I saw this somewhere in the forumgreenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church (Real) : One Thread
I was roaming around in the posts in this forum and came upon this little tidbit on *baptism.* I would like to comment a little on this.
ANSWERING BAPTISMAL REGENERATION PROOF TEXTS
H. Wayne House
< He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.2
The first obvious problem with using this passage is that 16:9-20 is not found in the most reliable Greek manuscript tradition.3 Consequently, it is suspect to build a doctrine on the verse.>
Nelta: Of course, this is only one of many scriptures to prove that water baptism is necessary for salvation.
To me this fellow is grasping for straws. Here is an example: He who eats and digests his food shall live. He who eats not shall die. No need to add He who digests his food will die. The not eating will kill him so the statement He who does not digest his fool will die is useless because there is nothing to digest if he does not eat.
Now compare that to: He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. He that believes not shall be condemned. It the man does not believe he is condemn already. No need to add, He who is not baptized shall be condemned. If someone is baptized without believe he is not baptized but simply goes swimming. There is no true baptism without belief. Please compare the two.
nib Nelta Brock http://newmachine.qwikpages.com/parkave/nib/ Bible discussion list: 1stCen-Christianityfirstname.lastname@example.org
-- Nelta Brock (email@example.com), February 02, 2002
Of course you "saw it somewhere" right Here. But you can't do anything but "grasp at straws" yourself....taking only part of the first paragraph, then ignoring the rest. You can't do that. But people who want to remain ignorant of what the Scriptures teach, do that all the time.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 04, 2002.
Please explain what is wrong with my comparison?
-- Nelta Brock (email@example.com), February 04, 2002.
What's wrong??? you mean besides ignoring the rest of Scripture?
You assume (A Priori) that eat & digest = baptised & saved
-- (get@it.?), February 06, 2002.
You stated: You assume (A Priori) that eat & digest = baptised & saved
You hit the nail on the head! The very point I was to bring up before I read your post.
Eat and digest does not equal faith and baptism
Digestion is compulsory to eating whereas baptism is voluntary to faith. This is evidenced by the thief on the cross and each of the disciples none of whom were water baptized after conversion. Furthermore digestion is reflexive of eating and baptism is a premeditated action. Thus we see clearly that the argument is not substantial.
Having settled this obvious distinction…Nelta here is what you stated:
"Here is an example: He who eats and digests his food shall live. He who eats not shall die. No need to add He who digests his food will die. The not eating will kill him so the statement He who does not digest his fool will die is useless because there is nothing to digest if he does not eat."
This only holds water if faith and baptism were reflexive, which they are not. Each stand independently, baptism is subsequent to faith and completely premeditated, it is possible to have faith apart from baptism.
Very obvious to the contemplative thinker is the fact that God is not going to state useless or senseless utterances. In fact the very opposite is true, each word is spoken with direct purpose and meaning. Therefore your whole premise is unraveled - being that Christ's every word holds weight - "but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned" stands independent of baptism. If we were condemned for not being baptized God would have stated such whether you or I think it is useless or not.
The very fact He states what He means indicates that we are condemned for not believing. If we were condemned for not being baptized He would have stated such.
-- Barry (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 28, 2002.