Saved by faith alone?

[mailmandan]

That makes as much sense as your correction of everything in the bible.

Mark 16:16(b) is in perfect harmony with John 3:18. Now if he who believes will be saved then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. However, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. Makes perfect sense.

 

[DJT_47]

Not negates. CLARIFIES the first clause.

It doesn't clarify. It's a continuation of the primary statement in the prior verse, identifying the consequences of not complying, namely that of not believing. If you believe you will confirm your belief by being obedient and further follow the command and be baptized. Obviously, if you don't believe, you won't be obedient, and the consequence of non-belief is condemnation. Baptism is a non-issue if you don't believe; it has no relevance to those who don't believe.

 

[mailmandan]

It doesn't clarify. It's a continuation of the primary statement in the prior verse, identifying the consequences of not complying, namely that of not believing. If you believe you will confirm your belief by being obedient and further follow the command and be baptized. Obviously, if you don't believe, you won't be obedient, and the consequence of non-belief is condemnation. Baptism is a non-issue if you don't believe; it has no relevance to those who don't believe.

If you don't believe in the existence of Jesus Christ (atheist) then you won't be water baptized yet there have been numerous people over the years, especially those in various false religions and cults who have been water baptized, but did not truly believe the gospel when they were baptized. Now such people may have believed "mental assent" in the existence of Jesus Christ and in certain historical facts about Jesus Christ but they did not believe in/trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation but instead were trusting in works for salvation.

Such people go on to be water baptized anyway because they were trusting in water baptism for salvation. I know first hand because I used to be one of them. Upon coming to believe the gospel later on, many people have been re-baptized (including myself) and this time it was "believers" baptism. If you can believe that EVERYONE who has ever been water baptized and "claims" to be a Christian truly was a born again Christian when they received water baptism, then you can believe anything and are extremely naive.

 

[DJT_47]

If you don't believe in the existence of Jesus Christ (atheist) then you won't be water baptized yet there have been numerous people over the years, especially those in various false religions and cults who have been water baptized, but did not truly believe the gospel when they were baptized. Now such people may have believed "mental assent" in the existence of Jesus Christ and in certain historical facts about Jesus Christ but they did not believe in/trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation but instead were trusting in works for salvation.

Such people go on to be water baptized anyway because they were trusting in water baptism for salvation. I know first hand because I used to be one of them. Upon coming to believe the gospel later on, many people have been re-baptized (including myself) and this time it was "believers" baptism. If you can believe that EVERYONE who has ever been water baptized and "claims" to be a Christian truly was a born again Christian when they received water baptism, then you can believe anything and are extremely naive.

Believe what you like. The words are the words that your continued narrative don't negate or change.

Belief + baptism = salvation is what Mark 16:15-16 clearly says. Not just belief, not just baptism, but both.

God knows the hearts of men and knows who believes in Him therein and your continued silly words won't change that.

 

[mailmandan]

Believe what you like. The words are the words that your continued narrative don't negate or change.

Belief + baptism = salvation is what Mark 16:15-16 clearly says. Not just belief, not just baptism, but both.

God knows the hearts of men and knows who believes in Him therein and your continued silly words won't change that.

Here is what doesn't change. 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 necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If it's both and water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then Jesus would have mentioned it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions NINE different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

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.

So, if he who believes will be saved (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. (Mark 16:16) However, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. It's those who teach "baptized or condemned" who are in error, and you cannot produce one single verse in scripture which supports that error.

 

[DJT_47]

Here is what doesn't change. 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 necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If it's both and water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then Jesus would have mentioned it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions NINE different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

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.

So, if he who believes will be saved (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. (Mark 16:16) However, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. It's those who teach "baptized or condemned" who are in error, and you cannot produce one single verse in scripture which supports that error.

Blah, blah, blah buddy.

 

[mailmandan]

Blah, blah, blah buddy.

In other words, you are very satisfied with what you already believe, and you don't want to be confused with the facts. Got it.

 

[DJT_47]

In other words, you are very satisfied with what you already believe, and you don't want to be confused with the facts. Got it.

Blah, blah, blah. Goodbye

 

[mailmandan]

You can blah, blah, blah all you want and run away but the truth still remains.

