Recognizing irregular church doctrines.

[37818]

Why people want the Didache to be forgery is typically to support RCC and Presbyterian doctrine because it presents a Baptist form of baptism as the norm.

A bad joke. The Didache ". . . then pour water on the head thrice . . . ." From the 11th century version. We had no copies prior to it's 1873 discovery.

 

[JonC]

A bad joke. The Didache ". . . then pour water on the head tthrice . . . ." From the 11th century version.

Yes. The Didache provided a mode of baptism when immersion wasi.posdible (still baptizing believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

It wasn't until the 2nd Century that believer's baptism was performed by pouring as a norm (probably because it had been permitted when immersion was impossible.

Some Baptist churches still do this with people who cannot be immersed (like in hospital settings)

As you point out, the Didache was written in a Christian mecca (Syria) which probably indicates Antioch. This was an important city to Jews as well, and they had a practice of baptizing by pouring. So I'm not surprised tge Didache would allow it as a last resort.

I agree with tge Didache that baptism should be by immersion. I am not sure, however, that those today who are "baptized" by pouring out of necessity on their deathbed would consider it a "bad joke".

 

[Alan Gross]

1. (Theology) a group having a distinctive interpretation of a religious faith and usually its own organization

n.
1. a religious group, usu. including many local churches.

a set of the same persons, called by the same name and therefore of the same views.

In spite of new attempted usages and 'changes in meaning', the issue of 'denomination as a dirty word', as you already know, is,
"Does denomination mean to divide?"

"The word "denomination" comes from the same root word as the denominator in fractions, which means to divide."

Off jump street, we have Satan placing in the minds of people:

"What are the 3 divisions of the church?", as if the new, extra-biblical attempted usages and 'changes in meaning' of "the church/ ekklesia*" could express a meaning that "The Kingdom of God/ basileia: kingdom, sovereignty, royal power
Original Word: βασιλεία, ας, ἡ" defines, all by it's New Testament self.

Already, YOU don't believe this or follow me,
so my take is that you have been robbed if I'm right.

And yet, the current common 'definitions' proceed to divide "the church", into:

Major branches

• Catholic (50.1%)
• Protestant (36.7%)
• Orthodox (11.9%)

Our church body has never been the 'division' or denomination from anything, the way a one-dollar bill is the 'division' or denomination of a hundred, so that is why I would take exception to this new attempted usage and 'change in meaning' ( I JUST 'LEAVE IT OFF"), especially since "Baptist" has been Satanically disenfranchised IN THE WORLD'S THINKING, so to speak, from any consideration in these newly defined 'divisions', above, as if it is to be assumed "Baptists" have their origin in Protestantism, which has its origin in The Roman Catholic 'church', which has her origin in "the synagogue of Satan" and Satan himself (with her CHANGE in THE WAY of SALVATION, etc., etc.) that Protestantism never entirely got away from.

"Dr. W. L. Poteat, a former president of Wake Forest College, and a very loose Baptist, in his book entitled, "Can A Man Be A Christian Today," in referring to organized Christianity calls it, "The Christian Church." Dr. Marshall, teacher of McMaster's University, is quoted as saying in a sermon, "Baptists do not regard baptism as essential to membership in the 'Christian Church' - the church universal - even though they insist on immersion as a condition of admittance into the BAPTIST SECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH." The National and World Council of churches operates on the theory that all of the churches of different and even conflicting faiths should be united into one big world church, with the leaders, the "Big Boys" directing its course. Beyond this seen conglomeration, however, is the Church Universal concept, the mother of the smaller church heresy."

What would be more 'natural' than to endeavor to have all these so-called "Denominations" to conglomerate into one big "One World Religion"?

That is the attempt of the Great Whore's "Universal Visible" idea and the Protestant's "Universal Invisible" idea, (Why And When This Theory Started** ) but they are NOT of GOD.

So, who cares what God says?

I think it is of utmost importance how God says He is to be Worshipped.

I, as a Baptist, have no position to recommend or comment on how God says He is to be Worshipped, apart from my, or our, submission to The Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What is that?

"The great, complex hierarchical pope-dominated institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church today, her harlot daughters,
and ECUMENICALISM, WITH THEIR PROMISING LOST SOULS THEY HAVE A HOME IN HEAVEN, USING SATAN'S LIES, AIN'T IT.

