Different modes of baptism

I do not see us united in any way shape or form. I denounce the Roman Catholic Church and all of her false teachings and doctrines. I denounce the pope and will never submit to him or his church or their traditions.

I can see you telling me that I am not going to heaven, for many of your popes have taught that if you are not a member of the church then you are not saved (which is heresy itself), but I have never heard of them making you a member whether you know it or not. Yeaahhh that sounds like the Church that Jesus told us about in the Bible! NOT!

Do you make this stuff up as you go (which would make sense for that is how your church got their doctrines and traditions) or is this a clear teaching of the church, you are a member even if you denounce us, whether you know it or not?

And this raises the question as to whether all those who were burned at the stake as heretics, were also members of the church, whether they knew it or not. If they were members, whether they knew it or not, did they go to heaven after their fleshed burned to a crisp, or are they in hell?

~Lorelei

 

"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."

Yes, this is not in dispute. As a practical matter, if the circumstances were exceptional (no living water) then under those conditions a mode other than baptism would be acceptable.

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

And it is THIS LATER DATE that is the issue. That is the question. When did it become unnescessary fo the circumstances to be excpetional for immersion to be put aside as the normal mode of baptism? You have not provided an answer for this question.

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

I haven't overlooked it at all. But I have not made more of it than the eivdence allows. That another mode was permitted under exceptiuonal circumstances in the foirst century does not tell us when it was decided that the circumstancesd did not have to be so exceptional for the mode to be changed. You are not answering the question. It's that simple. Indeed, it is YOU who ignore the eivdence. For the very fact that the Didache insicates that the circumstances would have to be exceptional for a mode other than immersion to be permitted tells us that the acceptance of another mode as normal did NOT take place in the apotolic period.

 

To suggest that my citation of a historical document means that I "go by the Didache" and do not read the Bible is quite a presumptive and unwarranted leap.

Is all the history of the Church contained in the Bible?

 

I don't see what's wrong with reading documents about what early Christians believed and practised. It can be enlightening in cases where the Bible doesn't give us much information. It might tell us of traditions which came from the Lord which didn't get written in the Bible.

Also 'the Catholic church' is an expression in the Apostles Creed - at least in its original form.

AITB

 

Perhaps you need to go back to the original question posed by Psalm. You are taking issue with my answer because you wish to change the question.

I see no reference to "normal" mode in his question.

I was thinking last night about why this is so important to you and Lorelie, and I believe that I understand.

The Bible contains many references to Baptism which may be interpreted as instructions for us to be baptized.

But some have interpreted it to be a symbol of faith only and not necessary for salvation. The symbol is often described as "burial" in water. Such an interpretation also rejects Baptism as a washing away of sin.

Many of these same people, believe that they belong to a "New Testament" church which holds the same beliefs as the first Christian Church.

The Didache, a document which claims to be the teachings of the Apostles, and which was written in the first century, indicates that Baptism by pouring, rather than immersion, is acceptable under circumstances when immersion is not possible or practical. What does this tell us?

For one, it seems to indicate that Baptism as a symbol of burial is not correct. Pouring is not by any stretch of the imagination symbolic of burial.

Secondly, acceptance of pouring would seem to strengthen the interpretation of Baptism as a washing, as in washing away of sin.

Finally, if one's church is very different from the Church of the first century concerning both whether Baptism is a symbol or necessary, and whether Baptism is a washing away of sin, one would have to seriously wonder what other doctrines of their church are at variance with the Church of the first century.

At any rate, I hold to my original answer to the original question. The mode of pouring was accepted by the Church within the first century. That it was accepted under particular conditions does not change the fact that it was accepted as a Baptism.

What does such acceptance, even under limited circumstances, do for your interpretation/belief concerning Baptism as a symbol only which does not wash away sin?

Ron

[ August 30, 2002, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Wow Ron! Good question!!

 

Perhaps you need to go back to the original question posed by Psalm. You are taking issue with my answer because you wish to change the question.

