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

[Red Baker]

Ditto

Please prove your reason why you believe this to be so. RB

 

[Ozias]

I for one give Red Baber A lot of credit As he is attempting to teach us something rather than spewing forth a bunch of Calvinistic Doctrine.
Hopefully we can remain civil and share our beliefs. That's the way I was led to believe BAM operates.

​

 

[Ozias]

I need to finish this thread as far as saying what I believe this scripture truly is saying and what it is not saying that so many want it to mean.

I believe we all will confess that all scriptures must flow in perfect harmony, or else, we have not arrived at its truth as far as what we are trying to understand, agree?

By my doctrine overall consider would make me a Baptist by others account, yet, I do not consider myself of any main stream line, just because the word Baptist is a misnomer, at yeast to me, since there are several different types of Baptist. And, besides, I have not been part of any Baptist churches for well over forty years. That hardly qualify's me being a Baptist, other than, I believe in immersion only, and I believe in once loved, always loved! Which is so much better than saying: once saved, always saved, since I do know that we as God's children can lose our practical salvation of peace, joy and fellowship~but never our sonship. But that's enough on that point.

I said that, to say this~Most folk who call themselves Baptist, have no clue whatsoever what Mark 16:16 means, and really do not care. They are very content using religion as a insurance policy to give them somewhat peace of mind concerning death when it comes. Many will be disappointed.

There are others of different faith, that reject water baptism as a means to enter into life, yet do not do interpret Jesus' words properly or even try, they are no different from the Baptist, they too, are very contend believing that their religion that they have chosen to fit their lifestyle show be enough to make God accept them in that day, if there is really a day of Judgment coming, would be their inward thoughts.

There are some who seem very sincere, yet try to make being baptized to mean something other than being baptized in water~yet, we know that they are in error as well, yet more so from just not being able to see the truth, that they seem to love. God is indeed very merciful and longsuffering to our ignorance, if we are at least sincere in seeking for truth, as we all have learned from past experience, at least, I have.

Question #1~"Is saved/save/salvation used in the same sense every time?" The answer to this question is no, saved/save/salvation, is not used in the same sense throughout the scriptures. We must establish and prove this point, so that when we read such scriptures as Mark 16:16 then its meaning will become clear, base upon the scriptures overall considered. So many folk have a agenda, system, or a particular church that they want to defend instead of the truth of the scriptures~and when they come to such scriptures as Mark 16:16, then their agenda, system, or church, has more of a drawing power, than a love for the truth of the scriptures, which are God's testimony concerning truth. We should only be concern with pleasing God, not ourselves, or anyone or anything, be that it may.

Question #2~"How does the scriptures used the word saved/save/salvation in the NT?" Is it used only in being saved from sin and condemnation to being saved to eternal life?

It is used in that sense, but to many surprise, very little. Yet, when people hear of being saved, whether or not they know any truth, their minds can only think of being saved from "hell fire"~that's the way their minds have been programed to believe. They cannot even consider anything else, that's just how shadow churches in the twenty-first century are! They spend their precious time in doing useless things that cannot profit their souls. How sad, but very true.

Let us look at many scriptures and see how the Spirit use the words save/saved/salvation and so that when we read the scriptures, we can read them with understanding.

To be continue....

I definitely like once loved, always loved! I'm swiping that one

 

[civic]

Please prove your reason why you believe this to be so. RB

Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Fred]

Fred you need to prove what you are saying. If Mark 16:9-20 is unreliable, then what other scriptures are?

1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV.

What you are saying is not the faith of God's elect.

That's not your call.

We believe every scripture is from the mouth of God,

You assume Mark 16:9-20 is Scripture.

Some doctrines are based upon a single word~need help?

No. You do.

 

[Fred]

Ditto

a. Mark 16:9-20 is:
(1) "...the inauthentic Marcan ending..." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5:240, oneidizō, Schneider)
(2) "...the false Marcan ending..." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3:753, kleis, Jeremias)

b. Mark 16:8 is:
(1) "...the virtually unanimous verdict of modern textual scholarship" (The Gospel of Mark, R. T. France, page 685)
(2) "...the authentic text..." (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 2:359, Joy, Beyreuther and Finkenrath)

 

[Hosanna]

a. Mark 16:9-20 is:
(1) "...the inauthentic Marcan ending..." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5:240, oneidizō, Schneider)
(2) "...the false Marcan ending..." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3:753, kleis, Jeremias)

b. Mark 16:8 is:
(1) "...the virtually unanimous verdict of modern textual scholarship" (The Gospel of Mark, R. T. France, page 685)
(2) "...the authentic text..." (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 2:359, Joy, Beyreuther and Finkenrath)

Thank you for clarifying that for us. It's the first time I've ever heard it.

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

For these reasons I recommend keeping Mark 16:9–20 in the Bible. But it’s probably not from Mark.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[Soyeong]

Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.got?

hope this helps !!!

