The Catalog of Good Deeds

Father Sergius Nezhbort

Every person is called for something, but it is not always something significant and great. Perhaps, we are not famous musicians or writers, not architects, but average simple people, who have a certain purpose - the purpose of our life. Let it be something simple – you can sweep with a wisp, wash plates or care for children, but what is important is that you should do it as good as if it was the main thing in your life, and give it all your power and inner resources. (After the Divine Liturgy on November 23, 2016)

***

There is a dichotomy in us, Christians. On the one hand, we live a normal everyday life, which does not differ from other people’s lives. And in this life we often face some human weaknesses and disadvantages. On the other hand, we have touched another life with a part of our soul body. And this life has beaten us. You know, once a modern poet said the words: “I am wounded with a light arrow, and no one can heal me”. Perhaps, our hearts are also wounded by the arrow of the God’s love.

***

If today we see our personal weaknesses or cannot find anything good in ourselves at all, then it is not so bad as it may seem. The main thing is that we should look forward, that we do not give up, but wait and hope for changes. The same is with the weather: it can be cloudy for one day, another day, for a week… In our region such weather can last even for several months. But we know that spring will finally come, so we can see the sun. The same point is applicable in our life – if we endure all the troubles and falls, if we do not turn from God, then the sun will shine in us as well. (After the Divine Liturgy on November 30, 2016)

Father Andrew Lemeshonok

The modern world is based on advertising. To make people pay attention to something, to thrill them, you need to find a sensation and something bright. But in a Christian life everything is quiet and peaceful. The more quiet a person is, the less attention a person demands, the humbler a person behaves, then the more grateful to God he is, the stronger the Holy Spirit supports him. The Holy Spirit is a Quiet Light. The Quiet Light of the God’s love.

Elder Ambrose of Optina said: know yourself, and that will be enough for you. We do not know ourselves, but assume that we know all the other. We want to know everything! Why? What for do we need to know everything? What for is this burden of knowledge? People are overloaded with information. Nothing new will happen, because everything has happened already. Christ has come to this world, and His love saved the humanity, defeated death. That is it! What else do we need? Which news? We just need to live with Christ and carry our personal cross till the very end. He that endureth to the end shall be saved (Matthew, 10:22). (After the Divine Liturgy on October 24, 2016)

Father George Glinsky

To help a person and to support him, at least by word, if we have no possibility to do more for him, is far more precious than any sacrifices and burntofferings. (After the evening service on October 24, 2016)

Father Andrew Malachovsky

We should remember that the meeting with God lies ahead, and this is why we should try to consume all the gifts we have to foster our spiritual development. Not to spend them for the earthly wealth – house, food, some personal plans, but to become rich in Christ. And this is always connected with the people, who need our help. With the sick, the homeless and the hungry, and even these ones who are imprisoned. God cares about these people and minds our care for them like the care for Him. (After the Divine Liturgy in the boarding home on December 9, 2016)

***

Our weaknesses are our burdens, which we have to carry. However, we certainly should amend. Just try and you will see that God will warm your soul and enlighten you. God will grant you everything you need today and everything for your salvation. (After the Divine Liturgy in the boarding home on November 4, 2016)

Father Alexander Pashkovsky

What is an “old person”? The one, who lives according to his passions. But we have to learn how to live with God. It means, we should live according to the commandments God has given us. And it is very important to understand that it is much easier to cope with our weaknesses, when we realize that, as the saints say, all our vices have grown on the soil of our own hearts. It is not just a misfortune, but the problem of our hearts and our souls. We have to defeat the passions which make us fall. There is no other way. We only can struggle and win with the God’s help. (After the Divine Liturgy on October 13, 2016)

Father Valery Zacharov

We are getting older, and God gives us new knowledge. We are growing, and God wants to lead us further, to move us from the kindergarten to the 1^st floor in the school. We confront and do not want to obey, push Him off, but we need to change. We came in this world to become similar to God. And of course we have so much to do if we want to achieve this. (After the akathist in the boarding school on October 21, 2016)

***

God has no deadlocks. Only we, humans, have deadlocks because of our arrogance. God has the way out of any situation. The deadlocks we face here, on earth, perhaps could be the ways which lead right to God, if we do not complain and try to humble ourselves. (After the Divine Liturgy in the boarding school on October 21, 2016)

St. Elisabeth Convent,

January 17, 2017

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

Article by Timothy Copple.

