Refuting Mike Thomas on soteriology

In a recent post on his blog, Mike Thomas attempts to critique the Latter-day Saint view of the atonement (Mormons and Christ's Atonement). As with his other works on the topic of "Mormonism," Thomas displays a lack of exegetical skills and intellectual integrity (see my article responding to Thomas on the LDS view of the Bible, Latter-day Saints and the Bible). This post will refute him on this and show the Protestant errors he teaches as well as use it as a "spring board" to discuss some other important issues about Protestant and Latter-day Saint soteriologies.

Mormon thinking is shot through with references to feelings of course. Understanding in this instance, “helps us feel God’s infinite and incomprehensible love for us.” The Bible, however, tells us that our understanding of gospel principles helps us know! John writes:

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

The same John, in his gospel, reports these words of Jesus:

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)

The Bible speaks definitively of eternal life as a present possession for all who believe. It further makes clear that this is so because something has happened to the believer, who ‘has crossed over from death to life.’

Firstly, it is pretty damn hypocritical for Thomas to denounce an appeal to emotions (see Anti-Mormon Hypocrisy and Emotion-driven "Conversions" to Evangelical Protestantism). Furthermore, Thomas is guilty of wrenching 1 John 5:13 and John 5:24 out of context.

1 John 5:13 and the assurance of salvation

This verse is often cited in favour of the doctrine of eternal security; often, Evangelicals who hold to some variation of this doctrine will claim that Latter-day Saints are incorrect in claiming that a justified person can lose their salvation through the commission of heinous sins (cf. D&C 20:32).

Firstly, it should be noted that this doctrine is refuted by any meaningful exegesis of many texts from the Bible, such as Heb 6:4-6 and 10:26, both texts which will be discussed at the end of this article.

Secondly, this is a classic example of absolutizing a verse and ignoring its overall context. A parallel can be the use of John 17:3 by some groups to preclude the divinity of Jesus Christ (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses; Christadelphians). Indeed, when one examines the context of this verse, it refutes, not supports, the eisegesis of many Evangelical groups. Indeed, the context of this verse is a series of tests and questions from the author of this Epistle to the recipients, showing that the confidence one has is subjective, not objective:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the word, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth . . . And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:1-6, 8-12 [v. 7, the infamous Comma Johanneum, omitted, as it is a later, spurious insertion into the text]).

Thirdly, 1 John contains warnings to believers that they can fall away from the faith:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.  And this is the promise that he hath promise us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.(2:22-26)

And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. (2:28)

In many other texts, the inspired authors spoke of confidence, but not infallible assurance, of their salvation and/or the salvation of others. Paul in 2 Tim 1:16-18, speaking of the recently deceased Christian, Onesiphorus, wrote the following:

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Onesiphorus was a great man who, in two cities, was right by Paul's side. It is Paul's desire that Onesiphorus find mercy from God on the day of final judgment. The phrase, "The Lord grant unto him" in v. 18 translates the term δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος; δῴη is the aorist optative of διδωμι, "to give." Many translations (correctly) render it as "may the Lord grant him" (e.g., NRSV; ESV; NIV; NJB), showing that Paul is not stating absolutely that Onesiphorus will find mercy, which entails the full pardon of sin and overlooking of faults. While Onesiphorus will find mercy at the last day, the point is that he (and all of us) will have to wait until the final day for the complete mercy of God to be applied to him. Indeed, this is the very same Paul who spoke of the possibility that he would lose his salvation and become a reprobate (1 Cor 9:27; cf 1 Cor 4:4-5).

Finally, it should be noted that Latter-day Saints can, and do, have confidence in their salvation; for instance, we can look back at a fixed point in time, namely when we were baptised and confirmed for a remission of our sins, as well as one’s spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, as well on a weekly basis when we renew our baptismal covenants, as well as other things which show our trust in the work of Christ (the efficacy of baptism, confirmation, and the sacrament have their basis on the atoning work of Christ). This is much better than basing one’s salvation in an alleged spiritual experience, coupled with a very errant theology that, in spite of all its claims, cannot offer true assurance. Note the following quotes from a work by a Protestant scholar:

It is an extraordinary thing that Knox did not clearly realise—none of the Reformers apparently realised—that by grounding assurance on election, rather than on merit, they were only pushing the problem of assurance back one stage, and pushing it into what appeared to be an even more terrifying form. For if salvation depends on merit, and I doubt of my salvation, I can at least do something about it: I can try harder to be good. But if salvation depends on God’s election, and I doubt my election, I land in complete and hopeless paralysis. There is nothing I can do about that. If God has not elected me, what hope or help have I? Apparently none. (McEwen, Faith of John Knox, p.72, as cited by Graham Redding, Prayer and the Priesthood of Christ in the Reformed Tradition [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 117)

The Westminster [Confession of Faith] documents’ conception of God’s covenant relationship with humankind in contractual terms ultimately leads to a loss of assurance of grace and salvation. There are two striking features of the Confession’s teaching in this regard. First, it suggests that ‘infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith’ (Westminster Confession, 18.3) Second, it suggests that a true believer ‘may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be a partaker of it’ (Westminster Confession, 18.3). The qualifying assurance that true believers are ‘never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and brethren and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived’ (Westminster Confession, 18.4), does little to counterbalance the main thrust of the Confession’s teaching on the matter . . . [one may] correctly [conclude] according to this teaching it seems that a believer could die without assurance. (Redding, ibid., p. 174).

As we have seen, the common appeal to 1 John 5:13 to “prove” eternal security is proven to be another example of eisegesis.

 John 5:24

Thomas is guilty of more eisegesis by simply wrenching John 5:24 out of its context. Let us read the entire pericope (emphasis added):

Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29)

Notice that good works are the criterion, not simply of heavenly rewards, but of one’s final destiny (eternal life vs. eternal death). Such is part-and-parcel of New Testament soteriology, such as 2 Cor 5:10:

For we must all reappear before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Such texts, which could be multiplied, proof that good works are not merely the fruits of one being in a “saved” state, but decide one’s eternal destiny. For a detailed discussion of this and other key themes in Pauline soteriology, see Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006). Sola Fide is not in view in John 5:24-29 and other similar texts when read in their context.

One such text is that of Phil 2:12-13:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but how much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (Phil 2:12-13)

As Vanlandingham noted, this passage teaches synergystic soteriology:

Finally, Phil 2:12-16, particularly verses 12-13, deserves a more thorough analysis. What does Paul mean by the phrase “with fear and trembling work out your own salvation” (2:12)? Some suggest that σωτηρια refers to the health and welfare of the corporate body of believers in Philippi, not final salvation from God’s wrath or eternal life in the next age. This sociological interpretation has been amply rebutted. Here, as in 1:28, σωτηρια refers to eschatological salvation as it usually does elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

What, then, does Paul mean by κατεργαζομαι? Paul uses the word eighteen other times with the meaning “to achieve, accomplish, do, bring about, produce, or create.” In this case, then, Paul exhorts the Philippians to bring about or achieve their own salvation. Considering all the passages discussed in this section, such a mandate and responsibility should come as no surprise. Why else would Paul exhort believers to be “pure and blameless,” or to “produce a harvest of righteousness,” or to be “blameless and innocent . . . without blemish” in light of the imminent day of Christ, unless he also believes that Christians themselves must work in order to be saved on that day. Κατεργαζομαι refers to a number of things, such as “live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel” (1:27), “standing for in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel” (1:28), “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves” (2:3), “look not to your own interests but to the interests of others” (2:4), do all things without murmuring and arguing” (2:14), “holding fast to the word of life” (2:16), and so on. Christians themselves do these things, not God; they decide as an act of the will to obey or disobey Paul, the gospel, or God.

