Quote:
Quote:
Acts 16:29-33
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Key verse is verse 31. Believe and you will be saved. Not believe and be baptized and you will be saved. In biblical times, it was common to immediately get baptized once after being saved but was not necessary for salvation.
Quote:
You conveniently left out verse 34 I see. Another nice try at deception, but it won't work.
Act 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
Notice that they were considered to have believed in God after they were baptized, not before.
| |
I stated that it is common to immediately get baptized after being saved in biblical times. I did not leave out verse 34 for deception purposes. You didn't understand the point of that passage. The question was "what must I do to be saved?" The answer: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Here, baptism is an example of public obedience to God as a result from them being saved. The fact that they mention they were saved after saying they were baptized does not promote your argument further because I also believe that if you believe
and you are baptized then you are saved.
Quote:
Quote:
You mention Mark 16:16: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
It is a two part statement. If you believe and are baptized then you are obviously saved. If you do not believe, then you are condemned. It is a logical fallacy for you to infer that if you believe and are not baptized then you will not be saved. Logic does not dictate that.
That's about one of the oldest arguments I have heard and any English teacher will give you a lesson that your grammar is lacking in your understanding of that passage. None the less, we don't need an English teacher to clearly see the truth.
First of all, believing is a prerequisite to baptism... one must first believe before he can be baptized and the baptism be of any effect. Therefore, if a person does not believe, he is condemned whether he is baptized or not. There is no need for Jesus to write it or say it. Besides... He had already stated who would be saved... those who believe and are baptized. Either you agree with Jesus or you don't.
|
Quoted from this link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html (you can read the full argument here if you want)
Quote:
Those who try to use Mark 16:16 to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation commit a common but serious logical fallacy that is sometimes called the Negative Inference Fallacy. This fallacy can be stated as follows: “If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." In other words, just because Mark 16:16 says that “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” it does not mean that if one believes, but is not baptized, he will not be saved. Yet, this is exactly what is assumed by those that look to this verse to support the view that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Often when considering logical fallacies, it can be helpful to look at other examples of the same fallacy. This will help us see the fallacy that is being committed more clearly. In this case let’s consider two different but similarly structured statements. The first one is made considering the devastating hurricane that destroyed much of New Orleans in the fall of 2005. As a result of that hurricane, many lives were lost, and whole areas of New Orleans were destroyed. With that scenario in mind let’s consider the first statement that is very similar in structure to what we find in Mark 16:16. "Those who left their homes and fled from New Orleans were saved; those who stayed in their homes perished."
Now, if we use the same logic on this statement as those that believe that Mark 16:16 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, then we would have to conclude that if both the first conditions were not met (1—leaving their homes, 2—fleeing from New Orleans,) then everyone else would perish. Yet, in real life we know this was not true. Some people did stay in their homes in the low-lying areas and did not perish. In this situation it is easy to see that while the first statement is true, it is not true to assume that all those that did not flee New Orleans perished. Yet, if we use the same logic being used by those that say that Mark 16:16 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, that is the conclusion that must be reached. Yet, it is clearly an erroneous conclusion.
|
It is problematic for me to bring up scripture that says baptism is not necessary because it is out of obedience to God that we be baptized. It is a natural progression and public confirmation of our faith. All the scripture I can give you states that we are saved by faith without mention of baptism.
Explain these to me please:
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Show me scripture where it says those that are not baptized are condemned and my argument is moot.
By all means, tell me if I have taken scripture out of context. My purpose here is not to intentionally deceive, but to show the Bible's truth.
I understand how you come to your conclusions. Please try to understand how I come to mine before rejecting them.