Didache

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dokimas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn’t have to; it was a given
Oh - you mean, sort of like the Real Presence in the Eucharist was a given or Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a given? I can actually PROVE those - you CAN’T** prove your statement.**

Why is it that when a Protestant has no Biblical or extrabilical 1st century evidence for something - it was simply “a given”??

Is that the best you can do?
 
Thank you for your response. I’ve discussed this on this forum many times. I won’t bore anyone to say the same things I’ve said ad nauseum. Let me say, though, that circumcism of sons was directly commanded in the OT, but not so with baptism in the NT.
Celebrating Christ’s birth isn’t commanded either, but Catholics and most non-Catholics celebrate Christmas, so I’m not sure how this is analogous.

Augustine said, “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” Would this not apply to baptism and the new covenant, where baptism replaced circumcision?
 
It also doesn’t mention it is only for adults.
To follow the directions of this document, the person getting baptized should fast for two or three days. Would you withhold food from an infant?
 
Oh - you mean, sort of like the Real Presence in the Eucharist was a given or Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was a given? I can actually PROVE those - you CAN’T** prove your statement.**

**Why **is it that when a Protestant has no Biblical or extrabilical 1st century evidence for something - it was simply “a given”??

Is that the best you can do?

Matthew 1:25 brings into question your given.​

Infants aren’t mention one time being baptized in the NT. Good luck proving your statement.
 
Celebrating Christ’s birth isn’t commanded either, but Catholics and most non-Catholics celebrate Christmas, so I’m not sure how this is analogous.

Augustine said, “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” Would this not apply to baptism and the new covenant, where baptism replaced circumcision?
Obviously you think your analogy fits this situation but I don’t see it. Thanks for responding.
 
Obviously you think your analogy fits this situation but I don’t see it. Thanks for responding.
I see that you have not commented on my posts. Are you afraid to engage in enlightened, logical debate; or do you simply always think you are right? I was taught to always respect others but you have some gall to come on a catholic forum and somehow hint that we are without the grace of the HS to interpret and understand what was given to us by the WORD OF GOD. His word was not simply written but handed down by the apostles in oral tradition also known as Sacred Tradition.

Answer me this question, unless you don’t know how or maybe it offends you to debate with a female, but what do you know of the traditions and oral teachings of the apostles and the fathers of the early church?

God Bless:)

P.S. Infants didn’t have to fast because their only sin was that of being born of Adam; in other words Original Sin. Baptism makes us heirs of God the Father; this gift was to be given to all regardless of age. See post #16
 
I see that you have not commented on my posts. Are you afraid to engage in enlightened, logical debate; or do you simply always think you are right? I was taught to always respect others but you have some gall to come on a catholic forum and somehow hint that we are without the grace of the HS to interpret and understand what was given to us by the WORD OF GOD. His word was not simply written but handed down by the apostles in oral tradition also known as Sacred Tradition.

Answer me this question, unless you don’t know how or maybe it offends you to debate with a female, but what do you know of the traditions and oral teachings of the apostles and the fathers of the early church?

God Bless:)

P.S. Infants didn’t have to fast because their only sin was that of being born of Adam; in other words Original Sin. Baptism makes us heirs of God the Father; this gift was to be given to all regardless of age. See post #16

If you want a response, then why come at me with both barrels? BTW, I have NEVER said anything about the CC and the Holy Spirit nor have I even hinted anything. For you to think I have you’d have to read something into my posts that is NOT there!!!​

Just because I think the CC is mistaken, DOES NOT mean I don’t think the Holy Spirit has lead it. I’ve admitted I’m mistaken often; I sure hope the Holy Spirit can lead me inspite of my short comings.​

 
To follow the directions of this document, the person getting baptized should fast for two or three days. Would you withhold food from an infant?
The formula with fasting is clearly for adults, however it does not say that children cannot be baptised. In the East the usual practice is that children do everything as the adults do, minus any strict fasting which may be involved.

Additionally I would note that “fasting” does not necessarily mean withholding food, but rather is the withholding of certain foods.
 
Some interesting points on baptism, as they are in the other threads on baptism.
Bless you all bye.
 
continued…

Consider, too, that **Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason. **

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

**“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. **Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no** one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” **(ibid., 64:5).
Thank you, Humble maid! Excellent Apologetics, I do hope our dear friend sees fit to achknowledge the truth of it,God bless, and Peace to all. Carlan
 
Matthew 1:25 brings into question your given.
I already obliterated this argument when you brought it up in another thread on Baptizing Infants with the following:
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death."
Are we to assume that Michal had children
after
she died
?

Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): “For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”'

**Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease being at the Father’s right hand AFTER his enemies are made his footstool?
Infants aren’t mention one time being baptized in the NT. Good luck proving your statement.
Mary isn’t mentioned ONE, single, solitary time as having given birth to another child - yet YOU believe this to be true.

The simple fact is that children of ALL ages belong to households - and when households are baptized (like Corneluis and Stephanas) - it INCLUDES them. You can deny this all day long but it doesn’t make you right . . .:rolleyes:
 
I had never heard of Didache. Then I looked into it today and I found it interesting.
It’s wonderful that you are reseaching the writings of the early Church Fathers. Continue in your seach, you will find at least 15 statements that explicitly speak of infant baptism, along with many others which eluded to it. These writings provide great insight into the early Church, her teachings and how teaching evolves. I too would recommend the three volume set “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William A. Jurgens.👍

Peace,
T
 
The Didache is interesting because it is the earliest existing non-Biblical Christian document, dating most likely to a time when the Apostles were still alive. It is also interesting because it specifically mentions that there are legitimate alternatives to full-immersion baptism, and full-immersion baptism is a big deal to certain Protestant denominations.
 
The Didache is interesting because it is the earliest existing non-Biblical Christian document, dating most likely to a time when the Apostles were still alive. It is also interesting because it specifically mentions that there are legitimate alternatives to full-immersion baptism, and full-immersion baptism is a big deal to certain Protestant denominations.
The alternatives it gives to full immersion Baptism are based on how available water is though. An argument that doesn’t work for common practice in North America and Europe. 😉
 
The alternatives it gives to full immersion Baptism are based on how available water is though. An argument that doesn’t work for common practice in North America and Europe. 😉
Not precisely. Here’s the section in question:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times 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 whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

The statements in bold can be read a number of different ways, depending on how you interpret them. The $64,000 question is… what does “if you have no living water” mean? Does it mean “This is the way it should be done, and only in rare, life or death circumstances where there is absolutely no possibility of finding living water, you can do it this way”? Does it mean “This is the preferred way to do it, but if it’s going to be really difficult, there are some lesser alternatives”? Does it mean “If you’re lucky enough to be near living water, than this is the way to do it. If that’s impractical or inconvenient, don’t worry about it, there are plenty of options”? There’s absolutely no connotation given, so it’s hard to determine the true importance of the first option.

One thing is clear, however. All of the other options are VALID and were apparently used at least part of the time, even as far back as the era of the Apostles themselves. They could be potentially be overused practices, but they are not unacceptable.

Also keep in mind that for most of Christian history, the reason that “living water” was not used was because rivers and lakes were often where the local sewage ended up.
 
Thank you, Humble maid! Excellent Apologetics, I do hope our dear friend sees fit to achknowledge the truth of it,God bless, and Peace to all. Carlan
Peace be with you. I am afraid I cannot take credit for the apologetics, it is pasted from a catholic site.

I too would hope that our friend acknowledges the truth, but some would rather hold on to their own interpretation, lest it would mean that they are wrong and would invariably change their thinking and their loyalties.

God Bless:)
 
Doki note: no mention of infant baptism.
This might be an unanswerable question given what documents survive today.

A decent treatment of the historical question is given at this Orthodox site:
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067

I think what is more important - and the reason why we disagree - is how we understand Baptism to impact one’s relationship with the Lord. Is Baptism the beginning of entering the Covenant, and if it is, is there reason to exclude from the New Covenant those infants who were previously included under Judaism? If it is not, but a sign of what has already happened, then are infants already part of the Covenant but excluded later unless they are baptized?

That’s one way of approaching it.
 
Didn’t have to; it was a given
Much of where Christians disagree - not just Catholics and Protestants but even among Protestants - is whether Scripture commands, admonishes, or presents an example. If we have the example of adult baptism, does that preclude infant baptism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top