Bible Question:
My dear friend Tim, Who ever told you that Mark 16:16 wasn't in many manuscripts is wrong! In fact it is in the oldest manuscripts! It's funny when it come to this statement in the bible people want to throw it out, why not just except it obey and teach it like the apostles did! If the believers of today were back in the first centry what a fight that would be over what Jesus said in Mark 16:16. Do you think Peter, Paul,James,John and rest of the apostles would except what you are telling me about what the text says, or would the Holy Spirit be pleased? I notice your dependence on the "(like the infamous thief on the cross)" my question to you on him and him alone is did he hear the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ? Romans 1:16 says it is God's POWER TO SAVE MEN! Did the thief hear that? And if not, and he didn't, does that exclued you and I? Can men be saved without hearing the gospel? The thief was saved without hearing it! The gospel is what tells men to repent and be baptized Matt28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16 it in the preaching of the gospel, Acts2:36-41, in the book of Acts when the gospel was preached and it was the preaching that told men to obey the Lord's word and it was done in most cases. Those who didn't except the gospel were lost. You say that baptism is not essential to salvation, is that your belief? If you were to talk with the apostle Peter, do you think you could convince him of the same? How about Jesus, do you think you could convince Him on your belief? |
Bible Answer: Greetings Grace and Truth! If I understand your argument correctly, it was possible to be saved before the death of Christ by simply believing, but now one must believe and be baptized! Is this what you are saying? Personally, I accept the countless Scriptures which specifically state that we are saved through Grace by faith alone - whether in the Old or New Testaments. :-) Further, Paul definitely did not include baptism as part of the Gospel message when he said: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor. 1:17) In my mind, this is what the insistence on baptism does. It empties the cross of it's power. Concerning the text of Mark 16, facts are facts my friend. There are four versions of the ending of Mark. 1) The first does not have the last twelve verses of the commonly receved text of Mark. To quote Bruce Metzger: They "...are absent from the two odest Greek manuscrpts, from the Old Latin codex Bobienss, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgia manuscripts. Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knoledge of the existence of these verses, furthermore Eusebious and Jerome attest that the passage was abent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The orginal form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammoninu) makes no provision for numbeing sections fo the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indiate a spurious addition to a document." Source (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger, pp. 122-123). 2) The second ending is found in several mid to late versions. It says, "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told And after this Jesus himself sent out by meas of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishble proclamation of eternal salvation." This addition is then followed by vv. 9-20 in most of the manuscripts containing this ending. 3) The third is the traditional ending (vv. 9-20). It is found in the vast number of witnesses: including, A, C, D, k, X, W, ect... The only problem is that these manuscripts are not as old as those supporting the first manuscript and they contain a different style of writting than the rest of Mark. 4) There was also a longer version which circulated in the fourth century accoding to Jermore. It is only found in one Greek manuscript. Thus, the facts are that the ending of Mark is in quite a bit of dispute. It is not found in the hundreds of the oldest manuscripts. My position is that it is not safe to base an entire doctrine upon a disputed text. But, even more, even if the text is orignal, it simply doesn't mean what you claim. Rather than base my doctrine on a disputed passage with a disputed meaning, I would stick to the clear and undsiputed words of Christ in John 6:28:-29: "28 Then they asked him, ‘‘What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, ‘‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”" Or, the words of Paul in Eph. 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." Or, the words of Paul in Chapter four of Romans. Or, Romans Chapter 9. The list goes on and on of clear, explicit statements that we are not and cannot be saved by works, but only by grace through faith. No one on this forum is arguing that Christians should not be baptized. Scripture clearly commands Christians to do so, just as it commands us to worship together, make disciples of all nations, love one another, ect.... But, none of these things save us, only the grace of God can save those who believe. I could never accept your church's position until they can find some way to explain these clear statements of Scripture which are explicitly ignored by the believe in baptismal regeneration. They are God's Word just as much at Mk. 16:16 or Acts 2:38, yet they are ignored. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |