First Steve I want to thank you for the comment you made on a recent program that to respond in a certain way to something someone said would unkind. That was a good reminder to me as I am guilty of not being as kind in my words as Christ would have me be.
Now to my subject. Today you asserted that Jesus' words in Mark 16:16 did not mean that baptism is a requirement for salvation. The verse:
Mark 16:16
New King James Version (NKJV)
16. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
The argument you used is an old and IMO, faulty one. It is this: since baptism is not mentioned in 16b, only faith is required. Consider this analogy: A person has moved to another state. He needs to obtain a new driver's license and inquires at the Motor Vehicle Department about getting one. He is told "You must pass our driving test and pay a license fee of $25. If you fail the test you can not be licensed to drive". It seems to me the logic you applied to baptism would likewise apply to the $25 license fee - it is unnecessary.
I think the reason baptism is not mentioned in 16b is that Jesus did not anticipate unbelievers seeking to be baptized.
Baptism and Mark 16
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
That's a good analogy. In the case you give, you are definitely correct.
The fact remains that it goes beyond logical necessity, in Mark 16:16, to make baptism an absolute requirement for salvation, while it is clear that faith is an absolute requirement (because of the negative affirmation).
If there had been a condition stated as such (i.e., "If someone believes and is baptized they can be saved") this would work more cogently for your point. The statement is not presented as a comprehensive list of conditions for salvation. It may have been intended to function as one, as you believe, but it isn't presented in that form. As it stands, it is a mere prediction.
If I say, "Whoever gets to the bus station and catches that next bus will be in Los Angeles by tomorrow," I have predicted an outcome for a certain group who get on that bus. However, I have not claimed that no one else will be in Los Angeles tomorrow.
Now, if I add to my statement, "Whoever does not get to the station (without reference to any particular bus) will never get to Los Angeles," I have made getting to the station a necessary requirement, but I have not affirmed that there will only be one bus leaving for Los Angeles.
The fact remains that it goes beyond logical necessity, in Mark 16:16, to make baptism an absolute requirement for salvation, while it is clear that faith is an absolute requirement (because of the negative affirmation).
If there had been a condition stated as such (i.e., "If someone believes and is baptized they can be saved") this would work more cogently for your point. The statement is not presented as a comprehensive list of conditions for salvation. It may have been intended to function as one, as you believe, but it isn't presented in that form. As it stands, it is a mere prediction.
If I say, "Whoever gets to the bus station and catches that next bus will be in Los Angeles by tomorrow," I have predicted an outcome for a certain group who get on that bus. However, I have not claimed that no one else will be in Los Angeles tomorrow.
Now, if I add to my statement, "Whoever does not get to the station (without reference to any particular bus) will never get to Los Angeles," I have made getting to the station a necessary requirement, but I have not affirmed that there will only be one bus leaving for Los Angeles.
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
Steve,
I think you are commiting the fallacy of exegesis by analogy.
You have developed an analogy (the station and the bus) for a biblical text (belief and baptism) and then proceed to interpret your analogy. You then assert that the interpretation of your analogy establishes the meaning of the biblical text. The problem is that you select an analogy that produces the result you want, and then press that interpretation onto the text.
Your analogy presupposes that there is more than one bus leaving for Los Angeles. What if this is not true. What if there is only one bus. You would then say "whoever gets to the bus station and catches the bus will get to Los Angeles." Under those conditions not getting to the station will certainly prevent one from getting to Los Angeles. This also assumes that you can't flag the bus down once it is on the road. It also assumes that there are no flights from the airport, and you can't hitchhike, etc.
By your logic one could go to the bus station, not get on the next bus, and then arrive in Los Angeles (by teleportation?). It you can take a latter bus to L.A., this would imply that you can substitute something for baptism. If baptism = "the next bus" then a latter bus would be someting other than baptism. Where does the biblical text support this kind of sustitution?
I think you are commiting the fallacy of exegesis by analogy.
You have developed an analogy (the station and the bus) for a biblical text (belief and baptism) and then proceed to interpret your analogy. You then assert that the interpretation of your analogy establishes the meaning of the biblical text. The problem is that you select an analogy that produces the result you want, and then press that interpretation onto the text.
Your analogy presupposes that there is more than one bus leaving for Los Angeles. What if this is not true. What if there is only one bus. You would then say "whoever gets to the bus station and catches the bus will get to Los Angeles." Under those conditions not getting to the station will certainly prevent one from getting to Los Angeles. This also assumes that you can't flag the bus down once it is on the road. It also assumes that there are no flights from the airport, and you can't hitchhike, etc.
