Apostolicity

marks · Mar 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Just my way of putting a "bow" on the whole thing . . .

Interesting bow! Normally I'd think of a bow as a way to add a pleasant finishing touch.

Much love!
mark

marks · Mar 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
You completely missed the point.

It doesn't matter that The Didache isn't Scripture. I wasn't comparing it to Scripture. I was showing you it to you as a contemporary document WITH Scripture in its treatment of Baptism.

YOU keep ignorantly trying to imply that "Baptism" is defined in Scripture. It's NOT - it's merely MENTIONED. In the Didache, it's actually described.

Therefore - your ignorance of language was not an "ad hominem" - but an important factor in this debate.

What the didache shows is a difference between baptidzo - immersion - and pouring. So you cannot use the Didache as proof that baptism and pouring are the same, were thought of as the same, or written as the same. They were written of with completely different words.

And what is in Scripture is a word that if translated instead of transliterated would read,

Romans 6:3-4
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through immersion into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Which is in complete agreement with the didache. Immersion is treated differently from pouring. Check the document for yourself. I've given you links, I've copied into the post, it is there for all to see.

The statement made regarding baptism substantiate that pouring is something different, and they would do it in a pinch. But it supports, not alters the meaning of baptism as immersion, regardless of how the church practices the rite today, or even 100 years after Jesus died.

Much love!
Mark

BreadOfLife · Mar 13, 2019

marks said:
What the didache shows is a difference between baptidzo - immersion - and pouring. So you cannot use the Didache as proof that baptism and pouring are the same, were thought of as the same, or written as the same. They were written of with completely different words.

And what is in Scripture is a word that if translated instead of transliterated would read,

Romans 6:3-4
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through immersion into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Which is in complete agreement with the didache. Immersion is treated differently from pouring. Check the document for yourself. I've given you links, I've copied into the post, it is there for all to see.

The statement made regarding baptism substantiate that pouring is something different, and they would do it in a pinch. But it supports, not alters the meaning of baptism as immersion, regardless of how the church practices the rite today, or even 100 years after Jesus died.

Much love!
Mark

Uhhhhh, you forget - I presented the Didache to YOU. You never even knew it existed until I told you about it. I already have copies of it - and you have missed the point AGAIN.

The Scriptures neither define nor describe Baptism.
The Didache actually describes Christian Baptism.

It's not a question of whether you accept it as "inspired". It's NOT. It's an historical document.
Why do you believe that the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence or Luther's 95 Theses as a genuine historical documents yet reject the Didache??

Careful - your hypocrisy is showing again . . .

historyb · Mar 13, 2019

Triumph1300 said:
Is there any other authority besides the Word of God ?

God, The Church. In fact the Bible never says it is the Authority, that idea is from men.

Enoch111 · Mar 13, 2019

historyb said:
God, The Church. In fact the Bible never says it is the Authority, that idea is from men.

When a human king sent out a proclamation throughout his realm through a herald (in ancient times), that proclamation stood for his authority.

God's divine proclamation (particularly the Gospel) is within His written Word, sent out to every human being through the Bible. It represents God's authority in no uncertain terms. We are told that (1) God COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent and (2) God COMMANDS all men everywhere to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And Christ unequivocally spoke the words of God, and commanded the apostles and His Church to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

HEBREWS 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

charity · Mar 14, 2019

Enoch111 said:
You should know that this is Hyper-Dispensational NONSENSE. So when the apostles were baptizing people, according to you, "the flesh" was involved! Do you see how bizarre and unscriptural this teaching is?

Also, while Paul wrote about the one baptism in the Spirit in Ephesians, he also wrote about the doctrine of baptisms (plural) in Hebrews, and that applies to Christians throughout Church history. So you need to harmonize Scripture, instead of going off on a tangent.

Hello @Enoch111,

With respect to you: with water baptism it was necessary to physically enter the water: that required the action of the flesh, including the will of man, to undertake that action. The baptism which the Holy Spirit is responsibile for, requires no action of the will of the flesh, all is achieved through the sacrificial work of Christ, at the cross, and imputed to us through the faith of Christ.

