Answering Cecil Andrews on Salvation

Cecil Andrews of “Take Heed Ministries,” a “counter-cult” group in Northern Ireland, has an article, “Is Robert Sungenis right on ‘being saved’?” From the get-go, let me note that I strongly disagree with Roman Catholicism on a host of issues, but many of the “arguments” Andrews forwards are strongly anti-biblical (due largely to his being a Calvinist). Furthermore, Catholic and LDS soteriolgies are closer to one another than Reformed theology (e.g., shared acceptance of the salvific efficacy of water baptism). I will discuss some of the objections Andrews raises which could also be raised against Latter-day Saint soteriology, showing, along the way, how Reformed theology is contrary to the Bible.

The Resuscitation of Lazarus: Proof of Total Depravity?

Lazarus could not ‘exercise faith’ to initiate his ‘coming forth’ from the tomb [see John 11:17-44] – he first had to be ‘quickened’ [regenerated’] by the voice of God [‘Lazarus’ – see John 11:43] and when the Lord called him by name he was ‘reborn’ and so could “come forth” but He FIRST had to be brought to life by God and it is exactly the same in the matter of ‘spiritual regeneration’ [“for the glory of God” John 11:4]. Let me at this point say that if anyone promotes teaching on REGENERATION that is in conflict with what has already been biblically shown, in the earlier part of this article, to be the truth on this matter of REGENERATION, if they accommodate in their thinking the necessity for some input by sinful man, such as in the form of a conscious decision coupled with religious ritual, then I believe they are promoting a ‘false gospel’ and such a ‘gospel’ was anathematised by Paul in Galatians chapter 1. There, Paul, under inspiration, rejected the false teaching of a human decision to submit to ‘ritualistic’ circumcision as being necessary for salvation - “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” [Acts 15:1].

Andrews attempts to tie John 11 and the physical raising of Lazarus with man being spiritually raised by God (as understood within the framework of Total Depravity) is to engage in false comparisons, a common exegetical fallacy Calvinists and others engage in. That certain theologies are forced to go down that (eisegetical) route should be strong evidence of how exegetically bankrupt their theological system is.

A related question raised would be about texts that speak of man being dead in sin, such as Eph 2:1-5. However, Calvinists are again guilty of gross eisegesis in Eph 2:1-5 (and parallel texts in Rom 6:2 and Col 2:13) by investigating the various ways Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 portrays an image of spiritual death precisely opposite the Reformed concept. The story’s main concern is to illustrate the initial spiritual salvation of an individual (as opposed to the physical resurrection in the story of Lazarus). Hence, we see a context in which the New Testament author’s meaning of spiritually “dead” can be gleaned much more appropriately. In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son leaves the father’s house with his share of the wealth. After squandering the wealth, the son finally comes to his senses and returns by his own free will to the father. The father, in turn, greets his son with compassion and invites him back into the home. This sequence of events becomes very significant in our present discussion on the meaning of the metaphor “dead” since the father describes the son’s return specifically in Luke 15:23 as, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” Not without significance, verse 32 repeats verbatim the father’s description of his son’s return: “. . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” In light of the fact that the son himself came to his senses and subsequently made his way home, Jesus’ use of the metaphor “dead” to describe the father’s understanding of the son’s previous spiritual state connotes a state, not of “total depravity,” but rather of cooperation by the son with the father’s will. Moreover, since the story of the Prodigal Son is surrounded by other parables in Luke 15-16 which illustrate the nature of initial salvation (e.g., “The Lost Sheep” in Luke 15:1-7; “The Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 and “The Shrewd Manager” in Luke 16:1-3), the medley of parables does far more to help us understand the extent and limitations of spiritual death in regard to conversion than does the story of the physical death of Lazarus.

That Total Depravity is contrary to the Bible can be seen in many texts. For instance, consider how Latter-day Saints, as well as other groups, are often attacked for expecting potential converts to display godly attitudes before being baptised and confirmed members of the Church. LDS teaching on this point is summed up in the fourth Article of Faith:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion of the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:

Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)

We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:

For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)

Not only are there important soteriological implications of this, but also anthropological, as it calls into question the Reformed/Calvinistic belief of Total depravity (the “T” of the TULIP).

