[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=10674.msg131000#msg131000 date=1297981056] We are called to have the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ says these people have been justified. Therefore i think it's irelevant as to what "people" think. We are called to be more than just "people".
i really thing that TITL just means what i said before: the consequences of sins will not be changed. they will stay there forever.
[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=10674.msg131000#msg131000 date=1297981056] Therefore i think it's irelevant as to what "people" think. We are called to be more than just "people".
ALSo, and let me back up a little to what brought TITL to start this, it is generally "irrelevant" what people think....but don't people choose others (as friends and more specifically spouse) on what they think and know about them?
What consequences are you talking about? If someone didn't end up being pregnant, having an STD and remained having a good reputation cause the sin was hidden from the rest of the people...then there's really nothing left if the sinner was justified by God.
Yes of course you choose others on what you know about them. In this case you should know that they are virgins through repentance and that you have no right to judge them. Why do u keep being so obsessed with someone's history of sins? Look at the person who's in front of you NOW, look at their situation NOW.
I have already spoken about the seriousness of sexual sin, but this applies most particularly to the Orthodox Christian who falls under such sexual temptations. It was the case in the past that if an Orthodox Christian committed such a sin then he would be excluded from communion for a widely varying number of weeks or even years. I do believe there is a great difference between those sins a person commits as an Orthodox Christian and those which were committed before he/she received the new life of baptism and chrismation in which the old person was entirely and completely buried in the waters.
When a person is baptised they truly become a new person.
St Paul speaks to the Corinithians saying,
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Those who were washed are no longer fornicators. They have been washed.
These are those who have turned from a life without God to a new life in Christ. They are new people. They are no longer those people. These are not Orthodox Christians who have fallen into a life of sin, they are those non-Christians who have turned to God and been made new by God.
In the future the majority of the members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West WILL BE WESTERNERS, and many of them WILL BE CONVERTS TO CHRISTIANITY. A great proportion will have sexual experience, experience of some abuse of alcohol and all sorts of other sinful histories. But these will all be new people. At their baptism the old person will be no more. This will be a similar situation as to that found in all of the historical Orthodox countries when they were engaged in large scale evangelism. The majority of Christians in the early Egyptian Church history were from non-Christian and pagan backgrounds and many will have had sexual experiences as pagans.
I can find a great deal of patristic material about Orthodox Christians falling into sexual sin, but the Fathers do not seem concerned by the issue to which this thread has turned, which is the issue of dealing with Christians who have had sexual experience. Now I am entirely against discrimination towards those who have come from a non-Christian and non-Orthodox background. We deal with the consequences of their past lives as generously as we deal with any one else. But they are NEW PEOPLE.
The case of a fallen Orthodox Christian, or even worse, a habitually sexually sinful Orthodox Christian is different. There is great joy in the salvation of a non-Orthodox. The Scripture says,
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
and we know that those who have been forgiven much often show the greatest love towards God.
Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
But the Orthodox Christian who falls into such sin is threatened with the words,
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
And of course if an Orthodox Christian were under discipline for sexual sin then he/she would not be able to participate in any of the sacraments, including marriage.
It is my personal opinion that the Orthodox Christian who falls under such sin does face certain consequences within the community of the Church. These may include some degree of disqualification for ministry, and a lack of attractiveness in terms of marriage. There is a cultural, local and historical element to the degree in which such disqualification might take place. I mean that different Orthodox communities in different times and places have dealt with such sin with varying degrees of severity and varying consequences. But such effects have always been present for an Orthodox Christian who falls into serious sin.
But THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT to the situation of a person who becomes an Orthodox Christian. They have become a new person. Their sins are not the same as those of a person who is an Orthodox Christian already. I DO NOT believe that St Moses was a murderer. The man he was BEFORE was a murderer. St Moses was made anew in Christ.
It may well be the case that many or most Egyptians cannot imagine marrying someone who is not a virgin. But I do disagree with this view if it is intended to disqualify the increasingly large numbers of people in the West who will become Orthodox from non-Orthodox and non-Christian backgrounds. I do not entirely disagree with it in regard to those Orthodox Christians who fall into serious sin. That is different, for all of us.
But I do also agree with those who have drawn our attention to the fact that many of us, even those of us posting here, might well live lives of habitual sin, and of interior corruption, while appearing to be someone different on the outside. A Christian person who has made one mistake and repented most earnestly seems to me to be better than someone who has not sinned outwardly in such a way but is a white-washed sepulchre. Pride is as corrosive a sin as lust, even though it acts in a different way.
Of course this does not mean that a person should marry a Christian with a history of sexual sin, OR a Christian who is proud. But the case of a non-Christian who has become Orthodox and been baptised and made entirely new by Christ IS NOT THE SAME. It is the case that it would still be wise and needful to consider the maturity and spiritual standards of the prospective partner - but a convert is NOT to be considered in terms of sin before they became Christian. It is sensible to think in terms of habits and patterns of behaviour, but not sin.
The non-Christian who perhaps engaged in some sexual activity before becoming an Orthodox Christian is one situation. But the non-Christian who was sexually promiscuous before becoming an Orthodox Christian is another. These situations require wisdom and maturity. My opinion is that the mere fact of some sexual experience in a convert should not be any bar to marriage with a cradle Orthodox. IT IS NOT THE SAME as an Orthodox Christian falling into such sin. But habitual behaviours, whether sexual or not, require consideration since they also leave a mark in the psychology of those who allow them to develop which is not immediately and necessarily overcome by baptism. But I do not believe that the simple fact of not being a virgin on becoming an Orthodox Christian should be any disability.
The choice to marry or not is intensely personal. I do not think it is appropriate to even suggest that a person MUST marry someone. But I would hope that as more and more thousands of non-Christians and non-Orthodox become Orthodox they will be received as the early Church received all such. With generosity and realism.
[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=10674.msg131004#msg131004 date=1297982019] What consequences are you talking about? If someone didn't end up being pregnant, having an STD and remained having a good reputation cause the sin was hidden from the rest of the people...then there's really nothing left if the sinner was justified by God.
yes. but you used an important word: "hidden"....we are not talking about hidden things. what's hidden is only for the person to know and God after repentance.....actually not even God since He forgives and forgets. but i am talking about visible things.....stuff that people saw that can't be taken away. when i talk about consequences, i am speaking in general about every sin. not only adultery or fornication. if you agree with me, than we have nothing against Zoxaci or even TITL because they are talking about a person not being a virgin and other KNOW about it. she is saying that she wouldn't want that person, knowing that he is not a virgin, and he is saying that she must accept him, even though she knows about him not being a virgin, since he repented (which, in my belief, undermines our freewill).
Yes of course you choose others on what you know about them. In this case you should know that they are virgins through repentance and that you have no right to judge them. Why do u keep being so obsessed with someone's history of sins? Look at the person who's in front of you NOW, look at their situation NOW.
and there we go with "judging" again........let present a scenario that can maybe send my belief about judging and this issue we are dealing with: you have a guy who proposed to a girl. they get engaged, learn about each other, know each other, get comfortable and become ready to get married. they both don't judge each other as much. let me rephrase, they don't "question" what they do (if this is better for you than the word 'judging'). they get married; the real deal. sooner or later, the girl finds something wrong with the guy (anything you can think of-i don't want to specify). or the guy finds somthing wrong with the girl. both for the same reason: they didn't "judge" each other to truly know thyself. the end after that can get really messy....and all of that is because they didn't "judge" each other to know that this is the person i want to live with. or even the friend i want to have.
Mina, I don't generally disagree with your last post, but I do think that we can never know the other perfectly enough to not be surprised and/or disappointed. Indeed we do not even know ourselves.
What we must do is respond in the relationship as Orthodox Christians. In one sense our salvation does not depend on the other being perfect, but on us responding perfectly.
Of course marriages can become messy, distressing, frustrating, painful. But that is life. How we respond is what matters. When we expect that we have some right to a happy life then we are already on the wrong track.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10674.msg131013#msg131013 date=1297983596] Mina, I don't generally disagree with your last post, but I do think that we can never know the other perfectly enough to not be surprised and/or disappointed. Indeed we do not even know ourselves. exactly.....which just brings my belief to life.....that judging others is needed to a specific extant to not become "condemnation" (which is truly an act of God and not us). there will always be surprises about knowing the other person but we do our best to know them. God, according to His words, cannot accept a girl who committed suicide when she saw (or found out) that her husband is an adulterous. simple scenarios can easily be put....ones that may happen any time in our world today. it all depends on our choosing through our judgment.
What we must do is respond in the relationship as Orthodox Christians. In one sense our salvation does not depend on the other being perfect, but on us responding perfectly.
yes. but i also think that our response may depend a great deal on our knowledge. of that person.
Of course marriages can become messy, distressing, frustrating, painful. But that is life.
yeah....life that we can't do much about it. i like how you brought up that marriage is not a necessity. I agree 150%.....but if it is, the choice is ours in every aspect...do odsak agree?
Apart from the discussions that are going on here. It is really interesting how people think of anything which is "Egyptian". Every time I read the word "Egyptian" in this forum, I find that it is meant to describe something stupid or insane ! Lets not forget that our Pope is "Egyptain" and many saints and martyrs are also "Egyptian". Yes, believe it or not, Egyptian culture can also produce great people like you "non Egyptians". It is funny but true, "Egyptians" are cleaning the mess left after the demonstrations in Tahrir square ... lol. How about that ? Civilized, right ?
[quote author=TITL link=topic=10674.msg130943#msg130943 date=1297960004] I don't think you're using scripture the right way. You said "Do not call unclean what the Lord has made clean". Not wanting to marry (a person who is going to affect YOU, your kids, and ALL your futures after death) a bad influence is not calling something unclean!! A person who is not a virgin is a bad influence. WE DON'T TRULY KNOW IF THEY REPENTED OR NOT!
The CHURCH teaches us to avoid anything that MIGHT be harmful. If eating meat will cause my brother to sin, I shouldn't eat meat. If marrying this person MIGHT cost me my salvation, I shouldn't marry this person!
We should still treat people equally, but we don't to MARRY THEM!! There is a difference. A HUUUUUUUUGE difference!
I hope you see my point. I believe it is the Church's opinion.
Dear Fr. Peter,
I am using the verse "What God has made clean, do not call unclean" to indicate that WE CANNOT call anyone unclean whom God has made clean - we HAVE to accept them.
You do not have to marry that person!! But, if you HOLD IT AGAINST THEM the fact that they have had a sexual past, they didnt know God, and then were baptised, YOU KEEP THIS AGAINST THEM, YOU DO NOT FORGIVE THEM, because to you, they are still "UNCLEAN", then this is wrong.
Is this incorrect?
Would you agree with this? That after someone's baptism, they are no longer the same person. We cannot go off and say that despite this person's baptism's still means they are still people who are unclean due to their sexual pasts. If they have no medical scars from their sexual pasts, and are baptised, who are we to call them "unclean"??? They didn't even know God!!!
And the worst part is this: many are coming to Christ BECAUSE of their sexual pasts. A lot do not even realise that sex outside marriage is wrong, and its clicking to them that they need healing from that. If they find that they are still unaccepted in our Church and viewed as the same person, then as far as i can see, this amounts to hypocrisy.
Also - would you agree that a Coptic Christian girl who remained a virgin is EQUAL in the site of God, in ours, the EXACTLY same way as a prostitute who did not know God, who repented for her sins and was baptised?? They are EQUAL? BOTH ARE VIRGINS in the site of God.
And if they are virgins in the site of God, and we are partakers of the Divine Nature. We partake also in seeing them as Virgins - ESPECIALLY the ex-prostitute.. and part of that "partaking with God" is that we do not treat them according to their old sinful nature that was buried.
Is this wrong?
Is it right that a woman who was a virgin ALL her life is "worth more" or than a woman who has repented over her past?
CAN THIS BE CORRECT???
This isn't the religion I signed up to if it is.. This is Islamized Christianity.
With regard to TITL's contention that marrying a non-virgin could be hazardous because we can't know whether or not they've truly repented -- she's right that we can't know, but shouldn't we use their behavior and attitudes to make a sort of educated guess about how their past behavior may affect their lives (and our lives, if we were to marry them)? "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil." The behavior will show repentance, won't it?
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=10674.msg131043#msg131043 date=1298024751] With regard to TITL's contention that marrying a non-virgin could be hazardous because we can't know whether or not they've truly repented -- she's right that we can't know, but shouldn't we use their behavior and attitudes to make a sort of educated guess about how their past behavior may affect their lives (and our lives, if we were to marry them)? "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil." The behavior will show repentance, won't it?
I echo Fr. Peter's words: Choosing a partner is VERY PERSONAL. ITS TOTALLY YOUR CHOICE. The scope of these questions, nor my posts HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CHOICE.
They have to do with the sin that results in NOT viewing a person as "CLEAN" - after they have repented. That's all.
IT COULD APPLY TO ANYTHING. Again, I stress the statement: "what God has made clean, do not call common".
God is asking us NOT to persist in seeing someone as "UNCLEAN" when they have been baptised and washed of their sins. We cannot!!
You do not have to marry a person who had a sexual past and yet was made "clean" through baptism. NOT AT ALL! But you cannot reject them for not being a virgin AFTER they've been baptised, repented and confessed it. People just didn't know God, and lived a life accordingly.
Otherwise, you are just ultimately loving those who love you. What have you done differently? As much as you need to be accepted for your short-comings that you have repented for, they need the same. This is a call to mercy and to loving one another - HOW WE VIEW THEM and HOW WE TREAT THEM after their baptisms.
I totally understand the "unfairness" of how this may seem: how can a girl who has never had sex be equal to a girl who has had a sexually promisicuous lifestyle because she has not known God, she has repented for it, been baptised and confessed her past life. How can they be equal in God's sight? They are!!
Is that incorrect Fr. Peter??? Is God just giving us lip-service in the Bible, and yet in His Heart, he still holds our pasts against us??
Is it incorrect to think that God also expects us to be like Him in how HE treats a sinner who has repented and come back to Him?? i.e. that we should NO LONGER judge them according to their past lives.
Judging someone according to their past lives IS, in my opinion, REJECTING them because of their past lives AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN BAPTISED, and AFTER they have repented for it. If God has forgiven them, if their lives have changed - WHO AM I TO HOLD IT AGAINST THEM!!!??????
This is just a SMALL question for you to think about:
* Are you chaste or practicing chastity to GLORIFY GOD through living a pure and Holy life, or is it to marry someone who is also chaste??
If it is to glorify God, then you need also to Glorify Him through accepting those He has accepted also, and to see others as clean as He has cleansed them.
If you are chaste because you want to marry someone who has also been "chaste" - I'm not judging this, its your personal life, but I question what is the difference between this and Islam - for muslims also do this, and they would not marry someone who has had a past and repented over it. They wouldn't do that. But I felt as Chrsitians, we are different. I felt that we believe in a rebirth through Baptism and Repentance.
