S/o orthodox question

[Alenee]

I'm going to make a poor attempt at responding to the OP question and to many other points that have been made within the thread. I doubt it will be satisfying as an answer, but I believe it is true, nonetheless.

 

The Orthodox faith is a rich and complex tapestry, one which we get to see only in small bits and over time. But to pull one thread from that tapestry, and examine it for the entire picture is a fairly futile exercise. The thread only matters as part of the tapestry, and frankly, as a thread in itself, it might not be a very pretty color, or of a pleasing texture in its own self. It is only in context of the entire picture that the thread makes sense.

 

The way the Orthodox Church does things will make sense only in terms of Orthodox ecclesiology. That is, in the way one answers the question, "What is the Church?" If the Church is who she claims to be, then the rest of the answers make sense. If not, then they won't. It's the Church that provides the weft and warp into which all the tapestry is woven. If you choose a different warp and weft than the Orthodox Church's, the threads will not fit the same way, and they will look strange and ... wrong.

 

It seems to me that for most people I have known, the first question that has to be answered is related to ecclesiology. It was for me. After I got the weft and warp straight, the rest of the picture--and the threads used to make it--started to make sense. Without that, however, the threads were all a-tangle and somewhat...confusing, to say the least.

 

I hope this analogy helps a little. If not, let it go. :0)

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

 

Beautifully stated and exactly what I was trying to get at in my last post. :)

[Alessandra]

I can chime in from a traditional Episcopal (Anglo Catholic using the Anglican Missal) type of church. It has a lot in common with the EO baptismal liturgy (renunciation, Trinitarian formula, chrismation, etc). It is longer and more nuanced than regular Episcopal liturgy, less complex & deep than EO, at least IMHO.

 

St Augustine says the baptism seals the baptized with an indelible spiritual mark, so baptism should not be repeated. For people who may have been baptized already, the rubrics have the priest say, "If you (thee) have not been already baptized," or words to that effect.

[Alenee]

Our family was baptized. I am not saying "re-baptized" because we were not previously baptized in churches that believed that baptism was for the remission of sins. Methodists do not teach that baptism is for remission of sins; they hold to a symbolic view. Baptists do not teach that baptism is for the remission of sins; they hold to a symbolic view. But scriptures say that baptism is for remission of sins. The Orthodox Church teaches that baptism is a sacrament and that it is for the remission of sins. So I needed to be baptized.

 

I did not *want* to be baptized at the time, but now I am very thankful that I was. I left it up to my priest. He said (speaking for the bishop) that I should be baptized, and so I was. It was more an act of obedience on my part than joyful willingness; it was potentially humliating because I have bald spots on my head and there they were for everyone to see. But it was good to have defy my pride; how else does one become humble? :0)

 

The use of the word "re-baptism" is a little bit a leading word in this discussion. It assumes that there is agreement among those who use the form of baptism as to what it accomplishes, and sadly, this is not the case.

 

Roman Catholics are not "re-baptized"--because they were baptized in a sacrament, for the remission of sins, in a sacramental act. This is why Roman Catholics enter the Orthodox Church in chrismation.

 

Also, it is a grave error for a priest to re-baptize. This is part of why I deferred to my priest's direction: who am I to put him in error by making demands? The priests are very careful about their recommendations to the bishops, and they take seriously their bishops' instruction as to what to do in each case.

 

Finally, as has been noted, some mainline churches are now baptizing in the "name" of creator, redeemer, friend/spirit/womb (true story)--but these are not names, to start with, but adjectival nouns--descriptors. Some Prebyterians have started doing this to do away with the "sexist" language. Immersion practices vary among and within denominations. So it is becoming more common on many Orthodox parishes to assume that the person needs to be baptized because no one really knows what has happened in the past.

 

 

After learning about how the Apostles viewed baptism, I now want an Orthodox baptism. My churches viewed baptism as merely a symbol so breaking that down means it was just a cold bath in front of other people and now I need to be baptised, not RE-baptized.

[Parrothead]

Hmmmmm.....interesting. :D I know this is becoming more and more of an issue in America as the Orthodox church is grappling with so many different types of converts. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

 

 

I wonder what other denominations, that view Baptism as a sacrament, have as a requirement for rebaptism? From what I can ascertain it does not seem (for the most part) that EO is that different from other sacramental churches.

Catholics view baptism as a sacrament and will baptize using the trinitarian formula. I don't think we re-baptize since if the trinitarian formula wasn't used as any other baptism isn't considered a true baptism. So while it would technically be re-baptism, it isn't. So if an EO wanted to joint the Catholic church the EO baptism would stand. Dh's Methodist baptism followed the Trinitarian formula so he did not have to be baptized.

[Bluegoat]

Hmmmmm.....interesting. :D I know this is becoming more and more of an issue in America as the Orthodox church is grappling with so many different types of converts. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

 

 

I wonder what other denominations, that view Baptism as a sacrament, have as a requirement for rebaptism? From what I can ascertain it does not seem (for the most part) that EO is that different from other sacramental churches.

