Impediments

[CelticRebel]

Here are what I believe are some impediments to my becoming Orthodox. Some are more crucial than others for me.

First, let me say that I agree strongly with the Orthodox on atonement, the doctrine of God, sin and original sin, salvation.

Maybe I'll just list the areas of disagreement and comment on them later:

1. Baptismal regeneration
2. Infant baptism
3. Some teachings about Mary
4. The teaching that apostolic succession is of the essence of the church, not just for the benefit of it.
5. Calling priests "Father".
6. Tradition and scripture equal
7. Bishops must be celibate/widowed priests cannot remarry.
8. Bowing down to, kissing icons

That's all I can think of right now.

I did have another question: Do Orthodox churches have musical instruments in worship?

I greatly appreciate the patience and kindness I've been shown. That's been the case more here than many places I've been.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. Baptismal regeneration

as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. we must be born again of water and the Spirit, and this new birth is to what is heavenly according to John's Gospel.

2. Infant baptism

could be included when households were baptized. Tertullian mentioned it before he became a Montanist as a common practice around 200 AD. the fact that there is silence supports that infant baptism was done, since Christians early on only wrote concerning problems.

3. Some teachings about Mary

such as?

4. The teaching that apostolic succession is of the essence of the church, not just for the benefit of it.

gonna have to be a tad clearer on this one dude.

5. Calling priests "Father".

St Paul wished there were more Fathers for the Corinthians. Jesus also says call no man teacher, for we have one teacher in Christ.

6. Tradition and scripture equal

Tradition and Scripture are a part of the same whole. we do not divide the two. remember the Tapestry analogy. Scripture is like the central and largest pattern. separate them and the rest makes no sense, whereas the Scripture becomes distorted.

7. Bishops must be celibate/widowed priests cannot remarry.

these are funtionary and not dogmatic. widowed priests can only not remarry and still be priests.

8. Bowing down to, kissing icons

merely how the East developed respecting holy things. if it is not odd for someone to kiss a Bible, the photo of a loved one, it should not be odd to kiss an icon.

Do Orthodox churches have musical instruments in worship?

aside from the human voice usually no. some Churches do use organs, and bells and the talanton are used during the services and to call folks to prayer. instruments can be used in other ways to glorify God, it's just that during the Liturgy that is not their place.

 

[All4Christ]

Subscribing!

 

[CelticRebel]

as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. we must be born again of water and the Spirit, and this new birth is to what is heavenly according to John's Gospel.



could be included when households were baptized. Tertullian mentioned it before he became a Montanist as a common practice around 200 AD. the fact that there is silence supports that infant baptism was done, since Christians early on only wrote concerning problems.



such as?

The ever-virginity of Mary. Not sure if Orthodoxy holds to the Assumption of Mary.



gonna have to be a tad clearer on this one dude.

That the church absolutely must have apostolic succession, that it is not the church without it, that sacraments are not valid without it. My view is more like the Anglican view.



St Paul wished there were more Fathers for the Corinthians. Jesus also says call no man teacher, for we have one teacher in Christ.

Jesus says call no man Father. Of course he was talking about calling no man a spiritual father, not a biological father. But Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans go against this. And Paul apparently did, too, in one instance.



Tradition and Scripture are a part of the same whole. we do not divide the two. remember the Tapestry analogy. Scripture is like the central and largest pattern. separate them and the rest makes no sense, whereas the Scripture becomes distorted.

I can understand that. But you even agreed that if tradition contradicts scripture on something, we should go with scripture.



these are funtionary and not dogmatic. widowed priests can only not remarry and still be priests.

But that is putting a restriction on something that God, in the scriptures, does not.



merely how the East developed respecting holy things. if it is not odd for someone to kiss a Bible, the photo of a loved one, it should not be odd to kiss an icon.

I do not kiss the Bible or photos. And God prohibits the bowing down before images or statues.



aside from the human voice usually no. some Churches do use organs, and bells and the talanton are used during the services and to call folks to prayer. instruments can be used in other ways to glorify God, it's just that during the Liturgy that is not their place.

I would greatly miss instruments in worship.

Well, these are some of the things that I don't know if I could get past. It's disappointing, as I am so close in agreement in many other areas.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would say the concern about whether you'll enjoy the music should be the least thing to worry about. I think I can speak to this because music was always of very great importance to me. I used to feel it was like the very breath of my spiritual life, and it "fed" me even more than teaching. When I first heard a recording of a Divine Liturgy online, I wondered how I could give up the worship I had loved so much (though I wasn't finding it anywhere anymore) and endure solid hours of that instead.