By your logic one could go to the bus station, not get on the next bus, and then arrive in Los Angeles (by teleportation?). It you can take a latter bus to L.A., this would imply that you can substitute something for baptism. If baptism = "the next bus" then a latter bus would be someting other than baptism. Where does the biblical text support this kind of sustitution?
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
Gentlemen,
This made me think of a couple of questions.
1) I have had this conversation before with others and I always forget the token response regarding the thief on the cross not being baptized, yet Jesus clearly stated he would be with Him in paradise. Also, this would apply to anyone else that may wish to be saved but yet be unable to be baptized (someone on death row?). What do you believe regarding that matter?
2) Also, would you consider Baptism a "work"? I am thinking Ephesians 2:8-9 -- maybe you don't consider it as a work or imply "and be baptized" with nearly every other passage that states we are saved by our faithful confession that Jesus is Lord.
That being said (or asked) I don't think any analogy is perfect and I don't really like either of the ones proposed. But, and this is to SamIam, I do think both Steve and Homer are using the analogy to express what they interpret the passage to mean. I wouldn't assume they make the analogy to yield the result they want, but rather the analogy is a result of what they believe it says.
Jarrod
This made me think of a couple of questions.
1) I have had this conversation before with others and I always forget the token response regarding the thief on the cross not being baptized, yet Jesus clearly stated he would be with Him in paradise. Also, this would apply to anyone else that may wish to be saved but yet be unable to be baptized (someone on death row?). What do you believe regarding that matter?
2) Also, would you consider Baptism a "work"? I am thinking Ephesians 2:8-9 -- maybe you don't consider it as a work or imply "and be baptized" with nearly every other passage that states we are saved by our faithful confession that Jesus is Lord.
That being said (or asked) I don't think any analogy is perfect and I don't really like either of the ones proposed. But, and this is to SamIam, I do think both Steve and Homer are using the analogy to express what they interpret the passage to mean. I wouldn't assume they make the analogy to yield the result they want, but rather the analogy is a result of what they believe it says.
Jarrod
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
This is exactly my point. The analogy does not establish the meaning of the passage, the analogy is selected to explain a person's understanding of the passage. The analogy cannot be used to prove the validity of ones interpretation of the passage.I wouldn't assume they make the analogy to yield the result they want, but rather the analogy is a result of what they believe it says.
Steve seems to understand the phrase "but he who does not believe will be condemned," because it does not mention baptism, to indicate that baptism is not to be understood as necessary for salvation. He asserts that this understanding of baptism (as it relates to salvation) is implied because of the negative affirmation that does not mention baptism. This is where I differ with Him.
This is how I read the passage:
Question: According to Mark 16:16 who will be saved? Answer: Those who believe and are baptized.
Question: According to Mark 16:16 who will not be saved? Answer: Those who do not believe.
Question: What about those who believe and are not baptized? Answer: They are not promised salvation in Mark 16:16. Their standing will have to be determined by the overall teaching of the N.T. on the subjects of salvation, faith and baptism.
What happened to the thief is irrelavent since Jesus clearly instructs us to believe and be baptized. I trust that God will rightly judge those who wish to be saved and yet are unable to be baptized, but again this is irrelevant since Jesus clearly instructs us to belive and be baptized. People in prison are baptized everyday.1) I have had this conversation before with others and I always forget the token response regarding the thief on the cross not being baptized, yet Jesus clearly stated he would be with Him in paradise. Also, this would apply to anyone else that may wish to be saved but yet be unable to be baptized (someone on death row?). What do you believe regarding that matter?
The one who works in baptism is God. Repentance as well as baptism is implied in our faithful confession that Jesus is Lord.2) Also, would you consider Baptism a "work"? I am thinking Ephesians 2:8-9 -- maybe you don't consider it as a work or imply "and be baptized" with nearly every other passage that states we are saved by our faithful confession that Jesus is Lord.
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
"Analogy" is actually a form of logic—not a logical fallacy.I think you are commiting the fallacy of exegesis by analogy.
Actually, I have done none of the things you mention here. I did not provide an interpretation of the text. I provided a demonstration that (regardless what the text may or may not be saying) Homer's analogy did not logically prove as much as he thought it did. I have provided no attempts at exegesis in this thread. I am analyzing another man's argument, not presenting my own.You have developed an analogy (the station and the bus) for a biblical text (belief and baptism) and then proceed to interpret your analogy. You then assert that the interpretation of your analogy establishes the meaning of the biblical text. The problem is that you select an analogy that produces the result you want, and then press that interpretation onto the text.
