Mark 16:16 | Baptism = Salvation?

Mark 16:16 and the Question of Baptismal Regeneration

What about Mark 16 16 which which clearly says my friend? Okay, you know, mr Apologetic dog chew on this. All right, mark 16 16. All right whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be Condemned.

Okay again, it's a nice flowery explanation you gave but it seems like you are Adding to the text when the text clearly says look right whoever believes and is Baptized but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I mean, it seems like you are adding to the Word of God Mr. Dog.

Reading Mark 16:16 in Its Immediate Context

That's what I would get is that's not what it says that's not what says and we're saying timeout we're talking about its meaning. Yeah, that's all right, that's why I'm trying my best impression you're doing great so I have two different answers depending on.

Well, I guess you're your context. We got to make sure we read the whole verse. Right because Church of Christ are really good at proof text and we got a list here. They will say all day long whoever believes and coordinating conjunction is Baptized will be saved.

But whoever does not believe will be condemned. There's the key right. It's the believing and the unbelieving or not believing is what saves and condemns when you let the whole verse speak. Okay. Now we still have a gift given account for and is baptized.

Well, it doesn't equally say whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned. But you could say whoever believes and goes to church will be saying that's what Christians do. Whoever believes and reads their Bible will be saved.

That's it's indicative it's showing what believers do and we know that it's the the not believing is what's gonna ultimately end up in our Being condemned. Dr. White would take a different approach and says bro, this is the longer ending of Mark shouldn't be there and.

The Longer Ending of Mark and the Textual Variant Question

I was gonna ask you about that. I was wondering if we should mention the textual variant issue because it opens up a whole can of worms that you may not want to. Sidetrack. You know the discussion but absolutely.

Because if you start talking about textual criticism with the Church Christ who wants nothing to do with church history and and The manuscript tradition of how God has preserved his word what you immediately get is Oh, you're just trying to take out Bible passages that you don't like I have heard on one occasion a Church of Christ preacher Understand that and not want to camp out on Mark 16 16, but overall I would say look you you have enough context clues to explain the verse and Something that Stephen Boyce has pointed out.

I told him I loved him saying this is I believe historically Jesus probably said those words at the end of John's gospel. He said and did so many things that aren't written in the Bible. If they were recorded the whole world couldn't even contain these things.

So the fact that this is trying to make it into the manuscript tradition along with you know That passage in John 8 first John 5 7 of all these other ones These this specifically was probably said and comes out, you know, or through oral tradition that comes back in the text.

How to Explain Mark 16:16 to Church of Christ

But when you're in when you're talking with Church of Christ, I would say Treat this verse historically as though Jesus said it because he probably did and this verse gives us enough context to actually explain the meaning.

Okay.