Do Unbaptized Babies go to Hell? (Chrysostom, Augustine, and Original Sin)
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2022
- The article has Greek, Serbian, and Romanian.
In this paper, Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou, Ph.D. addresses this thorny subject that has troubled Christians for 1600 years.
PDF of the article: www.dropbox.com/s/v87gv8str50...
This is a topic that has troubled us personally; because it hasn't been put to rest by some people within the Orthodox world. Some people genuinely believe that unbaptized babies do not gain eternal life in Christ. The catalyst for making this audio recording of Fr. Panayiotis's article has been a particular "vision" allegedly seen by a modern Saint. The "vision" claims that aborted babies are in a place of eternal torment. We cannot fathom such an unjust God and hope people can use their discernment when reading online posts.
TRISAGION FILMS NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT
1. SUPPORT: If you enjoy our videos, please consider supporting our effort via PayPal or on Patreon.
PayPal at - www.paypal.com/us/fundraiser/...
Patreon at - / trisagionfilms .
2. SUBSCRIBE: To be notified about future videos:
www.youtube.com/@Trisagionfil...
3. CONNECT: Join the discussion on our other social media channels.
Facebook - / trisagionfilms
Instagram - / trisagionfilms
Twitter -- / trisagion_films
Website - www.trisagionfilms.com
4. CONNECT FOR MORE: Subscribe to any of our Channels:
FILMS & DOCUMENTARIES: www.youtube.com/@Trisagionfil...
TRISAGION FILMS JOURNEYS: www.youtube.com/@TrisagionJou...
LIVE STREAMING: www.youtube.com/@TrisagionLiv...
CHILDREN'S VIDEOS: www.youtube.com/@TrisagionFil...
PODCASTS & LECTURES: www.youtube.com/@TrisagionFil...
5. THANK YOU: TrisagionFilms is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization whose mission is to bring the Orthodox faith to all by presenting tangible theology through original videos and articles, all to the glory of God. We cover aspects of Orthodox worship and practice, pilgrimage, the lives of the saints, iconography and the sacred arts, and recordings of homilies, interviews, and special events.
I must say I am a little surprised by some of the things I am reading in the comments. This presentation by Trisagion Films and Fr. Panayiotis is right on the mark! But when the church indicates that some things are necessary, it doesn’t mean to dogmatize in a way that excludes other possibilities. For instance, catechumens are considered, if imperfectly, a part of the church, so much so that they are allowed Orthodox Christian burial even when not baptized if the Lord calls them home before that great day. St. Cyprian of Carthage reminds us that the Lord on the cross, when his side was pierced, gushed forth blood and water, meaning that baptism can have a non-water component to it, and in fact this is the case for those martyrs considered baptized in their blood when giving up their lives for Christ before baptism. Even those not aware that they are doing so, like the Holy Innocents, whom the church celebrates liturgically, are considered martyrs for Christ without baptism. Surely also there were pregnant women in Bethlehem at that time who qualified for Herod’s dictum against all those two years and younger who were murdered in their mother’s womb. And what about the children of Orthodox parents? Are we to think that a child who is miscarried goes to hell because of not being baptized? Certainly, the children of Christian parents, whose mothers are partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and therefore actually have the holy mysteries circulating in their systems, and the systems of the unborn children, are participants of the grace of our Lord! Or even the born children who might die before baptism-are they not a part of the church in a way also? After all, the churching of a child, which in the most ancient recensions is done before the baptism, has prayers for it asking that the child have the cross of the Lord signed upon its heart, has many prayers for the protection and blessing of the child, and even the prayer for its naming on the eighth day after birth. Are such hell-bound if they die before baptism? It is important to understand that any discussion regarding baptism must be within the context of the phronema of the church, as baptism, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church, is not an individual agent acting alone-it is of the church, given by the church, in the context of the Christian community, of which children, unbaptized and even unborn, are already a part. Children are not tainted with the guilt of Adam’s sin, as the west believes-they are inheritors of a condition of corruption and propensity to sin but cannot be considered those who have committed actual sins. The Theotokos would need a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception if she was indeed guilty of Adam’s sin, so there is a logical consistency in those that proclaim this doctrine based on their errant views of Ancestral sin. But even here, she was spared by a “singular favor of God”, which begs the question as to why he couldn’t grant that favor to everyone were he so inclined instead of letting the unbaptized children go to hell. Baptism does more than remit sins-it grants to power to grow in Christ and defeat the devil. St. John Chrysostom, who is, aside from the Mother of God, the most commemorated saint in the church, says definitively in his Baptismal Instructions, that children are innocent of actual sins, needing only the ability to cast aside the devastation of the ancestral curse of death and corruption (which was not punishment, but predictive), so are undoubtedly with the Lord when taken before baptism, the Lord who was quite open about the little children coming to him. Saying that baptism is necessary while still allowing for concessions from God for those not baptized is not a contradiction for those who understand the spirit and nature of the church, which deals with humanity in all its complexity and shades of gray. The things of God cannot be categorized and fit neatly into a box. Forgive my length.
Very well said father, feel free to comment more often ;)
I have a quick question. If the point of our life on earth is to obtain the heavenly kingdom and even though it seems contradictory wouldn’t it be better to fall asleep in the Lord as an infant and die without inherited sin? If not what are the benefits of a long life on earth? What should we take advantage of to better grow closer to God? Sorry I’m asking a month late, thanks for your time. Luke
@@lukagarwood I am not a theologian, just an Orthodox mother and grandmother. What I think is the purpose of a long life, is to use our God-given talents to improve the world we live in, to "love our neighbor as ourselves", to practice repentance, sincere confession and forgiveness, and to partake of the Holy Eucharist as often as possible.
