Stll waiting for an answer.

I don't really think this needs to go on any further. But if you sincerely believe as you say--contrary to the weight of historical evidence, then please provide the evidence for your beliefs. Back your statements up with reliable historical references.
DHK

 

I don't really think this needs to go on any further. But if you sincerely believe as you say--contrary to the weight of historical evidence, then please provide the evidence for your beliefs. Back your statements up with reliable historical references.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Constantine's vision is a legend. The fact that none of the 90,000 troops who Constantine alleges also saw the vision ever mentioned it, along with the fact that Constantine himself never mentioned it until years and years and years after the alleged event, next to the fact that none of his contemporary historians ever mentioned it until near or after his death ... These are the facts.

Go ahead and provide on iota of historical evidence that it actually happened, other than the extra-biblical oral tradition to which you choose to enslave your mind.

 

Psalm,

You asked me, "What do you think is the reason Gregory of Nazianzum advised parents to wait until a child's third year for baptism?"

I don't know; I haven't researched it. Do you know why?

Hi AC18,

I don't trust in Catholic.com; I trust in the authority established by my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to teach all that he commanded and to baptize as he commanded.

I also read the Bible as it was meant to be read: in a Hebrew Covenantal framework wherein Baptism is the oath by which one enters the New Covenant.

I don't read it as a Protestant Fundamentalist American 20 centuries removed from the original context without a covenantal point-of-view. That's like reading a news headline as literal prose such as, "Holy Angels smash St. Anne." If you aren't schooled in the genre and the religious framework of Scripture, your conclusions will be many, varied, and oftentimes off the mark.

 

These are the facts according to Harley. You have not provided any reference for your story. I provided my information from the World Book Encyclopedia, and verified to my own satisifaction with Thomas Armitage's, "History of the Baptists." Psalm 104 verified it through a secular historian as well. You have three different view points of history, all saying the same thing.
All you offer me is your opinion.
I know what I believe.
DHK

 

These are the facts according to Harley. You have not provided any reference for your story. I provided my information from the World Book Encyclopedia, and verified to my own satisifaction with Thomas Armitage's, "History of the Baptists." Psalm 104 verified it through a secular historian as well. You have three different view points of history, all saying the same thing.
All you offer me is your opinion.
I know what I believe.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Byzantium, John Julius Norwich.

Now use all your scary historical powers of web research to prove that even one of the 90,000 men Constantine said saw his vision ever, ever, ever reported seeing it. I've read your theology, so you'll understand that your belief in fairy tales fails to surprise.

 

Hi Psalm,

You wrote, "Well you sure seem to know everything else. Why dont you research it and get back to me. That will be your homework assignment for tonight. It is due by tomorrow evening."

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Is this where your usual source for info on what you believe are unholy demonic visions?

Or is this your source?

 

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
--The men with Saul did not see Christ, but Saul did.

Muhammed had a vision. No one saw it but him.
The entire SDA movement is based on the visions of one woman, which no one saw but her.
Mormonism is based on the visions of Joseph Smith. No one saw them but him.

Should it therefore be uncommon for one person to have a vision and others not see it. No, it is not uncommon at all. That is precisely what happened. History does not record what the soldiers saw; it records what Constantine saw. He saw a cross in the sky, or had a vision to that effect. At least that is what history tells us. The source of the vision is another story.
DHK

 

As so frequently happens, you have just proved your total ignorance of the historical facts. Why don't you run along to your vast collection of references and pull out your Eusebius (sp?). He's the historian who claims to have heard the story directly from Constantine himself. And, according to Constantine, 90K soldiers saw it too.

You believe a fantasy. Grow up, graduate to some legitimate historical texts, and put your delusions on the shelf with your UFO toys and X-file action figures where they belong.

 

Posted by Carson:

Carson,

So how does an infant enter into an oath or a covenant? Even if you do read this from a Jewish or Hebrew perspective, you still havent explained how an infant can confess, believe, or repent? Nowhere in the Bible is there any other framework for baptism, other than a person confessing, repenting, and believing. The english translations of NT Scriptures are accurate enough by far to CLEARLY give a unified understanding of what baptism is and what it isn't - infant baptism is a crock.

I'd say if you arn't led by the Holy Spirit, your opinions will be "many, varied, and oftentimes off the mark"

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 66-67AD

 

Why is it that Psalm asked for something, we gave him something, and he laughs at them and demands different ones?

Oh yeah; because he doesn't really care about it.

 

I can remember when my 5 year old brother (when he was 5) had hand puppets and make them yell at each other: "I'm right" "No, I'm right" "No I'm right" "No I"m right because I say so" "No I'm right"....

 

AC18,

What is your first name? It would make our dialogue a bit more personal and not so formal.

So how does an infant enter into an oath or a covenant?

In the same way Israelites brought their 8-day old children into the covenant family of God. By the decision of their parents who are their covenant representatives before God.

Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe). The Greek word brephe means "infants" — children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem.

Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "No!," and withhold baptism from them?

Nowhere in the Bible is there any other framework for baptism, other than a person confessing, repenting, and believing.

That is a bold claim that does not match up with the Bible.

Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never - not even once — find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

infant baptism is a crock.

Pejorative statements such as this, intending to evoke rhetorical power have no sway in the face of the Bible and the covenantal paradigm of Jewish Christians.

I'd say if you arn't led by the Holy Spirit, your opinions will be "many, varied, and oftentimes off the mark"

And so with the numerous mutually self-contradictory conclusions among sincere Protestants who have left the apostolic Church, your litmus test invalidates your own opinions.

 

(Quote)

I can remember when my 5 year old brother (when he was 5) had hand puppets and make them yell at each other: "I'm
right" "No, I'm right" "No I'm right" "No I"m right because I say so" "No I'm right"....


(Singer)

Your brother was merely replaying the founding of the second Vatican Council.

 

Psalm,

Thank you for the wider context of the Cappadocian Father's statement.

Your presentation has bolstered the doctrine of infant baptism, for it shows that this particular Church Father recognized its universal application, its Biblical foundation, its necessity, and its power as a sacrament of the New Covenant.

I don't wholly disagree with Gregory of Nazianzen either. Our cognitive recognition of the objective operation of the sacraments indeed heightens their efficacy in our lives. Grace isn't magical; God enlists our free will in our salvation.

As Augustine put it, "God who created you without you, will not save you without
you."

 

That is not entirely true. But this is true -

#1. All of the doctrinal statements of the SDA church are based on "the Bible alone" as that which establishes/tests the veracity of the teaching.

#2. This may be verified by checking into the book that details each one of them "The 27 Fundamental beliefs".

#3. To disagree with a doctrinal statement is "one thing" but to revise history is quite another.

In the NT church there were a number of prophets on record (see 1Cor 14) for which we have no writings surviving today. However the NT church was "still" operating "sola scriptura" when it came to doctrine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is not entirely true. But this is true -
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your posts Bob. They contain a lot of good balanced information.
But this is one area here that I would have to disagree with you.
The SDA movement would not exist if it were not for the dreams or visions of Ellen G. White.
DHK