Replies

"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter's words according to Acts 10:34-35 (ESV)

I think this is a general statement and reflects that Peter was speaking in the sense of the Old Covenant where in spirituality, the objective was to be a proper Jew and for the entire nation to be in subjection and obedience. Peter was speaking in this sense of the salvation of a nation more than that of an individual but he is hinting at the changes a Jew would find in worshipping Christ. This is one of those places in the bible where a simple tranlation does not give the full picture of the speaker's intent. To understand this more fully, we do need to know whom he was addressing and the teaching he had for them and what God was trying to accomplish by leading Peter to deliver this message. And that this was recorded and transmitted to us by a purposeful text like the book of Acts should encourage us to look even deeper at the historical context.

But if God's overriding intent is to save all men, then He would dispense enough grace that all should be saved

His intent is to save — because He loves us. Ours is to accept His grace. Love does not compel.

Ah, I meant that if the God's ultimate purpose was only to save all men, then all men would be saved. Since not all men are saved, then it follows that universal salvation is not His objective and that a general grace equally dispensed to equal effect (initially) in all men would be pointless. So it is instead the test of faith after experiencing His grace which is His true interest. And this is consistent with our creation. God already had the angels. But they do not have faith, having always known God and His power directly. They do not have the doubts we have and they do not dwell a relatively short time upon the earth. There is some purpose that God intends us to fulfill in eternity and it is this faith we hold that is the key to it. And in this one way, it seems, we are perhaps to become more than even the great angels. And yet, He already had the angels. He had to have a Purpose that satisfied Him in creating us as well. But they are His servants. And we are His children, adopted in Christ.

How's that for wild speculation? Well, I gave fair warning.

Given that you believe in pedobaptism, one does wonder why you do not also practice pedocommunion?

But we do! If you ever go to an Orthodox Church you will witness it first hand.

This is terribly unfair. See, with the Protestants who practice pedobaptism, they always avoid pedocommunion and try to explain away the inconsistency. So we Baptists fall upon this inconsistency with relish. Now you've ruined this for me completely.

What a cheap and underhanded trick to play on a simple Baptist.

The Orhodox do not share St. Augustine's notion of the original sin. Baptism is a covenant with Christ through the Holy Spirit, and not of our doing. We ask the Holy Spirit to have mercy on us and adopt us into Christ. It does not require our "understanding" or "age of reason." That's why what you call sacraments are called "mysteries" in Greek. Hence, no understanding is required. God is not held hostage by our intellectual ability to "comprehend" His grace.

That's actually...very interesting. I'm sure you grasp my earlier dogged objections but you articulate another theory. It would take me a bit to muster arguments against it other than the obvious examples in scripture. You do get closer to the Presbyterians and their covenant theology here though. That's what's interesting about it.

Habits of worship are recorded and are required to be in harmony with Scrioptures. If you read the Liturgy of St. Basil or St. James, the oldest ones known, it is only a longer version of our weekly John Chrystostomos' Divine Liturgy, which is 1,600 years old.

I've thought on this before a bit. If America had followed Franklin's advice and switched to Greek as the national language, it would be more possible. But it is also important to recall that the Hebrew scriptures were translated even in Jesus' time to Greek and Aramaic as we find them quoted in our New Testament. So I think that if you speak one of the ancient dialects, it is good to preserve it. But if your ancestors and therefore you do not speak it natively, worship in your native tongue is just as acceptable to God provided your doctrine is sound. I'll admit, I wish I knew Greek really well. But it is hard to study.

Orthodoxy does not display any such phenomenon. I know for a fact that my ancestors 1,100 years went to church on Sunday and sang the same liturgy we sing today.

