Does Matthew 28:19 support Trinitarianism?

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matt 28:19)

This verse has often been used as definitive “proof” of creedal Trinitarianism. Trinitarian apologist, Sam Shamoun, offers the following interpretation:

Noted Bible expositor, the late John Gill, commented on the implications and significance the Trinitarian formula has on the doctrine of the blessed Trinity:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;

by the authority of these three divine persons, who all appeared, and testified their approbation of the administration of this ordinance, at the baptism of Christ: and as they are to be invocated in it, so the persons baptized not only profess faith in each divine person, but are devoted to their service, and worship, and are laid under obligation to obedience to them, Hence a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are three persons, but one name, but one God, into which believers are baptized; and a proof of the true deity both of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that Christ, as the Son of God, is God; since baptism is administered equally in the name of all three, as a religious ordinance, a part of divine instituted worship, which would never be in the name of a creature. This is the first, and indeed the only, place in which the Trinity of persons is expressed in this order, and in the selfsame words…

There are many problems with this eisegetical approach to scripture. However, before I begin, let me note that one argument that should not be used, viz. that this verse is a later interpolation. To quote from the corresponding note in the NET Bible:

Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, "The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mat 28:19, " ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius' quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.

Shamoun's article, linked above, also does a decent job supporting the authenticity of this verse.

Now, we shall proceed with an examination of the evidence against any pro-Trinitarian implications of this verse:

Firstly, there is no mention or hint of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , as a whole and/or individually, being numerically identical to the “one God.” That is something that must be read into this verse (eisegesis). Verse 18 should be the verse that controls the exegetical possibilities one can derive from this baptismal formula, as Jesus, even after the ascension and his exaltation by the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11), states that "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth," showing it was not intrinsically His prior to such (clearly supporting a form of subordinationist Christology). One should also see John 20:17 and the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, including Heb 1:8-9, where there is a God above Jesus, notwithstanding his exalted state.

Secondly, notwithstanding the apologists’ use of “name” (ονομα) being singular, this poses no problem for Latter-day Saint theology. “Name” in the Old and New Testaments often meant one’s “title” (as in Isa 9:6) and/or the power and authority one possessed./acted under. Consider, just as one of many examples, John 5:43, a saying of Jesus Himself:

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Just as Christ in this verse comes in his Father's "name" (i.e., authority), so also his followers baptise by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a single authority and power.

A related passage would be John 17:26:

And I have declared unto them thy name, and I will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them (cf. 2 Sam 8:13; Isa 55:13; Jer 13:11 Ezek 22:5; Rev 3:2).

Richard Hopkins, in his book, Biblical Mormonism (Horizon, 1994), offered an alternative approach to this verse, viz. that the singular form of the word "name" is correctly used to shorten the passage from "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost." Hopkins further argued that, if the plural form were used, it would signify that the passage had been shorted from "in the names of the Father, and in the names of the Son, and in the names of the Holy Ghost." Therefore, the use of the singular is proper where each person is designated in the phrase has His own name (Hopkins, p. 79). While I don't accept this interpretation, it is not an impossible reading of the evidence.

Taking a prima facie and even secunda facie reading of this verse, it clearly presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as three separate persons in the normative understanding of that term, not the later post-biblical theories about the distinction between the persons of the Tri-une God. If anything, this would support, not creedal Trinitarianism, but Social Trinitarianism, which allows for the Father, Son, and Spirit to be three separate persons in the proper meaning of the term, with their own centre of consciousness, as advanced by the likes of Richard Swinburne. For a book-length treatment on the issue of “person” in Trinitarian circles, see Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford University Press, 2007), eds. Peter Van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman.

It should also be noted that, since the beginning of the Church, Latter-day Saint baptism is performed using the same formula; note D&C 20:73:

The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptise, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

This is the same formula I was baptised under. Furthermore, such a phrase appears in the current (1985) LDS hymnal, such as “Arise, O God, and Shine,” with the final stanza reading (emphasis added):

To God, the only wise. The one immortal King, let hallelujahs rise from ev'ry living thing: let all that breathe, on ev'ry coast, praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Many Trinitarian apologists are much more cautious about using the baptismal formula as positive evidence for the Trinity, in contrast to Shamoun, Gill, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes, and others. JP Holding, a critic of the LDS faith, writes:

I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense as it theoretically could support any view -- modalism, even tritheism, could be permitted from this verse, for it only lists the members of the Triune Godhead with absolutely no explanation as to their exact relationship.

