Eucharistic Discipline in the Orthodox Church
Al
in the Orthodox Church
By Archpriest Thomas Hopko, OCA, Dean of St Vladimir's Seminary.
Article from Orthodox Education Day Book -- October 7, 2000
Copyright 2000, St. Valdimir’s Seminary
People of whatever convictions -- theistic or atheistic, Christian or
non-Christian -- who behave in an orderly and respectful manner may
attend liturgical services in an Orthodox church, and participate, as
possible, in the prayers and rituals (such as singing psalms and
hymns, and venerating icons and relics). But only members of the
Orthodox Church who practice a specific spiritual discipline may
participate in the Church’s sacraments and receive holy
communion at the Orthodox divine liturgy. The essential elements of
eucharistic discipline in the Orthodox Church may be simply stated in
five points.
***Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires
first of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the
Orthodox Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or
her baptism and chrismation. Eucharistic discipline in the Orthodox
Church demands that communicants in the eucharistic sacrifice
understand themselves at all times and in all circumstances as having
died and risen with Christ, as sealed by the Holy Spirit, and as
belonging to God as His bonded-servants and free-born sons in Jesus.
***Baptism and chrismation, and so, participation in holy communion,
require a person to believe in the Word of God, the Gospel of Christ,
and the Christian Faith summarized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
creed, as these are proclaimed and interpreted in the Orthodox Church.
Members of the Orthodox Church who question biblical or churchly
doctrines may participate in holy communion if they are praying and
working to come to an enlightened understanding of the Faith under the
guidance of their pastors and teachers. But those who have been
baptized and chrismated in the Orthodox Church who publicly express
doubt and disbelief about the faith as confessed and lived in the
Orthodox Church, or secretly harbor such doubt and disbelief, may not
partake of holy communion at an Orthodox divine liturgy.
***Confessing the Christian faith as understood and practiced in the
Orthodox Church is to identify fully with Orthodox Church history and
tradition, and to take full responsibility for it. It is to accept and
defend the dogmas and canons of the councils accepted by the Orthodox
Churches, to worship according to Orthodox liturgical rites, to
venerate those who are glorified as Orthodox saints, and to struggle
to practice the ethical and moral teachings of Christ and his apostles
as recorded in the holy scriptures and elaborated in Orthodox Church
tradition. Because participation in the holy Eucharist is not only a
sacred communion with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit, but also
a holy communion with Orthodox believers of all times and places,
responsibility for the whole of Orthodox Church history and tradition
is an absolute condition for partaking in the holy communion of
Christ’s body and blood at the Church’s divine liturgy.
***Identifying fully with Orthodox Christian teaching and practice
requires a communicant in the Orthodox Church to strive to put the
Church’s biblical, evangelical and apostolic teachings into
practice in their everyday lives. No one can believe and do everything
perfectly. Eucharistic discipline, however, demands that a communicant
struggles to do so, admitting when he or she fails, and repenting
without self-justification over one’s failures and sins. This
means, concretely, that eucharistic discipline requires a communicant
to study God’s Word in scripture, to pray and fast and give alms
as one can, to attend church services as regularly as possible, and to
live according to God’s commandments in all aspects of
one’s life and work, regularly giving an account of one’s
behavior to one’s pastor and spiritual guide, repenting of
one’s sins, and struggling by God’s grace to change and
improve. Persons rejecting such a disciplined life may not partake of
Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church.
***Eucharistic discipline in the Orthodox Church finally requires that
a communicant be in constant repentance, realizing that he or she is
never worthy of receiving holy communion, and knowing that the
heartfelt confession of one’s unworthiness is an absolute
condition for partaking in a worthy manner. The essential expression
of one’s unworthiness to receive Christ’s body and blood
in Holy Communion, with the admission of one’s sins, is the
forgiveness of others. Eucharistic discipline demands that
communicants of Christ’s body and blood be at peace with
everyone as far as they can be, even when others are unwilling to
forgive and be reconciled. At least within themselves, partakers of
Holy Communion at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy must be in a union of
love with all people, including their worst enemies.
Acceptance of one’s baptism and chrismation in the Church,
responsibility for the Church’s faith and life, the struggle to
put the faith fully into practice, accountability for one’s
personal belief and behavior, constant and continual repentance, and
peace with all people in the union of love commanded and given by God
in Christ and the Holy Spirit -- these are the requirements for
participation in holy communion in the Orthodox Church. They are,
ultimately and essentially, what Holy Communion itself is all about.
Dave Goode
> ***Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires
> first of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the
> Orthodox Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or
> her baptism and chrismation...
How does this fit with the current practice of communicating infants and
young children, who cannot possibly accept these conditions and demands?
Dave
--
Dave Goode, Computer Officer, Faculty of Divinity
University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
Telephone: office (7)63006, home (7)40641
[OpenPGP key: 0x67D20768]
T254
>young children, who cannot possibly accept these conditions and demands?
Matthew 19:13-15
Mark 10:14-15
Luke 18:15-17
Bob
Bob Tallick
Barnabas
> Al wrote:
>
> > ***Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires
> > first of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the
> > Orthodox Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or
> > her baptism and chrismation...
>
> How does this fit with the current practice of communicating infants and
> young children, who cannot possibly accept these conditions and demands?
>
> Dave
Because Dave, we never eat "alone."
learner
None of these say anything about communicating infants. The problem
here is that we have, yet another, inconsistent argument in the
defense of current practices of the Church.
Mr. Hopko claims [in the article posted by Al]:
"Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires first
of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the Orthodox
Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or her
baptism and chrismation."
He continues:
"Baptism and chrismation, and so, participation in holy communion,
require a person to believe in the Word of God, the Gospel of Christ,
and the Christian Faith summarized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
creed, as these are proclaimed and interpreted in the Orthodox Church"
Clearly an infant cannot do this.
On the other hand, Protopresbyter Lawrence Barringer tells us in his
essay "In the Fear Of God, With Faith and With Love: Confession and
Communion":
"We are able to approach the Lord in the Holy Eucharist because we
have been called to share in that holiness of Christ through our
Baptism! This is the only reason that we are able to approach!
This is why infants may receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church.
Obviously they cannot confess, nor do they receive any "absolution".
They are brought to the Chalice because they have been baptized."
So, according to Mr. Barringer, Baptism alone [and only those baptized
in an Orthodox Church] is the sole prerequisite for taking Communion,
while Mr. Hopko requires a conscious awareness of, and agreement with,
Orthodox beliefs. These two arguments simply cannot be reconciled
with the current practice of giving infants communion - and out of
context quotes from the Scriptures and trite comments to not help the
Orthodox argument.
Learner
Barnabas
Hogwash!
Your comments prove to everyone reading you know absolutely nothing
about the Orthodox understanding of soteriology, ecclesiology, or
scripture.
You've more to learn, "learner."
Also, your reference to both Fr. Hopko and Fr. Barringer as "mister"
prove your insulting contempt for the Orthodox. Do not be surprised if
you are treated as you treat others.
And, contrary to your shallow charge that these two positions cannot
be reconciled, they are in fact consistent.
The truth is that an understanding is required as well as baptism, and
an infant has both in the Church through his or her god-parents and
parents, as well as the believing community surrounding the infant.
As usual, your ecclesiology is limited to the poison of individualism
that has killed Protestantism. Shallow words from a shallow theology
that is best left on the ash heap of history.
Barnabas
One other comment, "learner." It is not the "Orthodox argument."
It is the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The novel and
and untried theological arguments of the Protestants are the ones that
stand outside the timeless faith of the Church and that are judged as
straw by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit preserved in His Church.
The trite and shallow protestations of the "johnny-come-latelies" are
the weak arguments. They stand outside both the wisdom of the Holy
Tradition and the Holy Scriptures.
Peddle your foolishness elsewhere.
learner
> One other comment, "learner." It is not the "Orthodox argument."
What is not an Orthodox argument? I quoted two Orthodox authors who
disagree on a practice of the Church. I would also argue that Mr.
Hopko, who I presume supported infant Communion, disagrees with his
own criteria for receiving Communion.
> It is the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The novel and
> and untried theological arguments of the Protestants are the ones that
> stand outside the timeless faith of the Church and that are judged as
> straw by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit preserved in His Church.
Well, the Roman Catholics make the same claims, yet they do not give
Communion to infants (although some Uniate Churches are reviving the
practice).
> The trite and shallow protestations of the "johnny-come-latelies" are
> the weak arguments. They stand outside both the wisdom of the Holy
> Tradition and the Holy Scriptures.
Oh, well, when the Orthodox cannot reconcile the contradictions of
their belief system, they must attempt to distract attention from the
issues by attacking the beliefs of others! Is this the fruit by which
we should know your "faith"?
> Peddle your foolishness elsewhere.
I am not here to "peddle" anything. I asked a simple question! Based
on Mr. Hopko's essay, and the practice of communing infants - how can
the two be rationalized?
I fully understand that you do not have an answer to reconcile this
contradiction, so you will most likely continue with your petty
insults - since that is all that you have.
Learner
learner
> > So, according to Mr. Barringer, Baptism alone [and only those baptized
> > in an Orthodox Church] is the sole prerequisite for taking Communion,
> > while Mr. Hopko requires a conscious awareness of, and agreement with,
> > Orthodox beliefs. These two arguments simply cannot be reconciled
> > with the current practice of giving infants communion - and out of
> > context quotes from the Scriptures and trite comments to not help the
> > Orthodox argument.
> > Learner
>
> Hogwash!
If you referring to the contradictions stated above, then I agree!
> Your comments prove to everyone reading you know absolutely nothing
> about the Orthodox understanding of soteriology, ecclesiology, or
> scripture.
Perhaps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If one must [in Mr. Hopko's words] ".... believe in the Word of God,
the Gospel of Christ, and the Christian Faith summarized in the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, as these are proclaimed and
interpreted in the Orthodox Church" - then infants should not be
communed. It is as simply as that!
> You've more to learn, "learner."
True.
> Also, your reference to both Fr. Hopko and Fr. Barringer as "mister"
> prove your insulting contempt for the Orthodox. Do not be surprised if
> you are treated as you treat others.
"Mister" is considered a title of respect.
> And, contrary to your shallow charge that these two positions cannot
> be reconciled, they are in fact consistent.
The please reconcile them for me. Really, you are all sizzle and no
steak!
> The truth is that an understanding is required as well as baptism, and
> an infant has both in the Church through his or her god-parents and
> parents, as well as the believing community surrounding the infant.
What does an infant "understand"? Does this "believing community"
[many of whom have no clue of theology or Church history] impart some
"understanding" telepathically to the infant?
What about 1 Cor. 11:27-29
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Can an infant "examine himself" or "recognize the body of the Lord"?
> As usual, your ecclesiology is limited to the poison of individualism
> that has killed Protestantism. Shallow words from a shallow theology
> that is best left on the ash heap of history.
The "ash heap of history"? I find this remark astounding! Only God
knows how many millions have left the Orthodox Church for Islam,
Communist atheism, secularism, and other faiths; and, the backward
economic and social conditions in most predominantly Orthodox lands
certainly does not give the impression that Orthodoxy will be the new
paradigm!
Regardless of the short-comings of Protestantism, the direct result of
this movement has been free societies, free markets, and an explosion
of knowledge and the freedom of individual expression. Individualism
teaches us to think for ourselves and to be responsible for our
decisions and destiny.
Remember Evan, free thought is the enemy of ALL "Orthodoxies".
Learner
Dana Netherton
computer...@divinity.cam.ac.uk.nospam.for.me said...
> Al wrote:
>
> > ***Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires
> > first of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the
> > Orthodox Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or
> > her baptism and chrismation...
>
> How does this fit with the current practice of communicating infants and
> young children, who cannot possibly accept these conditions and demands?
Dave,
To begin with, for us this isn't simply "the current practice". Unlike
some Western churches, which have begun communicating infants and young
children after a lapse of many centuries (possibly more than 1,000
years), Orthodoxy has been following this practice continuously from the
days of the early church.
To address your specific question, Fr Thomas was speaking to adult
Orthodox Christians, not to infants or young children.
We expect different things of people at different times of their lives.
We expect more of children than we do of infants. We expect more of
adults than we do of children. And so does God. "Everyone who to whom
much is given, of him will much be required." (Luke 12:48b)
Meanwhile, we all need the spiritual food of the Body and Blood of
Christ.
