Thoughts?

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Anastasios
Sr Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Anastasios »

Of course a reading of St Basil's first canonical epistle shows that he believes that schismatics have grace for a time, and that while he would personally like to baptise certain classes of heterodox, the majority of the bishops "in Asia" do not agree with the practice. Note that St Basil uses the term "accept", as in the bishops of Asia accept the baptisms of certain heterodox. That is an important word.

I have come to the conclusion from reading so much literature on both sides of the issue that there never was a consistent policy for receiving converts and that at various times in history, the Orthodox simply did accept some baptisms performed by Catholics, Armenians, and Lutherans as valid, in and of themselves, although there was never any speculation as to whether that led the baptizand to salvation and certainly no one created a false ecclesiology of "sister churches" around the issue. But to say that the norm was always baptism and that heterodox baptisms were never accepted as such is simply not the way the church has operated. The Pagodin article demonstrates this conclusively. However, I think it would be fair to argue that while there was precedent for such economy in the past, that it is better off today to baptise all converts normatively.

The argument about form was introduced by Eustratios Argenti I beleive, in his pamphlet in Greek, "Against Sprinkling" which is discussed in Timothy Kallistos Ware's "Eustratios Argenti" book. Of course a baptism done by sprinkling is not valid but certainly pouring can be considered valid if necessity dictated.

Given my investigation of the various practices, I am rather dismayed to find out that both sides have clearly misrepresented the position of hte other.

anastasios

Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

Anastasios,

What is it that compells you to say St. Basil accepted that it was possible a schismatic could have been Baptized outside the Church?

True enough that you can find different practices at different times, some clearly error, some in a certain context, but generally speaking, the method of economia based on form was used.

And it is also true that you can find certain Orthodox arguing for the recognition of true Baptism outside the Church such as St. Stephen holding to Augustinian thinking and excommunicating St. Cyprian - but in the end, the one clear and undeniable answer ALL of the Church has ever held and accepted through all of the ages is that there are no Baptisms outside the Church. Which is why the Sixth Ecumenical Synod upheld St. Cyprian and NOT St. Stephen.

The argument about form was introduced by Eustratios Argenti I beleive, in his pamphlet in Greek, "Against Sprinkling"

The argument was always a part of the Church, first evidenced AFAIK by St. Basil. St. Nicodemos also defined it clearly enough which is why I wonder how you can say "Eustratios Argenti " was the first to create a "Form theology". St. Basil was the first Par Excellance.

Seraphim Reeves had a post some time ago that expanded on a point about this whole idea of baptism depending on form is like voodoo. I will see if I can find it.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

Shouldn't we consider the original source of baptism?

Matt: 3:16 When He had been baptiszed, Jesus came up immediately from the water...

This indicates being put under the water, obviously, by St. John the Baptist in the River.

Rule #1: submerge a person under water.

Matt: 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Rule#2: Submerge three times in the name of the Holy Trinity.

And baptism, in Greek, does mean to submerge under water, so the word used indicates the action.

My question is....what's all the confusion about? And another thing, saints that are quoted have to be considered in the context that they are speaking and what they did back in the 3rd century was done for the situation then, but in the 21st century....we pretty much have the laws of God clearly formatted. So we have no excuse for our confusion.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

Joasia wrote:

My question is....what's all the confusion about? And another thing, saints that are quoted have to be considered in the context that they are speaking and what they did back in the 3rd century was done for the situation then, but in the 21st century....we pretty much have the laws of God clearly formatted. So we have no excuse for our confusion.

Exactly. But you know that some people (and churches) NEED to come up with reasons to view themselves as more "correct" or "more godly" than others. Otherwise they would have no NEED for existing.

It is all about Pride and Power.

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

It's all about MALE pride and MALE power. They are fighting their unseen warefare. Unfortunately, we have to suffer for it.[/u]

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

Joasia wrote:

It's all about MALE pride and MALE power. They are fighting their unseen warefare. Unfortunately, we have to suffer for it.

:lol: Feel better now that you qualified that? :lol:

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

I'm just stating the obvious. :wink:

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

Post Reply