I see no reference to "normal" mode in his question.

I was thinking last night about why this is so important to you and Lorelie, and I believe that I understand.

The Bible contains many references to Baptism which may be interpreted as instructions for us to be baptized.

But some have interpreted it to be a symbol of faith only and not necessary for salvation. The symbol is often described as "burial" in water. Such an interpretation also rejects Baptism as a washing away of sin.

Many of these same people, believe that they belong to a "New Testament" church which holds the same beliefs as the first Christian Church.

The Didache, a document which claims to be the teachings of the Apostles, and which was written in the first century, indicates that Baptism by pouring, rather than immersion, is acceptable under circumstances when immersion is not possible or practical. What does this tell us?

For one, it seems to indicate that Baptism as a symbol of burial is not correct. Pouring is not by any stretch of the imagination symbolic of burial.

Secondly, acceptance of pouring would seem to strengthen the interpretation of Baptism as a washing, as in washing away of sin.

Finally, if one's church is very different from the Church of the first century concerning both whether Baptism is a symbol or necessary, and whether Baptism is a washing away of sin, one would have to seriously wonder what other doctrines of their church are at variance with the Church of the first century.

At any rate, I hold to my original answer to the original question. The mode of pouring was accepted by the Church within the first century. That it was accepted under particular conditions does not change the fact that it was accepted as a Baptism.

What does such acceptance, even under limited circumstances, do for your interpretation/belief concerning Baptism as a symbol only which does not wash away sin?

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Bump.

 

Trying,

I think it is you who wishes to ignore the true question, because you have no answer for it.

You are choosing to believe that the question is: when did any changes come to the custom of baptism by immersion?

The question, it seems clear to me, is: when did the belief about the mode of baptism change so as to hold that any mode other than immersion would be just as acceptable under normal circumstances.

You seem to want to ignore that. Just as you seem to want to ignore that the Didache proivides the exception which proves the rule.

YOu also make several false interpretations of the didache:

"it seems to indicate that Baptism as a symbol of burial is not correct. Pouring is not by any stretch of the imagination symbolic of burial."

This is a non sequitur. All it proves is that the symbolism is not the main thing. The prefection of the symbolism is secondary, and thus disposable, compared to the priamry meaning of baptism, identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. See? The iodea of burial is till there. But the act of identification is more important that the maintenance of the strict symbolism. The most imporetant thing was being baptised. How was secondary, though clearly there is an articulated symbolism inherent to the mode.

"Secondly, acceptance of pouring would seem to strengthen the interpretation of Baptism as a washing, as in washing away of sin."

If you want to read it in, you can. But the biblical symbolism is burial and resurrection. You cannot avoid that.

"if one's church is very different from the Church of the first century concerning both whether Baptism is a symbol or necessary, and whether Baptism is a washing away of sin, one would have to seriously wonder what other doctrines of their church are at variance with the Church of the first century."

This would be why I question the RCC with its many doctrines whicha re so at open variance with the church of the NT.

"I hold to my original answer to the original question. The mode of pouring was accepted by the Church within the first century. That it was accepted under particular conditions does not change the fact that it was accepted as a Baptism."

Like I said, the exception that proves the rule. You cannot define the rule by the exception. The original question was about the change of the rule.

Since yo have no answer to that question you have no choice but to stand by your answer to the question no one asks.

"What does such acceptance, even under limited circumstances, do for your interpretation/belief concerning Baptism as a symbol only which does not wash away sin?"

Nothing.

 

In that it was not you who posed the original question, that would simply be your interpretation of it. You can not say that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

This is inaccurate. Please, go back to each of my responses and reread with care.

Then you accept pouring as a valid mode of Baptism? This seems to be at odds with the Baptist distinctives.

I do not understand how pouring is an act of identification with burial, however.

Yes, you say that, but how is pouring, which you seem to now accept, symbolic of burial and ressurection?

No surprise there.