How do we Orthodox balance these needs and expectations? By recognizing
the mercy of God toward those who are not yet able to embark on the
arduous task of purification, through confession and fasting, and who are
not yet "mature" enough to question what they have been taught.
In the West, communion is commonly restricted to those who can
"understand" it. As if anyone could understand this Holy Mystery! We do
not demand that of ordinary food -- vitamins nourished us long before we
"understood" their biochemical properties -- why should we demand it of
spiritual food?
These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I'm well-aware of the
traditional reasons for the demand in the West. You don't need to recite
them for my sake.
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton
Default address is a spam dump. Use it, and
I'll never see it. To reach me, e-mail:
dana 1 netherton 2 net, where "1" = at, and "2" = dot
--------
I don't belong to an organized religion.
I'm Eastern Orthodox.
Al
And further, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist is too awesome a mystery for adult to comprehend fully. To
deny infants communion would imply that at some point in time they
will fully comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist which, of course,
they will not.
Al
Barnabas
> I am not here to "peddle" anything. I asked a simple question! Based
> on Mr. Hopko's essay, and the practice of communing infants - how can
> the two be rationalized?
>
> I fully understand that you do not have an answer to reconcile this
> contradiction, so you will most likely continue with your petty
> insults - since that is all that you have.
>
> Learner
Are you really a "learner" or just a calvinist? If you are the latter,
you will never be the former.
Besides, "contradiction" is in the eye of the beholder. There is no
contradiction.
Zaph'enath
> And further, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the
> Eucharist is too awesome a mystery for adult to comprehend fully. To
> deny infants communion would imply that at some point in time they
> will fully comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist which, of course,
> they will not.
>
> Al
Very good point, Al. It applies to protestant arguments about baptism, too.
- Joseph
--
"One should guard against preaching to young people success
in the customary form as the main aim in life. The most
important motive for work in school and in life is pleasure
in work, pleasure in its result, and the knowledge of the
value of the result to the rest of the community."
-- Albert Einstein
learner
> Al wrote:
>
> > And further, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the
> > Eucharist is too awesome a mystery for adult to comprehend fully. To
> > deny infants communion would imply that at some point in time they
> > will fully comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist which, of course,
> > they will not.
> >
> > Al
>
> Very good point, Al. It applies to protestant arguments about baptism, too.
>
> - Joseph
Does this illogic apply to the other sacraments? Should we allow
infant matrimony and infant Priests? This is the problem that one
faces when one makes things up, as they go along!
Learner
learner
> >
> > I am not here to "peddle" anything. I asked a simple question! Based
> > on Mr. Hopko's essay, and the practice of communing infants - how can
> > the two be rationalized?
> >
> > I fully understand that you do not have an answer to reconcile this
> > contradiction, so you will most likely continue with your petty
> > insults - since that is all that you have.
> >
> > Learner
>
> Are you really a "learner" or just a calvinist? If you are the latter,
> you will never be the former.
Perhaps I was predestined to be both!
> Besides, "contradiction" is in the eye of the beholder. There is no
> contradiction.
Yes there is a contradiction and your fallacy of argument by assertion
does not answer the problem!
Mr. Hopko tells us that in order to partake of Communion, we must
"...believe in the word of God, the gospel of Christ...." etc. An
infant cannot understand such concepts - unless you have a new theory
of child development! Evan, face the facts, you honestly have nothing
to add to this discussion!
Your "Orthodoxy" simply collapses under the weight of its own
contradictions.
Learner
T254
>faces when one makes things up, as they go along!
>
You mean like you Protestants?
Bob
Bob Tallick
T254
>"...believe in the word of God, the gospel of Christ...." etc.
You obviously either don't listen or have very bad reading comprehension
skills. It has already been pointed out that Fr Hopko was directing those
comments to an adult audience.
Bob
Bob Tallick
Zaph'enath
As reticent as I am to get caught in a "debate" with you, I have to
answer this.
Baptism is the means by which one enters the church. Why would we
prevent our infants from entering the Church? Communion is that which
links us in our physical bodies mystically with the the Body of Christ.
Why would we deny our infants, already members of that Body by
baptism, the "medicine for the soul" that is the staple of our spiritual
diet?
What Fr. Thomas says pertains to adults. If you had any understanding
of Orthodox theology, you would know that as a matter of course. And if
you really did have any interest in learning, you would ask questions
inquisitively, rather than rhetorically and for the sake of
grandstanding your arrogance and sarcasm.
In Eastern Orthodox thought, the evolution we go through from infants to
adults actually puts us in a more difficult place WRT our relationship
with God. As infants, we have no preconceptions, no heresies, no sin.
Our soul-intellect is the only tool of aprehension that we have at our
disposal, since the mechanisms of our animal brain are not even
developed. Our parents stand in for us in the love of the Lord, and
present us to the Body of Christ. An infant has no barrier to
"understanding" this sacrament. An adult has no greater capacity (in
the intellect) to understand than an infant does. Adults do, however,
have a rather developed rational mind (that bunch of tapioca between our
ears). While it is useful for logic and for understanding certain
things about the natural world, it can often be a foil for the soul's
aprehension of God. It is by prayer and meditation that an adult human
subjugates the rational mind to the intellect/heart/soul.
So, with this as the basic backdrop of Orthodox spiritual anthropology,
Fr. Thomas gives instruction as to what is required of an adult Orthodox
Christian to properly and respectfully partake of the Holy Mysteries.
Any Orthodox Christian with a cursory familiarity with Eastern thought
and the basics of Orthodox theology would know this. It is not a
conflict to us, because we know it in its context.
You come along and try to tell people who know better that there is a
conflict. It is apparent to most here that the only conflict is with
your understanding of the most basic aspects of Eastern Orthodox
thought. You need to divest yourself of Western rationalist
philosophical categories, and as well of your obviously Calvinist worldview.
You don't have to change what you *believe*, but you will never
understand even the beginning of Orthodox theology as long as you look
at it from these categories which are so foreign to it. A sapient
creature ought to have the ability to see past its own perceptions, if
only for a moment, and look at the world from a different perspective.
You, rather, consistently try to fit Orthodoxy within rationalistic
Western philosophy/theology, and then cry "contradiction!" when this
leads to problems. The problems are with your way of thinking.
Orthodox theology is extremely internally consistent within the context
of its own philosophical framework.
And I say all this as a convert. If I can alter my own philosophical
disposition to accomodate a different theology, there is no reason you
can not -- even if only in a state of suspended judgement. Perhaps I
have some extra practice, being a student of anthropology. It is an
absolutely necessary ability to develop in my field, to see things
through different eyes.
If you were less vitriolic, and more open to actually hearing the
answers to your question, one might be more inclined to take your
moniker seriously. As it stands, the name "learner" merely stands out
as some kind of intentional sarcasm.
Show me wrong, please. I'd love to see you break out of this. But, as
I am not the first to attempt it, I doubt you will pay my words any more
heed than the words of the previous others.
As for applying the same argument to all sacraments: are you being
intentionally silly? Every sacrament is unique. Marriage is the
sacrament whereby an adult male and an adult female are united together
in the eyes of the Church, for the purpose of founding a household, and
usually for producing and rearing children. By definition this excludes
infants. The same goes for the very definition of a presbyter, or a
deacon, or a bishop. You seem more interested in trying to produce
"contradictions" where there are none than you are in learning anything.
Grace and Peace,
learner
> As reticent as I am to get caught in a "debate" with you, I have to
> answer this.
I am not interested in a "debate" either. These issues have been
covered many times.
> Baptism is the means by which one enters the church. Why would we
> prevent our infants from entering the Church?
I have no problem with infants entering the Church. However, we must
fully understand that infants understand very little. Therefore, they
cannot "believe and be Baptized" as the Bible instructs.
> Communion is that which
> links us in our physical bodies mystically with the the Body of Christ.
> Why would we deny our infants, already members of that Body by
> baptism, the "medicine for the soul" that is the staple of our spiritual
> diet?
1 Cor. 11:27-29:
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Can an infant "examine himself" or "recognize the body of the Lord"?
> What Fr. Thomas says pertains to adults. If you had any understanding
> of Orthodox theology, you would know that as a matter of course.
He does not explicity state this. His arguments, as presented,
excludes infants.
> And if
> you really did have any interest in learning, you would ask questions
> inquisitively, rather than rhetorically and for the sake of
> grandstanding your arrogance and sarcasm.
This depends on your definition of "learning". If "learning" requires
me to uncritically swallow what I am told, then no thanks.
> As infants, we have no preconceptions, no heresies, no sin.
And also, no understanding of the Sacraments, or anything else.
> Our soul-intellect is the only tool of aprehension that we have at our
> disposal, since the mechanisms of our animal brain are not even
> developed.
What is our "soul-intellect"? Can you demonstrate that it exists in
infants, or is this another assumption?
> Our parents stand in for us in the love of the Lord, and
> present us to the Body of Christ. An infant has no barrier to
> "understanding" this sacrament. An adult has no greater capacity (in
> the intellect) to understand than an infant does.
Then why, in many Churches that I have attended, do infants take
Communion while the majority of adults do not? After all, neither
adults nor infants can truly understand this sacrament? Shouldn't
all, therefore, partake?
> You come along and try to tell people who know better that there is a
> conflict. It is apparent to most here that the only conflict is with
> your understanding of the most basic aspects of Eastern Orthodox
> thought. You need to divest yourself of Western rationalist
> philosophical categories, and as well of your obviously Calvinist worldview.
Well, I like rationalism, it has given the world free societies, free
markets and a much higher standard of living then any Orthodox society
has ever provided. If not for the Enlightenment and the development of
the west, who would the Orthodox nations beggar? Perhaps I was
predestined to believe this!
I any event, Mr. Hopko's essay, which does not mention infant
Communion, would cause one to conclude that only adults, who have
critically examined themselves and their beliefs, make take Communion.
Now, this really isn't an Orthodox vs. Protestant issue, as others
[not you] might think. There is one Lutheran group in Canada which
communes infants and, as I recall, my older sister had a "first Holy
Communion" in the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church.
> Show me wrong, please. I'd love to see you break out of this. But, as
> I am not the first to attempt it, I doubt you will pay my words any more
> heed than the words of the previous others.
Not true, I consider you to be among the few serious people in this
group. The problem is, that to accept Orthodox teachings, I must
enter into a state of cognitive dissonance.
> As for applying the same argument to all sacraments: are you being
> intentionally silly?
No.
> Every sacrament is unique.
True.
> Marriage is the
> sacrament whereby an adult male and an adult female are united together
> in the eyes of the Church, for the purpose of founding a household, and
> usually for producing and rearing children. By definition this excludes
> infants. The same goes for the very definition of a presbyter, or a
> deacon, or a bishop. You seem more interested in trying to produce
> "contradictions" where there are none than you are in learning anything.
Why should it? Why should we prevent our infants from marriage and
Holy orders? Shouldn't the child's "soul-intellect" enable them to
partake of these sacraments? Do adults understand the "mysteries" of
these sacraments any better than infants? The divorce rate suggests
otherwise! This is line of reasoning is the result of following
illogical [and un-Biblical] premises to their illogical end.
Learner
Barnabas
Oh, Bob, please don't waste your time with "learner." He has come here
not to learn, but to "teach." He has come here not to understand, but
to "correct."
He is a calvinist, and their theological system is, of necessity,
closed. It cannot allow for some other understanding, because if it
does, it falls to pieces. Learner's god is very weak, needing constant
protection and support.
Learner is right about one thing, though, I really don't have anything
else to offer this discussion since it wasn't a discussion from the
start.
Steve Hayes
>Does this illogic apply to the other sacraments? Should we allow
>infant matrimony and infant Priests? This is the problem that one
>faces when one makes things up, as they go along!
You may make things up as they go along, I haven't seen anyone else doing it.
Did God command that the children of the Israelites be left behind in the Red
Sea shore to die of starvation or be slaughtered by Pharoah's army just
because they were too young to marry or serve as priests?
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Zaph'enath
> Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<UNydnQYUG_P...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>
>>As reticent as I am to get caught in a "debate" with you, I have to
>>answer this.
>
>
> I am not interested in a "debate" either. These issues have been
> covered many times.
And yet your arguments have not advanced in the process. You needn't
accept a teaching in order to understand it. Y
>
>
>>Baptism is the means by which one enters the church. Why would we
>>prevent our infants from entering the Church?
