Baptism and Chrismation vs. Chrismation only

[Kassiane]

Maybe we can take another run at this, as we got into it in another thread that was closed.

The Orthodox Church has the practice of not re-baptizing (generally) converts who have already been baptized if the form is considered correct, that is if it was a trinitarian baptism: in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

A person who enters the Orthodox Church who has never been baptized before, must be both baptized and Chrismated.

The way I see it, this is an official recognition by the church that converts to Orthodoxy may already be Christian, needing not to be baptized again, but only Chrismated, which is the act of annointing with oil and receiving the Holy Spirit. This is an official practice in the Orthodox Church, not just the theological opinion of a few.

So my question to open the discussion is: Is the Orthodox Church practice of not re-baptising converts an admission that they are already Christians?

Kassiane

[repentant]

When you speak of Baptism, as long as someone is Baptized in the name of the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are right there is no need to rebaptize them when entering into the OC. But what they do recieve is Chrismation. Now the Chrismation is what gives the Holy Spirit to the person. Remember what St. John the Baptist said? He said he only Baptized with water, a Baptism of repentance. But he said the someone will come after him, (Jesus), that will Baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. So without the Holy Spirit, the Baptism of someone of another faith, was kind of like the Baptism of St. John. A preliminary, unfinished baptism of repentance. But in order to recieve the Holy Spirit, the must be a part of the Body of Christ, which is the OC. Do you see the difference?

Also Baptism is not really the subject here. It is that the Protestant pick and choose what of the Gospel to believe, and not only that, they missinterpret it as well. So they preach a false doctrine of Christ.

One of the first deacons Nicolas did this, also Arian, and you have such heretical groups from the ancient times such as the Ebionites, Gnosticism, Manicheanism, Neoplatonism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, and Adoptionism. Now all these groups preached the Gospel, Baptized, etc. But yet they were all considered heretics, and definately not Christian.

[Kassiane]

By choosing to become Orthodox, the protestant is accepting the teaching of the Orthodox Church, as opposed to the protestant's previous way of looking at Christianity, so it doesn't matter that the previous beliefs were not considered correct by the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has accepted the protestant into the Orthodox Church after a period of inquiry, then a period as a catechumen, learning what the Orthodox faith is all about.

My point is, if the Orthodox Church both baptizes and Chrismates newborns and adults who have never been baptized before, it is recognizing that baptism is important and necessary for acceptance into the Church, and if it does not baptize protestants who have been baptized before, then it is recognizing that their previous baptism was valid and not necessary to repeat.

This must mean that the OC is recognizing the validity of their previous Christian experience on some level, at least enough to say they don't have to start all over again with baptism, which we know the OC considers necessary for acceptance into the Church. The person is already a Christian, they just need to be Chrismated by the priest in the official ceremony to be officially accepted into the Orthodox Church.

To me, this says that the official position of the Orthodox Church would be that there are Christians outside the Orthodox Church.
Kassiane

[repentant]

But what you are not understanding, Baptism by the OC is not required for entry into the Church, the Chrismantion is. Baptism is only for forgiveness of sins, and the way we accept Christ. When the previously Baptized person becomes Chrismated, the unfinished, unsanctified Baptism of the other faith, takes effect and is made whole through the Chrismation of the OC.

[Ioan cel Nou]

I think you're missing the distinction between a valid sacrament and a valid form. If a baptism is is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then the Orthodox Church recognises that the form of the baptism is valid and nothing more. When the convert is Chrismated this provides the Grace that should have been bestowed at baptism and fills in anything that is lacking in the original baptism. In effect, the Church is saying that the heterodox baptism is close enough that She can fix it by Chrismation but She is not saying that the baptism as originally performed is equal to an Orthodox baptism.

James

[ufonium2]

So my question to open the discussion is: Is the Orthodox Church practice of not re-baptising converts an admission that they are already Christians?


I think it's an admission that they are already baptized. As others have pointed out, baptism doesn't carry quite the "that's it, I'm saved" finality that it does in some groups; it's not the end. This is evidenced by the fact that when baptism is performed, it's followed by chrismation every time. There's no status in Orthodoxy for "baptised but not confirmed" like there is elsewhere.

So I think it's possible to acknowledge that someone is baptized but likely not a Christian, just like you can acknowledge that someone is married, but not a Christian.

[eoe]

Remember that St. Augustine had to deal with re-baptizing in his time too. He considered it a very bad thing indeed.

