I’m an Olan Hicks fan. Br. Hicks has written extensively on divorce and remarriage, advocating a generous, gracious view contrary to the usual legalism. As a result, he’s suffered all sorts of criticism, even being profiled as “apostate” by Contending for the Faith.
Br. Hicks is also a blogger. He has recently concluded an exchange with Al Maxey regarding baptism, in which Hicks challenges Maxey’s “salvation before baptism” doctrine.
I regret that Hicks labels both Maxey and Edward Fudge as “liberals,” and so he likely feels the same about me. Even if Hicks disagrees with Maxey and Fudge, neither is a theological liberal. Indeed, it would be far fairer to call them “evangelicals.” Both would stoutly object to the theology of such true liberals as Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. And it’s a strange world where we label evangelicals as liberals.
I am not a liberal. But Br. Hicks disagrees with my views on baptism, and I’m delighted to read and consider his views. He sent me a brief article explaining his disagreement, and I requested and received permission to post the article here for comment. I have advised him of this posting, so he may participate in the discussion if he wishes.
I wish to add one observation before the discussion begins. It’s not entirely fair to characterize my view as denying “that God gives salvation when one is baptized.” I, in fact, contend that God gives salvation when one is baptized — in the normative case. I simply object to the view of many that God will make no exceptions.
In other words, I think that the Bible is quite clear that (a) it’s God’s design that those who are baptized will receive the Spirit and be saved at the same time but (b) it is also God’s promise that all with penitent faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. Hence, God will make exceptions in the proper case.
Unfortunately, many assume that since I don’t teach conventional 20th Century Church of Christ theology, holding closer to Alexander Campbell’s view in the Lunenburg letter correspondence, that my views must be the Baptist view. After all, Church of Christ rhetoric has been aimed at the Baptist view since the founding of the Firm Foundation over 100 years ago.
But I choose to follow a third path.
Here is Br. Hicks’ comment —
_______________________________________________________
WHAT IS THE MISTAKE?
One central mistake drives those who deny that God gives salvation when one is baptized. It is a mistake in logic, flawed reasoning, actually a lack of faith. Reasoning on the fact that we are saved “by grace through faith, not of works,” they separate baptism from the promise Jesus attached to it, (Mark 16:16) the same promise Peter attached to it in Acts 2:38. What is the mistake that does that? They misdefine “faith.” In Hebrews 11:6 we have the necessity of faith stated and its definition given. “Without faith it is impossible to please Him. For he who comes to God must believe that he is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.”
There is no question that those who deny salvation at baptism do so on the basis of a denial of this statement, the second part of it. They do not believe that God rewards our obedience. According to this passage that is a fatal mistake. One cannot please God without faith and this is what God’s word says faith is. When I quoted this passage to Al Maxey he replied, “It sounds like you are saying that God rewards us for what we do. That would mean that my salvation depends on what I do. That is as false a doctrine as there is.”
On the other hand Paul, who believed that his sins were washed away at baptism, (Acts 22:16) explained what faith is to persons who are baptized into Christ. “Buried with Him in baptism, where in also you are risen with Him through FAITH IN THE WORKING OF GOD, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col. 2:12) Their faith was not in the power of baptism itself. It was faith in the working of God. To see baptism as standing alone, on its own merits, apart from the power of God’s promises, is unbelief in that it denies a specific statement of God. It is the kind of unbelief that leads faulty thinkers to very wrong conclusions of the sort that will be eternally fatal. Those who follow that route will learn, after it is too late, that the first part of that statement is also true, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Place your faith in God, believing not only that HE IS but also that He will reward the faithful according to His promises. You will be saved by that kind of faith.
Olan Hicks
I think Olan Hicks correctly pointed out the mistake in Evangelical reasoning. “Faith only” that rules out any action or deed on our side does not fit scripture at all. In fact justification by faith alone is directly denied by James. DIRECTLY. So all the fury against those who demand a “work” in order to be saved overlook plain passages that clearly say that we must seek God, that God will even reward this, or that we must repent, confess with our lips or be baptized in order to be reconciled with God. All this is to be done in faith, but it is something we do. Therefore it is no longer “faith alone”, but “Believe and be baptized”, “believe and confess”, “faith and love” (for without love our faith profits us nothing).
Therefore Peter said:
Interestingly: Those who lack these things were not persoines who never really were saved in the first place because their faith was not genuine (the NT does not make a distinction between genuine and false faith), but that they have forgotten that they have been cleansed from their former sins. This BTW is alluding to baptism.
Alexander
I always find some of the passages that are quoted in defense of water baptism as the moment of salvation to be quite curious… Mark 16:16 for example…He who believes and is baptized will be saved…. Couldn’t it be said that he who believes and doesn’t willingly refuse to obey the commands of God will be saved? Wouldn’t it be also accurate that he that believes and doesn’t blaspheme the Holy Spirit will be saved…Some even believe that he that is baptized and doesn’t “fall away” will be saved…If baptism is a command and a person refused to do it at all, then surely that person would not have a saving faith…There must be something else to justify baptism besides this passage. There is even the slightest hint that belief is the key since baptism is left off the end of the sentence apparently suggesting it is inferior position to faith…
Heb 11:6…. “…that he rewards those that diligently seek him” How is looking for God equated with water baptism? The correlation seems rather forced to suggest that seeking after God means that one must be baptized in water to be saved…
Acts 22:16…. Didn’t Paul already believe? Wasn’t he directed to go to Ananias by Jesus Himself? Wasn’t Paul already in willful obedience by faith in the One who directed him? Wouldn’t that be the same as Abraham being justified by Faith in Romans 4:3 and Hebrews 11:8? God says that it wasn’t Abraham’s obedience that saved him but rather his faith. In fact, the whole of Hebrews 11 is Faith initiated obedience… Later Peter in I Peter 3:21 says that baptism ISN’T the removal of dirt…cleansing of sin…
Col 2:12 Doesn’t say anything about salvation…it does speak to the symbolism of baptism but there is symbolism in the Lord’s Supper… this passage doesn’t say one is saved by being buried with Christ… It is forced into the passage by the sacramental view of baptism…
Not sure what Br. Hicks was getting at by suggesting that an understanding of baptism that is similar to Al’s is “eternally fatal.” Are we back to the point that my complete understanding of all the nuances of baptism must be in alignment with a particular thought in order for it to “count?” Surely, we have digressed back to that… Do all the 10 year old children baptized in the church understand this argument ?
Actually, one would think that if Post resurrection baptism (not of John) were essential to one’s salvation and receipt of the Holy Spirit that there might have been at least one Apostle’s baptism recorded prior to Pentecost…
Lastly, I find it difficult to justify the division that this matter has caused in the church as a whole…I know of no real disciple of Jesus who has refused baptism because they believe faith alone is all that is necessary… I do know of children who were baptized who didn’t have a clue about what Br. Hicks was talking about but as long as we got them into the tub they were safe.. To me the damage done from this argument surely cannot please God…One is taught of the command to obey and be baptized…If they refuse, their faith is obviously not a genuine one and their salvation could probably be questioned…But, to suggest that a new believer who calls on the name of the Lord in his closet, then dies before he can get to the baptistery is damned in hell is shameful theology and completely misrepresents Grace. Or, a teenager who is part of a youth group and comes from a broken home, and learns about God, and is studying the word and in his heart becomes a believer but wants to be taught about the meaning of baptism before he just goes swimming…but is killed in a car wreck…is damned? Is that Grace… Hard to accept… Deathbed confessions of faith? Are they a waste of time unless you can drag the patient to the water? Perhaps Br. Hicks would grant some grace of his own in these situations? But alas, if salvation is contingent on being immersed and removed from the water, then I guess all these people died with a false hope in Jesus to save them…. I don’t buy it.
Price,
You seem to think that faith, trusting God, is limited to the intellect and can only become active AFTER salvation. If only the scriptures agreed with you … but they do not.
You also seem to suggest that deciding to have faith in, i.e. trust, God is NOT an active response to the gospel? Jesus said that the work (active) that God desires is that we believe (put our trust) in Jesus (John 6:29). How can it be ‘work’ (which is by definition an action) if no action is taken?
James makes this point in his letter … any claim of faith without works is worthless/dead. James says that ‘faith without works’ is ‘dead.’
Price, can someone be saved without being made a new creature by God?
Paul writes about when becoming ‘a new creature/creation’ happens in Romans 6. Do you deny (or know anyone who denies) that Paul was writing that letter by inspiration? Was Paul misinformed?
I totally ‘get’ the desire to see salvation on the simplest terms possible. And I understand the desire to say baptism is at least somewhat optional. Anyone who has been unable to find access to an indoor body of water (even a tub) in the middle of a cold, January night knows that desire. But the question nags at me …
Who benefits from the streamlined approach that says I trust what God says EXCEPT that part about baptism being necessary and integral to His intentional doctrine and practice in making us ‘new creatures/creations’ according to Paul?
Nobody who shortchanges what God says is blessed by doing so.
Faith is not faith without works.
So maybe you want to ask me if I believe in ‘works salvation’ and the answer is … YES! I do!. I believe that GOD WORKS to make us new creatures … SAVED creatures. I trust Him explicitly on that point. And because I trust HIM and do not settle for trusting the part I find easier or less difficult or more convenient to someone on a death-bed, I asked to be immersed into Christ in water – NOT because I believe the water to be magical … but because I believed God would do what Paul said God does when we go to the water-grave so that we can rise up made new by God. If God did NOT do what Paul says, then we could not rise up new at all. We would, in that case, only rise up wet.
I do not know about you, Price, but when I was immersed, the fellow who physically lowered me into and raised me from the water was needed for BOTH actions. I was passive. I let the man lower me and I let the man raise me. I did that because I trusted God was working in the whole process. I did not know the man or try to guess whether he could lift me out of the water. I trusted God to see me through it.
And it wasn’t the fact that I did not drown in that pool that saved me. It was God at work to make me a new creature that saved me – the result of my appeal to God for the benefit of Jesus’ dying for all sinners. (That is what Peter called baptism … an ‘appeal.’)
I did not find my own method of calling on God to be saved. I submitted with a trusting heart to the method Jesus commanded and the apostles passed on and practiced and taught consistently. I did not argue the way Naaman did when Elisha told him to immerse himself in the Jordan River seven times. I trusted God in His word and at His word. And that took action … even the action of submitting to burial in water in the name of Jesus.
Jesus and Paul and Peter all taught that water was needed and should not be forbidden. Does a person alone in his closet find salvation without listening to Jesus and Paul and Peter? Paul defined what calling upon the Lord means in his testimony recorded in Acts 16. If all it took was prayer then Peter was not even necessary for Cornelius and could have chosen to stay home. But God insisted. Why? Cornelius was a praying man. Cornelius even listened to God when he prayed. Surely if that was good enough there would have been no reason to send for Peter. Paul was already beginning to work with Gentiles in Antioch and Arabia. Paul would be more involved in sharing the gospel with the Gentiles than Peter anyway. God specifically commissioned him to that task.
So where does all of this idea of praying in a closet (is that not an action taken?) come from, Price? Is there a history of this practice in Acts or anywhere else AFTER the covenant was put into force by the death of Christ/the propitiation for our sins?
Wondering,
Grizz
Jay’s study on the subject of baptism is what originally got me interested in this site. I began studing the subject ten years ago, and ended up with about the same conclusions Jay has reached. When I taught those conclusions in my church, I got few comments and many blank stares, causing me to question myself. Jay’s teachings have encouraged me and sharpened my insight. Only recently have I been able to tie most of the “baptism” and “belief only” scriptural passages all together by realizing that John 20:23 in all probability is refering to baptism and says the same thing as Mark 16:16, except it tells us what is being done to “he that believes”. So, yes baptism confers forgiveness of sin on those who believe, but it is as Campbell said, “not a procuring cause, as, a meritorious or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentence are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the divine persons whose names are put upon us in the very act…” And as both Jay and Campbell, I think concur, baptism becomes a “work” to gain salvation if we make that one specific act absolutely essential for salvation.
