Common Logical Fallacies used against Baptismal Regeneration

While browsing old articles published by This Rock from Catholic Answers, I came across the following by a then-staff member (now Sedevacantist), Gerry Matatics, "How to Spot Fuzzy Thinking." It is a good discussion of some of the many common logical fallacies, including those I myself have encountered in my interactions with Protestant apologists on Sola Scriptura. Matatics discussed 1 Cor 12:13 ("For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit") and how some Protestants abuse this passage to refute baptismal regeneration; I found this interesting as I blogged about this passage recently (Jerry L. Sumney on Baptismal Regeneration and Transformative Justification Paul and Pre-Pauline Christian Tradition).

False Antithesis

The fallacy of false antithesis (also known as faulty dilemma or false dichotomy) is almost the opposite of the argument of the beard, which we discussed last month. Whereas the latter argues that the extremes don't exist by virtue of all the in-betweens, the fallacy of the faulty dilemma assumes there are two opposing options, when that may not be the case. There may be in-betweens, or the only two options may not really be opposites but rather two.aspects of a single truth.

In a recent debate on salvation I pointed out that the New Testament teaches baptism is essential to salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). My opponent's response was an example of a false antithesis. He read aloud 1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body," which proved, he said, that the baptism essential to salvation was baptism by the Spirit, not by water.

This was a purely gratuitous assumption on his part and a self-serving one at that. Even if my opponent were correct in supposing there were two baptisms to be distinguished in Scripture--one (Spirit baptism) necessary for salvation and one (water baptism) not--1 Corinthians 12:13 hardly supports that distinction: It merely states there is a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

The problem here is the either-or mentality Protestants bring to such texts. A baptism, they feel, is either baptism by water or a baptism by the Spirit; it couldn't be one baptism (as Paul teaches in Ephesians 4:5) with two aspects, a material aspect and a spiritual.aspect, which is after all what Jesus says in John 3:5.

This foible arises from a philosophical perspective which Protestantism inherited from William of Occam. Occam saw a radical disjunction between nature and grace, a disjunction Protestant theology still largely operates with, as Louis Bouyer, himself a convert from Protestantism, so ably demonstrates in his book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism .

As a result, Protestants assume that if the essential baptism is Spirit baptism, then it can't be water baptism. Likewise, if the Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, then the pope can't be. On and on it goes. We're justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) and so not by good works--contrary to James 2:24. (When Paul says in Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:15 that we're justified by faith and not by the works of the Law, he is speaking of Mosaic ceremonial observances such as circumcision, not good works in the proper sense).

Also, under the heading of "special pleading" we read the following:

When we present the facts in a matter and shape those facts (including statistics) to make our side look better, we are guilty of "special pleading." The classic example is the joke about the international car race that ended up having only two entrants: the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S. won the race. The next day the item in the Soviet paper said, "In the international auto race yesterday, the Soviet car came in second, while the American finished next to last."

We engage in special pleading when we stack the deck in our favor by citing only the evidence favoring our position and ignoring or hiding any troublesome to it. Intellectual honesty obliges us to discuss all the relevant data--not only the favorable facts, but also those that seem contrary to our position--and indicate how they fit into the picture.

The person who uses prooftexts from the Bible is particularly susceptible to this danger. Naturally he is going to memorize and quote those verses which seem to support his position. Why do Fundamentalists, in their zeal to argue that the early Church taught one became a member of the Church by faith alone, cite Acts 16:31 but ignore, say, Acts 2:38?