[choirfiend]

If you go a talk to a priest about bapstism as valid form or actually read the opinion of the Church on the practice of baptism/rebaptism/chrismation alone, you would hear that it is NOT in recognition of anything but the form. The grace lacking the previous baptism is considered to be retroactively filled by the all-encompassing grace of the Holy Spirit at Chrismation. It is NEVER in recognition of sacramental grace or that the baptism was somehow complete and whole in and of itself.

[repentant]

I think you're missing the distinction between a valid sacrament and a valid form. If a baptism is is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then the Orthodox Church recognises that the form of the baptism is valid and nothing more. When the convert is Chrismated this provides the Grace that should have been bestowed at baptism and fills in anything that is lacking in the original baptism. In effect, the Church is saying that the heterodox baptism is close enough that She can fix it by Chrismation but She is not saying that the baptism as originally performed is equal to an Orthodox baptism.

James


Ok, this is a better sums up my babbling of what I was trying to say. Thank you.

[pilgrimtim]

But more to the point of your question. To rephrase your true question, Do the Tradition of the Church allow for the existence of the other people who are following Christ but are outside of the fellowship of the Saints?
IMHO Yes, several times the church has met people who are following the Unseen/Unknown GOD. But the Church brings to these people the fullness of the self-revelation of GOD. Protestant have a part of the revelation of GOD that has been given to mankind. To the extent that they are following the understanding of Christ that they possess they might be called Christians. The Church pray at every service for the unity of all men. So the Church continually teaches and exhort according to the Tradition that is was given. It hold open arms to all mankind to come and be fully united to Christ. Come, Receive the Light. Partake of the immortality of Christ. Recieve the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit.
As people follow the Truth they will be united to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is Founded by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit, worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth.

[Kassiane]

But more to the point of your question. To rephrase your true question, Do the Tradition of the Church allow for the existence of the other people who are following Christ but are outside of the fellowship of the Saints?
IMHO Yes, several times the church has met people who are following the Unseen/Unknown GOD. But the Church brings to these people the fullness of the self-revelation of GOD. Protestant have a part of the revelation of GOD that has been given to mankind. To the extent that they are following the understanding of Christ that they possess they might be called Christians. The Church pray at every service for the unity of all men. So the Church continually teaches and exhort according to the Tradition that is was given. It hold open arms to all mankind to come and be fully united to Christ. Come, Receive the Light. Partake of the immortality of Christ. Recieve the gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit.
As people follow the Truth they will be united to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is Founded by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit, worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth.

Wow, beautifully said, and I think it goes right to the heart of the question.

So, in my opinion, one could say that those who think and say that there are no Christians outside the Orthodox Church should state that as their opinion, because it would not be the official stand of the Orthodox Church. And perhaps we can't go so far as to say the OC officially recognizes protestants with a prior proper form of baptism as being officially anything with a label, either.

It can sound a little like the OC is refusing to be clear about it, but in the end, it is again the eastern way of relating to it as a Mystery, which we should not presume to try to explain completely.

If someone knows of anything to show that the OC does indeed, have a more definitive stand on this, please weight in.

Kassiane

[repentant]

Look at it this way....

I don't know how many of you lift weights or workout but I will use that as an example...

OK you have guy A, and guy B. (or girl, don't want to be sexist, lol)

Now guy A and guy B are the same size and around the same strength. Both of them lift weights to get more fit, muscular, for whatever reason. Now guy A knows how to workout correctly and lifts enough weight to where it is a workout, but not so much where he has to strain. He has perfect form, executing every lift with precision. He targets the muscle he is working on, without putting strain on the other's. He doesn't bend his back when he is curling weights, and doesn't use his hip flexors when doing sit ups. Every repetition is perfect. He is working out correctly.

Now guy B doesn't know how to workout correctly, although he thinks he does, uses to much weight to the point where he strains his muscles in the process. He doesn't use the right form, and is not targeting the muscle he wants, but using other muscles to assist him in his lifts. He is not working out efficiantly nor effectively. He bends his back when doing curls, and has incorrect form. His repitions are worthless, and is not working out correctly.

Now you tell me, who will get to there goal faster? Who is using his time wisely, and not wasting it on a false workout, that will get him no where? Both have the right intentions, but only one is on the right path.

Now think of guy A as the Orthodox Christian. He has the knowledge of the True Church of Christ, and the teachings of the Apostles. As long as he does what is correct, and what he was taught,he will see the benefit of all his hard work.

Now think of guy B as a member of another faith. His heart is in the right place, but learned half truths and whole lies. He is not worshipping the correct way, as was intended by the Apostles, and the early Church Father's. He thinks that his is doing it the right way because it was the way he was taught. He takes the easy way out, not doing what is required for salvation.

I hope you understand the analogy.