I don't have much time to contribute on this thread, but let me say that we must not descend to arguing, nor make these things a matter of proving ourselves and others right and wrong. Such a thing becomes helpful to no-one.
I also think that it is very important that we are clear about whom we are considering and what situation we are considering because I sense that many different things are being conflated.
Let me say briefly:
i. An Orthodox person is free to desire to marry a person with no sexual history or experience, bearing in mind that not having any experience is not the same as being chaste. There are many Christians from all groups and denominations who have not had sexual experience only because circumstances and fear conspired against them, and not at all because they are chaste. Yet such a person who might be obsessed with sexuality would be classed technically as a virgin.
ii. A person who become an Orthodox Christian DOES become a new person in Christ, but this does not mean that the consequences of their past life disappear. There are consequences from our behaviours and these are not all resolved by baptism, and require years of growth in Christ - though this is the same for the person born into an Orthodox family who also learns and experiences harmful and sinful behaviours.
iii. It would not be appropriate for a new Orthodox Christian who had been released from prison for embezzlement to be asked to become the Church Treasurer. This does not mean that he should be treated as a criminal, but it is pastorally necessary to be sensitive to the temptations a person might struggle with. Indeed such a person should be given opportunities in other forms of service to be able to show that they are faithful and trustworthy in service.
iv. When we consider ourselves relative to others then we should treat ALL Orthodox Christians the same, whatever their backgrounds. All that essentially matters is their life IN the Church. There are many parables that teach us that it is sinful to look down on others simply because of their past. (The Prodigal Son, The woman anoiting Jesus Christ with oil, The Parable of the people being employed at different hours).
It is easy for us to say, I have been working since the 3rd hour, why are you honoring this person who has wasted his life until the 10th hour? But the Lord condemns us for such an attitude.
We should share the joy of the angels when one sinner becomes an Orthodox Christian. We should treat all people with a non-Orthodox past as we should treat those with any other characteristics. We would not look down on a person in a wheelchair who was Orthodox. We would not allow them to be only their disability. We understand the disability and work around it, but they are a PERSON not the characteristics they bring with them. And so a person who has become a faithful Orthodox and has a non-Orthodox past is equally a PERSON, not their history. We take account of the history where it is appropriate - or rather our priests do, for most of us we have no right to pry into other's lives. But no one is defined by their mistakes or their history when they are made new in Christ.
v. The Orthodox Christian who has committed a public sin will have to bear the consequences in public to some extent. To have turned from sin to Christ is one thing, and it washes away the stain of the past. But to turn from Christ to sin is something else. There may be grave consequences that take a long time to resolve, or which can never be entirely resolved.
vi. The Orthodox Christian must seek personal holiness and purity at all times. To commit a sexual sin with another is grave because it has consequences for others, but we should not pretend that chastity is found in not having sex with someone. Our Fathers understood well that a person could be consumed by lust even if no-one else were nearby. To be filled with lust is to be unclean. To put that lust into practice is unclean. To put that lust into practice with someone else is not more sinful because it is a worse sin in itself - all sin is turning from God - but it is worse because it has consequences outside and beyond the sinner.
But all lust is sin, and simply not having sex with someone is not commendable as if we were pure. Lots of Christians don't have sex with someone but it is not because they are pure, it is because they do not have the opportunity or are afraid of the human consequences. It is not because they are seeking only God. Indeed they may be consumed by lust.
vii. I haven't time to go further, but St Ephrem in some of his hymns on Virginity - which is to be mist highly prized by all Orthodox Christians if it is a true inner virginity as well as an outward one, says..
Sins before baptism, by simple work [that is baptism] are able to be atoned, And if the imprint of scars sullies the Christian, baptism whitens and wipes them clean.
But sins after baptism, with double works are able to be overturned. When works and mercy have truly healed, the imprint of scars will call for a miracle.
This is my view, as I understand St Ephrem. The one who has sinned before baptism is to be forgiven all and treated as one made new, in all things. While the one who is a Christian and falls into sin must bear the consequences. The sexually active Christian is in a different and much more serious situation than the Christian who is chaste and was sexually active before baptism and faith.
I would be happier for a daughter to marry a faithful convert who had been sexually active before becoming Orthodox, without being promiscuous, than to marry an Orthodox Christian who had fallen into sexual activity and led Christian sisters into sin. But of course I would prefer that she marry a faithful man who had not been sexually active whether before or after conversion or birth into a Christian family.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10674.msg131048#msg131048 date=1298037078] I don't have much time to contribute on this thread, but let me say that we must not descend to arguing, nor make these things a matter of proving ourselves and others right and wrong. Such a thing becomes helpful to no-one.
Fr. Peter,
That's absolutely uncalled for as I've asked to be corrected IF i've said anything wrong (ME). It appears that my opinion is seen as totally unorthodox. You ought to correct which parts i've said are wrong. If they are not wrong, its OK.. you don't need to correct it.
Have I misquoted ANYTHING out of scripture? (Im asking for my own benefit, not to prove anyone right or wrong). - please don't assume what's in my heart or my mind.
Zoxasi, can you please stop assuming that any modest correction is always addressed at you. It makes it hard to want to respond when you view everything as a personal attack.
I am speaking entirely generally about this thread.
I must return to work and I don't think there is much more I can add to the thread.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10674.msg131050#msg131050 date=1298038293] Zoxasi, can you please stop assuming that any modest correction is always addressed at you. It makes it hard to want to respond when you view everything as a personal attack.
I am speaking entirely generally about this thread.
I must return to work and I don't think there is much more I can add to the thread.
But I haven't been corrected yet. lol
Can you please kindly correct me in an unmodest way the parts that I've said that are wrong, or where I've misquoted scriptures or used them in the incorrect context(s)??
Cheers (for my own personal benefit) - or just send me a PM.. whichever.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10674.msg131048#msg131048 date=1298037078] Sins before baptism, by simple work [that is baptism] are able to be atoned, And if the imprint of scars sullies the Christian, baptism whitens and wipes them clean.
But sins after baptism, with double works are able to be overturned. When works and mercy have truly healed, the imprint of scars will call for a miracle.
Hi Father. Thanks for your efforts in these questions. Can I just ask what is meant by "but sins after baptism, with double works"
Oh ok, I can see where the problem is now. Let me make it clear that never in my posts was I referring to people who converted to Orthodoxy. That didn't even cross my mind actually. I wrote my posts regarding Copts from birth. I wouldn't look at a convert who committed adultery the same as I would a Copt (from birth). My expectations from people born in Orthodoxy are much higher.
I think Father Peter was mainly addressing the people who converted to Orthodoxy. I agree that such sins before baptism are forgotten. I agree that one shouldn't hold them accountable for their previous lives. But I was never referring to the converts lol. Although after repentance we are made new again, I don't think we should ignore the consequences that proceed the sin (for people born in Orthodoxy). The consequence I'm referring to is not getting married to a righteous person. I'm not calling myself a righteous person... I'm not even referring to myself (because I know Zoxsasi will assume I am). I'm just speaking in general. If a girl in church lost her virginity, she shouldn't expect that after confession she can marry whomever she wants. I don't think it's wrong of people to deny others (born in Orthodoxy) whom aren't virgins (or smoke, drink, party..etc).
[quote author=TITL link=topic=10674.msg131057#msg131057 date=1298046164] I'm not calling myself a righteous person... I'm not even referring to myself (because I know Zoxsasi will assume I am). I'm just speaking in general.
Come on Titl,
I dont know what you are like. I'm just speaking generally also. I don't think anything.
However, i'm a bit lost in all this.