I am not a theologian, if I misrepresent our faith, someone please let me know.
Thank you Fr Steven 🙏
@@lukagarwood Theosis.
I and my wife lost a baby through miscarriage. It was and is a great source of comfort that God takes these little ones to Himself. Though we have one daughter, I always consider that we have two children, and wonder what the other one is like.
God willing you will learn one day.
You do have two children. We bought a double marker when we had our baby son buried, and the grave for his brother is a memorial.
Name your children. They are human.
May Our Lord Give You Comfort❤❤❤
Many monasteries have a reserved area in their cemeteries for the new and pre-born, taken before the evils of the world could touch them.
I believe babies and children in general are saved in the Kingdom of God I also believe that children with disabilities will also inherit Gods kingdom. As a man with autism who is working hard to know and love my eternal God and savior Jesus Christ I know that Christ is a merciful good God
God bless you sir
@@shiningdiamond5046 just say what’s written
You are Made in Gods image. Never ever let anyone tell you different. God loves us all. We don’t deserve how great our God is. He is Love. Jesus Christ loves us. Imagine how tender hearted The Theotokos is. Jesus Christ has his mothers and Fathers heart. The Holy Spirit is the only way I could know this. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Forever and ever unto ages of ages. ☦️ Christ is Risen!
@@shiningdiamond5046 Nobody said otherwise Pharisee
@@shiningdiamond5046 You wanna talk about the Law? Worry about your own Salvation with Fear and Trembling. The life preserver 🛟 is thrown but you aren’t Saved until you are on the Ship 🚢.
You are so worried about the salvation of another when you should be worried about your own. ☦️
Many of the early Christians Weren’t baptized until the end of their Life. worry about losing the Grace of your own Baptism. It’s possible.
Death To the World 💀
A lot of people will be surprised whom Christ chooses to Save in the end. Some of us who are quite sure of our salvation and goodness and piety might be the ones left outside the gates weeping and grinding our teeth for our presumptuous thoughts… Lord have Mercy.
That's what I have ever thought.
I was on the verge of suicide and with a list of grievous sins I wanted to commit before it and I was healed through through our Lord's grace and my priest's prayers. A few days afterwards the holy icon I got from Saint Ephraim started streaming myrrh while I prayed. It hardly came without sacrifice and pain but I'd do it a million times again with a smile on my face. Trust in Providence and do your best, just don't ever let pain or anything else disparage you.
Say that again
may he have mercy on me, on that faithful day
This video also is another example of why I am proud to be an Orthodox Christian. Orthodoxy has logical, rational theology and without errors. This video highlights the veracity of the East.
Same here, proud Greek Orthodox Christian
As a protestant converting to orthodoxy, this warms my heart. My mum suffered 2 miscarriages, with me being the only one to survive. The final miscarriages were twins... But I'm glad to hear that my little brothers and sisters are in the arms of the Lord now. Perhaps i may be able to see them...
This was deeply encouraging and enlightening. I am a RC on the journey to Holy Orthodoxy. Thank you.
Sadly, this is also exactly what Calvinists believe. Many Puritan sects also believed this. I cannot imagine the crippling grief and inner agony of the heart endured by many of these people who lived during periods where child mortality was significantly high, especially for those in the British American colonies. Those poor, heartbroken mothers. If only they’d been consoled in life by the proper Orthodox teachings.
It was a Catholic idea, which continued in Protestantism. Or at least some sects of protestantism... Very sad regardless.
You have just have given me the peace I’ve been wanting since I joined Orthodoxy. I know my Grandmother and Grandfather had and do have just spirits. Thank you ☦️
Thank you! Many of us will find great comfort in knowing this. 🙏🏼❤🕯🕯🕯
God bless you Amen 🙏⛪🕯️
I've always wondered about this question, I'm always reminded of this everytime the topic of abortion is brought up. Godbless for answering my question☦
@Daniel Smith if they automatically lose heaven, the pro choice movement is blameless
Abortion being MURDER doesn’t hinge on baptism.
@Daniel Smith ????
Baptism is irrelevant to aborted babies. A prerequisite for baptism is to be born a first time. You cannot be born again if you were never born once. We only have apocryphal apocalypse mentioning that they are raised by caretaking angels and they will testify against their aborters on judgement day.
@Daniel Smith it is the mother and father there is in danger of not going to heaven when they abort the child.
For if we want to live in sin = we want hell
Do not be a slave of sin, but do the will of God!
@Daniel Smith It's about eternal unity with God in the hereafter. Would you prefer those who engaged in abortion be in hades for murder? This is one such reason why the pro-life movement is important. Also, letting the child choose God by letting him/her be born.
God is bigger than our understanding of Him. We cannot fathom how much His shed blood covers us-even those without time for baptism.
0:22 Mother had 5 Miscarriages. Mother was taught those children went to hell. Is this true?
1:16 This idea was propagated through the centuries by the Roman Catholic Church
1:42 Transmission of Sin, Sinning En Masse 3:05 Inherited Original Sin, Condemned To Hell, unless one be baptized.
3:46 St. John Chrysostom
Following Tradition of The Greek Fathers Before Him saw
• Adam started the problem
• We are condemned to this condition out of God’s Mercy and Providence
• We are only responsible and punished for the sins we ourselves commit willingly
5:07 Regarding Baptism
• Baptizing children brings much good,
• they don’t need to be cleansed of Adam’s Sins
• It is so they can receive 5:21
Sanctification, Justification, Sonship, Inheritance, Brotherhood With Christ, Dwelling of The Holy Spirit
6:12 Augustine Misunderstood or Ignored, out of his being convinced of the correctness of his own belief.