K. C. Moser once wrote, “Baptism is not for the remission of sins in the same way that the blood of Jesus is shed for the remission of sins.” When we try to equate baptism with the blood, we err. When we deny the appropriateness of baptism, we err. When we promise forgiveness apart from baptism, we go beyond what is written. When we say, as Al often quotes one of his opponents, “We are not saved until the instant the tip of our nose breaks the surface of the water coming up,” we also err. God, as far as I know, never identifies a “split second” when we stand forgiven. In fact, I even read that we are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. I also read of the fact we have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved.
Now, it is likely that “being saved” means much more than that sin has been forgiven. Hence, it is a progression, not merely an event. When we try to limit it to an event, we err.
CAN God save apart from baptism? Dare anyone say that He cannot? Did he not tell Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy”? Is God still God? If He is, then this entire discussion is foolishness in which the wisdom of men sets itself against the “foolishness of God.” Do I believe God has saved some people who were not baptized? I think that is highly likely – but my thinking that does not make it so, nor would my thinking otherwise make it not so. It is what God does that matters.
These are good questions, Price, and they lead us on: Was that faith enough? Did God regard Paul already as cleansed because of this faith? Read again Acts 22:16
Paul believed, but was still in his sin, if I understand this verse at face value. It is obviously not enough to believe with your heart, but you must go down to the water in order to be washed. It is not an ordinary boduily washing (as Peter says in 1Pe 3:21) but a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5) in which we are buried with Christ and raised to a new life (Rom 6).
Think about it: Believing the Gospel with your heart is necessary before we enter the river (or baptistery), so faith precedes baptism. Such as Philipp asked the Eunoch:
The mess we have to deal with today is a lack of scriptural understanding of baptism in the Christian world. In fact that’s not a problem of today only, but it started around 200 AD when infant baptism was introduced in some aereas (in the Western church at first). For centuries the true Christian baptism was completely lost, until the Anabaptists made the first steps of restoration (which also included the restoration iof the NT church). The Stone-Campbell movement added to the right mode the better understanding of what happens in baptism.
I do agree that God is not bound to our doing everything correctly in order to save people. So I assume that CHristians throughout history who had no acces to the cotrrect teaching and practice of baptism were saved because they lived an overall obedient faith. No one of us obeys everything correctly, and God has to be gracious if He wants to see only one of us with His Son in eternity.
Yet this makes no allowance for us who in fact DO have a better understanding of this aspect of Christian faith to negotiate the imprtance of baptism. This is unnegotiable, baptism is a must we must teach; without claiming to be the judge of those who sincerly missed that point in the various denominations.
You see, it is quite a narrow way, if we want to avoid two errors:
a) “Allowing” humans salvation by faith without baptism
b) “Denying” God the right to save humans without baptism
Alexander
BTW I just tried it out:
If you type Titus 3:5 it appears correctly, if you use the abbreviation Tit 3:5 it appears distorted. (just checking)
See? I think this is because the letters T I T are interpreted as vulgarity. But this makes for some weird scripture references …
Let me first acknowledge that there is not complete agreement among those of us who believe that eternal life comes to us prior to our baptism. This is important, because much of my objection to Brother Hicks’ essay is to its fatal flaw– imprecision. Imprecision both in handling the arguments of others and imprecision of the text itself, as it relates to the argument.
Perhaps the most common error in making arguments such as these is to offer up what your opponent believes, and to do it wrong. For the record, I am not accusing anyone of acting deceitfully. But if Brother A is to set his position up against the position of Brother B, A is obligated to represent B’s view as clearly and as accurately as possible.
For example, in this case Brother Hicks insists– yea, declares as unquestionable– that those of us who believe that salvation precedes baptism do NOT believe that God rewards obedience. This is ill-considered nonsense. We don’t believe that at all. Being accused of it does not make it a fact. I do believe that God rewards the believer for obedience and chastises him for disobedience, just as any good father does. As to unbelievers, all their compliance with biblical directive will get them no reward at all, for they are not in Christ. Nobody sits in hell with with gift cards from God in their pockets and no place to spend ’em. Hicks simply makes a statement about me that is not so.
Likewise, if Brother Hicks is going to attribute my view on this matter to a lack of faith, he should step back about half a step. Disagreeing with Hicks’ interpretation of a particular scripture is not the same thing as declining to believe what that passage says. If it is the same thing, I expect Hicks to turn his staff into a snake, at least, to demonstrate that level of authority.
And if a man wishes to attribute my view to a lack of reasoning, he should identify the logical fallacies he has found, rather than just dropping that accusation and not even trying to back it up. When he misrepresents my view and then argues against that misrepresentation, that’s a strawman.
The other issue of imprecision I would surface is that of biblical terminology. I know, that sounds heretical, but we bounce around the term “saved” as though there were a single, revealed definition of that term which applies to every use of it in scripture. I can’t find that definition in my own bible, and it casts a shadow over the whole discussion. In Hicks’ case I THINK he is speaking of the point in time at which one receives eternal life. But, I won’t nail that definition to him without consent.
In John 5, Jesus talks about our having eternal life because –and when– we believe. I prefer to think that Jesus’ words here are neither imperfect nor did he simply forget about baptism in this discourse. I believe that a man who heard Jesus that day could have taken Jesus at his word, believed upon Him, and “crossed over from death to life”. And I think that this is the case today as well, and that this is why this discourse was recorded for us.
Mark 16:16 has historically been presented as a binary choice about baptism. “Be baptized and be saved, don’t be baptized and don’t be saved”. But that is not what it says, is it? To act as though it reads this way is simply inaccurate and represents an overlay of our own doctrines. Jesus does frame one simple binary choice in this sentence, but it is about belief, not about baptism. It is at least as reasonable to consider Jesus’ reference as making baptism ancillary to faith as it is to consider baptism as much a salvation requirement as is faith.
I would question Jay’s conclusion that salvation at baptism is “normative”. First, because “normative” in this context suggests that we have enough evidence to suggest that there IS a norm. I don’t find that supportable. That, in my view, would require a larger body of evidence than is generally presented. Second, because it places Jesus’ words in John 5 outside this “norm” for no explicable reason. The old soteriological assumptions about a hard borderline at the cross are more the basis for this view than evidence in favor of it.
