question on baptism
 

I'm taking a closer lookat baptism and would like some input on the below article I came across. Thanks







“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).




This passage has become one of the favorite verses of those who teach baptismal regeneration. In a motel room there was a Gideon Bible and near the front it had a section with John 3:16 written out in many different languages. In this particular Bible someone had crossed out all of the John 3:16 verses and in big letters had written ACTS 2:38. The person who had defaced this Bible was communicating something like this: “You are deceived if you think that John 3:16 presents the true gospel. It doesn’t present the true gospel at all. It’s not enough to believe in Christ. To be saved and to be forgiven a person also needs to be baptized in water. The true gospel is much better presented in ACTS 2:38!”




When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.




What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.




Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: ““Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).




In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).




True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour.




Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”). If water baptism is an essential part of the preaching of salvation, then why does Luke 24:46-47 mention repentance and the remission (forgiveness) of sins but say nothing about water baptism? Even in the days of John the Baptist, it was repentance that was for the remission of sins, not water baptism (see Mark 1:4). John's baptism was an outward demonstration to show publicly that repentance had already taken place.




Forgiveness is received at the point of repentance/faith, not at the point of water baptism. Those who are not forgiven should not be baptized. They are yet in their sins. One simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”



The real question centers on the meaning of the preposition eis (translated "for" in the KJV). It is possible to show examples where eis can mean "because of" (Matthew 12:41--"at") or "on the basis of" or "with reference to," and all of these are certainly grammatically possible. However, it seems more natural and more probable that in Acts 2:38 this preposition indicates purpose or result. Peter was preaching to unsaved Jews who were guilty of crucifying Christ. They desperately needed the forgiveness of sins (as we all do). Peter was telling them what they must do in order to have forgiveness (see Acts 2:37---"What shall we do?").



The translations seem to support this meaning. The KJV, NASB, Amplified, NEB, RSV all give the rendering "for." The Revised Version has "unto." The NIV has "so that your sins will be forgiven" (although in later editions this was changed to "for"). You can see how a person believing in baptismal regeneration could easily use all of these translations to support his view.



The lexicons seem to support this meaning. Arndt & Gingrich say that the preposition here denotes purpose ("in order to") and they render the phrase: "for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven." Thayer has a similar rendering "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (his discussion under baptizo). Thus those who believe that a man is saved by water baptism would gladly appeal to these authorities.



Acts 3:19 seems to support this meaning. This is the very next sermon that Peter gives, and again he tells the Jews what they must do to have forgiveness. We would expect that what Peter told the Jews in Acts 3 would be similar to what he told them in Acts 2. In both cases he was preaching to unsaved Jews under similar circumstances. In Acts 3:19 once again the preposition eis is used, and the KJV translates it "so that your sins might be blotted out." Of course, those who teach baptismal regeneration do not make much of this verse because water baptism is not even mentioned.



The grammarians also concede that the preposition may be translated "for the purpose of' or "in order that" (see Dana & Mantey, p. 104). Those such as A.T.Robinson and Julius Mantey who render it “because of” or “on the basis of” do so primarily on the basis of theology, not grammar. They suggest a rare usage for the term in order to make the verse not teach baptismal regeneration. But are we really forced to depart from what seems to be the more natural and more common rendering?



Most commentators, regardless of the view they hold, understand the prepositional phrase ("for the remission of sins") as belonging with the verb "be baptized." It is possible, however, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent." The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:



A Repent


B Be Baptized


B In the Name of Jesus Christ


A For the remission of sins




In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis: "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins." This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis). In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"

Indeed, the Bible consistently connects "repentance" with "the forgiveness of sins" (see Luke 24:47 where Peter received his commission; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 5:31). On the day of Pentecost the Jews would have understood this because the only baptism that they knew about was the baptism of John which was a baptism of repentance UNTO (eis) the remission of sins.



The strengths of the view which sees "for the remission of sins" as part of a chiasmus are as follows: 1) it is theologically sound and avoids the error of making water baptism a condition for forgiveness; 2) it harmonizes with the other passages which speak about repentance and the forgiveness of sins; 3) it understands the preposition eis in its most natural meaning (though other meanings are possible); 4) it agrees with the parallel passage of Acts 3:19; 5) it best suits the context of Acts 2:38 where Peter is offering forgiveness to Christ-rejecting Jews. Peter was not speaking "with reference to" or "because of" or "on the basis of" a forgiveness which they did not yet have! 6) it employs a figure of speech (chiasmus) that was not uncommon or unusual to the Semitic mind, though in English it may seem somewhat awkward. For a detailed study of Chiasmus, see our study entitled Englishman's Greek.