>
>
> I have no problem with infants entering the Church. However, we must
> fully understand that infants understand very little. Therefore, they
> cannot "believe and be Baptized" as the Bible instructs.
I see that the several weeks of intense efforts on the part of several
others, a few months back, did nothing for you. I think you might be a
nice guy to hang out with, but you make discussion with you online into
a real waste of time.
>
>
>>Communion is that which
>>links us in our physical bodies mystically with the the Body of Christ.
>> Why would we deny our infants, already members of that Body by
>>baptism, the "medicine for the soul" that is the staple of our spiritual
>>diet?
>
>
> 1 Cor. 11:27-29:
>
> "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
> unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
> of the Lord. A ***man*** ought to examine himself before he eats of the
> bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
> recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
>
> Can an infant "examine himself" or "recognize the body of the Lord"?
An infant can recognize the presence of God in their midst better than
an adult who is hampered by sin, and by an overactive animal brain.
>
>
>>What Fr. Thomas says pertains to adults. If you had any understanding
>>of Orthodox theology, you would know that as a matter of course.
>
>
> He does not explicity state this. His arguments, as presented,
> excludes infants.
He doesn't need to state it, because his audience already understands
it. You need to restate that second part to, "His arguments, as I
mistakenly understood them in my position of general ignorance of the
foundation of theology upon which his statements were made, seemed to me
to exclude infants."
By ignorance here, I mean "lack of specific knowledge", NOT "a state of
stupidity."
But, as Fr. Thomas must regularly commune infants when he celebrates the
liturgy, he must understand his own words in a way different from the
way you perceive them. Think about this for around ten minutes. Really
meditate on that.
>
>
>>And if
>>you really did have any interest in learning, you would ask questions
>>inquisitively, rather than rhetorically and for the sake of
>>grandstanding your arrogance and sarcasm.
>
>
> This depends on your definition of "learning". If "learning" requires
> me to uncritically swallow what I am told, then no thanks.
You don't have to "uncritically swallow" anything. However, it would be
better if there was some evidence that you had actually read what people
say to you, instead of replying as if you heard nothing.
>
>
>>As infants, we have no preconceptions, no heresies, no sin.
>
>
> And also, no understanding of the Sacraments, or anything else.
I saw you in an argument about this a long time ago. Others spent more
time than I am willing to in order to help you understand this. You
refuse to accept that infants are capable of understanding God because
they have a SOUL. But, I will not spend much more effort on this
henceforth. I am not interested in arguing with you for the sake of
doing endless rounds wherein you never demonstrate the slightest sign
that anything has registered. Not to say that you are unable to learn.
To quote one of my favorites:
Keng San replied: "I have nothing more
To say.
Bantams do not hatch goose eggs,
Though the fowl of Lu can.
It is not so much a difference of nature
As a difference of capacity.
My capacity is too slight
To transform you.
Why not go south
And see Lao Tzu?"
Why not go East, and see Abp. Kallistos? ;-)
>
>
>>Our soul-intellect is the only tool of aprehension that we have at our
>>disposal, since the mechanisms of our animal brain are not even
>>developed.
>
>
> What is our "soul-intellect"? Can you demonstrate that it exists in
> infants, or is this another assumption?
In Orthodox theology, it is understood that the human soul is the real
tool of spiritual understanding. The only difference between an infant
and an adult, is that the adult often mistakenly believes that they can
articulate what their soul experiences.
Do you think infants do not have souls? At which point to we get souls
if not?
What are you looking for? Some kind of rationalistic "proof" of the
existence of the human soul? Proof is for math and alcohol. Not really
for science. Definitely not for religion.
>
>
>>Our parents stand in for us in the love of the Lord, and
>>present us to the Body of Christ. An infant has no barrier to
>>"understanding" this sacrament. An adult has no greater capacity (in
>>the intellect) to understand than an infant does.
>
>
> Then why, in many Churches that I have attended, do infants take
> Communion while the majority of adults do not? After all, neither
> adults nor infants can truly understand this sacrament? Shouldn't
> all, therefore, partake?
Here is where you show evidence of just how disingenuous you are being.
You snipped, without marking it, the very portion of my post that
addressed this. As you did with all the portions you snipped...
-----Begin restored portion---------
Adults do, however, have a rather developed rational mind (that bunch of
tapioca between our ears). While it is useful for logic and for
understanding certain things about the natural world, it can often be a
foil for the soul's aprehension of God. It is by prayer and meditation
that an adult human subjugates the rational mind to the
intellect/heart/soul.
--------End restored portion------------
I thought that would explain it, but...
Effectively, an infant's aprehension of God's presence is not foiled by
their rational mind. What you see in Church is Theology in motion. The
adults know that they do not understand any better than their infants
the Holy Mysteries. They also know that they have sin in their lives
which may or may not be confessed, and that they may or may not have
prepared themselves properly to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord.
An infant can not sin, and is therefore free from the need to repent.
An infant is also unhampered by a rational faculty, so they do not
have to make sure that their rational concept is the proper one.
>
>>You come along and try to tell people who know better that there is a
>>conflict. It is apparent to most here that the only conflict is with
>>your understanding of the most basic aspects of Eastern Orthodox
>>thought. You need to divest yourself of Western rationalist
>>philosophical categories, and as well of your obviously Calvinist worldview.
>
>
> Well, I like rationalism, it has given the world free societies, free
> markets and a much higher standard of living then any Orthodox society
> has ever provided. If not for the Enlightenment and the development of
> the west, who would the Orthodox nations beggar? Perhaps I was
> predestined to believe this!
I am a student of science by choice. Rationalism is good for allowing
our brain understand a lot of things about the natural world. That is
why science is so powerful a tool for inquiries into the mechanisms and
workings of that natural world. But it is a tool which, like any, has
its uses and its limitations. It provides naturalistic/materialistic
answers to naturalistic/materialistic questions. It is the error of the
West that they decided, in the process of developing a "scientific"
worldview, that it is also good for questions of a spiritual nature.
That is why Western science has advanced, while Western theology has
gotten worse and worse.
>
> I any event, Mr. Hopko's essay, which does not mention infant
> Communion, would cause one to conclude that only adults, who have
> critically examined themselves and their beliefs, make take Communion.
Parsed the right way, that is what he is saying. Remove a comma. "Only
adults who have critically examined themselves and their beliefs, may
take Communion."
>
> Now, this really isn't an Orthodox vs. Protestant issue, as others
> [not you] might think. There is one Lutheran group in Canada which
> communes infants and, as I recall, my older sister had a "first Holy
> Communion" in the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church.
Which is funny, since it really would seem to contradict Lutheran
theology to do so... But then, Luther was always more open to the Real
Presence than were Calvin or Zwingli.
>
>
>>Show me wrong, please. I'd love to see you break out of this. But, as
>>I am not the first to attempt it, I doubt you will pay my words any more
>>heed than the words of the previous others.
>
>
> Not true, I consider you to be among the few serious people in this
> group. The problem is, that to accept Orthodox teachings, I must
> enter into a state of cognitive dissonance.
Well, it seems you circle the problem here. That dissonance is a result
of your preconceptions about "the way things are." You have almost hit
the nail on the head with your statement above. The issue, though, is
to try to see a different "the way things are" -- even if only
temporarily for purposes of understanding the point at hand.
You are trying to put non-Western philosophies into a Western framework.
Your constant frustration shows that you innately understand that this
can not work. Perhaps it is your rational faculty that has come up with
an "explanation" for it? Something like, "...therefore, non-Western
philosophies are self contradictory and illogical." Here is a good
example of how you may know something, and then have it all messed up by
your brain. ;-)
>
>
>>As for applying the same argument to all sacraments: are you being
>>intentionally silly?
>
>
> No.
Oh. Good.
>
>
>>Every sacrament is unique.
>
>
> True.
>
>
>>Marriage is the
>>sacrament whereby an adult male and an adult female are united together
>>in the eyes of the Church, for the purpose of founding a household, and
>>usually for producing and rearing children. By definition this excludes
>>infants. The same goes for the very definition of a presbyter, or a
>>deacon, or a bishop. You seem more interested in trying to produce
>>"contradictions" where there are none than you are in learning anything.
>
>
> Why should it? Why should we prevent our infants from marriage and
> Holy orders? Shouldn't the child's "soul-intellect" enable them to
> partake of these sacraments? Do adults understand the "mysteries" of
> these sacraments any better than infants? The divorce rate suggests
> otherwise! This is line of reasoning is the result of following
> illogical [and un-Biblical] premises to their illogical end.
C'mon, you are being intentionally silly. An infant is physically
incapable of fulfilling the promises they would have to make in order to
receive those sacraments. You know this, and you are trying to
demonstrate some perceived absurdity in Orthodox theology that is
non-existent. While I appreciate this as a rhetorical tool, you really
are missing the entire issue here. You are really only hampering
yourself. You demonstrate that you have a very good mind. An
unintelligent person could never be so articulate. But, really, try to
see things from within a different framework for a moment.
Cheers,
Stephen M. Adams
>Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<O9CdnbprI-R...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> Al wrote:
>>
>> > And further, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the
>> > Eucharist is too awesome a mystery for adult to comprehend fully. To
>> > deny infants communion would imply that at some point in time they
>> > will fully comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist which, of course,
>> > they will not.
>>
>
>infant matrimony and infant Priests? This is the problem that one
>faces when one makes things up, as they go along!
It's not illogic. It's the correct, logical and proper response to
Protestant "believer's baptism" claims...especially in light of Jesus'
statements about being like "little children".
Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
-Stephen
Zaph'enath
[snip]
> Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
> to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
Even more: If *yes*, then where is the line drawn? Are mentally
retarded or developmentally disabled people barred from salvation in
Christ? This is the real test of a theology. Who does it, bar as a
consequence, from the sacraments?
Stephen M. Adams
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
>> to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
>
>Even more: If *yes*, then where is the line drawn? Are mentally
>retarded or developmentally disabled people barred from salvation in
>Christ? This is the real test of a theology. Who does it, bar as a
>consequence, from the sacraments?
You're one step ahead - that was going to be my question once he replied...
:-)
-Stephen
Zaph'enath
Oops! Didn't mean to steal your thunder...
Steve Hayes
>Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<UNydnQYUG_P...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> As reticent as I am to get caught in a "debate" with you, I have to
>> answer this.
>
>I am not interested in a "debate" either. These issues have been
>covered many times.
>
>> Baptism is the means by which one enters the church. Why would we
>> prevent our infants from entering the Church?
>
>I have no problem with infants entering the Church. However, we must
>fully understand that infants understand very little. Therefore, they
>cannot "believe and be Baptized" as the Bible instructs.
Where does the Bible "instruct" that, or are you just confusing the indicative
with the imperative mood?
Al
> On 21 Aug 2003 06:31:34 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
>
> >Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<UNydnQYUG_P...@speakeasy.net>...
> >
> >> As reticent as I am to get caught in a "debate" with you, I have to
> >> answer this.
> >
> >I am not interested in a "debate" either. These issues have been
> >covered many times.
> >
> >> Baptism is the means by which one enters the church. Why would we
> >> prevent our infants from entering the Church?
> >
> >I have no problem with infants entering the Church. However, we must
> >fully understand that infants understand very little. Therefore, they
> >cannot "believe and be Baptized" as the Bible instructs.
>
> Where does the Bible "instruct" that, or are you just confusing the indicative
> with the imperative mood?
Excellent question, Steve. For people who believe the Bible is the
inerrant Word of God and the only "theological" work necessary for
salvation, they do an awful lot of interpreting rather than accepting
what Scripture actually says (or in the baptism of infants case, not
accepting what the Bible doesn't say or imply).
The Bible does not ban the baptism of infants. PERIOD. It's not
mentioned, nor is it implied.
Al
T254
>mentioned, nor is it implied.
>
The Bible tells us that whole households were baptised. No where does it
indicate that the infants of thos households were excluded.
Bob
Bob Tallick
learner
> > I am not interested in a "debate" either. These issues have been
> > covered many times.
>
> And yet your arguments have not advanced in the process. You needn't
> accept a teaching in order to understand it. Y
Well, I don't know if the process can be advanced. I also do not see
a consistent teaching across Orthodoxy concerning infant Communion.
