Different modes of baptism

[MEE]

trying2understand writes:
We know from documents and other historical evidence that it changed within the first century of the Church. You may wish to add qualifiers, but that does not change the fact that Baptism in a mode other than immersion was accepted by the Church within the first century.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May I ask what you mean by "The Church?" Also who gave them the right to change the original?

MEE

[ August 29, 2002, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by MEE:

May I ask what you mean by "The Chuch?" Also who gave them the right to change the original?

Hold on to your hat. You aren't going to like this answer.

The "Church" is the one true Church. The Catholic Church, of which all Christians are members, whether they know it or not. (You asked, but let's take that discussion to another thread.)

Jesus gave the Church the authority to determine "discipline" which is the manner in which the Faith is acted out.

As I said before:

The necessity of Baptism is doctrine. Doctrine does not change.

The mode of Baptism is discipline. Disciple can and does change from time to time and place to place.

[ August 29, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
The original question was "when did it change?"

We know from documents and other historical evidence that it changed within the first century of the Church. You may wish to add qualifiers, but that does not change the fact that Baptism in a mode other than immersion was accepted by the Church within the first century.

You say this as if the evidence is before us and undisputed when in fact, the only document you used to support your claim, you later admitted that it did not say what you claimed it did.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
When? While the Apostles were still living.

From the Didache:

"...pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

If you read the whole chapter from the Didache, you will see that while immersion may have been the prefered mode, it was not the only mode allowed by the Apostles.

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Doesn't this say pouring the water is an alternative if you don't have access to other means?

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Lorelei,

I would say that you are correct.

This isn't even an argumentative question. We aren't trying to say whether or not we agree with the changes, we are just asking when the changes took place.

So instead of trying to misrepresent documents to make your point, why not say "Since the Didache did allow for pouring in some cases, the church later decided to make that the standard?"

Do you even know when the change took place? If so, do you have an solid documentation or historical evidence to support it?

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Lorelie,

I do not beleive that I have misrepresented anything. If you read back carefully, in the order in which things were posted, you will see that I said that pouring was accepted. I did not say that it was the norm or the preferred.

If pouring is accepted under particular curcumstances, it is accepted none the less.

Also note, that I anticipated your objections early on when I first attempted to explain the difference between "doctrine" and "discipline".

Ron

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
So instead of trying to misrepresent documents to make your point, why not say "Since the Didache did allow for pouring in some cases, the church later decided to make that the standard?"

Do you even know when the change took place? If so, do you have an solid documentation or historical evidence to support it?

This is an interesting question. I don't know that I would say that pouring is the "standard" mode of Baptism in the Catholic Church. Certainly in my part of the world and as depicted by movies and so on, it would appear to be the most frequently used mode. But would that necessarily make it a "standard"?

Immerision is also accepted by the Catholic Church. There is a Catholic Church in my area (Detroit, MI) that Baptizes by immerision if an adult so chooses. Also I believe that it is the usual manner in othr parts of the world.

To be frank, I don't understand your fuss. It is a fact that pouring as a mode of Baptism has been accepted by the Church since the first century. (Not saying it was the "standard", but accepted none the less.)

 

[Lorelei]

My fuss is in the fact that you left out these words when quoting the Didache.

"but if thou hast neither"

According to the Didache it was accepted IF circumstances prevented any other means.

In the way you worded your post and by deleting those important words from the text, it seemed to imply that pouring was accepted in any circumstance, it just wasn't preferred.

There is a difference between saying, "You may pour if no other water is available" and "You may pour if you want to."

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Also note, that I anticipated your objections early on when I first attempted to explain the difference between "doctrine" and "discipline".

Ron

How does defining "doctrine" and "discipline" help me understand why you misrepresented the facts? The fact that you quoted something that did not say what you intended it to say is the only objection I have made.

~Lorelei

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
My fuss is in the fact that you left out these words when quoting the Didache.

