Baptism

[Bible2]

thereselittleflower said in post 136:

 

The Didache, a first century book held in high esteem as authoritative by the very early christians, tells us how baptism was practiced in the first century -  there was no requirement that baptism must be by immersion only.

 

What is the proof that the Didache's allowance of non-immersion when enough water isn't available (which would be never, in any place suitable for human habitation) was agreed to by any apostle, or that, at the time the Didache was written, it was an "established custom" of the church, and not just the allowance of one didact falsely claiming to speak for "the Lord" himself and all "the Twelve Apostles" themselves?

 

Also, what is the proof that the Didache was written around 70 AD, instead of about the year 100 or sometime in the early 2nd century? And what is the proof that any of the apostles even approved of every part of the Didache, much less that it was taught in its entirety by all the 12 apostles themselves, as the Didache itself claims in its very first line: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles". If the early church knew, or even believed, that the Didache was truly "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then why isn't it part of the New Testament? And if the early church determined the Didache wasn't truly "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then the Didache starts out with a false claim. And if it starts out with such a serious false claim, on what basis should we accept everything it teaches as necessarily being true?

 

While the Didache includes many good teachings which are in line with what the Bible teaches, some of its teachings aren't in line with the Bible. In chapter 1, the Didache makes the claim: "love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy". But the Bible says: "they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love" (Psalms 109:5), which shows that even when we love those who hate us, it is possible they will remain our enemies. Also, in chapter 12, the Didache says "receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord". But the Bible shows that even if someone comes in the name of the Lord, if he denies the true doctrine that Christ is in the flesh, then he isn't to be received (2 John 1:7,10).

 

--

 

Chapter 7 of the Didache requires immersion in a river wherever a river is available (this isn't required by the Bible), or immersion in other water whenever other water is available. So why would catholic.com (your source?) want to support what the Didache says? Are adherents of Catholicism immersed in a river wherever a river is available, or immersed in other water whenever other water is available? Also, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter, abandon the requirement of immersion?

 

Also, why would catholic.com want to support what the Didache says, when the rest of chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism fast one or two days before baptizing anyone? And are adherents of Catholicism ordered to fast one or two days before getting baptized? Also, chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "Having first said all these things, baptize". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism say chapters 1 through 6 of the Didache before baptizing anyone? Also, chapter 9 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said at both the cup and the bread of the Eucharist. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 9 of the Didache at the Eucharist?

 

Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said after the Eucharist. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 10 of the Didache after the Eucharist? Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands after the Eucharist: "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire". Do adherents of Catholicism permit this? Also, chapter 11 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands: "Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not". Do adherents of Catholicism refuse to hear anyone who teaches anything which effectively nullifies the commands in chapters 1 through 10 of the Didache, such as the detailed commands regarding baptism and the Eucharist in chapters 7, 9, and 10?

 

thereselittleflower said in post 136:

 

Most places don't have access to running water deep enough for immersion, or bodies of water one can be immersed in.

 

No matter where believers live, if they have enough water to drink, to irrigate their crops, to water their cattle, to wash themselves, and to wash their clothing, then they have enough water to pour into a tub in which they can immerse (baptize) a new believer. And if they don't have enough water to do these things, then they are in a location unsuitable for human habitation, and need to move to where water is available for them to survive, and to immerse (baptize) new believers.

 

thereselittleflower said in post 136:

 

Did the councils infallibly declare the canon of New Testament scripture?

 

Note that the canon doesn't include the Didache.

 

Also, Biblical Christians believe the Bible is God's Word (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4, John 8:31b), not because of some intellectual trust on their part in a purportedly infallible church, but because Biblical Christians have been granted God's miraculous gift of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65; 1 Corinthians 3:5b) and some measure of God's Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). And so they are able to spiritually recognize if something is said by God (John 10:4,27; 1 Corinthians 14:37), or only by some "stranger" (John 10:5).

 

And Biblical Christians know the Bible is God's Word not only because of the spiritual evidence of faith (Hebrews 11:1), but also because Jesus confirms that the entire Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). And the entire New Testament was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24; 1 Peter 5:1, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19), or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). And Jesus' New Testament death for our sins and his resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Acts 26:22-23, Isaiah 53, Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:31). Also, no doctrine in the Bible has ever been proven false, so there is no reason for any Christian to reject any doctrine taught by the Bible.