Some Orthodox denominations [whoops, I mean "Jurisdictions"] have
first Holy Communion, notably the Carpatho-Russians. Others give
infants wine only until they are a few months old [to reduce the
choking hazard] . Still others [ie the Ukrainians] give only wine to
the age of seven and then gives the bread after the child's First
Confession.
Before I understand this teaching, I need a consistent practice to
examine. This is one of the reasons that I left the Orthodox Church.
At first glance, Orthodoxy looks good, but like a mirage, the closer
you get, the more your realize that nothing is there.
> > I have no problem with infants entering the Church. However, we must
> > fully understand that infants understand very little. Therefore, they
> > cannot "believe and be Baptized" as the Bible instructs.
>
> I see that the several weeks of intense efforts on the part of several
> others, a few months back, did nothing for you. I think you might be a
> nice guy to hang out with, but you make discussion with you online into
> a real waste of time.
If you are referring to the discussion on infant baptism, I defended
my contention from documentary evidence [the Didache] and the works of
early Christians [Tertullian, among others] that significant segments
of the early Church did practice adult only baptism.
As for a "real waste of time", I agree. I start grad school in a few
days, so my time will be better spent. The problem in these
discussions is that the are asymmetrical. The Orthodox apologists
accept a priori that everything the Orthodox Church says is true and
there is no need to critically examined anything. A simple argument
by assertion is all that is needed to answer questions concerning
belief and practice, no need for historical or philosophical analysis
because the facts do not matter. And if this doesn't work the old te
toque fallacy is brought out.
> > Can an infant "examine himself" or "recognize the body of the Lord"?
>
> An infant can recognize the presence of God in their midst better than
> an adult who is hampered by sin, and by an overactive animal brain.
And how do you know this? Muslims claim that all babies are born
Muslim. How is your claim any better than theirs?
I would argue that an infant's brain is far more "animal" than an
adult. Infants and toddlers show no signs of higher moral beliefs,
they simply struggle to exist.
> He doesn't need to state it, because his audience already understands
> it. You need to restate that second part to, "His arguments, as I
> mistakenly understood them in my position of general ignorance of the
> foundation of theology upon which his statements were made, seemed to me
> to exclude infants."
>
> By ignorance here, I mean "lack of specific knowledge", NOT "a state of
> stupidity."
>
> But, as Fr. Thomas must regularly commune infants when he celebrates the
> liturgy, he must understand his own words in a way different from the
> way you perceive them. Think about this for around ten minutes. Really
> meditate on that.
Well, for an argument to be consistent, it must apply in all cases.
His is not.
> You don't have to "uncritically swallow" anything. However, it would be
> better if there was some evidence that you had actually read what people
> say to you, instead of replying as if you heard nothing.
I do read what others write. I simply do not find most of it
convincing.
> I saw you in an argument about this a long time ago. Others spent more
> time than I am willing to in order to help you understand this. You
> refuse to accept that infants are capable of understanding God because
> they have a SOUL.
How do you know what infants understand? You are attempting to
rationalize away the fact that infants understand very little aside
from their most immediate surroundings.
> In Orthodox theology, it is understood that the human soul is the real
> tool of spiritual understanding. The only difference between an infant
> and an adult, is that the adult often mistakenly believes that they can
> articulate what their soul experiences.
Once again, how do you know that an infant understands anything beyond
its immediate surroundings [which they largely do not understand]?
> Do you think infants do not have souls? At which point to we get souls
> if not?
Yes, and infants also have many organs which they do not use.
> What are you looking for? Some kind of rationalistic "proof" of the
> existence of the human soul?
Got any?
> Proof is for math and alcohol.
I'll take one of each!
> Here is where you show evidence of just how disingenuous you are being.
> You snipped, without marking it, the very portion of my post that
> addressed this. As you did with all the portions you snipped...
Wasn't being disingenuous at all.
> -----Begin restored portion---------
> Adults do, however, have a rather developed rational mind (that bunch of
> tapioca between our ears). While it is useful for logic and for
> understanding certain things about the natural world, it can often be a
> foil for the soul's aprehension of God. It is by prayer and meditation
> that an adult human subjugates the rational mind to the
> intellect/heart/soul.
> --------End restored portion------------
>
> I thought that would explain it, but...
>
> Effectively, an infant's aprehension of God's presence is not foiled by
> their rational mind. What you see in Church is Theology in motion. The
> adults know that they do not understand any better than their infants
> the Holy Mysteries. They also know that they have sin in their lives
> which may or may not be confessed, and that they may or may not have
> prepared themselves properly to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord.
> An infant can not sin, and is therefore free from the need to repent.
I think that you have an overly romantic view of infants and young
children. Toddlers and very young children can be extremely mean and
cruel to each other. I witness this every morning when I go for a jog
through Tompkins Square Park and see the yuppies with their kids.
Fortunately, these young ones do not have the strength or coordination
to harm each other, but they can be quit mean.
After all, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like
a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish
ways behind me."
> Well, it seems you circle the problem here. That dissonance is a result
> of your preconceptions about "the way things are." You have almost hit
> the nail on the head with your statement above. The issue, though, is
> to try to see a different "the way things are" -- even if only
> temporarily for purposes of understanding the point at hand.
No, the problem is that the conclusions do not follow the argument.
Believe it or not, I largely agree with Mr. Hopko. When I was in
highschool, I detested the Orthodox attitude towards Communion,
preferring the "open Communion" of other Churches. I was especially
angered when a Priest turned someone away from Communion, after all,
Jesus didn't turn Judas away. I used to wonder if the Priest was
greater than Jesus or the potential communicate was worse than Judas.
I now have more respect for the Orthodox position. Communion should
be taken very seriously and as Paul said:
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Also, in the olden days, the Orthodox Church dismissed Catechumens
after the Gospel reading. So, there has always been an attitude that
one had to seriously examine themselves and understand the Sacrament
of which they were going to partake.
This attitude [especially as expressed by Paul] clearly does not allow
for infant Communion in spite of whatever rationalizations can be made
in defense of this practice.
Do you honestly believe that Paul would have given Communion to an
infant?
> C'mon, you are being intentionally silly. An infant is physically
> incapable of fulfilling the promises they would have to make in order to
> receive those sacraments.
Well, the same problem exists with respect to Communion. For the
first few months babies are given only wine because of the choking
hazard posed by bread. So, they do not partake completely of this
Sacrament either.
Learner
++
learner wrote:
> Before I understand this teaching, I need a consistent practice to
> examine.
We give infants who are chrismated the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not wine and bread.
> I would argue that an infant's brain is far more "animal" than an
> adult. Infants and toddlers show no signs of higher moral beliefs,
> they simply struggle to exist.
That is why we have Godparents
learner
Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that infants were included!
There is no reference to infant baptism in the Bible and one of the
earliest Christian documents [the Didache] teaches adult baptism only.
You are attempting to defend your Church's extra-Biblical practices by
relying on an argument from silence - which is the weakest sort of
argument. Following your line of illogic, the Bible does not
explicitly ban the baptism of dogs and cats - which may have also been
members of these families.
Learner
craig
this in this forum, you have one of the most effective debating styles I
have ever seen. I can sense that your posts creat a great deal of
frustration among those who share the opposing point of view.
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.0308...@posting.google.com...
Zaph'enath
> You continue to amaze me, Learner. Though I will be condemned for saying
> this in this forum, you have one of the most effective debating styles I
> have ever seen. I can sense that your posts creat a great deal of
> frustration among those who share the opposing point of view.
No condemnation...
However, "effective" debating does not equal to arguing with integrity.
One of the most effective debaters I have ever seen is a guy named
Duane Gish. (Mind you, I'm not saying Learner is even in the same zip
code of bad as Gish.)
But yes, it is very "effective" to snip relevant portions without
marking the omission, to continue to say the same things over and over
as if the other person had not already addressed that point repeatedly
and in several different ways, to refuse to acknowledge, or to
misrepresent, the different philosophical framework from which "the
opposing point of view" is born, to keep a shifting menu of volitile
distraction topics at hand at all times, or to use sarcasm as a way of
disarming a serious point. (Whether Learner does any or all of these
things, I am not really asserting. These are simply tried and true
methods...)
It is debating for an audience, and it is debating for the sake of
debating. While it certainly takes a sharp mind and some rhetorical
skill, it also lacks in honesty, and does nothing to advance learning on
the supposed subject. It also loses its charm after a couple posts.
But, yeah, amazing...
[snip]
T254
>
>You are attempting to defend your Church's extra-Biblical practices by
>relying on an argument from silence - which is the weakest sort of
>argument. Following your line of illogic, the Bible does not
>explicitly ban the baptism of dogs and cats - which may have also been
Where in the Bible does it use the word RAPTURE?
Bob
Bob Tallick
Steve Hayes
>t2...@aol.com (T254) wrote in message news:<20030822090352...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>> >The Bible does not ban the baptism of infants. PERIOD. It's not
>> >mentioned, nor is it implied.
>> >
>>
>> The Bible tells us that whole households were baptised. No where does it
>> indicate that the infants of thos households were excluded.
>
>Nowhere does the Bible explicitly say that infants were included!
>There is no reference to infant baptism in the Bible and one of the
>earliest Christian documents [the Didache] teaches adult baptism only.
There is no reference to adult baptism in the Bible either. It only speaks of
baptism, without wualifying it as "infant" or "adult".
digimortal
remember children not being allowed to participate in the Passover Seder, in
fact they are an important part of it! They are the most worthy, the Master
said we all just become like them.
"Dana Netherton" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ad4a792...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On &d, in article <bhstnc$5t6$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> computer...@divinity.cam.ac.uk.nospam.for.me said...
> > Al wrote:
> >
> > > ***Participation in Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church requires
> > > first of all that a person be a baptized, chrismated member of the
> > > Orthodox Church who fully accepts the conditions and demands of his or
> > > her baptism and chrismation...
> >
> > How does this fit with the current practice of communicating infants and
> > young children, who cannot possibly accept these conditions and demands?
>
> Dave,
>
> To begin with, for us this isn't simply "the current practice". Unlike
> some Western churches, which have begun communicating infants and young
> children after a lapse of many centuries (possibly more than 1,000
> years), Orthodoxy has been following this practice continuously from the
> days of the early church.
>
> To address your specific question, Fr Thomas was speaking to adult
> Orthodox Christians, not to infants or young children.
>
> We expect different things of people at different times of their lives.
> We expect more of children than we do of infants. We expect more of
> adults than we do of children. And so does God. "Everyone who to whom
> much is given, of him will much be required." (Luke 12:48b)
>
> Meanwhile, we all need the spiritual food of the Body and Blood of
> Christ.
>
> How do we Orthodox balance these needs and expectations? By recognizing
> the mercy of God toward those who are not yet able to embark on the
> arduous task of purification, through confession and fasting, and who are
> not yet "mature" enough to question what they have been taught.
>
> In the West, communion is commonly restricted to those who can
> "understand" it. As if anyone could understand this Holy Mystery! We do
> not demand that of ordinary food -- vitamins nourished us long before we
> "understood" their biochemical properties -- why should we demand it of
> spiritual food?
>
> These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I'm well-aware of the
> traditional reasons for the demand in the West. You don't need to recite
> them for my sake.
>
> --
> (Mr) Dana Netherton
> Default address is a spam dump. Use it, and
> I'll never see it. To reach me, e-mail:
> dana 1 netherton 2 net, where "1" = at, and "2" = dot
> --------
> I don't belong to an organized religion.
> I'm Eastern Orthodox.
learner
> On 22 Aug 2003 13:34:22 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
>
> >t2...@aol.com (T254) wrote in message news:<20030822090352...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
> There is no reference to adult baptism in the Bible either.
Huh?! Was Jesus baptized as an infant? Where does the Bible say that
infants were baptized?
> It only speaks of
> baptism, without wualifying it as "infant" or "adult".
I tawt I taw a puddy tat!
Learner [of New York]
Al Green
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
news:<3f46d701...@news.saix.net>...
> > On 22 Aug 2003 13:34:22 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
> >
> > >t2...@aol.com (T254) wrote in message
news:<20030822090352...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>
>
> > There is no reference to adult baptism in the Bible either.
>
> Huh?! Was Jesus baptized as an infant? Where does the Bible say that
> infants were baptized?
When Jesus was baptized is not the issue. This issue is some prots belief
that infants should not be baptized because the NT doesn't say that they
were. Please quote the NT passage that banned infants from being baptized.
Al
Charles Hogg
news:<3f46d701...@news.saix.net>...
> > On 22 Aug 2003 13:34:22 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
> >
> > >t2...@aol.com (T254) wrote in message
news:<20030822090352...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>
>
> > There is no reference to adult baptism in the Bible either.
>
> Huh?! Was Jesus baptized as an infant? Where does the Bible say that
> infants were baptized?
>
we must repeat every detail of Jesus' baptism in our own? The Lord gave a
general command: "Make disciples of all *nations*, baptizing and teaching
them." Note:
1. he said "nations", which includes anyone who's been born. Why then limit
his command?
2. baptizing comes before teaching.
Robb
> Learner [of New York]
digimortal
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03082...@posting.google.com...
Al Green
rebutt Holy Writ on this issue!
Al
"digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:bi9uuj$5j$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
learner
Please quote the NT passage that bans dogs and cat from being baptized!
Learner
learner
Where does the Bible use the terms "Trinity", "Hypostatic Union", or "Theotokos"?
Learner
Zaph'enath
[snip]
>>Where in the Bible does it use the word RAPTURE?
> Where does the Bible use the terms "Trinity", "Hypostatic Union", or "Theotokos"?
Good rebut. Of course, Orthodox Christians don't have silly ideas like
/sola scriptura/. It is the biblical literalists who need to "prove"
things that way.
But, I don't get the impression that you are a literalist of that sort.
I have never personally seen you support premillennial
dispensationalism, either. So, I am not sure what Bob meant by that.
But then I must ask: DO you believe in the Rapture?
FTT
Now you are being plain idiotic.
FTT
FTT
Caught in your own Trap, eh?
FTT
craig
belief
> > that infants should not be baptized because the NT doesn't say that they
> > were. Please quote the NT passage that banned infants from being
baptized.
> >
> > Al
>
>
> Please quote the NT passage that bans dogs and cat from being baptized!
>
> Learner
Do you suppose the whole households that were baptised in Acts may have
included some dogs and cats?
learner
They may have included pets, but they were not baptized. I was
purposely giving an absurd example in order to illustrate the fallacy
of the "argument from silence" - which is being employed here.
If one is willing to base an entire belief system on this very weak
argument, then there is practically no limit to what we can include in
baptism. For example, some Mormons use the same argument to justify
baptizing the dead because this passage does not explicitly exclude
dead family members.
Learner
Charles Hogg
> > included some dogs and cats?
>
> They may have included pets, but they were not baptized. I was
> purposely giving an absurd example in order to illustrate the fallacy
> of the "argument from silence" - which is being employed here.
>
> If one is willing to base an entire belief system on this very weak
> argument, then there is practically no limit to what we can include in
> baptism. For example, some Mormons use the same argument to justify
> baptizing the dead because this passage does not explicitly exclude
> dead family members.
Learner, may God give you grace to live up to your name and learn! What
you're ignoring is that the argument for infant baptism is not simply an
argument from silence.
1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
they should not be baptized.
2. The Mormons argue from *complete* silence. But we have well over 1000
years of church history which did the practice regularly and universally,
and documentary evidence that goes back at least as far as Origen, who died
mid-third century. This testimony is not silence.
If you say the whole church was wrong, then your quarrel is with the Lord
Jesus Christ who said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his
church.
Robb
>
> Learner
Stephen M. Adams
Where does the bible give an inspired list of books that belong in it??
-Stephen
learner
> learner wrote:
learner wrote: [snip] >>Where in the Bible does it use the word
RAPTURE?
>> Where does the Bible use the terms "Trinity", "Hypostatic Union",
>> or "Theotokos"?
> Good rebut.
I honestly did not intend it to be a rebut. These are, in my
opinion, somewhat inadequate human terms which are used to "define"
the Divine. After all, God is an example only to Himself.
The historic problem with the Orthodox Church that it often set aside
Scripture because of some heretical interpretations of the Scriptures
in the first couple of centuries. By creating these human
explanations and rationales [instead of reasoning through the
Scriptures], the Church rendered tradition a necessary supplement to
the Scriptures.
Take the Trinity for example. Instead of creating this doctrine
[which confuses and confounds many people], we could simply point to
the Bible which clearly tells us that the Father is God (Phil. 1:2),
the Son is God (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), and the Holy Spirit is God
(Acts 5:3-4). How this "works", I simply do not know, nor should I
attempt to define and delineate what cannot be defined and delineated.
Also, sometimes these terms, although intended to move us away from
heresy, actually put us on the slippery slope which ends in heresy.
For example, during the 6th century, the theology of the church in
reference to Mary changed as a result of the Nestorian controversies.
In maintaining the true Biblical doctrine of the Incarnation, the
Church strayed down this slippery slope.
In fact, in order to embellish it beliefs, the Church accepted De
Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber, which was a Gnostic/Collyridian fable
which the Church rightly rejected in the 5th century. Pope Gelasius
declared this book as heretical in A.D. 494. From it, are derived the
ideas of the Assumption/Dormition and Presentation in the Temple [of
Mary].
Sadly, the problem doesn't end there. In order to justify its use of
sources, this work was attributed by some Orthodox Catholics to Melito
[a 2nd century Orthodox bishop of Sardis], and by others to St. John
the Apostle - thus making a formerly heretical work acceptable!
> Of course, Orthodox Christians don't have silly ideas like /sola scriptura/. > It is the biblical
> literalists who need to "prove" things that way.
Well, the Orthodox have a similar dilemma. Where the Evangelicals
claim that the Bible is sufficient [citing 2 Tim 3:16], the Orthodox
would claim that the Bible + Tradition is the rule of faith. Both
argue in a circle, although the Orthodox increase the diameter of the
circle by adding Tradition - however anyone wishes to define or
delineate it.
> But, I don't get the impression that you are a literalist of that sort.
I am not.
> I have never personally seen you support premillennial dispensationalism, either.
I have not.
> So, I am not sure what Bob meant by that. But then I must ask: DO you believe > in the Rapture?
Bob had to find something to "swing at" out of frustration, so I guess
that this was the first thing that came to his mind.
I am not sure that the Orthodox Church is clear on this issue.
Some of the early Church Fathers appear to be supporters of the
pre-tribulational rapture. Specifically, Hermas taught that believers
would escape the future great tribulation period (Hermas, Shepherd of
Hermas, Book I, Vision IV, Chapter 2). Irenaeus wrote: "And
therefore, when in the end the church shall be suddenly caught up from
this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been
since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of
the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with
incorruption" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 29).
Learner
craig
> Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message
news:<UPWdnfkqSOz...@speakeasy.net>...
> > learner wrote:
>
> learner wrote: [snip] >>Where in the Bible does it use the word
> RAPTURE?
>
> >> Where does the Bible use the terms "Trinity", "Hypostatic Union",
> >> or "Theotokos"?
>
> > Good rebut.
>
> I honestly did not intend it to be a rebut. These are, in my
> opinion, somewhat inadequate human terms which are used to "define"
> the Divine. After all, God is an example only to Himself.
>
> The historic problem with the Orthodox Church that it often set aside
> Scripture because of some heretical interpretations of the Scriptures
> in the first couple of centuries. By creating these human
> explanations and rationales [instead of reasoning through the
> Scriptures], the Church rendered tradition a necessary supplement to
> the Scriptures.
From the Orthodox perspective, however, I don't think they would argue that
Tradition suppliments Scripture. I think they might argue that Scripture is
a very important part of Tradition. In that sense, it might be possible to
argue that Tradition supercedes Scripture, and that ultimately the Church
gives authority to the Scriptures (which is why they believe that the Church
alone can interpret them).
The problem that I have always had with this is line of thinking is that if
it is true that the Church gives authority to the Scriptures, the Scriptures
cannot , in turn, give authority to the Church. Therefore, the Church
cannot appeal to the Scriptures when making the case that it is the true
Church. But if not the Scriptures, what then is the evidence that the
Church is the "pillar and support of the truth." Why should anyone believe
that claim?
learner
> However, "effective" debating does not equal to arguing with integrity.
> One of the most effective debaters I have ever seen is a guy named
> Duane Gish. (Mind you, I'm not saying Learner is even in the same zip
> code of bad as Gish.)
Thanks, I guess!?
> But yes, it is very "effective" to snip relevant portions without
> marking the omission, to continue to say the same things over and over
> as if the other person had not already addressed that point repeatedly
> and in several different ways, to refuse to acknowledge, or to
> misrepresent, the different philosophical framework from which "the
> opposing point of view" is born, to keep a shifting menu of volitile
> distraction topics at hand at all times, or to use sarcasm as a way of
> disarming a serious point. (Whether Learner does any or all of these
> things, I am not really asserting. These are simply tried and true
> methods...)
But you are, by implication, saying that I am doing these things. I
am looking for answers, not arguments by assertion or false analogies.
> It is debating for an audience, and it is debating for the sake of
> debating. While it certainly takes a sharp mind and some rhetorical
> skill, it also lacks in honesty, and does nothing to advance learning on
> the supposed subject. It also loses its charm after a couple posts.
>
> But, yeah, amazing...
To re-cap this discussion, Mr. Hopko tells us that we must approach
Communion with all seriousness and understanding - and I agree with
him. He clearly echoes Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 11:27-29:
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
From Paul's words, we can conclude that the practice of Communing
infants, which is found in some [but not all] Orthodox Churches is
clearly wrong. An infant simply cannot "examine himself" or
"recognize the body of the Lord". In this discussion, the Orthodox
apologists have used a variety of arguments, distractions, and
rationalizations to explain away Paul's teachings, and I believe that
I have addressed all of them.
I truly love Paul, he is my favorite early Christian. Paul demands
that we worship God on God's terms, and not on our terms. He states
his positions very clearly. Many Churches, including the Orthodox,
express faith in Paul and his teachings, in spite of the fact that
they often ignore them.
This discussion of infant Communion is frighteningly similar to a
discussion that I had recently with a gay student I knew at Johns
Hopkins. He claims that Romans does not "really" condemn
homosexuality, but "really" condemns sex between gay and straight men!
Presumably, gay sex is OK by Paul, according to this rationalization.
Both in case of the argument concerning Romans and homosexuality and
the Orthodox arguments in favor of infant Communion, Paul's clear
teachings result in both rationalizations collapsing under the weight
of their own contradictions.
Learner
Al Green
There aren't any. But if you believe that doigs and cats (that have no
souls) are part of the "whole families" that Christ told the Apostles to
baptize, then by all means, baptize your kitty!
(Dumb damn statement!)
Al
learner
> Learner, may God give you grace to live up to your name and learn! What
> you're ignoring is that the argument for infant baptism is not simply an
> argument from silence.
Amen. But that is hardly the point. If the argument in favor of
infant baptism is, as you assert, not an argument from silence, then
please point me to a passage in the Bible which preaches infant
baptism. Claiming that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit infant
baptism will simply not do, since it is an argument from silence.
Also, since you are an apologist for Orthodoxy, you are the positive
claimant in this argument, so the burden of proof is on you to prove
the affirmative.
> 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
> baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
> they should not be baptized.
But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
of baptism. If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
not baptize dead citizens?
> 2. The Mormons argue from *complete* silence.
No, like the Orthodox, they make similar [and equally fallacious]
arguments by assertion.
> But we have well over 1000
> years of church history which did the practice regularly and universally,
> and documentary evidence that goes back at least as far as Origen, who died
> mid-third century. This testimony is not silence.
The Jews and Hindus have an even longer history, so what? The Didache
which pre-dates Origen [who by the way, is not considered a Church
Father] implies that only adults can be baptized.
> If you say the whole church was wrong, then your quarrel is with the Lord
> Jesus Christ who said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his
> church.
No, my "quarrel" is with the fallacy of the false dilemma which omits
a third possibility - that Jesus is correct and your Church is not the
one to which he refers.
Learner
learner
> From the Orthodox perspective, however, I don't think they would argue that
> Tradition suppliments Scripture. I think they might argue that Scripture is
> a very important part of Tradition.
The relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not very clear.
Some scholars believe that Scripture and Tradition form a single "one
source" of authority (Ware, Clapsis, and Meyendorff) while others
argue that they are "two sources", distinguished from one
another(Konstantinidis and Archbishop Michael).
> In that sense, it might be possible to
> argue that Tradition supercedes Scripture, and that ultimately the Church
> gives authority to the Scriptures (which is why they believe that the Church
> alone can interpret them).
