a layman's thoughts ~ The Church is a Mystery of Eucharistic Community part II

     Why has there become confusion to these Holy Mysteries in the church? Why the divisions? Can Christ be in division? Can there be communion among conflict?

   There reason why is the Western insistence to try to rationalize these things and either explain the power there or remove it all together as unscientific. Our reason can then become something that replaces faith and creates our own strange reality. The Western issue arises somewhere after the dark ages, the influx of barbarian/Germanic philosophies that swept into the fall of the Roman West, and man's scientific method of discovering the world from the outside inward. Here we see the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the move to Humanism and man becoming the measure of all things.

   The scientific method has its place, but we must remember that it should not be an end in itself. The rational method of discovering the universe should not be understood as being able to explain everything or to even explain God away like some have done using this tool. It is a tool, but not our savior.  It can become and does become a false god, an idol. Somewhere in the West the mysteries of God have been replaced with the reason of man and this has removed beauty from many of the West's Protestant churches. The story of scripture through iconography has been replaced by white walls as if history and Church Fathers and Saints are something to be forgotten. The power of Eucharist and Christ's presence has just become a thing to remember of old, lacking any real power of God, but an empty symbol.

   If we minimize the Powers of God, what are we messing with exactly? How do we cure our condition if we do not take our medicine? How do we heal the heart or nous of mankind? Will this be done through modern medicine and the pharmacy? Can the heart of man solely be cured this way? Yes, we should heal the body and ease our pains; however, it is the heart that is sick before God. We already know that the body is going to decay and die. What about the heart of man and its position before God? The Orthodox Church of Christ sees this issue very clearly and provides the Eucharist the way a hospital would give medicine. This medicine is for the heart. The mystery of Confession serves as a lifetime of removing the cancerous growths in our hearts so that we may partake of God's Uncreated energies, communion with God. When we mess with these gifts that The Church of Christ offers us, we are left with something other, different. We also cease to be in communion with each other and this is denominationalism, division at work. The Church of Christ cannot be divided.

   The Protestant Reformers set out to return to form, but what form? Was the Roman Catholic form accurate before indulgences and other faults that Luther and Calvin wanted to restore? But what was the real form? If the Roman Catholic Church had lost the form due to barbaric philosophies, political instabilities, papal authority, creedal novelties, and other theological issues, then how could it return to a form it did not have? An error can only be reformed back to error or a different type of error.

   The idea of sola scriptura presented  a challenge to Roman Catholic tradition. It was really the only avenue that the Reformers could take. What can fight tradition except our way is "by the book" the Bible is our authority. But it seems that this idea only created another issue, the idea of whose interpretation of Scripture will we go with? It seems that it traded the papacy for the papacy of the individual. The Eastern Church has always protected its Tradition or Life of the Church by both Scripture and Tradition (The Life of the Church). Each of these protects the other and interprets the other. Scripture without the Life of the Church can become something in letter only, while tradition without the Holy Scriptures loses the inspiration of the teaching that inspired the Saints and Church Fathers and the Holy Tradition. The heresies that came upon the Church where not defeated by scripture alone because the enemies of The Church used the same scriptures to argue their cases. What won out in the end was the Life of the Church inspired by the Life of the Holy Spirit. The Church lived its life and that life was The Church, and no false interpretation or sola scriptura alone could defend this.

   Its not to say that the Reformers may not have meant well, but it is really impossible to reform something when the original is not known. Talks between the Orthodox and the Reformers happened, but there was no consensus, as too many of the novelties of the Western church were too far along in the minds of the reformers. It seems true that Luther and Calvin probably believed in the importance of the Church Fathers, but at least the later Reformers and to the present have left these out and focused on Scripture alone. Can we really re-construct the church from the 16th century and now reform it with the influence of the 21st? Seems to me that this would be near impossible without the life of the past and how that life was lived as big "T" Tradition or the Life of the Holy Spirit. This does not come from a book alone for it is the Spirit that gives life. We do not live by letters or words, but by what those words point towards. The Presence of Christ illumines the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves are man-made words, historical of course and elegantly beautiful, but in and of themselves are not Christ for we do not worship a book or letters. What the mysteries are and why they are important and have been important needs to be looked at again.