- this was to have a lasting affect on the Western Church
7:33 Cleansed Parents don’t pass down Sin
7:43
8:29 Doctrine Made Dogma of The Immaculate Conception of The Virgin Mary
*In Conclusion: To The Miscarriaged Woman*
9:18 God Is Just. Children are Innocent.
10:00 The Souls Of The Just & The Souls of Children are In The Hands of God
May You Find Peace and Comfort. Amen 🙏🏼
Before we make things more confusing, Jesus made it clear the neccesity of being born again (aka: water baptism).
John 3:1-8
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The book of acts records that entire households were baptized. My point is this…it is necessary for people to be baptized. However, God is not limited to the sacraments and can work outside baptism. Though, when a soul still has the stain of original sin, they cannot enter Heaven for nothing unclean will enter Heaven. Hell is reserved for the fallen angels that willfully disobeyed God as well as other human souls that rejected and disobeyed God. If the souls of the babies have the stain of original sin and didn’t have a chance to disobey God, they cannot enter Heaven. Where do those souls go if not Hell?
Think about what Jesus said about being born again and pray to the Holy Spirit for understanding.
@@Xmarquise yes but babies didn’t even get the chance to commit sin, so ofcource they’re going to heaven. It’s undebatable. Gods all merciful, if only fallen angels and the wicked go to hell. Then babies shall not.
@@christianh8999 Babies are tainted with original sin. This needs to be removed for them to live in a state of grace. This is where baptism is necessary to remove original sin. Unless you still disagree.
@@Xmarquise You didn't listen to the video I see.
@@Xmarquise That's not Orthodox teaching.
“How magnified were your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all.” - Psalm 103:24
“Your hands made me and formed me.” - Psalm 119:73.
St. John Chrysostom also says:
“Such was Job when he said, (Job 1:21) ‘The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away’. For we have all things from Christ. Both existence itself we have through Him, and life, and breath, and light, and air, and earth. […]For whether it be wealth that He takes, He has taken but His own; or honor, or glory, or the body, or the life itself: be it that He takes away your son, it is not your son that He has taken, but His own servant. For you formed him not, but He made him. Thou but ministered to his appearing; the whole was God’s own work”. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily X:5, 6 on First Corinthians)
St. Cyprian of Carthage also marvelously wondered:
“[…]what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?” and then appreciated that baptism is strengthening the soul already made by Him “But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker!” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58, 2 To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants.)
Thank you. This question has been on my mind for a long time
That Icon is amazing! I love it so much!
Thank you for your teaching!
Aka corruption
Hello and thank Christ our Lord and Savior for this theological synthesis! It is the first time i find on the internet such an accurate analysis and it coincides precisely with what my spiritual father said about the topic! Thank you for publishing
Thank you so much for this video❤❤❤ so well explained and with concrete evidence. The icon chosen is beautiful and the voice is very pleasant to listen to. And the story of the lady with five miscarriages makes you want to listen until the end. Thank you
I love you all. I was turning away. This was what God wanted for me to see and read. Thank you so very much .
In Ephesians about children obeying parents and the promise of living a long life, it greatly upset me. What about miscarriage and newborn dying? My Michelin Charles and Beau Chance will not live a long life. They never lived to obey me.
Scriptures do hurt people.
My deceased cousin was a physician also torn by Southern Baptist. He became an Orthodox. In fact, that was in our last conversation before he died.
Scripture only hurts people if people are left to their own devices to interpret it. Unfortunately, the protestant world(and the Latin West) is generally full of confusion. In Orthodoxy, we have an unmovable foundation
Still, get your babies baptized
Love this video and love Trisagion films for making it.
Jesus had to chastise the disciples for wanting to rain down fire on unbelievers. While biblically the disciples seem to have had precedents for what they wanted to do, Jesus told them they did not know what spirit they were functioning out of. (Luke 9:55) Sometimes it is easy to get caught up in the dispassionate, logical, intellectual argument of doctrine and neglect the deeper spirit behind that faith. If the "god" we intellectually create for ourselves would condemn to eternal conscious torment those innocents who do not have a chance to perform a ritual (a ritual, while important, is limited in physical time and space) then perhaps we need to reassess the idol we've created, because that god is certainly not the god of either justice or love. In all honesty, if even good Orthodox parents believed this in their hearts...that God would damn one of their children simply due to some accident, natural disaster, etc that prevented baptism....then NO parents would dare have children. Furthermore, that a "god" would create an infant-person knowing that that infant would never, due to parents, time, accidents, health, or physical location of birth, have the chance to be baptized and therefore end up in Hell sounds more like the god of the Calvinists, who chooses some for salvation and denies salvation to others. What the Church says is for those blessed enough to have access to the Church. It is, I"m sorry, a real symptom of our human prelest/ignorance/delusion to assume that everyone has the same opportunities, culture, knowledge of the faith, and other blessings that those from historically Orthodox countries enjoy. There is always the temptation to over-intellectualize and thereby heartlessly treat as non-persons those who, through the Providence of God who determines where all should be born- do not have access to these spiritual blessings. May Jesus, who suffered, died, and rose for us, and said for the children to come to Him, have mercy on our heartlessness.
Thank you for this Video, also thank you for Narrating this video, I love father’s teaching but sometimes his thick Greek accent always make me repeat the video many times 🙏🏼🙏🏼☦️
Very Good Video. Thankyou for Sharing.