With all due respect to everyone on here.. but if anyone has a comment to make concerning any point - would you mind quoting the person and discussing your point of view? I'm so lost.
Out of curiosity, what's the difference if a Coptic Christian was far from the Church and repented for doing something wrong and a person who was never even baptised who lived in sin (and who was baptised afterwards) ?
Why is one different than the other if they have both ultimately repented?
[quote author=TITL link=topic=10674.msg131060#msg131060 date=1298047444] One has the Spirit of God to discern between right and wrong and the other doesn't? I don't think I understand your question.
If I understand correctly, you and Fr. Peter are saying that there is a difference between a Coptic Orthodox committing fornication and a non Orthodox who wasn't even baptised committing fornication. Right?
In what sense is there a difference for you? My understanding was that when both repented, they were made clean again? No?
You gave the example before about your friend who lived with her boyfriend as a married couple. An Orthodox person would look at that and say "it's sinful", whereas your friend saw it as being completely normal. For an Orthodox person to go and commit sin KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY, the consequence will be muuuch greater.
God will never accuse us for something we don't know is wrong. An Orthodox person will have a stricter judgement than someone who was never Orthodox.
The more we know, the more we are responsible for.
[quote author=TITL link=topic=10674.msg131063#msg131063 date=1298048951] You gave the example before about your friend who lived with her boyfriend as a married couple. An Orthodox person would look at that and say "it's sinful", whereas your friend saw it as being completely normal.
Wallahi, I have to admit, i found her very strange.. yeah.. i mean, she's an awfully nice person, but when I got to know her, and she said this, she was justifying this behaviour as if its normal.
I found that very strange behaviour from a practicing Christian.
For an Orthodox person to go and commit sin KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY, the consequence will be muuuch greater.
God will never accuse us for something we don't know is wrong. An Orthodox person will have a stricter judgement than someone who was never Orthodox.
The more we know, the more we are responsible for.
That's it? But what if we repent for it? What if something bad happens to us that pushes out of the Church and we end up living a prodigal life? Surely even we could repent and confess for it??
But ultimately, isn't both parties forgiven?? A Christian and a non Christian who have repented? Aren't their repentances accepted if it is done with complete sincerity??
Just as a second marriage is penitential and not joyful. It is still the sacrament of marriage but it has a different tone.
The converted Christian has an entirely new start. But he must preserve what he has been given. It is much harder, as St Ephrem says, to recover from a fall as a Christian. Not least because the sin of a Christian is always a turning from God and a turning to death and darkness. The one who is already dead and in the dark is not guilty of sinning in the same way.
When St Seraphim of Sarov felt that he had sinned in thought against another monk it took 1000 days of prayer before he felt that he had truly received forgiveness and had been restored to the relationship he had with God. This is not extreme, as if he should have known that a quick prayer and everything would be alright. It was a mark of his great sanctity that the slightest spiritual stain should be sensed as having ruined the whole garment.
We who consider our sins with such less gravity do not understand what is lost when we sin against God. For the one whose soul is much stained with daily sins, a few extra make little difference. But the soul which is almost pure white cannot bear the slightest mark to disfigure the bridal raiment which is being prepared for the Wedding of the Lamb.
Can ANYONE tell me what I said was Unorthodox and Dangerous?
Fr Peter's really busy - so its OK.. but generally speaking - what exactly was so Unorthodox and dangerous in my opinion?
I agree that Christianity isn't the easiest religion to follow. Its not. However it makes sense.
I mean, God wants us to accept the baptism of others. Its a fact. They are born again. Their sins have been washed away. You cannot hold someone's pasts against them, and call them "unclean".
OK.. fair enough, Fr. Peter went off on a tangent and made a distinction between a Coptic Christian who had a sexual past and a non Christian who had a sexual past who then became Coptic.
I was talking about someone who didn't even know God - but regardless, even if they did know God, and they sinned, they should be EVEN LESS judgemental towards someone who had a sexually active past and who had repented. Out of all people, they should be the most accepting of them.
That's my 2 cents... and I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS???
With much interest I have been reading this (14! pages long) thread :P And probably I'm talking on behalf of many when I say that Fr. Peter has been adding very valuable and benefical comments for which I would like to thank him for that.
As for the other posts, most of them have some general verity. I think at least we all agree that sinful activities one has performed in a previous state of his life, does NOT turn that person in a sinner for the rest of his life, right?
As for marriage, thats a whole different sitation. It is and will always stay a personal and subjective decision. For instance, if subject X cannot handle the past activities of subject Y, or keeps on being reminded of them, then it is not fair to accuse subject X of "judging" or "not forgiving" or "acting in an onorthodox way".
Despite that I'm still a young and unmarried woman I would like to answer the following question Hos erof had posted
1: someone who was chaste physically speaking, yet sinned in his/her mind and heart and was impure constantly and entered marriage like this. 2: someone who wasn't faithfull before marriage due to whatever circumstances (and weakness is something that can happen to ANYONE), yet repented, poured his/her heart out before abouna and God and lived with a more pure heart than 99% of the people in church, and in this state he/she entered a marriage.
Who would you prefer?
I would prefer none of them actually. I am that kind of person who would like to exclude both cases when selecting my future partner. And regarding the second situation, only those activities which has been performed since the other has entered Christianity will count for me.
Maybe people would disagree or I might disappoint some guys here :p but basically that is the way I would act. It is far from the perfect Christian way of thinking, but this is how girls really do act in real life.
On the other hand, when things are the other way around and someone "refuses" me, because if I had for instance lost my virginity before marriage, even if I have repented for that, for sure I wont think its fair and will be sad about it, but I am also mature enough to realize that this can be one of the consequenses which I should have thought of it before...
I'm praying to God to change this superficial but general view most women including me have and like +Marmar+ said:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
God Bless you
(Btw i now notice I only quoted both of the other Dutch posters :p)
1: someone who was chaste physically speaking, yet sinned in his/her mind and heart and was impure constantly and entered marriage like this. 2: someone who wasn't faithfull before marriage due to whatever circumstances (and weakness is something that can happen to ANYONE), yet repented, poured his/her heart out before abouna and God and lived with a more pure heart than 99% of the people in church, and in this state he/she entered a marriage.
Who would you prefer?
I would prefer none of them actually. I am that kind of person who would like to exclude both cases when selecting my future partner. And for this second situation, I will start regarding the past from the moment this person has entered the christian religion or got to know the christian way of living. ...
but the second person repented, i dont get it......you do know what repentance is right
[quote author=marian6 link=topic=10674.msg131314#msg131314 date=1298325547] As for the other posts, most of them have some general verity, but in case of marriage it is and will always stay a personal choice. If one cannot bear the past actions of the other, or keeps on reminded of them, then we cannot accuse him/her of "judging" or "not forgiving" or "acting in an onorthodox way".
Hi Marian,
Welcome to TASBEHA.org
I still don't know why anyone has bothered in telling me whatever I've said is wrong or right.. but its OK. I will assume its OK then.
Concerning marriage, I fail to see what someone's past has to do with you anyway - you were not married to them, nor did you know them. But regardless, if they've confessed God has forgiven it.
Now, you mention an interesting point: "If you cannot handle that past"
You are suggesting that if they cannot handle it, then its not judging.
I think its OK to actually judge before marriage. You don't have to condemn anyone.. you just have to judge if the person is suitable for you.
You're not living with the person's past - are you? You're married to them in the present.
Its still a valid point.
What if you cannot handle that past??
Fair enough - maybe that girl I met who insisted she wanted to marry a virgin only insisted on it, because she could not take a man who had sex outside of marriage?? Maybe that would have been unbearable for her?
