Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by anglican74, Jul 11, 2022.
Who on earth is saying that?
Let's not try to punish the children for the sins of their parents.
Jesus said, "Let the children come to me." the rest of this is froth and bubble.
It’s par for the course: yet another misleading original post with an inaccurate title.
Acceptance of homosexual relations as normative and as 'not sin' is not a part of orthodox faith.
Parents who obviously intend (as demonstrated by their lifestyle) to teach the above will arguably be raising the child in a pseudo-orthodox faith, not in true orthodox faith.
If it is true that "you should not baptize someone if you are not sure they will be brought up in the faith," then these children should not have been baptized. How could these two men legitimately state their vow and intention to raise the children in the faith of the church that is doing the baptizing, when everyone can see that they fully intend to raise the children to believe a lie: that sexual sin is not sin?
Moreover, the baptism of these two children implicitly demonstrates approval of the parents' relationship and their openly gay lifestyle (which everyone reasonably assumes will include bedroom activities).
If two people of similar sex declare their love for one another, openly to the church, in what way does that guarantee to the church that they will fail to teach the Christian 'FAITH' to their children? Every human parent fails to perfectly convey the faith in every detail, to their children. The church only hopes they convey enough of it to cause the child to come to Confirmation and if called even to Ordination. How can the church be certain that the parents claim, before God, that they will do so, is an obvious lie? What EXACTLY are the parents being accused of, and on what objective EVIDENCE of law breaking, are they being prejudicially condemned?
The evidence of two witness is required to bring a conviction according to God's law, I believe. Should we the church, not have faith that their promise is not perjury.
Isn't the suggestion from the anti-gay lobby here that we should go back to imposing the law of Moses in the church, rather than the faith of Abraham. And even that without actual evidence that that particular law is regularly being broken by the parents? And even if it is, how might that affect their intention to teach their children the faith of Christ and bring them up in the fear and nurture of The Lord?
If the church doubts that they will keep their vows, then the church has to doubt the word of every parent, since we are all sinners to one degree or another, according to the law.
And what is the logic here?
"Deny them the holy spirit and they'll be more likely to enter the faith as adults!"?
Do you think they're more likely to be exposed to worldviews that say sexual sin is not sin if they're inside or outside the church? You understand denying them baptism won't stop them being raised by the same parents, right? But it will stop them going to Church and ever meeting people that think like you do.
It’s really simple. When you have children, you acquire the duty to provide for them. The mere act of begetting a child is not where your parenthood ends; in fact it’s only where it begins. Similarly with baptism: it would be wholly unacceptable to christen the child and then throw them into a life of sin and iniquity.
Secondarily, as @Rexlion mentioned, the child is only part of the picture, the other part is the “parents” and the implicit acceptance of their sin. By conducting this rite for the child, the two men are treated as “parents” and the unit is treated as a “family.” As it appears from the screenshots, the optics of this is that gay marriage is acceptable within Eastern Orthodoxy.
So the bishop is guilty of grave denial of basic Christian teachings.
Thus the child is thrown into danger, Christian doctrines are mocked, and sin is platformed and celebrated.
Twitter fallout on this:
“Elpidophoros has literally pissed off almost every bishop in the world. He pissed off the GOA bishops by attempting to change the charter without their blessing, he pissed off the EP by consecrating the National Shrine without him, he pissed off the entire Russian Orthodox Church by electing Belya and then in the process also pissed off the Assembly of Bishops by lecturing them about Ukraine, now he’s pissed off the Church of Greece by celebrating a baptism in one of their parishes without their blessing.”
“If what my friend tells me is true it’s a blatant violation of Ap. C. 34 and 35, Canons 6 and 7 of the 1st EC, 2 of the 2nd EC, 8 of the 3rd EC, 28 of the 4th EC, 20, 30, and 39 of Trullo, 9 of Antioch, and 3, 11, and 12 of Sardica.”
“A big problem is that the Turkish Government only allows the EP to be a Turkish citizen. And with nearly all of the Greeks in Constantinople getting chased out, the EP is forced to well, scrape the barrel for their succession candidates. Elpidophoros is basically next up”
For many parents it doesn't even BEGIN there. In fact for God is doesn't even BEGIN there since we, his family are 'Adopted'.
Dictionary Definitiong5206. υἱοθεσία huiothesia; from a presumed compound of 5207 and a derivative of 5087; the placing as a son, i.e. adoption (figuratively, Christian sonship in respect to God): — adoption (of children, of sons).
AV (5) - adoption 3, adoption of children 1, adoption of sons 1;
adoption, adoption as sons, that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God, the blessed state looked for in the future life.
I think that you will find that theologically the children are 'Adopted' by God in baptism, not their earthly parents. They are no longer their parent's children, they belong to God. Their parents are in loco parentis and therefore responsible for them and their spiritual development, only until they come themselves to confirmation.
