Looking back, division is perhaps the only uniting quality.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Recognizing irregular church doctrines.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
What do you mean by back in the day, it still is. If I’m at any of these musicals, I generally excuse myself and take a bathroom break
37818
Well-Known Member
Technically invisible can only be applied to believer's who are now with our Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8. Living believers are quite visible.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
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).
37818
Well-Known Member
Much of that is post New Testament interpretation. The Didache is not the word of God.
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).
37818
Well-Known Member
I found it reported the Didache is cited by Origen dating it to the 3rd century.
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.
37818
Well-Known Member
What I found it has been speculated to have been written in Syria some time in the first decade of the 2nd century. [ 100 - 110 ]
Last edited:
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.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I thought from this that you had something related to, or associated with, Baptists.
I appreciate you trying to date Baptist-like believers to the first few centuries, but these folks wouldn't know Believer's baptism, or a Baptist-like believer, if they were driving down the interstate at 75 miles an hour, or unless they were torturing them to death, somehow.
Guess again, JonC.
You weren't talking about "Baptist" churches by quoting the Didache.
It speaks of, "The Way of Life is the love of God and of our neighbour."
A Baptist distinctive is Believer's baptism, by
Baptisma.
Not to New Testament believers and Historic Baptist-like adherents of Believer's baptism, by immersion, only.
Another 'newer view'? Give it up.
The New Testament view of John's baptism symbolizing our death, burial and resurrection in Christ, is the only baptism relevant to Baptists.
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".
37818
Well-Known Member
I took it in good faith this info was correct. I down loaded a pdf of the Didache. Does not check. I have to look at this further.
37818
Well-Known Member
- Status