 

It is the Bible which is able to make people wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15; 1 Peter 1:23-25, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18). All the Bible's teachings were given by the inspiration of God, and so they are all true and God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4). Jesus says: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). Christians must be willing to die before they would deny any part of his Word (Mark 8:35-38). One of Satan's prime aims is to get people to reject all or parts of God's Word and start believing something else which sounds better to them as humans (Genesis 3:1-6, Matthew 16:21-23; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3-4), but which can't save their souls, so that they will end up suffering in fire and brimstone with Satan and his fallen angels forever (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11).

 

thereselittleflower said in post 136:

 

Did the councils infallibly declare the canon of New Testament scripture?

 

The different books of the New Testament were all written for the early church, which knew and trusted the writers, and so kept their writings, because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-4; 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19), or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the early church had received some measure of God's own Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), and so the church was able to know whether a teaching of the writers was truly from Jesus or not (John 10:27,4,5), just as Biblical Christians can still know this today for the same reason. Also, Biblical Christians today, just as the early church did, can confirm for themselves that the writers of the New Testament agree with what the Old Testament prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

[Guest shiloh357]

Baptism has NO connection to  circumcision in the NT.  The NT never links them.  Circumcision was compulsory upon a child at 8 days old.   Baptism is ALWAYS without exception, connected to faith in Christ.   A baby cannot place faith in Jesus.  Baptism is a testimony of faith. It is a testimony of salvation that has already occurred.

[thereselittleflower]

The Didache is the teaching of the apostles.  That it was in keeping with their teaching is evidenced by the very high regard all the christians held it in as a book of instruction on these matters. The early testimony of the Church is the evidence of its authenticity, for it if was not authentic, they would have rejected it while the apostles still lived, yet it was not rejected and nether was it spoken against by the Early Church Fathers who were quick to denounce heresy.

 

It's dating was originally based on the assumption that it borrowed from gospels that were viewed as being written in the 2nd century, and so, of necessity, the Didache was seen needing a dating in the 2nd century.   But recent scholarship has moved this dating to the 50;s of the 1st century:

 

More recent scholarship has argued for a much earlier origin, possibly as early as the mid 50s of the first century. This has involved not so much a re-dating of the canonical Gospels as such, but on a view that has divorced The Didache from them entirely arguing instead for an oral tradition independent of the Gospel texts. The Didache thus represents the understanding of the church on some essential practical matters, including baptism and the Lord's Supper, at a period when Paul was engaging in his Gentile mission but seemingly wholly independent of it. The fact that Ignatius (in Antioch) was known to be gathering Paul's letters is yet another argument in favor of the Egyptian origin of The Didache.

 

he document is meant specifically as a training manual of neophytes 

 

http://www.reformation21.org/miscellaneous/window-on-the-past-the-didache-editorial-director-reformation21.php

 

 

 one of the top scholars alive, Enrico Mazza, argues very persuasively that the liturgical portions of the document were composed no later than 48 A.D. 

 

http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2006/05/23/the-time-capsule/

 

 

 

And I must point out, that when you claim some of its teachings are not in line with the bible, they are simply not in line with your personal interpretation of the bible.   Is your interpretation infallible? 

 

Some corrections: 

 

It does not say river . . it says running water.   Baptismal fonts were used for baptism. They are found in the remains of the most ancient churches dating from the first few centuries.

 

There was not an absolute requirement of submersion, only if water was available for full submersion.   The method of baptism is dependent on the type of water available.

 

In reading your post, it seems you do not grasp the nature of the Didache  - it is a training manual for neophytes.  It's purpose is not to get heavy into theology, but to give them a basic outline, a starting point.  It is much too brief to be able to include everything you think it should clarify.   

 

And again in the rejection of those teaching false doctrine, you err not understanding the nature of this work when you equate the rejection of those who teach other doctrines, which of necessity must be compared to the doctrines of the church, and make the doctrines the Didache implies are to be held to,  to be itself.   The Didache is a basic instruction manual to neophytes, not an all out full doctrinal work, though doctrine of the 1st century christians is behind the instructions.  You seem to be treating it as the only instruction they would receive.  If so, you would be wrong.