Further evidence that the biblical authors did not believe in “total depravity” can be seen in many places. One potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:

A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was fraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)

In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26).

It is not unusual, however, to hear from some Reformed apologists that Cornelius was converted prior to Acts 10 and that such positive statements reflect the (imputed) righteousness of a saved person and their sanctified state. However, this is a rather desperate attempt to avoid the plain meaning of the episode (which reflects lip-service towards the perspicuity of Scripture).

In a recent volume, Kermit Zarley discusses the difficulty with this claim:

Luke has two decisive texts indicating Cornelius was not saved prior to meeting Peter. First, Luke says that soon after this Cornelius episode, “When peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers critized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to the uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” (Acts 11:2-3). Peter then related that Cornelius “told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved’” (vv.13-14).

Second, Luke implies that at this time in Jerusalem, Peter spoke to “the apostles and the believers” (Acts 11:1). Then Luke says regarding what Peter said to them, “When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’” (v.18).

Thus, Cornelius was not regenerated-saved prior to hearing Peter preach. (Kermit Zarley, Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys Explain Early Spirit Baptism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015], 137)

I could go on, but it is clear that the “T” of TULIP is utterly opposed to the Bible.

On Baptismal Regeneration

[This doctrine is]   soul-damningly wrong.

Au contraire. Baptismal regeneration is explicated in the Bible in many passages, such as Acts 2:38. However, let me reproduce what I wrote in a previous thread on a passage that Sungenis referenced, but Andrews never exegeted, John 3:

If an LDS person answers the question [“Have you been born again?] by saying, “I was born again when I was baptized into the LDS Church,” use the following discussion ideas to show them water baptism is now what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be born again”—read the story,

John 3:1-7 “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into this mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, eerily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

The phrase, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,” is interpreted by the LDS Church to mean you must be water baptized to be born again. But is this what Jesus meant?

In this passage, Jesus was talking about being born “again,” or being born twice. All men experience the first birth—physical birth, but if you hope to see the kingdom of God, you must also experience a second birth—spiritual birth. You must be “born again.”

In verse 5, the first birth is described as being born of water and the second birth being born of the Spirit. Jesus interpreted these two births of us in vs. 6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The first birth (of the flesh) takes place when a mother’s water membrane ruptures and the child is born. This is the physical/water birth.

The second birth (of the Spirit) takes place when a person is born of the Spirit into God’s family. This is what it means to be “born again.”

Jesus Christ’s explanation of the two births makes it clear that water baptism and being born again are not synonymous terms. A person is born again when he believes Jesus (John 3:14-18. 36). (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The Mormon Scrapbook [rev. ed.: Createspace, 2014], 61-62; emphasis in original; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

There are a number of problems with Thompson’s rather eisegetial, superficial treatment of John 3:

1.     Baptism was known among the Jews at the time of Jesus, and ritual immersions were done, often for Gentile converts to various Judaisms. For a book-length treatment, see Jonathan Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). The concept of immersion is part-and-parcel of the Hebrew Bible; for example, the Hebrew verb meaning “to wash” רחץ appears 74 times in 73 verses in the OT; often having the meaning of a full immersion of either a person or an object (e.g., Exo 2:5; 1 Kgs 22:38).

Another Hebrew verb,טבל appears 16 times in the OT, having the meaning of "to dip" or "to immerse," all part-and-parcel of "baptism" (e.g., Gen 37:31; Num 19:18; 2 Kgs 5:14; Job 9:31).

With respect to 2 Kgs 5:14, the LXX translatesטבל using the Greek verb meaning “to baptise” βαπτιζω that appears three other times in the LXX (Isa 21:4 in the proto-canonical texts; Judith 12:7; Sirach 34:35 in the Apocrypha)

Such would have been part-and-parcel of the language and world view of Nicodemus and contemporary Jews of Second Temple Judaism.

2.     When Jesus discusses “water and of the spirit,” he is not, in this locution, encompassing the combined elements of the first (natural) and second (spiritual) birth, a rather novel interpretation Thompson’s Sola Fide theology forces him to do (eisegesis, in other words). In reality, Jesus’ locution “water and of the spirit,” as evidenced from verse 3, is within the context of being born “again” or “from above” (the Greek ἄνωθεν means both “again” and “from above,” showing a world-play by John in the original Greek of the text). "Water and of the spirit" are the elements of the new birth only.