But what I'm thinking is this:
How on earth do you apply "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?" in such a situation? or.. how would you apply "What God has made clean, do not call common?" - how does that apply? javascript:void(0); So, someone who didnt know God is baptised, and their sinful past has been cleaned. What is it to you? God has cleansed them. When you say "I might not be able to bear their past" - surely you are not seeing their new nature? No? Am I wrong??
Im NOT saying you HAVE TO MARRY THEM.You dont have to marry ANYONE (!!). Its a personal choice. But IF you reject someone ONLY because of their pasts, where they were not Christian, and did not know God, and have now been baptised into the Church, then isn't that like denying what Christ has made clean?
Im just thinking aloud - but isn't it like saying that you do not accept the person's baptism, nor the work of the Holy Spirit in the person in making them new? Im lost with this.
If anyone here disagrees, could you just say what u want without being harsh?
Looking at it from the point of view of someone who is apparently unsuitable for marriage with the young ladies of Tasbeha (but isn't yet Orthodox anyway, so that's the least of my worries! :)), I must say in all honesty that my first reaction to the "I can't handle the past" stance (which is totally understandable) is two-fold:
(1) Anything that you can't handle is doubly hard for the person it has most affected (not you, but the sinner you're looking at);
and
(2) Given point (1), your rejection means nothing in light of God's acceptance of the sinner's repentance. That is the ONLY thing that makes (1) endurable for anyone.
In other words, let's not lose sight of what is really important in the situation: God's forgiveness and God's providence. Even if everyone rejects you, God doesn't. Even if you can't take a person's past, God does. So one relationship might not work out (or even start) due to your own or your potential partner's issues. That doesn't matter. Learn what you can from the experiences you've been through and move on. There's no need to argue about what God has already dealt with, through baptism, through confession, and through BEING GOD and seeing fit to use us, His beloved but woefully sinful people, to accomplish His will. He fulfills His purpose for each of us, and if that purpose includes being married, that's what He'll make happen.
Think about it: Young ladies, would you marry a philanderer like David? Or a deceiver like Jacob? Young men, would you marry a woman like Rahab (of the book of Joshua), described as she was like a "harlot"? No matter how you answer these questions, God used each of these at times terribly immoral people for His good. Your very reasonable rejection of Jacob or Rahab based on disgraceful past behavior certainly didn't stop the LORD for blessing them, so, really...what else matters? "If God is for us, who can be against us", right?
Comments
We are called to have the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ says these people have been justified.
Therefore i think it's irelevant as to what "people" think. We are called to be more than just "people".
i really thing that TITL just means what i said before: the consequences of sins will not be changed. they will stay there forever.
Therefore i think it's irelevant as to what "people" think. We are called to be more than just "people".
ALSo, and let me back up a little to what brought TITL to start this, it is generally "irrelevant" what people think....but don't people choose others (as friends and more specifically spouse) on what they think and know about them?
If someone didn't end up being pregnant, having an STD and remained having a good reputation cause the sin was hidden from the rest of the people...then there's really nothing left if the sinner was justified by God.
Yes of course you choose others on what you know about them. In this case you should know that they are virgins through repentance and that you have no right to judge them. Why do u keep being so obsessed with someone's history of sins? Look at the person who's in front of you NOW, look at their situation NOW.
When a person is baptised they truly become a new person.
St Paul speaks to the Corinithians saying,
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Those who were washed are no longer fornicators. They have been washed.
These are those who have turned from a life without God to a new life in Christ. They are new people. They are no longer those people. These are not Orthodox Christians who have fallen into a life of sin, they are those non-Christians who have turned to God and been made new by God.
In the future the majority of the members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the West WILL BE WESTERNERS, and many of them WILL BE CONVERTS TO CHRISTIANITY. A great proportion will have sexual experience, experience of some abuse of alcohol and all sorts of other sinful histories. But these will all be new people. At their baptism the old person will be no more. This will be a similar situation as to that found in all of the historical Orthodox countries when they were engaged in large scale evangelism. The majority of Christians in the early Egyptian Church history were from non-Christian and pagan backgrounds and many will have had sexual experiences as pagans.
I can find a great deal of patristic material about Orthodox Christians falling into sexual sin, but the Fathers do not seem concerned by the issue to which this thread has turned, which is the issue of dealing with Christians who have had sexual experience. Now I am entirely against discrimination towards those who have come from a non-Christian and non-Orthodox background. We deal with the consequences of their past lives as generously as we deal with any one else. But they are NEW PEOPLE.
The case of a fallen Orthodox Christian, or even worse, a habitually sexually sinful Orthodox Christian is different. There is great joy in the salvation of a non-Orthodox. The Scripture says,
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
and we know that those who have been forgiven much often show the greatest love towards God.
Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
But the Orthodox Christian who falls into such sin is threatened with the words,
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
And of course if an Orthodox Christian were under discipline for sexual sin then he/she would not be able to participate in any of the sacraments, including marriage.
It is my personal opinion that the Orthodox Christian who falls under such sin does face certain consequences within the community of the Church. These may include some degree of disqualification for ministry, and a lack of attractiveness in terms of marriage. There is a cultural, local and historical element to the degree in which such disqualification might take place. I mean that different Orthodox communities in different times and places have dealt with such sin with varying degrees of severity and varying consequences. But such effects have always been present for an Orthodox Christian who falls into serious sin.
But THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT to the situation of a person who becomes an Orthodox Christian. They have become a new person. Their sins are not the same as those of a person who is an Orthodox Christian already. I DO NOT believe that St Moses was a murderer. The man he was BEFORE was a murderer. St Moses was made anew in Christ.
It may well be the case that many or most Egyptians cannot imagine marrying someone who is not a virgin. But I do disagree with this view if it is intended to disqualify the increasingly large numbers of people in the West who will become Orthodox from non-Orthodox and non-Christian backgrounds. I do not entirely disagree with it in regard to those Orthodox Christians who fall into serious sin. That is different, for all of us.
But I do also agree with those who have drawn our attention to the fact that many of us, even those of us posting here, might well live lives of habitual sin, and of interior corruption, while appearing to be someone different on the outside. A Christian person who has made one mistake and repented most earnestly seems to me to be better than someone who has not sinned outwardly in such a way but is a white-washed sepulchre. Pride is as corrosive a sin as lust, even though it acts in a different way.
Of course this does not mean that a person should marry a Christian with a history of sexual sin, OR a Christian who is proud. But the case of a non-Christian who has become Orthodox and been baptised and made entirely new by Christ IS NOT THE SAME. It is the case that it would still be wise and needful to consider the maturity and spiritual standards of the prospective partner - but a convert is NOT to be considered in terms of sin before they became Christian. It is sensible to think in terms of habits and patterns of behaviour, but not sin.
The non-Christian who perhaps engaged in some sexual activity before becoming an Orthodox Christian is one situation. But the non-Christian who was sexually promiscuous before becoming an Orthodox Christian is another. These situations require wisdom and maturity. My opinion is that the mere fact of some sexual experience in a convert should not be any bar to marriage with a cradle Orthodox. IT IS NOT THE SAME as an Orthodox Christian falling into such sin. But habitual behaviours, whether sexual or not, require consideration since they also leave a mark in the psychology of those who allow them to develop which is not immediately and necessarily overcome by baptism. But I do not believe that the simple fact of not being a virgin on becoming an Orthodox Christian should be any disability.
The choice to marry or not is intensely personal. I do not think it is appropriate to even suggest that a person MUST marry someone. But I would hope that as more and more thousands of non-Christians and non-Orthodox become Orthodox they will be received as the early Church received all such. With generosity and realism.