Stanley D. Toussaint (The Book of Acts in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 359) gives several reasons why the parenthetical view is the correct view:



Several factors support this interpretation: (a) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb "repent" is plural ["repent ye"] and so is the pronoun "your" in the clause, "so that your sins may be forgiven" (lit., "unto the remission of your sins," (eis aphesin ton hamartion humon). Therefore the verb "repent" must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins. On the other hand the imperative "be baptized" is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence. (b) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 in which the same expression "sins may be forgiven" (aphesis harmartion) occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone. (c) In Luke 24:47 and Acts 5:31 the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins

Amen, TS.

Point us to your truth ... Lord ... today.

Salvation is God-given, God-driven, God-empowered, and God-originated. - Max Lucado

We need to harmonize Peter's messages w/ his other messages in Acts 3,4,10,11 and 15

Acts 3:19 Brother this scripture is not talking about specifically what Peter had done in Acts 2:38. Peter adds one thing that Acts 2:38 does not speak about.

when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter tells the Jews that there would be a time of refreshing that would come (future tense). The sending of Jesus is sending Him in Judgement. All this were to be restored hence restitution of ALL things.

Having ones sins being blotted out was part of being converted, hence the wording of Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out the act of conversion is in the whole package of the water and Spirit birth of Acts 2:38. Repentence is a must and baptism cannot be performed on those who have not believed and have not repented.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

but the question would be why didn't he mention baptism in acts3:19 when preaching to a different group then acts 2:38??

EB is attempting logical, theological and verbal gymnastics to try to "force" baptism into Acts 3:19. He assumes that the KJV is the ultimate translation of this verse when it say Repent and be converted. As converted to him means a litany of things that one must to be be "saveable" before God ... we are to assume the convert means that a baptism must occur to cause salvation ...

He also would like us to believe the times of refreshing of couse means a dip in the baptismal tank ... but forgets that it "shall come from the Lord"

Acts 3 in other translatons and in the Greek tell us that the godly repentance means turning from sin ... to God ... and the result is a blotting away of our sins.

This notion that baptism causes washing/remission/blotting out/ forgiveness of sins IS ANOTHER GOSPEL ... not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Baptism is past of be ye converted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Repent AND be converted.
Conversion is change that requires death-burial-resurrection.

Same ole thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calvary-and His resurrection are MORE than enough it is what I do with it. LIKE repentance???????????????????????????????

Is man required to believe and repent since His death-burial-resurrection is enough? Have you joined Crajak?????????????????

If there is a tie in someones mind between "for" remission or "because" of remission we will allow Yeshua to cast the deciding vote.

16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

We are saved by grace, through faith ... Repentance comes simultaneously in the heart of the true believer ... as will obedience ... to his commands ... the intial one being baptism and the slew of others he has given us....

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:

Dodging Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:saychees e

Thus can one believe and yet not repent???????????????? or be baptized????

Please break this down a little further.

If you believe and are baptized you are saved.

If you don't believe then your damned.

Many emphasize the first half of this scripture (believe and be baptized)...many others emphasize the last half (he that believeth not shall be damned)...so if I "believe" then I'm not damned.

Just a thought for some of you theologians to chew on. While your at it...break this passage down too.

Romans 10: 8-13

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I'm not a theologian or a debater...I'm only interested in knowing what each of you think about these passages.

ONCE AGAIN... lol -- The exact same words of Acts 2:38 are found in Jesus' words about how blood is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And this clearly does not mean BECAUSE remission of sins already occurred. This has been debated for years. That is why Peter made it a command in Acts 10 and says it is part of salvation in 1 Peter 3.

1Pe 3:21 KJV The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It does not save by physically cleaning with H20. But it DOES SAVE by it being an act of a good conscience.


Acts 3? Often, after an initial precedent has been set in writing, as in Acts 2, the aforementioned details are not written, though they were obviously spoken, as in Acts 3. Recall we are READING a historical account in Acts. If the writer Luke were to write every single word ever preached, after having already established the precedent for salvation clearly in Acts 2, the book of Acts would not have been able to have been completed due to lack of time allowed to write! lol The same principle occurs with Romans' references to salvation. The people already knew how to be saved, so Paul did not have to detail every part in Romans 10. Similarly, in Acts 3's case, the reader is already settled by Acts 2 to know what saves.

Act 2:38 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

THE GREEK IS IDENTICAL AS IS ENGLISH.