"but if thou hast neither"

According to the Didache it was accepted IF circumstances prevented any other means.

In the way you worded your post and by deleting those important words from the text, it seemed to imply that pouring was accepted in any circumstance, it just wasn't preferred.

There is a difference between saying, "You may pour if no other water is available" and "You may pour if you want to."

~Lorelei

Wow, Lorelei, I don't quite know what to say. I've copied my very first post on this thread below.
_______________________________________________

When? While the Apostles were still living.

From the Didache:

"...pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

If you read the whole chapter from the Didache, you will see that while immersion may have been the prefered mode, it was not the only mode allowed by the Apostles.

________________________________________________

I don't understand how you can say that I implied what you have attributed to me.

Like I have said before, even if it under particular circumstances, Baptism by pouring was accepted none the less.

Ron

[ August 29, 2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
I don't understand how you can say that I implied what you have attributed to me.

Ron

Maybe if you would clarify why you deleted the words "but if thou hast neither" it might make things more clear.

~Lorelei

 

[Ps104_33]

Trying,
I had never read the Didache before but upon reding it about 15 minutes ago I came across something unusual. Did you read Didache 8:2? See anything unusual? Ah, its probably nothing. Never mind.

psalm

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by trying2understand:
I don't understand how you can say that I implied what you have attributed to me.

Ron

Maybe if you would clarify why you deleted the words "but if thou hast neither" it might make things more clear.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Because "...pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." describes a vaild Baptism.

Now perhaps you could clairfy why you have chosen to overlook the next paragraph of the same post:

"If you read the whole chapter from the Didache, you will see that while immersion may have been the prefered mode, it was not the only mode allowed by the Apostles."

I invited the reader to "read the whole chapter from the Didache" and further granted that "immersion may have been the preferred mode" but also rightly said that "it was not the only mode allowed".

Did you fail to notice these words?

Ron

[ August 29, 2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Ps104_33]

Trying,
I had never read the Didache before but upon reding it about 15 minutes ago I came across something unusual. Did you read Didache 8:2? See anything unusual? Ah, its probably nothing. Never mind.

psalm

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Trying,
I had never read the Didache before but upon reding it about 15 minutes ago I came across something unusual. Did you read Didache 8:2? See anything unusual? Ah, its probably nothing. Never mind.

psalm

From the Didache (chapter 8):

"Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord hath commanded in his gospel so pray ye: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil: for thine is the power, and the glory, for ever.

Thrice a day pray ye in this fashion."

Psalm, this probably belongs in your "Catholic/Baptist Prayer" thread, but yes, isn't that interesting? It would seem that the early Church did not consider reciting the "Lord's Prayer" to be "vain repetition".

Considering that the Didache was written during the first century, does that in any way change your opinion concerning the meaning of "vain repetition"?

Ron

[ August 29, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
Because "...pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." describes a vaild Baptism.

When is it valid?

"If thou hast neither"

By leaving this out you misrepresent it's purpose. Maybe keeping things in context isn't important to you when making a point, but to me it is. I will remain adamant, that the meaning implicated changes dramatically when the full context is removed.

The question was not, when were modes of baptism established for those who did not have water available to them, it was "when did it change?"

~Lorelei

 

[Ps104_33]

Trying,

I think you may have missed something there. Look again.

 

[Ps104_33]

Considering that the Didache was written during the first century, does that in any way change your opinion concerning the meaning of "vain repetition"?

No because I dont think that is what was intended when Jesus was teaching His disciples to pray ,but it would change my mind about dropping " for thine is the kingdom foreve.....

 

[hrhema]

Baptism is a Jewish ritual that was practiced by the essenes. THis is where John the Baptist first came into the practice. The essenes immersed the individual. Also the Jews had a cleansing ritual called Mikvah among other names wherein the woman or man entered a deep bath and immersed themselves completely in water for cleansing purposes. Since Baptism is a symbol of us being cleansed of our sins through the blood of Christ this fits right along.