   The mysteries or sacraments are an essential part of the Orthodox Church of Christ. They are for us and for the "new man" in Christ. To trivialize these Gifts is to lose something beautiful and powerful that God wishes to share with man. Because what we have gotten in its place is science and our own intellectual powers working alone for the restoration of the universe. We have joined with the created and that remains in decay and death. Without God this painting is once again man made and in error and misses the mark. However, working with God's mysteries and our physical efforts in synchronicity, we who are created enter into the Uncreated glory of God and through theosis, we become Christ-like. But we need to do this in communion with one another and not as fragments or denominations. Christ is with us in communion and agreement not in disorder, schism, and chaos. These latter things are of the devil and darkness and work for disharmony. There is no disharmony in the Godhead, between the loving communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

  



Thanks to:


Christ God eternal
Fr. Photios
Fr. Dean
Brother Lawrence Janic
Clark Carlton
Jordan Bajis
The Church Fathers and all the Saints
and the Eastern Orthodox Church of which I am a small part


May God richly bless everyone to life Eternal and a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ. With the intercession prayers of the Theotokos, St Eugenia, St Athena, and all the saints. Amen
  
  

a layman's thoughts ~ The Church is a Mystery of Eucharistic Community

Glory to God!


   There can be no rational or scholastic definition of the Church. No set of things that it is. It cannot be defined. That is why is has always remained something unique to the world and outside of it and in it but not of it. It stands forever as a beautiful mysterious image of the earthly united with the Divine and becoming one. How can we explain such a thing? Where is its parallel on earth? When we define the Church of God as an earthly institution or something to that effect, we minimize it. Is the Church just a social hall for Christ or "feel good" place? Is it a place where we talk about Jesus and the Old testament prophets and tell stories? Yes, it has these sort of things. But what or how does the Church of Christ separate itself from things that are not even Christian, like communities of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon gatherings, or even other gatherings that speak of Jesus Christ, Unitarians or Universalists. Or even other communities of men and women, things that are secular or atheistic?What makes the Church of Christ unique among the institutions and communities of men?

  
   Should we invent our idea of the Church of Christ and make it suitable or more comfortable for us like choosing a flavor of ice cream? Some people like chocolate and some like strawberry... not so if the Church is not man-made or an earthly institution. We can only receive its revelation, its Life from God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit. We should not, however, attempt to make it in our image or to suit our ideas of progressivism or whatever the "ism" of the day is currently. Or make it a place to "feel good." The Church throughout its history has been sober-minded. It has not looked to entertain or to add novelties from man's imagination. But has looked to save man and have him enter into a relationship with God. Not that our feelings are bad or feeling good in church is bad. But only that our feelings and emotions are not reliable throughout history and are not the best measure of what is Holy, catholic and Apostolic. Catholic meaning in need of nothing, whole and complete.

   If the church does not have mysteries, gifts for man that are outside of man's rational understanding, then how is it like the early Church? For to remove the Saints, the monastic life and the blessed elders, and the Fathers of the Church from the Church is to take away a great deal. To remove memory of the martyrs and their acts or even their presence in the Church is to change it a great deal. Their life was the Life of the Church and they cannot be just a footnote or an asterisk in Church Life.

   Jehovah's Witness gather in Christ's name and so do Mormons, and Unitarians or Universalists, but we do not consider these Christian Churches as their teaching of Him Whom God sent is a different Christ and this was historically and theologically spoken against in the Church Councils. These stand outside the Church and are historic heresies that either have over-emphasized Christ's divinity at the expense of His humanity or have overemphasized His humanity at the expense of His divinity. Many churches meet and speak of Christ, but is that enough? Is scripture reading enough and fellowship with our brethren enough? Anybody can have a community of Jesus and meet their fellow people for social picnics and "get-togethers." But is this the Early Christian Church? Is this the life of the Early Church? Is the Early Church not a gathering of Eucharistic communion, which truly sets it apart from any social gathering in history. The real Body and Blood of Christ, the real communion with God made manifest in the this Mysterion. This Great Mystical Supper is the difference between earthly gatherings and The Church of Christ. Without this blessed mystery of God, the church can becomes earthly and strange and the power of God can become something very much forgotten.

    Can Christ's Church be a contradiction? Can it be a denomination? Should Christian Churches not be in communion with each other the same way the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in communion? Can the Eucharist and the other mysteries be offered as the full presence of Christ in one church and only a symbol in another? This is contradictory and fragmented. Where is the truth? Can it be a symbol here and the Real Presence of Christ there? This is a problem. One big problem that people no doubt wish to forget. But it is not and cannot be forgotten. Because where there is division, Christ is not present... only where there is agreement in His name is He present. The Holy Spirit does not dwell in confusion and contradiction, that is the domain of man. The Church is whole and complete and has been for centuries. The Eastern Orthodox Church has always understood Herself as pre-denominational and as complete. Because her understanding is that there can be nothing added nor subtracted from the revelation given by the Holy Spirit through men throughout time and space.