And Mark 16:16, as has already been said, shows JESUS saying baptism COMES BEFORE salvation, not after.


Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!

One will not even bother with baptism if one does not believe. So there is no need to even mention he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned.

:)

Lack of necessity of baptism is all due to misunderstanding Romans 6.

Salvation cannot be found in the Gospels beacuse it was not yet revealed. And salvation will not be in the Epistles after Acts because these were letters written to the CHURCH. They were written to the "SAVED", if you will. The letter to Romans was written to the Church at Rome. It was written to those who had believed, repented and converted according to Acts 2:38.

We are saved by grace through faith. But faith without works is dead. We can't be saved by dead faith, nonexistent faith. We are saved by God's grace through faith that has been coupled with obedience to Acts 2:38.

It really is very simple.

This IS SCARY!!! Jesus ... Jehovah is salvation.

BDL ... what you have posted is another gospel.

Don't mistake my silence on a term as a mere proposal ....

most theologians agree is the the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is evident in the theology of JW's, Mormons and some Oneness Pentecostals.

Simply type "Baptismal Regeneration" in Google ... see the results.

Question: "Does 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?"

Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation. For more information, please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works?"

Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all (like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43). A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).

Fortunately, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting-wet part that saves but is the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.

An excellent explanation of this passage is given by Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.'

"So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”

Part of the confusion on this passage comes from the fact that in many ways the purpose of baptism as a public declaration of one’s faith in Christ and identification with Him has been replaced by “making a decision for Christ” or “praying a sinner’s prayer.” Baptism has been relegated to something that is done later. Yet to Peter or any of the first-century Christians, the idea that a person would confess Christ as his Savior and not be baptized as soon as possible would have been unheard of. Therefore, it is not surprising that Peter would see baptism as almost synonymous with salvation. Yet Peter makes it clear in this verse that it is not the ritual itself that saves, but the fact that we are united with Christ in His resurrection through faith, “the pledge of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).


------------------------------
Context!!!

And the next verse is evidently intended to safeguard us on the matter so we would not misunderstand the Scripture, for that same verse goes on to say, "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." So baptism does not put away the filth of this old carnal nature. It is simply "the answer of a good conscious toward God." And the saving that we get is "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," after His death on the cross, which is pictured in baptism. This is "the answer of a good conscious," a conscience already purged, before one is baptized.

Our Catholic friends, and perhaps our OP PAJC friends, say that when Jesus gave the Lord's Supper and He said, "This is my body," He meant that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ and the cup actually contains the blood of Christ literally, and that these are a new sacrifice. That is unscriptural. but to make baptism a saving ordinance by misinterpreting 1 Peter 3:21 is the same sin, the same perversion of Scripture.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/...mal_Regen.html

Come on, Dan. Of course Jesus is our salvation but salvation as you and I know it today was not revealed yet. Jesus Christ, the man, is no longer walking among men and so the way to Jesus as salvation is through Acts 2:38. The theif on the cross joined the Lord in paradise because Salvation as we know it was not available. Different dispensations, different requirements.

I don't know if I should crack up or cry .... You said it again.

:scorebad

It is quite interesting to me that everyone who does not agree with you DA is "preaching another gospel" yet if someone were to say that to you, you would be indignant. It is also very interesting that you quite often quote trinitarian theologians as your authority sources for formulating your arguments. Why not debate purely on the basis of the word and proper utilization of Greek and Hebrew.

If I were to use Kai as you have suggested previously Mark 16:16 would read He that believeth even baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. This is just one example of many as to the errancy of your arguments.

Bottom line, there are other plausible interpretations of this passage which should be considered.

Mark 16:16 presents no problem again to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than your works-based gospel, for several possible reasons:

1) A person could simply take the position that the end of chapter 16 was not in the original manuscripts as is contended by many. I personally do not lean toward this view but it is certainly one although it is plausible. If we are to reject the adulteration of 1 John 5 ... consistency is at least expected?

2) One could realize that Christ does not say the one who is not baptized will be damned. If this was his intended meaning then there were certainly other ways he could have clearly made this point, but he does not.

3) Just because baptism is mentioned with believing in Christ's statement does not automatically mean baptism is necessary for salvation. You cannot make this assumption. Consider the following like statement: "He that goes through the proper process of legal marriage and wears a wedding ring shall be married, but he that does not go through the proper process of legal marriage shall be considered unwed." It would be wrong to suggest that in order to be wed one MUST wear a wedding ring. While it stands as an outward expression and token of love, the wearing of the wedding ring has no bearing on the marriage status of our hypothetical person.

