Baptism and Mark 16

[steve7150]

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.









Didn't Irenaous quote part of this section around 177AD, Paidion?

[CThomas]

A related way to put it is to take it first strictly as a matter of logical form. Start with the hypothesis (which I believe is true) that faith suffices to save a person, i.e. that any person who has (the requisite form of) faith will be saved. It follows from this premise that any statement of the form "Any man who has faith and X will be saved" is true, no matter what X is. The statement, "Any man who has faith and is left-handed will be saved" is true simply by virtue of the truth of the antecedent conjunct, and does not imply that left-handedness is necessary to salvation. So as a matter of the formal structure of the language, the sentence from Mark 16 clearly does not imply that baptism is necessary for salvation. (Because it is wholly consistent with the hypothesis that faith without baptism is sufficient to save, just as faith without left-handedness is sufficient to save even though the sentence "Anybody who has faith and is left-handed will be saved" is true.)

The question then becomes whether the reference to baptism suggests an IMPLIED necessity (like the example of the registration fee you mentioned in your other example). But in my view the context does not carry that implication, because unlike the context of the registration fee, the reference to baptism is easily accounted for on the alternative assumption that baptism will normatively accompany faith. So it makes perfect sense to mention the presumptively accompanying baptism even where that is not -- and is not implied to be -- itself a condition of salvation. It's kind of like saying, "Anybody who gets food from the store and pays the cashier for it on his way out will not be hungry that night." That sentence is true, but it does not imply that paying the cashier is necessary to avoid the hunger. Getting the food is sufficient to avoid the hunger whether or not you pay for it. But paying the cashier is mentioned because it is normatively expected and the right thing to do. This is in contrast to a situation like that of the registration fee where the payment of money to a bureaucracy does not, in the absence of a requirement to do so, go along with trading in your driver's license.

CThomas

[SamIam]

CThomas has hit the nail on the head.

One starts with a "hypothesis." Then one reads the scripture in a way that will agree with their pre-determined conclusion. The obvious problem is that with this approach, the scripture does not inform one's beliefs, but one's beliefs control their understanding of scripture. This is not exegesis. This is eisegesis.

We all have this problem ! Sadly I am blind to my own problems. Your problems, I can see clearly. (I have a wink in my eye as I write this.)

Start with the hypothesis (which I believe is true) that faith suffices to save a person, i.e. that any person who has (the requisite form of) faith will be saved.

What if the "requisite form" of faith includes baptism (as well as repentance). Then Mark 16:16 can be understood in a very natural way without jumping through hoops. Baptism is a condition of salvation. This does not conflict with salvation through faith. Baptism is not included in the negative statement because non-believers would not seek baptism, or if they did, it's not really baptism, it's just getting wet.

If I wanted to make an analogy perhaps it would be "anyone who turns on the TV and tunes to channel 5 will watch the program." (For you kids, we used to have TVs where you could dial the tuner to a station with the power switch off.) Notice that I have already decided the relationship between baptism and salvation and I have chosen an analogy to illustrate my position. My analogy does not prove my position to be valid. My analogy is not an exegesis of the passage.

[CThomas]

Hi, Sam. I don't think there's anything eisegetic about reading a particular passage in light of a hypothesis if, as here, that hypothesis is itself reached through a sound synthesis of other passages of scripture. Nor do I think that the passage in question cold be naturally read to view baptism as a component of faith because the passage distinguishes between the two. The reference to baptism would be entirely superfluous if it were already included in the prior reference to faith.

CThomas

[SamIam]

The reference to baptism would be entirely superfluous if it were already included in the prior reference to faith.

CThomas,

Keep in mind that the first audience did not have a volume of other writings they could refer to in order to develop an understanding of faith and baptism. (They had an oral teaching, but since we were not there to hear it, that does not help us.) This was a stand-alone teaching. Mark would not assume they had a full NT. This is the passage that they would understand to teach that baptism is included in faith.

Nor do I think that the passage in question cold be naturally read to view baptism as a component of faith because the passage distinguishes between the two.

This passage appears to tie faith and baptism together. Perhaps it is your pre-understanding that requires you to distinguish between the two.

[CThomas]

Hi, Sam. If you believe that every passage of scripture must be construed in a vacuum then our difference is a fundamental one. I think that, to the contrary, even if you thought that Mark didn't establish the sufficiency of faith by itself, its audience was part of the Christian society instructed by the same apostles whose message is embodied in the other biblical documents. The idea that we should assume that the original audience was wholly ignorant of a core principle established throughout the NT documents as a whole seems a strange assumption. And even if for some unimaginable reason they were, that would still be no excuse for us, who do have the full Bible at our disposal, to ignore parts of it or treat it as sets of unrelated passages.

CThomas

[SamIam]

If you believe that every passage of scripture must be construed in a vacuum then our difference is a fundamental one.

That is not at all my point. My point is that the first readers of Mark would not have formed their understanding of Mark by comparing it with Paul's letters.

its audience was part of the Christian society instructed by the same apostles whose message is embodied in the other biblical documents.

As I said. They also had an oral teaching.

The idea that we should assume that the original audience was wholly ignorant of a core principle established throughout the NT documents as a whole seems a strange assumption.

They had no access to the NT, so they could not have known its core principle. They would have had the core principle that they learned from teachers. I trust it was the same principle.

that would still be no excuse for us, who do have the full Bible at our disposal, to ignore parts of it or treat it as sets of unrelated passages.

We should neither ignore parts of scripture nor treat them as unrelated. We should always question whether we have accurately understood the "core principle" before we use that understanding to construe a specific passage. What if your understanding of the "sufficiency of faith by itself," separate from baptism is not really the core principle established throughout the NT documents?

[CThomas]

We may be closer to agreement than I thought. If we don't treat parts of scripture as unrelated to other parts, then there's nothing eisegetic about drawing a core biblical principle from the NT writings in their aggregate and then seeing if a particular passage (like the one at issue here) is somehow inconsistent with it and suggests that a revision to it is needed. So I think that if one believes based on other parts of the Bible that salvation by faith alone is a core teaching of scripture then I think my original posting stands. You ask if my understanding of that as a core principle could be wrong, and of course it could be but I don't think it is. Justifying that antecedent belief would take us afield of the present discussion, which I think just relates to the Mark 16 passage and how it should influence our antecedent understandings of this issue as drawn from the rest of scripture.

God bless,

CThomas

[Homer]

CThomas,

You wrote:

Start with the hypothesis (which I believe is true) that faith suffices to save a person, i.e. that any person who has (the requisite form of) faith will be saved.

I agree with the first part of the sentence but suspect we disagree in the second part; that is, what is meant by "(the requisite form of) faith"? I believed the requisite form of faith includes baptism. The Greek word pistis, which we translate "faith", can also be translated "faithfulness" and includes the idea of loyalty. I would ask whether a person who claims to have faith, knows the Lord's command regarding baptism yet refuses it, can be said to be faithful and loyal? It seems that this person's faith is empty.

The idea that we should assume that the original audience was wholly ignorant of a core principle established throughout the NT documents as a whole seems a strange assumption. And even if for some unimaginable reason they were, that would still be no excuse for us, who do have the full Bible at our disposal, to ignore parts of it or treat it as sets of unrelated passages.

Having the whole bible has not prevented a whole host of errors. How have we gone from where the early church considered no unbaptized person to be a christian, to where baptism is considered optional or even unnecessary? The Greek of Matthew 28:19 is plain enough to those willing to accept it. A christian is a disciple, the term "disciple" being antecedent to the term "christian". And Jesus commands that disciples be made by baptizing and teaching them.

It is so strange to me to hear that "so and so" is a christian and If he wants to be a member of "our" church he must be baptized.

[CThomas]

Hi, Homer. I understand and respect your view on this -- obviously a lot of very smart people share your view on this. I'm reluctant to get into a broad discussion of baptism apart from the Mark 16 passage at issue here because it's such a large issue it would be hard to do justice to in a message-board posting, even if I were competent to do it justice, which I'm not. I would just say that -- on the much narrower question of the Mark 16 passage to your view -- this particular passage to my mind cuts against the idea that baptism is properly considered a part of saving faith precisely because this passage lists both separately. I think someone could use this passage to support a slightly different argument from yours, namely that baptism in addition to faith is required for salvation. I think that argument is incorrect for the reasons previously stated, but I think there is a bigger tension between the passage and your view because if biblical faith included baptism then it would be very strange to list them separately in the text. We generally construe texts to avoid rendering parts of them surplussage, I think.

CThomas