G
greggy53
Guest
It Wasn’t forbidden anywhere either.
- Status
L
Lapey
Guest
Brian,
I would have to agree with you here. However I would go to both sides with the statement, “let’s get real.” Doki goes out of his way to make the case against; just as us Catholics go to support. I ask, what’s the point?
Even if this document supports adult only baptism, does that mean that infant baptism was prohibited? No it doesn’t, that conclusion would come from a person with an agenda. One would have to read into these texts to say that the early Christians didn’t baptize all members of a converting group.
His Church is always evolving, although it is a very slow evolution it is evolution none the less. He gave His apostles and their successors the authority to bind and loose. Many things in the Church have evolved over the centuries.
This argument can be made, as someone already alluded to, baptism of women. How ridiculous do you want to get? Hey Doki, what kind of vehicle do you drive? If you are not making use of what is biblically correct you are not holding true to the teachings of the early Christians; only donkeys and camels were mentioned. See how stupid this is?
We should be discussing what baptism is and what it means instead of trying to prove this Church is right or that Church is wrong. What do we gain by trying to demean another’s belief?
Guess what Doki, if you and your family were Catholic and you didn’t believe in infant baptism, you could wait to have your children or grand children baptized. Yes you can make that choice; I wouldn’t agree with it but it is your choice. You won’t get kicked out of the “club” if you disagree with infant baptism. Many Catholics wait to have their children baptized. I don’t understand the reason and don’t agree with the logic, but I respect their wishes. Now I ask you, why not respect my wishes to follow Church teachings and traditions from the early days of the Church to baptize infants if I wish? I say it’s because you want to prove me and the Catholic Church wrong, and you cannot.
Just one more question for you there Doki, who gave you that document that you use against His Church? You guessed it, Catholics!!! The same source that gave you the New Testament and compiled the entire canon, Old and New Testaments together as you use to fight the same Church (minus a few things here and there).
Everything you have originated from Jesus and flows through His Church, the Catholic Church.
L
losh14
Guest
Catholics - let’s knock off the heat a bit. Dokimas may be challenging but I welcome his inquiries. If we are to evangelize we must be patient. If you feel riled up reading something here - whether from him or anyone - step away from the computer and pray on it a bit. Remember that our Lord silenced an angry crowd by writing in the sand.
Dokimas - this isn’t the first time I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with you. Please forgive our passions here. If you’re willing to listen and try to understand us, please give us the opportunity to show the same understanding of our differences.
On the immediate topic of your disagreement, I think it would help if both sides considered the nature of Baptism and our differences in it.
humblemaid, if you’ve been disparaged on account of your gender, that is a terrible wrong. I don’t think that was Dokimas’ intent.
Dokimas - this isn’t the first time I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with you. Please forgive our passions here. If you’re willing to listen and try to understand us, please give us the opportunity to show the same understanding of our differences.
On the immediate topic of your disagreement, I think it would help if both sides considered the nature of Baptism and our differences in it.
L
losh14
Guest
Excellent point. Since Jesus was Himself not recorded as speaking against it, we turn to our other sources of understanding.
We find that homosexuality was condemned as a matter both of Mosaic Law (Dt 22:5, LV 20:13) and by the Apostles (1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10) who led His Church following His Resurrection and Ascension. We could find further evidence in historical extra-Scriptural documents as well, but here Scripture suffices.
Infant baptism is not as clear in Scripture because it is not addressed specifically, while homosexuality is abundantly clear both in language and context.
And so, without a bright line in Scripture, we turn to our understanding of baptism. In Catholicism, baptism is:
- initiation into the New Covenant - in line with the initiation practice of the Old Covenant, it is offered equally to infants as to adults
- A communal rite of Grace - as with Noah whose family found temporal salvation in the Ark (1 Pt 3:20-22), baptism is a work of the Lord, not of man. In other words, it is the Lord who baptizes, through the Church in its ministry (Mt 28:19), and there is no action that man can take to add to nor take away from one’s baptism. Faith is still required (do I need to cite?) and a profession of faith is expected from all who are baptized, whether as infant or as adult.
- A requirement for salvation - (Mk 16:16). If we see no explicit command to baptize infants, neither do we see exception for salvation among the unbaptized.
L
losh14
Guest
I think a more robust, and less conflict-prone, approach is to ask the one who disagrees to present an internally cohesive perspective. If we rely upon Scripture alone, how do we rely upon Scripture alone in terms of things that are commanded, that are proscribed, and that are not addressed? If things are not addressed, how do we determine a response in line with our rubric of Scripture alone?
H
humble_maid
Guest
H
humble_maid
Guest
Do you think that when the men and women who joined in believing the Lord, that they did not have infants, children. Do you mean to tell me that their children were left out until an appointed time? And if so, who has authority to set what time is proper to allow children to become believers? Thoughts please?
L
losh14
Guest
Act 5:14 And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more increased:
Ah, very good. You’ve taught me something - andron and gunaikon - when I had overlooked that one. There are few women mentioned by name, but true enough women were indeed baptized.
We still lack evidence of the Apostles, other than Paul, being baptized.
This is an interesting passage altogether. The Apostles are preaching at Solomon’s Portico (or Porch) (v12), on the east side of the Temple. Hence there are others who afraid to associate with the Christians (v13), even so the multitudes grow.
Interesting that children are left out here, especially when multitudes are being referenced.
A reasonable assumption. But when I look at the phrasing of the rest of Scripture I don’t see ‘men, women and children’ being used often in the New Testament. Idiomatically, Greek tended to use “men” (andron) or masculine plural non-personal terms (ie, “believers”, “brothers”) to signify a group in general - something common in gendered languages like Spanish, German, Hebrew, etc. We only see ‘men, women and children’ as a group function twice in the entire NT - both times in Matthew’s Gospel referring to the miracles of feeding the thousands. We never see ‘men, women and children’ addressed directly or indirectly in the epistles, nor described as such in congregations, though it’s a safe assumption that Christians reproduced and that if women were present they brought their nursing newborns with them. So I don’t take the omission of children to indicate affirmatively their absence.
On what basis are we to assume that the Didache is an accurate portrayal of true doctrine? It is not considered scripture. Sure, perhaps it is accurate about what the community the author was a part of was doing, but that doesn’t make it an authority about what the apostles taught. Thoughts?
Good question. We take it first as an historical document that reflects the sentiment and practice or at least instruction of the community that generated it. We do not take it as Scripture primarily because we cannot affirm Apostolic authorship.
We could take it as fraudulent, though I trust linguistic scholars who can attest to the age of a writing based solely upon the language and usage - something I cannot do but I understand how it is done based on my exposure to linguistics in college. Thus I trust it to be the reflection of thought and practice of a group gathering in Syria around the turn of the 2nd century (~100 AD) or perhaps as late as the start of the 3rd.
So we have an ancient document whose authors had knowledge of Scripture - indeed including the “Our Father” and various admonitions to Christian discipline that are paraphrased if not directly cited from Scripture - and attempted to emulate practices that the authors claim are founded in Scripture.
We also have an ancient document that asserts similar practices to those which we recognize today in Christianity, in particular in Catholicism. This is similarity in form (how) as well as substance (why). For example, confession of sins prior to receiving Eucharist (Ch 4), and the withholding of Eucharist from those not yet baptized so as not to give what is holy to those who are wicked (Ch 9). This document also relates to other ancient documents that are newer than the Didache. Thus we find a document that is consistent in form and in practice with what came before and with what came after.
Is it the teaching of the Apostles? Do you find anything contradictory to what the Apostles taught? Certainly there are words of consecration (Ch 9) which are not found in Scripture, yet no such words of consecration are found in Scripture over the Eucharist. Does that mean that bread was bread and no words of consecration were given? No. I can think of three reasons why they may not have been included in Scripture:
Ah, very good. You’ve taught me something - andron and gunaikon - when I had overlooked that one. There are few women mentioned by name, but true enough women were indeed baptized.
We still lack evidence of the Apostles, other than Paul, being baptized.
This is an interesting passage altogether. The Apostles are preaching at Solomon’s Portico (or Porch) (v12), on the east side of the Temple. Hence there are others who afraid to associate with the Christians (v13), even so the multitudes grow.
Interesting that children are left out here, especially when multitudes are being referenced.