Similarly, while the believer who is baptized shall be saved, it would be mistaken to jump to the conclusion that the believer who is not baptized would be damned. Christ did not say this at all. He says the one who does not believe is damned..... period. With a proper cultural understanding of baptism as the outward expression of repentance and faith it can be rightfully concluded that the act has nothing to do with salvation before God. While it does stand as a visual token of salvation to the church, it has no bearing on effecting salvation of the soul.

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

This verse is frequently used by baptismal regenerationists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. It says he who believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, they conclude that baptism is a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does this verse prove that baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all.


Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism.

1. Manuscript attestation
   1. Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. "The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version, the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary document."1
2. There is another ending to Mark.
   1. Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579, k, Syrh and more is as follows:
      1. "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."
3. Apparent, theological error.
   1. Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. This is problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in. This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture is spurious, a later addition, or a possible attempt to recount a lost section of the gospel.
4. Vocabulary usage.
   1. There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense in these verses. In other words, in the last 11 verses under discussion there are 17 "new" words that don't occur in the entire gospel of Mark. It appears that someone wrote the ending of Mark and added it to the gospel because the style is different and the vocabulary is different.

Again it is quite interesting that you will use as your defense a quote from a group who consider OP's as heretical.

Amazing ... next time you open a bible that was translated by trinitarians or use a commentary written by one ..... remember they're LOST, in your opinion.

C'mon Dan, you can't be serious! Using a Bible or commentary to study out some aspect of scripture is totally different than accepting their doctrinal understanding as correct. You eat the meat and throw out the bones! I have never even alluded to the idea that trinitarians don't have good things to say/write, in fact they posses truth in many areas, theology and salvation are not included in that equation. There are some truths that are only truly understood in the light of Holy Ghost illumination and a willingness/hunger to receive all that God has for us.

To quote one of your "mentors" TD Jakes "Denominations don't tell us who you are, it just tells us what truth you stopped at."

Many OPs don't hold your view BishopH ... stop being intellectually dishonest ... in your attempts to marginalize a position OPs held since the New Issue and Pentecostals have since Azusa... by playing the dreaded Trinnies card.

your part of the OP movement was influenced by the Cambellites, Methodists and Catholics ... from your view on baptismal regeneration to your stance on salvific dress Holiness.

Is that your argument? The fact that the word "baptism" wasn't mentioned in Acts 3:19 means that it isn't necessary for salvation? I would point out another scripture, but Dan would just walk away with his marbles. LOL!

Oh no! don't use that one, Dan will just walk away thinking that your stupid or something. LOL!

I already explained that in my previous post. The understanding was that converted included water baptism and the in filling of the Holy Ghost. The times of refreshing, and the restitution of all things are added. Also Peter is not talking to American Pentecostals or Baptists, he was speaking to religious first century Jews, and they understood the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy concerning Messiah.

John 1:25

"And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"

The Jews of the first century AD understood that the Messiah would come baptizing, or performing the mikvah of repentence.

To say that water baptism is not an important part of the plan of salvation is to teach another Gospel, don't you agree?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Exactly what I was saying thank you Elder.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Pastor Daniel: the sacond part of that verse is no good without the first part, the first part must be done no matter how you look at it. Simple really.

Amen!

Once again, good point or amen.

Those are your words and not ours. You and the church you attend believe a name it and claim it salvation. Accept the Lord as your own personal Jesus.
The act of obedience to the Gospel is not required? Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and the promise was unto the Jews and their generation and to all those Gentiles that would accept the call and be obedient to the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. There is no way around the words of Jesus Christ.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

So none of the folks mentioned in the Gospels who believed in Jesus and followed Him were saved? --not even the woman to whom Jesus said, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace" (Luke 9:50) --the Apostles and other ministers who healed the sick, cleansed the leper, cast out demons, and raised the dead were all just unsaved folks? --And when Jesus mentioned to Nicodemus that He and His disciples were talking about things they had seen and known when they talked about the new birth didn't really mean that?--they hadn't seen anyone born again?--or didn't know anyone who had been born again?

See there, now was that so hard? LOL! You wouldn't even give me the time of day.

Elder Epley, I don't think Dan is an Apostolic Pentecostal. As far as being on the same wavelength as CJ, I would have to say as far as believing that everything that calls itself Christian is saved; they are both on the same page.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Agreed, the words of JESUS says that those who BELIEVETH which means to continually believe, and go through the water way in Jesus name are saved.
Those who stop believing are damned and will bust hell wide open.