From an article I wrote defending Baptismal Regeneration:
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey…
Hey Josh! Thanks for the comment. I think this explanation also fails as well. But part of the problem with BR is the clear contradiction it gives to other Bible verses that proclaim salvation is by grace alone. I know you and I have discussed this before, but the issue remains the same.
I would just push back and say we have to interpret Scripture together. The Bible is just as clear that Baptism saves. Historically, both have been reconciled quite beautifully founded on Scripture’s own testimony.
My pastor teaches the same. Good to see alignment.
From an article I wrote defending Baptismal Regeneration:
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey…
https://saintsandsociety.substack.com/p/yes-baptism-saves
Hey Josh! Thanks for the comment. I think this explanation also fails as well. But part of the problem with BR is the clear contradiction it gives to other Bible verses that proclaim salvation is by grace alone. I know you and I have discussed this before, but the issue remains the same.
I would just push back and say we have to interpret Scripture together. The Bible is just as clear that Baptism saves. Historically, both have been reconciled quite beautifully founded on Scripture’s own testimony.