Question about praying to Saints in churches.

[prodromos]

Wow! Do you really expect me to believe that a priest just came to a village and none of the villagers ever cared to ask his name or to verify his authority? Wow! Sounds like a pretty made up story.

Yeah, that's why bus loads of Romanian pilgrims keep arriving at the monastery in Aegina, Greece.

 

[prodromos]

As though you would know.

I know about the many times miracles have occurred through the intercessions of Saints after requesting their prayers, both personally and through the testimony of others. Since you were not there on any of those occasions, it is rather presumptuous of you to claim it is all presumption. How could you possibly know?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know about the many times miracles have occurred through the intercessions of Saints after requesting their prayers, both personally and through the testimony of others. Since you were not there on any of those occasions, it is rather presumptuous of you to claim it is all presumption. How could you possibly know?

Do the saints perform miracles for Muslims?

 

[prodromos]

Do the saints perform miracles for Muslims?

They have done so many times. St George, for example is venerated by many Muslims because of this. St Arsenios of Cappadocia, while he was alive, would pray for anyone who came to him for help whether they were Christians or Muslims, and all were healed through his prayers to God because he loved them all regardless of their belief, but loved God more.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I belong to a convergence Church that follows Traditional Christianity in the Anglican form.

Well, do you believe in... Salvation by works? Infant baptism? Purgatory? Mary's perpetual virginity? (just a few examples) If so, to any of these, my point remains.

Give better because those are not proofs at all.

Actually, it is you who have to give better. I have shown you proof against your case; if you believe that my proofs are wrong, the rules of debating dictate that you must demonstrate why you find my proofs invalid — until you do so, my proofs remain valid.

 

[Charlie7399]

Infant baptism?

Let's avoid getting into that again, shall we...

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Yeah, that's why bus loads of Romanian pilgrims keep arriving at the monastery in Aegina, Greece.

It would not be the first time that a massive load of people would be deceived by such a lie. Even the Bible predicts such events, like false messiahs (Matthew 24:5). Another example could be wrong predictions of dates for apocalyptic events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events). Therefore, saying that a massive amount of people believe in something is not sufficient to prove that it is true — that is an ad populum fallacy.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Let's avoid getting into that again, shall we...

Well, I was just trying to prove a point. But any of the remaining issues raised in post #122 will do it just as well.

 

[Albion]

I know about the many times miracles have occurred through the intercessions of Saints after requesting their prayers, both personally and through the testimony of others.

You assume that these things happened because of the saints. I know people who are equally certain that some pagan god intervened to make something happen that they were hoping for, too.

And what's more, even if it were the case that such and such a prayer were "answered" this way, you have no basis for thinking that the same prayers IF DIRECTED TO GOD HIMSELF as Jesus taught us to do, wouldn't have been answered in the same way. God may be good enough to excuse a wrongful practice, but it's still wrong. I don't know this for a fact, I hope you understand, but I'm just pointing out some of the gaps in your reasoning.

 

[topcare]

Well, do you believe in... Salvation by works? Infant baptism? Purgatory? Mary's perpetual virginity? (just a few examples) If so, to any of these, my point remains.

Infant Baptism is in Scriptures, it is you who deny Authentic orthodox Christianity.

Actually, it is you who have to give better. I have shown you proof against your case; if you believe that my proofs are wrong, the rules of debating dictate that you must demonstrate why you find my proofs invalid — until you do so, my proofs remain valid.

You have shown absolutely nothing, your proofs are your ideas nothing more.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Infant Baptism is in Scriptures, it is you who deny Authentic orthodox Christianity.

No, it is not. But that issue has already been approached: please see posts #141, #143 and #145. Nevertheless, my point remains: your ideas still contradict Scripture, which is a consequence of your rejection of Sola Scriptura.

You have shown absolutely nothing, your proofs are your ideas nothing more.

By that standard, neither have you shown anything; your proofs are your ideas — nothing more.