Believers do such things, however, not on their own strength alone. Paul says, “For God is the one who is working in you so that (you might) desire to work for (his) good pleasure” (2:13). God aids and inspires the believers to accomplish God’s purposes. Likewise, Paul testifies about himself:

Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (Phil 3:12)

I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Phil 4:13)

On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. (1 Cor 15:10)

In his autobiographical statements, sometimes Paul emphasizes his role in his endeavors (e.g., 2 Cor 11:23-29; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 2:9), sometimes God’s grace. Paul views himself as neither “possessed” or controlled by the deity nor as constrained or overpowered; rather he is inspired. If one’s deeds rely solely upon God’s doing, then the logic of God’s commandments is lost and responsibility for one’s behaviour at the Last Judgment is moot. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 186-87)

 That the author of the Gospel of John did not teach sola fide can be seen in many places, including John 3:3-5 where the Lord Jesus teaches baptismal regeneration.

Some, including Thomas, will deny this. As one of his fellow co-religionists wrote on this issue:

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 [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.

Eph 1:13-14

Continuing, Thomas wrote the following to (lamely) support eternal security:

Earlier in Ephesians, Paul writes of believers being, “…marked with in him [Christ] with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession-to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14)

Our inheritance in Christ can be spoken of in the present tense because the believer has already received a guarantee of that inheritance in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

With respect the verb "to seal" (σφραγιζω), there is nothing in this verb that indicates that it can never be broken. As stated, a believer can have salvation (i.e., be in a justified state). However, as we will prove momentarily, the Bible itself affirms that a true believer can lose their salvation.

Furthermore, note Matt 27:66:

So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing (σφραγίσαντες [aorist active nominative masculine plural participle form of σφραγιζω]) the stone, and setting a watch.

In this case, the "seal" was clearly broken.

I discussed Eph 1:11-14 and the Spirit being a downpayment/seal in this post which I will reproduce:

One will often hear that one can have "eternal life" in the here and now, and they cannot possibly lose it. This is often based on an appeal to 1 John 5:13 (exegeted here) and John 10:28-29. The latter text reads:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

One will often hear a phrase from some Protestant that, "if eternal life can be lost, then it is not eternal after all!" Such ignores the fact that "eternal" can often be qualitative, not quantitative; for instance, in his translation of John 17:3, N.T. Wright understands the phrase ζωη ινα to be "life of the age to come." For a book-length discussion of this term in Greek and Hebrew, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). Moreover, such confuses the possession with the possessor. For instance, one can possess a car license, but if one drives recklessly, the one who issued the license can take it away. Indeed, such an absolutist view of John 10:28-29 is refuted by other texts in (1) the Johannine literature, such as John 15:1-6 and (2) the rest of Scripture, such as Heb 6:4-9, where a true believer can lose their salvation. Another example would be one being in a parent's will--one can (using prolepsis) say that they "possess" the inheritance, although its actualisation is still in the future, though it is always possible, due to some heinous action(s), one can be disinherited.

Additionally, as with Rom 8:33-38, the New Testament writers are stating the faithfulness of God and Christ, and how they will not cut people off arbitrarily; further, the biblical authors are emphasising that nothing external to the person will remove them from God's saving love. However, as we know from other texts, a believer can indeed cut themselves off.

In reality, the believer has a down-payment of the Holy Spirit and the ramifications of which will not be seen until the life to come. In 2 Cor 1:22, the apostle Paul writes:

Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

This is repeated in 2 Cor 5:5:

Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given us the earnest of the Spirit.