Verse 18 would indicate that the Father is in a functionally superior relationship to the Son, but that says nothing about an ontological relationship; though one may justly argue that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that all three would be named together if there were not an ontological equality, lest God's glory somehow be compromised.

None of the earliest commentators on this verse (e.g., Tertullian; Ignatius of Antioch; Origen) ever used the verse to support the concept of metaphysical “oneness” of the Father, Son, and Spirit; such is a later development in the Christian interpretative tradition.

While other important points could be raised, I will discuss just one more--in reality, the Trinitarian apologists who appeal to Matt 28:19 are guilty of question begging. Simply because a verse or pericope has the three persons of the Godhead together, that is definitive “proof” of their co-equality, co-eternality, and all other elements required for creedal Trinitarianism. However, triads appear all throughout the New Testament, and yet, there is often an explication of one of the members being superior to the other two, showing that a triad, in and of itself, is insufficient to cite for evidence of co-equality.

For instance, in 1 Cor 13:13, we read:

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Just because faith, hope, and love (KJV: charity) are in a triadic proximity to one another, similar to the Father, Son, and Spirit in Matt 28:19, such does not prove ontological equality since one of these is said to be the greatest; this should, at the very least, force one to be very cautious to present this verse as positive evidence of Trinitarian theology.

If one wishes to absolutise Matt 28:19, within a Trinitarian hermeneutic, such would cause all sorts of problems with one's exegesis and theology. Note 1 John 5:8:

There are three that testify: the Spirit and the Water and the blood, and these three agree (NRSV).

One would have to conclude, based on the interpretive framework many Trinitarian apologists employ, that this shows that the Trinity is composed of Spirit, water, and blood. In reality, in this verse, and in Matt 28:19, there is no triune being/entity in view here.

Indeed, the early Christians, such as Tertullian, used triadic language, but when one examines the totality of their writings, they did not hold to modern Trinitarian theology and thought. In the case of Tertullian, we find that he did not believe Jesus eternally pre-existed and that "spirit" was material, a rejection of "divine simplicity," a necessary element in later Trinitarian theologies.

For sound, scholarly discussions, see:

Marian Hillar, From Logos to Trinity: The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

Thomas Gaston, “Proto-Trinity: The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the First and Second Christian Centuries” (M.Lit Dissertation: University of Birmingham, 2007); available online.

I would also suggest, albeit cautiously, J. Gwyn Giffiths, Triads and Trinity (University of Wales Press, 1996). Alvin Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries (1860) is also an important, though somewhat dated, volume (available online here).

If one reads the writings of other early Christian authors, one will find something similar. Justin Martyr, for example, enumerates God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as three things, but uses ordinals (first, second, third), a clear hierarchy (First Apology, 13). Irenaeus of Lyons treated God, Jesus, and the Spirit as three articles of faith, but never calls the Spirit "Lord" (κυριος) (Demonstration, 7), showing that the Christologies of early Christianity were subordinationist in nature. Again, such is definitive evidence against creedal Trinitarianism being reflective of the earliest theologies of Christianity. It is a later, man-made development.

While much more could be said, it is evident from the above that Trinitarian apologists who employ Matt 28:19 so support their theology are on an exegetical fishing trip and have no fishing poles.

"In the beginning was (ἦν) the word"--absolute proof of eternal preexistence?

In his book, The Forgotten Trinity (1998) and some of his debates, James White has argued that ἦν ("was") in the locution, "in the beginning was (ἦν) the word" proves that the word/Jesus existed all throughout the eternal past. However, this is an argument that those who hold to the eternal pre-existence of Jesus should avoid. Why? Examining the use of this indicative imperfect form of ειμι ("to be") in John's writings shows that it does not necessarily have this meaning--more evidence will be required. Consider the following examples early on in the Gospel of John:

He was (ἦν)  in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was(ἦν) there. (John 2:1)

I don't think anyone will seriously argue that Jesus' incarnation goes back to the eternal past nor that Mary was in Cana of Gailee since the eternal past. If one will argue for eternal pre-existence, one should instead focus on the phrase εν αρχη ("in the beginning") hearkens back to Gen 1:1 in the LXX and other considerations which could provide a more plausible case for this doctrine.

