Realitybites said:
Mothra said:
For example, while communion is treated with seriousness in the New Testament, the responsibility given is for self-examination before God, not for receiving approval from a priest beforehand. Similarly, confession is certainly biblical, but Scripture teaches both confessing sins to one another and going directly to God for forgiveness; it never explicitly requires confession to a priest as a condition for receiving grace or participating in communion.
Orthodox confession is not a process in which you confess your sins to a priest who then personally grants you absolution from a treasury of merit the church possesses in exchange for your performance of certain works. It is a process in which the priest serves as an accountability partner as you confess your sins to God. During it, you and the priest stand before the altar together as you make your confession. God grants the absolution. The priest's role is as guide to the penitent in executing Jesus' commandment "Go and sin no more." Of course, Orthodox Christians are also encouraged to confess their sins directly to God in the absence of a priest or church if one is not available.
It is the difference between a gatekeeper and a patient going to his doctor, telling him symptoms and being told the diagnosis and treatment.
Given what 1st Corinthians says about communion and how it can cause sickness and death in those who receive it unworthily, treating it as a prescription medication is a good thing. In fact the church has always done this - the early church dismissed the unbaptized from the service before communion and before the 20th century most churches that taught some form of the real presence had closed communions for this reason.
Quote:
Likewise, while fasting and disciplined prayer are clearly encouraged in Scripture, the Bible does not mandate fixed, universal schedules or detailed systems for all believers. In fact, it warns against turning external rules about food or practices into binding spiritual requirements, noting that such regulations can appear wise but don't necessarily produce true spiritual transformation. See Colossians 2:20-23...My concern is that these practices can become treated as necessary structures through which grace is mediated or dispensed.
Let's go back to the very original fast commanded by God.
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16)
The proximate cause of the fall of man was our refusal to fast: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was [a]pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6)
That was a binding regulation was it not? As a self-professed Calvinist, I presume that you adhere to covenant theology and not dispensationalism (if I'm wrong about that, I'd really recommend reading this book by Dr. John Gerstner, forwarded by R.C. Sproul.). So you can't simply dismiss this as irrelevant to our time.
Fasting is still relevant to us today. In fact, it is part of all pagan religions - Rabbinic Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc. Sort of an ancestral memory of that original trauma passed down over time as the original monotheism devolved, I think.
It is something all Christians are called to engage in (Matthew 9:15). While it is not a practice that can justify us in the eyes of God, it is a practice through which God's grace is mediated and dispensed. Jesus did not need to be baptized, and yet he was. Jesus did not need to fast, and yet he did (40 days, the length of our Lenten fast today). Jesus carried His cross, we are to carry ours.
Which then brings up the question of how one should fast. Should I make this up as I go along? Should I fast from the same things on a set schedule? What should I fast from? Should I pick that myself? Can I substitute abstinance from other things (for example, watching football or time on Sicem365.com) for food? No. Our Creator knew of The Brain Gut Connection. After all, He made it. Fasting from food is fundamental to "go and sin no more."
The answer of the Orthodox church is from the Didache, an early Christian writing that was the Bible's contemporary and gave many instructions on living out the Christian faith: "Don't let your fasting coincide with those of the hypocrites.They fast on the 2nd [Monday] and 5th [Thursday] days of the week. So, you should fast on the 4th day [Wednesday] and the preparation [Friday] day of the week." That is the pattern of fasting we Orthodox still follow today, 1800 years later.
"Thus says the LORD: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls." (Jeremiah 6:16).
Quote:
The heart of the issue is not whether these practices can be beneficial, but whether they should be considered binding or essential in the way described. Some of this seems to substitute a set of rules for a personal relationship with Christ.
The problem with "the personal relationship with Christ" is that this phrase itself is unbiblical. I understand where it came from - to illustrate that every individual must come to faith individually instead being free riders on organizational, cultural, or familial coat tails. But what it has become strikes at the very heart of how the Christian faith is lived out: communally in the church. "The norm of the Christian faith is not isolated believers, little islands of spirituality, but a continent of Christians banded together by the Spirit. We are baptized into one body, the body of Jesus. Our so-called personal relationship with Jesus is indeed with his person - his body of which all other believers are a part. Fingers don't have a relationship with Jesus apart from the hand, the hand from the arm, the arm from the shoulder, and so on." The phrase itself has become destructive to the church at large.
