Paedobaptist looking for home

[KATHXOYMENOC]

I would not say that too many of the things a protestant would beleive would be "wrong". The most profound things are not that they are "wrong" but that there is a different understanding to them. While I admire your attitude for starting at ground zero I think that statement is a bit scary to someone that is simply a casual inquirer.

Here is one of the major things that you need to understand. Western Christianity has a focus on learning about God in a different way than we do. In the Eastern church we are experiential. We go for a direct experience with God rather than book knowledge. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote book after book and then one day had an actual experience with God. After that he said that all of his books should be burned and never wrote another page. This illustrates a major difference between the East and West.

The very first step is to go to a service (Consider Vespers for a first service) and to see the icons, hear the chanting, smell the incense and in general "feel" it. Afterwards, speak to the priest. Tell him what your thought are and ask him questions. You may be tempted to read and study - that is the western way. Go. Experience it for yourself, then ask questions.

As a "lifelong" (i.e., in terms of my Christian life - which began about midway through my current chronological life) Charismatic non-denominational Christian, I suspect that this also explains much of the reason for the Charismatic movement - i.e., desiring that one's Christian faith be not just intellectual but also experiential.

While the cessationist and non-/anti-Charismatic branch of Protestant Evangelicalism has focused on Bible study and learning the "propositional truths" of Scripture as the way to grow spiritually - i.e., learning what the Scriptures teach and applying those teachings to one's life - Charismatics have argued that the experiential dimension of faith described in the New Testament - e.g., praying in tongues, prophesying, praying for and seeing healings, spiritual dreams, visions, palpable encounters with the Holy Spirit during the worship service and in one's prayer time as well as at other times, etc. - should also be part of one's Christianity. They wouldn't exclude the Bible study and learning of "propositional (or other) truths," but they would not make them the whole of Christian learning and experience as their non-Charismatic brethren sometimes tend to do, or sometimes seem to tend to do, often from an expressed fear or disdain of "mystical" experiences (as they're wont to put down Charismatic experiences as being).

("Mystical" has negative connotations in non-Charismatic circles. Having also spent 5 or more years in a "Bible Church," I know the views of non-Charismatic Evangelicals about these things.)

Charismatic Christians would say that what was promised to believers in Acts 2:17-18 and discussed in I Corinthians 12:4-11; 14:26-33 should not be just "what happened back then" but also what happens now. Thus, baptism and chrismation should not just be acts that by faith bury one with Christ and seal one with the Holy Spirit, but there should also be an active, realized, expressed, visible and/or audible experiential manifestation of the Holy Spirit (e.g., speaking in tongues and/or prophesying) accompanying and testifying to one's incorporation into, and experience of, Life in Christ - and not just at conversion, but also throughout one's Christian life thereafter.

This is all to say that I suspect that the Charismatic movement is in some ways a response to and a rejection of the "book-knowledge" (or, rather, "book-knowledge-only") approach to Christianity that has characterized much of "Western" Christianity for the last several centuries.

 

[eoe]

As a "lifelong" (i.e., in terms of my Christian life - which began about midway through my current chronological life) Charismatic non-denominational Christian, I suspect that this also explains much of the reason for the Charismatic movement - i.e., desiring that one's Christian faith be not just intellectual but also experiential.

IT also explains the thousands of dissatisfied Western Christians that are leaving for Buddhism, yoga, zen whatever... They have no clue that their own religion even has a mystical side - much less a 2000 year old tradition.

Charismatics have argued that the experiential dimension of faith described in the New Testament - e.g., praying in tongues, prophesying, praying for and seeing healings, spiritual dreams, visions, palpable encounters with the Holy Spirit during the worship service and in one's prayer time as well as at other times, etc. - should also be part of one's Christianity.

Please do not take what I am about to say the wrong way.

The problem with the Charismatic sects is that they do not have the guidance that is required in order to avoid problems. They also do not have the grace of the sacraments or the help of the Liturgical life. The result of this is that people go off on their own and fall into traps and pitfalls and are not even aware of it. The ideas of Catharsis, fotisis and theosis are utterly foreign to them. Often people attempt to begin at fotisis with no ascesis whatever and chase after a mystical experience. I am afraid that this sets up an ideal place for prelest and delusion to run rampant.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Please do not take what I am about to say the wrong way.

The problem with the Charismatic sects is that they do not have the guidance that is required in order to avoid problems. They also do not have the grace of the sacraments or the help of the Liturgical life. The result of this is that people go off on their own and fall into traps and pitfalls and are not even aware of it. The ideas of Catharsis, fotisis and theosis are utterly foreign to them. Often people attempt to begin at fotisis with no ascesis whatever and chase after a mystical experience. I am afraid that this sets up an ideal place for prelest and delusion to run rampant.

Why do you think my wife and I basically left Charismatic Christianity after 26 years of it and began our exploration of the Orthodox Church?

 

[Happy Orthodox]

The problem with the Charismatic sects is that they do not have the guidance that is required in order to avoid problems. They also do not have the grace of the sacraments or the help of the Liturgical life. The result of this is that people go off on their own and fall into traps and pitfalls and are not even aware of it. The ideas of Catharsis, fotisis and theosis are utterly foreign to them. Often people attempt to begin at fotisis with no ascesis whatever and chase after a mystical experience. I am afraid that this sets up an ideal place for prelest and delusion to run rampant.

Also, in Orthdoxy, it is even prideful to seek mystical experiences. That is how one falls into prelest -- when one deliberately seeks experiences. Charismatics do exactly that.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Also, in Orthdoxy, it is even prideful to seek mystical experiences. That is how one falls into prelest -- when one deliberately seeks experiences. Charismatics do exactly that.

But St. Paul exhorts Christians to eagerly desire spiritual gifts (assuming that is what pneumatika means in 1 Corinthians 14:1), and he says that they should especially desire to prophesy. He doesn't tell them it is prideful to do so. While some may be seeking these experiences from a wrong motive, Charismatics who rightly seek to manifest the charismata are simply and faithfully obeying St. Paul's instructions. He encourages that in their coming together they individually share psalms, teachings, revelations, and messages in tongues with each other. His word for "come together" is the exact same word he uses in 1 Corinthians 11:17,18,20,33,34 when he talks about them coming together as a church to have the Lord's Supper, which included what is now the Eucharist. In other words, he is telling them that this is to be part of their worship and fellowship. One could almost say that synerchomai in 1 Corinthians is a t.t. (technical term) for meeting as a church. In fact, this is the only epistle in the NT in which it's used, and it's used exclusively in chapters 11 and 14.

This has probably been my biggest hurdle to yet overcome in my study/pursuit of Orthodoxy. While I am well aware of the problems in modern-day Charismatic Christianity (too well aware, one might say, as we live quite close to one of the big movers and shakers in the modern Apostolic and Prophetic movement), St. Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 12-14 for how the church is to meet is not something I see going on when the Orthodox Church assembles.

Apparently Jordan Bajis, author of Light & Life's highly-recommended book COMMON GROUND: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian - a most informative and very popular book, too - felt the same way. Even though he got a M.Div. degree at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (OCA), he is apparently now a pastor of a non-canonical Orthodox Christian church/community in Colorado that incorporates time for these things before and after the Divine Liturgy:

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/pastor.html

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/pamphlets/worship/worshippage22.html

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Apparently Jordan Bajis, author of Light & Life's highly-recommended book COMMON GROUND: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian - a most informative and very popular book, too - felt the same way. Even though he got a M.Div. degree at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (OCA), he is apparently now a pastor of a non-canonical Orthodox Christian church/community in Colorado that incorporates time for these things before and after the Divine Liturgy:

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/pastor.html

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/

http://www.holytrinitycommunity.org/pamphlets/worship/worshippage22.html

That whole sitaution with Bajis is so sad. He can call his church and his services whatever he likes, but it ain't Orthodox. Just goes to show that anyone can fall away, and a degree doesn't mean squat if someone gets in their head that they know more than the Church. The Church has been making saints of men and women for 2000 years all over the world - and many of them "mystical" - and never needed any help from self-made American style evangelicalism.

Are you under the guidance of a priest? I suggest you talk to him about what you described as an obstacle. I have some thoughts on it, but I'm (becoming more and more) loathe to give anyone too deep of spiritual advice. Just remember the Bible is the book of the Church, and must be understood within the context of the Church. Remove it from the context from which it was written and compiled, and all of a sudden you have chaos.

Wait, wasn't this thread about infant baptism?? I haven't read it all, but welcome to TAW, Blackhawk. I hope you have your questions answered.

LK

 

[eoe]

*hopefully we have not run him off.....*

(Let's start a new thread Cat E Q Men os?)

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

duplicate

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

That whole sitaution with Bajis is so sad. He can call his church and his services whatever he likes, but it ain't Orthodox. Just goes to show that anyone can fall away, and a degree doesn't mean squat if someone gets in their head that they know more than the Church. The Church has been making saints of men and women for 2000 years all over the world - and many of them "mystical" - and never needed any help from self-made American style evangelicalism.

Are you under the guidance of a priest? I suggest you talk to him about what you described as an obstacle. I have some thoughts on it, but I'm (becoming more and more) loathe to give anyone too deep of spiritual advice. Just remember the Bible is the book of the Church, and must be understood within the context of the Church. Remove it from the context from which it was written and compiled, and all of a sudden you have chaos.

Wait, wasn't this thread about infant baptism?? I haven't read it all, but welcome to TAW, Blackhawk. I hope you have your questions answered.

LK

Yes, I'm under the guidance of a priest and in catechumen classes. This is something we have talked about, since our priest comes from a Pentecostal/non-denominational Charismatic background himself. I understand that this is likely a no-starter in almost every Orthodox church. And ... I think Bajis and his church are taking their instructions re: exercising the charismata in the service from St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and not from self-made American style Evangelicalism.

The original topic came from a paedobaptist, but was not about paedobaptism. He asks other questions about what Orthodoxy requires.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

I think Bajis and his church are taking their instructions re: exercising the charismata in the service from St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and not from self-made American style Evangelicalism.

But... he's doing it according to HIS understanding, HIS interpretation, and how HE wants it, not what the Church that Christ built has said it should be for 2000 years. That's why it's "self-made". He's reading the Bible independantly of the Church that created it. That's why it is a type of American Protestantism, and nothing Orthodox.

I don't want to argue and usually stay out of this type of discussion for that reason. But Bajis is a poor example for ANYONE to look to, and I can't emphasize that enough. Yeah, "Common Ground" is a pretty good book. But he left the Church in order to start his own false church, with "some" elements of his Orthodox past thrown in. That's an extremely dangerous thing to do. The early heretics had their verses to support their false teachings as well.

LK

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

But... he's doing it according to HIS understanding, HIS interpretation, and how HE wants it, not what the Church that Christ built has said it should be for 2000 years. That's why it's "self-made". He's reading the Bible independantly of the Church that created it. That's why it is a type of American Protestantism, and nothing Orthodox.

I don't want to argue and usually stay out of this type of discussion for that reason. But Bajis is a poor example for ANYONE to look to, and I can't emphasize that enough. Yeah, "Common Ground" is a pretty good book. But he left the Church in order to start his own false church, with "some" elements of his Orthodox past thrown in. That's an extremely dangerous thing to do. The early heretics had their verses to support their false teachings as well.

LK

While the Orthodox Church may have "created" the Bible, it did not create St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. St. Paul wrote it.

Re your statement: "what the Church that Christ built has said it should be for 2000 years": How, then, does the Orthodox Church incorporate St. Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 12-14 re: the exercise of and mutual sharing and edification by the charismata by all the members of the Body when they "come together" (i.e., assemble as a church)?

 

[Oblio]

Through the Divine Liturgy

 

[eoe]

*cough* newthread *cough*

 

[Blackhawk]

Okay I am sure some of you are wondering where I have been since starting this thread. Well a friend of my wife came into town and I found myself not having as much time to get to campus and get on the internet.

There are so many replies now that I cannot answer them all. i will look into going to a service at the church on Alta Mesa. it is close to my house since right now I am going to SWBTS. I am also going to try and get to the thing this next Wed. in Dallas. I might be going to do PHD work at Fordham with John Behr who is a prof. at St Vladimir's but does his PHD studies with Fordham.