What consequences are you talking about?
If someone didn't end up being pregnant, having an STD and remained having a good reputation cause the sin was hidden from the rest of the people...then there's really nothing left if the sinner was justified by God.
yes. but you used an important word: "hidden"....we are not talking about hidden things. what's hidden is only for the person to know and God after repentance.....actually not even God since He forgives and forgets. but i am talking about visible things.....stuff that people saw that can't be taken away.
when i talk about consequences, i am speaking in general about every sin. not only adultery or fornication. if you agree with me, than we have nothing against Zoxaci or even TITL because they are talking about a person not being a virgin and other KNOW about it. she is saying that she wouldn't want that person, knowing that he is not a virgin, and he is saying that she must accept him, even though she knows about him not being a virgin, since he repented (which, in my belief, undermines our freewill). and there we go with "judging" again........let present a scenario that can maybe send my belief about judging and this issue we are dealing with:
you have a guy who proposed to a girl. they get engaged, learn about each other, know each other, get comfortable and become ready to get married. they both don't judge each other as much. let me rephrase, they don't "question" what they do (if this is better for you than the word 'judging'). they get married; the real deal. sooner or later, the girl finds something wrong with the guy (anything you can think of-i don't want to specify). or the guy finds somthing wrong with the girl. both for the same reason: they didn't "judge" each other to truly know thyself. the end after that can get really messy....and all of that is because they didn't "judge" each other to know that this is the person i want to live with. or even the friend i want to have.
What we must do is respond in the relationship as Orthodox Christians. In one sense our salvation does not depend on the other being perfect, but on us responding perfectly.
Of course marriages can become messy, distressing, frustrating, painful. But that is life. How we respond is what matters. When we expect that we have some right to a happy life then we are already on the wrong track.
Mina, I don't generally disagree with your last post, but I do think that we can never know the other perfectly enough to not be surprised and/or disappointed. Indeed we do not even know ourselves.
exactly.....which just brings my belief to life.....that judging others is needed to a specific extant to not become "condemnation" (which is truly an act of God and not us). there will always be surprises about knowing the other person but we do our best to know them. God, according to His words, cannot accept a girl who committed suicide when she saw (or found out) that her husband is an adulterous. simple scenarios can easily be put....ones that may happen any time in our world today. it all depends on our choosing through our judgment. yes. but i also think that our response may depend a great deal on our knowledge. of that person. yeah....life that we can't do much about it. i like how you brought up that marriage is not a necessity. I agree 150%.....but if it is, the choice is ours in every aspect...do odsak agree?
I don't think you're using scripture the right way. You said "Do not call unclean what the Lord has made clean". Not wanting to marry (a person who is going to affect YOU, your kids, and ALL your futures after death) a bad influence is not calling something unclean!! A person who is not a virgin is a bad influence. WE DON'T TRULY KNOW IF THEY REPENTED OR NOT!
The CHURCH teaches us to avoid anything that MIGHT be harmful. If eating meat will cause my brother to sin, I shouldn't eat meat. If marrying this person MIGHT cost me my salvation, I shouldn't marry this person!
We should still treat people equally, but we don't to MARRY THEM!! There is a difference. A HUUUUUUUUGE difference!
I hope you see my point. I believe it is the Church's opinion.
Dear Fr. Peter,
I am using the verse "What God has made clean, do not call unclean" to indicate that WE CANNOT call anyone unclean whom God has made clean - we HAVE to accept them.
You do not have to marry that person!! But, if you HOLD IT AGAINST THEM the fact that they have had a sexual past, they didnt know God, and then were baptised, YOU KEEP THIS AGAINST THEM, YOU DO NOT FORGIVE THEM, because to you, they are still "UNCLEAN", then this is wrong.
Is this incorrect?
Would you agree with this? That after someone's baptism, they are no longer the same person. We cannot go off and say that despite this person's baptism's still means they are still people who are unclean due to their sexual pasts. If they have no medical scars from their sexual pasts, and are baptised, who are we to call them "unclean"??? They didn't even know God!!!
And the worst part is this: many are coming to Christ BECAUSE of their sexual pasts. A lot do not even realise that sex outside marriage is wrong, and its clicking to them that they need healing from that. If they find that they are still unaccepted in our Church and viewed as the same person, then as far as i can see, this amounts to hypocrisy.
Also - would you agree that a Coptic Christian girl who remained a virgin is EQUAL in the site of God, in ours, the EXACTLY same way as a prostitute who did not know God, who repented for her sins and was baptised?? They are EQUAL? BOTH ARE VIRGINS in the site of God.
And if they are virgins in the site of God, and we are partakers of the Divine Nature. We partake also in seeing them as Virgins - ESPECIALLY the ex-prostitute.. and part of that "partaking with God" is that we do not treat them according to their old sinful nature that was buried.
Is this wrong?
Is it right that a woman who was a virgin ALL her life is "worth more" or than a woman who has repented over her past?
CAN THIS BE CORRECT???
This isn't the religion I signed up to if it is.. This is Islamized Christianity.
With regard to TITL's contention that marrying a non-virgin could be hazardous because we can't know whether or not they've truly repented -- she's right that we can't know, but shouldn't we use their behavior and attitudes to make a sort of educated guess about how their past behavior may affect their lives (and our lives, if we were to marry them)? "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil." The behavior will show repentance, won't it?
I echo Fr. Peter's words: Choosing a partner is VERY PERSONAL. ITS TOTALLY YOUR CHOICE. The scope of these questions, nor my posts HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CHOICE.
They have to do with the sin that results in NOT viewing a person as "CLEAN" - after they have repented. That's all.
IT COULD APPLY TO ANYTHING. Again, I stress the statement: "what God has made clean, do not call common".
God is asking us NOT to persist in seeing someone as "UNCLEAN" when they have been baptised and washed of their sins. We cannot!!
You do not have to marry a person who had a sexual past and yet was made "clean" through baptism. NOT AT ALL! But you cannot reject them for not being a virgin AFTER they've been baptised, repented and confessed it. People just didn't know God, and lived a life accordingly.
Otherwise, you are just ultimately loving those who love you. What have you done differently? As much as you need to be accepted for your short-comings that you have repented for, they need the same. This is a call to mercy and to loving one another - HOW WE VIEW THEM and HOW WE TREAT THEM after their baptisms.
I totally understand the "unfairness" of how this may seem: how can a girl who has never had sex be equal to a girl who has had a sexually promisicuous lifestyle because she has not known God, she has repented for it, been baptised and confessed her past life. How can they be equal in God's sight? They are!!
Is that incorrect Fr. Peter??? Is God just giving us lip-service in the Bible, and yet in His Heart, he still holds our pasts against us??
Is it incorrect to think that God also expects us to be like Him in how HE treats a sinner who has repented and come back to Him?? i.e. that we should NO LONGER judge them according to their past lives.
Judging someone according to their past lives IS, in my opinion, REJECTING them because of their past lives AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN BAPTISED, and AFTER they have repented for it. If God has forgiven them, if their lives have changed - WHO AM I TO HOLD IT AGAINST THEM!!!??????
This is just a SMALL question for you to think about:
* Are you chaste or practicing chastity to GLORIFY GOD through living a pure and Holy life, or is it to marry someone who is also chaste??
If it is to glorify God, then you need also to Glorify Him through accepting those He has accepted also, and to see others as clean as He has cleansed them.
