Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration

Jeff McCullough of “Hello Saints” has posted a video critiquing baptismal regeneration:

 

Pastor's HONEST Response to Latter-day Saints: Baptism

 

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 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith 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 dependent upon (not independent of) the atoning sacrifice of Christ (the sole meritorious 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.

 

Acts 2:38:

 

Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος 

 

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: “εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν”). 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 scholarly sources:

 

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. τινὰ εἰς (τὸ) ὄνομά τινος (s. ὄνομα 1dγ(ב baptize in or w. respect to the name of someone: (τοῦ) κυρίου Ac 8:16; 19:5; D 9:5; Hv 3, 7, 3. Cp. 1 Cor 1:13, 15. εἰς τ. ὄν. τ. πατρὸς καὶ τ. υἱοῦ καὶ τ. ἁγίου πνεύματος Mt 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. ἐν τῷ ὀν. ᾽Ι Χριστοῦ Ac 2:38 v.l.; 10:48; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀν. ᾽Ι Χρ. Ac 2:38 text; more briefly εἰς Χριστόν Gal 3:27; Ro 6:3a. To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν 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 [τῷ λουτρῷ, bath] of water with the word [ἐν ῥήματι].” 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 καθαρτιζω and 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 (καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι, 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 (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας), and renewing 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) ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν; Chrys. Hom. in R., 20 (MPG, 60, 598): ἀνακαίνισον αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν ψυχήν) μετανοίᾳ, Liturgia Marci (F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western [1896], 126, 1): ἀνεκαίνισας διὰ τοῦ φρικτοῦ καὶ ζωοποιοῦ καὶ οὐρανίου μυστηρίου τούτου, 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): σοὶ δόξα ἀνακαινισμὸς διʼ οὗ ἀνακαινίζονται οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι οἱ μετὰ διαθέσεως σοῦ ἁπτόμενοι. Of the angel of repentance in Herm. s., 8, 6, 3: τοῦ ἀνακαινίσαι τὰ πνεύματα αὐτῶν, 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 εξ υδατος and the other εκ πνυματος are not compelling because in fact the two nouns are governed by one preposition (εξ υδατος και πνυματος), 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.

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.

 

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

 

For those who dispute the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, I would suggest Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (Pickwick, 2014).

 

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 19^th 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).

 

W when 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):

 

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλ᾽ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

 

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 τν τω ονοματι του κυριου 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:

 

Refuting Tony Brown on 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead

 

 

Jeff’s Apostasy Problem

 

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-2^nd 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.