I have addressed Acts 2:38 and how, exegetically, there is no doubt that Peter is teaching baptismal regeneration here (e.g., Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation). On Acts 16:31, see:

The importance of preparation before baptism

As I wrote on the Philippian jailer:

One may object, citing the example of the Philippian jailer who was baptised without much prior preparation. The pertinent text is Acts 16:31-34:

And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptised, he and all his, straightway. And then he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

One has to realise that the circumstances surrounding the baptism of the jailer are extraordinary--an earthquake releases Paul and Sila from jail, resulting in the jailer about to commit suicide as he would be held responsible for their escape. Upon pleading with him to stop, the jailer listens to the message of Paul and Silas and accepts the gospel message. Notwithstanding, Paul and Silas are still fugitives and the jailer is still answerable to his superiors, resulting in a paucity of preparation time, but the jailers still receive some preparation, viz. an early morning lesson on the rudiments of the Christian faith which results in his household coming to faith, too, and following such, they are baptised, as Paul knows that, not only is there scant possibility of seeing this jailer again due to his fugitive status, but also the essential/salvific nature of water baptism, Paul administered this ordinance in the middle of the night, but notwithstanding these extraordinary circumstances, we can be sure that Paul (and Silas) expected the jailer to have at least some meaningful knowledge of, and love for, God, as well as a genuine confession of sin before baptism, something Acts 16:32 witnesses to: "And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house" (1995 NASB).

Early Lutheran Works Affirming Baptismal Regeneration

Early Lutheranism affirming Baptismal Regeneration

It is a fact that early Lutherans, as well as the majority of modern Lutherans, hold to baptismal regeneration. Indeed, one of the best recent defences of this doctrine can be found in a work by a Lutheran scholar, Jordan Cooper, in his book, The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2015).

Here are some comments affirming this doctrine from early Lutheran works; I am sure this will irk some Evangelical Protestants when they learn that Luther et al affirmed such a teaching, and that such a doctrine is still part-and-parcel of most Lutheran churches:

Luther’s Small Catechism (1529)

Part IV.

The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

I.

What is Baptism? Answer:

Baptism is not simply common water, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command, and connected with God’s Word.

What is what Word of God? Answer:

It is what which our Lord Christ speaks in the last chapter of Matthew [xxviii. 19]:

‘Go ye [into all the world], and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’

II.

What does Baptism give, or of what use if it? Answer:

It worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.

What are such words and promises of God? Answer:

Those which our Lord Christ speaks in the last chapter of Mark:

‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.’

III.

How can water do such great things? Answer:

It is not water, indeed, that does it, but the Word of God which is with and in the water, and faith, which trusts in the Word of God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is nothing but water, and no baptism; but with the Word of God it is a baptism—that is, a gracious water of life and washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, third chapter [iii. 5-7]:

‘By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.’ This is certainly true. [Or, ‘This is a faithful saying,’ ver. 8.]

IV.

What does such baptising with water signify? Answer:

It signifies that the old Adam in us is to be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and perish with all sins and evil lusts; and that the new man should daily come forth again and rise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is it so written? Answer:

St. Paul, in the 6^th chapter of Romans, says:

‘We are buried with Christ by baptism into death; that like as he was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.’ (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds [revised by David S. Schaff; New York: Harper and Row, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007], 85-87)

The Augsburg Confession (1530)

Article IX.—Of Baptism

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that by Baptism the grace of God is offered, and that children are to be baptized, who by Baptism, being offered to God, are received into God’s favour. (Ibid., 13)

The Formula of Concord (1576)

Errors of the Schwenkfeldians

IV. That the water of baptism is not a means whereby the Lord seals adoption in the children of God and effects regeneration. (Ibid., 178)

The Saxon Visitation Articles (1592)

The False and Erroneous Doctrine of the Calvinists

On Holy Baptism

I. That Baptism is an external washing of water, by which a certain internal ablution from sin is merely signified.

II. That Baptism does not work nor confer regeneration, faith, the grace of God, and salvation, but only signifies and seals them.

III. That not all who are baptized in water, but the elect only, obtain by it the grace of Christ and the gifts of faith.

IV. That regeneration doth not take place in and with Baptism, but afterwards, at a more advanced age—yes, with many not before old age.

V. That salvation doth depend on Baptism, and therefore in cases of necessity should not be required in the Church; but when the ordinary minister of the Church is wanting, the infant should be permitted to die without Baptism.

