do any of you believe tongues are necessary

[ARBITER01]

My two cents worth!!!

I agree with your above post. In a quick look, we can see just in Acts verses that harmonize with Mark 16:17-20.

Speaking in tongues (of course Pentecost) Acts 2 and also when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues Acts 10:44-46.

Signs, wonders, & healings Acts 3:2-7 Acts 19:11,12

"take up serpents" (in the context of "if", this is not speaking of snake handlers) Acts 28:3-6 when Paul had accidently picked up a "viper" with a bundle of sticks for a fire.

This was just put together quick and I am sure there are plenty of other verses that harmonize with the last section of Mark.

That's the thing I'm finding, it doesn't disagree with scripture, in fact there are plenty of points where scripture agrees with it. If the section was just one big lie, it would be easily revealed.

 

[OzSpen]

Arbiter

Friend, if you can't prove that it is a lie by scripture, than it is not, case closed.

If it doesn't disagree with the rest of scripture, than how is it corrupt? If you are unable to use scripture to compare it with, just say so.

In post #221 you stated:

If you are going to accept a segment of manuscripts as authoritative and others are somehow corrupt, and go about using those authoritative ones against the others, then please prove the sections you denounce as actually corrupt by scripture.
If they are additions by men, then they should be easily proven as such against scripture.

You stated it again in #223:

“If you are stating the ending of mark is corrupt, then use the body of scripture to prove it was by men and not The Holy Spirit”.

You wanted me to show you from your version of Scripture that includes Mark 16:9-20 that these verses were “corrupt by scripture”. That is not my language, but yours. What did I do? I showed you from Scripture, using Mark 8-20 that vv 9-20 were added. See post #228.

You did not like the exegesis of the text that I provided to demonstrate that Mark 16:9-20 was added, so what did you do? You changed the goal posts in post #229 by saying,

“I'm not asking for a greek thesis on it, just proof that it disagrees with the rest of scripture and shows it's corruptness that you claim. If it is so, then The Holy Spirit will prove it for you.”

Instead of allowing me the “body of Scripture” to show you that vv 9-20 were added to the Scripture (as you wanted in #223), now you want me to demonstrate that it does not disagree with the rest of Scripture. You have changed your criteria – the goal posts.

In #230, you used this change of goal posts and quoted Mark 16:9-20 and asked:

"Is there anything in any passage here that is false, that can be proven to be false by the body of scripture we have?
If so, point it out.”

There most certainly is teaching in this passage that is false when judged by the rest of Scripture. Take Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. This promotes the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration that a person needs to be baptised to be saved. What does the rest of the Bible teach?

• ‘But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12 ESV).
• "’And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" ‘(Acts 16:31).
• ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph 2:8-9).
• 'Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 5:1).
• 'and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith' (Phil 3:9).

These Scriptures are very clear that no works (e.g. baptism) are required to become children of God and obtain salvation. It is all by grace through faith. Therefore, to teach that “Whoever believes AND is baptized” is saved is teaching false doctrine. Baptism is not a requirement to obtain salvation. Baptismal regeneration, as taught in Mark 16:16, is contrary to Scripture.

In addition, there is an apparent biblical error in Mark 16:12 when it states,

‘After these things, he appeared in another form to two of them as they were walking into the country’.

According to John 2:19, Jesus would rise in the same body in which he died, although it would be a glorified body. Mark 16:12 creates the problem because there is the suggestion that Jesus’ resurrected body would be ‘another form’. Jesus did not appear in another form. He appeared after the resurrection in the same body/form in which he

Mark 16:12 may be problematic because it suggests "another form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body in which he rose. What did doubting Tomas do after the resurrection? He wanted to see in Jesus hands the mark of the nails (John 20:25). How did Jesus respond? In John 20:17, it is recorded that,

‘Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe"'.

This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture, Mark 16:12 is false and a later addition to the text.

In Christ, Oz

 

[JEBrady]

In addition, there is an apparent biblical error in Mark 16:12 when it states,
According to John 2:19, Jesus would rise in the same body in which he died, although it would be a glorified body. Mark 16:12 creates the problem because there is the suggestion that Jesus’ resurrected body would be ‘another form’. Jesus did not appear in another form. He appeared after the resurrection in the same body/form in which he

Mark 16:12 may be problematic because it suggests "another form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body in which he rose. What did doubting Tomas do after the resurrection? He wanted to see in Jesus hands the mark of the nails (John 20:25). How did Jesus respond? In John 20:17, it is recorded that,
This is a significant problem and seems to support the idea that this section of scripture, Mark 16:12 is false and a later addition to the text.

In Christ, Oz

With respect to this, it says in Jn 2:19 only that he would raise the temple (his body) up. To infer that means He would have the same form is to read into the text (see Revelation 1:13-16, also penned by John). There is scriptural evidence that His resurrected body was very different. The 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (which I read 16:12 to refer) did not recognize Him because they were not allowed. They only recognized Him when He broke bread. Then he didn't leave normally by the door! (Think, how did Peter, James and John know Moses at the mount of transfiguration, if not by revelation?) Also, on the beach when He appeared to Peter and the disciples fishing, Peter knew Him by the catch, not by His appearance, and further, Jesus stated His body was flesh and bone (not flesh and blood) when demonstrating that He was not a spirit. And, did He not "appear in the midst, the doors being shut" in John 21? What kind of body in the form He had prior to crucifixion was capable of that? Also, Paul saying in 1 Co 15 that the resurrected body is a spiritual body, confirming that flesh and blood bodies do not inherit the kingdom of God....are they not a different form? For we will bear the image of the heavenly, not the earthly in that day.

But with respect to your point on baptism, that is provocative and will inspire me to study more into it. Thanks for posting.

 

[OzSpen]

JE,

With respect to this, it says in Jn 2:19 only that he would raise the temple (his body) up. To infer that means He would have the same form is to read into the text (see Revelation 1:13-16, also penned by John). There is scriptural evidence that His resurrected body was very different. The 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus (which I read 16:12 to refer) did not recognize Him because they were not allowed. They only recognized Him when He broke bread. Then he didn't leave normally by the door! (Think, how did Peter, James and John know Moses at the mount of transfiguration, if not by revelation?) Also, on the beach when He appeared to Peter and the disciples fishing, Peter knew Him by the catch, not by His appearance, and further, Jesus stated His body was flesh and bone (not flesh and blood) when demonstrating that He was not a spirit. And, did He not "appear in the midst, the doors being shut" in John 21? What kind of body in the form He had prior to crucifixion was capable of that? Also, Paul saying in 1 Co 15 that the resurrected body is a spiritual body, confirming that flesh and blood bodies do not inherit the kingdom of God....are they not a different form? For we will bear the image of the heavenly, not the earthly in that day.

But with respect to your point on baptism, that is provocative and will inspire me to study more into it. Thanks for posting.

Your points are valid and I'll think further about them. While there were some changes in Christ's glorified body after his resurrection, there was definitely considerable sameness as demonstrated by the incident with Thomas.

In Christ, Oz

 

[patience7]

JE,

Your points are valid and I'll think further about them. While there were some changes in Christ's glorified body after his resurrection, there was definitely considerable sameness as demonstrated by the incident with Thomas.

In Christ, Oz

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (they did not recognize him)

Luke 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. (they did not recognize him)
v30,31 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

John 20:14,15 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (Mary didn't recognize him)

It seems to me that these all fit together. I don't know what Christ resurrected body was like but I do know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 1 Co. 15:50 the dead are raised incorruptible (v52) Can a resurrected body take on a different form? I don't know; but apparently Jesus looked different. Not only in Mark but also in Luke & John.

Anyway, I would not want to take away a whole section of scripture because I wasn't sure of something or because I just didn't know and therefore could not explain it.

I think there is something about adding to and taking away from prophecy in Revelation 22:18,19.

 

[JEBrady]

When I would get up very early and read that passage about the road to Emmaus, it many times overwhelmed me and brought me to tears. This is such a precious passage of scripture. There's a part where those disciples say, "didn't our hearts burn within us when he opened the scriptures to us?" I was in a meeting where a man of God was teaching, and I thought to myself concerning what he was saying, well, yes, that's true. But interestingly, my heart began to burn in my chest (the anointing was truly remarkable), and I now know exactly what those disciples on the road to Emmaus experienced. This part of scripture will always live in me. Always.

Always.

 

[Biblicist]

OzSpen (# 236),

Spencer,

With regard to my statement in # 234 which stated, “I really do wonder why people even bother to try and demonstrate that Jesus never spoke these words”. This probably wasn’t a very well thought out statement on my part as I would be rather unwise to suggest that there is no value in questioning passages of text especially when there is a substantial amount of reasoned argument that suggests that Mark 16:9-20 may contain a few intrinsic irregularities.

When it comes to these verses I agree with the position that is presented by academics such as Mark Wessell and Witherington who state that the early church was convinced that the last leaf of Mark was lost. He quotes Metzger who says that vv. 9-20 are a strong witness for is the fact that it was felt very early on that 16:8 was not the original nor an appropriate ending.

What grabs my interest is with the view that some copyist decided to add in his own version in an attempt to tidy up this apparently missing portion of Mark; did the early copyist/s simply transcribe what they knew from memory as to what was included in the autograph or from a very near daughter copy, who knows and I recognise that it certainly can’t be proven. If it was a copy only one down from the original autograph then the highly Pneumatic Church of the first century probably wouldn’t have shown any real concern with it as it simply reflected mainstream Christianity of the day.
If it was added say in the middle of the second century or even by the end of third century its apparent widespread acceptance would indicate that not all of the church of its day was turning against the ministry of the Spirit towards one of liturgy.

As there is nothing in vv. 9-20 that contradicts the Scriptures and that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be given in power elsewhere in the Gospels and that we establish our doctrine from the Epistles, I really don’t see any problem with its content. Of course the question as to it being penned by Mark or re-inserted by a later copyist using different words; or even inserted originally as a gloss by a copyist where it ended up in the main body of the text is certainly an intriguing one.

To summarise, I do accept it as being the intent of Mark though it may have been re-inserted by a copyist using only his memory; even so, we certainly cannot easily ignore the intriguing intrinsic questions contained with this portion of text.

Hope that this clarifies my position.

Barry

 

[OzSpen]

patience,

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. (they did not recognize him)

Luke 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. (they did not recognize him)
v30,31 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

John 20:14,15 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (Mary didn't recognize him)

It seems to me that these all fit together. I don't know what Christ resurrected body was like but I do know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 1 Co. 15:50 the dead are raised incorruptible (v52) Can a resurrected body take on a different form? I don't know; but apparently Jesus looked different. Not only in Mark but also in Luke & John.

Anyway, I would not want to take away a whole section of scripture because I wasn't sure of something or because I just didn't know and therefore could not explain it.

I think there is something about adding to and taking away from prophecy in Revelation 22:18,19.

Your points are valid, except for Rev. 22:18-19 which refers to the Book of Revelation particularly.

However, some other things need to be noted. John 2:19-22 reads,

Jesus answered them, ”Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken (ESV).
​

At the cross, according to Matthew 26:61, it was reported that Jesus referred again to this destruction of his own body and raising it in 3 days: ‘This man said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days”’.


There is evidence that people did not recognise Jesus after his resurrection. Luke 24:15-16, 30-31 states:

‘While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him…. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight’.

John 20:14-15 states:

‘Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, ”Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be(the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away”’. So there are instances after Christ’s resurrection where people did not recognise him. Was he changed in such dimensions that his appearance had completely changed?

In John 20:14-15, why did Mary not recognise Jesus? We are not given that information in the text, but it is surprising for somebody like Jesus who was so well known. Leon Morris in his commentary on John’s gospel notes:

There seems to have been something different about the risen Jesus so that He was not always recognized. The walk to Emmaus is the outstanding example of this, but we see the same thing at the miraculous draught of fishes (21:4), and Matthew tells us that when the disciples saw Jesus on a mountain in Galilee they worshipped, “but some doubted” (Matt. 28:17). Cf. also Luke 24:37’ (Leon Morris 1971. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 838).

Part of D. A. Carson’s comments on these two verses are:

Taken as a whole, however, the resurrection accounts provide a certain tension. On the one hand, Jesus’ resurrection body can be touched and handled (v. 27; Lk. 24:39), bears the marks of the wounds inflicted on Jesus’ pre-death body (Jn. 20:20, 25, 27), and not only cooks fish (21:9) but eats it (Lk. 24:41-43). On the other hand, Jesus’ resurrection body apparently rose through the grave-clothes (Jn. 20:6-8), appears in a locked room (vv. 19, 26), and is sometimes not (at least initially) recognized. The closest we are likely to come to an explanation is 1 Cor. 15:35ff (1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 641).

This does not mean that there was no human form to be recognised, but there were certainly some differences. Why those who knew him did not recognise him after the resurrection, we are not told.


Sincerely, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Barry,

OzSpen (# 236),

Spencer,

With regard to my statement in # 234 which stated, “I really do wonder why people even bother to try and demonstrate that Jesus never spoke these words”. This probably wasn’t a very well thought out statement on my part as I would be rather unwise to suggest that there is no value in questioning passages of text especially when there is a substantial amount of reasoned argument that suggests that Mark 16:9-20 may contain a few intrinsic irregularities.

When it comes to these verses I agree with the position that is presented by academics such as Mark Wessell and Witherington who state that the early church was convinced that the last leaf of Mark was lost. He quotes Metzger who says that vv. 9-20 are a strong witness for is the fact that it was felt very early on that 16:8 was not the original nor an appropriate ending.

What grabs my interest is with the view that some copyist decided to add in his own version in an attempt to tidy up this apparently missing portion of Mark; did the early copyist/s simply transcribe what they knew from memory as to what was included in the autograph or from a very near daughter copy, who knows and I recognise that it certainly can’t be proven. If it was a copy only one down from the original autograph then the highly Pneumatic Church of the first century probably wouldn’t have shown any real concern with it as it simply reflected mainstream Christianity of the day.
If it was added say in the middle of the second century or even by the end of third century its apparent widespread acceptance would indicate that not all of the church of its day was turning against the ministry of the Spirit towards one of liturgy.

As there is nothing in vv. 9-20 that contradicts the Scriptures and that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be given in power elsewhere in the Gospels and that we establish our doctrine from the Epistles, I really don’t see any problem with its content. Of course the question as to it being penned by Mark or re-inserted by a later copyist using different words; or even inserted originally as a gloss by a copyist where it ended up in the main body of the text is certainly an intriguing one.

To summarise, I do accept it as being the intent of Mark though it may have been re-inserted by a copyist using only his memory; even so, we certainly cannot easily ignore the intriguing intrinsic questions contained with this portion of text.

Hope that this clarifies my position.

Barry

As I have expressed in a previous post today, Mark 16:16 does teach baptismal regeneration, which I consider to be incorrect teaching.

Yet Craig A Evans, an evangelical historical Jesus' scholar, states:

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 16:9-20) are not the original ending; they were added at least two centuries after Mark first began to circulate. These passages-one from Mark, one from Luke, one from John - represent the only major textual problems in the Gospels, no important teaching hangs on any one of them (unless you belong to a snake-handling cult; see Mk 16:18 (2007. Fabricating Jesus. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 30).

See Kelly Iverson's article for a contrary opinion to the view you have presented: “Irony in the end: A textual and literary analysis of Mark 16:8“

In Christ, Oz

 

[patience7]

patience,

Your points are valid, except for Rev. 22:18-19 which refers to the Book of Revelation particularly.

However, some other things need to be noted. John 2:19-22 reads,

Jesus answered them, ”Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken (ESV).
​

At the cross, according to Matthew 26:61, it was reported that Jesus referred again to this destruction of his own body and raising it in 3 days: ‘This man said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days”’.


There is evidence that people did not recognise Jesus after his resurrection. Luke 24:15-16, 30-31 states:


John 20:14-15 states:

In John 20:14-15, why did Mary not recognise Jesus? We are not given that information in the text, but it is surprising for somebody like Jesus who was so well known. Leon Morris in his commentary on John’s gospel notes:

Part of D. A. Carson’s comments on these two verses are:

This does not mean that there was no human form to be recognised, but there were certainly some differences. Why those who knew him did not recognise him after the resurrection, we are not told.

Sincerely, Oz

That's exactly why I said the following in response to your quote:

"Mark 16:12 may be problematic because it suggests "another form." Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body in which he rose."

"I don't know what Christ resurrected body was like but I do know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 1 Co. 15:50 the dead are raised incorruptible (v52) Can a resurrected body take on a different form? I don't know; but apparently Jesus looked different. Not only in Mark but also in Luke & John."

Since we don't know then we can't just reject scripture because we don't understand something.

 

[Biblicist]

Spencer (# 249),

I understand your legitimate concern with what may appear to be baptismal regeneration but we find the same admonition being given by Peter in Acts 2:38 where he tells the Jews “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

If both Mark and Peter’s words were to be taken in the light of baptismal regeneration we would of course have a problem with Cornelius and his family and friends as they first received the Holy Spirit and were then baptized in water; along with the many millions of others who received the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues before they were baptized in water.

I am certainly of the opinion that if someone rejects water baptism after they repent and receive the Holy Spirit that they are walking on very shaky ground, to the degree where I believe that they should not be accepted as members of the local church until they do; this includes those who have only been “christened” as infants. What is the situation with their long term salvation – who knows?

I went to the article by Kelly Iverson who was then an intern of Daniel B. Wallace but her following remark seems to be in conflict with her far more senior peers; The consensus among New Testament scholars is that 16:8 represents the concluding verse of Mark’s Gospel, however, this theory has not gone unscrutinized.

As Wallace is a well known avid cessationist I would expect him to quote material from one of his students who agrees with him but as a number of eminent and respected academics disagree with her position I think I might go with those who are a bit more in the know so to speak. She seems to make a number of broad generalisations and tries to build on these generalisations but to my view without any success.

I didn’t read very far past her comment that stated, Option (3), which is the theory presented in this paper, is that Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at v 8. As this seems to be highly unlikely and as many have felt since the earliest times that the ending was lost very soon after it was written I feel that this is the most likely reason for the odd wording.

With regard to Wallace, for a Full Gospel believer, to see quotations from him is similar to quoting Bill Gates as to why MS Windows is supposed to be more reliable and secure than Linux and Mac; in my view his cessationist bent seems to filter or adjust much of what he has to say.

Barry

 

[ARBITER01]

There most certainly is teaching in this passage that is false when judged by the rest of Scripture. Take Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. This promotes the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration that a person needs to be baptised to be saved. What does the rest of the Bible teach?

• ‘But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12 ESV).
• "’And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" ‘(Acts 16:31).
• ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph 2:8-9).
• 'Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 5:1).
• 'and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith' (Phil 3:9).

These Scriptures are very clear that no works (e.g. baptism) are required to become children of God and obtain salvation. It is all by grace through faith. Therefore, to teach that “Whoever believes AND is baptized” is saved is teaching false doctrine. Baptism is not a requirement to obtain salvation. Baptismal regeneration, as taught in Mark 16:16, is contrary to Scripture.

Some folks are already looking at the other points you brought up, I'll look at this one.

One of the problems you're having here is your personal idea to what the passage said, and also the use of a transliterated word by bible committees instead of an actual translated word.

"Baptism" is not a correct translation from the Greek. A correct translation would be immersion, cleansing, or dipping. So the idea that this word in the greek would automatically refer to water, is an assumption on your part friend. Unless there is something else in the context of the passage or surrounding passages to denote it as such, we can't make that claim.

Without it being water, there is only one "immersion" that is part of salvation, and that is Spiritual immersion into The Holy Spirit, as Paul stated in relation to all of us who are born again,..

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

In the passage of mark, the order is: believe, be immersed, shall be saved, and that easily agrees with the order that Peter gave us in acts 2:38.

 

[OzSpen]

Barry,

Spencer (# 249),

I understand your legitimate concern with what may appear to be baptismal regeneration but we find the same admonition being given by Peter in Acts 2:38 where he tells the Jews “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.

If both Mark and Peter’s words were to be taken in the light of baptismal regeneration we would of course have a problem with Cornelius and his family and friends as they first received the Holy Spirit and were then baptized in water; along with the many millions of others who received the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues before they were baptized in water.

I am certainly of the opinion that if someone rejects water baptism after they repent and receive the Holy Spirit that they are walking on very shaky ground, to the degree where I believe that they should not be accepted as members of the local church until they do; this includes those who have only been “christened” as infants. What is the situation with their long term salvation – who knows?

I went to the article by Kelly Iverson who was then an intern of Daniel B. Wallace but her following remark seems to be in conflict with her far more senior peers; The consensus among New Testament scholars is that 16:8 represents the concluding verse of Mark’s Gospel, however, this theory has not gone unscrutinized.

As Wallace is a well known avid cessationist I would expect him to quote material from one of his students who agrees with him but as a number of eminent and respected academics disagree with her position I think I might go with those who are a bit more in the know so to speak. She seems to make a number of broad generalisations and tries to build on these generalisations but to my view without any success.

I didn’t read very far past her comment that stated, Option (3), which is the theory presented in this paper, is that Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at v 8. As this seems to be highly unlikely and as many have felt since the earliest times that the ending was lost very soon after it was written I feel that this is the most likely reason for the odd wording.

With regard to Wallace, for a Full Gospel believer, to see quotations from him is similar to quoting Bill Gates as to why MS Windows is supposed to be more reliable and secure than Linux and Mac; in my view his cessationist bent seems to filter or adjust much of what he has to say.

Barry

You sure have a penchant against Daniel Wallace and I think your characterisation is unfair. John MacArthur is a cessationist but there is very much of value in his teaching on many other subjects. The same with Daniel Wallace. I currently am writing my PhD dissertation for a university where my supervisor is a Reformed theological liberal. My theological views are very different in many areas from my supervisor. Linking Kelly Iverson's exegesis of Mark 16 to the cessationist theology of Daniel Wallace is an improper characterisation.

I refer you to Kelly Iverson's article and endnote 6, "Irony in the end: A textual and literary analysis of Mark 16:8",that is one of the best internal exposes of why Mark 16:9-20 should not be in the Gospel of Mark - based on internal evidence of Mark and the long ending of Mark.

Let's get it clear with the teaching of Acts 2:38. Those who teach baptismal regeneration love to use this verse for support.

Acts 2:38 in the ESV reads,

‘And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”’.

This verse has been used regularly by those who support baptismal regeneration (i.e. baptism is necessary for salvation) as they indicate from this verse ‘baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’.

The Greek grammar helps us to understand that this is not supporting baptism for the remission of sins. The command to repent is to ‘you’ plural, second person in number. The command to be baptised is given in singular number and third person. Therefore, it is not correct to identify ‘forgiveness of your sins’ with baptism otherwise it would mean that each person was baptised for the forgiveness of sins of all those who were present.

If we were to take baptism as that which is linked to (causes) the forgiveness of sins, the text would say something like this:

‘Let him be baptised for the remission of all your sins’, and "let him (another) be baptised for the forgiveness of all your sins’, and "let him (yet another person) be baptised for the forgiveness of all your sins’, and on and on for each person in the group.

Therefore, each person would be baptised for the forgiveness of the sins of all the people in the group.

This is not what the verse teaches. Baptism is not linked to the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38.