 

I apologize,  I am way too tired to continue addressing the points in your post.   i'll leave it here for now.

[Guest shiloh357]

Does salvation depend on Baptism?  Put another way, is baptism required for salvation?  The answer is, "no."   Baptism is not required for salvation.   Salvation is Jesus plus, nothing. 

 

One verse used is I Peter. 3:21 where Peter says, "Baptism doth  now save you."   Peter is talking about the moment a person comes to the baptismal waters seeking salvation though faith in Jesus Christ.   "Baptism saves you"  is just a shorthand way of saying, "God saves you in and through the act of baptism which is the outward expression of the twin facts that  God regenerates you by his Spirit and on the basis of the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross and that you now come committing yourself in repentance and faith"  It should never be used to support a doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation. 

 

(IVP NT Commentary)

[thereselittleflower]

Does salvation depend on Baptism?  Put another way, is baptism required for salvation?  The answer is, "no."   Baptism is not required for salvation.   Salvation is Jesus plus, nothing. 

 

One verse used is I Peter. 3:21 where Peter says, "Baptism doth  now save you."   Peter is talking about the moment a person comes to the baptismal waters seeking salvation though faith in Jesus Christ.   "Baptism saves you"  is just a shorthand way of saying, "God saves you in and through the act of baptism which is the outward expression of the twin facts that  God regenerates you by his Spirit and on the basis of the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross and that you now come committing yourself in repentance and faith"  It should never be used to support a doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation. 

 

(IVP NT Commentary)

 

 

The words of Jesus:

 

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved"

 

Mark 16:16

 

 

The words of Peter:

 

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

Acts 2:38

[thereselittleflower]

Shiloh, interpreting scripture according to your beliefs rather than the plain meaning of the scripture, as you have done with 1 Peter 3:21 is eisegesis - reading into the scripture what one wants to find.

 

The plain meaning is clear

 

"baptism now saves you"

 

1 Peter 3:21

 

 

And Peter makes it clear it s not the stepping into the water, but the act of baptism through to the end where we rise out of the water with Jesus  -  

 

 

"-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

[thereselittleflower]

Bible2 - I tried once to respond to the rest of your post,  and it was lost.   I'll try again.

 

Regarding the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia - it appears you are misunderstanding words that are used.   Immersion was the most common manner.  Prevail does not mean the other means were not used as well. We have the testimony of the ECF's which reveal the same practices as the Didache.  I believe I have already provided some?  If not i will try to do that later.  So while the majority of the time immersion was used, it was not the only method of baptism.

 

You have simply wrongly understood a directive to favor one form of baptism over another as an absolute requirement.  There is no such absolute requirement for immersion, and never has been.

 

You ask about fasting before baptism, if in the Catholic Church those participating in the baptism still fast before one is baptized.    The answer is yes.  

 

You ask if those being baptized in the Catholic CHurch hear the instructions from the first 6 chapters of the Didache before they are baptized as instructed in the Didache:

 

"Having first said all these things, baptize"

 

  It actually says 

 

" After first explaining all things, "

 

 

It does not say "said" or "these" but all things.  So it looks outside itself  and actually refers to the catechumenate process which all new believers went through before they were baptized.   This is the process of instruction in the Christian faith.  In the Early Church it could take many months and even years before a catechumen would be able to receive baptism.   The same is true today.  Instruction begins around the end of summer and culminates at Easter where, with fasting and praying the catechumens are baptized.

 

You ask about the prayers of thanks for the offering of the bread and wine for the Eucharist found in the Didache.    Yes, the Catholic Church follows the same form today.

 

You ask about what is said during the Eucharist.   The Catholic Church follows the same form today.

 

You  ask about what is said after the Eucharist.   Yes the Catholic Church follows the same form today.

 

You ask about the prophets giving thanksgiving after the Eucharist.    The time of the writing of the Didache was during the time of the Apostles.  Jesus promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into "all truth."     Once this "all truth" was given, the Divine Revelation was finished (this does not mean the gifts are not active today).  The Apostles deposited the "all truth" given them by the Holy Spirit with the Church.  This was completed with the Apostle John.   The need for prophets as in the days of the formation of Christianity is not the same today.  Today all are given time to give thanksgiving to God quitely after the Eucharist.

