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
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Just my way of putting a "bow" on the whole thing . . .
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.
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.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
Is there any other authority besides the Word of God ?
When a human king sent out a proclamation throughout his realm through a herald (in ancient times), that proclamation stood for his authority.God, The Church. In fact the Bible never says it is the Authority, that idea is from men.
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.
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.
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 . . .
Because you have dismissed it simply because it is not inspired.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
Being "buried" with Christ into death doesn't mean "burial" by water.@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).
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.
Baptismal regeneration is part of what Ezekiel is describing - but we weren't discussing that.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
People have their different customs...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.
And right there is why Bible is not Word too I guess. Word = God rightGod, The Church. In fact the Bible never says it is the Authority, that idea is from men.
People have their different customs...
Once again - The Didache doesn't refer to pouring as "Baptidzo". It DESCRIBES Baptidzo by including pouring.
The opening line of paragraph 7 of The Didache regarding Baptism states explicitly: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
You right about the 2 births - but wrong about the 2 Baptisms.
there is only ONE Baptism
It's BIBLICAL thinking as well . . .Catholic thinking.