The Didache: Proof of Deviation From Christ's Teachings by Apostolic Fathers

[The Liturgist]

I don't know about them, but I do know that to assume that a household being baptized, included babies is clearly stretching it to fit a preconceived idea / belief.

I don’t see how you figure that. Babies are very important members of a household since their presence dictates other aspects of how the household will be run. And someone is as much a son or daughter of the head of the household as an infant as they are when fully grown.

And Jesus Christ did say “suffer the little ones to come to me,” which is the most compelling reason as I see it to give them Baptism and Holy Communion, which we do in the Orthodox Church from the time one is an infant (Baptism, Chrismation, also known as Confirmation, and Holy Communion are all given to an infant, in that order, on the same day, which is also usually the case with adult members of the church unless there is a logistical problem with baptism in terms of access to a font or if it is expedient to baptize outdoors.

 

[CoreyD]

Baptism replaced circumcision. The faith of the parents was enough to have an infant circumcised. Jesus fulfilled what was prefigured in the old and there is nothing in the NT about excluding infants from Baptism or that the faith of the parents was no longer good enough. To the contrary, as I said, Jesus wanted the children to come to Him.

Baptism replaced circumcision is an argument not stated in scripture?
I'm not getting into those arguments.

Today it is as it was, an adult convert comes into the Church by first believing and repenting and then being baptized. An infant is Baptized if the parents are already part of the Church, based on the faith of the parents. It should not be a surprise that there is not a specific account of a baby being baptized, beyond the mention of households, since a baby cannot relay his or her personal experience. There is no "trumping" of Holy Scripture, that which is passed down from Jesus through the Apostles is on equal ground. Unfortunately a portion of the faith was lost because of the fervor to reject much of what was passed down if not explicitly spelled out in the Bible.

Talking about scripture. Not church doctrines today.
Those can be anything from boiling a fly in milk and drinking it, to lighting candles to scare away the dead.

Either Baptism was immersion or not. If you are saying it was not, then you have to show me the scriptures.

You didn't answer any of the questions though.
I'm not arguing. Those never end, and people say whatever they like... without scripture... Like your post here.

 

[CoreyD]

I don’t see how you figure that. Babies are very important members of a household since their presence dictates other aspects of how the household will be run. And someone is as much a son or daughter of the head of the household as an infant as they are when fully grown.

And Jesus Christ did say “suffer the little ones to come to me,” which is the most compelling reason as I see it to give them Baptism and Holy Communion, which we do in the Orthodox Church from the time one is an infant (Baptism, Chrismation, also known as Confirmation, and Holy Communion are all given to an infant, in that order, on the same day, which is also usually the case with adult members of the church unless there is a logistical problem with baptism in terms of access to a font or if it is expedient to baptize outdoors.

We have been through this before, on pages 2 and 3, and we got nowhere.
We won't get anywhere going through it again.

 

[The Liturgist]

Those can be anything from boiling a fly in milk and drinking it, to lighting candles to scare away the dead.

False. Neither of those are Church doctrines.

What is more, your premise is wrong, since the Christian doctrine shared by the traditional churches (Orthodox, Catholic, traditional Protestant) are firmly based on Scripture interpreted according to the Patristic tradition understood through Reason, hence the Anglican trilateral “Scripture, Tradition, Reason” as my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Shane R can confirm with regards to Anglicanism and Lutheranism, and as I can confirm personally with regards to Orthodoxy (although we do not use the Scripture, Tradition, Reason trilateral, it would be fair to say that it largely describes the basis of Orthodox dogmatic theology).

 

[CoreyD]

False. Neither of those are Church doctrines.

What is more, your premise is wrong, since the Christian doctrine shared by the traditional churches (Orthodox, Catholic, traditional Protestant) are firmly based on Scripture interpreted according to the Patristic tradition understood through Reason, hence the Anglican trilateral “Scripture, Tradition, Reason” as my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Shane R can confirm with regards to Anglicanism and Lutheranism, and as I can confirm personally with regards to Orthodoxy (although we do not use the Scripture, Tradition, Reason trilateral, it would be fair to say that it largely describes the basis of Orthodox dogmatic theology).

You actually thought I was referring to actual Church doctrines?
Do babies fear God?

 

[Valletta]

Baptism replaced circumcision is an argument not stated in scripture?
I'm not getting into those arguments.

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. RSVCE

 

[CoreyD]

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. RSVCE

Thanks for the verse.
by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ

Would you like a better break down?
you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ

Thanks for mentioning the second part of the verse
you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God

How were they buried in baptism?

 

[Valletta]

Either Baptism was immersion or not. If you are saying it was not, then you have to show me the scriptures.

You're missing the point. You have decided on immersion and the age of a person as two specific critical elements of Baptism rather than the time or the location or the type of body of water or the very substance of the water or the identity of the person doing the Baptism. Who is to say that such a personal interpretation of the Bible, manmade and thus potentially flawed, especially after so many centuries of Christians believing otherwise, is the correct interpretation?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don’t see how you figure that. Babies are very important members of a household since their presence dictates other aspects of how the household will be run. And someone is as much a son or daughter of the head of the household as an infant as they are when fully grown.

And Jesus Christ did say “suffer the little ones to come to me,” which is the most compelling reason as I see it to give them Baptism and Holy Communion, which we do in the Orthodox Church from the time one is an infant (Baptism, Chrismation, also known as Confirmation, and Holy Communion are all given to an infant, in that order, on the same day, which is also usually the case with adult members of the church unless there is a logistical problem with baptism in terms of access to a font or if it is expedient to baptize outdoors.

Don't feed the trolls, they just get bigger and uglier the more fodder they get. Like St. Paul says, if they don't listen, shake the dust off of your feet, move on and don't look back. Life is to short, we need to look for more fertile ground.

 

[The Liturgist]

Don't feed the trolls, they just get bigger and uglier the more fodder they get. Like St. Paul says, if they don't listen, shake the dust off of your feet, move on and don't look back. Life is to short, we need to look for more fertile ground.

I try to be helpful. But there is a point when one has to throw in the proverbial towel and call it a day.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Didache commands Effusion, so you do agree there is a contradiction between that and the scriptures, then?

Asking again because you didn't answer: Just where does the Didache command effusion? You DO have an answer for this because you DID say the Didache COMMANDS effusion. Quoting you "The Didache commands Effusion, ...."

Waiting.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Don't feed the trolls, they just get bigger and uglier the more fodder they get. Like St. Paul says, if they don't listen, shake the dust off of your feet, move on and don't look back. Life is to short, we need to look for more fertile ground.

Darn. You are right. And I just broke my own personal rule about not responding to threads with over a hundred posts. Pretty much everything worth saying has already been said at that point.

 

[CoreyD]

I try to be helpful. But there is a point when one has to throw in the proverbial towel and call it a day.

Yes. When you face a question that you can't answer without throwing out your argument.
The advice you got is good, but it does not apply here, as you well know.

It's a life jacket that was thrown to you, but you know that grabbing it does not save you, because I am not the one you need to worry about.
I'm not Jesus Christ.

Don't let people keep you in that state... unless it's your will.
Remember what Paul said about those who sought their own interests.
Anyway, I am not proselytizing you. Just showing you why avoiding a question that reveals the truth is a very bad thing. Mark 11:29-33

Thanks for the exchange.
No doubt you will talk among yourselves, since that's easier.
Enjoy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm not Jesus Christ.

We can agree on that one thing.

 

[Halbhh]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. This doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the post you replied to.

Ok, look again then:

I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in the OT about Jesus being raised on the third day.

To which we see that Christ explicitly answers that Jonah is that example.

 

[fhansen]

I think he's trying to say that the Didache and the Catholic Church are on one side (presumably with the Orthodox) and the Bible and the 'True Believers (TM) are on the other side. I think it's a way of invalidating all of the Church Fathers from the very first ones. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Sounds more like he’s invalidating the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Do they really think that they know everything that the church believed and practiced in those early days-just by picking up a Book and reading it centuries after the fact while often disagreeing over its meaning with the next guy who reads it? That they understand those things better than an early catechism, and the writings of the early fathers? That’s kind of the ultimate in presumption. Those early writings support both the EO and Catholicism along with Scripture.

 

[Aldebaran]

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think he's trying to say that the Didache and the Catholic Church are on one side (presumably with the Orthodox) and the Bible and the 'True Believers (TM) are on the other side. I think it's a way of invalidating all of the Church Fathers from the very first ones. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

So it's "See, the earliest Christians disagree with my personal religious views, so that's how we know they were wrong and I'm right"?

Someone is telling on themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So it's "See, the earliest Christians disagree with my personal religious views, so that's how we know they were wrong and I'm right"?

Someone is telling on themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

LOL, you nailed it good sir. LOL