"ECUMENICALISM HAS RESULTED FROM THE THEORY

"Many of those involved in this movement have repudiated almost every item of the Christian faith. An ecumenical convention was held in Florida and someone made a poll of the beliefs of many of the delegates.

"This poll revealed that a large number of those questioned did not even believe in a personal, living God.

"The leaders of this movement seem to be willing for the different denominations to be absorbed back into the Catholic Church.

"The writer of these lines believes that we are witnessing the beginning of events foretold in the Book of Revelation, where the ecumenical movement shall form the Anti-Christ's Church.

"And remember! The ecumenical movement is largely the product of the Universal Church theory."


*"Ekklesia comes from 'ekkletos' and this latter word comes from 'ekkaleo', to call out or forth. But ecclesia does not mean the called out. Let this statement be pondered well. Usage, not etymology, determines the meaning of words. For instance, 'prevent' by etymology, means to anticipate or precede. But usage has made that meaning archaic. By usage, 'prevent' means forestall, frustrate, circumvent, or hinder.

"Ekklesia had its original application to a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into a public place. (Thayer). Then it came to mean any assembly of people or gathering or throng of men, even when gathered by chance or tumultuously. (See Acts 19:32, 39, 41). The resulting meaning is 'assembly.' The word never did mean simply 'the called out.' It always implied that the called-out ones would gather or assemble. Thus according to culmination, the word always did mean assembly, and later came to mean this alone." Dr. B. H. Carroll in his book, "Ecclesia - The Church" has the following to say: "The primary meaning is: An organized assembly, whose members have been called out from among private homes or business to attend to public affairs. This definition necessarily implies prescribed conditions of membership.

(1) This meaning applies substantially alike to the ecclesia of a self-governing Greek state (Acts 19:39),

(2) the Old Testament ecclesia or convocation of National Israel (Acts 7:38), and

(3) and to the New Testament ecclesia.
When our Lord says: 'On this rock I will build MY ecclesia', while the 'my' distinguished His ecclesia from the Greek state ecclesia, and the Old Testament ecclesia, the word naturally retains its ordinary meaning."


** "From then down to the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century, the universal VISIBLE theory of the church held the field, except for the scattered, comparatively obscure, hunted and persecuted little churches known by various names at different times - churches of the New Testament type in doctrine and polity. Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church - the UNIVERSAL, INVISIBLE SPIRITUAL THEORY."

 

[George Antonios]

One thing to note, irregular church doctrines are always contrary to the clear Apostolic teaching of the New Testament.

That depends. The apostles' doctrine in the early chapters of the book of Acts is certainly not church-age Pauline doctrine in many respects.
For instance, we certainly would not (I hope) get out and preach Acts 2:38 (whereby receiving the Holy Ghost is conditional on water baptism) as a salvation plan the way Peter did.
Heresies are teachings contrary to the Pauline teaching of the NT.

 

[Alan Gross]

Would any individual be welcome by our kind of church assembly,
if they feel led by The Holy Spirit to surrender to the Lord in Scriptural baptism,
and join for membership,
if they have the testimony of being a blood-bought child of God,
although they had some other baptism from a group
that has the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something? Yes.

Upon joining your kind of church assembly, via Scriptural baptism,
would that individual that had had some other baptism from a group
that has the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something
be a candidate for teaching a class, lay-preaching,
being Ordained as a Deacon, or Licensed or Ordained to Preach? No.

That is my baptism and anyone who wants me to have another one can, in the nicest possible way, go and boil his head.
There is no likelihood of my leaving my current church (except in a box) but suppose I emigrate to the USA and finding myself in you neighbourhood, I apply to join your church. You have every right to interview me, to demand that I sign up to you church constitution and Statement of Faith. You have the right to write to my former church(es) to find out if I behaved myself. But to expect someone to submit to re-baptism when he has already been baptized as a believer is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned

I think there is an error here. One is not baptized into a church, nor indeed, into a denomination. One is baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27).

I need to make these two passages to be referring to water baptism.

The way it would read, if so, is:

Romans 6:3; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, (believed on Christ), were baptized into (as a picture of ) his death?"

Galatians 3:27; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ,(believed on Christ), have put on (baptized and 'put on' a picture of being 'buried' as what was done for us, by) Christ."


from: Campbellism Exposed,
in an examination of Lard's review of Jeter
By A. P. Williams, 1860.

"Matthew 28:19: "Baptizing them (eis) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now, what is the force of eis here? Does it not indicate that the party thus baptized does by his baptism declare his faith in these Divine persons and his subjection to them?

