"Whoever believes AND IS BAPTISED will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)

[Jimmy_B]

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

• Mark 16:16

I have two questions.

First, for Born-again Christians, or any other Christian who doesn’t believe that baptism is a required element of becoming a Christian, how do you respond to this verse?

Second, what does it mean to “not believe”?

 

[stephe1987]

#1 If they are an infant and cannot choose to be baptised, then they don’t believe but are innocent because they are too young to know better.

#2 I am guessing first atheists, then people who worship many gods, then people who believe in god but from a false prophet, and then lastly pseudo-Christian cults (who believe but changed the doctrines so much that it’s almost not Christian at all).

 

[Jimmy_B]

#1 If they are an infant and cannot choose to be baptised, then they don’t believe but are innocent because they are too young to know better.

#2 I am guessing first atheists, then people who worship many gods, then people who believe in god but from a false prophet, and then lastly pseudo-Christian cults (who believe but changed the doctrines so much that it’s almost not Christian at all).

 

[Jimmy_B]

---

*****“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
***- Mark 16:16
****Doesn’t this mean, to believe in all of it? In other words, if someone disagrees with a central Christian belief, or Christian truth, he then, by definition, " does not believe". ****

---

****Isn’t that correct? ****

---

So, for instance, If the Catholic Church is correct in the belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that turns out to be true… and it is an important Christian truth, which I believe that it is both true and important, then the person who rejects this important Christian truth, “does not believe”… Is that person then, "condemned?**
*

 

[Jimmy_B]

1 John 5:1,2
*Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him. In this way we know that we love the children of God when we love God and obey his commandments. *

1 John 4:6
*We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. *

John 12:48-50
*Whoever **rejects **me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak. And I know that his commandment is etbelieveernal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me." *

John 14:15-17
*If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. *

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,* but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life**, but the wrath of God remains upon him. *

Acts 16:30-32
*Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. *

**Romans 10:16,17 **
*But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?” Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. *

 

[JonNC]

---

****Doesn’t this mean, to believe in all of it? In other words, if someone disagrees with a central Christian belief, or Christian truth, he then, by definition, " does not believe". ****

---

****Isn’t that correct? ****

---

So, for instance, If the Catholic Church is correct in the belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that turns out to be true… and it is an important Christian truth, which I believe that it is both true and important, then the person who rejects this important Christian truth, “does not believe”… Is that person then, "condemned?**

I think “believe” here is more like “believe” in John 3:16, IOW, who believes in Him. I don’t know at what point one could say that disagreement over a particular number of doctrines
makes one apostate. It seems to me that would be up to God, Himself. The LCMS webstie points out that we believe that one who believes in the triune God is a Christian, regardless of the Church he/she belongs to. It also points out, however, that where there is error mixed with truth there can be a danger for the believer. In the end, God decides who is saved.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think “believe” here is more like “believe” in John 3:16, IOW, who believes in Him. I don’t know at what point one could say that disagreement over a particular number of doctrines
makes one apostate. It seems to me that would be up to God, Himself. The LCMS webstie points out that we believe that one who believes in the triune God is a Christian, regardless of the Church he/she belongs to. It also points out, however, that where there is error mixed with truth there can be a danger for the believer. In the end, God decides who is saved.

Jon

• “In the end, God decides who is saved”*

You’re right…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

#1 If they are an infant and cannot choose to be baptised, then they don’t believe but are innocent because they are too young to know better.

Scripture verse for this belief please. I believe the Bible says ALL have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Do you believe this? What is the “wages” of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

God bless you

 

[rft183]

As a former Baptist, I would have gotten around this verse by saying that you must be baptised by the Holy Spirit, and that this occurs when you accept Christ as your personal savior. I would have said that water baptism is only symbolic, and should be your first act of obedience as a Christian.

I now know that baptism is much more than a symbolic act of obedience, or a fancy profession of faith. God’s grace is given to us in Holy Baptism, and we are grafted into His family. Before, I would have said that you should only be baptised after you believe. Now, I think of baptism as the new circumcision. Circumcision was performed on children at 8 days old. They were made a part of the covenant community at 8 days old. Why would God suddenly change the rules after Christ came to earth? If God wanted children (infants, even!) to be part of his covenant Israel, surely he wants children to be a part of the new Israel, the Church.

