Election and Predestination: Luther and Calvin

Election and predestination have, throughout church history, provided a fertile theological battle ground. Every church body has a doctrine of it in some way. For our purposes, we will focus on the two Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. The two magisterial Reformers in question took quite a different route when treating this doctrine in Scripture. To grasp the differences between the two, it is imperative to understand how the two Reformers approached theology. Reformed theologians love to claim Luther as an ally in this debate, yet Lutheran theologians have no interest in claiming Calvin. Why is this? Simply put, the two Reformers had a very different way of looking at this oft debated doctrine.

For Calvin, everything flows from God's decree in eternity past. That is to say, God, in his infinite wisdom, predestined some to life and some to perdition. Predestination is a very central and controlling theological topic in Calvin and the later development of Reformed theology. For Luther and later Lutherans, election is a cause of our salvation, but not the central controlling cause. As we will see, this entails a recognition of the hidden God vs. the revealed God.

Calvin on Predestination

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. -Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.5

So, for Calvin, predestination is a central doctrine through which Scripture may be interpreted. The sovereign and all-powerful God determines everything that comes to pass, specifically when it comes to salvation. In Calvin's thought, God has predestined some to eternal life (the elect) and some to eternal damnation (the non-elect).

Therefore, in Reformed Theology, God's decree is the beginning point of theology. Other doctrines regarding salvation flow from this.

Thus, we can see the logical formulation of the famous Reformed acrostic, the TULIP. The formulation goes something like this.

1. God predestined some to life and others to perdition. (Unconditional election)

2. Therefore, the Son only ransoms those given to life. (limited atonement)

3. Therefore, the Spirit only regenerates those whom the Father gave to the Son. (Irresistible grace)

4. Therefore, all of these (the elect) and only these receive grace and are kept until the last day (perseverance of the saints)

In Reformed history, the Remonstrants challenged this, putting forth a free will decision in place of unconditional election, thereby formulating 5 differing points of soteriology. This was debated upon and rejected by the Reformed Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which is where the famous 5 points of Reformed soteriology originated.

The Reformed churches, with their heavy emphasis on God's decree, have also speculated as to the logical (not temporal!) order of God's decrees. Depending on how the decrees are ordered, the emphasis falls on different syllables. For the Reformed, there are multiple theories here: Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and to a lesser extent, Sublapsarianism (4-point Calvinism where the atonement is unlimited).

All of this sounds very foreign to the Lutheran ear, and rightfully so. The simple reason is that Luther -and Lutheran theology- sees the Reformed manner of systematizing these doctrines is, in a sense, backwards. Certainly, logically speaking, the Reformed will argue that God's decree came first and so on. But here Lutherans appeal to the distinction between the hidden God and the revealed God.

For Lutherans, peering into the hidden God is a fool's errand. Instead, we ought to set our focus squarely on the revealed God, shown to us clearly in the person of Christ, and read the words of Scripture and believe them without trying to cram them into our reasoning. Certainly, Lutherans are not against reason. But we are against reason as means to go over and above clear passages of Scripture. Therefore, when we see a passage such as Titus 2:11, which states "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people," we see in it a clear proclamation by St. Paul of the gratia universalis, or universal grace - something Reformed theology rejects. This grace is given to us in Christ and his work, the fountain of all grace.

We also see sola gratia (grace alone) clearly spoken of in Scripture. This is a safeguard against synergism, which denies sola gratia in the same manner that Reformed theology denies gratia universalis. We see this doctrine very clearly in passages such as Ephesians 2.

All of this is to say, Lutheranism centers theology in Christ. We have a phrase we like to use: All theology is Christology. In short, we start with the revealed God, who is Christ, breaking into history for us. 

And Christ, truly and actually, is for you. His atonement is universal and the grace that delivers Christ to you is universal.

We also have quite a robust doctrine of predestination which agrees neither with the Reformed or the Remonstrants (Arminians).

Two other terms that come up very often in this discussion monergism and synergism. Monergism on a theological basis means that God alone saves, by himself. It means one work. This work is God's alone. Monergism is what is affirmed by adherents of sola gratia - Reformed as well as Lutherans. Synergism is a collaboration or a working together. The Remonstrants added a free will choice into salvation, insofar that God saves, but only in response to a person positively deciding to believe in Christ. Rome goes further and posits that justification itself is a result of faith plus works. Both the Remonstrants as well as the Roman Church are synergists.

Often, the doctrine of predestination gets roped into discussions between monergism and synergism, but this is not necessarily so. This is evidenced in Lutheranism to an extent as there are some Lutheran churches out there who teach election intuitu fidei (in view of faith) but are still solid Word and Sacrament monergists.

Whereas the Remonstrants called into question the Reformed doctrine of election on the basis of synergism and opted for a view of intuitu fidei, the Lutheran church is monergist through and through, but it is on an objective, Christ for you temporally in Word and Sacrament basis - whether one holds to election and predestination to salvation only (LCMS, WELS) or one holds to election and predestination intuitu fidei (ELDoNA).

We (Lutherans) see the Reformed as well as the Remonstrants as starting in the wrong place. Ultimately, they end up going round and round about free will choice vs unconditional election. The one denies sola gratia (Remonstrants) and the other denies gratia universalis (Reformed). These two doctrines are clearly revealed in Scripture, so the Lutheran church affirms both of them. 

As goes predestination, we affirm it is for salvation only (As an LCMS member and adherent to the whole Book of Concord, I affirm this as well) and is so sure and certain that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. Yet, we start with the revealed Christ, who died for you. And this grace given in Word and Sacrament is also for you. We needn't peer into the hidden God or peer into our own navels to affirm our election. In the first case, one can never be certain of their election by peering into the hidden God. Second, peering into our own navels will either lead to pride or despair.

Likewise, a denial of gratia universalis also will cause doubt, since grace is only for certain persons. Whereas a denial of sola gratia, the synergistic error, will also cause doubt, since grace is made effective by the willing of the person.

However, if Christ died a universal death, and grace is universal to everyone, and we are saved by grace alone, two things jump forth. The first is that we can know with absolute certainty that Christ is for us. The second is that we can be sure about our salvation in that God alone does the saving. This truly is salvation extra nos (outside of us).

In light of these things, our election is so certain that the gates of hell cannot overcome it.

+Pax+

Luther's Reformation: The Word is Jesus

 505 years ago, a German monk named Martin Luther nailed 95 theses for debate to the Castle Church door of Wittenberg, Germany. This was quite normal, as the door functioned as a community bulletin board. But little did he know that these 95 theses would spark a change in the entire Western World.

Luther's theses were not his mature thought, as he still had allegiance to the Pope and was still a loyal Roman Catholic at the time. But over time he would see that the Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the pure Gospel, and God would be pleased to use this man to bring the Good News to the world. Indeed, before Luther Jan Hus had come, and when Rome burned Hus at the stake Hus correctly claimed that another one would come and they would not be able to silence the Gospel.

But as Luther was opposed by Rome on one end, he was opposed by the Anabaptists and the Calvinists and the Zwinglians on the other end. While for Luther Rome had added to the Gospel, the Calvinists and Baptists had taken away from it. Rome had added works of merit, and the Baptists had taken Christ out of the Sacraments and turned them into mere ordinances or commands from God to merely remember a past event. The Calvinists had taken the “for you” out of the Gospel and turned it into amorphous categories of “the elect.”

Indeed, Luther's Reformation was all about the fact that the Good News is that Christ is God's Word to mankind, God's final Word. We have a gracious God in Christ, gracious for you in Word and Sacrament.

Consider Psalm 15, for example. Is this Psalm about who we are before God, trying to be those things which no one can truly be if he is honest, or is it about Christ? Christ is the One Who is characterized by the traits of Psalm 15, and only Him.

Christ is on every page of the Bible. Christ is in the Sacraments. Christ is in the Sermon, and it is not a morality lesson for us to follow, but it preaches Christ.

This was Luther's Reformation.

It was all about Jesus Christ.

Happy Reformation Day my friends.

The Reformation - Monolithic?

The Protestant Reformation was indeed an enormous event in world history. It had - and has - far reaching effects in the Christian Church but also in the world as seen through secular eyes. This post will explore how Lutherans and Reformed Christians view and interpret the Reformation. As you will see, the two divergent theologies do not see things eye to eye. Clearly we do not see eye to eye doctrinally, but as we will endeavor to show, the two sides do not see eye to eye historically either.

Within the broader context of the entire Reformation era, we can see there are in essence five major groups in play. These groups are the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, the Reformed, the Anabaptists, and the Anglicans. For our purposes, we will focus mainly on the Lutherans and the Reformed, and how they relate to each other as well as the Roman Catholic church. This is not to say that there is nothing worth learning about the Anglicans or the Anabaptists. Both of these groups were also present during this era, one being more conservative than the other, as Anglicans are quite clearly closer (for lack of a better term) to the magisterial continental Reformers than the excessively radical Anabaptists.

This post is not intended to be a sort of overall summary of the Reformation era. It is meant to address how each of these two major theologies of the Reformation view not only each other historically and contemporarily, but also how they relate to and see the Papacy and the Roman Church.

My observation through the years has been that the Lutherans and the Reformed view the Reformation era very differently. This is, as we will endeavor to show, very much due to a divergence in doctrine.

Reformed Views

For the Reformed Christian, the Lutherans and the Reformed are the two great churches that trace their roots back to this historical period. The contemporary Reformed Christian tends to see the Reformation as one entire reform of the church. For this reason, nearly all Reformed teachers have a deep admiration for the magisterial Lutherans, and specifically for Dr. Martin Luther. This can be shown in many ways.

First, there are many Reformed teachers and believers that tend to see Luther (not to mention St. Augustine of Hippo of the 4th and 5th century) as, to put it crudely, as a sort of proto-Calvinist. It is argued that Luther laid the groundwork and then Calvin and his contemporaries completed it. It is argued that Luther did not reform far enough by some Reformed adherents. Nevertheless, Luther is regarded by many as the fountainhead of the Reformed Reformation. Modern Reformed Christians like to point to certain aspects of Luther's theology in an attempt to demonstrate that Luther was indeed, for the most part, the beginning of the Reformed Reformation. Specifically, they will point to works written by Luther such The Bondage of the Will. Modern Reformed efforts have been made to cast Luther as a Calvinist in some ways. Here is one such example: "Double or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination" by Brian Mattson (the-highway.com)

If the reader indulges us here and reads Mattson's paper, you will notice a few things. First, per Mattson, Luther was clearly a double predestinarian in the vein of St. Augustine, which agrees with Reformed Theology. Second, Luther's magnum opus was The Bondage of the Will. (As opposed to say, the Small or Large Catechism or all of his works on Scripture and Theology) Third, Lutheranism rejected Luther's teachings on some things and followed off in another direction. These ideas that Mattson is trying to defend are incorrect when we look at the life, theology, and work of Luther.

Very few Reformed scholars and teachers have a disdain for Luther, as they view him as the primary figure of the Reformation, which is culminated with Reformed Theology. R.C. Sproul, a big name in contemporary Reformed Theology, is quite normative for the Reformed when he counts Luther as his most admired and favorite Reformer. Sproul gave numerous lectures on Luther, nearly always casting Luther in an admiring and positive manner.

Not all Reformed believers attempt to turn Luther into a Calvinist or proto-Calvinist, although it would seem to be the prevailing treatment and stance on Luther in the Reformed camp. As an aside, James Swan, a Reformed blogger over at Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics (beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com) is in many ways a breath of fresh air, as he allows Luther to be Luther for the most part. To wit, he does not try to make Luther a Calvinist.

Because of these things, the majority of Reformed Christians (not all, Reformed casts a big umbrella) tend to not only be very positive and fond of Luther, but they also tend to be very positive of Lutheran Theology and Lutherans in general. They see us as part of the same Reformation and on the same team, so to speak. It is commonly asserted by Reformed teachers that Calvin and Luther were not that far apart (Westminster West is big in this regard. See writings by contemporary Reformed Theologians such as Michael Horton and R. Scott Clark. Much of their work and ideas are readily accessed online. See The Heidelblog | Recovering the Reformed Confession for example) and efforts are made quite often to find commonalities and link the two theologies together. Ther Lutheran teachers, on the other hand, see things very differently.

Lutheran Views

For Lutherans, both teachers as well as laymen, the Reformation is viewed very differently, and in this lay blogger's opinion, given the historical and theological documents, rightfully so.

Therefore, it is surprise to many Reformed Christians that Lutherans do not see Lutheran and Reformed as the two great theologies that sprung from the Reformation. Rather, we see these as two totally different theological movements. We see Lutheranism as the conservative Reformation. On the contrary, we see Reformed Theology as a radical Reformation - more of a revolt and the beginning of a new strain of Christianity; a new theology that departs from catholicity on many key doctrines. That is not to say Reformed Theology is as radical as say, the Anabaptists, whose modern offspring today would be sects and cults such as the Amish or the Mennonites.

To see the Lutheran perspective, one needs only to look at the actual historical attempts at ecumenicism between the two camps. There were numerous major events as well as theological documents that took place in the Reformation era that lend creedence to how we see the relationship or lack thereof between the two.

It is unfair to claim that these two camps did not attempt to unify. Numerous attempts were made. We can point to the Marburg Colloquy of 1529, where Zwingli and Oecolampadius met with Luther and Melanchthon to discuss theology. Other big names from the era were also present, such as Martin Bucer and Justus Jonas. The Colloquy was called by Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who desired a unified Protestant theology, mainly for political purposes. Luther was skeptical of this right from the start. Zwingli, however, desired this union and attempted to find common ground even where there was none. How can I make a statement like that about Zwingli? Zwingli later wrote a document that backed off the Marburg articles of agreement. In short, Zwingli and the Swiss camp were of the opinion that differences on the Lord's Supper should not prevent an allied political front with the Lutherans, over against Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. Luther, on the other hand, found this arrangement repugnant. Luther's aim was always doctrinal purity. This is evidenced when, at the conclusion of Marburg, Luther refused to extend fellowship to Martin Bucer, saying that they were "of a different spirit." Bucer, in his efforts, tried to continually work at finding compromise. Luther would have none of it.

Enter Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon, as we know, was the author of some of the Lutheran confessional documents found in the Book of Concord. Specifically, it was Melanchthon who penned the Augsburg Confession of 1530, as well as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, a defense written in response to Rome's response to the Original Augsburg Confession. Melanchthon is also responsible for the Confessional document entitled The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. Melanchthon was indeed a very large figure in Lutheranism as well as the Reformation considered as a whole.

Melanchthon, however, later in life, became quite the compromiser and also fell into some theological errors, which were rejected by the final Lutheran Confessional documents, the Epitome and Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. These Confessional documents were put together by second generation Lutherans, led by Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, among others.

This brings us to a couple topics. Where did Melanchthon compromise and where did he err? There are, as we will point out, a lot of different things going on here.

Melanchthon desired Christian unity. Nobody can say this goal, when considered by itself, is a bad goal. It is a noble one. However, the manner in which Melanchthon went about this has been rejected completely by Confessional Lutheranism.

The first compromise we will point to is the Variata of 1540. The Variata was, to put it simply, a revision of the Augsburg Confession that was meant to promote unity and acceptance of Calvin and Reformed Theology. In the Variata, the rejection of the Calvinist doctrine on the Lord's Supper is removed. The Variata is viewed in Lutheran circles as non-Confessional as well as compromising and erroneous. In other words, Lutheranism flatly rejects the Variata. So here we see Melanchthon compromising the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper in order to bring about more unity with the Reformed.