3.     Some Evangelicals try to argue that “water and of the spirit” is to be understood epexegetically, that is, the conjunction “and” actually means “even” (i.e. “one must be born again by water, that is, the spirit”). The problems is that the conjunction και in the phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος is a coordinating conjunction, discussing two elements, not one element—the KJV and modern translations are universal in translating it “water and [of the] spirit.” Take some translations from the Evangelical Protestant camp, for instance:

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (ESV)

 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NASB [1995 update])

 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

While και can sometimes be used epexegetically, it is very rare in the New Testament and LXX; the predominant function is coordinating, so unless one has good reason, "and" means, well, "and," which is the natural reading of the verse, unless one wishes to defend a dogma (in this case, a purely symbolic view of baptism), which, of course, is a classic example of eisegesis.

Furthermore, there were epexegetical conjunctions John could have used if he wanted to convey this meaning, such as  ινα and οτι (e.g., Luke 7:6; Matt 8:27). For more, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 666-78 on conjunctions in Koine Greek.

4.     Many commentaries that, while they have a pro-Evangelical bias, do not separate the "water" from the new birth as Thompson does; one example would include the note to John 3:5 in the NET Bible: “Jesus' somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born "from above," because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isa 44:3-5 and Eze 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. Joh 3:5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.”

5.     As for John 3:6 and the differentiation between σαρξ (flesh) and πνευμα (spirit) is between human mortality and sometimes human inabilities, and God's regenerating abilities; it is not a statement that relegates the "water" in v. 5 to be the water of the first/natural birth. Apart from evidencing a rather Gnostic theology (a disdain of God's use of material [here, water in baptism] to bring about His purposes), it, again, represents eisegesis. Note how σαρξ is used in the Gospel and epistles of John to denote either mortality in general or man’s need of God:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (σαρξ), nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh (σαρξ), and dwelt among us, (and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:13-14)

  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (σαρξ) profieth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

 Ye judge after the flesh (σαρξ); I judge no one. (John 8:15)

 As thou hast given him power over all flesh (σαρξ), that he should give eternal life as to many as thou hast given him. (John 17:2)

 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (σαρξ), and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ) is of God. (1 John 4:2)

 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ). This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Again, to quote the NET Bible: “What is born of the flesh is flesh, i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in Joh 4, especially Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24.) For John the "flesh" (σάρξ, sarx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature - a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in Joh 1:14 to the Logos becoming "flesh." The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.”

6. The overwhelming evidence from the New Testament supports the salvific nature of baptism. See, for instance, my exegesis of Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:20-21, and Romans 6:1-4; only by engaging in eisegesis of texts (e.g., Luke 23:43) can one avoid concluding the truth of this doctrine on biblical grounds. Furthermore, most contemporary New Testament scholars admit that this is the case. For a book-length treatment of the topic of baptism from the New Testament and early Christian history, proving baptism was originally done to (1) confessing believers (2) by immersion and (3) such baptisms  were salvific. On these issues, and many others, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgies in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), all fitting LDS theology and practice. Indeed, Ferguson, and other scholars, agrees that the texts those who hold to the salvific nature of baptism do indeed, exegetically, support the doctrine. As one example, note the following from a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles:

The ritual bath mentioned in the hymn is one of rebirth and renewal. The term palingenesia, “rebirth,” from palin “again,” and ginomai, “to come into being” (genesis, “birth,” being one of its cognates), occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt 19:28. The term was commonly used in the Hellenistic world of a wide range of human or met human experiences, including the restoration of health, return from exile, the beginning of a new life, the restoration of souls, new life for a people, and the anticipated restoration of the world.

 The Corpus Hermeticum, an Alexandrian text written sometime before the end of the third century C.E. and attributed to the “Thrice-Greatest Hermes” (Hermes Trismegistos), says that “no one can be saved before rebirth (Corp. Herm. 13.3). The thirteenth tract of the Corpus features a dialogue between Hermes and his son Tat on the subject of being born again. Speaking to his father in a manner that recalls Nicodemus’s question to Jesus (John 3:4), Tat inquires about rebirth. He understands rebirth to be accomplished in some physical manner and asks his father about the womb and seed. Hermes responds that these are respectively the wisdom of understanding in silence and the true good, sown in a person by the will of God. The child that results is a different king of child, “a god and a child of God” (Corp. Herm. 13.2). Rebirth enables a person to progress in the moral life, turning from twelve vices--ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice--to the opposite virtues (Corp. Herm. 13.7).

 Many twentieth-century scholars, particularly those belonging to the history of religions school of New Testament research, attempted to clarify 3:5 in the light of this Hermetic tract. The tract is, however, much later than the Epistle to Titus and lacks any reference to a ritual washing. On the other hand, the late first-century canonical Fourth Gospel features a discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees (John 3:3-8), about being “born again” (gennéthe anóthen). The Johannine account does not employ the noun “rebirth” (palingenesia), as does the Corpus, but it does speak about a birth that takes place in water and the Spirit (gennéthé ex hydatos kai pneumatos). The substantive similarities between the Johannine text and 3:5d-e--the references to washing, new birth, and the Spirit--suggest that both of these late first-century texts describe the ritual of Christian baptism as bringing about a new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Raymond F. Collins, I&II Timothy and Titus [Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002], 364-65)

7.     The unanimous consent of the early Christian fathers was that baptism was necessary for salvation, and not a symbol. Outside Gnostic circles which disdain the material world, such was the position of Christianity until the time of John Calvin (1509-1564). Furthermore, no early Christian commentator ever disagreed with the association of baptism with the “water” in John 3:3-5. As representative examples:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;5 since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXI)

And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXII, section 21)

[T]his salvation proves effectual by means of the cleansing in the water; and he that has been so cleansed will participate in Purity; and true Purity is Deity. You see, then, how small a thing it is in its beginning, and how easily effected; I mean, faith and water; the first residing within the will, the latter being the nursery companion of the life of man. But as to the blessing which springs from these two things, oh! how great and how wonderful it is, that it should imply relationship with Deity itself! (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVI). 

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

8.     The patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that, "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Scotland, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff) 

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

Roman Catholic apologist, Phil Porvaznik, has a helpful page on his Website, "Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers" which presents many such concessions by leading Christian historians, such as JND Kelly. Another helpful resource is David Waltz’s blog posts on baptismal regeneration in early Christianity.

The theology of baptism Thompson and many other Evangelicals hold to is without any historical support in the opening centuries of Christian history. They hold to an unenviable position of having to defend a view of baptism that is not only contradicted by meaningful biblical exegesis but also the unanimous consent of the theology of the opening millennium-and-a-half of Christian history.

9.  As for John 3:14-18, 36, (i) it is question begging to claim that statements where one is said to believe (or, to be more faithful to the Greek of v.16 which uses a participle, believing in God) precludes the necessity of water baptism. Notice how nothing is said about repentance or confessing the name of Jesus, but such is a requirement in Rom 10:9, 13; (ii) furthermore, in John's own gospel, one's eternal destiny, not merely rewards in the hereafter, are determined by one's works (John 5:25-29; see the seminal study from Chris Vanlandingham's volume on this issue, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Hendrickson, 2006] on this issue). (iii) It also requires that one reject the clear, exegetically sound texts that tie water baptism into salvation, as discussed above, and (iv) texts that show the dynamic relationship between faith, repentance, and baptism, such as Acts 2:38. Finally, (v) if recent studies showing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are sound, v.16 proves that belief *and* baptism are requirements for salvation (some may retort that damnation is linked to those who do not believe without anything said about baptism, but no non-believing person will be baptised, so such a "counter" is vacuous).

Much more could be said, but it is evident that those who oppose the salvific nature of baptism have no true biblical and historical basis for their theology of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is one area where Latter-day Saint theology fits that of (true) "Biblical Christianity," while most flavours of Evangelical Protestantism teaches a theological novelty without any meaningful biblical and historical basis.

For answers to some of the common objections to baptismal regeneration, see my paper, John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration (Greer is the current [as of writing] moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster; like Andrews, Greer is a 5-point Calvinist).

King David and Justification

Former Roman Catholic, Jim McCarthy in his book ‘The Gospel According to Rome’ has some helpful comments on this claim. He wrote on pages 80-81 –

‘When King David repented of his adultery, he confessed his sin directly to God. No priest. No ritual. No sacrament. Just a broken man owning up to his sin before His maker…Confession directly to God was also the experience of Nehemiah [1:4-11], Daniel [9:3-19] and Ezra [9:5-10]. New Testament Christians can also go directly to God with their sins …”If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” [1 John 1:9]. Jim also wrote on these pages that Christians ‘go not to a Judge but to their Father with Jesus at their side [for] “If anyone sins we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” [1 John 2:1-2]’.

For an exegesis of 1 John 2:1-2, see here; this passage, when exegeted, teaches (1) universal atoement and (2) refutes the Reformed teaching that, at justification, one's then-future sins (not just past and then-present) are forgiven as Jesus is presented, as he is in Heb 2:17, as a present atoning sacrifice for Christians.

Unfortunately, the appeal to King David as a model of justification refutes, not supports, Protestant theology.

In Rom 4, Paul uses two Old Testament figures as examples of an individual justified by God--Abraham (through his use of Gen 15:6) and Kind David (through his use of Psa 32). We have discussed Abraham's justification, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed view of justification (cf. this discussion on Rom 4:9 and this study on λογιζομαι).

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)

Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.

Further biblical evidence against the "Perseverance of the Saints" (the "P" of TULIP--the Reformed understanding of "eternal security") is the following pericope:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt. Ground that drinks up the rain falling on it repeatedly, and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and on the verse of being cursed; its end is to be burned over. Even though we speak in this way, beloved, we are confident of better things in your case, things that belong to salvation. (Heb 6:4-9 NRSV)

This pericope is one of the most commonly cited texts against various theologies of “eternal security,” which states that no truly justified believer will ever lose their salvation. This text has caused no end of headaches for those who hold to “once saved, always saved” or other theories of eternal security (e.g. Perseverance of the Saints [the “P” of TULIP]), which has led to a lot of scripture-wrenching to defend this false doctrine that is alien to the teachings of the New Testament church and text.

According to v.6, the apostates described, prior to their falling away, are said to:

1. Have once been enlightened.

2. Have tasted the heavenly gift.

3. Have been partakers of the Holy Spirit.

4. Have tasted the good word of God.

5. (Tasted) the powers of the age to come.

Their sin is not merely being a backslider, but the sin against the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10), which in Latter-day Saint theology is also a grievous sin (D&C 132:26-27). Clearly, from the description above, we are talking about people who were truly "saved" or justified. For instance, in v.4, the word translated as "partakers” is the Greek μετοχος. This Greek term can be understood in the sense of a partner or a partaker, or even an associate, as can be seen in its other usages in this epistle:

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (μετοχος). (1:9)

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers (μετοχος) of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus . . . For we are made partakers (μετοχος) of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence firm to the end. (3:1, 14)

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers (μετοχος), then are ye bastards, and not sons. (12:8)

In addition to the perspicuity of this phrase, we also see the same people were once enlightened (Greek: φωτιζω) and again, in Hebrews, refers to true Christians:

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated (φωτιζω), ye endured a great fight of afflictions. (10:32)

This of course raises an interesting question one has to answer--when does a person become enlightened or illuminated? According to John 1:4, we read:

In him [Christ] was life, and the life was the light of men.

Notice, spiritual  life is the light, which a true believer, not one who has a false confession of faith (cf. 1 John 2:19).

Beyond this examination, we also see that the people described in vv.4-6 had also tasted the good word of God. The Greek word translated as "tasted" is γευομαι. According to various lexicons, it also carries the meaning of "to experience" (e.g. Louw-Nida). Notice how this term is used in Heb 2:9:

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory, and honour, that he by the grace of God should taste (γευομαι) death for every man.

From an analysis of the terms used to describe the apostates in view in this pericope, it is obvious from any meaningful exegetically-sound analysis, that they were true believers who were regenerated by the Spirit of God. To claim otherwise necessitates a purely eisegetical approach to the pericope.

Verse 8, which reads, "But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned," is another verse to be considered. The verse, describing the spiritual condition of these apostates, are said to be "near" (εγγυς) unto cursing, which is "to be burned." The Greek underlying the phrase, "to be burned" is καυσις which can mean "to be consumed [by fire]" and "being on fire," clearly showing that they are in danger of damnation at the final judgement.

There have been many attempts to downplay the soteriological significance of this text. The first would be to cite Heb 6:6 as it appears in the KJV (emphasis added):

If they shall fall away, to renew again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame.

Some apologists for some theology of eternal security latch onto the use of the use of "if," claiming that this is clearly hypothetical, not a real-life situation. However, as discussed in this post, this is a KJV mistranslation--the Greek is not conditional; instead, it uses the aorist active participle of the verb παραπιτω (παραπεσοντας), correctly rendered by NIV, "who have fallen away."

In a conversation with a Reformed apologist I had in person in Cork city, when this text was raised as an example of how Calvinism is at odds with the Bible, the Calvinist stated that vv.4-6 were clearly hypothetical in light of v. 19, where Jesus is said to be our anchor. The verse reads as follows:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain. (NIV)

Firstly, it should be noted that it is the height of eisegesis to ignore the clear teachings of vv.4-6 in light and relegate it, without any exegetical basis, as merely hypothetical in light of this verse (examined below). Such only shows the Evangelical claim to teach and accept the “perspicuity of Scripture” to be a shell game.

Furthermore, the context shows that one's salvation is not "eternally secure," but a believer must persevere:

People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. (Heb 6:16-18 NIV)

The text highlights the fidelity of God to His covenant and His own self (cf. Tit 1:2). This would tie into all the texts in Hebrews that emphasise the perfection of Christ’s sacrifice, one that can completely remit past and then-present sins, unlike the iterative sacrifice of the Old Covenant (cf. Heb 9:9). In Heb 7:24-25, for instance, we read:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore h is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

However, just because God is faithful does not mean we will not cease being faithful, which is why there are admonitions permeating all of the Bible to true believers to remain faithful, warning of the great sin of true believers falling from their salvation. Note Heb 10:26:

For if we sin wilfully (αμαρτανοντων) after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for our sins.

The author of Hebrews includes himself in this warning, and those who fall under this condemnation are said to have no more sacrifice (θυσια) for their sins, indicating that a sacrifice for sins was, at one time, applied to them (i.e. Christ's sacrifice).

As for v. 19, this is another example of trying to formulate a systematic theology from a metaphor (cf. the use of "dead" in Eph 2:1 and elsewhere to "prove" Total Depravity by some Calvinists). Many lexical sources, when defining αγκυρα admit that it is used metaphorically in Heb 6:19. Note, for instance, Friberg's Lexicon (emphasis added):

ἄγκυρα, ας, ἡ literally anchor for a boat or ship, a heavy weight, usually of stone or metal, attached to a rope or chain and dropped overboard to keep a ship or boat from moving; metaphorically, of what provides security or support (HE 6.19)

In conclusion, the only sound exegetical reading of this pericope is that the author is describing real people who were truly regenerated, and who, due to committing grievous sins, lost their salvation. Furthermore, one can appreciate why this is often touted as being the definitive “proof” from Scripture of the falsity of many popular theologies of salvation within much of Evangelical Protestantism today, as it soundly refutes eternal security and its various formulations. It also shows the biblical basis for the Prophet Joseph Smith’s words in D&C 20:30-32 (emphasis added):

And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ is just and true to all those who love and serve God, with all their mights, minds, and strength. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God.

Confession of Sins to Ecclesiastical Leaders

Paul Symonds quoted John 20:22-23 to substantiate this claim that priests have the power to forgive sins in Christ’s name – “Receive ye the Holy Spirit; Whosoever’s sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them and whosoever’s sins ye retain, they are retained”. In understanding scripture it is always necessary to consider all relevant verses on a particular topic and these verses must be understood in the light of for instance Luke 24:45-47 “Then opened he [Christ] their understanding that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day; And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”.

