An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[Wittenberger]

What does your final authority tell you - traditions of men?

I will tell you what the CONTEXTUAL BASED EVIDENCE provides to interpret this text.

In the preceding context (Mt. 9-11) the scribes and Pharisees had been presented with overwhelming evidence by the power of the Holy Spirit working through Jesus that he was that promised Messiah that John the Baptist heralded.

In the immediate context those guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit know the truth but not merely reject it but intentionally attribute the confirming work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ to the work of the Devil. Hence, those who are guilty have two characteristics thus far:

1. Light in the mind
2. Hate in the heart

Hence, they are not believers but lost unregenerate religious people. Proof?

Mt. 12:14 ¶ Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

Second, the nature of this work of the Holy Spirit is to confirm among men that Jesus is the promised Messiah:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Third, this sin is attributing this confirming work to be of the Devil.

Fourth, it seems to be a sin restricted to the earthly ministry of Jesus whereby the Holy Spirit is confirming his Messiahship.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [Gr. aeon = age], neither in the world [Gr. aeon = age] to come.

However, there are at least three contextual factors that cannot be disputed:

1. This is a sin committed by those who have light in the mind - they know
2. This is a sin committed by those who have hate in the heart - They seek his destruction
3. This is a sin that attributes the confirmation work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ to the devil.

This is a sin committed by UNREGENERATED RELIGIOUS non-believers who attribute the confirming work that Jesus is the Christ to the devil.

Now, learn a lesson here! Did I present MY FEELINGS or did I present contextual data? My interpretation is based upon the contextual data not my feelings. Can you deal with the contextual data I presented? Can you show that THE EVIDENCE upon which I based my convictions is false? If so, I will change my interpretation because my interpretation depends upon correctly identifying the contextual data NOT MY FEELINGS. However, if you cannot overturn the CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE then according to what is your final authority for your interpretation??? Your feelings? Traditions of men? What?

You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, brother. Let me give you an example:

The passage of Scripture at the Last Supper that states: "This is my body... this is my blood..."

The words just quoted are the literal, inspired words of God Himself.

Lutherans interpret this verse to mean: "is" means "is". He is not speaking metaphorically.

Baptists/evangelicals interpret this verse to mean: "is" does not mean "is". He is speaking metaphorically.

Neither the Lutheran nor the Baptist/evangelical INTERPRETATION is inspired Scripture. They are solely OUR interpretations, which means we or you could be wrong.

That is the issue. If you quoted to me the words of God, I accept them as inspired. When you start telling me what God's words so"obviously" mean with other words, not those of God, you are expressing an opinion. Just because I don't see the things your way does not mean I am blind because I am a lost sinner!! Believe it or not, YOU COULD BE WRONG!

 

[The Biblicist]

You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say, brother. Let me give you an example:

The passage of Scripture at the Last Supper that states: "This is my body... this is my blood..."

The words just quoted are the literal, inspired words of God Himself.

Lutherans interpret this verse to mean: "is" means "is". He is not speaking metaphorically.

Baptists/evangelicals interpret this verse to mean: "is" does not mean "is". He is speaking metaphorically.

Neither the Lutheran nor the Baptist/evangelical INTERPRETATION is inspired Scripture. They are solely OUR interpretations, which means we or you could be wrong.

That is the issue. If you quoted to me the words of God, I accept them as inspired. When you start telling me what God's words so"obviously" mean with other words, not those of God, you are expressing an opinion. Just because I don't see the things your way does not mean I am blind because I am a lost sinner!! Believe it or not, YOU COULD BE WRONG!

You are avoiding the real issue. You said my interpretation was FEELING BASED when it is not. It is EVIDENCE based. You said it was circular reasong when it is not. So it is you that misunderstands the nature of our argument.

Second, your example proves my point. We do not arbritrarily believe that "is" is metaphorical in that text. We believe that because of the overall Biblical context of Scripture and can demonstrate by the EVIDENCE it must be understood so or else you have the scriptures contradicting themselves abundantly in a variety of areas. Our intepretation is EVIDENCE based.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are avoiding the real issue. You said my interpretation was FEELING BASED when it is not. It is EVIDENCE based. You said it was circular reasong when it is not. So it is you that misunderstands the nature of our argument.

