Overzealous monk

[Les_Richardson]

Tried “Ask an Apologist” but haven’t seen a posting yet so I thought I would try here.

The other day, flipping around the radio dial, I heard a Protestant preacher/teacher say that the “and be baptized” part of Mark 16:16 was added by an “overzealous monk” (his words) and therefore the verse does not imply baptismal grace. This is the verse from NAB;

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

My question is this. Has anyone seen or heard this argument before? Do you have any idea of the source? Is this something just pulled out of the air?

I confess, I never heard of it before, and I was raised by a Baptist minister who I know did not believe in Sacramental Baptism, but rather in Believers Baptism, although it was taught as being obedient to Christ. I always thought it was a case of trying to have it both ways. Either it was necessary for salvation or it was not.

Anyway, has anybody any thoughts? Or if this has been discussed I would appreciate a link. (I tried a search but didn’t see it)

Thanks

 

[Milliardo]

Again, another one of those bunk theories that float around, but that’s only my opinion. Too much immersion on the “Jesus Seminar” will leave you like that.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Milliardo:

Again, another one of those bunk theories that float around, but that’s only my opinion. Too much immersion on the “Jesus Seminar” will leave you like that.

That was more or less my first reaction too.

 

[adstrinity]

My thought on this is, if you remember the station, check out their website & see if there is a mention of that guy. If yes and there is an e-mail, e-mail him asking him his proof of this. If not, ask for the information, or if you can contact him through the radio station. The burden of proof is on him. AND, remember, it doesn’t matter even IF an over zealous monk (when and where) “added” it, the Church taught it before the Bible…AND, for that matter, “For the Kingdom, the power & the glory are yours forever & ever” (or “now & forever”) was also added…he’s not protesting that, is he? Again, the burden of proof is on him.

 

[Malachi4U]

Tsk, Tsk. Those pesky Protestant talking head radio preachers must have had the wind change again! They seem to have invented (reformed) yet another theologically false opinion. Let’s see what several Protestant abridged and edited down to 66 book Bibles read:

NIV “16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

KJV “16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

NLV “16He who puts his trust in Me and is baptized will be saved from the punishment of sin. But he who does not put his trust in” (This version deleted verses 17 & 18 when I looked for them.)

Hum??? Seems to me that even the reformed Bibles use words similar to the NAB, the version authorized by the Church Christ founded and not some secular publishing house out for a buck or a homosexual king rewritting a bible to save his own hide.

When you hear a talking head Protestant preacher spew out anti-Catholic garbage just remember, the truth is not needed as long as what is said will make people believe Catholics are evil. How sad, saving souls with lies.

Don’t bother researching this topic. You won’t find answers just a run around.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Malachi4U:

Don’t bother researching this topic. You won’t find answers just a run around.

I’m inclined to agree. As **adstrinity **points out, the burden of proof is on him. However, it does seem like a lot of work to track him down and challenge him. If I catch the station again I might get his name, and maybe I’ll pursue it. I was just curious if anyone had heard this before.

Actually, the reason it caught my ear was rather personal. I remember growing up hearing that all one had to do was believe and he/she would be saved. At one point as a kid I did make a commitment to Jesus, of a sort, probably the best and sincerest I could at that age. But I remember being quite put out some time later, as a teenager, when I received some pressure to be baptized. I felt like I had been lied to or tricked. They told me all I had to do was believe, but now they were adding on, upping the ante, so to speak. So I basically folded and left the table (to follow through on the metaphor)

Long and the short, I never was baptized until 2 years ago in the Catholic Church. And, in retrospect, I’m glad I rebelled at the time because I was able now to receive Sacramental baptism from a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. To me that is a precious thing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Les Richardson:

Tried “Ask an Apologist” but haven’t seen a posting yet so I thought I would try here.

The other day, flipping around the radio dial, I heard a Protestant preacher/teacher say that the “and be baptized” part of Mark 16:16 was added by an “overzealous monk” (his words) and therefore the verse does not imply baptismal grace. This is the verse from NAB;

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

My question is this. Has anyone seen or heard this argument before? Do you have any idea of the source? Is this something just pulled out of the air?

I confess, I never heard of it before, and I was raised by a Baptist minister who I know did not believe in Sacramental Baptism, but rather in Believers Baptism, although it was taught as being obedient to Christ. I always thought it was a case of trying to have it both ways. Either it was necessary for salvation or it was not.

Anyway, has anybody any thoughts? Or if this has been discussed I would appreciate a link. (I tried a search but didn’t see it)

Thanks

Authorised Version

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Challoner’s revision of the Rheims NT

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.

American Standard Version

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

New King James Version

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Revised Standard Version

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

New American Standard Bible

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Latin Vulgate (Clementine Vulgate of 1592)

qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur

======

This is not conclusive, but does represent more than one type of NT text, in more than one language.

The United Bible Societies Greek NT of 1968 does not suggest that the verse lacked the words in question.

Neither does the 1966 reprint of the second edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Greek NT

There are several conclusions to the end of St. Mark’s Gospel:

The Shorter Ending, which closes it with verse 8

The Longer Ending, which adds verses 9 to 20 - the Church regards these 12 verses as inspired within the meaning of the decree of the Council of Trent on the Sacred Scriptures; but does not have an opinion on their authorship.

The addition between verses 14 and 15 of the Longer Ending called the “Freer Logion”, found in Codex Washingtonianus.

See all three here:

faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb522.html

So, there is some variety in the endings of the Gospel; but the text of verse 16 seems not to be doubtful. Unless of course other ancient versions - in Armenian or Coptic or Georgian, for example - can be quoted to the contrary.

Maybe the preacher was thinking of the variety of endings of this gospel.

Search here: boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600002815&messageID=600048119&start=0

for the words **overzealous monk **- is this relevant to the first post ? ##