Simon J. Kistemaker in his commentary on the Book of Acts (Baker Academic 1990, p. 105) confirms this position that Acts 2:38 does not teach baptismal regeneration:

In Greek, the imperative verb repent is in the plural; Peter addresses all the people whose consciences drive them to repentance. But the verb, be baptized, is in the singular to stress the individual nature of baptism. A Christian should be baptized to be a follower of Jesus Christ, for baptism is the sign indicating that a person belongs to the company of God's people.

In Christ, Spencer

 

[ARBITER01]

This is not what the verse teaches. Baptism is not linked to the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38.

Do you really think this??

Let's look at that passage,..

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be immersed each of thee upon the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of thy sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now what did Jesus say was to happen to them?,..

Act 1:5 for John indeed immersed in water, but you will be immersed in the Holy Spirit not many days after."

This Spiritual immersion happened in acts 2, it was when the disciples were born again and the church started.

 

[Jedi.Kep]

Must you speak in tongues to be saved?

Absolutely not.

 

[OzSpen]

Arbiter,

Do you really think this??

Let's look at that passage,..

Now what did Jesus say was to happen to them?,..

This Spiritual immersion happened in acts 2, it was when the disciples were born again and the church started.

In #253, I provided the exegesis, using the Greek, that Acts 2:38 does not confirm baptismal regeneration.

Your statements do not refuted the exegesis.

Baptism follows salvation. Baptism does not result in salvation. That's what Acts 2:38 teaches.

In Christ, Oz

 

[ARBITER01]

Arbiter,

In #253, I provided the exegesis, using the Greek, that Acts 2:38 does not confirm baptismal regeneration.

Your statements do not refuted the exegesis.

Baptism follows salvation. Baptism does not result in salvation. That's what Acts 2:38 teaches.

In Christ, Oz

Has anyone agreed with the false teaching of water regeneration in this thread??

Not that I know of, so maybe you should actually read what we posted before just glancing over it and making a wrong assumption (again) of what we said.

 

[OzSpen]

Arbiter,

Has anyone agreed with the false teaching of water regeneration in this thread??

Not that I know of, so maybe you should actually read what we posted before just glancing over it and making a wrong assumption (again) of what we said.

It was you who stated in #241:

That's the thing I'm finding, it [Mark 16:9-20] doesn't disagree with scripture, in fact there are plenty of points where scripture agrees with it. If the section was just one big lie, it would be easily revealed.

Part of what I wrote in #242 in response to you was:

There most certainly is teaching in this passage that is false when judged by the rest of Scripture. Take Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”. This promotes the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration that a person needs to be baptised to be saved. What does the rest of the Bible teach?

• ‘But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12 ESV).
• "’And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" ‘(Acts 16:31).
• ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast’ (Eph 2:8-9).
• 'Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 5:1).
• 'and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith' (Phil 3:9).

These Scriptures are very clear that no works (e.g. baptism) are required to become children of God and obtain salvation. It is all by grace through faith. Therefore, to teach that “Whoever believes AND is baptized” is saved is teaching false doctrine. Baptism is not a requirement to obtain salvation. Baptismal regeneration, as taught in Mark 16:16, is contrary to Scripture.
​

I do happen to read responses very carefully. There was an excellent reason why I gave the exegesis for Acts 2:38 to demonstrate that it DOES NOT agree with the false teaching of baptismal regeneration in Mark 16:16. I did not do glancing and I made no wrong assumption. You happened to have raised this matter.

My response came about from what you wrote.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[ARBITER01]

Arbiter,

It was you who stated in #241:
Part of what I wrote in $#242 in response to you was:
I do happen to read responses very carefully. There was an excellent reason why I gave the exegesis for Acts 2:38 to demonstrate that it DOES NOT agree with the false teaching of baptismal regeneration in Mark 16:16. I did not do glancing and I made no wrong assumption. You happened to have raised this matter.

My response came about from what you wrote.

Sincerely, Oz

Well while you are at it, please show where water is defined as the immersion Jesus talked about. Please show where water is listed.

 

[OzSpen]

Well while you are at it, please show where water is defined as the immersion Jesus talked about. Please show where water is listed.

And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him (Acts 8:38 ESV)

Oz