Instigator / Pro

Baptism is a must do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.


Waiting for the contender's fifth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 819 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

A topic inspired from another debate sprouting an unbiblical belief .

Baptism is a must do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.

So that there is no misunderstanding, it's not a sprinkling but a full covering of the body.
Just like a burial. It's the like figure of being buried.

Questions, comments, please message or comment.

Round 1
Baptism is a must do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.

In the book of Mark 16 and at verse 16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

So therefore, baptism is a must do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.

Resolved: Baptism is a must-do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.

  • Pro stated [in the description]: "So that there is no misunderstanding, it's not a sprinkling but a full covering of the body. Just like a burial. It's the like figure of being buried."
  • This is a reference to immersion or submersion. "Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial,[1][2][3][4][5] but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed in water completely." [1].
  • Pro clarifies in the rules that Baptism he refers to this specific action of full immersion. 

Burden of Proof
  • The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim and is not upon anyone else to disprove [2]. Mall serves as the instigator and with the absence of any other clause in the rules, he carries the larger burden of proof. 
  • The claim here is that "baptism is a must-do to be saved according to the holy scriptures." Pro must show that baptism as described in the framework is required for salvation according to the bible, in other words, one absolutely cannot be saved in any way without being baptized.

  • Because pro has such a short affirmative case, we can immediately jump into rebuttal. 
  • Pro argues that the verse Mark 16: 16 proves that baptism is a "must-do" for salvation. This, as you will discover, is not correct. 
  • Foremostly, Pro does not even quote the full verse and we can suspect why that is. It says: 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  • Just as Dr. Linda Johnson explains, “the passage states a fact that baptized believers will be saved. It says nothing, however, about believers who have not been baptized” [4]. 
  • Pro commits the negative inference fallacy, "a positive assertion about something does not by itself logically lead to a negative inference about something else" [5].  
An example of a claim that would illustrate my opponent's misunderstanding and flawed logic would be [from the same source] 
  1. All Koreans are Asians.
  2. Bob is not a Korean.
  3. Therefore, Bob is not an Asian.
  • Analyzing the whole half of the verse Mall conveniently cuts out, that Jesus says "but he that believeth not shall be damned."  in all, we can extrapolate the fact that the fundamental basis of condemnation is and always will be he that believeth not—a lack of belief snd rejection of Christ. 

  • My constructive case for this debate will be that it is well documented throughout the Bible, especially by the words of Jesus Christ himself, that faith alone, the acceptance of Christ, is alone sufficient for salvation.
  • John 3: 16 perhaps the most widely known quote of the gospels says "for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." In the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, whosoever shall believe in him will be saved, not whosoever is baptized. 
  • Ephesians 2: 8 says "for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." We are saved through faith, and not through external acts. By the grace of God alone.  
  • John 5: 24 says "verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." He who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ shall be saved.

  • I will build my case on some of the points Evangelist, Minister, and Author Dr. Bob Wilkin lays out in his analysis of Mark 16:16 [7].
  1. The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
  2. The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven and rather peached salvation by Faith Alone
  3. There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.

1 - The basis of condemnation lies in belief
  • This has been shown already in my rebuttal to pro. As Mark 16:16 states "he that believeth not shall be damned."
2/3 - Preaching of the apostles and saved by faith
  • As Wilkin accurately documents "Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10-34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48)" [7]. 
  • For non-Christians who may be confused "baptism by the holy spirit," is a signifier of the asking acceptance of Jesus Christ into one's heart, and is not what we are debating today [8]. Regardless the Bible makes clear in the preaching of Peter that such acceptance alone is necessary for salvation.
  • Paul even says himself in 1 Corinthians 1:17: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." How much more explicitly can it be made that baptism is not necessary for salvation? 
  • For even further reference "passages such as Acts 15 and Romans 4 make it clear that no external act is necessary for salvation" [8].

  • Mall is arguing that one must be physically baptized in water to be saved, however, I suspect this commits my opponent to defend positions that are historically and biblically untenable.
  • Many people were saved in the Bible that were not baptized, even by Jesus Christ himself.
  • Luke 23:39-43 explains that even on the edge of his death, Christ saved one of the two criminals crucified alongside him.
39. One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40. But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41. We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42. Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”
43. Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
  • This man was not, nor was he ever baptized. He was a criminal, and a sinner for his entire life until the approaching moments of his death. Yet he was saved by faith and acceptance of Christ Jesus similar to the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the praying tax collector in (Luke 18:13-14) who humbly confessed his sins to God [6].  

