Calling All Orthodox!

[RyanBlack]

This is a False Statement as the need for Baptism for the remission of sin is Biblical and Apostolic its in the Creed. Yet its taught in your Church and is a accepted belief in circles this isn’t so. And its “taught” and by priests, are you saying they don’t know what they are talking about?

And you can see why directly above and by my other post in regard. There’s no need for me to continue to repeat myself.

So yes the need to define doctrine is no better exemplified as in this thread.

Can you provide an official Orthodox statement that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is a False Statement as the need for Baptism for the remission of sin is Biblical and Apostolic its in the Creed. Yet its taught in your Church and is a accepted belief in circles this isn’t so. And its “taught” and by priests, are you saying they don’t know what they are talking about?

I think your confusing your issues with orthodoxy to mean we disregaurd the creeds. I don’t understand your crticism. Are you saying we believe Baptism does nothing when someone denies inheriting the actual sin Adam committed? Is this your contention? Because everything I said, I am quite sure, is absolutely true. An orthodox should not dissagree on those issues.

And you can see why directly above and by my other post in regard. There’s no need for me to continue to repeat myself.

So yes the need to define doctrine is no better exemplified as in this thread.

What else other than what I have mentioned do you want to force us to define to your satisfaction?

 

[Wandile]

This may go without saying, but let me say it regardless … I’m sure no one denies that we Catholics (or, more specifically, Vatican I) make that claim, but that does not mean that the Orthodox accept that claim.

Well I guess proof is that the Pope is not busy micromanaging the church in every diocese. He rarely interferes and normally only acts when called upon or when a bishop is out of line or not doing his job correctly.

 

[chimo]

How does one see the image of Christ in the East, in particular when the remission of sin is boldly denied and supported by the erroneous belief that “some early church fathers believed this” In fact to me its utter nonsense as it denies the redemption of Jesus Christ!!!

Then one would slap up the Filoque as a point of contention when the Creed is so clear. Let alone baptism. Absurd.is what I see.

So when its said one doesn’t see Christ in the West, where is Christ in this nonexistent theology in the East which undermines the redemption of Jesus Christ?

And yes we do think very differently about what it means to be united, that’s self evident also.

When one proves that novel philosophy of unity claimed above historically I will be impressed. That has never occurred., never will.

In other words how can you argue Creed when your wrong about the remission of sin, how can you argue Baptism when the remission of sin is thought to be unneeded.

How can you argue the primacy when there is no historic view as we see on this thread to support the novel theory?

Then to suggest you don’t see the image of Christ in the West, is plain absurd and when the “redemption” of Jesus Christ himself is denied.

Let me ask; Do you see why so many in the West do not see the image of Christ in the East???

Prove your point, and leave the drama, the sublime insults and novel claims behind.

The point Gary that the Eastern Church makes is we are only accountable to our own sins. The East decided not to enter into the same line of thinking like the West on Original Sin. There was a very high judgment by the Western Church on the Original Sin which gave their Church Fathers this perspective which Rome has today. The difference in the Eastern understanding was a less judgmental view. Do you understand the difference? They do not give this sin a higher verdict. I would presume the sin of Adam and Eve was more inclined to what a venial sin is, using the terminology of the Church of Rome. This understanding would also be satisfactory on the Eastern understanding since any sin from them would have started this for the rest of mankind. We think that the sin was mortal but was it? Any sin would have started this and so the thinking was a more less judgmental view when the Eastern Church Fathers were commenting on this.

This difference tells us that the East saw differently what this sin implies. Since the judgment was far less than the West the East did not see for instance that babies would be judged. The conditions of that first sin was now part of mankind but the East would not put any high verdict to that condition. Since the Eastern Church would not impose this higher verdict on the rest of mankind they saw differently why for instance babies could be baptised. They theorized that God would never judge a baby even though Original Sin was in place. So the Eastern Church would also not judge. The main reason why the Eastern Church would continue to baptised babies was not so much this Original Sin that was there but in order that the Grace of God would have a better opportunity to help them grow into sanctity.

The teaching of the East was this. Man and woman were created not to be saints (right away) but were created in order to become saints. This means it is going to take time. Unlike angels who were created to become instant saints mankind must take on a different route. Even though sin has entered into mankind this was not going to stop them in God’s plan for them to become saints. God still had this in mind. The sin of Adam and Eve can be said to be committed from their lowest level of sanctity. They can still have room to grow since it was from this lowest level. It is the same with us. We will sin from our lowest level as well. But the point is we have an opportunity to grow within the grace which God has given for us especially with the merits which Jesus has won for us.