At first I consoled myself with the idea that I could listen on my own, or better yet attend a denominational church on Sunday evenings for the sake of "feeling God" ... then someone told me that whether or not my priest would allow me to would probably depend on the reason I wanted to go. And I suspected (probably correctly) that if I fully explained why I wanted the music, a priest would probably forbid me from going.

But. Actually, something happened the first time I went to an Orthodox service in person. It got inside me. For hours at a time, it was like my heart was singing the "Lord have mercy"s. And as I learn more, and enter better into the worship, it just gets better.

Btw, I had decided to (rather grudgingly) at least attempt to take the advice I was given on CF, and rather than concern myself with what I want, try to put that aside for what God has put in order. So I had disposed myself by will to try to accept it anyway. But as it turned out, it was not an effort to appreciate the music. I think it's especially beautiful in our Greek parish - we have some wonderful chanters, a great choir and award-winning director, a talented priest, and yes there is sometimes that scandalous organ (sometimes not). But I've heard hauntingly beautiful music especially in OCA and Antiochian parishes as well. I suspect whatever I was exposed to and learned, I would be able to appreciate.

 

[CelticRebel]

I would say the concern about whether you'll enjoy the music should be the least thing to worry about. I think I can speak to this because music was always of very great importance to me. I used to feel it was like the very breath of my spiritual life, and it "fed" me even more than teaching. When I first heard a recording of a Divine Liturgy online, I wondered how I could give up the worship I had loved so much (though I wasn't finding it anywhere anymore) and endure solid hours of that instead.

At first I consoled myself with the idea that I could listen on my own, or better yet attend a denominational church on Sunday evenings for the sake of "feeling God" ... then someone told me that whether or not my priest would allow me to would probably depend on the reason I wanted to go. And I suspected (probably correctly) that if I fully explained why I wanted the music, a priest would probably forbid me from going.

But. Actually, something happened the first time I went to an Orthodox service in person. It got inside me. For hours at a time, it was like my heart was singing the "Lord have mercy"s. And as I learn more, and enter better into the worship, it just gets better.

Btw, I had decided to (rather grudgingly) at least attempt to take the advice I was given on CF, and rather than concern myself with what I want, try to put that aside for what God has put in order. So I had disposed myself by will to try to accept it anyway. But as it turned out, it was not an effort to appreciate the music. I think it's especially beautiful in our Greek parish - we have some wonderful chanters, a great choir and award-winning director, a talented priest, and yes there is sometimes that scandalous organ (sometimes not). But I've heard hauntingly beautiful music especially in OCA and Antiochian parishes as well. I suspect whatever I was exposed to and learned, I would be able to appreciate.

Thank you for your post.

That brings up another question: Are Orthodox really forbidden to attend non-Orthodox services?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for your post.

That brings up another question: Are Orthodox really forbidden to attend non-Orthodox services?

Not as a blanket prohibition, no.

But there are canons that forbid going into the houses of other temples for the express purpose of praying with them. Someone else will need to say what this canon means - for all I know the only "others" at that time were praying to pagan deities.

In general we do not pray with non-Orthodox. They are free to join our prayers, but we do not pray theirs.

I do know absolutely that Orthodox may not receive sacraments elsewhere, or they essentially join themselves to that group by assent, and excommunicate themselves from Orthodoxy (they can be restored through confession though).

Those are some general things. At the time, I was a catechumen, and in order to learn the faith it was my responsibility to discuss with my priest and follow his suggestions for my own good.

I will say this too - now I am baptized, attend regularly. My husband is not Orthodox, and won't come to my Church. But sometimes he won't go to any church at all because I'm not going with him. So my priest advised me, for the sake of my husband, to sometimes go to whatever Christian church he prefers, for the sake of his salvation.

Not only am I not forbidden, but in my case actually advised to attend sometimes.

Almost every answer for our general behavior can be "it depends" but there is always wisdom in applying it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

By the way, as far as calling priests Father - that one is really very easy. Are you talking about the passage in Matt 23? Read it carefully and in context, first. It is talking about being prideful, and it ALSO says to call no man teacher. You don't actually have a problem calling a man a Christian teacher, do you?

