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.
This thread has been instructive. I was unaware the Eastern Orthodox do not believe Christ's sacrifice was "foreshadowed" in the Old Testament.
What does the word "sacrifice" mean and why is Jesus Christ called "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" (Rev. 13:8).
Perhaps the disbelief in the predestined, completed sacrifice of Christ is what leads to your church's lack of assurance and why "being saved is a life-long process" instead of the "once for all time" redemption of Christ's sheep.
It's this 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.
No one?
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It seems to me that God did not want us to 'understand' Him very well at all.
What a diabolical method of keeping people ignorant of the truth -- tell them it's indecipherable.
Read Hebrews, Kosta. It's all there and it's knowable.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:9-18"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Now we may debate whether the "for all" means all men everywhere or all believers, but that does not negate the fact Christ died once to pay for all the sins of His sheep, and thus according to God's promise He will remember them no more.
We have been redeemed.
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- 1 Corinthians 6:20
This is what I taught my five-year-olds -- that they were bought with a heavenly price and that their minds and hearts and bodies belong to God.
By the grace of God, they understood.
I should have proofread better. This is Kosta's line in my post above.
Well, if Heaven was the USA in your metaphor, and I was in a little dinghy off the coast of France, then salvation for us would be God pushing the boat all the way across, protecting it all the way. The ocean could throw multiple "perfect" storms at the dinghy and God would simply splash them all away while we were worshiping, rejoicing and singing in the boat. No one who is saved could possibly fail to safely make the trip. So, it is much more than a Visa. Things can go wrong with Visas, nothing can go wrong with salvation. There is no chance involved.
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).
I don't see how it could refer to only demons. The analogy would fall apart because it is so clear that sheep refers to people. We are told that the sheep and goats need to be divided, which means there must be some base thing in common, such as being four-legged animals. It would make no sense to divide the sheep from the trees. Therefore, if we already know that sheep are people in Christ, then goats must be people not in Christ.
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.
To the extent we are both Christians, we ARE on the same page of music. While the Bible is a very complex book, its message is relatively simple, such that a 5-year-old can understand it. It doesn't make any sense that God wouldn't want us to know Him. How could He love us and not want that?
The Jews do not believe man needs to be saved.
The Jews believed in Messiah. Many of them may have had the wrong idea of it, but I think the OT righteous did have it right. They had faith, which is all that is needed.
By following the Law, Jews make themselves 'acceptable' to 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.
The Law is also the standard against which all men are proved unworthy. The early sacrifices literally "fixed" nothing. They were simulations of the one and only sacrifice that WAS worthy.
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 (Scripture) and the Church (doctrine).
Yes, faith leads us to do proper things, but those things are no more salvific now than they were in the OT, no matter what many Jews believed. To believe that works are salvific (i.e. that more is required than faith) is to diminish what Christ did for us. One response might be to say that your view is all God intended for Christ's death, but since we both agree that He died, under your view it was worth less (not worthless :).
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 ...
Of course that's not how it works, and I'm surprised that you still think Protestants "figure" that way at all. For certain, Reformers do not figure this way. Not only do we say so, we live it. And Paul has nothing to do with the attitude you describe. How many times does he have to say "By NO means" for you to believe him?
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.
Was this God adjusting on the fly? :) God made a New Covenant because it was time for the Incarnation, planned from the beginning, and Christ was to bring it. If the OT animal sacrifices really WERE good enough to justify a man before God, then the cross was unnecessary.