The "All things" of Romans 8:28

I've been told that there are many scholars that believe that Mark 16:9-20 were not written by John Mark. Maybe that's why it counters Acts 16

Acts 16: 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.

Something else about Mark 16 nobody likes to talk about, except the post above I don't hear much about the powers of the believers.

17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new languages; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

It says 'These signs will accompany ', not "These signs may accompany '. 'They will', not 'they may'. 'Those who believe', not 'some who believe'.

I have 3 Bible translations and they all note that 9-20 are not in early copies of John Marks manuscripts.

So how much poison you believers drink this week?

I know you can't pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible but is Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible?

JB
A believer lacking in his Mark 16 powers.

 

Hello JB. You are right that Mark 16 is not a welcome sight to many. You can find where I make reference to this on the first page of this thread.

Some finding what they believe to be a contradiction and unable to comprehend will call it a contradiction, as they do not believe scripture to begin with, or just cannot make the pieces fit. Others are not so forth coming, and wish to put doubt into the believer’s mind, or in their mind is doubt. Then others can find proof that at some point this was not in previous “text” known to man. But then there could very well be “texts” unknown that could exist, or “text” could have been destroyed that did contain the words. These will normally find error in other scripture, for to some there is many so called discrepancies in His Word.

So I believe all we can do is take the Word of God as is presented to us today, for this is what the Holy Spirit puts before us. We cannot trust men, regardless of how well meaning, or knowledgeable they seem.

The references you give are not contradictory, when understood. We are not as they today. We have something better. We are in the Body of Christ, Once Saved Always Saved. The Jew in that dispensation was prepared to go into the “kingdom” that John the Baptist said was at hand. That gospel today is no longer valid, as you can see in your Acts 16 quote. This is very hard for people to accept for they have not been taught the dispensational gospel that Christ gave to Paul. Paul tells us very plainly that God today is dispensing His Grace differently – ”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” Ephesians 3:1-2. Christ gave to Paul a New gospel.

The nation of Israel refused their King, and after the Power of the filling of the Holy Ghost was withdrawn, He began baptizing us into the Body of Christ Church, sealing us in. This is different than the “kingdom that was at hand”, the “kingdom to come”. We find in scripture, after Acts 9, and then 10 the gospel of the Jew to “repent and baptized for the remission of sins” is no longer preached. As the Christian message of “grace” progressed, the power of the Holy Ghost began to be withdrawn. We see the last vestiges of this power are removed before Paul reaches Rome. Christian faith, ituttut

 

When the application of Scripture gives me the ability to forgive others or think more highly of them, then I feel that I understand that Scripture. Romans 8:28 does give me that ability.

 

ituttut,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I find no contradiction in the Bible myself ituttut, but I find it interesting how these verses have been misinterpreted and used as stumbling blocks for salvation. No where in the NT does Christ require the help of man to dispense His grace. Christ never baptized by water and if He would have He would of not fulfilled the prophesy of John The Baptist. But all will read Mark 16:16 to their own betterment.

NCV has a deferent take on the translation.
16:17
And those who believe will be able to do these things as proof: They will use my name to force out demons. They will speak in new languages.
16:18
They will pick up snakes and drink poison without being hurt. They will touch the sick, and the sick will be healed."

This just goes to show you that if you want to know the meaning of the Word you have to go back to the original manuscripts. But if the early manuscripts do not even have your question verses were are you? From what I understand verses 9-20 don’t show up until 100 AD. I maybe wrong on this, I am not a Biblical scholar, but if it is true is it not a violation of the warning in Rev 22?

There are a number of other verses in Mark that were not in the early transcripts but they are not as controversial as these.

These verses also are peculiar to Mark the other Gospels take no note of what appear to be Christ last words on Earth. Could it be that the Church tried to clean up the ending in Mark? Could faults teachings occur from such an act?

There are Bibles in print now that have these verses omitted, it is no small problem in making sure that the words spoken by our Lord are correctly preserved.

JB

 

The "all things" would be what ever gives God the most glory.

 

Sorry for the delay JB. Had requests to visit a couple of other boards, and got tied up.

I completely agree, and have never said anything other than “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved, and perhaps that is what you are saying. But we must admit that Peter is still preaching what Jesus Christ told the Apostles to preach, and that was “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins”. Perhaps we can remove Mark’s gospel, but are we now going to remove Acts also?

Those of Israel asked Peter in Acts 2 what they must do. He told them they must “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins”. This is the “great commission” gospel that Jesus Christ gave to His earthly Apostles to preach.

I agree with you as far as Christ never baptizing, but He didn’t tell others not to. So evidently the seed of Abraham through Jacob were to “repent and be water baptized for the remission of their sins”. I see that they must for they broke the earthly blood covenant they made with God.

We then see Paul as he taught the “grace commission” he will no longer baptize with water, for it is not required of the heathen who is not under that Covenant the nation of God committed to.

We later notice in the gospel of John that after the death of Jesus, there is no mention of baptism, and John does not go near the subject of repent, or baptism in his other writings, other than what he is told to write to God’s nation in the book of Revelation. If the “great commission” was of importance for the remission of sins after Damascus Road, surely John would have told us. But it evidently was required of the Jew before Peter was sent to the first Gentile that he had ever preached to.

Here I’m not quite sure of what you are saying. The warning in chapter 22 is to the book of Revelation. If you are saying John put together what is known as the New Testament, and many of us believe John wrote his books in circa 100 A.D., then John gave his stamp of approval to Mark 16.

Well then it might be best for those that doubt to just remove what they believe should not be included. And if John was talking about the whole bible, then those that don’t believe those verses in Mark should be there, will need to take heed to the warning John issues.[quote

These verses also are peculiar to Mark the other Gospels take no note of what appear to be Christ last words on Earth. Could it be that the Church tried to clean up the ending in Mark? Could faults teachings occur from such an act?

The Church, meaning The Mother Church? Then if she did add to the Word of God, did she also add Acts 2:38-39? ”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call”? If she did, she failed to notice that the children that are afar off are those of the physical seed of Abraham, God’s Bride, the nation of Israel.

Agree. ”Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're saying God allows bad things to happen because He can use them for our good. But that's not what the Bible is saying here:

(Gen 50:20) But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

It doesn't say "God allowed it unto good". It says "God meant it unto good, to bring it to pass". It was God's plan that the brothers would do what they did.

A fine distinction, but a meaningful one, IMO.