Why I'm Not a Calvinist (After Seriously Studying Reformed Theology)

In spite of having a new blog (a friend emailed me yesterday making me aware of such), Michael Flournoy is still engaging in the same time-worn form of eisegesis he has become known for, showing us the truth of Heb 6:4-6 and the rebellious nature of the apostate.

 

In an article Why I’m Not A Calvinist (But I’m Considering It), we read:

 

Romans 5 also blew my mind when reading through it. It was so contrary to everything I believed as a Latter-day Saint. There I learned that Jesus was a second Adam. When the first Adam sinned his transgression was imputed to us and when Jesus died his righteousness was imputed instead.

 

Verse 19 is of particular interest. It reads:

 

For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19 ESV)

 

The implication this verse makes is staggering. Adam’s transgression is accredited to mankind despite our inaction, and this verse seems to say the same of the atonement.

 

Note the use of “accredited.” Flournoy is trying to read the doctrine of forensic imputation of sin and righteousness into this verse. There are many exegetical problems with this.

 

The verb “to be made” in this verse is καθιστημι, which means “to constitute.” It does not have the meaning of merely legally declaring something to be “x” without it actually being “x.” Compare the following usages of the verb in the New Testament:

 

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made (καθιστημι) ruler over this household, to give them meat in due season? . . . Verily I say unto you, That he shall made (καθιστημι) ruler over all his goods. (Matt 24:45, 47)

 

And delivered [Joseph of Egypt] out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him (καθιστημι) governor over Egypt and all his house . . .But he that did his neighbour wrong trust him away, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge over us? . . .This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made (καθιστημι) thee a ruler and a judge? The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts 7:10, 27, 35)

 

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained (καθιστημι) for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb 5:1)

 

For the law maketh (καθιστημι) men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. (Heb 7:28)

 

Furthermore, no one doubts that one is more than just “declared” to be a sinner; one is actually a sinner and is sinful intrinsically; it would break the parallel between “being a sinner” and “being righteous” in Rom 5:19 to introduce into it such a distinction that Reformed theology reads into this verse (that the former is a real, ontological category, but the latter is only a legal category). Therefore, those who are said to be righteous (δικαιος) are not simply placed into a legal category and labelled “righteous”; they are actually righteous.

 

Catholic priest and theologian, Patrick Boylan (no relation!) who was a professor of Eastern Language at University College Dublin and Sacred Scripture and Oriental Languages at the Pontifical University of Ireland (my alma mater) wrote the following about Rom 5:19 and how καθίστημι is not forensic as Protestants need it to be for their theology to stand up to biblical scrutiny:

 

Paul here elucidates v. 18—explaining the meaning of παραπτωμα and δικαιωμα, and of κατακριμα. The παραπτωμα is Adam’s παρακοη—or sin of disobedience: opposed to it is the υπακοη, the obedience, of Christ (= the δικαιωμα; for,, Christ as υπηκος, cf. Phil. ii. 8; Gal. iv. 4).

 

The κατακριμα is elucidated by αμαρτωλοι κατεσταθησαν οι πολλοι and the δικαιωσις ζωης by δικαιοι κατασταθησοναι οι, πολλοι.

 

Καθισταναι does not indicate a mere forensic or juristic result. As men were actually made sinners by Adam’s disobedience, so they are made just by Christ’s obedience. When Paul says that all are made just by Christ’s death, he does not imply that each individual human being is actually justified through the death of Christ. It is to be remembered that Paul is here making a contrast . . . The future κατασταθησονται does not imply that the justification is purely eschatological, but that it is a process which goes on continuously among men. There may be in the future tense, also the hint of an eschatological aspect—a hint, that is, of the official manifestation of the just at the Great Judgment. (Patrick Boylan, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Translation and Commentary [Dublin: M.H. Gill and Son, Ltd., 1934, 1947], 92-93, emphasis in bold added)

 

Some may appeal to Phil 3:9 as “proof” of monergism, as some are wont to do:

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

 

The Greek reads:

 

καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

 

Some argue that this verse proves that Paul did not believe any righteousness within him will avail anything of God, but instead, he teaches reliance upon an imputed righteousness. However, what Paul is actually teaching is that the source of his (intrinsic, not imputed) righteousness which will avail before God will not come from the Law/Torah, but from his faith in Christ (or “the faithfulness of Christ”; the translation of the Greek term πιστεως Χριστου is debated in many circles and won’t be discussed here). Paul is not teaching monergism nor is he teaching that he will be declared “justified” based on the imputation of an alien righteousness.

 

This can be seen when one examines the literature contemporary with Philippians, including the following:

 

My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency (δικαιοσυνη) was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt (Dan 6:22 [6:23, LXX])

 

"For you were found righteous (δικαιος) before God, and he did not permit you to enter here, otherwise you see the evil that happened to the people by the Babylonians. (4 Baruch 7:25)

 

Noah was found perfect and righteous (δικαιος); in the time of wrath he was taken in exchange [for the world;] therefore was he left as a remnant unto the earth, when the flood came. (Sirach 44:17)

 

For Paul, he is concerned about the origins of the righteousness within him. He is not teaching an alien imputation of forensic righteousness in this text. Furthermore, in light of this and Rom 5:19 itself, Paul is not teaching that Adam’s sin is forensically imputed to us and that Christ’s atonement/righteousness is imputed (“accredited”) to us, too.

Interestingly, there is an important connection between δικαιοω and σωζω in the Epistle to the Romans, esp. chs. 3, 5, and 10. Scholar Chris VanLandingham noted the following about Rom 5:9-11 and 10:9-10, and how they do not support a forensic model of justification:

 

Several passages demonstrate a close relationship between “being made righteous” and “being saved”:

 

Therefore it is much more the case since we have now been made righteous by his blood that we shall be saved through him from (God’s) wrath. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his son, it is much more the case since we were reconciled that we will be saved by his life. Yet not only that but also we boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom now we have received reconciliation (Rom 5:9-11).

 

. . . because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved: for it is believed in the heart for righteousness, and it is confessed in the mouth for salvation (Rom 10:9-10).

 

Almost a priori one would assume a close connection between righteousness and salvation, otherwise there would be no point to Jesus’ death. Often, even outside of Paul, the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) form the basis for salvation. Outside of Paul whenever the δικαι- terms (or their equivalents) provide the basis for salvation in its various forms, the δικαι- terms are never forensic. Likewise, in Paul there is no overwhelming reason that the δικαι- terms should be forensic and thus contrary to tradition and normal usage. Although Paul attributes righteousness to the effect of Jesus’ death, for him righteousness is righteousness no matter its source or medium, whether εκ νομου or εκ πιστεως (Rom 10:5, 6). For this reason righteousness εκ πιστεως can also lead to salvation.

 

If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. If the δικαι- terms refer to acquittal, then Rom 5:9-11 makes little sense. If the δικαι- terms indicate an acquittal at the Last Judgment, then what is the reason for trying to prove that the acquitted one will be saved also? This salvation should be assumed, since no difference exists between being approved at the Last Judgment and being saved (cf. Rom 2:6-7). However, does not the nature of Paul’s argument que an argument a minor ad malus dictate against the two ideas being virtually equivalent?

 

Also, there is a perceivable difference in the temporal nature of the verb tenses with regard to δικαιοω and σωζω. By his use of verb tenses, Paul indicates that the gift of righteousness is an initiating event, whereas salvation remains future, even if the believer is already recorded in the book of life (Phil 4:3). Although Paul is not thoroughly consistent, δικαιοω as an effect of Jesus’ death is generally in a past or present tense, whereas σωζω is generally future. With regard to δικαιοω, the only exception is Rom 3:30 (Gal 5:5 . . .could be included here also); yet in light of the three present tense forms in 3:24, 26, and 28, this verse is a good example of a gnomic or logical future. With regard to σωζω the only true exception appears at Rom 8:24 where the aorist tense occurs. As Fitzmyer says, it has “an unmistakably future connotation” because the verb is governed by the prepositional phrase τη ελπιδι (Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Basis of Justification by Faith: Comments on the Essay by Professor Reumann,” in Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament, 213). A few cases in the present tense occur (1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15), but these indicate only that the process of salvation has begun, as one would expect, not that it is completed in any sense (the idea of salvation as a present process is supported by 2 Cor 3:18 and 4:16. The future aspect is most clear at Rom 13:11). If the δικαι- terms refer to an acquittal, meaning a specific acquittal at the Last Judgment, then, this data seems difficult to reconcile. For this reason, it is common to regard the acquittal as proleptic. But this conclusion is simply a conjecture based on the tenuous notion that the δικαι- terms in Paul are forensic . . . In light of . . .the meaning of righteousness as an effect of Jesus’ death, would the phrase δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι in 5:9 make any sense if the verb refers to acquittal? As at 3:25 (where the phrase is connected with ιλαστηριον), “by his blood” refers to Jesus’ death as a sacrifice. The purpose of a sacrifice is to deal with sin. Δικαιοω is used elsewhere in connection with sin in a way where it clearly cannot be rendered as referring to an acquittal (Ps 72:13; Sir 26:29; T. Sim. 6:1; Acts 13:38-39; Rom 6:7). Furthermore, since the καθαρ- terms are employed in the same fashion, it only follows that δικαιοω is roughly synonymous with καθαριζω when used to describe the removal of sin (The καθαρ- terms are used with απο αμαρτιας/ων at Lev 16:30; Ps 18:14; 50:4; Sir 23:10; 38:10; Job 7:21; Tob 3:14; Josephus, Ant. 19.315; Hem. Vis. 2.3.1; Sim. 6.3. The δικαι- terms are synonymous or closely related with the καθαρ- terms at 2 Kgdms [= 2 Sam] 22:21, 25; Job 4:17 [MT only]; 15:14-15; 17:8-9; 25:4; 33:9 and 12; Ps 17:21, 25; Prov 12:27-28; 25:4-5; Sir 23:10-11; Josephus, Ant. 16.187; Philo, Virtues 189). This passage only further verifies that Paul uses the δικαι- terms to describe the normal and expected effects of an expiatory sacrifice. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgement and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006], 329-31)

 

Commenting on the use of δικαι- terms in Romans,  VanLandingham noted:

With respect to other instances of δικαι-words, consider the following from a leading scholar of Pauline New Testament texts and theology whose work has refuted the concept Paul taught forensic justification:

I contend that even if on occasion δικαι- terms are forensic, in Paul at least, the terms do not refer to the Last Judgment. Paul does not, in fact, use δικαι- terms (in conjunction with “faith”), however, does not evoke any judgment that determine one’s eternal destiny. The issue does not need to be whether the terms (in conjunction with “faith" are forensic, but whether they refer specifically to the Last Judgment. Paul’s use of the δικαι- terms to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler over humanity. The various δικαι- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, δικαιοσυνη, δικαιος, δικαωσις, and even δικαιοω all have the same sense; therefore, the best rendering of δικαιοσυνη is “righteousness,” of δικαιος, “righteous,” and of δικαιοω, “make righteous.” (Ibid., 245-46; emphasis added; see the entire chapter, Chapter 4: “Justification by Faith”—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept [pp. 242-332] for a full-length refutation of the historical Protestant understanding of “justification”).

Commenting on a long-standing “proof-text” for sola fide, Rom 3:21-26, VanLandingham writes that:

The verb δικαιοω can be causative, because aside from the fact that the –οω verbs normally are (as φανερω in 3:21), the verb most often renders the causative hip’il of  צדק in the Septuagint. In this case, it would mean “to make δικαιος.” Admittedly, δικαιοω does not often have this sense; however, as previously stated, this rendering fits very well in Ps 72:13 (LXX); Luke 18:14; Rom 4:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Jas 2:21, 24, 25, and with a nearly synonymous meaning in T. Sim. 6:1; Sir 26:29; and Acts 13:38-39. The causative sense also works well; but considering that Paul uses the verb synonymously with the δικαι- terms (δικαιος, δικαιοσυνη) that occur in the proof-texts of Hab 2:4 and Gen 15:6, it makes the most sense that here δικαιοω means “to make δικαιος.” Paul uses the verb as a convenient way to indicate the transferal of believers from a state of unrighteousness to the state of righteousness. This transferal, of course, is precisely what Paul says in Rom 5:19: “By means of obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous” (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται) (Ibid., 320-31)

Such a view of the δικαι- word group (and its Hebrew equivalent, the צדק – word group) can be found all throughout the Hebrew OT and the LXX and Greek NT. Consider, for example, Psa 73:13 (LXX 72:13 [referenced above by VanLandingham]):

Verily I have cleansed (δικαιοω) my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.

Similarly, the Hebrew term “to justify” (צדק), which is the word usually translated with δικαιοω in the LXX, can also mean “purify”:

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (צדק).

With respect to the verb "to justify" (Greek: δικαιοω), modern lexicography and other scholarship refutes the Protestant/forensic understanding that requires the verb and its cognates to be emptied of any transformative meaning, as well as a meaning where the judicial declaration is based on an intrinsic reality. For example, the renowned lexicographer Ceslas Spicq wrote the following about δικαιοω and how, even in the context of Rom 4:5, it is transformative, not declarative merely:

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in –oō mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”

Source: Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42.

With respect to -οω verbs, there is further support for Latter-day Saint theology.  Philip Schaff, himself a Protestant and proponent of forensic justification, wrote the following in his 8-volume history of Christianity:

Modern exegesis has justified this [declarative] view of δικαιόω and δικαίωσις, according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in όω (e.g. δηλόω φανερόω, τυφλόω (i.to make manifest, etc.) (History of the Christian Church, 7:104 n. 139)

This has been proven rather problematic for many. Indeed, in an attempt to get around this linguistic issue, Leon Morris, in a very good work defending that propitiation, not expiation merely, is biblical (contra C.H. Dodd in The Bible and the Greeks [1935] and others), wrote the following which is fraught with error:

It is necessary to say a word or two more about the verb δικαιοω which in the New Testament is translated ‘to justify’ but which has been understood in more ways than one. Since verbs in –οω commonly express a causative idea it is urged by some that δικαιοω must mean ‘to make righteous’. But in the first place verbs of this class denoting moral qualities do not have the causative meaning (e.g. αξιοω means ‘to deem worthy’ not ‘to make worthy’ and similarly with ομοιοω, οσιοω, etc.) (Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [3d ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965], 252)

The problem with Morris’ analysis is that when –οω verbs are used, they are used to describe the intrinsic reality of the person/thing being discussed (e.g, a blind person would be described using the verb τυφλόω as they are not merely declared to be blind—they are in reality blind). The same for other verbs. Indeed, αξιοω supports this, too. In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

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

Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"

We should also ask ourselves "what else did Paul teach about soteriology in Romans to examine if he were teaching 'Calvinism'?" Our answer can be found in the very next chapter, Romans ch. 6, where the apostle teaches explicitly baptismal regeneration.

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)

 

In the symbolic view, baptism is similar to the relationship a wedding ring has to being married—it is an outward sign of something that it did not bring about as one being “in Christ” and justified precedes water baptism. However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις; cf. Acts 2:38] Christ,” including being a partaker of his death and resurrection, with baptism being the instrumental means thereof (through use of the preposition δια). Furthermore, Paul, through his use of the conjunction ωσπερ and adverb ουτος, both meaning "just as," likens Christ’s being raised by the Father to our being given, by the Father, newness of life through the instrumental means of baptism. Notice the explicit language of vv. 3-5:

 

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν eis Christon Iesoun) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν eis ton thanaton autou ebaptisthemen)? Therefore, we are buried with him (συνθάπτω synthaptō)  by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον dia tou baptismatos eis ton thanaton): that (γαρ gar) like as (ὥσπερ hosper) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω houto) we also should walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-5)

 

Commenting on the grammar of v. 5, Jarvis J. Williams noted:

 

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

 

Tony Costa, who himself is a Reformed Protestant and one who, confessionally, rejects baptismal regeneration, discusses the salvific nature of water baptism in Paul's theology in Rom 6 thusly in a section entitled, "Baptism as Identification":

The first thing we note is that Paul equates being baptized into Christ as being baptized into his death (Rom 6:3). Here Paul employs a metaphor. The believer does not necessarily die in baptism in a physical sense, but he or she is described as dying with Christ by way of spiritual analogy. They have died to their old self (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). Here we see baptism functioning as an identity marker in that the believer in baptism is identified with Christ in his death. Another metaphor that Paul includes with baptism is that of the believer in baptism being identified with Christ in his burial (Rom 6:4), but again this is not literal but metaphorical. Paul proceeds to use a third metaphor in relation to baptism to show that as Christ was raised from the dead to a new life by the glory of the Father, so believers have been identified with him to walk in a new life on a spiritual plane (Rom 6:4). This new life vis-á-vis baptism is often marked by calls and exhortations to ethical living . . . Paul reasons that since Christian believers are united by baptism with Jesus in his death, they will also consequently be united with Jesus in the resurrection. What happened to Christ on a physical plane is applied metaphorically to the believer on a spiritual plane. In tying baptism to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, Paul is identifying and associating believers via baptism to Christ in his salvific work. The essence and heart of the gospel upon which believers are saved according to Paul is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:14). These are the very three points with which believers are identified with Jesus in baptism. Thus Paul presents baptism first and foremost as an identification of the believer with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection. The idea of identity with Jesus in baptism is similarly stressed by Paul in Gal 3:27, ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε//”As many of you as were baptized into Christ, you have clothed yourselves with Christ.” The idea of identification in baptism in Gal 3:28 is seen in the metaphor of being clothed with Christ. (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 219-220)

 Commenting on the idea of baptism εις Χριτον (“into Christ”), Robert Tannehill noted:

 

The interpretation of this phrase has been the subject of considerable controversy. Some interpreters feel that it is necessary to give the εις a local sense, while others see it as an abbreviated form of εις το ονομα, and so as a formula for transfer for ownership, or as an indication of the constitutive factor for the nature of the baptismal act or an indication of the goal of this act. The latter kind of interpretation is insufficient. Any interpretation of baptism εις Χριστον must be able to explain how Paul can move from this idea to the related idea of baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, and then interpret this as participation in Christ’s death, as he does in Rom. 6 3 ff. Baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, does not simply mean that one is baptized “in the name of his death” or “for his death” or “with reference to his death.” Paul explains in vs. 4 that it means that “we were buried with” Christ and in vs. 5 that “we were united with the form of his death.” This clearly means that the believer shares in this death, is included in this death. Baptism εις Χριστον must be understood in the same way. It means through baptism the believer has come to share in Christ. Through baptism he has been included in Christ. He has entered Christ as the corporate person of the new aeon. Thus we should translate: “We were baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1967], 22)

 

The very fact that Costa, who rejects baptismal regeneration, would admit the above shows the over-whelming exegetical evidence from Rom 6 that Paul is indeed teaching the salvific efficacy of water baptism.

In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:

 

For he that is dead is freed (δεδικαίωται, dedikaiōtai) from sin.

 

The Greek of this verse is not speaking of being “freed” merely but justified—Paul uses the third person indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify.” In Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but they are "justified/made righteous" through the instrumentality of water baptism. Don’t take my word for it; here are some scholarly resources:

 

The other, more likely explanation seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as “free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437, emphasis in bold added)

Commenting on the relationship between justification, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of Jesus, Brandon Crowe wrote:

[H]ow does the resurrection related to the forgiveness of sins and the law of Moses in 13:38-39? Does Luke’s account of Paul’s speech shed light on the doctrine of justification, perhaps even in a way that is consistent with Paul’s letters? In verses 38-39 Luke speaks of being justified by faith in Jesus (en toutō pas ho pisetuōn dikaioutai), in contrast to what it was not possible to be justified (dikaiōthēnai) from (apo) by the law of Moses. Despite the preference of many modern English translations, the language of dikaioō in verses 38-39 is best translated in terms of being justified, rather than being freed. From what is a person justified? It must be from sin. Paul uses similar language in Romans 6:7: “For the one who has died has been justified [dedikaiōtai] from [apo] sin.” The Lukan Paul in Acts 13 correlates justification by faith (v. 39) with the forgiveness of sins (v. 38). Significantly, this good news derives from Paul’s exposition of the resurrection, which is apparent from oun and dia touto in Acts 13:38. These refer back to Jesus, who was raised and did not see decay (vv. 36-37).

But how close is the Pisidian Antioch speech in Acts to the Pauline doctrine of justification? Has Luke misunderstood, or only half understood Paul? Although Paul does speak of justification in contrast to the law of Moses (e.g., Gal. 2:16; 3:11; 5:4), it is objected that Paul speaks less clearly about the correlation of forgiveness of sins to justification. However, if the “we” passages in Luke are taken at face value to indicate that Luke accompanied Paul on some of his travels (which remains the best view), then it beggars belief to think that Luke has misunderstood this key theological emphasis of an apostle he knew personally. A better view is that Acts 13:38-39 provides another angle on the (“Pauline”) doctrine of justification and one that supports the “older” perspective on Paul—namely, that one’s right standing before God does not depend on one’s adherence to the law of Moses and that justification entails the forgiveness of sins.

Particularly pertinent for the present discussion is the relationship in Acts 13 between justification and Jesus’s resurrection. The casual link between Jesus’s resurrection and believers’ justification in Paul’s Pisidian Antioch sermon recalls similar connections in Paul’s letters. For example, in Romans 4:24-25 believers are justified because of Jesus’ resurrection. Thus Romans speaks of justification on the basis of Christ’s resurrection, in addition to justification on the basis of Christ’s death (cf. 3:24-25). This variety of emphasis in Paul further encourages readers of Acts not to misconstrue Luke’s understanding of the atoning work of Christ—justification is not based upon either the death of Christ or his resurrection; it is based on Christ’s entire work.

It is also noteworthy that Paul relates the resurrection of Christ to Adam in both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, the obedience of the last Adam leads to life for those with faith in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-49). These passages relate the obedience of Christ to his resurrection, which Luke also does. Not only does Luke clearly view Christ as a new Adam (cf. Luke 3:38), but Jesus is consistently identified as the Holy and Righteous One (using the dik- word group; see Luke 23:47; Acts 3:14-15) who did not see decay. Jesus’s resurrection in Acts is predicated in large measure upon his perfect obedience (see the use of Ps. 16 in Acts 2:24-36; 13:34-37; cf. 13:22), which is similar to Paul’s Adam Christology (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Luke and Paul agree that justification comes through the resurrection of the perfectly righteous one. (Brandon D. Crowe, The Hope of Israel: The Resurrection of Christ in the Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 63-64, emphasis in bold added)

 

Paul himself ties justification to baptism. This is evident, for example, in 1 Corinthians:

You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)

In this verse, Paul makes a direct connection between being “washed” [apolouō] and being “justified” [dikaioō]” (1 Cor 6:11). Some commentators dispute a baptismal reading, insisting that the language is simply intended as a metaphor rather than an allusion to ritual immersion. This is unlikely. First, not only does the New Testament indicate that baptism was widely practiced in the early church, we know that the ritual had an important place in the communal life at Corinth. Its significance was apparently so well established that it became the basis of quarrels that Paul felt forced to address at the very outset of this epistle (cf. 1 Cor 1;11-17). Second, the language of 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses terminology employed in other Pauline texts where baptism is in view. Believers are said to be “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” language which envokes the baptism controversy Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 1, which specifically swirls around the “name” into which believers have been “baptized” (1 Cor 1:13-14). In addition, the washing described in 1 Corinthians 6:11 is also associated with the “Spirit,” who is identified with baptism later in the same epistle: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). As other interpreters recognize, 1 Corinthians 6 even goes on to use the language of “members” (1 Cor 6:15), anticipating the discussion of Christians as “members” of Christ’s body later in the letter (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-27). Given these connections to baptismal passages, to insist that the language of washing involves a mere metaphor seems like special pleading. Finally, physical baptism is linked to spiritual washing in other texts (cf. Acts 22:16; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22). First Corinthians 6 is thus best read as an early Pauline expression of this theology.

Paul also talks about baptism in other places where justification is in view . . .we noted Paul’s teaching that “whoever has died is justified [dedikaiōtai] from sin” (Rom 6:7 NRSV, slightly adapted . . . this “justifying death” appears related to baptism:

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is justified from sin. (Rom 6:1-7 NRSV, slightly adapted)

This is an extremely significant passage, for it shows that baptism not only causes one to be “in Christ” but that Paul also views the sacrament in terms of co-crucifixion and justification. For Paul, baptism justifies because it is a real participation in the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (Ibid., 202-3, emphasis in bold added)

Interestingly, many of the translations that render this term "freed" in Rom 6:7 use "justified" to translate δικαιοω in Acts 13:39 where it would be just as appropriate for them to use "freed." The NET, for instance, renders the verse as:

And by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you.

"Justified" in this verse is δικαιωθῆναι, the infinitive aorist passive of δικαιοω.

It is clear that, for Paul, water baptism is not a mere symbol; it is the instrumental cause of being united to Christ, regeneration, and justification. Furthermore, he was clearly no Calvinist and would condemn Flournoy et al with the same anathema he condemned the Judaizers with (Gal 1:6-9). Sad to say, but Flournoy, as I have said before, has exchanged his inheritance for a bowl of pottage.

Further Reading

For more against the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (a review of 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]; also discusses Rom 4:1-8, a common "proof-text" for Reformed soteriology)

That Flournoy is considering Calvinism shows how far he has fallen from the truth and how he is in a state of spiritual rebellion (mirrored only by his rebellion against meaningful exegesis). On why Calvinism is false, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology (cf. Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)