-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
False.
John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *What happened to baptism?
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. *What happened to baptism?
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. *What happened to baptism?
John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. *What happened to baptism?
John 11:25 - Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" *What happened to baptism?
Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 13:39 - and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." *What happened to baptism?
Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. *What happened to baptism?
Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. *What happened to baptism?
Romans 10:4 - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. *What happened to baptism?
1 John 5:13 - These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
Christ is the OBJECT of our belief in receiving salvation and to say that faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation is not enough to receive salvation is to say that Christ's finished work of redemption is IN-sufficient to save, yet His finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.
*See post #617.
Yet many unbelievers in various false religions and cults still end up gettting water baptized because they trust in water baptism (along with other works to save them). Such people may believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ (just as the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" - James 2:19), yet they don't truly believe in Him/trust in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. What happened to "and" along with baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
In Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned. There is a distinction between believing "and" getting water baptized "afterwards" so your argument about must be water baptized to be saved does not hold water in these multiple passages of scripture that I quoted which say "believe" yet leave out baptism.
John 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. *What happened to baptism?
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. *What happened to baptism?
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. *What happened to baptism?
John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. *What happened to baptism?
John 11:25 - Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" *What happened to baptism?
Acts 10:43 - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 13:39 - and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. *What happened to baptism?
Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." *What happened to baptism?
Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. *What happened to baptism?
Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. *What happened to baptism?
Romans 10:4 - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. *What happened to baptism?
1 John 5:13 - These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
Christ is the OBJECT of our belief in receiving salvation and to say that faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation is not enough to receive salvation is to say that Christ's finished work of redemption is IN-sufficient to save, yet His finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.
*See post #617.
Yet many unbelievers in various false religions and cults still end up gettting water baptized because they trust in water baptism (along with other works to save them). Such people may believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ (just as the demons believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" - James 2:19), yet they don't truly believe in Him/trust in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. What happened to "and" along with baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
In Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with "but he who does not believe will be condemned. There is a distinction between believing "and" getting water baptized "afterwards" so your argument about must be water baptized to be saved does not hold water in these multiple passages of scripture that I quoted which say "believe" yet leave out baptism.
If you need to disqualify some of the text then there is a problem with the theology being used... You do not need to read it a certain way, qualifying/disqualifying parts of text unless you are twisting the word of God to fit some man made doctrine.
Mark 16:16 NKJV
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It is impossible to be baptized without belief, without belief you only got wet, hence the concatenating "and" in Mark 16:16
No qualifying/ disqualifying, both belief "and" baptism are a requirement to be saved in accordance to Mark 16:16
It's you who is twisting the word of God (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..) and has unsuccessfully forced these passages of scripture which make it clear that we are saved through belief "apart from additions or modifications" to "conform" to your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
False, as I already explained in post #617 and #622. Unfortunately, I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
False, as I already explained in post #617 and #622. Unfortunately, I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination.
It's you who is twisting the word of God (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc..) and has unsuccessfully forced these passages of scripture which make it clear that we are saved through belief "apart from additions or modifications" to "conform" to your biased interpretation of Mark 16:16.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
False, as I already explained in post #617 and #622. Unfortunately, I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination.
John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
False, as I already explained in post #617 and #622. Unfortunately, I can see that you are unable to see anything beyond your church of Christ indoctrination.
You shouldn't take the twisted teaching of people like Wayne Grudem and read the text as it is without trying to qualify and disqualify parts of to fit your doctrine
Mark 16:16 NKJV
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It is impossible to be baptized without belief, without belief you only got wet, hence the concatenating "and" in Mark 16:16
No qualifying/ disqualifying, both belief "and" baptism are a requirement to be saved in accordance to Mark 16:16
Who is Wayne Grudem? Continuing to repeat your argument still does not change the fact that the omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). Did Jesus forget to mention it? What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. *Please also explain to me what happened to baptism in all of the verses that I quoted in post #622. *What was the ONE requirement for salvation in those verses as well? hmm...
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). Did Jesus forget to mention it? What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. *Please also explain to me what happened to baptism in all of the verses that I quoted in post #622. *What was the ONE requirement for salvation in those verses as well? hmm...
Obvious creation of a doctrine that is not biblically sound created on a passage of scripture that is not accounted as fully confirmed as part of the original manuscript in Mark.
In the absence of supporting passages from the rest of scripture your application of Mark 16 is dubious.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
In the absence of supporting passages from the rest of scripture your application of Mark 16 is dubious.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Dan,
Even you would not accept these 12 passages as definitive and all-encompassing. They are written in the general and cannot stand alone without qualification, what you call "rightly understood". You regularly present these scriptures as definitive yet not one of them is written in the definitive. It would have been rather easy to write these verses in the definitive but the authors chose not to. Why? The lack of a adjective qualifier such as only, solely or alone makes the faith alone regeneration theology a clear farce. You are not fighting me, you are fighting simple composition.
This is a great example of you having to qualify your own theology, yet you claim your 12 verses are comprehensive.
Jesus was not attempting to clarify an earlier point, the cause is in the same sentence!
Who would speak this way? Mark 16:16 is one sentence of just 15 words!
The teacher proclaimed to her class, "Whoever passes the quiz and brings a signed permission slip shall go on the field trip but whoever fails the quiz will not go."
Does the cause "but whoever fails the quiz will not go" negate the need for the permission slip? Does the teacher need to qualify herself in the same breath for the need for the permission slip to be valid?
You want faith alone regeneration theology to be true therefore strange logic must be employed.
Even you would not accept these 12 passages as definitive and all-encompassing. They are written in the general and cannot stand alone without qualification, what you call "rightly understood". You regularly present these scriptures as definitive yet not one of them is written in the definitive. It would have been rather easy to write these verses in the definitive but the authors chose not to. Why? The lack of a adjective qualifier such as only, solely or alone makes the faith alone regeneration theology a clear farce. You are not fighting me, you are fighting simple composition.
This is a great example of you having to qualify your own theology, yet you claim your 12 verses are comprehensive.
Jesus was not attempting to clarify an earlier point, the cause is in the same sentence!
Who would speak this way? Mark 16:16 is one sentence of just 15 words!
The teacher proclaimed to her class, "Whoever passes the quiz and brings a signed permission slip shall go on the field trip but whoever fails the quiz will not go."
Does the cause "but whoever fails the quiz will not go" negate the need for the permission slip? Does the teacher need to qualify herself in the same breath for the need for the permission slip to be valid?
You want faith alone regeneration theology to be true therefore strange logic must be employed.
Gods plan has never been faith alone. Gods plan has always been grace alone. As long as you continue to misstate the premise you will fail to attain the correct conclusion.
Grace precludes all other means to salvation. Grace is wholly sufficient to accomplish the great task of changing sinful men into redeemed sons of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Grace precludes all other means to salvation. Grace is wholly sufficient to accomplish the great task of changing sinful men into redeemed sons of God.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Here we go again with your faulty human logic.
Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Period.
A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." It naturally follows that you wash down the medication with water, but if no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made will BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION. It's the same with water baptism. It naturally follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE (John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 16:31 etc..) which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It's your logic that is strange. You have to break out the "shoe horn" in order to try and make your theology fit. You butcher a multitude of verses that make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" in order to try and make them "conform" to your handful of pet verses in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine.
Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Period.
A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." It naturally follows that you wash down the medication with water, but if no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made will BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION. It's the same with water baptism. It naturally follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE (John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 16:31 etc..) which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It's your logic that is strange. You have to break out the "shoe horn" in order to try and make your theology fit. You butcher a multitude of verses that make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" in order to try and make them "conform" to your handful of pet verses in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine.
Now when the text itself cannot be refuted comes the claim it's not authentic, yet there are multiple scripture calling for baptism with water to remit sins (acts 2:38 for one of many), there are 8 conversions in the new testament scripture and all were water baptized, and all rejoiced after they were water baptized, not from the moment they believed.
By twisting the scripture you not only question the authenticity of Mark, but the entire word of God
I think you know who Wayne Grudem is, he is a theologian that puts forth your qualification arguments almost word for word, a child can understand the verse, but when it doesn't fit man made doctrine an adult must disqualify parts of it to make it fit, or simpler yet, question the authenticity of the book all together as above
By twisting the scripture you not only question the authenticity of Mark, but the entire word of God
I think you know who Wayne Grudem is, he is a theologian that puts forth your qualification arguments almost word for word, a child can understand the verse, but when it doesn't fit man made doctrine an adult must disqualify parts of it to make it fit, or simpler yet, question the authenticity of the book all together as above
I know who Wayne Jackson is. I've heard Campbellites quote him on numerous occasions. Read John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 16:31 etc.. to a child and ask them how we are saved then see how many of them will respond by saying, "we must be water baptized in order to be saved." Talk about twisting to the word of God to make it fit your biased church of Christ doctrine.
Believing that Jesus rose from the dead (along with Christ died for our sins and was buried according to the scriptures) is included in the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16).
To BELIEVE the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.
To BELIEVE the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation.
Here we go again with your faulty human logic.
Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Period.
A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." It naturally follows that you wash down the medication with water, but if no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made will BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION. It's the same with water baptism. It naturally follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE (John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 16:31 etc..) which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It's your logic that is strange. You have to break out the "shoe horn" in order to try and make your theology fit. You butcher a multitude of verses that make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" in order to try and make them "conform" to your handful of pet verses in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine.
Once again, Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned." Period.
A better analogy would be, "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well, but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." It naturally follows that you wash down the medication with water, but if no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made will BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION. It's the same with water baptism. It naturally follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE (John 3:18; Acts 10:43; 16:31 etc..) which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned.
It's your logic that is strange. You have to break out the "shoe horn" in order to try and make your theology fit. You butcher a multitude of verses that make it clear that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications" in order to try and make them "conform" to your handful of pet verses in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine.
*NOWHERE does the Bible say "faith alone and saved." Period.
Here we go again with your faulty human logic.
