[wmfights]

Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity".

Pg. 77 It was common for the State or private interest groups to push their nominees into key Church posts, irrespective of their status. St. Ambrose was baptized, went through the various clerical ranks and was consecrated bishop of Milan all within eight days.

[Cronos]

And you repeat YOPIOS despite the facts like:

FACT: St. Ambrose WAS born into a Christian family --> look it up for yourself.

FACT: yes, he wasn't baptised as an infant, because that was not widespread in the 3rd century until St. Augustine

FACT: You misunderstood that to say that "Not surprising coming from a man who went from being a pagan to a Bishop in your church in about 2 weeks time"

Now that is a common sola interpretura error which also plays out in the sola's folks's reading of The Bible -- you folks may read one thing like " St Ambrose was baptized, " and ASSUME that he was born a pagan. That error comes from not having a complete knowledge and presuming that the incomplete knowledge is complete -- you didn't lie, but you made an incorrect assumption based on incomplete and misunderstood facts. That is the folly of relying on an individuals (as opposed to a community of believers stretching back 2000 years) interpretation.

[Cronos]

And, you used your own interpretation to make "Ambrose was baptised as an adult" to being that he was a pagan when he was actually born into a Christian family and was Christian

You are a baptist -- you do not baptise infants, but baptise adults -- so do you then say that those before baptism are pagans?

[Titanites]

Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity".

The claim that Ambrose was a pagan was yours, not Paul Johnson's. You can quote Johnson all you want, but it still doesn't show that St. Ambrose was a pagan before he was baptised.

The sola scriptura crowd can't get history straight and then they wonder why we don't believe their interpretation of scripture. Go figure.