  • I believe, and you should as well, that it is indisputable that the only requirement for salvation is a belief in and acceptance of Jesus Christ. 

  3. [most verses]

Round 2
Do you believe the scripture where it says "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?

It states "baptized" there and "shall be saved".

Let God be true and every man a liar, the book says.

Do you reject Mark 16?

It goes right with the topic statement.

He that believes and is baptized.

I mean should I have just made the verse the topic statement?

All I did was just rephrase.

I could give you Acts 2:38. But if you can't believe and accept Mark 16, I'll wipe the dust off my feet as the scripture say and be on my way .
Round 3
There's not much more to go on.

We shouldn't be out to distort, contradict or make the scripture incongruent.

Let God be true, God's words be true.

So when somebody goes out to refute one passage of scripture with another, they call that pitting scripture against scripture.

Don't attempt to refute scripture but harmonize it. So take Mark 16 and tie it into whatever else is being brought into the scenario .

When you find scripture that reads what appears to agree with your position and leave it at that, it just appears that a contradiction is being pointed out.

We can't just gloss over Mark 16 like we didn't see what it said. I can hear God's voice now, Jesus's voice saying "Now you know you heard what I said."

Like I said, the book of Acts. In Acts 2 and Acts 22 brings up being baptized. I'm not necessarily going into detail with those passengers because I accept Mark 16. I'm not going to argue with it .

  • Given that pro does not dispute anything stated within the framework it's safe to assume the parameters of the debate are acceptable to both parties, including the burden of proof which is on pro. 
  • I do apologize for forfeiting round two, I narrowly ran out of time, but given this is a 5 round debate, I don’t see that much is lost and am glad to get back on track. 
  • Pro essentially repeats the exact same claim he made in the previous round, and does not respond to my rebuttal to his claim. 
  • This means realistically, I don't even need to make a new response and can simply extend said rebuttal. However, I will take the opportunity to simply double down on all aspects of pro's case. 
Do you believe the scripture where it says "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"?
  • Once again, pro only shows half of the Bible verse he is discussing as I showed in round one. This should be a mistake to expect to have been amended, but I suppose not. 
  • The full Mark 16:16 verse tells us that:
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
  • Pro is arguing that this means that immersive baptism is required to be saved. However this commits the negative inference fallacy. 
  • "In conditional format, "If A, then B," does not imply the negation, "If not A, then not B" [4]. As an example, the statement "a Tesla is a car" does not mean that nothing else besides a Tesla is a car. 
  • In the same respect, the verse in question says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but it never says only these people alone will be saved because it says nothing about those who believe and are not immersively baptized. Jesus saved many people in the bible without baptism [6] as illustrated in round one and pro drops every single example of such incidence. 
  • Dr. Joseph R. Nally Jr. illustrates the fact avidly: 
“Notice what is missing above. Mark 16:16 does not say anything about genuine believers who have not been baptized - like the unbaptized thief on the cross next to Jesus; "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). This one thief went to paradise on the very same day he was saved and physically died without being baptized! This by itself disproves the false "works" doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Mark 16:16 does not say, 'He who is not baptized will be condemned.' Why? Because the one requirement for salvation is mentioned in Mark 16:16b, that is, "whoever does not believe will be condemned" [2b]. 
  • The verse does tell us that only he who believeth not shall be damned, and as I contended in round one, this shows that the only basis of condemnation is lack of belief and has nothing to do with baptism. Mall's argument here tells us the opposite of what he believes. 
  • To quote Matthew J. Slick, founder of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: "I could easily say that he who believes and goes to church will be saved.  That is true.  But it is the 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 and in His sacrifice is what saves" [1b].

  • Pro doesn’t really make an argument based on this, he simply vaguely mentions the verse. We can analyze it anyway. It says:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
  • However this verse does not show Baptism is a requirement for salvation and an analysis of the original Greek grammatical structure will in fact show the opposite
“In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind).  This refers to the initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation.  The verb translated “be baptized” is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in “repent.”  The preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Greek is “eis,” unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object).  It can mean “for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins.”  It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase “and were baptized unto Moses.”  Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification.  In 1 Cor. 10:2 the people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses” [3b]. 
  • In this case and context, the Greek translation of eis (the Greek word for) indicates the meaning of because as used consistently and contextually in other biblical passages illustrating that the remission of sins has already taken place before baptism. 
  • Further analyzing the tense structure of the verse in translation—“we can notice a significant contrast being made when we combine this with the fact that the word “your” in the phrase “pardon of your sins” is also in the second person plural, which helps us better understand this verse. This shift from the second person plural to the third person singular and back again appears to establish a direct link between the phrase “pardon of your sins” and the instruction to “repent.” As a result, when you take into consideration the shift in person and plurality, what you have is effectively “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular).” In other words, “You all repent for the forgiveness of all of your sins, and let each one of you be baptized,” to put it another way” [4b]—we can observe the verse is really illustrating that the forgiveness of sins comes from repentance, and baptism is a secondary gesture, not necessary for salvation, but a symbolic gesture that comes after salvation. 
  • Lastly, later in the same chapter, Acts 10:43: Peter confirms that belief alone is necessary and sufficient for forgiveness: “All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Consistent with the Greek translation analysis on Acts 2:38, this further establishes that baptism is not necessary to be saved, and Acts 2:38 does not suggest this. 

  • Let’s observe my uncontested arguments:
Constructive - various verses cited that show that faith alone is sufficient for salvation
  • Pro completely drops all portions of the scripture I present here.
1 - The basis of condemnation lies in belief
  • Pro completely drops this argument 
2 - The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven and rather peached salvation by Faith Alone
  • Pro completely drops this argument 
3 - There are New Testament examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.
  • Pro completely drops this argument

  • It is no wonder that pro has no response to any of my arguments. I suspect the resolution fails from being biblically untenable. As a recap based on the further words of Dr. Joseph R. Nally Jr:
“Mark teaches that there is one requirement for salvation - the God given gift of "belief" (Mark 11:22; John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 8:24; 16:31; Acts 16:31; Rom. 5:1; Phil. 3:9, et. al.); whosoever believes shall be saved and whosoever does not believe shall be condemned (John 3:18). This is consistent with the remainder of Scripture. O.T. Abraham was saved by faith alone (Rom. 4:1-25; Gal. 3:6-22; see Heb. 11 for an incomplete list of O.T. saved saints). Cornelius was saved by faith "before" he was baptized (Acts 10:44-48). Paul told the adult jailer in Acts 16, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Note that Paul did not add another requirement! Only "after" the adult jailer was saved was he baptized (Acts 16:33). So, good works - including the good work of water baptism - follow salvation (Eph. 2:10)” [2b].

  • Pro has dropped my entire case, and given that I have thought disproved his short affirmative case, as it stands, pro has not come close to upholding his burden of proof, and the resolution fails, Baptism is not necessary for salvation. 
  • From what I have shown, we have established that:
    • Mark 16:16 does not show that submersion baptism is a requirement for salvation
    • Acts 2:38 does note show that submersion/immersion baptism is a requirement for salvation, and in the same chapter, Peter says the opposite in Acts 10:43.
    • The apostles did not preach that baptism was a requirement for salvation\
    • Jesus himself saved many people without baptism 
    • The only basis of condemnation is unbelief

  1. b.
  2. b.
  3. b.
  4. b.

Round 4
I do apologize if I missed it. I maybe missing where you responded that you believe Mark 16.

It does indeed say he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.

Now is that a lie ?

He that believes is saved. Is that the truth according to Mark 16?

Is it he that believes is saved and then will be baptized?

I think you mentioned about the scripture not specifying whom it is referring to.

Just reading the scripture, the scripture tells us the answer.
I'm not coming up with answers or reading things into it. I'm not saying he that believes and is baptized is saved outside of just repeating from the book. The book says that. The book gives us the answers.

You can't credit me for what the Bible says. You can't credit Jesus Christ for what he said according to John 5 and John 14.

The words of God left as they are as pure according to Proverbs 30, reading the scripture (words) as is.

So Mark 16 says he that believes. Who? The one that believes, that's who. Is that all? Well no we continue to read and it says he that believes and baptized.

Now that's it. We're looking at what this scripture says regarding TO BE saved. We're not looking at what it says TO NOT BE saved. 

So don't run, don't deviate. Deal with what it's saying and that's who it is describing that shall be saved.

Now if Mark 16 says he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, if it doesn't mean what it says but something else, why would it be misleading?

Is it a mistranslation? 

See if you have a bias with just the faith only doctrine or baptism not being in place first to be saved, a person will tend to twist scripture to accommodate the biased position.

You'll start coming up with things like questions to derail the context. Anything really to perform the classic eisegesis.

That's why unrelated scriptures are being brought up . But in order to bridge those fabricated gaps, you have to commit eisegesis. You come up with theological preconceived dogmatic interpretations.

But can you claim that I am interpreting or reading something different than what it says or how this passage reads ?
  • Well, again, pro dropped all my arguments and rebuttals. I genuinely don't mean to come off as dismissive but analyze pro's rebuttal and think of a single argument he responded to. I am appalled. 
Anything really to perform the classic eisegesis.
  • Can you please show what specifically you believe to be eisegesis? 
  • I would argue the opposite is the case given that my opponent has dropped all my arguments and made extremely short, low-effort cases that I have refuted in full, refutations which again, he does not address.
  • If pro is being dogmatic in his attempt to prove that one must be immersively baptized to be saved, he must prove this with the bible. He has dropped my entire case, yes my entire case.
  • As it stands, pro has the burden of proof, and I have sufficiently countered his proposition. 

  • Dropped
    • Con makes his entire round 4 on this and I am sorry to say, he just rambles and does not address the fact that I made an entire rebuttal to his argument, even repeating myself in round 2.
  • Extend my rebuttals concerning the negative inference fallacy. 

  • Dropped

Constructive - various verses cited that show that faith alone is sufficient for salvation
  • Dropped

1 - The basis of condemnation lies in belief
  • Dropped 

2 - The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven and rather peached salvation by Faith Alone
  • Dropped

3 - There are New Testament examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.
  • Dropped

  • Extend all arguments?

Round 5
Yes I'm disappointed in this debate but I think I expected this .

I mean what are you going to do, what are you going to say?

If I were to ask somebody according to the scriptures? 

Does it say he that believes and is baptized shall be saved?

Now being honest , say yes. It does say it. Now to be crafty and maybe deceptive, you may say yes , BUT. 

You may so no and try to go against scripture and teach falsehood. That is try to say, well the scripture in Mark 16 don't mean what it say.

My whole argument is around Mark 16. Sure it is. Is not Mark 16 good enough?

Why do I have to run all over the place? 

Is this a way to keep us from the scripture that directly says what it says?

I asked a question. I asked about what I read and what I was reading any different from what was stated there in that scripture.

I don't believe I got an answer because it was obvious. It wasn't rhetorical by the way.

At least face what we have here. My basis is Mark 16, so why are you running to other things for me to address?

You don't have a rebuttal for what Mark 16 said. Again, you run to other scriptures pitting them against one another.

Like I said, all that does is conflict everything versus harmonizing in which you should have done this whole time.

But I won't make this a total loss of a debate.

Let's harmonize some scriptures.

Let's look at Acts 2.

We'll begin at verse 38, listen.

"38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

We have baptized mentioned there.

Now let's look at verse 40

"40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

Mentioned save there.

We drop down to verse 47, it mentions saved.

"47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The context is dealing with being saved and baptism as it is a part in this context.

Just for an added bonus.

Same chapter,

"41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"

Now before you get excited, here is verse 44.

"44 And all that believed were together"

Now you may see this and isolate it because it's all you believe in.

But I won't commit eisegesis. I commit to the whole context. The context is dealing with belief, baptism and being saved completely harmonizing with Mark 16.

I'll give you another one. 

Acts 22

"16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Context dealing with being baptized and away with sins harmonizing with Acts 2.

Baptism is a part in being saved. 

Now really for someone that doesn't accept one passage, going through all this just shows that a person wants convincing, persuading versus just accepting, believing and receiving the word as mentioned in Acts 2.

God bless and not just for the sake of a sneeze either.

Not published yet