Second, your example proves my point. We do not arbritrarily believe that "is" is metaphorical in that text. We believe that because of the overall Biblical context of Scripture and can demonstrate by the EVIDENCE it must be understood so or else you have the scriptures contradicting themselves abundantly in a variety of areas. Our intepretation is EVIDENCE based.

When you were unable to respond to the Biblical EVIDENCE I presented that proved your interpetation was wrong you responded this way:

Originally Posted by Wittenberger
The problem with Baptists and evangelicals is that you have convinced yourselves that your interpretation of Scripture IS the inspired Word of God, therefore anyone who disagrees with you has to be of Satan, and blind to the ways of God

This statement you are convinced represents the real difficulty between my interpretation of scriptures and your intepretation of scriptures.

However, that is simply false. My interpretation is not based on arbritrary feelings but upon BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. Biblical evidence that you could not respond to except by ignoring it and making this irrational and false charge.

Any interpretation of scripture that cannot be supported by the EVIDENCE of Biblical context OR opposes the Biblical contextual EVIDENCE should not be embraced.

The truth is that my feelings are the resultant consequence of my convictions which are also the resultant consequences of rationally evaluating all the EVIDENCE provided by the Biblical context. However, your interrpretations are circulur in nature. You approach scripture from TRADITION in order to prove your TRADITION - now that is truely circular reasoning.

 

[Wittenberger]

You are avoiding the real issue. You said my interpretation was FEELING BASED when it is not. It is EVIDENCE based. You said it was circular reasong when it is not. So it is you that misunderstands the nature of our argument.

Second, your example proves my point. We do not arbritrarily believe that "is" is metaphorical in that text. We believe that because of the overall Biblical context of Scripture and can demonstrate by the EVIDENCE it must be understood so or else you have the scriptures contradicting themselves abundantly in a variety of areas. Our intepretation is EVIDENCE based.

Did I say somewhere that your beliefs are based on your feelings? If I did I apologize. Everyone knows that fundamentalists are some of the most versed Christians in memorizing and knowing Scripture. But that doesn't mean that your interpretation is INSPIRED. It is still just your interpretation as my interpretation is mine.

You and I are human and therefore fallible. The rules of interpretation that you use are based on human "common sense" and logic. They SEEM true to you, but since they are of man, they are potentially fallible.

Can you please admit that it IS possible, since you are a man, and therefore fallible, that you may be wrong on one or more of your beliefs regarding Scripture? Or are we to believe that you hold yourself and your doctinal views as infallibe?

 

[The Biblicist]

But that doesn't mean that your interpretation is INSPIRED.

Your apologies ring empty when you say "IF" becuase I quoted verbatim your own words where you made that charge!

I never claimed inspiration! That was YOU CHARGE which is just as false as your charge that my interpretations are feeling based!

Neither is it "my" interpetation as opposed to "your" interpretation. I provided contextual evidence that you could not overturn which exposed that it was "YOUR" interpretation rather than what the Scriptural evidence demands is the Biblical view.

I will NEVER admit that something is "interpretation" as long as NNE can overthrow the EVIDENCE it is based upon! If you want to challenge it, then do so and offer evidence it is wrong. However, don't hold your breath for me to admit to "possible" error when there is NOTHING to indicate it is anything other than the teaching of the Word of God.

 

[Wittenberger]

Your apologies ring empty when you say "IF" becuase I quoted verbatim your own words where you made that charge!

I never claimed inspiration! That was YOU CHARGE which is just as false as your charge that my interpretations are feeling based!

Neither is it "my" interpetation as opposed to "your" interpretation. I provided contextual evidence that you could not overturn which exposed that it was "YOUR" interpretation rather than what the Scriptural evidence demands is the Biblical view.

I will NEVER admit that something is "interpretation" as long as NNE can overthrow the EVIDENCE it is based upon! If you want to challenge it, then do so and offer evidence it is wrong. However, don't hold your breath for me to admit to "possible" error when there is NOTHING to indicate it is anything other than the teaching of the Word of God.

Exactly. You are a fundamentalist. This is the fundamentalist world view:
"My interpretation of Scripture has to be right because it makes perfect sense to me."