Then check the number of times Paul mentions fathers - he calls himself a father of spiritual children, he writes to fathers, he tells them not to have many fathers. It is a particular responsibility, but if you are really applying that verse in a blanket sense and literally - you can't call any man your father (including your biological father), nor can you call anyone a teacher (including those who teach in schools and universities).

You may be hearing "don't call priests 'Father'" but what it actually says is "call no man Father or Teacher" ... so we really need to understand what that means.

 

[CelticRebel]

Not as a blanket prohibition, no.

But there are canons that forbid going into the houses of other temples for the express purpose of praying with them. Someone else will need to say what this canon means - for all I know the only "others" at that time were praying to pagan deities.

In general we do not pray with non-Orthodox. They are free to join our prayers, but we do not pray theirs.

I do know absolutely that Orthodox may not receive sacraments elsewhere, or they essentially join themselves to that group by assent, and excommunicate themselves from Orthodoxy (they can be restored through confession though).

Those are some general things. At the time, I was a catechumen, and in order to learn the faith it was my responsibility to discuss with my priest and follow his suggestions for my own good.

I will say this too - now I am baptized, attend regularly. My husband is not Orthodox, and won't come to my Church. But sometimes he won't go to any church at all because I'm not going with him. So my priest advised me, for the sake of my husband, to sometimes go to whatever Christian church he prefers, for the sake of his salvation.

Not only am I not forbidden, but in my case actually advised to attend sometimes.

Almost every answer for our general behavior can be "it depends" but there is always wisdom in applying it.

Thanks for your post.

As for the part I highlighted in bold: I couldn't agree with that.

 

[CelticRebel]

By the way, as far as calling priests Father - that one is really very easy. Are you talking about the passage in Matt 23? Read it carefully and in context, first. It is talking about being prideful, and it ALSO says to call no man teacher. You don't actually have a problem calling a man a Christian teacher, do you?

Then check the number of times Paul mentions fathers - he calls himself a father of spiritual children, he writes to fathers, he tells them not to have many fathers. It is a particular responsibility, but if you are really applying that verse in a blanket sense and literally - you can't call any man your father (including your biological father), nor can you call anyone a teacher (including those who teach in schools and universities).

You may be hearing "don't call priests 'Father'" but what it actually says is "call no man Father or Teacher" ... so we really need to understand what that means.

What Jesus is saying is that no one should have authority over anyone else spiritually. We are all equal in Jesus. A "brother" is an equal; a "father" is a superior. Jesus forbids the latter. That's why I'm also not in favor of clerical titles such as Reverend, and especially not Very Reverend, Most Reverend, etc., as if there are ranks of being revered. I believe only God is due reverence. That's also why I will not apply the term "inerrant" to scripture the way fundamentalists do. Only God is inerrant.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I still can't quote you for some reason dude, so hear goes:

you say: The ever-virginity of Mary. Not sure if Orthodoxy holds to the Assumption of Mary.

we believe she is ever Virgin because that is what the Scriptures teach, and is what the Church taught concerning her. we believe her body was translated but after her death.

you say: That the church absolutely must have apostolic succession, that it is not the church without it, that sacraments are not valid without it. My view is more like the Anglican view.

there is no evidence for the Church being without apostolic succession before the Protestant reformation. all of the bishops of the ancient cities trace themselves historically to the Apostles directly. and that is what you see in Acts. when St Paul converts on the road to Damascus, he still had to be received by Ananias. and we do not say there are invalid sacraments outside of the Church. that is God's call. what we know is where the sacraments are.

you say: Jesus says call no man Father. Of course he was talking about calling no man a spiritual father, not a biological father. But Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans go against this. And Paul apparently did, too, in one instance.

actually it was father in the sense that God is our true Father. and if Paul said it, clearly in a spiritual sense (because Paul had no biological children) it is not wrong to call a man a father. and again, Christ says call no man teacher, and yet Paul says that is one of the Church's callings. Scripture is fine with calling someone a father, it just depends on the context. Paul shows that spiritual fatherhood is good as well.

you say: I can understand that. But you even agreed that if tradition contradicts scripture on something, we should go with scripture.

that is because Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture. tradition of men do. there is a difference.

you say: But that is putting a restriction on something that God, in the scriptures, does not.

again, not really. nowhere in Scripture does it mention not to have sex with children either. the fact that Orthodoxy stands against pedophilia does not mean we have added a restriction on something that God does not.

you say: I do not kiss the Bible or photos. And God prohibits the bowing down before images or statues.

and yet Abraham constantly bowed before people (like Melchisedek), Joseph's brothers bowed before him. God prohibits bowing as an act of worship, not the act of bowing itself. and the bowing also is usually with serving what is being bowed to, not merely the act. as for kissing, again, it is not worshiping a photo by kissing it, any more than a soldier saluting a flag is an act of worship.

you say: I would greatly miss instruments in worship.

so enjoy the singing and the bells, and then jam out to some instrumental stuff in the parish hall and on your iPhone. I have a buddy who is writing Orthodox contemporary music for the reason.

