Featured It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

Well, then my response to him was a checkmate since the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20, as I stated.

 

You are failing to understand another vital and common sense rule of hermeneutics. The Divine Purpose for any given book of the scriptures. If every book of the Bible had the same Divine purpose for producing it then what a boring and repetitious Bible.

Second, you are attempting to deal with a TOPIC [baptism] and so you have two problems confronting your narrow choice of the gospel of Mark. By limiting it to Mark you have chosen to ignore the vast amount of Biblical material concerning that subject AND you are assuming the purpose for the book of Mark is to define the relationship between baptism and salvation - I think not!

Third, you are also attempting to define salvation in connection with baptism and so any fair and balanced approach to scripture must also take into account the clear and unambiguous precepts and teachings of scripture concerning the basics of salvation.

Fourth, in dealing with baptism you are dealing with the topic of divine ordinances and so any fair and balanced approach must consider the overall teaching of God's divine purpose of external ordinances in relationship to salvation.

Finally, your problem is that you want to narrow, restrict and simplify what is broad, far reaching and sometimes complex. Thus you don't want to do the "work" of rightly dividing the Word of Truth and that is why I called sacramentalists "lazy" and "irresponsible" exegetes.

 

I cannot even begin to explain how this misrepresents this issue altogether. There are only two early manuscripts that do not include this. But no scholar anywhere will deny there are legitimate arguments made to support the existence of these verses.

 

It definitely does not misrepresent the issue. I am showing that it is unwise to try to establish doctrine on a verse that is not included in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

Here is what the NIV Bible says about it: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16: 9-20."

And the NASB: "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20."

I will quote an excerpt from Westcott and Hort ( and will add the rest if necessary): "It (the addition, vv. 9-20) manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority..."

So, if you want to argue and discount what I said, go argue with the Bible translators.

 

Yea I know what the NIV says about it and that is not impressive. Westcott and Hort are not the only credible scholars out there that have spoken on this issue.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704

 

BTW, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible also concurs.

 

Yes, I know. But I can't help it -- I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

Those things I listed are Biblical based - every single one of them in addition to common sense.

If this is a preview of how you deal with basics what hope is there for us agreeing on anything at all??

The book of Romans is the Biblical masterpiece of soteriology. Let's begin there in chapter one, verse one.

 

Now that is rich, Catholics and Mormons in a debate about which faith is not the true church. LOL

 

You are illustrating very clearly why you are not a very good exegete. This chapter is FULL of explanations as to what baptism is and is not and its purpose IF one has eyes to see:

7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Verse 8 denies that regeneration occurs in baptism simply because John demanded "fruits" or consequences that demonstrated and demanded repentance of sins has occurred as the qualification to be baptized. "fruits of repentance" means EVIDENCE OF A CHANGED LIFE TOWARD GOD! These are the "fruits" found in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit being demonstrable by how one thinks, talks and acts.

This verse defines the phrase "baptism of repentance" to mean a baptism in response to repentance or because of repentance.

Furthermore, he was "preaching" repentance and faith in Christ (vv. 2-3) as he quotes from Isaiah about "him" or the Messiah. This is made crystal clear by the apostle John in John 3;36 so clear one must be completely blind not to see it as the Apostle John spells out the gospel the Baptist preached in these words:

Jn. 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John the Baptist required repentance of sin and faith in Christ MANIFESTED BY FRUITS of repentance (MANIFEST CHANGED LIFE IN REGARD TO GOD AND SIN) as the prerequisite for baptism.

Immediately after demanding evidence of regeneration he clearly sets forth the prerequisite of regeneration prior to baptism in these words:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

He is clearly denying NATURAL BIRTH as qualifications for his baptism. He is clearly demanding the FRUIT OF REGENERATION as prerequisite for his baptism and those who do not bring forth such fruit are objects of judgement just as he plainly and explicitly stated in John 3:36 "the wrath of God abideth" on them.

He plainly defines this act as immersion only:

1. The term he chooses "baptizo" rather than rantizo or epicheo
2. He baptized "IN Jordan"
3. The prone position of Christ's body coming up out of the water so that he could see a dove in the sky above by the mode of baptism being administered.
4. He came "up out" of the water WHEN viewing heaven at the same time.

Just look at the head position of those your Lutheran ministers provide a handful of water upon. Look at the administration of any church that sprinkles or pours and you will see they are not in a prone position so that they are looking up at heaven.

