong (even if for others it is not). So ialmisry is right when he says that a convinced Orthodox must bring his infants for baptism if he is to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. But the mystery I stated does remain: why is God so abundantly willing to bless both parties? (I am not expecting an answer, otherwise I would not be calling it a divine mystery.)

[David Young]

Baptists ... do not believe that the Lord's Supper is His Body and Blood.

True

They do not believe that they receive grace or anything really

Not true.

Baptists do not recognize the Lord's Supper as a sacrament

Half true: some Baptists do not believe in the sacramental nature of the Supper, others do. I do, my pastor does; one of my best friends doesn't. You'd have to discuss with a 'bare memorialist' why he believes what he does.

because it is symbolic

This is a false dichotomy: something can be symbolic and convey sacramental effect concurrently.

and there is no grace to those who receive it.

I do not recall ever hearing any Evangelical say that: it is definitely viewed as a 'means of grace'.

Baptists believe that they are remembering Christ and all that He has done for us in his life, death and resurrection.

Again, this is a false dichotomy: remembering his death in the Supper, which is certainly one aspect of it ("Do this in remembrance of me") does not exclude sacramental working.

[LBK]

it's not a mystery ... it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism.

If what you say is true, then you are only creating the opposite mystery. The enormous surge in Christianity currently taking place in the world, especially in the southern hemisphere, is largely being experienced by Pentecostals, Baptists and Evangelicals holding believers' baptism. To such an extent that one hears of articles with titles like, "Is Brazil turning Protestant?"

One can only say (I think) that for reasons hidden in the mind of God, he is more than willing to bless both. We must (both you and we) practise only what we believe to be right, for if we do something believing it is wrong, then if I understand Corinthians aright, for us it is wrong (even if for others it is not). So ialmisry is right when he says that a convinced Orthodox must bring his infants for baptism if he is to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. But the mystery I stated does remain: why is God so abundantly willing to bless both parties? (I am not expecting an answer, otherwise I would not be calling it a divine mystery.)

But how long do these protestant denominations last? They only continue to fragment further and further, as close to three hundred years of history clearly show. Many last no more than a generation or two. Yet Orthodoxy remains, intact and with complete doctrinal. theological and sacramental integrity, after more than 2000 years. Coincidence?

[Marc1152]

it's not a mystery ... it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism.

If what you say is true, then you are only creating the opposite mystery. The enormous surge in Christianity currently taking place in the world, especially in the southern hemisphere, is largely being experienced by Pentecostals, Baptists and Evangelicals holding believers' baptism. To such an extent that one hears of articles with titles like, "Is Brazil turning Protestant?"

One can only say (I think) that for reasons hidden in the mind of God, he is more than willing to bless both. We must (both you and we) practise only what we believe to be right, for if we do something believing it is wrong, then if I understand Corinthians aright, for us it is wrong (even if for others it is not). So ialmisry is right when he says that a convinced Orthodox must bring his infants for baptism if he is to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. But the mystery I stated does remain: why is God so abundantly willing to bless both parties? (I am not expecting an answer, otherwise I would not be calling it a divine mystery.)

But how long do these protestant denominations last? They only continue to fragment further and further, as close to three hundred years of history clearly show. Many last no more than a generation or two. Yet Orthodoxy remains, intact and with complete doctrinal. theological and sacramental integrity, after more than 2000 years. Coincidence?

There is a Mega Church down the road from me with thousands of members. They too preach that their members are abundantly blessed and receive all kinds of benefits from membership, therefore their doctrine must be correct. Christian Science has a small Church around here too. They say the proof of their doctrine is the abundant blessings of health and welfare that their members get. Not too far away the Buddhists say they can prove to you that their religion is best if you just try it for a 90 day test period and find that many of your personal problems clear up.

The central Truth of Christianity is not you and your own whims or your success or the idea's you bring to Christianity. The Central Truth is what God offers to you and your humble acceptance. We tend to believe that you are the one who should conform youself to Christianity , not Christianity conforming to you. Success is not measured by how many nominal converts you can sucker into the pews.

[David Young]

The central Truth of Christianity is not you and your own whims or your success or the idea's you bring to Christianity. The Central Truth is what God offers to you and your humble acceptance... conform youself to Christianity , not Christianity conforming to you. Success is not measured by how many nominal converts you can sucker into the pews.

I agree 100%.

[ialmisry]

it's not a mystery ... it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism.

