Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, the two are very different. That's why I used the word "relationship" as in "relationship between". I think you have said that Baptism is how people become "in Christ". But at the same time, Baptism is only good until the next mortal sin, at which point they are again "out of Christ". So, what happens to the adult believer who is never baptized, but is very faithful about going to confession and is totally "covered" on that front? Assume he has confessed every major sin and had them all forgiven. Since you don't believe in original sin, (therefore Baptism doesn't need to take care of it), how is this guy any different from someone who has been baptized?
Grace is not shoved down our throat against our will. God's grace is there whether we want it or not, whether we understand it or not, whether we know it or not.
Infant Baptism is precisely shoving grace down the throat of the infant! :) I'm sure it is literally true many times that there is kicking and screaming! How many infants do you think enjoy having their breathing interrupted three times in a row? I doubt many. This is why infant Baptism puzzles me so much. Normally, I'm the guy who says that God will grace those whom He will and that is that. Your side and the Catholics will say 'No', grace must be freely accepted by the recipient in all cases EXCEPT for the remission of sins. Kiddingly, I suppose the equivalent to my side would be holding a gun to someone's head to recite the sinner's prayer. :)
Heavn is a place?
Baptism is a petition to God to elect the soul of the one being baptized into the Body of Christ (Church). If that soul has any sin, the Holy Spirit will cleanse at the adoption. In the case of children, they don't have to confess or repent because they do not know, and infants (as far as we Orthodox are cocnerned) have no sins. In the case of adults, confession and repentance is required.
The promise of that adoption applies to adults and children (cf Acts 2:37) equally.
But at the same time, Baptism is only good until the next mortal sin, at which point they are again "out of Christ"
You have stated this nonsense in the past. God does not change His mind. You can not be un-baptized. Once adopted, He will not disown you. But, that does not mean that you have a sure ticket to heaven if, at the end of your life, you say I "do it my way," if in your heart you are Forest Keeper and not Chirst-like.
The idea that "once saved" you can sin boldly, confident that — as God's elect — you cannot perish, is precisely where Satan's great deception becomes obvious.
Every time you sin, and we all sin all the time, you tarnish the likeness of God which God gave us.
So, what happens to the adult believer who is never baptized, but is very faithful about going to confession and is totally "covered" on that front?
A "spotless" believer who does not believe in Christ's own commandment (cf Mat 28:19) is hardly your perfect Christian.
how is this guy any different from someone who has been baptized?
The former is a sinner pretending to be a Christian.
Infant Baptism is precisely shoving grace down the throat of the infant!
Being accepted by God is shoving grace down someone's throat? God invites you to come to Him. One has to actually get up and walk in Christ's footsteps to get there. God won't beam you up, FK.
Baptism washes away any sins — if there are any sins — before being adopted into the Body of Christ. Baptism is the adoption. Remission of sins, if any, is a pre-condition for that adoption.
I see that you posted a link to Romanides' essays in which he criticized Meyendorff's dissertation on the Palamite controvery. I thought of posting the link myself earlier in the discussion, but refrained from doing so. I thought someone would accuse me of being a Catholic basher. One thing you can't say about Romanides is that he was insipid.
Romanides may have a point about the word Byzantium to describe the late Roman Empire. It is ironic that about a year ago, I was in a discussion with an Orthodox poster about the Byzantine Empire, except I kept using the term Eastern Roman Empire to avoid any of the negative connotations associated with the word Byzantine. I was accused of being pro-Catholic and an Orthodox-basher!
So what is the distinction, if both are God? Sorry, I am still confused, but I'll read your link.
You must be patient as your forefathers with your slower Western brothers...
Regards
Thus, without his "work", he wasn't righteous.
And quoting James 2:14 out of context doesn't change the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.
Please explain how I "misquoted" a verse that completely denies we are saved by faith alone? The entire chapter 2 is about how a man without faith will not be saved - and goes on to describe how Abraham was saved by his works (with faith)
I agree, that works alone doesn't save. But neither does faith.
Regaards
"They would say that Christ warns against the Protestant traditions,..."
_____________________________
ROTFL, that's about what I would expect you to say.
I thought that God "shoved" grace down your throat, too! Now, you're complaining because you didn't get to earn your faith from God?
How many infants do you think enjoy having their breathing interrupted three times in a row? I doubt many. This is why infant Baptism puzzles me so much.
Say what?
Your side and the Catholics will say 'No', grace must be freely accepted by the recipient in all cases EXCEPT for the remission of sins.
Infant baptism is given by God JUST as it is given to an adult being baptised. It is just that in the infant's case, the faith of the parents serves as the response to God in proxy, just as it did for Jewish babies who were circumcised. Baptism is acts as a seed, which later grows as the baby matures. Really, if God grants graces to whom He will and does so WITHOUT seeing their response (as you believe), what difference does it make if God's Spirit comes while a baby or an adult? The person does nothing to earn grace, so the person's age makes no difference.
Regards
OK, if I'm following you, then I think I completely agree. I have said that the practice of water Baptism has nothing to do with the remission of sins. However, at the point of belief, I say that the Spirit indwells. At THAT point we are Baptized in the Spirit (born again), which is solely a work of God. If this is one of the definitions of Biblical Baptism you are talking about, then I'm with you all the way. :)
So your repentance is no more a guarantee that God now accept you than the "empty" sacraments of the Apostolic Church because God is not subject to your intellectual acceptance (or rejection) of Him — God is the way He is whether we believe, disbelieve, know or don't know: ...
Well, I sort of see this as a 'yes' and 'no' type thing. From God's POV the elect were accepted before they were born, so God is not making any decisions as to what to do with us in real time, IMO. So, the only issue to me is when do the elect actually become aware that they are of the elect. This does not happen at Baptism, especially at infant Baptism. It happens at the point of true belief. At that time there is a Spiritual Baptism, which is ceremonially recreated in the water Baptism, later.
So in truth the guarantee doesn't happen at the point of belief and repentance, but the elect's knowledge of the guarantee already made becomes known to the elect at this time.
Obviously, faith in God is needed to make the petition [for acceptance] to God, but it does not mean that a soul being baptized must also believe and profess Gospel; only those making that petition. We can petition God to accept and have mercy on any soul, whether intellectually mature or mentally handicapped.
This sounds like you are likening this to praying for another's salvation, but I think it's very different. All the time, I will pray to God for so-and-so to come to accept Him. I still face the same three possible answers I do with almost any other prayer, 'yes', 'no', or 'wait'. However, with my understanding of how you see water Baptism, there is only one answer: 'Yes'. Therefore, it really isn't a petition at all, since the result is guaranteed. It is more of a "directive". (Yes, I understand that in your heart you do not presume to order God around, but in this context, isn't this the effective result?)
In scripture, the only times I am aware of where a 'Yes' is guaranteed concern personal prayers for oneself. If you genuinely say the sinner's prayer you will be saved, and if you genuinely pray for forgiveness you will be forgiven, that sort of thing. However, I cannot pray or petition for anything on behalf of anyone else and be guaranteed an answer that I like. If I am right, then petition by proxy fails as an automatic 'yes', which defeats the whole point of infant Baptism under your beliefs.
However, in your case, the Protestants place a precondition on God's ability to accept us, based on our intellectual maturity! Not only is God forced to wait for us to grow up, but is actually forced to wait for us to repent to give us a chance!
As I said above, God isn't forced to wait for a second. God has already accepted all of His elect from the foundation of the world, the only trick is when do they become aware of it. My understanding of the Reformed view is that this truth becomes knowable to the elect at the point of belief, not Baptism.
I urge you to read a book on the development of doctrine in early Christian history. You will find that those declared as heretics used the very same Scriptures to prove their points of view as being correct, much as you do today. Even in the Second Century, Catholics were writing about Gnostics who were "appropriating" the Scriptures to suit their fanciful theories. Today, we see this with the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons - who aren't Christian. If Scripture was so obvious and could only be taken one way, why do people of good will completely disagree on so much of it?
Regards
"I urge you to read a book on the development of doctrine in early Christian history. You will find that those declared as heretics used the very same Scriptures to prove their points of view as being correct, much as you do today."
____________________________________
As soon as I have to depend on your "Tradition" I will be prey to false doctrine.
BTW, have you ever wondered if some of those "heretics" were actually right and our MARTYRS that we will meet in heaven?
These are two very different things. I think that we are born dead IN sin, which means that we are compelled towards sin and that we will sin. At the time of regeneration, we become dead TO sin, which means that we are no longer slaves to sin, but rather slaves to righteousness. This is unrelated to whether we will actually sin again, the track record of humans says that we will, but we are not compelled to do so. Where does the Bible say that to be "alive in Christ" one must BE sinless, as opposed to having the goal of being sinless?
So theosis means never sinning again? Is theosis just like the Catholic model of eternal salvation in that it is achieved and lost based on subsequent sin? I always had the impression that theosis was more of a permanent concept.
And if you are like most of us, you can only hope, by honestly cleaving to God as best as you can all your life, even if you honestly fail, that God will have mercy on us and save us in the end.
That sounds a little bit too scary for me, I think I'll just rest in knowing instead. :) The beauty in knowing is that no matter what anyone says, you always have the direct word of God standing right behind you. You have to defend nothing of yourself.
Being dead to sin does not require intellect or belief. Mentally retarded, infants and children are all dead to sin, without knowing or professing Jesus Christ as their God.
I respectfully disagree. Every single time Paul refers to this idea in Romans 6, he is talking about believers ONLY. We all believe in special dispensations by the mercy of God, but Paul never talks about them in the context of being dead to sin. Being dead IN sin requires no intellect or belief. However, being dead TO sin does require a regenerated mind. Consider:
Rom. 6:10-12 : 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.
We are to be like Christ, who was dead to sin. He led His life to God. We are to do the same, but infants and the severely mentally handicapped cannot, nor do they have capacity to "let sin reign" one way or the other. Paul is only talking about believers.
I also find it fascinating. This thread has been a tremendous resource for me.
We are ALL prey to Satan and false doctrine. Doesn't Peter say that in his epistle? That includes you, as well as me. The difference between us is that I know where I can receive the truth - from the pillar and foundation... You believe YOU are the source of truth. I look elsewhere.
BTW, have you ever wondered if some of those "heretics" were actually right and our MARTYRS that we will meet in heaven?
If the Church officially declared a particular teaching a heresy, then I don't wonder if they were right. They weren't. However, perhaps their death served as a temporal punishment for the sin of their false teachings and they are in heaven (presuming they were mentally asking for forgiveness from God). I don't know who will be in heaven except for those the Church has cannonized.
Regards
We are slaves to righteousness only to the degree that we actually ARE righteous and not in sin...
"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die." Ez 18:24
The saved who sin are turning from God
"If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[a] sin." 1 John 1:6-7
Talk means nothing, only our walk
"No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." 1 John 3:6-10
If you keep sinning, you are not from God.
"Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness....Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? [said to CHRISTIANS!] ...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[b] Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6: 11-13,16,23
Paul expects more from Christians. Those who return to sin are slaves to it
"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God— how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" Gal 4:8-9
Yep, Christians can return to slavery
"These men [Christians who are false teachers] are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"[f]and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud." 2 Peter 2:17-22
Ouch, that hurts... What does this mean for the initial false Protestant teachers?
Scripture tells us that those who enslaved themselves to sin will die. This includes those who previously had pledged themselves to God at one point in their lives. We are dead to sin WHEN we obey the commandments, WHEN Christ is within us. Not always. We are slaves to sin when we continue to sin. This is a fact.
Theosis is not about being perfect, but about humbly asking for forgiveness from God when we falter, not being presumptuous that God owes us salvation because we said a sentence or two 20 years ago. We are dead to sin ONLY to the capacity that we continue to follow God.
Regards
"However, I continue to think these are differences of views (Aristotle vs. Plato), not necessarily a "right" vs. "wrong"."
NO, NO, NO! :-) Orthodox theology is not Platonic or Neoplatonic, and as long as you continue to think that this is true (I don't blame you -- this has been the superficial analysis of Eastern theology by the West for centuries), JK, you are going to continue to say things like "... and not a distinct Energeia and Ousia. This seems to imply a demiurge."
There is *no* separation between the energia of God and the one ousia of God and the one nature of God and the thee hypostases/persons in which we know God. Again, you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
In fact your statement that "God is simple" is perhaps the most Platonic statement of all that one can make. If there is one thing that Orthodoxy does *not* believe, it is that God is simple, or that He can be boiled down to a divine simplicity. That is Platonism -- that is "the One." The very fact that we start with the three Persons of the Trinity in all knowledge of God, and that we participate in his life in a multiplicity of His energies should demonstrate that God is not simple. Only by after the fact reflections on the fact that there is a single essence/ousia and a single divine nature does any kind of "simplicity" arise.
Now there *is* a Father who does teach a divine simplicity at the center of the Holy Trinity, and that is St. Augustine, and it is because of his Neoplatonic influences when it comes to his Trinitarian theology.
While I believe it is worthwhile for people to read and understand history, our Lord Jesus warned us about following the tradition of men (vis-a-vis Pharisees). I can't recall any such warning about reading scripture, can you?
Those who hold false views of things were always meant to hold false views. God separates the sheep from the goats. It is God who gives us our knowledge and understanding. At least that's what the scriptures states.
"Whatever your interpretation of the article on Palamas might be, I am not surprised that a Protestant found Palamas congenial. Even though Palamas came to the defence of monastics' direct experience of God, I have long thought that Palamas has many points that Protestants can agree with. Perhaps more than Roman Catholics can agree with. In fact, it seems to me that Roman Catholics don't care much for what they encounter in Palamism."
As a former Protestant myself (although my days of being a convinced Protestant are more than 20 years ago, now) I have to agree with this. The Orthodox approach to the inner spiritual life was what ultimately drew me to Orthodoxy -- even though at the time I was "Western" enough not to understand that this, and not an assent to a body of dogma and doctrine, was actually the key thing about Orthodoxy.
I've not analyzed just why Palamas and this aspect of the Orthodox life is particularly congenial to many Protestants, but it is rather true.
Also, it is interesting that Harley boils down all of Christianity to the Reformed and the Orthodox approaches, with all others being variations on those themes. This is particularly interesting to me because of the fact that when I was on my journey to Orthodoxy, I thought that my final decision was going to be between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That decision proved to be a very easy one, but at precisely this time, I found myself actually feeling as though what I really needed to do was to go back and review the Reformed/Calvinist tradition in my mind.
The last "comparison" I made prior to commiting to becoming an Orthodox Christan was between Orthodoxy and the Reformed tradition. I had completely forgotten that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.