Is baptizing infants Biblical? Does it violate the Biblical plan of salvation?

Many Protestants think it isn’t Biblical and does violate how one gets “saved.” The reasoning goes something like the following.

The Bible clearly says that the route to salvation is to believe in Jesus (John 3:16), to hear and confess Jesus to be Lord (Romans 10:9), to have faith in Him (Romans 5:1), then one will be saved.

Infants don’t have the ability to believe, hear, understand, and confess Jesus, or have faith. Therefore, they cannot be saved by someone else saying the right words or through a ritual the baby has no awareness of.

So are all babies destined to Hell? Not usually. The denomination I formerly belonged too, while not 100%, was mostly against infant baptisms. They believed that each person reached an age of accountability. That is, when they understood enough to make a decision for themselves. Once that happened, whatever age (usually around 5-13 depending on the maturity level of the child), the child stood in danger of Hell until they got saved. Prior to that point, the innocent child was believed to automatically be saved by God’s mercy.

There are problems with this understanding. Biblical problems and historical problems. We’ll tackle the Biblical ones first.

Infants Were Not the Bible’s Intended Audience

It should go without saying that the Bible was written for those who could read. None of the writers expected a baby to pick up and read their words. They wrote for people who had already come to the age where they could hear, believe, and confess. Because those were the only people who might hear, believe, and confess.

Because of that, such verses as the ones above were not addressing infant’s salvation. They addressed people who could think and process that information. By nature, how and whether infants were saved would be excluded from Biblical discussions unless addressed specifically.

For the above verses to include how an infant must be saved, one has to make the following assumptions not explicitly stated in Scripture:

God intended for those verses to apply to infants equally as to adults.

The converse of this statement is true (a logical fallacy): that if anyone cannot hear, believe, and confess, they cannot be saved.

That God gives infants a free pass from the effects of the Fall until they reach the “age of accountability.”

The last point is introduced to reconcile a seemingly Biblical contradiction between this view of Scripture and Jesus’ words, speaking of the children around Him, “For of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 19:14) It is innately unfair, so it would seem, that a child would go to Hell before having a chance to get saved if he were to die too early. So the doctrine of the age of accountability was introduced, even though there is no mention of it in the Bible.

The Bible Never Explicitly Excludes Infants From Salvation

Simply, there is no verse which says the equivalent of “God wills that all be saved . . . except for infants.” When St. Paul speaks of baptizing households (Acts 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:16), he makes no effort to suggest he refused to baptize any infants or small children.

While the argument from silence isn’t conclusive, it not only adds weight to the rest, it indicates an extra-biblical assumption at work that infants were excluded from those baptisms when the natural assumption would be that they weren’t. The burden is on proving that they weren’t, not that they were.

The Assumption that Faith is Based on Cognitive Ability is Unbiblical.

According to Jesus, little children do have saving faith and believe:

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein (Mar 10:15 KJV)

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me . . . (Mat 18:6a KJV)

Indeed, our faith in God does not originate with us, but from God.

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. (Mat 18:6 KJV)

Faith is not foreign to infants and children. Indeed, we are instructed to have the faith of a little child if we expect to make it into the Kingdom of God.

Anti-Infant-Baptism is Based on a Works Based Salvation

St. Paul instructs the Ephesians:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8-9 KJV)

While it is understood that for an adult to have faith requires aligning their beliefs and confession with Christ’s to be saved by His grace, no one would want to suggest that doing so is a required work in order to get saved. At least, we’d hope not.

Yet by requiring intellectual assent from those who are unable to give it, before they can receive God’s grace, it moves the action from a prerequisite for those who need it to a requirement for everyone, whether infant, small child, or otherwise mentally impaired.

We’ve seen that it is God that gives faith, that salvation is a gift of God, and that children have that faith. Are we now to suggest that God will withhold His saving grace from an infant merely because he fails to show an intellectual agreement? If so, the infant has a work to perform to meet the condition to be saved. If it is truly a gift from God, and not of works, then God would not refrain from saving those who have the faith to believe and accept him, not by intellectual assent, but through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Why then do teens and adults need to intellectual believe to be saved?

When someone participates in the rite of baptism, they are in essence asking to receive God’s saving grace. To put it as St. Paul did in Romans 6, to die with Christ so that by God’s grace and power we are raised to new life with Him.

