Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!shelby!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is the Bible 100% correct? Message-ID: Date: 29 Jan 91 08:23:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 65 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >[This continues a discussion on the necessity of baptism. It's hard >to be sure who said what beneath all the widgets, but I believe >Frank Farkas cited Mark 16;16: >>I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 >>doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". >>In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. >--clh] > >Um, Frank, it says that if you have x and y, then you get z. This does not >prove that if z, then you must have x and y. You could have x and v. >A simple math demonstration will show this: 2 plus 2 equals 4, but 4 does >not always equal 2 plus 2, you could have 3 plus 1, 0 plus 4, -3 plus 7, >2 times 2, square root of 16, all of these could give you 4. Thus your >statement that Mark 16:16 says that to be saved one must believe *and* must >be baptized" is not true. It only says that if [believe & baptized], then >saved. Geoff Allen is right, you are wrong. You need to take some courses >in logic and argument. I have, and it often helps me catch mistakes like >this. > Initially I was not going to respond to this response. Arthur Miller's excellent response made me realize that my position was not correct at all. I believe that Arthur has provided a very good response. The only thing I would like to add to his is the following: If x+y=z, then it is also possible that x+v=z only if v=y Now, lets call each term what they are suppose to be: x=faith y=baptism z=saved This means that faith + baptism = saved. If this is true, then the only way baptism could be substituted if faith would also be substituted by something else. This again points out how absurd, and in fact how illogical this way of thinking is. It still amaze me how gullible we can be by accepting some flimsy arguement, if it will somehow support what we believe in. It is comparable to the victims of a money fraud. Many who fall in prey are doing it because they want to believe the fact that they will get rich. They are willing victims. I find it interesting that many who holds the Bible up high as the direct word of God spends so much time talking away some of the things which are written. So far I have herd the following arguements against Mark 16:16: 1. It is not in the earliest manuscript. I assume that this means that it is not scripture. What an ugly thought. Something in the Bible which doesn't belong there (this is not a translation issue). May be there are things which are missing? 2. Logical arguement that baptism is not part of the equation for salvation because it could be substituted with something else (which in fact was shown above to be false logic). I am now waiting for someone to quote a scripture which will in fact cancel out Mark 16:16. With brotherly love, Frank