This part I do like. I don't care for modern Christian music. I like old Baptist hymns for instance. Generally, from the nineteenth century. If they are newer than that, I sometimes complain they are too modern. I was scandalized when they brought out the new version of the Baptist Hymnal and it contained music written by persons who didn't even have the decency to be properly dead and in heaven. The horror of it. But I determined to be less stiff-necked and I try to enjoy the more modern bits but they have no real substance. I've noticed that these worship songs acquire a life of their own in our memories and with our emotions. I haven't decided if that is good or not. I can see how it helps the institution of the church to survive and hold to a standard of worship. But it can also become a ritual. You know, we are creatures that can slump into a rut of habits. But God designed an ever-changing world, a chaotic pattern for our abode. So although some fundaments of the faith can never change, I think God also does not want us to be completely caught up in the familiar and comforting routines of worship. There is a difference between going through the motions of a known and expected worship service and being spritually alive to all that God is revealing. One is duty and habit, the other is a vista opening on a fresh world, one seen with a bit of God's wisdom imparted. So I try to like these new songs and not to be too much the creature of familiar and comfortable habits. But I'm not certain about this matter and could not offer anyone advice since I have never made up my own mind firmly on it.

The problem is that you only know western Christianity, and are tagging their stereotypes on us. We never felt that we could improve on that which the Apostles knew and taught.

No doubt. The Orthodox are mysterious to us in the West. At least to me. Many Christians barely know you exist. I know only one, a friend in school who was a very devout Baptist but converted to Orthodox. He visits from time to time but with limited time and family events it's hard to discuss it in depth. As to whether the Orthodox have altered to any degree the traditions of the twelve Apostles, I would say your description of infant baptism leaves me in some doubt. I can't seem to draw that impression from the accounts of baptism in the New Testament.

As for the western indulgences (which we don't have, never had and never will have), human corruption is evident in all that we do, including the church. Thus, you have corrupt ministers as we have corrupt clergy. The Church is made of sinners, not saints. :)

Good. Then no one will have to nail 95 theses to the door of an Orthodox church. And though every church is composed of sinners and not saints, some churches have allowed the very worst sinners to pretend to be saints and shepherds of their flock as an institutional practice and this caused the witness of their churches to be greatly compromised and the church became divided, perhaps unnecessarily so. Clearly, God's greater glory was not an objective. The Reformers never set out to found new churches or denominations. But like so many others in previous centuries, they were determined to reform the Western church and curb its worst abuses. It seems that in the East, you had checks and balances to avoid such scandal and corruption. You had bishops in the old sense but no popes. Of course, you had the advantage of what to avoid nearby so that must have firmed your resolve as well.

Sleepy.

I think this is a general statement and reflects that Peter was speaking in the sense of the Old Covenant...

Well, yes, of course. As a Jew he knew very well that he is not to share and mingle with gentiles. Judaism is an exclusive religion: there is Israel (which to them is synonymous with Jews), the people of God, and here is Peter who is now made aware that "Israel" in the New Covenant includes believing Gentiles as well. That's equivalent to turning Judaism upside down!

Since not all men are saved, then it follows that universal salvation is not His objective and that a general grace equally dispensed to equal effect (initially) in all men would be pointless

You are subjecting God to your (human) logic, placing logical necessity above Him. Even Peter recognized that God is not partial, that he loves the sinners as well. Just because we are incapable of that doesn't mean God is. The Scripture is clear that God would have all men saved; just because we don't understand why this not the case doesn't follow that He doesn't.

The Orthodox (and Catholics) maintain the patristic belief (Augustine notwithstanding) that God gave made us potentially good and therefore our salvation a possibility based in part on our cooperation with His uncreated energies (i.e. synergism).

In other words, God, by His own choice, gives us a choice, thereby we either reject God's grace and become the authors of our perdition, or we turn to God and ask Him to save us. At no time are we authors of our salvation, but simply willing servants of God. He does not make our choice for us. We do.

What a cheap and underhanded trick to play on a simple Baptist

LOL!!!

It seems that in the East, you had checks and balances to avoid such scandal and corruption. You had bishops in the old sense but no popes. Of course, you had the advantage of what to avoid nearby so that must have firmed your resolve as well

Eastern ecclesial structure hasn't changed either. The Church is made up of the priesthood and the laity, or the "people of God." Ultimately, the final authority (the final check and balance) are the people of God, the Orthodox laity. That is true when it comes to deposing a bishop as well as making him a saint. The bishops are not rulers but servants. So, it is the Church, the ekklesia, the assembly of believers, that has kept the faith unchanged.

Funny thing is, there is no seriously strong desire to change anything in the Orthodox Church. I guess you would have to be Orthodox to know why. :)