1) Confession: Thanks for the insight into Orthodox confession. While I don't think the way you guys do it is necessarily wrong, it is extra-scriptural in nature. Scripture consistently presents confession as something directed primarily and sufficiently to God, without requiring a clerical intermediary. For example, 1 John 1:9 teaches that "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us," making no mention of a priestly witness or sacramental setting.
Likewise, Psalm 32:5 shows David confessing directly to God and receiving forgiveness without any human intermediary. While James 5:16 does encourage believers to "confess your sins to one another," this is mutual and general (not restricted to ordained clergy) rather than a formalized rite. The New Testament consistently grounds forgiveness in repentance and faith, not in sacramental confession to a priest. Additionally, Hebrews emphasizes that Christ is the sole mediator between God and humanity (Hebrews 4:14-16), granting believers direct access to God's throne of grace without additional human mediators. From this perspective, framing the priest as an essential participant( even as a "spiritual physician") risks obscuring the sufficiency of Christ's priesthood and the believer's relationship with God.
While I agree that seeking counsel or accountability from mature Christians is biblically encouraged, the structured, priest-centered model of confession found in Orthodoxy is better understood as a later development rather than a practice clearly established or required by Scripture itself.
2) Communion. While 1 Corinthians 11 does warn that unworthy participation can bring judgment, Paul's solution is self-examination and repentance, not treating communion like a controlled "prescription" administered by the church. The focus is on the believer's faith and discernment, not institutional restriction. Your medical analogy risks sort of implies that the sacrament works mechanically or is inherently dangerous unless tightly controlled. Scripture itself places the primary responsibility on individuals before God.
3) Fasting: This is another instance in which the Orthodox Church holds a position that is extra-scriptural in nature.
First, the claim that the command in Genesis 2 is fundamentally a "fast" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what took place in the garden. The prohibition of the tree is a test of obedience and covenant loyalty, not an instituted fasting practice. The fall came from rebellion against God's command, not a failure to engage in fasting as a spiritual discipline. Calling it "the original fast" stretches the category beyond its biblical meaning. Reformed theology distinguishes between moral law (binding) and positive commands tied to specific covenants or situations. The tree prohibition belongs to the latter category, so it does not establish fasting as an ongoing obligation.
As for your argument that fasting appears in many religions as an "ancestral memory," this simply is not biblically grounded. Scripture never explains fasting that way; instead, it presents fasting as a voluntary act of humility, repentance, or seeking God (Matthew 6:16-18). As for, Matthew 9:15, it does affirm that Christians will fast, but it does not mandate when, how often, or according to a fixed schedule. In the New Testament, fasting is consistently non-prescribed and flexible (see Acts 13:23; 14:23).
Scripture does not teach that fasting is a mechanism through which grace is "dispensed." God's grace is consistently tied to faith and His promises, while fasting is portrayed as an expression of humility, repentance, or dependence. Even in Isaiah 58, God rebukes improper fasting and makes clear that what He desires is righteousness and justice, not merely abstaining from food.
Finally, appealing to the
Didache does not establish binding authority, because Scripture itself is the standard for doctrine and practice. The New Testament never commands Christians to adopt a fixed weekly fasting schedule like Wednesday and Friday, nor does it elevate early post-apostolic traditions to the level of divine instruction.
4) The Church. As for the communal nature of the Christian faith, we agree that we are called to be a part of the body of Christ - His Church. However, the concept of a direct relationship between the believer and Chris is clearly stated in scripture: believers are described as personally knowing Christ (John 17:3; Philippians 3:8-10), being united to Him individually (Galatians 2:20), and responding to Him in faith on a personal level (Revelation 3:20). Scripture unmistakably teaches that this personal relationship brings each believer into a shared life within the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), where faith is lived out in fellowship and mutual dependence (Hebrews 10:24-25).
The error is not in the idea of a personal relationship itself, but in isolating it from the church. Properly understood, the Bible presents both realities: a genuine, individual relationship with Christ that necessarily binds believers to one another in His body, rather than leaving them as "islands of spirituality."
