Matthew
L. Bowen (who has done a LOT of great work on the Hebrew background on the
Book of Mormon) has another great article that has just been published by The
Interpreter Foundation:
“Their Anger Did Increase Against Me”: Nephi’s
Autobiographical Permutation of a Biblical Wordplay on the Name Joseph (.html
.pdf)
I have written a number of blog posts defending baptismal regeneration, including these posts on John 3:1-7 and Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:21. The following is a pretty useful page from a Catholic apologist, Matt1618 (real name Mario Lopez) defending this doctrine:
Firstly, with respect to the apostle Peter’s theology of water baptism, it is clear, notwithstanding Corner’s desperate eisegesis in this article, that Acts 2:38 (cf. 1 Pet 3:21) that Peter taught baptismal regeneration. One should compare and contrast his comments with the exegesis I provided in the following article:
Here, I exegete both Acts 2:38 and 1 Pet 3:21, showing that the only exegetically sound reading of these passages supports baptismal regeneration. To see responses to other claims against baptismal regeneration, see John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration where I refute John Greer, the current moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster on Rom 6:1-4; 1 Cor 1:17 and other pertinent passages.
With respect to his comments on Acts, note that one scholar noted on Acts 10:45 ("And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost")
45) Before Luke continues the narrative proper he records the amazement of the six Jewish Christians who had come from Joppa with Peter. They are dumb-founded “because the gift of the Holy Spirit is being poured out also upon the Gentiles.” The Greek retains the present tense “is being poured out” of the direct discourse of these Jewish believers; but it includes more than this one instance of outpouring and states that as a general thing, as this striking case shows, the Gentiles were receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” i. e., were by God himself being placed on a par with all believers from Judaism. That was the astounding thing. It was God and God alone and most directly who gave “the gift.” At this time he preferred to dispense with the laying on of hands (8:17); he did not even wait until these Gentiles had been baptized. That is a minor point. At Pentecost the 3,000 received the Spirit charismatically neither before nor after their baptism. The Pentecostal charisma was never repeated in the congregation at Jerusalem. There were signs and miracles many but no speaking with tongues.
Confusion has resulted by failing to notice that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” referred to at this point is the same gift that was bestowed at the time of Pentecost, a charisma, and only a charisma and not the gift of the Spirit, and certainly not the gift of sudden total sanctification. All those who spoke with tongues at the time of Pentecost were already saved, and none of those who were saved that day received the Spirit miraculously and spoke with tongues. All those who heard Peter in the house of Cornelius had faith and were saved before the Spirit came and gave them the ability to speak with tongues. The same is true with regard to the Samaritans, 8:15–17. This falling of the Spirit upon people, this charismatic gift of the Spirit, is entirely separate from the Spirit’s reception by faith for salvation and by baptism for regeneration and renewing (Tit. 3:5).
When this is understood, Luke’s account will not be referred to in order to deprive baptism of its saving power as though the Spirit comes apart from and without baptism, and as though baptism is only an empty symbol and sign. Peter did not regard baptism thus in the present instance. Since these Jewish Christians called the charismatic gift of the Spirit a pouring out, some say it was “the baptism of the Spirit,” or “that these Gentiles were baptized with the Spirit.” That may pass but only as long as this “baptism” is viewed as charismatic and as nothing more. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 430-32; emphasis added)
While much more could be said about Corner’s attempt to refute water baptism being salvific, such as his weak comments about John 3 (see my article on John 3:1-7 in response to another attempt to downplay water baptism being salvific), it is clear that Corner is guilty of a lot of eisegesis in his article. The biblical witness is explicit: baptismal regeneration is a true, biblical doctrine, and those who preach otherwise are preaching a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
The first recorded words of the serpent were “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1). This question was designed to instill doubt and uncertainty about the trustworthiness and authority of God’s words. God had spoken clearly to our first parents; they were obliged to believe and obey. Then the serpent appeared, and the authority of God’s word was his first target.
This shows the fallacious lengths defenders of sola scriptura will engage in to defend it; in this case, poisoning the well.
Those who reject sola scriptura, unlike the serpent in the Garden of Eden, do not doubt the Word of God. Instead, based on the overwhelming biblical and historical evidence, reject sola scriptura as a tradition, not of God, but of men, similar to the Korban rule that Jesus Christ rejected in Matt 15//Mark 7. Apart from poisoning the well, Mathison also has to compare apples with oranges from the get-go.
Furthermore, Mathison begs the question on an essential issue: he seems to be operating under the false a priori assumption that "God's words" and inscripturated revelation (which, in his view, is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon) to be one-to-one equivalent to one another. However, as another defender of sola scriptura correctly states:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)
Again, we see the utter desperation defenders of sola scriptura are forced to engage in to defend this false doctrine. Please remember, this is the formal doctrine of Protestantism: this doctrine falls, the whole system falls.
James R. White, a long-standing anti-Mormon, prides himself on his alleged abilities as a scholar of Christian history. In 1996, in the anthology of essays edited by D. Kistler, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, White contributed an essay, “Sola Scriptura in the Early Church” where he tried to support sola scriptura from patristic literature. Much of his arguments were soundly refuted in the book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis (Queenship, 1997). However, note the following from a fellow Baptist, D.H. Williams, an expert in patristic and historical theology at Loyola University in Chicago, about the sloppiness of White’s work:
The essay entitled “Sola Scriptura and the Early Church” exhibits an extremely limited familiarly with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius, bishop of Rome (p. 42), whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor Julius during his western exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’s death in 352. There is hardly a case here for a proto-opposition between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Moreover, it is quite striking that the writer of this essay argues how Athanasius makes no appeal to unwritten tradition, and yet in the very circulation offered as proof of this point (Oratio Arianos III.29), we are introduced to Athanasius’s mention of Mary as Theotokos, bearer of God, an Alexandrian tradition which few Protestants would espouse! (D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 230 n. 4)
Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows my History) and a few other critics have claimed that Joseph Smith derived elements of his theology from the writings of Thomas Dick (e.g., The Philosophy of a future state). Ted Jones wrote a very good M.A. dissertation on the alleged relationship between Joseph Smith's theology and the writings of Thomas Dick:
Needless to
say, when one engages in a careful, scholarly analysis of Joseph Smith’s
theology and the writings of Thomas Dick, the resounding answer is “no.” As the
author concludes on p. 96 of the dissertation:
If Joseph Smith had recently been reading Thomas Dick,
Mrs. Fawn Brodie had not. The former rejected theological concepts embraced by
Dick; the latter mis-represented Dick's theology.
The following are what I consider to be the best works discussing the Roman Catholic Papacy as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility from both Catholic and non-Catholic perspectives which I have in my own personal library:
Ecclesiastical Documents:
Pius IX, Pastor Aeternus (Vatican Council I [1870]) (cf. Vinzenz Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I)
I would also recommend Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash (43rd ed; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012) or some other edition of Denzinger.
Recommended Books (both Catholic and non-Catholic)
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Steve Ray, Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
George Salmon, Infallibility and the Church
Edward Denny, Papalism
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.)
Michael Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes
Margherita Guarducci, The Primacy of the Church of Rome: Documents, Reflections, Proofs
Michael J Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy
Ignatius Von Döllinger ("Janus"), The Pope and the Council
Dr. Hergenrother and James B. Robertson, Anti-Janus: An Historico-Theological Criticism of the Work Entitled, the Pope and the Council, by Janus
J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes
Laurent A. Cleenewerck, His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches
John F. Bigane, III, Faith, Christ or Peter: Matthew 16:18 in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholic Exegesis
Brian Tierney, The Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty, and Tradition in the Middle Ages
B.C. Butler, The Church and Infallibility
Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction
Karl Josef von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (5 vols.)
Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy
Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock
Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy
Idem. Condemnation of Pope Honorius
Idem. The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility
Idem. BishopGore and the Catholic Claims
Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451
Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
John R. Page, What Will Dr. Newman Do? John Henry Newman and Papal Infallibility, 1865-1875
John Meyendorff, ed. The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
Larry R. Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter
Raymond Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds. Peter in the New Testament
Helen K. Bond and Larry W. Hurtado, eds. Peter in Early Christianity
Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr
Martin Hengel, Saint Peter:The Underestimated Apostle
Hans Küng, Infallible?
Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries
Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity
Michael Whelton, The Two Paths
William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy
Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission
Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus
Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present
J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine
William Shaw Kerr, A Handbook on the Papacy H. Burn-Murdoch, The Development of the Papacy August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Arlo J. Nau, Peter in Matthew: Discipleship, Diplomacy, and Dispraise
Francis Sullivan, Magisterium The Infallibility Debate, ed. John J. Kirvan Peter Chirico, Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine
Francis Simons, Infallibility and the Evidence John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy Hermann J Pottmeyer, Towards a Papacy in Communion: Perspectives from Vatican Councils I & II James F. Puglisi, ed. How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Univeral Church?
Abbé Guettée, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches
Adriano Garuti, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy
The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, ed. Walter Kasper
Donald S. Prudlo, Certain Sainthood: Canonization and the Origins of Papal Infallibility in the Medieval Church
John W. O'Malley, Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church
Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Papal Monarchy
Luke Rivington, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter
Christopher M. Bellitto, The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One Church Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II
Geoffrey Barraclough, Mediaeval Papacy
Karl F. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church, 300-1140
The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church 1071-1453, eds. Aristeides Papadakis and John Meyendorff
Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes
A. Burt Horsley, Peter and the Popes
Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870
Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism
Peter Dimond and Michael Dimond, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II
Yves Renouard, The Avignon Papacy: The Popes in Exile 1305-1403 (trans. Denis Bethell)
Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections
Paul Pavao, Rome's Audacious Claim: Should Every Christian Be Subject to the Pope?
George E. Demacopoulos,
The Invention of Peter: Apostolic
Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity
A. Edward
Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate
Vladimir
Soloviev, Russia and the Universal Church
Arthur Edward Gayer, Papal Infallibility And Supremacy Tried by Ecclesiastical History, Scripture And Reason Raphael Cardinal
Merry Del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims
Trevor
Gervase Jalland, The Church and the
Papacy: An Historical Study
F.W. Puller,
The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome
J. Michael Miller, What are they saying about papal primacy? Philip Sherrard, Church, Papacy and Schism: A Theological Inquiry
Hamilton Hess, The Canons of the Council of Sardica A.D. 343: A Landmark in the Early Development of Canon Law
Patrick Granfield, The Limits of the Papacy: Authority and Autonomy in the Church Peter L'Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils John Hine Mundy and
Kennerly M. Woody, eds., The Council of
Constance: The Unification of the Church (trans. Louise Ropes Loomis)
G.G. Coulton, Papal Infallibility
Joe Heschmeyer, Pope Peter: Defending the Church’s Most
Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis
Rosamond
McKitterick, Rome and the Invention of
the Papacy: The Liber pontificalis
Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752
J.H. Burns and Thomas M. Izbicki, eds., Conciliarism and Papalism
William R. Farmer and Roch Kereszty, Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome: The Ecumenical Potential of a Forgotten Perspective
Isaac Barrow, A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy. To Which is Added a Discourse Concerning the Unity of the Church
Finn Damgaard, Rewriting
Peter as an Intertextual Character in the Canonical Gospels
J.M.R. Tillard, The Bishop of Rome
Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: The Evidence for Papal Authority (33 AD to 800 AD) from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Documents
Robert
Stackpole, The Papacy: God’s Gift for All Christians
Stephen
K. Ray and R. Dennis Walters, The Papacy: What the Pope Does and Why it
Matters
Robert Spencer, The Church and The Pope: The Case for Orthodoxy
An Inside View of the Vatican
Council, in the Speech of the Most Reverend Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis,
ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon
Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox
Olivier Clément, You Are Peter: An Orthodox Theologian’s Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy
Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis (2 vols.)
Vincent Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and in the historico-apologetic writings of Saint Athanasius the Great
William George Ward, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius
Patrick Craig Truglia, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy
James Likoudis, The Divine
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek
Orthodox on the Unity of the Church
Pedro Gabriel, Heresy Disguised as Tradition
Ultramontanism and Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Church, ed. Peter Kwasniewski
Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, ed. Paul C. Empie and T. Austin Murphy
Geoffrey D. Dunn, Cyprian and the Bishops of Rome: Questions of Papal Primacy in the Early Church
A number of years ago on the old FAIRLDS discussion board, LDS apologist, Ben McGuire discussed the tearing of the temple veil (Matt 27:51/Mark 15:38/Luke 23:45) and its significance. While no longer online, I did save his comments which I will reproduce below, as they are very useful and cogent. In response to the following question posed by an Evangelical, "I'm just wondering why it is necessary to have men as go-betweens when Christ has taken all sin upon Himself [?]," Ben wrote the following:
I don't think it can be easily characterized this way. First, it relies on a rather simplistic and naive view of temple worship in ancient Israel.
The veil wasn't a separator to prevent mankind from entering into the most holy place. It was a protection for mankind to prevent them from being destroyed by God's presence.
Men were not required as go-betweens - except when worshipping in certain places. There is a shift, historically, first, after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel, and later, in the Babylonian assault on Judah. This results in a shrinking geographic space in which Israel as a whole (and later Judah by itself) existed. Only in the later space do we get the strict requirements to worship only at the temple. Prior to that, there were many cultic centers. Certain rules seemed to have applied to some of them - although it is certain that persons could offer burnt offerings on their own altars as long as they were outside a certain radius of a cultic center. Furthermore, early on, petitioners to God could approach the tent in the wilderness directly. In many of the sacrifices at the temple, even, the petitioner played a direct and significant role in the act of sacrifice. But we get away from the real issue.
The priests and the Levites - as a rule, played their most significant roles in the rites for all Israel and not for individuals directly. The Day of Atonement sacrifices were not specifically for individuals, but were to purify all of Israel. In these cases, the intermediaries were necessary. And this carried over into the view of Christian theology. There, we have a man acting as the ultimate mediary - and this is the way that the New Testament portrays it - note the emphasis on this point in the following two passages:
Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The fact that we can directly approach God (as you put it) does not limit or negate the need for us to have a mediator between us and God. This was the role of the priests in Ancient Israel. They did not exist to separate man and God but to unite them. This can also be seen in the Exodus texts when Moses first goes to set about organizing the priesthood in Israel in the wilderness. He is told that the Lord desires to make them a kingdom of priests - but even in doing so, it does not appear to limit the need for a priesthood to be the functionaries of the tabernacle, and act as mediaries between the people and God.
I think that your approach is flawed Brent - in part because you stress the divinity of Jesus Christ, and neglect the part of the atonement that makes it valid for us - his manhood:
So desperate White was to save face that he wrote an article An Open Letter to Tim Staples; this was soundly refuted by another RC apologist, Mario Lopez, James White Misrepresentations, and Errors on Sola Scriptura showing the many areas White engaged in eisegesis as well as bent the truth about the debate itself. Of course, such should not surprise readers of this blog at all—in their lame attempt to refute my article, Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism”, White/Durbin never dealt with the issues at all, instead opting to poison the well and bald assertions (see James White and Jeff Durbin “respond”). I think the following .gif sums up Durbin/White's "response" to my article ;-)
My reference manual will give Christians a hands-on tool that will help them prepare to witness to Mormons on a variety of important topics. My work is uniquely different from the chapter on Mormonism in the fine academic work, The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin.
“Fine academic work” and “Walter Martin” should never go together. Apart from the fact that Martin had a bogus doctorate, the book, The Kingdom of the Cults is a joke. For documentation, see the following Web Page:
In response to my article, Christ's Baptism is NOT imputed to the Believer, where I refuted Michael Flournoy on imputation and demonstrated the Bible affirms baptismal regeneration, I got the following "response"(?) from Dave Bartosiewicz, no doubt full of Christmas cheer . . .
I know in some circles this counts as a "response," but in the real world, where exegesis and integrity are taken seriously, Bartosiewicz fails. Who knows, someone might buy him an Exegesis 101 book for Christmas.
For those interested, here was my response to Dave:
In Reformed theology, one is declared (not “made”)
righteous based on the alien imputed righteousness of Jesus. However, the verse
immediate after one of their favourite “proof-texts” (Rom 4:1-8) disproves this
theory. In Rom 4:9 we read:
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision
only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness.
The “blessedness” of Abraham (his “justification”)
is not based on imputed righteousness, but Abraham’s faith. Indeed, based on
the strict grammar of the Greek of this verse and Rom 4:5, 22 refute Reformed
soteriology and its understanding of the “ground” of justification.
Note the following from Spicq:
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.” (Celsius Spicq,
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament [trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994], 1:342 n. 88)
One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign of Claudius. (Acts 11:28 | NRSV)
Commenting on this verse and its implications for the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, one long-standing critic of this man-made doctrine wrote the following:
Acts 11:28 briefly describes one prophecy of Agabus but this is only in passing, and Scripture records none of the revelations of the other prophets that were with him. Surely they would not be called prophets if they had not received divine revelation. If one objects that these prophets were not apostles, we can point to the tongues and prophecies given to the church of Corinth in 1 Cor. 12-14 (cf., 1 Thess. 5:20; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11), of which Paul himself says that he speaks more than all the rest (1 Cor. 14:18). Where does Scripture record these tongues, along with their interpretations, and these prophecies? And even if they were recorded, where does Scripture distinguish between an inspired writing and an oral revelation that became inscripturated? To claim a distinction between the two without evidence that Scripture itself makes such a distinction is pure speculation. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 225-26, 217-18).
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5)
Nollaig Shona Duit to all those who read and follow my blog!
Second, the doctrine of sola scriptura maintains that the *whole* Bible as a body of scriptural texts functions for the Christian church as a complete written standard for Christian doctrine and practice. This does not mean we think (for example) that Abraham or Moses had that same complete collection of Scripture; Abraham probably had no scripture at all. Thus, it is not a sound objection to sola scriptura to point out that the NT added to the OT.
Perhaps unknowingly, this Evangelical Protestant, in an attempt to defend sola scriptura, caught himself like a fly in a Venus flytrap.
Firstly, as I noted to Jaxon:
He does realise this means he cannot point to any biblical text to support the doctrine? 2 Tim 3 was not written before the completion of the *whole* Bible and the same applies for all other "proof-texts"; again, to quote Robert Sungenis:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24])
Secondly, this is not the first time that this apologist has shot himself in the foot. As I noted in a post entitled Were Apostolic Oral Traditions Retired after the New Testament era? where, in a debate (youtube link) with an Eastern Orthodox priest and apologist, this same apologist tried to relegate the on-going importance of texts that speak highly of “[oral] traditions” in the New Testament during the time the NT was being revealed/inscripturated, arguing that such was not passed down in post-apostolic times, and in his rebuttal said that "[there is no] basis for thinking that something other than Scripture provides to us today an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . [no evidence] that such a thing exists outside of Scripture."
Answering this “objection,” one Catholic apologist wrote:
[W]e must challenge the statement that there is no "suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God." Since in 1 Thess. 2:13 Paul considers his oral teaching an authority equal to Scripture, and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 commands the Thessalonians to preserve this oral teaching, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the oral teachings given to Timothy, and later entrusted to other reliable men, possessed an authority equal to that of Scripture. To deny such a conclusion there must be substantial proof that the Catholic interpretation has no possibility of being correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the oral teaching to the Thessalonians possessed more authority than the oral teaching to Timothy and his men . . . probably the most devastating [argument against the Protestant approach to] 2 Thess. 2:15 and similar verses is that neither Paul nor any other writers, gives any statement which commands that the Church retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once Scripture was completed. Since the Protestant is required to form his doctrine only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture . . . in reality, the debate should stop here until the Protestant can furnish the Scriptural proof for his position. If he believes in sola scriptura, then he is required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers based on what he thinks is correct and logical. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 225-26, 236-37).
That the post-New Testament Church did not hold to sola scriptura, see the following responses to C. Michael Patton's eisegesis of the early Christian authors:
I have discussed sola scriptura many times on this blog; click here for pages exegeting various biblical and early Christian texts allegedly supporting this doctrine.
In a recent video, former LDS apologist, Michael Flournoy, argued that Christ's obedience, righteousness, and baptism are imputed to the Christian (around the 14:30 mark):
However, the Bible teaches no such thing.
I have addressed the issue of why the Evangelical Protestant concept of justification and imputed righteousness to be false before, including:
With respect to water baptism, even after the ascension of Jesus Christ, the apostles never taught that Christ's baptism was imputed to the believer; instead, the believer had to be baptised to receive a remission of sins. This doctrine (baptismal regeneration) (1) refutes sola fide; (2) refutes the thesis that justification being a mere declaration of an alien imputed righteousness and (3) shows that that justification is transformative. Let us examine some key biblical texts (Rom 6:1-4; Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:21 and Eph 2:8-9) that proves LDS theology and disproves the damnable gospel of Evangelical Protestantism that Michael Flournoy has now embraced:
Rom 6:1-4
In Rom 6:1-4, we read:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grave may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptised into his death (εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν)? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death (διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον): that like as (ὥσπερ) Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so (οὕτω) we also should walk in newness of life.
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 effect. In the sense of their understanding of salvation, it is an outward sign of one having been saved and being incorporated “into Christ.” However, Paul’s theology of baptism in this pericope is antithetical to this perspective. The apostle speaks of one being baptised “into [εις—I will be discussing this preposition in my next section--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. There is no exegetical wiggle-room, so to speak, for a purely symbolic view.
Furthermore, for the symbolism of our incorporation into the death/burial and resurrection/newness of life “in Christ,” only baptism by immersion would be acceptable, but that is a different topic for a different day.
That this is the view of baptism in Romans has strong scholarly support, too. For instance:
The explanatoryγαρin 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 (αλλακαι) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died =τωομοιωματιτουθανατουαυτου) 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).
In Romans 6:1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for himself or herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.[71]
One of the distinctive features of Roans 6 is that Paul avoids saying “we have risen” with Christ; rather he speaks of “newness of life.” The implication of Paul’s restraint is that the transformation is not complete. There is still an apocalyptic expectation of a future, fuller transformation into a heavenly form of life. This expectation fits with Paul’s use throughout the passage of the imperative alongside the indicative. “Newness of life” is a real, present possibility, both spiritually and ethically, but the actualizing of that possibility requires decision and commitment as well as grace.[72]
Notes for the Above:
[71] For the story orιεροςλογοςof the Eleusinian mysteries, see the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. An English translation of this hymn, along with an introduction and bibliography has been published by Arvin W. Meyer,The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook(New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 17-30. For an account of the initiation into the mysteries of Isis, see Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Book 11. See also Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris. Meyer has include book 11 of the Golden Ass and selections from Plutarch’s work (ibid., 176-93 and 160-72).
[72] Note that the author of Colossians does not hesitate to say that Christians have risen with Christ (2:12, 3:1). Baptism is also linked to the resurrection of Christ in 1 Pet 3:21. See also the related interpretation of baptism as rebirth in John 3:3-8 and Titus 3:5.
Source: Adela Yarbro Collins,Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism(Leidin, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000), 237.
Tony Costa, who himself is a Reformed Protestant, 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)
The evidence of the New Testament for baptism being salvific is overwhelming (for more discussions on the salvific nature of water baptism and exegesis of the other key texts, such as John 3:1-7, click here), and yet is a doctrine of soteriological (and eternal) consequences that most Protestants reject, but Latter-day Saints embrace. It is “Mormonism” that is reflective of true “Biblical Christianity,” not the perverted theology Flournoy has now embraced. In addition, the voice of early Christian history is against the purely symbolic understanding of water baptism; indeed, so overwhelming is the evidence for baptismal regeneration in the patristic literature that even critics of the doctrine are forced to admit it has theunanimous consent of all the patristic authors who commented on the issue. William Webster, a Reformed Protestant apologist, admits to such in his book,The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1995), 95-96 when he wrote (emphasis added):
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.
As Webster correctly noted, 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; 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")
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)
So, not only is Flournoy et al. on the wrong side of the Bible (a text they hold to be formally sufficient and the ultimate authority on matters relating to faith and morals), but also on the wrong side of history, too. In reality, it is Evangelical Protestantism that has nothing to offer anyone, as it is a false, damnable gospel with a false conception of salvation and false conception of Christ (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:3-4).
The Apostle Peter's Theology of Water Baptism in Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:21
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (εἰςἄφεσιντῶνἁμαρτιῶν), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
Outside of John 3:3-5, this is perhaps the favourite text used in support of baptism being salvific. Here, in this verse, we have a statement from Peter that seems to teach rather explicitly that the instrumental means of the forgiveness of sins is baptism.
The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Acts 2:38 can found in a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1831:
Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old whose name was Peter: Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth and is to come, the beginning and the end; Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins: And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church. (D&C 49:11-14).
Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.
Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.
However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:
Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.39
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):
It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.40
Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction
Notes for the above:
39 See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.
40 Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.
Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (on the remission of sins and baptism).
Another crack in the symbolic understanding of Acts 2:38 can be seen when we examine other texts of the New Testament where Peter further reveals his theology of baptism.
In 1 Pet 3:19-21, we read the following (emphasis added):
By which [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In verse 20, we read of how the “water” from the flood “saved” (σωζω) Noah and his family, and how baptism, said to be the fulfilment of this Old Testament type (antitype [αντιτυπος]) “now save us” (νῦνσῴζει [“now saves you”]). Antitypes are always greater than their Old Testament types. Consider the brazen serpent in Num 21:8-9—those who looked at the serpent were healed, but only temporarily, and only members of the nation of Israel. Christ is likened to this serpent, but one brings about salvation, and not to Israel only, but all the nations (John 3:14-17).
This fits with the definition of αντιτυπος provided by Lexicons such as Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:
ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃκαὶὑμᾶςἀντίτυποννῦνσῴζειβάπτισμα'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Pe 3.21; χειροποίητα... ἅγια... ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν'a sanctuary ... made with hands ... corresponding to the true sanctuary' He 9.24.
Therefore, just as Noah et al. were (temporarily) saved “by water” (δι᾽ὕδατος), we are saved by means of baptism, with baptism saving us in a greater manner, that is, salvifically (thus it being an antitype).
Some try to explain this away, arguing that it was the ark, not the water from the flood, that saved Noah. However, this ignores the fact that Peter is offering a typological interpretation of the flood water. Furthermore, Peter is rather explicit in linking baptism to the instrumental means of being saved.
This still begs the question as to why one would link the flood water with the water of baptism? The answer is that, just as the water from the flood destroyed all evil, the water of baptism brings about a forgiveness of our personal evils (sins), fitting this typological approach to the flood narrative in Genesis. Note the following comments about 1 Pet 3:21 from scholarly commentaries:
■ 21* This verse is joined to its predecessor by the relative pronoun ὅ, which, together with ἀντίτυπον (“antitype”) and βάπτισμα (“baptism”) serve as a compound subject of the verb σῴζει. It is the interrelationship of the pronoun and the two nouns that constitutes the syntactic problem of the first phrase of the verse. If, as seems likely, the relative pronoun is the subject of the verb, then the two remaining nouns stand in apposition to it There have been attempts to resolve the phrase differently: to take ἀντίτυπον as adjectival (“antitypical baptism saves you”); to take it as appositional to ὑμᾶς; to understand βάπτισμα as a proleptic antecedent to the ὅ; to include the first phrase with the end of the preceding verse, that is, “ … saved through water which even in reference to you (is) a pattern. Baptism now saves, not …”; to substitute the dative (ᾧ) for the nominative relative pronoun, accepting the reading of a few minor texts. The complexity of the sentence is, however, in all likelihood the result of the complex attempt to relate Noah and the flood as a means of deliverance to Christian baptism as a means of salvation, and ought thus to be allowed to stand. (Achtemeier, P. J., & Epp, E. J. (1996). 1 Peter : a commentary on First Peter (p. 266). Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; emphasis added)
I would construe the pronoun ὃ, referring to water, with “antitype,” understood as a noun, and refer both to baptism. To give a more literal rendering than the above, “[W]ater, which antitype [the antitype of which], is baptism, now saves also you,” or “[W]ater, which in its antitype, baptism, now saves also you.” The former makes clearer that baptism saves, the latter puts more emphasis on the water in baptism as saving, but both renderings convey the idea that grammatically baptism, not the water of the flood, “saves you.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first five centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 190-91)
That a type/antitype argument can be made in favour of baptismal regeneration is indeed biblical. Note the following from following from an essay on Alexander Campbell, a leading 19th-centuryadvocate of baptismal regeneration, and his arguments infavourof the doctrine following this line of reasoning:
Campbell states what the order of the “ancient gospel” is: first a belief in Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness; then peace with God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit.” This is Campbell’s conclusion after three articles of argumentation.
He begins the explanation of the design of baptism by noting its relationship in typology, particularly basing his reasoning upon Hebrews 10:22. He asserts, as a thesis, that “Christian immersion stands in the same place in the Christian temple, or worship, that the laver, or both [bath] of purification stood in the Jewish; viz. BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AND ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP.” Just as the High Priest had to wash on the day of atonement before entering the Holiest of Holies, so the believer, before he can worship acceptably, must also have his body washed in the rite of baptism. Calling upon John 3:5, Titus 3:5; and Ephesians 5:26, Campbell concludes that Christian immersion is the antitype of the bath of purification for priests in the Old Testament. This is signaled by the use of the term “washing” itself.
Since baptism corresponds to an Old Testament “ablution,” Campbell demonstrates the New Testament “plainly” affirms that “God forgives men’s sins in the act of immersion.” He argues that disciples were conscious of a particular moment when their sins were remitted, and “a certain act by, or in which their sins were forgiven.” That act was the washing which they could remember or forget. Campbell introduces Acts 2:38 to verify this connection between remitted sins and baptism. There Peter “made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness,” and if no other word were written on the subject, Peter’s command there would be “quite sufficient.” In consequence of what Peter says here Campbell believers that “in the very instant in which” a person is “put under the water,” he receives “the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, “Christian immersion is the gospel in water.” (John Mark Hicks, “The Recovery of the Ancient Gospel: Alexander Campbell and the Design of Baptism,” in David W. Fletcher, ed. Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective [Joplin, Miss.: College Press Publishing Company, 1992], 111-70, here, pp.149-50).
If the type/antitype relationship exists between the priestly ablutions and water baptism, we can see their external relationship—the priest is cleansed from ritual impurity by immersion, and a Christian is immersed ritually. However, only by understanding baptism to be salvific can baptism be a true antitype of the priestly ablutions. If one were to hold to a purely symbolic view of baptism, a la Zwingli, Calvin, and much of modern Evangelical Protestantism, baptism was just as (non-)salvific as the priestly ablutions, which would make the Old Testament type as being just as great, vis-à-vis salvation, as its New Testament fulfillment. Latter-day Saint soteriology, however, allows for one to have baptism as the antitype of the priestly ablutions, and, unlike the mere symbolic view of our Evangelical critics, allows the antitype to substantially excel the type thereof.
Another discussion on typology comes from an article by a Catholic apologist, Jacob Michaels, who used to be associated with Robert Sungenis who authored Not by Faith Alone (Queenship, 1997), a wonderful book refuting sola fide. The article is entitled, "Baptism: the Laver of Regeneration" (the article is no longer available online, but I have a copy saved on my files, so if anyone wants a copy, will happily email it to them as an attachment); the relevant section reads as follows:
Jesus Himself gave us the example of what baptism does, a living lesson in action:
"And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my belovedSon, in whom I am well pleased." (Mt. 3:16-17)
In this passage, we see again those three connected elements of receiving baptism: there is water, there is the Holy Ghost, and there is sonship with God. Jesus passes through this rite both to sanctify the waters of baptism with His presence, as well as to show us what is truly happening at every baptism. As we come up out of the waters of baptism, we receive the Holy Ghost, and are declared to be "children of God." No better living picture-lesson could be expected than this one.