 

[Charlie7399]

Infant baptism can be deducted from Scripture, whether you believe it or not. The thing is that our churches (Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) look to the early Church for evidence when something seems to be ambiguous in Scripture, because 1. They're very close to the Apostles chronologically (Irenaeus, who is often used to defend infant baptism, was a disciple of a disciple of John the Evangelist) and 2. We trust that God wouldn't let his Church fall into error in such pivotal matters, especially that early on. The churches with roots on the Reformed and Anabaptist traditions (like yours) tend not to take this approach. So it's all much more complicated than just saying that "it's clearly not in the Bible".

And yes, I'm helping to derail the thread now too. It's already been lost anyway...

 

[Albion]

The earliest Christians appear to have concentrated on baptising adult converts, which is to be expected when a new movement is taking in lots of new converts. But we don't know that they didn't also baptize young children. Because there is a strong suggestion in Scripture (yes, there is) that they did so, we feel that baptising children is proper. This is a good example of Sola Scriptura in operation.

In addition, I have always thought that the churches that stand firmly on ''Believer's baptism" are badly confused in another way. Most of them DO baptise children who are too young to really understand a commitment to Christ that's much more sophisticated than "Jesus loves me, this I know." Their argument then becomes "INFANTS shouldn't be baptized," which is merely to focus on some children too young to make a genuine commitment while rejecting other children who are also too young to do that.

 

[Charlie7399]

I think Acts 2:38-39 and the three mentions of entire households being baptised are already enough evidence that infant baptism can be deducted from Scripture. Denying that won't do any good.

 

[prodromos]

You assume that these things happened because of the saints.

No, that is your assumption that I simply assume. Since you are not a member of the Orthodox you cannot know of the discernment that goes on behind these miracles, nor would I bother to offer more details simply because you have already made it clear what response you would give.

I know people who are equally certain that some pagan god intervened to make something happen that they were hoping for, too.

Well good for you.

And what's more, even if it were the case that such and such a prayer were "answered" this way, you have no basis for thinking that the same prayers IF DIRECTED TO GOD HIMSELF as Jesus taught us to do, wouldn't have been answered in the same way. God may be good enough to excuse a wrongful practice, but it's still wrong. I don't know this for a fact, I hope you understand, but I'm just pointing out some of the gaps in your reasoning.

At least now you are admitting that this is your belief. I happen to believe that God richly blesses the intercession of the Saints because it is the fruit of love between ALL members of Christ's body. Death has no hold on we who are alive in Christ, and those who are alive in Christ are those who follow Christ's commandment.

 

[prodromos]

It would not be the first time that a massive load of people would be deceived by such a lie. Even the Bible predicts such events, like false messiahs (Matthew 24:5). Another example could be wrong predictions of dates for apocalyptic events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events). Therefore, saying that a massive amount of people believe in something is not sufficient to prove that it is true — that is an ad populum fallacy.

The first bus loads of Romanians to come were the people from that same village where St Nectarios appeared. It is obvious that you have to dismiss it as deception because it does not fit the beliefs of your particular Christian tradition. In the Orthodox Church however, miracles like this have been happening consistently throughout our Church's history. It is as natural for us as breathing.

 

[Albion]

No, that is your assumption that I simply assume.

You have no proof, and there are other possible explanations, so you are assuming, yes. The rest of your denominational strutting and triumphalism doesn't change this simple fact. Not one bit.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Infant baptism can be deducted from Scripture, whether you believe it or not.

No, it cannot. It is believer's baptism that can be deduced from multiple biblical passages (Matthew 28:19; Acts of the Apostles 2:38; Acts of the Apostles 8:36-38; Acts of the Apostles 16:31-33; Romans 6:3-4). This last one is particularly strong: read it all and actually think about whether you can really say that of a child who is forced to be baptised.

The thing is that our churches (Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) look to the early Church for evidence when something seems to be ambiguous in Scripture, because 1. They're very close to the Apostles chronologically (Irenaeus, who is often used to defend infant baptism, was a disciple of a disciple of John the Evangelist) and 2. We trust that God wouldn't let his Church fall into error in such pivotal matters, especially that early on. The churches with roots on the Reformed and Anabaptist traditions (like yours) tend not to take this approach.

That approach does not sound like Sola Scriptura, but rather like Prima Scriptura (I'm not sure this term exists, though) — it sounds like you're just saying ‘We are guided primarily by Scripture and secondarily by other things’, rather than ‘We are guided solely by Scripture’. The Bible, I believe, is sufficiently clear to condemn infant baptism.

