Hal Hougey's Answers to Common Objections to Baptismal Regeneration

The late Hal Hougey (author of a few anti-Mormon publications) was a member of the Disciples of Christ (“Campbellites”) and, while he was often in theological error, was correct on the topic of baptismal regeneration. In his 1997 book, The Quest for Understandable Hermeneutics, he wrote the following against common objections against this doctrine:

 

Objections to Baptism Considered

 

• “Baptism Is a Work; and e Are Not Saved by Works.” Immersion for the remissions of sins troubles our religious neighbors, since it seems to contradict the principle of “justification by grace through faith, not by works” (Eph 2:8-9). We may respond by pointing out that baptism is not a work we perform; it is something we surrender or submit to. Whatever work is involved is done by the one who officiates at the baptism. We no more baptize ourselves than we would bury ourselves. The New Testament always uses the passive voice in referring to baptism. Our friends need to look more carefully at Galatians 3:26-27, where baptism is seen by Paul (what better authority?) as integrally involved in becoming sons of God through faith. We may further remind them that we must let the scripture inform us before we build theological systems. Exegesis must always precede theology.

 

• “I Cannot Believe My Beloved Relative, Whose Spiritual Life Was Most Exemplary, Is Lost Merely Because of an Honest Mistake.” This is an emotional argument, and emotional arguments cannot be easily answered with logic or reason. We simply explain that we are not the judges and we can neither promise nor judge. Christ is the Judge, and he will judge in a way consistent with his love, mercy, and grace. If the beloved relative did all she knew to do, God knows that. We do that relative no honor by refusing to do all we know to do. (Hal Hougey, The Quest for Understandable Hermeneutics [Concord, Calif.: Manna, 1997], 595)

 

Further Reading on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

I have written a full-length book addressing water baptism and related topics (e.g., two appendices refuting imputed righteousness):

"Born of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration

If one wants a free copy (PDF format), you can contact me at:

ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom

 

Michael D. Oblath on the Sea of Reeds (Yam Sûp) being on the Coast of Elath (cf. 1 Kings 9:26)

When addressing the question, "What about the mistake [in the Book of Mormon] of saying the Hebrews Crossed the Red Sea when it really should be the Reed Sea?" Jeff Lindsay quoted D. Charles Pyle who wrote that:

 

Funny thing is, there are critics of the Church who claim that the Book of Mormon is false because it does not mention the Sea of Reeds when referring to the Red Sea in recounting the Exodus. It is true that the phrase _ym swp_ does literally mean Sea of Reeds. It is also true that the various Biblical scholars are saying that the Sea of Reeds is not the Red Sea.

 

However, the biblical scholars who make such claims are all wet, in my opinion. Why? First of all, the ancient Greeks called what we know as the Red Sea combined with the Indian Ocean, "Red Sea." Lastly, the Bible text itself plainly states that Eloth (modern Elath) was on the shore of _ym swp_ (1 Kings 9:26)! Since _Red Sea_ is our modern equivalent for both the Hebrew term and location, it is perfectly acceptable and logical for the Book of Mormon to contain it as it does.

 

In his book, The Exodus Itinerary Sites: Their Locations from the Perspectives of the Biblical Sources, Michael D. Oblath (at the time of writing, Adjunct Professor at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkely and St. Mary’s College) wrote the following, locating Yam Sûp on the coast of Elath/Eloth, further substantiating the arguments of Pyle and other LDS apologists on this issue:

 

Exod 13:18

 

‎ויסב אלהים את־העם דרך המדבר ים־סוף

 

[And God led the people around the way of the wilderness of Yam Sûp . . . ]

 

The minor difficulty encountered in the form דרך המדבר ים־סוף, i.e., the definite article present on a noun in a construct form, can be alleviated by understanding the genitive as that of a geographical name (the “Way of the Wilderness of Yam Sûp”). Verse 18, taken in context, describes the decision to take the Israelites away from the Way of the Land of the Philistines. It is possible to interpret this road (דרך) as referring to the Way of Horus, the road leading along the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula. As before, there is nothing in the context of the passage to indicate that such is necessarily the case.

