This study considers Mark 16:16. Like Romans 10:13 and Galatians 5:4, Mark 16:16 is so
misunderstood and misapplied, a study of this verse is important. Also, Mark 16:16 has
a bearing on the second aspect of salvation.
The text reads, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." This passage has been cited in countless debates as
teaching baptism is a command imposed upon the alien sinner for the remission of his
past sins. Those constantly using the verse repeatedly remind us what the verse does
not say, namely, "he that believeth is saved and may be baptized."
Moses Lard wrote, "Of whom, then, does it say, he shall be saved? Clearly, of him who
believes and is baptized. Of him who believes but is not baptized, it says nothing;
neither of him who is baptized but does not believe, does it say anything. Of him
alone who believes and is baptized does it say anything; but of him it does say he
shall be saved."
Mr. Lard quoted Mark 16:16 in support of the idea, " . . . . that the sinner, though a
believer, is still required to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of his
sins, and, consequently, they are not remitted before and without baptism."
Marvine Kelley, one of Mr. Lard's brethren said, "Do you believe that a person who
knows that Jesus said . . . . 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .
. ,' but who refuses to be baptized would still be saved . . . . The passage of
scripture doesn't say that he that believeth shall be saved at all . . . . We would
suggest also that there is a coordinate conjunction connecting these two clauses and
that's the difference . . . . between Baptist doctrine and the Bible. That little word
'and' in there. I'm suggesting to you that if you can take out baptism--that you can
take out believeth . . . ."
V. E. Howard, another of their number, similarly argued, "Who shall be saved? He did
not say that he that believeth shall be saved. He did not say that he that is baptized
shall be saved. But . . . . 'He that believeth and (there is the little conjunction,
the link in the chain) . . . . is baptized shall be saved.' "
Mr. Howard's proposition was, "The scriptures teach that baptism to the penitent
believer is essential to his salvation from past and alien sins." Notice Mr. Pope's
proposition, " . . . . salvation from past . . . . sins."
In commenting on what the salvation of Mark 16:16 is from, Mr. Roy E. Cogdill, another
of their brethren said, "Not saved from sins that are in the future . . . . When Jesus
said, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' he did not mean that the
individual who believes and is baptized shall surely and positively go to Heaven. He
was not promising salvation in the eternal sense and naming baptism as a condition
thereof."
Eugene S. Smith, another of their brethren, contradicted them, as well as himself. He
testified, "In Mark 16:16 Jesus has written a check to man. The face value of this
check is eternal salvation. The one to whom this check is issued is to have salvation
according to the word of Jesus. Now the question is: To whom is the check payable?
The answer is 'He that believeth and is baptized.' The man who does not believe cannot
lay claim to this salvation. The check which Christ issued is not made payable to the
one who 'only believes.' There must be 'the obedience of faith' so it is made to the
one who 'believeth and is baptized.' No other one can cash this check and in the great
judgment day when face value of the check from Christ will be paid it is only the one
who has believed and been baptized 'who shall be saved."
Mr. Smith said, "The face value of this check is eternal salvation." Yet, he testified
on another occasion: "If a child of God (thus, one who had received the check of Mark
16:16) sins, and dies not having repented of that sin, into hell he goes."
All who teach baptismal regeneration also teach the doctrine of apostasy, that is that
a child of God can so sin as to be finally lost in hell. This includes Mr. Smith.
That is why his brethren make the salvation of Mark 16:16 "from past sins" because any
"hope to at last be saved in heaven," according to them, is predicated of conditions
beyond "believeth and is baptized."
Yet, Mr. Smith has a man in hell with a check, the face value of which "is eternal
salvation." I wonder why he didn't cash it?
Was it because He Who gave it did not have sufficient funds in the bank to pay the
bearer on demand? Or, was it due to the fact that He authorized the bank to stop
payment on the check? Or, was it because the check did not have the value claimed for
it by the bearer? Just who would a man be in hell with a check, the face value of
which is "eternal salvation?"
To my knowledge there is not a man on earth, among Mr. Smith's brethren, who actually
believes that Mark 16:16 presents the conditions of eternal salvation for the alien
sinner, who believes its face value to be "eternal salvation." Instead, they believe
it refers to the "remission of past sins only."
They all like to tell us what Mark 16:16 does not say, namely, "He that believeth
shall be saved." But, allow me to tell you something it does not say. It does not say,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved from past sins." Those three little
words are not in Mark 16:16, and, for that matter, are not in the Bible in the sense
in which they use them.
Those men all call attention to what the verse does not say, and get highly incensed
at what they term as "Baptist doctrine," yet it does not seem to bother them a bit
they have gone "beyond that which is written" in adding an uninspired phrase. If the
text is as clear as some seem to think, then why must it be explained by the insertion
of an uninspired phrase?
The answer is obvious. Unless the salvation of the text is "from past sins,"
predicated on the conditions name, then the security of the believer is taught. And,
since all who teach baptismal regeneration also teach the doctrine of apostasy, then
they have to add "from past sins," or give up the doctrine of apostasy.
Mr. Campbell wrote, " . . . . we have heard the Hebrew church, the Greek church, the
Roman church, and all dissenting churches confess 'one baptism for the remission of
sins.' . . . . Christian baptism as a sign and a seal of remission of all past sins .
. . . There is . . . . a universal admission of the theory, with comparatively few
dissentients . . . . Baptists . . . . have reduced it to a mere form of making the
Christian profession--a door into their church."
Mr. Kelley and Mr. Howard were quoted as saying, "The passage of scripture doesn't say
that he that believeth shall be saved . . . ." We say, that is correct because if it
did, it would militate against numerous positive statements showing the believer in
Christ is saved, not "shall be saved."
When the scriptures speak of the believer in Christ they read this way; 1) "He that
believeth on him (not, 'shall be saved,' but) is not condemned (Jn 3:18); 2) "He that
believeth on the Son (not, 'shall be saved,' but) hath everlasting life" (Jn 3:36); 3)
"He that believeth on me (not, 'shall be saved,' but) hath everlasting life" (Jn
6:47); 4) And, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ (not, 'shall be saved,'
but) is born of God" (I Jn 5:1); and other references.
The testimony of God's Word could be multiplied, but those examples show that it would
not be scripturally true to say, "He that believeth shall be saved," because "he that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." When the primary aspect of salvation,
which is from the penalty of sin, is in view, and the scriptures describe what took
place when the alien is saved, they read thus: 1) "he hath made us accepted (an
accomplished fact) in the beloved" (Eph 1:6); 2) "we have redemption" (an accomplished
fact) "the forgiveness of sins" (Eph 1:7); 3) "And you hath he quickened" (an
accomplished fact) (Eph 2:1); 4) "ye are saved" (an accomplished fact) (Eph 2:5, 8);
5) "and hath raised us up" (an accomplished fact) (Eph 2:6); and other references.
When, however, conditions for salvation are added to believing in Christ, the
salvation referred to is future, and pertains to this secondary aspect of salvation
which is offered the children of God--not alien sinners. If baptism is for, or in
order to obtain, that which they say it is, namely the "remission of all past sins,"
then it is not for something else. And, if that, which it is for, is past, then it is
not for something in the future. Therefore, they pervert the meaning of the phrase
"shall be saved" in the first place.
Not stopping here, compare Mark 16:16, as used by the baptismal regenerationist, to
two other verses involving the phrase "shall be saved." Romans 5:9-10, "Much more
then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For
if when were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."
In each case the words "shall be saved" looked to a future deliverance beyond what the
people referred to had already experienced. Those in verse 9 who "shall be saved from
wrath through him" were first receivers of that promise, "now justified by his blood."
And, those in verse 10 who "shall be saved by his life" were first receivers of that
promise, "reconciled to God by the death of his Son."
When the baptismal regenerationist sees the expression, "now justified by his blood,"
he equates this descriptive with "believeth and is baptized." He teaches that the
benefit of Christ's blood is reached only in being baptized. Therefore, to him, one
who is "now justified by his blood" is one who has believed and been baptized.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk 16:16). They add "from past
sins." "Being now justified by his blood (to them--one who has believed and been
baptized), we shall be saved (not from "past sins," as their parallel passages
supposedly teach, but) from wrath through him" (Rm 5:9). "We were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son (to them--one who has believed and been baptized), much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved (but, not 'from past sins' by death, but) by his
life" (Rm 5:10).
Paul spoke of "the wrath" as that which is "to come" (I Thes 1:10). The words "we
shall be saved" of Romans 5:9 do not look backward to "past sins," but forward to
"wrath," and the text affirms that all who are "now justified by his blood . . . .
shall be saved from wrath through him."
Therefore, if to be "now justified by his blood" is accomplished through the condition
of Mark 16:16, as they say, and results only in the "remission of past sins," then no
one who teaches such can believe the promise "shall be saved from wrath" is sure to
anyone merely because he is "now justified by his blood."
Their doctrine is, "If a child of God sins and dies not having repented of that sin,
into hell he goes." In truth, no one in hell will be able to say that he had been
delivered "from wrath through him," and no one in hell will be able to say that he is
"now justified by his blood," for all who are "now justified by his blood . . . .
shall be saved from wrath through him."
For Romans 5:9 to square with their doctrine, it would have to read this way: "Being
now justified by his blood, we have the remission of 'past sins only, but if we
maintain the works of faith until death beyond that fact,' we shall be saved from
wrath through him." Instead, in Romans 5:9, because we "being now justified by his
blood," have the promise, "we shall be saved from wrath through him."
In Romans 5:10, because we are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son" we have the
promise, "we shall be saved by his life." We believe the conditions of Mark 16:16 are
applicable to the latter of these two. And, for Mark 16:16 to square with their
doctrine, it would have to read, "He that believeth and is baptized has been saved
from his past sins only, and may hope to at last be saved in heaven, if at the time of
his death, he is as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an angel."
That is Mr. Campbell's language when he said, " . . . . when the baptized believer
rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a second time; he enters it
as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an angel." BD
misunderstood and misapplied, a study of this verse is important. Also, Mark 16:16 has
a bearing on the second aspect of salvation.
The text reads, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." This passage has been cited in countless debates as
teaching baptism is a command imposed upon the alien sinner for the remission of his
past sins. Those constantly using the verse repeatedly remind us what the verse does
not say, namely, "he that believeth is saved and may be baptized."
Moses Lard wrote, "Of whom, then, does it say, he shall be saved? Clearly, of him who
believes and is baptized. Of him who believes but is not baptized, it says nothing;
neither of him who is baptized but does not believe, does it say anything. Of him
alone who believes and is baptized does it say anything; but of him it does say he
shall be saved."
Mr. Lard quoted Mark 16:16 in support of the idea, " . . . . that the sinner, though a
believer, is still required to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of his
sins, and, consequently, they are not remitted before and without baptism."
Marvine Kelley, one of Mr. Lard's brethren said, "Do you believe that a person who
knows that Jesus said . . . . 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .
. ,' but who refuses to be baptized would still be saved . . . . The passage of
scripture doesn't say that he that believeth shall be saved at all . . . . We would
suggest also that there is a coordinate conjunction connecting these two clauses and
that's the difference . . . . between Baptist doctrine and the Bible. That little word
'and' in there. I'm suggesting to you that if you can take out baptism--that you can
take out believeth . . . ."
V. E. Howard, another of their number, similarly argued, "Who shall be saved? He did
not say that he that believeth shall be saved. He did not say that he that is baptized
shall be saved. But . . . . 'He that believeth and (there is the little conjunction,
the link in the chain) . . . . is baptized shall be saved.' "
Mr. Howard's proposition was, "The scriptures teach that baptism to the penitent
believer is essential to his salvation from past and alien sins." Notice Mr. Pope's
proposition, " . . . . salvation from past . . . . sins."
In commenting on what the salvation of Mark 16:16 is from, Mr. Roy E. Cogdill, another
of their brethren said, "Not saved from sins that are in the future . . . . When Jesus
said, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' he did not mean that the
individual who believes and is baptized shall surely and positively go to Heaven. He
was not promising salvation in the eternal sense and naming baptism as a condition
thereof."
Eugene S. Smith, another of their brethren, contradicted them, as well as himself. He
testified, "In Mark 16:16 Jesus has written a check to man. The face value of this
check is eternal salvation. The one to whom this check is issued is to have salvation
according to the word of Jesus. Now the question is: To whom is the check payable?
The answer is 'He that believeth and is baptized.' The man who does not believe cannot
lay claim to this salvation. The check which Christ issued is not made payable to the
one who 'only believes.' There must be 'the obedience of faith' so it is made to the
one who 'believeth and is baptized.' No other one can cash this check and in the great
judgment day when face value of the check from Christ will be paid it is only the one
who has believed and been baptized 'who shall be saved."
Mr. Smith said, "The face value of this check is eternal salvation." Yet, he testified
on another occasion: "If a child of God (thus, one who had received the check of Mark
16:16) sins, and dies not having repented of that sin, into hell he goes."
All who teach baptismal regeneration also teach the doctrine of apostasy, that is that
a child of God can so sin as to be finally lost in hell. This includes Mr. Smith.
That is why his brethren make the salvation of Mark 16:16 "from past sins" because any
"hope to at last be saved in heaven," according to them, is predicated of conditions
beyond "believeth and is baptized."
Yet, Mr. Smith has a man in hell with a check, the face value of which "is eternal
salvation." I wonder why he didn't cash it?
Was it because He Who gave it did not have sufficient funds in the bank to pay the
bearer on demand? Or, was it due to the fact that He authorized the bank to stop
payment on the check? Or, was it because the check did not have the value claimed for
it by the bearer? Just who would a man be in hell with a check, the face value of
which is "eternal salvation?"
To my knowledge there is not a man on earth, among Mr. Smith's brethren, who actually
believes that Mark 16:16 presents the conditions of eternal salvation for the alien
sinner, who believes its face value to be "eternal salvation." Instead, they believe
it refers to the "remission of past sins only."
They all like to tell us what Mark 16:16 does not say, namely, "He that believeth
shall be saved." But, allow me to tell you something it does not say. It does not say,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved from past sins." Those three little
words are not in Mark 16:16, and, for that matter, are not in the Bible in the sense
in which they use them.
Those men all call attention to what the verse does not say, and get highly incensed
at what they term as "Baptist doctrine," yet it does not seem to bother them a bit
they have gone "beyond that which is written" in adding an uninspired phrase. If the
text is as clear as some seem to think, then why must it be explained by the insertion
of an uninspired phrase?
The answer is obvious. Unless the salvation of the text is "from past sins,"
predicated on the conditions name, then the security of the believer is taught. And,
since all who teach baptismal regeneration also teach the doctrine of apostasy, then
they have to add "from past sins," or give up the doctrine of apostasy.
Mr. Campbell wrote, " . . . . we have heard the Hebrew church, the Greek church, the
Roman church, and all dissenting churches confess 'one baptism for the remission of
sins.' . . . . Christian baptism as a sign and a seal of remission of all past sins .
. . . There is . . . . a universal admission of the theory, with comparatively few
dissentients . . . . Baptists . . . . have reduced it to a mere form of making the
Christian profession--a door into their church."
Mr. Kelley and Mr. Howard were quoted as saying, "The passage of scripture doesn't say
that he that believeth shall be saved . . . ." We say, that is correct because if it
did, it would militate against numerous positive statements showing the believer in
Christ is saved, not "shall be saved."
When the scriptures speak of the believer in Christ they read this way; 1) "He that
believeth on him (not, 'shall be saved,' but) is not condemned (Jn 3:18); 2) "He that
believeth on the Son (not, 'shall be saved,' but) hath everlasting life" (Jn 3:36); 3)
"He that believeth on me (not, 'shall be saved,' but) hath everlasting life" (Jn
6:47); 4) And, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ (not, 'shall be saved,'
but) is born of God" (I Jn 5:1); and other references.
The testimony of God's Word could be multiplied, but those examples show that it would
not be scripturally true to say, "He that believeth shall be saved," because "he that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." When the primary aspect of salvation,
which is from the penalty of sin, is in view, and the scriptures describe what took
place when the alien is saved, they read thus: 1) "he hath made us accepted (an
accomplished fact) in the beloved" (Eph 1:6); 2) "we have redemption" (an accomplished
fact) "the forgiveness of sins" (Eph 1:7); 3) "And you hath he quickened" (an
accomplished fact) (Eph 2:1); 4) "ye are saved" (an accomplished fact) (Eph 2:5, 8);
5) "and hath raised us up" (an accomplished fact) (Eph 2:6); and other references.
When, however, conditions for salvation are added to believing in Christ, the
salvation referred to is future, and pertains to this secondary aspect of salvation
which is offered the children of God--not alien sinners. If baptism is for, or in
order to obtain, that which they say it is, namely the "remission of all past sins,"
then it is not for something else. And, if that, which it is for, is past, then it is
not for something in the future. Therefore, they pervert the meaning of the phrase
"shall be saved" in the first place.
Not stopping here, compare Mark 16:16, as used by the baptismal regenerationist, to
two other verses involving the phrase "shall be saved." Romans 5:9-10, "Much more
then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For
if when were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."
In each case the words "shall be saved" looked to a future deliverance beyond what the
people referred to had already experienced. Those in verse 9 who "shall be saved from
wrath through him" were first receivers of that promise, "now justified by his blood."
And, those in verse 10 who "shall be saved by his life" were first receivers of that
promise, "reconciled to God by the death of his Son."
When the baptismal regenerationist sees the expression, "now justified by his blood,"
he equates this descriptive with "believeth and is baptized." He teaches that the
benefit of Christ's blood is reached only in being baptized. Therefore, to him, one
who is "now justified by his blood" is one who has believed and been baptized.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk 16:16). They add "from past
sins." "Being now justified by his blood (to them--one who has believed and been
baptized), we shall be saved (not from "past sins," as their parallel passages
supposedly teach, but) from wrath through him" (Rm 5:9). "We were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son (to them--one who has believed and been baptized), much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved (but, not 'from past sins' by death, but) by his
life" (Rm 5:10).
Paul spoke of "the wrath" as that which is "to come" (I Thes 1:10). The words "we
shall be saved" of Romans 5:9 do not look backward to "past sins," but forward to
"wrath," and the text affirms that all who are "now justified by his blood . . . .
shall be saved from wrath through him."
Therefore, if to be "now justified by his blood" is accomplished through the condition
of Mark 16:16, as they say, and results only in the "remission of past sins," then no
one who teaches such can believe the promise "shall be saved from wrath" is sure to
anyone merely because he is "now justified by his blood."
Their doctrine is, "If a child of God sins and dies not having repented of that sin,
into hell he goes." In truth, no one in hell will be able to say that he had been
delivered "from wrath through him," and no one in hell will be able to say that he is
"now justified by his blood," for all who are "now justified by his blood . . . .
shall be saved from wrath through him."
For Romans 5:9 to square with their doctrine, it would have to read this way: "Being
now justified by his blood, we have the remission of 'past sins only, but if we
maintain the works of faith until death beyond that fact,' we shall be saved from
wrath through him." Instead, in Romans 5:9, because we "being now justified by his
blood," have the promise, "we shall be saved from wrath through him."
In Romans 5:10, because we are "reconciled to God by the death of his Son" we have the
promise, "we shall be saved by his life." We believe the conditions of Mark 16:16 are
applicable to the latter of these two. And, for Mark 16:16 to square with their
doctrine, it would have to read, "He that believeth and is baptized has been saved
from his past sins only, and may hope to at last be saved in heaven, if at the time of
his death, he is as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an angel."
That is Mr. Campbell's language when he said, " . . . . when the baptized believer
rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a second time; he enters it
as innocent, as clean, as unspotted, as an angel." BD
| Chapter 23 Table of Contents Back to Home Page Send us E-Mail Church Phone - (254) 865-6924 |
Website design by
Laura Slack
Copyright © 2007
Gateway Baptist
Church
All Rights Reserved
Laura Slack
Copyright © 2007
Gateway Baptist
Church
All Rights Reserved
| Gateway Baptist Church Independent Unaffiliated Separated Soul-Winning KJV "It Does Make A Difference What You Believe". |
| Examining Mark 16:16 CHAPTER 22 By Bobby Dunn |