God bless you all Amen 🙏⛪🕯️
Thank you for the understanding
Perfect to know the truth about God's love and his church.
Thank God Jesus Amen 🙏⛪🕯️
Excellent. Thank you.
We do not inherit the SIN itself, but the TENDENCY to go against God's will.
Glory to God.
Mulțumesc pentru traducere în limba română
Great video ty
This paper misunderstands Augustine. Augustine's concept of original sin does not derive from traducianism. Indeed, he leaves it explicitly open whether souls are immediately created by God or derived from their parents. Original sin is independent of the origin of the soul. Similarly, I do not see where Augustine claims babies need to be forgiven for Adam's sin when we are baptized (the question of whether the unbaptized are 'guilty' in some analogous sense for Adam's sin is not the same!). Augustine claims that infants are *affected by* the sin of Adam, bound by death, etc. - and this is identical to Chrysostom on the relevant points, since we baptize people and practice 'exorcisms' during the baptism because they are under the dominion of sin/Satan before they are baptized. And, more importantly, I think the author does not at all understand the issues of Pelagianism, which were condemned as heresy at ecumenical councils binding on both East and West. The fundamental issue is that we cannot will the good without God's grace and have inherited a condition where we need baptism in order to be saved. Call it 'death,' or whatever you like, but then the same applies to infants. If you think infants of Christian parents do not inherit anything of death from their parents or Adam, then why baptize them at all? There are distinct explanations as to why unbaptized infants might not be condemned to hell for original sin alone, but this author does not understand the important soteriological issues involved in Pelagianism, and instead constructs a strawman of Augustinian theology to knock down.
Augustine is a great saint but he was not perfect, and not everything he said was 100% correct. God is the perfect and absolute justice
I like to think that people (young, cognitively impaired etc) are covered by grace, but I also know that this is something I have to take on faith. I feel original sin is not my sin, but that the consequences of the free will from their choice is something which we live with
Ancestral SIN- its death we inherited and not the sins voluntary and involuntary-
Death was destroyed+
Gods mercy +
Let go of the old and begin a new man -
The old man” (Colossians 3:9) because when Jesus united with our nature [-ADAM the old one], He granted to us a new nature. Everyone who believes in Him and enters with Him into a covenant through baptism is granted a new birth and new life that is not defeated by death.
This new nature is called “The new Man” within us (Ephesians 4:24. Colossians 3:10)
Note that the womb is that of a babtisimal font +
Again God+ is great and Wisdom of His knowledge we yet do not understand +
If virtuous pagans are saved then babies too. God won't condemn someone who did not have access to the church, but tried his best at being a person like Christ.
Look at it this way, How could it be bad for 2 loving parents to dedicate their child to God? It's a beautiful thing.
It's not what we believe but what the collective of holy orthodox saints tell us.
Truely beautiful
Well done ✅
Thank you❤️
I love you man
Ok but how do you reconcile this with the scriptural passages about baptism? Would you phrase this as a sort baptism of desire?
Does anybody know what the name of the icon of Christ surrounded by children is? And where is it from? I think it's gorgeous. 😍
I think the icon is called the Holy Innocents.
Yes, it's gorgeous. But it's a sad one. The icon tells the story of those killed by Herod in his search for our Lord.
*Edit: the name is "Christ the Lover of the Innocents".
My brother health not well please prayer 🙏🙏
🙏
🕯
🙏
❤️
Lord help the brother of "The Alok 007", in Christ's name, amen.
The Lord is not obsessive. All Babies who die go straight to God. He loves them dearly.
Beautiful Exegesis to counter the false Eisogesis that has crept in to Church history ...Nicholas John Papadopoulos ,Auckland ,New Zealand
Hello Father, do you have any link or reference library to the quote of Sophia Sarah according to the last minute of this video? And also, which is the text of Saint John Chrysostom that he argues against original sin's Augustine understanding?
I'm looking for it
Roman Catholic Church never formally and officially taught that children who are not baptized go directly to hell as this video wants to imply. This is an open topic, by the way nowadays the most common mindset is that children who die without baptism go to limbo (which is also not a official statement) and not to hell.
What is the name of the icon in this video, please?
It is of the Holy Innocences who were slaughtered by Herod. Who were unbaptised babies.
As mentioned in the comments, can someone from Trisagion Films comment on the status of the Pan Orthodox Council Of Jerusalem in 1672?
The recent pan orthodox council made statements recognizing other confessions as churches. Does that mean the Orthodox Church now officially believes it isn't the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? No, of course not. This council made a mistake, and so did this other one from Jerusalem. by the 1600s, we had been infiltrated by western ideas; it was the beginning, at least.
@@Trisagionfilms thank you so much. I pray others understand this too 🙏
@@Trisagionfilms father bless! On what basis does a humble Orthodox Christian, who has not read all the fathers not can understand all the fine points of theology, determine you are right and several councils wrong or vice versa?
I am not a father, but father Panayiotis can always be reached. I can give you our email, so he can speak with you. One way is by listening to people like father Panayiotis, whose Ph.D. was on early Christian history and theology. His dissertation was on saint john Chrysostom, and he read all the early church fathers. So we use people like him to understand the core teachings of the Church.
@@Trisagionfilms What is that email? Is it on the website?
There are ways to reconcile Augustine and Chrysostom on this topic. If we don't we end up contradicting our own conciliar statements, which outweigh the private opinions of a scholar here or there.