Although the plan of God was long before the Lord Jesus had come unto the scene it was this plan that mankind must learn to seek. The Eastern Church Fathers put less emphasis on judgment and put more emphasis on mercy. For instance they say physical death came into the world not as a judgment but rather as an act of mercy. Since physical death limits one’s sinning to this life God has given mankind this remedy so that sinning would not be eternal. The teaching from the East was that when God said death would come to them He was saying physical death not spiritual death. This difference which the Eastern saints had spoken on and what the Church Fathers of the West had given to the Catholic Church gives us two differences which we have inherited regarding on how we judge and see sin.

This does not mean the Catholic has this higher judgment on sin per see but it tells us the Catholic Church may have given a more discipline towards sin than what the Eastern Church would give. Here I am referring to only our venial sins. But it is very interesting that with all of this in mind it was the Catholic Church which had classified sins into two groups, venial and mortal. This is actually good and a great blessing for us to know. The classification of sins tells us God can work with those who only commit venial sins (since we commit them daily) but there is a very big problem with those who commit mortal sins. This classification of sin into venial and mortal is not found in the Eastern Church. Perhaps it will in time.

 

[spina1953]

The point Gary that the Eastern Church makes is we are only accountable to our own sins. The East decided not to enter into the same line of thinking like the West on Original Sin. There was a very high judgment by the Western Church on the Original Sin which gave their Church Fathers this perspective which Rome has today. The difference in the Eastern understanding was a less judgmental view. Do you understand the difference? They do not give this sin a higher verdict. I would presume the sin of Adam and Eve was more inclined to what a venial sin is, using the terminology of the Church of Rome. This understanding would also be satisfactory on the Eastern understanding since any sin from them would have started this for the rest of mankind. We think that the sin was mortal but was it? Any sin would have started this and so the thinking was a more less judgmental view when the Eastern Church Fathers were commenting on this.

This difference tells us that the East saw differently what this sin implies. Since the judgment was far less than the West the East did not see for instance that babies would be judged. The conditions of that first sin was now part of mankind but the East would not put any high verdict to that condition. Since the Eastern Church would not impose this higher verdict on the rest of mankind they saw differently why for instance babies could be baptised. They theorized that God would never judge a baby even though Original Sin was in place. So the Eastern Church would also not judge. The main reason why the Eastern Church would continue to baptised babies was not so much this Original Sin that was there but in order that the Grace of God would have a better opportunity to help them grow into sanctity.

The teaching of the East was this. Man and woman were created not to be saints (right away) but were created in order to become saints. This means it is going to take time. Unlike angels who were created to become instant saints mankind must take on a different route. Even though sin has entered into mankind this was not going to stop them in God’s plan for them to become saints. God still had this in mind. The sin of Adam and Eve can be said to be committed from their lowest level of sanctity. They can still have room to grow since it was from this lowest level. It is the same with us. We will sin from our lowest level as well. But the point is we have an opportunity to grow within the grace which God has given for us especially with the merits which Jesus has won for us.

Although the plan of God was long before the Lord Jesus had come unto the scene it was this plan that mankind must learn to seek. The Eastern Church Fathers put less emphasis on judgment and put more emphasis on mercy. For instance they say physical death came into the world not as a judgment but rather as an act of mercy. Since physical death limits one’s sinning to this life God has given mankind this remedy so that sinning would not be eternal. The teaching from the East was that when God said death would come to them He was saying physical death not spiritual death. This difference which the Eastern saints had spoken on and what the Church Fathers of the West had given to the Catholic Church gives us two differences which we have inherited regarding on how we judge and see sin.

This does not mean the Catholic has this higher judgment on sin per see but it tells us the Catholic Church may have given a more discipline towards sin than what the Eastern Church would give. Here I am referring to only our venial sins. But it is very interesting that with all of this in mind it was the Catholic Church which had classified sins into two groups, venial and mortal. This is actually good and a great blessing for us to know. The classification of sins tells us God can work with those who only commit venial sins (since we commit them daily) but there is a very big problem with those who commit mortal sins. This classification of sin into venial and mortal is not found in the Eastern Church. Perhaps it will in time.

After reading your post I now have somewhat better understanding of what the Orthodox believe and think. Thanks for your post.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think your confusing your issues with orthodoxy to mean we disregaurd the creeds. I don’t understand your crticism. ?

No I’m not confusing “:anything” its a repetitive, documented, proclaimed fact here and everywhere else I have been., And its nothing but confusion every time it comes up for the very reason mentioned…It makes no sense.

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/452/romanides-holy-baptism/

My response to this some time ago was, its “accepted” teaching in the EO.

I think it was Augustine obsession.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The point Gary that the Eastern Church makes is we are only accountable to our own sins. The East decided not to enter into the same line of thinking like the West on Original Sin. There was a very high judgment by the Western Church on the Original Sin which gave their Church Fathers this perspective which Rome has today. The difference in the Eastern understanding was a less judgmental view. Do you understand the difference? …

Accountable for your own sin stems from a incorrect understanding then application to the West of Augustine, Do you understand that?

And I don’t understand the less judgment view, help me out. Is it the view that leads to remission for sin through the Sacraments (baptism) isn’t required?

They do not give this sin a higher verdict. I would presume the sin of Adam and Eve was more inclined to what a venial sin is, using the terminology of the Church of Rome. This understanding would also be satisfactory on the Eastern understanding (since any sin from them would have started this for the rest of mankind). We think that the sin was mortal but was it? Any sin would have started this and so the thinking was a more less judgmental view when the Eastern Church Fathers were commenting on this…

This is contrary to above your accountable for Adam and Eves sin here above your ONLY accountable for your own, and the confusion continues.

. So the Eastern Church would also not judge. The main reason why the Eastern Church would continue to baptised babies was not so much this Original Sin that was there but in order that the Grace of God would have a better opportunity to help them grow into sanctity…

This is incorrect show it to me in the early church. The best one could link is convoluted thinking by St John. Baptism is the in Creed for the remission of sin … YES or NO?

Again the CREED among other issues should never come up if this is the case. Long list of issues evolve from here.

Although the plan of God was long before the Lord Jesus had come unto the scene it was this plan that mankind must learn to seek. The Eastern Church Fathers put less emphasis on judgment and put more emphasis on mercy. For instance they say physical death came into the world not as a judgment but rather as an act of mercy. Since physical death limits one’s sinning to this life God has given mankind this remedy so that sinning would not be eternal. The teaching from the East was that when God said death would come to them He was saying physical death not spiritual death. This difference which the Eastern saints had spoken on and what the Church Fathers of the West had given to the Catholic Church gives us two differences which we have inherited regarding on how we judge and see sin…

This is wrong also as its spiritual and physical death.

There was ONLY one Church, and one teaching, you mean recently unless you have the early Church documentation I fail to see your point.

Sorry I see no difference historically, and I see no mention of Ancestral sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Can you provide an official Orthodox statement that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins?

I don’t have to, just the “source” of the teaching, its above, followers are self evident on every thread.

There’s not much official anywhere is there? In fact I had to go to Wiki Pedia to hear about the particular and general judgment which were probably strange words when I mentioned them earlier. Course you know why, because of purification and purgatory.

Which the EO denies, BUT obviously as indicated on this very thread its “THERE” wherever “THERE”(purgatory) is before the General Judgment.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

Orange 529- reaffirmed at Trent its in the CCC. Death of the body death of the Soul.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

 

[GaryTaylor]

How will man be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

Its impossible. We hope and we pray for the Lords love and divine mercy that infants who before the age of reason who perish are upheld by the Lords saving grace. What was lost by Adam and Eve can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed”

Adam was changed, for the worse, through his own “iniquity” from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him.

“For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21)

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18)

It is from God that any man has what he does; whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else “even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

Heaven was unattainable thus death of the soul, severed “communion” with God. Christ restored “communion” which is why all are called to communion in HIs Church. Thus the importance of the sacraments, and here baptism.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"My purpose in this response is to take on several of what I consider to be the defects of Fr. Antony’s presentation, and to demonstrate the falsity of his artificial dichotomy between Ancestral and Original Sin. I do so not to defend Western Christianity, though I often feel compelled to since that tradition is so deeply misrepresented.

Rather, what I find to be of great concern is the jettisoning of concepts that have, for the entirety of Church history, been part and parcel of Orthodox teaching, in favor of the innovations of a few recent thinkers who have been deeply influenced in significant (though certainly not in all) ways by postmodernism and Protestant Liberalism."

orthodox-christianity.com/2013/08/ancestral-vs-original-sin-a-false-dichotomy/

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t have to, just the “source” of the teaching, its above, followers are self evident on every thread.

There’s not much official anywhere is there? In fact I had to go to Wiki Pedia to hear about the particular and general judgment which were probably strange words when I mentioned them earlier. Course you know why, because of purification and purgatory.

Which the EO denies, BUT obviously as indicated on this very thread its “THERE” wherever “THERE”(purgatory) is before the General Judgment.

What is self-evident is how ill-informed you are about Orthodoxy. The notion that the Orthodox deny that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins is ridiculous, as the Orthodox rite of baptism clearly demonstrates. That some Orthodox misunderstand, misconstrue, or misinterpret this, or that they emphasize aspects of baptismal theology that you choose not to emphasize doesn’t change Orthodox teaching.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The teaching of the East was this. Man and woman were created not to be saints (right away) but were created in order to become saints. This means it is going to take time. Unlike angels who were created to become instant saints mankind must take on a different route. Even though sin has entered into mankind this was not going to stop them in God’s plan for them to become saints. God still had this in mind. The sin of Adam and Eve can be said to be committed from their lowest level of sanctity. They can still have room to grow since it was from this lowest level. It is the same with us. We will sin from our lowest level as well. But the point is we have an opportunity to grow within the grace which God has given for us especially with the merits which Jesus has won for us.