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.

I can see that your CoC indoctrination runs very deep but with God all things are possible.

 

[Lamar]

Not negates. CLARIFIES the first clause.

You either do not understand how clauses work in grammar or you are purposely being deceitful.

Here is the verse:

Mark 16:16
New International Version
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This verse consist of two independent clauses.

The first clause involves belief and baptism as part of being saved.
The second clause involves non-belief as needed for condemnation.

You are asserting that the lack of baptism in the second independent clause negates it purpose in the first independent clause. This is not how grammar works, I suspect you know this.

There are many verses in the Bible that have two or more independent clauses and it would be chaos to allow your reasoning to apply to them as well.

This rationale is forced upon you because of your faith alone regeneration theology.

 

[mailmandan]

You either do not understand how clauses work in grammar or you are purposely being deceitful.

Here is the verse:

Mark 16:16
New International Version
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

This verse consist of two independent clauses.

The first clause involves belief and baptism as part of being saved.
The second clause involves non-belief as needed for condemnation.

You are asserting that the lack of baptism in the second independent clause negates it purpose in the first independent clause. This is not how grammar works, I suspect you know this.

There are many verses in the Bible that have two or more independent clauses and it would be chaos to allow your reasoning to apply to them as well.

This rationale is forced upon you because of your faith alone regeneration theology.

See post #1,905. Whoever does not believe will be condemned--(Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18)--faith alone still stands and baptized or condemned--falls. Period. Just deal with it and stop fighting against the truth.

 

[Lamar]

*NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

This is your strawman that you are hoping other will attack, it will not work.

Baptism is tied to the remission of sins not condemnation.

 

[mailmandan]

This is your strawman that you are hoping other will attack, it will not work.

Baptism is tied to the remission of sins not condemnation.

So, you admit there are no verses in the Bible that state "baptized or condemned." The Bible does state "believe or condemned." (Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18)

Repentance is tied to the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere. (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31) Baptism is parenthetical.

 

[pinebeach]

The belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is also known as "baptismal regeneration." It is our contention that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject baptism as being required for salvation. We strongly believe that each and every Christian should be water baptized by immersion. Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4 declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The action of being immersed in the water illustrates dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.


Got Questions

 

[Lamar]

The belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is also known as "baptismal regeneration." It is our contention that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but we adamantly reject baptism as being required for salvation. We strongly believe that each and every Christian should be water baptized by immersion. Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3-4 declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The action of being immersed in the water illustrates dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.

Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.


Got Questions

I think it would be helpful for you to define "important" and "should".

Also.

"Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9)."

I noticed you inserted "alone" into the meaning of these verses. The need to add a definitive into a passage is a sign of a weak theology.

Would you not agree?

 

[pinebeach]

I think it would be helpful for you to define "important" and "should".

Also.

"Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9)."

I noticed you inserted "alone" into the meaning of these verses. The need to add a definitive into a passage is a sign of a weak theology.

Would you not agree?

Did you also notice I didn't write any of it? Perhaps you also missed some important facts in scripture also

 

[Lamar]

Did you also notice I didn't write any of it? Perhaps you also missed some important facts in scripture also

I noticed you copied it from the "Got Questions" website, if that is what you are referring to.

Are you saying that you disagree or disagree with what the website is asserting?

Regardless, do you agree that inserting a definitive into the meaning of a Bible passage is a sign of a weak theology?

Now please answer my questions.

 

[pinebeach]

Are you saying that you disagree or disagree with what the website is asserting?

Please notice you asked if I disagree or disagree with the copy from that website. I am not sure what you mean by that?

Regardless, do you agree that inserting a definitive into the meaning of a Bible passage is a sign of a weak theology?

The above is not a question though. It is actually a conclusion. I do not know what point you are trying to make.

 

[TrustandObey]

Mark 16:16(b) is in perfect harmony with John 3:18. Now if he who believes will be saved then he who believes and is baptized will be saved as well. However, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. Makes perfect sense.

All of Mark 16:16 is in harmony with John 3:18.

It's just not in harmony with Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.

 

[TrustandObey]

Did you also notice I didn't write any of it? Perhaps you also missed some important facts in scripture also

It is your post, is it not?