Featured Recognizing irregular church doctrines.

Looking back, division is perhaps the only uniting quality.

 

The Long History of Baptists and Division (Luke Holmes)

 

About 250 AD.

Prior to that pouring was allowed, but only when immersion was not possible.

"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 [flowing] 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." (Didache, about 120 AD).

Baptism was considered symbolic of washing away sin (similar to the Jewish concept).

 

It isn't, I agree.

I wasn't talking about how I believe baptism should be performed or even how I interpret baptism in the NT.

I was talking about "Baptist" churches. The Bsptist distinctive is believer's baptism. That is how we find a kinship with bsptistic churches who have gone before (not the mode, but in who is baptized; not in what baptism symbolizes, but baptism as a symbol).

 

I agree that the Didache is not Scripture. I wasn't saying that we should baptize as they did

I'm just pointing out that "believers baptism" is not necessarily immersion (although I believe immersion proper).

I view baptism as symbolizing our death, burial and resurrection in Christ. But this is a newer view (historically baptism held the same symbolism as it did throughout the OT - that is, cleansing from sin).

 

Most modern scholars date it between 50 AD and 70 AD. A minority date it between 120AD and 180 AD (a previously held majority view).

The reason we know it was an early date (not necessarily as early as most scholars believe) is its description of the church. But it offers no date or historical events contemporary to its writing to give a precise date.

My point wasn't the date but how baptism was viewed.

 

Some have. Others have speculated it was written in the 3rd Century. Some in the 4th.

But most scholars date it between 50 AD and 70 AD. The reason is the description of the church appears to most represent the church in its primitive form.

I don't question that it was written in Syria. Antioch was a strong hub for Christianity. So Syria makes sense.

 

Historic "Baptists" (like the ones you mentioned in tracing Landmark churches). Not current Baptists (that I know of).

Yes and no. I view baptism as symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection. I guess you could call that tradition (the preacher often said "buried with Christ").

And yes, I admit it is a new way of viewing baptism.

I say "no" as well because we all know that Scripture tells us baptism represents forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Maybe you are right and we should drop the symbolism of death and burial.

I'm just not sure it is wrong to use the mode of baptism to teach other related truths.

That said, you are right that Scripture explicitly states that baptism represents "the forgiveness of sins".