Impediments

[CelticRebel]

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


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

Thanks, and good point. But some things are just evident by their nature.

 

[All4Christ]

Thanks, and good point. But some things are just evident by their nature.

It may be self evident to you and others that believe that, but it is not self evident to the vast majority of Christians in the couple thousand years, and still is not with a large group of Christians today as well. Only a relatively small group of denominations believe in believers baptism (about 20% according to Wikipedia for what it's worth).

 

[CelticRebel]

It may be self evident to you and others that believe that, but it is not self evident to the vast majority of Christians in the couple thousand years, and still is not with a large group of Christians today as well. Only a relatively small group of denominations believe in believers baptism (about 20% according to Wikipedia for what it's worth).

This has nothing to do with believer's baptism. It has to do with whether or not one believes that infants are innocent and not held accountable for sins that they haven't committed and are incapable of committing.

BTW, just because something is held by a majority doesn't mean it's right. Catholics and Protestants once held that it was acceptable to murder each other and Anabaptists and Baptists.

 

[All4Christ]

This has nothing to do with believer's baptism. It has to do with whether or not one believes that infants are innocent and not held accountable for sins that they haven't committed and are incapable of committing.

BTW, just because something is held by a majority doesn't mean it's right. Catholics and Protestants once held that it was acceptable to murder each other and Anabaptists and Baptists.

Oh I agree that being in the majority doesn't mean people are correct. My point was that many people read that same scripture and don't come to the same conclusion.

That said, I believe that what I wrote may not be clear with the view of infants and their innocence. We don't believe that they inherited sin like many in Western Christianity. We believe that they suffer from the same fallen world we do and that they also need to be saved from the consequences of the Fall - death. I'm not the best at explaining it, but I don't want to misportray what the Orthodox Church teaches.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt, thanks for all of your thoughtful answers.

no problem, my man

Thanks, and good point. But some things are just evident by their nature.

and I think you are still looking at baptism through Western eyes. baptism is not just about getting off the hook for doing something wrong. if that were the case, you would be totally correct to reject it because babies are innocent. baptism has a much different approach in the East.

 

[CelticRebel]

Oh I agree that being in the majority doesn't mean people are correct. My point was that many people read that same scripture and don't come to the same conclusion.

That said, I believe that what I wrote may not be clear with the view of infants and their innocence. We don't believe that they inherited sin like many in Western Christianity. We believe that they suffer from the same fallen world we do and that they also need to be saved from the consequences of the Fall - death. I'm not the best at explaining it, but I don't want to misportray what the Orthodox Church teaches.

I can agree with that.

How do you think they are saved from that?

 

[CelticRebel]

no problem, my man



and I think you are still looking at baptism through Western eyes. baptism is not just about getting off the hook for doing something wrong. if that were the case, you would be totally correct to reject it because babies are innocent. baptism has a much different approach in the East.

I really don't believe baptism is about getting off the hook for wrongdoing. I don't believe it has that purpose or function. I certainly want to understand the Eastern concept of it, though. Maybe you could elaborate.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I really don't believe baptism is about getting off the hook for wrongdoing. I don't believe it has that purpose or function. I certainly want to understand the Eastern concept of it, though. Maybe you could elaborate.

sorry, than, my bad for the misread. when man fell away from God, his nature became fallen. Christ's ministry deified human nature and restored it to what it once was. baptism is the putting on of Christ (that deified nature) which allows us to partake of the divine nature as St Peter says. it is the white robe you read about in Revelation. so it is more about healing, which even infants need.

 

[CelticRebel]

sorry, than, my bad for the misread. when man fell away from God, his nature became fallen. Christ's ministry deified human nature and restored it to what it once was. baptism is the putting on of Christ (that deified nature) which allows us to partake of the divine nature as St Peter says. it is the white robe you read about in Revelation. so it is more about healing, which even infants need.

I like that very much. I have a problem believing that water baptism does that, but I like the concept of healing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I like that very much. I have a problem believing that water baptism does that, but I like the concept of healing.

the issue is that is what you see in Acts. water is always with the healing. man is both material and spiritual, so both elements are used in the life of the Church.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I like that very much. I have a problem believing that water baptism does that, but I like the concept of healing.

So to draw from my post on the other thread, now can you see that healing as nourishing and cleansing from the sacraments that children could receive despite not understanding exactly what they are? The perspective and understanding of the sacramental life of The Church through a proper EOC lens makes this much more understandable, does it not?

 

[CelticRebel]

the issue is that is what you see in Acts. water is always with the healing. man is both material and spiritual, so both elements are used in the life of the Church.

I can agree with the water being "with", but not healing "through" the water. That's the definition I have trouble with.

 

[CelticRebel]

So to draw from my post on the other thread, now can you see that healing as nourishing and cleansing from the sacraments that children could receive despite not understanding exactly what they are? The perspective and understanding of the sacramental life of The Church through a proper EOC lens makes this much more understandable, does it not?

I understand and agree with the EOC concept of healing, but I don't believe such healing comes through or is brought about by outward means. I believe it is brought about by the Spirit, through or based on faith, and that water is a sign of that. So, my problem is not with EOC concepts of salvation but with sacramentalism. I would say more on that, but I don't want to offend, and I'm afraid an example I have in mind might do that.

People in this forum have been kind, gracious, encouraging, and helpful to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I can agree with the water being "with", but not healing "through" the water. That's the definition I have trouble with.

then go with "with." being a sacrament, we Orthodox tend not to define exactly what goes on, only that God does it. we call it a mystery for a reason.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I believe it is brought about by the Spirit, through or based on faith, and that water is a sign of that.

the issue is that Scripture never says water is merely a sign

 

[CelticRebel]

then go with "with." being a sacrament, we Orthodox tend not to define exactly what goes on, only that God does it. we call it a mystery for a reason.

Well, I like that, too.

 

[CelticRebel]

the issue is that Scripture never says water is merely a sign

That's how I see it -- that the scripture presents it as a sign. Can you tell me why you believe otherwise?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not sure, but maybe you are focusing too much on the water? Yes, water is a part of it, but ... maybe you're getting into some kind of magical thinking, which we do not believe?

The sacraments are ALWAYS the work of God.

 

[CelticRebel]

I'm not sure, but maybe you are focusing too much on the water? Yes, water is a part of it, but ... maybe you're getting into some kind of magical thinking, which we do not believe?

The sacraments are ALWAYS the work of God.

I can't get past the teaching that water produces a spiritual effect.

 

[Antony in Tx]

then go with "with." being a sacrament, we Orthodox tend not to define exactly what goes on, only that God does it. we call it a mystery for a reason.

Acutally this is a great point, and I love that our priest does not use the word sacrament very often...he will instead speak of "The Holy Mystery of Baptism" "The Holy Mystery of Marriage" "They Holy Mystery of Confession"... the form is important because it is what has been handed down unchanged in essence from the Apostles, but how it works and why it works is a mystery to us indeed and a matter of faith.