And I truly wonder about what this says about the vast number of believers who came to faith in Christ long before they were ever baptised. That is, those of us who were reared as believers from infancy. Is it the “norm” that the faith of all these children is not salvific? That most of them are eternally damned while believing, when they enter that doctrinal no-man’s land between the extrabiblical “age of accountability” and their emergence from the baptistry? That the faith of a child upon which we have predicated so many sermons actually gains that child nothing at all?
No, there are too many inconsistencies here, in my view. There is not nearly so much black-and-white IN the scripture as we seem to be coming OUT with when we talk about scripture. That is not a statement of condemnation. It is rather, the basis for my plea that we more carefully consider views not our own and understand them more thoroughly before we shoulder our way through them in our inalterable course.
Charles said; “In John 5, Jesus talks about our having eternal life because –and when– we believe. I prefer to think that Jesus’ words here are neither imperfect nor did he simply forget about baptism in this discourse. I believe that a man who heard Jesus that day could have taken Jesus at his word, believed upon Him, and “crossed over from death to life”. And I think that this is the case today as well, and that this is why this discourse was recorded for us.”
Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
It seems there is more to “the belief” Jesus is speaking of, than just saying, Jesus is the son of God, and he was made Lord over all.
The old saying, “a man’s actions speak louder than his words” rings true in religion as well as other facets of life.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 8:31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
(is there any doubt the devils believed? were they saved ?)
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Ultimately we receive eternal life after our resurrection at the end of the days.
Having this life today through faith is (a) conditional and (b) still in terms of hope.
as to Mark 16:16. Try to read it this way:
Could anyone debate that entering through the door was not essential or that “faith alone” was sufficient?
Alexander
It is strange to me that some have such a contradictory view of salvation.
They say our works have nothing to do with our being accepted by Jesus, then they say, it all depends on us and what we think, by saying such things as, “Jesus talks about our having eternal life because –and when– we believe.”
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Seems it always requires action of some kind.
Alexander
Mark 16:16 — “Whoever believes that is warmer inside and enters through the door will not freeze.
Could anyone debate that entering through the door was not essential or that “faith alone” was sufficient?”
I might question the accuracy of your analogy.
I think your “parable” representing Mark 16:16 would be more theologically accurate if it said, “Whoever believes that it is warmer inside and calls on the name of the Lord, the Lord will come out and gather him in and carry him inside and add him into the warmth of the fold.”
The good shepherd went out and brought in the one sheep from the cold, leaving the 99 sheep inside in the warmth. The shepherd did not say to the lost sheep, “Let me check your papers, Mr. Sheep in the cold. Have you qualified yourself? Have you been inoculated for the remission of your viruses?”
“And whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
An imprecise assumption — There is an assumption that almost everyone makes, and that assumptions causes significant confusion. Most comments on this blog reflect this assumption; Jay makes it, brother Al makes it, brother Olan Hicks makes it; I used to make it as much or more than anyone. It involves a presupposition by which a word is read into the text when the word is not there. It is transparently interpretative, so it is unseen and auto-accepted, like it is “grandfathered” into our thinking. Whenever the word “baptize,” “baptism,” “be baptized,” or any other form of baptizo, is used in the N.T., people read the word “water” into the text – either literally or interpretatively. Then a hermeneutic has to be formed to justify doing that.
Either people can happily just keep on adding to the text, or else we can start over and reassemble. Those who just want to defend what they already think, stop reading here. Those who are willing to challenge their own interpretations, consider the following simple exercise:
Find all of the places in the NT (“post-resurrection”) where the words for baptize (baptism) are used in the same verse (or adjacent verse – clearly in the same context) with the word for “water.” Then see how many of these verses also have a reference to “Holy Spirit,” or “gift” or “promise.” (Note that Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:28,31,33 all count because they were fulfilled post-resurrection).
This is the actual and literal word for “water.” Not interpretations, as in “Burial must mean water, washing has to be baptism; this like figure; well, it just has to mean this.” None of that. The actual words: water, baptize, and Holy Spirit.
How many accounts of conversions in the book of Acts have the three words in the text? All of them? Some? Which one(s)? Where are the verses in which Paul uses the words for “water,” and “baptism,” and “Holy Spirit?” How about any other writer of epistles?
We can speak where the Bible speaks, or we can continue to generate confusion – where each individual thinks they’re right and everyone else is confused.
One contributor to the blog doesn’t understand that in the Christian Way there is ONE baptism. The other baptisms spoken of do not relate to becoming a Christian. Water baptism obviously does relate. That’s the baptism Jesus speaks of in His commission given to the apostles and practiced by them and by those they taught. It’s an immersion in water and being raised up out of that water, as can be seen by comparing all the verses (passages) which relate to conversion. Baptism is part of the new birth without which no person is brought into Christ’s Kingdom which is His church. It IS a new birth of water and spirit, not of belief alone, not of repentance alone, not of confession alone, not of baptism alone.
One wrote, “Actually, one would think that if Post resurrection baptism (not of John) were essential to one’s salvation and receipt of the Holy Spirit that there might have been at least one Apostle’s baptism recorded prior to Pentecost…” I see no reason why anyone would think this way. But Price does think so. Is it because he simply doesn’t want to see what the scriptures plainly teach? Note that baptism into Christ could not have been practiced prior to the resurrection. And note that it was not taught publicly until the events recorded in Acts 2:38. Luke makes no mention of when the apostles received Christian baptism. What does that mean?
Since they are (were) the apostles, it means nothing whatever as to what we sinners must DO to receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The apostles were baptized with/in the Spirit. The lesser gift of the Spirit which accompanies water baptism was surely not needed by the apostles. As to their sins being “washed away,” we have no record of when or how that took place. Why would that matter to us who are NOT apostles? WE are clearly told what WE must do to enter the Kingdom. Some suggest different ways. I think the way the Bible does teach that conversion is to occur is the best way we should invite sinners to save themselves just as Peter did in Acts 2:38.
What a shame it is that good men such as Jay and Al and Edward have come to believe that the apostolic way is not good enough. Historically, Baptists and other Calvinists have taught salvation by faith alone. But WE have believed and taught what the Bible clearly teaches about conversion. It’s a NEW BIRTH of water and spirit. It’s NOT faith alone. It’s faith put into practice. Why, I marvel, would any Bible teacher try to avoid understanding that entering the gospel Way does not always include faith, plus repentance, plus baptism? Conversion is a one-time event. It is not concluded by something only internal. The examples we have in Acts should be enough to convince every reader of what steps sinners took then in order to receive remission of sins. It’s not necessary to go to the epistles to find what sinners need to do to be saved. It’s folly to seek in the teaching of the Master what sinners who lived after His ministry on earth need to do to be saved. He only once during his ministry addressed this question, and that was in a conversation with only one person. The new birth of water and spirit was never publicly taught until Peter explained conversion in Acts 2:38.
I wonder what I was trying to say when I wrote, “Why, I marvel, would any Bible teacher try to avoid understanding that entering the gospel Way does not always include faith, plus repentance, plus baptism?”
Entering the gospel Way does include believing in Jesus. That’s the first essential, the basis for all action which follows. Entering the gospel way includes repentance, as per Acts 2:38. Always. Turning away from sin and turning to Jesus. Entering the gospel is not complete without water baptism in the name of Jesus in order to accept His offer of remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Spirit.
But the sentence as written surely doesn’t say what I intended to say!
I had wondered why my photo disappeared when I switched to a new computer. I think it may now be fixed.
So maybe later it will catch up again. I’m publishing a study quoting Patrick Mead, Olan Hicks, and Robert Waters on the topic, IS A DIVORCED CHRISTIAN FREE TO MARRY AGAIN? It can be read at my web site http://missionoutreach.org/Divorced.pdf/. I’m also a longtime fan of Olan Hicks, usually only getting to see him at the Tulsa Workshop each year. I first heard Patrick at Tulsa two years ago. I’m glad that this year he’ll be speaking there again. And it’s good to know that this year Jay also will be one of the featured teachers at Tulsa!
I’ll try to get my picture on my right name and use it. I appreciate Jay explaining his position, which I had not understood from earlier notes he has written. I fail to see any advantage to contending for salvation by faith alone, that is, for conversion being done in some way other than as taught by Jesus and Peter, to include believing sinners both repenting and being baptized. If God (Jesus) chooses to save some who have not been baptized, He is God and is free to do whatever He chooses to do. But the teaching is clear by apostles of Jesus Christ that baptism is part of the new birth which Jesus said is essential for salvation.
Theophilus.dr claims, *Whenever the word “baptize,” “baptism,” “be baptized,” or any other form of baptizo, is used in the N.T., people read the word “water” into the text – either literally or interpretatively. Then a hermeneutic has to be formed to justify doing that.* The claim is false. The fact is that whenever baptism is spoken of in relation to conversion, it’s obvious that the subject is water baptism. But I know no Bible student who reads “water” into the text just because the subject is baptism. If Theophilus.dr knows someone who does this, it would be good for him to name that person and give that person a chance to defend what he/she wrote or said. There are several different baptisms spoken of in the inspired writings. No one claims that Jesus would baptize with/in His Spirit using water. No one claims that the baptism experienced unknowingly by the children of Israel is other than “water baptism” with0out being immersion, but being surrounded by water. But it can’t be denied that Jesus commanded water baptism to be performed when new believers have heard and now believe the gospel. And every example of conversion in the New Testament writings (in Acts, of course) includes an immersion in water. We don’t need to read water INTO the text. The inspired writers put it there.
When Paul writes to Ephesians and remarks that they had been saved by faith which caused them to be baptized, we don’t find water mentioned. But we surely cannot suppose the baptism in question is other than the one commanded by Jesus. And that is water baptism, which nobody can deny.
“If Theophilus.dr knows someone who does this, it would be good for him to name that person” —– Ray Downen
“And every example of conversion in the New Testament writings (in Acts, of course) includes an immersion in water. We don’t need to read water INTO the text. The inspired writers put it there.”
Ray, you obviously haven’t done the “little exercise” and you also obviously didn’t “stop reading.” But perhaps you don’t need to look up any passages or consult an interlinear because you already know what it all means. And, in so doing, you have demonstrated my point of having a presupposition that totally filters your thinking. Thank you.
I understand that, because I used to do the exact same thing. At least now I recognize that I have filters and know that they are illuminated only by the light of the Spirit. The alternative is to deny that one’s interpretation might be flawed and to remain determined to keep and protect one’s error.
You also made an interesting statement, “The lesser gift of the Spirit which accompanies water baptism…” [post @ 3:03pm, 3rd paragraph]. Could you provide a scripture where “the lesser gift of the Spirit” is used? I certainly wouldn’t want to read “lesser” into the text when the word wasn’t there. Did the inspired writers say this “lesser” gift of the Spirit also accompanied all the conversions in Acts? Exactly what is that “lesser gift?” How might we receive the “greater gift?” Paul indicates the “lesser gift” in the church in Corinth was speaking in tongues and the “greater gift” was prophecy. To what are you referring?
Alexander,
Jesus is eternal life! One either has him and has eternal life or he does not have him and does not have eternal life. What is your view of these verses.
“Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” 1 John 5:10-12
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. 21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols”
1 John 5:20
Of course that eternal life is not observable by human means but it is no less true. We don’t have to wait to find out if we are saved… That is unless we are depending on ourselves instead of the Christ of God.
@theophilus
I substituted both parts (faith and baptism) with “earthly” analogies. My point was that baptism is something we allow to be done to ourselves as an outward act (but a work of God!), distinct from simply believing a fact. You substituted baptism with something by which it is commonly substituted today: The sinner’s prayer (calling upon the name of the Lord). in doing this, you do what is done widely today: Reject the outward act and replace it by something that is normally not called a “work”. “Faith only” triumphs again.
Baptism is the way by which we ask/appeal or give answer (in a covenantal way) to the gospel. Interestingly Ananias sees it clearly that in baptism we call upon the name of the Lord:
If you tie “calling on the Name of the Lord” to baptism in this way, then your alternative analogy would fit again. If you seperate both, and substitute baptism with the sinner’s prayer, you are cutting out half of Mark 16:16.
