![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/06\/CorneliusAngel.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is my reply to Jason Engwer\u2019s article,<\/span> \u201cBaptismal Justification\u201d<\/a> (12-20-09), which was a portion of a larger discussion<\/a> he was having with Catholic apologist Bryan Cross. His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n As an introductory statement, I would emphasize that the Bible and Catholicism teach both justification by grace through faith and baptismal regeneration (including normative infant baptism). The two notions and events are harmonious. But they can be discussed by themselves.\u00a0 Often (if not most times), the Bible will mention one without the other. But it doesn\u2019t follow that every mention of one without the other implies some sort of contradiction<\/em>. It does not, because both are asserted in inspired Scripture. I agree that many mentions of something constitute good biblical evidence for it (I presuppose this in many of my own articles, in citing a lot of Bible passages); however, there are things that are mentioned a lot less in the Bible that remain just as true as the frequently mentioned doctrines.<\/span><\/p>\n The examples of this that I usually point out are the virgin birth and original sin. Both are firmly believed by virtually all Christian believers: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: yet they are mentioned (especially in the case of original sin) fairly few times. Moreover, there is an example of a firmly and universally held doctrine (apart from seven disputed books pout of 73) that is absolutely absent from Holy Scripture: the canon of the Bible: which was ultimately determined and decreed by Church authority and apostolic tradition.<\/span><\/p>\n Bottom line: assertion of either aspects of baptism or justification, without mentioning the other doctrine, does not imply a negation of the other. and if and when Jason argues in such a fashion, he will be engaging in logical fallacy and inadequate biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. The task of the fair and open biblical exegete is to incorporate all of the data regarding justification and baptism into a harmonious whole. As one would expect, I think the Catholic view does that. And there are two passages in Paul that explicitly link baptism and justification.<\/span><\/p>\n Below is a portion of my latest response, relevant to the subject of attaining justification through baptism. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Paul, James, and other New Testament authors suggest continuity between justification through faith in the Old Testament era and justification through faith in the New Testament era.<\/span><\/p>\n Indeed they do. But baptism was prefigured by circumcision. I summarized the biblical data on that analogy in my paper,\u00a0<\/span>Infant Baptism: A Fictional Dialogue<\/a><\/p>\n Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day-old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7; Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25; Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I also have an article about<\/span> John Calvin commenting at length about Paul\u2019s circumcision-baptism analogy<\/a>.<\/p>\n But works of faith come later than faith.\u00a0Genesis 15:6\u00a0is about a faith that would result in works, but the works come after the faith.<\/span><\/p>\n We fully agree, which is why we speak of<\/span> initial justification, by faith<\/a>. I\u2019ve even written a post entitled,<\/span> Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine<\/a>. So this notion doesn\u2019t contradict Catholic soteriology or theology in general.<\/span><\/p>\n When somebody trusts God in response to a promise God makes, as in Genesis 15, that\u2019s faith in the heart (as in\u00a0Acts 15:7-11\u00a0and\u00a0Romans 10:10), not faith accompanied by an outer manifestation like baptism.<\/span><\/p>\n Now here is where Jason attempts to illogically separate such justification from an equally necessary and regenerative baptism. Acts 15:7-11 is the account St. Peter at the Jerusalem Council talking about how he had observed Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit (15:8) and have their hearts \u201ccleansed . . . by faith\u201d (15:9). But there is no reason to believe that he would separate<\/em> baptism from that, simply because he doesn\u2019t mention it here. How do we know that? Well, we know from looking at actual instances of reception of the Holy Spirit in which Peter was present.<\/span><\/p>\n In Acts 2, it is the Day of Pentecost and the disciples receive the Holy Spirit and are indwelt by Him (2:1-4). As a result, St. Peter gives the first Christian sermon, explaining what had happened, and presents the gospel (2:14-36). When he is done, the Bible says that \u201cthey were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, \u2018Brethren, what shall we do?\u201d\u2018 (2:37; RSV, as throughout). And here is how Peter responds:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 2:38-41<\/strong>\u00a0. . . \u201cRepent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\u00a0[39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.\u201d\u00a0[40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, \u201cSave yourselves from this crooked generation.\u201d [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the very first act or \u201cwork\u201d that those who have accepted the gospel by grace through faith is to get baptized. And this baptism is \u201cfor the forgiveness of your sins\u201d and its result will be receiving \u201cthe gift of the Holy Spirit.\u201d And it is intended for all believers, and for their \u201cchildren\u201d (infant baptism). Lastly,\u00a0 getting baptized is, according to Peter and inspired Scripture, \u201cSav[ing]\u00a0yourselves from this crooked generation.\u201d I don\u2019t know how the Bible could be more explicit in describing baptismal regeneration and its actual necessity, either at the beginning of an adult convert\u2019s Christian life or for an infant who is the child of Christians. Everything is here: repentance, forgiveness of sins, the indwelling Holy Spirit, salvation, and the idea that baptism formally adds one to the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n When Peter observes the Holy Spirit falling upon Gentiles, too, he acts in exactly the same fashion:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 10:44-48<\/strong>\u00a0While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.\u00a0[45] And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.\u00a0[46] For they heard them speaking in tongues<\/a> and extolling God. Then Peter declared,\u00a0[47] \u201cCan any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?