Reference to the gospels and the book of Acts, including the epistles of Paul written during that period, (namely: 1&2 Cor. Gal. 1&2 Thess. Rom. & Heb.), will confirm that Baptism with water took place during the gospels; baptism with water and baptism by the Holy Spirit, took place during the Acts period; however, no mention is made of water baptism in the epistles of Paul written following the laying aside of Israel in unbelief (temporarily) at the end of the Acts period. (namely, Eph. Phil. Col. 1&2 Timothy and Titus).

I understand that we see these things differently, and I am not seeking to argue with you regarding this subject. However, we should not disregard the exhortation of Paul in Ephesians 4, regarding the One Baptism that we are to keep. For that it is baptism by the Holy Spirit that is intended is without question; as a reading of those Scriptures already mentioned will show.

The continued application of water baptism, for whatever reason, in the face of the words of Ephesians 4, is nothing other than an act of disobedience, and the application of human reasoning in the name of tradition, at the expense of truth.

With kind regards,
In Christ Jesus
Chris

marks · Mar 14, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Uhhhhh, you forget - I presented the Didache to YOU. You never even knew it existed until I told you about it. I already have copies of it - and you have missed the point AGAIN.

Hi BOL,

What do you mean that I never knew it existed until you told me. Why would you even have that idea? I studied the didache at the same time I studied the other early church writings quite a number of years ago.

Why am I defending to you whether or not I knew about the Didache?

And good that we agree that it is not inspired, and not to be considered as Scripture.

And again, in that the word that means to immerse is used, that's what it is.

The didache supports that argument in that when it gives "pour" as a concession, it uses a different word.

Why do you believe that the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence or Luther's 95 Theses as a genuine historical documents yet reject the Didache??

But of course I don't reject the didache as an historical document. Isn't this another Red Herring? Since now I'm called to defend my acceptance of the didache as an historical document germain to the use of the language? And since I've already referenced it's application to the discussion, why would one think I disregard it? I've demonstrably given it my regard.

Careful - your hypocrisy is showing again . . .

How so?

Much love!
Mark

BreadOfLife · Mar 14, 2019

marks said:
Hi BOL,

What do you mean that I never knew it existed until you told me. Why would you even have that idea? I studied the didache at the same time I studied the other early church writings quite a number of years ago.

Why am I defending to you whether or not I knew about the Didache?

And good that we agree that it is not inspired, and not to be considered as Scripture.

And again, in that the word that means to immerse is used, that's what it is.

The didache supports that argument in that when it gives "pour" as a concession, it uses a different word.

But of course I don't reject the didache as an historical document. Isn't this another Red Herring? Since now I'm called to defend my acceptance of the didache as an historical document germain to the use of the language? And since I've already referenced it's application to the discussion, why would one think I disregard it? I've demonstrably given it my regard.

How so?

Much love!
Mark

Because you have dismissed it simply because it is not inspired.
You also claim that the Greek word for Baptism is defined in the NT - when it is absolutely NOT.

I guess the best way to settle this is for YOU to show me where it is actually defined in the NT.
CAN you do that??

marks · Mar 14, 2019

@BreadOfLife

No, I don't think I can. The Bible is not a dictionary. We should go to dictionaries for that.

And how many times do I need to refute your erroneous claim that I dismiss the inclusion of the didache as germain to this argument when I've not only asserted that it is, but I've even incorporated it into my arguments?

Does that not express to you something other than a dismissiveness? Do you dismiss my affirmations?

But let me ask you a question.

The Bible says, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.

Which is it . . . are you immersed into Christ, or sprinkled with Christ?

Romans 6
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Much love!
Mark

BreadOfLife · Mar 14, 2019

marks said:
@BreadOfLife
No, I don't think I can. The Bible is not a dictionary. We should go to dictionaries for that.
And how many times do I need to refute your erroneous claim that I dismiss the inclusion of the didache as germain to this argument when I've not only asserted that it is, but I've even incorporated it into my arguments?
Does that not express to you something other than a dismissiveness? Do you dismiss my affirmations?
But let me ask you a question.
The Bible says, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.
Which is it . . . are you immersed into Christ, or sprinkled with Christ?

Romans 6
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Much love!
Mark

Being "buried" with Christ into death doesn't mean "burial" by water.
It's metaphorical language meaning that we are dead and buried to this world and newly created spiritually for the next.

