Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz

Beginning at around the 3:40 mark of a video entitled, "Dave Teaches One Big Reason Why Christians Can't Believe Mormonism is True," Bartosiewicz tries to argue against the LDS belief in modern-day prophets as follows:

We believe that Jesus fulfilled everything we believe that Jesus is our prophet ["Jesus is our only prophet" appears on the screen]; we believe that Jesus is our apostle; we believe that Jesus is our temple; we believe that when he actually died for us, being the last sacrifice, that he spilt his blood and when he said "it is finished" everything before that, the first covenant, everything that was done, was finished. Now we go to his blood and so it makes absolutely no sense for us to believe in a "Big 'P'" anymore because He is the "big 'p'" for us.

Post-Ascension Prophets

Firstly, as even more intellectually honest Protestant apologists will admit (e.g., James R. White), Jesus lived during a time of inscripturation and special revelation, and such a period continued after John 19:30 and after the resurrection. There was divinely inspired prophets and apostles who received special revelation. Absolutising things as Bartosiewicz does with John 19:30 (discussed below), he will have to reject the authority of the New Testament texts as they were not inscripturated during the time of Jesus, which is course is not only inane, it even violates the historical understanding of “sola scriptura.” As James White himself admitted:

Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]

It is not uncommon for some Evangelicals to cite Heb 1:1-2 in favour of such a view:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds [Greek: the ages]

In response, it could be enough to point out the obvious fact that Hebrews, probably written in the mid AD 60s, was not the last book of the New Testament to have been written and the implications of this fact are usually glossed over; odd that . . .)

The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!

In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.

Interestingly enough, appealing to such an absolutised reading of Heb 1:1-2 results in one rejecting the personal pre-existence of Jesus; to quote Dave Burke, a Christadelpian apologist:

I find it interesting that you cite Hebrews 1:1-13 as your text and then completely ignore verse 1. Perhaps it’s because you’re not sure how to deal with this verse, which clearly states that God formerly spoke to people through His prophets, but has spoken through His Son ‘in these last days.’ Such a statement has obvious implications for the concept of Jesus’ pre-existence and undermines the popular claim that OT angelic theophanies were actually appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

In response to this, the Evangelical apologist in the debate answered Burke rather cogently. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinan abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles (this point will be fleshed out more later in this section):

You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)

Furthermore, note that the New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28)

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul (Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)

And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28)

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1 Cor 14:29, 32)

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)

Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . (Matt 23:34; cf. Luke 11:49)

Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:40-41; cf. John 13:20; 15:20)

While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15), this only makes sense is there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-20).

Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed.


All of these considerations blows Bartosiewicz out of the water.

The Anti-Trinitarian Implications of Jesus as an Apostle


Sadly for Bartosiewicz, Jesus being our apostle is more problematic to his theology, not that of Latter-day Saints. Notice, however, Jesus is never said to be the "only" apostle or "only" prophet (see above), unlike how he is said to be the singular mediator in 1 Tim 2:5 (εἷς καὶ μεσίτης).

Furthermore, such a description of Jesus supports a subordinationist Christology.

In Heb 3:1, we read the following description of Jesus:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

I have discussed Latter-day Saint Christology in detail on this blog, including this paper:

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Jesus as our temple

Bartosiewicz needs to take an exegesis 101 course. It is true that Jesus is, metaphorically, our temple (cf. John 2:21), but so is our body (1 Cor 6:19) Using his "logic," Jesus is our physical body!

In reality, there are eschatological promises that there will be physical temples, such as Ezek 40-47; Isa 66:18-22; Isa 2:1-5, etc. In the case of the latter text, the Lord promises a physical temple in Jerusalem at the end-times:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.

For a fuller discussion, including refutations of many of the common criticisms against LDS temple theology, see

Matthew B. Brown, The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians

John 19:30

Perhaps the most popular “proof-text” for the doctrine of Penal Substitution is John 19:30. The argument goes that the term, “it is finished/done” means that the legal penalty for sin was paid in full by Christ, and that there is no need for ordinances or other actions by man for salvation and/or to maintain one’s salvation. The text reads:

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

The term translated in the KJV as “It is finished” is a single Greek term, τετελεσται, the perfect passive indicative form of the verb meaning “to complete” (τελεω). It should be noted that τετελεσται, in verse 30, stands without a subject or object, thus having no specific grammatical referent.

Τετελεσται is used twice in the LXX and one other time in the Greek NT, and in neither of these instances does it have such connotations that many Protestant apologists claim it does.

Ezra 7:12 (LXX) reads:

Αρθασασθα βασιλεὺς βασιλέων Εσδρα γραμματεῖ νόμου τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τετέλεσται ὁ λόγος καὶ ἡ ἀπόκρισις

Brenton, in his translation of the LXX, renders the above as:

Arthasastha, king of kings, to Esdras, the scribe of the law of the Lord God of heaven, Let the order and the answer be accomplished.

3 Maccabees 5:27 (NRSV) reads:

But he, on receiving the report and being struck by the unusual invitation to come out -- since he had been completely overcome by incomprehension -- inquired what the matter was for which this had been so zealously completed (τετελεσται) for him.

The only other time in the New Testament this phrase occurs is in the context of John 19:30 itself, verse 28:

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished (τετελεσται), that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

The most natural and historical interpretation of the text suggests that “it is finished” refers to the accomplishment of all the details that were required prior to Christ’s death, for once these details are completed, Jesus utters, “it is finished” and gives up the spirit and dies. Jesus desires to accomplish all the specific prophecies of the Old Testament. The previous use of τετελεσται in verse 28, quoted above, makes this clear. Fulfilment of Scripture is also evident in John 19:24 (cf. Luke 24:25-27). Hence, the primary contextual referent for “it is finished” is the fulfilment of Scripture. In addition, Jesus desires to secure the care of His mother, Mary, and thus gives custody of her to John the apostle at the foot of the cross (John 19:25-27). Once these things are accomplished, Jesus can then die. Hence, the scriptural prophecies concerning His suffering and death are finished, but the text does not discuss the nature of His sacrifice, as such is something the text does not even begin to discuss, let alone settle. That this was the earliest Christian interpretation can be seen in the following from John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-407) who wrote the following on the meaning of τετελεσται “it is finished” in John 19:30:

They parted the garments, by which such great miracles were done. But they wrought none now, Christ restraining His unspeakable power. And this was no small addition of insult. For as to one base and abject, as I said, and the vilest of all men; so do they dare to do all things. To the thieves at any rate they did nothing of the kind, but to Christ they dare it all. And they crucified Him in the midst of them, that He might share in their reputation.

And they gave Him gall to drink, and this to insult Him, but He would not. But another saith, that having tasted it, He said, "It is finished." And what meaneth, "It is finished?" The prophecy was fulfilled concerning Him. "For they gave me," it is said, "gall for my meat, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." But neither doth that evangelist indicate that He drank, for merely to taste differs not from not drinking, but hath one and the same signification.

But nevertheless not even here doth their contumely stop, but after having stripped and crucified Him, and offered Him vinegar, they proceeded still further, and beholding Him impaled upon the cross, they revile Him, both they themselves and the passers by; and this was more grievous than all, that on the charge of being an impostor and deceiver He suffered these things, and as a boaster, and vainly pretending what He said. Therefore they both crucified Him publicly, that they might make a show of it in the sight of all; and therefore also they did it by the hands of the soldiers, that these things being perpetrated even by a public tribunal, the insult might be the greater. (Homilies of John Chrysostom: Matthew XXVII.27-29, Homily LXXXVII, 1)

Notwithstanding, even allowing for John 19:30 to have a meaning relating to salvation, it still does not support the common Protestant interpretation of this verse. Consider the following:

In the theology of the apostle Paul, this common Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 is anti-biblical. According to the apostle Paul, the Father raised Christ for our justification:

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for (δια here has a causal sense [i.e. for the sake of]) our justification (Rom 4:25)

Furthermore,  John’s use of the verb τελεω (the verb τετελεσται is derived from), and the related verb τελειοω, as used in the Johannine literature (the Gospel of John; 1-3 John; book of Revelation) never has such a penal/forensic meaning which is necessitated by the historical Protestant understanding of John 19:30

Other instances of τελεω in the Johannine corpus outside of John 19:28, 30:

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Rev 10:7)

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. (Rev 11:7)

And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is ended . . . and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power, and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled. (Rev 15:1, 8) What is interesting is that v. 1 speaks of the wrath of God having “ended” in a time period post-dating John 19:30 and Christ uttering the phrase, “it is done.” If a Protestant apologist wishes to be consistent, they would have to argue that fulfilment will be when the Father’s wrath is propitiated, notwithstanding their claim that John 19:30, in their view, teaches such happened when Christ uttered his final words!

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. (Rev 17:17)

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season . . . But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection . . . When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. (Rev 20:3, 5, 7)

Usages of τελειοω in the Johannine literature

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (John 5:36)

I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) The form of τελειοω in this verse is an active aorist participle τελειωσας, used with respect to Christ "having accomplished" (NASB) what the Father sent him to do. Using the approach Protestants often do to John 19:30, this "proves" that everything for salvation was "done and dusted" (reverently speaking) at the moment Christ offered his High Priestly prayer and God's wrath against sin was completely propitiated then and there. Of course, such is eisegesis.

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:23) τελειοω in this verse is meant in the sense of moral perfection, not in a forensic sense.

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (John 19:28) In this verse, τελειοω is used alongside τετελεσται, but it clearly has a non-forensic meaning, being used to convey the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.

But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. (1 John 2:5)

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us . . . Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:12, 17-18). The use of τελειοω in this pericope as well as 1 John 2:5 (cf. John 17:23) refutes the forensic understanding of this verb and its cognates. Here, John speaks of the completion/perfection of love, but love is a human volition, but in the Protestant understanding of the atonement and justification, it is a legal transaction, similar to a modern will, in contradistinction to love (as well as faith) which is a non-legal and timeless virtue.

If such a model of the atonement is (penal substitution), as understood by historical Protestantism, is the "biblical" model, why does Christ have to intercede at all (cf. Rom 8:34)? In this model, the (past, present, sins and future) of the elect are forensically imputed to Christ, resulting in Jesus paying the legal penalty for their sins, However, this would render any intercession by Christ superfluous if Calvinism is correct.

Note the following from Protestant theologian, Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 249 n. 13, which captures how unbiblical Reformed soteriology truly is on this issue:

To understand the heavenly intercession of the Son on our behalf as the propitiation of the Father, as Michael [a Reformed apologist the author is responding to] does, generates a significant problem of internal coherence for penal substitution. According to penal substitution, the primary purpose and effect of the death of Jesus was to propitiate the wrath of God on account of the sins of humanity. As it is written elsewhere, because Christ is “a priest forever” in heaven, he “always lives to make intercession” and is thus “able for all time to save those who approach God through him” (Heb 7:24-25). Heavenly intercession on our behalf is thus the ongoing vocation of the risen and ascended Christ. So, if the purpose and effect of the Son's intercession is to propitiate the Father's wrath, then the Son is continually doing in heaven at the throne what was to have been fully accomplished on earth at the cross. The cross would thus seem to have been ineffective, or at least incomplete, in accomplishing its primary purpose of saving humanity from divine wrath. Michael's interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2, although given in defense of penal substitution, effectively undermines it.

Note the following from Swiss theologian and magisterial Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli that speaks of the propitiatory nature, not just of Christ’s death, but his intercession in heaven (1484-1531):

For as He [Christ] offered Himself once on the cross and again to the Father in heaven, so He won and obtained remission of sins and joy of everlasting happiness. (Macauley Jackson, trans. The Latin works of Huldreich Zwingli [2 vols.], 2:276).

A modern Protestant apologist also shows how easy it is for advocates of penal substitution to be inconsistent on this point (in the following case, a Calvinistic critique of the Catholic Mass):

He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption. Christ presents Himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of His people. His work of intercession, then, is based on His work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father . . . the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in His death He has taken away the sins of God’s people, and therefore, by presenting His finished work on Calvary before the Father, He assures the application of the benefits of His death to those for whom He intercedes. (James R. White, The Fatal Flaw [1990], pp. 133-134).

This text poses great problems for Reformed theology, as do so many pericopes in the Old and New Testament when read in light of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.

Why is this significant? In Reformed theology, when an individual is justified, it is an external, forensic event wherein the alien righteousness of Jesus is imputed to the individual, and one’s past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven. However, the New Testament clearly indicates that believer’s sins are to be atoned for even after their initial conversion. Consider the following text:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation (Greek: ιλασμος [atoning sacrifice]) for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)

In this passage, Jesus is presented as a still-present source of the atonement of sins.

Another significant text is Heb 2:17:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

There are a number of interesting things when one examines this verse. Firstly, there are two “purpose clauses” in this verse; the first (“that he might be a merciful high priest”) is the Greek ινα clause; the second is the use of the Greek preposition εις which means “into” or “with a goal towards” and this is coupled with the present infinitive form of the verb ιλασκομαι “to make atonement” (ιλασκεσθαι), and this present “making of atonement” is “for the sins of the people” (τας αμαρτιας του λαου). The author of Hebrews views Christ’s on-going office of heavenly intercessor as one that allows for the continuing appeasement of the Father to win the forgiveness of sins committed by believers, sins that were not forgiven at one’s conversion. In other words, this verse presents Jesus as the heavenly high priest who, even at present, makes atonement for sins; this is alien to many theologies that think of one's forgiveness as being once-for-all. The author of Hebrews says Jesus makes atonement for sins on an ongoing basis. If ones’ then-future sins were already atoned for when one appropriated Jesus (esp. if one holds to imputed righteousness), and their justification can never be lost, this verse and its theology is nonsensical. However, Christ's ongoing work as High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle is ongoing in reference to our own sins. Thus, the present infinitive form in Heb 2:17 conclusively demonstrate the continuing need of the application of Christ's work for our own salvation. Bartosiewicz and other rotestants are in the unenviable position of having to advocate a soteriology that is at odds with the witness of biblical exegesis

One final text that should refute such a soteriology is that of 1 John 2:1-2:

The ESV renders the verse as follows (emphasis added):

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

In this verse, John is speaking to Christian believers of his time and states that not only was/is Christ an atoning sacrifice (ιλασμος) for their then-past sins, but is presently an atoning sacrifice for their then-future sins. Why is this problematic? In Reformed soteriology, when an individual is pronounced “justified,” all their past, present, and then-future sins are forgiven, a “blanket forgiveness,” if you will. However, the text is pretty clear that a true believer will not only sin, but such sins will have to be repented of, and forgiven by Jesus Christ. This is brought out when one looks at the Greek:

The phrase, “we have an advocate” translates παράκλητον ἔχομεν, where the present text of “to have” εχω coupled with the Greek term παρακλητος, which refers to an advocate, an individual who pleads another's cause in their place, which is related to the intercessory work of Jesus Christ being tied into the perseverance of Christians and their ultimate salvation, something we find in a host of biblical texts, such as:

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom 8:33-34)

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)

We see a very potent example of this in Rev 5:6:

And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

In this passage, John sees a vision of the heavenly tabernacle, where Jesus is presented as being a Lamb. The term “as it had been slain” translates the Greek term ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, where the term ως (like/as) coupled with perfect passive participle of the verb σφαζω (to slay), therefore, depicting Jesus, in His post-resurrection state, in a sacrificial role, paralleling the slaughter of the Passover lamb. Furthermore, Jesus is not sitting, but standing, indicating activity on his behalf (cf. Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1-3), namely, His intercessory work before God the Father, applying the benefits of His atoning sacrifice for His people until He comes in glory; further, as we learn in vv.8-9, the potency of the prayers offered by the disembodied elders have their basis on this intercessory work—similarly, the potency of our prayers have power due to the prayers and intercessory work of Christ, our mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2:5).

The term “he is the propitiation for our sins” translates the Greek αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The ESV and other translations are correct in rendering Christ being a present atoning sacrifice (“propitiation”), as the verb “to be” (ειμι) is in the present tense (εστιν [“he is”]). This is commensurate with texts such as Heb 2:17 (discussed above), where the author of Hebrews presents Jesus as a present-propitiation, not merely a past-propitiation, for the sins of true believers.

1 John 1:5-10 confirms the focus on the present sins of the Christian that need forgiveness; verse 6 speaks of those who claim to have fellowship and yet walk in darkness (i.e. are engaged in unrepentant sin). In verse 7, the author provides the remedy to such, viz. the blood of Jesus Christ "that cleanseth us from all sin," allowing restoration of fellowship. This is reinforced in vv.8 and 10 that denies the claim that a Christian is without sin, while v. 9 encourages the sinner to repent, upon which God will "forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The pronouns use indicate that the author included himself in such warnings and as one who needs to engage in repentance and have his then-future sins forgiven, too.

When read exegetically, 1 John 2:1-2 shows that (1) Christ is a present propitiation for Christians; (2) the then-future sins of a Christian are not forgiven at justification, and, as a result, (3) repentance is not a once-off concept as some (not all) Evangelicals posit.

John McLeod Campbell, a 19th-century Reformed theologian who was critical of much of Penal Substitution, captured the extent and meaning of the atonement when he wrote:

And He is the propitiation: for propitiation is not a thing which He has accomplished and on which we are thrown back on as a past fact. He is the propitiation. Propitiation for us sinners,--reconciliation to God,--oneness with God abides in Christ. When we sin, and so separate ourselves from God, if we would return and not continue in sin we must remember this. For it is in this view that the Apostle, writing to us “that we sin not,” reminds us of the propitiation—not a work of Christ, but the living Christ Himself: and so he proceeds—“Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments;” the direct effect of knowing Christ the propitiation for sin being keeping Christ’s commandments. And because of the power to keep Christ’s commandments, which is ours in Christ as the propitiation for our sins, the Apostle, in words similar to those which he had just used with reference to the claim to fellowship with God who is light, adds, “He that saith I know him,” that is Christ the propitiation for our sins, “and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected,”—the end of this gift of love accomplished. “Hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked.” (John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life [2d ed.: London: Macmillan and Co., 1867], 197-98; emphasis in original).

One possible "counter" could be an appeal to Heb 10:10-14,  another "proof-text" for such a view on the atonement. The Greek (with key terms in bold), followed by the KJV, reads:

ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ. ¹¹Καὶ πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν καὶ τὰς αὐτὰς πολλάκις προσφέρων θυσίας, αἵτινες οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ¹²  οὗτος δὲ μίαν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν προσενέγκας θυσίαν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ¹³  τὸ λοιπὸν ἐκδεχόμενος ἕως τεθῶσιν οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτοῦ ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. ¹⁴  μιᾷ γὰρ προσφορᾷ τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ¹¹ And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: ¹² But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ¹³ From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

In the view of many Evangelicals, this pericope “proves” that the believer cannot fall from their salvation and that salvation is a once-for-all event (being tied into one of the many theologies of “eternal security” [e.g. Perseverance of the Saints within Reformed soteriology]).

First, Hebrews 10:14 is a somewhat obscure grammatical choice of words by the writer.

It should first be noted that Heb 10:14 (“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”) is ambiguous in the Greek.