Alexander
@ Royce
I agree with this verse. What does it mean to have a testimony in ourselves? We can think of Romans 8:16 for instance. Or Eph 1:13 which offers a very important aspect to it:
An earnest is something like a downpayment. Only after the work is finished the rest will be given – or the downpayment will be taken back. This is crucial, because our salvation is conditional. So, h<ving the testimoiny based on our relationship with and faith in Christ does not unconditionally guarantee our salvation. Our salvation is tied (as one condiotion) to "having the son". If go to the parable of the vine in John 15 you see that this means "remaining in Him and bearing fruit". Fruitless Christians will be cut off again. In fact 1John 5:10+12 speaks of conditional assurance of salvation.
This is true whether we believe in Christ or not. So the quiestion here is, HOW does this become a reality to us? The text does not say how it starts, but it does say how it is to be maintained: By further keeping away from idols. SErving God and idols provokes God to jealosy, as also Pauls wrote (1Co 10:21-22) and pointing to the example of the Israelites a few verses earlie he warns us that we also could die in the wilderness and not reach our promised land.
I am convinced that salvation is conditional, we are not once saved and then we “havbe it”, but we embark on a journey through a wilderness where our faith is not only sustained by the Bread from Heaven and the Water from the Rock, but also tested in various ways. It is this time of trial that shows whether we really walk in the faith we professed in baptism (the crossing of the Red Sea).
I once believed this “simple Gospel” you constantly try to remind me of, and I memorized 1John 5:10-12 about 24 years ago. But the Gospel isn’t that simple. You are an Evangelist, and of course you are trained to present the message in an easy-to-grasp and easy-to-remember way. I am a teacher, and I see that we must be careful NOT to make promises the Lord does not make.
It is like a sales agent and a technician. The sales agent will praise the car for how splendid and easy to handle it is – and it will sell. But the technician knows its hidden “weaknesses” – if he honestly tells the customers the pros and cons of this car, he will sell far less cars. Guess who will get fewer claim reports, however? I think we need a balance: We should be honest about the conditions and the hardships of the narrow way Christ invites us to; but we should also paint heaven in the brightest colors possible, so that we know it is worth the effort. But I will never ever again preach a “just believe and be saved”-message, because this is simply NOT true.
Alexander
CLARIFICATIONS FROM OLAN HICKS
I will say more about Mark 16:16. But first, what about the “liberal” label?
Different people in different circumstances use this word differently. In the world of politics the word refers to those who want big government and governmental involvement in everything and who give approval to things the rest of us see as immoral. In evangelical theology the word “liberalism” is used to refer to those who doubt the inspiration or inerrancy of the scriptures, and includes the German rationalists and the “God is dead” concept. In churches of Christ we tend to apply this term to anyone who is to the left of where we are doctrinally.
The actual meaning of the word (Greek “eleutheria”) carries the idea of being without restraint, not held captive. In the scriptures “liberty,” is applied to two kinds of freedom, one right and the other wrong. Paul said, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17) and he told the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty where with Christ has made is free.” So Christ gives us liberty, freedom from several kinds of enslavement. But Peter spoke of another kind of liberty, a wrong kind. He said of apostate people, “While they promise them liberty, they are themselves the servants of corruption.” (2 Peter 2:19) There is “Freedom in Christ” and there is a kind of freedom that opposes Christ. This is freedom from divine restraints.
Brethren today whose interpretations of scripture produce conclusions that contradict Bible statements are liberals in that they take the kind of liberties Peter said makes them “sevants of corruption.” The doctrines they preach are not restrained by God’s decrees. The question for us is not whether a doctrine is “liberal” or “conservative” in nature, but rather is it accurate to the scriptures? Is it held on course by what God’s word says?
“Bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:5
CONSIDERING QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT MARK 16:16
Martin Luther, in his large catechism, said he was misunderstood on his statement that we are saved by “faith alone.” He said the purpose of baptism is to save. (Page 86) He quoted Mark 16:16 and said, “Words could not make it clearer.” I believe he was right. A contemporary of his, Melancthon, said, “We cannot apply a passage theologically until we have first understood it textually.” I agree with this also. Our usage of any scripture must be geared to the words in the text. This is the only way it can accurately convey what is in the mind of God.
Yes, I realize that we need to consider all other passages on a given point and to apply our capacity to understand. When we do that in this case, we look at how the apostles preached what Jesus said, beginning with Acts 2, the truthfulness of what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 is demonstrated. But when our “understanding” contradicts the Bible statement and conradicts the preaching of the apostles, the problem is serious.
I once visited a Baptist church as a guest speaker. That day the preacher stood with a Bible in His hand which said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved,” and said to the audience, “Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.” Now think a minute. This does not mean that I am questioning his ancestry nor that I indict his motives. It simply recognizes a fact. He contradicted what Jesus said. Later I said to him privately, “When you take grace and go that way with it and we take baptism and go this way with it, it means that we ask people to choose which passages to throw out and which ones to obey. Wouldn’t it make more sense to accept both scriptures since God spoke them, and try to understand how they harmonize?” He agreed that this makes sense.
Harmonizing the scriptures is not the same thing as trying to negotiate with God. Jay agrees that it is God’s decree that salvation will occur at baptism. “But Lord there are extenuating circumstances!” seems to follow that. Yes, there are, but we do not have authority to modify God’s decree to suit personal circumstances. My obligation is to proclaim His message without alteration. Judgment as to exceptions is not mine to give. It belongs to God. The same is true of one who finds the truth in the dessert but never makes it to where there is water, or one who sincerely loves the Lord but is mistaught, or one who for whatever reason is deprived of the privilege of baptism. God will judge those cases. Judgment of that kind has not been given to us.