“The Lord is With You” (Luke 1:28)—Evidence of Mary being without sin?

In a previous post, I discussed the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28 and showed that it does not support the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception and personal sinlessness. In this post, I will focus on the phrase, "The Lord is with thee" in the same verse.

From a Roman Catholic apologetics Website (emphasis added):

In fact, Gabriel referred to Mary as "full of grace" (Luke 1:28) BEFORE the incarnation took place. One cannot be full of grace and have ANY sin (Romans 6:14).  And that fact could only mean that Mary did not have the stain of any sin, even original sin, on her soul.   Mary was not "Full of Grace" because she had Jesus inside of her; rather, she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus because she was full of grace already.  Gabriel told her "The Lord is with you" before she became pregnant by the Holy Ghost.

Some Catholics, such as this apologist, try to tie in the alleged forced of κεχαριτωμένη with the phrase, “the Lord is with you” to strengthen the case for the Immaculate Conception. However, the phrase, “The Lord is with you” is a rather common locution in the LXX and never once hints at the concept of being free from sin, whether original or personal. Consider the following examples(in the following examples from the LXX, the Greek term κυριος are instances where the underlining Hebrew is Yahweh):

And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee [Isaac]: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee. (Gen 26:28)

And he said unto them, Let the Lord be with you, as I will let you go, and your little ones; look to it, for evil is before you. (Exo 10:10)

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, “The Lord is with thee [Gideon], thou mighty man of valour. (Judg 6:12)

And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you, And they answered him, The Lord bless thee. (Ruth 2:4)

David said moreover, The Lord that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the Lord be with thee. (1 Sam 17:37)

The Lord do so and much more to Jonathan: but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace: and the Lord be with thee, as he hath been with my father. (1 Sam 20:13)

And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee. (2 Sam 7:3)

And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you. (2 Chron 15:2)

Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the Lord with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; tomorrow go out against them, for the Lord will be with you. (2 Chron 20:17)

What we can conclude from this is that (1) the locution, ο κυριος μετα σου and similar locutions is not evidence of being free from the stain of sin and (2) simply means that the Lord is “with” the person in the sense of protecting and/or guiding prophetically and individual or a group. In the case of Luke 1:28 and Mary, God was “with” her in that she would, miraculously, be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:35). To read into this evidence of the Immaculate Conception, as defined in 1854, is nothing sort of eisegesis.

Matthew 1:22-23 and 1 Timothy 3:16: Proofs of the Trinity?

In an attempt to support the post-biblical concept of the (creedal) Trinity, anti-Mormon author Daniel G. Thompson argues that the following texts prove that Jesus is numerically identical to the “One God” as understood by Trinitarianism:

Matthew 1:22-23, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us.”

1 Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh.” (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The Mormon Scrapbook [rev ed.: Createspace, 2014], 53)

In a previous post, I discussed the author’s poor grasp of exegesis vis-à-vis John 3:1-7 and the topic of baptism. Sadly, in this section, there is no attempt at any exegesis whatsoever; furthermore, it only shows the poor (read: non-existent) scholarly abilities of the author.

Matt 1:22-23

The very fact that a name has a divine name element (theophoric) does not mean that the holder of that name is numerically identical to the One God. For instance, consider the following names in the Hebrew Bible that contain divine name elements:

אֵלִיָּהוּ Eli'yah[u] (KJV: Elijah), meaning "Yahweh is my El/God."

אֱלִישָׁע Elisha, meaning "God is salvation."

יְשַׁעְיָהוּ Yesha'yah[u] (KJV: Isaiah), meaning "Salvation of Yah"

Of course, none of the individuals with these, and similar, names were considered deities, let alone numerically identical to the one true God.

Ultimately, the apologists' "argument" is similar to Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that the archangel Michael and Jesus are numerically identical, as Michael's name in Hebrew means "one who is like God"--it displays a lack of knowledge of biblical onomasticon. Indeed, one could, using the "logic" of Thompson, "argue" that the angel Gabriel and Jesus are numerically identical, as the Hebrew  גַּבְרִיאֵל means "man of God," with the אֵל (God/El) element denoting Gabriel's deity and being a "man of God" affirming his humanity, it affirms the hypostatic union, as defined in AD 451 at Chalcedon. Of course, such is utterly absurd, but such is taking the "logic" of the author to its obvious conclusions.