If this were true, there wouldn 't be so many different Baptist/evangelical groups, each promoting their interpretation AS the very Word of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly. You are a fundamentalist. This is the fundamentalist world view:
"My interpretation of Scripture has to be right because it makes perfect sense to me."
.

You seem to have an apparent inability to understand what you read. Now you are making a third false charge. First, it was "FEELING" based interpretations. Second it was "INSPIRED" claimed interpretation. Now, it is "SENSE" based interpretation. Of course place your brain on a shelf and let traditions dictate your faith.

What is it that you don't understand about the terms "CONTEXTUL FACTS"? The issue of right versus wrong is simply the CONTEXTUAL FACTS!

The truth is that your interpretation is based upon TRADITIONS and your final authority is TRADITIONS and the Bible has no value in your interpretative method EXCEPT to confirm your Traditional bias.

If this were true, there wouldn 't be so many different Baptist/evangelical groups, each promoting their interpretation AS the very Word of God

Same problem! The root of every Biblical disagreement and division is based upon the denial, refusal, rejection, overlooking of CONTEXTUAL FACTS.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next passage of Scripture:


Mark 5:24-34
English Standard Version (ESV)


24 And he went with him.

And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

What healed this woman? Her faith or the act of touching Christ's garment?

Answer: her faith!

It was her faith that healed her, but she received the benefit of her faith (healing) when she performed the act. Many times in the Bible God uses an external means to display on the outside what he does on the inside!

 

[The Biblicist]

Next passage of Scripture:


Mark 5:24-34
English Standard Version (ESV)


24 And he went with him.

And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. 25 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” 29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

What healed this woman? Her faith or the act of touching Christ's garment?

Answer: her faith!

It was her faith that healed her, but she received the benefit of her faith (healing) when she performed the act. Many times in the Bible God uses an external means to display on the outside what he does on the inside!

Thanks any way! We have two differnent final authorities. Your final authority is really and genuinely YOU. My final authority is not merely the scriptures but the contextual pattern of self-definition provided by the scriptures. By "self-definition" I do not mean it is a dictionary that defines its words, as to root and usage but it provides a rational context that provides everything necessary for the reader to arrive at the contextual intent.

Have fun!

 

[Wittenberger]

Thanks any way! We have two differnent final authorities. Your final authority is really and genuinely YOU. My final authority is not merely the scriptures but the contextual pattern of self-definition provided by the scriptures. By "self-definition" I do not mean it is a dictionary that defines its words, as to root and usage but it provides a rational context that provides everything necessary for the reader to arrive at the contextual intent.

Have fun!

Would the woman have been healed if she simply had faith that Christ could heal her? Maybe. Christ has the power to read our thoughts and our hearts. So she could have been 50 ft. away from him and he would still have known what was going on in her heart and mind. God is not limited in his healing power. He could have healed her from 50 ft. away. So why didn't he?

We don't know. All we do know is that by his divine will, he chose to heal her in the act of touching his garment.

No act saves or heals in and of itself. It is always God who saves or heals. Many times, however in both the OT and the NT, he uses external means to demonstrate an internal, spiritual change.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next passage of Scripture:


Mark 9:17-29
English Standard Version (ESV)


17 And someone from the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a spirit that makes him mute. 18 And whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid. So I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.” 19 And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” 23 And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out[a] and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” 25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” 26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose. 28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” 29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

Footnotes:a.Mark 9:24 Some manuscripts add with tears
b.Mark 9:29 Some manuscripts add and fasting


We see in this passage a father who is desparate to have Jesus heal his son of an evil spirit...and this is one BAD spirit! The disciples have failed to cast the spirit out of him. The father cries out to Jesus: "If you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us."

Jesus replies: "If you can! All things are possible for one who believes."

The father cried out: "I believe, help my unbelief!"

This father did not have perfect faith as some might demand for salvation. He did not believe 100% that Christ could save his son, but he chose to believe anyway.

That's all Christ asks, "All things are possible for one who believes."

Believe in Christ. Believe that he can save you. Believe that he can give you eternal life. Believe it without demanding to see fire from heaven or some other miracle. Believe in Christ by faith, and you WILL be saved.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage of Scripture:


Mark 4:13-20
English Standard Version (ESV)


13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.[a] 18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

Footnotes:a.Mark 4:17 Or stumble

Here again we have the Parable of the Sower. The sower is sowing the Word of God. Where does he sow the Word of God?

1. along the path: they hear the Word, but Satan immediately steals away the Word that "is sown in them".

2. on rocky ground: they hear the Word, recieve it with joy, but have no roots. They endure for a while but when persecution comes on account of the Word, they fall away.

3. among thorns: they hear the Word, but the cares of the world and the lure of riches and the desire for worldly things enter in and choke the Word, and it proves unfruitful.

4. on good soil: the ones who hear the Word and accept it and bear fruit.

Sounds to me that all four groups are beleivers. Notice in the first group these words: "Satan...takes away the Word that is sown in them." How can someone have the Word "in them" if they are not a believer??

I believe this parable clearly demonstrates that true believers CAN fall away and perish.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next passage of Scripture:

This is just a point of interest. Reading through both Matthew and Mark it struck me how disbelieving the disciples were about Jesus' ability to provide food for them.

In Mark chapter 6 they question him how he will feed the five thousand. He does so with five loaves of bread and two fish.

In Mark chapter 8 there are four thousand people to feed and the disciples ask, "How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?" Christ does so with seven loaves of bread and a "few" small fish.

THEN further on in chapter 8, Christ and his disciples are in a boat presumably on the Sea of Galilee. They only have one loaf of bread in the boat. Do the disciples lean over to Jesus and say, "Hey, Lord, we're out of bread. Could you do another miracle and make a couple more for us?

But no. They begin to grumble about the fact that they don't have enough bread!!!

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage of Scripture:


Mark 10:25-27
English Standard Version (ESV)

25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him,[a] “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

This is the parable of the Rich Young Noble again. Jesus discusses how hard it is for people who have "everything" to give it up and follow him. The disciples then ask, "Then who can be saved?"

Jesus' reply is that "all things are possible with God." Almighty God can save whomever He chooses.

We are saved by his divine will. We are predestined to be his children before the world existed. HE chooses us, we do not choose him.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage of Scripture:


Mark 10:38-40
English Standard Version (ESV)


38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

The Apostles James and John come to Jesus and ask to sit at his right and left hands in his kingdom. (In Matthew it says that their mother was the one who asked this question to Christ)

What did Christ mean when he talked about the "cup" and "baptsim" that they would also participate in? Trials and tribulations? Or is Christ speaking literally of the cup of the Lord's Supper and of Christian baptism?

 

[Wittenberger]

Next Passage of Scripture


Mark 12:28-31
English Standard Version (ESV)


The Great Commandment

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

What are the two most important duties of a Christian?

Be a good preacher of the Gospel?
Be the most knowledgable Christian regarding Scripture?
Be the best debater of theology?
Give alot of money to the church?
Keep the OT Law?
Keep the NT Law: legalism?

According to Christ himself the answer to all of these is "no".

Christ says the most important duties of a believer are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself.

How many of us truly follow that second command? How many of us put our needs and our desires before those of our neighbor? I am guilty of not following this command nearly as much as I should!

Every day of our lives, when we wake up in the morning, let us each pray this prayer:

"Lord God, heavenly Father, help me in my sinful human state to love you with my whole heart, my whole soul, and with my whole mind, and with all my strength. Help me today and everyday to truly love my neighbor just as much or more than I love and look after myself."

Amen.

 

[Wittenberger]

Next passage of Scripture:


Mark 13:11-13
English Standard Version (ESV)


11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Some Christians believe that this last part of the thirteenth chapter of Mark is talking about the end times. That's possible, but it sounds more to me that he is prophesying about the coming persecution under Nero and other Roman ceasars.

The last verse is very interesting: "he that endures to the end will be saved."

If a Christian stops enduring for Christ, rejects Christ, and turns to a life of sin and a lust for the things of the world, he will not be saved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Would the woman have been healed if she simply had faith that Christ could heal her? Maybe. Christ has the power to read our thoughts and our hearts. So she could have been 50 ft. away from him and he would still have known what was going on in her heart and mind. God is not limited in his healing power. He could have healed her from 50 ft. away. So why didn't he?