This question of Orthodox Tradition interests me greatly. It is
easily the most important and least supported article of the Orthodox
faith. I never encountered, from person to person contact or from
reading the works of Church scholars, a clear delineation of the
bounds of Tradition in regards to what is true and what is false.
For example, if we use the "accepted by the whole Church" standard,
then the entire Orthodox Church should have a common teaching
regarding the subject of this thread - infant Communion - which they
do not. I have concluded that Tradition, in the minds of the
Orthodox, is a bit like the weather - everybody talks about Tradition
but nobody seems to know exactly what it is, or how it applies in real
terms. Orthodox Tradition is similar to a mirage - the closer you
approach it, the more it is not there.
> The problem that I have always had with this is line of thinking is that if
> it is true that the Church gives authority to the Scriptures, the Scriptures
> cannot , in turn, give authority to the Church.
True, that would be a circular argument.
> Therefore, the Church
> cannot appeal to the Scriptures when making the case that it is the true
> Church.
But they do, attempting to press Scriptures into a framework in which
only the Church can interpret them. Some Orthodox will claim that
rejecting the Church's interpretations also forces one to reject the
Scriptures themselves, since, if the Church has no authority to
interpret what it wrote, then it also do not have the authority to
define what Scripture really is. Of course, this conclusion does not
follow the argument. If I reject the Orthodox Church's
interpretations of Scripture, I am free to accept, or reject, the
Scriptures for any reason. The most that the Orthodox apologists can
claim, in this case, is that if I reject the Orthodox Church's
interpretation of Scripture, I would be very silly to accept these
Books based only on the Church's authority.
> But if not the Scriptures, what then is the evidence that the
> Church is the "pillar and support of the truth." Why should anyone believe
> that claim?
There is no evidence. There is no way to prove that the unwritten
Traditions, mentioned by Paul and other early Church leaders are the
same as those found today in the Church. There simply are no "chains
of transmission", or any other evidence to support this claim.
Learner
learner
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
> > to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
>
> Even more: If *yes*, then where is the line drawn? Are mentally
> retarded or developmentally disabled people barred from salvation in
> Christ? This is the real test of a theology. Who does it, bar as a
> consequence, from the sacraments?
Bad analogy. Many developmentally disabled people do, like young
children, have some level of understanding. Giving Communion to an
infant is an entirely different matter since they have absolutely no
understanding of anything beyond their most immediate surroundings.
That would be more similar to giving the Sacraments to someone who was
born, and lived their entire life, in a coma.
Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
Learner
Charles Hogg
> "Charles Hogg" <pasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<BWo2b.190527$cF.63994@rwcrnsc53>...
>
> > Learner, may God give you grace to live up to your name and learn! What
> > you're ignoring is that the argument for infant baptism is not simply an
> > argument from silence.
>
> Amen. But that is hardly the point. If the argument in favor of
> infant baptism is, as you assert, not an argument from silence, then
> please point me to a passage in the Bible which preaches infant
> baptism. Claiming that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit infant
> baptism will simply not do, since it is an argument from silence.
> Also, since you are an apologist for Orthodoxy, you are the positive
> claimant in this argument, so the burden of proof is on you to prove
> the affirmative.
On the contrary; the _onus probandi_ falls on the one who innovates. Now
the modern practice known as "believer's baptism" can be traced definitively
and to its beginning with Hans Denck and the Anabaptists, c. 1522. Hence it
represents the innovation.
> > 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
> > baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
> > they should not be baptized.
>
> But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
> of baptism. If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
> not baptize dead citizens?
>
a) because dead people aren't citizens (I assume by 'citizen' you mean
'member of a nation'--note that our Lord uses the word 'ethne' in Mt. 28).
Were you around for the last census? Did you pay attention to who was
enrolled?
b) the term 'ethne' includes every living, breathing individual bound
together by geography and/or culture and language--hence also infants. There
is no passage of Scripture which calls for black people, or balding white
males, or any number of other kinds of people, to be baptized. Nor need
there be. "Nations" takes in them all.
>
> > But we have well over 1000
> > years of church history which did the practice regularly and
universally,
> > and documentary evidence that goes back at least as far as Origen, who
died
> > mid-third century. This testimony is not silence.
>
> The Jews and Hindus have an even longer history, so what? The Didache
> which pre-dates Origen [who by the way, is not considered a Church
> Father] implies that only adults can be baptized.
>
a) We are speaking of the history of that body concerning which Christ
promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it--his Church. AFAIK,
he made no such promise wrt the Jews or Hindus.
b) How interesting that you argue from implication wrt the Didache, but fail
to see the implication of 'nations' in the New Testament!
> > If you say the whole church was wrong, then your quarrel is with the
Lord
> > Jesus Christ who said that the gates of hell would not prevail against
his
> > church.
>
> No, my "quarrel" is with the fallacy of the false dilemma which omits
> a third possibility - that Jesus is correct and your Church is not the
> one to which he refers.
>
a) I am not a member of the Orthodox church
b) The best way to know the mind of a groom is to know the mind of his
bride.
May you not always be learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the
truth!
Robb
> Learner
Zaph'enath
> Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<pP2dnVnqzeO...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
>>>to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
>>
>>Even more: If *yes*, then where is the line drawn? Are mentally
>>retarded or developmentally disabled people barred from salvation in
>>Christ? This is the real test of a theology. Who does it, bar as a
>>consequence, from the sacraments?
>
>
> Bad analogy.
No analogy at all. It was a straight-line analysis of the consequences
of an affirmative answer to Steven Adams' question. If a "full,
complete and thorough intellectual understanding" is necessary for
salvation, then certainly mentally retarded individuals would be barred
from it. In fact, a large portion of "regular" people would be, as well.
> Many developmentally disabled people do, like young
> children, have some level of understanding. Giving Communion to an
> infant is an entirely different matter since they have absolutely no
> understanding of anything beyond their most immediate surroundings.
> That would be more similar to giving the Sacraments to someone who was
> born, and lived their entire life, in a coma.
Now who's making analogies... and bad ones at that.
Infants are not in comas. They are developing at an alarming rate and
taking in more information than you or I do -- both because they don't
know how to filter it yet, and because everything is interesting since
everything is new.
> Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
> to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
I was not attempting to create anything. I was exploring the real
consequences of the Calvinist rationalistic idea from the "Reformation"
that, as Steven put it, "a full, complete and thorough intellectual
understanding [is] necessary to salvation."
As a matter of fact, I didn't even recommend a specific course of action
in response to these consequences, except that it certainly created some
problems. So your claim that I am "attempting to create an un-Biblical
rule" comes up pretty silly.
(Of course, you know what I think is the right way to do things... I'm
not pretending that I don't have an opinion on the matter.)
But, you are certainly a lively and clever debater, I'll give you that.
Cheers,
Steve Hayes
>"Charles Hogg" <pasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BWo2b.190527$cF.63994@rwcrnsc53>...
>
>> Learner, may God give you grace to live up to your name and learn! What
>> you're ignoring is that the argument for infant baptism is not simply an
>> argument from silence.
>
>Amen. But that is hardly the point. If the argument in favor of
>infant baptism is, as you assert, not an argument from silence, then
>please point me to a passage in the Bible which preaches infant
>baptism. Claiming that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit infant
>baptism will simply not do, since it is an argument from silence.
>Also, since you are an apologist for Orthodoxy, you are the positive
>claimant in this argument, so the burden of proof is on you to prove
>the affirmative.
Then what IS the point?
Where in the Bible does it say that the burden is on anyone to prove the
affirmative?
Why is there any "burden" to "prove" anything?
The Orthodox Church does not "preach" infant baptism.
The Orthodox Church baptises people in the name of the Holy Trinity as our
Lord Jesus Christ said we should.
>> 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
>> baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
>> they should not be baptized.
>
>But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
>of baptism.
So what?
If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
>not baptize dead citizens?
Citizens of what?
If you believe it is wrong for infants to be baptised, please explain where in
the Bible it sais that the Israelites left their infant children on the west
bank of the Red Sea for Pharoah's army to take back into slavery.
Stephen M. Adams
>Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<pP2dnVnqzeO...@speakeasy.net>...
>> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Is a full, complete and thorough intellectual understanding necessary
>> > to salvation? If not, then where is the line drawn?
>>
>> Even more: If *yes*, then where is the line drawn? Are mentally
>> retarded or developmentally disabled people barred from salvation in
>> Christ? This is the real test of a theology. Who does it, bar as a
>> consequence, from the sacraments?
>
>Bad analogy.
Not at all.
>Many developmentally disabled people do, like young
>children, have some level of understanding.
And some do not. But even if they do, do you *really* understand
any better than an infant?
>Giving Communion to an
>infant is an entirely different matter since they have absolutely no
>understanding of anything beyond their most immediate surroundings.
How do you propose to measure ANY individuals level of spiritual
awareness? Christ said to comes as little children - you say come
only as an adult. I will listen to Christ.
>That would be more similar to giving the Sacraments to someone who was
>born, and lived their entire life, in a coma.
Is this person incapable of being saved?
>Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
>to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
Nope. I want you to show where the line is drawn. Exactly how much
understanding is necessary? And are those who cannot understand of
necessity damned?
-Stephen
learner
> No analogy at all. It was a straight-line analysis of the consequences
> of an affirmative answer to Steven Adams' question. If a "full,
> complete and thorough intellectual understanding" is necessary for
> salvation, then certainly mentally retarded individuals would be barred
> from it. In fact, a large portion of "regular" people would be, as well.
That is a red herring. Neither Paul, nor I, claim that one must have
a "full, "complete and thorough intellectual understanding" in respect
to Communion. Paul says that : "A man ought to examine himself before
he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and
drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks
judgment on himself."
Obviously, an infant cannot satisfy these most basic requirements. Do
you honestly believe in Paul's teachings? Can you imagine that Paul
would have given Communion to an infant? It appears that the
Orthodox, like the Mormons and JWs, pay lip service to Paul while they
ignore his teachings.
> > Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
> > to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
>
> I was not attempting to create anything. I was exploring the real
> consequences of the Calvinist rationalistic idea from the "Reformation"
> that, as Steven put it, "a full, complete and thorough intellectual
> understanding [is] necessary to salvation."
I stand corrected. You were attempting to defend an un-Biblical rule,
not create one.
> But, you are certainly a lively and clever debater, I'll give you that.
Thanks, I guess.
Learner
learner
> On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:20 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
> Then what IS the point?
The debate was concerning the practice of giving Communion to infants.
> Where in the Bible does it say that the burden is on anyone to prove the
> affirmative?
1 Peter 3:15.
> Why is there any "burden" to "prove" anything?
Because without proof, you have only a claim - putting Orthodoxy in
particular, and Christianity in general, on the same level as any
other claim.
> The Orthodox Church does not "preach" infant baptism.
>
> The Orthodox Church baptises people in the name of the Holy Trinity as our
> Lord Jesus Christ said we should.
That's nice, but the topic of this thread is Eucharistic Discipline.
> If you believe it is wrong for infants to be baptised, please explain where in
> the Bible it sais that the Israelites left their infant children on the west
> bank of the Red Sea for Pharoah's army to take back into slavery.
I know that you consider this to be a profound argument, but in
respect to the issue at hand in this thread, Paul tells us: "A man
ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of
the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
So, when one gives Communion to an infant, who cannot satisfy these
basic requirements, they are the ones who may be leaving the children
behind.
Learner
Charles Hogg
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
news:<3f4acc05...@news.saix.net>...
> > On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:20 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
>
> > Then what IS the point?
>
> The debate was concerning the practice of giving Communion to infants.
>
> > Where in the Bible does it say that the burden is on anyone to prove the
> > affirmative?
>
> 1 Peter 3:15.
That's not what 1 Peter 3:15 says. He says to be ready to give a reason for
the hope that is in you, if anyone asks you. He doesn't say to prove
anything. When I give a reason, I offer evidence to show that my view is not
irrational. "Proof," on the other hand, requires the cooperation of the one
being addressed. "The Jews seek signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we
preach Christ crucified."
>
> > Why is there any "burden" to "prove" anything?
>
> Because without proof, you have only a claim - putting Orthodoxy in
> particular, and Christianity in general, on the same level as any
> other claim.
