› ›

creeds

Ricci
edited April 2020 in Faith Issues
Hi, in many creeds we read Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Scripture itself says the same, see Acts 2, so why is it when ive spoken to priests, laymen etc, that not many believe that? 
I know the blood of Christ was shed for our sins, but on the words of baptism as written in scripture and the creeds, not many actually take that as it reads. Any thoughts on this and why it may be so?

Comments

  • ShareTheLordShareTheLord
    edited April 2020
    Dear Ricci, in the orthodox faith, Baptism is a sacrament that allows us to unite to the Lord. All major sacraments in our church have something to do with forgiveness of sins.

    Our creed indeed does say: And in one holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the coming age. Amen.

    Not sure what the question is? Why is baptism alone not sufficient? What is it that orthodox priests and laymen do not believe?
  • Ricci
    Thank you, Baptism as mentioned in Acts and Mark and elsewhere about being needed for sins to be forgiven.  I hear too much where that is denied, even though i hear it said in the creeds, so my question has been to some, "Why say it, if you dont believe it"?
    To me, baptism is needed for the sins to be forgiven, as im taking Peter at his word, as well as Mark. 
  • Ricci
    Any thoughts on my last?
  • mabsootamabsoota

    we are all baptised.

    you have to be baptised and chrismated in an orthodox church to be able to take Holy Communion.

    priest can't give Holy Communion from unbaptised people, not hear their confessions, nor marry them (to each other) etc.

    feel free to send a personal message if you have more qu's, i am also in uk amd have been an orthodox Christian for 11 years.

    i think you will find everyone here is in favour of baptism.

  • Ricci
    Good to hear it on baptism.
    Hope you understood my point though? i hear so many recite a creed but when asked why their church dont actually belive the words they recite, they have no real answer.
    Thanks for the offer.

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @Ricci

    So there are a couple of questions i have for you:
    - which priests or people are you asking about this? which church or group are they from?
    - are considering baptism to be an open-ended card for forgiveness of sins?
    - who do you think is allowed to give that baptism?
  • Ricci
    I read the scripture only and take what the word of God says, rather than man or tradition. In every act of conversion in the book of Acts we have baptism. Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, now, the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sin if we accept it, i know this. 
    But, when a creed is read, when we have Acts 2;37ff Mark 16, then i have issues with those who profess baptism is not part of salvation. We could go further, as baptism is only mentioned for believers. Again, book of Acts. 
    On who can give baptism, can you tell me from the bible who is allowed? For i see that it matters not who baptizes the person, its the fact the person was baptized, again, i see that plainly from Acts. If you see it differently from scripture, please enlighten me. 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    You are correct, we believe that baptism is a must too. But what really matters these days is who is doing the baptism. And throughout the Gospels and Acts and the all NT, this baptism that was accepted and is mention was always done by either one of the Twelve Disciples or the 72 Apostles. It's really all about Priesthood and what line of priesthood is it. The 12 and the 72 have a direct connection or a calling from Jesus Christ Himself. To follow the commandment, "they made disciples," more priests such like them with the authority that they were given as priests. We believe those are the ones that are allowed to give that true and genuine saving baptism. 
  • Ricci

    So am i to take it
    Apollos in Acts then was not taught more accurately by
    Priscilla and Aquila in regards to baptism? For im sure he was baptized into
    Christ after, by them.     John’s baptism would have been
    invalid if experienced     after the cross.

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Apollos was a follower of John the Baptist, so that baptism is the same. 