Let us also not forget that the unbiblical practice of infant baptism gave origin to the unbiblical practice of baptism by aspersion, rather than the biblical practice of baptism by immersion.

So it's all much more complicated than just saying that "it's clearly not in the Bible".

No, it's not. It's just that simple: it is not in the Bible, regardless of how you look at it. Only if you insert your own ideas into the Bible will you find it there.

And yes, I'm helping to derail the thread now too. It's already been lost anyway...

The earliest Christians appear to have concentrated on baptising adult converts, which is to be expected when a new movement is taking in lots of new converts. But we don't know that they didn't also baptize young children.

Yes, we do. They baptised converts, as Jesus had commanded them (Matthew 28:19), illustrating a change in life (Romans 6:3-4). We also know that they baptised by immersion — because the writers often used expressions like ‘coming out of the water’ (Matthew 3:16; Acts of the Apostles 8:39) —, which would make it unreasonable to baptise babies.

Because there is a strong suggestion in Scripture (yes, there is) that they did so, we feel that baptising children is proper. This is a good example of Sola Scriptura in operation.

No, there is not. There is a much stronger suggestion that baptism is for those who believe.

In addition, I have always thought that the churches that stand firmly on ''Believer's baptism" are badly confused in another way. Most of them DO baptise children who are too young to really understand a commitment to Christ that's much more sophisticated than "Jesus loves me, this I know." Their argument then becomes "INFANTS shouldn't be baptized," which is merely to focus on some children too young to make a genuine commitment while rejecting other children who are also too young to do that.

We believe that only those who are capable of believing should be baptised. Now, evidently, the age at which a child becomes mature enough to be baptised is debatable and varies from child to child — which is why we believe that children born ‘in the church’ who wish to be baptised should be profoundly accompanied, so that the church may judge whether they believe that the child is sufficiently mature to understand what the commitment of following Jesus, which is symbolised by baptism, truly entangles. At my church, we run a class of preparation for baptism, which takes approximately three months, in which every candidate for baptism receives an introduction of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

I was baptised on 02 January 2011, when I was 12 years old, in the 7th year at school. I would hardly consider myself ‘[a child] too young to make a genuine commitment’ at that time, as you wrote; I was more of a pre-teen than an actual child. In our Baptist churches, it would be quite rare for us to baptise anyone much younger than this. I believe that the early teen stages are, in a general way, a reasonable age for baptism. Of course, the actual best age varies, but I think that shortly after leaving ‘the single digits’ is a generally good idea.

Again, though, it is important that the person in question always understands what baptism implies, which is precisely what happened to me. We adamantly reject baptising children too young to understand.

I think Acts 2:38-39 and the three mentions of entire households being baptised are already enough evidence that infant baptism can be deducted from Scripture. Denying that won't do any good.

No, it is not, because we are not told whether those households included any young children. If they did not (which seems likely), the doctrine of believer's baptism remains undamaged and infant baptism remains refuted.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

The first bus loads of Romanians to come were the people from that same village where St Nectarios appeared. It is obvious that you have to dismiss it as deception because it does not fit the beliefs of your particular Christian tradition. In the Orthodox Church however, miracles like this have been happening consistently throughout our Church's history. It is as natural for us as breathing.

I would not dismiss the story itself, which could actually be true — just the idea that it was because of praying to a dead saint that it happened. Indeed, your story does not show that it happened as a result of praying to a saint. Furthermore, my objection (that it is strange that no-one would have asked his name or verified his authority) remains.

 

[topcare]

No, it is not. But that issue has already been approached: please see posts #141, #143 and #145. Nevertheless, my point remains: your ideas still contradict Scripture, which is a consequence of your rejection of Sola Scriptura.

Of course it is and I do reject your Bible alone. The Bible never, ever anywhere says to follow itself alone and no matter how much you fight agaisnt it you can never show any verse that says to follow the Bible alone

By that standard, neither have you shown anything; your proofs are your ideas — nothing more.

Nope mine are from authentic verifiable orthodox Christian of which you reject. St. Paul had this to say about those like you who bring a strange and new gospel Galatians 1:8