Decree 16 of the Pan Orthodox Council of Jerusalem 1672: And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”
According to Bishop Ware in “The a Orthodox Church” councils have a hierarchy of fallibility. Pan orthodox councils and this one in particular, of a lower status than others.
Furthermore, the decree in this council was recognized to have a lot of Augustinian/scholastic language, they even used the word “transubstantiation”. The Russian Orthodox Church was known to have later re-worded the decree, although I haven’t looked that up.
Quite frankly, if we accept this council’s decree, then unbaptised babies go to hell. A sickening conclusion that this video proves to be against patristics.
If we’re supposed to check our brains at the door on this issue and just let this council have the final word, then what makes us different from Calvinists on the issue?
Consider also that the baptism passages in the New Testament had as their audience fully grown adults already chock full of sins.
Crete 2016 accepts Jerusalem 1672, for the content maker of this film and his jurisdiction, that council is authoritative.
What is more likely fallible, a pan-orthodox council accepted by many bishops itself quoting saints, or the inferences drawn in this video where at no point saint John Chrysostom is quoted denying what the council taught on this specific question.
This is why I said an attempt must be made to harmonize the saints on this issue, not to simply pick and choose who is fallible and wrong. That's how Protestants deal with doctrine.
I cannot speak for the Calvinists, but I presume they reject baptismal regeneration. Ironically, it seems that to not affirm this council puts you in the same shoes. Not coincidentally, the council was in fact directed against Calvinists specifically.
@@OrthodoxChristianTheology as mentioned by Trisagion Films in my question on the matter: the pan orthodox council made mistakes. It’s not a matter of likelihood. If you accept 1672, unbaptised babies are in hell. Period.
Yes the council was against Calvinism, and agreed with Roman Catholicism and Calvinism on this point. Let’s think in terms of ideas and not labels. Read Kallosots Ware “The Orthodox Church” , specifically on the authority of the councils. If I have time I’ll post the page numbers and paragraphs . The pan orthodox councils erred.
Did you watch the video? Chrysostom was quoted as denying original guilt. Original guilt is why one might believe unbaptised babies go to hell.
You can argue that they don’t attain theosis. I’ll still be skeptical on the matter. But at the very least the benefit of the doubt should go to a “lesser” state of blessedness rather than a “lesser” state of damnation.
No to reject the council does not put me on the same shoes, that’s a non sequitur. I’m not denying baptismal regeneration, I’m denying original guilt. The purpose of baptism was not only remission of sins b it also as Peter said, it’s the new circumcision.
Given the appalling infant mortality at the time of Chrysostom, it was impossible to baptise most infants. As I mentioned to another poster, you may as well believe in a defacto limited atonement
The council of 1672 was held to counter certain Calvinistic practices within the western Church. It used certain Latin terminologies and was not meant specifically for the rank and file of the Orthodox Church. It was not a council to correct errors arising in Orthodox but errors arising from protestant arguments against their Latin mother. The specific text in question may even have been a polemic against the Anabaptists.
@@shiningdiamond5046 - The decrees have never been considered true definitions of the faith (horos),nor have they ever been accepted as canons, nor are they styled as anathemas.
5:15 okay, little babies receive all those gifts through baptism, but what is the consequence of dying without those gifts before reaching the age of accountability?
What is the name of the icon displayed in the video?
It is of the Holy Innocences who were slaughtered by Herod. Who were unbaptised babies.
This is excellent! The Western Church needs to return to the Scriptural truths taught by the Fathers long ago. So many false doctrines stem from the concept of original guilt
I'd probably consider myself properly Augustinian, but have my spiritual grounding in the East, and I think perhaps Saint Augustine may be being misread here; especially with the allusion that he may have ignored Saint John Chryostom out of some malice or purposeful ignorance. As I am working my way through the saint's work, I see no inherent contradiction between an Orthodox understanding of Original Sin and his own (just as there's not an understanding of the filioque in his work on the Trinity).
So what to say to what the Lord said to Nicodemus in John3:3 and 3:5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Also psalm 51:5 “ sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
Notice the word, man!
Unborn, new born, aren't mature to be called man. They are children.
Of course unbaptised babies do not go to hell.
Didn't Adams sin make all humanity inclined towards sin? In Adam all die but in Christ all shall be made alive. I am from the west so this is a tough one.
Yes, however having the inclination to sin versus actually sinning because of that inclination are different.
Inclination to sin, but an unborn baby is not capable of making a decision to sin, and is therefore guiltless.
I appreciate the good desire to oppose the erroneous teaching of condemned unbaptized babies. However, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church promoted such a view is a falsehood. As for pagans who are above the age of reason the Catholic Church has always held three different forms of baptism with water being the norm. Baptism of desire has always been considered possible for those who by no fault of their own would have been baptized if they had the opportunity; or in other words are not people who refused water baptism out of malice. As for unbaptized infants the Catholic Church has always taught that no one can be condemned for something they did not do. It does teach that original sin might prevent the beatific vision with multiple theories (nothing dogmatic). The main theory of the past was limbo of the infants which was seen by most doctors of the Church as a natural paradise.
Please answer this concern of mine father:
St. Augustine’s concern with the original sin was motivated by the pelagian idea that man can be without sin, therefore a man becomes a sinner only after he commits the sin. This line of thought actually makes human beings saints and abolishes the need of repentance until one does indeed sin. For St. Augustine the concern was mostly to preserve the practice of repentance that is why I believe he came up with the idea that all are sinners. He needed a reason to combat Pelagius that our daily repentance is motivated by our original sin; in other words I must repent even if I have not committed any actual sin.