If you are chaste because you want to marry someone who has also been "chaste" - I'm not judging this, its your personal life, but I question what is the difference between this and Islam - for muslims also do this, and they would not marry someone who has had a past and repented over it. They wouldn't do that. But I felt as Chrsitians, we are different. I felt that we believe in a rebirth through Baptism and Repentance.
Am I wrong!???
I also think that it is very important that we are clear about whom we are considering and what situation we are considering because I sense that many different things are being conflated.
Let me say briefly:
i. An Orthodox person is free to desire to marry a person with no sexual history or experience, bearing in mind that not having any experience is not the same as being chaste. There are many Christians from all groups and denominations who have not had sexual experience only because circumstances and fear conspired against them, and not at all because they are chaste. Yet such a person who might be obsessed with sexuality would be classed technically as a virgin.
ii. A person who become an Orthodox Christian DOES become a new person in Christ, but this does not mean that the consequences of their past life disappear. There are consequences from our behaviours and these are not all resolved by baptism, and require years of growth in Christ - though this is the same for the person born into an Orthodox family who also learns and experiences harmful and sinful behaviours.
iii. It would not be appropriate for a new Orthodox Christian who had been released from prison for embezzlement to be asked to become the Church Treasurer. This does not mean that he should be treated as a criminal, but it is pastorally necessary to be sensitive to the temptations a person might struggle with. Indeed such a person should be given opportunities in other forms of service to be able to show that they are faithful and trustworthy in service.
iv. When we consider ourselves relative to others then we should treat ALL Orthodox Christians the same, whatever their backgrounds. All that essentially matters is their life IN the Church. There are many parables that teach us that it is sinful to look down on others simply because of their past. (The Prodigal Son, The woman anoiting Jesus Christ with oil, The Parable of the people being employed at different hours).
It is easy for us to say, I have been working since the 3rd hour, why are you honoring this person who has wasted his life until the 10th hour? But the Lord condemns us for such an attitude.
We should share the joy of the angels when one sinner becomes an Orthodox Christian. We should treat all people with a non-Orthodox past as we should treat those with any other characteristics. We would not look down on a person in a wheelchair who was Orthodox. We would not allow them to be only their disability. We understand the disability and work around it, but they are a PERSON not the characteristics they bring with them. And so a person who has become a faithful Orthodox and has a non-Orthodox past is equally a PERSON, not their history. We take account of the history where it is appropriate - or rather our priests do, for most of us we have no right to pry into other's lives. But no one is defined by their mistakes or their history when they are made new in Christ.
v. The Orthodox Christian who has committed a public sin will have to bear the consequences in public to some extent. To have turned from sin to Christ is one thing, and it washes away the stain of the past. But to turn from Christ to sin is something else. There may be grave consequences that take a long time to resolve, or which can never be entirely resolved.
vi. The Orthodox Christian must seek personal holiness and purity at all times. To commit a sexual sin with another is grave because it has consequences for others, but we should not pretend that chastity is found in not having sex with someone. Our Fathers understood well that a person could be consumed by lust even if no-one else were nearby. To be filled with lust is to be unclean. To put that lust into practice is unclean. To put that lust into practice with someone else is not more sinful because it is a worse sin in itself - all sin is turning from God - but it is worse because it has consequences outside and beyond the sinner.
But all lust is sin, and simply not having sex with someone is not commendable as if we were pure. Lots of Christians don't have sex with someone but it is not because they are pure, it is because they do not have the opportunity or are afraid of the human consequences. It is not because they are seeking only God. Indeed they may be consumed by lust.
vii. I haven't time to go further, but St Ephrem in some of his hymns on Virginity - which is to be mist highly prized by all Orthodox Christians if it is a true inner virginity as well as an outward one, says..
Sins before baptism,
by simple work [that is baptism] are able to be atoned,
And if the imprint of scars sullies the Christian,
baptism whitens and wipes them clean.
But sins after baptism,
with double works are able to be overturned.
When works and mercy have truly healed,
the imprint of scars will call for a miracle.
This is my view, as I understand St Ephrem. The one who has sinned before baptism is to be forgiven all and treated as one made new, in all things. While the one who is a Christian and falls into sin must bear the consequences. The sexually active Christian is in a different and much more serious situation than the Christian who is chaste and was sexually active before baptism and faith.
I would be happier for a daughter to marry a faithful convert who had been sexually active before becoming Orthodox, without being promiscuous, than to marry an Orthodox Christian who had fallen into sexual activity and led Christian sisters into sin. But of course I would prefer that she marry a faithful man who had not been sexually active whether before or after conversion or birth into a Christian family.
Father Peter
I don't have much time to contribute on this thread, but let me say that we must not descend to arguing, nor make these things a matter of proving ourselves and others right and wrong. Such a thing becomes helpful to no-one.
Fr. Peter,
That's absolutely uncalled for as I've asked to be corrected IF i've said anything wrong (ME). It appears that my opinion is seen as totally unorthodox. You ought to correct which parts i've said are wrong. If they are not wrong, its OK.. you don't need to correct it.
Have I misquoted ANYTHING out of scripture? (Im asking for my own benefit, not to prove anyone right or wrong). - please don't assume what's in my heart or my mind.
I am speaking entirely generally about this thread.
I must return to work and I don't think there is much more I can add to the thread.
Zoxasi, can you please stop assuming that any modest correction is always addressed at you. It makes it hard to want to respond when you view everything as a personal attack.
I am speaking entirely generally about this thread.
I must return to work and I don't think there is much more I can add to the thread.
But I haven't been corrected yet. lol
Can you please kindly correct me in an unmodest way the parts that I've said that are wrong, or where I've misquoted scriptures or used them in the incorrect context(s)??
Cheers (for my own personal benefit) - or just send me a PM.. whichever.
Sins before baptism,
by simple work [that is baptism] are able to be atoned,
And if the imprint of scars sullies the Christian,
baptism whitens and wipes them clean.
But sins after baptism,
with double works are able to be overturned.
When works and mercy have truly healed,
the imprint of scars will call for a miracle.
Hi Father.
Thanks for your efforts in these questions.
Can I just ask what is meant by "but sins after baptism, with double works"
What's meant by "double works?"
Thanks
I think Father Peter was mainly addressing the people who converted to Orthodoxy. I agree that such sins before baptism are forgotten. I agree that one shouldn't hold them accountable for their previous lives. But I was never referring to the converts lol. Although after repentance we are made new again, I don't think we should ignore the consequences that proceed the sin (for people born in Orthodoxy). The consequence I'm referring to is not getting married to a righteous person. I'm not calling myself a righteous person... I'm not even referring to myself (because I know Zoxsasi will assume I am). I'm just speaking in general. If a girl in church lost her virginity, she shouldn't expect that after confession she can marry whomever she wants. I don't think it's wrong of people to deny others (born in Orthodoxy) whom aren't virgins (or smoke, drink, party..etc).
I'm not calling myself a righteous person... I'm not even referring to myself (because I know Zoxsasi will assume I am). I'm just speaking in general.
Come on Titl,
I dont know what you are like. I'm just speaking generally also. I don't think anything.
However, i'm a bit lost in all this.
With all due respect to everyone on here.. but if anyone has a comment to make concerning any point - would you mind quoting the person and discussing your point of view? I'm so lost.
Out of curiosity, what's the difference if a Coptic Christian was far from the Church and repented for doing something wrong and a person who was never even baptised who lived in sin (and who was baptised afterwards) ?
Why is one different than the other if they have both ultimately repented?
One has the Spirit of God to discern between right and wrong and the other doesn't? I don't think I understand your question.
If I understand correctly, you and Fr. Peter are saying that there is a difference between a Coptic Orthodox committing fornication and a non Orthodox who wasn't even baptised committing fornication. Right?
In what sense is there a difference for you? My understanding was that when both repented, they were made clean again? No?
Thanks
God will never accuse us for something we don't know is wrong. An Orthodox person will have a stricter judgement than someone who was never Orthodox.
The more we know, the more we are responsible for.
You gave the example before about your friend who lived with her boyfriend as a married couple. An Orthodox person would look at that and say "it's sinful", whereas your friend saw it as being completely normal.
Wallahi, I have to admit, i found her very strange.. yeah.. i mean, she's an awfully nice person, but when I got
to know her, and she said this, she was justifying this behaviour as if its normal.
I found that very strange behaviour from a practicing Christian. That's it? But what if we repent for it? What if something bad happens to us that pushes out of the Church and we end up living a prodigal life? Surely even we could repent and confess for it??
But ultimately, isn't both parties forgiven?? A Christian and a non Christian who have repented? Aren't their repentances accepted if it is done with complete sincerity??
Yes, both are forgiven.
Just as a second marriage is penitential and not joyful. It is still the sacrament of marriage but it has a different tone.
The converted Christian has an entirely new start. But he must preserve what he has been given. It is much harder, as St Ephrem says, to recover from a fall as a Christian. Not least because the sin of a Christian is always a turning from God and a turning to death and darkness. The one who is already dead and in the dark is not guilty of sinning in the same way.
When St Seraphim of Sarov felt that he had sinned in thought against another monk it took 1000 days of prayer before he felt that he had truly received forgiveness and had been restored to the relationship he had with God. This is not extreme, as if he should have known that a quick prayer and everything would be alright. It was a mark of his great sanctity that the slightest spiritual stain should be sensed as having ruined the whole garment.
We who consider our sins with such less gravity do not understand what is lost when we sin against God. For the one whose soul is much stained with daily sins, a few extra make little difference. But the soul which is almost pure white cannot bear the slightest mark to disfigure the bridal raiment which is being prepared for the Wedding of the Lamb.
May we all have such a view of sin.
Fr Peter's really busy - so its OK.. but generally speaking - what exactly was so Unorthodox and dangerous in my opinion?
I agree that Christianity isn't the easiest religion to follow. Its not. However it makes sense.
I mean, God wants us to accept the baptism of others. Its a fact. They are born again. Their sins have been washed away. You cannot hold someone's pasts against them, and call them "unclean".
OK.. fair enough, Fr. Peter went off on a tangent and made a distinction between a Coptic Christian who had a sexual past and a non Christian who had a sexual past who then became Coptic.
I was talking about someone who didn't even know God - but regardless, even if they did know God, and they sinned, they should be EVEN LESS judgemental towards someone who had a sexually active past and who had repented. Out of all people, they should be the most accepting of them.
That's my 2 cents... and I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS???
With much interest I have been reading this (14! pages long) thread :P And probably I'm talking on behalf of many when I say that Fr. Peter has been adding very valuable and benefical comments for which I would like to thank him for that.
As for the other posts, most of them have some general verity. I think at least we all agree that sinful activities one has performed in a previous state of his life, does NOT turn that person in a sinner for the rest of his life, right?
As for marriage, thats a whole different sitation. It is and will always stay a personal and subjective decision. For instance, if subject X cannot handle the past activities of subject Y, or keeps on being reminded of them, then it is not fair to accuse subject X of "judging" or "not forgiving" or "acting in an onorthodox way".
Despite that I'm still a young and unmarried woman I would like to answer the following question Hos erof had posted I would prefer none of them actually. I am that kind of person who would like to exclude both cases when selecting my future partner. And regarding the second situation, only those activities which has been performed since the other has entered Christianity will count for me.
Maybe people would disagree or I might disappoint some guys here :p but basically that is the way I would act. It is far from the perfect Christian way of thinking, but this is how girls really do act in real life.
On the other hand, when things are the other way around and someone "refuses" me, because if I had for instance lost my virginity before marriage, even if I have repented for that, for sure I wont think its fair and will be sad about it, but I am also mature enough to realize that this can be one of the consequenses which I should have thought of it before...
I'm praying to God to change this superficial but general view most women including me have and like +Marmar+ said: God Bless you
(Btw i now notice I only quoted both of the other Dutch posters :p)
...
but the second person repented, i dont get it......you do know what repentance is right
As for the other posts, most of them have some general verity, but in case of marriage it is and will always stay a personal choice. If one cannot bear the past actions of the other, or keeps on reminded of them, then we cannot accuse him/her of "judging" or "not forgiving" or "acting in an onorthodox way".
Hi Marian,
Welcome to TASBEHA.org
I still don't know why anyone has bothered in telling me whatever I've said is wrong or right.. but its OK. I will assume its OK then.
Concerning marriage, I fail to see what someone's past has to do with you anyway - you were not married to them, nor did you know them. But regardless, if they've confessed God has forgiven it.
Now, you mention an interesting point: "If you cannot handle that past"
You are suggesting that if they cannot handle it, then its not judging.
I think its OK to actually judge before marriage. You don't have to condemn anyone.. you just have to judge if the person is suitable for you.
You're not living with the person's past - are you? You're married to them in the present.
Its still a valid point.
What if you cannot handle that past??
Fair enough - maybe that girl I met who insisted she wanted to marry a virgin only insisted on it, because she could not take a man who had sex outside of marriage?? Maybe that would have been unbearable for her?
But what I'm thinking is this:
How on earth do you apply "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?" in such a situation? or.. how would you apply "What God has made clean, do not call common?" - how does that apply?
javascript:void(0);
So, someone who didnt know God is baptised, and their sinful past has been cleaned. What is it to you? God has cleansed them. When you say "I might not be able to bear their past" - surely you are not seeing their new nature? No? Am I wrong??
Im NOT saying you HAVE TO MARRY THEM.You dont have to marry ANYONE (!!). Its a personal choice. But IF you reject someone ONLY because of their pasts, where they were not Christian, and did not know God, and have now been baptised into the Church, then isn't that like denying what Christ has made clean?
Im just thinking aloud - but isn't it like saying that you do not accept the person's baptism, nor the work of the Holy Spirit in the person in making them new? Im lost with this.
If anyone here disagrees, could you just say what u want without being harsh?
(1) Anything that you can't handle is doubly hard for the person it has most affected (not you, but the sinner you're looking at);
and
(2) Given point (1), your rejection means nothing in light of God's acceptance of the sinner's repentance. That is the ONLY thing that makes (1) endurable for anyone.
In other words, let's not lose sight of what is really important in the situation: God's forgiveness and God's providence. Even if everyone rejects you, God doesn't. Even if you can't take a person's past, God does. So one relationship might not work out (or even start) due to your own or your potential partner's issues. That doesn't matter. Learn what you can from the experiences you've been through and move on. There's no need to argue about what God has already dealt with, through baptism, through confession, and through BEING GOD and seeing fit to use us, His beloved but woefully sinful people, to accomplish His will. He fulfills His purpose for each of us, and if that purpose includes being married, that's what He'll make happen.
Think about it: Young ladies, would you marry a philanderer like David? Or a deceiver like Jacob? Young men, would you marry a woman like Rahab (of the book of Joshua), described as she was like a "harlot"? No matter how you answer these questions, God used each of these at times terribly immoral people for His good. Your very reasonable rejection of Jacob or Rahab based on disgraceful past behavior certainly didn't stop the LORD for blessing them, so, really...what else matters? "If God is for us, who can be against us", right?
Converts wouldn't be treated the same as Copts from birth.