    I wouldn't use the word "invalid"...but it was a different baptism. We say it's the Baptism of Repentance. John himself said:
    Mark 1:8 NKJV
    I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

    So both baptisms were for sure different. 
  • Ricci
    So, both baptisms ARE valid, Johns and Jesus', even though Jesus' baptism was after the cross?  and Apollos did not have to be baptized into Christ? He was okay being baptized by John and not Christ baptism then which is all over the NT? Acts 2 37/38; 41- RM 6:3; Gal 3:27 to name 3 ?
  • Ricci
    What did Apollos not know then according to the scriptures we read about the incident, if it was not baptism into Christ, rather than Johns baptism? 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    No, you missunderstood. While both baptisms are valid, they were not the same. One was for repentance and one was for salvation. Christ's baptism is superior and it is the one that's needed for salvation
  • Ricci
    Thanks, but are we saying then that Apollos was no re baptized into Christs baptism? if so, your remarks would be true then, that only a select few can baptize?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Acts 19:
    19 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

    Apollos was baptized in Christ...that's settled. Him and the 12 (plus women and children probably) mentioned above were baptized and received the Holy Spirit (the Sacrament of Confirmation/Chrismation/Myron) by the "laying of hands" of St. Paul. 

    But from that we can conclude that any baptism that he did before that were just the baptism of John, not the Baptism of the Lord for salvation.

    As for Apollos' service after, there was a division with the people since they were served by Apollos, than Paul, then Apollos...and this is dealt with in 1 Corinthians. But, in ch 4, St. Paul says that him and Apollos are: "stewards of the mysteries of God"...he's really saying that he is a priest as me. Meaning that at some point of time after the baptism mention in Acts, Apollos became a disciple to Paul and received the grace of priesthood from him. Because in essence, a true priest is one that receives that honor/gift from one that has it and gives it--that a bishop in today's world, and that's what St. Paul was.
  • Ricci
    Thank you, i understand your points, So who baptized Apollos b4 Acts 19?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Well, the Bible says he only knows the baptism of John...meaning that he might of been a disciple of John the baptist, and the 12 with him. I don't know if John's disciples were baptizing or not....but in any case, it would of still be John's baptism of repentance.


  • Ricci
    so you dont think Priscilla and Aquila did it according Acts 18 then?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    We keep going in circles Ricci. I think what I mentioned above is clear enough and it wasn't my own personal opinion, but it's what is taught in our Church. I am not sure why is it confusing or why are you stuck on this specific case.
  • mabsootamabsoota
    i think he wants to know when apollos got the baptism of Jesus (as compared to the baptism of john).
    the Bible does not tells us exactly.
    if aquila was ordained a (full) deacon or priest, then aquila could have done it (philip who baptised the ethiopian eunuch was a deacon). 
    deacons can baptise, but only priests can follow the baptism with chrismation (anointing with holy oil which seals the Christian with the Holy Spirit).
    or he could have waited till he bumped into saint paul.
    i am not sure who baptised him.

    later on (titus 3:13), titus (bishop of crete) was asked to 'send on' apollos so that he lacked nothing in his journey.
    so it is likely that apollos was a priest or bishop by then as he was traveling around and preaching, so he must have been baptised and chrismated before that.


  • Ricci
    Thanks for all the feedback. My aim was to see, according to what we read, who can baptize. In the case of Apollos, i believe he was baptized into Christ by Aquila before they may have become a deacon or priest, as the text infers such. Church tradition may have it different, but church tradition does not supersede what the text leads us to believe, especially in Acts 18, and for argument sake Acts 22 with Paul. They were devoted people, but the text does not say, or lead us to believ they were anyway tilted.  
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    The hierarchy that you see now in churches, you wont find in the Scripture. You'll find hints that allude to everything we do, even for Protestant churches, but nothing that is clear or spelled out. That's why the Orthodox Church doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura. By the time we had the last book that's part of the Canon in the NT, Revelation, written by St. John the Beloved, the other 11 and the 72 were all martyred by then and only their disciples and christian communities, ie churches, survived. You then look at the Didascalia or the Didache that gives you more about the traditions the Apostles have followed and taught to be handed down. 
  • mabsootamabsoota
    yes, the Bible (new testament books) was complied by the church. not the other way around.
  • Ricci
    Thank you again. But, yes there is my question, which you have answered in part with what we have now, but when i mentioned Apollos in Acts 18, Paul in ch 22, no such things were in place as we have them today, so, disciples baptized disciples who professed a faith in Christ and repented etc. Today, the church states that no untitled person as such can baptize a believer. Looking at the word of God, not tradition of the day or whatever, i read no such thing. Scripture will always supersede over tradition. This is why have division in the churches. In fact i dont read that a priest as such is the only one who can do it in the Didache?

