Mark 7

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by John3v36, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. John3v36

    John3v36
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark 7:6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
    7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
    8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
    9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
    10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
    11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
    12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
    13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''


    When you baptize babies before they become believers the above applies!!!

    you are invalidating the word of God by the tradition of men.
     
  2. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why 'we' don't Baptise Infants but Dedicate them to the Lord.

    In my own church we stress that it is *really* the Parents who are getting dedicated.

    In fact in a few services there has even been a responsive set of vows for the parents to say "I DO" to concerning how they raise their child...

    Pretty cool, too.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh???? Mark 7 says nothing about infant baptism.
     
  4. John3v36

    John3v36
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh???? Mark 7 says nothing about infant baptism. </font>[/QUOTE]It does talk about invalidating the word of God by the tradition of men. Moreover, tradition is all Babies baptize is.

    You do not find it in commanded or an example of it in the bible it a tradition that started about the 2nd century.

    In addition, it voids believers’ baptism, which is commanded.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's debatable. There are several instances of people in the NT becoming Christians, getting baptized, and then baptizing their entire household. It's reasonable to presume that households include children. Hence, some churches allow infants to be baptised in the parents are believers. I disagree with that interpretation, but I stop short of saying that infant baptism is not biblically supportable. I happen to agree with the believer's baptism (in fact, I'm required to accept it as a Baptist). But to say that infact baptism is 100% unscriptural is a matter of interpretation.

    There are greater concerns in the church than how old you were when you got wet, and I find it silly that we spend so much time touting salvation based on faith alone, and with the other hand spend an equal amount of time condemning others over relatively minor non-salvific issues of interpretation.

    When we get to heaven, God is going to care a lot more about how we treated our brethren rahter than how we got baptized.

    You'd think we have much bigger fish to fry.
     
  6. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Where does it say in the bible that "Thou shall not baptize babies"? If there was such a proscription, then, yes, one could call infant baptism a tradition of man that invalidates God's command. However, I haven't found such a passage in scripture.
     
  7. music4Him

    music4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubting Thomas,
    Where does the scripture say that we ought to baptize babies?
    For those who think there should be baby baptisim heres a question....Jesus was baptized by His cousin John when He was how old?
    Isn't it an obediance thing that each individual chooses to do?

    BTW, I have heard of baby dedication but anoiting oil (not water) was used and blessings (health, protection, life,..ect) was spoken over the child and the child was dedicated to the Lord. Is this the same baby dedication ya'll are speaking of?

    Music4Him [​IMG]
     
  8. MTA

    MTA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is important to keep the references in context. In all cases where households being converted were mentioned, it is usually preceded by an individual act of repentance and faith, then baptism. It is then reasonable to infer that their households also repented and believed before baptism was extended to them. The Scriptures never insinuate that salvation was ever extended to a child that was incapable of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I do not believe there is any other view that can be supported or adequately proven by Scripture. Infant baptism is not supportable by Scripture, not yesterday, today or ever!
     
  9. John3v36

    John3v36
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    ACT 8: 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
    ====
    the eunuch had to belive to be baptized
    =====

    Matthews3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

    =====
    the Pharisees and Sadducees had to repentance to be baptized
    ======


    Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

    =====
    the house had to belive then the Holy Ghost fell on them.
    =====

    ACT 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

    =====
    You see in 34 the his hole house hold believed "believing in God with all his house."
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're not talking about salvation. We're talking about baptism. I would agree that there's no scriptural support for children repenting and being saved. No one has said that infants get saved when they're baptized. We're talking about saved individuals who repented and got baptized, and then went to baptize their entire households. It's a somewhat weak interpretation, imo, but it lends credence to the idea that baptism of households of a saved individual is plausable. I disagree with that interpretation personally, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. Mark 7 was spoken by Christ before His resurrection. Some Christians today consider the Words of Christ in the Gospels to be of no value today.

    #2. The "Commandments of God" mentioned by Christ (in the case of Mark 7 it is the 5th commandment specifically) - are abolished after the Cross - according to the tradition of many here. So "again" how can you use that scripture to make a Biblical point?

    #3. Christ stated that using tradition to void the commandment of God - (any commandment as it turns out) voids worship "In vain do they worship Me..." - are you really going to claim that Word of Christ here? Isn't that a bit harsh?

    #4. Note: According to Mark 7 -- Tradition is not evil of itself - it is only when it VOIDS or Nullifies God's commandments (replacing the commandment with an opposing tradition) that it is a problem. So if these babies are sprinkled in dedication AND THEN subject to believers baptism when they are old enough to "appeal to God for a clean conscience" -- it would have been ok.

    However Mark 7 makes a very strong statement about the commandments of God (in this case the 5th commandment) and argues that using tradition as an "excuse" not to keep it - is "voiding worship" - Are you really comfortable with that teaching of Christ in Mark 7? A lot of people are not.

    Having said all that - of course I agree with you 100% in applying this to God's Word including areas such as Baptism.

    I just want to know if you realize all that you are saying by using that text to make your point.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. John3v36

    John3v36
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by John3v36:
    You do not find it in commanded or an example of it in the bible it a tradition that started about the 2nd century.

    In addition, it voids believers’ baptism, which is commanded.

    #1. Mark 7 was spoken by Christ before His resurrection. Some Christians today consider the Words of Christ in the Gospels to be of no value today.


    #1 a) It was the Mosaic Law no the OT as a whole that was completed in Christ.