A chiasm is where the Bible expresses a sequence of thoughts and then expresses the same sequence of thoughts in the reverse order. The Bible contains thousands of chiasms with at least one in every book. A number of the books contain complex chiastic patterns, such as with the book of Genesis being one giant chiasm that is composed of 81 smaller chiasms, which can be divided into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eighths, ninths, tens, or eighteens, and each part of each of those fractions also forms its own chiasm. All of the Books of Moses as well as all of the Gospels form this type of pattern. This pattern can also serve as the author's signature where something that was added later would not be part of that pattern and stand out, such as with the case with Mark, where everything up to verse 8 is part of that pattern, but where verses 9-20 are not.

 

[Red Baker]

hope this helps !!!

In all due respect to you and others~can you take what you have posted to another thread and let's keep this about baptism as much as possible.

I strongly disagree with your post and for good reasons, that I would be happy to discuss in another thread. Thank you in advance for considering this.

I firmly believe in Psalms 12 where God has promised his children that he would preserve his word from the generation of wicked men. By faith I believe his promise of doing so.

I will never believe in what man claims concerning his word, how this became part of it and how this does not belong to it, etc.

Where does faith come into this debate...... one needs to ask himself?

 

[Red Baker]

You do.

Fred, I will as soon as civic takes what we have said to another thread. No problem. I do not mind doing so, as long as we all can remain respectful toward each other and only attack one's position, not the person.

 

[Red Baker]

Visiting difficult verses on water baptism

Entire denominations have been founded on baptism ~ one prime example would be the Church of Christ by Alexander Campbell and his friends in and around 1811. They are great broad jumpers, laboring to convince any that would listen to them that their church started on the day of Pentecost~when in truth no church started at that point.

Men, ignoring God's rules, have search for scriptures supporting their desired position on water baptism. God has indeed provided them such sound bites enough to keep them in darkness in their quest to find help to support their work system of sharing glory with Christ, as though they have the power to deliver themselves from sin and condemnation that they are under. Let us consider:

John 3:5​

What does this verse have to do with baptism? Not one thing.

Acts 2:38​

Is the remission of sins dependent on repentance and baptism? And if so, in what sense? For we know that Jesus shed His blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 10:18).

​

Acts 22:16​

How do you explain this verse? How will you answer the Campbellite?

Romans 6:1-4

What does it mean to be baptized into Jesus Christ? Does the act of water baptism legally places a sinner into Christ making such person born again coming up out of the water? No!

Ist Corinthians 15:29​

Have you ever been confronted by two Mormons on bicycles about this verse? They believe in baptism for dead relatives, who didn’t have a chance to meet Joe Smith, their founder.

Mark 16:16 has been already looked at above.

We will come back and consider these five in order.

Then we shall consider 1st Peter 3:21 the most powerful scripture addressing water baptism.

 

[Hosanna]

A chiasm is where the Bible expresses a sequence of thoughts and then expresses the same sequence of thoughts in the reverse order. The Bible contains thousands of chiasms with at least one in every book. A number of the books contain complex chiastic patterns, such as with the book of Genesis being one giant chiasm that is composed of 81 smaller chiasms, which can be divided into halves, thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, eighths, ninths, tens, or eighteens, and each part of each of those fractions also forms its own chiasm. All of the Books of Moses as well as all of the Gospels form this type of pattern. This pattern can also serve as the author's signature where something that was added later would not be part of that pattern and stand out, such as with the case with Mark, where everything up to verse 8 is part of that pattern, but where verses 9-20 are not.

A chiasm...very interesting. I never heard about that before thanks for sharing it. I love it when I can learn something new.

 

[Red Baker]

This pattern can also serve as the author's signature where something that was added later would not be part of that pattern and stand out, such as with the case with Mark, where everything up to verse 8 is part of that pattern, but where verses 9-20 are not.

Soyeong~I understand what you saying, not so sure everything you said can be supported with the scriptures, no doubt some can be, for I did a short reading on this comparison this morning, maybe more later.

For now, let me say this: be as it may be, concerning the author's signature, the main author is God while maintaining the author's manner of writing, so knowing the Author is the Holy Ghost ~ what we have in Mark 16:9-20 can be supported by other scriptures. For sake of time and to keep us from turning aways from the subject, consider this excellent article written by Tony Warren which I read a few years back.

These Signs shall follow them which Believe

An exposition of the signs following that are recorded in Mark chapter 16. Have miracles ceased, and if so, how will these signs that are promised, follow them that believe? by Tony Warren

www.mountainretreatorg.net

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[civic]

So I guess this is where you'll start injecting your Calvinism correct?

notice its whoever BELIEVES and is baptized shall/be saved. The new birth, regeneration comes after faith and baptism not before it in the OP's verse. And we know the correct ordo salutis.

1- hearing the word, the gospel
2- believing the gospel
3- receiving the gospel
4- calling upon the Lord
5- confessing Jesus is Lord
6- resulting in the new birth, born of God, salvation, eternal life
7- conversion
8- repentance
9- justification
10- sanctification
11- glorification

hope this helps !!!