If what you say is true, then you are only creating the opposite mystery. The enormous surge in Christianity currently taking place in the world, especially in the southern hemisphere, is largely being experienced by Pentecostals, Baptists and Evangelicals holding believers' baptism. To such an extent that one hears of articles with titles like, "Is Brazil turning Protestant?"

I once saw a documentary of that sort, where it was abundantly clear that the Pentacostals/Evangelicals worship a Great SUgar Daddy: there "service" was almost entirely a litany of each person saying "I want....please give me....."

If Protestantism can get rid of Candomblé et alia, fine. But there doesn't seem to be much of a difference.

One can only say (I think) that for reasons hidden in the mind of God, he is more than willing to bless both. We must (both you and we) practise only what we believe to be right, for if we do something believing it is wrong, then if I understand Corinthians aright, for us it is wrong (even if for others it is not). So ialmisry is right when he says that a convinced Orthodox must bring his infants for baptism if he is to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. But the mystery I stated does remain: why is God so abundantly willing to bless both parties? (I am not expecting an answer, otherwise I would not be calling it a divine mystery.)

Matthew 5:45

[katherineofdixie]

it's not a mystery ... it is what the Church has believed, preached, taught and practiced for centuries. All the great men of faith that you mention and admire believed in the historic understanding of baptism.

If what you say is true, then you are only creating the opposite mystery. The enormous surge in Christianity currently taking place in the world, especially in the southern hemisphere, is largely being experienced by Pentecostals, Baptists and Evangelicals holding believers' baptism. To such an extent that one hears of articles with titles like, "Is Brazil turning Protestant?"

One can only say (I think) that for reasons hidden in the mind of God, he is more than willing to bless both. We must (both you and we) practise only what we believe to be right, for if we do something believing it is wrong, then if I understand Corinthians aright, for us it is wrong (even if for others it is not). So ialmisry is right when he says that a convinced Orthodox must bring his infants for baptism if he is to maintain a clear conscience before God and man. But the mystery I stated does remain: why is God so abundantly willing to bless both parties? (I am not expecting an answer, otherwise I would not be calling it a divine mystery.)

Yet I believe that Islam is the fastest growing religion, especially in Europe. So by your logic we should all become Muslim?

[Marc1152]

The central Truth of Christianity is not you and your own whims or your success or the idea's you bring to Christianity. The Central Truth is what God offers to you and your humble acceptance... conform youself to Christianity , not Christianity conforming to you. Success is not measured by how many nominal converts you can sucker into the pews.

I agree 100%.

Really? My reading of your posts indicates to me that you are proud that so many people have be taken from the Catholic Church and have become Protestants. I also detect that you hold personal beliefs to be what is most important. Maybe it's just my miss understanding.

I am also curious about your linking of what you call "Believers Baptism" with the success in Brazil ( and I assume other places) in making converts. I am not sure I understand the connection. As you must know by now, we also only Baptise adults who declare their faith and reject past errors. However we do not withhold Baptism from infants and children. Please explain if you get the time.

Thanks   

[David Young]

it was abundantly clear that the Pentacostals/Evangelicals worship a Great SUgar Daddy: there "service" was almost entirely a litany of each person saying "I want....please give me....."

But we deplore that kind of religion as heartily as you do. I confess to never having visited the southern hemisphere, and do not know first-hand the level of spirituality in the current surge of Christianity there. I am open to further information on that. But as regards TV documentaries, they tend (over here in Britain at least) to home in on the sensational or on that which would undermine true spirituality. They are interesting viewing, but I wouldn't place too much credence in the universality of what they report.

Matthew 5:45

Yes, but we're not talking about sun and rain - common grace; we are talking about the preaching of faith in Christ as Saviour and submission to him as Lord. Of course God's common grace is poured out on all in creation, regardless of faith, unbelief, goodness or wickedness. That has nothing to do with the matter I have called (to me at least) a mystery.

[David Young]

Islam is the fastest growing religion, especially in Europe. So by your logic we should all become Muslim?

Not so: for (1) how can you refer to my logic in a matter which I said is mysterious? and (2) you know as well as I do that Islam is not preaching faith in Christ and does not therefore command the blessing of God the Father nor of the Holy Spirit.

[David Young]

My reading of your posts indicates to me that:

1) you are proud that so many people have be taken from the Catholic Church and have become Protestants.
2) you hold personal beliefs to be what is most important.
3) your linking of what you call "Believers Baptism" with the success in Brazil ( and I assume other places) in making converts.