As for "sprinkling" - the prophecy about Baptism that we read in Ezek. 36:25-27 states emphatically:
Ezek. 36:25-27
I will SPRINKLE clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

This is CLEARLY a prophecy about Baptism (water and Spirit) and says NOTHING about "immersion".
Instead, it points to the blood sprinkling that Moses conferred on the people (Exod. 24:8).

marks · Mar 14, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Being "buried" with Christ into death doesn't mean "burial" by water.
It's metaphorical language meaning that we are dead and buried to this world and newly created spiritually for the next.

As for "sprinkling" - the prophecy about Baptism that we read in Ezek. 36:25-27 states emphatically:
Ezek. 36:25-27
I will SPRINKLE clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

This is CLEARLY a prophecy about Baptism (water and Spirit) and says NOTHING about "immersion".
Instead, it points to the blood sprinkling that Moses conferred on the people (Exod. 24:8).

Hey that's the best point you've made so far that I see.

Btw . . . wanted to let you know . . . even though it may seem to some that we're just knocking our heads against each other, I'm nonetheless enjoying this. You are responsive and stay on point. What a refreshing change!

OK . . . metaphorical language. Buried in baptism into Christ, yes, metaphorical. But the meaning of the metaphor is that we are henceforth "in Christ".

The Ezekiel passage, sprinkling clean water, literal, or metaphor? If literal, then why in the didache would they list "pouring" as a concessionary alternate? Wouldn't that disagree with what God said through Ezekiel?

Why not say, don't immerse, just pour, according to the Word of God unto Ezekiel. Why not that?

I would think that if we were to interpret that way, then sprinkling would be the way to do it, but then why use a word that means to immerse?

We're looking at two things, "baptidzo", a Greek word, and Baptism, a Christian rite.

My assertion is that the word baptidzo was used because of what it means, I immerse (Lexical form). In the LXX on this passage in Ezekiel, "Baptidzo" is not used.

I'm assuming baptismal regeneration is not part of this discussion, is that right?

Much love!
mark

historyb · Mar 14, 2019

Enoch111 said:
When a human king sent out a proclamation throughout his realm through a herald (in ancient times), that proclamation stood for his authority.

God's divine proclamation (particularly the Gospel) is within His written Word, sent out to every human being through the Bible. It represents God's authority in no uncertain terms. We are told that (1) God COMMANDS all men everywhere to repent and (2) God COMMANDS all men everywhere to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And Christ unequivocally spoke the words of God, and commanded the apostles and His Church to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

HEBREWS 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

In other words, it is very much an idea of men but you want to twist in a pretzel to prove it's not. The Bible is not any authority except what man places upon it. The Bible is the words of God to men, God is the ultimate authority. Christ said preach the Gospel not the Bible, Christ is the Gospel

BreadOfLife · Mar 14, 2019

marks said:
Hey that's the best point you've made so far that I see.

Btw . . . wanted to let you know . . . even though it may seem to some that we're just knocking our heads against each other, I'm nonetheless enjoying this. You are responsive and stay on point. What a refreshing change!

OK . . . metaphorical language. Buried in baptism into Christ, yes, metaphorical. But the meaning of the metaphor is that we are henceforth "in Christ".

The Ezekiel passage, sprinkling clean water, literal, or metaphor? If literal, then why in the didache would they list "pouring" as a concessionary alternate? Wouldn't that disagree with what God said through Ezekiel?

Why not say, don't immerse, just pour, according to the Word of God unto Ezekiel. Why not that?

I would think that if we were to interpret that way, then sprinkling would be the way to do it, but then why use a word that means to immerse?

We're looking at two things, "baptidzo", a Greek word, and Baptism, a Christian rite.

My assertion is that the word baptidzo was used because of what it means, I immerse (Lexical form). In the LXX on this passage in Ezekiel, "Baptidzo" is not used.

I'm assuming baptismal regeneration is not part of this discussion, is that right?

Much love!
mark

Baptismal regeneration is part of what Ezekiel is describing - but we weren't discussing that.
I would be more than happy to to discuss that AFTER we settle this matter.

Once again - The Didache doesn't refer to pouring as "Baptidzo". It DESCRIBES Baptidzo by including pouring.