   The communion with God is an experience like nothing else, it is no ordinary human feeling
or passion. God uses material things of the world and brings through them his gifts. God restores material things, sprouts living vines from dead sticks, brings forth sweet smelling myrrh from bones of departed saints, heals through cloth like when the woman touched Christ's clothes. He gives forth aromatic smells where death would otherwise bring forth stench. This is a foreshadowing of the restoration, not destruction, of the earth and universe. Matter is not bad and God uses it as He pleases. Eucharistic communion is an example of this, Holy water, Baptism, etc. These can carry the wonderful power of God to us.

   Can these be taken a way from the Church of Christ? It would appear they have been taken away. And what have the results been so far? What has man received in its place? What has replaced it and is it better? To be continued...

  



Thanks to:


Christ God eternal
Fr. Photios
Fr. Dean
Brother Lawrence Janic
Clark Carlton
Jordan Bajis
The Church Fathers and all the Saints
and the Eastern Orthodox Church of which I am a small part


May God richly bless everyone to life Eternal and a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ. With the intercession prayers of the Theotokos, St Eugenia, St Athena, and all the saints. Amen





 

a layman's thoughts ~ Roman Catholicism, the West and the infusion of Scholasticism and Roman legalism part II

Glory to God


What do we mean by the infusion of Roman legalism into Christianity? In the Eastern Christian Church, there is no papacy or head of the church. Because the Holy Spirit is its head and the life of the church. The head Bishop in the Eastern Orthodox Church is first among equals and has one vote like the rest; however, he does have power of veto. But he does not hold any special privileges that can depose other bishops or make a novel ruling just on his own. It has to be agreed upon through the life of the Church with scripture, saints and Church Fathers of the past as guides. These guides or sign-posts are worldly structures. They are not necessarily holy or an end in themselves. The Eastern Orthodox Church doe not hold any one person, Saint, Church Father or all of them together as infallible in themselves. But only as breathed forth from the Holy Spirit and taken into the life of the Church. The Holy Spirit blows where He wills and can not be monopolized by anything earthly.

   The structures and ways of the Church are to lead us to God and serve no other purpose in themselves. We do not worship saints or believe everything that was said by them is infallible because they were men. However, what does distinguish the Saints from others throughout history? I challenge everyone who reads this to study the Saints and the Church fathers for themselves. And I encourage a priest or Spiritual elder to help guide a person in these readings. Why were these writings so influential to the Church Life and to the heresies of the day? Because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit at exactly the time they were needed to speak for the Church of Christ. To distinguish Her from the chaos of the world, corruption, the demons and the devil.

   The Church is not just any institution. It rises above this category. It has earthly institutional properties, yes. but it is not an institution for that is again a worldly concept and The Church of Christ transcends this, flies above it. The Church is not a governing authority that  only tries to make people moral or "good people." Since anyone can be a morally good person regardless of belief in God. It is not ruled by a Pope or an Arch-bishop. It is not ruled by its bishops, priests, deacons and laity. It's authority is God alone through Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is a large mystery and serves as the hospital to our souls and bodies for life eternal. We take our Eucharistic medicine, the mysteries (Mysterion), and the confessional serves as a surgical procedure to draw out the corruptive tumors that we live with. But again, it is not an institutional idea, but a Heavenly one.

  As the Church is not an institution it cannot be governed the way the Roman Empire was or have any juridical idea infused into it's Mysteries. If it has creeds and structure or guidelines or leaders it is for exactly the purpose of salvation. It is not necessarily the goal of people to be a "morally good" person but to become a NEW person in Christ. Salvation is not an exterior thing where I follow a bunch of moral rules as an end in itself. This idea is Old Testament. The New Testament looks to bring us into a relationship with a Person. And this Person is Christ Eternal. Christ doesn't cancel our debt on the outside. He restores our human nature, which no one could do for humanity. He restores the human nature we all share before God. He restores us from the inside. Then He invites us to follow The Way, the Truth and the Life for ourselves.

   To cancel a debt is to remove the debt on the exterior. But how does that change a person on the inside where his heart dwells? Cancelling people's debts does not necessarily change them. An act of mercy will not always change your heart. I can pardon a murderer but it does not necessarily pardon him internally or change him at all. Something bigger has to take place within the person's heart and soul and this is a life process.

    Can we satisfy God by just following rules or is there something deeper needed inside? The rules are a start, or following rules is a start. It is an exterior act aimed at an interior reality. But it is the interior reality of the heart that makes the rules go away. He who has a full relationship with Christ has little concern for rules; he is complete and in need of nothing, at peace, in love and at rest. He is afraid of nothing and wants nothing. This is where love casts away fear, perfect love. There is the first act of doing what is right so you do not get punished. There is the second act of doing what is right for a reward and then there is the highest life of the Spirit, being in Love that casts away all fear. This foremost spiritual reality is Christ; it is the Communion Eternal that is within the Godhead and always has been. It is this communion that we lack in the world of contraries, chaos and fear.