    #2. The "Commandments of God" mentioned by Christ (in the case of Mark 7 it is the 5th commandment specifically) - are abolished after the Cross - according to the tradition of many here. So "again" how can you use that scripture to make a Biblical point?
    #2 a) the fifth commandment is only the example he used at the time remember he started at the washing of hands.
    The example is tradition vs. God’s Word


    #3. Christ stated that using tradition to void the commandment of God - (any commandment as it turns out) voids worship "In vain do they worship Me..." - are you really going to claim that Word of Christ here? Isn't that a bit harsh?

    #3 a) Christ went there. He did not think it was to harsh. Why should I.


    #4. Note: According to Mark 7 -- Tradition is not evil of itself - it is only when it VOIDS or Nullifies God's commandments (replacing the commandment with an opposing tradition) that it is a problem. So if these babies are sprinkled in dedication AND THEN subject to believers baptism when they are old enough to "appeal to God for a clean conscience" -- it would have been ok.

    However Mark 7 makes a very strong statement about the commandments of God (in this case the 5th commandment) and argues that using tradition as an "excuse" not to keep it - is "voiding worship" - Are you really comfortable with that teaching of Christ in Mark 7? A lot of people are not.


    #4 a) I’m very comfortable with all the teach of Christ.


    Having said all that - of course I agree with you 100% in applying this to God's Word including areas such as Baptism.

    I just want to know if you realize all that you are saying by using that text to make your point.
    a)
    I understand the extent of my point.
    Sometime the truth is hard.
    But, it will set you free.

    I hope this helps.

    St. John
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bob said -#1. Mark 7 was spoken by Christ before His resurrection. Some Christians today consider the Words of Christ in the Gospels to be of no value today.

    John said
    Peter said that the OT was actually "God's Law" - not Moses'. Christ calls this the "commandments" of God - not "the commands of Moses" in Mark 7.

    In James 2 and in Ephesians 6 this same Mark 7 commandment is referenced -- it continued.

    John said
    I agree 100%. It is tradition vs God's Word. It is not an attempt to disect out God's Word given to Isaiah vs God's Word given to Moses.

    The Washing of hands - was pure tradition. But Christ moves them to the subject of "Corban" and how that conflicts with the 5th commandment - spoken directly by God.

    It is not Moses thundering from the top of Sinai - it is God Himself. Christ said that their tradition regarding things that are corban - violated that commandment of God Himself.

    A commandment repeated in James 2 and appealed to as authorotative in Eph 6:1-2.

    You are right - He is showing the tendancy of the leadership to void the commandments of God - the Law of God with their tradition.

    You are applying that same principle today as if it is still true. And you are right.

    However - that should give you pause for reflection.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just when it might be wayyyy-convenient to consider Mark 7 to be an obsoleted defense of the "Law of Moses" - Christ points out - that it is the "Commandment of God" that He is defending.

    Christ never argues "God's commandment" vs "Moses Law" as if there is division in the Word of God. As if some books are "less inspired" or "less truth" or "of less value" in scripture.

    Christ always presents the Word of God as authorotative. As always being backed up by the Throne and name of God Himself.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. music4Him

    music4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok [​IMG] Can someone either tell me or point me to a website that has "ALL" that goes on, including what is said during, and is done during and the signifigance(sp?) of what is being done bibically in a infant baptizim and dedication service. So I can decide for myself. ;)

    Thanks,
    Music4Him
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Music4Him,

    The research on the RC history behind infant baptism is fascinating - I will post that in a minute.

    However the problem is much more obvious and simple than even doing that much research.

    Lets say for example that in infant Baptism - they simply sing "Jesus Loves me this I know". No magic sacrament, no powers-of-the-priest nothing magic or supernatural.

    Surely there would be nothing at all wrong with that. Think of it as a baby dedication.

    The "problem" is that IF you replace the direct commands of Gods Word with that nice little infant-birthday-jingle - you are replacing a command of God - with a nice little tradition of man.

    God declares that salvation must be chosen/accepted - willingly. God declares that at the heart of true baptism is "An appeal to God for a clean conscience". God says we are to "repent and THEN be baptized" - and this is in fact the history of the practice in the NT church.

    Replacing that with the birthday jingle or the Jesus Loves Me jingle sung to an infant - does nothing to address the Bible's command. Rather it voids it - if you use that tradition to replace what is actually commanded.

    But for many that is "no big deal" at all. Christ is simply addressing that trait in the Mark 7 passage.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In this report - the point is made that infants are benefited without the Bible being preached - without hearing and understanding. By nothing more than the virtue of the office of priest and magic powers thereof - the soul of the infant is saved.

    Of course that is just a mean-old-historian that happens to be RC and a best selling author. I am sure that are some self-proclaimed "historians" here that would like to ignore what Bokenkotter has reported.

    But be that as it may ....

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Here is another "mean old source" -- ;)

    Didache on Baptism by Immersion:
    FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).

    </font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. music4Him

    music4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    0
    How could anyone think that baptizim saves? It is Jesus the Son of the Living God who shed his blood on the cross to cover our sins. He said all we have to do is to believe on Him (and to believe on Jesus is to see your sin and repent and turn away from sin and run to Jesus.) If you love Jesus you will learn of Him and His word will abide in you. If His words abide in a person then the saved person has no problem to come under obediance. It is said that we are to follow Jesus' actions as an example....well folks He was 12 when it mentions that He was about His Fathers buisness (being obediant), He was 30 years old before he was baptized (in obediance).
     
  20. frewtloop

    frewtloop
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What do we do with Paul's remarks about differences in "unequally yoked" marriages, talking about children "being sanctified" by the believing parent in spite of the unbelieving one? And what about ideas that compare the New Covenant with the Old, and see baptism as a replacement of the rite of circumcision--circumcision being, basically, a sign of faith, the same as baptism?

    The Worm
     

Share This Page

Loading...