Thursday, June 30, 2005

A Few Thoughts on Repentance vis-a-vis Baptism (Part 3)

Yesterday I quoted John Calvin's comments on the word "repent" in Acts 2:38. Here are his comments on the phrase "Be baptized every one of you":

"Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ, that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul's sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just freely before God when he forgiveth us our sins." (Calvin on Acts 2:38).

I do not think Calvin's words here can be reconciled with Dr. Owen's view. Indeed, Calvin anticipates the point he will make here (i.e., that baptism follows the remission of sins) in a statement he makes about baptism when commenting on the word "repent" in this same passage vis-a-vis Luke 24:47: "He putteth baptism in the fourth place [after repentance, remission of sins, and preaching in His name], as the seal whereby the promise of grace is confimed." Now there is wide agreement that Calvin's view on this is difficult to nail down. And I will concede that Calvin does not hold my view of baptism; that much is clear from his comments elsewhere (see his comments, e.g., on Gal 3 and Rom 4). But neither do I think he held Dr. Owen's view of baptism. Dr. Owen believes that baptism is the instrument of justification, and I don't think that view can fairly be attributed to Calvin.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Another Start

Here is part of the text I wrote to Dr. Owen earlier today. I think it might go a long way toward clarifying my views on baptism while eliminating the unnecessary invective:
In fair exchange, I actually view baptism as more significant than most Baptists do, but there is something in me that rejects the notion that baptism itself actually effects anything. I see it more in terms of its association with the application of the full benefits of Christ's death, but outside the purview of time--something more than mere symbolism, but something not quite efficacious. In other words, I see the application of the benefits of Christ's death centered in baptism, but applied at the point of belief in anticipation of that baptism rather than withheld until baptism occurs (hence, Acts 10).
This view comes close to Wallace's view of Acts 2:38 in his Grammar. I'm not sure yet whether I agree that eis should be taken as purposive in that passage (as Wallace suggests), but in theory I should have no objection to it given my view (stated above), so long as it is not taken in such a way as to suggest that baptism actually effects regeneration or justification. This view has the advantage of explaining all the baptismal texts, including the potential purpose clause in Acts 2:38 and the post-regeneration call for baptism in Acts 10. On the other hand, I do not believe any view that sees baptism as efficacious can explain all these differing accounts, at least not in a consistent way.

Time Out

Dr. Owen and I have had some private conversation today about our debate, and I am happy to report that we are in agreement that the tone on both sides is wide of the mark of clarifying the issues. Moving forward you will see a kinder and gentler approach to this; and with it more of a readiness to concede points where points should be conceded based on the evidence. I want to apologize to Dr. Owen for my part in letting the dialogue get out of hand, and I thank him for his gracious acceptance of that apology.

A Few Thoughts on Repentance vis-a-vis Baptism (Part 2)

"repentance is not simply a state of mind; it is an embodied action which is formally enacted through a physical ritual." (the hyper-sacramentalist on Acts 2:38)

"Repent: There is greater force in the Greek word, for it doth signify the conversion of the mind, that the whole man may be renewed and be made another man, which thing must be diligently noted, because this doctrine was miserably corrupted in the time of Popery; for they translated the name of repentance almost unto certain external rites. They babble somewhat, indeed, about the feigned contrition of the heart; but they touch that part very slightly, and they stand principally upon the external exercises of the body, which were little worth. . . . Wherefore, let us know that this is the true repentance, when a man is renewed in the spirit of his mind, as Paul teacheth (Rom xii.2)." (John Calvin on Acts 2:38).

A Few Thoughts on Repentance vis-a-vis Baptism

In his parting shots toward me, the hyper-sacramentalist included a quotation from the Anchor Bible Dictionary:

I noted in a previous post that in the Bible, repentance is more than a state of mind; it is necessarily expressed and embodied in certain actions (like John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance). The point I was making is captured nicely in the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on Repentance (ABD, 5:672): “Repentance in the prophets, then, is an act of the heart. It is more than mere words. It is defined by clear actions that lead to justice, mercy, and fidelity. But repentance was also a cultic act. It is a liturgical function in Israel. There are a number of passages which point to the liturgical act of repentance (Isa 63:7-64:12; Hos 6:1-3; 7:14; 14:1-3; Joel 2:15-18). These cultic expressions apparently included acts such as rending garments, throwing ashes, wearing course garments, and as in the liturgy of the yom hakkippurim, symbolic acts (Lev 16).”
He wrote this as a follow-up to his prior statement that "repentance is not simply a state of mind; it is an embodied action which is formally enacted through a physical ritual," and as a "rebuttal" of my observation that he has resurrected the "metanoia = penance, not repentance" error from the lexical grave.

Three observations about his supposed support from the ABD. First, the "cultic expressions" cited by the author are not so much "liturgical rituals," as they are cultural expressions of remorse. Tearing one's garment was not a means to religious "conversion" as the hyper-sacramentalist contends baptism is. Nor was throwing dust and ashes on one's head, or wearing course garments. They were signs of remorse.

Second, bear in mind that the hyper-sacramentalist contends that baptism is the means of repentance, not the fruit. Yet in each of the OT cases cited by his source, the opposite is true. No one threw dust on his head so that he could feel remorse and repent.

Third, here's a thought. When using a source to advance your case, it always helps to quote from the right section of that source. The heading "Repentance" in the ABD is divided into two sections: A. Old Testament (Usage), and B. New Testament (Usage). Apparently, the hyper-sacramentalist couldn't find the "evidence" he needed to prove his case under the New Testament section of the dictionary (which is the era in question, after all), and so produced his "neat quote on repentance" from the Old Testament section. The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Here is what he found under the subheading "New Testament":

The generally recognized core idea of these words ["repentance" and its cognates] is a "change of mind" . . . although metamelomai also carries the nuance of "regret" or "remorse." . . . Here the basic flavor of of intellectual change in metanoia is evident. It is also clear that behavioral "fruit" (i.e., a changed life) is expected to flow from repentance [not to be confused with the hyper-sacramentalist's "formally enacted physical ritual" which instead produces repentance].
The article goes on to say that true repentance is "wedded" to faith, "includes" faith (when faith is not expressly stated in the text), and that repentance and faith are "two sides of the same coin" (which is why external rites like baptism do not fall into the same category as faith). The article also notes that "the basic idea of a change of mind is demonstrated in the epistles." Even in Jesus' letters to the churches in Revelation, "All these sinful churches needed to change their minds and bring forth the fruit of repentance," again, in strong contrast to the view of the hyper-sacramentalist which sees repentance as the fruit of baptism! The article concludes by noting, "In conclusion it can be said that repentance in the NT is always anchored in a change of thinking. . . . repentance must not be separated from its flip side of faith . . . or from the realization that it sometimes stands for the package of human response to the good news of Jesus Christ."

Recall, this is just how I had defined repentance in an earlier entry; to which the hyper-sacramentalist responded:

For him, repentance is a disembodied state of mind. I “repent” by thinking the words in my head “I’m sorry for my sins,” and by feeling regret inwardly for those sins, and desiring to change. This is not the case in the historical context of John the Baptist’s call for repentance.
The hyper-sacramentalist, it seems, has unfortunately allowed himself to be informed not by scholarship, but by his "Baptist Equals Sectarian Gnostics Beaming Propositional Thoughts Back And Forth From Mind To Mind"-obsessed undergraduate colleague. That's too bad. College professors should be instructing undergraduate students--not vice versa.

By the way, if you're wondering about the Old Testament teaching on "Repentance," look it up in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), and you'll find something that differs from the "liturgical" emphasis found in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. But you will find that the New Testament sections of ISBE mirrors that of the ABD: "to change the mind."

The PP is Bored

If the latest post by the Pedantic Protestant doesn't reveal who he is in real life, then you may have an ID-10-T problem.

The Hyper-Sacramentalist Decides to Fold

Here is the latest from the hyper-sacramentalist:
By the way, just in case anyone is wondering, I do not intend to hit back at the latest wild swings of Dr. Critic. When you have presented a clear argument, and your opponent responds with something along the lines of, “I know you are, but what am I?,” what should you do? Should you respond in kind? Or should you simply chuckle, shake your head, and follow the advice of Titus 3:10-11? I choose to follow the advice of the apostle.

That's certainly convenient. Why now? Why precisely at the point at which his breezy statements against my theological views and my abilities with the Greek text--not to mention his idiosyncratic exegetical conclusions--have been shown to be utterly uninformed by the creme de la creme of NT scholarship? As anyone reading this series knows, my response has been nothing short of cogent and pithy. The hyper-sacramentalist made several unfounded claims for his own view and just as many charges against mine, and I simply allowed NT scholarship to answer him.

I will be relentlessly working through this issue until its completion, whether or not the hyper-sacramentalist decides to respond, if for no other reason than to cut off any further opportunity he may take to advance his unbiblical, hyper-sacramentalist "baptismal justification" agenda.

I might also expect a posting from Crimson Catholic titled, "Owen gets Svendsen-ed," or some other clever title like that ; )

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

A More Extensive Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist (Part 3)

A Return to Acts 10

In the comments thread of one of the previous posts in this series, I mentioned that the main problem of the hyper-sacramentalist is that his exegesis is uninformed by theological boundaries. One point that illustrates this nicely is one I made in a prior entry regarding the purpose of baptism in Acts 10. In Acts 10, you’ll recall, Peter ordered the Gentiles to be baptized after they received the Holy Spirit. Here’s what it says:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48)

When I raised this issue, here is how the hyper-sacramentalist responded:

Nobody denies that forgiveness of sins can be given prior to baptism. I certainly do not deny that this can happen. But that is not the normal pattern, at least not according to Acts 2:38 and 22:16."
And here is how I responded:

No one denies the normative nature of Acts 2:38 and 22:16. What I have denied is that my critic has rightly understood those passages. How do I know this? Because he is unable to explain them in light of passages like Acts 10. Ignoring this point won’t make it go away. Peter baptized the Gentiles ON THE BASIS THAT they had already received forgiveness of sins. But how can that be, since the very purpose of baptism in my critic’s mind is to forgive sins? What, pray tell, did baptism accomplish in Acts 10?
Even though my critic has issued a subsequent response to my post, he completely ignored the Acts 10 passage. I have shown how the hyper-sacramentalist’s concern regarding Acts 2:38 is reasonably answered in other ways than the one proffered by the hyper-sacramentalist’s “baptismal justification.” One “acceptable way of handling eis” (Wallace’s words) is to focus on the number-agreement of the verbs and nouns, connecting the phrase “for the forgiveness of the sins of all of you” solely with the command “repent all of you” and not with the singular “let each of you be baptized.” The verse would then read, “Repent all of you for the forgiveness of your sins, and let each of you be baptized in the name of the Jesus Christ.” That would solve the issue of eis = “for.”

An alternative way of taking this verse is to translate eis as “with reference to,” ignoring the distinction in the number-agreement of verbs and nouns. On this view, the commands to “repent” and “be baptized” are taken together and are both modified by eis: “Repent and be baptized with reference to the forgiveness of your sins.” That, too, would resolve the issue over eis.

Still another way of taking this verse is to recognize the number-agreement distinction, but not in the same way as before. This time this distinction is viewed solely in terms of effectively separating the commands “repent” and “be baptized” as separate entities so that they cannot both govern eis, but retaining the Greek word order and viewing “for the forgiveness of your sins” as the modifier of “be baptized” only. On this view, eis is translated as at, or upon, or on the basis of: “Repent; and let each of you be baptized on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.”

As we have shown in past entries, there is ample evidence to show that eis bears each of these meanings in various contexts, and that each one of these exegetical options is a viable way of handling the Greek. We have also shown that NT scholars who comment on this passage (or on Matt 3:11) have alternatively adopted these views to varying degrees. Hence, the inane objection by the hyper-sacramentalist that proposing such options constitutes the mark of an “amateur linguist” who is better off leaving the analysis of this passage to others is completely unwarranted.

On the other hand, the hyper-sacramentalist is completely unable to handle the Acts 10 text. I have given him ample opportunity to answer it, yet he has steadfastly avoided it. So, I will ask it again. Peter ordered the Gentiles be baptized on the basis that they had already received the Holy Spirit and hence forgiveness of sins. So, what was the purpose of baptism in Peter’s mind in Acts 10? If the hyper-sacramentalist is right in saying that the purpose of baptism in the NT is to act as the instrument for the forgiveness of sins and the means of justification, then he has a theological conundrum on his hands. Since the Gentiles had already been forgiven (they had received the Holy Spirit), what could Peter have hoped to accomplish by ordering them baptized?

Monday, June 27, 2005

A More Extensive Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist (Part 2)

Here are a few more citation on Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38 from “amateur linguists” who possess a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” have engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest they further embarrass themselves.”

On Matt 3:11

Leon Morris (Gospel According to Matthew, 61): “Baptism is often followed by eis, but only here with a reference to repentance. We might expect the construction to denote purpose (‘with a view to’), but this is surely not what is meant, for repentance should precede baptism. More likely, it means ‘because of.’ . . . baptism is the seal that marks repentance.”

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Leon Morris is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

Craig Blomberg (New American Commentary: Matthew, 79): “The phrase ‘for repentance’ could suggest that one must be baptized to be saved, but this interpretation founders on New Testament teaching elsewhere (e.g., Acts 3:19; Rom 3:23-24; Eph 2:8-9). Interestingly, even Josephus recognizes this (Ant. 18.5.2) when he writes that John taught that his followers ‘must not employ [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed.’ A venerable tradition of Baptist interpreters has seen the ‘for’ (eis) as actually meaning because here, but more recent grammatical analysis makes this unlikely. Probably the term simply should be taken as in reference to. Baptism in reference to repentance thus distinguishes John’s baptism from other religions’ ritual washings which do not symbolize turning away from sin.”

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Craig Blomberg is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.

Robert Mounce (New International Biblical Commentary: Matthew, 24): “‘My baptism,’ he might say, ‘indicates that you have repented’.”

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Mounce is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."

Jack Lewis (Living Word Commentary: Matthew, 61-62): “John’s baptism is described as a ‘baptism of repentance’ . . . and as for repentance (eis metanoian; Matt 3:11). The latter phrase is difficult. It cannot be argued that the baptism was designated to bring about repentance in the recipient, for repentance was a prerequisite to being baptized. On the opposite side, those who claim here that we have a ‘causal’ use of eis . . . have not been able to produce parallel cases of such a use of eis. If we may interpret Matthew from Mark’s and Luke’s phrase, then John’s baptism was with reference to, or pointed toward repentance.”

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Jack Lewis is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself."

Acts 2:38

David Williams (New International Biblical Commentary: Acts, 54): “The distinctions of number in the Greek verbs are significant in this connection. The call to repentance and baptism—the individual’s response to God’s grace—is in the singular, but the promise, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (v. 38), is in the plural.”

Williams goes on the see this distinction in terms of community / individual; but the point is, he sees significance in the distinction in number of the verbs—a significance the hyper-sacramentalist not only denies is there, but also insists only an “amateur linguist” could see. Hence, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, David Williams is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.

John Polhill (New American Commentary: Acts, 117): “The connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins in v. 38 has often been a matter of controversy. A literal rendering of the verse runs: ‘Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for / on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins.’ The disputed word is the preposition eis, which could indicate purpose and thus be taken to mean that baptism is the prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins. There is ample evidence in the New Testament, however, that eis can also mean on the ground of, on the basis of, which would indicate the opposite relationship—that the forgiveness of sins is the basis, the grounds for being baptized. . . . The dominant idea in 2:38 thus seems to be repentance, with the other elements following. Repentance leadS to baptism, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Spirit."

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, John Polhill is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

Robert Wall (New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts, 67-68): “Significantly, ‘repent’ is plural in form, which indicates that Peter’s demand is addressed to the entire house of Israel; the second command, ‘be baptized,’ is stipulated only of those individual Jews who convert. . . . Sharply put, Christian baptism assumes Spirit baptism in Acts and the readiness of the converted for the work of witness. . . . The principle difficulty in the history of interpretation of this text is whether Christian baptism is a condition for or a consequence of the ‘forgiveness of your sins’ and thus the reception of the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit.’ The problem turns on the causal use of the preposition eis: ‘for [eis] the forgiveness of your sins.’ However, Barrett reminds us that Luke does not use this preposition consistently, nor does he place much value on it in any case. . . . Peter’s formulation of these . . . demands therefore is not technical and in no way establishes a theological norm."

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, Robert Wall is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures, Acts 2:38): “Rather, ‘And let each one of you be baptized.’ First make a complete change of heart and life, then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place; and this in the name of Jesus. . . . {Unto the remission of your sins} My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one else in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented).”

According to the hyper-sacramentalist, A. T. Robertson is an amateur linquist who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

Yes, I will be returning to the Galatians and Romans texts soon.

A More Extensive Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist

Here is how the hyper-sacramentalist has updated his “thoughts” on baptismal justification:

Update: For the record, there is no difference whatsoever between the use of eis in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. In Matthew 3:11 John’s baptism is “for” the purpose of repentance, in the sense that it is necessary for repentance to occur. It is the occasion when repentance takes place, and a means of bringing about the required repentance.
The more he writes, the deeper into heresy he plunges it seems. But, at the very least, I am glad to see that the hyper-sacramentalist has laid his cards in full view. My statements against his view were intended to produce just that effect, and they have. So now here is what we know about the hyper-sacramentalist’s view. (1) Men and women are baptized (per Matt 3:11) so that they can repent, not because they’ve repented, or on the basis of their repentance, or with their repentance in view. (2) Once they have repented (via baptism) they (presumably) must be baptized again (per Acts 2:38) so that they can receive forgiveness of sins. In other words, one must be baptized in order to repent. Once he has repented (via baptism), he is ordered to be baptized (per Acts 2:38) in order to be forgiven. Yes, yes, I know. The hyper-sacramentalist will insist on only one baptism. The problem is, his reading of the relevant texts won’t allow that.

That is what 3:6 says; as they were baptized, they were confessing their sins (i.e., repenting). If a person wanted to repent, they needed to submit to John’s baptism.
The hyper-sacramentalist will later argue that “repentance” is "an embodied action which is formally enacted through a physical ritual.” I’ll leave that comment alone for now. Suffice it here to say that the statement in Matt 3:6 that, “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River,” does not resolve the issue one way or the other. The text does not say “they confessed their sins by being baptized,” which is what is required for the hyper-sacramentalist’s argument to work.

The supposed difference between the usage in Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38 is a fiction of my critic. It’s called a smokescreen, a wild attempt to save face and salvage what is left of a rapidly deteriorating argument.
I assure you, the only thing rapidly deteriorating in this dialogue is my opponent’s orthodoxy.

I did say that John’s baptism was a means of “expressing” one’s repentance; but obviously, that is going to differ from the specifics of the situation involved in receiving forgiveness of sins. Repentance is a human action, which requires an act of expression (vividly expressed in John’s baptism); forgiveness of sins is a divine action which we passively receive in Christian baptism. You do not “express” your forgiveness of sins in the same way you would “express” your repentance, for forgiveness of sins is not something the person does! My critic’s attempt to be clever here has resulted in a very, very muddled argument.
Odd. I could have sworn the hyper-sacramentalist argued in a prior entry that baptism is not a human work precisely because it’s not something you do; it’s rather something that’s done to you. Oh yes, here it is:

He remains blind to the fact that baptism is not viewed as a work of merit in Reformational theology. It is an act of God, a means of grace (again, there is no evidence that the Judaizers saw circumcision in these terms, because the Mosaic covenant did not operate on such a principle). Being baptized is not a Human achievement which I do as my first act of Christian obedience (as is the case for Baptists).
Now he’s arguing the reverse; baptism is something you do; forgiveness of sins is not.

My critic’s attempt to salvage his eisegesis of Acts 2:38 gets even worse. He still tries to cling to the idea that there is some significance to the difference between the plural ( “repent”) and the singular (“be baptized”), and that this somehow tells us that the phrase “eis the forgiveness of your sins” goes with one or the other of these verbs. What escapes his notice is that the argument he is still trying to use (which I have already dismantled in a previous post) is predicated upon the numerical agreement between the plural pronoun in the phrase “your sins” and the verb "repent,” in contrast with the singular “be baptized. Amazingly, my critic is still trying to use this argument to show that the phrase “eis the forgiveness of your sins” goes with “be baptized”! In other words, he does not even understand the grammatical nuances of the argument he is still trying to employ. If there is ANY significance to the shift in number between the verbs (which I deny), then it argues AGAINST linking the forgiveness of sins with baptism, and hence renders the causal use of eis impossible (since you do not repent “because of” the forgiveness of your sins).
So far, I have been accused by the hyper-sacramentalist of being an “amateur linguist,” that I possess a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and that, lest I suffer further “embarrassment,” I should just leave technical discussions of Greek “to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” (I presume he includes himself in that category). On what grounds does the hyper-sacramentalist make these statements? There are two: (1) my rendering of eis as something like “at,” or “upon,” or “with respect to,” or “in response to”—which the hyper-sacramentalist has misrepresented by continually bringing up the rendering "because of"; and (2) my pointing out the distinction of number in the use of the main verbs in Acts 2:38. These, we are told, are the marks of an amateur who would do well to dust off an elementary grammar to re-familiarize himself on the basics. Let’s just see how many more “amateurs” we can fit into this category.

On (1) above, here is what the hyper-sacramentalist wrote:

Finally, in desperation, some have attempted to argue that the Greek preposition eis should be translated so as to make the forgiveness of sins the basis of water baptism: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” That suggestion, for those who have eyes to see, is about as obvious an example of exegetical sophistry as one could possibly ask for. There is good reason why not one of the standard Bible translations renders eis with the unusual meaning “because of” here–namely, because there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.
Note that I have not argued for a strictly “causal” use of eis, though I have no objection to those who do (I held out the translation “because of” as Mantey’s solution for passages like Matt 3:11). Yet, the hyper-sacramentalist continues to rail against my view as though I have translated eis as “because of” in Acts 2:38. I haven’t. What I have suggested is that passages like Acts 2:38, Matt 3:11, Matt 12:41, and Rom 4:20 (the latter two of which the hyper-sacramentalist has simply ignored in this discussion) be translated as something like “with respect to,” or “in response to” or “on the basis of”—translations which are by no means novel. On Matt 3:11, Carson writes: “Contextually (v. 6) [the idea of purpose] is unlikely. . . . But causal eis, or something very close to it, is not unknown in the NT (cf. Turner, Syntax, pp. 266-67): ‘I baptize you because of your repentance. The force may, however, be weaker—i.e., “I baptize you with reference to or in connection with repentance.’”

But that’s just the opinion of NT scholar and Greek grammarian D.A. Carson, the “amateur linguist” who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

Here’s what Nigel Turner (Syntax) writes regarding eis:
Some contexts would certainly suit a causal sense: Mt 3.11 because of repentance (so some modern translators); 10.42, 12.41 = Lk 11.32 . . . they repented because of the preaching of Jonah (but at is sufficient); Ac 2.38 be baptized . . . on the basis of (but with a view to is sufficient, if your theology is satisfied), Ac 7.53; Ro 4.20 on account of the promises of God, Abraham did not waver (but looking to is sufficient); 11.32 God has imprisoned all because of disobedience; 2 Ti 2.26 God gave them repentance because they knew the truth (but purposive eis is better); Ti 3.14 to maintain good works, because of the compelling need of them; Heb 12.7 you are enduring because of discipline (but as a discipline is sufficient); 1 Jn 5.10.
Now keep in mind, the hyper-sacramentalist has claimed that “causal eis” has been rejected by Greek scholarship: “Mantey’s claim of a ‘causal’ use of eis is without grounds, and is rightly rejected as unlikely by most scholars.” But that’s just not what Greek scholarship has concluded at all, and this point demonstrates the lack of familiarity with Greek studies on the part of the hyper-sacramentalist. What has been overturned is Mantey’s appeal to instances of causal eis outside of NT literature alone. As we have already noted, Carson recognizes NT examples of causal eis more than 30 years after the debate between Mantey and Marcus. And Turner recognizes the use of causal eis in the NT, even though he also notes that the examples of causal eis in Hellenistic Greek brought forward by Mantey were sufficiently overturned by Marcus. What he does not do is go on to make the point that the NT examples have been overturned. Indeed, Marcus himself conceded Mantey’s NT examples of this use of eis when he wrote:

It is quite possible that eis is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eis cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.
The hyper-sacramentalist has relied solely upon Wallace’s conclusion rather than the actual evidence of Mantey-Marcus. While it is true that Wallace rejects causal eis in the NT (though unjustly, based as that rejection is on the Mantey-Marcus debate), it is certainly not the case that NT scholarship has rejected it. Indeed, Turner, writing his grammar more than ten years after the supposed “dismantling” of causal eis, fully accepts the category and cites NT examples of it, and still includes that category in the reprinting of his grammar 35 years later!

But, of course, that’s just the opinion of Greek scholar Nigel Turner, who, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, is an “amateur linguist” who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

BDF (Blass, Debrunner, and Funk) also recognizes the classification of “causal eis” and cites the debate between Mantey and Marcus nearly a decade afterwards, leaving the classification completely intact. If the debate had been settled, why include the classification at all? Retaining that classification was the decision of Greek scholar A. Debrunner and his English translator and fellow Greek scholar R. Funk, each of whom, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, is nothing more than an “amateur linguist” who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” who “in desperation” has engaged in “sophistry,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself, because “there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma.”

The hyper-sacramentalist continues with more “thoughts”:

Recently I had an exchange with someone who was having a very difficult time understanding how it could be that the Greek preposition eis could be translated “for” in Matthew 3:11: “I baptize you with water for repentance.” It did not matter that Matthew 3:6 explicitly says that the people confessed their sins (i.e., repented) precisely as they were being baptized.
Let me just stop the quotation here to point out a glaring example of the eisegesis in which the hyper-sacramentalist must engage. He claims that Matt 3:6 is somehow proof that eis in 3:11 should be taken as a purpose clause. Why? Well, because the text says “they were being baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins.” But this constitutes no more “proof” of his view than it does mine. All the text says is that the confessing of sins and baptism were taking place together. This could support the hyper-sacramentalist’s understanding of 3:11 (namely, that they were baptized so that they could repent); or it could just as readily support the evangelical understanding of 3:11 (namely, that they were baptized in view of or on the basis of or in response to their repentance)—so Carson, who rejects the former view on contextual grounds. In any case, an appeal to Matt 3:6 resolves absolutely nothing about the rendering of Matt 3:11. The fact that the hyper-sacramentalist would raise this point, as though it is any more supportive of his view than mine, demonstrates his inability to handle the text in a fair way.

He continues:
Nor does it appear to matter that the NIV, the NASB, the HCSB, the ESV, and the NET all agree with me and translate eis here as “for.” The NKJV renders eis as "unto” (which amounts to the same thing). Not one of these translations renders eis in a causal sense ( “because of”) in Matthew 3:11 (nor in Acts 2:38 for that matter). We are supposed to ignore the unanimous testimony of all these translations, and follow the advice of a critic with a theological agenda in rendering the Greek preposition eis as “because of” in this verse.
This is just baffling. The hyper-sacramentalist fancies himself a NT scholar; yet he is appealing to English translations, as though that somehow wins the day for his view. Aside from the fact that I must again correct the hyper-sacramentalist in his grasp of my view (I do not translate eis in these passages as “because of”), I must also correct his understanding on principles of translation. Aside from the locative use (“into”) the primary meaning of eis is “for.” When there is dispute surrounding a text, translations normally default to the largest category of usage, as they have done here. The hyper-sacramentalist apparently thinks that exegesis consists simply in looking up the majority reading of translations. He doesn’t bother to look at what commentators say. He sees no need to look to Greek resources such as Turner that specifically place passages like Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38 under the category of “causal eis.” I suppose Carson, Turner et al were simply unaware that the majority of translations render eis as “for” in these passages, otherwise they surely would have dropped all discussion of it! Indeed, all those dreaded “baptist-gnostic” scholars who reject the notion that Acts 2:38 teaches “baptismal justification”—including Wallace, by the way, whom the hyper-sacramentalist has quoted out of context!—should have simply consulted the majority of translations and been done with it! For all his talk about how his “critics” are “amateur linguists,” the hyper-sacramentalist has certainly not written anything that would suggest he has more than a cursory understanding of exegetical methods.

The hyper-sacramentalist continues:
Baptism was the occasion of repentance! That is why John’s baptism was “for” repentance. Mantey’s claim of a “causal” use of eis is without grounds, and is rightly rejected as unlikely by most scholars. Cf. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 369-371.”
Aside from the “causal eis is without grounds” point I already refuted, here is what Wallace actually says about Acts 2:38: “If a causal eis is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38.” Wallace then cites the four options he thinks might fit this passage. Here’s what he says about option #1, which is the hyper-sacramentalist’s view:

1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eis has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38–39, 48; 15:11; 16:30–31; 20:21; 26:18).
The hyper-sacamentalist has cited Wallace as though Wallace is in agreement with his view. But that is simply not the case. Wallace actually adopts view # 4, which I will get to shortly. In the meantime, Wallace continues with options 2 & 3:

2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).

3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins… .” If this is the correct understanding, then eis is subordinate to [“repent”] alone, rather than to [“be baptized”] The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized… .” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eis but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.”

I will pause a moment to point out that option # 3—which Wallace says is “acceptable way of handling eis” (even though he thinks it’s awkward)—is the very exegetical option I raised in my initial post on this issue, and for which the hyper-sacramentalist concluded I’m an “amateur linguist.” Here are his exact words on this option:

As a Greek professor at a Christian college, I always find it humorous when I see interpreters of the Bible attempt to evade some obvious teaching of scripture through subtle appeals to what “the Greek” says. . . . Some however, in an attempt to make the Bible say what their Evangelical tradition dictates it must say, have latched on to the fact that the verb “repent” is plural in number here. Aha! Peter says “repent” (plural) and the pronoun governing “sins” is plural too ( “the sins of you”). So, the phrase “for the forgiveness of your sins” can go with “repent,” and we can then view the reference to baptism as merely a parenthetical aside (just as it is in our Evangelical preaching!). The end result is conveniently displayed as follows: “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins (and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” . . . So the alleged shift between plural and singular and back to plural again turns out to be a mirage after all. It is nothing more than an apologetical attempt to preserve a non-efficacious view of water baptism.
Yet what the hyper-sacramentalist has characterized as a “humorous” attempt at apologetics and a mirage, Greek scholar Daniel Wallace has called “an acceptable way of handling eis” in Acts 2:38, . Wallace continues by citing the option he favors:

4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15–16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized. In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eis lacks conviction.”
Now, Wallace finally rejects causal eis; but that is only one scholar’s opinion. And it is not based, it seems, on the NT evidence but on Marcus’ work in non-biblical literature. As I have already shown, other equally capable Greek grammarians have retained that category even though fully informed by the Mantey-Marcus debate, and I see no reason to reject that usage out of hand.

On the other hand, I have made it clear that eis in Acts 2:38 can and perhaps should be treated the same way it is treated in Matt 12:41 and Luke 11:32; namely, “at” or “upon” or “in response to”; or simply the way it is treated in Rom 4:20; namely, “with reference to.”

The hyper-sacramentalist continues:

I frankly have little patience for the games my critic plays with the Greek text. He is promoting a translation of eis which is rejected by every Bible translation on the market (so far as I know), and has the gall to accuse those who do not follow his idiosyncratic translation as promoting the bondage of a false gospel.”
Just to be clear, there is a vast difference between a Bible translation not adopting a rendering of a certain word, and one rejecting that rendering. Bible translations have done the former in rendering eis by the default (largest category) meaning. But they have not thereby “rejected” other renderings. That’s simply the misleading opinion of the hyper-sacramentalist.

The hyper-sacramentalist continues:

Originally, he suggested that the phrase eis aphesin ton hamartion humon ( “for the forgiveness of your sins”) should go only with repentance, and not baptism. Then, once that measure was exposed for the sham that it is, he suggests that if that won’t work, we can do the opposite. The preposition eis (now with the unlikely meaning of “because of”) goes only with baptism, and not repentance! Whichever option serves the purpose of keeping his pietist, non-sacramental view of baptism intact!”
No; as I continually point out, these are exegetical options for the passage. I have not “committed” myself to any particular option because I see equal merit in each one. All of them are workable options for our understanding of the text. The only option that doesn’t work, as Wallace points out, is the view of the hyper-sacramentalist that baptism is the means of forgiveness and hence the means of justification. In the words of Wallace, that view must be rejected on the grounds that it produces a works-salvation.

The hyper-sacramentalist continues:
I believe that there is a larger point here than simply a difference of opinion over the best way to translate a Greek preposition. The reason my critic was having such a hard time understanding how eis could be rendered “for” in this verse is because of the way he conceptualizes spiritual actions. For him, repentance is a disembodied state of mind. I “repent” by thinking the words in my head “I’m sorry for my sins,” and by feeling regret inwardly for those sins, and desiring to change. This is not the case in the historical context of John the Baptist’s call for repentance. In Matthew 3:11, repentance is not simply a state of mind; it is an embodied action which is formally enacted through a physical ritual.
Here the hyper-sacramentalist is most betrayed by his hyper-sacramentalism. He has resurrected an error that persisted in Roman Catholic translations of the Bible until the time of the Reformation; namely, that the Greek word metanoia means “penance” rather than “a change of mind” or “a turning from sin and toward God.” It is ironic that the hyper-sacramentalist would point to this particular concept as a theological error on my part, when it is in fact a lexical error on his. The lexicon of BDAG identifies only one sense in which metanoia is used. It means “a change of mind,” “a turning about,” “conversion,” “a turning away from,” and that’s it!

But then again, that’s just the uninformed opinion of Greek scholars Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gringrich, each of whom, according to the hyper-sacramentalist, is an “amateur linguist” who possesses a “sophomoric understanding of the original language of the New Testament,” and who should just “leave technical discussions of Greek to those who teach the language, and have demonstrated a meaningful degree of proficiency in the field” lest he further embarrass himself.

The reason this is so ironic is because for all the bluster coming from the hyper-sacramentalist’s keyboard that I’m taking eis in the wrong way in Acts 2:38, I can at the very least produce NT examples where eis indeed bears the meaning I am proposing for Acts 2:38, and I can support that usage from Greek scholarship. Yet, the hyper-sacramentalist is completely unable to produce even one Greek source that defines “repent” the way he needs it to be defined. In fact, all of them without exception define it in the very way the hyper-sacramentalist expressly rejects! And indeed, his proposed definition of "repentance" would be impossible in many NT passages, such as Matt 12:41 in which Jesus says the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. Did those men repent by means of baptism? No? Then perhaps they used the OT parallel of circumcision as a "means of repentance." If so, then the hyper-sacramentalist's prior argument regarding the distinction between baptism and circumcision as it applies to "faith alone" in Romans and Galatians completely crumbles.

The hyper-sacramentalist continues:
But actually repenting required more than a disembodied expression of emotion, or state of mind. They had to confess their sins while undergoing the prescribed ritual. That was why John’s baptism was “for” repentance; or as it is elsewhere described, a “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
So says the hyper-sacramentalist, even though this is rejected by all the Greek sources. The hyper-sacramentalist continues:

The real problem here is not linguistic, but theological. For my critic, it makes no sense as to how baptism could be “for” repentance.” He thinks, “If these people had not already repented, why would they come for baptism in the first place?” He cannot conceive of a religion in which repentance involves not merely thinking the thought “I’m sorry,” and feeling guilty, but actually confessing one’s sins in the context of a prescribed ritual.”
Nonsense. I can indeed conceive of such a religion. I call it "Roman Catholicism.”

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Through Faith They Still Speak (6/26/05)

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." (Cyprian, The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian)

Evangelicalism's Growth in Iraq

A few days ago, The Washington Post ran a story on Evangelicalism growing in Iraq. The article describes the response of the denominations already established in Iraq, and that response reflects their unhealthy status and the need for new churches:

"'The way the preachers arrived here . . . with soldiers . . . was not a good thing,' said Baghdad's Roman Catholic archbishop, Jean Sleiman. 'I think they had the intention that they could convert Muslims, though Christians didn't do it here for 2,000 years.' 'In the end,' Sleiman said, 'they are seducing Christians from other churches.' Iraq's new churches are part of Christian evangelicalism's growing presence in several Middle Eastern countries, experts say....'Evangelicals come here and I would like to ask: Why do you come here? For what reason?' said Patriarch Emmanuel Delly, head of the Eastern rite Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq's largest Christian community. In interviews, Delly and Sleiman were torn between their belief in religious freedom and the threat they see from the new evangelicalism. They also expressed anger and resentment at what they perceive as the evangelicals' assumption that members of old-line denominations are not true Christians. 'If we are not Christians, you should tell us so we will find the right path,' Delly said sarcastically. 'I'm not against the evangelicals. If they go to an atheist country to promote Christ, we would help them ourselves.' Sleiman charged that the new churches were sowing 'a new division' among Christians because 'churches here mean a big community with tradition, language and culture, not simply a building with some people worshiping. If you want to help Christians here, help through the churches [already] here.' Still, the Roman Catholic prelate said he could not oppose the evangelicals because 'we ask for freedom of conscience.' He also said he respected how they appear 'ready to die' for their beliefs. 'Sometimes I'm telling myself they are more zealous than me, and we can profit from this positive dimension of their mission.' Some Iraqi Christians expressed fear that the evangelicals would undermine Christian-Muslim harmony here, which rests on a long-standing, tacit agreement not to proselytize each other. 'There is an informal agreement that says we have nothing to do with your religion and faith,' said Yonadam Kanna, one of six Christians elected to Iraq's parliament. 'We are brothers but we don't interfere in your religion.' Delly said that 'even if a Muslim comes to me and said, 'I want to be Christian,' I would not accept. I would tell him to go back and try to be a good Muslim and God will accept you.' Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity, he added, 'is not acceptable.'...Sara [a Baptist pastor in Iraq] said that if Muslims approach him with 'questions about Jesus and about the Bible,' he responds. But the white-haired pastor said there was plenty of evangelizing to be done among Christians because, in his view, many do not really know Jesus. 'They know [Him] just in name,' he said, adding that they need a better understanding of 'why He died for them.'"

Pastor Sara may want to evangelize the Catholic leaders quoted in this article, since it seems that they need it.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Through Faith They Still Speak (6/25/05)

"By the side of every opinion and doctrine which agrees with the truth of things, there springs up some falsehood; and it does so, not because it takes its rise naturally from some fundamental principle, or from some cause peculiar to the matter in hand, but because it is invented on purpose by men who set a value on the spurious seed, for its tendency to corrupt the truth." (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 1)

Homosexuality and the Shifting Sands of Public Opinion

A story in today's Boston Globe about a Massachusetts legislator changing his position on an issue related to homosexual marriage reminded me of similar inconsistencies I've seen in other places. I've seen polling numbers go back and forth on this issue, both in state polls and in national polls. It seems that the American public is significantly malleable on this subject. The opposition to homosexual marriage that we've seen so far doesn't always reflect opposition to homosexuality itself. And I think that even the opposition to homosexual marriage can easily be weakened and will be.

If the American people are as persuadable on the issue of homosexuality as they seem to be (persuadable in either direction), we as Christians ought to prepare ourselves to do some persuading. I wrote an article on this subject earlier this year, which can be read here, and some of you may find it helpful. I suggest that people familiarize themselves with the relevant Biblical passages and the general facts related to the history of Christianity's response to homosexuality. Commit to memory some of the early patristic sources who comment on this subject, for example, such as Aristides and Tertullian. No modern advocate of homosexuality can cite any ancient Christian leader agreeing with his view, nor can he claim that opposition to homosexuality is of recent origin. It might be helpful to be familiar with a source such as Aristides, who most likely was a contemporary of the apostles. The best explanation for his opposition to homosexuality is that such a position was part of the moral system taught by the apostles.

I would recommend focusing on a few points in discussions with other people:

1.) We can't reasonably exclude religious principles from the discussion. God, scripture, and other religious concepts are part of reality. To try to arrive at conclusions on any subject without considering some aspects of reality is nonsensical. Even on legal matters, the United States was founded on religious principles, such as the concept that we have a Creator who gave us rights. The American founders' desire to avoid having a federal church, like the Church of England, isn't equivalent to their banning any inclusion of religious principle in any consideration of public policy.

2.) We have convincing evidence for the Divine inspiration of the Bible, and the Bible condemns homosexuality. Emphasize the part about convincing evidence. This isn't just a matter of subjectivity and personal preference.

3.) Appeal to conviction. Whether that conviction comes from conscience, intuition, or the Holy Spirit, don't underestimate the possibility that people who claim to not know that homosexuality is wrong do actually know it. People can ignore, dull, or distort their convictions, and convictions aren't always clear or godly, but an appeal to them on this subject can be effective. The fact that so many societies have opposed homosexual marriage throughout history is an indication that conviction against it is universal, although that universality can't be proven.

4.) The design of the human body and the physical and social results of homosexuality corroborate the Biblical assertion that homosexuality is sinful. The fact that a behavior is unnatural or unhealthy doesn't, by itself, prove that it's sinful. But it can add weight to a conclusion that the behavior is sinful, a conclusion initially reached by other means. And governments do sometimes outlaw unhealthy behavior, even if it isn't inherently sinful.

5.) Our system of government has one legislative branch, not two. If you want to change the laws on marriage and other issues related to homosexuality, do it through the legislature, not through the courts. This is a less significant argument, and it's a temporary one. If the time comes when most Americans want homosexual marriage to be legal, and I think that time eventually will come unless there's a radical change in this nation, then the appeal to the difference between the legislature and the judiciary will no longer be effective. But as long as the majority is on our side, and the minority is trying to legislate through the judiciary, we should call attention to the fact that our system of government is being abused.

We should be discouraged by how far our nation is moving from its Christian roots. But we should be encouraged by the opportunities still available to persuade people. The belief systems that are replacing Christianity are shallow and unsustainable. But Christians need to be willing to do the work necessary to defeat them.

Friday, June 24, 2005

A Brief Response to the Hyper-Sacramentalist

If only one thing has become clear in this exchange it’s that the hyper-sacramentalist should just stop having any "more thoughts on baptism." Here are a few of his latest “thoughts.”

As far as Acts 2:38 goes, I have no idea how one of my critics thinks that appealing to the BAGD lexicon (whichever edition) is going to help his cause. That lexicon lists the use of eis in Acts 2:38 under the heading 4f: “to denote purpose in order to, to,” and specifically “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven.” It is true, that heading 6a lists a usage “at, in the face of.” However, this obviously makes no sense in Acts 2:38 (”repent at the forgiveness of your sins”?). Matthew 12:41 and Romans 4:20 both make perfect sense by rendering eis as “at.”
Just what does the hyper-sacramentalist think “at” means in these contexts? Some locative connotation? Hardly. “The men of Nineveh . . . repented at the preaching of Jonah” (Matt 12:41). Which came first? The repentance or the proclamation? “Yet he did not waver through unbelief with respect to the promise of God” (Rom 4:20). Which came first? The promise of God, or the potential to waver? The word “at” in each case means something like "upon" or “in response to.” Therefore, “at” makes perfect sense in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ [at = upon = with respect to = in response to] the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

As for Matthew 3:11, it makes perfect sense to render eis as “for.” It is on the occasion of baptism that people repented of their sins; it was the means of bringing to expression their sincere repentance.
Let me remind the reader what Matt 3:11 actually says: “I baptize you with water for repentance.” Don’t let the hyper-sacramentalist’s equivocation fool you. He still insists we translate the word eis as “for” (after all, it is found in a baptismal context). Indeed, we have an exact parallel situation with Acts 2:38. In each case baptism is the subject. In each case baptism is said to be “for” something. In each case “repentance” is part of the equation. We are told by the hyper-sacramentalist that the “obvious teaching” of Acts 2:38 is that baptism is done for the purpose of forgiveness of sins; hence, baptism “justifies.” And all of this, we are told, is based on the use of the word eis.

But notice that in the case of Matt 3:11 the hyper-sacramentalist has to change the meaning of “for” from for the purpose of to as a means of expressing. Otherwise, he’d have us arriving at the completely ridiculous conclusion that baptism results in repentance rather than the other way around! So he’s now forced to interpret “for” in two opposing senses in identical baptismal contexts so that he can maintain his “baptismal justifification” agenda. He wants to insist that eis “proves” baptism is the instrument of forgiveness and justification; but he doesn’t want to insist that eis proves baptism is the instrument of repentance. That is quite telling.

But let’s just experiment a moment. If eis means “a means of bringing to expression” in Matt 3:11, then let’s apply that same meaning to Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as a means of expressing the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). If we render eis in Acts 2:38 in the same way that the hyper-sacramentalist renders it in Matt 3:11, then it loses it’s sacramental teeth, doesn’t it? If all baptism does is provide a means for expressing forgiveness of sins, then I want to welcome the hyper-sacramentalist to the fold, because that is exactly what we Baptists believe baptism does.
I frankly have little patience for the games my critic plays with the Greek text.
Then, by all means, stop playing them.
He is promoting a translation of eis which is rejected by every Bible translation on the market (so far as I know), and has the gall to accuse those who do not follow his idiosyncratic translation as promoting the bondage of a false gospel.
Actually, if understand the word “for” in Acts 2:38 in exactly the same sense that the hyper-sacramentalist understands it in Matt 3:11, then by all means, let’s translate eis as “for” in Acts 2:38. Problem solved.
And please notice the nature of his argument. Originally, he suggested that the phrase eis aphesin ton hamartion humon (”for the forgiveness of your sins”) should go only with repentance, and not baptism. Then, once that measure was exposed for the sham that it is, he suggests that if that won’t work, we can do the opposite. The preposition eis (now with the unlikely meaning of “because of”) goes only with baptism, and not repentance! Whichever option serves the purpose of keeping his pietist, non-sacramental view of baptism intact!
Actually, if the hyper-sacramentalist will go back and reread what I wrote, he might figure out that he is confusing the exegetical options I brought forward to the actual exegetical option to which I hold. And speaking of “whichever option serves the purpose of keeping his pietist, [sacramental] view of baptism intact!,” shall I again mention what the hyper-sacramentalist does with the translation of eis as “for” in Matt 3:11 vis-à-vis Acts 2:38?
Unfortunately for him, Peter told his audience that two things had to happen for their sins to be forgiven–they had to repent and be baptized.
And yet, amazingly, no “baptistic” scholar (Fee, Marshall, Bruce, Carson, Grudem, et al) thinks Acts 2:38 teaches “baptismal forgiveness.” How is that possible? Do they just not know about Acts 2:38? And why doesn’t the hyper-sacramentalist rail against them as well? Just because two commands are mentioned does not mean that eis applies to both of them. This is where my earlier observation of the difference between the plural “repent” and the singular “let each of you be baptized” applies most forcefully. Since they do have this difference the question must be asked, “Why?” You will simply not find this difference in most dual commands found in the NT; unless those commands are to be considered independently of each other. That is the case here as well, and it very strongly suggests that the subsequent clause goes with one of those commands but not both.
As for 1 Corinthians 6:11, it is the view of the vast majority of scholarly commentators that baptism is in view here, albeit with a few noteworthy exceptions (like Fee).
We might ask the further question of just which denominational affiliation the “majority of commentators” are affiliated with. I suspect I know.
Yet my critic seems to think that this is not a reasonable way to read the verse. Why? Because it would conflict with his pietistic, evangelical, un-Reformational, un-biblical theology, that’s why.
Hmmm . . . I wonder if this is directed to me, or to Gordon Fee.
Paul refers to an occasion when the church was “washed” in “the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:13-15 clearly connects the “name” of Jesus Christ with the event of baptism (as in the book of Acts).
I’m sorry, I must have missed it. Just where does 1 Cor 1:13-15 use the word “wash”? Could it be that this is just the “un-evangelical, hyper-sacramental, un-biblical theology” and presup of the hyper-sacramentalist at play here?
As for the Roman Catholic view of grace, if one will simply read the quote I provided, it is rather obvious that our current Pope uses the term grace in a very straightforward sense.
And if the hyper-sacramentalist does not understand the fact that two opposing paradigms can use identical language and mean completely different things by that language, then there’s not much I can do to help him.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Why Blue Bicycles are Not Really Red

I have a red bicycle. Well, okay, it seems to be blue when you first look at it. But you must understand, blue is really just a product of red. And in my belief, even the green part is really a product of red. Therefore, I have a red bicycle, even if it appears to be blue. Therefore, I proudly exclaim sola crimsona! ( I would have used the Latin here, but no one except the latin-titled blogs would have caught it).

Language and labels are funny things. I can apply just any formal label to just anything I want, regardless of how inconsistent that label is with the reality of the thing it labels. After all, it's my label and my thing.

My dog purrs and meows. Now you might deny it's really a dog, but I'm saying it is. You cannot therefore accuse me of owning a cat. Why? Because the formal label I use is "dog," not cat. Yes, I'll admit, it's confusing language. Yes, I'll admit, it prima facie appears to be a cat. But, I assure you it is a dog, in spite of appearances. Nevertheless, whenever I take my dog to the dogshow, those bigots there do not recognize my dog. They think their dogs and their dogs alone are "pure" dogs, untainted by "feline" corruption. Yet for all that, I maintain the "dogness" of my animal; and for all the other differences I might have with them, no one can deny that we share at least that much in common. Therefore, I proudly exclaim sola canine!

I have a horse whose sire was a donkey. Yes, I know, some people call this a "mule." But he is pure horse and nothing else. Sola equus!

If you've been following the comments section of "The Hyper-Sacramentalist and the Roman Catholic Concept of Grace" (just scroll down a few entries), then you'll understand how all this applies. The Roman Catholics have been insisting RCism really does hold to sola gratia. Is this because there is no human effort involved in attaining eternal life? Well, no. There is human effort involved, but that human effort is initiated and aided by God's grace. So then the recipient of that grace need not worry about anything regarding his salvation since it is all of God's grace? Well, no. He needs to actively cooperate with that grace in order to "merit" eternal life (although we don't really mean "merit" in the strict meritorious sense of "earn"; however, if you don't do these works then you cannot "gain" the "reward" of eternal life--not to be confused with "earn," mind you). So then, it's merely an act of the human will? Well, no. He must do works to qualify for the attainment of eternal life; and those works primarily consist of observing the sacraments, but also include all acts of charity. But you're saying these works are all of God? Well, not technically. These works are accomplished by "truly his own works"--although these are not really his works but God's; on the other hand, be sure you are careful not to consider them God's works to the exclusion of the man's works, or you'll be in danger of placing yourself under the anathema of Trent. Behold, sola gratia!

And my bicycle is really red.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

A Bit Behind

I fully intended to address the concept of faith in Galatians and Romans today, but in addition to getting sidetracked on the conceot of "merit" in the comments section of a previous blog entry, I have been nursing my wife back to health from the rotator-cuff surgery she had earlier today. I'll take a stab at it again tomorrow.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Tying Up Loose Ends on Hyper-Sacramentalism

Here's the reasoning process of one hyper-sacramentalist to show that 1 Cor 6:11 teaches baptismal justification:
My critic wants you to believe that baptism is not in Paul’s mind when he speaks of the occasion when Christians were “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:11 cf. 1:13-15). Let’s see, Paul speaks of being “washed” (kind of sounds like water might be involved does it not?), in “the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ (kind of reminds one of Acts 2:38 and 8:16 does it not?), and yet we are supposed to swallow the idea that water baptism is not in view here! And this is supposed to be “exegesis”? We can’t know what Paul is referring to by being washed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? Come on!
Here is how 1 Cor 6:11 actually reads: "but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (NASB).

The hyper-sacramentalist wants you to believe that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage; that each term refers to the same event at baptism. Notice how shallowly the hyper-sacramentalist views the word "wash" when he says, "kind of sounds like water might be involved does it not?" Yes, and the phrase "I will build this temple" kind of sounds like hammers and chisels might be involved. And the phrase "circumcision of the heart" kind of sounds like a scalpel might be involved. And the phrase "for we who have believed enter that rest" kind of sounds like a sabbath day might be involved. And the phrase "clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump" kind of sounds like a mixing bowl might be involved. And the phrase "for Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed; therefore let us celebrate the feast" kind of sounds like a passover meal might be involved. And the phrase "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" kind of sounds like bread might be involved.

We've already addressed in an earlier entry how the phrase "in the name of" is found in many more contexts outside of baptism than it is in baptismal contexts (see Matt 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:18; 5:40; 9:27-28; 16:18; 19:13; 1 Cor 1:10; 5:4; 6:11; Eph 5:20; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 3:6; James 5:10, 14). Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's suggestion that Paul's use of this phrase in 1 Cor 6:11 "kind of reminds one of Acts 2:38 and 8:16" is off the mark exegetically. It could refer to that; but it could just as readily refer to something else. Context must decide, and there is no baptism in the context of 1 Cor 6:11.

But just how does our hyper-sacramentalist arrive at the notion that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage? The NASB has it exactly right when it inserts the word "but" (alla) between each independent clause. "Washed," "sanctified," and "justified" are three different actions. And the phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" does not occur with each of those actions, but with the final action only; "justified." For the hyper-sacramentalist's view even to be tenable that final phrase would have had to accompany "washed," not "justified." Alternatively, Paul could have used the word kai ("and") between the clauses rather than alla ("but"). Either of those would have connected the ideas more readily.

But to suggest (as the hyper-sacramentalist does) that "washed" = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage is just too much weight for the passage to bear. Hence, "wash" does not here refer to baptism, but to regeneration. As I've mentioned in a previous post, baptism certainly symbolizes the washing of regeneration, but it just as certainly does not effect our regeneration, much less our justification. And "sanctified" does not refer to baptism, but to the setting apart of the believer from the world. And "justified" certainly does not refer to baptism; it refers to our being brought into right standing with God.

Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's strained exegesis of this passage is found wanting on all points. I want to make one other point about the absence of any mention of baptism in Galatians in the next blog entry.

Monday, June 20, 2005

The Hyper-Sacramentalist and the Roman Catholic Concept of Grace

Imagine if you were to read at this blog the following headline:

The Prophet of Salt Lake City on the Trinity

Having been intrigued by that title, you are led on to read the following:

"One of the things I most appreciate about Mormon theology is its consistent adherence to the Trinity. Christians and Mormons have many theological differences, but the belief that God is a Trinity is not one of them."

Would you conclude you are reading the blog of someone with penetrating insight into Mormon theology? Or would you perhaps conclude that I've been naively duped by the Mormon practice of using Christian terminology to communicate anti-Christian beliefs?

If you are spiritually discerning, you would no doubt conclude the latter.

So when the hyper-sacramentalist posts a headline that reads . . .

The Bishop of Rome on Sola Gratia

. . . and follows that up with . . .

One of the things I most appreciate about post-Reformational Roman Catholic soteriology is its consistent adherence to salvation by grace alone (sola gratia). Protestants and Roman Catholics have many theological differences, but the ascription of salvation solely to the sovereign grace of God is not one of them.
. . . you can probably understand what someone like me would conclude about that person, and you might even understand that I would be restraining myself to call such a person "naive" (a word that assumes the benefit of the doubt) and not venture into other words that may apply, such as "deliberately deceptive."

You see, just as when the Mormon uses the word "trinity," he is not thinking of Trinity in the Christian (biblical) sense of the word, so also when a Roman Catholic pope uses the word "grace," he is not using it in the Christian (biblical) sense of that word. I thought that was understood by supposedly informed Protestants, particularly those with Ph.D.s. But I'm learning you can't assume anything these days.

You see, "grace" in the Roman Catholic system means something like: "one merits his salvation through his works; but so that we are not accused of teaching we are saved by works, we'll introduce a complex but completely unbiblical distinction between 'condign merit' and 'congruous merit'; that way we can have our grace-works cake and eat it too."

Here's how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the term "merit":
By merit (meritum) in general is understood that property of a good work which entitles the doer to receive a reward (prœmium, merces) from him in whose service the work is done. By antonomasia, the word has come to designate also the good work itself, in so far as it deserves a reward from the person in whose service it was performed.
The Encyclopedia then goes on to explain what it means by this:
If we analyse the definition given above, it becomes evident that the property of merit can be found only in works that are positively good. . . . Thus the good workman certainly deserves the reward of his labour, and the thief deserves the punishment of his crime. From this it naturally follows that merit and reward, demerit and punishment, bear to each other the relation of deed and return; they are correlative terms of which one postulates the other. Reward is due to merit, and the reward is in proportion to the merit. . . . If, however, salutary acts can in virtue of the Divine justice give the right to an eternal reward, this is possible only because they themselves have their root in gratuitous grace, and consequently are of their very nature dependent ultimately on grace, as the Council of Trent emphatically declares (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, 10th ed., Freiburg, 1908, n. 810): "the Lord . . . whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things, which are His own gifts, be their merits."
In other words, all those works are ours, they are rewards for service, they earn salvation, and they are necessary for salvation--BUT, as long as we qualify all that by stating upfront that we can do these works that merit our salvation only by God's "grace," then we've exonerated ourselves from the charge that we teach a works-salvation. That is what "sola gratia" is in Roman Catholicism; and it is absolutely contrary to Paul's teaching, which pits grace against works: "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace" (Rom 11:6).

Hence, my charge of naiveté stands. And I think I'm am being kind to leave it at that.

The Hyper-Sacramentalist and Baptism in Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).
In some recent blog entries, the anti-baptist hyper-sacramentalist had the following to say regarding my stance on Acts 2:38:

“My critic still has yet to offer a meaningful interpretation of Acts 2:38, which says that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. (In case he did not notice, his attempt at playing a Greek grammarian with this verse was exposed for the sham that it is in my critique. I teach Greek, and consequently know an amateur linguist when I come across one.)”

“My critic wants you to believe that when Acts 2:38 speaks of baptism “for the remission of sins,” that this does not really mean that baptism is, well, for the remission of sins.”

“My critic still has yet to offer a meaningful exegesis of Acts 2:38 and 22:16, which actually deal with the subject at hand. If there is something wrong with the way I handled these texts, perhaps he would care to demonstrate my errors?”
These comments were offered in response to my prior statements on the exegetical issues involved in Acts 2:38, not least of which is the precise meaning of the word eis (“for [forgiveness of sins]”). Here is what I wrote in my original statement on this:

The word eis can be variously translated in a number of different ways (to, with a view to, for the purpose of, into, etc.) depending on context. It could in this context mean “with a view to your forgiveness” (or “with your forgiveness in mind”). In any case, the passage does not by default support Owen’s contention.
And here is how my critic responded:

Finally, in desperation, some have attempted to argue that the Greek preposition eis should be translated so as to make the forgiveness of sins the basis of water baptism: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” That suggestion, for those who have eyes to see, is about as obvious an example of exegetical sophistry as one could possibly ask for. There is good reason why not one of the standard Bible translations renders eis with the unusual meaning “because of” here–namely, because there is simply no credible linguistic reason to translate the preposition in that manner, apart from a desire to dictate what the Bible must say about the significance of water baptism in keeping with Evangelical dogma. Even the Holman Christian Standard Bible (the Southern Baptist translation) renders eis as “for” in Acts 2:38.
There is no desperation involved, I assure you. It is merely exegetical and theological propriety that is at stake. All one need do is look to BDAG to see that one of the definitions of eis is “with respect to,” and another is “at” or “upon.” In Matt 3:11, John the Baptist states, “As for me, I baptize you with water for [eis] repentance.” Is John saying “I baptize you with water so that you can repent” (my critic’s view)? Or is he saying, “I baptize you with water upon (or on the basis of) your repentance”? (J. Mantey, whom I trust my critic will not call “an amateur linguist,” translates eis here as “because of”). Obviously it is the latter that is in mind here.

In Rom 4:20 Paul say about Abraham, “yet, with respect to (eis) the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith.” Is Paul’s point that Abraham refused to waver in unbelief so that he could gain the promise of God (my critic’s view)? Or because of the promise of God given to him prior to that? In Matt 12:41 Jesus says, “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.” If my critic has his way, we should probably translate this passage as “they repented so that Jonah would preach”! Obviously the word eis here means something like “in response to.”

All of these examples fit nicely with Acts 2:38, and particularly the example of Matt 3:11 which addresses the identical subject matter. Acts 2:38 may then be properly rendered as “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of / in response to the forgiveness of your sins.” An expanded translation of this passage might read: "Repent; and having repented let each of you be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus on the basis of the forgiveness of sins you received upon your repentance." There can be absolutely no lexical objection to this rendering. And in spite of what you may read from the hyper-sacramentalist, his view of this passage is simply not some "obvious teaching" of the text. It is "obvious" to him only because he is bent on finding some human work that he can desperately cling to for his own justification, and that he can use to bring the rest of us under bondage to slavery.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Through Faith They Still Speak (6/19/05)

"Fear not the sons of men; the worms shall eat them." (Samuel Rutherford, Letters of Samuel Rutherford [Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996], p. 47)

The Unity of the Earliest Christians

In a previous article, I recommended getting a copy of a debate that was held last year between Richard Carrier and Michael Licona on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. David Wood recently posted a review of that debate at the Answering Infidels web site, and I recommend reading that review.

As Wood explains, one of the arguments put forward by Carrier during the debate was that Paul held a different view of the resurrection than we see presented in the gospels of Luke and John and other early Christian literature. Wood effectively shows that Carrier is wrong about Paul, and I won't be getting into the details of that issue in this article. Rather, what I want to address here is the larger issue of the popular critical claim that there was widespread disunity among the earliest Christians.

A lot of the modern criticism of Christianity involves splitting the early Christians up into conflicting parties based on the slenderest threads of evidence. Paul is said to have contradicted Jesus. James is set against Paul. Without evidence, and in contradiction of evidence that does exist, documents such as the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John are attributed to schools or communities rather than individuals, and those schools and communities are pitted against each other. Martin Hengel, one of the foremost New Testament scholars in the world today, has rightly called elements of this sort of thinking "romantic superstition", and he criticizes modern scholarship for having "all too easily forgotten" the significance of passages like 1 Corinthians 15:11 (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], pp. 81, 156).

Nobody denies that there were some disagreements among the early Christians, as we see in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and elsewhere. But there also was much agreement, particularly on more foundational issues, far more agreement than critics often suggest. Paul repeatedly refers to his close relations and doctrinal agreement with the other apostles and Jesus' brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5, 15:11, Galatians 1:18-19, 2:9-10). Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, and other early post-apostolic sources refer to the unity of the apostles and refer to them sharing the same doctrines.

Craig Keener mentions some other indications of early Christian unity. Though he's commenting primarily on the gospel of John, much of what he says is applicable to other early Christians and other early documents:

“Suggesting that the Fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the Synoptics need not imply that John did not know of the existence of the Synoptics; even if (as is unlikely) Johannine Christianity were as isolated from other circles of Christianity as some have proposed, other gospels must have been known if travelers afforded any contact at all among Christian communities. That travelers did so may be regarded as virtually certain. Urban Christians traveled (1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carried letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25), relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15), and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15). In the first century many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16; cf. 3 John 5-12) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Although we need not suppose connections among churches as pervasive as Ignatius’ letters suggest perhaps two decades later, neither need we imagine that such connections emerged ex nihilo in the altogether brief silence between John’s Gospel and the ‘postapostolic’ period. No one familiar with the urban society of the eastern empire will be impressed with the isolation Gospel scholars often attribute to the Gospel ‘communities.’...John’s emphasis on the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit for moral and relational empowerment finds far more parallels in Paul than in other extant early Jewish and first-century Christian sources. Granted, John does not use Paul’s language for salvation or justification; but this is at some points more a stylistic matter than one of substance. Different writers emphasized different points, but when viewed from the broad spectrum of early Judaism and Christianity, John had a great deal in common with Paul.” (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 41-42, 233)