 

[Fred]

what we have in Mark 16:9-20 can be supported by other scriptures.

"If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

Where can the above, as appears in Mark 16:18, find support by the other Scriptures?

 

[civic]

"If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

Where can the above, as appears in Mark 16:18, find support by the other Scriptures?

easy- NONE.

 

[Red Baker]

notice its whoever BELIEVES and is baptized shall/be saved.

That's very clear, and we agree thus far~but faithful and wise students of the holy scriptures are all known to be noble Bereans.

Acts 17:11,12~"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

Brother, there's a blessing from heaven given to such Christians by just being noble in working hard in searching the scriptures, prayer and trusting God's Spirit to teach, us confessing we are nothing more than babes when it comes to knowing truth~God's children do not believe in entitlement much like the twenty first century children of this world do~ just because we are children of God does not mean we are entitled to God's truth, there's a price to be paid, and a blessing may follow depending on why we re searching and desiring truth, God sees and know every hidden lust, even if we do not.

I said above:

The salvation in this scriptures has nothing to do with eternal life, nothing. It has to do with a practical salvation of KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING of the truth concerning Jesus Christ. A person who is baptized properly by immersion, with a understanding of why they are being baptized has more knowledge concerning the religion of Jesus Christ, and the true gospel of God. That is all our Lord was teaching, when he said those words. How do I know that, by reading the NT epistles. Even the verse above under consideration. "Baptism doth indeed save us! How Peter?

By the resurrection of Jesus Christ! Being dip in water, has no power to save from sin and condemnation. Jesus' faith, obedience and death, and resurrection is what redeems us from the curse of the law of God. Baptism show forth these these in a figure. Those who truly know these things, have being regenerated first by God, then we have a fuller salvation of knowledge when we are baptized with an understanding of what we are doing and what we truly believe in. Our understanding is greater than most of the OT saints, who did not have this ordinance of baptism as we have in the NT.

The word saved in Mark 16:16 without question has to do with a practical salvation enjoyed by those who have been baptized properly, than all of the OT saints, who were never baptized into Jesus Christ~and all were are God's children, yet have not been baptized properly, or have not even been baptized for whatever reason, there could be a few reasons. This sense is the only true biblical sense that could be given to Mark 16:16, and flow perfectly with the scriptures.

The new birth, regeneration comes after faith and baptism not before it in the OP's verse.

So, do you believe in baptismal regeneration with this statement that you wrote? Or, is there a sense you need to put upon the word saved that you have not even attempted as of yet?

1- hearing the word, the gospel
2- believing the gospel
3- receiving the gospel
4- calling upon the Lord
5- confessing Jesus is Lord
6- resulting in the new birth, born of God, salvation, eternal life
7- conversion
8- repentance
9- justification
10- sanctification
11- glorification

In your understanding where does water baptism come into your system? Mark 16:16 connects it with the word saved!

1- hearing the word, the gospel
2- believing the gospel
3- receiving the gospel
4- calling upon the Lord
5- confessing Jesus is Lord

The results of being born of God, all (1-5) fruits of a true conversion which is a ongoing process until we leave this world.

6- resulting in the new birth, born of God, salvation, eternal life

civic, believing as you are confessing exposes your doctrine as false according to many scriptures. Romans 3:

Romans 3:9-19~"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

You are going against the apostles of our Lord and all of the word of God by teaching man without God first quickening them, they can by their power can their believe, fear, and love God! That's impossible.

Romans 8:7,8~"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Yet, you are saying that man can please God in his natural flesh apart from being first in the Spirit, or spiritual minded, having the mind of Christ, which mind comes from our new man within us. That has the faith of Christ living in him.

You truly need to reconsider your understanding of the scriptures. Enough said for now.

 

[Red Baker]

"If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

Where can the above, as appears in Mark 16:18, find support by the other Scriptures?

Fred, many places. To be short~The sermon on the mount as you know was given by our Lord to correct the teachings of many who did not teach the truth in its purity.

Knowing this, we can say that many of God children over the years have taking in many false doctrines from false prophets as young believers and over time saw the light ~Actually, a believer's life is one long process of unlearning false teachings, that we all received early on, a process that is very painful and slow to recover from but recover we have~at least I can speak for myself. Those poisonous teaching did not ruin my faith, but I survived and so has many other of God's children which can say the same.

That Fred, is a fulfillment of~"If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."

 

[mailmandan]

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? Do I have to be baptized in order to be saved?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Red Baker]

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? Do I have to be baptized in order to be saved?

www.gotquestions.org

Dan~I read the article, and there were some truth, mixed with a lot of error, I would be happy to point the errors out, more so for younger believers that may be reading.

But, if you are not interesting me doing this, then fine, I will not impose my will upon your post. I'm here to help, not to show any knowledge greater than the next person.