And what are we to make of the following: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
I'm sure you know of the textual issue in the ending of Mark's gospel. If the best textual scholars are unsure that Mark 16 is genuine, then I will read it as genuine but will never use Mark 16 to support any doctrinal view. If the doctrine is taught elsewhere in scripture then I will develop the evidence from that instead. Sound reasonable?
I'm sure you wouldn't espouse snake handling or drinking formaldehyde based on this chapter would you? Nor would I.
There are many many places in scripture where salvation is mentioned. Sometimes this aspect is mentioned, sometimes another is mentioned. However, since there cannot be any contradiction in scripture ... all together they must espouse one way. If in one passage it is absolutely clear what is required, and the other place is not ... then I would argue that clarity is the dictate.
I see lots of places where salvation is mentioned ... it would take lots of time to list them all. But they all taken together must espouse one way.
So, for example, what are we to make of Romans 10 in light of Mark 16?
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 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. (Romans 9:8-10
This passage doesn't mention baptism, which passage is correct? Mark 16 or Romans 10?
Is 1 Pet 3:21 of dubious origin as well?
i can answer’your formaldehyde/snake question with the same line Jesus did: do not put to the test the Lord your God.
And there you have a major problem with sola scripture. How can the Bible alone be a sufficient rule of faith if we cannot know what is the Bible. And note here that we are not talking about the dispute over the deuterocanonical books but of the Gospel of Mark. In fact, why do we accept Mark or Luke as Scripture since neither was an apostle nor a witness to our Lord? It is only on the authority of the Church which accepted them as Scripture. If it is not the church which can determine and authenticate the canon of Scripture who can?
If the doctrine is taught elsewhere in scripture then I will develop the evidence from that instead. Sound reasonable?
No, it does not! If this passage is authentic, which it is, then this is sufficient to accept the necessity of Baptism. Nor is this something that we can pass over as unimportant; one's very salvation is at stake.
This passage doesn't mention baptism, which passage is correct? Mark 16 or Romans 10?
It is not a question of either/or but of both/and. If a person believes then he believes in everything that Jesus taught and commanded, including the necessity of Baptism.