Due to the simplicity of Mk 16:16 one must work very hard at misunderstanding it as you are working hard with faulty logic and grammar.
I could say the same for John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26. What happened to baptism there? The same thing that happened to baptism in Mark 16:16(b).
Not mentioned. Not an absolute requirement for salvation. Period.
1)
Back in post 1099 I showed how Baptist Greek scholar AT Robertson and others said that the participles 'teaching' and 'baptizing' are modal participles, meaning that 'teaching' and 'baptizing' are the mode, the means as to HOW disciples are made......meaning no teaching and no baptizing = no disciples. Meaning there is no such thing as an untaught, unbaptized Christian. The idea of an unbaptized Christian only exists in the imagination of some men.
I have never met an unbaptized Christian, and I was more than happy to get baptized after I received Christ through faith and became a Christian, but we cannot rule out deathbed conversions. If someone receives Christ through faith and becomes a Christian while on the battlefield with no opportunity to be water baptized and dies soon afterward in combat they will still be saved because they BELIEVED. (John 3:15,16,18; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; 16:31 Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5-6; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Since there is just one great commission and the Bible does not contradict itself, then Mark's great commission would EQUALLY make baptism essential to being a Christian and saved as Matthew's account. Mark and Matthew do not contradict each other as you contradict them. You then must work hard at misunderstanding Matthew's account also.
The message is clear. Go and make disciples of all nations, then baptize converts, and teach them to observe all that Jesus has commanded. (Matthew 28:18-20) Nothing there about baptism being absolutely necessary for salvation.
2)
I also showed that Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence with two subjects 1) salvation 2) condemnation.
Christ tied 2 conditions to salvation, belief and baptism;
a) the conjunction 'and' makes them inseparable and gives them both equal weight and necessity to being saved and no amount of your grammatical gymnastics can change this.
Christ clarifies the first clause with
"but he who does not believe will be condemned." There is no equal weight because Jesus
did not say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned. The second clause in Mark 16:16 changes everything and refutes your biased doctrine.
b) Christ made belief a prerequisite to being baptized since it is not possible for an unbeliever to be scripturally baptized
Not possible scripturally because unbelievers (those who don't truly believe in Christ unto salvation) in various false religions and cults get water baptized all the time anyway because they believe baptism will save them.
Christ gave just ONE condition to being lost that being unbelief;
Amen! Regardless of what else one does (gets water baptized, gives lip service confession, attends church every Sunday, feeds the poor etc.. doesn't matter. Such a person would remain lost because of unbelief. (John 3:18)
a) since belief is a necessary prerequisite to being baptized then we can logically know an unbeliever is also unbaptized. Hence it is not logical and would be redundant to say 'he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be condemned'.
More faulty human logic. Again, unbelievers (who think they are genuine believers but are deceived) get water baptized all the time, especially in various false religions and cults. Such folks may believe "mental assent" that Jesus exists and died on the cross, but they fall short of trusting in Jesus as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. Instead, such folks trust in works for salvation and not in Jesus Christ alone.
b) since the rebellion of unblief is all that is necessary and sufficient to be lost, then there is no logical reason or sense for Christ to add other rebellions as in rebelling to be baptized or rebelling to confess Christ to be lost (Mt 10:32-33) since the one and only rebellion in not believing is sufficient in itself to being lost. It is illogical and senseless to say 'he that believeth not and is baptized not' since unbelief is the one and only condition Christ tied to being condemned. Men do not have the authority to come behind Christ and start changing the conditions He created for salvation and condemnation just to force their biased theology into the verse.
Your false gospel is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics. Christians do not rebel against being baptized. I could not wait to get water baptized after my conversion.
==========================================
3)
order matter and so does the conjunction 'and'
Mk 16 he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
Once again, (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) clarified by the second clause, "but he who
does not believe will be condemned."
Christ makes a similar statement in Jn 5:24
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,
Well, how can you believe unless you first hear? But you can believe and not yet be baptized. (Acts 10:43-47) Not the same thing.