   Did God need some juridical act that laid all the sin onto Christ that man has done and will do to cancel a debt. It does not appear so. The life, death and resurrection of Christ was to restore human nature common to all men, to defeat death, to defeat the devil and corruption, and to offer this Life to man. Was God under some legal ruling that He had to satisfy. Did He need to see Jesus before all the faces of men so he would not remain angry anymore? Did He need to unleash His wrath on someone to satisfy Himself? Did all the sin of the World make God so angry that he needed His Son to punish in our place? I don't think so. This is just bad theology. And just makes God seem like man and man's idea of passion mixed with man's justice. These just personify our insecurities and errors onto God. They are more the mythological gods of Rome, India, and Greece. These sound like gods made in man's image. God is not under any law or juridical system that he has to follow. God is above all our ideas of justice, laws or government. He is under no obligation and no system or thing is above Him. God has always looked upon man with compassion and Love, hence taking on Humanity and restoring it through the Logos, The Word of God, Jesus. Did He once see man in anger and now sees His Son instead? God has always seen man with love and compassion. God never changes. It is man who changes, his ideas change, his views change. God is the same today and throughout the ages of ages. The Eastern Orthodox Church would not see God in this way as needing to satisfy some debt with Himself and man because He has never looked at man in any other way than love. He did not once see Adam with love and then when Adam sinned became angry with him... and then when the Son died for Adam and all men...  God is inn love with man again. This to the Eastern mindset is a God that changes. And God does not change.

   This Roman legalistic act of cancellation of debt changes salvation to be something exterior. Salvation is something interior, and not an outside cancellation. it is the nous or the heart that needs to change, transform into the Life of Christ. When we bring man-made philosophies into the Church, we begin to change it and then it unfortunately becomes just any earthly institution and denominational or a fragment. We must remember that the Church cannot be a fragment as there is no such thing. The Church is complete, undivided, not confused and is  all visible, indivisible, and invisible.


I would like to thank:
Christ God eternal
Fr. Photios
Fr. Dean
Brother Lawrence Janic
Clark Carlton
Jordan Bajis
The Church Fathers and all the Saints
and the Eastern Orthodox Church of which I am a small part


May God richly bless everyone to life Eternal and a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ. With the intercession prayers of the Theotokos, St Eugenia, St Athena, and all the saints. Amen

a layman's thoughts ~ Roman Catholicism, the West and the infusion of Scholasticism and Roman legalism

  Glory to God!



    In reading some history on the Church of Christ and the schism, it seems to me that the idea of a papacy over the Church or the addition of the filioque was something that the early Church did not have in its understanding. The only authority in the Church can only be the Holy Spirit. This same Holy Spirit has been leading the Church from its inception. It is a Living big "T" Tradition or the life of the Church. Can a Pope have supreme rule over the Church in this sense?

    If we look at the end of the Roman Empire in the West around 476A>D> if memory serves. We see the influx of Germanic philosophies come in and slowly begin to change the theology. The filioque was not part of the original Creed. So we have to ask why was it inserted? Philosophies like Platonism and Augustianianism might seem sound in the scholastic sense, but the Church is not any old institution. It is beyond any category that man can create or beyond any rational understanding. It simply is a transcendent mysterion or mystery. If we try to define it, we will minimize it. And if we minimize it, we are not maximizing it as it should be, something eternal and transcending of our reason. Church is not a social hall for Jesus nor any old assembly hall. It is a hospital for the spiritually and physically sick, which incorporate themselves within the Body of Christ. We can't make the Church a top 10 list or "These are the essentials of our Church" because the Church is not a top 10 essentials idea. If anything it is from 1 to infinity, that would be a more correct list. The Church cannot be minimalistic.

   Anytime we bring any schema into the Church or view it through any particular philosophical lens, we make it earthly. We make it a fallen institution, which it cannot be. We are fallen as members, but not the Church. As the Church in Heaven is whole and undivided so is the Church on earth. Yes, its earthly members may be divided as people, but there can be no idea of a fragmented church. That is what we call denominationalism or fragments. The Early Church did not know of such a thing. It was whole and in need of nothing. It could never be fragmented. This is a human invention. It still is so today as Christ said that gates of Hades would not overcome it.

   So why the filioque and why the papacy? As a broken empire, the Roman Church was coming out of an influx of new philosophies (Germanic/barbarian) and the Roman legal system. To redefine the church under these new ideas does not sound very crazy, it may have seemed quite logical at the time. In the East there was one Roman Empire remaining, it was secure and stable until its fall in 1453. This did not happen in the West. And with this new influx came a new definition in the Roman Church. Additions were made that were not well theologically thought out, at least, this was a novel scholastic theology. And a juridical conceptual idea from Roman Law and government especially the idea of Pope as a kind of Emperor of the kingdom of the church. This would lead to some strange ideas of God's justice or to salvation itself. Does God need to be satisfied by some legal Roman concept? Is salvation internal or external? Can there be two bishops over the same Church without one of the bishops becoming the vicar of the other? Pope and the local Bishop? Can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son? What proceeds from the Holy Spirit? Is not the Holy Spirit co-equal? Is it not better to say that spiration or coming forth belongs to the Father alone? The same way that water proceeds from the spring or thought from mind. It is the water that proceeds from the spring. The same way that it is the thought that proceeds from the mind. Therefore spring and mind have the quality of giving forth.

   Theology in the East was considered mystical, an experience of God via His 'uncreated' energies. It was the transcendent experience of God and not scholastically studied or of man's reason or conjecture on God. Not that reason is bad, but reason no matter how well studied can never scale what is not explainable. God is above this and we are better describing God in what He is not rather than what He is... apophatic Theology or negative theology. The Early Fathers did not rely on their thoughts or trust them when it came to things about Him, but spoke of God by communing with God. They received these answers by their nous and not by their thoughts and logic. Man's logic only fixes things for a short time, the solution is temporary, always, and will not last. This is why man's thoughts and logic are not eternal and why God is eternal.

   We also should not base our theology on any human conception or "ism" and especially on any one or two particular isms. Too much or sole emphasis on any one saint or philosopher will lead in the wrong direction. The Church has posted road signs as to lead us to God, but the road signs should never be considered as ends in themselves. The purpose of dogmas, canons, Creeds, Liturgy, sacraments, etc. has been to lead us to God in Christ, to commune with Him in His Body. These have never been meant to replace God or as a goal in themselves, but only to their purpose--- Communion with God.

Even the Saints are not an end in themselves but only to Whom they point to. This is crucial to an understanding of the Church. Theology is not conjecture or of the imagination or feelings, but something much higher. Any feeling we may have no matter how strong should not be trusted without good discernment. We would be wise to not trust our feelings or our logic when it comes to matters of divine importance and The Church. History has shown us this lesson of the flighty nature of feelings or passions. It has proved over and over again that man's logic is only a temporary fix and solution to the problems of the world. We would be wise to remember our own history.

  So the West and its novel ideas, Germanic philosophies, scholastic, humanistic ideas, etc., would now begin to shape and define the church in the West. It would cease to be connected to its Mother and move off in a different direction and understanding. With this, we would begin to see the Protestant Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others move to re-shape it into what, in their idea, it used to be, but as if from a fuzzy painting and 16th century philosophy and tradition and not from the Tradition of the early Church as lived by the Saints, the Church Fathers, and the Apostles.

   P>S>

Note:

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes no man-made "Isms" and has been very careful to keep these separate from The Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church has always regarded herself as pre-denominational.


I would like to thank:
Clark Carlton
Jordan Bajis
Father Photios
Lawrence Janic
and others...

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the intercession prayers of the Theotokos, Saint Peter, St. Demetrios Myrrh streaming, St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain and all the Saints. And for a good account before the awesome judgment seat of Christ. Glory to God!

St Herman of Alaska SUPERNATURAL GIFTS FROM GOD

SUPERNATURAL GIFTS FROM GOD

Herman dedicated himself fully for the Lord's service; he strove with zeal solely for the glorification of His Most Holy Name. Far from his homeland in the midst of a variety of afflictions and privations Father Herman spent several decades performing the noblest deeds of self-sacrifice. He was privileged to receive many supernatural gifts from God.
In the midst of Spruce Island down the hill flows a little stream into the sea. The mouth of this stream was always swept by surf. In the spring when the brook fish appeared the Elder raked away some of the sand at its mouth so that the fish could enter, and at their first appearance they rushed up the stream'. His disciple, Ignaty, said, "it was so that if 'Apa' would tell me, I would go and get fish in the streaml" Father Herman fed the birds with dried fish, and they would gather in great numbers around his call. Underneath his cell there lived an ermine. This little animal can not be approached when it has had its young, but the Elder fed it from his own hand. "Was not this a miracle that we had seen?" said his disciple, Ignaty. They also saw Father Herman feeding bears. But when Father Herman died the birds and animals left; even the garden would not give any sort of crops even though someone had willingly taken care of it, Ignaty insisted.
On Spruce Island there once occurred a flood. The inhabitants came to the Elder in great fear. Father Herman then took an icon of the Mother of God from the home where his students lived, and placed it on a "laida" (a sandy bank) and began to pray. After his prayer he turned to those present and said, "Have no fear, the water will not go any higher than the place where this holy icon stands." The words of the Elder were fullfilled. After this he promised the same aid from this holy icon in the future through the intercessions of the Most Immaculate Queen. He entrusted the icon to his disciple, Sophia; in case of future floods the icon was to be placed on the "laida."
At the request of the Elder, Baron F. P. Wrangel wrote a letter to a Metropolitan - his name is not known - which was dictated by Father Herman. When the letter was completed and read, the Elder congratulated the Baron upon his attaining the rank of admiral. The Baron was taken aback. This was news to him. It was confirmed, but only after an elapse of some time and just before he departed for St. Petersburg.
Father Herman said to the administrator Kashevarov from whom he accepted his son from the font (during the Sacrament of Baptism), "I am sorry for you my dear 'kum.' It's a shame, the change will be unpleasant for you!" In two years during a change of administration Kashevarov was sent to Sitka in chains.
Once the forest on Spruce Island caught fire. The Elder with his disciple, Ignaty, in a thicket of the forest made a belt about a yard wide in which they turned over the moss. They extended it to the foot of the hill. The Elder said, "Rest assured, the fire will not pass this line." On the next day according to the testimony of Ignaty there was no hope for salvation (from the fire) and the fire, pushed by a strong wind, reached the place where the moss had been turned over by the Elder. The fire ran over the moss and halted, leaving untouched the thick forest which was beyond the line.
The Elder often said that there would be a bishop for America; this at a time when no one even thought of it, and there was no hope that there would be a bishop for America;this was related by the Bishop Peter and his prophecy was fulfilled in time.

"After my death," said Father Herman, "there will be an epidemic and many people shall die during it and the Russians shall unite the Aleuts." And so it happened; it seems that about a half a year after his passing there was a smallpox epidemic; the death rate in America during the epidemic was tremendous. In some villages only a few inhabitants remained alive. This led the administration of the colony to unite the Aleuts; the twelve settlements were consolidated into seven.

"Although a long time shall elapse after my death, I will not be forgotten," said Father Herman to his disciples. "My place of habitation will not remain empty. A monk like myself who will be escaping from the glory of men, will come and he will live on Spruce Island, and Spruce Island will not be without people."

(This prophecy has now been fulfilled in its entirety. Just such a monk as Father Herman described lived on Spruce Island for many years; his name was Archimandrite Gerasim, who died on October 13, 1969. This monk took on himself the responsibility of taking care of the Chapel under which at first was buried the Elder Herman. Metropolitan Leonty soon after his elevation to the primacy of the Russian Orthodox Church in America made a pilgrimage to Spruce Island, and the grave of Herman.)



Source:

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/st-herman-alaska.htm

 

By St Herman of Alaska

THE SPIRIT OF FATHER HERMAN’S TEACHING

In order to express the spirit of Father Herman's teaching, we present here a quotation from a letter that was written by his own hand.

"The empty years of these desires separate us from our heavenly homeland, and our Love for these desires and our habits clothe us, as it were, in an odious dress; it is called by the Apostle 'the external (earthy) man.' (I Cor. 15:47). We who are wanderers in the journey of this life call to God for aid. We must divest ourselves of this repulsiveness, and put on new desires, and a new love for the coming age. Thus, through this we will know either an attraction or a repulsion for the heavenly homeland. It is possible to do this quickly, but we must follow the example of the sick, who wishing for desired health, do not stop searching for means of curing themselves. But I am not speaking clearly."



Source:

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/st-herman-alaska.htm

Jordan Bajis ~ Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism

Document Actions

           

Jordan Bajis

"Should I be baptized again?" Many renewed Orthodox Christians have asked themselves and others whether they should be baptized as adults. I readily understand why this question is asked, for I myself must admit that I did not always feel comfortable about the Orthodox Church baptizing infants. I asked myself several other questions as well: "How can an infant 'believe and be baptized'?" "Where in Scripture does it show an infant being baptized?" "Is not the baptizing of infants the reason why the contemporary Orthodox Church has a need for renewal and re-evangelization?"
These questions were so significant to me that I refused to actively support or encourage the practice of infant baptism until I was able to get some satisfactory answers. On one occasion, I even rejected the honor of being the best man at a close friend's wedding unless he was willing to absolve me of the accompanying responsibility of being the baptismal sponsor for his first child. Only after he agreed to my request did I consent to become his best man.

Knowing that as a committed Christian I could not refrain indefinitely from making a decision on this matter, I embarked on an intensive study of Scripture and early Christian history. I resolved that I would not finish my study until I had settled the issue in my mind and in my heart. Surprisingly, the area was much more complex than I first envisioned it to be. I must admit that at the outset, it looked as though the argument for infant baptism was about as valid as the theory that the earth was cigar-shaped. However, I uncovered many facts that are usually unknown to the common layman and which I think will prove helpful for those who are now in a doctrinal dilemma similar to the one I was in previously. I can now say, after having looked into the arguments of some of the most respected scholars on this subject, that there is a very strong case for the baptism of infants of Christian parents.

Before I begin to share some of the things I discovered, I think it is important to note that, although I have dedicated months to the thorough study of this subject, I do not pretend to be a theologian, professor of Church history, or Greek scholar. I am not an expert on the subject; I am a student of the subject. It is also important to note, however, that the evidence and arguments I produce here are mainly, not my own but rather a synthesis of research and conclusions distilled from several noteworthy scholars. It is not my purpose to be overly technical, to illustrate the minute peculiarity of each counter-argument's counter-argument, or to take the reader back to study the original documents in order to discuss grammatical controversies surrounding the texts. It is not that I consider these types of investigations unimportant, but I simply restrained myself from doing this because I do not think it is very profitable for the average layman. The scholars are much better qualified than I to define and explain these more exacting details, in any case.

Given this preface, let me get to the point of the article. How is it that I can now recognize infant baptism as a valid practice whereas before I was highly distrustful of it? I will record a number of reasons for this below in as straightforward and direct a way as I know. Some facts will require a bit of explanation, but many will consist of only a sentence or two. At the close of the list, I will offer some concluding thoughts and insights about infant baptism. I have categorized the evidence supporting the practice of infant baptism into three main sections: Scripture, History, and the Fathers of the Early Church. I recognize that each argument may not be able to stand on its own, but taken together, they present a conclusive picture.

---

SCRIPTURE

Peter's Sermon

The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon, he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." (Acts 2:38, 39)
It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter's Pentecostal sermon does not merely state "...the promise is for you and children," but "for you and your children," which makes it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection and authority of their parents. This is underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence.

The Baptism of Households

Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas..." (1 Corinthians 1:16) An angel spoke to Cornelius saying, "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household." Later, when Peter arrived at Cornelius' household, "...he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she [Lydia of Thyatira] and her household had been baptized..." (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household...and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." (Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word "oikos," translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek, or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.

No Baptism of Older Children of Christian Parents Recorded

If the baptism of infants was not acceptable during New Testament times, then when does Scripture mention the alternative-the baptism of the children of Christian parents once they have matured out of infancy? The Bible never gives one example of the baptism of a Christian child as an adult. It is important that Scripture also does not speak of an "age of accountability or reason" (which many pinpoint at 13 years) when a child's capacity to believe the Gospel is developed enough so that he can receive baptism. Neither does the Bible state that every child is in a "suspended state of salvation" until they have reached this age, which one would have to believe if he held to the "age of accountability" theory.

The Saving Power of Christ's Presence in Holy Baptism

Although an opponent of infant baptism, Dr. Jewett, in his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, makes a very logical conclusion about baptism if it is understood to be a release of supernatural power:
"...one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone conclusion."
Certainly if there were a taint of sin upon each who is born in this world, there would be a need for every person to be cleansed from this impurity before leaving the temporal life. The Bible's "sacramental theology" states that there is such a need since "...through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12) For this reason, "...there are none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not infants). (Romans 3:10) How are these young ones saved from the sin they have received from Adam's race? They are saved through the regenerative power of baptism and the faith of the Church (i.e. the Christian faithful):
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration (baptism) and renewing by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
"Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.'" (John 3:5)
"...when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water, and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." (1 Peter 3:20, 21)
Baptism is not just a symbolic testimony of what God has done in the heart of an adult believer, but is in itself a dynamic means of actually effecting the power of the Gospel (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is the means whereby we encounter and identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the reasons why Paul explains baptism as the manner in which we genuinely "put on" or "clothe" ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor; the Lord actually transforms a person through his baptism.

The Old Testament Symbols of Salvation and Baptism Include Infants:

1. Circumcision, the sign of God's covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old (Genesis 17:12). Many see a direct parallel between circumcision and Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as Colossians 2:11, 12: "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism..." If baptism is the "New Testament circumcision," there can definitely be no objection to "sealing" the infant of a consecrated Christian family in Christ's New Covenant.
2. Moses' leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The following New Testament passage clearly points to this: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) It is worthwhile to note that "all were baptized" through Moses' leadership in crossing over the Red Sea. He did not leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to become prey to the angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to believe in the promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of their parents' faith, they were carried through the "baptism of Moses."
3. The saving of Noah's entire family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. All that needs to be said, as in the case of Moses' passing through the Red Sea, is that the entire family was on board the ark. Why should we leave infants out of the ark of baptism?