Please explain if you get the time. Thanks 

Wow! I obviously haven't expressed myself at all lucidly this time. My apologies. I shall indeed attempt to clarify, for how I come over is far from my meaning, in all three points you mention! Time is short these few days, no doubt for all of us, but I shall try not to forget. Gently prompt me if I seem to!

[katherineofdixie]

Islam is the fastest growing religion, especially in Europe. So by your logic we should all become Muslim?

Not so: for (1) how can you refer to my logic in a matter which I said is mysterious? and (2) you know as well as I do that Islam is not preaching faith in Christ and does not therefore command the blessing of God the Father nor of the Holy Spirit.

Well, your assertion seems to be that "believer's baptism" must be true, and God must be blessing it (rather than those who also practice infant baptism) because so many people are doing it. So using that criteria (if you don't like the word "logic") God must be blessing Islam, because it is growing so fast.

[David Young]

your assertion seems to be ...

Alas! Are we writing or reading too quickly over the Christmas period? I'll try again later. I really didn't mean that. Sorry.

[Marc1152]

My reading of your posts indicates to me that:

1) you are proud that so many people have be taken from the Catholic Church and have become Protestants.
2) you hold personal beliefs to be what is most important.
3) your linking of what you call "Believers Baptism" with the success in Brazil ( and I assume other places) in making converts.

Please explain if you get the time. Thanks

Wow! I obviously haven't expressed myself at all lucidly this time. My apologies. I shall indeed attempt to clarify, for how I come over is far from my meaning, in all three points you mention! Time is short these few days, no doubt for all of us, but I shall try not to forget. Gently prompt me if I seem to!

No problem... It seemed to me that you implying that the success of Brazilian Protestants was due to Believers Baptism. Or perhaps you were saying if Believers Baptism was so wrong, why has God caused so much success in taking people from Roman Catholicism.

[David Young]

Last night’s fall of snow has put the kybosh on walking on the Sandstone Ridge, so I have time to attempt to unravel the confusion I have caused. I hope I manage it to some extent at least!

I seem to have given four wrong impressions:

1) you are proud that so many people have be taken from the Catholic Church and have become Protestants.
2) you hold personal beliefs to be what is most important.
3) your linking of what you call "Believers Baptism" with the success in Brazil ( and I assume other places) in making converts, implying that the success of Brazilian Protestants was due to Believers Baptism
4) your assertion seems to be that "believer's baptism" must be true, and God must be blessing it (rather than those who also practice infant baptism).

It’s easier to start at #2. I think it is terribly important to hold orthodox Christian beliefs, most importantly of all concerning the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. There has always been room for variation within Protestantism on issues that are not considered central, and in those I think that what is most important is not personal beliefs in the head but the attitude of the heart towards God in Christ, especially repentance, faith, submission, obedience. One Orthodox poster wrote of Augustine’s reference to ‘non-essentials’, another (ialmisry, I think) wrote of the theolegoumena. So: adherence to essential orthodoxy; engagement of the heart through Christ with God the Father.

Regarding #3, the thing got started like this:

1) I wrote that I find a mystery in this (to me) seeming paradox, that the Bible teaches only believers’ baptism, but the vast majority of men God has used in bringing people to know Himself in Christ have been pædobaptists.
2) KatherineofDixie replied that I ought to perceive this as a clue to the rightness of infant baptism.
3) I replied that this argument doesn’t hold water, because these days the majority of people God is using to bring people to know Himself practise believers’ baptism. (I only have books and articles to go on, I have not personally visited these mainly southern-hemisphere places – but assuming the reports are true.) Therefore I said, God’s use of mainly pædobaptists in the past, and mainly credobaptists at present, cannot be taken as a clue in either direction.
4) Therefore, whichever is right, it seems God is prepared to wink at the other as perhaps less important than we take it to be. Here, to me, is a significant part of the mystery, for to both me and you baptism is of real importance.
5) Certainly success in evangelism cannot be ascribed to which form of baptism one believes in, as God has used, and still uses, people from both camps.

I think that answers #4 as well, as it seems to be essentially the same idea.

Now to the more troubling idea, namely #1. If I am proud of anything, I am wrong. God forbid. I assume that those Brazilians, SE Asians (and others) who are coming to know the Lord through the Pentecostal movement did not find him personally in their previous context. That is not something that makes me proud, but if people are being born again through faith in Christ, then I am of course glad and hope it will long continue.

