Subject: Raven and John Reformed, Baptism? |
Bible Note: Greetings Raven! I fully agree with you that the preaching of the early church was usually followed by baptism. The only point we disagree on is whether or not baptism leads to salvation. We know that we are commanded in Scripture to be baptized and every Christian ought to obey that command, like every other command of Christ. What about Mark 16? I'm sure you've heard my responses before, but I would say that there are several problems with viewing it as an endorsement of the necessity of baptism for salvation. 1) First of all, the textual uncertainty. There is very strong evidence that the long ending of Mark is not original. Whether it is or not, it is definitely a bad idea to base a doctrine on it. 2) Secondly, as many have argued, the key component of the verse is 'belief' not baptism, since baptism is not included in both sides. If one is not condemned for not being baptized, how can one be saved by being baptized? Acts 16:30-31 is extremely important for one major reason. Paul is directly asked what the jailer must do to be saved. Paul has an obligation to give a complete and full answer. Countless generations of people will read his answer, yet he does not include anything in his list of requirements except 'belief'. Why? Yes, the family was baptized afterwards, as I mentioned myself in my original post. However, Paul did not respond to the direct question, "Believe and be baptized, and you will be saved." He simply said 'believe'. So, if I'm forced to choose between a direct response and a questionable verse, I choose the direct response! Thanks for your loving attitude my friend! It is easy for people to get when we don't agree with one another. However, you have been very loving and kind! Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |