Didache

[greggy53]

Thanks for your opinion about my logic. You know you could be wrong.​

Actually it’s about repentance and obedience. Infants can’t, nor do they need to, do both.

If there were no such thing as Original sin, and Baptism were not a sacrament then you would be right perhaps, but Original sin being what it is and the sacramental nature of Baptism being what it is makes your statement above incorrect.

 

[elvisman]

You do have a high opinion of you abilities. Why do you keep bring to the table verses from the OT?

To show you just how preposterous your position is regarding the usage of the word, “until”.
In case you were unaware - there are multiple uses for this word, as I amply illustrated in the other thread which you are conveniently ignoring.

-I have not seen your comments on all those verses I quoted which uses ‘until’. I can’t wait to see how you wiggle out of them.

**I didn’t have to “wiggle” out of them.
Go back and read the post - which I wrote yesterday.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

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.

Please restate what you’re asking so I can respond properly.

 

[Dokimas]

**To show you just how preposterous **your position is regarding the usage of the word, “until”.
In case you were unaware - there are multiple uses for this word, as I amply illustrated in the other thread which you are conveniently ignoring.

**I didn’t *have ***to “wiggle” out of them.
Go back and read the post - which I wrote yesterday.

Couldn’t find your response. Could you please repost it. I’d love to read it.

 

[elvisman]

Couldn’t find your response. Could you please repost it. I’d love to read it.

Here you go:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6522464&postcount=869

 

[JohnChrysostom]

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.

Whole households were baptized and nowhere does it even mention there ages. This topic will continue to be an impasse for those Protestants that reject even reformation practices. We saw abrupt changes or rejection virtually over night and now it occurs almost daily. Been there.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

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.

That’s because our Pope is elected by other ordained Bishops that are in direct lineage from the Apostles…meaning, not self-appointed like you seem to be claiming.

 

[humble_maid]

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.

Peace be with you,

We have been trying to convey this teaching to the OP but he doesn’t agree. He believes that baptism which is of St.John based on repentence. However, St.John did say that there is One greater than he who is coming; it was leading up to the Baptism of Jesus; this baptism became the new form; basically it superceded that of St. John. The baptism of Jesus is not one repentence, since he had nothing to repent. HE WAS SINLESS. Then why did he allow St. John to baptize Him? Any thoughts?

 

[humble_maid]

Humble Maid, I have done nothing to you differently because you are a woman. I don’t understand what you are referring to.

 

[Dokimas]

humble_maid:
Humble Maid,

I answer posts as I have time. Sometimes I forget to go back when I have more time. Also, after having the same discussion with two or three other, when another person makes the same argument, I’m often worn out with trying and just let it be. Sorry if your posts sometimes fit into that catagory.

I believe the primary source of truth is the Bible. Anything that contradicts it, IMO, should be questioned and quite probably disregarded.

Just because you reject an argument I’ve made doesn’t mean it’s not a good argument.

I have gone to catholic Mass and funeral and weddings many times. My wife’s family and friends (growing up) were and are catholics. As I’ve said on CAF several times, I’ve been blessed as the litergy was read, maybe more blessed than most of the people around me. However, with the stance the church takes of its own value in the Gospel and the fact I think it has some teachings that aren’t accurate, I could not become a member - you wouldn’t embrase me as a catholic underst those circumstances either. I also find worship services in many non-catholic Christian churches as wonderful and would miss that if I became a catholic.

 

[humble_maid]

Humble Maid,

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

Whole households were baptized and nowhere does it even mention there ages. This topic will continue to be an impasse for those Protestants that reject even reformation practices. We saw abrupt changes or rejection virtually over night and now it occurs almost daily. Been there.

Precisely! I do not understand why so many Protestants are confident infant baptism was forbidden when scripture is completely silent on the issue.

Oh but those Protestants read the term household they will add to the text by stating only those old enough to comprehend where baptized? WRONG! Those verses mentioning households never says only those capable of reasoning where baptized. They want the text to say something it does not state or even teach.

 

[simspt]

Please restate what you’re asking so I can respond properly.

Sorry I did not intend to quote your statement. I was in agreement with you in relation to your comments on the acceptance of Church authority in regards to subject matter not clearly expressed in the NT.

 

[Dokimas]

God Bless

If you quote from people’s writings not in the Bible, I don’t make comments usually. I’m not interested in discussing their beliefs.​

The Bible are a collection of letters and writings of the 1st century disciples/apostles of Jesus. They were passed around and copied for decades. They preceded your oral tradition.​

I usually try to use the Bible in making an ‘argument’. I use, IMO, because I don’t think it fair to push my opinion (whether correct or incorrect) upon others.​

I assume by SB you mean Southern Baptist. We aren’t nor have we ever been Southern Baptist. I don’t know where you got that idea. We are non-denominational. We’ve worked with a few churches over the yrs. We find that most churches that preach Jesus and worship Him a blessing to attend.​

I disagree with those churches that teach ‘infant’ baptism. We went to an Evangelical Covenant Church for a while. They believe in IB, too. We didn’t make it an issue and experienced good teaching and fellowship to we continued there until they took on a woman as pastor.​

I see the way some here bad mouth other catholics. I don’t think I’d be too welcome in the CC with my beliefs on some issues that the CC hold dear.

 

[T_More]

The Bible are a collection of letters and writings of the 1st century disciples/apostles of Jesus. They were passed around and copied for decades. They preceded your oral tradition.​

Dokimas, when St Paul told the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to the traditions handed down, either written or oral, would that not mean by him writing this that there were traditions already in place before this letter was written? This would seem to seriously contradict your quote above.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, when St Paul told the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to the traditions handed down, either written or oral, would that not mean by him writing this that there were traditions already in place before this letter was written? This would seem to seriously contradict your quote above.

Look to the post I was commenting on. I believe the original post was about CC oral traditions NOT about OT traditions. That was what I was commenting about so, no, IMO, the verse from Paul has nothing to do with my post.

 

[greggy53]

Precisely! I do not understand why so many Protestants are confident infant baptism was forbidden when scripture is completely silent on the issue.

Oh but those Protestants read the term household they will add to the text by stating only those old enough to comprehend where baptized? WRONG! Those verses mentioning households never says only those capable of reasoning where baptized. They want the text to say something it does not state or even teach.

I think the main reason they((some Protestants) do this is because they have a different view on the nature of Baptism. If it’s not sacramental to them; if it is simply an outward sign of an inward change then infants and children cannot discern that and so are ineligible. We Catholics and other Protestant Churches believe in original sin, and that the saving grace of baptism washes that sin away. All of us are born with it, so it makes sense to us to make that saving grace available to infants and small children. The Didache (if you accept the authenticity of the document) settles the augment between dunking and sprinkling.

 

[humble_maid]

If you quote from people’s writings not in the Bible, I don’t make comments usually. I’m not interested in discussing their beliefs.​

The Bible are a collection of letters and writings of the 1st century disciples/apostles of Jesus. They were passed around and copied for decades. They preceded your oral tradition.​

I usually try to use the Bible in making an ‘argument’. I use, IMO, because I don’t think it fair to push my opinion (whether correct or incorrect) upon others.​

I assume by SB you mean Southern Baptist. We aren’t nor have we ever been Southern Baptist. I don’t know where you got that idea. We are non-denominational. We’ve worked with a few churches over the yrs. We find that most churches that preach Jesus and worship Him a blessing to attend.​

I disagree with those churches that teach ‘infant’ baptism. We went to an Evangelical Covenant Church for a while. They believe in IB, too. We didn’t make it an issue and experienced good teaching and fellowship to we continued there until they took on a woman as pastor.​

I see the way some here bad mouth other catholics. I don’t think I’d be too welcome in the CC with my beliefs on some issues that the CC hold dear.