In Antioch we read of Paul saying in Acts 13:38 “Be it known unto you therefore men and brethren that through this man [Christ] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins”. Earlier I also quoted Paul when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:21 “For it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching [not priestly-orchestrated sacramental observance] to save them that believe”.

Returning to Jim McCarthy’s book ‘The Gospel According to Rome’ we read on page 82

‘The disciples were to go forth and proclaim the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ…This is the very thing we find the disciples doing in the book of Acts. Peter for example proclaimed Christ to Cornelius saying, “…whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins”…There were also occasions when the disciples found it necessary to proclaim the sins of some retained. Simon the magician was one such person. Simon heard the gospel said he believed and was baptised. Shortly afterward he revealed his true motive. He thought he could obtain magical powers from the apostles. Peter told Simon he was still in his sins [Acts 8:21-22]’.

 In John 20:23, we read:

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained. (NRSV)

A similar concept is found in uniquely Latter-day Saint Scripture; mirroring Matt 16:19 and John 20:23, we read the following in D&C 132:46:

And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

Some may object to any appeal to John 20:23 as evidence of commissioned apostles of Christ having a role to play in granting forgiveness of sins. Some critics have argued that, as the Greek of John 20:23 uses the perfect tense, some have argued that the apostles were not being commissioned by Christ to be agents in forgiving sins, but merely declaring that their sins have been forgiven.

There are a number of problems with this type of reasoning.

Firstly, it makes the action of Christ nonsensical. If the person being told their sins were forgiven by the apostles already had their sins forgiven, such a declaration would not be required, as sins can only be forgiven once, and no man can usurp or trump God, making the declaration a moot point.

Secondly, one should note that the perfect tense in Koine Greek is used for a variety of purposes and cannot be translated adequately in all instances, nor can English properly express the idea of existing result which the Greek perfect conveys.

Thirdly, with respect to ἀφέωνται ("have been forgiven"), let us examine all other instances of this form (indicative perfect passive of αφιημι) in the Greek New Testament:

And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee. (Luke 5:20)

Whether it is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven (ἀφέωνται) thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? (Luke 5:23)

Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven (ἀφέωνται), for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. (ἀφέωνται) (Luke 7:47-48)

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (1 John 2:12)

In Luke 5:20 and 23, ἀφέωνται is used as a present tense, since the man’s sins were not forgiven prior to meeting with Jesus. The same applies for the adulterous woman in Luke 7:47-48--her sins, also, were not forgiven by Christ prior to her encounter with Jesus. This is confirmed by the fact that the present tense "is forgiven" (ἀφίεται) is used in v. 47 alongside ἀφέωνται with respect to people's recongition of a then-present forgiveness of sins.

In light of this, John 20:23 supports the apostles being commissioned agents of Jesus to act in his stead (just as Christ acts, as supreme agent, in the stead of the Father) with respect to forgiving sins, as it would be contradictory for the apostles to be told to forgive sins if the sins have already been forgiven by God. The use of the perfect tense, far from diminishing the apostles' abilities to forgive sins, only heighten the reality thereof.

A parallel in modern English would be how a person, if in receipt of a command to do an action, would state something akin to "consider it done" before it has been done; the use of the perfect tense would be to show that one is determined to do the task, not necessarily that the task has already been completed.

As with the language Christ used in the Last Supper accounts, this is another piece of exegetical evidence for an ordained New Covenant Priesthood, as well as providing important insights into the concept of the agentival relationship between the Father and the Son, as well as that of the Son and his apostles.

Conclusion

As we have seen in this article, on many key soteriological issues (e.g., nature of man; salvific efficacy of water baptism; eternal security), Andrews has to rely on bald assertions and eisegesis of the biblical texts to make the case for his Reformed soteriology. Furthermore, when the biblical texts are examined in light of historical-grammatical exegesis, we see that water baptism is salvific; that man is not totally depraved (or "Radical Depravity" as R.C. Sproul prefers to use), and that a truly justified person can lose their salvation, with King David being a prime example thereof.

As with the formal doctrine of the Reformation (sola scriptura), the material doctrine of the Protestantism (sola fide) is anti-biblical and should be rejected by those who bow the knee in submission to Christ (cf. Gal 1:6-9).