We don't know. All we do know is that by his divine will, he chose to heal her in the act of touching his garment.

No act saves or heals in and of itself. It is always God who saves or heals. Many times, however in both the OT and the NT, he uses external means to demonstrate an internal, spiritual change.

Yes which points to Sacramental view of things. And you see this principle repeated throughout scripture.

The misconseption about sacraments is that the act provides the grace. And this is not true. The reality of sacraments is that Grace is provided by God through faith which enables the faithful to act in faith and makes the action efficacious. Which is why Catholics define sacraments as an

outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n. 4, ex St. Augustine, "De Catechizandis rudibus")

The woman has faith when she touches the tzitzit of Jesus' tallit gadol and is healed. Jesus feels power going out from him. Her faith is the catalyst, the tocuhing of the tzitzit is the vehicle by which God Heals her. Was she healed before touching the tzitzit? No but when she touched it in faith.

 

[Wittenberger]

Yes which points to Sacramental view of things. And you see this principle repeated throughout scripture.

The misconseption about sacraments is that the act provides the grace. And this is not true. The reality of sacraments is that Grace is provided by God through faith which enables the faithful to act in faith and makes the action efficacious. Which is why Catholics define sacraments as an

The woman has faith when she touches the tzitzit of Jesus' tallit gadol and is healed. Jesus feels power going out from him. Her faith is the catalyst, the tocuhing of the tzitzit is the vehicle by which God Heals her. Was she healed before touching the tzitzit? No but when she touched it in faith.

I am VERY happy to hear that Roman Catholics and Lutherans are in agreement that the act of baptism itself does not save!

However, just as in the story above of the woman who touched the hem of Christ's garment and was healed, God uses baptism as a means of giving us salvation in an outward, external act to demonstrate his Almighty power and abundant grace to all who witness the act. He gives a sign or figure on the outside, of His gracious work on the inside, in our hearts. The act has never saved! It is always God who saves!

Let me give an allegory:

Bob and Jim are in a ship in the middle of the ocean in the middle of a great strom. Bob is thrown from the ship into the choppy waters of the sea, to his certain death.

However, Jim throws a rope to Bob. Bob grabs the rope and Jim pulls him to safety.

Who saved Bob? The rope or Jim??

JIM, saved Bob, of course, but he used the rope to do it!

So it is with baptism. It is God who saves us, but he uses a rope (baptism), a visible, tangible object, to demonstrate externally with water, what he is doing internally to our soul with his precious blood. The means or act does not save, it is only an instrument used by God as a sign, a symbol, of an internal, spiritual act performed and completed solely by God's holy and almighty power.

 

[Wittenberger]

Last passage from the Gospel of Mark:

Mark 16:14-16
English Standard Version (ESV)

The Great Commission

14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.


I grew up the son of a fundamentalist Baptist preacher and until I became a Lutheran in my twenties I had never heard or read this passage of Holy Scripture.

Jesus Christ himself says "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

What????????

That doesn't sound like Christ believes that baptism is just an ordinance to me!

Now, the credobaptists I have spoken to say one of two things about this passage:
1. The last part of the verse states that it is unbelief that damns you, so baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

2. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain verses 9-20, therefore it is doubtful that this verse is the inspired Word of God.

Let me address the second response first: Baptists, who deny the validity of all early Church History, who declare ALL the Church Fathers were apostate Catholics are NOW going to depend on historical data to declare these verses as uninspired??? Give me a break!

Now to the first response: Let's do a word substitution for some of the main words in Mark 16:16.

believes = buys a ticket
is baptized = shows up at 9:00 AM
will be saved = will win
will be condemned = loses

Ok, so here is the reconstructed verse: Whoever buys a ticket and shows up at 9:00 AM will win, but whoever does not buy a ticket will lose!

So what does this sentence say in simple, plain ol' English: If you want to win you have to buy a ticket AND show up at 9:00 AM! If you don't even bother to buy a ticket, showing up at 9:00 AM doesn't even matter...because you've already LOST, you didn't buy a ticket!!!

Why is it necessary for our Baptist and evangelical brothers and sisters to make the Bible so complicated? Just read it with the faith of a child and believe it's simple, plain English interpretation!