Orthodoxy & Baptism, Pt . 1 - Fr. Josiah Trenham
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2022
- In this episode, Father Josiah Trenham discusses the Orthodox Christian understanding of the mystery (sacrament) of baptism.
📙 FREE eBOOK on Orthodox monastic wisdom:
social.protectingveil.com/fre...
This is the fifth episode from my interview with Orthodox Archpriest, theologian, author, publisher, and podcaster, Fr. Josiah Trenham. Fr. Josiah is pastor of St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, CA. He received his PhD in Theology from the University of Durham, is founder and director of Patristic Nectar Publications, and is a prolific podcaster and author.
❤️ SUPPORT this channel: social.protectingveil.com/sup...
🔔 SUBSCRIBE and hit the bell: social.protectingveil.com/you...
A shout out to The Collective Wisdom Project community for crowdsourcing the questions for this interview!
To learn more about Fr. Josiah's work...
Patristic Nectar Publications
patristicnectar.org/
The Arena Podcast
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts...
St. Andrew Orthodox Church
www.saintandrew.net/
MORE?!
1) 👏 SUPPORT: If you enjoy this channel, please consider supporting it! There are opportunities for financial and non-financial support: social.protectingveil.com/sup...
2) 📙 FREE eBOOK ON MONASTIC WISDOM
Interested in the lives and counsels of contemporary elders and Saints of Greece? Download a free abridged version of my book on the Greek elders here: social.protectingveil.com/fre...
3) 🔔 SUBSCRIBE!
Understand your faith better so you can live it more deeply: social.protectingveil.com/you...
4) 🖇️ LET'S CONNECT!
Facebook: / protectingveil
Twitter: / protectingveil
Instagram: / protectingveil
Website: protectingveil.com
5) 🎹 DO YOU LIKE MUSIC?
I’m writing and recording songs retelling the lives of ancient Saints! The music featured at the beginning and end of this video is from my song for Saint Rowan of Lorrha: • Red Haired Man (Demo v1)
Music Links:
TH-cam: / newhagiography
Website: newhagiography.com/
Facebook: / newhagiography
Twitter: social.protectingveil.com/twi...
Instagram: / newhagiography
Bandcamp: newhagiography.bandcamp.com/
6) 🎨 ARE YOU AN ORTHODOX ARTIST OR PATRON?
Please check out Zosima Society, where we’re connecting Orthodox non-liturgical artists (writers, musicians, filmmakers, visual artists, etc.) and patrons!
social.protectingveil.com/zos...
![แฉ [2/4] 11 ก.ค. 67 ‘ขวัญ อุษามณี’ เผยความจริง 16 ปีที่แล้วเกิดอะไรขึ้น? | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/K4pXnUiObbk/mqdefault.jpg)
📙 FREE eBOOK on the wisdom of modern Orthodox Christian elders:
social.protectingveil.com/freebook1
One month to late. Got baptized last month! ☦️☦️☦️
Welcome to Life
Always appreciative of what is posted on this channel.
Amen. Truth spoken in love
There is so much wisdom here and so many would be blessed to heed his words. I do not wish to take away from Fr. Josiah's words, only to offer two additional comments for consideration:
When it comes to determining how a person or a group of people will be received into the Church, it is certainly the diocesan bishop's decision. However, as Fr. Josiah I believe alluded to, we cannot make economia the new akrivia. Ultimately, bishops, priests, and laymen are called to follow the saints. We learn what is Orthodox from them. When we look at the saints who looked at this issue in detail and attempted to offer a patristic view, we see they said that almost all converts should be received by baptism. Sprinkling, pouring, and single immersion are not examples of the patristic form of three immersions, showing forth the death and resurrection of the convert into Christ. All of us must follow the saints.
Also, a note of historical correction: St. John Maximovitch did not receive Fr. Seraphim Rose into the Church. St. John arrived in San Francisco in 1963, a year after Fr. Seraphim was received into the Church in 1962. Fr. Seraphim was received by Fr. Nicholas Dombrovsky.
For those interested, Fr. Seraphim baptized everyone he received into the Church, as Fr. Damascene writes in the biography of Fr. Seraphim Rose: "At the time Eugene was received into the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, those formerly baptized into non-Orthodox Christian confessions (Protestants, Anglicans, and Catholics) were routinely received into this Church through Chrismation only, rather than through both Baptism and Chrismation. In 1971, the Sobor (Bishop’s Council) of the Church Abroad ruled that it was permissible to baptize those coming from non-Orthodox confessions. When Eugene became a priest in the Church Abroad six years later, he baptized all the people whom he received into the Church, including those formerly baptized into non-Orthodox confessions."