One should also note Exo 23:20-21 where the angel of the Lord is said to have Yahweh’s name “in” him:

Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions for my name is in him.

1 Tim 3:16

It is universally accepted, outside the King James Only movement, that 1 Tim 3:16 should read “he who,” not “God.” The earliest manuscripts of this verse reads ος “he who,” not θς, an abbreviation (nomina sacra) of θεος, the Greek word for “God,” something that even conservative New Testament scholars admit (e.g. Philip Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary [Tyndale House Publishers, 2008]).

It is also generally accepted this was a theological corruption by proto-Orthodox scribes to counter Docetism, an early Christological heresy that stated that, while appearing to be human, Jesus was not truly human but “only” divine,” a heresy condemned in the New Testament itself (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). Such scribes changed the omicron (o) to a theta (θ) to support their Christology that God (the Son) became truly human (or “flesh” [Greek: σαρξ]). For a full-length discussion of this and other variants, see Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1993).

One should note the following from the NET Bible, produced by Evangelical Protestants who, like Thompson, accept the Trinity dogma:

The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א‎‏‎c Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 vg^ms) read θεός (theos, "God") for ὅς (hos, "who"). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other MSS tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few MSS have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός.On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by ‌א‎‏‎* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, "which"), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? "Who" is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 1Ti 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author's style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phi 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: θ-̰σ vs. οσ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the MSS it came in contact with (including MSS already written, such as ‌א‎‏‎ A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a "correction" of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musterion, "mystery"). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the "Western" text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, "no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός." Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, "Christ") or κύριος (kurios, "Lord"), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity.

One appreciates the intellectual integrity of the authors of the above note; would that most critics of the Restored Gospel would follow their more scholarly co-religionists. Sadly, this is reflective of the lack of meaningful exegesis and scholarship in Thompson’s book.

Trinitarians such as Thompson and others are in a rather unenviable position of having to defend a position that is opposed to the historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible, but also one that is contradicted by logic and mathematics. As I explained in a recent email to a Reformed Protestant living here in Cork, Ireland:

[L]ogically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:

A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it into logical language:

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the tri-une "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.

. . .

The mainstream Trinitarian position is very marginal within modern Old and New Testament scholarship. How scholars define "monotheism," for example, is not how Trinitarianism *necessitates* it to be defined as; consider the following from a recent monograph:

I intentionally used the term “monotheism” with the full realisation of its controversial nature in scholarly discussions. I do not use this word with the understanding that there are no other spiritual beings, and I do not intend to imply that the gods of the nations do not exist (I read Isa 40-55 as hyperbolic expression). Rather, and I find that this view accords with the canon, by “monotheism” I mean that there is one Creator who reigns supreme over all, and this Creator is YHWH. The supposed “gods” do not rival the status of ‘elohim; instead, they are SHDYM [goat demons] (Deut 32:17). I prefer the word “monotheism” over “henotheism” because I do not believe that this latter word accurately captures the emic view of the canon; the Lord is not one God among many gods. The Lord reigns supreme over all. (Terrance R. Wardlaw, Jr. Elohim with the Psalms: Petitioning the Creator to Order Chaos in Oral-Derived Literature [London: Bloomsbury, 2015], 37 n. 67; comment in square brackets my own).

Additionally, even those within your own Evangelical camp are now coming to the realisation that their position does injustice to the biblical texts, such as the long-refuted claim that the elohim ("gods") in Pa 82:6 are human judges, not actual (plural) gods. Note the following from three Evangelicals in a conservative Protestant commentary series on the Old Testament:

Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world.[1] This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world.[2] This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status[4]. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 4: John 3:1-7

An Evangelical critic of the Church wrote the following:

If an LDS person answers the question [“Have you been born again?] by saying, “I was born again when I was baptized into the LDS Church,” use the following discussion ideas to show them water baptism is now what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be born again”—read the story,

John 3:1-7 “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into this mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

The phrase, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,” is interpreted by the LDS Church to mean you must be water baptized to be born again. But is this what Jesus meant?

In this passage, Jesus was talking about being born “again,” or being born twice. All men experience the first birth—physical birth, but if you hope to see the kingdom of God, you must also experience a second birth—spiritual birth. You must be “born again.”

In verse 5, the first birth is described as being born of water and the second birth being born of the Spirit. Jesus interpreted these two births of us in vs. 6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The first birth (of the flesh) takes place when a mother’s water membrane ruptures and the child is born. This is the physical/water birth.

The second birth (of the Spirit) takes place when a person is born of the Spirit into God’s family. This is what it means to be “born again.”

Jesus Christ’s explanation of the two births makes it clear that water baptism and being born again are not synonymous terms. A person is born again when he believes Jesus (John 3:14-18. 36). (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The Mormon Scrapbook [rev. ed.: Createspace, 2014], 61-62; emphasis in original; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

There are a number of problems with Thompson’s rather eisegetial, superficial treatment of John 3:

1.     Baptism was known among the Jews at the time of Jesus, and ritual immersions were done, often for Gentile converts to various Judaisms. For a book-length treatment, see Jonathan Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). The concept of immersion is part-and-parcel of the Hebrew Bible; for example, the Hebrew verb meaning “to wash” רחץ appears 74 times in 73 verses in the OT; often having the meaning of a full immersion of either a person or an object (e.g., Exo 2:5; 1 Kgs 22:38).

Another Hebrew verb,טבל appears 16 times in the OT, having the meaning of "to dip" or "to immerse," all part-and-parcel of "baptism" (e.g., Gen 37:31; Num 19:18; 2 Kgs 5:14; Job 9:31).

With respect to 2 Kgs 5:14, the LXX translates טבל using the Greek verb meaning “to baptise” βαπτιζω that appears three other times in the LXX (Isa 21:4 in the proto-canonical texts; Judith 12:7; Sirach 34:35 in the Apocrypha)

Such would have been part-and-parcel of the language and world view of Nicodemus and contemporary Jews of Second Temple Judaism.

2.     When Jesus discusses “water and of the spirit,” he is not, in this locution, encompassing the combined elements of the first (natural) and second (spiritual) birth, a rather novel interpretation Thompson’s Sola Fide theology forces him to do (eisegesis, in other words). In reality, Jesus’ locution “water and of the spirit,” as evidenced from verse 3, is within the context of being born “again” or “from above” (the Greek ἄνωθεν means both “again” and “from above,” showing a world-play by John in the original Greek of the text). "Water and of the spirit" are the elements of the new birth only.

3.     Some Evangelicals try to argue that “water and of the spirit” is to be understood epexegetically, that is, the conjunction “and” actually means “even” (i.e. “one must be born again by water, that is, the spirit”). The problems is that the conjunction και in the phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος is a coordinating conjunction, discussing two elements, not one element—the KJV and modern translations are universal in translating it “water and [of the] spirit.” Take some translations from the Evangelical Protestant camp, for instance:

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (ESV)

 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NASB [1995 update])

 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

While και can sometimes be used epexegetically, it is very rare in the New Testament and LXX; the predominant function is coordinating, so unless one has good reason, "and" means, well, "and," which is the natural reading of the verse, unless one wishes to defend a dogma (in this case, a purely symbolic view of baptism), which, of course, is a classic example of eisegesis.

Furthermore, there were epexegetical conjunctions John could have used if he wanted to convey this meaning, such as  ινα and οτι (e.g., Luke 7:6; Matt 8:27). For more, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 666-78 on conjunctions in Koine Greek.

4.     Many commentaries, while they have a pro-Evangelical bias, do not separate the "water" from the new birth as Thompson does; one example would include the note to John 3:5 in the NET Bible: “Jesus' somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born "from above," because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. Joh 3:5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.”

