One-time repentance

[Richard Domina]

I've been reading the commandments from 'The Shepherd of Hermas' and am disturbed by what I read about repentance. In verse 31:7 it says that after baptism there is only one acceptable repentance for backsliding. That certainly leaves me out in the cold (to say the least!). I'm in the confessional so often that the kneeler has to be re-upholstered. Is this valid church doctrine in the Orthodox faith or have I read it wrong?

[Justin]

One position in the early Church was that we could not commit a mortal sin after Baptism (and this seems to have some support in the book of Hebrews and 1 John, among other places). The Church eventually decided otherwise, mostly based on the much clearer scriptures concerning repentance and our life in Christ. Those in the Church who supported the "no mortal sin after baptism" had to take off their rose-colored very early on. By the time of Constantine, as just one example, there had been multiple falling-aways during times of persecution, and everyone had been faced with questions like "Do we 'take back' those who have lapsed, leaving the Church; and if so, how should we do so?"

It's only personal opinion, but I'd submit that the teaching you ask about fell away not because it was wrong, but only because it was, practically speaking, unworkable. The teaching stated perhaps the goal of the life in Christ, but it forgot that allowances need to be made for human weakness. That doesn't mean it condones said weaknesses, but just that it will forgive them with proper repentance. Put shortly, if the mortal sin did not kill the patient's spiritual life utterly, the great physician is willing to nurse the person back to health.

[Richard McBride]

"...after baptism there is only one acceptable repentance for backsliding."

Initially, the belief was that if you failed in the one great reprieve, Babptism, you got only one more shot; then POW! (I think that is not quite the literal translation) The early Christians often set extremely high standards, and "The Sheherd" is one of the earliest writings to survive. The interpretation of the Patriarchs on this matter grew more lenient over time, so with it passed the tradition of waiting until death to be Baptised (out of fear of falling), as did Saint Constantine (causing non-believers to say that he really wan't a Christian).
Perhaps someone else knows more of this history on the evolution of Baptism.

richard mcb

[Justin]

Regarding baptisms at the end of life, one document that can be read is Saint Gregory the Theologian's 40th Oration (especially 40, 11-18): http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-52.htm#P5093_1680093

Oddly enough, I had just began re-reading this--one of my favorite patristic documents--today. God is good at timing things for our benefit http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[sinjin smithe]

If we only get one shot after baptism, then I am totally screwed.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif

[John Wilson]

I think St. John Chrysostom was another who waited a while before being baptised (this is long before he was made a bishop of course) so that he would have less time in which he could possibly fall into sin.

Don't quote me on this though as I can't remember where I learned this.

John.

[Richard Domina]

Thanks All for the response. I will keep digging for clarification and share what I find. Rick

[Richard Domina]

Tertullian has a writing at the ccel website on repentance and he seems to agree with the Shepherd of Hermas on the one strike and you're out. This is all before infant baptism- in fact infant baptism seems to be the last thing the fathers would allow. One would approach the Faith in full control of their reason and free will before making such a commitment. Things are much different now. Rick

[Justin]

I suggest after you read that you start on Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, especially those dealing with the Sermon on the Mount. One example:


"'Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.'

Seest thou surpassing mercy? After taking away so great evils, and after the unspeakable greatness of His gift, if men sin again, He counts them such as may be forgiven. For that this prayer belongs to believers, is taught us both by the laws of the church, and by the beginning of the prayer. For the uninitiated could not call God Father. If then the prayer belongs to believers, and they pray, entreating that sins may be forgiven them, it is clear that not even after the layer is the profit of repentance taken away. Since, had He not meant to signify this, He would not have made a law that we should so pray. Now He who both brings sins to remembrance, and bids us ask forgiveness, and teaches how we may obtain remission and so makes the way easy; it is perfectly clear that He introduced this rule of supplication, as knowing, and signifying, that it is possible even after the font to wash ourselves from our offenses; by reminding us of our sins, persuading us to be modest; by the command to forgive others, setting us free from all revengeful passion; while by promising in return for this to pardon us also, He holds out good hopes, and instructs us to have high views concerning the unspeakable mercy of God toward man." - John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on Matthew

[sinjin smithe]

I believe that the Anabaptist groups(Mennonites, Amish, Church of Brethren) practice adult baptism.

[Richard Domina]

St Clement of Alexandria in one of the 'fragments' said that the one or two strikes and you're out is a Novation(spelling) heresy. Tertullian has a very tyrannical tone to his writings and I discovered he became part of a Montanist heresy later in his life. Augustine also believes in ongoing repentance- two steps up,one step back,two up... Thanks, Rick

[George Hawkins]

We are constantly having to repent, as after-all only God is without sin. What is important is that after you have fallen is to trust in God, sincerely repent and pick yourself up again with God's help.