"And when it is said of the Samaritans, (Acts 8:16,) that they were baptized (eis) into the name of the Lord Jesus, is it not meant that they, by their baptism, declared their faith in him, and their subjection to him?

"And when it is said, (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2,) that "all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized (eis) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" does it not mean that what they then did, which is called their baptism was expressive of their faith in, and subjection to, Moses as their commander and leader?

So true is it, therefore, that so many of us as have been baptized (eis) into Christ, believed on Christ, (Galatians 3:27.)

"Of facts and doctrines we have the following examples: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized (eis) into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism (eis) into death." Romans 6:3, 4.

"Our faith is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. Well, all this we profess and declare in baptism. We also acknowledge ourselves to be dead unto sin. This we also acknowledge in our baptism. And this is the force of eis in these passages."


Romans 6:3; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Galatians 3:27; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Are you saying, one is baptized into Christ, as to 'salvation', etc?

That makes these texts incongruous with the general tenor of Scripture on this subject, and with the declarations of the Apostle Peter, made elsewhere. Acts 10:43: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Peter here asserts that the testimony of all the prophets is, that remission of sins is through the name of Jesus Christ, and received by every believer.

 

[Alan Gross]

In spite of new attempted usages and 'changes in meaning', the issue of 'denomination as a dirty word', as you already know, is,
"Does denomination mean to divide?"

"The word "denomination" comes from the same root word as the denominator in fractions, which means to divide."

Off jump street, we have Satan placing in the minds of people:

"What are the 3 divisions of the church?", as if the new, extra-biblical attempted usages and 'changes in meaning' of "the church/ ekklesia*" could express a meaning that "The Kingdom of God/ basileia: kingdom, sovereignty, royal power
Original Word: βασιλεία, ας, ἡ" defines, all by it's New Testament self.

Already, YOU don't believe this or follow me,
so my take is that you have been robbed if I'm right.

And yet, the current common 'definitions' proceed to divide "the church", into:

Major branches

• Catholic (50.1%)
• Protestant (36.7%)
• Orthodox (11.9%)

Our church body has never been the 'division' or denomination from anything, the way a one-dollar bill is the 'division' or denomination of a hundred, so that is why I would take exception to this new attempted usage and 'change in meaning' ( I JUST 'LEAVE IT OFF"), especially since "Baptist" has been Satanically disenfranchised IN THE WORLD'S THINKING, so to speak, from any consideration in these newly defined 'divisions', above, as if it is to be assumed "Baptists" have their origin in Protestantism, which has its origin in The Roman Catholic 'church', which has her origin in "the synagogue of Satan" and Satan himself (with her CHANGE in THE WAY of SALVATION, etc., etc.) that Protestantism never entirely got away from.

"Dr. W. L. Poteat, a former president of Wake Forest College, and a very loose Baptist, in his book entitled, "Can A Man Be A Christian Today," in referring to organized Christianity calls it, "The Christian Church." Dr. Marshall, teacher of McMaster's University, is quoted as saying in a sermon, "Baptists do not regard baptism as essential to membership in the 'Christian Church' - the church universal - even though they insist on immersion as a condition of admittance into the BAPTIST SECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH." The National and World Council of churches operates on the theory that all of the churches of different and even conflicting faiths should be united into one big world church, with the leaders, the "Big Boys" directing its course. Beyond this seen conglomeration, however, is the Church Universal concept, the mother of the smaller church heresy."

What would be more 'natural' than to endeavor to have all these so-called "Denominations" to conglomerate into one big "One World Religion"?

That is the attempt of the Great Whore's "Universal Visible" idea and the Protestant's "Universal Invisible" idea, (Why And When This Theory Started** ) but they are NOT of GOD.

So, who cares what God says?

I think it is of utmost importance how God says He is to be Worshipped.

I, as a Baptist, have no position to recommend or comment on how God says He is to be Worshipped, apart from my, or our, submission to The Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What is that?

"The great, complex hierarchical pope-dominated institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church today, her harlot daughters,
and ECUMENICALISM, WITH THEIR PROMISING LOST SOULS THEY HAVE A HOME IN HEAVEN, USING SATAN'S LIES, AIN'T IT.

"ECUMENICALISM HAS RESULTED FROM THE THEORY

"Many of those involved in this movement have repudiated almost every item of the Christian faith. An ecumenical convention was held in Florida and someone made a poll of the beliefs of many of the delegates.