Different groups have different rites. In one, there might be an altar call and praying through at the “mourner’s bench.” In another, simply praying the “sinner’s prayer” of repentance. Each rite is used to ask God to save someone.

But what if that person, despite having faith and belief in God, from God, cannot ask? Whether due to inability to talk, or the mental abilities are not developed enough to know to ask, or whatever the reason might be, are they lost? Do we hand our children over to Satan until they can ask for themselves, or does the community of the faithful ask in their behalf?

For you see, once someone can understand, can speak for themselves, then they have to ask and consent for themselves to have the fruit of faith and belief in their life and receive God’s saving grace. Before that, it is not a requirement.

Instead, since Scripture shows little children have faith and a belief based in the soul, the Church asks for God’s saving grace upon them through baptism. A baby has no need to intellectually agree with doctrine to have faith. An adult does.

Most anti-infant-bapatism denominations believe a baby is saved anyway until they are able to ask for themselves.

In other words, they believe the baby is automatically baptized by God’s grace without anyone asking. It is taking an extra-biblical route to reach the same destination as physically baptizing the infant.

After all, most Protestant denominations have some concept of the Fall and that an infant is born into a sinful and fallen condition and world. Yet their liturgical practice ignores this spiritual reality if they assume, without anyone asking God for it, all infants are given saving grace and a deferment on the need to ask to get that saving grace.

If true, there is no point in not going ahead and baptizing the infant as Scripture dictates.

One, because it acknowledges the Fall and the effects of ancestral sin upon all born of woman, save one, Jesus Christ.

Two, it acknowledges that it is God who saves, not by the individuals ability to do x, y, or z.

Three, if you’re going to say God saves an infant, why do so through a theological construct not in Scripture nor in the first several hundred years of Church history?

Church History Supports Infant Baptism

Explicit references to infant baptism date back to the second century. Comments from early Church Fathers indicate infant baptism was a common practice by the end of the second century. Prior to that, while there isn't any specific mention of infant baptism, there is also no mention of it not being done or preached against.

Also of note is the absence of any controversy one would expect if infant baptism was denounced by the apostles' teaching. Compare that to the celebration of Pascha (Easter). While most of the Church celebrated it on Sunday, the disciples of John were taught by him to celebrate it on a fixed day during the week. The debate ended up being resolved in a council of the Church.

If the apostles refused to baptize infants, or taught against it, its introduction at some point in the second century would have created a similar controversy. The fact that by the end of the second century it is widespread without a peep of protest indicates that the practice falls in line with what the apostles taught and did.

It isn't until the Reformation that we see any serious opposition to the practice, and then only by small groups. Reformers like Calvin and Luther accepted infant baptism. Even today, the majority of Christian denominations practice infant baptism, with varying theological underpinnings.

Doesn't infant baptism violate the child's will and ability to ascent when he is able to decide?

This question only makes sense in a true “once saved, always saved” theology. That is, if infant baptism is valid, they are going to heaven whether they like it or not, whether they lived as an atheist or believer. Yeah, I'm sure they're going to hate you for that.

But in most theologies, both traditional and Protestant, there is usually an out. Whether free will allows saved people to “backslide” or a modified “once saved, always saved” allows for apparent backsliders to have never been saved in the first place—having been outwardly “saved” at some point doesn't automatically translate into final salvation on the Last Day.

No baptism is going to force someone who decides against it, to live as a Christian and make it to heaven.

But doesn't the child need to accept the faith for themselves?

Yes, they do.

In Orthodoxy, an infant or small child doesn't do confession because they don't have the intellectual ability to recognize sin, repent, and seek to live differently.

When a child does get to that intellectual point, they have their first confession. They confess their sins and receive forgiveness. In so doing, they are trusting in Jesus' mercy and redemption, accepting the Faith for themselves. This is why in some Orthodox circles, a child's first confession is called a “second baptism.”

Infant baptism doesn't preempt the child accepting Christ for themselves when they are ready. It does, however, open them to the benefits of being one with Christ as they grow up.

If parents are worried that baptism could unduly influence them to accept Christ once a teen, then they should also avoid putting that child in Sunday School, or bringing them to church services at all.

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:14b)

In Orthodoxy, baptism is one's entrance into the Church as a member and the ability to participate in the sacraments of the Church. Unlike Roman Catholics, Orthodox do not withhold the Eucharist from babies and children. But we are not able to give it to them until they've been joined to Christ and His Body in baptism, else it would do more harm than good.

