Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman
Well, I'm not surprised. When you said that "All 1st century Christains were baptized in Jesus Name and believed in Deut. 6:4", I assumed that you had some sort of source of 1st century writers which stated that the 1st century Christians were baptized with a man uttering a phrase over another person during baptism which is acceptable to you. You didn't have such a source. Why make the claim if you didn't have a source to support your claim?
If you're interested in early teachings on baptism, I suggest you read the Didache. According to it, the following was the baptismal teaching of the early church.....
Chap. VII.
1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
2. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).
3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
4. But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before. |
Do you believe this as well?
Chapter 11:4 “But every apostle coming to you shall not remain more than one day, or another if necessary, but if three days, he is a false prophet.”
Where does scripture state this? It simply doesn't.
There are two points an intellectually honest person will make:
1) Additions need to be viewed with skepticism. Especially since we do not have the original writing but a copy centuries removed from the original. It’s possible for it to have been added to the text later.
2) When an author, any author, makes statements about a topic it is incumbent upon the reader to pay attention. Otherwise, the reader will jump to conclusions the author never intended. Seems like I read something about this somewhere… Oh I remember:
Pro 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Now let's turn to chapter nine.
Here is what this author had to say concerning the Eucharist.
9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html
The Eucharist is a solemn occasion. There was and is great respect given to the occasion.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, will be guilty of the body of the Lord and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and in this way let him eat from the bread and drink from the cup.
1Co 11:29 For he that eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not judging correctly the body of the Lord.
This is a clear reference to how the instructions of chapter 7 were obeyed. The Eucharist is a solemn event with much reverence to be observed. The author forbade the observance of this occasion until the observers were baptized and to the author this meant “into the name of the Lord”. The observers are to be Christians and all Christians were baptized, historically.
By doing this it’s clear the author has tied being baptized “into the name of the Lord” with Mtt. 28. it appears that you only want to deal with this by ignoring it.
The Eucharist is a solemn occasion and must be taken with sincerity and reverence. In the “great specificity” given in the instructions the author clearly states that a person must be baptized “into the name of the Lord” – they must be a Christian. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering the Bible only knows of Jesus name baptism.
As to chapter 7 it is clear that the author added many thoughts of his own. With that said it is also understandable that someone would make the connection between Mtt. 28 and
Acts 2. That is tying the two together and by being baptized in Jesus name the command of Mtt. 28 is fulfilled because this is exactly what happened in the Bible. Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Peter then, in obedience to the command of Christ, preached baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (
Acts 2). Therefore, it’s easy to see how this would be propagated later as we see here. Obviously the author of the Didache tied the directions given in chapter 7 to being baptized in Jesus name by forbidding the Eucharist to anyone who was not baptized that way. Only by jumping to conclusions and ignoring the whole text can someone hope to obfuscate the facts.
As to the charge of first century documents I give you the book of Acts. If there was no other writing this would be sufficient. You have not brought any evidence to support the claim of anyone being a Christian actually baptizing in any other way. Quoting Matt. does not work. Adding to Matthew does not work. The Didache was most likely a mid second century document as Matthew would have had to be written then disseminated. This would have taken time.
Hybrid Mode