One must be blinded by false doctrines not to see baptism is clearly defined and its purpose, its mode, its proper candidates in this chapter.

Remember, Israel had no prophets since the time of Malici and here comes a prophet. Thus this is NEW and different for them. Second, you fail to consider the obvious.

Because his baptism was something NEW and DIFFERENT it drew the crowds to hear him. If it were not NEW and DIFFERENT you would not have the apostle John explaining why the leaders of Israel sent out a delegation to investigate the very reason he was baptizing followed by John providing that explanation:

1. They asked "who art thou" - v. 19

2. "Why then doest thou baptize" v. 25

Immersing was not new to them as they immersed all the furniture of the Temple as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals. They immersed proselytes as part of their ceremonial cleansing rituals and it is this very practice that brought conflict between the Phariseess and the disciples of John because John did not immerse for ceremonial cleansing reasons but as he explains in Matthew 3:6-9 he baptized only those God HAD ALREADY CLEANSED and that cleansing was EVIDENCED by "fruit" of repentance.

Matthew 3 provides so much more information but you clearly do not have eyes to see for it is so plain and obvious that it jumps out from the pages to those who can see.

 

First, God sent John to baptize in order to make Christ manifest and only submission to the baptism of John would fulfill that righteousness.

Second, Jesus claimed the baptism of John justified God (declared God to be righteous) and those who refused to submit to John's baptism rejected "the counsel of God against themsevles" = SINNED AGAINST GOD and therefore Jesus fulfilled that righteousness.

Third, the act of baptism designed by the counsel of God was to be the very symbol of what does actually fulfill all righteousness and that is the very purpose for which Christ came as John predicted as "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" - His death, burial and resurrection. The public ministry to fulfill that purpose began with the baptism of John.

Fourth, John explicitly preached repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (Jn. 3:36) and this ordinance was adopted (Lk. 7:29-30) and furthered (Jn. 4:1-2) and incoporated in the Great Commission by Christ Himself (Mt. 28:19) and symbolized the very authority of his own ministry (Mt. 21:23,25).

Not because the information is not found in this chapter and the rest of the book of Matthew as it is there.

1. God sent John to baptize - v. 1 and so righteousness would demand obedience to God's man sent to administer God's ordinance.

2. This is how God would identify the messsiah - vv. 2-3 Thus this fulfilled the righteousness of prophecy.

3. This baptism was the seal of acceptance of what he preached and he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ - which was his mission as the rest of matthew describes in greater detail - thus fulfilled that righteousness of IDETNFICATION with his own mission.

The prequisites for immersion defy administration to infants as John refused to administer baptism to those who could not bring forth fruits demonstrating the presence of repentance. He refused to administer baptism to unbelievers. There is not one single solitary precept or example where anyone administered baptism to infants anywhere in the apostolic age - zilch, nada, none! Jesus said to reject the baptism of John as to reject "the counsel of God against yourselves" and that is precisely what paedobaptism does.

 

The Greek preposition is "en" and the very same preposition used previously in verse 6 "in (en) Jordan". The whole context demands "in" not "with" as he baptized "IN" Jordan and the term "baptizo" means dip immerse and the prone position of the body of Christ in baptism demands he was face up when coming out of the water.

Contextually defined in verses 7-9 to be understood clearly as "BECAUSE OF" repentance as he demanded "fruits" to prove repentance had already occurred and a CHANGED life toward sin and God as prerequisit for baptism.

His hearers were of two classes: (1) those who manifested repentance and were baptized; (2) those who did not manifest repentance and whom he refused to baptize.

There are also TWO CONSEQUENCES inferred by verses 9-11 to those two classes.

1. The unrepentant will be "hewn down" and cast into "FIRE" and Christ would be their judge - v. 10

2. Hence, there was one of two consequences for those who made up his audiance. If they continued in unrepentance they would be judged by "fire" and thus rejected by Christ. If they repented they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit as a manifest acceptance by Christ.

3. The baptized believers were "made ready a prepared people" for the Lord (Lk. 1:17) by John to be formed into his ekklesia or "house of God" and every previous house of God had been first formed and then baptized in the shikinah glory of God as a manifest sign of approval (Ex. 40:33-35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3) and so it would be upon this assembly of baptized beleivers who habitually assembled with him from the baptism of John until his ascension (Acts 1:5; 21-22; 2:1-3).