General notes on Greek Orthodoxy

Some notes I jotted down listening to a Carl Trueman lecture on the Medieval Church:

Greek Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox:
- High view of the Trinity.
- Highly-elaborate ritual and liturgy.
- Importance placed on icons, with theological arguments made for why dieficiation is given to these (vs. perceiving them as graven images)
- To Eastern Orthodox, icons are an idealized, divinized portrait of what they represent, with a theosis present, or a taking of God's power.  With relics, there is something ontalogically transforming the item (similar to the human body of saints, hence why relics are important.)

Of course I disagree with their view of relics, but I did find it interesting to understand a little bit more of the background as to why they believe this.  I visited a Greek Orthodox church ages ago, and noticed the elaborate ritual.  I was impressed by the importance placed on head coverings, as this was something mandated for all women visiting, as the church adhered to a very high-view of I Cor. 11 (in many ways this was important for me in researching deeper into the head covering issue - that, and Sproul's comments on the topic.)

Sproul on Paedobaptism

Here's a part of R. C. Sprouls message at Christ Fellowship church...

"I think it's a sin (you can quote me) not to baptize your children. God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son. It was a very serious matter to administer the sign of the covenant to believers and to their infants and nowhere in Biblical content is that principle of corporate solidarity ever, ever abrogated and, so I think we are making a huge mistake when we exclude the children of believers from the sing of the covenant. Alright, and so I think it's a serious matter. Because I want to make sure, with the administration of the sacraments, that we're doing what is pleasing to God, so I think its pleasing to God to baptize infants of believers. My friends in the Baptist community believe its displeasing to God to do that. Both sides want to do what is pleasing to God, and what I do believe is that I don't think that we should break fellowship over that issue. Because there's not an explicit teaching in the New Testament that says you must baptize the children of believers, nor is there an explicit prohibition. In the NT it stays that you may not baptize the children of believers, so you have to rest your case on inferences drawn from narratives and from other texts of the Bible, and any time a doctrine is left to the development by inferences you're open to all kinds of mistakes. So it any kind of doctrine should provoke patience and tolerations with other its something like that."

I didn't have a transcript so I just jotted down a few pages of his comments and transcribed them here.  And while I do greatly respect Dr. Sproul for all his teaching and ministry, I think he's completely wrong on labeling willing paedobaptism as a sin.  With no clear commandment given anywhere in Scripture to baptize infants, and instead drawing on (fairly weak) inferences from Scripture, how could failure to follow the ordinance of baptism by sprinkling unrepentant babies be considered "sin"?  I really wish that, since this Q&A session took place at a Baptist church, at least someone there had taken issue with this.  Well, considering his age and his health, its enough of a blessing that he still travels and shares from his collective learning, and I still marvel when I read his works online or in Tabletalk.

When discussing baptism with my Dad I like the argument (among many, many other arguments) of the "desert island exegete" - a non-believer who, sitting on the beach one day, finds a Bible that washes on the shore in his own language.  Picking it up, he reads it and, finishing the Gospel of John is convicted of his sins and of his need for a savior and repents and believes.  Sharing his faith with others, they soon start a small Acts-style worship service together.  Now strictly from the Bible alone, would those islanders really conceive of the practice of baptism as being rightly administered by sprinkling water on the bald head of an angry, unrepentant baby, who's parent's may or may not even be genuine believers?  I find that really doubtful.  And while the analogy might be a little bit of a stretch, it's not beyond the realm of possibility:  I've heard the Gideons speak when they visit the church, and they will talk about being at rope's end, ready to end their life in a hotel room when they discover a Gideon's Bible and, upon reading it, are convicted by the Holy Spirit and repent and believe.  So anything is possible.

Anyhow, below are links to both parts of Sproul's Q&A.  Really great material.  The baptism discussion takes place in the second part.

Sproul on Head Covering

Excerpt from Now, That's a Good Question, a book in which R.C. Sproul takes on a number of various theological questions, and particularly a section on Dr. Sproul's thoughts on the relevance of head coverings for today (per the Apostle Paul's instruction in I Cor. 11).  This is free over at Google Books and also on Amazon:

The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (11 CDs)

The Great Debate over Baptism and the Covenant (11 CDs)

Linking this CD series by William Einwechter here as I felt this was a very convincing (and influential) series on the Scriptural foundation for believers baptism. This is an issue that, as a former Presbyterian, I've become strongly convinced is what Scripture defines Baptism is to be.

I was baptized as an unrepentant 3-month old in a liberal Presbyterian church in Philadelphia roungly 37 years ago, and in thinking back, I have to wonder where was the blessing of observing/experiencing this ordinance directly? I knew nothing of the joy of sharing a testimony and experiencing the waters of baptism, or of experiencing the symbolic death of the old self ("having been buried with him in baptism" Col. 2:12) and being raised up by the pastor out of the water, the pastor symbolizing Christ's redemptive role lifting me out of sin and into a newness of life. I loved my adult baptism, and the richness and symbolism of that ordinance has such importance in my love for God.

I just don't see infant baptism in scripture. I don't see how a man on a desert island could find a Bible, read it, learn it, and then somehow find the principle of sprinkling babies in this text (well, unless an R.C. Sproul Study Bible washed up on the shore...)

But most foundational, I can't see how infant baptism isn't a gross violation of the regulative principle. How can a practice that isn't explicitly defined in Scirpture be taken and instituted - and then even further, be called a sacrament? How can paedobaptists even know that God's grace will be imparted to a sinful, unrepentant infant? Isn't that somewhat akin to a Landmark church saying that they will host a "revival" on a certain day of the week - in other Words, just like paedobaptists, how can they know when and where the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit will take place? And I for one have known quite a number of people who, baptized as infants, have had no issues with walking away completely from their faith, with only a "half-sacrament" in place.

Anyhow, The Great Debate over Baptism series by William Einwechter is exceptional and informative and I would urge anyone who is divided on the issue to look into this series.