 

You ask about those who teach falsely and the Church's response according to the Didache.   Those who teach falsely, including contrary to the teachings contained in the Didache, are not to be heard.  The Catholic Church excommunicates those who persist on teaching falsely.  

 

You stated:

 

 

 

No matter where believers live, if they have enough water to drink, to irrigate their crops, to water their cattle, to wash themselves, and to wash their clothing, then they have enough water to pour into a tub in which they can immerse (baptize) a new believer. And if they don't have enough water to do these things, then they are in a location unsuitable for human habitation, and need to move to where water is available for them to survive, and to immerse (baptize) new believers.

 

This is so obviously false and I cannot fathom anyone making such a statement.  

 

There is obviously those who,  through no fault of their own, find themselves in living condition in locations others would find unsuitable for human habitation.   And it is painfully obvious they do not have the choice or ability to move.     This is simply a matter of reality for a great number  of the population on earth.   People are starving to death in Africa.   Your simplistic solution is lost on them.  They have no way of using it.    Your insensitivity to their plight in your quote above frankly astonishes me as a child of God.

 

 

You noted the canon does not include the Didache.   My response is, and?   This is immaterial to any point being made about it.

 

You seem to have created a false dichotomy here, as if the only way the teaching of the Apostles could given is through scripture, so that anyone writing about their teaching must also be inspired at the level of scripture, or they are false.      That would then invalidate every writing about the teachings of the apostles throughout christianity, including those written today, and including your very own words here in this forum.

 

Obviously that is nonsensical.  And so obviously they do not need to be scripture to be a valid accounting of these teachings contained in the Didache.

 

 

You go on next to the bible itself, so I think I'll close this response concerning the Didache here.

[OneLight]

May I suggest that the whole passage be provided when quoting scripture, in its full context, and not just a partial verse.  Anyone can snip here, take a few word there and pates it all together to make a false teaching sound legit.  I have seen a lot of this lately, which is why I usually stay out of a discussion.

 

Let scripture speak for itself.

[thereselittleflower]

May I suggest that the whole passage be provided when quoting scripture, in its full context, and not just a partial verse.  Anyone can snip here, take a few word there and pates it all together to make a false teaching sound legit.  I have seen a lot of this lately, which is why I usually stay out of a discussion.

 

Let scripture speak for itself.

 

I apologize OneLight.   I assume people know the verse in question.  I wanted to simply make a part stand out as it, in my opinion, stands alone as well.  

[OneLight]

 

May I suggest that the whole passage be provided when quoting scripture, in its full context, and not just a partial verse.  Anyone can snip here, take a few word there and pates it all together to make a false teaching sound legit.  I have seen a lot of this lately, which is why I usually stay out of a discussion.

 

Let scripture speak for itself.

Scripture has been shown to eliminate the roman doctrines from truth - the roman doctrines are opposed to Scripture, as MorningGlory, Shiloh, a few others, and myself have posted to oppose the anti-scripture catholic doctrine that has been posted.  

As noted by MorningGlory earlier in one of the threads, we recognize heresy and reject it,  but the ones supporting heresy ignore what Scripture says and post instead and often in very long posts the errors of catholicism as if to promote catholicism,

instead of

accepting Scripture for Scripture.

And as you

said yourself long ago >

"What I am personally against is the doctrinal teachings that go against scripture. no matter what denomination it is. Most of the people who attend church in my area, from what I can gather from the conversations I have had with them, side more with doctrinal statements then scripture. They have not held these doctrines up to scripture to see for themselves if they are truth or not."

 

We have no way that I know of to stop or to shorten the posts that support the heresy, and it does no good as seen for the last few weeks to post the Scripture that refutes it.   Instead of the Scripture being accepted,   more heresy from catholicism is posted , again, often verbose ("a million" of words as MorningGlory put it) ...

re doctrine vs heresy and 'million words' >>

 

 

It looks like you think I am speaking to you.  I am speaking to everyone who reads my post.  If I wanted to address a specific person, I would quote their post and use their name.  Notice that I did neither in my post.

 

Shalom