Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, that's why bus loads of Romanian pilgrims keep arriving at the monastery in Aegina, Greece.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.
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?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?
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.Do the saints perform miracles for Muslims?
I belong to a convergence Church that follows Traditional Christianity in the Anglican form.
Give better because those are not proofs at all.
Yeah, that's why bus loads of Romanian pilgrims keep arriving at the monastery in Aegina, Greece.
Let's avoid getting into that again, shall we...
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.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.
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.
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.
Infant Baptism is in Scriptures, it is you who deny Authentic orthodox Christianity.
You have shown absolutely nothing, your proofs are your ideas nothing more.
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.You assume that these things happened because of the saints.
Well good for you.I know people who are equally certain that some pagan god intervened to make something happen that they were hoping for, too.
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.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.
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.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.
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.No, that is your assumption that I simply assume.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
By that standard, neither have you shown anything; your proofs are your ideas — nothing more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?