The phrase translated as "the earnest" is αρραβων, meaning a deposit/pledge. Notice how it is used in the LXX to denote a down-payment:

And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge (αρραβων), till you send it? And he said, What pledge (αρραβων) shall I give unto thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him . . . And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge (αρραβων) from the woman's hand: but he found her not. (Gen 38:17-18, 20)

This meaning of αρραβων also appears in another important soteriological text where Paul is discussing the corporate election of the Church and the αρραβων of those therein:

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise. Which is the earnest (αρραβων) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-14)

In reality, a believer has great confidence in their obtaining eternal life, which is qualitative (the type of life the Father has, per John 17); however, they only have a “pledge” or “down payment” at this point in time, with the full ramifications of which will not be seen until the life to come (cf. 1 Cor 2:9), predicated upon their being faithful to the end (Phil 2:12)

Refuting Protestantism's (and Mike Thomas') Abuse of Eph 2:8-10

Eph 2:8-9

Eph 2:8-10 is often treated as the “clobber-text” employed by apologists for Sola Fide and Sola Gratia. Notwithstanding, the "works" in view here, as with Rom 4:4 and the use of the term "debt" (οφειλημα), are works where one tries to legally obligate God to give us salvation--this is anathema, as we cannot obligate God to "owe" us anything, let alone salvation. However, such does not condemn works within the realm of God's grace, as seen in many texts (e.g., Psa 106:30-31; Rom 2:5-10; cf. Heb 6:10).

New Testament scholar, Markus Barth, in his 1974 commentary on Ephesians, published as part of the Anchor Bible commentary series, on pp. 244-45, writes:

There appears to be some resemblance between the opponents fought in Ephesians 2:9 and those refuted in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. Therefore, the "works" of these opponents can be more clearly defined as "works of law". . . .What are the "works of law" which Paul's opponents were "boasting" about? Because their works were connected with OT commandments and Jewish customs, and because they were obviously recommended to or imposed upon Gentiles, the adversaries of Paul are usually called "Judaizers". . . . In the New Testament the term "works of law" and polemics against "righteousness by law" occur only in contexts where the imposition of some [Jewish] legal elements upon the Gentiles is discussed.

Interestingly, the Greek word translated as "gift" in Eph 2 is δωρον, which refers to a gift in a form of a sacrifice, and in the context of the pericope, refers not to salvation per se, but to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was a selfless act, not merited by human works. This fits grammatically with the use of τουτο, a demonstrative, which, like δωρον, is both neuter and singular; the demonstrative cannot refer to "faith" as πιστις is feminine while the participle "have been saved" (σεσωμενοι) is a masculine plural.

What is grace according to Paul? God looking away from one’s sins because of an imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness? No, according to Paul, grace is:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and wordly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for what blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who have himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:11-14)

The very purpose of sending his Son in the context of salvation is to give grace which cleanses from sins. The purpose is not for him to look away from our sins because of an imputed, alien righteousness. One must work out salvation with fear and trembling in order to attain that resurrection of life (Phil 2:12-16) and any gospel that denies that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would challenge anyone to look at any judgement scene in the Bible and find me any one scene where one goes to heaven based on faith alone and an alien righteousness. There is not one. Every single one that separates those from going to heaven and those going to hell is based on works and obedience to God. Look at Rev 20:12-13; 22:11-14; John 5:28-29; Matt 7:16-23; 16:24-27; 25:31-46; Rom 2:4-13; 1 Cor 3:10-17. Every single one of them makes this separation based on works and obedience; they are not in regard to only extra rewards or punishments. Only the active grace that God provides and when he looks through his eyes of grace is it possible to attain salvation. For a book-length discussion, see Chris Vanlandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006) for a refutation of the common claim among many Evangelicals that works, for the Christian, determine their rewards in the hereafter, not their final destinies, at the final judgement.

Something that is rarely discussed, especially among proponents of various “faith alone” theologies is the relationship Eph 2 has with Col 2. Ephesians and Colossians have very strong ties with one another, and many key passages in both epistles are to be read in light of the other to get the fuller meaning of Paul’s comments; furthermore, most scholars who hold to the authorship of one of these epistles almost universally holds to the authorship of the other (these are two of the six disputed epistles, the others being 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles).

In the parallel text to Eph 2:8-10, we read the following:

In [Christ] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting of the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism wherein also we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col 2:11-13)

In this pericope, Paul states that those "in" (εν) Christ are circumcised with a spiritual circumcision (viz. water baptism [per v. 12]), and paralleling the language used in Rom 6:1-4, we are said to be buried together (συνθαπτομαι) with him "in baptism" (εν τω βαπτισμω), resulting in God freely forgiving (χαριζομαι) us of our trespasses. The only exegetically-sound interpretation is that this pericope teaches baptismal regeneration, not a merely symbolic understanding of water baptism. Of course, it is God, not man, who affects salvation and the forgiveness of sins through water baptism, as the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of baptism, cleanses us from sins and makes us into a new creature; it is not something merited by human works (see Titus 3:3-5). It is rather disturbing, and unfortunately, has led to a lot of eisegesis and heretical theologies, the concept that if a person does anything, they legally merit salvation. If I am handed a gift, do I “merit” the gift by putting my hands out to receive it? For some, the answer is “yes.”

It should also be noted that even in Ephesians, Paul teaches the necessity of water baptism. In Eph 5:26, speaking of Christ’s relationship to the Church, we read:

To make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word. (NIV)

In the Greek, this is a purpose clause, as evidenced by the use of the subordinating conjunction ινα. Christ is said to make holy (αγιαζω) and cleanse (καθαριζω) its members with the "washing of water." The term translated as "washing" is λουτρον, which is the term for a "bath" or even a baptismal font (cf. Song 4:2; 6:6; Sirach 34:25 in the LXX). This noun, being coupled with the phrase του υδατος "of water" shows that water baptism is the instrumental means through which Christ cleanses the members of His bride, the Church.

Additional exegetical evidence that Eph 2:8-9 teaches the salvific efficacy of water baptism can be seen from the following comments from a Traditionalist Catholic:

Ephesians 2:8-9. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

This argument also fails. As I will now show, this argument fails because this verse is specifically talking about the initial grace of receiving water baptism. Water baptism is not a work “of yourselves,” but a sacrament instituted by God. No work you can do can substitute for the power of water baptism. This is said to “save” because it removes man’s original sin and puts him into the initial state of justification. The proof that Ephesians 2:8-9 is actually referring to water baptism is found when one compares the passage to Titus 3:5, and then to 1 Peter 3:20-21:

Look at this:

Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 3:5—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to the mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Notice that the two passages are extremely similar. They are talking about the same thing. They both mention being saved, and not of works which we have done. Ephesians 2:8-9 describes this as being saved through “faith”; Titus 3:5 describes it as being saved through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. They are referring to the same thing.

Titus 3:5 is without doubt referring to water baptism. as even John Calvin and Martin Luther admitted. Ephesians 2:8-9 is also taking about water baptism is submitting to faith; it’s how one joins the faith, as Jesus makes clear in Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19: “Preach the Gospel to every creature . . .Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” Baptism is also described as “faith” in Galatians 3:

Galatians 3:26-27—“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

We see that receiving baptism is synonymous with receiving “faith” in Christ Jesus. To further confirm that Ephesians 2:8-9 is about being saved by baptism, let’s expand the comparison:

Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 3:5—“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to us mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

1 Peter 3:20-21: “ . . . when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saves you also . . .”

This demonstrates that Ephesians 2:8-9 is referring to the initial grace of baptism. Ephesians 2:8-9 is not talking about the ongoing justification of those who have already been baptized, but simply about how people were initially brought out of original sin and given the grace of justification. No work which anyone can do could replace or substitute for water baptism and the grace it grants: the first justification and removal of original sin. But once a person enters the Church through baptism (which is God’s work), his deeds and works indeed become part of the justification process, and a factor which will determine whether he maintains justification. This is made clear from the abundance of passages (e.g., James 2:24) . . . . [Thus] the Protestant argument from Ephesians 2:8-9 is another one which doesn’t hold up to the context of Scripture. (Peter Dimond, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church [Fillmore, N.Y.: Most Holy Family Monastery, 2009], 67-68; emphasis in original)

The New Testament's Witness: A True Believe can lose their salvation

Thomas holds to a form of eternal security. However, this goes against the explicit witness of the New Testament. We will discuss three texts: Heb 6:4-9; Heb 10:26-29 and Rom 4:5-8.