Now, I understand that according to Orthodoxy we have inherited from Adam death and corruption. But here I ask the following question and please answer it to me: Why should I repent for being mortal since it is not my fault and I am not guilty of my mortality?
If we are born of Adam, inheritors of death and corruption, but not guilt, for what reason should Man repent? And we go to the case of our Lady Theotokos or even St John the Baptist. According to Tradition St Mary the Mother of God had no personal sins, and St Siluan even says that she didn’t sin not even with a thought. Now, we know that the greater the saint, the more he feels like a sinner and the greater his repentance. And this feeling like a sinner is not false but true, because according to a canons from 419 council of Chartage, which basically says that when saints repent they do repent for sins, not as humility or playing theatre, but in truth their are sinners.
Now if saints truly are sinners and they truly repent, but in the same time they have no personal sins, like St Mary the Theotokos, why and for what are they repenting?
Or, if saints reached theosis and defeated the devil and became illumined and divinised, what sin do they still have?
We can say it’s their human condition and they repent for the human mortal and corrupted condition. But it’s not their fault they are mortals, it’s Adam’s. Why would being mortal generate repentance since they have no personal sins and are illumined and divinised?
For example if we don’t inherit Adam’s guilt, the Jesus Prayer changes from “Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner” to “Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a mortal”. Why would anyone repent for being mortal, why would anyone feel sorry and guilty in front of God because he was born mortal?
There is that saying the a man sins every seconds of the day and in every moment. What is this sin that no one can escape and is being committed even by the most holy of the saints even by The Most Holy Theotokos?
Now, I answered myself: no, it is not a sin like a deed, but a condition, a state of sin; but still, if it is a state or a condition, it has a manifestation which should be observable in order for one to repent, no some something abstract. One could say this manifestation of this sinful state are the thoughts which troubles us when we pray. But the saints have reached such a state in which they were no longer troubled by the enemy’s thoughts, they had complete peace and perpetual prayer in each moment of the day, even in sleep they prayed. And even in this state they still call themselves SINNERS, and in truth not acting. Why? What is this sin?
I don’t think Mary “repented” of anything. Saints aren’t perfect even after reaching Theosis, they maybe repent of sins they have committed in the past, and continually repent of it. As I barely know about these things I’m not gonna say much, tell me when you get an answer God bless you ❤
One of the major differences between the West and the East is what our problem is as humans. The West teaches we have a sin problem that leads to death. The East emphasizes that we have a Death problem and therefore we sin.
This entire post is about sin, but this begs the question. Infants do not sin. However, infants are subject to death and sometimes they die. This does not mean they are forever separated from God. The will of an infant is not yet formed. Their nous is not yet corrupt and bent to sinfulness. So when they behold God after death, what is separating them from Him? Nothing.
This isn't Pelagianism. Pelagius taught humans are innately good, and this goodness enables them to transform themselves. Nobody is saying that.
I don't think an infant is innately good or bad; this is a false dichotomy. They are innocent, and so there is no obstacle to heaven. Perhaps infants won't undergo theosis in the same way saints do, but they also do not merit punishment the way sinners do. But to assign innocent children to eternal torment because they didn't even have the opportunity to make a single choice in life is not something the Christ I know does.
One of the most often repeated phrases in our liturgy is "for he is a merciful God who loves mankind." Innocent infants incapable of sin are not sent to hell. Anyone who has lost a child knows this, and it's upsetting that so many have Western ideas of a weak God who is helplessly bound by some external idea of justice.
If you ever knew the right thing and failed to do it, you have sinned, but I am also interested in what the answer is to your question about saints like Mary or I think John the Baptist or any others who have managed with the grace of God to approach a level of theosis in this life that may (or may not?) be considered complete.
" For St. Augustine the concern was mostly to preserve the practice of repentance that is why I believe he came up with the idea that all are sinners. "
If he really did that, this is oppurtunism. You should support a position only if you consider it being true.
Does anyone know the name of the intro music?
this is the name "Μοιρολοι σολο λαουτο- Θ. Καραμπίνας" search that on youtube.
Dumitru Staniloae: If it is baptism that, through the union with Christ, does away with the substance of that original sin that separated us from God and was stamped upon our very nature, and if, apart from this union with Christ, there is no entry into the Kingdom of God, then it is clear that baptism is absolutely necessary for our salvation (John 3:3). It is also absolutely necessary for children, for they too, through their birth in the flesh, share in this same state of separation from God, and so they too must pass over from the condition of their bodily birth and their destiny to perdition into the condition of those born of water and the Spirit and, consequently, of the saved (John 3:5-6). Insofar as no one is clean of defilement even if his earthly life lasts only a single day (Job 14:4), children too clearly share in this stain, not through their own personal sin but through their birth. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Volume 5, p. 51)
If children who made no sin need baptism for salvation then all children/infants took away by God like king David’s son (2 Samuel 12:14-18), all the Egypt's firstborn (Exodus 11:4-5; 12:29) or even those died in their mother womb by no intention or even by intention like abortion are in hell, without any guilt (James 1:14-15) then there is predestination, that means we believe in a heresy of Augustine. But if God judge us only when we alone made sins then all children/infants are servant of God, because He made them, not us. 🙏
Can we not suppose that God will show the same economic grace to innocent unbaptised and unborn infants that He showed the guilty thief on the cross?
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 yeah I’d say it’s a safe bet.
They go to limbo
I thought fr dumitru would get more respect...
How is it even possible to consider that an all loving, just and compassionate God
would create a soul (ANY soul) with the foreknowledge of its eternal damnation?
