Featured What would the following verse mean if

Well, I am sure I will gets lots of disagreement, but I understand John 10:26-27 like this. God in his foreknowledge knew who would believe in time and chose or elected these persons. These are his sheep. Those that God knew would not believe in time are not his sheep.

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Note the order in verse 27, Jesus saiid my sheep #1 hear my voice, and #2 I know them. He knows these persons or sheep in an intimate way because they believed. Compare this to Galatians 4:9;

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

This passage in Galatians is speaking of new believers who in the past did not know God. But now that they have believed they are said to know God.

But note also, very importantly, that this verse also says NOW we are known of God. God did not know us in a personal and intimate way until we believed in time. However, God in his foreknowledge could foresee this future faith and know a believer in time. Compare this to John 10:4-5;

Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

We are elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father (1 Pet 1:2). God has chosen those whom he foresaw would believe in time. God did not know these persons in an intimate way until they believed in time, but God could foresee this in his foreknowledge. These are his sheep. Those God foresaw would not believe are not his sheep. This is why Jesus said, "but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep".

As far as baptism spoken of in Mark 16:16, I have always believed this was speaking of water baptism, but it is possible this is speaking of being baptized into the Spirit. All who believe are baptized into the Spirit, not just some.

 

"of My sheep" and "My sheep" refers to two different groups, my sheep refers to those who belong to Jesus, and therefore are saved already, they are the sheep of His pasture. On the other hand, of My sheep refers to people who are open to the gospel, folks that can receive the gospel with joy. Therefore, people who are not "of My sheep" are not receptive to the gospel.

Next, but every time we see "baptized, baptism, etc in the text, we must discern whether the baptism in view is spiritual (i.e. being baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit) or physical(i.e. a water baptism done by men).

So I agree with Winman, Mark 16:16 appears to be referring to being baptized into Christ spiritually. So this parallels being set apart in Christ on the basis of God crediting our faith as righteousness, and being saved when we are put spiritually in Christ, thus who has believed according to God's assessment and who has been baptized into Christ (the sanctification through the Spirit) shall be saved.

It always gives me pause when a doctrinal discussion is based on Mark 16, the disputed ending. And then one of the verses referenced Matthew 20:23 refers in baptism in the TR but not in the CT. And finally the "baptism" of Luke 12:50 appears to refer to His death, i.e. baptism by fire.

Naturally, I totally disagree with thinking "foreknowledge" refers to foreseeing individuals before they are created. If you study how the words are used biblically, the idea is knowledge formulated or acquired in the past being used in the present. So when God carries our His redemption plan, including choosing believers, it is according to His foreknowledge or according to plan.

 

First, you can't compare Mark and John on the word "believe" because it is used in different context.

Second, "believed" in Mark 16:16 is not spiritual baptism (regeneration). The structure of the sentence means a series of sequential events. He who has believed and has been baptized. "and has been" is a qualifier. There are only two type of New Testament baptism - spiritual (regeneration) and water. Spiritual is ruled out here because of the qualifier used. Water is implied. It's not that water baptism actually has salvific properties; rather that is the first step of obedience for a Christian. It is taking the name of Christ. That identification is so important that Mark ties it to salvation.

 

Calvinists believe we must be "regenerated" before we believe, but do not equate the act of believing as regeneration. So the act of believing is not regeneration, it is putting our trust in Christ alone. Therefore the sequence is (1) we trust in Christ and God accepts this as "believing" and (2) based on His assessment, He baptizes us spiritually into Christ.

So the sequential necessity in the grammar allows for the baptism to be spiritual. It is not ruled out.

 

It is not stated in Mark 16:16 that it is water, but one can infer it by comparing this account of the Great Commission with other accounts:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I would assume most people would take Matthew 28:19 to refer to water baptism. The disciples were to teach people and to baptize them. Only God could baptize with the Holy Spirit. The disciples could baptize with water.

If the parallel holds true, Jesus would be telling His disciples "Go, teach and baptize. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

The question, then, is what does Mark 16:16 communicate?

1. First, the statement is not an imperative or a (first/second/third class) conditional statement. It is a simple indicative statement.
2. The statement does not include all possible conditions. It says nothing about one who believes but is not baptized (the thief on the cross), nor of one that is baptized but does not truly believe (Simon Magus). It only says that one who both believes and is baptized is saved, but one who does not believe is condemned. The operative word in both clauses is believe.
3. The next two verses add yet more criteria:
   
   
   Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
   Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
   
   a. Did every believer perform all these signs?
   b. Did every believer exhibit even one of these signs? For instance, would a new believer need to drink a glass of poison to confirm his salvation?
   
   It is obvious that these signs were not for individual believers to confirm they were saved, but rather to demonstrate the pouring out of the Holy Spirit to confirm the gospel as a whole.​
4. Just as every sign would not necessarily be true of every believer, so water baptism would not necessarily be true of every believer (e.g. death bed conversions like the thief on the cross).
5. Verse 16 is likely indicative for a reason. Jesus just commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel, baptizing converts. He then gives them an indicator of how to judge if a recipient of the gospel preaching is a convert. "If one believes and allows you to baptize him, he responded to your commands. Consider him saved. If one flat out rejects the gospel, shake off the dust from your feet."
6. If water baptism were a sacramental requirement for salvation, it would make human agents necessary mediators between God and man. This would contradict Scripture:
   
   
   1Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​
   
   The human baptizer would be a mediator between Christ Jesus and the gospel recipient. Jesus Christ is High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and replaced the mediatory priesthood of Aaron with His one-time sacrifice. To require human/institutional mediation for salvation makes a mockery of the whole point of the Cross and its fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices.
7. Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:52-8:11 are not found in the manuscripts behind the UBS text. Regardless of one's textual position, trying to argue a doctrinal point based on Mark 16:16 would get you nowhere with someone who does not accept α and B as original.

Hope this helps.

 

So you are saying we elected ourselves and God seconded the motion?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Thanks Aresman for your thoughtful effort concerning the verse. However, the only way the statement is true is if the baptizing is spiritual, all who believe as assessed by God, and spiritually baptized into Christ shall be saved. True 100% of the time. You documented cases were folks were not water baptized but saved, or were professing believers with their faith rejected by God, who were not saved. Therefore the only way this is always true, (shall be saved leaves no wiggle room) is a spiritual baptism based on God crediting the faith as righteousness.

 

Good post above AresMan. This thread indicates the necessity of taking all of Scripture when determining doctrine.

 

Nah, OR. I read one person's definition of election which goes as follows: 1) God votes for you, 2) Satan votes against you, and 3) You cast the deciding vote!!

Two problems with that definition: 1) Satan wasn't a registered voter, and 2) You weren't around when the election took place.

Lest some wish to hurl accusations about this post, let me just state that I'm merely the messenger. I can't say for sure which (if either one) is right.

 

If I am reading correctly I would say to the messenger: Good Job!

 

You must not read well, I said God in his foreknowledge sees who will believe and he (God) elects or chooses those persons.

God can choose to elect a person for any reason he sees fit. If he chooses to elect those who he sees will believe, what is that to you?

I have showed the story in Judges 7 where Gideon had 10,000 men. God told Gideon to bring them down to water. 300 men put their hand to their mouth and lapped like a dog, God chose these 300 men to fight with Gideon.

God chose the 300 who drank like a dog, what is that to you? And if God chooses those that he sees will believe on Christ, what is that to you?

 

Winman, election is unconditional. That means not based on anything that man may or may not do. God chooses those whom He will. What is that to you or me? That is strictly the prerogative of God. Do you read well Winman, God chooses those whom He will and what is that to you or me? That is strictly the prerogative of God.

And Scripture tells us:

Romans 8:29, 30
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The Scripture states God, Winman, not I, not you, God!

Now Winman, foreknow does not mean that God knew who would believe. It is obvious that God knows all things and that includes those who believe and those who will not. So saying that God knows who is going to believe and chooses or elects them on that basis is foolish. That makes God subject to the whims of sinful man!

Now as to your story. The reason God whittled the number of men from 10,000 to 300 has nothing to do with the way they got a drink from the creek. God reduced the number of men so they could not boast: I did it! I did it. I whupped the Midianites but these other 299 helped a little. Rather they had to give God the Glory.

The same is true of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace and those who believe the Doctrines of Grace, they give all Glory to God.

 

My first desire would be to think of the verse as Holy Spirit baptism, but basically a harmony of the gospel accounts would lead me away from that.

I can explain Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:11-12; and 1 Peter 3:21, if necessary.