 

When indicating a road, דרך suggests the direction of travel by the name of the road. Hence, the Way of the Land of the Philistines is a road leading toward Philistia. The Way of the Wilderness of Yam Sûp is a road leading toward Yam Sûp. With no firm indication as to the author’s fixed perspective, we cannot state the starting point of the journey with any certainty.

. . .

 

Exod 23:31

 

‎ ושׁתי את־גבלך מים־סוף ועד־ים פלשׁתים וממדבר עד־הנהר כי אתן בידכם את ישׁבי הארץ וגרשׁתמו מפניך

 

[I will set your border from Yam Sûp to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the Wilderness to the Euphrates. For I will give into your hands the inhabitants of the land and you drive them out before you.]

 

With this description of the general, perhaps idealized, borders of ancient Israel, the author fixed the location of Yam Sûp. This border is presented as the contrast of two extremes. One is in the general direction of south to north, or, more specifically, southwest to northeast. In order to define a complementary, defining border, a perpendicular direction must be applied. Hence, from the southeast toward the northwest. If Yam Sûp is defined as the Gulf of Suez, the author will have defined Israel’s borders with two “south to north” demarcation lines. Only within the context of Yam Sûp being the Gulf of Elath does this boundary description make any sense.

. . .

 

Num 21:4

 

‎ויסעו מהר ההר דרך ים־סוף לסבב את־ארץ

 

[Then they journeyed from Mt. Hor via the Way of Yam Sûp, in order to go around the land of Edom]

 

Yam Sûp, located here in proximity to Edom, can be no other body of water besides the Gulf of Elath.

 

Num 33:11

 

‎ויסעו מים־סוף ויחנו במדבר־סין

 

[They journeyed from Yam Sûp and camped in the Wilderness of Sin.]

 

Although this verse does not locate Yam Sûp next to a fixed locale, it does place it near the wilderness of Sin. The Wilderness of Sin . . . is also near Edom, confirming the identification of Yam Sûp as the Gulf of Elath.

 

1 Kgs 9:26

 

‎ ואני עשׂה המלך שׁלמה בעציון־גבר אשׁר את־אלות על־שׂפת ים־סוף בארץ  אדום

 

[King Solomon built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near (“with”) Elath on the shore of Yam Sûp, in the land of Edom.]

 

As important in the Hebrew Bible as it is within the Septuagint, this verse clearly identifies Yam Sûp (as well as Ezion-geber and Elath) as being located in the region of Edom. The only body of water in that vicinity is the Gulf of Elath. (Michael D. Oblath, The Exodus Itinerary Sites: Their Locations From the Perspective of the Biblical Sources [Studies in Biblical Literature 55; New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004], 99-101, 104, 105, emphasis added)

 

James E. Talmage on Judas Iscariot not being determined to betray Jesus

 

 

8. Judas Iscariot.—Today we speak of a traitor as a "Judas" or an "Iscariot". The man who made the combined name infamous has been for ages a subject of discussion among theologians and philosophers, and in later times the light of psychological analysis has been turned upon him. German philosophers were among the earliest to assert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed some critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh; and these apologists attempt to explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move to force Jesus into a position of difficulty from which He could escape only by the exercise of His powers of Godship, which, up to that time, He had never used in His own behalf.

 

We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such [p.650] a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man's transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If the man who is guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless he repents, surely forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of God, and "shall deny the faith", and so the voice of God hath affirmed (see Doc. and Cov. 63:16), we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin shall poison the soul and, if not forsaken through true repentance, shall bring that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skilful servants. Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6).; and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov. 76:41-48.

 

That the evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is evidenced by the Lord's direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore that this knowledge was His when the Twelve were selected is suggested by the words of Jesus: "I know whom I have chosen", coupled with the explanation that in the choice He had made would the scriptures be fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was foreknown and foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen. It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord's immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of God's purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of circumstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil's employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained; and with such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of God came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State. Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in the affairs of God's kingdom than in the institutions of men.