[Allen Jacobson]

Doesn't I John 1:8-9 answer this question? (To say nothing about Jesus's messages to the Churches in the first 3 chapters of Revelation - where ongoing repentance is at least implied).

abj

[Richard Leigh]

Good point, Allen. So, that must be one of the reasons the Revelation was cannonized and the Shepherd was not.

Richard L.

[Moses Anthony]

Ask yourself; If there's no ongoing/continual repentance, what's the point of the sacraments of Repentance & Confession and Communion. If there's no continual repentance then what is the purpose of the ascetic struggle or of monasticism? If there's no such thing as continual repentance, then what do we do with the teaching of deification, which if there's no such thing, as the Apostle Paul said in conjunction with the resurrection, "...we are of all men, most to be pitied."

the unworthy servant
Moses

[Fr Averky]

Dear Richard Domina,

I whole-heartedly agree with James Anthony: at this point, the answer is clear in and of itself in that most parish priests prompt their faithful to confess and receive communion as often as possible, When I came to my monastery nearly thirty years ago, both monastics and laypeople alike went to confession and communion only four times a year - during the four fasting seasons. When we Americans arrived - there 12 of us - we were already accustomed to go weekly. Some of the older monks went quietly to see Archbishop Averky, and he told them he would make an annouuncement concerning this the following Sunday. Sunday came, and after had given his sermon, he paused and then said that he was very pleased to see so many young men receiving communion so frequently, that it is the true practice of the Church. This is a good example (and I don't to belittle you in any way, Richard) of how careful we must be when reading certain spiritual writings, The early Fathers would not permit young monks and most certainly laypeople to read some of the books of the Philokalia, and it still holds. Look at some Protestants, who prefer "free interprtation of the Scriptures," from which have sprung any number of heresies. That is why, for that very precise reason, the Orthodox Church looks to the Fathers, who were as inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures, as were the Apostles and Prophets who wrote them. The Shepherd of Hermes is pious, but it is simply interesting from an historical perspective, not in any way a doctrinal document. Christ Himself said many times, "Let he who has ears to hear, let him Hear," for many people listened to what He had to say, but not all that many among the Jews "heard" it - that is compreehended it - and took it to heart. God bless!

Father A.

[Teo Kia Choong]

I am very interested in this whole argument that has been ongoing about the one-time repentance issue. The Bible talks a lot about repentance in the sense of "Metanoia"(a total change of mind) which is not exactly like a "half-past-six" or "half-baked" attitude of "I say sorry but I hold onto the old ways wanting to gain the best of both worlds". Yet at the same time, this whole sense of repentance in terms of conversion of the mind and heart and spirit from one as a child of darkness and sin to that of a child of God makes allowance for the fact that we are constantly perfected by the Holy Spirit, gradually conformed more and more to the image of Christ.

But if we are to look at what John Climacus wrote, we are all as Christians on the ladder of perfection striving more and more with each step, small or big, or regressing somewhat, to try to reach that final goal which is God's kingdom. That would indeed imply that repentance of our sins cannot just be a "one-out" affair of "I repent of my sins, and loh presto, I am forever sinless!", but has to take place daily as stated in Romans 12:1-2.

[Daniel Jeandet]

St Isaac the syrian say that there is no sin without forgiveness except the one that is without repentance. (and no gift without increase except that for which there is no thanksgiving)

St Gregory Palamas speaks of God considering our sins as unintentional as long as we continue to grieve over them. He says if we always grieve over our sins, it is as if they never happened.

On this subject, here are some more words of Saint Isaac that I got from a book and emailed to a mate who was despairing over his condition (as if i wasnt). These are pearls.

Mar Isaac,

From the book, The spiritual world of Isaac the Syrian. Words in bold are the saint’s.

God knew all persons before they became righteous or sinners, yet the fact they underwent change does not change his love. Even many blameworthy deeds are accepted by God with mercy, and are forgiven their authors, without any blame, by the omniscient God to whom all things are revealed before they happen, and who was aware of the constraints of our nature before he created us. For God, who is good and compassionate, is not in the habit of judging the infirmities of human nature or actions brought about by necessity, even though they be reprehensible.

As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison Gods use of justice cannot counterbalance his mercy. Like a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of his creatures.

Let the scale of mercy always be preponderant within you, until you perceive in yourself that mercy which God has for the world. Let this state become a mirror wherein we may see in ourselves that likeness and true image which naturally belong to the Divine essence. By these things and their like we are enlightened so as to be moved toward God with a limpid intellect. A harsh and merciless heart will never be purified. A merciful man is the physician of his own soul, for as with a violent wind he drives the darkness of passions out of his inner self.

Every good care of the intellect directed toward God and every meditation upon spiritual things is delimited by prayer, is called by the name of prayer and under its name is comprehended; whether you speak of various readings, or the cries of a mouth glorifying God, or sorrowing reflection on the Lord, or making bows with the body, or the alleluias of psalmody, or all the other things from which the teaching of genuine prayer ensues.