A reasonable assumption. But when I look at the phrasing of the rest of Scripture I don’t see ‘men, women and children’ being used often in the New Testament. Idiomatically, Greek tended to use “men” (andron) or masculine plural non-personal terms (ie, “believers”, “brothers”) to signify a group in general - something common in gendered languages like Spanish, German, Hebrew, etc. We only see ‘men, women and children’ as a group function twice in the entire NT - both times in Matthew’s Gospel referring to the miracles of feeding the thousands. We never see ‘men, women and children’ addressed directly or indirectly in the epistles, nor described as such in congregations, though it’s a safe assumption that Christians reproduced and that if women were present they brought their nursing newborns with them. So I don’t take the omission of children to indicate affirmatively their absence.
On what basis are we to assume that the Didache is an accurate portrayal of true doctrine? It is not considered scripture. Sure, perhaps it is accurate about what the community the author was a part of was doing, but that doesn’t make it an authority about what the apostles taught. Thoughts?
Good question. We take it first as an historical document that reflects the sentiment and practice or at least instruction of the community that generated it. We do not take it as Scripture primarily because we cannot affirm Apostolic authorship.
We could take it as fraudulent, though I trust linguistic scholars who can attest to the age of a writing based solely upon the language and usage - something I cannot do but I understand how it is done based on my exposure to linguistics in college. Thus I trust it to be the reflection of thought and practice of a group gathering in Syria around the turn of the 2nd century (~100 AD) or perhaps as late as the start of the 3rd.
So we have an ancient document whose authors had knowledge of Scripture - indeed including the “Our Father” and various admonitions to Christian discipline that are paraphrased if not directly cited from Scripture - and attempted to emulate practices that the authors claim are founded in Scripture.
We also have an ancient document that asserts similar practices to those which we recognize today in Christianity, in particular in Catholicism. This is similarity in form (how) as well as substance (why). For example, confession of sins prior to receiving Eucharist (Ch 4), and the withholding of Eucharist from those not yet baptized so as not to give what is holy to those who are wicked (Ch 9). This document also relates to other ancient documents that are newer than the Didache. Thus we find a document that is consistent in form and in practice with what came before and with what came after.
Is it the teaching of the Apostles? Do you find anything contradictory to what the Apostles taught? Certainly there are words of consecration (Ch 9) which are not found in Scripture, yet no such words of consecration are found in Scripture over the Eucharist. Does that mean that bread was bread and no words of consecration were given? No. I can think of three reasons why they may not have been included in Scripture:
- Perhaps the words were familiar enough through personal ministry and evangelization that Paul did not feel the need to relate them in his letters.
- Perhaps Paul did not feel that adhering to a strict wording was necessary. This may be very true at the time but in later centuries when disputes arose over the nature of Christ and the significance of His Sacrifice, some standardization of prayer would have been seen as necessary to prevent heretical views from arising.
- Perhaps there was no consecration at all. In which case, this Didache is novel. I do find that unlikely, though. We find words of consecration used elsewhere shortly thereafter in other epistles, such that if consecrating the Eucharist was a novel idea never promulgated by the Apostles, it spontaneously emerged in multiple churches on its own. That is less likely than consecration having already existed and been spread in the Apostolic church.
L
losh14
Guest
Humbly said, yet your opinion is most welcome.
This is how we practice it - at Confirmation one renews their baptismal vows (something all Catholics do at Easter as well), an acknoweldgement of their baptism, whenever received.
Quite correct. No sacrament is valid where the heart rejects it, but this is something only the Lord’s eyes can see and judge. A confession is invalid if the penitent is insincere, as is a marriage invalid if the spouse intends to cheat and fulfills that intent.
Our Lord does desire us to love Him in our hearts foremost, indeed. It may also be practical. Where one’s exegesis requires direct statement from Scripture and other’s does not, we will not have agreement.
Please keep us all in your prayers, and thank you very kindly for them.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If one practices only baptizing adults, then one doesn’t have to teach it. As I said, it was a given.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thanks for your opinion. I’ll consider it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Humble Maid, I have done nothing to you differently because you are a woman. I don’t understand what you are referring to.
I am always looking to understand the Bible and God’s mind better. I DO NOT want you or anyone to stumble.Be honest, you have to reject anything I might say that is different than what the CC teaches. Therefore you can’t be open to what I’m pointing out. I find that discussing with some here very difficult for this reason.