Heb 6:4-9

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 in person a few weeks ago, when this text was raised as an example of how Calvinism is at odds with the Bible, he 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 (whom I believe to be the author of Luke-Acts), 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.

Heb 10:26-29

On his Alpha and Omega Ministries Website, James R. White has an article entitled, "Hebrews and the Atonement of Christ." This is, in part, a response to pp. 102-7 of Catholic apologist Robert A. Sungenis' book, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Queenship, 2000).

Near the end of the article, White attempts to interact with one pericope that is often cited, alongside Heb 6:4-6, as proof that a truly justified believer can lose their salvation, Heb 10:26-29. Before we reproduce White's comments, here is the 1995 NASB translation:

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer a punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under the foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Sungenis (ibid, pp. 102-3) writes:

This is a significant passage for our present discussion. The use of the word “sacrifice” in this context demands an explanation as to why such a concept is even mentioned, if, as is claimed by non-Catholic opponents, the one-time acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice totally secures and completes one’s justification. How can opponents explain this passage when the ones addressed in the context of Hebrews 10 are practicing Christians? According to Hebrews 10:29, they have already been “sanctified.” Hebrews 10:32-34 adds that they had become noteworthy for having previously “stood their ground in a great contest in the face of suffering;” they had been “publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times stood side by side with those who were so treated;” they “had sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property, because they knew they had better and lasting possessions.” The warning is clear that if they now decide to sin “deliberately,” then no more sacrifice is left or them, rather, “a fearful expectation of judgment.”

In an attempt to avoid the theological implications of this pericope, White (using some projection along the way), writes:

Sungenis follows up these comments with a reference to Hebrews 10:29.  He asserts this passage teaches one can fall away from sanctification.  He does not show any familiarity with the question of who it is who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant in this passage.  The great Puritan scholar, John Owen, wrote concerning who is the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29:

But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, -- to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.  (John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, vol. 22, p. 676)

I will admit that when I first read White’s comments, it struck me as rather desperate, but forced upon him due to his a priori assumption that Reformed soteriology must be biblical.

In an article responding to White (no longer accessible online, but a copy is in my possession for those who wish to read it), "James White's 'Feature Article' and the Calvinist Dance Around the Book of Hebrews," Sungenis wrote in response:

Obviously, Owen can’t admit that the one “sanctified” in Hebrews 10:29 is a Christian, for that would mean that the Christian could lose his sanctification, and if he lost his sanctification, he would lose his justification, and if he lost his justification, it means he was never predestined to salvation in the first place, and thus, you see, the whole edifice of Calvinism would topple in one fell swoop. Suffice it to say, the only ones who even dare interpret Hebrews 10:29 in the way White is suggesting are the Calvinists.

But, of course, once they make such a claim, then they create other exegetical problems out of which there is no escape. They are stuck with explaining how Christ can be “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” when the word “sanctified” or its derivatives are never mentioned as occurring with or to Christ. Perhaps White would like to start a new religion based on the fact that he thinks Christ was “sanctified,” but it will be a religion that has no basis in the Bible, for the Bible simply does not teach such a heretical idea.

They also must explain how and why the Hebrew writer, in Hebrews 10:29, suddenly shifts from talking about the Christian (“and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant”) to an abrupt reference to Christ in mid-sentence (“by which he was sanctified”). I have searched all my Greek lexical and grammatical aids, and not one of them says that it is grammatically justifiable to say that the “he” of “by which he was sanctified” is anything but the Christian spoken about in “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.”

In short, this is an outlandish claim of White’s, and it is just as heretical as his suggestion that Christ is the one who is sanctified. But this is what White is reduced to saying of Hebrews 10:29 in order to attempt to save face for Calvinism. It’s obvious why White didn’t cite any Greek grammars to support his claim, since none of them do so. The only thing he could find is some centuries-old Calvinist writer, who didn’t even address the Greek of the passage, as his only authoritative source. That, speaks volumes of the shoddy research and poor exegetical abilities of James White. One fatal flaw leads to another.

