Speedy Debate on belief and nothing else.

I was wondering if anyone would like to refute what Mark 16:16 says?

Brian,

Look at what you just wrote. You just asked how to refute Scripture.

 

Oneness, there are two forms of baptism, one requires water, and the other is not affected whatever by water.

There is a "body wash baptism" and there is a "Spirit wash baptism". When one becomes a believer one's spirit is transformed from unbeliever to believer. That is in its essence a "spirit wash baptism".

A body wash baptism does nothing but get the body wet. It is the outward sign of an inward belief.

So according to Mark 16:16, if one becomes a believer, one's spirit is baptised, that is, dies to self, self is buried, and Jesus resurrects the one's spirit into new life. So, if one believes which is "spirit baptism, one is saved! Spirit Baptism is the result of Believing, FAITH, in Jesus.

 

The sinner's received justification is dependent only through his or her faith in Christ. [Romans 5:1] Water baptism becomes a reality as we obey His command to do this. The Eucharist almost always becomes a reality as we learn of the importance of this spiritual ordinance in our Christian life. Baptism by water and the receiving of the elements of bread and wine become vital to Christians after the Divine transaction of His justification has taken place in our life time and experience.

 

Hi Brian! I've missed you sooooo much!!!!

Yes, one has to be baptized in water and of the Spirit to be saved. (Matt. 28:19/John 3:5/Acts 2:38)

BTW, water baptism is for the remission of sins. I believe it's more than just "an outward sign of an inward belief."

MEE

 

Mark 16:16 actually isn't found in the most earliest manuscripts, but it can be explained. It must be speaking of the spiritual baptism that saves. The water baptism is a symbol of the baptism that "saves" (1 Peter 3:21). The Bible tells us there is only "one baptism"(Eph 4:5) and it tell us that we are "Baptized by the Spirit" into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). We need to stop thinking of "water" every time we read the word baptize.

The context of the passage agrees with my conclusions. 1 Corinthians tell us what some of the spiritual gifts are. Those who "believe" will be able to do things, some of which are mentioned here. Water baptism is not necessary for these gifts, but spirit baptism is. (Acts 10 shows an example of this very fact)

If the Bible tells us we have the Spirit the moment we believe (Eph 1:13-14), that without the Spirit we are not saved (Romans 8:9-11), and that we can have the spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44-48) then we know that this pasage can NOT be referring to water baptism or else it contradicts itself and the entire Bible is proven invalid. Therefore we must realize this is speaking of spiritual baptism, which is why it says whoever does not believe is condemned. No baptism is mentioned here because unbelievers are never baptized with the spirit. Many unbeleivers, however, are baptized with water.

~Lorelei

 

Mee,

You said, 'BTW, water baptism is for the remission of sins. I believe it's more than just "an outward sign of an inward belief."

Ray is saying, 'Water does not wash away sins, otherwise, Christ's atonement is not necessary. The writer of Hebrews has said, ' . . . and without shedding of blood is no remission.' {Hebrews 9:22b} John the Apostle also has said, that is only as ' . . . we confess our sins,that He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all righteousness.' {I John 1:9}

The cleansing of the water of baptism is only a picture of the real deal, which is His soul purifying flow coming from His precious atonement. It is, however, vitally important that we are baptized in water in the presence of His earthly, assembled church.

 

Matthew 28:19 does not support this statement. It says to make disciples and baptize them. It does not say the baptism makes them disciples.

John 3:5 says we must be born by water, not baptized by it. As he says "flesh gives birth to flesh," This has nothing to do with water baptism.

Acts 2:38 means that we are baptized because we have been forgiven for our sins. You surely know by now that the word "for" (eis in the greek) can also mean "because of". If it meant anything else it would contradict several passages that clearly say otherwise.

~Lorelei

 

This verse says:
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned.

This verse does NOT say:
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not
OR IS BAPTIZED NOT shall be damned.

 

Hi Ed,

That would just be redundant. If someone doesn't believe, it follows that he wouldn't be baptized.

 

Lorelei,

I think that especially one line that you wrote is very significant. You said, 'John 3:5 says we must be born by water, not baptized by it. As he said, "flesh gives birth to flesh," This has nothing to do with water baptism.'

Some think that the water that He is speaking about was the water that flowed from His body. John the Apostle said, 'But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.'

