Ex-Mormon Michael Flournoy continues to misrepresent the biblical theology of justification and righteousness by attempting to defend the blasphemous doctrine of alien imputed righteousness. As I have been sent this link by a few people, I have decided to write up a response.
Alien Righteousness for Mormons
For a refutation of much of the biblical texts Flournoy rips out of context (e.g., Phil 3:9), see my response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (cf. Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30)
With respect to the clothing imagery Flournoy appeals to, do note that the Bible uses the imagery of "clothing" as an outward sign of an inward reality (in other words, such imagery refutes the blasphemous legal fiction Flournoy now accepts as "gospel"). In Isa 61:9-10 we read the following:
Notice how the people of God are said to be "clothed with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of righteousness." While some, mainly Calvinists, may latch onto the last description as evidence that clothing imagery supports the conception of a forensic imputation of righteousness, one's possession of salvation is not reputation merely but a reality, with such clothing imagery serving the role of an outward sign of an inward reality.
For more on this theme, see:
What was rather interesting is that Flournoy appealed to Gal 3:27 to support his position when, in fact, it refutes it (again, showing that Flournoy's grasp of exegesis and theology are, at best, shallow). The text reads thusly:
Matthew Thiessen, commenting on the theology of this verse, wrote:
Of course, Flournoy has been refuted time and time again by myself and other LDS apologists on this issue. For a refutation of some of his previous posts and articles on this, see:
Michael Flournoy Misunderstands Grace, Mormonism, and the Bible
Refuting the Claim that singing the hymn "Praise to the Man" is an act of Idolatry
Why Evangelical Anti-Mormonism Makes No Sense
Michael Flournoy on Forensic Justification and Imputed Righteousness
Flournoy has been deceived into accepting a false gospel, and is now himself engaged in deceiving by defending such a false gospel. He should be pitied, and one should pray for him before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).
Alien Righteousness for Mormons
For a refutation of much of the biblical texts Flournoy rips out of context (e.g., Phil 3:9), see my response to John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018), 273-81, 339:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (cf. Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30)
With respect to the clothing imagery Flournoy appeals to, do note that the Bible uses the imagery of "clothing" as an outward sign of an inward reality (in other words, such imagery refutes the blasphemous legal fiction Flournoy now accepts as "gospel"). In Isa 61:9-10 we read the following:
Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NRSV)
Notice how the people of God are said to be "clothed with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of righteousness." While some, mainly Calvinists, may latch onto the last description as evidence that clothing imagery supports the conception of a forensic imputation of righteousness, one's possession of salvation is not reputation merely but a reality, with such clothing imagery serving the role of an outward sign of an inward reality.
Such mirrors the use of clothing imagery to describe, not the reputed merely, but the intrinsic righteousness of Yahweh:
The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)
Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)
For more on this theme, see:
D&C 138:51 and Clothing Imagery
Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch
Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch
What was rather interesting is that Flournoy appealed to Gal 3:27 to support his position when, in fact, it refutes it (again, showing that Flournoy's grasp of exegesis and theology are, at best, shallow). The text reads thusly:
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27)
Commenting on this text and its theology of baptism, J. Louis Martyn wrote:
were baptized into Christ, you put on Christ as though he were your clothing. The liturgy presupposes the removal of clothing as one enters the water, an act signifying separation from “the old man and his [evil] deeds” (Col 3:9). The new robe, put on as one comes out of the water, signifies Christ himself. For he is the “place” in which the baptized now find their corporate life. The sons are made sons by being conformed to the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; cf. Gal 4:19). Paul can affirm the Jewish-Christian image of baptism as a cleansing bath (1 Cor 6:11), but for him the image of new clothing has less to do with cleansing than with equipping the baptized for participation in apocalyptic warfare. Recognizing the danger of its being understood as a cultic act that merely replaces circumcision as the rite of entry (1 Cor 1:11–17), Paul sees in baptism the juncture at which the person both participates in the death of Christ (Rom 6:4) and is equipped with the armor for apocalyptic battle (1 Thess 5:8–10; 1 Cor 15:53–54; Rom 13:12). These are motifs he can easily find reflected in the baptismal liturgy’s reference to the end of the old cosmos with its taken-for-granted pairs of opposites. (J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 375-76)
Matthew Thiessen, commenting on the theology of this verse, wrote:
. . . Paul also claims that those who “have been baptized into Christ have been clothed in Christ” (ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:12-14). This language of being clothed in Christ within a context stressing the promised pneuma, suggests that the Galatians have been pneumatically placed into Christ (3:26). Although Gal 3:26-29 lacks any explicit reference to the pneuma, the language of “enclothing” (ενδυω) often occurs in pneumatic contexts. For instance, Judg 6:34 states that the pneuma of God enclothed Gideon, empowering him to defend the nation of Israel. Likewise, 1 Chron 12:19 LXX states that the pneuma enclothed Amasai, leading to his verbal commitment to David, while 2 Chron 24:20 portrays the pneuma of God enclothing Zechariah enabling him to prophesy against the sins of Judah and Jerusalem. Closer to Paul’s time, the speaker of the Qumran scroll known as “Bless O My Soul,” states, “[God has] clothed me in the ruaḥ of salvation” (4Q438 frag. 4 ii.5). Writing after Paul, Luke portrays the risen Jesus saying to his disciples: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed” (ἐνδύσησθε) in power from on high" (Luke 24:49). This latter passage, with its connections between the pneuma, the promise, and being enclothed, closely parallels Paul’s argument in Gal 3:24-29. David John Lull observes, “When Paul first speaks of the Spirit in 3:1-5, where he refers to the Galatians’ receiving of the initial gift of the Spirit, he mentions neither baptism nor ‘sonship.’ In 3:26-28, where he does mention baptism and ‘sonship,’ he does not mention the Spirit.” This shift from discussing the pneuma to baptism and “sonship/adoption” suggests that Paul equates baptism and sonship/adoption with the reception of the pneuma.
To receive the pneuma is to be enclothed in Christ because the pneuma is the pneuma of God’s son, who is Christ (Gal 2:20; 4:6; cf. Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19). In the words of Johnson Hodge, “Baptism ushers gentiles ‘into’ Christ; it forges kinship relationship between them and Christ. In the same way that the descendants share the same “stuff” as ancestors, gentiles are ‘of Christ’—they have taken in his pneuma.” The Galatians envelop Christ—Christ’s pneuma is in them (3:13; 4:6), and are simultaneously enveloped by Christ—they put on Christ (3:26-28). This mutual enveloping occurs also in Pseudo-Philo, which asserts that Kenaz was able to defeat Israel’s enemies because he “was clothed in” (indutus est) a spiritus of power, while having this same spiritus inhabit (habitans in) him (L.A.B. 27.10, 28:6; cf. Judg 10:3). Such mutual interpenetration recalls ancient debates about mixtures, a question that ancient philosophers spent considerable time discussing. (Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016], 111-12)
Commenting on Paul’s use of preformed Christian tradition and the salvific efficacy of water baptism therein, in 1 Cor 6:11 (as well as Rom 6:3), Jerry L. Sumney (professor of biblical studies at Lexington Theological Seminary) wrote:
Romans 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11 may cite traditions that relate the death of Jesus to baptism. Paul even introduces the Rom 6 citation with what some see as a recitative hoti. The preceding phrase, “don’t you know,” may also indicate that Paul is about to cite a known formula. The use of apoloyō (“wash”) in 1 Cor 6:11 is a hapax legomenon in Paul, and it appears only one other time in the New Testament (Acts 22:16), where it also refers to baptism. Its use in the passive suggests to many interpreters that it is already technical language for baptism. Since Paul does not use this metaphor to describe the effects of baptism elsewhere, it seems likely that he is not the originator of this interpretation. Raymond Collins notes that in addition to the singular o “washed” the phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ” is another traditional phrase . . . The verb hagiazō (“to make holy”) is also relatively rare in Paul. As often as he uses the cognate nouns “saints” to describe believers (at least twenty-three times), he uses the verb only ix times. It is related directly