Such thinking is the fruit of a calcified, dogmatic and fundamentally false understanding of the Truth.
Thank you for your beutiful video. What is obvious to Orthodox Christians in our Orthodox societies has been so often misunderstood in the proliferation of different beliefs outside the Orthodox Church. In God, which is how the Old Testament "Eden" is interpreted in Orthodoxy, we were made in the image of God. It is not just logical, it is a tautology. To paraphrase St Gregory of Nyssa, in God's image a human does not have a mouth or a stomach. In biological reality, from a human perspective, "after the Fall", we need to eat and we try to survive as individuals and in doing both we sin because our mortal nature makes us go against each other. The Christian Church teaches human fellowship ("to love thy neighbour"). Through baptism we become members of the Church and develop in the Church and try to live according to its teachings, or as the Father says, according to Christ. In this way we may be saved from our sins - hence one baptism for the remission of sins. The very Nicene Creed is understood differently in different denominations, which is just shocking. Baptism is not a magic formula.
Good stuff! I’m born and raised Catholic but I admit I think Augustine was a total nut guy 😜🤪.
So there is no emergency baptism ?
Yes but not because we fear for the baby's salvation. But just as a great blessing for the baby
Gee my Sunday school taught me wrong..
As far as I know, Augustine is also considered being a saint in the Orthodox Church. If he is a saint, doesn’t that mean that his teachings are considered being correct? What about the huge difference between his teachings and those of St. John Chrysostomos?
Just because a saint made some mistakes it doesn't mean they aren't a saint. Saints are not infallible. On the other hand, it is possible that in the East, they didn't realize the full extent of his teachings (and their damaging nature - it’s not totally his fault that people followed him without using discretion and checking with the other Fathers), and his canonization went through. A similar case is St. Gregory of Nyssa who had followed Origen’s Restoration of all things (Αποκατάστασις Πάντων). He was still declared a saint even though those teachings were condemned by an Ecumenical Council. (Fr. Panayiotis)
The Church decrees in the consensus as it expressed in synods, local and ecumenical (obviously, the latter will have the absolute authority on issues of doctrine) No single man (saint, bishop, Father) is exempt from error in judgment. Such is our fallen nature. But, in Synod, in unison with each other and with Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church collectively reveals (and it is revealed to her) the Truth.
So St Augustine was a heretic,because of his view?
Did he repent ?
We love our Saint Augustine father of western Christianity ✝️ same with Saint pope Gregory the great 6th century
He is a Saint accepted by both catholic and Orthodox Church both before and after the schism
Saint Augustine was not a heretic But he was rather superseded by corrected by Saint Chrysostom
Ancestral sin makes more sense than original sin
I am eastern catholic myself and I wish the Catholic Church adopted patriarch Chrystosom view on ancestral sin babies are not born with original guilt
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
Psalm 127:3
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
Ezekiel 18:20
Only the one who sins will die. A child won’t bear a parent’s guilt, and a parent won’t bear a child’s guilt. Those who do right will be declared innocent, and the wicked will be declared guilty.
Augustine and Pelagius
Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began inRomewhen the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.
Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.
So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.
Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic byRomeat the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell - views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!
St John Chrysostom
Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.[i] Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.
Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:
‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]
St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:
“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]
St John Cassian
The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian.St John opposed Augustine on four major points:
1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.
2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.
3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).
4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.
The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:
“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.
The Ancestral Sin and Baptism
Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.
The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.
Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms - of the forgiveness of Original Sin - especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will - or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it - though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.
No because while he had some conjecture on these things. He ultimately beleived in teh authority of the Church trumped his speculation which he admits was not dogmatic. Also his views tempered with age.
I believe that the non baptized children who were died they become like angels in the kingdom of God since they are not born of spirit yet. On the other hand, the ones who are baptized share the kingdom of God and are called sons of God because they are justified by the blood of Christ Jesus therefore they inherit everything what the lord has to all His believers.
This is the only difference
This is heresy!
No. It isn't.
If anyone would think that ( about hell and babies ) that is absolutely ridiculous and blatantly stupid. Hopefully nobody does believe that
Jesus said in John 3:5 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". There are only two states after life: Kingdom of God (heaven), and Hell. What do people do of this teaching? Thanks!
All true! You can tell the writer is Greek though, as he keeps saying "Greek fathers" despite the early church fathers not being Greek. Funny! Good writing though
Father Panayiotis is aware that the "Greek" Fathers were ethnically Roman. He uses the term Greek to indicate their language not ethnicity. He has also gotten used to writing "Greek fathers" instead of eastern fathers or Greek speaking(Roman) Fathers
@@TrisagionfilmsThank you for clarifying that❤
A lot of ppl get “offended” when some of us say Greek thinking that we want everyone to be Greek😂😂😂 I think those ppl WISH they were Greek🤭🤭 P.S: just joking😅😅😊
@@AthanasiaOrtholady "Give me _one word_ and I will tell you how its origin is Greek!" - Gus Portokalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 😂
So Augustine was a heretic?
No. A person can have a wrong opinion and not be a heretic.
@@Trisagionfilms I don’t believe he was wrong, Augustine is the only Church Father that goes into detail as to what original sin means. Add to that that the Church Fathers are in agreement that infant baptism is necessary for their salvation and it’s clear that the Catholic position is the orthodox position and that the Eastern Orthodox have it wrong
Might be morbid but, isn't it better to die then as a child and avoid the prospects of a sinful life???
Why cling to live this life and tarnish your soul and person when you can be in the hands of God straight away???
