The truth is not hard to understand, just hard for you to ACCEPT.
What is "challenging" is when you consistently ignore the second half of Mark 16:16, which is in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. Your water gospel is not. In Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned," so condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism, so salvation rests on belief, as Jesus repeatedly said in John, but you only hear what you want to hear. You consistently ignore Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18 in favor of your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38, which is out of harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. You have rewritten and changed God's word to make it fit the theology of your church. So have Roman Catholics and Mormons.
What is "challenging" is when you consistently ignore the second half of Mark 16:16, which is in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. Your water gospel is not. In Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned," so condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism, so salvation rests on belief, as Jesus repeatedly said in John, but you only hear what you want to hear. You consistently ignore Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18 in favor of your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38, which is out of harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. You have rewritten and changed God's word to make it fit the theology of your church. So have Roman Catholics and Mormons.
There is a difference in 1) explaining what a verse says/means and 2) changing the verse to fit a theological bias. You have demonstrated you have no interest in #1 but continue to follow #2.
It is easily proven you follow #2 by the fact it has been shown you numerous times that in Mk 16a Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism and baptism is a prerequisite to salvation. Since Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism that means the UNBELEIVER is unbaptized. So in Mk 16:16b when Jesus said "he that believeth not" the phrase "believeth not" ALREADY INCLUDES not being baptized since the unbeliever cannot be baptized.
Another proof you follow #2 is you continue to ignore the conjunction "and". That conjunction makes belief AND baptism of equal importance and both come BEFORE "saved". The "and" means if baptism does not save then neither does belief. You continue time and time and time again ignore this little connective conjunction for it gets in your way. So you have no other option but to try to separate the two because of a theological bias not because of any legitimate theological, grammatical argument. And you closed your eyes and ears to what these verses are saying and continue to offer up the same flawed arguments over and over and over.
Last edited:
- 1
- Show all