Your analogy presupposes that there is more than one bus leaving for Los Angeles.
No such presupposition enters into my statements, nor into my thinking. I am not discussing how many things could be proved by such a statement about stations and buses. I am saying what it is that they do not prove.
You appear to be mistaking my argument, and inadvertently making my point for me. I said that a particular statement does not logically prove a particular point simply because it does not. The statement I gave as my analogy does not address alternatives like additional buses, flights and hitchhiking. It leaves the existence of alternatives an open question.What if this is not true. What if there is only one bus. You would then say "whoever gets to the bus station and catches the bus will get to Los Angeles." Under those conditions not getting to the station will certainly prevent one from getting to Los Angeles. This also assumes that you can't flag the bus down once it is on the road. It also assumes that there are no flights from the airport, and you can't hitchhike, etc.
What follows bears not relationship to my logic.By your logic...
Good question. I would be hard pressed to think of one! Of course, I would not feel obligated to provide scriptural support for statements that do not reflect my viewpoints....one could go to the bus station, not get on the next bus, and then arrive in Los Angeles (by teleportation?). It you can take a latter bus to L.A., this would imply that you can substitute something for baptism. If baptism = "the next bus" then a latter bus would be someting other than baptism. Where does the biblical text support this kind of sustitution?
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
I don't think we can effectively argue from Mark 16:16 that baptism is necessary for salvation from sin. For Mark 16:9-20 is not found in any manuscript prior to the 6th century.
Most scholars believe that these verses were not composed by Mark, but were added much later.
Notwithstanding, I think Jesus and his apostles strongly indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation from sin. This was also made abundantly clear by several second-century writers, especially Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.). He wrote:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, then then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) — Apology 61
I think baptism is similar to signing a contract. If you want to hire a company to do a job for you, and you refuse to sign a contract, they will not do the job. Similarly, if you want to be a disciple of Christ and refuse to be baptized, He will not save you.
When baptism is accompanied by repentance and forsaking of sin, something occurs within that person which corresponds to what happens to him physically in baptism. Physically, the person descends into water and is "buried" in the water. Inwardly, the person is buried into death. His old self dies, and the new person in Christ rises. Here is how Paul put it:
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.(Romans 6:3-11)
I don't think the thief on the cross whom Jesus said would be in paradise, is a good example of a person "being saved" without baptism. For the thief had no opportunity to be baptized. God recognizes repentance and forsaking of sin, and regards such a situation just as if the person had been baptized.
Most scholars believe that these verses were not composed by Mark, but were added much later.
Notwithstanding, I think Jesus and his apostles strongly indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation from sin. This was also made abundantly clear by several second-century writers, especially Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.). He wrote:
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, then then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) — Apology 61
I think baptism is similar to signing a contract. If you want to hire a company to do a job for you, and you refuse to sign a contract, they will not do the job. Similarly, if you want to be a disciple of Christ and refuse to be baptized, He will not save you.
When baptism is accompanied by repentance and forsaking of sin, something occurs within that person which corresponds to what happens to him physically in baptism. Physically, the person descends into water and is "buried" in the water. Inwardly, the person is buried into death. His old self dies, and the new person in Christ rises. Here is how Paul put it:
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.(Romans 6:3-11)
I don't think the thief on the cross whom Jesus said would be in paradise, is a good example of a person "being saved" without baptism. For the thief had no opportunity to be baptized. God recognizes repentance and forsaking of sin, and regards such a situation just as if the person had been baptized.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
Steve,
You wrote:
You wrote:
and then:The fact remains that it goes beyond logical necessity, in Mark 16:16, to make baptism an absolute requirement for salvation, while it is clear that faith is an absolute requirement (because of the negative affirmation).
I'm confused. You understand the passage to make faith an absolute requirement. Is this not an interpretation of the text?I did not provide an interpretation of the text.
As much as I might agree with Homer's understanding of Mark 16:16, I must agree with you that his analogy does not prove his point, because no one's analogy ever proves a point. An analogy can only serve to illustrate a point.I provided a demonstration that (regardless what the text may or may not be saying) Homer's analogy did not logically prove as much as he thought it did.
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
Steve,
It seems my opening post was misunderstood. I was not trying to prove by Mark 16:16 that baptism is necessary for salvation. The point I was trying to make was that by this verse baptism can not be proved to be unnecessary. I understood you to be using it in that way on the radio. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
As I indicated in my OP, I do not believe Jesus anticipated that unbelievers would seek to be baptized, thus in 16b mention of baptism serves no purpose. Jesus could have said:
"He that believes and is baptized will be saved; he that does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."
