Curtis Jeremiah Boddy (who thinks any singular book of the Bible is formally sufficient [e.g., Obadiah, I kid you not] to give you an idea of how dumb he is) shows he is indeed a dim-wit with the following:
(Boddy has me blocked on f/b so I got this image from a friend).
Couple of things:
1. I
never claimed baptismal regeneration (hereafter BR) is the silver bullet
proving Mormonism. Source please?
2. Not
all, but a majority, of Lutherans hold to BR; there are many Presbyterians who reject it, and even believe it to be theological heresy (e.g., The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, founded by Ian Paisley).
3. BR
is important as it shows that, if one does not believe in the Great Apostasy,
but rejects BR, then, to a man, the early Christians were teaching
soteriological heresy. Even critics of the doctrine (e.g., William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 95-96) admit that, from the 2nd century onwards, it was the unanimous belief of the patristics. The rejection of BR is a theological novelty (unless you want to include the Gnostics, but their rejection of BR was informed by their view that matter is inherently evil, etc).
4. BR
is also important as, if one is consistent, it has theological ramifications; for e.g., man
still has a free-will to choose God, even after the fall, justification is in
some sense transformative, ergo, it could be lost through heinous sin (“mortal
sin” as our Catholic friends would say), etc.
5. What
gave rise to infant baptism initially was anthropology—see, for e.g., Origen’s
commentaries on Leviticus. It was only when infant baptism became more mainstream
(e.g., during the time of Augustine [354-430]) did defenders of infant baptism emphasize BR in support of such a practice (as a modern e.g., see Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone, 2d ed [2009], p. 545). Furthermore, there were those who did
teach BR but did not hold to infant baptism (e.g., Tertullian, On Baptism).
For a discussion on baptism in early Christianity, including a detailed study of the origin and development of infant baptism, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History,
Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2009) (in fact, my advice to Boddy would be read a
book—you give Paul Gee a run for their money in terms of
lowest IQ people on the Internet). Further, just because something can be abused (for a Latter-day Saint, the emergence infant baptism [cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of Mormon]) does not mean that the concept of BR is likewise corrupt or questionable. This is fallacious thinking, so I will urge Boddy to read a book on logic someday, once he masters Spot goes to the Park. Christadelphians hold to Sola Scriptura (at least they purport to be); should I therefore impute something negative to Reformed Protestants like Boddy who hold to Sola Scriptura in light of this? Should I claim that Sola Scriptura cannot truly be the formal doctrine of the Reformation as it can be abused by groups that hold to a Socinian Christology and reject the ontological (that means "real" Jeremy) existence of Satan & Demons? The argument, again, has an IQ less than 70 (avoiding the term a lot of Americans do not like).
TLDR: Curtis (Jeremiah) Boddy is an idiot.
To see something that is representative of my work on baptismal regeneration (note: nowhere do I say this is the "silver bullet" that proves Mormonism [and BR is not the only topic I write about supporting LDS claims--see my works on Christology, plurality of Gods, the nature of justification, the "ground" of justification, creatio ex materia vs. ex nihilo, critique of the Protestant understandings of Heb 10:10-14 and John 19:30, etc]), see:
Refuting Jeff McCullough ("Hello Saints") on Baptismal Regeneration
Baptismal Regeneration is explicitly biblical, and that is why the patristics would just use the Bible to support it (albeit, sometimes coupled with typology from the Old Testament). This leads us to any other irony: this shows that "Mormonism," is closer to "biblical Christianity" than the false Protestant theologies of Boddy et al. who reject the doctrine, and, further, shows that they must reject the clear, perspicuous witness of the Bible on this central issue (note: the perspicuity of the Bible on central doctrines [of which the instrumental of justification would be one] is an important "building block" of sola Scriptura).
Of course, that coward and liar, Daniel Ortner, “liked” that post. Do note: he refuses to debate me on this or any other topic. Again, do pray for his kids who are the victims of spiritual child abuse by him and especially Jessica.