I have to disagree with this statement and the consequences it poses when considering satan and a third of all the angels falling.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is self-evident is how ill-informed you are about Orthodoxy.

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps its you not reading,

Vladimir Moss

" The new calendarist theologian Fr. John Romanides makes the astonishing claim that “Baptism… is not a negative forgiveness of guilt inherited as a consequence of the sin of Adam. On the contrary, it is a release from the powers of the devil… In the entire service of baptism there is not one statement about the forgiveness of any kind of guilt that may have been inherited from Adam.”

" Romanides makes this elementary and fundamental mistake because of his deep-rooted rejection of the Orthodox teaching on original sin and the Sacrifice for sin on the Cross. For if there is no original sin, then there is no Sacrifice necessary that would take away that sin, and no Baptism that communicates to us the fruits of that Sacrifice “for the remission of sins”. Or if, nevertheless, personal sins are remitted in Baptism, this is a secondary, “negative” aspect of the sacrament, which is not to be compared in importance to “release from the powers of the devil”.

Is he Orthodox? How about those promoting his teaching? I highly doubt Vladimir Moss misunderstood this,

No Ryan everyone isn’t misinformed nor is the Catholic Church. And as I suggest its why the teaching authority is a blessing.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps its you not reading,

Vladimir Moss

" The new calendarist theologian Fr. John Romanides makes the astonishing claim that “Baptism… is not a negative forgiveness of guilt inherited as a consequence of the sin of Adam. On the contrary, it is a release from the powers of the devil… In the entire service of baptism there is not one statement about the forgiveness of any kind of guilt that may have been inherited from Adam.”

" Romanides makes this elementary and fundamental mistake because of his deep-rooted rejection of the Orthodox teaching on original sin and the Sacrifice for sin on the Cross. For if there is no original sin, then there is no Sacrifice necessary that would take away that sin, and no Baptism that communicates to us the fruits of that Sacrifice “for the remission of sins”. Or if, nevertheless, personal sins are remitted in Baptism, this is a secondary, “negative” aspect of the sacrament, which is not to be compared in importance to “release from the powers of the devil”.

Is he Orthodox? How about those promoting his teaching? I highly doubt Vladimir Moss misunderstood this,

No Ryan everyone isn’t misinformed nor is the Catholic Church. And as I suggest its why the teaching authority is a blessing.

Romanizes does not speak for Orthodoxy. The Orthodox DO NOT teach that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Romanizes does not speak for Orthodoxy. The Orthodox DO NOT teach that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins.

That should be put in stone for eternity. Now, we are back to the Creed and sin and Orthodoxy. Ancestral and Original sin, what difference do you see aside from the dogma’s?

 

[Peter_J]

What is self-evident is how ill-informed you are about Orthodoxy.

Without attempting to assess the merits of any or all of GaryTaylor’s posts on this thread, I just want to say that this ^^ kind of wording might turn some readers off from ECism, in general, or this forum in particular.

 

[RyanBlack]

Without attempting to assess the merits of any or all of GaryTaylor’s posts on this thread, I just want to say that this ^^ kind of wording might turn some readers off from ECism, in general, or this forum in particular.

My statement that he is ill-informed was actually a charitable statement. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that his false claims about the Orthodox are the result of his ignorance about Orthodoxy, as opposed to being acts of slander.

 

[Peter_J]

My statement that he is ill-informed was actually a charitable statement. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that his false claims about the Orthodox are the result of his ignorance about Orthodoxy, as opposed to being acts of slander.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have heard this kind of reasoning many times before (usually with regard to ex-Catholics – you know, the ol’ I-will-be-charitable-and-assume-that-so-and-so-must-have-left-Catholicism-out-of-ignorance) I still can’t say I’m crazy about the statement in question. But that’s just my opinion … I’m not trying to be a busybody or anything.

 

[chimo]

I have to disagree with this statement and the consequences it poses when considering satan and a third of all the angels falling.

You must understand that the devil was created as a saint right off the bat. This is why Jesus said He saw Lucifer fall like lightening meaning this angel had fallen from such a great height and it was quick. All of the angels were saints but one third of them had fallen from such a great height. That is not hard to understand. Read the account from the Diary of St. Maria Faustina when she asked why God had punished the angels as soon as they sinned. Jesus told her because it was the profound knowledge that was given to them from God. Jesus said one angel has more knowledge of God than all the saints in the Church put together. The Lord Jesus is saying these angels were saints. Some stayed with God while others had fallen greatly. It is from this we can evaluate that the property or nature of an Angel is they were created not to sin and if they do choose to sin their nature immediately changes. Perhaps it was in this knowledge that God had given to them that contained this warning not to sin against their nature but one third of them ignored this warning.