Today I read a new book by Catholic apologist Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism. I have critiqued Horn before on his blog, including his pretty misinformed arguments against “Mormonism”:
However, his work on Pro-life issues is very well done, and to be fair, he is a good defender of Roman Catholicism. While the material on the Marian dogmas and other topics were not persuasive, Horn does engage with historical and modern critics of Catholicism (e.g., Calvin; Luther; White; Webster; Geisler). Furthermore, if one is looking for a good one-volume contemporary defence of Catholic doctrines and dogmas, this is a cut above the standard fare.
The material on baptism (pp. 181-200) is pretty solid. For instance, commenting on Paul’s conversion and whether it disproves baptismal regeneration, Horn writes:
Some critics say Paul’s conversion narrative proves he had been forgiven of his sins long before his baptism. They say Paul’s calling Jesus “Lord” and Ananias’ calling Paul “brother” (v. 13) show that Paul was a regenerate Christian before his baptism. The nineteenth-century theologian Charles Hodge said, “No one can believe that [Paul] was under the wrath and curse of God, during the three days which intervened between his conversion and his baptism. He did not receive baptism in order that his sins should be washed away; but as the sign and pledge of their forgiveness.
However, it was common for Jews to call each other brother (Acts 7:2), and the title “Lord” (Greek, kurios) can be used to address an authority figure without claiming that figure is divine (see Mt 27:63). Likewise, in Matthew 27:64, the Pharisees address Pontius Pilate as a Kyrie, or Lord, but almost all English translations render the word, “Sir.” In John 4:11 the Samaritan woman at the well uses kurios in this fashion when she addressed Jesus, which most translations render as “Sir” rather than “Lord.” Hodge’s interpretation also strains credulity given that or three days God had cursed Paul—with blindness. Paul prayed and fasted for some answer to his predicament and did not find one until the arrival of Ananias. The plain meaning of this verse is that Paul’s sins were forgiven, or “washed away,” through the waters of baptism. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 187-88)
Furthermore, on John 3:5, Horn writes:
Those who object to the traditional interpretation of John 3:5 usually say that as a Jew, Nicodemus would have had no understanding of Christian baptism and no reason to associate Jesus’ command with baptism. Moreover, they say, Jesus’ teaching that the Spirit’s movements are as mysterious as the wind’s (Jn 3:8) wouldn’t be true if we attain God’s spirit through the easily observable act of baptism.
However, John 1:19-34 refers to the Baptist’s testimony about Jesus’ baptism. Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus also ends with a description of Jesus and his disciples going into Judea to baptize (Jn 3:22). Associating a baptismal meaning with John 3:5 naturally fits the context in which the passage is found. Plus, as a teacher of Israel (Jn 3:9-10), Nicodemus should have known that for those in the messianic age God had already promised, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ezek 36:26-27).
Concerning the second argument, it’s true that baptism is a reality we can see, but so are public confessions of faith, which no Protestant would say are antithetical to the sovereign actions of the Holy Spirit. The desire to confess our faith in Christ and the desire to be baptized both come from the same source—the mysterious moving of the Holy Spirit. That some people confess faith in Jesus and are baptized is the product of the Holy Spirit’s invisible action on their hearts. Thus Jesus concludes by saying, “So it is with every one who is born of the spirit” (Jn 3:8).
Moreover, John the Baptist said that the Messiah’s baptism would be superior to his baptism because it would be a purifying one that conveyed the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11). The Jewish historian Josephus believed that John’s baptism was an external sign of interior repentance that could not, by itself, take away sin. Even if John’s baptism did communicate the forgiveness of sins, it did not communicate the Holy Spirit in the same manner a Christian baptism does (Acts 2:38). Therefore, if Christian baptism does not spiritually regenerate the one being baptized, then it would hardly be different from John’s baptism to which it is supposed to be superior. (Ibid. 192-94)