To not baptize infants is to keep them away from Christ. It would be forbidding them to come to Christ, despite the Biblical imperative that we let them approach Him.

We've seen how little ones can believe and have faith more pure than adults, despite the lack of intellectual assent. We've shown how there is no Biblical justification to not baptize infants. We've acknowledged this longstanding practice going back to the second century, and to the apostles.

Upon what basis, then, does one forbid infants and children from coming to Christ via baptism?

I hope I've shown there isn't a biblical bases to deny them God's saving grace, simply because they are mentally unable to ask for it, and plenty of reason believe they have all the faith to be saved that you or I have. Even more so.

Infant baptism is Biblical.

Source:

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Infant%20Baptism

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

The Orthodox Church celebrates the Synaxis of John the Baptist and the translation of his right hand from Antioch to Constantinople. According to the Church’ tradition, John the Forerunner of our Lord, was buried in the city of Sebaste, Samaria. Saint Luke the Evangelist wanting to move St John’s whole body to Antioch, was able to obtain and translate only his right hand.

Historians Theodoret and Rufinus mention that the tomb of St. John the Baptist was desecrated in 362, during the Emperor Julian the Apostate reign, and a part of St. John relics burned. What remained intact from Saint’ body was taken to Jerusalem, then to Alexandria, and on May 27, 395 was placed in the church that bears saint John’ name.

The chronicle of John Skylitzes (a Byzantine historian of the eleventh century) states that the right hand of St. John the Baptist was moved from Antioch to Constantinople in 956 by Emperor Constantine the VII or Porphyrogenites (913-959) to be placed in one of the chapels of the Grand Palais, that is in the church of the Most Holy Theotokos of Peribleptos.

At the end of the twelve century, the Russian archbishop Anthony of Novgorod who went on a pilgrimage to Constantinople, mentions in his writings among other treasures of this church, the right hand of St. John the Baptist.

According to Du Cange in 1263, Othon of Ciconia attested the presence of a small piece from St. John’ right hand, in Citeaux Abbey, France. In 1261, Othon aceepted the refuge of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople Baldwin the II and in exchange for a gift, the emperor gave Othon this piece of relic of St John.

In a testimony of the Spanish ambassador Clavijo dated 1404, it is mentioned that the holy hand was still in the church of the Theotokos – Peribleptos in Constantinople. After the fall of Constantinople (in 1453), the hand of St. John the Baptist along with other Church’ treasures were seized by the Turks and kept in the imperial treasury.

In some Turkish fiscal archives from 1484 kept in Topkapi, it is noted that Sultan Bayezid the II (1481-1512) sent the hand of St. John to Hospitallers from Rhodes, (who occupied this island during the first quarter of the fourteenth century), in order to earn their favor. Later, the Hospitallers took the relics to the island of Malta, where they established their qurter.

In 1799, St. John’ hand was translated from Malta to Gatchina (Russia) when the Russian Emperor Paul the I (1796-1801) became the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, but also due to threats of war from Napoleon. This event is also mentioned in the Russian sinaxaryum, from October 12. From 1799, the relics stayed in the possetion of the Russian tsars, but in 1917, they were taken out of the country by Maria Feodorovna, fearing the anger of the Bolsheviks. Since 1917, the right hand of John the Baptist was preserved in Germany, then in Yugoslavia and presently is found in the Monastery Church of Cetinje from Montenegro.

In June 2006, during a two weeks period, the right hand of St. John the Baptist returned in procesion to Russia. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims venerated the holy relics in the cathedral dedicated to our Savior from Moscow. After Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod, the holy relics were brought for veneration to Yekaterinburg, Rostov, Minsk, Saint-Petersburg and Kiev(Ukraine). On July 16, the holy relics of St. John returned to Montenegro.

However, it seems that part of the right hand of St. John offered by Sultan Baizid the II to the Order of Hospitallers, returned to the Ottoman Turks in the late sixteenth century. This piece is currently preserved in Topkapi [Palace] museum, in Istanbul.

It is surprising to find Christian sacred relics in the possession of a sultan… Pehaps because in the Qur’an, St. John the Baptist is called Yahya, the profet that precedes Isa (Jesus).