As for the "sprinkling" that Ezekiel talks about - his purpose is to compare it to the blood that Moses sprinkled on the people - which was a TYPE or precursor to Christian Baptism. The blood of the sacrifices animals was fulfilled by the blood of Christ.

MY point all along has been that the process of Baptism is NOT described in Scripture .
For that - we must defer to Apostolic Tradition.

farouk · Mar 15, 2019

Mayflower said:
I am close to some of those places!!! That would be neat to visit. I remember first coming up from Texas and seeing an Amish girl on a greyhound on the way to Indiana. I kept trying not to stare. I just never saw anyone dressed like that before. She seemed nice, but didn't really talk to me.

People have their different customs...

bbyrd009 · Mar 15, 2019

historyb said:
God, The Church. In fact the Bible never says it is the Authority, that idea is from men.

And right there is why Bible is not Word too I guess. Word = God right

Mayflower · Mar 15, 2019

farouk said:
People have their different customs...

Well I am used to it now. I just like to observe new people and places and things and I know it is rude just to stare at someone. Lol

marks · Mar 15, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Once again - The Didache doesn't refer to pouring as "Baptidzo". It DESCRIBES Baptidzo by including pouring.

I agree we shouldn't divert into baptismal regeneration quite yet.

But what I see the Didache saying is that when performing "Baptisms", you can either baptise or pour.

I see a rite known as Baptism, which can be done by immersion (baptism) or pouring.

But pouring clearly seems to me to be an alternative to immersion, which is identified using different words.

I realize what you are saying about the didache teaching of "Baptism", just the same, it makes a distinction between immersing and pouring, using baptidzo as the preferred method and "pouring", "ekxeon", for an acceptible alternate.

I wait to see if you think the same, but does this clarify our discussion?

The Didache teaches Baptism may be performed by either immersing or pouring, and the word for immersion is baptidzo, and the word for pouring is ekxeon.

Does this suit you?

Much love!
Mark

BreadOfLife · Mar 16, 2019

marks said:
I agree we shouldn't divert into baptismal regeneration quite yet.

But what I see the Didache saying is that when performing "Baptisms", you can either baptise or pour.

I see a rite known as Baptism, which can be done by immersion (baptism) or pouring.

But pouring clearly seems to me to be an alternative to immersion, which is identified using different words.

I realize what you are saying about the didache teaching of "Baptism", just the same, it makes a distinction between immersing and pouring, using baptidzo as the preferred method and "pouring", "ekxeon", for an acceptible alternate.

I wait to see if you think the same, but does this clarify our discussion?

The Didache teaches Baptism may be performed by either immersing or pouring, and the word for immersion is baptidzo, and the word for pouring is ekxeon.

Does this suit you?

Much love!
Mark

The opening line of paragraph 7 of The Didache regarding Baptism states explicitly:
Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε (And concerning baptism, baptize this way):
It goes on to describe the process - of which POURING is an option.

This has been my point ALL along. NOT that immersion was NOT an option - or even the preferred method. It WAS. The Bible simply does not describe the PROCESS of Baptism. It gives us a WORD (βαπτίσματος) - but it doesn't give us ALL of the definitions of that word. For that, we need to go to extrabiblical sources like Tradition, linguistics and history.
Additionally - the sentence right after the mention of "pouring over the head" actually cALLS it "Baptism":
"But if you have not either, POUR OUT water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the BAPTISM let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

This is why I brought up the word "Adelphos" earlier. This word for "Brother" is used some 344 times in the NT - but it is NEVER defined nor are ALL of the uses for it defined (brother, step brother, half brother, cousin, uncle, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.). The Greek word for "cousin" is "Anepsios" - but the word "Adelphos" is used in places for cousin.

This is NO different that "Baptidzos" and "ekxeon". Regarding Christian Baptism - they are interchangeable.

CoreIssue · Mar 16, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
You right about the 2 births - but wrong about the 2 Baptisms.
there is only ONE Baptism

Catholic thinking.

BreadOfLife · Mar 16, 2019

CoreIssue said:
Catholic thinking.

It's BIBLICAL thinking as well . . .

Eph. 4:5-6
One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Yup - we Catholics think BIBLICALLY . . .

Apostolicity

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads