Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Jason Engwer’s War Against Baptismal Regeneration in Acts

Jason Engwer’s War Against Baptismal Regeneration in Acts

Last updated on: January 29, 2025 at 8:35 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Jason Engwer’s War Against Baptismal Regeneration in Acts 2025-01-29T20:35:19-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: cartoon by JM Staniforth. Commentary on the fact that the Cardiff Gas company is losing ground on the rival Swindon company who have introduced gas meters (1 July 1899) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons / Get Archive]

Jason Engwer is a Protestant anti-Catholic apologist who runs the Tribalblogue site. I’ve critiqued his articles many many times (see his name on my Anti-Catholicism page), but he has refused to counter-reply since 2010 (having done so for the previous eight years). What else is new? So here goes “nothing” again . . .

*****

I’m replying to Jason’s article, “The Prominence Of Sola Fide In Acts” (1-19-25). His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

One of the factors to take into account when judging the small number of passages in Acts that are cited against justification through faith alone is how often only faith or repentance (two sides of the same coin) is mentioned as the means of receiving justification: 2:21, 3:16, 3:19, 4:4, 9:42, 10:43-44, 11:17, 11:21, 13:39, 13:48, 14:1, 14:27, 15:9, 16:31, 16:34, 17:34, 19:2, 26:20.

The is very typical of Jason’s methodology (and annoyingly often, also that of Protestants en masse). He highlights only the passages that he thinks support his point of view, while ignoring other equally relevant ones, as I will proceed to prove. It’s quite pathetic (especially after observing someone doing this for 25 years now), and, I dare say, bordering on intellectual dishonesty. I’ll cite the passages he brings up in green font color.

Acts 2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How is one saved, though? Is it through bald faith alone, with no other works, including baptism? Is that what is taught in the book of Acts? Hardly. He ignores contrary evidence even in the same chapter:

Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (cf. 9:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:13: both associate the Holy Spirit with baptism)

From this passage alone we learn that baptism brings: (1) “forgiveness of sins;” (2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which no unregenerate person could possess; (3) salvation (“save yourselves”); and (4) inclusion in the rank of saved “souls” (cf. Galatians 3:27).

Acts 3:16, 19 And his name, by faith in his name, has made this man strong whom you see and know; and the faith which is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. . . . Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

I’ll expand on some of those passages, to clarify why I’ve cited them. Acts 3:16 refers to a healing, but it’s probably the sort of double healing passage I’ve discussed elsewhere. The healed man is referred to as praising God after the healing and is described as following the apostles (3:8, 3:11). Both of those make more sense if he had converted than if he hadn’t. And Peter and John don’t say anything to the man about a need to do anything else in order to be reconciled to God, which also makes more sense if the man had already been reconciled to God. Furthermore, Peter refers to the healed man’s faith as “the faith which comes through [Jesus]” (3:16). A reference to “the faith” makes more sense if it’s a faith that people in general are supposed to have, not just people seeking a healing.

I agree that the man probably became a believer, but we can’t know for sure from what we have in the text, which is about the topic of healing, not salvation, and it can only be surmised. Even if he were a believer, nothing in the text precludes baptism, and “believing” can possibly precede justification and certainly baptism, just as it did for the Apostle Paul, as we shall see later in the book.

Peter and John were both involved in the healing, and Peter had just explained how baptism was central to regeneration and salvation in chapter 2. Moreover, baptismal regeneration and justification are often associated or conjoined in Scripture, as I have written about (replying to him in June 2020). Jason tries so hard to separate them, but I see the exact opposite in Holy Scripture.

Acts 4:4 But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.

So what? This says nothing about baptism. Jason merely assumes that it rules out baptism, but that doesn’t follow logically, and is a weak argument from silence. Belief is quickly followed by baptism in ten other passages in Acts:

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [13] Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. . . .

Acts 8:34-38 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” [38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Acts 16:14-15 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyati’ra, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. [15] . . . she was baptized, with her household, . . .

Acts 16:30-34 . . . “Men, what must I do to be saved?” [31] And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” [32] And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. [33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. [34] Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God. (cf. 1 Cor 1:16)

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (add also Paul’s baptism in Acts 9:17-18 and 22:16; Acts 10:44-48, below, and Acts 2:38-41, above)

We know from Mark 16:16 and Jesus Himself that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Funny that none of ten passages of belief + baptism make it to Jason’s list of Bible prooftexts, save one-fourth of Acts 16:30-34 (v. 31) because that’s the verse that — guess what?! — sounds at first glance like “faith alone” but is proven not to be in the context that he blithely ignores, per his usual modus operandi.

Acts 9:42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.

Again, it says nothing about baptism, either way, so it can’t preclude it. They could simply have gotten baptized afterwards, or shortly afterwards: following the model that we frequently see in Acts. And yet again, Jason absurdly ignores counter-evidence in the same chapter (he’s terrible at systematic theology):

Acts 9:17-18 So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” [18] And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,

Ananias laid hands on him, which is essentially the equivalent of the sacrament of confirmation, in which the Holy Spirit comes to a person as a result of having hands laid on them by a spiritual authority (in this case, one directly instructed by God: 9:10-16). Later in the book, Paul explicitly describes the same experience as baptismal regeneration, in recounting what Ananias had said to him:

Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”

The same passage shows, by the way, that baptism is associated with “calling on his name”: which Jason tried to isolate and separate from baptism in his use of Acts 2:21: see above. But God through Ananias, in connection with St. Paul, made it clear that they went together. And, true to form, he tries to vainly rationalize:

Some of the passages I’ve cited mention faith without mentioning justification (4:4, 9:42, 14:1, 17:34), but the passages make the most sense if faith is viewed as bringing about justification. If something more was needed for reconciliation to God, then it would make less sense to highlight faith so much and not mention more. Seeing these passages as referring to justification also aligns them better with the rest of the material in Acts, like the other passages cited above.

Acts 10:43-44 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. [43] To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

Yep; and then they get baptized, which these people did in the larger passage that Jason (you guessed it) ignored:

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . .

We know from passages I have already cited that baptism in this book and throughout the New Testament, regenerates. And so it’s a work that we do that brings about regeneration and justification, and salvation (if we persevere in His grace and keep it). Jason somehow manages to not see this, because he doesn’t want to see it. And that’s because it goes against his preconceived extrabiblical theology, that he brings to the Bible, causing blindness and distortion when he sets about wrongly interpreting it.

I don’t mean to be harsh or uncharitable, but as I noted, I’ve seen him commit these same errors over and over, throughout 25 years of replying to him. It does become very wearisome, to see a person refuse to learn (or even to interact at all, as in his dealings with me).

Acts 11:17, 21 “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” . . . And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number that believed turned to the Lord.

Jason again utilizes the ultra-weak argument from silence (baptism isn’t mentioned, so it didn’t take place). The problem is that the very next verse (“News of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem . . .”) interrupts the narrative and moves onto something else. Therefore, baptism could have occurred, but simply wasn’t mentioned, because the narrative was “cut off”. We know from the pattern in Acts that baptism follows belief in no less than ten instances; thus, we saw this shortly before, at the end of chapter 10.

The New Testament originally had no verse numbers or chapters. Chapters were first added in the early 13th century and verses in the mid-16th century. That being the case, we can note that Jason has ignored the context, since chapter ten isn’t isolated from chapter 11.

Acts 13:39, 48 and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. . . . And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Once again, as in the last example, the narrative stops in 13:49, so we don’t know what these people did next, and it’s another pitiable argument from silence.

Acts 14:1 Now at Ico’nium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue, and so spoke that a great company believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.

For a third time, the narrative moves along in verse 2. It proves nothing against baptism.

Acts 14:27 And when they arrived, they gathered the church together and declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

Jason’s primary aim in his article is to establish that faith alone reigns in the book of Acts. Ignoring baptism is part of this aim. In context (v. 22) we learn that Paul and Barnabas “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” Note that this is not faith alone because enduring tribulations appears to be made a necessary component of salvation and attainment of eternal life. This is not an isolated instance in the book, either. Acts 10:35 records Peter preaching and saying that “in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” More works . . .

Acts 26:18 refers to those who “turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” and who “receive forgiveness of sins”. These same justified people are also described as “those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Acts 15:9 (“cleansed their hearts by faith”) implies the same thing. So does Acts 20:32: “the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified”).

The problem here for Protestants is that they believe sanctification is essentially separate from justification and has nothing to do with salvation. But the Bible, here and elsewhere (e.g., Rom 6:22; 2 Thess 2:13), teaches that it does. And sanctification involves works, because it’s largely behavioral and has to do with our actions as well as our interior dispositions.

Acts 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

See the previous paragraph for the problems for Protestant theology and soteriology in this verse. Ah. what a can of worms that Jason, oblivious, has opened up!

As for Jason’s passages, Acts 16:31, 34, I cited 16:30-34 above and we saw that it included baptism in context. Jason — as he so often does – simply ignored that. But that won’t do. This is not how systematic theology is done. We don’t pick and choose and ignore everything that doesn’t bolster our false pet theories.

Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionys’ius the Are-op’agite and a woman named Dam’aris and others with them.

The narrative doesn’t continue into 18:1, so we don’t know whether they got baptized afterwards. Since in ten instances in the book, this is what happened shortly after coming to believe in the Lord and the gospel, it’s reasonable to assume that these folks did so as well. But it’s not possible to claim with certainty that they did not.

Acts 19:2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

And of course they got baptized in 19:5, and — again — we know the theology of the book of Acts is that baptism regenerates and ushers one into the kingdom of God: on the road to eschatological salvation.

Acts 26:20 “but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.”

Paul implies that works are part of the overall equation of salvation, just as Peter taught at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:9 and Paul taught in 20:32, and as Jesus said to Paul in 26:18 (all dealt with not far above). And that is antithetical to, and a refutation of faith alone.

Conclusion? Jason has proven exactly nothing with this argumentation. But e for effort, and clever — albeit false and wrongheaded — sophistry . . . Pray for the man. He will have to stand accountable before God for leading people astray:

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: cartoon by JM Staniforth. Commentary on the fact that the Cardiff Gas company is losing ground on the rival Swindon company who have introduced gas meters (1 July 1899) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons / Get Archive]

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer tries so hard to ignore baptismal regeneration and justification in Acts, and fails to “prove” that “faith alone” reigns there.

Anti-Catholicism

Baptism and Sacramentalism

anti-sacramentalism

baptism in Acts

baptismal regeneration

Faith Alone

Jason Engwer

justification in Acts

Previous Post

January 20, 2025

Reply to Anglican E. B. Pusey #1