Loyalty to the word often gets mistaken for stubbornness or self righteousness. But the fact is God said, “My word will not return to me void. It will accomplish that for which I sent it.” (Isa. 55:11) “You think you are the only ones going to heaven!” is not a valid argument against what the text says. “It is rude and unkind of you to say that!” is not a valid argument against what the text says. No, I do not think I am infallible. I believe God is. All it takes to convince me of anything is a passage that says it. Anything I own I can be persuaded to give in on it. But I do not own the Gospel. My concern is the same as the Lord’s as stated in Matthew 7:22-23, those who at the judgment will be turned away. Jesus said He will say to them, “I never knew you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.” This is why it troubles me that people are being told that it is not true that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him. Jesus said lawlessness will condemn our souls.
Olan Hicks
born of water and [of] the Spirit
Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
1Cr 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
You can not enter into heaven, without first being baptized for remission of sin,
and you must be raised from death, in a spiritual body. flesh and blood can not enter heaven. born of water, later to be born of spirit. I don’t believe that both happen at the same time.
“We should be honest about the conditions and the hardships of the narrow way Christ invites us to; but we should also paint heaven in the brightest colors possible, so that we know it is worth the effort. But I will never ever again preach a “just believe and be saved”-message, because this is simply NOT true.”
Alex, I fully agree- baptism is passage on to the ark, not a guard rail to keep you from falling off.
Alexander, I like your literary interpretation of Mark 16:16. It suggests that while we do have some active part in the process, it is God himself who gathers us in, not Who merely admits us to the house after we present him with our notarized Certificate of Compliance With The Five Steps.
Olan, you said: “Brethren today whose interpretations of scripture produce conclusions that contradict Bible statements are liberals in that they take the kind of liberties Peter said makes them ‘sevants of corruption’.”
Olan, you are welcome to define the word “liberal” as you please, I suppose, but here you seem to be declaring certain persons to be “liberals” as I would not have suspected. Folks who forbid speaking in tongues, who judge as unsaved believers who wear denominational labels, who preach that for two congregations to cooperate in caring for orphans is wrong, who insist that without baptism, a believer does not have eternal life– all these are actions or interpretive constructs which fly in the face of simple scripture. I confess I have never before heard these brethren described as liberals. Taking the “liberty” to forbid what God has not forbidden is no less a form of license than approving what God has forbidden.
I think that I see a more common definition being applied here. “A liberal is someone who allows something which I don’t.”
I meant to post this along with my last post.
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
fastest growing church of any type in my area, if only we had more react to baptisms like they do.
You might not like the music that goes with it, but the reactions of the audience, and the ones being baptized are wonderful in my opinion
Faith includes baptism. Because we lack a holistic understanding of words, being more Greek in our thinking than Hebrew, we create dilemmas: faith vs. obedience, faith vs. confession in salvation, faith vs. baptism in salvation. The root of faith (Greek pistis) is “trust.” Confessing our faith is part of our initial placing of trust in Christ. Baptism, which accompanies confession and has a confessional component (i.e. Romans 6; our re-enactment of Jesus’ burial and resurrection is a proclamation that it happened), is also part of our initial placing of trust in Jesus. Initial repentance is part of our initial placing of trust in Jesus.
I pray that God makes exceptions for those who are not baptized. I sincerely hope that God views their failure as a cognitive failure, not a failure of their will towards God. But every declaration that we can be CERTAIN about such exceptions seems to depend on separating faith from baptism. The verses quoted about faith do not make any reference to a faith that can be separated from baptism, nor to a faith that can be separated from confession, nor to a faith that can be separated from repentance. A holistic understanding of these terms is needed.
A FINAL WORD
I will not presume to dominate this blog site. I think I have stated my position clearly and I am sure that Jay and the rest of you would like to discuss other matters. For any who would like to discuss with me further my e-mail address is http://[email protected] My web site is http://www.olanhicks.com
I think the word “sacrament” needs some clarification. It seems to be getting handled a bit recklessly. Its meaning in Catholic theology is illustrated by Charlemagne, king of the Francs. When he conquered the Saxons he marched that army down to the sea shore and forced them at sword point to be baptized, thinking to save them. It is illustrated again in the baptizing of babies. Although a baby has no ability to believe or repent it is thought that baptism will remove its sin stain and make it a child of God. Evidently the thinking is that God has placed that power in baptism and that it will work in abstract. In churches of Christ we do not believe that God has placed any power in baptism. What we do believe is that God’s promise to remove our sins at baptism and to adopt us into His family is a promise that He will keep. Paul said we are “buried with Him in baptism, where in also you are risen with Him through faith in the working of God.” (Co. 2:12) It is not faith the water or faith in the power of the act. It is faith in the working of God. There is no way that man can make a substitute for this that will work.
Finally, please think about this. The divine part of the church is perfect. We have a perfect God. The head of the church is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect, and the word of God is perfect. But the members of the church are human and are not perfect. We must not let that fact cause us to think we must throw out the whole idea of the church, as some brethren seem to think. Instead let us pursue perfection, as Jesus commanded in the sermon on the mount, looking to the perfect head and His perfect word as the standard. In that way we will grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. The grace that forgives our imperfections is for those who accept God’s covenant. (Heb. 8:10-12) There is no such grace for those who practice lawlessness. To them Jesus says, “I never knew you.”
Thanks to Jay for the courtesy of posting what I have said and thanks to each of you for considering it. I hope it is helpful.
Olan Hicks
Guys, I’m almost 27 years old, and, in my time in CofC college and having grown up CofC, I’ve come to this conclusion….let say before I state my conclusion that I scrolled on down to comment, I did not bother to read “the arguments” as I have read these plenty of times before and have made many of these arguments myself. I am writing simply as one who frequents this blog and as one who is tired of what is, honestly, infantile and immature arguing back and forth. Only, so many don’t see it this way, because we in the “evangelical” world pride ourselves on our intellect. More often than not, intellectualism is a BARRIER to faith and relationship with God, and not a proponent. Much of Christian fundamentalism is spiritual immaturity dressed up to appear mature and wise!
I put that disclaimer out there to say this, as one who has strongly held to the “traditional Church of Christ” view of baptism and later after college a more “Baptist’ view of baptism, this is a CofC sacred cow I seldom if ever address anymore. It’s not so important to me anymore WHAT you believe about baptism as much as if you have been baptized. Let’s get past all of the acadamia and intellectualism folks. Let’s get past religion, and into what Christian faith is REALLY all about…..RELATIONSHIP!
I believe the more and more we begin to view baptism from a relational standpoint, the more we begin to see Baptism as a marriage ceremony with God than some arbitrary religious command, the line in the sand of “who’s in and who’s out” the less we’ll see debates about it such as what has been happening on here. That’s all I have to say, take from it what you will! God’s blessings to everyone on here! Regardless of WHAT you may say you believe about baptism, you’re all my family in Christ Jesus, all who love the Lord their God with all of their hearts!
Don’t take me as someone against water baptism, but didn’t we receive a promise of a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Point being John baptised with water Jesus with the Holy Spirit. In fact it seems in scripture that it’s a forgone conclusion that if you except Jesus as Lord and Savior including repentance you will be baptised.
eric, we pretty much comprehend what it means to be baptized in water, we have witnessed it many times, but what does it mean to be baptized into the Holy Spirit, have you ever witnessed that, could it not be in this life at all, maybe in the spiritual life?
Laymond, Sorry for not explaining my point clearer. I guess what I’m getting at is we want to put God in a box He doesn’t always fit in. My experience is somewhat different than many on this site in that I came up in a Church that never really mentioned the opportunity of having a relationship with God this side of heaven. Then one day a Gideon preacher came and spoke just that, that all I had to do was except Jesus as Lord and Savior and repent and I could talk to God anytime I wanted. So I did and yes I feel I received the Holy Spirit right then. All of a sudden sermons and scripture made since. So I believe there is an ideal experience that some here are talking about, but there are scriptures in the New Testament that point to others. For example gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit prior to baptism and another receiving Christ on a cross next to Christ. And as far as the baptism of the Holy Spirit I think there were some who had only been baptized in to Jesus and only received the Holy Spirit latter at the laying on of hands by the apostles. So I don’t think the baptism of the Holy Spirit is after death according to scripture. I say all this as someone who would like to know more on the subject. I think it’s always best to seek the ideal while allowing that there may be some wiggle room in reality.
Adam,
You are wise above your years!
In most cases its pride that is the culprit. Thinking higher intellect in most cases shows a lack of it.
It would be interesting to have a poll about how many have changed their minds in debates and who was the one that caused you to consider your past thinking and then change.
I feel the numbers would be low.
This is far more entertaining than educational and for that I am thankful as we all need to laugh more.
Pingback: Acts 2:38: My Reply Olan Hicks’ Comments on Baptism | One In Jesus
Lots of thinking & lots of comments & lots of thoughts on the topic of baptism being neccessary for salvation or not. I wish to point to some scripture & inject some thoughts on the subject of baptism.
First, one gentleman stated that Jesus in John 5 talks about having eternal life because– and when– we believe. He stated that he prefered to think that Jesus’ words here are neither imperfect nor did he simply forget about baptism in this discourse. Please know my heart that its not my intention to single anyone person statements in this blog. In this passage of John 5 verse 24 Jesus says ‘I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” Truly the gentleman said rightly that Jesus’ words are not imperfect nor does he forget. Can we also agree to say Jesus will never contradict himself in all the words he spoke?
I wish to bring attention to some other passages of scripture. In John 12:47-48, and pointing to verse 48 Jesus said “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” Surly it is not I nor anyone else who is the judge on the last day. Also I surly can’t possibly be one who can tell God just what ‘grace’ he must bestow on anyone. God most certainly is, among a host of other things, a God of ‘grace’. All that any of us can do is just go the scriptures and point out to others just what the scriptures say on any one topic, such as salvation. Do we not have the responsibility then to go to all the scriptures that have words speaking on salvation. These are neither imperfect nor contridictory!
Mark 16:15-16 is another passage that we see Jesus speaking about salvation. May I first point out one of the words Jesus used in this passage, the word ‘and’. The Greek dictionaries say this word is a connecting word between two statements of equal value. (I’m speaking from memory so please look this up for yourselves). Jesus used this word twice in these 2 verses. 1. “Go into all the world ‘and’ preach the good news to all creation.” I don’t think it would have had much effect on the world if the good news would have just been preached in Jerusalem. 2. Jesus then said “Whoever believes ‘and’ is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” How can we acknowledge the word ‘and’ in verse 15 and not acknowledge it in verse 16? A comment about whoever does not believe will be condemned, is needed here. Most surly if one does not believe that part of the good news is to believe in Jesus, then nothing else matters. Not repentance, nor baptism will do anything without first believing in Jesus the Christ. May I say that the word ‘and’ is also one of the words Jesus used in John 5:24.
While we are here in Mark 16 let me do some scripture twisting.
1. Did Jesus say “Go into all the world & preach the good news to all creation and whoever believes will be saved and can be baptized later?
No Jesus did not say that!
2. Did Jesus say go into all the world & preach the good news & whoever believes will be saved & they never have to be baptized?
No Jesus did not say that!
3. Did Jesus say go into all the world & baptize all babies they will be saved and they can believe later?
No Jesus did not say that!
4. Did Jesus say go into all the world and preach the good news and they who believe can say the sinners prayer and they will be saved?
No Jesus did not say that either!
Let me make a couple comments on the above. 1. There are many, many, many people who practice all the 4 word twisting I used. 2. On number 4 that I used, Looking at Acts 9:1-19, Paul became a believer and he repented and Jesus told him what he must do. This passage tells us that Jesus told Ananias that Paul was at a certain place and that he, Paul, was praying. Jesus encourged Ananias that it was alright for him to go and preach to Paul. In Acts 22:16 Paul states in his own words that Ananias said to him “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash away your sins away, calling on his name.” I know, I know, we don’t have the words Paul prayed for those three days. Would anyone think that he wasn’t repented and that he wasn’t sorry? If, and I admit it is a if, Paul, in the praying he did ask for forgiviness he still had his sins, or Ananias was wrong and we don’t read that he was, in saying to Paul get up and be baptized warshing away your sins. Also Jesus surly knew what Ananias would say!!
I surly am not the judge as I don’t sit on any throne. We just have to preach what the scriptures tell us to preach about salvation, using all the scriptures.