Peace be with you,

Please excuse me for assuming you were SB. You are correct when you stated that 1st century letters and documents were written but by very few apostles and mostly by their successors. The bible was canonized over the centuries. So we have thus far the letters and copies and the oral traditions of the apostles that were handed down until the final decision was made as to which books were allowed for the bible. In fact there are many patristic writings that were written at the time to validate which letters and books were acceptable. The history of the bible is as much important as the bible itself. If you do not understand this, there is nothing else I could do for you. Our Sacred Tradition is based on this and the continual guidance it receives from the HS. Furthermore, you were given many scriptures to support infant baptism. Now it is up to you to discern through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, I hope.

May I ask you this. Your wife was a former catholic, then she was baptized as an infant right? If so, do you both accept the validity of this baptism or does she plan or has been already baptized into this new faith of yours.

God Bless

 

[simspt]

If you quote from people’s writings not in the Bible, I don’t make comments usually. I’m not interested in discussing their beliefs.​

The Bible are a collection of letters and writings of the 1st century disciples/apostles of Jesus. They were passed around and copied for decades. They preceded your oral tradition.-
I usually try to use the Bible in making an ‘argument’. I use, IMO, because I don’t think it fair to push my opinion (whether correct or incorrect) upon others.​

I assume by SB you mean Southern Baptist. We aren’t nor have we ever been Southern Baptist. I don’t know where you got that idea. We are non-denominational. We’ve worked with a few churches over the yrs. We find that most churches that preach Jesus and worship Him a blessing to attend.​

I disagree with those churches that teach ‘infant’ baptism. We went to an Evangelical Covenant Church for a while. They believe in IB, too. We didn’t make it an issue and experienced good teaching and fellowship to we continued there until they took on a woman as pastor.​

I see the way some here bad mouth other catholics. I don’t think I’d be too welcome in the CC with my beliefs on some issues that the CC hold dear.

The NT is a product of apostolic preaching, tradition and theological insight post resurrection. There were Christians decades before any NT writings. The NT is basically the tradition of the Church. There might of been some writings being circulated (speculated sources eg Q)but the Gospels and letters of Paul came later. Think about the priority God placed on the Church considering these communities of believers were preaching and believing long before the NT was written. The Bible is the inspired Word of God but if you think about the process that God chose and the fact that the Chuch played the role it did its clear that the tradition of the Church cannot be overlooked when trying to understand the NT. Do you believe the NT writings that the Evangelists wrote existed the first 20 or 30 years in the form that we have them today? Check out some of these books, they have been very helpful to me in gaining a better understanding of the NT and early Christianity. They are written by both Protestant and Catholics.
moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/Index.htm

P.R. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans, eds., Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vol. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963-1970) paperback. Dated, but valuable articles.

Paul M. Blowers, The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).

Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale, 1995) paperback, $25. A superb and original study of how early books were made, collected, and used.

Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser, eds., One Scripture or Many?: Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) hardcover, $95.

Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006) paperback, $20

James L. Kugel & Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity 3 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).

Joseph T. Lienhard, The Bible, the Church, and Authority: the Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995) paperback, $18.

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New York: Clarendon / Oxford University Press, 1987) paperback, $20.

Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origins, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) hardcover, $45.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

Precisely! I do not understand why so many Protestants are confident infant baptism was forbidden when scripture is completely silent on the issue.

Oh but those Protestants read the term household they will add to the text by stating only those old enough to comprehend where baptized? WRONG! Those verses mentioning households never says only those capable of reasoning where baptized. They want the text to say something it does not state or even teach.

EXACTLY! On my way back home to the Church I had to deal with this one because I bought into the lies that my own Protestant family claimed about this. The more I read the more I realized that most Protestants have a double standard and do not apply their own rules to themselves. Yet they have the audacity to proof text Catholics out of the truth. The only reason they get away with it is because Catholics were never taught scripture in depth…but don’t fool yourself into believing Protestants know the scriptures. If they did they would cease to be Protestant.