 

[CelticRebel]

I still can't quote you for some reason dude, so hear goes:

you say: The ever-virginity of Mary. Not sure if Orthodoxy holds to the Assumption of Mary.

we believe she is ever Virgin because that is what the Scriptures teach, and is what the Church taught concerning her. we believe her body was translated but after her death.

Well, I don't believe the scriptures teach Mary's ever-virginity. Let me ask: Why do you believe Mary was translated? There is nothing in scripture that even hints of that.

you say: That the church absolutely must have apostolic succession, that it is not the church without it, that sacraments are not valid without it. My view is more like the Anglican view.

there is no evidence for the Church being without apostolic succession before the Protestant reformation. all of the bishops of the ancient cities trace themselves historically to the Apostles directly. and that is what you see in Acts. when St Paul converts on the road to Damascus, he still had to be received by Ananias. and we do not say there are invalid sacraments outside of the Church. that is God's call. what we know is where the sacraments are.

How can there have been an apostolic succession, in the Catholic and Orthodox sense, when there were no monarchial bishops in the first century? In the first century, New Testament churches, bishop/elder/pastor/presbyter was the same office.

you say: Jesus says call no man Father. Of course he was talking about calling no man a spiritual father, not a biological father. But Catholics, Orthodox, and many Anglicans go against this. And Paul apparently did, too, in one instance.

actually it was father in the sense that God is our true Father. and if Paul said it, clearly in a spiritual sense (because Paul had no biological children) it is not wrong to call a man a father. and again, Christ says call no man teacher, and yet Paul says that is one of the Church's callings. Scripture is fine with calling someone a father, it just depends on the context. Paul shows that spiritual fatherhood is good as well.

I'll concede that you have a point here. I can see that Jesus was addressing pride and arrogance, but I still don't believe that any person is over another person spiritually. Jesus taught humility and servant-hood, not the lording it over the brethren.

you say: I can understand that. But you even agreed that if tradition contradicts scripture on something, we should go with scripture.

that is because Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture. tradition of men do. there is a difference.

Yes, but I think tradition of men is made into Holy Tradition too often.

you say: But that is putting a restriction on something that God, in the scriptures, does not.

again, not really. nowhere in Scripture does it mention not to have sex with children either. the fact that Orthodoxy stands against pedophilia does not mean we have added a restriction on something that God does not.

When a church tells someone that they can't remarry after losing a spouse, that is a restriction that God does not impose. How is that not man-made?

you say: I do not kiss the Bible or photos. And God prohibits the bowing down before images or statues.

and yet Abraham constantly bowed before people (like Melchisedek), Joseph's brothers bowed before him. God prohibits bowing as an act of worship, not the act of bowing itself. and the bowing also is usually with serving what is being bowed to, not merely the act. as for kissing, again, it is not worshiping a photo by kissing it, any more than a soldier saluting a flag is an act of worship.

Again, I'll concede that your point is good.

you say: I would greatly miss instruments in worship.

so enjoy the singing and the bells, and then jam out to some instrumental stuff in the parish hall and on your iPhone. I have a buddy who is writing Orthodox contemporary music for the reason.

Don't worry about the quoting feature. You got your points across, and they were good.

I'll still answer within your post because I can't do the selective quote still.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for your post.

As for the part I highlighted in bold: I couldn't agree with that.

So in essence, you do not agree that

1 - Orthodox are not to join in agreement with prayers of (heretics?)?

(I don't generally use that word, but I THINK that's what the actual canon says? Those who reject basic dogma of the Church and persist in teaching known error)

2 - Orthodox would remove themselves from communion if they receive sacraments outside of the Church?

As far as the first - would you think it's ok to pray with Muslims? They believe in God, they see Christ as a prophet. So my question is, do you see anything wrong if Paul, for example, told you that you must not pray with them? Or if he said you ought not go into a synagogue and pray with Jews, for example? I'm taking an extreme because I wonder where your "line" is?