How can you be sure that they have 'sinned'. Have you installed surveilance cameras in their bedroom(s)? Do you have witnesses in number to testify that they lay with one another as a man would with a woman? Or are you prejudically assuming they are breaking the letter of the law without any definite evidence of such. Are you suggesting the church should so judge prejudicially, likewise? Are you suggesting that the church should employ detective agencies to 'investigate' such cases to ensure no OLD TESTAMENT LAW is broken? Is this policy, if employed, going to apply to all parents and God Parents of infants being brought for baptism by the church?
Which ones though. The old testament LAW or the New Commandment of Christ. Though we were yet sinners, Christ loved us and died for us, that we might BECOME like him. He didn't only die for those who had already passed the righteousness tests set down by THE LAW. He would have had to wait until the human race had all already died, and then judge them. As it was, we were all yet sinners when he died for us. There is no requirement on the behalf of parents of baptised infants, that they should be SINLESS either before or after the baptism of their infants. Only that they place their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and disown the devil.
The suspicion that there is actually evidence of that, is very LAW based, not inspired by the Spirit. The child is adopted by God, not his earthy parents, so is God incapable of protecting His OWN CHILDREN from harm, in your opinion?
Yes, those parents do look a bit loco.
Normally some priest or pastor would be approached about performing a baptism, and if he were worth his salt that priest/pastor would ask questions to discern the beliefs, intentions, and inclinations of those men. One can deduce quite a bit from answers to such questions as, "Is your relationship platonic or is it romantic?" and, "What is your view on the morality of same-sex romantic activity?" Also, "What do you plan to teach your children concerning your own relationship?" If these men happen to be in denial of Bible truth, this would be a great opportunity to counsel and teach them so as to correct serious errors and to help safeguard the children from learning the same errors & being adversely impacted by them as they grow up.
Mat 18:6-7 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
A priest, pastor, or bishop who sees a glaring issue such as the one presented in this instance (the danger of children being raised to believe that a certain type of sin is not a sin and therefore encouraging them to engage in such sin while disregarding the Holy Spirit's correction as they mature) must regard with seriousness his own pastoral responsibility to those children and men. People who choose to believe, contrary to the Bible, that their personal homosexual 'bedroom activities' are acceptable before God are allowing their consciences to be 'seared' (1 Tim. 4:1-2); in this condition they imperil spiritually not just themselves but also those whom they teach and influence, most particularly impressionable children under their care & custody. If the priest/pastor/bishop discerns that the couple is living in sin, is entirely unrepentant, and is in denial of their state of sinfulness, I would say that the cleric should decline to perform the baptism. I will elucidate.
I don't know the text of the baptismal rite in the Orthodox Church, but I will quote the rite that's found in the 2019 BCP which we use in the ACNA:
Today, on behalf of this child, you shall make vows to renounce
the devil and all his works, to trust God wholeheartedly, and to
serve him faithfully. It is your task to see that this child is taught,
as soon as he is able to learn, the meaning of all these vows,
and of the Faith that you will profess as revealed in the Holy
Scriptures. He must come to put his faith in Jesus Christ, and
learn the Creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments,
and all other things that a Christian ought to know, believe, and
do for the welfare of his soul...
Are you willing and ready to undertake this?
Godparents and Sponsoring Parents
I am, the Lord being my helper.
Question Do you renounce the devil and all the spiritual forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the empty promises and deadly
deceits of this world that corrupt and destroy the
creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the sinful desires of the flesh that
draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
If the priest/pastor/bishop doing the baptizing has good reason to believe that the 'parents' cannot affirm with honesty these questions, how can he be a party to a travesty masquerading as a valid baptism? In such a circumstance he must decline.
Is it conceivably possible that this bishop did question the couple and did feel satisfied that they are not openly, willfully, and habitually engaging in a heinous sin while denying that their activities are at all sinful? Yes, I must admit to that possibility. But do I think it likely? No, not at all. I think it far more likely that the bishop is condoning sin and has failed in his duty. Yet we cannot be 100% certain. So all of this is an "academic" discussion.
I don't take part in mainstream social media and so one question I might ask is why is this event being showcased on Twitter in the first place? I mean obviously the parties that be are happy, would like to proclaim the event and are doing the trendy thing by posting it to social media, but speaking strictly for myself, I just don't understand it especially when it concerns something so sacred as baptism.
A few things here:
Even if it is theoretically feasible to be saved outside the church, do you believe baptism is an important part of salvation? If so how do you justify threatening an innocents salvation for the sins of their parents?
Even if it is not the 0nly way to be regenerated, do you believe baptism functions as a form of death and rebirth, transforming the convert into a person more capable of hearing, obeying and approaching God? If so, if you are genuinely concerned about this child's spiritual health, and saving the child from danger, how do you justify denying this child a sacramental event that might snowball into them embracing a truly Godly life in adulthood?
Do you believe having access to the church with throw the child into greater danger? If not, how do you justify denying the child baptism to save them from danger?
Sin is not a worse crime for a baptised person. Sin separates us all from God equally. Give the kid a chance to know God, rather than kicking them out of the club because you don't like their parents.
I most certainly do. Without baptism ordinarily there is no salvation. It’s a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition.
But: baptism alone is not enough; you need a lifetime of formation and catechesis and parental instruction. If I know for a fact that the child will not receive those things, then I know for a fact that the baptism availed nothing. To undertake the ceremony then would be to mock God. And if that’s the case, then more likely than not God will refuse to regenerate the child. After all, the power is not in the priest, but in God. Right? We can do all the right things and say all the right words and God may still curse us. He is in charge.
So if he is mocked, he may not only refuse to regenerate the child, he may curse the cleric who conducted the ceremony; in a few years he’ll develop Altzheimer’s or his children will die and he’ll wonder what he did wrong. He’ll be even more surprised about what happens to him when he meets God face to face.
Baptism has nothing to do with knowing God. It is very possible to know God without being baptized.
Being baptized is not about knowing God, or learning about God. It is a metaphysical, ontological engrafting of a person onto the very mystical Body of Christ itself. One does not do such an awful, awesome, thing vainly or lightly. It is possible to get burnt by touching this stick at the wrong end. It is possible to baptize and end up cursing yourself and everyone involved.
more news of the fallout (I guess I am the resident news hound!)
Questionable, though likely if baptism was presented as an option during a sinner's life on earth, and had either accepted or refused.
True even of adults except it would come formally before baptism rather than be required after it.
Would this equally apply to an Adult? And you would not know for a fact unless you are as omniscient as God is.
Right! But the grounds upon which we Anglicans should be baptising infants is only that God has a covenant with the parent that God has sworn to keep, and God can therefore be trusted to keep it. What you then would have to establish would be the validity of the parents / Godparent's faith in God. Their conduct is not necessarily an infallible indicator of the strength and validity of their faith. Even your own conduct might cause some critically religious people to doubt your faith in Christ but only Christ himself, (who knows your heart), can be certain of your faith in him. Even we ourselves cannot be certain that we will always resist a future temptation to deny Him.
Salvation comes from God alone and nothing any human being can do can either prevent or compel God in the conferring of God's grace upon anyone. However, according to the New Testament record, God's Grace knows no bounds and The Father can be visualised through the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. There is quite the opposite of Christ refusing to confer His Grace upon children of Covenant covered parents. He blessed children regardless of their parent's conduct.
A few good New Testament scriptural references validating some of the statements made in this post, would be very much appreciated, particularly ones quoting relevant teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some people can be convinced easily that God will do or not do certain things about certain matters without any relevant scriptural evidence whatever, but we Anglicans require some proof from scripture before we make judgments concerning someone's salvation or standing with God, be they the candidate for baptism or the person performing the rite.
The God you seem to be referring to, does not seem much like the one Jesus taught us about, and not at all like the Jesus who said "If you have seen me, you have seen The Father".
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.
Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of anyone, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
I wonder which of the two gentlemen represents himself as "Mrs. Eugenia Niarchou"?
I'm rather amazed that the archbishop would "pull a fast one" on the Metropolitan.
But I'm even more amazed that the Metropolitan says, if he'd known what was up he would have referred it to the synod for a decision! Isn't decision-making what higher-ups are for? On a situation that appears to condone a sinful relationship and sets a major precedent for the denomination, the correct ruling seems like a no-brainer: NO, you can't do that!
I asked my rector (an arch-deacon) today whether he would have performed such a baptism. Without hesitation or qualification, he responded in the negative.
??? Peter Dundas and EV Bousis's baby Alexios Peter Bousis-Dundas was born via surrogate on June 14. Mrs Eugenia Niarchou was one of the Godparents, along with the Italian model Bianca Brandolini.
I think part of the reason why this has caused a mini storm is because the article was reported in Vogue. That is probably not surprising that they are both on-trend fashion designers at the moment and Vogue is a fashion magazine. We may not agree with some of the decisions that they have placed in their lives, however, to seek the blessing of God so to walk in the light of Christ as they perceive it, and to want the child to walk in the light of Christ would seem to be decisions that we would want to affirm.
We are called to be ambassadors for Christ, not so much God's bouncers.
Thanks for clarifying that point! I didn't think of the possibility of the surrogate being named.
If by "we" you mean Christians in general, I agree. Yet the clergy are entrusted with the preservation of the faith in a way that does, I think, require them to protect the flock from error and so forth; they can't just allow anything and everything in the name of "love". (That's Joel Osteen's 'thing', isn't it?)
I think the point of difference on if the children of unrepentant sinners should be welcomed into God's church can only be the result of some fearing the Church might change if we let a group they don't like in.
My thinking is this. Christ has promised us the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. There is no mortal presence that could infect the Church and bring it down. It doesn't matter if they are evil. It doesn't matter if they have evil intentions. They cannot succeed because God has decreed they will not succeed.
So then when people you think ought not be welcome in the Church bring someone who is not them to the church, and ask for us to feed them milk, we shouldn't refuse because we fear the child might not be ready for solid food. Of course they won't be! But everyone's journey to God needs to start somewhere, and they're far more likely to find it within the doors of the Church than outside of them.