Or He could have said:
"He that believes and is baptized will be saved; he that does not believe and is baptized will be condemned."
In neither case is there any point, in the second part, in mentioning baptism.
Steve, I must say I am a sacramentalist. I believe God works through baptism, communion, and the assembling of the saints. Perhaps He acts sacramentally in other ways. You have taken what seems clear to be a sacramental position on the laying on of hands for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me there is much more evidence in the scripture, and as Paidion pointed out, the earliest Christians, for the sacrament of baptism.
I will not argue that no unbaptized can be saved. The goal of baptism is transformation, not a dunk in the water. Some people who have never been baptized appear to be transformed. I will in no way judge them; if they are tryng to follow Jesus, as they have the light, I will treat as my brothers and sisters, nor will I judge those who have never heard the gospel. The scriptures appear to me to only address those who either accept or reject Jesus. To them the promises and threats are addressed.
The hackneyed argument of the thief on the cross in regard to baptism should be put to rest; there are so many problems with it. As Paidion pointed out some time back, we can not know this thief was never baptized by John. Was Christian baptism even possible before Christs' death? How could a person be "baptized into His death" when Jesus had not yet died? When did the command to make disciples by baptizing them into (literal Grk. eis) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit take effect? The command was given after the resurrection as was Jesus' statement in Mark 16:16. And to top it off, Jesus, to whom all authority in heaven and earth had been given, could certainly have granted an exception to the thief if the requirement to be baptized was in effect.
Paidion, your point about baptism being like signing a contract is an excellent one. The Grk. eperotema in 1 Peter 3:21 is strong support for this idea, as you probably know.
It seems my opening post was misunderstood. I was not trying to prove by Mark 16:16 that baptism is necessary for salvation. The point I was trying to make was that by this verse baptism can not be proved to be unnecessary. I understood you to be using it in that way on the radio. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
As I indicated in my OP, I do not believe Jesus anticipated that unbelievers would seek to be baptized, thus in 16b mention of baptism serves no purpose. Jesus could have said:
"He that believes and is baptized will be saved; he that does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."
Or He could have said:
"He that believes and is baptized will be saved; he that does not believe and is baptized will be condemned."
In neither case is there any point, in the second part, in mentioning baptism.
Steve, I must say I am a sacramentalist. I believe God works through baptism, communion, and the assembling of the saints. Perhaps He acts sacramentally in other ways. You have taken what seems clear to be a sacramental position on the laying on of hands for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me there is much more evidence in the scripture, and as Paidion pointed out, the earliest Christians, for the sacrament of baptism.
I will not argue that no unbaptized can be saved. The goal of baptism is transformation, not a dunk in the water. Some people who have never been baptized appear to be transformed. I will in no way judge them; if they are tryng to follow Jesus, as they have the light, I will treat as my brothers and sisters, nor will I judge those who have never heard the gospel. The scriptures appear to me to only address those who either accept or reject Jesus. To them the promises and threats are addressed.
The hackneyed argument of the thief on the cross in regard to baptism should be put to rest; there are so many problems with it. As Paidion pointed out some time back, we can not know this thief was never baptized by John. Was Christian baptism even possible before Christs' death? How could a person be "baptized into His death" when Jesus had not yet died? When did the command to make disciples by baptizing them into (literal Grk. eis) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit take effect? The command was given after the resurrection as was Jesus' statement in Mark 16:16. And to top it off, Jesus, to whom all authority in heaven and earth had been given, could certainly have granted an exception to the thief if the requirement to be baptized was in effect.
Paidion, your point about baptism being like signing a contract is an excellent one. The Grk. eperotema in 1 Peter 3:21 is strong support for this idea, as you probably know.
Last edited by Homer on Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Baptism and Mark 16
Homer, thanks for sharing this. I missed the previous post, but these are good thoughts.Homer wrote:The hackneyed argument of the thief on the cross in regard to baptism should be put to rest; there are so many problems with it. As Paidion pointed out some time back, we can not know this thief was never baptized by John. Was Christian baptism even possible before Christs' death? How could a person be "baptized into His death" when Jesus had not yet died? When did the command to make disciples by baptizing them into (literal Grk. eis) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit take effect? The command was given after the resurrection as was Jesus' statement in Mark 16:16. And to top it off Jesus, to whom all authority in heaven and earth had been given, could certainly have granted an exception to the thief if the requirement to be baptized was in effect.