Recently, a friend who is SDA asked a question about Michael Flournoy's claim in a video (From Mormon Apologist to Christian: The Story of Michael Flournoy) and how "he explains that vicarious baptism is like imputed righteousness because it's as if the dead person has done it themselves." The following is my response:
Michael lies (no other word for it) many times through this discussion, including his comments LDS theology believes Jesus is "created" and other things. It is also the same as his recent book--a joke, just as Flournoy is. However, on the specific topic of baptism for the dead, my responses would be--
No, it is not the same.
1. There is no alien righteousness that is imputed in both baptisms.
2. The righteousness in both cases is imparted, not imputed, to those believed.
3. The baptism is the instrumental means by which one is made (not simply declared) righteousness.
4. Both baptisms bring about the remission of sins, regeneration, etc.
5. If one has a baptism done for them via proxy, it does not work without the free-will acceptance of such.
6. The idea of work for the dead being efficacious is a refutation of, not support for, his Protestantism. For a thorough discussion, see:
"1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/08/1-corinthians-315-very-un-protestant.html)
7. The concept of imputed righteousness is anti-biblical. Flournoy know the case against it and still believes in it (many LDS apologists have debated him on this). He is a deceived soul.
On imputation and why it is false, see
"Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2018/07/response-to-recent-attempt-to-defend.html)
I discuss Phil 3:9 in the above article--Flournoy was wrong about Paul's teachings on righteousness in this verse and Rom 4 which he mentions near the end. The use of David in this text and the appeal to Gen 15, not Gen 12, refutes, not supports, his Protestant theology.
Interestingly, Flournoy at one time believed that "alien" in the term "alien imputed righteousness" meant an extra-terrestrial (see image attached).
8. For more against Flournoy, see the listing of articles at "Responses to Michael Flournoy" (URL: https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/05/responses-to-michael-flournoy.html)
A few other comments based on imputation
9. Barabbas was not saved nor was Christ's righteousness imputed to him. It is a false analogy. What the gospel writers is showing is that the Jews were willing to release a guilty son of the father (what the name means) and kill the true (and innocent) Son of the Father. For Flournoy's claims to be true, Barabbas must have been declared "righteous" by God and still was an evil criminal--so much for good works being a necessary fruit of salvation.
10. Grace being infused into someone is not imputation--it the opposite.
11. Flournoy on "doing things"--again, he confuses meritorious and instrumental causes. Sad for him, the biblical authors teaches baptismal regeneration and *NOT* that Christ's baptism is imputed to us (a bogus claim he claimed in the past and probably still does):
"Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/christs-baptism-is-not-imputed-to.html)
for more, see, for e.g., "Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/refuting-douglas-wilson-on-water.html)
No, it is not the same.
1. There is no alien righteousness that is imputed in both baptisms.
2. The righteousness in both cases is imparted, not imputed, to those believed.
3. The baptism is the instrumental means by which one is made (not simply declared) righteousness.
4. Both baptisms bring about the remission of sins, regeneration, etc.
5. If one has a baptism done for them via proxy, it does not work without the free-will acceptance of such.
6. The idea of work for the dead being efficacious is a refutation of, not support for, his Protestantism. For a thorough discussion, see:
"1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/08/1-corinthians-315-very-un-protestant.html)
7. The concept of imputed righteousness is anti-biblical. Flournoy know the case against it and still believes in it (many LDS apologists have debated him on this). He is a deceived soul.
On imputation and why it is false, see
"Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2018/07/response-to-recent-attempt-to-defend.html)
I discuss Phil 3:9 in the above article--Flournoy was wrong about Paul's teachings on righteousness in this verse and Rom 4 which he mentions near the end. The use of David in this text and the appeal to Gen 15, not Gen 12, refutes, not supports, his Protestant theology.
Interestingly, Flournoy at one time believed that "alien" in the term "alien imputed righteousness" meant an extra-terrestrial (see image attached).
8. For more against Flournoy, see the listing of articles at "Responses to Michael Flournoy" (URL: https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/05/responses-to-michael-flournoy.html)
A few other comments based on imputation
9. Barabbas was not saved nor was Christ's righteousness imputed to him. It is a false analogy. What the gospel writers is showing is that the Jews were willing to release a guilty son of the father (what the name means) and kill the true (and innocent) Son of the Father. For Flournoy's claims to be true, Barabbas must have been declared "righteous" by God and still was an evil criminal--so much for good works being a necessary fruit of salvation.
10. Grace being infused into someone is not imputation--it the opposite.
11. Flournoy on "doing things"--again, he confuses meritorious and instrumental causes. Sad for him, the biblical authors teaches baptismal regeneration and *NOT* that Christ's baptism is imputed to us (a bogus claim he claimed in the past and probably still does):
"Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/12/christs-baptism-is-not-imputed-to.html)
for more, see, for e.g., "Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/refuting-douglas-wilson-on-water.html)
12. He makes reference to Total Depravity and other things. If he is moving towards Calvinism, it just shows he is ignorant of biblical exegesis and theology as Calvinism is anti-biblical to the core. On this, see "An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology" (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-examination-and-critique-of.html). He is also wrong in claiming Sola Scriptura is biblical and true. For more, see
Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptural (URL: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/03/not-by-scripture-alone-latter-day-saint.html)
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