Secular Philosophy Redefines "Faith" and "Personhood"

Larry Christenson, in his pamphlet "What About Baptism?", quotes Edmund Schlink (author of The Doctrine of Baptism) as stating that the rejection of infant baptism was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century, which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry:
"Belief was seen in rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the mind and the will. 'Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have faith, and therefore should not be baptized.' To this day, that is the only argument raised against the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the sentence as though it were self-evident truth: 'A child can't believe.' But that 'truth,' upon examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it Biblical."
As Christenson goes on to say, faith is not merely a product of reason but relation. It is a relationship of love and trust, a relationship which is not limited to the mind. Some Scriptures which support the possibility of an "infant faith" are these:
"Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9)
"And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42)
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears [Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44)

---

CHURCH HISTORY

• Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth. Joachim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. If his parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' support a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years'...for which there is no evidence at all."

• Jeremias supposes something similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is "sixty-five years in the Lord." Since this reference to his age is made "because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing," Jeremias postulates that his baptism "took place soon after birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism."

• Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from childhood.

• No incident is recorded in the earliest of Christian history which gives evidence that baptism was forbidden to any person on the basis of an age limit, or that the right of a Christian parent to have his children baptized had ever been challenged or renounced.

• Although several examples exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.

• Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as practicing it.

• A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the convert's family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews.

• There is no evidence of anyone being against infant baptism in the early Church on the grounds that you must first "believe" and be baptized. Tertulian (160-230 A.D.) was the only one who questioned infant baptism. The bulk of his objection, however, was due to his heresy that sin after baptism was almost unforgivable.

• Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.

---

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

• A very early Christian teacher, Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following:

"He came to save all through Himself-all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."

Here we read that Jesus Christ came that all might be reborn in God. "How can an infant be reborn if he cannot believe?" a person may ask. I ask in return, "How can an infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained from baptizing him?" Is a child who has not reached the "age of accountability/reason" not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when he then needs to be reborn?

• Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent:

"For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."

In his Homily on Luke, he again states his beliefs on infant baptism:
"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized."

• Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well:

"And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them."

• There is not one Church Father who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism. It was in no locality and at no time viewed as something that was created after New Testament times.

---

SOME FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence I have so far presented I believe merit attention by themselves. I would like, however, to make a number of random yet significant comments and observations about the area of infant baptism before I close this article.
Many times, the debate regarding infant baptism is a defensive one; those who propose that adult baptism is the only valid form challenge those who practice infant baptism to prove that it is an acceptable practice. What if those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually unaddressed? Questions such as these:

• If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?
• Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?
• Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children?
• How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith?
• Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
• Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge?
• Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's fall-Romans 8:19-21.)
• What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21, 22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26, 27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family?
• If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?
• If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous?
• In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith?

There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it is the practice of the Early Church.
Over and over again, I am told that it is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the other does not.

It is also important to recognize that the New Testament records the beginnings of the Christian people. This accounts for it reading like a missionary diary in a number of places. I am certain that were I to begin an apostolic work in a totally heathen country, and to write to the people there or to record my progress in preaching the Gospel to them, I would not mention infant baptism even once.
Some may ask why Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the Great, and Jerome were all baptized as adults, even though they had at least one Christian parent. The earliest evidence that Christian parents refrained from having their child baptized immediately after birth is in the middle of the fourth century (Gregory was the first example of this in 360 A.D.). None of these men postponed their baptism because of faith, however. Surely Gregory and John Chrysostom at 30, Jerome at 20, and Basil at 27 (at which ages they were baptized) had reached the "age of reason" and individual faith long before then. They postponed their baptisms on the false premise that they could better assure themselves a place in heaven if they minimized the times they sinned after baptism. None of these men ever challenged the validity of infant baptism.
Baptism in and of itself, of course, is not enough. It must be accompanied by genuine faith. No parents should be allowed to baptize their infant if they themselves have not made an expressed commitment to serve Jesus Christ and raise their child in accordance with God's Word. As adults, we are called to accept the challenge of our baptism and live dedicated lives for Christ. If we do any less, we have rejected Christ and the gift of salvation He has made available to us since our birth.

Going full circle, I now end this article with the question with which I began it: "Should I be baptized again?" Given that our infant baptism is valid, the Scriptural answer to that question is clear: "There is...one Lord, one faith, ONE baptism." (Ephesians 4:4, 5) If you have been baptized once, there is no need to be baptized again. Let us then determine to bear witness to the truth of our baptism by living for Him who died and rose for us.
Copyright: © 1990-1996 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America


Source of article:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067