It is true; Saint John did not receive Fr. Seraphim into the church, but the priest that did was following the established Russian tradition of 500 years. It was only in the early 70s, as you rightly note, that the church abroad allowed for the innovation - and let us call it what it is: an innovation - of receiving almost all converts via baptism, regardless of their religious past.
@@fr.davidwooten1650 What are you talking about? The innovation was the Russian Church from a corrupt synod 500 years ago. When it reversed the policy to receive converts by Baptism, they became aligned with the rest of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Saints, even in Russia, recognize this. The Kollyvades Fathers and the EP definitively reconfirmed the ancient apostolic teaching of receiving heretics by baptism. There is no doubt this is the Tradition and proper praxis. Exceptions do not override the rule of the Church by synods and hand picked saints (like Prots do with Sola Scriptura) against the often confirmed canons which also recognizes that economia has conditions for use and is not at the whim of a bishop. We must follow the "golden chain" of saints' teachings in all things over anyone who picks saints or teachers (and distorts the interpretation of such) to confirm popular opinions. The latter is the spirit of Antichrist, this had better be very evident to Orthodox Christians.
@@fr.davidwooten1650 Were St Nicodemos and St Paisius Velichkovsky innovators then?
@@paisios2541 St. Nicodemos and St. Paisius Velichkovsky were holy fathers; they were not the Holy Spirit. St. Nicodemos was on Mt. Athos and, thus, not subject to the local custom of Moscow from 1667. St. Paisius very clearly had his theologoumenon that went against his church's directives. He may have individually been motivated by a pastoral desire to provide converts with a clear image of the Church, but obedience would demand he follow his bishops' directives (which themselves were precedented by EC2 in 381). We can quote individual fathers that we're convinced spoke the truth with their minority reports (reports which, "shockingly," almost always agree with what we *want* to be the Really and Truly True Orthodox Truth™), but canonical precedent and tradition, directed by the apostolic bishops whose charge it has always been to lead the Church, should be preferred, absent obvious heresy as brought forth via charges by other bishops.
@@fr.davidwooten1650 St Nicodemos wrote massive works on this subject, and many including myself view him as the authoritative voice of the Church on this matter, much like St Gregory Palamas in his day, or St Mark of Ephesus who was opposed by the majority of the Bishops in his day! If St Nicodemos was promoting novel ideas and opinions then where do we see the works of Saints refuting the ideas of St Nicodemos. I am not talking about certain local practices in various historical contexts but actual dogmatic works by Saints. I am not aware of any such thing. On what basis do we just shrug and reject St Nicodemos, St Paisius Velichkovsky, and modern day Saints like St Iakovos of Evia (who disobeyed the Synod of Greece and baptized monophysites) or St Paisios the Athonite (who told Fr Kosmas of Zaire to disobey the Patriarch of Alexandria and to baptize Roman Catholics). You are saying these things father but are these actually opinions articulated by Saints or are these just the opinions of academics who have not undergone the process of purification, illumination, and Theosis? Forgive me but I am extremely hesitant to believe any opinions of such academics when they contradict clear and direct teachings of the recent Saints of our Church. And according to St Symeon the New Theologian, it is especially the Saints closest to us in time that we must follow. I am simply not aware of any Saint writing comprehensive dogmatic refutations of the views expressed by St Nicodemos with regards to the reception of converts and so I must like a simple child obediently accept what he teaches. If St Nicodemos was mistaken, then would the Holy Spirit which is promised to lead us into all truth not have inspired Saints to write refutations of his ideas? But instead of this he is universally venerated as a transmitter of Patristic tradition by all of the Athonite Fathers who came after him. And I simply do not believe the opinions of Athos are irrelevant to us "in the world" as many say. These are the people who have kept the tradition most faithfully and thus have the most authority.
Just had a discussion with protestants about the concept of born again yesterday. This video came at the perfect time.
When I first became Christian and I started trying to find out which church I should go to, I thought hmm, this "born again" stuff sounds nice.. and now I realize, "born again"... that's baptism, dummy 😅
I’m going to be seeking corrective baptism.