 

[Jimmy_B]

As a former Baptist, I would have gotten around this verse by saying that you must be baptised by the Holy Spirit, and that this occurs when you accept Christ as your personal savior. I would have said that water baptism is only symbolic, and should be your first act of obedience as a Christian.

I now know that baptism is much more than a symbolic act of obedience, or a fancy profession of faith. God’s grace is given to us in Holy Baptism, and we are grafted into His family. Before, I would have said that you should only be baptised after you believe. Now, I think of baptism as the new circumcision. Circumcision was performed on children at 8 days old. They were made a part of the covenant community at 8 days old. Why would God suddenly change the rules after Christ came to earth? If God wanted children (infants, even!) to be part of his covenant Israel, surely he wants children to be a part of the new Israel, the Church.

Well put!

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Scripture verse for this belief please. I believe the Bible says ALL have sinned (Rom. 3:23). Do you believe this? What is the “wages” of sin (Rom. 6:23)?

God bless you

Not all have sinned (Our Lady, the Virgin Mary for instance) yet that does not mean that we dont need a saviour.

However… Baptism is a necessity for salvation, as can be seen numerous times in scripture. I am interested in protestant responses to this though…

FSC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Not all have sinned (Our Lady, the Virgin Mary for instance) yet that does not mean that we dont need a saviour.

Yes I understand that but most Protestants don’t believe that which was why I was curious how she would respond. If “all” in the verse from Romans does not include children, who else may it not include? It is a different topic but I want to see if the poster will stick to the usual Protestant response that “all” means all, which would make his/her statement incorrect.

God bless

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Yes I understand that but most Protestants don’t believe that which was why I was curious how she would respond. If “all” in the verse from Romans does not include children, who else may it not include? It is a different topic but I want to see if the poster will stick to the usual Protestant response that “all” means all, which would make his/her statement incorrect.

God bless

The hard part with this line of argument is that most protestants do not recognize the sinlessness of Mary, largely due to an incomplete understanding of what “Kecharitomene” means. This stems from poor translation, IMHO, since Strongs lists it as “highly favored” with no mention of the fact that it is a TITLE referring to her being “full of Grace”. As a title, it signifies perpetual fullness, something which is intrinsic to HER, a defining characteristic.

For them, “all have sinned” means literally “all”. There is no mention of where that statement comes from (Psalm 14 I believe), despite it being referenced in almost all Bibles and a statement regarding what fools say. It always reminds me of their insistence that “There is none who seeks after God” despite their insistence that they do just that. Either the Bible is inerrant or it is not. Since we know that some DO seek after God, how can that verse be understood? In the same sense as the “for all men have sinned” and “Whoever believes AND IS BAPTISED”. The thing I love about the Catholic Church is we get “both/and” instead of my old evangelical/non-denom/pentecostal faith in “either/or”.

FSC

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The hard part with this line of argument is that most protestants do not recognize the sinlessness of Mary

I don’t think you are understanding what my argument is. What you posted above is precisely my point and they often use the verse from Romans to prove it. The poster I was responding to stated that children were innocent and too young to “know better”. My reasoning for asking it was 1) to see if the poster believed that “all” in Romans meant literally all which would mean that their statement about children was incorrect or 2) that “all” does not mean literally all and therefore not necessarily children. My response would have been exactly what you and I are talking about, who else is not included in the “all”? Although, admittedly, that would probably be for a different thread.

For them, “all have sinned” means literally “all”.

Yes, I understand that but I wanted to get the poster’s thoughts on it. I didn’t want to put beliefs into their mouth. If the poster believes “all” means literally all then their statement about infants is incorrect. If “all” does not literally mean all to the poster then that opens up other discussions

Hopefully you are understanding my reasoning for asking it.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think you are understanding what my argument is. What you posted above is precisely my point and they often use the verse from Romans to prove it. The poster I was responding to stated that children were innocent and too young to “know better”. My reasoning for asking it was 1) to see if the poster believed that “all” in Romans meant literally all which would mean that their statement about children was incorrect or 2) that “all” does not mean literally all and therefore not necessarily children. My response would have been exactly what you and I are talking about, who else is not included in the “all”? Although, admittedly, that would probably be for a different thread.

