saved but not baptized= no heaven?

[Goodbook]

Oh ok well, did you talk to God about it?
Are they still here (I mean on earth?) it's not too late for them to be baptised if they are.

If they are not well talk to God and I'm sure He will give you peace about it. This is what happened with the friend I was telling you about, I had no peace until God showed me what happened in her last days. God's hand is mighty to save.

I think when we do tell people the gospel also its important that any disciples we make understand what baptism means. Remember Judas was not baptised, because Jesus washed all the feet of the others but not Judas..he refused. Getting your feet wet was Jesus way of introducing others to the whole baptism - remember that Peter then asked if he could be totally immersed and Jesus answered if he was washed already he only needed his feet to be washed, but one of them (Judas) was not clean. John chapter 13

Now this is all water baptism but that also shows an inner baptism must take place as well with the washing of His word.

 

[Winken]

i am not having an issue...i have been saved and baptized..however, some one brought up both had to be done to go to heaven...I do not believe that...at the time was worried b/c I have a brother and mom that have been saved..but not baptized..was worried will not see them in heaven...

Romans 10:8-13.

 

[OzSpen]

1. Yes and no. As I put it before Faith is the conception and baptism is the birth. Sometimes people don't make it to birth. However one can't reject baptism, or even dismiss it because they believe it isn't what saves, and expect to enter heaven.
Matt 28:19,20. Mark 16:16. Acts 2:38. Just a few passages that clearly point to baptism.

2. Ah, that I can't really get into based on Baptist forum rules.

So you do believe in baptismal regeneration, i.e. baptism necessary to determine one has received new birth (your language is 'baptism is the birth').

Yes, that is against Baptist rules on this forum. You've included Mark 16:16, which from a textual point of view is not regarded as Scripture.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I dont think anything was added to scripture because I read the KJV and theres certainly no loopholes about it.

Jesus expected all believers to be baptized...Jesus was baptised himself. It is not a hard thing to be baptised. My grand aunty became a christian in the rest home and was baptised. I think if someone is serious about their faith they will profess it, and God will press on our hearts to obey him in this area.

I was chatting with this lady who told me about leading someone to the Lord who had lived a life of sin aboard a cruise ship. She immediately wanted to be baptised and she was baptised in the ocean.

Goodbook,

We do know that verses have been added to the KJV, thanks to Erasmus and his collection of only a few NT Greek manuscripts (MSS) from about the 10th century. Earlier MSS have since been found and they do not include some of the verses that were in Erasmus's Greek text, the Textus Receptus.

In fact, Erasmus could not find a Greek MSS that had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. He knew they were missing because he read the Latin Vulgate. What did he do? He translated those 6 verses from the Vulgate into Greek. Since the time of Erasmus's compiling the Textus Receptus, not one Greek MSS has been found that has the Greek exactly as Erasmus translated it.

Erasmas most certainly added to the NT (so do the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus). We also see that in passages such as,

• Mark 16:9-20;
• Matt 5:22;
• 1 John 5:7-8

Daniel B Wallace explains this in his article, The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

Wallace tells of the many variants in NT MSS, most of them no more significant than typos. But there are significant verses like the latter verses of Mark 16.

Oz

 

[Bluelion]

So you do believe in baptismal regeneration, i.e. baptism necessary to determine one has received new birth (your language is 'baptism is the birth').

Yes, that is against Baptist rules on this forum. You've included Mark 16:16, which from a textual point of view is not regarded as Scripture.

Oz

Oz, Hi Btw, could you explain what you mean Mark 16:16 is not scripture? thx

 

[Bluelion]

Goodbook,

We do know that verses have been added to the KJV, thanks to Erasmus and his collection of only a few NT Greek manuscripts (MSS) from about the 10th century. Earlier MSS have since been found and they do not include some of the verses that were in Erasmus's Greek text, the Textus Receptus.

In fact, Erasmus could not find a Greek MSS that had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. He knew they were missing because he read the Latin Vulgate. What did he do? He translated those 6 verses from the Vulgate into Greek. Since the time of Erasmus's compiling the Textus Receptus, not one Greek MSS has been found that has the Greek exactly as Erasmus translated it.

Erasmas most certainly added to the NT (so do the KJV and NKJV which use the Textus Receptus). We also see that in passages such as,

• Mark 16:9-20;
• Matt 5:22;
• 1 John 5:7-8

Daniel B Wallace explains this in his article, The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

Wallace tells of the many variants in NT MSS, most of them no more significant than typos. But there are significant verses like the latter verses of Mark 16.

Oz

I think that is a strong arugement for many translations being used and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you in the reading of God's word. I read the whole article. My question is should I want to read the Alexandrian text where might I find it?

 

[98cwitr]

saved = heaven. If you're saved, how can you say that you wouldn't go to heaven...you wouldn't be saved at all then!

 

[Bluelion]

saved = heaven. If you're saved, how can you say that you wouldn't go to heaven...you wouldn't be saved at all then!

Hey 98 just a thought and it certainly not backed up Biblical but what if being baptized, means you go straight to Heaven having already been in the grave with Jesus and resurrected with him, but not baptized = resting in the grave until the Jesus calls you up. Just a thought. I been up all night studying so my brain is fried, but its fun to entertain such thoughts at this point

 

[98cwitr]

Hey 98 just a thought and it certainly not backed up Biblical but what if being baptized, means you go straight to Heaven having already been in the grave with Jesus and resurrected with him, but not baptized = resting in the grave until the Jesus calls you up. Just a thought. I been up all night studying so my brain is fried, but its fun to entertain such thoughts at this point

As symbolic as that is, and recalling Christ's own water baptism, I could see that. My focus on "the grave" is bearing the Cross daily...putting to death the sin of the flesh and being raised, in Spirit, a new creation. If we still are in the flesh, could we consider it a grave too?

 

[twin1954]

As symbolic as that is, and recalling Christ's own water baptism, I could see that. My focus on "the grave" is bearing the Cross daily...putting to death the sin of the flesh and being raised, in Spirit, a new creation. If we still are in the flesh, could we consider it a grave too?

I use the illustration of the way we used to cure dogs of killing chickens. If we had a dog that killed a chicken we would tie the dead chicken to the neck of the dog so it had to carry around the stink of it all the time. It never killed a chicken again. Could it be that the Lord leaves us in this stinking corpse called the flesh in order to wean us from that stinking putrid sin that we still live in while we sojourn in this wicked world? The more we carry it around and smell its stink do we not abhor it more and desire it less?

 

[Goodbook]

Yes putting to death the flesh, thats a picture of baptism given in romans..buried with christ and risen with christ.

I dont see the issue, if you are truly saved, there is really no doubt that you are. As for other people, well, we cant always judge as we are not them...but for ourselves, we can have assurance.

Im not here to debate bible versions. If you dont read the KJV, well, go get yourself a copy. Im not arguing over a bible that got bits missing, a fruitless exercise.

 

[Job8]

i am not having an issue...i have been saved and baptized..however, some one brought up both had to be done to go to heaven...I do not believe that...at the time was worried b/c I have a brother and mom that have been saved..but not baptized..was worried will not see them in heaven...

There are two issues that need to be addressed:

(1) when the Gospel is shared, the unsaved need to understand that if they truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then they must obey Him immediately through water baptism. That is evidence that they are genuine (see Acts 8). More often than not, the Gospel is not shared or preached as it should be.

(2) If there are people who have been taught this and continue to remain un-baptized, then that is proof that they are not genuinely saved. Salvation is repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and repentance is expressed through baptism as the first step of obedience.

 

[Goodbook]

Yea I was thinking this through and it is that when the gospel is shared that you not only say the sinners prayer..as its done in some evnagelistic church outreaches but follow up with baptism.

There seems to be a disconnect between the two in churches these days, it shouldnt be the case in a baptist church. And then after that you can partake in the Lord's supper..fellowship with your brothers and sisters in christ.

If someone just says the sinners prayer and makes no move to want to obey God in these two things you have a right to be concerned if they are truly saved. Did they hear the gospel correctly? Although in case of my friend circumstances prevented her...but remember this was five days before she passed away. We dont know the day or hour when Jesus will come for us...

 

[Dan61861]

I don't believe it is required to be saved. Like the thief on the cross, if one is led to the Lord on their death bed, they are a believer. Now, a believer that refuses Baptism is another matter entirely.

There are three main reason we do Baptise.
1. The Lord commands us. It is our first act of obedience.
2. It is a public declaration of our faith.
3. It represents our death and resurrection with Christ.

In Christ
Daniel

 

[Bluelion]

As symbolic as that is, and recalling Christ's own water baptism, I could see that. My focus on "the grave" is bearing the Cross daily...putting to death the sin of the flesh and being raised, in Spirit, a new creation. If we still are in the flesh, could we consider it a grave too?

Seem to remeber it written the Holy Spirit groans with us and longs with us to be free of this body of flesh.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, Hi Btw, could you explain what you mean Mark 16:16 is not scripture? thx

Blue,

How do we determine which manuscripts (MSS) were used in the earliest Bibles? One would expect that the earliest MSS would be closest to the originals and that later MSS would have additions, ranging from variants (like typos) to new verses added. However, we also need to understand that there could be contamination of MSS by heretics who wanted to change orthodox doctrine. The heresy of Gnosticism was a regular threat to the early church.

Which MSS did Erasmus, a 15th century Dutch theologian, collect for the printing of the Textus Receptus (meaning Received Text) Greek NT on which the KJV NT is based? We know from the evidence that he could only locate 5 or 6 minuscule (running writing) MSS and not the original uncials (capitals) and those minuscule MSS were dated in about the 10th - 12th centuries. It took 6-8 months to print the entire NT with Latin in the left column and Greek in the right column. He made notes on the MSS and sent to printers. The first edition in 1516 sold out quickly and had to be republished, with some of the errors corrected, in 1519.

Erasmus included Mark 16:9-20 in the TR, that was used as the basis for the KJV NT. However, as many thousands of MSS and parts of MSS have been found since then, it has been found that the earlier MSS have various endings for Mark 16. Some scholars have done analyses of Mk 16:9-20 and have concluded like textual critic, Bruce Metzger,

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126).

The two oldest entire NT MSS we have, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not contain Mark 16:9-20.

I have written more details on this in my article, Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?

This is a sample of Bruce Metzger’s assessment of the long vs. short ending of Mark 16.

Therefore, I conclude that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest MSS and is a later addition, thus making it not in Scripture, but an addition from a well-meaning scribe as a copyist.

For further evidence regarding Mark 16, you might like to read Dave Miller’s article, ‘Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?’

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I think that is a strong arugement for many translations being used and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you in the reading of God's word. I read the whole article. My question is should I want to read the Alexandrian text where might I find it?

The Alexandrian text-type is that which is available today in the United Bible Studies Greek text (also Nestle-Aland) which I use. It is the Greek text used for the predominance of contemporary NT Bible translations: ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB. The Byzantine text-type is used in the Textus Receptus and is translated in the KJV and NKJV.

The many translations that are available today are designed with a particular audience in mind and some with a dynamic equivalence translation philosophy (NIV, NLT, NET) and formal equivalence translation philosophy (ESV, NASB, NRSV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV).

I really don't know what you mean by the statement: 'I think that is a strong arugement (sic) for many translations being used and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you in the reading of God's word'. Are you expecting the Holy Spirit to guide you in determining which MSS should be in or out of the NT? Is that what you mean?

Oz

 

[Bluelion]

Blue,

How do we determine which manuscripts (MSS) were used in the earliest Bibles? One would expect that the earliest MSS would be closest to the originals and that later MSS would have additions, ranging from variants (like typos) to new verses added. However, we also need to understand that there could be contamination of MSS by heretics who wanted to change orthodox doctrine. The heresy of Gnosticism was a regular threat to the early church.

Which MSS did Erasmus, a 15th century Dutch theologian, collect for the printing of the Textus Receptus (meaning Received Text) Greek NT on which the KJV NT is based? We know from the evidence that he could only locate 5 or 6 minuscule (running writing) MSS and not the original uncials (capitals) and those minuscule MSS were dated in about the 10th - 12th centuries. It took 6-8 months to print the entire NT with Latin in the left column and Greek in the right column. He made notes on the MSS and sent to printers. The first edition in 1516 sold out quickly and had to be republished, with some of the errors corrected, in 1519.

Erasmus included Mark 16:9-20 in the TR, that was used as the basis for the KJV NT. However, as many thousands of MSS and parts of MSS have been found since then, it has been found that the earlier MSS have various endings for Mark 16. Some scholars have done analyses of Mk 16:9-20 and have concluded like textual critic, Bruce Metzger,



The two oldest entire NT MSS we have, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not contain Mark 16:9-20.

I have written more details on this in my article, Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?

This is a sample of Bruce Metzger’s assessment of the long vs. short ending of Mark 16.

Therefore, I conclude that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest MSS and is a later addition, thus making it not in Scripture, but an addition from a well-meaning scribe as a copyist.

For further evidence regarding Mark 16, you might like to read Dave Miller’s article, ‘Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?’

In Christ,
Oz

thank you Oz for your time and work. I had never heard that before I guess i'll get to that stuff later in my degree? Very interesting.

 

[Bluelion]

The Alexandrian text-type is that which is available today in the United Bible Studies Greek text (also Nestle-Aland) which I use. It is the Greek text used for the predominance of contemporary NT Bible translations: ESV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NLT, NET, HCSB. The Byzantine text-type is used in the Textus Receptus and is translated in the KJV and NKJV.

The many translations that are available today are designed with a particular audience in mind and some with a dynamic equivalence translation philosophy (NIV, NLT, NET) and formal equivalence translation philosophy (ESV, NASB, NRSV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV).

I really don't know what you mean by the statement: 'I think that is a strong arugement (sic) for many translations being used and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide you in the reading of God's word'. Are you expecting the Holy Spirit to guide you in determining which MSS should be in or out of the NT? Is that what you mean?

Oz

I was thinking different Bibles used different scripts, but it looks like there are only 2 major ones.

 

[OzSpen]

I was thinking different Bibles used different scripts, but it looks like there are only 2 major ones.

Blue,

Please excuse my wrong word in the previous post. I wrote of 'United Bible Studies Greek text (also Nestle-Aland)'. It's United Bible Societies Greek text' (UBS).

To my knowledge there are only 2 major ones. Why don't you send me a PM to tell me where you are studying and the details of the degree? Are you doing much of that study online?

Most of the material I learned in this area came in my Master's degree with a couple courses in Bibliology, one being in biblical criticism where we considered the Greek MSS used. Some of this material is in Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev & exp (Moody Press 1986). If you want more in-depth, I highly recommend Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed (Oxford University Press, 2005). Metzger has a smaller more accessible version, The Bible in Translation (Baker Academic, 2001).

In Christ,
Oz