Similarities:
a)
Christ made hearing prerequisite to believing since one cannot believe what he has not heard
Likewise Christ made belief prerequsite to baptism since an unbeliever cannot be scripturally baptized
An unbeliever or (make believer) cannot be scripturally baptized because they don't truly believe unto salvation but still such make believers get water baptized all the time in various false religions and cults.
b)
Christ tied hearing to believing with conjunction 'and' making them both inseparable and both equally necessary to having everlasting life
CHrist tied belief to baptism with conjunction 'and' making both inseparable and both equally necessary to being saved
In that case they would be inseparable because you can't believe unless you first hear but you can believe without yet being baptized.
If you can wave your faith only magic wand and just magically make baptism nonessenatial in Mk 16 then there is nothing to stop another person from making believing nonessential in Jn 5. Combining both verses, Jesus made hearing as essential as believing and believing as essential as baptism and He put hearing, belief and baptism BEFORE salvation and no amount of wrangling by faith onlyists can ever change Christ's words and order of the those words.
You are just rambling now. Your faulty human logic is wearing thin.
4)
Comparison
Does what you post compare to what Christ said:
in post 1115 you posted the following:
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
The second clause ties being made well to the medication and not to the water.
---- you tied 'taking medication' to 'washing it down with water' with the conjunction "and" making BOTH taking and washing inseparable and made BOTH equally necessary in being made well.
The second clause of my statement clarifies the first clause. It's not the washing it down with water that makes you well, but the medication, so if you take the medication dry (been there, done that) you will still be made well because of the medication. You need to read it all.
So what is the difference between Christ and you? YOU BACKTRACKED!!!
False. You need to be more honest.
After connecting 'taking medication' with 'washing it down' with "and" thereby making both necessary, you then decide that washing it down is not necessary now making washing it down an option. If washing it down with water was never necessary then why mention it at all?
If no water is available and you take the medication dry, you will still be made well because of the medication and not the water. I told you that it logically follows that we wash medication down with water but if no water is available then you take it dry. It's the same with baptism. It logically follows that we get baptized after we believe and are saved, but if no water is available and we die on our deathbed or on the battlefield, we will still be saved because we believe. (John 3:18) You are so desperate to win your argument at all costs that you are really making this all out to be much more complicated than it really is.
Yet Christ NEVER BACKTRACKED after he made baptism necessary tying it to belief with 'and'. For Christ not only made baptism necessary in the great commission in Matthew's and Mark's accounts, Christ CONTINUED to make baptism necessary in order to have remission of sins (Acts 2) necessary to walk in newness of life (Rom 6) to be in the body of Christ (1 Cor 12) to be saved (1 Pet 3) and Christ took the death burial and resurrection that takes place in water baptism necessary to obeying the gospel in order to not be in lost in flaming fire (2 Thess 1:8).
Christ never backtracked and neither did I. You are not honest with me or with Scripture based on your eisegesis.
5)
The Greek shows the necessity of water baptism in Mk 16 as does the English;
False. The second clause clarifies the first clause and proves otherwise.
---both verbs 'believeth' and 'baptized' are aorist tense participles meaning the verse can correctly be rendered....'he who having already believed and having already been baptized is the one that shall be saved'.
The second clause of Mark 16:16 along with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25-26 prove you wrong.
--"shall be saved" is future tense rather than aorist and is the leading verb. Greek scholars (*) have noted that it is usual in the Greek that the aorist participles occur BEFORE the lead verb. Meaning BOTH belief AND baptism must already be accomplished BEFORE one can have the future promise of 'shall be saved'
Greek scholar AT Robertson doesn't agree with your baptized or condemned false gospel - And is baptized (κα βαπτισθεις).
The omission of baptized with "disbelieveth" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation.
Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark. Amen!
Mark 16, Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament is a rich resource for understanding Scripture, delving into original language and cultural nuances.
www.studylight.org
---hence in the Bible, baptism is always put BEFORE salvation.
False. See Acts 10:43-47 for example, which remains your Achilles heel.
And since the BIble does not contradict itself then baptism is always put BEFORE salvation as in Acts 2:38 meaning baptism must already be accomplished BEFORE reception of the remission of sins/being saved.... further exposing the corruption of some in trying to make 'eis' mean 'because'
(*)
Heiser, Michael S. (2005), Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems).
Dana, H.E. & Mantey, Julius R. (1955), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan).
False. I already thoroughly refuted your argument in posts #1,133 and #1,137.