>
Can you prove your statement, or is it simply a claim? ;-)
There is clear, documentary evidence that:
1) infants were baptised--at least since Origen's time--and that when
discussed, the practice was not viewed as an innovation;
2) all who were baptised (and were not under discipline) communed--including
infants (cp. Cyprian's story in _De lapsis_).
3) the entire, undivided church practiced both 1 & 2 until c. 1200 AD, when
some priests in France innovated and began to withhold the eucharist from
baptised infants.
4) the practice of "believer's baptism" dates from 1522 AD.
Given this documented evidence, coupled with our Lord's words that "the
gates of hell will not prevail" against the church, and Paul's saying that
the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth," there is "proof"
sufficient for anyone of good will and reasonable intellect.
> > The Orthodox Church does not "preach" infant baptism.
> >
> > The Orthodox Church baptises people in the name of the Holy Trinity as
our
> > Lord Jesus Christ said we should.
>
> That's nice, but the topic of this thread is Eucharistic Discipline.
>
> > If you believe it is wrong for infants to be baptised, please explain
where in
> > the Bible it sais that the Israelites left their infant children on the
west
> > bank of the Red Sea for Pharoah's army to take back into slavery.
>
> I know that you consider this to be a profound argument, but in
> respect to the issue at hand in this thread, Paul tells us: "A man
> ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
> cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of
> the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
>
Like many even within my own tradition (Lutheran), and unlike Luther himself
(who said that the text is not speaking about infants), you are not paying
attention to the context of the Pauline admonition. In the context, certain
adults had engaged in behaviors which profaned the Supper (not sharing their
food at the agape, and getting drunk). His admonition, therefore, is
addressed to those who had committed the infraction--not to children, who
weren't capable of such bestial behavior.
> So, when one gives Communion to an infant, who cannot satisfy these
> basic requirements, they are the ones who may be leaving the children
> behind.
When you speak of Communion as having "requirements" which need to be
"satisfied," it is plain that you have changed Gospel to Law, and a means of
grace to a reward for works. Kyrie eleison!
Robb
> Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<6YqdnYCx8tb...@speakeasy.net>...
>
>> No analogy at all. It was a straight-line analysis of the consequences
>> of an affirmative answer to Steven Adams' question. If a "full,
>> complete and thorough intellectual understanding" is necessary for
>> salvation, then certainly mentally retarded individuals would be barred
>> from it. In fact, a large portion of "regular" people would be, as well.
>
>That is a red herring. Neither Paul, nor I, claim that one must have
>a "full, "complete and thorough intellectual understanding" in respect
>to Communion. Paul says that : "A man ought to examine himself before
>he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and
>drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks
>judgment on himself."
>
>Obviously, an infant cannot satisfy these most basic requirements. Do
>you honestly believe in Paul's teachings? Can you imagine that Paul
>would have given Communion to an infant? It appears that the
>Orthodox, like the Mormons and JWs, pay lip service to Paul while they
>ignore his teachings.
Again, I ask you - what level of understanding is necessary? Until you
answer this, all you have is an arbitrary, meaningless statement....
-Stephen
craig
> gates of hell will not prevail" against the church, and Paul's saying that
> the church is the "pillar and foundation of truth," there is "proof"
> sufficient for anyone of good will and reasonable intellect.
In other threads, Orthodox Christians have clearly stated that it is the
Church that gives authority to the Scriptures. The Church wrote the
Scriptures, the Church discerned which books compose the canon, the Church
claims that the Scriptures are actually a subset of a larger body of
revelation (Tradition) and the Church claims that only she is authorized to
interpret the Scriptures. The Scriptures can only mean what the Eastern
Orthodox Church says they mean.
Given those claims, I don't understand how you can then turn around and use
the Scriptures to give authority to the Church. This makes no sense to me
and seem to be circular.
The Church gives authority to the Scriptures.
The Scriptures give authority to the Church.
Given that type of reasoning, why should anyone believe either of those
claims?
learner
> >Many developmentally disabled people do, like young
> >children, have some level of understanding.
> And some do not. But even if they do, do you *really* understand
> any better than an infant?
Unlike an infant, I am able to examine myself and recognize Communion
as the body and blood of Christ. This is what God demands of us (1
Cor. 11:27-29).
"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the
Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
> >Giving Communion to an
> >infant is an entirely different matter since they have absolutely no
> >understanding of anything beyond their most immediate surroundings.
>
> How do you propose to measure ANY individuals level of spiritual
> awareness? Christ said to comes as little children - you say come
> only as an adult. I will listen to Christ.
I do not propose anything. Paul instructs us:
"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Infants cannot do this.
> >That would be more similar to giving the Sacraments to someone who was
> >born, and lived their entire life, in a coma.
>
> Is this person incapable of being saved?
That is an improper question for an Orthodox Catholic to ask. Your
Church teaches that no one can know for sure if they, or anyone else,
is saved.
> >Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
> >to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
>
> Nope. I want you to show where the line is drawn. Exactly how much
> understanding is necessary? And are those who cannot understand of
> necessity damned?
There is no need for you to draw a line, Paul did it long ago.
Learner
learner
Don't ask me, just listen to Paul:
"A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks
of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Do you believe that Paul would have given Communion to an infant?
Learner
learner
> On the contrary; the _onus probandi_ falls on the one who innovates. Now
> the modern practice known as "believer's baptism" can be traced definitively
> and to its beginning with Hans Denck and the Anabaptists, c. 1522. Hence it
> represents the innovation.
Or even earlier to John the Baptist, or even earlier to the cleansing
rites of the Essenes, or yet earlier to the Mikveh.
> > > 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
> > > baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
> > > they should not be baptized.
> > But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
> > of baptism. If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
> > not baptize dead citizens?
> >
>
> a) because dead people aren't citizens (I assume by 'citizen' you mean
> 'member of a nation'--note that our Lord uses the word 'ethne' in Mt. 28).
> Were you around for the last census? Did you pay attention to who was
> enrolled?
The word in my Greek NT is ethnos.
> b) the term 'ethne' includes every living, breathing individual bound
> together by geography and/or culture and language--hence also infants. There
> is no passage of Scripture which calls for black people, or balding white
> males, or any number of other kinds of people, to be baptized. Nor need
> there be. "Nations" takes in them all.
The fallacy of the argument from silence, once again - are you are
willing to allow any practice which is not explicitly prohibited?
Also Strong's says that ethnos can mean "a multitude (whether of men
or of beasts) associated or living together, a company, troop, swarm",
so I don't think we can baptize all of these.
> b) How interesting that you argue from implication wrt the Didache, but fail
> to see the implication of 'nations' in the New Testament!
It is amazing how you ignore the Didache in favor of latter
traditions. But, like the Orthodox, you begin with a conclusion and
look for an argument to support it.
Learner
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3f4acc05...@news.saix.net>...
>> If you believe it is wrong for infants to be baptised, please explain where in
>> the Bible it sais that the Israelites left their infant children on the west
>> bank of the Red Sea for Pharoah's army to take back into slavery.
>
>I know that you consider this to be a profound argument, but in
>respect to the issue at hand in this thread, Paul tells us: "A man
>ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the
>cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of
>the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
It's not an "argument" at all. I'm trying to establish what comon ground there
may be, if any. But if you want to stick top eucharistic discipline, then
better go back to that thread. I introduced this one because it seemed to be
focusing on Baptism.
Steve Hayes
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<3f4acc05...@news.saix.net>...
>> On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:20 -0700, nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote:
>
>> Then what IS the point?
>
>The debate was concerning the practice of giving Communion to infants.
Then why have you been wittering on about "infant baptism"?
>> Where in the Bible does it say that the burden is on anyone to prove the
>> affirmative?
>
>1 Peter 3:15.
Your Bible must say something different to mine.
>> Why is there any "burden" to "prove" anything?
>
>Because without proof, you have only a claim - putting Orthodoxy in
>particular, and Christianity in general, on the same level as any
>other claim.
Really? What is a "claim"?
Religions and politicians may make all sorts of claims for themselves, but the
only thing that Christians can truly lay claim to is death. Just as Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob lived in the promised land, but the only thing that they could
truly lay claim to was a grave, the cave of Machpelah. So the only thing that
we can lay claim to is a grave, the cross.
The verse you cited shows that clearly. Hope is not a "claim". If anyone asks,
I'll give a reason for it, but that "proves" nothing.
Al
***What New Testament version are these folks using, Stephen? I can't
remember ever seeing a passage that said St. Paul refused to commune
ANYONE young or old because they didn't understand what was going on?
The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, when the bread and wine become the
Body and Blood of Christ, is beyond the comprehension of everyone,
young and old alike regardless of I.Q. and/or book learning. If adults
cannot comprehend and understand this mystery, what's all the fuss
about infants? The rationale escapes me now as it did when I was a
protestant.
Al
Steve Hayes
Consider an organisation that decides to write itself a constitution.
Say, for example, your country has a constitution.
Now, does not the country give authority to the constitution, and the
constitution give authority to the government of a country. And if other
countries come along and take your constitution, and tell you how to run your
country in accordance with the constitution, and say that since the
constitution is the final authority, they are more entitled to interpret it
than you are, what would you think.
I don't think the South African Constitution Copurt would take too much
account of the supreme judiciary of Thailand trying to interpret the South
African Conmstitution. I don't think the US Supreme Court would take much
notice of the South African Constitutional court telling them how to interpret
the US constitution.
And so with the Bible.
Charles Hogg
"learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c53bb03c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Hogg" <pasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Fdw2b.96838$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c53bb03c.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > On the contrary; the _onus probandi_ falls on the one who innovates.
Now
> > the modern practice known as "believer's baptism" can be traced
definitively
> > and to its beginning with Hans Denck and the Anabaptists, c. 1522. Hence
it
> > represents the innovation.
>
> Or even earlier to John the Baptist, or even earlier to the cleansing
> rites of the Essenes, or yet earlier to the Mikveh.
Yes. John the Forerunner was an innovator in doing baptism the way he did.
But John was a prophet. Are you, or those who began the innovation of
"believer's baptism"? I know that some of the early ones *thought* they
were. I would disagree with them. (I am no heir to the Essenes, and feel no
need to defend them. What do you mean by Mikveh--do you mean the shallow
pools used for ceremonial washing? They would hardly be an innovation; they
are simply a way of carrying out what the Lord required wrt ceremonial
washings).
> > > > 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
> > > > baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no
reason
> > > > they should not be baptized.
>
> > > But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
> > > of baptism. If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
> > > not baptize dead citizens?
> > >
> >
> > a) because dead people aren't citizens (I assume by 'citizen' you mean
> > 'member of a nation'--note that our Lord uses the word 'ethne' in Mt.
28).
> > Were you around for the last census? Did you pay attention to who was
> > enrolled?
>
> The word in my Greek NT is ethnos.
>
it's "panta ta ethne"--the plural. See below wrt Greek.
> > b) the term 'ethne' includes every living, breathing individual bound
> > together by geography and/or culture and language--hence also infants.
There
> > is no passage of Scripture which calls for black people, or balding
white
> > males, or any number of other kinds of people, to be baptized. Nor need
> > there be. "Nations" takes in them all.
>
> The fallacy of the argument from silence, once again - are you are
> willing to allow any practice which is not explicitly prohibited?
>
It is *not* an argument from silence. Why can't you understand this? "Ethne"
include every breathing human joined by a specific geography and/or history
and culture--e.g. the Scots, the Zulu, the Germans and Greeks etc. That
means infants too. By your reasoning, I could ask why you baptize
middle-aged balding guys. The Bible never explicitly commands us to do so.
> Also Strong's says that ethnos can mean "a multitude (whether of men
> or of beasts) associated or living together, a company, troop, swarm",
> so I don't think we can baptize all of these.
>
a) What's relevant is not what a term *can* mean but rather what it *does*
mean in a given context. Clearly in Mt. 28 Jesus doesn't have beasts in
mind.
b) Let me ask you: do you know Greek? How long have you studied? What,
besides Strong, are your sources? For the record, I've had 2 years of Greek
in college and used it on an ongoing basis for the last 27 years.
> > b) How interesting that you argue from implication wrt the Didache, but
fail
> > to see the implication of 'nations' in the New Testament!
>
> It is amazing how you ignore the Didache in favor of latter
> traditions. But, like the Orthodox, you begin with a conclusion and
> look for an argument to support it.
>
Pot to kettle: black.