As to the second, I think it needs an understanding of what a sacrament is. It is the sacrament of baptism, for example, that joins us to the Church. I don't know how to explain it any better, but essentially none of the churches with a sacramental theology will allow their members to run about and receive sacraments in all kinds of denominations. Mostly those that do allow it are the ones that don't recognize sacraments as such. So it may be your view of sacraments?

Someone else can probably explain better. I just didn't want to let your questions go, and needed to see where you might specifically have a problem with those.

 

[ArmyMatt]

you say: Well, I don't believe the scriptures teach Mary's ever-virginity. Let me ask: Why do you believe Mary was translated? There is nothing in scripture that even hints of that.

they do, it's in one word that is often mistranslated into English. and the reason the Scriptures do not speak of her translation to the heavens, that does not mean it didn't happen. the Scriptures are not about that part of her life, but rather that of her Son and the missionary activity in His Church. so it'd be silly if it was included because that is not Scripture's function.

you say: How can there have been an apostolic succession, in the Catholic and Orthodox sense, when there were no monarchial bishops in the first century? In the first century, New Testament churches, bishop/elder/pastor/presbyter was the same office.

and, as pointed out earlier, the primary function of the bishop is as the priest over a diocese, and the image of the Church is the local bishop serving, surrounded by the elders, being assisted by the deacons, with the faithful. plus the succession is recorded for all of our bishops. I think you think we view bishops the way the RC views the Pope.

you say: I'll concede that you have a point here. I can see that Jesus was addressing pride and arrogance, but I still don't believe that any person is over another person spiritually. Jesus taught humility and servant-hood, not the lording it over the brethren.

and spiritual fatherhood is not over anyone (much like biological fatherhood). although the Scriptures do say to be obedient to those appointed over you, but that obedience is rooted in how the spiritual father serves his spiritual children.

you say: Yes, but I think tradition of men is made into Holy Tradition too often.

and we would agree, but that doesn't mean that you throw out Holy Tradition. it just means you gotta discern.

you say: When a church tells someone that they can't remarry after losing a spouse, that is a restriction that God does not impose. How is that not man-made?

they can remarry, they just cannot remain ordained. God does not affirm that a priest who loses a spouse can remarry and remain a priest. that is not in the Scripture. and that just shows the point, just because the Church is silent on an issue (such as pedophilia) in the Bible that does not mean that we are restricting something that God did not restrict.

 

[All4Christ]

Regarding praying with others...I've been that in personal prayers with my family, it isn't a problem to do that (such as praying for each other, praying for health, edification...there are some different interpretations of that, but I've always heard that it is heretics (those a part of the Church, rejecting truth knowingly and persisting in that) rather than other Christians seeking God.

I know of several who would disagree with me, but that is what I've been taught.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regarding praying with others...I've been that in personal prayers with my family, it isn't a problem to do that (such as praying for each other, praying for health, edification...there are some different interpretations of that, but I've always heard that it is heretics (those a part of the Church, rejecting truth knowingly and persisting in that) rather than other Christians seeking God.

I know of several who would disagree with me, but that is what I've been taught.

I was hoping that someone who knew the canon would chime in. We have to be careful talking about them. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Sometimes I want to give as complete an answer as I am able, but I'm trying to learn and remind myself that it's not always the most helpful answer to just spill random bits of information all over someone.

Though hopefully in Celtic Rebel's case it will work out, since it seems he wants to know EVERYTHING anyway.

I do think that particular canon was written expressly in regard to heretics, because I think it came at a time when there was no such thing as heterodox. Today we have Christians who are faithful, seeking God, and have never been exposed to the Orthodox Church, or through no fault of their own have been taught contrary doctrine. But at the time you had Jews who rejected Christ, pagans who didn't know God at all, heretics who had been taught the Truth but chose to reject it, and the Church. Being told not to agree with prayers of those outside the Church back then - is not quite the same as refusing to say "Amen" when your Baptist grandma blesses Sunday dinner.

 

[CelticRebel]

So in essence, you do not agree that

1 - Orthodox are not to join in agreement with prayers of (heretics?)?

(I don't generally use that word, but I THINK that's what the actual canon says? Those who reject basic dogma of the Church and persist in teaching known error)

2 - Orthodox would remove themselves from communion if they receive sacraments outside of the Church?