\u201d\u00a0[48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n When St. Paul converted, it was precisely the same state of affairs again:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 9:17-18<\/strong> So Anani\u2019as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, \u201cBrother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.\u201d\u00a0[18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 22:11-16<\/strong>\u00a0And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.\u00a0[12]\u00a0\u201cAnd one Anani\u2019as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,\u00a0[13] came to me, and standing by me said to me, `Brother Saul, receive your sight.\u2019 And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him.\u00a0[14] And he said, `The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth;\u00a0[15] for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard.\u00a0[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that his sins were not yet \u201cwashed away\u201d when he first converted and saw Jesus. That only came with baptism, just as was the case in Acts 2:38, 40.<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, then, for Peter and Paul, baptism (i.e., for adult converts accepting Christianity for the first time) goes along with \u2014 at the same time \u2014 repentance, belief in the gospel and justification by faith. How is it, then, that Jason can claim the exact opposite: that it\u2019s<\/span> \u201c<\/span>not faith accompanied by an outer manifestation like baptism\u201d? Well, he does so by highlighting certain passages while ignoring other relevant ones, and playing the usual Protestant unbiblical and illogical \u201ceither \/ or\u201d game. The Bible teaches both<\/em> things; he contends in futility that it teaches only one<\/em> of them. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It isn\u2019t the case that the chronological order is always the same (baptism \u2014> reception of the Holy Spirit or\u00a0reception of the Holy Spirit \u2014> baptism), but rather, that they are, broadly speaking, together in time. That is the constant. The ancient Hebrews didn\u2019t view chronology like we do. One being accompanied<\/em> by the other (whether technically before or after) is the essence of the thing, rather than one being slightly before the other. That\u2019s what Scripture teaches, whether Jason and other Protestants care for it or not.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n There isn\u2019t a single individual who\u2019s described as coming to faith, but having to wait until baptism to be justified. Nor is there any individual who\u2019s described as only having a lesser, unjustifying faith prior to baptism or not having faith at all until baptism.\u00a0Rather, we repeatedly see people justified as soon as they believe, prior to or without baptism.<\/span><\/p>\n I just provided several counter-examples. In Acts 2, the sequence was repentance, then baptism, which brings forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, salvation, and entrance into the kingdom (i.e., the Church). One can hardly be \u201cjustified\u201d without all those things or have a greater faith before baptism (given this description). Therefore, baptism is what immediately caused<\/em> it. When Paul was baptized, according to his own interpretation, his sins were washed away as a result.<\/span><\/p>\n So how could he be justified (before baptism), seeing that his sins weren\u2019t even forgiven and washed away and he wasn\u2019t \u201csaved\u201d yet? He could not<\/em>, since forgiveness of sins and salvation \/ regeneration are essential<\/em> to the notion of justification.\u00a0And an infant can have no conscious, \u201cpersonal\u201d faith at all prior to baptism or even after. Yet the Bible teaches infant baptism<\/a>. Other passages on baptismal regeneration reinforce this point:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 16:16<\/b>\u00a0He who\u00a0believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.<\/span><\/p>\n John 3:5\u00a0<\/b>Jesus answered, \u201cI tell you the truth, unless a man is born of\u00a0water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: \u201cunless a man is born again \u2026\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n Romans 6:3-5<\/strong>\u00a0Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?\u00a0[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5]\u00a0For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.<\/span><\/p>\n Titus 3:5<\/b>\u00a0he\u00a0saved\u00a0us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the\u00a0washing of regeneration\u00a0and renewal in the Holy Spirit,<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Peter 3:20-21<\/strong>\u00a0. . . during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.\u00a0[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We see from this additional relevant biblical data that a person is \u201csaved\u201d by baptism; it\u2019s how he can \u201center the kingdom of God\u201d and be \u201cborn again\u201d; it allows the baptized person to \u201cwalk in newness of life\u201d and be united with Jesus in His Resurrection. It brings about \u201cregeneration\u00a0and renewal in the Holy Spirit.\u201d I fail to see what else is required to prove the point! Is this not overwhelming evidence for the Catholic view (and Orthodox and Anglican and Lutheran and the view of other Protestant groups that believe in baptismal regeneration)? Yet Jason wants to argue that justification is before baptism. It makes no sense whatsoever. It\u2019s exactly the opposite of the biblical presentation on these matters.<\/span><\/p>\n I just discovered some very exciting arguments for baptismal regeneration tonight (I don\u2019t know how I\u2019ve missed this, all this time, but I\u2019m always learning), from my friend David Palm, who wrote on my Facebook page:<\/span><\/p>\n I remember when I was not-yet-converted and was scratching my head about this whole baptism and justification connection that the Council of Trent made. Trent\u00a0references Romans 6:7, so I went and read it in the Greek and was absolutely gobsmacked. Romans 6:7 in English is often translated along the lines of, \u201cFor he who has died is freed from sin\u201d (RSVCE). But in Greek it says, \u201c\u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\u201d That word \u201c\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u201d, is a form of the verb \u201cto justify\u201d, the very same verb used in the more prominent passages in Rom 3 and 4. So more literally it would be (in the context), \u201cFor he who has died [in Christ, in baptism] has been justified<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0from sin\u2026.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I was curious to see if there were translations that reflected this. There aren\u2019t many, but I found a few (including several quite old ones):<\/span><\/p>\n