Reckon every prayer wherein the body does not toil and the heart is not afflicted to be a miscarriage, for this prayer has no soul. At the same time, as Isaac quotes Evagrius, “prayer is joy that sends up thanksgiving”. The paradoxical combination of affliction of the heart and the spiritual joy of thanksgiving becomes a source of tears, which accompany prayer, especially at its higher stages. The fullness of prayer is the gift of tears.

God is not one who requites evil, but he sets evil aright.

[Fr Averky]

Dear in Christ Richard,

Have you ever thought of taking a serious look at Orthodoxy-our view towards confession is quite different, for it is seen as an Image of Baptism, for by God's mercy, we experience having our sns wqashed away. Although our souls have been cleansed, we must struggle, and struggle every day to truly "repent" of our sin, which means to "stop."

Having once been a Roman Catholic seminarian, I always felt that for us, confession was a legality, in which we confessed our sins to the local "judge," that is, the priest - received our "fine," and were shriven.

Here in our seminary we were taught that we are forgiven only those sins we have confessed, and it is extremely dangerous to hide a serious sin, for it is lying to God, who knows our every action. Of course, there are those sins we might have forgotten, or committed unwillingly, and we should mention to the confessor that we ask God to forgive us if we did sin in these circumstances. Knowingly not confessing serious sins such as those of the flesh, adultery,unnatural sins, murder, abortion,extreme drunkeness or drug addiction, slander, and other like sins will certainly cause a person to lose his soul

In the end, we all have to rely upon God's mercy and tender love for us. When we come to Him with our hearts full of grief and repentance, He cleanses us with His grace, and welcomes us back into the house of His Father.

We know that the only sins which will never be forgiven are those committed against the Holy Spirit, such as heresy, unrightful schism, and causing dissension in the Church. Such people are publicly anathametized by the Church.

All personal sins are greivous to God; we have no "mortal" or "venial sins. We cannot decide for ourselves if we need to confess a sin or not; all sins are equally offensive to God, and must be confessed.

Yet, we must not approach confession with dread, but with love, hope, and contrition, throwing ourselves at the feet of the Lord, begging His mercy. And, as He did during His earthy service to His Father, He will reach down, lift us up, wipe away our tears, take away all of our sins, and send us of with the comforting words, "Go, your sins are forgiven."

May God bless you, Richard.

In Christ,

Fr. A.

[Jonathan Tallon]

Dear Richard,

You say:
"This is all before infant baptism- in fact infant baptism seems to be the last thing the fathers would allow."

May I respectfully suggest that infant baptism appears to have been known at least as early as Tertullian? Evidence from grave epitaphs suggest that infant baptism was known in the West from the second century. This evidence suggests that infant baptism may have decreased as normal practice (though not for emergency baptism) as time went on (as the fear of sin after baptism increased?).

Evidence from liturgy is unambiguous from Hippolytus (dated early third century) who says 'baptise the little ones first. All those who can speak for themselves shall do so. As for those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents or someone from their family shall speak for them'. This liturgy, originating from Rome, was apparently also used in Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt. The liturgy is dated from the early third century, but we can assume an underlying tradition.

Evidence from people delaying baptism suggests that this appears to have mainly occurred after AD 300. This would have been after the great debates about how to deal with the 'lapsed' after the fierce persecutions, and may be a general response delaying baptism to avoid serious sin after baptism. (It is after this time that we see much more frequently 'neophyte' on grave epitaphs of all ages).

Finally, the evidence from the Fathers themselves suggests infant baptism was long known. Irenaeus (2nd century) refers to infants and little ones being regenerated (the standard term for baptism) - see Adv. Haer. II.22.4. Irenaeus straddles both Western and Eastern traditions, and had an exceedingly high regard for tradition. It is inconceivable that he thought infant baptism a novelty.

Tertullian himself argues against infant baptism (except in case of necessity), but denies neither the validity nor the practice (and his argument suggests it was common practice). He only urges caution because of the great responsibility the godparents take on, and because post-baptismal sin is judged more harshly. It is possible that we see here the beginning of the move to delay baptism.

Origen (early third century) gives it as a tradition from the apostles that the church gives baptism to infants. Cyprian (about AD 253) replied on behalf of a council to an enquiry from a country bishop that the unanimous decision of the council was that infants should be baptised as quickly as possible.

Later Fathers can be found who support the practice of infant baptism (and there is the suggestion that Athanasius was himself baptised as an infant).

To conclude - the delay of baptism to avoid post-baptismal sin was the novelty, not infant baptism.

My great apologies if I have misunderstood your original point, and my apologies also as this is a diversion from the main thrust of the thread.

Yours in Christ,

Jonathan