 

There is an apparent discrepancy between the account of Judas Iscariot's death given by Matthew (27:3-10) and that in Acts (1:16-20). According to the first, Judas hanged himself; the second states that he fell headlong, "and all his bowels gushed out." If both records be accurate, the wretched man probably hanged himself, and afterward fell, possibly through the breaking of the cord or the branch to which it was attached. Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the "field of blood"; the writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that Judas bought the field with the money he had received from the priests. As the ground was bought with the money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this money had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas. The variations are of importance mainly as showing independence of authorship. The accounts agree in the essential feature, that Judas died a miserable suicide. (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1915], 649-51, emphasis added)

 

Melvin Brooks on the Atonement being a “Propitiation”

Propitiation. See ATONEMENT, SIN. The term connotes “pacification,” or “appeasement.” In this sense, Jesus Christ “appeased” judgment, or satisfied judgment, when he gave his life for us.

 

Our sins may be forgiven provided we repent. We cannot be saved in our sins. (Melvin Brooks, LDS Reference Encyclopedia [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960], 398)

 

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) on whether the Washing of Feet in John 13 is a Sacrament

That washing of feet has nothing in common with Sacraments properly so called and can only be said to be called a Sacrament broadly speaking; to the extent that everything called a Sacrament has a mystical sense and figures, as well as types of other things. That washing was really a sign of the humility and charity of Christ. Likewise, it was a sign of the purity with which men ought to approach the Eucharist; therefore, Christ did this with which men ought to approach the Eucharist. Lastly, it was a sign immediately before the institution of the Eucharist. Lastly, it was a sign and a certain figure of purgation, which we were going to have through the passion of Christ, as Cyril explains in this passage.

 

That it was not, however, a Sacrament properly so-called, is clear firstly because we do not have a promise of justifying grace, for that of verse 8, “Unless I wash you, you will have no share with me,” does not literally promise grace, but threatens punishment on account of disobedience as Chrysostom, Cyril and Basil (on Baptism 1, 2) explain on this passage. If Peter obstinately refused that washing of his feet, but because he would have sinned against Christ and that obedience would be lacking. Still, it can mystically signify, as Augustine explained on this passage, that even the just need Christ to wash them daily from venial sins, which are like the filth which adheres to their feet on account of living in human society. Now, this does not suffice to effect a Sacrament, because here it is a question on the washing of venial sins which do not need gratia gratum faciens. This is why the Lord says in verse 10, “He that has been washed does not need to wash his feet, but is wholly clean.” In other words, he is clean simply, and absolutely, since he would be just; nevertheless, he still needs washing from venial sins. Besides, we do not have from this passage that washing of feet really takes away venial sins; otherwise, we would have to wash our feet daily. Rather, only that one washing, whereby the Lord washed the feet of his disciples, was a figure of the internal washing which we receive from Christ. Therefore, the washing of feet itself is not a Sacrament properly so-called.

 

Secondly, we do not have a command, or institution of using this rite frequently, which is required in every Sacrament; otherwise, all men who do not use those ceremonies would sin daily. Although these ceremonies were once customary in certain Churches immediately after Baptism, nevertheless, it was never received in all of them, nor in the Roman Church itself, as Ambrose witnesses (loc cit.). Nor is the command in the following verses opposed to us, v. 15, “I have given you an example” v. 14, “And you should wash one another’s feet,” and v. 7, “What I do, you do not know now, but you will know hereafter.” This command instructs humility and charity, as Chrysostom and Cyril explain, but not the material washing of feet itself, as is clear from the praxis of the Church, for Christians supposed they had a special command on the washing of feet.

 

It is easy to respond to the earlier passages of the Fathers. Ambrose calls it a Sacrament and mystery, because it was preserved in his Church as a sacred ceremony, and as some Sacramental; nevertheless, he did not think this washing is a Sacrament properly so called, from the fact that he affirms mortal sins are not forgiven by that washing, but certain remnants of original sin. Furthermore, he says he does not find fault with the Roman Church where these ceremonies were not in use, but he could not say that if he thought it was a true Sacrament. Hence, Cyprian and Bernard, if we read them carefully, do not say the material washing of feet itself is a Sacrament whereby men are sanctified: they only say that unique washing of the feet of the Apostles which Christ did was a Sacrament, because he signified by that something sacred, which we should do daily, i.e. the expiation of venial sins, which Christ does in us daily through prayer, fasting, humility, and the exercise of piety toward our neighbors, from which we are freed. Rightly, if they would have thought washing of feet was a Sacrament, it would behoove us to daily wash each other’s feet, according to that opinion, for they say this Sacrament is a daily expiation of sins.

(Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis Tomus VI: On the Sacraments in General in Two Books & On Baptism and Confirmation [trans. Ryan Grant; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2021], 268-70)

 

Two examples of 19th-century Tongue Speaking among Latter-day Saints

During a testimony meeting in Wales in 1848, at the house of Sarah Williams:

 

At one time an East Indian called at the house as a testimony meeting was about to begin. She spoke inquiringly to Captain Dan Jones, who presided about the strange caller, and was told to invite him in. During the meeting, the spiritual gifts were exercised and one man, by the gift of tongues, spoke in the native language of the East Indian, telling him he ought to be baptized. The stranger asked to have the ordinance performed at once, but was persuaded to wait till the close of the meeting, when it was attended to. (Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, volume 2 [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1914], 535)

 

 

 

 

There were others also who received the gifts of the Gospel in Michigan. I will mention Brother Elijah Fordham, as his case was one of a peculiar nature. I remember at one of our meetings, and it was a testimony meeting, Brother Fordham was speaking in tongues when two Frenchmen were coming up the turnpike road which passed close by the schoolhouse. By some means, perhaps by hearing their own language spoken, they were attracted to the window, where they asked a boy who was outside if he knew what that man said. Of course the boy did not know any more than did the speaker, for Brother Fordham did not understand any more about French than he did about Greek, for it was a spiritual gift he was then exercising. The Frenchmen testified that Brother Fordham was preaching the Gospel to them. (Edward Stevenson, "Incidents of my Early Days in the Church," The Latter-day Saints Millennial Star, vol. 57, no. 47 [November 21, 1895]:750)

 

 

 

 

Jordan T. Watkins on Early Latter-day Saints Cultivating Historical Distance Between the Original Audience of the Bible and Modern Readership

 

 

Biblical scholars were most responsible for cultivating a perception of historical distance, but this perception also grew among Americans with little or no direct exposure to biblical criticism. Early followers of Joseph Smith, for example, highlighted the distance between biblical pasts and American present to prioritize new scripture and new revelation. As a Baptist minister observed in an 1832 letter to the Christian Watchman, Sidney Rigdon, a prominent Mormon preacher, proclaimed that “the Epistles are not and were not given for our instruction, but for the instruction of a people of another age and country, far removed from ours, of different habits and manners . . . and that it is altogether inconsistent for us to take the Epistles written for that people and that age of the world, as containing suitable instruction for this people at this age of the world” (B. Pixley, “Intelligence Respecting Mormonites,” Christian Watchman [November 9, 1832]:177). The correspondent quoted Rigdon without comment – the absurdity of the belief did not need to be explained. And yet, while some scoffed at the idea that biblical texts were no longer relevant and that new times called for new revelations, a range of biblical scholars had begun to read the Bible in ways that pushed biblical times further into the past. In succeeding decades, as the slavery debates brought increased attention to the meaning of biblical passages, historical readings were drawn out into the open, which increased the potential for Americans to sense historical distance from the biblical pasts. (Jordan T. Watkins, Slavery and Sacred Texts: The Bible, the Constitution, and Historical Consciousness in Antebellum American [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021], 67)

Further Reading

Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion (2d ed.)