You want me to be open to your understanding but you are closed to mine. Where’s the fairness. You claim I won’t consider you because you are female yet you won’t consider mine because I’m a non-catholic Christian.
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
Whole families along with their servants were baptised. Does this mean that they servants were necessarily in the know? I don’t think it says. When the bible says to believe as a requirement, it is for the adults. It never says the that children must believe and that would be on the parents shoulders. Why? No clue other than the example of the early Church. The early bishops never argued against whether a child should be baptized, but rather at what age, days, weeks or months. I sturggled with these arguments for most of my life and at one point chose to believe that an believers baptism by complete submersion was the only valid baptism, as my previous faith taught. But after discovering the Didache I came to an understanding that not all is as seems.
I would like to further this discussion by bringing into consideration the remaining topics not discussed that the Dicache brings up that you may not agree with, like crossing oneself. I’d like to point out that unless you believe that the bread and wine are real flesh and real blood you shall not have life in you. St. Ignatius places you among the group known as “heretics” in his days. So would the other ACF. So would the apostles, and so does Jesus (John 6). further the fact that the Church, which is the body of Christ, was established only by Jesus Christ himself and then turned around and gave it to the Apostles with Peter in charge really binds us all on the discussion. We choose to twist the words of scripture to our own liking, in spite of how little sense it makes. Jesus himself speaks of the chair of Moses and that we are to obey what they teach, not what they do.
I could go on and on and on about this discussion, but the fact remains that there is still no proof that infant baptism did not take place. And that my friends is the real crux of the matter. So we rely on Jesus’ teachings passed town through the Church. Our faith is in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Majisteriium is the real question at hand.
I would like to further this discussion by bringing into consideration the remaining topics not discussed that the Dicache brings up that you may not agree with, like crossing oneself. I’d like to point out that unless you believe that the bread and wine are real flesh and real blood you shall not have life in you. St. Ignatius places you among the group known as “heretics” in his days. So would the other ACF. So would the apostles, and so does Jesus (John 6). further the fact that the Church, which is the body of Christ, was established only by Jesus Christ himself and then turned around and gave it to the Apostles with Peter in charge really binds us all on the discussion. We choose to twist the words of scripture to our own liking, in spite of how little sense it makes. Jesus himself speaks of the chair of Moses and that we are to obey what they teach, not what they do.
I could go on and on and on about this discussion, but the fact remains that there is still no proof that infant baptism did not take place. And that my friends is the real crux of the matter. So we rely on Jesus’ teachings passed town through the Church. Our faith is in the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Majisteriium is the real question at hand.
N
Norval
Guest
The didache was started about 60 AD and finished about 120AD. It was origanialy intended as an "how to " guide. Till the apostles creed which appeared about 60 AD there was nothing but Tradition. St. Mathew started his gospel in about 62 AD.
Baptism is a sacrament. It removes the “stain” caused by Original Sin and imparts sanctifying grace to the soul.
Baptism is a sacrament. It removes the “stain” caused by Original Sin and imparts sanctifying grace to the soul.
S
simspt
Guest
The NT is the tradition of the Church. There were Christians for decades before any known NT writing. That Church decided the canon hundreds of years later. The Didache is also the product of early Church tradition based on apostolic preaching and oral tradition. The Apostolic Fathers writings are based on the tradition of the early Church. The Church clearly had a hierarchial system early on based on succession and tradition even if some communities chose their own leaders. Infant baptism was an early practice of the Church. Bottom line this is a Church teaching that in my opinion if you have enough faith in the Church for the NT you have today you can trust on the issue of infant baptism. Please show me my logical error if I am making one but to trust the very Church that played the role it did in giving us the NT as we have it today while simultaneously using it to argue against the practices of that Church seems inconsistent.
N
Nicea325
Guest
It is not my opinion,but a correction on your part. And why? Because you are adding to text what it simply does not state or even remotely hint.
Yep! Exactly and Jesus also couldn’t reject being circumcised either…and your point?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Again,where do Apostles explicitly state baptism is restricted for adults? They don’t!
Yes it was a GIVEN FACT the first to be baptized were adults. And why? Because they were converts from Judaism or paganism. Doesn’t take a genius to figure it out from the scriptural text.
Yet no where in the NT does restrict baptisms to adults or does it reject it for infants. The scriptures are silent on a lot of matters.
- Status