Proving once again he is incapable of engaging in exegesis, Michael Flournoy has posted this on his facebook page:
There are a number of problems with this.
Firstly, this is not a context of justification, so comparing
apples and oranges already. It should be noted Flournoy has never dealt
with the real issues, such as the meaning of λογιζομαι, δικαιοω, texts that teach baptismal
regeneration, and a host of other issues in any meaningful way that reflects
knowledge of the historical-grammatical method of exegesis (see the articles
listed under “Further Reading”) for more.
Secondly, such animals were indeed ritually unclean in the
Old Covenant and remained so until the abrogation of the Old Covenant and
inauguration of the New Covenant.
All the old Mosaic regulations were to make
Israel a separate people and prevent their intermingling with the pagans who
surrounded them. They all served to preserve Israel and its treasured promises
lest these latter be dissipated and lost. This was done, of course, in the
interest of Israel but equally in the interest of the Gentile world, for the
preservation was made for the sake of the human race. After the fulfillment had
been wrought through Christ, its blessings were to go out to all nations.
Israel’s separation had served its purpose. The veil in the Temple was rent.
“The middle wall of partition” had been broken down, Eph. 2:14; now there was
“neither Jew nor Greek,” Gal. 3:28; the old had decayed and vanished, the new
had come in Christ, Heb. 8:13. A test was made in the matter of meats in the
case of hungry Peter. He was warned to stop contradicting God by making unclean
and unholy what God had relieved of this stigma and had thus cleansed. It
sounds like an angel’s word, for he is speaking of what God has done. (R.
C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis,
Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 404)
As we read in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
Nothing is able of itself to
separate man from God. From the religious standpoint of the NT, then, the
righteous may eat any kind of food. Peter’s experience in Ac. yields the same
insight. God Himself declares unclean animals to be clean (καθαρίζει
declarative) and demands that they be enjoyed (Ac. 10:15; 11:9). In the new
time of salvation God Himself removes the ancient distinction between clean and
unclean. Peter has to draw the deduction as concerns animals on the one side
and the religious position of the Gentiles on the other. The purification of
the righteous is not through ritual measures. It is through faith in the sphere
of personal life, Ac. 15:9: τῇ πίστει καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν. (Friedrich
Hauck and Rudolf Meyer, “Καθαρός, Καθαρίζω, Καθαίρω, Καθαρότης, Ἀκάθαρτος, Ἀκαθαρσία,
Καθαρισμός, Ἐκκαθαίρω, Περικάθαρμα,” TDNT 3:424)
A material concept of purity is
transcended in the NT. The common religious purity of all that God has created
(Ac. 10:15; 11:9 → καθαρός) is now recognised. Hence the community has neither
the right nor the obligation to declare that certain animals or men are κοινός
and are to be avoided as unclean, Ac. 10:28. There is no longer any such thing
as the objectively or materially profane, R. 14:14. Only the subjectively
backward judgment of individuals can still cling to older views, R. 14:14b.
Those who still distinguish between foods because they cling to the older
judgment are soon forced into a defensive position in the community. They are
regarded as “weak,” R. 14:2. (Friedrich Hauck, “Κοινός, Κοινωνός, Κοινωνέω,
Κοινωνία, Συγκοινωνός, Συγκοινωνέω, Κοινωνικός, Κοινόω,” TDNT 3:797)
Thirdly, the verb used in v. 15 is καθαριζω. Here is how BDAG defines the term with respect to Acts 10:15 and other like-texts:
3. to purify through ritual cleansing, make
clean, declare clean
a. a Levitical cleansing of foods make clean,
declare clean (cp. Lev 13:6, 23) ἃ
ὁ θεὸς
ἐκαθάρισεν Ac
10:15; 11:9. Many (Origen;
Field, Notes 31f; et al.) prefer to take καθαρίζων πάντα τ.
βρώματα Mk
7:19 (s. 1 above) in this sense,
regarding the words as an observation of the evangelist or a marginal note by a
reader: he (Jesus) (hereby) declares all foods clean.—WBrandt,
Jüd. Reinheitslehre u. ihre Beschreibung in den Evang. 1910.
However, when it is in a soteriological context,
there is no hint of any legal fiction. Take Titus 2:14 for example:
Who gave Himself for us to redeem
(λυρτομαι) us from every lawless deed, and to purify (καθαριζω) for Himself a
people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Not a hint of a mere legal declaration based on legal fiction.
With that being said, let us examine other Lukan examples of
καθαριζω showing that it is not based on a mere declaration:
"And there were many lepers
in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed
(καθαριζω), but only Naaman the Syrian." (Luke 4:27; Naaman was not simply
declared clean; he was made such, too, by being washed [LXX: βαπτιζω] in 2 Kgs
5:14 ["NETS: And Naiman went down and immersed himself in the Jordan seven
times, according to the word of Elisaie, and his flesh returned like the flesh
of a small child, and he was cleansed")
And it came to pass, when he was
in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy who seeing Jesus fell on his
face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean
(καθαριζω). And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou
clean (καθαριζω). And immediately (καὶ εὐθέως) the leprosy departed from him.
(Luke 5:12-13; this shows that, even in ritual contexts, being
"cleansed" is not a mere legal declaration; it is a declaration based
on an intrinsic reality)
Then Jesus
answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen
and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed
(καθαριζω), the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is
preached. (Luke 7:22)
And the Lord said unto him, Now do
ye Pharisees make clean (καθαριζω) the outside of the cup and the platter; but
your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. (Luke 11:39; here Jesus
denounces a mere external 'cleansing' what is important is one being
intrinsically clean)
And when he saw them, he said unto
them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they
went, they were cleansed (καθαριζω). 15
And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud
voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks:
and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed
(καθαριζω)? but where are the nine? Luke 17:14-17; καθαριζω is used here to
denote one being internally healed, not simply declared extrinsically to be
'pure')
And put no difference between us
and them, purifying (καθαριζω) their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:9; this is significant
as Peter is speaking of the Gentiles who are paralleled with the unclean
animals in Peter's vision previously in Acts 10)
Compare the above with a very early Christian interpretation of this vision from Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180):
From the words of Peter,
therefore, which he addressed in Caesarea to Cornelius the centurion, and those
Gentiles with him, to whom the word of God was first preached, we can
understand what the apostles used to preach, the nature of their preaching, and
their idea with regard to God. For this Cornelius was, it is said, "a
devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, giving much alms to the
people, and praying to God always. He saw therefore, about the ninth hour of
the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying, Thine alms are come up
for a memorial before God. Wherefore send to Simon, who is called Peter."
But when Peter saw the vision, in which the voice from heaven said to him,
"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," this happened
[to teach him] that the God who had, through the law, distinguished between
clean and unclean, was He who had purified the Gentiles
through the blood of His Son--He whom also Cornelius worshipped; to whom
Peter, coming in, said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness,
is acceptable to Him."6 He thus clearly indicates, that He whom Cornelius
had previously feared as God, of whom he had heard through the law and the
prophets, for whose sake also he used to give alms, is, in truth, God. (Against
Heresies 3.12.7 [ANF 1:432]; Irenaeus understands the cleansing of the Gentiles [represented by the unclean animals in Acts 10:1-15] to be "both a declaration and an intrinsic reality not "either-or")
This all refutes, not supports, Flournoy’s pathetic attempt to support his blasphemous theology that truly makes God a liar.
Finally, it should be noted that no defender of justification being transformative, and not a legal declaration merely has ever argued that a believer's genetic makeup is changed and the like. Does he honestly think that we believe, in the Old Covenant, that women who were purified after giving birth (cf. Lev 12) were changed physically and genetically? Frankly, this is an example the complete idiocy and stupidity one has come to expect from Flournoy.
Further Reading:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"
Does Genesis 31:15 Support Forensic Justification? (being generous to Flournoy, this is perhaps the best biblical parallel [and it is a stretch] to the point he is trying to make that others have appealed to, such as Buchanan and White)
Resources Defending Baptismal Regeneration