 

Other denominations like this do not have re-baptism. In cases where there is some question that the individual may have had a baptism with the correct formula, they will do a conditional baptism, where they say "If this person has not been baptized I baptize him...."

 

The only exception I know of is LDS and possibly JW. It doesn't matter if they want re-baptism, it is not considered to be possible.

[Lovedtodeath]

If I understand correctly, most of the posts here are saying that this is what is missing from the previous baptisms of a lot of Protestant converts?

 

"The real essence and significance of water baptism is the believer’s immersion or baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ by faith, whereby he recognizes that his sinful nature becomes crucified and buried with Christ, and he rises into the resurrection life of Christ to walk in newness of life." as based on Romans 6

[Lovedtodeath]

If I was baptized in another denomination, should I get baptized now as a Lutheran?

No. There is no such thing as a Lutheran baptism, or a Catholic baptism, or a nondenominational baptism, etc. Christian baptism that happens with the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is the same, regardless of where it takes place. Provided you were baptized in the triune name of God, you do not need to be baptized in a Lutheran church to become a part of this Christian community.

 

http://www.hopewdm.org/baptisms

[simka2]

Other denominations like this do not have re-baptism. In cases where there is some question that the individual may have had a baptism with the correct formula, they will do a conditional baptism, where they say "If this person has not been baptized I baptize him...."

 

The only exception I know of is LDS and possibly JW. It doesn't matter if they want re-baptism, it is not considered to be possible.

Yes, I think I had a poor choice in words using the term re-baptism. ;)

 

 

This has been an interesting process for both dh and I. He was baptized via sprinkling as an infant. When he left the Reformed church it was very important to him to be baptized via submersion, as the denomination did not consider baptism of infants or sprinkling as valid, nor a sacrament. In a sense it was a very deliberate turning his back on all things that smelled of old religion. Now, he has come full circle.

 

I have no real idea why our Priest recommend the entire family be baptized. It may have had something to do with the fact that we did not have access to dh's initial infant Baptism records.

[dangermom]

The only exception I know of is LDS and possibly JW. It doesn't matter if they want re-baptism, it is not considered to be possible.

I don't think I understand this sentence. Surely an LDS or JW person could get baptized by an Orthodox priest if they wanted to convert, so I don't see why it would not be possible.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I thought this was a good point:

 

Another similar misunderstanding concerns Paul’s re-baptism of the disciples who were baptized by John the Baptist but had not yet heard the gospel of Christ. We can read the account in Acts 19:15:

 

 

 

 

There are some who misinterpret the account in this Scripture passage to infer that the real difference between John’s baptism and Paul’s baptism of these disciples was Paul’s assumed reciting over them while baptizing them: “I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus.†Again, if we closely examine the account in this Scripture passage, we will notice that it gives us no reason to assume that Paul recited anything over them while baptizing them. What is true is that Paul discovered that while they were baptized with John’s baptism, they did not have a proper knowledge of Christ and the gospel of salvation, and he therefore taught them the gospel that they could have put their faith in Christ, and be properly baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and receive the Holy Spirit. Only subsequent to their hearing and believing the gospel and putting their faith in Christ could Paul truly baptize them in the authority of the Lord Jesus and into God in Christ.

 

http://www.gospelofthekingdomonline.com/Messages/Water-Baptism/3_Water-Baptism__What_the_Bibl/3_water-baptism__what_the_bibl.html

 

 

[ktgrok]

Hmmmmm.....interesting. :D I know this is becoming more and more of an issue in America as the Orthodox church is grappling with so many different types of converts. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

 

 

I wonder what other denominations, that view Baptism as a sacrament, have as a requirement for rebaptism? From what I can ascertain it does not seem (for the most part) that EO is that different from other sacramental churches.

 

In the Episcopal church, or the RC church you are not, and CANNOT be "rebaptized." There is no such thing. IF it is unclear if you were properly baptized before than you will go through a conditional baptism. At that ceremony it will look like a baptism but the priest will say "if you have not been baptized previously, I baptize thee...." At least that is the wording in the Episcopal church.

[ktgrok]

I thought this was a good point:

 

Another similar misunderstanding concerns Paul’s re-baptism of the disciples who were baptized by John the Baptist but had not yet heard the gospel of Christ. We can read the account in Acts 19:15:

 

 

 

 

There are some who misinterpret the account in this Scripture passage to infer that the real difference between John’s baptism and Paul’s baptism of these disciples was Paul’s assumed reciting over them while baptizing them: “I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus.†Again, if we closely examine the account in this Scripture passage, we will notice that it gives us no reason to assume that Paul recited anything over them while baptizing them. What is true is that Paul discovered that while they were baptized with John’s baptism, they did not have a proper knowledge of Christ and the gospel of salvation, and he therefore taught them the gospel that they could have put their faith in Christ, and be properly baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and receive the Holy Spirit. Only subsequent to their hearing and believing the gospel and putting their faith in Christ could Paul truly baptize them in the authority of the Lord Jesus and into God in Christ.