VI. The infants of Christians are already holy before Baptism in the womb of the mother, and even in the womb of the mother are received into the covenant of eternal life; otherwise the Sacrament of Baptism could not be conferred on them. (Ibid., 188-89)

Jerry L. Sumney on Baptismal Regeneration and Transformative Justification Paul and Pre-Pauline Christian Tradition

Commenting on Paul’s use of preformed Christian tradition and the salvific efficacy of water baptism therein, in 1 Cor 6:11 (as well as Rom 6:3), Jerry L. Sumney (professor of biblical studies at Lexington Theological Seminary) wrote:

Romans 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11 may cite traditions that relate the death of Jesus to baptism. Paul even introduces the Rom 6 citation with what some see as a recitative hoti. The preceding phrase, “don’t you know,” may also indicate that Paul is about to cite a known formula. The use of apoloyō (“wash”) in 1 Cor 6:11 is a hapax legomenon in Paul, and it appears only one other time in the New Testament (Acts 22:16), where it also refers to baptism. Its use in the passive suggests to many interpreters that it is already technical language for baptism. Since Paul does not use this metaphor to describe the effects of baptism elsewhere, it seems likely that he is not the originator of this interpretation. Raymond Collins notes that in addition to the singular o “washed” the phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ” is another traditional phrase . . . The verb hagiazō (“to make holy”) is also relatively rare in Paul. As often as he uses the cognate nouns “saints” to describe believers (at least twenty-three times), he uses the verb only ix times. It is related directly to baptism only in 1 Cor 6:11. So this is an unusual sense for Paul, especially when compared to its two uses in 1 Cor 7:14, where an unbeliever is made holy through association with a believing spouse. There is then significant, but not decisive evidence that Paul is citing or alluding to preformed tradition in Rom 6:3 and 1 Cor 6:11. If he is citing traditional material in either passage, it indicates a pre-Pauline (or at least non-Pauline) view of baptism understood as a rite that is incorporated the baptized into the death of Christ. Furthermore, this interpretation of baptism assumes that Jesus’s death is “for us” and has salvific effect. . . . [on 1 Cor 6:11] Interpreters often find Paul drawing on the language of a baptismal tradition here. Fragments of the tradition are fairly obvious, especially the claim that these were done “in the name of . . .” . . . The relationship between baptism and a cleansing from sin is made in Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5; Heb 10:22. These multiple citations of this understanding suggest that it was earlier than and beyond Paul’s influence. In addition, the verb apelusasthe (“to be washed”) appears only here in the Pauline corpus, indicating that Paul draws it from a source beyond his usage. Further, that this verb appears in the passive may also indicate that it is part of the tradition.

If the substance of Paul’s assertions about baptism here is drawn from earlier tradition, as seems probable, then baptism’s association with forgiveness of sins, with granting holiness, and perhaps with the coming of the Spirit are all part of the church’s message before Paul wielded significant influence. The Didache’s use of baptism as the line of demarcation between those who may participate in the Eucharist and the “unholy dogs” also indicates that it sees baptism as the rite that cleanses and makes one holy (9.5). Even if we determine that the terminology of cleansing and making holy as they appear in 1 Cor 6;11 is not directly taken from earlier tradition, this passage in the Didache indicates that these understandings are part of the church’s teaching before the time of Paul and outside his influence. (Jerry L. Sumney, Steward of God’s Mysteries: Paul and Early Church Tradition [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2017], 35-36, 81-82, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Elsewhere, on Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13, Sumney writes:

Gal 3:27-28 and 1 Cor 12:13 [are] citations of a preformed baptismal liturgy. The evidence includes its pairs of opposites, the insertion of baptism into the context, and the change from first person plural (“we”) to second person plural (“you”). These all indicate that (at least) Gal 3:27-28 is a set piece that Paul inserts into his argument. This formula provides evidence for an early partially realized eschatology. In this formula, those baptized are brought “into Christ” and have “been clothed with Christ.” This identification with Christ beings the baptized into the realm that is determined by Christ’s identity. The eschatological nature of this claim is evident in the return to oneness. This is nowhere more clear than in the allusion to Gen 1:27. The obvious change in the pattern of the opposed pairs in the formula shows that the oneness that the liturgy proclaims is a return to the primordial or Edenic ideal state. It is a common feature of apocalyptic Judaism to see the coming age as a return to the ideal original state of creation. This formula draws on that understanding in its allusion to Gen 1:27. The formula also proclaims that this state of existence is a present reality for the baptized. (Ibid., 99, emphasis added, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Therefore, the only conclusion one can reach, based on the evidence, is that both Paul and the earliest strata of pre-Pauline Christian tradition explicated transformative justification as well as baptismal regeneration.