"This poll revealed that a large number of those questioned did not even believe in a personal, living God.

"The leaders of this movement seem to be willing for the different denominations to be absorbed back into the Catholic Church.

"The writer of these lines believes that we are witnessing the beginning of events foretold in the Book of Revelation, where the ecumenical movement shall form the Anti-Christ's Church.

"And remember! The ecumenical movement is largely the product of the Universal Church theory."


*"Ekklesia comes from 'ekkletos' and this latter word comes from 'ekkaleo', to call out or forth. But ecclesia does not mean the called out. Let this statement be pondered well. Usage, not etymology, determines the meaning of words. For instance, 'prevent' by etymology, means to anticipate or precede. But usage has made that meaning archaic. By usage, 'prevent' means forestall, frustrate, circumvent, or hinder.

"Ekklesia had its original application to a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into a public place. (Thayer). Then it came to mean any assembly of people or gathering or throng of men, even when gathered by chance or tumultuously. (See Acts 19:32, 39, 41). The resulting meaning is 'assembly.' The word never did mean simply 'the called out.' It always implied that the called-out ones would gather or assemble. Thus according to culmination, the word always did mean assembly, and later came to mean this alone." Dr. B. H. Carroll in his book, "Ecclesia - The Church" has the following to say: "The primary meaning is: An organized assembly, whose members have been called out from among private homes or business to attend to public affairs. This definition necessarily implies prescribed conditions of membership.

(1) This meaning applies substantially alike to the ecclesia of a self-governing Greek state (Acts 19:39),

(2) the Old Testament ecclesia or convocation of National Israel (Acts 7:38), and

(3) and to the New Testament ecclesia.
When our Lord says: 'On this rock I will build MY ecclesia', while the 'my' distinguished His ecclesia from the Greek state ecclesia, and the Old Testament ecclesia, the word naturally retains its ordinary meaning."


** "From then down to the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century, the universal VISIBLE theory of the church held the field, except for the scattered, comparatively obscure, hunted and persecuted little churches known by various names at different times - churches of the New Testament type in doctrine and polity. Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church - the UNIVERSAL, INVISIBLE SPIRITUAL THEORY."

my, or our, submission to The Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What is that?

 

[JonC]

That depends. The apostles' doctrine in the early chapters of the book of Acts is certainly not church-age Pauline doctrine in many respects.
For instance, we certainly would not (I hope) get out and preach Acts 2:38 (whereby receiving the Holy Ghost is conditional on water baptism) as a salvation plan the way Peter did.
Heresies are teachings contrary to the Pauline teaching of the NT.

Wait. Are you suggesting that what Peter taught is a heresy? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)

 

[George Antonios]

Wait. Are you suggesting that what Peter taught is a heresy? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)

Of course not. Peter taught correct doctrine, by the Holy Ghost, for his dispensational context.
But the dispensational (and therefore soteriological) context changed after Acts 2.
When Paul comes on the scene, he has the revelation/teaching that water baptism is no longer a condition for obtaining the Holy Ghost.

It's as with Moses. He taught truth. But to put a man under the law of Moses today would be heretical.

To fail to follow the soteriological changes that accompany the dispensational changes is the source of almost all heresy and the root cause of doctrinal divisions and disagreements.

 

[JonC]

Of course not. Peter taught correct doctrine, by the Holy Ghost, for his dispensational context.
But the dispensational (and therefore soteriological) context changed after Acts 2.
When Paul comes on the scene, he has the revelation/teaching that water baptism is no longer a condition for obtaining the Holy Ghost.

It's as with Moses. He taught truth. But to put a man under the law of Moses today would be heretical.

So you draw a distinct dispensation between the Apostolic Church prior to Paul and after Paul (a pre and post dispensation)?


For the record, I do not see a dichotomy between Peter's teaching on baptism and Paul's teaching.

Acts 2:38–39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Remember- "for the forgiveness of sins" does not mean "to be forgiven sins".

 

[George Antonios]

So you draw a distinct dispensation between the Apostolic Church prior to Paul and after Paul (a pre and post dispensation)?


For the record, I do not see a dichotomy between Peter's teaching on baptism and Paul's teaching.

Acts 2:38–39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Remember- "for the forgiveness of sins" does not mean "to be forgiven sins".

V.39 is a reference to the Jews of the diaspora afar off, as can be readily proven.

But note that I did not comment on forgiveness. I only pointed out that receiving the Holy Ghost was conditional on water baptism, according to Peter in Acts 2:38.

