I have probably been told this before, so please forgive me that I cannot remember the Orthodox answer. Given that: (1) the Orthodox do not believe in original sin, (2) you practice infant baptism, (3) babies have not committed any sin, and (4) you do not believe that baptism covers future sins, how is baptism the forgiveness of sins in Orthodoxy?
We believe that sacraments are accomplished by the Holy Spirit. They are not rituals.
But you use your free will to perform them. I can't possibly mean "ritual" in a pejorative sense, since we practice baptism (and the Lord's Supper) also. What does "ritual" mean to you?
To a Muslim or a Jew, the New Testament is "just a book." To you it's a word of God. To us a sacrament is grace; to you it is an empty ritual.
Rituals don't imply emptiness at all. We derive meaning from our rituals, albeit different from the meanings you take. I wouldn't call your rituals empty, my point was just that I don't think rituals are salvific, and I don't think the Bible teaches that they are. Faith is salvific. They are two different things. IOW, the Bible doesn't say we are saved by grace through ritual.
Don't try to be 'logical' when it comes to blind faith, FK. Any faith is a presumption.
Faith certainly involves being certain of what we do not see, but I do not think this means faith must be blind at all. While there are truths in Christianity that we accept without being able to fully explain, I think logic and reason can be found all over Christianity. When I read the red letters in my Bible I see a high order and consistency to it. Some things I did not see (understand) on a first reading, but then further logical explanation based on other scripture brought it back into focus. I really think the Bible was written so that we may understand to the fullest extent of God's intentions. Perhaps Reformers believe those intentions were comparatively higher.
[On Lev. 17:11] I thought the law was not salvific.
It isn't and it wasn't. Those laws were ceremonial, they literally saved no one, and the coming of Christ proved it. Only the blood of Christ was salvific. The OT righteous did not have the blood of Christ yet, in time, so the best they could do was "imitate" it with ceremony. After Christ, there was no more need for animal sacrifice. No one was ever saved because he followed the law.
FK: "Yes, the Law required rituals, but are we saved by rituals now? Do you think that the OT Jews were actually saved through rituals?"
The OT Jews did not feel a need to be saved. Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. The messianic era of Judaism a century or so before Christ was not seeking to 'save' individuals but to restore the Kingdom of Israel.
Well actually, my question was irrespective of what many Jews thought, I was referring to how it worked in truth.
But even in the way you took it, I don't think I can agree. A Savior is clearly prophesied, even if many wrongly interpreted what that meant. I believe the OT righteous knew it correctly. In addition, the OT Jews certainly believed in a need for atonement. What were they afraid of if they did not atone? Even among those who had it wrong, can't it be said that they felt a need for "salvation" through atonement?
If Moses says that burnt offerings atone for your sins, and +Paul says that faith makes you just before God, why should I believe +Paul any more than Moses?
The Bible says that both are telling the truth as revealed to them by God. Burnt offerings, and the like, were symbolic of what was to come. It was a preview of the real thing. Christ's revelation through Paul was a fulfillment.
I am absolutely certain that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
The last part of the finalized Nicene Creed, which we sing or recite at every Divine Liturgy says:
Baptism, however, is also a sacrament of adoption into the Church, that is to say the Body of Christ, where the infant can begin to participate in the life of the Church (we give Communion to infants and children without confession).
As to 'how' is Baptism forgiveness of sins, the NT is clear on that.
But you use your free will to perform them
Not we, the priest does. He has been given the keys, so to say, to call the Holy Spirit and petition Him to perform the Sacrament. Even some Protestant sects require 'ordination,' since not everyone was meant to be an apostle, prophet or a teacher.
But the priest never presumes that he has the 'right' to demand or to feel worthy of God's presence. As the Divine Liturgy enters the section reserved only for the faithful (after the catechumens have been ceremonially dismissed), the priest reads in a low voice (while the choir is signing):
Enable me by the power of Your Holy Spirit so that, vested with the grace of priesthood, I may stand before Your holy Table and celebrate the mystery of Your holy and pure Body and Your precious Blood.
To You I come with bowed head and pray: do not turn Your face away from me or reject me from among Your children, but make me, Your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer to You these gifts.
For You, Christ our God, are the Offerer and the Offered, the One who receives and is distributed, and to You we give glory, together with Your eternal Father and Your holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.
Not for one moment does the priest believe that we have any control in when the mystery is performed; all we ever ask for from God is — mercy.
I wouldn't call your rituals empty, my point was just that I don't think rituals are salvific, and I don't think the Bible teaches that they are
But that has to do with your (Protestant) definition of 'salvation' as a singular event. To us being saved is a life-long process of becoming Christ-like, even if it happens on the last breath. So, every step in that direction, every cleansing, ever blessing is a step closer to being saved.
You would call being 'saved' getting a visa to come to America. We look at it as a chance of mercy. All you have is a little dinghy at a coast of France and a vast and violent ocean you have to negotiate in it to get to America. Many tribulations and reasons exist why some never make it.
I really think the Bible was written so that we may understand to the fullest extent of God's intentions
We can understand God to the extent that we can describe Him, which is not even close to what He really is. In addition to that, the Bible was written at various times with various realities at hand, and with various cultural influences playing a role in the way the biblical scrolls are expressed, the terminology used, etc.
Even more so importantly, the Hebrew numerology is very important, yet it is completely lost when translated into other languages. Thus, a goat in Judaism also means 'demon' in some contexts, just as 'sheep' mean people.
Reading Mat 20, one wonders if the sheep and goats were used in that context as well at the Final Judgment. The 'goats' could be all the people who reject Christ or only the demons, for the verses clearly state that the eternal lake of fire was created specifically for the devil and his angels. But it could also mean that 'goats' are also those (humans) who do not repent (since there is no repentance for the fallen angels).
It's thins kind of material that doesn't allow even a five-year-old to read and understand the Bible. I submit that NO ONE understands the Bible, let alone logically comprehend it.
If the Bible had a clear-cut meaning in it, we would all be on the same sheet of music, FK. It seems to me that God did not want us to 'understand' Him very well at all. It always leaves way too much room for 'personal' interpretation, cultural differences (i.e. 'brothers of Christ'), linguistic differences, numerology, historicity, and so on.
No one was ever saved because he followed the law.
The Jews do not believe man needs to be saved. They do believe that man should make himself acceptable to God. We owe Him that. He is our Father.
By following the Law, Jews make themselves 'acceptable' top God. In other words, they make themselves 'righteous' in the eyes of God who knows our intentions and recognizes those whose hearts are filled with love.
The Law was the rule how one should act and think. As you know, we must be taught everything,including the language, manners, mercy and forgiveness, no different than our traffic laws (and cops) remind us of what is the 'proper' way to drive.
In Orthodoxy, we combine that with faith: God is inscribed in our hearts and the faith leads us to do 'proper' things we learn from God (Scriputre) and the Church (doctrine).
The Protestants get a driving license and figure no matter how they drive and how many times they get a ticket, their license will never be taken away because Christ took all those violations on His shoulder and paid all our fines.
That's not the way it works, FK. It may be very comforting and cozy, but that's not it. Again, +Paul had a lot to do with that attitude, even though the Church will never admit it because +Paul is the only thread of legitimacy the Church holds on to. Without +Paul, there would be no Church left.
Burnt offerings, and the like, were symbolic of what was to come. It was a preview of the real thing. ,P> That sounds like something the neocons would come up with. There is no indication whatsoever that laws governing burnt offerings were temporary.
The only reason God made a New Covenant was because the Jews went back and forth worshiping idols until the Babylonian captivity, not because animal sacrifices were something 'temporary' or 'foreshadowing' anything.