Stephen Jett on the low rate of survival of written documents in antiquity

Commenting on the low rate of survival of written documents in antiquity, Stephen C. Jett wrote:

The Years Take Their Toll: Deterioration of Records

Written documents of yesteryear had a low rate of survival, a consequence of the many destructive forces that may act upon archaeological and historical materials. One instance was the 1875 explosion of the ship Magneta, which was carrying to France 2,080 Punic stelae, many inscribed, from the ruins of Carthage. Although the bulk were eventually recovered by divers, almost four hundred still rest on the bottom of the bay at Toulon.

Before the advent of printing, the majority of documents existed as unique or in only a limited number of exemplars, and to their contents were vulnerable to total loss. Written records on relatively imperishable materials such as clay tablets, potsherds (ostraca), stone, metal, and, to a lesser extent, shell, bone, and ivory, are, with the occasional important exception (such as in the library of Ashur-bani-pal), typically brief and usually involve texts that are lists of or dedications to deities, ritual formulas, formulaic proclamations of power, commemorative honorifics, king lists, records of military events, diplomatic letters, observations of nature, omen lists, or simple inventories. Historical epics have survived in fragments only.

Most longer works (as well as many letters and the like) were normally written on (expensive) papyrus or on animal-skin leather, parchment, or vellum (Mediterranean area); on paper/bark cloth (China, Mesoamerica), textiles (silk in China), or palm leaves (southern Asia) or bamboo splints, wood, or bark (various regions); or on wax tablets (Mediterranean area). Except in hyperarid desert environments and in dry caves (as in Egypt and in parts of Palestine and Inner Asia), there perishable materials seldom survived the centuries. The Jewish historian Josephus (first century AD) wrote that the Phoenicians had kept voluminous written records, including ones on geography, but beyond a few tens of thousands of mostly formulaic voice and funerary inscriptions on stone, not one original Phoenician document survives today. Even the majority of Middle Eastern records on clay tablets were destroyed or became illegible with time. Of those that have been recovered, half, an estimated 1000,000, remain untranslated.

Although large numbers of documents (for example, 113 of Sophocles’s plays, all of Didymus Chalcenterus’s circia 3,400 books) are known about only by reference in other works, quite a few Classical Greek and Roman texts (or at least fragments of same) are known and are relied upon by historians. However, these are not the original documents, written in their authors’ hands. In almost every case they are copies of copies, at many removes from the writers’ originals, in most instances not dating to before the High Middle Ages. The books that were reproduced and whose contents were thus preserved were great works of literature, science, geography, history, and philosophy, not (with a few notable exceptions) records of individual, nonofficial voyages of exploration, trade, or colonization.

Even many of the key great works did not survive—for example, the thirty books of the Greek Ephoros’s geography and Eratosthenes’s Measurement of the Earth and Geographica and his innovative and highly influential map of the known word—and are revealed to moderns only through quoted passages, synopses, constructions, or mere references by other ancient authors. Six-sevenths of the known works of Pliny the Elder are extinct, and but a small fraction of the two thousand or so works he consulted to write his Natural History have survived. (Manuscript survival rates greatly increased beginning in Late Antiquity, when vellum replaced more perishable papyrus.)

The contents of most ancient libraries were destroyed, the one partial exception being that o the Assyrian king Ashur-bani-pal, whose “books” were written on clay tablets that were preserved by baking in, rather than being destroyed in, the fire that consumed the library building. Most of the perishable documents of antiquity disappeared through some combination of accidental fire, water damage, mold, earthquake, use of corrosive iron-gall inks, wear and tear, putrefaction, insect damage, or deliberate destruction or other disposal, including the making of new paper. Many a manuscript wet up in flames as fuel, was used as packing material and then discarded, was made into papier-mâché objects (cartonnage), or suffered some similar fate, especially during eras of incursions by illiterate barbarians or under the sway of zealotry on the part of adherents of scriptural religions (for example, the Roman Catholic Church’s destruction of documents deemed heretical, epitomized by Savonarola’s “bonfire of the vanities”), or when the bitter rivals overran literate or pagan and competing civilizations, and destroyed their libraries and archives—for example, in Athens, Alexandria, Carthage, Jerusalem, Rome, Islamic Iberia, Christian Britain (the Viking destructions of monasteries like Lindisfarne, Iona, and Lambay, and, later, Henry VIII’s burning of English monastery libraries), and Buddhist Southeast Asia. In the fifth century AD, the imperial library of Constantinople and its 100,000 or so books were destroyed by rebels and by fire. Rebuilt, it was looted and burned in 1203-4 during the vicious Fourth Crusade. Following a second restoration in 1453 the Turks demolished it once more, and over 120,000 volumes were lost. In modern times, France’s Archives Nationales burned during the reign of Napoleon III. (Stephen C. Jett, Ancient Ocean Crossings: Reconsidering the Case for Contacts With the Pre-Columbian Americas [Tuscaloosa, Ala.: The University of Alabama Press, 2017], 121-23, cf. “Eyes Only: Deliberate Secrecy and Destruction of Records,” pp. 124-28)

Prayer Request for the Tralee Branch

I live in a small town in the southwest of Ireland, Tralee, in County Kerry. Our little branch struggles a lot due to its size (in some weeks, we barely pass 10 in attendance). As part of the intention and prayers of our fasting on the 4th March, we will be praying and hoping for at least one solid LDS family (or family who will convert and will become solid members) and become members of our branch. As I do believe in the efficacy of petitionary prayer, I will also ask those who follow this blog to include, as part of their requests in their daily prayers between here and the 4th March, to perhaps consider asking God to be merciful to our branch and for this prayer to be answered (and hopefully, abundantly . . . .)

As an aside, if anyone is looking to move to Ireland, here is information on Tralee as well as the county it is in, Kerry.

Technical Note on 1 Corinthians 11:27 and the Partaking of the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27 reads as follows in the KJV:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Young's Literal Translation is very similar:

So that whoever may eat this bread or may drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, guilty he shall be of the body and blood of the Lord.

Some other translations seem to give the impression, however, that Paul is not speaking of the worthiness of the person, but the worthiness or lack thereof in their partaking of the Eucharistic elements, such as the NRSV:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

The underlying Greek term is ἀναξίως, an adverb which is modifying the verbs of eating and drinking. Because of this, some Protestants and modern translations claim that the use of an adverb modifying the eating/drinking, as opposed to an adjective modifying the person (which identifies an unworthy individual), means that the recipient's personal sins are not an issue, but only their discernment of the significance of the bread/body and wine/blood.

While it is technically true that the adverbial modifier points to the discernment of the body and blood of Jesus, a person in grievous sin(s) who attempts to sanctify himself with the Lord's Supper and who attempts to sanctify himself with the Sacrament without confessing grievous sins to a Church leader (cf. John 20:23; D&C 132:46), has, in effect, not discerned the Body and Blood of Jesus in the Sacrament. Further, they are eating unworthily since they have not approached the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with the proper intentions.

Finally, it should also be noted that, had Paul used an adjective instead of an adverb, he would have limited the focus to the person and eliminated the person's responsibility to discern the nature and importance of the Sacrament.

Ben Stanhope - 10 Reasons why Young Earth Creationists Misinterpret the Bible

I just watched the following video addressing some common errors by those who support YEC. I am sure some will find the following interesting, even if one will not always agree with some of his claims:

Ben Stanhope - 10 Reasons why Young Earth Creationists Misinterpret the Bible