As far as the first - would you think it's ok to pray with Muslims? They believe in God, they see Christ as a prophet. So my question is, do you see anything wrong if Paul, for example, told you that you must not pray with them? Or if he said you ought not go into a synagogue and pray with Jews, for example? I'm taking an extreme because I wonder where your "line" is?

As to the second, I think it needs an understanding of what a sacrament is. It is the sacrament of baptism, for example, that joins us to the Church. I don't know how to explain it any better, but essentially none of the churches with a sacramental theology will allow their members to run about and receive sacraments in all kinds of denominations. Mostly those that do allow it are the ones that don't recognize sacraments as such. So it may be your view of sacraments?

Someone else can probably explain better. I just didn't want to let your questions go, and needed to see where you might specifically have a problem with those.

I don't think Christians should be prohibited from praying with other Christians.

I favor open communion, with other Christians. Anglicans are sacramental, and yet they have open communion.

 

[CelticRebel]

I was hoping that someone who knew the canon would chime in. We have to be careful talking about them. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. Sometimes I want to give as complete an answer as I am able, but I'm trying to learn and remind myself that it's not always the most helpful answer to just spill random bits of information all over someone.

Though hopefully in Celtic Rebel's case it will work out, since it seems he wants to know EVERYTHING anyway.

I do think that particular canon was written expressly in regard to heretics, because I think it came at a time when there was no such thing as heterodox. Today we have Christians who are faithful, seeking God, and have never been exposed to the Orthodox Church, or through no fault of their own have been taught contrary doctrine. But at the time you had Jews who rejected Christ, pagans who didn't know God at all, heretics who had been taught the Truth but chose to reject it, and the Church. Being told not to agree with prayers of those outside the Church back then - is not quite the same as refusing to say "Amen" when your Baptist grandma blesses Sunday dinner.

You're right - I do want to know EVERYTHING!

 

[CelticRebel]

you say: Well, I don't believe the scriptures teach Mary's ever-virginity. Let me ask: Why do you believe Mary was translated? There is nothing in scripture that even hints of that.

they do, it's in one word that is often mistranslated into English. and the reason the Scriptures do not speak of her translation to the heavens, that does not mean it didn't happen. the Scriptures are not about that part of her life, but rather that of her Son and the missionary activity in His Church. so it'd be silly if it was included because that is not Scripture's function.

you say: How can there have been an apostolic succession, in the Catholic and Orthodox sense, when there were no monarchial bishops in the first century? In the first century, New Testament churches, bishop/elder/pastor/presbyter was the same office.

and, as pointed out earlier, the primary function of the bishop is as the priest over a diocese, and the image of the Church is the local bishop serving, surrounded by the elders, being assisted by the deacons, with the faithful. plus the succession is recorded for all of our bishops. I think you think we view bishops the way the RC views the Pope.

you say: I'll concede that you have a point here. I can see that Jesus was addressing pride and arrogance, but I still don't believe that any person is over another person spiritually. Jesus taught humility and servant-hood, not the lording it over the brethren.

and spiritual fatherhood is not over anyone (much like biological fatherhood). although the Scriptures do say to be obedient to those appointed over you, but that obedience is rooted in how the spiritual father serves his spiritual children.

you say: Yes, but I think tradition of men is made into Holy Tradition too often.

and we would agree, but that doesn't mean that you throw out Holy Tradition. it just means you gotta discern.

you say: When a church tells someone that they can't remarry after losing a spouse, that is a restriction that God does not impose. How is that not man-made?

they can remarry, they just cannot remain ordained. God does not affirm that a priest who loses a spouse can remarry and remain a priest. that is not in the Scripture. and that just shows the point, just because the Church is silent on an issue (such as pedophilia) in the Bible that does not mean that we are restricting something that God did not restrict.

Matt, thanks for all of your thoughtful answers.

 

[All4Christ]

In regards to the other posts from the other thread...

If they are in the kingdom, as Jesus apparently affirms, I think that shows they are not accountable.

The verse says:

14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

It doesn't say they are in the kingdom, just that the kingdom is of such as these. There is a difference between that and saying that they are not accountable. To me, that sounds like a reminder to everyone that our faith should be like that of a child's...trusting that God will take care of us. Also, remember that the male children were circumcised already on the 8th day.

You have said that scriptures provided by us are not explicit about our beliefs about baptism being important for infants. The belief about being in the grace of God and not accountable as a child is not explicit here either. I don't know of a single verse that says children are not accountable until they are of an age of reasoning.

Just food for thought