As for the common claim that, in light of Ezek 36:25-26 ("Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh") means Jesus is not talking about literal water, Lutheran theologian David Henkel (1795-1831), in response to a contemporary critic of baptismal regeneration (Joseph Moore), responded thusly:

That my opponent says, water in this place must be used figuratively, as a sign, or emblem of the grace of God, and that the sprinkling with clean water must be figurative, or significant, of the sprinkling the heart with the spirit of God, he has arbitrarily asserted; but has not proved it; unless we take his ipse dixit for evidence. I do not deny, that there are many figurative expressions in the scriptures; but when a man asserts, that a passage is figurative, he ought to prove it; either, by other texts, or the context, or by the rules of sacred criticism. Some expositors are very expert, when a passage of scripture is in their way, to turn it into a metaphor, without any authority; although, it should be at the expense of all the rules of language. According to this rule of exposition, the most important truths may be explained away, and the scriptures turned into ridicule; as for instance, when it reads; “thou shalt not commit adultery;” “thou shalt not steal,” I might by the same art say, this only has a reference to metaphorical adultery and theft; and that therefore, no real adultery, and theft are prohibited. In this way our present fanatics impose on the people, and lead them into error. The plainest evidence, they arbitrarily force into a figure; and then persuade many of the laity, that because there are some metaphorical expressions in the scriptures, that they have the liberty, without any evidence to make everything figurative, that thwarts their preconceived opinion: To construe, the water spoken of in this text, to mean an emblem of the spirit, is contrary to the rules of language. I shall quote it here again:--“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness and fro your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart of out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Now, if the water in this passage is to signify, the sprinkling of the heart, with the spirit; why then is it added, “a new heart also will I give you and a new spirit?” If this gloss be true, then the text should read: “then will I sprinkle, that is I will sprinkle the spirit upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart I also I will give you, and a new spirit.” Thus the water, would be made to mean the same as spirit, which would be the same, as saying, that they should be sprinkled with the spirit, and also a new spirit should be given. What an unreasonable tautology! What need was there, to present the spirit under the figure of water, and then immediately mention the spirit literally? Are there two spirits: the one to be represented under the figure of water, and the other the spirit literally? Or, did the prophet, like a silly man, in the same text repeat one thing twice, only by different expressions? If this text is to make any correct meaning, water, must mean water; and spirit, spirit. As this text is a prediction of something under the new testament dispensation, the water and the spirit, must allude to some institution, that consists of the same, which is no other than baptism. (David Henkel, On Baptism and Justification [American Lutheran Classics volume 10; Ithaca, N.Y.: Just and Sinner, 2019] 91-92)

5.     As for John 3:6 and the differentiation between σαρξ (flesh) and πνευμα (spirit) is between human mortality and sometimes human inabilities, and God's regenerating abilities; it is not a statement that relegates the "water" in v. 5 to be the water of the first/natural birth. Apart from evidencing a rather Gnostic theology (a disdain of God's use of material [here, water in baptism] to bring about His purposes), it, again, represents eisegesis. Note how σαρξ is used in the Gospel and epistles of John to denote either mortality in general or man’s need of God:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (σαρξ), nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh (σαρξ), and dwelt among us, (and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:13-14)

  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (σαρξ) profieth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

 Ye judge after the flesh (σαρξ); I judge no one. (John 8:15)

 As thou hast given him power over all flesh (σαρξ), that he should give eternal life as to many as thou hast given him. (John 17:2)

 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (σαρξ), and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ) is of God. (1 John 4:2)

 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ). This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Again, to quote the NET Bible: “What is born of the flesh is flesh, i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in Joh 4, especially Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24.) For John the "flesh" (σάρξ, sarx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature - a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in Joh 1:14 to the Logos becoming "flesh." The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.”

6. The overwhelming evidence from the New Testament supports the salvific nature of baptism. See, for instance, my exegesis of Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:20-21, and Romans 6:1-4; only by engaging in eisegesis of texts (e.g., Luke 23:43) can one avoid concluding the truth of this doctrine on biblical grounds. Furthermore, most contemporary New Testament scholars admit that this is the case. For a book-length treatment of the topic of baptism from the New Testament and early Christian history, proving baptism was originally done to (1) confessing believers (2) by immersion and (3) such baptisms  were salvific. On these issues, and many others, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgies in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), all fitting LDS theology and practice. Indeed, Ferguson, and other scholars, agrees that the texts those who hold to the salvific nature of baptism do indeed, exegetically, support the doctrine. As one example, note the following from a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles:

The ritual bath mentioned in the hymn is one of rebirth and renewal. The term palingenesia, “rebirth,” from palin “again,” and ginomai, “to come into being” (genesis, “birth,” being one of its cognates), occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt 19:28. The term was commonly used in the Hellenistic world of a wide range of human or met human experiences, including the restoration of health, return from exile, the beginning of a new life, the restoration of souls, new life for a people, and the anticipated restoration of the world.