to baptism only in 1 Cor 6:11. So this is an unusual sense for Paul, especially when compared to its two uses in 1 Cor 7:14, where an unbeliever is made holy through association with a believing spouse. There is then significant, but not decisive evidence that Paul is citing or alluding to preformed tradition in Rom 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11. If he is citing traditional material in either passage, it indicates a pre-Pauline (or at least non-Pauline) view of baptism understood as a rite that is incorporated the baptized into the death of Christ. Furthermore, this interpretation of baptism assumes that Jesus’s death is “for us” and has salvific effect. . . . [on 1 Cor 6:11] Interpreters often find Paul drawing on the language of a baptismal tradition here. Fragments of the tradition are fairly obvious, especially the claim that these were done “in the name of . . .” . . . The relationship between baptism and a cleansing from sin is made in Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22. These multiple citations of this understanding suggest that it was earlier than and beyond Paul’s influence. In addition, the verb apelusasthe (“to be washed”) appears only here in the Pauline corpus, indicating that Paul draws it from a source beyond his usage. Further, that this verb appears in the passive may also indicate that it is part of the tradition.
If the substance of Paul’s assertions about baptism here is drawn from earlier tradition, as seems probable, then baptism’s association with forgiveness of sins, with granting holiness, and perhaps with the coming of the Spirit are all part of the church’s message before Paul wielded significant influence. The Didache’s use of baptism as the line of demarcation between those who may participate in the Eucharist and the “unholy dogs” also indicates that it sees baptism as the rite that cleanses and makes one holy (9.5). Even if we determine that the terminology of cleansing and making holy as they appear in 1 Cor 6;11 is not directly taken from earlier tradition, this passage in the Didache indicates that these understandings are part of the church’s teaching before the time of Paul and outside his influence. (Jerry L. Sumney, Steward of God’s Mysteries: Paul and Early Church Tradition [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2017], 35-36, 81-82, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)
Elsewhere, on Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13, Sumney writes:
Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13 [are] citations of a preformed baptismal liturgy. The evidence includes its pairs of opposites, the insertion of baptism into the context, and the change from first person plural (“we”) to second person plural (“you”). These all indicate that (at least) Gal 3:27-28 is a set piece that Paul inserts into his argument. This formula provides evidence for an early partially realized eschatology. In this formula, those baptized are brought “into Christ” and have “been clothed with Christ.” This identification with Christ beings the baptized into the realm that is determined by Christ’s identity. The eschatological nature of this claim is evident in the return to oneness. This is nowhere more clear than in the allusion to Gen 1:27. The obvious change in the pattern of the opposed pairs in the formula shows that the oneness that the liturgy proclaims is a return to the primordial or Edenic ideal state. It is a common feature of apocalyptic Judaism to see the coming age as a return to the ideal original state of creation. This formula draws on that understanding in its allusion to Gen 1:27. The formula also proclaims that this state of existence is a present reality for the baptized. (Ibid., 99, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)
Therefore, the only conclusion one can reach, based on the evidence, is that both Paul and the earliest strata of pre-Pauline Christian tradition explicated transformative justification as well as baptismal regeneration, including the theology one finds within Gal 3:27 and other like-texts. Again, Flournoy is way out in left field on this and other topics.
Of course, Flournoy has been refuted time and time again by myself and other LDS apologists on this issue. For a refutation of some of his previous posts and articles on this, see:
Michael Flournoy Misunderstands Grace, Mormonism, and the Bible
Refuting the Claim that singing the hymn "Praise to the Man" is an act of Idolatry
Why Evangelical Anti-Mormonism Makes No Sense
Michael Flournoy on Forensic Justification and Imputed Righteousness
Flournoy has been deceived into accepting a false gospel, and is now himself engaged in deceiving by defending such a false gospel. He should be pitied, and one should pray for him before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29).
