[kosta50]

Actually, Didache is dated anywhere from 60 to 100 AD, and there are some other "inconsitencies" in the way the authors of that work worshiped as compared to "standard" praxis. One that comes to mind is the fact that Didache does not mention Real Presence, and also reverses the order of Eucharitic reception, more in line with the Judaic practice: wine first, then bread.

Didache is by no means a Church-wide dogma. It probably reflected the practices of some Jewish Christians at the time when the Apostles still walked the earth and were busy writing Gospels.

Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?

Didache may be an insight but by no means a "Bible." Children were not really much of a subject in those days unless they were children of kings, or were the targets of someone's slaughter, and even then the records if often lacking. In other words, chlidren were not given the important role of decision making, but simply followed what their parents did.

You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.

[George W. Bush]

Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?

And merely because Paul mentioned the use of tongues and baptisms for the dead will also not lead Baptists in those directions.

Given other ancient writings about years of preparation for baptism and to be inducted into a body of believers, we Baptists are content on the historical record.

You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.

Obviously, these 'others' are those who will witness the baptism or play a part in it. The first portion describes those who will baptize and those who will be baptized. The 'any others' obviously does not include them. Attempting to shove babies into 'any others' seems pretty weak to the plain text.

I find you Orthodox are much like the Presbys in this matter. When we discuss baptism, all of a sudden y'all start talking like a pack of slick East Coast lawyers. In terms of theology, that's rarely a good sign.