The holy relics, as they are preserved today, are placed in a medieval metal ouches [case], modeled in the shape of an arm with realistic artistical accents. This ouches is undoubtedly the work of a Venetian workshop, as the case is inscripted with two silver marks: one representing the Venetian lion and the 2nd mark is a Maltese Cross – sixteenth century style, the era when the Order of Hospitallers became the Knights of Malta.

The finger gesture is a sign of blessing – commonly found in the Byzantine art, but also a gesture by which Saint John points at Christ as “the Lamb of God”. The ouche bares three inscriptions: one around the wrist noting: “the hand of John the Baptist”, a second on the index finger, referring to the sermon of St. John depicting Christ as the Messiah: “Behold, the Lamb of God”, and a third inscription located on the elbow which mentions the name of a certain monk: “A prayer of God’s servant Daniel.”

Small pieces from the right hand of St. John are also found in the Monastery of Dionysiou from Mount Athos, and the Coptic Monastery of Saint Macarius the Great from Sketis, Egypt.

Source: https://orthodoxword.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-right-hand-of-saint-john-the-baptist/

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

For we know that all creation groans and travails in pain until now. (Rom. 8:22)

"THE WAY OF salvation which leads to eternal life is narrow and hard (Matt. 7:14). It is appointed both by our Lord's holy example and by His holy teaching. The Lord foretold to His disciples and followers that in the world, that is, during their earthly life, they would have tribulation (John 16:33; 15:18; 16:2-3)....From this it is clear that sorrow and suffering are appointed by the Lord Himself for His true slaves and servants during their life on earth" (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Arena).

But why is this? Why are "sorrow and suffering," together with attendant ills, actually "appointed" for together with attendant ills, actually "appointed" for us? The teaching of the Holy Fathers shows how suffering is to be understood in the context of man's first-created state and his subsequent fall into sin.

In the beginning, there was no pain, no suffering, no illness or death. Man was a "stranger to sin, sorrows, cares, and difficult necessities" (St. Symeon the New Theologian, Homily 45).

If Adam and Eve had not transgressed, "they would in time have ascended into the most perfect glory and, being changed, would have drawn near to God...and the joy and rejoicing with which we then would have been filled by fellowship one with the other would, in truth, have been unutterable and beyond human thought" (Ibid.). Since there would have been no suffering, there would have been no illness, and consequently no need for the science of medicine.

"But when man had been deceived and beguiled by the wicked demon...God came to man as a physician comes to a sick man" (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 7, On the Statues). God descended to Eden in the cool of the day, and called out, Adam, where art thou? (Gen. 3:9). His first manifestation to man after the sin of disobedience was not as a vengeful Judge, "for God, when He finds a sinner, considers not how He may make him pay the penalty, but how He may amend him and make him better " (St. John Chrysos-tom, Ibid.).

Man, the creature, had succumbed to the temptation to be like unto God the Creator — something against all reason or possibility. This, the first sin, brought with it not "godhead," but pain, disease, and death — and not by "chance," but for a specific corrective reason: in order that man might know without doubt and for all time that he is not "as God."

Therefore the Heavenly Physician "made the body [of man] subject to much suffering and disease, so that man might learn from his very nature than he must never again entertain the thought that he could be like unto God (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 11, On the Statues). God said to Eve: in sorrow thou shah bring forth children (Gen. 3:16); and to Adam: Cursed is the earth in thy word; with labor and toil shah thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. In the sweat of thy brow shah thou eat bread until thou return to the earth (Gen. 3:17, 19).

It is extremely important to understand this at the outset, for if we do not grasp this truth about the nature of fallen man, nothing else the Holy Fathers teach on this subject will have any meaning. On the other hand, "if we can understand this, we will be able to learn about ourselves and we shall be able to know God and worship Him as Creator" (St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron). "Sin breeds evil, and evil breeds suffering," writes Professor Andreyev; "yet this very suffering, which originated with Adam and Eve, is a blessing for us all because it forces us to realize how harmful to our souls, and even to our bodies, our faithlessness to God is" (Orthodox Christian Apologetics).

Help support the ministry of St. Elisabeth Convent

Visit the Catalogue of St.Elisabeth Convent

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Excerpts from Sermons: "We came in this world to become similar to God"

Why Baptizing Infants Is Biblical?

The right hand of Saint John the Baptist

The Origin and Cause of Pain

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Excerpts from Sermons: "We came in this world to become similar to God"

Why Baptizing Infants Is Biblical?

The right hand of Saint John the Baptist

The Origin and Cause of Pain

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners