Seriously considering conversion - some questions

[FreedByte]

well, the act of kissing I dunno, but venerating objects goes back to the OT. the Ark of the covenant had images of cherubim on the top, and it was certainly venerated as a holy object, as was all the other material and images sanctified in the Temple.

Honestly this is a poor argument, the Ark was venerated because God spoke to them from between the cherubim; the cherubim themselves were not venerated.

 

[FreedByte]

That one is easy... baptism isn't something you do, it is something that is done TO you. The ones who don't believe in infant baptism contend that it is something you do for God as a sign of obedience yet is pragmatically pointless because they hold no sacramental view of baptism.

Yes, this is what I'm coming to realize. However, it seems as though anabaptists and the like lived out the Christian life much better than their persecutors during the reformation era, seeing as they stood by their faith amidst executions from both protestants and catholics.

If, as the church has always held, baptism is a conferment of saving grace and initiation into the Kingdom of God, why would you not baptize infants?

Because every instance of baptism in the Bible is preceded by faith and repentance. However, it has occurred to me that all the baptisms in the Bible are of new believers, and there isn't any waiting to have Christian children baptized nor "age of accounability" of a second generation believer in the Bible (except in the case of household baptisms).

 

[Cappadocious]

Yes, this is what I'm coming to realize. However, it seems as though anabaptists and the like lived out the Christian life much better than their persecutors during the reformation era, seeing as they stood by their faith amidst executions from both protestants and catholics.

Many Muslims died such deaths as well.

 

[prodromos]

Why do you need to remit an infant's sins if the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in original sin?

Remission of sins is only one of the things achieved by baptism. Infants still need being united to Christ and becoming one flesh with Him and His body, and entering into His death and resurrection.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually I think I am mistaken, it may be under the HOCNA, which I think is in schism (or something along those lines) if I am not mistaken?

also, where did you end up?

yeah HOCNA is in schism, and I ended up OCA

I meant more along the lines of protestants are almost all encouraged by each other to read their Bibles, whereas I found almost no Bible reading in the RCC. Bible reading was associated with protestantism, and it was seen as somewhat strange to do so.

we are absolutely enocuraged to read the Bible.

The older Alexandrian texts, which are far less universal, vs the Byzantine texts, which agree with each other much more and make up the majority, but are not as old.

what is the exact difference? (sorry, on a government computer and cannot look up everything)

Okay, good; also, do you call her "Queen of Heaven" as the Roman Catholics do?

she can be called that, yes. in the sense that she is the Mother of the King of Kings. we just don't take her as far as Rome does.

outside of liturgy and corporate prayer, though, do Orthodox generally pray more often for intercession or directly to God?

to God. the Prayer we are to pray without ceasing is Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

My concern is especially with those places where the lines between church and state are blurred and it is causing people to leave for evangelicalism. See this.

well, that's not Church and State issue, that was whatever Church he was at not telling him what he needed to know or he was not paying attention. one cannot pay attention through a fast and say we don't confront sins. and his history is all jacked up. so he didn't leave because of Church and State.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Honestly this is a poor argument, the Ark was venerated because God spoke to them from between the cherubim; the cherubim themselves were not venerated.

sure it was, everything in the Temple was. the priest blessed the Ark, to include the Cherubim with blood. those Cherubim were in an area of the Temple that was so holy that it could only be looked upon once a year. those Cherubim were absolutely venerated.

 

[FreedByte]

Remission of sins is only one of the things achieved by baptism. Infants still need being united to Christ and becoming one flesh with Him and His body, and entering into His death and resurrection.

I get that, but Orthodox still believe that baptism is unto the remission of sins, so then what sins are being remitted for the infant?

 

[FreedByte]

yeah HOCNA is in schism, and I ended up OCA

I'm leaning towards OCA now; I really wish there was a unified American Orthodox Church. I think it would encourage conversion by making it simpler to understand which churches are under which authority.

we are absolutely enocuraged to read the Bible.

what is the exact difference? (sorry, on a government computer and cannot look up everything)

hmm, not sure how to explain it further. The earliest texts used for english translation of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, are pretty close to the majority text (although there are significant differences). Then later, older manuscripts were discovered. One, the Codex Vaticanus, and another the Codex Sinaiticus. Academic scholars and "textual critics" decided, among other reasons, that because the texts were older, they were better. Those who prefer the majority text argue that:

Although there are good scholarly arguments both for and against using the Byzantine Majority Text over the “Alexandrian” text based on the dating and critical editing work of Nestle and Aland and published by the United Bible Societies (NU), we find the following to be compelling reasons:

• The NU text has a lot of “dropout” errors relative to the M-Text. Diligent scribes with a respect for God’s Word are more likely to miss copying something (i.e. by skipping a line, etc.) than to make up a line to add in.
• Different scribes copying the same passage aren’t all likely to make the same mistakes at the same places, even though some mistakes are likely to be copied over many times.
• When a scribe had a choice of manuscripts to copy, he would normally copy the one that he trusted the most, thus causing the most trusted text to be copied more often.
• The NU text relies heavily on the dating of the media upon which the text was written, but those texts that are used more and trusted more would both be copied more often and worn out from use sooner.
• The NU text is heavily weighted to a small number of manuscripts relative to those available to us, and relies heavily on one manuscript that was pulled from a trash can at a monastery.

- from the World English Bible FAQ (which, I believe, includes all the books that Orthodox consider Deuterocanonical)

she can be called that, yes. in the sense that she is the Mother of the King of Kings. we just don't take her as far as Rome does.

Hmm, she is Christ's mother, but "Queen of Heaven"? Jesus is King, not prince. Doesn't "Queen of Heaven" imply a certain level of deity?

to God. the Prayer we are to pray without ceasing is Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

well, that's not Church and State issue, that was whatever Church he was at not telling him what he needed to know or he was not paying attention. one cannot pay attention through a fast and say we don't confront sins. and his history is all jacked up. so he didn't leave because of Church and State.

Yea, or perhaps he was improperly instructed in the faith as a child. On that topic, how do Orthodox make sure that children understand and are educated in the faith? This was another thing that seemed lacking in the RCC. Scripture study never really got past the first 8 books of the OT (if that); it was very much churchianity without any sense of Christ's redemption and atonement.

 

[FreedByte]

sure it was, everything in the Temple was. the priest blessed the Ark, to include the Cherubim with blood. those Cherubim were in an area of the Temple that was so holy that it could only be looked upon once a year. those Cherubim were absolutely venerated.

Hmm, that is a good argument.

 

[FreedByte]

Many Muslims died such deaths as well.

True, I guess it's more of a statement of the protestant and RCC lack of upholding Christian values. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Anabaptists though.

 

[prodromos]

I get that, but Orthodox still believe that baptism is unto the remission of sins, so then what sins are being remitted for the infant?

Since they don't have any sins, none are in need of being remitted.

 

[Thekla]

I get that, but Orthodox still believe that baptism is unto the remission of sins, so then what sins are being remitted for the infant?

One could look at it this way:
sin is separation from God. Not being united to Christ in baptism is a sort of separation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm leaning towards OCA now; I really wish there was a unified American Orthodox Church. I think it would encourage conversion by making it simpler to understand which churches are under which authority.

well, there will be, but it will take time. the good thing is that we are one unified Church. the jurisdictional mess will work itself out.

hmm, not sure how to explain it further. The earliest texts used for english translation of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, are pretty close to the majority text (although there are significant differences). Then later, older manuscripts were discovered. One, the Codex Vaticanus, and another the Codex Sinaiticus. Academic scholars and "textual critics" decided, among other reasons, that because the texts were older, they were better. Those who prefer the majority text argue that:

Although there are good scholarly arguments both for and against using the Byzantine Majority Text over the “Alexandrian” text based on the dating and critical editing work of Nestle and Aland and published by the United Bible Societies (NU), we find the following to be compelling reasons:

The NU text has a lot of “dropout” errors relative to the M-Text. Diligent scribes with a respect for God’s Word are more likely to miss copying something (i.e. by skipping a line, etc.) than to make up a line to add in.
Different scribes copying the same passage aren’t all likely to make the same mistakes at the same places, even though some mistakes are likely to be copied over many times.
When a scribe had a choice of manuscripts to copy, he would normally copy the one that he trusted the most, thus causing the most trusted text to be copied more often.
The NU text relies heavily on the dating of the media upon which the text was written, but those texts that are used more and trusted more would both be copied more often and worn out from use sooner.
The NU text is heavily weighted to a small number of manuscripts relative to those available to us, and relies heavily on one manuscript that was pulled from a trash can at a monastery.

- from the World English Bible FAQ (which, I believe, includes all the books that Orthodox consider Deuterocanonical)

dang, that is above my pay grade. I dunno. I can say that it doesn't matter in a sense (and I say in a sense because there are some oddball translations out there), because we have the proper understanding. I know we use the Greek OT, but I honestly don't have the info to go any deeper.

Hmm, she is Christ's mother, but "Queen of Heaven"? Jesus is King, not prince. Doesn't "Queen of Heaven" imply a certain level of deity?

yes, but remember because of His Kingship, we are all called to be kings and princes. the Prophet David in the Psalms says that we are gods, sons of the Most High. we are all called to be kings and queens, priests and prophets, etc. we are made to be divine by grace. so yes, you can call her that because she shows what becomes of every Christian, she is our great exemplar (after her Son, of course).

Yea, or perhaps he was improperly instructed in the faith as a child. On that topic, how do Orthodox make sure that children understand and are educated in the faith? This was another thing that seemed lacking in the RCC. Scripture study never really got past the first 8 books of the OT (if that); it was very much churchianity without any sense of Christ's redemption and atonement.

you have them attend the services. children are not the future of the Church, they are the Church. Sunday School (while important) should be secondary intruction to the liturgical life of the Church. Fr Roman Braga would say that his primary education in the faith was when his mother would lead him around and show him what to do in Church. Bible studies and such should plug into that, and if they do, you cannot escape the Cross and the empty Tomb.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I get that, but Orthodox still believe that baptism is unto the remission of sins, so then what sins are being remitted for the infant?

well (and this is just me off the top of my head), since it is God who does the remitting, and He is not bound by time, I would say the ones the infant will commit. the effect of the sacraments should not only be looked at linearly.

 

[FreedByte]

Since they don't have any sins, none are in need of being remitted.

Wouldn't that imply that it should be postponed, since, per the Nicene creed "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."?

 

[FreedByte]

One could look at it this way:
sin is separation from God. Not being united to Christ in baptism is a sort of separation.

True, that's a good way to look at it

 

[FreedByte]

well, there will be, but it will take time. the good thing is that we are one unified Church. the jurisdictional mess will work itself out.

Is it in the works? Are people actively working towards it? Are we talking years? decades? centuries??

dang, that is above my pay grade. I dunno. I can say that it doesn't matter in a sense (and I say in a sense because there are some oddball translations out there), because we have the proper understanding. I know we use the Greek OT, but I honestly don't have the info to go any deeper.

Ah okay, thanks

yes, but remember because of His Kingship, we are all called to be kings and princes. the Prophet David in the Psalms says that we are gods, sons of the Most High. we are all called to be kings and queens, priests and prophets, etc. we are made to be divine by grace. so yes, you can call her that because she shows what becomes of every Christian, she is our great exemplar (after her Son, of course).

But she still sinned, right? And if she was not a deity, the title Queen of Heaven seems very strange indeed.

you have them attend the services. children are not the future of the Church, they are the Church. Sunday School (while important) should be secondary intruction to the liturgical life of the Church. Fr Roman Braga would say that his primary education in the faith was when his mother would lead him around and show him what to do in Church. Bible studies and such should plug into that, and if they do, you cannot escape the Cross and the empty Tomb.

 

[FreedByte]

well (and this is just me off the top of my head), since it is God who does the remitting, and He is not bound by time, I would say the ones the infant will commit. the effect of the sacraments should not only be looked at linearly.

hmmmm, very true

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it in the works? Are people actively working towards it? Are we talking years? decades? centuries??

yep, but it might take years. all in God's time

But she still sinned, right? And if she was not a deity, the title Queen of Heaven seems very strange indeed.

well, we call her spotless and sinless, but that is in relation to the rest of us, and it is by grace not by nature. compared to her Son, she still needed a savior. and yeah it was for me when I started looking, but you don't hear it that much. usually she is called the Theotokos (God bearer).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wouldn't that imply that it should be postponed, since, per the Nicene creed "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."?

well, do you need to wait until someone becomes sick to give them medicine? no you don't. we get flu shots and mists before the flu season. think of it more as fallenness makes you sick, and you need healing rather than you violated God's contract (not to discount the juridical language because it is there).