The verse contains the present participle τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (“those being sanctified”). This present participle could be related to the perfect tense of τετελείωκεν (“he has perfected”). If this is the case, the sacrifice of Christ is indeed once-for-all (εφαπαξ), but is in a progressive relationship to us, that is, at least with respect to sanctification, Christ’s sacrifice does not give us a “blanket” forgiveness of one’s past, present, and then-future sins; instead, it gives us a perfect forgiveness of one’s past and present sins, but it is not applied all at once to us, as we know elsewhere from the New Testament that we must seek forgiveness of sins we commit post-conversion (e.g. 1 John 2:1-2).

Had the author of Hebrews wanted to convey such a “blanket” forgiveness as some wish to read into this pericope, he should have used a noun (e.g. τουν αγιουν [“the sanctified”]).

Something interesting appears in verse 10—the writer uses a perfect tense instead of a present participle. He says ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν (“we have been sanctified”). The difference apparently lies in the “we” of v. 10 (the author and his immediate hearers) in contrast to those addressed in v. 14 which is an open-ended inclusion of anyone who will experience the sanctification in the future. This being the case, in biblical Greek, it is better to use a present participle, because only that form can include those in the present who are being sanctified as well as those in the future who will be sanctified.

There is another possibility that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους refers to the entire sanctification process, including “positional” sanctification, for the author and his hearers in v.10 (i.e. they have been sanctified [per v. 10] but they are also being sanctified [v.14]).

Jesus, the Apostles, and Baptism

Bartosiewicz believes that his arguments lead to sola fide, the material doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. However, it does not. There are many proofs from Jesus and the inspired apostles themselves, including their explicit teachings in support of water baptism, not just being a command, but the instrumental means of one receiving a remission of sins (the meritorious cause, of course, being the atoning sacrifice of Christ [I state this as many Evangelicals confuse/conflate the two]). In this section, I will discuss and exegete John3:1-7 and Acts 2:38, as well as 1 Cor 1:17, which is a common "counter" passage.

Jesus teaches baptismal regeneration

One Evangelical Protestant wrote the following against LDS soteriology:

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). 

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is water baptism.

The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:

Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).

Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.

Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.

However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:

Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes such a remission (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.

Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.³⁹

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):

It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.⁴⁰

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction

Notes for the above:

³⁹ See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.

⁴⁰ Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.

Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins and baptism).

Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.

Moreover, that modern scholarly grammarians agree with the "traditional" rendering of the preposition in Acts 2:38 are numerous; in perhaps the most scholarly Koine Greek lexicon on the market (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [BDAG]), the following definition of εις is offered, with Acts 2:38 being an example of the preposition carrying the meaning with "into" or "with a goal towards" (within the context of Acts 2:38, one is baptised into/with a goal towards a remission of sins, supporting baptism being salvific, not merely symbolic [emphasis added]):

f. to denote purpose in order to, to (Appian, Liby. 101 §476 ἐς ἔκπληξιν=in order to frighten; Just., A I, 21, 4 εἰς προτροπήν ‘to spur on’) εἰς ἄγραν in order to catch someth. Lk 5:4. εἰς ἀπάντησιν, συνάντησιν, ὑπάντησίν τινι (s. these 3 entries) to meet someone, toward someone Mt 8:34; 25:1; J 12:13. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς as a witness, i.e. proof, to them Mt 8:4; 10:18; 24:14 al. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven Mt 26:28; cp. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Ac 2:38. εἰς μνημόσυνόν τινος in memory of someone Mt 26:13; Mk 14:9; cp. Lk 22:19 al. (εἰς μνημόσυνον En 99:3). εἰς ὅ for which purpose (Hdt. 2, 103, 1) Col 1:29; otherw. 2 Th 1:11 with this in view; εἰς τί; why? (Wsd 4:17; Sir 39:16, 21) Mt 14:31; Mk 14:4; 15:34; Hm 2:5; D 1:5. εἰς τοῦτο for this reason or purpose Mk 1:38; Lk 4:43 v.l.; J 18:37; Ac 9:21; 26:16; Ro 9:17; 14:9; 2 Cor 2:9; 1J 3:8; Hs 1:9 (Just., A I, 13, 3). εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very reason 2 Cor 5:5; Eph 6:22; Col 4:8. W. subst. inf. foll. (X., Ages. 9, 3, Mem. 3, 6, 2; Just., A I, 9, 5) in order to (oft. LXX; neg. μή in order not to; s. B-D-F §402, 2) Mt 20:19; 26:2; 27:31; Mk 14:55 and oft.—εἰς ὁδόν for the journey 6:8.

Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:

"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.

This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.

The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.

In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.

R.C.H. Lenski, the great Lutheran commentator, wrote on this verse and how it demonstrates that water baptism is salutary:

Our acceptance of baptism is only acceptance of God’s gift.

This is emphasized strongly in the addition: “for or unto remission of your sins.” It amounts to nothing more than a formal grammatical difference whether εἰς is again regarded as denoting sphere (equal to ἐν), R. 592, or, as is commonly supposed, as indicating aim and purpose, R. 592, or better still as denoting effect. Sphere would mean that baptism is inside the same circle as remission; he who steps into this circle has both. Aim and purpose would mean that baptism intends to give remission; in him, then, who receives baptism aright this intention, aim, and purpose would be attained. The same is true regarding the idea of effect in εἰς. This preposition connects remission so closely with baptism that nobody has as yet been able to separate the two. It is this gift of remission that makes baptism a true sacrament; otherwise it would be only a sign or a symbol that conveys nothing real. In order to make baptism such a symbol, we are told that Peter’s phrase means only that baptism pictures remission, a remission we may obtain by some other means at some later day. But this alters the force of Peter’s words. Can one persuade himself that Peter told these sinners who were stricken with their terrible guilt to accept a baptism that pointed to some future remission? Had he no remission to offer them now? And when and how could they get that remission, absolutely the one thing they must have? And how can Ananias in 22:16 say, “Be baptized and wash away thy sins!” as though the water of baptism washed them away by its connection with the Name?

Ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, “to send away,” is another great Biblical concept: “the sending away” of your sins. How far away they are sent Ps. 103:12 tells us: “as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Measure the distance from the point where the east begins to the point where the west ends. Nor does David say, “as far as the north is from the south,” lest you think of the poles and succeed in measuring the distance. Again Micah 7:19: “Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.” Even today the sea has depths that have never been sounded. The idea to be conveyed is that the sins are removed from the sinner so as never to be found again, never again to be brought to confront him. God sends them away, and he would thus be the last to bring them back. When the sinner appears before his judgment seat, his sins are gone forever. This is what our far less expressive “forgiveness” really means. Nor does the guilt remain, for sin and guilt are one: sin gone, guilt gone! (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 107–108). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)

Does 1 Cor 1:17 refute baptismal regeneration?

 Some proponents of a “symbolic” view of baptism point to 1 Cor 1:17 as evidence in favour of their position:

For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Perhaps it would be enough to note that, in the context of 1 Corinthians, the community there were split, with many attempting to set themselves above others due to the individual who baptised them, as well as other issues, which produced great fractures within the church there (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; this is perhaps why John 4:2 states that Jesus did not baptise; perhaps to preclude individuals pointing to their being baptised by Jesus as “proof” that they were superior to others within the faith).

Furthermore, the Apostles generally had different callings than to perform baptisms (see Acts 8:5-25). The function of officers within the organisation of Christ’s Church has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism. Paul, in fact, did perform baptisms (e.g., Acts 19:1-6), and Jesus  commanded His Apostles to baptise all nations (Matt 28:19), and His disciples baptised more new converts than John (John 4:1). Further, baptism and the gospel are not being contrasted with one another. What is being contrasted in this phrase is baptising and preaching, two separate ministries within the gospel. Paul’s assignment required him to do the latter and leave the former for other Church officers. In fact, when the grammar is correctly analysed, the clear implication is that baptism was part of the gospel Paul was sent to preach

Tertullian wrote an entire book in favour of baptism being salvific, On Baptism. In chapter 14 he responds to similar charges:

Chapter XIV.—Of Paul’s Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize;” (1 Cor 1:17) as if by this argument baptism were done away!  For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?(1 Cor 1;14, 16) However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.(1 Cor 1:11, 12; 3:3, 4) For which reason the “peace-making”(Matt 5:9) apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not to baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior.  Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

Indeed, to claim that Paul rejected baptism being salvific would result in a contradiction of Rom 6:1-4 and other texts in the Pauline corpus that clearly states otherwise. To quote one Protestant New Testament scholar on Paul’s theology of baptism:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

A helpful text indicating that Paul did stress the importance of baptism is 1 Cor 3:6-10:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labour of each. For we are God's servants, working together; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. (NRSV)

In this pericope, Paul explains his words in 1:17 as well as the nature of his ministry: Paul was the messenger spreading the Gospel; Apollos (and others) were the instructors, guiding the recipients of the Gospel; and God watched over all of them.

Joseph Fitzmyer, commenting on 1:17 and 3:6-10, writes:

17. For Christ did not send me to baptize. This startling statement is not meant to undermine the value of baptism or liturgical actions. It reveals only how Paul understands his own authorized mission: cultic or liturgical ministry was not as important to him as that of preaching the gospel. Others can baptize, but he must preach, because he was called by God to preach his son “among the Gentiles” (Gal 1;16); now he ascribes his call and sending to Christ himself (Christos without an article, hence Jesus’ second name).

But to preach the gospel. i.e., to proclaim the good news (euangelizesthai) of salvation that comes through Jesus Christ . . .

9. For we are God’s fellow-workers . . . In the first clause, Paul regards both Apollos and himself as synergoi theou, a title that he used also of Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2. The phrase synergoi theou has been understood in two ways: (1) “God’s fellow-workers,” i.e., those who work together with God and are engaged in a common endeavor with God himself, who is the principal worker . . . (2) “Fellow workers in God’s service,” or “God’s servants, working together” (NRSV), or “fellow workers who belong to God,” i.e., Paul and his colleagues are those who work together and thus serve God by such shared labor . . .[v.10] Paul’s preaching has laid what he calls themelion, “a foundation,” for what he achieved thereby was fundamental for the Corinthian church, but he does not call himself the foundation. It is, however, the basis of the authority that he now exercises over the community, and to it he will return in 9:1-2. Paul calls himself architekton, “builder,” a title found only here in the NT. For the idea of a “foundation of the community,” see 1QS 7:17. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [AB 32; Garden City, Doubleday, 2008], 147, 195-96, 197.)

Anthony C. Thiselton, a Protestant biblical scholar, commented on 1 Cor 1:17 thusly:

Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, for Paul, proclaim the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27), the contextual meaning of βαπτιζειν has been conveyed by translating it to perform baptisms, with its emphasis on ministerial agency. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 143 [emphasis in original].)

Much more could be said, but the claim that 1 Cor 1:17 refutes the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, exegetically-speaking, grasping at straws.

For Luke 23:43, see my post, "The Good Thief on the Cross."

What is clear is that sola fide is anti-biblical, ad, moreover, water baptism being salvific is solidly biblical and historical. Latter-day Saint theology, not Bartosiewicz's favour of Evangelicalism, is supported by the Bible. If any faith can be labelled "biblical Christianity," it is that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not Evangelical Protestantism.

Conclusion

As with my previous refutations of two of Bartosiewicz other videos critiquing LDS theology and Scripture, this one comment from Bartosiewicz demonstrates how anti-biblical his theology is, as well as how poor his exegetical skills truly are. The only thing Bartosiewicz is good at is making “gottcha”-type videos, but his “arguments” cannot survive careful exegetical/scholarly scrutiny. Furthermore, his own arguments would result in him having to reject sola scriptura and the inspiration of the New Testament texts!

To read my other refutations of Bartosiewicz, see:

How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?


Why does the Doctrine and Covenants Contradict the Book of Mormon? Should it?