 The Corpus Hermeticum, an Alexandrian text written sometime before the end of the third century C.E. and attributed to the “Thrice-Greatest Hermes” (Hermes Trismegistos), says that “no one can be saved before rebirth (Corp. Herm. 13.3). The thirteenth tract of the Corpus features a dialogue between Hermes and his son Tat on the subject of being born again. Speaking to his father in a manner that recalls Nicodemus’s question to Jesus (John 3:4), Tat inquires about rebirth. He understands rebirth to be accomplished in some physical manner and asks his father about the womb and seed. Hermes responds that these are respectively the wisdom of understanding in silence and the true good, sown in a person by the will of God. The child that results is a different king of child, “a god and a child of God” (Corp. Herm. 13.2). Rebirth enables a person to progress in the moral life, turning from twelve vices--ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice--to the opposite virtues (Corp. Herm. 13.7).

 Many twentieth-century scholars, particularly those belonging to the history of religions school of New Testament research, attempted to clarify 3:5 in the light of this Hermetic tract. The tract is, however, much later than the Epistle to Titus and lacks any reference to a ritual washing. On the other hand, the late first-century canonical Fourth Gospel features a discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees (John 3:3-8), about being “born again” (gennéthe anóthen). The Johannine account does not employ the noun “rebirth” (palingenesia), as does the Corpus, but it does speak about a birth that takes place in water and the Spirit (gennéthé ex hydatos kai pneumatos). The substantive similarities between the Johannine text and 3:5d-e--the references to washing, new birth, and the Spirit--suggest that both of these late first-century texts describe the ritual of Christian baptism as bringing about a new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Raymond F. Collins, I&II Timothy and Titus [Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002], 364-65)

7.     The unanimous consent of the early Christian fathers was that baptism was necessary for salvation, and not a symbol. Outside Gnostic circles which disdain the material world, such was the position of Christianity until the time of John Calvin (1509-1564). Furthermore, no early Christian commentator ever disagreed with the association of baptism with the “water” in John 3:3-5. As representative examples:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;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). 

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

8.     The patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that, "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).

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff) 

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

Roman Catholic apologist, Phil Porvaznik, has a helpful page on his Website, "Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers" which presents many such concessions by leading Christian historians, such as JND Kelly. Another helpful resource is David Waltz’s blog posts on baptismal regeneration in early Christianity.

The theology of baptism Thompson and many other Evangelicals hold to is without any historical support in the opening centuries of Christian history. They hold to an unenviable position of having to defend a view of baptism that is not only contradicted by meaningful biblical exegesis but also the unanimous consent of the theology of the opening millennium-and-a-half of Christian history.

9.  As for John 3:14-18, 36, (i) it is question begging to claim that statements where one is said to believe (or, to be more faithful to the Greek of v.16 which uses a participle, believing in God) precludes the necessity of water baptism. Notice how nothing is said about repentance or confessing the name of Jesus, but such is a requirement in Rom 10:9, 13; (ii) furthermore, in John's own gospel, one's eternal destiny, not merely rewards in the hereafter, are determined by one's works (John 5:25-29; see the seminal study from Chris Vanlandingham's volume on this issue, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Hendrickson, 2006] on this issue). (iii) It also requires that one reject the clear, exegetically sound texts that tie water baptism into salvation, as discussed above, and (iv) texts that show the dynamic relationship between faith, repentance, and baptism, such as Acts 2:38. Finally, (v) if recent studies showing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are sound, v.16 proves that belief and baptism are requirements for salvation (some may retort that damnation is linked to those who do not believe without anything said about baptism, but no non-believing person will be baptised, so such a "counter" is vacuous).

Much more could be said, but it is evident that those who oppose the salvific nature of baptism have no true biblical and historical basis for their theology of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is one area where Latter-day Saint theology fits that of (true) "Biblical Christianity," while most flavours of Evangelical Protestantism teaches a theological novelty without any meaningful biblical and historical basis.