When Philip baptized the Ethiopian the scriptures says they came up out of the water. I have seen many pictures of Jesus baptism where he is standing in the deep water yet John is pouring water over his head. This to me is ridiculous. Why would Jesus have to enter water to have it poured on his head? He could have stood on dry groud and only his head got wet. Matthew says that John baptized the people IN the Jordan river and that Jesus came up out of the water. This would lead me to believe that immersion was the true way and mode for Baptism.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Latreia:
Lorelei,

you raise an excellent point. To say that the Didache approved of a change in mode when circumstances did not permit tyher normal method is not the same thing as saying that the procatice changed in the time of the apostles. To say that a change occurred would imply that the swtiching of modes was normal. And the Didache clearly speaks of a change only for exceptional circumstances.

The question, then, has not been answered. When did baptism, by any mode other than immersion, become normal?

The original question was "when did it change?"

We know from documents and other historical evidence that it changed within the first century of the Church. You may wish to add qualifiers, but that does not change the fact that Baptism in a mode other than immersion was accepted by the Church within the first century.</font>[/QUOTE]Equivocation is not conducive to discussion.

When did the church change its mose of baptism to me asks when a mode other thna immersion became NORMAL. the didache does not establish that any mode other than immersion was normal at the time of the Didache's writing. In fact it proves the opposite.

The question has not been answered.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
When did the church change its mose of baptism to me asks when a mode other thna immersion became NORMAL. the didache does not establish that any mode other than immersion was normal at the time of the Didache's writing. In fact it proves the opposite.

The question has not been answered.

Ok. Let me try to answer the question as you have reworded it.

Baptism by pouring was accepted by the Church as a valid mode during the first century as a matter of practicality and convenience when living water was not available.

At some later date, perhaps again as a matter of practicality and convenience, the qualifications were lifted.

You keep overlooking the simple fact - the Didache tells us that within the first century, pouring was an accepted mode under some circumstances.

It would not be humanly possible to account for you at what times and what locations and for what reasons various Bishops changed a particular discipline.

Perhaps my inability to express it in a way that you can understand is due to the differences in the way in which we view the Church.

For me it is all encompassing. It includes all believers, the living and the dead. It includes all Christians of any or no denomination. You, Lorelie, are a member of the Catholic Church whether you know it or not. This is so, because there is but one Church, and all Christians are in unity with it in one degree or another. Where you wish to place yourself is where you are in terms of unity, but it does not change the fact that you are part of it.

I can understand that disciples, such as the mode of Baptism change from time to time and place to place. It is the same with worship. I have attended Mass in other countries where the Mass may be said in slightly different ways. If it is vaild according to the Church, it is valid for me.

Ron

[ August 29, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:

May I ask what you mean by "The Chuch?" Also who gave them the right to change the original?

Hold on to your hat. You aren't going to like this answer.

The "Church" is the one true Church. The Catholic Church, of which all Christians are members, whether they know it or not. (You asked, but
let's take that discussion to another thread.)

Jesus gave the Church the authority to determine "discipline" which is the manner in which the Faith is acted out.

As I said before:
The necessity of Baptism is doctrine. Doctrine does not change.

The mode of Baptism is discipline. Disciple can and does change from time to time and place to place.</font>[/QUOTE]You are right, didn't care for your answer. First
of all, the Catholic Church is not "THE CHURCH." Also they do not have the right to change anything, in the Bible.

Second, I'm not anything near being of the Catholic faith. I'm not a trinitarian! Never was, never will be, as many of you know by now.
Just wanted to clear that up. We don't need to take it to another thread.

As far as the necessity of baptism, as a must, I agree 100%, but even at that the Catholic Church changed that also. They changed it from the "NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" to titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which was never practiced, by the Apostles, according to the scriptures.

BTW, why do you go by the "DIDACHE?" What's wrong with reading the Bible?

MEE