Asked and answered: Mark16:16 clearly sets salvation as dependent on belief plus baptism, not faith-alone, which the logic of the verse itself negates.
Saved by faith alone?
- Thread starter Lamar
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Asked and answered: Mark16:16 clearly sets salvation as dependent on belief plus baptism, not faith-alone, which the logic of the verse itself negates.
No it doesn't. But he who does not believe shall be condemned.
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.
Sins are not forgiven because of our confidence that they are forgiven.
How we know if our sins are personally forgiven is for another thread.
Yes. My appology. It was I who had an incorrect idea of what is generally meant by "under condemnation", According to the Google AI does not mean "feeling condemned", but being actually condemned. My bad.
Mailmandan has a long history of adding "alone", or "not baptized" into many of his proof-texts.
He is also known for his "properly harmonizing scripture" to his Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.
And lets not forget his "but A. T. Robertson states".
Mailmandan thinks he can gaslight people but all he is doing is scratching the ears of those who want to believe his silly theology.
"Whoever has his letters properly addressed and stamped will have them delivered but improperly addressed letters will be rejected."
So does the letter truly need to be stamped in order to not be rejected? After all, the second clause does not make the postage part of being rejected.
This is your silly reasoning on display.
Properly addessed letters without a stamp will be sent to purgatory because that is the logical conclusion to all this silly reasoning about syntax.
If those who believe and are baptized are saved, and those who do not believe are condemned, then logically those who only believe can't be saved or condemned, so they go to purgatory, I guess until they learn to put stamps on their letters.
So, you cried out to Him for salvation, and He saved you. He didn't save you first and then you cried out a thank you?
Honestly, I would not want to be somebody who stands before the lord and has to answer for why I discouraged people from being water baptized. And that is the effect of their incessant obsession with diminishing its importance, whether they realize it or not.
Your argument is simply semantics.
There are many things that can cause one to be condemned besides the lack of the remission of sins. Jesus does not need to state them all to your satisfaction.
What does this mean?
Absolutely?
I should answer this differently, now that I am reading your question as "Why aren't believers being condemned by God?
Because Jesus has already paid for all sins of the world other than rejecting Jesus as Lord and Saviour,, and other forms also of lying slanderously about what the Holy Spirit is telling a person is true, neither of which the believer is doing; and God is also reckoning the believers' faith to the believer as righteousness. Hence no condemnation for the believer.
Mailmandan is simply pointing out the fact that the Bible makes it clear in many passages of scripture that man is saved through belief/faith - "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-14, 26; Ephesians 2:8,9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Now I don't need to "add" the word "alone" or "not baptized" next to "belief/faith" in each of those passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Hence, FAITH ALONE. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus, baptism? Plus, works? NO. So, then it's faith (rightly understood) in Jesus Christ alone. This is not hard to understand. It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT.
Yes, we must properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine (hermeneutics) instead of distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" a works based false gospel. (flawed hermeneutics)
AT Robertson is widely regarded as one of the greatest Biblical Greek scholars of his time. Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.
Works-salvationists are the experts at gaslighting people. I simply share the gospel with people and either they choose to believe the gospel or else they don't. Salvation by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) is not silly theology. That salvation is by grace through faith and is not by works is not hard to understand. It's just hard for works-salvationists to ACCEPT. It's a shame that human pride will not allow works-salvationists to place their faith in Jesus Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. Their hands are full of their works, and they will not let go in order to receive Christ through faith.
That is your silly reasoning on display, not mine. A better analogy would be, "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." Of course, it logically follows that we wash down medication with water, yet if no water is available and we take it dry (been there, done that) we will still be made well BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION (and not because of the water). It's the same with baptism. It logically follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get water baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned and is also in harmony with ( John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)
***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "water baptized or condemned."***
Straw man argument. NOBODY is trying to discourage new converts from being water baptized. Right after my conversion I could not wait to be water baptized and I even gave a 5-minute testimony at church about how I was born and raised in a church that taught a false gospel and how I finally came to believe the gospel. I can't think of one Christian I know who came to believe the gospel yet refused to be water baptized. Many things are important (water baptism, partaking of the Lord's Supper, prayer, reading your Bible, church attendance etc..) but important does not mean they are the instrumental means by which we obtain salvation, which is through faith in Jesus Christ and is not by works. (Romans 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1-2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9) Salvation by works diminishes the power of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and renders Him an IN-sufficient Savior. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21) Yet Jesus Christ is an ALL-sufficient Savior and His finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed.
This is called a "workaround" or "loophole" defense and a sign of a weak theology.
We are not to concern ourselves with possible exceptions but obey what is written.
John 21:21-22
New International Version
When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
The statement is saturated with fallacies - false analogy, selective emphasis, straw man, circular reasoning, and more. These are typical of faith-alone and other system-driven defenses, but none override the grammatical and lexical clarity of Mark 16:16: belief and baptism are joined as the saving response. If baptism is not required, then Scripture must say so explicitly. Every verse must be handled with interpretive integrity - not selectively used to defend a theological system at the expense of the Truth.
Re: your last statement: True - but irrelevant. Mark 16:16 says “believes and is baptized will be saved.” That’s the saving response. The condemnation clause doesn’t cancel the requirement.
Its not a loophole and could happen. Just ask the thief on the cross. There is nothing weak about a theology based on numerous passages of scripture which make it clear that man is saved through belief/faith "apart from works including water baptism." Believers obey what is written and there is not one single verse in the Bible that states, "whoever is not baptized will be condemned." Water baptized or condemned is a weak theology.