People are begging for baptism and being told no. His argument about the plug and how it would fall apart if you unplug it and plug it into a properly functioning outlet is not applicable to the folks who would have wanted baptism in the fully Orthodox manner. They were denied it but were ignorant at the time and didn’t know to press for it like I did after an infant RC pouring baptism…
There are millions of people in the Orthodox Church who are baptised by pouring/affusion.
A very balanced and thorough discussion about reception of converts, with the one qualification that reception by chrismation is not “oikonomia“ when it is actually called for *instead of* baptism. Otherwise, well done.
Fr., please if you don't mind, explain what you mean by "instead of".
@@strugglingathome Simply that there are instances where chrismation is *prescribed* instead of simply *allowed.* This TH-cam channel may not be allowing me to post links, so please search for "Sacramental Rigourism: Tradition or Modern Phenomenon?" by "arche-athanatos" on his blog for an excellent argument detailing how this tradition in the Church is both ancient and venerable.
@@strugglingathome Also, search for "Do Valid Sacraments Exist Outside the Church? A Florilegium" by "Codex Justinianeus" on the Ancient Insights blog.
Thank you, Fr. Are you saying that the "dispensation" of oikonomia may not apply in the case of "Chrismation-only" reception? That it can be an instance of akribeia?
@@strugglingathome Yes, if it is a Baptismal form that can be accepted by the church, it is to be received via chrismation and not baptism.
Father, how comes you didn't give us a blessing before beginning? It's the best part.
This is only a part of a longer interview. We don't see the beginning. He might have given a blessing but we don't see that part.
Latin ‘Baptism’ is a simple pouring of water over the forehead three times. There is no triple immersion.
We were brought in to the church in 98 without being rebaptized, we were willing to do whatever and told no. Do we now not trust our Bishop and Priest guidance or not??? If I can not trust them in this for these last 25 yrs, what else can I not trust them in???
Fr. Josiah. There are many things said about Orthodox baptism and how baptism must be performed. What do you make of this excerpt from The Didache which says pouring water over the head 3 times in the name of the Holy Trinity is an acceptable form of Baptism in the absence of cold running water?
Baptism
“7.1 And concerning baptism, baptize in this way: having reviewed all of these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' in running water. ≥ But if you do not have access to running water, baptize in other water. And if you are not able to baptize with cold water, then baptize with warm water. 3 But if you possess neither, pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 4 And before the baptism the baptizer should fast before-hand, and the one being baptized and any others who are able. Call upon the one being baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days.”
“We know where the Holy Spirit is we Don’t know where the Holy Spirit is not.”
Great video and very well said. I would like to add that the word "economy" as it is used in the Church does not mean "allowance" or "dispensation." The word "economy" is a composite of two Greek words: οἶκος (ee-kose, a house or dwelling) and νόμος (nomos, a rule or the law). This word was first used in the Canons of the Church and refers to the "rules of the house" with the house being the Church. When we apply the economy of the Chruch, we are following the κανών (canon, a rule or guideline) of the Church. What is the "rule" that we follow? Well, it is Jesus Christ. The Church as the Body of Christ does what Christ does. It does not operate in contradiction or independently of Christ. What is Christ doing? Christ is literally the savior of the world. So, the "house rule" of the Church is to save the world with Christ. Economy is not the exception to the rule, it is the rule of the house.
So are you saying that if the bishop of one diocese accepts protestant or Latin baptism, the convert should be at peace with that, because the bishop is okay with it and since he is the enforcer of the house rules, so should the convert be okay with that? Or are you saying that the house rule is above any bishop and converts should insist on following the original rule of triple immersion from an orthodox priest and refuse to be admitted into the church by chrismation?
What a song is played at the end? It filled me with peace.
Glory to God! You can find it here: th-cam.com/video/GydHEJCvC0c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9l3_DHcWhX3E2Xpp
Thanks so much!@@ProtectingVeil
what about Eastern Catholics who received Baptism and Chrismation would they need to be re chrismation?
Yes. Anyone coming from a Latins undergo Chrismation.
Does being chrismated and not baptized in the True Church harm me in the eyes of God? When becoming Orthodox I followed the advice of my priest but honestly now 4 yrs later I am concerned.
God understands your situation and loves you more than any of us can imagine. However, there are not a few people who have received a "corrective" baptism and spoken of not only psychological reprieve but also spiritual strength and healing. Some priests will baptize you after you've been received into the Church, and the monasteries founded by Elder Ephraim in the USA and Canada will do this, too. Have you spoken with a priest about this? Have you learned what many Saints from Athos and other places have taught on this matter? I pray you find the answers you need most.
This has kinda been my boat recently. This made me feel better about it, but I do wish I had known more about this when I was received.
@@timothyhoneycutt3648 Yes, scandalously and tragically, this practice of “corrective baptism” does go on. It is atrocious and absolutely unacceptable, and completely destroys any sense that we might have had that the work that is blessed by our bishops might be mutually acknowledged and recognized by other jurisdictions. Frankly, if a person has been accepted into the church via chrismation, their previous baptismal form, as Fr. Joseph said, has been filled and completed. Baptizing after that in order to provide some sort of “spiritual booster shot“ is to deny the scripture that there is, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” That truly is a repeating a baptism for reasons other than entry into the church. I would advise anyone seeking this so-called “corrective baptism” to hear the words of Fr. Josiah in this video and rest in the knowledge that your obedience to your bishop has brought you safely and completely into the bosom of the holy Orthodox Church. If you require spiritual comfort, go to confession. Be anointed with oil. Pray. But a corrective baptism 1) goes against your bishop, and 2) is not what baptism is for.
Neither Fr. Seraphim Rose nor St. Elizabeth the New Martyr received "corrective baptism," and Fr. Seraphim Rose actually explicitly writes against it: "L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on her part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism alter already being members of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers." en.afanasiy.net/articles/father-seraphim-rose-on-the-hothouse-approach-to-orthodoxy-and-correcting-the-incomplete-baptism-letter-from-jan-28-feb-10-1976/
@@ProtectingVeil Thank you for this reference! This is absolutely spot on.
To *clarify what Naming means : For example, Tatina, that is, the given name from the statement of Birth and Birth Certificate ... is not my name, but the name of my placenta / my twin/ the first born in my mothers womb... I, living crown am the second born in my mothers womb / Next-of-Kin, while the last name Doe is the cog-nome / the name of by state-created-trust in which trust then the multi-million insured placenta(insured for the contingency of possible death of the fetus during birth) is placed in. In the legal system, they brainwash us since diapers that given name (given to us (Tatina) by the godfather or parents or whoever) is our name truth instead to be the name of the dead placenta, and when this info finally becomes cemented in our mind, they consider us mentally disturbed (because we don't know who we are), unable to govern ourselves and administer our *dominion, they are considering us to be identity fraudsters, criminals, all the worst/ the Antichrist. ========= [Our *dominion, which belongs to us by right of birth, is an equal part of the natural wealth of the earth surface: 1, 7 hectares of the earth's surface estimated by the *New World Order to be NZ$230 million dollars]. That is value of our birth-right to the equal share of Creator's Earth surface. Truly observed all earth and mankind and all that we believe to be our, actually belong to Creator.
There is only one Baptism that is in the Orthodox Church. It is the Normal way to enter the Church.
This seems to be doctrinal acrobatics on baptism. Would not it be simpler to just baptize everyone? No, EO is simply a part of the Christian Church. The claims of utter exclusivity never stand up to Biblical or Historical scrutiny. Mark 9:38-50
Imagine saying that God “thirsts”. As if He lacks. God doesn’t will that all come to saving faith, otherwise they would all be saved-yet they are not. This is mysterium and notice how he doesn’t back almost any claim or tradition with scripture.
“I thirst”
- Jesus Christ (John 19:28)
You are neglecting an important distinction in God's willing. "Also one must bear in mind that God’s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom . For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment.
The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.
But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine" (St John of Damascus/ Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book 2)
This is disputing about words. God greatly wants the salvation of every person..that is what he meant by *thirsts" ...it is a figure of speech. No Orthodox would frame it the way you are suggesting. God desires that none perish and that is why he became incarnate and objectively redeemed human nature to accomplish in that way redemption for all men. Human persons retain freedom of will, being in the image of God, and can reject that gift. Scripture speaks of this in numerous places. ( Romans 2:4-5, Matthew 23:37, Luke 7:30, 2 Corinthians 6:1)
Your presupposition is wrong and that’s why you’re coming to wrong conclusions
Christ said: “go and BAPTIZE” not christmation in Holy Scriptures!
No one else had received Christian baptism at that point. Now it is very different, and the Church has adapted to our actual situation on the ground now. We still baptize those who are not baptized in any way or with a heretical formula, and complete the baptismal forms that are acceptable.
@@fr.davidwooten1650 There is only one form acceptable as the saints have clarified. And the Western heterodox 99.9% of the time do not have that form... so a true Orthodox baptism still needs to occur. This is explained by St. Nikodemos.
@@johncoffman1990 The Russian Church has received Roman Catholics and “confessional Protestants” (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.) by chrismation only since the 1600s, and those groups have never done full, triple immersion (or, Rome since before the Schism). The Russian Church receives their clergy by vesting alone. St. Nikodemos did prescribe one thing, while the Church of Russia prescribed another. There is not One Orthodox Way™ to do this throughout all time. We do what our bishops direct, given the tradition they uphold.
@@fr.davidwooten1650 You demonstrate you do not know the arguments of St. Nikodemos nor the history of that 1667 synod. St. Nicodemos and many other Kollyvades Fathers and clergymen at the EP took great lengths to demonstrate the Church has a single united approach to this. In a specific, time and place, like all errors that first creep in the Church, you see a divergence. It started in Russia with this synod. If you read those Russian saints who comment on this synod, you will notice it was thoroughly corrupt, scandalous, and a deliberate departure from Church Tradition in many of its decisions; it was certainly not in the spirit of Apostolic Canons, Ecumenical Councils and those Fathers, and the larger Church. This is not arbitrary decisions of different synods. One confirmed the apostolic and faithful practice, one severely erred. This is not my own opinion; this is the consensus of nearly all the saints who commented on the issues.
@@johncoffman1990 As has been cited elsewhere, we have ancient witness that the "single, united approach" myth is just that: a myth. Why would the second Ecumenical Council prescribe for certain heterodox -- and *non-trinitarian* heterodox, at that! -- to be received by chrismation only and not by trinitarian baptism? Others are to be received simply by confession of error and then admitted to communion! There have always been these three ways in which non-Orthodox are admitted to the Church, not baptism alone. How is this to be determined in a given time and place? Via the bishops in that area. Russia in 1667 applied this concept -- itself over 1,200 years old even at that time -- and judged that Catholics and confessional Protestants should be received by chrismation, and others baptized. Of course some disagreed. But the Church has never solved issues in a given locale by "my favorite Fathers to cite vs. your favorites." It's clear you believe baptism-only provides the best image of one, sacramental Church. But the fathers of 381 in Constantinople and in Moscow in 1667 (and elsewhere) disagree that all should be baptized. It may be messier in application (who is received how and why), but it is the tradition.
The biblical church of Christ is all those who have believed, repented and were baptized, in that order. They are all saints. I am one. I advise you to shun every church practice and tradition that is not mandated in the New Testament. For instance, calling a pastor 'Father', let alone Holy Father. Using icons as mediation is also not in the New Testament. Listen to the Word and get protection, listen to people instead and get deceived by the adversary of God. And deservedly so, for not having loved the truth.
First you would have to prove that the scope of the new testament is comprehensive and encyclopedic. Whereas all evidence points to the epistles being written to address certain issues of that day and were not intended to be a comprehensive manual of all things and therefore everything that is to be done has to be " mandated" there. You would also have to ignore the NT itself which calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of the truth" ( 1Timothy 3:15-16) and the Apostle Paul tell us to follow and "hold fast to the traditions that were taught by word of mouth and by letter". (2Thess 2:15). This advice you give is not biblically sound but it is sectarian. It is based on the notion of Sola scriptura which is from the protestant so called reformaton. This is not itself taught in scripture anywhere. It is self defeating and it is circular reasoning. Without the Apostolic Orthodox Church, one would not even know which books are scripture. There is no list of inspired books found in the bible and no verse says Bible only or suggests the New Testament has to itself mandate everything verbatim.
The New Testament is a Church Tradition ☠️
You do realize that Orthodox Chrich has been established SINCE the time of the Apostles, right? The same Church, along with Rome at the time, that cannonized the new testament. You would not have your new testament without the Orthodox Church. Also, how do you think early Christians worshipped without the new testament for 300 years? Through, hyms, liturgy, and tradition.
@@dailymeditateandchill3262 well said ☦️