While I disagree with Sungenis on the thesis of his book (that the Catholic Mass is both biblical and historical), he is both spot-on in his book in rejecting eternal security/perseverance of the saints as being biblical and this rather desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of Heb 10:26-29 from both White and Owen. While the verb αγιαζω can have the sense of "to consecrate" and is used of Jesus in John 10:35-36; 17:19 and 1 Pet 3:15, the meaning in Heb 10:29 is clearly soteriological, so cannot be used of Jesus but of redeemed/justified Christians. If Owen and White were consistent, they would have to argue, as do many Christadelphians, that Jesus offered up a sacrifice for himself for His own sin(s) (in the CD view, the sin of being human [not that White or Owen would hold to such--they would agree that Christ was sinless, but such is the precarious position one is placed with such eisegetical nonsense]).

Indeed, the other Reformed commentators I have examined on this epistle while agreeing with White’s soteriology and belief a true believer could never lose their salvation, reject this strained reading (i.e., Christ is the one sanctified in Heb 10:29, not a Christian). For instance, one recent commentary wrote the following:

We should also note that the author speaks of the blood “by which” the readers were “sanctified” (ηγιασθη). Here is powerful evidence that those addressed are truly believers, confirming what was argued in 6:4-5, for Jesus’ blood sanctifies, and sets them apart (cf. 13:12 and 2:11). Jesus by his once-for-all offering “perfected forever those who are sanctified” (10:14). Sanctification here is definitive and positional rather than progressive. It is awkward and unnatural to see a reference to Jesus in the pronoun instead of believers, for it makes little sense to say Jesus was sanctified by his own blood. Jesus is the one who sanctifies in Hebrews (2:11), not the one who is sanctified. Indeed, in chapters 10 and 13 the author clearly states three times that the death of Jesus sanctifies believers (10:10, 14, 12:12). Nor is it persuasive to say that the sanctification is not saving, comparing it to the sanctification under the old covenant (9:13), which only sanctified externally. The argument fails to persuade, for the point in Hebrews is that Jesus’ sacrifice stands in contrast to the sacrifices of the old covenant. His sacrifice is effective and truly brings sanctification. To say that his sacrifice only sanctifies externally, like the sacrifices of the old covenant, misses one of the major themes of the letter. Contrary to OT sacrifices, Jesus’ sacrifice truly cleanses the conscience. (Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews [Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation: Nashville: Holman Reference, 2015], 327)

James White's theological mentor, John Calvin, also believed that those who are said to be "sanctified" in Heb 10:29 are Christians, not the person of Christ:

The blood of the covenant,  etc. He enhances ingratitude by a comparison with the benefits. It is the greatest indignity to count the blood of Christ unholy, by which our holiness is effected; this is done by those who depart from the faith. For our faith looks not on the naked doctrine, but on the blood by which our salvation has been ratified. He calls it the blood of the covenant, because then only were the promises made sure to us when this pledge was added. But he points out the manner of this confirmation by saying that we are sanctified; for the blood shed would avail us nothing, except we were sprinkled with it by the Holy Spirit; and hence come our expiation and sanctification. The apostle at the same time alludes to the ancient rite of sprinkling, which availed not to real sanctification, but was only its shadow or image

As with so many areas, James White fails on (1) biblical-exegetical grounds and (2) presents a marginal interpretation (out of desperation to prop up belief in Calvinism) of Heb 10:29 that is a rejected view even within Reformed circles, both historical and modern.

Rom 4:5-8 and the re-justification of King David

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.

Conclusion

While much more could be said about this central issue, it is clear that (1) Thomas is guilty of eisegesis of the biblical texts and (2) there is a mountain range of biblical-exegetical evidence [a] against his Protestant soteriology and [b] in favour of Latter-day Saint theology.