Robb
> Learner
learner
> That's not what 1 Peter 3:15 says. He says to be ready to give a reason for
> the hope that is in you, if anyone asks you. He doesn't say to prove
> anything.
The word here is apologia, which [according to Strong's] is used in
the Bible in two ways: 1)verbal defence, speech in defence, and 2)a
reasoned statement or argument.
> > > Why is there any "burden" to "prove" anything?
> >
> > Because without proof, you have only a claim - putting Orthodoxy in
> > particular, and Christianity in general, on the same level as any
> > other claim.
> >
>
> Can you prove your statement, or is it simply a claim? ;-)
To claim something without proof is nothing more than the fallacy of
argument by assertion - which renders all claims as equal in their
validity, or lack thereof.
> There is clear, documentary evidence that:
> 1) infants were baptised--at least since Origen's time--and that when
> discussed, the practice was not viewed as an innovation;
The early Church had a broad spectrum of beliefs and practices which
varied from place to place and according to who was the Bishop in any
given city. The first century A.D. Didache suggests that infants
cannot be baptized.
Tertullian was also against infant baptism. If you wish to cite
Origen, keep in mind that his works suggest that reincarnation exists.
> 2) all who were baptised (and were not under discipline) communed--including
> infants (cp. Cyprian's story in _De lapsis_).
Cyprian is from the 3rd century AD.
> 3) the entire, undivided church practiced both 1 & 2 until c. 1200 AD, when
> some priests in France innovated and began to withhold the eucharist from
> baptised infants.
Also, you might want to review some basic history. The Church was
divided in the 11th century (1054 officially), so your comment
concerning the "undivided church... until c. 1200 AD" is way off!
> 4) the practice of "believer's baptism" dates from 1522 AD.
Really? There were NO adult converts to Christianity, who were
baptized, prior to 1522 AD? You have an interesting view of history!
Learner
Charles Hogg
news:<axJ2b.202496$Oz4.54215@rwcrnsc54>...
>
> > That's not what 1 Peter 3:15 says. He says to be ready to give a reason
for
> > the hope that is in you, if anyone asks you. He doesn't say to prove
> > anything.
>
> The word here is apologia, which [according to Strong's] is used in
> the Bible in two ways: 1)verbal defence, speech in defence, and 2)a
> reasoned statement or argument.
In another post, I asked what your qualifications wrt Greek are. I shared
mine: 2 years in college, and 27 years of constant use both in NT and
philosophical texts. In listing my qualifications, I know I make a fool of
myself. But if you appeal to Greek, you ought to be prepared to state your
qualifications.
Reasoned statements have been offered, based even on the words of Holy
Scripture. But our Roman Catholic brethren have a delightful phrase, which
seems to fit the present situation: "invincible ignorance." There is no
reason, no evidence, sufficient to "prove" this to you. So go your way in
peace. We will meet before the dread judgment seat of Christ. May he show
mercy to us both!
>
> > There is clear, documentary evidence that:
> > 1) infants were baptised--at least since Origen's time--and that when
> > discussed, the practice was not viewed as an innovation;
>
> The early Church had a broad spectrum of beliefs and practices which
> varied from place to place and according to who was the Bishop in any
> given city. The first century A.D. Didache suggests that infants
> cannot be baptized.
No it doesn't. It speaks of the baptism of adults. From that it doesn't
follow that infants weren't baptized. An analogy: If there is a dinner
party, and the newspaper account focuses on what the ladies wore, it doesn't
follow that the men were naked.
> Tertullian was also against infant baptism. If you wish to cite
> Origen, keep in mind that his works suggest that reincarnation exists.
Tertullian was a Montanist. And Origen was condemned, long after his death,
for reasons that had nothing to do with his commentaries (his mention of
infant baptism is in his commentary on Romans). Nor did his works "suggest
that reincarnation exists." Rather, they suggest that souls pre-existed
their enfleshment into human bodies. Origen had no notion of repeated
enfleshments.
>
> > 2) all who were baptised (and were not under discipline)
communed--including
> > infants (cp. Cyprian's story in _De lapsis_).
>
> Cyprian is from the 3rd century AD.
>
And the rejection of infant communion is from the 12th century AD.
> > 3) the entire, undivided church practiced both 1 & 2 until c. 1200 AD,
when
> > some priests in France innovated and began to withhold the eucharist
from
> > baptised infants.
>
> Also, you might want to review some basic history. The Church was
> divided in the 11th century (1054 officially), so your comment
> concerning the "undivided church... until c. 1200 AD" is way off!
Shows what you know, I guess. Although mutual excommunications were
exchanged in 1054 AD, intercommuning of Catholics and Orthodox took place
regularly till the abomination of 1204 AD. Further, it would be strange if
some, not to say many, customs from the undivided church would continue for
some time in the divided church.
> > 4) the practice of "believer's baptism" dates from 1522 AD.
>
> Really? There were NO adult converts to Christianity, who were
> baptized, prior to 1522 AD? You have an interesting view of history!
>
Learn to read, please. I didn't say there were no adult converts to
Christianity who were baptized, prior to 1522 AD. I said that the practice
of "believer's baptism" dates from 1522 AD. Believer's baptism is the view
that no one should be baptized unless and until he has made a personal
confession or testimony of faith. Coupled with this notion is the view that
baptism is a way that I show other people I have decided for Jesus, instead
of a way that God joins me to his family.
This discussion is rapidly approaching profitless-ness (if it hasn't gotten
there already). As Luther said to Zwingli, "You are of a different spirit."
God be merciful to us both.
Robb
> Learner
Steve Hayes
>"Charles Hogg" <pasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BWo2b.190527$cF.63994@rwcrnsc53>...
>
>> Learner, may God give you grace to live up to your name and learn! What
>> you're ignoring is that the argument for infant baptism is not simply an
>> argument from silence.
>
>Amen. But that is hardly the point. If the argument in favor of
>infant baptism is, as you assert, not an argument from silence, then
>please point me to a passage in the Bible which preaches infant
>baptism. Claiming that the Bible does not explicitly prohibit infant
>baptism will simply not do, since it is an argument from silence.
>Also, since you are an apologist for Orthodoxy, you are the positive
>claimant in this argument, so the burden of proof is on you to prove
>the affirmative.
>
>> 1. In Matthew 28, Jesus says "make disciples of all nations . . .
>> baptizing." Infants are members of nations. There is therefore no reason
>> they should not be baptized.
>
>But nowhere are infants explicitly stated in this passage as objects
>of baptism. If you claim that this is implicitly stated, then you why
>not baptize dead citizens?
Because it's not the tradition of the church. If, however, you argue from the
view of "sola scriptura", there's nothing to stop you from baptising the dead.
You can even find scriptural warrant for it if you like.
But, as you have said, this thread is about eucharistic discipline, and not
about baptism, so why are you talking about "ethnos" and baptising dead
citizens?
Stephen M. Adams
>Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message news:<bieqe...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>> >Many developmentally disabled people do, like young
>> >children, have some level of understanding.
>
>> And some do not. But even if they do, do you *really* understand
>> any better than an infant?
>
>Unlike an infant, I am able to examine myself and recognize Communion
>as the body and blood of Christ. This is what God demands of us (1
>Cor. 11:27-29).
>
>"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the
>Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
But you won't tell us what this means - what level of examination is
necessary? Is everyone able to examine themselves in the same way?
You quoted the verse, now you have to explain it.
>> >Giving Communion to an
>> >infant is an entirely different matter since they have absolutely no
>> >understanding of anything beyond their most immediate surroundings.
>>
>> How do you propose to measure ANY individuals level of spiritual
>> awareness? Christ said to comes as little children - you say come
>> only as an adult. I will listen to Christ.
>
>I do not propose anything. Paul instructs us:
>
>"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
>unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
>of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
>bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
>recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
>
>Infants cannot do this.
Who says that *you* can do it properly? What age do people become
able to do it? How do you tell?
>> >That would be more similar to giving the Sacraments to someone who was
>> >born, and lived their entire life, in a coma.
>>
>> Is this person incapable of being saved?
>
>That is an improper question for an Orthodox Catholic to ask. Your
>Church teaches that no one can know for sure if they, or anyone else,
>is saved.
No, it's proper since YOU are insisting on a particular standard. That
means I get to ask you questions. If you won't answer them, it's most
likely because you cannot.
>> >Also, you are attempting to create an un-Biblical rule (please refer
>> >to my citation of Paul) out of an extereme exception.
>>
>> Nope. I want you to show where the line is drawn. Exactly how much
>> understanding is necessary? And are those who cannot understand of
>> necessity damned?
>
>There is no need for you to draw a line, Paul did it long ago.
Rote citation of the verse doesn't help - at what age can a "man
examine himself" properly?
-Stephen
Stephen M. Adams
>Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message news:<bifqg...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> nat...@hotmail.com (learner) writes:
>>
>> >Zaph'enath <zaph...@mirai.cx> wrote in message news:<6YqdnYCx8tb...@speakeasy.net>...
>> >
>> >> No analogy at all. It was a straight-line analysis of the consequences
>> >> of an affirmative answer to Steven Adams' question. If a "full,
>> >> complete and thorough intellectual understanding" is necessary for
>> >> salvation, then certainly mentally retarded individuals would be barred
>> >> from it. In fact, a large portion of "regular" people would be, as well.
>> >
>> >That is a red herring. Neither Paul, nor I, claim that one must have
>> >a "full, "complete and thorough intellectual understanding" in respect
>> >to Communion. Paul says that : "A man ought to examine himself before
>> >he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and
>> >drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks
>> >judgment on himself."
>> >
>> >Obviously, an infant cannot satisfy these most basic requirements. Do
>> >you honestly believe in Paul's teachings? Can you imagine that Paul
>> >would have given Communion to an infant? It appears that the
>> >Orthodox, like the Mormons and JWs, pay lip service to Paul while they
>> >ignore his teachings.
>>
>> Again, I ask you - what level of understanding is necessary? Until you
>> answer this, all you have is an arbitrary, meaningless statement....
>>
>
>remember ever seeing a passage that said St. Paul refused to commune
>ANYONE young or old because they didn't understand what was going on?
>The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, when the bread and wine become the
>Body and Blood of Christ, is beyond the comprehension of everyone,
>young and old alike regardless of I.Q. and/or book learning. If adults
>cannot comprehend and understand this mystery, what's all the fuss
>about infants? The rationale escapes me now as it did when I was a
>protestant.
Paul's instructions to the Corinthians on the Eucharist include a statement
that those who are communing should examine themselves and make sure they
are in a proper state to receive the Eucharist.
See 1 Cor 11 for details.
-Stephen
craig
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f4b97fa....@news.saix.net...
But consider the case in which article 1 of the South African constitution
makes the claim that South Africa is the only true country, and that all
others are counterfeits. Furthermore, article 2 claimes universal
application of the constitution, such that anyone who isn't a South African
would eventually be destroyed.
Surely, with claims like that, Tailand would have a very strong interest in
interpreting such a constitution. But when they attempt to do so, they are
told that they are not qualified to interpret it. Only the government of
South Africa is qualified. Why? Because the constitution that they wrote
says so.
Roger Pearse
> "learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c53bb03c.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > "Charles Hogg" <pasto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<axJ2b.202496$Oz4.54215@rwcrnsc54>...
> > Tertullian was also against infant baptism. If you wish to cite
> > Origen, keep in mind that his works suggest that reincarnation exists.
>
> Tertullian was a Montanist.
His De Baptismo, however, precedes his Montanist period. I am not
aware that Montanists had any special practise with regard to baptism.
So I think his testimony may be taken at face value.
That said, it can also be read as testifying to the wide-spread nature
of infant baptism -- so much so, that he was arguing against this.
> And Origen was condemned, long after his death,
> for reasons that had nothing to do with his commentaries (his mention of
> infant baptism is in his commentary on Romans). Nor did his works "suggest
> that reincarnation exists." Rather, they suggest that souls pre-existed
> their enfleshment into human bodies. Origen had no notion of repeated
> enfleshments.
This is correct. It's also worth considering that one of the problems
with the works of Origen is that his day-job involved teaching
philosophy. As such, he has to deal with some pagan ideas outside
Christian teaching. It's notable that the concerns with his orthodoxy
did not begin until all who knew him were dead, ca. 300. The
condemnation in 550, of course, was a political matter.
> God be merciful to us both.
Amen.
All the best,
Roger Pearse