question on baptism

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bdlooney

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.

[bishoph]

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.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

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.

[SDG]

"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.

A textual issue with Mark 16:9-20

What I will share here may not be very popular with some readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very close to it.
Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5% textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark 16:9-20 is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please consider the following evidence.

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.

This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a defense for baptismal regeneration.

It appears that the ending of Mark may have been lost and someone rewrote it and attached it to a copy at sometime. It is possible that the ending under question was never there to begin with.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Mark_16_16.htm

[bishoph]

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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

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.

[bishoph]

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."

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bishoph

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.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

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

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!

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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

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