    My original question was about Baptism and sin, which i think we can agree on. He who has believed and repented etc. Who can baptize was raised on the 29/04/20, hence looking at the truth, the standard, the template, we can see that others, not including the apostles baptized. Today the church may have changed that. 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    You will also not read anywhere is EVERYONE who was the follower of Jesus was baptizing. The commandment of baptizing was ONLY giving the disciples as it was mentioned before, and no mention of anyone later that a baptism was accept if it was done by anyone else who we think was not commissioned by the apostles to do so. 

    You are correct, priests were not allowed to baptize. But with the increasing number of believers everywhere, they were later granted that grace from the bishops. 

    "Scripture will always supersede over tradition. This is why have division in the churches." well, by ignoring tradition all together, you have already eliminated all protestants and christian sects of those 'divisions' you are talking about. You are then left with the Catholic Church and its jurisdictions, and the Orthodox Church and its jurisdictions. There yes there are divisions there, but not as much as you'd think...and that mainly because they are all apostolic churches....ones that have apostolic succession. Something that all other churches can't claim directly. 
  • Ricci
    So, with all respect can we not live as they did? in that i mean, Paul set many churches up, this we have to agree. He also set in order how all these independent churches were to be organised. Elders, Deacons etc.  Paul and others were quite happy with this, for they set it up as such, even Peter was happy with it. That did not mean they was not contact between the churches, help in a crises, again we read of such. Now the trouble has been, we've reverted back to Old Jewish way of worship, with traditions/man made laws which Christ himself came to get rid of, but we've put them back again under Christianity. For as scripture states, we are all priests. If we also read the order of leadership within a church is written. We knew we would not have apostles forever, but scripture states that, some were, now dead, then in the list we evangelists etc.. So, if we just got back to basics and started in earnest bringing people to Christ instead perhaps majoring on our traditions and law, perhaps we may win the lost? Just some thoughts )
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    edited May 2020
    I don't think it works that way. I believe the system we have now was put by the Apostles and their disciples to make sure Christianity be forever, with the increasing number of believers. That old way can't live on. In fact, i think doing so would be contrary to the point that you later try to make: "we've reverted back to Old Jewish way of worship, with traditions/man made laws". 

    And what's wrong with "man made laws or traditions"?! we live by them in each of our nations. The OT fully was written by men. Does that make it any less meaningful?! The answer is of course, NO. Why?! because those men that wrote the OT and the NT were ones who, while full of the Holy Spirit, wrote down the Word of God by the inspiration. The Apostles and their disciples were ones that were given that same spirit and they were given the authority to bind and to loosen sin (a divine attribute that was not given to all people, but only those select few). 

    Just some thoughts too. :-)

    What you are saying is nothing new. It's you're opinion and it may be your belief. We just differ on it.  
  • Ricci
    Thanks for your thoughts. 
  • Daniel_Kyrillos
    The Priesthood (Ordination) is a special, honored service. It comes with certain jobs and responsibilities, and among them is administering the sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation (Myron). The Priesthood and priestly hierarchy were set up by Christ in his structure of ministry:
    +The Archpriest, the Head of the Church, the Shepherd. This is Christ (see Hebrews 4:14-16 for clarification)
    -Below Him are a select number of ministers who oversee large areas. These are Bishops and Metropolitans, and the firsts of these were the 12 Disciples.
    -Below them are their ministers, the hands and feet that deal with people on a closer basis (townships/cities). These are the 72, the Priests.
    To these ranks was the honor and responsibility of Baptism given. The rules surrounding who can and can't baptize are not man-made, they are formalized, man-expressed versions of the example Christ gave us. 
    Just because it has been a long time does not necessarily mean that the old system was wrong- that's a central tenant of Orthodoxy. We try and keep things as close as practically possible to the way things were done 2000 years ago, and this includes the apostolic succession.
  • Ricci
    Thank you for explanation and the time you spoent to reply. 
    I have food for thought on all comments.
Sign In or Register to comment.