Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,870
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,551
Posts50,776
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,314
Tom 3,324
chestnutmare 2,870
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 25
Pilgrim 21
Recent Posts
Adam created holy, so how could he fall?
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:39 AM
Presuppositional Apologetics
by Tom. Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:42 PM
Christmas
by Pilgrim. Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:01 AM
Key teaching of Dispys is Gnostic
by PerpetualLearner. Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:11 PM
Glorious Bach
by goldenoldie. Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:46 AM
Nothing New Under the Sun?
by PerpetualLearner. Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:25 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#42131 - Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:00 AM The Didache  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
I've been reading through some of the early church documents recently and am now reading through the Didache. Many of the verses seem similar or almost identical to those in the Bible, but there are equally many verses that are clearly not Biblical. Also, except for the sections on Communion, Christ is not really mentioned, and even in the sections on Communion it is questionable to me whether the writer(s) of the Didache had a proper belief about who Christ is and what he accomplished.

Although an open-ended question, I would be curious to hear others' thoughts about the Didache, e.g., is it truly characteristic of the early church, how useful is it for us to study today, does it handle Christ appropriately, was it influenced by the various heresies that were common in the 1st century, etc.

To me it seems like a very legalistic document that contains only glimpses of the Gospel, although a person I was discussing it with said that the document was written with the Gospel as an assumed starting point and was intended to be more practical for daily life (an argument I can't really agree with).

Thanks,
John

#42134 - Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:55 AM Re: The Didache [Re: john]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
John,

The Didache, in my opinion, is a bit of a mixed bag. Much of the first section about the Two Ways is simply quoting or paraphrasing Scripture, but some of it can make you scratch your head. It is evidently a Jewish-Christian text on the whole, and the understanding of Communion is less than adequate. Interestingly the document does provide support the Lord's Day Sabbath & for the twofold offices of deacon & bishop/elder. Curiously it appears to support immersion in running water as the preferred mode of baptism, but it also provides for affusion (pouring). How representative this is of the early church seems difficult, at best, to determine.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#42140 - Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:43 AM Re: The Didache [Re: CovenantInBlood]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline
Addict
john  Offline
Addict

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Eastern US
Originally Posted by CovenantInBlood
The Didache, in my opinion, is a bit of a mixed bag. Much of the first section about the Two Ways is simply quoting or paraphrasing Scripture, but some of it can make you scratch your head. It is evidently a Jewish-Christian text on the whole, and the understanding of Communion is less than adequate. Interestingly the document does provide support the Lord's Day Sabbath & for the twofold offices of deacon & bishop/elder. Curiously it appears to support immersion in running water as the preferred mode of baptism, but it also provides for affusion (pouring). How representative this is of the early church seems difficult, at best, to determine.


Kyle,

I appreciate your comments. I've been in a discussion with some people about the usefulness of using the Didache as a study tool for Christian growth and have been trying to clarify my on thoughts on the subject. As you say, it does contain a lot of head-scratching material.

John

#42158 - Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:02 PM Re: The Didache [Re: john]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
I would not look to the Didache or indeed any of the Church Fathers for help with Bible doctrines. They don't agree with each other, and, more importantly, they don't agree with the Bible.

The Didache is interesting, however, when it reveals how First Century Greek-speaking Christians understood the word 'baptizo.'
Quote
7:1 And concerning baptism, baptize in this way: After stating all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in living water.
7:2 And if you do not have living water, baptize into other water, and if you are not able to baptize in cold water then do so in warm.
7:3 And if you do not have both, pour water on the head thrice in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.

Notice here that you can baptize in running water; you can baptize in cold water or warm water, but you cannot baptize by pouring, because that would be a non sequitur. Baptizo means 'dipping' or 'immersion.' It doesn't mean 'pouring' or 'sprinkling.' Pouring is allowed by the Didache, but it doesn't call it 'baptism.' grin

Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#42162 - Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:39 PM Re: The Didache [Re: grace2U]  
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Originally Posted by grace2U
I would not look to the Didache or indeed any of the Church Fathers for help with Bible doctrines. They don't agree with each other, and, more importantly, they don't agree with the Bible.

The Didache is interesting, however, when it reveals how First Century Greek-speaking Christians understood the word 'baptizo.'
Quote
7:1 And concerning baptism, baptize in this way: After stating all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in living water.
7:2 And if you do not have living water, baptize into other water, and if you are not able to baptize in cold water then do so in warm.
7:3 And if you do not have both, pour water on the head thrice in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.

Notice here that you can baptize in running water; you can baptize in cold water or warm water, but you cannot baptize by pouring, because that would be a non sequitur. Baptizo means 'dipping' or 'immersion.' It doesn't mean 'pouring' or 'sprinkling.' Pouring is allowed by the Didache, but it doesn't call it 'baptism.' grin

Steve

ranton
Really I am getting tired of this Steve. Let's quote the entire section on baptism from the Didache shall we?
Quote
Didache 7:1
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.

Didache 7:2
But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

Didache 7:3
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4
But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.


As you can plainly see when the entire section is quoted affusion is a method that was employed if the other methods were not available. You know Steve picking and choosing the text is the method of someone with poor hermeneutic skills. Or as Pilgrim is want to say: "A text without context is just a pretext" Please don't embarrass the Baptists on this board. rantoff


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#42163 - Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:04 AM Re: The Didache [Re: Peter]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Yes, but he does not say, "If you do not have both, baptize by pouring." He couldn't, because baptism is dipping. I fully agree that when sufficient water was not available, pouring (affusion) was regarded by the Didache as acceptable. That, however, is not the point I was making.

FWIW, in my church, we will accept into membership folk who have been 'christened' as infants and do not feel it right to be 'baptized' again. My point is solely concerning the Greek.

Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#42164 - Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:54 AM Re: The Didache [Re: grace2U]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,314
NH, USA
Originally Posted by grace2U
Yes, but he does not say, "If you do not have both, baptize by pouring." He couldn't, because baptism is dipping.

nope See here: The Mode of Baptism, by John Murray.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#42166 - Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:06 AM Re: The Didache [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by grace2U
Yes, but he does not say, "If you do not have both, baptize by pouring." He couldn't, because baptism is dipping.

nope See here: The Mode of Baptism, by John Murray.

I am aware of the arguments of Prof. Murray. Suffice it to say that I don't find them convincing.

However,in the light of other comments, I have now taken a Trappist vow on the subject of baptism unless my views are specificaly solicited.

Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#42167 - Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:40 PM Re: The Didache [Re: grace2U]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Steve,

Clearly pouring is considered a mode of Christian baptism in the Didache. This is simply beyond dispute. That it elides the term "baptize" in 7:3 has to do with word economy, not with baptizo supposedly meaning "dip."


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 128 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
667,104 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.044s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.6175 MB (Peak: 2.9044 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-17 23:33:12 UTC