Yes, I understand that but I wanted to get the poster’s thoughts on it. I didn’t want to put beliefs into their mouth. If the poster believes “all” means literally all then their statement about infants is incorrect. If “all” does not literally mean all to the poster then that opens up other discussions

Hopefully you are understanding my reasoning for asking it.

God bless

R_C,
Am I correct that you are driving at we are born in sin, and since Baptism provides forgiveness of sins, it does so for infants, as well?

Jon

 

[AlaricTeudisson]

My initial response to the OP would be as follows:

The term Baptism in the scripture passage is referring to the Baptism by the Holy Spirit. I am absolutely not saying that the actual act of Baptism in the Church is merely symbolic. I am talking of the actual result, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or the gift of the Holy Spirit) in the believer.

As to the term belief or non belief, as Jon alluded to above, I think the term means much more than intellectual assent. It means that deep level of trust and turning your whole life (not just parts) over to Christ.

Jeff

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

R_C,
Am I correct that you are driving at we are born in sin, and since Baptism provides forgiveness of sins, it does so for infants, as well?

Jon

I certainly see it that way Jon, though I am not quite there at this point in my dialog. I was hoping the poster would return to answer my questions I was curious to see if the poster would be consistent with regards to Romans 3:23.

To your question directly; yes, you more or less summed up my position, which I believe is (or atleast is not far from) the Lutheran position. I agree with this statement from the Catholic Catechism:

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

And I can affirm this statement from the Augsburg Confession

Article IX: Of Baptism.

1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

I could affirm this next statement from the *Augsburg Confession *with my only hesitation being the part about men being born in “the natural way” and who (or more importantly who is not) included therein (cough Mary cough)

Article II: Of Original Sin.

1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

I think those two statements from the *Augsburg Confession *are well written (my only hesitation being set aside) and do not beat around the bush; we are fallen, even infants.

God bless you Jon

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

My initial response to the OP would be as follows:

The term Baptism in the scripture passage is referring to the Baptism by the Holy Spirit. I am absolutely not saying that the actual act of Baptism in the Church is merely symbolic. I am talking of the actual result, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or the gift of the Holy Spirit) in the believer.

Jeff

Jeff,

Why do you see them as different? What you call the “actual act of Baptism” and Baptism by the Holy Spirit? What is the Anglican position on the matter? Do you affirm these parts of the 39 Articles?

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

=Roman_Catholic;6804735]I certainly see it that way Jon, though I am not quite there at this point in my dialog. I was hoping the poster would return to answer my questions I was curious to see if the poster would be consistent with regards to Romans 3:23.

To your question directly; yes, you more or less summed up my position, which I believe is (or atleast is not far from) the Lutheran position. I agree with this statement from the Catholic Catechism:

And I can affirm this statement from the Augsburg Confession

Yes, our positions are essentially the same.

I could affirm this next statement from the *Augsburg Confession *with my only hesitation being the part about men being born in “the natural way” and who (or more importantly who is not) included therein (cough Mary cough)

I don’t believe the “natural way” comment is directed at the IC, as that came in ?1850?. While Lutheranism today are not signed on to the IC, prmarily because there is no explicit scriptural support, that’s not to say Lutherans “can’t” believe it, as mariology is generally considered adiaphoron.

I think those two statements from the *Augsburg Confession *are well written (my only hesitation being set aside) and do not beat around the bush; we are fallen, even infants.

And, therefore, in need of the grace that comes with Baptism. Exactly.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

My initial response to the OP would be as follows:

The term Baptism in the scripture passage is referring to the Baptism by the Holy Spirit. I am absolutely not saying that the actual act of Baptism in the Church is merely symbolic. I am talking of the actual result, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or the gift of the Holy Spirit) in the believer.

As to the term belief or non belief, as Jon alluded to above, I think the term means much more than intellectual assent. It means that deep level of trust and turning your whole life (not just parts) over to Christ.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
I, too, will be interested in your response to R_C’s question, particularly in light of the quote from the 39 articles.

Thanks,
Jon