Lutheran: How can evangelicals read that verse, spoken by our Lord himself, and somehow still believe that baptism is simply OUR public profession of faith?
Baptist: first, i will quote from the notes from
the ESV study bible, which are not unique to them and are in agreement with a
great deal of conservative (and even a lot of liberal) scholarship and study in
the field of textual criticism: (quotes in red)
Some ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for scholars who specialize in the history of such manuscripts. This longer ending is missing from various old and reliable Greek manuscripts (esp. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (e.g., Origen and Clement of Alexandria) did not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time. And some manuscripts that contain vv. 9–20 indicate that older manuscripts lack the section. On the other hand, some early and many later manuscripts (such as the manuscripts known as A, C, and D) contain vv. 9–20, and many church fathers (such as Irenaeus) evidently knew of these verses. As for the verses themselves, they contain various Greek words and expressions uncommon to Mark, and there are stylistic differences as well. Many think this shows vv. 9–20 to be a later addition. In summary, vv. 9–20 should be read with caution. As in many translations, the editors of the esv have placed the section within brackets, showing their doubts as to whether it was originally part of what Mark wrote, but also recognizing its long history of acceptance by many in the church.
now to answer the specific question, assuming mark 16:16 is original,i quote again (for the sake of time, i am quoting people/positions that articulate succinctly my own position)
Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done on the cross as a sacrifice, not what man can do by believing and getting baptized, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not believe will be condemned," Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism. Notice that it does not say that he who is not baptized will not be saved. It never says that anywhere in scripture. - matt slick
this next one is lengthy,but thorough...
it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.)
.
Some ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for scholars who specialize in the history of such manuscripts. This longer ending is missing from various old and reliable Greek manuscripts (esp. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (e.g., Origen and Clement of Alexandria) did not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time. And some manuscripts that contain vv. 9–20 indicate that older manuscripts lack the section. On the other hand, some early and many later manuscripts (such as the manuscripts known as A, C, and D) contain vv. 9–20, and many church fathers (such as Irenaeus) evidently knew of these verses. As for the verses themselves, they contain various Greek words and expressions uncommon to Mark, and there are stylistic differences as well. Many think this shows vv. 9–20 to be a later addition. In summary, vv. 9–20 should be read with caution. As in many translations, the editors of the esv have placed the section within brackets, showing their doubts as to whether it was originally part of what Mark wrote, but also recognizing its long history of acceptance by many in the church.
now to answer the specific question, assuming mark 16:16 is original,i quote again (for the sake of time, i am quoting people/positions that articulate succinctly my own position)
Mark 16:16 does not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves, not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done on the cross as a sacrifice, not what man can do by believing and getting baptized, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest of the verse says, "...but he who does not believe will be condemned," Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism. Notice that it does not say that he who is not baptized will not be saved. It never says that anywhere in scripture. - matt slick
this next one is lengthy,but thorough...
it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.)
.
If water baptism were necessary for salvation,
we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in
Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon
on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in
the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links
forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the
forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his
gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the
gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me
to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel
from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if
water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel
itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the
gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood
water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious
for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the
view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from
baptism. The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from
baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet
Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what
cleansed them).
The Bible also gives us an example of people
who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted
through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident
from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v.
46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy
Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical
interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we
must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper
sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a
specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be
rejected.
Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as
we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for
salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for
interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general
teaching of Scripture.
With that in mind, let's look briefly at some
passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to
baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do
not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the
Greek preposition eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of
"for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32.
It is also possible to take the clause "and
let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical.
Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your"
are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest
of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent
(and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the
forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not
baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
A third possibility exists, as Wallace
explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary
for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for
condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the
failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because
it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual
scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel.
We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New
Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion
in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of
Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter
has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a
transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo
does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13)..
Water baptism is certainly important, and
required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that
baptism is necessary for salvation.- john
macarthur
A brief thought on Acts 2:38:
ReplyDeleteIt was baptism that took the convicted crowd into the forgiveness of sin that they sought. The word “for” in the text is a Greek preposition that indicates purpose… they are to be baptized “for” the purpose of forgiveness of sin. The Greek Preposition followed by "forgiveness of sins" should be attached to the closet verb, that being "be baptized."
Interesting that the two sources you referenced in that newest posting are Slick (CARM) and MacArthur. You can search Slick's site high and low for any criticism of Lutherans, the Lutheran Book of Concord, or our teachings regarding Holy Baptism. He doesn't want to go there, because the clear waters of his present argumentation will get real muddy, real soon.
ReplyDeleteHis problem is the same one MacArthur has - they are both arguing against any Romanizing tendencies whatsoever, but missing the Gospel. The old saw applies, especially with this subject: They both throw out the baby with the bath water. That Slick has turned justification (be whatever means) into the Classic Calvinist mode (by that I mean the whole TULIP formulation) which I joking refer to as the celestial lottery (YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY WON - if not, asbestos suits for sale, cheap).
Calvin's dual predestination by itself turns justification into a charade; their emphasis against the sacraments (making them more an issue of works than the Catholics ever thought to do) was condemned by all the early Church Councils quite early on; their failure to understand the Two Natures of Christ properly is the reason they have an empty ritual of crackers and grape juice they try to pretend is something of substance (again, something we do - like Rome again!) On Baptism, well, that just drives them nuts - and especially about infant Baptism - because to admit that is to see their whole sacramental system crumble into dust.
I found it amusing that the issue became the last half of the last chapter in Mark. That has always been a theological "red-herring" - for reasons that MacArthur's reference to analogia scriptura, or in Lutheran terms, the analogy of faith. Yes, there are questions about what the critical apparatus says about those verses, but there are many such verses.
Metzger, an excellent scholar whose work I have read, and used as I learned to use the apparatus for the Greek text (which I understand quite well), was also greatly, greatly influence by the historical critical school, which does not treat Scripture - any of it - as God's revealed Word, until they approve within themselves what is, or is not God's Word.
There are several problems with MacArthur's uncritical reference to Metzger that rails against his own supposed belief in the Word of God as coming from God: + + + The historical critical school begins with the mysterious "Q" source document, which they hold is supposedly the source document for whomever penned Mark's Gospel (they are also not in agreement that Mark wrote it); + + + They hold that Mark's Gospel, not Matthew's, was the first written, and as such, becomes the interpretation took for the other two synoptic Gospels, and of course, anything in John or whatever within the rest of the Epistles they find contrary to their liking. + + + In doing so, they hold Scripture not to God's standards (Spirit-breathed upon Holy Men), but merely another human document.
I don't think either Slick nor MacArthur mean to go that far, but that is what they are saying. But for arguments sake, let's lop off those last 12 verses of Mark 16, and then apply the analogy of faith (or MacArthur's analogia scriptura) . .
continued below
continued...
ReplyDeleteWe must then look to the two sections of Scripture neither one of them comes anywhere close to mentioning. The first is Matthew 28:19-20. How are they to make disciples of all nations (which necessarily includes children of all ages!)? BY baptism and BY teaching (both necessary) and notice the order! So even if one ignores Mark 16:16 (I do not, I stand with the Una Sancta against the modern critical scholars), Jesus makes the issue beyond crystal clear at the end of Matthew.
The second, which even MacArthur cannot dance around with creative exegesis (actually, his exegesis of Acts 2:37ff is abysmal), is Titus 3:3-7. It shows in the fact that both effectively do theology backwards, translating the New Covenant by the Old. It shows up throughout Calvinism, and in every case - every case(!) - somehow diminishes or minimizes the Work of Christ on the Cross, and the means whereby God has chosen to deliver grace and salvation.
Carm and Slick - He has good things, as does MacArthur, but they are the fortunate inconsistency. Most of the rest of the stuff is just legalisms that make my head and my faith hurt. MacArthur - he is the consummate Calvinist, to be sure.
I read MacArthur's book on Worship this afternoon . . . my take? He says some good things about the personal need for a believer to re-visit the understanding of "worship" as something ongoing and to which one needs always pay attention. There is no faulting that. Likewise, I can second his objections to the nonsensical modern forms of worship and "soul-seeking." He sees the total inadequacy of the new attempt at modern worship. Unfortunately, his answers aren't much better.
The problem is, he is very much a rigid Calvinist, and with a Puritan bent. So the following problems ensue:
1. His focus is almost entirely on the "sovereignty" of God, to the virtual exclusion of the Gospel. 2. He is a millenialist.
3. His focus on "preaching" - while placing that in the heart of worship as it should be, is almost solely law. There is little in his words about the task of preaching in consoling the troubled soul, except for his ongoing use of the woman at the well. And even that was then used to go back to chastizing, rather than teaching the Gospel - the main task of preaching.
4. Needless to say, then, he has almost no concept of the relationship between Law and Gospel. 5. He is not only anti-sacramental, but he is so in terms I can only call blasphemous.
6. He never mentions the other key word in worship - letourgia - liturgy - the work of the people/Church. That he likens to superstitious holdovers from Old Testament worship, which is ironic, since most of his thesis on worship is drawn on Old Testament passages. In so many words, he ridicules every facet of our Divine Worship, and most especially, the Lord's Supper, which he treats, as I said above, in very blasphemous terms.
7. He shares Calvin's total confusion about the Person and Work of Christ, and especially, he confuses the Two Natures of Christ (Divine and Human), so that while he does confess the Trinity, and that Christ is God and one with the Father, he does not hold that Jesus is omnipresent (present everywhere) or omnipotent (full power). It is at once confusing and confounding.
8. Following that, he is also very, very derogatory about the Holy Ministry, holding rather to the Puritanical "evangelist/preacher" minimalist model of the Ministry, totally ignoring Luther's phenomenal understanding of Pastor as "Seelsorger" - Carer of Souls. He totally ignores both the Acts accounts and the Pastoral Epistle accounts of the very precise order within the Ministry and its relationship to the Church, of which I spoke in this morning's Bible Study, and thus, he skews completely the relationship between the Holy Ministry and the Priesthood of All Believers.
I guess, by way of conclusion, I should say this: It is precisely Calvin's theology, with its confusion about the Two Natures of Christ, combined with a radical anti-sacramental bent, that originally led evangelical churches to go seeking something/anything of substance by which to identify themselves, or do mission work - and thus, to the present mess in which they find themselves.
ReplyDeleteSo, in order to undo what his own kind brought about, he wants to double down on preaching the Law, minimize the Holy Ministry, and do away with grace of God given in the Divine Liturgy, Holy Baptism, and the Lord's Body and Blood. That is simply barking up the wrong tree entirely. He means well, and there are some things that are beneficial in the book (many of which you highlighted), but he is absolutely clueless as to the solution in his "evangelical" branch of the faith. The very things that would revitalize their worship (and there are those among them, which he mentions, interestingly enough! - that have come our way in worship and the Sacraments) - Law and Gospel in both preaching and in active pastoral ministry, the Liturgy, discovering what the Sacraments really and truly are - these are the "marks" of the Church, the means by which God specifically said He would grant His grace in Christ.
MacArthur really gets nowhere near close to those. He has already rejected, out of hand, the very solutions to the problems he addresses.
That's my "off-the-cuff" response to the things Slick and MacArthur say. I think you could post some sources that will run rings around them both. My suggestions are:
The Book of Concord (obviously!) Franz Pieper's Christian Dogmatics (on both Justification and the Sacraments) Hermann Sasse - His "We Confess" anthology (highly recommended) The Wrath of God in John Calvin's Theology (CTS Thesis - Burnell Eckhardt - Gottesdienst)
Dear Gary:
ReplyDeleteThere are serious flaws in both the ESV Study Bible's comments about Mark 16:9-20, and in Metzger's comments about the passage in his "A Textual Commentary on the GNT." I have recently taken the time to sift through them and posted the results online:
At
http://onyxkylix.blogspot.com/2012/06/esv-study-bible-and-mark-169-20.html
I critique the ESV Study Bible's comments about Mk. 16:9-20, and at
http://onyxkylix.blogspot.com/2012/06/mark-16-bruce-metzger-and.html
I review Metzger's comments (which are clearly the source of the comments in the ESV Study Bible).
Regarding Matt Slick: I have informed him of the inaccuracies in Metzger's descriptions of some of the evidence pertaining to Mark 16:9-20. Unfortunately he has refused to correct those claims; for instance, even though Metzger retracted his earlier statement that some Ethiopic copies of Mark end at 16:8 (in a major article in 1980 in NT Tools & Studies), Matt continues to spread that claim, simply because he read it in Metzger's "Text of the New Testament" (which continues, even in its 4th edition, to perpetuate that false claim about the Ethiopic copies). The one-sided nature of the treatment provided by Metzger (and by the ESV Study Bible and by Matt Slick, both of which are simply repeating Metzger, either directly or indirectly) should be obvious from my reviews. The fact that the ESV's statements are not unique merely shows how superficial a lot of commentators' research on this text has been -- it is not easy to find a recent commentary that does not rely on Metzger!
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.