Long answer from orthodox website about the presumption of the Holy spirit: So, to those who are in danger from presumption, God says, “Do not be slow in turning to the Lord. Do not put it off any longer. For suddenly His anger will come and the time of vengeance will utterly destroy you.” And if you are in danger from presumption and are deluded by delays, things that are keeping you from going, he has made the day of your death uncertain. He says, “You do not know when your last day may come.” Why not use this day that God has given you to repent? In whatever day the wicked person shall be converted, God said, “I will forget all his iniquities.” And accordingly, for the sake of those who are in danger because of despair, he’s offered us a refuge of pardon. Do not presume to put off your repentance out of despair, but use this day that God has given you to repent. God is merciful and he loves us. But let’s not be presumptuous in our sins. He asks that we keep short accounts through confession and repentance. So as you go throughout this week, remember - wherever you are - not, just in this building, but when you’re saying your prayers at home, when you’re working at your desk, whether it’s work or whether it’s school, when you’re playing outside, when you’re driving in your car, when you’re lying in your bed, God is with you. And live like today is your last.
In the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost. God is One. Amen.
As a cradle Catholic I haven't heard this...... Our catechism doesn't teach these lies. Feel free to quote.
Read vatican 2
😂😂Maybe you’ve been lied to!!!!🎉🎉🎉
The only correct description of the final judgment after the book of Revelation is the vision of saint Niphon Bishop of constantina in short the unbaptized and righteous non-Christian will enter the heavenly rest
We don't know that. Only God does. Also, they wouldn't be considered righteous.
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 Then why does the Eastern Orthodox Church venerates Gamaliel the pharisee as a saint??
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 You don't believe in a just God but a God made in your image.
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104in the Old Testament, the Scriptures do refer to there being “righteous gentiles”.
@Non Posse Non Peccare there is an important detail they will not be able to witness the full glory of the kingdom of God and they will be in the outer courtyard but not in the eternal hell
Saying otherwise is a blasphemy to God justice and Love
Unfortunately these rubbish were propagated in the orthodox catechetical schools for children, during my grandmother's age. I remember how shocked I was when she told me that unbaptised babies are tortured by devil in hell. One hundred facepalms are not enough.🤯🤯🤯
I believe aborted babies are baptized in their own blood by God’s grace. I believe this is also the case for people martyred for Christ who are not Orthodox.
the Scripture clarifies all these points too... Paul says death passed upon all men who have all sinned (the Vulgate says _in whom_ all have sinned.. in quo is NOT the correct translation for εφ ο) all men did not sin in Adam....
God says DEATH "passed upon all men"? ... DEATH. (not guilt or sin).
why?? "by one man's sin DEATH entered into the world" and "death passed upon all men because all have sinned".... (Rm 5:12)
and when do people sin?? " for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his YOUTH (Gen 8:2) not birth
and WHEN do humans KNOW between GOOD and EVIL?? .... "the CHILD SHALL KNOW to refuse the evil, and choose the good". (Is 7:16)
... YOUTH is not BIRTH...CHILDREN (not babies) arrive at a point when they KNOW the difference between CHOOSING good and evil
OR else
children, if they were born sinners, could not be "of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16) [and infant baptism does NOT wash away sin bc "without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission" (Heb 9:22)]
and if sin is transmitted from Adam, Jesus is NOT the FLESH of David and would NOT be the Messiah of the Jews...
so Augustine created problems with many Scriptures...
because IF the GUILT of Adam's sin is imputed to ALL children of Adam, then there could be no incarnation, for EITHER:
Jesus could NOT have been born SINLESS Heb 4:15.
OR
Jesus could not have come in the FLESH of David (Acts 2:30, Rom 1:3) and that claim is literally anti-christ (1Jn4:3, 2Jn4:7)
but there are even more problems from Augustine's errors about copulation:
if sin is imputed because of the parents' act of copulation then it is NOT imputed from of Adam's sin... if we inherit sin from Adam, it doesn't matter how our parents conceived us....it can't be both
and
if sin is imputed by copulation then God was commanding them to SIN in Genesis 1:28...
Augustine was a gnostic who did not know the Bible like we can study it today, with the language tools and all the manuscripts and the Scriptures literally at our finger tips every moment of the day.... it is FOOLISH to cling to the teachings of these men of renown when the Scripture itself CLEARLY refutes the conclusions they came to....
We are all baptized in our mothers womb
No, we're not.
How about the whole 'Judeo-Christian' concepts of 'God', 'sin', 'spirit', 'Christ' and 'salvation' are irrelevant?
" 'Judeo-Christian' " LMAO
The orthodox view on sin is closer to judaism than the doctrines of american protestant cults
If you're in a religion where you even have to ask if an innocent baby is going to suffer eternal damnation because its parents didn't dip it in water you may want to rethink your life choices.
This isn't an issue for ordinary Orthodox Christians who learn theology from the ancient Church. But outside ideas have infiltrated, and some people, either because they don't know any better or because they are ideologically inclined towards the Latin west, believe and even promote such nonsense.
@@Trisagionfilms Thank you for the reply. Since the Bible was put together by people hundreds of years after the fact with, I'm sure, no small amount of hubris dictating the structure as well as ideas and theories by the church members themselves making their way into the teachings it is a nightmare to sort out what is "accurate" and why.
I'm agnostic myself but enjoy studying the religions of the world, particularly legends as often found in polytheistic religions and concepts outside of science such as the afterlife and paranormal entities. Enjoyed the video!
@@shiningdiamond5046 Born in a nature prone to sin, not born as personal sinners.