 

http://www.gospelofthekingdomonline.com/Messages/Water-Baptism/3_Water-Baptism__What_the_Bibl/3_water-baptism__what_the_bibl.html

 

 

 

 

But the EO baptizes infants, that have not heard and believed the gospel.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

But the EO baptizes infants, that have not heard and believed the gospel.

I posted that because someone mentioned that account in Acts earlier in the thread. It is a s/o topic of sorts within the thread. I should be clear that I am not EO. I am just trying to learn what I can. "What prevents me from getting baptized?" ;)

[simka2]

I don't think I understand this sentence. Surely an LDS or JW person could get baptized by an Orthodox priest if they wanted to convert, so I don't see why it would not be possible.

I am going to give this a go, but I think I have already messed up this thread enough :D. I was confused on the term re-baptism, so maybe it would be that they were not baptized in the first place. :confused:

 

Honestly, I am starting to wonder about the term re-baptism itself. :tongue_smilie:

[simka2]

In the Episcopal church, or the RC church you are not, and CANNOT be "rebaptized." There is no such thing. IF it is unclear if you were properly baptized before than you will go through a conditional baptism. At that ceremony it will look like a baptism but the priest will say "if you have not been baptized previously, I baptize thee...." At least that is the wording in the Episcopal church.

 

This makes sense. I just do not think their is a term or rubric in EO for a conditional baptism. I wonder with enough research if it would come down to an "economia" in the EO, but this is just me theorizing. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't think I understand this sentence. Surely an LDS or JW person could get baptized by an Orthodox priest if they wanted to convert, so I don't see why it would not be possible.

She was saying that other denominations would not be rebaptized, even if they wanted it, as it is not possible. LDS and JW are exceptions. The reason being that they believe in "a Jesus that we did not preach" 2 Corinthians 11:4

Other denominations like this do not have re-baptism. In cases where there is some question that the individual may have had a baptism with the correct formula, they will do a conditional baptism, where they say "If this person has not been baptized I baptize him...."

 

The only exception I know of is LDS and possibly JW. It doesn't matter if they want re-baptism, it is not considered to be possible.

[Bluegoat]

This makes sense. I just do not think their is a term or rubric in EO for a conditional baptism. I wonder with enough research if it would come down to an "economia" in the EO, but this is just me theorizing. :001_smile:

 

Yes, I think you are right on both counts. AFAIK the East has no eqivalent to conditional baptism, and it comes down to economy.

 

It hinges on how Sacraments are understood. The East has tended toward the Cyprianic view, seeing the Sacramental act as happening through the Church, so those outside the Church do not have access to the Sacraments, or at least it is impossible to say for sure whether they do or not.

 

So according to this view, when Christian converts are addmited by chrismation, it is a matter of economy, and it is assumed that whatever was lacking in the original baptism, if anything, will be made up by the Holy Spirit then. The purpose of extending that economy is generally given as not putting stumbling blocks in the way of converts.

 

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, in ancient times converts from heretical sects were also not given a new baptism - there was substantial discussion over the issue given the number of such groups, and the decision that prevailed was not to "rebaptise" such people if they had been given a Trinitarian baptism with water. So I have also heard it argued that it is baptising again that is the economy, done to streghthen doubt. I've also read (not from crazy people) that historically you can see that the OC has tended to insist on baptism to enter when it has been under pressure of some kind, such as politically or from other religious powers, which wouldn't I think be surprising.

[dangermom]

She was saying that other denominations would not be rebaptized, even if they wanted it, as it is not possible. LDS and JW are exceptions. The reason being that they believe in "a Jesus that we did not preach" 2 Corinthians 11:4

 

Actually we LDS do believe in Jesus Christ as described in the Bible--a discussion for another day. But that aside, I still don't understand the sentence, because it says that re-baptism is not possible, which doesn't seem to me to make sense. You seem to be saying the opposite, so I don't get it. :)

[Xuzi]

Actually we LDS do believe in Jesus Christ as described in the Bible--a discussion for another day. But that aside, I still don't understand the sentence, because it says that re-baptism is not possible, which doesn't seem to me to make sense. You seem to be saying the opposite, so I don't get it. :)

 

I'm thinking she's saying it wouldn't be a RE-baptism, because there wasn't a baptism in the first place. That when the person was "baptized" LDS it was just that person being dunked under water (because of that whole "different Jesus" thing). They *would* be baptized as Orthodox, but it would be seen as their initial baptism, since, as I said, they just got wet before.

 

I hope I'm understanding this correctly. :tongue_smilie:

[milovany]

That's how I was reading it, too.

 

I'm thinking she's saying it wouldn't be a RE-baptism, because there wasn't a baptism in the first place. That when the person was "baptized" LDS it was just that person being dunked under water (because of that whole "different Jesus" thing). They *would* be baptized as Orthodox, but it would be seen as their initial baptism, since, as I said, they just got wet before.

 

I hope I'm understanding this correctly. :tongue_smilie:

[dangermom]

OK. I guess the term 're-baptism' is a confusing one, just like they were saying above. Thanks for the clarification.