 

[Alan Gross]

We know from many baptistic doctrines that early "baptists" poured water rather than immersing believers routinely

One is not baptized into a church, nor indeed, into a denomination. One is baptized into Christ

To which "baptism" (water or spiritual) is "one baptism" referring? Spiritual baptism into Christ performed by the Holy Spirit acting as Christ's agent. Thus the baptism of Christ.

Likewise, reexamining your post you seem to confuse the baptism of John the Baptist with the Baptism of Christ (where Paul makes a distinction).

For instance, we certainly would not (I hope) get out and preach Acts 2:38 (whereby receiving the Holy Ghost is conditional on water baptism) as a salvation plan the way Peter did.

Looks like that if I contend for "one baptism", i.e., water baptism by immersion, it puts me at odds with some who have an additional different kind of baptism and/or two kinds of baptism, i.e., "to confuse the baptism of John the Baptist with the Baptism of Christ".

And it looks like that, of these additional different kinds of baptism, besides water baptism by immersion, there are at least 4 other 'baptisms' described.

How many 'baptisms' do you get?

 

[George Antonios]

Looks like that if I contend for "one baptism", i.e., water baptism by immersion, it puts me at odds with some who have an additional different kind of baptism and/or two kinds of baptism, i.e., "to confuse the baptism of John the Baptist with the Baptism of Christ".

And it looks like that, of these additional different kinds of baptism, besides water baptism by immersion, there are at least 4 other 'baptisms' described.

How many 'baptisms' do you get?

Paul's reference to the one baptism is to the spiritual baptism that places a church-age believer into the body of Christ.
Water baptism, of course, is something else.
Hebrews speaks of many baptisms.
Once again, dispensationalism is the methodology of interpretation that promises to clear up the issue.

 

[37818]

The Didache provided a mode of baptism when immersion wasi.posdible

The teachings ascribed to be from the Didache have been shown to be irregular church doctrines. Triple pouring for immersion. Presenting a reverse order of the Lord's rembrance.

 

[AVL1984]

Paul's reference to the one baptism is to the spiritual baptism that places a church-age believer into the body of Christ.
Water baptism, of course, is something else.
Hebrews speaks of many baptisms.
Once again, dispensationalism is the methodology of interpretation that promises to clear up the issue.

I agree! Yet, I find many Baptist pastors preaching this is wataer baptism. I don't understand how they can be so confused on this issue.

 

[37818]

Hebrews speaks of many baptisms.

More important a singlular teaching of immersions. OT or NT? John the Baptist spoke of his water and Jesus' two being for the saved and lost. Luke 3:16-17, ". . . John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. . . ."

 

[JonC]

Looks like that if I contend for "one baptism", i.e., water baptism by immersion, it puts me at odds with some who have an additional different kind of baptism and/or two kinds of baptism, i.e., "to confuse the baptism of John the Baptist with the Baptism of Christ".

And it looks like that, of these additional different kinds of baptism, besides water baptism by immersion, there are at least 4 other 'baptisms' described.

How many 'baptisms' do you get?

I'm not arguing for several. I believe baptism is by immersion. I simply noted that baptistic churches have differed.

But I would note that there are plenty of baptisms (into John's baptism, into Christ's baptism, Jewish baptisms, purification rituals, etc )

But the only one that matters is into Chriat's baptism.

Acts 19:3–5 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[JonC]

The teachings ascribed to be from the Didache have been shown to be irregular church doctrines. Triple pouring for immersion. Presenting a reverse order of the Lord's rembrance.

No. That was a provision of immersion was impossible. Later it became the norm in baptistic churches.

"Baptism" by pouring goes back to Jewish purification.

Like you said, the Didache was probably written in Syria (probably in Antioch). So the provision is logical.

I'm not saying it is correct.

I am saying immersion as the mode is not a Baptist distinctive.

 

[37818]

No. That was a provision of immersion was impossible. Later it became the norm in baptistic churches.

Proof? It is explicitly not immersion/not baptism.

 

[37818]

I am saying immersion as the mode is not a Baptist distinctive.

 

[Alan Gross]

Paul's reference to the one baptism is to the spiritual baptism that places a church-age believer into the body of Christ.
Water baptism, of course, is something else.
Hebrews speaks of many baptisms.
Once again, dispensationalism is the methodology of interpretation that promises to clear up the issue.

O.K., I'll add those in as more irregularities.