In fact, this event is foreshadowed twice in Genesis, once in the initial creation story, and once in Noah's flood (which St. Peter alluded to in the passage cited at the beginning of this essay). The parallels between the Genesis narratives and baptism are clear: a "new creation" rises up out of the water, and the Holy Ghost hovers over the whole event, present at the moment of regeneration. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters at creation. Noah sent out a dove (the symbol of the Holy Spirit) to fly over the waters after the flood. All shadows of the real thing.
It is here that we begin to get into the more allegorical passages. Baptism in the New Covenant was prophesied by the prophets, who spoke of the coming day when God would wash His people and cleanse them from their sin. Ezekiel is one of the those prophets:
"And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek. 36:25-27)
Although it is a prophecy, the meaning can hardly be misunderstood. The imagery of water and cleansing is prominent, and it comes hand-in-hand with a new heart and a new spirit. This corresponds perfectly to all that the apostles claimed about baptism, that in that pouring out of water, the sinner received a new heart, and a new spirit, the Spirit of God, came upon him. This type of imagery is also used in Isaiah:
"Behold my servant shall understand, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and shall be exceeding high. As many have been astonished at thee, so shall his visage be inglorious among men, and his form among the sons of men. He shall sprinklemany nations, kings shall shut their mouth at him: for they to whom it was not told of him, have seen: and they that heard not, have beheld." (Is. 52:13-15)
What would be the meaning of "he shall sprinkle many nations," if it is not a reference to the New Covenant baptism instituted by "my servant," Our Lord Himself?
We see another foreshadowing by way of typology in the story of Naaman, the man stricken with leprosy who went to Elisha for a cure. The prophet told him to dip in the Jordan river seven times, and Naaman stormed off, angry and feeling like the object of a joke. We read:
"His servants came to him, and said to him: Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, surely thou shouldst have done it: how much rather what he now hath said to thee: Wash, and thou shalt be clean? Then he went down, and washed in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored, like the flesh of a little child: and he was made clean." (2 Kings 5:13-14)
There are several things to be drawn out of this story, things which can illuminate our understanding of baptism which has already been established by the plain words of the apostles and Our Lord. The fact that Naaman dips seven times is significant, for "seven" is a Hebrew word that also means "to swear an oath," or "to make a covenant." Seven is used as a symbol of covenant many times in Scripture (Gen. 2:2-3, Gen. 21:28-33, Gen. 29:18, etc.), and baptism is the doorway into the New Covenant, just as circumcision was for the Old (that is why St. Paul makes the comparison, among other reasons). Also, it should be noted that Naaman's skin after washing is described as being "like the flesh of a little child," which would correspond to the idea of being "born again," or "born anew" through baptism. There are also a few other similarities that could be further developed, such as Elijah as a type of John the Baptist (2 Kg. 1:8, Mal. 4:5, Mt. 11:14), whose successor (Elisha) would correspond to John the Baptist's successor (Jesus). Elijah is last seen at the Jordan river (2 Kg. 2:7-14), whereas John the Baptist first appears at the Jordan river, doing - what else? - baptizing repentant sinners. However, John's baptism cannot effect what only Jesus' baptism can, and so it is appropriate that it is Jesus' anti-type, Elisha, be the one to instruct Naaman to perform this typological action at the Jordan river.
Sound exegesis shows that 1 Pet 3:21 proves baptismal regeneration. Back to Acts 2:38:
Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English. As another example of a faulty linguistic argument to get around the plain meaning of Acts 2:38, Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:
"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.
This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.
The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.
In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4 discussed above). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura.
Much more could be said about this verse and the eisegetical attempts to get around its clear message (again, those who hold to a symbolic view tend to hold to Sola Scriptura which emphasises the perspicuity of Scripture—we can see in this instance, only lip-service is played to this critical component of Sola Scriptura). However, it should be clear that Acts 2:38 (1) affirms the salvific nature of baptism by bringing about the remission of sins and (2) attempts to relegate Acts 2:38 engages in scripture-wrenching of the worst kind. 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)
Conclusion As I stated in an earlier post, Trading one's inheritance for a bowl of pottage/damnable false gospel, Michael Flournoy has rejected the Restored Gospel for a false gospel, Evangelical Protestantism, that, at best, can offers him the consolation prize of a false sense of security and deception now, and destruction at the final judgment. His comments about baptism and imputation, among other things, reveals that the "gospel" he has embraced as no meaningful exegetical basis to it; instead, Evangelical Protestantism is refuted on this issue, and other issues, including sola scriptura, in the light of sound biblical exegesis and historical anslysis.
I do hope and pray that he will repent and turn away from the false theology he is now starting to peddle, not just embrace, before it is too late. Again, the words of the author of Hebrews, speaking of those who wilfully apostatise from the truth, are both sobering and á propos in light of this occasion:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Heb 6:4-6)
For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an holy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)