Finally, and not directly linked with the confusion, was the post which pointed to the character of some religious movements which practise believers’ baptism, namely a “Sugar-Daddy” approach to God. Here I replied that we find this every bit as deplorable as you do, and we see it as a perversion of true religion. My guess – and it is no more than that – is that this kind of distortion finds its most eager reception in materialistic western societies (like America and Britain) and may not be part of what is happening in poorer countries; though even then I am aware that western missionaries may be spreading this deformed offspring of Protestantism. I almost never come across it first-hand, so I cannot comment from personal experience or knowledge.

[ialmisry]

it was abundantly clear that the Pentacostals/Evangelicals worship a Great SUgar Daddy: there "service" was almost entirely a litany of each person saying "I want....please give me....."

But we deplore that kind of religion as heartily as you do. I confess to never having visited the southern hemisphere, and do not know first-hand the level of spirituality in the current surge of Christianity there. I am open to further information on that. But as regards TV documentaries, they tend (over here in Britain at least) to home in on the sensational or on that which would undermine true spirituality. They are interesting viewing, but I wouldn't place too much credence in the universality of what they report.

I've seen/been to Pentacostal services.  This one was accurate.

Matthew 5:45

Yes, but we're not talking about sun and rain - common grace; we are talking about the preaching of faith in Christ as Saviour and submission to him as Lord. Of course God's common grace is poured out on all in creation, regardless of faith, unbelief, goodness or wickedness. That has nothing to do with the matter I have called (to me at least) a mystery.
[/quote]
And St. Paul talked about the mystery of Israel rejecting her Messiah, but that wasn't an endorsement of Judaism, and practically any Muslim will tell you that they are the true followers of 'Isa son of Maryam. I've had many an argument with Muslims who said the only difference with Christianity was the belief in Christ's rising from the dead, "but that's only a minor detail in Christianity."

Let's be clear: unless you are a member of Christ's Body, the Visible Church He built and which was transmitted by His Apostles and their appointed successors, you are not in submission to Him as Lord.  That is like "Catholics" who claim that they are faithful members of the Vatican church, but say that they do not have to obey the pope of Rome: you might be able to be "Old Catholic" and make that claim, but not a communicant of the "Roman Catholic Church."  Even odder is the sede vacatists on this issue.

So if Protestants prepare the way for the Orthodox Church, as it may have in this country among some Evangelicals, it is God's will.  If they destroy (or try to) as in Alask, it is not.  If the misssionaries in Eastern Europe refine the Orthodox by fire, it is good.  If it takes them and creates Protestant sects there, it is not. So it stands.

Islam is the fastest growing religion, especially in Europe. So by your logic we should all become Muslim?

Not so: for (1) how can you refer to my logic in a matter which I said is mysterious? and (2) you know as well as I do that Islam is not preaching faith in Christ and does not therefore command the blessing of God the Father nor of the Holy Spirit.

1) you are trying make the argument that this "mystery" means that the Orthodox must logically accept the Baptist movement in some way, 2) you presume that the Baptist faith is preaching Faith in Christ, that it has the command of God the Father, and can transmit the Holy Spirit. The Muslims claim that they are doing God's, and Christ's, will as well.  I remember having a Muslim patient who was seeing visions of Christ promising that everyone would be converted to Islam.  The vision of Christ guiding the convert to Islam is a familiar motif in Muslim conversion stories, real or made up.  The Muslims claim Christianity was corrupted once Christ had ascended.  So do you.  Explain the difference.

[David Young]

I've been to Pentacostal services.  This one was accurate.

So have I - many times. I was even invited (when a good deal younger) to work alongside the pastor in Ramsgate with a view to taking over from him when he retired. I have stayed the night with the pastor of Congleton, after speaking at his church, and listened to him bewail the spurious nature of a lot that goes on these days. It's easy enough to find examples which do not do credit to the real thing. Think of the Orthodox priest with whom I took coffee and raki, whose village I deliberately did not name, who only hopes that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God's character. I do not conclude that he is representative of Orthodoxy.

unless you are a member of Christ's Body, the Visible Church He built and which was transmitted by His Apostles and their appointed successors, you are not in submission to Him as Lord.  

I'd go along with that: but of course, our ecclesiology is different. We agree in the principle: we differ in the form in which it is worked out.

you are trying make the argument that this "mystery" means that the Orthodox must logically accept the Baptist movement in some way,

All I wrote was that God seems abundantly willing to bless both pædo- and credobaptists. You could turn your sentence round and say that I was saying that in some way Baptists must accept you. Perhaps I was: but you are still trying to make my statement that I find a mystery into some sort of conclusion (which of course would cancel the mystery - surely?).

you presume that the Baptist faith is preaching Faith in Christ, that it has the command of God the Father, and can transmit the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I am indeed: though I certainly did not say "only Baptists".

