Conjunctions

Conjunctions are a significant part of grammar. We will have a little English lesson here. (Hello, Mrs. Cheney.) We often encounter a conjunction, usually "and," and have to interpret it. (Notice the live illustration.)

Some "ands" link two equal and correlating words or phrases. A second situation occurs when two equally important parts of the sentence are joined, but the actual meanings are not equal or of equal probative force. The dominant, usually first in the sentence, is the superior term and the following one supports or modifies it.

There are many arguments about one such example. It is in Mark 16:16.
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved;

We find somewhat the same message in Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;"

There are many other instances in the New Testament where the act of believing, or being saved, is followed, almost immediately, by baptism. So does that teach that salvation is a two part process: belief followed by baptism? And by implication, believing alone is not sufficient. If a new "believer" does not follow through with baptism, he is not saved?

There are many clear (in my opinion) and compelling arguments to reject that analysis. Our old friend, John 3:16 comes to mind. (3:15 repeats this theme. I guess it actually previews it.)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

No mention of baptism by Jesus. Notice that even though the two terms, believe and baptism, appear in conjunction (sorry, no pun) with each other, the term "baptism" is far outnumbered by the instances of where "believe" is used alone. Before we look at our English lesson, consider that every instance where the New Testament refers to saved persons, it uses "believer" or "those who believe." It never uses "the baptized."

Now for some English. Some "ands" are equivalent and interdependent. "I will graduate from law school and take the bar exam to become a lawyer." These two are both critical. Neither will stand alone to produce a lawyer.

A second situation is where the "and" is between primary and subordinate words or phrases. The subordinate word or phrase may accompany the precursor but the precursor can stand alone. "I will graduate from law school  and get a new car before beginning my career." The graduation in both instances is the critical path. Nothing can happen without it. But in the second "and" this phrase is not prerequisite to the final goal.

The "and" in Mark and Acts is subordinate. The following phrase is an accompaniment and not a primary factor in the outcome. I have quoted several verses below where believing and salvation are required, but baptism is not included. It seems like they are independent. And for final verification of this read Acts 16:31:
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Paul tells the jailer that belief is what is required. Now the next verse reports that everyone was baptized, but the "and" seems clearly not to be the requirement one. Look at the end of the verse. "...thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Sorry for the KJV. It flows nicely.) But the point is that if the "and" here, "and thy house" is a compulsory one, then everyone in the house was saved because the father believed.

John 4:53 gives us an additional example of that. The father had asked Jesus to heal his son, and Jesus did, from a distance. The father returned home to find his son indeed completely whole.
So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, "Your son lives"; and he himself believed and his whole household.

Is this another instance of whole households being saved because of the father's belief? I am pretty sure that the "baptism" crowd will not accept a "one for all" salvation. It is really awkward when we have to ask if they had to be baptized or was his belief sufficient. And did he get baptized?

I think our point is pretty clearly demonstrated. Salvation is by faith alone. And to top off the debate listen to Ephesians 2:8-9:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Paul seems to eliminate any human contribution to the salvation process. And for good reason, I surmise. Can't you just hear us in heaven. "I was baptized in real water, in a lake–or river, not that fake baptismal pool in the front of the church." "Oh ho! Hold on there, buddy. I was baptized in THE JORDAN RIVER. So there."

I have been baptized, (in a pool, by the way) and I recommend it to everyone I meet who has not followed the Lord's example. But that makes me no more saved than being splashed with Mario Andretti's motor oil makes me an Indy race car driver. (Maybe I should use Darrell Waltrip here.)

"Jesus paid it all. All to Him I owe. Sin had left a crimson stain, He washed it white as snow." Nothing more, nothing less. Amen. Or looking back a couple of thoughts, "Ah main."



Luke 8:12 Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.