But as to becoming an EO. I do not know yet. Many things i like about the Orthodox way but many things scare me. I did speak to a priest over at a church right off of Bryany Irvin. (for those of you who know FT Worth) It went well but I still have many questions. I guess what scares me the most is that the EO is so ... well... Catholic. Coming up E.V. Free and Baptist i have heard all my life the arguments against the CAtholic pov. and while most ofthem were directed towards Roman Catholicism and EO is not the same thing in some veryh signifcant ways I still am having a hard time with the 7 sacraments, salvation not through faith alone, the church having so much authority etc.

i have read the posts that came from those that have become EO from Baptist type roots and I they give me hope. But I hope all can understand that i am in no way meaning any offense at all but it is just a very hard change.

i am also looking into the reformed anglican movement. Sometimes i seem to be a man without a denomination. i want to submit to one but i am too Catholic for some and too protestant for others.

Please pray that God will guide me and forgive me.

BH.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

I've taken no offense, BH. Soooo many of us have been where you are.

I was raised the type of Baptist that HATED Catholics, and I mean HATED them. They were a subject for derision and mockery, for us to arrogantly look our noses down on. We were "saved", and how stupid they were. They'd rather just worship Mary! So much of what they believed was "obviously" not biblical. (according to our tradition, anyway). I'm sure I would've felt the same about Orthodoxy had it been a blip on my radar at the time.

Then I went to college, became very good friends with a very pious and knowledgeable Catholic guy, and everything I'd been taught started to crumble, though the process did not come to fruition until years later. It turns out... there IS a reasonable, logical, and most of all Scriptural explanation for almost everything I hated about Catholicism.

Of course, I ended up becoming Eastern Orthodox instead. We have our own quibbles with some of what the RCC teaches, though it tends to be quite different than what the Protestants quibble with.

I guess my point is, sounds like you have a lot of the same baggage I had. But there ARE solid, scriptural basises (is that a word?) for what we do. Sounds like you're in contact with some good people already, and we are eager to help you get past things that confuse you, too, if you will let us help.

Don't give up hope.


LK

 

[Blackhawk]

It is not that I have learned to hate Catholics or anything. Maybe I was taught to look down on them but not hate them. I just see man things that I love about EO and have learned from the church fathers and the EO. But there are also stumbling blocks that i still have and need to address before i could become an EO. I think many of them are because in some significant ways I still think very protestantly. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[elizabethevangeline]

Coming up E.V. Free and Baptist i have heard all my life the arguments against the CAtholic pov. and while most ofthem were directed towards Roman Catholicism and EO is not the same thing in some veryh signifcant ways I still am having a hard time with the 7 sacraments, salvation not through faith alone, the church having so much authority etc.

I come from an EVFree and Baptist background too. I'm an inquirer into Orthodoxy.

but it is just a very hard change.

Yes it is. I've just passed the 2 yr mark...woman without a denomination. Just adding to the general "you're not alone!".

 

[Orthosdoxa]

It is not that I have learned to hate Catholics or anything.

Then you're already 10 steps ahead of where I was.

But there are also stumbling blocks that i still have and need to address before i could become an EO.

Address away. We've ALL been there.

LK

PS - it might help to have a different thread for each and do one at a time.

 

[grov]

But there are also stumbling blocks that i still have and need to address before i could become an EO. I think many of them are because in some significant ways I still think very protestantly. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

"Not necessarily a bad thing" is right. This is why I pointed out a thousand posts ago that my Bishop invited me to "come into the fullness". He meant that my Protestant background had a lot of good in it, a lot of truth, but he was offering the Fullness. If you come a week from today to St. Seraphim's and get opportunity to speak to ArchBishop Dmitri (he's in the picture in the upper right, greeting my youngest), he may tell you about his Baptist beginnings, and he may tell you how grateful he is to them for bringing him to the same point you now find yourself.

Whatever is True is orthodox (which includes a significant part of Protestant theology), and the Orthodox Church in all ages and in each new culture has exorcised whatever was evil, allowed whatever was not, and baptised whatever was truth.

George

 

[rusmeister]

Here is a stupendous article by a former Baptist seminarian, the best I have ever seen in outlining the theological differences. I highlighted the parts that I found to be critically true (if I may say it that way), but don't know if it would be legal to post my highlighted version. If you're interested, I guess I could send it privately. (This stuff is still important to me because my brothers and sister are still (liberal ex-fundamental) Baptist)

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/from_baptist_to_first_century.htm

You are right to tread carefully!