And now for your verse. 'Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man/woman be born of water and of the Spirit, he or she cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.'

Surely, the water had nothing to do with water baptism, but rather had a higher spiritual signification.

 

Hi Ed.

To add to Carson's point, it would seem prudent to take in to consideration all of the verses that deal with Baptist. For instance Peter says "baptism now saves you.". Your arguement could be used to say, it says nothing about belief here so it must not be neccessary. But when we look at all the verses that deal with baptism we see belief which leads to repentence, leading to baptism, leading to reception of the Holy Spirit, leading to the regenerate soul doing the work of the kingdom. It's a chain of events. Not just a one time head nod about a name.

Blessings

 

Hi Ed.

To add to Carson's point, it would seem prudent to take in to consideration all of the verses that deal with Baptist. For instance Peter says "baptism now saves you.". Your arguement could be used to say, it says nothing about belief here so it must not be neccessary. But when we look at all the verses that deal with baptism we see belief which leads to repentence, leading to baptism, leading to reception of the Holy Spirit, leading to the regenerate soul doing the work of the kingdom. It's a chain of events. Not just a one time head nod about a name.</font>[/QUOTE]And adding to your point, Thess...

John 3:5 and the need for "water" included in the inclusive "and" with the holy Spirit, that one is "born again," or "born from above."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

Let me have some scenarios, is this
person saved or not?

1. A first believing
person confesses that Jesus
is Lord and is immedaitely killed
by an antichrist.
2. A person believes, and is baptized
3. A person does not believe but is
baptized anyway.

My answers are:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. no
My answer to #2 comes from:
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned.
My answer to #3 comes from:
Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believes not shall be damned.
My answer to #1 comes from the
ECF=early church fathers.
Such Saved Christian elect saints were
called "still born" Christians.
Their first confession of Jesus as Lord
lead to their demise

Why are we having this long discussion
on the 1 in 10,000+ case?

 

God does not need a little water or a lot of water to prop up the salvation that He accomplishes in the hearts and lives of His people. God the Holy Spirit does His work of grace in the heart and life of the person who opens his life to Jesus Christ.

Someone said, 'And adding to your point, Thess...

John 3:5 and the need for "water" included in the inclusive "and" with the
holy Spirit, that one is "born again," or "born from above."

Ray is saying, according to your errant view, the water is more important than the Spirit of God because it is referred to first. You can find a better interpretation than this. We all know that you are trying to prop up 'infant baptism.'

 

Think about it. If God were speaking to parents about child rearing and their responsibilities to their children we might consider that John 3:5 could refer to infant baptism. Context. Context. As I recall Jesus was talking to Nicodemus and aging ruler of the Jews. And like O.J. Simpson said about the glove, 'It doesn't fit.'

 

Baptism is the oath by which one enters into the New Covenant. No oath, no covenant. This is why Presbyterians baptize infants; they realize that one cannot be a part of the covenant family if they haven't received the sign of the covenant.

 

Jesus said exactly what he meant. One must be baptized to be saved and if he is not he is damned. And is a coordinationg conjunction connecting things that are a like. But contrast the phrases. It would be redundant for Jesus to say he that is baptized not shall be damned. This is simple grammar.
That would be like saying he who eats his food and digests it shall be healthy but he who eays not his food and digest not his food will be unhealthy. it is impossible for one to digest that which he has not eaten. The grammar is redundant and rediculous.
The phrase outward sign of and inward grace is not found in the Bible. Furthemore, the statement is in opposition to the inspired writings of Luke in Acts 8:39,40. The Bible says the Eunoch rejoiced AFTER he was baptized in water. This clearly contradicts the popular denominationalist catch phrase, as an outward sign would have come at the point of salvation, which according to the Bible was after, not before his baptism.
Furthermore, John Calvin was the first to disassociate the two items of the new birth ( water and spirit) and that Calvin even conceded that his interpretation was “new” (Oxford, 1862, Vol. I, p. 443). Water baptism was considered to be the mode of the new birth until this time.

 

Frank,

You wrote, "Water baptism was considered to be the mode of the new birth until this time."

Very true.. and you could also add to your statement "for every pagan, including infants".

The rejection of infant baptism is also a novelty in the history of Christianity.

 

What about being born that way?

In what nationality does an infant swear an oath? In what Nationality is an infant presented as the token of an oath. Pure barbarianism!