Daniel Ortner, a former Latter-day Saint who has now embraced a form of Protestantism and is very critical (and ignorant) of his former faith appeared on a LDS channel yesterday to discuss Sola Scriptura. My friends Travis Anderson and Elliks Green were on it, and they destroyed Daniel and his frankly stupid arguments (e.g., claiming that Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18 "strongly imply" the closure of the canon!)
BTW, Daniel claimed yet again during this exchange that I brought up his children and for that reason he will not debate me. All I said was that he brought his family, including his kids, into a false religion (Protestantism). For someone who thinks I am a member of a false religion and will spend eternity in hell, he is just making excuses.
The
1838 account of the visitation of the Father and the Son is recorded in the
Pearl of Great Price. It was approved by the Church as scripture. This means
that it is the “will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, [and] . . .the
word of the Lord” to the Saints (see D&C 68:4). No one can be a member of
the Church in full faith who does not accept this testimony of Joseph Smith as
a true. . . . The reality of that appearance is just as central to our theology
as our declaration and belief in the atonement and resurrection of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ. (Russell M. Nelson, “As the Heart of the Church,” in The
Prophet and His Work: Essays from General Authorities on Joseph Smith and the
Restoration [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996], 53)
Ezekiel 28:14-16 is yet another passage that some critics of
the Church quote to try to show that Satan is a cherub, and then they’ll quote
another passage of text, that of Ezekiel 1:5-11, to make their claim that
cherubim in the book of Ezekiel appear to have a mixed animal and humanoid
form. Hence, they reason that Lucifer couldn’t possibly be a spirit child of
our Heavenly Father but rather is some other kind of creature that cannot be
related in fashion or appearance to the Father of our spirits. Actually, the
identification of Satan as a cherub comes from a Hebrew text which many
authorities regard as uncertain in meaning. The first word translated “Thou” in
verse 14 is part of the problem of interpreting the verse with any degree of
certainty. The underlying Hebrew word in the printed and other texts is אַתְּ,
which is the feminine singular form of the masculine singular אַתָּה. This text
is problematic because the form of the word which now stands here in our
Masoretic text is that typically use to address female, while the
pronominal suffixes that are in the verbs addressed to this person show that
the person is masculine. Some have gotten creative in handling this
issue by simply saying that the same form of the word also can be masculine
and, must be so. It gets worse than this, however. Originally, the Hebrew text
of the Bible was written consonantally, i.e., without the vowels which must
later were created and used in the texts. Thus, the first word in the phrase would
have been written את. It is probable that the original word in this passage was
intended to be אֵת, rather than as it now stands, which means “with” or
“together with.” In the Hebrew it would be written את-כְּרוּב. The translators
of this verse in the Septuagint Greek text of Ezekiel so understood it with
this sense when they rendered the first line of verse 14 as: “With the cherub .
. . “ .
The translators of the Syriac version also translated thus:
“You were with the anointed cherub . . .” . In addition, various scholars
ascribe the action of destroying or driving-out to the cherub rather than to
the LORD. This would be consistent if the first word in verse 14 were “with”
rather than “thou.”
The Septuagint also so understands this text: “ . . .a and
the cherub has driven you out . . .” . The wording of verse 1b, in The
Amplified Bible, is “ . . . therefore I cast you out as a profane thing
from the mountain of God and the guardian cherub drove you out . . .” . Several
other versions of the Bible also have followed this idea at verses 14 16. . . .
But even if all this were not true, and Lucifer is the
one who is identified as a cherub in these passages, it still is not a problem.
What are cherubim anyway? Confusion has arisen as to what they are, and what
are their form and appearance. Biblical scholars hold that they are symbolic.
This is because of differing descriptions of them by various biblical writers.
See for example, 1 Kings 6:23-27; 8:7, which refer to them as having two wings.
Ezekiel 1:50-10, where they are described as having four faces and four wings;
and also, Ezekiel 41:18-19, where the temple cherubim he envisions have but two
faces.
It has been said that Jewish tradition maintains that the two
cherubim that were on the ark of the covenant were in the form of men only with
wings. What do we make of that description, if true? Could it be that the word
“cherub” only is a title of a class of angelic beings regardless of the
individual forms of those within the class? The Akkadian cognate verb means “to
praise, bless, adore.” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,
1:454) It thus also is of interest that those who are called cherubim usually
are in the attitude of praising, blessing, adoring, or otherwise attending upon
God. These evidences all seem to point to the fact that, regardless of their
various forms, whether in the form of man, beast, or both, they are all cherubim
by virtue of what they do. This thus does not preclude some of them from
being only in the form of man and, thus also would allow some of them to be
God’s children—offspring of the Father of spirits. But if the critics will not
accept what here has been presented, we always could have them read Revelation
12:3-9 (where Satan is described as a dragon or serpent with seven heads and
ten horns) and, ask them to explain how that description of the Adversary
accords with Ezekiel’s description of the cherubim found at Ezekiel 1:5-11. If
they say that is symbolic, it likely is so in the description found in this
Ezekiel passage, and we also can say the same, for Revelation and Ezekiel are
apocalyptic texts.
In
this video, he makes a number of comments about water baptism and its relationship
to salvation that I will address.
Is Baptism a “work” we do?
Firstly,
he claims that there is nothing that we can do to bring about salvation. However,
this shows that Jeff has not studied baptismal regeneration in any depth. Water
baptism is a work of God, not of man. All those who hold to the doctrine,
whether they are Latter-day Saints, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc., believe
that the sole meritorious cause of salvation is the atoning sacrifice of Christ;
baptism, like “saving faith” in his tradition, is the instrument.
To
better explain things, note the following break-down of “causes”:
•Final cause: the purpose or aim of
an action or the end (telos) toward which a thing naturally develops.
•Efficient cause: an agent that brings a
thing into being or initiates a change
•Formal cause: the pattern which
determines the form taken by something
•Meritorious cause: the foundation/source
of the “power” ενεργεια behind the action
•Instrumental cause: the physical
means/instrument through which the action is brought about; it exercises its
influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal
efficient cause
Such differentiation of "causes" is known in
the Protestant traditions. In paragraph 2 of Chapter 11 of the 1689 London
Baptist confession, there is a differentiation between the
"meritorious" and "instrumental" causes of justification:
Faith, thus receiving
and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument
of justification . . . (Latin: Fides hoc modo Christum recipiens, eique
innitens ac justitiae ejus, est justicationis unicum instrumentum
. . . )
Let
us now discuss the different “causes” to water baptism:
•Meritorious cause: the atoning sacrifice
of Jesus Christ
•Efficient cause: God the Father
applying the merits of Christ and the Spirit operating through the physical
water
•Instrumental cause: water baptism
•Formal cause: the baptised person
being regenerated and receiving a remission of their sins (past and
then-present)
•Final cause: the glorification of
God in the salvation of souls
Such helps clear up many common misconceptions, such
as:
•As the instrumental cause of regeneration,
baptism is dependentupon (not independent of) the atoning
sacrifice of Christ (the solemeritorious cause of salvation) for
its efficacy. Belief in baptismal regeneration is not “adding” to the work of
Christ—it is the instrumental means of its application. This refutes the claim that “baptismal
regeneration . . .teaches that the meritorious work of
water baptism . . .achieves regeneration” (Edward L. Dalcour, A Definitive
Look at Oneness Theology, p. 39) and similar arguments by critics of
baptismal regeneration.
•Baptism is not a human work, but one God does. By
being baptised, God works through the instrumentality of water baptism and
remits our sins (past and then-present) and regenerates us. It is not a case
where we are baptised, and as a result, we obligate God to do something for us.
Therefore, Paul's condemnation of the Jews who would attempt to legally
obligate God to reward them for their works (e.g., Romans 4) is not in
opposition to baptismal regeneration. Note Titus 3:3-5: God
regenerates through the instrumentality of water baptism without being legally
obligated by any of our deeds outside the grace of God.
Note
the following from Luther who always held to baptismal regeneration and
(correctly) viewed it as a work of God, not man:
. . . to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by
men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it
is nevertheless truly God's own work. From this fact every one may
himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a
man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?"
(Luther, The Large Catechism, On Holy Baptism, 10)
But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work,
and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what, then, becomes of faith?
Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism,
however, is not our work, but God's (for, as was stated, you must put
Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however,
are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith;
for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to
be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it
benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself
baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and
ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the
water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but
the heart must believe it.
Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a
treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the
Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in
the Word, and offered to us and received by faith. Therefore they do us
violence by exclaiming against us as though we preach against faith; while we
alone insist upon it as being of such necessity that without it nothing can be
received nor enjoyed." (Ibid., 35-37).
Examples of Biblical Texts Teaching Baptismal
Regeneration
Jeff
then claims that the Bible does not teach that water baptism “saves.” This
again, is false. I will discuss a few of the texts that clearly teach baptism
regeneration.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey,
that εις in this verse has 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,
they then 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 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 (at least for initial justification), and for good
reason—it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.
Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who
hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel
Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax
of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:
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 εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν (cf. Acts 2:38: “εἰςἄφεσιντῶνἁμαρτιῶν”). 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. Of course, as with the
"causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 being 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).
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 “for 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 is 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 Orpheus J. Heward notes:
Spiros Zodhiates provides an explanation of the usage of “eis” in this
passage. He states: In Matt 12.41; Luke 11:32, “they repented at [eis]
the preaching of Jonah,” where eis, into, means conformable to
at or at the preaching of Jonah (Zodhiates S. The Complete
Word Study Dictionary: New Testament [Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers,
2000]). Notice that Zodhiates does not water down the force of “eis,” allowing
it to maintain its forward-pointing design. He understands “eis” in this
passage to carry the idea that the Ninevites conformed “into” the preaching of
Jonah. This suggests that the Ninevites experienced a behavior change that was
consistent with the preaching they heard. The prepositional phrase in this
passage indicates not the basis of the repentance, but the goal of the
repentance. They did not repent “because of,” but they repented “into”
behavioral conformity. (Orpheus J. Heyward, Dead, Dipped, Delivered: A
grammatical and contextual analysis of baptism passages [2017], 56-57,
emphasis in original)
1
Pet 3:19-21:
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 you” (νῦν σῴζει).
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.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to
baptism which now saves you' 1 Pe 3.21 . . .
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 from scholarlysources:
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. (J. P. Achtemeir and E. J. Epp, 1 Peter: A
Commentary on First Peter [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996], 266,
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)
A new means of salvation marks the new era: “For Christ also suffered
for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you
to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (3:18). A
reference to “the days of Noah” and the eight persons who “were saved through
water” turns the thoughts of our author to baptism. “And baptism, which this
prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an
appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities,
and powers made subject to him” (3:20-22). Baptism in the name of
Christ means participation in the atoning work of Christ, and hence the
enjoyment of eternal salvation. (Donald A. Hagner, How New is the
New Testament? First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], 153, emphasis added)
The flood is, therefore, a cleansing destruction, purging the
earth of that which is corrupt. This helps to explain why Peter sees it as
an antitype of that which baptism symbolizes, particularly if we accept
that his understanding of baptism may actually agree with that of Paul: the
flood, as a purging judgement, prefigures the death of ‘flesh’ in Jesus and the
establishment of a new order by the Spirit. It is worth mentioning that
other literature of the time, notably The Book of Watchers,
understands the flood as a cleansing and restorative event, prefiguring the
eschatological judgment (particularly 1 Enoch 10, where the
same theme of purging is encountered).
This requires, though, that Jesus’s identification as the sin-bearer is
not simply representative but is also participatory, putting
to death the old order of sins in which we used to participate and establishing
a new order of righteousness in which we now participate. (Grant
Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament [New York:
Oxford University Press, 2018], 277-78, emphasis in bold added)
When
discussing baptism as an appeal or pledge for a good conscience, Daniel Keating
noted that:
Peter goes on to clarify that baptism is
not a removal of dirty from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.
It is not perfectly clear what Peter means by this contrast. He seems to be
saying that baptism does not consist in cleansing the body form dirt (literally,
“filth”) but in our appeal to God to give us a “clear conscience.”
A “clear conscience” (literally, a “good
conscience,” the same as in 3;16) is similar in meaning to a pure heart; that
is, those who have a clear conscience are morally upright and pure. By
submitting to the waters of baptism we purify our souls (1:22) by asking God to
cleanse us within. It is God’s power that brings about a “clear conscience,”
but by actively submitting to baptism we make an appeal to God to accomplish
this in our hearts. Some scholars believe that “appeal” is better translated as
“pledge,” such that baptism is “the pledge of a good conscience toward God”
(NIV). In this interpretation, we are not making an appeal to God to give us a
clear conscience but are pledging ourselves to live with a clear conscience in
an upright way. Both senses are true: baptism includes out appeal to God and
our commitment to him. (Daniel Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude [Catholic
Commentary on Sacred Scripture; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2019],
94-95)
When
discussing this passage, Jeff appeals to Eph 2:8-9 as a “defeater” of the
baptismal regeneration reading of this pericope; I deal with Eph 2:8-9 later in
this article.
Rom
6:3-7:
Know ye not, that so many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom 6:3-7)
Some
Protestants claim that “baptism” in this text is not water baptism. However,
this is a novelty, and both historical and most modern scholarly Protestants
will admit that “baptism” in this pericope is the sacrament of baptism:
By the date of Romans "baptize" had become almost a technical
expression of the rite of Christian initiation by water, and this is surely the
meaning the Roman Christians would have given the word. (Douglas J. Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans [The New International Commentary on the New
Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 359)
[Paul in Rom 6:3-4] used Christian baptism as the basis for his
exhortations to believers in Jesus to live a new life in Christ and as the
primary illustration of what it means for one to live such a new life. (Richard
N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New
International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016],
612)
The 1563 Heidelberg Catechism reads thusly:
69. Q. How does holy baptism
signify and seal to you that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross benefits
you?
A. In this way: Christ instituted
this outward washing[1] and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water
washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly His blood and Spirit wash away
the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins.[2]
[1] Matt. 28:19. [2] Matt. 3:11;
Mark 16:16; John 1:33; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3, 4; 1 Pet. 3:21.
BDAG,
under βαπτιζω, associates Rom 6
with the rite of water baptism:
c. of the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death (freq.
pass.; s. above 2a; Iren. 3, 12, 9 [Harv. II 63, 3]) Mk 16:16;Ac
2:41;8:12f,36,38;9:18;10:47;16:15,33;18:8;22:16;1
Cor 1:14-17; D 7 (where baptism by pouring is allowed in cases of
necessity); ISm 8:2.—β. τινὰεἰς (τὸ) ὄνομάτινος (s. ὄνομα 1dγ(ב baptize
in or
w. respect to the name of someone: (τοῦ) κυρίουAc 8:16;19:5; D 9:5; Hv 3, 7, 3. Cp. 1 Cor
1:13,15.εἰςτ. ὄν. τ. πατρὸςκαὶτ. υἱοῦκαὶτ. ἁγίουπνεύματοςMt 28:19 (on the original form of the baptismal formula see
FConybeare, ZNW 2, 1901, 275-88; ERiggenbach, BFCT VII/1, 1903; VIII/4, 1904;
HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theologie2 I 1911, 449f; OMoe: RSeeberg
Festschr. 1929, I 179-96; GOngaro, Biblica 19, ’38, 267-79; GBraumann,
Vorpaulinische christl. Taufverkündigung bei Paulus ’62); D 7:1, 4. Likew. ἐντῷὀν. ᾽ΙΧριστοῦAc 2:38 v.l.;10:48;ἐπὶτῷὀν. ᾽ΙΧρ. Ac
2:38 text; more briefly εἰςΧριστόνGal 3:27;Ro 6:3a. To be baptized εἰςΧρ. is
for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰςτὸνθάνατοναὐτοῦἐβαπτίσθημεν vs. 3b
Let
us quote from non-LDS scholarship on Rom 6 and baptism’s salvific efficacy:
The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments
about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His
argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live
under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the
death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3).
Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through
their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the
death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of
sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just
as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers
who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly
(αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and
resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died =
τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just
as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ
Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish
Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178)
Commenting on the idea of baptism εις Χριτον, Robert
Tannehill noted:
The interpretation of this phrase
has been the subject of considerable controversy. Some interpreters feel that
it is necessary to give the εις a local sense, while others see it as an
abbreviated form of εις το ονομα, and so as a formula for transfer for
ownership, or as an indication of the constitutive factor for the nature of the
baptismal act or an indication of the goal of this act. The latter kind of
interpretation is insufficient. Any interpretation of baptism εις Χριστον must
be able to explain how Paul can move from this idea to the related idea of
baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, and then interpret this as participation in
Christ’s death, as he does in Rom. 6 3 ff. Baptism εις τον θανατον αυτου, does
not simply mean that one is baptized “in the name of his death” or “for his
death” or “with reference to his death.” Paul explains in vs. 4 that it means
that “we were buried with” Christ and in vs. 5 that “we were united with the
form of his death.” This clearly means that the believer shares in this death,
is included in this death. Baptism εις Χριστον must be understood in the same
way. It means through baptism the believer has come to share in Christ. Through
baptism he has been included in Christ. He has entered Christ as the corporate
person of the new aeon. Thus we should translate: “We were baptized into Christ
Jesus.” (Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in
Pauline Theology [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 1967], 22)
In Rom 6:7, the KJV reads:
For he that is dead is freed (δεδικαίωται, dedikaiōtai)
from sin.
The Greek of this verse is not speaking of being
“freed” merely but justified—Paul uses the third person
indicative perfect passive of δικαιοω, the verb meaning "to justify.” In
Paul's theology, God not only simply "frees" a person from sin, but
they are "justified/made righteous" through the instrumentality of
water baptism. Cf. Acts 13:38-39 for a similar usage of δικαιοω:
Therefore let it be known to you, men and brothers, that through this
one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and from all the things from
which you were not able to be justified (δικαιωθῆναι dikaiōthēnai
aorist passive participle) by the law of Moses (LEB)
As
Fitzmyer noted in his commentary on Romans:
The other, more likely explanation
seeks to interpret the vb. [δικαιοω] not as
“free,” but as “justify, acquit” in the genuine Pauline sense, and [sin], not
in the sense demanded above (something like “obligation to the Torah”), but in
its Pauline sense, an act against the will of God (so Lyonnet, Romains, 89; Cranfield, Romans, 310–11): the
one who has died has lost the very means of sinning, “the body of sin,” so that
one is definitively without sin; one has been freed of the fleshy, sin-prone
body. In either case, a change of status has ensued; the old condition has been
brought to an end in baptism-death, and a new one has begun. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 437)
The Washing of Regeneration and Titus 3:5
Jeff
appeals to Titus 3:5 in support of his understanding of salvation and rejection
of baptismal regeneration, as if baptism is a “work” we do to merit God’s
grace. As noted, this shows ignorance of the theologies of baptismal regeneration
in the broad Chrisitan spectrum and “causes” (it would be the equivalent
of me saying “Jeff does not believe Jesus saves as he must exercise [saving] faith!!!!—ignorance
of the difference between meritorious and instrumental causes).
The
term translated as "washing" is λουτρον and appears only twice in the
New Testament: Eph 5:26 and Tit 3:5, so it is apropos to examine both these
texts as they teach baptismal regeneration.
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; G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. λουτρον[λοετρον]). This noun, being coupled with the phrase του
υδατος "of [the] water" shows that water baptism is the instrumental
means through which Christ cleanses the members of His bride, the Church.
Everett
Ferguson, perhaps the leading expert on baptism in early Christianity, noted
the following concerning this passage:
There is very likely a reference to
baptism in 5:26. Christ gave himself up for the church “in order that he might
sanctify her, purifying her by the washing [τῷλουτρῷ, bath] of
water with the word [ἐνῥήματι].” The context compares the relations of
husbands and wives with the relations of Christ and the church. In view of this
marriage context elements of a wedding ceremony that could be related to
Christian practice are likely being drawn on. The bride took a bath before the
wedding, hence the reference to a washing expressly said to be in water, which
would parallel the baptism of Christ’s “bride,” the church, taking place in the
conversion of each of its members. There was also a wedding contract, an exchange
of vows, hence the reference to a “word.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early
Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 161-62)
Protestant
Nicholas Taylor noted that:
The 'washing of water' whereby the Church is sanctified and cleansed is
clearly the rite of Baptism. Whereas Christians are baptized individually or in
families, the Church as a whole is baptized corporately, as it were, in
Christ's death. If all Christians are baptized into Christ's death on the
cross, then it follows that all Christian baptisms are to be identified with
that event. Therefore the whole Church, and not just individual Christians, is
identified with Christ through Baptism. It is possible that this text is
influenced by a nuptial purification rite. In this case the bath that purifies
the bride from any contamination in her premarital life serves as a model for
Christian Baptism, in which the Church is cleansed of impurity and corruption
before the consummation of its spiritual marriage to Christ. (Nicholas Taylor, Paul
on Baptism: Theology, Mission and Ministry in Context [London: SCM Press,
2016], 86)
Constantine
Campbell, who himself rejects baptismal regeneration, demonstrates a lot of
intellectual integrity when he writes that:
5:26 Christ gave himself for the church (Eph 5:25)
“to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word.” This
purpose clause indicates the goal of Christ’s self-giving—it was to make the
church holy. To make people holy—or sanctified—is to include them “In the inner
circle of what is holy, in both cultic and moral associations of the word.” In
the Old Testament, sanctification referred to setting apart for religious use,
often with reference to the sacrifice of an unblemished animal, whose blood in
turn sanctified the worshipers. Of Christians specially, it can refer to
being consecrated by baptism, as seen in the second part of 5:26—“cleansing her
with the washing of water.” The word translated “washing” can refer to a
bath or—as here—to the washing of baptism. (Constantine
R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament
Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 254)
Commenting
on καθαρτιζωand its reference to water
baptism, TDNT notes that:
In Eph. 5:26 the symbolism of baptism
is impressively used to portray the basic moral purification by Christ which
binds our whole conduct (καθαρίσαςτῷλουτρῷτοῦὕδατοςἐνῥήματι, nowhere
else in Pl.). In particular, the death of Christ is seen from the standpoint of
an efficacious sacrifice which expiates sin and creates a new purity for those
who are pledged thereto. In virtue of the sacrificial death of Christ,
Christians are a new and purified people for God’s possession, able and willing
to perform the corresponding works (Tt. 2:14; cf. 1 Jn. 1:7, 9). Like
Hellenistic Judaism, the Past. speak of a pure heart (1 Tm. 1:5; 2 Tm. 2:22)
and conscience (1 Tm. 3:9; 2 Tm. 1:3), i.e., the inward life of believers as
cleansed from past sin and wholeheartedly directed to God. The word expresses
the unreserved nature of the return to God and also the inner unity of a
conscience which is no longer disturbed by the sense of guilt (cf. Ac. 18:6;
20:26). (TDNT 3:425)
Now
let us discuss Titus 3:5:
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (διὰλουτροῦπαλιγγενεσίας), andrenewing of the Holy Ghost
Robert
Sungenis noted the following:
Paul cannot be speaking symbolically since the grammar specifies: εσωσεν
ημας δια λουτρου: (“he saved us through washing”) and not: εσωσεν ημας δια
συμβολον λουτρου (“he saved us through the symbol of washing”). Παλιγγενεσιας
(“regeneration”) is only used 2× in the NT, the other in Mt 19:28 referring to
the final regeneration of the body at the end of time, thus showing the force
of the word to likewise refer to a complete spiritual regeneration. (Robert A. Sungenis, The Epistles to Timothy
and Titus: Exegetical Commentary (Catholic Apologetics Study Bible X;
State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.,
2020), 91-92 n. 211—notice that one must functionally reject the
perspicuity of scripture if they wish to reject the “baptism”/”baptismal
regeneration” reading of the pericope!)
That
this text is teaching baptismal regeneration is the near-consensus in
scholarship. Note the following representative examples:
What happens when we thus trustingly put our hand in the hand of God,
and entrust ourselves to his saving mercy? The Holy Spirit of God comes into
residence in the life of the believer, and he is then baptized. The two results
are brought together in Tit. 3.5, 6. “He saved us through the water of rebirth
and of renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Despite a certain ambiguity in the Greek
expression it is clear that two things are in Paul’s mind, the rite of baptism
and the gift of the Spirit to the believer. These two are juxtaposed equally
naturally in Gal. 3.26, 27 where entry into Christ is said to be by faith and
by baptism, and it identified, earlier in the chapter, with receiving the
Spirit by faith (3.1-3). The New Testament saw no tension between salvation
by faith and salvation by baptism; they are properly regarded as belonging
together . . . (E.M.B. Green, The Meaning of Salvation [London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1965], 170)
“Through a washing”: The instrumental dia here is parallel in
meaning to dia Iesou Christou in the next verse. For the dozen uses of dia
in the Timothy correspondence, see 1 Tim 2:10, 15; 4:5, 14; 2: Tim 1:1, 6, 102,
14; 2:2; 3:15; 4:17. “Washing,” loutron, occurs otherwise in the NT
only in Eph 5:26 of Christ “having cleansed [the church] by the washing (tōi
loutrōi) of water with the word.” In the LXX loutron means the bath
for cleansing sheep (LXX Cant 4:2; 6:6) and the Jewish ritual washing after
touching the dead in Sir 34:25. The word does not appear in T. 12 Patr. Or the
Ap. Frs., but Justin uses it in alluding to this passage in Titus or its source
(Apology 1.61 [PG 6.420-21]; see Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5.3 [PG 5.15.3];
Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.16 [PG 6.1077]). . . . More basis for
the P[astoral]E[pistles] is the verb sōizein. A baptismal paraenesis
later in Titus contains the only use of this verb in the letter. It describes
how “our savior, God . . . saved us, no thanks to any upright deeds that we
performed ourselves but because of (kata) his own mercy, saved us
through a washing of regeneration and of renewal by the Holy Spirit that he
poured our lavishly on us, through (dia) Jesus Christ, our savior. God’s
was the grace (tei ekeinou charity) that made us upright (Titus 3:4-7).
For the PE the action of saving is ultimately an act of God as ho theos,
the Father (c. 1 Tim 2:3-4 with 2 Tim 1:8-9). Precisely because of the
relationship in which Jesus stands to the Father, he too can be the subject of sōizein
(1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 4:18). (Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New
Translation and Commentary and An Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the
Pastoral Epistles [AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990], 194, 305)
Note
TDNT’s entry under “ἀνακαινίζω” (to make anew/restore) as a reference to water
baptism:
In early
Christian writings ἀνακαινίζω
is a common word in connection with regeneration and baptism, Barn., 6, 11: ἀνακαινίσας (sc. God) ἡμᾶςἐντῇἀφέσειτῶνἁμαρτιῶν; Chrys.
Hom. in R., 20 (MPG, 60, 598): ἀνακαίνισοναὐτὴν (sc. τὴνψυχήν) μετανοίᾳ, Liturgia
Marci (F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western [1896], 126, 1): ἀνεκαίνισαςδιὰτοῦφρικτοῦκαὶζωοποιοῦκαὶοὐρανίουμυστηρίουτούτου, cf. O.
Sol. 11:11: “The Lord renewed me by His vesture and created me by His light”; 17:4:
“I received the countenance and form of a new being, I entered therein and was
redeemed”; Act. Thom. 132 (baptismal hymn): σοὶδόξαἀνακαινισμὸςδιʼ οὗἀνακαινίζονταιοἱβαπτιζόμενοιοἱμετὰδιαθέσεωςσοῦἁπτόμενοι. Of the angel of repentance in Herm. s., 8,
6, 3: τοῦἀνακαινίσαιτὰπνεύματααὐτῶν, cf. s., 9, 14, 3; v., 3, 8, 9. (TDNT 3:451-52)
This
is how the term λουτρον and Titus 3:5 was interpreted in early Christianity. For example:
. . . the washing that is for the remission of sins and for rebirth
(λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν), and unto
regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (Justin Martyr, First
Apology 66, in St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans.
Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], 70)
Being baptized, we are illuminated;
illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made
perfect, we are made immortal. "I," says He, "have said that ye
are gods, and all sons of the Highest." This work is variously called
grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing (λουτρον): washing
(λουτον), by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the
penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which
that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.
(Clement of Alexandria [c. 150-215], The Instructor [Paedagogus], Book 1,
chapter 6 [ANF 2:215]; Greek from Migne, PG 8:281)
To
quote Ferguson again:
The word λουτρόν was first a bath or a place of bathing and
then the water used for bathing or washing. Here and in Ephesians 5:26 above
the word refers to the act rather than the place of washing. The washing is not
figurative (such a usage would be unprecedented) for the work of the Holy
Spirit; that interpretation might have been avoided if the translation “bath”
were more common. The theological ideas of the passage are elsewhere associated
with baptism, which is indicated here by the “washing.” Baptism is not a human work,
but is a work of God. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church:
History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries [Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 163)
John 3:3-5 as an affirmation of baptismal
regeneration
When
commenting on John 3:3-5, Jeff claims that "water" is not baptism nor is
the passage teaching baptismal regeneration. Again, he finds himself at odds
with biblical scholarship and the patristics. For example:
3: Very truly, see 1.51n. Kingdom
of God, used by John only in 3.3,5, but prominent in the other Gospels,
referring to the divine domain that will arise at some future point in this
world (Mk 9.1) or in some other place in which the righteous will dwell (Lk
13.29), or an altered state of existence in the here and now (Lk 17.21). The
Hebrew term, “malkut shamayim” (Dan 4.3; 1 Chr 29.10–12) implies the divine
reign in this world. Born from above, “born anew”; the origin of
the term “born-again Christian.” 4: Puns and double entendres
are a frequent literary device in John, as they are also in the Hebrew Bible
(e.g., Dan 5.25–28 ), classical Greek literature (e.g., Ovid, Metam.);
and rabbinic literature (e.g., Lam. Rab. 1.1) 5: Water
and spirit, suggesting that baptism is the act of rebirth that allows one
to enter or see (v. 3) the kingdom. The combination may suggest both the
baptismal act and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 1.5). (Amy-Jill Levine and Marc
Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament [New
York: Oxford University Press, 2011], 163)
Suggestions that the saying is actually about two births, one εξυδατος and the other εκπνυματος are not compelling
because in fact the two nouns are governed by one preposition (εξυδατοςκαιπνυματος), pointing to one birth which is related to both
water and the Spirit. Some have suggested that “water” here is purely
figurative, denoting the spiritual cleansing and transformation wrought by the
Spirit, as promised by the prophets (Ezek 36:25-27). Although this is possible,
it is difficult to read John 3:5 in its context without thinking of baptism
(cf. 1:24-34; 3:22-23; 4:1-2). (Stanley K. Fowler, More than a Symbol: The
British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist
History and Thought 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2002], 163; note: Fowler rejects baptismal regeneration,
but admits that “water” here is a reference to baptism)
The
following are representative patristic commentaries on the passage:
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")
For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God,
if they be born of each sacrament;5 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).
Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a
cause of renovation and regeneration. By regeneration, understand regeneration
conceived in thought, not discerned by bodily sight. For we shall not,
according to the Jew Nicodemus and his somewhat dull intelligence, change the
old man into a child, nor shall we form anew him who is wrinkled and
gray-headed to tenderness and youth, if we bring back the man again into his
mother's womb: but we do bring back, by royal grace, him who bears the scars of
sin, and has grown old in evil habits, to the innocence of the babe. For as the
child new-born is free from accusations and from penalties, so too the child of
regeneration has nothing for which to answer, being released by royal bounty from
accountability. And this gift it is not the water that bestows (for in that
case it were a thing more exalted than all creation), but the command of God,
and the visitation of the Spirit that comes sacramentally to set us free. But
water serves to express the cleansing. For since we are wont by washing in
water to render our body clean when it is soiled by dirt or mud, we therefore
apply it also in the sacramental action, and display the spiritual brightness
by that which is subject to our senses. Let us however, if it seems well,
persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism,
starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration,
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God." Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone
accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well,
is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are
assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:--for his visible
body, water, the sensible element,--for his soul, which we cannot see, the
Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For "the Spirit
breathes where He wills, and thou hearest His voice, but canst not tell whence
He cometh or whither He goeth." He blesses the body that is baptized, and
the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think
lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power
that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby.
(Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Baptism of Christ” [NPNF2, 5:514])
. . . 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)
Jeff
does not provide much evidence for a non-baptismal reading of the pericope, but
is clearly espousing an interpretation unheard of in the Christian tradition
until the Reformation. I will note his “apostasy problem” at the end of this
article.
Jesus Did Teach Salvation is Contingent Upon
Baptism
Apart from John 3:3-5, another passage
where Jesus does teach that one’s salvation is dependent upon receipt of water
baptism is Mark 16:16:
He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned.
It is true that damnation is associated with
disbelief, without reference to baptism. However, such a "counter"
fails to deal with the fact that salvation is tied to both belief and baptism.
The reason for the absence of baptism in the second clause of Mark 16:16 is due
to the rather simple fact that if one does not believe, they will not be
baptised (as credo-baptism was the NT teaching!)
Had the author of this verse wished to teach that
baptism was not salvific, the grammar chosen was atrocious (so much for the
perspicuity of the Bible). Instead, it should have read, "The one who
believes will be saved and then will be baptised; but the one who does not
believe will be condemned.” A Protestant who rejects the claim that baptismal
regeneration is taught in this verse must either:
(1)Charge Mark with atrocious grammar, calling into
question the perspicuity of the Bible (an essential “building block” of sola
scriptura) or
(2)Accept the explicit witness of the New Testament
(e.g., Acts 2:38) about baptismal regeneration and repent of their
soteriological heresy
When
discussing this verse, all Jeff does is the same fundamental error he engages
in at the start of the video: an “either-or” false dialectical between
baptismal regeneration and the work of Christ. Baptism, just as “saving faith”
in his soteriology, is the instrumental means of the application of the fruits
of Christ’s sacrifice. He does not attempt to engage in historical-grammatical
exegesis of this and any other text in his video.
Eph 2:8-9
It
perhaps should be enough to note that the "works" in Eph 2:8-9 are
the Law of Moses and not ordinances of the New Covenant. Stanley K. Fowler, who
himself does not hold to baptismal regeneration, noted that:
When Paul talks about works in Romans
(and Galatians), what he has in view are works of the Mosaic Law, Paul does not
include baptism in the category of works any more than he includes, say,
repentance in that category. Baptism is, in fact, something that we allow to be
done to us, and in what way it is a fitting way to express faith and grace. For
Paul, faith and baptism are like two sides of a coin, distinct but never
disconnected, both looking to Christ for the benefits of salvation—the one as
attitude and the other as act. (Stanley K. Flower, Rethinking Baptism: Some
Baptist Reflections [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], 23)
What
is more, when one reads the Colossian parallel to Eph 2:8-9, we see that, as
with Eph 5:26, Paul is teaching baptismal regeneration, not denying it.
Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up
with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us,
which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it
to the cross. (Col 2:12-14 NASB)
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 6:3-5, 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. As Simpson and Bruce note:
Their baptism might, secondly, be viewed as their participation in
Christ’s burial. The “putting off of the body of the flesh” and its burial out
of sight alike emphasized that the old life was a thing of the past. They had
shared in the death of Christ; they had also shared in His burial. Similarly,
in Rom. 6:3ff. Paul argues that those who have been buried with Christ “through
baptism into death” can no longer go on living as slaves to sin.
But baptism not only proclaims that the old order is over and done with;
it proclaims that a new order has been inaugurated. The convert did not remain
in the baptismal water; he emerged from it to begin a new life. Baptism,
therefore, implies a sharing in Christ’s resurrection as well as in His death
and burial. (E.K. Simpson and F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians
and the Colossians [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957], 235-36)
Commenting
on the transformative nature of being incorporated “into Christ” in this
text and the surrounding (vv. 9-15) verses one scholar noted:
Participating in Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his
people from the domain of darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom
and bestowed on them his salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col
2:9] he immediately applies to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled”
(εστε εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the
entire theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these
believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it
relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to
follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to
gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of
their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where
Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).
The fullness of God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on
believers by virtue of their incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said,
God’s πληρωμα is “transfused” into them. The perfect periphrastic construction
(εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι) emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part
of their present experience. (Clinton Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism:
The Interface Between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae [Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1995], 293-95)
Eph
2:8-9 is not the defeater for baptismal regeneration as Jeff and any other
Protestants believe it to be; in fact, when read in light of Col 2:11-14, Paul
is affirming this doctrine.
Cornelius was not saved before baptism
in Acts 10
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. For they heard them
speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid
water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then
prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:45-48)
Jeff
claims that Cornelius was saved and regenerated before he received water baptism
in Acts 10. However, this is eisegesis. Cornelius did receive the “gift” of the
Holy Ghost, but this is a charism, not regeneration.
The
Spirit can be
given for other things beside salvation. One such thing is artistic skill. For
example, God fills Bezalel, son of Uri, with “the Spirit of God” (Exod. 31:3)
“to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting
stones for setting, and in carving wood, for work in every craft” (vv. 4-5).
To others, God gave his Spirit to empower them with
special strength as exemplified in the life of Samson (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14)
and to empower for leadership (see Num. 27:18; Deut. 34:9; Judg. 3:10; 6:34;
11:29; 1 Sam. 11:6-7; 16:13-14).
Just as in the Old Testament God gave his Spirit for
purposes beside salvation, it’s possible that in the New Testament God gave his
Spirit to Cornelius and his companions for some purpose besides salvation.
The context of Acts 10 is dealing with receiving
the Holy Ghost by receiving the gift of speaking in tongues, not having
one’s sins remitted. Acts 10:47, therefore, is merely speaking of Cornelius and
his companions having received the gift of tongues. The description “receiving
the Holy Ghost” or “being filled with the Holy Ghost” is actually used to
describe a person making a godly prophecy or receiving some spiritual gift. It
does not necessarily mean that one has received the remission of sins. The
following two passages are examples of the phrase “filled with the Holy Ghost”
being used to describe a spiritual gift (prophesy, etc.), not the remission of
sins.
Luke 1:41-42 “And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb: and Elizabeth was
filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud
voice . . .”
Luke 1:67: “And Zachary, his father, was filled with the Holy
Ghost, and he prophesied,saying . . .”
Kermit
Zarley, a critic of baptismal regeneration, wrote the following against
Cornelius being saved before meeting Peter et al.:
Luke has two decisive texts indicating Cornelius was not saved prior to
meeting Peter. First, Luke says that soon after this Cornelius episode, “When
Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him,
saying, ‘Why did you go to the uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” (Acts
11:2-3). Peter then related that Cornelius “told us how he had seen the angel
standing in his house and saying, ‘Sent to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called
Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will
be saved’” (vv.13-14).
Second, Luke implies that at this time in Jerusalem, Peter spoke to “the
apostles and the believers” (Acts 11:1). Then Luke says regarding what Peter
said to them, “When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God,
saying, ‘Then God has given even the Gentiles the repentance that leads to
life’” (v.18).
Thus, Cornelius was not regenerated-saved prior to hearing Peter preach.
(Kermit Zarley, Solving the Samaritan Riddle: Peter’s Kingdom Keys
Explain Early Spirit Baptism [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015],
137)
Lenski,
a Lutheran (and therefore, a proponent of baptismal regeneration) offered the
following insightful commentary on the text:
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. . . . 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)
As Ferguson noted:
The
water baptism is distinguished from the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which
here precedes it. The pouring out of the Spirit is done by God; the result on
the recipients was a baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was given
in order to convince Peter to baptize Gentiles. The event is identified
with what happened to Jesus’ disciples in Acts 2: “these have received the Holy
Spirit just as we have” (10:47); “The Holy Spirit fell on them just as upon us
at the beginning” (11:15). And that coming of the Holy Spirit was described as
“being baptized in the Holy Spirit” (1:5; and see discussion of 2:1–4 above).
Peter linked this event with the Pentecost occurrence, both fulfilling Jesus’
words, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with [βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν]
the Holy Spirit” (11:16). The coming of the Holy Spirit produced evidence
available to the senses, the speaking in tongues—as at Pentecost—so that others
knew it had happened. The coming of the Holy Spirit on Jews in Acts 2:1–5,
17–18 and on Gentiles in Acts 10:44–46 (11:15–17) is in both cases the premise
for the offer of baptism and salvation (2:38; 10:47 and 11:14).
The
purpose of this special occurrence of the coming of the Spirit is evident from
the use made of it in 11:1–18. It justified to the other apostles and brothers
in Jerusalem Peter’s going to the uncircumcised and eating with them (11:1–3).
The point of criticism was not that “Gentiles had accepted the word of God,”
but that they had been received while uncircumcised and had participated in
table fellowship. The problem was the conditions under which they received the
word and how they were to be treated by observant Jews. In the making of
proselytes the decisive step was circumcision, and when proselyte baptism
became normal it followed on circumcision. But Peter reasoned that to withhold
baptism from these uncircumcised Gentiles would be to “hinder God” (11:17).
(Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy
in the First Five Centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 176-77)
This fits nicely with what one 19th century Latter-day Saint
wrote on the topic
. . . however just a person may be, attentive to many things, blameless
in his walk and conduct, yet if he has not as yet bowed in obedience to all
these requirements, permit me, as one who desires your salvation, to say they
are yet astray from the fold of God, a stranger and foreigner to the
commonwealth of Israel; for notwithstanding the justness piety, and zeal of
Cornelius, he had to send for Peter to come and teach him the way of the Lord
more perfectly, and being baptized was thereby brought nearer to God. But here
is an instance of the Holy Ghost being given prior to baptism; this was done to
convince Peter the time had come for the gospel to be presented to the
Gentiles; and he being very rigid for his own nation, could not be constrained
to preach the gospel to them, although shown a vision of clean and unclean
things, but had to receive occular demonstration, which, having got, he
exclaimed they had a right, and Cornelius was baptized; but prior to this event
and afterwards, whenever the Holy Ghost was to be received, it was so imparted
by the laying on of the hands of the servants of the Lord. So when Paul had
baptized those persons on the upper coast of Ephesus, he laid his hands upon
their heads and they spake in tongues and prophesied, and this was one of the
gifts promised by Jesus Christ to all who believed, and it was of universal
practice among the followers of the Lord; also the laying on of hands for the
healing of the sick, as promised and clearly set forth by the apostle James in
these very remarkable words, "is any sick among you, let him call for the
elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the
name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and God shall
raise him up," &c. (David C. Kimball, "On The Necessity of
Baptism as a Means of Salvation," in The Fireside Visitor; Or, Plain Reasoner [Liverpool: R. James, 1846], 3)
Finally, consider the following from Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) in Against Heresies 3.12.7, where he argued that Cornelius was not regenerated until he received water baptism:
From the words of Peter, therefore, which he addressed in Cæsarea to Cornelius the centurion, and those Gentiles with him, to whom the word of God was first preached, we can understand what the apostles used to preach, the nature of their preaching, and their idea with regard to God. For this Cornelius was, it is said, “a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and praying to God always. He saw therefore, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying, Thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. Wherefore send to Simon, who is called Peter.” But when Peter saw the vision, in which the voice from heaven said to him, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common,” this happened [to teach him] that the God who had, through the law, distinguished between clean and unclean, was He who had purified the Gentiles through the blood of His Son—He whom also Cornelius worshipped; to whom Peter, coming in, said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him.” He thus clearly indicates, that He whom Cornelius had previously feared as God, of whom he had heard through the law and the prophets, for whose sake also he used to give alms, is, in truth, God. The knowledge of the Son was, however, wanting to him; therefore did [Peter] add, “The word, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all those things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew, hanging Him on a beam of wood: Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly; not to all the people, but unto us, witnesses chosen before of God, who did eat and drink with Him after the resurrection from the dead. And He commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His name, every one that believeth in Him does receive remission of sins.” The apostles, therefore, did preach the Son of God, of whom men were ignorant; and His advent, to those who had been already instructed as to God; but they did not bring in another God. For if Peter had known any such thing, he would have preached freely to the Gentiles, that the God of the Jews was indeed one, but the God of the Christians another; and all of them, doubtless, being awe-struck because of the vision of the angel, would have believed whatever he told them. But it is evident from Peter’s words that he did indeed still retain the God who was already known to them; but he also bare witness to them that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, into whom he did also command them to be baptized for the remission of sins; and not this alone, but he witnessed that Jesus was Himself the Son of God, who also, having been anointed with the Holy Spirit, is called Jesus Christ. And He is the same being that was born of Mary, as the testimony of Peter implies. Can it really be, that Peter was not at that time as yet in possession of the perfect knowledge which these men discovered afterwards? According to them, therefore, Peter was imperfect, and the rest of the apostles were imperfect; and so it would be fitting that they, coming to life again, should become disciples of these men, in order that they too might be made perfect. But this is truly ridiculous. These men, in fact, are proved to be not disciples of the apostles, but of their own wicked notions. To this cause also are due the various opinions which exist among them, inasmuch as each one adopted error just as he was capable [of embracing it]. But the church throughout all the world, having its origin firm from the apostles, perseveres in one and the same opinion with regard to God and His Son.
So even if one thinks that "confirmation" is in view here and not reception of speaking in tongues or some other extraordinary charism of the Spirit, not until the reception of water baptism is Cornelius regenerated.
What about 1 Cor 1:17?
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Jeff
claims near the end of his video that Paul is denying baptismal regeneration.
Is this true? No. Note the following points for one’s consideration:
Perhaps it would be enough to note that, in the
context of 1 Corinthians, the community there were split, with many attempting
to set themselves above others due to the individual who baptised them, as well
as other issues, which produced great fractures within the church there (cf. 1
Cor 1:12; this is perhaps why John 4:2 states that Jesus did not baptise;
perhaps to preclude individuals pointing to their being baptised by Jesus as
“proof” that they were superior to others within the faith).
Furthermore, the Apostles generally had different
callings than to perform baptisms (see Acts 8:5-25). The function of officers
within the organisation of Christ’s Church has nothing to do with the necessity
of baptism. Paul, in fact, did perform baptisms (e.g., Acts 19:1-6), and Jesus
commanded His Apostles to baptise all nations (Matt 28:19), and His disciples
baptised more new converts than John (John 4:1). Further, baptism and the
gospel are not being contrasted with one another. What is being contrasted in
this phrase is baptising and preaching, two separate ministries within the
gospel. Paul’s assignment required him to do the latter and leave the former
for other Church officers. In fact, when the grammar is correctly analysed, the
clear implication is that baptism was part of the gospel Paul was sent to
preach. On this, consider the following:
Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, for
Paul, proclaim the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection
(Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27), the contextual meaning of βαπτιζειν has been
conveyed by translating it to perform baptisms, with its emphasis
on ministerial agency. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 143
[emphasis in original].)
In 1 Cor 1:12–17 Paul says that he is thankful that he baptized only a
few of the Corinthians, “for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach
the gospel” (v 17). This remark is generally understood as showing no
contempt on Paul’s part for baptism. Rather he let his coworkers baptize, and
it is probable that baptizing meant not only performing the rite but also
taking an active part in preparation for it. This can explain how people came
to rally around a teacher like Apollos (1 Cor 1:12). Lars Hartman,
“Baptism,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 6
vols. [New York: Doubleday], 1:587)
In 1 Cor 6:9-11 (as well as Rom 6:3-7; Titus 3:3-5;
Colossians 2:12-14; Ephesians 5:26) Paul affirms baptismal regeneration (one
will discuss 1 Cor 6:9-11 momentarily).
Wwhen one
examines the Greek of 1 Cor 1:17, we see that it presents further evidence
against the popular misreading by proponents of the symbolic view of water
baptism. The Greek reads (emphasis added):
The Greek uses an elliptical statement ("ου . . .
αλλα"), a form of Greek syntax that is used occasionally in Scripture to
stress a significant point. This structure does not denote "not/never x
but [only] y" in the way many misread the verse to be teaching. Indeed, in
this light (discussed below), Paul was simply underscoring his primary role,
that of preaching the Gospel. Such would not prevent Paul from baptising, let
alone teaching baptismal regeneration. Consider the following examples:
Do not (μη) work for the food that perishes, but (αλλα) for the food
that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on
him that God the Father has set his deal. (John 6:27) (By suggesting
that one should not labour for food that perishes, Jesus was not
suggesting that working for physical food is irrelevant, but was simply
stressing the importance of labouring for spiritual food.)
While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it
was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have
contrived this deed in your heart? You did not (ου) lie to us but (αλλα) to
God! (Acts 5:4) (When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, it was not the
case that they had not lied to men but only God; instead, this verse means
that, while they did lie to men, they also had lied to God which was a greater
sin)
Little children, let us not (μη) love, not in word or speech, but
(αλλα) in truth and action. (1 John 3:18) (John is hardly teaching that one
should not love each other "in word or speech"; instead, he was
urging a greater form of love beyond word/speech--our love being
expressed in deed. He had no intention, however, of devaluing the verbal
expression of love)
Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160-220) wrote an entire book
in favour of baptism being salvific, On Baptism. In chapter 14 he
responds to similar charges made against the salvific efficacy of water baptism
based on 1 Cor 1:17:
Chapter XIV.—Of Paul’s
Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.
But they roll back an objection from that apostle
himself, in that he said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize;” (1 Cor
1:17) as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if
so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? (1
Cor 1;14, 16) However, even if Christ had not sent him to
baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to
baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in
regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that
schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to
Paul, another to Apollos.(1 Cor 1:11, 12; 3:3, 4) For which reason
the “peace-making”(Matt 5:9) apostle, for fear he should seem to claim
all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not to
baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the
posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I
think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching
was.
Elsewhere in First Corinthians, Paul tied justification to baptism:
You were washed, you were sanctified, you
were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)
As
Pitre et al .note:
In this verse, Paul
makes a direct connection between being “washed” [apolouō] and being
“justified” [dikaioō]” (1 Cor 6:11). Some commentators dispute a
baptismal reading, insisting that the language is simply intended as a metaphor
rather than an allusion to ritual immersion. This is unlikely. First, not only
does the New Testament indicate that baptism was widely practiced in the early
church, we know that the ritual had an important place in the communal life at
Corinth. Its significance was apparently so well established that it became the
basis of quarrels that Paul felt forced to address at the very outset of this
epistle (cf. 1 Cor 1:11-17). Second, the language of 1 Corinthians 6:11 uses
terminology employed in other Pauline texts where baptism is in view. Believers
are said to be “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ,” language which envokes the baptism controversy Paul addressed in 1
Corinthians 1, which specifically swirls around the “name” into which believers
have been “baptized” (1 Cor 1:13-14). In addition, the washing described in 1
Corinthians 6:11 is also associated with the “Spirit,” who is identified with
baptism later in the same epistle: “For in the one Spirit we
were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). As other
interpreters recognize, 1 Corinthians 6 even goes on to use the language of
“members” (1 Cor 6:15), anticipating the discussion of Christians as “members”
of Christ’s body later in the letter (cf. 1 Cor 12:14-27). Given these
connections to baptismal passages, to insist that the language of washing
involves a mere metaphor seems like special pleading. Finally, physical baptism
is linked to spiritual washing in other texts (cf. Acts 22:16; Eph 5:26; Titus
3:5; Heb 10:22). (Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul
A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2019), 202)
In
support of the "water baptism" reading of 1 Cor 6:9-11, Lars Hartman
wrote that:
First, the Corinthians were
washed. The imagery of washing was naturally inspired by the fact that baptism
is a water rite. The image stands for cleansing, from the sins of the past. The
introductory 'but' in 'but (αλλα) you were washed ...' contrasts the clause to
the list of vices in the preceding vv. 9f. Before becoming Christians the
Corinthians are said to have indulged in idolatry, adultery, etc. But the
context also suggests that the vices represent not only various sinful actions
in the past which are now forgiven, but also earlier, basic conditions of life
which were dictated by evil powers and paganism. From those conditions the
addressees are now liberated.
Secondly, entrance into the church
meant that the Corinthians were 'sanctified'. Already at the beginning of the
letter Paul addressed them as 'the church of God', 'those sanctified in Christ
Jesus, the holy, called ones' (1 Cor 1.2). To be holy means that a person or an
object belongs to God and to the realm which is reserved for and dedicated to
him. There he is also present in a particular manner. Therefore the holy person
or the holy object is separated from the secular world (see e.g. Rom 12.2; 1 Cor
5.9f; Gal 1.4). It behooves those who belong to this divine sphere to be holy,
i.e. to live in a manner which is worthy of the divine. According to 1
Corinthians 6 the opposite has occurred when the Corinthians' conduct is
incompatible with their holy state.
Thirdly, the transition from old
to new is characterised by the phrase 'you were justified' (εδικαιωθητε). In
the context it is contrasted to verse 9, which claims that 'unrighteous (or:
unjust, αδικοι) people will not inherit the kingdom of God'. To have been
'justified' here means that the transgressions of the past have been forgiven.
But we should also allow the whole of Paul's thinking on justification to
colour our understanding of the passage. The entrance into the church of God
meant that the Christian was delivered from the power of sin and entered a
realm where God's creative Spirit held sway. The fact that all the verbs in the
passage are in the passive voice implies that the underlying agent is God. It
is he who cleanses, sanctifies, and justifies. Paul expresses the same opinion
in other places when dealing with people's entering the church. The entrance is
actually performed by God: people are 'called' (see 1 Cor 1.26; 7.18ff, etc.),
and God is the one who calls (cf. the active use in Rom 8.30; 1 Cor 7.17; Gal
1.6; 1 Thess 2.12).
Finally, the washing, the
sanctification, and the justification are said to have taken place 'in (or:
through) the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in (or: through) the Spirit of
our God'. Probably the first half of the phrase echoes a baptismal formula.
Above, we saw that the meaning was probably the same whether one said 'baptise
into the name...' or 'baptise in the name ...'. Thus it also fits well into
this context to assume that 'the Lord Jesus Christ', that which he has done,
and that which he means in the present, are the foundation of the baptism and
of the other phases of the entrance into the church. They make it meaningful to
speak of a cleansing, of being sanctified and dedicated to God, and of
being justified in the profound, Pauline sense of the word.(Lars Hartman, "Into
the Name of the Lord Jesus": Baptism in the Early Church [Studies
of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997], 64-65)
On
1 Cor 6:11 as teaching that water baptism is the instrumental cause of
justification, G J. Steyn wrote that:
It is accepted that the
phrase τντωονοματιτουκυριου is linked with all
three preceding verbs: απελουσασθε, γηιασθητε, εδικαωθητε. All three these acts are thus
stated to have taken place “in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the
spirit of their God”.
The phrase under discussion is
placed here within an “earlier-now” (indicative-imperative) contrasting
situation regarding the nature of the Corinthian Christians. Their purveying
washing (baptism) of their sins, their sanctification and justification have
taken place. One should be cautious here regarding two matters: (a) not to see
a specific order of events in the three verbs as they appear in this verse, and
(b) not to rush into a conclusion that the (trinitarian) baptismal formula is
to be found here. What could be distinguished here is their human act of
undergoing a purifying washing (aorist idle: “you washed yourselves”), and
God’s acts of sanctification (aorist passive) and justification (aorist
passive). The baptismal motif is clear. The washing which took place “in the
name of the Lord” and the connection with the spirit underlines it. Also the
sanctification motif is clear. It was found at the opening of the letter.
Interesting is that both here (6,11) and there (1,2), the connection with “the
name of the Lord” is to be found.
Implicit again, is the aspect of
revelation in “the name” itself. What happens, happens “in union with” or “in
connection with” Jesus Christ and the spirit. (G J. Steyn, “Reflections
on TO ONOMA TOY KYIOY in 1 Corinthians,” in The
Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer [Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 125; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996], 487-88)
Was Baptism for the Dead a “Pagan Practice”?
Jeff
tries to dismiss 1 Cor 15:29 by claiming Paul was condemning a pagan practice.
However, this flies in the face of non-LDS scholarship. Consider the following:
It cannot be denied that
Paul is here speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to
ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a
post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal
practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing
perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making
an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism).
(Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 [Langelandsgade,
Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999], 175-76)
Verse 29 is one of the most
vigorously disputed passages in the NT. On the surface, it seems rather
simple. Using the statement of the opposition as a springboard—there is no
resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a practice of the
Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the numerous
attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and
discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface
meaning of the passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism.
What is meant exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was
practiced is impossible to answer . . . . (Scott M. Lewis, So That God
May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Corinthians 15,12-34 [Rome:
Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998], 70-71, emphasis added)
Nevertheless many ancient and most
modern writers understand this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized
Christians on belief of deceased catechumens. The obvious difficulty is
that Paul does not appear to offer any objection to this practice,
so prevalent later among heretics. (John J. O’Rourke, “1 Corinthians” in
Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. A New
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture [London: Thomas Nelson and Sons
Ltd., 1969], 1159)
Rolf
Furuli, at the time of writing, lecturer in Semitic languages at the University
of Oslo, notwithstanding his book being a defence of the New World Translation,
and, being a Jehovah’s Witness, rejecting (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) a
conscious intermediate state (two foundational doctrines for posthumous
salvation) admitted that the “traditional” rendering is the best, which
supports the LDS view:
There can be no question that the
most natural rendering of baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn would
be “being baptized for the dead” or “being baptized in behalf of the dead.” In
almost every other context, such a rendering would have been chosen. (Rolf
Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a
Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [Huntington
Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1999], 289)
This is another of those matters
about which Paul and the Corinthians surely understood one another but which we
cannot hope to fathom. The most obvious reading of the text would suggest that
there are some at Corinth (note that Paul does not address them directly, but
writes about them as an example) who are being baptized in behalf of dead
persons, perhaps as representatives of dear ones who either never had a chance
to respond to the gospel or who had died while being drawn to the faith. But
the truth is that we simply do not know. Most surprising is that Paul
did not oppose the practice, which seems to suppose either that grace is
transferrable or that one can be a surrogate believer for another. Instead,
Paul uses it to expose its folly if there is no resurrection of the dead. (J.
Paul Sampley, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” in The New
Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols. [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002], 10:982,
emphasis in bold added)
One anti-Mormon author,
while attempting to critique the Latter-day Saint practise of baptism for the
dead, was forced into conceding that much of contemporary non-LDS scholarship
accepts the LDS interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29:
Admittedly, many Christian
scholars have supported the Mormon interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Lutheran scholar Krister Stendahl, Protestant scholar Gordon Fee, and historian
Raymond E. Brown have shown some agreement with Mormon interpretation of a
proxy water baptism for the dead. Brown has claimed that “some Christians would
undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and
friends, hoping this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the
redemption of Christ.” (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A
Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classic Christian Theology and the
Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006, 2009], 122)
For more, including a
discussion of the “pronoun argument” in 1 Cor 15:29, see:
Jeff,
while believing that small-scale apostasies have occurred throughout Chrisitan
history, rejects the Latter-day Saint belief in a Great Apostasy. However, it
should be noted that absolutely no one rejected baptismal regeneration in early
Christianity at all. This is admitted by even critics of the doctrine. For
example:
•John Calvin (1509-1564): "Chrysostom, with whom
the greater part of expounders agree, makes the word Water refer to baptism.
The meaning would then be, that by baptism we enter into the kingdom of God,
because in baptism we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. Hence arose the
belief of the absolute necessity of baptism, in order to the hope of eternal
life" (Commentary on the Gospel of John)
•George Smeaton (1814-1889) The term WATER has been
variously interpreted. (1) Some refer it to baptism,--an opinion current in
Patristic theology from the earliest times, and asserted in the Greek and Latin
Church and in some of the Protestant formularies. (George Smeaton, The
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958], 169)
•Louis Berkhof (1873-1957): "Baptism was foremost
among the sacraments as the rite of initiation into the Church. Even in the
Apostolic Fathers we find the idea that it was instrumental in effecting the
forgiveness of sins and in communicating the new life of regeneration. In a
certain sense it may be said, therefore, that some of the early Fathers taught
baptismal regeneration." (The History of Christian Doctrines [London:
The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969], 247-48)
•William Webster: "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." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at
the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).
19th-century Protestant church historian Phillip Schaff in his 8-volume History
of the Christian Church also admitted the same:
·"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)
J.
V. Fesko, another critic of baptismal regeneration, when surveying patristic
literature on baptism, wrote the following:
On The Shepherd of Hermas (mid-2nd
century):
In the ninth parable, the longest, the author receives a vision of a
tower made of stones, which is supposed to be imagery representing the church,
consisting of the faithful. In this parable, the author makes a number of
statements concerning baptism. In particular, he writes: “Before a man bears
the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays
aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they
descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly,
was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the
kingdom of God” (Similitude 9.16).
It appears from this statement that the author ascribes certain
consequences to baptism that are not found in Scriptures. In particular, this
statement appears to echo Paul’s teaching in Romans 6, the idea of being buried
with Christ in baptism and being raised with him to walk in newness of life
(Rom. 6:3-4). Yet, there is a significant difference between Hermas and Paul.
The apostle attributes saving efficacy not to the water but to the believer’s
union with Christ (Rom. 6:5). Bu contrast, Hermas states that when a person
descends into the waters of baptism, he arises alive. In other words,
saving efficacy is tied to the water of baptism. (J.V. Fesko, Word,
Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism [Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press, 2010], 17, emphasis added)
In
the same work, commenting on Justin Martyr, Fesko wrote that:
One of his most famous works is his First Apology, in which
he defends the Christian faith and addresses a number of theological topics,
including baptism. In this brief chapter (as in the Didache),
Justin explains that when a person is persuaded of the Christian faith, he is
to fast, pray, and seek God for the forgiveness of his sins. Once this is
completed, the candidate is then baptized: “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 Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then
receive the washing with water” (The First Apology, § 61). There is a
clear connection between the water and regeneration. In support of this claim,
Justin cites John 3:5 and Isaiah 1:16-20, passages that speak of new birth and
the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, in water baptism, a person is
illuminated in his understanding and obtains the remission of sins (First
Apology, § 61). (Ibid., 18, emphasis added)
Finally,
on Tertullian, Fesko wrote that:
Tertullian begins his treatise by explaining why God chose water as a
vehicle of divine operation. He argues that waster was one of the shapeless
substances with which God originally created the world (§ 3). It should come as
no surprise, then, that Tertullian argues that the waters of the primeval
creation typify baptism, though he also identifies the Red Sea crossing and the
water that flowed from the rock as other types (§ 9). In addition, he states
that God used water and made it a channel of sanctification in that the outward
sign resembled the inward grace that was communicated in this rite. Combining
the ideas of the waters of creation and baptism, Tertullian writes:
All the waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their
origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of
sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and
rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus
sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying.
Tertullian goes on to explain, “Therefore, after the waters have been in
a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel,
the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same
spiritually cleansed” (§ 10).
From these statements it is apparent that, for Tertullian, God through
the Holy Spirit uses the water of baptism as an instrumental means of cleansing
a person from his sin. (Ibid., 18-19, emphasis added).
Jeff
has an “apostasy problem,” as absolutely no one (unless he wants to count
Gnostics) in the earliest centuries of Christianity rejected baptismal regeneration.
And yet, according to this doctrine, water baptism is the instrumental means of
initial justification and regeneration. If false, they were guilty (as are
Lutherans, many Anglicans, and other groups within the broad Protestant spectrum)
are guilty of “adding” to the gospel like the Judaizers in Galatia, which would
incur an automatic anathema (cf. Gal 1:6-9), and yet if they were correct and
Jeff is wrong, Jeff is preaching a false gospel as he is explicitly rejecting
the God-ordained instrumental cause of regeneration. Try as he can to downplay
things, this is significant, and I would challenge him to produce one
patristic era author who rejected baptismal regeneration, and if he cannot find
one, then explain how the Christian Church could error so greatly almost immediately.
I
previously challenged Jeff to dialogue with me on baptismal regeneration (as
well as sola scriptura), thus my writing this article. It is clear that he has
not studied baptismal regeneration nor does he understand a lot of basics
(e.g., differences between instrumental and meritorious causes). It is my hope that Jeff will finally agree to dialogue (or even debate) on these and other issues.