The second compromise we can point to is Melanchthon's attempt to compromise with Rome. Melanchthon was, sadly, the author of the Leipzig Interim of 1548, a document designed to compromise with Rome.

Reverend A. Brian Flamme is quoted,

"Long story short, the Evangelicals looked to Philipp for guidance and stability amidst the coming onslaught, but his efforts fell short. The Reformation church broke apart and Philipp fell out of favor because of his compromises with the Papists and Reformed on matters of ceremonies, Christ's presence in the Supper, and the role of human will in conversion." (Philipp Melanchthon - Lutheran Reformation)

Philipp was opposed by a group of Lutherans that came to be known as the Gnesio (genuine) Lutherans, who were in the main correct, although they were not above error either. Quoting the Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord,

"Matthias Flacius maintained that original sin is not an accident, but the very substance of fallen humanity. The Lutherans (including the Philippists) were practically unanimous in opposing this error. Accident refers to something that 'just happens to be there.' It is a characteristic that is not essential to a person or thing...In the Augsburg Confession, Lutheranism insisted that original sin is so deep a corruption of human nature that it prevents a person from contributing anything to his or her own salvation. After Luther's death Melanchthon suggested that a person can, and in fact does, cooperate with God's grace in salvation."

"Article I of the Formula of Concord, therefore, had to make clear what the Bible teaches. Since the fall, human nature is not sin itself, but it is sinful. The Formula wisely points out that to suggest God created sin would mean that God's Son assumed sin itself into divinity in the Incarnation. What is more, if sin is part of a person's very substance, then it too will be resurrected on the Last Day to spend eternity in heaven, an absurd idea, in view of Scripture."

So, in response to Melanchthon's compromise and addition of a synergistic cause in salvation, Flacius responded with his own error - to make sin part of the actual substance of humanity. The Formula sets forth the proper teaching, rejecting both of these errors.

If one takes the time to study the history here, they will see clearly that the common Reformed argument, that Lutherans followed Melanchthon and not Luther, is patently false. Confessional Lutheranism rejects the compromises of Melanchthon as well as his later errors after Luther's death.

In actuality today, it is the Reformed who generally are the ones who attempt to do the compromising with the Lutherans, insisting that we are not really that far apart from each other, and that Luther and Calvin were mainly on the same team, so to speak. Confessional Lutheranism rejects this line of thought outright, pointing to the doctrinal history of the two churches as well as the historical data that has been discussed.

We can also point to other historical documents that show we are not incorrect here. The Consensus Tigurinus is one such document. The Consensus was composed by none other than John Calvin himself in 1549. It can be found here: Consensus Tigurinus (1549) · BookOfConcord.org

In the Consensus, we see the following ideas set forth:

In article 16, we see the idea that the elect alone receive Christ. The reprobate receive nothing but bread and wine. In article 17, Calvin rejects that idea that the Lord's Supper conveys grace. In article 20, Calvin separates the benefit of the Lord's Supper from the administration of it. In article 22, Calvin asserts that to read the Institution of the Lord's Supper is done by "preposterous interpreters" and that they are figurative.

All of this coming from a man who tried to concoct a via media between Luther and Zwingli. Clearly, Calvin sees and rejects the Lutheran position.

In Summation

What Calvin, and all other persons who attempt to create unity between the Reformed and the Lutherans miss, is that this doctrine is so essential to our life and salvation that we will never compromise it in any way, shape, or form. In practice, those who attempt compromise on this topic are guilty of reducing the Lord's Supper to a secondary doctrine. We utterly reject this view. In short, the Lord's Supper, and everything that entails, is absolutely essential in doctrine. Memorialism is not the Lord's Supper. Nor is Calvin's theory of spiritual eating by faith. Unless Christ's true body and blood is also received orally, in your mouth, it is not the Lord's Supper. 

There have been historical attempts to compromise on this doctrine and combine the two churches. One such example was the Prussian Union in Germany. In fact, the synod of which I am a member, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, is a result of Lutherans rejecting the Prussian Union and emigrating to the United States, where they were free to practice Lutheranism, apart from Reformed Theology in the church.

These things are why, when Reformed teachers attempt to say that the Reformed and Lutherans are not too far from each other, we say, not so fast. In fact, we are miles apart. Certainly, there are similarities. But, how can we compromise and be in communion with a church that does not have a valid Lord's Supper because they reject precisely what it is and what it does.

This point cannot be missed. When certain Reformed teachers say we are really close doctrinally, two major things are in play. First, they are expecting Lutherans to accept their stance on the Lord's Supper, which we see as completely false and invalid. Second, they are betraying the fact that they really aren't that familiar with Lutheran doctrine and teaching, and probably have never read Lutheran treatments of these topics. This is betrayed every time a Reformed teacher links the Lutheran doctrine on the Lord's Supper with consubstantiation, a theory we flatly reject.

At the end of the day, these two theologies are two different churches. They started in different places by different persons. They simply happened to occur in the same historical era. The attempt at ecumenicism has been done ad nauseum, especially in the 16th century. They failed then and they are bound to fail now, unless one side or the other compromises on doctrine. Seemingly, it always seems to be the Lutherans who are being asked to compromise on the Lord's Supper and accept the Reformed doctrine as a true expression of the real presence, which we adamantly reject.

In some ways it's a shame we are so different on these things. Yet, this is how it has to be and there is no way around it without compromise on numerous doctrines which we as Lutherans consider essential to Christianity. We simply cannot play kum-ba-ya with theology we see as erroneous. Nor will we ever relegate an essential truth such as the Lord's Supper to a secondary status. There is a reason why the Lord's Supper is one of the six chief parts in the Small Catechism. It is that important.

So how does ecumenism look? Well, we certainly can work together in civil society for the common good. We certainly can honor each other in our vocations. We definitely can discuss theology with each other and do so in a friendly and Christ-like manner. The White Horse Inn is a fantastic example of this.

But let us not pretend that we are really close theologically or that we should be in communion. That is just dishonest. Let's be honest with each other. We are a long way apart, and we should not pretend that we are not.

We are fortunate at this blog to have numerous people here who have been on both sides of this fence. Generally speaking, Reformed Christians are a bit shocked and taken aback when they see how Lutheranism views the Reformation. And in some ways, I too think like a Calvinist. I like logic. I like everything nice and neat. And Systematic Theology in Calvinism does that. The same applies to lifelong Lutherans when they see how the Reformed see the Reformation. A friend of mine made a good observation that he shared with me. In post-World War II America, there was and is a sentiment that we all just need to put our theological differences aside and bind together to fight the Communists. But historically, this is not how it has been, especially in light of the documents and Confessions of the 16th century. We are, as a whole, in very concrete ways, guilty of allowing our American ideals and individualism effect our doctrine. We still put American flags by our altar sometimes and it certainly does not belong there. We can still be thankful that we are allowed to freely worship without deifying the state. Other nations are not as fortunate. May we pray fervently to get past this!

We can start by being honest with each other. Softening our stances to be ecumenical, is, to put it bluntly - sin. We are bearing false witness and breaking the 8th commandment. Let us therefore strive for honesty in our discussions. That is where we need to start.

+Pax+

Christology and Communion: It Matters. Part III

In this final installment we will wrap up our series on Lutheran and Reformed Christology and their respective doctrines of the Lord's Supper. To properly understand this rather large difference, we must hearken back to the Marburg Colloquy of 1529. On one side were the Swiss Reformers, headed up by Zwingli. On the other side were the Wittenberg Reformers, lead by Martin Luther.

In charity, the Germans and the Swiss Reformers agreed on numerous articles of faith. However, the one major point of contention was the Lord's Supper. Luther would steadfastly insist that Christ is bodily present in thr Eucharist, whereas Zwingli and Oecolampadius would deny such, instead favoring a memorial meal. But why?

The Swiss group, headed by Zwingli, put forth two main arguments. First, they would argue on the basis of John 6:63, that Christ forbids us to eat his flesh. Second, on the basis of the Ascension, that Christ is seated at the right hand of God and that his body cannot possibly be in multiple places (in the Lord's Supper) at one time.

The German group, headed by Luther, would not budge, nor entertain philosophical or mathematical arguments from the Swiss party. Luther stood fast on the words "This is my body."

Theologically, there are a few things going on here, which would come to light down the road. As we have spoken of already, Lutheran theology holds to a doctrine called the genus maiestaticum. Reformed theology rejects this. Second, we also must understand that both camps saw the phrase "the right hand of God" differently. Third, Reformed theology holds to a doctrine that states "the finite cannot contain the infinite."

For Lutheranism, due to the communication of the attributes, Christ can be anywhere at any time, because Christ is God. Wherever Christ can be by way of his divinity, there you have the whole Christ, both bodily as well as divinity, because Christ is one person. His divine nature is not, therefore, present by itself apart from his humanity.

The Reformed, and this extrapolates to Calvin and his successors as well, deny this. They claim that by nature, a human body occupies a finite given space. This is to say, as a local mode of presence, a human body is very finite and has a definite size and shape. Therefore, the communication of the attributes is limited to Christ's local circumscribed human body, and this ends up being a flat denial of the true bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper.

For Lutheranism, the right hand of God is everywhere. Why is this? Simply put, the right hand of God is a position of authority and rule and dominion. Lutheranism at this juncture appeals to Scriptures such as this,

St. Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

This is of course the Great Commission. Notice a couple things. First, Jesus says to the Apostles that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." To wit, Jesus is the reigning sovereign king of everything and everywhere. He has all authority in heaven as well as on earth. Second, Jesus says that "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Thus, not only does Jesus say he has all authority everywhere, he also says, right before he ascends to heaven, that he will be with us always, during this age. He does not say the Holy Spirit will be with us always, although that is true as well. He says HE will be with us always, even now.

For Reformed Theology, this is not the case. In that theology, the right hand of God is an actual place in heaven where Christ will stay until he returns in glory. Therefore, he cannot be bodily present in the Lord's Supper. The Reformed Theologians refer to this by the term "ubiquity," which essentially means omnipresence. Thus, Christ, having a human body, cannot be omnipresent, and therefore, not bodily present in the Lord's Supper. Later, John Calvin called this ubiquity of Christ a "monstrous phantasm."

However, what both Zwingli and Calvin both miss is that nowhere does Lutheran theology claim a local presence of Christ's body and blood. Hence Zwingli's accusation at Marburg that Luther held to a local presence of Christ in the Supper was an attack on a position Luther did not hold. By local, we mean simply put, as Christ was while Incarnate. We do not go to Jerusalem and shake Jesus' hand or pose for photo ops with him, because he certainly did ascend and will not return on a local basis until his return in glory. However, Christ is God and he says the bread is his body. In other words, Christ is God and if he wants to make himself present in some other mysterious way, he can do so. You know, perhaps in and with bread and wine?

When Christ gave us the Lord's Supper and said "this is my body...this is my blood" they are to be believed by faith and not explained (Rome) or denied (Zwingli, Calvin) by use of human reason and philosophy.

We stick to the words of Christ. This is my body. The bread is his body. He feeds himself to us in our mouths. We do not need philosophy, as we have the sure final will and testament of the Son of God. This doctrine is far too important and vital to our salvation to ever be compromised in any way, shape, or form, lest we deny the plain teaching and words of God Incarnate. Any human attempt at a philosophy to explain in favor of or deny these words are true is subtraction, not addition.

The later Reformed churches, headed by Calvin, attempted to create a via media (middle way) between Luther and Zwingli at Marburg, but there simply is not one. Calvin would posit that we do receive Christ's body and blood, but it is spiritually by faith where we are lifted to the right hand of God via the Holy Spirit to partake by faith of the absent Christ. But this, seen through Lutheran eyes, is nothing more than a fancy rejection of the real presence. Reformed theologians like to affirm the real presence these days, but unless Christ is truly there, in, with, and under the forms of bread and wine with his true body and blood, it is in reality an affirmation of a real absence with no presence. For Christ does not say "This is my Spirit" or "The Holy Spirit will lift you up to partake of me" or something along those lines. He says "This is my body." Either the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood and go in your mouth or Christ is not present according to his institution. The Book of Concord says,

Epitome: VIII:17

Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.

And earlier in the Epitome, regarding the Lord's Supper,

Epitome: VII:10-16

The grounds, however, on which we stand against the Sacramentarians in this matter are those which Dr. Luther has laid down in his Large Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper.

The first is this article of our Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.

The second: That God’s right hand is everywhere; at which Christ is placed in deed and in truth according to His human nature, [and therefore] being present, rules, and has in His hands and beneath His feet everything that is in heaven and on earth [as Scripture says, Eph. 1:22 ], where no man else, nor angel, but only the Son of Mary is placed; hence He can do this [those things which we have said].

The third: That God’s Word is not false, and does not deceive.

The fourth: That God has and knows of various modes of being in any place, and not only the one [is not bound to the one] which philosophers call localis (local) for circumscribed].

We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

Here we have a short summary of the Lutheran doctrine, which is roundly rejected by Reformed theology. For further reading regarding this topic, I recommend the following:

1. Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII, regarding the Holy Supper, and VIII, regarding the person of Christ.

2. Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII and VIII, regarding the same, fleshed out in much more detail.

3. This Is My Body by Hermann Sasse. This book is an historical account pieced together using primary sources from the Marburg Colloquy of 1529.

4. The Institutes by John Calvin, Book Fourth, chapter 17 on the Lord's Supper, which lays forth the groundwork for the Reformed doctrine.

Sadly, our two traditions, while certainly having much in common, will never be in communion with each other. The Lutheran church sees this as a fundamental doctrine and will never compromise it. This may sound harsh, but our stance is that Reformed churches reject what the Lord's Supper is, and therefore do not have a valid Lord's Supper. This does not mean we see them as lost or heathen or something like that. But we certainly do see them as heterodox not only on the Lord's Supper, but less so on the person of Christ as well. We hesitate to use the word heresy in this regard. We do see Reformed Christology as leaning towards Nestorianism, but falls short of full blown Nestorianism - save for the late Gordon Clark, who flatly said Chalcedon did not define their terms well enough and said Christ is two persons. But I digress.

May the Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ, lead us into all truth.

+Pax+

Christology and Communion: It Matters. Part II

In our first installment of this three part series comparing and contrasting Lutheran and Reformed Christologies and how they affect each tradition's doctrine on the Lord's Supper, we laid out a brief sketch of Lutheran Christology, drawing mainly from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, section VIII, on the person of Christ. In this second installment, we will cover Reformed Christology, drawing from the Westminster Confession of 1646 and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. Since these two great Reformed Confessions agree with each other, we will be able to quote from either and know what both state. We will also draw from John Calvin, Huldrich Zwingli, and other relevant Reformed fathers.

As stated in the first post, we do not agree on everything Christological, but we do agree on large amounts of it. Unfortunately, where we do disagree ends up in doctrines that Lutherans see as vital to our salvation, whereas the Reformed tend to treat them as secondary.

WCF VIII:2 (LBCF VIII:2) 

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.

Here we have a very orthodox confession of the Hypostatic Union and the Person of Christ. Westminster and London are equivalent here. Westminster continues,

WCF VIII:3-4

The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.

This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.

And finally,

WCF VIII:7

Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.

Here is our largest area of difference, but it needs to be seen via the lens of the Lord's Supper to see why.

In essence, this is where the Reformed and the Lutherans part on Christology. For the Reformed, attributing the communication of the attributes here only applies within the local circumscribed body of Christ, which has ascended to heaven. However, this leads to many Reformed theologians claiming that Christ's divinity is omnipresent apart from his humanity. While it is true that his divinity is what makes it possible for Christ to be omnipresent, the Lutheran thinker immediately sees an issue here - that is, we see a splitting of the one person of Christ. For where his divinity is, there is the whole Christ. This is what Lutherans termed the extra calvinisticum, the Calvinist beyond, so to speak. It is at this point that the Reformed reject the genus maiestaticum and the Lutherans reject the extra calvinisticum.

We agree on many points of Christology. We disagree on one key point and it relates directly to our doctrines of the Lord's Supper. The final post in this three part series will cover that.

+Pax+

Christology and Communion: It Matters. Part I

As I embark on this post, I am reminded how imperative it is to use proper verbiage when tackling this topic. Christology is really important, and there are tons of different heresies running amok; not only in the church today, but also for the past 2000 years, which the early church dealt with by way of ecumenical councils for the most part. Hence, I will be drawing heavily in this post from mainly the Book of Concord. Specifically, from the Epitome and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Epitome VIII and Solid Declaration VIII, which both deal with the Person of Christ.

From the outset, let us define what our Christology is, and along the way, we will also define what it is not - especially over and against Christology as it is defined in Reformed Theology. Spoiler alert, we do not believe the same things in all cases. Once we have set forth an orthodox and robust Christology, we shall then discuss how it relates to the Lord's Supper and why it matters. We will also reference some historical events along the way.

Epitome VIII:2-3

The chief question, however, has been whether, because of the personal union, the divine and human natures, as also their properties, have realiter, that is, in deed and truth, a communion with one another in the person of Christ, and how far this communication extends.

The Sacramentarians have asserted that the divine and human natures in Christ are united personally in such a way that neither has realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with the other that which is peculiar to either nature, but that they have in common nothing more than the name alone. For unio, they plainly say, facit communia nomina, i.e., the personal union makes nothing more than the names common, namely, that God is called man, and man God, yet in such a way that God has nothing realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with humanity, and humanity nothing in common with divinity, its majesty and properties. Dr. Luther, and those who held with him, have contended for the contrary against the Sacramentarians.

So here is a quote summarizing the controversy as laid out in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. First, let us explain some terms. When the writers refer to "Sacramentarians" they refer to those who reject the true bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Namely, this is aimed at memorialists, who believe that the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a memorial remembrance, such as Zwingli, and also to the Reformed Calvinists, who asserted not a true bodily presence in and with the bread and wine, but rather a spiritual reception by faith for the elect. This latter doctrine of the Reformed is mainly what this series will ultimately be arguing against, and as you will see, this doctrine was formulated as such precisely because of their Christology.

In essence, Lutheranism adheres to a doctrine known as the genus maiestaticum, which means that the attributes of the divine nature are communicated to the human nature in the one person of Christ. Reformed Theology rejects the genus maiestaticum altogether.

First of all, what exactly do we adhere to?

Epitome VIII:5

That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, so that there are not two Christs, one the Son of God, the other the Son of man, but that one and the same is the Son of God and Son of man, Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5.

Here you will see that we, in essence, reject what is called Nestorianism. We affirm, with the Scriptures as well as the early church, that there is one Christ, not two. This is a clear affirmation of the hypostatic union.

Epitome VIII:6

We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.

In case somebody wants to fling a Eutychian card (which some Reformed thinkers have done), here is a clear rejection that the two natures are mixed or mingled together.

Epitome VIII:7-8

The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

And the Lutheran fathers define what they mean. Each nature, united in the one person of Christ, retains their own essential properties. So far, the Reformed theologian is in agreement with the Epitome. Lutherans have been accused of Eutychianism by some Reformed teachers in the past. These paragraphs should shut that down. So, what is Eutychianism? 

Eutychianism is also called Real Monophysitism. It is the belief that the human nature and divine nature in Christ are so blended that in essence they constitute one new nature. Eutyches of Constantinople explained this as the divine nature deifying the human nature, or dissolving into it such as a drop of honey in the ocean. This was put forth as a response to Nestorianism, which basically said Christ's natures were so divided that he is essentially two persons. So in an attempt to combat Nestorianism, Eutychianism makes the opposite error. Both were deemed heretical by church councils.

Epitome VIII:9

As the two natures are united personally, i. e., in one person, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not such a copulation and connection that neither nature has anything in common with the other personally, i.e . because of the personal union, as when two boards are glued together, where neither gives anything to the other or takes anything from the other. But here is the highest communion, which God truly has with the [assumed] man, from which personal union, and the highest and ineffable communion resulting therefrom, there flows everything human that is said and believed concerning God, and everything divine that is said and believed concerning the man Christ; as the ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.

Here is the crux between Reformed Christology and Lutheran Christology. The Epitome continues:

Epitome VIII:10-14

Hence we believe, teach, and confess that God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had in deed and truth absolutely no communion with one another.

For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?

Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.

Hence we also believe, teach, and confess that it was not a mere man who suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was raised to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but a man whose human nature has such a profound [close], ineffable union and communion with the Son of God that it is [has become] one person with Him.

Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God’s blood.

Epitome VIII:18

By this our doctrine, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not divided, as it was by Nestorius, who denied the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the true communion of the properties of both natures in Christ, and thus divided the person, as Luther has explained in his book Concerning Councils. Neither are the natures together with their properties confounded with one another [or mingled] into one essence (as Eutyches erred); nor is the human nature in the person of Christ denied or annihilated; nor is either nature changed into the other; but Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the Holy Trinity, is, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Tim. 3:16, the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.

Here is the summary given by the writers of the Formula. We believe and confess that,

1. The two natures of Christ retain all of their essential properties. The properties of one are never the properties of the other.

2. We believe and confess that Christ is one person with two natures.

3. Since Christ is one, the two natures, while certainly retaining their own attributes, communicate; the divine to the human. That is to say, Christ, the one person, can be fully God and die. Hence, we can say God died. Or, Christ, as one person, can raise Lazarus from the grave. This is to say, a man raised another man from the dead.

Here is what we are not saying.

That the divine nature is capable of dying. It isn't. Jesus death was made possible by his human nature. But to say that only his human nature died is to split Christ. Jesus died - the one person, both God and man. So a man died on the cross. So did God. Because Jesus is both.

We are also not saying that the human nature can multiply fish and bread exponentially or raise another man from the dead. Only God can do those things. Yet Jesus, being God and man, did them. It was a human voice in human language calling out "Lazarus! Come forth!" 

Therefore we reject the following as errors.

1. That Jesus' human nature alone is what died for us.

2. That Jesus' divine nature alone did the miracles.

Why do we reject these ideas? Because Jesus the one person did these things. Natures do not do things. Persons do. Thus we can see the communication of the attributes affirmed by orthodox Lutheran Christology.

Part II in this 3 part series will address Reformed Christology. We will wrap up with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in Lutheranism and Reformed Theology and how Christology affects this in Part III.

+Pax+

Dismantling Ken Wilson’s attempt at dismantling my review

 Recently in an interview video, Ken Wilson responded to customer reviews of his book (including one by me).

My review (and the quotes I provided from pre-Augustine church fathers) can be found here:

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/108280035X/ref=acr_search_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Interestingly, his defense to the quotes on church fathers I provided in my Amazon review was that he never said no one prior to Augustine held to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins but that they didn’t hold to Augustinian original sin.

That can be found here at the 24:14 mark:

https://youtu.be/jDgYD9UMWuk

There’s just one problem. In a prior interview, he claimed infant baptism happened early in a localized area for reasons no one knew why, not even Augustine around 400. 

See here at the 7:42-45 mark (at the 9:59-10:04 Wilson claimed Augustine during the Pelagian controversy invented baptismal salvation and regeneration as to explain infant baptism whereas no one in the early church did before):

https://youtu.be/BnOMORGM2Qw

In his published dissertation Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will", he stated on page 282,

“Only in North Africa and nearby Rome do we have the earliest proofs for paedobaptism; and, only with Augustine does a newborn's salvation from inherited eternal damnation come through proxy faith, this being challenged by a contemporary local bishop. Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and paedobaptism had no explanation. Therefore, concurring with Sage's assessment, speculating an apostolic origin for paedobaptism as forgiving damnable inherited reatus appears precarious.”

On page 298 (last page of his dissertation as conclusion), he wrote, “The Bishop of Hippo ultimately coalesces these divergent philosophical-religious worldviews into a unique Christianity resulting from the unexplained predicament of the paedobaptismal tradition.”

Similarly in The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism page 97, he stated, “Only in North Africa and nearby Rome do we have the earliest proofs for infant baptism, and only with Augustine does a newborn's salvation from inherited eternal damnation come by proxy through parental faith. This claim was challenged by a contemporary local bishop. Prior to 412 CE, even Augustine had viewed baptism as unnecessary for salvation and infant baptism had no explanation. Therefore, as Sage concluded, speculating an apostolic origin for infant baptism to forgive damnable guilt inherited from Adam appears unlikely.”

So when he repeatedly claimed infant baptism was a practice no one knew why was practiced for, not even Augustine, prior to 412, he does not get to change his stance when it suits him, and said he never claimed they didn’t affirmed infant baptism for forgiveness of sins. If they didn’t know why infant baptism was done, then they didn’t hold to it was done for forgiveness of sins. 

The moment Wilson stated that they did affirmed infant baptism was done for forgiveness of sins, he acknowledged that they did know why it was done with explanation for it (forgiveness of sins). By changing his story, when cornered, it means he as a scholar lost this historical debate to this “sophomoric, uneducated, and unscholarly person” as he referred to me.

And remember, he used the argument of no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD as one of his key “proofs” for Augustinian original sin could not have been of apostolic origin. (The other equally false claims are that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome and baptism as necessary to salvation was denied even by Augustine prior to 412, and these claims will be dealt with here since they relate to the church father quotes I provided in my Amazon review of his book.) So by acknowledging that this claim isn’t true (without ever admitting he ever made that claim), he destroyed one of his own “proof” he used against Augustinian original sin as existing either prior to Augustine or back to apostolic times.

Plus, his argument was that the reason why Augustine’s “pagan novelties” came about was because infant baptism was an “unexplained” tradition. By stating that he never denied pre-Augustine fathers taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, he destroyed that narrative he made as well. He can’t say that isn’t the point in regards to the church father quotes I gave when those quotes refute his narrative.

Plus, that isn’t the only problem here. In regards to the pre-Augustine church father quotes I provided,  he claimed he never denied any of them taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins. Here’s the problem: he actually denied a number of those I quoted affirmed infant baptism for forgiveness of sins (in some cases, even infant baptism itself) in his published dissertation Conversion.

For starters, on page 75, he stated, “No second-century author had discussed paedobaptism” then stated “until Tertullian opposed it (ca.200).” (Tertullian will be dealt with later here.)

Remember one of the church fathers I quoted from was Irenaeus who was a second century author, specifically Fragment 34 and Against Heresies 2.22.4. By not denying on air that he taught infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, Wilson refuted his own claim in his dissertation that no one discussed, much less, affirmed infant baptism (much less infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins).

Keep in mind here, Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons. So that meant not only was Wilson refuted there in his claim in his dissertation (as well as even this same interview when he later said no one prior to the 200s affirmed infant baptism), but also in his claim that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome.

Plus, Irenaeus’ Fragment 34 cited John 3:5 as referring to baptism. That refutes Wilson’s claims he made various times that Augustine’s view of John 3:5 regeneration requirement being baptismal was “novel” in place of physical birth for water in both Conversion and Foundation. For example, Wilson wrote in Conversion page 188 that “he alters John 3.5 from physical birth into water baptism.” And he claimed Augustine’s view of “water baptism as essential for salvation” as “allegorized” and “novel” view of John 3:5 on page 174. 

And in Foundation page 72 footnote,  he wrote, “The context clarifies the physical birth versus spiritual birth with the mother's ‘water breaking’ being the common terminology for a physical birth even in our modern time.”

The fact that Irenaeus in 180 AD held to John 3:5 as baptismal over 200 years prior to post 411-AD Augustine also refutes Wilson’s claim of Augustine’s view of John 3:5 as novel. (If anything it’s Wilson’s view of John 3:5 water as physical birth that’s novel, and by over a thousand years after Augustine.)

Furthermore, Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2.22.4 extended those born again to include infants. Given he equated born again with baptism in Fragment 34 (see also Against Heresies 1.21.1 against Gnostics, an irony since Wilson claimed Augustine invented baptismal view of John 3:5 out of Gnosticism etc.). So that refutes Wilson’s claim as well that Augustine was first to use it as well in support of infant baptism after 412 AD. For example in Conversion pads 244, he made statement of Augustine “reinterpreting John 3.5 as the paedobaptismal tradition.”

So the Irenaeus quotes posted in the Amazon review by themselves disprove these claims Wilson made in his dissertation: 1) no second century author discussed (much less affirmed) infant baptism (much less infant baptism for forgiveness of sins), 2) infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome (given Irenaeus was at Lyons), 3) no one knew why infant baptism was practiced (Irenaeus stated it was to cleanse us- adult or infant- of sins- and to regenerate, the latter contrary to Wilson’s claim later in the video interview that it wasn’t for regeneration or salvation but as Baptist type baby dedication contradicting his earlier claim that he never denied infant baptism was done for forgiveness of sins), 4) Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism, 5) Augustine was first to apply John 3:5 as baptismal text for infants, 6) Augustine invented infant baptism for salvation as “the critical foundation in his novel theology” (Wilson’s own words in quote in Foundation page 78 when he equated that as holding to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8, which would mean Irenaeus held to that by such logic for holding to infant baptismal salvation and regeneration).

Besides proven wrong here on page 75 of Conversion, that infant baptism wasn’t discussed or affirmed in the second century, Wilson also was rebutted on his claim that Hippolytus’ “purpose remains opaque” for infant baptism by what I quoted on the Amazon review from that church father’s Apostolic Tradition with he stated the recipients of baptism (including infants) had their sins removed, were filled with the Holy Spirit and given bath of regeneration. That’s  the exact opposite of opaque. 

Saying his purpose for infant baptism remains opaque is same as saying he didn’t hold to it for forgiveness of sins. So as with Irenaeus, his quote is relevant in that he was another specific church father Wilson denied holding to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins (and he denied Irenaeus even taught infant baptism). So he can’t claim the quotes don’t refute him when he said he never claimed prior fathers didn’t teach infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Besides the many times he claim they didn’t know why infant baptism was practiced, he stated specific ones like these didn’t even hold to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins.

And as with Irenaeus, Hippolytus holding to infant baptism for regeneration and salvation meant that by Wilson’s logic in Foundation page 78, they held to the “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology” and to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 (since Wilson equated that with infant baptism for salvation) before Augustine did.

Wilson also wrote this on page 75 of Conversion:

“Origen believes ‘infants do not need baptism, on the ground that as infants have not actually committed any sins, they do not require forgiveness of sins.’ 

“Origen's works discussing paedobaptism (Hom. Lev. 8.3, 12.4; Hom. Lc.14.5; Comm. Rom. 5.9) were written after leaving Alexandria for Rome and then Caesarea. One could postulate Origen's encounter with paedobaptism from his visit to Hippolytus (ca.212 CE, H..6.14.10; Viris ill.61), who practiced it in Rome; or, from bishops in Carthage, en route during that journey. Rome and Carthage were close geographically and politically, and postulating a provenance in Carthage (where it is first attested by Tertullian) then becoming commonplace decades later in Rome (where it is next attested by Hippolytus) would not be difficult. For Origen, it appears to be a geographically limited sacrament for which no accepted theological explanation existed, particularly no concept of Adam transferring guilt unto damnation upon his descendants. Origen vainly searched scripture attempting to uncover a biblical explanation for this tradition. Considering this brilliant and speculative inquisitor's personal acquaintance with Hippolytus in Rome who practiced paedobaptism, this glaring omission stands stark. If one should dare deem those few non-contextual sentences in Comm. Rom. 5.9.11 to be genuine, this piercing contradiction accentuates the silence.”

Note Wilson claimed Origen 1) denied infant baptism, 2) denied infant baptism for forgiveness of sins, 3) had no theological explanation for infant baptism, 4) had no biblical explanation for infant baptism, 5) saw infant baptism as localized. And he made the claims of Origen using his Homily 8.3 on Leviticus and (other writings) as reference! 

The quotes I provided from Origen in the Amazon review showed he said the exact opposite in all these regards. 

He said in Leviticus 8.3 homily that “baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, that Baptism is given even to infants.”

Note here that Origen 1) affirmed infant baptism (exact opposite of what Wilson claimed in his dissertation), 2) affirmed infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins (exact opposite of what Wilson claimed in his dissertation and hence he can’t claim as he did he never denied him, Irenaeus and Hippolytus held to infant baptism for forgiveness of sins).

And Origen, contrary to what Wilson claimed, gave biblical explanation for infant baptism as well. He said in the homily:

“But if it pleases you to hear what other saints also might think about this birthday, hear David speaking, ‘In iniquity I was conceived and in sins my mother brought me forth,’ showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth ‘of iniquity and sin,’ and for this reason we can say what we already have recalled above, ‘No one is pure from uncleanness even in his life is only one day long.”

Note that Origen quoted Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4-5 LXX as biblical explanation for infant baptism, refuting Wilson’s claim he had no biblical explanation for infant baptism. It also refutes Ken Wilson’s claim on pages 264-5 of Conversion (published dissertation) that those two texts used as support for infant baptism was novel with Augustine.

Here’s what Wilson claimed on those passages:

“VIlI. Psalms 51.5 (50.7, LXX)

“This verse appears prior to 411 CE in its traditional usage (e.g., Conf. 1.7, Emar. Ps.51.10), before its transformation in Pecc. merit. 1.34 and 3.13, alongside Job 14.4 supporting paedobaptism and infant participation in the Eucharist. This novel meaning occurs in Grat, Chr.2.47….”

Besides the fact that Origen already quoted these texts in support of infant baptism, Wilson’s claim that Augustine didn’t cite Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4 LXX in his pre-411 AD Psalm 51.10 exposition is false as well. Here’s what Augustine wrote:

“What is it that he says himself to have been in iniquity conceived, except that iniquity is drawn from Adam? Even the very bond of death, with iniquity itself is engrained? No man is born without bringing punishment, bringing desert of punishment. A Prophet says also in another place, ‘No one is clean in Your sight, not even an infant, whose life is of one day upon earth.’ For we know both by the Baptism of Christ that sins are loosed, and that the Baptism of Christ avails the remission of sins. If infants are every way innocent, why do mothers run with them when sick to the Church? What by that Baptism, what by that remission is put away? An innocent one I see that rather weeps than is angry. What does Baptism wash off? What does that Grace loose? There is loosed the offspring of sin. For if that infant could speak to you, it would say, and if it had the understanding which David had, it would answer you, Why do you heed me, an infant? Thou dost not indeed see my actions: but I in iniquity have been conceived, ‘And in sins has my mother nourished me in the womb.’ “

That’s on top of Origen’s Romans 5.9.11 commentary specifically citing John 3:5 as baptismal and applicable to infants long before Augustine ever did:

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by washed away through water and the Spirit.”

That’s what I quoted from that writing in the Amazon review. Had I quoted it more fully, it would show that this writing also cited Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4 LXX in support of infant baptism long before Augustine ever did:

“Was a newly born child able to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered, and from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be a day long. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, ‘in sins my mother conceived me.’ For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to even little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

Wilson did claimed on page 75 that Romans 5.9.11 wasn’t what Origen actually wrote (he claimed on page 74 that it affirmed Augustinian original sin so it can’t be real) but then why list Romans 5.9 commentary as we have now as reference for claims that Origen had no theological or biblical explanation for infant baptism and saw it as localized practice when (as with Leviticus 8.3 homily, which Wilson didn’t dispute) the opposite is true in all these regards?

And in the interview, Wilson didn’t even dispute this writing as well. So the short quote from Romans 5.9.11 stands uncontested in the interview as evidence that John 3:5 was seen as baptismal salvation text, including infants, by Origen (as well as Irenaeus before him), contrary to Wilson’s claims that John 3:5, Psalm 51:5, and Job 14:4 LXX (latter two texts in Leviticus 8.3 Homily also) were all “Manichaean Gnostic” novelties of Augustine from 412 AD onwards.

And the fact he in his dissertation claimed Romans 5.9.11 commentary taught Augustinian original sin (though it didn’t mentioned Adam’s sin or guilt) so must be fake contradicts his own claim none of the writings I quoted affirmed Augustinian original sin, since one of those writings was that.

Even aside from Romans 5.9.11 commentary, we have evidence from Origen, along with Irenaeus and Hippolytus so far affirming infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins (and regeneration if you count Romans 5.9.11 commentary not to mention that’s affirmed by both Irenaeus and Hippolytus), to the contrary of Wilson claiming they didn’t in his dissertation. 

Now with my quote of Cyprian’s epistle in the Amazon review, it is a more complicated case. Why? On page 79 of Conversion, Wilson actually stated Cyprian affirmed infant baptism and listed ten reasons why (destroying his own narrative no one knew why infant baptism was practiced up to 412 AD). One of the reasons he gave as list from Cyprian was: “if the greatest sinners can be forgiven then infants should easily be forgiven.”

So at the very least he here said Cyprian said infant baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. 

But then Wilson claimed first that Cyprian didn’t mentioned Adam’s sin despite the fact the church father said that infants aren’t forgiven in own sins but for sins of another? Exactly who is another if not Adam’s?

Further down the page, Wilson stated that Cyprian’s view “matches Origen’s contemporaneous assessment of paedobaptism as removing the stain of entering a physical body, without sin or damnable guilt.” Besides contradicting own narrative a few pages earlier of Origen having no theological explanation for infant baptism, Wilson in a matter of a paragraph went from saying Cyprian held to infants have sins forgiven in baptism to denying either they or Adam have sins that need forgiveness in baptism but only removal of the stain from the body (Wilson said Origen held to that in denial of infant baptism for sin as his theological explanation of infant baptism in Luke 14.5 commentary- which by the way referenced John 3:5 and Job 14:4 LXX for infant baptism, on page 72, a few pages before saying Origen didn’t have any theological or biblical explanation for infant baptism even in that reference along with the ones mentioned already).

Also, Cyprian did state that infant baptism was to be done as soon as possible after birth so that none are lost, and that’s also quoted in the Amazon review. That showed another pre-Augustine church father who again affirmed infant baptism for salvation- which Wilson equated with holding to initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 and “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology” on page 78 of Foundation. And it refutes Wilson even in the recent interview where he denied infant baptism was for regeneration and salvation but as Baptist baby dedication.

And with Augustine’s mentor Ambrose’s On Abraham 2.84, here’s what I quoted it as saying:

“Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments, but I do not know whether they have the honor of the Kingdom.”

Just a few pages earlier in On Abraham 2.79, he had already stated John 3:5 was baptismal salvation necessity text: “Let both the household slave and foreign-born, the righteous and the sinner, be circumcised with the remission of sins, so sin will have no more have effect, because none has ascended to the Kingdom of the Heavens save through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

So his quotes as bishop of Milan refute Wilson’s claims already mentioned that 1) Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism after 412 AD, 2) Augustine re-interpreted John 3:5 as infant baptism text, 3) infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome, 4) infant baptism wasn’t done for regeneration or salvation but baby dedication (this latter claim made in the recent interview), 5) no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412 AD.

It also refutes Wilson’s claim that Ambrose denied infant baptismal regeneration necessity and John 3:5 view of it on page 175 of Conversion:

“When Augustine accuses Vincentius of believing in original sin while denying the necessity of regeneration through water baptism for infants (2.17), he simultaneously accuses Ambrose who taught the same thing.”

So again, another church father who held to the “critical foundation in his (Augustine’s) novel theology”- that is infant baptism for salvation, equated with initial faith is gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8 by Wilson.

So let’s deal with Tertullian said Wilson loved to appeal to him. The quotes from him provided in the Amazon review is problematic for Wilson in several ways. 

First off, his Treatise on the Soul 41 affirmed John 3:5 is baptismal regeneration text which goes against Wilson’s narrative that Augustine altered John 3:5 from physical birth to baptism:

“Therefore, when the soul embraces the faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. It is also taken up (in its second birth) by the Holy Spirit, just as in its first birth it is embraced by the unholy spirit.”

Secondly, Tertullian affirmed in chapter 40 that we are by reason of birth sinful in Adam until regeneration, and hence sinful until then:

“Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; Romans 6:4 and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”

When it suits him, Wilson will acknowledged earlier Christians affirmed we have corrupted nature from Adam’s fall as he did on page 105 of Foundation:

“As early as ca.120 CE, Christian authors had advocated physical death and a corrupted human nature from Adam's fall (Barn.) while acknowledging a residual free choice (Herm.).”

But when it no longer suits him, he argued on page 77 of the same book: “the prior traditional Christian view of Eph. 2:3 (nature corrupted from personal sin.”

Tertullian’s quote from chapter 40 refutes that claim that we are born corrupted from Adam’s sin and need regeneration from birth for that originated with Augustine’s “Manichaean Gnosticism.”

What I should have done was quote the end of chapter 39 from Tertullian. Why? He actually affirmed infant baptismal regeneration necessity and directly quoted John 3:5 (and 1 Corinthians 7:14) in support of it):

“ Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; 1 Corinthians 7:14 and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). Else, says he, were the children unclean by birth: 1 Corinthians 7:14 as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity. Besides, he had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; John 3:5 in other words, he cannot be holy.”  

So even Tertullian, on top of Irenaeus, Origen, and Ambrose, held to infant baptismal regeneration view of John 3:5 prior to Augustine, again contrary to Wilson’s narrative of 1) no explanation for infant baptism prior to 412, 2) Augustine first applied John 3:5 to infants.

Now, let’s address Wilson’s claim in the video interview that Tertullian denied infant baptism in a writing (which by the way was earlier in life) because of age of accountability. That’s really twisting what Tertullian said in On Baptism 18. 

Tertullian recommended delays of baptism for every age, not limited to infants, including those well page ”age of accountabilit”:

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.”

His concern was possibility of people falling away into mortal sins after baptism (for which there is no more baptismal recourse, and note not once did he suggest re-baptism in case infants did get baptized):

“For why is it necessary — if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood?”

And even in this chapter, he acknowledged that infant baptism does remit sins if administered:

“Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?”

That in itself refutes Wilson’s claim that no one knew why infant baptism was practiced back then. Obviously Tertullian knew why (and didn’t even denied its efficacy).

Note that Tertullian gave the same argument for delays for the unwedded (way above “age of accountability”):

“For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred — in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom — until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”

Besides all that, Tertullian was the wrong person for Wilson to try to claim for support of his beliefs to condemn other views as Gnostic: he condemned Wilson’s  denials of baptismal salvation and regeneration as Cainite Gnosticism in the first chapter of On Baptism that Wilson so claimed:

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!”

The fact of the matter is that Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrose and Tertullian were quoted as affirming baptismal salvation view of John 3:5. (The other church fathers mentioned did as well, as did others since no one then affirmed the text as anything other than baptism contrary to Wilson’s claim that Augustine altered the text from physical birth to his “novel and “allegorized” view of baptism.

And why does it matter? The fact that they saw such text as applying to infants meant that what Wilson called the critical foundation to Augustine’s novel theology (infant baptism for salvation) would be coming from pre-Augustine church fathers. Not Manichaean Gnosticism and other forms of paganism. By his logic with equating infant baptism for salvation, with initial faith is a gift of God view of Ephesians 2:8, that means prior church fathers held to such view of the text as well. Never mind the fact that both Jerome and Chrysostom said prior to Augustine’s supposed 412 AD Manichaean novelty view of the text that initial faith is a gift of God view of the text, and by the way they both taught infant baptism at Bethlehem and Constantinople, respectively (rebutting Wilson’s claims that infant baptism was limited to North Africa and Rome). And they taught it for salvation as well (though Chrysostom definitely held to ancestral sin).

So, yes it is the point. Wilson made it as such.

And my final point deals with what Wilson wrote on page 120 of Conversion: 

“In De baptismo, we find abundant proof of Augustine's persistent traditional free choice theology: ‘Quid sit autem perniciosius, utrum omnino non baptizari, an rebaptizari, judicari difficile est' (Bapt.2.19).’ Salvation can occur without water baptism, demonstrating John 3.5 has not yet evolved into a proof text.

“Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against Augustine's earlier conversion in Simpl.2 is his traditional view of water baptism. The very thing he later insisted upon as required to erase inherited guilt unto damnation is not yet necessary for salvation in 404 CE. Had Augustine in ca.401 believed in eternal damnation upon birth from Augustinian original sin he could not have written that an unbaptized person could win salvation through unity without baptism, or that a second baptism was as bad as no baptism. (His argument rests upon his deficient knowledge of Greek since the Latin texts obscure the meaning in John 13.10 as a rinse and not a full bath.) Traditional free choice continues in earnest as human faith can even negate the need for baptism.”

Even in the context Wilson referenced Augustine’s On Baptism 2.19 on, Augustine affirmed John 3:5 as baptismal salvation necessity text, not physical birth, a decade before he supposedly brought in baptismal view to replace physical birth view out of Gnosticism, Manicheanism, etc:

“19. But which is the worse, not to be baptized at all, or to be twice baptized, it is difficult to decide. I see, indeed, which is more repugnant and abhorrent to men's feelings; but when I have recourse to that divine balance, in which the weight of things is determined, not by man's feelings, but by the authority of God, I find a statement by our Lord on either side. For He said to Peter, ‘He who is washed has no need of washing a second time;’ and to Nicodemus, ‘Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ John 3:5 What is the purport of the more secret determination of God, it is perhaps difficult for men like us to learn; but as far as the mere words are concerned, any one may see what a difference there is between ‘has no need of washing,’ and ‘cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ “

So if we go by Wilson’s claim that affirming traditional free choice theology and rejecting Augustinian original sin requires rejecting John 3:5 as baptismal salvation prooftext, he just sank his own thesis as well there since no church fathers denied John 3:5 is baptismal regeneration necessity (allowing for exceptions isn’t a denial of that. 

Just the church fathers quoted in the Amazon review on John 3:5 already would have sank that thesis since Wilson claimed Augustine had no one on his side on this from prior church fathers.

Here we stand.