I decline to discuss Moslems, as I confess to knowing little about them.

[ialmisry]

I've been to Pentacostal services.  This one was accurate.

So have I - many times. I was even invited (when a good deal younger) to work alongside the pastor in Ramsgate with a view to taking over from him when he retired. I have stayed the night with the pastor of Congleton, after speaking at his church, and listened to him bewail the spurious nature of a lot that goes on these days. It's easy enough to find examples which do not do credit to the real thing. Think of the Orthodox priest with whom I took coffee and raki, whose village I deliberately did not name, who only hopes that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God's character. I do not conclude that he is representative of Orthodoxy.

I'd have to see what he said, without the filter of the Protestant idea of assurance, to know.  Hope is not a four letter word, despite being spelt with four letters.

unless you are a member of Christ's Body, the Visible Church He built and which was transmitted by His Apostles and their appointed successors, you are not in submission to Him as Lord.  

I'd go along with that: but of course, our ecclesiology is different. We agree in the principle: we differ in the form in which it is worked out.

No, the form is the principle: His Church is hiearchial by nature and substance, not by convention.

you are trying make the argument that this "mystery" means that the Orthodox must logically accept the Baptist movement in some way,

All I wrote was that God seems abundantly willing to bless both pædo- and credobaptists.

you remain vague on what that means: what do you claim He is blessing them with?

You could turn your sentence round and say that I was saying that in some way Baptists must accept you.

Other than them accepting Orthodoxy, their acceptance doesn't concern us a bit.

Perhaps I was: but you are still trying to make my statement that I find a mystery into some sort of conclusion (which of course would cancel the mystery - surely?).

Well it remains a mystery what "blessing" both infant baptizers and adult baptizers (does that include the Mormons and JW's btw?) share that say, the Muslims or Jews do not.

you presume that the Baptist faith is preaching Faith in Christ, that it has the command of God the Father, and can transmit the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I am indeed: though I certainly did not say "only Baptists".

That's irrelevant for our purposes: "any but the Orthodox."

I  decline to discuss Moslems, as I confess to knowing little about them.

Their claims are not as different from the ones you offer.

[David Young]

what do you claim He is blessing them with? ... it remains a mystery what "blessing" both infant baptizers and adult baptizers ... share that say, the Muslims or Jews do not.

Many books have been written about the blessings believers receive in Christ, and I suspect your question is to some extent rhetorical. However, here are a few to start the list: forgiveness of sin, peace with God, adoption into his family, the indwelling Holy Spirit, eternal life, the promise of a resurrection like Christ's, the providential care of a heavenly Father who clothes the lilies and knows about small details like sparrows and hairs... One could go on. I think you get the idea.

I excised your bit about Mormons and JWs, partly because I know little about them, and partly because they do not really come into a forum entitled Orthodox-Other Christian discussion.

[katherineofdixie]

I excised your bit about Mormons and JWs, partly because I know little about them, and partly because they do not really come into a forum entitled Orthodox-Other Christian discussion.

Well, they call themselves Christian and believe that they have corrected the errors of the past, so what is the difference between their claims and yours?

[Ortho_cat]

I excised your bit about Mormons and JWs, partly because I know little about them, and partly because they do not really come into a forum entitled Orthodox-Other Christian discussion.

Well, they call themselves Christian and believe that they have corrected the errors of the past, so what is the difference between their claims and yours?

Interesting point.

[ialmisry]

what do you claim He is blessing them with? ... it remains a mystery what "blessing" both infant baptizers and adult baptizers ... share that say, the Muslims or Jews do not.

Many books have been written about the blessings believers receive in Christ, and I suspect your question is to some extent rhetorical. However, here are a few to start the list: forgiveness of sin, peace with God, adoption into his family, the indwelling Holy Spirit, eternal life, the promise of a resurrection like Christ's, the providential care of a heavenly Father who clothes the lilies and knows about small details like sparrows and hairs... One could go on. I think you get the idea.

I have no assurance that Baptists receive any of the above, and, despite their claims otherwise, neither do the Baptists.

I excised your bit about Mormons and JWs, partly because I know little about them, and partly because they do not really come into a forum entitled Orthodox-Other Christian discussion.

Katherine has already answered.